amaknak bridge site salvage_recovery

Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050), Dutch Harbor, Alaska

January 2010 Prepared By: Michael R. Yarborough, Jason S. Rogers, Catherine L. Pendleton, Edward P. Arthur, Shawna M. Rider, and Erika E. Malo Cultural Resource Consultants LLC Anchorage

Prepared for:

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Central Region 4111 Aviation Avenue Anchorage, AK 99519

Executive Summary

During 2006 and 2007, a team of archaeologists from Cultural Resource Consultants LLC(CRC) conducted a “salvage recovery” at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) near Unalaskain advance of the Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project. This report presents an overview ofthis phase of archaeological work at the site and a summary of results from this extensiveexploration of a small, but intensively occupied, ancient Unangan village.

The Amaknak Bridge site is located on the northeastern corner of the southern portion ofAmaknak Island. Dr. Alvin Cahn first recorded the site during World War II, but it was notuntil the late 1970s that this settlement was more closely examined. Glen Bacon tested here in1977, recovering over 1,000 artifacts and finding the remains of a stone-walled house. In 2000,Richard Knecht and Richard Davis conducted tests at the site to determine the possible impactsof the Unalaska South Channel Bridge Relocation Project. They excavated the rest of thestone-walled house found by Bacon and collected over 3,000 artifacts and a large amount offaunal material. In 2001, Knecht excavated backhoe trenches and dug shovel tests to determinethe site’s boundaries, which he “found to extend about 200 feet north-south and 250 feet east-west.”

During the summer of 2003, Knecht and Davis directed a data recovery project at the site. Thiswork, as well as the subsequent salvage recovery of 2006 and 2007, was guided by amemorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Federal Highway Administration and theAlaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Consulted parties included AlaskaDepartment of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the Ounalashka Corporation,Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, the Unalaska Historical Commission, and the Museum of theAleutians.

The 2003 work provided data pertinent to research questions concerning prehistoric EasternAleutian culture history, household archaeology, subsistence technology, and adaptations toenvironmental change. A range of radiocarbon (C-14) dates placed the occupation betweenabout 2,500 and 3,500 years ago. Knecht and Davis recovered over 11,000 artifacts anduncovered the remains of at least 10 semisubterranean stone-walled dwellings. Their field crewexcavated approximately 264 cubic meters of the site, leaving, by their estimate, approximately550 cubic meters of remaining intact cultural deposits.

The salvage recovery was conducted during the fall of 2006 and summer of 2007. Therecovery operations were done in accordance with an archeological salvage recovery plan, asstipulated in a 2003 MOA. Fundamentally, the purpose of the recovery operations was toremove and relocate the remaining intact cultural deposits in advance of construction of HenrySwanson Drive.

One of the principal goals of this work was the recovery and documentation of human remains.Human remains from the site are described in a separate report. The human remains collectedare currently being curated at the Museum of the Aleutians in behalf of the Qawalangin Tribeand the Ounalashka Corporation. CRC was also charged with recovering associated funerary

i

Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site January 2010

items, objects of cultural patrimony, and “unusual or unique” cultural features and artifacts.Other goals, based on recommendations from the SHPO’s office and Knecht and Davis,included the mapping of additional structures, excavation of extensive stratigraphic profiles,recovery of additional samples for C-14 dating, and determination of the full extent of the site.

Recovery operations at the site began in August 2006. During the next 2 1/2 months, CRC’screw, aided by a skilled backhoe operator, excavated approximately 1,010 cubic meters ofcultural material; uncovered and mapped a dozen additional house features; photographed andprofiled two long stratigraphic cuts; collected numerous charcoal samples, of which five weresubmitted for dating; and amassed a sizable collection of artifacts.

Ultimately, however, this work revealed that the cultural deposits were significantly moreextensive than estimated by previous investigators. The crew stabilized the site for winter—which included grading for drainage and partially covering exposed faces with geotextilefabric—stored the collections at the Museum of the Aleutians, recalculated the limits of the site,and began planning for a second field season.

The goals of the 2007 operations remained the same as those of 2006. CRC removed roughly1,100 cubic meters of additional cultural material from the site and, by the end of the project,had designated 88 “features”, many of which were partial to complete house structures. Morethan 4,000 artifacts and samples were collected, including over 1,200 items that were cataloged.

Thirty years of investigations at the Amaknak Bridge Site, from Bacon’s testing in 1977 to theend of the salvage recovery in 2007, have increased our understanding of culture history,subsistence ecology, and adaptation to environmental changes in the Eastern Aleutians. In aregion with such a rich history of human occupation, every investigation—whether a controlledexcavation or a more directed salvage recovery—helps to fill the gaps in our knowledge, whilealso raising new questions and directions for future research.

ii


Table of Contents

1.0 Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.2 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.3 Background: Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.4 Previous Archaeology on Unalaska and Amaknak Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.5 Amaknak Island Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.6 Previous Archaeology at the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.7 Data Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111.8 Salvage Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131.9 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2.0 Extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

3.0 Architecture and Structural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.2 Background and Similar Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.3 Previously Excavated Structures at UNL-050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233.4 Results of 2006/2007 Salvage Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273.5 Extent and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273.6 Structure Walls and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303.7 Size and Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353.8 Comparison and Precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .373.9 Superstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383.10 Hearth Complex Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

3.10.1 Hearths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .403.10.2 Sub-floor Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433.10.3 Vent Shafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

3.11 Burial Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

4.0 Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514.1 Radiocarbon Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514.2 Structure Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

5.0 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.1 Overview of UNL-050 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.2 Eastern Site Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.3 Western Site Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

6.0 Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .696.1 Overview, Raw Materials, and Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .696.2 Chipped Stone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

6.2.1 Knives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .726.2.2 Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

iii


6.2.3 Other Chipped Stone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .746.3 Ground Stone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

6.3.1 Bottle-shaped Plummets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .746.3.2 Stone Bowls and Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .766.3.3 Other Ground Stone Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

6.4 Bone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .776.4.1 Harpoons and Lances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .776.4.2 Whale Bone Bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

6.5 Lithics Associated with Human Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .816.6 “Unique or Unusual” Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

6.6.1 Elaborately Barbed Lance Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .826.6.2 Whale Bone Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

6.6.2.1 Central Aleutians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .876.6.2.2 Eastern Aleutians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .886.6.2.3 Alaska Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .896.6.2.4 Comparison of the Amaknak Bridge Site and

Izembek Lagoon Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .906.6.2.5 Mask Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

6.6.2.5.1 Ceremonial/Dancing Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .926.6.2.5.2 Death Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .936.6.2.5.3 Maskettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

6.6.3 Microblade Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .936.6.3.1 Core Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .946.6.3.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

6.6.4 Arctic Small Tool Tradition Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

7.0 Paleoclimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1017.1 Implications of Paleoclimate Reconstruction on the Basis of

Faunal Material from UNL-050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

8.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1038.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1038.2 Human Occupants of the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1038.3 Extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1048.4 Architecture and Structural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1048.5 Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1078.6 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1078.7 Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

9.0 References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Appendix A. Comprehensive List of Features and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1

iv


List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Project vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Figure 1.2 Location of the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 1.3 The Amaknak Bridge site in 1941 and in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 1.4 1977 test excavations at the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 1.5 Stratigraphy in one of Bacon’s 1977 excavation units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figure 1.6 1977 site map. From Bacon 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 1.7 1977 excavation areas. From Bacon 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 1.8 Knecht and Davis’ 2003 excavation blocks. From Knecht and Davis

2005:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 1.9 2003 west excavation block. From Knecht and Davis 2005:49 . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 1.10 Structure 7, view west. From Knech and Davis 2005:74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 1.11 CRC’s field crew and Joe Henning’s backhoe in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 1.12 Hand excavation of the front face of the site in 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 1.13 Midden enclosure on Amaknak Island in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 2.1 Full extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 3.1 Compilation of figures from Aigner (1978:13) illustrating

the rock-walled structure at Chaluka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 3.2.Structure at the Margaret Bay site, Amaknak Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 3.3 Map of structures excavated by Knecht and Davis in 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 3.4 Structure 7. From Knecht and Davis 2005:73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 3.5 Map of all walls and identifiable structures from total station data,

color-coded by year of excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 3.6 Locations of the principal features at UNL-050. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 3.7 Vertical stone uprights in Feature X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 3.8 Capstones and shelf-like ledge in Feature F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 3.9 Schematic diagram of Feature F wall construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 3.10 Multiple course wall in Feature A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 3.11 Schematic diagram of Feature A wall construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 3.12 Horizontal courses, Structure 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 3.13 Relative levels of structure floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Figure 3.14 Feature 63 at the northeastern corner of the site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 3.15 Intersection of the walls of Structure 7 and Feature A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 3.16 Remnants of the whale rib superstructure of Feature 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 3.17 Whale rib (roof support element) in the wall of Feature 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 3.18 Simple hearth with stone slabs and cobbles (Feature 77). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 3.19 Photograph and schematic drawing of Feature A hearth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Figure 3.20 V-shaped sub-floor channels in Feature 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Figure 3.21 Sub-floor channels in Feature 45 after removing stone

channel coverings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Figure 3.22 Parallel sub-floor channels leading from the hearth in Feature 63. . . . . . . . 45Figure 3.23 Sub-floor channels in Feature 63 with the covering slabs removed. . . . . . . 45Figure 3.24 Branching sub-floor channels in Feature 74. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Figure 3.25 Vent shaft in Feature 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

v


Figure 3.26 Vent shafts in Features V and 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Figure 3.27 Chimney shaft in Structure 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Figure 4.1 UNL-050 radiocarbon dates, calibrated 2-sigma ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Figure 4.2 Dates and stratigraphic positions for selected features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Figure 4.3 Locations of dated features at the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Figure 5.1 Map of stratigraphic profile locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Figure 5.2 1977 stratigraphic profiles. From Bacon 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Figure 5.3 Knecht’s 2000 south wall stratigraphic profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Figure 5.4 2006 stratigraphic profile 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Figure 5.5 2007 stratigraphic profile 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Figure 5.6 2007 stratigraphic profile 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Figure 5.7 Stratigraphic profile of Square 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Figure 5.8 2006 profile 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Figure 5.9 Three stratigraphic tests below the World War II access road . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Figure 5.10 Locations of the stratigraphic tests shown in Figure 5.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Figure 6.1 Artifact raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Figure 6.2 Lithic raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure 6.3 Raw material usage for selected major lithic tool categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure 6.4 Examples of the stone points from the salvage recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Figure 6.5 Plummets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Figure 6.6 Miniture stone lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Figure 6.7 Ground stone and bone labrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Figure 6.8 Harpoon points with line holes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Figure 6.9 Unilaterally and bilaterally barbed harpoon points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Figure 6.10 Two of the complete whale bone bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Figure 6.11 Elaborately barbed lance points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Figure 6.12 Elaborately barbed lance point in the collections of the

Anchorage Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Figure 6.13 Whale bone mask from the Amaknak Bridge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Figure 6.14 Whale bone mask from Izembek Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Figure 6.15 Four of the microblade cores from the salvage recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Figure 6.16 Microblade cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Figure 6.17 Microblade cores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Figure A.1 Locations of the principal features at UNL-050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 4.1 Results of all radiocarbon dating analysis for UNL-050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Table 6.1 Major shaped tool types by number and percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Table 6.2 Cataloged ground stone artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Table 6.3 Bone artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Table 6.4 Comparison of the Amaknak Bridge Site and Izembek Lagoon masks. . . . . 92Table 6.5 Microblade cores (excluding fragments) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

vi


Glossary of Terms

abrader: a tool made out of an abrasive stone, like pumice or sandstone, that is used forsharpening, grinding, smoothing, or shaping. adze: a cutting tool with the blade set at right angles to the handle.artifact: any object made or modified by a human.asl: above sea level.barabara or semi-subterranean structure: a house or structure partially excavated into theground.biface: a tool, usually made out of stone, that has two surfaces (faces) that meet to form a singlecutting. bipoint: a bone or stone artifact that is pointed at both ends.blade: stone tool with parallel or subparallel lateral margins, usually about twice as long as it iswide.B.P.: radiocarbon years before present.burin: a specialized form of stone engraving tool.ca.: circa, about.cal B.P.: years before present calibrated to correspond more closely to an absolute calendar. chipped stone: a general term for stone artifacts created by flaking. chert: a compact cryptocrystalline variety of quartz.chisel: a long-bladed hand tool with a beveled cutting edge made to be struck with a hammer.core: a piece of stone that shows signs of blade or flake removal core rejuvenation flake or core tablet: a roughly rounded and slightly web shaped flake of stonewith blade or microblade scars around its outside edge. These flakes are removed from thestone to extend the use-life of a core. cortex: a tough covering or crust on unmodified stone formed by weathering. cultural horizon: a layer containing cultural remains. cultural patrimony: items of ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance to a culturalgroup, as opposed to objects owned by or important to an individual.debitage: detached pieces of rock that are discarded during the flaking process.diagnostic artifact: an artifact known to be associated with a particular time period or culture.drill: a roughly conical tool used to drill holes through other artifacts.effigy: a representation of other things, usually made out of pottery, stone, or wood. faunal elements: whole or broken animal bones and shell.flake: a portion of rock removed from a larger piece by percussion or pressure.flake scar: a mark on a stone showing where a flake was removed.ground stone: a general term for stone artifacts formed by abrasion.hammerstone: a rock used to detach flakes from a core.hone: an artifact for sharpening knivesin situ: “in place.” This is often equated to the original location that something was lost orabandoned.knife: a generalized term for tools with a single cutting edge.labret: an object of human adornment, inserted in an incision in the lower lip or the cheeks.lens: a thin layer, often with limited extent.

vii


lithic(s): stone. Occasionally used as a general term for stone artifacts. microblade: a small blade. midden: a trash pile, usually containing soil, food remains, and discarded artifacts. Neoglacial: a period of global cooling occurring from ca. 4700 B.P to ca. 2500 B.P.ocher: soft iron oxide, often ground into a powder.piercer: a tool, often conical, used to create holes.point: a generalized term for a tool, usually stone or bone, that was used to tip an arrow, spear,lance, etc. plummet: a stone artifact similar to a plumb bob, marked by a single groove around it.profile: an illustration of a side wall of an excavation unit or other exposed surface that recordsits stratigraphy.provenience: point of recovery of an artifact.reduction process: the shaping of a stone tool from its first modification to its final form.retouch: intentional modification of a stone tool edge by either pressure or percussion flaking.scraper: a generalized term used to describe a flake tool that has a retouched edge angle ofapproximately 60 to 90 degrees.sinker: a weight used to hold nets or fishing lines under water.stratigraphy: the vertical arrangement of layers of soil or rock. Or, the study and interpretationof layers in archaeological deposits.tephra: a layer of volcanic-derived soil.Total Station: a surveying instrument, used to map the site and pinpoint the exact location offeatures and artifacts.type definition: a classification of artifacts based upon shared attributes. Or, an artifact formused to define a specific period or culture.

viii



1

1. Project Overview 1.1 Introduction The following describes the archaeological salvage recovery conducted at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) from August 5 through October 18, 2006, and May 4 through September 5, 2007. The crew included Michael Yarborough (principle investigator), Ed Arthur, Catherine Pendleton, Jason Rogers, and Shawna Rider of Cultural Resource Consultants LLC (CRC) and Joe Henning of Joe Henning Construction. David McMahan and Joan Dale of the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology assisted with the project as needed. 1.2 Project Description The project involved removal of that portion of the Amaknak Bridge Site (Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities’ (DOT&PF) Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project (No. 52930). This project included construction of a new, five-span bridge between Unalaska and Amaknak islands, realignment of Henry Swanson Drive, and the relocation of some utilities. The new bridge is 700 feet long with 5-foot wide shoulders. A 6-foot wide sidewalk was located adjacent to the northern shoulder. Airport Beach Road was realigned to allow the existing bridge to remain in service while the new bridge is under construction. The Henry Swanson Drive approach to Airport Beach Road was shifted away from the shoreline to improve the approach grade and provide for proper guardrail end treatments and vehicle turning. 1.3 Background: Prehistory Richard Knecht and Richard Davis (2001:270) have identified five “basic phases” of eastern Aleutian prehistory, “all of which combine to describe the Aleutian Tradition.” The phases, listed with representative sites in the Unalaska area (see section 1.4 below), may be summarized as follows (after Knecht and Davis 2001):

Early Anangula Phase 9000–7000 B.P. Hog Island Blade Site (UNL-115) Late Anangula Phase 7000–4000 B.P. Margaret Bay Site (UNL-048), Levels 4 and 5 Margaret Bay Phase 4000–3000 B.P. Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) Amaknak Phase 3000–1000 B.P. Amaknax Site (UNL-054) Late Aleutian Phase 1000–200 B.P. Tanaxtaxak (UNL-055)

The Early Anangula phase forms the foundation of the Aleutian Tradition. Known from the Anangula site on Ananiuliak Island and two sites on Hog Island in Unalaska Bay (Knecht and Davis 2001:272), this phase is characterized by cores and blades, burins, scrapers, and fragments of stone vessels (Dumond 1977:42). The succeeding Late Anangula phase retained this older tool kit while adding innovations such as bifacially worked artifacts (Knecht and Davis 2001:273). The Margaret Bay phase forms a link between the Anangula phases and the later Amaknak and Aleutian phases that lasted up until the time of Russian contact. Margaret Bay phase sites are


2

Figure 1.1. Project vicinity.


3

Figure 1.2. Location of the Amaknak Bridge site on the northeastern corner of “Little South America,” the southern portion of Amaknak Island.


4

Figure 1.3. The Amaknak Bridge site in 1941 (above) and in 2006. Upper photograph from Knecht and Davis 2005:19.


5

often found along raised fossil shorelines 8 to 10 meters (m) above the modern sea level and as far as a kilometer inland (Knecht and Davis 2001:275-276). The lithic assemblage still includes cores and blades, although small blades become less common through time, and core and blade technology “becomes rare or absent by about 3000 BP” (Knecht and Davis 2001:276). The assemblage features a variety of burins, including polished versions, and ground slate tools—ulu blades and lances—make their first appearance. Stemmed points are common early but are supplanted later by small bullet shaped points. The phase also includes some Arctic Small Tool tradition-like elements such as “small and round beaked end scrapers, bell shaped scrapers, polished adzes, fine pressure flaking, and incised artwork in addition to the polished burins” (Knecht and Davis 2001:276). The beginning of the Amaknak phase was marked by a 2 m drop in relative sea level that led to the abandonment of Margaret Bay phase sites. The Amaknak phase “represents the high-water mark of the Aleutian Tradition in terms of the sheer variety in lithic and bone tools” and is characterized by “a stylistic exuberance evident in a plethora of barbing styles, highly decorated hunting equipment…and in decorative items” (Knecht and Davis 2001:278). The Late Aleutian phase includes the last 800 years of prehistory prior to Russian contact. Late Aleutian phase occupations usually top the massive midden mounds closest to the current shoreline, which were often first occupied in the Amaknak phase. This phase is marked by the appearance of the ethnographically known longhouses (Knecht and Davis 2001:278-279) and was a period of accelerated inter-island contacts (McCartney 1971:96; Dumond 1977:77). 1.4 Previous Archaeology on Unalaska and Amaknak Islands There has long been an interest in the archaeology of Amaknak Island. Both William H. Dall, geologist and natural historian, and Alphonse Pinart, a French explorer, investigated archaeological remains on the island in the 1870s (Dall 1873:283-285; McCartney 1967:41). Waldemar Jochelson (1925), who spent 19 months in the Aleutians during 1909 and 1910 as part of the Aleutian-Kamchatka Expedition, excavated at three sites on Amaknak. Aleš Hrdlička (1945) also worked on the island, digging at a single site (Amaknax, UNL-054) periodically from 1936 to 1938. During World War II, Dr. Alvin Cahn, a Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve, mapped, described, and excavated sites on Amaknak. His main efforts, however, were concentrated on Xatacxan (UNL-018), a site also tested by Helge Larsen in 1945 and Ted Bank in 1951, 1954, and 1971 (McCartney 1967:1; Bank 1974). George Quimby (1946, 1948) reported briefly on the material gathered by Cahn, and Allen McCartney (1967) did a more extensive analysis of the bone artifacts from the collection. Ted Bank returned to Amaknak occasionally during the two decades following his first work at Xatacxan, excavating at several sites and conducting a systematic survey of the island and Unalaska Bay (Veltre et al. 1984:10). In 1977, Glenn Bacon (1977) excavated at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050). Doug and Mary Veltre briefly tested several sites on Amaknak for the Ounalashka Corporation in 1982, and Wayne Wiersum looked at project areas associated with an expansion of the Unalaska airport in 1983. The Veltres, Allen McCartney, and Jean Aigner conducted a fairly intensive survey of Amaknak and adjacent areas of Unalaska Island in 1984


6

(Veltre et al. 1984). Also during that year, Michael Yarborough (1984) investigated the site of a proposed new runway on Ulakhta Spit. McCartney, Veltre, Black, and Aigner (1990) excavated at Reese Bay (UNL-063), a historic site just west of Unalaska Bay, for several seasons in the late 1980s. During the summer and fall of 1988, David Yesner and Robert Mack (Yesner 1988a and 1988b) and Michael Yarborough (1988) surveyed and tested the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048), located on a bedrock knob along the eastern side of the entrance to Margaret Bay. In 1989, Michael Yarborough conducted an archaeological and historical survey of a proposed Unisea Port Complex (Yarborough 1989). Beginning in the mid 1990s, Rick Knecht of the Museum of the Aleutians and Rick Davis of Bryn Mawr College “began a series of excavations and surveys in the Unalaska Bay area in a long term effort to better define the prehistoric cultural sequence” (Knecht and Davis 2003:11). Knecht, Davis, and crews from the Museum of the Aleutians excavated at the Margaret Bay site during 1996 and 1997 (Knecht et al. 2001), the Summer Bay site (UNL-092) in 1998, the Agnes Beach site (UNL-046) in 1999, the Amaknak Spit site (Tanaxtaxak, UNL-055) in 2001 (Knecht and Davis 2003), Russian Spruce (UNL-115) and Oiled Blade (UNI-318) sites on Hog Island in 1997-1999 and 2001, respectively (Dumond and Knecht 2001), and the Amaknak Bridge Site in 2000 and 2003 (Knecht and Davis 2005). 1.5 Amaknak Island Prehistory Despite past archaeological work on Amaknak, our understanding of this area has been limited, until recently, by small samples, the nature of past excavations, and the lack of proper analysis and publication of information. Dall, Jochelson, Hrdlička, and military collectors did not retain all of the material that they excavated, discarding broken or mundane items. Artifacts that did make their way into museums usually lack provenience and, except for the bone assemblages from Cahn's collections, they have yet to be properly analyzed. Artifacts have been recovered from several sites on Amaknak that are reminiscent of assemblages from both the Sandy Beach and Anangula village sites. These assemblages exhibit not only a prepared core and blade technology related to that at Anangula, but also an irregular core and flake industry that appeared in the Aleutians by 7,000 years ago. The oldest evidence of bifacial technology in the Aleutians is from the Amaknak Quarry site, dating to between 7,000 and 8,000 B.P. (Rogers et al. 2009). Excavations at the Margaret Bay site in the late 1990s produced evidence of an occupation from ca. 5600 B.P. to about 3000 B.P. (Knecht et al. 2001). The Amaknak Spit site (Tanaxtaxak) was occupied ca. 3,000 years ago during the Margaret Bay phase and from about 1300 to 1600 A.D. during the Late Aleutian phase. However:

It is uncertain, and perhaps unlikely that Tanaxtaxak was continually occupied from ca. 3,000 BP onward. Only the excavation of a complete column through the site will determine the duration and timing of the various occupations on the site. The site then, can take its place among at least two other occupations


7

(Margaret Bay, UNL-00048, and the Amaknak Bridge Site, UNL-00050) from [the] extraordinarily dynamic [Margaret Bay phase] era, when complex and as yet poorly understood ecological and cultural changes were taking place on Unalaska Bay (Knecht and Davis 2003:57).

The Summer Bay site, eroding out of a sand dune at Summer Bay Lake is “one of the most securely dated sites from the Amaknak phase….” The site is more than 5 m deep, but comprises a single component with radiocarbon dates ranging from 2470 ± 80 to 1860 ± 60 B.P. (Knecht and Davis 2001:277). In addition to refining the cultural chronology, recent site investigations have also focused on questions relating to sea level change and shoreline emergence in the eastern Aleutians. Sea level records in the Aleutian chain are poorly delineated and extremely localized due to the great variety of glacio-tectonic and geomorphic paleoenvironmental settings (Jordan 2001:509). Subduction of the Pacific plate along the Aleutian trench generates great thrust earthquakes, and the Quaternary volcanoes extending along the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian chain are among the largest and most explosive of the entire circum-Pacific region. Eustatic sea level rise from a minimum around 18,000 B.P. was thus complicated by regional tectonic movements and related volcanism (Mann et al. 1998:122-125). Raised beaches and marine terraces (relict shorelines) are common throughout the Aleutians, and may offer relevant evidence for reconstructing local sea level histories. Dates from archaeological sites are also useful indicators of potential early shorelines. Three of the oldest sites in the Eastern Aleutians (the Amaknak Quarry site, Hog Island, and Anangula) are all located on ancient marine terraces between 15 and 20 m above current mean high tide, suggesting a higher sea level during the early Holocene. The Amaknak Bridge Site is somewhat lower (ca. 7 – 14 m asl). Just a handful of known sites around Unalaska Bay are located at this level, among them the Agnes Beach site (UNL-046) and several sites around the airport runway, including UNL-293. A charcoal sample from the Agnes Beach midden was radiocarbon dated at 5120 ± 120 B.P. UNL-293, briefly investigated in 2008, is located at ca. 8 m asl and contained both microblade cores and bifacial lithic artifacts. Charcoal samples from UNL-293 have not yet been dated. 1.6 Previous Archaeology at the Amaknak Bridge Site The Amaknak Bridge Site, located on top of a knoll on a small point that projects out into Iliuliuk Harbor, was first recorded by Dr. Alvin Cahn during World War II (McCartney 1967:50). Ted Bank apparently visited the site during one of his periodic forays into the Aleutians between the 1950s and 1970s (McCartney 1967:461, 514; Knecht and Davis 2005:27), but it was not until the late 1970s that the site was more closely examined. Greg Dixon (1977) surveyed the site in May 1977 after a proposal was made by DOT&PF to build a bridge connecting Amaknak and Unalaska islands. Dixon thought the site to be the remains of a much larger settlement that was destroyed during World War II when a barracks was constructed on top of the knoll. Dixon described the site as a midden deposit 5 m long and 2 m thick.


8

Figure 1.4. 1977 test excavations at the Amaknak Bridge Site. Both photographs on this page are courtesy of University of Alaska Museum.

Later that same year, Glen Bacon (1977) conducted further testing at the site (Figures 1.4 and 1.5). He estimated that the site had an area of 1,350 square m, much larger than first thought, and that it ran along the side of the slope (Figure 1.6). Although he excavated only about two percent of its total area (Figure 1.7), he recovered over 1,000 stone, bone, and ivory artifacts, and he encountered the remains of a stone-walled house. Charcoal samples taken from Bacon's “middle levels” revealed dates of 3360 ± 95 B.P. and 3070 ± 95 B.P. (Knecht and Davis 2005:28). In 1984, as part of an archaeological survey of Unalaska and Amaknak islands preceding the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ World War II military debris clean-up program, Douglas Veltre, Allen McCartney, Mary Veltre, and Jean Aiger examined the ground surface and eroded areas of the Amaknak Bridge Site, but since Bacon (1977) had already excavated there, they did no testing or artifact collecting. Their measurements of the site were “46 m around its curving base and 8 m high above the road.” They determined that, due to the steep slope of the site, it would be difficult to access undisturbed areas (Veltre et al. 1984:37-38).

Figure 1.5. Stratigraphy in one of Bacon’s 1977 excavation units.


9

Figure 1.6. 1977 site map. From Bacon 1977.


10

Figure 1.7. 1977 excavation areas. From Bacon 1977.


11

In 2000, Richard Knecht and Richard Davis conducted tests at the Amaknak Bridge Site to determine the possible impacts of the bridge relocation project (Knecht and Davis 2005:30). Because of the thick World War II overburden, they tested on the side of the slope. They excavated the rest of the remains of the stone-walled house (Structure 1) previously found by Bacon, and collected over 3,000 artifacts and a large amount of faunal material. They also discovered “[s]everal fragmentary human remains…from the WWII era fill and 1977 backdirt, but none were found in undisturbed deposits.” In 2001, Knecht excavated backhoe trenches and shovel tests were dug to determine site boundaries, which were “found to extend about 200 feet north-south and 250 feet east-west” and bounded to the south “by subsurface bedrock which rises to within nearly a meter of the surface” (Knecht and Davis 2005:31). 1.7 Data Recovery During the summer of 2003, Knecht and Davis (2005 and 2008) directed a data recovery project at the site. This work, as well as the subsequent salvage recovery of 2006 and 2007, was guided by a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Federal Highway Administration and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Consulted parties included DOT&PF, the Ounalashka Corporation, the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, the Unalaska Historical Commission, and the Museum of the Aleutians. The data recovery focused on research questions that included the site’s relationship with the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048); patterns of family organization, behavioral patterns, gendered activities, and overall pattern of social structure; subsistence ecology; and adaptation to environmental change (Knecht and Davis 2005:16, 195). Knecht, Davis, and their field crew excavated two areas of the site (their East and West Blocks) removing approximately 264 cubic m of the site (Knecht and Davis 2005:196) (Figures 1.8 and 1.9). Auger tests in their roughly 2.25 m deep eastern excavation block indicated that the cultural deposit in this portion of the site continued down for at least another 1.25 m (Knecht and Davis 2005:196). Knech and Davis recovered approximately 8,000 chipped stone artifacts, including arrow points, harpoon points, scrapers, knives, and piercing tools. They also found more than 25,000 pieces of chipping debris; nearly 900 ground stone artifacts, including oil lamps, stone bowls, hammerstones, ochre grinders, netsinkers, and hones for sharpening knives; and more than 2,300 bone artifacts—fish hooks, harpoons, root picks, eyed needles, awls, and wedges. They collected 96 decorated and carved objects for personal adornment, such as pins, labrets, and beads; and 10 miniature carved toys. A large volume of faunal remains, including marine mammals, fish, and birds, was also recovered (Knecht and Davis 2005). Four fairly intact and the remains of at least six other semisubterranean stone-walled dwellings were uncovered. Some of these houses were oval in shape and similar to those found at the Margaret Bay site, but one in particular (Structure 7) was large and semi-rectangular (Figure 1.10). Several of the houses had “exterior chimney[s] and stone lined sub floor channels that may have served as heating systems” (Knecht and Davis 2005:195).


12

Figure 1.8. Knecht and Davis’ 2003 excavation blocks. From Knecht and Davis 2005:35. Ultimately, the data recovery provided a wealth of information pertinent to the research questions. A range of radiocarbon dates (2590 ± 90 to 3470 ± 70 B.P.) indicated that the Amaknak Bridge Site and the Margaret Bay site may have been contemporaneous for a short time, but in all probability “the main occupation of the Amaknak Bridge Site immediately followed Margaret Bay…” (Knecht and Davis 2005:175, 195). Artifact form and frequency place the Amaknak Bridge Site chronologically midway between the Margaret Bay and Summer Bay sites (UNL-092; Knecht and Davis 2005:195).


13

Knecht and Davis postulated that one of the structures at the site (Structure 7), which they interpreted as a large, rectangular multi-roomed house, represented a change in social organization from independent, single family units to large cooperative extended families. They also suggested that the house reflects social differentiation and the “emergence of ranking” (Knecht and Davis 2005:176, 184). Concentrations of artifacts, such as chipped stone points, needles, and awls in Structure 7, suggest gendered activity areas (Knecht and Davis 2005:180).

Figure 1.9. 2003 west excavation block. From Knecht and Davis 2005:49. Artifacts associated with fishing activities dominate the assemblage and “may reflect economic shifts…in response to the onset of the cooler climate of the Neoglacial” (Knecht and Davis 2005:100-101). Another indication of a cooler climate is the substantial numbers of the remains of ring seals and bearded seals, inhabitants of spring pack ice (Knecht and Davis 2005:162). The implications of the faunal analysis for paleoclimatic reconstruction are described in detail in Chapter 6. 1.8 Salvage Recovery The salvage recovery was conducted during the fall of 2006 and summer of 2007. The recovery operations were done in accordance with the Archeological Salvage Recovery Plan for the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) (CRC 2006), as stipulated in a 2003 MOA. The fundamental purpose of the recovery operations was to remove and relocate the remaining intact cultural


14 Figure 1.10. Structure 7, view west. From Knech and Davis 2005:74


15

deposits in advance of construction of Henry Swanson Drive. Additionally, the work, done under the supervision and direction of the project archeologists, was intended to address questions raised and only partially answered by the 2003 data recovery program. Unfortunately, it is an accepted fact in archaeology that recovery of 100% of the contents of a site is often impractical due to either time or budget constraints. In actuality, recovery rates for mitigation excavations are estimated from less than 1% to as much as 7%, leaving the bulk of many site deposits unstudied. Thus, archaeologists are forced by necessity to make determinations on the most appropriate mode of data recovery and what avenues of research would best benefit from the excavation. All recovery was guided by the plan, although CRC had the latitude within the MOA’s general principles to suggest strategies to improve the relative efficiency of the recovery program. It was also recognized that the course of any archeological investigation could be affected by pragmatic considerations such as “local conditions, ...unexpected discoveries, non-archeological concerns, and other relevant factors” (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1980:17). One of the principal goals of the 2006/2007 work was the recovery and documentation of human remains, which are described in a separate report (Arthur 2009), and associated funerary objects. CRC was also charged with recovering objects of cultural patrimony and “unusual or unique” cultural features and artifacts. Other goals of the salvage recovery were based on recommendations from the SHPO’s office and Knecht and Davis (2005:198):

Goals…could include the recovery of additional burials, the mapping of additional structures, the excavation of extensive stratigraphic profiles, the recovery of additional samples for C-14 dating, and the determination of the fullextent of the site.

Richard Davis (personal communication 2005) also suggested that the work could also yield information on:

• the dating of the lower levels of the site, • the temporal overlap of this site with the Margaret Bay site, • possible structures below House 7, and • Arctic Small Tool Tradition “elements”.

Recovery operations at the site began in August 2006. During the next two and a half months, the crew of five archeologists, aided by a skilled backhoe operator (Figure 1.11), excavated approximately 1,010 cubic m of cultural material from the site; recovered human remains; uncovered and mapped a dozen additional house features; photographed and profiled two long stratigraphic cuts; collected numerous charcoal samples, of which five were submitted for dating; and amassed a sizable collection of artifacts. Ultimately, however, the 2006 work revealed that the cultural deposits were significantly more extensive than estimated by previous investigators. The recovery was far from completed when winter weather forced an end to operations in late September. The site was stabilized for


16

Figure 1.11. CRC’s field crew and Joe Henning’s backhoe in 2006. winter—which included grading for drainage and partially covering exposed faces with geotextile fabric. The collections were stored at the Museum of the Aleutians, backhoe tests were dug in aid of recalculating the limits of the site, and planning was begun for a second field season. Calculating site volume is—obviously—an inexact science, but the quantity of cultural material remaining approximated the amount that was removed from the site during 2006 operations. The goals of the 2007 operations remained the same as those of 2006. Roughly 1,100 cubic m of additional cultural material were removed from the site and, by the end of the project, 88 designated “features”, of which perhaps 40 to 50 were partial to complete house structures, had been uncovered and recorded. Additional human remains were recovered, over 1,300 artifacts and samples were collected and cataloged, and 2,793 items were amassed in what we referred to as the “general collection.” 1.9 Methodology

The salvage recovery was directed by archeologists meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology (FR Vol.48, No.190, pp 44738-44739). The field crew was aware of the cultural and historical context of the Amaknak Bridge Site and


17

reviewed the previous archeological reports prior to the beginning of—and continuously during—the two seasons of work. Their technical expertise was an appropriate match for requirements of this particular project. One of the crew had a background in forensic archeology and extensive experience in osteological analysis of human skeletal remains. The salvage recovery project incorporated existing information from the 2003 excavation, including:

• survey data and reference points recorded with a Total Station surveying instrument, • digital still photographs and movies, and • a 12 m long profile along a vertical exposure left by a WWII road cut.

Locational and stratigraphic information was referenced to Davis and Knecht’s 2003 site datum. To the degree practicable, the site was mechanically graded with a backhoe equipped with a toothless bucket. The intent expressed in the Salvage Recovery Plan was to “ideally remov[e] no more than approximately 10 cm at each pass.” This was accomplished whenever possible, although because of the large number and complex nature of the rock houses, and likelihood that these features could contain human remains, a good portion of the site was also hand-excavated with shovels (Figure 1.12). Human remains were meticulously recorded and carefully recovered by the osteologist.

Figure 1.12. Hand excavation of the front face of the site in 2006.


18

Knecht and Davis called their rock-walled features “Structures” and numbered them from 1 (excavated in 2000) to 10 (identified in 2003, but not excavated). Features excavated by CRC in 2006 were labeled as “Features” and given letter designations (A through Z). However, at the beginning of the 2007 excavation, recognizing that there were many more features to be uncovered, CRC reverted to a numbering system, beginning with Feature 37 (to follow Knecht and Davis’ 10 and the 26 features found in 2006). By the end of the salvage recovery in 2007, the total number of “features” had reached 88 (see Chapter 3 and Appendix A). However, it must be noted that, because of the way the recovery progressed, with portions of the site being removed daily, feature designations were primarily heuristic devices for keeping track of a very complex situation. Some proved to be complete house structures with hearth channels or burial features, while others were wall segments or simply clusters of rocks. The site was excavated to the sterile soil layer or bedrock, whichever was encountered first. Except for some material along the northern and western edges of the site that was buried and left in place, all of the cultural deposits within the project limits were removed and transported to a secured (fenced) storage site along Salmon Way on Amaknak Island, on land provided by the Ounalashka Corporation (Figure 1.13). Ultimately, all of the field notes, samples, artifacts, and other data collected during the salvage recovery will be curated at the Museum of the Aleutians in accordance with the requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 79.

Figure 1.13. Midden enclosure on Amaknak Island in 2006. View east.


19

2. Extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site

The thick cap of World War II fill on top of the site has always complicated efforts to estimate its size and volume (Table 2.1). Dixon (1977) estimated that cultural deposits were only 5 m long and 2 m thick. Given the limited amount of testing that he did at the northeastern corner of the site, Bacon (1977) made a surprisingly accurate estimate of its area: 1,350 square m. Veltre et al. (1984:37-38) measured the northern and eastern margins of the site: “46 m around its curving base and 8 m high above the road,” but made no attempt to estimate what was under the World II fill. Knecht and Davis (2005:1960) stated that:

In the original proposal to ADOT&PF in April of 2003 we estimated the remaining volume of archaeological deposits in the Amaknak Bridge Site to be 600 cubic meters. We proposed removing a 20% sample or 120 cubic meters. The actual excavation of the site during the 2003 field season removed an estimated 264 cubic meters - more than twice the proposed volume. Volume was calculated by making a surface map with the total station of the east block excavation area before excavation and a second surface map of east block after the excavation. Using the program Surfer 7.0, the volume of East Block excavation between the two surfaces was computed to be 236 cubic meters. The excavated volume of West Block was 28 cubic meters, bringing the total of the excavation to 264 cubic meters…. How much of the site remains? It is not possible to determine the volume exactly, but several auger tests in East Block indicated the cultural deposit continued for at least 1.25 meters. The western wall section of East Block at the end of the 2003 excavation showed clearly that the cultural deposit continued underneath the WWII access road and thus the extent of the site runs further to the west than had been anticipated. Extrapolating from these observations we estimate that there are some 550 cubic meters of intact cultural deposits remaining at the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Table 2.1. Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050) summary statistics.

1977 Bacon Estimated Site Area 1,350 square meters Volume excavated 32 cubic meters 2000 Knecht Volume excavated 30 cubic meters 2001 Knecht Estimated Site Area 1,050 square meters Estimated Site Volume 600 cubic meters 2003 Knecht and Davis Estimated Site Volume 787.5 cubic meters Volume excavated 264 cubic meters 2006-2007 Yarborough et al. Calculated Site Area 1,360 square meters Calculated Site Volume 2,750 + cubic meters Volume excavated 2,169 cubic meters


20

Ultimately, however, the salvage recovery showed that the site was more than three times larger than Knecht and Davis’ estimate. It extended approximately 45 m north to south, and 43 m east to west, although the main axis of settlement ran approximately 55 m northwest to southeast. The site’s surface area measured approximately 1,360 m2. The estimated 2,750 m3 of cultural deposits, which ranged in depth from 15 cm to nearly 2 m, were deepest at the northeastern corner of the site and shallower and less well preserved along the western edge. A portion of the western edge of the site was outside the project limits and remains after construction. This includes Knecht and Davis’ West Block excavation and approximately 20% of the total site area.

Figure 2.1. Full extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site 21 January 2010

3. Architecture and Structural Features 3.1 Introduction During excavations conducted at the UNL-050 in 1977, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007, portions of 30 to 40 stone-lined, semi-subterranean structures were unearthed. Many of these houses were fragmentary, having been subject to erosion or truncation by later construction, but approximately 16 retained substantial structural integrity. Most had complex hearth features consisting of fireplaces, vents, and sub-floor channels. The architectural style exhibited at Amaknak Bridge represents the peak of this building technology, which has so far been seen at only three sites in the Aleutians. This chapter will provide background on semi-subterranean houses in the Aleutians, review previous investigations that revealed similar structures, and discuss details from the 2006-2007 excavations. A detailed discussion of similar structures and architecture from other regions, both archaeological and ethnographic in nature, is provided for comparative purposes. Appendix A of this report contains short descriptions of all the recognizable structures from the site. 3.2 Background and Similar Sites Semi-subterranean houses (‘barabaras’) are typical of Aleutian prehistoric sites and the construction style survived until recent times (utilized in the post-contact period for building traditional saunas, for example). Roofed with sod and turf, these underground houses provided insulated weatherproof shelter. In Eurasia, semi-subterranean houses date from the Gravettian (ca. 35,000 - 28,000 B.P., for example at Gagarino, Russia, and Dolní Vestonice, Czech Republic) and the Aurignacian (ca. 28,000 - 24,000 B.P., at Kostenki, Ukraine). The Kostenki culture’s small semi-subterranean houses in particular are seen as a cold climate/high latitude adaptation (Hoffecker 2002). There is considerable continuity in development of house form and structure across Eurasia from the Upper Paleolithic to early modern times (Daifuku 1952:2). In the New World, semi-subterranean houses are known from Alaska to South America. Developing from simple early forms, the Aleut barabara eventually culminated in large longhouses up to 90 m long capable of housing over one hundred individuals from multiple families (McCartney and Veltre 2002:249). In the Aleutian context, the use of stone walls and foundations is known from only three sites, all in the Eastern Aleutians: Chaluka on Umnak Island, and the Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge sites on Unalaska Island. A single house of whalebone with a stone foundation was also excavated near Izembek on the Alaska Peninsula, although, with a date of 1235 ± 105 B.P. (McCartney 1974:64), this structure was more than a millennium younger than the Amaknak Bridge Site settlement. The earliest use of stone in walls and foundations is seen at Chaluka. This site, excavated in 1962 and 1970, featured stone walls nearly a meter thick at the base, faced on the interior by large rock slabs (Figure 3.1). Several courses of flat slabs generally topped the uprights, and the wall was continuous around the structure’s perimeter (Denniston 1966, Aigner 1978). A slab-


Figure 3.1. Compilation of figures from Aigner (1978:13) illustrating the rock-walled structure at Chaluka.


lined hearth was built into one wall. Dates obtained from material within the structure range from 3220 ± 52 to 4028 ± 100 B.P., making the Chaluka site somewhat older than UNL-050. The use of rock walls as a major structural component came as a surprise to the investigators, and was considered to be “…a peculiarity of that time interval at that site” (Aigner 1978:14, 22). Excavations at the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048) on Unalaska Island in 1996 and 1997 revealed several levels of occupation spanning a period from about 5,000 to 3,000 years B.P. (Knecht et al. 2001:42). At one of the lower levels, the interior of a house depression dated at 3630 ± 70 B.P. was ringed with stone “piers”, while later houses were built with continuous stone foundations nearly 1 m high. The walls lining oval or circular pits were constructed from several courses of angular bedrock topped with up to six courses of sub-angular beach boulders or cobbles (Figure 3.2). As at Chaluka, the slab-lined hearth was built into the wall. Radiocarbon dates for the later houses range from 3002–3825 calibrated B.P., making the upper levels of this site nearly contemporaneous with the settlement at UNL-050 (Knecht et al. 2001:42-47). 3.3 Previously Excavated Structures at UNL-050 The prehistoric settlement at UNL-050 was located on a bedrock knoll overlooking Amaknak Channel, which lies to the north and east. Structures were terraced along the hill slope and were repeatedly modified and rebuilt. Later construction often cut into earlier houses and incorporated “recycled” building materials. Older structures were gradually filled with midden materials, and topsoil covered the site after abandonment.

Figure 3.2. Structure at the Margaret Bay site, Amaknak Island. Museum of the Aleutians.


Archeological investigations prior to the salvage recovery of 2006 and 2007 uncovered several structures at the Amaknak Bridge Site. Toward the end of their planned field season in 1977, Bacon (1977:16) and his crew from the University of Alaska Museum encountered “a portion of a rock walled structure.” However, due to time and weather constraints, the dig was completed without further investigation of the structure. In the summer of 2000, the field school directed by Knecht and Davis uncovered the remains of a stone-lined house, which they interpreted as the remainder of the structure initially encountered by Bacon in 1977 (Knecht and Davis 2001:275). About half of the house, labeled as Structure 1, had been lost to ancient marine erosion (see Figure 1.7 and Section 1.6 above). The construction and architecture of the structure walls were nearly identical to those found in the upper levels of Margaret Bay. In 2003, Knecht and Davis (2005, 2008) unearthed a single stone-lined structure in their West Block and a number of structures in the East Block (Figure 3.3). A summary of structures from the 2003 excavations is presented below. For more detailed descriptions of these houses, see Knecht and Davis 2005 and 2008.

Figure 3.3. Map of structures excavated by Knecht and Davis in 2003 (Knecht and Davis 2005:51). Located uphill from the knoll and west of the other structures, Structure 2 has a radiocarbon date of 3370 ± 60 B.P. (see Table 4.1 below). It differed from the other, later structures in that its walls were lined with a single row of flat stones—similar to a house found at Margaret Bay that dated to 3630 ± 70 B.P. The walls of the other structures—built around 3000 B.P. or after were


more substantial, with several courses of rocks. Structure 2 had a large, sub-floor storage pit covered with “stone slabs,” unlike the other younger structures that had smaller storage pits or none at all (Knecht and Davis 2005:54). Like several of the houses, Structure 2, had a hearth and sub-floor channels that radiated out from the hearth. Hollow vertical shafts located directly behind the hearths of Structure 2 and the main room and western side room of Structure 7 (see below) were interpreted as chimneys (Knecht and Davis 2005:50-86, 2008:68-71). Structure 3 was the youngest and smallest (under 4 m in diameter) of the structures uncovered in 2003. Refuse in the house dated to 2540 ± 60 B.P. and wood charcoal from the hearth dated to 2590 ± 90 B.P. Inside the house were the remains of a stone slab hearth and the stone uprights of a 1 m long segment of a hearth channel. Knecht and Davis (2005:57) suggested that, due to its small size, Structure 3 could have been a side room of a larger house that may have eroded off of the side of the knoll. Structure 4, dated to 2670 ± 70 B.P., was round and 4 m in diameter. The house, sitting on the eastern edge of the site, had lost its eastern wall through erosion. It had a hearth, but no hearth channels or sub-floor storage pits. Knecht and Davis (2005:61) thought that Structure 4 might have been part of a multi-roomed house that still lay in the (then) unexcavated area to the north. Near the southern wall was part of another stone wall—Structure 10—that “seemed to be attached to Structure 4.” Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from Structure 5: 2970 ± 60 B.P. from wood charcoal in the house fill and 3000 ± 70 B.P. from charcoal on the house floor. Evidence of sod used in the roof and wall construction was found inside the house, along with post molds and stone slab supports. There was also a hearth and sub-floor hearth channels. The northern wall of Structure 5 was the “most robust” wall of any of the houses—about 1.5 m tall and 1 m thick. Construction of the World War II roadway and pipe trench had cut through the western wall of the house. Structure 6 was found buried beneath Structure 3. A 1 m long section of the hearth channel was found on the eastern side of the house, but the eastern wall, part of the adjacent floor, and the hearth had apparently eroded off of the side of the knoll. The northern wall—except for the bottom course of rocks—had been used to build Structure 3 and the construction of Structure 4 had destroyed the southern half of the house. Part of the floor of Structure 6 sat on the house fill and wall at the southeastern end of Structure 7. Knecht and Davis were unable to get an adequate charcoal sample from the house floor for radiocarbon dating, although “based on its stratigraphic relationship to the other houses,” they suggest that the age of Structure 6 is “between the radiocarbon years of 2590 ±90 (Structure 3 hearth) and 2840 ±90 (Structure 7, main room)” (Knecht and Davis 2005:69). Knecht and Davis (2005:71, 2008:68) considered Structure 7 to be a multi-roomed house consisting of four rooms: a sub-rectangular main room with an interior measurement of 6 by 4 m, and three smaller side rooms (Structures 7-NW, 7-SW, and 7-W) at its western end (Figure 3.4). One-third of the floor of the main room was covered with the hearth, chimney, and sub-floor hearth channels. Stone and whale vertebra post supports were found on the floor. Perpendicular to the southern wall, in the southwestern end of the main room, was what appeared to be the


Fig

ure

3.4.

Str

uctu

re 7

. Fr

om K

nech

t and

Dav

is 2

005:

73.


remains of another house wall (unnumbered) that may have been used as a room divider or storage area for Structure 7. A charcoal sample from the main room dated to 2840 ± 90 B.P. The remains of six individuals and grave goods were found in 7-SW. The burials were found just above the floor, suggesting that they were interred after the room was no longer being used (Knecht and Davis 2005:81, 2008:69). The northwestern side room was 2 m in diameter. The chimney associated with the western side room formed part of the western wall of the northwestern side room. The largest side room, the western room, was 4 m in diameter and the only other room, besides the main room, that had a chimney and hearth complex. Knecht and Davis believed that the radiocarbon date of 3470 ± 70 B.P. from the floor of this room was an anomaly and suggested that the younger date of the main room was more accurate for Structure 7 was a whole. 3.4 Results of 2006/2007 Salvage Recovery Excavations during the 2006/2007 field seasons uncovered portions of at least 36 structures, many just short segments or remainders of stone walls (Figures 3.5 and 3.6). Several wall segments represent the inner curve of structures dug into the hillside, the outer portions having eroded away long ago. At least 12 structures were complete or nearly so. Seventeen hearths or sub-floor channels were identified, usually as part of a structure or wall segment. A number of other features such as linear arrangements or clusters of rocks were also mapped and recorded. The present configurations of many of these features are likely the result of erosion or collapse along the steep hillsides and inclined face of the site. 3.5 Extent and Distribution The salvage recovery excavations revealed a record of dynamic occupation. The most intensely built-up areas of the settlement were directly at the tip of the knoll and the along the hillside to the west. Houses were not as common to the south along the east-facing hillside. In the areas of deepest cultural deposits, structures had been built, modified, in-filled, and overbuilt many times. Rocks and building materials were pulled from existing houses and repeatedly reused, leaving only short segments or fragments of the previous walls. There was less “layering” and superimposition of structures on the site’s margins, resulting in thinner cultural strata and poorer preservation, especially of organic materials. At least 12 structures excavated during the 2006/2007 field seasons had whole or nearly whole stone foundations and interior features (Features A, F, N, V, X, 45, 55, 58, 63, 67, 74, and 86). Three of these (Features V, 67, and 74) had only meager stone rings or piers around the outer margin, rather than the more common, multi-course stone walls. These features also had significantly different sub-floor channels than other structures at the site. Seven of the complete or nearly complete structures were built with multi-course stone walls and had hearths featuring twin or V-shape channels (Features A, F, X, 45, 58, 63, and 86). At least three constructions (and possibly more) were apparently purpose-built burial features (Features N, 58, and 86). As at Chaluka and Margaret Bay, the houses at the Amaknak Bridge site had continuous unbroken stone walls, indicating access through the roof or superstructure above the level of surviving material.


Figure 3.5. Map of all walls and identifiable structures from Total Station data, color-coded by year of excavation. Red = 2003, Blue = 2006, Purple = 2007.


Figure 3.6. Locations of the principal features at UNL-050. Rock clusters and some shorter wall sections are not illustrated. See also Figures 3.3 and 3.4 and Appendix A.


3.6 Structure Walls and Architecture Several distinct styles of architecture were used to construct the semi-subterranean house walls at UNL-050, perhaps representing different periods in the evolution of technology and technique. The initial construction procedures were similar for all styles of architecture. First the builders excavated a pit approximately 1 m deep in the general shape that the structure would take. They then laid or buried rocks around the pit’s interior perimeter. In most cases, large vertical stone uprights, preferably tapering or pointed at the bottom end, were inserted 10 to 40 cm into the ground (Figure 3.7). These foundation rocks often had a slight outward cant. The upper courses were the last to be laid, each fitting tightly into the layer below, forming a strong and stable arrangement. As building techniques developed, more courses of smaller cobbles were added above the large uprights ‘piers’. Although not all structures had upper courses, up to six courses were evident in some wall sections.

Figure 3.7. Vertical stone uprights in Feature X. Some structures had large horizontal capstones placed over the vertical uprights. Many of the uprights were quite narrow but over 1 m in length. Upper courses were laid atop the capstones. This style was used to construct the cluster of features centered on Structure 7. One of these


Figure 3.8. Capstones and shelf-like ledge in Feature F. The outer curve of the Feature A wall is visible behind (to the east of) Feature F. View to the east of the northern face of the site. structures, designated as Feature F, was built with a shelf-like ledge extending around the surviving portion of the feature wall (Figures 3.8 and 3.9). Feature A, immediately adjoining Structure 7 to the north, was similarly built with large uprights and many upper courses of smaller cobbles (Figures 3.10 and 3.11). Upper courses survived only along approximately half of the house’s circumference, the downhill (northern) edge having suffered considerable erosion. The structure’s original diameter is estimated at approximately 4 m. Structure 10, a short wall segment located near the tip of the knoll, was constructed with a different technique. This wall was composed primarily of several courses of large, flat, horizontal slabs instead of vertical uprights. Only the top course consisted of smaller rounded cobbles (Figure 3.12). Thick layers of sod were set between the courses. Most of this structure had eroded away, and the surviving wall segment was just over 3 m in length and 50 to 60 cm high. No other wall built in this way was uncovered at UNL-050.


Figure 3.9. Schematic diagram of Feature F wall construction.

Figure 3.10. Multiple course wall in Feature A.


Figure 3.11. Schematic diagram of Feature A wall construction.

Figure 3.12. Horizontal courses, Structure 10. View to the west.


Figure 3.13. Relative levels of structure floors. Views to the south (a) and to the west (b). Three structures excavated at UNL-050 differed considerably from those described above. Rather than the robust stone walls of their neighbors, these features (Features V, 67, and 74) had only meager single-course walls or stone piers at intervals around the perimeter. Other houses and structures, terraced down the hillside (Figure 3.13), had undergone significant erosion and only small wall segments survived. In construction style, the remaining portions of structures C, D, and E all resemble Structure A. Structures located higher on the flattened hilltop bore more resemblance to Structure F.


3.7 Size and Clustering Most of the houses at UNL-050 were round or oval in shape, measuring 3 to 4 m in diameter. Larger examples, such as Feature 63, tended to be rectangular, measuring up to 7 m in length (Figure 3.14). Interior areas varied in size from approximately 12 m2 to 30 m2. Structures were concentrated on the northeastern corner of the site, evidently the area of most intense usage. The tight clustering of houses here resulted in layers of superimposed structures, with intersecting foundations and shared walls. As houses filled with sediment and midden material, they were progressively abandoned and rebuilt, in several cases in exactly the same location and with the same outline and orientation. For example, the large room and hearth of Structure 7, excavated in 2003, was found to be superimposed over a smaller hearth and sub-floor channel and vent system in the same location. Indeed, during the 2003 excavation it was found that the south wall of this structure had collapsed and a new one had been rebuilt parallel to the old one (Knecht and Davis 2005:178).

Figure 3.14. Feature 63 at the northeastern corner of the site. The complex style of multi-course wall construction is apparent, as are the two sub-floor channels extending from the hearth. This tight clustering meant that in many areas walls were shared between structures or built back-to-back. The main room of Structure 7, nearly rectangular in shape and measuring approximately 7 by 4 m, overlay, and at several locations appeared to interlock, with Feature A. Structure 7’s outward-canting north wall, as well as the adjoining wall of Structure 7-NW, was built against and over this neighboring house. This placed great pressure on the adjacent south wall of Feature A, which gradually deformed to slant inward (Figure 3.15).


Figure 3.15. Intersection of the walls of Structure 7 and Feature A – plan and section views.


3.8 Comparison and Precedent At least three forms of Aleut houses are known from previous archaeological investigations or ethnohistoric reports. Johnson and Wilmerding (2001) list three types—circular or oval houses measuring from 3 by 3 m to 7 by 11 m; oval or rectangular houses towards the larger end of this range with outlying rooms; and longhouses up to 90 m in length—that are also described in early Russian reports and the journals of Captain James Cook of the British Royal Navy, who visited Unalaska in 1778. By size and arrangement, the houses at UNL-050 fall in between the first and second of Johnson and Wilmerding’s categories. Viewed as a larger coherent assemblage, however, there is an important difference apparent in the Amaknak Bridge Site houses. In the older, Anangula phases, houses seem to have been individually excavated and constructed, leaving untouched areas between structures. This may be an indication of the evolution from tents to semi-subterranean houses. The houses at UNL-050, unlike the previous examples, are built in such proximity that they often share a common, interlocking wall. Thus, rather than a village of individual structures, this settlement may have had house clusters reminiscent of adobe pueblos in the American southwest, or even large communal dwellings from early sites in the Fertile Crescent (for example Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia). Mellaart (1967:69) suggested that the clustered layout and roof entrances at Çatal Hüyük were for defensive purposes; arrangement of houses UNL-050 was more likely a result of repeated expansion and rebuilding of the initial settlement nucleus. The cluster of houses represents an intermediate phase in architecture and village organization between older styles of discrete single structures and the later longhouses and ‘nucleus-satellite complexes’ (see Hoffman 1999) from the pre-contact and early contact period. Knecht and Davis interpreted the clustered house remains grouped around Structure 7 as “a multi-room house,” citing as evidence the presence of ‘step-ups’ through the wall from the “main” room to the small “side rooms” that they designated Structure 7-SW and Structure 7-NW. Less clear is why they considered the other structure in the cluster (Structure 7-W) to be a side room rather than a distinct structure, since “[t]he interior entry route, if there was one, to the largest side room on the west end of Structure 7 could not be determined” (Knecht and Davis 2005:71). However, having had the benefit of deconstructing the Structure 7 cluster and the advantage of excavating the site in totality, we propose a somewhat different interpretation of their “mulit-room” house. The pit for the ‘main room’ of Structure 7 was actually excavated through the remains of earlier houses, including the older structure to the southwest containing human burials. Although this may have been kept as a side room, it is more probable that it was walled over, particularly if the later inhabitants were aware of the burials within, as they likely were. The two other structures in this cluster (Structure 7-W and Structure 7-NW) were also quite distinct from the “main room” (see Figure 3.3 for the locations of Structure 7, 7-W, and 7-NW). Finally, there was no other suggestion of multi-room houses in the remainder of the site excavated in 2006/2007.


3.9 Superstructures Early Russian and other contact-period accounts describe Aleut longhouses with sod-covered roofs supported by large posts and whale ribs. Both Veniaminov (1984:262) and Captain Cook (quoted in McCartney and Veltre 2002:251) describe how first grass and then dirt and sod were laid over a grid of beams and rafters, giving the structure the external appearance of a nearly natural hillock. Access to the house was through a hole (or holes) in the roof via a ladder or stepped pole. On the basis of excavations at Reese Bay, McCartney and Veltre (2002:253) conclude that contact-era barabaras were walled and roofed with a framework of driftwood and/or whalebone, with an outer layer of dried grass (or possibly skins) and sod. Unfortunately, there are only hints of the structures’ roofs and superstructures at UNL-050. Layers of stratified sod in house interiors, such as Structure 5, and whale ribs on house floors may represent collapsed roof materials. Several structures showed clear remains of a whale rib superstructure (Figure 3.16), and the stump of a large whale rib found still inserted in the wall of one structure (Feature 41) was likely a roof support (Figure 3.17). Evidence of the vertical elements of the house roofs is sparse. Post molds found in several houses likely supported a central structural member such as a beam or ridgepole. Rock slabs and

Figure 3.16. Remnants of the whale rib superstructure of Feature 86.


Figure 3.17. Whale rib (roof support element) in the wall of Feature 41. whale vertebrae (Knecht and Davis 2005:64-65) may have functioned as supports for the lower ends of vertical poles and served to keep them from rotting in the damp soil of the floor. Smaller structures may have lacked roof support poles, being easily spanned with longer pieces of wood or bone. Counterweighted beams or cantilever stones could also have been used to build a roof without ridgepoles (Lee and Reinhardt 2003:15). Like the stones from walls and foundations, superstructure elements from older houses were probably reused in newer ones. McCartney and Veltre (2002:259), having found little evidence of collapsed superstructures at the Reese Bay longhouse site, concluded that this represented intentional post-occupation removal. Deep deposits of charcoal in the larger hearths at UNL-050 clearly demonstrate that the village had access to large amounts of wood, although suitable beams (and whale ribs) may have been rare enough to be a valuable resource, one that was likely salvaged once a house was abandoned. Structure construction utilizing wooden posts and beams in the treeless Aleutian Islands presumes the availability of driftwood. Naturalist Georg Heinrich Langsdorf, who visited Unalaska in the first decade of the 19th century, wrote:

The wood for building the earth huts, and for making the skeletons of the canoes, the oars, the javelins, and other purposes, is only obtained from the sea, and collected by the inhabitants along the coast. Large stumps of valuable trees from


America and the islands of the South Sea, among others of the camphor-wood, probably from Japan, are often floated hither” (Langsdorf 1812, quoted in Khlebnikov 1994).

Veniaminov (1984:265) recorded that “Driftwood generally is used in the construction of yurtas [barabaras] and other structures, except on Aliaksa [the Alaska Peninsula] and on Unga, where alder is used.” The continuous stone walls and foundations of the surviving complete structures indicate that access was most likely through a hole or hatch in the roof, although no ladders were found at the site. Roof entrances were also postulated for the structures at Chaluka and Margaret Bay, both dating to ca. 4000 B.P. (Aigner 1978; Knecht et al. 2001). Contact-era longhouses had multiple roof openings for access, ventilation, and light (McCartney and Veltre 2002:253). Aleut architecture changed considerably following contact, when European-style doors and windows on Aleut barabaras became common during the Russian period (Pendleton 2008). However, available evidence suggests that houses and structures were accessed solely via the roof throughout the prehistoric Aleutian sequence. Access to houses via roof entrances is relatively rare in the far north. Across the arctic regions of Siberia and North America, entrance tunnels to semi-subterranean structures are historically more prevalent than rooftop access holes. Most entrance tunnels were excavated below ground level to create a “cold trap.” Koryak houses in Kamchatka were built with elaborate “inverted cone” roof entrances for the winter, although summer access was through side passages (Arutiunov 1988:33). Entry to stone-lined Eskimo dwellings from coastal Alaska and the high Arctic is nearly always through an entrance tunnel at or below ground level (Lee and Reinhardt 2003:160), a trait shared by houses from Kodiak Island since the Ocean Bay II period (Saltonstall and Steffian 2008). Lee and Reinhardt (2003:122,156) note that in some Norton Sound houses, there was a hatch in the roof that could be used for access when the tunnels were blocked by snowdrifts. 3.10 Hearth Complex Features Among the most intriguing and unprecedented discoveries at UNL-050 are a complex of features centered on the stone hearths. In addition to the hearths themselves, the assemblage includes sub-floor channels within the houses and stone-lined shafts leading from outside the structure through the wall and into the fireplace. Each element of the hearth complex is considered below. 3.10.1 Hearths On the basis of several early Russian descriptions (for example Baranov, quoted in Khlebnikov 1994:121, and Korovin, quoted in Coxe 1780:149-150), many researchers concluded that Aleuts did not in fact heat with fireplaces, but rather with oil lamps set on posts or in the walls (i.e. McCartney and Veltre 1999:506). However, at the Amaknak Bridge site, numerous large hearths and firepits were found, both within and outside the structures. Large amounts of wood charcoal, sometimes many centimeters thick, were present in these locations (Figure 3.18).


Figure 3.18. Simple hearth with stone slabs and cobbles (Feature 77). Hearths within dwellings were built in various configurations, usually stone-lined and often built into (and in some cases extending under) the structure walls. The simplest hearths were just firepits delineated by flat slabs or angular cobbles. More elaborate examples were built as stone-lined troughs or boxes set at or below the level of the floor. Many of these featured a “grating” of smaller stones set over the top of the hearth trough, extending from the wall to the floor (Figure 3.19). A similar arrangement was sometimes found at the back of the hearth, separating it from the vent shaft. Hearths set against the wall, as those at Amaknak, are also relatively rare in the arctic and sub-arctic. Eskimo hearths were almost always in the center of the dwelling, as were those on Kodiak, with the smoke escaping through a hole in the roof (Lee and Reinhardt 2003:122, 141). Box hearths lined with stone slabs are typical on Kodiak Island from late Ocean Bay I (ca. 6500 B.P.). Throughout the Ocean Bay and early Kachemak periods Kodiak hearths are offset (though not built into the wall), moving to the structure’s center around 2500 B.P. (Saltonstall 2008 personal communication to Jason Rogers). Stone-lined hearths provide containment for fuel, flames, and embers, and rocks will radiate absorbed heat long after the fire has died down. Even in semi-subterranean houses where centrally located hearths were constructed of sand-


Figure 3.19. Photograph and schematic drawing of Feature A hearth, showing the‘grating’ set over the top of the hearth trough.


filled timber enclosures, such as in the early historic Koyukuk River valley region, boulders were set near the fire to absorb heat (Clark 1996:69). 3.10.2 Sub-floor Channels The 2003 excavations were the first to encounter “sub-floor hearth channels”, stone covered channels leading from hearth locations into the structures’ interiors. Knecht and Davis (2005:54) interpreted the channels and other hearth elements as “a complex of features representing a remarkably sophisticated heating system. The hearth channels funneled heat, perhaps even steam, upward from the hearth under the floor.” These channels, which have no analogue in North America, were found in 24 locations at UNL-050. Only one complete house (Structure 3) clearly had no channels, although erosion and deterioration made it impossible to determine if channels had ever been present in many of the other excavated structures. Although varying in form, the sub-floor channels found at UNL-050 can be grouped into categories. Larger structures, such as Feature 63 and Structure 7 that tended to be rectangular in shape and have hearths against a short end wall, had single sub-floor channels leading from the hearth then bifurcated into a ‘V’ or ‘Y’ shape. Channels of this form occurred in at least 12 features (Figures 3.20 and 3.21).

Figure 3.20. V-shaped sub-floor channels in Feature 45.


Figure 3.21. Sub-floor channels in Feature 45 after removing stone channel coverings. In one large structure (Feature 63), two channels led directly out from the hearth along the house’s long axis (Figures 3.22 and 3.23). Several smaller structures had only a single channel leading from the hearth. In at least two examples (Features V and 74), a number of progressively smaller channels split out from the main trench in a repeating branching pattern (Figure 3.24). Excavations at the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048) in 1996-97 had also uncovered V-shaped channels in house floors, although the poor state of preservation meant that the investigators were unable to determine their purpose (Knecht and Davis 2005:54). Hearth channels (or indeed chimneys) are not known from any other sites in the Aleutian chain. However, a hearth feature at the previously mentioned Chaluka site on Umnak Island exhibits some characteristics similar to the UNL-050 structures. Investigators found a hearth “…delineated by slab uprights, and partly lined with tight fitting slabs” which extended beneath the house wall, similar to the hearth chamber beneath the wall of Feature A. The Chaluka hearth was C-14 dated to 4028 ± 100, making this structure slightly older than those at UNL-050. No channels or trenches were observed at this site, although several “depressions sunk through the floor” and “slab-walled depressions” were documented (Aigner 1978:15).

As previously mentioned, Knecht and Davis concluded that these trenches functioned to funnel heat from the hearth area throughout the structure beneath the floor. Initially, however, investigators supposed the channels had been built for drainage purposes (Knecht and Davis 2005:54). Only after repeatedly finding that they lead to deep hearths did the team consider that the trenches were part of a heating system.


Figure 3.22. Parallel sub-floor channels leading from the hearth in Feature 63.

Figure 3.23. Sub-floor channels in Feature 63 with the covering slabs removed.


Figure 3.24. Branching sub-floor channels in Feature 74. 3.10.3 Vent Shafts The final components of the complex are the stone-lined shafts leading into the hearth through the wall from outside the house (Figures 3.25 and 3.26). Three of the houses excavated by Knecht and Davis (2005:54) had vertical shafts behind the hearths, interpreted as chimneys. While vertical shafts behind large hearths may have been flues or chimneys, many of the examples uncovered in 2006/2007 had shafts from outside the house sloping upwards through the wall into the fire pit. Because these upwards-sloping shafts showed no evidence of soot or charcoal deposits, it is likely that they were built to draw fresh air in to feed the fire and at the same time create a powerful draft to push hot air into the sub-floor channels (Figure 3.27). Early Russian accounts describe multiple openings in barabara roofs, allowing for ventilation, smoke exhaust, and light. Veniaminov (1984:262), for example, states:

On the top, in the middle of the building, between the rafters, several hatches or openings were made, some of which served as entry or exits for the occupants and also as windows and smoke flues, while other openings were only for light and smoke. There were from 1 to 5 of the first, but of the latter just as many as could be placed.

Many descriptions reference side rooms or compartments built into walls, and drawings made by Levashov in about 1769 suggest that such side rooms may have had their own roof entrances or


Figure 3.25. Vent shaft in Feature 55. ventilation holes (illustrated in Solovyova and Vovnjanko 2002:139). Thus, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the structure roofs at UNL-050 may have had multiple openings such as vents and chimneys. 3.11 Burial Structures Human burials at UNL-050 were interred within special burial structures, constructed in depressions formed by collapsed or abandoned house structures or in shallow depressions excavated into the underlying sediment. The features at UNL-050 that contained burials were A, N, V, W, 58, 83, and 86. Similar burial structures, called ula’kax‘, were reported by Jochelson (1925). Burials do not appear to occur in spatially segregated areas of the village (e.g., a formal cemetery), although the construction of special structures housing multiple burials indicates an intentional control of burial location within the habitation area. The specialized burial structures appear to be very similar stylistically to the habitation structures. Burial facilities were typically round or oblong stone walled structures with a roof composed of whale ribs. Jochelson (1925) suggests that Aleuts believed that the soul of the deceased continued to have a connection with the body and that the burial place should reflect the dwelling places of the living (i.e., an earth lodge) or the places where hunters took shelter when far from their village (i.e., caves). Construction techniques and placement of the burial facilities at UNL-050 appear to represent an effort to minimize labor investment. Burial features were located to take advantage of existing


Figure 3.26. Vent shafts in Features V and 58.


Figure 3.27. Chimney shaft in Structure 7.


depressions and construction materials. Walls were likely built with stones removed from abandoned house structures; whale ribs may have been removed from abandoned structures and reused. The construction of the burial features suggests that they were intended to be re-opened for burial of individuals over a period of time. House burials and pit burials within village areas have been recorded from other sites in the Eastern Aleutians. Ethnographic sources relate that the body of a deceased person was prepared and kept within the household until a suitable and permanent resting place could be located or constructed (Dall 1878 quoted in Frolich and Laughlin 2002). In the early contact period, family or clan members were buried in side chambers of communal dwellings (Black and Liapunova 1988:53). An entire “charnel house” may have been used for multiple burials; this would correspond with the structures excavated at UNL-050. Pit burials near or within a village have also been identified, such as those at the Chaluka site on Umnak Island (Frolich and Laughlin 2002:96).


51

4. Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology 4.1 Radiocarbon Dating Human occupation of the Amaknak Bridge Site has been dated by an array of 26 radiocarbon dates from samples collected between 1977 and 2007. Glenn Bacon recovered the first 14C samples during the 1977 investigation. Analysis of two samples, both wood charcoal, yielded results of 3360 ± 95 and 3070 ± 95 B.P., confirming Bacon’s “minimum age estimate [for the site] of circa 3000 B.P.” (Bacon 1977:19). Two samples from the 2000 field school and nine from the 2003 excavations were analyzed, yielding dates ranging from 2590 ± 90 to 3370 ± 60 B.P. (Knecht and Davis 2005:45). Knecht and Davis stated that:

[a]lthough it seems certain that the site was occupied for several centuries before and after 3000 BP, no major differences in the artifact assemblages or tool types have been observed so far in our analysis of various levels at the site. Consequently, we view UNL-50 as an essentially single component prehistoric site (Knecht and Davis 2005:45).

A total of 13 carbon samples from the salvage recovery were submitted for dating, six from 2006 and seven from 2007. Samples were obtained primarily from hearth and fireplace charcoal. In general, the 2006 samples were selected to date the earliest occupation of the site. In contrast, the 2007 dates were generally intended to help establish the construction sequence of the many house features. Twelve of the 13 dates range from 2450 ± 40 to 3390 ± 40 B.P., with a mean of 3079 B.P. One result, clearly a statistical outlier, yielded a date of 4230 ± 40 B.P. (Beta-233536). This date is almost 900 years earlier than the next oldest result. A second sample collected from the same feature was analyzed later, with a result of 3340 ± 40 B.P. (Beta-242307). The chronology of individual features and structures is discussed in greater detail below. A summary of all radiocarbon dating results for UNL-050 is presented in Table 4.1, while two-sigma ranges for radiocarbon dates are graphed in Figure 4.1 (note the single outlier—Feature 74—mentioned above). 4.2 Structure Chronology The radiocarbon dates correspond well with the features’ stratigraphic positions within the site. A matrix diagram showing ages and positions of dated features with demonstrable stratigraphic relationships is shown in Figure 4.2. Dated features show a fairly smooth continuum over time, but can be grouped into approximate ranges of occupation:

• Oldest features (ca. 3300–3000 B.P.): Feature X, Structure 2, Structure 1/Feature D, and Feature 74.

• Mid-period (ca. 3000–2800 B.P.): Feature 63, Feature C, Feature 55, Structure 7-W, Structure 5, Feature V, Feature A, Feature 86, and Feature Z.

• Youngest features (ca. 2800–2500 B.P.): Structure 7-M, Structure 4, and Structure 3.


52

Project/Year Stratigraphic Unit/ Feature Radiocarbon Age

Calibrated Age (2 sigma range) Reference Number

1977 ‘middle levels’ 3070±95 B.P. 3475-2990 Teledyne-347 1977 ‘middle levels’ 3360±95 B.P. 3836-3396 Teledyne-348 2000 Level 2 2780±70 B.P. 3070-2756 Beta-151119 2000 Level 4- base of site 3310±110 B.P. 3839-3336 Beta-151120 2003 Structure 3, fill 2 2540±60 B.P. 2759-2450 Beta-184635 2003 Structure 3, hearth 2590±90 B.P. 2859-2430 Beta-181341 2003 Structure 4 fill 2670±70 B.P. 2958-2700 Beta-184638 2003 Structure 7, main rm. 2840±90 B.P. 3214-2765 Beta-184636 2003 Structure 5, fill 2970±60 B.P. 3334-3281 Beta-181339 2003 Structure 5, floor 3000±70 B.P. 3363-2989 Beta-184634 2003 Level 1 3240±90 B.P. 3691-3319 Beta-184637 2003 Structure 2, floor 3370±60 B.P. 3728-3456 Beta-181340 2003 Structure 7-W 3470±70 B.P. 3922-3565 Beta-184633 2006 Slab hearth 2450±40 B.P. 2618-2358 Beta-222047 2006 House A hearth 2970±40 B.P. 3265-3001 Beta-230371 2006 Feature C 3070±40 B.P. 3380-3206 Beta-222046 2006 Sump trench 3130±40 B.P. 3445-3260 Beta-222017 2006 Bottom midden layer 3190±40 B.P. 3481-3341 Beta-220567 2006 Feature X 3390±40 B.P. 3724-3554 Beta-222048 2007 Feature 7-W 3020±70 B.P. 3375-3003 Beta-233532 2007 Feature V 2980±40 B.P. 3269-3059 Beta-233533 2007 Feature 55 3030±40 B.P. 3357-3141 Beta-233534 2007 Feature 63 3070±40 B.P. 3380-3206 Beta-233535 2007 Feature 74 4240±40 B.P. 4869-4687 Beta-233536 2007 Feature 86 2960±40 B.P. 3263-2991 Beta-233537 2007 Feature 74 (redate) 3340±40 B.P. 3645-3471 Beta-242307

Table 4.1. Results of all radiocarbon dating analysis for UNL-050. All dates have been calibrated for this report using OxCal 4.0 and the IntCal 04 calibration curve (see Bronk Ramsey 1995; Bronk Ramsey 2001).


53

Figure 4.1. UNL-050 radiocarbon dates, calibrated 2-sigma ranges.


54

Figure 4.2. Dates and stratigraphic positions for selected house features. A complete feature list is provided in Appendix A. These data suggest that the occupation of the village site began shortly after 3500 B.P., reached a maximum size and density around 3000 B.P., and declined until around 2500 B.P. The settlement was abandoned sometime around the middle of the second millennium B.P. The lack of gaps or clustering in the range of dates is in agreement with Knecht and Davis’s finding that the site is essentially a single-component occupation. The locations of major dated features are shown in Figure 4.3. Following from the dating results presented above, a general architectural chronology can be developed. Knecht and Davis (2005:189-190) suggested that there is visible change in house form change over time, with multiple course walls appearing later than those with a single row of uprights, maybe around 3000 B.P. This hypothesis is supported by results of the 2006-2007 investigation. The features with the oldest dates (Feature X, Feature 74, and Structure 2) were all constructed without upper courses. Feature X and Structure 2 both had a single row of uprights, while Feature 74 had “piers” around the perimeter. Later features were built with multiple upper courses and more complex and robust stone walls in general. In Knecht and Davis’ (2005:189-190) interpretation, the changing structure architecture at UNL-050 was a response to the increasing cold and stormy conditions of the Neoglacial, a hypothesis that is explored in more detail in Chapters 3 (see Section 3.2) and 7 of this report.


55

Figure 4.3. Locations of dated features at the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site January 2010 56

5. Stratigraphy 5.1 Overview of UNL-050 Stratigraphy During five archeological investigations, over a span of 30 years, more than 15 profiles have been drawn of the strata at the Amaknak Bridge Site (Figure 5.1). Glenn Bacon recorded the first two in 1977 at the northeastern corner of the site. In 2000, Richard Knecht and Richard Davis recorded two profiles just west of Bacon’s excavation area (Knecht 2000). In 2003, Knecht and Davis (2005) drew and described four additional profiles—three in their eastern excavation block and one in the western. CRC archeologists excavated two profiles in 2006, one along the World War II access road, just east of the “West Block,” and one down the northern slope of the site. Profiles were also described for a stepped backhoe test excavated into the northwestern face and a backhoe test dug below the northwestern face of the site in the low area between Airport Beach Road and Henry Swanson Drive. In 2007, CRC archaeologists recorded a long profile east to west across the northern edge of the site and described five 1-m wide stratigraphic tests along a cut face below the World War II road. They also recorded the stratigraphy of a backhoe test in the low area below the northeastern face of the site and of a 1 m square (Square 1) excavated into the deposits above Feature 74. Stratigraphy at the Amaknak Bridge Site varied greatly from locality to locality. What follows is a much-simplified view of what is actually a very complicated stratigraphic picture. Many excavated areas contained layers that did not appear elsewhere. This is, no doubt, a function of the size of the site, its long history of occupation, and the repeated use of certain locales, such as the northeastern corner of the site above Henry Swanson Drive where there were numerous surface and subsurface features. Having the advantage of excavating long and numerous profiles during salvage recovery in 2006 and 2007, it became clear that no single profile could have captured the stratigraphy of the entire site. In general, the cultural layers at the site were covered in a thick layer of World War II overburden and reddish brown sterile, bedded tephras. The first cultural layer, a dark brown to black silty loam with gravel inclusions, overlay thick deposits of brown loam with bedded midden composed of shell, fish bone, beach gravels, and orange tephra pockets. The cultural deposits were underlain with a basal layer of gray tephra over sterile bedded tephras, including the reddish Makushin ash that covers the occupation level of the 8,000-year-old site on Hog Island (UNL-115). In the western portion of the site, the midden was less well preserved or was nonexistent between the dark, gravelly loam and the sterile bedded tephras. In some areas of the site, a layer of decomposing green rock was under the brown loam midden layer. Rounded beach gravels found in the cultural deposits are likely anthropogenic—brought to the site by the inhabitants. 5.2 Eastern Site Area Because of the thick World War II overburden on top of the knoll and the lack of heavy earth moving equipment, Bacon’s 1977 and Knecht and Davis’s 2000 excavations took place on the northeastern slope of the site (Knecht and Davis 2005:30). Both excavations encountered thick cultural deposits underneath World War II fill and a disturbed midden layer.


Figure 5.1. Map of stratigraphic profile locations. Knecht and Davis concluded that the origin of the disturbed midden layer found in 1977 and 2000 was the result of World War II access road construction:

Soil profiles along the edge and the steep sides of the knoll made in the 2000 field season had revealed a layer of disturbed midden just below the surface. After the overburden was stripped away [in 2003] it became apparent that the disturbed midden soils we observed had most likely been removed from the cut made for the access road and pushed over the edge by a bulldozer [Knecht and Davis 2005:38].


The stratigraphy uncovered by Bacon’s 1977 excavation is summarized below:

The stratigraphic situation at the site is unclear at this point, however, the following statements appear to be reasonable. The top strata or over-burden is a heavily disturbed mixture of soil, organic substances, modern artifacts and shells, and is up to 1 m thick. Under this is a strata of in-situ “shell midden” which is more compact, and contains no historic period artifacts; it is 1 m thick. The next strata is termed “bone-midden,” and is described as containing a series of stratified occupation levels. There is a rock hearth and a surrounding paved area with some possible pottery associated with one of these levels. Also associated with one of these levels is a feature described as a rock-walled structure which contained some surprisingly well preserved wood. The lowest level of the site consisted of a series of clay/sand lenses which contained some chipped stone (Watson 1977; see Figure 5.2).

Bacon’s findings suggested that the lower levels of the site could answer questions about sea level changes in this coastal environment, as:

The presence of definable layers of clay deposits in the bottom portion of the site indicates that it has definite potential to provide data concerning the geologic history, and the cause of sea-level changes in the area. These changes could have been caused by tectonic factors, eustatic factors, or some combination of both. Analysis of the clay deposits present by a trained geologist could provide information useful in explaining these changes, and provide a more complete historical picture of what happened (Watson 1977).

However, during Knecht’s 2000 excavations, these lower sterile layers were found to be volcanic ash (tephras)—one of which is the red Makushin ash—and not marine sands and clays. The stratigraphy found by Knecht in 2000 (Figure 5.3) was similar to what Bacon uncovered in 1977, although a fourth level was noted beneath the floor of Structure 1 consisting of gray and brown tephras with a few pockets of faunal material (Knecht 2000). At the base of this layer, west of Structure 1, was part of a possible house floor with post molds and a pit hearth feature that had been dug into the sterile tephra below (Knecht 2000). A 50-cm wide profile that Knecht drew of Bacon’s 1977 wall showed World War II fill and loose dark brown soil lightly mixed with midden and underlain by a bedded faunal midden. Underneath was a clayey faunal layer with charcoal streaks that lay on top of bedded tephras (Knecht 2000). In 2003, Knecht and Davis found that most of the site on top of the knoll had a sterile layer of tephra under the thick layer of World War II overburden:

The cultural levels had been cushioned during [World War II] construction by 30-40 cm of sterile bedded tephras that had steadily accumulated on the occupation over the three millennia following its abandonment. The weathered tephra soils are brown and silty in


Figure 5.2. 1977 stratigraphic profiles 1 and 2, respectively (see Figure 5.1 above for location). From Bacon 1977.


Figure 5.3. Knecht’s 2000 south wall stratigraphic profile (see Figure 5.1 above for location).

texture, easily distinguishable from the black stony soils that characterize the cultural deposits on the site (Knecht and Davis 2005:37).

They recorded four stratigraphic profiles in 2003—three in the eastern area of the site (Profiles 2 and 3, and a 4 m long section through Structure 4 floor deposits) and one in the west (Profile 1) (Knecht and Davis 2005). Again, following the natural layers, they divided the stratigraphy into three cultural levels. Under the World War II fill, a reddish brown tephra overlay Level 1, a moderately compacted, very dark brown to black, silty loam with gravel and some cultural material. Level 2 was a lighter brown sandy loam with bedded shell middens that contained gravel lenses and orange tephra pockets. A few centimeters of a “loosely packed” layer of dark


brown tephra and a well preserved faunal midden was found inside and below the floor of Structure 7, and it continued past the house walls. The top of this third level was as far as the 2003 excavations extended, but testing in Structure 7 revealed that this level continued another 1.5 m at minimum. CRC archaeologists recorded two stratigraphic profiles in 2006. Profile 1 was in the western area of the site below Knecht and Davis’ West Block (see below). Profile 2, running north to south for approximately 10.0 m, was excavated on the northern slope of the site, on top of Feature E and northwest of Feature F (Figure 5.4). Here, water screened material from the 2003 data recovery and World War II fill covered a 35- to 55-cm thick layer of dark reddish brown, silty tephra. Below the tephra was a layer of grayish brown to black, silty loam with gravel inclusions that corresponded to Knecht and Davis's 2003 Level 1. Under the loam, the southern half of the profile differed from the northern half. Layering under Level 1 in the southern portion of the profile was quite distinct and complex. The layers are divided up into three descriptive units below.

Upper Shell Unit: This unit had a thick layer of shell with a moderate amount of fish, bird, and mammal bone; and pea- to small cobble-sized gravels. Under this was a thick silty, brown tephra layer with finely crushed shell throughout and fish bone near the bottom. Next was a thick shell layer similar to the one above in this unit but with more fish bone and less mammal and bird bone. Middle Tephra Unit: This unit consisted of two tephra layers with little shell and bone that were separated by lenses of shell and bone and charcoal. Lower Shell Unit: This unit was composed of layers of crushed shell, charcoal lenses, fish bone, pea gravels, and tephra of varying thicknesses. Gravel content was considerably higher than in the Upper Shell Unit.

Near the bottom and about 2.8 m from the southern end of the profile were the remnants of the house wall rocks of Feature E that extended into the profile wall. There was a mottled brown, silty tephra pocket just to the south and above Feature E that may have been house in-fill. In the northern section of Profile 2, the reddish brown tephra layer and black loam layer of Level 1 ended about 4 m from the toe of the slope, probably lost to erosion. Under Level 1 was a layer of dark brown soil with gravel lenses and pockets of orange tephra and shell. Overall, there was much less shell in the northern portion of this profile than in the southern portion. 2007 Profile 1 was nearly 20 m long and ran across the northern face of the site, from east to west, and through the floor of the main room of Structure 7 (Figures 5.5 and 5.6). The World War II fill and an additional 3 to 3.5 m—including 1 m of infill from the main room of Structure


Figure 5.4. 2006 stratigraphic profile 2 (see Figure 5.1 above for location).


Figure 5.5. 2007 stratigraphic profile 1 (see Figure 5.1 above for location). 7—had been removed in 2003. With the exception of the interruption made by Structure 7 and the horizontal column of rocks, this stratigraphic profile was very much like 2006 Profile 2. At the eastern end of this profile, below the uppermost shell midden was a yellowish brown, sterile tephra (sod) layer that ran into the House 7 “chimney” to the west. Underneath was a thinly bedded layer of shell, fish bone, and gravel. Without the intervening sod layer, these two midden layers would likely be considered one unit, since on the southern side of this profile, the intervening sod layer was missing. The second midden layer was also interrupted to the west by the House 7 chimney and an underlying horizontal strata of rock. The next layer consisted of a band of dark brown loam, a mottled layer of shell, large angular rocks, gravel, and fish bone. This was over another, less homogeneous dark reddish gray to brown layer. Next was a layer of interbedded shell, fish bone, and fine gravel mixed with brown loam. The bottom of the profile consisted of thinly bedded shell and decayed fish bone with lenses of gravel in a brown tephra matrix. The shell and bone decreased to the west, and the brown tephra thickened to as much as 60 cm. There were a couple of stringers of charcoal stained soil, and near the bottom of the brown tephra there was a 2- to 9-cm thick layer of loose gravel mixed with crushed shell and fish bone. The stratigraphic profile of the eastern wall of Square 1 (Figure 5.7), excavated into the deposits above Feature 74, more or less corresponded to the lower levels of 2007 Profile 1. A layer of dense midden, with a thin, compact light brown layer of mussel shells and bone, overlay an intervening layer of midden mixed with tephra that ran about 3/4 of the way across the profile. Below this was a layer of dark brown organic soil and fibrous material (possibly grass) and wood remains. Next was an oily black/burned layer over a gravel layer. Below the gravel were gray tephra lenses with a pocket of orange/brown tephra. The 2007 backhoe test that was excavated in the low area below the northeastern face of the site revealed mixed midden and rocks that had eroded down onto the bedrock from the houses whose southern walls were still intact up on the north face.


Figu

re 5

.6.

2007

stra

tigra

phic

pro

file

1 (s

ee F

igur

e 5.

1 ab

ove

for l

ocat

ion)

.


Figure 5.7. Stratigraphic profile of Square 1 (see Figure 5.1 above for location). 5.3 Western Site Area In 2001, after digging several backhoe trenches and shovel tests on top of the knoll to determine site boundaries, Knecht found that “[t]he cultural layers seemed to taper off toward the west side of the site, where the preservation of faunal midden also declines” (Knecht and Davis 2005:31). 2003 Profile 1, northeast of Structure 2 and above the World War II access road, had a thin World War II overburden over a sandy gray-brown tephra underlain by a reddish brown tephra. Next was Level 1, the cultural layer—a moderately compacted, black to dark gray, silty loam with gravel, a few lithic artifacts, and charcoal. There was no preserved midden under Level 1, which was underlain by bedded, sterile tephras. The bottom of this profile was the coarse, reddish brown Makushin tephra. A stratigraphic profile drawn of Structure 2 in 2003 showed the same layering (Knecht 2003). This confirmed the 2001 findings of the differences in faunal preservation between the eastern and western locales of the site:

Stratigraphy in the west excavation block differed somewhat from that in the east block. Structure 2, which dominated the block, had been excavated by its prehistoric builders into sterile bedded tephras. Level 2 was missing from the [west] block, where the cultural deposits were found in a matrix of weathered tephras. Very little faunal material


and few bone artifacts were recovered from the acidic tephra soils in this area of the site. The deposits in the [west] block are among the chronologically oldest encountered on the site. Similarly early deposits probably exist in the tephra sediments another meter or so underneath the limit of the 2003 excavations in the [east] block, which lies downhill of the [west] block (Knecht and Davis 2005:49).

In 2006, CRC archaeologists excavated their Profile 1 west of the World War II access road and south of Knecht and Davis’s 2003 Profile 1 (Figure 5. 8). CRC’s profile had the same layering as 2003 Profile 1, minus the World War II fill and the underlying tephra layers that had been removed in 2003. The occupation level, a moderately compacted black, silty loam with gravel inclusions, charcoal, and tephra pockets, was underlain by a series of bedded tephras. In the top—southernmost—step of the stepped backhoe test dug into the northwestern face of the site west of 2006 Profile 2, there was approximately 1 m of World War II fill over a mottled, cultural layer that was about 70 cm thick. The cultural layer was immediately below the World War II fill without the inter-lying red tephra. Approximately 55 to 60 cm down into this layer was a hard, 1 cm thick lens of wood over 4 cm of grayish brown soil. The latter lay about 19 cm above what looked to be the bottom of the cultural horizon. In 2006, CRC also drew a profile of a roughly 2 m long backhoe test that was west of Feature X. This trench—oriented northeast-southwest— was in the lower area of the site below the World War II road. Here, the gray gravel layer was 10 to 14 cm thick. Beneath it was up to 34 cm of thin lenses of shell and bone. These lay over about 90 cm to 1 m of thin, banded cultural layers that sloped both northeast and northwest—basically downhill toward the ocean. The “usual” stratigraphy was missing here—the gray/tan basal tephra was either not here or was obscured by the banded lenses below. The banding also appeared to extend through the red gritty tephra. A radiocarbon sample taken from this trench dated to 3130 ± 40 B.P. Five 1 m wide stratigraphic tests were dug in 2007 along the cut face below the World War II access road (Figure 5.9 and 5.10). These showed that the midden layers, averaging about 90 cm in the test just south of Feature 86, pinched out to the west along this face. The test just to the west of Feature 86 had very little gravel and only a few specks of fish bone and shell. In the next three tests further to the west along the cut face, the cultural layer was a dark matrix with one or more layers of angular rocks, but no preserved midden. Two of the tests also had a decomposed green rock layer that was found in other areas of the site. The stratigraphic test just south of Feature 86 lacked the reddish brown tephra layer found under the World War II fill elsewhere at the site.


Figure 5.8. 2006 profile 1 (see Figure 5.1 above for location).

Figure 5.9. Three stratigraphic tests below the World War II access road (see Figure 5.1 above for locations).


Figu

re 5

.10.

Loc

atio

ns o

f the

stra

tigra

phic

test

s sho

wn

in F

igur

e 5.

9 (s

ee a

lso

Fig

ure

5.1

abov

e fo

r loc

atio

ns).


69

6. Artifacts 6.1 Overview, Raw Materials, and Categories As stipulated in the MOA and described in the Salvage Recovery Plan, one of the goals of the 2006/2007 work was the recovery of items associated with human remains, sacred objects, items of cultural patrimony, and unique or unusual artifacts. However, with only general guidance as to what should be considered sacred or culturally significant, and an evolving understanding of what was unique or unusual, collection strategies in 2006 and 2007 varied across the site and over the duration of the project. These included controlled collecting during hand excavations, more general “grab sampling,” and the directed recovery of temporally or functionally diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points and decorated artifacts such as incised bone. Collection strategies depended on several factors, including the area of the site where the artifacts were found, the interpretation of field and lab personnel of what was unique and unusual, and even the inclement weather—which often obscured diagnostic artifact attributes in the resulting mud. The artifacts described below should not be inferred to be representative of the entire site, but as more of a reflection of collection strategies during the salvage recovery. The data presented is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the large collection. Such an analysis is beyond the stipulations of the MOA and the scope of the Salvage Recovery Plan. However, the information presented does illustrate the collections value for future research, especially if in the future with a more detailed and quantitative analysis of the provenienced collection from the 2003 data recovery. In 2006 and 2007, over four thousand artifacts were recovered during excavations or were collected from the surface. Many of the items found in situ were plotted with a total station and cataloged. Collected items that were not plotted, such as artifacts found on the surface or in backdirt piles, were placed into a “general collection.” Ultimately, however, certain notable items from the general collection—such as decorated artifacts; composite bone sockets; miniature harpoon points; an unbroken needle; a thumbnail scraper; blades and microblades; flake, blade, and microblade cores; a possible stone pendant; points and knives; a miniature ground stone lamp; and a miniature sinker—were added to the catalog. After the artifacts were collected, they were taken to the lab where they were cleaned and/or cataloged. For the cataloged artifacts, basic data was recorded, such as the type of object (e.g. “bowl”), material, condition (broken or complete), size, weight, and other descriptive details. Knecht and Davis (2005) divide their 2000/2003 collection into three categories based on raw material: bone, chipped stone, and ground stone. Classified according to this system, the vast majority of the artifacts found in 2006/2007—2,565 items—are chipped stone. Of the remainder, 908 are bone and 498 are ground stone (Figure 6.1). This includes both the cataloged and general collections. Of the total artifacts collected, 1,178 items were cataloged—381 bone, 553 chipped stone, and 244 ground stone, although some of these are more than one piece of an individual artifact. In addition, clusters of debitage found in situ, possibly indicating a work area, were recorded under one catalog number. Six hundred and three of the cataloged artifacts were plotted with a total station, while the remaining 575 artifacts were those that were pulled from the general collection


70

Figure 6.1. Artifact raw materials. and added to the catalog. The rest of the cataloged collection includes faunal elements; charcoal, fiber, fur, grass, gravel, midden, tephra, and wood samples; and one historic artifact (a silver-plated fork) and one modern artifact (a Coke can). In the general collection are 527 bone, 2,012 chipped stone—the majority of which are flakes and fragments—and 254 ground stone artifacts. The general collection also includes a few historic artifacts—a toy car, a ceramic insulator, and glass bottles—and “modern” artifacts such as a broken trowel from the 1977 excavation. In order to facilitate comparisons with the material from Knecht and Davis’s 2000 and 2003 work at the Amaknak Bridge Site, their type definitions and terminology have been used, for the most part, in the description of the 2006/2007 collections. To this end, some of their types, such as asymmetrical knives and stemmed points, have been retained. There are differences, however, in how we categorized some of the artifacts. For instance, our knife, point, and scraper subdivisions are different from Knecht and Davis (see Knecht and Davis 2005: Table 4.1.03). Besides the asymmetrical and flake knife categories, they also subdivided knives into bifacial and square categories. They subdivided points into two categories: tapered/straight base and stemmed. For scrapers, they subdivided into end, side, and thumbnail categories. 6.2 Chipped Stone Tools The majority of the cataloged chipped stone artifacts were made of chert (Figure 6.2). While several different colors of chert were used to make these tools, most were green chert. This chert was also used to make adzes, chisels, knives, points, and scrapers. Green chert sources are


71

Figure 6.2. Lithic raw materials. Figure 6.3 shows the types of material used for three major tool categories of the chipped stone tools cataloged in 2006/2007.

Figure 6.3. Raw material usage for selected major lithic tool categories.


72

located in Beaver Inlet, about 10 km from the Amaknak Bridge Site (Knecht and Davis 2005:90). Of the 2006/2007 cataloged chipped stone tools, chert was the most frequent material used for projectile points, retouched flakes, and especially for scrapers. Table 6.1 is a summary of the total number and the percentages of chipped stone tools that were cataloged during the 2006/2007 excavations. This table includes broken and unbroken stone tools, of which the largest categories are points and knives.

Adze 13 3% Biface 7 2% Chisel 6 2% Drill bit 1 0% Knife 140 37%

Asymmetrical 42 30% Broad based 20 14%

Flake 35 25% Large 18 13%

Stemmed 25 18% Microblade 7 2% Piercer 7 2% Point 174 46%

Bipoint 5 3% Large 4 2%

Leaf shaped 23 13% Qaxax 25 14%

Stemmed/shouldered 111 64% Trapezoidal 6 3%

Scraper 20 5% Canted 2 10% Beaked 1 5%

Thumbnail 1 5% Table 6.1. Major chipped tool types by number

and percent. 6.2.1 Knives Overall, the unbroken knives range in length from 23.9 to 168.7 millimeters (mm) and are an average of 56 mm long. The range in width is 10.3 to 121.2 mm with an average of 31.4 mm. Thickness is from 2.8 to 21.1 mm with an average of 8 mm. They weigh from .90 to 262.4 grams (g) and are an average weight of 23.8 g. The unbroken asymmetrical knives range from 23.9 to 90 mm long with an average length of 46 mm. They range in width from 10.3 to 41.2 mm with an average of 23.7 mm, and thickness is from 2.8 to 9.5 mm with an average of 6.5 mm. Their weight is from .90 to 26.5 g with an average of 8.4 g.


73

The length of the unbroken broad based knives ranges from 28.4 to 90.4 mm and averages 43.7 mm. They range from 16.9 to 31.9 mm in width with an average of 24.4 mm, and they range in thickness from 4 to 11.2 mm with an average of 6.6 mm. They weigh from 2.7 to 22.6 g with an average of 8 g. Thirty-five of the asymmetrical and broad based knives are stemmed and are not included in the “stemmed” category. Unbroken stemmed knives range in length from 29.9 to 87.4 mm and are an average of 45.2 mm long. Width is from 22.2 to 39.6 mm with an average of 29.3, and thickness ranges from 3.2 to 9.7 and averages 6.6 mm. They range in weight from 3.2 to 33.2 g and average 11.2 g. The large unbroken knives range from 66.5 to 168.7 mm in length with an average length of 101.4 mm. They range in width from 27.8 to 73 and average 46.3 mm. Their thickness ranges from 7.9 to 21.1 mm with an average of 13.4 mm. They weigh from 21.1 to 227.2 g with an average weight of 84.5 g. Flake knives range in length from 30.2 to 98.3 mm and average 59 long. Their width ranges from 13.7 to 121.2 mm and averages 39.5 mm. Their thickness ranges from 4.1 to 18.5 mm with an average of 8.7 mm. They weigh from 2.6 to 262.4 g and average 29.2 g. 6.2.2 Points The unbroken points (Figure 6.4) range in length from 22.1 to 85.2 mm with an average length of 41 mm. They range in width from 8.1 to 33.5 mm with an average of 17.4 mm, and they range in thickness from 1.1 to 10.5 mm with an average of 5.8 mm. Their weight ranges from .30 to 23 g and averages 5 g. The stemmed and shouldered points are the largest category of points and comprise sixty-four percent of those cataloged. The unbroken stemmed and shouldered points range in size from 22.1 to 85.2 mm long, 8.1 to 33.5 mm wide, and 1.1 to 10.4 thick. They average 39.8 mm long, 17.4 mm wide, and 5.8 mm thick. Their weight ranges from .30 to 23 with an average of 5 g. Four of the stemmed and shouldered points have serrated edges. The unbroken leaf-shaped points range from 27.1 to 59.7 mm long, 10.3 to 29.2 mm wide, and 3.8 to 10.5 mm thick. They average 41.7 mm long, 18 mm wide, and 5.6 mm long. Their weight ranges from 1.4 to 20.1 g and averages 5 g. The unbroken qaxax points range from 32.4 to 51.4 mm long, 11.5 to 24.6 mm wide, and 3.6 to 7.8 mm thick. They average 40.5 mm long, 15.7 mm wide, and 5.4 mm thick. They weigh from 1.7 to 9.2 g with an average of 3.8 g. The unbroken bi-points range in length from 27 to 69.3 mm and average 48.9 mm. Width ranges from 10.6 to 20.9 mm with an average of 15 mm. Thickness is 4.9 to 8 mm with an average of 6.6 mm. The trapezoids are 38.1 to 67.5 mm long, 20.5 to 28.1 mm wide, and 5.7 to 8.2 mm thick. They average 52 mm long, 24.4 mm wide, and 7.2 mm thick. They weigh from 4.4 to 14.5 g with an average of 10.1 g. The points classified as “large” in Table 6.1 are all broken and represent three points. Two pieces fit together and form one large point—146 mm long, 60 mm wide, and 13.5 mm thick, and there is polish on one side of both halves.


74

Figure 6.4. Examples of the stone points from the salvage recovery. 6.2.3 Other Chipped Stone Tools The majority of the adzes and chisels cataloged are made of chert, and one chisel is made of obsidian. The pendant is made of obsidian, and its edges are polished or ground. The drill bit is made of green chert and is 27 mm long and 5 mm wide. Also included in the cataloged collection are 72 blades, one possible burin spall, five blade and four microblade cores, and one core rejuvenation flake. The blade and microblade cores are discussed below. 6.3 Ground Stone Tools No attempt has been made to group the ground stone tools and bone artifacts (see Section 6.5 below) into broad functional categories—subsistence, domestic and manufacturing, and toys and jewelry—as Knecht and Davis (2005) have done. It is impossible to know the function of an artifact with complete certainty and some of the artifacts may have had more than one use. Table 6.2 summarizes the ground stone artifacts found in 2006/2007. 6.3.1 Bottle-shaped Plummets Eight bottle-shaped plummets were cataloged during the salvage recovery: four with small bottle cap-shaped tops, three with slightly contoured tops, and one with a mushroom cap-shaped top with vertical grooves down the sides (from the main room of Structure 7) (Figure 6.5). There are seven bottle-shaped plummets in the general collection. Knecht and Davis (2005:101) did not any find bottle-shaped plummets in 2003 and noted: “The bottle-shaped plummets present in


75

Abrader 2 1% Bowl fragments 110 47% Bowls, complete 2 1% Cobble, grooved 4 2% Cobble, notched 1 0% Cobble/plummets, grooved 4 2% Effigy 1 0% Grinders 10 4% Grinders, ocher 8 3% Hammerstones 3 1% Hones 8 3% Labrets 3 1% Lamps 32 14% Lamp fragments 11 5% Plummets 8 3% Sinkers, elongate 13 6% Sinkers, grooved 8 3% Sinkers, notched 4 2%

Table 6.2. Cataloged ground stone artifacts.

Figure 6.5. Plummets.


76

other early prehistoric assemblages in the Aleutians and Kodiak are curiously absent at the Amaknak Bridge Site.” This type of plummet has been reported in the Aleutians by Bank (1953:45), at Port Moller by Workman (1966:40), and on Kodiak Island by Heizer (1956:42) and Clark (1996:218). 6.3.2 Stone Bowls and Lamps In 2006/2007, two unbroken ground stone bowls and over 110 fragments (some small fragments were grouped under one catalog number) representing 31 bowls were cataloged. The unbroken bowls are both slightly oval. One (UNL050-18330) is 192 by 150 mm in size with a rim height of 30 mm, rim thickness of 30 mm, and bottom thickness of 20 mm. The other bowl (UNL050-17374) is 219 by 173 mm in size with a rim height of 43.6 mm, rim thickness of 21.5 mm, and bottom thickness of 21 mm. Of the cataloged fragments, two sets represent two complete bowls—one oval and the other one a rounded-square shape—that were found broken in situ. In the general collection are 40 fragments representing 27 bowls. Nearly all of the bowls in both the cataloged and general collections are made of volcanic tuff, with a fine-grained brick red as the predominant material. Three cataloged bowl fragments were found associated with features that have been radiocarbon dated: Feature A, 2790 ± 40 B.P.; Feature C, 3090 ± 40 B.P.; and Feature X, 3390 ± 40 B.P. Knecht and David (2005:103) note that “[s]tone bowls are a common diagnostic artifact during the Margaret Bay phase, and disappear from Aleutian inventories shortly after 3,000 BP.” Stone bowls have been found in the lower levels of the Margaret Bay site, Chaluka mound, and Anangula, but “become scarce in the years after 3,000 BP” (Knecht et al. 2000:49). Knecht and Davis (2005:103) found 71 bowl fragments at the Amaknak Bridge Site, far fewer than the 434 fragments “in a far smaller excavation block” found at the Margaret Bay site—75 percent of which came from Level 2. They concluded that “the use of stone bowls was already on its way out during the time of the Amaknak Bridge occupation” (Knecht and Davis 2005:103). A total of 53 ground stone oil lamps are represented in the cataloged and general collections combined. Of these, 32 unbroken lamps—including four miniature lamps—were cataloged. The lamps range in size from the smallest (UNL050-18087)—measuring 40 by 36 mm and 15.5 mm tall—to the largest lamp (UNL050-17663)—465 by 305 mm and 124 mm tall. Just over half (15) of the unbroken lamps are medium-sized. Over half of the lamps have egg-shaped basins but some are oval or round. Most of the lamps are made from sandstone; other materials include basalt, andesite, and conglomerate. There is at least one lamp preform (UNL050-18023) and possibly a second one. Four miniature lamps were found, including two of which have charring around the wick shelf indicating that they were used (Figure 6.6). The basin of the smallest miniature lamp is barely larger than a thumbprint, and there is no charring on the wick shelf or in the basin. Knecht and Davis (2005:103) found 34 stone oil lamps—six of which are complete—in 2000/2003 at the Amaknak Bridge Site. They found no miniature lamps, noting that they were “curiously absent” at the site (Kneckt and Davis 2005:110). Eighteen lamps were found in Level 2 at Margaret Bay, including one miniature lamp (Knecht et al. 2000:49, 63).


77

Figure 6.6. Miniature stone lamps. 6.3.3 Other Ground Stone Artifacts The three ground stone labrets in the collection are tabular-shaped; two are made of calcite (Figure 6.7). The one ground stone effigy is made of rounded and polished siltstone and is shaped like a seal. This artifact was found in Feature V which has been radiocarbon dated to 2980 ± 40 B.P. 6.4 Bone Tools Table 6.3 summarizes the cataloged bone artifacts, the greatest numbers of which were harpoons and lances. 6.4.1 Harpoons and Lances Included in this category are a single toggling harpoon, four harpoons with line holes (Figure 6.8), 16 elaborately barbed lance points (see Section 6.5.1), and 11 miniature harpoons. Most of


78

Figure 6.7. Ground stone (UNL050-17417, -17538, and -17929) and bone labrets. the harpoons and lances are either unilaterally or bilaterally barbed (Figure 6.9). Of the five needles found, one is complete with an eyehole. The remaining four needles are fragments. Several of the bone artifacts are made of ivory, including five of the 10 labrets (see Figure 6.7 above), four drill rests, and several pieces of worked bone. The elaborately barbed lance points and the whale bone mask will be discussed in detail below. 6.4.2 Whale Bone Bowls Three complete whale bone bowls, one preform, and ten fragments—representing five bowls—were cataloged in 2006/2007 (Figure 6.10). The complete bowls range from 172 to 204 mm long, 170 to 228 mm wide, and 25 to 30 mm thick. They average 192 mm long, 206 mm wide, and 26 mm thick. They are from 90 to 117 mm tall with an average of 107 mm, and they range from 37 to 111 mm deep with an average of 79 mm.


79

Artifact No. % of bone tools Artifact No. % of bone tools Adze holders 2 1% Lamp stands 2 1% Awls 6 2% Whale bone mask 1 0% Awls, composite 2 1% Needles 5 1% Bowl fragments 10 3% Needle perform 1 0% Bowls, complete 3 1% Pin 1 0% Bowl, perform 1 0% Plate armor 1 0% Drill rests 16 4% Plummet 1 0% Fish hook barbs 16 4% Root picks 17 5% Fish hook shanks 9 2% Slotted shaft 1 0% Fish hook perform 1 0% Sockets, composite 10 3% Fishing leister base 1 0% Spear prongs 35 9% Fishing leister base composite 1 0% Throwing board pin 1 0% Foreshafts 11 3% Tooth/ornament 1 0% Harpoons and lances 162 44% Wedges 8 2% Labrets 10 3% Worked bone 35 9%

Figure 6.8. Harpoon points with line holes.

Table 6.3. Bone artifacts.


80

Figure 6.9. Unilaterally and bilaterally barbed harpoon points.


81

Figure 6.10. One of the complete whale bone bowls.

6.5 Lithics Associated with Human Remains As noted previously, one of the goals of the salvage recovery was the recovery and documentation of funerary objects. There are seven lithic artifacts in the collection that were found associated with human remains. Five of these are illustrated in Figure 6.4 above. UNL050-17289. This artifact is a small stemmed point of staria basalt that is broken at the tip. Measuring 37.1 by 16.2 by 6.7 mm, it is bifacially flaked, with a relatively long stem and slight basal notching. UNL050-17228. This small obsidian point is 37 mm long, 20.2 mm wide, and 6.7 mm thick. It is lanceolate in shape, with fine pressure flaking along its edges. UNL050-17283. This is a small, stemmed point is bifacially flaked, with slight denticulation and a relatively long stem. It is 35.5 mm long, 12.9 mm wide, and 4.9 mm thick. UNL050-17030. This bifacial obsidian point is nearly triangular in shape and shows fine pressure flaking along the cutting edges. The piece is 33.2 mm long, 17 mm wide, and 4.9 mm thick. UNL050-18346. This stemmed point is broken at the haft and shows fine denticulation along the cutting margins. It is 39.6 mm long, 14.8 mm wide, and 6.2 mm thick.


82

UNL050-18345. This point is triangular in shape with a straight stem. It was made from a flake blank so that the dorsal face has “topography” and the ventral face is flat. There is bifacial retouch on stem and unifacial retouch on the point. T he artifact measures 45.2 by 20.4 by 6.3 mm. UNL050-18303. This item is a broad base knife of medium grain basalt that is 84.8 mm long, 26.7 mm wide, and 8 mm thick. It is bifacially flaked with slight basal notching and has long cutting edges relative to the stem. 6.6 “Unique or Unusual” Artifacts What constituted “unique or unusual” artifacts from UNL-050 only became apparent after the salvage recovery, when the 2006/2007 collection could be compared with the one described in Knecht and Davis’ 2005 report. Based on this ex post facto determination of uniqueness or unusualness, some classes of artifacts were selected for more detailed analyses. 6.6.1 Elaborately Barbed Lance Points A total of 15 elaborately barbed lance points are represented in the collection, including three unbroken specimens, one proximal fragment, three medial sections (two of which fit together UNL050-17469 and UNL050-17470), and eight distal pieces (see Figure 6.11 for examples). On one nearly complete lance point (UNL050-17946), part of the end slot and nearly half of that same side have broken off, although its barbs and tang are intact. These points range in length from 85 to 144 mm, with an average length of 118 mm. They range in diameter from 11.5 to 16 mm and have an average diameter of 14 mm. The specimens with the largest diameter are the two medial sections that fit together—19.1 and 19.8 mm each in diameter. The average diameter of all the specimens measured is 15.2 mm. Four specimens were found in Feature A whose hearth has been dated to 3265–3001 B.P. These points have many variations of style and elaboration, but typically have barbs that are larger and more elaborate on one side than the other. Some have barbs of similar size and shape along both sides or barbs only on one side. The barbs are carved and do not project very far from the shaft, if at all. The tips of the barbs are usually carved into more rounded shapes, and some barbs are slightly wider at the tip. The barbs seem to be more decorative than functional, and some of the barbs on the specimens that we found have been enhanced with incised lines. Adding to the elaboration on some specimens, smaller barbs have been carved into the larger ones (UNL050-17946, UNL050-17242, and UNL050-17364). One example (UNL050-17270) has barbs only along one side and has a deeply routed line down the length of the opposite side, and another one has barbs of similar size and shape on both sides (UNL050-17467). On a few of the lance points, the shaft is embellished with incised lines. All have longitudinal routed lines, or fluting, down the sides of the barbs, a characteristic of this type of lance point. This early style of barbed lance point typically has an end slot to hold a stone point (Laughlin 1952:32), although one of the Amaknak Bridge Site specimens appears to be self-tipped (UNL050-17242). Those with end slots are oriented so that the edges of the stone point would


83

Figure 6.11. Elaborately barbed lance points.


84

have been on the same plane as the barbs. Most have either a rounded tang—the same diameter or slightly smaller than the shaft—or tangs with a slightly more tapered, conical shape, although one specimens has a triangular-shaped tang (UNL050-17399). Characteristic of this type of lance point, there are either rings that encircle, or lobes that project out from, the shaft on one or both sides between the tang and the barbs. The lobes are arrayed parallel to the barbs (UNL050-17242, UNL050-17467, and UNL050-17725). Just above the lobes are sometimes notches or slight indentations that appear to be for line attachments. On some specimens, the tang is separated from the barbs by more elongated lobes of various lengths and shapes on one side of the shaft or on both sides below the basal barbs (UNL050-17946, UNL050-17270, and UNL050-17378). Two examples have a combination of both types of lobes (UNL050-17242 and UNL050-17467). The elongated lobes on two pieces have been decorated with raised geometric shapes (UNL050-17242 and UNL050-17946). Similar elaborately barbed lance points have been found in the lower levels of Chaluka on Umnak Island. Laughlin and Marsh (1951:82) depict three fragments from Chaluka that have the typical carved barbing, side fluting, and end slots. One specimen has an intact tang with a combination of both types of lobes described above that separates the tang from the basal barbs. One of the lobes is decorated with incised lines. Elaborately barbed lance points were found in the greatest quantity in the lower Chaluka levels (Laughlin 1952:32, Plate 2 item D). Laughlin (1963:80, Figure 2; 1980:81, Figure 35) labels this style as H-3 that he describes as a fluted harpoon head with an end slot and notes that they may be decorated with a small number of incised lines (Laughlin 1963:80). This type of bone point was likely used to the hunt large sea mammals and small whales (Laughlin 1980:81). Laughlin’s (1963:Figure 2; 1980:Figure 35) two examples have slightly tapered tangs. The barbs are carved but do not exhibit quite the elaboration seen in other examples. One of these (Laughlin 1980:Figure 35) has a circular ring that projects above the tang, and the barbing is of similar size and shape along both sides. Aigner (1966:59-61) refers to this type of lance point as Harpoon Head Class 1, “a predominantly early style,” and she shows two examples that she says are characteristic of the ones found in Chaluka level IV (1510 ± 132 B.C. and 1724 ± 55 B.C.) and level III (dated to 1120 ± 59 B.C. and 1198 ± 59 B.C). One example has a slightly conical tang, elongated lobes separating the tang from the barbs, and irregular barbing along both sides (Aigner 1966:Figure 9 No. 1). Another example has a slightly conical tang with a circular lobe above the tang and barbing on one side (Aigner 1966:Figure 28 No. 1). An example in Dumond (1977:73) from Umnak has two circular lobes above the slightly conical tang and similar barbing along both sides, but the end slot is perpendicular to the barbs instead of on the same plane. In his Prehistoric Art of the Aleutian Islands, Quimby (1948:Figure 4, item f) has a photograph of a fragment that he designates as being from the “early period.” It is similar in style to the elaborately barbed lance points found at the Amaknak Bridge Site and Chaluka. He notes that the specimens that he examined are from the Chicago Natural History Museum and the American Museum of Natural History, but he does not state where this particular fragment is from.


85

The Anchorage Museum at the Rasmuson Center has in their collection the proximal of an elaborately barbed lance point (Figure 6.12). This specimen came from Seattle with a collection from St. Lawrence Island made by Alan May (Walter Van Horn, personal communication to Jason Rogers 2008). However, it likely came from the Aleutians, as it is very similar to one of the specimens (UNL050-17499) from the Amaknak Bridge Site.

Figure 6.12. Elaborately barbed lance point in the collections of the Anchorage Museum. Photographs and illustrations in Jochelson (1925) and Hrdlicka (1945) do not depict any elaborately barbed lance points similar to the ones found at the Amaknak Bridge Site in 2006/2007 or those shown in Aigner (1966), Dumond (1977), Laughin and Marsh (1951), Laughlin (1952, 1963, 1980), and Quimby (1948). A check of an Alan May collection from the Aleutians housed at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) anthropology lab did not produce any elaborately barbed lance points. None of this type of lance point were found during excavations in 1996 and 1997 at the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048)—doubtless due to poor preservation of bone artifacts in the levels contemporaneous with the Amaknak Bridge Site (see Knecht et al. 2001:50-51)—nor during the 2000/2003 excavations at the Amaknak Bridge Site (Richard Knecht 2007, personal communication to Michael Yarborough). None have been reported from the western Aleutians (Debra Corbett 2007, personal communication to Michael Yarborough) or other sites on Unalaska (Douglas Veltre 2007, personal communication to Catherine Pendleton). No examples were found during a general perusal of the literature on other eastern Aleutian sites, the western Aleutians, Kodiak Island, the Alaska Peninsula, Cook Inlet, St. Lawrence Island, and western and northwestern Alaska. The specimens collected at the Amaknak Bridge Site in 2006/2007 and the above examples from Chaluka demonstrate the many variations in elaborately barbed lance point styles that existed between the two sites and even within each site (see Laughlin 1963:78). As observed by Laughlin (1952:32), differences in the manufacture of weapons and tools are likely due to individual, village, or island elaboration of a basic style—which in this case are the fundamental


86

characteristics of end slots, fluting, carved barbs, and rounded or slightly conical tangs like those found in the lower levels of Chaluka and at the Amaknak Bridge Site. The decoratively shaped and embellished barbs, incised lines, and other geometric shapes carved into these lance points demonstrate the creativity of the individual or group. As is the case with most handmade objects, no single elaborately barbed lance point is exactly like any other in the examples described above, however, there are similarities—some very close similarities—in elaboration. A test of obsidian fragments from the 2006/2007 Amaknak Bridge Site excavations showed that the obsidian source is Okmok Volcano on Umnak Island. Coupled with the similarity in stone-walled house construction found at Chaluka on Umnak Island and the Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge Sites on Unalaska Island (discussed elsewhere in this report) as well as the elaborately barbed lance points found in the early levels Chaluka and the Amaknak Bridge Site, this likely points to a trade network and shared manufacturing techniques between the people living on Umnak Island and those on Unalaska Island. 6.6.2 Whale Bone Mask Two fragments of a whale bone mask (Figure 6.13) were found just east of the eastern wall of Feature 70. The mask was broken in antiquity, as evidenced by the uniform coloring around the edges. When fit together, the pieces include the left eye, the bridge of the nose and both brow ridges, and a portion of the right eye. The eyes are oblong in shape and point towards the outside of the face. The bone is quite porous, especially on the back, but it is remarkably well preserved. The dorsal side of the mask is slightly convex, and it appears to have been stained with red ochre. The larger of the two pieces (UNL050-17962) is the middle section of the face. At its widest and longest, it measures 9.7 and 10.5 cm, respectively (see Table 6.1). It includes the bridge of the nose, half of each eye, and the forehead. The fragment is triangular in shape—the forehead being the broadest part. It angles down from the outer, broken edges of each brow ridge and comes to a point above the tip of the nose. The breaks are bilaterally symmetrical on either side of the nose. There are two holes in the top—one at the top edge above the nose and the other near the edge above the right eye. The smaller fragment (UNL050-17961) is 6.0 cm wide and 8.0 cm long. It comprises the left side of the face—from the middle of the eye to the upper edge of the mask. Masks have been collected from throughout the Central and Eastern Aleutian regions, as well as from the lower Alaska Peninsula, although few are thought to be as old as the Amaknak Bridge Site example. The masks are most often carved from wood and whale bone, but the miniature masks, called maskettes, are more commonly carved from ivory or pumice. Historic accounts of mask use have been documented from the Central and Eastern Aleutians. Although there were no historically documented instances of masks in the Western Aleutians, it is generally believed that that they were used throughout the entire chain (Black 2003:66).


87

Figure 6.13. Whale bone mask from the Amaknak Bridge Site. 6.6.2.1 Central Aleutians Captain Illarion Arkhimandritov, a skipper for the Russian-American Company, found two masks in a cave on Atka Island in the Central Aleutians in the nineteenth century that he described as “shaman’s masks” (Black 2003:68). These masks, housed in St. Petersburg, have tooth grips and holes along the edge, indicating that they were made to be worn by living people (Black 2003:68). One mask, presumably made of wood, has two parts: a face and a removable helmet. The face measures 23.5 cm high by 21 cm wide, and it has a broad nose and “strongly accented” eyebrow ridges (Black 2003:69). There is evidence of black pigment on the eyebrows (Black 2003:69). The second mask is 31 cm high by 23 cm wide. It is similar in design to the


88

face of the first mask, and it has evidence of black pigment on the chin and eyeholes and red pigment on the eyelids and mouth (Black 2003:69). Small rods that have been inserted into the face between the mouth and chin may represent labrets. 6.6.2.2 Eastern Aleutians Masks from the Eastern Aleutians have been recovered from the Islands of the Four Mountains and Tigalda, Umnak, Amaknak, and Unga islands. Theodore Bank recovered one complete mask and various mask fragments in 1948 from a cave on Kagamil Island in the Islands of the Four Mountains (Black 2003:70). The mask and fragments were “associated with an extended burial” radiocarbon dated to approximately 1690 B.P. Black (2003:70) likens the complete mask to relatively recent masks from Point Hope. The complete mask is stylistically different than the mask fragments, all of which were made from wood. The fragments were very thin, colored in reds and blues with black and white accents. They are thought to have been worn by whoever conducted the burial and were subsequently broken. One of the fragments (UMMA 44482) is fractured in a manner very similar to UNL050-17961, the smaller of the two pieces recovered from the Amaknak Bridge Site. The small size of the masks, no larger than 12 cm, and the holes around the edges suggest that they may have been the centerpieces of composite masks such as those from Kodiak Island (Black 2003:70). Ales Hrdlicka (1945:464) recovered a whale bone mask on Umnak Island that he believed was a child’s mask. Black (2003:77) disagrees, and asserts that small masks such as this Chaluka mask were likely masks for the dead. Two masks have previously been collected from Amaknak Island. Lydia Black (2003:73-74) believes both masks, made from whale bone, to be “masks of the dead.” Both masks are relatively thick and crudely carved. One of the two, recovered from the Amaknak Site B (UNL-054) during World War II, is a fragment depicting the two eyeholes, nasal bridge, and a portion of the forehead. The mask is unique in that there are linear incisions covering the face, the significance of which is unknown. It measures approximately 23.5 by 10 cm. The provenience of the second mask is unclear, other than it came from Amaknak Island. Only the lower portion of the mask, below the mouth, is missing. The mask has two eyeholes cut all the way through, a nose and mouth, and a horizontal incision on the forehead that runs the width of the mask. Both masks are part of the Cahn Collection, housed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (Black 2003:74). No mention is made about the age of the masks. Twelve masks were taken from a cave on Tigalda Island sometime around 1912 and taken to the former Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, in New York. One of those masks was acquired at auction by a private party in 1998 and donated to the Aleut people. It is now being housed at the Anchorage Museum at the Rasmuson Center. Seven of the twelve masks remain at the National Museum of the American Indian and four are currently unaccounted for (Black 2003:74). All of the masks from Tigalda had tooth grips, or rods on the inside that enabled the wearer to hold the mask between his or her teeth, as well as perforations on the sides for cord attachment (Black 2003:68, 74). The masks are thought to portray individual people. Lydia Black (2003),


89

who conducted an exhaustive study of Aleutian masks, thought that the Tigalda masks differed stylistically from any other known Aleutian masks and were not consistent with any historic descriptions of Unangan masks. Although it is not mentioned specifically in her description of the masks, they all appear to be carved of wood. The masks from Unga, in the Shumagin Island group south of the Alaska Peninsula, are said to be “[b]y far the most spectacular masks found in the Aleutian area” (Black 2003:79). Alphonse Louis Pinart collected these wooden masks in 1871. The masks and related artifacts were associated with the skeletal remains of four individuals located in a cave 50 m above sea level (Black 2003:79). The collection was taken to the Musèe des Beaux Arts et d’Archaèologie in France, where it remains housed today. In 1873, William H. Dall visited the same cave and collected additional masks and skeletal remains that are now housed in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural History (Black 2003:79). One of the masks in the Dall collection was “dated by modern methods” (Black 2003:86). The results were inconclusive, but suggest the masks are older than Pinart or Dall thought them to be. The masks from both the Pinart and Dall collections are quite large, averaging 38 to 50 cm in length by 25 to 40 cm in width. All have geometric designs along the cheekbone line and show traces of red, black, green, blue, and white pigmentation (Black 2003:82; Dall 1884:142). The masks are all thick and heavy, and many have large mandibles that protrude further than the rest of the mask features. They all have tooth grips, indicating that they were intended to be worn by living people. The brows are emphasized and the eyes, ranging from round to oblong, are not cut all the way through. The pupils are colored black. Several of the masks had wooden teeth inserted in the mouths (Black 2003:79-85). It is possible that feathers and other small decorative items were also inserted into the small holes around the edges of the masks (Dall 1878:30). Dall (1884:142) observed that the masks were only found in association with cave and rock shelter burials. 6.6.2.3 Alaska Peninsula There are three masks from the Hot Springs Village Site at Port Moller on the Alaskan Peninsula. According to Workman (1966:145), two charcoal samples from the bottom of the cultural levels of this site yielded dates of 2500 and 3000 years B.P. The site was occupied for at least a thousand years and possibly “until the beginning of the Christian era if not longer” (Workman 1966:146). McCartney (1969:5) suggests that some parts of the site may have been occupied “until the late prehistoric period.” Edward M. Weyer, with the Stoll-McCracken Arctic Expedition, who excavated a small portion of the site in 1928, recovered two whale bone masks that he suspected were ceremonial in nature (Weyer 1930:260). Both masks were in excellent condition, having been preserved in a stratum of midden. Both were found in the uppermost cultural levels of the site, at depths of approximately five feet, although Weyer was of the opinion that the smaller of the two masks was older. Okada et al (1979:15) collected a whale bone mask from the Hot Springs site in 1977 that was “quite similar to one of the masks excavated by Weyer in 1928 (Weyer 1930:258-259), but it is a little too small [16.2 cm in height] in size for a man to wear on the face.” Ray (1967:94-95) suggested that his piece might better be called a “mask-like object.”


90

Most similar to the Amaknak Bridge Site mask in both form and probable age is a whale bone mask from XCB-030, an archeological site at Strawberry Point in Izembek Lagoon. Found exposed on the surface of the site in 1975 by Lawrence Yatchemeneff, it is currently housed in the Anchorage Museum at the Rasmuson Center (Figure 6.14). Although there is no exact context for the mask, since it was found eroding out of the midden, there is a single radiocarbon date from the site: 2990±110 B.P. (Beta-29381). This date is for a piece of shell collected from a shovel test in the midden (O’Leary 2007:130). According to Maschner et al. (1997:71):

Strawberry Point is a large village with over 200 depressions spread across approximately 50,000 m2 of site area. The site is located on the point that separates Izembek from Moffet Lagoon. A single date from a cut bank submitted by the BIA calibrates to between 1000 and 600 BC (US BIA 1991:72). Further evidence that this site dates to this age is a whale bone mask collected from this site and donated to the Anchorage Museum of History and Art. This mask is exactly the same as a number of masks found during excavations at Port Moller 150 km to the northeast. These masks were all found in the context of Port Moller Phase II deposits (Okada 1989). Nineteen radiocarbon dates from this phase extend from approximately 1500 BC to 0 AD.

Like the Amaknak Bridge site example, the lower portion of the Izembek mask—the mouth and chin area—is missing. What remains is 16 cm long and 15 cm wide. The mask has eyes and brow ridges that are similar to the Amaknak Bridge Site mask. There is some discoloration on the dorsal side of the Izembek mask that could be ochre. Black (2003:72) suggests that the Izembek Lagoon mask was a death mask, placed unbroken on the chest of the deceased. Unfortunately, she mistakenly includes it in a category of masks that she describes as:

…crudely shaped, thick, with features indicated schematically, and though the eyeholes are cut through, there is no field of vision. There are no apertures or other features indicating that string or rod attachments of any kind existed or that, by implication, these masks formed part of a larger, composite arrangement or that they could be worn in some fashion (Black 2003:72).

Although there are no indications that the Izembek mask had tooth grips, there are two or three cord attachment holes on the back of the mask—on the left and right sides as well as on the top. 6.6.2.4 Comparison of the Amaknak Bridge Site and Izembek Lagoon Masks Table 6.4 summarizes the measurements of the Amaknak Bridge site and the Izembek Lagoon masks. Despite an effort at standardizing the metrical data, not all of the measurements could be recorded in exactly the same manner, given the differences between the two masks and the fact that the Amaknak mask is in two pieces. The Izembek example is also more deteriorated, especially in the area of the brow ridges.


91

Figure 6.14. Whale bone mask from Izembek Lagoon. Both masks are missing the bottom portion, although the nose of the Izembek mask, including the nostrils, is complete. The remaining portion of the Amaknak mask is smaller than the Izembek mask and the Amaknak mask is missing a small section from its right side. However, despite their size difference, the width of their brow ridges—8.9 cm for the Amaknak mask and 11.35 cm for the Izembek mask—and the distance from the center of the brow ridge to the inferior portion of the nose—6.4 cm on the Amaknak mask and 7.4 cm on Izembek mask—is very similar. The carved eye sockets are also much alike. Both masks have ridges around the eyeholes that protrude several millimeters from the face, although the outside corners are more pointed on the Amaknak mask and more rounded on the Izembek mask. Both masks are convex; however, the Izembek mask has more curvature than the Amaknak mask. It could be that the obvious lip around the edge of the Izembek mask is missing from—or did not exist on—the Amaknak mask.


92

Measurements/cm Amaknak Bridge Site Izembek Lagoon Thickness 2.79 4.62 Avg. Brow ridge width 8.9 11.35 Brow ridge length to bottom of nose-right 6.4 7.39 Brow ridge length to bottom of nose-left 6.4 7.36 Eye socket width-right N/A* 3.45 Eye socket length-right N/A 2.35 Eye socket width-left .83 4.24 Eye socket length-left 4.15 2.39 Eye cavity width-right N/A 2.8 Eye cavity length-right N/A 1.04 Eye cavity width-left 2.47 2.85 Eye cavity length-left .74 1.15 Nose length 5.65 6.22 Nose ridge height 1.01 .95 Nose ridge width .89 1.24 Nose ridge bottom width N/A 3.1

N/A = part of mask missing Table 6.4. Comparison of the Amaknak Bridge Site and Izembek Lagoon masks. The cheeks on the Izembek mask are quite prominent. They occupy the entire space on either side of the nose and below the eyes. The bottom of each cheek is approximately level with the bottom of the nose. 6.6.2.5 Mask Classification Although they are described in ethnographic accounts from the Aleutians, masks had gone out of use by the mid-nineteenth century. Russian Orthodox priests, appalled by the heathen nature of the masks themselves and the ceremonies for which they were crafted, destroyed all of the masks they could find (Ray 1967; Dall 1884). Masks that were not destroyed by the priests were bought or taken by traders, scientists, and other foreign travelers. 6.6.2.5.1 Ceremonial/Dancing Masks Dancing masks, also called ceremonial masks, were made to be worn by a living person. They varied from region to region in the Aleutians and were further distinguished by factors such as who was meant to wear them and the occasions when they were used. The known prehistoric dancing masks are generally grotesque, with distorted features, especially noses. They may be anthropomorphic or zoomorphic, or a combination of the two. They usually have tooth grips and/or holes for attachment either to the head or to the chest. Some masks are grooved around


93

the outer edge for a cord and were thought to have been attached to the chest rather than the head (Herb Maschner, personal communication to Shawna Rider 2008). Historic sources such as Billings (see Sauer 1802) suggest that some masks were made for special occasions and stored when not in use. Other masks, such as those made specifically for a burial, were broken after the ceremony, and the pieces were either left at the grave or thrown into the ocean. 6.6.2.5.2 Death Masks Death masks, also called “masks of the dead,” were placed over the face of the deceased. These masks were highly individualized and representative of the spirit or soul of the dead person. The eyes and mouths are always closed (Black 2003:74). They are generally smaller and thicker than dancing masks and more crudely carved. Usually made of ivory or whale bone, there is no means of attachment or tooth grips. The eyeholes are usually cut through, but there is no field of vision. Black (2003:71) includes in this category above-mentioned masks from Port Moller and Izembek Lagoon on the Alaska Peninsula, and Amaknak and Umnak islands in the Aleutians. Though they are not described in historic or ethnographic sources, it is believed that death masks were used only for burials in caves or rock shelters (Black 2003:72; Dall 1884:140). Ted Bank and Charles E. Shade independently recorded a Nikolski resident’s description of an ancient Aleut burial practice that consisted of putting a mask that represented the deceased on his or her chest. This mask remained intact. Those participating in the burial also wore masks that were ceremonially broken and left at the grave (Black 2003:72). 6.6.2.5.3 Maskettes A third classification of masks is the maskette. Masksettes are small—on the scale of 4 by 6 cm—and carved from pumice or ivory. Very little mention is made of this type of mask in the literature. Dall (1884:93) describes a maskette as “Symbolical of social agencies…An object resembling a mask, but intended to be worn above or below the face. Normally without perforations.” Two possible pumice maskettes were found at the Margaret Bay site on Amaknak Island (Knecht et al. 2001:50) and two janus-faced maskettes were been collected from Amchitka Island (Black 2003:55-56). The latter, both made of ivory, are intricately carved on both sides. 6.6.3 Microblade Cores Knecht and Davis (2005:94) recovered 10 microblade cores from the Amaknak Bridge Site in 2003:

Microblade cores were the most abundant variety of core forms at Amaknak. They do not conform to any consistent pattern. No wedge-shaped microcores were found. The microblade cores typically had 2 to 5 microblade removal scars and were frequently bipolar. Their platforms generally resembled the edge of a large biface. That is, removals were most likely made by pressure along the long


94

axis of a flake from both the ventral and dorsal surfaces. The final result took on a wedge shaped appearance, but unlike the typical wedge shaped core, the wedge was at the proximal, not the distal end. They were almost all made from chert.

Nine blade cores and two platform rejuvenation flakes were collected from UNL-050 during the 2006 and 2007 field seasons (Figures 6.15, 6.16, and 6.17). Two are “classic” wedge-shaped cores. Others are fragmentary or were repeatedly rotated in attempts to obtain more blades from lesser-quality material. The cores are of several types of raw material, including cherts and obsidian. The individual cores are described below and some of their quantitative attributes are summarized in Table 6.5. These quantitative data are intended for comparative purposes, although the UNL-050 cores have a great deal of morphological variability and it was difficult to obtain consistent size measurements for every specimen. For this reason, Andrefsky prefers to characterize cores not by length, width, and thickness, but by a combination of weight and maximum linear dimension. The maximum linear dimension (MLD) multiplied by weight provides a uniform measure of size (Andrefsky 1998:139).

Table 6.5. Microblade cores (excluding fragments)

Length: from 28.5 mm to 53.9 mm Width: from 13.9 mm to 35.6 mm Thickness: 16.7 mm to 43.0 mm (corresponds to maximum breadth across use platform) MLD: 34.7 mm to 55.9 mm Weight: 15.4 g to 48.7 g Size Index: 534 to 2,426

For the cores described below, measurements of platform length were made along the long axis of the platform. Platform widths were taken perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Core height is the maximum distance between the platform and the base. “Natural” core height was measured with the core naturally resting on its platform. It often differs from the maximum core height, since many of the cores cant to one side or the other. 6.6.3.1 Core Descriptions UNL050-17040. This is a weathered block of fine-grained, green chert that is more or less rectangular in both shape and section. Made from a poorer-quality material, this core shows microblade scars across several faces. A number of blades were struck from the initial working platform, and then perhaps because of problems inherent with the raw material, the core was turned upside down for subsequent working. Microblades were thus struck from two opposite platforms, in two different directions. Scars removed from the initial cortex-covered platform are water-worn, although the blade scar on the right face, as well as the bifacial flaking on the keel, is unweathered. Crushing is apparent on both platforms/bases, and numerous flake scars are visible on both obverse and reverse sides.


95

Figure 6.15. Four of the microblade cores from the salvage recovery. UNL050-17197. Made of obsidian, this core has a triangular section through the platform. It is tall and narrow and tapers to a sharp keel. Viewed from the front, it is almost rectangular in shape, although the keel edge is curved. There is one blade scar along the edge that forms the base of the triangular platform. It hinge fractured at a vein in the obsidian. There are two other possible blade scars on an adjacent face, but these were struck from the keel. The face opposite this one is flaked and battered. A rejuvenation flake struck from the “base” of the triangular platform did not quite extend all the way to the “apex”. There is retouch along one lateral edge and distal end. Bands and inclusions of volcanic “tuff” made this a difficult piece to work. UNL050-17418. This artifact is an irregular-shaped (rather amorphous) chunk of obsidian with some large inclusions that has had blades struck from two intersecting platforms. It is oval in section and very roughly rectangular in shape. The core was rotated and struck from various angles, likely in an attempt to avoid inclusions in the poor-quality raw material.


96

Figure 6.16. Microblade cores.


97

Figure 6.17. Microblade cores.


98

UNL050-17638. Wedge-shaped and with an approximately rectangular section, this microblade core is made of fine-grained green chert. The core was broken, likely during the production of microblades. UNL050-17795. Also wedge-shaped, this core of black cryptocrystalline silicate has a more or less oval platform. This core was at or near the final stage in the reduction process when it was discarded. It tapers to a sharp keel that runs at an angle to the platform. Blade scars are apparent on all of its faces, although the last several strikes resulted in small flakes. Another strike broke a piece of the core from the base, leaving a step-fracture halfway up the piece. Some crushing is apparent around the platform’s edge. UNL050-17832. This is a fragmentary core of dark green chert marbled with red veins. This fragmentary piece exhibits several microblade scars, although both the working platform and base are broken off and missing. There are two flake scars across the top of the platform, struck from the blade face. One extends the full length of the platform along one edge, while the other runs only a short distance along the other edge, failing to remove a blocky area of cortex. The back face of the core is opalized. Some crushing is apparent at the top of the blade scars, perhaps a small remnant of the platform. As with the other cores in the collection, this one shows a lot of general battering. UNL050-18072. This wedge-shaped microblade core is made of fine-grained green chert. Morphologically, this piece exhibits the most “classic” features of a formally correct microblade core. There are scars from eight fully or partially removed blades on the face. The platform shows both front and side struck preparation flakes. Very small step-fractures are apparent along the platform edge along the blade face, and one blade-scar terminates in a step-fracture. A piece has broken off the triangular working platform at the back of the core. A large flake was also taken off the platform in a rejuvenation attempt, from the obverse to the reverse face. UNL050-18085. This microblade core was crafted of very fine-grained green chert. It is another classic wedge-shaped core, with at least six microblade scars across the blade face. It is roughly rectangular in section, with the dorsal face made up of the bulb of percussion. The irregular triangle-shaped working platform is intact over the entire top of the core. Crushing is apparent at the edge of the platform above the blade face. A single large flake scar takes up most of the obverse face, possibly a result of core preparation. Crushing is also apparent at the core’s base, where it was placed on a hard surface during the working process. The ventral keel is hinge fractured. UNL050-18327. Made of fine-grained, dark green chert, this fragmentary blade core is roughly triangular in cross section through the platform. This core’s platform was broken off at an acute angle in a likely rejuvenation attempt. Blade scars, across most of the obverse face and a portion of the reverse face, range in width from 11 to 15 mm. A large flake extending up from the keel has removed the bottom portion of the three blade scars on the front face. Some crushing is apparent on the base, probably from resting on a hard surface while being worked. UNL050-17479. This side-struck, core rejuvenation flake is made of fine-grained light green chert. The tabular detached piece shows two large flake scars and some battering on the top of


99

the platform from what looks like previous rejuvenation attempts. One vertical edge—up to 10.1 mm high—has four blade scars. The distal end and lateral margins are retouched for use as a cutting and scraping tool. UNL050-18337. This artifact is a possible platform rejuvenation flake. It is multicolored, orangish, reddish, to almost yellowish chert. It is an irregularly oval flake with a triangular section that, when turned at a bit of an angle, has a roughly rectangular platform with two 14.7 mm tall blade scars at one corner. It is 25.8 mm long and 19.0 mm wide. 6.6.3.2 Discussion Cryptocrystalline silicates (cherts) were clearly the favored materials for blade and microblade production at UNL-050, accounting for seven out of nine (or 78% by frequency) of the recovered cores. This compares with 57% for the Anangula collection (Del Bene 1982:177,183), and 65% (of blades and microblades) for the Amaknak Quarry site (UNL-469, ca. 7000 B.P.; Rogers et al. 2008). According to a widely accepted criterion (e.g. Taylor 1962) that defines a “microblade” as a blade less than 11 mm wide, eight of the nine cores analyzed were used for microblade production. Dividing these cores into large and small categories would therefore appear to be spurious, since their size does not appear to be typologically significant. Rather, it seems to be a factor of raw material and stage in the reduction process. As a whole, the morphology of cores from UNL-050 is irregular. The cores are only as formally correct as the raw material allows. The more “classic” cores are those that are of better raw material and furthest along in the reduction sequence. However, it seems that the concern was not so much with correctness of shape, as it was with production of microblades. The primary goal was the production of “the maximum number of blades from each core...” (Gallison 1983:161), although it would appear that few of the Bridge Site cores produced a large number of microblades. On the other hand, it is obvious that a core did not have to be morphologically perfect to yield microblades. Comparison of the UNL-050 cores with those from Anangula demonstrates continuity of the technological format. Cores from the Anangula site are highly variable. Cobbles of various shapes, sizes, and materials were used to produce a variety of blades, blade-like flakes, microblades, and flakes. This process was very flexible; if a cobble proved unsuitable for one type of core, it could easily be converted into another (Smith 1978:14). Cores made of finer grained materials tend to be more extensively utilized and are more regular in shape (Aigner 1970:64). Aigner (1970:63) cautions that because their form changed as they were reduced, “cores cannot be placed in a type category on the assumption that the end product observed is the end product of a linear manufacturing process.” However, there are some characteristics shared by the Anangula cores which can be attributed to manufacturing procedures and preference: “rejuvenation by rotation and by platform or tablet removal, platform preparation by flaking, and extensive rather than confined use of the platform for the production of both blade and flake blanks” (Aigner 1970:63-64).


100

Perhaps the most significant feature of the UNL-050 cores is their relative scarcity at the site. Core-and-blade techniques form the exclusive technological format of the oldest known Aleutian site, Anangula (ca. 9000 B.P.). The earliest example of a biface is that from the Amaknak Quarry site, ca. 7000 B.P. (Rogers et al. 2008). The oldest occupation at the nearby Margaret Bay site (Level 5, ca. 6000 B.P.) contained stemmed and bi-pointed bifaces, becoming more abundant in later levels (Knecht et al. 2001:56). Bifacial flake artifacts dating to ca. 6000 B.P. were also found at Sandy Beach Bay on Umnak (Aigner et al. 1976; Aigner 1983), and clearly formed the fundamental basis of lithic industry by ca. 3000 B.P. at the Amaknak Bridge site. The blade cores from UNL-050 represent the youngest and final examples of this technological format from the Aleutians. 6.6.4 Arctic Small Tool Tradition Elements The Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) has been viewed as a marker of terrestrial hunters who were the first to reach the High Arctic of North America. The presence of Arctic (ASTt) elements at the Margaret Bay site, therefore, was a significant finding, perhaps indicating a much wider range for its development and dispersion (Knecht and Davis 2005:170). Artifacts and features typical of ASTt from Margaret Bay included knives; small and beaked endscrapers; small flat base points with parallel flaking and frequently fine, denticulate edges; microblades; burins; ground burin like tools; adze bits with grinding on the bits; and the use of brightly colored cherts for scrapers (Knecht and Davis 2005:170-171, 2008:71). Given the discoveries at Margaret Bay, determining whether there were ASTt elements among the artifacts from the Amaknak Bridge site was subsequently a goal of both the 2003 data recovery and 2006/2007 salvage recovery projects. Following their excavations, Knecht and Davis compared the artifact assemblages from the two sites, and concluded that:

Some of these features were present at Amaknak Bridge but were in low frequency. In qualitative terms there were several differences. At Amaknak Bridge the fine parallel flaking with denticulate edges on the small projectile points was rare, burin like ground tools were absent, adze bits had much more extensive grinding generally covering the entire ventral surface, and the distinctive colorful chert small scrapers were infrequent as were the characteristic bell shaped scrapers. All in all there is no persuasive evidence for the ASTt at Amaknak Bridge (Knecht and Davis 2005:170-171).

The 2006/2007 excavations greatly expanded the artifact collection from UNL-050 and provided an opportunity to once again ascertain the presence or absence of ASTt elements at this site. The collections were examined for artifact types and features identified by Knecht and Davis above. Beaked endscrapers were very infrequent, points with parallel flaking and denticulate edges were infrequent, microblades were present although not common, burins virtually non-existent, and small chert scrapers very infrequent. Adzes with basal grinding were fairly common, though of different morphology and style than those from the ASTt. Artifacts recovered during the 2006 and 2007 field seasons therefore do not provide significant evidence for the presence of ASTt at the Amaknak Bridge site. This finding corroborates Knecht and Davis’s conclusion following the 2003 excavations.


101

7. Paleoclimate 7.1 Implications of Paleoclimate Reconstruction on the Basis of Faunal Material from UNL-050 Excavations at UNL-050 have significantly improved our knowledge of mid-Holocene climatic changes (especially the Neoglacial), and human responses to those climatic shifts. The Neoglacial was a period of global cooling beginning in the mid-Holocene and lasting more than 2000 years (from ca. 4700 B.P. to ca. 2500 B.P.) (Crockford and Frederick 2007). Arctic regions of the Northern Hemisphere were significantly impacted by climatic effects of the Neoglacial. Climate reconstructions based on proxy indicators demonstrate a precipitous drop in global temperatures around 3000 B.P. This period also marks a transitional boundary for many arctic and subarctic cultures in terms of subsistence and technology (Knecht and Davis 2005:186, with references). One important goal of the 2003 excavation was recovery of data that would help elucidate the effects of post-Neoglacial climatic changes on subsistence, settlement patterns, and artifact assemblages. The Amaknak Bridge Site is of particular interest in this regard due to the period of occupation through these climatic changes (and across the chronological boundary between the Margaret Bay and Amaknak phases of Eastern Aleutian Prehistory) (Knecht and Davis 2005:185). Faunal material recovered from the Margaret Bay site included several key ice-edge species such as polar bear, walrus, and ringed seal (Davis 2001). The presence of pagophilic fauna indicates a sea ice habitat extending to the vicinity of Unalaska Island during the Neoglacial. The research design guiding the 2003 excavation thus included a significant focus on the archaeological correlates of climate change apparent at the Unalaska Bridge Site. A small subsample of the faunal collections from the 2003 excavations was analyzed by Pacific Identifications, Inc. of Victoria, B.C. The analysis (Crockford et al. 2005) was included as an appendix to the 2005 site report (Knecht and Davis 2005). A total of 12,548 pieces of mammal bone were identified to family level or better (5,947 pieces of the mammal assemblage were identified to species level). The analysis identified both temperate and pagophilic species, and demonstrates a subsistence pattern of sea-bird hunting and deep-sea fishing augmented by hunting for a variety of sea mammals. Sea mammals present in the sample were: fur seal (40%); ringed seal (32%); harbor porpoise (10%); harbor/spotted seal (10%); bearded seal (4%); and Stellar’s sea lion (3%). Other taxa present at a frequency of less than 1% included Dall’s porpoise, ribbon seal, walrus, polar bear, and sea otter. Five species of whale were identified (beluga, fin whale, humpback whale, Baird’s beaked whale, right whale, and the first record of long-finned pilot whale in the Eastern North Pacific) (Crockford et al. 2005:vii; Crockford and Frederick 2007:702). The analysis concluded that throughout the duration of the UNL-050 occupation, the focus of subsistence exploitation was on marine and marine foreshore environments. Further research based in part on the 2005 analysis has since been reported, with great implications for sea mammal distribution patterns (and possibly for the human history of the Bering Straits and high arctic regions). Juvenile remains of two key pagophilic species, bearded seal and ringed seal, provide “incontrovertible evidence” of regular summer sea ice in the vicinity of Unalaska (Crockford and Frederick 2007:704). These species in particular are


102

dependent on sea ice for birthing, weaning their young, and moulting. Although animals of all ages were harvested, 49% of the bearded seal remains were of newborns or newly weaned young less than two months of age. Remains of ringed seal, a species strongly identified with sea ice virtually year round, make up the second largest category of mammals recovered. Crockford and Frederick (2007) have used this evidence to argue for substantial expansion of sea ice in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial, potentially altering the distribution of North Pacific pinnipeds and cetaceans. Sea ice expansion would make the Pribilof Islands (200 miles north of Unalaska) inaccessible as rookery locations for fur seals, prompting them to establish breeding colonies along the Aleutian chain. Recolonization of the Pribilofs by fur seals could only have occurred after climatic amelioration, meaning the current pattern of breeding and pupping on the Pribilofs cannot be older than about 2,500 years. Sea ice would also have blocked the Bering Strait virtually year round, preventing migration of whales into the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean. Crockford and Frederick (2007:705) thus suggest that resident (non-migratory) whale populations were established in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial, and that current migration patterns are also no older than ca. 2,500 years. These data and suggestions have considerably revised previous assumptions that the Aleutian climate has been substantially unchanged over the last 10,000 years (i.e. Laughlin and Aigner 1973:183-184). Results of the UNL-050 faunal analysis also have potential implications for the origin, movement, and spread of various human cultures in the Bering Sea, Bering Straits, and beyond. The origins of Thule culture in particular, though explored by many researchers, have never been adequately explained (cf. Dumond 1973:170). Highly mobile Thule peoples spread quickly across the high arctic from Alaska to Greenland about 1,000 years ago, using a distinctive toolkit and subsistence strategy. As Thule subsistence was to a large degree based on whale hunting and harvesting, the search for early signs of Thule culture has been greatly connected with the search for evidence of early whaling. Crockford (2008) uses evidence from the Bridge Site to suggest that the most basic elements of Arctic Thule culture may have developed in the Eastern Aleutians during the Neoglacial. Rather than just whaling, however, the Aleutian progenitors of Thule culture were highly adapted to a specific habitat (the southern edge of seasonal sea ice). Neoglacial redistribution of pinnipeds and cetaceans allowed the early Aleuts to develop these specialized subsistence strategies, which shifted in focus as they followed the retreating ice-edge north around 2500 B.P. In Crockford’s view, the integration of dog traction, ceramics, and smelted iron (probably acquired through Siberian contacts with St. Lawrence Island) with the Aleutian Neoglacial ice-edge subsistence technology is in fact the genesis of Thule culture. With these key elements in place, highly mobile seal and whale hunters spread quickly through Bering Straits and across the high Arctic. Thule ancestors were not exclusively whaling specialists, but harvested a number of species within the productive ice-edge zone. The essential technologies of Thule ice-edge hunting (including required boats and clothing) thus developed in the Eastern Aleutians during the Neoglacial (Crockford 2008:126-127).


103

8. Conclusions 8.1. Objectives The objectives of the 2006-2007 investigations at the Amaknak Bridge Site, as outlined in the Salvage Recovery Plan, included the recovery of any additional human burials within the project area, mapping and documentation of house structures, recovery of additional samples for radiocarbon dating, and excavation of extensive stratigraphic profiles. The focus on these areas of inquiry was in part a result of recommendations from previous investigators, especially those involved in the 2003 data recovery. These goals were accomplished by the 2006 and 2007 salvage recovery. In addition, the salvage recovery project, in combination with previous investigations, has increased our understanding of culture history, subsistence ecology, and adaptation to environmental changes in the Eastern Aleutians. In a region with such a rich history of human occupation, all research helps to fill the gaps in our knowledge, while also raising new questions and directions for future work. 8.2. Human Occupants of the Amaknak Bridge Site The human remains at the site represent a record of the interaction of individuals and their environment (Arthur 2009). This history includes the complex interrelationships, not only between peoples, but also between individuals and a multitude of physical and biological factors that affect their wellbeing. Data concerning demographic patterns, disease, diet, and mortuary customs are available from human skeletal remains and their archaeological context. This information is often not available from any other source. Relatively little is known concerning the skeletal biology and health of the early prehistoric inhabitants of the Aleutian Island chain. Compared to other regions of North America, there have been few paleopathological or osteological analyses of Aleutian populations. Studies of mummies from the Aleutian Islands (Zimmerman et al. 1981), and skeletal remains (Y’Edynak 1976; Keenleyside 1998) have yielded some insights into Aleut health. However, much of the material examined by these studies was collected by Jochelson (1925) and Hrdlicka (1941a, b) and is relatively recent in origin and/or poorly documented. The individuals buried at the Amaknak Bridge site presented an unusual opportunity to examine demographic patterns, health, physiological stress, and mortuary customs of the Unangam inhabitants of Unalaska Island during the period of approximately 3500 to 2400 B.P. The archaeological and biological data recovered as a result of the excavation of the site have significantly contributed to our understanding of life in the Aleutian Islands 3,000 years ago. It is difficult to calculate what the population of the Amaknak Bridge site might have been at any given time. Some insight can be provided by an analysis of the habitation structures, which must begin with the estimated amount of dwelling space available from year to year. However, not all structures at the site were dated (or even excavated). With these caveats, and working within the limitations of the available data, a rough baseline population can be gauged. At its maximum extent around 3000 B.P., the settlement was composed of at least 10 to 12 house structures with a total estimated 120 to 150 m2 of living space. A population of 150 individuals would therefore


104

result in a habitation density of 1 person per square meter (or higher), with an average of 15 people per house. This number seems unreasonably high (and nearly physically impossible). A population of 50 individuals would mean a habitation density of one person for every 3 m2, or an average of 5 people per house. Reducing the population to 30 would allow 5 m2 per person, or just 3 people per house. A population towards the lower end of the range would certainly be more likely to fail due to disease, war, or natural disaster. Toward the higher end of the range, the physical habitation capacity of the settlement would be strained (as would food procurement ability). In light of these data, it seems that a rough, but reasonable, baseline estimate would be an average population of between 40 and 60 people. 8.3 Extent of the Amaknak Bridge Site Another stated goal of the salvage recovery was the determination of the full extent of the site, which turned out to be larger, deeper, and more complex than expected or predicted by previous investigators (see Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1). This simply reflects one of the basic truths of Alaskan archeology—that prehistoric sites are never smaller than one thinks they are—although the Amaknak Bridge Site ultimately proved to have over three and a half times the volume that Knecht and Davis estimated in 2003. This obviously affected the duration and cost of the project, but also influenced the methodological approach to the recovery. The estimated 2,750 m3 of cultural deposits extended approximately 45 m north to south and 43 m east to west, with the main axis of settlement running approximately 55 m from northwest to southeast. The site’s surface area measured approximately 1,360 m2. The cultural deposits ranged in depth from 15 cm to nearly 2 m and were deepest at the northeastern corner of the site. Approximately 20% of the total site area at the western edge of the settlement was outside the project limits and remains after the bridge construction. 8.4 Architecture and Structural Features One of the greatest advantages of the salvage recovery was the opportunity to document all of the structures within approximately 80% of the site (excluding the portion outside the project limits, which remains unexcavated). These are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 (sections 3.6 through 3.10), with additional thoughts below. Chapter 3 also includes important new information on burial structures (see 3.10.4 Burial Structures). The house forms seen at UNL-050 may potentially be understood by comparison and analogy with others from across the polar and sub-arctic regions. Studies of the relationship between housing form and culture have been undertaken in many areas of Alaska and the Arctic north (cf. Mauss 1979; Dawson 2007:113,117). Tight clustering and the relatively large size of some structures are indicative of social aggregation, communal effort, and cooperation in building and maintaining houses. Communal spaces such as the Eskimo kashim (or qasgi) are common to many types of prehistoric polar and arctic winter dwellings. Collaborative endeavors and shared living spaces are often a strategy for dealing with fluctuations in climate. Harsh environmental conditions may lead to communal responses in getting and sharing food and fuel (Lee and Reinhardt 2003:10-11).


105

The connection between house structure, climate and seasonality has been noted for various locations in western Alaska as well (i.e. Giddings and Anderson 1986). Deeper (and better insulated) houses are interpreted as winter dwellings (Bundy 2007), or as response to generally colder conditions (Knecht and Davis 2005:52). Thick walls such as those found at UNL-050 also may be a cold weather adaptation, being necessary to support a heavy sod roof as well as providing increased insulation. The elaborate hearth complexes found at the site are also evidence of innovative and effective mechanisms constructed for dealing with cold and hostile environments. The organizational adaptations displayed at UNL-050 seem to have dissipated as Neoglacial conditions gradually ameliorated during the second millennium B.P.

Reconstruction of hearth complexes, or building new hearths directly above older ones, was noted in at least three locations at the site. Rebuilding and superimposition of structures demonstrates continuity of occupation, and suggests inherited ownership over several generations (similar privately-owned permanent dwellings have been suggested for late Norton-period Eskimo settlements, cf. Dumond 1973:173). The clear focus on rebuilding of hearths, in addition to the careful and elaborate original construction, may also indicate the central importance of these complexes to the site’s inhabitants. Based on the structures uncovered during the 2000 and 2003 excavations, Knecht and Davis (2005:183-184, 2008:76) suggested that the Amaknak Bridge site architecture demonstrates emerging social complexity and possibly ranking. This conclusion was based primarily on the size and shape of Structure 7, considered by the excavators to be a multi-room dwelling. Following the 2006-2007 excavation, as stated above, we have come to a different conclusion regarding the existence of multi-room buildings at the site. However, we concur in essence that the architecture, especially the larger rectangular structures, does represent the initial emergence of features and design that would persist in the Aleutians until the period of European contact. It is likely that this also represents a process of social differentiation as reflected in the material culture. As noted by many researchers, houses are among the most informative archaeological remains available for study (e.g. Hoffman 1999:26). Stone walled semi-subterranean houses are common throughout the arctic and sub-arctic regions. These structures provide ideal insulation and protection from the elements while taking full advantage of available building materials. Similar structures and features exist in other regions of North America and Eurasia. There are, however, important differences with the Aleutian structures, mainly in the method of entry, and the placement and construction of hearths. Many Eskimo winter dwellings across the Arctic were semi-subterranean stone-lined structures. Entry to stone-lined Eskimo dwellings from coastal Alaska and the high Arctic is nearly always through an entrance tunnel at or below ground level (Lee and Reinhardt 2003:160). Hearths in Eskimo dwellings and most other semi-subterranean structures from the arctic are placed in the center rather than against a wall. Sub-floor heating channels, ducts, and flues from this region are virtually unknown. Other examples of sub-floor hearth channels and ducts serve to illustrate the unusual and unique nature of those found at UNL-050. For example, sophisticated hearth-ventilation systems were built into ceremonial kiva structures in the pueblos of the American southwest. Kiva ventilators consisted of a vertical shaft from ground level down, turning horizontal and entering the


106

structure’s interior at floor level. A deflector stone or wall is usually situated between the ventilator opening and the hearth pit (Fewkes 1908). This type of ventilator feature is known in semi-subterranean houses from Kamchatka (Vasil’evskii et al. 1964:21) to South America (Gonzalez 1953:272). These ventilators are, however, of completely different construction style than the UNL-050 hearth channels: entering the structure at or above floor level and either removed or blocked from the hearth. The UNL-050 features, on the other hand, lead directly from the hearth chambers, and slope upward for some distance beneath the floor into the structure’s interior. Also important in this case, ventilators must have an opening outside the structure, to provide access to fresh air. The UNL-050 hearth channels all end within the structure itself. Shafts connecting hearth features to chimneys or vents are known from a number of pit-house sites in northern Japan. These semi-subterranean structures of Honshu’s Ogawara culture (ca 2500 – 1600 B.P.) are round or oval, with hearths located adjacent to the structure wall. In the Ogawara structures, “clay-lined flues” leading from hearths to vertical clay-lined chimneys are interpreted as passages for exhaust gasses rather than sources of fresh air (Chase 1953; MacCord 1955). Variations of a domestic heating system in Manchuria, China (known as kang) and Korea (ondol) also used the principle of embedded flues to provide structural heat. The Chinese kang is essentially a heated bed, while the ondol is a heated floor. Hot air from the hearth circulates through clay passages or ceramic tile flues, and exits through a chimney. The earliest mention of ondol comes from the 14th century, though the system likely developed from a much earlier common origin (Guo 2002:36). Subfloor hearth ventilation channels or shafts are also known from several sites in Peru, dating to the Late Preceramic Period (4500 – 3800 B.P.). The Peruvian sites feature a central hearth with four covered subfloor shafts leading outside the structure (Pozorski and Pozorski 1996:348). The structures were interpreted as ceremonial or ritual chambers, used only for small groups of people. Neither the kivas nor the Peruvian ventilated hearth structures were intended for ordinary habitation, and ventilated hearths are not the norm for these cultures and periods in other structure types. From the above evidence, it seems that Knecht and Davis’s interpretation of the sub-floor trenches at UNL-050 as heating channels is the most reasonable. This complex of features has no precise analogue in the Americas, and perhaps neither in Eurasia. It is unlikely that the features seen at UNL-050 (such as structure architecture and hearth complex elements) are unique and exclusive to this particular site. The lack of comprehensive research and general paucity of archaeological excavation in the Aleutian region means that few sites from this period have been investigated. Other sites in the near vicinity (such as UNL-046, Agnes Beach) have potential to yield similar features (and would certainly refine interpretations of population density, site function, social complexity, etc.). Although the Amaknak Bridge Site may not be unique, it represents a (so far) unique and singular opportunity to investigate some of the astonishing and complex adaptations developed by prehistoric inhabitants of the Eastern Aleutian Islands.


107

8.5 Radiocarbon Dating and Chronology All 26 of the radiocarbon dates from the site are summarized in Chapter 4. The 13 dates from 2006 and 2007, with a range from 2450 ± 40 to 3390 ± 40 B.P., are remarkably consistent with those from Bacon’s testing (3360 ± 95 and 3070 ± 95 B.P.) and from Knecht and Davis’ two seasons of work at the site (2590 ± 90 to 3470 ± 70 B.P.). In short, the salvage recovery confirmed that the Amaknak Bridge Site was occupied between about 3,500 and 2,500 years ago. This spot, overlooking the channel on the northeastern corner of the southern portion of Amaknak Island, was a very desirable village location for approximately 1,000 years, but not before or after. 8.6 Stratigraphy All the stratigraphic information from the many years of work at the site is summarized in Chapter 5. The methodologies used in the salvage recovery allowed a unique opportunity to expose long vertical sections of the cultural deposits. These, and the numerous other profiles recoded in 2006 and 2007, revealed that the stratigraphy at the Amaknak Bridge Site varied greatly across the length and breadth of the site. This is not surprising, given the size of the site, its long history of occupation, and the repeated use of certain locales, but it does clearly show that no single profile could have captured the complexity of the cultural deposits. 8.7 Artifacts Over four thousand artifacts were collected during the salvage recovery. Many of the items found in situ were plotted with a total station and cataloged. Other pieces, such as artifacts found on the surface or in backdirt piles, were gathered into a general collection. Ultimately, however, certain notable items from the general collection were added to the catalog. Included in the cataloged collection are 381 bone, 553 chipped stone, and 244 ground stone artifacts. The rest of this collection includes faunal elements, charcoal and other samples, a silver-plated fork, and a Coke can. In the general collection are 527 bone, 2,012 chipped stone, and 254 ground stone artifacts, and several historic items, including a toy car, a ceramic insulator, glass bottles, and a broken trowel from the 1977 excavation. Except for the few “unique or unusual” artifact types described in detail above, the collection from the salvage recovery is qualitatively very similar to that described by Knecht and Davis (2005) in their final report on the 2003 data recovery. Nothing found in 2006 and 2007 contradicts Knecht and Davis’s (2005:45) conclusion that:

[a]lthough it seems certain that the site was occupied for several centuries before and after 3000 BP, no major differences in the artifact assemblages or tool types have been observed so far in our analysis of various levels at the site. Consequently, we view UNL-50 as an essentially single component prehistoric site.

The large, general and cataloged collections from the salvage recovery certainly have value for future research. However, the most profitable avenue to learning more about the Amaknak


108

Bridge Site and its occupants would be more detailed and quantitative analysis of the provenienced collection from the 2003 data recovery. An excellent example of this is the recent and on-going consideration of broader meaning of the—albeit small—analyzed collection of fauna from the site by Susan Crockford and her colleagues at Pacific Identifications, Inc. (see Chapter 7).


109

9. References Cited Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties: A Handbook. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Aigner, Jean 1966 Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):57-83. 1970 The Unifacial, Core and Blade Site on Anangula Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 7(2):59-88. 1978 Activity Zonation in a 4000 Year Old Aleut House, Chaluka Village, Umnak Island, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 19(1):11-25. 1983 Sandy Beach Bay, Umnak Island, Alaska: A Mid-Holocene Aleut Village Site on the Bering Sea. Report to the Alaska Historical Commission. Aigner, Jean S., and Alan M. Bieber, Jr. 1976 Preliminary Analysis of Stone Tool Distributions and Activity Zonation at Anangula, an 8500 B.P. Coastal Village in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 13(2):46-59. Aigner, Jean S., Bruce Fullem, Douglas Veltre, and Mary Veltre 1976 Preliminary Reports on Remains from Sandy Beach Bay, a 4300-5600 BP Aleut Village. Arctic Anthropology 13(2):83-90. Andrefsky, William 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Arthur, Edward P. 2009 Analysis of the Amaknak Bridge (UNL 050) Human Remains and Burial Features. Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC, Anchorage. Arutiunov, S.A. 1998 Koryak and Itelmen: Dwellers of the Smoking Coast. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, editors, pp 31-34. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Bacon, Glenn 1977 A Preliminary Narrative Report on the 1977 Excavation at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Report prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.


110

Bank, Theodore P. II 1953 Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19(1):40-49. 1974 Letter to Karen Workman, State Archeologist, Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Black, Lydia T. 2003 Aleut Art: Unangam Aguqaadangin. Donning Company Publishers, Virginia Beach. Originally published 1982, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., Anchorage.

Black, Lydia and Rosa Liapunova 1988 Aleut: Islanders of the North Pacific. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, William Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, editors, pp 52-57. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher 1995 Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425-430. 2001 Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355- 363. Bundy, Barbara 2007 A Norton Tradition Village Site on the Alagnak River, Southwest Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(1):1-22. Chase, David W. 1953 Pit Houses of Asia – A Japanese Phase. American Antiquity 18(3):261-262. Clark, A. McFadyen 1996 Who Lived in This House? A Study of Koyukuk River Semisubterranean Houses. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Québec. Clark, Donald W. 1996 The Old Kiavak Site Kodiak Island, Alaska, and the Early Kachemak Phase. Arctic 49(3):211-227. Coxe, William 1780 Account of the Russian Discoveries Between Asia and America. T. Cadell, London. Crockford, Susan, G. Frederick, R. Wigan, and I. McKechnie 2005 Final Report on the analysis of the vertebrate fauna from Amaknak Bridge, Unalaska, AK, UNL-050. (Supplement to Knecht, R. and R. Davis, 2005, Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Project Final Report).


111

Crockford, Susan and S.G. Frederick 2007 Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from zooarchaeology. The Holocene 17(6):699-706. Crockford, Susan 2008 Be careful what you ask for: Archaeozoological evidence of mid-Holocene climate change in the Bering Sea and implications for the origins of Arctic Thule. In Islands of Inquiry: Colonization, seafaring, and the archaeology of maritime landscapes, Geoffrey Clark, Foss Leach, and Sue O’Conner, editors, pp. 113-131. Terra Australis 29. Australian National University, Canberra. Cultural Resource Consultants LLC 2006 Archeological Salvage Recovery Plan for the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050). Report on file, Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. Daifuku, Hiroshi 1952 The Pit House in Native North America. American Antiquity 18(1):1-7. Dall, William H. 1873 Notes on Pre-Historic Remains in the Aleutian Islands. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences. 4:283-287. 1878 On the Remains of Later Pre-Historic Man Obtained from Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory, and Especially from the Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge No. 318, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1884 Masks, Labrets, and Certain Aboriginal Customs, with an inquiry into the bearing of their geographical distribution. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Ethnology, Seattle. Davis, Brian 2001 Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, Don Dumond, editor, pp. 71-86. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene. Dawson, Peter C. 2007 Seeing like an Inuit family: the relationship between house form and culture in northern Canada. Inuit Studies 30(2):113-136. Del Bene, Terry 1982 The Anangula Lithic Technological System: An Appraisal of Eastern Aleutian Technology circa 8250-8750 BP. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut. Denniston, Glenda B. 1966 Cultural change at Chaluka, Umnak Island: stone artifacts and features. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):84-124.


112

Dixon, Greg 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Unalaska Amaknak Bridge Project. Manuscript on file, Alaska Division of Parks, Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage. Dumond, Don E. 1973 Coastal Adaptation and Cultural Change in Alaskan Eskimo Prehistory. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, William Fitzhugh, editor, pp. 167-180. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. 1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson, London. Dumond, Don E. and Richard A. Knecht 2001 An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, Don Dumond, editor, pp. 9-34. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene. Fewkes, J. Walter 1908 Ventilators in Ceremonial Rooms of Pre Historic Cliff-Dwellings. American Anthropologist, New Series, 10(3):387-398. Fitzhugh, William W. and Aron Crowell (editors) 1996 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Frolich, Bruno and Sara B. Laughlin 2002 The Umqan Burials on Anangula Island, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond, Bruno Frolich, Albert B. Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, editors, pp. 89-119. The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Gallison, James D. 1983 An Archaeological Investigation and Technological Analysis of an Early to Mid Holocene Core and Blade Assemblage (GDN 093) Kagati Lake, Southwest Alaska. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Giddings, James L. and Douglas D. Anderson 1986 Beach Ridge Archeology of Cape Krusenstern. Publications in Archaeology No. 20. National Park Service, Washington DC. Gonzalez, Alberto Rex 1953 Concerning the Existence of the Pit House in South America. American Antiquity 18(3):271-272. Guo, Qinghua 2002 The Chinese Domestic Architectural Heating System [Kang]: Origins, Applications, Techniques. Architectural History 45:32-48.


113

Heizer, Robert F. 1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. University of California Anthropological Records, Berkeley 17(1). Hoffecker, John F. 2002 The Eastern Gravettian “Kostenki Culture” as an Arctic Adaptation. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, New Series 2(1):115-136. Hoffman, Brian 1999 The Eastern Aleut Communal House: A Regional Perspective. Alaska Anthropological Association Newsletter 24(4):25-31. Hrdlička, Aleš 1941a Exploration of mummy caves in the Aleutian Islands. Part I. Previous knowledge of such caves. Original exploration. Scientific Monthly 52:5-23. 1941b Exploration of mummy caves in the Aleutian Islands. Part II. Further exploration. Scientific Monthly 52:113-130. 1945 The Aleutian and Commander Islands. Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia. Jochelson, Waldemar 1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. The Carnegie Institution, Washington. Johnson, L.L. and Elizabeth Wilmerding 2001 Bringing the House Down: Modeling Construction and Deconstruction of Aleut Semi-subterranean Houses. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, Don Dumond, editor, pp 127-149. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene. Jordan, James W. 2001 Late Quaternary sea level change in Southern Beringia: postglacial emergence of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:509-523. Keenleyside, Anne 1997 Skeletal evidence of health and disease in pre-contact Alaskan Eskimos and Aleuts. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107:51-70.

Khlebnikov, Kirill Timofeevich 1994 Notes on Russian America, Parts II-V: Kad’iak, Unalashka, Atkha, the Pribylovs. Edited by Richard Pierce. The Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario and Fairbanks, Alaska.


114

Knecht, Richard 2000 Amaknak Bridge Site field notes. On file, Museum of the Aleutians, Unalaska Island, Alaska. Knecht, Richard, Richard Davis, and Gary Carver 2001 The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, Don Dumond, editor, pp 35-69. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene. Knecht, Richard and Richard Davis 2001 Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, Don Dumond, editor, pp 269-288. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene. 2003 Archaeological Evaluation of Tanaxtaxak, the Amaknak Spit Site (UNL-055). Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2005 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Project Final Report. Report prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. 2008 The Amaknak Bridge Site: Cultural Change and the Neoglacial in the Eastern Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 45(1):61-78. Laughlin, William 1952 The Aleut-Eskimo Community. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 1(1):25-46). 1963 The Earliest Aleuts. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 10(2):73- 91. 1980 Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth. Laughlin, William S. and Jean S. Aigner 1973 Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, William Fitzhugh, editor, pp. 167-180. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. Laughlin, William and Gordon H. Marsh 1951 A New View of the History of the Aleutians. Arctic 4(2):74-88. 1954 The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20(1):27-39.


115

Lee, Molly and Gregory A. Reinhardt 2003 Eskimo Architecture. University of Alaska Press and University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks. MacCord, Howard A. 1955 Contributions to the Archaeology of Northern Honshu: The Ogawara Pit-House Culture. American Antiquity 21(2):149-161. Mann, Daniel H., Aron L. Crowell, Thomas D. Hamilton, and Bruce P. Finney 1998 Holocene Geologic and Climatic History around the Gulf of Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):112-131. Maschner, Herbert D. G., James W. Jordan, Brian W. Hoffman, and Tina M. Dochat 1997 The Archaeology of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Report 4 of the Laboratory of Arctic and North Pacific Archaeology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Mauss, Marcel 1979 Seasonal variations of the Eskimo: A study in social morphology. Translated by James J. Fox. Routledge, London. (Originally published in 1906). McCartney, Allen P. 1967 An Analysis of the Bone Industry from Amaknak Island, Alaska. Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 1969 Prehistoric Aleut Influences at Port Moller, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14(2):1-16. 1971 Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):92-142. 1974 Prehistoric Cultural Integration along the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16(1):59-84. McCartney, Allen, and Douglas Veltre 1999 Aleutian Island Prehistory: Living in Insular Extremes. World Archaeology 30(3):503-515. 2002 Longhouses of the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, Bruno Frolich, Albert Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, editors, pp 249-265. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. McCartney, Allen P., Douglas Veltre, Lydia T. Black, and Jean S. Aigner 1990 Unalaska Archaeology and History Project, Report of Operations, 1990. Submitted to the National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Geographic Society.


116

Mellaart, James 1967 Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1881 Houses and house-life of the American aborigines. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Contributions to North American Ethnology 4. Washington, DC. Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, and Yoshinobu Kotani 1979 The Hot Springs Village Site (3): Preliminary Report of the 1977 Excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Sapporo: Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Culture, Hokkaido University. O’Leary, Matt 2007 Report: A Roster of BIA ANCSA Radiocarbon Dates. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(1):123-145. Pendleton, Catherine L. 2008 Changes in Aleut House Construction in the Russian Period: Evidence from the Zapadni Site, St. Paul Island, Alaska. MA Thesis, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Pozorski, Thomas and Shelia Pozorski 1996 Ventilated Hearth Structures in the Casma Valley, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 7(4):341-353. Quimby, George I. 1946 Toggle Harpoon Heads from the Aleutian Islands. Fieldiana: Anthropology. 36(2):15-23. 1948 Prehistoric Art of the Aleutian Islands. Fieldiana 36(4):77-92. Ray, Dorothy Jean 1967 Eskimo Masks: Art and Ceremony. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Rogers, Jason S., Michael R. Yarborough, and Catherine L. Pendleton 2009 An Anangula Period Core-and-Blade Site on Amaknak Island, Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthroplogy 7(1):153-165. Saltonstall, Patrick and Amy Steffian 2008 Kodiak’s Oldest Houses: The Origins of the Semi-Subterranean Ciqlluaq. Presentation delivered at the 2008 Conference of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Sauer, Martin 1802 An account of a geographical and astronomical expedition to the northern parts of Russia... by Commodore Joseph Billings, in the years 1785, etc. to 1794. Caldell and Davies, London.


117

Smith, Timothy A. 1978 A Proposed Reduction Sequence for Blade and Microblade Cores from the Blade Site, Anangula Island, Southwestern Alaska. Manuscript in possession of author. Solovyova, Katerina G. and Aleksandra A. Vovnyanko 2002 The Fur Rush: Essays and documents on the history of Alaska at the end of the eighteenth century. Phoenix Press, Anchorage. Taylor, William E. 1962 A Distinction between Blades and Microblades in the American Arctic. American Antiquity 27(3):425-426. Vasil’evskii, R. S., Barbara Merbs, and Chester Chard 1964 Ancient Koryak Culture. American Antiquity 30(1):19-24 Veltre, Douglas W. and Mary J. Veltre 1982 Report on Brief Archaeological Testing of the Amaknak Island Spit Site (UNL- 055). Report submitted to the Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska. Veltre, Douglas W., Allen P. McCartney, Mary J. Veltre, and Jean S. Aigner 1984 An Archeological Site Survey of Amaknak and Unalaska Islands, Alaska. Submitted to Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage. Veniaminov, Ivan 1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Richard Pierce, editor. (Translation and reprint of 1840 edition.) Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Watson, Gordon W. 1977 Letter dated 8 December 1977 to Dr. William J. Murtagh, Keeper of the National Register, Washington, D.C. Copy on file, State of Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska. Wiersum, Wayne 1983 A Historical Resource Assessment of the Unalaska Airport Project (D47812). Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau. Weyer, Edward Moffat Jr. 1930 Archaeological Material from the Village Site at Hot Springs, Port Möller, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 31(4):239-279. Workman, William B. 1966 Prehistory at Port Moller, Alaska Peninsula, in light of fieldwork in 1960. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):132-147.


118

Yarborough, Michael R. 1984 Archeological Survey of a Proposed Airport Site, Unalaska, Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 1988 Archeological Testing of UNL-048, The Margaret Bay Site, Unalaska, Alaska. Prepared for Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska. Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. 1989 Archeological and Historical Survey of the UniSea Port Complex, Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska. Y’Edynak, Gloria 1976. Long bone growth in Western Eskimo and Aleut skeletons. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:569-574. Yesner, David R. 1988a Significance Assessment for the Margaret Bay Site, Dutch Harbor, Unalaska. Submitted to Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska. 1988b Letter to John Bishop. Zimmerman, Michael R., Trinkaus, Eric, LeMay, Michael A., Aufderheide, Arthur C., Reyman, Theodore A., Marrocco, Guy R., Ortel R. W., Benitez, Jaime T., Laughlin, William S., Horne Patrick D., Schultes, Richard E., and Coughlin E. A. 1981 The paleopathology of an Aleutian mummy. Archives of Pathology and Labratory Medicine 105:638–641.


A-1

Appendix A Comprehensive List of Features and Structures

A note on feature nomenclature: features recorded by Knecht and Davis were called “Structures” and numbered, starting with Structure 1, which was uncovered in 2000, through Structure 10, which was identified in 2003 but not excavated. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Features excavated in 2006 were labeled “Features” and given letters (A through Z). However, in 2007, with the realization that more than 26 features would be uncovered, the nomenclature system was changed to numbering (Features 36 through 88). The locations of the principal features at UNL-050 are shown in Figure A.1. Rock clusters and some shorter wall sections are not illustrated, although the relative positions of all of the features are described below. Structure 1 was the semicircular remains (approximately half) of a stonewalled house at the base of the knoll on the northern face of the site. Structure 2 contained the wall segments of a circular house uphill from the knoll, west of the other structures. It was built with a single row of flat stones, and it had a large, sub-floor storage pit, a hearth, and sub-floor hearth channels. Structure 3 was the stone wall remains of a circular house built on top of the eastern portion of Structure 7; it had a stone slab hearth and the stone uprights of a segment of a hearth channel. Structure 4 was circular and sat on the eastern edge of the site toward Henry Swanson Drive; its eastern wall had been lost to erosion. It had a hearth, but no hearth channels or sub-floor storage pits. Structure 5, southwest of Structure 7, had thick walls, a hearth, sub-floor hearth channels, and evidence of wall and roof sods. The World War II roadway and pipe trench had cut through the western wall of the house. Structure 6 was the partial remains of a stone walled house and hearth channel. Its northern wall had been used to build Structure 3, and Structure 4 had destroyed its southern half. The eastern wall, part of the adjacent floor, and the hearth had apparently eroded off of the side of the knoll. Structure 7 was interpreted by Knecht and Davis (2005:71, 2008:68) as a multi-roomed house consisting of a sub-rectangular main room (Structure 7-Main) and three smaller rooms (Structures 7-NW, 7-SW, and 7-W). Burials were found in 7-SW. Structure 8 was the remains of a stone walled house west of Structure 4. Structure 9 was a short wall segment that cut into the western wall of Structure 7-W.


A-2

Figure A.1. Locations of the principal features at UNL-050. Structure 10 was a short wall segment located near the tip of the knoll south of Structure 4. It consisted of several courses of large, flat, horizontally slabs with thick layers of sod set between the courses.


A-3

Feature A was a complete house wall with hearth channels at the northern face of the site, adjacent to the main room of Structure 7. Feature B was composed of a rockslide down the northern midden face. Feature C was a wall segment at the bottom of the northern midden face. Feature D was a wall segment in the northern face of the midden. This is Knecht’s Structure 1. Feature E was a wall segment in 2006 stratigraphic profile 2. Feature F was a semi-circular wall (approximately half of a house) adjacent to Structure 7-NW. Feature G was a rock cluster in the northern face of the site, downhill from Feature F. Feature H was a cluster of rock south of Knecht and Davis’ 2003 site datum. Feature I appeared to be a side room of Feature K. Feature J was a random jumble of rock west of Feature I. Feature K appeared to be parts of two structures: Knecht and Davis’ Structure 5 and a separate side-room. Both features were damaged by a World War II pipeline. Feature L was a rock cluster in the northern face of the site, in the vicinity of Feature D. Feature M was a rock cluster in the northern face of the site, possibly part of Feature G. Feature N was a burial feature. Feature O was wall segment in the area of the site above Henry Swanson Drive. Feature P was a linear rock arrangement in the northern midden face near Feature F. Feature Q was a cluster of rock adjacent to Feature P. Feature R was a cluster of rock near Feature D/Structure 1. Feature S was a large rock cluster, possibly wall segments, in the vicinity of Feature F. Feature T was a vent structure in the northern face of the site below Feature A. Feature U was a rock cluster on the eastern side of Feature A. Feature V was a burial feature, although it also included a hearth vent and subfloor channels.


A-4

Feature W was a burial enclosure. Feature X was a complete house, including a hearth vent and channel, below the World War II road. Feature Y was a rock cluster in the northern face of the site, possibly the collapsed remnants of Feature E. Feature Z included hearth channels and wall remnants. It was below the World War II road toward the western edge of the site. Feature 37 was a rock cluster in the northern face of the site, on the western side of 2006 Profile 2, near Feature E. Feature 38 was a rock cluster just west of Structure 7-W. Feature 39 was a rock scatter at the bottom of the slope along Henry Swanson Drive. Feature 40 was a pit and rock alignment directly under Knecht and Davis’ 2003 site datum. Feature 41 was a wall segment in the slope above Henry Swanson Drive. Feature 42 was wall segment or possibly part of a hearth in the northern face of the site, west of Structure 7-W. Feature 43 was another rock cluster just west of Structure 7-W. Feature 44 was a wall segment under the World War II road. Feature 45 was a nearly complete structure adjoining Structure 7-W to the south. Feature 46 was a small cluster of rock near the center of the site. Feature 47 was a wall segment in the slope above Henry Swanson Drive. Feature 48 was a wall segment in the vicinity of Structure 4. Feature 49 was a cluster of rocks and a dense concentration of artifacts located between Structure 10 and Feature O. Feature 50 was a large jumble of rocks under Structure 8 and Feature 48. Feature 51 was a rock cluster, some of which may have been part of Feature 50. Feature 52 consisted of a double ring of semi-circular walls just west of Structure 7-W, in the same location as Features 70 and 79.


A-5

Feature 53 was composed of a segment of a double wall in the vicinity of and underneath Structure 4. It was also recorded as part of Features 61 and 63. Feature 54 was rock cluster with a single sub-floor channel located above Henry Swanson Drive, under Feature O. Feature 55 was an almost complete house with a large hearth and vent that was under Structure 7-W. Feature 56 was a curved segment of wall above Henry Swanson Drive in the vicinity of Feature O. Feature 57 was a rock cluster in the same location as Feature 44. Feature 58 was a large burial structure with multiple walls extending under World War II road. A portion of this feature remains in the unexcavated area of the site. Feature 59 was a semi-circular rock wall extending beneath the main room of Structure 7. Feature 60 included a rock wall, hearth, and sub-floor channel at the northeastern corner of the site Feature 61 was a wall segment, probably part of Feature 53/63 Feature 62 was composed of rocks under the main room of Structure 7, perhaps part of Feature 59. Feature 63 was a large, nearly complete, house structure with a complex hearth at the northeastern corner of the site. Feature 64 was a curved wall northeast of Feature 63. Feature 65 included wall sections just west of Feature 52 Feature 66 was a curved wall at the eastern end of Feature 63. Feature 67 included flagstones, a hearth, and sub-floor channels at the extreme southern margin of the site. Feature 68 was a section of wall just west of Structure 7-W Feature 69 was a rock cluster, possibly a wall segment, at the eastern end of Feature 63. Feature 70 was a wall/rock cluster just west of Structure 7-W, in the same location as Features 52 and 79.


A-6

Feature 71 was composed of four rocks west of Feature 58. Feature 72 was a cluster of rocks in the northeastern corner of the site Feature 73 was a wall segment, perhaps the eastern wall of Feature 59. It had a hearth and sub-floor channels that were directly below the hearth and channels of the main room of Structure 7. Feature 74 included flagstones, a hearth, sub-floor channels, and postholes at the northeastern corner of site, under excavation unit 1. Feature 75 included several rocks in the “sump”, the low area north of the northern face of the site adjacent to Airport Beach Road. Feature 76 was a wall segment, under Structure 7-NW and adjoining Feature 55’s hearth and vent wall. Feature 77 consisted of postholes and hearth channels dug into the sterile tephra under the main room of Structure 7. Feature 78 was a short wall segment adjacent to Feature 76. Feature 79 consisted of a hearth and channels under Structure 7-W, perhaps part of Feature 52/70. Feature 80 was a rock cluster/vent channel at the eastern end of the main room of Structure 7. Feature 81 was a rock cluster at the eastern end of the main room of Structure 7. Feature 82 was a large cluster of rocks at the eastern end of the main room of Structure 7. Feature 83 included a wall segment, intake vent, and V-shaped sub-floor channels near the World War II pipeline and road. Feature 84 was a rock cluster near the WWII pipeline and road. Feature 85 was another rock cluster near the WWII pipeline and road. Feature 86 was burial feature, including a complete circle of structure walls, vent, and hearth directly under the World War II pipeline. Feature 87 was a wall segment and hearth that was underneath and truncated by Feature 86. Feature 88 was a rock cluster under the World War II road near Feature 86.

UNL-050 Amaknak Bridge Site Artifact Catalog

Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17000 Bone Harpoon point, other Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17001 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate Andesite, mudstone? BrokenUNL050-17002 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green Broken?UNL050-17003 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17004 Chipped Stone Microblade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17005 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17006 Bone Worked Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17007 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17008 Bone Worked Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17009 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17010 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17011 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17012 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17013 Ground Stone Lamp, miniature Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17014 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17015 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Conglomerate? CompleteUNL050-17016 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17017 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan? BrokenUNL050-17018 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17019 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17020 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17021 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17022 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17023 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17024 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17025 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17026 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17027 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17028 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17029 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17030 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17031 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17032 Ground Stone Sinker, notched Andesite CompleteUNL050-17033 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17034 Chipped Stone Scraper? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17035 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17036 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17037 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17038 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17039 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17040 Chipped Stone Core, microblade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17041 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17042 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17043 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17044 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17045 Ground Stone Lamp Andesite BrokenUNL050-17046 Ground Stone Stone, polishing or hone? Sandstone Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17047 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17048 Bone Wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17049 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17050 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17051 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17052 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17053 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17054 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17055 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17056 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17057 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17058 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17059 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/yellow BrokenUNL050-17060 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17061 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Proximal?UNL050-17062 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17063 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt CompleteUNL050-17064 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17065 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken?UNL050-17066 Chipped Stone Point, small Obsidian ProximalUNL050-17067 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? BrokenUNL050-17068 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17069 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Basalt CompleteUNL050-17070 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17071 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17072 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17073 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17074 Bone Worked Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17075 Ground Stone Lamp ? BrokenUNL050-17076 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown/red BrokenUNL050-17077 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown/red BrokenUNL050-17078 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown/red BrokenUNL050-17079 Ground Stone Bowl ? BrokenUNL050-17080 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, green? BrokenUNL050-17081 Ground Stone Lamp, large Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17082 Bone Tooth/ornament Tooth CompleteUNL050-17083 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17084 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17085 Bone Worked Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17086 Bone Worked Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17087 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17088 Chipped Stone Flakes Various VariousUNL050-17089 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-17090 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17091 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17092 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17093 Ground Stone Abrader Pumice Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17094 Chipped Stone Biface Basalt FragmentUNL050-17095 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green Fragment?UNL050-17096 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17097 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17098 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17099 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17100 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17101 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17102 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-17103 Chipped Stone Core, flake Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17104 Chipped Stone Point Obsidian DistalUNL050-17105 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17106 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, notched Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17107 Bone Worked Ivory FragmentUNL050-17108 Chipped Stone Blade Siltstone? CompleteUNL050-17109 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17110 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17111 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate ? CompleteUNL050-17112 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17113 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17114 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken?UNL050-17115 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17116 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17117 Bone Harpoon, toggle Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17118 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17119 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17120 Chipped Stone FlakesUNL050-17121 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17122 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-17123 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt Broken tipUNL050-17124 Ground Stone Ocher deposit OcherUNL050-17125 Ground Stone Grinder ? CompleteUNL050-17126 Chipped Stone Scraper Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17127 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17128 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Basalt Broken?UNL050-17129 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt BrokenUNL050-17130 Chipped Stone Flake knife, large Basalt CompleteUNL050-17131 Ground Stone Sinker, notched ? CompleteUNL050-17132 Ground Stone Sinker, notched ? CompleteUNL050-17133 Ground Stone Grinder ? CompleteUNL050-17134 Ground Stone Grinder ? CompleteUNL050-17135 Ground Stone Grinder ? CompleteUNL050-17136 Chipped Stone Scraper? Chalcedony? CompleteUNL050-17137 Bone Harpoon, preform? Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17138 Ground Stone Plummet ? CompleteUNL050-17139 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17140 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt? Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17141 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Siltstone? CompleteUNL050-17142 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17143 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17144 Fur Fur FurUNL050-17145 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17146 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17147 Wood Wood Wood FragmentUNL050-17148 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17149 Chipped Stone Flake Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17150 Chipped Stone Flake Chert, green BrokenUNL050-17151 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched? Basalt CompleteUNL050-17152 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Obsidian Broken?UNL050-17153 Chipped Stone Flake Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17154 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17155 Chipped Stone Core? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17156 Chipped Stone Flake Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17157 Chipped Stone Flake? Stone, red BrokenUNL050-17158 Ground Stone Pumice Pumice CompleteUNL050-17159 Bone Worked Bone FragmentUNL050-17160 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17161 Chipped Stone Flake Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17162 Chipped Stone Flake Mudstone? CompleteUNL050-17163 Chipped Stone ? Mudstone? CompleteUNL050-17164 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate ? CompleteUNL050-17165 Chipped Stone Flake knife, large ? CompleteUNL050-17166 Chipped Stone Blade ? CompleteUNL050-17167 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt BrokenUNL050-17168 Chipped Stone Flake Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17169 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched? Basalt CompleteUNL050-17170 Chipped Stone Biface Basalt BrokenUNL050-17171 Chipped Stone Flake, large Basalt Broken?UNL050-17172 Bone Worked Ivory FragmentUNL050-17173 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17174 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17175 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17176 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17177 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17178 Chipped Stone Adze ? CompleteUNL050-17179 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone or Ivory FragmentUNL050-17180 Bone Worked Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17181 Ground Stone Bowl Sandstone BrokenUNL050-17182 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate ? CompleteUNL050-17183 Chipped Stone Flake, large ? CompleteUNL050-17184 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17185 Chipped Stone Blade (burin spall?) Basalt CompleteUNL050-17186 Chipped Stone Adze, large Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17187 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Andesite? Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17188 Ground Stone Grinder Basalt CompleteUNL050-17189 Bone Spear prong, stepped base Bone, mammal Complete?UNL050-17190 Bone Spear prong, stepped base Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17191 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17192 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal Fragment?UNL050-17193 Bone Worked Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17194 Bone Drill rest Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17195 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal Fragment?UNL050-17196 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17197 Chipped Stone Core, blade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17198 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17199 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17200 Mussle skins Mussle skins Mussle skinsUNL050-17201 Wood? Wood? Wood?UNL050-17202 Chipped Stone Flakes ? CompleteUNL050-17203 Bone Skull, mammal Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17204 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17205 Chipped Stone Blade ? CompleteUNL050-17206 Modern Coke can AluminumUNL050-17207 Ground Stone Hammerstone Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17208 Bone Harpoon, preform? Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17209 Bone Wedge Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17210 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17211 Bone Worked Bird FragmentUNL050-17212 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17213 Chipped Stone Flakes VariousUNL050-17214 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched? ? Broken?UNL050-17215 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, gray? BrokenUNL050-17216 Chipped Stone Biface Chert, green? BrokenUNL050-17217 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray? ProximalUNL050-17218 Chipped Stone Core, flake ? CompleteUNL050-17219 Chipped Stone Flake ? Broken?UNL050-17220 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17221 Bone Worked IvoryUNL050-17222 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17223 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17224 Bone Harpoon, line hole Bone, mammal Broken?UNL050-17225 Ground Stone Lamp, very large Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17226 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17227 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17228 Chipped Stone Biface Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17229 Chipped Stone Flakes VariousUNL050-17230 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17231 Bone Harpoon foreshaft? Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17232 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, notched Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17233 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, notched Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17234 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved ? Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17235 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved ? CompleteUNL050-17236 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Scoria CompleteUNL050-17237 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, grooved Sandstone? BrokenUNL050-17238 Ground Stone Sinker, notched ? CompleteUNL050-17239 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17240 Bone Wedge Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17241 Bone Adze holder Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17242 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17243 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17244 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17245 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17246 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17247 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17248 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17249 Ground Stone Rock, grooved ? CompleteUNL050-17250 Chipped Stone Flake knife, large Basalt CompleteUNL050-17251 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt Broken?UNL050-17252 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Basalt CompleteUNL050-17253 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Basalt Broken?UNL050-17254 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17255 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, green BrokenUNL050-17256 Chipped Stone Flakes Various CompleteUNL050-17257 Ground Stone Cobble, grooved Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17258 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17259 Bone Bone, burned BoneUNL050-17260 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17261 Rock w/barnacles Rock w/barnacles Stone UNL050-17262 Wood Wood, large Wood UNL050-17263 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt BrokenUNL050-17264 Chipped Stone Flake ? CompleteUNL050-17265 Chipped Stone Flake ? CompleteUNL050-17266 Chipped Stone Flake ? CompleteUNL050-17267 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17268 Bone Harpoon, preform Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17269 Bone Drill rest Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17270 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17271 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17272 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17273 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17274 Bone Harpoon foreshaft? Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17275 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17276 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17277 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17278 Bone Labret, spike Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17279 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17280 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown? BrokenUNL050-17281 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan Broken


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17282 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17283 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17284 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17285 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17286 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17287 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory? Fragment Fits w/17288UNL050-17288 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory? Fragment Fits w/17287UNL050-17289 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken tip?UNL050-17290 Ground Stone Hammerstone CompleteUNL050-17291 Chipped Stone Flakes Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17292 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17293 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17294 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17295 Bone Root pick handle Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17296 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17297 Chipped Stone Core, flake Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17298 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Basalt CompleteUNL050-17299 Bone Worked Bone FragmentUNL050-17300 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone, mammalUNL050-17301 Ground Stone Lamp, medium/large Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17302 Chipped Stone Biface Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17303 Chipped Stone Flake Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17304 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17305 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17306 Midden Midden MiddenUNL050-17307 Midden Midden MiddenUNL050-17308 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17309 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17310 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17311 Chipped Stone Scraper Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17312 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt Broken?UNL050-17313 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17314 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17315 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17316 Bone Bowl Bone, whale FragmentUNL050-17317 Ground Stone Lamp, large ? BrokenUNL050-17318 Ground Stone Cobbles Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17319 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17320 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17321 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17322 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17323 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17324 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17325 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17326 Ground Stone Cobbles Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17327 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17328 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17329 Ground Stone Hammerstone Basalt?UNL050-17330 Baleen? Baleen? Baleen?UNL050-17331 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17332 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17333 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17334 Ground Stone Hone? Siltstone? CompleteUNL050-17335 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17336 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17337 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17338 Chipped Stone Core, flake Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17339 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17340 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17341 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17342 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17343 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17344 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17345 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17346 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert? CompleteUNL050-17347 Chipped Stone Scraper Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17348 Bone Harpoon, preform Bone, mammal Broken?UNL050-17349 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17350 Ground Stone Hone? FragmentUNL050-17351 Ground Stone Lamp, miniature Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17352 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone,mammal CompleteUNL050-17353 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone,mammal CompleteUNL050-17354 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17355 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17356 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17357 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17358 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17359 Bone Socket, composite Ivory FragmentUNL050-17360 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Obsidian? Broken?UNL050-17361 Chipped Stone Flake knife, large CompleteUNL050-17362 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17363 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17364 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17365 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17366 Bone Fishing leister base Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17367 Bone Fishing leister base composite Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17368 Chipped Stone Scraper? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17369 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17370 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green BrokenUNL050-17371 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17372 Ground Stone Grinding stone Granite? CompleteUNL050-17373 Chipped Stone Flake knife, large Basalt BrokenUNL050-17374 Ground Stone Bowl, complete Volcanic tuff, green? CompleteUNL050-17375 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17376 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17377 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17378 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17379 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17380 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17381 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17382 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17383 Bone Wedge? Bone, mammal FragmentUNL050-17384 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17385 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17386 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17387 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17388 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17389 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal Medial?UNL050-17390 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17391 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17392 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17393 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17394 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17395 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17396 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17397 Bone Harpoon point, blunt based Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17398 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17399 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17400 Bone Spear prong, stepped base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17401 Bone Spear prong, stepped base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17402 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17403 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17404 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17405 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17406 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17407 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17408 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17409 Ground Stone Rock, grooved Basalt? BrokenUNL050-17410 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17411 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17412 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17413 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal Proximal UNL050-17414 Unknown Yellow substance UnknownUNL050-17415 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17416 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-17417 Ground Stone Labret, tabular Calcite CompleteUNL050-17418 Chipped Stone Core, microblade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17419 Bone Needle Bone, bird DistalUNL050-17420 Bone Needle Bone, bird DistalUNL050-17421 Ground Stone Lamp ? BrokenUNL050-17422 Bone Worked Bone Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17423 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17424 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17425 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal Distal?UNL050-17426 Ground Stone Lamp, preform? Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17427 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17428 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17429 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17430 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17431 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17432 Bone Harpoon point Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17433 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17434 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Obsidian Broken?UNL050-17435 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17436 Bone Harpoon, preform? Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17437 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17438 Chipped Stone FlakesUNL050-17439 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17440 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17441 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17442 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17443 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17444 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17445 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17446 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17447 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17448 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17449 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown Broken 17439-17449UNL050-17450 Bone Lamp stand Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-17451 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17452 Bone Needle Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-17453 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt Broken?UNL050-17454 Chipped Stone Flake Basalt CompleteUNL050-17455 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17456 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17457 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17458 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17459 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17460 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/brown BrokenUNL050-17461 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17462 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17463 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17464 Bone Awl, composite Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-17465 Bone Root pick handle Bone,mammal FragmentUNL050-17466 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone,mammal CompleteUNL050-17467 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone,mammal DistalUNL050-17468 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone,mammal CompleteUNL050-17469 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone,mammal Medial


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17470 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17471 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17472 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17473 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17474 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17475 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17476 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17477 Bone Drill rest Ivory CompleteUNL050-17478 Bone Fish hook barb Bone,mammal BrokenUNL050-17479 Chipped Stone Flake, core rejuvenation Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17480 Ground Stone Effigy Siltstone CompleteUNL050-17481 Chipped Stone Core, flake Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17482 Chipped Stone Point, Broken Obsidian DistalUNL050-17483 Chipped Stone Worked Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17484 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17485 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17486 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17487 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, grooved Sandstone? BrokenUNL050-17488 Ground Stone Cobble, grooved Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17489 Ground Stone Cobble, grooved Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17490 Ground Stone Cobble, grooved Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17491 Ground Stone Cobble, notched Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17492 Ground Stone Lamp, very large Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17493 Ground Stone Grinding stone Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17494 Ground Stone Plummet ? BrokenUNL050-17495 Ground Stone Lamp, large Sandstone BrokenUNL050-17496 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17497 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17498 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17499 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17500 Bone Bowl Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-17501 Bone Adze holder Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17502 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17503 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Basalt BrokenUNL050-17504 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17505 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt BrokenUNL050-17506 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt CompleteUNL050-17507 Bone Drill rest Ivory? CompleteUNL050-17508 Modern Fork Metal CompleteUNL050-17509 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate Mudstone? CompleteUNL050-17510 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17511 Chipped Stone Scraper Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17512 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17513 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt CompleteUNL050-17514 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed CCS CompleteUNL050-17515 Bone Labret, spike Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17516 Bone Worked Bone, mammal Broken


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17517 Chipped Stone Blade ? CompleteUNL050-17518 Ground Stone Lamp, large Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17519 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt BrokenUNL050-17520 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased CCS Broken Proximal?UNL050-17521 Bone Terminal phalange Bone CompleteUNL050-17522 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17523 Chipped Stone Point or knife base Chert, green DistalUNL050-17524 Bone Needle Bone, bird BrokenUNL050-17525 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17526 Ground Stone Abrader Scoria CompleteUNL050-17527 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered CCS CompleteUNL050-17528 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17529 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt BrokenUNL050-17530 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical CCS CompleteUNL050-17531 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, grooved BrokenUNL050-17532 Bone Labret, spike Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17533 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17534 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, calico CompleteUNL050-17535 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17536 Grass matting? Grass matting? Grass matting?UNL050-17537 Ocher Ocher OcherUNL050-17538 Ground Stone Labret, tabular CalciteUNL050-17539 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17540 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17541 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered CCS CompleteUNL050-17542 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17543 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17544 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17545 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17546 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax CCS DistalUNL050-17547 Chipped Stone Fragment Chert, red? CompleteUNL050-17548 Bone Harpoon point Bone? Broken tipUNL050-17549 Bone Worked Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17550 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17551 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17552 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory, walrus CompleteUNL050-17553 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17554 Unknown Pink substance UnknownUNL050-17555 Ground Stone Plummet CompleteUNL050-17556 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17557 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17558 Bone Wedge Bone, mammalUNL050-17559 Bone Wedge Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17560 Chipped Stone Scraper? Broken Chert, red? BrokenUNL050-17561 Bone Labret, spike Ivory CompleteUNL050-17562 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt CompleteUNL050-17563 Chipped Stone Flakes


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17564 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17565 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17566 Chipped Stone Blade Chert? BrokenUNL050-17567 Ground Stone Cobble/plummet, grooved CompleteUNL050-17568 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17569 Ground Stone Grinder, ocher Basalt CompleteUNL050-17570 Ground Stone Grinding stone Basalt BrokenUNL050-17571 Ground Stone Lamp Sandstone BrokenUNL050-17572 Ground Stone Grinding stone BrokenUNL050-17573 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17574 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17575 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17576 Chipped Stone Piercer Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17577 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17578 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17579 Bone Worked Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-17580 Chipped Stone Flakes VariousUNL050-17581 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17582 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered CCS CompleteUNL050-17583 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Obsidian? BrokenUNL050-17584 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate Mudstone? CompleteUNL050-17585 Chipped Stone Scraper Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17586 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17587 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17588 Chipped Stone Flakes ObsidianUNL050-17589 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-17590 Bone Worked Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17591 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17592 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green BrokenUNL050-17593 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17594 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17595 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian Broken stemUNL050-17596 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17597 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black Broken distalUNL050-17598 Chipped Stone Piercer Chert, gray/green CompleteUNL050-17599 Bone Wedge? Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17600 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched ? BrokenUNL050-17601 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory CompleteUNL050-17602 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17603 Ground Stone Worked Conglomerate CompleteUNL050-17604 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-17605 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17606 Chipped Stone Biface Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17607 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17608 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17609 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17610 Charcoal Charcoal


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17611 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17612 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17613 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17614 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17615 Ground Stone Hone Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17616 Ground Stone Hone Mudstone? Broken?UNL050-17617 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17618 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17619 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17620 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17621 Chipped Stone Biface Chert, green/gray ProximalUNL050-17622 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17623 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17624 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black Broken stemUNL050-17625 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17626 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17627 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17628 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17629 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17630 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray Broken?UNL050-17631 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian Broken?UNL050-17632 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray/black Broken?UNL050-17633 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray/black Medial?UNL050-17634 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17635 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black ProximalUNL050-17636 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green? Broken?UNL050-17637 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, brown Broken stemUNL050-17638 Chipped Stone Core, blade Chert, greenUNL050-17639 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17640 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17641 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Broken stemUNL050-17642 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17643 Chipped Stone Core fragment Chert, gray/blackUNL050-17644 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17645 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17646 Chipped Stone Piercer? Basalt Broken?UNL050-17647 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17648 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17649 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, gray/black Broken distal?UNL050-17650 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt ProximalUNL050-17651 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17652 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17653 Bone Harpoon point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17654 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17655 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17656 Chipped Stone Scraper, canted Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17657 Charcoal Charcoal


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17658 Chipped Stone Knife? Chert, gray/black ProximalUNL050-17659 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal Broken TipUNL050-17660 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17661 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt BrokenUNL050-17662 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17663 Ground Stone Lamp, very large Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17664 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17665 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17666 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17667 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17668 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, brown BrokenUNL050-17669 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, gray? Broken?UNL050-17670 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17671 Ground Stone Sinker, elongate, miniature Sandstone? BrokenUNL050-17672 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, gray ProximalUNL050-17673 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17674 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17675 Ground Stone Lamp BrokenUNL050-17676 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-17677 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17678 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal Broken?UNL050-17679 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17680 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17681 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken tip & barbUNL050-17682 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17683 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17684 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17685 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal Broken endUNL050-17686 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17687 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17688 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17689 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17690 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17691 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17692 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17693 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17694 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17695 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray Broken stemUNL050-17696 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, green/gray CompleteUNL050-17697 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Basalt CompleteUNL050-17698 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17699 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17700 Bone Throwing board pin? Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17701 Bone Worked Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-17702 Ground Stone Lamp, small/medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17703 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17704 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17705 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17706 Wood? Wood? Wood?UNL050-17707 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17708 Smoke mix Smoke mix Smoke mixUNL050-17709 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17710 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt Broken?UNL050-17711 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green/gray Broken Proximal?UNL050-17712 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian Broken stemUNL050-17713 Chipped Stone Piercer Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-17714 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Green stone Broken?UNL050-17715 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17716 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian Broken?UNL050-17717 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt ProximalUNL050-17718 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17719 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17720 Chipped Stone Scraper Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17721 Chipped Stone Flake knife Proximal?UNL050-17722 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Obsidian BrokenUNL050-17723 Bone Root pick, large Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17724 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17725 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17726 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green/gray CompleteUNL050-17727 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17728 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17729 Ground Stone Cobble/plummet, grooved Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17730 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17731 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17732 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17733 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17734 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17735 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17736 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, tan BrokenUNL050-17737 Bone Awl, composite Bone, bird BrokenUNL050-17738 Chipped Stone Chisel? Chert, green/gray CompleteUNL050-17739 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17740 Ground Stone Cobble/plummet, grooved Sandstone BrokenUNL050-17741 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17742 Ground Stone Lamp, small Conglomerate CompleteUNL050-17743 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17744 Bone Worked Ivory BrokenUNL050-17745 Bone Bowl, complete Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-17746 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-17747 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17748 Fiber Fiber FiberUNL050-17749 Tephra Tephra TephraUNL050-17750 Gravel Gravel GravelUNL050-17751 Chipped Stone Core fragment Chert, green


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17752 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17753 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17754 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17755 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17756 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17757 Chipped Stone Flake knife Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17758 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17759 Chipped Stone Flake? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17760 Chipped Stone Flake, no retouch Chert, tan BrokenUNL050-17761 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, green BrokenUNL050-17762 Chipped Stone Flake, no retouch Basalt BrokenUNL050-17763 Chipped Stone Flake? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17764 Chipped Stone Flake? Chert, gray BrokenUNL050-17765 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, green ProximalUNL050-17766 Chipped Stone Flake? Chert, green ProximalUNL050-17767 Ground Stone Hone Sandstone? Broken Fits w/17768UNL050-17768 Ground Stone Hone Sandstone? Broken Fits w/17767UNL050-17769 Bone Plummet Bone CompleteUNL050-17770 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17771 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17772 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17773 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17774 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17775 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17776 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17777 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17778 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-17779 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17780 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17781 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17782 Chipped Stone Point, Bipoint Basalt CompleteUNL050-17783 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17784 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Basalt CompleteUNL050-17785 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17786 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17787 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17788 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Basalt CompleteUNL050-17789 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17790 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17791 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt Broken stemUNL050-17792 Chipped Stone Point, Bipoint Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17793 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17794 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17795 Chipped Stone Core, blade Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17796 Chipped Stone Point Basalt CompleteUNL050-17797 Chipped Stone Pendant? Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17798 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17799 Chipped Stone Adze Chert, gray/green BrokenUNL050-17800 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17801 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17802 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17803 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17804 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17805 Chipped Stone Point, Bipoint Basalt CompleteUNL050-17806 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17807 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17808 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17809 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17810 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17811 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17812 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17813 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17814 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-17815 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17816 Bone Bowl, complete Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-17817 Bone Bowl Bone, whale Broken Fits w/17818UNL050-17818 Bone Bowl Bone, whale Broken Fits w/17817UNL050-17819 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, calico/red CompleteUNL050-17820 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt CompleteUNL050-17821 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17822 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17823 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt CompleteUNL050-17824 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17825 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17826 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17827 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17828 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17829 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17830 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17831 Chipped Stone Flake knife ? CompleteUNL050-17832 Chipped Stone Core, blade Chert, greenUNL050-17833 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17834 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17835 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17836 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17837 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-17838 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17839 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17840 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt CompleteUNL050-17841 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17842 Bone Worked Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17843 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17844 Bone Worked Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17845 Bone Worked Bone, bird Medial


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17846 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17847 Bone Harpoon point, small Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17848 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17849 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17850 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17851 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17852 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17853 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17854 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17855 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17856 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17857 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17858 Ground Stone Lamp BrokenUNL050-17859 Bone Wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17860 Ground Stone Lamp, large Basalt? CompleteUNL050-17861 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17862 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17863 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17864 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17865 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Proximal Fits w/17866UNL050-17866 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Distal Fits w/17865UNL050-17867 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black Broken stemUNL050-17868 Chipped Stone Flake knife, med ? CompleteUNL050-17869 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17870 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black? Broken stemUNL050-17871 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-17872 Chipped Stone Flake knife, small Chert, green CompleteUNL050-17873 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-17874 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-17875 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17876 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17877 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17878 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17879 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17880 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17881 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray BrokenUNL050-17882 Bone Bowl, complete Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-17883 Chipped Stone Point, Bipoint ? CompleteUNL050-17884 Chipped Stone Piercer Chert, dark green CompleteUNL050-17885 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-17886 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, gray/black CompleteUNL050-17887 Chipped Stone Piercer Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17888 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-17889 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17890 Bone Harpoon point, stepped base Bone, mammal Broken endUNL050-17891 Ground Stone Lamp, small Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17892 Bone Worked Bone, whale Broken


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17893 Bone Pin? Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17894 Bone Spear prong, miniature Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17895 Chipped Stone Blade Yellow stone CompleteUNL050-17896 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17897 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17898 Chipped Stone Scraper Obsidian CompleteUNL050-17899 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17900 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-17901 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17902 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-17903 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17904 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black ProximalUNL050-17905 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17906 Chipped Stone Point, Bipoint Basalt CompleteUNL050-17907 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt CompleteUNL050-17908 Ground Stone Cobble/plummet, grooved Andesite? CompleteUNL050-17909 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17910 Ground Stone Lamp, large Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17911 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17912 Bone Fish hook preform Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17913 Tephra Tephra TephraUNL050-17914 Ground Stone Lamp, medium/large Sandstone CompleteUNL050-17915 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17916 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17917 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17918 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17919 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17920 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17921 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17922 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17923 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17924 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17925 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17926 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, gray/red BrokenUNL050-17927 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17928 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17929 Ground Stone Labret, tabular Brown stone CompleteUNL050-17930 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17931 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17932 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17933 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17934 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17935 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17936 Ground Stone Plummet Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-17937 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-17938 Bone Worked IvoryUNL050-17939 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17940 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17941 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17942 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Ivory? BrokenUNL050-17943 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17944 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17945 Bone Harpoon point, line hole Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17946 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal Broken end slotUNL050-17947 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17948 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17949 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17950 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-17951 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17952 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17953 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17954 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17955 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17956 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17957 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17958 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, red CompleteUNL050-17959 Bone Harpoon point, reworked Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-17960 Fiber? Fiber? Fiber?UNL050-17961 Bone Mask Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-17962 Bone Mask Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-17963 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-17964 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17965 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17966 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17967 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17968 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17969 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-17970 Ground Stone Stone ? CompleteUNL050-17971 Chipped Stone Blade? Chert, red Medial?UNL050-17972 Chipped Stone Flake ? CompleteUNL050-17973 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, black CompleteUNL050-17974 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17975 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17976 Unknown Black substance Black substanceUNL050-17977 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17978 Fiber Fibrous material Fibrous materialUNL050-17979 Wood/fiber Wood/fiber Wood/fiberUNL050-17980 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbUNL050-17981 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-17982 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal Broken?UNL050-17983 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-17984 Fauna Fauna FaunaUNL050-17985 Fauna Fauna FaunaUNL050-17986 Fauna Fauna Fauna


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-17987 Mussels Mussels MusselsUNL050-17988 Bone Worked bone BoneUNL050-17989 Chipped Stone Flakes ObsidianUNL050-17990 Chipped Stone Core? Chert, redUNL050-17991 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-17992 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-17993 Fauna Fauna FaunaUNL050-17994 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-17995 Bone Worked bone Bone, mammalUNL050-17996 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-17997 Fauna Fauna FaunaUNL050-17998 Mussels Mussels MusselsUNL050-17999 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-18000 Chipped Stone Lithics VariousUNL050-18001 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18002 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18003 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18004 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18005 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18006 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18007 Bone Slotted shaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18008 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18009 Bone Worked Bone BrokenUNL050-18010 Bone Lamp stand Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-18011 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Brown stone Broken?UNL050-18012 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory BrokenUNL050-18013 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18014 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18015 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18016 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18017 Organics Organics OrganicsUNL050-18018 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18019 Grass? Grass? Grass?UNL050-18020 Wood/grass? Wood/grass? Wood/grass?UNL050-18021 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18022 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18023 Ground Stone Lamp, preform Andesite? CompleteUNL050-18024 Bone Throwing board pin Bone BrokenUNL050-18025 Bone Bowl, preform Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-18026 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Basalt BrokenUNL050-18027 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, green BrokenUNL050-18028 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, gray BrokenUNL050-18029 Chipped Stone Flake, no retouch Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-18030 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18031 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-18032 Chipped Stone Chisel? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18033 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18034 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-18035 Chipped Stone Chisel? Chert, green BrokenUNL050-18036 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Green stone CompleteUNL050-18037 Chipped Stone Lithics Basalt?UNL050-18038 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18039 Grass/fiber Grass/fiber Grass/fiberUNL050-18040 Grass/fiber Grass/fiber Grass/fiberUNL050-18041 Fur Fur FurUNL050-18042 Floor Floor FloorUNL050-18043 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18044 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18045 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18046 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18047 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18048 Bone Bowl Bone, whale BrokenUNL050-18049 Ground Stone Grinding stone ? CompleteUNL050-18050 Chipped Stone Blade? Yellow stone CompleteUNL050-18051 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18052 Fur? Fur? Fur?UNL050-18053 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18054 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18055 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18056 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18057 Bone Bone Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18058 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken stemUNL050-18059 Chipped Stone Chisel? Chert, green BrokenUNL050-18060 Bone Needle? Bone BrokenUNL050-18061 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18062UNL050-18062 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18061UNL050-18063 Post hole Substance in post holeUNL050-18064 Tephra? Tephra? Tephra?UNL050-18065 Fur Fur FurUNL050-18066 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-18067 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18068 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18069 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-18070 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-18071 Wood Wood Wood UNL050-18072 Chipped Stone Core, microblade Chert, greenUNL050-18073 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18074 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18075 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18076 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18077 Chipped Stone Chisel? Chert, green/gray BrokenUNL050-18078 Bone Fish hook shank Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18079 Chipped Stone Core, flake Chert? CompleteUNL050-18080 Chipped Stone Flakes Various


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18081 Ground Stone Lamp BrokenUNL050-18082 Ground Stone Lamp BrokenUNL050-18083 Ground Stone Lamp BrokenUNL050-18084 Bone Whalebone Bone, whale CompleteUNL050-18085 Chipped Stone Core, microblade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18086 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt CompleteUNL050-18087 Ground Stone Lamp, miniature Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18088 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18089 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18090 Bone Needle, preform? Bone BrokenUNL050-18091 Chipped Stone Flake knife Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-18092 Bone Spear prong Bone, mammal Medial?UNL050-18093 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18094 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18095 Bone Harpoon point, line hole Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18096 Bone Labret, tabular Ivory BrokenUNL050-18097 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal Broken?UNL050-18098 Bone Harpoon point, line hole Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18099 Chipped Stone Drill bit Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18100 Ground Stone Plummet Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-18101 Chipped Stone Scraper, canted Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18102 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18103 Bone Needle Bone, bird BrokenUNL050-18104 Chipped Stone Point, Large Basalt ProximalUNL050-18105 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18106 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red/brown BrokenUNL050-18107 Chipped Stone Flake knife Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18108 Ground Stone Plummet Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18109 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18110 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18111 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18112 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18113 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18114 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18115 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18116 Ground Stone Sinker, grooved Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-18117 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green Distal?UNL050-18118 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18119 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18120 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18121 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green Proximal?UNL050-18122 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18123 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green Medial?UNL050-18124 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian ProximalUNL050-18125 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray ProximalUNL050-18126 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-18127 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian Proximal


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18128 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray ProximalUNL050-18129 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian? ProximalUNL050-18130 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black? MedialUNL050-18131 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18132 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green? ProximalUNL050-18133 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray ProximalUNL050-18134 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-18135 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18136 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, brown CompleteUNL050-18137 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Basalt? Broken Proximal?UNL050-18138 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18139 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Basalt CompleteUNL050-18140 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18141 Chipped Stone Piercer? Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18142 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18143 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18144 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18145 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18146 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18147 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18148 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18149 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black Broken proximal UNL050-18150 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18151 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Sandstone? DistalUNL050-18152 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken stemUNL050-18153 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18154 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18155 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18156 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18157 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18158 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt CompleteUNL050-18159 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt CompleteUNL050-18160 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Quartzite CompleteUNL050-18161 Chipped Stone Blade Basalt CompleteUNL050-18162 Chipped Stone Adze Green stone Broken?UNL050-18163 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt Broken stem?UNL050-18164 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18165 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18166 Chipped Stone Blade Obsidian ProximalUNL050-18167 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt Broken?UNL050-18168 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18169 Chipped Stone Adze? Green stone CompleteUNL050-18170 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green? CompleteUNL050-18171 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18172 Chipped Stone Point, Large Chert, green ProximalUNL050-18173 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, green? Broken stemUNL050-18174 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18175 Chipped Stone Knife? Basalt CompleteUNL050-18176 Chipped Stone Flake knife Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-18177 Chipped Stone Scraper? Basalt CompleteUNL050-18178 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-18179 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18180 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18181 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Basalt CompleteUNL050-18182 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18183 Chipped Stone Flake knife Chert, green/gray CompleteUNL050-18184 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18185 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18186 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18187 Chipped Stone Knife, Broadbased Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18188 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18189 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Chert, black? Broken stemUNL050-18190 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18191 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-18192 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18193 Chipped Stone Scraper? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18194 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18195 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18196 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray/black BrokenUNL050-18197 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black BrokenUNL050-18198 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18199 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18200 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt Broken stemUNL050-18201 Chipped Stone Flake knife Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18202 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18203 Chipped Stone Knife, Large Basalt CompleteUNL050-18204 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18205 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18206 Bone Spear prong? Ivory? BrokenUNL050-18207 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18208 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Ivory? CompleteUNL050-18209 Bone Cut bone Bone, albatross CompleteUNL050-18210 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal Broken barbsUNL050-18211 Bone Harpoon foreshaft Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18212 Bone Drill rest Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18213 Bone Harpoon preform, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18214 Bone Drill rest Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18215 Bone Worked Tooth BrokenUNL050-18216 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18217 Bone Worked Ivory BrokenUNL050-18218 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18219 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18220 Bone Awl Bone, bird BrokenUNL050-18221 Bone Awl Bone, bird Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18222 Bone Awl Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-18223 Bone Awl Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-18224 Bone Socket, composite Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-18225 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18226 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18227 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18228 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18229 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18230 Bone Awl Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-18231 Bone Harpoon point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18232 Bone Worked Ivory BrokenUNL050-18233 Bone Awl Bone, bird CompleteUNL050-18234 Bone Lance point, elaborate Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18235 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18236 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken tipUNL050-18237 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18238 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18239 Bone Spear prong Ivory? ProximalUNL050-18240 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18241 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18242 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18243 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18244 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18245 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18246 Bone Plate armor? Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18247 Bone Spear prong, notched base Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18248 Bone Worked Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18249UNL050-18249 Bone Worked Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18248UNL050-18250 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18251 Bone Drill rest Ivory CompleteUNL050-18252 Bone Worked Ivory BrokenUNL050-18253 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18254 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18255 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18256 Bone Harpoon point, bilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18257 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18258 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal Broken baseUNL050-18259 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18260 Bone Drill rest/wedge Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18261 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal MedialUNL050-18262 Bone Socket, composite Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18263 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18264 Bone Lance point Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18265 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal DistalUNL050-18266 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt CompleteUNL050-18267 Chipped Stone Scraper? Green stone CompleteUNL050-18268 Chipped Stone Knife, Stemmed Basalt Broken


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18269 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Basalt CompleteUNL050-18270 Chipped Stone Scraper? Chert, green Distal?UNL050-18271 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-18272 Chipped Stone Point, Qaxax Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18273 Chipped Stone Adze? Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18274 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Obsidian CompleteUNL050-18275 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18276 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18277 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped CompleteUNL050-18278 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Obsidian? ProximalUNL050-18279 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18280 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18281 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? Broken?UNL050-18282 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18283 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18284 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18285 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18286 Chipped Stone Point, Trapezoid Basalt CompleteUNL050-18287 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18288 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18289 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18290 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18291 Chipped Stone Flake knife Basalt CompleteUNL050-18292 Chipped Stone Point, Large Green stone Distal Fits w/18293UNL050-18293 Chipped Stone Point, Large Green stone Proximal Fits w/18292UNL050-18294 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18295 Organic sediment Organic sedimentUNL050-18296 Wood Wood?UNL050-18297 Charcoal Charcoal C14 datedUNL050-18298 Charcoal CharcoalUNL050-18299 Wood WoodUNL050-18300 Bone Drill rest Ivory CompleteUNL050-18301 Ground Stone Lamp, medium Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-18302 Ground Stone Lamp, miniature Volcanic tuff, red CompleteUNL050-18303 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18304 Bone Harpoon point, unilateral Bone, mammal ProximalUNL050-18305 Ground Stone Bowl or lamp? Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18306 Ground Stone Plummet, small CompleteUNL050-18307 Ground Stone Plummet Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-18308 Bone Throwing board pin? Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18309 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Basalt CompleteUNL050-18310 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Basalt CompleteUNL050-18311 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18312 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray? CompleteUNL050-18313 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18314 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green? ProximalUNL050-18315 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, black Complete


Catalog No. Category Object Material Condition RemarksUNL050-18316 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18317 Chipped Stone Knife, Asymmetrical Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18318 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18319 Chipped Stone Chisel Obsidian? CompleteUNL050-18320 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Basalt CompleteUNL050-18321 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18322 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, gray CompleteUNL050-18323 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18324 Chipped Stone Point, Leaf shaped Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18325 Chipped Stone Blade White stone CompleteUNL050-18326 Bone Fish hook barb Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18327 Chipped Stone Core, blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18328 Chipped Stone Microblade Chert, gray Proximal?UNL050-18329 Chipped Stone Blade Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18330 Ground Stone Bowl, complete Volcanic tuff, tan? CompleteUNL050-18331 Ground Stone Lamp, large Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18332 Ground Stone Lamp, smallest Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18333 Ground Stone Lamp, smallest Sandstone CompleteUNL050-18334 Ground Stone Hone Siltstone? BrokenUNL050-18335 Ground Stone Hone Mudstone? CompleteUNL050-18336 Chipped Stone Scraper, end, beaked Chert, black CompleteUNL050-18337 Chipped Stone Flake, utilized Chert, red Broken?UNL050-18338 Chipped Stone Scraper, thumbnail Chert, green CompleteUNL050-18339 Chipped Stone Scraper Chert, red CompleteUNL050-18340 Chipped Stone Flake, retouched Chert, red CompleteUNL050-18341 Ground Stone Bowl Volcanic tuff, red BrokenUNL050-18342 Ground Stone Lamp Basalt? CompleteUNL050-18343 Ground Stone Lamp Sandstone? CompleteUNL050-18344 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18345 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? CompleteUNL050-18346 Chipped Stone Point, Stemmed/shouldered Chert, black? Broken stemUNL050-18347 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18348UNL050-18348 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal Broken Fits w/18347UNL050-18349 Bone Worked Ivory BrokenUNL050-18350 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18351 Bone Root pick Bone, mammal BrokenUNL050-18352 Bone Harpoon point, miniature Bone, mammal CompleteUNL050-18353 Tephra Tephra Tephra

amaknak bridge site salvage_recovery

Documents