In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

234 14. The Microblade/Non-Microblade Dichotomy Climatic Implications, Toolkit Variability, and the Role of Tiny Tools in Eastern Beringia brian t. wygal T he earliest known lithic technology in eastern Beringia involved the systematic production of microblades, and microblade industries have persisted at various levels throughout the Holocene and across many technological traditions. Thus, there is great interest in understanding why microblade technology appears in some sites but not in others (Wygal 2009). Many explanations have been offered—climate, raw material availability, culture, and site-specific activities—making it difficult to determine why the technology is present or absent in any given site. What is determinable is how microblades were employed at a regional scale given the abundant radiocarbon and paleoclimatic data available. By systematically evaluating 268 radiocarbon dates from more than sixty dated components in interior eastern Beringia, in this chapter I compare the relative frequency of components across various time intervals and then relative to the presence or absence of microblades and worldwide climatic oscillations. If we assume that component frequency is representative of population levels, then the most notable trends are population nadirs coincident with the onset of the coldest periods and the primary use of microblade technology during those crises. The results suggest that, although microblade production was persistent at various degrees over the past 14,300 calendar years in eastern Beringia, only those groups who employed it may have survived some of the most extreme changes in climate and ecology. By definition, microblades are standardized elongate blades with parallel lateral margins, typically less than 20 mm in length and 5 mm in width. They have dorsal ridges or facet scars, remnant of blades previously removed (Flenniken 1987; Goebel et al. 2000; Kobayashi 1970; Morlan 1976). There are, however, a wide variety of blade and microblade technologies that are the result of technologically and metrically different systems (Collins 1999:9– 10). Confusion often occurs because not all archaeologists accept the same standard for identifying microblades, with some accepting measurements as large as 30 mm long and 10 mm wide (Collins 1999:10; Owen 1988:2). Microblades, as opposed to blades or bladelets, were deliberately constructed for the purpose of hafting into composite tools. This aspect is reflected by the end product’s small size and standard form (Kuhn and Elston 2002:2), and it is by these measures that we ultimately define the technology. Microblade technologies “never comprise an entire lithic industry, but are used in conjunction” (Kuhn and Elston 2002:5) with other toolkits and systems that require dependable and stable implements where redundant tasks are frequent (Bleed 1986). Examples include hunting herd animals, such as bison and caribou, where it is essential to maintain a sharp cutting edge on a reusable tool so that multiple animals can be taken without weapon malfunction (Kuhn and Elston 2002:5). In cold environments, osseous projectiles inset with microblades are more flexible and better suited for these tasks than lanceolate tipped weapons because stone becomes brittle when cold, resulting in more frequent malfunctions. Moreover, composite tools were easily repaired if damaged because microblades could be quickly produced and inserted when necessary (Elston and Brantingham 2002). Microblades appeared in south-central Siberia a few thousand years prior to arriving in eastern Beringia and may have developed during the harsh conditions of the last glacial maximum sometime between roughly 22,000 and 20,000 cal BP (19,000–17,000  C BP) (Goebel 1999; Goebel et al. 2000:567–568; Graf 2008). Perhaps the invention of microblade composite tools was a prerequisite Microblade/Non-Microblade Dichotomy 235 most of the debate centers on interior Alaska where the Nenana and Denali complexes are regarded by some as aspects of the same prehistoric toolkit associated with a greater Beringian technological tradition (Holmes 2001; Holmes and Crass 2003; West 1967, 1975, 1981, 1996). Others, however, maintain that the Nenana complex should be regarded as a different industry representing an initial peopling of Alaska by foragers who lacked a microblade industry (Goebel et al. 1991; Powers and Hoffecker 1989). Reconciling these differences and reaching an agreement on a comprehensive understanding for the early peopling of eastern Beringia has yet to be achieved (Bever 2001b; Hamilton and Goebel 1999:184; Hoffecker 2001:149). Some points of agreement include the diagnostic attributes of the Nenana complex, including a core and blade primary mode of reduction and characteristic teardrop to triangular bifacial projectile points or knives, large retouched blades, and flake tools such as end scrapers...

Share