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

199 12. What Is the Nenana Complex? Raw Material Procurement and Technological Organization at Walker Road, Central Alaska ted goebel S tudies of lithic artifact variability in Beringia have traditionally focused on typological descriptions and interassemblage comparisons, the goals of which have been to define complexes, traditions, or culture histories (Alexander 1987; Anderson 1970; Dikov 1979; Dumond 1980; Goebel and Slobodin 1999; Kunz et al. 2003; Mochanov 1977; Powers 1990; West 1983). This has been especially the case in central Alaska, where much has been written about the Denali, Chindadn, and Nenana complexes and their relationship to one another and to Paleoindian assemblages from temperate North America (Cook 1975; Dixon 1985; Goebel et al. 1991; Holmes 2001; Powers and Hoffecker 1989; West 1981). These studies have been largely based on the theoretical premise that similarities and differences between technologies and tool forms represent cultural or historical relationships. Specifically, Goebel et al. (1991) compared frequencies of tool classes and types from five assemblages—the Walker Road and Dry Creek (component 1) Nenana complex assemblages, Dry Creek (component 2) Denali complex assemblage, and Blackwater Draw and Murray Springs Clovis assemblages —to determine whether Nenana or Denali was a more likely ancestor of Clovis. We found that the Nenana complex and Clovis assemblages seemingly had far more in common with each other than either had with the Denali complex assemblage, and we interpreted this to mean that Nenana and Clovis were historically related and likely the product of the same dispersal event out of northeast Asia. We further interpreted Denali to represent a different population resulting from a later dispersal out of northeast Asia. The problem with this and other such studies (e.g., Buchanan and Collard 2008) is not the typological method itself—artifact classifications are necessary for condensing information and comparing assemblages —but instead the normative approach used to interpret measured variability. Far too many other potential explanations of that variability exist for us to justify simple correlation of artifact types to prehistoric cultures . Effects of raw material, provisioning, design and function, resharpening, and duration of occupation are just some of the factors potentially leading to variability between prehistoric lithic assemblages (Andrefsky 1994; Blades 2001; Bleed 1986; Kuhn 1995; Rolland and Dibble 1990). We need behavioral studies that investigate these proximate causes of lithic variability before we attempt to address ultimate questions relating to historical processes. Here, I take a behavioral approach to lithic analysis, one that focuses more on technological activities and provisioning than on typology and cultures. My goal is to explore the evidence specifically from one Nenana complex site, Walker Road, from the perspective of tool provisioning theory, to show how it might help explain some of the variability evident in the late Pleistocene archaeological record of central Alaska. Of all the Nenana complex sites, Walker Road produced the largest lithic assemblage, and for that reason it frequently has been considered the “type site” of the complex (Goebel et al. 1991; Hoffecker and Elias 2007). Walker Road The Walker Road site is located in the foothills of the north Alaska Range, along the Nenana River about 12 km north of the town of Healy, Alaska. The site rests upon a south-facing bluff of the Healy terrace overlooking the confluence of the river and a small, unnamed creek 200 Ted Goebel J. Hoffecker and S. Wilson discovered Walker Road in 1980, and W. R. Powers led excavations there for six years in 1984–1986 and 1988–1990 (Goebel et al. 1996). In all, we excavated an area of about 200 m , exposing two major concentrations of lithic tools and debitage (figure 12.3). Each of these concentrations was associated with a welldefined hearth feature characterized by charcoal, ash, and bits of calcined bone. Charcoal from hearth feature 1 yielded age estimates of 11,820 ± 200, 11,170 ± 180, and 11,010 ± 230  C BP (13,780 ± 290, 13,080 ± 195, and 12,970± 210 cal BP, respectively), and charcoal from hearth feature 2 yielded an age estimate of 11,300 ± 120  C BP (13,210± 150 cal BP) (Goebel et al. 1996; Powers et al. 1990). We rejected the oldest date of 11,820  C BP, since it was discordantly old and obtained using conventional methods (Hamilton and Goebel 1999). The three younger dates overlapped each other at 1-sigma and were obtained using AMS methods. The weighted mean of the AMS ages is 11,210 ± 90  C BP (13,100 ± 130 cal BP). This probably is a...

Share