.... "' . -

L '

'

[i:{J£00~.~ Q ~00&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture

Document Number

d(o_~O=--_ Please Return To

DOCUMENT. CONTROL

... ~-..·--.-..------..-.----.............. cw.u ___ .... ______ trnl_t ... __ iiii __ ... __ c=-__ ~--------._-------~~--.... ---

A Geometric Methodology :for Archaeological Survey: An Alternative. to Statistical and Ethnological Approaches

-~------.-.------w··~....,---=-Wftl'-.._ ___ _,_~·--•'-_, __ ._ _ _. __ ., _____ _.._ ... _._.._ ____ ..__., __ _

Robert M. Thorson Geology/Geophysics Program and Museum

University of Alaska Fairbanks, ~~aska 99701

Glenn H. Bacon Alaska Heritage Research Group, Inc~

P.O. Box 397 Fairbanks, .Al~,ska 99707

Mark Standley Anthropology Pro9ram University of Alaska

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

April 1984 ,

.~

I

.Abstract

Reconnaissance archaeological survey of large areas must

follow strategies designed to maximize the potential for site

discovery using limited time and resources. Two current

approaches, an inductive one based on ethnographic comparisons

<the direct historical approach) and a statistical one, bas~d on

probabilistic sampling, are both widely applied; both have severe

linctations. A third alternative, a geometric reduction method,

provides a more workable approach to reconnaissance archaeological

survey. This method views survey units as three dimensional

bodies of earth materials from which two dimensional surfaces·

(RplaneS~), linear featureS (RlineSW) and Small VOlUmeS

c•points") eaa£ be determined and ranked in order of importance.

Abstracted points and linear survey locales are then used to

focus survey efforts. Th~ high correlation between the

distribution of a sample of known 1\.J.askan archaeological sites and

"points" strongly supports the validity of the proposed strategy.

Application of the geometric reduction method to a previously

surveyed area in northeastern Alaska also suggests that the

apptoach is valid. . .

,,

2

Introduction

Given the problem of limited field time, a function of

field costs and short fi~ld seasons, researchers jn the past have

attemped to narrow the research universe by abstracting a comple~

environment in terms of (1) two-dimensional grids, (2) biological

mosaics, (3) projection$ '~f ethnographically described land-use

patterns, C4) learned survey behavior or experimental inductive

approaches, and (5) combinations of the foregoing. Biological

approaches are made difficult due to differences in definitions

of such concepts as ecotones and to problems implicit in the

identification of meaningful resource strata. Problems in the

application of uniformitarian principals occur when attempts are

made to predict probable site locations on the basis of

ethnologically derived exploitative and settlement patterns •.

There is no assurance that modern patterns reflect or parallel

past ones. The strength embodied in the uniformitarian principal

. 1 . . . ~ t k 1s • so 1t$ g;ea~es wea ness. A direct random statistical

sampling is a proven powerful method for problem solving, but it

is difficult to secure a meaningful (statistically significant)

sample for large survey regions. It is also difficult to

translate results into environmentally meaningful units (strata)

so that extrapolaeion can be made from a surveyed unit to a

non-surveyed unit.

It is clear that none of the currently popular techniques

solve all the problems of regional archaeological survey effortst

neither does the one presented here. In the United States such

it

3

surveys are n~arly alw~ys conducted in the context of cultural

resource inventories. These inventories often begin with a

baselino reconnaissance l2Vel survey designed to establish a

cultural-historical co~t~xt within which to evaluate the

historical significan~e of each sit2 in the region. Reconnaissance

surveys often focus on regional culture histories rather than

predictive modeling for site spatial distribution. This paper

introduces an approach to regional reconnaissance survey which is

methodologically valid, ~eproducible, and easily applied to

regions of varying size anc.i. terrain condition.

The most common regional survey methodology utilizes the

direct historical approach. This methodology uses an inductive

technique in which archaeologists use comparisons with

ethnographic accounts to focus their survey in certain areas or

in paleogeographic settings comparable to those documented

ethnographically as activity foci. In the context of this

approach, archaeologists concentrate their survey efforts in

set.tings which modern or early historic peoples utilized. Quarry

sites, game lookout sites, and river portages are but a few

examples. The direct historical approach has the advantage of

being easily applied, but has at least one serious drawback. If

comparisons with only historically or ethnohistorically recorde~

peoples are used, one uust assume that the subsistence patterns

or lifeways of ancient peoples were comparable to those

documented ethnographically. This uniformitarian assumption is

justified only in its most general sense in that all past

populations must have had access to water, food resources, and

'.'1

•

4

shelter.

The other common approach to regional si:'te survey is the

statistical one~ Here the goals are to find where sites exist

through systema.tic or random sampling. An. advantage of thi.s

technique is tha.t it can indicate to archat.:"Ologists where sites aLre

not as well as where they are. Unfortunately this technique is

virtually unworkable in large poorly documented areas where

variations in surface conditions prohibit informed representative

sampling. Where surfacf~ exposures are poor, because of dense

vegetation, thick organic soils, or impenetrable surface horizons

such as ferricrete, calcrete, or permafrost, sites are usually

not discovered. Thus, this theoretically sound technique

commonly results in site distributions with a stronger correlation

to surface exposure conditions than to ancient subsistence and

settl~~ent patterns. Another serious drawback to this technique

is that it is strongly skewed to relatively recent sites due to a

differential preservation bias in favor of recent sites. Thus,

prediction or probability statements about where sites are located

may not accurately represent the dis'tr ibution of ancient sites.

Less its highly useful predictive aspect, the statistical approach

is not much stronger than the direct historical approach, and in

some cases it could be less useful. Another major problem with

the statistical approach is that in field situations the final

selection of subsurface testing locales is often based on the

uniformitarian inductive approach described above.

Various sampling designs for large area archaeological

reconnaissance surveys have been widely used only relatively

\ J

I

5

recently; and arguments have been advanced for a number of survey

t t ~ 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

s ra eg1es • Almost all statistical sampling

schemes for large areas employ the concept of survey warea".

One must question whether statistical approaches related to .

•area• are meaningful for any survey other than surface survey.

One might also ask whether statistical sampling is a workable

concept for large three-dimensional archaeological survey

problems. These questions are' not often discussed, and rarely 2-d ~ r~ ' ...

does one encounter the concept of archaeological surveys1as a

three-dimensional problem.

These questions take on added meaning when an attempt is

made to answer them for reconnaissance surveys of large regions~

S7Jch as those in Alaska. Given a typical survey area in excess

of 100 square kilometers, and given a sediment depth ranging up

to tens of meters thick, the volume of potential culture bearing

sediments is in the millions of cubic meters. Archaeologists have

been unable to agree on the minimum meaningful sample size1

estimates range from as high as 50% 8 to as low as 2% 9 • If, as

experience indicates, one man-day of effort can result in the

"~xcavation of no more than one or two cubic meters of sediments,

then literally millions of man-days would be required to secure

anything approaching a statistically meaningful sample. Funding

and manpower limitations would generally preclude even a fraction

of 1% coverage for large areas.

This paper presents a largely deductive alternative to

current reconnaissance archaeological survey sJtrategies. It is

b3sed on viewing the entire survey unit in terms of geometric

'r .-·

..

I

6

analcJgs and it progressively focuses the survey from larger to

smaller portions of the total survey volume. This technique

developed as a result of years of survey experience in many parts

of Alaska by the authors, who independently realized that,

because of varying surface conditions and serious logistical

problems, statistica.l approaches are often unworkable., An

indutctive approach, based on ethnographic comparisons, is also

limited because of the antiquity of many sites and due to

difJ:erences in subsistence economies between diverse groups. The

altt:rnative presented here has the distinct advantage of being

easily and systematically applied, being fre~ of ethnographic

assumptions, and being deductive in its approach. Also, it

develops a set of concepts and terms which are easily transferred

from one area to another, regardless of the scale of the project.

Although simple and straight forward in its

implementation, the geometric reduction·methodology has not yet

been field tested for its effectiveness. However, this

methodology was applied to a previously surveyed area in

northeastern Alaska. The high correlation between the locales

predicted by this method and the sites actually discovered

supports the validity of the method.

Geometric Reduction Methodology for Site Sur·vey

Any survey region or locale of any shape can be considered

0 i\

l

7

as a portion of the solid earth that is bounded by three

dimensions. It has a certain surface area and a certain thi.cknf~ss

of surficial sediments in which archaeological sites could occur.

The simplest way to understand the geometry of a survey region is

to consider the ideal situation of a rectangular box with X, Y,

~nd z Cartesian coordinates of uniform lineat scales, no

topographic variability, and horizontal strata (Fig. 1). In this

example, the X axis is a surface line bounding one side of the

survey unit. The Y axis lies at right angles to the X axis on the

surface. In this idealized example, the X axis and Y axis could

represent an east-west line of latitude and a line of longitude,

respectively. The z axis extends from the surface downward, 0

ortho~anal to the other axes.

With the aid of this simple diagram (Fig. 1) it is

possible to describe any portion of a survey unit in terms of its

three, two, one, or zero dimensional analog. Archeological

material 1 which could occur anywhere on the surface or at any

depth, can be located on the diagram by X, Y, and Z coordinates.

Thus, a survey unit is a three dimensional problem. If one

restricts a survey unit to a planar surface only two dimensions

need be considered to locate archaeological material. The surface

unit consists of a two dimensional surface defined by XY

coordinates Ceg., ABCD). Other ·two dimensional surfaces include

any XY plane a.t some depth along the z axis (eg., EFGH), XZ

planes at any distance along theY axis Ceg., ABFE and DCGH), and

YZ planes at any distance along the X axis (ego, AEHD and BFGC) •

An example \'lf a "one dimensional• survey unit is an extremely

8

linear surface defined by the intersection of two planes or by

regular variation in any of the coordinates. The intersection of

the XY and XZ planes ABCD and ABFE defines the linear unit AB.

The analog of a point is a small surface defined by the

intersectic'n of two linear features or three planar features, or

when all coordinates are fixed Ceg., points A, B, c, D, E, F, G,

orB>~~

This morpho-analytic characterization of a survey unit

should not be unfamiliar to field archaeologists because geometric

analyses are used almost exclusively to record the exact location

of a;t~~acts in excav~~~9n units~ Tb~ x, Y, and z coordinates

represent a point in space, perhaps an artifact occurrence within

~ excavation; JCl coordinates could represent spatial; location on

subhorizontal cultural horizons; and XZ and YZ coordinates could

represent stratigraphic profiles on excavation walls with Z

coordinat:es representing stratigraphic depth~· The dimensional

approach, which is the subject of this paper, is only an extension

of geometrical concepts from excavation procedures to survey

procedu1ces. A large excavation unit could be conside.red a three

dimensional survey unit at reduced scale.

Geometry of Real Survey Areas

Real survey areas are geometrically more complex than the

hypothetical situation of a rectangular box (Figo 2). A typical

larg~ survey area is usually bounded by natural physiographic '

..

t

9

borders such as major river valleys, mountain fronts, or 0

coastlines which do not inter sect orthoganally. Surface terrain J

is usually complex, with considerable topographic variability and

with different geologic materials exposed at the surface. Rivers

and streams often form a dense network over the survey area.

Subsurface stratigraphic units are usually not continuous over the

whole area, and stratigraphic depth and depth below surface are

usually not eoineident. In spite of these geometric

complications, the principals of a geometric reduction methodology

for archaeological survey c3n be used effectively to help focus

survey efforts., The objective of the l'roposed methodology is to

progressively reduce a survey unit from a three dimensional to a

•zero• dimensional problem through a geometric reduction

technique.

In a situation whe,re topography is irregular the ground

surface must be described as three dimensional, because the X, Y,

and Z coordinates must be used to mathematically describe the

surface. Ho"irever, a.'l undulating three dimensional surface can be

rendered as a two dimensional area if the vertical dimension (Z

axis) is considered to be depth below surface rather than

vertical elevation. Thus, an irregular surface can be defined in

terms of X and Y coordifiat~~ ifi map view. The units of

measurement along the X and Y axes are considered to be distance

(meters or. kilometers) measured from map view as distinct from

measuremer1ts along the ground surface. Two options exist for

measurement along the z axis. If little is known of area

stratigra;phy, measurement along the z axis should be a linear

..

10

scale of depth •. If the stratigraphy of the survey unit is

reasonably w~ll known, a Z axis measurement based on

stratigraphic depth is preferred, using a non-linear scale based

on subsurface horizons.

If the survey unit consists of segments radically

different in terms of subsurface stratigraphy or in topographic

setting, subdividing the unit is appropriate. If the primary ' unit is subdivided, scales 01£ measurement and focusing parameters

will need to be similar within each subunit •

Dimensional Reduction

Defining Three Dimensional Survey Units

An entire survey re9ion can be considered as a volume of

sediment which is defined by an infinite number of x, Y, and z

coordinates. Three dimensional survey is unworkable for any but

the smallest survey unit, because the entire volume of sediments

must be investigated and this is often prohibited by financial and

time limitations.

Defining Two Dimensional Su.rvey Units

A survey can be focused considerably by operationally

defining al:l significant two dimensional surfaces (Table 1~ Fig.

.-

"

11

1). An undulating ground surfac~ defined by XY coordinates would

be the simplest planar surface to investigate. The survey could

also be focused along the XY plane at any prominent subsurface

stxatigraphic unit (depth Z) , especially if artifacts are thought

to be concentrated in one or more specific subsurface horizons,

for example a prominent buried soil or lithologic contact of

regional extent. Other more restricted planar surfaces defined

only by XY coordinates include localized flctt uplands, river or

coastal terraces, or broad floodplains. More complex two

dimensional surfaces include planes defined by all three

coordinates; examples include sloping valley walls, coastal

plains, and piedmont mountain fronts. Where stratigraphic

exposures are good, a two dimensional survey can be done on

near-vertical exposures, which can be considered as either XZ or

YZ planes d~pending on the orientation of the project area.

Examples of two dimensional near-vertical surfaces include coastal

cliffs, steep exposed valley walls, gullies in tributary streams,

and long landslide scarps. Survey of two dimensional

stratigraphic exposures is much more time-effective but limited to

the availability of suitable exposures.

Recognition and mapping of two dimensional zones may

provide an investigator with workable survey surfaces, es~pecially

in the case of near-vertical exposures. However, the major

justification for doing so is to permit the outlining of linear

zones that will focus survey even more closely.

J

..

12

Defining One·ntmensional Survey Units

Linear survey units represent the intersection of two

planes or the boundaries of a linear landform on a planar

surface. Nearly all survey regions, after subdivision into

workable two dimensional surfaces, can be further reduced by

abstraction of linear survey units. Examples of linear units

formed by the intersection of two XY planes incl~de the

intersection of a sloping mountain front and a flat piedmont, the

top and bottom of sloping valley walls, a coastline, the inner

and outer edges of river and coastal terraces, the edge of

plateau uplands, lake shorelines, escarpments along recent

fatats, prominent lithologic contrasts, and any prominent breaks

Linear units can also be recognized which are defined by

the intersection of vertical CXZ or YZ) and horizontal (XY)

planes~ For example, probable cultural horizons inferred on the

basis of paleosols or known stratigraphy exposed in a river bluff,

tributary gully, or coastal cliff, provide an excellent

opportunity to focus survey efforts. Less co~nmon are linear units

defined by the intersection of two vertical planes (XZ or YZ).

The intersection of a river bluff and a coastal cliff, or of

exposed junctions of tributary and river valley bluffs are good

examples of lines formed by near-v~rtical intersections. In these

cases the line defined represents variations in stratigl~'a}:)hic

depth at some point. Identification of linear landfoons on an

otherwise planar surface may f:\lso be used to focus archaeological

..

0

l

13

survey. It is not necessary that the linear landforms be

straight. Examples include an unincised river channel on a broad

floodplain, an esker traversing a till plain, or a prominent

moraine or lithologic contact scarp.

Recognizing prominent linear units in a survey unit is a

major step toward focusing survey efforts. Real survey "lines",

such as terrace edges, have at least some area, depending on

exposure and traversability. For survey in the interior regions

of Alaska, "lines• represent the highest order dimensional focus

for practical survey because most planar surfaces, with the

exception of windswept upland areas, ate mantled with thick

vegetation, muskeg, or permafrost 10 • With the exception of very

large or complex survey units, most linear units could be at

least walked or partially tested with a relatively small field

crew.

Defining Zero Dimensional Survey Units

The ultimate goal of the geometric reduction methodology

to site survey is to reduce the geometric dimensionality of the

survey unit from rectangular solids, to planar surfaces, to linear

tmits, and then to small volumes in space that have near zero

dimension. These small vo1 uw·es are termed "points". Points are

most commonly defined by eilher the intersection of two linear

units, three planar surfaces, or by pla.ces of change in character

along a linear unit. survey points are less commonly defined by

~-

·'~""'"'::~.f'~'·~P '"'" ...... '"~'

,,;;· It

14

isolated landforms on a planar surface, examples of which are

glacial kames, pingos, and isolate . .-.J tock knobs.

Examples of survey points that result from the

intersection of two linear units include the mouths of s~reams

and rivers into lake~ and oceans, the junctions of tributaries

and major rivers, the corner of an exposed terrace, the

intersection of an animal migration path with another line such

as a river valley, and the drainage divide region between two

streams. A known stratigraphic target on a line for.med by bluff

intersections (eg., xz and XY lines) also represents a point

focus for survey. Recognition of sedimentological indicators of

paleoshorelines or river channels along an exposed stratigr:aphic:

unit may also represent a poin~. focus fer survey.

Essentially zero dimensional survey points can also bn

· commonly recognized as variations along a linear unit in a planar

surface. Examples include prominent changes in rivet gradient,

shallow spots across rivers, valley constrictions, ridge crests

and edges of ridges, small bays along straight coast, the ends of

penin.s•llas, and zones of no offset or mineral licks along .recent

fault escarpments. Such interpretations can easily be made for

modern geographic settings. Although more difficult to recognize

for paleogeographic settings, they are especially important if

the probability for old sites is high.

During pre-survey planning, survey points can be

identified on planar surfaces independent of intersections of

linear units. Examples include small lake~ topographic

prominences, caves, outcrops of ro~k suitable fo.t' tool making,

I

15

and isolated mineral licks. Any anomalous topographic or

lithologic feature on an otherwise expa:nsive surface should be a

focus for survey (Table 1).

Ranking zero Dimensional Units

Ranking is the scalar classification of points through the

even application of sorting criteria. Ranking criteria can be

quantitative or qualitative or both. The purpose of ranking is to

help researchers meet survey objectives, given time and financial

constraints.

Although not fundamental to the geometric reduction

methodology, ranking of zero dimensional points can be used to

reduce the number of points under consideration for field

investigation. By selecting for those points most closely

associated with project objectives, ranking can become an

important tool in the reduction process by prioritizing survey

foci or sample units. For example, an investigator interested in

early sites may empha~ize the value of points in older geologic

settings. In another situation, logistic considerations may

focus attention on points most accessible, given available

transportation.

. .... J. <_,._..... ~'""'"'•n ,...._,...,~-"'""~>4>" _.,._ >•-'•~·--••<..<•"~•"-~'-'''"''' '0'4•-•

.:::

,'\

..

..

'\

16

summary of Procedure

One of the major advantages of a geometric reduction

methodology to site survey, employing the dimensional reduction

technique, is that survey locales can be selected and ranked

deductively and systematically prior: to the field survey. 'l'hf.!

extent to which the stratigraphy of a region and the basic

cultural chronology and contexts are known, along with survey

objectives, will determine the degree of emphasis placed on

surveying existing exposures and the extent to which

paleogeographic settings are important. Survey focusing on

vertical exposures cannot be done easily from aerial photographs

or maps, but should be done early in the field season • .

The follo~ing procedure is suggested to reduce a large

survey unit to specific survey loci, which can be ranked.

1. The limits of the survey region must be first

established. An XY coordinate system can be placed over the

region, but this is not necessary. Complex regions may require

subdivision.

2. High quality aerial photographs are essential and ~ust

be acquired.

3. Select and map all planar c•two dimensional")

surfaces for which ground survey may be practical. Identify

natural exposures that exhibit stratigraphic depth, thereby

providing oppo~tunities for survey of near-vertical planar

surfaces.

..

~ )<< ;I

17

4. Map all linear ("one dimensional") features that result

from intersection of present and paleogeographic XY, xz, and YZ

type planar surfaces. Map linear features independent of

intersections.

5. Select present and paleogeographi6 points that result

from intersection of linear units, from variations along linear

units, or from points on planar surfaces.

6. Rank survey points according to their relative

importance by estimating the relative importance of intersecting

linear units or by estimating the relative prominence of }?Oints

identified along linear or planar units. For example: (a) the

longer or more pronounced linear units are, the more likely their

intersection is to be significant, Cb) the more pronounced a

gradient change is, the more likely it is to be significant, and

(c) the more prominent a topographic anomaly is, the more likely

it i!:; to be important. Logistical considerations must be taken

into .account.

7. Rank survey linear units according to their importance

based on the extents of the intersecting planar surfaces forming

them.

s. Rank planar units according to their suitability for

field testi.ng and by their proximity to important linear and

planar units.

9. Select areas of high priority where highly ranked

points, linear units, and planar units are frequent or clustered.

10. Early in the field season, identify and rank planar

units, linear units: and points that occur in natural exposures.

:,

I

18

Incorporate this information into a continuing survey strategy.

11. Concentrate on highly ranked points and linear units

during the field survey.

An Example ~f the Dimensional Reduction Technique: Lower Coleen

River, Alaska

The following section demonstrates the application of the

dimensional reduction technique for an area in northeastern

Alaska. The lower Coleen River drainage was selected as a

hypothetical survey unit because of the availabilit~· of u.s.G.S.

topographic maps (1:63,360 scale), ground survey data, and false

color aerial photographic coverag.e.

Our hypothetical survey area extends three kilometers on

each side of the Coleen River and includes just over 200 square

kilometers (Fig. 3). The three kilometer limits were defined

because they represent reasonable limits for archaeological survey

crews operating from river based transportation.

After initial selection of the survey area, the next step

in the procedure was to identify generalized two dimensional

surfaces. Reduction to two dimensional surfaces was achieved by

mapping in all discrete terraces, floodplains, and sloping

bedrock surfaces. Map contours and aerial photographs were used

to discriminate the various surfaces, which were then transferred

with a zoom transfer seope to a 1:250,000 scale base map. Three

general planar surfaces were identified from this mapping: Cl)

·'

L

19

the modern floodplain, between 152 m. CSOO feet) and 183 m. (600

feet), (2) older terraces, between 183m. and 213m. C700 feet),

and (3) sloping bedrock surfaces, between 213 m. and 244 m. CBOO

feet) (Fig. 4) •

Linear features were then mapped as intersections of

planar surfaces, lake and stream margins, ridge crests, and edges

of ,river terraces and modern r1 ver channels (Fig. 5) • In Figure

5, dashed lines represent discernable vertical exposures along a

linear feature. Not all vertical exposures in the survey unit

were discernable from aerial photographs, but such stratigraphic

windows, where available, should be incorporated in the reduction

to one dimensional units.

Once linear features (one dimensional units) were

identified in the survey unit, it was possible to generate a map

of selected zero dimensional survey loci within the larger survey

unit. Selection of zero dimensional points can be determined

depending upon a researchers objectives and the degree of

resolution desired. A total of 99 zero dimensional points were

identified in the lower Coleen River survey unit (Fig. 6). These

points were rt~ked according to a set of criteria used to measure

potential for site discovery at any one foci.

For purposes of demonstration, the ranking scale here

consists of a numerical scale from one to three, with the hig~est

potential point rank~d as a three. For the lower Coleen River

study, the rank assigned to any point was based upon a set of

environmental considerations which were deduced from

interpretations of. u.s.G.s. maps and aerial photographs. Ranking

• _R

-.

..

0

20

foeused on cr·iteria considered environmentally significant for

site occurran.ce. Each point was scored numerically from one to

three for ea,c::h of ten criteria (Table 2). Then each point was

;assigned a :single rank value equal to the highest of its ten

scores.

As a result of applying the ranking criteria to the Coleen

River survey area points (Fig. 6), the 99 selected points were

ranked as follows:

RANK

1

2

3

NO. OF POINTS

38

41

20

Whereas each criterion has its own justification for being

considered, the assumption behind this ranking process was simply

that some points will have a higher site potential than others.

It is important to stress that criteria applied will depend on

specific projec~ objectives and limitations, and they will likely

vary from one research project to another. For example, at least

one other researcher in Alaska has ranked points to define

logistically convenient sampling points within an overall survey

unit 11•

The final step in this example application of the geometric

reduction methodology was to use survey locales and known

archaeological Hites, from previous field work (Fig. 7), to

deter.mine how the locations of these locales and sites compares

21

to locations of ranked zero dimensional points identified using

the geometric reduction methodologty. A total of 14 survey locales

and fi~e archaeological sites are recorded for the lower Coleen

River area 12• Survey locales represent ground sample _units

covered in the Coleen River study area; each was defined

inductively, according to ethnologically based criteria.

Thirteen of the zero dimensional points, defined using the ;

geome·tric reduction methodology, fall within the 14 previously

defined survey locales. Completed archaeological survey of the 14

sample areas represents an opportunity to survey in retrospect the

13 zero dimensional points included therein. Three of the five

known lower Coleen River sites fall within the 14 survey locales.

Two other kr1own sites are outside these survey locales but are

within the Coleen River study unit. All five archaeological

sites are associated with zero dimensional contexts as defined by

the geometric reduction methodology. Two of these sites were

associated with third order ranked points (highest site

potential) , \tlhile the other three were associated with second

order ranked points. None of the known sites is associated with

the lowest order ranking.

It is appropriate to stress the preliminary nature ot these

results, especially in view of incomplete knowledge of Coleen

River area archaeology. The Cole en River survey area was survey·ed

based on inductive based research strategies, and it is realized

that this post hoc application of the geometric reduction

,/ m.:thodolo~can be criticized. The goal hei'e is to demonstrate the

steps of the geometric reduction process. The results obtained in

• J.

.0'

22

this demonstration remain inconclusive, but they suggest the

validity of the technique.

Validity of the Proposed Methodology

The geometric reduction methodology provides a systematic

procedure and set of ter.ros applicable to survey reconnaissance at

many scales, from extensive excavation to first order surveys of

vast regions. ~he geometric reduction ~ethod9~ogy,. using the

dimensional reduction technique, is deductive; survey locales or

points are sel~cted ar.d ranked by dimensional prominence in such a

way as to minimize ethnographic or behavioral constraints.

Clearly, point-source locales such as portages and overlooks carry

cultural implications, but these geographic settings emerge

directly from the dimensional reduction technique, without

uniformitarian assumptions based on human behavior.

The validity of the proposed geometric reduction

methodology will be difficult to test in the field because sites

·will only be found in areas surveyed. The geometric reduction

methodology may indicate where sites are, but not where they are

not. OWing to this limitation, an investigator would never }:.now

if the methodology worked, other than the fact that it may have

located one or more sites. A positive, though impractical test

would be to predict site locations by dimensional procedures,

completely investigate an entire survey unit in three dimensions, .

and compare the coincid~nce of sites discovered and sites .

J

'0

"

23

predicted.

Inductive influences in the proposed technique can be

minimized by investigating all survey points and linear units

regardless of whether the survey team thinks that "this looks

like a good place for a site", the technique used during most

surveys. This inferential approach, so commonly applied in

archaeological research, is st.rictly uniformitarian in t:hat it

assumes behavioral or subsistence patterns of ancient peoples are

similar to those of the more recent past.. The reason a locality

"looks like a good spot for a site" is because it has low

dimensionality context and Cor) high prominence defined by

geometric or physiographic parameters. The dimensional reduction

technique offers procedures to focus survey efforts in a region

completely independent of behavioral inference.

The dimensional reduction technique can easily be used in

combinatic.m with either statistical or ethnological approaches~

Once survey units have been selected, they can be sampled using

statistical methods. Ethnographic data may also be used in

ranking points and linear units after they have been identified

through the geometric reduction technique.

A test of the proposed t.:.e.chnique is to compare known :;;ite

distributions with highly ranked points and linear units

identified through the dimenr.;ional reduction technique. Both a

regional and a chronological test will be applied here. Shinkwin

and Aigner 13 listed all known aboriginal sites in a five

quadrangle area in east-central Alaska in order to assess

potential impact of proposed pipeline construction. These sites

·~·

24

were located by a variety of means, including standard

archaeological surveys and oral accounts; and altogether they

represent f:.he most complete sample for any large region of Alaska.

The list of archaeological sites published by.Shinkwin and Aigner

provides an opportunity to compare settings of a diachronic

sample within a region to those predicted by the dimensional

reduction technique. A summary of dimensional context for site

settings is included in Table 3.

A r~gionally less restrictive sample of Alaskan

archaeological sites can be selected from any time level, thereby

substituting time restrictions for geographic restrictions.

Table 4 lists a sample of well-dated late Pleistocene-Early

Holocene Alaskan archaeological sites 14 ' 15 , 16 , l?, 18 , !9, 20 •

Sites listed in tables 3 and 4 are compared to associated dimen­

sional setting; it is clear that both samples reflect a clear bias

in favor of low dimensional settings. This confirms conclusions

reached after reveiw of Coleen River archaeological data dis-

cussed earlier. There, all known sites occur in zero dimensional

contexts; further, all sites are associated with second and third

order ranked points.

The geometric reduction methodology, ueing the dimensional

reduction technique, for archaeological reconnaissance survey

lead$ to some important predictions, each of wb.ich is validated

in the examined site samples. They are:

1. Sitt~s will be more cornmonly def.ined by point C zero)

dimensional settings than in hi~1her order dimensional settings

• . . -· ·····~··· . ··-·-··---·-·······~-----·--···"·····"~-.,.-.. -. -·~···-···· ---··-·····. ···---·-····· .. ····-······· ·-·----·-········ ··-.. . ..... . ..... .J

~ \

)'

., 1. !

'' 1'.'

n • .... along.

I

25

It is interesting to note that for identified sites in our

regional sample over 96% are associated with point (zero) or

linear Cone) dimensional settings. For sites on streams and

./ river~ more than half (53%) are located near the mouth 1 us.ually at

a confluence. Closo: examination of each site would no doubt

reveal that many sites ~n river banks and lake shores (linear

units) are also located at points of change (points) along those

shores, such as at river bends or at small inlets.

2. For linear dimensional features, there is a correlation

between the length of the linear feature and the potential for

archaeological sites associated with them • .

In the sample, nearly twice as m.any hilltop sites overlook

streams and rivers as overlook shorelines of lakes and pondsa

This lends support to the idea that length of linear features can

be a guide to quantifying the probability of site occurr~nce

along such features~ This appears also to be true for lake

margins; longer shorelines are more likely to have associat~d

sites.

3. The more prominent a vantage point, the more likely it

is to b~ associated with sites.

The most prominent single prominence in the five

quadrangle sa.mple area (Donnelly Dome) rises some 1, 000 meters

above the surrounding terrain. Nearly 30% Cn=l6) of sites

associated with hills or bluffs are associated with this single

feature.

If

··- __ j

• ,, ;.,,

I

26

Reference to Tables 3 and 4 indicates that a sample of

Alaskan sites occur in a low dimensional setting which could have

been predicted by rigorous application of the dimensional

reduction technique. Sites typically o'::cur at past or pres.ent

ty; ibutary junctions, on prominent knolls, on terrace corn·ers, at

natural portages, and on shoreline projections; all were Czeru>

dimensional poi~ts at some time in the past. The close

correlation bet,een high site de~lsity and low dimensionality

lends strong s1:.pport to the deductive gec»metr ic reduction method­

ology for reconnaissance archaeological survey suggested in this

paper.

Conclusions

1. The geometric reduction methodology, using the

dimensional reduction technique, for reconnaissance

archaeological survey is methoch..logicallJr valid,· reproducible, and

can be easily applied in regions of .,,arying size and terrain

conditions.

2. The statistical approach to regional archeological

sur<:.Jey is theoretically valid, but i·t is extremely difficult and

expensive to apply correctly, especially in large, logistical!~

difficult areas sucn as Alaska.

~ ~t· • - .

J

27

3. The inductive approach, based on ethnographic

comparisons, is easiest to apply but it is seriously flawed with

uniformitarian assumptions.

.... 4. The geometric reduction approach to reconnaisance

.-JJ\.~~"'<1 .. 1""~"' ..---::+-"!'<ii'.!'. ,J

survey i~mo=~~ibikable and efficient than the statistical .. ~- ~

... . . ··"approach, and it is more valid than the ethnolo~Jical approach.

Testiug of the geometric reduction methodology, using the

dimensional reduction technique, against synchronic and

diachronic site samples supports its validity.

Acknowledgments

We thank Peter M. Bowers, Harvey M. Shields and Robert

Betts for their thoughtful review of an earlier draft of this

paper. We would also like to thank Mr. Betts for sharing his

Coleen River data.

r

...

~»--~······~·~··-'··--·-·--··-·"--~ll1"'lll!fflll~-

Footnotes

1. James W. Judge, James lo Ebert, and Robert K. Hitchcock, "Sampling in Regiona 1 Archaeological Survey".,~ in S::.rn?l 1:\'ig in Arch a eo logy, Jame~ W. Mueller, ed. (University of Arizona Press 1975) ~2-123.

2, James w. Mueller, "The Use of Sampling in Archaeological Survey", Memoirs of the Society for Amer~ica'!'l Archaeology No. 28 (AmAnt 39, :'llolu~e .Z, Part-2., April .~97.5).. . _ .. _

3. James W. Mueller, Sampling in Archaeology (University of Arizona Press 1975).

1~. Stephen Plog, "Sampling i;n Archaeological Surveys, 11 AmAnt 43(2) {1978) 280-285.

5. Joseph L. Chartkoff, "Transect Interval Sampling in Forests," AmAnt 43(1) (1978) 46-53.

6. h'illiam A. Lovis, Jr., 0 Quarter Sectio·ns. and Forests: An EY.ample of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands," AmAnt 41(3) (1976) 364-372.

7. Jac~ D. Nance, "Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habit:atsu, A.mAnt 44(1) (1979) 172-176.

S. James N. Hill, "Broken K Pueblo: Prehi~;toric Social Organization in the American Southwest", Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 18 (University of Arizona Press 1970).

9. Dwight W. Read, Regional Sampling", in Sampling in Archaeology, James W. Mueller, ed. (University c1f Arizona Press 1975) 45-60.

1.0. Troy L. Pewe', HQuate:rnary Geology of Alaska", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 835 (U. S. Government Printing Office 1975).

... 1.1. Susan M. Will, "Birch Creek National Wild River Cultural Resources

Class II Inventory" (draft open file report, Yukon Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska 1984).

12.' Robert c. Betts and Mark Standley, "An.Archaeological Survey of the Coleen River, Northeastern Alaska'' (report submitted to the Geist Fund Committee, University of Alaska Museum 9 Fairl:>anks, Alaska 1984).

It .

•.

Footnotes (cont.)

13. Anne Shinkwin and Jean Aigner, "Historic and Prehistoric Land Use in the Upper Tanana Valley: Report on the Archaeol~~~~~c~J~..--.,.~""''"""'"""~ Survey along the Al"ask.a .... f!~~g,~u~~:k"l~~ir~w.-~.r-ca"'._.3tinct1on

., ____ · -,.. · to ·-tbe Yukon· E"orcfe:r1•'",- (Anthrt'lpology Program, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 1979).

14. William S. Laughlin, "Archaeological Investigations on Umnak Islat~d, Aleutians", ArcAnth 1 ( 1) (University of Wisconsin Press 1962) 108-110.

15. Peter M. Bowers, "The Carlo Creek Sir.e: Geology and Archeology of an !arly Holocene Site in the Central Alaska Range", Anthropology and Historic Preservation Occasional Paper No. 27 (Coope.rar.ive Parks Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 1980).

16. W. Roger Powers ~nd T. D. Hamilr.on, "Dry Creek: A Lar.e Pleistocenf.~ Human Occupar.ion in Central Alaska", in Earlx Man In America From a Circum-Pacific Perspective, A. L. Bryan, ed. (Univ~rsity of Alberr.a Department of Ar.chaeo~ogy Occasional Papers 1 1978) 72-77.

17. Edward J. Dixon, Jr., "The Gallagher Flint Station and Other Sites along the Sagavanirktok River", in Final Report, ALPS ~rchaeological S,urvey and Exc~ations, John P. Cook, ed. (Deparr.:rnent of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 1971) 117-207.

18. Robert E. Ackerman, ''Microblades and Prehistory: Technological and Cultural Considerations for the North Pacific Coast'', in Early .Native Americans,, David L. Browman, ed. (The Hague: Mouton Publishers 1980) 191-197.

19. John P. Cook, "The Early Prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska," tmpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin (Madison 1969). ,

20. Douglas D. Anderson, A Ston~ Age Campsite at the Gateway to America," SciAmer 218(6) (1968) 24-33.

; .. ~~-·j -"------~---···---·------~---... --... -'l"'lWWII

List of Tables -----~--~~ ~~~-··

~~~~~

~~~~k~~~~~--~;:hle 1. Selected examples of landforms representing different dimensional contexts.

Table 2. Criteria used in ranking zero dimensional points.

Table 3. Sample of aboriginal sites in the Big Delta, Eagle, Mt. Hayes, tanacross, and Nabesna quadrangles (1:250,000 scale), east-cefitral Alaska, showing dimensional settings.

Table 4. Dimensional context of selected ea~ly man sites in Alaska.

~ ... ~.-'~~::.~t.s:. .... "J.~, .... ,, . •••

Figure Captions

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4,

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Diagram showing simple geometric relationships used in the text to describe idealized survey units. (see text for explanation.)

Schematic diagram showing geometric relationships in a hypothetical survey unit. Light lines represent contour intervals. Heavy lines outline an undulating plane (ADCB}. Point B represents a junction of two terraces defined by lines CB and AB. Point F shows a point on the plane.

Index map of tha Coleen River area, northeastern Alaska, showing study area (Figs. 4-7). Base map is the U.S. Geological Survey Coleen quadrangle, original scale at 1:250,000.

Two dimensional surfaces along the lower Coleen River, Alaska.

One dimensional lines along.the lower Coleen River, Alaska.

Zero dime~sional points along the lower Coleen River, Alaska. Points are r~nked according to criteria listed in Table 2.

Actual surveyed locale5 and archaeological sites along the lower Coleen River, Alaska. Survey data reflects information gathered from 1979-1982 ~rchaeological reconnaissance. . ..

\.,

, ill

.~. ·-:

"-....,...----···-----·-·--·--·----------··-.. -· ....... - .. ~--------~---·---·------~----·.--·-·------·-·····---··---.. --.. ··----~-,----------··---··-"··.··--·····- ···---R·-·-··-·----·- -~·-------~ ... ..,.,..._,.,-~..,. ~-

1,

' ~~

L

1

Table 1. Selected Examples of Landforms Representing Different Dimensional Contexts.

, _____ J __ D_1_·m_e_n __ s_i~o_n_s __________________________ T_o_t_a __ l __ s_u_r~v_e_y __ a_r_e_a _______________ ~ 2 Dimensions

1 Dimension

XY Plane Ground surface Fluvial surface Subhorizon surface Coastal terrace Flat floodplain

---------------------------------·:----·-------XZ or YZ Plane

River bluff exposures Tributary gully exposures Coastal cliffs

---~-----------------------------------------XYZ Complex Plane

Intersection of Planes (XY and Complex XYZ)

Sloping valley walls Piedmont mountain fronts Coastal plains

Mountain front-piedmont intersection

Top and bottom of sloping valley walls

Coastline Lake shorelines Plateau uplands Fault escarpments Inner and outer terrace

ridges Lithologic escarpments Any prominent break in slope

------------------~---------------------------

XZ and XY Planes

XZ and YZ Planes

Stratigraphic unit in v~rtical exposure with ground surface at top of exposure

Bluff junctions

--------------------...--.------------------Lines on Planes (XY)

Unincised river channel Esker Moraine Fault trace Lithologic trace

• .. i

l

l

___ Q ____ ---·•""""--~-----"·--~~'15'--~·--···-----·......,.1~~~~ ....

..

'

2

!able 1. (cont.)

--------------------------------------------------------~~.~---------------. 0 Dimem;ion

Intersection of XY Lines

Lines Stream outlets of lakes Rim outlets into oceans Tributary mouths in major

valleys Terrace corners Migration path and valley Drainage divide between

streamr -------------------------~------------------~-

Z Lines

XZ or YZ Lines

Known stratigraphic target

Paleo-shoreline (indication in exposed stratigraphy)

Paleo-drainage (indication in exposed stratigraphy)

Variations Along an XY Line Stream gradient changes Anomalously shallow areas

along s.treams Valley constrictions Crests on linear ridges Peninsular tips on plateaus

or coastlines Zones of no offset on faults Mineral licks on faults

---~--------------------------------------------Points on an XY Plane

Small isolated lakes Isolated hill crests Caves Wind-sheltered sites Mineral licks Cinder c~ne Any .anolamous topographic

promentory

t"

L

0 .

3

Table 2. Criteria Used in Ranking Zero Dimensional Points

Criterion 1

;

Association With None Other Zero Points

Stream Order Association 1-2

Change in Direction More than 0 of a Line 120 , Less

0 than 180 ' --Height of Prorninance Less than

above Planar Surface 30 meters

Size of Lakes Within Less than 0.5 Kilometers 50 Hectares

Length of Line Less than 4 km.

Valley Constriction or 1st or 2nd Migration Route (stream ord~~r)

-· Intersection of One Less than Dimensional Lines 2

.

Topographic Relief of Less than Isolated Landforms 2.5 meters

Overlook Character none (lake or stream confluence

within 0.5 kilometers)

Ranked Value 2

With 1 Point .

.

3

More than 90°, less

120° than

Less than 60 meters, more than 30 meters

More than 50 Hectares, less than 200 Hectares

More than 4 km., less than 8 km.

3rd

More than 3, less than 6

More than 25 meters, less than ~0 meters

none

' .. t i

3

With More Than. 1

Point

4

Less than 90°

More than 60 meters

More than 200 Hectares

More than 8 km.

4th

More than 6

More than 50 meters

Present

.

.L

I .

.. ···-···---··--~---.~-,---...,.---..... - . ._.., ···.l·r.,. . .

'"!I '!.

; :·, \,

II I

'

l 1

I

l c:4 1 I

~

I l l l I I 1 i

l ~~

.l I j

· .. J

:..

·.J"'l C..J

..

Table 3. Sample of Aboriginal Sites in the Big Delta, Eagle, Mt. Hayes, Tanacross, and Nabesna U.S.G.S. Quadrangles (1:250,000 scale), East-central Alaska, Showing Dimensional Settings.

GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING

LAKE MARGINS Bays Beaches (unspecified location) Peninsulas Inlet stream vicinity Outlet stream vicinity Trails iuterse~ting shorelines

TOPOGRAPHIC ANOMALIES Bluffs overlooking streams or rivers Bluffs overlooking stream or river mouths Hills overlo,pking streams or rivers Hills overlooking lake shores Hills overlooking nearby lakes High hills (unspecified location) Low Hills (unspecified location)

STREAMS AND RIVERS Stream or river banks (unspecified locatib~) Heads of streams or rivers Mouths of streams or rivers Mouths of streams or rivers at base of bluffs Intersection of streams or rivers and trails Intersection of stream or ~iver rapids and trails Islands in str~ams or rivers

UNEVEN OPEN TERRAIN (locatJ.on unspecified)

Total N=

N=

1 36

{~

11 6 1

7 2

22 7 9 6 1

21 5

35 2 1 1 1

7

186

LOwEST DIMENSIONAL SETTING 0

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

X

X

·X

X

2

X

ll ~~~~~::=~,. ,;'~~-i~ ; ;;; :·~ 00 Qhd 0 Jb --· ,2 .. -- ::;;:e::.J!!.:t"-!!!!!\S!t\":'!'1~05',....,4- i""""'":• .$ $ 001. I 4 >I

.,. ~·. _..,..

'il ...

I l. -, "

' ~

" '

I ,f:'-

"' '•,

-.;~~

~-- "~" _ __.,,,, ~- " ,- .. -- ..,. ~~~--:,"'"'.- ::-·- :.t"ft . .,. ::-· -·:.._-;-f~:' ---~--~ .·- ~~ .-. ---~ -.., .•.. ~·~"'--·: ... ,.~-- --:....,;' ~~·-", "·'

~

0

"

, , ____ -_- _ .~··;i'" > 'k- _-_, ,' ' , _ , ~ ,, ~ • .'fGc ..... >·c. --'·"'-. .U ·-"". 0

-~-------~---'-~-»-'4--_..~_.~.~ ... ~~-~~~~~~~---~~·•• ~Ml M I -. ..;~1 . ;..-.·~~.it~·(:~;;~ iftMfitltf~ "

11·

Table 4. Dimensional Context of Selected Early Man Sites in Alaska.

I

SITES

Anangula Bla.de Site

Ca}."lo Creek Site

Dry Creek Site

Gallagher Flint Station

Ground Hog Bay 11

Healy Lake Village Site

Onion Portage Site

SETTING

Blu(f overlooking beach

Intersection of stream and river

Bluff overlor«ing river

High hill overlooking valley

Terrace near confluence of stream and ocean beach

Bluff overlooking lake

I

DIMENSIONAl! SETTING

0 1 2

X X

X K

X

X

X X

X

K

:;

~

\.11

,_.. "'**" ···- J ¥Uti ---'?-_ .. f.... .. JiC!CGWUiitiiJl Jifi1Ri1Wiii.a ._.-~-~ -~---~t:*:-,... • •?ea;••rr~h- s 3 .. '!!'!.......... s-w;; ;:;-:; ;'•U¥M _;za_a _Jii!ib!L' "!' _QE_.,_.E_ ua_!'t!:S:_, ::_::..: __ ::u·~-'=' • _.l_ __ .: -;_~_,JLS:!::..=~\lf@!IIJII,~

•

•

0,

•

I

'-----~-E

Figure 2. Schem~tic diagram showing geometric relationsliips in a hypothetical survey unit. Light lint~s represent contour i~terv&ls •. Heavy li.nes outline an undulating plane (ADCB). Point B rep·resents a · junction of two terraces defined by lines CB and AB. Point F shows a point on the plane •

' ' t ~ {: ..

' f:

I, I I

(}

!)

•

•

•

·.

Figure 3. Index map of the Coleen Rive~ area, northeaste~~ Alaska, showing study area (Figs. 4-7)~ Base map is the U.S. Geological Survey Coleen quadrangle, original scale at 1:250,000.

\

\

,,

~

~--.-I j

• •

Figure 4.

... . .

~ . [!] 70.;, .. 100

m 100~ too·

.fj] 500~ 11)0'

... .. ·.

. I :'

' j ? ! f f j 11111

IC.All

'· . ..

..

Two dimensional s1Llrfaces along the lower Coleen River Alaska. . ..

.-· /

- \) ~.:: ... ..: • t;.ri'l £4 p "I hip# * - .

CJ

... · ...

... . . .

.... • :» • .

~ •

.. ..

• • •

2l u

,, •

.. .. ..

~ !

" • "

• i

"' ..

I ! I ! I

L I I •

,

I

<J

0 '· - : <''- . .,.,._~,_ ~ .-___ ,..:._...-·-~~~l..<;~";Oltlli"NO@M• .. .;.,..,,.,, ... "' .. _(~~~·~,;;;... W'Mtitt' 7 f~tlll"';,,t,., W~l')lr~~: '">";~7:..- ,'.j~~1;:.-;;;;;r;,;~#zt ljl'jdt!@S$iJ ntJiil

~ ~--~·

~·

"' ~

l i

ZERO DIMENSIONAL POINTS

RANK ' . .

o, Low .

Medium . :

o, 0

.. · ' .

o, H1gh ! .. •

IJ '-",;

l :·.t

-"J-:

v 1 1 , ••• . ~ lUll

Figure 6. Zero dimensional points along the Coleen River, Alaska. Points are ranked according to criteria listed i.n Table 2. ~· ...

=~> _:_ --..Jt=:; 9 &2 ------ ---·

~~-.

• • ~ * .. • - -· ~· ~ ·~ I ~ ' . . . - . I . • • - ~•

l L;,

0

(}

r. . p 6. (t

;,

·l t

....,.,.,..

i ..

Figure 7.

-~ .. ~, '1.~ · -~-,- ·rs~

' l ... ~ ::.., ·. J ! ... , ·. I I

· .... ·~ ·~ ·. _::-__ , .- .. ; ,_, t - • • _J . . . .. - ... .. . .

f (• • . "'.·.-.I /.. · • If rl \

.: " . . k? \': . i:) . . , • .• \ ' .. I '

.• 16 . ; . . .• ! ··- / ~". -. ,..,, .,_ -;.. (}, I I ·~ - r--·-:y: ! ! I t , .. ;- .· ,.,_ . ~l COL 049 .J 0 :'. ~,- I ~-··~- ·: . ; I

... r , , I ., · ...... · · "' . . - . . ·.. -· .. ' . ' • .. ~""?' ·~ '· . I ;t '. I· . · ! . . 1 . ., . ,, • ' 21 . I I . . .. . . . . l ~ •. ...~ ~ ,, J f ,_~I L.- •• ' ... < • .,... •• • • "I L .

' • :""=J• •-• . I ' \ ·-- ,. I 18 g\' I . .. ,.. . ·~ ..... . . . . . - . . -- . ., .... . f • 1 . . • . \ . .. . t . ~' '( . . . ' . ' . . .. . .. .. - '-· 201 ) . . "" I -. . . . - /.' II ~ ~1 .. '\ 1 :.. . ~ ~ 22 . . .Q . . ..... · • · .. \ ·•· •;• I ·. • 1. I

_, . .-r . , ·· .., · .. · J . • ,. J.. . . !' : I ... ~ . I • ) ,.. . •· ... . ...... , ~ I . ·. I ~ /It ·~ t . . . I I . . ... - . . . ~· . . . . ·-;.· • ; • . • :·::.. ..• ,_ ')'' ·. ·- 'J : : ·,:..._:. : • • . / ). ~

. .. -'·' 'I . .. • . • ·--~- . ! .• \ . ,... .- .. : . ·: ·".- . ;·. . -~ l J I ~,..,_ f_. I . ' \.~ .. _,,I · . . ;.· --·::::..;__,' I ' . <:>',...-...+ --·~ ' . . . I '• .

. ·;·:.:·) _j ·; .:' ~~ f!.{ .. I . ".2" ~.l!e_l_ : .. 31 ~:~.'~L-;. ••• .-· • •

1

.' ·1:1

I - --l;-;·1 2 ~.-· .. I;J ~-. 'o' < ,. / ; • ;_. • I .• , ,; }.. •-'1 • •, l ' . • .-·o 0 , 0 -•. '• O /. • C

... • - ' •·. . - '~ . I ~ .. . : . :,· . . '" ·· ... ---:. . ·. ~- · t j' ---~1 '}>.- : .. ·:-• -"<cf : f '\. , .. · /~ rl ?

I

•. , . / ., ! . :z.~l·' ... __ .. :; -~· . t, ~ ... . \ ,.__-l . r . . . . . /. "'I . o· • ,, ' . •· -te' <,fo y . . . . ' /. . . ,· ·'. ~ . . ?.' .... ' ·oll-~ ·~-, . . . . ·- . . . .. • -~- '-.....-:::;.,,_. . ' ·{ . ='- ,t, l ,. . ..... ·· . .::~·r. 1 ··:~ 'f-~ ....... __ 1 ~-:~,-::~ ~;Qk~-· 1 -f~coLoo4 ---1 • I ·J .J.' ' .-z7 ·-, l f:.':',t. .. · ' '·· c.,L ~~- ~ <~ · :.

; \ ~ .~, 2 ·o(J:l.. rl l; -: ' ' . '\, .

H < ·.: " : ~ .: I : 1'=- ~'{

..:: ,-~003 ..

:. .

~ I!JjO!wty lOCAL I

• AACitiOLOeiUL 1111

I • j ·· . ..

' . . ! : 1 , •• .SCAU · .... ..

Actual surveyed locales and archaeological sites a-'at1g the lower Col\en IHver, ~laska. Survey data reflects in forma:tion gatJtered from 197~~1982 archaeological reconna~ssance.

: .: ..

. - -

~

»fJ ' ~ .... ,...

'.)

. ~' ··r

\)

{J