Lost Worlds: Locating submerged archaeological

sites in Southeast Alaska An Archaeological Settlement Model from 10,500 to 16,000

calendar years BP (cal yr before present)

Kelly Rose Bale Monteleone

NSF Office of Polar Programs# 0703980 & 1108367

Study Area is in Southeast Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago, specifically Prince of Wales Island.

Haida Gwaii to the south is also important for this research.

These areas consist of the Northern Northwest Coast of Northern America and the Northwest Coast cultural area

Hypothesis

The archaeological record of Southeast Alaska extends to areas of the continental shelf that were submerged by post-Pleistocene sea-level rise between 16,000 and 10,600 cal BP.

Theory

• High Level Theory– Landscape

• Middle-Range Theory– Archaeological Settlement Models

• Low Level Theory– GIS (Geographic Information System)– Underwater Archaeology

Landscape theory provides a theoretical framework whereby the research focus is appropriate for an area that is larger than an archeological site. It facilitates analysis at multiple scales, incorporating regional geomorphology and actualistic studies (e.g. site formation processes and ethnoarchaeology) to answer questions regarding land-use, settlement patterns, and other spatially related questions

(Anschuetz et al. 2001, Bender 2002, Casey 2008, Kantner 2008, Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992).

• Seascapes (Bjerck 2009, McNiven 2008:150,Van de Noort 2003: 405).

• Non-sites (Dunnell and Dancey (1983)

• Evolutionary ecology is “the application of natural selection theory to the study of adaptive design in behavior, morphology, and life history” (Cannon and Broughton 2010: 1).

• Landscapes are the context in which decisions or behavior choices are made. These choices affect an individuals’ survival and reproductive successes (Bird and Codding 2008: 396, Johnson 1977: 479, Kantner 2008: 61).

Archaeological Settlement Models• A model can be regarded as a collection of

irregular polygons, mapped onto a landscape, indicating locations that are ‘favorable’, ‘likely’, or ‘probable’ to contain an archaeological site of the type being modeled (Kvamme 2006: 27).

• Human uses of space can be viewed in terms of a subset of environmental variation. Even culturally determined variability can be mapped using environmental variables, though this must be tested and supported in each case (Kvamme 2006: 14) .

Archaeological Settlement Models as Middle Range Theory

1. It is unambiguous.

2. It provides plausible cause and demonstrable effects not based on simple correlation.

3. It follows uniformitarian assumptions

4. It is independent of general or high-level theories.

1. At times of lower sea-levels, people would have lived on the continental shelf.

2. Late-Pleistocene/early-Holocene sea-level rise

3. Where people live in association to coastlines can be uniformitarian in nature

4. This theory is independent of landscape theory

(Verhagen and Whitley 2012: 64-47)

Low-level Theory

GIS

• GIS is a tool that researchers use to investigate, store, analyze, and visualize spatial phenomena such as artifact and site distributions.

Underwater Archaeology

• Underwater archaeologists investigate paleo-landscapes and other submerged environments (Flatman 2003, Parker 1999).

These are method level theory that each have their own biases and assumptions

This modelThe model incorporates both inductive, utilizing known archaeological site data, and deductive, utilizing anthropological theory and the ethnographic record, types of modeling (Verhagen and Whitley 2012). The scale of measurement for this analysis are interval or ratio, and both the analytic (archaeological) and the systemic (dynamic living system) contexts were analyzed to develop the model (Kohler 1988: 35-37, Schiffer 1972).

• 10 m resolution for the model– 5 m resolution for the DEM

NWC research questions1) The origins and settlement history of NWC people are important and is

specifically relevant to this research.

2) There is significant archeological variability in material culture from north to south along the NWC, specifically with respect to the presence and absence of early microblade technology, projectile point types, and baskets and other non-lithic artifacts.

3) Issue related to variability within this region is the development of the NWC cultures (Suttles 1990a). This topic includes research into the timing and development of long distance trade, subsistence strategies, and the transition from chipped to ground stone tools (Moss 2004: 185-187).

4) The cultural chronologies of the NWC are regionally variable. Different researchers have focused on different aspects of the archaeological and ethnographic records when developing different chronologies (next slide). Fedje and Mackie’s (2005) chronology is utilized for this research (highlighted in pink).

NWC ChronologyTime 14C Years Davis (1990) Ames and

Maschenr (1999) Moss (1998) Fedje & Mackie (2005)

AD 2000Late

Developmental Late Pacific Late

The Developmental

Stage

Late1000 BP

1500 BP

2000 BP Middle Developmental Middle Pacific

Middle

Middle (Marpole)2500 BP

3000 BPEarly

Developmental

Transitional (Locarno Beach)3500 BP

Early Pacific4000 BP Early (Charles)5000 BP Transitional6000 BP

Archaic Early The Lithic Stage

Early Coastal Biface Tradition &

NWC Microblade

Tradition

7000 BPPaleomarine8000 BP

9000 BP

10,000 BP 11,000 BP

NWC culture has an emphasis on salmon harvesting, permanent villages or towns, and social stratification with hereditary slavery .

NWC culture is also known for their woodworking technology, twined basketry decorated with false embroidery or overlay, and basketry hats.

Other uniformities through the NWC include a lack of pottery and footwear, uses of plank houses, woodworking technology, and a heavy dependency on fish (especially salmon).

Pre-9000 cal BP archaeological sites

• K1 Cave on Haida Gwaii is the oldest (table on next slide)

• Namu on the bottom of the map is the only mainland site

• 49PET408 and Chuck Lake are the only pre-9000 cal BP archaeological sites within the study area

Region Site ComponentMean of

Calibrated Age Ranges

SE Alaska

Ground Hog Bay 2 Lower 11,528

Hidden Falls1 10,15749 PET 408 (On Your Knees Cave)

Human Remains1 10,207Bone Tool 12,129

Chuck Lake Loc 1 (midden) 9,204

Haida Gwaii

K1 Cave1 12,650

Lyell Bay East 9,906South 9,483

Echo Bay1 9,916Richardson1 10,442Arrow Creek 21 10,584Gaadu Din Cave 11 12,683

Gaadu Din Cave 21 12,480

Werner Bay 12,481

Kilgii Gwaii1 10,511BC Mainland Namu (ElSx1) 11,0491 Average of several mean calibrated age ranges

Sea-Level Curve

Study Area

Haida Gwaii

Haida Gwaii

Global Average

Map is to orient yourself before video

The 2 rectangles are Shakan Bay in the north and the Gulf of Esiqubel in the southThere are also pinkish pentagons on the larger towns

Clips show how much land was available to past peoples that is not easily available for archaeological survey.

Focus in on Shakan Bay and re-show the video

Legend

$ Communites

Hessuer 1960 - Glacial Refugia

probable late Wisconsin Cordilleran ice marginal position

probable pre-late Wisconsin Cordilleran ice marginal position

LGM based on Carrara et al. 2003

Possible refugia - Carrara et al. 2007

Modern Alaskan Glacier

Blue lines are the maximum extent (the last glacial maximum) based on Cararra et al (2003, 2007).

Green area is what they describe as refugia, unglaciated areas that supported flora and fauna through the last glacial maximum)

Study area was deglaciated by around 14,000 cal BP

Points used to create the DEM using ESRI’s ArcGIS Inverse Distance Weight tool

Green is land. Note the variability in density of points used to create the DEM at 5 meter resolution.

Data was compiled from • NOAA hydrologic

surveys• USGS topographic DEM• Multibeam sonar data

was purchased from SciFish Inc.

DEM generated for this project over NOAA chart with matching contour lines (solid are NOAA, dotted are DEM).

The contours are similar. Differences are in locations where there is no NOAA data point.

The NOAA data points were included in the generated DEM.

A) Multibeam data collected for Shakan Bay in 2012.

B) Difference between DEM and multibeam at 10 m resolution.

Aspect Slope

These are important variables when locating a settlement (or a camp site).

Water Features

Streams were generated by Andrew Wickert, a graduate student at UC Boulder using GRASS 7.0.

Lakes were created using ArcGIS’s basin fill and represent depressions that were likely wetland, marshes, or lakes.

Color dots are archaeological sites.

Streams

Tributary Junctions

Lakes

Each variable was buffered at 50, 100, 1500, 2000, and 3000 meters to create ranked locations based on distance to resources.

L = Length along the coast

3 km

Ld = Linear distance

3 km buffer

Sinuosity =

n = number of sections for each buffer

Sinuosity

Sinuosity values were classified based on statistical analysis of archaeological site locations .

They were then buffered following the same method as the water variables.

Percentages used in ArcGIS weighted overlay to create high potential maps.

Several models were created and tested to determine which was most effective.

Orange is Moderately High Potential and red is high potential for archaeological sites.

The model (and all the preceding variables) were generated in 500 year intervals from 10,500 to 16,000 cal yr BP.

To create a final result, the results were merged producing the maps on the right.

Model Data SetGain

StatisticPredictive Utility (gain)

Weight 8

3Known sites 0.9446 Positive2012 survey 0.9053 PositiveRandom locations 0.2270 None

4Known sites 0.9967 Positive2012 survey - NoneRandom locations 0.8542 Positive

3+4Known sites 0.9479 Positive2012 survey 0.9049 PositiveRandom locations 0.2401 None

Kvamme’s gain is a ratio based statistic used to evaluate archaeological predictive models. The values range from -1 to 1. A value greater than 0.5 or 50% indicates a positive gain or a useful model. A value between 0 and 0.5 has no predictive utility. A negative value means the low potential areas are more likely to produce archaeological sites than the high potential areas or a reverse gain.

Known sites are the archaeological sites used for the model generation.

2012 survey is 9 locations GPS within the study area, only half of these are new. The focus of this survey was on 7000 to 10,500 year old sites and does not fit with this model.

1000 random locations were also tested. The results have a positive gain value.

Moran’s IMoran’s I tests spatial autocorrelation. The hypothesis is that there is no spatial correlation in the data. The difference between The Global Moran's I or spatial autocorrelation tool, measures spatial autocorrelation based on feature locations and feature values simultaneously. Given a set of features and an associated attribute (value 3 or 4), the tool evaluates whether the pattern expressed is clustered, dispersed, or random. Moran’s I was calculated at 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 3000 m bands. There are some missing values for the 3000 m band. This is the same “memory error” that was encountered at the larger scale and is likely due to the complexity of the polygons compared at 3000 m. The results indicate that the models are clustered. The need for 3000 m distance band indicates that the data is not as clustered as the results indicated since some polygons did not have any neighbors within 2000 m.

2 Surveys2010 – Side scan sonar2012 – Multibeam sonar

& sub-bottom profilingSediment samples and ROV video were collected both years

Density of multibeam points per 1m2. Purple is less 80 pts (range form 0 – 401 pt / m).

The density of points is too low to locate the intended archaeological targets.

2010 Side Scan Anomalies4 – two rectangular features5 - shipwreck3 – possible weir

Side-scan image of shipwreck.Based on location, it is assumed to be the Restless.

A fish weir is a low stone or wood wall that traps fish behind it when tide is out. This means dinner is easy to catch.

East Kaikli Trap (CRG-269)

Naukati Creek Village (CRG-123)

Raised semi-circular features and two depressions. Image on the left is the original sonar and on the right is the sonar image with the anomalies depicted in white . Possible weir structure.

Location in Shakan Bay of anomaly reconstructed to 52 m, the depth of the anomaly.

Zoomed to area of sonar anomaly (now looking from the north). Note the bay to the west; this would be a good location for a settlement or camp.

Topographic locations of Danish Mesolithic settlements based on fishing model (Fisher 1995: 374, 2004:32, Benjamin 2010: 257). A) Narrow islet connecting large bodies of water. B) Between a small island and mainland. C) and D) At the tip of a headland. E and F) at the mouth of a stream

Location in Shakan Bay is an example of diagram A.

This is the same reconstruction with the possible weir location reconstructed from the sonar.

Nothing was located in 2012 using the multibeam sonar or remotely operated vehicle using video.

Sub-bottom from Shakan Bay indicate possible river channel.

Sub-bottom image from Shakan Bay with a depression similar to archaeological pits.

ROV image of stick picked up at Shakan Bay anomaly three.

Cut wood from VV25-20 at Shakan Bay Anomaly three. Radiocarbon dating returned a “modern” result.

Piece of rounded wood recovered from Shakan Bay seven (VV-26-06).Natural piece of wood.

Discussion• Third iteration of the model

– Archaeological site location modeling is an iterative process.

• The multibeam survey of Shakan Bay identified unknown information about the geology for the bay and region. Along the western side of the surveyed area is a fault ridge, a large raised mound that is present as a linear feature in the multibeam data.

• Model Resolution – 5 m, 10 m, 50 m – 5 m did not improve Gain values and 50 m was not useful– (some archaeological models are produced at over 1 km which is

too low a resolution)

Discussion• Implications for SE Alaska and Northern NWC

• Model can extend chronology• It would support local oral traditions of local antiquity

• Coastal Migration Hypothesis and the First Americans• Locating a submerged archaeological site will provide support

for the coastal migration of the First Americans to the New World

– No confirmed archaeological sites have been located at this time

Photo: Forest Haven (Sealaska Hertigate Institute Intern and Tsmisian Native) and Kelly Monteleone wet screening samples in Shakan Bay.

Acknowledgements• NSF – Office of Polar Programs

– NSF award # 0703980 & 1108367

• Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, UNM• University of New Mexico (UNM) and University of

Colorado (INSTAAR)• Sealaska Heritage Foundation • Residents of Southeast Alaska • Dissertation Committee• E. James Dixon, Andrew Wickert, Mark Williams,

Amalia Kenward, Michael Grooms, Travis Shinabarger, Jason Brown, Lee Drake, Nick Jarman, William Taylor