the norton period of nunivak island: internal change and external influence

The Norton Period of Nunivak Island: Internal Change and External InfluenceAuthor(s): Michael NowakSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1982), pp. 75-91Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316028 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.105 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:57:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316028?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE NORTON PERIOD OF NUNIVAK ISLAND: INTERNAL CHANGE AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCE

MICHAEL NOWAK

Abstract. Archaeological work on Nunivak Island, Alaska, has shown that initial occupation of the island is assignable to the Norton culture manifestation designated as the Duchikmiut phase in the island chronology. Early and late subphases dating respectively to 150 B.C. to A. D. 300 and A.D. 300 to A. D. 600 are defined on the basis of stratigraphic and artifact differences.

The change or "evolution" that Norton culture undergoes on Nunivak Island is seen, in part, elsewhere in western Alaska, but differences in the specific chronological sequences likely reflect Nunivak^ insular status or incompatibilities in the data base. Changes in material culture items are compared and contrasted with similar items at other Norton culture sites.

INTRODUCTION

As a result of archaeological work during the past three decades, it is currently possible to see a well defined Norton period over a great deal of coastal southwestern Alaska. Not long after Louis Giddings published The Archeology of Cape Denbigh in 1964, others began to iden- tify collections from their own study areas that resembled both Denbigh Flint complex and Nor- ton culture. In the intervening years, Norton culture has been shown to be largely a coastally adapted culture and is viewed by many as di- rectly foreshadowing the development of a number of features regarded as characteristic of Eskimo culture at the time of contact (Dumond 1977:110-118).

This paper focuses on a relatively narrow aspect of the Norton interaction sphere: the presence and attributes of that tradition on Nunivak Island. Nunivak lies in the Bering Sea a little less than 30 mi southwest of neighboring Nelson Island (Fig. 1). Traveling east 100 mi from Nunivak brings one well into the mouth of the Kuskokwim River. The latter today forms a principal avenue of communica- tion between interior southwestern Alaska and the coast, and apparently functioned in this fashion prehistorically as well (Drebert 1959; Oswalt 1963:8).

Nunivak is a moderately large island, meas- uring 56 mi east-west by 40 mi north-south. Despite having a rugged western shoreline,

there are no terrain features that modify the islandTs subarctic, maritime climate. The sur- rounding Bering Sea moderates diurnal tem- perature variations as compared with the adjacent mainland known as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (USFWS 1975:17-21). But the surround- ing open sea also results in higher wind chill factors.

Resources that would have made Nunivak attractive to people of the Norton culture in- clude abundant seals and walrus offshore, a great number of nesting waterfowl during sum- mer, moderately plentiful runs of chum salmon in midsummer, the presence of tomcod which can be obtained in winter by ice fishing, and bottomfish which are usually secured in the larger bays. Caribou were also present on Nunivak until the late nineteenth century (Lantis n.d.).

Portions of southeastern Nunivak are covered by lava flows which likely served as a material source for the abundant igneous rock tools found in the islandfs Norton variant, the Duchikmiut phase. Slate is readily available along the northern coastline and was used for some Duchikmiut phase tools. During the later Mekoryuk River and Nash Harbor phases, slate was the predominant rock type for tools. Although Nunivak lacks trees, great amounts of driftwood pile up on beaches during storms. Consequently, driftwood was used both his- torically and prehistorically as a source of timber for house construction, boat building,

Michael Nowak, Department of Anthropology , Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO 80903

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 19, No. 2, 1982 0066-6939/82/0002-75 $1.50/0 © 1982 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System



76 Arctic Anthropology XIX- 2

Figure 1. Site Location Map.

Figure 2. Excavation Areas of Site XNI-028.



Nowak: Norton Period of Nunivak Island 77

and a variety of other purposes. The coastline also provided grasses suitable for basketry, matting, and twines.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK

It is of value to briefly review archaeological work done on Nunivak because materials assignable to the Duchikmiut phase (Van Stone 1954, 1957) were found before being definitely identified as belonging to the Norton tradition (Nowak 1971) . My work on the prehistory of Nunivak began in 1967 with a survey of three- fourths of the coastline . The objective was to locate one site or a group of neighboring sites which would provide a reasonably complete picture of the island's prehistory through excavation. Although the first Duchikmiut phase site found was located on Duchikthluk Bay on the southern side of Nunivak, another was found only 3 mi upstream from the village of Mekoryuk. Supplying a field camp at the ex- treme extent of the Mekoryuk Bay estuary was a vastly simpler undertaking than supplying one located on the opposite side of Nunivak and logistics was a major determining factor in my decision to excavate site XNI-028 (designated MK-2 in previous reports). XNI-028 (Fig. 1) turned out to be almost entirely a Duchikmiut phase site. Materials from later periods were confined to the upper portion of the first level in House pits 1 and 2, and did not extend below the second level of House pit 3.

House pit 3 had been placed on top of an earlier midden. Excavation was also carried out along the bank overlooking the Mekoryuk River (Fig. 2) , where substantial numbers of organic artifacts were recovered from the midden .

A week-long test in 1967 established that XNI-028 was a deep, well- stratified site with an abundance of relatively thin check stamped pottery and flaked igneous stone tools. Both midden and non-midden fill also contained bone implements. The site was known to Mekoryuk villagers because of the cultural material erod- ing out of the bank and also because one of them planted a small garden in part of the midden .

The gardener gave me a box of potsherds recovered during cultivation. Whole families would come upriver to XNI-028 on nice Sunday after- noons and, equipped with kitchen spoons, probe the banks for udhujich (old time things). This practice was discontinued during my excavations at the site, but apparently resumed after I de- parted in mid- August.

Two of the three house depressions at XNI- 028 were relatively shallow and far less obvious on the ground surface than the third. It is likely that the site would have been missed if the river bank erosion had not extended into

the site. Half of House pit 1 (Fig. 2) was excavated to a depth of about 1.80 m below ground surface in 1969, and the remaining half was dug in the succeeding field season. Noth- ing previously encountered in archaeological work on Nunivak provided any clue that cultural deposits would extend as far below ground surface as was the case at House pit 1, which was placed into the highest portion of an ap- proximately 8 m high hill. Its size (roughly 5 x 6 m) suggested that it would be a significant area to excavate. More importantly, it was located in a stable portion of the hill on which XNI-028 exists and was not subject to the erosion that af- fects other portions of the site. Throughout work in House pit 1 , there was little evidence of major stratigraphic disturbance, although the last oc- cupants of XNI-028 may have camped in the depression formed by House pit 1.

THE DUCHIKMIUT PHASE ON NUNIVAK

Recognition of the presence of a Norton-like culture on Nunivak Island extends back to 1967 when check stamped pottery and chipped stone tools were found at several sites . During the 1967, 1969, and 1970 field seasons at XNI-028, almost 4000 Duchikmiut phase artifacts were recovered. The definition of Nunivak1 s Norton period rests largely on analysis of those materials (see Table 1).

Because ceramics constitute 85% of the Duchikmiut phase artifact inventory at XNI-028, ceramic variation was considered the most important indicator of change within the Duchik- miut phase. This was borne out when it became possible to separate the Duchikmiut phase into early and late components on the basis of a shift from almost entirely (95%) hair temper in the early Duchikmiut River Plain ware to pre- dominately sand temper (55%) in pottery of the late Duchikmiut phase (Table 2). A similar trend is evident in check stamped pottery. The temper in check stamped sherds goes from 75% hair during the early component to only 8% hair in the late component of the Duchikmiut phase material at XNI-028. Use of fine gravel (pebbles more than 2 mm in diameter) as a tempering agent is not found during the early Duchikmiut subphase, but occurs in 23% of sherds assigned to the late Duchikmiut River Plain ware . The significance of the shift away from hair as the preferred tempering agent in the early Duchikmiut subphase to the common use of coarse sand and fine gravel during late Duchikmiut times reflects a change that is seen in other Norton period sites too. Griffin and Wilmeth (1964:283-284) discuss several changes in the ware characteristics of Norton pottery and one of these is the addition of gravel temper. Increase in check size is another change noted in the potterv from Cane Denbigh, and




Table 1. Duchikmiut Phase Artifact Types

LAKhü STONE TOOLS NUMBER EARLY LATE

Vojectile Points

la 9 2 (22%) 7 (78%) Oblanceolate points with straight to slightly concave bases, thinned by flaking. No grinding is visible on any of these points. Fig. 4 : i-k

lb 16 4 (25%) 12 (75%) Oblanceolate points with concave bases thinned by flaking. No grinding is evident.

2a 62 10 (16%) 52 (84%) Triangular points with straight to convex bases thinned slightly by flaking. No grinding is evident. Fig. 4:p-q,t-u

2b 19 1 (5%) 18 (95%) Triangular points with concave bases thinned slightly by flaking. None of these exhibit any grinding. Fig.4:r-s

3a 72 20 (28%) 52 (72%) Parallel edged points with straight bases thinned by flaking. None exhibit any grinding. Fig. 4:a-d

3b 15 2 (13%) 13 (87%) Parallel edged points with concave bases thinned by flaking. No basal or other grinding is evident.

4a 21 5 (24%) 16 (76%) Rounded base, leaf shaped blades with bases thinned by flaking. None exhibit any grinding. Fig. 4:g-h

4b 10 1 (10%) 9 (90%) Pointed base, leaf shaped blades with bases thinned by flaking. No basal or other grinding is evident.

5 10 3 (30%) 7 (70%) Contracting stem points with bases thinned by flaking. No grinding is evident on these points. Fig. 4:l-n

6 1 1 Modified ovoid shaped points with pronounced, concave bases which are thinned by flaking. Polishing or grinding is evident on both faces. Fig. 4:ee

7 4 3 (75%) 1 (25%) Oblanceolate points with a flat to very slightly convex base. Bases exhibit a slight notch or shoulder and are only slightly thinned by flaking. No grinding is apparent.

Side Blades la 37 5 (14%) 32 (86%) Arcuate, tending toward a "D" shape blade. The more

curved edge always shows the finer retouch and exhibits wear. Fig. 4:v-w, Fig. 7:f

lb 3 3 As above but with a strongly asymmetrical shape. Wear is exhibited on the curved edge near the more pointed end.

2 14 6 (43%) 8 (57%) Three cornered, with convex to slightly concave cutting edges usually showing a finer retouch than the hafted edge. Wear is usually discernible on both edges.

3 7 7 Relatively crude flakes with no closely defined shape but at least one edge shows careful retouch. Wear marks suggest motion along the long axis of the tool such as in slicing.

4 29 4 (14%) 25 (86%) Long and slender sideblades with a thickness often about 1/2 the implement width. The width is frequently less than 1/5 the length. The blades are slightly asymmetrical in shape, sometimes with one edge more convex than the other. The edge with greater curvature generally has a finer retouch than the other; it also usually shows the greater wear (a slicing motion wear).

SI icing-piercing Knives 1 26 7 (27%) 19 (73%) Triangular to three edged knives with straight bases

which exhibit very little thinning. Bases are generally perpendicular to one edge rather than the long axis of the tool. The opposite edge is usually more convex and shows greater wear (and finer retouch). Near the tip, wear is evident on both sides. Fig. 4:gg-hh

2a 20 4 (20%) 16 (80%) Slightly asymmetrical arcuate to leaf shaped knives with rounded to pointed bases. Length is generally over three times the width. The more convex exhibits the finest retouch and greater wear. Edge treatment and wear is the same on both sides near the tip. Fig. 4:ii-jj

2b 5 5 As above but with thinned, straight bases. 3 7 2 (29%) 5 (71%) Straight based knives with one concave and one convex

side. The convex side exhibits greater retouch and appears to be the primary cutting edge. Bases are not thinned by flaking.

4 5 1 (20%) 4 (80%) Flake knives made on spalls rather than flakes. The handle end is fairly thick and the form sometimes approaches a weak "S" curvature. The rounded base is thinned by flaking. Fig. 4:kk

Hand Knives 8 1 (13%) 7 (87%) Rounded base leaf, ovoid, or arcuate shaped large knives. One edge is usually retouched more finely. This edge shows heaviest slicing motion wear, although the latter may extend around much of the implement. Fig.4:o,dd

Curved Knives/Scrapers 11 5 (46%) 6 (54%) Knives or scrapers with an arcuate to ovoid form. A few show a flat base. They are made on flakes which are curved along the long axis of the tool. No attempt is made to correct this curvature through differential retouch. Direction of wear is not apparent. Finer retouch is found on the right edge when the tool is




Table 1. Duchikmiut Phase Artifact Types (continued)

FLAKED STONE TOOLS NUMBER EARLY LATE Miscellaneous Cutting Tools 7 2 (29%) 5 (71%) Irregularly shaped cutting tools, sometimes approach-

ing a discoid form. These exhibit multiple worn and retouched edges.

Discoidal Scrapers 7 1 (14%) 6 (86%) Discoidal, bifacially worked scrapers with all edges worked and worn. On two specimens, one edge shows more wear than the other. Fig. 4:11

Rectangular Scrapers 2 2 These are also referred to as thumbnail scrapers. They are rectangular to nearly square bifacially worked scrapers with all edges worked and worn. Fig. 4:bb-cc

End Scrapers 4 4 Shape ranges from semi-ovoid to nearly rectangular. Bifacial retouch is visible on all edges except the base. The distal end always exhibits the finest retouch and wear (which is parallel to the holding plane of the tool).

Side Scrapers 6 2 (33%) 4 (67%) Irregularly shaped scrapers exhibiting one bi faci ally flaked edge which exhibits wear parallel to the holding plane of the tool when it is pushed.

Uni faci al Scrapers 5 1 (20%) 4 (80%) Irregularly shaped scrapers which are worked on only one face. All edges exhibit retouch and wear. Fig. 4:ff

Asymmetrical Shaft Scrapers 8 2 (25%) 6 (75%) Uni facially worked thick, narrow crescent shaped scrapers. Placed unworked side up and the basal (thicker) end proximal ly, the tip always curves off to the left. The concave portion of the curve is steeply retouched. Wear is limited to the concave edge, and is unidirectional. Tips frequently show polish from use as gravers.

Drills 1 15 3 (20%) 12 (80%) Narrow (body width less than 1/3 length) bodied

drills with tapering, highly polished tips. Specimens are thicker than knives and points. Fig. 4:x-aa

2 8 1 (13) 7 (87%) These specimens have wider bodies (bodies are ca. 1/2 length) than Type 1. Otherwise they are the same.

Gravers 11 2 (18%) 9 (82%) Irregularly shaped blades or flakes exhibiting a carefully worked protruding point.

Bow Drill Shaft Holders 1 1 Flat stones with a smoothed pit ca. .8 to 1.2 cm in diameter on one or both faces to hold the end of a drill shaft. [From late Duchikmiut fill, but could possibly be early Mekoryuk River phase.]

Burins 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) Flakes with an abrupt corner edge created by a burin blow.

GROUND STONE TOOLS Knives

la 6 1 (17%) 5 (83%) One straight edge, exhibiting no grinding. The opposite edge is curved (convex) and sharpened by grinding.. A "D" shape is approximated in some specimens. Fig. 5:g-i

lb 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) The straight (hafting) edge is steeply ground, sometimes also flaked. The other edge is curved and ground sharp.

3 9 1 (11%) 8 (89%) Thin bladed knives with parallel or nearly parallel edge. The hafting edge is ground but only enough to thin its surface and produce a smooth edge. Fig.5:a-c

Adzes 1 3 3 Large hafted adzes having a length of 10-15 cm and

a width less than 1/2 the length. Thickness is ca. 1/3 width. The cutting edge is ground heavily and steeply so as to avoid its chipping (which neverthe- less was evident on all specimens). General form approaches a squared body shape. Fig.5:y

ORGANIC ARTIFACTS

Harpoon Heads 1 20 7 (35%) 13 (65%) These projectiles have a relatively short body, are open

socketed, and have a lashing indentation across the body near its center. Tips tend to taper abruptly. Fig.5:n-v

2 1 1 These have a closed socket and a hole in the central portion of the body to attach the retrieval line. The tips taper gradually from the body. Fig. 5:w

Leister Prongs 4 1 (25) 3 (75%) Mammal ribs are used to make these specimens which may exhibit barbing at the tip. The body curves out from the point of attachment (proximal end). Fig.8:b-c

Dart Heads la 3 1 (33%) 3 (67%) Small ivory heads, unilaterally barbed along the

entire body. Fig- 8:f-h

lb 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) These heads have bilateral, widely spaced barbs over at least half of the bodv. Fig. 8:k-l




Table 1. Due hi km i ut Phase Artifact Types (continued)

3RGANIC ARTIFACTS (cont'd) NUMBER EARLY LATE

Part Heads (cont'd) lc 2 2 Heads with small, bilateral barbs on the distal half

of the body. Fig. 8:m-n 2 2 2 Dart heads with slotted tips for stone end blade in-

sertion. Bodies have widely spaced alternate side barbs. Fig. 8:d-e

3a 7 7 Larger bone dart points which are unilaterally barbed along distal (upper) third of their bodies. Fig. 8:j

3b 2 2 Dart heads with a single prominent barb near the tip. Fig. 8:i

Foreshafts 5 5 These are objects with a round, tapering base to fit into a shaft. Some have a hole drilled into the distal end to receive a dart head base. One has a flattened distal end and might have received a female base. Fig. 6:t-v

Needles 4 2 (50%) 2 (50%) Small bird bone or ivory shafts with a pointed distal end and sometimes a line hole at the proximal end. Fig. 6:k-n

Awls 1 16 7 (44%) 9 (56%) Ivory, antler, or long bone pieces that are tapered

to a point on distal end. Fig. 6:p-r 2 7 3 (43%) 4 (57%) Small awls less than 100 mm long and 8 mm wide.

Five are ivory. Fig. 6:o

Spoons 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) Smoothed pieces of flat bone that curve up medially and have a widened distal end. The widened facial portion extends 50-60 mm along the stem. Fig. 7:c,g,j

Tubes 2 2 Hollowed out polished long bone sections. Fig. 6:w-x

Plugs 3 3 These pieces of ivory have been cut and smoothed to a tapering end on one side. Fig. 6:z-aa, ee

Rings i i This is a cross section piece of caribou antler that has been smoothed externally and internally. Fig. 6:q

Bow Ends 4 4 Pieces of bone and antler which are notched near one end. The basal portion has been cut off, leaving the possibility that these specimens are something else. Fig. 6:e-f

Drill Braces 6 3 (50%) 3 (50%) Flat pieces of compact bone which show one or more drill pits on them. Two are wedges that apparently also served as drill braces.

Hair Rope 1 1 The fibers appear to have been braided in a loose pattern to form this piece of line. Individual fibers are coarse, and appear similar to that used in hair tempered Duchikmiut pottery. Fig. 8:a

Picks 3 3 Large sections of ivory which have been cut to steep taper, ending in a point on one end. The other is bluntly rounded. Hafting depressions girdle two of the bodies near the center of the picks.

la 8 2 (25%) 6 (75%) Large wedges. Whalebone and walrus provide the medium here.

1b 8 8 Small wedges. Long bone and antler. Fig. 8:r

2 6 1 (17%) 5 (83%) Short, wide specimens with a broad thinned distal edge and a roughly cut proximal end. The length is usually less than twice the width. Sea mammal bones provide the source for these wedges.

Adzes i l The body is frequently "squarish" with one end exhibiting a squared off "chisel end." A hafting depression is formed by a basal ridge and another across the center of the tool . Antler.

Antler Awls 10 2 (20%) 8 (80%) These are relatively large objects with a round point on one end which may have served for piercing skin.

Knife Handle 1 1 This handle has a grip and a socket for a blade insertion. Fig. 7:e

Scrapers 2 2 Caribou longbone sections which have been cut open to form sharp edges. Fig. 7:b

Unidentifiables 1 28 10 (36%) 18 (64%) These are various cut pieces of bone with one or more

holes drilled into them. Usually no pattern to the holes is evident. Fig. 6:cc

2 37 15 (41%) 22 (59%) Pointed bone pieces. These points are often rounded. Long bone sections and antler are both used. These pieces are often curved or bent. Fig. 6:bb

WEIGHTS Stone 1438 348 (24%) 1090 (76%) A group of (mostly) igneous flattened beach stones

notched on their long axis. A few (4%) are notched on the short axis. Fig. 4:mm-nn

Bone 5 5 Antler tines which are grooved or notched at the small end. Fig. 8:o-p




TABLE 2. TABULAR DESCRIPTION OF THE DUCHIKMIUT PHASE POTTERY

Refer to Figure 3.

Refer to Figure 3.

3Duchikmiut River.

the Duchikmiut wares from Nunivak also reflect this shift from smaller to longer checks on check stamped sherds.

Mean check size increases from 3.3 x 3.1 mm in the early period to 3.5 x 3.3 mm in the late Duchikmiut subphase. The range in check size also increases in the late period with several late sherds exhibiting checks as large as 11.5 x 10.0 mm. Still another change mentioned by Griffin and Wilmeth is a thickening of the pottery. At XNI-028 mean thickness in both plain and check stamped wares increases from 8.2 to 8.8 mm in the late period. Dumond (1969:25-29) also discusses this tendency for the Naknek drainage .

Finally, there is evidence suggesting that a vessel form change occurs between the early and late Duchikmiut subphases. Both bucket and barrel (Fig. 3) forms are found in the Duchikmiut phase, but the latter appears to occur most frequently during the early period. However, a small sample size makes this obser- vation difficult to substantiate. The combination of characteristics, as well as changes in them, appear to indicate cultural ties both north and south of Nunivak Island.

Fiber temper (usually hair) is a predominant

characteristic of early pottery in the Naknek drainage (Cressman and Dumond 1962:39), as well as in some Chagvan Bay wares (Ackerman 1964:25, 28). The nearest location at which a fine sand tempered ware resembling that of the late Duchikmiut subphase has been found is MAR-007 (Shaw 1975, 1976:74), on the mainland northwest of Nunivak . Ackerman (1972:22-25) designated the same site as Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Range Site 14. The high per- centage (92%) of exclusively sand tempered potsherds recovered from deposits assigned to the end of Nunivakfs Duchikmiut phase may reflect a situation unique to Nunivak, although I am extremely hesitant to postulate such uniqueness based on work at a single site.

DUCHIKMIUT PHASE LITHICS

Recovery of 482 Duchikmiut phase implements chipped from igneous and metamorphic rock per- mitted the establishment of a classification system in which most tool categories are represented by several specimens. Projectile points are grouped into nine separate classes in Table 1. (For specific artifact illustrations of each

Thickness phage q£ (mm) gherd wh.ch

Ware /Variety Temper Form Decor Mean Range Total Characteristic Remarks

D.R.3PlainA fine b,h,i plain 8.8 3-18 503 Late sand Duchikmiut

D.R. Check fine b,h,i ii,jj 8.8 3-15 2250 Late Check Stamped with Stamped A sand Duchikmiut checks averaging 3.5 x

3.3 mm at beginning and increasing to 4. 4 x 4.0 mm at the end of the phase.

D.R. Plain B hair b,h,i plain 8.2 5-13 250 Early Duchikmiut

D.R. Check hair b,h,i kk 8.3 3-14 362 Early Checks usually Stamped B Duchikmiut smoothed over and

measurements average 3.3 x 3,1 mm.

D.R. Linear fine unkn. 11 7.6 6-11 19 Duchikmiut Parallel lines stamped Stamped sand; River into exterior surface.

hair Mean width of land is 2.1 mm and mean width of groove is 1.5 mm.




Figure 3. Schematic Drawings of Nunivak Island Pottery Decorations and Vessel Forms.

( UU a bed e

(ítL f g h i j

a Situla f Urn b Bucket g. Bucket with angular c Bucket with flaring rim shoulder d Bucket with constricted rim h Barrel e Globular i Barrel #2

j Lamp

aa bb cc dd

ee ff gg hh

ii jj '*'kk II

aa N.H. incised line gg M.R. concentric bb N.H. ridged circle stamped cc N.H. dot hh M.R. check stamped dd M.R. banded i i D.R. check stamped A ee M.R. raised line jj D.R. " ' ' " ff M.R. linear stamped kk D.R. check stamped B

11 D.R. linear stamped




type, note the Figure references in tables.) Triangular and parallel edged points (Types 2 and 3) comprise 70% of the total. None of the types have basal or other grinding, except for the single Type 6 point which has been ground on both faces. It is so unlike the other projectile points that it cannot be regarded as a variant of any of the other types.

Types 4a and 4b blades exhibit bases thinned by flaking and may well have served as end blades rather than side blades. For this reason, Type 4a and 4b blades are grouped with the points rather than with side blades. With the exception of Types 6 and 7, more projectile points within each type come from the late portion of the Duchikmiut phase than from the early portion. The extremely small number of points assigned to Types 6 and 7 prevents a conclusion, but it is important to note that these points appear to occur during the early Duchik- miut subphase . With the exception of Type 2b , all projectile points are reasonably well represented in the early Duchikmiut subphase (Table 1) . The same can also be said for other flaked stone implements. In the five cases where all artifacts of a given type are from the late Duchikmiut subphase, the sample number is small .

Separation of the XNI-028 Duchikmiut phase materials into components on the basis of stone tools involves two points. First, most types are represented by enough specimens to make sampling error unlikely. Second, 21% of the specimens were recovered from the lower four levels that constitute the early component of the Duchikmiut phase. Table 1 divides the distribution of each type into an early /late category, expressing the distribution of each type as both specimen number and also as a percent.

Ground slate knives are found in the Duchik- miut phase. Three types (see Table 1) occur with Type 3 being the most common. Types la and lb foreshadow the ulu blades of later times and probably were hafted in a similar fashion. A single specimen of each of the varieties appears in an early Duchikmiut context. Since only nine Type 3 slate knives were recovered (five Type 3a and four Type 3b), this discussion is best summarized with the conclusion that ground slate knives may first appear in the early Duchikmiut subphase and become more common in the late portion of the subphase .

All three types of slate knife blades discussed above continue to be found in the post- Duchikmiut phases of Nunivak Island prehistory. Duchikmiut phase recovery of these specimens accounts for a bit over a fourth of the total for each tool category, but this is undoubtedly a reflection of the disproportionate number of man-hours (some 75% of excavation time at XNI- 028) spent on excavating the Duchikmiut phase components .

Comparison of Lithics

A comparison of the Duchikmiut phase stone tools with those recovered by Giddings in work on Cape Denbigh reveals many similarities. His Type 1 projectile points (Giddings 1964:Plate 47, 1-8) are similar to Type 1 points from the Duchikmiut phase, except that some of Giddings1 Type 1 points exhibit slight basal grinding. Type 2 points from Norton Sound (Giddings 1964 ¡Plate 47, 10-13) differ from Duchikmiut Type 2 only in perhaps having slightly thicker bases than those from Nunivakfs Norton phase. Type 5 Duchikmiut points can easily be lost in Giddings1 Type 7 (1964 ¡Plate 49, 1-8), which encompasses a fairly broad range of stemmed points.

Comparison of side blades again shows that much of the Duchikmiut phase material is very similar to material from Iyatayet. All four Duchikmiut phase side blade types are represented in GiddingsT (1964) Plate 46 and the related discussion. Type 4 blades from the Duchikmiut phase resemble Giddings1 Type 5 (1964:161), but he makes no reference to any asymmetry in that type, or to differential edge preparation .

I could discuss Duchikmiut scrapers and again report similarities with Iyatayet materials, but, at this point , it is of more value to look for differences. Some differences occur in projectile points. I did not find any of Giddings1 (1964: 162-163) Type 3 or Type 5 points. Only one projectile point from Nunivak exhibited facial grinding (Type 6), and no rhomboid points were recovered from Duchikmiut levels at XNI- 028.

In the category of slate blades, a more significant difference in artifacts may occur. Gid- dings (1964:151) describes the Norton inhabitants at Iyatayet as ". . . flint workers just become initiated into the process of slate grinding ..." Indeed, the slate knives illustrated (Giddings 1964:Plate 41-a) all exhibit rough, scratched surfaces, and certainly are less finished than similar blades from Nunivak. Worked slate is listed as appearing during both the intermediate and late subphase s for the Lakes phase in the Ugashik drainage (Henn 1978:50), but slate knives do not appear before the following Ugashik River phase (Henn 1978: 57) . The Norton period is represented by the Smelt Creek, the Weir, and the Falls phases in the Naknek drainage (Cressman and Dumond 1962; Dumond 1971:9-15). Slate knives appear in the form of tangless ulus during the Weir phase and tanged ulus in the Falls phase. The former resembles the Type la knife from the Duchikmiut phase on Nunivak.

Of paramount importance in the discussion of slate grinding and varieties of tool types is the careful consideration of chronologies. It is almost meaningless to list the absence or




presence of slate without paying attention to the time period to which the tool form dates. Accordingly , the slate knife blades of the Duchikmiut phase must be examined with a date of c. A.D. 250 to 600 in mind. During this period, one sees a strong development of slate knives in all of the areas examined in this comparison. The presence of slate knives in the Smelt Creek phase in the Naknek drainage with a date of 200 B.C. to A.D. 100 (Dumond 1971: 19) indicates that these tools may well occur earlier on the Alaska Peninsula. Ross (1971: 218) includes slate blades in the Chagvan Beach II phase which he carefully compares to Iyatayet. Some chronological overlap is apparent between Chagvan Beach II and the Duchikmiut phase (Ross 1971:202), although much of the Norton component at Chagvan Bay is likely a bit earlier than that on Nunivak. If one accepts the idea that slate grinding has a "southern origin" (Dumond, Henn and Stuckenrath 1976:17), one would expect to see it earlier and at a more developed stage at the base of the Alaska Penin- sula. Here the question is not simply one of asking when ground slate was first used, but rather how it was used in the context of other Norton elements.

A large number of round, usually flat, stones with notches ("net sinkers") suggests that fishing was a regular, and likely a major, subsistence activity carried out at XNI-028 during Duchikmiut phase times. At XNI-028, 1438 stone sinkers were recovered (Fig. 4, mm, nn). Over 1300 of these (90%) came from stratigraphic deposits assigned to the Duchikmiut phase. In one portion of House pit 1, 41 sinkers occupied an area of less than 25 x 20 cm, within an 8 cm depth. These stones were concentrated enough to suggest a "cache" rather than the remnant of a net. The latter cannot be ruled out, however, as the Level 3 to Level 4 boundary was a 1-3 cm layer of wood which underlay the sinker concentration by no more than 5 cm . Conceiv- ably , a net could have been draped or piled on top of the roof of a structure which later collapsed, bringing the weights down with it. Stones with only one notch account for 8% of the total; stones notched on their short axis make up 4%.

Whetstones were differentiated from abraders by the degree of coarseness of the material. Wear facets are the most common indicators of function; less often, specimens have one or more grooves. Both whetstones and abraders occur throughout the Duchikmiut phase. All but a few of the abraders are pumice ; siltstone is the favored whetstone material.

Three long, thin medial labrets come from upper Duchikmiut strata. The labrets are very similar to those illustrated by Giddings (1964: Plate 49-4). All are made of coal polished to a smooth shiny finish. Two additional coal objects have the appearance of sections of hoops

although the ends are smoothly finished off. These items probably served decorative func- tions. Labrets from Ipiutak (Lar sen and Rainey 1948:Plate 48, 11-15), the Cape Nome area (Bockstoce 1979:51), and the Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 1971:34-35) are shorter and smaller than the Duchikmiut phase labrets and have more flaring, curved insert bases. One can suggest that large labrets are less likely to have a pronounced insertion base because of size limitations of the human mouth. A single ivory labret from the late Duchikmiut subphase on Nunivak (Fig. 6, y) approaches the dimen- sions of some illustrated by Giddings (1964: Plate 30, 17), but the latter belong to the Nukleet rather than to the Norton period.

ORGANIC TOOLS OF THE DUCHIKMIUT PHASE

By many Alaskan site standards, the organic tools recovered from the Duchikmiut phase at XNI-028 are well preserved since the normally highly acidic soils of the tundra commonly destroy bone, wood, and other organic sub- stances. The accumulation of mollusk shells in the river bank at XNI-028 and the scattering of shell over other portions of the site appear to have reduced soil acidity (the calcium from mollusk shells raises the ph of the soil) . Even so, the condition of a specific bone artifact will depend on its immediate environment: if located in a thick midden lens with shells, it will likely be well preserved. Even a recent bone tool may be badly decayed if it is from a thin midden area with few shells.

Although not diagnostic in the sense of dif- ferentiating early from late parts of the Duchikmiut phase , a side blade still in a bone shaft and aman's knife blade set into a bone handle were recovered at XNI-028 (Fig. 7, e, f). Such finds are usually limited to historic or proto-historic times in the Arctic. The sideblade is a Type la biface (Table 1), an artifact type that is most common in the late Duchikmiut assemblage. Knife blades similar to the one found with a handle occur in both subphases.

The distribution of Type la harpoon heads (Table 1 and Fig. 5, n-s) is of interest because a high proportion of artifacts assigned to this type occurs in early Duchikmiut strata. Type lb (Fig. 5, t-v) seems to be a variant that appears during late Duchikmiut times. Types la and lb both are found in late Duchikmiut deposits. But, since we are dealing with small sample sizes from a single site, it is conceivable that Types la and lb reflect nothing more than variation between two manufacturers of these implements, or even variation for slightly different function. Type 2 harpoon heads with their closed sockets and line holes are quite different and are far more common as a Nukleet



Ho.w.ak: Norton Period of Nunivak Island 85

type of harpoon head at Iyatayet (Giddings 1964:Plate 6, 3-6). The high incidence of Type 1 harpoon heads at XNI-028 might reflect nothing more than the efforts of a few manufacturers at that one site. Type la harpoon heads are recovered from all of the excavation units at XNI-028. The number (eight) found in House pit 1 is explained by the comparatively large amount of excavation carried out there.

Toggling harpoon heads were recovered at only one other site (XNI-005) during my Nuni- vak research, although they have been found by local people in a variety of locations along the southern and eastern shores of Nunivak Island. Both Types 1 and 2 appear in these "collections." Highly decorated heads have not been found on Nunivak. Nor is the "design" very elaborate, even for the closed socket Type 2 harpoon heads .

Dart heads (Fig. 8, d-n) found in the Duchikmiut strata at XNI-028 have been grouped into six varieties (Table 1). Sample size for all but Type 3a is small (less than four per category). If anything can be said about the distribution of these projectiles , it is that all but Types la and lb occur in the late part of the Duchikmiut phase.

All five of the small bone foreshafts (Fig. 6, t-v) are from deposits of the late Duchikmiut subphase. Needles (Fig. 6, k-n) have so far been recovered only from the late Duchikmiut subphase. Distribution of awls (Fig. 6, o-r) , however, indicates that these tools were present from the initial occupation of XNI-028 onward.

The overall inventory of Table 1 indicates that a good many of the identifiable organic tools are items associated with marine mammal hunting and processing. A faunal analysis (Chatters 1972) on a sample of the XNI-028 midden supports this idea. Small seal (hair seal) bones were the most common although bearded seal, sea lion, and beluga whale remains were also present in the sample analyzed.

A great many bone tools for food processing and general manufacturing (Table 1) were found in the Duchikmiut deposits at XNI-028. These implements, like the flaked stone tools discussed earlier, are mostly distributed through both subphases of NunivakTs Norton period. However, the distribution of one particular artifact type deserves special note. Sea mammal teeth and an ivory piece cut to a proximal bevel and a distal taper may have served as "wound plugs" (Gid- dings 1964: Plate 8, 17-18). Three such specimens, all from lower (early) Duchikmiut strata at XNI-028 (Fig. 6,z,aa,ee), indicate that sea mammal hunting technology akin to that of the early historic Eskimo likely was employed in the early part of the Duchikmiut phase.

CHRONOLOGY

Table 3 presents the radiocarbon dates that

are available for the Duchikmiut phase at XNI- 028. As a group, the dates provide an assessment of the age of the Norton period on Nuni- vak.

TABLE 3. CHRONOLOGY OF THE DUCHIKMIUT PHASE

Since wood on Nunivak Island suitable for use in house construction during prehistoric times was almost certainly driftwood, the varia- bility in the dates pertaining to the collapsed remnants and associated floor of House pit 1 does not appear to be excessive . The information provided by 1-4486, 1-5807, and 1-4488 suggests that construction and initial occupation of House pit 1 occurred sometime in the very early years of the Christian era.

The A.D. 200 date (1-5806) from a well- defined initial floor indicates that House pit 2 was probably constructed slightly later than House pit 1. Sample 1-5508 dates the late period of Duchikmiut phase to A.D. 385, and A.D. 590 (1-5303) appears to be a good date for the terminal part of the late Duchikmiut

Early Duchikmiut Subphase (150 B.C. -A.D. 250) Late Duchikmiut Subphase (A.D. 250-650)

Five radiocarbon dates from XNI-028 permit a good age assessment of the Duchikmiut phase. They follow:

A.D. 25 1-4486: Charcoal collected from a well- defined floor (L 7/8 boundary) dated at 1925 ± 95 years B.P.

150 B.C. 1-4488: Wood from collapsed remnants of house superstructure, dating 2100 ± 95 B.P.

A.D. 590 1-5303: Charcoal sample, collected at 1.40 m below datum, dates a decayed wood layer found immediately north of the House pit 1 depression and read 1360 ± 95 B.P.

A.D. 200 1-5806: A charcoal sample from a floor near the bottom of House pit 2, dating 1750 ± 95 B.P.

A.D. 85 1-5807: Charcoal from the top of the collapsed House pit 1 superstructure dates 1865 ± 95 B.P.

A.D. 385 1-5508: Wood from 1 to 3 cm layer, 90 cm below datum, marking the start of Level 4. Dates 1565 ± 95 B.P.




subphase. Carbon- 14 dates thus suggest a total span of 750 years (150 B.C.- A. D. 600) for the Duchikmiut phase.

Duchikmiut River Plain B and Check Stamped B wares (Table 2) are confined to the very bottom of House pit 2. Other levels of that house pit containing early to late Duchikmiut subphase materials occurred a bit after the initial construction of House pit 2. Wood from Level 4 of House pit 1 was dated at A.D. 385. That level corresponds to Level 5 of House pit 2, and is definitely part of the late portion of the Duchik- miut phase. The rapid shift in pottery type in House pit 2 and the limiting date mentioned above, led me to suggest an A.D. 250 date for the transition from the early to late Duchikmiut subphases.

DISCUSSION

I have discussed Norton period elements on Nunivak Island in order to facilitate comparison with other sites in Bering Sea Alaska. This has involved a brief topical treatment of pottery, lithics, and organic material.

Most of the data came from a single site , XNI-028. Fortunately, this site contributed a great deal of information on the Duchikmiut phase, in terms of artifactual remains and also of the subsistence activities of Nunivak1 s Norton inhabitants. Although the focus of this paper has been on tools, subsistence is also briefly discussed. It is very tempting (as I have done in this paper) to take Duchikmiut phase characteristics and compare them to other Norton sites of the region. This certainly can be done, but one must keep in mind that the information being compared deals with only a very small portion of Nunivak Island and may reflect a sampling bias. The latter becomes particularly important when the number of specimens is small, as is the case with some of the lithic and organic categories.

Next, let us consider how the Duchikmiut phase relates to the rest of the Norton-affected Arctic. A first consideration is that of chronology. Answering questions about the origins of cultural development and their subsequent influence on adjacent regions depends totally on well- developed local chronologies. If two sites or areas are compared, only one of which has a well-established chronology, we are forced to rely on guesses about their relationships. This generates interesting questions perhaps even more frequently than explanations.

Slate knife blades (Fig. 5) may appear as early as the end of the first century A.D. It appears that they form a distinct part of the Nunivak Norton tool kit after A.D. 250. The stratigraphic positions of Duchikmiut slate knife blades place all but one of them after A.D. 250. [The single blade found in Level 6 of House pit 1

came from a floor that overlies the extensive roof- fall of the structure that most likely repre- sents the initial occupation of XNI-028.] It seems likely that slate knives are part of the later Norton period, dating between A.D. 250 and A.D. 590. Such a placement would not make it at all strange that the late Duchikmiut subphase exhibits such a developed slate technology. Slate knives are well developed in the Tidewater subphase of the Ugashik Lakes phase (Henn 1978:Plate X, p-q). This subphase probably overlaps chronologically with part of the late Duchikmiut subphase since Henn (1978:53) assigns an age of A.D. 400-A.D. 1000 to it.

In the Naknek drainage, slate knives ap- peared some 2000 years earlier (Dumond 1971: 30) , but not in the characteristic ulu forms of Norton ulu blades. The latter form shows up on the North Pacific side of the Alaska Penin- sula as part of the Takli Birch subphase which spans 2200-800 B.C. (Clark 1977:34; Dumond 1971:22, 31). The succeeding Cottonwood phase (A.D. 270-500) is seen as a "Nortonoid" period with the addition of slate projectile points as well as fiber tempered pottery (Clark 1977:38, 39). Earlier slate grinding continued in the Cottonwood phase with the addition of influences which moved across the Alaska Range from the Bering Sea side of the Alaskan Penin- sula (Dumond 1977:113). Slate knives from the Norton Sound region also precede those from Nunivak by at least several centuries (Bock- stoce 1979:51-52; Giddings 1964:189). Nuni- vak forms also lack the extensive flaking sometimes seen on some of the Norton Sound specimens.

Duchikmiut phase harpoon and dart heads are present in sufficient numbers to permit a comparison with other Norton sites. That, however, introduces a problem: the logical sites to make comparison with are those that have the greatest similarities in lithic and ceramic materials. Unfortunately, many such sites frequently have very poor preservation of Norton organic artifacts (Bockstoce 1979) , and a comparison is not possible in this category. Conversely, sites that do contain organic artifacts resembling Norton assemblages may not be clearly Norton related. Lar sen and RaineyTs work at Ipiutak, however, not only provides a reasonable source for the evaluation of Duchik- miut organic material because of the remarkable preservation there, but also Ipiutak is seen as a descendent variant of the Norton tradition (Dumond 1977:114). The Type 2 dart heads from Nunivakfs Duchikmiut phase correspond to some of Larsen and RaineyTs (1948: Plate 33; 13, 17, 18) arrowheads very closely, although the latter may be a bit longer. Two objects (Fig. 6,e,f) from XNI-028 have been identified as end pieces of bows, and it is possible that some of the slender dart heads may be




arrowheads. Finding duplicates of these implements in other collections without paying attention to affinity or chronology is easy (e.g. , de Laguna 1975: Plate 42), but such an activity is minimally effective in providing information on Norton affinities.

Nunivak Island lies roughly midway between Norton Sound and the base of the Alaska Penin- sula, squarely in the path of both activity and traffic of peoples that are marine adapted if not marine oriented. It should, therefore, be expected that Nunivak1 s Duchikmiut phase reflects the activity of these people. What proves to be a far more difficult question is how the Norton period on Nunivak Island relates to sites north , south , and east of it . Inquiry into this question is impeded by several conditions. Sample size and bias have been discussed, and are important elements to any consideration of postulates about a generalized Norton tradition on Nunivak Island.

Ways to minimize the effect of the inherent vagaries in archaeological data are important and an accumulation of a large data base is one solution. A chronology such as that for the Naknek drainage which is based on many radiocarbon dates, sites, and seasons of field work, instills confidence in statements about both the data and chronology. To be sure, statements about the data are frequently arrived at through generalization , but if the bases on which one generalizes are good, the generalizations are apt to be useful ones for piecing regional prehistory together.

The prehistory of Nunivak Island is closely related to cultural developments on the coast of western Alaska. The Norton period is no exception and where differences can be noted between sites, it is presently difficult to explain them. Several possible factors may contribute to the apparent differences. They may be: 1) merely the result of sampling bias; 2) explainable if more information about the prehistory of adjacent areas were available; or 3) the result of geographic isolation (especially in the case of an island) . It is possible that all three factors are involved. At any rate, Nunivak IslandTs Duchikmiut phase contributes to our understand- ing of the Norton period in Alaska.

I have tried to avoid generalizations about the Norton period on Nunivak Island. Hope- fully this exploration and presentation of the Duchikmiut phase will permit others to use the data in generating finer syntheses. These should incorporate both specific site continui- ties and discontinuities to create a better picture of Norton period prehistory. Seven points conclude this discussion:

1. Nunivakfs Norton cultural expression says little, if anything, about the origins of the Norton culture. It appears quite developed on Nunivak as early as 150 B.C. Being marine oriented, use of boats must have been

substantial but we do not find direct evidence of these presumably skin and wood or bone craft.

2. If the shift from harpoon Types la to lb, and then to Type 2, is borne out in further work, this may be an example of local or insular uniqueness.

3. The shift from fiber (hair) tempered pottery to sand tempered ware, while not unique to Nunivak?s Norton, may also show its insu- larity in the time (A.D. 250) during which it occurred .

4. Check stamped pottery has turned up in all coastal portions of Nunivak Island. A boat- equipped people would certainly have traveled along its coastline. Bays and the estuary portions of rivers were also frequented.

5. Was Nunivak occupied before the arrival of Norton peoples? To date no evidence has been found, but the surveys have been neither exhaustively intense nor have they included the whole of the island. If an earlier culture than Norton culture were to be found, it would likely be the Arctic Small Tool tradition. But inasmuch as Nunivak is a large coastal island, the Arctic Small Tool tradition people may not have ever lived there.

6. In 1967, 135 notched sinkers were recovered at XNI-028. In 1969, 630 were found there, and 813 came from that site in 1970. This might be interpreted as indicative of a high intensity fishing site. The location is still a regularly frequented fishing site today, particularly during July. Fishing would have been done with nets. Sinkers come from both the early and late Duchikmiut subphases.

7. The species and genera of game from the XNI-028 midden suggest that no major changes have occurred in the subsistence base on Nunivak from Norton times until contact. Even today the only animal that has been lost is the caribou, and European, or Old World, reindeer have been introduced to restore that loss.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Robert E. 1964 Prehistory in the Kuskokwim-Bristol

Bay Region, Southwestern Alaska. Laboratory of Anthropology , Washing- ton State University, Report of In- vestigations, No. 26.

1972 Field Report: Archaeological Survey, Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Range, and Recommendations for Further Archaeological Investiga- tions. MS. on file, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.




Bockstoce, John R. 1979 The Archaeology of Cape Nome,

Alaska. University of Pennsylvania, University Museum Monograph 38.

Chatters, James C. 1972 The Faunal Analysis of Site MK2 and

MK4 Nunivak Alaska. MS. on file, Department of Anthropology , Univer- sity of Washington, Seattle.

Clark, Gerald 1977 Archaeology of the Alaska Peninsula:

The Coast of Shelikof Strait 1963- 1975. University of Oregon, Anthro- pological Papers No. 13.

Cressman, L. A, and D. E. Dumond 1962 Research on Northwest Prehistory:

Prehistory in the Naknek Drainage, Southwestern Alaska. Final Report to the National Science Foundation. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

de Laguna, Frederica 1975 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet,

Alaska. The Alaska Historical Society. (Originally published 1934.)

Drebert, Ferdinand 1959 Alaska Missionary. Moravian Book

Shop, Bethlehem.

Dumond, Don E. 1969 The Prehistoric Pottery of Southwest-

ern Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 14.

1971 A Summary of Archaeology in the Katmai Region, Southwestern Alaska. University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers No. 2.

1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Dumond, Don E., Winfield Henn, and Robert Stuckenrath

1976 Archaeology and Prehistory of the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 18(1): 17-29.

Giddings, J. L. 1964 The Archeology of Cape Denbigh.

Brown University Press, Providence.

Griffin, James B. and Roscoe W. Wilmeth, Jr. 1964 The Ceramic Complexes at Iyatayet.

In: The Archeology of Cape Denbigh, by J. L. Giddings. Brown University Press, Providence.

Henn, Winfield 1978 Archaeology of the Alaska Peninsula:

The Ugashik Drainage, 1973-1975. University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers No. 14.

Lantis, Margaret n.d. "The Nunivak Eskimos." MS. pre-

pared for Handbook of North Ameri- can Indians, 1976.

Larsen, Helge and Froelich Rainey 1948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting

Culture. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural His- tory 42.

Nowak, Michael 1971 A Preliminary Report on the Archeolo-

gy of Nunivak Island, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the Univer- sity of Alaska 15(1): 18-31.

Oswalt, W. H. 1963 Alaskan Eskimos. Chandler,

San Francisco.

Ross, Richard E. 1971 The Cultural Sequence at Chagvan

Bay, Alaska: A Matrix Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Washington State Uni- versity, Pullman. University Micro- films, Ann Arbor.

Shaw, Robert D. 1975 Reports of Archeological Tests.

Arctic Research Section, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

1976 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavation and Survey During 1976 in Southwestern Alaska. Arctic Research Section, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State Uni- versity, Pullman.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1975 Nunivak National Wildlife Refuge:

Environmental Assessment, Proposed Management of Muskox. Anchorage, Alaska.

Van Stone, James W. 1954 Pottery from Nunivak Island, Alaska.

Anthropological Papers of the Univer- sity of Alaska 2 (2): 181-191.

1957 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Nunivak Island, Alaska. Anthropolo- gical Papers of the University of Alaska 5(2): 97-118.




Figure 4. Duchikmiut Phase Stone Tools: Type 3a projectile points (a-d); Type 4 side blades (e-f); Type 4a projectile points (g-h); Type la projectile points (i-k) ; Type 5 projectile points (1-n); large hand knives (o, dd); Type 2a points (p-q, t-u) ; Type 2b points (r-s); Type la side blades (v-w); Type 1 drills (x-aa); rectangular scrapers (bb-cc); Type 7 projectile point (ee) ; unifacial scraper (ff) ; discoidal knives (gg-hh); Type 2 slicing/piercing knives (ii-jj); Type 4 slicing/piercing knife (kk); discoidal scraper (11) ; sinkers (mm-nn) .

Figure 5. Duchikmiut Phase Ground Slate and Bone Artifacts: Type 3 knife blades (a-c), Type la knife blades (g-j); pegs (d-f, k-m); Type la harpoon heads (n-s); Type lb harpoon heads (t-v) ; Type 2 harpoon head (w); foreshaft (x); adze (y).




Figure 6. Duchikmiut Phase Bone and Ivory Tools: nails (a-c) ; fastener (d); "bow" ends (e-f); fastener (g); lures or togs (h-j) ; needles (k-n); awls (o-r); unidentified objects (s, bb, cc); foreshafts (t-v) ; labret (y) ; tubes (w-x); plugs (z-aa, ee) ; handle sockets (dd, ff).

Figure 7. Duchikmiut Phase Bone Tools: wedges (a,d,i); caribou long bone scraper (b); spoons (c,g,j); man's knife (e); spearhead with side blade (f); adze (h).




Figure 8. Duchikmiut Phase Bone and Organic Artifacts: walrus hide rope -(a); leister prongs (b-c); Type 2 dart heads (d-e); Type la dart heads (f-h); Type 3 dart heads (i-j); Type lb dart heads (k-1); Type lc dart heads (m-n); net weights (o-p); ring (q) ; small wedge (r) .



the norton period of nunivak island: internal change and external influence

Documents