'il c : i. i '

0 Lr

' J

lJ j, 0 J

:I

[J i

l 0 ' i

'1. n

L l i

I

~i [ I

l !111 ! :

r . l.~l

I I

li l~ i

ll ~ l I

., .•... · .. , ' . '

'

[}{]£OO~§.'lc~[ID&,@@@ Susitna Joint Venture

Document Number

;q93 Please Return To

DOCUMENT CONTROL

EARLY MAN IN AMERICA •

From a Circum -Pacific Perspective

Edited by Alan Lyle Bryan

Qccasional Papers No 1 of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta

Publisher:

Archaeological Researches International Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

I l'

l l l [

I l t f )

i

! ., l

8• ·~

u ,. Lj

f1" • L. r::::~~ I

L

r

' ~ ........... i

f:-'1

; L,...

f....,

j

L·

r1

!--l

,-, ] !

L_J

1 r-,

\

~· _ _,

~ r·• jo.· I

~ ... ;

~ ~·~· ... ~

~ <--4

I c.,;-4

I I>¥:.4

I !'~.f

PLEISTOCENE ARCHAEOLOGY IN EASTERN

BERINGIA 1

The main purpose of this paper is twofold: 1. to discuss evidence for human activity in the Yukon

Territory of Canada at a time before the Classical Wisconsinan (=Wi.irm/Weichsellll =Sartan) glacial

stage, and 2. to suggest,very tentatively, how this evidence can be

understood in relation to the Paleolithic of Siberia.

I shall refer to some of the results of our 1975 field season; however, analysis of the data is still far from being complete. In 1973 Harington and I published radiocarbon dates on bone implements from Old Crow, Yukon, Canada, which fell between 25,000 and 29,000 years ago. Since that time our work has progressed with some success in the developmc'lt of analytical techniques and in the recovery of additional evidence in the field. I wish to draw attention to the work of C. R. Harington, R. Bonnich­sen, A'. Morlan, and J. Cinq-Mars, and several students whom l will mention subsequently. I also depend on geological interpretation provided by Owen Hughes, and field observations by T.D. Hamilton and F. Fedele.

I must mention, however briefly, a concerted effort to understand the prehistory and paleoecology of the north­eastern part of Beringia which began in 1975. The North· ern Yukon Hesearch Programme of the University of Toronto orings together in the field senior scientists and students in disciplines ranging from ethnology to physics. Our mandate is to conduct and encourage research that is both intrinsically interesting and likely to bear on the history of Man's experience in northeastern Beringia from earliest times to the present day. ~n this undertaking we work closely with scientists in the Yukon Refugium Project oi the National Museums of Canada and the Geological Survey of Canada (cf. Morlan in this volume}.

Our research re·,ults since 1973 are wholly consistent thus fan.tith those reported by Harington and me at that time. However, incr&asing experience in handling this somewhat unusual kind of archaeological evidence, plus some recently reported research in the Far East, also require that we reconsider some of the tentative conclu­sions we arrived at then.

Until 1977 no artifacts or other evidence of human activity had been found anywhere in the Yukon in a

96

-

W.N. Irving

Northern Yukon Research Programme

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario

stratigraphic position that confirms an age of more than a few thousand years. In 1977 bones fractured while still fresh were found in situ at OCR Loc. 12, (in Unit 3, see below), stratigraphically below a layer of peat dated 35,000 BP (GSC 2507). One of the bones had been shaped by percussion to serve as a side scraper. Similar flaked bone material and a possibly utilized, split cobble were found in the same stratigraphic position at a new locality, OCR Loc. 300. R.E. Morlan and J. Matthews subsequently duplicated the observations at OCR Loc. 12 (cf. Morlan in this volume). As we have reported pre­viously, radiocarbon dates on bone artifacts from Old Crow indicate ages of 25-29,000 years. There is no indication that these dates are too old; but because their theoretical

significance is very great, and the theoretical reliability of dates on bone may be questioned, it is necessary to resort 'io other kinds of evidence for the age of the bone artifacts.

I shall summarize the field evidence, especially that of geomorphology, stratigraphy, and paleontology, first. Then I will describe some of our analytical procedures and some apparently significant results. Finally, I will suggest some general implications of our findings to date.

Our area of study includes all of the northern Yukon, but its focus is a somewhat anomalous physiographic feature called Old Crow Flats. "The Flats'' is an inter­montane basin some 65 x 130 km in extent lying just west of the Rocky Mountains and south of the Brooks Range. Like most of the rest of northern Yukon, including some similar nearby basins, "the Flats" was never glaciated. However, the work of geologist Owen Hughes ( 1968, 1972) and others, shows that huge melt­water channels conducted run-off water from the edge of the Laurentide ice sheet westward through low passes in the Rocky Mountains into the closed basins, including "the Flats". The basins were filled during periods of maximum glacial advance, when earlier drainage to the !:!ast was blocked by ice and before !he modern drainage westward to the Yukon River developed. During inter­stadi~ I and interglacial periods the basins were drained. This situation presents us with the possibility of correlating certain geomorphic events in unglaclated Old Crow Flats with the major events in nearby glaciated regions.

I!

.=._)

~J ~

I r f..;.q

'

t( r.t"'"1

,_1

I ~~~"1:

rl ,.""""4

[ f I

I t~ L.J

I r~,

i.J

! -·l

"' J

~ 1.- .. J

~ .,... -;

>+-"'

~ '""'I

\.«,.;,.;.{

'I '---"

I }..~

I e..<t

, ·o -

Around Old Crow Flats, beaches and other shoreline featurpc are clearly visible at elevations up to 430 m a.s.i., exce~ ,:,:ere the Old Crow River and its tributaries have cut through it to depths of 40 m, or, in places, 280 m a.s.l. (These elevations are approximate. Our best maps cover only a part of "tile Flats" with a contour interval 1:;2f ?R feet). Incidentally, the present limit of trees (Picea) is about 400 m a.s.l., but of course this distribution varies greatly ~ith local conditions.

The land surface is underlain by continuous permafrost to an unknown depth ~- perhaps several hundred meters. The low areas of fine-grained sediments are covered now by vast numbers of shallow ponds and lakes up to 10 km in diameter. Bt'tween the modern lakes may be seen geo­morphic and botanical indications that many lakes w~te larger in the not-very-distant past.

Along the Old Crow River, and also tne Por~upine River into which it dre1ns, there are numeiOUS exposures of Pleistocene sediments. On the eors:..:pinc same ot these exceed 70 min height; on the Old Crow River the highest approaches 40 m. The correlation of the upper part of the Old Crow River section with those seen on the Porcupine seems reasonably secure, but there remains some doubt about the correlation of the lower parts. In any event, until the stratigraphic work begun by a large number of scientists in 1975 has been completed it will be necessary to combine recent still unpublished field observations with the published descriptions of Owen Hughes (19681 1972), The interpretation that follows must be regarded as tenta­tive. It is intended to illustrate the present state of knowledge of a very limited area within Old Crow Flats.

At Locality 11 on Old Crow River, an exposure some 500 m long and 38-40 m high above summer low water, we see the following schematic section, which can be correlated with the layers presented in Irving and Haring­ton (1973): Unit 1 -Unit 2-

Unit 3-

layers a,b layer c, part of b

layer d

Unit 4A • layer e Unit 48 • {not previously distinguished

as two separate layers; 4A not noted in some other sections)

Unit 1:- 2-4 m cross-bedded sand ancl silt capped by peat (rna;' be subdivided)

Unit 2: 5-7 m flat·bedded clay and clay-silt Unit 3: 25·30 m cmss-bedded sand, silt and clay, with

local massive deposits of plant remains in deep channel fills (may be subdivided)

Unit 4: more than 4 m. Upper member (4A): poorly sorted clay-silt and fine sand. Lower member (48): Finely laminated clay, jointed and

97

--

oxidized. Irregular upper surface indicates an erosional disconformity.

This is not a report of a formally measured geological section. Such a report will be published by Hughes and his associates on the basis of work begun in 1975 at this and many other localities. ·

Evidently Units 2 and 48 were dep_osited in deep water; whereas Units 1 and 3 were deposited. by slow-moving streams. Unit 4A may have resulted from the reworking of sediments from Unit 48 in a low-energy aqueous environment. The nature and significance of the erosional disconformity at the top of Unit 48 are not yet fully understood; it may represent a short or a long interval of time (Irving 1977).

In the immediate vicinity of Locality 11, both upstream and downstream, we have recovered more than 20,000 well-preserved ·fossil bones. However, some 99 percent of these come from secondary alluvial deposits. This is true of the collections from Locality 14N, 4 km by river upstream from Locality 1 1, where it was first recognized that Pleistocene animal bones had been used as implements by man. This phenomenon is wei I illustrated by Locality 11 A, about 1 km downstream from Locality 1 1, from which we have taken collections in 1970 and 1975. But before I discuss this it is necessary to characterize the units c:~t Locality 1 1 in terms of fossils, possible correla­tions, and chronology.

At Locality 11, the remains of Bison crassicornis (= priscus) have been found in Unit 1, and radiocarbon dated (11 ,910 + 180 (1-7765) and 12,460 + 220 (1-3574} BP, which indicates that the underlying Unit 2 is older than 12,000 years. Unfortunately, it does not indicate when the deposition of Unit 1 alluvium ceased and down-cutting by the Old Crow River began; this 0 event" may in fact have lasted for several thousand years.

There are no radiocarbon dates from Units 2, 3 or 4 at Locality 11. However, dates on wood, peat and shells from alluvial deposits that underlie lacustrine clay at other exposures fall in the 2040,000 year range. It seems likely that at least the upper part of Unit 3 at L<M::aliW 11 dates to the Plumb Point (= Karginsky) interstadial. This dating would permit the correlation of Unit 2 with the maximum of Wisconsin Ill (= Sartan) as suggested by Hughes. Apparently Unit 4 is older than the limit of the radiocarbon dating technique.

So far as has been determined, the lake deposits of Units 2 and 4 are biologically sterile. If th~s situation implies permanent ice cover, does it also irnply a surrounding landscape devoid of pollen-producing vegeta­tion? It is likely that the intetpretation of Units 2 and 4 will produce pictures of landscapes unlike any which can be observed today.

Great quantities of biolpgi~§! m~terial halVe been observed in the alluvium of Unit 3. Almost all of that which can be observed macroscopically are plant remains,

, ;

I t

''I

! ,1

l

i

I l

._j

'~-1

·-'

~

.\:_.

L r--.

l..-..1

l 1'--,

\.;-·

r·-, t i

1 ... ,.;

I r·, . L-'

r~ ,_.,.., j •

w J. .I

~ _a.-. .4

~ -~

'

·I J,;,.r.._l

I p·~

0

ranging from logs to leaves and spruce needlec. The vary small number of vertebrate fossils found in place includes mammoth and possibly horse and bison, found at other localities but thought to correlate with Unit 3 at Locality 11.

A small number of badly eroded vertebrate fossils has !Jeen found at locality 12 in a layer that may correlate with Unit 4A. However, none of these can be interpreted as evidence for human activity. : Acco• ding to our present knowledge, the stratiJraphy

oytlined at localities 11 and 12 is likely to be repeated c::t other localities along the middle reaches of the Old Crow River. There is so far no indication that major stratigraphic units that are not represented at locality 11 will be found to occur at other nearby localities. But this state of affairs makes it difficult to account for the occurrence of vast quantities of vertebrate fossils, including many that have heen modified by man, at locality 11 A and other nearby sites. The great majority of our specimens -· perhaps 99 percent-- come from secondary alluvial deposits, to which they appear to have been transported in the last few thousand years. Many fossil bones are redeposited each year, primarily, we think, by the action of spring floods.

In 1975, a season of unusually low water in the Old Crow River, we found exposed betvveen localities 1 1 and 11 A a deposit that contains wood and a few bones embed­ded in iron-cemented layers of sand of sub-aqueous depos­ition. It appears likely that this deposit is a facies variation of Unit 4A or 48 at Locality 11, and that this or a similar deposit at or below the modern river level is the source of many of the bones that we find at Locality 11 A. If this is so, then some of our specimens from Locality 11A are of early Plumb Point aga, if not older. This does not, of course, prove the presence of man at this time. It does mean that if man were present more than· 30,000 years ago, and if he modified the bones of his animal prey in ways that we have learned to recognize, we may be able to demonstrate this fact.

Our field observations suggest that large mammals were numerous in Old Crow Flats in a period that predates the maximum advance of the Wisconsinan Ill glaciation. The bones are extraordinarily well preserved, but they are quite fragile and stained dark brown. A few specimens have been found cemented into deposits of "bog-iron". These facts support tho hypothesis suggested in 1973 that some of the bones, perhaps the majority, were deposited in water soon after death, where they underwent mineraliza­tion but were protected from bacterial and mechanical attrition. These observations, together with the occurrence of many signs of human activity among the bones, suggest

that many of the animals were killed and dismembered by man on the ice of ponds and lakes. When the ice thawed the bones sank to the bottom; then they became incor· porated in frozen sediments which protected them from further alteration until erosional processes re-exposed them.

-

98

In general, our laboratory analyses tend to support the hypothesis generated by field observations. I have mention· ed radiocarbon dates; we are not yet prepared to review the results of these in a definitive way; but I should point out that there still are no dates on bone from the interval between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago.

Preliminary analyses by neu1ron activation for 18 elements by I. Czuba and R.M. Farquhar (1977) show that horse and mammoth bones from locality 11 A are enriched by Co, U, Dy, Sm, Du, Ba, Ti, Sr, V, Mn, and AI, by comparison with a modern moose bone from near Old Crow Flats. The manganese enrichment of the 12 fossil bones is nearly three orders of magnitude greater than that found in the modern bone. Although for technical reasons the iron content was not measured, we may infer that because this element behaves chemically very nearly the same as manganese, the fossils also are greatly enriched with iron. This analysis is wholly consistent with the hypothesis that the bones lay for some time in a wet, unfrozen, possibly anaerobic environment- for example, the bottom of a pond. Because the 12 bone samples from Locality 11 A are very similar in terms of mineralization, we are justified in thinking that most of the bones from this secondary deposit were deposited originally in the same chemical and thermal environment .

In 1967 and 1973 Harington and I reported that many of the bones in collections from Old Crow Flats, and especially those of mammoth, horse; and bison, had been fractured by man. laboratory analyses, and statistical and experimental studies --some of which are not complete - show the following:

(1) Many of the fractured bones were broken before mineralization or desiccation had taken place. The gross morphology and microrelief of fractures made on fresh bone differ very markedly from fractures sustained by bone that has been exposed to weathering for just a few years. I think that this difference results primarily from the weakening of collagen fibres, either by desiccation, or by chemical or bacterial activity. In all likelihood mineral· ization introduces complicating factors, and so perhaps does the differential solution of bone mineral under varying conditions. We are attempting to systematize our observations of these phenomena, so that their occurrence in other collections can be compared with what we see at

Old Crow. (2) The majority of the fractures which we attribute to

human activity are curvilinear rather than geometric in shape. In this, and other respects, they resemble bones broken for marrow which some of us have observed in modern Eskimo and Indian encampments. Incidentally,

it was an Eskimo, Simon Paneak, who in 1950 or 1951 first demonstrated for me the way to distinguish man-made from carnivore-made fractures at a glance: man-made fractures curve systematically and smoothly through the main shaft of the bone, whereas those made by carnivores

:t

'I ~·-'

I t.J~

I

are irregular and tend to occur at the ends of bones. Although I have broken many bones of caribou and

moose while living with Eskimo and Indian hunters-- and excavated thousands more from archaeological sites-- it was not until the 1970's that I began to understand the theoretical basis for this simple diagnosis. This came about tf!rough the study of our Old Crow fossils, with the help of R. Bonnichsen and others. In brief, fresh bone is hard, elastic, and lacks significant internal micro­structure. Therefore it transmits kinetic energy, and hence also fractures, very much the way that flint does. The nearly cylindrical shape of many bones, and the fact that they are hollow, means that we should be able to describe at least some of the characteristics of these fractures in terms of relatively simple geometry or algebra. In fact, K. Biddick and J. Tomenchuk (1975) have done this; and with refinement their technique may well have very wide application. Fresh bone can be altered by percussion, as just described, by attrition (e.g., chewing, abrasion by stones), by chemical or bacterial decay, or by pressure (e.g., compression between the jaws of a carnivore, or earth movement or some other gravitational force). Attrition and decay usually are easy to recognize, but I have l:leen reminded by H. Muller-Beck (personal commun-ication) that fractures due to pressure of non-human origin may not be as easy to recognize. Although I am confident that it is theoretically possible to define a dif­fr,,·ence between bone fractures caused by percussion and those caused by pressure, I mu:;t admit that I know little published research that confirms this belief. Systematic observc:tion and experiments by Bonnichsen (in this volume) show that impact marks and flakes incidental to fracture by percussion can be identified, but these are recognizable on only a small percentage of the man­fractured bones identified by means of other criteria..

I think that the most compelling examples of fracture by percussion, which theoretically and on the basis of experiments with cow (Bos) bones (Irving, unpublished research) cannot have been produced with regularity except by a man equipped with a hafted hammer, are seen in the large bones of mammoth from Old Crow Flats. They are numerous. On some of them there are bulbs or cones of percussion closely analogous to those that one sees on flint cores. I know of no carnivore, and indePd no other agent than man, that can repeatedly cause such fractures on the large, dense, long bones of mammoth. The summation of these observations and inferences is that man was breaking mammoth, horse, and bison bones with a hafted hammer while they were fresh, in the Ctsnadian part of Beringia.

(3) Some of the fractured bones of mammoth, bison, and horse had sustained several heavy blows -- far more than was necessary to expose marrow or prepare the animal for eating. An analysis soon to be published by Bonnichsen shows that in many cases a sequence of impact fractures

99

-

accomplished the following objectives in order: a. reduction of a bone to large fragments b. preparation of a striking platform c. removal of one and sometimes several flakes.

The conclusion seems warranted that ttle purpose of break­ing the bones was to secure flakes whi~ could be used as cutting instruments. A large quantity of such flakes taken from Old Crow River locality 11A is being examined.

(4) A number of other techniques for working in bone and antler have been observed among fossils from Old Crow Flats. These include grooving, whittling (scraping), and grinding. The list of types is fairly long, out the tot~ I number of specimens illustrating these techniques is small-- several dozen.

Although the bone evidence indicates the use of stone tools, few of these have been found and none have been found under circumstances that require the inference of age within the Pleistocene.2 Our dated stone implements from the Old Crow Region all come from upland sites, and all are of post-Pleistocene age. It is possible, and indeed likely, that our collections from these sites above the maximum elevation of Pleistocene lakes include stone implements that are as old as the Pleistocene bone materials; but at present there is no way to recognize or to date these specimens. There is no indication that such implements are numerous in o~r present collections. The number of stone implements from Old Crow River itself is extremely small (cf. Morlan in this volume).

We are left to assume that the Pleistocene cultures of Old Crow Flats made relatively little use of stone, but relied heavily on bone {and antler and ivory)for the manu­facture of implements. In this respect they are not unlike the recent northern Athapaskans.

(5) Mention should be made of a special butchering technique indicated by examination of the horse and bison .calcanei from Locality 11 A, carried out by R. Cauble and J. Tomenchuk (ms.). In brief, the tuber calcis of many of the adult specimens has been removed, but the other parts of the bone are undamaged except for superficial gnawing by rodents. it is significant that none of the calcanei of cervids (moose, caribou) show such alteration. This ob· servation was suggested by H. Larsen (1968), who found the feature prominent among bison calcanei from near Fairbanks, Alaska. It appears that when an animal with a very strong Achilles tendon is to be dismembered, it may be easier to break the bone tc which it is attached than it is to cut the tendon. This hypothesis has been confirmed in experiments by A. Holland (personal communication).

(6) A. Holland, in analyzing the horse bones from Old Crow Flats, has noted an unusually nigh incidence of fracture of the splint bones. ! 11 modern horses this accident occurs when anir11als are forced to run at top speed over hard ground. Such fractures are extrem&ly rare in wild populations (personal communication). Their high incidence at Old Crow could result frol\1 the

\ '

._j

I t

"'' li ' u

,_ ; '

L..r

~

'~

,.,...,

t. .....

r~

i._ .. ~

j:'"'""1

L.J

I r-1 t I l-..J

~ r' ~ L...~

fl , .. ,

loJ '-'·

~

u ~"'"""

~

'I ..,......._.

I

..

--

animals having been stampeded by Man, perhaps in game drives over frozen ground, or across frozen lakes.

From the fot·egoing evidence, which is but a brief extract from the work of many colleagues and students, it is pos­sible to infer a population of men with a technology some­what different from that which is traditionally attributed to the Paleolithic. Their technology could as well be called Early Paleolithic as Late. They were predators on an exten­sfve fauna of large mammals which they sometimes killed em the ice of ponds and lakes. Although direct evidence indicates an age of between 25,000 and 29,000 years, the probability is strong that this culture is older. The reliability of radiocarbon dates on bone apatite may be questioned on theoretical grounds, inasmuch as the patterns of forma­tion and alteration of this mineral are poorly understood. We are comparing dates on collagen and apatite from the same specimens. For the present, our apatite dates are not inconsistent with those on collagen from different specimens.

A human mandible found at Loc. 11A in 1976 has a dental age of 11.5 years; therefore it is difficult to deter­mine its taxonomic status. It appears to be as old as the Pleistocene bones found with it (Irving, et al. n.d.). We are unable to say whether or not human descendants of this population survived until the Holocene, and we have no evidence at all for the taxonomic position of these Pleisto­cene men.

Several questions arise from these conclusions. In 1973 Harington and I inferred an Upper Paleolithic affiliation for the caribou bone implement dated at 27,000. This inference was based on the apparent refinement of bone­working technique which it displayed, which suggested affiliation with Muller-Beck's Aurignacoid Tradition (1967). Since then, however, it has been shown that the Upper Paleolithic first appeared on Hokkaido sometime after 21,000 BP. It was pre!:eded in Hokkaido and elsewhere in the Far East by a very different technology, which I shall refer to informally as late Early Paleolithic. The Early Paleolithic of the Far East was the topic of a symposium convened by Fumiko lkawa-Smith in Montreal in the fall of 1973 (lkawa-Smith 1978).

Although the new evidence from the Far East has not been fully evaluated, it is worthwhile in the attempt to understand the background of Paleolithic man in Beringia to suggest the following tentative hypothesis, based on work presented in the Montreal Symposium by J. Bartstra (Patjitania.n/, R. Fox (Tabon Cave; Cagayan Vall£'y • Philippines), M. Yoshizaki (e.g., Shukubai site, Hokkaido), and C, Serizawa (Hoshino site, Honshu, and others). I have long been aware of Upper Pleistocene Early Paleolithic sites in China (e.g., J. Aigner 1972, 1973, and in this volume), and a few possible examples of this kind of culture in the Soviet Far East. However, I have not yet had the opportunity to examine and discuss these materials with

100

::: ;;;; :-

-

,,

people who have studied them. Thus the hypothesis I will suggest is weakened by its lack of support from northern mainland East Asia .• Nevertheless, here :t is:

The Early Paleolithic cultures of the Far East developed a very versatile technology, so that during the Upper Pleistocene, if not earlier, they were able to advance from rigorous environments like that of North China into very demanding environments such as those of north­eastern Siberia and Beringia~ The chronology of this advance is very uncertain, but it may well have hegun at or before the beginning of the last (Wisconsinan: Wurm-Weichsel) glaciation; that is, before Zyrianka

time. Long experience with Eskimo and Indian cultures of

northern North America, both archaeological and modern, convinces me that Man cannot survive in the taiga without a fairly elaborate technology for coping with low temper­atures, high Winds, deep snow, and periodic shortages of game. Recently I have become impressed by the fact that this technology does not, however, necessarily entail the use of tools made of imperishable materials. A cursory review of Athapaskan and/or Caribou Eskimo material culture will confirm this observation. I invite those who are not convinced by the evidence in the literature to accom­pany me or one of my colleagues in a search for sites occupied during the Nineteenth Century by ancestors of living informants. They will return impressed either by the futility of archaeological research, or by the need to modify and enlarge the understanding of technology held by archaeo loglsts.

In the present case I think we must begin to study the life of Early Man by assuming that his "technology" included not only his tools but also his ability to use them; in short, the whole complex of knowledge and skill which Early Man used to cope with his environment. In the present case, this premise means that it is very dangerous to assume, as I have sometimes done, theit a stone industry with bl~des and burins is indicative of a culture able to cope with taiga or subarctic conditions; and that a stune industry without these or any similar specialized stone tools must represent a culture that could not move into the North. In fact, we appear to have in the Yukon an example of a culture fully capable of coping with the northern taiga, but which utilized none of the advanced techniques that distinguish western Upper Paleolithic stone technology from that of earlier Paleolithic stages. It would be a mistake, however, to call the culture of these early Yukon men "prirnitive", because it occupied effectively one of the most challenging environments ventured into by pre-Neolithic m~n. While man in Europe was creating a flashy stone technology and building up to great Paleolithic art, man in Beringia was conducting perhaps the greatest feat of exploration yet accomplished, not excluding from consideration recent work on the Moon.

au ;a;p

u

l" n 'j 'I lJ .,

FOOTNOTES

{1) Contribution No. 4- Northern Yukon Research Programme. An earlier version of this paper was presented in the Symposium "Correlation of the Ancient Cultures of Siberia and Adjoining Territories of the Pacific Coast~', 20-22 October, 1975, Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, Siberian Division of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Novosibirsk.

(2) cf. Irving and Cinq-Mars, 1974, in which stone implements from upland sites around Old Crow Flats are described.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ongoing research is supported by the Canada Council, Canadian Arctic Gas Study Limited, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Donner Canadian Found­ation and the University of Toronto.

REFERENCES

Aigner, J., 1972. Relative dating of North Chinese faunal and cultural complexes. Arctic Anthropology 9(2): 36-79.

Aig~ter, J., 1973. Pleistocene archaeological remains from South China. Asian Perspectives 16(1 ): 16-38.

Biddick, K.A. and J. Tomenchuk, 1975. A new method for locating, recording and plotting observed features on long bones with special emphasis on fractures. Journal of Field Archaeology 2(3):239-249.

Cauble, R. and J. Tomenchuk. Unpublished research notes on file at Northern Yukon Research Programme.

Farquhar, R.M., 1977. Chronometrics and mineral identification. Northern Yukon Research Prog, am me, Interim Report 1977.

Hughes, O.L., 1968. Pleistocene stratigraphy, Porcupine and Old Crow Rivers, Yukon Territory. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 69·1 (Part A):209-212 .

. Hughes1"'0. L., 1972. Surficial geology of Northern Yukon

Territory and Northwest Territories. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 69-36.

lkawa·Smith, Fumiko, 19?8. Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia. Edited by F, lkawa·Smith. Mouton, The Hague.

Irving, W,N., 1973. Stone implements from Old Crow

···.~

101

---

if::~

Flats, Y. T. Paper presented at the annual meeting, Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco.

Irving, W.N. and J. Cinq-M3rs, 1974. A tentative archaeological sequence from Old Cr_ow Flats. Arctic Anrhrapoiogy 11 Supplemen!: 55-81.

Irving, W.N. and C.R. Harington, 1973. Upper Pleistocene radiocarbon-dated artifacts from the-Northern Yukon. Science 179 (4071): 335-340.

Irving, W.N., 1977. Old Crow River stratigraphic reconnaissance: 1976. Northern Yukon Research Programme, Interim Report 1977.

Irving, W.N., J.T. Mayhall, F.J. Melbye and B.F. Beebe, n.d. A human mandible in probable association with a Pleistocene faunal assemblage in Eastern Beringia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, in press. NYRP Contribution No. 5.

Larsen, H., 1968. Trail Creek. Acta Arctica Fasc. XV. Copenhagen.

Muller-Beck, H., 1967. On migrations of hunters across the Bering Land Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In The Bering Land Bridge, edited by D.M. Hopkins, pp. 373408. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

~ ~ ~rt;,.e,

~ ./ " I

}< \ .. ~ I

~

f

j

._j