Jeffrey T. Rasic

Frozen: The Potential and Pitfalls of Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology in the Alaskan Arctic

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) offers many advantages for assessing archaeological potential in frozen and partially frozen contexts in high latitude and alpine regions. These settings pose several challenges for GPR, including extreme velocity changes at the interface of frozen and active layers, cryogenic patterns resulting in anomalies that can easily be mistaken for cultural features, and the difficulty in accessing sites and deploying equipment in remote settings. In this study we discuss some of these challenges while highlighting the potential for this method by describing recent successful investigations with GPR in the region. We draw on cases from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park, and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The sites required small aircraft accessibility with light equipment loads and minimal personnel. The substrates we investigate include coastal saturated active layer over permafrost, interior well-drained active layer over permafrost, a frozen thermo-karst lake, and an alpine ice patch. These examples demonstrate that GPR is effective at mapping semi-subterranean house remains in several contexts, including houses with no surface manifestation. GPR is also shown to be effective at mapping anomalies from the skeletal remains of a late Pleistocene mammoth frozen in ice. The potential for using GPR in ice and snow patch archaeology, an area of increasing interest with global environmental change exposing new material each year, is also demonstrated.

Weapon Systems and Assemblage Variability during the Northern Archaic Period in Northern Alaska

The Rosaliya (49-KIR-196) site is a small, single component microblade production and weapon repair location in the central Brooks Range of northern Alaska dated to 5200 years B.P. Although surrounded both geographically and chronologically by sites ascribed to the Northern Archaic tradition (NAT), the Rosaliya assemblage differs from them. It lacks the side-notched projectile points that are considered a hallmark of the tradition, and is instead dominated by the products of microblade technology, which is not, however, widely accepted as a NAT trait. We propose that regional scale NAT assemblage variability results in part from the use of multiple weapon systems with lanceolate-shaped bifaces functioning as spear heads, side-notched bifaces as dart tips, and microblades as components of arrowheads. The Rosaliya site assemblage, because it represents a short occupation involving specialized activities, reflects only a narrow range of this broader Northern Archaic period technology.

Northern Archaic Settlement and Subsistence Patterns at Agiak Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska

While dozens of sites in northern Alaska have been assigned to the Northern Archaic tradition, most are small lithic scatters that represent ephemeral occupations and often contain only a single side-notched biface. In contrast, two sites at Agiak Lake in the central Brooks Range have revealed a range of Northern Archaic tools which are firmly associated with at least 55 stone tent rings dated to 5600–4900 cal. yrs. B.P. The large number of housing features at Agiak Lake offers a unique perspective on Northern Archaic settlement patterns and land use. We examine whether the accumulation of tent rings represents population aggregation or repeated use of the area, and draw on ethnographic data about Arctic caribou hunting groups as a point of comparison. Patterns at Agiak Lake favor repeated long-term use, although small scale aggregations cannot be ruled out.