Culture Groups in Late Pleistocene North America

There is now conclusive evidence that the historic model of using technology as an identifier of “cultural groups” is a poor method for deciphering the peopling of the Americas.

Nogahabara I is a late Pleistocene age archaeological site located in interior northwestern Alaska, roughly 100 km south of the Arctic Circle. Today, the site sits in a flat and fairly open expanse within a larger area of sand dunes. In contrast to most archaeological assemblages left by the first Native Americans, which consist largely of manufacturing debris and a few worn or broken tools, Nogahabara I contains 267 largely whole, still functional bifacial and unifacial stone tools. Although dating of the tools has proven difficult, contextual bird bone samples have been dated to approximately 10,780 years ago (i.e., the late Pleistocene and early Holocene). This data has led archaeologists Daniel Odess and Jeffrey T. Rasic to arrive as some very interesting conclusions regarding the peopling of North America and the first Native Americans.

As a snapshot of the tools carried by an individual or small group during a single moment in prehistory, the site’s toolkit offers insights into specific aspects of the lifeway patterns of these early indigenous North Americans. For example, the stone tools exhibit a surprisingly wide range of tool forms and production technologies. They also show direct archaeological evidence of transport and episodic use and maintenance, indicating that they were valuable cultural items to the first Native Americans – items that they had carried with them for many miles. Even more important, this site argues that the first Native Americans were highly cognizant and knowledgeable about their environment, having the wisdom to conserve and reduce the depletion of stone tools as they moved from hunting ground to hunting ground.

Archaeologists Daniel Odess and Jeffrey T. Rasic conclude that based on the evidence from Nogahabara I, late Pleistocene peoples in Alaska would have left highly variable lithic assemblages scattered across the landscape. As they note, “If the apparently intensive tool conservation suggested by Nogahabara I is any guide, then it is unsurprising that the small number of assemblages in North America thought to predate Clovis have so far resisted such efforts” (Odess and Rasic 2007: 711).

This points to the reason that the historic model of correlating technology with “cultural groups” is no longer a solid working archaeological model. Clovis points do not correlate necessarily with hypothetical Clovis people, nor do Folsom points designate a Folsom people, and so on. By finding several lithic tool types at the same site and part of the same archaeological context, it is hard to argue that “Folsom people” were sharing a campsite with “Clovis people.” Rather, it is more parsimonious to conclude that tool types do not directly correlate with a specific group, and that the first Native Americans used both types of lithic technologies. Furthermore, the reason we have been so unsuccessful in finding archaeological sites dating to the first peopling of North America is that the only nonperishable material we might expect people practicing a similar lifeway to leave are the smallest flakes and tool fragments. Items that are extremely difficult to locate 10,000-15,000 years later.

“Seen from this perspective, it is interesting that the Nogahabara I toolkit contains microblade cores, lanceolate bifaces, and notched projectile points – tool types previously thought to be characteristic of distinct archaeological complexes and unrelated cultural traditions” (Odess and Rasic 2007: 714). The fact that several distinct production technologies can co-occur within a single assemblage argues quite powerfully against the assumption that different modes of stone tool production are indicative of different cultural traditions. In terms of the early history of indigenous Native Americans, it indicates that trying to separate out specific cultural groups based solely on a single line of evidence is likely to result in spurious conclusions. Rather, multiple lines of evidence, such as linguistic, biological, and oral traditions need to be consulted if we are to develop a solid understanding of when and how Native Americans peopled the Americas.

Odess, Daniel and Jeffrey T. Rasic. (2007). Toolkit Composition and Assemblage Variability: The Implications of Nogahabara I, Northern Alaska. American Antiquity, 72(4): 691-717.

Further Reading

Fitzhugh, Ben. (2003). The Evolution of Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological Evidence from the North Pacific. Springer. 

Jones, Peter N. (2005). Respect the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West. Boulder, CO: Bauu Press.

Meltzer, David. (2006). Folsom: New Archaeological Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian Bison Kill. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Walker, Renee B., and Driskell, Boyce N. (Eds). (2007). Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.