Biology

The inception of Beringia is set in the Pleistocene epoch that ranges between 1.6 m BP to 10,000 BP. There were four major glacial advances where humans are proposed in the last glacial epoch circa 14,000 to 10,000 BP. This is not to say there is no support for the possible inlay of humans in the 35,000-year range (Plimpton lectures). There are three major glacial identifications: 1. Wurm (Alpine), 2. Weischel (Fennoscandinavian), and 3. Wisconsin (North America). Each of these major glacial barriers are important to mention for glaciation in terms ice aged environments, because they must be observed in their totality when making hypothesis’ about particular landscapes that are a product of such events (ie Beringia) (Colinvaux 1). The last glacial period was 30,000 – 10,000 BP, where the sea levels dropped as much as 365 – 425 feet (Fagen 72-73). Thus exposing the shallows of the Bering Sea as a continual continental shelf. The result of the inception is not necessarily during the last glacial epoch. This appearance has happened several times on the order of thousands of years. Erik Hutten was a Scandinavian botanist that first proposed Beringia in 1937. He was in the Kamchaka peninsula was very similar in regions of coastal Alaska (West 1).

The main themes of Beringia centers around geomorphology, botany, and faunal remains. Geomorphology stems interesting and competitive views of the Pleistocene for Beringia. The first observation is the silt (loess) accumulates only in glacial environments. This deposition supports wind blown sedimentation during glacial periods. Beringia is proposed as a dry wind swept environment during glaciation and display geomorphological similarities between eastern Siberia and western Alaska, respectively (Colinvaux 14).

The botanical evidence is more interesting and arrives at two theories differing by means of environment. This shall be better exemplified in the faunal part of the section. The first comes from stratagraphic deposition (Colinvaux 14-15). The way the so-called layer cake is set up but more importantly, what is in that cake from a botanical perspective. The profiles tell an interesting botanical story, thus partially reconstructing Pleistocene and early Holocene environments. Pollen analysis is also used to reconstruct. These cores are ideally removed from lakes and/or swales. Under these reconstructions, tundra pollens of the once land bridge appear such as sedges, grasses, willows, heath and blue lupine. This environment is considered to be steppe with no trees. The tundra can be further explicated into a “herb zone” like willow, birch, and several other dwarven plants. The vegetation was spotty, which is similar to desert regions at 30? N and 30? S latitude. However, this spotty vegetation is not just about a lack of water but ground availability. If the ground is permafrost then it is considered unavailable for biotic systems to exist. The eastern side of Beringia reveals sedges, grass and sage, which is not analogous to western Beringia (Colinvaux 14). The eastern view is more of a polar desert because of the high density of sage and low density of grass. However, Alaska itself (particularly coastal) there are several moist microenvironments that simply do not support sage because of maritime patterns.

The faunal materials are directly conflictive with the botanical evidence of Beringia. The fauna suggests many “grazers” inhabited the landscape. Examples of these grazers are Mammoths, Bison and Horses. These animals needed high amounts of acceptable feed and the range (measured in kilometers) outweigh the nutrition necessary to fully support such populations. This can lead us to two conclusions. First, we are looking through a small window of the Pleistocene and can not account for mammalian migration and feeding habits. While we may know what they ate, we don’t know what their rounds were, how long they stayed, and how large these herds were. The second conclusion can lead us into thinking of these herds as transitional and they must have had a large range where Beringia was only a small part of their feeding grounds during short (seasonal) periods of the year (West 3-5). This can still be observed with anatomically modern Caribou and Reindeer. With spotty resources of sedges and grass, nutrition becomes a real issue. Another problematic issue is the deposition of the faunal remains. Their position (feeding habits and distribution), population and condition in this area are largely unknown. The migration of the mega fauna was primarily west to east, but not absolute.

The last indicator of change and environmental setting is the Carbide Beetle. These insects are incredibly sensitive to temperature shifts, which is an exceptional indicator of environmental change. These beetles moved north faster than plants, which suggests a warming trend during the late Pleistocene/ early Holocene. At 10,000 BP, it was 3? to 5? Celsius warmer than current temperatures (Colinvaux 18).

41,000 BP; 33,000 – 28,000 BP; and 24,000 – 10,000 BP as possibilities for humans to enter the New World (Plimpton lectures). First we must establish human habitation in Siberia in any one of these time periods. For early entry, the Dyuktai culture seems to be the most promising. discovered clear evidence of the culture at Dyuktai cave. This is clearly dated by C-14 methods at 35,000 to 10,000 BP +/- 500 years (Plimpton lectures). It clearly establishes a long-standing habitation in the upper Paleolithic at western Beringia with a micro-blade industry. This poses two possibilities that are associated with early entry in America. So the question would be which epoch did humans pass into the New World? The Dyuktai culture is found in direct association with mega faunal remains (Plimpton lectures).

To suppliment a well-established industry in the Old World, we must turn to the Amur River, which is located on the China/Russian political boarder. The site is located on the north side of the Amur River. The site was discovered by Mochanov in the 1960’s. His excavation revealed a well-established micro-core tradition (Gogi). While the dating was done by relative means, it supports expansion of technological affluence and helps maintain a long-standing habitation of western Beringia in the Upper Paleolithic period.

There are sites in North and South America that maintain substantial antiquity. The sites are Monte Verde (Chile), Pedra Furada (Eastern Brazil) and Meadowcroft (Pennsylvania). Monte Verde has two habitation levels. The younger level is dated at 13,000 and has a house site, plant and Mastodon remains. The second level is dated at 33,000 BP and there are charred plant remains with some fractured pebbles. Pedra Furada site is a rock shelter and has a well-established date of 9,800 BP with secondary levels dated at 17,000 – 32,000 BP (Plimpton lectures). The Meadowcroft site with Avaisio substantiating a date of 13,000 to 14,000 BP. They recovered blades and one biface. Each of these sites represents habitation through North and South America between 14,000 BP to 33,000 BP (Fagen 77-79).

Cons: The cons of the early entry dates are many. The first problem starts in Alaska. There are no habitation sites greater than 10,900 BP. Still there are other sites in Canada than maintain nearly identical antiquity. The old crow site in the Yukon has been claimed to maintain 35,000 years but there is no diagnostic evidence at the Old Crow site. There was only charcoal and debitage. It is more likely than not, these artifacts are products of formation processes. Processes at this site may include fires, cryoturbation, and rodent turbation. The sites at eastern Brazil, Chile, and Monte Verde are likely products of artifacts of Holocene antiquity leeching down into much older strata. The Monte Verde and Meadowcroft sites are rock shelters (Plimpton lectures). Often times, the stratigraphy is complex and often intruded with different geological artifacts. As a result, there is an unlikely layer cake and intrusive implements are often misinterpreted. These misinterpretations find their way into the gray literature. Complex rock shelter sites are often refuted because of formation processes, but some are so complex, even the best in the field can be in error. With formation processes (other than anthropogenic), it is plausible to suggest these sites range between 9,800 – 14,000 BP. The worst problem these sites have is there are no stratafied human remains or definitive association with their Pleistocene habitation (ie environment).

Finally, the habitation of in western Siberia is at oldest 35,000 years old. The other side of Beringia has sites no older than 12,000 BP (West 543-544). Why is there such a temporal gap between the two? The technological relationship with the Paleolithic in Siberia and Alaska Paleolithic is quite similar in the Denali cultural complex, but there is no hard archaeological evidence to suggest a long habitation with the Siberian and Alaskan micro-blade complexes (West 547). The totality of reasons why will be unknown, due to increased sea levels, no diagnostic data and nothing biological (human remains) to suggest a 35,000 BP entry. The east side of Beringia has no complex or industry older than 11,000 – 12,000 years.

Pros: The obvious positivism about a late entry is diagnostic evidence. It is the smoking gun of archaeological data. The late entry must be between 14,000 – 10,000 BP, which is the last glaciation. To fully explore the matters of a 4,000 entry window is quite literally a small window of opportunity. The direction the window was open leads one to Alaska and compare to observe the Old World relationships (diagnostic) to see if there is supportive evidence of a late Pleistocene entry. N.C. Nelson’s observations of micro-blade cores between the Campus site in Alaska and a culture located in the Gobi desert.

There seems to be a typological similarity between the two worlds that is well established at the end of the Pleistocene. However, it does not end there. There seems to be continuity not only industry but by antiquity. An Athabaskan site up the Tanana River. This is not to suggest there was not change in the industry. The point here is suggesting origins have a macro-similarity in the Old World, which is dated circa 35,000–10,000 BP, and shows an expanding industry into the New World (West 7). Again, there is no diagnostic evidence beyond 12,000 years on the east side of Beringia.

The first site to be discussed was misinterpreted as a Dyuktai, and is appropriately called Denali. The diagnostic artifacts are so close, if Denali assemblages were recovered in Siberia, which would be immediately classified as Dyuktai. The suggested radio carbon date of Denali ranges between 8,000–12,000 BP. There is an establishment of Denali at 10,600 and newer dating methods will likely push the culture back another 1,000 years. Inversely, if the dating of Bluefish cave is allowed, then it will potentially be the earliest of the Denali cultural complex (West 547).

The second and third industries are important because they are unique. The importance of these sites is regional variability in industry. The Akmak site has large tools in its assemblage. It is classified as apart of the American Paleolithic tradition. An inland route across the interior of Beringia into the interior of Alaska. The Healy Lake site is unique with its teardrop Chidadn point as well as micro-blades of unusual construction. Some have suggested the relationship is from Denali (West 547). Regardless of their origin in America, the tool traditions clearly outline regional variability. This variability is significant because this establishes people not only coming to America but settling in different environments successfully. The expression of the assemblages is a sign of adaptation, stylistic motifs and prime movers.

Cons: The largest problem is dating control on many of the sites both west and east of Beringia. In the 1960’s, The dating of Denali was performed with comparative typology as its focus, while C-14 dating has not been the front runner in dating methodology. The reasons for the secondary seat for method is that some of the dates are entirely too resent (West 547). This poses a serious problem to the industry because it has the potential to be disqualified as an established diagnostic site for the earliest settlement of the New World. There is concern with scientific classification with the antiquity with some splitting while others lump. This kind of “hair splitting” is nothing new the field of Archaeology. The Akmak site also has a problem with a C-14 date as being too resent. Another problem is the question the uniqueness of the large sizes in Akmak artifacts, because it is close to a lithic source.

The next problem of the more resent crossing date in the climatic differential. The end of the Pleistocene presents problem of a continual warming trend. This can be observed in the loess curve of central China where the trend is measured in magnetic susceptible units. The further support this the vegetation responds by a rapid advance north (Potts 161-162). The availability of Beringia was very limited as we approach the Holocene. This gives the expansion people very limited opportunity to cross Beringia. How many peoples crossed it and how long did it take these people to sub-divide into independent complexes? These are serious questions that have no simple answers. What were the resources available in Beringia at the time. As archaeologists uncover the past, the only get a small window to view all geological epochs through. This does not account for the totality of environmental, faunal and/or cultural variability. The largest problem with the late entry is clear accessibility of Beringia in the archaeological record in a 4,000-year frame (Fagen 72).

The next benefit is the environmental availability of resources for people to survive. Siberia and the Americas have a definite association with capitalizing on fauna of the Pleistocene. There is greater stability of climate in the summer months, which allow ample time to arrive at the microenvironments of Alaska, which was largely unglaciated in the interior. With greater land availability, comes the availability of botanical life; which the ungulates would graze on these plants (Colinvaux 15). These main plants were sedges, grasses and sages. Fresh water availability would have been an issue at Beringia for the inland approach and the Geomorphology supports this.

The interior sites of Alaska also support an inland route through Beringia. 75% of the sites presented in American Beginnings are in the interior of Alaska. Beluga Point, Ground Hog Bay, and Hidden Falls are nearly identical to the Denali micro-core tradition of the Denali. The interior of Alaska has one of the earliest habitation sites at Broken Mammoth and Walker road support, an inland expansion. The sites in the interior maintain continuous habitation through the late Pleistocene well into the Holocene.

Cons: The problems associated are again dating controls, particularly with Broken Mammoth. However, the real problem exists with subsistence. For the average economy was based on foraging and hunting traditions. The north and the interior of Alaska did not have that option. Imagine a life just on meat alone; it would be entirely unhealthy. This would seem entirely opposite of the economies who forage. 80% of the food for those bands is gathered as we see with Pinon, Acorn, Mesquite, Cactus, and etc (Roth lectures). It becomes very problematic if these northern cultures stay in the north. The disappearance of the Pleistocene fauna would follow the extinction of the Genus Homo in the North but that is not what had happened. It appears these people survived in the interior. It is still a mystery that the main resources go but humans remain. There needs to be more focus on the transition of the Holocene. Why did the people not evacuate the tundra or the interior? This question can be addressed by the methods in which excavation is carried out. For example, if there is bias carried into a paleo-site, one expects to find paleo association such as mega fauna and small, perhaps the more important implements (often smaller and falling through the screen) of the culture are ignored.

Pros: The inland side of the Luna River shows heavy evidence of a riverine advancement. Cultures lived and thrived on the banks of these rivers, capitalizing on the riches Luna had to offer. Since it has nearly the water volume of the Amazon and it is a cold river environment; diverse life existed in and around the rivers. The well-adapted peoples are likely to have extended into a maritime pattern (as the plateau peoples did on the Frazier River). Based on ethnographic analogy (Binford), Jacrote peoples of coastal Kamchaka are well adapted to maritime resources of whales, pinnipeds and fisheries. The further stratify the culture, ethnographers have observed ivory carving and boat building. They are culturally and biologically adapted to a maritime life way (Coastal Video).

The adaptation of a maritime advancement have well fed the cultures of the Siberian coastal regions and is entirely plausible for expansion alone the continental shelf of Beringia. As it is with Athabaskan culture, expansion has come to suit the needs of a shrinking resource base versus a growing population. As a result, some must leave the kinship group to survive. Over generations, a band or descendants of can potentially travel thousands of miles (Tasa 45).

The biome of the maritime side of Siberia is similar to that of the Alaskan coast. Upwelling provides for a higher diversity of marine wildlife, thus giving cultures ample opportunity to feed themselves. Also, the coastal regions tend to be milder because of onshore flow and temperature stability of the water. Therefore, the mild climate offers a warm shelter compared to the coastal interior (Coastal Video).

Cons: The construction of the skin boats is perishable. There is no definitive evidence to suggest a maritime expansion along the continental shelf of Beringia. Again, to fully explicate a coastal culture of the late Pleistocene is submerged alone the east Siberian coastline. Beringia is totally submerged by 10,000 BP (Fagen 72), thus erasing any evidence of a maritime expansion. We also must take into consideration that most of the material culture that supports a maritime expansion (ie skin boats) would not survive the sands of time because of shifting currents and carbon deposit from the constant upwelling over thousands of years. While the biological evidence of resource availability is stunning, it really says nothing archaeologically. There is no definitive proof that such instances did occur. There is no evidence of industry, and no remains of a material culture. As it was mentioned in the inland expansion, it would be enormously expensive to try to locate any coastal culture if at all.

The term Paleo-Indian literally means largely industry and biological markers that explicate old Indian, but the examination of what is a Paleo-Indian is far more complex. In the 1920’s an Arroyo was discovered with mega faunal remains in Folsum, New Mexico. Dr. Figby of the Smithsonian Institute excavated the site. He found human behaviour directly associated with Pleistocene remains (Plimpton lectures). As a result he deemed the old Indians as “Paleo-Indians”. The establishment of an Industry in the New World is important for developmental means of antiquity. The first identified industry in the New World is the Clovis tradition. The Clovis date range is 14,000 BP to 10,900 BP and is the first “well documented” industry. Points dominate this Clovis industry.

Large fluted points characterize the Clovis tradition, which is diagnostic. The flute is better at hafting, thus making retouching and reshafting more economical. Other tools associated with Clovis are prismatic knives, burins, unifacial scrapers, undifferiatied flakes, ivory and/or bone cylinders (Plimpton lectures). The materials used to work the stone largely depended on their regional quarrying availability. However, if there were no acceptable material, then the people would simply leave the region and obtain the materials to maintain the industry. For example, Texas chert is found in several areas of the Great Plains states (Roth lectures). Materials used on a continental level ranged from Obsidian to Cryptocrystaline Silicates. All of the stone tools in the industry came of micro-blade core technology. The core motif comes from Alaska and moved south into the lower 48 states. Interestingly enough, Clovis heads back north, and goes east and west. All have different stylistic markers, suggesting unique craftsmanship with the same industry. The Clovis industry is an expression of stylistic rebound that spread quickly. As with the Denali complex, the Clovis complex disappears with the mega fauna of the Pleistocene (West 547).

Perennial springs or terraces by rivers or lakes typically small, locate the sites of Paleo-Indians. The populations were small, consisting of not more than 20-30 people (Plimpton lectures). Most of the sites are kill sites where they killed and butchered the animals. Most of the habitation sites are often “one stops” because of the broad based subsistence economies. While these people tended to follow the herds, new evidence is uncovering a much better economy. They capitalized on smaller mammals, fish and vegetable materials. The Great Basin can best exemplify these examples of a broad base subsistence. Danger Cave, Hogup Cave and Fort Rock Caves show cultural development of a broad based subsistence the extends beyond a meager existence (Fagen 75-76).

The biological evidence what defines a Paleo-Indian is an interesting dilemma for the archaeological and native communities in North America. The Kennewick video that was broadcast in the classroom shows real problems of the osteological appearance of Paleo-Indians. All known sites in North America that are older than 5,000 years is 50 and old 20 sites over 8,000 years with human remains (Powell 143). The problems posed are that Paleo-Indians are Caucasoid in appearance. The summation of Kennewick man has only given use to craniometric markers to decide a Caucasoid origin. The cranial length and narrow face are only two features of 33 physical cranial markers. The use of polyvariate or multivariate analysis should be mandatory for all biological investigates of cranial materials. To not observe them in their totality is not performing good objective science. For example, if a person uses univariate or bivariate analysis, then a Norse and Zulu would be closely related by single or double trait analysis. Their cranial lengths are within .58” of each other while nasal height is only .34” in difference (Powell 145). Does this make a Zulu a Caucasoid? Typically, a longer crania is suggestive of a macro-ancestor or “primitive” traits compared to modern day peoples of the world. The character of long crania and facial reduction is littered through out the scope of human evolution with 2 genera (Erhardt 15). The diagrams in Powell’s article show relationships of bivariate analysis, in short, who is related to whom? Craniometrically Paleo-Indians shows a close relationship with Australians and Pacific Rim people in 5 out of six of the diagrams (Powell 148-153). In correlation graphs, Paleo-Indians shows are flat similarity to upper cave in China and some correlation to Jomon. There are four possible outlets by means of bivariate analysis. This is why cranial materials should measured in their totality so they don't end up looking like Patrick Stewart of “Star Trek”.