Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:09:06.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Early Beringian Traditions: Functioning and Economy of the Stone Toolkit from Swan Point CZ4b, Alaska

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2024

Eugénie Gauvrit Roux*
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR 6118, Géosciences Rennes, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France; Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
Yan Axel Gómez Coutouly
Affiliation:
CNRS UMR 8096 Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 - Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France
Charles E. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, USA
Yu Hirasawa
Affiliation:
Department of International Communication, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of East Asia, Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Eugénie Gauvrit Roux; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The pressure knapping technique develops circa 25,000 cal BP in Northeast Asia and excels at producing highly standardized microblades. Microblade pressure knapping spreads throughout most of Northeast Asia up to the Russian Arctic, and Alaska, in areas where the human presence was unknown. Swan Point CZ4b is the earliest uncontested evidence of human occupation of Alaska, at around 14,000 cal BP. It yields a pressure microblade component produced with the Yubetsu method, which is widespread in Northeast Asia during the Late Glacial period. Through the techno-functional analysis of 634 lithic pieces from this site, this study seeks to identify the techno-economical purposes for which the Yubetsu method was implemented. Data show that the microblade production system is related to an economy based on the planning of future needs, which is visible through blanks standardization, their overproduction, their functional versatility, and the segmentation of part of the chaîne opératoire. This expresses the efficiency and economic value of the microblade production system. The flexible use of pressure microblades identified at Swan Point CZ4b is also found in Japan, Korea, Kamchatka, and the North Baikal region, suggesting that their modes of use accompany the spread of early microblade pressure knapping over an immense territory across Beringia.

Les débitages par pression émergent ca. 25,000 cal BP au Nord-Est de l'Asie et permettent la confection de lamelles particulièrement standardisées, notamment au moyen de la méthode Yubetsu (i.e., débitage lamellaire à partir de préformes bifaciales). Ce bagage technique novateur accompagne le développement de l'occupation humaine en zone arctique et subarctique pendant le Dernier Maximum Glaciaire et le Tardiglaciaire et se retrouve dans la plupart de l'Asie du Nord-Est jusqu’à l'Arctique russe, et en Alaska. Swan Point CZ4b livre les plus anciennes industries connues en Alaska (ca. 14,000 cal BP) et c'est également le seul site d'Amérique du Nord où le débitage lamellaire est exclusivement réalisé selon la méthode Yubetsu. À partir de l'analyse techno-fonctionnelle d'un corpus de 634 pièces lithiques de ce site, l'objectif est d'identifier les finalités techniques pour lesquelles était mise en œuvre la méthode Yubetsu, en questionnant le fonctionnement et l’économie de l'outillage. Les données acquises révèlent que le débitage lamellaire par pression était lié à une forte anticipation des besoins (i.e., standardisation des lamelles permettant de répondre aux contraintes de l'emmanchement ; surproduction en prévision des besoins futurs en outils non usés ; possible transport de préformes bifaciales permettant de différer leur utilisation ; production de préformes bifaciales utilisées comme outil et comme nucléus) et ne répond pas à une spécialisation fonctionnelle : les lamelles ont servi en armature de couteau pour la découpe voire le raclage, et en armature de projectile. Cette flexibilité fonctionnelle des lamelles par pression est également présente au Japon, en Corée, au Kamtchatka et en Sibérie orientale, ce qui suggère que leurs modalités de mise en œuvre ont accompagné la diffusion des premières technologies lamellaires par pression sur un territoire immense, de part et d'autre du détroit de Béring.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for American Archaeology

The earliest known evidence of human occupation of the Arctic is dated to 30,000 to 47,000 cal BP and is mostly located in the Yana Valley in the Russian Far North (Yana RHS, 71°N; Pitul'ko et al. Reference Pitul'ko, Tikhonov, Pavlova, Nikolskiy, Kuper and Polozov2016, Reference Pitul'ko, Pavlova and Nikolskiy2017). Few archaeological sites prior to the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500–19,500 cal BP; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Dyke, Shakun, Carlson, Clark, Wohlfarth, Mitrovica, Hostetler and McCabe2009) are known in arctic and subarctic zones, and proof of human presence intensifies in these areas during the Late Glacial period (Goebel Reference Goebel2002; Pitul'ko et al. Reference Pitul'ko, Pavlova and Nikolskiy2017). In Beringia, they coincide with the adoption and spread of an innovative toolkit characterized by the production of microblades obtained by pressure knapping, using the Yubetsu method or a variant (e.g., Oshorokko, Shirataki, Sakkotsu, Saikai; Flenniken Reference Flenniken1987; Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2011; Inizan et al. Reference Inizan, Lechevallier and Plumet1992; Nakazawa et al. Reference Nakazawa, Izuho, Takarura and Yamada2005; Yoshizaki Reference Yoshizaki1961). This method consists of shaping a bifacial preform, opening the striking platform longitudinally, removing a crested blade, and then removing microblades at one end of the bifacial preform (Supplemental Figure 1). The use of the pressure knapping allows unprecedented standardization of microblades and a high productivity for each core (Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2011; Inizan et al. Reference Inizan, Lechevallier and Plumet1992). The Yubetsu method and its variants seemingly emerged circa 25,000 cal BP in Far East Asia (Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2018), the Siberian-Chinese-Mongolian area (Inizan Reference Inizan and Desrosiers2012; Inizan et al. Reference Inizan, Lechevallier and Plumet1992) or southern Siberia (Kuzmin et al. Reference Kuzmin, Petrov and Jong-Chan2005), spread through most of the Russian Far East to the Russian Arctic, such as at Berelekh in Yakutia (71°N; Mochanov and Fedoseeva Reference Mochanov, Fedoseeva and West1996) or at Ayon in Chukotka (69°N; Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2011; Slobodin Reference Slobodin2001), and was carried along with the early known peopling of Alaska at Swan Point CZ4b (64°N; Holmes Reference Holmes2001; Figure 1) at a time when the Beringian Land Bridge between the Asian and American continents was present (Duvall et al. Reference Duvall, Ager, Anderson, Bartlein, Bigelow, Brigham-Grette and Brubaker1999).

Figure 1. Location of the sites mentioned in the text. Basemap: raster data, Natural Earth; vector data, Natural Earth, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Open Data. (Illustration by Constance Thirouard, used with permission.)

The Yubetsu method persisted for over 10,000 years across an immense territory involving various ecosystems and landscapes throughout subarctic and arctic regions. This method of microblade production plays a structuring role in the understanding of the technological dynamics of Northeast Asia and northwestern North America at the end of the Pleistocene. Through the techno-functional analysis of stone tools from Swan Point CZ4b, we seek to understand how this highly innovative technology was implemented, was organized, and contributed to the peopling of northern latitudes by Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer societies.

The techno-functional analysis is implemented to define the function of tools in relation with their morphology and production system, combining use-wear data and technological data. It enables the characterization of the activities performed with the tools and the understanding of the biography of tools, and it gives key elements to define the site function. It provides access to the organization of activities related to the acquisition and transformation of resources available in the environment and, consequently, to the subsistence strategies and ways of life of human groups. This approach is fundamental to link the techniques used by past nomadic hunter-gatherers and the environments they lived in. This study presents pioneer techno-functional data for a Late Pleistocene microblade component in Alaska and therefore gives key elements to explain what technical and economical solutions the microblade system offered in cold regions during the early stages of colonization of North America by way of Alaska.

Swan Point and the Peopling of Eastern Beringia

Because Alaska is an inevitable step for entering the American continent from western Beringia by land, the regional archaeology is essential in reflecting on the initial peopling of the Americas. The Pleistocene sites of Alaska are mostly located in the Tanana and Nenana Valleys in central Alaska (Bever Reference Bever2006; Blong Reference Blong2018; Holmes Reference Holmes2001; Potter et al. Reference Potter, Holmes, Yesner, Graf, Ketron and Waters2013; Figure 2). The site of Swan Point in the Tanana Valley yields the earliest known occupation of Alaska, being dated to circa 14,000 cal BP by 15 consistent AMS radiocarbon dates (Hirasawa and Holmes Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017; Holmes Reference Holmes, Goebel and Buvit2011; Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016; Potter et al. Reference Potter, Holmes, Yesner, Graf, Ketron and Waters2013; Reuther et al. Reference Reuther, Holmes, Smith, Lanoe, Crass, Rowe and Wooller2023; Supplemental Table 1). It is currently the only known site in northern North America where the Yubetsu method is exclusively used to systematically produce microblades (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Coutouly, Axel and Holmes2018). Swan Point is therefore a major site for Alaskan archaeology—because of its ancient chronology and its specific technology—that can be related to the Northeast Asia Dyuktai complex (Holmes Reference Holmes2001; Mochanov Reference Mochanov and Browman1980; Vasil'ev et al. Reference Vasil'ev, Kuzmin, Orlova and Dementiev2002; Yi et al. Reference Yi, Clark, Aigner, Bhaskar, Dolitsky, Pei and Galvin1985). Consequently, it offers some of the oldest evidence of the cultural connection between America and Asia.

Figure 2. Location of the main Late Pleistocene sites of Alaska. Basemap: raster data, Natural Earth; vector data, Natural Earth, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Open Data. (Illustration by Constance Thirouard, used with permission.)

Swan Point, discovered in 1991, is a stratified open-air site composed of several Late Pleistocene and Holocene layers; the most ancient is CZ4b (Holmes Reference Holmes2001, Reference Holmes, Goebel and Buvit2011). This cultural zone exhibits good spatial preservation of the archaeological material thanks to a relatively unaltered loessic deposit (Dilley Reference Dilley1998; Kielhofer et al. Reference Kielhofer, Miller, Reuther, Holmes, Potter, Lanoë, Esdale and Crass2020) and allows for detailed palethnologic interpretations. Lithic artifacts and faunal remains are concentrated around two hearths. The faunal assemblage comprises 1,257 remains (Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016), composed of mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), horse (Equus lambei), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and birds—including waterfowl: goose (Anser) and swan (Cygnus columbianus)—that lived in a tundra environment (Bigelow and Edwards Reference Bigelow and Edwards2001; Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016).

An Integrated Lithic Approach

This study is based on techno-functional analysis, which is particularly adapted to approach socio-environmental questions because it allows linking mineral, animal, and vegetal resources, which are available in the environment, with past technical traditions. Our study brings pioneer data because use-wear analysis has rarely been implemented in Alaska. So far, it has only appeared as part of master's theses (Flanigan Reference Flanigan2002; Hall Reference Hall2015) and in two articles focused on the stone tools from the Nenana Valley: (1) a mid-Holocene strike-a-light from Goodpaster IV was analyzed by Colas Guéret (Gómez Coutouly et al. Reference Gómez Coutouly, Guéret, Renard, Wygal and Krasinski2015), and (2) the functioning of the Early Holocene cobble tools from Little Panguingue Creek was analyzed by Caroline Hamon (Gómez Coutouly et al. Reference Gómez Coutouly, Hamon, Gore, Graf and Goebel2023).

The traceology sample of Swan Point CZ4b includes 634 pieces that represent the diversity of raw materials and categories of lithic products. Use-wear data were combined with taphonomical (Supplemental Figures 2 and 3), technological (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Coutouly, Axel and Holmes2018), and petroarchaeological data (Hirasawa and Holmes Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017) to define chaînes opératoires from rock procurement to knapping, use, management, and discard of tools, followed by postdepositional processes. This integrated approach enables us to (1) engage a systemic reflection on the techno-economic solutions adopted by Pleistocene societies to settle in Alaskan subarctic environments and (2) determine if these solutions were shared with Northeast Asia.

The taphonomic analysis is a prerequisite to any functional interpretation because it makes it possible to distinguish natural traces from anthropic ones and establish the postdepositional processes undergone by artifacts. Thirty percent of the sample was analyzed using an analytical table describing alterations on rock surfaces through intensity and organization of postdepositional shine, rounding, dissolution, scars, crushing, bright spots, encrusting, and striations, as well as thermal alteration markers. The definition of the intensity of alteration traces is based on an ongoing collective work initiated by Paul Fernandes, Lorène Chesnaux, and Vincent Delvigne (Delvigne et al. Reference Delvigne, Fernandes, Tuffery, Raynal and Klaric2020; Gauvrit Roux and Fernandes Reference Gauvrit Roux, Fernandes, Delvigne, Angevin, Fernandes and Lethrosne2022). The identification of alteration damages on knapped stone tools is based on experiments that, notably, analyze the effects of trampling or sediment compaction (Chesnaux Reference Chesnaux2014; Claud Reference Claud2008; Gauvrit Roux Reference Gauvrit Roux2019; Prost Reference Prost and Beyries1988; Tringham et al. Reference Tringham, Cooper, Odell, Voytek and Whitman1974), of ice or frozen ground (Caspar et al. Reference Caspar, Masson and Vallin2003), of mechanical friction (Levi Sala Reference Levi Sala1986), of thermal alteration (Clemente Conte Reference Clemente Conte, Ramos-Millán and Bustillo1997), of white patina (Rottländer Reference Rottländer1975), or of chemical attacks on the preservation of use polish (Plisson Reference Plisson1985).

The taphonomic, technologic, and functional wear were examined by combining macro- and microscopic observation of rock surfaces using binoculars (Wild 6×–31×), a digital microscope (Dino-Lite 10×–150×), and an optic metallurgical microscope (Nikon Eclipse LV150 50×–500×). After an initial macroscopic observation, pieces without residues were cleaned under tepid running water with soap, applying only low pressure on the rock with a toothbrush; alcohol was then locally applied using delicate-task dry wipes. This cleaning protocol enables removing sediment and handling grease from the rock surface before the microscope observation.

Functional interpretations of the total sample are based on the combined analysis of micro- and macrowear: scars, fractures, rounding, shine, striations, polish, and residues (Claud Reference Claud2008; Gauvrit Roux Reference Gauvrit Roux2019; Hayden Reference Hayden and Hayden1979; Ibáñez Estévez and González Urquijo Reference Ibáñez Estévez and González Urquijo1994; Keeley Reference Keeley1980; Semenov Reference Semenov1957; Vaughan Reference Vaughan1981). Each type of wear is described according to its attributes (e.g., location, organization, morphology, orientation, intensity, delineation), which are combined to reach a functional interpretation based on actualistic experimental reference frames and the ethnoarchaeological record.

The identification of projectile inserts is based on diagnostic impact traces (Chesnaux Reference Chesnaux2014; Coppe and Rots Reference Coppe and Rots2017; Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Hansen and Rasmussen1984; Gauvrit Roux et al. Reference Gauvrit Roux, Cattin, Yahemdi and Beyries2020; Rots and Plisson Reference Rots and Plisson2014), which include bending, burin-like, and spin-off fractures whose length is greater than or equal to 2 mm (Supplemental Figure 4); low-angle impact scars with a bending initiation whose length is greater than or equal to 1 mm; and linear impact traces associated with an impact fracture or scar.

Impact scars form under conditions other than cutting, scraping, or perforating scars, and they can be distinguished from one another based on the analysis of traces combination: during a cutting, scraping, or perforating task, there is prolongated friction between the worked material and the tool, so scars of the working edge are associated with a series of other types of wear, including polish, striations, or rounding. Lithic inserts suffer a violent shock upon impact, so the contact between the target and the projectile is short and the friction is limited in time, which is why scars are not associated with the same combination of polish, striations, and rounding specific to prolonged pressure and friction against a contact material. Experimental projectile inserts may therefore exhibit macroscopic fractures, scars, and, more rarely, striations.

Fractures similar in morphology and length may occur both during knapping and at impact, and it is only when establishing the chronology between fracture and retouch that their origin may be defined. Therefore, when the artifact is not retouched, as is the case with most microblades from Swan Point, projectile inserts are identified when (1) at least two types of impact damage are present on a piece (in this study, an artifact is considered potentially impacted when it displays one single damage type) and (2) impact damages are recurrent in the archaeological assemblage considered.

Tools, Techniques, and People

Tool Production

Swan Point CZ4b yielded over 11,500 lithic artifacts, including thousands of chips, about 900 microblades, 10 microcores, and three bifacial microcore preforms. Formal tools include 33 burins on flakes and one end scraper on a flake (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018). The retouched flakes are quite limited because the assemblage is primarily oriented toward the production of microblades at Swan Point CZ4b.

The vast majority of the microblade and burin technology at CZ4b is made on one specific type of raw material, described by Hirasawa and Holmes (Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017) as a grayish-green igneous rock (GGI). The precise nature and source of this raw material is still undetermined. GGI amounts to more than 70% of the production, and secondary rock types include siliceous rocks (chert, chalcedony), rhyolite, basalt, and obsidian (Hirasawa and Holmes Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017). Most diagnostic artifacts are made from GGI, including one microblade core preform, nine of the 10 microblade cores, several hundred microblades, and 10 burins. GGI is very specific to CZ4b, given that in later components of the site—where chert, chalcedony, basalt, rhyolite, and obsidian are common raw materials—GGI is not present (Hirasawa and Holmes Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017). One microblade core is made of a white rhyolite, and one microblade core preform is made of a black chert. The study of the microblade cores and microblades indicates that pressure flaking was the technique employed for the removal of microblades (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018).

As previously described (Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2011, Reference Gómez Coutouly and Desrosiers2012; Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018; Holmes Reference Holmes2001), microblade production at CZ4b was made according to the Yubetsu method. So far, 12 tablets and one crested blade have been refitted to seven different microblade cores, and others (especially ridge spalls) are yet to be refitted to microblade cores. These refits demonstrate that core preforms were sometimes more than twice as long as the abandoned core. The numerous refits provide the opportunity to reconstruct in detail the different stages of microblade core preform manufacture within a coherent assemblage. The theoretical reconstructions of the complete manufacturing sequence for each individual core not only provides a detailed analysis but also shows consistency in core production (overall size, tablet removal, direction of flake blank, etc.).

Thirty-three burins have been recovered from CZ4b, most being dihedral and transverse burins on truncation on flake. About 34% of burins had refitted spalls (Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016), and some of them had multiple rejuvenation/sharpening spalls refitted to a single burin. In one instance, at least five consecutive burin spalls were refitted together, although the actual burin is missing, and in another example, up to four spalls were refitted to a single burin. Clearly, more than five spalls could be produced on one single burin, based on the negatives from missing spalls (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018).

Postdepositional Alterations

Postdepositional surface alterations of knapped lithics from Swan Point CZ4b are rare and of low intensity (Supplemental Figure 2): no frost weathering, heating features, or patina are identified. Ancient mechanical damage—such as scars, crushing, rounding, and shine—is absent or light; therefore, surfaces are generally well preserved. These observations coincide with the pedogenesis of the Late Glacial layers of Swan Point that show low influence of cryoturbation and bioturbation features within the sedimentary matrix (Kielhofer et al. Reference Kielhofer, Miller, Reuther, Holmes, Potter, Lanoë, Esdale and Crass2020). Microwear (polish, striations), however, is generally absent or degraded regardless of the rock type. This may be due to the pH of the loess sediment, given that previous experimentations revealed that use polish on flint may be degraded if exposed to acid or alkaline solutions (Plisson Reference Plisson1985). Further data are needed to refine the understanding of the processes of alteration of the grayish-green igneous rock, basalt, and rhyolite, which may differ from siliceous rocks because their composition and structure are different. When microwear is absent or degraded, it is not possible to define the worked material precisely, but it remains possible to define classes of hardness and abrasiveness of worked materials, the location of the used area (UA), and the applied motion, based on macrowear (fractures, scars, rounding, shine).

A Multipurpose Microblade Component

Microblades are abundant at Swan Point, and of the 414 microblades submitted to use-wear analysis (46% of the CZ4b microblade assemblage of CZ4b), 57 show use wear (14%; Table 1; Supplemental Table 2). Most microblades are broken, and fractures generally have a snap section (85%) with no impact points visible. This type of fracture could have multiple causes, such as alteration, use, knapping, or intentional breakage. The near-systematic breakage of microblades (97%) suggests intentional blanks fracturing. This is supported by the strict selection of fragments; most used microblades are mesial fragments (75%) and, less often, proximal ones (23%), whereas only one unbroken microblade and no distal fragments have use wear (Table 2). This selection indicates a marked preference for highly standardized rectangular tools with a trapezoidal section (93%) and sharp parallel lateral edges (Supplemental Figure 5). In this context, distal fragments, which are thinner than the rest of the blanks (therefore more fragile) and generally have convergent lateral edges, may correspond to by-products of the microblade production process.

Table 1. General Results of the Use-Wear Analysis.

Notes: Undet. = Undetermined. Numerals indicate number of tools.

Table 2. Actions Performed with the Microblades According to Their Fragmentation.

Note: Numerals indicate number of tools.

Alaskan microblade technology has not been the object of a macro- and microscopic analysis use-wear analysis before, and the widespread hypothesis is that microblades were mainly used as projectile inserts. The use-wear analysis of a large microblade corpus from CZ4b shows that these tools were actually used to perform a variety of tasks: six microblades (11%) have long spin-off fractures and invasive lateral edge scarring (Figure 3), indicating that part of the microblades were indeed used as projectile inserts. Most microblades with use wear (89%), however, were not used as projectile inserts but were employed as knife inserts to cut and scrape varied materials (dry hide, butchery, soft and semihard materials; Supplemental Table 2). Traces are more often located on the left edge (79%) than on the right one; all used edges are acute (37° on average), and they are mostly unretouched, except in two cases where a marginal inverse retouched back is shaped on the used edge. Scraping and cutting/sawing traces overlap on the lateral edge of six tools, reinforcing this idea of functional flexibility of microblades, which appear to have been multipurpose tools.

Figure 3. Used microblades: (A) mesial fragment used to cut soft abrasive material; (B) proximal fragment probably used for butchery; (C) proximal fragment used for dry hide cutting; (D) mesial fragment used to scrape semihard abrasive material; (E, F, G) mesial fragments used as projectile inserts; (H) moderate rounding and shine; (I, J) rounding, thin striations parallel to the edge, and altered irregular and dull polish related to dry hide cutting; (K) scars perpendicular to the edge; (L) rounding and thick striations parallel to the edge related to scraping a semihard abrasive material; microwear is altered; (M, N) spin-off fractures due to the impact. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

In parallel, the use of by-products of the microblade production is rare (Table 1). However, as observed in the rare use-wear reports in western Beringia, such as Ushki I in Kamchatka (Dikov and Kononenko Reference Dikov and Kononenko1990) and at Kovrizhka IV in Oriental Siberia (Gauvrit Roux et al. Reference Gauvrit Roux, Teten'kin and Henry2021), several bifacially prepared microcore preforms and fragments of preforms from Swan Point show traces of use prior to the opening of the striking platform (Figure 4). Four pieces were used to cut relatively soft materials with a long edge, and one bifacial tip was used on soft mineral. Bifaces were therefore both tools and core preforms with long biographies (including shaping, use and reuse, reshaping, and microblades knapping). They were used for varied tasks, and neither in the abovementioned Siberian sites nor at Swan Point were those tasks so destructive that they would prevent further knapping of the core by damaging the edges and generating incipient fractures. This is because each bifacial preform is a reserve of several tens or hundreds of microblades (Dikov and Kononenko Reference Dikov and Kononenko1990; Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2011).

Figure 4. Bifacial preform with use wear: (A) refitted bifacial preform used to work mineral with its tip and to cut soft abrasive material with a long ridge; (B, C) mineral wear with abundant striations; (D) rounding and striations parallel to the edge related to cutting soft material. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Technical Valorization of Tools Shaped on Flake

Retouched flakes are infrequent in the CZ4b assemblage (0.3% of the lithic assemblage and 2% of the analyzed sample), but they were valued items in the toolkit. Even in a context where microwear is not well preserved, they often show use wear (i.e., half of them show traces of use, which is more than for any other lithic category; Table 1), and they were sharpened by the removal of burin spalls in the case of burins and by direct retouch for the end scraper. Edge sharpening is evidenced when use wear is interrupted by a new generation of retouch. Several generations of sharpening removals can also change the edge angle and its morphology (Jardón Giner and Sacchi Reference Jardón Giner and Sacchi1994; Vaughan Reference Vaughan1985). Sharpening aims at extending the duration of use of a tool or an edge by maintaining its efficacy, thereby delaying the tool's replacement.

Five of the 12 analyzed burins and nine of the 46 analyzed burin spalls show traces of use. The burins were used to scrape hard and semihard materials with the robust edges along the burin facets. The blank flake on which they were shaped was occasionally used prior to the burin spalls removal to scrape or cut semihard or hard materials. No burin tooth or burin bevel has evidence of use wear, and burins were therefore likely not used for grooving. The analysis of two refitted sharpening sequences shows that burin spalls can have similar use wear as the burin from which they were detached, demonstrating that sharpening—at least in those cases—probably aimed at extending the duration of use of an edge to perform a single activity (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Used burins and burin spalls: (A) burin and two refitting sharpening spalls used to scrape hard material; (B) refitted burin spalls; the first spall was used to cut semi-abrasive material, and the second was used to scrape hard material; (C) burin used to scrape hard material; (D) burin spall used to scrape hard material; (E) burin with five different UA; UA1, UA4, UA5: scraping semihard abrasive material; UA2: scraping hard abrasive material; UA3: scraping semihard or soft abrasive material; (F) burin spall used to scrape hard abrasive material; (G) scars with oblique orientation and light rounding related to cutting semihard abrasive material; (H, I, J) scars perpendicular to the edge related to scraping hard material; (K, L) scars perpendicular to the edge and moderate rounding related to scraping hard abrasive material; (M, N) intense rounding, shine, and striations perpendicular to the edge with altered microwear related to scraping hard abrasive material; (O, P) intense rounding shine and striations perpendicular to the edge with altered microwear related to scraping semihard abrasive material; (Q) scars perpendicular to the edge and moderate rounding related to scraping semihard abrasive material. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Analysis of the end scraper indicates that it was used for dry hide scraping with its retouched distal end. The marginal extension of the edge rounding and its flat morphology indicate that the working angle was open (ca. 90°; Figure 6). In the ethnoarchaeological record (Beyries Reference Beyries, Audouin-Rouzeau and Beyries2002; Beyries and Rots Reference Beyries, Rots, Longo and Skakun2008; Shott and Weedman Reference Shott and Weedman2007), scrapers are sharpened to maintain an acute working edge that is efficient when removing material from a hide (e.g., hair, grease, epidermis). Consequently, the archaeological end scraper is consistent with dry hide defleshing, shaving, or thinning.

Figure 6. Used end scraper: (A) end scraper used to scrape dry hide and sharpened; (B) restitution of the scraping motion based on the rounding organization; (C) retouch with several generations of removals due to edge sharpening; (D) intense rounding of the working edge; (E, F) rounding, striations perpendicular to the edge, and irregular and dull polish related to dry hide scraping. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

The Question of Transport

Mechanical alteration is light on the assemblage (Supplemental Figure 2), but 32 pieces suffered mechanical damage before the opening of the striking platform and the removal of the ski spalls (platform rejuvenation flakes), ridge spalls, crested blades, and microblades for cores; before the removal of burin spalls for burins; and before the retouch of the distal edge for the end scraper. The ridges of the negatives from the shaping out removals are intensely rounded and shined, whereas the final removals have the same unaltered aspect as the rest of the lithic assemblage (Table 1; Figure 7). This pattern of traces may correspond to recycling of previously altered pieces or to transport or storage of flakes and microcore preforms followed by their shaping or knapping. Transport to the site or storage at the site are more likely if we consider the recurrence of traces on specific categories of pieces (tools on flake and microcores) and the technological organization of rounding and shine. They show that the mechanical alteration occurred before the retouch of flake tools, and before the knapping phase of bifacial preforms. Many of the core preforms were then knapped at the site, judging by the numerous refittings of by-products of the microblade production. The refitting study and the representation of the different categories of by-products and finished products of the microblade production per rock type besides indicates that bifacial preforms were not all shaped at the site. For example, a rhyolite microcore without refitting shaping flakes was likely shaped outside the site, and some microblades made of siliceous rocks were likely introduced at the site as finished products because no matching core or by-products for these raw materials were recovered.

Figure 7. Potentially transported pieces: (A) Yubetsu microcore with rounding and shine on the shaping removals; the flaking surface and the striking platform are unaltered; (B) burin/microcore with rounding and shine on the shaping removals of one face; (C) end scraper with rounding and shine on the flaking surface; the retouch removals are unaltered; (D, F) rounding and shine of arises; (E, G) unaltered arises. (A, B, C) Pieces made of silicious rocks. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Evidence of transport of microcores and flakes is found in numerous sites through raw material procurement analysis (e.g., Gore and Graf Reference Gore, Graf, Robinson and Sellet2018; Kuzmin et al. Reference Kuzmin, Speakman, Glascock, Popov, Grebennikov, Dikova and Ptashinsky2008; Sano Reference Sano, Kuzmin, Keates and Shen2007), and it is suggested by observation of wear on obsidian pieces at Nogahabara I (Odess and Rasic Reference Odess and Rasic2007), Campus, and Chugwater (Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2017) in Alaska. It is also demonstrated through the traceological analysis of pieces made of effusive rock at Kovrizhka IV in Siberia (Gauvrit Roux et al. Reference Gauvrit Roux, Teten'kin and Henry2021; Teten'kin et al. Reference Teten'kin, Henry, Jacquier, Klement'ev and Ulanov2016). The transport or storage of pieces to constitute reserves of raw material may be related to long-distance procurement of tool stone, to the high mobility of hunter-gatherers, and to the difficulty of accessing or seeing raw material sources due to thick snow cover and polar nights that lasted for several months a year.

Discussion

A Brief Occupation?

The chaîne opératoire (Figure 8) reveals partial segmentation in time and space of microblades production and use, which could be related to important mobility of human groups. This interpretation is consistent with the brief occupation at Swan Point and the archaeological record of Siberian Dyuktai sites, which so far are mostly represented by short occupations, revealing highly mobile hunter-gatherer societies (Goebel Reference Goebel2002).

Figure 8. Chaîne opératoire of microblade production and use. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.)

Lithic techno-functional analysis shows that the proportion of tools with use wear is low; tools generally have short biographies with only a few sharpened or reused tools and often weakly developed traces. These data could indicate a brief occupation, a specialized use area in a larger site, or evidence the general techno-functional features of Yubetsu sites in Alaska. It is worth considering that the site possibly extended beyond the excavated area, but none of the test pits around it yielded material associated with the CZ4b component. So far, multidisciplinary data support the idea that CZ4b was a brief occupation: (1) the 14C dates are centered on 14,000 cal BP (Supplemental Table 1); (2) lithic raw materials are not very diversified compared to other levels of Swan Point and most Late Pleistocene contexts of central Alaska (Hirasawa and Holmes Reference Hirasawa and Holmes2017); (3) lithic technology demonstrates that microcores and microblades have a very homogeneous morphologic and volumetric conception, and that the retouched tools are quite rare; and (4) the abundant refits between lithic and fauna concentrations associated with the two hearths suggest that they were used simultaneously and likely correspond to a single event (Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018; Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016; Potter et al. Reference Potter, Holmes, Yesner, Graf, Ketron and Waters2013). Activities evidenced through use-wear analysis include repairing damaged hunting weapons and composite knives by producing lithic inserts, replacing the used ones, manufacturing and possibly repairing and replacing osseous or wooden hafts, scraping hard materials that may be osseous with the burin facets, cutting and scraping dry hide, and butchering with the microblades. Part of these activities may have been performed outside the site given that archaeozoological data show that manufacturing and repairing tools probably played an important role during the occupation of the site. Ivory and bone remains exhibit a diversity of processing techniques (percussion, grooving, splintering, scraping, abrading), and these remains mainly have a low nutritive value (e.g., mammoth tusk ivory, swan wings), which suggests their use for non-nutritive technical activities (Lanoë and Holmes Reference Lanoë and Holmes2016).

Design and Economy of Composite Tools

Hafting traces were identified on obsidian microblades from the Hokkaido Island in Japan (Table 3), and despite the absence of clear hafting traces on microblades at Swan Point CZ4b, it is likely that these tools were hafted given that their small size makes handling difficult. In Beringia, several findings of Late Pleistocene osseous elongated slotted pieces (for example, Trail Creek Cave 2 in Alaska [Craig and Goebel Reference Craig and Goebel2016]) and occasionally still hafted with microblades like at Bol'shoi Iakor’ I in Siberia [Ineshin and Teten'kin Reference Ineshin, V. Teten'kin, Hommel and Reynolds2017] show that (1) microblades were positioned laterally, juxtaposed, with the length parallel to the haft; and (2) there were typically multiple (and up to about 50) lithic inserts hafted per composite tool, whether for knives or projectiles (Figure 9). The insertion of microblades in the narrow and deep slots of the osseous hafts probably constrained the curvature and the thickness of tools, leading to the exclusion of part of the blanks and the distal fragments. The strict morphological selection of pressure microblades was therefore likely correlated to hafting constraints. The preferential localization of cutting and scraping traces on the left edge of microblades may also indicate preferential lateralization of the lithic inserts on the knife handles (i.e., proximal part of microblades preferentially oriented toward the knife tip or away from it).

Figure 9. Osseous points with microblades fragments in the slot. Bol'shoi Iakor' I, level 6 (Vitim Valley, Eastern Siberia), circa 14,000 cal BP, associated with the Yubetsu method. (After Ineshin and Teten'kin Reference Ineshin, V. Teten'kin, Hommel and Reynolds2017; Photograph courtesy of Aleksei V. Teten'kin.) (Color online)

Table 3. Comparison of Microblades Use in Northeast Asia and Northwest North America.

a X = presence

b ? = probable presence, according to the authors

So far, we cannot ascertain that the projectiles to which microblades were hafted were either shot with a spear-thrower, a bow, or manually given that (1) there is an important overlapping of the tip dimensions of projectiles shot with a bow or a spear-thrower, and of the dimensions, morphology, and quantity of impact damages on lithic inserts shot with a bow or a spear-thrower (Cattelain Reference Cattelain1994; Cattelain and Perpère Reference Cattelain and Perpère1996); (2) impact damages are generally uncommon in the microblade assemblage (Table 2), which does not allow detailed ballistic interpretations; and (3) no wood or osseous point contemporaneous to Swan Point CZ4b is preserved in Alaska. The earliest known remains come from Trail Creek Cave 2 in Western Alaska, circa 11,500 cal BP, and they are incomplete (Craig and Goebel Reference Craig and Goebel2016). The archaeological record of the ice patches of northwestern North America yields elements related to atlatl technology (wood dart shafts and tips) dating back to approximately 9000 cal BP (Gladstone, Yukon, Canada; Hare et al. Reference Hare, Greer, Gotthardt, Farnell, Bowyer, Schweger and Strand2004, Reference Hare, Thomas, Topper and Gotthardt2012), and the earliest bow remains date back to around 1200 cal BP (Alligator, Yukon, Canada; Hare et al. Reference Hare, Greer, Gotthardt, Farnell, Bowyer, Schweger and Strand2004, Reference Hare, Thomas, Topper and Gotthardt2012). This suggests that the bow-and-arrow technology was uncommon or even absent until the Late Holocene traditions in Eastern Beringia, and that before that, hunting was probably performed essentially with spear-throwers and darts—or also (because it cannot be excluded thus far) with hand-thrown spears.

Lateral lithic inserts are located away from the penetrating point of projectiles, and they mostly aim at lacerating the prey. Experiments show that few impact fractures develop on these inserts because they are distant from the impact point, as opposed to inserts positioned axially (i.e., as points), which absorb most of the impact stress and often fracture (Chesnaux Reference Chesnaux2014; Gauvrit Roux et al. Reference Gauvrit Roux, Cattin, Yahemdi and Beyries2020; Pétillon et al. Reference Pétillon, Bignon, Bodu, Cattelain, Debout, Langlais, Laroulandie, Plisson and Valentin2011; Wood and Fitzhugh Reference Wood and Fitzhugh2018; Yarosevitch et al. Reference Yarosevitch, Kaufman, Nuzhnyj, Bar-Yosef and Weinstein-Evron2010). Consequently, it is probable that a higher number of microblades was involved in the hunting activity but were not fractured on impact and remain undetectable. Nonetheless, the low rate of microblades with use wear, the generally weakly developed traces, the near absence of retouching, and the absence of sharpening suggest that they were relatively ephemeral tools with short biographies.

It appears that microblades were often replaced by new ones on the haft, even if their edge was not totally worn out. In this context, microblade standardization allowed fast and easy maintenance of composite tools because lithic inserts were interchangeable. The systematic low rate of used microblades in the Late Pleistocene sites suggests that both the strict selection of certain morphologies of microblades (with discard of the nonviable products) and the overproduction to constitute stocks of useable blanks were widespread features of the tools’ economy for sites with a pressure microblade component, both in Northeast Asia and at Swan Point CZ4b in central Alaska.

Large-Scale Versatility of the Late Pleistocene Microblades

Microblade production is a structuring element in Beringian Late Pleistocene archaeology, and use-wear analysis offers a better understanding of the status of final products and by-products through defining their technical purposes throughout the production process. This functional study also refines our comprehension of the success of microlithization in cold environments (Elston and Kuhn Reference Elston and Kuhn2002; Goebel Reference Goebel2002; Wygal Reference Wygal, Goebel and Buvit2011). Traceological data reveal that the technology of microblade pressure knapping is not related to a functional specialization at Swan Point but rather to a broader flexible use. In fact, comparisons with data from Late Pleistocene sites in Japan, Korea, Siberia, and from Swan Point reveal that these tools were relatively versatile: they were mostly used for cutting/sawing actions with a lateral edge, and they were also occasionally used as projectile inserts, to scrape with a lateral edge and to perforate with an extremity (Table 3). The broad range of tasks involving microblades (butchering, hide cutting and occasional hide scraping, wood and osseous working, and hunting) is not represented at each site, and this likely reveals that the function of microblades varied according to the site function. Because of this intra- and intersite variability, it is impossible to generalize about microblade function. Use-wear data for Late Glacial microblades are scarce and do not yet allow us to observe a possible regional and chronological pattern of functional variation. So far, data instead tend to indicate that the functional versatility of microblades remains a constant, regardless of the region, the chronology, and the production method considered—that is, throughout the diversity of environments in which this innovative toolkit spread. But to verify if this reflects an archaeological reality, it will be necessary to systematically question the functional roles of these tools on both sides of the Bering Strait.

Conclusion

Early microblades of Alaska were multipurpose tools (used as knife and projectile inserts) and ephemeral tools (the absence of sharpening and the often weakly developed traces indicate their short lifespans), and this renews the understanding of this toolkit, which so far is mostly seen as being specifically dedicated to the hunting activity. Our data also show that the microblade pressure-knapping technology is related to an economy based on the planning of future needs, which is visible through (1) the production of bifacial microcore preforms that can be both tools and cores; (2) the possible transport of bifacial microcore preforms and flakes, which enables differing production and use of microblades and by-products in time and space; (3) the standardization of microblades and their overproduction, which ensure fast and easy replacement of lithic inserts; and (4) the relative versatility of microblades, which allows responding to various needs. This technological ability to anticipate future needs and therefore minimize risk (Elston and Brantingham Reference Elston and Brantingham2002) through characteristics such as portability, versatility, maintainability, and reliability (Bleed Reference Bleed1986; Kuhn Reference Kuhn1994) is probably one of the keys to understanding the human ability to settle in the cold environments of Alaska and Siberia at the end of the Last Glacial. The microblade system was, however, not only organized toward economical optimization but also answered to social and symbolic parameters, which are essentially inaccessible today. They may have largely conditioned the organization of the lithic system from tool stone procurement to the use and discard of tools, because the needs of human groups are not exclusively defined by environmental constraints but also—and possibly primarily—by the cultural context (Pfaffenberger Reference Pfaffenberger1992).

This study offers the first techno-functional keys to understanding the Alaskan microblade system and provides a basis for further comparisons. Extensive functional comparisons are indeed needed to approach the techno-economical behaviors of societies in subarctic environments in more detail and determine how they varied in time and space. For instance, in Alaska, the Campus method (i.e., pressure knapping on thick flakes that are unifacially shaped) becomes the main method for microblade production from 12,500 cal BP as part of the Denali complex, and it occasionally is associated with the production of Chindadn bifacial points (Holmes Reference Holmes2008). This shift from the Yubetsu method to the Campus method has previously been interpreted as an adaptation to the availability of raw materials in Alaska (Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly and Desrosiers2012; Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Gómez Coutouly2018). But at the dawn of the major environmental changes of the Holocene, it must be considered that the modalities of exploitation of animal, vegetal, and mineral resources changed, too. This underlines the necessity of a systemic and transdisciplinary reflection on the potential correlation between changes of environments, exploitation strategies of raw materials, modes of production of tools, and toolkits functioning between the Pleistocene and the Holocene in Alaska. Use-wear analysis has a key role in this regard, because it permits linking the stone tools with the different resources exploited by past societies. Comparing the modalities of implementation of tools between sites should make it possible to follow techno-economical transformations at a key moment of the peopling of the American continent.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Joshua D. Reuther and Scott Shirar from the University of Alaska Museum of the North for facilitating access to the collections; Nancy H. Bigelow from the Alaska Quaternary Center in Fairbanks, Alaska, for providing the equipment necessary for the analysis; Constance Thirouard for making the maps for this article; Aleksei V. Teten'kin for allowing us to reproduce a photograph of a point from Bol'shoi Iakor' here; and Paul Fernandes and Vincent Delvigne for our collaboration on postdepositional processes. This research was performed at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks. No permit was required for this work.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Fyssen Foundation (postdoctoral grant to Eugénie Gauvrit Roux) and the Université Côte d'Azur in France (mobility fellowship to Eugénie Gauvrit Roux).

Data Availability Statement

The Swan Point collection is currently housed at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks.

Competing Interests

The authors declare none.

Supplemental Material

For supplemental material accompanying this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2024.10.

Supplemental Table 1. AMS radiocarbon dates of Swan Point CZ4b. Calibration OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey 2021; r:5; Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. Reference Reimer, E. N. Austin, Bard, Bayliss, Blackwell, Bronk Ramsey and Butzin2020. 2σ. Calibration curve IntCal 20.

Supplemental Table 2. List of pieces with use wear at Swan Point CZ4b.

Supplemental Figure 1. The Yubetsu method. Modified after Gómez Coutouly and Holmes Reference Coutouly, Axel and Holmes2018.

Supplemental Figure 2. Intensity of different types of alteration per raw material. Pieces with possible transport traces excluded. Gradients of intensity detailed in Gauvrit Roux and Fernandes Reference Gauvrit Roux, Fernandes, Delvigne, Angevin, Fernandes and Lethrosne2022.

Supplemental Figure 3. Examples of postdepositional alterations and nonanthropogenic residues: (a) bright spot; (b) fresh scar; (c) iron oxide deposit on a flake that does not show use wear; (d) iron oxide deposit and ashy deposit on a microblade that does not show use wear.

Supplemental Figure 4. Fracture types. Modified after Gauvrit Roux et al. Reference Gauvrit Roux, Cattin, Yahemdi and Beyries2020.

Supplemental Figure 5. Distribution of the dimensions of 412 unretouched microblades with and without use wear.

References

References Cited

Bever, Michael R. 2006. Too Little, Too Late? The Radiocarbon Chronology of Alaska and the Peopling of the New World. American Antiquity 71(4):595620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyries, Sylvie. 2002. Le travail du cuir chez les Tchouktches et les Athapaskans: Implications ethno-archéologiques. In Le travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours, edited by Audouin-Rouzeau, Frédérique and Beyries, Sylvie, pp. 143159. APDCA, Antibes, France.Google Scholar
Beyries, Sylvie, and Rots, Veerle. 2008. The Contribution of Ethno-Archaeological Macro- and Microscopic Wear Traces to the Understanding of Archaeological Hide-Working Processes. In Prehistoric Technology 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy, BAR International Series 1783, edited by Longo, Laura and Skakun, Natalia, pp. 2128. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bigelow, Nancy H., and Edwards, Mary E.. 2001. A 14,000yr Paleoenvironmental Record from Windmill Lake, Central Alaska: Lateglacial and Holocene Vegetation in the Alaska Range. Quaternary Science Reviews 20(1–3):203215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleed, Peter. 1986. The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blong, John C. 2018. Late-Glacial Hunter-Gatherers in the Central Alaska Range and the Role of Upland Ecosystems in the Peopling of Alaska. PaleoAmerica 4(2):103133. https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2018.1460156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspar, Jean-Paul, Masson, Bertrand, and Vallin, Luc. 2003. Poli de bois ou poli de glace au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen? Problèmes de convergence taphonomique et fonctionnelle. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100(3):453462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattelain, Pierre. 1994. La chasse au Paléolithique supérieur: Arc ou propulseur, ou les deux? Archéo-Situla 21–24:526.Google Scholar
Cattelain, Pierre, and Perpère, Marie. 1996. Tir expérimental de répliques de pointes de la Gravette: Bilan et perspectives. Notae Praehistoricae 16:5561.Google Scholar
Chesnaux, Lorène. 2014. Réflexion sur le microlithisme en France au cours du Premier Mésolithique, Xe–VIIIe millénaire avant J.-C.: Approche technologique, expérimentale et fonctionnelle. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris I, Paris.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter U., Dyke, Arthur S., Shakun, Jeremy D., Carlson, Anders E., Clark, Jorie, Wohlfarth, Barbara, Mitrovica, Jerry X., Hostetler, Steven W., and McCabe, A. Marshall. 2009. The Last Glacial Maximum. Science 325(5941):710714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claud, Émilie. 2008. Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléolithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Étude tracéologique intégrée des outillages des sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et Chez-Pinaud / Jonzac. PhD dissertation, Department of Prehistory and Quaternary Sciences, Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux I, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Clemente Conte, Ignacio. 1997. Thermal Alterations of Flint Implements and the Conservation of Microwear Polish: Preliminary Experimental Observations. In Siliceous Rocks and Culture, edited by Ramos-Millán, A. and Bustillo, M. A., pp. 525535. Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Coppe, Justin, and Rots, Veerle. 2017. Focus on the Target: The Importance of a Transparent Fracture Terminology for Understanding Projectile Points and Projecting Modes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12:109123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.010.Google Scholar
Craig, Lee, and Goebel, Ted. 2016. The Slotted Antler Points from Trail Creek Caves, Alaska: New Information on Their Age and Technology. PaleoAmerica 2(1):4047. https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2015.1136727.Google Scholar
Delvigne, Vincent, Fernandes, Paul, Tuffery, Christophe, Raynal, Jean-Paul, and Klaric, Laurent. 2020. Taphonomic Methods and a Database to Establish the Origin of Sedimentary Silicified Rocks from the Middle-Recent Gravettian Open-Air Site of La Picardie (Indre-et-Loire, France). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32:102369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102369.Google Scholar
Dikov, Nikolai N., and Kononenko, Nina A.. 1990. Results of the Use-Wear Analysis of Wedge-Shaped Microcores from Level 6 of Ushki I in Kamchatka. Ancient Monuments of the North of the Far East, Magadan, SVKNII DVO Academy of Science, USSR 9820:170175.Google Scholar
Dilley, Thomas E. 1998. Late Quaternary Loess Stratigraphy, Soils, and Environments of the Shaw Creek Flats Paleoindian Sites, Tanana Valley, Alaska. PhD dissertation, Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Duvall, Mathieu L., Ager, Thomas A., Anderson, Patricia M., Bartlein, Patrick J., Bigelow, Nancy H., Brigham-Grette, Julie, Brubaker, Linda B., et al. 1999. Paleoenvironmental Atlas of Beringia Presented in Electronic Form1: The PALE Beringian Working Group 2. Quaternary Research 52(2):270271.Google Scholar
Elston, Robert G., and Brantingham, P. Jeffrey. 2002. Microlithic Technology in Northern Asia: A Risk-Minimizing Strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early Holocene. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1):103116. https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.2002.12.1.103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston, Robert G., and Kuhn, Steven L. (editors). 2002. Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers No. 12. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Fischer, Anders, Hansen, Peter Vemming, and Rasmussen, Peter. 1984. Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points: Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3(1):1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanigan, Thomas Howard. 2002. Functional Inferences for Groups of Stone Tools from a Late Pleistocene Archaeological Site Found in Central Alaska: Use-Wear Analysis of Experimental Stone Tools and a Sample of Lithics from Component I of the Walker Road Site (HEA-130). Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey. 1987. The Paleolithic Dyuktai Pressure Blade Technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):117132.Google Scholar
Gauvrit Roux, Eugénie. 2019. Comportements techniques au Magdalénien moyen ancien. Approche techno-fonctionnelle de l'industrie lithique de deux gisements du Centre-Ouest de la France: La Marche (Vienne) et la Garenne (Indre). PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France.Google Scholar
Gauvrit Roux, Eugénie. 2024. Sur les traces des premiers débitages par pression : Fonctionnement et économie de l'outillage de pierre taillée à Pirika, île d'Hokkaïdō Japon. Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 37, in press.Google Scholar
Gauvrit Roux, Eugénie, Cattin, Marie-Isabelle, Yahemdi, Ismaël, and Beyries, Sylvie. 2020. Reconstructing Magdalenian Hunting Equipment through Experimentation and Functional Analysis of Backed Bladelets. Quaternary International 554:107127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauvrit Roux, Eugénie, and Fernandes, Paul. 2022. Adaptation de la base de données taphonomique en vue d'une utilisation en routine lors des analyses tracéologiques. In Projet Collectif de Recherche, Réseau de lithothèques en Centre-Val-de-Loire, Rapport d'activité 2022, edited by Delvigne, Vincent, Angevin, Raphaël, Fernandes, Paul, and Lethrosne, Harold, pp. 132136. SRA Centre-Val de Loire, Orléans.Google Scholar
Gauvrit Roux, Eugénie, Teten'kin, Aleksei V., and Henry, Auréade. 2021. Which Uses for the Late Glacial Microblades of Eastern Siberia? Functional Analysis of the Lithic Assemblage of Kovrizhka IV, Level 6. Proceedings of the Laboratory of Ancient Technologies 17(2):922. https://doi.org/10.21285/2415-8739-2021-2-9-22.Google Scholar
Goebel, Ted. 2002. The “Microblade Adaptation” and Recolonization of Siberia during the Late Upper Pleistocene. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12(1):117131. https://doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.2002.12.1.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2011. Industries lithiques à composante lamellaire par pression du Nord Pacifique de la fin du Pléistocène au début de l'Holocène: De la diffusion d'une technique en Extrême-Orient au peuplement initial du Nouveau Monde. PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Université de Paris X Nanterre, Paris X, Nanterre, Paris.Google Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2012. Pressure Microblade Industries in Pleistocene-Holocene Interior Alaska: Current Data and Discussions. In The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, edited by Desrosiers, Pierre M., pp. 347374. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2017. A Technological Approach to Obsidian Circulation in Prehistoric Central Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 16:157169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.001.Google Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2018. The Emergence of Pressure Knapping Microblade Technology in Northeast Asia. Radiocarbon 60(3):821855. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2018.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel, Guéret, Colas, Renard, Caroline, Wygal, Brian T., and Krasinski, Kathryn E.. 2015. A Mid-Holocene Prehistoric Strike-A-Light from Interior Alaska (Goodpaster Flats, Tanana Valley). Alaska Journal of Anthropology 13(1):7186.Google Scholar
Coutouly, Gómez, Axel, Yan, and Holmes, Charles E.. 2018. The Microblade Industry from Swan Point Cultural Zone 4b: Technological and Cultural Implications from the Earliest Human Occupation in Alaska. American Antiquity 83(4):735752. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2018.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Coutouly, Yan Axel, Hamon, Caroline, Gore, Angela K., Graf, Kelly E., and Goebel, Ted. 2023. Use-Wear Analysis of Prehistoric Cobble Tools at Little Panguingue Creek, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 21(1–2):4060.Google Scholar
Gore, Angela K., and Graf, Kelly E.. 2018. Technology and Human Response to Environmental Change at the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary in Eastern Beringia: A View from Owl Ridge, Central Alaska. In Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change: Global and Diachronic Perspectives, edited by Robinson, Erick and Sellet, Frédéric, pp. 203234. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Patrick T. 2015. Functional Comparison between Formal and Informal Tools Sampled from the Nenana and the Denali Assemblages of the Dry Creek Site. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Hare, P. Gregory, Greer, Sheila, Gotthardt, Ruth, Farnell, Richard, Bowyer, Vandy, Schweger, Charles, and Strand, Diane. 2004. Ethnographic and Archaeological Investigations of Alpine Ice Patches in Southwest Yukon, Canada. Arctic 57(3):260272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, P. Gregory, Thomas, Christian D., Topper, Timothy N., and Gotthardt, Ruth M.. 2012. The Archaeology of Yukon Ice Patches: New Artifacts, Observations, and Insights. Arctic 65(S1):118135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, Brian. 1979. The Ho Ho Classification and Nomenclature Committee Report. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Hayden, Brian, pp. 133135. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hirasawa, Yu, and Holmes, Charles E.. 2017. The Relationship between Microblade Morphology and Production Technology in Alaska from the Perspective of the Swan Point Site. Quaternary International 442(Part B):104117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.07.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Charles E. 2001. Tanana River Valley Archaeology circa 14000 to 9000 B.P. Arctic Anthropology 38(2):154170.Google Scholar
Holmes, Charles E. 2008. The Taiga Period: Holocene Archaeology of the Northern Boreal Forest, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 6(1–2):6981.Google Scholar
Holmes, Charles E. 2011. The Beringian and Transitional Periods in Alaska: Technology of the East Beringian Tradition as Viewed from Swan Point. In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, edited by Goebel, Ted and Buvit, Ian, pp. 179191. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Ibáñez Estévez, Juan José, and González Urquijo, Jesús Emilio. 1994. Metodología de análisis funcional de instrumentos tallados en sílex. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar
Ineshin, Evgeniy M., and V. Teten'kin, Aleksei. 2017. Humans and the Environment in Northern Baikal Siberia during the Late Pleistocene. Edited and translated by Hommel, P. N. and Reynolds, N.. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Inizan, Marie-Louise. 2012. Pressure Débitage in the Old World: Forerunners, Researchers, Geopolitics—Handing on the Baton. In The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, edited by Desrosiers, Pierre M., pp. 1142. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inizan, Marie-Louise, Lechevallier, Monique, and Plumet, Patrick. 1992. A Technological Marker of the Penetration into North America: Pressure Microblade Debitage, its Origin in the Paleolithic of North Asia and its Diffusion. MRS Proceedings 267:661681. https://doi.org/10.1557/PROC-267-661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwase, Akira. 2016. A Functional Analysis of the LGM Microblade Assemblage in Hokkaido, Northern Japan: A Case Study of Kashiwadai 1. Quaternary International 425:140157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwase, Akira. 2021. Use-Wear Analysis on the Last Glacial Maximum Assemblages in the North-Eastern Japanese Archipelago: Functional Variability of the Upper Paleolithic Stone Tools. Doseisha Co., Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Iwase, Akira, Sato, Hiroyuki, Yamada, Satoru, and Natsuki, Daigo. 2016. A Use-Wear Analysis of the Late Glacial Microblade Assemblage from Hokkaido, Northern Japan: A Case Study Based on the Yoshiizawa Site. Japanese Journal of Archaeology 4(1):328.Google Scholar
Jardón Giner, P., and Sacchi, Dominique. 1994. Traces d'usage et indices de réaffûtages et d'emmanchements sur des grattoirs magdaléniens de la grotte Gazel à Sallèles-Cabardes (Aude-France). L'Anthropologie 98(2):427446.Google Scholar
Kanomata, Yoshitaka. 2005. Hafting and Function of Microblades in Japan—Based on an Analysis of Materials from Araya Site and Point C, and Tachikarusyunai I site. Journal of the Archaeological Society Nippon 88(4):127.Google Scholar
Kanomata, Yoshitaka. 2013. Manufacture and Repairing Activities of Bone/Antler tools at a Campsite of Microblade Industry in Hokkaido: Use-Wear Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from the Oruika 2 site. Bunka 77(12):2666.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kielhofer, Jennifer, Miller, Christopher, Reuther, Joshua D., Holmes, Charles E., Potter, Ben A., Lanoë, François, Esdale, Julie, and Crass, Barbara. 2020. The Micromorphology of Loess-Paleosol Sequences in Central Alaska: A New Perspective on Soil Formation and Landscape Evolution since the Late Glacial Period (c. 16,000 cal yr BP to Present). Geoarchaeology 35(5):701735. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kononenko, Nina A. 2008. Functional Analysis of Stone Artefacts from the Palaeolithic Site of Hopyeong-dong, Korea. In Hopyeong-dong Paleolithic site (Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, Korea), Vol. II, edited by Hong, Mi-Young and Kim, Jong-Heon, pp. 746789. Korea Land Corporation, Gueonggi Cultural Foundation, Gijeon Institute of Cultural Properties. Excavation Report 93. Gijeon Institute of Cultural Properties, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994. A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3):426442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzmin, Yaroslav V., Petrov, Vladimir G., and Jong-Chan, Kim. 2005. Timing of the Origin of Microblade Technology in the Russian Far East: Chronology of the Khodulikha 2 Upper Paleolithic Site. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:79.Google Scholar
Kuzmin, Yaroslav V., Speakman, Robert J., Glascock, Michael D., Popov, Vladimir K., Grebennikov, Andrei V., Dikova, Margarita A., and Ptashinsky, Andrei V.. 2008. Obsidian Use at the Ushki Lake Complex, Kamchatka Peninsula (Northeastern Siberia): Implications for Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Human Migrations in Beringia. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8):21792187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanoë, François, and Holmes, Charles E.. 2016. Animals as Raw Material in Beringia: Insights from the Site of Swan Point CZ4b, Alaska. American Antiquity 81(4):682696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi Sala, Irene. 1986. Use Wear and Post-Depositional Surface Modification: A Word of Caution. Journal of Archaeological Science 13(3):229244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(86)90061-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mochanov, Yuri A. 1980. Early Migrations to America in the Light of a Study of the Dyuktai Paleolithic Culture in Northeast Asia. In Early Native Americans: Prehistoric Demography, Economy, and Technology, edited by Browman, David L., pp. 119131. Mouton, The Hague, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mochanov, Yura A., and Fedoseeva, Svetlana A.. 1996. Berelekh, Allakhovsk Region. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, edited by West, Frederick Hadleigh, pp. 218222. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nakazawa, Yuichi, Izuho, Masami, Takarura, Jun, and Yamada, Satoru. 2005. Toward an Understanding of Technological Variability in Microblade Assemblages in Hokkaido, Japan. Asian Perspectives 44(2):276292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odess, Daniel, and Rasic, Jeffrey T.. 2007. Toolkit Composition and Assemblage Variability: The Implications of Nogahabara I, Northern Alaska. American Antiquity 72(4):691717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétillon, Jean-Marc, Bignon, Olivier, Bodu, Pierre, Cattelain, Pierre, Debout, Grégory, Langlais, Mathieu, Laroulandie, Véronique, Plisson, Hugues, and Valentin, Boris. 2011. Hard Core and Cutting Edge: Experimental Manufacture and Use of Magdalenian Composite Projectile Tips. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(6):12661283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaffenberger, Bryan. 1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitul'ko, Vladimir V., Tikhonov, Alexei N., Pavlova, Elena Y., Nikolskiy, Pavel A., Kuper, Konstantin E., and Polozov, Roman N.. 2016. Early Human Presence in the Arctic: Evidence from 45,000-Year-Old Mammoth Remains. Science 351(6270):260263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitul'ko, Vladimir V., Pavlova, Elena, and Nikolskiy, Pavel. 2017. Revising the Archaeological Record of the Upper Pleistocene Arctic Siberia: Human Dispersal and Adaptations in MIS 3 and 2. Quaternary Science Reviews 165:127148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plisson, Hugues. 1985. Étude fonctionnelle d'outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l'analyse des micro-usures: Recherche méthodologique et archéologique. PhD dissertation, Department of Human Sciences, Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris I, Paris.Google Scholar
Potter, Ben A., Holmes, Charles E., and Yesner, David R.. 2013. Technology and Economy among the Earliest Prehistoric Foragers in Interior Eastern Beringia. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Graf, Kelly E., Ketron, Caroline V., and Waters, Michael R., pp. 81104. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Prost, Dominique Christian. 1988. Essai d’étude sur les mécanismes d'enlèvements produits par les façons agricoles et le piétinement humain sur des silex expérimentaux. In Industries Lithiques: Tracéologie et Technologie, Vol. 2, BAR International Series No. 411, edited by Beyries, Sylvie, pp. 4963. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Reimer, Paula J., E. N. Austin, William, Bard, Edouard, Bayliss, Alex, Blackwell, Paul G., Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, Butzin, Martin, et al. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4):725757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuther, Joshua D., Holmes, Charles E., Smith, Gerad M., Lanoe, Francois B., Crass, Barbara A., Rowe, Audrey G., and Wooller, Matthew J.. 2023. The Swan Point Site, Alaska: The Chronology of a Multi-Component Archaeological Site in Eastern Beringia. Radiocarbon 65(3):128. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2023.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rots, Veerle, and Plisson, Hugues. 2014. Projectiles and the Abuse of the Use-Wear Method in a Search for Impact. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:154165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottländer, R. 1975. The Formation of Patina on Flint. Archaeometry 17(1):106110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1975.tb00120.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sano, Katsuhiro. 2007. Emergence and Mobility of Microblade Industries in the Japanese Islands. In Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America, edited by Kuzmin, Yaroslav V., Keates, Susan G., and Shen, Chen, pp. 7990. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Semenov, Sergei A. 1957. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Weedman, Kathryn J.. 2007. Measuring Reduction in Stone Tools: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Gamo Hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(7):10161035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobodin, Sergey B. 2001. Western Beringia at the End of the Ice Age. Arctic Anthropology 38(2):3147.Google Scholar
Takase, Katsunori. 2008. Use-Wear Analysis of Chipped Stone Tools from the Paleolithic Assemblage of the Kamihoronai-Moi Site Hokkaido (Japan). Ronshu Oshorokko II:4961.Google Scholar
Teten'kin, Aleksei V., Henry, Auréade, Jacquier, Jérémie, Klement'ev, Aleksei M., and Ulanov, Alexandr A.. 2016. Researches of the New Paleolithic Complex of Cultural Horizon 2B of Site Kovrizhka IV on Vitim River in 2015–2016. Proceedings of the Laboratory of Ancient Technologies 4(21):918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tringham, Ruth, Cooper, Glenn, Odell, George, Voytek, Barbara, and Whitman, Anne. 1974. Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1(1):171196. https://doi.org/10.2307/529712.Google Scholar
Vasil'ev, Sergey A., Kuzmin, Yaroslav V., Orlova, Lyubov A., and Dementiev, Vyacheslav N.. 2002. Radiocarbon-Based Chronology of the Paleolithic in Siberia and Its Relevance to the Peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44(2):503530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200031878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, Patrick C. 1981. Lithic Microwear Experimentation and the Functional Analysis of a Lower Magdalenian Stone Tool Assemblage. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Patrick C. 1985. The Burin-Blow Technique: Creator or Eliminator? Journal of Field Archaeology 12(4):488496.Google Scholar
Wood, Janice, and Fitzhugh, Ben. 2018. Wound Ballistics: The Prey Specific Implications of Penetrating Trauma Injuries from Osseous, Flaked Stone, and Composite Inset Microblade Projectiles during the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, Alaska U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 91:104117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wygal, Brian T. 2011. The Microblade/Non-Microblade Dichotomy: Climatic Implications, Toolkit Variability, and the Role of Tiny Tools in Eastern Beringia. In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, edited by Goebel, Ted and Buvit, Ian, pp. 234254. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Yarosevitch, Alla, Kaufman, Daniel, Nuzhnyj, Dmitri, Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Weinstein-Evron, Mina. 2010. Design and Performance of Microlith Implemented Projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(2):368388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, Seonbok, Clark, Geoffrey, Aigner, Jean S., Bhaskar, S., Dolitsky, Alexander B., Pei, Gai, Galvin, Kathleen F., et al. 1985. The “Dyuktai Culture” and New World Origins [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology 26(1):120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizaki, Masakazu. 1961. The Shirataki Sites and the Preceramic Culture in Hokkaido. Japanese Journal of Ethnology 26(1):1323.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Location of the sites mentioned in the text. Basemap: raster data, Natural Earth; vector data, Natural Earth, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Open Data. (Illustration by Constance Thirouard, used with permission.)

Figure 1

Figure 2. Location of the main Late Pleistocene sites of Alaska. Basemap: raster data, Natural Earth; vector data, Natural Earth, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Open Data. (Illustration by Constance Thirouard, used with permission.)

Figure 2

Table 1. General Results of the Use-Wear Analysis.

Figure 3

Table 2. Actions Performed with the Microblades According to Their Fragmentation.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Used microblades: (A) mesial fragment used to cut soft abrasive material; (B) proximal fragment probably used for butchery; (C) proximal fragment used for dry hide cutting; (D) mesial fragment used to scrape semihard abrasive material; (E, F, G) mesial fragments used as projectile inserts; (H) moderate rounding and shine; (I, J) rounding, thin striations parallel to the edge, and altered irregular and dull polish related to dry hide cutting; (K) scars perpendicular to the edge; (L) rounding and thick striations parallel to the edge related to scraping a semihard abrasive material; microwear is altered; (M, N) spin-off fractures due to the impact. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Figure 5

Figure 4. Bifacial preform with use wear: (A) refitted bifacial preform used to work mineral with its tip and to cut soft abrasive material with a long ridge; (B, C) mineral wear with abundant striations; (D) rounding and striations parallel to the edge related to cutting soft material. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Figure 6

Figure 5. Used burins and burin spalls: (A) burin and two refitting sharpening spalls used to scrape hard material; (B) refitted burin spalls; the first spall was used to cut semi-abrasive material, and the second was used to scrape hard material; (C) burin used to scrape hard material; (D) burin spall used to scrape hard material; (E) burin with five different UA; UA1, UA4, UA5: scraping semihard abrasive material; UA2: scraping hard abrasive material; UA3: scraping semihard or soft abrasive material; (F) burin spall used to scrape hard abrasive material; (G) scars with oblique orientation and light rounding related to cutting semihard abrasive material; (H, I, J) scars perpendicular to the edge related to scraping hard material; (K, L) scars perpendicular to the edge and moderate rounding related to scraping hard abrasive material; (M, N) intense rounding, shine, and striations perpendicular to the edge with altered microwear related to scraping hard abrasive material; (O, P) intense rounding shine and striations perpendicular to the edge with altered microwear related to scraping semihard abrasive material; (Q) scars perpendicular to the edge and moderate rounding related to scraping semihard abrasive material. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Figure 7

Figure 6. Used end scraper: (A) end scraper used to scrape dry hide and sharpened; (B) restitution of the scraping motion based on the rounding organization; (C) retouch with several generations of removals due to edge sharpening; (D) intense rounding of the working edge; (E, F) rounding, striations perpendicular to the edge, and irregular and dull polish related to dry hide scraping. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Figure 8

Figure 7. Potentially transported pieces: (A) Yubetsu microcore with rounding and shine on the shaping removals; the flaking surface and the striking platform are unaltered; (B) burin/microcore with rounding and shine on the shaping removals of one face; (C) end scraper with rounding and shine on the flaking surface; the retouch removals are unaltered; (D, F) rounding and shine of arises; (E, G) unaltered arises. (A, B, C) Pieces made of silicious rocks. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.) (Color online)

Figure 9

Figure 8. Chaîne opératoire of microblade production and use. (CAD by Eugénie Gauvrit Roux.)

Figure 10

Figure 9. Osseous points with microblades fragments in the slot. Bol'shoi Iakor' I, level 6 (Vitim Valley, Eastern Siberia), circa 14,000 cal BP, associated with the Yubetsu method. (After Ineshin and Teten'kin 2017; Photograph courtesy of Aleksei V. Teten'kin.) (Color online)

Figure 11

Table 3. Comparison of Microblades Use in Northeast Asia and Northwest North America.

Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 1

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 1.7 MB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 2

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 601.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 3

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 6.4 MB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 4

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 4(File)
File 655.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 5

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 5(File)
File 299.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 6

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 6(File)
File 11.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 7

Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material
Download Gauvrit Roux et al. supplementary material 7(File)
File 37.8 KB