Power Point for the Sigma Xi Student Competition 2013

1. Lost Worlds:
Locating submerged archaeological
sites in Southeast Alaska
An Archaeological Settlement Model from 10,500 to 16,000
calendar years BP (cal yr before present)
Kelly Rose Bale Monteleone
NSF Office of Polar Programs
# 0703980 & 1108367

2. Study Area is in Southeast
Alaska’s Alexander
Archipelago, specifically Prince
of Wales Island.
Haida Gwaii to the south is
also important for this
research.
These areas consist of the
Northern Northwest Coast of
Northern America and the
Northwest Coast cultural area

3. Hypothesis
The archaeological record of Southeast Alaska
extends to areas of the continental shelf that were
submerged by post-Pleistocene sea-level rise
between 16,000 and 10,600 cal BP.

4. Theory
• High Level Theory
– Landscape
• Middle-Range Theory
– Archaeological Settlement Models
• Low Level Theory
– GIS (Geographic Information System)
– Underwater Archaeology

5. Landscape theory provides a theoretical framework
whereby the research focus is appropriate for an area that
is larger than an archeological site. It facilitates analysis
at multiple scales, incorporating regional geomorphology
and actualistic studies (e.g. site formation processes and
ethnoarchaeology) to answer questions regarding land-
use, settlement patterns, and other spatially related
questions
(Anschuetz et al. 2001, Bender 2002, Casey 2008,
Kantner 2008, Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992).
• Seascapes (Bjerck 2009, McNiven 2008:150,Van de
Noort 2003: 405).
• Non-sites (Dunnell and Dancey (1983)

6. • Evolutionary ecology is “the application of
natural selection theory to the study of
adaptive design in behavior, morphology, and
life history” (Cannon and Broughton 2010: 1).
• Landscapes are the context in which decisions
or behavior choices are made. These choices
affect an individuals‟ survival and reproductive
successes (Bird and Codding 2008: 396,
Johnson 1977: 479, Kantner 2008: 61).

7. Archaeological Settlement Models
• A model can be regarded as a collection of
irregular polygons, mapped onto a landscape,
indicating locations that are „favorable‟, „likely‟,
or „probable‟ to contain an archaeological site of
the type being modeled (Kvamme 2006: 27).
• Human uses of space can be viewed in terms of a
subset of environmental variation. Even culturally
determined variability can be mapped using
environmental variables, though this must be
tested and supported in each case (Kvamme 2006:
14) .

8. Archaeological Settlement Models as
Middle Range Theory
1. It is unambiguous. 1. At times of lower sea-
levels, people would have
2. It provides plausible cause lived on the continental
and demonstrable effects shelf.
not based on simple 2. Late-Pleistocene/early-
correlation. Holocene sea-level rise
3. It follows uniformitarian 3. Where people live in
assumptions association to coastlines
can be uniformitarian in
nature
4. It is independent of general 4. This theory is independent
or high-level theories. of landscape theory
(Verhagen and Whitley 2012: 64-47)

9. Low-level Theory
GIS Underwater Archaeology
• GIS is a tool that • Underwater archaeologists
researchers use to investigate paleo-
investigate, store, analyze, landscapes and other
and visualize spatial submerged environments
phenomena such as artifact (Flatman 2003, Parker
and site distributions. 1999).
These are method level theory that each have their own biases and
assumptions

10. This model
The model incorporates both inductive, utilizing
known archaeological site data, and deductive,
utilizing anthropological theory and the
ethnographic record, types of modeling (Verhagen
and Whitley 2012). The scale of measurement for
this analysis are interval or ratio, and both the
analytic (archaeological) and the systemic
(dynamic living system) contexts were analyzed to
develop the model (Kohler 1988: 35-37, Schiffer
1972).
• 10 m resolution for the model
– 5 m resolution for the DEM

11. NWC research questions
1) The origins and settlement history of NWC people are important and
is specifically relevant to this research.
2) There is significant archeological variability in material culture from
north to south along the NWC, specifically with respect to the
presence and absence of early microblade technology, projectile point
types, and baskets and other non-lithic artifacts.
3) Issue related to variability within this region is the development of
the NWC cultures (Suttles 1990a). This topic includes research into
the timing and development of long distance trade, subsistence
strategies, and the transition from chipped to ground stone tools
(Moss 2004: 185-187).
4) The cultural chronologies of the NWC are regionally variable.
Different researchers have focused on different aspects of the
archaeological and ethnographic records when developing different
chronologies (next slide). Fedje and Mackie‟s (2005) chronology is
utilized for this research (highlighted in pink).

12. NWC Chronology
Ames and
Time 14C Years Davis (1990) Moss (1998) Fedje & Mackie (2005)
Maschenr (1999)
AD 2000
Late
1000 BP Late Pacific Late Late
Developmental
1500 BP
2000 BP Middle The Middle
2500 BP Developmental Middle Pacific Developmental (Marpole)
3000 BP Stage Transitional
Early Middle (Locarno
3500 BP Developmental Beach)
4000 BP Early Pacific
Early (Charles)
5000 BP
Transitional
6000 BP
Early Coastal
7000 BP Biface Tradition
8000 BP Paleomarine &
Archaic Early The Lithic Stage
9000 BP NWC
Microblade
10,000 BP
Tradition
11,000 BP

13. NWC culture has an
emphasis on salmon
harvesting, permanent
villages or towns, and
social stratification with
hereditary slavery .

14. NWC culture is also known for their
woodworking technology, twined
basketry decorated with false
embroidery or overlay, and basketry
hats.
Other uniformities through the NWC include a lack of pottery
and footwear, uses of plank houses, woodworking technology,
and a heavy dependency on fish (especially salmon).

15. Pre-9000 cal BP
archaeological sites
• K1 Cave on Haida Gwaii
is the oldest (table on
next slide)
• Namu on the bottom of
the map is the only
mainland site
• 49PET408 and Chuck
Lake are the only pre-
9000 cal BP
archaeological sites
within the study area

16. Mean of
Region Site Component Calibrated Age
Ranges
Ground Hog Bay 2 Lower 11,528
Hidden Falls1 10,157
SE Alaska
49 PET 408 (On Your Human Remains1 10,207
Knees Cave) Bone Tool 12,129
Chuck Lake Loc 1 (midden) 9,204
K1 Cave1 12,650
East 9,906
Lyell Bay
South 9,483
Echo Bay1 9,916
Richardson1 10,442
Haida Gwaii Arrow Creek 21 10,584
Gaadu Din Cave 11 12,683
Gaadu Din Cave 21 12,480
Werner Bay 12,481
Kilgii Gwaii1 10,511
BC Mainland Namu (ElSx1) 11,049
1
Average of several mean calibrated age ranges

17. Sea-Level Curve
Global Average
Haida Gwaii
Study Area
Haida Gwaii

18. Map is to orient yourself
before video
The 2 rectangles are
Shakan Bay in the north
and the Gulf of Esiqubel in
the south
There are also pinkish
pentagons on the larger
towns
Clips show how much land
was available to past
peoples that is not easily
available for
archaeological survey.

21. Focus in on
Shakan Bay
and re-show
the video

23. Blue lines are the maximum
extent (the last glacial
maximum) based on Cararra
et al (2003, 2007).
Green area is what they
describe as refugia,
unglaciated areas that
supported flora and fauna
through the last glacial
maximum)
Study area was deglaciated
by around 14,000 cal BP
Legend
$ Communites
Hessuer 1960 - Glacial Refugia
probable late Wisconsin Cordilleran ice marginal position
probable pre-late Wisconsin Cordilleran ice marginal position
LGM based on Carrara et al. 2003
Possible refugia - Carrara et al. 2007
Modern Alaskan Glacier

25. Points used to create the
DEM using ESRI‟s ArcGIS
Inverse Distance Weight
tool
Green is land. Note the
variability in density of
points used to create the
DEM at 5 meter resolution.
Data was compiled from
• NOAA hydrologic
surveys
• USGS topographic DEM
• Multibeam sonar data
was purchased from
SciFish Inc.

26. DEM generated for this
project over NOAA chart
with matching contour
lines (solid are NOAA,
dotted are DEM).
The contours are similar.
Differences are in
locations where there is
no NOAA data point.
The NOAA data points
were included in the
generated DEM.

27. A) Multibeam data
collected for Shakan Bay
in 2012.
B) Difference between
DEM and multibeam at
10 m resolution.

29. Aspect Slope
These are important variables when locating a settlement (or a camp site).

30. Water Features
Streams were generated
by Andrew Wickert, a
graduate student at UC
Boulder using GRASS 7.0.
Lakes were created using
ArcGIS’s basin fill and
represent depressions
that were likely wetland,
marshes, or lakes.
Color dots are
archaeological sites.

31. Each variable was
buffered at 50,
100, 1500, 2000,
and 3000 meters
to create ranked
locations based
on distance to
resources.
Streams Lakes
Tributary
Junctions

32. Sinuosity
3 km
Sinuosity values were classified
based on statistical analysis of
archaeological site locations .
3 km buffer
L = Length along the coast
Ld = Linear
They were then buffered
distance
following the same method as
the water variables.

33. Percentages used in ArcGIS
weighted overlay to create
high potential maps.

35. Several models were
created and tested to
determine which was
most effective.
Orange is Moderately
High Potential and red
is high potential for
archaeological sites.

36. The model (and all the
preceding variables) were
generated in 500 year
intervals from 10,500 to
16,000 cal yr BP.
To create a final result, the
results were merged
producing the maps on
the right.

38. Kvamme’s gain is a ratio based statistic used to evaluate archaeological predictive
models. The values range from -1 to 1. A value greater than 0.5 or 50% indicates a
positive gain or a useful model. A value between 0 and 0.5 has no predictive utility. A
negative value means the low potential areas are more likely to produce archaeological
sites than the high potential areas or a reverse gain.
Gain Predictive Utility
Model Data Set Statistic (gain)
Known sites are the
Weight 8
archaeological sites used
Known sites 0.9446 Positive
for the model generation.
3 2012 survey 0.9053 Positive
Random locations 0.2270 None
2012 survey is 9 locations
Known sites 0.9967 Positive
GPS within the study area,
4 2012 survey - None
only half of these are new.
Random locations 0.8542 Positive
The focus of this survey
Known sites 0.9479 Positive
was on 7000 to 10,500
3+4 2012 survey 0.9049 Positive
year old sites and does not
Random locations 0.2401 None
fit with this model.
1000 random locations were also tested. The results have a positive gain value.

39. Moran‟s I
Moran’s I tests spatial autocorrelation. The
hypothesis is that there is no spatial
correlation in the data. The difference
between The Global Moran's I or spatial
autocorrelation tool, measures spatial
autocorrelation based on feature locations and
feature values simultaneously. Given a set of
features and an associated attribute (value 3 or
4), the tool evaluates whether the pattern
expressed is clustered, dispersed, or random.
Moran’s I was calculated at 250, 500, 1000,
1500, 2000, and 3000 m bands. There are
some missing values for the 3000 m band. This
is the same “memory error” that was
encountered at the larger scale and is likely
due to the complexity of the polygons
compared at 3000 m. The results indicate that
the models are clustered. The need for 3000 m
distance band indicates that the data is not as
clustered as the results indicated since some
polygons did not have any neighbors within
2000 m.

40. 2 Surveys
2010 – Side scan sonar
2012 – Multibeam sonar
& sub-bottom profiling
Sediment samples and ROV
video were collected both years

41. Density of multibeam points per 1m2. Purple is less 80 pts (range form 0 – 401 pt / m).
The density of points is too low to locate the intended archaeological targets.

42. 2010 Side Scan Anomalies
4 – two rectangular features
5 - shipwreck
3 – possible weir

44. Side-scan image of shipwreck.
Based on location, it is
assumed to be the Restless.

45. A fish weir is a low
stone or wood wall
that traps fish
behind it when tide
is out. This means
dinner is easy to
catch.

46. East Kaikli Trap (CRG-269)

47. Naukati Creek Village (CRG-123)

48. Raised semi-circular features and two depressions. Image on the left is the original
sonar and on the right is the sonar image with the anomalies depicted in white .
Possible weir structure.

49. Location in Shakan
Bay of anomaly
reconstructed to
52 m, the depth of
the anomaly.

50. Zoomed to area of sonar anomaly (now looking from the north). Note
the bay to the west; this would be a good location for a settlement or
camp.

51. Topographic locations of Danish
Mesolithic settlements based on
fishing model (Fisher 1995: 374,
2004:32, Benjamin 2010: 257). A)
Narrow islet connecting large
bodies of water. B) Between a
small island and mainland. C) and
D) At the tip of a headland. E and
F) at the mouth of a stream
Location in Shakan Bay is an
example of diagram A.

52. This is the same reconstruction with the possible weir location
reconstructed from the sonar.
Nothing was located in 2012 using the multibeam sonar or remotely
operated vehicle using video.

53. Sub-bottom
from Shakan
Bay indicate
possible river
channel.
Sub-bottom image
from Shakan Bay with
a depression similar
to archaeological
pits.

54. Cut wood from VV25-20
at Shakan Bay Anomaly
three. Radiocarbon
dating returned a
“modern” result.
ROV image of stick picked up at
Shakan Bay anomaly three.
Piece of rounded
wood recovered
from Shakan Bay
seven (VV-26-06).
Natural piece of
wood.

55. Discussion
• Third iteration of the model
– Archaeological site location modeling is an iterative
process.
• The multibeam survey of Shakan Bay identified unknown
information about the geology for the bay and region.
Along the western side of the surveyed area is a fault
ridge, a large raised mound that is present as a linear
feature in the multibeam data.
• Model Resolution – 5 m, 10 m, 50 m
– 5 m did not improve Gain values and 50 m was not useful
– (some archaeological models are produced at over 1 km which is
too low a resolution)

56. Discussion
• Implications for SE Alaska and Northern NWC
• Model can extend chronology
• It would support local oral traditions of local antiquity
• Coastal Migration Hypothesis and the First Americans
• Locating a submerged archaeological site will provide support
for the coastal migration of the First Americans to the New
World
– No confirmed archaeological sites have been located at
this time

57. Photo: Forest Haven (Sealaska Hertigate Institute Intern and Tsmisian Native) and
Kelly Monteleone wet screening samples in Shakan Bay.

58. Acknowledgements
• NSF – Office of Polar Programs
– NSF award # 0703980 & 1108367
• Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, UNM
• University of New Mexico (UNM) and University
of Colorado (INSTAAR)
• Sealaska Heritage Foundation
• Residents of Southeast Alaska
• Dissertation Committee
• E. James Dixon, Andrew Wickert, Mark Williams,
Amalia Kenward, Michael Grooms, Travis
Shinabarger, Jason Brown, Lee Drake, Nick Jarman,
William Taylor