FINAL_HOLT_UL_V2

Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas:
an Example of Optimal Land Use in the Late Holocene
in Seward Peninsula, Alaska
By
Michael J. Holt
School of Archaeology and Ancient History
University of Leicester
Dissertation submitted for MA degree in Archaeology
October 2012

i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives 8
1.3 Theoretical Approach 11
1.4 Research Question 13
2.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 14
2.1 Introduction 14
3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & EXPECTATIONS 16
3.1 Human Behavioral Ecology and Decision Making 16
3.2 Foraging Theory 16
Middle Range Theory 17
Optimality Models 18
3.3 Time Allocation, Movement and Central Place Foraging 19
3.4 Expectations 21
4.0 CONTEXT 22
4.1 Regional Chronology 22
4.2 Archaeology of Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas 23
4.3 Hunting in the North 25
Caribou Hunting Model for Seward Peninsula 25
4.4 Socioterritorialism on Seward Peninsula 30
Mobility 30
5.0 ANALYSES 32
5.1 Spatial Point and Cost-Distance Analyses 32
5.2 Spatial Point Analyses and Archaeology 32
Spider Diagram Analysis 34
Cluster Analysis 35
Nearest Neighbor Analysis 37

ii
5.3 Site Catchment and Cost-Surface Analyses in Archaeology 39
Cost-Distance Analysis 39
Least-Cost Path 40
5.4 Geographic Information Systems Science and Archaeology 40
6.0 METHODOLOGY & RESULTS 42
6.1 Introduction 42
6.2 Application of Spatial Point Analyses 42
Spider Analysis 43
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis 43
Nearest Neighbor Analysis 44
6.3 Application of Cost-Surface Analysis 45
6.4 Intercept Hunting and Ice/Snow Patches 45
Spider Analyses Results 46
Hierarchical Cluster Analyses Results 47
Nearest Neighbor Analysis Results 56
Student's T-Test Results 60
Summary of Feature Cluster and Ice/Snow Patch Results 62
6.5 Settlement and Socioterritorialism 63
Spider Analysis Results 63
Hierarchical Cluster Analyses Results 64
Nearest Neighbor Analysis Results 68
Summary of Spatial Analytical Results 73
Cost-Surface Results 73
Cost-Distance Results 75
Least-Cost Path Results 79
7.0 CONCLUSION 82
7.1 Temporal Affiliations and Palimpsests Nature of Stone Features and Settlements 82
7.2 Evaluation of Expectations and Hypothesis 83
Hunting Features and Ice/snow patches 83
Settlement Distribution Patterns 85
Least-Cost Paths in Resolving Socioterritorial Dominion over a Distant Patch 87
7.3 Discussion 88

iii
Caribou Hunting Tactics at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas 88
Late Holocene Model of Settlement and Subsistence 92
Bibliography 93
Appendices
A (Spider Database for Hunting Features and ice/snow patches at Kuztrin Lake and Twin Calderas)
Figures:
Figure 1. Map of study Area______________________________________________________________________ 7
Figure 2: Ice Patches contained within Twin Calderas _________________________________________________ 9
Figure 3: Regional Chronology (adapted from Fagan 2006)____________________________________________ 22
Figure 4: Archaeological Features Overview Map____________________________________________________ 24
Figure 5: Cairns on the Eastern Caldera ____________________________________________________________ 2
Figure 6: Western Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Distributions (ADFG 2003)—(red circle is the study area) _______ 4
Figure 7: East Caldera. Aerial photos of a) ice patch and b) exposed area near hunting blinds. The ice patch c)
shows evidence of caribou use and d) its position at the base of the caldera rim. The exposed area near the hunting
blinds e) looking SW and f) NW. __________________________________________________________________ 27
Figure 8: Aerial photos of a) ice patch and b) spillway with caribou trail near hunting blinds. Views of the Ice patch
c) from the caldera bottom, d) from the rim looking south, and e) from spillway (note caribou on the extreme right
side of patch). ________________________________________________________________________________ 28
Figure 9: Spider diagram of hunting features (green) and results of the Hierarchical Cluster analyis (red). ______ 46
Figure 10: Overview of the calderas. Stars (variably colored) represent the features lining each caldera rim. Dark
gray represents the steep walls of each caldera, while the light gray is the bottom. The blue shapes represents the
ice/snow patches. _____________________________________________________________________________ 48
Figure 11: Overview of reconciled macro clusters for the study area. Also shown is the spider diagram generated
for the micro clusters and their nearest ice/snow patch. ______________________________________________ 50
Figure 12: Plan view of West Caldera illustrating the spider diagrams generated for the micro clusters and ice/snow
patches. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 53
Figure 13: Plan view of East Caldera illustrating the spider diagrams generated for the micro clusters and ice/snow
patches. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 55
Figure 14: Results of the spider diagram combined with the hierarchical clustering analysis. _________________ 65
Figure 15: Slope cost-surface generated in GIS. _____________________________________________________ 74
Figure 16: Cost-distance based on non-winter modes of travel from settlements adjacent to the study area. (left) is
the total return to home base using river travel by boat. (Right) is the total return to base using only pedestrian
means. ______________________________________________________________________________________ 77
Figure 17: Cost-distance based on winter modes of travel from settlements adjacent to the study area. (left) is the
total return to home base using river travel by dog traction. (Right) is the total return to base using only pedestrian
(snow shoeing) means. _________________________________________________________________________ 78
Figure 18: Least-cost paths from adjacent settlements to the study area. Also noted are navigable river channels.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 79
Figure 19: Model of hunting represented at each macro cluster. _______________________________________ 89
Figure 20: Model of hunting tactic employed at East Caldera.__________________________________________ 90
Figure 21: Model of hunting tactic employed at West Caldera _________________________________________ 91
Figure 22: Hueristic model of subsistence and settlement patterns centered on caribou exploitation at Kuzitrin Lake
and Twin Calderas. ____________________________________________________________________________ 92

iv
Tables:
Table 1: Forager Hunting Schemes (adapted from Rasic 2008: 20) ______________________________________ 26
Table 2: Summary of Pope's (1918) results with Ishi over a two year period (1914 and 1915). _ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Table 3: Average duration for hunting expeditions for several ethnographic groups (Binford 2001). ___________ 31
Table 4: Results of nearest neighbor analysis on the macro and micro clusters.____________________________ 56
Table 5: Observed and expected mean distances used in the student's t-test______________________________ 59
Table 6: Student's t-test results for macro clusters___________________________________________________ 60
Table 7: Observed and expected mean distances used in the student's t-test ______________________________ 61
Table 8: Student's t-test results for micro clusters ___________________________________________________ 61
Table 9: Results of nearest neighbor analysis on the settlement clusters._________________________________ 69
Table 10: Time and caloric costs incurred by each mode of travel. ______________________________________ 75
Table 11: Least-cost path results. ________________________________________________________________ 80
Table 12: Total caloric cost for a six member hunting party. If dog traction is an option, then a team of five dogs
will incur caloric costs as well. ___________________________________________________________________ 80
Table 13: Quantity of processed caribou (48260 calories) needed to complete a journey to or from the study area.
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 81

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the northern latitudes of the Western Hemisphere, a region dominated by tundra
environments and limited resource variability, human foragers adapted their hunting and
settlement strategies to gain advantage over an abundant and highly predictable terrestrial
resource (caribou) (Binford 1978, 1980; Heffley 1981; Kelly 1995; Nelson 1899; VanStone 1974).
The study area's unique landscape character and abundant resources attracted the region's
prehistoric inhabitants far from the power centers of their affiliated socioterritories. The first
objective of this research will analyze the correlation between hunting features and ice/snow
patches in order to illustrate whether or not intercept hunting tactics where employed by the
region's foraging groups during the summer months. The second objective is to analyze
prehistoric settlement distribution patterns in order to determine the level of dispersion among
socially relatable home bases or power centers. The third objective of this research is to
analyze prehistoric hunter-gatherer time and energy costs incurred by travelling to the study
area, as well as the amount of processed game (caribou) needed to balance those costs.
Ethnographic analogy will be used to infer prehistoric socioterritorial domains throughout the
late Holocene (5500 BP), which were characterized as socially relatable enclaves exploiting,
either, contiguous sections of coast or individual watershed systems, exclusively. Settlement
distribution data will be analyzed with an assortment of spatial point analyses to identify
prehistoric socioterritorial power centers and optimal home base networks. All ideas presented
in this research are based on human behavioral ecology. Previous and current
Ethnoarchaeological work are highlighted to develop a heuristic model of seasonal resource

2
Figure 1: Cairns on the Eastern Caldera

3
exploitation and transhumance for the study area. Data derived from past and present
research in the study area will be rigorously subjected to spatial point and cost-surface analyses
and tested for statistical validity.
In 1975, a team of archaeologists lead by Powers (1982) recorded the enigmatic
archaeological complex contained within the unique landscape at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin
Calderas. Since that time, there have been two notable studies (Schaaf 1988; Harritt 1994)
which have aided in characterizing the relationship between the environment and an atypical
clustering of culturally produced hunting features. Regional ethnohistoric literature has
contributed substantially to our understanding of lake-based community game drive tactics
(circa 1800 - 1850 AD)(Ingstad 1954; Hall 1975; Binford 1978; Koutsky 1981: III: 37). However,
there is currently no appropriate analog regarding the integration of ice and snow patches for
game drive or other intercept hunting tactics elsewhere in the region.
In summer 2011, National Park Service cultural resources staff visited the study area in
order to obtain feature distribution data for all of the monumental dry masonry features lining
both rims at Twin Calderas, as well as a rather extensive stone featured game drive line
(Inuksuit, 'looks like men') between the calderas and Kuzitrin Lake to the south. During this
very brief project the author and other staff observed small groups (2-5) and solitary caribou
utilizing several small to moderately-sized ice and snow patches located in the study area (Holt
2011). This implies, dispersed caribou would have been sufficiently available to prehistoric
hunters during the summer months, in addition to the relative abundance of caribou
aggregations migrating to and from their calving grounds.

4
Figure 2: Western Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Distributions (ADFG 2003)—(red circle is the study area)

5
A regional literature search revealed that there was no documented evidence of
intercept hunting in relation to ice/snow patches. There is, however, brief mention of these
patches used in encounter (stalking) hunting practices by the ethnohistoric Nunamiut
populating parts of Alaska and Canada (Binford 1978; Bowyer 2011). The search was expanded
to include all northern latitude areas of the Western Hemisphere, resulting in a wealth of
comparable studies in the United States (Andrews 2009, 2010; Benedict et al. 2008; Dixon et al.
2005, 2010; Galloway 2009; Lee et al. 2006, 2010; VanderHoek 2010) and Canada (Bowyer et al.
1999; Farnell et al. 2004: Hare et al. 2004; Helwig et al. 2008; Bowyer 2011). There are also
parallel studies noted in other regions of the globe (i.e., Norway for instance, Callanan and
Farbregd 2010; Farbregd 2009). Perhaps of most usefulness to this study, the Yukon 'Ice
Patches Research Project' has yielded information critical in understanding past biology, climate
and hunting activity throughout the Holocene (Bowyer et al. 1999; Kuzyk et al. 1999; Farnell et
al. 2004; Hare et al. 2004).
During the 2012 field season, National Park Service staff returned, briefly, to Kuzitrin
Lake and Twin Calderas in order to investigate the link between ice/snow patches and
archaeological features related to hunting. While surveying a narrow, exposed area within the
western caldera spillway, the team encountered a heavily worn caribou game trail flanked by
hunting blinds. Though the trail disappears into a boulder field, its orientation suggests it is
used by caribou to access the perennial ice patch located in the western caldera. Upon further
investigation the team recorded several low-lying hunting blinds on the periphery of the
caldera spillway channel and game trail. We conducted a brief, nonintrusive survey of the ice
patches, discovering dense concentrations of fresh caribou prints, dung pellets and urine

6
staining. This evidence suggests the ice patches are targeted by small caribou groups (or
solitary) throughout the summer. An intensive survey concentrated on the exposed boulder
field adjacent to the retreating ice patches did not reveal any cultural constituents.
Ethnohistoric accounts describe the Eskimo societies (Iñupiat and Yup'ik) inhabiting
Seward Peninsula as being densely clustered near their power centers. These accounts also
depict these societies being heavily reliant upon caribou exploitation for survival (Ray 1975,
1983, 1984; Burch 1998, 2006, 2007). Their relatively high population densities, concentrated
power centers and small exploitation territories were seemingly atypical to other
contemporaneous societies inhabiting Northwest Alaska (Ray 1975, 1983, 1984; Burch 1998,
2006, 2007). Doubtless, food abundance was a prerequisite for sustaining such high population
densities from relatively small exploitation catchments. The high concentration of stone
features in the study area suggests it was a high ranking patch choice for the adjacent regional
groups. This research investigates the paths of least resistance from the nearest settlements of
the waters adjacent to the study area. In so doing, we will explore the total daily energy and
time expenditures required to travel to and from the study area. Thus, from a forager's
perspective, we can determine whether or not a trip would have been profitable (achieving net
energy optimality), or if the costs outweighed the benefits.
As previously mentioned, this study will explore the correlation between hunting
features and ice/snow patches to determine seasonality based on hunting tactics employed.
Additionally, this study will examine settlement dispersion patterns in order to illustrate
prehistoric socioterritorial power centers and other home base clusters which are ideally
configured for net energy optimality. This information will be used to identify the nearest

8
settlement of each distinct foraging group, which from a logistical standpoint would be the
staging area with the closest access to the resource-rich patch at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin
Calderas. Then a careful analysis will reveal the path of least resistance to the study from the
nearest settlements in adjacent watersheds, from which the total daily energy and time costs
can be calculated for each route.
An ethnoarchaeological approach will prove useful for this study to correlate parallel
values (settlement and subsistence patterns) between the static archaeological record and
ethnohistoric analogs. This approach is premised by human behavioral ecology and optimal
foraging theory. Geographic Information Systems Science (GISci) will be used to model the
environmental friction which has the greatest influence on forager behavior and decision
making in the region, i.e., slope. Spatial point data will be subjected to rigorous statistical
validation via nearest neighbor analysis and one-tailed student's t-test. A model of caribou
hunting and transhumance are presented as a heuristic device that is premised by the tenets of
optimal foraging theory.
1.2 Objectives
This research examines the relationship between the environment and human
settlement and subsistence strategies throughout the late Holocene (5500 BP). Human census
estimates obtained from ethnohistoric accounts suggest Seward Peninsula socioterritories were
among the most densely populated in the region (Ray 1975, 1983, 1984). Based on the tenets
of optimal foraging, these relatively dense human aggregations would have required abundant
resources and the availability of high-ranking prey species to sustain population growth. The
environment sets parameters around which hunter-gatherers adapt a variety of settlement and

9
Figure 4: Ice Patches contained within Twin Calderas

10
subsistence strategies in order to survive. This study aims to identify the ecological factors that
shaped forager behaviors and compositions.
In the northern latitudes, foragers have focused on the exploitation of a reliable caribou
resource base throughout much of the Holocene. The problem here relates to how ecological
determinates (i.e., resource breadth, patch accessibility, terrain and weather)--in space and
time--affect the decisions hunter-gatherers made in order to achieve net energy optimality. To
address this problem, the following objectives are proposed:
1) identify a correlation between hunting features and ice/snow patches through
spatial point analyses in order to ascertain seasonality, which will be used to inform an
alternative heuristic model of caribou hunting and transhumance;
2) test the statistical validity of the correlation between hunting features and ice/snow
with nearest neighbor analysis to identify levels of dispersion among intercept hunting
features, and a student's t-test to determine the significance of the distances between
feature clusters and ice/snow patches;
3) Examine the spatial distribution patterns of settlements through spatial point
analyses in order to identify distinct settlement clusters which are interpreted to
represent distinct prehistoric socioterritories;
4) test the statistical validity and composition of the settlement clusters with nearest
neighbor analysis to determine statistical significance and levels of dispersion among
settlements within each cluster. This information will be used to identify prehistoric
power centers or optimally arranged home base networks. Finally, a major watershed
associated with a power center cluster will be characterized as a being under the

11
exclusive domain of a distinct prehistoric socioterritorial group--based largely on
ethnohistoric settlement patterns in Seward Peninsula;
5) identify the least-cost path into the study area from the nearest settlements in
adjacent watersheds (socioterritories) with GISci cost-surface algorithms to estimate
time and energy expenditures imposed on foraging groups to complete such a journey;
6) discuss the implications this research has for understanding prehistoric hunter-
gatherer settlement and subsistence patterns in Seward Peninsula.
1.3 Theoretical Approach
Hunter-gatherers are integrally linked with the environments and resources to which
they are associated, exploiting through a combination of hunting, fishing, scavenging, gathering
or collecting (Sheehan 2004; Broughton and Bayham 2003; Byers and Broughton 2004; Hockett
2005; Lovis et al. 2005; Winterhalder 2001: 12). As such, an evolutionary ecological approach
provides the most appropriate framework for understanding prehistoric hunter-gatherer
settlement and subsistence patterns (or land use). However, it must be recognized that
sociocultural variables influence hunter-gatherer decision-making and land use (UL 2010: 0-3;
Byers and Broughton 2004; Byers and Hill 2009; Butzer 1990; Kim 2006; Lovis et al. 2005;
Sheehan 2004; Bowyer 2011: 6).
An ecological approach to identifying cultural behavior requires that such behavior be
assessed from within its associated natural context, which itself may vary in space and time
(Hildebrandt and McGuire 2005; Jochim 1981, 1989; Lovis et al. 2005; Bowyer 2011: 6). Under
this paradigm, environmental influences have significant influence on human behavior.
Ecosystems are comprised of a dynamic set of biological, physical and cultural processes

12
(Moran 2006, 2008). Though emphasis will be made to underscore how prehistoric hunter-
gatherers were influenced by a suite of environmental determinates, there are sociocultural
pressures (i.e., ideology, social networks and organization, etc.) that impact human behaviors
(Bamforth 1988; Lovis et al. 2005; Broughton and Bayham 2003; Hildebrandt and McGuire
2002, 2003, 2005; Kim 2006; Trigger 1989).
Hunter-gatherer societies have adapted a multitude of strategies and coping
mechanisms to deal with environmental fluctuations in natural resources and climate change
variability throughout much of the Holocene, such as resource diversification, developing
external sociocultural relationships, mobility, and technological and informational diffusion
(Kim 2006; Mandryk 1993; Morgan 2009; Wiessner 1982). Contrary to the most widely held
notions of hunter-gatherer behaviors, recent paradigms indicate these behaviors are not
merely simple responses driven by the natural environment. Instead, land-use patterns are
derived from a variety of plausible options which are embedded within broader ideological
perceptions and social organization (Ives 1990, 1998; Kim 2006; Trigger 1989). This research is
grounded in Steward's cultural ecology, and an idea that culture and environment are an
interrelated and dynamic system of exchanges and feedback (Burch 2007; Moran 2006, 2008,
Steward 1955; Hardesty 1977; Kaplan and Manners 1972). There are social, ideological,
economic and political pressures that influence cultural behavior, the extent of which may be
widely varying and dependent upon societal weighting of those pressures (Trigger 1989). The
study area's environment is characterized as an interconnected system of physical landscape
variables (topography, geology, floral character and hydrology), seasonal weather variability,
and resource breadth. These environmental variables influence hunter-gatherer behaviors and

13
decision making, of which the dichotomous relationship between energy returns (benefit)
versus time and energy expenditures (cost) is of paramount concern.
1.4 Research Question
The hypothesis of this study is that subsistence and settlement strategies employed by
prehistoric foraging groups were shaped by a drive to achieve net energy optimality. From this
framework, foraging groups would optimize energy and time costs to exploit the highest-
ranking prey resources within their limits of available travel modes. To thoroughly investigate
this hypothesis it will be necessary to review the wider theoretical perspective of evolutionary
ecology, relevant anthropological literature, prehistoric subsistence and settlement patterns.

14
2.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
2.1 Introduction
In the barren, upland tundra steppe of Seward Peninsula, lying at the northern base of
the Bendeleben Mountains, lies an enigmatic prehistoric caribou game drive system (Koutsky
1982: 4: 89; Schaaf 1988: I: 258-59) integrally linked to a unique landscape (UL 2010: 1-5)
providing tactical advantage over a reliable caribou resource base (Burch 1986: 632). Previous
research describes the system at Kuzitrin Lake as one that fits a regional model of community
game drive strategies near lakes (Burch 1988; Ray 1975; Koutsky 1981; Powers 1982; Schaaf
1988; Harritt 1994). However, some aspects of this system have remained a mystery, until
recent observation of ice/snow patches within both calderas and the southern shore of Kuzitrin
Lake (Holt 2011, 2012). This study has benefitted from current research centered on ice
patches in Yukon, Canada (Bowyer et al. 1999; Farnell et al. 2004: Hare et al. 2004; Helwig et al.
2008; Bowyer 2011) and Alaska (Andrews 2009, 2010; Benedict et al. 2008; Dixon et al. 2005,
2010; Galloway 2009; Lee et al. 2006, 2010; VanderHoek 2010), which have opened an
alternative line of inquiry with regard to prehistoric caribou hunting practices of northern
latitude of the Western Hemisphere.
Archaeological research and indigenous accounts have successfully established cultural
significance of selected Yukon ice patches; thus demonstrating a long-standing (at least 8000
years) relationship between caribou, ice patches and the people who patterned their
settlement and subsistence life ways around them (Farnell et al 2004; Hare et al 2004; Bowyer
2011). Contemporary biological studies and local observations of caribou seasonal migrations
on Seward Peninsula (ADFG 2003; Joly 2006) and behaviors associated with ice patch use in the
Yukon (Kuhn et al 2010; Kuzyk and Farnell 1997) provide useful context for this study. Caribou

15
adhere to a predictable summer range migration centered on the availability of high quality
forage (lichens), as well as specifically targeting perennial ice and seasonal snow patches for
thermoregulation and insect harassment (Ion and Kershaw 1989).
Settlement and subsistence are integrally linked (Kelly 1995), especially in northern
latitudes where low resource variability forced late-Holocene inhabitants to adopt a caribou-
centric life way in order to survive (Binford 1978; Anderson 1988). Settlement systems research
have focused on the role human behavioral ecology plays in decision making (Binford 1980;
Gamble 1986; Jochim 1976, 1998; Thomas 1983; Willey 1953), which are influenced by varying
sociocultural factors (Gamble 1999; Oetelaar and Meyer 2006).
The research conducted in this study can be used to develop an alternative model of
prehistoric hunting and transhumance in Seward Peninsula. The ideas posited for this study will
be tested using a repertoire of spatial point analytical tools and statistical measures (nearest
neighbor and one-tailed student's t-test). The majority of data derived from this study were
generated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) including spatial point, Voronoi
tessellations and cost-surface analyses.

16
3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & EXPECTATIONS
3.1 Human Behavioral Ecology and Decision Making
Human behavioral ecology (HBE) is an evolutionary analysis tool designed to elucidate
the influences social and ecological factors have on human behavior and decision making (Bird
and O'Connell 2006; Smith 1999). Rooted in Julian Steward's theory of cultural ecology from
the perspective of hunter-gatherer societies, HBE is further embedded with a functional neo-
Darwanism approach to understanding human behavior (Winterhalder and Smith 2000: 51).
Thus, HBE finds wide application in anthropological research centered on hunter gatherer
societies based on a common understanding that human behavior and decision making are
directly linked to a variety of social and ecological factors (Smith and Winterhalder 1992: 25;
Smith 1999). There has been productive research in HBE, focused on three major themes:
production and resource acquisition (Beck 2008; Byers and Ugan 2005), reproduction and life
history (Borgerhoff 1992; Voland 1998), and distribution and exchange (Orth 1987; Smith and
Bird 2000). HBE research commonly employs formal economic models to include prey choice,
patch choice, and central place foraging models (Rasic 2008: 10-11). Though, there is some
debate surrounding application of 'real-time' foraging models which require dynamic inputs
from a static archaeological record (Kelly 1995: 333-334; Barton et al. 2004: 139; Meltzer 2004).
3.2 Foraging Theory
Given that behavior requires the consumption of two key resources (i.e., time and
energy), foragers must weigh decisions based on the most efficient use time and energy (Cuthill
and Huston 1997: 97). A principal assumption is that people will make decisions in order to
enhance fitness and caloric returns (benefits) by implementing varied courses of action (costs),
which translates into reproductive advantages and survival. The best way to way examine cost

17
and benefit and investigate their archaeological register is through use of optimality models
(Cuthill and Huston 1997: 97).
Foraging theory research has been productive, yielding an abundance of data relating to
the costs of resource acquisition and caloric benefit (Bird and O'Connell 2006; Broughton and
Grayson 1993). An assumption is that forager must make decisions based on maximizing the
outcome of a behavior, where benefits (resource acquisition) outweigh costs (time and energy).
This optimality approach argues that ".., direct and indirect competition for resources gives
advantages to organisms that have efficient techniques of acquiring energy and nutrients"--
translating into measures of survival and reproductive fitness (Winterhalder 1981: 15).
Ethnoarchaeological research has contributed greatly to foraging theory by studying "..,
contemporary peoples to determine how their behavior is translated into the archaeological
record," (Thomas 1998: 273). This sub-discipline gained momentum in the 1960s as essential
component of processual archaeology, which aimed at understanding site formation processes
in the archaeological record (Schiffer 1972). Based on the premise that hunter-gatherers
exhibit universal behaviors in as far as they are guided by simple economics (cost-benefit) and
sociocultural influences, ethnoarchaeological methods have wide applicability in foraging
model research (Binford 1978, 1980).
Middle Range Theory
Midde-Range Theory (MRT) is an inferential tool used to define past human behaviors
based on contemporary or historic correlates (Merton 1968). In this context, subsistence and
settlement patterns of Prehistoric humans can be inferred by direct ethnohistoric analogy using
and actualistic research mode (Binford 1981: 27). The method is a four stage process which

18
involves: 1) documenting ‘causal relations’ between contemporary human actions (or
interactions) and static remains left behind by those actions; 2) recognition of patterns in those
static remains; and 3) inference of prehistoric human actions based on the observed patterns in
contemporary human actions and their static remains; and 4) evaluation of these inferences
(Pierce 1989: 2). The MRT finds appropriate application with this study in as far as
ethnographic analogy can be used to infer Prehistoric human behaviors and decision making,
such as hunting and socioterritorialism.
Optimality Models
In terms of optimal foraging, there are two categories of costs incurred in the
procurement of resources (Cuthill and Huston 1997: 105)--acquisition (activity preparation and
engagement) (Stevens and Krebs 1968: 7) and post-acquisition (processing, transport and
storage) (Lindström 2007: 232). Optimal foraging theory (OFT) models are used to analyze how
hunter-gatherers search plan and search for, encounter and intercept, and handle resources
(Martin 1983: 615; Stephens and Charnov 1982: 251). It is generally accepted that the most
relevant measure of optimal foraging in hunter-gatherer societies is the maximization of net
energy gain, which is sum result of the ".., energy maximization over a fixed time and time
minimization to a fixed energy gain," (Stephens and Charnov 1982: 261). This correlates
directly to forager selection of resources patches within a given exploitation area. Foragers
incur energy and time costs by travelling to and from these patches, which factor heavily in
cost-benefit decision making. Causally linked to time and energy expenditures is the
recognition that foragers must make decisions about when certain patches will yield the highest

19
energy output (Charnov 1976: 129), which in northern latitude hunter-gatherer societies is
largely dependent on the behaviors of migratory game animals.
Models are simplified versions of complex and dynamic realities, providing a conduit
through which components of a problem can be comparatively tested against a set of
conditions and assumptions (Stephens and Charnov 1982: 262). Generally, foraging models are
comprised of three components, all of which are based on assumptions: decision, currency and
constraint. Essentially, foragers must make decisions based on the options available to them,
weigh and compare those options (currency), and evaluate factors that limit and define the
relationship between decisions and currency (Stevens and Krebs 1986: 5-10).
Optimality models have found wide acceptance in archaeological research to help
define prehistoric settlement and subsistence strategies (Broughton 1994; Byers and Ugan
2005). Most optimal foraging models (OFM) emphasize variables related to patch choice, diet
breadth, prey choice, patterns/rates of movement, settlement, time allocation, and groups size
(Martin 1983: 615-624; Pyke et al. 1977: 141-49).
This study will emphasize OFMs pertaining to patch choice, diet breadth, prey choice,
patterns/rates of movement and settlement. These variables play a vital role in shaping
behaviors of northern latitude hunter-gatherer societies associated with subsistence and
settlement.
3.3 Time Allocation, Movement and Central Place Foraging
Research pertaining to game movement/behavior patterns and time allocation has been
a productive line of inquiry in evolutionary ecology (Bayham et al. 2011; Beck 2008; Broughton
1994, 2002; Kelly 2005; Pyke et al. 1977; Stevens and Krebs 1986). An emphasis was placed on

20
the likelihood foragers move over broad landscapes (or exploitation areas) in pursuit of high-
ranking prey, sparring development of the central place foraging (CPF) model (Orians and
Pearson 1976). A pattern of seasonal transhumance lies at the heart of CPF, as foragers make
repeat visits to resource-rich patches from strategically located home bases. In this vein, time
and energy variables (i.e., pursuit , preparation, and resource transport) factor prominently into
logistical decisions regarding foraging and hunting.
Hunter-gatherers participating in a CPF strategy will expend energy over three phases:
travel from home base to patch choice; foraging resources and hunting prey associated with
the patch; and return trip from patch choice to home base. As the distances increase between
home base and patch choice, foragers must make decisions that necessarily favor net energy
gains in relation to travel time and energy expenditures. A prey item's rank and value is also
influenced by the distances needed to travel between home bases and patches (Orians and
Pearson 1976: 166-67).
The expectations derived from the CPF model suggest that if a forager makes a
significant travel investment to use a specific resource patch, that forager must exploit the
highest ranked resource within a related patch. Distance travelled to patches factors
prominently into a forager's resource processing and transport decisions. In order to achieve
net energy optimality at patch that is a greater distance from a home base, foragers adapted a
community or group-oriented subsistence strategy. This amplified foraging success rates, and
added capacity to process and transport game back to a home base.

21
3.4 Expectations
The expectations derived from this study also serve as a stepwise process to inform the
next expectation in the sequence: 1) hunting features at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas will
tend to cluster in proximity to ice/snow patches, which would be indicative of a collective
intercept hunting tactic that was employed in the summer; 2) settlements on Seward Peninsula
will cluster in patterns that can be recognized as socioterritorial power centers or optimally
arranged home base networks, which I expect will illustrate a prehistoric settlement model that
corresponds well with ethnohistoric literature (i.e., territorial control of a major watershed by a
socially relatable foraging group); and 3) that socioterritorial dominion over the study area can
be determined on the basis of optimal foraging, through a critical evaluation of the time and
energy expenditures incurred by an adjacent prehistoric hunter-gatherer group travelling to the
study area.

22
4.0 CONTEXT
4.1 Regional Chronology
Figure 5: Regional Chronology (adapted from Fagan 2006)

23
To preface this chapter it is necessary to place the study area's chronology in a regional
context. There have been several references thus far to the late Holocene, which is marked by
the start of the Neoglacial period approximately 5500 BP (or 3500 BC). This geological time
frame is appropriate because it encompasses all cultural sequences beginning with the Arctic
Small Tool tradition (ASTt). The ASTt brought with it changes in hunting technology, and is
widely seen as the genesis of bow and arrow technology in the Western Hemisphere (Blitz
1988) . Figure 5 is adapted from Fagan (2005) which compares the chronologies of multiple
regions, and includes the temporal span of the study area.
4.2 Archaeology of Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas
There is a significantly high concentration of large dry masonry cairns within the study
area, dotting both caldera rims—especially the east caldera. Schaaf (1988: 233) describes six
varieties of cairns in the area: cylindrical, Truncated, globular, conical hollow, conical with
loosely stacked rocks, and rock piles. All cairns range in size from small (0.5 meter high, 1.0
meter diameter) to the largest of these, which is semi-lunate in shape and comprised of two
cylindrical “.., cairns, 3.5 meters high and 2.4 meters [diameter] with a 1 meter-wide, straight
wall, 1.37 meters long and 2.36 meters high,” (Schaaf 1988: 241-45). Cylindrical, truncated,
globular and conical hollow cairns are not described in the region’s archaeological record. The
conical cairn of loosely stacked rocks and other rock piles are somewhat more ambiguous and
are often assigned a variety of forms and functions (Schaaf 1988: 242-45; Balikci 1970: 41).
Typically all cairns varieties are “.., located on land prominences, river bluffs, ridges and

24
Figure 6: Archaeological Features Overview Map

25
volcanic cones,” with the exception of those found “.., between Joan and Erich Lakes (BEN-110),
as well as on the south shore of Kuzitrin Lake (below BEN-115),” (Schaaf 1988: 245).
Functional descriptions of these stone features are derived from Powers (1982), Schaaf
(1988) and Harritt (1994) initial forays into the study area, and there are no archaeological
equivalents noted in the region’s archives (AHRS 2012) from which to draw comparison. Cairns
and other stone features here have been portrayed as representative of “.., large communal
caribou hunting and meat storage strategies,” (Schaaf 1988: I: 257). This study aims to
investigate an alternative preshistoric hunting tactic, by evaluating the feature distribution
patterns in relation to ice and snow patches.
4.3 Hunting in the North
Generally, northern latitude hunting strategies and tactics can be separated into two
primary schemes: 1) encounter; and 2) intercept (Binford 1978, 1983; Blehr 1990; Campbell
1968; Driver 1990; Marean 1997; Enloe and David 1997; Churchill 1993; Rasic 2008: 19-24). The
principal determinants are not a matter of scale (i.e., caribou breadth and foraging group sizes),
but rather of prey predictability and breadth (migration routes and behaviors, and herd
aggregates) and by the measure of premeditation involved in hunter-gatherer tactics (e.g.,
planning, execution and processing) (Binford 1978). In both schemes, patch selection is a
primary consideration, which translates into hunting success and net energy optimality. Rasic
(2008: 20) provides a useful table to compare these divergent hunting schemes (table 1).
Caribou Hunting Model for Seward Peninsula
Caribou hunting models are predominately concerned with large-scale latitudinal
strategies (Bowyer 2011), which often integrate the use of game drive-line systems and employ

26
communal and group-based tactics (Benedict 1996, 2005; Brink 2005; MacDonald 1985; Sturdy
1975). These models are corroborated by ethnohistoric literature in Alaska (Binford 1978;
Burch 1998, 2001) and Yukon (McClellan 1975; Greer 1984; Hare et al. 2004). Current research
has been unable to link the game drive hunting tactic with ice/snow patch hunting strategy
(Bowyer 2011: 234)--although this study suggests a strong correlation between the two.
Encounter and Intercept Hunting Strategies
(adapted from Rasic 2008: 20)
Encounter Hunting Intercept Hunting
Personnel Small groups or individual hunters,
with a tendency for these to be all male
groups.
Variably-sized groups that consist of males and
females. Roles may include driving prey,
harvesting, processing.
Setting Practiced in a variety of topographic
settings, both open and concealed,
flat and with much relief. Emphasis
on microscale topographic/vegetation
concealment and constraints on
animal movement.
Requires topographic constraints or constructed
facilities.
Labor and
Planning
No special advanced preparation, low
intensity harvest, processing.
High intensity preparation, hunting and
processing.
Relation to
Settlements and
Processing
Camps
May be close to or far from residential
base.
Settlements and/or harvesting camps will be
situated near the hunting locale.
Prey Distribution Dispersed. Solitary animals or small
groups--some of which may be
distributed along summer ice/snow
patches.
Aggregated during migration. Dispersed solitary
animals/small groups during summer ice/snow
patch use.
Archaeological
Signature
Kill sites will have little archaeological
visibility; known sites
associated with this strategy may
include hunting stands or observation
locations, small assemblages
representing single, brief site
occupations; evidence of small scale
tool repair, dispersed site distribution;
sites in open terrain more likely to
represent encounter hunting.
Kill sites and associated location archaeologically
visible and may contain facilities, storage features,
possible bone accumulations; associated hunting
stands or staging areas contain assemblages with
high
weaponry discard rates (batch tool repair);
regional site distribution signature includes
repeated use of key locations that result in dense
artifact accumulations, site clusters
associated with strategic locations (e.g., passes,
topographic constraints).
Table 1: Forager Hunting Schemes (adapted from Rasic 2008: 20)

27
Figure 7: East Caldera. Aerial photos of a) ice patch and b) exposed area near hunting blinds. The ice patch c) shows
evidence of caribou use and d) its position at the base of the caldera rim. The exposed area near the hunting blinds e)
looking SW and f) NW.

28
Figure 8: Aerial photos of a) ice patch and b) spillway with caribou trail near hunting blinds. Views of the Ice patch c) from
the caldera bottom, d) from the rim looking south, and e) from spillway (note caribou on the extreme right side of patch).

29
Figure 9: Socioterritorial boundaries of the Inupiat and Yup'ik societies of Seward Peninsula (Harritt 1994).

30
4.4 Socioterritorialism on Seward Peninsula
Ethnoarchaeological literature suggests that the study area was an important
subsistence home base to at least five regional groups, and that competition and territorial
disputes must have been commonplace (Ray 1975: 109; Koutsky 1981: IV: 39; Schaaf 1988: I:
255; Harritt 1994: 47). The groups are identified as being linguistically affiliated with either the
Iñupiat (Qaviazaġmiut, Pittaġmiut and Kaŋigmiiut) or Yup'ik (Kuuyugmiut and Kałuaġmiut)
cultural traditions.
Mobility
Socioterritorial limits are directly influenced by the rates and modes of travel available
to foraging groups. Ethnohistorically, winter travel between settlements and choice patches
was accomplished by pedestrian means (e.g., snow shoeing) and by dog traction (e.g., sledding)
(Burch 1998). It is difficult to determine the temporal origins genesis of dog traction (Bowers
2009), but varying estimates suggest it occurred between approximately 3000 BP to the historic
period. This study evaluates the caloric expenditures incurred by using the likely modes of
travel available to the late Holocene inhabitants of the study area, such as pedestrian, dog
traction, and unpowered boats (Binford 1980, 1982, 2001).
Modes are affected by seasonality and the presence, or lack thereof, of snow and ice.
Ethnographic analogs indicate that a typical daily time limit for central place foraging is
approximately ten hours (table 3). Though seasonality likely plays a critical role in determining
hunting time restrictions, this study assumes ten hours can be applied generally across all
seasons.

31
Table 2: Average duration for hunting expeditions for several ethnographic groups (Binford 2001).
The rates of winter travel are dependent upon terrain characteristics and the amount of
accumulated snow as well as iced-over rivers, lakes and lagoons. However, dog traction
provides the quickest means of travel with snow shoeing being the least efficient of all.
Conversely, during the non-winter months (spring thaw, summer and fall freeze-up; mid-April
to early-November) travel was accomplished via pedestrian means or boating (umiak or kayak).
Non-winter rates of travel are largely dependent upon terrain characteristics and hydrological
factors. Ice-free rivers and lakes certainly facilitated efficient travel via boat.
Caloric costs of each physical activity are derived from following equation: TDEE = RMR
+ TEF + EEPA, where TDEE is the total daily energy expenditure and the summation of RMR
(resting metabolic Rate), TEF (thermic effect of food) and EEPA (energy expended during
physical activity) (Comana 2001). For this study we will assume hunting parties were a
balanced composition of active men and women of comparable weight (63 and 54 kilograms,
respectively), height (162 and 157 centimeters, respectively) and age (30). A dog pulling a
traction device behind can burn up to 10,000 calories per day (Dogsled 2012).

32
5.0 ANALYSES
5.1 Spatial Point and Cost-Distance Analyses
This section outlines the analyses that were used to model and test the relationship
between hunting features and ice/snow patches in the study area. These analyses will also be
used to model and test prehistoric settlement distribution patterns in Seward Peninsula.
The ice/snow patches selected for this study are located in the western portion of the
study area, near the southwestern shore of Kuzitrin Lake and within both calderas at Twin
Calderas (62.57 km²). The first dataset used in analyses consists of 482 archaeological features
related to intercept hunting ( 404 game drive features [inuksuit; meaning looks like man in
Inupiat], two observation/staging blinds, 14 hunting blinds and 62 cairn-type structures whose
purpose are not fully understood in the regional literature) (Schaaf 1988; Holt 2011, 2012). The
second dataset used in analyses consists of 227 generalized prehistoric settlements spread
across Seward Peninsula (127,267 km²). Research expectations are as follows: hunting features
will tend to have a clustering pattern within proximity of ice/snow patches; and prehistoric
socioterritories can be interpreted from settlement distribution patterns along major
watersheds and coastal areas. Cost-distance will, later, aid in determining the least-cost paths
to the study area from each of the nearest settlements.
5.2 Spatial Point Analyses and Archaeology
Spatial point analyses have been used in other studies to illustrate the arrangement of
objects (or points) in a defined space through use of mathematical models. These analyses are
commonly used in archaeology for settlement, regional and landscape studies (Illian 2008: XI).
Interpretation of intersite and intrasite spatial patterning plays a vital role in understanding the

33
relationships between archaeological manifestations and the surrounding landscape in which
they occupy (Banning 2002; Binford 1978; Gargett and Hayden 1991: 11; Kroll and Price 1991:
1).
Questions pertaining to spatial arrangement in archaeology have traditionally focused
on explaining intrasite structure and settlement patterns (Kroll and Price 1991: 2). In recent
decades, there has been a substantial increase in topics and methodologies used to answer a
wide-range of spatial questions in archaeology, such as sociopolitical organization, site
abandonment, subsistence, and hunting strategies (Kanter 2007: 43). Research using spatial
analyses have addressed several recurrent themes including, long distance trade and migration,
and the distribution of material remains to identify socioterritorial boundaries (Geib 2000;
Kulischeck 2003).
The application of spatial techniques and models in archaeology provides researchers
with a quantitative tool to understand the complexities of human interactions with one
another, as well as with the ecosystems to which they are associated (Kanter 2007: 38). The
recent coalescence of evolutionary theory with regional analyses in archaeology has brought
significant diversification to the traditional methods used by researchers to model spatial
relationships--perhaps fueled by the proliferation of geographical information systems science
(GISci) (Kanter 2007: 50). As a result, archaeological spatial studies have grown beyond the
limiting uses of basic mathematical and geographical measures into a diverse toolkit of intricate
techniques that can accurately inform the archaeological record (Kanter 2007: 37).

34
For this study, spider diagrams were used for displaying the Euclidean distances
between points in the intra-hunting feature and inter-settlement datasets, respectively. Cluster
analysis was applied to the resulting spider diagrams based on the effective range of primitive
bow and arrow technology (6-36 meters) from hunting features, and then again on settlements
spaced 5-17 kilometers from one another based on the minimal to mean distance ranges of
prehistoric mobility options.
Spider Diagram Analysis
A spider analysis is an automated GISci process which produces a series of lines that
represent, either, Euclidean or Manhattan distances between all points in an analysis. The
process results in a spider diagram, which offers an effective way to display and evaluate data
points within an analysis. This procedure's capacity to collect distances has been invaluable for
those engaged in the development of marketing strategies and planning scenarios (Howse et al.
2000: 26).
The use of spider analysis in GISci is a relatively recent development, but there are
numerous scripts (i.e., statistical package extensions) available to automate the processing of
point based datasets. This study benefitted greatly from the script created by Laura Wilson in
2005, which is designed for Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS software
(arcscripts.esri.com).
GISci based applications of spider analysis in archaeological research are still in their
infancy, but growing. For instance, Wood and Wood (2006) use a modified version of spider
analysis to evaluate the energy costs of prehistoric forager travel across a variety of terrains.

35
The researchers diagramed the shortest and optimal paths to sixteen destinations, which were
then factored against variably weighted frictions and attributes, such as terrain's elevation and
slope, and traveler's body weight, sex, stride and rate of travel. The authors were able to
determine the most efficient routes of travel across a particular terrain (Wood and Wood
2006).
For this study, spider analysis will be used to diagram distances between hunting
features and ice/snow patches at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas, as well as settlements
throughout Seward Peninsula. While not solely illustrative of my hypotheses spider diagrams
are prerequisite to cluster and nearest neighbor analyses, which will produce statistically
derived clusters.
Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis is defined as a suite of mathematical techniques that are used to
examine the relationships of objects in a dataset by grouping similarly attributed objects into
subgroups (or clusters) (Lorr 1983: 1; Romesburg 1984: 2, 15). The technique produces
classification systems in which the number and relationship of the data groupings are not
known prior to analysis (Lorr 1983: 1). There are hundreds of mathematical models available
for clustering analysis, with each one capable of generating divergent outcomes from the same
data (Aldenderfer 1982: 61; Lorr 1983: 3; Romesburg 1984: 2). Consequently, researchers must
choose the cluster techniques best suited for their analyses.
This research uses a hierarchical cluster analysis technique, which is the most widely
accepted and applicable cluster method (Cowgill 1968: 369; Romesburg 1984: 3). The

36
application uses inter-object Euclidean distance to create a multilevel diagram (or dendrogram),
which illustrates a hierarchy of similarity among the data (Romesburg 1984: 3). The
dependence of spatial relationships and inter-object Euclidean distances for this study, make
hierarchical cluster analysis the most appropriate cluster technique.
Cluster techniques have seen wide spread use in archaeology for almost half a century
(Aldenderfer 1982: 61), though the division of data into subgroups must be done as objectively
as possible (Hodson 1970: 299). The statistical precision and accuracy characterizing cluster
analysis make it a valuable quantitative tool in archaeology.
Hierarchical cluster analyses group data based on the similarity of selected attributes.
This method of cluster analysis was performed on the results of the spider analyses in order to
ascertain patterns or clusters in the data based on the relative Euclidean distance of each
individual point to all others selected in the analysis.
SPSS 18 utilizes a process known as agglomerative hierarchical clustering (Norusis 2010:
363) to complete a hierarchical cluster analysis. This algorithm starts by placing each case into
its own cluster and then merges other cases into that cluster until only one cluster remains.
The parameters set for selected variables determine when a significant grouping (clustering)
has been achieved (Norusis 2010: 364).
The hierarchical cluster analysis used in this study will produce statistically derived
groupings of hunting features and settlements, which will be guided by optimal foraging theory
(group size model, prey and patch choice models, and central place foraging model). This
resulted in the generation of three separate cluster analyses in order to illustrate feature and

37
settlement patterns. This includes: Study area hunting feature groups (macro) within 200
meters of one another and reconciled with local terrain in mind; caldera hunting feature
clusters (micro) within 36 meters of each other; and settlement clusters within 17 kilometers of
one another. The groups associated with each analysis will be analyzed and tested with nearest
neighbor analysis.
Nearest Neighbor Analysis
Nearest neighbor analysis is a technique for examining spatial patterns by comparing
the observed patterning (clustered, dispersed, or random) of a particular dataset to that of an
expected spatial randomness (Bailey 1994: 25). In essence, nearest neighbor analysis is a form
of cluster analysis, but is considered a single-level technique in which the relatedness of objects
is expressed through an index (ESRI 2009; Lorr 1983: 62). The nearest neighbor index
represents the ratio of observed distance divided by expected distance. The expected distance
is derived from the average distance between neighbors in a hypothetical random distribution.
If the index is less than one, the data exhibits some degree of clustering; however if the index is
greater than one, the data is considered dispersed (ESRI 2009).
Nearest neighbor analysis was first demonstrated by Clark and Evans (1954: 445) in
ecological research, as a method for interpreting plant and animal distributions in the natural
environment. Soon after, geographers and archaeologists employed the technique to study
contemporary and archaeological settlement patterns (Corley and Hagget 1965; Hodder 1972).
Today, nearest neighbor analysis is a preferred technique for many archaeologists, due to its

38
simple mathematical calculations and an easily interpreted coefficient (Conolly and Lake 2006:
164).
There are several algorithms associated with nearest neighbor queries, which are all
essentially defined as techniques that facilitate the finding of the closest object (k) in space (S)
to a specific query object (q) (Hjaltason and Samet 2003: 529). Most studies use a tree-based
Euclidean distance technique for spatial indexing commonly referred to as quadtree. Quadtree
prioritizes objects in space by placing them into a series of spatially adjacent blocks (Tanin et al.
2005: 85). The area incorporated into an analysis is divided into four equal regions, each of
which is divided into four sub-regions, and so forth, until all objects have been indexed (Longley
et al. 2005: 235).
This research uses a GIS-based nearest neighbor algorithm and student’s t-test to
explore the statistical validity of the following null hypotheses: 1) hunting clusters are
randomly distributed near ice/snow patches and there is a less than 95% chance these features
are related. A student’s t-test will be conducted simultaneously to nearest neighbor analysis to
assess the statistical significance (5% confidence level) of the mean distances between all
hunting feature clusters and ice/snow patches; and 2) settlements on Seward Peninsula are
randomly distributed across Seward Peninsula and there is a less than 95% chance the
groupings are indicative of power centers or optimally arranged home bases. If the null
hypotheses with a greater than 95% confidence level, then the study asserts that objects were
not distributed by random chance, and instead show patterns of clustering and dispersal or the
distance variant used in student's t-test show a level of significant correlation.

39
5.3 Site Catchment and Cost-Surface Analyses in Archaeology
Ducke and Kroefges (2007: 245-46) define territory as being comprised of several
elementary aspects such as “.., distance, hierarchy and network connectivity.” The Xtent
Model, developed by Renfrew and Level (1979) provides a simple formula to predict a zone of
political and territorial influence.
Site catchment analysis (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970), derived from optimal foraging
theory (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Emlen 1966), has been used to model mobility and
socioterritorial boundaries based on distance, cost frictions (slope and terrain) (Wheatley and
Gillings 2002; Brevan 2008), watershed accessibility (Llobera 2011) and network connectivity
(e.g., home base clusters, trade networks, etc.) (Brevan 2008). Generally, site catchment
analyses utilize cost-distance models to factor the costs (time and energy) of human and animal
movements through a defined space (Brevan 2008: 4).
Cost-Distance Analysis
Cost-distance analysis is a method developed by Kvamme (1983, 1986, 1989, and 1990),
Kohler and Parker (1986), Savage (1989) and Warren (1990). Since its inception researchers
have attempted to reconstruct prehistoric settlement and exploitation by factoring real-time
frictions that influence forager mobility (Duncan and Beckman 2001). Creation of a model
relies on a combination of hypothetico-deductive decisions which are based on the
interpretation of cost-distance information generated in GIS.
This study uses cost-distance analysis in order to evaluate the influences slope
(Wheatley and Gillings 2002; Brevan 2008) and hydrology (Llobera 2011) have on forager

40
mobility across the landscape. Use of this particular isotropic model, for this study, is based on
the notable variation in slope and major river systems of Seward Peninsula. The settlement
dataset will be subjected to multiple cost-distance GIS algorithms on the basis of prehistoric
mobility mode options (i.e., walking, unpowered boating, dog traction).
Least-Cost Path
The cost of traveling from point A to B over some distance must involve some positive
cost in time, i.e., CostDist(A,B) > 0, for all B≠A (Worboys et al. 2004: 215-26). Tobler’s hiking
function (Ducke and Kroefges 2007) is widely used in the estimation of least cost paths in
archaeology. The velocity of walking is given by V (s) = 6 e-3.5 |e+0.05|
, where s is the slope
(calculated by vertical change divided by horizontal change) (Herzog 2010: 431-32). Cost-
distance algorithms in GIS help automate this process, generating a Manhattan distance for
each least-cost path (Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 157). Manhattan distance is defined as the
“.., distance between two points in a grid based on a strictly horizontal and/or vertical,” as
opposed to Euclidean distance (ESRI 2009).
This study will incorporate a least-cost path algorithm generated in GIS to determine the
optimal paths to the study area from the adjacent settlements. The distances produced will be
incorporated into an energy expenditure formula to investigate: 1) caloric cost per mode of
travel per route; and 2) which foraging group(s) were likely to complete a journey to the study
area based on optimal foraging.
5.4 Geographic Information Systems Science and Archaeology
Recent research has successfully integrated GISci into archaeological theory (Chapman
2006: 9; Connolly and Lake 2003, 2006: 3; Lock 2003), perhaps prompted by the

41
interdisciplinary nature of modern archaeology in addressing archaeological questions.
Regional archaeologies such as landscape archaeology and those engaged in evaluating
settlement patterns have benefitted substantially through the global geographic modeling of
environmental and archaeological variables (Chapman 2006: 128).
GISci is an essential tool for modeling archaeological theory and interpretation. In terms
of its analytical capabilities, GISci has the potential to change existing archaeological practices
and greatly enhance new ones (Lock 2003: 268). GIS offers a suite of statistical tools that play
an essential role in the quantitative capabilities of many archaeologists, such as spider
diagrams, cluster analysis, nearest neighbor analysis and cost-surface analyses (Wheatley and
Gillings 2002; Lock 2003: 166; Arroyo 2008: 31, 34; McGuire et al. 2007: 361, 363; Grimstead
2010; Morgan 2008: 247, 254; ).

42
6.0 METHODOLOGY & RESULTS
6.1 Introduction
The following passages are separated into four main results sections (spider, hierarchical
cluster, nearest neighbor, and cost-surface), each of which outlines the results of a particular
analytical technique utilized in this study. Due to the overlapping nature of analyses for this
study, each section is partitioned in accordance with the research topics being analyzed. Each
section will demonstrate the relevance of a particular analytical method used in addressing
study objectives.
There will be a brief discussion to illustrate how spider and cluster analyses were
combined for, both, intra-feature and inter-settlement datasets. Then there will be an
explanation regarding the applicability of nearest neighbor analysis to this research as a cluster
validation technique and for assessing spatial patterns. The concluding remarks at the end of
this chapter provide an overview of analytical results.
6.2 Application of Spatial Point Analyses
Spatial point analyses find a high degree of utility for this study. In addressing the
hypotheses presented in this research, I must articulate which data are relevant and why. As
such, an assumption must be made that the distance between hunting features and ice/snow
patches is a meaningful measure of their relationship. Another assumption is that hunting
methodologies and modes of mobility on Seward Peninsula have remained constant
throughout the late Holocene (5500 BP) at least up until early historic times (1850 AD; or the
widespread distribution of firearms) (see the context in a previous chapter). Finally, this study

43
concedes that due to the palimpsest nature of archaeology (UL 2010: 1: 10-12), the datasets
used in analyses may very well represent divergent temporal/cultural sequences.
Spider Analysis
Spider analyses were used to provide the spatial proximity from each point (case) to
other points subject to analysis. This research used a spider script developed by Wilson (2005),
which automated the creation of three distinct GIS line shapefiles with associated databases.
A spider diagram (Appendix A) is in a tabular format, which effectively summarize the results of
each spider analysis. The appendix tables are structured as follows: first column provides the
'feature of origin'; column two provides the 'destination feature'; column three provides the
associated length of each spider line; and column four provides the unique identifier of each
spider line. All spider analysis appendices have been sorted by ascending distances, which
allowed for more efficient cluster analyses.
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
Application of hierarchical cluster analysis in this study was a relatively simple process,
with distance being the only variable needed to generate groupings. The process of defining
clusters in terms of distance is common and frequently referred to as proximity analysis
(Norusis 2010: 366). The hierarchical cluster analyses utilized the distances generated by spider
analyses to create dendrograms that placed each case into statistically groups. In this study,
the distances obtained from three distinct spider databases were subject to cluster analyses via
this approach.

44
The final step in this process was to isolate and select each group out the modified
spider diagram shapefile to create individual cluster shapefiles in GIS. This was a necessary step
to obtain independent results from nearest neighbor analysis for east clusters.
Nearest Neighbor Analysis
The third phase of evaluation incorporated a nearest neighbor analysis. The first
objective of the nearest neighbor analysis was to validate the results of the hierarchical cluster.
This application was conducted independent of the spider and hierarchical cluster analyses.
The second objective was to determine intra-feature and inter-settlement distances between
the clusters generated by hierarchical cluster analysis.
The results of the nearest neighbor analysis are summarized in tabular format within the
corresponding sections. The first column provides the cluster number. Column two provides
the nearest neighbor ratio. A nearest neighbor ratio of less than one results in some level of
data clustering, while above one the data are considered dispersed. Column three provides the
probability value (p-value) associated with each cluster. The p-value is a measure of
consistency; it calculates the likelihood of a study’s results against the possibility of those more
extreme. The p-value for nearest neighbor is derived from the comparison of an observed
feature distribution with that of an expected mean in a random distribution. Column four
provides the standard deviation (z-score) associated with each cluster. The z-score is a test of
statistical significance that aids a researcher in deciding whether or not to reject a null
hypothesis. Objects with z-scores that fall outside of the normal range using a 95% confidence
level (p-value = 0.05) are likely too abnormally distributed to be an instance of random chance
(ESRI 2009). Column five provides the observed mean distance (in meters) to nearest neighbor

45
within each cluster. Column six provides the expected mean distance (in meters) to nearest
neighbor within each cluster based on user defined area (usually an area encompassing a
population dataset). Column six provides the pattern interpreted for each cluster.
6.3 Application of Cost-Surface Analysis
Cost-surface plays an integral role in this research to determine how slope and
hydrological variables influence prehistoric mobility. This study will use GIS to generate a series
of cost-distance algorithms to produce a realistic model of prehistoric socioterritorialism based
on optimal foraging theory and ethnohistoric analogs. Additionally, the least-cost paths
generated in GIS will be used to determine the most optimal path from the nearest adjacent
settlement to the study area. The resulting Manhattan distances will be used in a comparison
of rates, time investments and caloric outputs for each route, based on the mobility options
available to prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups throughout the late Holocene.
6.4 Intercept Hunting and Ice/Snow Patches
A portion of this research is based on the distributions of 544 hunting features and their
potential relationship with three ice/snow patches across the 62.57 km² (15,465 acres) study
area at Kuzitin Lake and Twin Calderas. As noted in a previous chapter, the locations and
descriptions of each hunting feature used for this study were obtained through previous survey
efforts by Powers (1982), Schaaf (1988), Harritt (1994), and Holt et al. (2011, 2012). The bulk of
game drive line features (inuksuk) and the snow and ice patch locations were obtained in 2011
and 2012 (Holt et al.) with funding provided by the National Park Service List of Classified
Structures program.

46
Spider Analyses Results
The preliminary step for this inquiry was to perform spider script algorithms on the
hunting feature dataset and on the ice/snow patches. The results of the scripts are prerequisite
for further analyses of spatial patterning among hunting feature clusters, and distances
between hunting features and ice/snow patches in the study area.
Figure 10: Spider diagram of hunting features (green) and results of the Hierarchical Cluster analyis (red).
First, a spider script was executed on the hunting feature dataset to diagram the
Euclidean distances between each hunting feature in the study area. This resulted in the
creation of a line shapefile and associated database comprising 26,624 unique distance
measurements (figure 9). The associated spider database tabulated information pertaining to

47
point of origin (hunting feature) and destination item (hunting feature) for each of the lines,
including the sum distance for each line. The line shapefile serves as a graphic representation
of the distances between each of the 544 hunting features in GIS, while the associated
database contains their spatial proximities.
Secondly, a spider script was executed in order to diagram distances between each
ice/patch and each hunting feature. This resulted in the creation of a line shapefile comprising
1632 unique distance measurements (figure 10). The associated spider database tabulated
information pertaining to point of origin (ice/snow patch centroid) and destination item
(hunting feature) for each of the lines, including the sum distance for each line (Appendix A).
This data is used for obtaining the observed mean distance (1500 meters) between all hunting
features and ice/snow patches. This value (1500 meters) is later used as the expected mean
distance in a student's t-test to statistically validate the level spatial randomness exhibited by
hunting feature clusters in proximity to ice/snow patches.
In order to complete hierarchical cluster analyses the databases containing the results
of the spider analyses were exported from GIS and imported into the statistical package for
social sciences 18 (SPSS 18). It is important to note the line shapefiles produced by both spider
analyses will, later, be combined with the results of the cluster analyses in GIS.
Hierarchical Cluster Analyses Results
Hierarchical cluster analyses were performed on the hunting feature database produced
in spider analysis to ascertain grouping based on an arbitrary distance variant. That is, all
hunting features within 200 meters of one another (macro); and all hunting features within 36
meters of one another (micro). However, because spider diagrams represent solely the

48
Euclidean distances between points, it was necessary to deductively reconcile the cluster
compositions of hunting features located on each caldera based on crucial aspects of the local
terrain.
Figure 11: Overview of the calderas. Stars (variably colored) represent the features lining each caldera rim. Dark gray
represents the steep walls of each caldera, while the light gray is the bottom. The blue shapes represents the ice/snow
patches.
This reconciliation is based principally on the steep and rugged topogeological character
of each caldera, which restricts access and mobility--tantamount to corrals. These features are

49
assumed to be separate systems tied to each caldera rim top or spillway. Both calderas exhibit
moderate to sheer walls, which act as a natural inhibitor of mobility, except for the exposed
spillways, as well as a grassy exposure on the northeastern rim of east caldera. The feature
distribution map (figure 10) clearly illustrates the unique relationship between each caldera
with the hunting features (possible territorial markers) surrounding them.
Macro Clusters
The first hierarchical cluster analysis grouped 482 of the 544 hunting features into four
primary hunting feature concentrations in the study area, including: two game drive systems
along the shores of Kuzitrin Lake (north and south); and unique feature concentrations around
each of the calderas (east and west). These macro clusters range in size from 15 to 389 hunting
features, comprised of game drive line features (inuksuit), hunting blinds, observation/staging
blinds, and cairns/caches. All clusters are located in the western portion of the study area,
which is most certainly an influence of terrain as well as the abundance of basalt and granite
outcrops as a principal construction material. The cluster groupings are as follows: west
caldera contains 19 features; east caldera contains 59 features; southern game drive line
contains 15 features; and northern game drive line contains 389 features.
The functional definition of the northern game drive line system has been well
established in previous works (Powers 1982; Schaaf 1988; Harritt 1994), and this corresponds
well with regional ethnohistoric accounts of lake-based game drives. The hunting tactic
associated with this system is best employed by foraging groups as a form of communal

50
Figure 12: Overview of reconciled macro clusters for the study area. Also shown is the spider diagram generated for the
micro clusters and their nearest ice/snow patch.

51
hunting during the late spring and late fall caribou migrations--when the animals are migrating
in dense herd aggregations.
The southern game drive line is the southernmost grouping in the analysis. The cluster
is composed of 15 features (hunting blind or cache, and 14 inuksuit [game drive features]) on
the north slope of the Bendeleben foothills. The system spans a distance of 800 meters and is
oriented roughly west-east. The system is located upslope and parallels the lake shore and a
seasonal snow patch. Interestingly, the lines' orientation does not correspond well with
regional contexts regarding lake-based game drive systems, similar to the northern game drive
line.
The cluster around west caldera is the northwestern most grouping in the analysis. The
cluster is composed of 19 features (13 cairns/caches, and 6 hunting blinds) which are aligned on
the rim top and spillway channel of the western caldera. This cluster contains one micro cluster
(cluster 1 with 6 features) lining the spillway channel and an associated game trail (see next
section).
The cluster associated with east caldera is the northeastern most grouping in the
analysis. The cluster is composed of 59 features (50 cairns/caches, 2 observation/staging
blinds, and 7 hunting blinds) which are aligned on the rim top, spillway channel and exposed
intermixed grassy/lava boulder area of the eastern caldera. This cluster contains the highest
concentration of features in the study, comprised of four micro clusters (clusters 2 - 5 with 54
features) lining the southern and eastern portions of the rim as well as five other features

52
(observation/staging blind, and four cairn/cache features) variably aligned on the rim and
spillway channel.
Micro Clusters
An additional hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted on the two macro clusters
located at Twin Calderas to produce feature groups that are composed of hunting features
spaced within 6 to 36 meters of each other. The reason for selecting this arbitrary distance
range is based on the effective range of primitive bow and arrows (Pope 1918: 124; Bergman
and McEwen 1997; Cattelein 1997: 231), which remained the principal hunting technology
available to prehistoric foraging groups throughout the late Holocene (Blitz 1988: 128). The 6-
meter minimum range was based on an assumption that hunting blinds which are too tightly
grouped would certainly be ineffective and even dangerous to members occupying blinds
opposite of a 'bad shot'.
The resulting analysis grouped 60 of the 78 combined hunting features at Twin Calderas
(or 60 of the 544 total hunting feature population dataset) into five distinct micro clusters.
Each micro cluster ranges in size from 6 to 25 hunting features, comprised of a mixture of
hunting blinds, observation/staging blinds and cairn/caches. All micro clusters are located on
the rim tops or spillways of each caldera. The micro cluster groups are characterized as: cluster
one is located within the west caldera macro cluster spillway, and contains six features; and
four clusters are located within the east caldera macro cluster, containing a combined 54
features.

53
Figure 13: Plan view of West Caldera illustrating the spider diagrams generated for the micro clusters and ice/snow patches.

54
Cluster 1 is the southernmost grouping in west caldera. The cluster is composed of six
features (6 hunting blinds), which are located adjacent to the caldera spillway and a well-worn
game trail--both of which are oriented SSW/NNE. The spatial arrangement observed among
these hunting blinds indicates there is an optimal degree of bow range overlap throughout this
portion of the spillway.
Cluster 2 is the southernmost group in east caldera. The cluster is composed of 11
features (cairns/caches), which are arranged in a tight clumped group approximately 50 meters
in diameter on the south side of the caldera rim top.
Cluster 3 is the southeastern most group in east caldera. The cluster is composed of 12
features (cairns/caches), which are arranged in a tight linear alignment spanning approximately
80 meters on the southwestern side of the caldera rim top.
Cluster 4 is the westernmost group in east caldera. The cluster is composed of 25
features (6 hunting blinds, 1 observation/staging blind and 18 cairns/caches, which are
arranged in predominately a north-south linear alignment spanning approximately 160 meters
on the western side of the caldera rim top. Another linear alignment of features comprising six
hunting blinds are located at the northern terminus of this group. The spatial arrangement
observed among these and cluster 5 hunting blinds indicates there is an optimal degree of bow
range overlap associated with the grassy exposure.
Cluster 5 is the northernmost group in east caldera. The cluster is composed of six
features (2 hunting blinds and 4 cairns/caches), which are arranged in a moderately spaced
group spanning approximately 50 meters on the caldera rim top, immediately north of the

55
Figure 14: Plan view of East Caldera illustrating the spider diagrams generated for the micro clusters and ice/snow patches.

56
grassy/lava boulder exposure. The spatial arrangement observed in these and cluster 4 hunting
blinds indicates there is an optimal degree of overlap associated with the grassy exposure. The
cairns are highly visible from the caldera floor and associated ice patch.
Nearest Neighbor Analysis Results
Macro Clusters
Initially, nearest neighbor was applied to the hunting feature dataset (macro population
dataset) for Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area. The average observed mean distance
produced is 45 meters, with an expected mean distance of 272 meters. After this initial
application of nearest neighbor, the analysis was repeated on the four macro clusters
generated in the prior analyses. The process measured feature dispersion within each cluster,
and the mean distances between features.
Cluster
Nearest
Neighbor Ratio p-value z-score observed expected Pattern
All Hunting
Features 0.164398 0
-
38.198695 45 272 Clustered
Macro
West Caldera 1.071018 0.553708 0.592213 69 64 Random
East Caldera 0.293261 0
-
10.385225 8 27 Clustered
North Game Drive 0.212793 0 -29.70261 7 32 Clustered
South Game Drive 1.626457 0.000003 4.641599 26 16 Dispersed
Micro
Cluster 1 1.677148 0.001508 3.173148 14 9 Dispersed
Cluster 4 0.813371 0.074234 -1.785167 9 11 Clustered
Table 3: Results of nearest neighbor analysis on the macro and micro clusters.

57
The northern game drive line group produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.021. The
value is considerably lower than 1 (by -29.70 standard deviations), which indicates the hunting
features that comprise this grouping are highly clustered. This result is statistically significant to
at least the 0.05 confidence level. The mean intra-feature distance for this grouping is 7
meters, with an expected mean distance of 32.
The southern game drive line group produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.016. The
value is considerably higher than 1 (by 4.64 standard deviations), which indicates the hunting
features that comprise this grouping are dispersed. This result is statistically significant to at
least the 0.01 confidence level. The mean intra-feature distance for this grouping is 26 meters,
with an expected mean distance of 16.
The west caldera group produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 1.07. The value is slightly
higher than 1 (by 0.59 standard deviations), which indicates the hunting features that comprise
this grouping are random. This result is not statistically significant to the 0.05 confidence level.
The mean intra-feature distance for this grouping is 69 meters, with an expected mean distance
of 64.
The east caldera group produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.29. The value is lower
than 1 (by -10.39 standard deviations), which indicates the hunting features that comprise this
grouping are highly clustered. This result is statistically significant to at least the 0.01 level. The
mean intra-feature distance for this grouping is 8 meters, with an expected mean distance of
27.

58
Micro Clusters
A second run of nearest neighbor was applied to the calderas hunting feature dataset
(micro population dataset) for only the features associated with Twin Calderas to aid in testing
the statistical significance (student's t-test) of the proximities of clusters nearest to a
corresponding ice patch in each caldera. The average observed mean distance produced is 8
meters, with an expected mean distance of 6 meters. After this, the analysis was repeated on
the five micro clusters generated in the prior analyses. The process measured feature
dispersion within each cluster, and the mean distances between features.
Cluster 1 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 1.68. The value is higher than 1 (by 3.17
standard deviations), which indicates the hunting features that comprise this grouping are
dispersed. This result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05 confidence level. The mean
intra-feature distance for this grouping is 14 meters, with an expected mean distance of 9
meters.
meters.

59
meters.
Cluster 4 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.81. The value is lower than 1 (by -1.79
slightly clustered. This result is not statistically significant to the 0.05 confidence level. The
mean intra-feature distance for this grouping is 9 meters, with an expected mean distance of 11
meters.
meters.
Macro Cluster Distances From Ice/Snow Patches
Feature Cluster Observed Expected
West Caldera 257 1500
East Caldera 238 1500
South Kuzitrin Lake 555 1500
*Expected mean distance derived from the observed mean distance of all hunting features to the
ice/snow patches distributed throughout the study area (62.57 km² or 15,465 acres).
Table 4: Observed and expected mean distances used in the student's t-test

60
Student's T-Test Results
A student’s t-test (t-test) was used to determine the statistical significance of the
observed and expected mean distances between feature clusters and ice/snow patches. All
distances were obtained from the relevant spider database. In this particular case, the
expected mean distance used in the t-test is derived from the average distance (1,500 meters)
between each hunting feature and each ice/snow patches in the study area.
Macro Clusters
The result of the t-test returned a p-value of 0.015, indicates there is a less than 5%
chance these clusters are randomly distributed in relation to ice and snow patches. This rejects
the null hypothesis and allows for an alternative hypothesis to be posited.
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 350 1500
Variance 31609 0
Observations 3 1
Pooled Variance 31609
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 2
t Stat -5.601741887
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0152
t Critical one-tail 2.91998558
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0304
t Critical two-tail 4.30265273
Table 5: Student's t-test results for macro clusters
Macro clusters are non-randomly distributed around the ice/snow patches in the study
area, with over 95% confidence. All macro clusters are within considerable range of the
expected mean distance.

61
Micro Clusters
Micro Cluster Distances From Ice/Snow Patches
Feature Cluster Observed Expected
Cluster 1 267 1500
Cluster 2 113 1500
Cluster 3 141 1500
Cluster 4 294 1500
Cluster 5 312 1500
*Expected mean distance derived from the observed mean distance of all hunting features to the
ice/snow patches distributed throughout the study area (62.57 km² or 15,465 acres).
Table 6: Observed and expected mean distances used in the student's t-test
Another t-test was performed on the spider database to test statistical significance of
observed and expected mean distances between the micro clusters and the nearest associated
ice patch in the calderas. The result of the t-test returned a p-value of 0.011, indicating there is
a greater than 99% chance micro clusters are purposefully grouped near the ice patches in each
caldera.
Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 225.4 1500
Variance 8423.3 0
Observations 5 1
Pooled Variance 8423.3
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 4
t Stat -12.67774922
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.01115
t Critical one-tail 2.131846786
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.02229
t Critical two-tail 2.776445105
Table 7: Student's t-test results for micro clusters

62
Micro clusters are within a statistically meaningful proximity of the ice/snow patches in
the study area (with greater than 99% confidence), while macro clusters (i.e., the southern
game drive line) are also near ice/snow patches (with greater than 95% confidence). All
observed mean distances of each case are well below their expected mean distances. The
functional relationship between clusters and their nearest respective ice patch cannot be
absolutely verified in the absence of physical evidence manifest in archaeofaunal material, and
the patches located in the calderas may very well be a natural coincidence, but spatial
proximities of these clusters to their respective ice/snow patches is certainly significant.
Summary of Feature Cluster and Ice/Snow Patch Results
The results of these analyses presented above correlate well with the expectations
developed for this study. The identification of four macro clusters suggests there were in fact
at least four distinct intercept hunting localities used by foraging groups in their pursuit of a
high-ranking prey item (caribou) in the study area. The clustering of hunting features in close
proximity to ice/snow patches within the study area strongly supports the supposition that
group-based (or communal) hunting tactics were employed in relation to ice/snow patches.
Though a version of the community hunting strategy (lake-based game drives) for the study
area has been well documented, this research contends that an alternative ice/snow patch
collective hunting tactic was employed at the unique macro clusters around each caldera as
well as at the southern game drive line. If true, this would be the first documented evidence of
a game drive hunting strategy associated with ice/snow patches in this region.

63
6.5 Settlement and Socioterritorialism
This inquiry is based on the spatial distributions of 227 prehistoric settlements across
Seward Peninsula (127,267 km²; or 31,448,235 acres). The criteria used in the selection of
settlements for this study are quite generic and do not exhibit any level of temporal control. As
such, any settlement with a prehistoric component (which possibly represent a sequence of late
Holocene temporal/cultural sequences) was selected, provided there are at least ten
permanent house pit features. Though, this dataset does not account for the palimpsest nature
of archaeological manifestations, the dataset is based on the premise, 'a good place to camp, is
a good place to camp.' The study assumes foraging group settlements and subsistence practices
have remained largely consistent throughout the late Holocene (see context). The locations and
descriptions of the each settlements used in the study were obtained from the Alaska
Archaeological Heritage Resources Survey database (AHRS 2006).
The objective of this inquiry is to investigate prehistoric settlement distribution patterns
in order to illustrate socioterritorial power centers or optimally arranged home base networks.
This section provides the results of the spatial point analysis, and further investigates the use of
cost-distance algorithms in GIS to factor the environmental variables (slope and hydrology) with
the greatest influence on forager mobility.
Spider Analysis Results
The first step in addressing this inquiry was to perform a spider script on the settlement
dataset. The result of the script is a prerequisite to further spatial point analyses, which will use
the distances produced in the spider database.

64
The spider script was executed on the settlement dataset to diagram the distances
between each of the selected settlements in Seward Peninsula. This resulted in the creation of
a line shapefile and associated database comprising 25,764 unique distance measurements.
The associated spider database tabulated information pertaining to the point of origin
(settlement) and destination object (settlement) for each of the lines, including the sum
distance for each line. The line shapefile is a graphic representation of the distances between
each of the 227 settlements in GIS, while the associated database contains their spatial
proximities.
Hierarchical Cluster Analyses Results
Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the spider settlement database to
illustrate clustering patterns of all settlements which are with a range of 5 to 17 kilometers.
This range was selected based on a hypothetical home base and the furthest resource patch
available to it, considering pedestrian and dog traction modes of travel.
Hierarchical cluster analysis grouped 213 of the 227 selected settlements into twelve
settlement clusters (or home base networks) distributed across Seward Peninsula. These
clusters range in size from 4 to 51 settlements (figure 14).
Settlement Clusters
Cluster 1 is westernmost group in Seward Peninsula (also the westernmost point of the
continent). The cluster is composed of 23 settlement, which are arranged in a linear pattern

65
Figure 15: Results of the spider diagram combined with the hierarchical clustering analysis.

66
along the coast. The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of settlement
strategies along coastal stretches, and represents the Kiŋikmiut (Wales).
Cluster 2 is located northeast of cluster 1 and is composed of nine settlements, which
are arranged mainly along the coast, but also the confluence of Serpentine River and
Shishmaref Lagoon. The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of settlement
strategies along coastal stretches and in the interior watersheds, and represents the
Tapqaġmiut (Shishmaref) socioterritory.
Cluster 3 is located on the northeast portion of Seward Peninsula. The cluster is
composed of 31 settlements, which are concentrated mainly along the coast, but up the major
drainages in the area. The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of settlement
strategies along coastal stretches and in the interior watersheds, and represents the Pittaġmiut
(Buckland) socioterritory.
Cluster 4 is located south of cluster 3 and is composed of 19 settlements, which are
predominately lining the coast. of settlement strategies along coastal stretches and in the
interior watersheds, and represents the Pittaġmiut (Buckland) socioterritory.
Cluster 5 is southeastern most group in Seward Peninsula. Cluster is composed of six
settlements, which predominately line the coast. The pattern corresponds well with
ethnohistoric accounts of settlement strategies along coastal stretches, and represents the
Kuuyuġmiut (Yup'ik) socioterritory.

67
Cluster 6 is located west of cluster 5, and is composed of 24 settlements, which
predominately line the coast. The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of
settlement strategies along coastal stretches, and represents the Kałuaġmiut (Yup'ik)
socioterritory.
Cluster 7 is located west of cluster 6, and is composed of five settlements, which
settlement strategies along coastal stretches, and represents the Ayaasaġiaġmiut (Nome)
socioterritory.
Cluster 8 is located west of cluster 7, and is composed of 15 settlements, which
settlement strategies along coastal stretches, and represents the Ayaasaġiaġmiut (Nome)
socioterritory.
Cluster 9 is located north of cluster 8, and is composed of five settlements, which
settlement strategies along coastal stretches, but represents the settlements of two
socioterritories (Ayaasaġiaġmiut and Sinġaġmiut).
Cluster 10 is located east of cluster 9 and is highest concentration of sites in the interior
reaches of Seward Peninsula. The cluster is composed of 51 settlements, which are
predominately located along major rivers and wetlands, but some also around Imuruk Basin (a
large salt-water lagoon). The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of

68
settlement strategies along major watersheds, but represents the settlements of two
socioterritories (Qaviazaġmiut and Sinġaġmiut).
Cluster 11 is located north of the Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area. The
cluster is composed of four settlements, located within the Goodhope River watershed. The
pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric accounts of settlement strategies along interior
watersheds, and represents the Pittaġmiut (Buckland) socioterritory dominion over this
exploitation area by the Iñupiat group.
Cluster 12 bisects the Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area in a north-south
alignment. The cluster is composed of 21 settlements, located within the Kuzitrin, Kugruk,
Koyuk, Fish and Noxapaga River watersheds. The pattern corresponds well with ethnohistoric
accounts of settlement strategies along major watersheds in the interior, but represents the
socioterritories of three Iñupiat (Qaviazaġmiut, Pittaġmiut, and Kaŋinmiiut) and two Yupik
(Kuuyuġmiut and Kałuaġmiut) groups.
Nearest Neighbor Analysis Results
Settlement Clusters
Initially, nearest neighbor was applied to the entire settlement data (population data)
for Seward Peninsula. The average observed mean distance produced is 3.71 kilometers, with
an expected mean distance of 8.35 kilometers. After this initial application of nearest neighbor,
the analysis was completed on the 12 settlement clusters generated in the prior analyses. The
process measured patterns of settlement dispersion within each cluster, and the mean
distances between settlements.

69
Cluster
Nearest
Neighbor Ratio p-value z-score observed expected Pattern
All
Settlements 0.46345 0
-
16.741014 3599 7766 Clustered
Cluster 3 0.46015 0 -7.004588 1174 2552 Clustered
Cluster 5 2.502305 0 7.039869 6337 2532 Dispersed
Cluster 6 0.998729 0.990698 -0.011658 2746 2749 Random
Cluster 8 0.941193 0.663042 -0.435717 4958 5268 Random
Cluster 10 0.605934 0 -5.691633 2751 4539 Clustered
Table 8: Results of nearest neighbor analysis on the settlement clusters.
Cluster 1 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.50. The value is considerably lower
than 1 (by -5.02 standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this
grouping are highly clustered. The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05
confidence level. The mean inter-settlement distance for this grouping is 1.76 kilometers with
an expected mean of 3.49 kilometers. This tight clumping pattern may be indicative of a power
center of socially relatable settlements.
standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are dispersed.
The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05 confidence level. The mean inter-
settlement distance for this grouping is 6.48 kilometers with an expected mean of 4.56
kilometers. This relatively dispersed pattern (in comparison the mean distances of other
clusters with observed mean distances <5 kilometers) serves as a prime example of central
place foraging from a socially linked network of home bases.

70
than 1 (by -7 standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping
are highly clustered. The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05 confidence level.
The mean inter-settlement distance for this grouping is 1.17 kilometers with an expected mean
of 2.55 kilometers. This tight clumping pattern may be indicative of a power center of socially
relatable settlements.
Cluster 4 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.68. The value is ower than 1 (by -3.01
standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are highly
clustered. The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05 confidence level. The mean
inter-settlement distance for this grouping is 2.88 kilometers with an expected mean of 4.25
kilometers. This tight clumping pattern may be indicative of a power center of socially relatable
settlements.
Cluster 6 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 1. The value is 1 (by -0.01 standard
deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are randomly

71
distributed. This result is not statistically significant to the 0.05 confidence level. The mean
kilometers. This seemingly random distribution pattern may be indicative of an abnormally
arranged power center or home base network of socially relatable settlements.
Cluster 8 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.94. The value is slightly lower than 1
(by -0.44 standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are
randomly distributed. This result is not statistically significant to the 0.05 confidence level. The
mean inter-settlement distance for this grouping is 4.96 kilometers with an expected mean of
5.27 kilometers. This seemingly random distribution pattern may be indicative of an
abnormally arranged power center or home base network of socially relatable settlements.

72
than 1 (by -5.69 standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this
grouping are highly clustered. The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05
confidence level. The mean inter-settlement distance for this grouping is 2.75 kilometers with
an expected mean of 4.54 kilometers. This tight clumping pattern may be indicative of a power
center of socially relatable settlements.
standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are highly
dispersed. The result is statistically significant to at least the 0.05 confidence level. The mean
Cluster 12 produced a nearest neighbor ratio of 0.73. The value is lower than 1 (by -2.63
standard deviations), which suggests the settlements that comprise this grouping are clustered.

73
kilometers. This clustering pattern may be indicative of a power center of socially relatable
settlements.
Summary of Spatial Analytical Results
The results of these analyses presented above correspond strongly with ethnohistoric
depictions of marine or terrestrial resource-based settlement patterns on Seward Peninsula.
Several of these groups (2, 5, 7, 9 and 11) are relatively dispersed (>5 kilometers) in comparison
to the remaining groups (1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) which are clustered. As such the dispersed
groups are thought to be indicative of prehistoric settlements systems which are optimally
arranged in a network of socially relatable home bases. Conversely, clustered groups are likely
indicative of socially relatable power centers.
Cluster 12 is an anomaly in this research chiefly because it's long linear distribution
bisects the traditional territories of five ethnohistoric groups. This cluster also runs through the
Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area. These spatial point analyses are based on Euclidean
distances, which do not account for natural frictions. The following sections outline how cost-
surface analyses can be used to reconcile questions of socioterritorial dominion.
Cost-Surface Results
Slope and hydrology were selected at the environmental variables that have the
greatest influence on forager mobility. The process required the importation of a 24,000 scale
digital elevation model (DEM, or hillshade) into GIS. The DEM aided in the generation of
requisite slope friction (cost-surface), which is later used to determine cost-distances and least-
cost paths.

74
Figure 16: Slope cost-surface generated in GIS.

75
Figure 15 illustrates the slope percentages (varying shades of green) of the landscape
immediately around the Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area (red outline). The major
rivers (blue lines) have also been delineated. For comparison, the map includes settlement
cluster 12 (orange lines) and linked Thiessen Polygons (or Voronoi tessellations [black
boundary]) to show an ethnohistoric depiction of socioterritory in the study area. Based solely
on slope characteristics, the study area appears to be more easily accessible from the Kuzitrin,
Noxapaga, Kugruk and Koyuk River watersheds. A direct path from Fish River watershed is
obstructed by the Bendeleben Mountains. However, cost-distance and least-cost path analyses
have been provided in the following section to illustrate this point.
Distance and Time Expenditures Caloric Cost
Mode rate/hr (km)
roundtrip
distance/day Human Dog
winter
Snow Shoeing 2 20 7913
Dog Traction 10 100 6104 10000
non-winter
Pedestrian 3 30 7157
Umiak/Kayak 5 50 9263
Table 9: Time and caloric costs incurred by each mode of travel.
Cost-Distance Results
A cost-distance algorithm generated four separate isotropic cost surfaces from all
settlements used for this study. The reason for creating four cost surfaces is based on the
modes of travel available to prehistoric foraging groups in Seward Peninsula throughout much
of the late Holocene. The limits of each mode of travel based on a 10-hour 'return to base'
(Wheatley and Gillings 2002: 162) to exploit resources within respective catchments. The color
coded class breaks are every 2 hours. As expected, home bases and

77
Figure 17: Cost-distance based on non-winter modes of travel from settlements adjacent to the study area. (left) is the total
return to home base using river travel by boat. (Right) is the total return to base using only pedestrian means. Bottom row
are 2-D replications of both instances.
their associated site catchments merge progressively with one another, as influenced by the
variable distances of each travel option. Table 10 illustrates the values ascribed to the rates,
total daily distances and caloric expenditures accumulated in a 10-hour day for each mode of
travel in this study (see previous chapter for context).
Figure 16 represents modes of travel exclusive to non-winter months (i.e., pedestrian
and boating). Boating was likely a preferred mode of travel over pedestrian means, especially
when moving from one settlement to the next in a watershed system. Though it requires the
most caloric cost of all modes, it also offers the best means of conveying gear, people, and
procured game over moderate expanses in a relatively short time.
Figure 17 is representative of exclusively winter travel, such as snow shoeing and dog
traction. Snow shoeing is the least efficient mode of travel in comparison to the others, and
requires even more caloric costs than walking in the non-winter months. Dog traction could
have some advantages in regards to moving extra gear, people and procured game over large
expanses in a relatively short time. Carrying enough food resources to feed a hungry team
could prove to be a challenge. Additionally, dog traction is not an efficient travel mode in hilly
or mountainous areas and use of this option is almost exclusively on flat and open terrain (e.g.,
coastal plains and river drainages). Consequently, this mode is not a viable option for crossing
the Bendelebens due to its extreme slope variants (from, both, Nuikluk or Fish River
watersheds).

78
Figure 18: Cost-distance based on winter modes of travel from settlements adjacent to the study area. (left) is the total
return to home base using river travel by dog traction. (Right) is the total return to base using only pedestrian (snow
shoeing) means. Bottom row are 2-D replications of both instances.

79
Least-Cost Path Results
A least-cost path algorithm produced the distances between the study area and the
nearest settlement in the adjacent watershed systems. It produced a Manhattan distance for
each route, which is regarded as a more realistic measure of travel over uneven spaces. Figure
18 illustrates the least-cost path for each corresponding settlement to the study area. It also
shows the only navigable rivers to (Kuzitrin R) or near (Koyuk R) the study area. Though the
routes from the Nuikluk and Fish River watersheds are seemingly shorter (based on Euclidean
Distance), the Manhattan distances of each is substantial. Table 11 shows the variables of travel
for each route. As you can see some modes of travel are not possible considering the terrain.
Figure 19: Least-cost paths from adjacent settlements to the study area. Also noted are navigable river channels.

80
Least Cost Path to Kuzitrin Lake
Distance (km)
Time Investment per Mode of Travel (10-
hour days)
Nearest
Settlement
(watershed)
Travel
Slope
Change
River
Distance Manhattan
Distance
Walking
(3
km/hr)
Snow
Shoeing
(2 km/hr)
Traction
(10
km/hr)
Boating
(5
km/hr)
Kuzitrin River 106 37.4 74.1 2.47 3.71 0.74 0.75
Niukluk River -299 59.7 1.99 2.99
N/A N/A
Fish River -294 109.2 3.64 5.46
Koyuk River 1215 25.5 87.6 2.92 4.38 0.88 0.51
Kugruk River 1514 52.8 1.76 2.64 0.53
N/ANoxapaga
River 1060 46.8 1.56 2.34 0.47
Table 10: Least-cost path results.
For purposes of comparison, this study offers a hypothetical scenario. As such, each
route is traversed by a hunting group comprised of an equal composition of six men and
women (comparable to an ethnographic kinship unit) using only available modes of travel.
Winter travel using dog traction would require a dog team of five for each pair (n=3). Transport
along the navigable river drainages would require an unknown quantity of boats. The caloric
index provided in table 12 shows the energy expenditure of available travel modes to complete
a oneway trip along each route: Column one is the watershed associated route; column two is
non-winter walking; column three is winter walking; column four is non-winter boating; column
five is dog traction; and column 6 represents the caloric cost to dogs.
route walking snowsh boating traction dogs
Kuzitrin R. 106067 175906 55582 13569 111150
Nuikluk R. 85455 141722
NA
Fish R. 156309 259230
Koyuk R. 125391 207954 28345 16041 131400
Kugruk R. 75578 125342
NA
9669 79200
Noxapaga R. 66990 111099 8570 70200
Table 11: Total caloric cost for a six member hunting party. If dog traction is an option, then a team of five dogs will incur
caloric costs as well.

81
Based on the caloric index in table 12, a pattern of prehistoric mobility can be elucidated.
Kugruk and Noxapaga to the north of the study area, are attributed with the least-cost paths in terms of
non-winter pedestrian means of travel. Nuikluk route is perhaps a moderate expenditure in comparison
to the others, but travel is restricted to pedestrian means (walking and snow shoeing). Fish River is
considered to most costly in terms of caloric expenditures, and modes of travel are limited to pedestrian
means (walking and snow shoeing). Koyuk could have combined boating and walking to finish a journey
during the non-winter months. Kuzitrin is only the journey that could be completed with each mode of
travel. Certainly a large boat or two may have facilitated in the movement of caribou resources (meat,
hide, antler and bone) downriver to relateable settlements, and possibly the power center.
Table 13 illustrates the quantity of processed caribou (48260 calories) needed to
complete the hypothetical journey along each route. The use of dog traction provides easy
access to/from the study area from Kuzitrin, Koyuk, Kugruk and Noxapaga routes during the
winter. However, Kuzitrin is the only route that could freely access the study area via boat
during the non-winter months. Thus based on optimal foraging, groups inhabiting the Kuzitrin
watershed were ideally positioned to travel to and from the study area. The use of these
efficient modes would have facilitated the transport of caribou or other resources procured in
the study area to settlements downriver.
route walking snowsh boating Traction dogs
Kuzitrin R. 2.2 3.6 1.2 0.3 2.3
Nuikluk R. 1.8 2.9
Fish R. 3.2 5.4
Koyuk R. 2.6 4.3 0.6 0.3 2.7
Kugruk R. 1.6 2.6 0.2 1.6
Noxapaga R. 1.4 2.3 0.2 1.5
Table 12: Quantity of processed caribou (48260 calories) needed to complete a journey to or from the study area.

82
7.0 CONCLUSION
This research has applied evolutionary theory to a geospatial analysis of prehistoric
hunting features in an effort to identify a link between feature clustering and the proximities of
ice/snow patches at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas, and in doing so, illustrate an
undocumented intercept game drive tactic used in the summer when caribou are broadly
dispersed. This thesis sought to clarify the spatial distribution patterns of hunting features in
the study area and settlements of Seward Peninsula, determine if feature and settlements
cluster on the landscape consistent with the expectations derived from optimal foraging theory,
and explain how their spatial patterns can reveal prehistoric hunter-gatherer lands use in the
study area. The hypothesis offered at the beginning of this study was that collective hunting
tactics employed by prehistoric foraging groups were shaped by a drive to achieve net energy
optimality, and that hunting groups would maximize energy and time expenditures to exploit
the highest-ranking prey resources within their limits of available travel modes.
The main objective of this chapter is to examine the results of the analyses. These
results will be evaluated against the expectations derived from the study's hypothesis.
Subsequent sections will provide a discussion of the results derived from this study.
7.1 Temporal Affiliations and Palimpsests Nature of Stone Features and Settlements
A paramount concern associated with archaeological phenomena is the assessment of
their age. This shortfall is made even more difficult by the palimpsest nature inherent in
archaeology (UL 2010: 1-10), where there is likely continuous use of many stone features and
settlements over long periods of time (Binford 1982; Brook 1980; Delacorte 1985; Pendelton
and Thomas 1983). There are several methods used in research to assess the ages of stone

83
features (proximity to diagnostic artifacts, surface patination and weathering, radiometric
dating of organic inclusions, and Lichenometry) (Bednarik 2002) and archaeological sites.
The hunting features at Twin Calderas have been dated in previous work to at least 240
years ± 80 BP (Beta #13810) (Schaaf 1988), but the main principal settlement at Kuzitrin Lake
(BEN-053) has been dated with intercepts of 5568, 5525 and 5480 (Beta #39514) (Harritt 1994:
11), which is the earliest known occupation of the area. This suggests the area is representative
of a continuum of prehistoric use throughout the late Holocene. Most of the settlements used
in this study have not been subject to radiometric dating. Thus, an assumption had to be made
that the hunting features and settlements used in this study span all temporal sequences of the
late Holocene.
7.2 Evaluation of Expectations and Hypothesis
The goal of this dissertation was to answer the question: to what extent were
prehistoric subsistence and settlement strategies influenced by the presence of ice/snow
patches in the study area? The hypothesis posited settlement and subsistence strategies
employed by prehistoric foraging groups were shaped by a drive to achieve net energy
optimality. Chapter 3 developed three expectations stemming from the hypothesis presented
in this study. These expectations will now be evaluated in sequence.
Hunting Features and Ice/snow patches
The first expectation developed for this study was that hunting features at Kuzitrin Lake
and Twin Calderas will tend to cluster in proximity to ice/snow patches, which would be
indicative of a collective intercept hunting tactic that was employed in the summer. Biological
observations of caribou indicate the animals seek ice and snow patches for thermoregulation

84
and insect relief. A review of the regional anthropological literature yielded no documented
evidence of intercept hunting features in proximity to ice/snow patches used for hunting
caribou. There are examples of caribou encounter hunting tactics related to ice/snow patches
employed by the ethnographic groups in Alaska and Yukon, but there has been no documented
evidence of an intercept game driving system associated with those patches. Ethnohistoric
literature for Seward Peninsula has established the importance of caribou hunting during
migration (late spring and late fall) using the well known lake-based game drive system (north
shore of Kuzitrin Lake). There are also accounts of summer caribou hunting in the study area,
although the tactics employed by hunting groups have represented somewhat of an enigma to
archaeologists. The use of ice/snow patches by a small hunting group would maximize the
successful harvest of dispersed caribou in the summer, where a typical communal game drive
tactic was not feasible considering the rather low yield on caloric returns (i.e., solitary or small
groups of caribou). To test this expectation I utilized spatial point analyses (spider diagram and
hierarchical cluster).
Spider analysis produced Euclidean distances between each hunting feature cluster and
their nearest ice/snow patch in the study area. Hierarchical cluster analysis was completed on
the distances generated by spider analysis. The cluster analysis created four macro groups,
each of which represents a distinct hunting system, and five micro groups represent the
clumping of features around both calderas. The results of these clusters were verified by
nearest neighbor analysis. The cluster analysis indicated that, with the exception of the 'west
caldera,' the macro hunting features cluster on the landscape in groups of 15 to 389.
Additionally, cluster analysis indicated that all micro hunting features are clustered around the

85
calderas in groups of 6 to 25. A student's t-test indicated the macro and micro hunting feature
clusters are within statistically significant range of the expected mean distance to ice/snow
patches. These results are consistent with the expectation derived from optimal foraging
theory, that ice/snow patches were used by small hunting groups to maximize the successful
procurement of dispersed caribou in the summer.
Settlement Distribution Patterns
The second expectation was that settlements of Seward Peninsula will cluster in
patterns that can be recognized as socioterritorial power centers or optimally arranged home
base networks. Ethnohistoric literature suggests that land use strategies were focused on two
predominant exploitation themes (marine mammal and caribou resources) in the region.
Furthermore, by all accounts, each ethnohistoric society held socioterritorial dominion over,
coastal stretches, individual watershed systems or a combination of the two. There has been a
wealth of ethnoarchaeologial research done to decipher settlement distribution patterns in
order to illustrate socioterritorial power centers and optimally arranged home base networks.
Densely clustered settlements are indicative of socioterritorial power centers, from which a
relatable foraging group could influence boundaries and decisions of other hunter-gatherer
groups. Based on the tenets of optimal foraging, via central place foraging, resource
exploitation territories would be comprised of a network of optimally dispersed home bases in
order to maximize caloric returns against time and energy expenditures. The study area is
considered a high-ranking prey patch based on the abundance and reliability of caribou, which
can be harvested in aggregate during migration or while dispersed in the summer. From this
perspective, the foraging groups adjacent to the study area would have been attracted by the

86
tactical advantages offered by the unique topogeological character of this unique landscape.
Decisions made by adjacent foraging groups to travel to the study area would have presented a
number of logistical concerns that incurred various time and energy expenditures. To test this
expectation I utilized spatial point analyses (spider diagram and hierarchical cluster).
Spider analysis was used to derive Euclidean distances between each prehistoric
settlement (≥10 house pit features) in Seward Peninsula. Hierarchical cluster analysis was
completed on the distances generated by spider analysis. The cluster analysis created twelve
settlement clusters. The results of these clusters were verified by nearest neighbor analysis.
The cluster analysis indicated that, with the exception of clusters 6 and 8, the settlements
clustered or dispersed on Seward Peninsula in groups of 4 to 51. Several of these groups (2, 5,
7, 9 and 11) are relatively dispersed (>5 kilometers) in comparison to the remaining groups (1,
3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) which are clustered. The dispersed groups are thought to be indicative of
prehistoric settlements systems which are optimally arranged in a network of socially relatable
home bases. Conversely, clustered groups are likely indicative of socially relatable power
centers, which corresponds strongly with ethnohistoric depictions of socioterritorial boundaries
(compare figures 9 and 15). Cluster 12 is an anomaly in this study, chiefly because it's long
linear distribution bisects the traditional territories of five ethnohistoric groups and crosses
variable landforms (i.e., Bendelebens to the south, rivers/wetlands, and lava beds). This cluster
also happens to run through the Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas study area. Spatial point
analysis are based on Euclidean distances and do not account for natural frictions, which is
investigated in the final expectation for this study.

87
Least-Cost Paths in Resolving Socioterritorial Dominion over a Distant Patch
The final expectation of this research is that socioterritorial control over the study area
can be determined on the basis of optimal foraging. The process aims to critically assess the
time and energy expenditures incurred by an adjacent prehistoric hunter-gatherer group
travelling to the study area. There have been many anthropological studies in recent decades
which have demonstrated the applicability of cost-distance and least-cost paths to define the
spatial extents of site catchments and socioterritories. To evaluate this expectation I generated
cost-distance and least-cost path algorithms in GIS to produce Manhattan distances for each
route.
The resulting distances were subjected to a hypothetical (albeit realistic) model (Chapter
6) to demonstrate the time and energy costs of a small (six member) prehistoric hunting group
travelling to the study area from a corresponding adjacent settlement. The model used a
stepwise approach to illustrate the differences (Manhattan distances) between travel modes
for every route, such as: time investments; total caloric expenditure; and caloric intake that
would be required to balance energy expenditures. The interpretation of this exercise is
revealed below.
Pedestrian travel could be easily achieved from the Kuzitrin, Nuikluk, Kugruk and
Noxapaga routes during the non-winter months. Travel to the study area from the Nuikluk and
Fish groups would have been restricted to pedestrian means, which would likely be perilous
while crossing the Benedelens in winter. The use of dog traction provided easy access and the
most efficeint means of travel to/from the study area along the Kuzitrin, Koyuk, Kugruk and
Noxapaga routes during the winter. Likewise, travel via boat during the non-winter months to
the study area could only be completed along the Kuzitrin River, while all other adjacent rivers

88
are not connected to Kuzitrin Lake. The combined use of these efficient modes would have
facilitated the transport of caribou or other resources procured in the study area to settlements
downriver all year long. Therefore based on optimal foraging, prehistoric groups inhabiting the
Kuzitrin watershed were ideally positioned to travel to and from the study area and thus claim
socioterritorial dominion over its resources. This claim is supported by ethnohistoric accounts
of territorial ownership by the Qaviazaġmiut (Kuzitrin watershed group).
7.3 Discussion
The expectations presented in this research have been statistically validated and are
premised on optimal foraging. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that prehistoric foraging groups
maximized caribou exploitation by engaging in a unique collective hunting tactic associated
with the ice/snow patches at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas, and that socioterritorial
dominion over the area was dictated by available modes of travel and the time and energy
costs required to complete a journey. The following models have been provided to discuss one
version of reality.
Caribou Hunting Tactics at Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas
I offer the following interpretation of the hunting tactics employed at Kuzitrin Lake and
Twin Calderas. The systems represent two seasonally differentiated intercept hunting
strategies: a lake-based game drive system (north of Kuzitrin Lake); and the others (southern
game drive line, and both calderas). Figure 20 shows the likely route of fleeing caribou to
known hunting blinds or the lake. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate that the ice patches in each
caldera could not have been the intended ambush locations, based the effective range of a
primitive bow (20-50 meters) (Pope 1918). This may also be a reason why survey crews were

89
unable to find any cultural material on or near the ice sheets. The rainbow colored spectrum in
each figure represent a range spacing of 10-meter increments from each hunting blind. As we
can see there the ambush areas have been defined by an optimal overlap (i.e., safe and
effective range of a primitive bow) between opposing blinds on the west caldera spillway as
well as a grassy exposure on east caldera. In this scenario the game were likely harassed by
hunters stationed among the clusters closest to an ice patch, and driven to the ambush
locations. This hunting tactic and the topogeological advantages offered by the ruggedly steep
Figure 20: Model of hunting represented at each macro cluster.
walls of each caldera could have been successfully employed by a small group of hunters.
Based the results of an energy expenditure formula, the harvest of even one caribou would
have sustained a small group of six hunters for 10 to 12 days. Thus, it is likely this tactic was
repeated throughout the summer.

90
Figure 21: Model of hunting tactic employed at East Caldera.

91
Figure 22: Model of hunting tactic employed at West Caldera

92
Late Holocene Model of Settlement and Subsistence
I offer an alternative model of late Holocene hunter-gatherer land use based on the
findings of this research. The static model presented in figure 23 is provided as a heuristic
device for future investigation into late Holocene caribou hunting and settlement in Seward
Peninsula.
Figure 23: Hueristic model of subsistence and settlement patterns centered on caribou exploitation at Kuzitrin Lake and
Twin Calderas (adapted from Bowyer 2011).

93
Bibliography
Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns: Recent Research in the Southern Lakes Region, Yukon. . (1984). Canadian
Archaeological Association’s 17th Annual Meeting. Whitehorse: Yukon Heritage Branch.
Evolutionary ecology and human reproduction. (1998). Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 347-74.
Sled Dog Diet. (2012). (D. Sled, Producer) Retrieved 09 2012, from Dogsled:
http://www.dogsled.com/sled-dog-diet/
al., S. Z. (1994). A GIS-based analysis of Later Prehistoric settlement patterns in Dolenjska, Slovenia. In
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993. Oxford: BAR
International Series.
Aldenderfer, M. (1982). Methods of Cluster Validation for Archaeology. World Archaeology, 14(1), 61-
72.
Anderson, D. D. (1988). Onion Portage: The Archaeology of a Stratified Site from Kobuk River, Northwest
Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, 22(1-2).
Andrews, T. e. (2009). Archaeological Investigations of Alpine Ice Patches in the Selwyn Mountains,
Northwest Territories, Canada. Paper presented at the Frozen Pasts Conference: Second
International Glacial Archaeology Symposium. October 5-7. Trondheim, Norway.
Andrews, T. e. (2010). Brief Overview of the NWT Ice Patch Study. Unpublished Report on file with T.
Andrews. Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre. Yellowknife.
Arroyo, A. (2009). The Use of Optimal Foraging Theory to Estimate Late Glacial Site Catchment Areas
from a Central Place: The Case of Eastern Cantabria, Spain. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology, 28, 27-37.
Bailey, T. (1994). A review of statistical spatial analysis in geographical information systems. In S. F.
Rogerson (Ed.), Spatial Analysis and GIS (pp. 13-44). Bristol: Taylor and Francis.
Bamforth, D. (1988). Ecology of Human Organization on the Great Plains. New York: Plenum Press.
Banfield, A. (1974). The Mammals of Canada. The Natural Museum of Natural Sciences. Toronto:
National Museums of Canada. University of Toronto Press.
Banning, E. (2002). Archaeological Survey. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

94
Barton, C. M. (2004). The Ecology of Human Colonization in Pristine Landscapes. In G. A. C. M. Barton
(Ed.), The Settlement of the American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human
Biogeography (pp. 138-61). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bayham, F. E. (2011). Large Game Exploitation and Intertribal Boundaries on the Fringe of the Western
Great Basin. In D. Rhode (Ed.), Beyond the Fringe. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Beck, C. a. (1990). Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of
Field Archaeology, 17(3), 283-99.
Beck, R. (2008). Transport Distance and Distance and Debitage Assemblage Diversity: An Application of
the Field Processing model to Southern Utah Toolstone Procurement Sites. American Antiquity,
73(4), 759-80.
Bednarik, R. (2002). The Dating of Rock Art: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 1213-1233.
Benedict, J. (1996). The Game Drives of Rocky Mountain National Parkes of Rocky Mountain National
Park. Research Report Number 7. Denver: Center Gold Mountain Graphics.
Benedict, J. (2005). Tundra Game Drives: an Arctic-Alpine Comparison. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine
Research, 37(4), 425-34.
Benedict, J. R. (2008). Spruce Trees from a Melting Ice Patch: Evidence for Holocene Climate Change in
the Colorado Mountains, USA. The Holocene, 18(7), 1067-1076.
Bergman, C. A. (1997). Sinew Reinforced and Composite Bows: Technology, Function and Social
Implications. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile Technology (pp. 143-64). New York: Plenum Press.
Binford, L. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Binford, L. (1980). Willow Smoke and Dog's Tales: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity, 45, 4-20.
Binford, L. (1981a). Behavioral Archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise.". Journal of Anthropological
Research, 35, 195-208.
Binford, L. (1981b). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.
Binford, L. (1982). Long-term Land-Use Patterns: Some Implications for. In R. D. Grayson (Ed.), Lulu
Linear Punctuated Equilibrium. Essays in Honour of George Irving Quimby (pp. 27-53). Museum
of Anthropology.
Binford, L. (1983). The Archaeology of Place. In L. Binford, Working at Archaeology (pp. 357-378).
Academic Press.

95
Binford, L. (2001). Constructing Frames of Reference. An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory
Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Bird, D. a. (2006). Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 14, 143-88.
Blehr, O. (1990). Communal Hunting as a Prerequisite for Caribou (wild reindeer) as a Human Resource.
In L. D. Reeves (Ed.), Hunters of the Recent Past (pp. 304-26).
Blitz, J. (1988). ADOPTION OF THE BOWIN PREHISTORIC NORTH AMERICA. NORTH AMERICAN
ARCHAEOLOGIST, 9(2), 123-45.
Borgerhoff, M. (1992). Reproductive decisions. In E. E. Winterhalder (Ed.), Evolutionary Ecology and
Human Behavior (pp. 339-74). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bowyer, V. (2011). Caribou Hunting at Ice Patches: Seasonal Mobility and Long-term Land-Use in the
Southwest Yukon. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Bowyer, V. G. (1999). Caribou Remains at Thandlat: Archaeology and Paleoecology of some well-
preserved sites on ice patches in the southwestern Yukon. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual
Conference of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Whitehorse, Yukon.
Brevan, A. (2008). Computational Models for Understanding Movement and Territory. London:
University College London.
Brink, J. (2005). Inukshuk: Caribou Drive Lanes on Southern Victoria Island,. Arctic Anthropology, 42(1),
1-28.
Brook, R. (1980). Inferences Regarding Aboriginal Hunting Behavior in the Saline Valley, Inyo County,
California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 2(1), 60-79.
Broughton, J. (1994). Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 21, 501-14.
Broughton, J. (1994). Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: The
Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 21, 501-14.
Broughton, J. (2002). Prey Spatial Structure and Behavior Affect Archaeological Tests of Optimal
Foraging Models: Examples from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. World
Archaeology, 34(1), 60-83.
Broughton, J. a. (2003). Showing Off, Foraging Models, and the Ascendance of Large-Game Hunting in
the California Middle Archaic. American Antiquity, 68(4), 783-789.
Broughton, J. M. (1993). Diet Breadth, Adaptive Change, and the White Mountains Faunas. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 20(3), 331-36.

96
Burch Jr., E. (2007). Rationality and Resource Use Among Hunter-Gatherers: Some Eskimo Examples. In
M. H. Lewis. (Ed.), North Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Burch, E. (1972). The Caribou/Wild Reindeer as a Human Resource. American Antiquity, 37(3), 148-65.
Burch, E. j. (1988). Toward a Sociology of the Prehistoric Inupiat: Problems and Prospects. In R. H. R. D.
Shaw, The Late Prehistoric Developments of Alaska's Native People (pp. 1-16). Anchorage: Alaska
Anthropological Association.
Burch, E. j. (1998). Inupait Eskimo of Northwest Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska.
Burch, E. j. (2006). Social Life in Northwest Alaska: The Structure of Inupiaq Eskimo Nations. Fairbanks,
Alaska: University of Alaska Press.
Butzer, K. (1990). Archaeology as Human Ecology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Byers, D. a. (2004). Holocene Environmental Change: Artiodactyl Abundances, and Human Hunting
Strategies in the Great Basin. American Antiquity, 69(2), 235-255.
Byers, D. A. (2005). Should We Expect Large Game Specialization in the late Pleistocene? An Optimal
Foraging Perspective on Early Paleoindian Prey Choice. Jouirnal of Archaeological Science, 32(2),
1624-40.
Byers, D. a. (2009). Pronghorn Dental Age Profiles and Holocene Hunting Strategies at Hogup Cave, Utah.
American Antiquity, 74(2), 299-321.
C, M. (2008). Reconstruction Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Radii: A Case Study from California’s
Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 247-58.
Callanan, M. a. (2010). Scratching the Backdoor – Perspectives, Trends and Dates from Central
Norwegian Snow Patches. Paper presented at the Frozen Pasts Conference: Second
International Glacial Archaeology Symposium. October 5-7. Trondheim, Norway.
Campbell, J. (1968). Territoriality Among Ancient Hunters: Interpretations from Ethnography and
Nature. In B. J. Meggers (Ed.), Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas (pp. 1-21).
Washington, D. C.: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Chapman, H. (2006). Landscape Archaeology and GIS. Great Britain: Tempus Publishing Limited.
Charnov, E. (1976). Optimal Foraging, the Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9,
129-36.
Chorley R. J., a. P. (1965). Trend-Surface Mapping in Geographical Research. Institute of British
Geographers, 37, 37-67.

97
Churchill, S. (1993). Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection, and Hunting Methods in Modern Hunter-
Gatherers: Implications for Hunting in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In H. M. Gail Larsen
Peterkin (Ed.), Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia
(Vol. 4, pp. 11-24). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association.
Clark Philip J., a. F. (1954). Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in
Populations. Ecology, 35(4), 445-53.
Comana, F. (2001). Caloric Cost of Phyical Activity. Retrieved 09 27, 2012, from American Council on
Exercize: http://www.acefitness.org/updateable/update_display.aspx?pageID=593
Connolly, J. a. (2006). Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Cowgill, G. (1968). Archaeological Applications of Factor, Cluster, and Proximity Analysis. American
Antiquity, 33(3), 367-75.
Cunliffe, B. (2003). Societies and Territories in Iron Age Wessex. In I. B. Bourgeois (Ed.), Bronze Age and
Iron Age Communities in North-Western Europe (pp. 111-33). Brussels: ArchaeoArchaeologia.
Cuthill, I. C. (1997). Managing Time and Energy. In J. R. Davies (Ed.), Behavioural Ecology (pp. 97-120).
London: Blackwell Science.
Delacorte, M. (1985). The George T. Hunting Complex, Deep Springs Valley, California. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology, 7(2), 225-38.
Dixon, J. a. (2010). Archaeology of the Bonanza Ice Patch, Alaska. Paper presented at the Frozen Pasts
Conference: Second International Glacial Archaeology Symposium. October 5-7. Trondheim,
Norway.
Dixon, J. W. (2005). ArchaeologyThe Emerging Archaeology of Glaciers and Ice Patches: Examples from
Alaska's Wrangell-St.Elias National Park and Preserve. American Antiquity, 70(1), 129-143.
Driver, J. (1990). Meat in Due Season: The Timing of Communal Hunts. In L. B. Reeves (Ed.), Hunters of
the Recent Past (pp. 11-33). London: Unwin Hyman.
Ducke, B. a. (2007). Identifying Settlement Patterns and Territories: From Points to Areas: Constructing
Territories from Archaeological.
Dumond, D. (1978). Alaska and the Northwest Coast. In J. D. Jennings (Ed.), Ancient Native Americans
(pp. 43-93). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company,.
Edwards, D. (2010). Postgraduate Models in Archaeology and Ancient History: Landscape Archaeology.
Leicester, UK: School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester.

98
Enloe, J. G. (1997). Rangifer Herd Behavior: Seasonality of Hunting in the Magdalenian of the Paris Basin.
In L. J. Thacker (Ed.), Caribou and Reindeer Hunters if the Northern Hemisphere (pp. 52-68).
Aldershot: Avesbury.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2009). Average Nearest Neighbor. Retrieved from Spatial
Statistics:
http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=average_nearest_neighbor_
%28spatial_statistics%29
Esdale, J. (2009). Lithic Production Sequences and Toolkit Variability: Examples from the Middle
Holocene, Northwest Alaska. PhD Dissertation. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Farbregd, O. (n.d.). Archery History from Ancient Snow and Ice. The 58th International Sachsen
symposium, Trondheim, Norway. Vitark 7 Acta Archaeologia Nidrosiensia. Tapir Academic Press.
Farnell, R. G. (2004). Multidisciplinary Investigations of Alpine Ice Patches in Southwest Yukon, Canada:
Paleoenvironmental and Paleobiological Investigations. Arctic, 57(3), 247-259.
Galloway, J. (2009). Palynological Analysis of Caribou Dung from Ice Patches in the Northwest Territories.
Unpublished Report on file with T. Andrews. Yellowknife, Yukon: Prince of Wales Northern
Heritage Centre.
Gamble, C. (1986). Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. London: Cambridge University Press.
Gargett Rob, a. B. (1991). Site Structure, Kinship, and Sharing in Aboriginal Australia: Implications for
Archaeology. In E. M. Price (Ed.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning (pp. 11-
33). New York: Plenum Press.
Geib, P. (2000). Sandal Types and Archaic Prehistory on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity, 65(3),
509-24.
Giddings, J. L. (1952). Arctic Woodland Culture of the Kobuk River. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University
of Pennsylvania Museum.
Grimstead, D. (2010). Ethnographic and Modeled Costs of Long-Distance, Big-Game Hunting. American
Antiquity, 75(1), 61-80.
Grosjean, M. e. (2007). Ice-Borne Prehistoric Finds in the Swiss Alps Reflect Holocene Glacier
Fluctuations. Quaternary Science, 22, 203-207.
Gubser, N. (1965). The Nunamiut Eskimos Hunters of Caribou. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Guthrie, R. (1990). Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: The Story of Blue Babe. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Guthrie, R. (2006). New Carbon Dates Link Climatic Change with Human Colonization and Pleistocene.
Nature, 441, 207-209.

99
Hagemoen, R. I. (2002). Reindeer Summer Activity Pattern in Relation to Weather and Insect
Harassment. Journal of Ecology, 71, 883-92.
Hamilton, T. (1982). Native American Bows, 2nd ed. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society.
Hardesty, D. (1977). Ecological Anthropology. New York: Random House.
Hare, G. e. (2011). The Frozen Past: The Yukon Ice Patches. Whitehorse: Government of Yukon.
Hare, G. S. (2004). Ethnographic and Archaeological Investigations of Alpine Ice Patches in Southwest
Yukon, Canada. Arctic, 57(3), 260-272.
Harritt, R. (1994). Eskimo Prehistory on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. National Park Service, Cultural
Resources. Anchorage, Alaska: National Park Service.
Hefley, S. (1981). Northern Athapaskan Settlement Patterns and Resource Distributions: An Application
of Horn's Model. In B. a. Winterhalder, Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies (pp. 126-147).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Helwig, K. V. (2008). The Identification of Hafting Adhesive on a Slotted Antler Point from a Southwest
Yukon Ice Patch. American Antiquity, 73(2), 279-288.
Herzon, I. (2010). Theory and Practice of Cost Functions. Abstracts of the XXXVIII Conference on
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods, 431-32.
Hildebrandt, W. a. (2002). The Ascendance of Hunting During the California Middle Archaic: An
Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity, 67(2), 231-256.
Hildebrandt, W. a. (2003). Large-Game Hunting, Gender Differentiated Work Organization, and the Role
of Evolutionary Ecology in California and Great Basin Prehistory: A Reply to Broughton and
Bayham. American Antiquity, 68(4), 790-792.
Hildebrandt, W. a. (2005). Re-Thinking Great Basin Foragers: Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling
During the Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity, 70(4), 695-712.
Hockett, B. (2005). Middle and Late Holocene Hunting in the Great Basin. American Antiquity, 75(4),
954-961.
Hodder, I. (1972). The Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeology: Two Examples. Area, 4(4), 223-
29.
Hodson, F. (1970). Analysis and Archaeology: Some New Developments and Applications. World
Archaeology, 1(3), 299-320.
Holt, M. (2011). Summary of Archaeological Projects: Transcription of Field Journal Notes. Kotzebue, AK:
National Park Service.

100
Holt, M. (2012). Summary of Archaeological Projects: Transcription of Field Journal Notes. Kotzebue, AK:
National Park Service.
Hopkins, D. (1963). Geology of Imuruk Lake Area, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska: US
Geological Survey.
Hopkins, D. (1967). The Bering Land Bridge. Palo Alto: Stanford University.
Howse, J. w. (2000). On the Completeness and Expressiveness of Spider Diagram Systems. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, 1889, 15-39.
Illian, J. (2008). Statistical Analysis and Modeling of Spatial Point Patterns. West Sussex: Wiley
Interscience.
Ingstad, H. (1954). Nunamiut: Among Alaska's Inland Eskimos. London: Allen and Unwin.
Ion, P. a. (1989). The Selection of Snowpatches as Relief Habitat by Woodland Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus caribou), Macmillan Pass, Selwyn/Mackenzie Mountains, N.W.T., Canada. . Arctic and
Alpine Research, 22(2), 203-211.
Ives, J. W. (1990). Theory of Northern Athapaskan Prehistory. Calgary, Canada: Westview Press.
Ives, J. W. (1998). Developmental Processes in the Pre-Contact History of Athapaskans, Algonquians, and
Numic Kin Systems. In T. T. M. Gaudelier (Ed.), Transformations of Kinship (pp. 94-139).
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Jochim, M. (1989). The Ecosystem Concept in Archaeology. In The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jochim, M. A. (1981). Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context. Toronto:
Academic Press.
Jordhoy, P. (2008). Ancient Wild Reindeer Pitfall Trapping Systems as Indicators for Former Migration
Patterns and Habitat Use in the Dovre Region, southern Norway. Rangifer, 28(1), 79-87.
Kanter, J. (2007). The Archaeology of Regions: From Discrete Analytical Toolkit to Ubiquitous Spatial
Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research, 16, 37-81.
Kaplan, D. a. (1972). Culture Theory. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kaufman, D. (1985). Surficial Geological Map of the Bendeleben, Soloman and Southern Portion of the
Kotzebue Quadrangles, Alaska. Anchorage: US Geological Survey.
Kaufman, D. a. (1985). Late Cenozoic Radiometric Dates, Seward and Baldwin Peninsulas and Adjacent
Continental Shelf, Alaska. Anchorage: US Geological Survey.
Kelly, R. (1992). The Foraging Spectrum. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

101
Kelly, R. (1995). The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kelsall, J. (1968). The Migratory Barren-ground Caribou of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
Kim, J. (2006). Anthropological Archaeology 29:80-93. In J. K. C. Grier (Ed.), Beyond Affluent Foragers:
Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity (pp. 168-191). United Kingdom: Oxbow Books.
Koutsky, K. (1981). Early Days on Norton Sound and Bering Strait: an Overview of Historic Sites in the
BSNC Region. Occasional Paper No. 29. Fairbanks: Anthropology and Historic Preservation
Coopterative Park Studies Unit University of Alaska.
Kroll, E. M. (1991). Introduction. In E. M. Price (Ed.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial
Patterning (pp. 1-10). New York: Plenum Press.
Kulisheck, J. (2003). Pueblo Population Movements, Abandonment and Settlement Change in Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Century New Mexico. Kiva, 69, 30-54.
Kuzyk, G. a. (1997). Woodland Caribou Studies in Central Yukon. Department of Renewable Resources,
Government of Yukon.
Kuzyk, G. D. (1999). In Pursuit of Prehistoric Caribou on Thandlat, Southern Yukon. 52(2), 214-219.
Larsen, H. (1968). Trail Creek: Final Report on the Excavation of Two Caves on the Seward Peninsula,
Alaska. Copenhagen: Acta Arctica.
Lee, C. (2010). Ice Patch Archaeology. Denali National Park and Preserve.
Lee, C. a. (2006). Ice Patches and Remnant Glaciers: Paleontological Discoveries and Archaeological
Possibilities in the Colorado High Country. Southwestern Lore. Journal of Colorado Archaeology,
72(1), 26-43.
Lindström, A. (2007). Energy Stores in Migrating Birds. In a. R. Joel S. Brown (Ed.), Foraging Behavior and
Ecology (pp. 232-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Llobera, M. e. (2011). Order in movement: a GIS approach to accessibility. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 38, 843-851.
Lock, G. (2003). Using Computers in Archaeology. London: Routledge.
Longley, P. A. (2005). Geographic Information Systems and Science, 2nd ed. West Sussex: Wiley
Interscience.
Loring, S. (1997). On the Trail of the Caribou House: Some Reflections on Innu Caribou Hunters in
Northern Ntessinan (Labrador). In L. J. Thacker (Ed.), Caribou and Reindeer Hunters if the
Northern Hemisphere (pp. 185-220). Aldershot: Avebury.

102
Lorr, M. (1983). Cluster Analysis for Social Scientists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lovis, W. R. (2005). Long-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle Among Northern Hunter-
Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System. American Antiquity, 70(4), 669-
693.
MacDonald, G. (1985). Debert: A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. Canada: Persimmon Press.
Mandryk, C. (1993). Hunter-Gatherer Social Costs and Nonviability of Submarginal Environments. Journal
of Anthropological Research, 49, 39-71.
Marean, C. (1997). Hunter–Gatherer Foraging Strategies in Tropical Grasslands: Model Building and
Testing in the East African Middle and Later Stone Age. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,
16, 189-225.
Martin, J. (1983). Optimal Foraging Theory: A Review of Some Models and Their Applications. American
Anthropologist, 85(3), 612-29.
Matheus, P. (2002). Chronology and Ecology of A Late Quaternary Large Mammal Assemblage in
Northern Alaska: A summary of Quaternary Paleontological investigations in the northeastern
NPR-A, 1998-2001. Fairbanks: Bureau of Land Management, Northern Field Office.
McClellan, C. (1975). My Old People Say. An Ethnographic Survey of Southern Yukon Territory, Volumes 1
and 2. Mercury Series Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 137. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of
Civilization.
McGuire, K. R. (2007). Costly Signaling and the Ascendance of No-Can-Do Archaeology: A Reply to
Codding and Jones. American Antiquity, 72(2), 358-65.
Melchior, H. (1979). Terrestrial Mammals of the Chukchi-Imuruk Area. In Biological Survey of the Bering
Land Bridge National Monument: Revised Final Report. Fairbanks: Alaska Cooperative Park
Studies Unit, University of Alaska.
Meltzer, D. (2004). Peopling of North America. In S. C. A. Gillespie (Ed.), The Quaternary Period in the
United States (pp. 539-63). New York: Elsevier Science.
Merton, R. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 Enlarged Ed ed.). Free Press.
Moran, E. (2006). People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. US: Blackwell
Publishing.
Moran, E. (2008). Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Colorado: Westview
Press.
Morgan, C. (2009). Climate Change, Uncertainty and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, 28, 382-396.

103
National Park Service. (1986). Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, General Management Plan, Land
Protection, Winderness Review. Anchorage, Alaska: National Park Service.
Nelson, E. (1899). The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Eighteenth Annual Report, Vol. 1, for 1896-1897 .
Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Nilssen, A. a. (1994). The timing and departure rate of larvae of the warble fly Hypoderma
(Oedemagena) tarandi (L.) and the nose bot fly Cephenemyia trome (Modeer) (Ditera:
Oestridae) from reindeer. Rangifer, 14(3), 113-22.
Norusis, M. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics 18 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion. New York:
Pearson.
Oetelaar, G. A. (2006). Movement and Native American Landscapes: A Comparative Approach. Plains
Anthropologist, 51(1), 355-74.
Orians, G. H. (1976). On the Theory on Central Place Foraging. In G. R. David J. Horn (Ed.), Analysis of
Ecological Systems (pp. 156-77). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Orth, G. (1987). Fishing in Alaska, and the Sharing of Information. American Ethnologist, 14, 377-79.
Pendleton, L. S. (1983). The Fort Sage Drift Fence. The American Museum of Natural History, 58(2).
Pierce, C. (1989). A CRITIQUE OF MIDDLE-RANGE THEORY IN ARCHAEOLOGY. Retrieved 5 11, 2012, from
http://ia700807.us.archive.org/14/items/ACritiqueOfMiddle-
rangeTheoryInArchaeology/CritiqueOfMiddleRangeTheoryInArchaeology.pdf
Pope, S. (1918). Yahi Archery. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology, 13(3), 103-52.
Pope, S. (1923). A Study of Bows and Arrows. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, 13(9), 329-414.
Powers, R. e. (1982). The Chukchi-Imuruk Report: Archaeological Investigations in the Bering Land Bridge
National Preserve, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 1974 and 1975. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.
Pulliam, H. (1974). On the Theory of Optimal Diets. The American Naturalist, 108, 59-74.
Pyke, G. H. (1977). Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests. The Quarterly Review of
Biology, 52(2), 137-54.
Rasic, J. T. (2008). PALEOALASKAN ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES VIEWED FROM NORTHWESTERN ALASKA. a
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University.
Ray, D. (1975). The Eskimos of Bering Strait, 1650-1898. Seattle: University of Washington.

104
Ray, D. (1983). Ethnohistory in the Arctic: the Bering Strait Eskimo. R.A. Pierce, ed. Kingston, Canada: The
Limestone Press.
Ray, D. (1984). Bering Straits Eskimo. In e. D. Damas, Arctic: Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 5,
pp. 285-302). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Renfrew C., a. P. (2000). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London.
Romesburg, C. (1984). Cluster Analysis for Researchers. Belmont: Lifetime Learning Publications.
Ryd, Y. (2010). Reindeer, Summer and Snow - Saami Hunting with Bow and Arrow.October 5-7. Frozen
Pasts Conference: Second International Glacial Archaeology Symposium. Trondheim, Norway.
Schaaf, J. (1988). Archaeological Survey of the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Seward Peninsula,
Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: National Park Service.
Schiffer, M. (1972). Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity, 37(2), 156-65.
Sheehan, M. (2004). Ethnographic Models, Archaeological Data and the Applicability of Modern Foraging
Theory. In A. Barnard (Ed.), Hunter-Gatherers in History (pp. 163-173). Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Skoog, R. (1968). Ecology of the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Berkeley: Department of
Zoology, University of California,.
Smith, E. A. (1992). Natural Selection and Decision Making: Some Fundamental Principles. In E. A.
Winterhalder (Ed.), Natural Selection and Decision Making: Some Fundamental Principles. (pp.
25-60). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Smith, E. A. (2000). Turtle Hunting and Tombstone Opening: Public Generosity as Costly Singling.
Evolutionary Human Behavior, 21.
Smith, S. (1999). Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long-Term Land-Use Patterns: An Example from
Southwest Wyoming. American Antiquity, 64(1), 117-36.
Spiess, A. (1979). Reindeer and Caribou Hunters: An Archaeological Study. New York: Academic Press.
Stefansson, W. (1922). Hunters of the Great North. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Stefansson, W. (1944). The Friendly Arctic: The Story of Five Years in Polar Regions. New York: The
MacMillan Company.
Stevens, D. W. (1982). Optimal Foraging: Some Simple Stochastic Models. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 10, 251-63.
Stevens, D. W. (1986). Foraging Theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Steward, J. (1955). Theory of Culture Change. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

105
Sturdy, D. (1975). Some Reindeer Economies in Prehistoric Europe. In E. Higgs (Ed.), Paleoeconomy.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Tanin, E. w. (2005). An Efficient Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for P2P Settings. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Large Spatial Databases (pp. 83-95). Portland, ME.
Thomas, D. (1998). Archaeology. 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Thomas, D. a. (1983). Rumen Contents and Habitat Selection of Peary Caribou in Winter, Canadian Arctic
Archipelago. Arctic and Alpine Research, 15(1), 97-105.
Toupin, B. J. (1996). Effect of Insect Harassment on the behaviour of the Riviere George Caribou. Arctic,
48(4), 375-382.
Trigger, B. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
University of Leicester. (2010). Landscape Archaeology. (D. D. Edwards, Ed.) Leicester, UK: University of
Leicester.
USDA. (2012). Caribou Meat Nutritional Value. Retrieved 2012, from Secret of Healthy Food and Diets:
http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/caribou-meat
VanderHoek, R. (2010). Native Alaska Ice Patch Utilization: Alpine Trails and Seasonal Rounds. Paper
presented at the Frozen Pasts Conference: Second International Glacial Archaeology
Symposium. October 5-7. Trondheim, Norway.
VanderHoek, R. B. (2007). survey and monitoring of ice patches in the denali highway region, central
alaska, 2003–2005. Alaska Journal of Anthropology, 5(2), 67-86.
VanStone, J. (1974). Athapaskan Adaptations. Chicago: Aldine.
Vita-Finz, C. a. (1970). Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment
Analysis. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society London 36 (pp. 1-37). London: Prehistoric
Society.
Weladji, R. O. (2003). Use of Climatic Data to Assess the Effect of Insect Harassment on the Autumn
Weight of Reindeer (Rangifer tarnadus) calves. Journal of Zoology London, 260, 79-82.
West, F. (1981). The Archaeology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wheatley, D. a. (2002). Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Wiessner, P. (1982). Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: A Comment on Binford’s Analysis of Hunter-
Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity, 47(1), 171-178.

106
Willey, G. (1953). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Peru. Bureau of American
Ethnology,Bulletin 155.
Williams, T. (2010). The effectiveness of later prehistoric arrowheads: Undergraduate dissertation.
London.
Winterhalder, B. (1981). Optimal Foraging Strategies and Hunter-Gatherer Research in Anthropology:
Theory and Methodology. In B. W. Smith (Ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies (pp. 13-35).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Winterhalder, B. (2001). The Behavioural Ecology of Hunter-Gatherers. In R. L.-C. C. Panter-Brick (Ed.),
Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, B. M. (2006). Energetically Optimal Travel Across Terrain: Visualizations and a New Metric of
Geographic Distance with Archaeological Applications. Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging,
60, 1-7.

CLUSTER 1
FID Shape * Id ORG_ID DES_ID DES_LENGTH
0 Polyline 0 IcePatch_WestCaldera 249.471428
CLUSTER 2
0 Polyline 0 feat 40 IcePatch_EastCaldera 98.095871
3 Polyline 0 aa24 IcePatch_EastCaldera 111.363197
CLUSTER 3
2 Polyline 0 feat 26 ? IcePatch_EastCaldera 152.285827
CLUSTER 4
1 Polyline 0 feat 19 ? (DEPRESSION) IcePatch_EastCaldera 251.552266
3 Polyline 0 aa11 ? IcePatch_EastCaldera 234.278163

5 Polyline 0 IcePatch_EastCaldera 355.207954
14 Polyline 0 feat ?? IcePatch_EastCaldera 337.780446
CLUSTER 5
East Caldera

28 Polyline 0 feat 22 a ? IcePatch_EastCaldera 200.322938
44 Polyline 0 feat ?? IcePatch_EastCaldera 337.780446
56 Polyline 0 ben 49 western cakdera nirthmost cairnIcePatch_EastCaldera 505.992438
57 Polyline 0 ben 49 easst caldera n0rthmost blindIcePatch_EastCaldera 475.341986

West Caldera
0 Polyline 0 pp 0735 & 0736 IcePatch_WestCaldera 104.79541
7 Polyline 0 aa06a IcePatch_WestCaldera 217.529344
8 Polyline 0 aa06b IcePatch_WestCaldera 216.681817
9 Polyline 0 ben 49 hunting blind IcePatch_WestCaldera 125.234781
10 Polyline 0 ben 49 IcePatch_WestCaldera 133.146815
11 Polyline 0 ben 49 west caldera at west rim neckIcePatch_WestCaldera 577.381225
12 Polyline 0 ben 49 second cairn clockwise IcePatch_WestCaldera 821.31585
13 Polyline 0 ben 49 western caldera f5 IcePatch_WestCaldera 429.23496
14 Polyline 0 ben 49 west caldera east-side cairn south of uprightIcePatch_WestCaldera 216.126924
15 Polyline 0 aa07 IcePatch_WestCaldera 88.016616
16 Polyline 0 aa08 IcePatch_WestCaldera 93.289894
17 Polyline 0 ben 49 southmost caldera on west calderaIcePatch_WestCaldera 131.594804
18 Polyline 0 aa09 upright cairn IcePatch_WestCaldera 123.175858
South Kuzitrin Lake
0 Polyline 0 inuksuk SnowPatchKuzitrin 454.663365
3 Polyline 0 inuksuk (collapsed) SnowPatchKuzitrin 459.050589
11 Polyline 0 hunting blind SnowPatchKuzitrin 649.351249

Appendix A:
Spider analysis database generated for Kuzitrin Lake and Twin Calderas hunting
feature clusters and their nearest ice/snow patch.

FINAL_HOLT_UL_V2

More Related Content

Similar to FINAL_HOLT_UL_V2 (11)

FINAL_HOLT_UL_V2