|
|
The Nenana complex of Alaska lacks microblades and is interpreted to represent a precursor to Clovis. Nenana complex points also show technological affinities with Streletskayan projectiles from Upper Paleolithic sites in European Russia. by Georges A. Pearson |
|
|
|
An important signature of the Nenana complex is the absence of microblades, unlike the later Denali complex that used them extensively. The Nenana lithic industry is also recognized for its use of finely crafted triangular and tear-drop shaped projectile points and for their large cobble tools and scraper planes. But what is most significant about this very early culture is the absence of fluting. This cultural trait will undoubtedly play an important part in future interpretations of where Clovis came from. |
|
The re-excavation of the Moose Creek site created a considerable amount of new information. The project confirmed the existence of a Nenana occupation and two previously unrecognized microblade components. The discovery of two hearths, one in Denali I and the other in the Nenana level, provided charcoal samples to date the occupations directly. Both types of Nenana complex projectile points were found there, for the first time on a site in the Nenana Valley. The Nenana occupation level also supported evidence from other sites in the Valley of the use of local lithic materials from the outwash gravels. Finally, the excavation proves that the Nenana and Denali complexes are chronologically, stratigraphically, and technologically distinct in the Nenana Valley. |
|
After more than 20 years, all the hard work by so many people has paid off. The Moose Creek site is now well established as a credible scientific reference point. Scientists will draw from the data that has been recovered there for as long as people keep looking for answers. |
|
"REFERENCES"
1991,
"Clovis Origins and Adaptations," "The Nenana Complex of
Alaska and Clovis Origins," by Ted Goebel, Roger Powers and Nancy
Bigelow, pp 49-76. |
|