The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America

Abstract

There were at least four waves of bow and arrow use in northern North America. These occurred at 12000, 4500, 2400, and after about 1300 years ago. But to understand the role of the bow and arrow in the north, one must begin in the eighteenth century, when the Russians first arrived in the Aleutian Islands. At that time, the Aleut were using both the atlatl and dart and the bow and arrow (Fig. ). This is significant for two particular and important reasons. First, there are few historic cases in which both technologies were used concurrently; second, the bow and arrow in the Aleutian Islands were used almost exclusively in warfare. The atlatl was a critical technology because the bow and arrow are useless for hunting sea mammals. One cannot launch an arrow from a kayak because it is too unstable and requires that both hands remain on a paddle. To use an atlatl, it is necessary only to stabilize the kayak with a paddle on one side and launch the atlatl dart with the opposite hand. The Aleut on the Alaska Peninsula did indeed use the bow and arrow to hunt caribou there. However, in the 1,400 km of the Aleutian Islands, there are no terrestrial mammals except humans and the bow was reserved almost exclusively for conflicts among them. The most significant event in the history of the bow and arrow is not its early introduction, but rather the Asian War Complex 1300 years ago, when the recurve and backed bows first entered the region, altering regional and hemispheric political dynamics forever.
Aleut male as shown in Liapunova Figure 2, remastered and edited by Maschner. A) Atlatl and darts, B) the recurved bow, C) armor, and D) shield. Drawing by M. C. Levashov, 1764–1769, original in the Central State Archives of the Navy, Russia.
image

Full text

ARTICLE
The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America
HERBERT MASCHNER AND OWEN K. MASON
There were at least four waves of bow and arrow use in northern North America.
These occurred at 12000, 4500, 2400, and after about 1300 years ago. But to
understand the role of the bow and arrow in the north, one must begin in the eight-
eenth century, when the Russians first arrived in the Aleutian Islands. At that time,
the Aleut were using both the atlatl and dart and the bow and arrow
1
(Fig. 1). This
is significant for two particular and important reasons. First, there are few historic
cases in which both technologies were used concurrently; second, the bow and
arrow in the Aleutian Islands were used almost exclusively in warfare. The atlatl
was a critical technology because the bow and arrow are useless for hunting sea
mammals. One cannot launch an arrow from a kayak because it is too unstable
and requires that both hands remain on a paddle. To use an atlatl, it is necessary
only to stabilize the kayak with a paddle on one side and launch the atlatl dart with
the opposite hand. The Aleut on the Alaska Peninsula did indeed use the bow and
arrow to hunt caribou there. However, in the 1,400 km of the Aleutian Islands, there
are no terrestrial mammals except humans and the bow was reserved almost
exclusively for conflicts among them. The most significant event in the history of
the bow and arrow is not its early introduction, but rather the Asian War Complex
1300 years ago, when the recurve and backed bows first entered the region, alter-
ing regional and hemispheric political dynamics forever.
We will show that there is a direct
functional relationship between the
bow and arrow and particular focal
species, as well as a strong relation-
ship between elaboration of the bow
and arrow and armed conflict. We
will argue that in periods where the
primary focal species was caribou,
the bow and arrow was present in
the north. When the focal species
was moose, bison, or sea mammals,
the atlatl was the dominant choice of
technology. This holds true until the
self-bow was replaced by the Asian
War Complex,
2–5
entering North
America across the Bering Straits af-
ter 1300 BP.
6,7
With introduction of
the backed and recurve bows, armor,
wrist guards, and other features, the
bow became the dominant and resil-
ient technology except within the
context of hunting sea mammals.
PHASE 1: 12,000–8,000 BP
Sometime in the early Holocene,
approximately 12,000 years ago,
evidence of the bow and arrow
appeared in the north. In the
Kuskokwim Hills of southwest
Alaska, at the Ilnuk and Lime Hills
Cave 1 sites, Robert Ackerman exca-
vated small bone arrow points with
slots for microblades.
8–14
Direct
dates on the points, as well as associ-
ated charcoal, set them between
10,4101/-40
14
C BP (12,250 cal BP)
and 8150 1/-
14
C BP (8,800 cal BP),
marking the time range of the ear-
liest use of the bow in the New
World. The points are similar to
bone points identified many years
ago by Larsen at Trail Creek Caves
on the Seward Peninsula, which date
to 9,000 years ago,
15
and are of a
size, weight, form, and style of bone
arrow points made along the coast
of Alaska 8,000–9,000 years later, but
which did not have microblade
slots
16,17
(Fig. 2e). Ackerman directly
associated the use of microblades in
the Denali Complex with early Holo-
cene bow use. His argument is
compelling, especially with regard to
recent data indicating that the bow
and arrow was in use on the Colum-
bia Plateau by the end of this same
time range.
18
What makes these finds interesting
is that they occur during a period
between the extinction of the rem-
nant late ice age fauna and before
the expansion of bison and moose
across the western subarctic. At the
time of their use, caribou, sheep,
and perhaps elk would have been the
dominant species harvested. Further-
more, they occur just before the
massive dart end-blades that domi-
nate the Northern Archaic Tradition,
which coincide with the expansion
of larger ungulates in the region
between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago.
There is little evidence of the bow
Herbert Maschner is Professor of Anthro-
pology and Director of the Idaho
Museum of Natural History, Idaho State
University. Among his 100 publications,
he recently co-edited, with Owen Mason
and Robert Mcghee, The Northern World
AD 900 21400 at the University of Utah
Press.
Email: maschner@isu.edu
Owen K. Mason is a Research Affiliate at
the Institute for Arctic and Alpine
Research at the University of Colorado,
owner of GeoArch Alaska, and Editor of
the Alaska Journal of Anthropology.
Among his many publications in archeol-
ogy, geology, and paleoecology, he
co-edited with Herbert Maschner and
Robert McGhee, The Northern World AD
900 21400.
Email: owen.mason@colorado.edu
Key words: bow; Asian war complex; North-
west; Aleutian Islands; warfare
V
C2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/evan.21357
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
Evolutionary Anthropology 22:133–138 (2013)

Figure 1. Aleut male as shown in Liapunova
50
Figure 2, remastered and edited by Maschner. A) Atlatl and darts, B) the recurved bow,
C) armor, and D) shield. Drawing by M. C. Levashov, 1764–1769, original in the Central State Archives of the Navy, Russia.
Figure 2. Arrow points from the north Pacific region. A) Arctic Small Tool tradition points from Sapsuk River, Alaska Peninsula dating to
4400 BP
51
; B) fishtail points dating to 2400-1900 BP
32
; C-D) Ram’s Creek and Hot Springs Points dating to 1900-1300 BP
52
; E) barbed bone
arrow points from Hot Springs dating to 1300 BP (unpublished). [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

and arrow during the period of the
Northern Archaic Tradition,
although Esdale
19
has stated that
microblades are found in about 30%
of Northern Archaic sites, many of
which date to the same period as the
bow-using Arctic Small Tool tradi-
tion. However, no arrow points of
stone or bone have been identified in
the more than 200 sites known from
this tradition. Many of these sites
are associated with caribou hunt-
ing,
20
but there is also evidence that
bison and moose were hunted. We
conclude that the self bow of the
early Holocene did not have enough
power to bring down the large ungu-
lates of the middle Holocene such as
bison and moose, and terrestrial mo-
bility patterns made the use of both
technologies inefficient.
PHASE 2: 4500 BP
After 4,000 years with little evi-
dence of the bow and arrow (and
scholars have tried to find it), the
entire arctic was colonized by peo-
ples simultaneously using both tech-
nologies. The Arctic Small Tool
tradition (ASTt) is a well-described
early arctic manifestation
21–23
that
spread eastward from Bering Strait
around 4,500 years ago.
24,25
Most
evidence of the bow and arrow dur-
ing the ASTt is in the form of micro-
lithic end blades
21
(Fig. 2a), but in a
few well-preserved sites, such as
Qeqertasussuk, a frozen site in west-
ern Greenland, bow fragments have
also been found.
26,27
These are often
associated with caribou or musk ox
hunting. But from the North Pacific
to Greenland, in all cases where
there is evidence of both caribou
hunting and sea mammal hunting,
the atlatl was also used,
27,28
with
large sealing harpoons and atlatl
parts found in many contexts.
By 3,500 years ago, the bow and
arrow were no longer used in Alaska.
This was a period when there
appears to have been a reduction in
terrestrial fauna, especially caribou,
and interior sites are rare. There are
also few sites on the northern and
western coasts, and the few that do
exist were used by sea mammal
hunters. The northern Archaic
Figure 3. Defensive fortification on Sanak Island, 1200 BP. [Color figure can be viewed in
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
53
Figure 4. A) Punuk burial impaled with 15 bone arrow points, undated, from near Gambell, St.
Lawrence Island, Alaska. B-D) Other physical evidence of conflict: barbed bone arrow points
impaled in vertebrae from Punuk period burials also near Gambell, Alaska (complete image
adapted from Bandi and B€
urgi
54
). Slat armor from adjacent village sites dates to before 1000 BP.
ARTICLE The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America 135

tradition had now expanded to the
coast of Alaska and replaced the
ASTt, with no evidence of the bow
and arrow in any context.
23
Even on
the Alaska Peninsula, where there is
evidence of caribou hunting, the bow
is absent from the regional technolo-
gies. When the pre-Dorset tradition
evolved out of the ASTt in the
eastern arctic, the bow may possibly
have been present, as there is a con-
tinuation of some microlithic end-
blades, but by Dorset times, 2,500
years ago, the bow was gone from
the eastern Canadian Arctic and
Greenland as well.
29,30
As in Alaska,
this was a transition to a sea mam-
mal-based economy.
PHASE 3: 2400 TO 500 BP
There is no evidence of the bow
and arrow between 3,600 and 2,400
years ago in Alaska, but several
remarkable transformations took
place after this time. For one, the
“fishtail” point was developed on the
Alaska Peninsula.
31,32
These long,
thin, narrow projectiles (Fig. 2b)
appear to have been used for con-
flict. As Workman stated 45 years
ago, these fragile end blades would
not have been useful for any large
mammal except people. These are
fairly large end-blades, which were
common until about 1,900 years ago.
Afterwards, the projectiles became
very small (Fig. 2c,d) and a series of
arrow end-blades were made for the
next 600 years. This is true for the
southern Bering Sea and north Pa-
cific in particular.
By 1,300 years ago, there was a
change. From the eastern Aleutian
Islands eastward to Kodiak and
south to the Northwest Coast, defen-
sive landforms were occupied in sub-
stantial numbers (Fig. 3). Something
clearly had shifted both technology
and social dynamics, and all evi-
dence points to the introduction of
the Asian War Complex, highlighted
by the recurved bow and other com-
pound varieties. The relationship
between the recurved bow, warfare,
and fortification can be seen from
Alaska to the Columbia Plateau and
to Mesa Verde and beyond.
The earliest Bering Straits armor
fragments date to ca.1100 BP.
33
The
fact that armor was introduced from
East Asia
34
and was being constructed
to counter the effects of this powerful
weapon is notable, and end-blade
technologies were changing to match
it (Fig. 4). On the Northwest Coast,
small, straight bone points were being
used. In various experiments, Nathan
Lowry found that stone endblades
shatter against leather and wood
armor combinations, but bone end-
blades puncture straight through this
defense.
35
The bow and arrow, and
particularly barbed bone points (Fig.
2e), appear to be predominately weap-
ons of conflict, as seen in the burials
at Ipiutak site at Point Hope in north-
west Alaska, at Deering
6,7
on the Sew-
ard Peninsula, and in Punuk burials
Figure 6. House floor areas for western Alaska Peninsula Aleut sites spanning 4,800 years. The
rise of large corporate groups occurs at 1000 BP with introduction of the Asian War Complex,
but the reintroduction of the bow and arrow can be seen earlier at about 2500 BP with the
rise of the first larger households (adapted from Maschner and Hoffman
42
). [Color figure can
be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Figure 5. Battle scenes carved on walrus tusks, eastern Bering Sea. The bow is the key ele-
ment in both the village attack and the open battle (from Dorothy Jean Ray,1977,
Eskimo Art: Tradition and Innovation in North Alaska pp. 230–231; Courtesy of the Phoebe
A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and the Regents of the University of California, upper
cat. no. 2–146, lower cat. no. 2–144; both collected by Charles L. Hall, 1894–1906. Scans
edited for resolution and tone from photographs taken by Alfred A. Blaker).
136 Maschner and Mason ARTICLE

from St. Lawrence Island (Fig. 4).
Certainly there is a temporal, and
probably functional relationship
between the recurved bow and the
construction of defensive
fortifications.
The adoption of the bow and arrow
in interior Alaska, where it was used
for the first time on moose, also
occurred about 1300 BP. This is an
interesting transformation in ancient
NaDene technologies, with the pro-
duction of stone tools in interior
Alaska being almost abandoned,
replaced by bone and copper arrow
points.
36,37
Multiple dates on ice-field-
discovered arrow shafts, along with
well-dated copper and bone arrow
points, all date to about 1300 BP and
after.
38
The fact that the bow and
arrow were now being used on moose
is testament to the development of a
much more powerful bow capable of
taking the largest mammals. This is
the first time this occurred.
By 1,000–200 years ago, there is
extensive evidence of conflict from
the Bering Sea to arctic Alaska and
across Canada to Greenland (Fig. 5).
This co-occured with the transition to
large corporate households on the
north Pacific rim (Fig. 6), where
social complexity arose before any
evidence of economic complexity.
This is seen primarily in house-floor
areas, which serve as a proxy measure
for differential household size, the
first archeological measure of social
differentiation.
39–42
The photograph
of Netsilik practicing their archery,
not with snow targets made to look
like caribou, but rather, with targets
made to look like humans (Fig. 7), is
a clear sign that conflict played a key
role in the structure of northern soci-
eties until historic contact.
3,4,43–48
HEMISPHERIC IMPLICATIONS
The implications of these patterns
are profound. First, we must assume
that the bow and arrow were always
part of the Eurasian forager tool-kit.
Thus, we might expect to see a con-
tinuous sequence of arrow forms
from the Late Pleistocene through
the Neolithic in Siberia. While Sibe-
ria and Alaska had clear contacts
throughout the Holocene, there were
particular times in the prehistory of
northern North America when this
already known but little-used tech-
nology became a critical component
of the tool-kit. But there clearly were
long periods when the bow was little
used or completely forgotten in par-
ticular regions, such as in the east-
ern Arctic during Dorest times. If
bow and arrow use expanded south-
ward during any of these earlier peri-
ods, we would expect to see it in the
context of hunting deer, for example,
but not bison. This may have been
the case with the purported use of
the bow and arrow in western North
America about 8,000 years ago.
18
We also should fully expect the
bow to have spread rapidly across
North America after 1300 BP with the
introduction of the Asian War Com-
plex. It should come as no surprise
that this is the period of a major expan-
sion of warfare down the coast of Cali-
fornia,
49
a transition from images of
the self-bow to the recurve bow on
Mimbres pottery, the collapse of Chaco
and the rise of defensive fortifications
in massive rockshelters, the expansion
of the Numa across the Great Basin,
the collapse of Cahokia and the reor-
ganization of Mississippian society,
and the spread of the Thule from
Alaska to Greenland, all beginning
about 1,300 years ago in California,
but with the greatest impact between
900-750 years ago everywhere else.
2
By
700 years ago, this new technology
resulted in the rise and success of the
bison-hunting peoples of the plains,
and had fully transformed every soci-
ety in North America.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was written while Masch-
ner was in residence at the Santa Fe
Institute, September 9–15, 2012. He
would like to thank SFI President Jerry
Sabloff and SFI Professor Jennifer
Dunne for making this a success. Nick
Clement worked on the graphics and
the Pheobe Hearst Museum of Anthro-
pology and the National Museum of
Denmark gave permission for the use
of images. Some of the research pre-
sented in this paper was funded by mul-
tiple NSF awards to Maschner,
although NSF is not responsible for any
of the conclusions.
REFERENCES
1Liapanova RG. 1996. Essays on the ethnogra-
phy of the Aleuts (at the end of the eighteenth
and the first half of the nineteenth century. In:
Shelest J, translator; Workman W, Black LT,
editors. Rasmuson Library Translation Series.
Fairbanks: Univseristy of Alaska Fairbanks.
2Maschner HDG. 2000. Catastrophic change
and regional interaction: the southern Bering
Sea in a dynamic world system. In: Appelt M,
Berglund J, Gullov HC, editors. Identites and
cultural contacts in the Arctic. Copenhagen:
Danish National Museum and Danish Polar
Center. p 252–265.
3Maschner HDG, Reedy-Maschner KL. 2007.
Heads, women, and the baubles of prestige: tro-
phies of war in the Arctic and Subarctic. In:
Chacon R, Dye D, editors. The taking and dis-
playing of human body parts as trophies by
Amerindians. Springer Interdisciplinary Contri-
bution to Archaeology. p 32–44.
Figure 7. Snow men as targets for Netsilik bow and arrow practice.
55
V
CThe National Mu-
seum of Denmark, Ethnographic Collection, used with permission.
ARTICLE The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America 137

4Maschner HDG, Reedy-Maschner KL. 1998.
Raid, retreat, defend (repeat): the archaeology
and ethnohistory of warfare on the north Pa-
cific rim. J Anthropol Archaeol 17:19–51.
5Maschner HDG, Jordan JW. 2008. The south-
ern Bering Sea and North Pacific in a dynamic
global system. In: Papagianni D, Maschner
HDG, Layton RH, editors. Time and change:
archaeological and anthropological perspectives
on the long term. Oxford: Oxbow Press. p 95–
113.
6Mason OK. 1998. The contest between the
Ipiutak, Old Bering Sea, and Birnirk polities
and the origin of whaling during the first mil-
lennium A.D. along Bering Strait. J Anthropol
Archaeol 17:240–325.
7Mason OK. 2009. Flight from the Bering
Strait: did Siberian Punuk/Thule military
cadres conquer northwest Alaska. In: Masch-
ner, H., Mason OK, McGhee R, editors. The
northern world, AD 900–1400. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press. p 76–128.
8Ackerman RE. 1964. A final report to the Arc-
tic Institute of North America: prehistory in the
Kushokwim-Bristol Bay region, Southwestern
Alaska. Pullman, WA: Washington State Univer-
sity. Report of Investigations No. 26. 48 p.
9Ackerman RE. 1996. Spein Mountain. In:
West FH, editor. American beginnings: the pre-
history and palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. p 456–460.
10 Ackerman RE. 1996. Ilnuk site. In: West FH,
editor. American beginnings: the prehistory
and palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press. p 464–470.
11 Ackerman RE. 1996. Lime Hills, Cave 1. In:
West FH, editor. American beginnnings: the
prehistory and palaeoecology of Beringia. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press. p 470–477.
12 Ackerman RE. 2001. Spein Mountain: a
mesa complex site in southwestern Alaska. Arc-
tic Anthropol 38:81–97.
13 Ackerman RE. 2011. Microblade assemb-
lages in southwestern Alaska: an early Holo-
cene adaptation. In: Goeber, T, Buvit I, editors.
From the Yenisei to the Yukon: interpreting
lithic assemblage variability in Late Pleisto-
cene/Early Holocene Beringia. College Station:
Texas A&M University Press. p 255–269.
14 Dixon EJ. 2011. Arrows, atlatls, and cul-
tural-historical conundrums. In: Goebel T,
Buvit I, editors. From the Yenisei to the Yukon:
interpreting lithic assemblage variability in
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. Col-
lege Station: Texas A&M University Press. p
362–370.
15 Larsen H. 1968. Trail Creek: final report on
the excavation of two caves on Seward Penin-
sula, Alaska. Kobenhavn: Ejnar Munksgaard.
16 Larsen H, Rainey F. 1948. Ipiutak and the
Arctic whale hunting culture. Anthropol Papers
Am Museum Nat Hist 42:1–102.
17 Stanford D. 1976. The Walakpa site, Alaska:
it’s place in the Birnirk and Thule cultures.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
18 Ames KM, Fuld A, Davis S. 2010. Dart and
arrow points on the Columbia Plateau of west-
ern North America. Am Antiquity 75:287–325.
19 Esdale JA. 2008. A current synthesis of the
Northern Archaic. Arctic Anthropol 45:3–38.
20 Ackerman RE. 2004. The Northern Archaic
tradition in southwestern Alaska. Arctic Anthro-
pol 41:153–162.
21 Giddings JL. 1964. The archaeology of Cape
Denbigh. Providence: Brown University Press.
22 Irving WN. 1970. The Arctic small tool tradi-
tion. VIIIth Congress Anthropol Ethnol Stud
3:340–342.
23 Anderson DD. 1988. Onion portage: the
archaeology of a stratified site from the Kobuk
River, northwest Alaska. Anthropol Pap Univer-
sity of Alaska 22:1–163.
24 Harritt R. 1998. Paleo-Eskimo beginnings in
North America: a new discovery at Kuzitrin
Lake, Alaska. Etudes Inuit Stud 22:61–81.
25 Slaughter D. 2005. Radiocarbon dating the
Arctic small tool tradition in Alaska. Alaska J
Anthropol 3.
26 Gronnow B. 1996. The Saqqaq tool kit-tech-
nological and chronological evidence from
Qeqertasussuk, Disko Bugt. In: Gronnow B,
editor. The Paleo-Eskimo cultures of Green-
land: new perspectives in Greenlandic archaeol-
ogy. Copenhagen: Danish Polar Center.
p 17–34.
27 Grïnnow B. 1994. Qeqertasussuk: the
archaeology of a frozen Saqqaq site in Disko
Bugt, West Greenland. In: Morrison D, Pilon
J-LP, editors. Threads of Arctic prehistory:
papers in honour of William E. Taylor, Jr. Hull:
Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeologi-
cal Survey of Canada. p 197–238.
28 Maschner HDG, Jordan JW. 2001. The Rus-
sell Creek manifestation of the Arctic small tool
tradition on the western Alaska Peninsula. In:
Dumond DE, editor. Archaeology in the Aleut
zone of Alaska: some recent research. Eugene,
OR: University of Oregon. p 151–172.
29 Maxwell MS. 1984. Pre-Dorset and Dorset
prehistory of Canada. In: Damas D, editor. Arc-
tic. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
p 359–368.
30 Maxwell MS. 1985. The prehistory of the
eastern Arctic. Orlando: Academic Press.
31 Workman WB. 1969. Contributions to the
prehistory of Chirikof Island, southwestern
Alaska Vols. 1 and 2. MA thesis. Madison: Uni-
versity of Wisconsin.
32 Maschner HDG. 2008. Fishtails, ancestors,
and old islanders: Chirikof Island, the Alaska
Peninsula, and the dynamics of western Alaska
prehistory. Alaska J Anthropol 6:171–183.
33 Mason OK. 2012. Memories of warfare: oral
history and archaeology in assessing the con-
flict and alliance model of Ernest S. Burch.
Arctic Anthropol 49:72–93.
34 Laufer B. 1914. Chinese clay figurines: pro-
legomena on the history of defensive armor.
Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
35 Lowrey N. 1999. An ethnoarchaeological in-
quiry into the functional relationship between
projectile point and armor technologies of the
Northwest Coast. N Am Archaeol 20:47–73.
36 Clark DW. 1991. Western subarctic prehis-
tory. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization.
37 Dixon EJ. 1985. Cultural chronology of cen-
tral interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropol 22:47–66.
38 Hare PG, Greer S, Gotthardt R, et al. 2004.
Ethnographic and archaeological investigations
of alpine ice patches in southwest Yukon, Can-
ada. Arctic 57:260–272.
39 Maschner HDG. 1991. The emergence of
cultural complexity on the northern Northwest
Coast. Antiquity 65:924–934.
40 Maschner HDG, Patton JQ. 1996. Kin selec-
tion and the origins of hereditary social in-
equality: a case study from the northern
Northwest Coast. In: Maschner HDG, editor.
Darwinian archaeologies. New York: Plenum
Press. p 89–107.
41 Maschner HDG, Bentley RA. 2003. The
power law of rank and household on the North
Pacific. In: Bentley RA, Maschner HDG, edi-
tors. Complex systems and archaeology: empiri-
cal and theoretical applications. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press. p 47–60.
42 Maschner HDG, Hoffman BW. 2003. The
development of large corporate households
along the north Pacific rim. Alaska J Anthropol
1:41–63.
43 Burch ES Jr. 1998. The Inupiaq Eskimo
nations of northwest Alaska. Fairbanks: Univer-
sity of Alaska Press.
44 Burch ES Jr. 1974. Eskimo warfare in
northwest Alaska. Anthropol Pap University of
Alaska 16:1–14.
45 Burch ES Jr. 1988. War and trade. In: Fitz-
hugh WW, Crowell A, editors. Crossroads of
continents: cultures of Siberia and Alaska.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press. p 227–240.
46 Maschner HDG. 1997. The evolution of
Northwest Coast warfare. In: Martin D, Frayer
D, editors. Troubled times: violence and war-
fare in the past. New York: Gordon and
Breach. p 267–302.
47 Maschner HDG. 2004. Historic warfare. In:
Nuttall M, editor. The encyclopedia of the Arc-
tic. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Press. p 2152–
2154.
48 Reedy-Maschner KL, Maschner HDG. 1999.
Marauding middlemen: western expansion and
violent conflict in the Subarctic. Ethnohistory
46:703–743.
49 Lambert P, Walker PL. 1991. Physical an-
thropological evidence for the evolution of
social complexity in coastal southern Califor-
nia. Antiquity 65:963–973.
50 Liapunova RG. 1996. Essays on the ethnol-
ogy of the Aleuts. Fairbanks: University of
Alaska Press.
51 Maschner HDG, Benson B, Knudsen GL,
et al. 2010. The archaeology of the Sapsuk
River. Occasional Papers in Alaskan Field Ar-
cheology. Anchorage, AK: Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Alaska Region, Branch of Regional
Archeology.
52 Williamson AM. 2004. Analysis of stone
tools from the Hot Springs site on the western
Alaska Peninsula ca. 2000 BC-AD 1400. Poca-
tello, ID: Idaho State University.
53 Reedy-Maschner KL, Maschner HDG, edi-
tors. 2012. Sanak Island, Alaska: a natural and
cultural history. Pocatello: Idaho Museum of
Natural History.
54 Bandi H-G, B€
urgi J. 1971. Gr€
aber der
Punuk-Kultur bei Gambell auf der St. Lorenz
Insel, Alaska. Jahrbuch des Bernischen Histori-
schen Museums 51 and 52:41–115.
55 Rasmussen K. 1931. The Netsilik Eski-
mos: social life and spiritual culture. Copen-
hagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk
Forlag.
V
C2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
138 Maschner and Mason ARTICLE