2. Figure 43.1 The distributions of Na Dene languages and White River volcanic ash.
Na Dene Languages
North Lobe of
White River Ash
East Lobe of
White River Ash
ALASKA
CANADA
USA
MEXICO
Boundary between
Pacific and Arctic
Drainages
Western
Apache
Chiricahua
Mescalero
Lipan
Toboso
Jicarilla
APACHEAN
PACIFIC
ATHAPASKAN
WASHINGTON
ATHAPASKAN
Nicola
Chilcotin
Carrier
Sekani
Beaver
Chipewyan
Navajo
Kiowa
Apache
BIG HORN BASIN
Tlingit
Eyak
HAIDA
GWAII
North
Lobe
East
Lobe
NORTHERN
ATHAPASKAN
NORTHERN
ATHAPASKAN
Sarsi
(Tsuu T’ina)
Columbia River
Pacific Ocean
3. north america: na dene/athapaskan archaeology and linguistics 3
Northern Athapaskans, even though their languages remain quite similar. The Apache-
ans of the US Southwest showed two more adaptations, one of maize agriculture
(adopted before European contact) with stock raising (adopted from Europeans), and
the other a Plains/montane bison-hunting adaptation, using horses in historical times,
best illustrated by the Kiowa-Apache. The first maize and stock-raising adaptation, that
of the Navajo, was fairly sedentary, but did not include settlements of any significant
size. Despite the very different economic adaptations and cosmologies of the Apache-
ans, their languages are very similar to a number of Northern Athapaskan ones.
In addition to the Athapaskan speakers proper, there is widespread agreement that
the Tlingit, the northernmost members of the Northwest Coast Culture Area, speak a
language closely related to the Athapaskan family. Next to the Tlingit, the Eyak have a
similar relationship to Athapaskan. The Haida, on Haida Gwaii, known until recently
as the Queen Charlotte Islands, also members of the Northwest Coast Culture Area,
speak a language that may also be related to Athapaskan. The overall linguistic group-
ing of Athapaskan, Tlingit, Eyak, and Haida languages is often referred to as Na Dene,
a controversial macrofamily that has waxed and waned in popularity over the last 100
years. There has been a recent surge in its acceptability, although the inclusion of Haida
remains contentious.
Migrations
Many archaeologists and linguists believe in the likelihood of a tripartite migration to
the Americas, with Paleoindians (Amerindian languages) arriving first (see chapter 8),
Na Dene second, and the Inuit-Aleut last (see chapters 44, 45). Since recent research
has revealed that Ket, the only remaining member of the Yeniseian language family in
central Siberia, is also related to Athapaskan (Kari & Potter 2010), it is possible that
the pre-Na Dene language originated in Northeast Asia (but see below).
The origins of language families tend to be located in areas where their primary
subgroups are most highly differentiated. In the Athapaskan case proper, such a region
is located at the junction of British Columbia,Yukon, and Alaska, and this is also where
the Tlingit and Eyak territories touch Athapaskan language territories. If Haida is
indeed related to the Tlingit, Eyak, and Athapaskan languages, the location of greatest
Na Dene linguistic diversity and the homeland for the Athapaskan languages did not
differ significantly.
The situation relating to the Yeneseian Ket language, as reported in Kari and Potter’s
(2010) work, is difficult to reconcile with existing linguistic and archaeological data
and ideas on Athapaskan origins. First, the Ket language appears to be too similar to
Athapaskan languages to have been separated from them for the 10,000 year time depth
often applied to Na Dene prehistory. Ket may even be more closely related to Tlingit
than to Athapaskan, which would indicate that it separated well after the period of
early Na Dene migration. If Ket is actually representative of a 10,000-year separation
from Na Dene, then much linguistic understanding about language change will be
in error, since some languages must have changed at rates remarkably slower than
others.
4. 4 north america: na dene/athapaskan archaeology and linguistics
In terms of the archaeological record, microblades, often seen as markers of the Na
Dene migration from Asia (Magne & Fedje 2007), arrived in Alaska perhaps as early
as 9500 bce, after the macroblade and bifacial-point progenitors of Clovis. An associa-
tion of microblade technology with Yeniseian languages in Northeast Asia remains to
be systematically investigated. The only other archaeologically documented migration
from Asia is the Arctic Small Tool or Paleoeskimo tradition (chapter 45), convention-
ally seen as evidence of the initial Eskimo-Aleut migration, perhaps four to six thou-
sand years ago.
Archaeological and linguistic solutions to the Dene-Yeniseian dilemma include:
1 Ket actually did separate from Na Dene more than 10kya and has changed very
slowly;
2 Na Dene should instead be identified with the Arctic Small Tool tradition, making
it later in time than commonly thought, and microblades should be identified with
the Eskimo-Aleut migration;
3 Ket is a “reflux” migration, from the Americas or from easternmost Northeast Asia
(eg. the Chukotka Peninsula), approximately four to six thousand years ago.
Option 2 disagrees with current archaeological and genetic evidence, but neither
Option 1 nor 3 are supported by positive evidence. Option 3 has the virtue of not
having any evidence against it. In these early days of understanding of Ket, its associa-
tion with Athapaskan and Tlingit appears convincing to most linguists who have
examined the issue, but the precise relationships remain to be delimited.
Within Northern Athapaskan languages there is only moderate variability, suggest-
ing that the first linguistic deviations occurred circa 400 bce according to glotto-
chronology (other linguistic estimates are similar; see Matson & Magne 2007: 133–134).
With some exceptions, most of the Athapaskan languages in interior Alaska are very
similar, indicating a recent spread. A similar pattern is found to the east. It has been
suggested that these two expansions were the result of the North Lobe of the White
River volcanic eruption at c.300 ce along the Alaska/Yukon border (Clague et al. 1995),
which pushed people both east and west. The linguistic diversity present fits with such
an event. The eastern Northern Athapaskan languages, in particular, tend to show
continuous variation, rather than being discrete, geographically separate languages,
which points towards a recent expansion. This volcanic event may have also caused
Northern Athapaskans to move further south into British Columbia, spreading into
the interior areas where the salmon storage adaptation existed among Salishan-
speaking groups. No technological reason has yet been proposed for this spread, but
Northern Athapaskan kinship and social values were preadapted to explore new areas
and adopt new technology (Ives 1990; Matson & Magne 2007: 152). A much larger
eruption occurred c.800 ce and this has been associated with the migrations to the
south, as well as to the east. Although some have questioned that this ash fall would
actually have had large and long lasting effects, recent genetic work (Kuhn et al. 2010)
shows a decrease in genetic variation at about this time in the caribou herds of this
region, one of the most important food resources.
As the Pacific Athapaskan languages appear to be marginally more different from
Northern Athapaskan languages than Apachean, this Pacific migration has often been
5. north america: na dene/athapaskan archaeology and linguistics 5
seen as occurring slightly before that to the southwest. The differences between Apachean
and Northern Athapaskan languages on the one hand, and between Pacific Atha-
paskan languages and Northern Athapaskan languages on the other, are in accord with
a separation between the Northern Athapaskans and the two southern groups around
the time of the second ash fall. The Pacific Athapaskans likely originated in British
Columbia, where they had adopted the stored salmon economy, since a remnant group
is found in western Washington state. The originating group probably migrated down
the Columbia River and up the Willamette River into southern Oregon. The oldest
coastal villages there and in northern California are associated with Athapaskan (and
Algic) speakers and appear to date about 1500 ce (Fredrickson 1984; Matson & Magne
2007: 148–149), which is in accord with the linguistic diversity among the Pacific
Athapaskans. It may be that the Athapaskans introduced the salmon storage economy
to this region.
Two additional points should be noted about the Pacific Athapaskans. First, tradi-
tional culture-historical archaeology in the area, and thus the archaeological identifica-
tion of prehistoric Athapaskans, lags considerably behind that in British Columbia and
the US Southwest. Second, the slightly greater differences in language from Northern
Athapaskan than is exhibited by the Apacheans may be not the result of greater time
depth, but of a splitting into small linguistic communities with small territories and
more sedentary lifeways.
The Apachean migration to the Southwest
The best-known Athapaskan migration is that of the Apacheans, and this began either
at the same time as the Pacific Athapaskan, or slightly later. In contrast with the Pacific
Athapaskan migration, a recently abandoned area in the US Southwest was available
for the Apacheans. By 1300 ce, two neighboring areas of the Southwest became empty,
probably in the wake of climatic changes: the northern Anasazi-occupied zone due to
the well-known failure of maize agriculture in the Pueblo III era (Lipe 1995); and
the eastern flanks of the central Rocky Mountains after the collapse of the Upper
Republican archaeological culture, of which some members also grew maize.
The earliest well-accepted Apachean archaeological culture is the Tierra Blanca
complex of the Texas Panhandle region of the southwestern plains (Habicht-Mauche
1992). This culture, dated from 1450 to 1600, is found in the area where the Coronado
expedition found people termed “Querechos,” usually identified as Apaches, in 1541.
The earliest well-accepted Navajo site is in northwest New Mexico and has a tree-ring
date of 1541 (Towner 2003; Wilshusen 2010). Thus, we have two well-dated complexes
that appear to date the appearance in the Southwest of the Apache and Navajo, both
in or near their historical territories. The New Mexico region was part of the area
abandoned by the Pueblo III people by 1300.
How did the Apacheans reach the Southwest, and from where did they begin their
migration? The simplest hypothesis geographically,that the southernmost Athapaskans
east of the Rocky Mountains (the Sarsi or Tsuu T’ina) simply moved down the foothills
into the area abandoned by the Upper Republicans and then into the Southwest, is
6. 6 north america: na dene/athapaskan archaeology and linguistics
actually unlikely (Magne & Matson 2010). First, Tsuu T’ina is linguistically not as close
to Apachean as several other Northern Athapaskan languages. Second, the current
position of the Tsuu T’ina was greatly influenced by the early fur trade, and it is quite
unlikely they were in their current position prior to European contact (Dyen & Aberle
1974: 250–251). Another Athapaskan group may have been present in that area, but
this is a region where there is no archaeological identification of Athapaskans, so this
idea is untested.
In contrast, the Carrier, an Athapaskan group in central British Columbia, are closer
linguistically to the Apacheans – the second closest according to cognates, although
not quite so close as the Chipewyans (Dyen & Aberle 1974: 12). The archaeological
presence of Carrier (or a highly similar archaeological culture) is attested in central
British Columbia by the time of the second White River ash fall (Matson & Magne
2007). This has led to another idea, that both the Pacific Athapaskan and Apachean
migrations left this area at about the same time, with one proceeding southward just
inland from the Pacific, and the other moving through Idaho and on to the montane
plains, and then southwards. The absence of horses in Athapaskan rock art (the horse
being introduced by the Spanish) in the Big Horn Basin in Wyoming supports the
presence of Athapaskans (Francis & Loendorf 2002). However, the dating of this occur-
rence needs to be better defined. It was first thought to date to about 1000 ce, but
re-dating suggests c.1500 (Magne & Matson 2010).
The hypothesis of a single southward migration sees the Tierra Blanca complex of
the Texas Panhandle region as representing the ancestors of both the Apache and
Navajo. One variant hypothesis advocates the Navajo moving directly from the Upper
Republican-vacated area of Colorado to northern New Mexico, and would have the
Tierra Blanca complex being ancestral only to the Apaches (Towner 2003). Another
variant would have two migrations originating in British Columbia, with the Apache-
ans slightly later than the Pacific Athapaskans. A third hypothesis of an intermountain
route west of the Rocky Mountains through the Great Basin, with the Fremont culture
representing Athapaskans, can be rejected. Fremont material culture, including ethni-
cally sensitive basketry, has no links to Athapaskan cultures, and the mtDNA conclu-
sively rejects such identification (Matson & Magne 2007: 148).
The Athapaskan identity of both the Apacheans and Pacific Athapaskans has been
long noted, with the former first recognized 150 years ago. It has also long been agreed
that the Apachean and Pacific Athapaskans migrated from the north. There may well
have been some later northerly movements among some groups, most notably the
Kiowa Apache. Great distances and the lack of intervening archaeological information
may have encouraged ideas based on simplistic map reading and long-distance com-
parisons of specific material. An example of the latter is the Avonlea point type being
seen as an Athapaskan marker, an idea that must now be rejected, as it fits with almost
no other information (Walde 2006). As the blank spots on the map become filled in,
there is less freedom for such proposals, but much remains to be done and large areas
remain to be systematically examined. Understanding of process remains poor. For
example, if the second White River ash fall was the initiation of the southward migra-
tions, the conditions and motivations under which a migration might have continued,
over such long periods and distances, are still unclear (Magne & Matson 2010).
7. north america: na dene/athapaskan archaeology and linguistics 7
SEE ALSO: 8 The human colonization of the Americas: archaeology; 44 North America:
Eskimo-Aleut linguistic history; 45: North America: Paleoeskimo and Inuit archaeology;
48 Mesoamerica and the southwestern United States: archaeology
References
Clague, J., Evans, S., Rampton, V., et al. (1995) Improved age estimates for the White River and
Bridge River tephras, Western Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 32, 1172–1179.
Dyen, I. & Aberle, D. (1974) Lexical Reconstruction: The Case of the Proto-Athapaskan Kinship
System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Francis, J. & Loendorf, L. (2002) Ancient Visions: Petroglyphs and Pictographs from the Wind
River and Bighorn Country,Wyoming and Montana. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Fredrickson, D. (1984) The north coastal region. In M. J. Moratto (ed.), California Archaeology.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 471–527.
Habicht-Mauche, J. (1992) Coronado’s Querechos and Teyas in the archaeological record of the
Texas Panhandle. Plains Anthropologist 37, 247–259.
Ives, J. (1990) A Theory of Northern Athapaskan Prehistory. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Kari, J. & Potter, B. (eds.) (2010) The Dene-Yeniseian Connection. Fairbanks: Anthropological
Papers of the University of Alaska, vol. 5 (new series).
Kuhn, T., McFarlane, K., Groves, P., et al. (2010) Modern and ancient DNA reveal recent partial
replacement of caribou in the southwest Yukon. Molecular Ecology 19, 1312–1323.
Lipe, W. (1995) The depopulation of the northern San Juan: conditions in the turbulent 1200s.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14, 143–169.
Magne, M. P. R. & Fedje, D. (2007) The spread of microblade technology in northwestern North
America. In Y. Kuzmin, S. G. Keates, & C. Shen (eds.), Origin and Spread of Microblade
Technology in Northern Asia and North America. Burnaby: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser
University, pp. 171–188.
Magne, M. P. R. & Matson, R. G. (2010) Moving on: expanding perspectives on Athapaskan
migration. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 34, 212–239.
Matson, R. G. & Magne, M. P. R. (2007) Athapaskan Migrations: The Archaeology of Eagle Lake,
British Columbia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Towner, R. (2003) Defending the Dinétah: Pueblitos in the Ancestral Navajo Homeland. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
Walde, D. (2006) Avonlea and Athapaskan migrations: a reconsideration. Plains Anthropologist
51(198), 185–197.
Wilshusen, R. (2010) The Diné at the edge of history: Navajo ethnogenesis in the northern
Southwest, 1500–1750. In L. L. Scheiber & M. D. Mitchell (eds.), Across a Great Divide:
Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400–1900. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press, pp. 192–211.
