dc Laguna] ARCHEOLOGY, YAKUTAT BAY AREA, ALASKA 207 



CULTURAL POSITION OF THE YAKUTAT REMAINS 



Because the present population of Yakutat is predominantly Tlingit 

 in culture and language, we must not assume that Yakutat archeology 

 is also Tlingit archeology. Rather, if we are guided by native tradi- 

 tions concerning prehistoric population movements from the mouth 

 of the Copper River and by the fact that Eyak was probably spoken 

 at Yakutat 150 or 200 years ago, we should consider Yakutat 

 archeology to be Eyak archeology. There are certainly a number of 

 specific traits, such as the split-prow hunting canoe and the small 

 house with single ridgepole, that link Yakutat closely to the Eyak of 

 the Copper River Delta. Were our information on Copper River 

 Eyak culture more complete, or had we archeological materials from 

 the Copper River Delta with which to compare the Yakutat specimens, 

 it would be possible, no doubt, to prove that early Yakutat cultm-e 

 was indeed Ej-ak. 



However, even if we had established the last point, we should still 

 be faced with the problem of what is the archeological Eyak- Yakutat 

 culture. Are we, perhaps, in a deeper sense actually dealing with 

 northern Tlingit archeology? It will be remembered that Bhket- 

 Smith (Birket-Smith and de Laguna, 1938, pp. 530 f.) concluded that 

 Eyak culture represented a very old-fashioned form of northern 

 Northwest Coast culture, the basic elements of which appear to be 

 ancient since they are widely shared by the Eskimo and the Indians 

 of northwestern America. He also suggested that the Eyak might 

 once have occupied the territory of the northern Tlingit. Certainly 

 the many similarities between Yakutat and Tlingit archeological 

 materials indicate that we have here something more than the products 

 of recent diffusion, even though none of the actual specimens yet 

 found can claim great antiquity. 



The Yakutat, northern Tlingit, and Eyak are also closely linked to 

 the interior Athabaskans, not only through population movements 

 and intermarriages but through trade and the cultural exchanges of 

 almost every trait compatible with the environmental differences. 

 If archeological sites in the Dry Bay area had been excavated, or if 

 our knowledge of Copper River Atna and Alsek River Tutchone were 

 full enough to permit detailed comparisons, we would probably have 

 been struck by similarities between these interior cultures and those 

 of the coast. We might even ask whether they represented merely 

 interior and coastal aspects of the same basic culture. 



It is obvious that we have been hampered in our distribution studies 

 by the fact that so httle is known about the archeology of the northern 

 and central Northwest Coast. We have, therefore, been forced to 

 rely upon ethnological data or upon the archeological types from these 



