ARCTIC VOL. 42, NO. 2 (JUNE 1989) P. 85-96 Current Perspectives on Western Boreal Forest Life: Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Research in Late Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology - A Preface I WENDY H. ARUNDALE,’ DONALD W. CLARK2 and POLLY McW. QUICK3

(Received 27 May 1988; accepted in revised form 20 September 1988)

ABSTRACT. At the 1987 Society for American ArchaeologyMeetings in Toronto, several scholars gathered to present their mostrecent research using ethnographic and ethnohistoric information to study late prehistoricand historic Athabaskan archaeologyin the western subarctic interior. An important subsidiary goal of the sessionwas to promote information exchangebetween Canadian and US.researchers. The papers from this symposium make up therest of this volume; this preface provides the reader somewith background for better appreciatingthe papers that follow. The preface begins with a short historical summaryof recent Athabaskan archaeology, including theuse of ethnohistoric and ethnographic approaches. It continues with very brief summaries of the six papers as context for the subsequent comments, presented at the session by the symposium’s two discussants, Polly McW. Quick and Donald W. Clark. Their comments touch on several important issues, including adaptation to environmental variability, the importance of explicit linkages between ethnographic information and archaeology, the value of oral history, the difficulties of projecting findings recent from historic sites back even to more distant historicsites, the promise and problems of interpreting social groupings from structural remains, the value of having northern researchers who live and work throughout the year in the North, and the need for better frameworks for linking ethnographic and ethnohistoric information with archaeology to permit some generalization. The preface closes with a discussion of future research directions and priorities. Future research needs to expand the role and types of ethnoarchaeological research in the area to include: more detailed studies of spatial patterns, relationshipsbetween time-motion and activity areas, disposal behavior, technological processes, the cultural patterning of cemeteries,and the impact of ideational aspects of Athabaskan culture on material remains. At the same time future research must make importantand potentially difficult choices concerning theamount of time and money devoted to ethnohistoric and archaeological research versus ethnographic research with a diminishing group of elders with traditional knowledge. Other difficult choicesmay include decisions about which sites to investigate and what values will influence the way research is conducted and its results reported. The more specialized training archaeologists have tended to receive in recent years may not be the most appropriate for this type of research. Key words: Alaska, archaeology, Athabaskans, boreal forest, Canada, ethnoarchaeology, ethnography, ethnology, ethnohistory, historic period, research priorities, Subarctic, symposium

RÉSUMÉ. Lors des réunions de1987 de la Society for American Archaeologyà Toronto, plusieurs spécialistes se sont rassemblés pour présenter leurs plus récentes recherches faisant appel à l’information ethnographique et ethnohistorique, pour étudier l’archéologie athabaskienne de la préhistoire tardive et de l’histoire, dans l’intérieur de la zone subarctique occidentale. Un but accessoire mais importantces de débats était de promouvoir l’échange d’information entreles chercheurs canadiens et américains. Les articles présentés lors de ce symposium constituent le reste du volume, et la préface donne au lecteur un contexte qui lui permet de mieux apprécier le contenu des articles qui suivent. La préface commence parune brèvedescription historique del’archéologie athabaskienne, y compris l’utilisation d’approches ethnohistoriques et ethnographiques. Elle se poursuit avec des résumés succincts dessix articles, qui forment un contexte pour les commentaires subséquents présentés lors de la session par les deux participants du symposium, Polly McW. Quick et Donald W. Clark. Les commentaires abordent plusieurs questions importantes,y compris l’adaptationà la variabilité de l’environnement, l’importance desexplicites liens entre l’information ethnographique et l’archéologie, la valeur de l’histoire orale,les difficultés dans la projection des résultatsde fouilles sur des sites historiques récents 8 des sites historiques datant d’époques plusreculées, l’intérêt etles difficultés suscités parles vestigesarchitecturaux dans l’interprétation des groupes sociaux, l’importance de fairevenir des spécialistes du Grand Nord qui habitent et fontde larecherche à longueur d’année dans la région, et le besoin de meilleurs cadres pour relier l’information ethnographique et ethnohistorique à l’archéologie en vue de permettre un certain degré de généralisation. La préface se termine par une discussion sur les directions et priorités de la recherche dans le futur. Celle-ci a besoin d’élargir le rôle et les types de recherche ethnoarchéologique dans la région afin d’inclureles points suivants: des études plus approfondies des schémas spatiaux, les rapports entre temps-déplacement et les zones d’activité, le comportement dans le traitement des déchets, les processus technologiques, la disposition culturelle des cimetières et l’impact des aspects conceptuels de la culture athabaskienne sur les vestiges matériels. En même temps, la recherche future doit faire des choix importants et qui peuvent s’avérer difficiles quant à l’importance en temps et en argent que l’on doit accorder à la recherche ethnohistorique et archéologiquevis-à-vis de la recherche ethnographique avec un groupe de plus en plus petit d’anciens qui possèdent les connaissances traditionnelles. Parmi les autres choix difficiles, il y a celui des sites à explorer et celui des valeurs qui influenceront la façon de mener la recherche et de rapporterles résultats. La formation plus spécialisée queles archéologues ont eu tendance à recevoir ces dernières années n’est peut-être pas celle qui convient le mieux à ce type de recherche. Mots clés: Alaska, archéologie, Athabaskans, forêt boréale, Canada, ethnoarchéologie, ethnographie, ethnologie, ethnohistoire, période historique, priorité dans la recherche, subarctique, symposium Traduit pour le journal par Nésida Loyer.

INTRODUCTION researchers interestedapproachesthese in to cometogether. The ideafor this particular session came from a more general Over the past severalyears archaeologists working in the symposium on ethnographic and ethnohistoric approaches western Subarctic have increasingly used ethnohistoric and in archaeological research held at the Canadian Archaeo- ethnographic approaches, especially for studying late pre- logical Association annual meeting in Victoria in 1984. After historicand historic Athabaskan sites. The new applications that session, which includedpapers on the Arctic, the and results growing out of this work created a need for Subarctic, and the Northwest Coast, some of the participants,

‘Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-0180, U.S.A. 2Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIA OM8 ’Woodward-Clyde, Consultants, 500 12th Street, Suite 100, Oakland, California 94607-4014, U.S.A. @The Arctic Institute of North America 86 / W.H. ARUNDALE et ai. including Robert Janesand Wendy Arundale, discussed the the western Canadian boreal forest until well after the end possibility of a similar session on the western Subarctic at of World WarI1 (Cinq-Mars and Martijn,1981). Nevertheless, a future Society for American Archaeology (SAA) annual because of their pioneering character and the broad vision meeting. of the reseachers involved, some of these earlier effortssig- In addition to their common geographic and theoretical nificantly shapedour understanding of prehistory over large interests, this groupfelt acutely an old and resolved problem: geographic areas. De Laguna’s 1935 survey along the lower the international boundary, which throughout most of the Yukon River (de Laguna, 1936, 1947) and MacNeish’s work past never bothered the Native people, today tendsto inhibit in western Canada (MacNeish, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1959a,b, the flow ofinformation between U.S. and Canadianscholars. 1960, 1963, 1964) are two outstanding examples. They felt that studies of recent Athabaskan sites were By about 1970, this situation had begun to change. For progressing rapidly so that interchange would be extremely example, during the 1960s A. McFadyen Clark, later joined valuable. In 1979 a jointCanadian-U.S. symposium on recent by D. Clark, began doing archaeologyto supplement ethno- research in Eskimo archaeology hadhelped break downsome historic research on the upperKoyukuk River (see especially of these barriers (Arundale and Schledermann, 1980). A Clark and Clark,1974); McKennan and Cookwere excavating similar session on late prehistoric and historic Athabaskan the rich site of Healy Lake with an early component that studies, but smaller and more narrowly focussed, seemed like they date at 9000 B.C. (Cook, 1969; McKennan and Cook, a reasonable way to approach this problem again. 1970); and on the Canadianside of the border Morlan, Irving, A variety of reasons delayed plans, but when the SAA and Cinq-Marswere investigating areas suchas the northern annual meeting was scheduled for Toronto inMay 1987, the interior Yukon for the firsttime on a sustained basis (Morlan, timing seemed right. Despite the session’s time slot nearthe 1973; Irving and Cinq-Mars, 1974). end of a longmeeting, the audiencewas ample andattentive, The growth and change begun in the 1960s wasaccelerated and there was some good discussion. This issue of Arctic even further in Alaska by the 1971 passage of the Alaska includes all the paperspresented in Toronto, as well as a paper Native Claims SettlementAct (ANCSA) and mitigation for by Chris Campbell originally scheduled for thesession but the trans-Alaska oilpipeline (Universityof Alaska, 1970, 1971; not presented when Campbell’s travel arrangements broke Cook, 1977). In Canada, preliminary archaeological work down at the last minute. for the proposedMackenzie Valley Pipeline had somesimilar This preface, whose senior author was the symposium’s effects(Cinq-Mars, 1973, 1974; Janes, 1974; Millar and organizer, attempts to provide a framework for the papers Fedirchuk, 1975). that follow. It begins with a very short historical summary Along with these major mitigation efforts, the1970s also of recent Athabaskan archaeology, includingthe use of eth- brought increasing efforts on both sides of theborder to enact nohistoricaland ethnoarchaeological approaches. Next protective measures for culturalresources at both thefederal comes a brief summary of the papers to provide the reader and the state, provincial, or territorial level. In Alaska and with a context for understandingthe subsequent discussants’ the Canadianprovinces and territories, government agencies comments, whichhave beenedited for publication. The were created to evaluate and managehistorical and archaeo- preface closes with someadditional thoughts on future logical resources, providing some financialsupport for these research directions and priorities. The preface’s junior authors activities. And increasingly, archaeology became integrated were the discussants forthe symposium and have graciously intothe environmentalimpact studies for construction contributed their commentsto this paper. The senior author projects(Cinq-Mars and Martijn, 1981;McKay, 1977; is responsible for the remaining portions of this preface. Workman, 1985). More recently, mitigation efforts forlarge- One final commenton the title. The original symposium scale constructionprojects, such as the proposed TAGS title was “New Perspectives on . . . .” However, as the par- natural gas line (Aigner, 1979; Aigner and Gannon, 1980, ticipants began to assemble their work, we realized that it 1981, 1982; Shinkwin and Aigner, 1979) and the proposed spanned quite a spectrum from more traditional to quite Susitna Dam (Dixon et ai., 1980, 1982a,b, 1984) in Alaska innovative. Even the papersusing the newest perspectiveshave (Aigner,1986) and the NOGAP project(Bourtelli, 1985; elements that quite obviously are not new. These elements Hanks andPokotylo, this volume; Monroe and Hanks,1987) stem in large part from a tradition among boreal forest in Canada have helpedprovide a much clearer but still archaeologistsof drawing on ethnographicand ethno- incomplete picture of interior prehistory. historicalsources. The persistence of thesetraditional Besides a notable increase in fieldwork and publication, elements speaks strongly of their currentresearch value. With the 1970s also saw an increasing emphasison a broad inter- thiscombination of old and new, “Current Perspectives disciplinaryapproach to research with an ecological on . . .” seems a much more appropriatetitle for thisvolume. emphasis. The broader trendaway from culture historyand toward themore systemic approachesthat characterized BACKGROUND Americanist archaeology as a whole during the preceding decade began to affect northern work as well. Expanding By comparison with their coastal neighbors, the interior’sknowledge in related fields such as botany, geology, and northernAthabaskans and their archaeology and eth- paleoclimatology enhanced understanding of the natural nography have been almost neglected by northern anthro- environment. pologists. Until quite recently most archaeological studies At the same timea renewed appreciation for ethnographic of the western Subarctic were done by a few academic or data on boreal hunting andfishing adaptations led researchers museum researchers, often with meager funding and very to develop models of environmental exploitationthat could small crews. Much of this work took place in Alaska; with be tested with both prehistoric and historic period data. These one exception, no professional research was carried out in trends, in turn, influenced the way in which contemporary WESTERN BOREAL FOREST ETHNOHISTORY - A PREFACE / 87 mitigation projects were being conducted (Cinq-Mars and With so manyquestions remaining about interior Martijn, 1981). Theintellectual growth of thisperiod is archaeology, researchers have sought a variety of methods evident in part in four conference and symposium volumes to answer them. Some archaeologists look strictly at the devoted to Athabaskans (Darnell,1970; Derry and Hudson, archaeology. Others make use of biological, linguistic, and 1975; Helmer et al., 1977; A.M. Clark, 1975). ecological data as well. Some of the mostuseful nonarchaeo- Since then several kinds of research havecontinued to con- logical sources of information, particularly for researchers tribute to ourimproving knowledge. Academicand museum- interested in late prehistoric and historic period sites, have oriented research efforts, such as those to locate “Early Man” been ethnohistory andethnography. Both have long been used sites, have enhanced our information about wide a range of in NorthAmerican archaeology, although until recently interior sites, not all of them with early dates. Increasingly, neither has consistentlyplayed a prominentrole in interpre- archaeologists working for government agencies have become tation. (See Charlton, 1981, and Spores, 1980, for summaries involved in interiorarchaeological studies. For example, of these approaches and their historicaldevelopment.) Fol- agency research to validate Native land claims made under lowing methods well established by workers in other regions, provisions of ANCSA have greatly expanded our inventory western boreal forest researchers have used these approaches of Alaskan interior sites, particularly sites from the latepre- as well. historic and historic periods (see, for example, Andrews, Infact, northern researchers have along tradition of 1977). integrating ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological And perhaps most importantly, Native peoplethemselves data sources. Such important established researchers as have gotten more involved in interior research. One reason Fredericade Laguna, J.L. Giddings,Annette McFadyen that several recent projects havebeen quite successful in Clark, and James VanStone have frequently worked with greatly expanding our information baseis that increasingly knowledgeable local informants andused ethnographic and they have had the assistance of local resource specialists, ethnohistoricdata to supplement their archaeological Native villagers,often elders, with knowledge of local history research.Thus, although thissymposium draws to some and traditional cultural practices (Aigner, 1986). (For addi- extent onmore recentdevelopments, such as ethnoar- tional information and references concerning the historical chaeology, it also honors a valuable and long-standing tra- development of western interior subarctic archaeology, see dition within northern archaeology. Aigner, 1986; Cinq-Mars, 1973, 1974, 1976; Cinq-Mars and Becauseinterior archaeologists have recognized how Martijn, 1981;D.W. Clark, 1975, 1981; Clark and Morlan, valuable ethnohistoric and ethnographicdata canbe, interior 1982; Davis, 1981; Dekin, 1978; Dixon, 1985; Hanksand subarctic research has produced some rather goodexamples Pokotylo,this volume; Maxwell, 1980; Morrison, 1987; of this kind of work. One of the best is James Vanstone’s Noble, 1981; and Wright, 1981.) (1978,1979a,b) study of the historic Ingalik. Using both The slow development of research is not the only factor extensive ethnohistoric sources and ethnographic information responsible for the sluggish pace at which western boreal together with archaeologicaldata from surface survey, forest archaeology has evolved. There is at least one other VanStone outlines the historic and ecological changes that factor: preservation.The mobilelifeways of interior peoples have affected the Ingalik or Deg Hit’an region and its people. dictate that manyof their campswere occupied onlybriefly, Another more site-orientedexample of good archaeological leaving relatively ephemeral remains. Sites tend to be small research that uses both ethnohistoric and ethnographic or and shallow or have multiple shallow occupations sometimes oral history data is Shinkwin’s (1979) study of Dakah De’nin’s spread over large areas (D.W. Clark, 1982). Further, these Village. Canadian examples include Morlan’s (1973) work camps were frequently located inactive environments, such at Klo-Kut and the surrounding area and Noble’s(1975) as along river courses, where wind or water were likely to research on the central Mackenzie District. erode them away, or on permafrost,where they may be dis- As the broader archaeological community increasingly turbed ormixed by frost action. Finally, in manyplaces soils recognized the value of ethnohistoricand ethnographic are thin, and their acidity can rapidly destroy evidence of sources, it also became increasingly ‘frustrated because the bones and other organicitems. Often organic materials are ethnographic data, in particular, often lacked information preserved only in recent sites. concerning thoseaspects of material culture mostinteresting Because interior research has been slow to develop, many to archaeologists. As a result some newer approaches, termed basic questions about Athabaskans and interior prehistory ethnoarchaeology, have developedin which the archaeologist remainunresolved. For example, when did the first frequently collects his or her own ethnographic datageared Athabaskans come to Alaska andwestern Canada? Or put specifically to the archaeological questions hand.at (See, for another way, how far backin time can the interior’s archaeo-example, Binford, 1977,1978a; Charlton, 1981; Donnan and logical record be identified with the Athabaskan people? Clelow, 1974; Gould, 1978, 1980; Gould and Schiffer, 1981; What were the boundariesof Athabaskan territory andhow Kramer, 1981; Stiles, 1977; Thomas, 1986; and Yellen, 1977, have they varied in time? How did interior peopleadjust to for information on the development of ethnoarchaeology, the fluctuating availability of resources that seems to be examples of the kindsof studies this approach encompasses, typical of their region? And how can we best assign temporal and discussion of some of the methodologicalissues raised.) and functional meaningto the various forms foundin interior Closely connected with the growthof ethnoarchaeology stone tooltechnologies such as theDenali Complex? In fact, and encompassing some of the same theoretical objectives a 1975 conference on the prehistory of the western North has been an increasing interest in building a body of mid- AmericanSubarctic was subtitled “The Athapaskan range or middlerange theory. (For more detaileddiscussions Question” (Helmer et al., 1977). We could stilluse a similar of middle range theory, see, for example, Binford, 1977, title today, but it would have to be plural! 1978a; Grayson, 1982; Raaband Goodyear, 1984; and 88 / W.H. ARUNDALE et al.

Thomas, 1986.) One of middle range theory’s major goals A PREVIEW OF THE PAPERS is to produce operational definitions forbasic archaeological concepts. Such definitions are noteasy to obtain, andso far With this background on previousresearch to provide the goal has provenfrustratingly difficult to reach. Nevertheless, context, let us now turn to thesymposium papers. The first it is an important goal archaeologyfor and onetoward which paper, by David Yesner, uses primarily ethnohistoric andeco- we are beginning to see some innovativeboreal forest researchers logical data. It looks at therole of moose in reconstructions directing their efforts (see especially Janes, this volume). of westernsubarctic subsistencepatterns. On the basis of some Since the western Subarctic is one of the few regions of ethnographic, but primarily archaeological and ecological North America where Native people withdirect ethnic ties to information, he questionsthe frequent assumption thatmoose the historic and prehistoric population still live on the land were a central resource in prehistoric interior subsistence in ways that clearly reflect traditional lifestyles, it is an ideal patterns. Hisresearch suggeststhat intensive use of mooseis area forusing some of these more recent ethnoarchaeological relatively new in the western boreal forest,or atleast was not approaches. Indeed, beginningin the early 1970s with research widely characteristic ofthe late Holocene period.If any large by Annetteand Donald Clark that foreshadows current game was used, it was more often caribou. Historical factors, approaches, interior researchers have produced some very especially fire, seem to have promoted recent increases in interesting and valuable studies. Perhaps the mostextensive moose populations. FromYesner’s ecologically oriented dis- recentwork using these approaches is Janes’s (1983) cussion, we get a better sense ofboth theregional and temporal monograph on thearchaeological ethnography of Willowthe variability that characterized the resource base available for Lake band of Slavey(see also Janes,1975a,b). Two recent dis- human consumption during prehistoric and historictimes. sertations, Sheila Albright’s Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology(1984) The second paper,by John Cook,uses ethnohistoric infor- and JackIves’s Northern AthapaskanSocial andEconomic mation more extensivelybut also brings in some ethnographic Variability (1985), offer some very interesting findings. A data todescribe and interpret the historyof the archaeological fourth research project of considerable note is the work by materials from the late19th- and early 20th-centurylevels of Hetty Jo Brumbach, Robert Jarvenpa, and theircolleagues the Village Site at Healy Lake. Cook’s ethnohistoric sources (Brumbach, 1985; Brumbach et al., 1982; Brumbach and provide a broad context for the development of trade in the Jarvenpa,in press) on historicChipewyan, Cree, and Tanana Valley and give someinsights concerning the Euroamerican adaptations in northernSaskatchewan. Shorter movement of Nativepeople. His ethnographicsources, chiefly works include, for example, papers by Hanks and Winter the unpublished field notes of well-known northern anthro- (1983,1986) on using the ethnogeographyof Mountain Dene pologist Robert McKennan, with whom Cook worked at place-names to help unravel the history of the local settlement Healy Lake, providemost interesting, if sometimes conflicting, systems. information on theevolution of Healy Lake as a settlement Related work by colleagues in cultural anthropology and location. Our knowledgeof how Euro-American contact linguistics has also been helpful and stimulating. Examples changed the lives of people living in Alaska’s upper Tanana include linguistic and place-name studies among the Ahtna Valley is spotty at best. This papermakes a valuable contri- and Tanaina (see,for example, Kariand Kari, 1982; Kari, 1983, bution to that understanding. in press) and subsistencestudies, particularly those that The third paper, by Chris Rabich Campbell, employs an even reference traditional place-names, hunting techniques, and greater portion of ethnographic material, including her own resource areas (see, for example, R.A. Caulfield’s 1983 study interviews with localelders. Campbell examines the question of the Arctic Village area). Of particular contemporaryinterest of originsfor theNexadi clan of the Sanyakwan Tlingit.The is the comprehensive, historically oriented subsistence and Nexadi have an unusual social organizationinvolving three community study of the Nondalton area on the Alaska phratries, rather than thetwo found amongall the otherTlingit Peninsula by Linda Ellanna and Andrew Balluta(in press) groups.Their traditional subsistence practices were also sponsored by the U.S. National Park Service. divergent and in some notablerespects resembled more closely In additionto a fresh theoretical framework withsome tradi- the patternsof their Tsetsaut Athabaskan neighbors. Swanton tional roots, other aspectsof this morerecent work are also (1970) suggestedthat Nexadi origins were connected withthe new. Although Native people have been involved in past Tsetsaut. Campbelldraws on several sources to argue persua- research, the kind and level oftheir participation hasevolved sively that instead the Nexadi probably were one of thefive substantially. In thepast theirinvolvement has been primarily original Tlingit clansand theonly original clanto preserve an on an individual basis; now theyare involved on an organiza- ancient three-part phratry system. Although Campbell’s paper tional level as well. Thus, in addition to individuals working is not strictly archaeological,the historic and ecological data with particular researchers as collaborators and resource she presents couldbe crucial for understanding some aspects people, organizations representing Native peoplehave taken of the lateprehistoric and historic archaeology inboth present a more active role in determining what research should be and former Nexadi territory. done, who shoulddo it, how it should be carried out, even and The next three papers in theset are morespecifically eth- in somecases providing funding. In Alaska, Native regional noarchaeological, beginning witha thoughtful piece by Robert corporations, such as Doyon, Ltd., and predominantly Native Janes. Janesis concerned with understanding the relationship governing bodies, such as the North Slope Borough, are spon-between ethnographically observed behavior and its material soring and funding this kind of research (Arundale, 1983, expression in thearchaeological record. He discusses the exca- 1984). In Canada, community and bandcouncils and other vation of a historic tepee for which he has considerable eth- Native organizations have alsotaken an active role; for nographic information. Fromhis experiences with this and example, the Council of Yukon Indians has hired its own other similar work, hedevelops a model for identifying tepee archaeologist. features inthe absence of surficial architectural remains. He WESTERN BOREAL FOREST ETHNOHISTORY - A PREFACE /’ 89 proposes thattepees in northern Athabaskan sites imply the logical observations and’sources of information to illuminate presence of women and children,since men travelingwithout archaeological patterns, these approaches assist the inter- dependentsalmost always sleepin theopen or build preter in going beyond the mostly stone remains to the people improvised open camp shelters. who left them. The second method, brought out by David Next follows a paper by Christopher Hanks and David Yesner, usesprimarily archaeologicaldata, thoughgenerally Pokotylo discussing the increasing involvement of Mackenzie notartifacts, toemphasize ecological considerations in drainage Dene andMetis in archaeological research.Hanks archaeological interpretation. and Pokotylo point out thatthe Dene are tired of being simply Both perspectives yielda good deal of information gathered objects of inquiry and are becoming inquirers themselves. for purposes other than recording culture histories. Yet we After a brief account of recent archaeological work in the still needone ormore frameworkson which to place the infor- Mackenzie Valley, they describe how one project in commu- mation, or we will be back to a Boasian sort ofarchaeology. nity-based research has developed. In 1985 and 1986, the I sense the different investigatorsknow where they are going authors, with help from Fort Norman elders, conducted an and feel, as I do, the importanceof collecting as much infor- ethnoarchaeological field school at Drum Lake, located in mation as possible from the sourceswhich to these new per- the Mackenzie Mountains. The authors found thatcloser col- spectives lead us. What 1 find missing, both in these papers laboration with theDene and Metis brought new and and in my ownwork andthat of my compatriots in rewarding insights to their research. California, is the explicit articulation of the ethnographic Finally Wendy Arundale andEliza Jones are working with information with the archaeologyin a way that permits some Koyukon Athabaskans in Alaska to record data on historic generalization. Nevert leless,the symposium’s papers present settlement and landscape use in the Allakaket area. They somequestions and houghts that may provide ways of begin by presenting some sampledata describing latewinter approaching the ne Jed articulation. landscape use practices from several different periods ranging Yesner’s paper cautions that manyreconstructions of all from 1890 to 1953. From these data they assemble a simple but the latest prehistory in the boreal forest may be wrong model of the Koyukon settlement patterns for this time of because they presume a different subsistence base than the year and discuss the changes that have taken place in the faunal remains and climatic informationwould suggest. His settlementpatterns over time. Then by usingBinford’s caution is appropriate, butI was more interested by the varia- (1978a,b, 1980, 1982)models of forager-collector subsistence bility that apparentlyhas been an inherent part of Athabaskan strategies and site mobility, they show howthe Koyukuk River life for centuries. Yesner shows variability that traced and Koyukon have become more logistically organized as they retraced similar cycles with enough frequency that one can have become more sedentary.They also callattention to the imagine how experience and oral tradition across living need to explore more thoroughly how the Koyukon belief generations may have permitted relatively easy responses to system may influence archaeological variability. change for these populations. In other words, the elders always included some who knew the old techniques and resource areasused in their youth that now could help their CONCLUDING COMMENTS AT SYMPOSIUM grandchildren survive. In California the Athabaskans are very recent arrivals. At the papers’ conclusion, two discussants, Donald Clark Althoughthey live primarily in themore “marginal” and Polly Quick, presented their comments. Donald Clark environments, someof them, suchas the Hupa,have shown is particularly well qualified to serve as a discussant for this the ability to pick up substantial elementsof their neighbors’ session. He has long done archaeology in areas currently very specialized riverine adaptations. As a result we charac- occupied by Athabaskans in both Canada and Alaska and terize them asvery adaptable with the capability of shifting with his colleague and spouse, Annette McFadyen Clark, has from generalized subsistencestrategies to specialized strategies carried out research that foreshadows ethnoarchaeological in the right time andplace. Yesner’s attention toprehistoric approaches in the more modernsense discussed above. Polly variability in environment and resources suggestsa derivation Quick also brings much valuableexpertise and perspective. for this adaptability.The variability he pointsout also adds Shehas carried out research in ethnoarchaeologyin another dimension to the cautionary tale: the behavior we California,some of it with Athabaskans,and she has see ethnohistorically and ethnographicallyprobably also was organized two major sessions on the topicat recent national part of subsistence behavior periodically in earlier prehistory meetings. Their comments were an interesting contrast in at different points in the cycles of variation. Yes, we must style. Quick’sapproach was brief, direct, and incisive; Clark’s be cautious, butwe have good reason to examine the “ethno” style was more discursive and anecdotal- in some ways akin data withgreat care, rather than dismiss them as irrelevant. to how an Athabaskan elder might approach the task. Each Janes was most explicit in linking ethnographic infor- in different ways added valuable insights. mation and archaeology, andI commend his explicitness to all of us working in the area. Such work may well prevent Polly Quick’s Comments us from using some inappropriate analogies.My queries to him are:what more ethnoarchaeologywould yourecommend The symposium’s papers illustrate two broad new per- to get at the variability in camp size and duration that the spectives on boreal forest life, or better, on methods for recent ethnography tells us about? Would you recommend studying boreal forest life. The first method, and the most work similar to that doneon the tepee acrossthe whole camp? widely represented in the symposium, brings the “ethno” Are there observations you did not makein your ethnographic into archaeology, through ethnohistory, ethnogeography, eth- work that you wish you had made when it came time to nography, and ethnoarchaeology. Drawingon nonarchaeo- interpret the archaeology? 90 / W.H. ARUNDALE et at.

Janes concludes his paper with the proposition that the words, we cast a broad net. One focus of our work was to presence of tepees in a site may imply the presence of women excavate contact period houses. Thank goodness for the and children.This conclusion is droppeda bit like a contact period, because Athabaskan housepit archaeology bombshell. Certainly thereis great appeal in the promiseof can be very meager without glass beads and little scrapsof some way to infer the presence of things and people thatwe trade goods (Clark andClark, 1974). We also recorded tradi- cannot see directly in the archaeological record. Perhaps tional and later lifeways, subsistence practices, settlement Hanks and Pokotylo canelaborate some on this for us,and patterns, andconsiderable information on othertopics, much we can ponderhow to evaluate the validity ofsuch inferences. of it from older people who are now deceased. Although inferring the presence of people and things not Among thestories we recorded is one thatbears on Yesner’s reflected directly in the archaeological record is an appealing paper and theissue of resource availability. On the Koyukuk prospect, we need ways to evaluatethe validity of such and in northwestern Alaska generally from about1880 on, inferences. the cariboudecreased. The diminishedherds did not migrate The otherthree papers areless explicit in making linkages as far southwardas previously when they overwintered in the than Janes, and I think thatis my major criticism of them. boreal forest. Thereused to be moosein the areaa little over Likeseveral of the authors, I am a proponent of using 100 years ago, around 1860, much like there were 100 years historicalresearch, oral history, work with present-day later, but in the last decades of the century the moose, too, descendants, and collection of ethnographic data in con- were disappearing. It became very difficult to make aliving junction with archaeological research. What I miss in their off the land by 1890 and for some time thereafter.Trapping papers is a demonstrationwith specific cases of some general and working for miners was not sufficient to fill the gap in applications of such data. Arundale and Jonesindicate some the subsistence hunting and fishing economy. directions, but cannotprovide more conclusive results at this Some of the men used to go out on long hunting forays stage of their research. in the autumn, and they didn’t have much food to take in Hanks and Pokotylo tell us that archaeological investi- their packs. A young hunter from one party finally came gations have changed in nature because of Deneinvolvement, to a tree with scratches on the trunk. Usually that means but they do not tell us how. What new questions are being that there has been a bearthere, and the hungry huntersknew asked? What new methods used? It seems the elders are that the bear probably had gone into hibernation nearby. joiningthe archaeologists as instructors for theNative So the young hunter said, “Oh,boy, we’re gonna eat, we’re students, buthow is the presence of Native co-workers, either gonna eat,” and they decided that beforesearching out the elder or younger, changing the focus of their work? den, they would sit down and have a “feast.” They opened Both the Hanks and Pokotylo paper and the Arundale their and packs and ate uptheir sparse rations. Then this young Jones paper emphasize the importanceof ethnogeographic fellow took the older hunters to the tree to show them the data, but missI some demonstrationof that importance, par- scratches. Behold! They were just porcupine scratches. The ticularly for the situation where we do not have a specific hunters now werehungrier thanever. The Koyukon view this Native name for a place where a researcher ismaking archaeo- incidentretrospectively as humorous,and undoubtedly logical interpretations. Surely the ethnotaxonomy of places recountit for the “benefit” of unseasoned younger and the attributes and functions that an ethnogeography generations. provides would be useful in such a case. However, I think The point Iwish to make, though, is different. In his cau- we are still at the stage of collecting the basic data for eth- tionary tale, Yesner reasons thatthere must have been times nogeographies. We have not yet done enough formalanalysis when key resources failed and Native peoples had to adapt to provide for applications in the places where there are no by shifting their bases of subsistence and the localities they one-to-one correspondences. exploited and even by moving in with other people living in Cook’s papershows us how the different data sources may places favored with food. We have good historic evidence be explored separately, while at the same time illustrating from what theold people have told us that exactly these things what I think is our current difficulty in applying these new happened on the Koyukuk River. The picture is very com- perspectives. We have begun to tap new data sources, but plicated: the moose failed, the caribou failed, prospectors we have not yet formulated a systematic and theoretically were coming into the drainage, therewere epidemics, there explicit way of integrating them toward our goal of full were ephemeral trading stores, to name only a few of the archaeological interpretation. I am encouraged to see that events that were happening around the turn of the 19th we are pursuing these directions, essential foran anthropo- century. logical archaeology, but let us add somerigor, and let us not Nevertheless, the Koyukon people adapted through a major ignore pertinent archaeological and paleontological infor- population movement from one part of the river to other mation as we add data from other sources. areas, both along the Koyukuk and elsewhere. They also foraged over wider areas searching for bears and,far to the Donald Clark’s Comments east, the occasional moose. Retrospective history from the Nativepeople, in themanner Eliza Jonesand Wendy When A. Clark and startedI work on the Koyukuk River Arundale have described in their paper and Annette Clark in Alaska during the 1960s and early 1970s - she in 1961, (1974, 1975, 1981) and Richard Nelson (1983) have done in before me - we went to study culture history. We did not their research, provides such data. Thus, concomitantwith define history as startingwhen the first white people came. Yesner’s reasoned modelof what is likely to have happened We found Paleoindian artifacts, probably 10 500 years old, during resource crises, it ispossible to find examples or derive but we also noticed whowould go to someone’s house and test cases from local information. I doubt if the Koyukuk take a ladder, evidently without asking permission. In other area is unique in this respect. Past hard times are widely WESTERN BOREAL FOREST ETHNOHISTORY - A PREFACE / 91 reported in the North, and stories can convey important (1963:61), who traveled among the Mountain Indians west recollections of how people adapted and survived. of the MackenzieRiver, documents a minimal sheltercalled Now let me relate a cautionary tale from my own work. a trkpied a viande or trkpied de sechage, or tripod drying I said we are thankful forcontact period sites because rack (Michea’s photograph, P1. V-B, actually shows a four- archaeology in the northern forest wouldbe very sparse pole superstructure) that he states could be covered and used without them. But sometimes recent sites do not reflect or for a campingshelter in rainy weather. It was a family shelter meet our suppositions about theremoter past - suppositions capable of addressing concernsfor welfare and comfort, but that we read from thepresent or less remote past and project it was also a temporary featureof a mobile camping group. back in time through the ethnoarchaeological approach.For Janes’s key thesis is that the use of covered tepees in a camp the upper Koyukuk we obtained a nearly complete list of indicates a family was present. Campswith tepees, especially contemporary andrecently usedsalmon fishing camps (other in multiples, represent a more stable or permanent part of fish were also caught from these camps). We looked at a the settlement pattern. Janeshas made a good point needsbut number of them, expecting to find traces of earlier occu- to broaden it. pation, but foundlittle. After talking with peopleon theriver, This discussion of settlement pattern andof when families we learned that the introduction of yarns and commercial may be united around one shelter reminds me of another nets had brought about somechanges in fish camp locations. anecdote from the KoyukukRiver. The upperriver has been In the old days few such camps were located on the main inhabited by bothAthabaskans and Iiiupiat. An elderly river. Instead each band constructed one or two big traps IAupiat who has lived all his life amongAthabaskans whereseveral families lived for thesummer under the sometimes gave a very ethnocentric view of his neighbors, direction of a “boss.” We did not find early sites at the net whether seriously or in jest. In former times,he told us, the fishing camps because new aspects of fishing technology were Kobuk Iiiupiatmen would leavetheir wives at fishing camps influencing the settlement pattern. on theKobuk andAlatna rivers, thenspend the whole Great Bear Lake is another place I have worked (Clark, summer hunting throughout the southern foothills of the 1987) that raises another set of questions. There I was after Brooks Range. “But,” he would add, “the Indians didn’t prehistory alone. When you survey there, you are struck by do that. They couldn’t leave their wives long enough.” the later’evidence. There are tepees, some with poles still I don’t knowhow you can pick up the contrasting config- standing, and many other kindsof structures. On the barren urations of such camps archaeologically, especially sinceeven grounds, artifacts lie on the surface, and you don’t have to in the Kobukand Alatnafish camps therewere always some dirty your hands digging them up. Towards the east side of old menwith the women. Thus the campassemblages would the lake - towards the barren grounds- one continues to not beexclusively oriented towards female use. It is possible see features such as tepee poles fallen in circles and cones to introduce humanity intothe archaeological record when and the outline of rectangular shelters. Hardly a shrub or you combine itwith ethnography. However, before modeling tuft of grass grows in some of them, since some of the shelter archaeological interpretation on Native settlement pattern traces now are located on denuded ground. You expect to anddichotomous deployment of the two sexes, the pick the artifacts right off the floor, but I got down on my archaeologist should have a very good ethnographic foun- hands and knees to search and could not even find a trade dation. Despite the demandsof mobility and thehunt, varied bead. permutations of hunting and traveling parties undoubtedly This account brings me to Bob Janes’s paper. He deals existed, combining able men, women,younger families, and with a tepee seasonally occupied in the 1940s and subse- persons of all ages. quently for about30 years.He recovered numerous artifacts. Touching on a point mentioned in more than one of the As Polly Quick asks in her comments, how are his findings papers,I want to reiteratethat what is recovered inthe going to articulate with prehistoric archaeology? He finds archaeological record often is abandonment behavior. We many artifacts in a recent historic tepee, but I find nothing see this behaviorbest when we know what should or should in somewhat earlier historic shelters (though not all historicnot berecovered, a situation mostlikely to occurin a historic shelters are barren [Clark, 1987:208-2111). Janes’s work is period context. Such knowledge comes from ethnographic a start, but needs to be extended to cover tepees older than information. Returning tothe Koyukuk excavations, at one 1940, tepees occupied only briefly, and earlier tepees dis- of the contact period houses, we found bear bones on the cernible on the surface, perhaps only throughthe distinctive floor. Anyone who has worked withNorthern Athabaskans vegetation of the floor area surrounding a hearth. (Stone knows that you should never find bear bones on ahouse floor. tepee rings are uncommon in the area andthus cannotdefine Worse yet, one bonemay have been chewed by a dog! With an adequatesample.) Other kinds of structures that may have the exception of humans, bears are thehighest ranked of the been used at family camps alsodeserve consideration. There ritually treated animals. This occurrenceis an extreme case are manyrectangular shelters in the Mackenzie District, some of the real culture not following the ideal. Itis probably best with hearths, that evidently served as winter domiciles, in explained not simply by the generally recognizedgap between certain cases for paired families. the real and theideal, but instead throughan extraordinary At the sametime, the history and permutations of tepee the circumstance of abandonment. form should beexplored in depth. What constitutes a tepee Hanks andPokotylo describe training youthful Native crew is a matter for discussion. There is documentary evidence members. I do not intend to comment on thattopic as my that in the northern Mackenzie District, tepees close to the time is limited, and it has many facets on which I am not Plainsformat, but less steeplypitched, area historic qualified to speak. I will, however,mention one otherexample introduction. I believe, though, that some form of conical of increasing integration between archaeologists and the shelter probably has been used there for millenia. MichCa world in which they work. The kind of research discussed 92 / W.H. ARUNDALE et al. here is increasingly being done by staff of northern educa- Chang, 1988, for research showing how some of these other tional and scientific institutions. All the presenters at this types of ethnoarchaeology havebeen used with another symposiumare based in the North, in Alaskaor the northern group). Such research could also tie in nicely with Northwest Territories. Although this occurrence might not another area that cries out for more detailed study: the idea- be unusual for a conference with a northern venue, it is tionalaspects of Athabaskanculture and its impact on noteworthy for one held in Toronto. material remains. Operating from a base located closeto the field has major Studies looking at thechanging patterns of material culture logistical and other benefits over having to travel 6000 km in the last 40-50 years might alsobe quite productive. Infor- or more toreach your field location. When you must travel mation for thisperiod would be more accessible than farther so far, the pressure to make the precious weeks in the field back in time. Just as Yesner’s (this volume) description of “pay off” increases. Given the handicapsof operating long late prehistoric and early historic subsistence patterns may distance, just toget wet, cold, and eaten by insects, it is not provide a model for one phase in the resource variabilitycycle, surprising that after some peoplehave made a coupleof trips the materialevidence of adaptation torapid social and tech- to the North, the next thing you hear is that they are working nological change over the last 50 years may also hold some in Mexico. important lessons for understanding the more distant past. Archaeologists and ethnographerswho live and work close From the ethnohistoric perspective, our research would to thescene of their research can work more easily in local benefit from more extensive use of archival data. In many situations with local people, maintaining continuous contacts cases we have only begun to scratch the surface of what is through theyears to build up a bodyof information without available, and perhaps surprisingly, some new sources are each field excursion being the logistical campaign of the being added toexisting collections. For example,John Cook’s season or thedecade. They also do not always have to have paper in this volume makesuse of Robert McKennan’sfield a big project focus. If I were based in Fairbanks, forinstance, notes, which have only recently become available for study I could more easily extend the archaeological research on at the University of Alaska Fairbanks’s RasmusonLibrary. Koyukuk housepits back from the contact period. Thesites Another resource archaeologists have yet to tap effectively are there,and it would notcost a large amount to dig them, is the collections of historic photographs of Athabaskans if permission were granted. found in many northern locations, including the homesof Anadditional benefit from increased staffing of many Native people(see Blackman, 1981, for techniquesof archaeologists and ethnologists at northern institutionsis that interpreting material culture from historic photographs;see southerly based persons who continue towork in the North also Scherer and Brown, 1981, for examples of how eth- can befreed from someof their logistic burdens through col- nographershave studied Athabaskan life using such laboration with northern colleagues. A northern collaborator photographs). should be able to make arrangements more expeditiouslyfrom In recent years, both ethnohistorians and archaeologists his northern base, including matters pertainingto equipment, have shown us that an expanded range of materials can charters,permits, assistants, and curation of collections. provide usefulinformation (Charlton,1981). Researchers such Thus, key words for northern fieldwork in thistime of as Beryl Gillespie (1975, 1981) and Shepherd Krech (1983, increased Native and local interest and control are collabo- 1984; see also Krech, 1980a and b, for useful bibliographies ration and cooperation. of additional recent works) have given us a seqse of what can be done with archivalmaterials. We simply needto pursue their use more vigorously. We also need to make thearchival SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS and ethnographic sources work together to tell us more, as Catharine McClellan (1975) has done. When we add the The papers in this symposium suggest only a few of the archaeology, we have three sources that can give us quite possibilities for applying ethnohistoric and ethnographic data different perspectives on the sameset of events and thereby to archaeological interpretation in the western boreal forest. enhance our ability to understand change. Many new options remain virtually unexplored. Further, some As time goes on, we recognize more clearly that ethno- ofthese new directions raise importantpractical and historic and ethnographic dataare valuable not onlybecause epistomologicalissues that deserve a bit of further they can provide analogies and thus help us interpret data exploration. from earlier periods, but alsobecause they provideadditional points in time against which we can begin to measure the Directions for Future Research effects of change. Here Quick’s emphasis on the need for theory and methods thatwill help us integrate the threetypes The studies in this symposium, aswell as those mentioned of data becomes particularly important. Each typeof data earlier in this paper, indicate that approaches using eth- has itsown inherent limitations andbiases, and itgoes almost nography and ethnohistory are indeed fruitful for western without saying that at the outset each must be critically boreal forest researchers. Although we still have much togain evaluated in itsown terms. But aswe begin to compare and from traditional approaches,we particularly need to expand integrate them, we need a more explicit framework than the the types of ethnoarchaeological studies undertaken. In par- requirements of analogy (Charlton, 1981; Wylie, 1985). Recent ticular, we need more studiesof modern Athabaskan material research in ethnoarchaeology has begun to provide useful culture. Studies of spatial patterns, relationships between models for integrating archaeology andethnography. But we time-motion and activity areas, disposal behavior, techno- still lack parallel approaches for integrating ethnohistoric logical processes, and the cultural patterning in cemeteries data. As Charlton (1981) admits, integrationof material from could all be valuable and enlightening (see, for example, these importantcomplementary sources is still poorly WESTERN BOREAL FOREST ETHNOHISTORY - A PREFACE /’ 93 developed in North American archaeology, despite our long of inquiry proceeds. In projects suchas Hanks and Pokotylo history of using them together. (this volume) present, the two goals have been successfully reconciled. Thereare no pat answers, however, and the appropriate response will vary from case to case. Perhaps Issues of Priorities the only certainty is that local people must be involved in Finding solutions to the problems mentioned above will deciding the futuredirection of research concerning their land not be easy. Only a few researchers are studying the interior and their heritage. Subarctic, and the value placed on northern work by much Further, ethnoarchaeological research demands that the of Americanist archaeologyis not very great. Research costs investigator be broadly trained so she or he is capable of arehigh, and outside of development-relatedprojects, working comfortably andskillfully with archaeological, eth- funding for northern research is often difficult to obtain. nographic, and ethnohistoric data. Indeed, the conflicting These circumstances seem particularly ironicsince the North needs just discussed and thedilemmas they presentmake such in general, and thewestern Subarctic in particular, is an espe- training even more imperative.Yet increasingly, archaeologists cially valuable place to investigate issues such as: (1) under- are receiving more and morespecialized training in their own standing hunter-gatherer adaptations, (2) documenting the subfield of anthropology and less and less training in the range of human variability, and (3) examining how people other subfields that would helpthem with thiskind of adapt to environmental andresource instability - issues of research and the concerns about priorities it raises. broad primary concern within Americanist anthropology as This trend toward more specialized training has some addi- a whole. tionalimplications when we consider one final issue. In These limitations also addan air of extra urgency to some presenting results, such as this symposium reports, recog- difficult issues concerning research priorities. For example, nizing that we as researchers are not separate fromour data working with ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological becomesincreasingly important. Once archaeological sources together, though extremely valuable, can present us materials are presented in some form, beit museum exhibit with a difficult dilemma. Theneed to interview aging elders or professional paper, two messages result: is urgent; we want to talk with them while their memories The obvious one is what the past was like. The other one are clear and sharp. Yetwe may be able to make the most is the meaning the present imposes on data from another time of what they have to say only if we take time away from this and which the present thus feeds back to itself. The first important task to study thearchival record as well. (See also message is one we can help create as archaeologists. The concernsabout ethnoarchaeology and research priorities second is one we can help understand as anthropologists raised by Trigger, 1982.) [Leone, 1981:15]. Inmost western borealforest areas the most obvious An increasing number of historic archaeologists, in particular, historic sites, and in most areas the majorityof the sites that are choosing to addressthis important epistemologicalissue have been studied, are thelarger, often olderresidential sites. through applicationof critical theory andsimilar approaches Yetif the expectations generated by some recent research (see, for example, Clarke, 1973; Cero et al., 1983; Handsman, (Binford, 1978a, 1980, 1982)are correct, thesesites are likely 1981; Leone et al., 1987; Meltzer, 1981). Whatever approach to be the mostcomplex and difficultto interpret, particularly we choose for exploring thisissue, we can ill afford to leave if we have not looked at the simpler sites in the same set- it unexamined. tlement system from a contemporary period. If we are to The questionof how the present imposes meaningon the understand thesettlement system as a whole, we need to begin past is more than an epistemological one for those working with smaller, single-purpose, single-use sites. Janes’s paper in the western boreal forest; it hasa very clear practicalside, in thisvolume illustrates verynicely the value of this too. As local Native people becomeincreasingly involved in approach. From such sites, especially if they are relatively the work, we must ask, whose present will shape the data? recent so that knowledgeable people are available to talk The present of the academic, museum-oriented, orgovern- about them, we are mostlikely to get (1) good ethnographic ment agency archaeologist, or the present of the Native data,along with (2) goodarchaeological data recovery, people?Or some combination of both? Because most resulting in (3) patterns that will help us interpret other older archaeologists are trained and employed by major institutions and more complex sites. (universities, museums, governmentagencies) in a dominant Yet this priority raises other questions. Can we justify culture, even the very framework within which our work takes spending time and money doing ethnoarchaeology onrela- place cannot help but reflect, in at least some ways, the values tively small, recent sites when the elders that cangive us the and structural relationships of that culture. This issue has detailed historical, cultural, and even archaeological back- some very important implications forthe manner andextent ground on the older, more prominent and morecomplex sites to which Native people areinvolved in our research. As we are not likely to bewith us very much longer? Through such consider the paper by Hanks and Pokotylo (this volume), detailed studiesof small sites may come betteropportunities it also speaks in a variety of ways to the question of how to model settlement systems and develop operational defi- local people are trained to do such work. nitionsfor basic archaeological concepts, goals very As anthropologists, we are uniquely equipped tosee how important to the discipline of archaeology. But often what the values and relationships of our own culture may influence really matters to theNative people is the detailed historyof the conduct and presentation of our work and to address the large, old, and prominentsites in their area. Whose goals the role that influence plays, if only we will look. We should will prevail when research funding is so very scarce? be forewarned, however, that looking, although extremely Doing the ethnographynow and the archaeology lateris interesting, may not be an entirely comfortable process. not a workable solution, for each is needed as the process Looking may tell us some things about ourselves and the 94 / W.H. ARUNDALE et al. institutional structures in whichwe work that we would rather Interior Alaska.A Journey throughTime. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic not see because it may heighten our awareness of conflicting Society. 97-146. -and GANNON, B.L. 1980. Historic and Prehistoric Land Use in values. Nevertheless,we forego such insights at ourown peril. Interior Alaska: Delta North to Prudhoe Bay; Background Report for Because the past is gristfor establishing and giving meaning Archaeological Survey along the Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline from to the present, this issue is also particularly important for Delta Junction to Prudhoe Bay to Fluor Engineers and Constructors, the Native people with whom we work. Throughout the Irvine, California.Anthropology Program, Universityof Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 259 p. contact period, the history, language, and culture of Native -. 1981. Archaeological Survey in Alaska, Final Report on the 1980 people have been denigrated, and even today, much in their Archaeological Survey along the Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company everyday world implies that these intrinsic aspects of their Natural Gas PipelineCorridor from Prudhoe Bay to Delta Junction, with lives are somehow inferior. Yet if Native people are to adapt Additional Work to the South. Submittedto Flour Northwest, Inc. Anthro- successfully to their rapidly changing world, they need a pology Program and Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 379 p. strong sense of self-worth, part of which comes from an -. 1982. Archaeological Survey in Alaska 1981. Final Report on the appreciation of and respect for one’s past. 1981 Archaeological Survey along the NorthwestAlaskan Pipeline Native people themselves clearly recognize this require- Company Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor from Prudhoe Bay to Delta ment. They confirm its importance through: (1) statements Junction. Submitted to Flour Northwest, Inc. Anthropology Program, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 317 p. indicating their need to use their traditional language, culture, ALBRIGHT,S. 1984. TahltanEthnoarchaeology. Department of and stories, (2) the often expressed desire to have a local Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication 15. 127 p. museum and tohold heritage-related activities sponsored by ANDREWS, E. 1977. Cultural Resources of the Doyon Region. 2 vols. Occa- their own organizations, such aselders’ conferences, and (3) sional Paper No. 5, Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative participation in research projects that document their past, Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 490 p. ARUNDALE, W.H. 1983. Archaeology and Oral History Research in Alaska. like the ones discussed in this symposium. In some cases, Paper presented at the International Congress of Anthropological and Native groups are hiring anthropologists to do the work. (See Ethnological Science, Vancouver, British Columbia. 12 p. On file in the also Miller, 1980, for a discussion of similar and related Archives, Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. issues.) -. 1984. Oral History and Ethnohistory in Northern Archaeological Research: Some Methodological and Practical Issues. Paper presented Yet even under these conditions, what the Native people at the CanadianArchaeological Association Annual Meeting, Victoria, want documented and the way they want it presented may British Columbia. 15 p. On file in the Archives,Rasmuson Library, only partially overlap with what the researcher’s training and University of Alaska, Fairbanks. values indicate are important and appropriate. Andwithout ~ and SCHLEDERMANN, P., assemblers. 1980. Recent Research in critical examination, both parties may find themselves missing Eskimo Archaeology. Arctic 33(3):383-669. BINFORD, L.R. 1977. General Introduction. In: Binford, L.R., ed. For important hidden social, economic, or political agendas. No Theory Building in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. 1-10, one perspective is intrinsically right or wrong, but carefully -. 1978a. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. exploring a wide range of perspectives can be vital to meeting 509 p. local needs, avoiding unnecessaryconflict, and understanding ~. 1978b. DimensionalAnalysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learningfrom an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity influential meanings and values in the present that might 43(3):330-361. otherwise remain hidden and unexamined. Along with all -. 1980. Willow Smoke andDog’s Tails: Hunter Gatherer Settlement the other requirements of our research, it is crucial that we Systems and ArchaeologicalSite Formation.American Antiquity address, not ignore, how the present of both archaeologists 45(1):4-20. andNative people influences our research and its -. 1982. The Archaeologyof Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31. presentation. BLACKMAN, M. 1981. Window on the Past: The Photographic Ethno- history of the Northern and Kaigani Haida. Canadian Ethnological ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Service, Mercury Series, Paper No. 74. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Many thanks to all the participants in the symposium for their BOURTELLI, M., ed. 1985. Northwest Territory Archaeology: Fieldwork cooperation and contributions, both theto session in Toronto and in 1985. Archaeology Reports of the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage to this volume.We hope it has beena pleasant and mutually valuable Centre, No. 2. Yellowknife: Department of Culture and Communication, experience for all. On behalf of all the symposiumparticipants we Northwest Territories. extend our thanks to Gordon Hodgson and the editorial staff at BRUMBACH,H.J. 1985. The Recent FurTrade in Northwestern Arctic for theirhelpful advice and their considerable patience and Saskatchewan. Historical Archaeology 19(2):19-39. -and JARVENPA, R. In press. The Ethnoarchaeology and Ecology effort in putting this volume together. of an Intercultural Frontier: Athapaskans, Algonkians, and Europeans Additionally, the senior author would like to thank Jean Aigner, in the Subarctic. New York: Peter Lang.

Hetty Jo Brumbach, Donald Clark, Christopher Hanks, Robert ~ andBUELL, C. 1982. AnEthnoarchaeological Approach to Janes, Robert Jarvenpa, Eliza Jones, Polly Quick, and William Chipewyan Adaptations in the Late Fur Trade Period. Arctic Anthro- Schneider for specific comments on the preface text.also She thanks pology 19(1):1-49. the Instituteof Arctic Biology, University of AlaskaFairbanks, and CAULFIELD, R. 1983. DinjiiNats’aa Nan Kak Adaqwaandaii. Subsistence Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, for sup- Land Use in Upper Yukon - Porcupine Communities, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fishand Game,Division of Subsistence,Technical Paper porting this paper’s production. No. 16. CHANG, C. 1988. Nauyalik Fish Camp: An Ethnoarchaeological Study REFERENCES in Activity-Area Formation. American Antiquity 53(1):145-157. CHARLTON,T.H. 1981. Archaeology,Ethnohistory, and Ethnology: AIGNER, J.S. 1979. Historic and Prehistoric LandUse in the Upper Tanana Interpretive Interfaces. In:Schiffer, M.B., ed. Advances in Archaeological Valley, 11: Supplement to “Report on the Archaeological Survey along Method and Theory. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 129-176. the Alaska Highway Pipeline from DeltaJunction to theYukon Border.” CINQ-MARS, J. 1973. PreliminaryArchaeological Study, Mackenzie Anthropology Program, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 165 p. Corridor. (IAND Publication QS-1506-000-EE-XA1.) Environmental- -. 1986. Footprints on the Land.In: Aigner, J.S., Guthrie, R.D., Social Committee Report 73-10. Ottawa: Northern Pipeline Task Force Guthrie, M.L., Nelson, R.K., Schneider, W.S., and Thorson, R.M., eds. on Northern Oil Development. WESTERN BOREAL FOREST ETHNOHISTORY - A PREFACE / 95

-. 1974. PreliminaryArchaeological Study, Mackenzie Corridor DIXON,E.J., SMITH, G.S., ANDREFSKY, W., Jr., SALEEBY, B., (Second Report). In: Cinq-Mars, J.,et a/.,eds. Environmental-Social Com- UTERMOHLE, C.J., and KING, M.L. 1984. Final Report 1983 Field mittee Report 74-11. Ottawa: Northern Pipelines Task Force on Northern Season Sub-task 7.06: Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna Oil Development. Hydroelectric Project: Cultural Resource Survey in the Middle Susitna -. 1976. Preliminary Archaeological Study:Mackenzie Corridor (Final River Valley. 3 vols. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska. Report 1975). (ALUR 1974-1975.)Ottawa: Minister of Indian and Northern 635 p. Affairs. As cited in Helm, 1981. DONNAN, C.B., andCLEWLOW, C.W.,Jr. 1974. Ethnoarchaeology. -and MARTIJN, C.A. 1981. History of Archaeological Research in Universityof California(Los Angeles), Instituteof Archaeology the Subarctic Shield and Mackenzie Valley. In: Helm, J., ed. Handbook Monograph No. 4. of North American Indians.Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, D.C.: Smith- ELLANNA, L.J., and BALLUTA, A. In press. Nuvendaltun Quht'ana: The sonian Institution. 30-34. People of Nondalton. Anchorage: US. National Park Service, Alaska Region. CLARK, A.M. 1974. Koyukuk River Culture. National Museum of Man GERO, J.M., LACY, D.M., and BLAKEY, M.L. 1983. The Socio-politics MercurySeries, Canadian EthnologyService Paper No. 18. Ottawa: of Archaeology. University of Massachusetts (Amherst)Department of National Museums of Canada. Anthropology Research Report 23. -, ed. 1975. Proceedings: Northern Athapaskan Conference, 1971. GILLESPIE, B.C. 1975. An Ethnohistory of the Yellowknives: a Northern 2 vols. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Ethnology Service Paper Athapaskan Tribe. In: Carlisle,D.B., ed. Contributions to CanadianEth- No. 27. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. nology. National Museumof Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnological -. 1981. Koyukon. In Helm, J., ed. Handbook of North American Service Paper No. 31. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 191-246. Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. -. 1981. Territorial Groups before 1821: Athapaskans of the Shield 582-601. and the MackenzieDrainage. In: Helm, J., ed. Handbook of North

~ and CLARK, D.W. 1974. Koyukon Athapaskan Houses as Seen American Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti- through Oral Traditionaland through Archaeology. Arctic Anthropology tution. 161-168. 11 (suppl.):29-38. GOULD, R.A., ed. 1978. Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. Albuquerque: CLARK, D.W. 1975. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Northern Interior University of New Mexico Press. 329 p. District of Mackenzie: 1969, 1970, and 1972. National Museum of Man -. 1980. Living Archaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 27. Ottawa: 270 p. National Museums of Canada. -and SCHIFFER, M.B., ed. 1981. Modern Material Culture. New -. 1981. Prehistoryof the Western Subarctic. In:Helm, J., ed. York: Academic Press. 347p. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, GRAYSON, D.K. 1982. Review of Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 107-129. by Lewis R. Binford. American Anthropologist 84:439-440. -. 1982. The Vanishing Edge of Today in the Northern District of HANDSMAN, R.G. 1981. EarlyCapitalism andthe Center Village of Mackenzie: a View from Field Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Anthro- Canaan, Connecticut: A Study of Transformations and Separations. pology 2(2):107-128. Artifacts 9:2-7. -. 1987. Archaeological Reconnaissanceat Great Bear Lake. National HANKS, C.C., and WINTER, B. 1983. Dene Names as an Organizing Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey ofCanada Principle in Ethnoarchaeological Research. Muskox 33:49-56. Paper No. 136. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. -. 1986. Local Knowledge of Ethnoarchaeology: An Approach to Dene -and MORLAN, R.E. 1982. Western Subarctic Prehistory: lkenty Settlement Systems. Current Anthropology 27(3):272-275. Years Later. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 6:79-94. HELM, J., ed. 1981. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. CLARKE, D.L. 1973. The Past and the Present in the Present. American Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Antiquity 50:52-62. HELMER, J.W., VANDYKE, S., and KENSE, F.J., eds. 1977. Problems COOK, J.P. 1969. Early Prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska. Ph.D. disser- in the Prehistory of the North American Subarctic: The Athapaskan tation, University of Wisconsin, Department of Anthropology, Madison. Question. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association. -, ed. 1977. Pipeline Archeology. Fairbanks: University of Alaska, 223 p. Institute of Arctic Biology. 982 p. IRVING, W.N., and CINQ-MARS, J. 1974. A Tentative Archaeological DARNELL, R., ed. 1970. Athabascan Studies. Western Canadian Journal Sequence for Old Crow Flats, Yukon Territory. Arctic Anthropology 11 of Anthropology 2(1) (Special Issue). 211 p. (suppl.):65-81. DAVIS, N.Y. 1981. History of Research in Subarctic Alaska. In: Helm, J., IVES, J.W. 1985. Northern Athapaskan Social and Economic Variability. ed. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 43-48. JANES, R.R. 1974. The Archaeology of Fort Alexander, N.W.T. Northern DEKIN, A.A., Jr. 1978. Arctic Archaeology: A Bibliography and History. Pipelines lksk Force on Northern Oil Development, Environmental-Social New York: Garland. 279 p. Committee Report 74-34. Ottawa, Ontario. As cited in Helm, 1981. DE LAGUNA, F. 1936. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Middle ___. 1975a. Athapaskan Dispersion and Nucleation. Ph.D. dissertation, and Lower Yukon Valley, Alaska. American Antiquity 2(1):6-12. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. ~. 1947. The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen from -. 1975b. The Athapaskan and the Fur Trade: Observations from the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 3. Menasha, Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Western Canadian Journal of Anthro- Wisconsin. 360 p. pology 5(3-4):159-186. DERRY, F.E., and HUDSON, D.R., eds. 1975. Athapaskan Archaeology. -. 1983. Archaeological Ethnography amongMackenzie BasinDene, Western Canadian Journalof Anthropology S(3-4) (Special Issue). 249 p. Canada. Technical Paper No. 28. Calgary: The Arctic Institute of North DIXON, E.J. 1985. Cultural Chronology of Central InteriorAlaska. Arctic America. 124p. Anthropology 22(1):47-66. KARI, J., ed. 1983. Ahtna PlaceNames Lists. Copper RiverNative -, SMITH, G.S., and THORSON, R.M. 1980. Preliminary report Association, Copper Center.Fairbanks: Alaska and AlaskaNative on the Archaeological Survey ofthe Upper SusitnaRiver Valley, Alaska. Language Center, University of Alaska. 123 p. In connection with the Susitna Hydropower Project, 1980. Report to: -. In press. SomePrinciples of Alaskan AthabaskanToponymic Secretary,Smithsonian Institutionand U.S. Department of Interior, Knowledge. In Key, M.R., and Hoenigswald, H.M., eds. Linguistic Tributes H.C.R.S., as required under permit no. 80-AK-023. 67 p. Report on file to Stanley S. Newman. The Hague: Mouton. at University of Alaska Museum, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. -and KARI, P.R. 1982. Dena'ina Elnena.Tanaina Country. Fairbanks: DIXON, E.J., SMITH, G.S., BETTS, R.C., and THORSON, R.M. 1982a. Alaska Native Language Center. University of Alaska. 110 p. Final Report. Sub-task 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the KRAMER, C., ed. 1981. Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Columbia University Susitna Hydroelectric Project. A Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey Press. 292 p. in theUpper Susitna River Valley. Universityof Alaska Museum, KRECH, S., 111. 1980a. Northern Athapaskan Ethnology in the 1970s. In: Fairbanks, Alaska. 169p. Siegel, B.J., Beak, A.R., and Tyler, S.A., eds. Annual Review of Anthro- -. 1982b. A Preliminary CulturalResource Survey in the Upper Susitna pology. Vol. 9. Pal0 Alto: Annual Reviews. 93-100. River Valley. Sub-task 7.06 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Susitna -. 1980b. NorthernAthapaskan Ethnology: AnAnnotated Bib- Hydroelectric Project. 2vols. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, liographyof Published Materials, 1970-1979. ArcticAnthropology Alaska. 770 p. 17(2):68-105. 96 / W.H. ARUNDALE et ai.

-. 1983. The Influenceof Disease and the FurTrade on Arctic Drainage NOBLE, W.C. 1975. Applications of theDirect Historic Approachin Central LowlandsDene. 1800-1850. Journal of Anthropological Research Districtof Mackenzie, N.W.T. In: Clark, A.McF., ed. Proceedings: 39(2):123-146. NorthernAthapaskan Conference, 1971. NationalMuseum ofMan -. 1984. The Trade of the Slavey and Dogrib at Fort Simpson in the MercurySeries, Ethnology Service Paper No. 27.Ottawa: National Early Nineteenth Century. In: Krech, S., ed. The Subarctic Fur Trade: Museums of Canada. Vol. 2:759-797. Native Social and Economic Adaptations.Vancouver: University of British ~. 1981. Prehistory of the Great Slave Lakeand Great Bear Lake Region. Columbia Press. 99-146. In Helm, J., ed. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. LEONE, M.P. 1981. Archaeology’s Material Relationship to the Present Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 97-106. and thePast. In: Gould, R.A., and Schiffer, M.B., eds.Modern Material RAAB,L.M., and GOODYEAR, A.C. 1984. Middle-RangeTheory in Culture. New York: Academic Press. 5-14. Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications, American -, PARKER, P.B., Jr., and SHACKEL,P.A. 1987. Toward a Critical Antiquity 49(2):255-268. Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302. SCHERER, J.C., and BROWN, J.S.H. 1981. StillPictures in Subarctic MAcNEISH, R.S. 1953. Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Mackenzie Research: A Symposium Presented at the American Anthropological River Drainage. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 128:23-39. Association Meetings in Cincinnati, Ohio, November 1979. Arctic Anthro- __. 1954. The Pointed Mountain Site Near FortLiard, Northwest Ter- pology 18(2). 126 p. ritories, Canada. American Antiquity 19(3):234-253. SHINKWIN, A.D. 1979. Dakah De’nin’s Village and the Dixthada Site. -. 1955. ?hro Archaeological Sites on Great Bear Lake, Northwest A Contribution to Northern AthapaskanPrehistory. National Museum Territories, Canada. Annual Report for 1953-54. National Museum of of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. Canada Bulletin 13654-84. 91. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. -. 1959a. Men Out of Asia: As Seen from the Northwest Yukon. -and AIGNER, J.S. 1979. Historic and Prehistoric Land Use in the Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 7(2):41-70. Upper Tanana Valley: Report on the Archaeological Survey along the __. 1959b. A Speculative Framework ofNorthern North AmericaPre- Alaska Highway Pipeline from Delta Junction to the Yukon Border, I. history as of April 1959. Anthropologica l(1-2):7-23. Report submitted to the Northwest Alaska Pipeline Company.University __. 1960. The Callison Site in the Light of Archaeological Survey of of Alaska, Fairbanks. 203 p. Available at Anthropology Department, Southwest Yukon. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 162:l-51. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. -. 1963. The Early Peopling of the New World - As Seen from the SPORES, R.M. 1980. New World Ethnohistory and Archaeology, 1970-1980. Southwestern Yukon. Anthropological Papersof the University of Alaska In: Siegel, B. J., Beals, A.R., andTyler, SA., eds. Annual Review of Anthro- 10(2):93-106. pology Vol. 9. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews. 575-603. -.”. -.”. 1964. Investigations in Southwest Yukon: Archaeological Exca- STILES, D. 1977. Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods andAppli- vations, Comparisons, and Speculations. Papers ofthe Robert S. Peabody cations. Man 12:87-103. Foundation for Archaeology 6(2):201-488. SWANTON, J. 1970. Social Condition, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationship MAXWELL, M.S. 1980. Archaeology of the Arctic and Subarctic Zones. of the Tlingit Indians. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. 116 p. In: Siegel, B.J., Beals, A.R.,andvler, S.A., eds. Annual Review of Anthro- THOMAS, D.H. 1986. Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in pology, Vol. 9. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.161-185. America. In:Meltzer, D.J., Fowler, D.D., and Sabloff, J.A., eds. American McCLELLAN, C. 1975. My Old People Say: An Ethnographic Survey of Archaeology Past and Future. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Southern Yukon Territory. 2 Parts. National Museum of Man, Publi- 237-276. cations in Ethnology No. 6. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. TRIGGER, B.G. 1982. Ethnoarchaeology: Some Cautionary Considerations. McKAY, A.G.,ed. 1977. New Perspectivesin Canadian Archaeology. In: Tooker, E., ed. Ethnographyby Archaeologists. 1978 Proceedings of Proceedings of the 15th Symposium of the Royal Society of Canada. the American Ethnological Society, Washington. 1-10, Toronto, Canada. As cited in Helm, 1981. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY. McKENNAN, R.A., and COOK, J.P. 1970. Prehistoryof Healy Lake, 1970. Report of Archaeological Survey and Excavations along the Alyeska Alaska. Proceedings of the 8th InternationalCongress of Anthropological Pipeline Service Company Haulroad and Pipeline Alignments. College, and Ethnological Sciences, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan. Vol. 3:182-184. Alaska: University of Alaska, Department of Anthropology. 216 p. MELTZER, D. 1981. Ideology and Material Culture. In Gould, R.A., and -. 1971. Final Report of the Archaeological Survey and Excavations Schiffer, M.B., eds. Modern Material Culture.New York: Academic Press. along the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company: Pipeline Route to Fulfill 113-126. Requirements of Task Order 9. College, Alaska: University of Alaska, MICHEA, J. 1963. Les Chitra-gottineke, essai de monographie d’un groupe Department of Anthropology. 465 p. Athapascan des montagnes Rocheuses. National Museum of Canada VANSTONE, J.W. 1978. E.W. Nelson’s Notes on the Indians of the Yukon Bulletin No. 19049-93. and the Innoko Rivers, Alaska. Fieldiana Anthropology 70. Chicago: MILLAR, J.F.V., and FEDIRCHUK, G. 1975. Mackenzie River Archaeo- Field Museum of Natural History. logical Survey. NorthernPipelines Task Force on NorthernOil ~. 1979a. Ingalik Contact Ecology: An Ethnohistory of the Lower- Development, Environmental-Social Committee Report 74-47. Ottawa, Middle Yukon 1790-1935. Fieldiana Anthropology 71. Chicago: Field Ontario. As cited in Helm, 1981. Museum of Natural History. MILLER, D. 1980. Archaeology and Development. Current Anthropology -. 1979b. Historical Ingalik Settlements along the Yukon, Innoko, 21(6):709-726. and Anvik Rivers, Alaska. Fieldiana Anthropology 72. Chicago: Field MONROE,P., and HANKS, C.,eds. 1987. NorthwestTerritories Museum of Natural History. Archaeology: Fieldwork in 1986. Archaeological Reports of the Prince WORKMAN, W., compiler. 1985. CulturalResource Management of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, No. 3. Yellowknife: Department of Archaeology in Alaska: Current Status and Future Prospects. Alaska Culture and Communication, Northwest Territories. Historical Commission Studies in History, No. 148. 139 p. MORLAN, R.E. 1973. The LaterPrehistory of the MiddlePorcupine WRIGHT, J.V. 1981. Prehistory of the Canadian Shield. In: Helm, J., ed. Drainage, Northern Yukon Territory, National Museum of Man Mercury Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 11. Ottawa: National D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 86-96. Museums of Canada. WYLIE, A. 1985. The Reaction against Analogy. In: Schiffer, M.B., ed. MORRISON, D.A. 1987. The Middle Prehistoric Period and the Archaic Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8. NewYork: Conceptin the Middle Mackenzie Valley. CanadianJournal of Academic Press. 63-111. Archaeology 11:49-74. YELLEN, J.E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models NELSON, R.K. 1983. Make Prayers to the Raven. Chicago: University of for Reconstructing the Past. New York: Academic Press. 259 p. Chicago Press. 292 p.