An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Douglas Deur, Ph.D. 

Thomas Thornton, Ph.D.

Rachel Lahoff, M.A.

Jamie Hebert, M.A.

2015

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

Yakutat Tlingit 

and 

Wrangell-St Elias National Park and Preserve:
Cover photos: Mount St. Elias / Was'ei Tashaa (courtesy Wikimedia Commons); 

Mount St. Elias Dancers (courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe / Bert Adams Sr.)
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park and Preserve: 

An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

2015

Douglas Deur, Thomas Thornton, Rachel Lahoff, and Jamie Hebert

Portland State University Department of Anthropology 

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

PO Box 439/Mile 106.8 Richardson Highway

Copper Center AK 99573 

www.nps.gov/wrst 

Title page photo: Mount St. Elias Dancers (courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe / Bert Adams Sr.)

This research was completed under a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit Task Agreement (No.

J8W07100006) between the National Park Service, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve 

and Portland State University, under Cooperative Agreement H8W07060001.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Methods 8

Foundations 16

Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Introduction 17

Movements of Clans and Cultures into the Yakutat Region 23

Migration Narratives of Yakutat Clans 26

The Migration of the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan Clan 27

The Migration of the Kwáashk’ikwáan Clan 30

Yakutat Tlingit Clan Organization 40

The Yaakwdáat Kwáan and Their Lands 48

Natural Resources and Traditional Harvests on the South Coast of Wrangell-St. Elias 62

Marine Mammals 68

Fish and Shellfish 78

Eyak Fishing Traditions 83

Terrestrial Animals 84

Birds and Bird Eggs 88

Plant Foods 90

Minerals, Rocks and Shells 93

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit Stewardship of Natural Resources 96

Transitions 99

European Exploration and the “Rediscovery” of Yakutat 100

The Russian Occupation of Yakutat 109

The American Reoccupation 118

Yakutat Tlingit Responses and Early Revivals 125

World War II and the Emergence of Modern Yakutat 130

On the Eve of Park Creation: Yakutat Tlingit Uses of Wrangell-St. Elias from 

World War II to ANILCA 135

Seals and Sealing 136

New Responses to the Challenges of Sealing in Icy Waters 138

Fishing the Coastline of Wrangell-St. Elias in the Postwar Period 148

Commercial and Surf Fishing 151

Camps and Commercial Fishing: In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 153

Mountain Goat and Other Terrestrial Animals 156

Moose and Deer in the Yakutat Territory: 1930s-1970s 157

Birds and Bird Eggs 159

Plant Gathering 161

New Pressures 163
iv Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Modern Connections 166

Enduring Traditions of Resource Use in and around Wrangell-St. Elias 167

Persisting Resource Traditions 175

Seal and Sea Otter Hunting 179

Land Hunting 181

Fish and Shellfish 184

Seagull Eggs 186

Plant Gathering 187

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit Stewardship of Natural Resources 189

Modern Communities: The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Yak-Tat Kwaan, and Yakutat, Alaska 192

Modern Connections: Enduring Connections and Hopes for the Future 200

Park-Tribe Relationships 207

Looking Toward the Future 211

Toward a Collaborative Future: Conclusions and Recommendations 216

Wrangell-St. Elias Visitors and Management Respecting the Landscape 225

Meaningful Acknowledgement of Yakutat Tlingit Linkages to the Land 225

A Voice as “Host” 226

Educational, Economic and Employment Opportunities 227

Maintaining Connections with the Land 228

Sources 232

Notes 233

Bibliography 300

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography Separate volume
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment v 

MAPS, TABLES, and FIGURES

Map 1: Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve 7 

Map 2: Level III Ecoregions: Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve 18 

Map 3: Tlingit and Eyak Traditional Territories 24 

Map 4: Approximate Migration Routes of the Kwáashk’ikwáan & GalyáxKaagwaantaan 28 

Map 5: Placenames in and near Wrangell-St. Elias 31 

Map 6: Clan Traditional Territories 41 

Map 7: Traditional Lands of the Tlingit 43 

Map 8: Selected Landmarks: South Coast of Wrangell-St. Elias 149 

Table 1: Placenames Identified by Thornton (2012), keyed to Map 5 32 

Table 2: The Clans and Houses of Yakutat 47 

Table 3: Shoreline Resources Traditionally Gathered by Northern Tlingit

Communities 64 

Table 4: Seasonal Round (adapted from Davis 1996:140) 67 

Figure 1: The Village of S’ooska, or Port Mulgrave 50 

Figure 2: The 1880s Survey of Harold Topham 57 

Figure 3: View of Mount St. Elias and the Yahtse Glacier from Icy Bay 59 

Figure 4: A Seal Camp Fronting Yakutat Bay, Early 20th century 70 

Figure 5: Drying Sealskins at a Seal Camp on Yakutat Bay, Early 20th century 73 

Figure 6: Students at the Swedish Covenant Mission, Early 20th century 120 

Figure 7: The Waterfront of Yakutat as it Appeared in the Early 20th century 123 

Figure 8: The Mount St. Elias Dancers as They Appeared in the 1950s 128 

Figure 9: Military Aircraft at the Yakutat Air Base 130 

Figure 10: An Example of a Yakutat Seal Hunting Boat in the Mid-20th century 141 

Figure 11: Drying Seal Hides at Seal Camp in the Mid-20th century 145 

Figure 12: Transporting Military Surplus Vehicles in the Mid-20th century 155 

Figure 13: An Early Tour Boat Visiting the Base of Hubbard Glacier 174 

Figure 14: Subsistence Harvest by Yakutat Residents by Resource Type, 1984 176 

Figure 15: Subsistence Harvest by Yakutat residents, by Resource Category, 2000 177 

Figure 16: The Mount St. Elias Dancers 212 

Figure 17: The Entrance to the Alaska Native Brotherhood Hall, Camp 13, 

Yakutat Alaska 223 
vi Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

LIST of ACRONYMS 

ADF&G: Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR: Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

ANB: Alaska Native Brotherhood

ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

ANBANSGC: Alaska Native Brotherhood Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp

ANILCA: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

ANS: Alaska Native Sisterhood

CAC: The Chugach Alaska Corporation 

CBY: City and Borough of Yakutat 

CCC: Cordova Chamber of Commerce

CCTHITA: Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

CESU: Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit

EO&A: Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

GLBA: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

GIS: Geographical Information Systems 

HAL: Haa Aani, LLC ( 

IRA: Indian Reorganization Act 

NPS: National Park Service

NVE: Native Village of Eyak

NVETC: Native Village of Eyak Traditional Council

PSU: Portland State University

TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TCP: Traditional Cultural Property

THPO: Tribal Historic Preservation Office

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

USDAFS: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

USDOIFWS: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDOINPS: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service

USDSOH: United States Department of State, Office of the Historian

USNARA: US National Archives and Records Administration

WRST: Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

YCC: Yakutat Chamber of Commerce

YTK: Yak-Tat Kwaan 

YTT: Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 1

Introduction

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, a unit of the National Park Service, is a 

place of sprawling superlatives. The largest national park in the United States, it 

encompasses some 20,587 square miles, or more than 13 million acres of land in 

southcentral Alaska (see Map 1). Sitting at a point where North American and Pacific 

tectonic plates collide at a wrenched right angle, the landscape of Wrangell-St. Elias 

ranges from the sea to the lofty summit of Mount St. Elias—at 18,008 feet, the second 

tallest peak in Alaska and the fourth tallest in North America. Indeed, fourteen of the 

twenty tallest peaks in North America are found in the Wrangell and St. Elias Mountain 

Ranges intersecting in the park. This unit of the National Park Service (NPS) also 

contains the most extensive array of glaciers and ice fields on the planet outside of polar 

regions. Indeed, the southern portion of the park, the study area of this document, is 

home to Hubbard Glacier, the world’s longest tidewater glacier, and Malaspina Glacier, 

the world’s largest piedmont glacier. Established in 1980 under the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, much of the park consists of formally designated 

wilderness, representing the largest such wilderness area in the United States. Together 

with Canada’s contiguous Kluane National Park, Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park 

and the United States’ Glacier Bay National Park, Wrangell-St. Elias is part of 

UNESCO’s Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek World Heritage 

Site—one of the largest terrestrial protected areas on Earth.

Simultaneously, it is clear that the reputation of Wrangell-St. Elias as a “wilderness” is 

not entirely consistent with the park’s ground truth. The lands and resources within 

this park have long been home to myriad Alaska Native communities —from the 

Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak to the south to Ahtna and Upper Tanana Athabascan peoples 

of the interior. Certain Native communities descend from former park inhabitants. 

Indeed, some trace their very origins as a people to events, still described in their oral 

traditions, that took place on what are now park lands. Archaeological evidence 

suggests thousands of years of human history in or near what is today the park, even if 

the changing landscape, including the advance and retreat of the park’s many glaciers, 

has sometimes obscured this deeper history. The diverse resources of the park—its fish, 

game, and plants—have long sustained human communities. Copper objects gathered 

within today’s park boundaries were once centerpieces of traditional social, economic 

and ceremonial life, not just locally but to a network of Native communities extending 

across Alaska and well beyond. Even into the present day, certain Native communities 

subsist in part on resources obtained within the boundaries of the preserve. Many 

landmarks within the park are still revered or held to be sacred; some are invoked in 

ceremony, stories, songs, and regalia, in an acknowledgement of their role in clan

origins and traditional ownership of these prominent places. In this sense, the park is 

anything but the “wilderness” that many visitors assume it to be. The northwestern 
2 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

shorelines of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays, specifically, are said to abound in 

“sacred places.” This point remains only partially explored in this document, but 

deserves greater attention in future consultation and research relating to Wrangell-St. 

Elias. 

As steward of this sprawling park, the National Park Service has a mandate to 

document this human heritage. Guided by many federal laws, policies, and regulations, 

the NPS is required to manage and interpret the landscape with due attention to its 

human history and to the interests of human communities that still use and revere this 

unique place into present day. Compliance, specifically in regards to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is essential to agency operations and to the 

upholding of federal obligations to Alaska Native communities. Section 106 deals 

directly with requirements surrounding NPS consultation with Native American tribes. 

Compliance is not always an easy task. In order to meet their responsibilities, NPS staff 

must sort through the sometimes complex history and territorial ties of numerous 

modern Alaska Native communities. This requires a review of the historical and 

ethnographic record as well as direct communication with Alaska Native communities 

regarding places and resources of interest to them. The current document represents 

one component of this much larger effort.

Guided by this mandate, the National Park Service initiated a series of studies, working 

in collaboration with park-associated Native communities, to provide basic 

documentation of the nature of Alaska Native ties to Wrangell-St. Elias National Park 

and Preserve. The current study represents one of a series of baseline reports on Alaska 

Native ties to the park. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve includes parts of 

the traditional territories of three general Alaska Native groups—the Upper Tanana and 

Ahtna Athabascans and the Yakutat Tlingit. Prior to the current effort, the park 

completed ethnographic overviews and assessments in the upper Tanana and Ahtna 

regions, which are located in the central and northern parts of the park. However, the 

southern coastal region of the park, in the traditional lands of the Yakutat Tlingit and 

Eyak communities of the Gulf of Alaska, had not been the focus of even basic, 

systematic documentation by the NPS. The Tlingit people have traditionally occupied 

and used that part of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve in the vicinity of Icy 

Bay and Disenchantment Bay, the Malaspina Glacier and Forelands, and the presentday community of Yakutat, but have a deeper history that includes other portions of 

what is today the park. The absence of even baseline NPS documentation of their ties to 

lands within the park remained a significant gap.

To address this gap in documentation, the NPS initiated the current “ethnographic 

overview and assessment.” An ethnographic overview and assessment (EO&A) is the 

most basic and fundamental anthropological research report that can be undertaken by 

the NPS. An EO&A is commonly used by the NPS to identify park-associated groups

who view park lands and resources as culturally and historically significant, as well as 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 3

to illuminate basic patterns in their use and valuation of such lands and resources. As 

such, an EO&A is typically the first ethnographic report a NPS unit will undertake for a 

park unit, and may serve as a foundation for later, more detailed investigations of 

certain topics through other types of studies and reports. A brief description of this 

report type is provided in Chapter 2 of the NPS Cultural Resource Management 

Guidelines (NPS-28), and this chapter can be accessed online.1 As per the guidance in 

NPS-28, an ethnographic overview and assessment involves the following:

“This basic report emphasizes the review and analysis of accessible 

archival and documentary data on park ethnographic resources and the 

groups who traditionally define such cultural and natural features as 

significant to their ethnic heritage and cultural viability. Limited 

interviews and discussions occur with the traditionally associated people 

in order to supplement and assess the documentary evidence and identify 

gaps in the available data” (USDOINPS 1998b). 

Thus, an ethnographic overview and assessment consists principally of literature 

review and modest archival research, focusing especially on materials that have already 

been recorded for a particular study area. While the knowledge and perspectives of 

living people from traditionally-associated communities are included, EO&A studies 

tend to accentuate the written record available in existing ethnographic and historical

sources. Studies that more clearly accentuate contemporary Alaska Native perspectives, 

and systematically document these perspectives ethnographically, are also possible as a

future outcome of this study. Indeed, the reconnaissance interviews conducted as part 

of the current study were highly informative, suggesting that expanded future studies 

would be well advised in collaboration with the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak communities. 

Such spinoff efforts are proposed in the conclusion to this report.

The main product of this research is the summary report that follows, synthesizing 

prior ethnographic literature and related materials into a narrative that, while meeting 

academic standards, is meant to be understandable to park managers and the interested 

public. The document that follows presents basic information regarding Yakutat Tlingit 

culture and history, specifically focusing on the Kwáashk’ikwáan and GalyáxKaagwaantaan clans, which may be salient to future interpretation and management 

relating to Wrangell-St. Elias.2 The research was initiated to illuminate the interests of 

the Yakutat Tlingit, who are the emphasis of this document. Yet, the document also 

incorporates select material on the Eyak community of Cordova, specifically the Native 

community of Katalla, at the request of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribal Council—reflecting 

the longstanding connections between the two communities and of segments of the 

Eyak community to the region encompassed by this study. Cumulatively, this research 

has sought to illuminate ties between these communities and lands in the park that may 

serve as a background reference for tribal and agency staff, alike, as they seek to
4 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

understand the park’s Alaska Native history and to protect cultural resources of mutual 

concern. In this light, the investigation has maintained a special emphasis on traditional 

land and resource use in the Yakutat and Eyak traditional territories—especially as 

those practices relate to the lands and resources of Wrangell-St. Elias since the time of 

European contact. 

This research involved the systematic review and integration of existing documentation

—reviewing published sources (such as the vast collections on Yakutat Tlingit culture 

by Frederica de Laguna) thoroughly, while also consulting a wide range of lesser 

known and often unpublished sources. The PI, Co-PI, and the project’s research 

assistants identified recurring themes in those sources, then filled gaps in the existing 

documentation through original archival research, as well as interviews with Yakutat 

Tlingit consultants. Topics that were particularly sought out in the course of this 

research included, but were not limited to:

Oral traditions regarding the significance of particular lands or resources within

Wrangell-St. Elias within Yakutat Tlingit history and culture

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit use or occupation of particular lands within Wrangell-St. 

Elias

Traditional Yakutat uses, perceptions, and values relating to specific natural

resources of cultural significance within Wrangell-St. Elias

Changes in land and resource use patterns emanating from historical developments

Enduring interests and concerns of Yakutat Tlingit people regarding Wrangell-St.

Elias lands and resources of cultural and historical significance.

Organizing the outcomes of this research thematically, the document provides a 

compendium of information assembled to assist agency staff and Alaska Native 

representatives in the consultation process regarding these Alaska Native communities. 

This information has been organized into three primary sections: 1) a “Foundations” 

section that focuses on cultural practices of the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak that were well 

established at the time of European contact and have direct bearing on park lands and 

resources; 2) A “Transitions” section that discusses the many historical forces that 

affected life for the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak, and outlines some of the implications of 

those changes as they relate to the park; 3) A “Modern Connections” section that 

discusses enduring Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak connections to lands and resources in 

Wrangell-St. Elias since roughly the time of park creation. A conclusion section

summarizes findings, but also points in the direction of additional research questions 

and needs for the future.

The collected information can be used to help inform park management decisions, to 

orient new park staff to the cultural context of the park, and provide interpretive 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 5

materials for use by the NPS and by the Alaska Native institutions of Yakutat and 

Cordova. In time, this information might also be used to guide management plans for 

places and resources of particular importance to peoples traditionally associated with 

the southern flank of Wrangell-St. Elias; to provide documentation of the cultural 

significance of certain sites, structures or natural areas for such purposes as National 

Register nominations; to understand and protect traditional subsistence practices in a 

larger cultural context; to help facilitate working relationships between the NPS and 

area Native organizations and governments; to facilitate park-tribe collaboration in 

interpretive programs; and to provide recommendations and direction for future 

research, as well as a general context for developing specialized ethnographic studies. 

An associated Annotated Bibliography, available as a separate document, identifies 

certain materials relating to these themes within Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak traditional 

territories. We hope this annotated bibliography will be a resource of enduring value to 

Alaska Native readers, the NPS, scholars, and the general public as they seek additional 

information on the history and culture of this unique place. Additionally, a parallel 

study of the Dry Bay area clans is underway at the time of this writing, directed by 

authors Deur and Thornton, working in collaboration with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 

and Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

As the subjects of this study are multifaceted, the research involved a multifaceted 

team. The Principal Investigator, Dr. Douglas Deur (Portland State University 

Department of Anthropology) and the Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Thomas Thornton 

(University of Oxford School of Geography and the Environment) collaborated in the 

identification and analysis of existing literatures, as well as interviews with Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe members. Both are specialists in Northwest Coast traditional land and 

resource knowledge. Between them, they have decades’ worth of experience working 

with Tlingit communities and on National Park Service ethnographic research projects. 

Along with anthropology research assistants Rachel Lahoff and Jamie Hebert, they 

produced the current report on the basis of their research findings. In these tasks, the 

team worked closely with PSU cartographer Gabriel Rousseau, to insure the fidelity of 

maps to the content and spirit of their original sources. This project was accomplished 

through a cooperative agreement between the NPS and Portland State University, with 

Wrangell-St. Elias cultural anthropologist Dr. Barbara Cellarius, who oversaw the 

project on behalf of the park and participated in a variety of research tasks. The Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe provided considerable oversight in the original development of the project 

proposal. At the onset of this research, the research team returned to Yakutat to meet 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribes representatives to ascertain their needs and interests. These 

interactions helped shape the content and configuration of the report in a variety of 

ways.

This document is in no way assumed to be the “final word” on Alaska Native 

relationships with Wrangell-St. Elias lands and resources, but to be a useful tool in 

understanding the larger context of these relationships. Many of the document’s 
6 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

findings may be familiar to readers already familiar with Yakutat and Cordova culture 

and history. We hope that the report will provide information gathered in a useful 

format as a sort of introductory reference work, and will serve to confirm and expand 

existing knowledge of the topic. For less seasoned cultural resource managers, or 

resource managers from other fields attempting to comprehend Alaska Native ties to 

lands and resources, hopefully this document will provide a useful orientation to the 

rich human history of what is today Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. So 

too, we hope the document will be of value to the younger generations of Yakutat 

Tlingits as they explore their rich culture and history, on the basis of both written 

records and the oral traditions of their people. We wish the Yakutat Tlingit tribe every 

success in documenting and protecting their cultural legacy in the region and hope the 

materials in this report will be of value to those efforts. These goals are at the heart of 

the current study, and are reflected in the content of the document that follows. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 7

Map 1
8 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Methods

The current study represents efforts to illuminate patterns of use and occupation of 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve by the Yakutat Tlingit, relying especially

on the methods of ethnography and ethnohistory. As such, this research involved a 

broad review of historical and ethnographic information on these themes, drawn from 

local, regional, and national sources, as well as interviews with Alaska Native 

representatives and considerable information provided by tribal and agency 

representatives. 

This research was not the work of a single individual, but of a multidisciplinary 

research team with a diverse range of skills. Drs. Douglas Deur and Thomas Thornton

served as lead authors for the report that follows; they directed all research tasks, taking 

a lead role in literature review and archival research, as well as jointly carrying out all 

project interviews in the course of three separate trips to Yakutat. Rachel Lahoff and 

Jamie Hebert, of the Portland State University Department of Anthropology’s Office of 

Applied Anthropological Research, contributed significantly to this work as well. Both 

are research assistants with masters’ degrees, experience in ethnographic research, and

research specialties relating to US national parks and Tlingit resource practices

respectively. Gabriel Rousseau (PSU Department of Geography) provided mapping and 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) support. Yakutat Tlingit Tribe representatives 

played an important role in the development and refinement of project goals; a few, 

including (but not limited to) Elaine Abraham, Judy Ramos and Walter Porter provided 

useful general advice early in the project that shaped the general direction of the project 

in various ways. Bert Adams Sr. served as the formal liaison and Research Associate for 

the project, and organized all project interviews as well as providing materials and 

insights relating to the history of Yakutat. LaRue Barnes of the Ilanka Cultural Institute 

provided guidance on the availability of Eyak materials. Each of the interviewees, 

identified in the “Sources” section at the end of this document, also contributed 

considerable expertise to the document and are cited where appropriate. Agency staff 

also played a critical role—especially Dr. Barbara Cellarius, Wrangell-St. Elias Cultural 

Anthropologist, who helped to initiate, design, and execute the research project. She 

participated in certain research tasks and oversaw tribal consultation regarding the 

project, including direct meetings with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. Michele Jesperson and 

Mary Beth Moss of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve also contributed their 

perspectives and guidance to the current effort. The resulting report is truly a group 

effort, and the individuals listed here all deserve recognition for their contributions. 

Prior to the initiation of this project, Barbara Cellarius of Wrangell-St. Elias initiated 

consultation with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribal Council regarding the planned research. 

These exchanges helped to refine the focus of the current project. Yakutat participants in 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 9

the project encouraged emphases that complemented existing research by the park and 

tribe, as well as the addition of an interview component. All of these suggestions were 

ultimately built into the research design. Cellarius then initiated a Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) Task Agreement between the National Park Service 

(NPS) and Portland State University (PSU)—where Deur and Thornton are both 

affiliated as faculty. 

At the onset of research, Drs. Deur and Thornton met with Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (YTT) 

representatives and Wrangell-St. Elias staff to discuss project objectives as well as tribal 

and agency needs. The needs shared in these exchanges were key to the development of 

the project work plan. Deur and Thornton invited the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe to provide 

any materials they viewed as pertinent to the study area and objectives; Wrangell-St. 

Elias staff were also invited to contribute agency documents from their collections. Both 

Yakutat Tlingit and NPS representatives expressed interest in a document that, while 

staying within the limited scope of an EO&A report, would illuminate specific Yakutat 

connections with lands and resources now under the management of Wrangell-St. Elias, 

while also setting these connections within an historical context. The YTT council also 

requested that Eyak information be included where appropriate in the project report, 

including certain details relating to the separate Native community of Katalla (Cordova

area), due to the longstanding connections between Tlingit and Eyak within the study 

area. Community interest in having Deur and Thornton conduct interviews with 

knowledgeable members of the Yakutat Tlingit community was also reaffirmed. 

(Carrying out parallel interviews with Cordova residents was initially discussed, 

however funding limitations and other obstacles resulted in the deferment of a Cordova 

interview component.) YTT representatives also asserted that the research needed to 

have outcomes that might aid in the education of tribal youth. Each of these research 

objectives was embodied in a project work plan, which was developed by Deur and 

Thornton and approved by Wrangell-St. Elias staff. These initial exchanges with YTT 

and Wrangell-St. Elias staff were helpful in identifying data gaps within existing 

documentation, and Yakutat individuals shared knowledge and perspectives that are 

reflected in the current report. 

The research that followed involved a review of existing published documentation, 

including a synthesis of the historical literature relating to the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak 

areas of interest, as well as ethnographic writings relating to these communities. The 

initial literature research was conducted principally in the library collections of the 

University of Washington, Portland State University, and remotely accessible 

collections of the University of Alaska system. The research team also reviewed key 

sources identified in various on-line research collections. The research team identified 

major published and unpublished sources of information regarding Tlingit and Eyak 

history and culture that might relate to the study area in the course of this initial 

investigation. On the basis of this initial review, and existing literature review 

documents within NPS files, the team developed an annotated bibliography of key 
10 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

sources, which is available as a separate document. This annotated bibliography served 

as a guide for the research that followed, but is also a standalone product. It is meant to 

be a resource for agency and tribal representatives, or any other individual wishing to 

navigate the sources pertaining to the study area. The materials listed in this annotated 

bibliography were reviewed for specific references to the study area, but were also 

consulted in the development of general narratives regarding the cultural and historical 

context of Yakutat Tlingit connections to lands and resources within what is today 

Wrangell-St. Elias. 

In addition, this research involved a detailed review of archival materials relating to the 

study’s themes in local, regional, and national collections. The current project did not 

include in its scope or budget significant accommodation for travel relating to archival 

research, aside from travels incidental to fieldwork. However, the research team made 

an effort to consult a wide range of archival or “gray literature” – academic, 

government or business documents that are not commercially published – media that 

were remotely accessible in either digital form or through interlibrary loan. The 

research team then reviewed pertinent materials with collections housed in a number of 

repositories, directly when possible in the course of visits to Yakutat, Juneau and 

Anchorage, but more often remotely through downloaded reports and data requests to 

specific repositories. Accessed collections included but were not limited to the 

following:

Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission

Alaska State Archives, Division of Libraries, Archives, and Museums

Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries

Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division

Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, Yakutat Regional Planning Team

Alaska State Historical Library

Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp 

Bryn Mawr College, Special Collections

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

The Chugach Alaska Corporation

Chugachmiut, Inc. 

City and Borough of Yakutat

City of Cordova

Copper River Knowledge System, Ecotrust

Cordova Chamber of Commerce

Cordova Historical Society

The Eyak Corporation

Ilanka Cultural Center, Native Village of Eyak

Native Village of Eyak 

Province of British Columbia, Archives and Records Service

Sealaska Heritage Institute
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 11

Sheldon Jackson Museum

Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives

Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority 

US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office

US Census Bureau

US National Archives and Records Administration (various record groups)

US National Park Service, Alaska System Support Office

US National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

US National Park Service, National NAGPRA Program

US National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

US National Park Service, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve

University of Alaska, Fairbanks Oral History Program, Project Jukebox

University of Wisconsin Digital Collections, History Collection

Yak-Tat Kwaan 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe

Yakutat Chamber of Commerce

The research team consulted a wide range of other repositories of archival or gray 

literature beyond those included on this list, but most not as regularly or 

consequentially. In addition, Deur and Thornton reviewed their own field notebooks 

from past Tlingit research to seek information directly relevant to the project and the 

Wrangell-St. Elias study area. So too, residents of Yakutat kindly opened their personal 

collections of notes and photos for the benefit of this study. Some of those materials 

found their way into the current report. 

Compiling the information gathered from published, archival, and gray literature

sources, the researchers analyzed these items for recurring themes relating to WrangellSt. Elias lands and resources, and their broader cultural and historical context. We also 

identified inconsistencies and data gaps, and sought to remedy these, initially, through 

follow-up literature review. 

In truth, the Yakutat Tlingit study area is somewhat unique in terms of available 

documentation. In many respects, the challenge facing the research team, in light of the 

limited scope of the EO&A, was not so much a scarcity of information, but a veritable 

glut—a situation requiring the research team to find ways of summarizing existing 

sources rather than assembling an exhaustive recounting of all references to Yakutat 

Tlingit ties to the area. Coverage of the study area in published sources and widely 

available gray literatures is robust.3 This is due especially to the lifetime of research and 

publication by anthropologist Frederica de Laguna. By 1949, de Laguna began a 

lifetime’s work on Yakutat Tlingit culture and history that proved to be definitive. This 

work was manifested in her magnum opus, “Under Mount Saint Elias” – a three-volume 

set that embodied most of her own research, while also summarizing and integrating 
12 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

most of the relevant accounts of explorers, historians, and anthropologists that had 

preceded her (de Laguna 1972). Her other works significantly developed the themes 

presented in that book, presenting the bulk of her research findings in published form 

(see reviews in de Laguna 1990a, 1990b). 

In the wake of de Laguna’s work, there have been a number of key researchers who 

have advanced Yakutat Tlingit research into recent times, such as Julie Cruikshank and 

Aron Crowell, who have expanded in various ways on de Laguna’s momentum and 

legacy. The presence of a number of skilled professional researchers and educators 

within the Yakutat Tlingit community—such as Judy Ramos, Elaine Abraham, Bert 

Adams Sr., and George Ramos Sr., to name a few—as well as the prominence of Tlingit 

researchers of Yakutat heritage such as Nora Dauenhauer, also contributes significantly 

to the growing literature on Yakutat.4 The community of Yakutat is somewhat famous 

in the historical literatures pertaining to the Russian occupation of Alaska and 

Northwest Coast maritime history, as well as the field of glaciology, and those sources 

make frequent mention of relevant details, large and small. Add to that a growing gray 

literature relating to subsistence, commercial fisheries, and the public lands flanking 

Yakutat, and one sees that conventional “gaps in the literature” are relatively few. In 

this respect, the Yakutat region stands in sharp contrast to other portions of WrangellSt. Elias, or other NPS units elsewhere in Alaska or beyond.

Still, gaps remain. No prior source has organized references to Wrangell-St. Elias

specifically, of course, but that may be the lesser of the gaps identified. More critically, it 

is clear that much knowledge of the study area still resides largely in the recollections of 

contemporary Alaska Native people. As certain practices have declined and fewer 

people occupy lands or use resources in Wrangell-St. Elias, this knowledge is a valuable 

and increasingly rare asset. With this in mind, all parties agreed that this EO&A, more 

than many, should elicit and illuminate the knowledge and perspectives of Yakutat 

Tlingit people through a reconnaissance interviewing effort. In developing this report, 

we were responding to comments such as those of George Ramos Sr., that there is a vast 

amount of knowledge in the Yakutat community that has gone unheeded and 

unrecorded: “there are a lot of stories out there and they never get heard” (GR). With 

this lesson in mind, the researchers conducted ethnographic interviews with 

individuals who were knowledgeable of, or have personal, family, and community

(kwáan) ties to lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias. 

The literature review in de Laguna’s works was, for all practical purposes, 

comprehensive at the time of her writing – especially her overview in “Under Mount 

Saint Elias” (1972), but also in her two contributions to the Handbook of North American 

Indians (de Laguna 1990a, 1990b) and others. These monumental thematic overviews 

already being complete, there was little incentive in the current project to reinvent those 

widely known overview statements. In this light, the authors instead were able to 

produce a general narrative that relates to the culture and history of Yakutat Tlingit 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 13

specifically as it relates to Wrangell-St. Elias, as well as to bring the work of de Laguna 

and her contemporaries up-to-date by discussing changing relationships to Wrangell-St.

Elias in the last half century – up to and including the period of NPS management. In 

this respect, the current study does not solely tread the ground ordinarily covered by a 

conventional “Ethnographic Overview and Assessment,” but has incorporated –

thematically and methodologically – elements of other NPS ethnography program 

report types, including the Ethnohistory (focusing on historical changes within the 

community and their ties to the land) and the Traditional Use Study (focusing on the 

documentation of contemporary peoples’ practices, values and perspectives).

In order to illuminate these themes, interviews were essential. Some effort was made to 

interview a cross-section of the community of Yakutat Tlingit knowledge holders, in the 

course of two separate rounds of interviews. These included clan leaders who possess 

the right to share clan knowledge regarding their origins and ancestral migrations 

through what is now the park. Deur and Thornton interviewed other cultural 

specialists; they also sought out elderly resource harvesters who have witnessed 

significant changes in use of and access to the park, and younger people who have 

grown up largely within the period of NPS management. All interviewees were chosen 

and recruited by Yakutat Tlingit Tribe elder, Bert Adams Sr., who served as the YTT 

liaison and Research Associate for the current research, as well as other NPS research 

underway in the community. Following Tlingit protocols, Adams organized interviews 

so that clan leaders and historians were the first to be interviewed, followed by other 

members of the community—principally but not exclusively drawn from the clan

associated with what is today Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. In sum, 

formal interviews were conducted with 14 individuals, while this report also quotes or 

paraphrases three additional “informal interviewees” using transcripts and recordings 

from prior studies. Interviewees’ initials are used within in-line citations in the text of 

this report, while a key to these initials is included in the “Sources” section at the end of 

this document. A number of other individuals provided valuable information and 

perspectives, but did not choose to be formally interviewed. These “informal 

interviewees” are not quoted directly in the text, though some of the most informative 

are identified at the end of this document, also in the Sources section.

Interviews were conducted at mutually convenient times and locations. After being 

informed about the project goals and the potential uses of the results, interviewees were 

asked if they wished to participate. Interviews, as well as other activities of the research 

team, were carried out in a manner consistent with the ethical guidelines established by 

the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Applied Anthropology.5

All formal interviewees participated in an informed consent process and signed a PSU 

consent form indicating their willingness to participate in the research. Interviews were 

inductive, being structured but open-ended. Questions invited interviewees to 

contribute any observations they might wish to share regarding cultural sites and 

practices known to be associated with Wrangell-St. Elias. Recognizing that the range of 
14 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

resources and Tlingit associations are numerous and diverse, and that each interviewee 

spoke from his or her area of expertise, researchers found it best to “cast the net 

broadly” in interviews rather than provide rigidly predetermined topics and questions 

to interviewees. Thus, questions focused on areas of topical specialty for the 

interviewees. Clan leaders were asked to discuss the deeper meanings of Wrangell-St. 

Elias lands and resources to their clan based on ancient oral traditions and Tlingit land 

ownership conventions, for example, while subsistence or commercial fishermen might 

be asked about the locations, frequency, and methods of fishing along the Wrangell-St. 

Elias coast in recent decades. Outcomes of these interviews, as well as literature review 

and other project tasks, were compiled and analyzed for recurring themes. On the basis 

of this analysis, we have developed the current thematic report, using concepts and 

terms understandable by anthropological non-specialists, for use by the Superintendent 

and resource management staff of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and 

also for the Tlingit and Eyak people of Yakutat and Cordova.6 

Based on formal reconnaissance interviews, informal interviews with many others, as 

well as a concise literature review, the researchers have developed the following 

thematic summary of past and present ties of Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak people to lands 

and resources now within Wrangell-St. Elias. This thematic summary addresses the 

origins of particular clans, their journeys through what is today the park by ancestors, 

and the enduring relevance of landmarks associated with those journeys; it addresses 

historical patterns of resource use in what is today the park and preserve; it addresses 

the general history of Yakutat people insofar as it has a bearing on relationships with 

Wrangell-St. Elias; it addresses changing uses and views of lands within Wrangell-St. 

Elias within living memory. Together, these accounts suggest a deep and enduring 

relationship between Yakutat Tlingit people and Wrangell-St. Elias, and point toward 

many possible avenues of future investigation. 

We hope that this rich history, illuminated by many quotations from contemporary 

knowledge-holders, will be of use to readers who wish to follow up on specific themes

in the future. In light of the tremendous breadth and diversity of materials consulted 

over the course of this project, with the intent of addressing the interests of Alaska 

Native communities over large areas and large swaths of time, this document has, by 

necessity, summarized the outcomes of this research and only presents fine-grained 

details on certain topics where such detail seems warranted. An exhaustive treatment 

of the cultural heritage, Native and non-Native histories, and enduring ties to lands and 

resources that converge at Wrangell-St. Elias would represent a monumental work, 

indeed. The complexity of the region’s history ensures that perhaps no one account can

tell the whole story to the satisfaction of all parties with a stake in that history. Certain 

gaps in the current document are inevitable and should be acknowledged in advance. 

In no way should this document be assumed to represent “the final word” on Yakutat 

Tlingit ties to Wrangell-St. Elias. There are many more topics to be investigated, and the 

history of Yakutat Tlingit use of these lands and resources will continue to unfold over 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 15

time. In the interim, the sources listed in the bibliography and cited throughout should 

be consulted by anyone wishing to develop a more detailed understanding of the rich 

cultural traditions and history of this place. 
Foundations
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 17

YAKUTAT TLINGIT AND WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS:

AN INTRODUCTION 

The lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve encompass 

portions of the largest boreal forest ecosystem in the world, containing spruce, aspen 

and balsam poplar trees, muskeg, and a variety of habitats—coastal, riverine and 

montane. The environment of Wrangell-St. Elias is the product of dynamic geological 

processes over millions of years, forming some of the world’s tallest mountain peaks 

meeting in four convergent mountain ranges (Wrangell, St. Elias and Chugach 

Mountains, and the Alaska Range), seven fragmented terranes, thousands of lava flows 

that make up the Wrangell Volcanic Field, and North America’s largest glacial system. 

These dramatic landforms have been transected by watersheds large and small, 

including powerful, glacier-fed rivers—often heavy with sediment—that traverse the 

park. Wrangell-St. Elias boundaries encompass two major watersheds: the Yukon River 

drainage and the Copper River drainage. The Copper River begins on Mount Wrangell 

rising out of the Copper Glacier and flows 280 miles to the Copper River Delta near 

Cordova. The delta is a diverse region, including large areas of intertidal and freshwater 

wetlands, marshes, tidal channels, sedge meadows, ponds, estuarine mudflats, and 

delta and barrier islands near the mouth of the Copper River.

Three climactic zones can be found within Wrangell-St. Elias: maritime, transitional and 

interior. And within these zones are approximately five ecoregions: lowlands, wetlands, 

uplands, sub-alpine and alpine. The presence of permafrost (permanently frozen 

ground) greatly affects the vegetation within these ecoregions. The lowlands support 

black spruce, muskeg, mosses and understory shrubs (alder, dwarf birch, crowberry, 

willows, Labrador tea and blueberry) in basins where north facing slopes are underlain 

by permafrost. In the Copper and Chitina River basins and along the coast, wetlands are 

prominent. These are characterized by sedges, mosses, grasses, forbs and scattered 

shrubs (horsetails, spike rush and buckbean). The uplands are rivers where soil is well 

irrigated and suited for the growth of trees like white spruce, paper birch and aspen. In 

the drier, southern uplands, aspen trees dominate, along with more woodland and dry 

steppe species (grasses, sagebrush, juniper, herbaceous perennials), while the subalpine ecoregion varies according to the tree line of each forest. Above this line, spruce 

trees become sparse, and tundra shrubs dominate. Characteristics of the alpine 

ecoregion are variable depending upon geographic location and soil composition. The 

more protected northern slopes support low shrub communities of dwarf birch, 

willows, alder, mountain avens, spring beauty, mountain sorrel, buttercups, club moss 

and grasses. Permanent ice and snow fields, rock outcrop and rubbly colluvium – a 

result of extensive glaciations – are unique features of the park. Other categorizations of 

the region, such as the Level III ecoregions maps of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, provide a relatively simplified picture of ecological zones (see Map 2). Still, 
18 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Map 2 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 19

each of these regional characterizations confirms the generalization that the outermost 

coast is occupied by forest, while much of the landscape and all of the interior is 

relatively un-vegetated, rocky, and icebound.

Each of these ecoregions support abundant wildlife, including birds (shorebirds, swans, 

geese, ducks, warblers, thrushes, sparrows, rock ptarmigan, spruce grouse, great 

horned owls, northern hawk owls, woodpeckers, gray jay, raven, black billed magpie, 

American robin, murrelets and the dark eyed junco, to name a few), fish (steelhead, 

lake, cutthroat and rainbow trout, sockeye, coho, Chinook, humpback and pink salmon, 

burbot and round whitefish), land mammals (Dall sheep, mountain goats, caribou, 

wolves, bison, black and brown bears, lynx, wolverine, beaver, marten, porcupine, fox, 

coyotes, marmots, river otters, ground squirrels, pikas and voles), and marine mammals 

(sea lions, harbor seals, sea otters, porpoises and whales).

In addition to these ecoregions, Wrangell-St. Elias encompasses over 122 miles of 

coastline and over 1,000 miles of intertidal areas. Icy and Disenchantment Bay and the 

Malaspina Forelands are the only areas of respite in a coastline that claims some of the 

highest mountains and largest ice fields in North America, rising to the fourth highest

peak in North America – Mount St. Elias (18,009 feet) – and containing the largest 

tidewater glacier, Hubbard Glacier. Glaciers extend from the mountains almost to the 

tidewaters, producing steep cliffs that rise abruptly from the ocean, creating an intricate 

topography of deep, narrow channels carved by glacial and geographic dynamism. 

Weather often confounds the nautical traveler. The coast, when not encased in fog and 

clouds, is often an exposed front for forceful winter storms. Add to this the silt that 

erupts from the many rivers and streams dispensing churning water into the ocean, 

shifting and recreating the shoreline from one year to the next, and the coast becomes a 

dangerous, magnificent place where one can witness the turbulent intersection of 

environmental forces. This dynamic landscape is part of the traditional homeland of 

many Alaska Native people, especially its southern coast, which remains a cornerstone 

of the Yakutat Tlingit homeland. Its environments are dynamic, its deglaciated margins 

affording a modest but growing foothold as exposed rock gives way to scrub and forest 

over time (Map 2).

On maps, Yakutat proper is defined by city limits and borough boundaries, yet for the 

Yakutat Tlingit, “Yakutat,” or Yaakwdáat, is an entire region, a homeland that expands 

beyond standard cartography and incorporates three territories and three cultures from 

Copper River to Lituya Bay. It includes land now confined by the Wrangell-St. Elias 

Park and Preserve, where the ancestors left miles of footsteps over generations of 

human history. Some report that at one time, Yakutat Tlingit were asked to define a 

reservation, and they “asked for everything from Icy Bay to Lituya Bay,” reflecting their 

association with this entire, sprawling territory (GR). Victoria Demmert explains the 

significance of the Yakutat as a homeland: 
20 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“[W]hen we say ‘Yakutat,’ Yakutat is you know, up to Strawberry Point 

[on the Copper River Delta] all the way to Lituya Bay. That’s the area of 

importance to us. That’s a place to us. So Yakutat to us is the whole area. 

...It’s all important” (VD).

This report takes an historical and cultural-ecological view of the ties of coastal Gulf of 

Alaska peoples (specifically Yakutat Tlingit and less prominently Eyak) to landscapes 

and places in Wrangell-St. Elias. Landscape and place-making are co-evolutionary 

processes between people and land—including upland, intertidal and subtidal lands—

that inhabitants, along with other species and geological processes, conceptualize, 

utilize, cultivate, and thus shape over time (Thornton and Deur 2015). These 

interactions are critical to creating and maintaining the vital material, social and 

symbolic dimensions of place that define landscapes in human thought and practice.

The Wrangell-St Elias mountains and Yakutat Forelands represent some of the most 

rugged and dynamic landscapes anywhere in the world, having been subject to major 

tectonic shifts, glaciations and deglaciations, high magnitude floods, vegetative 

successions and alterations, and other dramatic environmental changes. It is not a 

coincidence then that Yakutat territory, particularly its most dynamic landscapes, such 

as the Dry Bay-Alsek River, Yakutat Bay-Russell Fiord, Icy Bay, Bering Glacier and 

Bagley Ice Field, Cape Yakataga and Kaliakh River and Controller Bay regions are 

associated with major indigenous environmental change narratives and the activities of 

the great Transformer-Trickster, Raven (de Laguna 1972).7 For these landscapes are also 

the sites of great social change, particularly of clan migrations, settlements, 

displacements and other social-ecological transformations, all of which are documented 

in clan histories. All of these events—from those that Yakutat Tlingit associate with 

Raven in mythic time, to those linked to clan migrations and settlements in deep 

historical time, to the contemporary memories of living inhabitants of these places—are 

part of the biography and character of the landscape, and for Tlingit, the landscape 

incorporates the spiritual dimension, as well as the land, sea and sky (JR).8

In Being and Place among the Tlingit, Thornton (2008) proposes a general framework for 

an anthropological analysis of landscape and place making, focusing on four key 

cultural structures that are fundamental in mediating human relationships to place. 

These are: (1) social organization, which groups and distributes people on the landscape 

and helps to coordinate their spatial world and interactions with place; (2) language and 

cognitive structures, which shape how places are perceived and conceptualized; (3) 

material production, particularly subsistence production, which informs how places are 

used to sustain human life; and (4) ritual processes, which serve to symbolize, sanctify, 

condense, connect, transform and transcend various dimensions of time, space and 

place in ways that profoundly shape human place consciousness, identity and 

experience. Each of these cultural structures is at once a response to the physical 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 21

environment and a constitutive process in the making of landscapes. Collectively, they 

are fundamental to understanding the relationship between people and places across 

cultures.

These four cultural structures are useful as anthropological frames of analysis of placemaking processes – means by which humans define their environment, simultaneously 

shaping and being shaped by it. More significantly, however, the four cultural 

structures are the main means through which 

“Tlingits themselves ‘reciprocally appropriate’ the landscape, to borrow 

Scott Momaday’s (1974:80) felicitous phrase. It is through these processes 

that Tlingits ‘invest themselves in the landscape,’ and at the same time, 

‘incorporate’ the landscape into their ‘most fundamental experience (80)’” 

(Thornton 2008:8). 

Changes in language and expressive culture, land rights and use, social organization 

and ceremonial life have affected both the quantity and quality of Tlingit interactions 

with their traditional territories, particularly in the post-contact era since 1800. Yet, as 

this report makes clear, ties to land are still strong among contemporary Yakutat 

Tlingit, many of whom continue to reckon ties to these landscapes through one or more 

of these enduring cultural structures. This is true despite the fact that many of the 

landscapes, for example Icy Bay and Tsiu River, are quite distant from the 

contemporary settlement at Yakutat. 

The phenomenal experience of place [i.e. experiencing place through the senses]

reinforces these complex symbolic and material relationships with landscape. These 

complex relationships can be understood not only by examining key cultural structures 

that forge them but also through the uniquely expressive cultural forms, or “genres” of 

place, that represent them. In fact, Tlingit have a term for genres of place that take on 

sacred status as possessions: at.óow (literally “owned things” or “sacred possessions”). 

At.óow include not only geographic sites themselves, but material and symbolic 

resources that Tlingit matrilineages identify as emblematic and constituent of their 

being and relations to specific landscapes. At.óow are multimedia in form, and are 

deployed most poignantly in ritual, to bolster individual and collective claims about 

identity, being, place and other prerogatives. At.óow are both representations and tools 

of emplacement. In the absence of being there, they give to place a sense of tangibility 

through their immediacy and multimediacy. For example, settlement is prohibited on 

most federal lands, including National Park Service and Tongass National Forest lands, 

which together make up more than three quarters of the land base in Southeast Alaska. 

Within parks and other public lands, hunting, fishing, gathering and other activities are 

variously regulated and may be limited or banned. These constraints, too, have 

contributed to alienation of Tlingits from landscapes they historically inhabited and 
22 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

utilized throughout their traditional areas of interest. The loss of connection to places 

through dwelling has made it more incumbent on people to continue their identification 

with lands through symbolic means such as at.óow.

According to the late Angoon elder Lydia George (see Thornton 2008), the places Tlingit 

hold sacred tend to have four components: a name, a story, a song (typically 

accompanied by a dance) and a design (or crest). Each of these components is itself an 

at.óow, a chronotope (a fusion of time-space and event) and a genre of place. Together 

they constitute a cultural nexus of sacredness that endow places, and the people who 

possess them, with profound significance. In the context of ritual, at.óow may take on a 

spiritual agency such that participants sense they have been literally transported to 

ancestral places (see Thornton 2008; chapter 5). 

Stories and songs are components of oral tradition, which may contain just about any 

enduring notion, belief or narrative of place that is consciously transmitted from one 

generation to the next. Through the plots and settings of story and song, societies define 

themselves in time and space. While not all myths are explicitly explanatory or didactic 

in nature, through their settings, characters and tropes these narratives chronicle human 

relations with the landscape over time. When discussing native place-names in an area, 

Tlingits often make the general comment that “all these places have stories behind 

them,” the implication being that vital parts of Tlingit history, and thus their own 

history and identity, are tied to these places.

Because place is so central to oral tradition, place-names are often key elements of 

narrative and history. But they also stand on their own as a domain of knowledge, 

identity and at.óow, and therefore as a genre of place. As linguistic artefacts on the land, 

geographic names function not only to define places but also to re-present them in 

human knowledge, thought and speech. Naming, of course, is a ubiquitous cultural 

trait born of the need to communicate distinctions between persons, places and things. 

Place naming in particular is motivated by the desire to distinguish meaningful spaces 

from space in general. As icons, indexes and symbols of place phenomena, place-names 

have enormous referential power. They evoke not only material aspects of the 

landscape but also human tasks, events, emotions and other mental associations tied to 

those locales. As Lèvi-Strauss observes, “Space is a society of named places, just as 

people are landmarks within the group (1966:168).” Thus, “both are designated by 

proper names, which can be substituted for each other in many circumstances common 

to many societies.” This pattern is strongly evident in Tlingit naming.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 23

Movements of Clans and Cultures into the Yakutat Region

In the Yakutat region prior to contact with Euro-Americans, the Tlingit and the ProtoAthabaskan-speaking Eyak were in the process of melding two distinct cultures 

creating the Yakutat Tlingit, combining both Athabaskan and Tlingit identities with 

Tlingit language and largely Tlingit social organization. The close relationship with the 

Eyak is reflected in the name “Yakutat,” itself. The name is Tlingit, Yaakwdáat (“the 

place where canoes rest”), but originally derives from an Eyak name Diyaʼqudaʼt, or 

Ya.gada.at (“A lagoon is forming” [from the glacier’s retreat]; see Cruikshank 2005:31), 

and was influenced by the Tlingit word yaakw (“canoe, boat”). The intersection and 

ultimate integration of these two groups is the result of a northward expansion by the 

Tlingit into the Yakutat area, which had previously been settled by a southerly 

migrating Eyak. As de Laguna recounts, there was a

“northwestward expansion of Tlingit from what the Yakutat people call 

‘the Southeast of Alaska,’ some coming on foot along the shore or over the 

glacier highways, or going inland over the Chilkat Pass and down the 

Alsek River to Dry Bay, while others paddled their canoes up from Cross 

Sound or farther south” (de Laguna 1972:17).

The Tlingit pressed northward from Dry Bay, expanding into the Yakutat region prior 

to the arrival of Europeans in Alaska. This northward expansion has conventionally 

been believed to date to the 18th century, but recent archaeological investigations 

suggest the possibility of much earlier dates (JR). Thus, the NPS has acknowledged that 

the Tlingit “ultimately occup[ied] the coast as far as Cape Yakataga. Most of those who 

used the present park lived around Yakutat Bay” (Bleakley 2002: 2). One summary 

pronouncement by de Laguna reads, “The territory of the Yakutat tribe extends along 

the Gulf of Alaska from Icy Bay to Dry Bay, inclusive” (de Laguna 1949: 1). 

When the Tlingit arrived in the area from the Italio River, east of Yakutat, and 

westward to Cape Suckling, they found it already inhabited by the Eyak (de Laguna 

1990). Like the clans of the Yakutat Tlingit, “The Eyak emanated from an interior 

group...They apparently moved down the Copper River to its mouth, then 

southeastward across the Bering Glacier to occupy the coast between Yakataga and 

Cape Fairweather” (Bleakley 2002: 2).9 The Eyak are linguistically related to the 

Athabaskan people who also traveled from the interior through Copper River Delta and 

Wrangell-St. Elias territory to the Yakutat area.10

By the late eighteenth century, the Tlingit had come to dominate the Eyak. Some Eyak 

were pushed northward, settling especially in areas just west of the Copper River Delta, 

in the villages of Eyak and Alaganik near present-day Cordova, while those remaining 
24 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Map 3 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 25

in Yakutat became “Tlingitized,” absorbed into the Tlingit culture, adopting Tlingit 

language and social structure. 

Within traditional Tlingit social structure, the clan has served as the primary unit of 

government, as well as a means by which to organize social and economic relations. 

Traditionally, chiefs are the headmen of the clans or lineages, and the clan possessed the 

most substantial power. The matrilineal clan (related through the maternal line) is the 

oldest and most basic unit of Tlingit social structure and the foundation of both 

individual and group identity. Tlingits consider a person to be of the mother's clan, a 

child of the father's clan, and a grandchild of other clans. Traditionally, this identity 

formed the basis for nearly all social action (Thornton 2002:171). As will be discussed 

throughout this document, this clan identity also formed the basis for diverse 

associations with traditional clan territories, including special connections to 

landmarks, and special claims on natural resources.

Over time, prolonged contact in the Yakutat area through intermarriage, trade and 

warfare formally united Eyak and Tlingit. The Eyak were adopted through 

intermarriage into the Tlingit’s clan-based social structure with some ease. As de 

Laguna summarizes, 

“According to tradition, the village [at Knight Island] was founded by the 

chief of the Kwashkakwan (Hump-backed Salmon People), a local Raven 

clan, and by his brother-in-law, a chief of the Teqweydi, an Eagle clan 

from southeastern Alaska. The latter are supposed to have been 

responsible for the introduction of the Tlingit clan system and Tlingit 

language into this formerly Eyak-speaking area” (de Laguna 1949: 2).11

In order to best understand the Tlingit clan system and the integration of Tlingit and 

Eyak, it is important to introduce the concept of moieties. The Tlingit, like the Eyak, 

recognize two exogamous – meaning outmarrying – moieties, Raven and Eagle.12

Rather than functioning as socio-political units, these two moieties organized 

individuals into opposite groups (ĝune ̇tkama ̇ýi) that intermarried. As such, the two 

moieties were a means of regulating marriage among the Tlingit clans, while at the 

same time incorporating Eyak into the social structure. Raven (sometimes mentioned as 

“Crow”) and Eagle made integration of Eyak into the Tlingit social structure fairly 

simple. It was this process of emersion that produced the Yakutat Tlingit group, by and 

large, as they exist today. De Laguna clarifies that, 

“Absorption of Eyak speakers from Italio River to Icy Bay in the late 

eighteenth and beginning nineteenth centuries produces a second Tlingit 

tribe, the Yakutat, with whom the Dry Bay merged about 1910” (de 

Laguna 1990: 203). 
26 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

While widely accepted as “Tlingit,” the people of Yakutat still stand apart culturally.13

Not only have the Tlingit of Yakutat manifested many Athabaskan influences, but the 

Eyak of the Cordova region showed strong Tlingit ties and influences as well—some 

sources suggesting Tlingit living in the Eyak communities as far west as the Copper 

River seasonally.14 The Athabaskan admixture has been cited as a source of various 

minor departures from Tlingit conventions, such as dialect distinctions from other 

Tlingit speakers, stylistic distinctions in their artwork (Oberg 1973: 15), a slightly more 

“egalitarian” quality to potlatches and other events (Kan 1989: 235-360), slight 

differences in mortuary customs and the like (Krause 1956: 66, 158-60; Swanton 1908: 

398). Various historical sources make passing reference to the ongoing sharing of songs 

and other ceremonial property between the Tlingit and their kin and neighbors at the 

mouth of the Copper River well into modern times (e.g., Kan 1999: 147-48). Efforts to 

differentiate these two groups are common, and yet yield sometimes complex and 

contradictory outcomes; the maps of the Smithsonian’s Handbook of North American 

Indians series, for example, showing a sort of overlapping area of interest between the 

two groups that contains much of their cumulative territory and includes lands now 

within Wrangell-St. Elias (see Map 3). 

Migration Narratives of Yakutat Clans

Yakutat Tlingit maintain detailed oral traditions, from the perspectives of both Tlingit 

and Athabaskan ancestors, regarding the joining of Tlingit people and the Athabaskans 

who migrated through what is now Wrangell-St. Elias, into a single entity at Yakutat 

where they shared the Tlingit language and social organization.15 According to Tlingit 

oral tradition from the Dry Bay area, the original explorer of this country on behalf of 

the Tlingit was a man named Kaakeix’wtí (also known as “the man who killed his 

sleep”), a Xakwnukweidí (person of the people from Sandbar Fort), from the settlement 

of Xakwnoowú in Dundas Bay near Glacier Bay in Cross Sound. Kaakeix’wtí struck out 

on an epic quest to the interior after killing his sleep, which appeared to him in the form 

of a bird. Looking for seals, he canoed into Cross Sound, moving west toward a place 

called Nagukhéen (Rolling Creek, a small sockeye system at Cape Spencer). After 

rounding Cape Spencer (Nagukyada), he headed inland on foot to Mount Fairweather 

(Tsalxaan, “Land of the Ground Squirrels”) and then returned to the coast, emerging 

near Lituya Bay at a place called Yakwdeiyí (Canoe Road, inside Cape Fairweather) near 

Lak’ásgi X’aayí (Seaweed Point). He continued his journey north to Dry Bay (Gunaaxoo, 

“Among the Athabascans”) and then navigated up the Alsek (Aalseix’, “[Resting 

Place?]”) and Copper (Eekhéeni, “Copper River”) rivers to the interior, where he lived 

among the Athabaskans for two years, teaching them how to trap and prepare certain 

fish and animals efficiently and in quantity. After two years, Kaakeix’wtí packed his 

belongings and returned with some Athabaskans to Glacier Bay. Re-entering Tlingit 

country, they reached the coast at Chookanhéeni (Grass Creek), home of the Chookaneidí 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 27

(People of Chookanhéeni) clan; but the Chookaneidí told the visitors to head across the 

bay to L’eiwshashakee Áan (Glacial Sand Hill Town) at Bartlett Cove. Here they 

encountered the Xakwnukweidí group that would later become the Kaagwaantaan

(Thornton 2008). 

After the Little Ice Age glacial advance pushed the Tlingit out of Glacier Bay (see 

Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1987:245–92; Glacier Bay National Park official map, post 

2012), Kaakeix’wtí and his group moved with the Kaagwaantaan to Lulxágu (Fireweed 

Pebble Beach), where they built several large houses and a fort (Kax’noowú, “Female 

Grouse Fort”) and sponsored lavish potlatches with their newfound wealth from the

interior trade. Timbers for one of these houses were damaged by fire, and, 

consequently, the dwelling earned the name Kaawagaani Hít, or “Charred House.” It is 

for this house and the events surrounding it that the Kaagwaantaan are named.

Afterward some of the Kaagwaantaan moved to Sitka. As Deikeenaak’w (Swanton’s 

consultant [1909:346]) put it, emphasizing ancestral ties to the landscape: “Because we 

are their descendants we [the Sitka Kaagwaantaan] are here also. They continue to be 

here because we occupy their places.”

Though this is a migration narrative related specifically to the discovery of Dry Bay, in 

essence, these versions of the movement of Kaakeix’wtí tell the history of Tlingit 

discovery and inhabitation of the Gulf of Alaska, which became a vanguard of Tlingit 

culture spreading northwestwardly from Southeast Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago, 

described below, and of Eyak and Athabaskan culture spreading southeastwardly from 

the interior via the Copper River and Alsek River valleys. Kaakeix’wtí is a key figure 

who linked Eyak, Athabaskan and Tlingit people, and who paved the way for trade, 

intermarriage and cohabitation among these people in what is now Yakutat territory 

between Controller Bay and Lituya Bay.16 Thus, the greater Wrangell-St. Elias area was 

also a great cultural mixing zone. 

The Migration of the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan Clan

Each of the clans that inhabit the Yakutat area possess oral migration stories reflecting 

their different journeys through the landscape, including portions of Wrangell-St. Elias

(see Map 4). These oral traditions not only set the foundation for understanding clan 

oral traditions, crests and other traditional properties, but also left placenames tied to 

the land, often relating to the migrations and early history of the clans; those 

placenames or their locations are sometimes referenced by numbers that are keyed to a 

placename map (see Map 5) and table (Table 1) that follow. The general subject of 

placenames will be discussed in more detail in later sections.
28 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Map 4 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 29

Ted Valle spoke to the research team about the origins, migration and settlements of his 

clan, the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, as told to him in part by his mother. Valle’s account is 

as follows:

“And in the beginning my mother was telling me how we got to where we 

are was sometime a long time ago, and nobody knows. We didn’t have 

calendars, we didn’t have watches or anything then, but our people 

slowly moved sometime during a flood because our people were floating 

around in the ocean. Nobody knows how long we floated around, but 

when we were heading [our leader] told the people, ‘Wherever’s there’s 

logs, there’s got to be rivers, so we’ll go over there.’ And we went there. 

And the river that we came into and went into was what the Caucasian 

people today called Kaliakh, but our name for it was Galyáx. So that’s 

where we first went in and we started to build a village there. And I don’t 

know exactly where it was but it’s on Kaliakh River somewhere. ...I don’t 

know how many years passed, passed, passed, and our people started to 

spread out in both directions. Some were going up toward [Bering River] 

and that’s as far as they got” (TV).17

The Kaagwaantaan settled for a time in the Bering River tributary. According to Valle,

“We started here. Some people settled there also. Basically some [at] 

Kaliakh and [Strawberry] Point to Bering [River]. And they went up to 

Bering...there’s a tributary there...the one by Haines and Klukwan.

“And we were starting to get worried because we were—[who] 

were we going to marry with us? We’re going to start disappearing. 

...That’s what we were thinking, the people were thinking. But then they 

come across some Eyaks...And we, eventually we [ended] up 

intermarrying with them.

“...Then we built them houses up there on the Bering [River] and 

then another group had gone down toward Yakataga, the other way, and 

they built more little villages in Kaliakh of course, that was the main 

village. And in Tsiu they built a small village. And actually it’s around 

Tsiu...the next river from Kaliakh was the Duktoth. And I can’t remember 

a Tlingit name or Eyak name for it either, but the people call it Daktaal

[from the Eyak for “cooked”, #31; see Map 5]. We didn’t build a village 

there or anything, but we moved on down to Yakataga [#32; see Map 5]. 

And pretty much that was the extent of our first branch” (TV).

 
30 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Valle’s account of the migration of the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan conforms well with de 

Laguna’s (1972:101) account of the migration recorded over a half-century ago, 

demonstrating the robustness of enduring oral tradition on this point:

“It was here [Kaliakh River] that the Kagwantan came, drifting in canoes, 

during the Flood, and landed because they were attracted by the beautiful 

mountain above the river. This is Kulthieth or ‘Robin’ (?) Mountain, called 

TcAwa£ [Ch'awáax' ‘Robin Mountain,’ from Eyak, #30; see Map 5] which 

was described as striped with all pretty colors (banded sedimentary 

rocks?), as if it had been painted, and was bright where the water ran 

down. There was formerly a village, Gi^liyA or GatyAX> [Gilyáx or 

Galyáx, #29 = river; see Map 5] on the Kaliakh River near this 

mountain...Harrington gives kalyAx as the Eyak name for the river. 

According to Krauss, galyAx means 'the lowest' of a series. One of my 

informants who had visited this area as a boy in 1900 saw the remains of a 

large old-style house on the west side of the river. This was the Beaver 

House of the [Galyáx Kaagwaantaan], and the village their ‘capital town,’ 

where they defended themselves against an Aleut attack. The famous 

Teqwedi [Teikweidí] from Yakutat, Xatgawet, is said to have fought 

beside the local chief, his father-in-law. The Kwackqwan [Kwask] also 

lived here.”

De Laguna notes that some informants linked this group to the Sitka Kaagwaantaan, 

but the link is not obvious, except that the Sitka Kaagwaantaan originated at Glacier 

Bay, from whence the proto-Kaagwaantaan’s “Man Who Killed His Sleep,” Kaakeix’wtí, 

made his famous trip to Copper River to trade and intermarry with the Athabaskans. 

De Laguna suggests that the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan moved originally from Copper 

River, perhaps as a result of the Flood or a dispute, and became lost in the fog as they 

moved south, before finding the coast again at Kaliakh River. 

The Migration of the Kwáashk’ikwáan Clan

De Laguna (1972:231ff) recorded several versions of the Kwáashk’ikwáan migration 

narrative, which followed the movements of this clan from the Chitina Valley where 

their settlement was said to be on the Little Bremner River (Ginéix). The research team 

heard several abbreviated versions of this story, which were said to have been learned 

from Harry Bremner, one of de Laguna’s primary consultants.18 The migration route, 

which de Laguna thought probably “followed the route up the Tana Glacier, over the 

Bering Glacier, and down the Duktoth River” (1972:101; see Map 4), forms a sacred trail 

and traditional cultural property to the clan. It is also of broader historical significance 

to Alaska and United States history, as it details the original settlement of parts of 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 31

Map 5 
32 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Table 1: Placenames identified by Thornton (2012), keyed to Map 5

Tlingit Name Translation Location

1 Anaxanák Mistake (Wrong Turn) (from 

Eyak, originally Alutiiq)

Western branch of Copper 

River

2 K'aagán Héenák'u Stickleback Creek Mouth of Copper River

3 Kaa Yahaayí Ghosts Near Copper River

4 Tśa'diq ́* On the Place of [Frequently 

Absent*] Mud Flats (from 

Eyak, Ts'a'diq) 

Camp on Martin River

5 Kaataanáa – – * (from Eyak, Qa:ta:lah) Katalla settlement

6 Saaxw T'áak Behind the Cockles Village on Softuk Lagoon

7 Gixdák [X'áat'i] – – * (from Eyak, originally

Alutiiq, Qikertaq) [Island]

Fox or Kiktak Island

8 K'ixóoliyaa Teeth (from Eyak, 

K'uxu:łiyah)

River between Katalla and 

Cape Martin

9 Eek Héeni Copper River Copper River

10 Gixdáklak Behind Gixdák (#7) Village at Cape Martin

11 Gixdák [X'aa] Gixdák (#7) [Point] Strawberry Point

12 Xaat Áa Duls'el' Yé Where They Dig Spruce 

Roots

Cordova

13 Thaattł'aát* Small Kayak* (from Eyak or 

Athabaskan 

Wingham Island

14 Ginák Egg Island (from Eyak, 

originally Alutiiq)

Kanak Island

15 Kanaltalgi X'áat'x'i 

Sáani Dax 

Nalháshch*

Spongy Islands Are Floating* Bering River Delta

16 Kaasheishxáaw Áa Dragonfly Lake Bering Lake

17 Yáay Ká On the Humpback Whale Kayak Island

18 Yéil Xákwdli Raven's Harpoon Line Okalee Spit

19 Jilkáat Cache (from Eyak) Below Cordova

20 S'igeekáawu Hídi Dead Person House Cave on Kayak Island

21 Yáay Shaayí Whale Head Lemesurier Point on 

northeast end of Kayak 

Island
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 33

Tlingit Name Translation Location

22 Anakéi * South side of lake near 

Bering River

23 Ukwyanta* * Mountain above Bering 

River

24 Yéil Katsees Raven's Float Between base of Kalee Spit 

and Cape Suckling

21.4 Yéil Hít Raven's House Cave at Cape Suckling

25 Axdalée Place with Lots of Whales 

(from Eyak, A:xdalih, 

originally Alutiiq, Arwertuli)

Settlement at Okalee River

26 She-ta-ha-na-ta* Northward (upstream) He 

Lives*

Seal River area

27 Ts'iyuh* Black Bear (from Eyak) Tsiu River

28 Djuḱe* – –* (from Eyak) Stream entering Kaliakh 

River

29 Galyáx The Lowermost (from Eyak, 

Gałyax 

Kaliakh River

30 Ch'awáax' Robin Mountain Robinson Mountain

31 Daktáat* 

(Gexta'ał*)

Cooked* (from Eyak, Daqta:ł) Duktoth River

32 Yéil X'us.eetí Raven's Footprints Cape Yakataga

33 Tayeesk'* Little Adze* Cape Yakataga

34 Yéil (Yeil) T'ooch' Black Raven Gulf of Alaska (Pacific 

Ocean)

35 Yakwdeiyí Canoe Road Inside Cape Yakataga

36 Yéil Naasa.áayi* Raven's Bentwood Box* Cape Yakataga

37 Gùtśáxw* Muddy Water (from Eyak) White River

38 Héen Tlein Big Creek Big River

39 Teey Aaní* (Was'ei 

Dak)

Yellow Cedar Bark Town 

(Outside of Was'ei [#45])

West of Icy Bay

40 Ligaasi Áa Tabooed Lake Icy Bay

41 Ts'ootsxán Y'aayí Tsimshian Point Point Riou

42 Ts'ootsxán Geeyí Tsimshian Bay Riou Bay

43 Ana.óot Gíl'i Aleut Bluff Icy Bay

44 Sít' Kaxóowu Piles of Rock on the Glacier Icy Bay
34 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Tlingit Name Translation Location

45 Was'ei (Yas'ei) Yík Inside of Was’ei/Yas’ei (see 

#48)

Icy Bay

46 Geesh

K'ishuwanyee

Place below the End of the 

Edge of the Base of the Kelp

Halibut fishing bank, Icy 

Bay

46.1 K'wát' X'áat'i Bird Egg Island Gull Island, Icy Bay

47 Was'ei Tashaa 

(Shaa Tlein)

Mountain Inland of Was'ei 

(#45) (Big Mountain)

Mount St. Elias

48 Yas'ei* Héen Swampy* Creek Yahtse River

49 Ligaasi Héen Tabooed Creek Yana Stream

50 Galgox* (Galyáx) Muddy* Yahtse River tributary

51 Nasaaxíx* * Malaspina Glacier

52 Kwalaxuk'w* Dry Up Water [Little One]* Malaspina Glacier

53 Sít' X'aayí Glacier Point Front of Malaspina Glacier

54 Sít' Tlein Shaa Ká On the Mountain of the Big 

Glacier

Sitkagi Bluffs

55 Taan Teiyí Sea Lion Rock At Sitkagi Bluffs

56 Sít' Lutú Glacier Point (nostril) Malaspina Glacier, beach 

in front

57 Sít' Tlein Big Glacier Malaspina Glacier

58 KIk* * Manby Stream or Kwik 

Stream

59 Yaat'áak* (Yatak*) * Point Manby

60 Shaanáx Héen Valley Creek Creek behind Point 

Manby

75 Tsaa Héeni Seal Creek Grand Wash

89 Yaakwdáat Geeyí Canoe Rebounded Bay Yakutat Bay

90 Laaxaa Near the Glacier (from Eyak, 

Ła'xa')

Yakutat area

97 Ch'áak' Aaní Eagle Town Yakutat Bay

107 Yat'a S'é.aa* (Yatasé'a, Yàtà-sí'à')*Beside the Face of the Muddy 

Lagoon *

Esker Creek Estuary

124 Sít' Kusá Narrow Glacier Turner Glacier

126 X'aa Yayee Below the Point Yakutat Bay

148 Gíl' Shakee Aan Village on Top of the Cliff Bancas Point
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 35

Tlingit Name Translation Location

167 L'éiw Geeyí Sand [Beach] Bay Beach at head of 

Disenchantment Bay

172 At'éik* Behind It* Disenchantment Bay

183 L'éiw Kunageiyí Sand Little Bay Yakutat Bay*

189 Wéinaa Tá* Head of Gypsum [Bay] Bay at west end of Russell 

Fiord

198 Sít' Lutú Glacier Point Part of Hubbard Glacier 

that sticks out into Russell 

Fiord

199 Néix Áa Daak 

Kawdzikugu Yé

Where Marble Rock Fell 

Down

Point opposite Hubbard 

Glacier

200 T'íx' Ka Séet Ice Overturning Strait Passage from 

Disenchantment Bay to 

Nunatak Fiord

205 Taasaa* Sít' ––––– * Glacier Hubbard Glacier

208 K'wát' 

X'áat'ik'átsk'u

Little Bird Egg Island Osier Island in Russell 

Fiord

219 K'wát' Aaní Bird (seagull) Egg Land Eastern moraine, Hubbard 

Glacier

222 Sít' T'ooch' Black Glacier Moraine of Hubbard 

Glacier

229 Sít' Tlein Big Glacier Hubbard Glacier

* Indicates an uncertain, unconfirmed, or partial placename.

Galyáx-Kwáan and Yakutat Kwáan after the last ice age. The Ginéix Kwáan/ 

Kwáashk’ikwáan endured great hardship and deprivation as they made their way 

toward Kaliakh River, where they encountered the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan. When they 

finally arrived at the shores of Icy Bay, there was a point, but “no bay at all,” due to the 

glacier. At Yakutat Bay, there was a glacier stretching from Point Manby to Krutoi 

[“Head”] Island. Glaciers also blocked the head of Russell Fiord, forming Situk Lake 

and draining into what is the Situk River. 

This information was supplemented by our interviews with Elaine Abraham (EA), 

Victoria Demmert (VD), Lena Farkus (LF), Judy Ramos (JR) and Ray Sensmeier (RS). 

The migration story as told by Elaine Abraham begins at the Red River in Chitina:
36 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“Ah, the migration story. There’s a Red River in Chitina area and now 

more entered the Canada area and north of Chitina...that we were little 

people you know, we weren’t very tall. And they were different 

Athabaskans, so they weren’t quite that big with the original Athabaskan 

people. But they were so many. So many that when they went through the 

river bank to challenge the other Athabaskan, the bank would just start 

sliding into Copper River. ...They had swords and long spears and they 

would challenge across the river, the other Athabaskan people. They 

fought for their land in that whole area... 

“They came to, the Yakutat area. And you know they starved, half 

of them died along the way, or even more. But they finally decided to 

follow what they thought was a rabbit. And it turned out to be Mount St.

Elias” (EA). 

Ray Sensmeier identifies the Bremner River as the migratory path: “I talked to an elder 

up there and he said he knew about our migration and he said we migrated along this 

Bremner River” (RS). Sensmeier also describes the conflict that caused the Ravens to 

leave Chitina and settle in Icy Bay:

“So it started out in Chitina with the Head Man, we didn’t have chiefs, we 

had a spokesman for different houses. Like I come from the House of the 

Half-Moon People. There’s many of them under Kwáashk’ikwáan and 

then there’s a spokesman for all of them, which for us is, my clan is Byron 

Mallott. And it starts—that man who is the Head Man had two sons and 

they had a—whoever’s the Head Man had a large moose horn antler dish 

that was embedded with I guess, nowadays they call them precious or 

pretty stones, that represented his authority. And then when he got old 

and was, I think he got sick and he died there were—he had two sons, one 

younger one and one older one. And the younger one thought that he was 

going to be the next in line and the people, they choose whoever they 

want to follow you know, the one that’s the best one. ...Anyway, they 

gave that moose horn antler dish to the older brother. So the younger 

brother, he really got angry. ...We lived there for thirty or forty years and 

the reason the migration started was because something that we don’t 

believe in and that’s anger” (RS). 19

 

Gunéit Kwáan’ descendant, Lena Farkus, recounts the migration out of Chitina 

using the Copper River: 

“So they started from Copper River migrating down south. And so 

eventually they made him the leader of that group that was migrating. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 37

Another brother went with him and they started walking toward the 

snow. No snowmobiles and stuff. They started down south and they 

would stop after they’d run out of food you know. And they would stop 

in a place where they saw some different kind of animals and location so 

they’d camp put some more food up, and then move on” (LF).20

Elaine Abraham continues the story of the migration, saying,

“Upon reaching the ‘ear of the rabbit,’ the Ginéix Kwáan turned toward 

the Bagley Ice Field where they found both warmth and resources. They 

decided to settle there and remained there for a several years. ...We 

actually lived in an area that Bagley Glacier. Apparently they were where 

it was warm...and they had resources to eat. ...They lived in that Bagley 

Glacier area for a long time” (EA).21 

Elaine Abraham describes the general area that was occupied by the Ginéix Kwáan 

while living in the Bagley Ice Field:

“[Valerie and Turner glaciers are the] ones that I call the old woman and 

the younger woman. ...That’s Bagley and then Turner is...one word that’s 

old, ‘The First Wife’ and ‘The Second Wife.’... And these glaciers were 

bigger than they are [now] at that time they were there. ...But Valerie was 

the one that was a young female that first decided to take these people in 

that were wandering around on their land from Bagley. ...So the two 

women glaciers had a lot to do with the spiritual inception and guidance 

of these foreigners” (EA).

After they left Bagley Ice Field, they made their way towards Icy Bay, then on to 

Yakutat. Prior to arriving in Yakutat, they first settled in Icy Bay:

“So they kept moving down and moving down and one day they were 

getting low on food again and so the leader told two young men to go 

down and check around to where there’s some animals and fish. So they 

went and they saw some blood on the ice on the glacier. I always think it’s 

probably Malaspina [Glacier]. That’s what I always think. And anyway, 

they saw blood on there and they said, ‘There must be people about.’ They 

went back and told their leader. So he told them to go on down and check 

down further and you know, hunt for food if they saw any kind of animal

or fish. So they were gone for a while and came back and on this one lake, 

Taboo Lake [Ligaasi Áa, #40; see Map 5] they call it in English. And they 
38 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

saw some canoes there and some people but they were kind of not sure if 

they should just go there and say hi you know, ‘How are you?’ They just 

kind of stayed around that area and finally they just got friendly with 

them and found out who they were. And these people hunted a fur seal. 

... It’s the kind of seals you hunt in the ice. So they made this boat [gudiyé], 

canoe so that they could hunt in the ice for seals. 

“...And so they kind of stayed in that, where Mount St. Elias is area 

by Icy Bay. And that’s where they lived for a while. ...And when they 

stopped by Icy Bay by Mount St. Elias, they were just getting to be more 

people and more people that they couldn’t live in one long house 

anymore. So they moved, they built a house a long house, and the leader 

said, ‘I’m going to give myself the name “Shaadaa” because I’m going to 

live by the mountain,’ Shaa yadaa [“Around the face of the mountain”] 

and off the mountain area. That name’s been in my family all these years 

on down” (LF).

Ray Sensmeier confirms this name for Mount St. Elias given by Farkus:

“Prior to that they saw the top of Mount St. Elias and it looked like a 

seagull. That’s all they could see of it so they went toward that...Mount St. 

Elias was you know where they—that’s the only thing they could see and 

they went toward that. And the common name in Yakutat used to be 

Shaada. Shaa is ‘Mountain’ and Shaadaa is ‘Around the Mountain’” (RS).

In the Icy Bay area, according to Farkus: “They build houses at the foothills of Mount St.

Elias—Moon House, Mountain House. They stayed because there was lots of game” 

(LF).22 Lena Farkus (2012) recounted that after the Gunéit Kwáan/ Kwáashk'ikwáan 

crossed Malaspina Glacier upon leaving Icy Bay, they eventually came to Yakutat Bay 

and settled at Knight Island.23 Here they intermarried with the Teikweidí in addition to 

the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan. A prominent Teikweidí leader, Xatgaawéit, married two 

Kwáashk'ikwáan sisters. His brothers-in-law went to get fish at Humpback (Humpy) 

Creek but the local owners of the creek broke up their canoes. When they went back to 

Knight Island, the brothers-in-law told the people what had happened. Xatgaawéit had 

copper from Copper River, so he bought Humpback Creek from the owners for his 

brothers-in-law. This is when the Gunéit Kwáan became Kwáashk'ikwáan, being named 

for that Humpback Creek. Eventually the Kwáashk'ikwáan consolidated their territory 

from just west of Icy Bay to Lost River, east of Yakutat Bay, leading de Laguna to 

conclude that “No other sib [clan or house group] along the Gulf Coast controlled such 

a wealth of natural resources, except possibly the [Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan]...” (de 

Laguna 1972:465). Kwáashk' Héeni (Humpy Creek) similarly became an at.óow or sacred 

possession of the clan.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 39

Like the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan survival of the Flood, the Kwáashk’ikwáan migration to 

Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan constitutes an epic. Their journey to the coast was a multi-year 

struggle for survival, involving a long period of settlement on the Bagley Ice Field. As 

with the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, the Kwáashk’ikwáan were without their opposite 

moiety, and thus their ability to legitimately procreate was put at risk. It was thus 

fortuitous that these two clans, one Raven and the other Eagle, found each other at Icy 

Bay on what is still today known as the “Lost Coast.”24 Like the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, 

the Kwáashk’ikwáan also took a mountain, in this case Mount St. Elias, as a crest, 

because these mountains “saved them,” just as the female glaciers, similarly 

conceptualized as living beings (Cruikshank 2005) “took them in” in Elaine Abraham’s 

words. So too each clan took several animals they encountered along the way to their 

eventual settlement in Icy Bay and later Yakutat Bay. Finally, both clans showed great 

adaptive capacity and resilience in accommodating to the rugged conditions and 

alternative resources afforded by the glaciated landscapes in Galyáx-Kwáan. Eventually 

both groups became quite rich: For this reason these migration stories have the status of 

at.óow (sacred possessions) and shagóon (heritage and destiny) and continue to bind 

modern Yakutat Tlingits to these landscapes.25

In summarizing the multiple and complex relations that exist between Yakutat clans 

and landscapes within and adjacent to Wrangell-St. Elias, it is clear that there are 

numerous clan territories, migration routes, refuges, settlements, subsistence locales, 

landmarks and other sacred sites that are worthy of national interest and 

conservation.26 The migration and settlement stories of the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan and 

Gunéit Kwáan/ Kwáashk'ikwáan are nothing less than heroic, and exemplify in many 

ways the means by which Tlingits and Eyaks traditionally appropriate places as part of 

their clan identity, and come to feel that they belong to places as much as places belong to 

them. Biography, history and geography, as de Laguna suggests, are fused in the 

ancestral landscapes of the “Lost Coast,” where both tribes were “lost” but became 

pioneers of new settlements, and eventually great wealth. The rich and potent 

associations with these landscapes are kept alive through continued use of placenames, 

stories, songs, dances and crests, and through hunting, fishing and gathering at key 

sites. These connections extend not only from the coast to the interior but also from the 

Gulf of Alaska coast down to Southeast Alaska, from whence, according to Tlingit oral 

narratives, the sleepless hero, Kaakeix’wtí, first made his epic journey among the 

Athabaskans. 

This multimediacy of memory, realized through multiple cultural structures, the 

“poetics of dwelling” and the “re-membering” of selves in ancestral places, has served 

well the collective memory and being of the Eyak, Tlingit and Athabaskan descendants 

of these landscapes. When the Yakutat Tlingit went to visit their interior relatives some 

thirty years ago at a special ceremony hosted by the Eyak Corporation to recognize the 

historical connections between the groups, they were struck by the commonality of 
40 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

memory and culture. Elaine Abraham met a local elder there, “pretty well in age. And it 

was really interesting to listen to him tell the people about the [people that left them, 

including her clan ancestors] and their—he told our migration story just the way we tell 

it (EA).” Judy Ramos also remembers this ceremony. She was struck by the similarities 

between the hosts’ dances and songs and those of her own Yakutat group: “[W]hen I 

watched the...dancers dance a song, it was the same song we sing...Mentasta Dancers 

too, the way they dance it is the way we dance it” (JR). Bert Adams Sr. has also 

observed these similarities in the dance regalia, reporting that when “[we] went over to 

Mentasta about ... two, three years ago, and they had their dancers come and perform 

for us...Judy and I was amazed at how similar it was to Yakutat, you know. And the 

regalia was pretty much the same as well. So you know, we’re pretty close (BA).” This 

closeness reveals the power of place and shared history to remain resonant in memory 

and oral history, and the unique expressive power of various genres of place among the 

cultures inhabiting Wrangell-St. Elias and its environs. 

Yakutat Tlingit Clan Organization

As will be discussed throughout this document, Yakutat Tlingit clan identity formed 

the basis for diverse associations with traditional clan territories, including special 

connections to landmarks, and special claims on natural resources. When mapped 

based on Yakutat Tlingit knowledge and tradition, these associations differ 

substantially from outside definitions of tribal territory. These mapping efforts can 

reveal the locations of the constituent clans of the Yaakwdáat Kwáan (see Map 6), but 

also to show how the aggregated communities’ territories – such as those of the larger 

Laaxaayíx Kwáan – are juxtaposed with those of other aggregated communities (see 

Map 7). These Yakutat Tlingit definitions of territory lend significant clarity to claims 

made by Yakutat Tlingit, past and present, on lands and resources within Wrangell-St. 

Elias and beyond.

There are five major clans within the traditional Tlingit territory in the Yakutat area: 

Teikweidí; Shunkukeidi; Galix Kaagwaantaan; L’unax.ádi; and Kwáashk’ikwáan. The 

Teikweidí, Shunkukeidi and Galix Kaagwaantaan clans are of the Eagle moiety, and the 

L’unax.ádi and Kwáashk’ikwáan clans are of the Raven moiety.27 These five clans 

migrated to the Yakutat Bay region in the pre-contact era. Upon arrival in Yakutat, they 

continued to operate as independent clans, but took on an increasingly shared identity 

as members of the Laaxaayíx Kwáan (Glacier Inside People) – also known as Yaakwdáat 

Kwáan (Lagoon is forming People—from the Eyak term Diya’quda’t), hinting at the unique 

geological condition of Yakutat Bay, where the vast glaciers were retreating to reveal 

new waterways. The five Yakutat clans were then subdivided into lineages or house 

groups.28 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 41

Map 6 
42 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Together, the clan and house group (a sublineage of the clan) claim material and 

symbolic property—at.óow—as part of their ancestry, heritage, and their destiny— shuká

(literally “that which lies before us”). This property includes geographic sites, such as 

salmon streams, halibut banks, shellfish beds, fort sites and prominent mountains—as 

in the case of Robin (or Kulthieth) Mountain for the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan—as well as 

symbolic capital, such as ceremonial regalia, stories, songs, spirits and names. As with 

shuká, there is a collective and individual element to at.óow. The sum total of a person’s 

at.óow serves to mark that individual as a distinct member of the community and 

constitutes a pillar and line of personal identity within a meshwork of social, historical 

and geographical ties to land. In summing up the foundational role that these 

possessions play in identity and being, both past and future, Lukaax.ádi elder Emma 

Marks, originally from Dry Bay, declared, “Our at.óow are our life” (in Dauenhauer and 

Dauenhauer 1994:v).

Another important means by which symbolic connections of Tlingit clans to place are 

reproduced is through shagóon. This term, also subsidiary to shuká, may be translated as 

“heritage” or “destiny,” and is often used to reference the collective ancestry, history 

and geography of a clan. According to de Laguna (1972, 2:813), shagóon means or 

implies “the destiny of a people (or individual), established in the past by the ancestors 

and extending to the descendants. It is one way of expressing ‘the way things are.’” The 

concept is especially important in ritual, where a clan’s history and prerogatives, 

including territorial rights, are negotiated and validated by the opposite moiety. 

Shagóon also is embodied in Tlingit naming practices. Clans are named for ancestral 

territories, and individuals are named after clan ancestors.29 In these and other ways the 

concept of shagóon merges place and being. Thus, as one elder put it, “if you sell our 

land, you sell our ancestors.” Even Alaska Native Corporations, including the Eyak and 

Yak-Tat Kwaan village corporations, despite having fee simple ownership (i.e., with the 

right to sell) of large tracts of land, have opted overwhelmingly to retain their land 

rather than alienate it through sale. 

Iconography, a visual representation of at.óow, comprises another important expressive 

medium though which people represent sacred relationships to place. Tlingit icons and 

motifs in visual art function on a number of different levels. They reference events, 

emotions, kin, places and other themes that are fundamental to individual and social 

group identity. The most sacred icons are clan crests—manifestations of animals, places 

and other entities—that are incorporated into artistic designs, regalia and other cultural 

forms:

“In addition to crests derived from totemic animals, there are those which 

symbolize places. The most prominent of these are the two mountains, 

Saint Elias and Fairweather, of the Kwacḱqwan and Tł’UknaxAdi [and 

Takdeintaan] respectively” (de Laguna 1972:456).30
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 43

Map 7 
44 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Mount St. Elias (Was'ei Tashaa, #47; see Map 5), the tallest mountain on the coast, 

served as a beacon for seafaring mariners and for land travellers traversing the Bering 

and Tana glaciers between the Interior and the coast. The Kwáashk'ikwáan hold Mount 

St. Elias as a sacred crest and symbolize it on at.óow, such as ceremonial regalia (see de 

Laguna 1972, pl. 152). Thus, Kaagwaantaan possesses crests for Mount St. Elias as well 

as for the Robinson Mountains – another key landmark in their migration narrative and 

early history (TV).31 Many of the names of the clans and their houses reveal distinctive 

geographical or geological features, such as Shaa Hít (Mount St. Elias House).32 For 

more examples, see Table 2 below. Crests, and therefore territories, can be transferred in 

ownership by purchase or sale, or taken by force as the result of war.

Crests, observed de Laguna (1972, 1:451), “are, from the native point of view, the most 

important feature of the matrilineal sib or lineage, acquired in the remote past by the 

ancestors and determining the nature and destiny of their descendants.” This 

combination of heritage and destiny, or shagóon, is believed to be embodied in the 

sacred property of the matrilineage and also in the social group members themselves.

Each crest, too, has a story “behind it” that evokes elements of the present landscape in 

relation to the distant past. Animals were taken as crests typically because of specific 

events that occurred at particular places involving them and members of the social 

group. In other cases geographic places, themselves animate, were adopted as crests. 

When a place was appropriated as a crest, its image served to link indelibly particular 

social groups to particular terrains. In many cases social groups actually derive their 

names from these locales, and thus the crests serve to fuse members’ identities, origins 

and history. This is the case for the two major clans with origins in Wrangell-St. Elias, 

the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, deriving its name from the Kaliakh River (Galyáx), and the 

Ginéix Kwáan (some of whom became Kwáashk'ikwáan in Yakutat), deriving its name 

from a small humpback salmon stream in Yakutat Bay. 

In this way, crests and other visual art, as representations of places, endow portions of 

the landscape with multiple layers of meaning and identify them as the property and 

heritage of specific social groups, and the landscape itself is continuously defined and 

redefined through iconography. 33 Thus, although Tlingit art differs markedly in style 

from most Euro-American landscape art, both constitute genres of place because they 

explicitly appropriate and idealize places, and therefore shape the perception and 

experience of those landscapes.

Names, stories, songs and crests represent genres of place that have been ritually 

sanctified as at.óow. They are, as Feld and Basso (1998:6) suggest, ethnographic 

evocations [of place] with local theories of dwelling—which is not just living in place but 

also encompasses ways of fusing setting to situation, locality to life-world ... [and serve to] 

locate the intricate strengths and fragilities that connect places to social imagination and 

practice, to memory and desire, to dwelling and movement. Even material technologies, 

designed or evolved for specific locales, can come to serve as powerful genres of place, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 45

coming not only to symbolize the place itself, but also serving as a means of sensing,

experiencing and relating to place. What is more, objects of material culture take on 

emplaced “biographies” within communities, as they are passed from generation to 

generation. For this reason, material culture provides an ideal frame for evaluating 

what Peter Jordan (2003:306) terms “landscape enculturation,” because it is through the 

manufacture, use, transmission and deposition of material artefacts that “communities 

bring rich symbolic meanings to the landscapes they inhabit, and at the same time, 

transform the physical terrain.” 

In sum, Tlingit places are not merely physical locales or geographic givens, but rather 

phenomenal and cultural processes consisting of three elemental dimensions—space, 

time and experience. These dimensions are culturally and environmentally mediated 

and exist in interdependent webs of interanimation, manifest in a variety of cultural 

forms—such as at.óow and shagóon—and genres—such as the gudiyé—that are 

inherently relational in linking and accommodating people to places and places to 

people through the exigencies and poetics of dwelling. Tlingit history and geography 

respect these links as ongoing aspects of individual and social biography as well as 

rights and prerogatives, as exemplified in sociogeographic concepts such as kwáan

(dwelling place), at.óow and shagóon. A holistic anthropological perspective of place 

contributes to the knowledge of both culture and geography and the dynamic, organic 

ties that link them. Through such a perspective, a foundation is laid for understanding 

and respecting Tlingits’ senses of place and being as a set of cultural processes, and as a 

geography of respect. 

As will be suggested in later sections of this document, clan or house leaders (hit s’áati)

are the “trustees and administrators of their group’s property” (Thornton 2001: 213), 

responsible for managing a diverse range of activities, including but not limited to 

trade, resource production, land tenure and relations with neighboring groups. Elaine 

Abraham explains: “The clans owned the territory and the streams and the house 

leaders together with the men and women council, according to their status in the clan” 

(EA).

Matrilineal clans are cohesive socio-political units consisting of multiple families, who 

not only share a cultural identity, but who work and live together in a clan house or 

“hít.” As edited by de Laguna, Emmons (1991: 25-27) observed:

“Each sib [i.e., clan (naa) or its sublineage, the house ( hít)] is composed of 

people who consider themselves brothers and sisters. ...All are bound 

together by the possession of important prerogatives; a common name, a 

body of historical and mythological traditions, possession of territories for 

hunting, fishing and berrying. The clan is made up of households, 

consisting of closely related families living together under one roof, 

numbering sometimes fifty.”
46 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Yakutat elder Olaf Abraham echoed this description of Tlingit clan houses, saying, 

“Each Tlingit clan had their own land with large community houses. 

These community of clan houses were large enough to house fifty or more 

people, large enough so the individuals living within did not feel 

crowded. ...Inside were many totem screens and totem poles. The corner 

house posts were also carved. On top of these corner poles were beams 

which make the skeleton of the house. No nails were used. They knew 

how to construct these buildings without the use of nails Nevertheless 

they had huge buildings. In such buildings they lived” (Abraham 1973:4).

Clan houses are traditionally places of winter lodging as the Tlingit return from semipermanent sites or camps strategically situated across the landscape to optimize 

seasonal resource use. As de Laguna describes, “In each Tlingit tribal area there was at 

least one principal village, occupied in winter but usually deserted in summer when 

families scattered to the fishing and hunting camps” (1990: 206).

During the winter, the Tlingit would gather at these established village sites that were 

defined by kwáan affiliation and structured by the rules and prerogatives of that 

particular kwáan. A kwáan was once best defined as a seasonal aggregate of clans 

occupying the same geographic area.34 Writing in the 1880s, Aurel Krause suggested, 

“The entire Tlingit people are divided into a number of distinct tribes, 

called ‘kon,’ [kwáan] each of which has its permanent village and its 

hunting and fishing grounds. These tribes were called after the river of the 

bay upon which their villages were situated, as the Chilkat-kon and the 

Yakutat-kon, or after the islands on which they lived, as the Sitka-kon” 

(Kraus 1956: 65).

Within each village and even within individual houses there were different strata of 

society represented, including a leadership class of nobles, commenters and slaves. 

Being raided or acquired by trade from outside the community, slaves were 

responsible for a number of tasks, including many labor-intensive forms of resource 

procurement.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 47

Table 2: The Clans and Houses of Yakutat

LAAXAAYÍK KWÁAN: YAKUTAT AREA

Glacier Inside People

 or 

YAAKWDÁAT KWÁAN

Lagoon is forming [From Diya’quda’t (Eyak)] 

RAVEN MOIETY

Clan House House Translation

L’uknax.ádi (Children of L’ukanax) Shaa Hít Mountain House—and for 

Mount Fairweather

Daginaa Hít Far out in the Sea House

Eech Hít 1 Reef House 1

Eech Hít 2 Reef House 2—located at 

Situk River

Kwáashk’ikwáan (Ginéix Kwáan)

(People of Kwáashk’, Humpback 

Creek, [from Eyak], or People of 

Ginéix [Little Bremner River?])

Aanyuwaa Hít In Front of Town House

Tsisk’w Hít Owl House

Dís Hít Moon House

Yéil S’aagi Hít Raven’s Bones House

Noow Hít Fort House

Shaa Hít Mountain House—for 

Mount St. Elias

WOLF/EAGLE MOIETY

Clan House House Translation

Kaagwaantaan (Charred House 

People)

Gooch Xaay Hít Wolf Steam Bath House

Lkuweidí (? People) Unknown Unknown

Teikweidí (People of Teik [a bay]) Xeitl Hít Thunderbird House 2

Gijook Hít Golden Eagle House

Gaaw Hít Drum House

K’atxaan Hít Man who Acted Like a 

Woman House

Tóos’ Hít Shark House

Xóots Hít Brown Bear House

Dagisdinaa (“People of Dagis” or 

Dageis [a river or channel])

Xeitl Hít Thunderbird House 1
48 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

GALYÁX KWÁAN: YAKATAGA-CONTROLLER BAY AREA35

People of the Kaliakh River (Galyáx) 

 

RAVEN MOIETY*

Clan Clan Translation

Gaanax.ádi Children of Ganaax [Port Stewart, a bay]

Koosk’eidí Children of Koosk’

Kwáashk’i Kwáan or Ginéix Kwáan People of Kwáashk’ (Humpback Creek, 

from Eyak) or People of Ginéix 

WOLF/EAGLE MOIETY*

Clan Clan Translation

Kaagwaantaan Charred House People

Jishkweidí Red Paint People

*Abbreviated list without houses shown. 

The Yaakwdáat Kwáan and Their Lands

The Yakutat (Yaakwdáat) Kwáan is among those kwáans that took shape from the 

constituent five clans that converged at Yakutat Bay. It is a geographically defined 

polity of independent clan units that originally gathered only during the winter 

months, but increasingly came to live together year-round in the pre-contact era, as they 

congregated on the less rugged and dynamic southeast coast of the Bay. Post-contact, 

they were also brought together as missionaries and economic development facilitated 

community consolidation and other transformations of community life. In spite of their 

relocation, “each one of the tribes knows what area he comes from and the history of 

that area” (GR). Yaakwdáat Kwáan embraces the area roughly from Malaspina Glacier 

above Yakutat Bay to the Akwe River in Dry Bay. Yakutat Bay (Laaxaayík “Inside 

Laaxaa [from Eyak, ‘Near the Glacier’],” #61; see Map 5), especially the eastern shores 

and islands, were among the most important habitation and resource use areas within 

Yaakwdáat Kwáan. Not surprisingly, it is here that we find the highest density of 

Native placenames (see Thornton 2012; de Laguna 1972), most of which were recorded 

by Harrington (n.d.) and de Laguna (1972:58ff.). The present city of Yakutat is located at 

Monti Bay and incorporates the traditional Native village called Kaa Gatsx'áak Aan. 

Another permanent settlement was located at Port Mulgrave on the southwest end of 

Khantaak Island. East of Khantaak Island is an important travel route, settlement and 

resource harvest area known as Canoe Pass (Dakde Séet “Channel on the Way to Place 

Behind”). At one time, there was a village here spanning both sides of the channel that 

was “so huge that ravens trying to fly overhead would be overcome by smoke from the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 49

houses” (Yeil Aa Daak Wudzigidi Ye, meaning “Place Where Raven Fell Down”) (de 

Laguna 1972:64).

Like all Tlingit winter village sites, the Yakutat kwáan was composed of multiple, wellbuilt longhouses adorned with historically and culturally significant carvings and 

painted clan crests (de Laguna 1972). These houses were lined up strategically in 

sheltered bays that had sandy beaches for landing canoes, close proximity to desirable 

resources such as salmon streams, hunting grounds and berry patches, and provided an 

unobstructed view of approaching newcomers. 

Predominantly, Eyak villages were constructed in a similar fashion at the time of 

contact. According to de Laguna,

“Each village had a fort or palisaded enclosure around some or all the 

houses. Every important village also had a potlatch house for each moiety, 

with carved post (of Eagle or Raven moiety) in front. ...These houses were 

equivalent to the Tlingit lineage or chiefs’ houses” (1990: 190).

Traditionally, Eyak clans were loosely defined by proximity, usually identified as 

belonging to a prominent chief. At one time, there were four regional Eyak groups: the 

Eyak “proper,” who inhabited the Cordova-Copper River Delta, a group at Controller 

Bay sometimes referred to as the Chilkat, a group on the coast of the Gulf of Alaska 

sometimes called the Yakatags, and a fourth group that lived around Yakutat Bay and 

have been fully absorbed by the Tlingit (de Laguna 1990).36

Again, over time, villages of Tlingit and Eyak blur together, so that those of the Copper 

River/Cordova region became principally Eyak with significant Tlingit social and 

economic influence. The Yakutat groups became significantly Eyak but culturally 

predominantly Tlingit. The southern Yakutat groups became largely Tlingit but living 

“among the Athabaskans” as the name of the southern Yakutat clans, Gunaxoo Kwáan, 

suggests.

In addition to the permanent villages, the Tlingit constructed complex intertribal trade 

networks and maintained regular use of clan territories some distance from Yakutat, 

traveling long distances in traditional dugout canoes during the summer months. 

According to de Laguna, in

“June and July, months of calm water and most favorable winds, formerly 

saw fleets of canoes from Hoonah, Sitka and Chilkat country going to 

Yakutat to trade, while the Yakutat Tlingit might cross the Gulf to trade 

with the Ahtna or visit the Russian posts in Prince William Sound 

(Nuchek) or at Sitka” (1990:206).
50 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Figure 1 – The village of S’ooska, or Port Mulgrave, across the water from the modern Yakutat 

shoreline. This village served as the winter settlement for Yaakwdáat Kwáan prior to the 

consolidation of settlement in the village of Yakutat in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.

Oral traditions mention various trails along the shore and up the stream drainages of 

the south shore of what is Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. However, 

canoe travel was far easier than travel by foot along the rugged coastal strip where “the 

mainland from tidewater to lofty mountains [is] nowhere more than 30 miles wide,” 

and often considerably narrower, punctuated by glaciers and mountains (de Laguna 

1990: 205). Yet canoe travel was still treacherous, fraught with unpredictable weather 

and challenging terrain. As de Laguna notes,

“Canoe travel was dangerous except in the shelter of offshore bars; safe 

landing places could be found only in the mouths of rivers or behind the 

islands of Yakutat and Controller bays. Sudden squalls, strong winds, fog, 

and rain, with heavy winter snows demanded human adaptation to damp 

and cold, but not to severe freezing” (de Laguna 1990:190). 

The various canoe models found in Yakutat were adapted to fit various functions.37 The 

most common canoe was the “spruce” or si’t. A heavy-prow canoe was needed for seal 

hunting in icy waters. Both the heavy-prow and more graceful-prow canoe indicate 

Eyak influence (de Laguna 1990). According to de Laguna, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 51

“The oldest known type of Tlingit canoe had a protruding planklike prow 

and stern, pierced with holes. These were seen at Lituya Bay in 1786, and 

at Yakutat Bay in 1788 and 1794” (1990: 208).

The most sought after canoes were not of Yakutat Tlingit origin. It was the Haida who 

manufactured these canoes—massive, crafted of red cedar, and up to 60 feet long, with 

two masts and sails. These canoes were most advantageous as modes of transport for 

trade goods, able to carry six to ten tons of freight (de Laguna 1990). They were highly 

desirable and traded all the way to Yakutat.

Trade, an important factor in uniting the Tlingit and Eyak, was also significant for 

sustaining the economy and social structure of the Tlingit. Trading and exchange of 

goods between the Tlingit was highly regulated. Gift exchanges were restricted to 

members of different clans in the same moiety, or between “brothers-in-law” (members 

of opposite moieties) or “fathers- and sons-in-law” (de Laguna 1990). These stringent 

trading regulations were applied to trade with the Eyak and Athabaskans as well. In 

this way, clan leaders organized and monopolized trade and transport of goods into the 

interior, but also facilitated the integration of the Eyak into the socio-political network 

of clan-based trade and ownership.38 

The Eyak at one time may have controlled large areas of what is today Yakutat territory 

(Controller Bay to Italio River, perhaps, according to de Laguna 1990), but were 

increasingly encroached upon by Tlingits moving up from the southeast, as is discussed 

above. Tlingit culture largely subsumed Eyak culture at Yakutat Bay, yet there is a 

transition zone between Yakutat and Cape Suckling. Thus, while both Eyak and Tlingit 

placenames are presented in Yakutat, as one moves northwest up the coast, one sees 

that Eyak placenames increasingly predominate. In some cases, Tlingits appear to have 

adopted or hybridized the Eyak names for features of the landscape rather than (or in 

addition to) applying a new Tlingit name. As a result, many places have more than one 

Native name and sometimes as many as four (Tlingit, Eyak, Chugach and Ahtna, not to 

mention English and Russian), as Tebenkov observed (Davidson 1901b:44; de Laguna 

1972). Tlingitization of other indigenous placenames and cultural elements has also 

taken place. Sorting this out can be difficult, but it also contributes to the richness of the 

cultural landscapes.

Yakutat Tlingit have long associated with the dynamic landscape encompassing the

southern coast of Alaska, including portions of Wrangell-St. Elias. This is evidenced not 

only in the archaeological record of the region, but in the placenames within the area, 

reflecting this deep human history: “Eyak, Athapaskan, and Tlingit placenames 

encapsulate ecological information now rendered invisible by English names” 

(Cruikshank 2001: 380). In collaboration with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Thornton (2012) 

documented more than three hundred placenames in this region based on a review of 
52 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

the previous literature (especially de Laguna 1972) and additional interviews with 

elders, including Elaine Abraham, Bert Adams Sr., Lorraine Adams, Nora Marks 

Dauenhauer, Sally Edwards, Sig Edwards, Lena Farkus, Emma Marks, George Ramos 

Sr., Judy Ramos, Ben Valle, Fred White and others. This information has been 

supplemented below with additional interviews from this project and those conducted 

by Judy Ramos (2003) as part of the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) study 

“Mapping the Traditional Subsistence Territories of Yakutat Forelands,” which served 

to document additional geographic names and cultural associations with particular 

landscapes in and around Wrangell-St. Elias. The outcomes of these efforts are reflected 

in the contents of Map 5 and Table 1. De Laguna provides several examples of Tlingit 

placenames within and around the boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias (see Map 5 for 

locations and Table 1 for spellings in the modern, popular orthography):

“The Yahtse River is known to the Tlingit as Ỵaśé hín. The first word is 

now often pronounced watṡé, as one of my informants observed. Topham 

(1889) translates ‘Yahtsé’ as ‘swampy, or muddy ground,’ suggesting that 

it may be derived from ṡÀ, ‘clay.’ Icy Bay is ỴaṡéyIk (Harrington, 

ỵaasṡeeyyík) and Mount Saint Elias, towering above, is Ỵaṡéťa cȧ, 

‘Mountain at the Head of [behind] Icy Bay.’ It is also called ‘[the] Big 

Mountain,' Cà tłén, and is one of the most important crests of the 

Kwackqwan because its snowy triangular peak, 18,000 feet high, served to 

guide them on their journey across the ice from Copper River” (1972:95).

The Tlingit clans, themselves, were named after some of these significant placenames, 

including Kwáashk'ikwáan:

“The famous Humpback Salmon Creek (lat. 59°39'N.) is called Kwacḱ híni; 

kwacḱ being the Eyak word for ‘humpback salmon,’ and híni the Tlingit 

word for ‘stream of.’ A place on the lake which it drains is called 

NaxtłaxAk-’akA. Although informants disagree as to who were the 

original owners of this stream, all concur that it was purchased by the 

GInexqwan immigrants from the Copper River, who thereby acquired 

their present name Kwacḱqwan from the stream” (de Laguna 1972:65).

During the full history of human occupation, the south shore of what is now WrangellSt. Elias has been a rapidly changing landscape. During the “Little Ice Age,” Yakutat 

Bay was fully concealed by ice, the front of the glacier running from modern Yakutat to 

Point Manby—its maximum advance at roughly 1,100 A.D. The terminal moraine of 

that glacier still forms a submarine ridge across the mouth of Yakutat Bay, arcing to 

Point Manby. Physical evidence of early occupation of Yakutat Bay is understandably 

limited due to the subsequent advance and retreat of the vast glacier that occupied the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 53

entire basin, destroying all evidence of past human occupation. Memories of the Little 

Ice Age, the depopulation of the coast and its reoccupation over time, are all kept alive 

in the oral and ritual traditions of Yakutat Tlingit (Cruikshank 2005). Some investigators 

(de Laguna 1972; Krauss 1982) argue that the Tlingit presence north of Yakutat Bay is 

comparatively recent, perhaps within the last several centuries. This evidence is based 

primarily on oral traditions and the distribution of Native placenames. Archaeological 

evidence is limited due to the dynamic glacial and seismic activities occurring in the 

region, which destroy material that could potentially speak to earlier origins of Tlingit 

habitation. Studies of cultural and human remains recently exposed by melting glacial 

ice, including DNA, cloth and digestive samples taken from Kwady Dan Ts’inchi 

(Southern Tutchone for “Long Ago Person Found”), the 550-660 year old aboriginal 

man unearthed in 1999 in the Interior ice fields east of Yakutat (see Cruikshank 2005), 

suggest a continuity of human habitation in this region perhaps over many hundreds of 

years, if not millennia. The name Yakutat is sometimes said to imply the presence of a 

“lagoon”—reflecting oral tradition of a lagoon forming amid receding ice at this place, 

as the ancestors of Yakutat Tlingit arrived on the scene.39 Cruikshank summarizes ice 

fluctuation in the area over time, including the Little Ice Age, saying,

“Glacial activity has severely eroded the archaeological record in the Gulf 

of Alaska. Human habitation was possible by 9000 B.P...but any record of 

human history was erased 3000 – 5000 years ago by readvancing glaciers. 

A subsequent recession 2000 years ago...was reversed within a 

millennium: an enlarged and combined Malaspina and Hubbard Glacier, 

joined by lesser glaciers, descended slowly and continuously from Mount 

Saint Elias, filling Icy Bay and Yakutat Bay a thousand years ago. Swelling 

into tidewater beyond the present-day mouths of these two bays, these 

glaciers created a continuous wall of ice some 1000 m thick extending 

northwest of Yakutat Bay for at least 120 km. Another recession 600 years 

ago caused ice to waste behind present-day limits” (Cruikshank 2001: 

381).40

When present and not fractured with deep crevasses, the glaciers and ice fields were 

transportation corridors long ago. Bagley Ice Field is said by some to be “a natural 

highway” without crevasses in its midline. Yahtse Glacier was once a smooth flat ice 

surface leading from Bagley Ice Field to Icy Bay, providing linkages between the 

interior and the coast. In this light, the Kwáashk'ikwáan migration narratives fit neatly 

into the known topographies of Wrangell-St. Elias.

Since roughly 1400 A.D., the retreat of Hubbard Glacier has exposed much of 

Disenchantment Bay, the constituent glaciers of the mighty glacial complex advancing 

and retreating in the centuries that followed—retreating in the aggregate, but not 

without cataclysmic surges reshaping the land and temporarily reoccupying portions of 
54 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. During the early occupation of Yakutat, much of the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coastline was below receding walls of ice. 

Certainly, there were settlements, large and small, within what now constitutes the 

south shore of Wrangell-St. Elias. As mentioned, more than one clan origin narrative 

alludes to the establishment of a founding settlement in Icy Bay: “The first one was in 

Icy Bay at the foot hills in Mount St. Elias” (LF). Icy Bay (Was'ei Yík, “Inside of Was'ei,” 

or Yas'ei Yík, “Inside of Yas'ei” [Yahtse River], #45; see Map 5) was claimed by the

Kwáashk'ikwáan and served as a boundary between Galyáx-Kwáan and Yaakwdáat

Kwáan. It is one of the most diverse areas of the coastline, being marked by some of the 

most rugged features in Tlingit country, including the largest glacier, Bering Glacier, 

and the highest coastal mountains. This dramatic landscape, with its exposure to the 

powerful Gulf of Alaska (Yeil T'ooch', “Black Raven,”#34; see Map 5), has earned the 

area above Icy Bay the nickname “The Lost Coast.” Despite the forbidding terrain, there 

were numerous habitation sites along the coastline. Icy Bay was an important refuge 

and settlement that lay in the shadow of Mount St. Elias (Was'ei Tashaa, “Mountain 

Inland of Was'ei,” #47; see Map 5), and the mountain is named for it. The name for Icy 

Bay itself, according to de Laguna (1972:95), may derive from the toponym for Yahtse 

River, (Yas'ei* Heen, “Swampy* Creek,”#48; see Map 5), which may reference the 

glacial clay (s'é) produced by the active glaciers at the head of this watershed. George 

Ramos (see Thornton 2012) notes that at one time glaciers extended out into the Gulf of 

Alaska, and tells of stories of a low island, called Grass Island, near the mouth of the 

bay where hunters used to rest and make camp. This bay was used extensively by 

Yakutat Tlingit for resource procurement, which will be discussed in the following 

section. 

Icy Bay also holds special significance for certain clans, such as the Kwáashk'ikwáan, in 

that their ancestors, the Ginéix Kwáan, settled just west of Icy Bay at Was'ei Dak, 

building a camp out of bark that they named Teey Aani* (Yellow Cedar Bark Town, 

#39; see Map 5). The camp was overrun by a glacier (Judy Ramos, pers. comm.). As a 

consequence, they continued their southeastwardly migration to Icy Bay, where they 

met and intermarried with the Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan who were hunting seal in the 

bay.41 Icy Bay is key to the genesis of these clans, who share stories of arriving there on 

their first entry into the Yakutat region. 

Again, these glacial landscapes threatened, if not always precluded, human settlement 

along the north shore of Yakutat Bay, creating hazards that had broad environmental, 

demographic and spiritual consequences for Yakutat Tlingit. Cataclysms involving 

these glacial landscapes have often been noted in Yakutat Tlingit oral tradition. As 

Harold Topham was told by one of the Yakutat chiefs,

“There is a tradition amongst his people that formerly there was a large 

bay running up from the sea to the very foot of St. Elias; that there was a 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 55

village at the head of that bay; that all around the village was swampy or 

muddy (Yahtsé) ground; that the mountain was therefore called Yahtsétah-shah, tah meaning harbor, and shah meaning peak; that a river flowed 

into the bay from the northwest, where were large glaciers; that the east of 

the bay was all ice but the west, sand and trees; that at the mouth of the 

bay dwelt some Indians, and that one day an Indian came rushing home 

crying ‘Quick, quick the ice is coming,’ pointing to the river down which 

the ice was seen to be rapidly advancing. The Indians escaped along the 

shore. The ice came on right across the bay till it struck the opposite shore, 

when it turned and continued down the bay to the sea, swallowing the 

village in its course” (Topham 1889:432-33).

On the basis of such oral traditions, it is widely known that Icy Bay and other places 

along the north shore once had settlements that were historically obliterated by 

advancing and retreating ice: “that Icy Bay was destroyed by glacial advance is 

indicated by the testimony of Yakutat natives” (Tarr and Martin 1914:47). De Laguna 

also refers to the destruction of certain settlements:

“After the ice had retreated, some settlements were established which 

tradition reports were later overwhelmed by a second advance. One of 

these was in Icy Bay (Topham, 1889), and another was somewhere on the 

coast south of Dry Bay, where the Kagwantan had built Shadow House 

with wealth obtained by trading with the Dry Bay Athabaskans” (de 

Laguna 1972:26).

Reports mention other villages on the coast, such as the community known by the name 

of Yaktag, for which Cape Yakataga is said to have been named, which is sometimes 

associated with this turbulent coast42; an 1880 census recorded a “Yaktag village at the 

foot of Mt. St. Elias with one hundred and fifty inhabitants” (Krause 1956:66).

This ongoing disruption of human settlement continued to be a formidable issue well 

into the American period, compromising efforts to maintain permanent settlements on 

the north shore of Yakutat Bay and beyond. As de Laguna observed, 

“The most catastrophic event of recent years which may have obliterated 

former [habitation] sites was the earthquake of September, 1899. This 

produced uplifts up to 15 feet and local subsidences up to 7 feet along the 

central part of the habitable eastern shore of Yakutat Bay; greater changes 

occurred in the uninhabitable northern parts of the bay. This earthquake 

was accompanied by tidal waves and by waves produced by falling 
56 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

masses of glacial ice which washed out habitation areas as far south as the 

vicinity of Yakutat village itself” (1949:1-2).

During a 1905 expedition to Yakutat Bay, geographers Ralph Tarr and Lawrence Martin 

recorded “three small hanging glaciers in steep valleys on the west side of 

Disenchantment Bay, south of Turner Glacier.” During their visit, the southernmost 

glacier collapsed into Disenchantment Bay, creating “a series of waves which rose on 

the shore fifteen to twenty feet vertically and continued for nearly half an hour,” 

creating damage as much as 115 feet up the side of Haenke Island. On the basis of 

discussions with Yakutat Tlingit, they wrote,

“The Indians report that this same glacier slid out of its valley sixty years 

ago and killed a hundred Indians; but fortunately the Indians had left 

their summer sealing camp before July 4th, 1905, and no one was on 

Disenchantment Bay, otherwise there would certainly have been 

destruction of life” (Tarr and Martin 1906:153).

In the early 20th century, the rapid retreat of Guyot Glacier left the modern shoreline of 

Icy Bay in its wake, revealing lands used and occupied by Yakutat Tlingit long before 

the glacier’s advance (similar geological forces affected inland Athabaskan communities 

as well).43 While retreating glaciers could certainly bring destruction, they sometimes 

brought wealth and power to Yakutat Tlingit as well, both before and during European 

contact. The Yakutat Tlingit’s traditional wealth comes from copper exposed by 

retreating glaciers, and from seal and sea otter drawn to channels awash in tidewater 

glacier ice. Even today, this wealth sustains Yakutat in many ways.

Indeed, based on their knowledge of this turbulent geological history, Yakutat Tlingit 

have long contributed to discussions of glacial advancement and retreat along the 

coastline, verifying and building on what is recorded geologically (Cruikshank 2005; 

Tarr and Martin 1906). In recent times, the surging of the glaciers has even created 

jurisdictional issues, as they move between NPS lands, US Forest Service lands and 

other jurisdictions—sometimes requiring determinations as to which agency bears 

responsibility for hazard management and other activities (Bleakley 2002:167-69). 

Yet despite cataclysms that have occurred over time, almost every locality with fresh 

water and secure, dry land was an appealing spot for resource encampments. 

Historically, most localities housed Yakutat Tlingit for a time. Anthropological accounts 

of people hunting or fishing along this coast mention that they “had log cabins along 

the way,” especially at all of the major streams (de Laguna 1972:97). As noted later in 

this document, interviewees for the current project describe similar geographical 

patterns in the placement of 20th century subsistence cabins.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 57

Figure 2 – The 1880s survey of Harold Topham showed Icy Bay completely submerged below a 

wall of ice, fed largely by Guyot Glacier. The bay had been settled prior to the glacial advance, 

former settlements being obliterated as the ice south into Yakutat Bay. Yakutat Tlingit 

resource harvesters soon reoccupied the bay as the ice retreated through the 20th century. 

From Topham 1889. 

In addition to having desirable qualities for resource procurement, the entire north 

shore has continued to be held as a place of cosmological power and potential. The 

Tlingit regard the land as imbued with sentience.44 As Ted Valle explains,

“All things have a spirit. All things that move...glaciers...even rocks, 

which do move [but] slower than us...when you do anything – hunt, fish, 
58 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

gather anything – you give a prayer asking for forgiveness...giving 

thanks” (TV). 

The landmarks of Wrangell-St. Elias stand prominent in Yakutat Tlingit history and 

culture. Perhaps most prominent among those landmarks is Mount St. Elias, Waas’ei Ta 

Shaa.45 Yakutat Tlingit oral tradition speaks of Mount St. Elias and Mount Fairweather 

staying above the water during the “great flood” that encompassed the Earth during 

formative times, proving a foothold for humans as well as plant and animal life (TV).46

The Mount St. Elias summit serves as a pivot-point of oral traditions and ancestral 

geographies, seen as a distant seagull in one account, as the ears of a rabbit in another, 

until clans approach and come to appreciate its full scale—episodes that will be 

addressed in the section that follows. There are also accounts of Yakutat Tlingit 

acknowledging that Mount St. Elias—and indeed other mountains—were once 

humans.47 The mountain served as a navigational landmark, drawing Yakutat ancestors 

to the lands appearing from beneath the ice. It is mentioned in some way in the oral 

traditions of all five clans. These oral traditions are still a centerpiece of Yakutat Tlingit 

oral tradition and clan identity today, giving this landmark a kind of sacredness 

befitting its awesome topographic provenience. It is a locus of spiritual powers, invoked 

by shamanic healers traditionally, and helping steer disoriented Yakutat people home 

on rough seas. As de Laguna describes:

“The Yakutat people orient themselves primarily with reference to known, 

named, landmarks. Of these the most important are the two great peaks. 

Mounts Fairweather and Saint Elias” (de Laguna 1972:797).

In addition to using Mount St. Elias as a navigational landmark, the mountain was also 

highly significant to Yakutat Tlingit because they used the mountain to predict weather:

“The most common method of foretelling the weather was to watch the 

clouds on the mountains, especially on Mount Saint Elias and on Mount 

Fairweather. One evening when I commented on a flat cloud that was 

streaming from the top of Mount Saint Elias, I was told: ‘In the old days 

they used to tell the weather from it. Sometimes it puts on a sou'wester 

[rainhat] and then it means a bad storm. Sometimes the cloud is sidewise, 

as it is tonight, and then it means a westerly wind, good weather.’ ‘They 

tell the weather from Mount Saint Elias. My father learned it from his 

father's father who can read it. My father's grandfather was Yaxodaqet. 

My sister now can tell the weather the same way. She learned from my 

father. She looks at the mountain and says what the weather will be from 

the cloud on it. I never heard that pointing at certain mountains causes 

bad weather (HB)’” (de Laguna 1972:803).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 59

Figure 3 – View of Mount St. Elias and the Yahtse Glacier from Icy Bay. Photo by Captain Budd 

Christman, NOAA Corps, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of 

Commerce.

That Yakutat Tlingit chose, in their most bold expression of 20th century cultural revival, 

to name their traditional dance society the “Mount St. Elias Dancers” was no simple 

contrivance; the mountain is potent, and is the landmark around which Yakutat Tlingit 

culture can orient and reorient, just as it helped their ancestors orient themselves in 

those distant and formative times.48 Even today, members of the community note that, 

“when you see that mountain...it feels like home” (YB).

Landforms are historically significant, but also spiritually powerful. Certain glaciers, 

such as Valerie Glacier, are said to be of unique spiritual importance—reflecting not 

only their role in clan migration narratives, but their intrinsic powers and potentials 

(EA). They are also traditionally understood as possessing a type of sentience—much 

like mountains—requiring certain protocols of Yakutat Tlingit traveling among them.49

As Cruikshank suggests, “Glaciers...are themselves equipped with sense of hearing, 

sight, and smell, and are quick to respond to any careless indiscretions” (Cruikshank 

2005:229). It is inappropriate to behave or speak rudely around them, to make jokes in 

their presence, to subject them to disrespectful attention, cook food near them, and a 

variety of other actions that might convey “disrespect.” De Laguna discusses an 

example of the destructive consequences of disrespecting glaciers:
60 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“Glaciers, like other spirits, were apparently very sensitive to what people 

said. When one wished to pass them safely, it was formerly the custom to 

speak to them, but I did not learn what words were used. The advance of 

the glacier in Icy Bay which overwhelmed a village was ascribed to the 

playful invitation given by some young men to the glacier to eat the king 

salmon which they were cooking” (de Laguna 1972:818).

The negative outcomes of such disrespect are clearly encoded in Yakutat Tlingit oral 

tradition, which contains many references to rapid glacial advances and other 

destructive outcomes.50 Oral tradition also describes the retreating of glaciers due to 

disrespectful human behavior.51 Hunters, in particular, needed to show respect towards 

glaciers when in their presence. As Ted Valle and other reported, when men hunt near 

the glaciers, they “try to show respect to the glaciers...their spirit” so that hunters are 

safe traveling through the ice. Harrington found Yakutat Tlingit of the 1930s describing 

glaciers of the area, disapproving of disrespectful attention and generating bad weather 

so that they might turn back scientific expeditions meant to scrutinize them with such 

disrespect (cited in de Laguna 1972:819). 

Demonstrations of respect, and assiduous avoidance of disrespect, are consistently 

depicted by Yakutat Tlingit as essential to maintaining reciprocal relationships between 

what might be termed the spiritual forces embedded in the landscape (its flora, fauna, 

mountains and glaciers) and humans who dwell or visit the landscape.52 For example, a 

place or landmark traditionally used for healing that has been “disrespected” too 

frequently or severely by human visitors may lose its potential (or will) to aid in the 

healing of individuals who follow, even if they are individually blameless. Accordingly, 

many Yakutat Tlingit returning to the north shore of Yakutat Bay, for example, make 

efforts to demonstrate respect to the landscape, in order to insure the maintenance of 

positive relations with the place and with powers residing there. This involves 

proscriptions on destructive exploitation or certain types of rude behaviors, as well as 

ceremonial activities of various kinds. For example, interviewees describe “first fish 

ceremonies” or “give aways” (such as one’s first Dry Bay king salmon), traditionally 

undertaken to demonstrate their respect for salmon in particular, and acknowledging 

their sacrifice. If done properly, this was said to help ensure that the fish would return 

abundantly in years to come. Interviewees also sometimes mentioned what might be 

called traditional “streamscaping,” removing obstacles to fish passage in spawning 

areas and making other changes that were said to demonstrate this respect and 

maintain salmon stock health (Thornton, Deur and Kitka 2015). This point will be 

addressed in greater detail in later sections relating to resource harvests within 

Wrangell-St. Elias. 

In light of the potentials and dangers of places of spiritual significance along the shore, 

rivers and especially the tidewater glaciers and certain peaks, Tlingit people continue 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 61

the tradition of seeking to demonstrate respect towards these places. (There is even 

evidence of possible avoidance of Mount St. Elias, with Yakutat Tlingit turning back, 

expressing some level of discomfort when asked to help ascend the mountain with nonNative explorers in the late 19th century [e.g., Topham 1889:429]). In spite of myriad 

social and cultural changes, traditional beliefs, values, and practices—such as the 

demonstration of respect towards the landscape—persist today. Yakutat Tlingit 

traveling to Wrangell-St. Elias with tribal youth often seek to impart some of these skills 

by example, by sharing stories of the costs and benefits of respectful and disrespectful 

behavior, and by instruction on the methods of resource harvest, and by the informal 

regulation of harvest quantities.

The Wrangell-St. Elias coastline was generally too rugged and dynamic for extensive, 

uninterrupted human settlement, and formidable social and economic pressures would 

contribute to its further depopulation after European contact. However, even as its 

residents increasingly concentrated in the Yakutat area, the Kwáashk’ikwáan and 

Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan homelands – including much of what is today the south 

Wrangell-St. Elias coastline – remained a place potent in historical and ceremonial 

associations for those two clans who traversed, occupied, and claimed these lands 

during their original journeys to Yakutat Bay. In spite of their gradual movement, the 

coast was still critical for traditional resource harvests too, reflecting the enduring 

associations and resource tenure claims on those lands. It is to this topic that our 

narrative now turns.
62 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

NATURAL RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL HARVESTS 

ON THE SOUTH COAST OF WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS

Culturally significant natural resources have always been a part of the Yakutat 

relationship to the lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. 

Wrangell-St. Elias is said to be “important to our people because this is where our food 

has come from” (LF). That relationship is not just practical, but implies 

multigenerational connections reaching back into distant times, and equally enduring 

connections to the lands and living things found there. For a number of contemporary 

Yakutat Tlingit, the harvest of these natural resources has been a primary impetus for 

visiting Wrangell-St. Elias, especially its southern coast, and the primary mode for 

engaging its landscapes and seascapes. Fishers, certain hunters, and other resource 

users continue to hold unique associations with, and knowledge of, landscapes within 

Wrangell-St. Elias – especially along its southern coast. Here, we describe resource use 

traditions practiced in the area as they were reported for the period preceding European 

contact; yet, these practices persisted into the Russian and early American periods, only 

modestly changed by outside influences and the dynamic glacial landscape. As such, 

they can be seen as a basis for understanding resource use as it existed until the early 

20th century – and the unique significance of these resources within the Yakutat 

community. The following synthesis is drawn especially from classic ethnographic 

literature, but also from project interviews and recent gray literature. In the chapters 

that follow we outline changes in these practices over historical time, in the years before 

and after park creation.

Interviewees and written sources make it clear that, from pre-contact to modern times, 

the traditional homeland of the Yakutat Tlingit, including both Yakutat and Icy Bays as 

well as surrounding streams and mountains, offered a distinctive wealth of resources –

reflecting in part the environmental dynamism of this coastline. De Laguna’s account of 

the great resource wealth of Kwáashk'ikwáan territory illustrates this point:

“The territory of the Kwackqwan, which extended from just west of Icy 

Bay to the middle of the Lost River area near the present airfield, included 

the sea otter grounds of Icy Bay, the Disenchantment Bay, the goat and 

bear hunting areas on the mountains above, rich salmon streams, 

especially in the Ankau lagoon region, and numerous berrying patches, 

including the strawberries of Point Manby. No other sib along the Gulf 

Coast controlled such a wealth of natural resources, except possibly the 

GAlyIx-Kagwantan of Kaliakh River and Controller Bay” (de Laguna 

1972:465). 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 63

In turn, it is clear that the profound abundance of resources within the 

homelands of the Yakutat kwáan and its constituent clans helped to elevate the 

status of these clans, their leaders, and the community as a whole. Continuing 

with de Laguna’s account of Kwáashk'ikwáan territory,

“For this reason, the chiefs of Yakutat, Yaxodaqet of Raven’s Bones House, 

had great economic power. Informants stressed however, the wisdom 

with which the chiefs of this name exercised their authority for the benefit 

of all the people in the Yakutat area” (de Laguna 1972:465).

In the past, the people of Yakutat have taken advantage of the abundant resources 

available to them along this coast, and in spite of many historical changes they continue 

to do so today. Here, we seek to illuminate some of the fundamentals of these practices, 

setting the stage for historical discussions to follow. The original sources we consult are 

sometimes vague on the specifics of clan associations with, and ownership of, the 

resources enumerated here – often lumping together references to all Yakutat people 

when it would be more appropriate to speak of Ginéix Kwáan or Kaagwaantaan 

territories, practices and resources, for example. For this reason, the narrative below 

errs on the side of “Yakutat” generalities too. However, it should be understood that all 

the practices outlined here traditionally operate within the context of traditional Tlingit 

social organization and clan property rights, as suggested by the preceding sections of 

this document. In each case, the clans’ claims of the territories and resources gave their 

members unique access, while the chiefs of these clans possessed the profound right, 

and responsibility, of regulating harvests and ensuring the judicious distribution of 

harvested resources within their clan, within the larger Yakutat community, and 

beyond.

While the authors of the present study did not encounter an exhaustive review of 

species gathered for traditional purposes by Yakutat residents in the past and in recent 

decades, it is possible to assemble a list of species reported in interviews and written 

sources for Tlingit communities more generally. Certain key cultural foods harvested by 

northern Tlingit communities in environments like those found along the Wrangell-St. 

Elias coastline are listed in Table 3 below.

Resources that might be added to this list pending further interviews with Yakutat 

representatives include: Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), from which Tlingits commonly 

gather sap, wood, bark, roots, and other materials, and into which they sometimes 

inscribed cultural markers; a number of intertidal invertebrates (other chiton, clams, 

crabs, mussels, and the like); and a variety of plants and sea vegetables (including, for 

example, other species of Vaccinium, some of which are known locally as blueberries). 

Even minerals could be considered potentially harvested natural resources in the study 

area, including copper and gold.
64 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Table 3: Shoreline Resources Traditionally Gathered by Northern Tlingit 

Communities

Resource Tlingit Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall Winter

FISH

Cod, black Ishkeen Anoplopoma fimbria X X x X

Cod, ling X’áax’w Ophiodum elongatus X x

Cod, Pacific S’áax’ Gadus macrocephalus X x X

Eulachon Thaleichthys 

pacificus

X X

Halibut Cháatl Hippoglossus 

stenolepsis

X X x X

Herring eggs Clupea pallasii X

Red snapper Léik’w Sebastes ruberrimus X X x x

Salmon eggs Kaháakw All salmon species X x

Salmon, chum Téel’ Oncorhynchus keta X x

Salmon, coho L’ook Oncorhynchus 

kisutch

X x

Salmon, king T’á Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

X X x x

Salmon, pink Cháas’ Oncorhynchus 

gorbushka

X

Salmon, red Gaat Oncorhynchus nerka X X x

LAND 

MAMMALS

Beaver Castor canadensis X X

Black bear S’eek Ursus americanus X X x

Brown bear Xóots Ursus arctos X X x

Deer, Sitka Black 

Tail 

(transplanted)

Guwakaan Odocoileus hemionus 

sitkensis

X X x

Mountain goat Jánwu Oreamnos 

americanus

X X x X

Porcupine Xhalak’ách’ Erethizon dorsatum X X X X

Squirrel, red Tsálk Tamiasciurius 

hudsonicus

X X X X

Wolf Gooch Canis lupus X x X

MARINE 

MAMMALS

Seal, harbor Tsaa Phoca vitulina X x X x
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 65

Resource Tlingit Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall Winter

Sea lion 

(whiskers, 

flipper)

Taan Eumetopias jubata X X x

BIRDS & EGGS

Bird eggs 

(esp. gulls, but 

also goose, puffin,

tern and 

oystercatcher)

K’wát’ esp. Larus spp. X

Ducks Gáaxw various X x

Grouse, Spruce Káax’ (female), 

Núkt

Canachites 

canadensis

X x x X

Ptarmigan, 

Willow

X’eis’awáa Lagopus lagopus X x x X

INTERTIDAL

RESOURCES

Clams Gáal (butter clams) Saxidomus giganteus

and various

X x X X

Chitons 

(Gumboots)

Shaaw Katherina tunicata X x X X

Crab, Dungeness S’áaww Cancer magister X x X X

Crab, King X’éix Parlithodes 

camtschatica

X x X X

Mussels (Pacific) Yaak Mytilus trossulus X x X X

Sea ribbon K’aach’ Rhodymenia pacmata 

(Palmeria palmata)

X

Sea cucumber, 

yane

Stichopus 

californicus

X X x

Seaweed, black Laak’ásk Porphyra spp. X

Shrimp S’éex’át Pandalus spp. X x x

TREES & SHRUBS

Alder, 

beach or Sitka

Keishísh Alnus viridus spp. 

sinuata

Hemlock (sap, 

bark, branches)

Yán (sáx = sap’) Tsuga heterophylla X

Willow Ch’áal’ Salix myrtillifolia X X

PLANTS & 

BERRIES

Beach asparagus Sukkaadzi Salicornia virginica X X
66 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Resource Tlingit Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall Winter

Chocolate lily 

(Indian rice)

Kóox Fritillaria 

camschatcensis

X

Devil’s club S’áxt’ Oplopanax horridus x x x X

Goose tongue Suktéitl’ Plantango maritime X

Highbush 

cranberry

Viburnum edule X x

Wild rhubarb Tl’aak’wách’ Polygonum 

alaskanum

X X

Wild sweet potato 

(sweet vetch)

Tséit Hedysarum 

alpinuum

X X

Bearberries 

(a.k.a. 

Kinnikinnick)

Tínx Arctostaphylos uvaursiX x

Currant, gray Shaax Ribes bracteosum X x

Huckleberry, red Tleikatánk Vaccinium 

parvifolium

X

Nagoonberry Neigóon Rubus arcticus X

Salmonberry Was’x’aan tléigu Rubus spectabilis X

Soapberry Xákwl’i Shepherdia 

Canadensis

X

Strawberry Shákw Fragaria chiloensis X

Wild celery Vallisneria 

americana

X

X = primary season; x = secondary season. 

Sources: Schroeder and Kookesh (1988); Thornton (2008); Mathews et al. 1990; Deur and 

Thornton (2015), and interviews.

Traditionally, in order to make the most of available resources, the Yakutat Tlingit

followed a seasonal round between resource harvesting areas, reflecting the seasonal 

availability of each resource. One effort to document and summarize the Yakutat 

seasonal round at the time of European contact is reflected in Table 4 below. These 

seasonal resource harvests were not merely economic activities, but were also valued 

cultural events, bringing together families and communities on the land, and 

coordinating peoples’ sense of time and place in relation to the annual cycle. They have 

remained a cornerstone of community life into recent times. The pages that follow 

provide a broad overview of the traditional resource procurement activities—from 

hunting to fishing to gathering—of the Yakutat Tlingit from the pre-contact era to 

today, drawing particular attention to places and resources that now sit within the 

boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 67

Table 4: Seasonal Round (adapted from Davis 1996:140) 

Dark Shading: Primary Harvest Period

Light Shading: Secondary Harvest Period
68 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Marine Mammals

Harbor Seal

Marine mammals have long played a central role in the traditional subsistence of 

Yakutat Tlingit. The unique ecology of their traditional lands lent itself to productive 

breeding grounds for certain key species, and the abundance of these animals led to 

their prominence in the Yakutat diet, as well as material culture. The Yakutat hunted 

such mammals in the seas, lower rivers and estuaries within their territory. Harbor 

seals and sea otter, in particular, are marine mammals whose importance in Yakutat 

Tlingit life goes back to their beginnings as a maritime people.

Of all of the sea mammals traditionally hunted by the Yakutat, one stood above the rest 

in terms of value to the community: the harbor seal. Throughout Tlingit country and 

beyond, the icy waters of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays have long been famous as 

prime sealing grounds.53 According to de Laguna,

“The most common and most important sea mammal in Yakutat waters is 

the Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardii. This animal was the best 

represented of any species in the middens at the site on Knight Island. 

Seals breed particularly on the floating ice in Disenchantment and Icy 

Bays” (de Laguna 1972:41).

The richness of Yakutat Bay, Disenchantment Bay, and Icy Bay was well known 

throughout the region, encouraging not just Yakutat sealers, but other communities to 

sometimes – with the involvement or consent of the chief of resident kwáans – to seek 

out seals or obtain seal products in the Yakutat homeland:

“With its glacier-fed, ice-filled waters, Disenchantment Bay was famous as 

a harbor-seal haulout and rookery. Natives from as far away as Sheet’ká 

(Sitka) and Jilkáat (Chilkat) kwáans came here to obtain seal oil and other 

products through trade and kin networks” (Thornton 2007:6).

The seal harvested in these places was a dietary staple. It was also of much broader 

social, economic, and cultural significance. Interestingly, the harbor seal was not 

represented on the Yakutat clans’ crests; however, its importance is reflected in the oral 

traditions, material culture and, especially later, the economic value of seal meat and 

seal bounties.54 Seal meat and its redistribution have also been very important in 

helping to reinforce community bonds and in events that are critical to Yakutat social 

life.55 . Yakutat remains among the highest seal harvesting communities in the region 

today (Davis 1999).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 69

Prior to the contact era and the Yakutat’s integration into the cash economy, the Yakutat 

hunted seals for traditional subsistence purposes only, and each part of the seal was 

used. As Davis (1996:141) explains,

“All of the seal was utilized. Blubber was rendered for its oil, flippers 

(which taste like pigs’ feet) were cooked and peeled to eat, and even the 

head was boiled and the scrape meat and brains were eaten. The oil was 

used as a medicine and as a preservative for meat and berries.” 

Collecting seal oil was among the primary reasons for hunting seals in the Yakutat 

tradition. According to Judy Ramos (2014), “seal oil is very important, and the main 

reason we got the seal was we need the sea oil for preservatives. But the other parts 

were also important. The hide and the meat were very important.” Sealing camps often 

contained huts made partially of sealskin. Seal meat played an important role in the 

Yakutat Tlingit diet, particularly before the migration of harvestable populations of 

moose and deer into the homeland of the Yakutat. As Ramos explains about seal,

“In the past, it was much more important, because moose and deer are 

new to Yakutat area. So in the past, we didn’t have that meat source. We 

didn’t have moose. That’s new. And we didn’t have deer. That’s new. 

So harbor seal played a very much more important part of our diet in the 

past” (Ramos 2014).

While seals were available elsewhere on the coastal portions of southeastern Alaska, 

interviewees note that this part of the Yakutat homeland is uniquely appealing for 

harbor seal, in part because it is traditionally recognized as having the “best” seals. 

Indeed, places close to the base of the tidewater glaciers were especially popular for 

sealing, and the sea ice at the base of the tidewater glaciers is said to have the very 

tastiest seals in the region. Most interviewees for the current project suggested that this 

was due to their life cycle spent among the icebergs and ice floes of the tidewater 

glaciers that emanate from Wrangell-St. Elias. Their unique quality was said to be due 

to a variety of factors, such as colder temperatures, which promote fat production in 

seals, and the uniquely “pristine” ecological conditions of the glacial environs. De 

Laguna also encountered these references to Yakutat’s superior seals, as well as 

additional explanations for their quality:

“The superiority of Yakutat food to that of other areas was often cited. 

‘Even the seals don’t taste good in southeastern Alaska.’ This is because 

the seals of Yakutat and Icy Bay are believed to get so much more fish to 

eat than those of southeastern Alaska or Prince William Sound. In other 
70 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

places they eat mostly ‘beach foods’ and so do not have as good a flavor, it 

is said” (de Laguna 1972:392; quotes are from de Laguna’s informants).

Being such a key subsistence resource, Pacific harbor seal was said to be a cornerstone 

of the Yakutat seasonal round, bringing hunters and their families to places very near, 

and sometimes within, what is today Wrangell-St. Elias. According to Davis (1996:154),

“The most important marine mammal was the harbor seal, and it would 

be taken whenever the opportunity presented itself. The most productive 

time was during the early spring when the seals congregated to give birth 

on floating ice near the calving glacial terminus in Yakutat Bay and Icy 

Bay, and later as ice retreated, in Disenchantment Bay and Russell Fiord”

(Davis 1996:154).

Figure 4 – A seal camp fronting Yakutat Bay, early 20th century. During the seal hunting 

season, large numbers of people from Yakutat converged along the southeast side of Yakutat 

and Disenchantment Bays at these camps in Kwáashk’ikwáan territory, which together formed 

sizeable but diffuse seasonal settlements of distinctive cultural, social, and economic 

importance to that clan and other Yakutat Tlingit. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert 

Adams Sr.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 71

Minnie Johnson, de Laguna’s informant, also discussed the seasonal traditional 

subsistence patterns of the Yakutat, saying that in winter, the Yakutat constructed 

sealskin boots and, at times, hunted for the seals. Yakutat sealers also hunted during the 

spring season at Icy Bay and on ocean beaches in the vicinity of Yakutat Bay. During 

summer months, Yakutat seals traveled to sealing camps throughout their territory (de 

Laguna 1972:360). Many of the individuals interviewed for the current project also 

spoke of the importance of seal hunting along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, following a 

seasonal routine. According to the interviewees, the seal-hunting season began as early 

as March and continued through September when the seals were plentiful (SJ). 

Again, the coastline of Wrangell-St. Elias is widely regarded throughout Tlingit and 

Eyak communities as a center of traditional sealing. Yet, on this dynamic coastline, the 

best sealing areas were clearly moving over time, as the ice retreated up the bays. These 

hunting areas are traditionally accessed by seal camps, which also migrated slowly with 

time, following the edge of the ice. By no later than the late 18th century, most of these 

camps were established opposite Yakutat Bay from what are today Wrangell-St. Elias

lands at the head of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays. Seal camps established on 

Disenchantment Bay in the 19th century as the ice retreated from that area continue to be 

used into modern times.56

Beyond Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays, the coastline of Icy Bay is recognized as a 

traditional, if somewhat secondary, center for seal hunting too. Icy Bay is widely 

reported to have unique geological and ecological conditions that render the bay 

conducive to Pacific harbor seal breeding:

“It will be remembered that the Kwackqwan of Yakutat claim Icy Bay as 

part of their territory...At the head of the bay, Tyndall Glacier on the east 

and Guyot Glacier on the west, both arms of the huge Malaspina-Bering 

Glacier system, discharge their ice into the water, making this, like 

Disenchantment Bay, an excellent breeding place for seals” (de Laguna 

1972:95).

Traditionally, the inhabitants of Yakutat used a “special sealing canoe (gudiyÉ or gudiyí), 

designed for hunting among the ice floes at the heads of Yakutat and Icy Bays, and 

apparently made nowhere else in Alaska” (de Laguna 1972:339). Interviewees for the 

current project described these canoes in detail, but also spoke of other, more recent 

types of craft designed for use in the hunt – a point to be discussed later in this 

document. As one of de Laguna’s consultants reported,

“the sealing canoe was first built only by the original inhabitants of Icy 

Bay, who kept their canoes hidden in ‘Tabooed Lake’ because they did not 

want others to learn about them. The ancestors of the Kwackqwan, 
72 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

however, coming to the coast, eventually discovered the secret, although 

the local people fought them” (de Laguna 1972:340).

In addition to specialized canoes, sealing required a unique skill set, and Yakutat 

hunters had particular methods of sealing in the waters of their territory. According to 

George Ramos Sr.:

“when you have a herd of seal, when they’re on land or on the reef, and 

you could hear them [makes seal noise]. And that’s when [my uncle] used 

to call them. And I used to watch him then. He’d make the motion of the 

seal on the rock. And he said in olden days, they took the hide of the seal 

and put it over them, imitate a seal. And sometimes you turn sideways 

like that you know. And then if you see a seal way out, they’d imitate the 

call of the seal, he would start coming toward them. And he would tell 

me, ‘Don’t let it get you too close though, because if it gets too close it’s 

going to look at you from underneath the water and recognize you and 

leave’” (GR).

Ramos also describes how Tlingit hunters communicated silently while hunting,

“When you hunt, the man in front and the man in back, and when they’re 

traveling even along the cove, moving along the cove, you never talked 

when you were hunting. And what you do is you just kind of shake the 

boat and the man in front will look completely, all the way around. And if 

he doesn’t see anything that he thinks that you noticed well then he’d look 

back over his shoulder. You move really slow when you hunt. You don’t 

move anything. You move real slow and look at him and he’ll tell you 

what direction that the deer you know, or bear, seal...” (GR).

Traditional sealing required patience as well as a considerable amount of ecological 

knowledge about the animal’s behavior. Yakutat Tlingit hunters, with a long history of 

sealing in the waters in and around Yakutat Bay, were uniquely poised for success in 

their seal hunts.

In addition, it is important to note that Eyak also report independent traditions of sea 

mammal hunting along this coast. The traditional Eyak territory, located along the coast 

in the vicinity of the Chugach Mountains, involved a balanced economy that relied on

the exploitation of both interior and coastal resources in their homeland (Dumond 

1980:37). As such, both marine and terrestrial life served important roles in the diet of 

the people; the Wrangell-St. Elias coast was distant from those lands occupied by 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 73

predominantly Eyak communities at contact, yet there was still a clear Eyak presence. 

Birket-Smith and de Laguna (1938:107) report Eyak hunting of sea otters as well as 

harbor or hair seals (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:107). Seals were most often 

hunted in the summer on the river bars where they gathered in groups – especially 

along Copper River.57 Eyak rarely hunted for seals in the open ocean or on ice, 

preferring the rivers, though they did occasionally hunt seals on ice in the winter and 

spring when they were basking in these settings, using harpoons. On what is today the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coast, Eyak utilized “a small heavy-prowed canoe with a ram” when 

hunting seals in Yakutat and Icy bays (de Laguna 1990:191). According to de Laguna 

(1964:17), Eyak placenames are found among the seal camps, reflecting the Eyak 

admixture within Yakutat but possibly also the presence of Eyak hunting parties, 

“The natives told us that before they had guns (which they did not acquire 

until the end of the 18th century), they were unable to camp above Point 

Latouche [at the southern end of Disenchantment Bay] because of the 

floating ice. The main sealing camp was then 3 miles south of the point, at 

a place called Tlaxata, an Eyak word referring to the proximity of the 

glacier [presumably Malaspina].”

Literature specifically addressing the Eyak notes that seal hunting and consumption 

practices among the Eyak were similar to practices noted here for Yakutat Tlingit.58 

Figure 5 – Drying sealskins create a temporary structure at seal camp on Yakutat Bay, early 20th

century. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.
74 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The practice of using the entirety of the seal has been an important part of Yakutat 

tradition. Interviewees for the current study often spoke of traditional protocols to 

ensure the full use of seal, and efforts to reduce wasteful use of portions of the seal – a 

tradition reflected in the activities of modern Yakutat hunters, cooks, and craftspeople 

alike. As stewards of the land before the park was created, Yakutat Tlingit explain that 

have traditionally observed a number of self-imposed rules and regulations regarding 

the seal hunt – especially involving rules regarding when seals could be hunted and 

with what type of hunting implements (de Laguna 1972:374; Abraham 1973:5-6).59 The 

restrictions were designed primarily to protect seals during the critical birthing period, 

which, if prematurely or overly disturbed, could cause abandonment of the breeding 

area.

An informant of de Laguna tells a story regarding traditional restrictions surrounding 

seal hunting practices, particularly related to building fires near seal colonies:

“‘Yaxodaqet [the Kwackqwan chief at the time of the Russians] used to 

give the word when the people could go to sealing camp. They didn’t 

hunt seals until they could see the baby seals on the ice. He would send 

his nephews up to look, and when they reported that there were young 

seals, he would send up five or six canoes to hunt seals. He would feast 

his people, and send word to Situk, Italio (and Akwe?) Rivers that the 

season was open and they could come to hunt...Some of the people might 

be waiting at New Chicago [Eleanor Cove] to move to sealing camp. They 

would be catching halibut. The ice would be floating down to New 

Chicago and gradually would move north. But till they could hunt above 

Egg [Haenke] Island, he would not allow anyone to build a fire on Egg 

Island. The north wind would blow the smoke down and frighten away 

the seals.

“‘Once he gave the order that no one was to make a fire on Egg 

Island, and that they were to report to him if there was any violation. 

Then somebody came and told him that someone had made a fire on Egg 

Island. They said that ‘AndAlstin [sic] had built a fire.

“‘So Yaxodaqet called ‘AndAltsin and asked him if he had broken 

the law. ‘AndAltsin said Yes, he had made a small fire down by the edge 

of the water to cook seagull eggs.

“‘Because you have broken my law, you are going to be anchored 

at the bottom of the bay with a big stone tied around your neck. And your 

partner, too. But because you told the truth, you are excused. Don’t do it 

again!

“‘Yaxodaqet never made a mistake. He was always right. It wasn’t 

for himself, but for all his people, everybody, that he made that law’” (de 

Laguna 1972:374-375).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 75

Yakutat Tlingit recognized that the restrictions regarding seal hunting maintained a sort 

of “balance” with the seals and that, over time, these had positive outcomes for the 

community of Yakutat and the community of seals alike. They guided traditional 

sealing practices and arguably ensured the viability of the seal harvest over long 

periods of time. The power of these traditional regulations is evident in that they are 

known, and in some cases still observed, by Yakutat hunters into modern times. 

Sea Otter

The sea otter, like the harbor seal, was an extremely important traditional resource for 

the people of Yakutat. As with seal, Yakutat Bay, Disenchantment Bay, Icy Bay, and 

areas just to the west of the Wrangell-St. Elias coast hold a unique reputation within 

Tlingit and Eyak territory for sea otter productivity, and as traditional hunting areas for 

otter. The hunting of otter in these places arguably intensified after European contact 

and, in spite of this, the area maintained a comparatively robust otter population much 

later than other parts of the Alaska coast. Only the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 

1911, which included provisions forbidding sea otter hunting, brought an end to 

significant hunting along this coast – one of the very few places where sea otter hunting 

was still commonplace by that time.60

Sea otter skins were highly valued by the Yakutat Tlingit for clothing, bedding, and 

other purposes, and the lands around the Yakutat’s territory were prime sea otter 

hunting grounds. (Food use was uncommon, but not unheard of: “In historic times the 

natives sold the pelts and sometimes ate the flesh” [de Laguna 1972:40]). Prior to the 

arrival of Euro-Americans in the region (and after), the sea otter pelt was the most 

valued of the furs, and sea otter pelts were highly prized by Alaska Natives from 

throughout the region (Gibson 1992; Langdon and Worl 1981:83). As such, the pelts 

were used in economic and political transactions between communities. Efforts to 

access the sea otter were even instrumental in the formation of Yakutat social 

relationships, including the unification of the Tlingit and Eyak:

“According to the Tlingit of Yakutat, in the extreme northwest limits of 

their territory at the time of white contact, the Eyaks and Athabascans

who had formerly lived there had been ‘organized’—as they put it—by 

the Tlingit chief Xatgawet of Dry Bay. Sometime during the 17th or 18th 

century this chief had made it his business to marry the daughters of 

wealthy men all along the Gulf of Alaska so that he could capitalize on the 

raw copper and sea otter and other land furs which he would receive 

outright or else be allowed to catch in his role as son-in-law or brother-inlaw. But note that informants said that the women he married already had 

matrilineal reckoning. All that Xatgawet did was to endow his wives and 

their families with Tlingit sib names and crests” (McClellan 1964:8).
76 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

By and large, the traditional Yakutat Tlingit sea otter hunt was structured seasonally, 

allowing access to the otters when they were most available while minimizing conflicts 

with major subsistence activities centered on other resources such as salmon and seals. 

The sea otter hunts typically began during the early spring months of April and May, 

when young male hunters pursued sea otters at the mouth of Yakutat Bay or Icy Bay 

(Davis 1996:143; de Laguna 1972:360). Especially in inclement weather, the otters sought 

the shelter of bays and other nearshore waters, making them easy to hunt at those 

times. In calmer weather, otters often dispersed to relatively open water, where hunting 

was sometimes undertaken diffusely by ocean-going canoes.

Icy Bay, in particular, is widely celebrated as an important traditional sea otter hunting 

area. As Olaf Abraham noted,

“[Yakutat people hunted] the sea otter, at a place called by the white man, 

‘Icy Bay’, and we call it in Tlingit, ‘Waza yik’ (Inside Mt. St. Elias). Now 

they brought forth their good canoes that they had dug out of good trees, 

the reason why they had such strict rules regarding the areas where good 

trees grew. This is the place (Icy Bay) that they hunted sea otters...Since 

this was before the time of rifles, they used their bows and arrows, and 

spears” (Abraham 1973:6).

De Laguna’s interviewees also spoke of hunting for sea otter in Icy Bay. One woman, in 

particular, discussed how her father camped on the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline on the 

western shores of Yakutat Bay, before walking the length of the coastline to Icy Bay. In 

the process, he crossed the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline including Point Manby and the 

Sitkagi Bluffs:

“A Yakutat man told me how his Kwackqwan father used to go to hunt at 

Icy Bay. He had a camp on the west shore of Yakutat Bay ‘across from 

Point Latouche’ where he would leave his canoe, and from here he would 

walk along the beach to Icy Bay, past the 80-mile front of Malaspina 

Glacier. ‘Glacier Point,’ or Sitkagi Bluffs, where the Malaspina reaches the 

beach to form a cliff about 5 miles long, is also called ‘Glacier Nose’...The 

river beyond this was QwálAxuk (or qwátlAhAq), probably Fountain 

Stream. The next river was NAsaxix...probably Yana Stream. Beyond this 

was LÍgàsA hín, ‘Tabooed River.’ My informant’s father ‘had log cabins 

along the way. It took him 6 days to get from the camp near Point 

Latouche to LÍgàsA hÍn. LÍgàs means ‘against nature.’ They used to call it 

LÍgàSA ‘á, ‘Bad Luck [or ‘Tabooed’] Lake.’ There wasn’t a river there then. 

First there was a lake. And you had to be quiet as you go by it. That was 

when people hunted big sea otters from a boat. You couldn’t say a word. 

You just have to keep quiet. Then the lake broke open.’ This was before 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 77

the informant’s birth in 1911. The location which he indicated, about 

longitude 141 °12’ W., is at the chain of lagoons, lakes and small streams 

near the former outlet of the Yahtse River, (East Yahtse River of the chart). 

Tebenkov’s map vii of 1849 shows ‘Shoal Lake’ at this location, close to 

Point Riou or ‘Shoal Point’” (de Laguna 1972:97).

As the quotations above suggest, Yakutat Tlingit relied on bows, arrows, and spears to 

hunt sea otters. While other groups (notably the Russians and their conscripts) used 

guns during the early contact period, Yakutat Tlingit felt that the noise from a gun 

disrupted the hunt, startling the otters and eliminating the chance for a second shot.61

De Laguna’s informant, Minnie Johnson, also describes how the Yakutat traditionally 

hunted for sea otters in their territory, prior to the usage of guns:

“So the Yakutat people is ready to go to Yakategy and Icy Bay. In the 

springtime they go there to hunt sea otter. They went as far as Yakategy. 

They were hunting for sea otter. 

“You know, long time ago there is no such a thing as gun or 

revolver here in Yakutat. They use bow and arrow and they go up seaotter hunting with it. But these Tsimshians got all kinds of guns, 

revolvers, and big guns, and all that...The Yakutat people has to load 

shells themselves, and use tcùnét [bow and arrow], and get after the sea 

otter until it is short winded, and that is the way they kill it...

“So they went out together to kill those sea otters. The Yakutat 

people know how to hunt sea otter. They get after the sea otter until it 

gets short winded. It’s easy to hit them with bow and arrow...The canoe 

is chasing from one end of the water to the other. Sometimes it goes way 

out of sight of shore” (quoted in de Laguna 1972:285).

Sea otter hunting is also mentioned as a critical cultural activity in some sources, 

serving as a venue for multi-generational training of young boys from Yakutat in 

hunting skills, resource management traditions, and navigation by canoe. Icy Bay has 

been mentioned frequently in this regard.62 

Because of the importance of the sea otter to Yakutat Tlingit, be it for their social, 

political or economic value, the Yakutat observed strict regulations when hunting for 

this animal (Stanton 1999:13; de Laguna 1972:379-380).63 The practice of strictly 

regulating sea otter hunts mirrors that of the seal hunts, and interviewees assert that 

regulatory practices such as this helped to maintain sustainable sea otter levels over 

long periods of time.
78 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Other Marine Mammal Hunting Traditions

Other marine mammals were traditionally hunted in similar locations, using similar 

technologies and protocols. While seals and sea otter were the primary marine 

mammals the Yakutat hunted in waters along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, a number of 

other marine mammals were utilized for traditional subsistence purposes:

“Other sea mammals taken included sea lions and porpoise. Sea lion are 

taken at rookeries and haul-out areas along islands and beaches. 

Porpoises, which also congregate near glaciers, were hunted with a 

harpoon similar to harpoons used to take seal and sea lion (detachable 

harpoon head with line through a hole and a trailing bladder float). 

Porpoises were hunted mainly for their fine sinew; their meat is very 

strong-tasting, and was regarded as poor-man’s food” (de Laguna 

1972:41). 

Some contemporary interviewees mention beluga occasionally being sighted near the 

glaciers, but the authors encountered no specific references to a regular beluga hunt. It 

is likely that these animals may have been hunted opportunistically as they appeared 

along the tidewater glaciers’ margins.

Fish and Shellfish

The waters within and around Yakutat Tlingit territory have provided an abundance of 

fish since the beginning of remembered time, providing a cornerstone to community 

sustenance and cultural life. While Yakutat Tlingit fished for a variety of types, salmon 

was most important to the people. As de Laguna reports,

“Fish are the staff of life for the Tlingit, and of all kinds the salmon (xat) is 

what is meant when the Tlingit speaks of fish. The largest and earliest to 

spawn is the king, spring, or chinook salmon, Onchorhynchus tshawytscha, 

(t’a). Then come the red or sockeye, 0. nerka, (gàt); humpback or pink, 0. 

gorbuscha (tcas); coho or silver 0. kisuich, (tl’uk); and the chum or dog 

salmon, 0. keta (titl’)” (de Laguna 1972:51).

Salmon played—and continue to play—a fundamental role in the traditional 

subsistence of Yakutat peoples. All five species of salmon, humpback, coho, king, 

sockeye and dog, are traditionally fished and consumed as a staple by the Yakutat. 

Ramos and Mason (2004:17) suggest that before people were able to freeze or jar 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 79

salmon, humpback and coho were the key staple salmon species at Yakutat. Of 

Humpback salmon, de Laguna writes:

“Spawning runs last from late June to September, with the most in July 

and early August. Of all the streams in the Yakutat area, Humpback Creek 

(kwack hini) is the most important for this fish, and also for the Raven sib 

that owns this stream and claims the Humpback Salmon as a crest. This 

fish is known at Yakutat by its Eyak name (kwack) as much as by the 

Tlingit word (tcas)” (de Laguna 1972:51). 

Coho was of similar importance. It was prized for its ability to dry well, and it, like the 

humpback, was also represented on the crest of a Raven sib (de Laguna 1972:51).64

King salmon was also widely available in Yakutat Tlingit territory, primarily in the 

larger rivers and in the bays. As de Laguna reports, 

“King salmon usually breed only in the larger rivers, such as the Alsek or 

Copper River, although they have been seen in the Ankau, Situk, 

Ahrnklin, Italio, and Ustay Rivers. Spawning runs begin about the last of 

April and may continue until the fall (when the king salmon are 

particularly fat), which was when the natives formerly caught them. 

While still in salt water the king salmon usually stays close to shore and 

may be taken by trolling, but this method was not employed until modern 

times. Sometimes king salmon appear in Yakutat Bay as early as February, 

according to one informant” (de Laguna 1972:51).

Comparably, sockeye salmon was also widely available. According to de Laguna, 

“Almost all of the streams southeast of Yakutat have sockeyes, from the Ankau-Lost 

River system to the Alsek, except for Dangerous River” (1972:51). Dog salmon, on the 

other hand, was not as highly valued by Yakutat Tlingit as other available species.65

There were a variety of fall, spring and summer fishing camps set up around the 

Yakutat Tlingit’s territory. For example, in the fall, people fished for pink “humpy” 

salmon at Humpy Creek, located proximate to Knight Island on the eastern side of 

Yakutat Bay. Both Yakutat Bay and Russell Fiord were important locations for fishing 

king salmon. On the southeastern side of Yakutat Bay, opposite the Wrangell-St. Elias

coastline, the Yakutat fished Ankau and Ophir Creek for coho in the fall (Ramos and 

Mason 2004:18). There were a variety of other fishing camps set up in the area, both 

west and east of Yakutat Bay. 
80 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The streams along the southern shore of Wrangell-St. Elias have also widely been 

appreciated as productive for coho and sockeye salmon. These include Esker, Sudden, 

Kame, Osar, Manby (sometimes written “Mamby”) Alder, Fountain, and a number of 

other, mostly smaller streams.66 Still, habitat conditions are widely (and even wildly) 

variable in this turbulent glacial environment: 

“Recent advances and retreats of the Malaspina and Guyot Glaciers have 

affected both the terrestrial and aquatic environments. Lakes and streams 

are sometimes clear and turn glacial, or vice versa...With changing glacial 

conditions, new lakes are formed in potholes in the glacial ice, while old 

lakes drain and disappear” (ADF&G 1984: 71). 

Sometimes these have been prime fishing areas, and at other times their productivity 

has been depressed by natural processes operating at a geologic scale. Families have 

fished these streams since the most recent glacial retreat and there are oral traditions 

suggesting fishing during periods prior to historical glacial advances. In recent times, 

most have fished in the rivers with gillnets and other gear, but shoreline and offshore 

surf fisheries also have involved set nets and trolling from small boats. 

There is a significant complex of traditional activities and beliefs relating to “showing 

respect” to fish species, especially salmon. Tlingit and Eyak people often discuss the 

“respect” they seek to demonstrate toward the fish, as well as both ceremonial and 

tangible actions undertaken to ensure a balanced relationship with the fish that utilize 

waterways within Yakutat traditional lands. These include active stream monitoring, 

systems of stream tenure, prohibitions on overharvest, and a variety of other 

interventions (Thornton, Deur and Kitka 2015; Brock and Coiley-Kenner 2009; Ramos 

and Mason 2004). To coordinate these activities, salmon fishing is traditionally guided 

by the “chief” [Heen S’áati, “Stream Master;” see Thornton 2008] with ownership rights 

to the waterway, insuring that labor could be organized and mobilized, and that 

traditional prescriptions would be followed. The practices Davis (1996:135) explains in 

relation to the Situk River were likely applied to waterways in and immediately around 

Wrangell-St. Elias historically:

“All fishing was controlled by the chief, and no fishing began until his 

permission was given. Early in the spring, long before the salmon began 

to run, the Situk [River] was prepared for the spawning salmon. Members 

of the sib would travel upstream to remove any debris from the stream 

that might hinder the migrating salmon. They usually combined this 

clean-up operation with the spring bear hunt.”
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 81

Similar to practices that fully utilized seal and sea otter, Yakutat Tlingit were careful 

when harvesting salmon to limit the amount of waste from caught fish, using the bulk 

of the fish for food. To waste salmon, like any other animal, was taboo and diligently

avoided. As Ramos and Mason state, “Tlingits were careful not to waste any part of the 

salmon. They tried to dry everything but the fins and entrails. When the flesh was 

eaten, they burned the bones” (2004:30). This represents one of Yakutat’s locallydistinctive traditions as, in other Tlingit communities, fish remains were often placed 

directly in the water instead. This practice, as with the other Yakutat Tlingit practices

discussed above, likely reflects community responses to local environmental conditions 

(Thornton, Deur and Kitka 2015). 

Other Fish and Fish Products

In addition to salmon, the Yakutat had an abundance of other fish in their streams, 

rivers and seas that they utilized for traditional subsistence purposes. While salmon 

played a tremendous role in Yakutat traditional subsistence, various sources also 

discuss the harvest of halibut, rockfish and lingcod, eulachon (or “hooligan”), Dolly 

Varden char, cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling (in rare locations), herring and other 

species.

Eulachon is traditionally harvested for oil or smoked. During the late winter and early 

spring, Yakutat Tlingit fished for eulachon in a variety of locations: the Situk River and 

Dry Bay are widely documented, but interviewees sometimes referenced possible 

eulachon fishing on Yakutat Bay. As summarized by Davis,

“Beginning in late February and extending into early March, eulachon 

start their runs...These fish were and are highly prized by the Yakutat 

Natives for their rich oil. Pre-1900, eulachon oil was one of the most 

important trade items along the coast and with the interior natives. 

Netting of fish could be undertaken with little effort near the Winter 

Villages located on or near spawning rivers like the Situk” (Davis 

1996:139).

Also during the spring season, many Yakutat families traveled up Yakutat Bay to their 

spring camps, located near Knight Island and Eleanor Cove, where they fished for 

halibut (de Laguna 1972:360). Herring spawn was also mentioned as a resource 

traditionally harvested in Yakutat Bay. From as early as March but typically not until 

May, Yakutat Tlingit gathered Pacific herring eggs in the intertidal zone of Yakutat Bay. 

Once the herring matured, Yakutat people fished for the adult fish using dip nets, traps, 

or rakes in the open water areas. During this time, they continued to fish in-between the 
82 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

harvest of staples for a range of secondary fish species, as well as for marine bottom 

fish, including halibut (Davis 1996:142-146).

Shellfish

Shellfish have played an important role in traditional Yakutat subsistence since the 

earliest remembered times, and are also evidenced in the archaeological record. 

Significantly, Yakutat Tlingit have a long history of harvesting various shellfish in the 

waters fronting Wrangell-St. Elias, and sometimes along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. 

According to Davis, “the tidal areas surrounding the islands of Yakutat Bay, as well as 

the Ankau lagoon system, have always been a storehouse of a dependable variety of 

intertidal resources, available throughout the year” (1996:139). Some of the key 

invertebrate species the Yakutat harvested include: blue mussels, black katy chitons, 

giant chitons, limpets, barnacles, burrowing clams such as the butter or smooth 

Washington clam, Pacific littleneck, gaper or horse clam, and Nuttall’s or basket cockle. 

Yakutat Tlingit also traditionally harvest Tanner and Dungeness crabs by spearing them 

in the shallow waters throughout the summer months. In addition, razor clams could be 

found in the long, sandy beaches fronting the open ocean coastline within Yakutat 

Tlingit territories, and are traditionally harvested where available (Davis 1996: 146-51). 

Yakutat Tlingit also traditionally harvested octopus in the spring, collecting it at low 

tide. During the summer, Yakutat Tlingit traditionally were at their peak harvesting 

season, fishing a variety of salmon, hunting, and collecting various plants along Yakutat 

Bay and beyond.

Gathering shellfish and other intertidal species was an important community activity. 

As Davis reports, “shellfish resources permitted even the old or enfeebled members, or 

the very young, of past communities to harvest or have access to food resources, even in 

times when few other resources were available” (1996:47). Oftentimes, intertidal species 

would be collected coincidentally with the harvest of other staple species, such as 

salmon. For example, Minnie Johnson, an interviewee of de Laguna’s, spoke of 

gathering both salmon and cockles from Humpback Creek, on the eastern side of 

Yakutat Bay: “Minnie Johnson remembers stopping in spring at the stream [Humpback 

Creek] to get salmon and big cockles. The latter were 6 inches long and had to be 

speared because the tide did not go out far enough to uncover them” (de Laguna 

1972:65). This matches the descriptions of interviewees consulted in the course of the 

current study. Their accounts suggest that, in many cases, people did not necessarily 

harvest shellfish along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline as a standalone activity, but 

carried out shellfish harvests nonetheless in the course of subsistence salmon fishing, 

seal hunting, or sea otter hunting historically; in later times, these harvests were often 

coincident with commercial fishing on the northwestern shore of Yakutat Bay. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 83

Eyak Fishing Traditions

The territory of the Eyak was similarly rich in terms of river and coastal subsistence 

resources, and fishing has always been a crucial part of traditional Eyak life. Yet, 

among those communities without significant Tlingit influence, there were noticeable 

departures from the Tlingit pattern. In particular, according to Workman et al., “there 

were no exclusive property rights by family, village, or moiety over fish camps or 

streams” (1974:5-6). While a variety of fish were available for use by the Eyak, 

traditionally, salmon served as the most important staple, and Copper River has always 

been the heart of the Eyak salmon fishery. As Workman et al. describe, 

“Salmon were the staff of life for the Eyak. Five species were available in 

the Prince William Sound, and three—King, Silver, and Red—entered the 

Copper River. The abundance of these fish made it possible to catch an 

entire year’s supply early in the spring, using dip nets, stone corrals, and 

scaffolds from which the fish could be speared” (1974:5-6).

Famously large runs of King (Chinook), red (sockeye) and coho (silver) salmon all 

travel through the waters of the Copper River Delta. The largest salmon runs through 

the Copper River Delta occur primarily from the start of May through the end of 

September, with king salmon appearing first, followed by red salmon, and ending with 

Coho salmon. The Eyak also fished for pink (humpback) and chum (dog) salmon in the 

Prince William Sound and its tributary streams (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:113-

114). The use of the Wrangell-St. Elias coast for fishing by Eyak was relatively minor, 

with the exception of those who were integral to the Yakutat community, or visiting as 

guests or kin of Yakutat Tlingit families.

In addition to the five varieties of salmon, the Eyak also fished for trout and whitefish in 

clear lakes within the region. Eulachon, cod, herring and halibut were all taken from 

Prince William Sound. Trout, whitefish, cod and halibut were traditionally fished with 

a hook and line, while salmon and eulachon were fished using a variety of methods, 

including traps, dip nets and spears. During the winter, from February to April, 

eulachon was fished from the Copper River and its tributaries at night, and young men 

also fished for halibut during the wintertime. Eyak sometimes set fish traps under the 

ice during the winter. In the spring and summer, herring were fished and herring 

spawn was collected (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:121; de Laguna 1990:190-191; 

USDOINPS 1998a:44; Workman et al. 1974:5-6). 

In addition to relying on fish for subsistence, Eyak harvested a variety of shellfish, 

including razor clams, cockles, littleneck (butter) clams and mussels. Eyak not only ate 

the shellfish they collected from the littoral zone, but also used the shells in a variety of 

ways, including utilizing clamshells as knives or scrapers for removing hair from skins. 
84 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Clams were traditionally dried on strings and stored in boxes of oil to preserve them for 

the fall (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:122; de Laguna 1964:104; 1972:55; 1990:190; 

USDOINPS 1998a:44).

Terrestrial Animals

In addition to hunting seals and sea otter in the bays and along the shoreline, Yakutat 

Tlingit traditionally hunted a number of terrestrial animals in and around what is today 

Wrangell-St. Elias. Various game animals were available in the Yakutat territory. In 

spite of (and perhaps because of) the dynamism of the glacial landscape in the southern 

portion of Wrangell-St. Elias, the area has been recognized as having a rich and varied 

range of terrestrial animals – a point made by Yakutat Tlingit, but also by some of the 

earliest non-Native writers describing this area.67 The relative abundance of terrestrial 

game in this area meant that these land-going animals played an important, if 

sometimes secondary, role in traditional Yakutat Tlingit subsistence practices associated 

with Wrangell-St. Elias in the community’s early history. What follows is an overview 

of some of the principal species mentioned in reference to this early period. 

Mountain Goat

Yakutat Tlingit have a long history of hunting for mountain goats in the rugged 

landscape of the Yakutat region. Mountain goat meat and tallow were among the 

objectives of these hunts, but the wool of the goats is also a highly prized traditional 

product in Tlingit communities, being used in woven blankets, regalia, and other items. 

Ted Valle comments on the use of goat wool, saying, “another thing we had a lot of was 

goats, goat wool, because there’s goats all over the place. So we had a lot of that” (TV).

In addition to eating the meat and utilizing the hide, interviewees for the current study 

mention that mountain goat fat that they obtained at Wrangell-St. Elias had a particular 

property that kept hunters warm while on the move: 

“We used to use goat fat, mountain goat....when you take and open it up, 

you have to take the whole hide really tight and then take a sharp knife 

and just barely cut the skin because if you took and got your knife into the 

fat, it would stick...Then when we’d go hunting, we’d take one of those or 

part of it you know, and put it on the outside pocket. And then when we 

were in the ice hunting because you’d get cold in the ice sometimes, really 

cold, even dressed you know. Take a little bit of that mountain goat fat... 

put it in your mouth, take about a minute, two minutes: warm. Just like I 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 85

don’t know, indescribable how warm you just feel, and comfortable, and 

you’d feel comfortable” (SJ).

Mountain goats, like other animals used by Yakutat Tlingit for traditional subsistence, 

were processed in such a way that various parts of the animal were used for a range of 

purposes, including not only the meat and tallow but also the horns and wool, thereby 

rendering the goat valuable in more ways than one. 

Mountain goat hunts, similar to marine mammals and fish, were the focus of a 

specialized seasonal harvest that historically involved large numbers of the men from 

the community. In this case, the goats were pursued most often during the late summer, 

when snowmelt allowed hunters to travel into high-elevation areas and goats were 

readily seen grazing on middle-elevation slopes; they were also hunted into the 

autumn, when snows sometimes pushed the mountain goats to even lower grazing 

areas. Occasionally, in especially heavy snows, mountain goats could be found along 

the beaches.68 Both the Chaix Hills and the Karr Hills within the boundaries of 

Wrangell-St. Elias are noted to be locations where mountain goats were traditionally 

hunted. According to de Laguna,

“On the eastern shore, above the sheltered waters of the Riou Bay, is a 

low island, ‘Egg Island,’ beyond which are the present mouths of the 

Yahtse and Caetani Rivers, both emerging from beneath the Malaspina ice 

field. To the north, beyond the head of the bay, lie the Chaix Hills and the 

Karr Hills, where mountain goat are hunted and where bear and 

ptarmigan may also be encountered” (de Laguna 1972:95).

Interviewees for the current project describe a generally “opportunistic” pattern of 

mountain goat hunting, involving a variety of rocky areas known to be good hunting 

areas along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast – including, but certainly not limited to, Chaix 

and Karr Hills. They also note that goat hunting locations have changed, and generally 

become more numerous as the ice has retreated along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. This 

was said to be true at Icy Bay, a very popular hunting area for goat in recent 

generations, in addition to Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays.

Mountain goat hunting was widely appreciated to be a dangerous activity (Birket-Smith 

and de Laguna 1938:100). As such, there were specific techniques utilized to pursue the 

goats, often involving struggle with the goats in close quarters and on steep, rocky 

slopes. Not surprisingly, dogs were often used as part of these hunts. De Laguna 

discusses how Yakutat used dogs to hunt for mountain goats in and around Icy Bay:
86 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“The mountainside where one hunts goats is called ‘place where one 

chases things’ (‘a’At dAketl xeye). Such places are across Nunatak Fjord 

from Shagg Cuff, Mud Bay by Hidden Glacier in Russell Fiord, Flat 

Mountain (LAgut) at the head of the Ahrnklin, Icy Bay, and ‘way behind 

the mountains’ behind Icy Bay. 

“‘Dry Bay,’ Antlen, Situk, and here [Yakutat]—each got their own 

territory [for hunting mountain goats]. When they meet they try to beat 

one another.’ This may happen when two parties each start the same goat 

and their dogs are chasing it. ‘They know how their own dogs bark. Then 

both sides start running.’ Such encounters might lead to trouble” (de 

Laguna 1972:366; quotes are from an interviewee of de Laguna).

Unlike their conventions relating to sea otter hunting, Yakutat goat hunters quickly 

embraced the use of guns for mountain goat. As Thornton (2007:4) explains,

“This bay [Icy Bay] was prized especially for its concentrations of 

mountain goat and seal. In the spring, mountain goats would present 

themselves on the cliffs above the northwest shore of the bay in such a 

way that, when shot, they tumbled right down to the water for easy 

retrieval.”

Similar mountain goat hunting techniques are widely reported in other Tlingit 

communities and, indeed, in many other portions of the Northwest Coast (Deur and 

Thornton 2015).

Other Terrestrial Mammal Hunting and Trapping

Yakutat Tlingit also traditionally harvest a range of other terrestrial mammals in and 

around what is today Wrangell-St. Elias. Commonly reported species include bears, 

fox, and beaver. Bears are often noted for their role in the traditional subsistence of 

Yakutat Tlingit, in addition to being significant as a clan crest and in Yakutat oral 

tradition. Yakutat Tlingit have a long history of hunting bears, both black and brown. 

Bears were particularly important in the Yakutat diet prior to the introduction of moose 

into the area. Traditionally, bears were widely available in the Yakutat’s homeland, 

inhabiting the coniferous forests on the Yakutat foreland, as well as the foothills of the 

mountains, and along the southeastern shore of Yakutat Bay as well as Russell Fjord. 

Bear hunting was also reported in the Wrangell-St. Elias area – the Malaspina Glacier 

area being said to be an especially good place to hunt Dall brown bear.69 Springtime is 

often reported as the prime time for bear hunting – allowing hunting of shoreline bears 

that have been fattening up on browse along the strand but have not yet started eating 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 87

fish, which affects their flavor. Yakutat Tlingit also sometimes hunted for hibernating 

bears during wintertime (de Laguna 1972:360). In literature specifically addressing the 

Eyak, similar hunting practices are noted.70 

Yakutat Tlingit have also traditionally hunted, trapped and traded in beaver pelts. In 

addition to using beaver fur for clothing, Yakutat Tlingit traditionally use beaver teeth 

for other items, such as ornamentation and in the construction of woodworking tools. 

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit territories in the Wrangell-St. Elias region, particularly the 

area west of Icy Bay, were said to have had abundant beaver populations. According to 

de Laguna, 

“The GalyIx-Kagwantan lands west of Icy Bay were traditionally rich in 

beaver, and Yakutat Indians visiting their relatives at Kaliakh River or 

Controller Bay might trap them. The Yakutat also used to buy beaver 

pelts at settlements near the mouth of the Copper River or at Nuchek in 

Prince William Sound to sell to their southern relatives or to the fur 

traders. It is probably significant that it was the GalyIx-Kagwantan who 

had the Beaver as a crest” (de Laguna 1972:38).

De Laguna also discusses different clans’ use of the coastal area just south and west of 

Wrangell-St. Elias for hunting, beaver and sea otter, in particular:

“This area [around the Kaliakh River, west of Cape Yakataga] is 

traditionally rich in furs, especially beaver and sea otter, but was too small

to support a large population. In consequence, the Tcicqedi (Eagles), 

‘cousins’ of the Kagwantan, who had followed them, had to live ‘farther 

west in the swampy place.’ Later, when the Kagwantan multiplied and 

spread into Controller Bay and to Bering River, they continued to use the 

Kaliakh country for hunting” (de Laguna 1972:101).

Fox are also present in the region and are traditionally hunted or trapped for their furs 

along the margins of Yakutat Bay. As de Laguna noted,

“Foxes have been taken to some of the islands in Yakutat Bay both by 

natives and Whites for fur-farming ventures, yet the fox must be much 

older here than these imported animals. Our informants spoke of 

trapping and snaring them at Dry Bay and at Yakutat, and described the 

aboriginal devices used to take them, mentioning clothing made of the 

pelts and robes of fox paws. There was even a taboo against giving the 

tails to dogs, suggesting an ancient acquaintance with the fox. Israel 

Russell noticed the tracks of foxes, as well as of bears, wolves, and 
88 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

mountain goats, on the Malaspina Glacier. Natives told Goldschmidt and 

Haas about trapping foxes near Dry Bay, Italio River, Point Manby, and 

Katalla” (de Laguna 1972:37).

Yakutat people also hunted for fox along the margins of the Gulf of Alaska, at least as 

far west as the village of Jilkáat, located below Katalla at the mouth of the Bering River 

where it enters Controller Bay (Thornton 2007:5). 

In addition to the animals discussed above, there were various other terrestrial furbearing animals that Yakutat Tlingit harvested traditionally. Animals often mentioned 

include wolf, pine marten, wolverine, ground squirrel, weasel, gopher and mink among 

others. These species were primarily trapped during the wintertime (Davis 1996:147). 

Each species’ furs were valued differently:

“The most valued furs for clothing in the old days were sea otter, wolf, 

and beaver, while ‘marten is the highest class of fur,’ used for clothing by 

the rich and noble. Other valuable furs were those of the ground squirrel 

or gopher (tsAlk), obtained from the interior. Mink is a ‘low class skin,’ 

because the mink is associated with the evil land otter, and some 

informants even denied that mink was worn in the old days. However, an 

elderly man mentioned jackets and caps of mink fur, and one woman said 

she had even made such a cap for her 6-months old son” (de Laguna 

1972:436).

Martens, weasels, ermine and mink were reportedly trapped along the coastal areas, 

including at Yakutat and Dry Bay, as well as the area between Point Manby and Esker 

Creek (de Laguna 1972:38, 59). Before contact, these furs were important in both local 

use and in intertribal trade; following Russian contact, they would be key to early 

Yakutat Tlingit entry into the non-Native cash economy. 

Birds and Bird Eggs

While birds provide less caloric value than mammals, their meat nevertheless played a 

role in Yakutat traditional subsistence, and the meat and eggs also have a variety of 

cultural and ceremonial values for Yakutat Tlingit that persist in various ways into the 

present day. In the fall, typically from September to October, Yakutat Tlingit have 

traditionally hunted for an assortment of birds, including waterfowl and other 

migratory birds that used the western flyway to migrate south for the winter. The most 

frequently hunted birds include Canada geese, White-fronted geese, sandhill cranes and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 89

several species of duck, including: green-winged teal, mallard, pintail, goldeneye, and 

scaup (Davis 1996:146). Different varieties of birds are typically hunted in different 

parts of the Yakutat Tlingit territory:

“Birds were hunted along the ponds and streams of the wetlands within 

the muskeg and coastal meadows of the foreland. Ptarmigan were hunted 

in the summer and early fall within the treeline and alpine tundra areas 

and later along the glacial margins, outwash plains, and river banks of the 

coastal meadows. Waterfowl were hunted near and on ocean sloughs, 

lakes, protected open ocean waters, and along the open flats near the 

mouths of rivers” (Davis 1996:153).

The rocky cliffs on Haenke Island, just across Disenchantment Bay from the WrangellSt. Elias coastline, were another popular location to hunt for birds such as gulls, Arctic 

terns and kittiwakes. The Yakutat also carefully monitored these birds so they could 

collect their eggs along the beaches, typically in May (Davis 1996:143).

Indeed, seagull eggs long served as a seasonal staple food for many Yakutat Tlingit. 

With the return of spring and the arrival of warmer weather, comes the anticipation of 

fresh seagull eggs. Interviewee Skip Johnson describes the ‘Egg Weather’ that signifies 

the beginning of the egg harvest, usually in May: 

“What happens is the seagull lays eggs, and I don’t know whether the 

weather causes the seagulls to lay eggs or what. But the seagull is called 

Kéitladi[?] [a Tlingit term] that means ‘Egg Weather.’ And...the reason 

that it’s called ‘Egg Weather,’ is because when the seagulls lay eggs, this 

time of year it’s almost always the same weather. It rains a little bit and 

then it sunshines, then a little bit of rain, then it sunshines” (SJ).

Traditionally, Gull Island in Icy Bay and Egg Island in Disenchantment Bay are both 

considered highly desirable areas for egg collecting (SJ; VD). Lena Farkus also spoke of 

an adjacent island called, “The Women’s Egg Island,” saying, 

“at Egg Island had another little island next to it, you know connected and 

they called that ‘The Women’s Egg Island.’ Wouldn’t let the women go 

up on the high one...They would say, Shaw-ud-ka-dee [Shaawu Kadee]” 

(LF).

While the islands in Icy and Disenchantment Bays have been the most popular locations 

to gather seagull eggs, Yakutat Tlingit also collected the eggs on glacial moraines 
90 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

around Yakutat Bay, within the boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias, where gulls often nest. 

As de Laguna reports, “People used to gather sea gull eggs from the eastern, morainecovered part of Hubbard Glacier, ‘Black Glacier’...This nesting place was called ‘Eggs’ 

Town’” (de Laguna 1972:69).71 These gathering areas likely changed over time, 

reflecting the sometimes ephemeral and transitory nature of moraines along the north 

shore of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays generally.

There is significant documentation of conservation practices employed over generations 

in the course of seagull egg gathering (Hunn et al. 2002; 2003). While specific 

conventions may have varied between families and individuals, interviewees suggest 

that the fundamental concepts of foregoing egg harvests to ensure continuity of the gull 

population is nearly universal. Gull egg harvesting, meanwhile, is understood to keep 

the gull populations at a steady and sustainable level. Interviewees, especially Mary 

Ann Porter, noted Yakutat Tlingit oral traditions of burning or otherwise clearing 

vegetation from gull nesting islands near the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, which was said to 

enhance gull and egg numbers, in part by reducing predation by Eagles and other 

perching birds of prey which might inhabit mature trees on nesting site (MP). 

The Yakutat Tlingit continued to hunt for birds and harvest seagull eggs after contact 

with Euro-Americans: 

“In the early historic period...waterfowl were taken on their spring 

migration north to breed and raise their young through the long summers 

along the northern tundra regions of Alaska. They were also hunted as 

they headed south to winter. Gulls, Arctic terns, and the kittiwake (Rissa 

tridactyla pollicaris) nest along the rock cliffs of small islands, mainly on 

Haenke Islands, and on the beaches of the area, where their eggs were/are 

collected” (Davis 1996:143).

Certainly seagull egg gathering was an important part of traditional Yakutat life in the 

pre-contact period, and it is a practice that has continued into modern times, as will be 

discussed in a latter part of this document. Seagull egg harvesting was a community 

activity that brought people together, and sharing the eggs within and between 

households was—and is—a large part of the tradition. Similar hunting and harvesting 

practices have been noted in literature specifically addressing the Eyak.72

Plant Foods

In addition to having a wealth of marine and terrestrial animals, fish and birds for 

sustenance, Yakutat Tlingit territory possesses a dynamic and diverse assortment of 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 91

plants that are also integral to uses of lands now in Wrangell-St. Elias. The retreating 

glaciers of the Wrangell-St. Elias coast provided a range of successional environments, 

from lichen-covered bedrock to dense forests characteristic of the larger Northwest 

Coast region. As de Laguna notes, “The vegetation along the edge of the Malaspina 

Glacier in the Icy Bay area formed a dense forest of spruce, alders, cottonwood, 

salmonberries, huckleberries, devilclub, and ferns (mostly Asplenium)” (de Laguna 

1972:98).

Berry picking has been a significant resource harvest tradition in Tlingit communities 

generally, and Yakutat is no exception. Interviewees speak of a diverse range of berries 

sought along the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline: strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, 

nagoon berries, soapberries, salmon berries, huckleberries, cloudberries and others. 

Berry picking was said to be concentrated at key places and reflected seasonal 

availability, with the summer being the most plentiful season: 

“The summer months were the most active for the inhabitants of the 

Yakutat area. By this time, most of the people had left their Winter 

Villages and were now living in summer subsistence camps dispersed 

within their individual sib territories. Most of their activities revolved 

around the harvesting of salmon and the collecting of berries and other 

edible plants. Division of labor placed women with the responsibility for 

the collection of edible plants and berries. Berries and other plant 

resources could be collected either alone or in a cooperative venture by 

many members of a family unit” (Davis 1996:145).

Strawberries, in particular, were a traditional seasonal staple for the Yakutat Tlingit and 

grow well on the shorelines and recently established herbaceous plant communities of 

the deglaciated coast. Yakutat interviewees and non-Native observers alike report rich 

strawberry patches in what is today Wrangell-St. Elias, which are traditionally utilized 

by the people of Yakutat. Interviewees for the current project, as well as those who 

spoke with de Laguna, mention that the shoreline of the Wrangell-St. Elias coast 

included a number of good gathering areas, including Point Manby. During Russell’s 

1893 expedition to the Chaix Hills, too, he noted strawberry patches on the beaches in 

proximity to the Yahtse River: 

“In July and August it is one great strawberry meadow, where luscious 

berries may be gathered by the bushel. The Yakutat Indians visit this 

natural garden in summer and they have temporary houses near at hand 

in which they live during the strawberry season. Bears, too, are fond of 

the fruit, and their trails were seen everywhere through the berry covered 

plain and along the adjacent shore” (quoted in de Laguna 1972:98).
92 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Strawberries grow in other portions of the Yakutat Bay shoreline. Indeed, they figure

prominently in Kaagwaantaan narratives regarding the clan’s first arrival on Yakutat 

Bay, in which Knight Island is described as “just a big strawberry patch” where the 

arriving Kaagwaantaan chief’s family is not allowed to pick berries until the island is 

duly purchased with Copper River coppers.73

Seaweed, both black and ribbon varieties, is another resource traditionally harvested 

along the shoreline of Yakutat Bay, and presumably within Wrangell-St. Elias. Like 

many other resources, seaweed was not the focus of independent resource harvesting 

trips, but was often gathered as part of fishing excursions. While details were sparse, it 

is clear that the broader range of plant materials traditionally harvested by Yakutat 

Tlingit and enumerated in Table 3 have long been harvested coincidental with other 

activities in what is today Wrangell-St. Elias: these would include chocolate lily, devil’s 

club, willow, goose tongue, and many others. Trees, too, were sometimes peeled for 

bark (in the case of yellow cedar) or for edible cambium (in the case of W. hemlock) or 

sap (especially spruce), practices likely employed in this area.74 Similar practices are 

reported in those literatures specifically addressing the Eyak.75

Specialized wood gathering was another important traditional resource harvest activity, 

integral to other resource procurements such as hunting, requiring, for example, arrows 

that were typically constructed of wood. The lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias are 

widely acknowledged to possess unique wood resources, especially the yellow cedar 

groves on Icy Bay, which are sometimes visited specifically to obtain materials for 

traditional tools and crafts: “The arrow (tcunÉt; Boas, 1917, p. 126, tcùnét) was of local 

spruce or of yellow cedar obtained at Icy Bay or, less often, of red cedar imported from 

Prince Rupert” (de Laguna 1972:368).76 Not only is Icy Bay cedar durable and readily 

workable, but it also floats – a critical attribute for people who required arrows for 

hunting on the ocean, rivers, and estuaries. According to de Laguna, the arrow used to 

hunt for sea otter was the same used to hunt terrestrial animals, though the wood shaft 

was selected because of its flotation ability:

“The harpoon arrow had a shaft about 3 feet long, preferably of red cedar 

because this is said to float best. This wood had to be imported from 

southeastern Alaska or even from Prince Rupert, we were told, but 

sometimes yellow cedar from Icy Bay or local spruce was used” (de 

Laguna 1972:381).77

The Yakutat area is very highly regarded in the Tlingit and Eyak worlds as a place ideal 

for gathering materials for baskets and other traditional crafts. In the uniquely sandy 

outwash plains and beaches of both the Yakutat forelands and the Yakutat Bay 

shoreline, spruce roots are said to grow long and straight, making them ideal for use in 

the making of basketry, hats, mats, and many other items. Yakutat Tlingit oral tradition 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 93

suggests that the Tlingit practice of using spruce roots in baskets may have first 

originated in the Yakutat area (MP). So too, sedges and other “grassy” species grow in 

abundance in the wetlands within this sandy soil matrix, especially on dunal lakes and 

lagoons, also facilitating the growth of long, straight roots that have been used in this 

way. 

Similar to regulations placed on the harvest of animal resources, the Yakutat Tlingit 

placed restrictions on the harvest of some plant types, including certain trees on their 

lands. As Olaf Abraham describes, a sense of respect guided Tlingit regulations 

regarding these non-animal resources:

“They lived in respect also to the land they lived on...What was on their 

land was taken care of and protected. A tree was taken care of according 

to their rules, where there were good trees these were especially 

protected. These good trees were used for canoes and their homes. If a 

man was caught taking a tree from the special areas he was punished by 

the house chief and his council by taking from him all of his hunting 

equipment” (Abraham 1973:45).

Strict regulations with severe consequences, such as is described by Abraham above, 

helped to ensure that protective practices regarding flora and fauna were observed by 

all members of the community.

Minerals, Rocks and Shells 

Copper

Among the many resources that the Yakutat Tlingit possessed in unique abundance, 

copper stood apart. Like seals and sea otter, access to copper has been key to the 

prominence and wealth of the Ginéix Kwáan or Kaagwaantaan, as well as the larger 

Yakutat community of which they are a part. Traditionally, the Yakutat Tlingit highly 

valued copper as both a ceremonial item, as well as an important item for trade. As 

Emmons notes,

“Before the coming of the white man, when the natives had no iron, the 

Chilkat and Hoon-ah made long canoe trips each summer to Yakutat, to 

trade with the Thlar-har-yeek [Laaxaayík] for copper, which was 

fashioned into knives, spears, ornaments, and tinneh, and which again 

were exchanged with the more southern tribes for cedar canoes, chests, 

food boxes, and dishes” (Emmons 1911:297).
94 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Various sources suggest even broader use of copper in ceremonial regalia, in 

arrowheads, and for other purposes.78

Tinneh or “coppers”—stylized shields made of copper—were among the most 

important items to result in the trade in copper by the Yakutat Tlingit. These shields are 

of great traditional importance along much of the Northwest Coast. Being crafted 

meticulously from a relatively rare metal, understood traditionally to be spiritually 

potent, they were (and still are) of extraordinary value, being used in ceremonies and 

economic transactions wherever they were found. These coppers were often made from 

copper found in and around Wrangell-St. Elias by the communities of the region, and 

appear in the oral traditions of Yakutat, Cordova, and beyond (e.g., de Laguna 

1972:899–900; Swanton 1909:347–68). Copper was also widely reported to be worn by 

the people of these villages, especially by people who were “rich and noble,” both as 

ornamentation and to confer “good luck” (de Laguna 1972:445, 664; cf. Cooper 2011).

There are traditional copper mining areas reported just beyond the southern boundary 

of the park and west of Icy Bay, controlled by the Kaagwaantaan (TV). Smaller copper 

sources were suggested within what is today the south coast portion of Wrangell-St. 

Elias, though these quarries were depicted as largely small and ephemeral. Yet, the 

people of Yakutat, by virtue of their unique connections with the Athabaskan-speaking 

peoples of the interior, were well-situated to be the middlemen in a trade of copper 

from the north to eager “buyers” from the entire Northwest Coast region to the south. A 

large proportion of the native copper that passed through Yakutat came from trade 

with the Ahtna groups from the Chitina Basin, who were actively quarrying copper in 

lands now within the park.79 In return, the people of Yakutat provided items that were 

relatively rare in the interior. According to Pratt, 

“the Ahtna are believed to have obtained sealskins, seal oil, dried 

seaweed, and cakes of dried strawberries from the Tlingit in exchange for 

copper, tanned moose and caribou skins, furs, porcupine quill work, and 

spruce gum” (Pratt 1998:82-84). 

As discussed elsewhere, the importance of copper to the Yakutat Tlingit is suggested in 

origin accounts of their clan ancestors using copper from the interior to first acquire the 

rights to claim and occupy lands on Yakutat Bay. De Laguna describes the worth of 

copper in trading for property in and around Yakutat Bay:

“Rights to the Humpback Salmon Stream [Humpback Creek] were 

purchased by the ancestors of the Kwackqwan with sea otter furs and 

coppers or with a large canoe hung with seven coppers on each side, each 

copper worth 10 slaves. Swanton’s informant had them buy the land with 

only one copper, worth 10 slaves. The Drum House Teqwedi bought their 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 95

lands at Ahrnklin River with one copper, as long as from the finger tips to 

the chin, worth 10 slaves” (de Laguna 1972:354).80

Likewise, as Pratt notes,

“Copper’s importance to the Tlingit is perhaps best expressed by the 

report that Ahtna who relocated from the Chitina River to the Yakutat 

area purchased land along Yakutat Bay in return for copper” (Pratt 

1998:84).

The name Ginéix Kwáan, used as a synonym for Kwáashk’ikwáan, implies the people 

who have or acquire copper, attesting to this origin and its deeper historical 

significance. Other metals, such as iron, would later take on significance within the 

Yakutat Tlingit, but copper’s importance has been culturally and economically 

singular.81

Pigments and Stones

The Yakutat traditionally gathered clays, ochre and other types of pigments within the 

boundaries of what is today Wrangell-St. Elias. These materials were so important to 

Yakutat Tlingit, that they are sometimes referenced in Tlingit placenames. For example, 

according to de Laguna,

“The huge Hubbard Glacier, Second Glacier...that thrusts its ‘nose’...into 

the elbow bend at the junction of Disenchantment Bay and Russell Fiord, 

is usually known simply as the ‘Big Glacier’...the bay at its west end is 

Wéyna ta, named for the white clay (wéyna; Harrington: wéenaa), that is 

found here. This is ‘something that grows on the rocks. They use it for 

paint,’ Harrington was told. The name of the bay is literally ‘gypsuminside-place’ (Harrington: wéenna-atthAh)” (de Laguna 1972:69). 

Red paint (léxw), made of both hematite and red ochre, could be found at various 

locations around the Yakutat Tlingit territory, including locations at the head of 

Disenchantment Bay, and at other locations around the perimeter of Yakutat Bay. A 

location between Turner and Hubbard Glaciers was especially mentioned as a source of 

paint for ceremonial face painting.82 Paints were also employed by the Tlingit to protect 

their faces from harsh sun or mosquitos. The Yakutat have a longstanding tradition of 

using both these face paints and protective paints, as is evidenced by archaeological 

sites, such as those in the Yakutat Bay area (de Laguna 1964:116-117).
96 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The Yakutat Tlingit also traditionally collected different types of rocks as part of their 

resource harvests, using them in the construction of a variety of tools such as pestles, 

hammers, or whetstones.83 Yakutat Tlingit traditionally utilized a variety of rocks, 

including but not limited to: chert, marble, sandstone, claystone, white quartz, mica, 

and rock crystal (de Laguna 1972:413). These were often obtained from glacial moraines 

in and around what is today Wrangell-St. Elias, with various precautions to 

demonstrate “respect” (yáa at wunei, in Tlingit) for the glaciers and their associated 

landforms. According to de Laguna, 

“Greenstone and green chert were used especially for adz blades. 

Another name for such rocks was ‘weight on the glacier’ (sItkA xuwu or 

xuwu, literally ‘pin or peg on the glacier’). Supernatural precautions had 

to be observed when obtaining pieces of these rocks, although I did not 

learn exactly what they were, and my informants at times seemed to 

confuse the hard greenstone with a soft greenish shale used for 

whetstones. Probably both occurred as morainic materials and both 

required special observances. They were found in Icy Bay, and probably 

also in Disenchantment Bay. When taking the rock, one had to ‘trade for 

it’ or ‘borrow it,’ presumably leaving some gift in its place, or else ‘steal’ 

or ‘hide it away’— ‘otherwise, it’s bad for you. I don’t know why.’ The 

penalty was, I believe, bad weather” (de Laguna 1972:413-14).

Accounts specifically referencing Eyak resource harvests provide a similar picture of 

both the traditional uses of copper and other mineral resources; references to mineral 

extraction within the study area are largely absent.84

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit Stewardship of Natural Resources 

As the preceding pages sometimes note, the Yakutat Tlingit have not only occupied and 

utilized the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline for many generations, but harvested resources 

in a way that contemporary interviewees assert were “sustainable” and allowed for the 

resiliency of human, animal, and plant communities alike. Moreover, some note that 

their ancestors have actively managed resources and even played a role in shaping 

ecological processes along this coast. Interviewees note that human effects on the biota 

of the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline have been evident for a very long time, even if they 

are often eclipsed by the monumental geological forces that continuously reshape this 

coast. While human use can certainly negatively impact the ecology of an area, many 

Tlingit interviewees report that their ancestors were ecological stewards in their own 

right, creating and maintaining habitat conditions for key species abundance and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 97

sustainment, and that traditional resource harvesting can and should play a role in 

ecosystem maintenance and conservation (Thornton, Deur and Kitka 2015; Ramos and 

Mason 2004).

According to traditional Tlingit cosmology, all living things are considered to possess a 

spirit, and conservation practices are a means to express respect for the spirit and 

sentience of all harvested resources. By showing “respect” in various ways, material 

and immaterial, human communities were able to maintain positive and mutuallysustaining relationships with plants, animals, and fish species. In some cases, this 

involved basic efforts to avoid overexploitation. Moreover, as stewards of the landscape 

with specific obligations to the clan and community, chiefs and others were compelled 

to make resource harvest decisions that considered long time horizons, and the wellbeing of future generations of descendants that would depend directly upon the same 

resources and resource territories. Interviewees report that this practice of harvesting 

only what was necessary—either for oneself or a shared group—helped to maintain 

sustainable harvests in the Yakutat homelands. Thus, interviewees note that Yakutat 

Tlingit traditional subsistence hunters, fishers and gatherers have been acutely aware of 

the interdependency of environmental elements of which they are active participants. 

As such, their ancestors developed traditional ecological knowledge and conservative 

harvest methods to foster the long-term integrity of the natural resources on which they 

depend. By their accounts, these conservative practices developed as a means to both 

respect these resources, and to protect the productivity of the resources for Tlingit 

consumption. In turn, they suggest, animal populations, such as salmon, seagulls, seals, 

sea lions and many shellfish species, have come to partially depend upon traditional 

Tlingit harvest methods to remain healthy—or, at least, to reach some sort of population 

equilibrium. 

In addition to general practices surrounding the regulation of quantities of harvests, 

Yakutat Tlingit also employed more specialized conservation measures, as was 

discussed above. For example, the selective harvesting of seagull eggs, interviewees 

maintain, helped to control the gull populations to keep them at sustainable levels. 

Similarly, the regulations regarding the limiting of the sealing season, also discussed 

above, were believed by interviewees to help maintain sustainable seal populations. The 

Yakutat Tlingit traditionally maintained strict proscriptions on hunting at inappropriate 

times, in a manner that both demonstrated respect to the seals but also ensured their 

continuous presence along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. Stories of punishments 

doled out by Tlingit leaders to members of their clan for disregarding sealing 

regulations were widespread among the Yakutat and helped to reinforce these 

regulations. Similarly, as de Laguna reported, chief-imposed regulations regarding sea 

otter hunting also limited the hunting season and the number of animals Yakutat could 

take in one season. Even plant harvests were managed by these principles, such as the 

protection of certain trees from harvest. These types of self-imposed regulations 

regarding the harvesting of wildlife, interviewees maintain, were a way to keep 
98 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

harvests sustainable and demonstrate what the Yakutat Tlingit view as their cultural 

predispositions and capacities toward stewardship and “taking care” of their traditional 

lands. While this theme is not explored in detail within the current report, it is certainly 

a topic that has been receiving growing attention by the National Park Service (e.g., 

Ramos and Mason 2004) and deserves additional attention in future NPS research.
Transitions
100 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

EUROPEAN EXPLORATION AND THE “REDISCOVERY”

OF YAKUTAT

The transitions experienced by the people of Yakutat from the time of European contact 

to the time of park creation were profound, transforming not only Yakutat Tlingit 

society but also the community’s relationships with the lands now within Wrangell-St. 

Elias National Park and Preserve.85 Situated at a continental pivot point, with the 

tremendous navigational landmark of Mount St. Elias as its beacon and anchor, the 

Yakutat Bay area became a stopover of colonial explorers, a place where international 

interests competed for supremacy, and where the famously bountiful sea otter colonies 

of the Yakutat coastline captured the attention of fur traders from Russia, Spain, 

England and beyond. The first century of that exchange marked a period of intermittent 

Russian influence—in which the Russians occupied Yakutat but were soon repulsed, 

leaving Yakutat with a degree of enduring autonomy that was uncommon in many 

other Tlingit communities. Yet, this period would witness the shift from what has been 

called “non-directed acculturation”—the exchange of ideas, goods, and other things 

between cultures, to “directed acculturation” in which the outside world began to 

actively seek to reshape Yakutat Tlingit cultural values and practices for many 

reasons—economic, religious, and strategic. This distinction is very useful for 

understanding the different kinds of effects that the non-Native world had on Yakutat 

Tlingit during successive phases of Yakutat history. When missions arrived in the late 

19th century, with the industrialists quick at their heels, Yakutat Tlingit were forced to 

adapt and to conceal many aspects of their culture from the outside world. Each step in 

this history, spanning in this section from Russian contact to the mid-20th century, 

brought with it a change in the Yakutat Tlingit relationship with lands and resources 

now within Wrangell-St. Elias. 

The history of the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak was shaped in no small part by the 

territorial ambitions of vast empires, situated on the opposite side of the globe. At a 

pivotal moment in world history, this part of the Alaska coastline became a contested 

place, where these empires vied for territorial control of the north Pacific. Occurring at 

the peak of the European “Enlightenment,” their claims were asserted through a 

combination of ambitious exploration and mapping, scientific documentation, and 

efforts to forge an economic presence within Native communities that had access to furs 

and other commodities of value to the European world. In time, these practices allowed

a non-Native foothold and ultimately the hegemony of the non-Native world along this 

coastline. These forces so shaped life and patterns of land and resource use in Yakutat 

and beyond that they must be considered in any complete account of Alaska Native ties 

to what is today Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.

In many respects it was the Russians who first brought Enlightenment-era exploration 

to the North Pacific. As Spanish explorers found their way to southwestern North 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 101

America, so Russian explorers found their way across Siberia, edging toward the 

Northwest Coast from the distant northeast. Following furs, the Russian Empire 

founded remote outposts in the Siberian Far East by the 1600s. Before the century was 

over, the Russians and other colonizers edging into the North Pacific came to recognize 

the unique potentials of sea otter fur. A sea otter pelt might contain 250,000 to a million 

hairs per square inch, allowing the otter to spend most of its life submerged in the cold 

waters of the North Pacific in the absence of blubber or other special protection. Their 

coats were found to be unimaginably dense, silky, and warm, giving them unparalleled 

status among fur bearers sought by the trade empires of Europe (Gibson 1992; Vaughan 

1982). In this respect, the reputed abundance of otter within the Yakutat region 

generally, and along the shoreline of Wrangell-St. Elias in particular, was certain to 

draw the attention of the agents of empire in time.

By the early 1700s, under the charismatic leadership and expansionist vision of Peter the 

Great, Russia began to thoroughly explore and occupy the Russian Pacific coast, lured 

by the prospect of cornering the fur markets of Europe and Asia.86 By the late 1720s, sea 

otter hunting posts were well established in the Kuril Islands, and the Russians were 

eager to expand their claim on the North Pacific. Under the command of Danish 

explorer and Russian Navy officer Vitus Bering, Russian expeditions explored the coast 

of Kamchatka, and what is today the coast of Alaska, in the course of two voyages 

(1732–30 and 1738–41). As early as July of 1741, Vitus Bering viewed Mount St. Elias 

and briefly anchored somewhere near its base. While geographical details of their visit 

are not easily discerned on the basis of Bering’s account, Yakutat Bay was often 

identified by later travelers as a place “discovered” by Bering and was called “Bering 

Bay” by these travelers before the current name was institutionalized in non-Native 

discourse; however, many have asserted on the basis of a careful review of Bering’s 

notes and charts, that “Bering was never in or near this bay” (Lauridsen 1889:145). 

Matters of his landfall placement aside, Bering’s explorations were hugely influential, 

setting the stage for Russian occupation of Alaska, while expedition maps and the 

placenames assigned to Alaskan topographic features—including those in the Yakutat 

region—bolstered Russian claims for territorial advancement. The sea otter pelts 

brought back from these expeditions helped launch interest in the development of 

what, in time, became a robust Russian–American fur trade (Deur 2015; Gibson 1992, 

1976; Tikhmenev 1978; Fisher 1977; Bancroft 1886).

By 1776, as the Americans declared independence from Britain, the Russians prepared

for an organized occupation of northwestern North America. In that year, Kamchatka’s 

fur trading posts bustled with traffic in sea otter pelts, and enterprising Russian fur 

traders lobbied in earnest for new posts in Alaska. Propelled by this foment, the 

colorful, Siberian-born Russian explorer Gerrasim Grigoriev Izmailov led an expedition 

into Russian waters in that year, returning with a shipload of otter pelts and solid 

confirmation of Alaska’s sea otter wealth. By 1783, with the backing of wealthy Russian 

merchants, Shelikov established a fur trading post on Kodiak Island. Naming the bay 
102 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

after his ship, Shelikov established the first permanent Russian settlement in Alaska’s 

Three Saints Bay, constructing what was the first permanent European settlement on 

the Northwest Coast. As he returned to Kamchatka with his first shipment of sea otter 

pelts from Kodiak, Shelikov petitioned the Russian crown for a corporation that could 

develop and monopolize the sea otter trade of Alaska. His petition was approved, 

allowing Shelikov to establish a company that would in 1799 become the RussianAmerican Company, the corporation that developed Alaska’s fur trade and defined the 

economic and social landscape of Alaska’s Russian period. Although Kodiak Island was 

far from Russian or even Asian markets, Shelikov’s move was extraordinarily welltimed. Almost everywhere the sea otter was hunted, its populations were almost 

obliterated in time, and the Russian waters were no exception. As the Russians began to 

extirpate commercially viable sea otter population from the Kuril Islands and 

Kamchatka Peninsula through the 1780s and 1790s, the entire Russian Pacific fur trade 

began to shift its center of gravity into Alaskan waters. They built small forts that 

supported Shelikov’s operations and transferred materials and men already wellseasoned in Russia’s sea otter trade, gradually moving eastward and southward into 

the waters of Alaska. Native labor, especially the Unangax of the Aleutian Islands and 

the Koniags of Kodiak Island were conscripted, often with brute force or the threat of it, 

to become the principal hunters supporting the new operations (Gibson 1992, 1976).

It was the arrival of a ship under the command of Shelikov’s employee Gerrasim 

Grigoriev Izmailov that marked the beginnings of regular and direct contact with the 

non-Native world. Prior to his arrival at Yakutat, Izmailov had advanced Russian fur 

trading interests and expanded the reach of Russian geographical knowledge and 

power into the broader Alaskan coastline. (While in Unalaska, he crossed paths with 

James Cook, the two navigators engaging in a congenial exchange in which they 

swapped maps, letters of introduction, and other items of mutual interest.) In 1788, 

Izmailov, along with Russian Imperial Navy navigator, Dmitri Bocharov, embarked on 

a circuit of the Alaskan coastline aboard the Tri Sviatitelia (Three Saints), exploring the 

Gulf of Alaska region for new fur trading post sites, erecting crosses to claim the lands 

for Russia, and compiling information on the presence of sea otters for future 

commercial exploitation. Izmailov made landfall in Yakutat—the first Russian explorer 

to record detailed accounts of interaction with Yakutat Tlingit. While there, he traded 

for furs; he also presented Yakutat chiefs with a portrait of Czar Paul and buried copper 

plates to mark the Russian landfall. The people of Yakutat were already familiar with 

many of the trade goods aboard their ship, but this direct contact presented new 

opportunities and challenges—at once opening up new and direct access to the goods of 

Russia while also initiating what became a rising tide of Russian influence within their 

homeland.

News of the Russians’ movement into North America was particularly alarming to the 

Spanish Empire, which then claimed the whole western coast of North America. Spain’s 

growing awareness of their strategic vulnerabilities on the North Pacific prompted the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 103

construction of a large and centralized naval station at San Blas, a short distance from 

Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, in 1768. Through events more than 3,000 miles from Yakutat, 

the naval station had tremendous implications for Alaska Native residents and the 

larger history of the Northwest Coast. From the San Blas station, the Spanish launched a 

series of expeditions along the Northwest Coast, asserting their national claims and 

interests in unprecedented ways. In 1774, explorer Juan Perez sailed northward on the 

Santiago, making the first of what would be many Spanish expeditions to the region.87 A 

year after Perez’s voyage, the San Blas station outfitted the Santiago for a second 

Northwest coast expedition under the command of Spanish Basque explorer Bruno de 

Heceta—beginning a series of ocean voyages under different Spanish captains that 

sometimes ventured as far north as the Alaska coast. 

Simultaneously, all of the activity in the North Pacific by the Russians and Spanish 

drew the attention of the powerful seafaring nations of Europe, France and England in 

particular. Though they lacked seaside colonial footholds on the Pacific comparable to 

those of Russia and Spain, both were growing and relatively nimble empires, eager to 

establish their own presence upon the vast and largely uncharted Pacific region. 

Ambitiously expansionist, England found itself more ready than ever to enter the 

scramble for territorial claims and fur trade wealth on the North Pacific. With 

significant involvement of Captain James Cook, the British Navy made great 

technological strides that allowed them to sail over vast oceanic distances, including a 

new understanding of scurvy’s causes and prevention and instruments such as the 

chronometer, a precise clock that allowed mariners to establish their longitude with 

pinpoint accuracy. With these and other tools at their disposal, a cartographic 

revolution took place concurrent with British exploration of the globe, producing maps 

of unprecedented precision that supported British claims of discovery and future 

navigation efforts. This revolution was advanced in many respects by Cook and 

significantly honed by his former midshipman, Captain George Vancouver, who later 

commanded some of the most historically significant early mapping expeditions on the 

Northwest Coast.

Armed with these technological advances, the British crown eagerly recruited and 

outfitted Cook, already a celebrated veteran of two prior global journeys of exploration, 

to spearhead exploration into the Pacific. The Northwest coast of North America was 

one of several places around the Pacific to be visited in the course of this journey, which 

would also serve to support British claims to Australia and New Zealand. Arriving on 

the western coast of North America in 1778, Cook operated under formal instructions to 

use the maps of Drake, the Spanish, and others to determine whether a fabled 

Northwest Passage might exist, thus providing a sea route between the European 

nations of the Atlantic and the Asian nations of the Pacific. This aspect of the mission 

was arguably secondary, however. Through Cook’s third voyage, the British hoped to 

usurp thin Spanish (and perhaps Russian) claims to the Northwest coast and, through 

the process of discovery, stake claims for a British foothold in the newly contested land. 
104 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Cook made landfall on Nootka Sound, on the west coast of what is today Vancouver 

Island. There, Cook and his crew found the Mowachat Nuu-chah-nulth (or Nootka) 

living at the village of Yuquot to be eager traders in furs, especially those of the sea 

otter. Satisfied with his experiences with Yuquot’s inhabitants, Cook referred to the 

village as “Friendly Cove” in his journals, while designating Nootka Sound “King 

George’s Sound.” His writings so fixed this place in the minds of Europeans that 

Nootka Sound became a key geographical locus of European maritime exploration and 

fur trade. Beyond Nootka, Cook and his crew ventured past Yakutat Bay. On May 4, 

1778, Cook observed Mount St. Elias and noted the large bay below as being “Bering 

Bay,” where he believed Vitus Bering had landed some 37 years earlier. Venturing west 

and north, Cook and his crew entered the Bering Strait and encountered solid sea ice off 

of Alaska’s west coast. Seeing no evidence of a Northwest Passage, they turned south, 

ultimately landing in Hawaii. Here, in a conflict with Native Hawaiians on the western 

shores of the big island, Cook was killed. Resolving to return home through the Indian 

Ocean, his crew sailed on to China, where they found that the sea otter pelts from 

Nootka Sound commanded unimaginably high prices. 

When the ships returned to England, the journals from Cook’s third and final voyage 

were promptly published, spreading news of Cook’s demise and of peoples and lands 

around the Pacific, but also of the tremendous commercial opportunities of trade in sea 

otter furs. In the published edition of Cook’s journals, his second-in-command, James 

King, provided prospective traders with fine-grained details about Asian markets for 

sea otter pelts. So, too, preface author Dr. James Douglas made a clarion call to the 

British and other empires to use exploration, mapping, and the other tools of the age to 

build European commercial dominance on the North Pacific, based in no small part on 

the trade in furs: “Every nation that sends a ship to sea will partake of the benefit; but 

Great Britain herself, whose commerce is boundless, must take the lead in reaping the 

full advantage of her own discoveries” (in Cook and King 1784:xliv). By no later than 

1785, a steady procession of English ships was en route to the Northwest coast. There, 

the British maintained a lively trade with Native hunters encountered along the outer 

coast, providing these peoples with metal, tools, and other goods that would 

revolutionize those societies and rearrange traditional social relationships in myriad 

ways. 

The British were not alone in their response to the Cook journals. The French, too, 

reviewing accounts of Cook’s voyages, were eager to participate in the exploration and 

the assertion of territorial claims along the Northwest coast. King Louis XVI hastily 

commissioned a vast, if somewhat secretive, expedition to the North Pacific in 1785, 

under the command of Jean-François de Galaup, the Count of LaPérouse. LaPérouse 

traveled to Alaska, where he and his crew visited Yakutat Bay, where they took notes 

on the Native community there. Also recorded in The Journal of Jean-François de Galaup de 

la Pérouse, 1785–1788 are the crew’s first impressions of Mount St. Elias: 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 105

“We identified Bering’s Mount St Elias, its peak visible above the clouds 

... The sight of land, which ordinarily makes such a pleasing impression 

after a long navigation, did not have that effect on us. The eye rested 

painfully upon all this snow covering a sterile and treeless land ... a rocky 

plateau a hundred and fifty or two hundred toises in height, black as 

though burned by fire, lacking trees and greenery of any kind” (LaPérouse

in Dunmore 2006:204).

He and his crew then ventured to Lituya Bay in what is today Glacier Bay National 

Park, where they gathered extensive information on the coast from a temporary base 

constructed there. Upon crossing the mouth of that bay to return home and report their 

findings, the expedition lost two longboats and 21 members of their crew, with the 

survivors promptly retreating to Spanish territories in California. Though LaPérouse 

gave the French king some basis for territorial claims on the North Pacific, the French 

Revolution brought an effective end to these explorations, turning national attention 

inward and scuttling the grand vision of the French royalty for a fur trade empire on 

the Pacific (Inglis 1997).

The accelerating geopolitical conflict on the north Pacific was soon felt in the lands of 

the Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak, who witnessed a succession of ships arriving under a 

variety of flags. In May of 1787, the British ship Queen Charlotte, arrived at Point 

Mulgrave on Yakutat Bay, anchoring immediately opposite the village at Yakutat—the 

first unambiguously documented European landfall at this place. The ship sailed under 

the command of George Dixon, a Cook protégé who had sailed aboard the Resolution on 

Cook’s third voyage. Staying at Port Mulgrave for two weeks, his crew traded with the 

residents of Yakutat, finding them already familiar with, and in possession of, European 

manufactured goods including Russian beads. The people of Yakutat were well familiar 

with trade and exchanged pelts of sea otter, marmot, and beaver until they had nearly 

exhausted their stores. Dixon circumnavigated the interior of Yakutat Bay, finding it 

“thinly peopled,” especially on its icy and rugged northwest shore (Bancroft 1886). His 

crew observed “several huts scattered here and there in various parts of the sound,” 

though most (perhaps all) of these seem to have been on the southern shore. 

Descriptions of the Wrangell-St. Elias side are at best ambiguous. The crew admired 

“the construction of their canoes, which were altogether of wood, neatly finished, and 

in shape not very much unlike our whale-boats,” and the crew obtained at least one for 

curation in England (William Beresford in Dixon 1789:167-69). Other British ships 

would arrive the following the year—the Iphagenia under Captain William Douglas and 

the Prince of Wales under Captain James Colnett both visited Yakutat Bay in 1788 as part 

of vast trading circuits that included Hawaii and the west coast of Vancouver Island. 

Both traded with, and reported on, the resident people of Yakutat Bay. 
106 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Growing ever more concerned about Russian, British, French and American 

exploration, the Spanish sent a series of expeditions to further document and assert 

claims to the North Pacific coast under some of the most skilled commanders in the 

Spanish Navy: Ignacio de Arteaga and Bodega y Quadra (1779, 1785), Esteban Jose 

Martinez and Gonzalo Lopez de Haro (1788), Salvador Fidalgo and Manuel Quimper 

(1790), Francisco de Eliza and Alejandro Malaspina (1791), and Dionisio Galiano and 

Cayetano Valde y Flores (1792), among others. Boldly, during several of these voyages, 

the Spanish repeatedly ventured into Russian-occupied Alaska, seeking to reassert 

claims to the region and undermine Russian fur trade monopolies by instigating their 

own trade with Native peoples. Beginning in 1790, the Spanish also attempted to build 

a permanent base on Nootka Sound as a base of operations on the Northwest coast, 

supplied and supported as a distant outpost of the San Blas naval station in Mexico. 

There, they sought to portray themselves to the rising tide of visiting ships—British, 

Russian, and even Swedish and Portuguese—as the rightful colonial authorities in the 

Northwest. Moreover, the Spanish brought their own naturalists to begin documenting 

flora, fauna and Native peoples (Moziño 1991; Pethick 1980). Many of these Spanish 

voyages were modeled somewhat on the Cook voyages in scale and scientific scope. In 

this respect, the voyages of Malaspina stood apart, taking him around the Pacific, 

accompanied by his second in command, José de Bustamante y Guerra, the two 

captains sailing aboard the Descubierta and Atrevida respectively. By June of 1791, the 

two ships had arrived on Yakutat Bay. Assuming, as Cook had, that this was the 

landing place reported by Bering, Malaspina recorded the name of the place as “Bering 

Bay.” Staying there for a month, Malaspina and his crew recorded considerable detail 

on the lives of the Yakutat Tlingit. Tomás de Suría was assigned by the viceroy to 

accompany Malaspina on his voyage to the Northwest Coast as a painter. He 

maintained his own journal during the journey and made these observations regarding 

their arrival in Puerto de Mulgrave, known today as Yakutat Bay: 

“The 27th dawned cloudy and rainy. At 7 in the morning we found 

ourselves at the mouth of the bay of the Puerto de Mulgrave [Yakutat 

Bay]. This port had a very wide entrance. On the port side the coast 

continues with a range of mountains, very steep and rough, and black 

from the foot halfway up. This with the contrast of the snow and the 

summits and some gorges above make a beautiful sight, although wild 

and uncommon...

“In a little while we saw coming towards us at great speed two 

canoes of Indians which shortly arrived alongside. The first view, when 

they were near, was one of great astonishment, both for the Indians and 

for us; for the Indians did not cease looking at the ships, although they 

advised us and we soon verified it, that these were not the first that they 

had seen...” (Wagner 1936:247).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 107

Alongside the other voyagers’ accounts mentioned here, Malaspina’s journals continue 

to be among the more useful sources of historical documentation from this phase of 

colonial exploration and can be used to augment what is known from Yakutat oral 

tradition regarding the period.88 Ironically, Malaspina fell into disfavor with senior 

Spanish officials and was imprisoned upon his return to Spain, leaving most of his 

accounts of Yakutat unknown to the seafaring world until more than a half century 

later, in 1849, when his diaries were finally published. (It would only be in the 1870s, as 

a commemorative act by prominent naturalist William Healey Dall, that Malaspina’s 

name was given to a vast glacier descending to the Gulf of Alaska—Malaspina Glacier, 

now within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park.)89

Not surprisingly, there are a variety of Yakutat Tlingit oral traditions relating to this 

fleeting and tentative period of European contact (de Laguna 1972; Emmons 1911). One 

widely-known account mentions a shipwreck near Malaspina Glacier, often presumed 

by Yakutat residents to be Russian, which left a single survivor who married into the 

community. The story centers on a Kaagwaantaan hunting party traveling the coast 

below the glacier. As Ted Valle recalls,

“our people...they naturally we’re exploring the cove right? And we send 

a couple men down...and they found a shipwreck: sailboat, two boats. 

And they went down to look there was a woman aboard: a red-headed 

woman, white woman, first white person they’d ever seen. And using 

sign language, she finally conveyed to our two men that there’s two men 

up there but they went up on the glacier. So they went to follow them and 

they found where they had fallen in a vast crevasse [in the glacier]. So 

they went back and convinced her to go with them and they showed her 

where they had fallen. So she agreed that she would go back to the village 

with them... And before they went, she wanted to take [things from the 

ship]. She gave them rifles. They didn’t know what they were. And gave 

them black powder which they thought was tea. So they brewed some 

up!...[makes a disgusted face] And another item that she gave them was 

rice. And they didn’t want to eat that because it looked like maggots. 

Anyway, after they got back to the village, they start taking these rifles 

apart because the stocks are nice and hard wood you know, they didn’t 

have hard wood to make things out of. And they start putting the barrels 

into the fire, heat, making spirit points and arrowheads and knives. And 

she all the sudden said, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing?’ So she showed 

them how to fire a rifle, and that was the first time they’d gotten rifles. So 

that is the beginning of how we got [those things]... This was even before 

Russian encounter [or occupation]. And she lived with one of those, she 

married one of those young men that found her, but she never ever had 

any children. She lived into her nineties and died” (TV).90
108 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Exploration of this coast would soon shape Native lives in other, more profound ways. 

On the eve of Russian occupation, a growing number of ships were finding their way to 

the shores of Yakutat, and the waters of Yakutat Bay. Shipborne colonial efforts to 

document of this coast reach their zenith in some respects with the arrival of George 

Vancouver’s expedition in 1794. The most detailed mapping that had yet been 

attempted on the Northwest Coast, Vancouver’s expedition sought to transform what 

were to the European mind “unknown lands” into lands that were inventoried, known, 

renamed and prepared for reoccupation. Dispatching a crew aboard the Chatham, 

Vancouver’s surveyors sailed into Yakutat Bay under the command of Lieutenant Peter 

Puget (for whom Puget Sound is named), mapping and even naming features of the 

landscape. In the course of this journey, Vancouver’s crew assigned new names to such 

features as Point Manby, named for Thomas Manby, a member of their crew, who later 

achieved fame as a British officer in the Napoleonic wars. This, plus repeat Russian 

incursions, would finally and fully bring the Yakutat area to the attention of the colonial 

world and foster its gradual integration into that world, bringing a crescendo of 

changes to Yakutat Tlingit and the landscapes of their homeland.

This moment was pivotal in other respects. The Russians had begun moving more 

aggressively into the waters off Yakutat, hunting otters without meaningfully engaging 

the Yakutat Tlingit—the first step in the gradual erosion of Yakutat sovereignty over 

their lands and resources in the Wrangell-St. Elias region. On board the Chatham, 

Vancouver’s crew was able to witness the Russian American Company expedition, led 

by Captains Purtov and Kulikalov, making their first significant venture into Yakutat 

territory. According to Puget, the Yakutat leader present at these meetings 

“exerted his utmost eloquence to point out the extent of their territories, 

and the injustice of the Russians in killing and taking away their sea 

otters, without making them the smallest recompence” (Vancouver 1984: 

234). 

An exchange of a sea otter pelt at the end of this meeting, followed by cheers and 

singing on all sides, was perhaps understood by the Yakutat Tlingit as formal 

acknowledgement by the Russians that they had been educated in Tlingit ownership 

protocols and had accepted its terms. It appears almost certain that the Russians saw 

the exchange in quite a different light (de Laguna 1972:156).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 109

THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF YAKUTAT

Between 1784 and 1786, G.I. Shelikhov had established the first permanent Russian 

settlement in Alaska on Kodiak Island, and from that foothold was preparing to 

advance Russian colonization of Alaska’s coastline. To support their growing company 

operations, Shelikhov was intent on establishing outposts of settlers and promyshlenniki

(hunters of fur-bearing animals) throughout southeast Alaska and beyond to capitalize 

on the burgeoning fur trade in the region (Grinev 1989:444). While Shelikhov died prior 

to the founding of the colony at Yakutat in 1795, it was due to his desire for a settlement 

located on mainland Alaska south of the Kenai Peninsula that the site was chosen for 

the future colony of “Slavorossiya” or “Novo Rossiysk” at the site of Yakutat (de Laguna 

1972:166).91

Shelikhov’s influence on the history of the Russian settlement at Yakutat extended well 

past his death, as it was Shelikhov’s decision to appoint Alexander Andreyevich 

Baranov as the manager of the Alaskan posts of his company, the Shelikhov-Golikov 

Company (de Laguna 1972:158).92 Ultimately, it was Baranov who selected Yakutat as 

the location for the colony of Novo Rossiysk (alternatively spelled Novorossiisk). Baranov 

chose Yakutat, in accordance with Shelikhov’s wishes, because it would serve as a 

strategic location from which to outcompete the rival Lebedev Company. Choosing 

Yakutat was also a political move, as British traders had already begun to infiltrate that 

area (Grinev 2013:450-451). 

With the site chosen, the plan for the future colony of Novo Rossiysk moved forward. 

Baranov led an expedition to Yakutat in the summer of 1795 to further investigate the 

area. He planned to bring twenty promyshlenniki with him aboard the Ol’ga and meet a 

second ship at Yakutat, the Tri Ierarkha, which carried the future leader of the colony, 

Polomoshnoi, as well as a group of settlers (posel’shchiki).93 Baranov’s ship arrived as 

planned on August eighth. To his surprise, the Tre Ierarkha had not arrived. This 

second ship had, in fact, stopped en route and returned to Kodiak, when Polomoshnoi 

and the ship’s navigator, G.L. Pribylov, heard rumors of aggressively hostile local 

Indians, Yakutat Tlingit. Polomoshnoi and Pribylov decided not to travel to Yakutat, 

but to remain in Kodiak for the remainder of the winter. It is worth mention here that 

the winter Polomoshnoi spent in Kodiak was plagued with feuds between him and 

those settlers originally bound for Yakutat. The conflicts at Kodiak were a harbinger of

later issues to arise at the future colony of Novo Rossiysk (Grinev 2013:452).

Despite the Tri Ierarkha never arriving at Yakutat as planned, Baranov followed detailed 

instructions left by the late Shelikhov regarding a ceremonial procession on the lands of 

what was to be Novo Rossiysk.94 The fort established, non-Native people had 

unprecedented access to the Yakutat region and to the lands now within Wrangell-St. 

Elias National Park and Preserve. As Bleakley notes,
110 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“The Shelikhov Company... wanted the area explored. After establishing 

a post at Yakutat Bay in 1796, it dispatched Dmitri Tarkhanov to locate 

long-rumored copper deposits on the upper Copper River. While 

Tarkhanov examined the coast between Yakutat and the Copper Delta and 

may have ascended the lower river, the full extent of his journey remains 

unclear” (Bleakley 2002:2).

In an interview, the late Olaf Abraham, a Tlingit elder born in Yakutat in the late 

nineteenth century, corroborates the story that Russian presence in the area was initially 

accepted by the Yakutat Tlingit. According to Abraham, 

“One day they saw a ship, the Tlingit name for the ship was “Un” ([Aan], 

Land) travelling of the sea. They watched as they came ashore. They 

welcomed these first white people that came. Later they gave them land 

to fish on, they also were good to the people” (1973:6-7).

Indeed, Yakutat oral traditions suggest that one of the clan leaders offered the Russians 

the use of a small piece of land for the construction of a temporary fort—something the 

Russians seemingly interpreted more broadly as an invitation to move freely and 

occupy lands widely within Yakutat Bay and beyond (de Laguna 1972:164, 259).

After the initial expedition to Yakutat was complete, Baranov returned to 

Kodiak, displeased that Polomoshnyi and the majority of the settlers had not 

made the trek, but ready to move forward with the creation of the colony. The 

following spring, 1796, a fort was constructed at Yakutat, and the settlement of 

Novo Rossiysk was officially established (de Laguna 1972:167; Grinev 2013:453). 

The fort became a significant hub of fur trading along the southcentral Alaskan 

coast, while also supporting company efforts in other ways; fort employees even 

had shipbuilding facilities for a time, constructing the Yermak and the Rostislaf, at 

the Yakutat fort (Andrews 1916). Ted Valle, a Yakutat Tlingit elder, describes the 

arrival of the Russians and the formation of a tenuous relationship with the 

newcomers: 

“Along came the first group of Russians. And they wanted a piece of land 

to settle on. And our people thought about it. ‘We’re not going to sell you 

land. We’re not going to give you land. We’re going to make you use it, 

but you’ve got to give us something in return...’ [The Tlingit and the 

Russians settled on an exchange of goods]: ‘We’ll give you knives, pots...’ 

Never did get it. But they built a fort there and it was a two-walled fort: 

hard to get into... [That] was probably their first mistake, building that 

fort and not allowing Native people to go in there” (TV).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 111

The successful creation of the new colony was soon put to the test. On September 2, 

1796, just months into the construction of the colony, Baranov departed for Kodiak, 

leaving 21 settlers and their families in Yakutat for the winter. The winter of 1796-1797 

proved to be particularly harsh for the new settlers in Russian America. For one, the 

hunters (under Stepan Larionov) and the settlers (under Polomoshnoi) were feuding 

with one another, and the settlers revolted against Polomoshnoi. As mentioned 

previously, Polomoshnoi first encountered opposition from his settlers in Kodiak, and 

tensions only increased that winter at the new colony, as Polomoshnoi proved himself 

to be both deceitful and, at times, brutal (de Laguna 1972:167; Grinev 1989:456-457). In 

addition to Polomoshnoi’s abysmal leadership, the housing as well as the provisions 

proved too scarce to accommodate the residents of the colony through the bitter season 

(de Laguna 1972:168). Ultimately, thirty members of the colony died of scurvy in that 

winter alone, thirteen of which were hunters, seven were settlers, and 10 of the victims 

were women and children (de Laguna 1972:168).

In the summer of 1797, in an attempt to strengthen Novo Rossiysk, Baranov ordered forty 

Koniag (friendly Alutiiqs from Kodiak Island) to Yakutat upon their return from a 

hunting expedition in the straits of the Alexander Archipelago (Grinev 2013:455). 

Baranov himself was delayed in visiting the colony until the summer of 1799, when he 

stopped in Yakutat while en route to Sitka to establish a new settlement. In his absence, 

the fledgling colony was failing under the direction of Polomoshnoi, who was proving 

abhorrent to the Russian settlers and the local indigenous population. There was an 

increasing concern by the Yakutat Tlingit regarding the treatment of their women and 

children by the Russians at the fort.95 Valle makes these assertions: 

“Well, then they started beating our women. They start taking our women 

and when they’re through, they throw them back out. And then they 

started taking our children. And they said, ‘We’re going to take your 

children to Russia and get them educated, then they can come back.’ So 

they kept taking our children and none of them was coming back” (TV).

Another Yakutat Tlingit interviewee, Lena Farkus, also describes the disappearance of 

Tlingit women and children in close association with the Russians: “They started taking 

the women and kids and they’d take them over there so they could clean fish and do 

things and they’d never see them again” (LF).

Upon his arrival at Novo Rossiysk in June, Baranov quickly realized just how tenuous the 

leadership at the colony had become and was forced to replace the Polomoshnoi with a 

Kursk merchant named Nikolai Mukhin (Grinev 2013:457). After replacing 

Polomoshnoi, Baranov left Yakutat for Sitka, hoping in vain that the situation at Novo 

Rossiysk would improve. This was not the case. Though the much-hated Polomoshnoi 

was relieved of his duties in 1799, the damage done by his leadership of the colony had 
112 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

a lasting effect on the relations between the Russians and the local Tlingit. According to 

de Laguna, “Polomoshnoi, was...in charge of the whole establishment, and also 

aroused such hatred among the natives that, even after his removal in 1799, good 

feeling was never restored” (1972:168). 

Olaf Abraham, the Yakutat elder, relates a story about how the relationship between the 

Russians and the Tlingit disintegrated in less than half a decade. According to 

Abraham,

“Then gradually as they stayed longer they began to change. One day as 

the [Tlingit] families moved to their dry fish camps they had to go 

through the Russian camp. They were stopped without explanation. 

From three years on up their children were taken from them and sent to 

Kodiak. The young men and their wives were taken to work at the 

Russian fort. With sad hearts the men came to their fish camps without 

the help of his family. Things were very difficult for them. Tlingit People 

did not understand why they (the Russians) did this because they had 

tried to be kind. One day they blocked the route at Ankau River, the 

passage to their fish camp. They placed a huge door there and they 

cleared land and packed their belongings over land to get to their fish 

camp. The Tlingit were beginning to be very angry about all this. Because 

of the way the Russians were threatening them” (Abraham 1973:7).

Tlingit elder Ted Valle adds to this story, telling how Tanuk the Tlingit leader began to 

formulate a plan that to overtake the Russian fort. According to Valle,

“They were abusing our women, they were taking our children and the 

other thing they did that really hurt our people is that they pulled a dam 

across [the Ankau River] and wouldn’t let the fish go up... This is when 

our leader named Tanuk stated, ‘We gotta do something about these 

people.’ He said, ‘They’re abusing our women. They’re taking our 

children. They’re not coming back. They’re trying to stop the fish from 

coming up to our smoke houses.’ He said, ‘We gotta do something.’ That’s 

when they started planning the battle” (TV).

The relationship between the Russians and the Tlingit of Yakutat only deteriorated 

further, and the settlers became increasingly discontented about the situation at Novo 

Rossiysk.96 The agricultural capacity of Yakutat was so minimal that all agricultural food 

items needed to be shipped to the colony from Kodiak. Additionally, because 

agricultural subsistence was not feasible at Yakutat, the company had to leave a 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 113

significant contingent of Native hunters at the colony for the winter, in order to prepare 

the fish that the settlers had come to rely on for food. 

The dependency upon Kodiak for food and supplies also opened up opportunities for 

communication between the Yakutat Tlingit and the Kodiak hunters stationed at Novo 

Rossiysk for the winter. Increasing distrust among the Tlingit deepened with the 

information that Tlingit children taken by the Russians under the premise and promise 

of an education in Russia and ultimate return to Yakutat, was in fact, false. The children 

were being exported to Kodiak to work as laborers for the Russians. Ted Valle explains 

further: 

“Then came the second group of Russians [led by Baranov]. By this time 

the Russians had pretty much depleted sea otters on the Aleutians in 

Kodiak. So they brought down the Kodiak, they called themselves Yupik, 

came down with the Russians to Yakutat. And the Russian fort was 

already there. They had a Yupik man ask our men, he said, ‘Do you know 

where are your children, what’s happened to your children?’ They said, 

‘The Russians are taking them to Russia to educate them. Then they’ll 

come back.’ And this Yupik man said, ‘No, they’re using them for slaves 

in Kodiak’” (TV).

This information only served to fuel the angry rumblings that continued to grow among 

the Yakutat Tlingit.97

Elsewhere in southeastern Alaska, Baranov was making moves to reinforce Russian 

presence and stability in the region. In May of 1803, the governor of Russian America 

ordered the naval vessel Sv. Aleksandr Nevskii to Yakutat and soon followed it there 

aboard the Ol’ga. His intent was to build Russian forces at the Yakutat colony for an 

expedition to the straits of the Alexander Archipelago to confront the defiant Tlingit

population. Having landed in Yakutat, Baranov requested that Kuskov, newly back 

from a hunting expedition, join his party. After discussing the prospect, it was decided 

that Baranov did not have enough military strength to engage with the Tlingit and so 

the expedition was halted. However, Baranov requested that Kuskov stay and oversee 

the colony and also reinforced the colony by fortifying the garrison at the fort and 

settlement. Additionally, settlers at Yakutat began the building of two new ships, 

Ermak and the Rotislav, with the intent to finish them the following spring to further 

strengthen the colony. While Kuskov literally held down the fort at Yakutat, Baranov 

sailed on to Kodiak (Grinev 1989:459).

In the spring of the following year, 1804, Baranov returned to Yakutat aboard the Ol’ga. 

Upon arriving, the Ol’ga was salvaged for parts for the two new ships at Yakutat, Ermak 
114 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

and Rotislav. With these ships now complete, Ermak was to become the primary vessel 

for Baranov’s campaign against the hostile Tlingits (Grinev 1989:459).98 

The period of Russian fortune proved to be short lived, however, as the summer of 1805 

brought disaster to Novo Rossiysk. In August, the local Tlingit launched a successful 

attack on the colony, completely destroying both the fort and the settlement. Guided by 

Takuk, a leader in the Tekweidi clan, the Tlingit watched and waited for an opportunity 

to overthrow the Russian forces at Novo Rossiysk. When Baranov left Yakutat for Beaver 

Bay, it was for the last time. According to Farkus: 

“[Tanuk] just got tired of the Russians taking some of the ladies with their 

children over there to work for them. And so him and another man went 

over there. The Russian ship had gone back to Kodiak so there was just a 

few men there watching the fort” (LF).

Seeing that the fort was now vulnerable, the Yakutat Tlingit began formulating a plan to 

overtake the Russians remaining within. Ted Valle abbreviates the sequence of events 

on that fateful day: 

“And there was a little boy... This little boy said, ‘I can get into the fort.’ 

‘Oh, how can you? You’re just a kid.’ He said, ‘Well I’m friends with gate 

keeper. And I know he likes berries.’ And I figure this took place during 

the summer because he said, ‘I’m going to go pick some salmon berries, 

take them to him and he’ll let me in.’ So the kid went and picked salmon 

berries. Knocked on the gate and the gate keeper figured it was just a kid 

right? Let him in. And the kid told him, he says, ‘Why don’t you sit down 

and eat these berries that I picked for you. And while you’re eating 

berries, I’ll chop wood for you?’ ‘Ok,’ so the guy sat down, started eating 

the berries. He picked up the ax and chopped his head off and opened the 

gates and in went the warriors. Killed them all off. ... That’s the short 

version” (TV).

Lena Farkus concludes the story:

“They went in and just killed the other—there was just a few men—this is 

what I was told—and burned the fort down. Well one Russian got away. 

He hid. And so when the Russian ship came, he ran down and told them 

that the savages had burned down their fort. And so they left” (LF).99
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 115

As was true elsewhere in the Russian-occupied Tlingit lands, the scale and organization 

of Tlingit communities, and the formidable force of their reprisals, took the Russians off 

guard. Overextended on the fringes of their imperial claim, the Russians were in many 

respects unprepared for the scale of the Tlingit resistance and the outright “fear that the 

fierce, well-organized, and well-armed Tlingit warriors instilled in the Russians and 

their Native allies” (Kan 1999:48). Indeed, in this attack, as well as the attacks on 

Russian interests at nearby Dry Bay and at Sitka, there is evidence of Tlingit clans from 

multiple villages choreographing the details of the attack in ways that would have 

baffled and probably overwhelmed even a well-prepared Russian force much larger 

than what was then present in Yakutat.100 Reflecting continuing international tensions 

over claims to the Yakutat region, and wishing to save face, the official Russian reports 

conveyed seemingly erroneous claims that the Yakutat siege had only been successful 

due to American traders providing the Yakutat people with guns—a “foreign 

conspiracy” carried out by enterprising “Bostonians” with competing designs on 

Yakutat’s sea otter wealth (Kan 1999:67; Emmons 1991; Kushner 1975; de Laguna 1960). 

 

According to a document dated February 15, 1806, Shelikhov’s successor Nikolai 

Rezanov wrote,

“The ‘Juno’ brought us very bad news from Kadiak: At Three Saints Bay 

they heard from Pavloffsky harbor that the Kolosh had butchered all the 

Russians at Yakoutat, numbering some 40 persons, counting in women 

and children, and captured our fort, in which they found two 3-lb. brass 

guns, two iron 1-lb. guns and one 1⁄2 lb. iron gun, with a supply of 

ammunition and five pounds of powder, and that with those arms they 

were already threatening the Gulfs of Chugatz and Kenai [Prince William 

Sound and Cook Inlet]. As soon as Agent Banner [deputy commander at 

St. Paul Harbor, Kodiak] had received this news in a bidarka he 

immediately sent word to all the settlements on the island of Kadiak to be 

on their guard, but to Chugatz he sent a bidar with ten men. Banner did 

all he could, but what does such a reinforcement amount to, which may 

only increase the number of victims?” (Tikhmenev 1863 in de Laguna 

1972:174).101

Eventually, those Russians being held by Tlingit safely reached Fort Konstantinovskii 

(Grinev 2013:461). In addition to these thirteen individuals, between three and six 

Chugach had also escaped Novo Rossiysk during the Tlingit attack and reached Fort 

Konstantinovskii safely prior to the arrival of the ransomed Russians. Four more 

individuals from the Yakutat colony were later saved after Baranov secured the services 

of an American skipper, Oliver Kimball, who captured and exchanged an influential 

Tlingit chief for a female settler, a locksmith and a Koniag couple. In March of 1808, 

there was a failed expedition to secure the remaining Yakutat settlers being held by the 
116 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Tlingit; however, Baranov rescued several more settlers, according to a report sent to 

the emperor in November of 1809. Much information regarding the remaining Russian 

captives at Yakutat was lost, including Baranov’s archives from this time period. It is 

clear, however, that while some settlers were returned to Russian care, some remained 

with the Tlingit, either by choice or force (Grinev 2013:462).

In the years that followed, the Yakutat area became a backwater of the Russian colonial 

project—its settlements avoided relative to Tlingit communities of comparable size.102

Yet, the famously abundant furs of the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline brought a steady 

succession of ships in the decades following Russian expulsion, some seeking trade 

with Yakutat residents and many others—the Russians in particular—simply hunting 

these portions of Yakutat Tlingit territory without contact or compensation. This 

frequent presence of ships from outside the region with limited enduring Russian 

presence, had a range of effects, bringing a steady succession of trade goods but also 

allowing Yakutat residents to maintain many of their cultural practices with limited 

outside interference. 

If there was one especially negative consequence of their position, it was the 

introduction of new infectious diseases. Bouts with smallpox are suggested by various 

sources, arriving by shipborne trade or indirectly through trade networks by 1770, or 

perhaps even earlier. A succession of epidemic diseases followed, reflecting the rising 

traffic in fur trade traffic along the coast. Still, the smallpox epidemic of 1835-40 was 

said to be distinctive for the northern Tlingit, significantly depopulating entire villages, 

bringing about the consolidation of communities at that time and resulting in the 

transition of many nearly permanent settlements into seasonal resource outposts 

(Emmons 1991:19; Boyd 1999; Fortuine 1989; Gibson 1982). Interviewees for this project 

recalled oral traditions of these epidemics, and especially of the smallpox epidemic of 

the mid-19th century having devastating effects in the Yakutat area. While details are 

thin, it appears that the scale of use and occupation along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast 

noticeably contracted at this time. 

The Yakutat expulsion of the Russians still stands out in the history of southeast Alaska, 

and is often mentioned alongside the battles of Sitka as definitive moments in TlingitRussian history (Dauenhauer et al. 2008; de Laguna 1972; Jones 1914:113). Clearly, the 

Russian settlement at Yakutat was anything but a success for the Shelikhov-Golikov 

Company. From the beginning, it lacked the necessary resources for the settlers of Novo 

Rossiysk to create a self-sufficient colony, much less flourish as a significant outpost in 

Russian America. In addition, the Yakutat Tlingit were never fully subdued by the 

Russian command, and relations between the Tlingit and the settlers only deteriorated, 

as Russian presence became more and more of a burden on the local people. These 

developments also significantly stalled Euro-American activities and expansion into the 

Wrangell-St. Elias region. As Bleakley noted, “[the exploration of] Alaska's eastern 

interior ended abruptly in 1805 when a Tlingit/Eyak coalition destroyed the Russian 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 117

colony at Yakutat” (Bleakley 2002:2). The non-Native presence in this area would 

remain tenuous at most for the remainder of the Russian period, and there is ample 

evidence that many places now within Wrangell-St. Elias remained largely unknown to 

the outside world until well into the American period.103 

If the Russians were close by, they nonetheless made some apparent effort to avoid 

economic or social entanglements with Yakutat. Many Russian institutions, while they 

certainly did affect life at Yakutat in many ways, did not flourish here as they did in 

other parts of Alaska. Even the Russian Orthodox Church had limited sway in the 

community, a fact reflected somewhat by the religious diversity of modern Yakutat 

families.104

In many respects, the decisive expulsion of the Russians had allowed Yakutat to stand 

alone, and for its social institutions to endure with only modest outside interference 

until the late 19th century. In many ways, the fundamental Tlingit and Eyak institutions 

had endured. 
118 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

THE AMERICAN REOCCUPATION

On March 30, 1867 President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty purchasing Alaska 

from Russia who sought to relinquish the territory as a military tactic, fearing that it 

might be seized if a war broke out with Britain. The United States considered the 

purchase of Alaska as a progression toward Manifest Destiny.105

This new territory was designated the “Department of Alaska” and assigned to the US 

Army on October 18, 1867 to “assert national sovereignty, assume civil powers and 

enforce laws” (Cloe 2003:1). Major General Jefferson C. Davis assumed command of the 

Department of Alaska beginning a decade of military control. At the time of acquisition 

there were 23 Russian trading posts strategically placed throughout the territory and 

along key oceanic routes to facilitate the storage and transfer of furs. It was estimated 

that 10,000 people, both Russian and Alaskan Native, were governed by these posts and 

that 50,000 Alaskan Natives lived remotely. Major General Davis’s orders were to 

provide “protection to American citizens, Russian subjects, and the aboriginal 

tribes...‘protecting them from abuse, and regulating their trade and intercourse with 

our own people’” (Arnold 1978).

The sale of Alaska by the Russians to the United States was met with objection from the 

Tlingit. The Tlingit had allowed Russians to inhabit their homeland “for mutual 

benefit,” namely trade opportunities, in no way transferring ownership. The sale of 

Alaskan territory, the homeland of the Native Tlingit and Eyak, shook the native 

population to the core, rousing distrust and feelings of uncertainty and betrayal. 

Matters became worse as military personnel entered the territory and interactions 

became increasingly hostile. 

“Historians from H.H. Bancroft to Ernest Gruening agree that the Army's 

influence over the decade of its rule was not only demoralizing for the 

Tlingits, but that the Army was largely responsible for the incidents of 

violence which occurred” (Arnold 1978).

Army governance of the District of Alaska under Major General Davis was 

characterized by overall turmoil and strife between military personnel and the Native 

peoples, though much of the recorded conflict was in areas of Sitka and Kake without 

specific reference to the Yakutat region. The Department of Alaska was transferred to 

the US Department of the Treasury in 1877 and to the US Navy in 1879 and then 

reclaimed and renamed the “District of Alaska” by the federal government in 1884.106

It was the discovery of gold in Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada that 

instigated the first significant migration of non-Native people into the region during the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 119

American period. The gold rush flooded all areas of Alaska with fortune seekers 

including the Yakutat area. Gold was first discovered in southeast Alaska near Sitka in 

1873, sparking further exploration northward. In the early 1900s, around 250 miners 

were exploring for gold at Cape Yakataga. The potential for mining the black sand 

along the Yakutat region coastline was recognized during these exploratory journeys 

away from the primary gold fields. These darkly colored sands consisted of deposits of 

comparatively heavy minerals deposited on the glacial outwash plains of the Yakutat 

area.107

Between 1883 and 1886, gold miners mobilized on the prospective mining of the black 

sands of Khantaak Island and the ocean beach near Yakutat, representing the first 

significant non-Native presence in Yakutat since the expulsion of the Russians eight 

decades earlier (Krause 1956:65). The Yakutat community was exposed to a temporary 

rush of largely American men—mostly young and rootless—reminiscent of the Russian 

traders, but often more reckless and less dependent on, or concerned about, positive 

relationships with local Tlingit. The beginning of the American period, some 

interviewees suggest, gave a worrisome portent of things to come. Yet, the methods of 

gold extraction were laborious and profits were small, insuring that this gold rush was 

brief.108

Almost immediately after mining activity subsided, another wave of American settlers 

arrived—this time, with the expressed intention of reshaping Yakutat Tlingit culture, 

religion and society to an American model. This charge was led by the arrival of a 

mission led by the Swedish Evangelical Covenant Church—an institution arriving in 

1888 and continuing to actively reshape community life until roughly 1930. In zeal and 

influence, this effort eclipsed the effects of the Russians, whose interests in Yakutat 

were fleeting, and more commercial than religious. The mission was led by missionary 

Karl Johan Hendrickson who first arrived in Yakutat on July 4, 1888. On May 11, 1889, 

Reverend Albin Johnson arrived and the Mission Covenant of Sweden transferred the 

mission in Yakutat into the care and maintenance of the Swedish Mission Covenant of 

America. Ironically, it was this move that finally prompted the Russian Orthodox 

Church to establish a chapel in Yakutat. Associations with the two churches were, in 

some cases, about religious devotion. Yet for many families and individuals, the 

association was loose and symbolic. As Sergei Kan notes, “According to Fr. 

Kashevaroff, who visited Yakutat in 1906, a number of local people still considered 

themselves Orthodox, but had a very vague idea of what that meant” (Kan 1999:347). 

The Swedish Mission, in particular, brought a multitude of changes to the Tlingit 

families living in Yakutat—effects that were amplified by the parallel and sometimes 

competing mission activities of the Orthodox chapel. The Swedish Mission Covenant 

constructed the Yakutat Mission, consisting originally of a primary facility at the “Old 

Village,” and later added an auxiliary site in Dry Bay. The Mission also developed the 

Yakutat Children’s Home and a sawmill that proved instrumental in the impending 
120 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

arrival of the railroad, construction of docks and cannery (Mills and Firman 1986:40). (In 

1930, the mission also provided the means to acquire a 50-horse power diesel engine, 

bringing electricity to the community.) 

Figure 6 – Students at the Swedish Covenant Mission, early 20th century. The mission required 

the abandonment of Yakutat Tlingit language, dress, and custom in favor of the Euro-American 

conventions of the day. The mission also pressured residents of outlying communities, 

including settlements in Wrangell-St. Elias, to relocate to Yakutat through the late 19th and 

early 20th centuries. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.

The mission became the nucleus of village life. Now referred to as the “Old Village,”

many Yakutat Tlingit chose to live in a community adjacent to the mission as a 

permanent, year-round settlement altogether different from their traditional seasonal 

communities of the area. Several interviewees noted that the missionaries were 

significantly involved with the depopulation of outlying villages in the 

Kwáashk’ikwáan territories and beyond, as they sought to concentrate the five clans 

into this single community. People continued to live in villages along the northwest 

shore of Yakutat Bay, but “the missionaries arrived from the south and told people they 

needed to move across the water to Yakutat” (LF). Some suggest that these 

developments marked the end of significant settlements along the north shore, other 

than seasonal resource encampments. Former village sites became encampments and 

stopover points within a much changed seasonal round.109 Moreover, as noted in a 

community history compiled by the City and Borough of Yakutat,

“Besides attracting Yakutat area residents to the present ‘Old Village’ site, 

the mission exercised a strong influence over the lives of people in the 

community. This influence extended as far as banning fishing on Sundays, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 121

encouraging households to follow the western style nuclear family, and 

discouraging the use of the traditional Tlingit language” (CBY 2010: 19).

However, the Swedish Mission introduced more than industry and simple structures on 

the landscape. The Mission was instrumental in reshaping the sociopolitical structure 

and cultural practices of the Tlingit people. As part of the missionization process, 

children were forbidden from using their native language and were taught that 

traditional practices were inferior. As Lena Farkus explains,

“The kids used to be raised with their grandparents, who taught them 

how to live...that stopped....people started going to church and school, 

then there was the alcohol...it made people ashamed of themselves, of 

who they were” (LF). 

Tlingit families were encouraged to discard restrictions of marriage based on moiety 

and to set up nuclear households, breaking up the Native community, the traditional 

household structure, and many of the underpinnings of traditional leadership.110 

Through this process, missionization by the Swedish Mission in particular brought a 

sudden and unprecedented surge of “directed acculturation.” New pressures were 

directed at the transformation of Tlingit sociopolitical structure and traditional cultural

practices, bringing about religious conversions, increasing fragmentation of the 

community into nuclear family households, and the undermining of traditional forms 

of leadership, belief and religious expression. Many traditional practices effectively 

went “underground” at this time. As interviewees often noted, the transmission of 

cultural knowledge increasingly took place “out on the land,” away from the scrutiny of 

the mission and non-Native residents of Yakutat, instead of in more conventional 

village venues. Traditional ceremonial and social practices, such as the immensely 

important potlatch ceremony, were increasingly depicted as “parties” (and are still 

called that today) to render them innocuous to missionaries. The Tlingit potlatch was 

banned as a matter of law in the first years of the 1900s; the last public potlatch was 

reported to have occurred in roughly 1904 in Sitka, and the ceremony was illegal by 

1909, the ban not being lifted until 1934. 

The Swedish Mission brought about an economic conversion of the community as well. 

Through what appear to have been personal connections between the mission and 

Seattle industrialists, the rich fish and timber resources of Yakutat began to draw the 

attention of outside economic interests in the decade following the mission’s founding. 

By 1900, plans were underway to construct fish canneries and salteries on the Yakutat 

waterfront.111 Though a number of small operations appeared in Yakutat at this time, it 

was the companies owned by the Stimson family of the Seattle area that most 

transformed the community. This included Fred Spenser Stimson, partial-owner of the 
122 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Stimson Mill Company in Ballard, Washington – supported by Charles Terry Scurry, a 

descendant of the Terry family, famous Seattle industrialists, and J.T. Robinson, a 

Seattle mill owner. The following year, with financial aid from a land grant in 

accordance with the 1899 Railroad Act, a ten mile stretch between Yakutat and the Situk 

River was completed as was the survey of a 60-acre cannery site at Monti Bay on what 

is today the Yakutat waterfront. In 1903, construction on the Yakutat & Southern 

Railroad commenced with financing made possible by the Yakutat & Southern Railroad 

Corporation which was founded by Stimson, Scurry, and Robinson. The railroad and 

sawmill were built first and used to haul timber to build the cannery, wharves and 

other structures including a general store. Once the cannery began operating, the 

sawmill turned to producing wooden crates for cannery products. Many Tlingit found 

work at these salteries and cannery—especially as fishermen rather than processors, 

though some men and women eventually worked as processors too. Some Yakutat 

Tlingit families came to rely on the railroad for transportation along its length too.

During these early years, commercial fishing was largely unregulated, and commercial 

fishermen and processors reaped great benefits, while a number of subsistence fishing 

rivers suffered. It would not be until 1924 with the passage of the White Act that Alaska 

was divided into fishery districts with specific fishing regulations (Ramos and Mason 

2004). The economic boom brought by the canneries and fish processing carried with it 

increased Yakutat Tlingit and Eyak concentration on the Yakutat waterfront, resulting 

in a significant depopulation of outlying villages, as well as scheduling conflicts with a 

growing number of traditional subsistence activities. According to Mills and Firman 

(1986):

“The late 1800s and early 1900s were considered prosperous times around 

Yakutat when commercial fishing began and salmon stocks were 

abundant. By the end of World War I salmon populations were very low 

and sea otter was nearly extinct. Most of the outlying people had 

congregated at present day Yakutat and the population reached its lowest 

recorded level, 165 people in the 1920 US Census” (Mills and Firman 

1986:27).

Likewise, as noted by the Yakutat Comprehensive Plan’s historical overview,

“By 1920, most families in the area had built permanent homes near the 

cannery. This area remains the center of activity in Yakutat today and is 

home to most of the community’s non-natives” (CBY 2010:20).

As part of these early cannery operations, Stimson developed the Yakutat & Southern 

Railroad constructed—one of Alaska’s first railroads. It was unique in that it was not 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 123

constructed in response to mining industry. Its main purpose was to transport salmon 

for three months in the summer during the commercial fishing season. The first survey

for the train was done in 1901 with plans to connect Monti Bay, the port at Yakutat and 

the Alsek River at Dry Bay. A second railway was constructed from the Akwe River to 

Dry Bay. This operation was less successful, but briefly brought the Dry Bay Tlingit 

community into the economic orbit of Yakutat in novel ways.112 As George Ramos Sr. 

recalls:

“I was born in Yakutat during the Depression and Yakutat was a small, 

sleepy little town at that time. But the cannery was going already in this 

area and the train was hauling fish, and they had two big boats that were 

hauling fish from the Dry Bay area” (GR).

Figure 7 – The waterfront of Yakutat, as it appeared in the early 20th century. Much of the 

shoreline was occupied by structures associated with the cannery and other Stimson 

operations. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.

In 1930, The New England Fish Company started business in Yakutat and became 

profitable selling salmon for 32 cents a pound. Unfortunately, selling prices plummeted 

drastically to 4.5 cents a pound for salmon only two years later in 1932 as the Great 

Depression wreaked havoc around the nation. According to Mills and Firman (1985):
124 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“Fishing was poor in the late 1930s and early 1940s. River courses were 

continually changing and this often affected the productivity of the 

salmon fishery” (Mills and Firman 1985:37).

The Civil Works Administration provided financial assistance to seasonal workers 

during the winter of 1932 and in 1933 as fisherman struggled to find fish to feed the 

processing plants. During this time, “relief work” kept Yakutat residents employed 

building streets and completing other city beautification projects. 

The changes the Yakutat & Southern Railroad and cannery brought to Yakutat were 

immediate and lasting. By the 1920s, many Tlingit families had relocated, at least 

temporarily, to reside near the cannery at Monti Bay as a source of income. Coupled 

with the effects of missionization, Yakutat became the sole nucleus for Yakutat Tlingit 

society. Yakutat was largely solidified as a city as the result of railroad operations that 

began in the early 1900s:

“Residential areas are concentrated near the head of Monti Bay, with other 

sites scattered along parts of the road system. Commercial and industrial 

activities are centered near the Monti Bay waterfront” (ADNR 1995:180).

Even before the cannery filed for bankruptcy in 1971, the railroad ceased operating. In 

its heyday, however, the little railroad and the system of fishing operations that it 

linked were transformative. Its reshaping of the geography of community life cannot be 

overstated, nor the way it spurred the economic growth and development of the town 

of Yakutat, Alaska.

Included in this transformation was also the railroad system to Cordova and copper 

mining areas on the Copper River, which brought economic and social effects that 

rippled out to Yakutat and beyond—affecting Yakutat Tlingit, Eyak families and others. 

Though the region of Copper River is largely peripheral to our study area, its impact on 

the Yakutat Tlingit of the wider area was significant. 

“The 1898 Gold Rush in the Yukon and discovery by 1900 of major copper 

deposits in Kennecott brought droves of prospectors and major 

expeditions to the region. By 1911, a railroad reached from Cordova to the 

mines of McCarthy, to be mined until the deposits disappeared in the 

1930’s. The copper deposits in this area were among the richest the world 

has ever seen...These rail tracks opened up the entire area to prospecting, 

homesteading and exploration. Over 725 mining claims or abandoned 

mining areas exist in Wrangell-St. Elias today. This also transformed the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 125

regional trading hub of Cordova, the terminus of the Copper River 

Railroad, into a destination of world renown” (NVE 2009:14).113

Yakutat Tlingit Responses and Early Revivals

Tlingit and Eyak responded to these growing outside pressures in myriad ways. 

Generally speaking, the Tlingit have long possessed an acute political awareness, rooted 

in and evolving from leadership traditions well established before European contact. 

The general response to European intrusion involved a series of adaptations that 

reflected an expanding Tlingit understanding of the new sociopolitical structures and 

economic forces introduced from without.

One response, at the start of the twentieth century, was the aligning of the Tlingit to 

form a revitalization movement. This movement, known as the Alaska Native 

Brotherhood (ANB), was formed on November 5, 1912 by eleven Alaskan Native men 

and one Alaskan Native woman.114 According to the ANB’s website, 

“The ANB focused its energies on promoting Native solidarity, achieving 

U.S. citizenship, abolishing racial prejudice, and securing economic 

equality through the recognition of Indian land title and mineral rights, as 

well as the preservation of salmon stocks” (ANBANSGC n.d.).

With the formation of the ANB, the founding members sought to strengthen the 

political power of the disparate Alaskan Native clans and tribes under a central 

authority. 

The organization of Tlingit into brotherhoods was partly in response to the Russian 

Orthodox missionaries’ attempts, in the 1890s and early 1900s, to convert Tlingit to 

Christianity. According to Kan (1985):

“Although the native leaders seemed to be interested in having their 

children learn the ways of the powerful newcomers (especially reading 

and writing), they were unwilling to abandon many of the fundamental 

indigenous beliefs and practices attacked by the American reformers...”

(Kan 1985:199).

The Tlingit generally, and Yakutat Tlingit specifically, embraced education as a means 

to orient them within the new sociopolitical order, but still maintained a resilient Tlingit 

identity. The formation of brotherhoods of Tlingit native leaders, often within the 
126 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

framework of the Russian Orthodox Church, became influential in the balance of 

political power and the resistance of acculturation (Kan 1999, 1988, 1985). As Sergei Kan 

explains: 

“Brotherhoods gave the Tlingit a much stronger voice in parish affairs, 

and paved the way for the native takeover, when the Russian-Creole 

population became assimilated into the American society and left the 

church. These organizations also helped strengthen social ties in native 

communities at a time of increased sociocultural change. Native 

brotherhoods and the Russian Church, as a whole, served as a powerful 

conservative force that slowed the pace of Tlingit Americanization. No 

wonder that many of the more traditionalist elders today are, or used to 

be, Orthodox. At the same time, brotherhoods were respectable religious 

organizations that enabled the Indians to improve their status in 

communities dominated by Euro-Americans, who perceived native 

sodalities as indicators of Tlingit ‘progress’” (Kan 1985:215).

The early ANB, in particular, had a complex relationship with Tlingit traditionalists and 

with traditional cultural practices. Seeking to modernize and to supplant many of the 

old ways, the ANB constitution specifically called for the suppression of certain 

traditions as part of a quest to help elevate Native societies to a level on par with the 

“civilized [i.e., White] race.” As pressures for change mounted over time, the values and 

perspectives of “traditionalists” and “progressives” sometimes diverged – a fact that 

has continue to shape tribal political and social realities into the present day. Yet, ANB 

halls often served as a venue for the sharing of cultural knowledge for which other 

venues were sometimes lacking. As Kan (1999:506) notes, “Sometimes a traditionalist 

would bring an at.óow [clan property, such as clan songs, crests or stories] of his 

matrilineal group out into an ANB meeting on purpose—he expected to be fined and 

thus to contribute toward the organization’s treasury.” 

In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed, essentially serving to “to set a 

standard for the federal government to recognize tribes in the Lower 48” (CCTHITA 

n.d.). After the ANB petitioned Congress to extend the act to Alaska, it was amended to 

incorporate the state in May of 1936 (49 Stat. 1250; Thornton 2002:181). One of the 

results of the IRA, which helped to lay the foundation for the Yak-Tat Kwaan that came 

decades later, was that

“Indian groups residing on the same reservation (in Alaska's case, in a 

‘well-defined neighborhood, community, or rural district,’ since 

reservations were largely absent) received the right to organize tribal 

governments to provide for their own welfare in which were vested 

specific sovereign rights and powers over tribal lands and other assets and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 127

to negotiate with federal, state, and local governments” (Thornton 2002: 

182).

The ANB was also petitioning Congress to recognize the Alaskan Natives of Southeast 

Alaska as a tribe so that they could move forward with a land claim against the US

government. In June of 1935, this was granted when Congress passed the Tlingit and 

Haida Jurisdictional Act, which recognized the Tlingit and the Haida people as a single 

tribe (ANBANSGC n.d.; CCTHITA n.d.). This same year, the Central Council of Tlingit 

and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA) was created under the supervision of 

the Department of the Interior in order to manage the lawsuit that the Tlingit and Haida 

planned to file to obtain compensation for the abolishment of their aboriginal land titles.

The CCTHITA was comprised of delegates from all of the principal IRA tribal territories 

(Thornton 2002:183).

The ANB has been an integral organization in negotiating land claims and fishing 

disputes. One of the most important legal authorities that ANB procured for Alaska 

Natives was the enactment of the federal Jurisdictional Act of June 15, 1935 (Worl 1990). 

This opened up the opportunity to bring suit for claims against the United States for the 

return of Native lands in the form of formal title. The ANB initiated an early claim filed 

against the United States that joined the Five Chiefs of Yakutat clans, the Stikine 

Hoonah chiefs and the Tlingit and Haida in one suit known as The Tlingit and Haida 

Indians of Alaska v. The United States.

Local chapters of the ANB have been active in these areas as well. The Yakutat Alaska 

Native Brotherhood actively disputed fishing traps on the Situk River. Ramos and 

Mason (2004) describe the concerns of this group:

“The Yakutat Alaska Native Brotherhood minutes show their concerns 

about fish traps, staking fishing locations on the Situk, the Situk weir, 

policies toward independent fishermen, the fishermen’s union, and 

interactions with non-resident fishermen” (Ramos and Mason 2004:52).

In the 1940s, the Colorado Oil Company sought to drill exploratory wells in the Icy Bay 

area. At this time, five area sibs formed what is known as the Five Chiefs of Yakutat, 

which then entered into a financial agreement with the oil company in exchange for 

allowing them use of the land (YTK 2013).

In 1959, Alaska became the forty-ninth state. At that point, the federal government 

retained control of about sixty percent of the new state’s land, while Alaska earned title 

to around thirty percent. With Alaska as a newly minted US state, the federal 

government saw an increasing need to settle outstanding Native land claims. When, in 
128 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

1968, oil was discovered on Alaska’s North Slope, this need to settle became 

increasingly imperative. That same year, the CCTHITA’s land claim suit was settled 

with the Alaskan Natives awarded $7,546,053.80 for their lands (Thornton 2002:183-

184). 

The ANB hall has increasingly served as “combined social and ceremonial space,” like

the longhouses of an earlier generation. Even today, the ANB hall of Yakutat is where 

potlatch “parties” and other key cultural events take place.

Figure 8 – The Mount St. Elias Dancers, as they appeared in the 1950s. Serving as an organized 

forum for the preservation, teaching, and sharing of traditional clan songs, regalia, and oral 

tradition, the group is widely credited with sparking the cultural revitalization of Yakutat Tlingit 

long before many other Alaska Native communities had embarked on such efforts. Photo 

courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr. 

Alongside the early Tlingit revivalist movements, the ANB halls sometimes became the 

venue of traditional dances meant to simultaneously honor people of community 

importance who had recently died, for example, and to display clan properties and 

prerogatives. As Kan notes,

“To insure that these performances were authentic, dance groups were 

formed in the 1950s and 1960s in Yakutat, Sitka, Juneau and several other 

communities.... Once the old at.óow and the songs and dances that went 

with them were brought back into the open (even if for fund raising or 

entertainment purposes), traditionalists became encouraged to be more 

open about potlatching and to increase the scale of the koo.éex’ [mortuary 

potlatch]” (Kan 1999:506).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 129

Among the earliest, and most widely celebrated of these, was the Mount St. Elias 

Dancers—named after the prominent landmark that was not only a navigational 

landmark, but a cultural cornerstone of the kwáan and its constituent clans. The group 

benefitted significantly from Yakutat’s relatively conservative Tlingit traditions, 

reflecting its distance from Russian influence, as well as from the knowledge of elders 

still living at its inception who could recall life before active missionization 

(Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 1997). According to Ted Valle, “They started in the early 

1950s, having the elders teach the young people their dances and songs...I think their 

first public performance was in 1955” (TV). Bert Adams Sr. goes on to say ““They 

brought our culture and history back to Yakutat...in the 1950s...they said ‘enough is 

enough’ of the government trying to take away our culture” (BA). 

In recent years, the Mount St. Elias Dancers have been highly visible and active, 

participating within the community but also in larger Tlingit venues. Their 

performances remain a highlight of Celebration, a biennial event in Juneau that brings 

together Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian communities for several days of cultural 

celebrations. Initiated by Sealaska Heritage in 1982, these events provide a powerful

demonstration of the persistence and growth of Native cultural identity into the present 

(Christianson 1992). 
130 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

WORLD WAR II AND THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN 

YAKUTAT

Prior to the official start of World War II, both American and Japanese forces recognized 

the potential significance that the North Pacific region could have in the war effort. The 

Aleutian Islands, in particular, were viewed as strategically important, because they 

could serve as staging areas along a naval invasion route from the United States into 

northern Japan or vice versa (Farley 1997:2-3). Appreciating the potential impact of a 

Japanese seizure of the Aleutian Islands, the US military responded by militarizing 

Yakutat, as well as a number of other coastal towns in Alaska, including Seward, 

Cordova and Gustavus (Bennett et al 1979:168). The construction of supporting military 

outposts, or staging fields at Metlakatla, Cordova and Yakutat, that would coordinate 

efforts with the Anchorage base were proposed in 1939 and already under construction 

in 1940.115

The first step in the militarization of Yakutat was the construction of the Yakutat Air 

Base, beginning on October 10, 1940 (Miller n.d.).116 The air component of the military 

defense program in Yakutat was crucial, because the United States had initiated a 

triangular air defense plan that included Alaska, Panama and Hawaii, should the 

Pacific theater be pulled into the war (CBY 2010:20).

Figure 9 – Military aircraft used the Yakutat Air Base as an important staging area and stopover 

point through World War II, radically transforming the community in ways that are still felt 

today – including the enduring presence of a major regional airport. Surplus military vehicles at 

the end of the War were used extensively in the harvest of resources at what is now WrangellSt. Elias and elsewhere in the Yakutat region. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams

Sr.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 131

Following the creation of the air base, the military completed a paved airfield four miles 

east of Yakutat and brought in approximately 10,000 troops to be housed at the new 

airfield in 1941 (Mills and Firman 1986:27). The Yakutat Army Airfield was activated 

on March 1, 1942 primarily as a landing field for transport aircraft between Washington 

State and Elmendorf. The first bomber landed at the airfield in May of that year, and the 

large aircraft hangar built during this time is still standing in its original location 

(Alaska Channel n.d.; Leonard’s Landing Lodge n.d.). During the course of the war, the 

air base housed the 406th Bombardment Squadron (28th BG), fighter squadrons, and a 

detachment of Navy bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. At the peak of the war, there 

were between 15,000 and 20,000 troops stationed in the area, while local men were 

recruited to serve in civilian support roles. The Yakutat Air Base also served as an 

important landing and refueling site for the Lend-Lease program, an initiative proposed 

by President Roosevelt on December 17, 1940, which allowed the United States to lend 

supplies to Great Britain and other allied forces without having to officially join the war 

(Miller n.d.; USDSOH n.d.).

The Yakutat Army Airfield formally closed in 1945 and fell under the delegation of the 

War Assets Administration in 1946. By 1949, the airport was declared surplus and sold 

into private ownership. During the years of operation, the airport provided 

employment opportunities for the local Yakutat community, so when it closed in 1945, 

many were left without income. According to de Laguna,

“perhaps the cruelest stroke of fate was the building of a large airfield 4 

miles east of Yakutat and the quartering of some thousands of soldiers in 

the vicinity during World War II. Although a number of Yakutat men 

served with distinction during the war, we need not be surprised at the 

demoralization which these changes brought. With the ending of wartime 

jobs, with the dwindling salmon runs which forced the closing of the 

cannery in which native women worked and for which the men fished, 

hard times returned again. Many young people now find that they must 

leave to seek a living elsewhere and old people live for their pension 

checks” (de Laguna 1972:18).

The immediate effect of the closure of the airbase was detrimental to the economic 

welfare of the Yakutat people. However, the infrastructure that was established—

airstrips and other facilities—now support the heavily utilized Yakutat Airport which 

has become a regional hub among Alaska flights. Likewise, it is a major source of 

revenue contributing to the seafood sales and marketing businesses of Yakutat 

(including that of Yak-Tat Kwaan), as well as the development of local tourism, rapid 

emergency response capabilities, and other services that support community life in 

contemporary Yakutat. 
132 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

In addition to the air base, the US military fortified Yakutat with naval and army 

facilities during the war. Cannon Beach, now a US Forest Service day-use area, is 

located six miles from Yakutat and is so named for the two cannons still visible today 

(USDA n.d.).117 The cannons were part of a larger complex of armament fortifications 

constructed on the bluffs along the seaside shoreline and facing the mouth of Yakutat 

Bay along the northwestern shoreline. The roughly 10,000 troops brought into Yakutat 

to defend the Alaskan coastline were primarily stationed on the edge of the peninsula, 

facing towards to bay.

Cannon Beach and the fortifications along the bluffs were connected to the main village 

and the airfield through a network of camouflaged roads that snaked for miles around 

the village (Mills and Firman 1986:143). Portions of the Lost River Road, which 

connects Yakutat to the Situk River fishing grounds, were part of this network of roads 

constructed during the war, as was the Ocean Cape or “Ankau” Road (CBY 2006:157-

158). There was also a bridge constructed during this time that crossed Ankau Creek 

and a road that traversed Phipps Peninsula. The creation of these roads significantly 

impacted the Yakutat Tlingit, as the military regulations surrounding the usage of these 

roads denied the Tlingit access to their traditional fishing grounds during the war (de 

Laguna 1972:73; 544). After World War II, salmon runs progressively diminished, 

which intensified pressure on Native subsistence fishing practices (Mills and Firman 

1986:27).

World War II affected the daily lives of Yakutat Tlingit in other ways, as well. For 

instance, the Coast Guard Station had an unexpected impact on subsistence strawberry 

picking along that region of the coastline. Construction and maintenance of the station 

required the land to be cleared of larger vegetation such as trees that overshadow and 

inhibit berry growth. The result was a prime spot to gather strawberries, one that 

Yakutat Tlingit families took advantage of each year. Yvonne Baker remembers how 

dense the strawberry patches used to be out by the Coast Guard Station: 

“[T]hat’s one of the greatest places to pick strawberries used to be out at 

Coast Guard. But they kept it mowed there. They would mow it back and 

when they quit you can, the trees are almost entirely overgrown in that 

area now. We used to be able to—so many families could go out there and 

pick because there was so much area, but I don’t know if that you can 

even really get that much out there anymore” (YB).

As the Coast Guard station has fallen out of use and the surrounding area is no longer 

maintained, the area is no longer ideal for berries and is no longer a seasonal gathering 

spot.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 133

As part of the war effort, many outlying Tlingit were relocated to the city of Yakutat for 

the purported purpose of public safety. The drastic change toward a sedentary lifestyle 

and the associated modification in diet away from subsistence foods caused the health 

of many Tlingit elders to suffer. Lorraine Adams, a Yakutat Tlingit explained the 

resultant malaise in this way:

“[T]hey [government officials] brought them in ... from all around 

Yakutat, and just stayed in Yakutat. And so the old-timers, I don’t know, 

they seemed to have died off after they were brought in here” (LA).

For some outlying communities, such as Dry Bay, these forced relocations effectively 

marked the end of generations of occupation.

Despite the many obstacles the Yakutat community faced throughout the war period, 

there were some Tlingit members who managed to make the best of these 

circumstances. According to a 1995 interview with Yakutat Native, Nellie Lord, when 

the soldiers started arriving in Yakutat, the Tlingit women began to sell their craftwork, 

such as moccasins, to the troops. Some carvers also sold totem poles to the troops. At 

one point during the war, there was at least one Yakutat school, which taught children 

woodworking skills to create totem poles, possibly for sale to the troops. This was a 

way for the Tlingit, and the women in particular, to make money during the war. 

These changes in traditional Tlingit practices as a result of World War II militarization 

are prominent in the photographic record. A number of Yakutat residents discussed the 

important role of photographer, Seiki Kayamori, who captured images of Yakutat 

Tlingit life throughout the early 20th century (Pegues 2014). Born in what is today Fuji 

City, Japan in 1877, Kayamori emigrated to the United States at the age of 25 and moved 

to Yakutat by 1912. He became highly popular in the village, being called “Picture Man” 

by the local community as he photographed many aspects of Yakutat village life—

Yakutat Tlingit life in particular—developing photos in his home darkroom and sharing 

them within the community. In October 1940, a letter from FBI Director J. Edgar 

Hoover identified Kayamori as a person of interest for “custodial detention.” He was 

suspected of being a spy. Additional correspondence called into question his 

production of panoramic views of the Alaskan coastline “from Yakutat to Cape 

Spencer.” After the bombing on Pearl Harbor, Kayamori became the target of 

retaliation, suffering bodily harm on December 7, 1941. Sadly, on December 9, he was 

found to have perished in his home. Those closest to him suggested he was unwilling to 

suffer internment and therefore took his own life (Pegues 2014). Yet nearly 700 

negatives produced by Seiki Kayamori were rescued from a church mission house 

slated for demolition. These negatives and prints are now housed at the Alaska State 

Historical Library in Juneau with another set of prints on display at the Yakutat City 

Hall. In the 1970s, the city of Yakutat and the library worked together with Yakutat 
134 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

community members to identify people and places in the photographs. These pictures 

are especially significant as a visual record of the cultural transitions that were 

underway at the time, with many traditional practices facing pressure from outside 

influences and technology. 

Many of these outside influences introduced as a result of the militarization of Yakutat 

and the surrounding coastline can be observed in the introduction of mechanized 

equipment, including jeeps and halftracks with surplus vehicles (CBY 2010). Much of 

this equipment was made available to the public, including the Yakutat Tlingit, once 

decommissioned for military purposes.118 The new equipment had a variety of 

consequences for the residents of Yakutat. In particular, it was mobilized within the 

commercial and subsistence fisheries; as described elsewhere in this document, troop 

carriers and even tanks were transported to the shoreline of Wrangell-St. Elias, where 

they served in this capacity prior to park creation. The military legacy had tremendous 

effects on many aspects of Yakutat life, as the airstrip was retrofitted for civilian uses 

and abandoned facilities created new environmental hazards—themes addressed later 

in this document. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 135

ON THE EVE OF PARK CREATION:

YAKUTAT TLINGIT USES OF WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS

FROM WORLD WAR II TO ANILCA

World War II and the militarization of the area had a significant impact of the residents 

of Yakutat. The influx of people and technology resulting from coastline fortifications 

brought a variety of changes to the resource procurement traditions of Yakutat Tlingit 

residents. Many of these effects were positive: cheap and reliable gas boats allowed 

fishers and subsistence hunters to travel to what is now the Wrangell-St. Elias coast and 

beyond with unprecedented ease from the consolidated settlements of Yakutat. So too, 

in the years following World War II, the rapid proliferation of light airplanes allowed 

hunting in these areas. Additionally, World War II surplus vehicles, made available at 

the end of the war, proved transformative, providing many families with their first 

powerful off-road vehicles. In some ways, the post-War period brought a brief 

renaissance, allowing for an elaboration of preexisting subsistence practices. While the 

hinterland was effectively depopulated by the events of World War II, the end of the 

war brought a period of mobility and modernization that allowed families in Yakutat to 

access traditional clan lands and resources more regularly.119

Among the places eagerly sought out were the shorelines of what is today Wrangell-St. 

Elias, as well as the nearby shoreline of Icy Bay. These remained places of unique 

historical and cultural connections for Kaagwaantaan and Ginéix Kwáan families, but 

were also understood to be places of pronounced resource abundance. Ray Sensmeier’s 

comments on Icy Bay reflect the mood of the times: 

“There was everything that you could want there; there was halibut, there 

was crab, there was fish, lots of seals. There was seven thousand seals, 

approximately, that live there now, making it the largest rookery in the 

world” (RS). 

With safe and relatively speedy access to these places from Yakutat, incentives to return 

to these parts of the Yakutat Tlingit homeland multiplied, as did incentives to continue

and even expand patterns of use that were generations old.

During this time, resource sharing continued to be a robust part of the traditional

resource harvest. Interviewees note that this sharing was an important part of Yakutat 

Tlingit identity, helping Yakutat Tlingit to assert their traditions and distinguish 

themselves from non-Native people during a period of rapid change. The practice also 

assisted less fortunate or mobile members of the community, and helped families deal 

with the uncertainties and transitions involved with incremental movements from non-
136 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

traditional subsistence economy to cash economy during the mid-20th century. As Lena 

Farkus notes,

“It was always known that you just take enough for yourself unless you 

want to share it... if a relative in town needed food too, it was always 

shared. And not everybody had a boat to go up there to hunt seal and 

seagull eggs or whatever seafood, so they would share. And then when 

the outboard motors came along, then the people would like give you 

maybe a couple dollars if you gave them some fish and seal meat. ‘Just for 

gas,’ they’d say you know. And so our people always shared, they were 

never stingy” (LF).

As the second half of the twentieth century progressed, certain traditional procurement 

activities underwent a sort of “renaissance” in terms of how resources were harvested 

and utilized in the post-war economy of the region as it related to Yakutat Tlingit. The 

following sections provide a brief overview of some of the resources and resource 

procurement traditions that evolved in the second half of the twentieth century.

Seals and Sealing

In the period during and after World War II, Yakutat Tlingit continued to utilize

traditional hunting grounds along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast for sealing, but the uses 

of the seals and the role of seal hunting diversified significantly. Increasingly, seals were 

hunted for commercial purposes, and for state-sponsored bounty programs meant to 

bolster fish production by reducing seal populations. 

As before, this hunting was concentrated in certain productive places where tidewater 

glaciers punctuated the coast, within and immediately adjacent to what is now 

Wrangell-St. Elias. Locations within Disenchantment Bay, including places such as Egg 

Island, continued to prove highly fruitful for sealing during this period, as seals 

continued to birth their young and gather on the ice floating in the bays:120

“The hair seals give birth to their young on the ice floes in 

Disenchantment and Icy Bays, where the bears cannot reach them. They 

remain here during the early part of summer, when they can be seen in 

large numbers basking on the floating ice (July 26, 1952). ‘How is it the 

hair seals make the ice gather together?’”(de Laguna 1972:374; quotes 

from de Laguna’s interviewees).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 137

Similarly, Icy Bay remained a significant center of sealing activity. Based on the 

accounts of her interviewees in the late 1940s and 1950s, de Laguna reported that “Icy 

Bay is still a favorite seal hunting area, and some of the Yakutat men make regular 

excursions here, before or after the fishing season” (1972:98).121 Over the course of fifty 

years, Skip Johnson hunted seal in Icy Bay with various hunting companions. He was 

able to point out the location of his seal camp on a map of Icy Bay: 

“I seal hunted for all the way through the sixties pretty much in Icy Bay. 

...I hunted with my uncle Barney and Jerry Nelson, Joe Nelson, Walter 

Johnson, my brother Sam, and I hunted up there, Sam Johnson...we 

hunted seals up there for fifty years. I stayed up there one year we hunted, 

March we went up there early. And I was there all the way from March 

until September...It was in the sixties, I can’t recall what year it was, 

maybe sixty-six or something” (SJ).

While sealing continued in some of the traditional locations, the reason for sealing in 

these and other areas was no longer limited to traditional subsistence purposes. For 

example, sealing intensity reached new heights when, in the 1950s and 1960s, the State 

of Alaska sponsored bounty programs for seals. Generally seal hunting and commercial 

fishing were the most profitable activities, while trapping brought in money during the 

winter months (Mills and Firman 1986). Seal hunting in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, 

however, became even more profitable of a venture for many Tlingit hunters, when the 

“Federal Government put a $3.00 bounty on seals since they were a major natural 

predator of salmon” (Mills and Firman 1986: 36). Skip Johnson recalls the time when the 

Yakutat participated in these state-sponsored programs that provided a bounty on the 

delivery of the seal noses and skins:

“[W]e hunted seals commercially. Well, for subsistence because we ate 

seals for years and years you know, that was what we primarily went for 

seals. The State of Alaska paid three dollars per nose you know, a bounty 

they called it. We had to cut the nose off, kind of right around here you

know. That was the proof” (SJ).

Driven by state bounty initiatives, seal hunting became a significant source of income in 

the 1950s and 1960s.122 Some hunters took advantage of the program during the winter, 

to supplement their incomes in a way that capitalized on what were ancient and wellhoned Yakutat Tlingit hunting skills. During the bounty era, some men sold seal pelts 

as well. Skip Johnson recalls that he soaked seal skins in brine and rolled them for 

shipping, earning $5 per pelt in the 1960s. In this way, traditional Tlingit hunting skills, 

long used for traditional resource procurement, were employed to allow Tlingit 

participation in the cash economy. Yet, like many aspects of Tlingit economic life, 
138 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

commercial and traditional harvests were combined in myriad ways. Certain traditional 

practices, such as the complete use of the seal, were set aside—some say temporarily—

to accommodate these new activities, while hunting and navigation skills honed over 

centuries were applied to new economic pursuits. De Laguna discussed some of the 

waste, which resulted from this new economic venture: 

“The harbor or hair seal is hunted in Disenchantment and Icy Bays where 

these animals breed. Organized parties as well as small groups or single 

hunters kill seals in April and May, before the commercial fishing season 

starts, and also after it ends. Seals may be shot whenever they are 

encountered. Seals are valued for the $3 bounty paid for each nose (by the 

Federal Government in 1954), and also for the skins which are made up 

into moccasins or other articles for sale. Although seal meat and seal oil 

are relished, at least by the older people, most of the meat is wasted on the 

large hunts, and even the skins were not saved on all the hunts. For 

example, in August 1952, on one trip, organized by a native with a small 

motor boat, about 100 seals were shot, the seagulls stole some of the noses, 

and the party threw away most of the meat and skins because they could 

take less than 12 carcasses in their boat. Another man with a large 

motorboat killed 300 seals in Icy Bay in 1953, but attempted to save all the 

skins which were to be sent away to be commercially tanned. On a later 

trip the same year, he returned with 100 carcasses which it took 5 women 

3 days to skin. Most of the meat and blubber was wasted. The following 

spring, he organized a similar hunt to Icy Bay, on which over 400 seals 

were brought to Yakutat. Some of the whole animals, minus the noses 

which the hunter always keeps, were sold for $2 apiece (the baby seals for 

$1). Many of the animals could not be flensed, and about 100 were washed 

away by the tide. At that time the raw skins were worth about $2 each, 

and a dressed skin about $10 or more.

“A White resident of Yakutat who spends the summers hunting 

seals in Icy Bay wrote me that in 1964, ‘Seal skins are very high now. I 

bought and shipped 3,300. My profit made me a good season’” (de 

Laguna 1972:373-374).

New Responses to the Challenges of Sealing in Icy Waters

With the profit margin of sealing for commercial purposes high, the impetus for 

remaining competitive in the sealing industry could be felt by Yakutat Tlingit hunters. 

This meant, in some cases, adopting new technologies to facilitate sealing in traditional 

and often dangerous waters.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 139

Seal hunting on a canoe and navigating between large ice floes always included a

significant element of danger. Yet with a growing abundance of gas-powered engines 

and introduced materials, Yakutat Tlingit hunters were able to reduce risks 

significantly. Skip Johnson hunted with his father in Icy Bay and Disenchantment Bay. 

He describes how they were always mindful of the weather while hunting. An 

approaching north wind could press down from the mountains and create a dangerous 

environment on the water: 

“The hazardous part of the ice is the big icebergs. You had to watch very 

careful for the big icebergs because if the wind happened to come up and 

the wind can come up in the ice in about five minutes it’ll go from just 

hardly any wind at all to about twenty knot wind. It don’t take long, that 

north wind when it comes down. And the way you know when the north 

wind, like down in Disenchantment Bay, when the north wind comes 

down, there are two mountains up there you watch all the time and you 

watch those peaks. If they start smoking, it’s time to get out because it 

won’t be long that north wind will be coming down. The north wind can 

take the big icebergs and the wind will come behind it and in the front of 

the bergs, ice as big as this table like would just throw the ice out just like 

that. And those big bergs will go by and if you’re in a canoe in front of it 

you can’t get out of the way in time. It’ll get you. So you have to watch for 

the big bergs you know. And the big bergs also can turn over. And when 

they turn over, you know you don’t want to be close to them” (SJ).

De Laguna also spoke of the acute danger icebergs could present for people navigating 

Disenchantment Bay:

“Although more quiet water is usually found within Disenchantment Bay

[than in Eleanor Cove], the south shore of Haenke Island is sometimes 

pounded by waves. Here, however, the principal danger to navigation 

comes from the masses of ice that continually fall from the glaciers with

rolling thunder like an artillery barrage. Not only does ice frequently 

block progress by boat above Haenke Island, especially in spring and 

early summer, but even when winds have cleared a passage along the

eastern shore, there is danger from the waves thrown up by calving 

bergs” (de Laguna 1972:23).

There were, and still are, tremendous navigational challenges created by calving ice at 

the base of the glaciers:
140 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“My uncle used to tell me about Icy Bay. And he used to tell me that in Icy 

Bay they have ice floating around icebergs about as big as the ANB Hall. 

And I couldn’t image when I was a boy because the ice and just up the bay 

here, going out there, there were big icebergs some of them, but not as big 

as the ANB Hall. And I always used to wonder about that” (GR).

Due to the severe threat icebergs could pose to individual boats in sealing waters like 

Disenchantment Bay, interviewees spoke of the importance of possessing acumen 

regarding sealing in those waters. Skip Johnson describes the precautions needed 

during seal hunting: 

“See I had to hunt for many years before I was allowed to go in my canoe. 

Yeah, that’s dangerous. It’s just—people don’t realize how hazardous it is. 

So many things to learn you know. And I shudder when I hear people say 

they’re going to go up to the ice and they’re going to hunt. And it scares 

me because it’s too—there’s so many things to know. So many things to 

learn. And it’s hazardous and the ice is just absolutely treacherous. But 

anyhow... So they wouldn’t let me hunt alone. I had to learn all those 

things” (SJ).

In response to challenges presented by dangerous sealing waters, Yakutat Tlingit long 

built traditional ice canoes for sealing and other activities in icy waters. Stable, and with 

thick hulls, they allowed relatively smooth passage through the icebergs of the 

Wrangell-St. Elias area. During her research among the Yakutat Tlingit in the 1940s and 

1950s, de Laguna learned of these traditional sealing canoes and even obtained a model 

made in 1954:

“Even more distinctive was the special sealing canoe (gudiyÉ or gudiyí), 

designed for hunting among the ice floes at the heads of Yakutat and Icy 

Bays, and apparently made nowhere else in Alaska...

“This sealing canoe was described as a small dugout, ‘two or two 

and half fathoms’ or 12 to 15 feet long, and ‘six spans’ or 3 1⁄2 to 4 feet 

wide, and was intended for one or two hunters. The stern had the same 

elegant shape as that of the tcÀyác, while the bow was broad, ‘low in front, 

like a spoon,’ and very thick, to withstand floating ice. Projecting from it 

was a short round post like a bowsprit, carved in one piece with the body

of the canoe, the function of which was to fend off icebergs. On the inside 

of the prow was carved a small shelf, not made of a separate piece as in 

other canoes. There were two thwarts” (de Laguna 1972:339).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 141

Figure 10 – An example of a Yakutat seal hunting boat, as they appeared in the mid-20th

century. Made of planks, these boats were heavily reinforced with extra planks, tires, and 

other items to reduce damage to the hull from floating ice. Photo courtesy of Skip Johnson.

Canoes such as the model described above were still being utilized to some extent to 

hunt seal for commercial (and non-commercial) purposes in 1960s. Skip Johnson recalls 

that he was the last one to make an ice canoe in 1970. He used the canoe to hunt seal 

during his hunting trips in Icy Bay: 

“Dan Henry actually built the last traditional ice canoe for his brother 

Paul, but I don’t know that he used it in hunting seals or not. But it’s still 

sitting up there, but I built the last hunting canoe that actually 

hunted...actually I built this [canoe] in 1970” (SJ).

As the Yakutat by and large stopped constructing traditional sealing canoes, they 

replaced traditional materials with new materials readily available in the area. Johnson 

describes the plank canoes used to hunt seal in Icy Bay in the latter twentieth century, 
142 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

and how these canoes were constructed by hand, using heavy planks that contributed 

stability and durability to the craft:

“Well, the canoes that we used, yeah they were plank. They were plank 

canoes. The canoes were built by the New England method of building 

boats. There were three planks on the bottom, two planks on each side 

and then they have a pretty heavy bow stem. The bow stems we liked 

were gumwood, if we could find gumwood. And then the sterns...some 

[were] very narrow, very small sterns and the boats were almost flat on 

the bottom. They would come up maybe an inch in the bow and maybe 

about three-quarter inch in the stern” (SJ).

To buffer the hull from damaging collisions with ice, boat builders of the period used 

discarded tires and rubber belts from the cannery.123 De Laguna witnessed some of 

these “plank canoes” used for sealing during her research in 1949:

“In 1949 there were a few ‘canoes’ used on the narrow sloughs and 

streams. These were small, narrow, flatbottomed boats made of planks 

and were paddled like canoes. They could carry three, or possibly four 

persons; William Irving, Edward Malin and I were loaned one to explore 

Diyaguna 'Et on Lost River” (de Laguna 1972:345).

Small outboards, three to seven horsepower engines, could also be attached to these 

plank canoes. Again, according to Johnson: 

“Small outboards [were used]. You could put fifty-horse on there, it don’t 

make no difference, it still wouldn’t go any faster. So we usually used 

three-horse to I think the biggest outboard was seven-horse, seven and a 

half-horse power I think, seven and half, somebody had one. But yeah, it 

was just small motors and mostly all Johnson [and] Evinrude and we 

carried a lot of shear pins!” (SJ).

In addition to the plank canoes, de Laguna noted that “ordinary skiffs” with motors 

were also being used for navigating the waters around Yakutat, including for fishing 

purposes:

“Instead of dugouts the Yakutat people now use ordinary skiffs with 

outboard motors. Some men are skilled in making the large skiffs used for 

lifting gillnets. These have to be rowed because the stern is equipped with 

a roller for hauling in the net” (de Laguna 1972:344).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 143

Boats, regardless of whether they were the traditional dugout canoes or more modern 

skiffs with outboards, were an essential part of sealing in the mid to late twentieth 

century, so evolving techniques surrounding boat construction were often essential in 

allowing Yakutat Tlingit hunters to participate in the commercial sealing industry.124

While commercial sealing, as is described above, was an important part of Yakutat 

Tlingit life in the twentieth century, non-commercial sealing continued to play a role in 

Yakutat Tlingit life.

Though commercial hunting for seals, particularly bounty hunts, resulted in wasteful 

practices, in twentieth-century seal hunting trips for non-commercial purposes, waste 

was carefully avoided—though these excursions tended to be much more modest than 

commercial hauls. According to Johnson: 

“When we’d go up to the ice and get seals, and we’d come down with 

maybe a half a dozen seals to—and usually—ten is the most I can 

remember bringing down, because ten seals is a lot of seals you know. We 

had a couple boats we could bring. But mostly, two or three or whatever. 

And we’d come down to the village, and then we’d take the seals and take 

them out of the boat and pull them up the beach, and by nightfall, there 

wouldn’t be nothing. The ladies would all go down to the beach, and then 

they would take a seal and they’d all be used. All the meat would be used.

All the hides were all fleshed out” (SJ).

Stories and recalled memories, as well as actual hunting experiences, helped relay to 

younger generations traditional seal-hunting practices and knowledge. Skip Johnson 

recalls his father taking him seal hunting in Icy Bay and Disenchantment Bay. The route 

he and his father traversed while hunting seal was guided by his father’s extensive 

knowledge of the landscape: 

“[T]here’s two mountains up there in Disenchantment Bay...I used to 

know their Tlingit names. I feel real dumb sometimes because my dad 

took me up to the head of the bay and we went up, went up Chicago 

Harbor, went up to the ice, went past the glacier, went up to the head of

the bay, then we came back, then we went up Nunatak and then back, and 

all the way up, from all the way from town dad was telling me the Tlingit 

names for every—there were names for every place. And he told me all 

the names” (SJ).

The hunting of seals in this area has been guided by traditional ecological knowledge of 

considerable depth, not only related to when and where the seals were hunted, but also 

how they were hunted. A successful seal hunt in Icy Bay required an intimate 
144 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

knowledge of seal behavior. Skip Johnson describes how, using plank canoes, they 

would come upon seals gathered on the flat ice and after careful observation, target the 

seal “watchman”:

“we hunt seals on way back deep in the ice and try to hunt seals on the 

flat ice because there would be sometimes, oh anywhere two or three, 

sometimes a dozen and sometimes twenty seals on one ice. ...We’d try to 

shoot the watchman because...they always have one watchman that looks 

around. And the watchman looks around and then when he goes down, 

another one takes his place. So if we could stand off a little bit, maybe 

seventy-five yards off and we used .222 Remington, that’s what I used a 

.222 Remington all the time. Or the old rifles were .218B, or .219 Zipper, 

.22 Hornet, .220 Swift. But then we’d shoot the watchman. The watchman 

would go down and if it was a good kill, you’d only shoot them in the 

head anyhow, but if it was a good kill the other seals wouldn’t jump off. 

Another one would take his place and he became the watchman because 

they notice you know, one would go down, so they would go up and then 

we’d kill the watchman. We could [keep this up] until somebody kind of 

wounded one or they made a noise and everybody would go off the ice. 

Then we used long poles, we had twenty-foot poles with hooks and spears 

on the end, and those would be in the canoe because you didn’t get off, 

get on the ice. That was a no-no. That was one of the bad things to do is 

get off on the ice because ice can roll over. So we used the long hooks 

with lines on the end. Reach out with the long hooks and then hook the 

seals and pull them into the canoe. That’s how we got them off the ice. 

Anyhow, that’s how we hunted” (SJ).125

Lena Farkus remembers hunting seal at Egg Island with her father and describes the 

method by which they were taken, including the traditional regulations surrounding 

the hunting of female seals: 

“My father used to take a couple bags like a sack of coal bags and have 

Nelly and I jump on the beach there, ‘Waa! Waa!,’ little seal baby, seal. 

And he’d shoot a couple so our mother could...sew around a 

moccasin...But they’d never take a whole lot and this time of the year, 

other people needed fresh food and fish and seal and they’d go up there 

hunting but they never killed the female because they were in birth and 

just get the male seals. But if they accidentally shot one, then they’d take 

the baby too because those babies just perished. They don’t get adopted 

by another mother” (LF).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 145

Figure 11 – Drying seal hides at seal camp in the mid-20th century. Seals from the tidewater 

glaciers at Disenchantment Bay and Icy Bay were the cornerstone of this enduring traditional 

practice. Photo courtesy of Skip Johnson.

Elders from Yakutat remember either hunting in pairs or alone. As Johnson explains,

there were one or two individuals in each canoe during seal hunting expeditions: 

“One in the bow hunting, you know shooting and then one running 

motor. Or just one in the canoe. I was in my own canoe and Jerry would 

go out. So everybody would go out in their own canoes. Just one” (SJ).

Ray Sensmeier explains a seal hunting method that required the teamwork of the older 

riflemen who would shoot the seal and the younger men who would retrieve them: 
146 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“Ok. There’s one other hunting—the old people, when they asked the old 

to hunt they would take them out...I don’t know if you’ve been out there, 

and there’s a big bluff there. And then there’s these rocks and all these big 

waves. When the seals came back from eating eulachons in the springtime, 

they liked to play in that surf there. I watched them. ...They’d take the old 

men up there and they would talk with one another...they’d turn black in 

the sun. But they had rifles and they could shoot seal from up there. And 

there was a sandy beach a short ways away and the seals would come up 

there the very next morning and the young men would run down and 

retrieve them. So...the old people still hunted and that’s how they did it” 

(RS).

Most hunting on land requires stealth and silence. But when seal hunting from a canoe,

the constant movement of the ice conceals not only the sound of the movement of the 

hunters on the water, but the gunshot as well. Bert Adams Sr. describes the sound of the 

ice movement, saying it “sounds like [the cereal] Rice Krispies” (BA). Skip Johnson also 

discusses the noise of moving ice, saying:

“Well, the ice makes a lot of noise. Ice is very loud. The seals would never 

hear the gunshot...because the ice is constantly (imitates noise). You hear 

it all the time. The ice is moving up against each other. It’s very loud out 

on the ice. But the difficulty factor in the hunting is the big icebergs” (SJ). 

Seals that were shot in the water needed to be pulled aboard the hunting boats so they 

would not sink. During her research, de Laguna observed how Yakutat Tlingit hunters 

retrieved seals shot in the water:

“On these hunts, most seals are shot with rifles from boats, and the 

floating carcass is retrieved with an ordinary boathook. Until recently, a 

harpoon without a float was used for this purpose, the hunter simply

retaining in his hand the line attached to the butt end of the shaft” (de 

Laguna 1972:374).

Johnson describes the hooks used during seal hunting, and how hunters used the hooks 

to haul seal onto the decks of canoes: 

“The hook was, it had a line on the end. They were actually were built and

they had little eyes in them. There was a spear on the end and the spears 

were used for if a seal sunk. We shoot a swimmer and the seal, because 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 147

you shoot a seal in the side or on the back, you never shoot them head on 

because if you shoot them as they’re looking at you, they’ll throw the head 

this way, the air will all come out of their lungs and they’ll sink. Well if 

one is sinking then a lot of times we could go up and spear it. We’d see it 

down in the clear water and spear it down and then it would you know, 

they were very, very sharp spears and then we’d hook onto it and bring it

back up again you see. And then the big seals, that they were swimmers, 

the way you get the seal in the boat: you take him, go up to it and then 

grab onto the flipper, the little short flipper and you flip them like that 

way and the back flippers come up. And when the back flippers come up, 

you grab the back flippers and go down as far as you can, then you pull as 

hard as you can that way and then get it over the side of the rail and then 

hopefully they’d fall in, but some seals were pretty big you know. We had 

to try two or three times” (SJ).

Johnson remembers hunting seal pups from a canoe in Icy Bay with his father: 

“Well, my dad and I went hunting and we were hunting pups that time 

and the canoes were twenty feet long and the pups...I found out how 

many pups a canoe would hold: forty-six. He shot forty-seven times and 

we didn’t need that last one anyhow, he missed that one, but every time 

my dad pulled the trigger we had a seal. That old—I never got to be as 

good a shot as the old guys. Gee whiz!” (SJ).

Once the seals were taken to shore, the men and women onboard began processing 

them for meat and hides. Skip Johnson describes the knife used in Yakutat to skin the 

seals: 

“And in Yakutat, we have a knife to flesh seals it’s called wéiksh [? Tlingit 

term]. And the [repeats term] is very similar usage as the Eskimo ulu. But 

ours is different. It’s shaped different and it works better. And that’s how 

we take the fat off...there’s a few people who used to make them...in the 

last fifty years they’d make them out of...boxes” (SJ).

Seal skinning required practice, and precautions had to be taken to not ruin the hides. 

Skip Johnson recalls the technique used to process seal: 

“And then when we get the seals in the boat, we never let one seal touch 

the other one. Very important. And we take ice a lot of time and put ice 

between the seals, because if two seals touched each other, that’s where 
148 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

they would slip and when the ladies then would take and flesh the seals 

out, then that hide sometimes became no good because if it sat there for 

like in the daytime, the seals are hot you see, very hot. And two seals 

touching each other like that, that’s where the hair will slip when it’s you 

know. So we had to have seals all apart. And then we’d put them in the 

boat and then we’d start working the seals and put them in there. And 

then we’d have take and cover them with canvas. We always took canvas 

or gunnysacks. We had used our gunnysacks for the coal because we got 

coal, a lot of people burned coal. We could get a hundred and twenty-five 

pound sacks off the boats. And then we take the gunnysacks and put on 

there because the sun, the sun would ruin the hides too in a short time, 

didn’t take long. And that’s the same way when we flesh out the seals. 

You’d always take and see, if you ever see pictures, old pictures, you’ll see 

pictures of the seals on the stretcher. Like, a lot of people used alders 

because that was easy to get to, and stretched the seal hides out and you’d 

never see a seal hide looking at you with the fur, you’d always see the 

frame, the back frame. And the reason is, is because you can’t have the 

sun hit that. And most of the time, they were, when you’d start drying 

them out, they’d have to be in the shade” (SJ).

Maintaining connections to traditional lands—including some portions of Wrangell-St. 

Elias—through sealing activities was a way for Yakutat Tlingit to retain integral 

elements of their culture in the face of changes brought to the region in the post-war 

period. 

Fishing the Coastline of Wrangell-St. Elias in the Postwar 

Period

Impacts from the introduction of new technologies, such as the motorboats used for 

sealing, extended into traditional fisheries in the Yakutat region. Though motorboats 

impacted resource procurement traditions of the Yakutat Tlingit in complex ways, 

interviewees still recalled using many traditional fishing grounds along the WrangellSt. Elias coast during the latter half of the twentieth century. Salmon remained a major 

component of the Tlingit diet during this period, and Yakutat fishermen spent 

significant periods of time along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, both smoking salmon and

fishing (on seine boats and skiffs, gillnetting, seining, trolling and jigging).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 149

Map 8
150 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Within current Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve boundaries, salmon 

fishing was most significant along the coastline at Point Manby, near the Sitkagi Bluffs, 

branching inland via waterways such as Esker Stream, Sudden Stream, the Spoon River 

and Yahtse River (see Map 8).126 At one time, all of these places were productive

springtime salmon spawning areas for returning sockeye and coho. During an 

interview with Skip Johnson, he points out coho migratory patterns around Manby 

Stream on a map: 

“Oh here it is. This is the Manby [Stream] right here. See those little lake 

systems. The lakes come down to the clear stream. They come out and the 

sockeyes go up those lake systems you see. Then the cohos, they go up the 

main Manby and they go on all these little streams over in here see” (SJ). 

Lena Farkus remembers salmon trolling with her brother along Manby Stream and the 

Sitkagi Bluffs, and in Icy Bay. They would camp by the river on the Yakutat side of the 

bay: “That one summer when we fished Manby [Stream], but up here we used to, as I 

say, go up there in May for about, anywhere from a week to two weeks, putting up 

food in May” (LF). Many interviewees remember fishing in these areas during the 

summer months—for some, as early as May. James Bremner fished at Manby Stream 

sporadically over the expanse of a decade: 

“I fished the Manby [Stream] two or three different times I went there. 

Let’s see, when I was like eighteen I fished there for a year. And then that 

wasn’t very good fishing year so I didn’t go back for a while. And then I 

went back probably five, six, seven years later and fished there for two to 

three years. So I probably fished there probably about four years” (JB).

Helen Bremner, in an interview with Goldschmidt and Haas during their 1946 

fieldwork, also recalled fishing at Point Manby:

“Point Manby is a place where we get fish. It doesn’t belong to any special 

group, and the Natives fish here to sell to the cannery. They were last 

there in September. There are no whites in there” (quoted in Goldschmidt 

and Haas 1998:47).127

In addition to Manby Stream, Skip Johnson also fished Esker Creek, Sudden River and 

Spoon River: 

“I fished not only the Manby [Stream], I fished Esker Creek...Esker Creek, 

I fished that and I fished Sudden River and I fished Spoon [River], and I 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 151

fished Manby [Stream]. And there used to be a lot of fish over there. There 

were a lot of cohos. But one of the reasons that there were a lot of cohos 

was because of the spawning areas” (SJ).

Many of the interviewees for this project have strong memories of utilizing these 

traditional fishing grounds in the post-war period. Though traditionally these waters 

were used for subsistence harvests, as the twentieth century progressed, utilizing the 

traditional streams and rivers for fishing provided a means to participate in the 

commercial fishing economy of the region.

Commercial and Surf Fishing

The proliferation of gas-powered boats during the post-war period helped Yakutat 

Tlingit fishermen bring greater efficiency to old ways of fishing. The fishermen of 

Yakutat have a longstanding and unique tradition of surf fishing (also known as 

“breaker fishing”): “breaker fishing is a very special type of fishing that only in Yakutat 

they do this. Cordova has a boat, breaker fishing, but it’s not like the Yakutat” (WJ). 

Well before the advent of motorboats, Yakutat fishermen knew how to ply the 

dangerously large waves of the outer ocean coast—an environment unlike most other 

settled parts of Tlingit territory. In the early- to mid-20th century, with the arrival of 

small motorboats, fishermen refined their techniques, learning to fish for salmon 

directly in the rolling waves of the outer beaches. These fishermen learned to idle 

motors and align their boats so as to stay relatively still and stable in the pounding surf, 

adapting their fishing nets to ride out the large waves.

“We set where the waves are coming in, we set our nets right in the waves 

and the breakers hit the net and then wash right over and then we’re 

picking it with the skiff. And, quite exciting. After you get through it you 

know you’re alive, let’s put it that way—you know very definitely that 

you’re alive, your heart is beating, you’re just shaking, you’re scared, 

you’re vibrating all over but then you know you’re alive after you get 

done. And these are not little waves like this, this is twenty, thirty foot 

seas, waves that we take all the time. We’ve done it many times” (WJ).

The surf-fishing technique traditionally used by Yakutat continued into the latter half of 

the twentieth century:

“The breaker fishing that is taking place when I first came to Yakutat in 

1957, after I graduated out of high school I came here. ...We were rowing 

all over the river. We rowed from the camp all the way around the point, 
152 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

all the way down, set our nets, come back and row back up with the tide.

We’d rowed until we hit the tide then we’d started walking it up, fish and 

all. Within three years they started introducing motors onto the back of 

the skiffs. And they would tow the skiffs down, the breaker skiffs down 

and anchor the outboards out and row them in. After a while they started 

using the outboards to go set their nets and stuff and brought it around to 

what it is today” (WJ).

This style of fishing is quite distinctive, and provides access to fish before they enter the 

rivers; for this reason, there have been efforts by the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game to restrict the practice, including an outright ban in 1981 (Mason and Ramos 

2004:56). In response, Yakutat fishermen then fought a successful legal battle against 

these restrictions: “[we] filed suit against the state of Alaska for when they were going 

to take away the breaker fishing” (WJ). 

While the arrival of motorboats into the Yakutat territory led to innovation regarding 

fishing, it also brought with it complications. For example, the ease of which Yakutat 

fishermen could access traditional subsistence fishing areas was now largely dictated by 

gas prices and boat ownership. The introduction of gas-powered boats created many 

more complications, as well. According to Langdon, as referenced by Thornton (2012):

“[T]he floating fish trap and gas-powered boat were the two technologies 

that most fundamentally altered traditional Tlingit relations of 

production. In the case of gas-powered boats, the desire for young Tlingit 

men to strike out on their own in high-status jobs as independent fishing 

captains stimulated investment in motorized purse seine vessels. Though 

these boats constituted a considerable investment, cannery operators 

would finance the construction and purchase of the seiners on behalf of 

the fishermen; however, the debt incurred by the fishermen in effect 

indentured them to produce exclusively for the cannery. Some fishermen 

worked their whole lives without ever emerging from debt or gaining title 

to their boats” (160).

Gas-powered seine vessels forced fishermen to harvest more intensively and at greater 

distances from traditional fishing grounds (Thornton 2012:160). Fishermen also took to 

sleeping on their boats rather than camping on land, which reduced the physical 

association and traditional ties to the land (Thornton 2012).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 153

Camps and Commercial Fishing: In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s

Salmon were harvested in the rivers and streams, then processed and smoked at nearby 

seasonal campsites in smokehouses. At one time, a multitude of camps and settlements 

existed along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline, most relating to both commercial and 

subsistence fishing. Commercial fishermen and traditional subsistence users returned to 

these locations seasonally. Commercial fishermen spent much of the year on the water, 

where an intimate knowledge of Yakutat Bay is crucial for navigation, and where

familiarity with the ecology is required for a successful harvest. For many interviewees, 

commercial fishing for salmon along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline is a memory that 

dates back to the 1950s and 1960s. Commercial fishing was not only a family business, 

but a way of life for Tlingit men and women. 

Many Yakutat Tlingit found employment in other facets of the fishing industry, such as 

in canneries, as the need for cash employment increased alongside barriers to 

traditional subsistence lifestyles. Interviewees mentioned themselves or family 

members taking seasonal employment in canneries within Yakutat and in other Gulf of 

Alaska communities.

Whether for subsistence or commercial purposes, certain areas and camps were closely 

associated with individuals and families—most but not all directly linked to the area by 

kinship and clan affiliations. Skip Johnson mentions that his uncle Georgie [Valle?] had 

a fish camp at the Manby Stream in the 1950s, saying, “now before, back in the fifties, 

my uncle Georgie fished over there and they had a camp” (SJ). Johnson also describes 

the fish camps he remembers at Manby Stream in the 1960s and then at Yahtse River 

and Yana Stream in the 1970s: 

“I fished in Manby for a lot of the sixties. Jerry Nelson had the camp over 

there, and I fished with Jerry and Joe-Joe, Sampson Jr., his brother, and 

Michael was over there, Michael Harry, Walter Johnson, Andrew Grey. 

...And then later on towards the seventies, then he went to Yahtse and 

Yana up the Yahtse River and then Helena, his wife ran the camp. And 

then George Bogren was over there. Rusty was there...you know, there 

was a lot of people that fished there” (SJ). 

Though it occurred largely outside of lands now within the park, fishing at Yahtse River

was also an important activity. However, transportation between the Yahtse River 

camps and the fish loading areas on Icy Bay was complex due to topographic 

constraints. As Sam Demmert explains,

“further up the coast from there, we fished the Yahtse from [set nets]. I 

think I fished there three or four years; three or four different seasons.
154 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

And a good fishery there, it’s just that getting fish from Yahtse to Icy Bay 

was really difficult because some years there’d be a big sandspit. You’d 

try to get across there and it was just washed out. It was right up against 

the cliffs” (SD).

As elsewhere along this coast, families maintained subsistence cabins in this area. These 

cabins were shared between members of the larger Yakutat community. James Bremner, 

for example, remembers fishing Yahtse with his grandfather in the mid-20th century, 

based at a cabin owned by Jerry Nelson: 

“in Yahtse...just there was a—my grandpa used to fish with Jerry Nelson 

but he had that building, couple buildings there...He [Jerry Nelson] fished 

there too, and he had Yahtse in there, and I fished with them a little and 

stuff” (JB).

While these camps on the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline were significant for a variety of 

purposes, many Yakutat families instead used camps for sealing, fishing, and other 

purposes on the eastern side of Yakutat Bay. Ray Sensmeier spent much of his 

childhood on Knight Island with his family: 

“We lived on Knight Island when I was small, from 1946 to 1952 when de 

Laguna was there. ... But we lived in a tent. It was ten sheets and a roof 

and because the wind so hard then, it could actually twist those huge 

trees. My dad had to build a cellar and we’d go down there when the 

wind was really—the north wind. It was actually a house pit because he 

dug up a lot of ashes and stuff like that” (RS). 

As part of the communities’ participation in the commercial harvest, they had to ship 

fish from their camps or other landing areas and transshipment points where ships

could onload the catch. For a time, surplus military vehicles, including jeeps, troop 

carriers and even tanks were used by the cannery operations to transport salmon across 

the landscape. This method was used to ship fish between camps from Point Manby to 

Sudden Creek. Skip Johnson recalls that,

“for a couple years we hauled them with a tank. ... Yeah, it’s called a 

‘Water Buffalo.’...they were military. The cannery I think bought five of 

them...we had one in the Manby and Bill Wiggley128 ran that tank. I made 

a lot of trips with him up and down from Manby, all the way to Sudden 

and back again. And they would swim and he’d come down, go right up 

to where skiffs, lower the ramp down. We’d [load] in twelve hundred 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 155

cohos. ... Close the ramp and it could go up the beach, thirty miles an 

hour and swim right out to the [boat] you know Clayton and he’d brail 

them out. ...Then he’d put the tank on the beach, go to town, deliver the 

fish, come right back again and then do the same thing. He was 

continually hauling fish you know. And that was kind of an interesting 

way to deliver fish” (SJ).

Figure 12 – Transporting military surplus vehicles along the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline in the 

mid-20th century. Such vehicles were integral to subsistence and commercial fishing 

operations along this coast, and were abundant in the wake of World War II. Photo courtesy 

Skip Johnson.

Around the same time, there was a tank and a weapons carrier performing similar 

operations in Icy Bay. According to Skip Johnson,

“they...had a weapons carrier up there too. Had one of those with a trailer 

on it. That was what hauled fish from the Yahtse also. As a matter of fact, 

they hauled fish from the Yahtse more with the weapons carrier than they 

did the tank. When the tank broke down, they still had the weapons 

carrier” (SJ).
156 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

In the same way the introduction of motorized boats allowed Yakutat Tlingit hunters to 

hunt for seal in new and efficient ways, these new mechanisms—tanks and weapons 

carriers—facilitated the participation of Yakutat Tlingit fishermen in the commercial 

fishery. The introduction of these machines also helped set a precedent for the use of 

motorized land vehicles in Wrangell-St. Elias as part of twentieth-century commercial 

fishing 

Mountain Goat and Other Terrestrial Animals

As with fishing and sealing during the post-war period, land hunting activities 

continued in traditional locations, and arguably expanded in geographical range and 

intensity. Yakutat Tlingit as well as non-Native hunters continued to pursue mountain 

goat in the Yakutat’s traditional territory: “Mountain goat hunting during the late 

summer by local residents occurred upland from the Yakutat Forelands during the 

1920s to the 1940s, according to respondents” (Mills and Firman 1986:170). Skip Johnson 

describes hunting mountain goats with his father on the ridges and points on the 

western shores of Icy Bay: 

“We’d go back up in there and we walked up to where there was a ridge 

that went up and then it was another ridge that went up, and then there 

was this big, huge meadow that was out there, and there were a couple 

hundred goats there, and the goats were already climbing up the 

mountain, and they were going up the trail on the other side” (SJ). 

One or more hunters flushed the goats over Kichyatt Point, while others waited with 

rifles on the other side. Skip Johnson’s father, whose connection to this place was 

widely known, is the source of the point’s name: “There’s [a point] they named in Icy 

Bay for him. There’s a Kichyatt Point” (SJ).

Ray Sensmeier also remembers hunting mountain goats in Icy Bay: 

“Mountain goats are in Icy Bay, and there used to be a lot of goats there 

and the people, the men, would go around behind and come up and the 

goats would come down this side where the hunters were, towards the 

lake to have easier access to them. ...Much easier to do it that way than to 

try to pack it out over the mountains” (RS).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 157

In addition to hunting goats for their meat, Yakutat Tlingit continued to use goat wool 

in blankets and regalia, as well as for trade with other Tlingit communities—a practice 

that continued until around the time of park creation:

“Even today, there is still quite a bit of trade and gift exchange between 

Yakutat and southeastern Alaska. ... [A] Yakutat woman has a ‘relative’ at 

Klukwan from whom she hopes to get dried mountain goat meat in 

exchange for seaweed” (de Laguna 1972:352).

People continued hunting mountain goat and gathering mountain goat wool. Though

regulations imposed in the mid-1970s curbed hunting in the traditional hunting 

grounds, it is apparent that at times hunting took place within what is now the southern 

edge of Wrangell-St. Elias:

“Goats have frequently been harvested from the cliff areas near Icy Bay.

The regulatory bag limit for this area was reduced in 1975 from two 

animals to one to help conserve the population. This reduced bag limit 

and the considerable expense of the 80 mile trip by boat or air for one goat 

has caused some Yakutat hunters to abandon the hunt” (Mills and Firman 

1986:69-70).

Even with the introduction of bag limits and other regulations, Yakutat Tlingit 

continued to hunt for goats in the traditional hunting grounds of previous centuries.

Moose and Deer in Yakutat Territory: 1930s-1970s 

Historically, moose and deer did not play a significant role in the traditional subsistence 

patterns of the Yakutat Tlingit.129 Only in the second half of the twentieth century did 

moose and deer move into the Yakutat region, in part due to environmental changes 

that allowed ice-free corridors from the interior, the mobilization of wolves and other 

predators, and adequate browse in formerly glaciated landscapes. For a time, the 

growing moose and deer numbers helped to offset the use of seal, bear and other 

species that involved comparatively long journeys or high risks to pursue. 

Moose were more commonly reported as game within what is now Wrangell-St. Elias

than deer. As moose are a fairly new addition to the Yakutat region, appearing in the 

1960s, they are relatively new to the Yakutat Tlingit diet.130 “They started migrating 

down here in the thirties and forties from the interior. The habitat was perfect for them” 

(BA).131
158 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Once moose made their initial appearance into the Yakutat region, they proliferated 

quickly. Skip Johnson describes the large populations of moose in Yakutat in the 1960s: 

“There used to be thousands of moose in Yakutat. Did you know that? 

Back in the sixties there wasn’t a day that you could drive around any 

place without seeing at least a half a dozen moose. Like, on the roads. 

And, because at that time you could see a long ways into the meadows 

you know and so you could see moose way off there. ...But on the roads 

you know? There were just a lot of moose!” (SJ).

Moose were once plentiful enough to support an annual Moose Barbeque at Yakutat 

held by Tlingit families, which continued until moose populations dropped below the 

management threshold introduced by Fish and Game: 

“We used to have a moose barbeque...and one of my sisters, Evelyn was 

the first moose barbeque queen. But we had a big party. I mean, they’d 

bring out a big cart of crab from the Bellingham Canning Company. 

They’d bring crab out and Mortenson, Bud Mortenson was the one that 

used to package it all up, the moose, and we’d dig a big pit out there and 

have a huge roaring fire going and line it with rocks. And then scrape that 

out and put all the moose in there and build a fire on top of it. Man, that 

moose meat was fantastic” (SJ).

In spite of the initial abundance of moose in the Yakutat region, several interviewees 

identified the south shore of Wrangell-St. Elias as an especially prime place to hunt 

moose. The area was hunted in the course of trips for other purposes to that shoreline,

and was especially important when moose populations in Yakutat faltered. Sam 

Demmert points out the places he would hunt for moose on the coast at Point Manby: 

“I hunted over here. Yeah, these two little [rivers in the Preserve]...we’ve 

gone across here several times to go moose hunting. I think we still have 

access there. I haven’t been across here for several years now. ...We’d 

camp out there also [at] Esker Creek” (SD).

Skip Johnson also recalled hunting for moose at Point Manby and Icy Bay. The marshy 

lagoons and estuaries along Point Manby were said to be browsed by moose and were 

particularly good hunting areas: 

“If you look on the map [of] the Manby, you’ll see a long, real long 

waterway that comes almost to the ocean. It’s just right across there and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 159

that’s where we used to hunt moose too up in there. ...We hunted moose 

up there for subsistence” (SJ). 

He indicates that his father was probably the first person to fell a moose in modern 

times along Icy Bay: “Used to be a lot of moose and a lot of moose up in Icy Bay and 

stuff. As a matter of fact, my dad shot the first moose in Icy Bay” (SJ).

Birds and Bird Eggs

Gull egg harvesting, discussed previously as an important part of Yakutat Tlingit 

resource procurement traditions, continued in the post-WWII period and throughout 

the twentieth century. Yakutat collected gull eggs in and around Wrangell-St. Elias

lands, particularly north and west of Disenchantment and Yakutat Bays:

“The most common species and a year-round resident is the glaucouswinged gull, Laurus glaucescens. They hang about the cannery dock and 

breed in Disenchantment Bay, especially on Haenke Island and the 

moraine-covered edge of Hubbard Glacier where the eggs are gathered by 

the natives in May or early June” (de Laguna 1972:45).

George Ramos Sr. remembers harvesting seagull eggs in the Wrangell-St. Elias area in 

the 1940s:

“when I was climbing those cliffs, there used to be a lot of seagulls 

there...my uncle [and I were], hunting up there at that time...if an eagle 

came along, all the seagulls used to—I don’t know if you’ve ever seen 

that—they’ll all take off. It used to be covered with seagulls. But I was up 

there in the last few years, the last, well fifteen years, there’s hardly any 

seagulls up there” (GR).

Lena Farkus describes her family’s movement across the landscape as part of the 

traditional subsistence lifestyle, including the gathering of gull eggs, which she recalls 

was a prominent activity among Tlingit in the mid-20th century: 

“We’d go up the bay like now we’d be up the bay by Egg Island area, 

Hubbard Glacier area.132 And my brothers and my father would get some 

halibut and king salmon, get some seagull eggs and we’d get some 

seaweed and my father always told us, ‘Watch the mountains.’ And the 
160 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

slides you could see the black bear come out. And so, oh he would be 

excited and we’d all start jumping and hollering, ‘There’s a bear! There’s a 

bear!’ and so they’d take off in a boat and shoot a bear. But we put up 

food there and towards the end of May come back to town, go to school 

for a couple weeks and then move on to Situk or Ankau put up fish again. 

So we traveled with the season. We never actually stayed at home” (LF).

In addition to Disenchantment and Yakutat Bays, interviewees recalled collecting 

seagull eggs at Icy Bay. Skip Johnson points out the prime harvesting areas he 

remembers visiting on Gull Island in Icy Bay: “the seagull eggs are all along the, there’s 

reefs coming in here. ...They call it Gull Island” (SJ). Johnson collected eggs in 

conjunction with his return to the salmon fishing grounds. He can still clearly recall the 

cold mornings, spent hovering over a gas stove on his boat, percolating coffee and 

seagull eggs for a quick, warm breakfast: 

“Coleman used to make little gas stoves about that big that would flip out 

and that would go in the bottom of the boat box and you’d have a little 

pot, a coffee pot to put in there to make coffee in there and no matter if the 

wind was blowing, you could make coffee. And then, as soon as you’d put 

the coffee in there then we’d take and put eggs in there, or seagull eggs, 

and when the eggs, when the coffee was done, the eggs were done. Eggs 

in coffee” (SJ).

Ray Sensmeier also recalls collecting seagull eggs in Icy Bay in conjunction with his 

hunting trips: 

“I’ve been to Icy Bay many times to go hunting and mostly for seagull 

eggs. ...There’s a little island in...Icy Bay—that they’re always on. That 

used to be a good place to collect those” (RS).

In the post-war period, care was taken by Yakutat Tlingit to maintain proper traditional 

subsistence resource harvesting techniques. Interviewees presented examples of these 

stringent protocols in reference to seagull egg harvesting. Ray Sensmeier describes the 

rules he remembers for such harvesting:

“If you saw three in a nest, you didn’t touch those because they had been 

there for a while. If there were two then those two or one, you could 

collect those because they hadn’t started developing yet. And sometimes 

somebody would carry a little pail of water and they’d put the eggs in the 

water and if one of them floated, that was starting to develop so you’d put 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 161

that one back. If they sank to the bottom, it had not yet begun to develop 

so it was okay to take those” (RS).

In addition to collecting bird eggs, Yakutat Tlingit continued to hunt for waterfowl and 

other types of birds in twentieth century. One of de Laguna’s interviewees from her 

research in the late 1940s and early 1950s recalled how Yakutat would continue to use 

some traditional methods of hunting birds well after the arrival of guns in the region:

“‘They still use things like that now if they get out of gun shot [have no 

more ammunition]. You tie a string to it about four feet long, and then put 

a small fish, a herring, or a eulachon, or a smelt...You put a line across the 

river and use several strings with gorges hanging from it. Put it in a 

shallow place where the water runs so the fish [bait] look like they're 

swimming...The sawbill [duck] swallows the fish and gets that stick stuck 

in its throat...You can catch seagulls this way, too’” (de Laguna 1972:373;

quotes from de Laguna’s interviewee).

Traditional gathering and hunting areas, as well as traditional regulations in regards to 

seagull egg harvesting, continued to have importance in Yakutat Tlingit life in the postwar period. The maintenance of these traditional practices, in addition to other resource 

procurement activities, kept Yakutat Tlingit visiting their traditional resource 

procurement grounds, including some portions in and around Wrangell-St. Elias, well 

into the twentieth century.

Plant Gathering

Gathering plant foods—berry-picking in particular—was another Yakutat Tlingit 

resource procurement tradition that continued into the post-war period. Of her research 

in the late 1940s and 1950s, de Laguna writes: “Berries were the most important type of 

plant food in the past, and the women still gather and preserve quantities. Berrying 

grounds were formerly owned by sibs” (de Laguna 1972:407). Berries were either 

preserved or eaten fresh in historic times, and this practice continued into the mid-20th 

century. De Laguna’s interviewees gathered a variety of berries, including: 

salmonberries, blueberries, red elderberries, highbush cranberries, lowbush cranberries, 

nagoon berries and strawberries, in addition to other berries and plants. Some of these 

were available in the vicinity of Wrangell-St. Elias, while others were gathered 

elsewhere (de Laguna 1972:408).
162 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Throughout the twentieth century, strawberries, specifically, remained an important 

part of Yakutat resource procurement traditions. Strawberries were identified as 

significant resources at Point Manby and were once prolific at the Coast Guard Station 

near Yakutat when the station was in operation (YB). Sam Demmert remembers picking 

strawberries as a side trip while commercial fishing along the coast of Manby in July: 

“That would be fun—the whole gang picking strawberries” (SD). Victoria Demmert 

was with Sam on these fishing trips to Manby and remembers the large amounts of fruit 

that they would harvest:

“They picked berries like, in these big bowls. I don’t carry buckets, carried 

big dishpans...They’d fill them up, they’d dump ‘em, they come back and 

get some more” (VD).

Most interviewees remember the sheer abundance of these berries and how people 

would gather at a strawberry patch, filling their buckets, dish pans and massive bowls 

to be taken home and eaten fresh, or to be processed and preserved. Ted Valle also 

comments on the abundance of strawberries throughout the Yakutat region and how 

berries were typically preserved or processed: 

“So there was a lot of strawberries. We had a lot of strawberries. Our 

people picked strawberries all the time and dehydrated it. And they got 

seaweed from rocks...And they’d make a seaweed and strawberries into 

bricks and put them into...boxes” (TV).

The gathering of plants, such as those discussed above, continued to be a vital part of 

traditional use of Wrangell-St. Elias throughout the period preceding park creation. 

Berry picking and the collection of other fresh plant foods and materials, in addition to 

the various other resource procurement traditions discussed previously, facilitated 

Yakutat Tlingit’s ongoing connections to the lands in and around Wrangell-St. Elias, 

traditions that continue into modern day. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 163

NEW PRESSURES

While the continued richness of resources in the region and innovations in 

transportation technologies of the post-war period opened a range of new opportunities 

for Yakutat residents, they also opened the Wrangell-St. Elias region to outside sports 

hunters and fishermen. Hunting and fishing for mere sport, and not for sustenance,

became a growing concern for many Tlingit. Traditional hunting practices are 

intentionally conservative and protective of resource balance and health. Trophy 

hunting targets only the largest in a population and shifts the focus of hunting toward 

additional species regarded as impressive specimens rather than food to be eaten. Bears, 

for example, were only shot by Tlingit hunters if they entered a camp or settlement and 

were considered a danger. Ray Sensmeier remembers bear hunting guides operating 

out of Manby in the 1960s and 1970s for trophy hunting purposes: “Most of the guides 

are not from here. A lot of them aren’t even from the state. ...We had a few guides a 

long time ago but that’s not something that we condone” (RS).

Non-Native bear hunting for sport was a cause for concern for Yakutat Tlingit not only 

because it was a practice they did not necessarily condone, but because it increased 

attention and regulation on the part of federal agencies. According to Ray Sensmeier: 

“They’re doing bait, bear baiting which I have a real concern about 

because put meat in a certain place and then they’ll wait and the bear will 

come and they shoot it. And not for food, because they don’t eat bear 

meat. ...[G]oing into Fairbanks for anything, Anchorage where the 

dumpster are, they’ll find them where the, full of meat, that they discard 

it. So they’re hunting for sport...I can’t understand how you can kill 

something for sport” (RS).

Some Yakutat Tlingit are concerned that these hunting practices fail to incorporate 

conservative thresholds. For example, when moose hunting was permitted along this 

coast in the 1960s, hunters flocked to Yakutat hoping to shoot a moose, not for food, but 

merely for sport: 

“And then in the sixties, the State of Alaska, through all their conservation 

methods and all the way the Fish and Game operate, they advertised in all 

the newspapers all the way down—I think it even went in the Sacramento 

Bee. They advertised: Come to Yakutat and Hunt Moose. They said, the 

Fish and Game said, ‘We have too many moose in Yakutat for the feed. 

There’s not enough feed for them. They’re going to eventually starve out. 

We need to limit the population of moose.’ Yeah! And so the airlines was 

taking out somewhere in the neighborhood of what, three, four hundred 
164 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

animals a year. Go out there and just—I mean moose were just very easy 

to get” (SJ). 

Killing the largest and strongest of an animal population is the tactic of many charterhunting services offered to tourists. This hunting strategy is antithetical to the 

traditional practices of Yakutat Tlingit hunters.133 Ray Sensmeier explains further: 

“They were guides for bear and goats and get ten thousand dollars apiece 

for killing those animals. They always take the biggest and the strongest 

which is something we never did. The biggest and the strongest carry the 

most powerful genes, so they used to fight for the right to mate and the 

strongest one would mate. But when you kill the biggest and the 

strongest, then the ones that wouldn’t normally mate, maybe they have 

injuries or maybe they’re not fast enough to keep up with the herd, or 

whatever, they get to mate. And so the offspring you know might carry 

those characteristics. And they do carry those characteristics of the father 

and eventually the herd gets smaller because of that. ...[T]he Eskimos 

[called wolves] ‘The Ones Who Keep the Deer Strong,’ and they were 

referring to the reindeer because the wolves, they’re not going to go after 

the biggest and the strongest. They go after the ones that can’t keep up or 

they’re injured or something, the easiest to get” (RS).

In addition to the rush of sports fishermen and hunters in the post-war period, the 

industrial development of the post-War period brought other impacts as well. 

Interviewees mentioned there had been commercial logging of the areas just west of Icy 

Bay during the mid-20th century (see also ADF&G 1984:27). Oil drilling along the 

southern coast of Wrangell-St. Elias has also had effects on traditional activities. Most 

notable is the Colorado Oil and Gas Corporation oil well at Sudden Creek. Abandoned 

in 1962, this well was a source of contamination and a focus of cleanup efforts that 

contributed to Yakutat Tlingit avoidance of the area (Bleakley 2002:153-56). The 

shoreline just beyond NPS control remained vulnerable to “timber harvest, commercial 

fishing, oil exploration, placer mining, subsistence and sport hunting and fishing” 

(ADF&G 1984:33).

Pressures even came in the form of competition for lands by other Native communities. 

Interviewees, especially Kaagwaantaan interviewees, expressed frustration with the fact 

that after the passage of ANILCA, Chugach Natives Incorporated—of which Cordova is 

a part—claimed lands along the coast as far east as Icy Bay in what are widely 

understood by Yakutat residents to be Yakutat Tlingit lands: “The forelands southwest 

of the Malaspina Glacier (approximately from the Yana River to Icy Bay) are within the 

regional selection of the Chugach Natives, Incorporated” (ADF&G 1984:32). Some 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 165

interviewees also note that they did not have the opportunity to participate in allotment 

claims of the same period, such as Ted Valle, who notes, 

“I was in New York City when the information for allotments came out 

and my mom and my dad didn’t forward any of this information for me 

so I missed out, otherwise I would have had an allotment in Kaliakh for 

sure” (TV).134

Together, some suggest, these developments compounded their families’ displacement

from lands along the shoreline—in and near Wrangell-St. Elias.135

All of the resource use practices outlined here remained vital in the period following 

WWII and leading up to park creation in 1980, contributing to the diet, economy, 

society, culture and spirituality of Yakutat Tlingit people. Indeed, Yakutat Tlingit 

culture was able to rebound somewhat during this period, as the pressures to assimilate 

that so characterized earlier decades began to evaporate. This was true even as growing 

connections with the outside world made certain changes inevitable. In this context, 

traditional resource use not only persisted but thrived, adapting to new potentials and 

in some cases expanding its scope in the years running up to ANILCA and the 1980 

creation of Wrangell-St. Elias. While there were mounting new threats to Yakutat 

Tlingit connections to the landscape, the connections persisted. In the years that 

followed, some of the factors that had started to undermine Yakutat Tlingit use of the 

area continued to affect Yakutat Tlingit use of Wrangell-St. Elias—a fact alternately 

amplified and ameliorated by NPS management.
Modern Connections
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 167

ENDURING TRADITIONS OF RESOURCE USE IN AND 

AROUND WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS

In the years immediately preceding the creation of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park 

and Preserve in 1980, and into the present day, Yakutat residents have continued to 

value and harvest natural resources from within Wrangell-St. Elias boundaries. The 

area remains functionally and spiritually linked to A Téix’—the “heart of Yakutat Bay”

—which is understood to be a source of resource wealth, food security, and many other 

things by contemporary Yakutat Tlingit. Despite this continued connection to WrangellSt. Elias lands and resources, however, in recent years, natural resource harvesting is 

becoming increasingly rare within park boundaries. Yakutat Tlingit use has declined as 

that segment of the population who were the most active users in the era before park 

creation have aged and discontinued many of their traditional subsistence activities. 

Esker Stream is still the site of cabins used by subsistence users, and those same families 

still camp, hunt, fish, and carry out other activities at Malaspina Lake. However, at the 

time of this writing, those families using the Esker Stream cabins are the only Yakutat 

Tlingit holding subsistence permits for Wrangell-St. Elias. Camps persist on other 

waterways – Manby Stream, Sudden Stream, and others – but they are used less 

frequently and are reported to be in decline. A number of resource users mentioned that 

they formerly stayed at cabins in Wrangell-St. Elias, but that those cabins are gone and 

now they only stay in tents, if they stay at all.

Traditional activities were sometimes fostered by NPS management, by virtue of 

preserving the landscape in a largely unaltered state, and yet interviewees suggest that 

such activities were more often curtailed by NPS management—especially in the years 

shortly after park creation. For example, Yakutat residents are eligible to hunt mountain 

goats on park lands at Icy Bay under federal subsistence regulations, but interviewees 

note that access is difficult without an airplane, which the Yakutat Tlingit community, 

in general, does not possess. What follows is an overview of the challenges reported by 

Yakutat Tlingit resource harvesters in the years after park creation, as well as an 

overview of some of the key resource traditions that have persisted in some fashion into 

modern times in spite of a range of new challenges. 

The continuation of traditional resource utilization by the Yakutat Tlingit at WrangellSt. Elias was weighted considerably during the development of the park’s enabling

legislation. As a result, provisions were made to protect subsistence uses of the 

landscape and to ensure access for commercial fishing and other purposes. These 

provisions also worked to reaffirm the legal standing of Native Corporation land 

selections made in the new park under ANCSA. That portion of ANILCA that 

specifically addressed Wrangell-St. Elias was the product of a series of compromises 

between park advocates, especially advocates operating at the national level, and 

mostly local and state interests that sought to protect access for the many active users of 
168 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

these lands (Reckord 1977, 1983).136 The hearings leading up to the approval of the 

Wrangell-St. Elias portion of ANILCA illuminated some portion of the resource 

practices outlined in earlier sections of this document; within that context, it was clear 

to legislators that resource use could not be extinguished within the proposed park 

without significant local opposition. For example, during the ANILCA Senate 

committee hearings it was “noted that Yakutat residents customarily used aircraft for 

access to the Malaspina Forelands ... since traveling by boat, the only other possible 

means of transportation, can be extremely dangerous due to the violent storms that 

frequent the Gulf of Alaska” (Bleakley 2002:107). Special regulations were issued in 

1981 to allow for this airplane access to the Malaspina Forelands by Yakutat residents—

one of several preexisting activities to be effectively grandfathered into NPS 

management of Wrangell-St. Elias lands and resources. 

Yet interviewees suggest that, as the park proposal took shape, many verbal or implied 

agreements were not codified in written form, while even written agreements proved to 

be negotiable or short-lived in the years immediately following park creation. 

Interviewees therefore report considerable turbulence in park-Yakutat relations at the 

time of ANILCA’s passage and during the original establishment of park policies 

pertaining to the Wrangell-St. Elias south shoreline. 

“The St. Elias and over here at Manby’s shore, they fought us going over 

there and fishing. ...They did not want to have Native allotments claims 

on St. Elias Reserve. There was a guy that came in... [a] forest ranger that 

came in for St. Elias was a soft sell guy and...he came in and he said, and 

he told us, ‘No problem! ...We just got a little park and we’re just going to 

kind of watch over it for you folks and you can still do the same 

traditional things you’ve always done. There’s no problem whatsoever. 

You can just enjoy your fishing and your hunting. There won’t be any 

changes.’ Because he did not want the people to get up in arms knowing 

what was eventually was going to come. It’s a government thing. The 

government promises you things and says, ‘Oh there’s no problem,’ but 

then pretty soon they start, ‘No, no. You can’t do that. No, you can’t go 

fishing. No, we need a permit. You have to fill out the paperwork. No, you 

can’t go this time of year. No, you can’t take four-wheelers over there...’ 

And then the rules start coming out. Then they, we begin to see they’re all 

carrying guns. And then they say, ‘Well you can’t go on the land unless 

you have a permit. And you can’t land a plane on there.’ It’s just the rules. 

They keep more and more and more and pretty soon that’s not Klech Haa 

aani. It’s not Our Land. And so this is how it happens. And that’s how it 

did happen” (SJ).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 169

This turbulence affected, and has continued to affect, Yakutat Tlingit perceptions of 

Wrangell-St. Elias. When interviewees spoke of their concerns about the NPS generally, 

they focused very little on recent issues—which are addressed through various 

institutionalized venues such as federal regional advisory councils and what has

become a largely routinized NPS consultation process. Instead, their remarks focus 

principally on the disruptive experiences surrounding park creation. 

A number of interviewees described limited and contradictory consultation with the 

Yakutat community at the time of park creation—a pattern that many Yakutat residents 

resented in light of their unique and enduring associations with lands and resources in 

the proposed park. While the National Park Service and other involved agencies made 

efforts to consult with Yakutat residents regarding land claims and access issues, 

interviewees felt that these meetings were poorly timed in a way that excluded many 

families—especially those involved in commercial fishing.137 Even when consultation 

did occur, interviewees suggest that the community’s input had little sway over the 

specifics of ANILCA language or the transfer of regulatory responsibility from the US 

Forest Service to the Park Service. In part, Yakutat interviewees suggest that this was 

because members of the community perceived how NPS management might restrict 

future use of lands and resources. As a member of the Yakutat City Council at the time, 

Sam Demmert worked to maintain Native access to Wrangell-St. Elias:

“our concern about having access to it was brought up and they reassured 

us that we would have access...they started talking about this 

happening...they talked a good talk: ‘Oh yeah, you will have access to it. 

You can continue fishing.’ All of that. There was no objection that I recall 

because we were given word that we’re going to continue to be fishing 

down there. Well once they got [the park established] everything went out 

the door” (SD).

Interviewees suggest that these exchanges ensured the retention of a sizeable part of the 

Yakutat Bay shoreline within the Wrangell-St. Elias boundaries, but accomplished 

relatively little else. These early issues, they propose, left matters of Alaska Native 

rights in the southern edge of Wrangell-St. Elias poorly defined, contributing in turn to 

the displacement of Native land and resource users in the years that followed.

Interviewees provided consistent accounts of the rapid changes brought about by the

formation of Wrangell-St. Elias and other public lands under ANILCA through the 

1980s. Indeed, multiple interviewees reported that Yakutat Tlingit fishing and hunting 

camps were destroyed upon the creation of Wrangell-St. Elias, as federal employees 

sought to clean up the landscape and restore “natural” conditions to a long occupied 

landscape. Accounts varied as to the timing, locations and the agencies involved. Skip 

Johnson attributes some of these actions to the US Forest Service:
170 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“Oh they [did] as a matter of fact, the seal camp that we had up there—

well I think the Forest Service did that though. But yeah, they went over in 

Esker Creek and...anything that was a Native camp or anything [was 

destroyed]” (SJ).

Temporary camps, or those that superficially appeared to be unoccupied or defunct, 

were said to be especially targeted. Interviewees such as Ted Valle reported such camps 

being burned to the ground without prior notification of the owners: 

“The only problem I’m aware of and it really bothered me, nothing was 

done about it, was some of our young [people went to] Manby, or [Bering] 

River they went in through the river and they built a camp there. They 

were moose hunting. And while they went up moose hunting, the Park 

Service landed there and burned their camp down, burned it up. Didn’t 

even allow them to take anything out of their camp, burned everything.

Now that to me is wrong. They should be paid for it” (TV).

NPS has never openly acknowledged a policy, formal or informal, of burning or 

otherwise destroying smokehouses, cabins or subsistence camps, although similar 

charges have been leveled against Glacier Bay and in other parks (Thornton fieldnotes 

1992-1997). In contrast, the USDA Forest Service has acknowledged such a policy in the 

Tongass National Forest and issued a formal apology for its actions (Petershoare 2010). 

However, some elders have not been satisfied with an apology, as traditional law 

requires compensation for such destruction. As one elder stated at a 2014 meeting:

“Traditional camp sites which included smoke houses were totally 

destroyed. One conclusion that came up from one of the top people of FS 

[Forest Service] was to have three poles carved -- Tlingit, Haida & 

Tsimshian. ...Then nothing. They keep saying ‘no funds,’ and just an 

apology. It was explained to them that in the tradition [a] solution was 

some type of compensation & that an oral apology was not acceptable as a 

solution. No response” (USDAFS 2014).

Allotments provided footholds for certain families that remained undisturbed, but these 

were often held by people outside of Yakutat or are not otherwise available to active 

Yakutat resource users. Instead, interviewees suggest, many of the most active camps 

were those sitting outside of allotment boundaries, on lands that were being actively 

managed by the NPS for the first time. Even as past NPS documents have suggested, 

relationships between the NPS and Yakutat were often tense through the early 1980s as 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 171

an outcome of these conflicts. As the official Wrangell-St. Elias Administrative History 

recounts, 

“Yakutat residents complained about NPS mistreatment. Submitting 

numerous grievances, Yak-Tat Kwann [sic], Inc., President Don Bremner 

suggested that the relationship between the local community and the 

government had ‘reached the point of hate’” (Bleakley 2002:46).

As Ted Valle notes, Yakutat Tlingit involvement in the early years of park management 

were negligible, and NPS management tended to come to the attention of Yakutat 

residents largely as an outcome of specific conflicts. In this light, many Yakutat Tlingit 

began to perceive the NPS as the latest in a series of interlopers within their traditional 

tribal lands: 

“the local people at the time didn’t know anything about the Park or its 

happenings. ...Nobody wanted to be involved with the Park and they 

should have, you know they should have. So the Park Service just kind of 

ran over the few people that were there. ...They need to know the land 

belongs to us. And we keep telling them for the last couple hundred years. 

They don’t hear us” (TV).

Interviewees sometimes suggested that working relationships between NPS and 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe members contain residual tensions that emerged from this time, 

the miscommunications, and the unrealized expectations of Yakutat Tlingit regarding 

the implications of NPS management.

As these early conflicts simmered, Yakutat residents began to shift resource-harvesting 

activities to other parts of their traditional homeland. The threat of conflict, legal 

challenges, or loss of property had significantly disincentivized resource harvesting in 

the southernmost portion of Wrangell-St. Elias. These issues reached tentative 

conclusions in the early 1990s, as consultation improved and NPS management in the 

Wrangell-St. Elias reportedly became more predictable. Yet this shift was said to have

involved new permitting processes and camping restrictions that still deterred many 

Yakutat families from returning to the Wrangell-St. Elias region despite a desire to 

continue gathering resources within traditional subsistence boundaries. As Sam 

Demmert notes,

“The restrictions got so bad that you know we used to be able to camp 

there: A-frames or cabins, whatever. Once they started putting restrictions 

on, camping down there just became too hard to go down there anymore. 
172 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

So there were very few people that go back—I don’t [know] if anybody 

goes back down there anymore as a result of that” (SD).

While use and even occupation of the southern edge of Wrangell-St. Elias is allowed, 

interviewees suggest that regulations have tended to involve special restrictions or gear 

requirements that are expensive—favoring affluent and, by extension, often non-Native 

users.138 Further, interviewees report that even when they have a desire to maintain or 

rebuild pre-existing cabins, they are reluctant to engage with NPS staff due to stress 

and/or confusion regarding the permitting process and NPS regulations.

In this context, certain tribal members have been hesitant to report traditional 

subsistence activities within Wrangell-St. Elias for fear of fueling future regulations. 

Interviewees often expressed concern that traditional subsistence activities such as 

seagull egg gathering might be further restricted in the southernmost portion of 

Wrangell-St. Elias and beyond, based on changing federal and state regulations.139 As 

Ted Valle explains: 

“I don’t like to [share traditional subsistence information with] 

government agencies. Okay, one day they invited us all, conference up 

there next to the Forest Service. They wanted to know where we got 

seagull eggs, etcetera. And I kept telling them, ‘Don’t go to the meeting. 

Don’t tell them where we get seagull eggs.’ They said, ‘Well, why not?’ 

Because next thing you know they’re going to start regulating us” (TV).

Some significant portions of subsistence activities within the southern edge of 

Wrangell-St. Elias are reported, then, but there are certainly activities that go 

unreported as well. 

While access to land within the Wrangell-St. Elias boundary is said to have been 

complicated by park regulations, Yakutat Tlingit families maintained a close 

relationship with the area and have continued to access it for resource harvesting 

purposes, especially from camps retained on Knight Island and elsewhere on the 

southeast shore of Yakutat Bay—further consolidating seasonal settlements along this 

southeastern shore. Yakutat Tlingit connections to the islands in Yakutat Bay, 

Disenchantment Bay and Russell Fiord remain critically important to those families 

seeking to continue seal hunting and other subsistence traditions linked directly or 

indirectly to Wrangell-St. Elias.140

In addition to these challenges, interviewees shared concerns about the effects of nonNative recreational use within Wrangell-St. Elias. Poaching by recreational hunters, and 

even professional outfitters, is said to be a problem along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 173

today. While the NPS has sought to limit these effects, certain interviewees expressed 

the view that non-Native usage of Wrangell-St. Elias—and its consequences—was 

inadvertently accelerated by Wrangell-St. Elias’s national park status. Traditional 

subsistence opportunities are said to have been undermined by competition from

hunting guides, who have accessed these lands since before the creation of the park.

In this context, trophy hunters were said to be a modest but persistent problem—

outsiders, sometimes with charter guides, taking only the head and antlers of the largest 

moose, for example, leaving the rest of the body to rot—a phenomenon that 

interviewees found unpardonably inconsistent with traditional protocols for the area: 

“You know people go over and hunt, I don’t know how much. I know one 

group that went over and you know found seven carcasses: moose with 

only the heads gone. So those are the trophy hunters. They always want 

the largest rack to hang on their wall” (RS).

Certain interviewees also suggested that charter fishing operations along the WrangellSt. Elias coast were having disproportionately negative effects on the stocks of fish in 

that area, compounding the effects of historical mismanagement of certain commercial 

fisheries in Yakutat Bay. 141 Commercial and sport fishing operations are managed by 

the state of Alaska not by the NPS; however, their impacts – as well as other impacts

outside NPS jurisdiction that are mentioned here – are still of concern to the Yakutat 

Tlingit resource users connected to Wrangell-St. Elias. A few interviewees also 

mentioned egregious cases of recreational users tormenting wildlife such as mountain 

goats—infrequent events, perhaps, but symbolically potent ones that tend to become 

embedded in enduring community discourse regarding the adverse effects of tourism 

in the area.142

Tour ships began to visit Hubbard Glacier as early as the late 1800s, but it was not until 

the post-World War II era that cruise ships became predictably present on coast near 

Yakutat. The movement of cruise ships and the wave action and smoke produced as 

they enter Disenchantment Bay are of concern to interviewees, as well. Some Yakutat 

Tlingit began to petition to remove cruise ships from Disenchantment Bay, noting that 

the peak pupping season in late spring and early summer correlated with the peak 

cruise ship traffic (BA). Some Yakutat Tlingit such as Ray Sensmeier have noted the 

movement of seals from Disenchantment Bay into Icy Bay during periods of cruise ship 

visitation, as the seals seek to avoid the disruptions caused by wakes, noises, and other 

cruise ship impacts. Those that stay in Disenchantment Bay when cruise ships have 

visited regularly are said to have suffered various adverse consequences: 

“The fear is that they’ll all be going up to Icy Bay because the entrance 

prevents any large ships from entering it and so they’re safe there and 
174 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

they can lay out in the sun and nurse their young and in August they’ll 

molt and you know, lose their hair and stuff. And in Disenchantment Bay, 

if they’re disturbed they’re constantly going into the cold water which is 

not good for a molting seal. They don’t have any hair. ...So we had an 

issue with cruise ships coming in precisely at that time. And so the little 

ones don’t have fat yet, they don’t know how to swim right off, the 

mother teaches them and...sometimes there’s five ships a day in there so 

they’re disturbing the ice that the pups are laying on and get washed into 

the water and the ice, the water from the falling from the calving glacier is 

much, much colder than the ocean water...the current comes up where the 

cruise ships are stopping at...two and half knots, northwest that comes up 

this way and around. ...So that’s another concern, how it affects the fish 

and the...seals and other things that travel through it...the highest I 

remember was 71 ships came in here in the summer” (RS).

Exhaust from cruise ship traffic in Disenchantment Bay was also mentioned as a source 

of concern—not only because of its resource effects, but because it is seen by many as 

fundamentally incompatible with the “purity” and the spiritual significance of the A 

Figure 13 – An early tour boat, visiting the base of Hubbard Glacier in Disenchantment Bay. 

Cruise ships began regularly making visits to the base of this glacier especially in the years 

following World War II. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 175

Téix’ area: “there’s an inversion that exists in Disenchantment Bay that holds the smoke 

in there and if you’re trolling...it’s visible from twenty miles out on the ocean” (RS).143

Persisting Resource Traditions

In spite of the many challenges brought by federal and state regulation, competing 

users, the distance of Wrangell-St. Elias resources from Yakutat, and other 

considerations, Yakutat Tlingit traditional fishing, hunting and gathering practices 

remain remarkably robust. Subsistence traditions remain strong among Tlingit 

communities generally, but Yakutat stands out somewhat as a persisting center of 

traditional subsistence, where salmon fishing, seal hunting and other traditional 

activities continue to serve as cornerstones of community life and enduring mixed 

economies. As Thornton (2012) confirms,

“subsistence production remains a significant sector of the economy, and 

the vast majority of subsistence resources are gathered locally, that is, 

within traditional kwaán territories associated with each community. 

...Yakutat continue[s] to have the most productive subsistence relations 

with their traditional environment” (Thornton 2012:166).

Similarly, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, “Yakutat has one of 

the strongest subsistence economies of Alaska’s coastal areas” (ADF&G 2014:56).

Certainly, there are many obstacles to subsistence harvests within Wrangell-St. Elias

beyond those associated with federal and state regulation. The difficulty of access is 

significant, as the coastline abounds with navigational hazards and the cost of gasoline 

can be prohibitive. Moreover, there are readily accessible resources very close to 

Yakutat, so that resource harvesters now gather largely in places like the Situk River, 

with its short and safe roads to and from town. And, in spite of the robust subsistence 

tradition in Yakutat, many Yakutat Tlingit must now work traditional subsistence tasks 

into a conflicting schedule dominated by the cash economy and regulatory restrictions, 

rather than—as in decades past—building paid employment around subsistence 

tasks.144 

Still, while the southern coast of Wrangell-St. Elias is not as actively utilized as some 

portions of the Yakutat Tlingit traditional territory, it is still used and widely 

understood as a part of Yakutat’s subsistence lands. According to recent statistical 

assessments, “The shoreline and inland areas across Yakutat Bay from the community, 

from Point Manby to Bancas Point, and the offshore areas on the west side of Yakutat 

Bay. [As of 2006], this area is used by 30-60% of households” (CBY 2006:3-105, Mills and 
176 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Firman 1986). Moreover, with a broad spectrum of environments ranging from recently 

exposed granite to Sitka spruce forest, the southern coast of Wrangell-St. Elias provides

a variety of habitats from which to gather these resources: “There’s a bounty right 

outside the door if you’re willing to put in the work” (YB). And, in Yakutat, there is still 

a lively tradition of harvesting not only salmon and other significant species, but a 

diverse range of traditional food resources—including a wide range of fish, as well as 

marine mammals, land mammals, plants, birds’ eggs and other resources (see Figures

14 & 15). Despite the convenience of similar proximal resources, there continue to be

both long-term and short-term stays along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast to harvest plants, 

animals and fish—used for food and social purposes, for materials used in traditional 

crafts, and for use in ceremonial activities. Many trips involve harvesting multiple 

Figure 14 – Subsistence harvest by Yakutat residents, by resource category, in pounds, 1984 (based on 

Mills and Firman 1986:79)
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 177

resources concurrently, making the most of the variegated distribution of natural 

resources in this dynamic landscape. For example, Skip Johnson remembers harvesting 

seals, crab, cockles, seagull eggs, geese and fish from Icy Bay into the late 20th century:

“Now as far as subsistence in Icy Bay, and subsistence in Icy Bay is a lot of 

stuff. Not only seals, but crab and also we found out there were big, 

humongous cockles on the beach. ...We also ate seagull eggs. And geese, 

young geese. We’d go out there in the reeds. And then fish of course. We 

ate a lot of fish that we’d get there” (SJ).

Thus, diverse resources from places such as Icy Bay and the head of Yakutat Bay have 

long served as prominent traditional subsistence harvest areas and continue to be 

utilized by the Yakutat Tlingit community today. Families still know when certain 

resources will be available along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast based on long-known 

cycles and environmental cues detected in the community of Yakutat, still mobilizing to 

these places for reasons that are dietary, economic, social, cultural and spiritual.145

Figure 15 – Subsistence harvest by Yakutat residents, by resource category, in pounds, 2000 (based on 

data from ADF&G 2000)

Salmon

38%

Non-salmon Fish

22%

Land 

Mammals

9%

Marine Mammals

9%

Birds and Eggs

1%

Marine 

Invertebrates

14%

Vegetation

7%

Total Estimated Lbs Harvested: 244,670

Mean Estimated Lbs/Household: 1,046

Mean Estimated Lbs/Person: 386
178 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

For Yakutat Tlingit, it is important to continue visiting ancestral landscapes, including 

those in the southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias and along its southern coast to 

harvest resources, especially key cultural foods (e.g., berries, fish, shellfish, bird eggs, 

harbor seal and mountain goat). To be sure, the importance of traditional subsistence 

resources obtained in these areas is not solely material, or manifested as caloric intake 

by Yakutat residents. Traditional subsistence foods harvested in Wrangell-St. Elias by 

Yakutat Tlingit continue to hold cultural, social and spiritual significance for the 

community. Interviewees make it clear that continued access to and use of natural 

resources are considered essential to the maintenance of cultural relationships with the 

land. The items harvested in these areas are understood, in many cases, to be directly 

descended from the same populations that fed one’s own ancestors in the past. Foods 

from these traditional areas reinforce a person’s identity, sense of heritage, purity and 

balance. Thus, the “value of such natural resource areas as a means of conserving 

physical, social, and Tlingit spiritual relations to country, can hardly be 

overemphasized” (Thornton 2010:114). The natural food products acquired in this way 

are important to the economy, culture and society of Yakutat Tlingit, but the process 

itself—the various resource procurement activities—is said to sustain the community’s 

sense of identity, as well as its unique relationships to their traditional homeland. 

It is also true that traditional clan claims on the resources of the Wrangell-St. Elias area 

persist, so that one’s clan identity as a member of Kwáashk’ikwáan, or closelyassociated Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, brings added incentives to return to Wrangell-St. 

Elias. Interviewees sometimes expressed the view that the integrity of the clan system 

depended on people observing connections to traditional harvesting areas, and that by 

not observing these protocols, Yakutat Tlingit place the integrity of their culture at risk. 

As noted elsewhere in this document, resource harvests have also allowed multiple 

generations to be present on the land together, giving families a degree of selfsufficiency and cohesion, allowing for an intergenerational exchange of information 

regarding Wrangell-St. Elias lands and resources in a way that sustains the cultural 

integrity of Yakutat Tlingit and their constituent clans that they sometimes found hard 

to maintain in the modern world (Hunn et al. 2003; Thornton 2008, 2010; Deur and 

Thornton 2015).

In addition to maintaining group and personal connections through traditional 

harvesting practices, resources gathered from traditional areas in Wrangell-St. Elias are 

often touted as having distinct qualities. Resources taken from Yakutat Bay are 

considered to be more flavorful, “pure,” and more spiritually significant than similar 

resources found outside of the area. Harbor seal, in particular, are said to “taste better”

when harvested in the glacial ice that exists in Wrangell-St. Elias near the head of 

Yakutat Bay. For this reason, Wrangell-St. Elias continues to be sought out as a 

harvesting location by traditional subsistence users, even when similar resources are

available in other parts of Yakutat Tlingit territory. What follows are mere “highlights”

regarding contemporary resource harvests in, and immediately adjacent to, Wrangell-
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 179

St. Elias based on interviews for the current project and available gray literature. The 

creation of more detailed account of contemporary harvesting practices in the study

area presents a future research opportunity.

Seal and Sea Otter Hunting

Seal hunting had diminished significantly in the years following the bounty program, 

but the hunt has rebounded somewhat in recent years. The head of Yakutat and 

Disenchantment Bays continues to be one of the most celebrated seal hunting areas on 

the entire south-central Alaska coastline. While harvest levels vary, some degree of seal 

hunting has continued along this coastline since it emerged from under the ice centuries 

ago. People have gone there from a number of Tlingit and Eyak communities to join 

Yakutat residents hunting seals in the floating ice at the base of the tidewater glaciers: 

“At Yakutat, spring seal hunts continue. Some people still use temporary camps located 

at traditional sealing areas near the north end of the bay, while others travel daily to the 

area from Yakutat by high speed boats” (Davis 1996:136). 

Yakutat hunters continue to utilize traditional subsistence base camps along the 

shoreline, largely though not exclusively on the southeastern shore of Yakutat Bay. 

From here, they travel to Disenchantment Bay and Haenke Island to hunt seal and 

gather seagull eggs. Thornton explains: 

“There were at least four seal-hunting camps between Point Latouche and 

Haenke Island and additional hunting camps in Russell and Nunatak 

fiords, where mountain goat and other resources were prevalent in 

addition to seal. Yakutat Natives still use these camps as a base for 

harvesting seal in Disenchantment Bay and seagull eggs on Haenke 

Island” (Thornton 2007:6). 

Over time, harbor seal hunting may be gradually declining per capita, but has remained 

a robust part of Yakutat traditional subsistence hunting. Even in recent years, Yakutat 

has been identified as one of the top three Native communities in Alaska in terms of 

total and per capita harbor seal harvests. Yakutat residents generally harvest more seals 

than any other Tlingit community, with Hoonah often being in distant second place. 

The vast majority of seals hunted by Yakutat residents are harvested along the south 

coast of Wrangell-St. Elias (Wolfe et al. 2009:1517). (Unlike some Alaska Native

communities, by contrast, sea lions are seldom harvested for food in Yakutat.) Many 

hunters have integrated new technologies and materials into traditional seal harvesting 

practices: “Seal hunts still take place, though the gun and metal harpoon have replaced 

bone and wood darts and shafts. Outboard motors have replaced the wooden paddle to 

propel boats” (Davis 1996:134). 
180 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

In spite of these changes, seals continue to be hunted in the spring during the months of 

April and May when seals are gathered on the ice to rear pups following pupping 

season.146 Today, Jeremiah James is one of the younger hunters, and he is involved in 

the production of clothing and crafts, making seal skin vests, hats, and gloves, as well as 

a number of items from sea otter fur. The meat and fat of the seal continue to be eaten 

fresh, but are also preserved by canning and other methods for use throughout the year. 

The sharing of seal meat provides important support to elderly members of the 

community and others who do not participate in the hunt. This redistribution within 

the community is a source of pride, as well as means of demonstrating a continuation of 

respect for the elders and their way as a people and a community.

As in earlier times, the area close to the base of the tidewater glaciers is considered to 

have the tastiest seals in the region due to a variety of factors, including colder 

temperatures. Interviewees make it clear that the relative absence of ship traffic or other

sources of degrading pollution along the coast in contemporary times has contributed 

to perceptions of the Icy Bay and Hubbard Glacier areas as especially prime hunting 

grounds relative to other areas in Tlingit country that are less protected. There continue 

to be perturbations in the availability of seal, and interviewees mentioned seal 

populations moving from some of their usual pupping waters in Disenchantment Bay 

to Icy Bay.147 These changes in seal distribution will likely result in changing patterns of 

seal hunting over time, with increased hunting in the “park’s waters” as tidewater 

glaciers generally retreat from historical positions. (Still, Icy Bay hunting remains minor 

relative to other seal harvests—reflecting in part its distance from town and established 

seal camps.) While reflective of both natural processes and traditional conventions of 

hunter mobility on this dynamic coast, the movements between waters of different 

agencies has regulatory implications that will need to be considered if Yakutat Tlingit 

sealing on this coast, and traditions associated with the sealing, are to persist into future 

generations.148

Sea otters, by contrast, were hunted to extinction in many southeastern Alaskan waters 

during the fur trade. At the same time, small populations could still be found in Lituya 

Bay, Icy Bay and off Cape Yakataga.149 The Yakutat Bay coastline remained a minor 

stronghold of sea otter populations long after otter had been extirpated from most of 

the coastline. Through a transplantation program beginning in 1966,150 they were 

reintroduced to the Yakutat Bay area. The program was remarkably successful, as is 

true in other parts of southeast Alaska. Under a provision of the 1972 Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (and also by the terms of the Endangered Species Act), Alaska Natives 

are allowed to continue hunting sea otters for the purposes of subsistence or the 

production of handcrafts, provided these harvests are not “wasteful,” reflecting the 

enduring cultural significance of sea otter hunting. Today, a small number of Yakutat 

Tlingit harvest sea otters in modest quantities in Yakutat Bay, including areas along the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coast, fashioning furs into hats, mittens, slippers and other 

handicrafts. Some are used by Yakutat families, while others are made specifically for 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 181

sale to Yakutat tourists and people outside the region. As part of this continuing fur 

trade, these hunters often fashion seal skins into similar items. Sealskin hats, slippers 

and even Christmas ornaments can now be found for sale in family-owned craft shops 

in Yakutat, from the homes of certain Yakutat Tlingit hunters, or even through online 

sales. These operations provide a modest inflow of cash to subsistence hunters, and are 

one of the ways certain households capitalize on Yakutat’s tourist economy. 

Land Hunting

Like seal and sea otter hunting, the hunting of land mammals such as mountain goat 

has persisted into the era of NPS management along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. 

However, hunting on land has been qualitatively different than sea mammal hunting—

requiring not only a boat, but a landing place and often a cabin or foothold on the land. 

These footholds have been comparatively difficult to maintain in the years following the 

creation of Wrangell-St. Elias. As noted elsewhere, certain camps were reported to be 

demolished at the time of Wrangell-St. Elias creation. In addition, the regulatory 

environment—introduced at that time not only by the NPS but by ADF&G and other 

agencies—provided a range of new obstacles. In some respects, these limited the times 

and locations of hunting in ways that Yakutat Tlingit found to be inconsistent with 

traditional harvest protocols, unresponsive to natural changes in game availability, or 

incompatible with the practical limitations of their work lives. Moreover, the presence 

of a complex regulatory environment was said to disincentivize hunting within the 

preserve, if only because complex and changing regulations create a situation of 

uncertainty. Not wanting to risk violations, and not always sure of what constitutes a 

violation, many hunters reduced or simply stopped hunting within the southern 

portion of Wrangell-St. Elias, especially along the shoreline of Yakutat Bay. Deur and 

Thornton (2015) have referred to this phenomenon as “regulatory pollution” in a 

separate study of Tlingit uses of NPS lands. 

Commenting on this point, Skip Johnson notes that he could return to the shoreline area

of Wrangell-St. Elias to camp and hunt but the regulations and restrictions on his 

movements make his return unlikely: 

“You can go over there anytime you want. You just have to fill out all the 

paperwork. You just have to abide by all the rules that they got. That’s no 

problem. There’s no problem with it. And this is what they’ll advocate. 

This is what they will tell you. They will try to make us believe that the 

traditional uses haven’t changed. ...But...how even to try to figure out 

how to go across and do that. Like moose hunting is entirely different 

over there now. And I don’t know what their rules are for moose hunting. 

Do you? I haven’t even investigated into it because I didn’t even want to 

go there. I didn’t even want to deal with their B.S.” (SJ).
182 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

So too, as the patterns of resource distribution change, many traditional hunting areas 

are no longer considered appealing, even if hunters have access. Even Icy Bay, one of 

the premier places for mountain goat hunting, is said to no longer be especially

appealing due to declining mountain goat numbers—a phenomenon attributed to some 

combination of past ADF&G management, competition with sport hunters from outside 

the area, and environmental change. As Skip Johnson notes,

“We hunted mountain goat. Now, Icy Bay was one of the best places for 

mountain goat. We went up every year and subsistence hunted mountain 

goat. ...But mountain goat as a subsistence use, there’s now hardly any 

mountain goat in Icy Bay anymore” (SJ).

Traditionally, localized changes would prompt the relocation of Yakutat Tlingit hunters 

to alternative locations that are not so overtaxed. But with land jurisdictions and the 

boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias being fixed, adaptive geographical flexibility with 

regard to hunting is no longer possible. Add to this the sheer difficulty of accessing the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coast due to navigational hazards, fuel costs and other issues, and 

Yakutat residents agree that hunting on the Wrangell-St. Elias coast has gradually 

declined from roughly the moment the park and preserve were created. 

Still, the hunting of mountain goats, in particular, continues. According to Lena Farkus, 

“My father got mountain goat up the fjord...some men still do” (LF). The coastline of 

Wrangell-St. Elias continues to hold unique appeal as a place where mountain goats can 

be seen by boat, since the goats travel the relatively high and rocky terrain along the 

coast. In this environment, mountain goats can be hunted by land or by boat, unlike in 

many other portions of the Yakutat coastline. (Mountain goat hunting by airplane was 

reported especially for the years immediately preceding the creation of Wrangell-St. 

Elias, but has reportedly diminished since that time along with other airplane-based 

hunts, reflecting the growing cost and complexity of airplane use in Alaska Native 

communities.) Mountain goat meat and fat continue to be used in traditional cuisine 

and medicine, while mountain goat wool and pelts are used in the production of 

blankets, clothing, regalia and other items.

Habitat conversion outside of Wrangell-St. Elias, occurring at roughly the same time as 

park creation, reportedly had effects on mountain goat populations. These changes 

reduced total mountain goat hunting within the community, while enhancing the 

relative importance of goats still found within the southern edge of Wrangell-St. Elias. 

In particular, commercial logging was said to have compromised the natural habitat of 

the mountain goat on lands adjacent to Wrangell-St. Elias, causing a general decrease in 

population. As Mills and Firman note, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 183

“In Yakutat community subsistence use areas, timber harvesting near Icy 

Bay has removed known timbered wintering sites for the local mountain 

goat population. Yakutat key respondents have reported that they no 

longer hunt mountain goats near Icy Bay as they did 10-15 years ago.

Until the late 1970s in the late summer and fall, groups of Yakutat hunters 

travelled by boat or occasionally by airplane 30 miles northwest up the 

coast to Icy Bay. They hunted for goats along the cliffs and mountains that 

surround the bay. Because of the length of the trip and the time and 

energy expended to reach the areas where goats are found, the groups of 

hunters harvested more than one goat each” (Mills and Firman 1986:169).

Similarly, Ray Sensmeier reports that logging reduced the number of mountain goats 

throughout Yakutat traditional territory:

“But they logged that whole area from Glacier Bay all the way to oh, past 

Yakataga a little ways. And the goats used to go down to the beach to get 

salt. You know they need a lot of salt. But once they clear-cut it, they 

didn’t want to cross an open clearing, so they didn’t. So the population of 

the goats dropped dramatically...you walk around and you probably 

won’t get anything” (RS).

Logging camps, road development and other activities were said to have amplified this 

impact, adversely affecting goat breeding as well as impacting migratory routes in ways 

that persist into recent times.151 Goat numbers in the years that followed declined 

generally, while some areas distant from these disturbances—including areas along the 

north shore of Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays—were sought out as alternatives. 

Newly developed bag limits, enforced by ADF&G, generally limited the catch to single 

goats during this period, which simultaneously reduced the harvest of goats in areas 

especially distant from Yakutat.152 Again, quoting Mills and Firman,

“The Yakutat hunters who had continued to hunt the Icy Bay area despite 

the increased activity and competition in the area soon discontinued using 

the area because of the reduced bag limits, according to key respondents.

‘It’s just not worth the time and expense to hunt for goats in Icy Bay when 

you’re only allowed to take one,’ one key respondent commented. The last 

time he had hunted in the Icy Bay areas was in the early 1970s” (Mills and

Firman 1986:170).

The patterns described for other resource harvests commonly followed the pattern of 

mountain goat, with resource harvests generally declining even as the proportional 
184 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

importance of the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline of Yakutat Bay was high. As mentioned 

elsewhere in this document, moose and deer moved into the Yakutat region in the late 

twentieth century. These game animals were at one time abundant in the region, but 

have since declined substantially in number. In the 1970s, in particular, the moose 

population fell dramatically due to two especially harsh winters (Mills and Firman 

1986:133). Now, to the frustration of some Yakutat Tlingit hunters, moose hunting is 

very restricted both inside and outside of Wrangell-St. Elias lands. It is widely reported

that moose hunting is a small part of the Yakutat subsistence hunt near Yakutat Bay, 

but moose hunting has been carried out in the nunatak for moose and goats, especially 

when other hunting options were limited (VD).153 Occasional hunting of bear and wolf 

was mentioned within the southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias, along with the 

incidental hunting and occasional trapping of such species as beaver. These activities 

are reported to be comparatively minor today, largely coincidental with primary 

resource harvesting activities such as salmon fishing and seal hunting. Trapping is also 

reported within the southern edge of the park and preserve, though little detail was 

forthcoming from reconnaissance interviews undertaken for the current study.

Fish and Shellfish

By contrast, fish—salmon in particular—still represent a cornerstone in the diet, 

economy and culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. All five species of Pacific salmon have long 

been harvested by Yakutat families—sockeye being an especially large proportion of the 

harvest (e.g., Fall et al. 2002). Families continue to preserve salmon through smoking, 

drying, freezing and jarring; salting and pickling are also mentioned. Today, both the 

Situk and Dry Bay areas remain important sources of salmon, reflecting both the 

proximity and productivity of these rivers. Fish are harvested in the rivers both 

commercially and for traditional subsistence purposes (Thornton 2007:6-7).154

According to Ramos and Mason (2004:14), the Situk River is the most important source 

of king, sockeye and steelhead salmon for Yakutat Tlingit families, with seventy-five 

percent of Yakutat residents utilizing the Situk for salmon-fishing purposes—a 

percentage that has arguably increased in the decade since Ramos and Mason’s report. 

However, in addition to Dry Bay, Situk River and areas such as Ankau River that sit 

nearer to Yakutat, a number of fishermen continue to utilize areas along the north shore 

of Yakutat Bay, in places within or very near the boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias: 

“The Tsiu-Kaliakh watershed supports a lucrative commercial and 

recreational salmon fishery. Many of the commercial fishing permit 

holders come from Yakutat and Cordova, maintain camps on the Tsiu, 

and engage in subsistence fishing and hunting activities in conjunction

with their participation in the commercial fishery” (Thornton 2007:5).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 185

In fact, Yakutat is somewhat unique among southern Alaskan communities in its 

retainment of commercial fishing permits among locals (Langdon 2015) , and in 

structuring complementary commercial and subsistence fisheries in places like the Tsiu, 

Situk, and East Alsek rivers. It could be argued, in fact, that the opportunity to 

commercial fish in rivers distant from Yakutat, such as the Tsiu, keep viable subsistence 

practices of food gathering in these areas. 

Fishermen continue to work in the waters around other key landmarks on the coastline, 

such as Point Manby, Sitkagi Bluffs and points beyond. Fishing along the exposed outer 

coast continues to be a skill taught by elder fishermen to younger men, including how 

to navigate the rough and wave-pounded coast, as well as skills associated with surf 

fishing, still practiced at times in the area. For some, the continuation of this tradition is 

highly important and symbolic of the persistence of Yakutat Tlingit fishing traditions 

generally. For Kwáashk’ikwáan or Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan men, the fishing of this 

exposed northern coastline is especially important. Maternal uncles continue to share 

highly localized navigational and fishing knowledge with their nephews, and men of 

the clans continue to hold special standing among fishing peers who travel the fishing 

grounds, due to their familiarity with, and traditional rights along, the coastline.

So too, interviewees report some persistence of subsistence fishing in the early years 

after the creation of Wrangell-St. Elias at sites like Esker Stream, Sudden Stream and 

Point Manby. These camps served as seasonal fishing stations for subsistence fisheries 

involving entire families, while also serving as a base of operations and “safe haven” for 

commercial fishermen plying the exposed Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. Still, the number 

of subsistence and commercial fishermen visiting these areas and areas within the 

southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias has dropped significantly since the creation of 

the park and preserve. While some Yakutat Tlingit fishermen still visit these areas 

occasionally, most interviewees report that, for a multitude of reasons, they have ceased 

to fish regularly in areas around the once popular fishing camps at Point Manby and 

beyond. For most, fishing at these camps is said to have become extremely difficult due 

to stringent permit regulations that are compounded by restrictions regarding beach 

access and camp construction. Sam Demmert confirms this, saying “it’s hard to do 

unless you have the camp...Once they put the restrictions on, hardly anybody went 

down there” (SD). Interviewees report that there has been a decline of fishing at Yahtse 

River—including lands outside of, but draining Wrangell-St. Elias near Icy Bay—for 

some of these same reasons. The reduced availability of cabins along the coastline is 

said to add complexity to commercial fishing, making it difficult to store supplies or to 

come ashore safely in inclement weather. 

People report occasionally raising tents in places where cabins once stood, so as to 

maintain a foothold while fishing the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline along Yakutat Bay. 

This practice is also employed in areas just outside of Wrangell-St. Elias, such as at 

Yahtse River. James Bremner reports of that area, 
186 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

“[Jerry Nelson] he had some cabins there. I don’t know if they’re there 

anymore, but when I went back I fished with—we just put up tents and I 

fished there two or three years. ...But now I just mainly fish the Situk and 

Dry Bay” (JB).

Bremner’s experiences appear similar to those of other Yakutat Tlingit interviewed. The 

effort required to procure a fishing permit, the cost of gas, and the difficulty of 

accessing the region without the means of storing supplies in permanent structures, 

have been major deterrents to fishing along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, contributing to 

the ongoing consolidation of fishing activities at places closer to the community of 

Yakutat.

Other fish, such as herring, are also reportedly harvested along the Yakutat Bay 

coastline, though this largely occurs on the southeastern shore. (According to Bert 

Adams Sr., the herring do appear to be returning to Knight Island in quantities large 

enough to fulfill the resource needs of today’s Yakutat Tlingit.) In addition, Yakutat 

Tlingit have continued to harvest a range of marine invertebrate species where they can 

be found along the ocean coast, including (but not limited to) cockles (Clinocardium 

spp. and Serripes spp.), butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), littleneck clams (Protothaca 

staminea), mussels (Mytilus spp.), marine snails (class Gastropoda), chitons 

(class Polyplacophora), sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.), sea cucumbers (Parastichopus 

californicus) and octopus (Octopus vulgaris). Tanner and Dungeness crabs were also 

speared in shallow water historically, and with Alaska King crab, became part of a later 

commercial catch, along with such shellfish as shrimp (e.g., ADF&G 2008). Razor clams 

(Siliqua patula) are traditionally harvested on the sand beaches, apparently including 

those lining the south shore of Wrangell-St. Elias. Many of these shallow-water 

invertebrate species are still harvested today: “There is an abundance of intertidal 

resources available, found in habitats that include rocks, boulders, and bedrock 

outcrops, or sand, gravel, and mud beaches, tidal flats, and estuaries within the area” 

(Davis 1996:47). Most of these are eaten fresh, but are also sometimes preserved for later 

use through such methods as smoking, canning or freezing. Harvests of all of these 

species tend to be small and coincidental with other activities along the shoreline. Such 

harvests have been reported along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast in the course of 

commercial and subsistence fishing especially. 

Seagull Eggs

Seagull and other bird egg gathering is a traditional activity that has long been carried 

out on the rocky islands along and near the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline. Yakutat Tlingit 

continue to gather eggs in the springtime, during peak nesting times. This is often done 

as a side trip when fishing along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, but interviewees report
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 187

that occasional trips have been undertaken specifically for the purpose of gathering 

eggs. While seagull egg gathering remains an important tradition, some Yakutat Tlingit 

see it happening less frequently in modern times:

“They used to come up and get seagull eggs [at Egg Island] and the oldtimers used to come up there and hunt. It was a routine, year after year. 

And then after years went by and I kind of less and less” (GR).

Regardless, seagull egg gathering is a harvest tradition that continues to reunite families 

each spring, even for those who have been unable to participate directly in other 

resource harvests. As a resource practice that brings together families in various ways 

and fosters intergenerational exchanges of harvesting knowledge in situ, seagull egg 

gathering remains a symbolically significant aspect of traditional resource harvesting 

practice today, even if its overall contribution to the Yakutat diet is modest. As with 

other categories of natural resources, the sharing of gull egg is widespread. Though egg 

collection often takes place outside park boundaries, it is often associated with 

Wrangell-St. Elias, as gathering can occur in conjunction with fishing trips to the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coastline.

Plant Gathering

Plant harvesting, especially berry picking, remains an important part of Yakutat Tlingit 

life. Many interviewees spoke of modern plant gathering traditions, especially 

gathering for food and medicine, though it is unclear whether the practices are still 

carried out at Wrangell-St. Elias. For example, it appears that “rice root lilies” (Fritillaria 

spp.), devil’s club, and perhaps cedar were gathered when available, coincident with 

visits to what is now the southern shoreline of Wrangell-St. Elias, but this may have 

been prior to and just after the creation of Wrangell-St. Elias.155

Berry picking continues to take place in many of the same places and seasonal times 

reported historically: “Berry picking...occurs in the summer around Yakutat and near 

the summer fish camps. A variety of berries are available. The most common include 

strawberry, salmonberry, nagoonberry, highbush cranberry, blueberry and 

huckleberry” (Mills and Firman 1986:69), and “in 1984, a household in Yakutat 

harvested on the average 26 quarts of berries” (Mills and Firman 1986:123). Berry 

picking, especially the picking of strawberries, is also reported as an ongoing activity at 

Point Manby and other locations along the coastline, particularly in places where fish 

camps and other facilities bring people together. Speaking of Point Manby, Lena Farkus 

reported: “The whole place has strawberries!” (LF). The shoreline of Wrangell-St. Elias

is prized for being less developed or “polluted” than parts of the coastline closer to 

Yakutat, warranting extra effort to get there.156 Many of these harvests are conducted 
188 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

coincidentally with other activities along the shoreline, such as commercial fishing, 

though trips for the sole purpose of berry picking are occasionally mentioned.

Plant gathering follows some of the same basic patterns described in generations past, 

adapted slightly to fit modern circumstances. For example, in the past, clans maintained 

strict ownership rights over berry patches, but now ownership rights have become 

more flexible and individuals are freer to pick berries and collect other plants wherever 

they choose. Still, some harvesters continue to seek permission of clan leadership for 

harvesting in special places, such as the Point Manby strawberry patches, as a matter of 

protocol. There is still a clear predilection for gathering plant resources in one’s clan 

territory to the extent that this is possible. Technological change has, however, opened 

up new options for berry harvesting. Importantly, berry-pickers now employ highspeed motorboats to travel to prime berry patches, allowing for day trips from Yakutat. 

In the past, canoes were used to access berry patches, and berries were only gathered in 

the course of long-term treks to the Wrangell-St. Elias coast.157 

Into modern times, plant gathering continues to be done primarily by women: “It is 

they who dig roots, gather berries, and collect the seaweeds and marine invertebrates 

called ‘beach food’” (de Laguna 1972:392). Still, men sometimes report taking an active 

interest in plant gathering activities, and some eagerly take part in family treks to 

productive berry patches. 

While berries were traditionally dried into “cakes” and other cuisine, they are now 

commonly jarred and jellied for the purpose of being consumed throughout the year. 

As with gull egg gathering, berry harvesting traditions often involve broad segments of 

the community, including individuals who may not often harvest other traditional 

foods. The distribution of jams, jellies, and other berry products in the Yakutat 

community reaffirms social ties and cultural practices.

A number of plant gatherers express concern that resources within Wrangell-St. Elias

might be jeopardized over time by increased competition with non-Native harvesters, 

including potential commercial harvesters who target strawberries, mushrooms, or 

other wild edibles. A certain amount of such harvesting goes undetected, they note, and 

they are concerned about how (unanticipated) changes in NPS regulations or promotion 

of the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline could degrade coastal plant resources. Mary Ann

Porter, for example, voiced her concern that if Wrangell-St. Elias experienced increased

non-Native visitation, commercial plant or mushroom harvesting could develop there, 

even without formal NPS sanction, due to the remoteness of the area:

“Yeah, we don’t need that. ...You know, this is pristine country. This is 

clean. It doesn’t have no pesticides. You don’t have the stuff from the cars. 

I mean you’ve got really organic, as organic as you can get. And they find 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 189

that out and pretty soon you have a nice little cute operation coming in 

that starts to grow” (MP).

Currently, there are some non-locals who arrive for the purpose of gathering 

mushrooms. Mary Ann Porter isn’t concerned about these individuals, but would like 

to see proper harvesting methods utilized to avoid destructive practices: 

“Yeah, we get a few people that come in for that, just to harvest. ...It’s 

hard to say it’s not our land and it’s hard to say, ‘Hey don’t do that.’ But at 

least show them how to pick so they can pick without harming” (MP).

Some suggest that public interpretation on traditional Yakutat Tlingit ownership 

protocols, as well as natural resource harvest protocols, might help ameliorate such an 

effect. In fact, public interpretation could potentially be utilized to minimize many of 

the challenges discussed above. The topic of interpretation is discussed elsewhere in 

this document. What follows now is a brief discussion of how Yakutat Tlingit consider 

themselves stewards of the lands within and adjacent to Wrangell-St. Elias, as well as 

the natural resources that exist therein. 

Traditional Yakutat Tlingit Stewardship of Natural Resources 

As discussed in earlier sections of this document, Yakutat Tlingit have not only 

occupied and utilized the Wrangell-St. Elias shoreline in various ways for many 

generations, they have actively engaged with the landscape through that time. In some 

respects, there is cause to believe they have been integral to ecological processes along 

this coast. Despite the close relationship Tlingit have maintained with this shoreline, the 

National Park Service operates under a mandate to regulate all human use—including 

Tlingit use—in an effort to preserve what is understood to be the natural condition of 

the lands and waters. NPS, by virtue of its protective functions and mandates, has

helped to preserve many of these traditionally significant resources within the park. 

While human use can certainly negatively impact the ecology of an area, many Tlingit 

maintain that their ancestors were ecological stewards in their own right, creating and 

maintaining habitat conditions for key species abundance and sustainment, and that 

traditional resource harvesting can and should play a role in ecosystem maintenance 

and conservation (Thornton, Deur and Kitka 2015; Ramos and Mason 2004).

Again, according to traditional Tlingit cosmology, all living things are considered to 

possess a spirit, and conservation practices are a means to express respect for the spirit 

and sentience of all harvested resources. In some cases, this has involved basic efforts to 
190 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

avoid overexploitation. Interviewees allege that the practice of harvesting only what 

was necessary—either for oneself or a shared group—helped to maintain sustainable 

harvests in the Yakutat homelands. In addition to general practices surrounding 

quantities of harvests, Yakutat Tlingit have employed specialized conservation 

measures, as discussed previously. For example, the selective harvesting of seagull 

eggs, interviewees maintain, has helped to control the gull populations to keep them at 

sustainable levels. The Yakutat Tlingit also maintained strict proscriptions on sealing at 

inappropriate times, in a manner that both demonstrated respect to the seals and 

ensured their continuous presence along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. Stories of 

punishments doled out to Tlingit clan members for disregarding sealing regulations 

were commonplace among Yakutat, and helped to reinforce these regulations. 

Similarly, traditional regulations regarding sea otter hunting limited the hunting season 

and the number of animals Yakutat could take in one season. These types of selfimposed regulations regarding the harvesting of wildlife, interviewees maintain, were a 

way to keep harvests sustainable and demonstrate what the Yakutat Tlingit view as 

their natural tendency towards stewardship of their traditional lands. They also persist 

today in various forms—not so strictly enforced, perhaps, but still serving as a 

cosmological and ethical background to most resource harvest decisions.

In spite of myriad historical changes to their lands and culture, then, interviewees 

report that Yakutat Tlingit subsistence hunters and gatherers are acutely aware of the 

interdependency of environmental elements of which they are active participants. As 

such, they have aggregated traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and developed 

conservative harvest methods to foster the long term integrity of the natural resources 

on which they depend. By their accounts, these conservative practices developed as a 

means to both respect these resources, and to protect the productivity of the resources 

for Tlingit consumption. Thus many interviewees suggest that animal populations, such 

as salmon, seagulls, seals, sea lions and many shellfish species, have come to partially 

depend upon traditional Tlingit harvest methods to remain healthy—or, at least, to 

reach some sort of population equilibrium. NPS management, in the view of many 

interviewees, sometimes assists in this goal, but may interfere with it too—resulting in 

variegated responses to NPS management. (Likewise, many hunters expressed concern 

that traditional Tlingit harvest prescriptions were better for the long term health of prey 

species than those now being employed in Wrangell-St. Elias and beyond under 

guidance of the ADF&G.)158

As stewards of their homeland, the Yakutat Tlingit continue to regard themselves as 

active constituents within a dynamic environment. Resource harvesting therefore, 

becomes an integral activity to maintain resource health. Even younger members of the 

community still assert this view.159 This perspective is sure to shape Yakutat Tlingit 

views of the landscape into the foreseeable future and will ensure that the Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe will seek a voice not only in planning of resource harvests but in the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 191

broader management of habitats and species in Wrangell-St. Elias with which they have 

abiding, multigenerational ties. 

We now turn to a discussion of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe and its current sociopolitical 

organization, which has played an important role in the sustainment of both the 

economy of the Yakutat region and its resources, maintaining strong ties between the 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe and their lands.
192 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

MODERN COMMUNITIES:

THE YAKUTAT TLINGIT TRIBE, YAK-TAT KWAAN,

AND YAKUTAT, ALASKA 

The traditional sociopolitical units in Yakutat Tlingit culture (nation, moiety, kwáan, 

clan, house and individual) continue to organize social, ceremonial and economic life in 

diverse ways. Yet, the US federal government, and other outside institutions, have 

created pressures for Alaska Native people to organize into “tribes.”160 While these 

tribes have no direct correlation with preexisting Tlingit social categories, they have 

become a necessity for communities maintaining government-to-government 

relationships with the United States. Further, the development of an independent tribal 

corporation lent a degree of economic stability and autonomy during a period that 

witnessed the closure of the Bellingham Canning Company cannery facilities (mid 

1960s), the emergence of oil drilling and shipping as a significant economic force in the 

Gulf of Alaska, and rapid changes in both the organization and regulation of the fishing 

industry. In the process of creating these tribal structures and tribal corporations, the 

designation of “tribes” has placed myriad pressures on Yakutat Tlingit social structure, 

yet tribal status has allowed Yakutat Tlingit and other Alaska Native communities to 

present a unified front when interacting with the outside world. 

Today, the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe is a federally recognized tribe. The creation of a tribal 

government has allowed Yakutat Tlingit to structure their relationships with federal 

agencies, as well as coordinate activities relating to key federal legislation that affects 

their economic, social, and cultural interests. This establishes a unique government-togovernment relationship between Yakutat Tlingit and federal agencies such as the 

National Park Service. The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (YTT) received federal recognition only 

recently—in 1993. They were among 225 additional tribes in Alaska so designated at the 

time, formalizing their relationship with the federal government and replacing the 

relatively vague de facto tribal status held by many of those tribes (CBY 2010:95; 

Thornton 2002:186). This status was confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, and was 

carried out in response to a series of legal challenges and reviews regarding the tribal 

status of Alaska Native communities. Simultaneously, Yakutat Tlingit had been actively 

petitioning for federal status independent of these national efforts; indeed, the

groundwork for federal recognition, as well as for the development of the Yak-Tat 

Kwaan corporation, was arguably built decades before this monumental development, 

and involved efforts by the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) and other Native 

organizations with significant Tlingit leadership.161

As Thornton notes, “this move served to energize and reinvigorate tribal governments 

at the kwáan level, giving them not only new legitimacy and power but also access to 

federal funds through grants, loans, and compacting agreements” (2002:186). Federal 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 193

“tribe” status creates specific obligations and opportunities for a “government to 

government” relationship, defining the relationship between the NPS and Yakutat 

Tlingit into the foreseeable future. For this reason, the fundamentals of the Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe, as well as the community of Yakutat, are addressed here—especially to 

provide guideposts for NPS staff seeking to engage the themes and issues addressed in 

this document. So too, we devote a small portion of this section to the historically 

associated Eyak community in Cordova. 

Today the five clans of Yakutat are represented by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. The tribe 

maintains a standing list of enrollees, including almost all of the modern Yakutat Tlingit 

community. In addition, its members may also be shareholders within the Native 

village corporation of Yak-Tat Kwaan Inc., created under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971. Typically, they are also shareholders in the Sealaska Native 

Corporation, a regional corporation representing the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimishian 

people of Southeast Alaska. Yakutat Tlingit may also hold membership in the umbrella 

tribal entity, the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, the local 

chapter (the “Yakutat T&H [Tlingit and Haida] Community Council”) being one of the 

possible twenty-one Alaska Native community chapters. Finally, Yakutat is home to an 

active camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood

(ANBANSGC n.d.; CCTHITA n.d.). Eyak, meanwhile, are represented by an entity 

called The Eyak Corporation, as well as by the federally recognized Native Village of 

Eyak in Cordova.162 Yakutat Tlingit who have become part of the Cordova community 

sometimes have family or personal enrollment in the Native Village of Eyak and the 

Chugach Alaska Corporation. Thus, there are Yakutat Tlingit in other Tlingit 

communities and corporations throughout Southeast Alaska.

The enrollment of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe varies slightly from year to year, but has 

recently had approximately 545 enrollees. Today, YTT membership has interests in

lands both within and outside of the Borough, including lands as far west as Cape 

Suckling (CBY 2006:83-84, CBY 2010). The YTT is a tribal partner of the Tlingit Haida 

Regional Housing Authority, with Yakutat’s Sunrise Apartments being part of the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit Rental Program for qualifying families. Within the 

Borough, as of 2006, there were roughly twenty Native Allotments. As a result of the 

Native Allotment Act of 1906, each Native allotee has up to 160 acres of land, free of 

taxation unless the lands are leased or developed. The allotments are private lands, 

owned by the allotees, although the BIA retains certain trust responsibilities in 

consultation with the YTT and other tribes in which allotment owners are enrolled (CBY 

2006:10; CBY 2010:95). The YTT is also involved in a variety of environmental programs 

in the community, including beach cleanups, road cleanups, an Energy Fair, and 

environmental restoration and remediation at former military sites around the 

community (CBY 2010:95; THRHA n.d.; YTT n.d.). 
194 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The YTT is highly invested in the conservation of both the lands in and around Yakutat, 

as well as the traditional culture of the tribe (YTT n.d:2-4). By 1995, the tribe had a 

formal plan for historic and cultural preservation, the “Historic and Cultural 

Preservation Plan for the Tlingit People of Southeast Alaska,” compiled by Gary Gillette 

and D. Scott Williams. Guided in part by this plan, the tribe has taken many steps to 

preserve the distinctive language and culture of Yakutat Tlingit, and has successfully 

acquired and managed a number of grants, public-sector and private, for such 

purposes. Tlingit language classes, available to youth and adults alike, are among the 

major achievements of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe’s ongoing cultural initiatives. Many 

dedicated Many Tribal members and staff have lent their time and knowledge towards 

the goal of continued practice and revitalization of their rich culture and heritage, both 

in the school and the community. 

The YTT has run a Culture Camp as well—an educational program especially for tribal 

youth that began in 1985, before the tribe’s official recognition. This Culture Camp took 

place at the Ankau Saltchucks—a complex and biologically rich estuary just west of 

town, and one of the important traditional sites for subsistence activities today, 

including the collection of shellfish, fish, waterfowl, plant materials and other wild 

foods. The Culture Camp persisted at the site until 2003, when the Department of 

Defense officially confirmed that the site was contaminated with dioxins, asbestos and 

other substances as a result of its military use in World War II and beyond. Cleanup 

efforts, involving the Department of Defense and other federal agencies in collaboration 

with the YTT, continue to this day.163

In 1995, the YTT and the Yak-Tat Kwaan began partnering on tourism planning efforts.

With inspiration from a plan developed in the 1990s entitled the “Yakutat Tourism 

Development Plan,” the two entities have sought to foster tribal economic development 

that capitalizes on the rich natural resources of the Yakutat area, but also the rich 

heritage of Yakutat Tlingit which—under certain circumstances—is seen as appropriate 

for sharing with outside audiences (CBY 2006:133). Activities such as the production

and sale of traditional crafts—including clothing and other items made from seal and 

otter skins acquired near the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline—have been a growing part of 

this effort to facilitate a modest tourist industry built upon, rather than undermining, 

traditional skills and values. These efforts have often been supported by non-Native 

members of the Yakutat community, and by agencies with interests in the Yakutat area. 

The Tribe is currently partnered with the CBY, Yakutat Chamber of Commerce and the 

local and regional ANCSA corps in pursuing ecotourism to enhance the economy of the 

community. Some are motivated by the potential economic benefits of “ethnotourism” 

in addition to the intrinsic value of having their Yakutat Tlingit friends, neighbors and 

kin maintain a strong cultural identity.164

From nearly the moment Yakutat Tlingit received federal recognition, the YTT has been 

involved in consultations with a variety of government agencies on matters ranging 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 195

from routine ground disturbances, to natural resource access issues, to nationwide

policies surrounding sacred sites. As part of this effort, the YTT has worked directly 

with the NPS on matters large and small relating to Wrangell-St. Elias. In addition, the 

YTT has collaborated with federal agencies to procure funding for cultural conservation 

and preservation. The National Park Service (NPS) has entered into various 

partnerships with the YTT to supply funding and resources to further the research and 

preservation of Tlingit culture, and has maintained a government-to-government 

agreement regarding collaboration on cultural efforts of mutual interest: 

“[The] NPS and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (YTT) have had a formal, written 

government-to-government agreement since 2004. In that agreement the 

parties have agreed to work together to promote the understanding of 

Tlingit history, culture, and the interpretation of traditions of the Tribe. 

Furthermore, the NPS agrees to participate in cooperative historical, 

ethnographic, and archeological research with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe” 

(USDOINPS 2011).

The YTT acts as a repository for the materials produced by these and other preservation 

efforts: historical documents, ethnographic papers, archaeological research, maps, audio 

and video files, transcriptions, photographs and other materials are increasingly being 

housed in the YTT collections in Yakutat. For example, ongoing research undertaken by

Judy Ramos—as part of her dissertation work, her collaborations with the Smithsonian 

Institution and other activities—has documented a wealth of knowledge about the 

traditional Tlingit seal camps throughout the Yakutat region, especially those used in 

hunting along the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. YTT will be the recipient of this rich 

material by the terms of these project agreements:

“An archive will be established with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe with more 

than 500 hours of footage and video-recorded interviews with key 

informants, scenes such as the clan ceremony conducted at Shaanax 

Kuwóox’ [“wide valley,” a seal hunting campsite near Hubbard Glacier] 

and hundreds of documents, photographs, and reports resulting from the 

seal camps project” (Oh 2014:36). 

No doubt, the materials that are finding their way to the YTT archive will expand 

considerably on themes summarized in this document, and will be a rich source of 

information for future researchers within, or collaborating with, the tribe. The tribe now 

actively seeks to build its collaborative capacities, including efforts to develop a 

permanently staffed cultural department or THPO that might collaborate in the 

documentation and management of cultural resources on lands managed by federal 

agencies such as those of the National Park Service (BA).
196 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The YTT has a wide scope of responsibilities relating to the preservation of history, 

culture, language and traditional practices. They are also charged with the 

representation of Yakutat Tlingit heritage to the growing number of tourists that 

descend upon the Yakutat region each summer. For example, YTT has employed tribal 

members to act as Tlingit interpreters on cruise ships that enter Yakutat and 

Disenchantment Bays. Within the last few years, however, no cruise ships have taken 

advantage of this service. Nonetheless, participants in this program celebrate the 

potential of public interpretation as a mechanism for sharing Yakutat Tlingit history 

and culture, helping to facilitate the respectful engagement of tourists with Yakutat 

Tlingit territory, and restoring what is seen as a more appropriate “host-guest” 

relationship with visitors. Presentations for these events were written and edited by 

groups of Yakutat Tlingit elders, facilitating a more accurate and sensitive presentation 

of Yakutat particulars than would have otherwise been the case. Some of the images 

included in this report were originally compiled by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe as part of 

this effort by the elders (BA). The potential for cruise ship-based tourism has been an 

incentive for Yakutat Tlingit Tribe collaboration with the NPS and the US Forest Service 

in efforts to seek a permanent facility in Yakutat from which to coordinate on-site 

interpretive efforts and visitor services, among other activities.165 

In these diverse arenas, the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe often operates in coordination with, or 

on parallel courses with, Yak-Tat Kwaan—the Native village corporation that 

represents many Yakutat Tlingit shareholders. Once a geographically defined polity of 

independent clan units that gathered only during the winter months, the Yaakwdáat 

Kwáan has lent its name and some of its economic functions to Yak-Tat Kwaan—the 

village corporation that not only manages more than 23,000 acres within the boundaries 

of the Yakutat Borough but also plays a key role in the stewardship and development of

these lands including ongoing efforts to protect Tlingit subsistence practices. This 

corporation took shape in response to the 1971 passage of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). The major provisions of that law were as follows: 

Aboriginal land title was permanently extinguished in Alaska. Except for Annette 

Island in Southeast Alaska, existing Native reserves were revoked.

Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights were extinguished, except within special

cases.

As compensation for loss of 90 percent of Alaskan lands, Natives were to be

compensated at $3 per acre, a total of $962.5 million.

Natives received title to approximately 10 percent (44 million acres) of Alaska.

Native communities’ assets were organized into corporations, which managed

those assets on behalf of “shareholders,” consisting of members of those

communities (Thornton 2002:184)
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 197

In this context, modeled on United States private corporations, Native Alaska 

communities were encouraged to reorganize themselves as “corporations with 

shareholders” rather than as “tribes with enrollees.” Certain assets were allocated to 

these corporations, partially to offset the loss of preexisting and more general claims on 

lands and resources and, reflecting broader trends in federal policy, to expedite Alaska 

Native transitions to capitalist forms of economic organization. It was under ANCSA 

that the Yak-Tat Kwaan Corporation, which is the Yakutat village corporation, was 

formed, along with thirteen regional corporations including Sealaska Corporation. As 

noted earlier in this document, though the Yak-Tat Kwaan was officially created under 

ANCSA, its roots arguably date back at least to the 1940s, when the Colorado Oil 

Company sought to drill exploratory wells in the Icy Bay area—conferring a degree of 

federal legal standing to the “Five Chiefs of Yakutat,” who represented the five clans of 

the village and who received modest compensatory payments for oil drilling on their 

lands. While the number of enrollees varies, the number is generally somewhat higher 

than that of YTT, and has been reported as being well in excess of 400 shareholders in 

recent years. Although the majority of modern Yak-Tat Kwaan shareholders are Tlingit, 

there are also shareholders who identify as Eskimo, Aleut and other Alaska Native 

heritage and who have become part of the Yakutat community in various ways (YTK 

2013). 

The Yak-Tat Kwaan Corporation has received monetary compensation for loss of lands 

but also title to certain traditional lands for purposes of economic development. Upon 

its formation, the Yak-Tat Kwaan received surface rights to 23,040 acres of land in the 

immediate vicinity of Yakutat, while the subsurface rights to the lands fall under the 

jurisdiction of the regional corporation, Sealaska (ADF&G 2014:41). Since the formation 

of the Yak-Tat Kwaan Corporation, it has acquired additional land within the vicinity of 

Yakutat. Today, the Yak-Tat Kwaan is a major private-sector landowner in the Borough 

of Yakutat, along with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (YTT). Yak-Tat Kwaan has also been 

involved in a variety of business ventures. In its earlier years, the YTK was involved in 

extensive timber harvesting, though these operations declined in recent years—in part 

due to concerns about adverse environmental effects of further logging in the Yakutat 

area.166 More recently, YTK has participated in the development of a robust and 

successful seafood processing business, providing salmon to Seattle and other Lower-48 

markets, and has been diversifying into such markets as oystering—capitalizing on the 

relatively pristine environments and reputation of the Yakutat region, which is 

increasingly yielding tangible economic benefits.167 (Not surprisingly, some portion of 

these seafood products are acquired in Yakutat Bay, not far from Wrangell-St. Elias, 

even if commercial harvests in lands and waters of Wrangell-St. Elias play little role in 

this modern economy.) Additionally, the YTK has interests in construction, equipment 

leasing and other ventures, as well as developing partnerships for the production of 

construction-grade sand, gravel and clay from glacial deposits in the area (CBY 2006:9-

10; ADF&G 2014:35).168 
198 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Ultimately, as has been true of Yakutat Tlingit people for generations, the Yak-Tat 

Kwaan Board of Directors has sought to maintain the economic well-being of Yakutat 

Tlingit into the foreseeable future, in spite of a succession of unpredictable political and 

environmental changes that are largely beyond their control. While serving as a 

foundation for economic development, the ownership of large land tracts and resources 

has allowed Yakutat Tlingit to maintain a degree of leverage in a landscape that had 

otherwise fallen out of their control in the last century. As noted in Yakutat’s 2006 

Coastal Management Plan, “this land selection allowed the native-owned corporation to 

exert greater influence over development of its shareholder's traditional living area than 

had been the case in the past” (CBY 2006:20). Also, counterbalancing certain economic 

potentials of their lands, Yak-Tat Kwaan manages their holdings in a manner that is 

meant to sustain traditional subsistence activities, allowing YTT enrollees and YTK 

shareholders to continue to use their lands into the foreseeable future.169 As an Alaska 

Native Corporation, they have to maintain the “bottom line,” yield profits and provide 

employment opportunities, as well as steward the natural resources and traditional 

subsistence lifeways. The balance between these interests can be challenging, but the 

corporation has made an active effort to sustain this balance, supporting the long-term 

resiliency of Yakutat Tlingit interests.170

All of these developments have occurred within the community of Yakutat, which has 

become a mixed community of Native and non-Native residents, managed by a 

municipal government that exists independent of the YTT and YTK. In 1948, Yakutat 

was officially incorporated as a city government. The decades to follow saw growing 

non-Native populations and growing management issues—especially reflecting

changes in the fishing industry, the growth of the federal land management presence in 

the region, as well as the sale of gas and oil leases in the Gulf of Alaska (CBY 2006, 

2010). These changes facilitated the rapid growth of the municipal government as well 

as the growing influence of the municipal government in Yakutat Tlingit life. In its 

initial configuration, Yakutat consisted of just over three square miles within the city 

limits. In September of 1992, Yakutat residents voted to dissolve the City of Yakutat as 

part of the Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census area and form the City and Borough of 

Yakutat, incorporating it as a Home Rule City consisting of 5,875 square miles from the 

Alsek River west to Icy Bay and north to the Canadian border. In 1997, Yakutat annexed 

the area of Icy Bay to Cape Suckling, bringing it to its current form, an area of about 

9,460 square miles, roughly the size of Vermont. As a result, the primary landowners 

within the City and Borough of Yakutat are the federal and local governments, which 

manage about 97% of the area. Portions of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve, as well as Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and Tongass National 

Forest all now overlap with the boundaries of the City and Borough of Yakutat (YCC

n.d.; CBY 2010). 

Today, Yakutat is a place of remarkable diversity, considering its small population. 

According to the 2010 US Census, the population of the City and Borough of Yakutat 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 199

was 662 individuals, with 42.4% of the population identifying as white and 35.8% of the 

population identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 15.4% of the 

population identifying as two or more races (US Census Bureau n.d.). Commercial and 

sport fishing, as well as fish processing and government services, represent the 

foundation of Yakutat’s cash economy; yet, most residents rely on subsistence hunting 

and fishing, with salmon, trout, shellfish, deer, moose, bear and goats all contributing to 

an enduring mixed economy (YCC n.d.; CBY n.d.).

The City and Borough of Yakutat remains a relatively isolated community today, 

though it has, in part, been able to overcome that distance due to airport infrastructure 

developed in World War II. There is no road access into Yakutat, so air travel has been, 

and remains, the primary means to access the community. Currently, Yakutat Airport is 

the hub for a commercial airline, Alaska Airlines, linking the community to Juneau, 

Cordova, Anchorage and Seattle. In February of 2015, the US Department of 

Transportation awarded Alaska Airlines the contract to serve Cordova, Gustavus, 

Yakutat, Petersburg and Wrangell through the Essential Air Service Program for two 

additional years. The program, which was enacted in 1978, ensures airline service to 

small communities. Air taxi services provided by several regional companies, such as 

Yakutat Coastal and Mountain Flying Service, also run passenger flights to Juneau, 

Cordova, Icy Bay and Yakataga. The Federal Aviation Administration has recorded 

over 10,000 enplanements (passenger boardings) from 2008–2010, which qualifies 

Yakutat Airport as a primary commercial service airport according to the National Plan 

of Integrated Airport Systems. Yakutat Airport provides year-round employment 

opportunities for local residents,171 as well as hangar space for private plane owners 

and small charter planes that support the traffic in cargo, tourists, sports hunters and 

sports fishermen, especially during the summer months. According to the Tsiu River 

Fisheries and Land Management Report, the daily air traffic may include “up to six 

carriers bringing in day-fishers” (2009:1). As such, the airport has become integral to 

sport and commercial fishing operations throughout the region. So too, this airport has 

been critical to the rapid transportation needed to sustain local industries dependent on 

rapidly deploying fresh salmon by jet to markets largely located in the Lower 48

states.172 With these operations, Yakutat Tlingit continue to reside in their traditional 

homeland, within the pre-Euro-American settlement core that is Yakutat, and maintain 

a vital economy that draws on traditional fishing skills, while employing cutting-edge 

shipping technologies and trading partnerships throughout the United States and 

beyond. 

We now turn to modern Yakutat Tlingit views of their lands, history and people, and 

how their views and values shape current relationships with the land, as well as hopes 

for, and concerns about, the future.
200 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

MODERN CONNECTIONS:

ENDURING CONNECTIONS 

AND HOPES FOR THE FUTURE

In spite of over two centuries of outside influence and interference, Yakutat Tlingit 

cultural and social ties to particular landscapes, including those within Wrangell-St. 

Elias, remain remarkably resilient. While Yakutat appears to be confined to a city on a 

map, in reality Yakutat is a region, the homeland of the Kwáashk’ikwáan, GalyáxKaagwaantaan, and the other constituent clans of the Yaakwdáat Kwáan. It contains the 

footsteps of unknown generations of ancestors and shared Alaska Native history. 

Moreover, the community is conceptualized not only as the town of Yakutat; Yakutat is 

conceptualized as the peopled hub in a vast and dynamic landscape that includes 

Wrangell-St. Elias and is integral to the existence of Yaakwdáat Kwáan. 

Oral traditions about the great migrations of the clans, including the clans that passed 

through lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias, are a source of strength, identity and 

wisdom to their membership. They help map a geography that is still salient in the 

maintenance of clan identity, Yakutat Tlingit cultural integrity, and enduring claims to 

particular lands and resources. When asked what Yakutat means to Ted Valle as a

Kaagwaantaan, he replies with pride:

“It means home. I mean, you got the only Nation that ever defeated 

Russia to the point where they are never looking back. ...This is our place. 

This is where my ancestors come from. So it’s real important to me. From 

Kayak Island clear down...our Kaagwaantaan land would be from there 

all the way down to the northern shores of Icy Bay” (TV). 

Lorraine Adams echoes this sentiment, saying:

“All these places I know who it belongs to. In my mind I still live it. I still 

say this is my grandfather’s land, this is my father’s land and it just makes 

me feel good even though I know some of it is in the Tongass National 

[Forest] lands and Forest Service and Park Service. But to me it’s still my 

people’s. If in my mind I could think that I can live with it” (LA). 

Clans and houses, in particular, maintain their own special connections to those places, 

rooted in the distant times described in their oral tradition. As Sam Demmert explains,

“Well, the Dis hit [house] are from Mount St. Elias, you know they used that as their 

landmark” (SD).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 201

Yakutat families—those who are Kwáashk’ikwáan and Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan—still 

invoke the landmarks from their journey in memorial potlatches and other ceremonial 

contexts that involve clan at.óow. At potlatches, names are called out to memorialize 

individuals and maintain connections to the past; those names and their origins are 

explained with reference to their place in Yakutat Tlingit oral history, including key 

landmarks from the migration narratives:

“[T]he thing about Tlingit culture is their memorial and reincarnation and 

that’s where a lot of these stories pop up. When they’re having their 

potlatches and they’re doing their mourning songs and they’re caught in 

the spirit of those that have gone. They call name. ...This is his name and 

we’re still mourning him. They still have this reincarnation so that the 

name has been passed to today” (EA). 173 

Applied in potlatches and other settings, the narratives and landmarks of these oral 

traditions are said to still sustain Yakutat people culturally and to reveal new forms of 

“teaching” and relevance rooted in the experiences of one’s ancestors. As Victoria 

Demmert recalls,

“While my grandmother Susie Abraham was alive, she got to go up to 

Copper River area and Chitina and met people there and told the story 

and they tell the story of how we left. But they thought we died and 

perished on the glaciers and so there was much crying and rejoicing when 

[they] found out that we we’re still alive. We’ve become ‘Tlingit-ized.’ 

And they’re still alive and it’s a wonderful story when you think about it: 

how resilient the people are and how adaptable our people are you know 

to nature and whatever gets thrown at them” (VD).

Younger members of the community likewise attest to the importance of these 

connections today. Yvonne Baker describes her connection to her homeland: 

“I think to know the stories is important and also feel personally tied to 

the land, to have—I have wondered how you know, how we grew up so 

different that Native people can feel such a tie to the land and where other 

people might say, ‘Why don’t you just move? Why don’t you just go? The 

cost of living is too high. It’s too hard to be there, too hard to get there.’ I 

don’t know how to express to someone that doesn’t understand a tie to 

the land. Don’t know how to make someone understand when they think 

it’s so easy to just walk away” (YB). 
202 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Again, with these rich and resilient oral traditions as their guides, Yakutat Tlingit have 

maintained key cultural values relating to their homelands despite the myriad changes 

brought about by missionization, acculturation, industrialization and regulation. Even 

the landscape on which they depend is constantly shifting under the dynamic influence 

of geology and glacial action. Yet, Yakutat Tlingit have forged through these changes, 

adapting traditional social practices to accommodate new realities, integrating new 

technologies into harvest practices, and approaching each challenge in turn with a 

solidarity rooted in the culturally significant conceptual framework of respect. 

“Respect” remains a central organizing theme among Yakutat Tlingit: it is not simply a 

mode of decorum, but it implies a mindfulness of one’s position within a larger world 

and worldview, shaping one’s actions toward the land, resources, as well as between 

human communities. It is a fundamental principle that shapes social relationships, but 

most importantly in this document, it is the basis for their many significant

relationships with their traditional homelands. 

The central principle of “respect” is said to still play such an integral role in Yakutat 

Tlingit life, in part, because the landscape and living things within it are understood to 

have a “spirit” or sentience that demands this respect. Victoria Demmert describes how 

this worldview creates a dynamic relationship with the environment and suggests 

certain ways of relating to the land: 

“from our perspective, and I know you’ve heard this before, but...this 

isn’t rocks and dead land. Everything’s alive. Everything has history and 

everything’s alive. And so if you don’t have that perspective, you don’t 

know how to see a tree or a rock or water. You don’t see it as glorious and 

magnificent and alive and there’s a story about it and there’s a name for it. 

And now you walk away from that place with—you’ve changed 

someone’s perspective on looking at things and now people aren’t looking 

at things in a flat way, they’re starting to see a 3-D light to things. It’s 

really important” (VD).

These values are conveyed between generations in part through the continued 

observation of resource ethics, but especially through the sharing of kwáan oral history

that has been passed from one generation to the next in stories and song. Ray Sensmeier 

and other interviewees explained that the Tlingit still observe “natural laws,” rooted in 

these oral traditions, demanding that they are respectful of the land, resources and each 

other:

“We were, from the beginning of time you know, one of the natural laws 

was that we protect and take care of the land and the resources and use 

them in a good and proper way and not waste anything that we will 

always be there. Usually if it’s the first one—I don’t know someone’s 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 203

biggest moose—but the hunter would give away most of it. And that way 

ensure that there would be more. ...And the hunters, the seal hunters 

now, and going back, they keep very little of the seal that they get and 

they gave it away to the elders and other places. They shared—they used 

to come down and down by the old village there’s a beach there and they 

used to take the meat and put it on the beach and people could come 

down and take whatever they wanted...And stories were told from the 

time we were [born]...the grandmother actually when you were 

born...would whisper things in their ear and the Creator’s name was 

never named because of respect but the grandmothers would whisper it 

into the baby’s ear” (RS).

It is because of this connection to the land, and not just traditional territorial claims, that 

Yakutat Tlingit continue to view themselves as stewards, caring for the land on which 

they live and depend. Their hunting and gathering practices are purposeful and often 

conservative, wasting little and involving the sharing of resources within and between 

households. 

In this light, even modern hunting, fishing and gathering are said to be more than 

simply subsistence activities; they are a means of maintaining one’s obligations and 

connections to human communities, prey communities, and the land: “You know you 

always looked at the animals and the things as you would a brother and a sister. And 

you treat them that way” (RS). 

Despite a number of challenges, a robust oral tradition is in part responsible for 

facilitating the continued close connection of Yakutat Tlingit to certain portions of 

Wrangell-St. Elias that are part of their homeland. For example, placenames are still 

recalled and passed between generations that travel the land together, serving as a 

mnemonic of cultural and historical details from the distant past.174 Often transmitted in 

the course of resource harvesting—commercial or otherwise —these and other oral 

traditions not only reinforces a degree of continuity in traditional social structure, but 

also reifies individual and community relationships within the ancestral landscape. As 

Kaagwaantaan leader Ted Valle notes,

“There’s a lot. And when I was a kid I used to hear my mother tell me 

about it and talk about it. And then I went fishing in Tsiu [Tsiu River, west 

of Icy Bay] with Johnny Bremner and Harry Bremner. And then in their 

time off, they started telling me, they said, ‘Haa Aani. This is your land.’ So 

they started telling me the story about the area. And I could tell they were 

having a hard time with English. So I told them, ‘I can understand Tlingit. 

Just tell it to me in Tlingit,’ you know. So I got questions and all that. And 
204 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

they told me all about that. Just about everything I told you is what my 

mother told me. So that’s all I know about our people and our land” (TV).

The intimate knowledge of Wrangell-St. Elias lands possessed by Yakutat Tlingit is kept 

alive through oral history and solidified by annual, seasonal and perpetual trips. 

Yvonne Baker remembers taking day trips to the southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias

with her parents and siblings, and feeling a strong sense of connection to her ancestors 

by “walking in their footsteps” while there:

“I grew up with three brothers and sisters so we would all get in the skiff 

and go up there and play around the ice and hop out and have a picnic. 

And it was mentioned how important it was to us, but just being there I 

think that was real important to spend the time...I know it has great 

cultural significance for us as far as—I mean you guys have talked to them 

about migration. I grew up hearing stories about my grandpa and how he 

would call the mountains his playground. It just means a lot in that I can 

go to these places that he has been. And while my great-grandpa, I never 

knew him, but I can feel a tie to him through the land. I can walk on the 

same land he walked on and go to the same places he did and try and sit 

somewhere and feel maybe what he was feeling when he was here. That is 

a deeply emotional thing for me” (YB).

The intergenerational sharing of memories, some note, is an important way for people 

to stay connected to the lands in and around Wrangell-St. Elias, even when younger 

tribal members may not personally have spent time on those lands. Significant cultural 

ties thus remain strong between Yakutat Tlingit and areas now within park boundaries

widely within the community, in spite of declining use of those lands in recent decades. 

According to interviewees, these connections to the homeland remain, even when a 

person is living hundreds of miles away, or only had learned of traditional uses of 

Wrangell-St. Elias second-hand from elders.175

This deep personal and group association with the land is renewed through the 

visitation of significant places on the landscape and through the practice of traditional 

subsistence harvesting. In the course of subsistence-related visits, people recall not only 

their family histories, but also the teachings and values of elders who are long gone. 

Victoria Demmert made this comment regarding the significance of subsistence 

activities in and around Wrangell-St. Elias today: 

“And it’s not like the whole town does it anymore like we used to...we’re 

not predatory on it. It’s just getting to enjoy and when you get to eat those 

types of things, it brings you back to times with your grandparents...it 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 205

makes you start thinking about things they told you and people that you 

might not have thought about for a while, just in the eating of those, those 

foods. Or just going out to gather them, just getting ready to go do it. It 

just brings all your history back to you” (VD).

Resource harvests have also allowed families and communities to be present on the 

land together. In this respect, resource harvests often became the venue for the sharing 

of cultural knowledge; by virtue of the distance from subsistence use areas from the 

pressures of “town,” this function continued even at times when there were restrictions 

on traditional cultural practice from missionaries and others. Such resource harvests 

facilitated the intergenerational exchange of information regarding Wrangell-St. Elias

lands and resources in a way that has been critical to Yakutat Tlingit cultural integrity—

suggesting the deeper cultural values of subsistence harvests today.

While the importance of time spent on the landscape is widely felt throughout the 

Yakutat Tlingit community, interviewees report that they have very few opportunities 

to return to areas within the Wrangell-St. Elias that were once occupied year-round, or 

utilized seasonally as part of traditional subsistence practices like hunting and fishing. 

Yet despite many challenges – from the cost and dangers of travel to the specter of 

growing regulation - there are those who persevere in a limited capacity. For example, a 

number of people fish at Point Manby, but almost none of these families camp there any 

longer: “there are people that go over there and fish, but they don’t have camps. They 

come back” (RS).

While this connection is still very important to many Yakutat Tlingit interviewees, there 

is also concern regarding the potential for significant cultural loss in coming

generations if people lose footholds in the culture and on the land. Very few Yakutat 

Tlingit have the opportunity to learn the Tlingit language, much less grow up “on the 

land” or with the subsistence lifestyle known by their elders. Interviewees believe the 

displacement of Yakutat Tlingit from their traditional lands and lifeways has 

contributed to the dismantling of Tlingit traditional practices and identity. Lena Farkus 

attempts to explain the ramifications of these lifestyle changes: 

“Our older people that knew history and could speak language and 

relationship and the whole works had to stop. So we have people that are 

lost” (LF).176

Expanding on this point and its implications, many interviewees suggest that shared 

memories of the landscape, rooted in ancient history, are held firm in the minds of 

elders, yet are fading fast as generations become more removed from direct contact 

with the land. Cultural integration, television and mass communications, and other 
206 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

connections with the non-Native world have, in many respects, had more erosive effects 

than generations of forced assimilation. The current generations are pivotal in this area. 

The oral traditions of Yakutat Tlingit have remained surprisingly robust in spite of 

pressures to the contrary, as well as provide details of historical association with 

Wrangell-St. Elias with a high degree of fidelity, but current generations are witnessing 

a significant erosion of that knowledge:

“it’s something how back when, back when was I’m sure you know, 

stories were only told by certain people. Only by authorized storytellers. 

And the stories were to be told verbatim. One word could not be changed 

for another word. All the words had to be—the stories were told identical 

from generation to generation by storytellers. And storytellers didn’t have 

to do anything else but tell stories. And they were provided for by the 

village and they were, when they told a story, then they got paid extra for 

that. And that’s why when I hear people say, ‘Well, you can’t rely on oral 

history because it changes depending on who’s telling it.’ Maybe in some 

other cultures, but not in the Tlingit culture because they were pure 

stories told identical, you know exactly. We don’t have any storytellers 

anymore you know. I mean, like the old time” (SJ).

Still, some storytellers persist in the community, presenting Yakutat Tlingit oral 

tradition in potlatches and other traditional events, but also in government meetings, 

public events, Park Service sponsored trips to Dry Bay, and beyond.177

Within these enduring stories can be found the history of Yakutat Tlingit, culturally 

significant landscapes and nuances of the Tlingit language. As mentioned elsewhere, 

kwaán migration story tells how the Tlingit people wandering the landscape in search of 

their new homeland began to follow – depending on the kwaán, a raven or the ears of a 

rabbit. Upon reaching the Yakutat area, they found they had been viewing the top of 

Mount St. Elias. According to Elaine Abraham, many Tlingit youth are unfamiliar with 

this story, so that they miss both the deeper meaning of those narratives as well as their 

significance in terms of the cultural geographies of Yakutat Tlingit: 

“And the potlatches, my Uncle Harry Bremner he would say, ‘I see the 

ears of the rabbit.’ Ninety-nine percent of the people there did not have 

any idea what he was talking about. ‘What are you talking about a rabbit 

for?’” (EA).

When those oral traditions are not shared repeatedly within a community that shares 

their language and those common points of reference, they fade with time. Thus, for 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 207

example, Ted Valle, a highly knowledgeable leader of Kaagwaantaan, admits that even 

he is struggling with remembering some of these stories: 

“they kept telling us that if you lose your language, you’re going to lose 

your culture. They kept pointing at it...And sure enough, you know, I 

can’t believe how much I’ve forgotten. I can understand when an oldtimer talks to me, but I can’t speak it that well myself. But I speak enough 

to—I speak to people in the Interior and they understand me and I 

understand them. But meanings is, unless you grow up with it, it’s pretty 

hard to remember...You know a lot of the young people don’t know. 

There’s just a few of us left here that know quite a bit and when we’re 

gone, that’s pretty much the end of it” (TV).

Many fear the knowledge has already been lost and express that there is a great urgency 

for the preservation of what remains through systematic documentation, language 

programs, and efforts to get young people together with their elders on the land. Skip 

Johnson laments the loss of knowledge that had been harbored by the elders that are 

now gone: 

“unfortunately we’re a little late. A lot of the old people are gone now 

who knew the history and knew all these little things. Because when we 

were young, we didn’t ask a lot of questions. You know, we just never 

thought about it. Yeah, what was it? We didn’t know the answers. We 

didn’t even know the questions” (SJ).

There is a fear among Yakutat Tlingit that the younger generations will not learn 

cultural traditions in a way that is sustainable for the community. The process of 

intergenerational sharing of traditions is complex, and interviewees see access to 

resources as an opportunity to facilitate the passing down of knowledge to younger 

generations. This colors perceptions of issues of access to Wrangell-St. Elias in a variety 

of ways, making the issue more urgent and symbolically charged than many NPS 

managers might initially anticipate. This presents an arena of potential conflict or 

collaboration between the Yakutat community and the NPS into the foreseeable future.

Park-Tribe Relationships

In this context, and in light of the resource access conflicts of past years, the NPS and 

Yakutat Tlingit have had a variegated relationship over time. Matters of communication 

and miscommunication have been numerous, and there has been inevitable 
208 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

disorientation associated with evolving park policy regarding issues from subsistence 

access to the management of cultural resources.178 Yakutat Tlingit interviewees also 

perceive that NPS policy sometimes favors the interests of relatively wealthy, nonNative visitors and the guides who choreograph the recreational activities such as 

hunting and fishing, complicating subsistence activities for the local communities. In 

turn, they suggest, these policies have sometimes hastened and compounded the 

erosion of Yakutat Tlingit cultural integrity. 

While interviewees expressed frustration with their dealings with the NPS in times past, 

there are still many forms of collaboration between the NPS and Yakutat. The park has 

made a concerted effort to establish a physical presence within Wrangell-St. Elias, 

renting Yakutat facilities to establish an office and providing government funding to 

support a seasonal park ranger position. As noted in the park’s Administrative History,

“In early 1981 the superintendents of WRST [Wrangell-St. Elias] and 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GLBA) developed a cooperative 

plan to manage the new ANILCA addition to Glacier Bay National Park 

and the southern, coastal section of WRST. WRST received base funding 

to rent a Yakutat facility and hire a district ranger with the understanding 

that the ranger worked for both parks. WRST launched the operation in 

May 1981, dispatching District Ranger Clarence Summers and a fourmonth seasonal ranger to establish the office. The park leased its first 

facility from Yak-Tat Kwaan and storage at the Yakutat hanger from the 

Yakutat Pilots Association” (Bleakley 2002: 177-78). 

The facility and position were largely supported by Wrangell-St. Elias almost 

exclusively in its early years, so the emphasis of the office tended to center on WrangellSt. Elias matters. Operations, including a new visitor center, were relocated to central 

Yakutat by 1993. When the visitor center was developed, the interpretation of Yakutat 

Tlingit culture was part of the plan: “As Yakutat’s Tlingit community had expressed an 

interest in displaying some of their cultural objects in the park's visitor center, 

conservators Ronald Sheetz and Alan Levitan from Harpers Ferry Center (NPS’s 

museum conservation center) visited that summer as well, accessing and cleaning the 

Galyix Kaagaantaan [sic] Beaver Screen. They also suggested raising the visitor center's 

ceiling in order to display it properly” (Bleakley 2002:319).

Responding to local guidance, various NPS employees worked to maintain a facility in 

that location, because “it provided necessary visibility and also helped establish a 

rapport with local residents by remaining accessible” (Bleakley 2002:201). 

In addition to establishing a Wrangell-St. Elias facility and visitor center in Yakutat in 

an attempt to better connect the community to the park, there have been concerted 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 209

efforts to amend current legislation to allow for the continuation of traditional resource 

harvests within Wrangell-St. Elias park boundaries. In 1994, the Wrangell-St. Elias

Subsistence Resource Commission approached the Department of the Interior to help 

amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow for egg harvests by Yakutat residents and 

other park-affiliated communities (Bleakley 2002:132-33). Additionally, Princess Cruise 

Lines began seeking NPS interpreters on ships in 1994, and Yakutat Tlingit 

interpretation was a part of this effort. As noted elsewhere, the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 

organized a group of elders to oversee the development of interpretive content, and 

clan leaders such as Bert Adams Sr. and Ted Valle were among the primary interpreters 

on board these ships. 

Indeed, many Yakutat residents suggest that they desire an even greater NPS presence 

in the community in the form of permanent offices and employees, as well as NPS 

engagement and contact. In spite of this, the visitor center closed not long before the 

time of this writing; however, a park office, which remains open, was relocated to the 

airport. Several interviewees, such as Victoria Demmert, have expressed frustration 

with this loss, and suggest that it suggests waning support for the NPS-Yakutat 

relationship in recent times:

“I’ve told them before, it’s like you’re doing the ‘creep out.’ You know, 

you’re taking your little building one by one and you’re sneaking out of 

town. And they’re [the NPS staff] saying, ‘Well, it’s a money thing.’ This 

[other gateway community] place is rich and this place is rich. Ok, here’s 

the thing, this is not a Native community. This is a Western community 

and that’s a Western community. They are not paying attention to the 

indigenous people who live here, it’s money and building things to 

sell...Is the Park more interested in catering to wealthy tourists or to the 

indigenous people who are struggling to subsist within the Park?... they 

used to have a nice display here and they has presence here in Yakutat. 

Now they’ve got a big display over in Glennallen, and a presence in 

Glennallen and they’re growing. And they’re growing in Glacier Bay. And 

they have one, two people here now, two people here and no office...

what are they doing here to aid in the economy, to be a partner, to be a 

partner with us that they say they are?”(VD).179

Interviewees also commonly expressed the view that the few locally based NPS rangers

are overbooked and responsible for tracts of land of land so vast that they can scarcely 

manage it: “They’ve got two guys here, and it’s hard to get them because they’re always 

out either in one of these parks that we’re part of” (VD). Most Yakutat Tlingit 

interviewees generally understand the limits on NPS resources, but many are still eager 

to develop these relationships and facilities where it is possible: “the Park Service is 
210 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

really going through a lot of financial problems, but that doesn’t mean that they should 

ignore us” (BA).

Many expressed the desire to have the NPS partner with the Yakutat Tlingit community 

in a direct and meaningful way. Yakutat Tlingit interviewees see collaboration between 

the two entities as feasible and potentially desirable for the community but also – if 

approached cooperatively, collaboratively, and respectfully – for the well-being of their 

homeland, including portions of that homeland now sitting within Wrangell-St. Elias 

Park and Preserve.

Simultaneously, interviewees acknowledge that here have been a few recent efforts 

made by NPS to facilitate a renewed partnership with the Yakutat Tlingit community. 

Some note that the NPS has continued consultation to sort out enduring access 

concerns, and increasing interpretation opportunities within the park; the NPS has also 

sometimes hired Yakutat Tlingit to participate in interpretive and educational events, 

bringing certain people back to the land for educational and certain cultural purposes 

albeit not for many traditional activities such as subsistence. For example, Mary Ann

Porter worked for the Park Service seasonally for about four years. During her time 

with NPS she increased community participation and tribal interpretation: 

“[W]hat I did is I started bringing people in to do presentations local you 

know. Everybody was curious about what it was like here during the war. 

So we brought people in to talk about that. We brought in [the writings of] 

Frederica de Laguna and it was kind of like a story night every Tuesday 

night in the winter time. We had people come in and anybody wanted, in 

the community, they wanted to ask them questions they would” (MP). 

In addition to employing Yakutat Tlingit members, Bert Adams Sr. mentions that there 

have been previous efforts made by the Park to recognize kwáan boundaries in the park 

and to discuss different types of land access matters, including the use of various types 

of motorized vehicles by subsistence users in the Point Manby area.180 Interviewees 

mention that NPS staff has also made a concerted effort to include tribal members on 

the Subsistence Resource Commission, as well. In spite of challenges with that 

commission, Yakutat Tlingit have been able to facilitate a more open discussion of 

community interests and concerns, and occasionally influence management. For 

example, some suggest that this has contributed to such policies as a moose hunt for 

local subsistence users before the sporting season opens on the federal lands around 

Yakutat and south to Dry Bay: “Now we have a subsistence hunt prior to the hunt. That 

helps the local people a lot because we don’t have airplanes to fly around and spot 

them” (RS). While these are tentative steps, interviewees often point to them as a 

potential beginning, and a precedent for more ambitious communications and 

collaborations in the future. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 211

Looking Toward the Future

In every interview conducted for this study, Yakutat Tlingit interviewees expressed a 

strong desire to maintain their cultural traditions and to pass on those traditions to 

younger generations. Engagement with the NPS is one avenue interviewees identified 

as not only desirable, but essential, for the community to maintain the integrity of their 

relationship with their homeland and, in turn, the integrity of their culture. Some 

advocate confrontation with the NPS while others eagerly embrace collaboration. No 

matter the outcome, the NPS – as the manager of so much of the Yakutat homeland – is 

sure to figure significantly into future deliberations and into the very fundamentals of 

Yakutat Tlingit history as it is written into the 21st century and beyond.

However, it is Yakutat Tlingit, themselves, who now take direct action to perpetuate 

their culture. Many Yakutat Tlingit now participate in bold expressions of cultural 

revival. Ongoing since at least the mid-20th century, this movement has built on the 

foundations of elders of earlier generations who kept cultural traditions alive, if often 

hidden from the colonizers’ view. The movement brings traditional institutions into a 

modern context—keeping them relevant, even as they adapt to the experiences, 

capabilities and expectations of successive generations (Kan 1991, 1989b). George 

Ramos Sr. speaks of the cultural revival of recent decades, and a dance group called the 

Mount St. Elias Dancers:

“When they [my children] were growing up I never talked about it. ...I 

never taught them the Tlingit language. And now I sit down with [my 

daughter] and I go to see her and I tell her some of the things that I told 

you because like I said, we were made to be ashamed of who we were and 

why. And now I’m working with these young kids and the dance group 

you know. And I tell them, ‘I want you to be proud of who you are. I want 

you to hold your head up high’...it has been really interesting and I 

thought I’d try to pass that on to the young people. ‘Hey, you are 

somebody. Hold your head up high and be proud of who you are’” (GR).

For Yakutat Tlingit young and old, there has been a resurgence in pride and identity, 

buoyed significantly by the activities of the Mount St. Elias Dancers, the Yakutat Tlingit 

Tribe language program, and other tribal initiatives. Yvonne Baker no longer dances 

with the Mount St. Elias Dancers, but reports that the beat of the drum still resonates 

within her: 

“I didn’t dance from probably junior high was when I didn’t dance 

anymore, through high school. But just something about hearing that 

drum, hearing the songs...is moving, it’s exciting, it’s definitely something 

that can get adrenaline going and feel so much pride” (YB).
212 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Figure 16 – The Mount St. Elias Dancers continue to represent a cornerstone of organized 

cultural activities for the Yakutat Tlingit community, contributing significantly to the education 

of younger tribal members on traditional songs, crests, and other at.óow, while also fostering 

enduring pride in this cultural heritage. Photo courtesy Yakutat Tlingit Tribe/Bert Adams Sr.

With these organizations taking a significant role in the perpetuation of knowledge 

used in memorial potlatches and other settings, they maintain a type of solemn 

relevance in community life. These organizations also aid the Yakutat Tlingit 

community in showcasing their living culture traditions through such venues as the 

biennial Tlingit Celebration in Juneau. So too, they sometimes help present a powerful 

community identity to Yakutat visitors; anthropologist Julie Cruikshank, for example,

describes attending a 2002 conference in Yakutat where,

“the Yakutat Tlingit hosted a thoroughly successful cultural evening in 

their Alaska Native Brotherhood Hall. The dance group [Mount St. Elias 

Dancers] included some thirty adults, teenagers, and youngsters who 

wore elegant, handmade ceremonial regalia featuring the wearer’s clan 

crests—Beaver, Eagle, Thunderbird, Brown Bear and notably, Mount St.

Elias, the mountain that we heard once guided their ancestors to Icy Bay 

and eventually to Yakutat Bay. They performed a series of songs and 

dances that traced webs of kinship and narratives of first arrival at 

Yakutat Bay. References to glaciers were embedded in larger stories about 

human migrations and connections among clans.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 213

“A ‘Copper River song’ commemorated the history...about how 

clan members originally travelled to Yakutat Bay and found it occupied, 

so retraced their route westward across the Bagley and Tana glaciers to 

retrieve [copper] that allowed them to purchase living space at Yakutat. A 

second song told of travels inland to the Yukon across mountains that one 

of the performers, David Ramos, reminded the audience are ‘the children 

of Mount Saint Elias and Mount Fairweather,’ spread between the coast 

and the interior....David Ramos also mentioned that glaciers dislike 

intensely the cooking smells of human food...” (Cruikshank 2005:48).

Sharing kwáan songs, stories and dances in this way remains an important way for 

Yakutat Tlingit to demonstrate the veracity of those cultural traditions that do endure, 

while also aiding significantly in its preservation and transmission within the 

community. 

In this context, many interviewees also feel that maintaining ceremonial traditions 

linked to their homelands, including the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline, is a crucial part of

ensuring continuation of the culture. Some Yakutat Tlingit clan leaders still occasionally 

carry out ceremonies on their traditional lands, outside of the confines of the ANB Hall. 

Simultaneously, it remains unclear whether Yakutat Tlingit will resume some of the 

more intensive subsistence and settlement practices that have characterized their 

historical relationship with the Wrangell-St. Elias south shore. Some wish to redevelop 

and reassert subsistence interests for reasons that are dietary or economic, yet in this 

context there are plenty of symbolic and even political reasons why some families may 

wish to harvest even small quantities of resources from Wrangell-St. Elias. Yet, restoring 

cultural and subsistence traditions is no small feat, and interviewees expressed a range 

of opinions as to whether, in the end, this revitalization of culture might spread across 

Yakutat Bay or would instead be relegated to cultural practice within the boundaries of 

Yakutat proper.181 

Whether considering land use and access to the park by Natives or non-Natives, 

Yakutat Tlingit agree that changes in park policy relating to land and resource issues 

will require earnest and regular tribal consultation—perhaps beyond the minimum 

legal requirements. As Yvonne Baker notes,

“I think having tribal input is important. One of the things that I you 

know, growing up here and my mom’s thing was, we’re all surrounded 

by park land, forest service land, and that these people hold the deed to 

that land but that we’re the stewards of the land and when they’re gone, 

these people, our people will still be here. So having tribal input I think is 

vital” (YB). 
214 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Interviewees assert that Alaska Native access to the park should not only be a topic of 

this consultation but a shared goal, essential not only for dietary purposes but in the 

sustainment of Yakutat Tlingit culture. NPS programs and funding that might facilitate

annual trips, hikes and subsistence activities inside park boundaries for traditionallyassociated Yakutat Tlingit families would foster not only park-tribe relations, but 

ultimately the cultural integrity of Yakutat Tlingit.182

Several interviewees felt that interpretation was an important point of entry for Yakutat 

Tlingit community members to not only collaborate with the NPS, but to engage with 

their traditional homelands. Collaborative potentials may include interpretive 

development, with a significant Yakutat Tlingit “voice.” An advantageous place to 

begin development of this “voice” would be the integration of Tlingit placenames into 

current map displays. Traditional placenames often contain significant historical and 

cultural references. Reintroducing these placenames would be a recognition of the deep 

history of Yakutat Tlingit connections to the land, and their enduring connections as 

stewards and traditional hosts on the land. Ted Valle would like to see traditional 

Tlingit names utilized by NPS staff: “I mean there’s a lot of great history here that could 

be highlighted and it could be a real, great park of building and a collaboration between 

us” (TV). Some of these opportunities are already being realized. In partnership with 

the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, the National Park Service has recently taken groups of 

Yakutat children out onto the land at Wrangell-St. Elias, in places such as Esker Creek. 

Interviewees made further recommendations regarding educational and youth 

opportunities for Yakutat Tlingit at Wrangell-St. Elias. At least two interviewees have 

been involved in some plant-based educational programs already; one of them, Yvonne 

Baker, describes the enthusiasm she sees in the younger population, including her own 

children: 

“Yeah, the kids here in summer school when he went to do things with 

plants and I think one year they focused like on drying plants. ...One time 

it was trees and all kinds of trees. But just seeing how kids respond to that 

is so cool. Just my boys, I’ve taken them out and they’ll pick every little 

piece of mushroom out of anything I cook. I take them out in the woods, 

‘Hey look at this mushroom. We can take it home and eat it.’ ‘Ok!’ They’ll 

go out in the woods and try it. And that is really cool” (YB).

Baker goes on to say that she would like to see a traditional plant guide specific to the 

Yakutat region researched and created: 

“I think Yakutat is really unique and while there’s, the one [plant guide] 

that I have is an overall southeast, I think one specific to Yakutat would be 

great. ...I love going out and seeing what’s out there today, to forage. But 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 215

to have a plant guide that the kids can you know, run and look and say, 

‘Oh here! This is it!’ I think that will be great” (YB).

Collaboration between the Yakutat community and the NPS on projects such as a 

Yakutat traditional plant guide, she notes, could be useful not only to aid in teaching 

future generations about traditional lifeways, but also in facilitating a stronger 

partnership between Yakutat Tlingit and the NPS. 

While the social and political landscape of the Yakutat Tlingit homeland has changed 

drastically since contact with Euro-Americans, as has the land itself, Yakutat Tlingit

understand these lands to be their own inheritance and their own responsibility. The 

community remains integrally connected to particular landscapes within their 

traditional territory, including those within Wrangell-St. Elias. As such, interviewees 

expressed a desire to be viewed as stewards of their traditional homeland, and as a 

people with long-standing and unique connections to the land. As Yvonne Baker 

observes,

“[we must] remember that these lands mean something to us and...we 

have a tie to this. It’s in our blood...we’re so tied to the land. And [the 

NPS must] be conscious of that when they’re talking to people...That 

these mean something to the Native people and just remember that when 

they talk to tribal people that instead of always referring to this as ‘their 

land.’ If they could find a better way to phrase that and acknowledge that. 

While it’s been taken over by them, that we were stewards of the land 

long before and we’ll continue to be in charge of who’s in charge of the 

land” (YB).

The NPS has entered into a landscape with a rich human history. The agency must 

sometimes occupy the pivot-point between two cultures – one Native and the other 

hailing originally from another continent – that have actively negotiated their 

relationships over a period of more than two centuries. Challenges that have arisen 

between the Yakutat Tlingit community and the NPS point to the complexity of land 

management issues and of efforts to preserve the spectacular and dynamic landscapes 

within Wrangell-St. Elias. Yakutat Tlingit appreciate that the fate of their community 

and the NPS are now joined in many ways, for better or worse. In this light, and with an 

eye on the future of their community, their children, and their children’s children, many 

seek ways to meaningfully collaborate – solving old problems and seeking out new 

solutions that might help preserve Wrangell-St. Elias while also preserving their 

historical memory and their most important and venerable cultural traditions. 
216 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Toward a Collaborative Future:

Conclusions and Recommendations

With its sprawling scale, towering mountains, and vast and shifting glaciers, the 

southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve is often perceived by 

visitors as a wild landscape, devoid of human history or presence. As this document 

suggests, such a perception is far from true. Even as glaciers engulfed much of Yakutat 

Bay, ancestors of today’s Yaakwdáat Kwáan traveled long river valleys, over glaciers 

and ice fields, and established a foothold on lands exposed by the retreating ice, within 

the region now managed as part of Wrangell-St. Elias. For clans arriving from the 

elsewhere on the coast or the Interior, landmarks such as Mount St. Elias served as 

beacons, orienting the clans as they moved along the coast. The accounts of their 

journeys—handed down through generation after generation of clan leadership—

became integral to clan crests, origin narratives, and other clan properties, while the 

places they encountered along the way became guideposts to a sacred geography still 

central to Yakutat Tlingit cultural identity. 

In time, the clans of the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline—principally Kwáashk’ikwáan and 

Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan—gradually moved to consolidated settlements, principally 

Yakutat. They did so in response to myriad changes in the human and natural 

landscape: pushed out by glacial surges that sometimes engulfed whole settlements, by 

epidemics that reduced and displaced communities, and by missionary and military 

pressures. Economic opportunities, new social institutions, and deep kinship ties drew 

them to Yakutat. There they became part of the consolidated Yaakwdáat Kwáan, five 

clans living together in one community, gradually transitioning from a pattern of 

wintertime cohabitation to full-time residence. In spite of this “secondary migration,” a 

journey from the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, these clans continued to visit the coastline 

seasonally, to live and harvest resources, and to engage places of unique cultural and 

ceremonial importance. At each stage, these clans continued to understand this 

coastline as their homeland, honoring its landmarks in crests and the names of 

traditional homes, and invoking the landscapes in their most important clan 

ceremonies. The southern reaches of Wrangell-St. Elias remain a storied landscape, rich 

in human history. Tlingit names for its landmarks still live in the memories and 

discourse of the elders and can still be heard on the streets, and in the ceremonies, of 

Yakutat. 

With Athabaskan and Tlingit roots converging in the village, the people of Yakutat 

possess a rich, hybrid heritage. This served the community well, often fostering 

resilience in a landscape where glaciers have dramatically advanced and retreated, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 217

bringing peril and opportunity. Life at the glaciers’ edge has always defined Yakutat 

Tlingit life. Historically, this provenience brought Yakutat Tlingit great wealth —

exposing copper deposits, providing a wealth of seal and sea otter on the retreating 

margins of the tidewater glaciers—much of this within or adjacent to what is now 

Wrangell-St. Elias. These things made Yakutat Tlingit rich, as middlemen in trade 

networks spanning hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles. But the wealth also 

attracted the attention of colonizers, especially fur traders of the Russian Empire. Life 

on the oceanfront exposed the people of Yakutat to the full effects of seaborne 

exploration and trade in ways distinct from Tlingit of interior waters. Yet, the forceful 

expulsion of the Russians by Yakutat Tlingit in the early 19th century was a pivot-point 

in the post-contact history of the community, allowing Yakutat Tlingit to maintain 

distance from some of the most pernicious colonizing influences. Many of the 

community’s keystone traditions remained comparatively intact into the American 

period and, indeed, into modern times. Many traditional practices were suppressed 

under the influence of Swedish Covenant Church missionaries and a growing American 

presence. Yet, the resistance of Russian influence, coupled with the preservation of so 

much cultural knowledge “underground” within Yakutat’s constituent clans during the 

early American period, allowed certain Yakutat Tlingit traditions to rebound rapidly in 

recent times. 

Such institutions as the Mount St. Elias Dancers sprang to life from these roots the 

moment formal prohibitions on traditional cultural expression diminished in the mid20th century, carrying forward the knowledge of the five clans and traditionally trained 

elders into modern times. These institutions remain strong, carrying forward a sense of 

attachment to clan homelands and the resources of the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. Though 

the community is a modern one, with its economic and social life increasingly 

integrated into national and international currents, Yakutat Tlingit retain their 

knowledge of how to navigate this glaciated coast—to navigate its waters by boat, but 

also to navigate its spiritual potentials and enduring meanings as the foundational 

landscape of modern clan identity. So too, Yakutat remains an epicenter of traditional 

resource use and knowledge, relating to the distinctive environmental predicaments 

and potentials of this rugged coast. Thus, for example, seal hunting has been, and 

remains, a practice of unique importance to Yakutat Tlingit, and the geographical loci of 

that tradition are the places where glaciers exiting Wrangell-St. Elias meet the sea. 

Much of this story is recoverable from the existing corpus of materials related to 

Yakutat Tlingit history and culture. As this document demonstrates, the work of 

Frederica de Laguna looms large on this part of the coast, reflecting over a half-century 

of focused research and writing on Yakutat themes. Her work was in many respects 

definitive, its literature review nearly comprehensive, so there is little incentive for 

recapitulating it in encyclopedic fashion in the pages of this report. Instead, this 

document has sought to extract and distill key references to park lands and resources 

from her work, and many others. So too, this document seeks to bring the existing work 
218 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

up to date—recovering original ethnographic information through interviews, 

especially on the nature of the relationship between Yakutat Tlingit and lands within 

Wrangell-St. Elias in the decades preceding and following park creation, a topic critical 

to modern park management, interpretation and policy. Much of this report provides a 

thematic overview of key outcomes of this survey, integrating the vast literature on 

Yakutat Tlingit with the words of contemporary interviewees. The outcomes are 

revealing, tracing the outlines of changing human relationship to lands and resources 

within Wrangell-St. Elias from pre-contact times to very recent events. The bibliography 

of this document, as well as the annotated bibliography of major sources (available 

separately), provides waypoints for any researcher, agency resource manager, or 

Yakutat Tlingit investigator, to dig much deeper into the themes outlined here. The 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe may yet produce clan histories for each of the clans with direct ties 

to Wrangell-St. Elias, which will surely expand the depth, relevance and voice of the 

current study. 

If there were data gaps apparent in the course of this study, they relate to topics beyond 

de Laguna’s scope, or post-date her data-gathering in Yakutat. Many of these themes 

are geographical or historical in emphasis, and would help to better illuminate Yakutat 

Tlingit cultural linkages to lands now within Wrangell-St. Elias. For example, there are 

matters of the past settlement of the Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. To be sure, Yakutat 

Tlingit settlements have existed along the coastline in and very near what is today 

Wrangell-St. Elias—including large, permanent settlements like those described in 

Kwáashk’ikwáan oral traditions of Icy Bay, as well as a wide constellation of seasonal 

resource encampments that appear to have moved with time in response to glacial 

movement, changing access and fluctuating resource availability. Still, the scale, scope 

and chronology of human settlement along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast remains 

ambiguous based on the materials reviewed in the course of this current project, which 

provides opportunities for future research on this topic. So too, the historical processes 

and chronology involved with displacement from those settlements over time is an 

important, if poorly documented, theme, only thinly recoverable from available written 

documentation. Certainly the analysis of settlement patterns is challenging due to such 

factors as the dynamism of the landscape and the gradual exodus of 

Kwáashk’ikwáan and Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan families from their homeland shores 

through the post-contact period in response to factors that “pushed” them off the 

coastline or “pulled” them toward Yakutat. This information can likely be 

reconstructed, in part, based on more detailed interviewing, as well as a review of 

untapped archival resources (such as those of J.P. Harrington, those materials currently 

being developed by Aron Crowell and Judy Ramos, and those in the Sealaska Heritage 

archives such as the Dauenhauer Tlingit oral history collection). Coupled with a 

complementary review of the available archaeological and geological record, it is likely 

such an investigation would prove illuminating for Yakutat Tlingit and NPS staff alike.

(Additional archaeological survey may also prove fruitful in certain locations within the 

Yakutat Tlingit area of interest, though this is beyond the scope of the current study.) So 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 219

too, such an investigation may reveal other, interconnected geographical phenomena 

that are elusive in the existing record, such as the configuration of trails along the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coast at different periods, or the canoe travelers’ responses to 

navigational risk along the icy and exposed coast, among other matters.

This research also reconfirms the well documented fact that oral tradition is rich 

regarding sealing, fishing and other resource practices among living Yakutat Tlingit. 

Yet, in some respects, there is an urgency in documenting the perspectives of 

contemporary elders, who may be among the last frequent traditional users of certain 

lands and resources within Wrangell-St. Elias. Their availability and knowledge offer 

the potential for more detailed research addressing past resource use practices and 

values. The accounts in the current “reconnaissance” document only hint at the depth of 

knowledge in Yakutat. (Also, certain key resources users, such as members of the Pavlik 

family, were not available during project interviews and would surely provide valuable 

perspectives in future interview research.) 

Certainly, as this document suggests, there have been many studies mentioning 

resource use within what is now Wrangell-St. Elias. However, following general trends 

in Alaska subsistence studies, so much of the available literature pertaining to resource 

use in and immediately around Wrangell-St. Elias focuses on simple matters of 

harvested species, quantities, and locations—points well covered and unlikely to 

require additional attention beyond the usual cycles of ADF&G and NPS reporting. 

What is too often missing from these studies (but suggested tentatively by our 

reconnaissance interviews) is a discussion of the deeper cultural significance of the 

resource harvests. These themes are eminently worthy of thoughtful investigation. It is 

clear, for example, that resource harvests not only provide food security and dietary 

breadth to Yakutat, but also foster intergenerational exchanges of information regarding 

resources, lands and values relating to natural resource procurement. In this sense, 

resource harvesting helps to keep Yakutat Tlingit culture alive and vital. The resources 

so harvested also help in maintaining cultural continuity, social cohesion and economic 

resiliency within Yakutat and other Alaska Native communities. Additionally, the use 

of such resources helps Yakutat Tlingit to maintain footholds within traditional lands, 

and to continue applying traditional concepts of tenure and territoriality in certain 

venues. (Most classic accounts on this topic, such as Goldschmidt and Haas [1946], 

being situated in times quite distant and without reference to modern associations and 

identities, require updating if they are to be of use to park managers or YTT staff.) So 

too, subsistence practices will continue to evolve and adapt, requiring ongoing 

documentation over time. Again, future research might allow all parties to better 

appreciate the deeper meanings of subsistence in the perpetuation of traditional culture 

knowledge, and in the intergenerational transmission of key resource practices and 

values that yield far more than caloric value to the people of Yakutat. 
220 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

The presence of so many experienced resource harvesters also presents an opportunity 

for myriad traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) studies. Responses of Yakutat 

Tlingit resource harvesters to the changing availability, temporality and geographical 

distribution of species in the dynamic glacial landscape is clearly a topic of interest to 

many researchers—partially but not fully examined in the course of ongoing, focused 

research on seal camp traditions by Crowell, Ramos and others. Relying heavily on 

Tlingit oral tradition, such cultural investigations can be correlated with the growing 

natural resource and natural history literatures for this coastline to illuminating effect. 

Of particular interest too, interviewees’ comments suggest a rich corpus of traditional 

resource management techniques that have not been adequately documented in past 

studies. These include plant management and traditional gull egg management along 

the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, some of these methods (such as burning or other vegetation 

management methods) seemingly mimicking or “resetting” certain biomes to earlier, 

post-glacial successional stages that are culturally valued. Traditional techniques for 

fish management, such as salmon and herring egg “cultivation” are also suggested for 

Yakutat Tlingit, especially in highly dynamic environments, and seem likely to have 

had historical associations with Wrangell-St. Elias. Interviewees and written sources 

made brief references to the details of copper procurement and use, including some 

degree of procurement near the park’s southern boundary, that are likely to be more 

fully recoverable through interviews, even if the practice is unlikely to be recalled in 

great detail. Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan accounts on this point were especially illuminating 

in reconnaissance interviews, reflecting their deep ties to copper deposits in the 

Robinson Mountains and beyond. Pending the result of the Judy Ramos dissertation 

research at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks and Smithsonian Institution research 

guided by Aron Crowell, there surely will be new research questions and continuing 

opportunities for research following-up on seal hunting themes associated with the 

Wrangell-St. Elias coastline. So too, there may be value in documenting the full history 

of sea otter use and procurement into modern times—a topic not only of historical 

significance, but of growing contemporary relevance as Yakutat Tlingit reengage and 

revitalize otter hunting practices near the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. Finally, there is still 

much to be learned from traditional resource harvesters about the skills associated with 

navigating and surviving amidst the ice and glacial landscapes of the coast—a topic 

richly suggested by our reconnaissance interviews. 

Matters of more general cultural geography are pivotal to understanding the 

relationships of people and place, yet are seldom addressed directly in recent 

literatures. Research that might illuminate the Yakutat Tlingit “sense of place,” 

outlined in the Introduction, as it relates to Wrangell-St. Elias would be exceedingly 

helpful in addressing many of the questions raised in this document generally, and in 

this conclusion specifically. Investigations of the topic might allow researchers to more 

completely evaluate the meaning of traditional kwáan territory and migration 

landmarks in contemporary tribal identity on several scales—personal, family, kwáan, 

Tlingit and Alaska Native. In light of the significant changes in community life and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 221

structure, the depictions of de Laguna and other writers of the last century are 

important points of reference on the “baseline conditions” of the past, but are not 

sufficient in understanding many salient features of this relationship today. Such 

matters are important in understanding Yakutat Tlingit values generally, but have 

tremendous implications to the NPS in the arenas of tribal consultation and compliance. 

Indeed, an entire Traditional Use Study or Ethnographic Landscape Study could be 

devoted to the matter of the migration routes and their significance, alone. Working 

collaboratively with local experts, especially Kwáashk’ikwáan and GalyáxKaagwaantaan leadership and cultural experts, researchers might help compile, 

compare and contrast routes discussed in oral tradition; carefully map these routes and 

landmarks with reference to modeled coastline and glacial configurations at the 

approximate time of the migrations; organize photographs and placenames for 

landmarks mentioned in those narratives; and help record and organize migration 

narratives and other oral traditions relating to the same period and landscape. Such a 

document might discuss the contemporary importance of migration narratives and 

landscapes in various venues—from kwáan ceremonies to private life—for 

contemporary Yakutat Tlingit individuals, families, kwáans and communities. Such 

documentation might readily be assembled into interpretive and educational packages 

—for example multimedia digital formats to be used in educational programs for YTT 

youth. 

Similarly, the spiritual and cultural “meanings” of the landscape and its constituent 

features, such as glaciers, are implied but not fully explored by certain existing written 

sources. There are clear hints of this level of significance in the words of interviewees 

for the current study, who attest to the sacredness of the landscapes within Wrangell-St. 

Elias and spiritual powers traditionally associated with that area and its landforms, in 

addition to the landscape’s particular meaning to specific kwáans both as territory that 

they care for, and which cares for them. Other sources, most notably de Laguna’s 

writings (especially de Laguna 1972), contain information relevant to the topic but do 

not seek to articulate this as a unified theme. Other sources still, such as the writings of 

Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1987, 1990, 1994), provide suggestions of the rudiments 

and foundational concepts of place-based spiritual practice and belief, while directing 

limited attention to the specifics of the current study area. Meanwhile, the writings of 

Cruikshank (2008, 2001) foreground these concepts as they relate to glacial landscapes 

in and around Wrangell-St. Elias but, in truth, contain relatively little new or 

substantive data on this theme. While this is a sensitive topic, it is one that is of 

enduring importance to Yakutat Tlingit. This theme is also certain to have implications 

for park management, which is responsible for managing Wrangell-St. Elias with 

reference to federal laws and policies pertaining to sacred places such as Executive 

Order 13007, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and others. Most of these 

relevant laws and policies do not hinge on the historical importance of these 

landscapes, but on their enduring importance to contemporary peoples—suggesting 
222 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

that some level of contemporary documentation may be required to illuminate the 

nature of modern Tlingit values relating to the landscapes and to outline the compliance 

mandates of the NPS. A research methodology could be developed to gather 

information on contemporary views and values as they relate to “sacred landscapes” of 

Wrangell-St. Elias, largely through interview research, but with a view to protecting 

sensitive information and clear options for redaction by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, 

participating kwáans and interviewees. Such research would set a high bar for tribal 

consultation in the scoping, execution and review of research activities. 

By this same token, there is ample evidence that Wrangell-St. Elias contains one or more 

places likely to meet the criteria for listing as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) —

for places that are uniquely linked to the history, culture and contemporary identity of 

the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe and its constituent clans. Minimally, by even narrow 

interpretations of National Register guidance, Mount St. Elias and Icy Bay are likely to 

meet the criteria for TCP status, based on their centrality to kwáan origin narratives, 

traditional crests and other property, early kwáan history, and the modern 

ceremonialism and identity of kwáans as well as the larger Yakutat Tlingit community. 

Interpreted more broadly, the pathways taken by Yakutat Tlingit clans upon their first 

migration from Copper River to Yakutat Bay—that of Kwáashk’ikwáan in particular—

are likely to be eligible as National Register-eligible “cultural landscapes,” multiple 

property districts or similar, utilizing TCP criteria as outlined in Bulletin 38 of the NPS 

National Register program, with all of the key landmarks from those origin narratives 

serving as “contributing resources.” Broader National Register options might also exist. 

Due to the oral traditions and enduring cultural value of glaciers, mountains and other 

features in the southern swath of the park, one might consider a Multiple Property 

District approach that would account for all of these landmarks as “contributing 

resources.” This might be accomplished within a special study that focuses specifically 

on TCP eligibility of features on the Wrangell-St. Elias south shoreline, or addressed 

within a conventional NPS Ethnography Program report category, such as a Traditional 

Use Study. 

Similarly, places that are key in the Raven cycle of Tlingit oral tradition are unusually 

concentrated along the coastline of the region from Cape Yakataga (south and west of 

Wrangell-St. Elias) to Dry Bay (in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve). These are 

among the best known Native oral traditions of the entire Northwest Coast. They are 

known nationally and even internationally, and are iconic of Northwest Coast 

traditional culture. They also imbue the landscape with unique forms of significance to 

modern Tlingit, providing not only a sense of their own history and identity, but access 

to a rich corpus of traditional teachings on such matters as morality, ethics and 

interspecific obligations that might provide insights to tribal members today. The 

coastline of this area, including portions of Wrangell-St. Elias, possesses landmarks that 

are linked to specific tale episodes, associated placenames, and other forms of cultural 

knowledge. In light of this fact, those sites arguably warrant independent investigation 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 223

Figure 17 – The entrance to the Alaska Native Brotherhood Hall, Camp 13, Yakutat Alaska. The 

Eagle and Raven, the two moieties of the Tlingit, are shown on both sides of the summit of 

Mount St. Elias, an enduring keystone landmark in Yakutat Tlingit culture and history, likely 

eligible for listing as a Traditional Cultural Property. D. Deur photo.

as a possible National Register-eligible Cultural Landscape, multiple property district 

or similar. Such an investigation would involve documentation through published, 

archival and interview research, similar to the other National Register proposals 

outlined here, primarily using TCP criteria to frame project methods and analysis. In 

light of the geographical breadth and multiple jurisdictions involved, Wrangell-St. Elias 

would likely require some level of involvement from, at minimum, Tongass National 

Forest and Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

There are a number of other aspects of Yakutat Tlingit cultural geography that might 

warrant attention in future park-based research. For example, current research suggests 

that there may be many more placenames that could be added to those already 

recorded in published sources (Thornton 2008). Judy Ramos and Elaine Abraham, in 

particular, have recorded detailed information on placenames in the glaciated portions 

of Wrangell-St. Elias, as well as travel routes through those glaciers as described in 

kwáan oral traditions, extending beyond what is available to date in written form. These 

resources were not reviewed in the current research, but opportunities may exist for the 

NPS to support organization of this material into formats usable by the YTT and 

Wrangell-St. Elias alike. Interviewees for the current project also mentioned several 
224 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

placenames that were not fully transcribed and translated, suggesting that additional 

interviewing may yield information on these names, their origins and their historical 

and cultural significance in and around Wrangell-St. Elias. It is possible that, accessed 

through further systematic interviewing, including placename mapping and possible 

field visits, these interviews might augment lists collected to date by Ramos and 

Abraham. Archival sources, though already tapped extensively by Thornton, Ramos 

and Abraham, may yet yield more names as well. Certain archival notes, such as those 

of Harrington (n.d.) were not reviewed exhaustively for the current project and may 

still yield insights on these topics, especially when working in collaboration with 

specialists in the Tlingit and Eyak languages. 

Various other gaps were noted in available ethnographic and ethnohistorical literature. 

The topic of NPS-tribal relations as they relate to Wrangell-St. Elias is increasingly a 

“historical” topic, as so many of the key events took place three decades ago, or more. 

In this light, this topic might also be appropriate for investigation in the course of 

Traditional Use Studies that center more directly on the topics outlined above. Assessed 

in its historical context, this material could assess past challenges and successes in NPSYTT relations, and highlight opportunities for the continued improvement of park-tribe 

relationships into the foreseeable future. There is also the matter of the independent 

history and culture of the Cordova-area Eyak community—a theme that is only 

addressed parenthetically in this document. The NPS had planned to undertake

interviews with Native Village of Eyak members concurrent with this research, but 

budget and logistics made this impossible. A broader investigation of that community’s 

unique history, including ethnographic or oral history interviews, would certainly yield 

perspectives on the significance and traditional uses of Wrangell-St. Elias, including 

areas in the Copper River drainage not addressed in the current document. 

While this discussion of data gaps has centered on the state of the existing literature, the 

“gaps” are not solely to be found in the sources. There are also management and 

interpretation needs that must be addressed, sometimes through academic research and 

sometimes through collaborative data gathering with park-associated tribes, clans, 

families and individuals. Some of these management and interpretation needs are 

known to NPS managers now working at Wrangell-St. Elias. Other needs and interests 

were identified by members of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe in the course of interviews and 

in meetings for the current research. Tribal members have discussed a number of key 

objectives that should be repeated here, as they provide valuable context for the 

recommendations of this study, as well as future opportunities for park-tribe 

collaboration. Certainly, the interests of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe must and will 

continue to be discussed in the course of formal consultation with the NPS and other 

agencies. Still, tribal interviewees —formal and informal—expressed their hopes for the 

future of park-tribe relations, starting from the foundational idea that the NPS must, in 

all facets of park operations, “remember that these places mean something to us” (YB). 

Most expressed, at minimum, a desire to see these things.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 225

Wrangell-St. Elias Visitors and Management Respecting the Landscape

There is a widespread perception that non-Native visitors to those parts of Wrangell-St. 

Elias associated with the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe have not had sufficient “respect” for the 

land and the living things upon it. Interviewees suggest that non-Native hunters, 

charter operators, cruise ships and other visitors—as well as certain NPS managers in 

the early years of park development—have shown inadequate respect for this land’s 

spiritual significance, cultural significance and enduring importance to Yakutat Tlingit. 

Disrespect was widely said to have secondary effects that can be independently 

destructive, eroding the enduring bonds between Yakutat Tlingit and this part of their 

homeland. Some also express the belief, deeply rooted in Yakutat Tlingit cosmology, 

that this disrespect can have negative consequences for visitors, management and 

Yakutat Tlingit by destabilizing or offending spiritual forces at work in the landscape—

possibly leading to injury, illness or even death. Interviewees expressed a general desire 

to find ways to help instill that respect. This, they suggest, might be accomplished in 

part through management, interpretation, or other mechanisms reflective of Tlingit 

perspectives, while helping to instill respect in park visitors and, as needed, land 

managers. Again, this is a general goal that should be understood to permeate the 

discussion of other, more specific management or interpretation goals outlined below. 

Meaningful Acknowledgement of Yakutat Tlingit Linkages to the Land

Interviewees often mentioned a strong desire to have Yakutat Tlingit associations with

the study area acknowledged and engaged by the NPS at all levels, especially in 

interpretation and in the management of both natural and cultural resources. Several 

interviewees suggested that Yakutat Tlingit culture and history has often been absent 

from interpretation of Wrangell-St. Elias landscapes. When these themes are 

mentioned, interviewees suggest, the Yakutat Tlingit content is commonly eclipsed by 

natural history themes that mention human themes parenthetically and often without 

equal standing. 

At minimum, certain interviewees suggest, there should be interpretation that 

accentuates the history and continuity of kwáan associations with specific lands and the 

resiliency of Yakutat Tlingit culture into modern times. More specific themes were 

mentioned as secondary, but no less appealing, options such as traditional resource 

management practices and values, or the adaptability and ingenuity of Yakutat Tlingit 

people in their relationship with the dynamic glacial landscapes of the south end of 

Wrangell-St. Elias. Much of the information on kwáan history is traditionally considered 

kwáan property, so the NPS might be asked not only to present these interpretive 

themes, but to collaborate closely with the YTT and appropriate kwáans in its creation. 

Concerns center not only on “content,” then, but also on matters of intellectual property 

that suggest the “methodology” of interpretive development is of nearly equal interest.
226 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Similarly, interviewees report that they are eager to have NPS resource managers 

engage with the unique history of Yakutat Tlingit in the southern portion of WrangellSt. Elias in particular. This implies acknowledging tribal and kwáan associations to 

particular landscapes within the management process—not only meeting the letter of

the law when it comes to “consultation,” but the spirit of those laws as they relate to 

tribal interests. While the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe coordinates with its traditionally 

associated clans when consulting with NPS, some suggest that the NPS should continue 

to acknowledge that, while tribe is the legal point of contact, the kwáan is the basis for 

traditional association. Yet, the implications of these suggestions go further still. Some 

interviewees recommend that NPS managers seek to develop natural resource 

management strategies in coordination with the tribe that integrate Yakutat Tlingit 

traditional ecological knowledge and are responsive to its teachings. Some also 

recommend the development of protocols for cultural site protection that are rooted in 

traditional values. The specifics of these proposals are beyond the scope of the current 

document, but such sentiments suggest avenues for future consultation and perhaps 

future research that involve collaboration between NPS managers, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe 

representatives and research specialists from these and other institutions. 

A Voice as “Host”

Most interviewees spoke of their shared desire to have a greater voice in the messages 

provided to Wrangell-St. Elias visitors. Traditionally, Yakutat Tlingit kwáans were 

responsible for the education, safety and well-being of visitors to their traditional lands. 

Yakutat Tlingit are, in their view, still the genuine “hosts” of visitors entering this part 

of Wrangell-St. Elias, and it is only appropriate that they continue to be presented as 

such, while providing visitors with orientation to the landscape’s grandeur, history and 

hazards. Short of getting the land back, or the outright YTT control over park 

interpretive functions, several interviewees expressed an interest in seeing collaborative 

interpretive development that would include creating booklets, placename maps, and 

other media significantly featuring the tribe’s voice and perspective. In this, they 

suggest that Yakutat Tlingit would provide significant content, but would also have 

review authority over the use and presentation of that content, even if outside 

interpretive development specialists participated in the final assembly of interpretive 

products and the NPS was involved in its delivery. Some pointed to the interpretive 

development undertaken in Hoonah relative to Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

as a possible model, suggesting even more elaborate interpretive possibilities. NPS 

development of new visitor center facilities in the Yakutat area are seen as outstanding 

opportunities for possible collaboration. Some suggest that such venues would allow 

NPS collaboration with Yak-Tat Kwaan, YTT and the City and Borough of Yakutat, to 

coordinate interpretive efforts that might meaningfully support the Yakutat economy 

while accurately portraying Yakutat history and culture. They note that many stories 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 227

may be best told within the town of Yakutat, such as the history of the Yakutat Tlingit 

expulsion of the Russians and its implications. So too, interviewees expressed interests 

in reviving the cruise ship-based interpretation by Yakutat Tlingit individuals, working 

with the input and sanction of the YTT. Interpretive media have already been 

developed for this purpose with significant community involvement, and the material 

is ready for redeployment by experienced YTT interpreters. Generally, interpretive 

planning and development might draw inspiration and content from earlier 

interpretive efforts such as the cruise ship presentations that were developed through a 

collaborative community process organized within the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe.

Additionally, the NPS might move forward with the planned collaboration on the 

development of Yakutat kwáan histories—an activity that was originally planned to take 

place concurrent with the present study. These kwáan histories, while of intrinsic value 

to the kwáans, might provide an opportunity to introduce a clear and authentic Yakutat 

Tlingit voice into park interpretive materials. So too, some interviewees noted it might 

be wise to facilitate a broader study of Yakutat community history from the tribe’s 

perspective—developed either independently, or with technical assistance from outside 

researchers. 

Educational, Economic and Employment Opportunities that are 

Consistent with Traditional Values and Practices

Many interviewees point out that Yakutat Tlingit are eager to develop educational, 

economic and employment opportunities for tribal members that are consistent with 

traditional values and practices. Such opportunities, they note, are sometimes elusive. 

Yet, Yakutat Tlingit together represent a community with unique knowledge and skills 

relating to the NPS mission, and the NPS sometimes affords opportunities to participate 

in activities that are largely compatible with community goals of cultural preservation. 

Interviewees note that their skills and background might contribute to NPS 

interpretation, allowing them to tell their stories and share their experiences with park 

visitors. Others note opportunities for NPS resource management that would allow the 

integration of Yakutat Tlingit knowledge and the benefit of skills of Yakutat Tlingit 

resource specialists. Some promote more active NPS efforts to recruit seasonal hires, 

while there is also an interest in possibilities for permanent employment—especially if 

the NPS is able to develop a Yakutat visitors’ center, or to participate in co-management 

agreements allowing Yakutat Tlingit employment in park-supported functions while 

remaining in their home community. As noted elsewhere in this document, there may 

be potentials for formal NPS collaboration with Yak-Tat Kwaan, the Yakutat Tlingit 

Tribe and other tribal organizations on such matters. 
228 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Interviewees also noted the enduring importance of mixed subsistence economies in 

both providing food and cultural continuity to the Yakutat community. By allowing 

largely unfettered access for resource harvests that are in some manner traditional and 

not environmentally impactful, they note, the NPS will help the community maintain a 

healthful balance between economic and cultural needs.

A number of interviewees mentioned educational opportunities that might be afforded 

via collaborative efforts with the NPS. Certain interviewees, for example, discussed 

opportunities for the collaborative development of traditional plant use guides for use 

in schools and other settings, perhaps relating to specific plants, places and modern 

dietary potentials. Also mentioned were possible collaborations centering on the 

development of detailed educational materials on the glacial advances and retreats of 

the Yakutat Bay region, discussing geological history and forces in a way that 

references, and is respectful of, traditional Yakutat Tlingit narratives regarding these 

changes, and outlines the many effects on Yakutat settlements and subsistence over 

time. So too, interviewees expressed interest in developing educational materials on 

traditional resource use, values, tenure and territoriality on the Wrangell-St. Elias coast. 

Such materials, interviewees note, might help educate young Yakutat residents and 

park managers as well as—if properly redacted, with Yakutat Tlingit Tribe input—

adapted for the education of park visitors through various interpretive media. 

Members of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe often expressed an interest in greater direct 

control over the management of lands and resources within the territories of the five 

kwáans, beyond options outlined above. Tribal members spoke of their interests in 

developing a larger, standing cultural program or Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

(THPO) that might oversee the tribe’s efforts specifically relating to cultural and 

historical interests. In addition, some suggest that tribal members are eager to pursue 

co-management agreements with the land management agencies in their areas of 

interest, to give the tribe greater influence over resource management decisions, to 

reassume their traditional “host” relationship with visitors, and to generate 

employment and administrative opportunities that will build on existing tribal 

capacities. 

Maintaining Connections with the Land

Finally, Yakutat Tlingit interviewees note they are eager to maintain a foothold on 

traditional kwáan territories. Many interviewees were eager to promote organized visits 

by the community or portions of it, including visits for subsistence and ceremonial 

purposes. Also of particular interest is the potential for educational visits for tribal 

youth—perhaps involving NPS facilitation of Yakutat school groups, as has been done 

in the recent past. Some propose maintaining cabins or other facilities within WrangellSt. Elias that would be available to the community (and not just individually held by 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 229

families) and that would serve as a foundation for fishing and other subsistence tasks, 

as well as providing shelter in inclement weather or emergency situations. The 

development of kwáan houses, analogous to those developed at Glacier Bay by the NPS 

and Huna Tlingit, was mentioned as a possible means of facilitating these goals. 

It is clear that the current work has a number of tentative compliance implications not 

fully addressed here. These could be elaborated upon in later documents. Certain lands 

seem to warrant management as TCPs, even if eligibility has not yet been 

demonstrated.183 Lands exist that are likely to meet the thresholds of federal law and 

policy pertaining to sacred places, such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

and Executive Order 13007, which guarantee (among other things) tribal access to those 

landmarks.184 There are Alaska Native interests that could reasonably be expected to be 

“disproportionately affected” by future permitting or other activities within the 

southern portion of Wrangell-St. Elias in particular, as per the language of Executive 

Order 12898. And there are implications under ANILCA. For example, the history of 

motorized vehicle use is likely to allow such activities to be grandfathered in perpetuity 

under ANILCA provisions. Though it is unlikely Yakutat residents will seek to 

resuscitate the “traditional use” of tanks and troop carriers in Wrangell-St. Elias, the 

precedent for motorized vehicle use is clear and sets certain parameters for motorized 

access into the future. These compliance implications are beyond the scope of the 

current document, but may deserve additional research, as well as ongoing discussion, 

within the context of tribal consultation and compliance. 

On the basis of all the findings outlined in this document, and in this conclusion, we 

recommend that NPS staff consider undertaking one or more future studies relating to 

Yakutat Tlingit interests in Wrangell-St. Elias. The recommendations outlined above 

make it clear that at least one Traditional Use Study is warranted. As defined in NPS-28, 

a Traditional Use Study is an ethnographic study that fills the gaps identified in an 

Ethnographic Overview and Assessment, developing materials on traditional practices 

that might aid in management and interpretation: 

“Describing and analyzing traditional resource use and management 

regimes, this field study will be conducted and periodically updated for 

all parks having traditional resource users. It fills the data gaps identified 

by the ethnographic overview and assessment and satisfies requirements 

of ANILCA, specific legislation for parks in the contiguous 48 states, and 

global climate change and Man in the Biosphere programs for information 

on customary uses of cultural and natural resources. Its benefits include 

the baseline information needed to inform interpretive programs, monitor 

effects of use on renewable and non-renewable resources, reach culturally 

informed decisions about appropriate kinds of protection, and assess 

effects of restricted use on traditional users. Subsistence studies require at 

least one year of documentary review and intensive fieldwork in 
230 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

collaboration with members of the involved communities, facility with 

local languages, residence in the community, ethnographic interviewing, 

and participant observation” (USDOINPS 1998b).185

A traditional use study might focus on documenting the cultural significance of 

landmarks within Wrangell-St. Elias among contemporary Yakutat Tlingit Tribal 

members in the manner suggested elsewhere in this introduction: assessing migration 

routes, sacred spaces, placenames and related oral traditions, for example. Such an 

effort might also further illuminate the management and compliance implications of its 

findings. A Traditional Use Study might be developed to address these matters with or 

without recourse to National Register of Historic Places criteria. If National Register 

objectives were highlighted, the Traditional Use Study might contain a specific 

assessment of National Register eligibility of places such as migration routes, Icy Bay 

and Mount St. Elias under Bulletin 38 criteria, and might provide elements contributing 

to National Register “context statements” as needed. While the proposed effort is 

envisioned as focusing largely on the southern portions of Wrangell-St. Elias, larger 

multi-park or multi-agency efforts might be warranted for extensive areas such as 

migration routes or places associated with Raven story cycles. In some cases, 

Traditional Use Studies may be used specifically to advance interpretive development, 

assembling information that may be used within interpretation, as well as establishing 

processes and protocols for its use. This might be considered as an independent study.

Also, Wrangell-St. Elias and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe might benefit from developing a 

full Ethnohistory study that provides an overview of the chronology of settlement (and 

its demise) as well as resource use along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast, while also 

addressing the coastline more directly in light of the full historical sweep outlined in the 

“Transitions” section of this document. Like a Traditional Use Study, an Ethnohistory 

is a standard baseline report within the NPS Ethnography Program and is described as 

follows: 

“Ethnohistory—a methodology for obtaining culture-specific descriptions 

and conducting analyses within a historical framework–addresses 

dynamic relationships between parks and traditionally associated groups. 

The objective is to consider a people's lifeways through time so that 

continuities and change in land use patterns, family organization, 

demography, ceremonial life, and other features can be plotted in time 

and in variable contexts such as changing neighbors, frontiers, or 

economic, social, and political climates” (USDOINPS 1998b).

In this light, an Ethnohistory may be very useful in sorting out changing patterns of 

land use and related changes in trade and tribal economies, demographics, social 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 231

structure and other variables over time—from the arrival of the first European fur 

traders to recent times. In such an effort, researchers might be able to present explorer 

and Russian American Company accounts more fully than has been attempted here, 

alongside, for example, Russian Orthodox Church and Swedish Covenant Church 

records, Stimson company records and other accounts. In turn, these sources might be 

juxtaposed with tribal perspectives and accounts from unpublished literatures, archival 

materials (especially on Tlingit oral history) and additional interviews with Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe members on historical themes. 

The studies thus proposed, and other forms of collaborative research, may yet help to 

illuminate the enduring interests and connections of Yakutat Tlingit and the lands and 

resources now managed as part of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. 

However, the recommendations put forward here are just the starting point for 

discussion. It is only through ongoing communication and consultation between the 

NPS and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe that the full range of Alaska Native interests might 

be understood, and the full range of prescriptions realized. Many of the concepts 

proposed in this conclusion could serve to minimize, or partially mitigate, some of the 

specific adverse impacts that, according to many Yakutat Tlingit, resulted from park 

development. In this respect, these suggestions may be of practical use to any future 

park-planning or permitting activities. However, they are proposed with a broader 

vision. They might also foster continued Native use of Wrangell-St. Elias, and 

collaborative relationships between the NPS and Yakutat Tlingit, as well as other

Alaska Native villages, for generations to come.

Today, Yakutat Tlingit still highly value lands within Wrangell-St. Elias and share a 

history and sense of responsibility for these lands. In spite of the many changes since 

the passage of ANILCA, Wrangell-St. Elias is still widely seen as a homeland, as a place 

of great natural abundance and as a desirable place to visit. Moreover, there are Yakutat 

Tlingit who have been eager to share their knowledge, hopes and concerns about 

Wrangell-St. Elias with members of our research team. That willingness to share 

extends to NPS staff who might wish to come, to listen to these stories and to help build 

lasting relationships of mutual trust with Yakutat Tlingit and other traditionally 

associated Alaska Native communities. Interviewees were often eager for not only 

government-to-government consultation, but an enduring and less formalized 

relationship between their community and the NPS. Certainly, Yakutat Tlingit and the 

National Park Service are here for the long term and will need to continue finding ways 

to creatively resolve differences and advance mutual opportunities. They have much to 

discuss. More often than some might expect, they have parallel interests, as they seek to 

maintain the integrity of Wrangell-St. Elias, “unimpaired for...future generations,” even 

if there are differing views of what that mission means going forward. It is our sincere 

hope that this report will help foster the long-term conversation, and sustain enduring 

positive relationships between the National Park Service and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. 
232 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Sources

INTERVIEWEES

Interviewees Quoted or Paraphrased in the Text

Name Code

Bert Adams Sr. BA

Lorraine Adams LA

Elaine Abraham EA

Yvonne Baker YB

James Bremner JB

Sam Demmert SD

Victoria Demmert VD

Lena Farkus LF

Eli Hanlon EH

Skip Johnson SJ

Vincent Johnson* VJ

Walter Johnson* WJ

Mary Ann Porter MP

Judy Ramos JR

George Ramos Sr.* GS

Ray Sensmeier RS

Ted Valle TV

* Only interviewed informally for the current project; quotations in text from interviews 

conducted as part of other studies.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 233

NOTES 1 At the time of this writing, this document can be accessed at: 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28chap2.htm

2 The Kwáashk’ikwáan and Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan clans are the primary focus of this 

document, as their traditional territories overlap with portions of Wrangell-St. Elias. However, 

the three other Yakutat Tlingit clans are mentioned throughout the text, as well, in more general 

discussions of Tlingit history and migrations in the region. 

3 Much of the classical ethnographic literature regarding Tlingit has some value in 

understanding matters at Yakutat, even if specific references to Yakutat are often parenthetical 

in many classic accounts (cf. W. Olson 2004; Kan 1999, 1989a; Tollefson 1976; R. Olson 1967; 

Krause 1956; Oberg 1937). Yet, even from the beginnings of formal ethnographic research on 

Tlingit, there were certain individuals who sought out specific information on Yakutat culture 

and history. John Swanton recorded information pertaining to Yakutat during research in Sitka 

in the beginning of the 20th century, though he apparently did not record information within the 

Yakutat community (Swanton 1908, 1909). Not long afterwards, George Emmons gathered 

ethnographic and oral history materials pertaining to Yakutat (Emmons n.d.a., n.d.b., 1907-30) –

work that became especially accessible through its later editing and incorporation by de Laguna 

(Emmons and de Laguna 1991). In 1939 and intermittently thereafter, John Peabody Harrington 

also recorded Yakutat Tlingit cultural knowledge – significantly linguistic in nature, but also 

including references to oral traditions relating to the study area (Harrington 1939-57, n.d.). 

Walter Goldschmidt and Theodore Haas recorded information pertaining to Yakutat during 

their 1946 fieldwork, especially useful in reviewing land ownership traditions (Goldschmidt 

and Haas 1946, 1998). 

4 Nora and Richard Dauenhauer’s work on oral traditions, Judy Ramos’s work on many themes 

such as traditional ecological knowledge, and to a lesser degree authors such as report 

coauthor, Thomas Thornton’s work on place-based knowledge and placenames have 

contributed significantly to the literature on Yakutat Tlingit (e.g., Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer 

1987, 1990, 1994; Ramos 2003; Ramos and Mason 2004; Thornton 2008, 2012). Most of these 

recent studies have produced large collections of archival material that are largely in the 

researchers’ private collections and untapped as of yet for publication. The Sealaska Heritage 

Institute Archives has been especially proactive at archiving these materials as they become 

available, especially within the vast Nora and Richard Dauenhauer Oral History Collection. The 

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe also is developing an archive of cultural materials, including some portion 

of those collected by Judy Ramos in the course of the ongoing Smithsonian Institution research 

addressing Yakutat Tlingit sealing camps.

5 To access these guidelines, consult the websites of these two organizations at 

http://www.aaanet.org/ and http://www.sfaa.net/ respectively.

6 It is important to note that the comments made by interviewees and included in this document 

often reflect their observations and experiences over a long period of time. This provides 

contextual depth to the current project, as interviewees’ personal history of Wrangell-St. Elias 
234 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

visitation allows them to comment on changes they have witnessed over the course of several 

decades. With such a time depth of personal observation, however, it is important to note that 

some interviewees’ comments often allude to issues that seem to have been resolved some time 

ago, such as past debates over access and subsistence use shortly after the passage of ANILCA 

in 1980. Yet, the fact that these issues emerge in contemporary interviews may still be of 

interest to the park and others, as such interviewee comments sometimes reflect enduring 

perceptions of the park and the National Park Service that arguably still influence Tlingit 

relationships with the park. Some of these comments point toward opportunities for 

clarification in future park-tribe communications and thus are included in qualified form within 

the pages that follow.

7 Some stories concerning Raven in mythic time – related to clan histories and events beyond 

these histories – continue to be retold by Tlingit people all over southeast Alaska. 

8 Due to the spiritual relationships between Tlingit and the landscape, Tlingit sometimes 

attribute changes in the landscape – such as surging glaciers – to a lack of respect demonstrated 

toward the spirits of the beings acknowledged to inhabit the landscape (JR).

9 De Laguna describes a couple of groups that, according to oral tradition, once occupied 

the Yakutat area, before selling their lands to later inhabitants of the Bay and 

surrounding lands:

“The original inhabitants of the Yakutat area have been called "Aleuts," and one 

informant reported that the immigrants from the Copper River purchased their 

lands from them. According to others, the group that sold their territories to the 

Copper River Indians were the Kosḱedi (Ravens), the HInyedi (Ravens), or 

YEnyedi (Eagles). Other names applied more specifically to the original 

occupants of the lowlands east of Yakutat Bay are the Ł ́uẋedi (Eagles), who may 

or may not be the same as the TłaxayIk-Teqwedi, and the StaxAdi (Ravens).

...One very well-informed Kwacḱqwan man said that his people, on 

coming from the Copper River, purchased their lands at Yakutat from the Raven 

HInyedi. After selling their territories, these people emigrated to southeastern 

Alaska; most are believed to live near Ketchikan, but there are a few in Juneau. 

...The Kosḱedi (Ravens) were among the names given by two Kwacḱqwan 

informants to designate the original inhabitants of the Yakutat area. According to 

their version of the tradition, these people sold their land to the immigrants from 

the Copper River (the Kwacḱqwan), and then moved to southeastern Alaska, 

being now found at Sitka” (de Laguna 1972:220).

10 De Laguna summarizes the migration of groups into Yakutat thusly:

“In the Dry Bay area, the TłukwaxAdi and the Kosḱedi(?) were the original 

Athabaskan occupants; the other sibs are Tlingit from southeastern Alaska. The 

original residents of the Yakutat area were evidently Eyak-speakers. From 

southeastern Alaska, via Dry Bay, came the later residents, except for the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 235

 

Kwacḱqwan who were Atna Athabaskans from the Copper River, and the ĢałyIxKagwantan who were Eyak-speakers of the western Gulf Coast” (de Laguna 

1972:18-19).

Maggie Harry, one of de Laguna’s informants from her research in the late 1940s and early 

1950s, relays the oral history of the migration of tribes from Copper River into the Yakutat 

region:

“We came from Copper River, like Moses going out of Egypt. 

Four brothers fought over an ivory dish, called tśAnduk. Hundreds of 

different stones were made on it. So we split in four. Gudíłta’ was the king at 

Copper River. The others left the town to die. GAnexqwan [GInexqwan] was the 

tribe left at Copper River.

We were the family that first went on top of Mount Saint Elias. That's our 

flag [crest]. One tribe was lost when it was foggy, so came to Kałiak River and 

became the ĢałyIx-Kagwantan.

Our tribe thought they saw a seagull far off when they first saw Mount 

Saint Elias. Every day it is getting higher. Generations grew and died in the 

wilderness. 

They found the Teqwedi in Icy Bay. Aleuts, Goťex, were here at Yakutat. 

They sure were mean! 

All of the four tribes finally met again at Copper River and made a village 

at the mouth. The GInexqwan still remembered us.

Three hundred years ago there were no trees at Yakutat—just 

strawberries. Our clan bought the land from the Kusḱedi” (quoted in de Laguna 

1972:236).

“Under Mount Saint Elias” (de Laguna 1972) contains numerous renditions of elders relaying 

the migration of groups from the Copper River area to Yakutat. See de Laguna 1972:231-242 for 

a more complete treatment of migration stories such as the one above.

11 De Laguna later provides a more detailed description of the different migrations of groups 

into the Yakutat area:

“The Kwacḱqwan are named for the Humpback Salmon Creek on the east side of 

Yakutat Bay. The name for the stream, kwacḱ, is simply the Eyak word for 

humpback salmon, whereas the Tlingit word is tcaś. This Raven sib traces its 

origin to Chitina on the Copper River, which they left following a dispute over 

the inheritance of a dead chief's property. The original group was called 

GInexqwan or GInExqwan after the Bremner River, or ŁdaxEnqwan or 

Łtahinqwan after the Tana River. At the time of their emigration they spoke the 

Copper River language, i.e., Atna Athabaskan, and some songs in this language 

are still preserved at Yakutat, and some personal names are Atna words. Part of 
236 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

the emigrants became separated from the others and became the Eyak 

ĢanAxtedi. The rest of the group traveled overland, past Mount Saint Elias, 

which they therefore claim as a crest, and at Icy Bay married a group of ĢałyixKagwantan. They later crossed Yakutat Bay and eventually obtained possession 

of that area, including the stream from which their present name is derived, 

through purchase from the original inhabitants” (de Laguna 1972:223).

12 The moieties were, in some cases, already attached to groups prior to their arrival in Yakutat:

“According to tradition, the Kwacḱqwan were already Ravens before they left the 

Copper River, yet the incident of how "brothers" and "sisters" married each other 

(or were saved from sib incest in the nick of time), suggests that the immigrants 

were actually a mixed or incompletely structured group at that time. What is

significant here is not the historical accuracy of the tradition so much as the way 

it illustrates the overriding tendency for the Tlingit and the foreigners they have 

assimilated to read all history in terms of sibs” (de Laguna 1972:451).

13 As de Laguna writes, the “Yakutat Bay people” are:

“[T]hose on the coastal plain from the Italio River, 25 miles to the southeast. 

Their territory also embraced Icy Bay and its western shore, some 65 miles west 

of Yakutat. This area, as we shall see, once had an autochthonous population, 

originally Eyak or perhaps Dry Bay Athabaskan, but in prehistoric times 

submerged by Eyak from the coast to the westward mixed with a migration of 

Atna Athabaskans from the middle Copper River. Later, it became Tlingit 

because of the migrations from southeastern Alaska and the Dry Bay area” (de 

Laguna 1972:18).

14 As Krause noted, 

“In more recent times the Yakutat seem to have pushed westward along the coast or 

they have intermingled with the Ugalent or Ugalakmut with whom, according to 

Wrangell and Veniaminof, they are closely related both by marriage and blood. Petroff 

and Jacobsen met Tlingit at the mouth of Copper River. According to oral information... 

there are [near the mouth of the Copper River] the villages of Tschilkat (Chilkat) and 

Allaganak (Alaghanik on the maps of Holmberg) which are inhabited by Tlingit who are 

subject to the chiefs of Yakutat Bay and who return there generally in the winter” 

(Krause 1956: 65-66). 

15 Traditional songs are one of the venues where migration stories are recounted:
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 237

 

“Other traditional songs with Atna words are connected with the migration of 

the GInexqwan from Copper River to Yakutat, but were not recorded. One is a 

mourning song, supposedly composed by a woman who stayed behind at Icy 

Bay when some of the GInexqwan began to regret that they had left Chitina and 

went back again. The mountain was so steep that they had to walk in zigzags up 

the snow. The woman who was left behind was so sad that she was weeping and 

composed this song. It is not known whether the others ever reached Chitina” 

(de Laguna 1972:1157).

The third volume of de Laguna’s 1972 book, “Under Mount Saint Elias,” contains a collection of 

Yakutat Tlingit songs that cover a variety of topics, including certain landmarks, hunting trips, 

averted wars with other Alaska Native groups, etc.

16 The man who killed his sleep is also a hero to the L’uknax.ádi (Raven) clan (see Swanton 

1909:154–65). The L’uknax.ádi may have been, originally, the Athabaskan who returned from 

the interior to Glacier Bay with Kaakeix’wtí. It is said that the Kaagwaantaan were the wives of 

the L’uknax.ádi (161) and vice versa. They lived together at Glacier Bay and later at Sitka. The 

L’uknax.ádi, too, gained wealth through favorable trade with the interior Athabaskans, 

including native copper through the Copper River trade corridor. According to oral tradition 

(documented by Swanton 1909), sometime after Kaakeix’wtí hosted the Athabaskans, the 

L’uknax.ádi travelled to the mouth of the Copper River (Eekhéeni), where they established a 

village, Kus’eixka. Swanton’s consultant, Kadashan, notes: “All along where they went they gave 

names. A certain creek was called [Nagukhéen (Rolling Water, at Cape Spencer)], and they came 

to a lake which they named [Ltu.áa (Inside the Point Lake, Lituya Bay)]” (Swanton 1990:160). 

Also named were the two tallest mountains of northern Southeast Alaska: Mount Fairweather 

(Tsalxaan, “Land of the Ground Squirrels”) and Mount St. Elias (Waa’eit’ashaa, “Mountain Inland 

of Waas’ei Yík” [known in English as Icy Bay]). The L’uknax.ádi, eventually settled in Dry Bay at 

the famous village of Gus’eix, where the first Sleep House was built and named in 

commemoration of these events stemming from the wanderings of Kaakeix’wtí, the man who 

killed his sleep. 

17 Ted Valle also describes how the Galyáx Kaagwaantaan found copper at Kaliakh River:

“When my people were [at] Kaliakh, they were going toward Bering River and 

they were walking along the field there, up kind of ahead of Kaliakh River, 

there’s a mountain there that we claim as a crest. And we call it [Ch'awáax', 

Kultheith, or Robin Mountain]. And when they were walking in the field there, 

they were going exploring toward Bering at that time. This head man and this 

woman and I don’t know who else. The woman noticed that there was patches of 

green...kind of green on their shield. And she thought, ‘Something’s causing it to 

be green like that.’ So she told the man, ‘Why don’t you dig some up to see 

what’s causing that green water?’ So they dug some up and there were copper 

nuggets, but they were oxidized, green. And so they dug some up and then they 

said, ‘We’re going to camp here for overnight.’ So they put around where they 

were going to make a fire and they made a fire. When they woke up in the 
238 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

morning, the rocks were no longer laying there. They also discovered copper so 

they knew it was metal. Then they started heating it and see if they could make 

things of it. So, and the large nuggets that they found, they pounded flat...This 

was before that they found that beaver and built that village there [referring to 

Beaver House on the Bering River]” (TV).

18 Bremner’s narrative is included here, as recorded and annotated by de Laguna. According to 

Harry Bremner (1952):

“My people, the Kwáashk’ikwáan, were Copper River people at Chitina, Chitina. 

Lots of things happened before we left. The real name for our tribe [sib] then was 

Ginéix Kwáan. Ginéix is the name for the Big Bremner River [Likely the Little 

Bremner according to our informants and de Laguna note 69, p. 101] across from 

Chitina. There is also a Little Bremner River below Chitina. They were named for 

my step-grandfather, John Bremner.

Before we came to Yakutat we used to have war with the McCarthy 

Indians. They were a part of us, but we at Chitina were small; they were great big 

people, all giants. They didn't like us, and we didn't like them. The trouble was 

over hunting grounds, I think. 

We stayed at Chitina. The Raven chief...died. He had lots of property. 

Everything belonged to the whole tribe. Long before he died, he killed a giant moose. He 

used the horn for a big dish, every time he gave a potlatch. When they divided the 

property among the tribe, there was trouble over that dish. The brothers— all the men in 

the tribe called themselves "brothers"— had trouble over that dish, but there was no 

killing. They lived in a long town, with rows of houses. One group didn't get the dish; 

the other group did. The group that didn't get the dish got sore. So they left, walking on 

the glacier. 

The people who started out from Chitina got lost. It is foggy between Icy 

Bay and Chitina. One part of the bunch started going one way and the others 

went the other way. They hollered back and forth to each other: "wuhu! wiihii! 

wuhu! wuhu!" That's the way they called to each other, but they kept getting 

further and further apart. Then one bunch came out on the mouth of the Copper 

River. They had no name then, until a big shot, Xatgawet, from southeastern 

Alaska, came up and called them the Gaanaxteidí. They stayed first at a place 

called SAxwdaq. That word means 'cockles' in the Copper River language. Some 

of them stayed at Eyak Lake near Cordova. Pretty soon they moved to Katalla, 

and then moved again to Chilkat on Bering River. Long afterwards we 

Kwáashk’ikwáan met them again, when we travelled up in canoes to Eyak and 

Katalla and found our brothers again. The Copper River people came to meet us 

and that's where we get to meet again. 

(Way later on, when we met them again, they had a chief of the same 

name as the chief who died. The last one of that name died over 100 years ago. 

We met them at the mouth of the Copper River afterward, every summer. We 

went in canoes to Alaganik, 'AnAxAnAq, or sometimes to Eyak [Anaxanák, #1; 

see Map 5]. The Chitina people didn't own Alaganik, but they came to meet us. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 239

 

They would bring down furs, and coppers, chewing gum from interior spruce, 

and sell it to us)” (August 28, 1952).

“...Our people kept walking over the glacier. There was only ice, no bushes, 

nothing. They started southeast. They had nothing to eat. There was starvation 

on the glacier. It was a long way for us to walk. 

Then the people thought they saw a wolverine. They used it for a 

compass and walked towards it. When they came to it they saw it was a little 

mountain, an island with trees on it, just a little hill. They had a campfire but 

nothing to eat. That night a wolverine came to their fire. The hungry people 

killed him and ate him. They cut him up into little pieces to feed all the people. 

Then they walked on again. 

Pretty soon they saw a rabbit sitting on the snow, far away. They walked 

towards the rabbit. After two days walking they saw it was the top of a 

mountain, but they kept on walking anyway. Finally they came to Mount Saint 

Elias. It was a compass for the people so they wouldn't get lost. 

Then they found that bay, Icy Bay, Watse [yase] [Was’ei, #45; see Map 5]. 

The glacier was all over the bay, way out. They made a camp just west of the 

place where the bay is now— not houses — just a camp of yellow cedar bark. 

The camp is Watse dAx [yase dA#?] [Was'ei (Yas'ei) Dak. Behind Icy Bay, #49; 

see Map 5], 'in the bay,' and the camping place was Taay'ani, 'place [town] of the 

yellow cedar bark [taay]’ [Teey Aaní, #39; see Map 5]. That was what the people 

used to use for the roof of houses. When they travelled, they used to pack it 

along, just like a tent. 

They were just lucky and they found the Kagwantan [GalyáxKaagwaantaan]. The next day seal hunters brought back the report that they 

found blood on the ice where someone was skinning seals. They reported to the 

chief and the chief asked his braves who was going to look for those people. ‘Me, 

I'm going to go!’

‘Me, I'm going to go!’ the young men said. 

So they went to look for those people. They found Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan. 

They had come from Galyáx [Kaliakh River] before us. They found the land 

before us. They had the land from Strawberry Point to Gùts’áxw [Muddy Water, 

from Eyak, #37, White River; see Map 5], a big valley west of Icy Bay. That's why 

we had to come east by an inland route and why we went east, because they 

already had the land to the westward. Icy Bay is ours. The Galyix-Kagwantan 

had big war canoes when we met them, but we had nothing. They spoke Tlingit, 

we spoke Chitina language. They were called Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, but after 

they moved to Yakutat they were called Tlaxaayík-Teikweidí.” 

19 Lena Farkus also describes the conflict that caused the Ravens to leave Chitina and settle in 

Icy Bay:

“And anyway, the chief of—I’ll refer to chief, that’s what everybody is, actually 

up here, it was—they were always referred to as the ‘Leader of the Clan.’ And he 
240 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

passed away without saying which one of his brothers was going to take his 

place. Usually it’s the grandparents, they watch the children as they grow up, 

which one will be good at hunting, which one looked like they’d be wise and 

make decisions in the right way. Just by their actions, they watch them and as 

they grow up. The same with the girls. And so they taught the parents, ‘This one 

will probably be a good hunter. This one might be a good Leader or a medicine 

man.’ And so that’s what they pushed them toward being and learning these 

things. But our leader in Copper River passed away and he had some brothers 

and did not say which one would take his place. 

“When you’re a leader, all of your stuff goes to the person that he picks as 

the next leader which includes regalia, your dance shirts and just different, 

maybe a chain, a platter and stuff like that, and their dancing regalia or hunting 

or warring like sort of thing. And so he didn’t. And there was this big giant 

moose antler and someone made a big platter and had some abalone 

shells...inlayed around it and some different kinds of stones and stuff. Well, this 

one, one brother really wanted, thought that he would be the one to take his 

place but it didn’t happen and the leader was already gone and they were kind 

of having problems over it. 

“Anyway, he decided, ‘well, I’m leaving.’ I’m not going to live here. I’m 

going. So some of his family members and some of the Ginéix Kwáan said, ‘I’ll 

go with you’” (LF).

Victoria Demmert adds to Sensmeier’s description of the quarrel, which led to the Ravens 

leaving Chitina: 

“On my grandmother’s side is we were originally started up in Athabaskan 

country, we’re Athabaskan and we had up around Chitina and we had a 

disagreement among the, in the tribe after the chief died, over who was going to 

be the next chief between the two brothers and who would own the Big Chief’s 

bowl which was made out of big moose antler that they said had abalone 

decoration” (VD). 

20 Farkus continues her story of the migration:

“And one day he went out hunting with his brother and he—you know how 

there’s ground fog when it’s cold up by the mountains? Well he thought he saw a 

bear and you know a long time ago our people used to use animal fur for

clothing. And so he took the rifle...It’s kind of a, some say it was one of those 

spears, long spears, took it out from his sled and I thought he hit a bear but it 

was his brother and he killed him. And when he came walking back pulling the 

sled, he composed a song, ‘I killed my own Brother.’ And they forgave him. He 

told them why it happened. And they went on and kept moving” (LF).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 241

 21 When asked how long she thought the Ginéix Kwáan stayed in the Bagley Ice Field, Elaine 

Abraham estimated ten years: 

“But the way...Harry Bremner talked, I would say they spent five, ten years just 

going back and forth. ...They were able to just walk. ... They were able to protect 

their people from strange people in a strange land. And they watched how the 

people lived. I would say they might have been there ten years” (EA).

Elaine Abraham notes that life at Bagley Glacier was still strenuous:

“They left their families there and then they went to look at the land all the way 

down to the Icy Bay area. Icy Bay is very important to our people. That’s part of 

our—first place that we lived along with Bagley Glacier. So, we moved to that 

area and they struggled. And to think they then sent out and begin to populate 

and claim land. ... [T]hey were Interior people so they were not familiar with the 

glaciers, they were not familiar with the land, they were not familiar with 

mountains and by the time they were living in from Bagley to Icy Bay, they were 

beginning to have a spiritual relationship with their surroundings. Instead of 

being afraid of the other glacier and all the other glaciers that extend to Canada 

and the mountains they became part of that environment spiritually. And they 

were blessed and guided by the mountains and the land that’s why it’s a sacred 

land. But that’s how they settled at what is now called national park” (EA).

22 Judy Ramos remembers her grandmother telling how the Ginéix Kwáan arrived at Icy Bay: 

“[E]verything was new and different, including the availability of seal 

skins...The Tlingit people looked down at it because it was kind of—for poor 

people. ...[T]he Tlingits like, you know, the Athabaskan moose hide but these 

new other people like the seal skin. So I thought that was kind of interesting that 

they came down to this coast new environment and everything was new and 

exciting...people and things like that“(JR). 

23 Ray Sensmeier notes that there was an ice cave, which the Kwáashk’ikwáan utilized to go 

between either the Bagley Ice Field and Icy Bay or between Icy Bay and Yakutat Bay, as they 

moved down the coast: 

“When they came to that part they found a large cave with water flowing 

through it. And they wanted to enter it and see where it came out so they 

wouldn’t have to go all the way around. They didn’t have canoes that they get 

there. And the three eldest women, because their lives were almost over, 

volunteered to go into that ice cave. And they were gone, and I don’t know how 

long afterwards, was on the other side they saw smoke coming up. So they knew 
242 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

they had made it. So the rest of the Kwáashk’ikwáan took the same route and 

came out on this side where the glacier didn’t cover a lot of these places” (RS).

24 Lena Farkus describes how the Kwáashk’i kwáan became concerned about procreation and 

the future of their clan:

“They came to a spot where they realized, ‘You know, we’re all Ravens. There’s 

no Eagle [opposite moiety to marry]. How are we going to marry and start a 

family?’ It’s a Tlingit law. You don’t marry the same clan. That’s how they kept 

track of each other. And so they said, ‘Well, we’re just going to have to—

somehow or another start a family. Maybe just have a relationship with one of 

our own people after dark time so we don’t know who it is.’ And you know, it 

just went on like that. And so once they decided, they looked out and there was 

two boats coming into shore and that was the Jeeshkweidí and 

Kaagwaantaan...from Katalla. Those were Eagles. So they visited with them and 

I imagine it was talked about that there was no Eagles among them and some of 

them stayed and intermarried with them because they were Eagle” (LF).

Harry Bremner and another of de Laguna’s informants, known as X, also discussed the fear of 

the clan dying out because of a lack of viable options for procreation. According to Bremner, as 

quoted by de Laguna:

“The chief said: ‘We will be the lost tribe.’ He meant that they had no husbands 

and wives with them. They were only the men and their ‘sisters,’ the women of

their own tribe. They never married their sisters. This meant that there wouldn't 

be any children and the tribe would die off. 

Then they had something like these soldiers' barracks— a woman's hut 

and a man's hut. The chief called a meeting. They decided that all the brothers 

would go to their sisters' hut at night time when it is dark and sleep with their 

sisters. But the women were never going to ask who he is that came, just put a 

red mark on the man's forehead, at the center near the hair, for a mark. So they 

will know the next day, but they won't say anything. 

The Icy Bay chief was planning this. He said: ‘You sisters are not going to 

refuse any brother that comes to you, or we'll all die off.’

But they didn't have to do it” (HB).

De Laguna’s informant, X, of the same sib as Bremner, reported similarly on May 2, 1954:

“You know the chief said: ‘We're all going to die out.’ X said the chief said to his 

tribe, ‘We're going to meet our sisters,’ and they told the sisters to put marks on 

the men. But they found the other tribe [i.e., Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan, before this 

was necessary]. But X says it happened. And one girl really slept with her own 

brother. And next day she find out. She is so ashamed she went in the water and 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 243

 

he went in the water. They turn into sea bird. [The last belongs to myth, he said, 

not to history]” (annotations by de Laguna). 

25 A third clan, the Jeeshkweidí, (Eagle) clan, was associated with the villages of Chilkat [Jilkáat, 

“Cache” from Eyak, #19; see Map 5] and Katalla [Kaataanaa, from Eyak, #15; see Map 5], above 

Cape Suckling. According to de Laguna, they were thought to be originally from Chitina, and 

are children of the Ganaaxteidi clan, who gave them land in the vicinity of Copper River, which 

was rich in furs, so rich in fact that the Ganaaxteidi took some of it back (presumably the areas 

closet to Copper River; see de Laguna 1972:254). Another of de Laguna’s informants linked 

them to the Galyáx Kaagwaantaan, however: 

“Some other tribe (was) mixed in with the (Kwaashk'ikwáan) people walking 

this way, and came here with them. (They were) people from Galyax that moved 

over, moved away from their tribe that went up to Djilqat (Chilkat on Bering 

River). They separated from the main tribe, Galyáx Kaagwaantaan. They gave 

another name for themselves after they separated from their main tribe. Part of 

George Johnson's [The last of the Jeeshkweidí] tribe, that's them that come down 

this way – Tcicqedi [Jeeshkweidi]”(1972: 239). 

Jeeshkweidí claimed the territory west of Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan “From Strawberry Point to 

Copper River” (1972:104). Their main villages were at: K'aagan Heenak'u (“Stickleback Creek,” 

#2; see Map 5), at the mouth of the Copper River; (Gixdaklak, “Behind Gixdak,” #7; see Map 5) 

at Cape Martin; K'ixóoliyaa (“Teeth,” from Eyak, K’uxu:łiyah, #8; see Map 5) on Salmon River; 

Ts’a’di・q’ ? (“On the Place of [Frequently Absent?] Mud Flats” [from Eyak, Ts’a’di:q, #4; see 

Map 5]), a camp on Martin River; Katalla [Kaataanáa, #5; see Map 5]; Chilkat [Jilkáat, #19; see 

Map 5] on Bering River; Bering Lake [Kaasheishxáaw Áa, “Dragonfly Lake,” #16; see Map 5]; 

Cordova [Xaat Áa Duls'el' Yé, “Where They Dig Spruce Roots,” #5; see Map 5] (Eagle House); 

and spring and fall hunting camps at Wingham Island [Thaattł’aaát*, “Small Kayak,” from Eyak 

or Athabaskan, #13; see Map 5] and Martin River (see also Ramos 2003). Although Wingham 

Island was claimed by Jeeshkweidi it is also said that “it belonged to the Galyáx Kaagwaantaan 

who used to come there in spring for seals, halibut, cod and black seaweed” (De Laguna 1972: 

103). No Jeeshkweidi clan members were interviewed for this project, however. Nor did we 

attempt to document territorial associations west of Controller Bay, which are historically 

associated with Cordova groups, such as the Eyak Gaanax.ádi (Raven), who claimed Copper 

River (Eek Héeni, Copper River, #9; see Map 5), including Cordova and Alaganik [#1; see Map 

5] (Krauss 1982; De Laguna 1972) and were said to been part of the original Ahtna group that 

migrated from Chitina and got lost in the fog. Thus, rather than migrating toward Mount St. 

Elias, like the Kwash, they ended up at Softuk Lagoon (Saaxw T'aak derived from the Eyak for 

“Behind the Cockles”, #6; see Map 5) and Eyak Lake; their village near Cordova was known as 

Iyak, evidently a Chugach/Alutiiq placename, from which the name “Eyak” is derived. 

Alaganik Village, their other main settlement was also derived from an Alutiiq word, alaaranq, 

meaning “mistake,” and became Eyak-ized as Anaxanák, meaning “Mistake or Wrong Turn” 

(#1; see Map 5).
244 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 26 In terms of subsistence locales, through trade arrangements and inter-clan marriages, clans 

gained access to each other’s resources.

27 George Ramos Sr. summarizes the “tribes” on the north shore in this way:

“going this way is the Gineix Kwaan or the other name is the Kwashkakwaan. 

And the northern area, Galyak Kaagwaantaan...The Five Tribes...were the land 

owners in the Yakutat area. And each has his own history...our villages were 

spread along these rivers that were of the Five Tribes” (GR).

De Laguna provides her summary of the lands around Yakutat Bay and which groups claim 

them, saying,

“All of Yakutat Bay and the adjacent lands are claimed by the Kwacḱqwan, who 

trace their origin to the Copper River. The west side of the bay, and indeed all of 

the shores as far west as to include Icy Bay, was theirs apparently by right of 

settlement. The eastern shores were purchased from the original owners. 

However, the Kwacḱqwan Ravens were accompanied to Yakutat by the Wolf 

ĢałyIx- Kagwantan, with whom they had intermarried at Icy Bay. These latter 

(or a closely related Yakutat branch of the same sib) were known as the TłaxayIkTeqwedi (perhaps after they had settled on Yakutat Bay). While some settlements 

seem to have belonged predominantly to the last sib, or at least to have had a 

man of that sib as their most distinguished house chief, control of Yakutat Bay 

for hunting, fishing, and gathering was in the hands of the leading Kwacḱqwan 

chief” (de Laguna 1972:59).

Later, de Laguna says of the Galyax-Kaagwaantaan:

“The ĢałyIx-Kagwantan (or ĢałyAx -Kagwantan) are an Eagle sib, once very 

large, which claims territorial rights from Strawberry Point in Controller Bay to 

Williams Creek west of Icy Bay. The first part of their name refers to their 

principal village, ĢałiyAx or ĢałyAx, which was formerly at the mouth of the 

Kaliakh River. They were also one of the groups named by Xatgawet, who 

married their chief's daughter and called his father-in-law's people ‘Kagwantan’ 

after the famous sib at Chilkat and Sitka and Hoonah. These people, together 

with their Kwacḱqwan or Eyak Raven wives, make up the tribal group called 

‘Guth-le- uk-qwan’ by Emmons.

... The ĢałyIx-Kagwantan are associated with the history of Yakutat 

proper, for the Raven emigrants (GInex-qwan or Kwacḱqwan) from the Copper 

River encountered at Icy Bay a group of ĢałyIx -Kagwantan who had moved east 

after a quarrel with their kinsmen. These people were traveling in big skin or 

wooden canoes. They intermarried with the Copper River Ravens, and moved 

with them across Yakutat Bay, when, according to some, they became known as 

the TłaxayIk-Teqwedi...The ĢałyIx -Kagwantan claim to have found the wreck 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 245

 

of a Russian ship (on the coast west of Icy Bay?), the first Russian ship seen, and 

one of their number married a Russian woman, the sole survivor” (de Laguna 

1972:219-220).

28 De Laguna reports on the importance of these exogamous kin groups, saying,

“From Italio to Icy Bay was Yakutat territory proper...in the Copper River delta 

country lived the Eyak. However, to designate these groups as ‘tribes’ and the 

areas they utilized as ‘tribal territories’ would not reflect either the actual 

situation or native thought. Thus, while the ‘inhabitants’ of each geographical 

district were to some extent united by feelings of local pride, local sociability, and 

ties of affinity, they still did not constitute a tribe in the sense of a politically 

organized and autonomous group. Rather, a sense of community identity 

definitely took second place to the ‘patriotism’ felt by the members of each sib for 

their own matrilineal exogamous kin group” (de Laguna 1972:212).

29 The Beaver Clan is named after the Beaver House. “That’s where their history starts, the 

Galyáx Kaagwaantaan history,” notes Elaine Abraham, speaking of the Beaver House on the 

Sha haat on Bering River. Ted Valle expands upon the origin of the Beaver House on the Bering 

River, saying, 

“They went up there and that’s where they encountered a washed out beaver 

dam. And there was a little beaver on a log, crying and singing. And so they got 

our mourning song from this beaver. ...And this man went up and got the 

beaver and saved it. So that was where we built our first House and we called it 

the Beaver House. ...Up there in Sha haat] on the Bering. We were one clan. 

...An Eagle Clan” (TV). 

Skip Johnson also comments about the origins of the Beaver Clan, saying,

“[T]here used to be a big glacier right up in there and that was the old story and 

I’m sure Uncle Teddy [Ted Valle] told you the story about the little seal—I mean 

the little beaver. That’s why our clan is the Beaver Clan: S’igeidí Hít [Beaver 

House]” (SJ). 

Regarding the sacred mountain found on the regalia of the Galyáx Kaagwaantaan Beaver Clan 

(Ch'awáax'), Ted Valle says,

“I don’t know. I think it might be an Eyak name. ...It’s part of our crest. ...The 

last time I saw it was on one of my cousins and I don’t know what happened to 

his regalia, but that’s where I saw it” (TV). 
246 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Both Kulthieth Mountain and the beaver became crests, or at.óow, for the clan—the mountain 

for its role as a landmark and refuge for the clan from the Flood, and the beaver for its mournful 

song. De Laguna (1972:456) suggests that little is known about the symbolism of the mountain 

design. Yet the mountain is be considered a sacred property of this clan. There are apparently 

also songs associated with these events, including the mourning song inspired by the beaver. 

30 In addition to animals and places, other physical elements—such as the moon—can be used 

as names on the crests:

“Kuwakan names are said to be derived from some crest or valued possession 

belonging to the donors, or may symbolize something suggestive of good will, 

even though the association may seem to us rather farfetched. Thus, the 

Kwacḱqwan have used as sources of names their crests, the Moon (dIs kuwakan), 

the White Raven (yeł tłed; p. 457), as well as Mount Saint Elias (ca kuwakan) and 

Glacier Point below it (sIť ẋa kuwakan)” (de Laguna 1972:599).

31 De Laguna furthers explains:

“Mountain House (ca hIt), named for Mount Saint Elias, a crest of the 

Kwacḱqwan, was said to have been built by three men. The first was known as 

QAqwłI-’ic; the second was Yakutat Charley, S’isdjAkw-’i'c or WAtśdAł (1862-

1920), who married the widow of the first, SIqawUłqEn, a Kagwantan woman. 

The third was Shorty, Nanut or Txak-’ic. They were assisted by Mrs. Sitka Ned, 

'Atckwe, Kwacḱqwan daughter of Ca-kuwakan of Bear House on Khantaak Island. 

Mrs. Sitka Ned (died 1926) inherited the house. It was sold to a White man for a 

store, and finally burned down” (de Laguna 1972:323).

32 Some personal names, as well, also can reflect the geology of the landscape:

“A few names are derived from geographical features of particular significance 

in the history of the sib. Thus, a Kwacḱqwan woman has the name ‘On Its Surface 

All Died,’ referring to those who perished on Mount Saint Elias during the 

journey from the Copper River country. A Tł’UknaxAdi man, who may have 

been given the name from his Kwacḱqwan grandfather was called ŁtahÍn, or 

ŁdaxÉn as it was usually pronounced. This is the Tlingit form for the Atna name 

for the Tana River, which also figured in the journey. The Atna name is Łťá’-nà, 

‘Point-of-land River.’ One man said that the Kwacḱqwan man's name, Cada, 

meant ‘Around the Mountain,’ referring to Mount Saint Elias, although others 

said it was Russian” (de Laguna 1972b:789).

33 De Laguna discusses the crest shirts that were common among Yakutat Tlingit and their value 

in the cash economy of the twentieth century:
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 247

 

“A Mount Saint Elias coat acquired by a private collector in 1946, and now in the 

Alaska State Museum in Juneau, is of cloth ornamented with buttons and beads 

that form floral designs on the cuffs and hem and has the conventionalized 

figure of the cloud-ringed mountain in the middle. This was a crest of the 

Kwackqwan, and the coat was probably worn by a man. 

In addition, there was a sleeveless cloth shirt with beadwork outlining the 

mountain, within which is a squatting figure with enormous head (the spirit of 

the mountain?) and various faces. This was named as the Mount Saint Elias 

‘Blanket’ (yaśe ťa ca xu), even though it is a shirt, perhaps because it replaced a 

blanket of that name” (1972:440).

Crest blankets also played a role in Yakutat Tlingit life, including into the post-contact period:

“A modern crest blanket, representing Mount Saint Elias, is a fine white 

Hudson's Bay four point blanket, on which the mountain with a face inside the 

peaked outline and clouds about the summit, four moonlike faces below, two 

Humpback Salmon, and a doubleheaded monster (the mouth of the Humpback 

Salmon Stream?), are all outlined in colored machine stitching. It belonged to 

Young George, Kwacḱqwan, who drowned in 1915” (1972:442).

34 According to the City and Borough of Yakutat Comprehensive Plan:

“Tlingits living together in a geographic area are known as kwaan. The 2003 TEK 

report listed the ‘tribal’ territory or kwaan boundaries from Controller Bay to 

Lituya Bay” (CBY 2010:23).

35 Galyáx Kwáan in the north extended from Cape Suckling to Controller Bay, and took its name 

from the Kaliakh (Galyax) River (Emmons n.d.; de Laguna 1972, 98). Galyáx people were 

originally Eyak speakers, but as a result of intermarriage and the expansion of Tlingit culture, 

most Natives residing in the area spoke both languages well into the twentieth century (de 

Laguna 1972, 99). Two contemporary Yakutat Tlingit matrilineal clans identify with places 

within this region, the Kwáashk’i Kwaan (Raven), who claimed from Icy Bay down to Yakutat 

Bay, and the Galyax-Kaagwaantaan (Eagle), who claimed from west of Icy Bay to Strawberry 

Point. Their relationships to these lands through migration and settlement are discussed in 

detail below. 

36 De Laguna differentiates the different Eyak groups thusly:

“The Eyak-speaking people of the coast [occupied the area] just west of Icy Bay to 

Cape Martin at the eastern edge of the Copper River delta. Their main 

settlements seem to have been at Cape Yakataga, Kaliakh River, and Bering River 

in Controller Bay. In the 18th century, however, Controller Bay was claimed and 
248 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

was certainly frequented by a branch of the Chugach Eskimo of Prince William 

Sound. The Chugach were apparently intruders into Controller Bay and its 

islands, but when they first began to occupy it, and whether they ever 

established more than seasonal hunting camps, we do not know. At any event, 

they were driven back at the end of the 18th century by the Tlingitized Eyak 

from farther east. 

“The Eyak of the Copper River delta and of Cordova just within Prince 

William Sound (Birket-Smith and de Laguna, 1938). 

“No pronounced differences distinguished the last from their Indian 

neighbors at Cape Martin, although there was a sharp linguistic and a somewhat 

less clearly marked cultural boundary between the Eyak and the Chugach. The 

Copper River Eyak (or the handful who live or lived until recently at Cordova) 

appeared more distinct when Dr. Birket-Smith and I studied them in 1933 than 

they would have even in 1900, largely because of the depopulation of the coast 

east of them, and also because they preserved into the present century the Eyak 

language once spoken along the coast as far as the Ahrnklin or Italio Rivers 

beyond Yakutat Bay. However, the intrusion of the Eskimo into Controller Bay 

as well as difficulties of communication may explain why there were two dialects 

of Eyak: ‘Ugalentz’ (Copper River Eyak-proper) and Yakutat” (de Laguna 

1972:18-19).

37 The Tlingit gudiyé, a specialized seal hunting canoe first developed for use among the ice floes 

of Icy Bay by its Eyak and Tlingit inhabitants is an example of such a material “genre” of place. 

These nimble craft were built with a heavy prow and equipped with a special wooden 

protuberance off the bow designed to quietly push aside floating glacial icebergs as hunters 

moved into the bay to stalk their prey. The canoes were so well adapted to the ice-filled bays of 

the Gulf of Alaska that their inventors reportedly kept them hidden in a secret lake called 

Ligaas.áa, “Tabooed Lake,” above Icy Bay (de Laguna 1972, 1:97), near the sources of 

cottonwood which were used to produce them. Protected and celebrated, these marvels of 

marine technology seem to have attained the status of at.óow for their Yakutat possessors. Yet, in 

Glacier Bay, just one hundred miles to the south, Huna Tlingits developed a very different but 

equally adaptive technological genre of place to aid in seal hunting in this larger, less icechoked bay: glacier-white camouflage clothing and outrigged white blinders for canoes 

(Harriman 1899; see Emmons 1991). Here, visual cover, as opposed to auditory cover or tight 

manoeuvrability, was critical to successful sealing, and so the processes of landscape 

enculturation differed. In each locale, the respective genres of canoe technology became not 

only successful adaptations but also means of engaging places as “taskscapes” (meaning 

“array[s] of related activities”) in the “poetics of dwelling,” (Ingold 2000) and as treasured 

possessions, emblems of identity, and ways of being Icy Bay or Glacier Bay Tlingits.

38 De Laguna explains,

“According to Yakutat tradition, much Tlingit influence, probably including 

potlatch ceremonial and crests, was spread westward by xatga ̇wê ̇t, a wealthy 

Tlingit chief and shaman of the te ̇qwe ̇dí (a Wolf clan), who was born near Dry 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 249

 

Bay in the eighteenth century. He is said to have ‘organized’ for trade the 

backward Eyak speakers of Yakutat, among whom he settled, but he also 

traveled all over, taking Eyak wives from places as far west as Cordova, 

bestowing Tlingit clan names on his wives’ kinsmen, and introducing Tlingit 

ceremonial gift exchange” (1990: 193).

39 Those travelling from the Copper River area were said to have crossed the receding ice:

“According to native historical tradition, the ancestors of the Kwacḱqwan, coming 

from the Copper River, crossed to the east side of Yakutat Bay on the ice which 

then extended from Point Manby to the vicinity of Eleanor Cove, even though 

the ice was then already beginning to melt back because they had killed a dog 

and thrown it down a crevasse” (de Laguna 1972:26).

40 Cruikshank (2008: 30) also provides a brief overview of the dramatic advances and retreats of 

glaciers during the 18th and 19th centuries, as reported in the accounts of explorers, travelers, 

surveyors and geologists.

41 This area is also a place where Raven was active. Cape Yakataga (Tayeesk',* “Little Adze,” 

#33; see Map 5) was named for its adze-like shape. It was transformed by Raven, who made a 

“canoe trail” (Yakwdeiyi, #35; see Map 5) there after quarrelling with his wife: “She threw his 

adze ashore to make the point, and he threw her sewing basket overboard. It is now a rock full 

of clams and sea urchins, and called [Yeil Naasa.aayi]”(de Laguna 1972, 100; #36; see Map 5). 

Yakataga was also the site of a large village. To the west, the cape gives way to the Duktoth 

River (Daktaal,* #31; see Map 5), an important travel and trade corridor to the interior, and a 

salmon fishery at the mouth of which were smokehouses (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998). To the 

east lies the White River (Gùts’áxw, “Muddy Water,” #37; see Map 5), which served as a 

boundary between the clan territories. Oral history provides clues as to the natural history of 

the region. Galyáx-Kaagwaantaan historical narratives refer to a shipwreck in this vicinity of the 

cape. Based on clues from this story as well as another legend about offshore halibut banks 

where Raven tricked Bear into killing himself to provide halibut bait, de Laguna (1972, 99–100) 

hypothesized that this may be the site of the now submerged Pamplona Searidge.

42 De Laguna describes the “second advance of the glaciers” in and around Yakutat:

“The second advance of the glaciers culminated in the 18th century. Since 

presumably the Icy Bay, Malaspina, Yakutat Bay, and Russell Fiord Glaciers 

advanced at about the same time, a date of less than 300 years may apply to their 

growth. This date is indicated by carbon-14 analyses of trees destroyed by the 

Malaspina, as well as by the age of living trees on its moraine. Icy Bay was again 

covered with ice, but the Malaspina Glacier itself did not advance much beyond 

its present limit. The Yakutat Bay Glacier (i.e., Hubbard, Turner, and other 

glaciers in Disenchantment Bay) apparently advanced as far as Blizhni Point, 
250 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

where a submarine ridge represents the terminal moraine” (de Laguna 1972:26-

27).

43 For example, at reported in the Alaska Coast Pilot, 

“There is an Indian settlement at the mouth of the Tschettschitna [Chittyná], and 

when the ice breaks up in the lake the stream suddenly overflows its banks and 

rushes with such swiftness that the inhabitant flee to the mountains. ...On the 

left back of the Atna [Copper River], a mile above the Tschettschitna, is the single 

house of one of the Russian company’s traders” (Davidson 1869). 

No sign of this settlement was found by Allen (1887: 23-24). 

44 De Laguna describes how the Yakutat Tlingit also view wind as sentient:

“Winds may be conceived as animate. Light breezes just blowing on the water 

(kA wusInukw) are ‘arguing to see which is the strongest, which is going to start’ 

(wuc xe yu get [gIt?] hAS ’AtkA wUdIník—‘together mouths moving their on-it 

are-speaking’?)” (de Laguna 1972:805; quotes are from de Laguna’s informant, 

MJ).

45 Mount St. Elias, in addition to a few other mountains in the area, was unique for its proper 

name. As de Laguna explains:

“With the exception of Mount Fairweather (Tsałxan), or ‘Silver [Dollar] 

Mountain’ (DAna ca, a peak in Russell Fiord of no symbolic importance), and of 

Gateway Knob (Ḱitća or YAdagwAł), mountains in the Yakutat area have no 

proper names of their own, as was clearly noted by Harrington. Rather, 

mountains are designated as standing ‘at the head of’ some important body of 

water, such as the great fishing streams, Ahrnklin and Situk Rivers, or the rich of 

Icy Bay, guarded by Mount Saint Elias” (de Laguna 1972:456).

46 De Laguna describes the “Great Flood” as it is understood by Yakutat Tlingit and recounted 

in Yakutat Tlingit oral narratives:

“Once there was a great Flood, believed to have been the same as that described 

in the Bible. This was like an abnormally high tide that covered all the earth. It 

was caused by Raven's jealous uncle who became angry when his beautiful wife 

was molested by Raven. This personage is equated with Noah by some, and was 

called in Tlingit QIngA (or QIngE), and also ‘He Who Orders the Tide’ (qís 

kuqék). In two versions of the myth, this person is identified with the Moon 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 251

 

(dIs). He became so angry at what happened to his wife that he went up into the 

sky, and his slaves accompanied him as the Stars. 

The great Flood forced people into canoes and onto the tops of the 

highest mountains, where they built shelters or ‘nests’. ‘A nest was built on 

Mount Fairweather during the Flood. It was called qiś kanAda, “high tide all 

around.”’ There was also a nest on Mount Saint Elias. No other mountains were 

mentioned, although many are known to the Angoon Tlingit (de Laguna, 1960, p. 

52). The great Flood not only drowned many, but was responsible for the 

dispersal of the survivors, so that a number of sib origin stories begin with this 

event” (de Laguna 1972:789).

De Laguna’s informant Maggie Harry also spoke of the “Great Flood,” when interviewed by 

Harrington in 1939 or 1940 and de Laguna, herself, in 1949 and 1952:

“There was a big water flood all over the world. They thought it was all over the 

world. There were three places in the world that were not covered by water: 

Devil's Thumb near Wrangell, Mount Saint Elias, and Mount Fairweather. They 

[the Indians] knew that the old people lived up there because they found their 

skin robes subsequently, high in the mountain rocks. 

When the migrators were coming to Yakutat across the ocean, offshore, 

they saw Mount Saint Elias ahead, looking like a seagull on the water [MH to 

Harrington, who comments "her words," 1939-40].

These Indians started as four brothers on the upper Copper River. An 

ivory dish with beautiful stones, the first brother wanted it, the second brother 

wanted it, the third brother wanted it, they all wanted it. An old woman prophet 

had said that whoever got the dish, had to keep it. So the three [who didn't] had 

to migrate. 

One of them came down the Copper River and settled near the mouth, 

another came along the ocean in a big skin boat, bringing his family with him of 

course as [they] all did. 

But her family's brother ancestor [i.e., the family of the brother who was 

the ancestor of the informant] came across the ice, glaciers, till they saw land, till 

they saw good land, which was here at Yakutat. The ones that came along the 

ocean got here first, the glacier migrants arrived later. There was a little 

argument but they settled down peaceful. 

The migrators over the glaciers maybe consumed a hundred years in 

migrating to Yakutat. When they reached here, the Indians who had come along 

the coast by boat were already at Yakutat. When the ocean travelers arrived here, 

there was no one living here” (quoted in de Laguna 1972:235-236).

47 According to de Laguna,

“Hendrickson told Emmons that: ‘The Indians believe that the mountains were 

people in the olden times and St. Elias and Fairweather were married. 
252 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Fairweather was the woman and St. Elias the man. They had lots of slaves, work 

people and children. During a family quarrel they separated, Mt. St. Elias 

travelled west and took a lot of slaves and men with him and from these the 

range of mountains were formed between Mt. St. Elias and Fairweather. The 

mountains to the east of Fairweather are their children.’

I was also told that a mountain at the head of Akwe or Italio River, Mount 

Raeburn or a nearby peak, called Tacaḱ, is the slave of Mount Saint Elias and 

Mount Fairweather, whom the owners used to send back and forth with 

messages” (de Laguna 1972:819).

48 De Laguna summarizes the significance and power of mountains, and Mount St. Elias in 

particular, saying,

“Mount Saint Elias (waśe ta ca, or yaśe ta ca) 'mountain at the bottom (head) of 

Icy Bay,' a pyramidal peak, is the last and most impressive of the snowcapped 

range northwest of Yakutat. Mount Fairweather (tsAłxán), although far southeast 

of Dry Bay, is visible from the coastal plain east of Yakutat. Because they are 

landmarks for travelers and hunters on the sea, and are important in forecasting 

the weather, it is natural that they should have become crests of two Raven sibs, 

the KWacḱqwan and the Tł’UknaxAdi. In addition, ‘Mount Fairweather gives a 

sign when something terrible is going to happen,’ said one informant, 

commenting on the portent (given too late?) that presaged the drownings in 

Lituya Bay. There may even be a vague notion that these mountains can control 

the weather, for Mount Saint Elias is said, in the song, to have ‘opened the world’ 

by sending sunshine, thereby making people happy, and so is told to be happy” 

(de Laguna 1972:819).

49 Both mountains and glaciers, like other landforms in and around Wrangell-St. Elias, are said 

to possess sentience and/or spirits associated with these landmarks:

“’Not only does a glacier have its khwaan (people), but a mountain, caa, has its 

people, too, called caa khwaan,’ Harrington wrote. 

Mountain spirits were ‘inhabitants in the mountains’ (ca tu qwani). The 

mountain itself, or these beings within it, are supposed to be the grandparents of 

mountain goats. The mountain tells the goats whether or not to release the 

hunter who has climbed into a dangerous place.

In Swanton's story about the Kwacḱqwan told by a Yakutat man (Tale 105, 

esp. pp. 356-357), there is a “being of the mountain” (cāt-wuqoa ́nî, i.e., ca-tuqwani) that comes to help an unlucky hunter. This spirit has rooms full of all 

different kinds of game in his home in the mountain.

There was also(?) an anthropomorphic being, "Mountain Man" 

(cakAnáyi), who lived in the mountains, and who married the girls who stole 

their mother's mountain goat tallow. According to one informant, he "looks like 

the sunbeam." Another (MJ) called him "the mountaineer," and "the spirit of the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 253

 

mountain," specifying that the locale of the story was near the headwaters of the 

Ahrnklin River. Swanton has also recorded two versions of the story of 

Mountain Dweller (1909, Tales 65 and 92), in which he is called CāqAnay ́ and 

CAkAnā ́yî” (de Laguna 1972:819).

50 De Laguna reports on another oral history that describes the destruction of a village due to 

disrespectful behavior towards a glacier:

“At a much earlier period, perhaps in the 17th or early 18th century, before the 

glacier filled Icy Bay, there was a village in Mud Bay. Because some young 

fellows laughed at the glacier it came down and overwhelmed the village. I 

heard one version of this story, and another was recorded by Topham in 1888. 

My informant had seen remnants of the forest above Point Guyot which had 

been destroyed by this advance and then uncovered by the retreat of the ice” (de 

Laguna 1972:97).

51 As de Laguna reports,

“Not only were glacier spirits repelled by the stench of old clothes burning, but 

the great glacier that formerly covered Yakutat Bay was supposed to have 

retreated because a dead dog was thrown into a crevasse, and the glacier in Icy 

Bay melted back because the entrails of a Tsimshian Indian were buried in the 

ice. In these cases, the dead dog and the decaying human flesh acted to waste 

away the glaciers in ways similar to those employed by witches to injure human 

beings” (1972b:819).

52 Tabooed Lake is apparently another landmark to which Yakutat Tlingit must show a proper 

amount of respect, hence the lake’s name. As de Laguna explains:

“Another man, telling about 'Tabooed Lake' (łIgàsÀ ’a) near Icy Bay, where one 

was not allowed to make a noise, called it ‘Bad Luck Lake’ and further explained 

that ‘łÍgàs means against nature,’ but did not specify what would happen if one 

broke the taboo associated with this lake” (de Laguna 1972b:814).

53 Seals are said to stay in the narrower, shallower channels in Icy Bay and Disenchantment Bay 

during pupping season to avoid predation from orcas. 

Goldschmidt and Haas also discuss the use of this area for seal camps:

“’There is a sealing camp at the head of Disenchantment Bay and of Russell Fiord 

and Nunatak Fiord. The seals they use for moccasins, and the fat for grease. The 

meat is dried for the winter’ (Harry Bremner #32)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 

1998:47).
254 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

54 On this point, de Laguna notes “It is uncertain whether the seal was the crest of any sib; it was 

certainly not so featured at Yakutat” (de Laguna 1972:41).

55 To cite one of many possible examples, Yakutat men were traditionally expected to provide 

seal meat to members of the opposite moiety following the death of their high-status maternal 

uncles prior to the completion of mortuary rites and the settling of the deceased’s grave (de 

Laguna 1972: 538). 

56 A detailed study of these seal camps has been underway concurrent with the current research, 

overseen by the Smithsonian Institution, with the extensive involvement of Judy Ramos and 

other Yakutat residents; that project has assembled a considerable body of data on these camps 

and associated sealing practices that are not detailed in this report but warrant review for a 

more complete picture of the importance of sealing to Yakutat.

57 According to an interviewee of Birket-Smith and de Laguna, in the summer, seals entered 

Eyak Lake and were hunted up the Copper River as far as “Tea Kettle,” or Tiekel at mile 96 on 

the Copper River Railway, some distance west of Wrangell-St. Elias (Birket-Smith and de 

Laguna 1938:107-108; de Laguna 1990:190; USDOINPS 1998a:46). The Tiekel River enters 

Copper River about ten miles southwest of Spirit Mountain, at a western border of Wrangell-St. 

Elias. 

58 The Eyak consumed different pieces of the seal, including the flippers, which the Eyak 

considered the most desirable part, and infants were given seal fat to suck on. In addition to 

consuming seal meat, the Eyak used the different parts of the seal for a variety of other 

purposes. Sealskin was used in the making of large canoes such as umiaks. Young de-haired 

sealskin was used in the construction of sewing bags, as was the seal esophagus (de Laguna 

1990:91, 191). They also used seal teeth and whiskers as personal ornaments, and they would 

use seal oil to protect their skin from the harsh wind (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:62, 63, 

99).

Sea otters appear to have primarily been hunted at locations southwest of the study area, along 

the coast, including at Hinchinbrook Island and the Egg Islands, as well as off of Strawberry 

Point, even though these areas “belonged” to the Shallow Water Eskimo (Birket-Smith and de 

Laguna 1938:17-18, 111). Eyaks used two-hole bidarkas for hunting sea otters, and they used 

small-cleft prow dugout canoes when hunting in the open water (de Laguna 1990:191). 

According to de Laguna, the Eyak did not hunt whales or sea lions, as canoeing in the open sea 

was dangerous. However, when the surf brought stranded whales and sea lions to the beach, 

the Eyak would utilize them as traditional subsistence resources (de Laguna 1990:189-190). 

They consumed the fat and perhaps the flesh of whales, if one washed ashore in their territory. 

They also used the baleen of the whale for utensils such as dishes and spoons. Walruses were 

not hunted because of the Eyak belief that they were transformed human beings (Birket-Smith 

and de Laguna 1938:89, 107). 

59 According to de Laguna, 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 255

 

“While seals were undoubtedly hunted in winter in ancient days, the Kwackqwan 

chief who controlled the summer hunting grounds in Yakutat and Icy Bays 

would not permit hunting at the breeding places until after the young were born, 

that is, not until the end of May.

“‘If there are young seals, then the mothers will stay with them, and there is not 

as much chance of scaring the whole herd away...The chief would also say that 

the men had to get seals with spears. He didn’t want people to shoot [with guns] 

because they would scare the seals. If anybody went sealing before the seals had 

pups, they would scare the whole herd away.’ 

At a still earlier period, ‘They were very strict with the land. In those days they 

couldn’t buy food from the store, and they didn’t have guns. Now anybody can 

shoot a seal, but when they hunted with spears it was different’” (de Laguna 

1972:374; quotes are from de Laguna’s informant).

Olaf Abraham also recalled regulations regarding when sealing was permitted. According to 

Abraham,

“There was a certain time when the Tlingit people would go to their seal hunting 

grounds. Laws concerning the seals were...set by the Head chief. The seal oil 

was an important part of their diet. The Head chief made an announcement to 

the people, during the time when seal pups were being born, that no hunter was 

to hunt seal during this period. If hunters disturbed the seal, they believed the 

seal would move out of their area. If a hunter went up to the glaciers where the 

seals were, made fire, and was reported to their Head chief, he was called to the 

chief and his council, usually his canoe was destroyed.

“The Head chief would send men to watch the seals, sometimes the news came 

that the seal birthing was over, then the Head chief would give the order, go 

ahead and hunt seal. Some hunters would leave and travel all night to get to the 

glaciers, taking their families to the seal hunting grounds. There they would stay 

and use the seal as needed.” (Abraham 1973: 5-6).

60 Many explorers commented on the fact that the sea otter populations were robust, and 

remained healthy in the Yakutat area long after the otter was scarce elsewhere. As Merti notes,

“Sea otter were extremely plentiful in 1786. The members of the expedition 

obtained 1,000 skins from the natives by barter, and La Perouse states that a 

trading company at that time could have taken 10,000 skins a year. The skins of 

the wolf, sea otter, and sea lion (?) were most prized by the natives at that time” 

(Merti 1931:121).
256 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

As summarized by de Laguna,

“The northern sea otter, Enhydra lutris lutris...was the most important furbearing mammal in Alaskan waters. Long after it had become extinct in 

southeastern Alaska, and was hardly to be found along the Aleutian Islands, it 

was still hunted at Lituya Bay, Icy Bay, and off Cape Yakataga, until protected in 

1911 by Federal legislation and international treaty. Its bones were represented 

in the site on Knight Island, and until harassed by hunters it used to frequent 

Yakutat Bay” (de Laguna 1972:40).

61 According to a 1887 manuscript by Seton-Karr, sea otter hunting techniques of the late 19th

century reflected this belief:

“The Indians [according to Nils Anderson, the trader] usually only hunt land fur 

in winter, not sea-otters, for the sea is too rough for canoes. They always use 

bows and arrows for sea-otters, and will only use a gun when they are close and 

cannot miss. They have an idea that guns frighten away the otters; or perhaps 

loading takes too much time, for they use muzzle-loaders. In winter the otters 

are driven by the gales to take refuge near shore, in lee of the islands; but in 

summer they can only be found out at sea” (quoted in de Laguna 1972:380).

62 For example, according to an informant of de Laguna, CW, he traveled on a hunting trip with 

his uncle at a young age:

“‘I been hunting with my uncle two times up at Icy Bay. Long way—hand 

power [i.e., paddling the canoe]. One time I been there he killed two yuxtc [sea 

otter]. I was lonesome that time. I was little boy. I think of my mother...He 

[uncle] was teaching me...Early morning we start way up to other side [of 

Yakutat Bay], All way hand power, hard work. That’s one day up there. We 

stay all night. We get up early in morning, and started again. Go to Icy 

Bay...Next morning, next day, go hunting sea otter. Come back same place [to 

the camp]. Next day going out, come back same place.’ The small boy paddled 

in the stern of the forked prow canoe while his uncle used a shotgun in the bow. 

Neither could eat while they were out in the boat.

“‘Wind blow all that time. I was thinking of my mother. Sometimes I cry, I think 

of my mother. Pretty hard staying with my uncle—talking, talking! ‘Don’t sleep 

too long. Wake up early in the morning!’...Every morning I heard no yell 

[raven—it was before the raven called]. It’s pretty dark, dark two mornings. 

‘Make the fire! Make the fire!’ my uncle [told me]. ‘Cook some coffee!’”

“This was the first time the boy had left his mother. Most of what he learned on 

the trip, we gather, was how to handle a canoe, make camp and cook, and some 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 257

 

of the magical rules to follow on the hunt. According to his sister (MJ), he was 

about ten years old when he went sea otter hunting with his uncle” (de Laguna 

1972:517; quotes from de Laguna’s informant).

63 As Staton suggests,

“Tlingits imposed rules against visiting certain seal or sea otter hunting grounds 

during the spring pupping season. Tlingits used all parts of the animals they 

killed, and killed only what they could consume. This practice was not due to 

concern about the supply of game and the public welfare, but because they 

sought to earn the animal’s favor in order to bring themselves luck and future 

hunting success” (Staton 1999:13).

De Laguna’s informants shared that in early times, it was the chiefs that controlled hunting 

practices related to sea otter and enforced restrictions regarding when and for how long people 

could hunt the otters:

“‘The sea otter hunt was strictly controlled by the Kwackqwan chief, since his sib 

owned the waters where the animals were encountered. 

“‘Yaxodaqet restricted all the land from Yakutat to Icy Bay. No one may hunt sea 

otter unless he knows it...Those chiefs [the first Yaxodaqet and his successors] 

would say when it was all right for the people to start hunting sea otter. They 

watched how many each man got. If one man had four and the others had only 

two or three, they would tell the man with the most to stop hunting. The chiefs 

saw to it that each family got the same number of skins’” (de Laguna 1972:379-

380).

64 On this point, de Laguna notes,

“The coho is the favorite salmon for drying at Yakutat, and is also the name crest 

of another Raven sib. The runs come late in the year, from July or August 

through October, and the natives prefer to cure the fish in the cool fall weather... 

Practically all the streams in the Yakutat area have cohos, although the Situk is 

especially rich” (de Laguna 1972:51).

65 As de Laguna noted,

“[Dog salmon] is relatively unimportant to the Gulf Coast Indians, although the 

Tlingit of southeastern Alaska regard it as the best to smoke for the winter, and 

recognize the Dog Salmon as the crest of a Raven sib. I was told that there were 

few dog salmon in the Yakutat area, but that they could be caught east of Dry 
258 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Bay, where the Dohn River or a tributary is called ‘Dog Salmon Stream’” (de 

Laguna 1972:51).

66 In an interview with Goldschmidt and Haas, Billy Jackson described the Yakutat Tlingit use of 

Point Manby for resource procurement:

“Grand Wash and Point Manby belonged to the Kwáashk’i Kwáan. It is a place 

where we get marten, mink, fox and seal. We also get fish there. There used to be 

a house there, but it is gone now” (quoted in Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:46).

67 Exploring this area in 1893, Israel C. Russell was one of these early writers. He describes game 

trails running through what are today Wrangell-St. Elias lands, which he observed during his 

second expedition from the old mouth of the Yahtse River to the Chaix Hills in 1893. Russell 

notes,

“A broad game trail which had evidently long been used by bears, wolves, foxes, 

and mountain goats. This well beaten thoroughfare skirts the foot of the hills for 

several miles, and, as we afterwards learned, is continued across the glacier 6 or 

8 miles northeastward to the Samovar Hills” (quoted in de Laguna 1972:98).

68 As summarized by Davis,

“Mountain goats, highly valued for their tallow and wool, were hunted within 

the forests along the slopes of the mountains as early as August, with better 

hunting following the later snows that forced the goats to lower ranges during 

late September and October. Informants have stated that mountain goats could 

even be taken, during times of very heavy snow, at sea level along the coastal 

beaches” (Davis 1997:146).

69 According to de Laguna,

“The Yakutat people face a variety of large brown bears and grizzlies. These 

have never been classified to the satisfaction of biologists, but for the native all 

these large species are ‘the Bear’ (xuts), the prize of the intrepid hunter and an 

important sib crest. The very large, dark grizzled Dall brown bear, Ursus dalli, 

lives northwest of Yakutat Bay, especially along the Malaspina Glacier” (de 

Laguna 1972:36).

Yakutat Tlingit traditionally hunted for bear throughout their territory and spring was a 

particularly reliable season for bear hunts:
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 259

 

“Bear were hunted along the shoreline-beach fringe areas of Yakutat and Dry 

Bays and Russell Fiord during the spring as they fed on fresh beach greens and 

roots. Bear have a wide-ranging habitat that varies with the season and the food 

resources available to them” (Davis 1997:148).

70 In addition to sea mammals, land animals played an important role in Eyak traditional 

hunting patterns, with bears and mountain goats identified as the most important of the land 

mammals. Eyak hunted both brown (Kodiak grizzly) and black bears during the winter. 

According to Birket-Smith and de Laguna, bears were hunted some distance southwest of the 

study area, with the Eyak traveling up Orca Inlet after bears. They typically did not travel up 

this way in single canoes, because this was the territory of “Eskimo” communities (Bennett et al. 

1979:23; Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:100; de Laguna 1990:190; USDOINPS 1998a:46; 

Workman et al. 1974). Goats were hunted in the mountains near Mountain Slough, which is 

located just south of Cordova. According to Birket-Smith and de Laguna, 

“[Goat hunting] was considered the most dangerous type of hunting, and this 

was reflected in the taboos. Colonel Abercrombie says that the natives had to 

climb above the goat, because the goat always looked down the mountainside for 

its enemies. They would shoot the goat between the ribs and the arrow would 

almost protrude from the farther side.” (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:100)

Among the Eyak, goats were hunted for their meat, as well as for skins and fur. Goatskins, as 

with sealskins, were often used in the construction of umiaks, while goat wool could be used in 

the making of robes for both men and women (de Laguna 1990:191-192). Also, according to de 

Laguna, “in 1884, Colonel Abercrombie noted that the Eyak slept under woven goat wool 

blankets about a yard wide and 5 feet long, but our informants denied that the Eyak knew how 

to make them” (de Laguna 1964:180-181). It is possible that Eyak used to make goat wool 

blankets, but at the time of de Laguna’s research the practice no longer continued.

In addition to bears and mountain goats, during the fall and winter the Eyak hunted fox and 

lynx with snares, and mink and martins were hunted using deadfalls. Eyak hunted muskrats 

with bow and arrow, and they used box traps to hunt for weasel and ermine. Beavers were 

hunted in the spring and fall using a deadfall set in a beaver trail, because during the winter 

they were not accessible due to ice. Ground squirrels were also hunted, and the Eyak 

reportedly used their furs in the making of robes. According to Birket-Smith and de Laguna, 

the family of the chief of a village would adorn themselves with necklaces made from beaver 

teeth (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:62, 101-102; de Laguna 1990:190). 

As with walruses, the Eyak did not hunt land otters, likely because of their belief that these 

animals were transformed human beings who had become lost or drowned. Birket-Smith and 

de Laguna believed that wolves were not hunted for this same reason (Birket-Smith and de 

Laguna 1938:101-102; de Laguna 1972:38; Workman et al. 1974:6). 
260 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 71 De Laguna goes on to note, “All the natives on the boat which took us up the bay in July 1952, 

agreed that Hubbard Glacier had advanced in recent years, and it was clear that the front 

extended farther into the bay than on the [1945 USC&GS chart #8455, 6th edition] chart” (de 

Laguna 1972:69).

72 The Eyak homeland contains a number of lakes and lagoons, which have attractive a wide 

variety of birds. Eyak hunted an assortment of birds, including duck, geese, swan, ptarmigan 

and grouse. Ptarmigan and grouse were available year-round, while the other bird types were 

hunted in autumn when they were molting. Ducks, geese and swan were primarily taken in 

August during village-wide drives. Colonel Abercrombie, for example, reported seeing 

villagers from Alaganik preform a drive to catch molting geese on the mudflats near the village 

(Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:112). In the littoral zone in the spring and summer, Eyak also 

collected bird eggs, which were an important traditional subsistence item (de Laguna 1990:190, 

192; USDOINPS 1998a:44; Workman et al. 1974:6). According to Birket-Smith and de Laguna 

(1938:113), loons were not hunted because of Eyak oral tradition noting that a boy had once 

turned into a loon.

73 De Laguna summarizes the purchase of Knight Island at a time when it was covered in 

strawberries:

Knight Island [in Yakutat Bay] was the first territory acquired by the Copper 

River immigrants, who obtained it by purchase after one of their women, a 

chief’s daughter or sister, had been prevented by the owners from picking 

strawberries on it. At that time it was just a big strawberry patch, without trees 

(de Laguna 1972:65).

74 De Laguna reports that Yakutat Tlingit gathered spruce bark in the late winter and early 

spring by scraping off the inner bark (de Laguna 1972:360).

75 Plants played a large role in Eyak subsistence. In the spring and summer, Eyak peoples 

gathered seaweed in the littoral zone and dried it for the wintertime (de Laguna 1990:190). 

According to Birket-Smith and de Laguna, 

“Three kinds of seaweed were gathered in July and August, but only two kinds 

were eaten from choice. The first of these is black and grows on the rocks, 

especially around Mummy Island. The second kind is thick and brown at the 

base, with long tapering ribbons. In times of famine they ate the stems of 

seaweed described as having balls at the end which pop when crushed.” 

(1938:97-98).

Dried kelp was reportedly used to make halibut fishing lines (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 

1938:92). During the spring and summer, the Eyak collected a number of key plants, including 

an assortment of summer berries and Kamchatka lily root (chocolate lily or “wild rice”), which 

can grow in tide flats, meadows, open forests, or on beaches and stream banks, as well as 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 261

 

gathering a number of other plants of the intertidal margins (Charnon n.d.). The Eyak ate the 

root of the lily, which they dried and boiled (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:97). They also 

consumed the sap from hemlock trees, which they scraped off using collected mussel shells 

(Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:97).

The Eyak traditionally gathered a variety of berries, including blueberries, salmonberries, highbush cranberries and low-bush cranberries. Berries were traditionally picked and dried into 

cakes for consumption, or they were preserved in oil for the winter. Berries could also be boiled 

with salmon eggs to form a jelly (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:97; de Laguna 1990:190; 

USDOINPS 1998a:46). 

The fall is also an important plant-gathering season. Starting in February, the Eyak traditionally 

gathered a wide variety of edible roots, as well as wild celery and the inner bark of the hemlock. 

According to de Laguna, spruce roots were probably collected at this time for the construction 

of baskets (1990:190). The Eyak also used hemlock to make bows for hunting (Birket-Smith and 

de Laguna 1938:102).

76 Houses, too, were said to have been constructed of cedar bark:

“The emigrants from the Copper River were supposed to have built shelters of 

yellow cedar bark when they reached the coast near Icy Bay. Sheets of such bark 

were formerly carried in the canoe when people traveled, to serve as tents (de 

Laguna 1972:305).”

77 Some interviewees disagree with this assessment of red cedar’s buoyancy relative to other 

woods used for this purpose.

78 Interviewees note that copper was often used in the making of weapons. “Emmons collected 

at Dry Bay an iron arrowhead, ‘used against small animals as marten, marmot, etc.,’ and a 

copper arrowhead, for ‘land animals only.’ Similar copper heads for land animals came from 

Yakutat” (de Laguna 1972:369).

79 In distant times, people were said to have “left a lot of wealth behind in Chitina.” As it was 

with the Athabaskan people of that region, they received Yakutat seal meat, sea otter furs, and 

other items in exchange for copper and inland foods (MP).

80 Slaves were obtained directly or through trade, representing a diversity of coastal and interior 

peoples, speaking a variety of languages (Mitchell and Donald 1985; Mitchell 1984).

81 Iron was also an important mineral resource for the Yakutat people. Iron was used in a 

variety of ways, including in the construction of weapons:

“Emmons obtained two iron spearheads at Yakutat, both of which were said to 

have been used for bear hunting, but also received contradictory information 

about the length of the shaft. The spearhead that had belonged to Yakutat Chief 
262 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

George Yaxodaqet, ‘George, the principal chief of the tribe,’ was said to have 

been set into a shaft 4 feet long (AMNH E/2258, taken back by Emmons in 

1915)” (de Laguna 1972:368).

Yakutat Tlingit obtained iron from Russian sources prior to the Russians actually arriving in 

their territory. According to de Laguna,

“Before the Russians themselves came to Yakutat, a schooner was wrecked on 

the shore west of Icy Bay, and from this the GalyIx-Kagwantan obtained a great 

deal of iron which they made into spear points. Harrington also recorded from 

GJ what may be the same story or an account of a similar event: 

“‘A ship get wrecked, drift ashore, lots of iron in there, big spikes. Indians get 

and make into knives, and into the blades of bear spear. Oh my, it was a rich 

man who found a piece of iron in those times. The old Indians were tough and 

long-lived’” (de Laguna 1972:412).

While the Yakutat did not necessarily have access to iron in its raw state, with the arrival of iron 

into the region as early as 1787, it became an important traditional subsistence resource for the 

Yakutat Tlingit thereafter (de Laguna 1972:113, 116).

82 This ochre was traditionally used as a face paint and as a paint for objects. As de Laguna 

reports,

“The red paint was made of hematite or red ochre (léxw), which could be found 

at the head of Disenchantment Bay. Some lumps of pure hematite were found, in 

the site on Knight Island, that showed marks of use; there were also some pieces 

of clay stone which had been burned to increase their red color, although Yakutat 

informants did not mention this practice. Red ochre was used both for painting 

objects and for decorating the face.” (de Laguna 1972:416)

Pigments were often used to paint faces of people attending ceremonial gatherings:

“On ceremonial occasions, men and women both painted their faces with red 

ochre (léxw). This was obtained from Metlakatla, or from between Turner and 

Hubbard Glaciers in Disenchantment Bay. It was ground up to make paint, and 

kept in a little tanned skin bag.” (de Laguna 1972:447). 

83 On this, de Laguna notes,

“Stone (tE) was used to make blades for adzes, chisels, knives, scrapers, and 

weapons, as well as for lamps, pestles, hammers, drills, whetstones, and strike-a-
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 263

 

lights. Most of the stones used were hard igneous or metamorphic rock, shaped 

by pecking and grinding.” (de Laguna 1972:413)

In addition to their uses in weaponry, stones could be used for more ceremonial purposes. For 

example, the Yakutat carved marble to be used for doll heads (de Laguna 1972:413).

84 Mineral gathering was an important part of Eyak life, as minerals were used in a number of 

ways. Native copper is highly significant to Eyak traditionally, and served a variety of 

functions. It was used in the construction of harpoon arrowheads, such as those used for 

hunting sea otter along the coast near Cordova (Birket-Smith and de Laguna 1938:111). Copper 

was also used in the making of other tools, such as knives, ulus, pins and scrapers (USDOINPS 

1998a:44). Copper was (and often still is) shaped into jewelry. Both Eyak men and women 

traditionally wear copper rings and bracelets, and de Laguna hypothesized that “the rings were 

probably obtained from the interior” (1938:62). According to von Wrangell (1970:5), the Eyak 

obtained their copper tools and weaponry from trade with the Ahtna, who were situated north 

of the Eyak on the Copper River and wore similar rings fashioned out of copper. De Laguna 

also reports that the Ahtnas used the Copper River to bring native copper south to trade with 

the Eyak (de Laguna 1964:161; 1990:190).

The Eyak also gathered a variety of non-mineral items, such as glass and shells. These were 

often worn as personal adornments on a daily basis, as well as during performances. For 

example, male dancers wore headbands decorated with glass and obsidian beads. Some of the 

wealthier women of the village adorned their hair with dentalium shells when attending a 

dance – presumably traded into the area in exchange for copper and other goods (Birket-Smith 

and de Laguna 1938:59-60).

85 Speaking of the changes that Euro-American “discovery” and settlement brought to Yakutat 

Tlingit and their connections to their homelands, Ray Sensmeier stated: “So it was hardly a 

wilderness to us. Like they talk about the Wild West ...It was never wild for us. It got wild 

when the Europeans came” (RS).

86 Sea otters abounded in the cold waters of eastern Russia, along Sakhalin and the Kuril 

Islands, as well as the Kamchatka Peninsula. Their dense, dark coats fetched astonishing prices 

when they could, with some difficulty, be delivered to Asian and European markets. The sea 

otter fur was a tremendous sensation in China in particular, becoming emblematic of high 

status and increasingly integrated into the dress of Chinese elites as hats, capes, and the furry 

fringe of silk robes and other clothing.

87 Traveling to what is today the northern British Columbia coast, the Perez expedition met with 

the Haida, trading for pelts and other goods in the first well-documented encounter between 

European peoples and Northwest Coast tribes. Perez returned to San Blas, where his 

commanders and viceroy celebrated the expedition’s success in extending the Spanish reach to 

the lands and peoples of the distant northern coast, while also celebrating the illusory absence 

of Russians on those shores.
264 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 88 As summarized by Aurel Krause,

“One finds in this an extensive description of the Yakutat with whom, during his 

stay in Yakutat Bay, Malaspina established friendly relations which were 

threatened only once by a theft [sic]. Malaspina received favorable impressions 

of the moral standards and industrial capabilities of these natives; among their 

industrial achievements, their canoes and woven blankets aroused his 

astonishment” (Krause 1956:24). 

89 The name was initially “Malaspina Plateau,” based on the fact that it had not been carefully 

surveyed by non-Native investigators at the time Dall applied the name.

90 A version of this story has been reported in other sources, such as by de Laguna et al.,

“A ship was wrecked on the shore near Malaspina Glacier. Two men and a 

woman survived, but the men fell down a crevasse and only the woman was 

alive when the Indians found the wreck. The latter, through ignorance, spoiled 

most of the treasures they took from the ship. Thus, they put the guns into a fire 

and pounded up the barrels with stones to make spears. They could work iron 

because they already knew how to shape copper. At that time an iron spear point 

was worth a slave, and so the men became rich. One of them married the white 

woman, who lived to old age” (de Laguna et al. 1964).

91 Eventually, Baranov decided against calling the settlement Slavorossiik. In a letter (1796) to the 

settlers, he sarcastically stated, “Your settlement is to be named Novorossiisk [“New Russia”] 

and not Slavorossiisk [“Glory of Russia”], because you have done nothing glorious” (in Grinev 

2013:454).

92 Baranov took over his position in 1790, replacing a Greek merchant named Eustrate Delarov 

(de Laguna 1972:158). 

93 Many of the settlers, or posel’shchiki, were actually Siberian exiles recruited to populate the 

colonies (Grinev 1989:446).

94 The procession included,

“the Russian flag and coat of arms, the twenty promyshlenniki who were with him 

[Baranov] marching with rifles and falconets, conducting military exercises. 

Under a three-gun salute from rifles and cannons, the surrounding territories

were declared possessions of the Russian Empire. This was announced to the 

local Tlingit, who after long negotiations agreed to the construction of a colony 

on their lands” (Grinev 2013:451).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 265

 95 Some elders, including de Laguna’s informant Maggie Harry, attest that the abduction of their 

children was a major reason for the Yakutat Tlingit’s eventual attack on the Russian fort. 

Maggie Harry reported the following to Harrington in 1939 or 1940:

“There were 8,000 or 10,000 Indians here when the Russians came. The Russians 

thinned them out by taking their kids away. 

...There used to be 8,000 Indians here at Yakutat 1,000 years ago. These were the 

only Indians who defeated the Russians. The Russians elsewhere always came back. 

Here not. 

The Russians took 50 kids away from here, under the pretext of taking them 

away to school. For 10 years they did not come back. That was a long time. That, and 

shutting the gate at Ankau Inlet made the people here decide to do away with the 

Russians. This was the only place we succeeded. 

The Russians had first fought the Aleuts. Later they mixed with them, 

whoring their wives. 

...My grandfather [momobro] used to lead his people over to the castle. 

My grandfather was the Prince of Yakutat and was named Cáada (a name given 

him by the Russians). Cáada was the son of XAtkaawéet. [They] called the castle 

núuwuu ['fort']. It was like a big castle, just like a big castle. My father built a 

smokehouse there later, after the Russian prince had been killed. 

The Indians burned the castle and all the Russians down. The Indians 

took all the ammunition, but took no food from there. The food and dishes they 

burned when they burned the castle [MH to Harrington, 1939-40]” (quoted in de 

Laguna 1972:136).

96 Polomoshnoi further complicated the situation. Even after his removal, he attempted to 

influence the management of the colony. He, along with a Lieutenant G.T. Talin, endeavored 

to convince the settlers of the colony to denounce to the government Baranov and the other 

leaders in the Shelikhov-Golikov Company, S.F. Larionov, and N. Mukhin. Polomoshnoi then 

joined Talin on his ship, the Orël, and attempted to sail to Kodiak with 22,000 rubles worth of 

fur taken from Yakutat’s storage. En route, the Orël wrecked, and five people died, including 

Polomoshnoi, his wife, their children and his wife’s sister (Grinev 1989:457). 

Though Polomoshnoi and Talin were ultimately not successful in convincing the settlers to 

denounce Baranov, the colony was proving itself to be more and more of a burden on the 

Shelikhov-Golikov Company, as opposed to the profitable outpost it was initially meant to be. 

97 While the colony at Yakutat was floundering, the new colony at Sitka was becoming 

increasingly more important. As such, the establishment of Fort Mikhailovskii at Sitka in 1799 

had an inadvertent, yet critical effect on Novo Rossiysk. With this new station at Sitka, Yakutat 

no longer served as Russia’s primary outpost in southeast Alaska. Rather, Yakutat’s new, less 

glamorous role became that of serving as a staging base for hunting parties traveling to the 

straits of Alexander Archipelago from Kodiak (Grinev 1989:458). This arrangement, however, 

proved temporary as tensions between Sitka Tlingit and the new Russian settlers there began to 

flare. Sitka Tlingit, for their part, were getting firearms from American traders and other non-
266 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Russian individuals. Additionally, American traders from Boston were compensating the 

Tlingit for their furs at a rate that Russians simply could not match (Kushner 1975). These 

factors contributed to increasing dissatisfaction with the Russian presence among the Tlingit at 

Sitka, in particular. As a result, Baranov only narrowly deterred a feud with armed Sitka Tlingit 

at Fort St. Michael in the winter of 1799-1800 (de Laguna 1972:170).

This fragile peace between the Sitka Tlingit and the Russian settlers quickly deteriorated, and 

the Tlingit successfully seized Fort Mikhailovskii in June of 1802. This assault came just one 

month after Baranov’s trusted assistant, A.I. Kuskov, and his party were attacked by a group of 

Tlingit at Dry Bay, which had previously created an atmosphere of fear at Novo Rossiysk. 

Coincidentally, it was Kuskov and a team of Yakutat colonists that are credited with deterring a 

similar attack on Yakutat shortly after Sitka was taken. Kuskov was en route to Sitka when he 

learned of the seizure of Fort Mikhailovskii and, as a result, rushed back to Yakutat. Upon 

arrival, Kuskov and his crew encountered a large party of Tlingit gathered there (de Laguna 

1972:172-173). The Tlingit explained that they had congregated for a fishing expedition; 

however, K.T. Khlebnikov reports (1863) that the Tlingit were there to ambush the fort and 

Russian settlement that evening, but were forced to abandon their plan because of Kuskov’s 

return. While no attack followed that evening, the settlers at Yakutat were so disturbed by the 

news of the destruction of Fort Mikhailovskii that they, along with Nikolai Mukhin, insisted 

Kuskov remove them to Kodiak for safety. Due to the lack of ship availability and Kuskov’s 

reassurance, however, the colony stayed intact for the time being (Grinev 1989:458-459).

98 Not all Tlingit clans in the vicinity of Sitka participated in the seizure and subsequent 

resistance against Russian presence in the region. For example, the Sitka Eagle Clan remained 

neutral in the confrontations of 1804 (Tollefson 1977:33).

Following Baranov’s departure from Yakutat, the governor of Russian America then traveled on 

a hunting expedition to “Beaver Bay.” In September, he then went on to Sitka, at which point a 

fleet of vessels coalesced and forced the Tlingit to surrender the fort that they had seized back in 

June of 1802. Subsequently, Baranov commanded the building of a new Russian post, NovoArkhangelsk, at a site not far from the abandoned Indian village (de Laguna 1972:173). Baranov 

then spent the winter at the new Russian post, and the fate of the Russian colony at Yakutat 

appeared more secure as hunting expeditions continued by and large without incident (Grinev 

1989:460). 

99 A more complete retelling of Lena Farkus’ account is as follows:

“the Russians came, and built a fort in Ankau. They started taking the women 

and kids and they’d take them over there so they could clean fish and do things 

and they’d never see them again. And so one of the leaders, a Teikweidí man 

named Tanuk... there was a Tekweidi clan living at—I can’t say exactly where, 

somewhere in the Yakutat Bay area, and so he just got tired of the Russians 

taking some of the ladies with their children over there to work for them. And so 

him and another man went over there. The Russian ship had gone back to 

Kodiak so there was just a few men there watching the fort. And they picked 

some strawberries, there’s a lot of wild strawberries around, and took it to the 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 267

 

guy that was guarding the door and told him that they had picked some berries 

for the main guy in the fort. And so he let them in and one of them...killed the 

guard. They went in and just killed the other—there was just a few men—this is 

what I was told—and burned the fort down. Well one Russian got away. He hid. 

And so when the Russian ship came, he ran down and told them that the 

“savages” had burned down their fort” (LF).

100 The Russians were said to have been attacked on Dry Bay after they were found looting 

shamans’ graves (BA). 

101 An additional letter from Rezanov, dated June 17, 1806 provides further details of the attack 

at Russian Yakutat colony:

“Yakoutat was captured by the savages in October [sic], the fort burned, the 

people all knocked on the head except 8 men, 2 women and 3 boys who were 

absent from the fort, and made their escape after hiding in the bay and are now 

prisoners of the Ougalakhmutes [Eyak-speakers], who demanded a ransom for 

them which has been sent from Kadiak” (Tikhmenev 1863 in de Laguna 

1972:174).

102 While it is understood that the fort at Yakutat was never restored, one account provides a 

confusing alternative description of the circumstances of Russian occupation at Yakutat. As de 

Laguna explains,

“Native tradition maintains that the Russians never restored their fort and 

colony at Yakutat. However, Captain Golovnin, writing about the Russian 

colonies in North America, which he had visited on a voyage around the world, 

gives a list of the Company's establishments in 1818, which ends: “...on Behring 

Bay, Yakoutat Cove, Nikolaïevsky, near Mount St. Elias, Simeonoffsky. At 

Yakoutat there had previously been a settlement called Slava Rossia, but in 1803 

[sic] it had been destroyed by the Koloshi and had never been restored” 

(Golovnin, 1861, p. 5). This obscure passage contains one obvious inaccuracy, 

and I know it only in Petroff's poorly punctuated translation. Golovnin later 

refers to "Fort Nikolaïevsky" in the "Gulf of Kenai" (Cook Inlet) which casts 

further doubt upon any post on “Yakoutat Cove” (de Laguna 1972:176).

103 As Krause noted, following the attack on the fort, “only rarely did traders enter [Yakutat]”—

a condition that persisted into the 1880s. Still, the coast continued to be hunted and of 

considerable interest to Russian interests. Based on a review of Russian sources, Kan (1999: 560) 

observes that 

“The only parts of Lingít aaní [Tlingit territory] where sea otter hunting by RAC 

[Russian American Company] employees continued up to the 1850s were the 
268 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Yakutat and the Lituya bays where this animal was still plentiful and where the 

Tlingit could not muster enough forces to chase away the poachers, as they had 

continued to do elsewhere in the area.” 

Indeed, the coastline along Yakutat Bay continued to be a distinctive sea otter hunting hub well 

after that period. Writing in the 1880s, Aurel Krause noted that among the Tlingit, “the 

Yakutat...are now almost the only people who can get sea otter,” bringing considerable 

attention to the Yakutat community from outside hunters and traders (Krause 1956: 65). 

Additionally, the Chitina River Basin seems to have been largely bypassed prior to the 

American expeditions of the late 19th century. As Henry T. Allen reported during his 1885 

expedition, 

“The natives informed me that no white men had ever ascended the Chittyná 

River, and this is partially corroborated by the fact that in 1867 the officers of the 

Russian American Company supposed that pure copper was found in masses 

twenty-five or thirty miles above the mouth of the river” (Allen 1887: 23).

The Native communities of the lower Copper River region, he notes, were widely known for 

largely resisting Russian overtures and incursions—apparently both a cause and effect of the 

limited Russian presence in the greater Yakutat region.

104 The early Russian Orthodox baptisms had been of modest scale, only involving Yakutat 

people held captive by the Russians—inspiring limited church loyalty. Sitka, a Russian 

Orthodox stronghold by contrast, served as a point of entry into the Yakutat community, and 

occasional Yakutat visitors are mentioned receiving baptisms in the 1860s. Yet even those who 

accepted baptism remained largely at a distance from the Church and its influence. As Sergei 

Kan notes of the entire Tlingit world of southeast Alaska, “on the eve of Russian withdrawal 

from Alaska, only 60 of about 500 baptized Tlingit are listed as having had confession and 

communion,” and most of those who did were living in communities such as Sitka with a 

strong Orthodox presence (Kan 1999: 168). Yakutat, by contrast, “had only a handful of 

Orthodox Tlingit” (Kan 1999: 428). Some Orthodox converts from Yakutat requested an 

expanded Church presence in Yakutat into the 1880s and beyond, and the Church did make 

inroads within the community over time. Yet, the land was now claimed by the Americans, and 

it would be missionaries with ties to the United States that would most actively seek to reshape 

Tlingit values and practices in the decades ahead.

105 After much negotiation between Russian minister to the United States, Eduard de Stoeckl 

and US Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, the Alaskan territory, a total of 375 million 

acres, was sold to the United States for $7.2 million dollars. Many called this land purchase 

‘Seward’s Folly” because little was known about Alaska other than its cold climate.

106 At this time a civil government was assigned by President Chester A. Arthur as the result of

the passage of the First Organic Act. The Second Organic Act renamed the District of Alaska as 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 269

 

the “Territory of Alaska,” an organized, incorporated territory of the United States (Hinckley 

1996, 1972).

107 As miner/author Wait Bruce has commented,

“rich mineral indications are found along the coast at Lituya Bay. Rich deposits 

of ruby and black sand stretch along the coast for miles toward Yakutat. The 

quality of the gold found in this region is fine, but amalgamates readily, and is 

easily saved by careful sluicing” (Bruce 1989: 44).

108 The influx of Americans into the Yakutat area during this period also led to an interest in 

those newcomers in climbing the imposing and – to Yakutat Tlingit – sacred Mount St. Elias. 

This interest in summiting the mountain continued into the early twentieth century. In her 

book, “Under Mount Saint Elias” (1972), de Laguna covers some of these attempts to summit 

the great mountain:

“In July 1888, a new expedition came to attack Mount Saint Elias, but again 

without reaching the summit. This was led by Harold W. Topham and his 

brother, both British Alpinists, who were accompanied by George Broke, and by 

William Williams, an American; four Sitka Indians and two miners, Harry Lyons 

and Shorty MacConahy, served as porters. The party came up to Yakutat from 

Sitka on a rather unseaworthy fishing schooner, the Alpha, chartered for that 

purpose” (de Laguna 1972:193).

In addition to Topham, H. G. Bryant of Philadelphia attempted the summit in 1897 and Prince 

Luigi Amedeo, Duke of Abruzzi attempted and reached the summit (de Laguna 1972:205-207).

109 Yet people still maintained connections, in spite of the obstacles. Speaking of his uncle, 

George Ramos Sr. notes, “he used to tell me they used to row from Yakutat to Icy Bay. Now 

that’s a long way...in their small dugout canoes” (GR).

110 As Kan stated more generally of the missionary experience,

“The greatest threat to the traditional Tlingit culture and society came from the 

missionary, and later the public schools, with their rule of obligatory attendance” 

(1985:199).

111 Early commercial fishing in Yakutat centered around the saltery (herring) built by F.A. 

Fredericks Company of Seattle in 1901 (Ramos and Mason 2004), and the oddly named Yakutat 

& Southern Railroad Company cannery (sockeye, coho, halibut, crab), built in Monti Bay in 

1904. There was also a herring saltery inside the mouth of Ankau Creek built by A.L. See and A. 

Flenner during this same time period (Ramos and Mason 2004).
270 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 112 Interviewees note that Tlingit fishermen would ride the train for free to Situk River on 

Monday, fish throughout the week, and then return to town on Friday. The cannery and 

railroad operated under Stimson from 1905 until 1912 when ownership was transferred to 

Gorman and Company. In 1913, Libby, McNeil and Libby, a Chicago-based company assumed 

control, and it continued to run until 1951 when it again change hands. Bellingham Canning 

Company of Bellingham, Washington picked up the company at this point and it continued to 

operate under this ownership until the mid-1960s when it changed hands for the last time. The 

Marine Foods Packing Company was the last to own and operate the Yakutat & Southern 

Railroad, filing for bankruptcy in 1971. Today, the cannery is owned and operated by Yakutat 

Seafoods.

113 The Copper River and Northwestern Railway (CR&NW) brought similar revolutions in the 

Cordova and Copper River Delta regions. Cordova has long been the juncture of multiple trade 

routes used by the Eyak, Ahtna, Tlingit, and Chugach-Aleut. The importance of these trade 

routes were intensified and solidified, maintaining Cordova as a central transportation hub:

“The Eyak Culture in the Copper River Delta Area was the center of activity and 

exchange between the Eyak, Ahtna, Tlingit, and Chugach-Aleut. The discovery 

of oil, salmon, gold, and copper all in the Copper River area by European and 

American explorers and traders changed the Eyak village from a regional trading 

hub to one of world renown, with the advent of the Copper River & 

Northwestern Railroad and the development of the harbor town of Cordova” 

(NVE 2009:13).

Before the onslaught of gold rush miners, the Russians were the only explorers to make any 

significant impact on the land or amongst the native Eyak. Their main interest was in 

establishing trading posts for the exchange of goods (NVE 2009: 14).

Shortly after Russian explorers arrived in the region, the population of Eyak peoples fell 

drastically due in large part to famine and disease. From 1837 to 1838, a smallpox epidemic 

swept the region, reducing the Eyak population roughly by half. Disease and lack of access to 

traditional subsistence resources continued to take their toll on the people throughout the 

nineteenth century. Then in 1892, one of their primary settlements at Alaganik was abandoned 

when a measles outbreak took hold of the area. Just a few years later, Eyak Village and Glacatl 

Village were abandoned when a new set of epidemics again plagued the area. By 1900, the 

remaining Eyak people that survived the outbreaks relocated to Old Town, near today’s city of 

Cordova (Hund 2014:273). 

The mouth of the Copper River was soon noticed by commercial salmon fishing operations, 

many moving from the lower Columbia River and other salmon fisheries that had been 

depleted in the Lower 48 states. By the late 1800s, “the Copper River fishery was already well 

established. Four companies operated canneries in 1889 near the river's mouth—two near the 

present site of Cordova and two on Wingham Island near Controller Bay” (Bleakley 2002: 290). 

Eyak families often served as labor in the fishery. The community became a robust multi-ethnic 

commercial fishing town in the century that followed. Still, beyond this foothold, Europeans 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 271

 

and Euro-Americans made few lasting impressions in the Cordova region other than 

documentation. 

Then came the gold prospectors. In 1900, prospectors “Tarantula Jack” Smith and Clarence 

Warner happened upon large deposits of oxidized copper in the Wrangell Mountains—deposits 

that were part of the larger complex long utilized by Native resource harvesters. They staked 

their claim and sold it to Steven Birch, a mining engineer, who partnered with J.P. Morgan and 

members of the Guggenhiem family. These investors were known as the “Alaska Syndicate” 

(Wikle 2014). The Syndicate members later incorporated themselves into the “Kennecott Copper 

Corporation” after the nearby Kennicott River. (A mistake on the final paperwork accounts for 

the altered spelling.) 

When the Kennecott mines began operation, copper ore was transported via packhorses to the 

city of Valdez. As copper production increased so did the need for improved modes of 

transport. 

“As production increased, Syndicate members developed plans for a railroad to 

link the mine with a port on the Pacific Ocean...a route was selected along the 

north banks of the Nizina and Chitina Rivers following the Copper River 

southward across its delta to Orca Inlet and the town of Cordova. From there, ore 

could be shipped by steamboat to Tacoma, Washington for smelting” (Wikle 

2014: 141).

The early 1900s saw further decline of the Eyak population, as economic activities in the region, 

necessitated the development of a railroad through part of Eyak traditional territory. The 

abandoned village of Alaganik was covered with tracks when the Copper River and 

Northwestern (CR&NW) Railroad was built under the management of Michael Heney. With the 

introduction of the new railroad, Heney bestowed upon Cordova its modern day name in 1906, 

and in 1909 the city was officially incorporated (CRKS n.d.: Hund 2014:273). By the following 

year, the city’s population had reached 2,400 people; however, when construction of the railway 

was complete, many individuals left the area, and the population fell to 1,555 in 1920. By this 

time, there were only roughly 60 remaining Eyak people (State of Alaska n.d.).

Formerly settled around the Copper River Delta, many Eyak moved to the modern community 

of Cordova when a deep-water port was established there in 1906 to ship copper ore by rail 

from the interior. Unlike Yakutat residents who confronted a Russian fort, the Eyak at Cordova 

experienced the first significant influx of outsiders as a result of the gold rush, copper mining 

and the oncoming train. Five profitable copper ore mines operated at the time around the towns 

of Kennecott and McCarthy near Kennicott River and Glacier. 

In addition to its distinction as the terminus for the railroad, Cordova was an important ocean 

shipping port for copper ore mined from Kennecott. The railroad effectively connected Cordova 

to the interior towns of Kennecott, McCarthy and Chitina. The mines continued to operate and 

support these towns until 1938 when the deposits disappeared. Rail service ended in 1938 and 

the Kennecott Copper Corporation filed an application with the Interstate Commerce 
272 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Commission (ICC) to formally close the CR&NW Railroad. The last train left the station on 

November 10th of that year (Wikle 2014:148). Today, the legacy of the CR&NW remains. The 

McCarthy Road remains the main access route to Kennecott, a 62-mile gravel road that 

continues to attract tourists, and sport hunters and fishers. 

In addition to the mines, Cordova’s economy was fueled by the oil industry, with the Katalla oil 

field operating until 1933 when it was destroyed by a fire. With the closure of the mines and the 

oil field, Cordova’s economy turned to commercial fishing as the primary industry in 1940s 

(CRKS n.d.). As Cordova underwent these changes to its economic base, and as high levels of 

poverty prevailed among the local Alaska Natives, the Eyak and their Native neighbors saw a 

growing need to protect their economy, lands and culture in order to sustain themselves in the 

coming decades.

114 Americanization presented yet another shift of the sociopolitical framework that again forced 

the Tlingit to recalculate and expand their defense against total assimilation but which 

continued to utilize the brotherhood system (Hinckley 1996, 1972). The Alaska Native 

Brotherhood (ANB) and Sisterhood (ANS), formed during the rapid Americanization of Alaska, 

have played an integral part in the protection of these traditional subsistence and cultural 

practices by creating an avenue of direct dialogue within the legislative structures introduced 

by federal regulation. The Alaska Native Brotherhood (followed quickly by the Sisterhood) was 

founded in 1912 in response to the outcomes of the 1867 Treaty of Cession, which sought to 

subject Alaska Natives to the same regulations as the American Indians in the United States. 

Their purpose was to gain equality in the form of citizenship and educational rights for the 

Native people of southeast Alaska. So too, the ANB movement took shape out of early political 

and legal efforts to maintain Native sovereignty over lands and resources being appropriated 

under new, American territorial claims. In a letter written in 1890 by Willoughby Clark, an 

attorney hired by the “Stickeens” Tlingit, to President Harrison wherein the Tlingit asked to be: 

“exempt from fish, game, timber and general land laws; that they be legally 

authorized to make their own laws; that the system of concubineage between 

white men and Indian women be restricted; that title to villages and garden 

patches be confirmed to them in severalty in fee; and that their rights to their 

fishing streams be recognized or that they severally receive quid pro quo for 

their relinquishment” (Ramos and Mason 2004:50).

Similarly, Tollefson notes,

“During the 1920s their leadership, membership and goals became solidified into 

a powerful and effective political organization. In the early years, the ANB 

sought full acculturation, recognition as American citizens, and formal education 

as the means to its achievement. In their zeal to survive in the wake of 

overwhelming settlers, the early goals of the ANB were to join the dominant 

culture and ‘to do away with Tlingit culture’ (Former Grand Camp Officer). 

Later, these same leaders became concerned with preserving their cultural 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 273

 

heritage and joined the more conservative element of the people in preserving it” 

(Tollefson 1984: 237).

115 According to Conn, Engelman and Fairchild,

“In the 1939 planning it had also been agreed that, if the Army were to fulfill its 

air mission of assisting in the defense of the new military establishments to be 

developed along the southern Alaskan coast and of supporting the Navy in 

resisting hostile attempts to gain lodgment in Alaskan territory, the Army Air 

Corps must be able to conduct operations as far west as Kiska and as far south as 

Ketchikan. Accordingly, plans were made to build a series of staging fields north 

from Puget Sound and out to the Aleutians that would tie in with the new 

Anchorage base and with the Navy's fields (which the Army proposed to use 

also) at Sitka, Kodiak, and Unalaska. The Army proposed to build these staging 

fields at Metlakatla (near Ketchikan), Yakutat, and Cordova... On 19 September 

1940 construction of the Metlakatla (subsequently known as Annette Island 

airfield) began, and a month later construction of Yakutat airfield was started” 

(2000: 229-31).

116 The creation of this base was made possible by the Civil Aeronautics Act, which was passed 

in 1938 for the purpose of both stimulating and regulating the civil air industry for commercial 

and defense purposes, as well as for the benefit of the postal service (US NARA n.d.). The 

passing of the Civil Aeronautics Act and the resulting creation of the Civil Aeronautics Board 

(CAB) enabled the establishment of airports and radio range stations in Alaska and beyond 

(Kurtz 1995:85-86). 

117 Though the cannons are originally from a World War I era US Navy cruiser or auxiliary ship, 

they were released to the US Army in the 1930s to be utilized in coastal defense programs, and 

they represent the only two permanent shore batteries built in Yakutat during World War II 

(CBY 2006:141). 

118 According to documentation by the US Army Corps of Engineers,

The Yakutat Army Air Base improvements, equipment, and materials, not 

transferred to CAA [Civil Aeronautics Administration], were declared to the War 

Assets Administration (WAA) for disposition in May 1948, pursuant to the 

Surplus Property Act of 1944 (USACE 2015:3).

119 From their research in the mid 1940s, Goldschmidt and Haas report that,

“From data presented by Native witnesses and from observations in the field, it 

appears that Native of Yakutat use all the area within the Alaska Territory that 
274 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

they owned in pre-American times, from and including Icy Bay on the north to 

and including Dry Bay on the south” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:52).

These areas include,

“Those shores of Disenchantment Bay and the fiords and inlets...[which] are 

regularly used for hunting seal, mountain goat and bear, and for gathering 

seagull eggs” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:52).

120 According to Goldschmidt and Haas’s interviewees, Disenchantment Bay was widely used 

by Yakutat Tlingit for sealing into the 1940s:

“’Disenchantment Bay is a place where I get my seals from. All the men from 

here get seals there. They went there also spring. They also go up there to hunt 

mountain goats and bear. They go way up Russell Fiord for these. There is no 

special ownership up there (Helen Bremner #31, corroborated by Minnie 

Johnson #41, Olaf Abraham #33, and Sam George #36)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 

1998:47).

These areas were used not only for sealing, but for other resource procurement activities, as 

well, including hunting and gathering seagull eggs:

“[Disenchantment Bay and the fiords and inlets above it are regularly used by 

the Yakutat Natives for hunting seal, mountain goat, and bear, and for gathering 

seagull eggs. It was territory used by the whole tribe:] ‘Disenchantment Bay and 

Nunatak Fiord, at the head of Russell Fiord, are good bear hunting area. It is also 

a good seagull island. We get seagull eggs in June. Two boats went up there this 

spring and brought eggs back’ (Jack Ellis #35)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:47).

121 Goldschmidt and Haas also reported that Yakutat Tlingit continued the use of Icy Bay for 

sealing in the 1940s. According to their informants,

“My brother had a house for seal hunting and used to trap there [at Icy Bay]. 

Three years ago Peter Harry and William Thomas went there to trap” (Billy 

Jackson #39)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:46).

An additional informant also reflected on the use of the bay for sealing:

“’Yakutat people all go to Icy Bay for seal hunting. Kayak Tom had one house at 

Icy Bay and one house at Yahtse. ...The last time he was there was about five 

years ago, I think. There are also some people from Yskuisgi (Jishkweidí?). These 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 275

 

people also claim Katalla. There are now whites in this area because it is used for 

mining’ (Jack Ellis #35)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:47).

Apparently, the use of Icy Bay declined for some Yakutat Tlingit users in the early twentieth 

century:

“[The use of Icy Bay by Kayak Tom and other Natives was testified to by several 

witnesses:] ‘Icy Bay used to be a place where our people went. Kayak Tom has a 

smokehouse there. I never was there, but William Thomas has a claim on it. He is 

now at Lost River with his wife. The last time I know of his being there was in 

1928’ (Helen Bremner #31)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:46-47).

122 A number of individuals have shared personal recollections of hunting for seal bounties at 

Icy Bay:

“So when I took off, I took off at eight o’clock in the evening. And I was going to 

hunt up in Icy Bay because I figured that I knew how to hunt and I could make 

some money for my family. And that’s when I took off with an eighteen horse. I 

says, ‘Well I got my eighteen horse paddle here and I’m going to make it.’ And it 

was nice because westerly winds stopped in the evening and it started 

sometimes up until eight in the morning or nine in the morning and it’d start 

blowing again. So one o’clock in the morning I would walk into camp in Icy Bay 

where Joe Nelson, Ray Smith and I think Johnson were there. And I hunted there 

for one-month time. That was during the pupping season and expanded into 

beyond that a little bit. So I shot 600 seals in that time. Joe Nelson had shot 900. I 

think he had 400 and Ray had a big skiff that he was hunting out of. I don’t know 

if he got 200 in that one spring season. I had onboard my boat, I had all my 

hunting equipment plus the fuel, plus a five-horse when I took off from 

here...But right off Sitkagi Bluff I ran into choppy water. And the, sometimes the 

water was coming in the bow of the boat. And I thought, ‘My gosh, I am halfway 

to Icy Bay and it’s going to take me another four hours to go back to Yakutat. 

And just about another two hours to the camp up...’ I thought, ‘If I turn back I 

have to run this whole section. Well, what I’ll do is keep on going. I’ll just go 

slow.’ And after I passed Sitkagi Bluff it calmed down again. But what I found 

out is that the current comes and meets right there...” (GR).

123 Skip Johnson recalls some of the techniques used for outfitting these new, non-traditional 

boats for sealing purposes:

“[In] the bow, we would take tires and cut them in half and then nail a tire on 

the, half a tire so that it’d come around that way and nail it up under the long 

[axis]...And that was to bump the ice. And then the outside, if we could get it, 

and we had a lot at that time, down at the old cannery, I mean the cannery belts 
276 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

were about a foot wide. And they would finish with these belting and they’d 

throw them out, just toss them. So we’d gather all those up and then cut it and 

then nail them around the canoe like that way. And then on the bottom a little 

but front, up the ice hardly ever went under the boat but once in a while. And 

then we’d put [the belts] two feet up the sides and nail those on there. And that 

protected the wood from getting eat up, otherwise the ice would eat up the wood 

in one day, no problem. [We sometimes used] other things we could find, we’d 

use cardboard” (SJ).

124 The significance of boats to Yakutat Tlingit life was – and is – evident in the fact that canoes, 

then plank canoes, then motorboats were given names:

Large [war] canoes were owned only by house chiefs and were therefore 

sometimes designated as ‘tribal canoes.’ They were also called 'named canoes,' 

(łI-sayi yakw), since they had individual names, as did lineage houses. Like the 

latter, the names often referred to sib crests...In recent times the custom of giving 

such names was applied to motorboats, for one owned by a Kwacḱqwan chief 

was named for Mount Saint Elias (waśe-ta-cA yakw)” (de Laguna 1972:340).

125 George Ramos Sr. recalls a similar seal hunting method:

“If you’re hunting seal and you’re getting into them sitting on the ice, one seal 

will always be looking. And what you do is you get as close as possible and 

watch him, the one that’s looking. The rest of them are just sleeping. Now when 

you shoot that one, they’ll all come up. And they don’t see anything that’s 

suspicious, they’ll go back asleep, but one of them will keep their head up. And I 

have shot up to five seals like that because in 1963, or 64 when the pelts, when 

they buy the pelts, I ran a boat, a eighteen horse canoe from Yakutat to Icy Bay: 

an eighteen foot canoe that we used for hunting” (GR).

126 Beyond the boundaries of Wrangell-St. Elias, Knight Island and the nearby mainland streams 

were also used as fishing locations:

“’There is good humpy ground up toward Knight Island, which is called 

Kwáashk’. It is from this place that the Kwáashk’ikwáan got their name, and it is 

claimed by these people. The Bureau of Fisheries now has a house there, and it is 

no longer used very much’ (Jack Ellis #35)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:47).

Similarly, another of Goldschmidt and Haas’s interviewees discussed the less frequent use of 

this area for fishing:
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 277

 

“[On the mainland just inside Knight Island there is a stream called Kwáashk’, 

which is the home of the Kwáashk’ikwáan.] ‘Our people used to have a claim up 

Disenchantment Bay at a humpy creek called Kwáashk’. I used to go there to 

smoke fish, but I have not been there for six years now because I can no longer 

get around. I used to fish there for the cannery. There were houses there a long 

time ago, when I was a young man’ (B.A. Jack #38)” (Goldschmidt and Haas 

1998:47).

127 In conjunction with fishing trips, Yakutat Tlingit also hunted during their trips to Point 

Manby and the surrounding area. According to Goldschmidt and Haas’s interviewee, Jack Ellis,

“Between Point Manby and Esker Creek is good for silver salmon and hutting 

seals. I think Harvey Milton went over there last year for fishing. We do not stay 

there but go there for the day. This used to be good trapping grounds, but whites 

have used poison and killed off all the animals. I think whites are going into that 

area to fish now” (quoted in Goldschmidt and Haas 1998:47).

128 There is some suggestion that this person might be Bill Wheatley.

129 Davis notes that neither was considered native to the area until recent generations:

“It is important to understand the extent of native wildlife ranges on suitable 

habitat on the [Yakutat] foreland. It is equally important to understand that the 

present-day common large mammalian species such as deer and moose, were not 

present or available to either prehistoric or early historic foreland occupants” 

(Davis 1997:45).

Deer first appeared in the region in 1934, when twelve individual Sitka black-tailed deer were 

introduced from the southern portion of the archipelago. These deer thrived on various islands, 

such as Knight Island, but did not reach high numbers on the Yakutat foreland area, likely as a 

result of environmental factors such as wolf predation and periods of heavy winter snows in 

winter browse areas nearby. From the 1940s to about the 1980s, the Yakutat people have hunted 

deer on the islands and eastern coastline of Yakutat Bay, opposite the Wrangell-St. Elias 

shoreline, but there was little reference to deer hunting within Wrangell-St. Elias in project 

interviews. George Ramos Sr. remembers seeing his first deer in Yakutat proper:

“I remember when they brought the first deer into Yakutat. The deer, and moose 

and some of the animals are not of the Yakutat area ... When they brought the 

first deer in, I was very small... the deer was walking right down the main street 

there, as it is now. And for some reason he took a disliking to a block of wood 

that was right below our house and he was charging that and hitting it. And so, 

the only car that was in Yakutat at that time belonged to the preacher, Ian 

Axleson. And he came down there and they lassoed the deer. And I remember 
278 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

him dragging it down the road trying to take it down toward the village behind a 

car” (GR).

Deer continued to inhabit the Yakutat area in large numbers until the early 1970s, when 

particularly harsh winters brought the deer population down dramatically (Davis 1997:45; 

Miller and Firman 1986:104, 168).

130 Expanding populations of moose in the interior region of Alaska pushed the animals toward 

the coast, over an expanse of mountains and into the Yakutat region in the 1960s.

131 Ray Sensmeier recalled the arrival of the very first moose in Yakutat proper:

“The first moose that they found in Yakutat, my uncle Jerry Nelson, they were 

[on] the railroad tracks went out to the fish camps and they were walking in, or 

walking out, and they saw this huge animal standing in the tracks so...they 

killed it and brought it to town. Lo and behold, it really tasted good. That one 

made it through the mountains from the interior and then the rest followed. So 

we had quite a population like in the sixties and seventies” (RS).

132 In addition to seagull eggs, Egg Island was also home cormorants and cormorant eggs:

“There used to be a crack along the—if you go about halfway up in there. And 

there’s a cave there. And the cave is called the [Yuk tukook], ‘The Cormorant 

Cave.’ And the cormorants used to lay their eggs, they built their nests and just 

slick inside of that cave. And I used to wonder what cormorant eggs looked like 

so I asked my uncle if I could go in and see if I can get one. So I finally got some 

cormorant eggs” (GR).

133 Skip Johnson resents the accusation by Fish and Game that the Tlingit people over-hunted 

the moose and are to blame for the current scarcity: 

“And then the worst part about it was, I heard from the Fish and Game that ‘the 

local people were the problem for the demise of the moose’...we went to get 

moose one year, the [annual] moose barbeque continued on for a while and then 

we went to get a moose permit to get an early moose. No. Can’t do it. ‘Well, how 

come?’ ‘We did a moose count and there’s not a moose for you to get a moose.’ 

One moose! They had let it go, Fish and Game had let it go to that point. 

Practically extinction” (SJ).

134 Ted Valle’s mother was born in Kaliakh but did not grow up in the area. He explains how, at 

that time, travel from Yakutat to Kaliakh was commonplace: 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 279

 

“My mother, the last time my mother went up to Kaliakh, my mother was born 

in Kaliakh, and the only time she was up there was when she was two years old. 

Yeah, they traveled back and forth in canoes, or walked, or both” (TV).

135 De Laguna reports on the locations of past Yakutat Tlingit settlements and where the people 

lived in the period of her research:

“The former settlements at Lituya Bay, at Dry Bay, on the rivers between Dry 

Bay and Yakutat, as well as those farther west at Icy Bay, at Cape Yakataga and 

Kaliakh River, at Controller Bay, and about the Copper River Delta, are now 

deserted. A few descendants of their former inhabitants may be found in 

Cordova, in Hoonah and Sitka, or in Juneau, but the greater number live today at 

Yakutat” (de Laguna 1972:17).

136 The enabling legislation included specific clauses pertaining to “grandfathered” uses of the 

landscape within Wrangell-St. Elias. Section 201(9) of ANILCA states,

“Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park, containing approximately eight million one 

hundred and forty-seven thousand acres of public lands, and Wrangell-Saint 

Elias National Preserve containing approximately four million one hundred and 

seventeen thousand acres of public lands, as generally depicted on map 

numbered WRST-90,007, and dated August 1980. The park and preserve shall be 

managed for the following purposes, among others: To maintain unimpaired the 

scenic beauty and quality of high mountain peaks, foothills, glacial systems, 

lakes, and streams, valleys, and coastal landscapes in their natural state; to 

protect habitat for, and populations of, fish and wildlife including but not limited 

to caribou, brown/grizzly bears, Dall sheep, moose, wolves, trumpeter swans 

and other waterfowl, and marine mammals; and to provide continued 

opportunities including reasonable access for mountain climbing, 

mountaineering, and other wilderness recreational activities. Subsistence uses by 

local residents shall be permitted in the park, where such uses are traditional, in 

accordance with the provisions of title VIII” (94 Stat. 2376).

Section 204 of ANILCA also recognized and agreed to honor valid Native Corporation sections 

within what was Wrangell-St. Elias. 

On the matter of access and transportation methods, Section 205 specifies, 

“With respect to...the Malaspina Glacier Forelands area of Wrangell-Saint Elias 

National Preserve and the Dry Bay area of Glacier Bay National Preserve, the 

Secretary may take no action to restrict unreasonably the exercise of valid 

commercial fishing rights or privileges obtained pursuant to existing law, 

including the use of public lands for campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and 
280 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

aircraft landings on existing airstrips, directly incident to the exercise of such 

rights or privileges, except that this prohibition shall not apply to activities which 

the Secretary, after conducting a public hearing in the affected locality, finds 

constitute a significant expansion of the use of park lands beyond the level of 

such use during 1979.”

137 Sam Demmert recalls that he was unable to attend any of the meetings held to discuss issues 

surrounding Alaska Native access at this time. He hints that perhaps the timing of these 

meetings may have been intentionally scheduled to exclude anyone who participated in the 

fishing season: 

“I don’t recall participating in any meetings by Park Service itself you know, just 

secondhand information that—you only have a certain amount of time to 

comment. That certain amount of time was when we were fishing” (SD).

138 For example, trapping cabins have been increasingly utilized by non-Native trappers on 

Yakutat Bay:

“You’re allowed to have trap lines and things like that, but some of the ones, the 

non-Natives that participate in that activity are very well off and so they were 

able to build cabins and use snowmachines and things like that” (RS).

Interviewees also sometimes report that they want to rebuild or repair old cabins, but are 

reluctant to engage what they describe as the “hassle” and regulation of working with the NPS, 

or express confusion regarding the permitting process: 

“Those people that had permanent cabins were somehow grandfathered in but 

they had to meet restrictions on height. Well, you know very few people build a 

cabin they can raise and lower. And some people did, but not the locals. And 

then it even came to the point where you couldn’t even put up a tent frame 

anymore” (SD).

139 Gathering seagull eggs has not been restricted thus far, but both Victoria Demmert and Ted 

Valle anticipate future restrictions on federal lands: 

“But now there’s gates being put up as to, ‘You can’t go here, or you can only do 

this.’ We felt really bad for the Huna people because they were being restricted 

in gathering eggs when we could gather eggs up here because it was—Forest 

Service and it isn’t like they said, ‘Oh yeah, go ahead and do it.’ They just didn’t 

say anything” (VD).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 281

 140 As the City and Borough of Yakutat reports,

“Disenchantment Bay and Russell Fiord are important harbor seal habitat, are 

home to the southern most Beluga whale concentration in the Alaska, and to 

feeding concentrations of kittlitz murrelets. Disenchantment Bay is extensively 

used by residents for subsistence activities” (CBY 2006:143).

141 Halibut, for example, were said to be suffering as a result of targeting by sport fishermen 

who tend to catch the largest fish that are the most prolific spawners in Yakutat Bay: 

“there are fewer and fewer halibut because of the charter boats, and there’s quite 

a few of them, they take the biggest halibut and those are the spawners” (RS).

142 For example, Skip Johnson tells of a helicopter pilot who amused himself and his passengers 

by knocking mountain goats off the mountainside: 

“Yeah, they were up there with helicopters and they used to bump them off. I 

talked to a helicopter pilot one time that was up there and he said, ‘Oh yeah, we 

had a lot of fun the day we bumped off twenty mountain goats off the 

mountain,’ you know. Those big probes on the front? And he said they’d just 

come down and ‘Bump!’ And he said, ‘It was funny. You could watch them 

tumble all the way down the mountain’” (SJ).

143 A detailed overview of Tlingit perceptions of cruise ship effects has recently been completed, 

referencing Huna homelands in Glacier Bay proper (Deur and Thornton 2015). The findings of 

that study are likely to be of relevance in discussing past, present and future issues surrounding 

possible cruise ship effects in Yakutat and Disenchantment Bays. 

144 As Davis notes,

“Seasonal rounds today revolve around the timing of the salmon runs on the 

foreland. In the past, salmon may not have been so critical, as other resources 

may have played a more important or equal role with salmon, such as the year 

round availability of halibut, other fish, and the heavy reliance on marine 

mammals such as seals. Present-day harvest controls (mostly on salmon and 

halibut) imposed by government agencies sometimes correspond to regular 

native resource collection, but just as often they conflict to some degree with the 

natural cycle of the seasonal rounds once enjoyed by the foreland inhabitants” 

(Davis 1997:138).

145 There are many examples to be found in Yakutat of these environmental cues being used to 

determine the condition of resources remotely. The arrival of eulachon and salmon in Monti 
282 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Bay, for example, continues to be a source of considerable discussion in Yakutat today, not only 

because of the potential harvests at Monti Bay, but also because of what it portends for other 

areas in the Yakutat territory. Other authors have noted this too. Davis, for example, notes that

“Clan members monitored a variety of environmental indicators that aided in 

predicting when and where a resource could be found. For example, today, the 

arrival of eulachon to Monti Bay announces that the king salmon will soon 

follow. The inhabitants presently know that once the king salmon are in Monti 

Bay, one or two weeks later the fish will be available in rivers as far away as Dry 

Bay” (Davis 1997:137).

146 Again, according to Davis:

“The most productive seal hunts took place during the spring months of April 

and May (a practice that continues today). Spring weather is better and adult 

seals and their pups were/are concentrated on the floating ice near the calving 

terminus of glaciers” (Davis 1997:143-144).

147 Yakutat residents also report watching seals feed on salmon at Point Manby, which draws 

orcas that prey on the gathered seals. 

148 In 2002, the seal population at Disenchantment Bay fell under closer scrutiny by the Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe (YTT) and the Northwest Cruise Ship Association (NWCA). Many local Yakutat 

community members had observed a decline in harbor seal within the bay. One interviewee, 

Ray Sensmeier, describes the large seal population in Disenchantment Bay and relates that some 

hunters have the impression that populations have decreased because these seals are moving 

into Icy Bay: 

“And in Disenchantment Bay there’s fifteen hundred seals so...a lot of the 

hunters think they’re you know, moving into Icy Bay. And one thing I didn’t 

know, I learned from a scientist, is that when a seal’s born, wherever it’s born 

that’s where it returns to like a fish” (RS).

Together, the YTT and NWCA funded a study by the National Mammal Laboratory 

(NMFS) to determine if there was a correlation between cruise ship traffic and seal 

population distribution in Disenchantment and Icy Bays: 

“The YTT and the Northwest Cruise Ship Association (NWCA) agreed that they 

had a strong mutual interest in having more scientific information about the 

potential impact of vessels on harbor seals in the Bay. The NWCA provided 

partial funding for a three year study, which was begun in 2002 by the NMFS 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory. The focus of the study is to document and 

evaluate the interactions, if any, between cruise ships that regularly visit 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 283

 

Disenchantment Bay and the harbor seals hauled out on floating ice—

particularly female seals birthing and rearing pups. The study will also provide 

information on the distribution and abundance of harbor seals in 

Disenchantment Bay and the region (Disenchantment and Icy Bays), and will 

present a log of all cruise ships’ traffic routes during their visits to the bay” (CBY 

2006:143).

Interviewees report that investigations continue, but that studies have suggested vessel impacts 

on seal populations are currently minor along the Wrangell-St. Elias coast; some interviewees 

take issue with these findings. 

149 In the late 19th century, traders in search of sea otter in these areas would outfit local Yakutat 

residents with boats, guns and ammunition and pay them to hunt to supply the commercial 

industry. These hunting practices continued until federal legislation designated the sea otter as 

a protected species in 1911 (de Laguna 1972).

150 As noted by the City and Borough of Yakutat,

“There are small populations of sea otters in Yakutat Bay, Icy Bay and around 

Cape Suckling. The Khantaak Islands and the surrounding waters contain 

established populations and concentration areas of sea otters. They were 

reintroduced by transplant in 1966 after having been wiped out by intensive 

hunting pressure in the early part of this century. The coast and offshore area 

between Cape Fairweather and Cape Suckling also provides sea otter habitat” 

(CBY 2006:56).

151 These observations appear to be consistent with studies of mountain goat breeding success in 

other settings. As noted by Mills and Firman, 

“Vehicle traffic and noise have been documented as being disrupting to goat 

behavior and potentially interfering with reproductive behavior by separating 

nannies and kids and increasing susceptibility to predation, in studies in the 

Rocky Mountains” (Miller and Firman 1986:169).

152 In 1975, a bag limit was enforced regarding hunting mountain goats, and this greatly 

impacted Yakutat Tlingit hunters’ ability and willingness to hunt for the goats in their 

traditional hunting areas:

“When logging began in the Icy Bay area in the late 1960s and early 1970s, camps 

were established and roads were built near the areas where hunting had taken 

place by Yakutat residents. Key respondents reported that they stopped hunting 

in the area because of the increased activity and number of people, and the 

destruction of their hunting camps. Roads were constructed and timber was 
284 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

removed up the sides of the mountains creating easier access to land based 

motor vehicles to the cliffs where goats were hunted. Because of the increased 

pressure on goat populations by the newly established logging camps and the 

increased access, the bag limit was lowered from two to one goat per hunter by 

the Alaska Department of Fish and Game” (Miller and Firman 1986:169-170).

153 Referring to areas outside of Wrangell-St. Elias, Eli Hanson explains these changes: 

“If you look at the moose population, we’re allowed only so many on this side of 

the Dangerous River, we’re down to the twenty five now...When I first came 

here we were allowed fifty moose period, on Yakutat...You didn’t have to be a 

bull or it you could take a cow at the time. That was the early sixties” (EH).

154 Of Dry Bay, Thornton writes: “Today, the area supports a healthy commercial salmon 

fishery, though permits are limited and access to the fishery has been tightly controlled by the 

state” (Thornton 2007:7). 

155 Plant gathering of devil’s club, red cedar, strawberries, mushroom and hemlock continues to 

be a common practice among the Yakutat Tlingit. As a child, Yvonne Baker learned to identify 

the many wild plants around her under the tutelage of her parents, but it wasn’t until she 

became an adult that she came to understand their medicinal applications: 

“So, but I think if I look back, my mom really fostered a lot of that as a child. 

Just, I grew up with the wild plants. You have plants in the house everywhere. 

And she would talk just about the importance of plants and my dad who is wellknown for making medicines would take me with him and explain to the 

importance of certain plants. But it wasn’t until I was an adult that he actually 

started really showing me how to use these plants. I’ve been taught you know, 

since I was little, ‘this is this, and this is what it’s used for, and this is what it can 

do.’ But to actually start doing that, it wasn’t until I came back from the military 

that my dad started showing me” (YB).

Devil’s club is particularly pungent but Yvonne relishes the fragrance: 

“[I] suppose if you didn’t, aren’t growing up around it, it might not [smell very 

good] because one of my nephews does not like the smell of it...But my boys, 

when my dad starts making that on the stove and they get a little stepstool and 

they’re standing over it and they’re like...breathing in the steam, and they’re 

like, ‘Oh, that smells so good!’” (YB).

Yvonne Baker and her father gather devil’s club along the road system. Gathering is done 

systematically and with respect for the plant and its continued well-being: 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 285

 

“[Yvonne and her father] never [gathered] in the same place. And my dad and I 

are always on the lookout for good spots for nice older plants that you can take 

some of but that you know is going to be there since it’s a really great old plant. 

Might take a shoot, but that we come back to and so there are places all over that 

we can go...So then you know in a few years we can come back and maybe take 

another offshoot, but once we take from one place we don’t visit it for a 

while...Growing up with, wanting a respect for plants...They’re alive and living 

as well and taking them, there’s a certain amount of respect that you have to give 

for taking that” (YB).

Sam Demmert uses the bark of the devil’s club to create powerful medicine and describes the 

technique used to ensure continued plant health: 

“Yeah, the older [devil’s club] you get, the older ones are a lot better than 

...[others]. The think about the older ones, you never want to kill them either. 

You know, you just take the parts off that you need and let them continue 

growing” (SD).

Demmert comments on the gathering and use of other medicinal plants in addition to devil’s 

club: 

“But there was a berry called the crowberry and we use that for cancer along 

with the cedar and devil’s club ...There was another swamp tree I don’t know 

what it’s called. It looks like a hemlock. The needles are in clusters instead of 

flat [yew?]. And their bark is really rough. It’s not smooth. It was always black, 

black markings. They only grow in certain places in the swamp. Lower 

southeast they grow huge. The ones I’ve been able to find up here are just kind 

of sticks. But those are things we use for medicine” (SD).

Red cedar was also mentioned as a plant with significant medicinal properties: 

“One of the things I didn’t mention was medicine we had there. They’re not in 

the parks as much but we used these lands for gathering medicine, devil’s club. 

The only thing we don’t have up here is red cedar and I haven’t been able to find 

it. Someone said there was a patch in Icy Bay” (SD).

Mary Ann Porter describes a plant that would assist Tlingit runners with their stamina during 

their trips between villages:

“There’s a plant that actually, when you take it, the runners would take it when 

they were running. They were running messages to the rivers. They would take 
286 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

this plant and take it while they were running to help their heart. It helped their 

heart” (MP).

Unfortunately, very few people have received much knowledge regarding the gathering and 

preparation of wild plants for medicinal or for subsistence purposes. Yvonne Baker has taught 

a foraging class during which students were taught how to gather and prepare wild foods: 

“Yeah, just recently we did a foraging class, a year ago. And so I was just telling 

my kids that the ‘wild rice,’ that lily [Fritillaria spp.] are starting to come out and I 

was shocked at this stage of growth that they’re already amazing. This spring has 

been unreal...I was able to show them, ‘This is wild rice,’ and they were really 

excited about it. Taking them around the beach, enjoying the beach greens and 

those kinds of things are just really fun for them...That was one thing that we 

really noted over the three day...class that we were gathering during all three 

days. And on the last day we put all of these together to make you know a nice 

meal. We each did a dish. And we thought, ‘This is three days to make one dish 

and a lot of work in between.’ It gives you even more respect for those people 

that came before and their ability to preserve” (YB).

Yvonne Baker expressed interest in teaching wild plant cultivation and care, saying, “I talked to 

someone who worked at the University about some natural gardens and—to teach people how 

to do sort of enhance their certain areas that—just what grows here naturally” (YB).

Mushrooms continue to be harvested by Yakutat Tlingit, though prime gathering spots are 

somewhat guarded. Mary Ann Porter, who is privy to these locations, made these comments 

regarding the knowledge transferred regarding locations for mushroom picking: 

“I heard the comments, but not real statements to me. Just comments when they 

were talking. So most of the time I think when you’re talking, an elder will want 

you to know something but wants you just mind your own business, but still 

want you to know something, they will tell somebody. You will hear that and 

then you’d know that it’s something that you don’t perpetuate” (MP).

As with many traditional resource-harvesting practices, mushroom gathering requires tutelage 

from ecological stewards in the Yakutat Tlingit community. Yvonne Baker describes her 

experience taking her children to gather mushrooms: 

“I took them out last year showing them different mushrooms...It’s wild. And I 

thought it was really cool that last year they were so interested and this year I 

can focus a little more on when is the right time and those kinds of things while 

they’re still interested” (YB).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 287

 

In addition to the variety of plants discussed above, some interviewees also reported 

consumption of the cambium layer of Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla): “We eat hemlock. 

That’s where we got our sweets from. It was just like candy” (SD).

156 As Mills and Firman note,

“Much of the gathering continues to take place along the water front near the 

community, where it has for generations. A few older residents expressed 

concern that some of the old berry patches which had been traditionally have 

been replaced by development” (Miller and Firman 1986:122).

157 Similarly, as Davis reports, “Coffee cans and plastic containers have replaced grass and 

spruce root baskets for collecting berries and glass containers have replaced the bentwood box 

for storage” (Davis 1997:134, 154).

158 There was a consistent concern among the hunters interviewed, that the moose population is 

being mismanaged by the ADF&G. Skip Johnson critiques Fish and Game’s management 

technique related to the moose hunting regulations: 

“The thing that happens with the moose, the system is regulated to develop 

inferior animals. And the reason is, I studied Boone and Crocket before I got my 

guide license. I was a guide back in the 60s, registered guide in Alaska, and I got 

my guide license. And one of the things we studied pretty extensively is Boone 

and Crockett. And the realization that the taking of the biggest, the primest, the 

best animals that there are, is the detriment to the survival of the species, totally. 

Any time you take out at the Fish and Game, ‘Well you got to take the—you got 

to have a certain size of racks.’ Yeah, those are the guys that are really, really neat 

to continue the race, continue the moose herd. So now you get the little runt 

animals, the only ones that are left and so they’re the ones that are keeping the 

herds going. So you’re getting an inferior grade of species not only in moose but 

bear, well everything that they’re hunting. They’re taking out prime stock. Prime 

stock” (SJ).

Eli Hanlon also finds the targeting of healthy, large males in the moose population to be 

problematic: 

“But now what the management is doing is they’re allowing only bulls to be 

taken and that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I’m not a game biologist, 

but it’s just something that doesn’t set well. You’re only taking the male [of the] 

species. When you’re hunting you consider your population of any species by 

doing away with the males” (EH).
288 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

Bert Adams Sr. provides a detailed account regarding the formula utilized by Fish and Game 

and the release of moose hunting permits south of Yakutat. He also suggests that a possible 

solution to the current problem could be to open up a new area for hunters: 

“There’s a lot of moose in Yakutat. And we have the district you know divided 

into two parcels and [?] on this side of Dangerous River to Dry Bay. And this 

way to the East River back toward Dangerous River. All of the hunting is 

concentrated on this side. And Fish and Game and you know Forest Service are 

concerned about the cow/bull ratio. And over the years you know they’d knock 

it down from thirty to twenty five on this side of the river, but they keep it the 

same on the other side. The bull/cow ratio had been, to have a healthy 

population you have to have twenty five bulls to every hundred cows. And this 

has been down to eleven, twelve, way low in the past two years and that’s the 

reason why they limited the take to twenty five on this side. But on the other side 

and that’s you know a lot of moose out there. And all in all, on both sides, there’s 

a healthy moose population but if the Dry Bay area can be opened up for easy 

access, then a lot of that pressure would be taken off in here and people would be 

going down to hunt in Dry Bay” (BA).

159 Yvonne Baker remembers the care her mother took to maintain the berry bushes near their 

home in recent years, which she describes as a manifestation of this much deeper Yakutat 

Tlingit ethic:

“We have berry bushes in our backyard and my mom would really worry about 

them when we had like a drought or something, she’d get a sprinkler and stick 

in the berry bushes and turn it on to make sure they got their water” (YB).

160 A tribe, as defined by the Bureau of Indian Affairs:

“is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as 

having a government-to-government relationship with the United States. ... 

Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain 

inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to 

receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special 

relationship with the United States. At present, there are 566 federally 

recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages (BIA 2015).

161 The establishment of the ANB laid the groundwork for the creation of a number of new 

Alaskan Native political organizations—from village to state level—that sprang up in the 

decades to follow, including the Yak-Tat Kwaan. Many Yakutat Tlingit credit the ANB with 

“helping pull the tribe together” in the early years, as they began to seek federal status. At 

around the time of federal recognition, the community formed the Yakutat Native Association, 

a non-profit organization that sought to promote tribal self-governance, and has continued into 

recent times. Collaborating with other entities, the group helped create a “Yakutat Action Plan” 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 289

 

that led to a number of community improvements, including the construction of a new dock 

and the renovation of the ANB Hall. Self-governance remains a high priority for many tribal 

members today. See, e.g., Thornton (2002) for a review of this history.

162 Both the Tlingit and Eyak not only share an intermingled past, they now face similar 

economic and socio-cultural challenges as Alaskan Natives in rural settings, and sometimes 

have worked together to better address these issues. Today, the independent Eyak are 

represented by the federally recognized Native Village of Eyak (NVE) located in the city of 

Cordova. In part as an outgrowth of ANCSA, the Native Village of Eyak Traditional Council 

gained federal recognition in 1971 (Hund 2014:274). 

When ANCSA was originally enacted by Congress, it authorized the formation of a number of 

village level corporations, but did not include a village corporation for the Native Village of 

Eyak in Cordova. Instead, it was due to the petitioning of Cecil Barnes, a Chugach leader, that 

the Eyak Corporation was approved for incorporation in July of 1973. The Eyak Corporation is 

one of five village corporations within the Chugach region, and when it was formed, it 

represented 326 shareholders who identified primarily as being of Aleut heritage, but possessed 

clear ties to Yakutat Tlingit (Eyak Corporation n.d.). In addition to federally recognizing Alaska 

Native corporations on a local level, ANCSA also authorized the formation of twelve regional 

corporations in the State of Alaska, including the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC); 

incorporated on June 23, 1972, the CAC included the Eyak community in Cordova as 

shareholders, along with the communities of Seward, Valdez, Whittier, Port Graham, Chenega 

Bay, Nanwalek (English Bay) and Tatitlek (CAC n.d.b.; Eyak Corporation n.d.).

Today, the Native Village of Eyak is still located within Cordova’s city limits. In 1972, Cordova 

had annexed the village of Eyak, expanding the city limits and population. Cordova again 

expanded in 1993 when the city annexed an additional 68.23 square miles (CCC n.d.). 

According to the 2010 census, Cordova had a population of 2,239 individuals, with 70.25% 

identifying as white, 10.9% of the population identified themselves as Asian, 8.84% of the 

population identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native and 8.98% identified as 

two or more races (US Census Bureau n.d.). 

The City of Cordova is nestled into Orca Inlet, within the southeastern portion of the Prince 

William Sound. Situated 52 air miles southeast of Valdez and 150 miles southeast of 

Anchorage, Cordova is accessible only by airplane or boat. The city is linked to Whittier, 

Valdez, Tatitlek and Chenega through a ferry service operated by the Alaska Marine Highway 

System. There is also year-round barge service to Cordova, connecting the city to the North 

Pacific Ocean shipping lanes via the Gulf of Alaska. The city itself is comprised of 61.4 square 

miles of land and 14.3 square miles of sheltered waters. Cordova has a temperate rain forest 

climate, characterized by an average annual precipitation of 167 inches and an average annual 

snowfall of 80 inches. The average temperature in wintertime is 20 degrees Fahrenheit and 55 

degrees Fahrenheit in the summer (City of Cordova n.d.).

Today, fishing and fish processing are central to Cordova’s economy. Cordova supports a large 

fishing fleet for Prince William Sound, as well as several fish processing plants. Copper River 

red salmon, pink salmon, herring, halibut and a number of other species of fish are harvested at 
290 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

facilities in and around the city. In 2011, almost 400 residents of the community held 

commercial fishing permits. Additionally, almost half of all households have at least one 

individual working within the fishing industry. The largest employers in the city are Trident 

Seafoods, Inc., Cordova School District, Cordova Community Medical Center, the City and the 

Alaska Department of Transportation (City of Cordova n.d.). 

Both commercial and subsistence fishing continue to play a prominent role in the NVE 

members’ cultural traditions and economy (CRKS 2011; Chugachmiut n.d.). Nearby streams 

and marine waters contain sockeye, coho and Chinook salmon, as well as rainbow trout, 

cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char, halibut, rockfish and lingcod. Shrimp, razor clams and a 

diverse array of hardshell clams are also widely available in the surrounding waters, facilitating 

a rich mixed subsistence economy (ADF&G 2006:3).

Due to the importance traditional lands and their resources have to Eyak cultural identity, 

stewardship of the lands figures significantly into contemporary NVE governance. As part of 

the NVE Traditional Council tribal government, the NVE Department of Environmental and 

Natural Resources (DENR) acts to preserve Eyak traditional lands and culture, as well as 

administer the tribe’s resources and protect their lands against environmental degradation. As 

the NVE asserts on their website today, “the people of Eyak have been stewards of this land for 

over 7,000 years and DENR seeks to continue that tradition” (NVE n.d.). The DENR has 

collaborated with various government and non-governmental entities in resource management 

efforts, such as the Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program run by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Office of Subsistence Management. According to the NVE’s website, 

“Since 2001, DENR has expanded greatly and is now pioneering a modern era of 

research and collaborative management combining western science and 

traditional knowledge. As active stewards of the land and water, NVE has built 

strong ties with governmental agencies, becoming an integral part of the region’s 

environmental and resource management policy making” (NVE n.d.).

In addition to their work in the environmental realm, the NVE also helps to sustain the cultural 

identity of its members through a variety of cultural programs. There is a certain urgency to 

these efforts, informal interviewees note, underscored by the 2008 death of Marie Smith Jones, 

the last native speaker of Eyak (State of Alaska n.d.). Cultural programs, especially the Ilanka 

Cultural Center work to preserve Alaska Native culture of the Cordova region. The Ilanka 

Cultural Center opened in Cordova in 2004. The Center maintains a collection of cultural 

materials ranging from “prehistoric” to contemporary and presents materials in exhibitions 

open to the public. The tribe also runs a youth cultural camp called Miqwanwasaq (little camp), 

which operates from mid-June through mid-August and offers tribal youth an opportunity to 

connect to their culture, especially through outdoor and craft activities emanating from Eyak 

traditions (NVE n.d.). 

Like the YTT, the NVE faces certain economic and socio-political challenges. Both areas are 

inaccessible by roads and yet support a seasonal influx of tourists seeking fishing, hunting and 

other outdoor adventures. As federally recognized tribes, the NVE and YTT have cultivated 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 291

 

opportunities to partner with federal agencies and programs to address environmental and 

cultural issues. 

163 Hazardous contamination consisting of asbestos has been identified at both the Yakutat 

Army Air Base and across the Ankau Saltchucks, the complex estuary that occupies the 

peninsula just west of Yakutat proper. In 1980, the Department of Defense instituted the 

Environmental Restoration Program which was implemented in 1984: 

“To remedy the problems in Alaska, the Eleventh Air Force created an 

environmental organization focused exclusively on overseeing the removal of 

debris and hazardous waste and restoring the lands back to their natural 

condition. Steps were taken to consult with local Alaska Native villages and a 

system of local environmental restoration advisory boards was established. At 

the same time, the Air Force took steps to insure that local labor and expertise be 

used to the maximum extent in the cleanup and restoration effort” (Cloe 

2003:12).

These decontamination efforts began in earnest in the 1990s and have been a long term process 

that continues today. Remediation efforts have been concentrated at the Ankau Saltchucks, a 

region used by members of the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe as a subsistence area where the Yakutat 

Culture Camp was once held. 

“The Culture Camp began in 1985 and closed in 2003 due to extremely high 

levels of dioxin in the soil, water, and seafood. The dioxin contaminates were left 

from abandoned military and dump sites from the 1940’s to 1970’s scattered 

throughout the peninsula” (James 2012:3).

The Yakutat Tlingit Tribe and the Department of Defense are working together in this immense 

undertaking: monitoring, testing and disposing of contaminants from the region. The efforts 

continue today.

164 According to the Yakutat Coastal Management Plan of 2006, “being supportive of YTT and 

Yak-Tat Kwaan efforts to preserve not only culturally important sites, but language as well, 

could help promote tourism while also protecting cultural resources” (CBY 2006:87). 

165 In 2010, these partners formally proposed the construction of a multi-purpose building with 

a visitor center and museum proposed:

“The City and Borough of Yakutat, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, US Forest Service and 

others are teaming-up to try to obtain funding for a new multi-purpose building 

in Yakutat to house some new public offices and a Senior Center, Youth Center 

and/or Visitor Center/Museum” (CBY 2010: A-5).
292 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

As of 2011, funding for the Senior Center has been approved, but the use of the same building 

as a museum and visitor center was determined to be incompatible (CCED: 2011). Many 

Yakutat residents, Native and non-Native continue to seek such a multipurpose facility. 

166 Timber harvesting by the Yak-Tat Kwaan began in earnest in 1981 when a massive storm 

felled numerous trees on land managed by the YTK. As a result, YTK entered into a five year 

management agreement with Koncor Forest Products, Inc., a consortium of northern Gulf Coast 

Native corporations (Yak-Tat Kwaan, Chenega, Natives of Kodiak and Ouzinkie), to oversee the 

harvest of 47 million board feet of timber on YTK land (CBY 2006:83; CBY 2010:20 Knapp 1992). 

A timber mill was constructed at Sawmill Cove in Yakutat in 1984 but operated sporadically for 

only a year before shutting down (CBY 2010). Currently, timber harvesting has come to a halt 

due to community concerns regarding the environmental impacts and sustainability of the 

practice but may be revisited in the future. 

“Current market conditions will likely keep commercial timber harvest activity 

low. However, the installation of a biomass electrical generation plant...in 

Yakutat could change this, with fuel for the plant coming from either waste 

wood or a planted crop. Local land owners with substantial holdings, such as the 

Yak-Tat Kwaan, could benefit from this” (CBY 2010:46).

167 In 2010, Yak-Tat Kwaan joined with Haa Aani, LLC (HAL) in these efforts and formed three 

new oyster farms in the Yakutat Region. According to information provided by HAL:

“HAL is actively collaborating with these agencies and organizations in an effort 

to facilitate expansion of the emerging mariculture industry, leading to increased 

jobs and economic growth. While the mariculture in Alaska is still in its infancy, 

we are contributing to its rapid growth with enterprises that include ... A 

partnership with Yak-Tat Kwaan, Inc. to form three new oyster farms in the 

Yakutat region. The farms now have more than 1 million seed in production and 

employ six tribal member shareholders” (HAL n.d.).

168 Yak-Tat Kwaan has also partnered with Haa Aani LLC (HAL) in a rock harvesting venture. 

Along the shores of Yakutat Bay are glacial deposits of unconsolidated sand, gravel silt and clay 

that are being excavated for use in construction projects (roads, airport runways, harbors and 

ports) in the region. This enterprise is unique in that Yak-Tat Kwaan owns the surface rights in 

Yakutat Bay and HAL, with its links to Sealaska Corporation, has access to the subsurface rights 

(CBY 2010). HAL states that

“We are provided direct access to Sealaska’s 560,000 acres of subsurface estate 

endowed with large deposits of construction-grade aggregate. While ACA does 

not engage directly in the development of Sealaska’s subsurface estate, we 

pursue and manage strategic partnerships for the development of these resources 

in order to serve projects in Southeast Alaska communities. ... An example of 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 293

 

this is our development of a successful gravel aggregate business in partnership 

with ANCSA village corporation Yak-Tat Kwaan by brokering a unique 

partnership where the land assets of both the regional corporation and the 

village corporation are used to bring sand, rock and gravel to market” (HAL 

n.d.).

169 As various documents note, Yak-Tat-Kwaan is one of several land management entities that 

must manage lands in a way that respects Tlingit hunting, gathering and fishing interests:

“Subsistence is currently regulated by both the federal and state governments; a 

great deal of subsistence hunting and fishing also takes place under sport 

hunting and fishing regulations, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

manages sport hunting on all lands. In addition, land managers like the Yak-Tat 

Kwaan also have a say in the types of activity that take place on their lands” 

(CBY 2010:11).

170 In a letter to the shareholders entitled “SUSTAINABILITY = DIVERSIFICATION = 

RESILIENCE,” Yak-Tat Kwaan President and CEO, Casey Havens, outlined the corporation’s 

vision:

“Yakutat has a long social, cultural, and economic history, characterized by a 

dependence on its natural resources which currently provide us with quality of 

life amenities, tourism, recreation, our customary and traditional subsistence 

along with salmon and other fisheries resources. Our future is brightening; it 

holds Biomass electric energy, heat and refrigeration, silvicultural resources 

including commercial energy crops, personal use timber, pellets and firewood. 

We are also looking to possible expanded success through value added ventures 

and retail. 

“I believe for the continuation of our quality of life, we must permanently 

develop and implement immediate and long-term, cultural, social, economic, 

and environmental programs, specifically designed toward SUSTAINABILITY. 

Sustainability success is directly dependent on the wise management of our 

corporation, plus sensible administration of our physical and natural resources. 

“I believe it is Yak tat [sic] Kwaan’s role and responsibility to provide 

leadership and support to diversify the economy in our community by 

providing jobs around renewable energy, forest restoration / energy crops, 

tourism, subsistence, alternative fisheries and Mariculture. We must promote 

small business creation, expansion and retention; improve access to capital; 

create quality jobs and sustainable economic growth; and assist in the 

development of an in depth, comprehensive infrastructure through promoting 

job training and educational opportunities” (Havens 2010).
294 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 171 In 2007, the two major companies associated with the airport, Alaskan Airport Properties and 

Alaska Airlines together employed 23 people, nearly as many as the federal government (CBY 

2010: 32).

172 For example, Yakutat Wild has developed partnerships with Alaska Airlines, while Yakutat 

Seafoods employs one air carrier based out of Yakutat Airport to transport fish. They also fly 

fish from the Tsiu River during the coho fishing season using DC-3 aircraft (CBY 2006:124).

“Coho salmon from the Tsiu have a reputation for quality including their 

excellent roe byproduct. Fish are transported by airplane to market; Yakutat 

Seafoods (YS) out of Yakutat is currently the sole commercial buyer. YS flies DC3s two-four times/day during the season, weather permitting, to a small buying 

station near the Tsiu River lagoon to transport these set gillnet caught fish to 

Yakutat” (CBY 2009:10).

173 “The Boy Who Raced the Seagull” and “The Boy Who Fell into the Ice” are two oral 

traditions that were mentioned in this context: 

“He was one that raced the seagull. ...And I think that’s...good for us because 

we’ve maintained that because with the name, the person’s own name is always 

a place like this boy fell into the ice” (EA).

174 Skip Johnson recalls his father speaking of the origins of the name for a place called, “The 

Place Where the Dog’s Can’t Get By”—a place along the east shore of Yakutat Bay sometimes 

visited while en route to hunting in Icy Bay and Disenchantment Bay:

“I didn’t realize it and I never even thought about—he never told me, ‘I’m going 

to take you up and teach you all these names.’ He would just point it out and say 

[the name....like a Tlingit name] that means ‘The Place Where the Dogs Can’t Get 

By.’ Because the dogs a long time ago when the seal would go up to the ice, the 

dogs didn’t ride in the canoes you know, they ran the beach. And when you got 

to Chicago Harbor there was one place there right where this little stream came 

down, and this rock, and there’s no beach...and they have to run up the side of 

the mountain and go over the top” (SJ).

175 Yvonne Baker discusses how her own ideas and identity were influenced by hearing about 

how grandparents would spend a month in the spring near Hubbard Glacier:

“When I was little my dad would take us on boat rides and we’d get to go up to 

the glacier and mom would say, ‘This is where your grandpa used to come.’ And 

so, yeah. They used to go camping up there but... They would spend like a 

month in the spring, but that was before I came along. ...[My parents would tell 

me that] they’d be up there for about a month at a time. I never asked them what 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 295

 

they were specifically there for. I just got to hear of the good times they had” 

(YB).

Baker notes that she did not realize how connected she was to her homeland until she spent 

four years away from it while serving in the military: 

“So I was stationed in Yuma, Arizona and that was horrible because I couldn’t 

[be home]. And I would drive to San Diego every weekend just because I needed 

to be near the water. And when I finally got to come home, I didn’t realize how 

much I missed it. I didn’t realize there was sort of this part of me that was always 

longing to be home and it never felt right until I was back home again, and I 

knew I was going to be home. And I think, you know, it has a lot to do with just 

that the land here is so deeply seated inside of me” (YB).

The homeland that Baker discusses is not limited to the city of Yakutat and the lands around it, 

but it expands into the portions of Wrangell-St. Elias that are part of the Yakutat Tlingit’s 

traditional territory. Though these lands are now protected as national park lands, the 

connection that Yakutat Tlingit interviewees feel to these lands is said to have not diminished.

176 On this point, she elaborates:

“And so our people from then on after taking care of their babies they had 

nobody to take care of their babies because they lived in different houses. And so 

they weren’t taught, ‘This is the way you take care of your children,’ and by 

babysitters so you can work and put up food and stuff. All that changed, but 

nobody was teaching their own people, you know how to wash your clothes, 

how to cook and how to hunt, or work for money. So a lot of them were poor and 

they were still poor enough to Icy Bay to get the seal and out to sea in different 

places to get fish to eat and stuff. And so it was kind of hard I think all over 

Alaska because our people couldn’t speak their language” (LF). 

177 Bert Adams Sr. is one of the remaining storytellers in the Yakutat region, a responsibility that 

he carries forward in diverse venues from government meetings to public presentations to 

published books: 

“You know you’re having a lot of these meetings here these past few years and 

talking about history and culture and all that and so [a Gunaxoo elder by the 

name Tekwahti?] would be there and I would ask a question, ‘Could you tell the 

story.’ And she said, ‘No.’ And she wouldn’t say why then, but when I got home 

she took me to task. She said, ‘Women didn’t tell the stories.’ It was always the 

men that told the stories. And I said well, ‘You’re going to have to teach me.’ So 

she did her best to help me understand but there was a lot of stories. I wish I 
296 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

could say them in Tlingit you know. So now, you know, [chuckles] I’m the story 

teller” (BA).

178 Skip Johnson describes a unique scenario where he approached NPS requesting help to 

preserve a sunken ship at Schooner Beach or “the Schooner Strip,” which was said to be in 

danger of being taken over by the shifting beaches of the Manby Stream, within Wrangell-St. 

Elias. He was said to have met with resistance: 

“There was historic boat there, I don’t know if was Chinese or Japanese, but there 

was a schooner there and the three masts were sticking up there. We called it the 

‘Schooner Strip,’ and it was buried in the sand... from what I understand, it was 

the early part of the century that that boat went on the beach there, and then 

when the St. Elias took it over we could see that the water, the sand was moving 

because in Yakutat the beaches are not permanent, everything moves. Maybe one 

day there’s a river coming out, the next day you wake up and you see a corks 

line that’s all because the river’s moved. But the schooner, we could tell that it 

was moving in and we asked the Park Service people if we could go move that 

schooner because it was moving. ‘No, no. Can’t touch it. No, no that’s 

government land. You can’t touch it.’ ‘Well, it’s going to go away.’ ‘Well, if it 

goes away, that’s too bad, tough.’ Well, this is historic...we really want to save it. 

And we had a number of people that were willing to go over there and help dig 

it out and put it on skiffs and winch it up to higher ground so that it would be 

saved because nobody had really seen the hull, only the three masts sticking up. 

... But anyhow, one day they said, ‘Oh, Skip now you can go over there and get 

that schooner. It’s on the beach.’ Well, it was the middle of the winter. And they 

did, it finally got up to where you could see—they took pictures, the people the 

flying the airplanes, you know the air taxis took photographs. You can see it 

sitting on the beach and it opened right up. You can see the hull and everything, 

but it was down on the beach. But it was too late, it was you know. And that 

really, really aggravated me as far as the conversation thing the Park Service 

advocates for and they would not allow us to move that schooner. And I was 

really, really pissed. It makes me unhappy that they did that to us” (SJ).

179 She elaborates on this point: 

“[W]e live in the park and in the Tongass. They are tribal lands that we’re living 

in and they [the NPS] can’t even have a presence here because it’s a thing about 

money. But it’s an area of ‘Where’s your interest? Are you interested in the 

people who are living here or are you interested in the people from New York 

who are going to buy your trinkets and stay in your lodge?’ And now I hear that 

they’re talking about if you’re a commercial photographer, they’re going to 

charge you for taking pictures in the park, which is ridiculous!” (VD).
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 297

 180 As a result of this consultation, the people of Yakutat decided they did not want to allow 

four-wheeler access within the park but plane was considered less invasive because of existing 

airstrips (RS):

“You know they wanted to allow four-wheeler use on the other side and from 

seeing their air photos of the areas that have been traversed by ATVs, it didn’t 

seem like a good idea because I’ve seen tracks in the tundra that were put there 

during WWII and they’re still, you know still eroding and they don’t come back 

to how they were originally. So we didn’t want that to happen” (BA). 

181 When asked if the tradition of subsistence and commercial fishing could be restored at Point 

Manby, Skip Johnson was skeptical, not because of an absence of fish, but because the 

traditional methods outlined and required by current park policy for subsistence fishing were 

created as a means to perpetuate inefficiency:

“Well, the restoration of the situation over there is, it’s really hard to say how it 

could possibly even be restored because of the encroachment of the new politics 

of...the Mount St. Elias unit over there. You can’t revitalize something that has 

been consciously and methodically dismantled. Just like trying to build an old 

relic, a WWII relic with no parts. And the fishing situation is different over there. 

The way we fish is different. The way of hauling things are different. Things 

evolve so we might use weapons carriers to do it then, the method of 

transportation, because of the advent of new units. ...In other words, we used 

three-wheelers over there then and weapons carriers, now there’s better stuff, 

there’s better things, but they say we have to use traditional methods. Then how 

do you go back and use old stuff in the modern day?” (SJ).

182 As Victoria Demmert notes, 

“We’re going to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of whatever 

decisions are made by the feds. And so we need to be at the table because when 

they’re retired off in Arizona or somewhere, we’re going to deal with whatever 

they did. And we want to make sure it’s there for our grandchildren’s 

grandchildren so that they can enjoy it in the same way we did and that we 

are...We firmly believe and we know this is all tribal land. The Park Service or 

the Forest Service or State, whoever, they might have the deed but it’s still tribal 

land. That doesn’t change anything. We’re the stewards” (VD).

Skip Johnson suggests that awareness of land rights and traditional uses within the Park must 

be integrated into the classroom: 

“Because I do think the young people really need to know more about what’s 

happening with the land. I don’t know that it’s taught in school. I don’t know 
298 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

 

how much my nephews and nieces know about these things. I haven’t talked to 

them about that you know” (SJ).

Victoria Demmert, among others, would also like to see NPS step into a more prominent role 

not only in the interpretation and informational guidance of visitors to the area, but as a point of 

contact for those who are working to organize activities inside park boundaries:

“Well, I would expect them [the Park Service] to have an office, to where we 

could go and see someone. I would expect—they used to have interpreters. They 

used to have programs here so people could go out into the park and they would 

take hikes and just... Our young people here need to be able to take those hikes 

and all those nice things that other people are having in other areas. We are part 

of this park and this park and you could never ever tell it” (VD).

Some interviewees suggest that these interpretive concepts are “too little too late” and provide a 

symbolic gesture when more tangible forms of Yakutat Tlingit engagement with the park are 

needed. When asked if adding the Tlingit placenames to current maps would be a good idea, 

Ted Valle responds, “it would be a good, but I don’t know what good it would do now” (TV).

Interviewees also say that as more equitable roles are sought alongside NPS interpreters 

especially, younger generations of Yakutat Tlingit must be educated and encouraged to fill 

those roles. Furthermore, Demmert suggests that an increase in tribal input regarding park 

access policies could result in a more robust tourist experience by expanding the current venue 

for scenic tours and interpretive programs: 

“They could do more to put an office in, let us be able to have dialogue and then 

have the interpretive programs that they have in other places to where people 

can go out and hike and people could invite... When you get all these ‘sporties’ 

in, now they’re starting to bring their families and they want to have something 

to do. They want to do something besides [sports fishing]. The glaciers are 

beautiful, but there are beautiful hikes you could take. There are beautiful places 

you could see. There are places that with partnership with them, we could talk 

about our history, migration” (VD).

183 There are a number of places that appear likely to meet the standard for Traditional Cultural 

Properties (TCP) status, though detailed investigations—beyond those undertaken in the 

current report—would be needed to meet the standard for a National Register nomination. 

Individual landmarks such as Mount St. Elias and Icy Bay appear to be eminently eligible for 

TCP status, reflecting their singular importance in clan histories and in the shared identity of 

Yakutat Tlingit today. Many other specific landforms, such as individual glaciers and 

waterways may also meet TCP criteria, including but not limited to those that relate to clan 

origins and traditional properties within Wrangell-St. Elias. While individual landforms might 

warrant consideration as Traditional Cultural Properties, the distribution of culturally 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 299

 

significant sites is broad and might best be treated as a “district” rather than as a conventional 

TCP. The entire southern coastline of Wrangell-St. Elias is of pronounced, and arguably unique, 

cultural and historical significance to Alaska Native communities. A Cultural Landscape 

nomination might allow the NPS to effectively “capture” the range of landscape features, along 

with all of the cultural knowledge and intangible values that are nonetheless potentially 

contributing to the Wrangell-St. Elias’s National Register eligibility. 

184 Access to places within Wrangell-St. Elias for ceremonial purposes is not common, but the 

practice would likely be protected under The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). 

185 Another NPS Ethnography Program category, the Ethnographic Landscape Study, might 

potentially be considered for the study of topics indicated in this conclusion, but may be too 

limited in its scope. In contrast to the Traditional Use Study, NPS-28 describes an Ethnographic 

Landscape Study as follows:

“This is a limited field survey to identify and describe the names, locations, 

distributions, and meanings of ethnographic landscape features. It can be 

combined with traditional use studies or conducted as part of other cultural 

landscape studies. It follows or may be combined with the ethnographic 

overview and assessment when gaps in the available data base indicate the need 

for detailed data on park ethnographic resources. Community members will be 

involved in site visits and ethnographic interviewing. Studies will be coordinated 

with the cultural landscape program, which has primary responsibility for 

cultural landscape identification and management” (USDOINPS 1998b).
300 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Bibliography

Abraham, Elaine

1984. Elaine Abraham Recordings Collection, circa 1951-1979. Juneau: Special Collections 

Research Center, Sealaska Heritage Institute.

1995. Interview by William Schneider. H95-71-28. Project Jukebox. University of Alaska 

Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/662.

Abraham, Olaf

1973. Haa k̲̲usteeyée ayá: Yakutat History. Elaine Abraham, trans. Sitka: Sheldon Jackson 

College.

Ackerman, Maria

1975. Tlingit Stories. Anchorage: AMU Press.

Ackerman, Robert E. 

1968. The Archaeology of the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska. Report of 

Investigations No. 44. Pullman: Washington State University Laboratory of 

Anthropology.

1974. Post Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations on the Northern Northwest Coast. In 

International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North American Arctic 

and Subarctic. S. Raymond and P. Schlederman, eds. Archaeological Association, 

University of Calgary. 

Adams, Walter H., Sr. 

2006. The Way It Was! New York: Vantage Press, Inc.

Afonsky, Gregory

1977. A History of the Orthodox Church in Alaska, 1794-1917. Kodiak, AK: St. 

Herman’s Theological Seminary Press.

Alaska Channel

n.d. Yakutat: Rich History. http://www.alaska.org/destination/yakutat, accessed 

October 9, 2014.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

1984. Yakutat Comprehensive Salmon Plan. Division of Commercial Fisheries. Special 

Publication No. 24. Division of Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game.

2000. Community Subsistence Information System: CSIS. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/, accessed July 13, 2015.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 301

2006. Cordova. Prince William Sound, Recreational Fishing Series. Anchorage: 

Southcentral Region Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-sf/region2/pdfpubs/cordova.pdf, accessed March 

10, 2015.

2008. Customary and Traditional Use Worksheet, King Crab and Tanner Crab, Prince 

William Sound Management Area; and other Background Information. Special 

Publication No. BOF 2008-03. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game.

2014. Yakutat Comprehensive Salmon Plan: Phase II. Yakutat Regional Planning Team, 

Douglas, Alaska.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)

1995. Yakutat – Uplands and Shorelands; Southeastern Yakutat Bay – Tidelands and Submerged 

Lands. Yakataga Area Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Land, 

Resource Assessment and Development Section. Anchorage, Alaska (179-189).

Alaska Geographic Society

1979. Alaska's Native People: Their Villages and Languages. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic 

Society.

1981. Wrangell-Saint Elias: International Mountain Wilderness. Anchorage: Alaska 

Geographic Society.

1988. Glacier Bay: Icy Wilderness. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic Society.

1993. Prince William Sound. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic Society.

1994. Prehistoric Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic Society.

Alaska Magazine

1927. How the White Men Came to Lituya and What Happened to Yeahlth-kan Who 

Visited Them: The Tlingit Tradition of La Perouse' Visit. Alaska Magazine 1(3):151-153.

Alaska Native Brotherhood Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp (ANBANSGC)

n.d. About Us: History. http://www.anbansgc.org/about-us/history/, accessed 

February 25, 2015.

Allen, Henry T., Lieut.

1887. Report of an Expedition to the Copper, Tananá, and Kóyukuk Rivers in the 

Territory of Alaska, in the Year 1885. 49th Congress, 2nd Session. Ex Doc, No. 125. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Andrews, Clarence L.

1916. Alaska under the Russians – Baranof the Builder. The Washington Historical 

Quarterly 7(3):202-216.
302 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Arnold, David F. 

2008. The Fishermen’s Frontier: People and Salmon in Southeast Alaska. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press.

Arnold, Robert D. 

1976. Alaska Native Land Claims. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation.

1978. Encroachments. In Alaska Native Land Claims. Alaska Native Foundation. 

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/landclaims/LandClaimsTOC.htm.

Averkieva, Julia

1971. The Tlingit Indians. In North American Indians in Historical Perspective. Eleanor 

Burke Leacock and Nancy Oestreich Lurie, eds. Pp. 317-342. New York: Random House.

Bancroft, Hubert H.

1884. History of the Northwest Coast: 1543-1800, vol. 1. The Works of Hubert Howe 

Bancroft. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft and Company. 

https://archive.org/details/cihm_14178, accessed March 13, 2015.

1886. History of Alaska: 1730-1885, vol. 33. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. San 

Francisco: A.L. Bancroft and Company.

Beck, Mary L. Giraudo

1989. Heroes and Heroines of Tlingit-Haida Legend and their Counterparts in Classical 

Mythology. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Books.

1991. Shamans and Kushtakas: North Coast Tales of the Supernatural. Anchorage: Alaska 

Northwest Books.

Bennett, Marsha Erwin, Susan D. Heasley, and Susan Huey

1979. Northern Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios: Sociocultural Impacts. 

Technical Report 36. Anchorage: Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. 

Betts, Martha F. 

1994. The Subsistence Hooligan Fishery of the Chilkat and Chilkoot Rivers. Technical 

Paper 213. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Bielawski, Ellen

2007. In Search of Ancient Alaska: Solving the Mysteries of the Past. Anchorage: Alaska 

Northwest Books. 

Billman, Esther Lisle

1970. A Study of the Elements of the Supernatural among the Tlingit of Sitka and 

Yakutat. M.A. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

1975. Tlingit Fishing. Tlingit Bulletin 1. Sitka, AK: Sheldon Jackson Museum. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 303

Birket-Smith, Kaj and Frederica De Laguna

1938. The Eyak Indians of the Copper River Delta, Alaska. København: Levin & Munksgaard, 

E. Munksgaard.

Bleakley, Geoffrey T.

2002. Contested Ground: An Administrative History of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park 

and Preserve, Alaska, 1978-2001. Anchorage: National Park Service, Alaska System 

Support Office. 

Bohn, Dave

1967. Glacier Bay: The Land and the Silence. Gustavus, AK: Alaska National Parks and 

Monuments Association.

Bosworth, Robert G. 

1987. Tlingit Subsistence in Glacier Bay, Alaska: Responding to Change in Landscape 

and Bureaucracy. Paper presented before the Alaska Anthropological Association, 

Anchorage, March 1987, and The Society for Applied Anthropology, Oaxaca, April 1987. 

Typescript. Douglas, AK: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

1988. Consistency and Change in Subsistence Use of Glacier Bay, Alaska. In Proceedings, 

Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium, September 19-22, 1988. A.M. Milner and J. D. 

Woods, Jr., eds. Pp. 101-107. Anchorage: US National Park Service, Alaska Regional 

Office.

Boyd, Robert

1999. The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population 

Decline among Northwest Indians, 1774-1874. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Brock, Mathew and Pippa Coiley-Kenner in collaboration with the Sitka Tribe of Alaska

2009. A Compilation of Traditional Knowledge about the Fisheries of Southeast Alaska, 

Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper 332. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game.

Bruce, Miner Wait

1989. Alaska: Its History and Resources, Gold Fields, Routes and Scenery. New York and 

London: The Knickerbocker Press.

Caldwell, Francis E.

1986. Land of the Ocean Mists: The Wild Ocean Coast West of Glacier Bay. Robert N. 

DeArmond, ed. Edmonds, WA: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.

Case, David S.

1984. Alaska Natives and American Laws (with Chapter 8, Traditional Alaska Native 

Societies by Anne D. Shinkwin). Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press. 
304 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Catton, Theodore 

1993. Glacier Bay National Monument, the Tlingit, and the Artifice of Wilderness. The 

Northern Review 11:56-82.

1995. Land Reborn: A History of Administration and Visitor Use in Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve. Seattle: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington for the National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

1997. Inhabited Wilderness: Indians, Eskimos, and National Parks in Alaska. New American 

West Series. Elliot West, ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA)

n.d. Tribal Recognition – Contemporary Political History. 

http://www.ccthita.org/about/recognition/index.html, accessed February 25, 2015.

1975. Report of Manpower Survey Concerning the Impact of the 1975 Salmon Fishery 

Failure on the Residents of the Communities of Yakutat, Klukwan, Haines, Hoonah, 

Angoon, and Kake, Craig, Klawock and Hydaburg. Juneau: Manpower Division of the 

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska.

Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska [and] Johns & Associates

(CCTHITAJA)

1983a. Traditional and Customary Natural Resources Used by the Southeast Alaska Natives.

Juneau: Johns & Associates.

1983b. Curry-Weissbrodt Papers of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska; An 

Inventory. Originals at Sealaska Heritage Foundation, Juneau. Microfilm at Alaska 

Historical Library, Pouch S, Juneau, Alaska.

Charnon, Betty

n.d. Plant of the Week: Chocolate Lily (Fritillaria camschatcensis (L.) Ker-Gawl.) US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-ofthe-week/fritillaria_camschatcensis.shtml, accessed March 22, 2015.

Christianson, Susan Stark, ed.

1992. Celebration of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Culture. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage 

Institute. 

The Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC)

n.d.a Conservation: We Benefit Our Shareholders through Sound Land Management 

Practices. http://www.chugach.com/who-we-are/lands/conservation, accessed March 

11, 2015.

n.d.b Lands: These Are Our Lands. This Is Our Home. http://www.chugach.com/whowe-are/lands, accessed March 11, 2015.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 305

n.d.c Who We Are: Our Commitment Is to Our People. 

http://www.chugach.com/who-we-are, accessed March 11, 2015.

Chugachmiut

n.d. Eyak. http://www.chugachmiut.org/tribes/eyak.html, accessed March 10, 2015.

City and Borough of Yakutat (CBY)

n.d. Yakutat Alaska. http://www.yakutatak.govoffice2.com/, accessed March 16, 2015.

2006. Yakutat Coastal Management Program. Juneau: Sheinberg Associates.

2009. Tsiu River: Fisheries and Land Management Report. Sheinberg Associates and 

Alaska Map Company, Yakutat, Alaska (1-32).

2010. City and Borough of Yakutat Comprehensive Plan. Juneau: Sheinberg Associates.

City of Cordova

n.d. Cordova Fast Facts. http://www.cityofcordova.net/residents/about-cordova/253-

cordova-facts, accessed March 16, 2015.

Cloe, John H.

2003. Unpublished Paper by ALCOM (Alaskan Command) Historian. Native AlaskaMilitary Relations: 1867 to Current. Pp. 1-14.

Cole, Douglas, and Ira Chaikin 

1990. An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast. 

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Commerce, Community and Economic Development (CCED)

2011. Yakutat Tlingit Tribe – Yakutat Senior Center. TPS report 56085v1, Yakutat, 

Alaska: Pp. 1-10.

Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC)

1997. Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 

Internment of Civilians. Washington, DC: Civil Liberties Public Education Fund; Seattle: 

University of Washington Press.

http://www.archives.gov/research/japanese-americans/justice-denied/

Conn, Stetson, Rose C. Engelmen and Byron Fairchild

2000. Guarding the United States and its Outposts: United States in World War II, Western 

Hemisphere. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History.

Cook, James and James King

1784. A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean Undertaken...Under the Direction of Captains Cook, 

Clerke, and Gore, in His Majesty's Ships the Resolution and Discovery, in the Years 1776, 1777, 

1778, 1779, and 1780. London: Fielding and Hardy.
306 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Cooper, H. Kory

2011. The Life (Lives) and Times of Native Copper In Northwest North America. World 

Archaeology 43(2):252-270.

Copper River Knowledge System (CRKS)

n.d. Cordova/Eyak. http://www.crks.org/wp/?page_id=156, accessed March 10, 2015.

Coppock, Henry Aaron

1969. Interactions between Russians and Native Americans in Alaska, 1741-1840. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Cordova Chamber of Commerce (CCC)

n.d. History. http://www.cordovachamber.com/comm/interest/history accessed 

March 16, 2015.

Cordova Historical Society

n.d. The Eyak People. http://www.cordovamuseum.org/history/people-of-theregion/6-the-eyak-people, accessed March 10, 2015.

Corral, Roy with Will Mayo and Natives of Alaska

2002. Alaska Native Ways: What the Elders Have Taught Us. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts 

Books.

Crowell, Aron and Judy Ramos

2014. “At the Glacier’s Edge: People, Seals, and History at Yakutat Bay.” November 

Lecture Series, Sealaska Heritage Institute, Juneau, Alaska, November 18, 2014.

Cruikshank, Julie

1990. Life Lived Like a Story: Life Stories of Three Yukon Native Elders. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press.

2001. Glaciers and Climate Change: Perspectives from Oral Tradition. Arctic Institute of 

North America 54(4):377-93.

2005. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. 

Vancouver: UBC Press.

Curry-Weissbrodt Papers

n.d. Alaska Reference Materials, The Curry-Weissbrodt Collection. On file, Sealaska 

Heritage Foundation. Juneau, Alaska.

n.d. Ivan Petrof -- The Population and Resources of Alaska, 1880, [abstracted] from 

United States Census Report of 1880 [by Petrof]. Exhibit No. 54, Curry-Weissbrodt 

Papers, Typescript, Manuscript Division, Alaska State Historical Library, Juneau, AK. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 307

1983. Curry-Weissbrodt Papers of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. 

Microfilm, 52 rolls. On file, Alaska State Library, Alaska Historical Collections, Juneau, 

Alaska.

Dauenhauer, Nora Marks 

1988. The Droning Shaman. Haines, AK: The Black Current Press.

Dauenhauer, Nora Marks, and Richard Dauenhauer, eds.

1899-1999. Dauenhauer Tlingit Oral Literature Collections, 1899-1999. MC 5, Sealaska 

Heritage Institute Archives, Juneau, Alaska.

1987. Haa Shuka, Our Ancestors, Tlingit Oral Narratives, vol. 1: Classics of Tlingit Oral 

Literature. Seattle: University of Washington Press and Juneau: Sealaska Heritage 

Foundation.

1990. Haa Tuwunaagu Yis, For Healing Our Spirit: Tlingit Oratory, vol. 2: Classics of Tlingit 

Oral Literature. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1994. Haa Kusteeyi Our Culture: Tlingit Life Stories, vol. 3: Classics of Tlingit Oral Literature. 

Seattle: University of Washington Press and Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Foundation.

Dauenhauer, Richard

1980. Glacier Bay Concerto: Poem in Three Movements. Anchorage: Alaska Pacific 

University. 

Dauenhauer, Nora, Richard Dauenhauer, and Lydia Black

2008. Anóoshi lingít aaní ká: Russians in Tlingit America: The Battles of Sitka, 1802 and 1804. 

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Davidson, George

1869. Pacific Coast: Coast Pilot of Alaska, First Part, from Southern Boundary to Cook's Inlet. 

Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.

Davis, Stanley Drew

1997. The Archaeology of the Yakutat Foreland: A Socioecological View: Volume 1. 

Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Davis, Brian L. 

1999. Geographic Patterns of Seal Hunting in Southeast Alaska, 1992-94. Technical 

Paper 256. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

De Armond, Robert N., ed.

1978. Early Visitors to Southeastern Alaska: Nine Accounts. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest 

Publishing Company.
308 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

De Laguna, Frederica

n.d. Frederica de Laguna Papers, 1890-2004, bulk 1923-2004. National Anthropological 

Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Suitland, Maryland.

1934. Ceremonial Paddles from the Eyak Indians, Alaska. Pennsylvania. University.

University Museum Bulletin 5:55.

1936-1972. Papers on the Tlingit. Unpublished ms., Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania.

1937. A Preliminary Sketch of the Eyak Indians, Copper River Delta, Alaska. In Twentyfifth Anniversary Studies, Philadelphia Anthropological Society Publications 1. D. S. Davidson, 

ed. Pp. 63-75. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Anthropological Society.

1947. The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen from the Yukon. Memoirs of the 

Society for American Archaeology 3, The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen 

from the Yukon, Society for American Archaeology.

1949. An Archaeological Survey of the Northern Tlingit, 1949. Mimeographed report for 

Arctic Institute of North America. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College.

1949-1960. Field notes, 1949-1960, on the ethnology of the Tlingit and Copper River 

Atna. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

1952a. Recording 19, Recordings at Yakutat, Alaska, 1952. American Philosophical 

Society. http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.Rec.19-ead.xml

1952b. Some Dynamic Forces in Tlingit Society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 

8(1):1-12.

1953. Some Problems in the Relationship between Tlingit Archaeology and Ethnology. 

Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 9, Asia and North America: Transpacific 

Contacts, Society for American Archaeology, pp. 53-57.

1954a. Recording 30, Tlingit and Yakutat songs, 1954. American Philosophical Society. 

http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.Rec.30-ead.xml

1954b. Tlingit Ideas about the Individual. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 10(2):172-191. 

1956. Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press.

1958. Geological Confirmation of Native Traditions, Yakutat, Alaska. American Antiquity 

23(4):434.

1960a. Materials Recorded at Copper Center, Alaska. American Philosophical Society, 

Philadelphia.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 309

1960b. The Story of a Tlingit Community: A Problem in the Relationship between

Archeological, Ethnological and Historical Methods. Bureau of American Ethnology 

Bulletin 172, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, Government Printing Office 

(republished, Brighton, Michigan: Native American Book Publishers, 1990).

1964. Archeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska. Washington: US Government Printing 

Office.

1965. Childhood among the Yakutat Tlingit. In Context and Meaning in Cultural 

Anthropology. Melford E. Spiro and A. Irving Hallowell, eds. New York: Free Press.

1970. Sites & Place Names in Atna Territory, Copper River Basin. Anchorage: University of 

Alaska, Anchorage, Archaeology Laboratory.

1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smithsonian 

Contributions to Anthropology 7 [In Three Parts]. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

1983. Aboriginal Tlingit Sociopolitical Organization. In The Development of Political 

Organization in Native North America. Elizabeth Tooker, ed. Pp. 71-85. Washington DC: 

The 1979 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society.

1987. Atna and Tlingit Shamanism: Witchcraft on the Northwest Coast. Arctic 

Anthropology 24(1):84-100.

1988. Tlingit: Peoples of the Wolf and Raven. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of 

Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds. Pp. 58-63. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1990a. Eyak. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast. Wayne 

Suttles, ed. Pp. 189-196. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1990b. Tlingit. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast. Wayne 

Suttles, ed. Pp. 203-228. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1996. Cook Inlet Adventures and Afterthoughts: Alaska 1930. In Adventures through 

Time: Readings in the Anthropology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Nancy Yaw Davis and William E. 

Davis, eds. Pp. 65-88. Anchorage: Cook Inlet Historical Society.

 2000. Field Work with My Tlingit Friends. In Celebration 2000: Restoring Balance through 

Culture. Susan W. Fair and Rosita Worl, eds. Pp. 21-40. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage 

Foundation.

De Laguna, Frederica and Catharine McClellan

1981. Ahtna. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6, Subarctic. June Helm, ed. Pp. 

641-663. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
310 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Deur, Douglas

2015. Empires of the Turning Tide: A History of Lewis and Clark National Historical Park and 

the Columbia-Pacific Region. Pacific West Social Science Series No. 2015-01. Seattle: USDI 

National Park Service, Pacific West Region. 

Deur, Douglas and Thomas Thornton 

2015. Assessing Possible Cruise Ship Effects on Ethnographic Resources at Glacier Bay National 

Park. Report to USDI National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

Portland, OR: Portland State University Department of Anthropology.

Deur, Douglas and Nancy J. Turner

2005. Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of 

North America. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Dixon, George

1789. A Voyage around the World Performed in 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788. London: Geo. 

Goulding.

Dombrowski, Kirk

2001. Against Culture: Development, Politics, and Religion in Indian Alaska. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press.

2002. The Praxis of Indigenism and Alaska Native Timber Politics. American 

Anthropologist 104(4):1062-1073.

2007. Subsistence Livelihood, Native Identity and Internal Differentiation in Southeast 

Alaska. Anthropologica 49(2):211-229.

Dowie, Mark

2011. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and 

Native Peoples. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Drucker, Philip

1958. The Native Brotherhood: Modern Intertribal Organization on the Northwest Coast. 

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 168. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1983. Ecology and Political Organization on the Northwest Coast of America. In The 

Development of Political Organization in Native North America, 1979 Proceedings of the 

American Ethnological Society. Elisabeth Tooker, ed. Washington, DC: American 

Ethnological Society.

Drury, Helen M.

1985. Nutrients in Native Foods of Southeastern Alaska. Journal of Ethnobiology 5(2):87-

100.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 311

Dumond, Don E.

1980. A Chronology of Native Alaskan Subsistence Systems in Alaska Native Culture 

and History. Senri Ethnological Studies Osaka 4: 23-47.

Dunmore, John

2006. Where Fate Beckons: The Life of Jean-François de la Pérouse. Fairbanks: University of 

Alaska Press.

Emmons, George Thornton

n.d. Emmons Collection. In Newcombe Family Papers. Add.MSS. 1077, Vol. 60 - 63. 

Microfilm. Province of British Columbia, Archives and Records Service, Victoria, BC.

n.d. Yakutat Kwan. Chapter 2, Part 2 of unpublished manuscript, The Tlingit. Microfilm 

document no. 26.

1907-1930. The Tlingit. Handwritten notes, parts typewritten. On file, American 

Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology. New York. 

1911. Native Account of the Meeting between La Perouse and the Tlingit. American 

Anthropologist 13:294-298.

Emmons, George Thornton and Frederica De Laguna

1991. The Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

The Eyak Corporation

n.d. Mission & History. http://eyakcorporation.com/website/about-us.html, accessed 

March 12, 2015.

Fall, James A., David B. Andersen, David Caylor, Michael Coffing, Susan Georgette and Michael 

Turek

2002. Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 2000 Annual Report. Technical Paper 306. Juneau: 

Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Fall, James A., Michael Turek and Liliana Naves

2009. Overview of Amounts Reasonably Necessary for Subsistence Uses of Salmon in 

Southeast Alaska. Special Publication No. BOF 2009-03. Juneau: Division of Subsistence, 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Farkas, Lena

1995. Interview by William Schneider. H95-71-32. Project Jukebox. The University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/666

Farley, John

1997. The Aleutian Islands Campaign: An Operation Art Perspective. Newport, RI:

Naval War College, Department of Joint Military Operations. 
312 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Fisher, Raymond H.

1977. Bering’s Voyages: Whither and Why. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Fortuine, Robert

1989. Chills and Fevers: Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska. Fairbanks: 

University of Alaska Press. 

Frank, Oscar

1995. Interview by William Schneider. H95-71-30. Project Jukebox. The University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/696

Garfield, Viola E.

1944. Chieftainship. Typescript, 11 pp., September 1944. University Archives, 

University of Washington Libraries, Seattle. 

1945. The Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Indians of Southeastern Alaska. On file, 

University Archives. University of Washington Libraries, Seattle. 

1953. Possibilities of Genetic Relationship in Northern Pacific Moiety Structures. Memoirs 

of the Society for American Archaeology 9:58-61. Asia and North America: Transpacific 

Contacts.

Garibaldi, Ann

1999. Medicinal Flora of the Alaska Natives: A Compilation of Knowledge from Literary 

Sources of Aleut, Alutiiq, Athabascan, Eyak, Haida, Inupiat, Tlingit, Tsimshian, and 

Yupik Traditional Healing Methods Using Plants. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, 

Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage.

George, Gabe, Matt Kookesh, Dave Mills, and James Fall

1985. The Non-Commercial Harvest of Crab in Southeast Alaska: A Summary of 

Available Information. Technical Paper 103. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Subsistence.

Gibson, James R.

1976. Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply of 

Russian America, 1784-1867. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

1982. Smallpox on the Northwest Coast, 1835-1838. BC Studies. Winter 1982/1983: 

61-81. 

1992. Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest 

Coast, 1785-1841. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gillette, Gary H.

1998. The Yakutat Fish Train: A Historic Overview of the Yakutat and Southern 

Railroad, Located In Yakutat, Alaska. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 313

Gillette, Gary H. and D. Scott Williams

1995. “Walking In Two Worlds, Living In Balance”: A Historic and Cultural Preservation Plan 

for the Tlingit People of Yakutat, Alaska. Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Alaska.

Gmelch, George

1982. Resource Use in Glacier Bay National Preserve. US National Park Service, 

Division of Cultural Resources, September 1982. (Copy on file, Glacier Bay National 

Park Library, Gustavus AK.)

1988. Two Rivers, Two Cultures. Natural History 97(5):52-63.

1990. Caught in the Middle. Natural History 99(9):32-37.

Goldschmidt, Walter and Theodore H. Haas

1946. Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeast Alaska: A Report to the 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, October 3, 1946. Copy on File, Sealaska Heritage 

Foundation, Juneau. 

Goldschmidt, Walter, Theodore H. Haas, edited with an Introduction by Thomas F. Thornton

1998. Haa Aaní, Our Land: Tlingit and Haida Land Rights and Use. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press.

Grinev, A.V.

1989. The Eyak Indians and the Fate of a Russian Settlement in Yakutat. European Review 

of Native American Studies 28:1-6.

2013. The First Russian Settlers in Alaska. The Historian 75(3):443-474.

Gsovsky, Vladimir

1940. Survey of Russian Material on the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, Available 

in the Library of Congress. Unpublished microfilmed typescript. On File, Special 

Collections, University of Washington Library, Seattle.

Gunther, Erna

1972. Indian Life on the Northwest Coast of North America, as Seen by the Early Explorers and 

Fur Traders during the Last Decades of the Eighteenth Century. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

Haa Aani, LLC (HAL)

n.d. Mariculture is a Lifestyle-Compatible Economic Opportunity in the Traditional 

Villages of Southeast Alaska: Values in Action. Sealaska Corporation,

http://www.sealaska.com/what-we-do/economic-development/haa-aanillc/mariculture, accessed March 15, 2015.
314 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

n.d. Alaska Coastal Aggregates: Values in Action: Sealaska Corporation, 

http://www.sealaska.com/what-we-do/sustainable-natural-resources/alaska-coastalaggregates, accessed March 15, 2015.

Hallamaa, Panu

2000. A Dwindling Nation, A Vanishing Tongue: Tracing the History of the Eyak Indians of 

Alaska. n.p.: n.p.

Hallock, Charles

1886. Our New Alaska, or, The Seward Purchase Vindicated. New York: Forest and Stream 

Publishing Company.

Hancock, David

2003. Tlingit: Their Art & Culture. Surrey, B.C.; Blaine, WA: Hancock House Publishers.

Harriman Alaska Expedition 

1901. Harriman Alaska Expedition [1899], Vol. 1, Narrative, Glaciers, Natives; Vol. II, 

History, Geography, Resources. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co.

Harrington, John Peabody

1939-1957 John Peabody Harrington Papers: Tlingit and Eyak. Accession No. 1976-95. 

National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Museum Support Center, Suitland, 

MD. 

Harrington, John Peabody

n.d. Tlingit. Unpublished microfilm. Volume 1, Reels 10-12. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution. 

Harris, Christie

1973. Once More upon a Totem. New York: Atheneum.

Harris, Lorle K., ed.

1985. Tlingit Tales: Potlatch and Totem Pole. Happy Camp, CA: Naturegraph. 

Hausman, Gerald

1986. Meditations with Animals: A Native American Bestiary from the Voices of Creek, Natchez, 

Chickasaw, Winnebago, Haida, Tlingit, Kwakiutl, Zuni, Navajo, Apache, Santo Domingo, Sioux, 

Osage, Anasazi. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear.

Havens, Casey

2010. Letter from Casey Havens, Yak-Tat President and CEO, to Yak-Tat Kwaan 

shareholders. Sustainability = Diversification = Resilience. Pp. 1. Yak-Tat Kwaan.

Haynes, Terry L. and Stan Walker

1995. Pilot Project: Documenting Traditional and Subsistence Access in Wrangell - St. 

Elias National Park and Preserve. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, ANILCA Program. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 315

Haynes, Terry L. and William E. Simeone

2007. Upper Tanana Ethnographic Overview and Assessment, Wrangell St. Elias 

National Park and Preserve. Technical Paper 325. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Hinckley, Ted C. 

1970. “The Canoe Rocks—We Do Not Know What Will Become of Us:” The complete 

transcript of a meeting between Governor John Green Brady of Alaska and a group of 

Tlingit Chiefs, Juneau, December 14, 1898. Western Historical Quarterly July: 265-290.

1972. The Americanization of Alaska, 1867-1897. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.

1996. The Canoe Rocks: Alaska’s Tlingit and the Euroamerican Frontier, 1800-1912.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Holder, Glenn

1973. Talking Totem Poles. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Holmberg, Heinrich Johan 

1985. Holmberg's Ethnographic Sketches. Marvin W. Falk, ed. Fritz Jaensch, trans. The 

Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series 1. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Hoonah Elementary, 1992-1993

1993. You Can Hear Our Voices Forever. Hoonah, AK: Hoonah Elementary School.

Hoonah Indian Association

2006. Tlingit Place Names of the Huna Káawu [map]. Hoonah Indian Association, 

Hoonah, Alaska.

Hope, Andrew

n.d. Sacred Forms. Draft Manuscript, typescript. Copy on file, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Douglas, AK. 

1982. Raven's Bones. Sitka, AK: Sitka Community Association. 

Horton, Tonia Woods 

2003. Indian Lands, American Landscapes: Toward a Genealogy of Place in National 

Parks. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. 

Howe, Doris L.

1992. Bibliography of Research and Exploration in the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern 

Alaska, 1798-1992. US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.

Hund, Andrew, ed.

2014. Eyak. In Antarctica and the Arctic Circle: A Geographic Encyclopedia of the Earth's Polar 

Regions. Volume I. Andrew Hund, ed. Pp. 272-275. ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara, California. 
316 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Hunn, Eugene S., Darryll R. Johnson, Priscilla N. Russell and Thomas F. Thornton

2002. A Study of Traditional Use of Birds’ Eggs by the Huna Tlingit. Seattle, WA: 

National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit; Denver, 

CO: Available From Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center, National Park 

Service.

Hunn, Eugene S., Darryll R. Johnson, Priscilla N. Russell, and Thomas F. Thornton.

2003. Huna Tlingit Environmental Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a 

‘Wilderness’ Park. Current Anthropology 44(December):S79-S103.

Hunn, Eugene S. and Thomas F. Thornton

2010. Tlingit Birds: An Annotated List with Statistical Comparative Analysis. In Ethnoornithology: Birds, Indigenous Peoples, Culture and Society. Sonia Tidemann and Andrew 

Gosler, eds. Pp. 181-209. Washington D.C.: Earthscan.

Ingersoll, William T. 

1968. Lands of Change; Four Parks in Alaska. Journal of the West 7:173-193.

Inglis, Gordon B.

1970. Northwest American Matriliny: The Problem of Origins. Ethnology 9(2):149-159.

Inglis, Robin

1997. Lapérouse 1786: A French Naval Visit to Alaska. In Enlightenment and Exploration in 

the North Pacific. S. Haycox, J. Barnett and C. Liburd, eds. P.p. 49-64. Seattle: University 

of Washington Press.

Irimoto, Takashi and Takako Yamada, eds.

1994. Circumpolar Religion and Ecology: An Anthropology of the North. Tokyo: University of 

Tokyo Press.

Isto, Sarah A.

1975. Cultures in the North: Aleut, Athabascan Indian, Eskimo, Haida Indian, Tlingit Indian, 

Tsimpshian Indian: Media Resource List. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Center for 

Northern Educational Research.

Jacobsen, Johan Adrian

1884. Capitan Jacobsen’s Reise an der Nordwestküste Americas, 1881-1883... A. Woldt, 

ed. Leipzig: M. Spohr.

James, Alex

2012. Slideshow produced by the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe Project Manager. Ankau 

Saltchucks. Pp. 1-13. Yakutat, Alaska.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 317

James, Susie

1973. Sit' Kaa kax kana.aa Kaasge'iy X'eidax Sh Kalneck [Glacier Bay History]. Nora 

Florendo, ed. and trans. Sitka: Tlingit Readers in Association with the Alaska Native 

Language Center.

Johannsen, Uwe von

1963. Versuch einer Analyse dokumentarischen Materials über die Identitätsfrage und 

die kulturelle Position der Eyak-Indianer Alaska. Anthropos 58(5-6):868-96.

Johnson, Darryll R.

1990. Glacier Bay National Park Tour Boat Passenger Visitor Survey, 1989. The National 

Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, Seattle.

Johnson, Darryll R., Patricia Garcia Gonzalez, and Gary Vequist

1990. Social Science Perspectives on Visitor Use and Management of Glacier Bay 

National Park. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, College of Forest Resources, University 

of Washington, Seattle.

Johnson, John F.C.

1984. Chugach Legends: Stories and Photographs of the Chugach Region. Anchorage: Chugach 

Alaska Corp. 

1988. Eyak Legends: Stories and Photographs. Anchorage: Chugach Heritage Foundation.

Johnson, Lora L., Chugach Alaska Corporation, Eyak Corporation, Tatitlek Native Corporation, 

Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

1992. Land Use Impact Study for Chugach Alaska Corporation, the Eyak Corporation, 

the Tatitlek Corporation: Final Draft. The Corporations.

Jonaitis, Aldona 

1977. The Relationship between the Social and Shamanic Art of the Tlingit Indians of 

Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

1981. Tlingit Halibut Hooks; An Analysis of the Visual Symbols of a Rite of Passage. 

American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 57(1):1-48. 

1982a. The Devilfish in Tlingit Sacred Art. In Native North American Art History, Selected 

Readings. Zena Pearlstone Mathews and Aldona Jonaitis, eds., Pp. 109-118. Palo Alto, 

CA: Peek Publications.

1982b. Sacred Art and Spiritual Power: An Analysis of Tlingit Shamans' Masks. In 

Native North American Art History, Selected Readings. Zena Pearlstone Mathews and 

Aldona Jonaitis, eds., Pp. 119-136. Palo Alto, CA: Peek Publications.

1986. Art of the Northern Tlingit. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
318 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Jones, Livingston French

1914. A Study of the Thlingets of Alaska. New York: H. Revell.

Jopling, Carol F.

1989. The Coppers of the Northwest Coast Indians: Their Origin, Development, and 

Possible Antecedents. American Philosophical Society 79(1):1-164.

Joseph, Robert, ed.

2005. Listening to Our Ancestors: The Art of Native Life along the North Pacific Coast. 

Washington, DC: National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution in 

association with National Geographic.

Kaiper, Dan, and Nan Kaiper

1978. Tlingits: Their Art, Culture, and Legends. Saanichton, BC: Hancock House 

Publishers, Ltd.

Kamenskii, Anatolii

1985. Tlingit Indians of Alaska. The Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series, Vol. 2. 

Sergei Kan, trans. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Kan, Sergei

1985. Russian Orthodox Brotherhoods among the Tlingit: Missionary Goals and Native 

Response. Ethnohistory 32(3): 196-222.

1986. The 19th Century Tlingit Potlatch: A New Perspective. American Ethnologist

13(2):191-212.

1988. The Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska. In W.E. Washburn, ed. Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume 4: History of Indian-White Relations. Pp. 506-21. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

1989a. Symbolic Immortality: The Tlingit Potlatch of the Nineteenth Century. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1989b. Cohorts, Generations, and their Culture: Tlingit Potlatch in the 1980s. Anthropos

84:405-22.

1991. Shamanism and Christianity: Modern-Day Tlingit Elders Look at the Past. 

Ethnohistory 38(4):363-387.

1996. Clan Mothers to Godmothers: Tlingit Women and Russian Orthodox Christianity, 

1840-1940. Ethnohistory 43(4):613-641.

1999. Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two 

Centuries. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 319

Kaplan, Susan A. and Kristin J. Barsness

1986. Raven’s Journey: The World of Alaska's Native People. Exhibition Catalogue, 

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of 

Pennsylvania Press.

Kari, James M. and Siri Tuttle

2005. Copper River Native Places: A Report on Culturally Important Places to Alaska 

Native Tribes in Southcentral Alaska. Anchorage, AK: US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office. 

Kayamori, Fhoki. 

n.d. Fhoki Kayamori Photograph Collection, ca. 1912-1941 [graphic]. Alaska State 

Library, Historical Collections. Juneau, AK. 

http://vilda.alaska.edu/cdm/search/searchterm/Fhoki%20Kayamori.%20Photographs

,%20ca.%201912-1941.%20ASL-PCA55/field/all/mode/exact/conn/and/page/1/order/nosort/ad/asc

Keller, Robert H. and Michael F. Turek

1998. American Indians and National Parks. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Kitka, Herman Sr.

2000. A Tlingit Elder’s Training. In Celebration 2000: Restoring Balance through Culture. 

Susan W. Fair and Rosita Worl, eds. Pp. 77-78. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Foundation.

Knapp, Frances and Rheta Louise Childe

1896. The Thlinkets of Southeastern Alaska. Chicago: Stone and Kimball.

Knapp, Gunnar

1992. Native Timber Harvests in Southeast Alaska. Technical Report, PNW-GTR-284. 

Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Krause, Aurel 

1956. The Tlingit Indians: Results of a Trip to the Northwest Coast of America and the Bering 

Straits. Erna Gunther, trans. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1993. To the Chukchi Peninsula and to the Tlingit Indians 1881/1882: Journals and Letters by 

Aurel and Arthur Krause. Margo Krause McCaffrey, trans. The Rasmuson Library 

Historical Translation Series. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Krauss, Michael E. 

1970. Eyak Texts. College, AK: University of Alaska and Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology.

Krauss, Michael E., ed.

1982. In Honor of Eyak: The Art of Anna Nelson Harry. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language 

Center, University of Alaska.
320 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Krupnik, Igor, Rachel Mason, and Tonia W. Horton, eds.

1995. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Historic Resource Study. Anchorage, AK: 

National Park Service, Alaska System Support Office.

1997. Commercial salmon Operations in the Glacier Bay Region: An Industry in 

Microcosm. Journal of the West 26(2):52-58.

2004. Northern Ethnographic Landscapes: Perspectives from Circumpolar Nations.

Washington, DC: Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, 

Smithsonian Institution.

2008. Cross-Culture Relationships on the Southeast Alaska Frontier the Glacier Bay Case. 

Journal of the West 47(2):44-53.

Kurtz Rick S.

1995. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Historic Resource Study. Anchorage, AK: 

National Park Service, Alaska System Support Office.

Kushner, Howard I. 

1975. Conflict on the Northwest Coast: American-Russian Rivalry in the Pacific Northwest, 

1790-1867. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Langdon, Steven J.

1980. A Brief History of Salmon Fishing in Cross Sound and Icy Strait. Manuscript 

prepared for Icy Strait Fishery Federation.

1989. From Communal Property to Common Property to Limited Entry: Historical 

Ironies in the Management of Southeast Alaska Salmon. In A Sea of Small Boats. John 

Cordell, ed. Cultural Survival Report No. 26, Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc.

2000. Subsistence and Contemporary Tlingit Culture. In Will the Time Ever Come? A 

Tlingit Source Book. Andrew Hope III and Thomas F. Thornton, eds. Pp. 117-124. 

Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, 

University of Alaska.

2006. Traditional Knowledge and Harvesting of Salmon by Huna and Hinyaa Tlingit. 

Study Number: FIS 02-104 Research conducted under contract number 43-0109-2-342 

between US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management and Central 

Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Juneau. Accessed 20 April 2011, 

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/02-104final.pdf.

2007. Sustaining a Relationship: Inquiry into the Emergence of a Logic of Engagement 

with Salmon among the Southern Tlingits. In Native Americans and the Environment: 

Perspectives on the Ecological Indian. M.E. Harkin and D.R. Lewis, eds. Pp. 233-273. 

Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 321

2015. Foregone Harvests and Neoliberal Policies: Creating Opportunities for Rural, 

Small-Scale, Community-Based Fisheries in Southern Alaskan Coastal Villages. Marine 

Policy. In Press. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.007.

Langdon, Steven, and Rosita Worl

1981. Distribution and Exchange of Subsistence Resources in Alaska. Technical Paper 55. 

Anchorage: University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center.

1983. From Communal Property to Common Property to Limited Entry: Historical 

Ironies in the Management of Southeast Alaskan Salmon. Unpublished paper.

La Perouse, Jean Francois Galaup Compte de

1799. A Voyage Round [sic] the World, Performed in the Years 1785, 1786, 1787, and 

1788, by the Boussole and Astrolabe under the Command of J. F. G. de la Perouse. 

Published by Order of the National Assembly. 2 volumes. Translated from the French. 

London: Printed by A. Hamilton, for G. G. and J. Robinson, J. Edwards, and T. Payne.

1927. The Alaska Adventures of Jean Francois Galoup [sic.] Perouse. From Le Voyage 

de la Perouse autor du Monde. Alaska Magazine 6(3):109-144.

1969. Voyages and Adventures of La Perouse. Julius S. Gassner, ed. Honolulu: University of 

Hawaii Press. 

Larsen, Christopher F., Roman J. Motyka, Jeffrey T. Freymuller, Keith A. Echelmeyer and Erik 

R. Ivins

2004. Rapid Uplift of Southern Alaska Caused by Recent Ice Loss. Geophysical Journal 

International 158:1118–1133.

2005. Rapid Viscoelastic Uplift in Southeast Alaska Caused by Post-Little Ice Age Glacial 

Retreat. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 237:548–560.

Lauridsen, Peter

1889. Vitus Bering: The Discoverer of Bering Strait. J.E. Olson, ed. and trans. Chicago: S.C. 

Griggs & Co.

Lawson, Daniel, Greg Wiles, and Nicholas Wiesenberg

2010. Paleoclimate of the Last 10,000 Years, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: 

Progress Understanding Climate Change in Southeast Alaska. Annual Report 2010. 

Prepared for the National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

Lee, Molly

2006. “If It's Not a Tlingit Basket, Then What Is It?:” Toward the Definition of an Alutiiq 

Twined Spruce Root Basket Type. Arctic Anthropology 43(2):164-171.

Leer, Jeff, compiler

n.d. Tlingit Tribe, Clan, and House Group Names (DRAFT). On File, Alaska Native 

Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
322 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Leonard’s Landing Lodge

n.d. Facts: Interesting Facts and Information about the Lodge, It's Location and History. 

http://www.leonardslanding.com/facts.htm, accessed October 9, 2014.

Lèvi-Strauss, Claude

1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lipps, Oscar H.

n.d. The Indian Tribes of Southeast Alaska. In Oscar Hiram Lipps Papers. Douglas, AK: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Litwin, Thomas S.

2005. The Harriman Alaska Expedition Retraced: A Century of Change, 1899-2001. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lord, Nellie

1995. Interview by William Schneider. H95-71-29. Project Jukebox. The University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/667

Low, Jean

1977. George Thornton Emmons. The Alaska Journal 7(1):2-11.

Mallott, Byron I. 

1975. Report on the Probable Impacts on Native People Both Beneficial and Adverse 

Resulting from Off-Shore (OCS) Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Using Yakutat as a Case 

Study. Juneau: US Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Marvin, Amy

1999. Glacier Bay History. In The Book of the Tongass. Carolyn Servid and Donald Snow, 

eds. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

Maschner, Herbert D. G. and Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner

1998. Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on 

the North Pacific Rim. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17(1):19-51.54

Mason, Ronald J.

2000. Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions. American Antiquity

65(2):239-266.

Mathews, Vincent, Matthew Kookesh and Robert Bosworth

1990. Subsistence Harvest and Use of Sea Cucumber in Southeast Alaska: With Specific 

Reference to Sea Cucumber Harvest and Use by Residents of Craig, Klawock, and 

Hydaburg. Technical Paper 190. Douglas: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 323

Matson, Richard G. and Gary Coupland

1995. Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. San Diego: Academic Press.

McBeth, C. Perry

1949. Gold at Lituya Bay (As told to Oscar L. Brauer). The Alaska Sportsman, February: 6-

14. 

McClellan, Catharine

1953. The Inland Tlingit. Asia and North America: Transpacific Contacts. Memoirs of the 

Society for American Archaeology 9:47-52. 

1954. The Interrelations of Social Structure with Northern Tlingit Ceremonialism. 

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(1):75-96.

1964. Culture Contacts in the Early Historic Period in Northwestern North America. 

Arctic Anthropology 2(2):3-15.

McKinley, Jim, Frank Stickwan, Jake Tansy, Katie John and Adam Sanford 

2010. Ahtna Travel Narratives: A Demonstration of Shared Geographic Knowledge among 

Alaska Athabascans. James Kari, ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.

McNeary, Stephen A.

1978. Local Exploitation of D-2 Lands in the Gulf of Alaska Region. Anthropology and 

Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Meany, Edmond S.

1903. Attu and Yakutat Basketry. The Pacific Monthly 10: 211-19.

Meares, John

1790. Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789, from China to the North West Coast of 

America: To which are Prefixed, an Introductory Narrative of a Voyage Performed in 1786, from 

Bengal, in the Ship Nootka; Observations on the Probable Existence of a North West Passage; 

and Some Account of the Trade Between the North West Coast of America and China; and the 

Latter Country and Great Britain. London: Logographic Press.

Menzies, Archibald 

1993. The Alaska Travel Journal of Archibald Menzies, 1793-1794. Introduction and 

Annotations by Wallace M. Olson; Botanical Collections by John F. Thilenius. Fairbanks: 

University of Alaska Press.

Mertie, J. B., Jr.

1931. Notes on the Geography and Geology of Lituya Bay. US Geological Survey Bulletin 

836-B:117-135.

Metcalfe, Vern

1976. The Southeast Alaska Cultural Experience. A Bicentennial Publication of the 

Juneau Indian Studies Program of the City and Borough of Juneau School District. 
324 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Douglas, Alaska: The District. On file, Special Collections, Pacific Northwest, University 

of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Miller, Polly, and Leon Gordon Miller

1967. Lost Heritage of Alaska; The Adventure and Art of the Alaskan Coastal Indians. 

Cleveland: World Publishing Company.

Miller, Robert

n.d. Yakutat History Foundation: About. 

http://www.yakutathistoryfoundation.org/about.html, accessed October 9, 2014.

Mills, David D. and Anne S. Firman

1986. Fish and Wildlife Use in Yakutat Alaska: Contemporary Patterns and Changes. 

Technical Report 131. Douglas: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game.

Mitchell, Donald

1984. Predatory Warfare, Social Status, and the North Pacific Slave Trade. Ethnology

23(1):39-48.

Mitchell, Donald, and Leland Donald

1985. Some Economic Aspects of Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian Slavery. In Research in 

Economic Anthropology 7. B.L. Isaac, ed. Pp. 19-35. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Miyaoka, Osahito

1974. An Eskimo Tribe near “Mount Saint Elias (Alaska).” Arctic Anthropology 11(1):73-

80. 

Monteith, Daniel

2007. Ethics, Management, and Research in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Teaching Ethics: The 

Journal of the Society for Ethics across the Curriculum. Pp. 67-80. Society for Ethics across 

the Curriculum, University of Alaska Southeast.

Monteith, Daniel, Cathy Connor, Gregory P. Streveler, and Wayne Howell

2007. Geology and Oral History – Complementary Views of a Former Glacier Bay 

Landscape. In Proceedings of the Fourth Glacier Bay Science Symposium, October 26-28, 2004, 

Juneau, Alaska. John F. Piatt and Scott M. Gende, eds. Pp. 50-53. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2007- 5047. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Moser, Jefferson F.

1902. The Salmon and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska. Report of the Alaska Salmon 

Investigations of the United States Fish Commission Steamer Albatross in 1900 and 1901. 

US Fish Commission Bulletin for 1901. Pp. 173-398, 399-401. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 325

Moss, Madonna L.

1993. Shellfish, Gender, and Status on the Northwest Coast: Reconciling Archeological, 

Ethnographic, and Ethnohistorical Records of the Tlingit. American Anthropologist

95(3):631-652.

1998. Northern Northwest Coast Regional Overview. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):88-111. 

2004. The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological Practice in Southeast Alaska in 

Relation to the Larger Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology 41(2):177-196.

Moss, Madonna L. and Aubrey Cannon

2011. The Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. 

Moss, Madonna L., and Jon M. Erlandson

1992. Forts, Refuge Rocks, and Defensive Sites: The Antiquity of Warfare along the 

North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):73-90.

Motyka, Roman J., Christopher F. Larsen, Jeffrey T. Freymueller and Keith A. Echelmeyer

2007. Post Little Ice Age Rebound in the Glacier Bay Region. In Proceedings of the Fourth 

Glacier Bay Science Symposium, October 26-28, 2004, Juneau, Alaska. John F. Piatt and Scott 

M. Gende, eds. Pp. 57-59. Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5047. US Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Muir, John

1895. The Discovery of Glacier Bay. The Century Magazine, n.s., 28:234-247. (see also 

below, Muir, 1978 for republication.) 

http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pagevieweridx?c=cent;cc=cent;rgn=full%20text;idno=cent0050-2;didno=cent0050-

2;view=image;seq=0244;node=cent0050-2%3A7

1915. Travels in Alaska. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. (1979 edition; introduction by 

Edwin Way Teale, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.)

1978. The Discovery of Glacier Bay (1879) by John Muir, Its Discoverer. Olympic Valley, 

California: Outbooks. 

1985. The John Muir Papers, 1858 -1957. Edited by Ronald H. Limbaugh and Kirsten E. 

Lewis. Microfilm Project. Published by Chadwyck-Healey Inc. [no location provided].

Native Village of Eyak (NVE)

n.d. About Us. http://nveyak.com/about/, accessed March 10, 2015.

n.d. Environmental and Natural Resources. http://nveyak.com/environmental-andnatural-resources/, accessed March 10, 2015.

2009. Integrated Motorized and Non-Motorized Alternative Transportation Plan. Native 

Village of Eyak (1-59).
326 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Native Village of Eyak Traditional Council (NVETC)

2001. Native Village of Eyak youth/elders conference on subsistence, Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 98286). Anchorage: US

Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Naves, Liliana C., Michael F. Turek and William E. Simeone

2010. Subsistence-Personal Use Salmon Harvest, Southeast-Yakutat Management 

Region, 1996-2006. Technical Paper 350. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Subsistence.

Newcombe Family Papers

1870-1955. Newcombe Family Papers, Emmons Collection. Finding Aid. Add.MSS. 

1077, Province of British Columbia, Archives and Records Service, Victoria, BC.

Newton, Richard, and Madonna Moss

1984. The Subsistence Lifeway of the Tlingit People. Excerpts of Oral Interviews. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. Republished as 

Newton and Moss 2005.

 

2005. Haa Atxaayí Haa Kusteeyíx Sitee, Our Food Is Our Tlingit Way of Life. Juneau, AK: US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Niblack, Albert P., Ensign, US Navy

1890. The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia; Based on 

the Collections in the U. S. National Museum, and on the Personal Observation of the 

Writer in Connection with the Survey of Alaska in the Seasons' of 1885, 1886 and 1887. 

US National Museum Annual Report for 1887-1888, pp. 225-386. Washington, DC 

(Johnson Reprint 1970).

Oberg, K.

1937. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Oh, Leslie Hsu 

2014. Sit’ Tlein: The Story of Hubbard Glacier’s Spirit and Indigenous Knowledge of 

Tlingit Seal-Hunting Practices. First Alaskans (Summer 2014):32-37.

Olson, Ronald Leroy 

1927. Adze, Canoe, and House Types of the Northwest Coast. University of Washington 

Publications in Anthropology 2(1). Seattle, WA.

1956. Channeling of Character in Tlingit Society. In Personal Character and Cultural Milieu: 

A Collection of Readings. Douglas G. Haring, ed. Pp. 675-687. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse 

University Press.

1967. Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingits in Alaska. Berkeley: University of 

California Press.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 327

1996. Tlingit Field Notes, 1933-1934, circa 1956. Reel #130, Ethnological Documents of 

the Department and Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley: University Archives, Bancroft 

Library, University of California.

Olson, Wallace M.

1993. With Vancouver in Alaska, 1793-1794. Auke Bay, AK: Heritage Research.

1994. A Prehistory of Southeast Alaska. In Prehistoric Alaska, Vol. 21, No. 4. Anchorage: 

Alaska Geographic Society.

2004. The Tlingits: An Introduction to Their Culture and History. 5th edition. Auke Bay, 

Alaska: Heritage Research. 

Orth, Donald J.

1967. Dictionary of Alaska Place Names. Geographical Survey. Professional Paper 567. 

US Government Printing Office. 

Paquette, Mary Anne

1995. Interview by William Schneider. H95-71-28. Project Jukebox. The University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/site7/interviews/662

Paul, Frances

1944. Spruce Root Basketry of the Alaska Tlingit. Indian Handcrafts 8, Education Division, 

US Indian Service, Lawrence, Kansas: Haskell Institute. [Reprinted 1982, Sheldon 

Jackson Museum, Sitka, AK.]

Paul, William

n.d. The Alaska Tlingit: Where Did They Come From? National Anthropological 

Archives, MS 7077. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Pegues, Juliana Hu

2014. “Picture Man”: Shoki Kayamori and the Photography of Colonial Encounter in 

Alaska, 1912–1941. College Literature 41(1):90-118.

Pelton, Mary Helen White, and Jacqueline DiGennaro

1992. Images of a People: Tlingit Myths and Legends. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries 

Unlimited. 

Perry, Anjanette

1987. Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay National Park, US National Park Service, 

Resource Management Division, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. On file at Glacier 

Bay National Park Library, Gustavus. 45 pp. 

Perry, Richard J.

1983. Proto-Athapaskan Culture: The Use of Ethnographic Reconstruction. American 

Ethnologist 10(4):715-733.
328 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Petershoare, Lillian

2010. Paving the Way for Respectful and Honorable Tribal Relations. Tribal Relations 

News, Summer 2010. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/news/tribalrelationsnews_summer2010.html

#, accessed August 3, 2015.

Petrof, Ivan 

1900. Population, Resources, Etc. of Alaska [from US Census Report of 1880]. In 

Compilation of Narratives of Explorations in Alaska. Pp. 55-284. Senate Report No. 1023, 56th

Congress, 1st Session, April 18, 1900. US Congress. Senate. Committee on Military 

Affairs. Washington, Government Printing Office.

Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen

1964. On the Historical Position of Tlingit. International Journal of American Linguistics

30(2):155-164.

Pratt, Kenneth L., Ed.

1998. Copper, Trade, and Tradition among the Lower Ahtna of the Chitina River Basin: 

The Nicolai Era, 1884-1900. Boundaries: Papers in Honor of James W. Vanstone Arctic 

Anthropology 35(2):77-98.

2009. Chasing the Dark: Perspectives On Place, History And Alaska Native Land Claims. 

Anchorage, Alaska: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska 

Region, Division of Environmental and Cultural Resources Management, ANCSA 

Office. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015075667801;view=1up;seq=1

Price, Robert E.

1990a. Bibliography of Literature on Tlingit and Alaska; Haida History from 1741 to 1867. 

Personal Printing by Robert E. Price. [Copy on File, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Douglas, AK.]

1990b. The Great Father in Alaska: The Case of the Tlingit and Haida Salmon Fishery. 

Douglas, Alaska: First Street Press. 

Raibmon, Paige Sylvia

2005. Authentic Indians: Episodes of Encounter from the Late-Nineteenth-Century Northwest 

Coast. Durham: Duke University Press. 

Ramos, George

2002. Interview by William Schneider. H2002-07. Project Jukebox. The University of 

Alaska Fairbanks Oral History Program. http://jukebox.uaf.edu/WRST/0207.html

Ramos, Judith

2003. TEK, Mapping the Traditional Subsistence Territories of Yakutat Foreland. n.p.: Yakutat 

Tlingit Tribe.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 329

Ramos, Judith and Rachel Mason

2004. Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Tlingit People Concerning the Sockeye 

Salmon Fishery of the Dry Bay Area: A Cooperative Agreement between Department of 

the Interior National Park Service and the Yakutat Tlingit Tribe. National Park Service. 

Rathburn, Robert Richard

1976. Processes of Russian-Tlingit Acculturation in Southeastern Alaska. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Ratner, Nancy C. and Michael F. Turek

2009. Customary and Traditional Use Worksheet: King and Tanner Crabs In Districts 13 

and 14, Southeast Alaska. Special Publication No. BOF 2009-02. Juneau: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Reckord, Holly

1977. That's the Way We Live: A Preliminary Report on Subsistence in the Proposed 

Wrangell National Park. Fairbanks, Alaska: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of

Alaska, Fairbanks. 

1983. That's the Way We Live: Subsistence in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve. Fairbanks, Alaska: Anthropology and Historic Preservation, Cooperative Park 

Studies Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Reedy-Maschner, Katherine L. and Herbert D. G. Maschner

1999. Marauding Middlemen: Western Expansion and Violent Conflict in the Subarctic. 

Ethnohistory. Warfare and Violence in Ethnohistorical Perspective 46(4):703-743.

Richardson, Allan

1982. The Control of Productive Resources on the Northwest Coast of North America. 

In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. Nancy M. Williams 

and Eugene S. Hunn, eds. Pp. 93-112. American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, Selected Symposium 67. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.

Riddell, Francis A. and Frederica De Laguna

1952. Excavations at “Old Town,” Knight Island, Yakutat Bay, Alaska. San Francisco.

Rogers, George W.

1960. Alaska in Transition: The Southeast Region. Study sponsored by the Arctic 

Institute of North America and Resources for the Future, Inc. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

Press.

Rogers, Randall R.

1991. An Analysis of Eligibility for Subsistence Hunting in the Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park, Alaska. M.S. thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 
330 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Rubel, Paula G. and Abraham Rosman

1983. The Evolution of Exchange Structures and Ranking: Some Northwest Coast and 

Athapaskan Examples. Journal of Anthropological Research 39(1):1-25.

Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc.

1981. Chugach Region Community Subsistence Profiles: A Resource Book for the North Pacific 

Rim and the Native Communities of the Region. n.p.: n.p.

Russell, Israel C.

1891. An Expedition to Mount St. Elias, Alaska. Washington: The National Geographic 

Society.

Salisbury, Oliver Mayson

1962. The Customs and Legends of the Thlinget Indians of Alaska. New York: Bonanza Books. 

Schroeder, Robert F.

1993. Historic and Contemporary Use of Glacier Bay. In Proceedings of the Second Glacier 

Bay Science Symposium, 1993. Anchorage: National Park Service.

Schroeder, Robert F. and M. Kookesh

1988. Subsistence Harvest and Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources by Residents of Hoonah, 

Alaska. Division of Subsistence Technical Paper 142. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game.

Scidmore, Eliza Ruhamah

1896. The Discovery of Glacier Bay, Alaska. National Geographic Magazine 7(3):140-146. 

(Copy on file, Glacier Bay National Park Library.)

Sealaska Corporation

1975. Native Cemetery and Historic Sites of Southeast Alaska (Preliminary Report). 

Wilsey and Ham, Inc., Consultants. Seattle, Washington.

1982. Sealaska Corporation Resource Atlas. Sealaska Natural Resources Department. 

Juneau: Sealaska Corporation. 2 vols.

Servid, Carolyn and Donald Snow, eds.

1999. The Book of the Tongass. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions; [Berkeley, CA]: 

Distributed by Publishers Group West.

Shiels, Archie W.

1945. Tell Me A “Stowry.” Unpublished Mimeographed Typescript on File, Special 

Collections, University of Washington Library. Seattle 

Shotridge, Louis

1920. Ghost of Courageous Adventurer. Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. The 

Museum Journal 11(1):11–26. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.32106019600789
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 331

1928. The Emblems of the Tlingit Culture. Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. 

The Museum Journal 19(4):350-377. 

Simeone, William E. 

2006. Some Ethnographic and Historical Information on the Use of Large Land 

Mammals in the Copper River Basin. Copper Center, Alaska: Wrangell-St. Elias National 

Park and Preserve. 

Simeone, William E. and James A. Fall

2003. Patterns and Trends in the Subsistence Salmon Fishery of the Upper Copper River, 

Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence. 

Simpson, Maude, and Esther Billman

1960a. Story of Glacier Bay in Tlingit with English Introduction. s.n. Susie James. 

1960b. Audio tape, 45 minutes, SITK 12830. Sitka National Historical Park, Sitka, AK.

1976. Tlingit Ways of Long Ago: Ch'aagu.adi. Sitka: Sheldon Jackson Museum.

Sitka National Historic Park

1962. Letter to Dr. Ian Stevenson, Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, School of 

Medicine, University of Virginia, December 22, 1962. On file, Sitka National Historical 

Park, Archives File 14615, Folder 1, Sitka, Alaska.

Smelcer, John E.

1992. Alaska Native Oral Narrative Literature: A Guidebook and Bibliographic Index.

Anchorage: Salmon Run Publishing Co.

1993. A Cycle of Myths: Native Legends from Southeast Alaska. Anchorage: Salmon Run 

Publishers.

Smith, Harlan I.

1899. Stone Hammers or Pestles of the North-West Coast of America. American 

Anthropologist New Series 1(2):363-368.

Sneed, Paul Gerrald

1997. National Parklands in Northern Homelands: Toward Co-Management of National 

Parks in Alaska and the Yukon. In Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous 

Peoples and Protected Areas. Stan Stevens, ed., Pp. 135-154. Washington DC: Island Press. 

1998. National Parklands in Northern Homelands: A Comparison of Co-Management of 

National Parks with Native People in Alaska (USA) and the Yukon (Canada). Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Hawaii. 
332 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Sobolef, Walter

n.d. The Eight Steps in the Transition of the Tlingit Culture. Portion of a taped lecture at 

Sheldon Jackson College (no date). Typescript on file, US National Park Service, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve, 7 pp. 

Spaan, Laura Bliss

1995. More Than Words. [Videorecording]. New York, NY: Cinema Guild.

1997. Reunion under Mount Saint Elias [Videorecording]: The Return of Frederica De 

Laguna to Yakutat, Alaska. Alaska Moving Images Preservation Association. 

Anchorage, AK: Alaska Moving Images Preservation. 

Spicer, Richard C.

1990. ANILCA Research Report: Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve. Washington, 

DC, The Wilderness Society, July 25, 1990. 

Stanley, Samuel L.

1958. Historical Changes in Tlingit Social Structure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology. 

Stanton, Norman

1999. A National Treasure or A Stolen Heritage: The Administrative History of Glacier Bay 

National Park and Preserve With a Focus on Subsistence. Juneau: Sealaska Corporation.

State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

n.d. Community: Eyak. 

http://commerce.state.ak.us/cra/DCRAExternal/Community/Details/cb9ed81c-83e8-

46b1-bd3f-e5490e6c5941, accessed March 11, 2015.

Stevenson, J. J.

1893. Some Notes on Southeastern Alaska and Its People. Scottish Geographic Magazine

9:66-83. 

Stewart, Hilary 

1975. Artifacts of Northwest Coast Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 

1977. Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Seattle: University of 

Washington Press. 

1984. Cedar: Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Stickwan, Gloria, Matthew Nemeth and Michael Link

2003. A Workshop Series to Build Capacity for Collaborative Fisheries Co-Management 

Among Copper River Native Groups. Unpublished report for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Subsistence Management. Copper Center, AK: LGL Alaska Research 

Associates, Inc. and Copper River Native Association. 
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 333

Stirling, Dale A.

1985. Historic Uses of the White River, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Juneau: Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management, State 

Interest Determinations.

Stratton, Lee and Susan Georgette

1984. Use of Fish and Game by Communities in the Copper River Basin, Alaska: A 

Report on a 1983 Survey. Technical Paper 107. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Streveler, G. P.

1980a. History of Human Use. In Lituya Bay Environmental Survey, Vol. 1. G. P. Streveler, 

I. A. Worley and B. F. Molnia, eds. Pp. 336-340. Juneau: United State Department of 

Interior, National Park Service.

1980b. Relationship of People to the Lituya Biota. In Lituya Bay Environmental Survey, 

Vol. 1. G. P. Streveler, I. A. Worley and B. F. Molnia, eds. Pp. 341-345. Juneau: United 

State Department of Interior, National Park Service.

Streveler, Gregory P. and Ian A. Worley 

1975. Influence of Man Past and Present. In Dixon Harbor Biological Survey. Gregory. P. 

Streveler and Ian A. Worley, eds. Pp. 172-178. Juneau: USDI, National Park Service.

Sumner, Lowell

1947. Special Report on the Hunting Rights of the Hoonah Natives in Glacier Bay 

National Monument. USDI, National Park Service, Region Four, August 1947. On file, 

National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Cultural Resources, Anchorage, and 

Glacier Bay National Park Library, Gustavus, AK. 

Swanton, John Reed

1908. Social Condition, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationship of the Tlingit Indians. In

Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the 

Smithsonian Institution: 1904-1905. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

1909. Tlingit Myths and Texts. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology, 

Bulletin 39. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Tarr, Ralph and Lawrence Martin

1905. Glaciers and Glaciation of Yakutat Bay, Alaska. Bulletin of the American Geographical 

Society 38(3): 145-67.

Tarr, Ralph and Lawrence Martin

1914. Alaskan Glacier Studies of the National Geographic Society in the Yakutat Bay, Prince 

William Sound and Lower Copper River Regions. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic 

Society. 
334 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Taylor, Michael S., and Anjanette Perry

1988. Commercial Fishing Patterns in Glacier Bay National Park. Proceedings of the 

Second Glacier Bay Science Symposium, September 19-22, 1988, Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve, Gustavus, Alaska. US Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, AK. 

Theodoratus, D.

2000. Hoonah Tlingit Use of Glacier Bay: Annotated Bibliography. University of 

Washington Cooperative Agreement. No. CA-9000-8-007, Modifications 7, 8.

Thornton, Thomas F.

1992. Subsistence Use of Brown Bear in Southeast Alaska. Technical Paper 214. Douglas: 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 

1995a. Tlingit and Euro-American Toponymies in Glacier Bay. Proceedings of the Second 

Glacier Bay Science Symposium, 1993. Anchorage: National Park Service.

1995b. Place and Being among the Tlingit. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 

Seattle.

1995c. Tlingit Place Names for the Glacier Bay Area (Production Review Draft). Juneau, 

AK: Hoonah Indian Association and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

1997a. Know Your Place: The Organization of Tlingit Geographic Knowledge. Ethnology

36(4):295-307.

1997b. Anthropological Studies of Native American Place Naming. American Indian 

Quarterly 21(2):209-228. 

1998. Crisis in the Last Frontier: The Alaskan Subsistence Debate. Cultural Survival 

Quarterly 22(3). https://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/alaskanative-subsistence-a-matter-cultural-survival

2002. From Clan to Ḵwáan to Corporation: The Continuing Complex Evolution of Tlingit 

Political Organization. Sovereignty and Governance, II. Wicazo Sa Review 17(2):167-194.

2004. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment. 

Skagway, AK: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

2007. Alaska Native Corporations and Subsistence: Paradoxical Forces in the Making of 

Sustainable Communities. In Sustainability and Communities of Place. Carl Maida, ed. Pp. 

41–62. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books.

2008. Being and Place among the Tlingit. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

2009. Anatomy of a Traditional Cultural Property: The Saga of Auke Cape. George Wright 

Forum 26:1.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 335

2010a. The Tlingit Way of Conservation: a Matter of Respect. In Indigenous Peoples and 

Biodiversity Conservation: Towards a Common Agenda. Washington, DC: Conservation 

International.

2010b. A Tale of Three Parks: Tlingit Conservation, Representation and Livelihood in 

Southeast Alaska’s National Parks. Human Organization 69(1).

2012. Haa Léelk'w Has Aaní Saax'ú: Our Grandparents' Names on the Land. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press, in association with the Sealaska Heritage Institute.

Thornton, Thomas F., Virginia Butler, Fritz Funk, Madonna Moss, Jamie Hebert, and Tait Elder

2010. Herring Synthesis: Documenting and Modeling Herring Spawning Areas within 

Socio-Ecological Systems over Time in the Southeastern Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific 

Research Board Project #728.

Thornton, Thomas, Douglas Deur and Herman Kitka Sr.

2015. Cultivation of Salmon and Other Marine Resources on the Northwest Coast of 

North America. Human Ecology 43(2):189-199.

Tikhmenev, P.A. 

1978. A History of the Russia-American Company. R.A. Pierce and A.S. Donnelly, eds. 

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority (THRHA)

n.d. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Rental Program. 

http://regionalhousingauthority.org/housing-programs/low-income-housing-taxcredit-rental-program/, accessed February 26, 2015.

Tollefson, Kenneth D.

1976. The Cultural Foundation of Political Revitalization among the Tlingit. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

1977. A Structural Change in Tlingit Potlatching. The Western Canadian Journal of 

Anthropology 7(3):29-40.

1978. From Localized Clans to Regional Corporation: The Acculturation of the Tlingit. 

The Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 8(1): 1-20.

1982. Northwest Coast Village Adaptations: A Case Study. Canadian Journal of 

Anthropology 3(1):19-30.

1984. Tlingit Acculturation: An Institutional Perspective. Ethnology 23(3): 229-247.

1985. Potlatch and Stratification among the Tlingit. Völkerkundliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft 42. 

Nortorf, West Germany: Völkerkundliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft. 
336 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

1997. Culture Summary: Tlingit. New Haven, CT: HRAF, 1997. Computer file. 

http://hraf.yale.edu/, accessed July 15, 2015.

Topham Harold W. 

1889. A Visit to the Glaciers of Alaska and Mount St. Elias. Proceedings of the Royal 

Geographical Society 11:433-68.

Townsend, Joan B.

1979. Indian or Eskimo? Interaction and Identity in Southern Alaska. Indian-Eskimo 

Relations: Studies in the Inter-Ethnic Relations of Small Societies. Arctic Anthropology

16(2):160-182.

1980. Ranked Societies of the North Pacific Rim. In Alaska Native Cultures and History. Y. 

Kotani and William B. Workman, eds. Pp. 123-156. Senri Ethnological Series 4. National 

Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.

Trager, Earl A.

1939. Glacier Bay Expedition, 1939. File Report NAPSR RG79, Western Region, Central 

Classified Files, box 293.

Trefzger, Hardy

1957. The Lost Art of the Tlingit of Alaska [Video recording]. 53 min. Oshin Agathon for 

the American Museum of Natural History of New York. New York: American Museum 

of Natural History.

1963. My Fifty Years of Hunting, Fishing, Prospecting, Guiding, Trading and Trapping in 

Alaska. New York: Exposition Press.

Tripp, Angela, ed.

1993. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Santa Barbara, CA: Albion Publishing Group.

Turek, Michael F. (compiler)

1993. Glacier Bay Archival Material 1908-1949. Prepared for the Huna Traditional Tribal 

Council and Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, with the 

Assistance of the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Douglas, AK. 

Turek, Michael F., Amy W. Paige, Elizabeth Cheney, Jesse A. Dizard, and Nathan Soboleff

2006. Kake Subsistence Salmon Harvest Use Pattern. Technical Report 309, Final Report 

No. FIS01-104. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Turek, Michael F., Nancy C. Ratner, William E. Simeon

2008. Customary and Traditional Use Worksheet, Wolves, Game Management Units 1, 3, 

4, and 5, Southeast Alaska. Special Publication No. BOG 2008-09. Division of 

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 337

University of Alaska Fairbanks

n.d. Alaska Native Language Archive: Overview of the Eyak Language. 

http://www.uaf.edu/anla/collections/eyak/about/, accessed March 10, 2015.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

2015. Proposed Plan for no Department of Defense Action Indicated Yakutat Air Base 

FUDS. Project No. F10AK0606: (1-15).

US Census Bureau

n.d. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search: Cordova City. 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=02, accessed March 13, 

2015.

n.d. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search: Valdez-Cordova Census Area. 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=02, accessed March 13, 

2015.

n.d. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search: Yakutat City and Borough. 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=02, accessed March 13, 

2015.

1990. 1990 Census of Population General Population Characteristics Alaska. US

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: 

US Government Printing Office.

1996. Federal Information Processing System (FIPS) Codes for States and Counties. 

https://www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/totals/1990s/files/90s-fips.txt, 

accessed March 13, 2015.

2000a. Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic 

Area: Valdez-Cordova Census Area, Alaska. US Bureau of the Census.

2000b. Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic 

Area: Valdez-Cordova Census Area, Alaska. US Bureau of the Census.

2010. City and County Data Tables. Washington D.C.: US Census Bureau.

2012. Table 5. Percent Distribution of the Projected Population by Sex, Race and 

Hispanic Origin for the United States: 2015 to 2060 (NP2012-T5). Source: US Census 

Bureau, Population Division. 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/summary/NP2012-T5.xls, 

accessed March 13, 2015.

US Congress

1980. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. Public Law 96-487, 

96th Congress, Dec. 2, 1980. 16 USC 3101. Washington, DC.
338 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDAFS)

n.d. Cannon Beach Day-Use Area Improvements Project. http://data.ecosystemmanagement.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=37830, accessed October 9, 

2014.

2014. Minutes of Meeting with USDA Forest Service, per MOU [Memorandum of 

Understanding] of Dec. 3, 2014. District Ranger Jeff DeFreest, Ketchikan Misty Ranger 

District ANB/ANS Camp 14 Ketchikan and ANB/ANS Camp 15 Saxman.

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOIFWS)

1998. Subsistence Management and Use: Implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA (Final 

version). Anchorage, Alaska.

US Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDOINPS)

[var.] Commercial Fishing [1989-1983]. File N1619, File N1619B, Vertical files, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Hair Seal Hunting by Indians of Hoonah, Alaska in Glacier Bay National 

Monument. Various dates between 1964 and 1966. File H14, Vertical Files, Glacier Bay 

National Park. Also a bound collection of documents on subject in Archives/Library, 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Historic Harbor Seal Subsistence Records. File N16, File N1619A, Vertical Files, 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Historic Sites. File H30 Historic Sites and Structures, Management and 

Preservation; File H34 Historic Sites and Buildings, Vertical Files, Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Natural and Social Sciences. Mammals (Hair Seals). File N1427, Vertical Files, 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Permits, Back Country. File A9031, Vertical Files, Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

[var.] Subsistence. Various dates between 1989 and 1990. Vertical Files [no file number], 

Management Headquarters, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, 

Gustavus, AK. 

1991. Public Hearing on Commercial and Subsistence Fishing, Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve, Before Administrative Judge James Byrnes, September 26, 1991, Hoonah, 

Alaska. File N1619B Commercial Fishing Issue, Vertical Files, Glacier Bay National Park 

and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.

1992. Legislation. Commercial Fishing and Subsistence. File W38, Vertical Files, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve, Bartlett Cove, Gustavus, AK.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 339

1998a. Archaeological Resources in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, 

Alaska: An Overview and Assessment. Anchorage, Alaska: US Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Alaska Region, Alaska Support Office, Cultural 

Resources Team. 

1998b. NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. 

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm, accessed 

March 15, 2015.

2011. Federal Grants: Yakutat Community Histories, 

http://www.federalgrants.com/Yakutat-Community-Histories-31924.html, accessed 

March 15, 2015.

2012. Glacier Bay. Official Park Map.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/planyourvisit/maps.htm.

US Department of State, Office of the Historian (USDSOH)

n.d. Milestones: 1937–1945: Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years 

of World War II. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease, accessed 

October 13, 2014.

US National Archives and Records Administration (US NARA)

n.d. Records of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Web version based on Guide to 

Federal Records in the National Archives of the United States. Compiled by Robert B. 

Matchette et al. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995. 

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/197.html, accessed 

October 15, 2014.

Vancouver, George

1984. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World 1791-1795. 4 

Vols. W. Kaye Lamb, ed. London: The Hakluyt Society. [Digital copy of original 1798 

version]

Vanstone, James W.

1982. Southern Tutchone Clothing and Tlingit Trade. Arctic Anthropology 19(1):51-61.

Vaughan, Thomas

1982. Soft Gold: The Fur Trade and Cultural Exchange on the Northwest Coast of North 

America. Portland: Oregon Historical Society.

Von Wrangell, Ferdinand Petrovich

1970. The Inhabitants of the Northwest Coast of America. James W. VanStone, trans.

Arctic Anthropology 6(2):5-20.

Wagner, Henry R.

1936. Journal of Tomás de Suría of His Voyage with Malaspina to the Northwest Coast 

of America in 1791. Pacific Historical Review 5(3):234-276.
340 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

Waldman, Robert

1982. Archaeological Inventory; Seven Native Allotments, Glacier Bay Area, Alaska. [A 

Report to the National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park, Gustavus, Alaska, 1982]. 

On file, Glacier Bay National Park Library, Gustavus. 

Wardwell, Allen

1964. Yakutat South Indian Art of the Northwest Coast. Chicago: The Art Institute of 

Chicago.

Wierenga, Marlies

2000. Grappling with Conservation Goals that Include Subsistence Practices of Local 

People. M.E.S. thesis, Evergreen State College. 

Wike, Joyce Annabel

1951. The Effect of the Maritime Fur Trade on Northwest Coast Indian Society. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Wikle, Thomas A.

2014. Copper Mining, the McCarthy Road, and America’s Largest National Park. Focus 

on Geography 57(4):141-151.

Williams, Frank and Emma Williams

1978. Tongass texts. Jeff Leer, ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University 

of Alaska.

Williams, Jay P.

1952. Alaskan Adventure. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The Telegraph Press. 

Wolf and Company

1970. A Development Planning Program for the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida 

Indians of Alaska. Wolf and Company, New York under contract to Economic 

Development Administration, US Department of Commerce. December 1970. 

Wolfe, Robert J. and Craig Mishler

1993. The Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seal and Sea Lion by Alaska Natives in 1992

(Parts I and II) Southeast Alaska Communities. Technical Paper 229. Juneau: Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

Wolfe, Robert J., James A. Fall and Monica Riedel

2008. Customary and Traditional Use Worksheet, King Crab and Tanner Crab, Prince 

William Sound Management Area; and Other Background Information. Special 

Publication No. Bof 2008-03. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Subsistence.
Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment 341

2009. The Subsistence Harvest of Harbor Seals and Sea Lions by Alaska Natives in 2008. 

Technical Paper 347. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game and Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission.

Wolfe, Robert J. and James Magdanz

1993. The Sharing, Distribution, and Exchange of Wild Resources in Alaska: A 

Compendium of Materials Presented to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Special 

Publication No. SP1993-002. Anchorage: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game.

Wolfe, Sylvia Eller 

1990. A Modern Tribal Government: A Guide to the Records of the Central Council of 

Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, 1965-1990. October 1, 1990, Juneau, AK: The 

Central Council. 

Woods, Gordon F. and Zeiser, Nicole L.

2013. Annual Management Report of the 2012 Yakutat Area Commercial Salmon 

Fisheries. Fishery Management Report No. 13-22. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Commercial Fisheries. Yakutat. (1-38).

Wooley, Chris and Jim Haggarty

1993. The Hidden History of Chugach Bay. In Alaska Geographic: Prince William Sound, 

Vol. 20, No. 1. Pp. 12-17. Anchorage: Alaska Geographic Society.

Workman, Karen Wood, William S. Hanable and Alaska Office of Statewide Cultural Programs

1974. Lower Copper and Chitina Rivers: An Historic Resource Study. Office of History 

and Archaeology, Anchorage, AK.

Worl, Rosita

1982. A Synopsis of Alaska Native Subsistence Economies and Projection of Research 

Needs. Subsistence Data Base: Phase II. Arctic Environmental Information and Data 

Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage.

1990. History of Southeastern Alaska Since 1867. In Handbook of North American Indians, 

Vol. 7, Northwest Coast. Wayne Suttles, ed. Pp. 149-158. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

Wunnicke, Esther C. and the US Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska

1968. Alaska Natives & the Land. Anchorage, Alaska: Federal Field Committee For 

Development Planning In Alaska; Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Wyatt, Victoria

1984. Shapes of Their Thoughts; Reflections of Culture Contact in Northwest Coast Indian Art. 

New Haven, Connecticut: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University.

1985. Ethnic Identity and Active Choice: Foundations of Indian Strength in Southeast 

Alaska, 1867-1912. Ph.D. dissertation, New Haven: Yale University.
342 Yakutat Tlingit and Wrangell-St. Elias: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment

1987. Alaskan Indian Wage Earners in the 19th Century: Economic Choices and Ethnic 

Identity on Southeast Alaska's Frontier. The Pacific Northwest Quarterly 78(1/2):43-49.

1989. Images from the Inside Passage: An Alaskan Portrait by Winter and Pond. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press.

1993. Historic Resource Study of Southeast Alaskan Indians. Victoria Wyatt, Principal 

Investigator. Report prepared for Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service 

(Anchorage) by Futurepast: The History Company, Spokane Washington. (Draft on file, 

Sitka National Historic Park, "Tlingit Culture" Historic Resource Study Correspondence. 

Comments and Draft RG-56/Box1/Folder 9, [n.d.]).

Yak-Tat Kwaan (YTK)

2013. Yak-Tat Kwaan Stock Brochure: About Yak-Tat Kwaan. Yakutat, Alaska.

n.d. Oyster Farm. Yak-Tat Kwaan.com, http://www.yak-tatkwaan.com/, accessed 

March 15, 2015.

n.d. Sand and Gravel. Yak-Tat Kwaan.com, http://www.yak-tatkwaan.com/ , accessed 

March 15, 2015.

n.d. First Gravel Export October 2010. Yak-Tat Kwaan.com, http://www.yaktatkwaan.com/, accessed March 15, 2015.

Yakutat Chamber of Commerce (YCC)

n.d. Demographics. http://www.yakutatalaska.com/demographics.html, accessed 

March 16, 2015.

n.d. How to Get To Yakutat. http://www.yakutatalaska.com/demographics.html, 

accessed March 18, 2015.

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe (YTT)

n.d. Ankau Saltchuks. Informational Brochure. Alex James, Project Manager.

Yarborough, Michael R. and Linda Finn Yarborough

1998. Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of Prince William Sound and the Pacific Coast of 

the Kenai Peninsula. North Pacific and Bering Sea Maritime Societies: The Archaeology 

of Prehistoric and Early Historic Coastal Peoples. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):132-145.

Young, S. Hall

1915. Alaska Days with John Muir. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.