frederica de laguna and aleš hrdlička: a missed collaboration

Frederica de Laguna and Aleš Hrdlička: A Missed CollaborationAuthor(s): Rachel MasonSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 43, No. 2 (2006), pp. 130-135Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316674 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 12:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:47:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316674?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Frederica de Laguna and Ales Hrdlicka: A Missed Collaboration

Rachel Mason

Abstract. In the early 1930s, when Frederica de Laguna first conducted archaeological and eth-

nographic research in southcentral Alaska, Ales Hrdlicka was already working in the region. He had been coming to the territory since 1926 to collect human remains and study human populations. De Laguna was just beginning her long career; Hrdlicka was already a well-known physical anthropologist, and they had little contact with one another. Later in her career, de Laguna was openly critical of Hrdlicka. She particularly deplored his methodology at the Uyak site on Kodiak Island. For his part, Hrdlicka never had much praise for de Laguna. This paper looks at the two scholars' differing fieldwork styles, and their responses to each other's work.

Introduction My first and only conversation with Frederica de Laguna occurred in 1985 when she visited Ko- diak after spending part of a field season excavat- ing at the Karluk archaeological site with Richard Jordan and his entourage. At the time, I had been reading Ales Hrdlicka's diaries of his archeologi- cal work in the 1930s at Uyak, near the present village of Larsen Bay. I thought he sounded eccen- tric, but not particularly ignoble. When I asked her about him, I was taken aback when the otherwise friendly Dr. de Laguna launched into a rant against Hrdlicka. She said that by using crude methods, he had destroyed a great site at Uyak.

When I met Freddy she was already in her 70s and had more than half a century of work in Alaska under her belt. I never met Hrdlicka, who died in 1943 - more than 60 years before Freddy's death in 2004. Freddy was not the only person I ever heard disparage Hrdlicka. Around the time that I met de Laguna, I also met Dora Aga in Larsen Bay. Dora - also now deceased - was a young woman in the 1930s when Hrdlicka (whom she called "Hard Liquor") worked in the village. Like

Freddy, Dora reacted explosively at the mere mention of Hrdlicka's name. In the mid-1980s, she was still angry that his obsessive quest for skulls had led him to dig up her garden.

Today few, if any, Kodiak Native people are alive who remember Hrdlicka's visits to their vil- lages in the 1930s, though stories about his visits continue to circulate in the communities. His diaries do not mention much interaction with local Natives, although they do present a wealth of information on his wars with mosquitoes and frequent mention of his various maladies. Once I had my students at Kodiak College read Hrdlicka's The Anthropology of Kodiak Island (1944) and one of them noticed that her grandfather, Nick Phillips, was among the men at Alitak whose skulls measurements Hrdlicka took. Hrdlicka said the mod- ern Koniags had huge heads and faces, with short legs and a shorter stature than any Eskimo groups. Nick Phillips, with a cephalic index of 93.33, was the most brachycephalic (broad-skulled) individ- ual Hrdlicka had ever measured (1944:355). This was saying a lot - his head would have been almost as broad as its length from front to back. My student disputed this description and assured us

Rachel Mason, National Park Service 240 W. 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 130-135, 2006 ISSN 0066-6939; E-ISSN 1933-8139 © 2006 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System



Mason : A Missed Collaboration 131

that she would have noticed if her grandfather had such a distinctive skull.

Based on Freddy's and Dora's responses to Hrdlicka, I began to think that he must have been a terrible person. I was surprised to discover, therefore, that not all Kodiak area Natives remembered Hrdlicka with such rancor. Kodiak journalist Mike Rostad told a funny story about a 1985 encounter in Kodiak between Frederica de Laguna and Clara Helgason, an elderly woman originally from the village of Afognak, who had worked as an assistant to Hrdlicka in 1935. Mrs. Helgason remembered Dr. Hrdlicka fondly and with great respect. She liked to tell the story about the time she and young Rudy Sundberg - another Afognak resident, and like Mrs. Helgason, now deceased - were helping Dr. Hrdlicka at an archaeological site in Karluk. They talked in Russian about his ragged socks, un- aware that he spoke Russian and could understand them. Later, when they got on the boat to go back to their village, Hrdlicka showed them that he did have another pair of socks he could put on (Ros- tad, personal communication to Patrick Saltonstall February 28, 2005).

Even if Hrdlicka had defenders among Na- tive people, it was difficult to imagine an anthropologist sticking up for him, given his methods of fieldwork. While I was presenting a paper about de Laguna and Hrdlicka at a conference, therefore, I was surprised to notice Dr. Lydia Black in the au- dience, scowling with displeasure. When I quoted William Laughlin to say that Hrdlicka 's Unangan nickname, Ashaalixnamaataax, meant "The Dead Man's Daddy" (Loring and Prokopec 1994:31), she interjected vigorously that the name really meant "bull sea lion."1

Approached during the break, Dr. Black pointed out that de Laguna had a special reason to treat Hrdlicka with hostility: her teacher, Franz Boas, of the same generation as Hrdlicka and, like him, a European-born father of American anthropology, was solidly opposed to Hrdlicka's single- minded interest in the study of humans as a biological species. Although Boas's initial work was in physical anthropology, he had later embraced the four-field approach that integrated physical anthropology, archaeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics into a single discipline. Accord- ing to Dr. Black, the antagonism between Boas and Hrdlicka grew so strong that de Laguna, one of Dr. Boas's last students, had an obligation to Boas to oppose Hrdlicka.

Months after my presentation, I called Dr. Black to find out what other aspects of my paper she found troublesome. Dr. Black patiently ex- plained that Hrdlicka took a lot of undue bash- ing. She acknowledged that de Laguna was right about Hrdlicka's field methods; he was not a good archeologist. However, she thought his biological

work on Kodiak Island was sound. Dr. Black said that Hrdlicka was ridiculed even in his own time for mistakenly believing in the Piltdown Man. Per- haps worse, Hrdlicka always insisted that some of the original settlers of the Americas came from Eu- rope - presaging by several decades the contro- versy over the "Caucasoid" Kennewick Man dis- covered in Washington in 1996. Dr. Black deplored the current fashion of ridiculing Hrdlièka.

Dr. Black clearly admired both HrdliÈka and de Laguna, despite the obvious dissimilarity of the two scholars' approaches. Hrdlicka was a physical anthropologist interested in questions of ori- gins, particularly of Native American populations, while de Laguna was squarely a Boasian champion of the four-field approach to anthropology. She de- liberately collected and combined archaeological, ethnographic, linguistic, and physical anthropology data; she even published a short monograph on a problem in the relationship of ethnography to archaeology in a Tlingit community (de Laguna 1953). Hrdlicka, on the other hand, acknowledged vaguely that "something in the cultural field" still could be done (certainly not by him) on Kodiak Is- land, but he cautioned that ethnography would have to be done with care since the Natives were already so Russianized (1944:354).

Differences in Methodologies As a result of Hrdlicka's and de Laguna's different anthropological interests, their fieldwork styles could not have been more different from one another. He was quite single-minded in his academic concerns (Krogman 1976) and therefore not interested in individuals, sociocultural anthropology, or linguistics. In contrast, Freddy developed an en- cyclopedic knowledge of the people she studied, establishing long-lasting relationships with her Native consultants and collecting a broad range of information.

Both de Laguna and Hrdlicka did broad archaeological survey work in Alaska in addition to concentrating on particular sites. In de Lagu- na's 1947 book, The Prehistory of North America as Seen from the Yukon, she catalogued a number of places that Hrdlicka had visited and described during his travels in the 1920s and early 1930s. She cited Hrdlicka's travel diaries, and seldom questioned the veracity of his observations. Com- paring Hrdlicka's diary with de Laguna's accounts of her visits to Native communities makes it clear that their personal styles and research goals dif- fered greatly.

Hrdlicka wrote about the local people as specimens of a particular physiognomy, classify- ing them as Indian, Eskimoid, or as having some admixture of white blood. His interaction with Na- tive people ended as soon as he had taken their



2 32 Arctic Anthropology 43:2

physical measurements and photos (Loring and Prokopec 1994:30). De Laguna, on the other hand, quoted local people in her notes, referring to them as "Mr." or "Mrs." and developed close friendships with individuals. In addition, she went to great ef- forts to gather information from as many sources as possible. Freddy's friend and collaborator Cath- arine (Kitty) McClellan told me that soon after the Alaska Highway was completed in 1946, she and Freddy drove up the new road to work among the Tlingit, inland Tlingit, and inland Athabaskans. "We would always try to get adopted into opposite moieties," said McClellan.

Collaboration between de Laguna and Hrdlicka might have been fruitful. De Laguna found parallels between Kodiak Island and Kache- mak Bay physical types, based on her compari- son of her findings from southern Cook Inlet in the early 1930s to Hrdlicka's from the same time period on Kodiak Island. Kachemak Bay I, according to de Laguna, occurred from A.D. 0 to 500. Kache- mak Bay II, a transitional period, was from A.D. 500 to 1000. Kachemak Bay III represented the period between A.D. 1000 and 1700, or shortly before European contact (de Laguna 1947:11). The group that Hrdlicka called the Pre-Koniag had oblong or medium heads and was more Indian-like than the round-headed Koniags who replaced them about 1530 A.D.

Hrdlicka grouped the human remains and artifacts he found into blue, red, and black categories. The earliest deposits, from the Pre-Koniag era, he called the "blue" group, and they were fol- lowed by the later pre-Koniag or "red" group. The top layer was the "black" group, represent- ing the broad-skulled Koniags whose descendents still lived on Kodiak Island (Speaker 1994:58). Hrdlicka sorted the bones and artifacts into piles based on his impressions of the categories in which they belonged. De Laguna noticed, in fact, that some of the artifacts processed by Hrdlicka and his crew had both red and black marks on them, as if someone had changed his mind and wanted to put them in a different category. Al- though she gamely tried to coordinate her Kache- mak Bay sequence with Hrdlicka's categories, by the time she published Chugach Prehistory in 1956 de Laguna was putting "Koniag" and "Pre- Koniag" in quotes, perhaps revealing some skep- ticism about these assignations (see de Laguna 1956:259-260).

By then, Hrdlicka had been dead for over a decade, but his influence in Alaskan anthropology was still enormous. More boldly than previously, de Laguna questioned the conclusions Hrdlicka drew from his work on Kodiak Island and in the Aleutians. His neglect of stratigraphy now irritated her greatly. She noted that his poor methodology prevented us from knowing when the steam bath appeared on Kodiak Island (1956:49), although in

a later publication (1964:40) she credited Hrdlicka and Heizer (1956) with finding evidence for the late appearance of the steam bath on Kodiak. She challenged what she called Hrdlicka's "consis- tent interpretation" of scattered human bones in Kodiak and Aleutian sites as proof that the people were cannibals (de Laguna 1956:84-85). To be fair to Hrdlicka, I could not find any evidence that he thought cannibalism had been proven. He did say that the pre-Koniags' bones were scattered "whether through cannibalism or other means" (Hrdlicka 1944:323). Of his findings in the Aleu- tians, Hrdlicka said merely "suggests cannibalism but uncertain" (1945:230) and "possibly cannibalism" (1945:298).

Further, de Laguna questioned Hrdlicka's interpretation of cremated remains found at Uyak and at Kamagil Island to mean some unfortunate slaves or captives had been burned alive (1956:89). Again, however, among Hrdlicka's writings on the topic I could only find the relatively mild assertion that cremated remains were "doubtless sacrificed slaves" (1945:267). In response to Hrdlicka's omis- sion of wood as a possible coffin material in the Aleutians, de Laguna pointed to something that looked suspiciously like a wooden coffin in one of Hrdlicka's photos from Umnak Island (de Laguna 1956:98-99; Hrdlicka 1945:326, Fig. 117).

Finally, at the end of Chugach Prehistory (1956:259-261), she abandoned restraint and strongly criticized Hrdlicka for his bad methodology. Her critique was justified: he blatantly ignored stratigraphy and the provenience of specimens. Be- cause of the thick plant roots at Uyak, Hrdlicka thought it was too hard to dig from the surface (Heizer 1956:7). His strategy of preparing a vertical exposure and then undercutting the cliff ensured that everything was likely to be piled in a heap.

A more serious charge than careless methodology, perhaps, was de Laguna's suggestion that Hrdlicka may have succumbed to the temptation to modify his estimates of depth and chronology when he sorted his harvested relics and remains into pre-Koniag and Kodiak piles. He was con- vinced, after all, that the best-made artifacts must be the work of the more artistic pre-Koniags rather than the Koniags, and that individuals with short, broad and round skulls must fit into the Koniag category (1944:349, 367-369). In partial defense of Hrdlicka, Don Dumond has pointed out that Hrdlicka's pre-Koniag classification did include a few short-headed specimens, and that there were also a few long-headed Koniags in his groups (Du- mond 1994:52).

Hrdlicka's casual methods contrasted sharply with de Laguna's meticulous attention to detail and her observations of context. In fact, when his student and team member Robert Heizer (1956) tried to do damage control for Hrdlicka's perfor- mance at Uyak by reconstructing the archeology of



Mason : A Missed Collaboration 133

the site, he relied heavily on de Laguna's Kache- mak Bay work and utilized a method of histori- cal analysis she had developed using trait distri- butions (Heizer 1956:10). Heizer did his best, in those pre-radiocarbon days, to put dates on the Ko- niag and pre-Koniag cultures and to correlate them with de Laguna's Kachemak Bay sequences. Heizer admitted that Hrdlicka's crude collecting methods put him at a disadvantage, but he said that at least there was a substantial collection of over 4,600 specimens from Uyak, while de Laguna's sampling was perhaps too limited for any kind of definitive classification (Heizer 1956:9).

Frederica de Laguna did collect human remains on Yukon Island, but they were not her only interest. Hrdlicka much preferred finding human remains, particularly skulls, to artifacts, because of his almost single-minded interest in biological anthropology. He referred to the products of his collecting labors at Uyak as a "rich harvest" of skulls and skeletons (Hrdlicka 1944:353). He was never a participant observer among Native people, and indeed rarely mentioned talking to local Native peo- ples. For background ethnographic information about Kodiak and the Aleutians, he relied on the eighteenth and nineteenth century writings of Rus- sian colonists and other early European visitors to Alaska (Hrdlicka 1944:9).

His fieldwork style reflected his passion for human remains. At one point, he mentioned that detailed note-taking about such trivial matters as depth measurements was "impracticable," and said it would have confused matters rather than simplified them. He minimized the "unfortunate" loss of his field notes for an entire season by saying they were largely a repetition of the pre- vious year's notes (Loring and Prokevec 1994:32- 33; Hrdlicka 1944:204). Given his desire to collect large numbers of human remains, many people be- lieve that Hrdlicka routinely crossed the bound- ary between archeology and grave robbing (Pullar 1994:21).

De Laguna's interests and therefore her pur- suits were much broader than Hrdlicka's. De La- guna tried to find ways to integrate archeology and ethnology. In sharp contrast to Hrdlicka's account of his travels in Alaska - which more lavishly described his maladies and meals than his interac- tions with living Alaska Natives - de Laguna's observations of local people showed interest in their lives and motivations. No detail was insignificant; for example, she noticed that Athabaskan house graves generally displayed an American flag near the foot of the grave (1947:83). In Chugach Prehis- tory (1956) she made frequent references to several local people with whom she developed close working relationships and warm friendships, particularly Chief Makari Chimowitski, introduced as "the oldest living Eskimo in the Sound" (de La- guna 1956:ix, 66-101). The chapter addressing

Chugach disposal of the dead, for instance, alter- nates her findings and conclusions with information provided by Makari and his interpretations of the data.

Similiarities between the Scholars Perhaps more surprising than the differences were the ways the two scholars converged - even though there is a much shorter list of similarities. Both were giants in the field of Alaskan anthropology. Their work overlapped mainly in the area of physical anthropology, and to a lesser extent, archaeology. They worked in some of the same parts of Alaska, particularly in what is now known as the Alutiiq or Sugpiaq culture area, including lower Cook Inlet, Kodiak Island, and Prince Wil- liam Sound.

The two fieldworkers shared the need to be resourceful about finding bed and board in the field. Hrdlicka carried letters of introduction in order to stay at missions and trading posts (cf., Hrdlicka 1930:33). De Laguna also stayed with village teachers, at canneries, or at mission stations (cf., de Laguna 1956:ix-x, 1947:v).

Both Hrdlicka and de Laguna used what- ever means of transportation they could find at the time. They had to cobble money together to sup- port their fieldwork. Freddy depended in part on funding supplied by her father and her fellow workers included her mother and brother, as well as Kaj Birket-Smith and Catharine McClellan. Hrdlicka sometimes paid for his board by giving lectures at Nome or at canneries on Kodiak Island. Perhaps because both scholars conducted research in Alaska during the Depression of the 1930s, they learned how to do fieldwork cheaply. Both were known for their frugality in the field (Workman, personal communication February 2005, on de La- guna; Krogman 1976:6 on Hrdlicka).

Encounters between the Scholars Hrdlicka made very few published comments on Freddy's work, even though they both worked in Uyak and Kachemak Bay for some of the same summers. Mostly, he ignored her. In his report of a survey trip to the Kenai Peninsula in July 1934, he mentioned a visit to Yukon Island, which he said was among the largest and most promising sites in Kachemak Bay, although nothing approaching the sites on Kodiak Island. Miss de Laguna, he said, had excavated a modest part of the Yukon Island site (Hrdlicka 1944:129).

Loring and Prokopec (1994:29) point out that Hrdlicka seemed to have a peculiar aversion to women. He particularly objected to women who smoked, wore makeup, or worked outside the home. He avoided women scientists like the plague and on grounds of propriety supposedly



1 34 Arctic Anthropology 43:2

once walked out of a meeting where the sexual habits of monkeys were being discussed in mixed company.

The only story I have been able to collect of an actual Hrdlicka-de Laguna encounter supports the idea that Hrdlicka had a special problem with women. I heard the story both from Bill Workman and Susan Kaplan. At one time, probably in the 1930s, de Laguna went to the Smithsonian to meet with her friend and fellow Arctic archaeologist Henry Collins. She lit a cigarette and put up her feet as she and Collins engaged in an animated dis- cussion in his office. Hrdlicka came by, and by way of a greeting, snorted something to the effect of "A woman!! And schmooking yet!" as he stomped on. Frederica de Laguna's main objection to Hrdlicka was his incompetence as an archeologist. Hrdlicka, if he thought about her at all, objected to de La- guna for being a female scientist. In fact, although they studied in some of the same culture areas - and shared many of the same colleagues and Alas- kan contacts - their fieldwork styles and, indeed, their personal styles were very different. De La- guna, who always made lasting friends with the people whose heritage she studied, could also have critiqued Hrdlicka for his lack of respectful interaction with Native people. Since his primary goal was to collect large samples of human skeletal remains and data on the physiology of living populations, it would be hard to imagine him return- ing for a happy reunion as she did at Eyak, Yaku- tat, and Yukon Island, among other places. If only Hrdlicka had learned from de Laguna's fieldwork methods, he might have gained a richer knowledge of the cultural heritage of the people whose bones he studied. More broadly, our knowledge of Alaska Native culture might have benefited greatly from a closer and more mutually understanding collaboration between de Laguna and Hrdlicka.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Lydia Black, Moses Dirks, Crystal Swetzof Dushkin, Su- san Kaplan, Michael Rostad, Sherry Simpson, Amy Steffian, Liz Williams, and William Workman for their help in researching and writing this paper.

Endnote 1. I posted a question on the ALEUT Listserve about the meaning of Hrdlicka's nickname. The four members who responded pointed to parts of the word ashaalixnamaataax that could refer to a dead man or mummy, the main male (Daddy?), bull sea lion or bull fur seal. I am particularly grateful to Crystal Swetzof Dushkin and Moses Dirks, who both suggested that the name's meaning might depend on the speaker's regional dialect. Ms. Dushkin also mentioned that the spelling attributed to Laughlin is not Unangax (Aleut),

because the "sh" sound does not occur in that language.

References Dumond, Don E. 1994 The Uyak Site in Prehistory, in Reckoning with

the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Támara L. Bray and Thomas W. Killion, eds. Pp. 43-53. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dumond, Don E. and G. Richard Scott 1991 The Uyak Site on Kodiak Island: Its Place in

Alaskan Prehistory. University of Oregon An- thropological Papers, 44.

Heizer, Robert 1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island,

Alaska. University of California Anthropologi- cal Records 17:1.

Hrdlicka, Ales 1930 Anthropological Survey in Alaska. Extract from

the 46 th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri- can Ethnology. Washington, D. C: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. [1973 Facsimile reproduc- tion, Seattle: The Shorey Book Store]

1943 Alaska Diary, 1926-1931. Lancaster: Jacques Cattell Press.

1944 The Anthropology of Kodiak Island. Philadephia: Wistar Institute.

de Laguna, Frederica 1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Phila-

delphia: Published for the University Museum by the University of Penny slvania Press.

1946 The Importance of the Eskimo in Northeastern Archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America. Frederic Johnson, ed. Pp. 106-142. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation, vol. 3. Andover: Phillips Academy.

1947 The Prehistory of Northern North America as [1980] Seen from the Yukon. Memoirs of the Society

for American Archaeology, 3. Menasha: Society for American Archaeology. [Reprinted 1980. New York: AMS Press.]

1953 Some Problems in the Relationship between Tlingit Archaeology and Ethnology. In Asia and North America: Transpacific Contacts. Marion W. Smith, ed. Society for American Archaeology Memoir, 9. (American Antiq- uity, supplement), v. 18, no. 3, pt. 2, p. 53-57. Pp. 53-57. Menasha: Society for American Archaeology.

1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Publications in Anthro- pology,! 3. Seattle: University of Washington.



Mason : A Missed Collaboration 1 35

de Laguna, Frederica, Francis A Riddell, Donald F. McGeein, Kenneth S. Lane, and J. Arthur Freed 1964 Archeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska.

Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 192. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Krogman, Wilton Marion 1976 Fifty Years of Physical Anthropology: The Men,

the Material, the Concepts, the Methods. An- nual Review of Anthropology 1976. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Loring, Stephen and Miroslav Prokopec 1994 A Most Peculiar Man: The Life and Times of

Ales' Hrdlièka. In Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Támara L. Bray and Thomas W. Kil- lion, eds. Pp. 26-40. Washington, D.C.: Smith- sonian Institution Press.

Rostad, Michael 1985 Renowned Anthropologist Visits Karluk Site.

Kadiak Times, Kodiak, Alaska, August 22.

Sherwood, John 1977 "The Skull Doctor": Head Hunter Larger than

Life. The Washington Star, January 10, G-l.

Speaker, Stuart 1994 The Red, Black, and Blue: Context and Mortuary

Data at Larsen Bay, Kodiak Island. In Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution. Támara L. Bray and Thomas W. Killion, eds. Pp. 54-66. Washing- ton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Steffian, Amy F. 1992 Fifty Years after HrdliCka: Further Investigation

at the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. An- thropological Papers of the University of Alaska 24(1-2}:141-164.



frederica de laguna and aleš hrdlička: a missed collaboration

Documents