M/V Tiglax Sails for Science

Authors: Lisa Spitler and Jeff Williams | Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

Tiglax SketchThe M/V Tiglax (TEKH-lah – Aleut for eagle) is essential to managing the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The boat is 120 feet long and operates with a crew of 6. Fourteen scientists can live and work aboard. She has wet and dry labs and freezers for storing samples. Tiglax can deploy midwater and bottom trawls for sampling fish and plankton, and hosts bioacoustic transducers and data processors for sampling fish/plankton densities; and a SBE-21 thermosalinograph for diving seabird studies.

In a season, the Tiglax may sail to Forrester and St. Lazaria Islands in Southeast Alaska, or into Bering Sea as far as St. Matthew Island. Her main operations area is, however, the Aleutian Chain. Tiglax typically spends 120-160 days at sea covering as many as 20,000 nautical miles (at a top speed of 10 knots) traveling from the home port of Homer, Alaska out to Attu Island at the extreme west end of the Aleutian chain and back, several times a season.

The main role of the Tiglax is to transport service personnel, equipment, and supplies between work sites throughout the refuge. This year Tiglax departs Homer on May 17 to deploy FWS biologists and biological technicians at field camps in the Semidi Islands, on Aiktak, Buldir, Kiska, and Attu. These scientists focus on studying seabird colonies, but also work on reestablishing endangered habitats, they identify and monitor archaeological and historic sites, they monitor bird populations and human impacts on habitats, they maintain remote field facilities, and they patrol refuge waters.

 Tiglax also serves as a seagoing research platform and living quarters for scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or other federal or state agencies and universities. This year’s FWS projects include removal of invasive foxes from islands to restore native bird populations, collecting background information on contaminants left over from World War II, and monitoring other contaminant cleanup efforts on Attu and Amchitka, studying Kasatochi Island as she recovers from an eruption in 2008, lichen research on Adak, and visiting remote bird nesting colonies.

Non FWS partners include the National Marine Fisheries Service for sea lion studies, the University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Sciences and School of Fisheries, The Alaska Volcano Observatory, and the US Navy.

Stay with us for the “Summer of the Tiglax” as we report in on monitoring and research activities supported and facilitated by the Tiglax and crew!



World War Two-period Defensive Fortifications at Eareckson Air Station, Shemya Island

Jason Rogers | PhD: Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC, Senior Project Archaeologist

The landscape of Shemya Island in the western Aleutian chain is dominated by military structures, many of which date from the Second World War. The western Aleutians were of considerable strategic importance to the United States during this period due to their proximity to Japan. In June, 1942, Dutch Harbor on the island of Unalaska was attacked by bombers and fighter aircraft of the Japanese Imperial Navy. Just days later, the islands of Kiska and Attu were occupied by Japanese forces. In the spring of 1943, military commanders decided to establish an air base in the western Aleutians to provide fighter protection for troops attempting to reoccupy the islands.  Shemya Island was chosen for its relatively flat geography, and for its proximity to Attu. In May 1943, during the U.S. campaign to retake Attu Island the U.S. Army began work on a secret air base at Shemya. Between June and August 1943, runways for fighters and bombers, with hangars and other support facilities, were constructed. Between 1943 and 1945 the airfield was used to launch bombing raids on Japanese military targets in the northern Kurile Islands. During this period, Shemya also played a role in the WWII Lend-Lease program as a refueling stop for planes en route from North America to Siberia.

While many of the large structures such as aircraft hangars were recorded and documented for historic preservation purposes in the 1990s, the extensive remains of defensive fortifications remained uninvestigated. In May 2015, historical background and field investigations of WWII-period defensive fortifications on Shemya Island were undertaken at the request of the U.S. Air Force.

The WWII-period sites documented for this project were classified into two general categories: Pillbox Bunkers (20) and Gun Emplacement and Fire Control Complexes (7). Bunkers were further classified as machine-gun pillboxes (Figure 1) or 37 mm artillery bunkers (Figure 2). Gun emplacements consist of large anti-aircraft complexes (Figure 3), and 155 mm coastal defense complexes.

Figure 1Figure 1. Machine-gun pillbox.

Figure 2Figure 2. 37 mm artillery bunker.

Figure 3Figure 3. 90 mm fixed mount gun emplacement, part of a large anti-aircraft complex.

The military constructed Shemya’s defensive fortifications with three main objectives: 1) to defend the island from waterborne invasion; 2) to defend the island from marine bombardment; and 3) to defend the island’s facilities from aerial bombing or strafing.  The types of defense systems and their spatial arrangement on the island correspond to these objectives. Pillbox bunkers were primarily directed against the possibility of invasion via landing craft and personnel. The 155 mm coastal defense batteries were primarily directed against battleships and other foreign marine fleet elements. Anti-aircraft complexes were intended to protect the island – especially the runway – from aerial bombardment and strafing.

Individual elements of defensive fortifications were designed, built, and integrated as components of a larger system. Understanding how each feature was situated on the landscape, and how each was meant to coordinate with the others, is important to gaining an understanding of the whole system. Patterns in the location and positioning of the various defensive fortification types correlate topographically to the landscape of Shemya Island (Figure 4). The flat-topped seamount presents an inclined planar geography, generally sloping gently upward from south to north. Bluffs on the island’s southern side average 6 to 8 m in elevation, while the high cliffs on the northern side reach 75 m. Machine gun and 37 mm artillery pillbox bunkers are concentrated on the more accessible south and west coasts, with concentrated coverage of shallow coves and beaches, as well as the island’s only harbor. Anti-aircraft and fire control positions are located at higher elevations at regular intervals along the length of the island, paralleling the main runway. The 90 mm guns situated in the anti-aircraft emplacements could also be used against ground targets if required. The two large 155 mm coastal defense positions are set on the northern cliffs – the island’s highest points. A single machine gun pillbox controls the only road leading from the sea level strand flats to the cliff tops on the north side of the island.

Figure 4Figure 4. Spatial patterning of Shemya Island’s WWII defensive fortification systems.


Cohen, Stan

1988    The Forgotten War. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, MT.

Rogers, Jason S., Morgan Blanchard, and Roberta Gordaoff

2015    Survey and Documentation of World War II Defensive Fortifications at Eareckson Air Station, Shemya Island, Alaska. Report prepared for Baer Engineering and U.S. Air Force 611 CES. Northern Land Use Research Alaska LLC, Anchorage.

Ross, James L.

1969    Construction and Operation of a World War II Army Air Force Forward Base: Shemya, Alaska, May 1943 – December 1945. Office of History, Alaskan Air Command, Anchorage.

Header image: Agattu Island from Shemya, with anti-aircraft gun emplacement in the foreground.

Gardening in the Aleutian Islands during the Russian Period

Author: Douglas Veltre | Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage | dwveltre@uaa.alaska.edu

(This material is largely based on “Gardening in Colonial Russian America: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives from the Aleut Region, Alaska,” by Douglas Veltre, published in 2011 in Ethnoarchaeology 3(2):119-138.)

Russian fur hunters entered the Aleutian Islands region shortly after the 1741 voyages of Vitus Bering and Alexei Chirikof.  Over the decades that followed, Russians extended their activities ever farther eastward and southward, so that by the early 1800s their presence extended to southeastern Alaska.  The early fur-hunting voyages were often of several years’ duration, with ships remaining in Aleutian waters until they had amassed a profitable number of sea otter, fur seal, and other furs.

Though the number of Russians in Alaska never exceeded about 800 at any one time, the Russian colonial period was a devastating time for many Alaska Native people, including Unangax^ (Aleuts).  As much as 90 percent of their population was lost through hostilities, introduced diseases, and accidental deaths.  In addition, traditional patterns of kinship, leadership, subsistence, technology, and religion were profoundly altered.

In 1974, I began three seasons of field research on the effects of the eighteenth century Russian arrival on the Unangax^ of Atka Island, in the central Aleutian Islands (Figure 1).  My primary focus was to investigate the archaeological visibility of contact: the changes in material culture, settlement use, food remains, etc. that could be taken as signs of the arrival of Russians in the region.  To supplement the archaeological findings and gain further insights on the contact period, I also researched Russian period documents and conducted oral history interviews with Unangax^ in Atka.

Veltre Fig 1

Figure 1: Korovinski and the village of Atka.  (Detail of a USGS map.)

Initial examination of several sites on the eastern portion of the island led to more intensive mapping, testing, and excavation at the site of Korovinski, on the Bering Sea coast, some 16 km (10 miles) from today’s village of Atka. Well known to today’s residents of Atka village through oral history, personal travel to the area, and written historical documentation, Korovinski was one of the ancestral villages to today’s village of Atka, which was formed around 1870.  Interestingly, it is one of the few old settlements in the state to be identified on modern USGS maps as a “site.”

Veltre Fig 2

Figure 2: The Korovinski site area, looking east-northeast.  Korovin Lagoon is to the left, Korovin Bay to the right.

As my archaeological investigation was to show, Korovinski was the locale of a large pre-Russian Unangax^ village from about 2,000 to 500 years ago, at which time a major volcanic eruption sent its occupants elsewhere.  It was not until the middle of the Russian period, around 1820, that Korovinski was again occupied, this time by both Russians and Unangax^.  The settlement served as the westernmost office of the Russian-American Company, having jurisdiction from the central Aleutians to Kamchatka.  Remains of well over 80 structures (including houses, a barn, warehouses, and a church) are dispersed over both the western and eastern low-lying spits at the mouth of Korovin Lagoon (Figure 3).  In the years after Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, Korovinski residents moved to today’s village of Atka.

Of particular interest at Korovinski are extensive garden plots (Figures 4-6) defined by sod walls about 1 m (3.3 feet) high.  Inside these walls, individual plots are often clearly furrowed.  Probably built to keep out domestic animals, such as the cattle and goats that Russians brought to the Aleutians, the walls could also have served to mark the ownership of the crops: those belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian-American Company, and so on.  Altogether, the various garden plots on both the Korovinski spit and the eastern spit cover an area of just over 19,000 m2 (1.9 hectares or 4.7 acres).

Veltre Fig 3

Figure 3: The locations of cultural remains at Korovinski.


Veltre Fig 4

Figure 4: Garden plots at the end of the main (western) Korovinski spit. Low altitude oblique photograph, looking west.

Veltre Fig 5

Figure 5: Detail of Korovinski spit gardens, with furrows visible in several of the plots. Low altitude photograph, looking down.

Veltre Fig 6

Figure 6: Gardens and surface depressions on the eastern spit at Korovinski. (Aerial photograph by AERO-METRIC, Inc., Alaska Division, Roll 26B, Frame 22, May 12, 1986.)

While it is not possible to say with certainty that all of the garden plots on both spits were planted at the same time, I think it is likely that most were.  Estimates of the gardens’ productivity are difficult to state with precision; nevertheless, contemporary yield figures for Alaskan potatoes suggests that the Korovinski gardens might have produced from about 11,700 to 85,800 kilograms (25,800 to 190,000 pounds) annually.  As the Korovinski gardens were the largest in the Aleutian Islands region, it is likely that the Russian-American Company shipped some of the Korovinski potatoes elsewhere in the region to help support its fur-hunting endeavors.

During the Russian period, potatoes were fairly widely cultivated in the Aleutian Islands region and elsewhere in Alaska, but usually in relatively small plots that have been lost to time.  The Korovinski gardens are unusual because of their size as well as the fact that they have not been destroyed by subsequent development of the area.  Another example of surviving gardens plots is in Unalaska, on the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.  A view from 1840s by the artist Voznesenskii clearly shows gardens adjacent to the church (Figure 7).  The low furrows from this plot remain today as faint reminders of the Russian era (Figure 8).

Veltre Fig 7

Figure 7: Gardens in Unalaska in 1843 by Voznesenskii (from Pavel Golovin, The End of Russian America, Oregon Historical Society, 1979, p. 125).


Veltre Fig 8

Figure 8: Gardens furrows in the church yard in Unalaska today.

The Jochelson Collection: An Adventure to Moscow to study artifacts from the Aleutian Islands of Alaska

Author: Virginia Hatfield, PhD


Jochelson image

Figure 1. Vladimir Jochelson from American Museum of Natural History, December 2015, http:// 70point8percent. blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html.

In September of 2015, I journeyed to Moscow, Russia to examine Aleutian artifacts collected by Vladimir Jochelson (Figure 1). Jochelson visited the Aleutian archipelago during the Riaboushinsky Expedition of the Imperial Russian Geographic Society, to Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands that he led from 1909-1911. The sites excavated during this expedition span the Aleutians and included three sites on Attu, two sites on Atka, four sites on Umnak, three sites on Amaknak, and one site on Hog Island, as well as sites in Kamchatka not discussed herein. These findings from this expedition have been published as Archeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands (1925) through the Carnegie Institution and republished under the same name by Maschner and Reedy-Maschner (2002). The artifacts are currently curated at the State Historical Museum located on Red Square (Figure 2). My review of artifacts was an attempt to inventory the items in the collection and provide photos and measurements of the stone and bone artifacts that comprise the collection (Figure 3). Unfortunately, permission to photograph the artifacts was contingent on not publishing the images without consent and a fee; thus, none of my photos are presented here. I also was not able to document 100% of the collection due to time constraints.

State Historical Museum Moscow

Figure 2. State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia (from http://www.moscow. info/museums/state-historical-museum.aspx)


Figure 3. A sketch of a biface from the Jochelson collection.

Colleagues Olga Krylovich and Arkady Savinetsky (Figure 4) of the Laboratory of Historical Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, took time out of their busy schedules and we were able to measure and describe as much as 70% of this collection—an array of complex multi-component tools used to hunt birds and sea mammals and for fishing. These include chipped stone hafted projectiles, hafted knives; groundstone ulus; and bone harpoons, spears, and darts, as well as bone and ivory ornamental items.

Documentation of this collection will contribute to our understanding of both chipped stone and bone/ivory technology used in the Aleutians. The artifacts from Attu in the western Aleutians, Atka in the central Aleutians, and Umnak, Amaknak, Hog Island in the eastern Aleutians span the Aleutians. Although images and descriptions were published by Jochelson and provide invaluable ethnographic-based functional interpretations, introducing metric measurements and technofunctional analysis (how these items were made and used) will allow this assemblage to be incorporated into the research conducted by Dixie West, Kirsten Nicolaysen, Breanyn MacInnes and myself in the Islands of the Four Mountains as well as current research by other members of the Aleutian Islands Working Group.

I greatly appreciate the assistance of Natalya Shishlina and Irina Sumina of the State Historical Museum for their warm and gracious assistance. It was a wonderful and invaluable experience allowing me to visit my colleagues at the Lab of Historical Ecology, learn a great deal about Moscow and Russia, as well as add to my understanding of Aleutian material culture.

Fig 4

Figure 4. Arkady Savinetsky (left) and Olga Krylovich (right)


Jochelson, Waldemar 1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, 367, Washington D.C.

Maschner, Herbert D.G. and Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner 2002 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Upland Houses in the Central Aleutian Islands

Author: Diane K. Hanson| University of Alaska Anchorage|dkhanson@uaa.alaska.edu

The first upland sites recorded in the Aleutian Islands were discounted by some researchers as World War II features, or materials dumped in upper elevations by construction, or artifacts dropped by collectors.  This was partly because there was an assumption that terrestrial resources were not particularly important to Unangax^ people and there would be little reason to venture far from the coast, even though there were historic accounts of people using trails across the islands, hunting birds, and gathering rock for making tools.

It wasn’t until the 1980s and 1990s that more archaeologists began recording upland features.  Beginning in 2007, archaeologists from the University of Alaska Anchorage started conducting archaeological surveys on Adak Island to find upland sites.  Dr. Caroline Funk was also recording sites on the Rat Islands.  In the Central Aleutian Islands, they have been identified on Adak, Kanaga, and Tanaga Islands, and in the Rat Islands on Hawadax, Amchitka, and Kiska Islands.  They are also reported on Unalaska and Umnak Islands in the Eastern Aleutian Islands.  The sites range from rock cairns and scatters of stone flakes from making tools to clusters of house pits.  ADK-237 on Adak Island, and another site on Kanaga Island have 20 to 25 house depressions visible on the surface.  There are probably many more house floors underground that are not visible, and later houses were probably built within the depressions of earlier houses.

Many of the upland sites recorded on western Adak Island with multiple house depressions overlook bays or lakes, but are not visible from the shoreline.  It is interesting that they can be seen from other upland sites.  These are not recent sites either.  While some are only 300-400 years old, ADK-237 is 3800 years old, and another that has not been excavated is between 5400 and 5100 years old.  These sites have always been upland and are not at higher elevations cause of uplift from earthquakes or the movement of tectonic plates, nor because sea levels dropped.


The only upland house site that has been excavated so far is one at ADK-237 on Adak Island.  Roberta Gordaoff with the University of Alaska Anchorage is finishing up the analysis on this house and will defend her thesis in the spring.  The house is similar in age and construction to houses at the Amaknak Bridge site in Unalaska with small ditches or covered depression that run along the walls to the chimney of a fire place.  The chimney extends out the side wall.  The house was dug into the ground, and there is ochre or red pigment on the floor.  There are few artifacts in the house probably because people moved out of the house intentionally.  It was occupied during the Neoglacial period, during a colder interval that brought ringed seals and polar bears as far south as Unalaska but probably not to the central islands.



The obvious question is why were people building houses on the tops of hills or beside small lakes and not near the beach where most of the food could be gathered and processed?  There were no large mammals in the Central Aleutian Islands. The passes across the island can be traveled in an hour or so, and in most cases it would take longer to build the houses than to walk to the other coast.  The houses are also more substantial than would be expected for a temporary structure.


Some of the lakes and streams have spawning salmon in the summer, which might explain sites along stream edges.  Probably the biggest influx of terrestrial food is in the spring and the summer with the arrival of waterfowl and later the eggs and small chicks.  Then when Aleutian Geese molt in the late summer they cannot fly and they move farther inland.  Bird populations were considerably higher before foxes and other terrestrial mammals were introduced onto the islands, and the amount of food available during those periods must have been similar to salmon runs.  Other reasons for people to build houses upland near coastal villages were for women’s houses while they menstruated or gave birth, religious places where shamans could practice without affecting their neighbors, and storage for hunters’ tools.  High areas overlooking bays and waterways were also used to spot hunters coming home, enemies, or watch for whales and other sea mammals.  We assume that each site does not have the same explanation, but if we don’t look for them, and understand them, we are developing a poor reflection of ancient Unangax^ life.

Related references:

Crockford, S.J. and S.G. Frederick.  2007.  Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology.  The Holocene 17(6):699-706.

Funk, C. 2014. Report: Preliminary Report for ARPA Permit No. (none given): Kiska Island 2014 Field Research. Report on file at the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Office, AK.

Funk, C. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Toward and Understanding of Regional Culture and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48(2):25-51.

Hanson, Diane K. and Debra G. Corbett.  2010. Shifting Ground: archaeological surveys of upland Adak Island, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, and changing assumptions of Unangan land use. Polar Geography 33(3-4):165-178.

Rogers, Jason. 2011. Architecture and complex hearth features at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48(2): 92-112.

The Midget Subs of Kiska Island

Author: Richard W Galloway | Historic Archaeologist

Working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2009 allowed me to make a visit to Kiska for archaeological survey and documentation. While only there for less than a fort night, we did manage to reach several sites to document them in greater detail and found a few that had not been written about before.

What caught my attention were the remnants of a Japanese Type- A midget sub of the Ko-Hyoteki designed in 1938. The one that is left there still shows the damage that was done when the Japanese forces abandoned the island under cover of fog, but right in front of the US Navy. Since the Type-A arrived on the deck of a modified I type Japanese submarine, they could not be taken as the troops departed on ships.

Kiska_06 05 09_1257

Seeing the one sub got me to wondering and more research back in Anchorage turned up several US military photos that showed there were three subs on tracks in the sub pen when our forces landed. Each had the damage of the remaining sub where the Japanese troops had blown them up before leaving. The records are unclear, but do show that at least one of those three was scrapped to aid the US with needed steel. Part of another sub is still on the beach in Kiska Harbor, and the third is still sitting right where it was when our troops landed.

Kiska_06 05 09_1251

Further research gave me the number of six different midget subs that were once on Kiska. At least two of those are thought to have sunk in the harbor during bad storms, and one just seems to have vanished off the records. Since many records were destroyed at the end of the war that last sub may never be identified.

While five of the Type- A subs were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor, they were mainly used for attacks on merchant ships or for harbor defense. That is presumably the reason for their presence on Kiska, but no records I have found to date verify that usage.

What will happen to the one remaining Type-A still on Kiska? Given the low, to nonexistent budget the USFWS has had for many years now, and the distance from anywhere to Kiska, it will likely slowly rust into oblivion. Although the metal items on Kiska are surviving far better than the same items in the South Pacific.

There are a couple of the Type-A subs on display; the one from Pearl Harbor is in Fredericksburg Texas, and another in Australia where it was found in Sydney Harbor. The one on Kiska however is the only one still in the combat arena.

Newly Documented WWII Japanese Occupation Sites on Kiska Island

Author: Caroline Funk PHD, PI of the Rat Islands Research Project 

We discovered previously undocumented World War II Japanese military trenches, road remnants, caves, and telephone lines during the Summer 2014 Rat Islands Research Project field season in Vega Bay, Kiska Island. We were there to learn about the deep Unangan/Aleut and environmental past and we were working in an area far from the usual research camp locations – several miles from the famously known Kiska Harbor WWII activity area. (For more details, see the USFWS Foundation Statement for the Alaska Unit of the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument).

Our new finds were a little bit unexpected, although we were suspicious when we saw dozens of bomb craters lining the valley walls around our beachfront campsite. At first we assumed that these were more or less accidental, the result of bad visibility and difficult navigation conditions during the 1942-1943 bombing runs made by the United States Air Force and Navy. But with each passing day of archaeological survey, we identified more remnants of the 14-month Japanese occupation of Kiska. We opened our field copy of Stan Cohen’s “The Forgotten War: Volume 4” and learned that we were in fact camped within territory defended by the Japanese military, probably the 301st and 302nd Independent Infantry Battalions occupying Gertrude Cove from October 1942 to July 1943. We saw that Cohen reported that there were more than 40 gun positions along the Vega Bay shore.

As we looked closer at the landscape, we saw roads, camps, emplacements, entrenchments, communications technology, and secret hideaways. We found suspiciously flattened small terraces built into seaward facing hillsides. A secluded waterfall had an underwater wall of rocks surrounding the base, forming what looked like a small cistern or bathing pool filled with crystal clear but very cold water. We’ll share some of the images of these places with you here – we’ll tell the full story in an article in the coming year.

I labeled 4 craters in this image of an interior valley off Vega Bay. More than 20 others are easily visible.

I labeled 4 craters in this image of an interior valley off Vega Bay. More than 20 others are easily visible. Click on the image to enlarge.

Site KIS-070 includes several trenches like this one placed on a seaward facing terrace. Nearby telephone poles mark the communication network.

Site KIS-070 includes several trenches like this one placed on a seaward facing terrace. Nearby telephone poles mark the communication network.

This is one of the trenches associated with the larger camp at KIS-061. A few of these outliers extended beyond the main trenchline.

This is one of the trenches associated with the larger camp at KIS-061. A few of these outliers extended beyond the main trenchline.

The larger WWII Japanese encampment (KIS-061).

A WWII Japanese encampment (KIS-061).

The larger WWII Japanese encampment (KIS-061).

A WWII Japanese encampment with trenches, emplacements, and roads labeled (KIS-061).

One of a line of North and East bearing telephone poles (KIS-064).

One of a North and East bearing line of telephone poles (KIS-064).

Close up of the porcelain insulator (KIS-064).

Close up of the porcelain insulator (KIS-064).

KIS-062 is a complex of small caves and exterior buildings and it seems to be the center point of at least three telephone lines.

KIS-062 is a complex of small caves and exterior buildings and it seems to be the center point of at least three telephone lines. (Photo by B. Hoffman.)

Inside Cave 1 of KIS-062. Notice the porcelain insulator.

Inside Cave 1 of KIS-062. Notice the porcelain insulator. (Photo by B. Hoffman.)

The pool at the base of the waterfall is lined with a suspiciously orderly smooth rock wall and floor (near KIS-066).

The pool at the base of the waterfall is lined with a suspiciously orderly smooth rock wall and floor (near KIS-061 and KIS-066).

Cohen, Stan. 1981. The Forgotten War: Volume 4 – A Pictorial History of World War II in Alaska and Northwestern Canada. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Inc. Missoula, MT.