"Definitely" is a strong word. There can be a lot of reasons for doing something that don't neccessarily qualify as a "design feature". For example I often cut strips in half lengthwise before installing in a boat. I do this because it is easier to install them in 2 pieces than in one. This doesn't qualify a "design" feature.

Obviously, I don't beleive that the Aleuts use multi-piece keel stringers because it was easier. But we have no way of knowing why they did it. One line of reasoning can lead you to say that it is definitely a design feature, but other lines could lead to other conclusions.

Some people believe that Aleut baidarkas performed better than todays kayaks and seek an explanation for why that could be. However, kayaks today regularly achieve the best performance observed by European explorers. The Molokai Challenge is a 32 mile open water race which the winners do at an average speed of over 10 knots.

We do not need to look for some forgotten technology to explain the speeds observed of the Aleut kayaks. Kayaks can be very fast even if they don't have ivory bits inserted into their skeleton. If they are not required for speed, it is very possible that there is another explanation for them. Since we are not living under the same set of constraints as the Aleuts, it may not be obvious to us what the ivory bits were really for. The only thing that is definite is that the Aleut thought they needed them. The Greenlanders may have known about them and rejected them... Who knows?

> Definately a design feature. Consider that the Greenlanders have similar
> raw materials available and their kayaks are constructed differently with
> wider gunwales and different scarfing techniques and tend to be quite
> stiff.

> Greg Stamer