consumption practices, cultural innovations, and the...

Interethnic Relationships in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood:

Consumption Practices, Cultural Innovations, and the

Construction of Household Identities

KENT G. LIGHTFOOT AND ANTOINETTE MARTINEZ

THIS CHAPTER CONSIDERS the research problems andtheoretical approaches that guided the investigation

of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. We first synthesizearchival accounts on the residents of the Neighborhood,including labor and compensation practices, ethnic andgender composition, residential patterns, and socio-political organization. This ethnohistorical section alsoincludes firsthand observations on the settlement layoutand architecture of the Neighborhood. Next two relatedresearch problems outlined in the first volume of TheArchaeology and Ethnohistory ofFort Ross, Californiaare addressed-how nonnative goods and foods wereused and what cultural innovations took place in intereth-nic households. We argue that both research problemsare closely related to the construction of "public"identities of households, and outline three strategies thatmay have been used in the Native Alaskan Neighbor-hood. Informed by practice theory and the Annaleshistorical perspective, the final section summarizes theresearch design used to define the organizational prin-ciples of interethnic households and to evaluate whetherdifferent strategies of native resistance, upward mobility,and/or the creation of new cultural identities were beingimplemented in daily practice.

NATIVE OCCUPATIONS AND COMPENSATIONNATIVE ALASKANS

Similar to other Russian-American Companyoutposts, Native Alaskan workers made up the largestportion of the Fort Ross community from 1812 to 1841.As detailed in Volume 1, the population ranged fromabout 80 to 125 individuals, composed mostly of Alutiiq

peoples who were part of a broader cultural and linguisticcommunity drawn from Kodiak Island, the upper AlaskaPeninsula, sections of the Kenai Peninsula, and PrinceWilliam Sound. The majority of the Alutiiq workers atRoss were from Kodiak Island, referred to in this volumeas the Kodiak Island Alutiit or Alutiiq (its singular form).Other designations used in anthropological studies forKodiak Islanders are Koniag (derived from Russianusage) and Qikertarmiut (see Crowell in press). Theother Alutiiq workers identified at Ross were Chugachmost likely from Prince William Sound. Still otherNative Alaskans stationed at Colony Ross in relativelyfew numbers were Unangan (or Aleut) peoples from theAleutian Islands, Tanaina workers from Cook inlet, andthe Tlingit laborers from southeastem Alaska (Istomin1992). The Native Alaskans served in the colony asgeneral laborers, porters, fishermen, commercial seamammal hunters, and skilled craftsmen (see Lightfoot etal. 1991:16-20; Murley 1994).

The labor practices and compensation system forNative Alaskan workers at Colony Ross grew out ofearlier policies and conventions of Russian merchants inthe North Pacific. As Crowell (1994:14) succinctlysummarizes, sea otter furs were obtained on KodiakIsland in the late 1700s and early 1800s through "astrategy that combined coercion by force of arms,agreements made with native leaders allowing theexploitation of the labor of commoners and slaves, tributecollection, and some payment with trade goods." Therecruitment of Alutiiq laborers was accomplished in thefollowing ways.

First, the Company drafted at least half the male

2 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood

population between 18 and 50 into complusory servicefor set periods of time to serve on hunting expeditionsand to work in artels (hunting camps). These men werecompensated for hunting sea otters, foxes, and othermarketable pelts, although Davydov (1977:193 [1802-1803]) observed that the Company "rarely pays them inEuropean goods (i.e. tobacco, axes, knives, needles,nankeens, varicolored stones, silks or other trinkets). Inthe main they are rewarded with evrashka or birdskinparkas, kamleikas, seal skins, nets, various objects wovenfrom gut and even sometimes with fat" (see alsoLisianksy 1814:194 [1805]). Davydov (1977:194 [1802-1803]) went on to report that the Russian leaders ofhunting expeditions collected the sea otter pelts, thenpaid the native hunters directly with goods during the tripor gave them promissory notes that could be exchangedlater for goods on Kodiak Island.

The majority of old men, women, and children onKodiak Island were also subjected to mandatory servicefor the Company. Families of native leaders or toionswere the only major exceptions to this practice. Old menand boys harvested sea birds for parkas, fished for codand halibut, carried food to the harbor, harvested salmon,and helped prepare foods for winter storage (Davydov1977:195 [1802-1803]). Women harvested and dried fishand berries, helped prepare foods for winter storage, andproduced craft goods, such as sewing kamleikas (gut orintestine outer garmets) and sea bird parkas (Clark1984:187; Davydov 1977:196 [1802-1803]). Davydov(1977:195-6 [1802-1803]) reports that old men, boys, andwomen laboring for the Company were not compensatedfor their efforts.

Another method for recruiting laborers was todemand service from people who had perpetrated crimesagainst the Company. When the Russian-AmericanCompany colonized Kodiak Island and subjugated itsinhabitants, all former slaves or war captives were turnedover to become part of their work force. As these formerslave laborers, called kaiurs (a Kamchatka word for hiredlaborer) by Company officials, began to decline innumber, their ranks were filled with people who hadcommitted offenses against the Russian-AmericanCompany (Davydov 1977:190-91 [1802-1803]). Thekaiurs were sent to all the Company's settlements in theNorth Pacific, and it appears that most Russians hadseveral assigned to them. Davydov (1977: 193) describedthe duties of the kaurs as follows:

The kaiurs catch fish in fish-ponds, trap foxes forfur, work in the salteries and brick works, cut wood,carry supplies to the harbor, are used as rowers whenRussians travel in three-seater baidarkas and, in aword, are used for all kinds of work. If a kaiur goeslame or loses an arn, or in some other way becomesunfit to carry on working, then he is found workscaring away the crows from the iukota hung out to

hunter has several kaiurs in his service. The companyuses them for work until old age or the money raisedby relatives, or a replacement, buys them out.

A final observation about early labor organization onKodiak Island is that native families were responsible forfeeding themselves. The majority of the food storescollected during the year by kaiurs and laborers perform-ing mandatory service were used to support Companyemployees and Company activities, such as huntingexpeditions. As a consequence, food shortages were verycommon on Kodiak Island, especially during the wintermonths. Since the Alutiit spent most of their timeworking for the Company, they had little opportunity tolay in winter stores for themselves. Davydov (1977:175,196 [1802-1803]) observes that many families wenthungry in the winter. Russian managers would occasion-ally assist them if they were starving, but they were stillrequired to do Company work such as sewing birdskinparkas and making nets. Shubin (1994:338-39) contendsthat when the sea otter season ended on the KurileIslands, the Native Alaskans stationed at this Russian-American Company outpost had to fish, hunt sea lions,and shoot sea birds to replenish their food supply.

The compulsory service policy of the Company wasprobably exercised to recruit Native Alaskans to work atColony Ross. California must have seemed at the end ofthe earth to both Russians and Native Alaskans alike,situated thousands of kilometers from friends, families,and familiar landscapes. Drafting a labor force wouldhave been a monumental task. Shubin (1994:339) notesthat the Russian-American Company rotated NativeAlaskan workers, mostly Alutiiq men, to the KurileIslands by recruiting young volunteers and by offeringdebtors to the Company a chance to pay off their obliga-tions. Khlebnikiov (1990:94 [1820-1824]) stated thatsome promyshlenniks (Russian laborers) were sent toRoss "for the sole purpose of enabling them to pay theirdebts more easily." Some kaiurs could have beendispatched to the Golden State as well.

Under the terms of its Charter, the Russian-AmericanCompany was supposed to compensate Native Alaskansfor their labors (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989:xlvii). WhenFort Ross was established in 1812, they were either paidon commission or received daily or yearly salaries inscrip, a parchment token that could be exchanged forgoods in the Company store (Tikhmenev 1978:144). Inthe early 1820s, daily compensation for unskilledlaborers was about 50 kopeks per person (Khlebnikov1990:99, 186 [1820-1824]). Those who participated injoint Mexican and Russian sea otter hunts at this timewere credited at the rate of two piasters per adult pelt,one piaster per yearling, and four reals per pup(Khlebnikov 1990:182 [1820-1824]). Native Alaskancraftsmen, who served as coopers, blacksmiths, and

dry, or some other such task. Almost every married tanners at Ross, were paid an annual wage of between

Household Identities 3

120 and 200 rubles in the early 1820s (Khlebnikov1990:100, 182 [1820-1824]).

NATIVE CAUFORNIANSNative Californians were recruited primarily from

nearby Kashaya Pomo, Coast Miwok, and SouthernPomo villages to live and work at Colony Ross. Thenumber who participated in the Ross economy is not welldocumented. The early Kuskov censuses of 1820-1821(described in detail below) listed primarily women whocohabited with Russian, Creole, and Native Alaskan men,as well as some Native Califomian male prisoners(Istomin 1992).

It is unclear, based on available archival sources, towhat degree Native Californian women were involved insea mammal hunts, the preparation of sea otter pelts, thesewing of baidarkas (skin kayaks), and other criticalsupport work for their Native Alaskan mates. Whether ornot the Native Californian women who lived at Ross ininterethnic households were drafted into mandatoryservice for the Company is also uncertain. We suspectthey were. Native Californian women appear to havebeen stationed on the Farallon Islands artel, where sealions, sea birds, and other marine resources were har-vested for food and raw materials for Colony Ross(Corney 1896:74a; Istomin 1992:5,25; Riddell 1955).There is also some evidence that Native Californianwomen in interethnic households learned to make "Aleuthandicrafts, such as sewing the whale gut kamleika[waterproof outer garment] and other things" (Lutke1989:278 [1818]). Company officials in 1818 were alsoteaching the "Indian wives of the Aleuts" to weave woolin the production of cloth at Ross (Golovnin 1979:166[1818]).

Not unlike the early years on Kodiak Island, com-pensation for native women at Ross appears to have beenminimal. In the early 1820s, women and children leftbehind at Ross while their Native Alaskan mates werehunting received no assistance from the Russian-American Company. In a letter to Kirill Khlebnikov inJune 1820, Karl I. Schmidt, manager of the Ross Colonyfrom 1821-1825, wrote:

When the Aleut hunting party was sent to the portof San Fancisco the second time, the men all asked menot to keep them for the hunt once the agreement hadexpired, because the last time that they had beenseparated from their families, their wives and childrenhad received no assistance and had gone hungry;therefore, they begged me to help them this time tofeed their families. Notwithstanding the shortage ofsupplies at Ross, I tried to supply them with food asmuch as possible, but several of the women neverthe-less ran away out of hunger, and the others enduredterrible privation. (Khlebnikov 1990:131-32 [1820-1824]).

The Native Californian men listed on the Kuskovcensuses were serving time for crimes committed againstthe Colony (e.g., murder of Native Alaskan men, horsetheft) (Istomin 1992). These records strongly suggestthat some Native Californians who got on the wrong sideof the Company were conscripted as kaiur laborers atRoss. They were probably compelled to perform hard,demanding work as were the kaiurs on Kodiak Island.Istomin (1992:5) notes that at least one Coast Miwokman was serving his time (with his Kashaya Pomo wife)on the Farallon Islands artel.

By the early 1820s, Company officials had resolvedto intensify agricultural productivity and manufacturingactivities at Fort Ross, such as shipbuilding and brickmaking. To meet these new demands, Ross managersstepped up efforts to recruit Native Californians aslaborers (Lightfoot et al. 1991:16-20). As more landwent into agricultural production in the 1830s, onehundred to "several hundred" local Indians were em-ployed as agricultural workers during the harvest season(Gibson 1976:119; LaPlace 1986:65 [1839]). TheRussians primarily paid these workers in kind for theirservices, giving them food, tobacco, beads, and clothing(Khlebnikov 1990:193-94 [1820-1824]; Kostromitinov1974:9 [1830-38]; Wrangel 1969:211 [1833]).

Access to manufactured goods and nonnative foodsby both Native Alaskan and Native Californian workersmay have been somewhat restricted because of highprices and limited availability, similar to the situation onKodiak Island. Generally, the wages paid by the Russian-American Company were low in relation to the price ofgoods in the Company store. Wrangel observed in 1833that Company employees on annual salaries werespending more at the Russian-American Company storethan they earned, and many were heavily in debt. Heillustrated his point by showing the expenditures of aRussian promyshlennik, Vasily Permitin, who received anannual salary of 350 rubles. Mr. Pennitin, his wife, andfive children purchased food (wheat, millet, dried meat,fresh beet, lard, tallow candles, copper utensils, tobacco,soap, tea, sugar, and various textile goods (calico,Flemish linen, flannel, soldier's broadcloth) that totaledover 728 rubles for the year (Wrangel 1969:211 [1833]).Khlebnikov (1990:66, 99, 137) made similar observationsin the early 1820s, noting that many Russian workerswere requesting higher salaries in order to survive at avery meager level at Ross.

Yet compared to the Russian promyshlenniks, thesalaries paid to most Native Alaskan workers were paltry.For example, in 1824 they were paid half the salaries oftheir Native Alaskan counterparts in Sitka, an inequalitythat Khlebnikov (1990:186) justified because of the"advantages of the climate: here [Fort Ross] they canwork all day in their shirt-sleeves and without shoes,where in Sitkha, owing to the bad weather, clothing and


shoes wear out faster." Needless to say, Mr. Khleb-nikov's explanation did not go over well with the nativeworkers. In 1824, "a number" of Native Alaskansstationed at Ross had amassed a total debt of 1465 rublesand 26 kopeks to the Russian-American Company(Khlebnikov 1990:133 [1820-1824]). Khlebnikov (pp.133-34) indicates that many of the Native Alaskanworkers remained in debt to the Company until they died.Native Califomian laborers fared even worse. Wrangelnotes that the "bad food and negligible pay" given toIndian laborers had discouraged many from coming tothe Colony to work (1969:211 [1833]).

Khlebnikov's (1990:70-4) detailed account of theRoss Colony in the early 1820s indicates that a diverserange of goods was shipped to the settlement (see chapter6 for a complete list). Many of the goods listed byKhlebnikov appear, however, to have been earmarkedprimarily for trade with Mexican California missions andranchos and not for consumption in the Ross Colony.Khlebnikov (1990:131-32 [1820-1824]) also describesfood shortages in the Colony when supplies of Europeangrains and domesticated meats ran low. The principalfood for both Russian and Native Alaskan workers atRoss in the early 1820s was sea lion meat (much of itharvested on the Farallon Islands), and considerablehunting of elk, deer, and "goats" was also taking place inthe hinterland of Ross (Golovnin 1979:163 [1818];Khlebnikov 1990:59,193 [1820-1824]; Kotzebue1830:124). Similar to the situation on Kodiak Island, westrongly suspect that native workers were largelyresponsible for supporting themselves at Ross. Foodcould be bought at the Ross store, but it appears to havebeen expensive, and many of the Native Alaskan workerswere already in debt to the Company. It is very likelythat native laborers were compelled to lay in their ownsupplies, a point we will return to in later chapters.

ETHNIC AND GENDER COMPOSITION

The most detailed known account of the ethnic andgender composition of the Native Alaskan Neighborhoodwas made by Ivan Kuskov, first manager of the RossColony. The original 1820-1821 census figures and textdescribing the Native Califomians were translated byAlexei Istomin and published in 1992 by the Fort RossInterpretive Association. These data indicate that thegreat majority of the two-person or larger households inthe Neighborhood were composed of Alutiiq men andPomo/Miwok women. While 114 Alutiiq men of adultage (108 Kodiak Island Alutiit, 6 Chugach) and 48 NativeCalifornian women were counted at Ross in 1820, only18 Kodiak women and 1 Chugach woman were present(Istomin 1992:10-11). The only Native Califomian menlisted in either the 1820 or 1821 censuses were 8 convictsfrom "the Great Bodega (Bay)" and 1 man from "the

free will.Of the 57 Native Californian women listed for either

the 1820 and/or 1821 censuses, 15 are listed as"Bodegan," one from the "Cape Barro Dearena" (PointArena), 31 from the "vicinity of Ross," and 10 from the"Slavianka River" (Russian River). Kuskov was cogni-zant of the different Indian languages spoken at Ross, andthe homelands of the people who spoke them (Istomin1992:6). It appears that his designations of "Bodegan,Cape Barro Dearena, vicinity of Ross, and SlaviankaRiver" referred to Coast Miwok, Central Pomo, KashayaPomo, and possibly Southern Pomo peoples, respectively.All but 1 of the 57 women were residing in interethnichouseholds, the greatest number made up of KodiakIsland Alutiiq men and Kashaya Pomo women (n=25),Kodiak Island Alutiiq men and Coast Miwok women(n=10), and Kodiak Island Alutiiq men and SouthemPomo women (n=8) (table 1.1). While the numbers are

small, there was a tendency for Coast Miwok women tohave lived with both Chugach and Kodiak Island men,while Kashaya Pomo women apparently preferredKodiak Island Alutiiq, Russian, and Creole spouses. Theinterethnic households listed in the 1820 and 1821censuses had produced 28 children-17 daughters and 19sons.

FORMATION AND DISSOLUTION OFINTERETHNIC HOUSEHOLDS

The Kuskov censuses of 1820 and 1821 documentthe residence pattern for mixed ethnic couples in theNeighborhood. Native Californian women left theirIndian villages at Bodega Bay, along the Russian River,and in the nearby hinterland of Ross, and joined theircommon-law husbands' households in the Native Alaskancommunity (Istomin 1992). It appears that local Indianleaders, such as Valenila of Bodega Bay and Chu-gu-an,Amat-tan, and Gem-le-le from the vicinity of Ross,"willingly" offered their daughters as mates to Rossemployees (Golovnin 1979:163 [1818]; Kotzebue1830:124), an action probably calculated to cementalliances with the Russian-American Company and toestablish kinship ties among the foreign colonists. TheNative Califomians extended full family ties to their alienin-laws, and reciprocal obligations due to kin relationswere observed (Golovnin 1979:163 [1818]). Theseobligations may have extended to the construction ofhouses for the mixed ethnic couples, the sharing of food,and participation in local ceremonies. In turn, it wastraditional for Alutiiq men of the day to give presents tothe father and mother of the bride, and to bring their in-laws choice portions of meat and other goods (Davydov1977:182 [1802-1803]; Merck 1980:108 [1790]).

Marriage practices in both Alutiiq and KashayaPomo villages in their respective homelands were

vicinity of Ross" who came to the settlement of his own relatively flexible and somewhat spontaneous. Among

Household Identities S

Table 1.1 Composition ofInterethnic Households, 1820-1821 (from Istomin 1992:14-37)

MenCreole Chugach Kodiak Russian Tanaina

WomenCoast Miwok 0 4 10 1 0Central Pomo 0 0 1 0 0Kashaya Pomo 1 0 25 4 0Southem Pomo 0 1 8 0 1

the Alutiit, women often chose their own husbands andwielded considerable power at home, although they wereusually excluded from important village councils(Davydov 1977:165 [1802-1803]). Spouses oftenseparated by mutual consent and remarried, with thechildren divided among the parents or granted to themother (Bolotov 1977:86 [1805]; Clark 1984:192;Davydov 1977:167 [1802-1803]; Merck 1980:108[1790]). Kostromitinov (1976:10 [1830-1838]) describedmarriage rites among the Kashaya Pomo as relativelyinformal, with separations not uncommon if the coupleswere unsuited to each other. Children usually accompa-nied their mothers during separations.

It is not surprising that interethnic households atRoss were also relatively fluid domestic units, withcouples often separating after only a short time together.Khlebnikov (1990:194) observed in 1824, that

all the Aleuts have Indian women, but these relation-ships are unstable, and the Aleuts and the Indians donot trust each other. An Indian woman may live for anumber of years with an Aleut and have children, butthen, acting on a whim, will drop everything and runoff to the mountains.

When husbands were transferred to Sitka and otherRussian-American colonies in the North Pacific, theIndian spouses frequently remained behind. In the 1820and 1821 censuses, which listed 11 husbands (2 Russian,1 Creole, 8 Native Alaskan) who were transferred to theNorth Pacific, 2 Native Californian women (KashayaPomo, Southern Pomo) accompanied their Alutiiqspouses to Sitka, 2 established new interethnic house-holds at Ross, and 7 returned to their "homeland or nativeplace."

The Russian managers maintained some control overthe release of Native Californian women from the Rosssettlement This pattern suggests that they were obligatedto perform some kind of compulsory service for theCompany while residing at Ross. In the Kuskov censuses,it explicitly states that women were either "allowed" or"released" to return to their native place (Istomin 1992:6-7). A total of 11 women (including the 7 mentionedabove) were "allowed" or "released" from the Rosssettlement in 1820 and 1821 after their husbands moved

to the North Pacific, died, or took up with other women(in one case with another Kodiak woman). It is notknown how many Pomo and Miwok women moved tothe North Pacific with Native Alaskan spouses between1812 to 1841, or how long they stayed in this foreignenvironment. In addition to the two women noted abovein the Kuskov censuses, Jackson's (1983:240) analysis ofthe San Rafael Mission Baptismal Register identifies oneCoast Miwok woman from Bodega, Talia Unuttaca, whoaccompanied her Alutiiq husband, Andres Aulancoc, andtheir daughter to Sitka between 1815 and 1819. Whenher husband died in 1819, Talia and her daughter returnedhome to Bodega where she established a union with alocal Coast Miwok man from Bodega in 1819 to 1820,bearing another daughter about 1820 (see also Farris,appendix 1.1).

Istomin (1992:7) suggests that in cases of divorce orseparation the status of children from mixed ethnicmarriages was decided by the men, with male offspringfrequently returning to Alaska to join their father'srelatives, and the female offspring remaining behind withtheir mothers in California. The Kuskov censuses of1820 and 1821 listed four interethnic families whosechildren were separated from their mothers when theirfathers were recalled to Sitka or died. In the first case,the Kashaya Pomo woman, Agachpuchiye, "stayed withher relatives," while her son and Kodiak Island husband,Malihknak Savva, returned to Sitka. In the second case,the Kashaya Pomo woman, Katyya, "was allowed to goback to her native place with the daughter," while her sonand Alutiiq husband, Alalyakin Danila, returned to Sitka.In the third case, the Kodiak husband, AgchyaesikokRoman, drowned in March 1821, and his wife, a South-em Pomo woman known as Kobbeya, "was allowed to goto her motherland." However, her son, KiochanMitrofan, was left at Ross and raised by an Alutiiq man,Alexey Chaniguchi. In the final case, the Southern Pomowoman, Chubaya, apparently left her Chugach husband,Ithoshknak Maksim, for another man. While her son,Alexandr, took up residence with Chubaya in the newhousehold, her daughter, Marfa, was sent to Sitka on aRussian ship.

Some Native Alaskan men did run away from Rossto join Native Californian spouses who moved back


home. Lutke (1989:275 [1818] reported one "KodiakAleut" who had run away from Ross to live in a nearbyPomo village for a year. Kotzebue (1830:125) observedin 1824 that many "Aleuts" did not want to leaveCalifornia because they "find their abode here so agree-able." Khlebnikov (1990:194) also noted in 1824 that"there have been cases in which Aleuts have run off tothe mountains with their lovers or in which Russianshave given everything they owned to Indian woman, whothen proceeded, with complete indifference, to give thesegifts to other friends."

SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The sociopolitical organization of the Native AlaskanNeighborhood is not described in any detail in availableeyewitness accounts. Two observations, however can begleaned from journal entries and census records. First,the Russian administrators recognized status differencesamong the ranks of the Native Alaskan workers. OnKodiak Island, traditional chiefs held authority over oneor a group of villages. These positions were inherited bya relative or filled by someone of noble blood andmaintained through mutual respect, gift giving, and byhosting ceremonies, dances, and feasts (Clark 1984:193;Crowell 1992:19; Jordan 1994:14849). The Companyworked closely with traditional chiefs, exempting theirfamilies from work, inducing them with gifts, andgranting them special access to imported goods. In turn,the chiefs or toions made sure that work quotas for theCompany were filled by the men, women, and children oftheir villages. By at least the early 1800s, the Companywould choose new toions if they became dissatisfied withthe traditional leadership of villages (Davydov 1977:190[1802-1803]).

Several toions were distinguished in the NativeAlaskan community at Ross. In his 1822 travel entry,Khlebnikov (1990:99) noted that three toions hadnegotiated with him about the poor salaries paid to theNative Alaskan workers. Khlebnikov (1990:143 [1820-1824]) later observed that the oldest toion was recognizedas the senior leader and spokesman for the NativeAlaskan community. When the elder toion, Matvei, diedin 1824, Khlebnikov requested that the native communityselect another "chief' toion who would act as "anintermediary between the Aleuts and the Companymanagers." The Kuskov censuses listed two KodiakIsland Alutiiq "toions" who resided with Native Califor-nian women. In the first case, Toion Nanehkun Vasiliyfrom Ezopkinskoe Village on Kodiak Island was marriedto the Kashaya Pomo, Kelyaymin. In the second case,Toion Kumyk Moisei, whose Kodiak Island village is notlisted, lived with the Kashaya Pomo woman, Uyamin,until 1821, when he departed to Sitka.

The second observation is that Kodiak Island and

lands tended to live with Native Californian women whospoke the same or related languages. For example, tenAlutiiq men are listed in the Kuskov censuses as hailingfrom the Kodiak village of Kilyudinskoe (alsoKiliudinskoe). Six of them cultivated interethnicrelationships with Kashaya Pomo women, while threeestablished households with Southern Pomo (SlaviankaRiver) women. Only one man from Kilyudinskoe livedwith a Coast Miwok woman. In contrast, the two KodiakIsland Alutiiq men from the village of Mysovskoeentered unions with Coast Miwok women. Four of thefive Chugach men from Chinikatskoe (Chiniyatskoe) andKatmaiskoe villages lived with Coast Miwok women,while the fifth married a Southern Pomo woman.

The above observations suggest that some of thesociopolitical practices of the North Pacific were repro-duced at Ross. Tribal toions were recognized by both theRussian administrators and the Native Alaskan commu-nity. These toions were probably leaders who repre-sented different villages and kin-based groups backhome. While admittedly speculative, it is possible thatthe Native Alaskan Neighborhood was organized intoseveral different household groups under specific toions.These household clusters would probably have repre-sented men from the same or related villages in Alaskawho tended to live with Native Californian women whospoke the same Pomo or Miwok languages. While thecensus records do not list the home villages of the Pomoand Miwok women, it is highly probable that NativeAlaskan men from the same or related homeland villageswere cohabiting with women from the same or relatedvillages from Bodega Bay, the vicinity of Ross, or theRussian River.

SPATIAL LAYOUT AND ARCHITECTURE

The first known description ofNAVS was in 1816,when the Spanish official, Gervasio Arguello, countedthirty-seven huts for the "Aleuts" and forty-sevenbaidarkas (Bancroft 1886:63 1, footnote 3). The villageis identified on the 1817 map of Ross, the only knowncartographic rendition of the settlement undertaken bythe Russian-American Company. Reproduced byFedorova (1973:353, 358-60), the map caption describesthe village as "14 Aleut Yurts made of planks." Thevillage map illustrates four or five clusters of buildingsthat were tightly packed 140 to 240 m from the southeastblockhouse on a 210 degrees bearing. No structures weredepicted in the area of FRBS, although the brigRumiantsov, under construction in the Ross shipyard, waslocated nearby.

Interestingly, the first known painting of Ross in1817 by an unknown Russian artist portrays no visiblestanding structures in NAVS (Dmytryshyn et al.1989:308). Either the Russian painter deliberately

Chugach men raised in the same villages in their home- censored the depiction of non-Russian architecture in the


work, or only semi-subterranean native structures were inuse at this time and are not visible in the picture.

In 1820, Khlebnikov (1990:102) observed that manyIndians lived under the same roof with Native Alaskanmen in very crowded conditions. A barracks buildingwas built near the "Aleuts' huts" that could accomodatefifty Native Californians during the winter months.

Mariano Payeras (1979:2-3), a Mexican-Californianvisitor, described the Ross settlement in 1822. Inaddition to his observations of the Stockade complex, hereported that the outlying houses of the Russians, the"Kodiaks," and "Christian Indians" were built of squaredbeams set upon one another, with roofs made of planksjoined by fillets, and gutters to ward off the rain. He alsostressed that the houses had "good" glass in their win-dows. In the Fort Ross Cove area, he viewed ablacksmithy and a shop used to store and work wood aspart of the Ross shipyard, as well as garden plots undercultivation up the Fort Ross Creek. In the "back" of theFort Ross Creek, he viewed a forge and a bathhouse.

Duhaut-Cilly (1946: 10-11), a French visitor to Rossin 1828, describes the "pretty little houses of 60 Russiancolonists, the flattened cabins of 80 Kodiaks, and thecone shaped huts of as many indigenous Indians." Henoted that all buildings were of wood, "but well built andtaken care of." Before leaving Ross, Duhaut-Cillysketched the settlement, illustrating several structures inthe vicinity of NAVS.

Wrangel's 1833 account of Fort Ross stresses thedilapidated conditions of the buildings, especially theStockade complex. He briefly describes several outbuild-ings and the Fort Ross Cove area:

On this hill, outside the fortress, facing andparalleling its sides, are located two Company cattlebarns with pens, spacious and kept in excellentcleanliness, a small building for storing milk andmaking butter, a shed for Indians, a threshing floor,and two rows of small Company and private houseswith gardens and orchards, occupied by employees ofthe Company. On a cleared spot beyond this outskirtstands a windmill. Below the hill by a landing forbaidarkas [kayaks] have been built a spacious shedand a cooperage, a blacksmithy, a tannery, and abathhouse. Everything is situated conveniently and inaccordance with the purposes of the settlement and itslocal circumstances; but as stated above, mostbuildings have deteriorated (Wrangel 1969:207[1833]).

In 1839, Edward Belcher, a British Naval Captain, madethe following observations on the Native Alaskan Villageand the Fort Ross Cove area:

Besides these buildings, there are on the slope ofthe hill, about twenty huts for the Kodiak Indians, ofwhom the establishment generally employ about fiftyto sixty, in their skin boats, some of which are capableof containing one hundred men, and carrying about

seven tons. They are constructed similarly to the oldEnglish coracle, viz., of strong boat-shaped frames,sharp at each end, over which the skins of the sea-lionare tightly stretched. Those to the northward of theAleutian chain are covered with the skin of the walrus.

On the N.W. are situated the stables for cattle, alarge granary, with a threshing machine capable ofcleaning one hundred bushels of corn per day; awindmill; and to the southward, in a deep ravinewhich partly forms the bay, are three large tiledbuildings, containing forges, carpenters' shops, andstorehouses for boats and fishing craft (Belcher1843:315).

Ilia G. Voznesenskii, a naturalist from the ZoologicalMuseum of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences whowas making collections in Russia-America, painted awell-known watercolor of the Ross settlement in 1840-41(see Watrous and Tomlin 1993:12b-12c). His painting,made from a hill to the north of the Stockade complex,shows several structures near the southeast side of theStockade that may have been part of the Native AlaskanVillage Site. Blomkvist (1972:107), in describingVoznesenskii's painting, identifies these structures assmall Native Alaskan dwellings "constructed in theRussian manner from logs of a red pine that resembleslarch, the same material used in the construction of all thedwellings of the Company at Ross." Dmytryshyn andCrownhart-Vaughan (1976:106b), in examining thedetails of Voznesenskii's painting, suggest that the"Aleut" community had "given up their traditional iurtsin favor of Russian-style log cabins."

After the abandonment of Fort Ross, G. M.Wasseurtz of Sandel, a Swedish traveler, produced arather crude line drawing of the settlement in 1843 (seeWatrous and Tomlin 1993:12d). Several low-lyingbuildings, appearing as barracks, are depicted outside thethe eastern wall of the Stockade complex. As Watrousand Tomlin (1993) note, the perspective of the drawing isskewed, but it appears that some of these outbuildingswere remnants of the Russian village, agriculturestructures, and dwellings in the Native Alaskan VillageSite.

Tikhmenhev, who wrote the official history of theRussian-American Company using primary companysources in 1861-1863, many of which have been subse-quently lost, makes the following observations on theNAVS and the Fort Ross Cove area.

The fort, armed with ten cannons, was situated ona small hill 110 feet above sea level. The hill inclinedtoward the sea and ended in a 70-foot cliff. On theslope the Aleuts built their houses, imitating theRussians in their usually careful construction, so thatthere were very few simple mud huts. Red pine(chaga, a wood similar to larch [redwood]) was usedfor all structures. So that the Aleuts might have what,in their opinion, were the best possible living quarters,


Kuskov permitted them to place their houses whereverthey wished, disregarding a regular street layout andallowing structural eccentricities.

The landing was located in a small bay south ofthe fort. At the landing were built a dockyard (wherein 1818 and 1819 Kuskov built the brigantineRumiantsov and the brig Buldakov) and a large shedfor storing baidaras and building ships in bad weather.The smithy was a short distance away. The hollowbetween the landing and the fort was bordered withgarden plots, most of which belonged to the settlement(Tilchmenhev 1978:134).

Hubert Bancroft's study of the Ross Colony providesanother description of the settlement derived largely fromprimary sources.

Outside the stockade on the plateau were the hutsof the Aleuts and natives, which they built forthemselves mostly of redwood, and which they evenmade more or less effort to keep clean in imitation ofthe Russians; and scattered in the immediate vicinitywere a windmill, farm buildings, granaries, cattle-yards, a tannery, and work-shops for the variousindustries carried on. Beyond lay the vegetablegardens. Down at the foot of the cliff on the beach atmouth of the southem barranca was a small wharf andboat-landing, a shed for the protection of the skinboats, another for storing lumber and for workconnected with building of vessels, a blacksmith'sshop, and finally a bathhouse where the Russian mightsteam himself as was the custom in his country(Bancroft 1886:630).

SUMMARYIn the Native Alaskan Neighborhood resided single

Native Alaskan men, some Native Alaskan families, andmany interethnic households, the majority made up ofAlutiiq men and Kashaya Pomo, Southern Pomo, andMiwok women, and their children. Other NativeCalifornian people, including kaiur laborers and relativesof the Pomo and Miwok women, were probably housedthere as well, possibly in a large barracks building. Somevestiges of traditional Native Alaskan sociopoliticalpractices were probably recognized at NAVS, and KodiakIsland and Chugach men from related village units appearto have cohabited with Native Californian women fromthe same or similar homelands. Eyewitness accountssuggest that a diverse range of architectural structuresmay have been constructed in the Native Alaskan Village,and that changes in architectural styles were probablytaking place over time. However, most paintings andobservations, especially after the late 1820s and 1830s,indicate that small wood houses or Russian plank houseswere being built. The houses were reportedly not laid outin planned streets or lots, as was the Russian Village, butwere constructed on top of the marine terrace in front ofthe Stockade, and possibly down the terrace slope

descending into the Fort Ross Cove. The Fort Ross Covewas an industrial area containing buildings associatedwith the shipyard, a blacksmithy, storage sheds for thebaidarkas and related hunting and fishing equipment, aforge, and a bathhouse. Most of these structures wereprobably built to the northeast of FRBS where the coveopens up along the Fort Ross Creek terrace.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Two primary objectives directed our investigation ofthe Native Alaskan Neighborhood. First, to examine theparticipation of native laborers in the broader worldsystem of the early 19th century and whether access tomanufactured goods and domesticated foods served assources of cultural change. The second objectiveconcerns the implications of establishing a commercialcolony with pluralistic communities in which peoplefrom many different homelands worked and livedtogether.

THE CONSUMPTION OF MASS-PRODUCED GOODSAND NONNATIVE FOODS

How was the broader world system represented inthe material culture of the native employees in the NativeAlaskan Neighborhood? Schiff (1994) suggests that FortRoss was on the "far" periphery of the Russian-AmericanCompany's supply and distribution system in NorthAmerica. How many and what kinds of goods shipped toRoss were designated specifically for trade with theFranciscan missions in order to obtain food for theRussian-American Company colonies in the NorthPacific is not clear. It is also difficult to distinguishwhich goods were earmarked for local consumption inthe Ross community, especially by native workers.Given the Ross Colony's obligations to provisionCompany ships and supply goods for trade to Spanish/Mexican communities in California (see detailed ac-counts in Klebnikov (1990 [1820-1824]), the kinds andquantities of manufactured goods and domesticated foodsavailable to local workers may have been quite limited.

Access to nonlocal goods was most certainlyexacerbated by the poor compensation of the NativeAlaskan and Californian (as well as Russian) workers.As detailed above, many of the native laborers were indebt to the Company because of their paltry salaries.Even though Ross was a mercantile colony that partici-pated in the broader world system, the limited purchasingpower of the native workers restricted their access tosome goods. What kinds of store-bought goods wereaccessible to these workers and their families at Ross andwhether these goods were catalysts that stimulatedfurther changes in their material culture and dailylifeways remains to be seen.

Finally, it is important to consider the experiences of


natives who had participated previously in the Russian-American Company world system. While KashayaPomo, Southern Pomo, and Coast Miwok natives wereexperiencing their first sustained contact with Europeanand North Pacific peoples at Ross, most of the NativeAlaskan workers had grown up under Russian colonialjurisdiction for three decades or more on Kodiak Island,the Aleutian Islands, and in southeastern Alaska. Somehad worked previously for the Russian-AmericanCompany in other North Pacific commercial operationsbefore their transfer to Ross (see Murley 1994). Whetherthe same consumption patterns as those practiced in otherNorth Pacific colonies were reproduced at Ross or not,and whether differences in the social and physicalenvironment of the California colony led to innovationsin the use of mass-produced goods and nonnative foodhave yet to be detennined.

INTERETHNIC HOUSEHOLDSDid the synergistic interplay of interethnic house-

holds in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood promotesignificant cultural change in the material culture ofNative Alaskan and Native Californian residents? Thesehouseholds may have been pivotal in the creation andtransmission of cultural innovations between peoplesfrom different homelands at Ross. Each spouse broughtto a household his or her own perspective on the tech-nologies, social relations, ceremonies, and belief systemsthey had learned in their respective homelands. Culturalinnovations could have taken place when one spousemodified and adopted ideas and practices from the otheror when synergistic fusions took place involving therecombination of elements from both spouses' homelandsinto new cultural forms. These cultural innovations, intum, may have been disseminated well beyond the localhousehold through kinship relations and friends. Viewedfrom this perspective, interethnic households may havebeen at the forefront of both creating and transmittingcultural innovations in this pluralistic community.

The investigation of the Native Alaskan Neighbor-hood presents an ideal case study for examining thisproposed process of cultural innovation. The cohabita-tion and close interaction of Kodiak Island and Chugachmen with Kashaya Pomo, Coast Miwok, and SouthernPomo women generated social settings that were wellsuited for the creation and transmission of culturalinnovations.

On one hand, Native Alaskan men, as well as womenin related Alutiiq families, could have passed alongknowledge of traditional lifeways that revolved around asophisticated martitime technology (baidarka construc-tion, bone arTow harpoon and dart points, deep seafishing), construction of semi-subterranean houses, and arange of ceremonies and belief systems from the NorthPacific. One firsthand report, mentioned above, de-

scribes a Coast Miwok woman who learned how toproduce the whale gut kamleika (Lutke 1989:278 [1818]).A study of loanwords in the Kashaya language indicatesthat some Alutiiq origin words were borrowed, including"women's dress" (taqhma) and "double pronged fish-hook" (cicakh) (Kari 1983:3; Oswalt 1988).

Since the Native Alaskans had grown up underRussian jurisdiction, they may have also introduced theirown version or interpretation of European "culture" toNative Californian peoples. Oswalt's (1957, 1988)analysis of Russian loanwords in the Kashaya Pomolanguage suggests that some words were derived fromUnangas or Alutiiq speakers who had learned Russian asa second language. The "Russian" culture most familiarto Native Californians may have been those Russianelements that had been incorporated previously intoAlutiiq life long before Ross was colonized.

Close collaboration with Unangas, Alutiiq, andTanaina peoples in the Native Alaskan Neighborhoodalso may have fostered the maintenance and elaborationof some local Pomo and Miwok cultural practices,especially those elements held in common with NorthPacific peoples. Practices such as subsistence pursuitsfocused on coastal and maritime resources, the manufac-ture and use of stone and bone tools, and some nativeceremonies may have been encouraged. Okladnikova(1983) suggests that the Kuksu Cult, a ceremony of thePomo and Miwok people involving the Great RavenKuksu as one of the creators of earth and humans, wassimilar to cults of predator birds (eagles, condors, hawks,falcons, ravens) observed among North Pacific peoplesfrom Siberia to Alaska. While some of Okladnikova'sstatements are provocative (see Craig Bates's notes in the1983 article), it appears that Native Alaskan workers atRoss would have been familiar with elements of theKuksu Cult, and perhaps even encouraged its practicethere, depending upon their conversion and level ofcommitment to the Russian-Orthodox faith.

On the other hand, the Native Alaskan workers atRoss were stationed many hundreds of kilometers fromtheir homelands in an alien environment. Pomo andMiwok spouses and relatives likely were importantsources of information for learning about new kinds ofraw materials, weather conditions, flora, and fauna. Theintermarriage of Alutiiq men with Native Californianwomen would have linked the former into broaderkinship networks that extended into the hinterland ofRoss, ties that would have facilitated the movement ofinterior resources into the Neighborhood. We expect thatNative Alaskan workers were exposed to new foods, newelements of material culture, new views on how toorganize and maintain the household, and new childrearing practices.

The creation and adoption of new cultural practicesin the Neighborhood would have been facilitated by


support groups of Native Alaskan men and NativeCalifornian women who came from the same homelands.When Kodiak Island and Chugach men arrived at Rossand initiated relationships with local Indian women, theyapparently maintained a pre-exisiting support networkmade up of men from their own or related villages.When Pomo and Miwok women moved to the NativeAlaskan Neighborhood they were not isolated or alone,but were probably integrated into a larger support groupof women who spoke the same language from theirhomelands. The transmission of cultural innovationsdeveloped in one or more households to others in theNeighborhood would have been facilitated by the socialnetworks that cross-cut the interethnic community. Thereis also the strong possibility that men and women fromrelated villages created factional groups in the Neighbor-hood that may have had implications for nativesociopolitical relationships at Ross and the creation andadoption of new cultural constructs (see Lightfoot andMartinez 1995).

The broader transmission of cultural innovationsbeyond the local neighborhood would have been facili-tated by the constant flow of men, women, and childrenwho moved back and forth between Ross and their home-lands. Pomo and Miwok women who were "released" bythe Company from interethnic households went back totheir traditional home villages with some or all of theirchildren, especially young girls. The continuous move-ment of women and girls back to villages in the KashayaPomo, Coast Miwok, and Southern Pomo homelandsmust have had significant impacts on such small-scalesocieties that numbered only a few hundred people.These women may have served as both mediators andtranslators in their home villages in negotiations andinteractions with the Native Alaskan community, theRussian-American Company, and even other Europeanvisitors (see Lutke 1989:278 [1818]). Women andchildren from interethnic households, as well as NativeAlaskan men who ran away from Ross with NativeCalifornian spouses, may have disseminated culturalinnovations across the homelands of the Pomo andMiwok peoples (Martinez 1994).

Native Alaskan workers were typically stationed atRoss for several years before rotation back home or toother North Pacific colonies. Cultural innovations fromRoss could have been regularly disseminated to nativevillages and commercial outposts in Alaska by Alutiiqand Unangas workers who were redeployed by theCompany, and by some Native Californian women andtheir children who moved north with their husbands andfathers. In one example, Kari (1983:3) describes how aNafive Californian hand game, involving marked andunmarked sticks held or hidden in the hands, wasdispersed from Fort Ross to the native peoples of theAleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, and Southeastern Alaska

played by Unangas, Kodiak Island Alutiiq, Chugach, andTanaina peoples at multiethnic gatherings in Alaska in the1920s. Again, the transmission of cultural innovationsmay have been facilitated by the relatively small size ofthese societies. The Alutiiq peoples numbered less than6000 in the early 1800s and only about 3000 by the timeFort Ross was sold by the Russians (1841) (Clark1984:187).

HOUSEHOLD IDENITITIES IN THE NATIVEALASKAN NEIGHBORHOOD

Up to this point, we have stressed the great potentialfor cultural transformations to occur in multiethnic col-onies and how these innovations may be carried backhome. We recognize, however, that change does notoccur simply because people are exposed to new ideas,goods, and cultural practices. In fact, encounters withother peoples, especially when coupled with policies of"directed acculturation" by the dominant society, canresult in the defiant entrenchment of traditional practicesand the deliberate rejection of material innovations (e.g.,Ferguson 1991; Linton 1940; Kennedy 1955). Any cul-ture contact study of interethnic relationships must con-sider the issues of both culture change and persistence.

In this section, we argue that an understanding ofchange and persistence in the material culture of theNative Alaskan Neighborhood should consider intereth-nic and gender relations in NAVS households. Specifi-cally, we contend that the degree to which nonnativegoods and foods were consumed and cultural innovationscreated and/or adopted may be related to the constructionof "public" identities in NAVS households. In a recentpaper (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995), we stress thenaivet6 of viewing Kashaya, Alutiiq, Unangas, Russian,and other ethnic groups at Ross as homogeneous entities,in which individuals pursued similar interests and sharedobjectives. Rather these groups were embedded withstructural cleavages oriented along lines of kin, gender,age, political affiliations, social relations, and homelandvillages. Individuals could have implemented very

different identity strategies that maintained, manipulated,or recreated their ethnic backgrounds for various social,political, and/or economic benefits (e.g., McGuire1982:160; Roosen 1989:13; Shennan 1989:12). Threestrategies are discussed below: cultivation of nativeidentities, upward mobility, and the creation of newidentities.

CULTIVATION OF NATIVE IDENvTiTIESOne identity strategy is to resist culture change by

preserving traditional values and maintaining distinctiveideologies and cultural practices (see Bragdon 1988:128;Ferguson 1991:28-29; Spicer 1962:567; Stevenson1989:288). For example, Ferguson (1991) describes howAfrican-American slaves in the south manifested a

in the early 1800s. This gambling game was still being separate subculture in the actions of their daily lives (diet,


tools, furnishings), since it was in the domestic spherethat they had some control. In this strategy, culturalpractices that distinguish group members from "other"peoples are often amplified and exaggerated, becomingrecognizeable symbols for group membership andparticipation (Spicer 1962:578; Stevenson 1989:292-93).The retention of mundane cultural practices, such astraditional ways of preparing food or the care of house-hold space, often take on new meaning as they become"invested with a significance which they may havelacked in earlier incarnations" (Cohen 1987:96).

In the Native Alaskan Neighborhood, there may havebeen many reasons for enacting strategies of resistance.Elite Native Californian families and their followers mayhave perceived few advantages in the breakdown oftraditional value and prestige systems in which theyplayed a favored role. Consequently, they may havebecome strong advocates for maintaining the status quo.Some Pomo or Coast Miwok women may have resentedtheir arranged marriages with Native Alaskan men andpursued a deliberate tactic that cultivated their NativeCalifornian identity in all aspects of their day-to-day life.Still other non-European laborers may have beenresponding to Russian domination at Ross by steadfastlysupporting their traditional practices, a strategy that wasprobably not uncommon on Kodiak Island where manyof the Alutiit detested the Russian presence in the early19th century (see Davydov 1977:163 [1802-1803]).

If separate native identities were cultivated at NAVS,then Native Alaskan men and Native Californian womenmay have maintained distinct ethnic and gender identitieswithin interethnic households. Men and women wouldembrace traditional native ideologies and culturalpracfices that set them apart from other people in theRoss Colony. The cultivation of native identities inNAVS households would not preclude the acceptance ofcultural innovations. Rather people would be highlyselective in the kinds of practices, foods, and goods theyadopted, modified, or created, making sure they fit withinperceived concepts of what constituted proper "native"behavior (see Kardulias 1990:29; Wilson and Rogers1993:5). By this method, Alutiiq men and Kashayawomen could maintain their distinct identities whilereacting to new conditions and undergoing transforma-tions themselves (e.g., Simmons 1988:8). With thisidentity strategy, we expect that the consumption ofEuropean goods or the creation of synergistic innovationsin NAVS households would probably be minimal, exceptthose that were perceived as compatible with the culturalpractices of either the Alutiit or Kashaya.

UPWARD MOBILITYNAVS residents may have consciously manipulated

their ethnic identities to assimilate into another group forperceived social, political, or economic advantages.

higher status positions by members of lower rankingethnic groups often entails the adoption of symbols,behaviors, and ideologies that characterize a higherranking group. This strategy also involves the discard ofcultural practices that do not conform with the higherstatus group. The creation of new identities to gainhigher status positions within the colonial hierarchicalstructure may have taken two forms.

Native Alaskan ImitatorsNative Californians were clearly at the bottom of the

Russian-American Company's socioeconomic hierarchyin both compensation and status (Lightfoot et al.1991:21-22). The formation of interethnic householdsprovided a convenient social context for some NativeCalifornian women, especially those from nonelitefamilies, to alter their identities and to distance them-selves from other Native Californian peoples. Womencould have adopted the material trappings of NativeAlaskan wives, and relinquished conventions that wereincompatible with Native Alaskan ideology. In thisscenario, the few Native Alaskan women at Ross mayhave served as teachers of Native Alaskan customs tolocal Native Californian women.

If this strategy was implemented, then we expect thearchaeological remains of native imitators in interethnichouseholds to follow largely the organizational principlesof Native Alaskan households, and the archaeologicalremains of such households to be largely congruent withthose of Native Alaskan families at Ross. We suspectthat distinguishing these interethnic households fromthose of Native Alaskan families in the archaeologicalrecord would be difficult. These interethnic householdswould probably contain similar kinds of nonlocal goodsand "European" foods as those consumed by other NativeAlaskan families. We further suspect that the creation ofcultural innovations would not differ markedly fromother Native Alaskan families.

Colonial Russian ImitatorsAs a consequence of Russian colonial policies, and/

or perceived social and economic advantages, one or bothspouses may have imitated Russian cultural practices.Available archival sources suggest that the Russian-American Company at Ross was permissive in indulgingits native workers the right to construct their own homes,to harvest and to consume their own foods, and topractice their traditional ceremonies and feasts (seeLightfoot et al. 1991:9). While there is no evidence thatCompany officials overtly dictated lifestyle changes,subtle persuasion may have taken place to reward nativeworkers who embraced Russian cultural practices.

If this strategy was implemented, then we expect thearchaeological remains of colonial imitators in interethnichouseholds to approximate, to some degree, the organiza-

McGuire (1982:164, 174) notes that the attainment of tion of houses in the Russian Village. We expect to find


similar kinds of architectural features, tools, and foods tothose used by Russian families at Ross, and a diverserange of mass-produced goods and "Russian" foodsassociated with these houses. While goods in theCompany store were expensive and probably limited inavailability, we believe that these families would havesacrificed or gone into debt to purchase those nonlocalgoods that were accessible.

CREATION OFNEW IDENTITIESNative interethnic households, similar to the Creole

class at Ross, may have constituted a separate, ratherfluid, identity group that was perceived as neither purelyNative Alaskan or Native Californian, but something newand different. This separate identity may have been mostpertinent to children produced from mixed marriageswho may have recognized advantages in creating theirown separate identities or had little choice but to do so.The "creolization" of interethnic households would havefacilitated the mutual sharing and transformation ofcultural practices from both Native Alaskan and NativeCalifornian homelands.

If this strategy was implemented, then we expect thearchaeological remains of interethnic households tofollow distinctive organizational principles that wereneither Native Alaskan nor Native Californian in charac-ter. That is, we should find archaeological evidence forthe organization of space and material culture thatdeviated from those of traditional Native Alaskan orNative Californian households. Mass produced goods and"European" foods would probably be present, especiallyin combination with other Native Alaskan and NativeCalifornian materials. We argue that the creation of newcultural innovations in these households would be high,involving the recombination of Native Californian,Native Alaskan, and even Russian elements.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THENATIVE ALASKAN NEIGHBORHOOD

A research design is implemented in the NativeAlaskan Neighborhood that examines strategies ofidentity construction employed by NAVS households,and how these "public" identities are expressed in theconsumption patterns of material goods and the creationand adoption of cultural practices. Our theoreticalapproach incorporates ideas from both practice theory(Bourdieu 1990; Giddens 1979; Ortner 1984; Roscoe1993) and the Annales historical perspective (Duke 1992;Le Roy Ladurie 1979; Moreland 1992) that considers therelationship between structure and event in culturecontact settings (see especially Kirch 1992; Sahlins 1985,1991, 1992).

Two theoretical concepts particularly pertain to thisstudy. First, the organizational principles, world views,

reproduced and transformed during social interactions orevents. These cultural constructs (structures) would beboth the conditions and outcomes of daily practices andsocial relations in NAVS households. As Ortner(1984:154) notes, all cultural practices "are predicatedupon, and embody within themselves, the fundamentalnotions of temporal, spatial, and social ordering thatunderlie and organize the system as a whole." Thedialectical relationship between structure and action isperpetually being reproduced as individuals constantlyrespond to new situations and problems (Bourdieu 1990:55-56; Giddens 1979:53). Sahlin (1985) demonstrateshow cultural categories that are actualized in dailypractice can become transformed during the process ofsocial encounters with "others."

Second, the focus of analysis is on the practice ofday-to-day living (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1979:123;Moreland 1992:125; Ortner 1984:154). People areconstantly recreating structural principles and playing outideological constructs in their daily routines. The focuson habitual practices is well suited to archaeologicalinvestigation, as they entail the "little routines peopleenact, again and again, in working, eating, sleeping, andrelaxing, as well as little scenarios of etiquette they playout again and again in social interactions" (Ortner1984:154). Material items in daily practice take onspecial significance as they become active symbols inbroadcasting and even negotiating identity-a person'ssocial relations, political affiliations, and broader worldviews (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Moreland1992:116).

The identity strategies employed by NAVS house-holds should be observable in their daily practices-howthey organized space, how they conducted domestictasks, and how they disposed of refuse. A key consider-ation is the organization and use of space over time-theconstruction, maintenance, and abandonment of housestructures, extramural space, and trash deposits across thelandscape. The floor plans of houses, the placement ofinternal features, the construction materials employed,and the layout of public and private space are all verypertinent to understanding the organizational principlesof households and communities (see Donley 1982;Donley-Reid 1990; Fletcher 1992; Lawrence 1990;Moore 1986; Sanders 1990). Food remains, cookingresidues, and other by-products of domestic tasks arevery useful in defining ethnic, social, and gender expres-sions in the archaeological record (see Gust 1983; Schulzand Gust 1983; Wake 1995). Refuse disposal practicesinvolving the spatial association of different kinds ofmaterials can also provide many insights into theidentities and cultural constructs of households (Moore1986:102).

In implementing the research program, the purpose isnot to assign ethnic attributions to the residents per se,

and idealogical canons of individuals are continually since we already know the ethnic composition of the


community. Rather, the purpose is to consider how theidentities of these Native Califomians and NativeAlaskans were being constructed and transformedthrough daily practice and interaction. By consideringthe organizational principles ofNAVS households, weevaluate whether different strategies of native resistence,upward mobility, and/or creolization were being followedin day-to-day actions.

The fieldwork undertaken in the Native AlaskanNeighborhood, including topographic mapping, system-atic surface collections, geophysical survey, and theexcavation of extensive profile units and blocks, wasdesigned to delineate the organization of space and dailypractices at NAVS and FRBS. The specific goal of thefield investigation was to detect and expose architecturalfeatures, extrmural work areas, communal assemblyplaces, and refuse dumps across the Native AlaskanNeighborhood. Employing this program, the spatiallayout of the Neighborhood was defined and the partialremains of three architectural structures and relatedextramural space, and three discrete trash depositscomposed of dense concentrations of animal bones,marine shells, fire-cracked rocks, and artifacts wereunearthed.

A critical component of the study of interethnichousehold identities is the comparison of NAVS andFRBS archaeological remains to Kodiak Island Alutiitand Kashaya Pomo daily practices as recorded inethnohistorical sources and observed in archaeologicalcontexts (e.g., Lightfoot 1995). The Kodiak Islandersand Kashaya are highlighted for two reasons. They madeup the largest proporton of the Neighborhood's popula-tion and their daily practices are well documented in theirrespective homelands. Native life in nearby KashayaPomo villages and Alutiiq settlements on Kodiak Islandare employed as baselines for examining change andcontinuity in the use of space, domestic tasks, and refusedisposal practices in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood.The goal of the comparative analysis is to identifysimilarities and differences in the organizational prin-ciples of households in the Neighborhood when com-pared to other pertinent case studies of Kashaya Pomoand Alutiiq villages.

While the original intent was to focus on the internalspatial arrangement of house structures in the NativeAlaskan Village, the discovery of dense bone beddeposits in the fill of abandoned structures precluded thefull excavation of house features. As outlined in subse-quent chapters, the bone beds are viewed as discretedumping episodes of domestic refuse from nearbyinterethnic households. As a consequence, the emphasisof the project shifted from the organizatin of householdspace to the study of household refuse practices. Thedelineation of household identities, as outlined in chapter17, is based on refuse disposal conventions, the domestic

overall settlement layout of the Neighborhood in com-parison to nearby Kashaya Pomo villages and Alutiiqsettlements on Kodiak Island.

CONCLUSION

In the first volume of The Archaeology andEthnohistory ofFort Ross, California series, it is sug-gested that pluralistic colonial communities may haveserved as important sources of cultural change, ultimatelyaffecting the architectural styles, subsistence practices,diet, and material culture of non-European workers. Inthe shadows of the Ross Stockade, Kodiak Island Alutiiqand Chugach men took up residence with Kashaya Pomo,Southem Pomo, and Coast Miwok women. Thesecouples shared their houses, conducted daily domesticand subsistence-related chores, participated in ceremo-nies and dances, cultivated their own social networks andpolitical alliances, deposited considerable amounts oftrash, and produced many children. The investigation ofthis Neighborhood examines the consequences of theseinterethnic relationships and critically considers the

construction of different identity strategies in NAVShouseholds as manifested in their daily practices.

REFERENCES

Bancroft, Hubert Howe1886 The Works ofHubert Howe Bancroft, History ofCalifornia, vol. 19. The History Company, San Francisco.

Belcher, Edward1843 Narrative ofa Voyage Round the World, Performedin Her Majesty's Ship Sulphur, During the Years 1836-1842, vol. 1. Henry Colburn, London.

Blomkvist, E. E.1972 A Russian Scientific Expedition to California andAlaska, 1839-1849. Article translated by B. Dmytryshynand E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan. Oregon HistoricalQuarterly June 1972, pp. 101-70.

Bolotov, losaf1977 The Konyag (Inhabitants of the Island of Kodiak) byIosaf [Bolotov] (1794-1799) and by Gideon (1804-1807).Translated and edited by Lydia Black. Arctic Anthropology14 (2):79-108.

Bourdieu, Pierre1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

1990 The Logic ofPractice. Translated by Richard Nice.Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Bragdon, Kathleen J.1988 The Material Culture of the Christian Indians ofNew England, 1650-1775. In Documentary Archaeologyin theNew World, edited by M. C. Beaudry, pp. 126-31.

tasks that contributed to the trash deposits, and the Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Clark, Donald W.1984 Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. InHandbook ofNorth American Indians, edited by DavidDamas, vol. 5, Arctic, pp. 136-48. Smithsonian Institution,Washington D.C.

Cohen, A. P.1987 Whalsay: Symbol, Segment and Boundary in aShetland Island Community. Manchester University Press,Manchester.

Comey, Peter1896 Voyages in the Northern Pacific. Narratives ofSeveral Trading Voyagesfrom 1813 to 1818, Between theNorthwest Coast ofAmerica, the Hawaiian Islands andChina, With a Description ofthe Russian Establishmentson the Northwest Coast. Thomas G. Thrum, Publisher,Honolulu, Hawaii.

Crowell, Aron1992 Postcontact Koniag Ceremonialism on Kodiak Islandand the Alaska Peninsula: Evidence from the FischerCollection. Arctic Anthropology 29:18-37.

1994 World System Archaeology at Three Saints Harbor,An 18th Century Russian Fur Trade Site on Kodiak Island,Alaska. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Califomia, Berkeley.

In Press. Archaeology ofthe Capitalist World System: AStudyfrom Russian America. Plenum Press, New York.

Davydov, G. I.1977 Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802-1807.Translated by Colin Bearne. Edited by Richard A. Pierce.Materials for the Study of Alaska History no. 10. Lime-stone Press, Kingston, Ontario.

Dmytryshyn, Basil, and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan1976 Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T. Khlebnikov'sReports, 1817-1832. Oregon Historical Society, Portland.

Dmytryshyn, Basil, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and ThomasVaughan1989 The Russian American Colonies Three Centuries ofRussian Eastward Expansion 1 798-1867, vol. 3, ADocumentary Record. Oregon Historical Society,Portland.

Donley, Linda W.1982 House Power: Swahili Space and SymbolicMarkers. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, editedby I. Hodder, pp. 63-73. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Donley-Reid, Linda W.1990 A Structuring Structure: The Swahili House. InDomestic Architecture and the Use ofSpace, edited by S.Kent, pp. 114-26. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Duhaut-Cilly, Auguste Bernard1946 An Episodefrom the Narrative ofAuguste Bernard

Carter. Silverado Press, Bohemian Grove, CA.

Duke, Philip1992 Braudel and North American Archaeology: AnExample from the Northem Plains. In Archaeology,Annales, and Ethnohistory, edited by A. Bernard Knapp,pp. 99-111. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fedorova, Svetlana G.1973 The Russian Population in Alaska and CaliforniaLate 18th Century-1867. Translated and edited by RichardA. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. Limestone Press,Kingston, Ontario.

Ferguson, Leland1991 Struggling with Pots in Colonial South Carolina. In

The Archaeology ofInequality, edited by Randall H.McGuire and Robert Paynter, pp. 28-39. Basil Blackwell,Oxford.

Fletcher, Roland1992 Time Perspectivism, Annales, and the Potential ofArchaeology. In Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory,edited by A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 35-49. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Gibson, James R.1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The ChangingGeography ofSupply ofRussian America, 1784-1867.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Giddens, Anthony1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action,Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Universityof California Press, Berkeley.

Golovnin, Vasilii M.1979 Around the World on the Kamchatka 1817-1819.Translation of the original 1822 edition (Part 1) by Ella L.Wiswell. The Hawaiian Historical Society and theUniversity Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Gust, Sherri M.1983 Problems and Prospects in Nineteenth CenturyCalifornia Zooarchaeology. In Forgotten Places andThings: Archaeological Perspectives onAmericanHistory, edited by Albert E. Ward, pp. 341-48. Contribu-tions to Anthropological Studies no. 3. Center forAnthropological Studies, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Istomin, Alexei A.1992 The Indians at the Ross Settlement According to theCensuses by Kuskov, 1820-1821. Fort Ross InterpretiveAssociation, Fort Ross, California.

Jackson, Robert1983 Intermarriage at Fort Ross: Evidence from the SanRafael Mission Baptismal Register. Journal ofCaliforniaand Great Basin Anthropology 5:240-41.

Jordan, Richard H.1994 Qasqiluteng: Feasting and Ceremonialism among theTraditional Koniag of Kodiak Island, Alaska. In Anthro-pology ofthe North Pacific Rim, edited by William W.

Duhaut-Cilly. Translation of 1828 account by Charles F. Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonnet, pp. 147-73.


Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Kardulias, P. N.1990 Fur Production as a Specialized Activity in a WorldSystem: Indians in the North American Fur Trade. Ameri-can Indian Culture and Research Journal 14(1):25-60.

Kari, James1983 Kalifomsky, the Californian from Cook Inlet.Alaska in Perspective 5:1-11.

Kennedy, Mary Jean1955 Culture Contact andAcculturation ofthe Southwest-ern Pomo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Califomia, Berkeley.

Khlebnikov, Kirill1990 The KhlebnikovArchive, Unpublished Journal(1800-1837) and Travel Notes (1820,1822, and 1824).The University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.

Kirch, Patrick1992 TheArchaeology ofHistory. Anahulu: TheAnthropology ofHistory in the Kingdom ofHawaii, Vol. 2.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kostromitinov, P.1974 Notes on the indians in Upper California. InEthnographic Observations on the Coast Miwok and Pomoby Contre-Admiral F. P. Von Wrangel and P. Kostromitinovofthe Russian Colony Ross, 1839, pp. 7-18. Translationand editing of original 1839 publication by Fred Stross andRobert Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility,University of California, Berkeley.

Kotzebue, Otto Von1830 A New Voyage Round the World, in the Years 1823,24, 25, and 26. volumes 1 and 2. Henry Colbum andRichard Bentley, London.

LaPlace, Cyrille1986 Description of a Visit to an Indian Village Adjacentto Fort Ross by Cyrille LaPlace, 1839. Translation andediting of 1854 original French publication by GlennFarris. Appendix B in Cultural Resource Survey at theFort Ross Campground, Sonoma County, California, byGlenn Farris, pp. 65-80. On file, Cultural HeritageSection, Archaeology Laboratory, Califomia Departmentof Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, Califomia.

Lawrence, R. J.1990 Public Collective and Private Space: A Study ofUrban Housing in Switzerland. In Domestic Architectureand the Use ofSpace, edited by S. Kent, pp. 73-91.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Le Roy Ladurie, E.1979 The Territory ofthe Historian. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Lightfoot, Kent G.1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefmning the Relation-ship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology.American Antiquity 60:199-217.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Antoinette Martinez1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in ArchaeologicalPerspective. Annual Review ofAnthropology 24:471-92.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofFort Ross,California, Vol. 1: Introduction. Contributions of theUniversity of California Archaeological Research Facilityno. 49, Berkeley.

Linton, Ralph (ed.)1940 Acculturation in SevenAmerican Indian Tribes.Peter Smith, Gloucester, Mass.

Lisiansky, Urey1814 A Voyage Round the World in 1803, 4, 5, and 6;Performed By Order ofhis Imperial Majesty, Alexanderthe First, Emperor ofRussia, in the Ship Neva. JohnBooth, London.

Lutke, Fedor P.1989 September 4-28, 1818. From the Diary of Fedor P.Lutke during his Circumnavigation Aboard the SloopKamchatka, 1817-1819: Observations on California. InThe RussianAmerican Colonies, Three Centuries ofRussian Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, vol. 3, A Docu-mentary Record, edited and translated by Basil Dmytry-shyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan,pp. 257-85. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland.

Martinez, Antoinette1994 Native Women as Cultural Mediators. Proceedingsofthe Societyfor California Archaeology, 7:41-46.

McGuire, Randall H.1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology.Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1:159-78.

Merck, Carl Heinrich1980 Siberian and Northwestern America 1788-1792: TheJournal ofCarl Heinrich Merck, Naturalist with theRussian Scientific Expedition Led by Captains JosephBillings and Gavriil Sarychev. Translated by FritzJaensch. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Limestone Press,Kingston, Ontario.

Moore, Henrietta L.1986 Space, Text and Gender: Anthropological Study ofthe Marakwet ofKenya. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Moreland, John F.1992 Restoring the Dialectic: Settement Patterns andDocuments in Medieval Central Italy. In Archaeology,Annales, and Ethnohistory, edited by A. Bemard Knapp,pp. 112-29. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Murley, Daniel F.1994 The Travels of Native Alaskan Marine MammalHunters in the Service of the Russian-American Company.Paper presented at the XXVII Annual Chacmool Confer-ence, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.


Okladnikova, E. A.1983 The Califoria Collection of I. G. Voznesensky andthe Problems of Ancient Cultural Connections BetweenAsia and America. Journal ofCalifornia and Great BasinAnthropology 5:224-39.

Ortner, Sherry B.1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Com-parative Studies in Society and History 26:126-66.

Oswalt, Robert L.1957 Russian Loanwords in Southwestern Pomo.International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 23:245-47.

1988 History Through the Words Brought to Califomia bythe Fort Ross Colony. Newsfrom Native California 2:20-22.

Payeras, Mariano1979 (entry for October 11, 1822) Diary of MarianoPayeras, Travels of the Canon Fernandez de San Vmcenteto Ross. Translated by Michael S. Tucker and NicholasDel Cioppo. Submitted for distribution at the Conferenceon Russian America at Sitka, Alaska in 1979. Copy onfile, Fort Ross Interpretive Association Library, Fort Ross,California.

Riddell, Francis1955 Archaeological Excavation on the Farallon Islands,California. Reports of the University of CalifomiaArchaeological Survey 32:1-18.

Roosens, Eugene1989 Creating Ethnicity: The Process ofEthnogenesis.Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Califomia.

Roscoe, Paul B.1993 Practice and Political Centralisation: A NewApproach to Political Evolution. Current Anthropology34:11140.

Sahlins, Marshall1985 Islands ofHistory. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

1991 The Retum of the Event, Again: With Reflections onthe Beginnings of the Great Fijian War of 1843 to 1855Between the Kingdoms of Bau and Rewa. In Clio inOceania: Toward a Historical Anthropology, ed. by A.Biersack, pp. 37-99. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington D.C.

1992 Historical Ethnography. Anahulu: The Anthropol-ogy ofHistory in the Kingdom ofHawaii, Vol. 1. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sanders, D.1990 Behavioral Conventions and Archaeology: Methodsfor the Analysis of Ancient Architecture. In DomesticArchitecture and the Use ofSpace, edited by S. Kent, pp.43-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schiff, Ann M.

in (World-Systems) Perspective. Paper presented at the59th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Anaheim, California.

Schulz, Peter D., and Sherri M. Gust1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th CenturySacramento. Ilhistorical Archaeology 17(1):44-53.

Shennan, Stephen1989 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches toCultural Identity. In ArchaeologicalApproaches toCultural Identity, edited by S. Shennan, pp. 1-32. UnwinHyman, London.

Shubin, Valerii 0.1994 Aleut in the Kurile Islands: 1820-1870. In Anthro-pology ofthe North Pacific Rim, edited by Williamn W.Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonnet, pp. 33745.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Simmons, William S.1988 Culture Theory in Contemporary Ethnohistory.Ethnohistory. 35:1-14.

Spicer, Edward H.1962 Cycles ofConquest: the Impact ofSpain, Mexico,and the United States on the Indians ofthe Southwest,1533-1960. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevenson, Marc G.1989 Sourdoughs and Cheechakos: The Formation ofIdentity-Signaling Social Groups. Journal ofAnthropo-logical Archaeology 8:270-312.

Tikhrnenev, P. A.1978 A History ofthe Russian-American Company.Translation and editing of original 1861-1863 publicationsby Richard A. Pierce and A. S. Donnelly. University ofWashington Press, Seattle.

Wake, Thomas A.1995 Mammal Remains from Fort Ross: A Study in

Ethnicity and Culture Change. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of California,Berkeley.

Watrous, Stephen, and Kaye Tomlin1993 Outpost ofan Empire. Fort Ross: The RussianColony in California. Fort Ross Interpretive Association,Fort Ross.

Wilson, S. M., and J. D. Rogers1993 Historical Dynamics in the Contact Era. InEthnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches toPostcontact Change in the Americas, edited by J. D.Rogers and S. M. Wilson, pp. 3-15. Plenum Press, NewYork.

Wrangel, F. P. Von1969 Russia in California, 1833, Report of GovernorWrangel. Translation and editing of original 1833 report byJames R. Gibson. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 60:205-15.

1994 Native/Russian Encounters at Fort Ross, California


APPENDIX 1.1

LIFE AT FORT ROSS AS THE INDIANS SAW IT; STORIES FROM THE KASHAYA. BY GLENN J. FARRIS.

History is generally seen through the eyes of thedominant class in a society. Rarely is the viewpoint ofthe underclass, stated in their own words, expressed. Inhis compilation of the oral history and folktales of theKashaya Pomo, linguist Robert Oswalt provides somefascinating accounts of life with the Russians and NativeAlaskan peoples from the vicinity of Fort Ross. Suchthings as new foods, marital experiences includingdomestic violence, suicide of a spouse, at least oneindustrial accident, the marvel of a passing Hudson'sBay party, and more are woven into these tales. Someare in the form of folk history, others are cautionarytales. Together they form a remarkable body of historyfor a people typified as being ahistorical. In this paper Iwill sift through a number of the relevant Kashaya textsand try to place into perspective the observations ofeveryday life contained in them.

The Russian settlement at Fort Ross, California,which existed for nearly thirty years (1812-41), wasmade up of a small number of ethnic Russians, Finns,and Siberians, as well as a sizable contingent of"Aleuts," (actually, a mixture of Unangan, KodiakIslanders or Alutiit, Tana'ina from Kenai Peninsula, andother Native Alaskans), and an ever-growing number ofCreoles (as the mix of Russian and Native American wascalled). Since they brought few women with them, anumber of these men took the local Kashaya, BodegaMiwok, and other Pomo women as wives. At least forty-five California women are named in censuses of FortRoss by Ivan Kuskov in 1820 and 1821 as living withthe settlers (Fedorova 1975; Istomin 1992). Thedistribution mentioned includes: 4 Indian women "fromthe region of Ross" and 1 "Bodegin" Indian woman(married to Russians); 1 Indian woman "from the regionof Ross" (married to a Creole); and "17 common-lawwives from the region of Ross." Ten of these common-law wives were "from the river Slavianka," and ninewere "Bodegin" (married to Native Alaskan men)(Fedorova 1975:12). By 1833 Creoles, augmented bythe children born at the settlement, had become thelargest part of the population. In that year there were 63Creole children under the age of 16 (Gibson 1969:210).

Although there are numerous European observationsof life at Fort Ross: Russian, Spanish, German, English,and French (cf. Kostromitinov 1839; LaPlace 1854;Lutke 1989; Payeras 1822; and Von Wrangel 1839),these, quite naturally, only give us the European perspec-tive on life in the settlement. One of the most extensivedescriptions of domestic activities within a Kashayavillage is provided by Cyrille LaPlace (1854:145-47;Farris 1988:22-23) during a visit in August 1839. The

manager of Fort Ross, Alexander Rotchev, invitedLaPlace to accompany him on a visit to the neighboringKashaya village (Metini):

the habitations of these poor people consisted withoutexception of miserable huts formed of branchesthrough which the rain and wind passed withoutdifficulty. It was there that all the family, father,mother, and children, spent the nights lying pell-mellaround the fire, some on cattle hides, the majority onthe bare ground, and each one enveloped in a coverletof wool which served equally as a mantle during theday, when the weather was cold or wet.

The majority [of the women] were busy with thehousekeeping, preparing meals for their husbands andchildren. Some were spreading out on the emberssome pieces of beef given as rations, or shell fish, oreven fish which these people came to catch either atthe nearby river [the Gualala or possibly even theRussian River] or from the sea; while the othersheated seeds in a willow basket before grinding thembetween two stones. In the middle of this basket therewere some live coals that they shook constantly, onwhich each seed passed rapidly by an ever moreaccelerated rotating movement until they were soonparched, otherwise the inner side of the basket wouldbe burned by the fire. Some of these baskets (paniers),or more accurately, these deep baskets (vases [cookingbaskets]), seemed true models of basketmaking, notonly by their decoration but by the fmishing touchesof the work. They are made...so solidly held togetherby the threads, that the fabric was water-resistant, asefficiently as baked clay and earthenware....

It should be noted that LaPlace was seeing the people ofMetini as they were after twenty-seven years of associa-tion with Fort Ross and that their society and socialstructure had probably undergone a variety of changesover that time. In addition, Kashaya had sufferedseverely from epidemics that occasionally raged in thevicinity of the Russian settlement. One of the most disas-trous of these was the smallpox epidemic of 1837-1838which was apparently introduced at Fort Ross and thenspread throughout northern California killing many tensof thousands of people (Smilie 1975:67). Even so, acertain amount of LaPlace's negative observation wasbased on his European background as well as his com-parisons to people he had seen on the Northwest Coast ofAmerica and in the Hawaiian Islands.

Accounts from the viewpoint of indigenous peoplesare far rarer. A few aspects of life show up in therecollections of Peter Kalifomski (Kalifomski 1991; Kari1983) whose Tana'ina great grandfather, NikolaiKalifornsky, lived at Fort Ross from approximately


1812-1820.However, the richest trove comes from the Kashaya

Texts, transcribed and translated by linguist RobertOswalt (1964). These include accounts touching onvarious aspects of life at Fort Ross during the Russianoccupation. In a very matter-of-fact manner, a number ofactivities and situations of everyday life are eitherdirectly described or form the backdrop of these stories.The overwhelming majority derive from a woman namedLukaria which was quite appropriate, as the Kashayawomen were more likely to become deeply involved inthe life of the people living at Fort Ross.Round-the-world traveler, Fedor Lutke (1989:278), in1818 describes unions of Russians and Alutiit andCalifornian women, which illustrate the adaptability ofthe Kashaya women:

Some of the Promyshlenniks and Aleuts havemarried these Indian women. Our interpreter, whosewife is one of these people, told us that she hadleamed his language very quickly and well, and thatshe had also leaned Aleut handicrafts, such as sewingthe whale gut kamleika (waterproof outer garment]and other things. In one hut I saw a rather comelyyoung woman preparing food, and when I approachedher I was surprised that she spoke easily and in clearRussian. She invited me to eat her acorn porridge, andthen complained about the rain. When I inquired Ifound that she had lived for some time in the Rosssettlement with a promyshlennik, and then hadretumed to her people.

In an article on Russian and Alutiiq words that havebeen absorbed into the Kashaya language, Robert Oswalt(1988:20-22) gives not only examples of Russian wordsthat apparently came directly from the ethnic Russians,but also numerous Russian words that the Kashayaleamed from the Alutiit These are distinguished bycertain pronunciation peculiarities of the Alutiit that weretaken by the Pomo even though they would have beenperfectly able to render the correct Russian fonn (forinstance, the Alutiiq replacing the Russian b with a p,whereas the Kashaya have no trouble with the b sound).

A brief biography of Talia Unuttaca, a BodegaMiwok woman who married Andres Aulancoc, a Alutiiqat Fort Ross, tells us that they had a daughter Maria in1815. Talia then travelled with her husband to Sitkawhere she was baptized by a Russian Orthodox priestnamed Malancoc. When her husband died in 1819 shereturned to Bodega Bay. There she established a relation-ship with a Bodega Miwok man named Jos6 and had asecond daughter about 1820 named Rafaela (Jackson1983:240). The original mission records for San Rafaelshow that the man she married was named Jose Talio(SBMA-San Rafael marriages). This is very likely thesame "Jose Talis" mentioned by Bancroft (1886:718) as

KASHAYA AccouNTsAmong the many stories in the Kashaya Texts, nine

of them clearly touch on the lives of the Kashaya atColony Ross. The overwhelming majority of theaccounts come from Herman James who learned themfrom his grandmother, Lukaria. This woman was said tohave been born eight years before the Russians came,which would have been about 1804. By contrast, onlyone of the stories told by Essie Parrish, who also learnedthem from her maternal grandmother, relates to theRussian Period. Brief synopses and commentariesfollow.

THE FIRsT WHITEFOOD [EssIE PARRISH]The new arrivals offered the Indiansfood. Atfirst

the Indiansfeared thisfood would be poisonous and so

dumped it out, buried it at times and kept to theirtraditionalfoods (Oswalt 1964:251).

This followed a pattern among the Pomo of fear ofpoisoning by strangers, which is sill found to a smalldegree today. However, over time the Indians becameused to many of the introduced foods, especially as manyof their own native foods were becoming harder toobtain.

THE BIG ExPEDIrION [HERMAN JAMES]When a Hudson's Bay Company expedition consist-

ing of163 men, women, and children passed Fort Rosson April 19, 1833 both the Indians and the Aleuts werepuzzled by andfearful of it. When the expedition cameclose to where the Undersea people [Kashaya nameforthe men ofColony Ross] were living, afew peoplestraggled out and gave the HBC some ofwhat they[Indians and Russians (sic)] had to eat. They gaveflour,being afraid. The strangers took it willingly at that time.After three orfour days hadpassed, some Indians, havinggone northwards, saw what they had given had been alldumped out on the ground. The HBC members hadn'tknown what it wasfor. Everything the strangers hadreceivedfrom the Undersea people, all of thefood, hadbeen dumped out. They had apparentlyjust left it thereon the trail.... After the expedition had passed, theIndians and Aleuts asked one another who they had been.When they asked the Russians, they received the re-

sponse, "How come you don't know that the people youare asking about are your kind ofpeople." "No, we don'trecognize those people," said the Kashaya (Oswalt1964:253-55).

Elsewhere (Farris 1989) I have dealt with this storyat greater length. One of the telling points is the gulfbetween the native peoples (Califomian and Alaskanalike) and the Russian authorities, who seemed to havehad the attitude that all Indians could be lumped together.Another point is that the food that was offered by the

being the "captain of the Tamalles" ca. 1838. Native Alaskans and Califomians to these strangers was


flour, possibly in the form of a gruel (kasha), which wasthe staple food provided to the Indians by the Russians atthis time (a point which was brought up to the managersof the Russian-America Company by Baron FerdinandVon Wrangel who visited a short time later [Gibson1969]). It is confusing to most English readers to readthat the Indians were subsisting on flour when it waslikely a coarser form of ground seed, not unlike theirnormal staple, the pinole.

THE LAST VENTDETA [HERMAN JAMES]This story begins by relating a tale ofafeud between

two groups ofKashaya;feuds are suggested to have beencommon before the coming of the Russians. However, onthis occasion, an "Undersea boy," mounted and armedwith a rifle, interrupted Kashaya rejoicing over thevengeance killing. The old people then decreed that theywere done with thefeuding. Some of the Indians thenbegan going into the "cross-house" [the Fort Rosschapel] which belonged to the Undersea people .Thereafter there was no more enemy killing (Oswalt1964:255-59).

This is a tribute to the Russian attempt to keep peaceamong the peoples with whom they associated bysuppressing an age-old form of vengeance feuding whichwas not infrequently found among the Native Califor-nians. It also suggests that some Kashaya becameinterested in the orthodox religion. Late in the 19thcentury, when Orthodox Bishop Nikolai (1897) visitedFort Ross, he was told of Lukaria who evidently stillretained an affection for the Russians.

HUNT7NG SEA 07TER AND FARMING [HERMAN JAMES]This is a somewhat confused tale of the comings and

goings of the Aleuts and Russians to Alaska and else-where. Somehow the story became reversed, with colonypeople initially at Fort Ross and then going to Alaskawith the intention of hunting sea otters. The Indianscame to realize how valuable the sea otters were to them.The Aleuts would pursue the hunt despite the consider-able danger and privations (Oswalt 1964:261-65).

The only occupation described in this story for theRussians and Alutiit was the hunting of sea otter. Thisnext story suggests that when the rigors of sea otterhunting became too great, the "Undersea people" turnedto growing crops in the vicinity of Fort Ross, aka Metini.

GRAIN FOODS [HERMAN JAMES]Wheat was planted in all the flat lands near Metini

[Colony Ross]. When ripe, the people cut it by hand, tiedit up, and lay it there. Then they packed the sheaves insea lion skins and dragged it to their houses. The grainwas taken to a threshingfloor "ofearth packed downhard by wetting." The sheaves were placed there andhorses driven in to tranple the grain. When it was

their warehouse. To make it intoflour, they took it to abig machine called a 'flour grinder." The sacks weretossed up and the grain was poured into the grinder. Theresultingflour was then poured into sacks which were

piled in a building to providefoodfor winter. Anaccident occurred when a woman got too close to themachinery and her hair was caught. She was spunaround and killed. The woman was then taken home tobe cremated in her traditional way. The story thencompares the Indian way ofgathering grain [knocking itinto a tightly woven pack basket when it was ripe]. Thisthey would store in their own houses to use as pinoleduring the winter. The Indians observed the Russianmethods and used the groundflour but also continued touse their pinole in their traditional way (Oswalt1964:267-69).

The continuity of Kashaya methods of harvestinggrain and those used by the agricultural Russians wasevidently appreciated by the Kashaya. Their descriptionof the threshing floor being of beaten earth differs fromthe tightly laid plank floors said to be used for thispurpose in all the European accounts. The description ofthe use of stampeding horses to thresh the grain issubstantiated by numerous other accounts of observersboth at Fort Ross and in Spanish California. The story ofthe woman who got her hair caught and was killed bringsup an intriguing comparison with a story of a similartragic death related by the late-19th century romanticauthor, Gertrude Atherton (1894). The year beforeAtherton published this story, she wrote an article about avisit to Fort Ross in which she describes meeting with an

old woman who was "half Indian, half Russian"(Atherton 1893). This woman told Atherton many storiesof Fort Ross at the time of the Russians. AlthoughAtherton does not give the woman's name, it is almostcertainly Lukaria. Atherton's story of the Russianheroine decapitated by the windmill is clearly fiction, butfinding an antecedent in the Kashaya folk historyenhances the impression that some such event actuallyoccurred.

The sense of cultural continuity is echoed in theobservations of Cyrille LaPlace (1854; Farris 1988) whovisited in August 1839, toward the end of the RussianPeriod. LaPlace even remonstrated to his host,Alexander Rotchev, that the Russians were having verylittle obvious effect on the customs of the local Indians.Rotchev's reply was that they were, perhaps in moresubtle ways, because the Indians were becoming increas-ingly sedentary and attached to the Fort.

THE WIFE BEATER [HERMAN JAMES]This is the tale ofa man [not specified whether

Russian, Creole, or Aleut] and an Indian woman livingtogether. He awakes one day very angry and gets mean,eventually striking his wife with an axe. A sheriff then

threshed, they loaded it in sacks which were taken off to iook the husband away and locked him up. He was shut


in a "place where a little house was standing," locked upfor a week. Hazel switches were brought to the settle-ment. The man was then brought out with his hands andfeet tied and was whippedfor a long time-"halfaday"-until hefell down unconscious. When he recov-ered, he repented and said that he now saw the "path ofrighteousness." He told a public gathering that he haddone wrong and would be goodfrom then on. Even so,the Indian woman left the man. Interestingly, shecontinued living in the settlement, but stayed alone, asdid the man (Oswalt 1964:269).

It appears that ill-treatment of the Kashaya wiveswas not at all condoned and that wife-beating wasseverely dealt with. The description of the jail as a littlehouse standing by itself is very interesting. Currentinterpretation at Fort Ross has a cell within the Official'sQuarters inside the Stockade, which I believe grew out ofan unfortunate misreading of some documents describingthe buildings at Fort Ross. A closer reading showed thatwhat was actually stated was that the jail was adjoiningone of the warehouses inside the Stockade. The severityof the whippings obviously made a deep impression onthe Kashaya (see also the next story), and they wereundoubtedly impressed with the sense ofjustice of theRussians to punish one of their own in such a fashion.

THE SUICIDE OF A WIFE [HERMAN JAMES]An Indian woman was married to an "Undersea

man." They had been quarrelling. The man walked outof the house threatening to kill his wife ifshe was stillthere upon his return. He then leftfor work. The Indianwomanfinished eating,fed her children, went into thebedroom, andput on good new clothes. She then went offon a walk to the coastal cliff, but wasfollowed by herchild. When asked what she was doing, the mother saidshe was going "to die today." Although the child tried tograb her dress, the mother threw herselfdown onto thegravel beach. The child ran home. Others then cameand carried her body back to her house. She was buriedrather than cremated [this change in custom is particu-larly noted in the story]. When the husband returnedhome he was taken to the whipping place and whippedfor a very long time-"almost a whole day." Hefellunconscious and died. He, too, was buried (Oswalt1964:271).

This story also seems to impress one with the viewthat wrongs against the Indian wives were taken veryseriously. This woman was evidently well on her way tobeing acculturated. She was apparently living in one ofthe Russian style houses in the sloboda (village) adjacentto the Stockade. The mention of her going into herbedroom to put on good new clothes, evidently a dress,before committing suicide is noteworthy. Also, there isthe statement that after her death she was buried ratherthan cremated. It is not clear where she would have been

across the gulch from the Stockade, but this is mereconjecture. If so, she had clearly separated from herpeoples' ways.

Two UNDERSEA YOUTHS FREEZE TO DEATH [HERMANJAMES]

This was said to have occurred about ten years afterthe Russian arrival [i.e., circa 1822]. It speaks ofwhatmust be Creole children growing up. Two young mendecide to go hunt coots and travel a long way down to themouth ofthe Russian River [11 milesfrom Fort Ross].They get soaking wet in their endeavor, and a heavy, coldrain worsens their situation. It appears that the boysbecome e-xhausted and ultimately die ofexposure in themiddle ofthe night (Oswalt 1964:273ff).

This could be seen as a cautionary tale against thedangers of wearing too much clothing. The Kashayawere said to have worn very little clothing. A modem-day Kashaya, Otis Parrish, son of Essie Parrish, explainsthat the Indian view of cold was that one learned toignore it, that it affected only the outer layer of one'sbody, but did not penetrate. Considering the frequencywith which the lack of clothing is noted among theNative Californians, it is evident that they were capableof withstanding very cold weather and had ways ofpsychologically dealing with the cold rather than resort-

ing to heavy clothing.

TALES OF FoRTRoss [HERMAN JAMES]A boat with a white sail appeared offMetini. A boat

landed and the "Undersea people" appeared. It was on

this occasion that they got this name. When they landedthey built houses close to where the Indians were. Afterawhile the Indians began workingfor them but after 30years living there they returned home (Oswalt 1964:277ff).

Since the Russians would have initially arrived at thebeach at Fort Ross in baidarkas or perhaps long boats,the image of the people appearing to come out of the sea

would certainly have contributed to the name given them(the Undersea People). This story continues on throughthe period of the next occupants, a German immigrantand his family named Benitz (1843-67), and the eventualforced departure from Fort Ross of the Indians under a

subsequent owner. It paints a broad, though sketchy,picture of Kashaya history from just before the arrival ofthe Russians and Alutiit and carries it beyond as if todemonstrate the enduring nature of the Kashaya people intheir homeland. Despite many comings and goings, theKashaya remain.

CONCLUDING REMARKSThe series of nine stories paraphrased above give a

rare vision of life in a Russian settlement as experiencedby Native Californians and as related by their decendents.In an earlier paper (Farris 1989), I was able to demon-

buried. Presumably it would have been in the cemetery strate the validity and accuracy of at least two stories told


about Fort Ross, even to pinning down the event (thepassing of a Hudson's Bay expedition). This would lendcredence to the accuracy of other parts of the Kashayaoral history. It is hoped that as we delve more deeply intothe archival material related to Fort Ross, we may findadditional corroboration of some of the events portrayed,particularly the deaths, and perhaps the whippings. Itmay even be possible to ferret out the names of theindividuals featured in these stories. The point of theexercise is to deepen our knowledge of the everyday livesof the people living in this settlement. This will supple-ment the move towards expanding our archaeologicalsearch beyond the walls of the Stockade and see "Fort"Ross as it really was, a village of many cultures learningto live together.

REFERENCES

Atherton, Gertrude1893 The Romance of Fort Ross. The CalifornianIllustrated Magazine, December 1893, pp. 57-62.

1894 Natalie Ivanhoff: A Memory of Fort Ross. InBefore the Gringo Came. J. Selwin Tait & Sons, NewYork.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe1886 History of Califomia, vol. m, 1825-40. In TheWorks ofHubert Howe Bancroft, vol. XX. The HistoryCompany, San Francisco.

Farris, Glenn J.1988 A French Visitor's Description of the Fort RossRancheria in 1839. Newsjfrom Native California2(3):22-3.

1989 Recognizing Indian Folk History as Real History: AFort Ross Example. American Indian Quarterly13(4):471-80.

Fedorova, Svetlana Gr.1975 Ethnic Processes in Russian America. Translated byAntoinette Shalkop. Occasional Paper, no. 1. AnchorageHistorical and Fine Arts Museum.

Gibson, James1969 Russia in California, 1833: Report of GovemorWrangel. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 60(4):205-15.

Istomin, Alexei1992 The Indians at the Ross Settlement according to theCensus by Kuskov in 1820 and 1821. Fort Ross Interpre-tive Association.

Jackson, Robert H.1983 Intermarriage at Fort Ross: Evidence from the SanRafael Mission Baptismal Register. Journal ofCaliforniaand Great Basin Anthropology 5(1&2):240-41.

Kalifomsky, Peter1991 A Dena'ina Legacy, K'Tl'egh'i Sukdu: TheCollected Writings ofPeter Kalifornsky. Alaska Native

Language Center. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Kari, James1983 Kalifomsky, the Californian from Cook Inlet.Alaska in Perspective 5(1):1-10.

Kostromitinov, Peter1839 Bemerkungen uber die Indianer in Ober-Kalifomien.In Beitrage zur Kenntniss des Russischen Reiches und derangranzenden Lander Asiens, edited by K. E. v. Baer andGr. v. Helmersen, pp. 80-96. Saint Petersburg, Russia.

LaPlace, Cyrille1854 Campagne de Circumnavigation de la Frigatel'Artemise pendant les annees 1837, 1838, 1839, et 1840sous le commandement de M. LaPlace, capitaine devaisseau, vol. 6. Firmin Didot Freres, Paris.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofFort Ross,California, Vol. 1: Introduction. Contributions of theUniversity of California Archaeological Research Facilityno. 49, Berkeley.

Lutke, Fedor1989 September 4-28, 1818. From the Diary of Fedor P.Lutke during his Circumnavigation Aboard the SloopKamchatka, 1817-1819: Observations on California. InThe Russian American Colonies, Three Centuries ofRussian Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, vol.3. ADocumentary Record, edited and translated by BasilDmytryshyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and ThomasVaughan, pp. 257-85. Oregon Historical Society Press,Portland.

Nikolai, Bishop1897 Trip to Fort Ross. Orthodox Russian Messenger,March 2/14, 1897. English translation by WaldemarAktsinov. Ms. on file at Fort Ross Visitor's Center.

Oswalt, Robert1964 Kashaya Texts. University of California Publica-tions in Linguistics, no. 36.

1988 History through the words brought to California bythe Fort Ross Colony. Newsfrom Native California2(3):20-2.

Payeras, Mariano1822 Diario de su Caminata con el Comisario delImperio, Noticias sobre Ross, 1822. Ms. at BancroftLibrary, Berkeley.

SBMA-San Rafael Marriagesn.d. Marriage Register of the Mission San RafaelArcangel. Copy at Santa Barbara Mission Archives, SantaBarbara.

Smilie, Robert S.1975 The Sonoma Mission, San Francisco Solano deSonoma. Fresno: Valley Publishers.


von Wrangel, Ferdinand P.1839 Statische und etnographische Nachrichten uber dieRussischen Besitzungen an der Nordwestkuste vonAmerika. In Beitrage zur Kenntniss des RussischenReiches und derAngranzenden Lander Asiens. Edited byK. E. v. Baer and Gr. v. Helmersen, pp. 66-79. SaintPetersburg, Russia.