24
nityatPortRumiantsevin 1818 (tanslated by Wiswell
1979; Dmytryshyn et al. 1989b, respectively). We
will examine these ethnographic observations in de-
tail in chapter 6. Over time the size and nature of the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
1700s and early 1800s, when the Ross Colony was
founded, the Russians were increasingly using Ko-
niag peoples to hunt sea mammals as a replacement
for Aleuts. Their population, however, soon felt the
repercussions of Russian colonization; Gibson
(1976:6) estimates the Koniag population decreased
by seventy-five percent between 1792 and 1834.
Native Alaskan hunters were frequently gone
fromFortRoss on hunting trips from springto fall (see
Khlebnikov 1976:108,131; Golovnin 1979:162
[1818]). In addition, they were frequently rotated to
other outposts, including the Farallon Islands artel
and other North Pacific colonies, depending upon the
regional labor needs of the company, and the general
health of workers in other counters. By 1838 mostof
the native Alaskan workers were permanently trans-
ferred to other North Pacific counters (Gibson
1976:127).
In the summers of 1988 and 1989 we undertook
a preliminary archaeological investigation of the Na-
tive Alaskan neighborhood. We mapped and surface
collected the Native Alaskan Village, designated as
CA-SON- 1897/H in the California state trinomial site
numbering system. We also initiated excavations in
the nearby Fort Ross Beach Site (CA-SON-1898/H),
situated directly below the Native Alask-an Village on
the westsideofFort RossCreek. This areaappe sto
contain native Alaskan material transported down the
cliff face from the village above, as well as some
materials and architectural features found in situ.
4) The Native Californian Neighborhood. The
place where the native Californian Indians resided
near Fort Ross is called "Metini" by the Kashaya
people (see Oswalt 1964, native texts 60, 61, 64;
Barrett 1908:230-31). Based on our archival and
archaeological research, we believe that "Metini"
does not refer to one large village, but instead to a
number of smaller hamlets scattered in the vicinity of
FortRoss. The"coneshapedhuts"of theseresidences
were in marked contrast to the "pretty little houses" of
the Russian village, or the 'flattened cabins" of the
native Alaskans (Duhaut-Cilly 1946:10-11[1828]).
There are several eyewitness accounts of residential
dwellings, includingdomesticfurnishings,andpeople
conducting various household chores. The most use-
ful observations were made by Cyrille LaPlace in
1839 (translated by Farris 1986b, 1988), Ferdinand
Wrangell in 1833 (translated by Stross and Heizer
1976),andPeterKostromitinovwhoservedascounter
managerfm 1830-38(translatedbyStrossandHeizer
1976). In addition, V. M. Golovnin, a Russian naval
captain, andFedorP. Lutkevisitedthenativecommu-
relationship between Russian administrators and na-
native Californian community associated with the
Ross Colony changed greatly.
The Early Years. During the first decade of Fort
Ross (1812-22), relations between the local natives
and colonizers appeartohavebeen relatively good. A
friendship pact was signed between the Russian-
American Company and local Indian chiefs on Sep-
tember22, 1817, which acknowledged the rightof the
Russians to establish their colony in Kashaya territory
(Dmythryshyn etal. 1989c:296-98). The local native
chiefs received medals from the company, as well as
sometradegoods(seeBancroft 1886:297). There was
some concern among the local natives about the
expanding Spanish empire to the south, and the
Kashaya appear to have initially welcomed the Rus-
sians because of the protection they would provide
from Spanish raids (see Golovnin 1979:165 [1818]).
To cement the formal alliance with the Russian-
American Company, the Indian chiefs "willingly"
offered their daughters as mates to company employ-
ees, an action calculated to extend kinship relations
among the foreign colonists (see Golovnin 1979:163
[1818]; Kotzebue 1830:124). Native Alaskan men
who cohabited with Porno and Miwok women found
theynotonlygainedawife,butacompletenetworkof
kin relations. The Pomos extended full family ties to
their foreign in-laws, and reciprocal obligations due
to kin relations were observed (Golovnin 1979:163
[1818]). For example, the Indian men helped the
Aleuts build houses for their new brides.
Few estimates of the native Californian popula-
tion exist for the first decade of Fort Ross. We know
only of Kuskov's census of 1820, in which he rerted
forty-two native Californian women cohabiting with
Russian, Creole, and native Alaskan men (Fedorova
1975:12). Most of these women probably resided at
the colony with their mates. It is possible that native
women made upthemajorityof the nativeCalifornian
population atFortRoss at this time, and that other kin
relations lived elsewhere.
The Later Years. While relations between the
natives and colonists were friendly at first, visits to
the Ross settlement, especially by men, became rarer
and rarer over time (see Bancroft 1886:209, footnote
11). By the late 1820s and 1830s relations between
the company employees and the local native popula-
tion had begun to sour. The enmity was a direct
consequence of the decision to intensify agricultural
production in the Fort Ross Counter, which required
tremendous investments of labor to till, sow, culti-
vate, harvest, and thresh wheat and barley crops.
The increased labor demands fell squarely on the
shoulders of the local natives. Thus, by the 1820s, a
subtle change had taken place in the nature of the
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
Pomo/ Miwok Neighborhood
SON-1878
I Village
- SON- 1897/H
-              - Nalive Alaskan Neighborhood
SON-1898/H
SON-1455
Fort Ross Cove
-..    ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOOD
SITE
1.5 km
1.5 km
FIGURE 2.2  THE SPATIAL LAYOUT OF THE FORT Ross SETTLEMENT
N o
25
26
ing the harvest season. The number of farm workers
increased from 100 in 1825, to about 150 in 1833, to
200 in 1835 (Gibson 1976:119). In August 1839,
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
tive Califomrnians, as the former began to view the
latter as a cheap and necessary source of agricultural
labor.
Not surprisingly, the Russians experienced prob-
lems in recruiting an adequate laborforce. The native
workers were often mistreated, working long hours
for very little compensation that often consisted of
"bad"food (Wrangell 1969:210-11 [1833]). Tomake
matters worse, the Russians mounted armed raids
against distant Pomo communities to capture agricul-
tural workers. Wrangell (1969:210-11 [1833]) de-
scribes one such raid in which the Russians drove
Indian men, women, and children almost seventy akm
to Fort Ross "like cattle" with their hands tied. Here
they were forced to work without their household
possessions for about a month and a half.
Labor shortages during the agricultural season
were probably exacerbated by epidemics that swept
through the native community at Fort Ross from the
1810s through the 1830s. Kosnomitinov (1974:7
[1830-381) notes that many native Californians north
of San Francisco Bay "were exterminated by the
pestilences whichraged during the years 1815-1822."
In 1828, a measles epidemic killed twenty-nine Cre-
oles and Aleuts at the Ross Colony, while the number
ofnativeCaliforniancasualtiesisnot  ed(Gibson
1976:128). In 1833, another measles epidemic dis-
abled most of the payroll, and killed many native
Californians (Gibson 1976:128). In the period from
1836 to 1839, varied epidemics of measles, chicken-
pox, whooping cough, and small pox struck the Rus-
sian-Americancolonies from theAleutian Islandsand
Kodiak Island to California (Fedorova 1973:161;
Tikhmenev 1978:198). The number of casualties at
Fort Ross is unknown.
Historical sources suggest that the native popula-
tion at this colony fluctuated greatly on a seasonal and
yearly basis. By the late 1820s, a permanent popula-
tion of natives appears to havebeen living somewhere
in the hinterland of the stockade (Farris 1986a68;
Wrangell 1969:210-11 [1833]). During the agricul-
tural season, from spring to fall, the population of the
native Californian neighborhood swelled with sea-
sonal laborers "recruited" from outlying Indian com-
munities. For example, Wrangell (1969:210-11
[1833]) records seventy-two adult native Califor-
nians, probably the year-round population, in his
1833 census (table 2.1), and notes that an additional
seventy-five people were mobilized from the sur-
rounding region during the agricultural season. The
growing labor demands of intensified agricultural
production are exhibited in population estimates dur-
during the height of the harvest, LaPlace reports that
"several hundred" native Californians resided in the
vicinity of thegarrison (see LaPlace 1986:65 [1839]).
The above descriptions point out a paradox in
how the Russian-American Company treated native
Californians. On one hand, the Russians took great
pride in the freedom they gave native Californian
workers in practicing traditional lifeways, including
religious ceremonies, in contrast to the "despotism of
tyrannical monks" in the Spanish missions (Kotzebue
1830:79-80, 123-24). There was little concerted
effort by the Russian-American Company at Ross to
convert native Californians to the Russian Orthodox
faith or to get them to adopt Russian customs, foods,
or material culture. What the native Californians did
on theirown time was theirconcern. Yet, on the other
hand, the Russians could be very brutal about forcing
local natives to work against their will. When agricul-
tural production increased the labor demands of the
Fort Ross Counter in the late 1820s and early 1830s,
the Fort Ross administrators chose to exploit and
manipulate the local native population. Ferdinand
von Wrangell (1969:211), who toured Fort Ross in
1833 as the Chief Manager of the Russian-American
Company, viewed theseexploitativepracticesascoun-
terproductive and attempted to correct thean by initi-
ating new policies for the better treatment of native
workers in the Fort Ross Counter.
An archaeological survey of the immediate hin-
terland of the Ross stockude completed during the
summers of 1988 and 1989 identified several sites that
may date to the Russian period of occupation. A full
description of these sites is presented in chapter 5.
Tim STUDY OF CULTuRAL CHANGE:
HISmOlCAL EVIDENcE
In the final section of this chapter we examine
how the economic practices of the Russian-American
Company may have influenced the acculturation pro-
cesses of the native Alaskans and native Californians
at Fort Ross. From the outset we recognize that the
two ethnic groups represent very different popula-
tions for studying the effects of mercantile coloniza-
tion.
1) Length of Time with Rusians. The Aleut,
Koniag, and Athabascan workers brought to the Fort
Ross Counter had already been exposed to Russian
mercantile policies for three to four decades. In fact,
some of the Koniags stationed there probably repre-
sent second generation hunters who had grown up in
Russian colonies in theNorth Pacific. In contrast, the
Kashaya Pomo, Southern Pomo, and Bodega Miwok
had little sustained contact with non-Indian peoples
until the foundingof theRoss Colony, when they were
exposed to the commercial operations of a fur trade
company for the furt time.
2) The Fort Ross Region. The native Alaskans
were thrust into a strange environment thousands of
kilometers from their North Pacific homelands. The
sea mammal hunters had to quickly adapt to alien
coastal conditions. In contrast, the local Californians
were permanent residents of the Fort Ross region who
haddevelopedanefficientregionali subsistence-settle-
ment system for exploiting local resources and main-
taining local communities, a point taken up in more
detail in chapter 5.
3) StatusRaning. The native Alaskans enjoyed
a higher status in the Ross Colony than the local
natives. This translated. into better wages that could
be used to purchase nonlocal goods and foodstuffs in
thecompany store. As thelowest rankinggroup in the
colony, the native Californians were treated as un-
skilled seasonal laborers who received little compen-
sation for their work.
A Prelminary Consideration of Native
Alaskan Responses to the Ross Colony
As wage earners, the specialized sea mammal
hunters and skilledcraftsmen participated in a market
economy that paid them scrip redeemable at the
company store. Beginning in the nineteenth century,
the Russian-American Company's administrators es-
tablished a trade network with American skippers
who shipped manufactued goods and luxury foods to
the Russian-American colonies. Most of the manu-
facured commodities appear to have been destined
fornative consumption (Gibson 1976:172). Did wage
earning provide the material basis for altering the
lifeways of native hunters brought up under an earlier
mercantile system of corv6e serfdom and hostage
taking? Is there evidence of manufactured goods
from around the world in native Alaskan houses or
refuse from ethnic European foods? Or, as Wrangell
(1969:211 [1833])observedin 1833,werethe salaries
so low in relation to the company's high prices that
many workers were actually in debt to the company
store and unable to afford many luxury or manufac-
tured goods?
The inter-ethnic relationships between the native
Alaskans and Californians presents manother potential
source of cultural change. Pomo and Miwok kin ties
may have served as important cultural sources for
adapting to an alien environment. Is there evidence
for Pomo/Miwok architectural innovations in native
Alaskan residences or the adoption of Pomo/Miwok
culture material, craft manufacture, and foods? How
did the inter-ethnic households established in the
native Alaskan village influence the lifeways of na-
tive Alaskan males?
It is impossible at this time to evaluate the above
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
questions using archival information alone. The very
limited observations that are currently known for the
native Alaskan neighborhood preclude this. Rather
the evaluation of these questions will depend prima-
rily upon archaeological research. We will undertake
the direct historical approach for generating a diach-
ronic framework for studying cultural change among
the native Alaskan population. In this case, the direct
historical approach will involve the synthesis of late
prehisric and early historical cultural developments
on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Fortunately, archaeologi-
cal and ethnohistorical research has been ongoing on
the Kodiak Island archipelago for several years, the
purpose of which is to examine how early Russian
colonial practices (hostage-taking, corv6e labor) im-
pacted the traditional lifeways of Kodiak and Aleut
peoples (e.g., Black 1977; 1989; Clark 1974; 1985;
Crowell 1990; Knecht 1985; KnechtandJordan 1985;
Jordan and Knecht 1988). By comparing the late
prehistoric and early historical sites on Kodiak Island
with the native Alaskan neighborhood at Fort Ross,
we can begin to measure the degree of cultural change
in material culture, architectural styles, diet, craft
production, and settlement layout.
The historical context for employing the direct
historical approach will be developed in Volume 2 of
the Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofFortRoss, Cali-
fornia series. In Volume 2, we will summarize late
prhistoric and early historical developments on Ko-
diak Island, and describe the results to date of our on-
going archaeological investigations of the Native
Alaskan Village Site and the Fort Ross Beach Site. A
preliminary analysis will be undertaken to evaluate
similarities and differences between the late prehis-
toric and early historic Alaskan populations on Ko-
diakl Island and the native Alaskan neighborhood at
Fort Ross in order to address the above questions.
A Preliminary Consideration of Native
Californian Responses to the Ross Colony
We expect from the outset that the acculration
process of the native Californians may have differed
from that of the native Alaskans. Historical texts
suggest that the native Californians did not partici-
pate as extensively in a market economy as the native
Alaskans. Since the former were paid in kind, access
to luxury or manufactured goods was probably much
more limited. We suspect that the primary agent of
cultural change may have been through kin ties that
linked Pomo/Miwok families with native Alaskan
men, and to a lesser extent, Creole and Russian men.
The effects of mercantile colonization were probably
felt unequally among various segments of the local
native population. We expect that the greatest cul-
tural change would have taken place among the
women who cohabited with non-Indian men, and
27
28
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
next among families that resided year-round at Fort
Ross. The least impact was probably felt among the
seasonal farm workers who resided elsewhere but
were coerced into working at Fort Ross for a few
months a year.
In the remainder of this volume we will develop
the direct historical approach in order to begin evalu-
ating the magnitude of cultural change among local
Pomo/Miwok people. We will describe the late
prehistoric subsistence-settlement system of this re-
gion. We will then delineate the historic settlement
system of Pomo/Miwok people in the hinterland of
the Ross Colony. Finally, we will compare and
contrast the findings of the archaeological investiga-
tion with early ethnohistoric observations, later eth-
nographies, and the oral traditions of the Kashaya
Pomo. Employing these different data, we will
evaluate those aspects of Kashaya Pomo culture that
appear to have been receptive to change in a mercan-
tile environment, and those that were resistant to
change. We will attempt to examine changes in
subsistence practices, technology, material culture,
architectural styles, sociopolitical organization, reli-
gious institutions, and gender relations. A signifi-
cant consideration is to determine whether the direc-
tion of cultural change stemmed from Russian influ-
ences, from native Alaskan inspirations, or from
other sources.
CHAPiER THREE
THE NATURAL ENvuzOmrxr OF
THE FORT ROSS REGION
HE FORT ROSS REGION encompasses roughly a
750 sq km area in the southern North Coa
Ranges of Sonoma County in northern California (see
figure 3.1). The sizeandboundaries of theregion were
carefully chosen so that they include much of the
ethnographically described territory of the Kashaya
Pomo (see chapter 6). This area is part of the Russian
River Subregion as defined by Fredrickson
(1984a:475-77) in his overview of north coastal ar-
chaeology in California. The western boundary ofthe
Fort Ross region is a 50 km stretch of rocky coastline
that extends from the contemporary towns of Gualala
in the north to Jenner in the south. The North Fork of
the Guaala River and the Russian River are the
northern and southern boundaries of the region, re-
spectively. The eastern boundary parallels the coast
about ten to fifteen km (i=12 km) into the rugged
terrain of the North Coast Ranges, depending upon the
shape of the coastline.
In this chapter we describe the overall physical
environment of the Fort Ross region, including the
topography, hydrology, geology, botany, and zool-
ogy. We divide the flora of the region into twelve
basic plantcommunities thatextend from thecoastline
to the interior mountainous habitats. The diverse
range of plant and animal resources found in this
region is detailed below.
TOPOGRAPHY
The Fort Ross region lies almost entirely within
the southern portion of the North Coastal Ranges in a
physiographic region known as the Mendocino Pla-
teau (Howard 1951; Kniffen 1939). The dominant
topogra  c features of thearea include: the castline,
the coastal terraces, the San Andreas Fault, the moun-
tain/ridge systems, and the major river drainages.
The Coastline
The Sonoma County coast is quite rough, domi-
natedby steep,jaggedcliffsandrugged headlands tat
dropprecipitously to a rocky,wave-sweptshore. True
sandy beaches are few and far between; typically they
are found in relatively lprotected areas where streams
and rivers empty into the sea. Some of thedse drain-
ages, such as the Russian Riverand the Gualala River,
have estuarine environments at their mouths. The
majority of the coastline consists of either "open
coast" or "protected outer coast" environments. Both
of these coastal types support a wide variety of plant
and animal species, representing a rich resource base.
"Open coast," defined by Ricketts et al. (1985:6) as
areas of"entirely unprotected, surf swept shore .. ..,"
extends along most of the Sonoma County coast.
Much of this area is exposed, and at times dangerous,
due to high surf and "sleeper waves." "Protected outer
coast" is more limited in extent, consisting of rela-
tively protected areas "where the force of the surf is
somewhat dissipated ... by headlands or offshore
rocks" (Rickettsetal. 1985:5). ThIiskindofprotction
is also afforded "by the refraction of waves as they
reach headlads or rocks" (Ricketts et al. 1985:6). A
number of locations in the Fort Ross region, such as
Fort Ross Cove, Timber Cove, Fisk Mill Cove, and
Horseshoe Cove can be defined as protected outer
coast.
29
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
FiGUE 3.1    TH   FORT Ross REGION
15km
Scale 1:250,000
N
30
The Natural Environment       31
Sea Level Change
The California coastline has undergone substan-
tial reshaping over the past 15,000 years, primarily
due to sea level change and coastal erosion. Accord-
ing to Milliman and Emery (1968) the average sea
level was proximately 128 m lower at 15,000 B.P.,
56 m lower at 10,000 B?.P., and 18 m lower at 7,000
B.P. This suggests that7,000yearsagoalmost95%of
the water locked in the continental glaciers had been
released (Bloom 1971). Sea level rise has occurred
much more slowly since then (Bloom 1983). The
shoreline has been retreating over the last 6,000 years
primarily because of coastal erosion. The rate of
erosion varies, depending on the composition of the
land, exposure to waves, and water depth (Williams
and Bedrossian 1977:31). Sedimentary rocks near
Santa Cruz, California (Griggs and Johnson 1979:76)
erode at a rate of app iaely  30 cm per year, on
average, as do the formations on the San Mateo
County coast (Sullivan 1975:31). Sedimentary rocks
found ammound Fort Ross tend to erode at a rate of 0 to
9 m per 100 years (Ritter 1978:536). Consequently,
the shoreline at Fort Ross 6000 years ago could have
been as much as 540 m farther west than its present
lceation.
The sea level changes have had a profound effect
on the configuration of the coastline in central Califor-
nia. According to Bickel (1978), 20,000 square kilo-
meters of land have been submerged over the past
15,000 years. Bickel (1978) states thatthese shoreline
changes were gatest in areas where the continental
shelf is broad and sloping, such as north of Cape
Mendocino to the Oregon border and offshore of San
Francisco Bay. The latter shoreline was approxi-
mately 35 nkm farther west, past what are now the
Farallon Islands. The effects of eustatic change were
more limited in areas where the continental shelf is
steeper and narrower. In the Fort Ross region, the
shoreline was only 15 km westof the modem Sonoma
County coast 15,000 years ago (Bickel 1978; Moratto
1984). By about 10,000 years ago, the shoreline had
teated to approximately 5 km off the present day
coastline in the study area. The implications of post-
Pleistocene eustatic change are clear--the overall
terresial area in the study area has been reduced
considerably. The changing spatial distribution of
coastal and terrestrial resources over time may have
influencedprehistoric subsistence/settlementpractices
in the region.
Coastal Terraces
Just inland from the coast and extending up the
seaward slope of the outermost Coast Range are a
series of raised, wave-cut, marine terraces. These
terraces are, in essence, fossil shorelines. Their pres-
ence indicates progressive tilting, caused in part by
isostatic rebound of land areas no longer weighed
down by glaciers (Bickel 1978:7). This uplift is
greatest and most noticeable along the coast (Howard
1951:96). Prentice (1989:133) gives an uplift rate of
approximately 0.49 mm per year for the southern
Mendocino County coast. The highest and oldest
terraces are over 300 m in elevation and approxi-
mately 420,000 years old. The lower terraces in the
Ross region are the most prominent and best pre-
served since they are youngest The terraces range in
age from 83,000 to 103,000, 133,000, 214,000, and
320,000 years old (Prentice 1989:135). AlsoPrentice
(1989:133) notes at least five submerged terraces
offshore younger than 83,000 years old. While most
of the lower terraces are only a few hundred meters
wide, in certain places they can be as wide as one to
three kilometers (Howard 1951).
The San Andreas Fault
Slightly inland from the coast and the terrace
system lies the San Andreas rift zone. The San
Andreas Fault itself comes ashore for the last time
approximately 5.8 In south of Fort Ross (Bowen
1951). FortRoss State Historic Park contains numer-
ous classic faulting features such as sag ponds, scarps,
hummocks, and offset creeks. The rift zone cuts
across the younger marine terraces behind the historic
stockade, right thdroughtheOldRussianOrchard. The
1906 earthquake severely damaged Fort Ross itself.
The Russian Orthodox church was knocked down,
other buildings flattened, and a number of picket
sheep fences were displaced. One of these fences,
displaced almost three meters, can still be seen near
the state park's water treabnent facility. Many Dou-
glas fir and redwood trees were snapped off, bent, and
knocked down during the earthqluake. They can be
seen standing in the forests along FortRoss Creek and
near the sag ponds just north of the Old Russian
Orchard. One large redwood even had its trunk split
by fault movement (Bowen 1951:323; LaMarche and
Wallace 1972). The fault gradually angles farther
inland, through Lower Lake and Lake Oliver (West
1988) near Plantation and on north to Manchester
State Beach, where it disappears into the Pacific
Ocean.
Mountains
The majority of the land in the region is mountain-
ous and, in places, quite rugged. Near the coast, two
ridge systems run generally north-south, on either
side of the San Andreas Fault. Both of these ridges
contain ancient marine terraces and owe much of their
altitude to uplifting and tilting due predominantly to
isostatic rebound and faulting. The longitudinal ori-
entation of these steeply-sloping, parallel ridges is
primarily caused by the slow northward creep of the
land to the west of the fault.
32
precipitation. June through September are the dry
months (less than 10 mm of precipitation) and tem-
peraturescanrangeashighas40'cin the interior. The
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
The mountainous area to the east of the fault lies
within the physiographic region known as the Mendo-
cino Plateau (Kniffen 1939). Howard (1951:95)
describes the Mendocino Plateau as a "sprawling
dissected upland" which is actually a convergence of
the Yolo, Napa, and Marin ranges, three of the four
major parallel Coast Ranges just north of San Fran-
cisco Bay. The fourth of these ranges, the Sonoma
Range, diminishes as it heads north from the bay and
essentially disappears before it can converge with the
others at the Mendocino Plateau. The plateau proper
extends fifteen to thirty kilometers inland from the
Marin Range north to Cape Mendocino. The plateau
is submaturely dissected (Kniffen 1939), and there-
fore, quite rugged with steep slopes and deep, V-
shapedcanyons. Howard (1951:95) suggests that this
area is actually an ancient, uplifted peneplain, due to
the uniform altitude of the ridge crests and the scat-
tered level summits found throughout the plateau.
These summits rise gradually from 600 m in elevation
in the west to 1,200 m in the eastern portions of the
plateau.
Rivers and Streams
The highly dissected nature of this region is a
reflection of its hydrology. Numerous small annual
and perennial streams flow through the steep-sided,
geologically-young canyons of the Mendocino Pla-
teau. The majority of the creeks in the study area
eventually flow into the South Fork or the Wheatfield
Fork of the Gualala River, which empties into the
Pacific Ocean nearthe town of Gualala attheSonoma-
Mendocino County line. Movement of the San An-
dreas Fault has greatly effected the morphology of the
Gualala River drainage (Prentice 1989:173-82).
The other major drainage in the study area is
Austin Creek. This creek drains the southeastern
portion of the study area and empties into the Russian
River, the largest river in Sonoma County and the
southern limit of the Fort Ross region. A number of
small creeks, including Russian Gulch, Fort Ross
Creek, and Kolmer Gulch, flow off of the seaward
slope of the Mendocino Plateau directly into the
Pacific Ocean.
CLIMATE
The climate of the region is locally variable.
Nevertheless, the area can be roughly divided into two
climatic zones; coastal and interior. The coastal zones
typically have cool average temperatures (13'c), much
fog in the summer, and approximately 1006 mm of
precipitation per year (Carlson et al. 1976). The
interior zones are generally warmer and receive less
prevailing winds are from the northwest in the sum-
mer and become southerly in the winter. These winds
are commonly 16 to 40 kph, with gusts up to 95 kph.
A study of tree rings from throughout western
North America by Fritts (1965) reveals considerable
climatic variation in the region over the past 400
years. According to Fritts (1965:439), Fort Ross
would have been colonized during a relatively cool,
wet period beginning in A.D. 1801, and lasting until
1820. Fritts (1965:439-40) also shows evidence,
supported by the historical record, of a relatively hot,
dry period (drought) beginning in 1836 and ending in
1865. Interestingly, this dry cycle caesponds to the
final period of agricultural intensification at the Ross
Colony.
GEoLoGIc HISTORY
The Mendocino Plateau and the Coast Ranges
have evolved over many millios of years. As one
moves west from the Sierra Nevada, California geol-
ogy becomes progressively younger. According to
Altand Hyndman (1975:19), the Coast Ranges began
to form during the late Jurassic period, approximately
150 million years ago. This was caused largely by the
subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the North
American Plate. When these two plates collided,
marine sediments were scraped off of the Pacific Plate
as it submerged and pushed the sediments against the
North American Plate. Consequently, new land was
added to the western edge of North America (Alt and
Hyndman 1975:5). The movement of marine sedi-
mentsagainsttheNorthAmericanplateendedroughly
80 million years ago. The San Andreas Fault began
moving approximately 40 to 50 million years ago (Alt
and Hyndman 1975:20), when the continental crust
bonded to the .rock beneath it after subduction had
ceased.
Miocene
Howard (1951) suggests that the pre-Miocene
folding and faulting mentioned above are responsible
for the variety of topographic detail in western Cali-
fornia. The Coast Ranges, during the early Miocene,
were part of a rolling coastal basin, lower in altitude
than today. During this period the basin was subject
to a great deal of sedimentation, because of periodic
inundation by the ocean as the sea levels changed and
erosion of the Sierra Nevada peneplain. The struc-
tural framework of the Coast Ranges consists mainly
of the marine sediments scraped off of the Pacific
Plate as it jammed up against and submerged beneath
the North American Plate (Alt and Hyndman 1975).
Ernst (1979:191) refers to this as "the capping cnrustof
one or more paleopacific plates." Some intrusive
igneous formations associated with movement along
the San Andreas Fault also occur here. In ithe early
The Natural Environment         33
Miocene, further orogenic activity took place, mainly
thrust faulting and uplifting. This activity established
much of the composition, direction, and location of
the present Coast Ranges (Howard 1951). During the
middle and late Miocene, uplifting and erosion con-
tinued in this area, interrupted briefly by volcanic
activity in the Petaluma area.
Pliocene
In the early Pliocene, shallow seas still filled the
Miocene depositional basins in the Coast Ranges
area. Prentice (1989:169) provides evidence of a
large embayment between Fort Ross and Gualala
during thePliocene. The shorelineof this embayment
seems to have been approximately ten nkm father east
than the present shore. A long, rugged land mass
separated the interior from marine basins in the westL
Througout the Pliocene, erosion reduced the Mio-
cene mountains and filled in the broad valleys be-
tween them, producing a true peneplain (Howard
1951). At the end of the Pliocene the entire Coast
Ranges region was uplifted. Folding of younger
sediments occurred and some strata were completely
overturned. These newly uplifted ranges were imme-
diately subject to erosion resulting in the deposition of
coarse sediments well into the Pleistocene.
Pleistocene
Erosion continued during the early Pleistocene,
resulting in continued filling of lower areas and the
developmentof a relatively mature topography. In the
mid-Pleistocene, considerable orogenic activity took
place. New folds developed and block-faulting oc-
curred on a large scale. The rapid uplifting in the mid-
Pleistocene caused massive landslides. Much of the
present coastline, raised out of the sea during the
Miocene and Pliocene, was formed at this time
(Howard 1951), and subsequently modified by the
Holocene sea level rise, described above. This mid-
Pleistocene activity was the last major orogenic activ-
ity in the area. Although much of this landscape has
endured to modern times (Huffman and Armstrong
1980), subsequent erosion, subsidence, sea level rise,
and faulting dominated by the San Andreas have also
shaped present day western California. The San
Francisco Bay was formed by local subsidenceduring
the late Pleistocene that continued into the early
period of human occupation (Altand Hyndman 1975;
Howard 1951; Louderback 1951; Schenck 1926). A
massive landslide approximately one km from Fort
Ross has been dated to the Pleistocene (Prentice
1989:96). Many features in the San Andreasrift zone,
such as the displacement of Fort Ross Creek, the sag
ponds in Fort Ross State Historic Park and near
Plantation, fault scarps, and scarred trees, are due to
post-Pleistocene geologic/tectonic activity.
CONTEMPORARY GEoLOGY
The tortured geologic history of this region has
resulted in a jumbled mixture of rocks, minerals, and
geologic formations in Sonoma County. A simplified
version of the region's complicated geology is pre-
sented here (e.g. figure 5.2). Weaver (1943) also
describes the geology of this region. TIe Sonoma
County coast is made up of two distinct geologic core
complexes: 1)theEarlyCretaceousgraniticintrusives
and older metamorphic rocks (the Salinian Block) to
the west ofthe San AndreasFault,and2) the Jurassic-
Cretaceouseugeosyncli aemba(theFranciscan
Formation) to the east of the fault (Page 1966:255).
These core complexes are typically overlain with
nmore recent sedimentary, and in some places, plu-
tonic formations.
Salinian Block
Classic Salinian Block core formations of Mid-
Cretaceous hornblende-biotite, quartz diorite and
granodiorite are found just south of the study area at
Bodega Head, Point Reyes, and the Farallon Islands
(Compton 1966:286). The presence of true "Salin-
ian" rocks is not mentioned specifically by Compton
(1966), Page (1966), or Taliaferro (1951). Nonethe-
less, the presence of Salinian Core complex related
rocks in theFortRossregionisinferredfrom available
geologic maps (Armstrong 1980a, b; Blake et aL
1971) that reveal Salinian complex Cretaceous and
Tertiary sedimentary rocks west of the San Andreas
Fault from just south of Fort Ross to the Gualala
River. While there is some spilite (sodic basalt) near
Black Point (Armstrong 1980a, 1980b; Blake et al.
1971), the majority of the rocks to the westof the San
Andreas Fault are well-bedded sandstone and mud-
stone conglomerates containing potassium feldspar
(Armstrong 1980a, 1980b; Blake etal. 1971). Many
of the metamorphic rocks typical of the Salinian
Block such as the gneisses, schists, quartzites, marbles,
and granulites found in the Sur Formation, are not
found here. Along the California coast these later
formations frequently are overlain with quaternary
marine terrace deposits.
Franciscan Formation
The majority of the land area in the Fort Ross
region lies to the east of the San Andreas Fault and
is considered part of the Franciscan Formation.
Page (1966:258) describes the Franciscan Forma-
tion as ". . . a vast, diverse assemblage of eugeosyn-
clinal rocks with unsystematic structure and without
the regional metamorphism and granitic plutons of
the other [Salinian] complex (Page 1966:258)."
This formation has undergone tremendous,
unsystematic disturbance throughout its existence.
34
a tmperature of approximately 350 degrees centi-
grade without boiling and can dissolve large quanti-
tiesof silica. The dissolved silica would then precipi-
tate as a gel as the water cools (Page 1966:259). The
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Sandstone. The most common rock type found in
the Franciscan Formation is sandstone, mainly gray-
wacke. The sandstone beds generally range from 0.3
to 3 m in thickness. The sand grains in Franciscan
graywackes are angular and medium in size. The
majority of the sand grains are plagioclase and quartz,
with particles of greenstone, chert, shale, and schist
(Page 1966:258). Bailey et al. (1964:30) find that
Franciscan graywackesaverageapproximatelythirty-
five percent feldspar. Page (1966:258) believes that
"the graywacke sediments are very immature, were
derived by rapid erosion, and were deposited swiftly
without nomal wave action, probably inpart by mass
flows and turbidity currents."
Shale. AccordingtoPage(1966:258) shalesmake
up approximately ten percent of the Franciscan For-
mation. Shale typically occurs between graywacke
beds or locally thicker units. These shales are mainly
gray to black, silty, brittle, and fissile.
Conglomerate. Conglomerate is uncommon in
the Franciscan Formation. It typically occurs in
lenses in graywacke and shale sequences. Conglom-
erate clasts include: quartzite, siliceous porphyritic-
aphaniticrocks,graniticcobbles,black,red,andgreen
chert, greenstone, and rocks containing jadeite or
glaucophane (Page 1966:258). This indicates de-
struction and redeposition of older facies of the
Franciscan Formation, which is consistent with the
general geologic history mentioned above.
Volcanics. According to Bailey et al. (1964:6)
Franciscan volcanic rocks, termed greenstones, are
widespread and comprise approximately ten percent
of thetotalassemblage. Mostof thesegreenstonesare
"pillows, tuffs, or breccias resulting from submarine
eruptions, but some massive units may be intrusive."
Plagioclase and augite are the most common miner-
als. Olivine is rare. The composition of most of these
greenstones has been altered through reaction with
sea water.
Chets. Page (1966:259) states that "Franciscan
cherts are distinctive, thin bedded, green or red,
closely jointed rocks commonly associated with the
greenstones." These cherts are composed mainly of
chalcedonic quartz without clastic grains. Franciscan
chert usually contains a few scattered fossilized
Radiolaria tests. Volcanic rocksarecommonly found
near these cherts. Bailey et al. (1964:65-68) believe
that these cherts are actually chemical precipitates
formed by the reaction of lavas exposed to sea water.
They conclude that Franciscan cherts were formed by
the contribution of silica to sea water from lava at a
depth of 3900 m or more. At that depth water attains
tine, are commonly found in the Franciscan Forma-
vast majority of stone tools and debitage found
archaeologically in the study area are of red, green,
and gray Franciscan cherts.
Limestone. Some limestone occurs within the
region. Franciscan limestone is usually encountered
in small, discontinuous bodies. Generally light or
white in color, it sometimes contains lenses of gray
chert. This limestone is finegrained and contains tests
of pelagic Foraminifera, calcareous algae, corals, and
Pelecypods (Page 1966:259). The relationship of
Franciscan limestones to volcanic rocks is not yet
fully understood. Some believe that these limestones
represent reef and lagoonal deposits on old volcanic
piles. Others believe this limestone was deposited by
chemical precipitation of lime into seawater by hot,
subaqueous lava. Page (1966:259) states that the lava
might have infused lime into the sea water, and heat
may have caused precipitation of the lime by driving
off carbon dioxide. Larger deposits can be found near
Elk and Laytonville (Hart 1978:7).
Metamorphics. Relatively uncommon kinds of
metamorphicrocksarecharactristicoftheFranciscan
Formation (Page 1966:259). The presence of these
types of metamorphic rocks indicates ". . . periods of
rapid convergence and profou  underflow of the
Franciscan terrane . . ." (Ernst 1979:192).
Glaucophane-bearing rocks, jadeitized graywacke,
and eclogite occur in widely distributed lenses with
larger masses in the eastern parts of the Fort Ross
region. Theserocks were probably formed underhigh
pressure at only moderate temperatures (Page
1966:259). Thisgeologic conditioncanoccur through
rapidburial and uplift,orgreattectonic stresses. Both
of these effects are consistent with the proposed
geologic history of the area.
Glaucophaneappearsin a varietyofrocks,includ-
ingblueschis. Overfiftyblueschistblockshavebeen
mapped in the Gualala River drainage (Prentice
1989:178). Glaucophane-bearing rocks seem to be
formed isochemically from basalts and graywackes
(Ernst 1965).
Some jadeite occurs in the Fort Ross region.
Much of this jadeite is of low quality and hardly
distinguishable from the graywacke that it replaces
(Page 1966:259). Jadeite is often confused with the
morecommongreenFranciscan chertfoundonbeaches
and in streams in the region.
Eclogite is sparsely distributed in the study area.
Usually occurring as lumps or masses within other
rocks as a result of tectonic activity (Page 1966:260),
eclogite has sparked considerable debate concerning
its source. Some believe eclogite originated in the
mantle, others believe it is crustal, derived from
purely tectonic pressures (Coleman et al. 1965).
Serpentine. Ultramafic rocks, especially serpen-
The Natural Environment        35
tion. Some serpentine localities seem to be the result
of molten intrusions. The majority of serpentines in
the study area appear to be non-molten or cold intru-
sions. According to Page (1966:290) "cold intrusion
is indicated by [thel] lack of contact metamorphism
and typical igneous contacts, and by the sheared,
slickensided structure of the masses." The likely
source of these ultramafic rocks is the mantle, which
prbbly immediately underlies the Franciscan For-
mation.
Ohison Ranch Formation
The Franciscan Formation rocks in the Fort Ross
region ame locally overlain with marine terrace de-
posits of the Ohlson Ranch Formation. This forma-
tion developed during the Pliocene and now lies in
the northwestern portion of Sonoma County. The
Ohlson Ranch Formation consists primarily of
pocrly-exposed, fine-grained siltstones, sandstones,
and conglomerates. Prentice cites paleontological
and deposial evidence demonstrating that it was
deposited in a low-stress, marine environment, such
as a bay or inlet (Prentice 1989:165).
Economic Mineral Deposits
There has been limited exploitation of economic
minerals within the boundaries of this region. A coal
mine, established under an agreement between Wil-
liam Benitz and the Fort Ross Coal Mine Company,
opatedonaten-yearleasebeginningin 1863(Tomlin
1991:29). This mine has yet to be accurately relo-
cated, although John McKenzie (retired Ranger/Cu-
rator ofFortnRoss State Historic Park) has marked the
former entrance of dthe mine with a metal take. An
abandoned manganese mine remains near the conflu-
ence of Turner Canyon and the South Fork of the
Gualala River. Chromite deposits have been ex-
ploited at the Laton Mine, located in '"The Cedars"
near the head of Austin Creek. Mercury is known to
be in thearea to the north of the Laton Mine. This area
alsocontainsmagnesitedeposits. TheKashayaPomo
inhabitants of the area valued highly cooked magne-
site beads.  Local European inhabitants and the
Kashaya themselves, however, seem to have been
unaware of the local magnesite deposits (Stewart
1943). The study area has a number of gravel pits.
Serpentine, present in the Fort Ross region, is known
to contain asbestos. There is no indication, however,
of asbestos exploitation in western Sonoma County.
Sons
The soils of the study area have been thoroughly
examined and mapped by the California State Coop-
erative Soil-Vegetation Survey (DeLapp and Powell
1979a; DeLapp et al. 1978). The typeofsoil ina given
area varies greatly with relation to slope, exposure,
and available parent material. Soils in this area range
from less than 30 cm in depth to greater than 2 m in
depth. The majority of the soils are between 60 cm
and 1 m in depth. As would be expected, these soils
reflecttheirFranciscanFormnnation heritage. The most
common soils are derived from sandstone and shale.
A number of less common soil types derived from
conglomerate and meaorphic rocks are also found
in the region. Most of the soil types are moderately
acidic, very few are neutral or slightly alkaline. The
soils are typically light to dark brown, but range from
lateritic reddish brown to light gray. (For a more
detailed description of soil types in the region refer to
Soil-Vegetation Maps; 61D-3, 61C-4, and 63A-2,
published by the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station.)
The depth, slope, and water retention of Whese
soils helps determine the plant life they can sup
For example, serpentine soils are typically shallow,
retain little water, and are moderately to steeply
sloping. They usually supportchpal or grasslnd
plant communities. Few plants other than certain
specially dpted species grow in these soils. The
dense redwood and mixed evergreen forests cover-
ing much of the Fort Ross region are found on deeper,
moister, more fertile soils.
BOTANY
A wide variety of native plant species and distinct
plant communities occur in the region. Many of these
plants were used by the prehistoric and historic inhab-
itants of the area for a variety of purposes including
food, medicines, and tools (Barrett 1952, Chestnut
1902, Gifford 1967, Loeb 1926; Goodrich, Lawson
and Lawson 1980). For a list of selected species and
their uses see appendix 3.1.
Botanical History
Over the past 2,000 years the composition of these
species hasundergoneconsiderablefluctuation. Based
on palynological analysis of sediment cores from
Lake Oliver and Lower Lake, near Plantation, West
(1988:14) has interpreted three different forest com-
positions. Theearlierredwood-ominatedforestcom-
positions had a significant shrub understory consist-
ing mainly of wax myrtle, bracken ferns, and heath
family (Ericaceae) plants. Following this was a
period of relative increase in redwood, cypress, and
yew pollen values, and a dramatic decrease in shrub
(Ericaceae) and herb pollen values. West also pro-
vides evidence, based on carbon-dated charcoal found
in his sediment cores, of at least one significant
wildfire around 1620 B.P. The period following the
second general period exhibits an increase in Douglas
fir and exotic pollen, indicating theadventof Historic
period logging and grazing practices (West 1988).
36
Coniferous Forest are identified as "Coniferous ForL
est." Areas of closed-canopy forest dominated by a
mix of coniferous and broad-leafed species, including
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
A number of plant species that are not native to
California are found in the study area (see appendix
3.1). Most of these introduced species are native to
Europe (Munz and Keck 1973). They were intro-
duced by settlers primarily as fodder for domesticated
animals, crops, or decoration (Jepson 1925). Certain
exotic species have been very successful in California
and have subtly changed the state's botanic character.
European grasses, for example, have outcompeted
and largely replaced native grass species in the Fort
Ross region and throughout the state. West (1988:12)
documents the introduction of exotic plant species
nearFortRoss during the Historic period. During this
same period Douglas fir and especially redwoods
were intensively harvested. The introduction of cattle
also seems to have contributed to an increase in
European grasses (West 1988:12). These anm po-
genic disturbances greatly altered the flora of the
region.
Botanic Associations
We have divided the flora of the study area into
twelve basic plant communities after Munz and Keck
(1973) (see table 3.1). The term community as used
here refers to "an aggregation of living organisms
having mutual relationships among themselves and
to their environment" (Munz and Keck 1973). These
plant communities often grade into one another across
the landscape and range in density from closed-
canopy forests to relatively open oak savannahs or
even open grassland. Many individual species can
be found in more than one specific plant community,
however the communities discussed here distinguish
themselves by having a number of species more or
less restricted to them such as dominants or indicator
species (Munz and Keck 1973).
The distribution of plant communities in the Fort
Ross region and California as a whole is complex and
varied. The positioning of these communities on the
landscape is by no means haphazard. A number of
edaphic and climatic factors including salinity, rain-
fall, exposure, and soil type help determine the plant
community that will be found in a given area (Munz
and Keck 1973).
In order to simplify the botanical picture at Fort
Ross and to facilitate the analysis of vegetation/site
associations in chapter 4, areas covered by some of the
relatively discrete plant communities listed in table
3.1, and described below, have been placed in broader
categories. The plant communities dominated by
pure,closed-canopy standsof coniferous species such
as those found in the Closed-Cone Pine Forest, Red-
woodForest,DouglasFirForest,andNorthernmCoastal
oaks, such as those found in Mixed Evergreen Forest,
Northern Oak Woodland, and Foothill Woodland are
defined as "Mixed Forest-with oaks." Areas of
mixed forest in which oaks are not present are de-
scribed as "Mixed Forest-without oaks." Plant com-
munities of diffuse, open canopy and/orpatchy forest
are identified as "Savannah." "Grassland" connotes
areas devoid of forest including grassland, cultivated
fields, and bare patches. Chap l and northern
coastal scrub communities are called "Scrub."
Many of the plant communities discussed below
have disjunct distributions and often occur as islands
withinoneanother. Their respective distributionscan
be greatly dissected with irregular lines of contact and
often have numerous transitional areas due to the
varietyof topographic and climatic regimesoccurring
in the region (MunzandKeck 1973). Plantcommuni-
ties with greater moisture demands are commonly
found in more sheltered areas and fog zones. Plants
beter adapted to drier conditions, on the other hand,
grow in steeper, more exposedareas with poorersoils.
Forexample, north-facing slopesare often coveredby
different plant communities than south-facing slopes
due to the degree of exposure and the amount of water
that remains in the soil after evaaion. Kniffen
(1939), referring to the Siuthwestern Pomo area,
states that "in the deep valleys along the perennial
steams,ontheweli-rotected north slopes, tree gowth
is heavy. On the higher slopes with southerly expo-
suresthereare numerousandgood-siz  naturalopen-
ings where the vegetation cover is grass and shrubs
rather than trees." As one moves toward the ocean,
differentconstraints, such as tolerance to salinity, are
placed on plant communities.
Of course, differing levels of salinity tolerance
occur within the plant communities closest to the
ocean. The plant community with the greatest toler-
ance for salinity can be found, not surprisingly, in the
rocky intertidal area on the open coast and protected
outer coast areas (after Ricketts et al. 1985). Plants
that can tolerate a lesser degree of salinity and expo-
surearefoundin theCoastal Strand,Northern Coastal
Scrub, Coastal Prairie, and Closed-Cone Pine Forest
communities. These communities are arranged one
behind the other along the coast on the slopes, quater-
nary terraces, cliffs, and the few beaches between the
moist forests and the sea. As one moves inland the
level of salinity decreases in twoways. Lesssalt spray
is carried inland, and the salts that do arrive in the
more inland areas are diluted by rainfall. Typically
the Closed-Cone Pine Forest occurs on the coastal
side of the Redwood, Douglas Fir, and Mixed Ever-
greenForests. TheNorthernCoastal ScrubandCoastal
Prairie communities are usually found sandwiched
between the conifer forests and the Coastal Strand
(Kniffen 1939, Munz and Keck 1973).
The Natural Environment       37
Table 3.1
PLANT COMMUNITr    FOUND IN THE FORT ROSS REGION
Rocky Intertidal
Coastal Strand
Northern Coastal Scrub
Coastal Prairie
Closed-Cone Pine Forest
Redwood Forest
Douglas Fir Forest
Northern Coastal Coniferous Forest
Mixed Evergreen Forest
Northern Oak Woodland
Foothill Woodland
Chapreal
After Munz and Keck 1973; Ricketts et al. 1985.
In general, the plant communities requiring the
greatest amounts of water such as Redwood Forest,
Douglas Fir Forest, and Mixed Evergreen Forest are
arranged more or less parallel to the coast in the first
ridge system (and farther inland northwards), along
larger watercourses, in the higher elevations inland,
and in relatively protected areas that retain moisture
such as deep canyons and north-facing slopes. Plant
communities adapted to the more xeric conditions of
the interior such as Northern Oak Woodland, Foothill
Woodland, and Chaparral are found inland--beyond,
or in, more exposed areas within the moister forests.
The exposed, south-facing slopes with poorer soils
and in more lightly watered ranges of hills support
those communities most highly adapted to xeric con-
ditions, Cha aral and Grassland.
The twelve plant communities listed in table 3.1
are basic plant species associations, as described by
Munz and Keck (1973), and many species in them are
not necessarily constrained to a specific community.
Their description here is intended to give the reader a
sense of the complexity of the organization of these
communities on the landscape, their exploitation by
indigenous people, and their relations to climate and
other factors such as exposure and soils. Generally
moving inland from the ocean to the mountainous
areas, the plant communities are described below.
Rocky Intertidal. The rocky intertidal plant
community consists almost exclusively of red
(Protista; Rhodophyta),brown(Protista;Phaeophyta),
and green (Protista; Chlorophyta) seaweeds. Ricketts
et al. (1985) divide the rocky intertidal area into four
discretezones: Zone 1, theUppermostHorizon;Zone
2, the High Intertidal; Zone 3, the Middle Intidal;
and Zone 4, the Low Intertidal. Seaweeds inhabit all
of these zones, however, species diversity is greatest
in zones 2, 3, and 4. Some of the seaweeds found in
the Rocky Intertidal are listed in appendix 3.1. Two
intertidal species of surfgrass (Zosteraceae),
Phyllospadx toorreyi and P. scoueri, also occur
within the Fort Ross region.
Coastal Strand. Terresial plants that can toler-
ate the greatest amount of salinity and consequently
can survive closest to the ocean are included in the
Coastal Strand community. Plants in this community
grow on the sandy beaches and dunes scattered along
thecoastfortheentire lengthof the state. Theseplants
tend to be low or prostrate and are often succulent and
late flowering. Average rainfall ranges fromn 381 to
1778 mm, with much fog and wind. The Coastal
Strandplantcommunity was exploited for a variety of
purposes by indigenous peoples (see appendix 3.1).
Some representative plants include: tree lupine
(Lupinus arboreus), beach strawberry (Fragaria
chiloensis), Douglas's bunchgrass (Poa douglasii),
and beach morning glory (Convolvulus soldanella).
Northern Coastal Scrub. The Coastal Strand
grades into the Northem Coastal Scrub and/or Coastal
Prairie plant associations farther inland. Northern
Coastal Scrub extends from southern Oregon to San
Mateo County (Munz and Keck 1973). This plant
community is typically sandwiched between the
Coastal Strand and the Northern Coastal Coniferous
Forest up to about 150 m in elevation. Rainfall
38
from 3 to 915 m in elevation on the seaward slopes of
the outer coast ranges. Rainfall ranges from 889 to
2540 mm, with frequent, dense fog. Redwoods can
get exceedingly tall, as high as 110 m, and usually
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
averages from 635 to 1905 mm, with much fog and
wind. This scrub is usually undertwo meters in height
andcanbequitedense. Nonetheless, Northern Coastal
Scrub is often closely associated with large areas of
Coastal Prairie. Some common Northern Coastal
Scrub plants include: coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis), northern bush monkeyflower (Mimulus
auranticus), Califomrnia blackberry (Rubus ursinus),
cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), and salal
(Gaultheria shallon).
Coastal Prairie. Coastal Prairie can be found
from the San Francisco Bay area northwards on the
marine terraces and the western slopes of the outerand
middle coast ranges up to about 1200 m in elevation
(Munz and Keck 1973). Averagerainfallranges from
635 to 1016 nunmm, with much fog and wind. This plant
community wasoriginallydoininatedby nativebunch
grasses and flowering herbs, but has now been partly
superseded by introduced annual grasses. In coastal
areas Coastal Prairie often intergrades with Northern
Coastal Scrub (Munz and Keck 1973). Indigenous
people seem to have exploited many Coastal Prairie
plants (see appendix 3.1). Some typical Coastal
Prairie plants include: western fescue (Festuca
occidentalis), California oatgrass (Danothia
californica), Pacific reedgrass (Calamagrostis
nutkaensis), Pacific hairgrass (Deschampsia
caespitosa), coast sedge (Carex tumudicola), coast
brodiaea (Brodiaea pulchella), wild iris (Iris
douglasiana),blue-eyedgrass (Sisyrinchium bellum),
Mariposa lily (Calochortus lureus), and coast lupine
(Laupinusformosus).
Closed-Cone Pine Forest. Throughout much of
the Fort Ross region the coastal scrub and prairie are
separated from the redwood, Douglas fir, and mixed
evergreen forests by stands of Closed-Cone Pine
Forest These forests are found from Santa Barbara
County to the Mendocino plains in the north, from sea
level to around 365 m in elevation. Munz and Keck
(1973) state that "northward it [Closed-Cone Pine
Forest] is on the seaward side of the redwoods in
barren soils." Trees 10 to 30 m tall grow in these
relatively dense forests. Rainfall averages from 508
to 1524 mm, with much fog. This plant community
does not seem to contain many species exploited by
indigenous people (c.f. Barrett 1952, Chestnut 1902,
Gifford 1967). Some of the common Closed-Cone
Pine Forest plants include: Bishop pine (Pinus
muricata), beach pine (Pinus contorta), and pigmy
cypress (Cupressus pygmaea).
Redwood Forest. Redwood forests are found
from southern Oregon to central Monterey County,
to 760 m in elevation (Munz and Keck 1973). Occur-
grow in dense stands (Munz and Keck 1973). The
redwood forests, described in anthropological litera-
ture as "gloomy" and unproductive (Kniffen 1939),
contain many species of plants used extensively by
indigenous people such as the preferred acorn pro-
ducer, the tan oak, (Lithocarpus densOlora), and
medicinal plants such as redwood sorrel (Oxalis
oregona), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and Cali-
fornia nutmeg (Torreya californica) (Barrett 1952,
Gifford 1967; see appendix 3.1). Some typical
Redwood Forest plant species include: coast red-
wood (Sequoia sempervirens), Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesi), Pacific wax-myrtle (Myrica
californica), California huckleberry (Vaccinium
ovatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), coast rhododen-
dron (Rhododendron californicum), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), western trillium (Trillium
ovatumn), western yew (Taxus breveolia), and Yerba
de Selva (Whipplea modesta).
Douglas Fir Forest. Douglas Fir Forest commu-
nities are scattered through Marin and Sonoma coun-
ties, but mainly occur from Mendocino County north-
wards. This type of forest is usually found to the east
of the Redwood Forest on east- and north-facing
slopes (Munz and Keck 1973). In the Fort Ross
Region it occurs almost as far west as the coast and is
often mixed in amongst stands of redwoods. Its trees
can get up to 60 m in height; and rainfall ranges from
635 to 1651 mm, with much fog. Some plants from
this community were exploited by indigenous people,
especially the ubiquitous tan oak and the madrone
(Arbutusmenziesi) (seeappendix 3.1). Typical Dou-
glas Fir Forest plants include: Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), tan oak (Lithocarpus
densiflora), giant chinquapin (Castanopsis
chrysophylla), and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana).
Northern Coastal Coniferous Forest. Northern
Coastal Coniferous Forest can be found in the outer
coast ranges from Mendocino County north. Re-
stricted patches are found as far south as Sonoma
County, from sealevel to 300 m. Rainfall ranges from
1016 to 2794 mm, with frequent fog. The forests are
dense, with much undergrowth and trees between 45
and 60 m tall. The yew tree (Taxus brevifolia), found
in these (and other conifer forests), was very impor-
tant to the indigenous people for food, medicine, and
especially bows (Balrrett 1952, Gifford 1967, Kniffen
1939, Loeb 1926). Commonplantsof thiscommunity
include: grand fir (Abies grandis), Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), and western yew (Taxus brewifolia).
Mixed Evergreen Forest. Mixed Evergreen For-
est is typically found along the inner edge of the
RedwoodForestandon higherhills within it from 150
The Natural Environment        39
ring mainly in the North Coast Ranges, this commu-
nity can be found as far south as the northern Santa
Lucia Mountains. Rainfall ranges from 635 to 1651
mm, with some fog. Many of the plants in this type of
forest can also be found in Redwood Forest and
Northern Oak Woodland communities. Indigenous
people extensively exploited many plants in this
community, especially the oak species. Trees in this
relatively dense forest grow as high as 30 m, often
with dense underbrush and small islands of Coastal
Prairie Grassland. Some typical Mixed Evergreen
Forestplantsinclude: tanoak(Lithocarpusdensflora),
madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), giant chinquapin
(Castanopsis chrysophylla), laurel (Umbellaria
calsfornica), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllwn),
canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), California
black oak (Quercus kelloggit), hazelnut (Corylus
californica), mountain dogwood (Cornus nuttallii),
Parry ceanothus(Ceanothusparryi),andblueblosson
(Ceanothus thyrsiflorus).
Northern Oak Woodland. Northern Oak Wood-
land is found in the North Coast Ranges from Hum-
boldt and Trinity counties in the north to Napa County
in the south. This community occurs inland from the
Redwood Forest and up to an altitude of 915 to 1525
m. Rainfall averagesfrom635to 1016mm,with little
fog. Trees reach 8 to 23 m high in relatively open
woodland without significant undergrowth. Many of
the plants in this community were exploited by indig-
enous people(appendix 3.1). Common Northern Oak
Woodlandplantspeciesinclude: Oregonoak(Quercus
garryana), California black oak (Quercus kelloggi),
canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live
oak (Quercus wislizinii), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), buckeye (Aesculus californica), and
common manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita).
Foothill Woodland. Foothill Woodland commu-
nities occur on the inner Coast Ranges, from Trinity
County to Santa Barbara County, at elevations from
120 to 915 or even 1525 m. Rainfall averages from
381 to 1016mm, with littleorno fog. Treesare 5 to
20m in height, in eitherdenseor open woodland, with
scaered bmush and grassland. Indigenous people
exploited a number of the plants in this community.
Representative species of the Foothill Woodlandplant
community include: digger pine (Pinus sabiniana),
Coulter pine (Pinus coulters)n, blue oak (Quercus
douglasi), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley
oak (Quercus lobata), laurel (Umbellaria californica),
buckeye (Aesculus californica), California coffeeberry
(Rhamnus californica), buck brush (Ceanothus
cuneatus), and yerba santa (Eriodictyon cifornicum).
Chaparral. Chaparral is typically found on dry
slopes and ridges in the Coast Ranges from Shasta
County south, and grows in rocky, gravelly, or heavy
soils (Munz and Keck 1973). Rainfall averages from
355 to635 mm, with no fog. An almost impenetrable,
broad-leafed, sclerophyll vegetation type, chaparral
is well suited to the drier conditions of the interior. It
usually ranges from I to 3 m in height. Many of the
plant species in this community were exploited by
indigenouspeople. Typical Chaparral plants include:
chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry
(Rhannuscalfornica), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa)),
mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), flan-
nel bush (Fremontia californica), ceanothus
(Ceanothus spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.),
and vinegarweed (Trichostema lanatum).
ZOOLOGY
The occurrence and habits of selected vertebrate
animal species are described below. For lists of
commonly occurring animals' scientific names, com-
mon names, and uses by indigenous people refer to
appendices 3.2 through 3.6. Some vertebrate animal
species in the Fort Ross region are associated with
specific plant communities, while others are less
constrained, exploiting a variety of plant communi-
ties and habitats. A number of animal species, once
common in the region, have been severely impacted
or extirpated in historic times.
Zoological History
The paleontology of this region is poorly
known. Nonetheless, it can be generally inferred
that the Pliocene Clarendonian, Hemphillian, and
Blancan faunas including giant tortoises, cranes
(Grus conferta), flamingos (Phoenicopteridae), rab-
bits (Hypolagus), mice (Cupidinimus, Peromyscus,
Pliotomodon), ground sloths (Megalonychidac),
hyaenoid dogs (Aelurodon, Osteoborus,
Borophagus), foxes (Vulpes vafer), mustelids
(Cernictus), large cats (Pseudaelurus), mastodons
(Gomphotherium simpsoni), horses (Nannipus,
Hipparion, Neohipparion, Pliohippus, Equus), rhi-
noceroses (Teleoceras), peccaries (Prosthennops),
camels (Pliauchenia, Paracamelus), and antelope
(Merycodus, Spenophalos) may have once roamed
the Sonoma County landscape (Stirton 1951).
It is also likely that the Pleistocene Irvingtonian
and Rancholabrean faunas including Emydid turtles,
geese (Branta canadensis), murres (Uria aalge),
ground squirrels (Spermophilus [Citellus]), gophers
(Thomomys), mice and rats (Perognathus,Peromyscus,
Neotoma, Microtus), ground sloths (Megalonyx,
Nothrotherium, Paramylodon), the dire wolf (Canis
dirus), sabre-toothed cats (Dinobastis, Smilodon),
mammoths (Mammuthus columbi), horses (Equus),
tapirs (Tapirus), camels (Camelops minidolke, C.
hesternus, Tanupolama), deer (Odocoileus), antelope
40
abound in this area of SonomaCounty. The larvae of
some of these insects such as the army worm
(Pseudaledtia unipuncta) and yellow jackets (Vespula
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
(Tetrameryx irvingtonensis, Breameryx), musk ox
(Eucatherium), and bison (Bison antiquus, Bison
latifrons) once wandered Sonoma County (Stirton
1951).
At the time Europeans arrived the vertebrate
fauna of the region was essentially the same as it is
today, with a few notable exceptions. During the
periodofRussianoccupationgrizzlybears,elk,wolves,
and sea otters could still be observed in the local area
(Khlebnikov 1976:124-25). All of these species were
extirpated during the Russian and subsequent Ameri-
can ranch periods. Many other animals mentioned by
Khlebnikov are still common in the area. It should be
noted that a lone sea otter was sighted in Fort Ross
Coye in 1987 (Ranger Bill Walton, personal commu-
nication). Sea otters may be slowly repopulating the
North Coast of California.
CONTEMPORARY ZOOLOGY
The fauna of the Fort Ross region is rich and
varied. Animals in this region can be roughly divided
into marine, aquatic, and  ial groups. The
aquaticanimalsarearguably the morerestrictedgroup
since they are confined to watery environments such
as the coastline and freshwater streams and rivers.
The terresial animals tend to be more free ranging,
with a few notable exceptions.
Invertebrates
Rocky shores, which predominate the north
coast of California, support a diverse array of crusta-
ceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates, as well as a
variety of fish and sea mammals (see appendix 3.2).
Many of these animals were used by the indigenous
Pomo and Miwok people of the region. The inter-
tidal invertebrates harvested by natives (barncles,
limpets, mussels, abalone, sea urchins, turban snails,
and chitons) are restricted to the rocky intertidal
zones found throughout the area (see appendix 3.2).
Highly-prized, hard-shelled clam species, such as
the Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttall), the giant
Washington clam (Saxidomus giganteus), and
Nuttal's cockle (Clinocardiwum nuttali) were used as
raw material for shell beads. The shells were gath-
ered and/or traded from Bodega Bay (Gifford
1967:21; Stewart 1943:61), since the bivalves favor
large, sandy or muddy flats that are unavailable near
Fort Ross. Another economically important mol-
lusk, the purple olive (Olivella biplicata), is found
commonly in the small beach areas of the region.
A wide variety of terrestrial invertebrates inhabit
the region. Many different species of insects includ-
ing ants, butterflies, moths, beetles, bees, and wasps
ments. The newts (Taricha granulosa, T. rivularis,
sp.) served as food resources (Barrett 1952:108-109).
A variety of arachnids (spiders, mites, ticks, and
scorpions) are found in western Sonoma County. The
majority of the arachnids in the area are quite harm-
less. However,theblackwidow(Latrodectusmactans),
brown recluse, common scorpion (Vejovis sp.), and
the black-legged tick can all cause health problems.
The bites of the brown recluse, black widow, and
common scorpion can be quite painful and, under
extreme circumstances, deadly. The black-legged
tick carries Lyme disease.
Fish
Many different species of fish are found in the
FortRoss region. Barrett (1952:103) states that"prac-
tically all species of fish were used as food." Most of
the marine fish species prefered by the Kashaya
Pomo (Gifford 1967; see a dix 3.3) such as rock-
fish, cabezon, and greenling are inhabitants of rocky
shores. These fish were usually caught by hook and
line (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926), whereas surf fish,
such as smelt and surf perch, were caught in nets
(Gifford 1967:19). Gifford (1967:19) alsoreports that
tide pools were drugged in order to catch perch, coal
fish,andeels. Anadromousfishsuchascohchino k,
and pink salmon and steulhead can still be found min the
Gualla and Russian rivers (Moyle 1976). Salmon
and other fish were obtained using a variety of meth-
odsincludingspears, harpoons, nets,andweirs(Bart
1952:149-56; Kniffen 1939:356-59; Loeb 1926:167-
69). Salmonidsre sntavaluablefoodreso  eand
were heavily exploited, when available, by indig-
enous peoples in the prehistoric and historic periods
(Baumhoff 1963; Gifford and Kroeber 1937; Loeb
1926). Another nadromous fish species, the lam-
prey, was exploited as well (Loeb 1926). The Pomo
used many different fresh water fish (Kniffen 1939;
Loeb 1926), especially aroundClearLake. In the Fort
Ross region, however, the diversity of fresh water fish
is somewhat limited. Trout, minnows, suckers, ad
sculpins are the most common in the major rivers
(Russian and Gualala) and in the seams ( McGinnis
1984; Moyle 1976). Surgeon are found in the lower
reaches of the Russian River (Moyle 1976). Smaller
rivers and streams were often dammed and drugged
with plant preparations in order to obtain the fish
(Barret 1952:149-50).
Amphibians
Th herpetofauna of the region includes three
newt species, seven salamander species, one toad,
four frog species, three turtle species, five lizard
species, and thirteen snake species (see appendix
3A.4). This is somewhat depauprate, comparedto the
rest of the United States (Stebbins 1985). Amphib-
ians are, as a rule, constrained to moist environ-
The Natural Environment         41
and T. torosa), three of the salamander species (Am-
bystoma gracile, Dicamptodon ensatus, and
Rhyacotriton olympicus), and all of the frogs and the
toad (Bufo boreas, Hyla regilla, Rana aurora, R.
catesbiana, and R. boylei) must lay their eggs in
water in order to reproduce. These animals, with the
exception of the newts and the toad, are all found
close to ponds or streams. The newts and the toad
are relatively resistant to desiccation and can be
found considerable distances from water. Four
salamander species found in western Sonoma
County belong to the family Plethodontidae (Aneides
lig ubris, A.flavipunctatus, Batrachoseps attenuatus,
and Ensatina eschscholtzi). Plethodontids are
lungless and can lay their eggs on land. This allows
these animals to inhabit much of the region. They
simply require moisture and shelter of rocks, logs, or
leaf litter. According to ethnographic sources
(Barrett 1952; Gifford 1967; Loeb 1926), amphib-
ians were not eaten, but were sometimes used for
medicine or poisoning.
Reptiles
Reptiles seem to have been utilized like amphib-
ians. They "were shunned except upon rare occa-
sions" (Barre 1952:105). Some lizards and snakes
were used as medicine and/or charms. The lizards
found in the Fort Ross region include two fence
lizards (Sceloporus graciosus and S. occidentalis), a
skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), and alligator lizards
(Elgaria coerulea and E. multicarinata). All of these
lizards are widely distributed, with S. graciosusbeing
found at elevations above 150 m. The snake species
occurrinng in the region (see appendix 3.4) are widely
distributed,ingeneral. Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis)
are usually found in the interior, to the east of the first
ridge system. The California mountain king snake
(Lampropeltis zonata) is generally found in chapar-
ral. Turtles seem to have been the only reptiles used
as a food resource (Barrett 1952:105; Gifford 1967:19).
The only turtle commonly found in the region is the
Pacific pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata. These
tumles typically inhabit larger streams, rivers, and
ponds.
Birds
Over 200 species of birds can be seen in the Fort
Ross region. Many of these birds were exploited for
food, feathers, bones, and other purposes (see appen-
dix 3.5). A wide variety of pelagic and shore water-
fowl are found including sea ducks (scoters), sand-
pipers, murres, and guillemots. Gifford (1967:18-19)
notes that pelicans, willets, cormorants, and scoters
were not eaten. He also states that sea gulls were eaten
only when foodwasscarce(Gifford 1967:18). Barrett
(1952:100) states that gulls were not eaten at all in the
interior. Simons (1990:40-41) notes that the short-
tailed albatross (Diomedea albatrus) was extirpated
from the FortRoss regionand California's north coast
ingeneral duringthe Historicperiodduetooverhunting
by feather traders. According to Barrett (1952:100-
101),mostducksandwadingbirdswereeate. Gifford
(1967) does not mention many water birds at all.
Both Barrett (1952:101-102) and Gifford
(1967:19) state that no owls, vultures, eagles, or
hawks were eaten. These birds are widely distributed
in the region. They wereexploited primarily for their
feathers, used as ornamentation and medicine, and for
their bones, which were used for whistles and charms
(Barrett 1952:101-102; Gifford 1967:18; Loeb
1926:154,167). Owls are associated with bad luck,
child stealing, and death (Gifford 1967:18).
Smaller birds such as sparrows, thruslhes, and
doves were all eaten (Gifford 1967:18). Quail and
woodpeckers were prized for their head plumage,
which was used to decorate featherwed baskets (Barrett
1952:98-99; Gifford 1967:18-19). These smaller
terrestrial species are quite common. Woodpeckers
prefer mixed forests, whereas quail prefer savannah
or chaparral. Many of the aforementioned bird spe-
cies prefer specific microhabitats occurring through-
out western Sonoma County. Since the birds men-
tioned here are able to fly to and from their preferred
habitats, most species are widely distributed in the
region.
Mammals
Avarietyof mammalsliveintheFortRossregion
(see appendix 3.6). Many of them were used as
sources of food, hides, bones, sinew, and antlers
(Barrett 1952; Gifford 1967; Loeb 1926). Elk(Cervus
elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were prob-
ably the most important sources. Elk prefer relatively
dense forests and savannah, and were locally extir-
pated by the late 1800s (Gifford 1967:16). Deer are
still commonly found in savannah, mixed forest,
grassland, and chaparral habitats. A variety of taboos
were related to the hunting of deer (Gifford 1967;
Loeb 1926).
Marine mammals can also be encountered in the
region. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) haul out onto
the sandbar at the mouth of the Russian River, near
Jenner. Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus, and
Zalophus calgfornianus) are sighted frolicking in the
waves in Fort Ross Cove. Gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus) can be seen offshore in the spring and fall
during their migration to and from Alaska and
Mexico. Occasionally, porpoises are spotted off-
shore. According to Loeb (1926) marine mammals
were used by the coastal Pomo when they could be
obtained, usually by hunting of sea lions and seals,
42
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
and strandings of whales and porpoises. Gifford
(1967:17) reports, however, that the Kashaya Pomo
did not kill or eat seals or sea lions. He also reports
that sea otters (Enhydra lutris) were not hunted until
the arrival of the Russians (Gifford 1967:16).
Many of the smaller species of animals such as
rabbits and rodents were hunted for food and hides
(Gifford 1967:16-17; Loeb 1926). Gifford notes
that the backbones of these smaller animals were
pounded when they were cooked in order to keep the
animals straight (Gifford 1967:16-17). Larger ani-
mals such as black bear, mountain lion, and bobcat,
which are still present in a variety of habitats today,
were hunted for food and/or hides (Gifford 1967;
Loeb 1926). Most of the mammals in the local area
have preferred microhabitats, but can often be found
in many different habitats due to their relatively high
mobility. Some of the smaller rodents are a little
more specialized. Voles and gophers are usually
found in open, grassy areas. One small rodent found
in the Fort Ross region, the red tree vole (Arborimus
longicaudus), eats only new conifer needles, and is
restricted to stands of Douglas fir.
CONCLUSION
The Fort Ross region is a topographically com-
plex area with a long and tortured geologic history.
Raw material suitable for stone tools (chert, sand-
stone) is readily available. Sources of other eco-
nomically important materials such as obsidian and
hard-shelled clams are relatively close. The area
around Fort Ross contains diverse plant and animal
resources, many of which were exploited fully by
the prehistoric and historic inhabitants (Barrett 1952;
Baumhoff 1963; Gifford 1967; Kniffen 1939; Loeb
1926). The areas richest in resources exhibit the
greatest species diversity, including key plants such
as oak trees. These preferred habitats of economi-
cally-important species appear to be the rocky inter-
tidal, mixed forest with oaks, savannah, and grass-
land (see appendices 3.1-3.6). Humans, especially
during the Historic period, have profoundly influ-
enced the natural environment of the region through
the extirpation or exploitation of several local verte-
brate species, extensive lumbering, and the introduc-
tion and cultivation of non-native plants and domes-
ticated animals.
CHAPER FouR
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
OF THE FORT ROSs REGION
I N THIS CHAPTER, WE present a historical over-
view of the archaeology of the Fort Ross region.
The primary purpose is to describe proposed subsis-
tence-settlement models for the southemrn North Coast
Ranges. Some scholars maintain that small family
unitspracticedextensive seasonal rounds during much
of the annual cycle, aggregating into interior villages
many kilometers from the coast in the winter. Others
suggest the development of a larger, more complex,
central-based village settlement system. We summa-
rize the current data and initiate a subsistence-settle-
ment analysis of the 455 sites recorded to date in this
region.
From the outset we note the sporadic tempo of
archaeological research in the Fort Ross region prior
to the 1970s; research was limited in scope and brief
in execution. The earliest archaeological work was
undertaken in conjunction with ethnographic studies
ofcoastal Pomo societies (Barrett 1908; Stewart 1943;
Gifford 1967). Yet with the exceptions of Meighan's
(1967) subsurface testing of two ethnographic "vil-
lages" in 1951 and Von der Porten's (1964) testing of
four coastal sites in the early 1960s, few excavations
(beyond the Ross stockade complex) or systematic
surveys took place. This contrasts sharply with the
adjacent coastal region south of the Russian River,
especially from Bodiga Bay to Tomales Bay, where
a number of early surveys (Nelson 1909; Peter 1938)
and extensive excavations (Fredrickson 1962;
Beardsley 1954; Greengo 1955) were completed (see
Alvarez and Fredrickson 1989).
In the 1970s with the advent of cultural resource
management studies, the tempo of archaeological
research in the Fort Ross region accelerated (see
Stewart 1980:.3.22-3.27). Largesectionsofthecoastal
strip north of the Russian River were surveyed under
the auspices of the California Department of Parks
andRecreation (DPR)andothergovernmentagencies
which initiated broad-scale inventories of their prop-
erties (Pritchard 1970; Thompson and Fredrickson
1979; Bramlette and Fredrickson 1990; Farris 1986a).
In addition, some interior locations were investigated
as part of DPR surveys (Alvarez 1991), timber sale
inventories of the California Deparment of Forestry
and Fire Protection (Foster 1983a, 1983b, 1987), and
as archaeologicalsurveysofproposedhousingprojects
(Fredrickson 1974a, 1974b; King 1974a, King 1974b).
The cultural resource management studies to date
have emphasized intensive survey of specific project
areas and limited subsurface testing of some sites (see
Fredrickson 1984a:526). Few large-scale, areal exca-
vations of prehistoric or historic age native sites have
been initiated in the region.
TmE EARLY YEARS
The archaeological investigation of the FortRoss
region was initiated in the early decades of this cen-
tury by anthropologists from U.C. Berkeley. Trained
primarily asethnographers, thesescholars interviewed
43
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
native elders on the location of prehistoric and historic
villages as part of their research on coastal Pomo
societies. A primary research problem was to exam-
ine cultural adaptations to the steep, rocky coast and
mountainous terrain of the southern North Coast
Ranges. At issue was the resource productivity of the
narrow, foggy coastal strip and adjacent redwood belt
that extended anywhere from eight to thirty-two kilo-
meters into the interior (Kroeber 1925:225).
lThe early consensus of most ethnographers was
that the southern North Coast Ranges provided a
relatively meager resource base for native peoples.
Barrett (1908:24) first noted that the dense redwood
belt provided few economic resources for hunter-
gatherers. Alfred Kroeber (1925:225-34) expanded
upon this theme, arguing that the food supply of the
coastal Pomrno was inferior to interior Pomo groups
located along the Russian River and Clear Lake. Not
only did he perceive the redwood belt as being largely
barren and unproductive, but he characterized the
rocky reefs and rocky intertidal zones of the coastline
as providing only a"fair" amount of food. According
to Kroeber,-the paucity of resources could only have
supported a low population density. Similar views
have been echoed by Kniffen (1939:383-84) and
Gifford (1967:1).
Most of the above studies suggested that some
form of annual cycle was practiced that involved
seasonal movements from coastal camps to interior
villages. For example, Kniffen (1939:384) argued
that the coastal Pomrno had to "scour the country to
provide their livelihood from a variety of sources."
He postulated an annual cycle in which the local
population was dispersed into small family groups for
most of the year, except during the winter when they
aggregated into winter villages. Since the effects of
European colonization were largely ignored by early
ethnographers (see Kroeber 1925:v-vii), there was
little attempt to differentiate late prehistoric from
early historic settlement patterns.
The Mendocino Coast
Anthropological studies of the Mendocino coast
directly north of the Fort Ross region support some
aspects of the above scenario. Like the Fort Ross
region, this areaischaracterizedby a steepcontinental
shelf, rocky reef and intertidal habitats, high wave-
stress shores, and extensive redwood forests. Here
ethnographic descriptions of the Northern Pomrno and
Central Pomrno indicate a seasonal use of the coastline
before the mid-nineteenth century (McLendon and
Oswalt 1978:283). Few coastal villages are reported
north of the Gualala River (Barrett 1908:20), and
most permanent or winter villages appear to have
been situated far inland (up to 32 km from the coast)
to theeastof the redwoodbelt(Stewart 1943:34; Bean
and Theodoratus 1978:289).
Recentarchaeological fieldwork atAlbion Head
in Mendocino County by Thomnas Layton and Dwight
Simons suggests some time depth exists for the sea-
sonal exploitation of the Albion coastline. In a de-
tailed analysis of artifactual and faunal remains from
five coastal sites, they suggest that small groups from
the interior or southern coastal homelands visited the
coast to hunt seamammals, andto gather shellfish and
specific plant foods (Layton 1990:52-57; Simons
1990:37-50). Short-term camps appear to have been
occupied during the spring and/or summer months on
the basis of various asality indices. At the end of
the summer season, the coastal visitors are thought to
have returned to interior winter villages located some
distance from the coast. Layton (1990:188) suggests
that some of these winter villages may have been
located in the Little Lake Valley, more than 20 kn
overland from the coast. Layton and Simons's finmd-
ings co   ond closely with ethnographic accounts
of Northern Pomo seasonal residential movements.
Greg White's (1989, 1991) ongoing study of
coastal sites in the MacKerricher State Park north of
Fort Bragg suggests a somewhat more complex settle-
ment system. In the MacKarricher Phase (A.D. 0-
350), White (1991, pesmnal communication) sug-
gests that year-round occupations of coastal sites took
place based on the exploitation of both castal and
terrestrial resources, especially steller sea lions. His
excavations in the summer of 1989 revealed oval-
shaped house structures with numerous subfloorpits.
In the Sandhill Phase (A.D. 1300-1850) there is evi-
dence for a shift to short-term, early fall occupation in
which fisherpeople systematically s tripped intertidal
rocks for mussels (White 1989:141). After the sea-
sonal mussel harvests, the camps appear to have been
abandoned as people probably continued their annual
cycle or possibly moved to nearby winter villages.
The Sonoma Coast
When one turns to the Sononma County coast
north of the Russian River, the archaeological evi-
dence of a small, residentially mobile population
"scouring the landscape" in a resource poor environ-
mentisquestionable. Webelieve theFortRoss region
proved to be an enigma to early anthropologists.
While its physical environment resembles that of the
Mendocino coast, the density of ethnographically
described"old" villagesandcampsitescompars more
favorably to the rich, protected estuarine environ-
ments of Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay to the south.
Samuel Barrett undertook the most comprehen-
sive study of ancestral village and camp locations in
his interviews with Pono elders in the years 1903-
1907. In his first monograph, Barrett (1908) de-
scribed each site as recalled by native informants, and
44
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
ploutted its location on a master map of the entire Pornmo
linguistic territory. Barrett apparently relied prima-
rily on informants for locational information, as he
did minimal field checking of sites. Only about
fifteen "old villages" and twenty "old campsites"
were recalled by Northern and Central Pomno infor-
mants for the coastal region extending 85 kmn north of
the Gualala River to Pudding Creek (north of Fort
Bragg) and about 12 km into the interior (Barrett
1908:foldout map). In contrast, the Kashaya Pono
could point to the locations of fifty-six "old villages"
and thirty-four "old camp sites" in the Fort Ross
region stretching 50 akm from the Russian River to the
Gualala River. Figure 4.1 shows the locations of
Barrett's "old villages" and "old campsites" in the
same region, while table 4.1 cross references the site
numbers in that figure with Kashaya place names for
the villages and camps.
The majority of the "old villages" in the FortRoss
region are found within about a S In distance of the
ocean (see figure 4.1); fifteen are dispersed along the
coastal terace, fourteen are along the first ridge
system, and ten are found along the second ridge
system. The remainder (seventeen) are disseminated
in interior habitats in the watersheds of the Middle
Fork of the Gualala River and Austin Creek. A little
more than half of the"old camps" (n=18) are found on
the coastal terrace, with the rest dispersed across the
different ridge systems of the region.
C. Hart Merriam, who visited the Kashaya Pomo
in August 1905, compiled a list of "Kachiah" names
for. villages, rancherias, and campsites in Sonoma
County (Merriam 1977:43-59). In Merriam's de-
scription of these sites, he noted that many were
recorded by Barrett (1908). Later ethnographers,
such as Kroeber (1925:plate 36) and Kniffen
(1939:382), relied primarily on Barrett's settlement
data with only some modifications in spelling Kashya
names. No attempt was made to field check Barrett's
map until E. W. Gifford and Omer Stewart initiated
extensive, nonsystematic, reconnaissance surveys.
Gifford worked with the Pomo in 1915-1918,
1934, and 1950, and it appears that much of his field
checking was undertaken in 1950with HermnnanJames,
a Kashaya Pomno consultant. While some villages
were misplaced (see Gifford 1967:8), in general
Gifford and James's fieldwork indicated a relatively
high degree of precision in Barrett's site locations.
Gifford (1967:7-9) described several village sites that
consist of clusters of "housepits" ranging from 3 to 6
m in diameter, midden refuse containing shellfish
debris and cooking stones, and dark organic soils
(sites #37, #66, #67, #68, #71 in figure 4.1 and table
4.1).
Omer Stewart appears to have undertaken much
of his reconnaissance work in 1935 in the hinterland
of the Ross stockade. His ethnographic and archaeo-
logical fieldwork indicated that most villages were
located about 1.5 to 5 km fnrom the coast along the
upper slopes and tops of the first ridge system. He
believed that fewpenmanent villages were situatedon
the coastal terrace, and that most sites found here were
camping places for gathering sea food (Stewart
1943:50). He located several of Barrett's "old vil-
lages" [#75, #71, #77, and #76 in figure 4.1 and table
4.1; recoded as sites 18, 23, 25, and 27 in Stewart's
map (1943:28)], which were assigned permanent
California state trinomial numbers by the University
of Califonia Archaeological Survey in 1948 (CA-
SON-176, -180, -182, and -184, rpecively). He
also recorded information on several sites near the
Ross stockade dthathadnotbeenpreviously described
by Barrett. These were also assigned rimnmial num-
bers: CA-SON-174, -175, -177, -178, - 179, -181, -
183, and-185 [listed as sites 16,17,19,20,21,24,26,
and28 respectively, in Stewart's map(1943:28)]. All
of these "village" sites contained one or more "house"
depressions, measuring several meters in diameter,
diverse artifact assemblages, and midden deposits.
A Central-Based Village System
The implications of Barrett's (1908), Gifford's
(1967), and Stewart's (1943) studies were threefold.
1) Population Density. The density of villages
and camp locations recorded by these investigators
suggested a relatively high population density for the
Fort Ross region. Clearly the settlement pattern
recorded for the Kashaya Pornmo contrasted markedly
with the number of coastal villages found in the
Northern Pomo and the Central Pomrno territories. The
site density of the formerregion comared more favor-
ablywiththatreported fortheBodegaBayandTomales
Bay region in the 1940s and early 1950s (see Beardsley
1954:20). Here, along the protected shores of these
southern estuaries, were located many large coastal
sites that consisted primarily of thick, shell deposits.
2) Resource Productivity. The poverty of
resources in the Fort Ross region was probably over-
stated by Kroeber(1925) and Kniffen (1939). Adark,
gloomy, impenetrable redwood belt does not parallel
the Sonoma County coast. Rather a mixed forest/
woodland/grassland mosaic exists along the interior
ridge systems composed of different plant communi-
ties that contain a variety of economic resources (see
chapter 3; also Baumhoff 1963:197). Stewart
(1943:55) stressed that Pomo people would place
their village communities in locations best suited to
takeadvantageof differenthabitats in the local region.
He noted thatby extending territorial boundaries in an
east/west orientation, Kashaya Pomo groups in the
coastal province could exploit
45
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
i J             . .
a.
River a.
~, C.)
I '.J
S ..j'I
.,
[
I.- I
1.. (L
'--'-;
- r" !
rI .  J
3
A. -?.      . ..',-.
,%-
14                               2?0
24'e,
15, , .            Creek
25..' 17,
26    1        .7  18  . 1
~..N                     .-  '.~...t..
6  20              13  .
47 A48             Ri.ver.  11   Cr.'k-
?49     87,,..-'- -
48*5                  Oil 8  ~-'.-
28.29  "  5  L?C
A-  . 6-. /,7 7
52 ~67    &' 89  *-63HL ea /
.68
.54  '81  69  90
4 \' A
?55      70(
7" '
?57  72'~   ~ a
*31        .78
73  " .. " -..7'
58  :         .
59  32                  79
**?;1*  82f   7
"OLDCAMPSITES"  6  3        A
* '"OLD VILLAGES"  6         i -  ?
74  75%     8
34
50.x. .,4
NI
N
0 --   km
O      lkm
{
i         (
.)            )
\..\,.
? .
a .          . (-   .'
i.:-i.}
O^,Cr.eek-..- $; .
....
? .5~. . .
,=)
,S.-...                 . ...,..
"L   .      . X.  -....
V. -
..2 .    a J . r""
I   . ~~~-.0   \. !"
A  I  ,    ./I
ON
FIGURE 4.1
THE SPATIAL DISTRBUTION OF "OLD VILLAGES" AND "OLD
CAMPSrES" IN THE FORT Ross REGION (FROM BARRErr 1908)
46
.  -..j
Is w-
5rec '
. .
x..-                       I
36              37                              -I
38        .N  N
I -1
39 '   -
!l
f., ...
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
the ocean beach, the wind-swept grassy coastal
shelf, the redwood and tan-oak forested hills;
these including the numerous and fairly exten-
siveclearingsonridgesandnearinteriorstreams
that are small counterparts of the hills and
valleys of the Russian River province (Stewart
1943:55).
3) SettlementHierarchies. Both Gifford(1967:7)
and Stewart (1943:50) suggested that the settlement
system of the Kashaya Pomo consisted of relatively
permanent villages in the hills close to the coast and
camp sites along the coastal terrace (see also Gifford
and Kroeber 1937:118). Gifford (1967:8), relying
extensively on his consultant Herman James, sug-
gested that the ridge top villages were used primarily
in the winter, and that small camps were established
on the coastal terrace during the summer. Meighan's
(1967) excavations of a coastal site (Kapacinal, #30 in
figure 4.1, later recorded as CA-SON-256) and an
interior village (Atcacinateawalli, #66 in figure 4.1,
later recorded as CA-SON-369) tended to supporxt this
interpretation. Meighan's (1967:47) analysis of the
twoartifactassemblages suggested significant"occu-
pational" differences between the sites.
Adifferencein seasonallivingpatternsappears
to be the major factor involved and this is
suongly demonstrated in the mound analyses.
When at the inland village, the people spent
more time hunting deer and other land animals.
Onthecoast,shellfishandseamammalsformed
the subsistence of the group. This difference
may be reflected in the different types of pro-
jectile points; apparently a heavier point, made
of local chert, was used in hunting sea mam-
mals (Meighan 1967:47).
Unforunately, Meighan (1967:47) was inclined to
rule out temporal differences between the sites since
"ethnographic information indicates that the sites
were used by the same group of people."
Stewart (1943:50) inferred that clusters of sites
may represent former village communities. He
proposedthatpoliticalrelationsbetweenvillagescould
be defined in archaeological contexts by the presence
or absence of large depressions that may represent
former assembly houses. He assumed that villages
containing assembly houses were the abodes of im-
portant chiefs (1943:50). Based on discussions with
Kashayainformants,especiallyRosaSherd, a Kashaya
woman born at Dukacal (Stewart 1935b), he defined
a two-tiered hierarchy of settlements along the ridge
tops consisting of large principal villages with assem-
bly houses, and smaller hamlets in the nearby hinter-
land that lacked such structures (see also Kniffen
1939:389). Five villages were identified as exhibiting
large depressions that may have once served as the
foundationsofassembly houses. They include Lalaka,
Seepinamatci, Hibuwi, and Dukacal (#71, #75, #76,
and #77 in figure 4.1), as well as the village of Bacel,
which Barrett did not describe. Bacel [shown as site
24 in Stewart's (1943:28) map] appears to be located
near the village of Tcumati (#64 in figure 4.1). Ten
villages are listed that exhibit evidence of only house
pits and not depressions associated with assembly
houses. These are Tcumati, Mutcawi, Atcacinatca-
walli, Kalecadim, Tcalamkiamali, Tadona,
Kobotcitcakali, Tanam, Kaletcumaial, and Tsapuwil
(site#64,#65,#66, #67,#68, #69,#72,#78,#79,#80,
respectively in figure 4.1).
In figure 4.2, we plot the spatial pattern of
villages with and without assembly houses identified
by Stewart (1943). The principal villages are distrib-
uted on ridge tops in a roughly linear configuration
(approximately north/south) that parallels the coast.
Hamlets are dispersed to the east and west of the
principal villages on the first, second, and third ridge
systems. The spatial distribution suggests four or five
village communities whose principal villages are
spaced between 4.2 and 8.6 km apart. The territories
of the village communities appear to have been ori-
ented in an east/west direction to take advantage of the
diverse foods and raw materials that extend from
rocky intertidal habitats to the open woodlands of the
interior (Stewart 1943:55). We refer to this model as
the central-based village system, since principal vil-
lages and associated hamlets were centrally located to
allow easy access to the different plant communities
in the region.
LATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUHJDIES
The next documented archaeological fieldwork
in the region was undertaken by Edward Von der
Porten of Santa Rosa Junior College. During the
period of 1962 to 1964, Von der Porten and his field
crews recorded four costal sites near Timber Cove and
Stillwater Cove, 2.4 to 5.3 km northwest of the Ross
stockade along Highway 1. Excavation units (5'by 5)
were placed in at least two of the sites designated as
FortRoss#2 and#4. Field notes from theproject (Von
der Porten 1964) indicate that a "house floor" of
crushed fire debris was uncovered at Fort Ross #2, as
well as a wide range of artifacts including obsidian
and chert flakes, pestle fragments, an Olivella bead,
clam disk beads, bone awls, projectile points, a "fish
hook" made from a bent nail, and historic ceramics.
Fort Ross #4 is a shell midden measuring 30 by 46 m
in size where subsurface testing yielded a number of
flakes and some bifaces of obsidian and chert, nails,
47
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 4.1.
KASHAYA PLACE NAMES FOR SrrEs iN FIGuRE 4.1
Site #
in Figure 4.1         Kashaya Name               Site Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Kubahmoi
Kabeteyo
Kawante limani
Kobate
Camli
Makawica
Mahmo
Matiwi
Kawamtcaeli
Bimukaton
Hiwalhnu
Duwiditem
Bulakowi
Tcayahkaton
Dutsakol
Katmatei
Kabatui
Tsumno
Kabaputcmali
Seeton
Tcapida
Kalinda
Kowical
Duwimatcaeli
Ohomtol
Kapacinal
Tabatewi
Kabesilawina
Tcitono
Tcitibidakali
Sulmewi
Otonoe
Mefini
Baceyokaili
Powicmana
Tsukantitcanawi
Kalemalato
Katka
Tsubatcemali
Tcamulka
Acatcatiu
Kadjusamali
Tulekaleyo
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
camp
camp
Description in
Barrett 1908 (page#)
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
229
229
229
229
229
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230-1
231
231
231
231
231
232
232
232
233
233
48
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
Tabkle 4.1 con't.
KASHAYA PLACE NAMES POa SrrIEs IN FIGuRE 4.1
Site #
in Figure 4.1
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Kashaya Nuname
Tcikobida
Tontotcimatci
Suldjo tuwnali
Pacukitmnawali
Matimali
Hemalakahwalau
Batsatsal
Duwikalawali
Bacewi
Sohoibida
Tcitibidakali
Tatcbida
Ledamali
Dilkata
Amayalatci
Potol
Tcumati
Mutcawi
Atcacinatea walli
Kalecadim
Tcalamkiamali
Tadono
Tatcmawali
Lalaka
Kobotcitcakali
Kicayi
Tcamokome
Seepinatci
Hibuwi
Dukacal
Tanam
Kaletcunumaial
Tsapuwil
Koomtcobotcali
Tanahinmo
Capetome
Matcoko
Kabebateli
Hatciwina
Tcaikosadotcani
Nekawi
Tatcaka
Tekalewi
Site Type
camp
camp
carnp
camp
camp
c-np
camp
canp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
village
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
camp
Description in
Barrett 1908 (page #)
233
233
233
233
233-4
234
234
234
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235-6
236
236
236
236
236
236
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
238-9
239
239
49
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
worked glass artifacts, pestles, and hammerstones
(see Von der Porten 1964).
The first systematic archaeological surveys in the
Fort Ross region were undertaken in the 1970s. Most
of these projects have been small in scope, often
involving the survey of cultural resources in road
alignments, in proposed residential developments,
and in properties slated fortimber harvests. Below we
briefly describe five areas where large-scale surveys
have been complete (see figure 3.1).
1) Navarro Ranch Land Development Project.
LocatedinmountainousterrainnorthwestofCazadero,
Fredrickson (1974a) initially examined the site poten-
tial of the 841 ha project area by making field checks
on foot He divided the project area into zones of high
sensitivity, moderate sensitivity, and low sensitivity.
King (1974a) then undertook a survey of the project
area, giving priority to highly sensitive zones that had
high probabilities of containing sites, but examining
other, less sensitive zones as well. A total of six sites,
eighteen bedrock petroglyphs, and several isolated
surface finds were recorded. The six sites are lithic
scatters exhibiting primarily flakes and debitage of
chert and some obsidian, as well as occasional ground
stone tools (King 1974a:2-3). The peroglyphs were
ground and pecked into schistboulders in the style of
cupules, line groups, and deep grooves. Individual
petroglyph boulders contained as many as 43 cupules.
Interestingly, the petroglyph boulders are all clus-
tered in the northern section of the project area in the
Ward Creek drainage (King 1974a:3-6).
2) Gualala Land Development Project. This
project involved survey in the rugged terrain of the
South ForkoftheGualala RivernearCreightonRidge,
about5 km east of the Ross stockade complex. Simi-
lar to the Navarro project, Fredrickson (1974b) first
field checked the 6.5 sq km project area to identify
parcels with high potential for sites (high sensitivity).
King (1974b) then surveyed the area, giving priority
to those parcels of high sensitivity, but also field
checking other parcels. A total of fourteen sites,
primarily lithic scatters and some petroglyphs, were
recorded. Descriptionsof these sites will bepresented
in chapter 5.
3) Fort Ross State Historic Park. Substantial
fieldwork is now being undertaken in the near hinter-
land of the Ross stockade by archaeologists from the
California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa Junior College,
and U.C. Berkeley. An area measuring 2.8 sq km has
been intensively surveyed in the Fort Ross State
Historic Park. Subsurface testing has been initiated at
several sites. The results of this fieldwork are in-
cluded in chapter 5.
4) Stillwater Cove Regional Park. This 23 ha
regional park, located between the Fort Ross State
Historic Park and Salt Point State Park on the coast,
was surveyed in 1979 by crews from Sonoma State
University (Thompson and Fredrickson 1979). The
project included the assistance of a Kashaya Pomo
tribal scholar, Otis Parrish. Parrish believes that some
coastal locations may have been inhabited year-round
given the abundance of intertidal resources such as
abalone (Thompson and Fredrickson 1979:3,8). A
mixed strategy reconnaissance was employed to sur-
vey the park, with priority given to zones of high
sensitivity. Three sites (CA-SON-687, -688, -689)
were relocated. Two additional sites (CA-SON-
1183, -1184) were recorded. All of the sites are shell
middens containing various pporions of mussels,
chitons, clams, abalone, and limpets, as well as some
chert and obsidian artifacts (Thompson and Fredrick-
son 1979:10-12).
5) Salt Point State Park. Considerable archaeo-
logical fieldwork has taken place in this 20.24 sq kmn
statepark during thelasttwenty years. Theboundaries
of the park include an extensive stretch of coastline, as
well as the coast-facing side of the first ridge system
directly west of the modem hamlet of Plantation.
In October 1969, William E. Pritchard of the
Department of Parks and Recreation, commenced an
archaeological survey of the park. He recorded a total
of forty-seven sites: three Euro-American sites from
the American period, twenty-five shell middens, and
nineteen lithic scatters (Pritchard 1970.31). Two
groups of shell middens were identified. One group
(n--=21) consists of small middens (130 sq m or less in
size) situated on sea cliffs, in the lee of rock outcrops
or on the southern slopes of streamn banks. The other
group (n=4) includes large middens (1022 sq m or
more in size) located well back into the tree line
several hundred meters from the beach. Pritchard
interpreted the small shell middens as single family
camps where marine foods were processed, and the
larger sites as more intensive occupation areas of more
extensive populations (e.g., "villages"). Employing
ethnographic analogies of the coast Yuki and Pomo,
Pritchard (1970:30) believed the shell middens were
used primarily in the summer months, although he
was unsure about the "economic significance of the
larger villages." Pritchard found evidence that the
lithic scatters, located primarily on the sea cliff edge
and coastal terrace, may have predated the shell
middens. The measurements of the hydration rims of
two obsidian artifacts suggest a relatively early date
for the lithic scatters (Pritchard 1970:32).
In the fall and winter of 1987, and spring of
1988 an intensive survey was conducted in Salt Point
State Park by field crews from Sonoma State Univer-
sity to assess the poteantial effects of bun management
50so
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
? . - ..-./.
J,
i
. .   0- .-W
c      '*~
(
I'.
*1
N                rec  J
(L)
*, .      ,               r
'3.      S..
2
L

..-..- S
I
"N
Fuller C
.       --.
*- *   76,
64 /  Fk ~ LGi   lae;d  -G-Q- -
'~~~ "'".    .
VILLAGE WITH ASS
* VILLAGE WITHOUT
N
I
0
'>'
.65  .
*  *66  .'.  77   ' .
.  67
68I '
~'
..69
S ~ /ereeP, 1.
---...    .  .....
,,, '~ w  .  !(,
). ,' ..-/ *'79
.EMBLY HOUSE      75   J
r ASSEMBLY HOUSE           -
1k-m
y.. - 'L.
:""", .-:
Us? 79
FIGURE 4.2
THE SPAnTIL DISuBmUTION OF VILLAGES WrrII AND
WrTourr ASSEMBLY HousEs (FROM STEWART 1943:50)
i
I. -
i, J4
!..
.!
62,,-J (
cX j
-.
C,,,   'A .
)
I-
..J  .-.-"
(     ./'-"-
.L~i    -
-" .:..~
. . .A
.-
I
I...0
N,;   ,
" '..
A. C% 1.
' . .  :
,
'~:\%
..,
I
51
I- . .1.

-w
I
52
which people exploited foods and raw materials in
nearby coastal and interior habitats. The settlements
may have been organized into small village commu-
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
practices on archaeological resources. A 4.05 sq km
area was intensively surveyed along the coastal strip
and lower elevation terraces (Bramlette and Dowdall
1989:142). The sites originally found by Pritchard
were relocated, and new sites were recorded. A total
of 126 prehistoric sites were relocated or recorded
(Bramlette and Dowdall 1989:142). The site density
(31 sites/sq kIn) is probably one of the highest yet
recorded in the coastal regions of northern California
(BramletteandFredrickson 1990:5). Prehistoric sites
include shell deposits on the coastal terrace usually
within 50 m of a primary drainage. Many of these
shell deposits contain a low density of lithic artifacts.
Other sites are lithic scatters situated on coastal bluffs
or on the leeward side of sandstne stacks (Bramlette
and Dowdall 1989:143). The results of obsidian
hydration analysis tend to confirm Pritchard's hy-
pothesis concerning the earlier occurrence of lithic
scatters. The earliest lithic scatters date back as early
as 4500 years ago, while most of the shell deposits
date to within the last 2000 to 3000 years (Bramlette
and Fredrickson 1990:.5).
Onesite(CA-SON-473)wasexcavatedbyFrancis
A. Riddell in 1981 near the parkinglot at Gearstle
Cove. A 426 by 36 m area was sampled by excavating
a combination of soil auger holes and seven 1 by 1 m
units. The analysis of the materials, conducted by
Dowdall (1988), suggests the place was used season-
ally for processing marine foods. Mussel, barnacle,
abalone, limpet, and chiton make up the majority of
the shell refuse in descending order of total shell
weight. Some obsidian, chert, quartzite, basalt, and
schist debitage (n=299) and a few flaked sone tools
(n=l 1) were recovered. Twenty-one cobbles, three
pestles, and three millingstone fragments were also
analyzed. Only three pieces of rodent and fish bones
were identified. Obsidian sourcing indicates that the
majority came from Napa Valley and Annadel. Only
a few pieces of obsidian were sourced to MtL Konocti,
and none came from the Borax Lake flow (see
Dowdall 1988).
SUMMARY: TH     CENTRAL-BASED
VILLAGE MODEL
The results to date of fieldwork in the Fort Ross
region suggest the following central-based village
settlement model. Along the ridge tops and high
slopes near the coast one expects to find large sites
with housepits, midden deposits, and diverse artifact
assemblages. These sites may have functioned as
relatively permanent, central-based villages from
nities composed of principal villages with chiefs and
assembly houses and smaller outlying hamlets.
In the outlying hinterland beyond the ridge top
villages, one expects to find a variety of special
purpose sites where foraging parties and task groups
exploited various food resources and raw materials.
In Salt Point State Park, a variety of small shell
deposits and lithic scatters are found on the coastal
terrace, possibly representing the remains of special
purpose activities involving maritime food gathering
and processing. Larger sites containing extensive
middens, which may represent the remains of vil-
lages, are found on the coastal facing slope of the first
ridge system. Othersettlementdata from theNavarro
and Gualala land development projects, situated deep
in the hinterland of the South Fork of the Gualala
River and Austin Cee drainages, include lithic scat-
ters and petroglyphs that may reflect special purpose
activities involving hunting, plant processing, and
ceemonies.
A SuBsIsmENcE-SEnMwENT ANALYsis OF
SITES IN THE FORTROSS REGION
In the remainder of this chapter, we present a
preliminary evaluation of the central-based village
model employing infmaion from all known, re-
corded sites in the Fort Ross region. Our overview
includes all the archaeological site record forms cur-
rently on file at the Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University. This region, as defined in
chapter 3, sets the boundaries for site inclusion. A
total of 455 sites have been recorded in these bound-
aries.
We recognize several peblems in underdtaking
this analysis, and the in  weaknesses in our damta
set. The site forms, and kinds of information re-
corded, varied greatly fromAn the earliest (1935) to the
most recent (1990). In addition, the data provided by
the site investigators also show significant variance.
As the focus of the researcher changed, so did the
emphasis on the variables recorded. In some cases,
site form updates are available and are use  In many
instances, data has to be extrapolated from the narra-
tive and/or from other relevant form information.
Often, data on pertinent variables are inconsistent, not
available, or available in only a very gross fashion. A
good example of this is assigning the prehistoric/
protohistoric/historic moniker to the site. Investiga-
tors often guess at the age of sites in the field prior to
any rigorous chronological analyses of site constitu-
ents, thus making the chronological assessments re-
ported in site forms somewhat dubious. The "site
type" variable also presents problems. Site types are
not clearly or consistently defined on the site forms
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
and, in many cases, multi-purpose uses are identified
without priority. However, a significant data base
does exist, and given the above caveats we proceed
with it
The universe of 455 sites in the Fort Ross region
prvides441 sites with records; theremaining 14 sites
that lack documentation are excluded. Additionally,
43 sites definmed as Euro-American in origin are ex-
cluded from the analysis. The remaining 398 sites
comprisetheregionaldatabase(appendix4.1). These
sites are analyzedasliketemporalsites withoutregard
to the pmre/protc/historic identifier listed on the site
form. Variables examined include site type, environ-
mental zone, site location, and area.
Site Type
The analysis of the data on site type segregates
sites as follows: shell middens (50.5%), rock shelters
(22%), habitati sites(16.1%), litic saues (21.5%),
and other-petroglyphs, quarries, cupule rocks, bed-
rock mortars(9.8%). While habitation sites represent
only 16% of the total sites, special purpose or limited
activity sites accountfor84% of the total. This may
indicate that the residents of the habitation sites uti-
lized many special purpose loci both near and at some
distance from their residential bases. Assuming that
the individuals who used the special purpose sites also
resided in the Ross region, each habitation site was
associated with, on the average, six special purpose
sites. Of course, this ratio does not take into account
the temporal relationships or overall use durations of
the different site types.
Only thirty-one of the sites evidenced features
(pits and/or depressions): twenty-nine of those sites
are habitation sites and two are shell middens. Fea-
tures are associated with almost 40% of all habitation
sites (29 out of 74).
Site Size
A review of site size, as measured in square
meters, reveals considerable variation in the areal
extent of different site types. It should be noted that
two sites, CA-SON-1204 and CA-SON-1205, aggre-
gations of Salt Point sites, are not included in this
analysis. The average size and size range of each site
type is as follows: shell middens (i=1988; sd=6597;
one standard deviation is 0 to 8567); rock shelters
(=6870; sd=20377; one standard deviation is 0 to
27247); habitation sites (x =5162; sd= 1 1025; one stan-
dard deviation is 0 to 16187); lithic scatters (x=5307;
sd=10049; one standard deviation is O to 15356); and
other sites (x=3007; sd=4773; one standard deviation
is 0 to 7780).
These findings suggest that habitation sites, lithic
scatters, and rock shelters tend to vary more in size
than any othier site types. The duthree site types are
characterized by assorted sized sites that range from
very small (less than 50 sq m) to very large (68,000
sqm).
Environmental Zone
Each site in theregional data base is assigned an
environmental zone code based on the aggregated
plant community descriptions provided in chapter 3.
With the exception of mixed forest-without oak, sites
are found in all other environmental zones: conifers
(8.6%), mixed forest-with oak (22.6%), grassand
(57.1%), savannah (10.9%), and scrub(.8%). Almost
sixty percent of the sites are located in a grassland
zone and an additional twenty-three percent in a
mixed forest-with oak zone. This suggests that the
vastmajorityofthesites(80%) are situated inareasof
greatest plant and animal resoues (mixed forest-
with oak) and/or on the boundary between differing
resource areas (grasslands). Less anm one percentof
the sites are located in the scrub zone.
For each site type, the proportion found in each
environmental zone is as follows: shell midden-
13.4% conifer, 12.6% mixed forest-with oak, 8.2%
savannah, 64.5% grassland, and 1.3% scrub; rock
shelter-30% conifer, 20% mixed forest-with oak, 0%
savannah, 50% grassland, and 0% scrub; habitation
site-1.4% conifer, 20.5% mixed forest-with oak,
13.7% savannah, 64.4% grassland, and 0% scrub;
lithic scatter-4% conifer, 30.3% mixed forest-with
oak, 15.2%savannah, 50.5%grasslan and0%scrub;
other site types-2.2% conifer, 51.1% mixed forest-
with oak, 13.3% savannah, 33.3% grassland, and 0%
scrub. Ninety-nine percent of the habitation sites are
located in the three most productive zones: mixed
forest-with oak, grassland, and savannah. While at
least half of all shell middens, litic scatters, rock
shelters, and habitation sites are located in the grass-
land zone, half of the other site ty (petrs oglyphs,
quarries, cupule rocks, bedrock mortars) are found in
a mixed forest-with oak zone, suggesting activities
such as hunting, plant processing, quarrying, and
ceremonies.
For each environmental zone, the propotion of
each site type is as follows: conifers-77.5% shell
midden, 7.5% rock shelter, 2.5% habitation, 10%
lithic scatter, and 2.5% other, mixed forest-with oak-
29.3% shell midden, 2% rock shelter, 15.1% habita-
tion, 30.3% lithic scatter, and 23.2% other, savan-
nah-38% shell midden, 0% rock shelter, 20% habita-
tion, 30% lithic scatter, and 12% other, grassland-
56% shell midden, 1.9% rock shelter, 17.7% habita-
tion, 18.8% lithic scatter, and 5.6% other, scrub-
100% shell midden. Of interest,almosteightypercent
ofallsites locatedintheconiferzoneareshell middens,
perhaps suggesting that shelter or access to wood was
a main requisite in selecting some coastal shellfish
53
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
processing sites.
Site Location
Analysis of the sites in the data base also includes
a review of three site locations: coastal (the coastal
strip,estuarine areas, coastal terraces, and lowerridge
slopes up to about 125 m in elevation), ridge (ridge
slopes over 125 m in elevation and ridge tops in the
first ridge system inland from the coast), and hinter-
land (all lands inland from the first ridge system). In
a few cases, second ridge system sites, when near the
first ridge system, are coded as ridge sites. The
boundaries between coastal, ridge, and hinterland
locations are not discrete, and, in many cases, the site
location code isestimaled. Forthe regional database,
65.9% of the sites are found in coastal locations, 9.6%
in ridge locations, and 24.5% in the hinterland.
The data show great discrepancies in the size of
sites found in coastal, ridge, and hinterland locations.
The average and range of site sizes (in square meters)
are as follows: coastal locations (x=1641; sd=5588;
one standard deviation is 0 to 7229); ridge locations
(--=7872; sd=l 1,229; one standard deviation is 0 to
19,101); andhinterlandlocations ('=5705; sd=1 1,208;
one standarddeviation isOto 16,913). Twotrendsin
the sizeof habitation sitescanbe observed. First, sites
in coastal locations tend to be smaller, on the average,
than those in ridge and hinterland areas. Second, sites
in ridge and hinterland locations exhibit a greater
range of size variation than those recorded in coastal
locales. In the latter, habitation sites average about
4242 sq meters (sd=11,303; one standard deviation is
0 to 15,454), while at ridge and hinterland locations
they average respectively, 7141 sq meters (sd=9352;
one standard deviation is 0 to 16,493) and 6986 sq
meters (sd=10,653; one standard deviation is 0 to
17,639).
Site type also varies with site location. For each
site location, the proportion of each site type found is
as follows: coastal-65.5% shell midden, 32% rock
shelter, 13.9% habitation, 13.9% lithic scatter, and
3.5% other, ridge-41.9% shell midden, 0% rock
shelter, 32.6% habitation, 23.3% lithic scatter, and
2.3%other, hinterland-11.1%shell midden, 0% rock
shelter, 15.7% habitation, 42.6% lithic scatter, and
30.6% other. Over half of the sites found in coastal
locations are shell middens, while almost half of all
hinterland sites are lithic scatters. These results are
not unexpected; they reflect area/resource specific
activities: shellfish processing at the coast, plant pro-
cessing and hunting in the interior.
For each site type, the proportion found in each
location is as follows: shell midden-87.1% coastal,
7.7% ridge, and 5.2% hinterland; rock shelter-100%
coastal; habitation-58.1% coastal, 18.9% ridge, and
23% hinterland; lithic scatter-43A% coastal, 10.1%
ridge, and 46.5% hinterland; other-24.4% coastal,
2.2% ridge, and 73.3% hinterland. Of interest is the
location of the other site types: seventy-three percent
are in the hinterland and only two percent are found on
the first ridge system. This suggests very specific
locational requirements exist for site types including
petroglyphs, cupulerocks, bedrock mortars, andquar-
ries. Of the twenty-nine habitation sites with pit/
depression features, nine are coastal, nine are hinter-
land, and eleven are ridge locations.
CONCLUSION
In summary, a preliminary analysis of the Fort
Ross region archaeological sites supports some as-
pects of the central-based village model. A few large
habitation sites are located in areas of great resource
productivity and/or on the boundary between diverse
resource zones. Supporting these habitation sites are
a variety of special purpose sites that probably repre-
sent loci where seafoods were gathered and pro-
cessed, terrestrial game, seeds, and nuts were har-
vested, chert nodules were quarried, and ceremonial
activities perfmed  On the average, six special
purpose loci are found for each habitation site re-
corded in the region. Also, the sites on the coastal strip
and coastal terraceare somewhat smaller than those in
ridge and hinterland locations. Shell middens and
rock shelters tend to be most commonly found in
coastal locations, while lithic scatters tend to be most
frequently found in coastal and hinterland locations
and are rarely found along the first ridge system.
Interestingly,petroglyphs, quarries,cupulerocks, and
bedrock mortars also are rarely located on the first
ridge system.
The greatest discrepancy between the central-
based village model and the findings of our site record
analysis concerns the location of habitation sites.
According to Stewart (1943:50), villages should be
found primarily on the first ridge system and not on
the coast However, our admittledly limited analysis
suggests that habitation sites, as defined by site record
information, are commonly found on the coastal ter-
race and the first ridge system, as well as in the
outlying hinterland. The results of our analysis tend
to emulate more closely the settlement distribution of
"old villages"asdef'med by Barrett(1908; figure4. 1).
An important distinction is that our analysis suggests
that habitation sites on the coast tend to be smaller
than those found on the first ridge system or in the
hinterland.
In general, the data analysis supports the three
main implications of Barrett's, Gifford's, and
Stewart's studies as discussed earlier. First, the 74
habitation sites and 324 special purpose sites located
to date in the Fort Ross region suggest a relatively
54
Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region
high site density that may translate into a high popu-
lation density for some temporal periods. Some of
these sites tend to be large; 103 of them measure
greater than 1,000 square meters in size. Second, we
estimate that eighty percent of the sites are located in
areas of greatest resource productivity and/or on the
boundaries of varied resource zones, suggesting the
utilization of a diverse resource base. Finally, the
ratio of special purpose sites to habitation sites (6:1)
suggests some type of central-based village system
supported by resource-specific activity areas. The
habitation sites may have served as bases. from which
people exploited the diverse plant communities in
the region.
55
CHAPrER FIVE
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
OF THE FORT Ross SUy AREA
N THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER, we presented a cen-
tral-based village model for the Fort Ross region.
We found some support for the model when we
synthesized settlement information from the regional
data base of recorded sites. We recognize, however,
that some of the data derived from site records are too
coarse-grained to evaluate the model with any preci-
sion. Site record forms generally provide reliable
information on site locations, site sizes, and prevalent
site constituents, as well as brief descriptions of the
on-site environment. They are much less useful in
providing detailed information on chronology, spe-
cific artifact types, and faunal remains. Since chrono-
logical control is critical for employing the direct
historical approach, the study of diachronic changes
in subsistence-settlement patterns for the entire re-
gion is not possible at this time.
We now turn ourattention toan ongoing archaeo-
logical investigation of theFortRoss Study Area. The
purpose of this investigation is to provide controlled
archaeological dataforundertaking a diachronic study
of subsistence-settlement changes in the hinterland of
the Ross Colony. Since the summer of 1988, a
collaborative research team composed of scholars
from the California State Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa
Junior College, and U.C. Berkeley have been under-
taking fieldwork in this area. We plan to focus much
of our research efforts in this study area over the next
few years.
57
The Fort Ross Study Area is a five by ten kmn
rectangle in the heart of the ethnographically de-
scribed Kashaya Pomo territory. The study area
includes a five akm stretch of coastline with the Ross
stockade at its central point and a ten akm stretch of
interior habitats directly east of the stockade (see
figure 5.1). Essentially, the study area is a coasta/
inland slice that samples the environmental diversity
of the broader region. IlThe topography consists of a
rocky coastline with a small cove (Fort Ross Cove)
near the stockade, a relatively narrow coastal terrace
that extends about one akm at its widest point, and
two ridge systems (Campmeeting Ridge and
Creighton Ridge) that parallel the coast. Between
the first and second ridge systems, which rise to 490
and 512 m above sea level at their respective highest
points, is a steep valley drained by the South Fork of
the Gualala River. The valley parallels the coast
about five akm inland from the Ross stockade. The
geology of the study area is illustrated in figure 5.2.
Many of the plant communities of the broader
region described in chapter 3 are distributed in a clinal
pattern across the study area (figure 5.1). The coastal
facing ridge (Campmeeting Ridge) contains closed-
cone pine forests at lower elevations and redwood
forests in the steep drainages that pour into the ocean
(conifers only in figure 5.1). The lower elevations of
this ridge also contain coastal grassland and coastal
scrub. In the upper and exposed elevations of
Campmeeting Ridge, as one moves out of the fog belt,
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
FIGURE 5.1
PLANT COMMUNITIES
OF THE FORT Ross
STUDY AREA
CONIFERS ONLY
MIXED FOREST
EJ   SAVANNAH
LE   GRASSLAND
[     MIXED FOREST, NO OAKS
1     SCRUB
N
0            IKm
58
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
FIGURE 5.2
GEOLOGIC MAP OF
THE FORT Ross
STUDY AREA
HIGH GRADE METAMORPHIC ROCK
MINE (Mg)
SAN ANDREAS FAULT TRACE
Qt QUARTERNARY TERRACE
Qls QUARTERNARY LAND SLIDE
Tg TERTIARY GRAVEL
Tor TERTIARY OHLSON RANCH FORMATION
gs GREENSTONE
KJfs CRETACEOUS/JURASSIC FRANCISCAN SHALES
KJfss CRETACEOUS/JURASSIC FRANCISCAN SANDSTONES
N
0        IKm
59
60
possible that this site was not accurately located by
Stewart, or that another nearby site (CA-SON-1793)
that exhibits a house depression may actually be the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
the dominant vegetation is open savannah that con-
tains oak and Douglas fir. On the other side of
Campmeeting Ridge, out of the fog belt, the summers
are both drier and warmer. Mixed forests with oaks
and grasslands flourish along the South Fork of the
Gualala and up the slopes of the second ridge
(Creighton Ridge).
In this chapter we summarize previous fieldwork
conducted in the study area and describe survey and
excavation work being undertaken by our collabora-
tive research team. Results of an analysis of archaeo-
logical remains in the Fort Ross State Historic Park
are discussed. We present counts of artifact types and
faunal remains, calculate diversity indexes, and em-
ploy a regional chronology to date survey sites. In the
fimal section, we describe diachronic developments in
the subsistence-settlement pattemrns of native sites in
the hinterland of the Ross Colony.
PREVIOUS AND ONGOING FIELDWORK
Fifty-four sites have been recorded for the study
area to date (figure 5.3). All site records are on file at
the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State
University. The earliest archaeological fieldwork
took place in the 1930s and 1940s by Omer Stewart
and F. H. Bauer whose reconnaissance located several
large sites. In the 1970s and 1980s intensive surveys
took place in two parcels: a 6.5 sq km area of the
interior along drainages of the South Fork of the
Gualala (Fredrickson 1974b, King 1974b), and a 2.8
sq km parcel in the Fort Ross State Historic Park.
Each of these survey areas is described below.
Reconnaissance Work along the First Ridge
Stewart and Bauer recorded thirteen sites in the
study area. Of these, Stewart described four large
"villages"alongCampmeetingRidge(CA-SON-176,
-177, -178, -179) and three "villages" on the lower
slopes of the first ridge (CA-SON-174, -175, -231).
Stewart observed house pits, deep midden deposits
with shellfish refuse and darkened soil, and diverse
artifact types on these sites. Bauer also identified six
shell deposits along the coastal terrace and lower
slopes of the first ridge (CA-SON-188,-230,-232,-
233,-234,-235) (figure 5.3). These sites are character-
ized by dark "midden" soils, high densities of shell-
fish remains, and various lithic artifacts.
In 1989 we relocated two of Stewart's ridge top
"village" sites (CA-SON-179,-177). We have not yet
re-recorded, mapped, or surface collected these sites.
An attempt by Sonoma State University crews to
relocate CA-SON-176 proved unsuccessful. It is
original site (Allison 1989).
Other sites recorded on the top or lower slopes of
Campmeeting Ridge or the coastal terrace outside the
original boundaries of the Fort Ross State Historic
Park include CA-SON-1393,-1525, -1091, and -1452
(figure 5.3). CA-SON-1393 is a small oval scatter of
chert flakes found south of the ridge top villages of
CA-SON-178 and -179. CA-SON-1525, a moderate
scatter of Franciscan chert and obsidian artifacts near
CA-SON-177, was recorded by Richard Jenkins as
part of a timber harvest project. CA-SON-1091 is a
shell midden located north of Kolmer Gulch, while
CA-SON-1452 is a cupule rock containing twelve
cupules southeast of the Ross stockade on the exposed
coastal terrace.
The Gualala River Hinterland Survey
Eighteen sites have been recorded along the South
Fork of the Gualala River near Creighton Ridge
(figure 5.3). Fourteen sites are found in the 6.5 sq km
project area of the Gualala Land Development sur-
veyedby Fredrickson (1974b) and King (1974b). The
site density, about 2.1 sites/sq km, is probably con-
servative since some zones of low site potential were
not surveyed intensively. Two sites are recorded as
habitation sites. CA-SON-999 contains one house pit,
measuring six m in diameter, various chipped stone
artifacts, a handstone and other groundstone tools,
and a midden deposit. CA-SON- 1425, a large artifact
scatter covering 6000 sq m, is also recorded as a
possible habitation site. Another site (CA-SON-
1001) is described as a large chenrt quarry containing
many flakes, cores, hammerstones, and preforms. An
additional eleven sites (CA-SON- 1000,- 1002,-1003,-
1005,-1007, -1008,-1009,-1011,-1012,-1013,-1325)
are defined as lithic scatters, varying in size from 100
sq m to more than 45,000 sq m, that contain flakes and
debitage and occasional chipped stone tools, such as
projectile points. Groundstone implements, such as
handstones, pestles, and milling slabs, are recorded
forsome (CA- SON-1000,-1002,-1005,-1008,-1011).
The final class of sites include four cupule rocks (CA-
SON-1004,-1006,-1010,-1423). CA-SON-1004 and
-1010 contain one and four cupules pecked into schist
bedrock boulders. CA-SON-1006 is a "series of
cupules on top of a brown schist boulder," while CA-
SON-1423 consists of forty-seven separate cupules
(King 1974b:3).
Survey of the Fort Ross State Historic Park
Since the 1970s, fieldwork has been ongoing in
the near hinterland of the stockade compound in the
Fort Ross State Historic Park. The original bound-
aries of the park encompassed a 2.8 sq km area of
coastal terrace near the Ross stockade and the lower
slope of the first ridge to an elevation of 305 m above
sea level. In 1990, the Save the Redwoods League
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Sale    1:24,000
FIGURE 5.3
THE SPATIAL
DISrRIBUTION OF SmTES
IN THE FORT Ross
STUDY AREA
I
61
62
secutive order as recorded on the transect). For
example, field number A-3-2 is the second site de-
tected on the third Uansect of block A. For each site
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
purchased an additional 8.73 sq km of land that
incorporates most of the study area north of the Ross
stockade to the top of Campmeeting Ridge. The land,
donated to expand the Fort Ross State Historic Park
and to protect its viewshed, contains several of
Stewart's "villages" (CA-SON- 177,-179,-231),
Bauer's shell middens (CA-SON-188,-230,-233), as
well as CA-SON-1525. In the summers of 1988 and
1989, field crews from U.C. Berkeley completed an
archaeological survey within the original boundaries
of the state park. We began the systematic survey of
the new acquisition to the park in 1991 and plan to
continue this fieldwork over the next few years.
Field Methods
A standard surface pedestrian survey was em-
ployed to detect archaeological remains in the Fort
Ross State Historic Park. We divided the original
park property into twelve survey blocks (designated
by the letters A-L) that centered around the stockade.
Survey crews, each consisting of four to five people,
walked consecutive transects back and forth across
each block. Crew members, spaced ten meters apart,
scanned the ground surface for evidence of artifacts,
faunal remains, mounds, depressions, other surface
features, and soil color changes. All evidence of past
human activities, such as isolated artifacts, was noted
on transect forms.
Clusters of artifacts and/or one or more features
were defined as sites. We employed the guidelines of
the California Archaeological Inventory Handbook
of the Office of Historic Preservation to define sites.
These guidelines are as follows (p. 2):
For the purposes of the California
Archaeological Inventory, a 'site' is
defined as the location of associated arti-
facts and features, regardless of tempo-
ralplacementor complexity. Minimally,
a 'site' mustmeettwocriteria: 1)Itmust
consist of at least three associated arti-
facts or a single feature. 'Isolates' (less
than three associated artifacts) will not
be assigned a Trinomial Designation. If
arecord has been filled out foran isolate,
this will be kept at the appropriate Infor-
mationCenterforfutureresearchers' use.
2) A site must be at least 45 years of age.
The age of the site may bedeterminedby
artifactual evidence, documentary evi-
dence or similarity of the site to others
which have firm dating.
Each site detected in the Fort Ross survey was as-
signed a field designation that included the block
letter, transect number, and site number (in the con-
detected, crew members filled out the Archaeological
Site Record form, mapped the boundaries of the site
and any pertinent surface features using a Silva com-
pass and metric tape, and collected a representative
sample of archaeological materials from across the
surface. A site datum (ONOE) was established in a
central location from which segmented collection
transects, divided into 1 by 2 m collection units, were
laid out in the four cardinal directions. Each seg-
mented collection transect extended fromn the site
datum to the outer edge of the site. The southwest
corner of each collection unit was designated as the
unit datum. Its coordinates were defined by the
distance north/south and east/west of the site datum
(e.g., 4NOE, ON6E). Archaeological materials col-
lected from each unit were bagged and provenienced
as a separate oL In some cases, artifacts were point
provenienced and surface collected from across the
surface of sites.
In 1990, the site record forms for the Fort Ross
survey sites were submitted to the Northwest Infor-
mation Center, Sonoma State University. Each site
was then assigned a permanent trinomial designation
(e.g., CA-SON-1889).
Survey Sites
Thirty sites were recorded orrelocated within the
original boundaries of the Fort Ross State Historic
Park. Table 5.1 presents the trinomial site numbers,
field designations, and recorder for each site.
Euro-American Sites. Three sites represent the
remains of primarily Euro-American structures or
broader settlement complexes. CA-SON-190 refers
to the entire stockade complex, including the Mad-
Shui-Nui locus adjacent to the north palisade walls.
CA-SON-1891H is the foundation of a potato ware-
house that was constructed south of the stockade prior
to A.D. 1859. The third, CA-SON-1446H, is the
remains of a brick foundation or chimney near the Old
Russian Orchard. The site may represent the location
of a four-room house and adjoining kitchen built by
the Russians.
Native American Sites. The remaining twenty-
seven sites appear to have been used primarily by
NativeAmericansinprehistoric,protohistoric, and/or
historic times. Thesitedensityfortheparkis9.6sites/
sq km. As outlined in table 5.1, twenty-two of the
Native American sites were recorded or re-recorded
byU.C. Berkeley field crews. Subsurface testing was
initiated at one site, CA-SON-1898/H, by U.C. Ber-
keley crews, while two other sites (CA-SON-670, -
1896) were excavated in the past by DPR or Sonoma
State University crews.
The other five Native American sites (CA-SON-
175, -1451, -1453, -1454/H, -1455) were not re-
recorded or surface collected by U.C. Berkieley crews.
Archaeological Analysis of Fort Ross
174
175
190
228
670
1446H
1451
1453
1454/H
1455
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886/H
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891H
1892
1894
1895/H
1896
1897/H
1898/H
As described below, CA-SON-175, often designated
as the original "Metini" site, has received little atten-
tion since it was first recorded in 1935 by Omer
Stewart. CA-SON-1451 is a small lithic scattersurface
collected by DPR archaeologists in 1984. The results
of a recent subsurface testing program at CA-SON-
1453 and CA-SON-1454/H by Sonoma State Univer-
sity and Santa Rosa Junior College are currently being
written up. CA-SON-1455 was extensively investi-
gated in 1984 by DPR archaeologists.
Before describing the Fort Ross sites, we first
discuss the methods employed for analyzing artifacts
and faunal remains, for calculating diversity indexes,
and for generating a local chronology.
THE ANALYSIS OF
ARTIFACrS AND FAUNAL REMAINS
Archaeological materials collected from Fort
Ross survey sites during the summers of 1988 and
1989 were processed and analyzed in the Archaeo-
logical Research Facility's laboratories at U.C.
Berkeley. Students in the field school course (An-
thropology 133) and in the follow-up laboratory
course (Anthropology 134) sorted materials into
the following groups: chipped stone artifacts,
ground stone tools, fire-cracked/ground stone frag-
ments, historic artifacts (ceramics, glass, metal),
other artifacts (shell, bone), and faunal remains.
Trinomial
Designation
(CA-SON-)
Site 16
Site 17
Stockade
228
670
1446H
1451
1453
1454/H
1455
A-S-1
A-13-1
B-3-1
B-S-1
Traci
D-3-1
D-7-1
B. Walton
Chapel 2
E-2-1
E-6-1
I-2-1
K4-1
L-l-1
L-8-1
Locus 4
Locus 3
Locus 2
NAVS
FRBS
Stewart 1935/U.C. Berkeley 1989
Stewart 1935/Pilling 1949
Pilling 1950
Bauer 1949/U.C. Berkeley 1989
Stillinger 1977/LJ.C. Berkeley 1988
Farris and Pardanan 1984
Parkman 1984
Farris 1984
Sdchulz 1984
Farris 1984
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1988
U.C. Berkeley 1989
U.C. Berkeley 1988/1989
Table 5.1.
SURVEY SITES RECORDED IN THE FORT Ross STATE HISTORIC PARK
Field
Designation                        Recorder
63
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
1) Chipped Stone Artifacts. U.C. Berkeley stu-
dents initially classified chipped stone artifacts by
raw material types and artifact classes. Kent
Lightfoot and Ann Schiff checked each identifica-
tion for accuracy and consistency. The primary raw
material types include obsidian from four sources
in the southern North Coast Ranges (Annadel, ML
Konocti, Borax Lake, and Napa Valley), chert, and
schist.
The classification of chipped stone artifacts fol-
lowstheguidelinespublishedbytheCaliforniaOffice
of Historic Preservation (see Jackson et al. 1988).
Chipped stone tools include bifaces (symmetrically
shaped, bearing flake scars on both sides), unifaces
(symmetrically shaped, bearing flake scars on one
side), and battered cobbles or hammerstones (evi-
dence of pecking or battering along body of artifact).
Projectile points are classified into the point types
described below. Flakes exhibiting secondary modi-
fication along the lateral edges are classified as edge-
modified flakes. The modification may be due to use-
related damage or the purposeful alteration of the
lateral edge.
Flakes not exhibiting lateral edge modification
are treated as chipping debris resulting from different
stages of lithic reduction. Six categories of lithic
debris are defined after Jackson et al. (1988): biface
thinning flakes, primary cortical flakes, secondary
cortical flakes, interior flakes, cores, and shatter.
Biface thinning flakes exhibit large remnant platform
scars and longitudinal cross-sections. Primary corti-
cal flakes are those initially removed from the surface
of cores. The dorsal side contains little orno evidence
of flake scars and a high percentage of cortex. Sec-
ondary cortical flakes are characterized by dorsal
surfaces exhibiting one or two flake scars and moder-
atecortex. Interiorflakesexhibitmultipledorsal flake
scars and little or no cortex. They are sometimes
referred to as "thinning flakes." Cores are nodules
(usually of chert or obsidian) from which flakes are
detached. They are unmodified (not used as tools
once they are discarded). Shatter refers to workshop
debris resulting from core reduction and/or tool pro-
duction where no attributes characteristic of true
flakes exist (i.e., bulb of percussion, striking plat-
form).
2) Ground Stone Tools. Ground stone tools are
shaped by grinding, pecking, and polishing. U.C.
Berkeley students initially identified ground stool
tools by raw material type and tool type. All identifi-
cations were checked by Kent Lightfoot and Ann
Schiff. The primary raw materials include basalt,
graywacke, and sandstone. The common tool types
include handstones (or manos), pestles, hopper mor-
tars, slab millingstones, and net weights. Handstones
are hand-sized, convex-shaped tools that exhibit a
grinding edge on at least one surface. Pestles are
elongated tools, ground into the shape of a cylinder
that exhibit battering along the distal and/or proximal
end. Hopper mortars are slabs that exhibit a centrally-
placed, shallow, concave depression. Slab
millingstones are large, flat slabs that exhibit a grind-
ing surface on one or both surfaces. Net weights are
hand-sized cobbles in which characteristic grooves
have been pecked or ground into the distal and proxi-
mal ends.
3) Fire-cracked/Ground Stone Fragments. A
significant percentage of the lithic assemblage from
some Fort Ross survey sites consists of broken pieces
ofroundedcobbles. Mostof the pieces appear tohave
been fired at high temperatures and then quickly
cooled, (probably in water) to produce fire-cracked
rocks. We believe many of these artifacts are broken
fragments of groundstone tools, such as handstones or
millingstones that were recycled as coking stones.
Others may simply be beach cobbles used as cooking
stones. We define this rather enigmatic category as
fire-cracked ground stone fragments.
4) Historic Artifacts. All glass, ceramic, and
metal artifacts from Fort Ross survey sites were
analyzed by Margaret Purser of Sonoma State Uni-
versity. The glass fragments are identified by func-
tion and type; most are flat glass, probably from
window panes, and moldblown dark olive green or
black colored alcoholic beverage bottles. Ceramics
are defined by ware and vessel form. They include
white improved earthenware, creamware, pearlware,
Chinese coarse opaque porcelain (or porcellaneous
stoneware), and industrial porcelain. Vessel forms
consist primarily of cups and bowls. Metal artifacts
are classified into functional categories. The majority
are nails and spikes.
5) Other Artifacts. Few artifacts manufactured
from shell and bone were recovered from sites. These
include primarily clam shell disk beads.
6) Faunal Remains. The identification of mol-
lusk remains and animal bones from the surface of
sites is hindered by poor preservation, and the frag-
mentary condition of many specimens from tram-
pling and other surface disturbances. U.C. Berkeley
students initially sorted the mollusk remains into the
following broad classes: abalone, chiton, limpet, tur-
ban snail,dogwinkle,periwinkle, hookedslippersnail,
Olivella, and barnacles. The fragmentary nature of
many specimens, in combination with their eroded,
weathered surfaces, precludes the identification of the
remains into more specific categories (i.e., genus and/
or species). The calculation of Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNIs) is based on diagnostic elements
(see Waselkov 1987:154-161). KentLightfoot calcu-
64
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
lated the mollusk MNIs for the survey sites. Abalone
MNIs are calculated by counting the number of whorl
elements present, since each individual exhibits only
one whorl. Chiton MNIs are computed by counting
the number of plates and dividing by eight, since each
individual is characterized by eight plates. Limpet
MNIs are figured by counting the number of limpet
caps. Turban snail, dogwinkle, periwinkle, hooked
slipper snail, and Olivella MNIs are calculated by
counting the number of apertures in the mollusk
assemblage for each gastropodclass. Barnacle MNIs
are estimated by dividing the number of pieces by 20
tostandardizeourcountswiththosederivedby S widen
(1986:56) in her analysis of the mollusks excavated
from CA-SON-1455.
WerecognizethatourestimatesofmolluskMNIs
on Fort Ross sites are both conservative and tentative.
Surface disturbances cause one to greatly underesti-
mate the counts of MNIs. Many mollusk pieces
collected from the surface are so fragmentary that
diagnostic elements cannot be identified. The most
critical problem is that fragile, thin-shelled, mollusk
species (such as mussels) tend to be underrepnted
in comparison to more durable, thick-shelled species
(such as limpets). This problem should be kept in
mind in considering the results below.
Mammal and bird bones are the only other faunal
remains recovered from the surface of survey sites.
Since surface sediments were not screened through
fne mesh, the collection methodology is biased against
the recovery of small faunal remains (or artifacts)
such as fish skeletal elements. Thomas Wake classi-
fied the mammal and fish bones by taxon and element
(when possible), and he noted whether the bones
exhibited evidence of modification (cut marks, burn-
ing, scavenging marks). Given the fragmentary na-
ture of the surface assemblage only broad taxa were
defined in most cases (large mammal, medium manm-
mal, etc.).
Tim CALCULATION OF
DIVERSITY INDEXES
Diversity indexes are heuristic measures for com-
paring the relative diversity of archaeological materi-
als from different site assemblages. We calculate
diversity indexes for Fort Ross survey sites to evalu-
ate the relative range of activities or tasks that took
place at archaeological places. We assume that the
diversity of artifact or faunal classes on a site repre-
sents, in a crude manner, the range of tasks performed
there. A site containing a great variety of tool classes
or faunal categories is assumed to represent a place
where a diverse range of activities took place. In
contrast, a site with few artifact classes or limited
faunal diversity is assumed to represent a place where
a restricted range of activities took place. Of course,
this assumption holds only for those activities that
produce artifactual materials or faunal remains that
are recoverable in archaeological contexts.
Inevaluating thecentral-based village settlement
model for the study area, we expect, all other factors
being equal, that relatively permanent villages should
exhibit high diversity indexes in comparison to other,
more limited activity lociL Of course, all other factors
are never equal in archaeology. One must interpret
diversity indexes with great caution.
A critical consideration is the use-duration of an
archaeological place. LighffootandJewett (1986:19)
define the use-duration as the "total aggregate of time
that a specific location is used, regardless of the
functional nature of that use." Binford (1982) de-
scribes how optimal places may be reused by the same
or different people over extended lengths of time.
Some archaeological places may have different eco-
nomic potentials during the annual cycle. A place
used as a short-term residential camp during one part
of the year may function as a food processing station
in another. The end result is apalimpsest of archaeo-
logical remains of considerable diversity. Thus, an
archaeological place with a long use-duration may
produce, at least theoretically, diversity indexes com-
parable to a village location, even though the place
was never used, at any one time, as more than a short-
term camp or processing station.
Sample size also critically effects diversity in-
dexes. As Kintigh (1984; 1989) shows, there is a
strong tendency for large assemblages to exhibit more
diversity than small assemblages simply becausethere
is a greater chance for large assemblages to contain a
greater variety of items. Since the sample sizes of
artifact and faunal assemblages from Fort Ross sur-
vey sites vary greatly, as detailed below, the sample
size problem isa significant concern. Some sites may
exhibit higher diversity indexes than others simply
because we collected many more artifact and faunal
specimens from them.
We calculate two diversity indexes, richness and
evenness, for chipped stone artifacts, ground stone
tools, and mollusk assemblages. We do not include
counts of fire-cracked/ground stone fragments in the
calculations. Diversity indexes are not computed for
animal bones given their very limited occurrence on
Fort Ross sites. Richness or R is simply the number
of classes of lithic artifacts or mollusk remains col-
lected from a site. The greater the number of classes,
themorediverse the assemblage (seeKintigh 1984:44-
65
66
H
n log (n)    i-:,Ji log (fi)
n
Hmax =log (k)
j =    H
Hmax
Where: f
k
n
= frequency of category i
= number of categories
= sample size
The J score ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing the
least diverse archaeological assemblage and 1 repre-
senting the most diverse or varied assemblage.
We employ Kintigh's (1988) DIVERS computer
program to calculate indexes of richness and even-
ness. The program addresses the problem of sample
size by simulating numerous trial runs using a Monte
Carlo approach. For each site with a given sample
size, a large number of simulated assemblages is
computed based on the underlying frequency distri-
bution of the entire Fort Ross assemblage. The
program produces a mean and ninety percent confi-
dence interval for evaluating actual diversity indexes
foreach site. One can then evaluatecritically whether
a site's diversity index is greater or lower than ex-
pectedgiven a specific sample size. In controlling the
effects of sample size, the key consideration is to
examine diversity indexes for sites relative to the
expected distribution of the simulated trials, rather
than the absolute values per se. For example, a J score
calculated for a large assemblage may be relatively
high (i.e., .7) but in comparison to other simulated
assemblages of that same size it may be smaller than
expected (below the ninetieth percentile). In contrast,
a J score computed for a moderate-sized assemblage
may be a smaller absolute value (i.e., .6), but in
comparison to other simulated assemblages of that
same size it may be greater than expected (in the
ninety-fifth percentile, or in the upper five percent of
all trias).
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
49). Evenness is the J score, initially used by ecolo-
gists to measure "the evenness of the distribution of
counts across the categories" (see Kintigh 1988:48).
The J score has been employed to evaluate the di-
versity of archaeological assemblages in the Ameri-
can Southwest (Whittlesey and Reid 1982; Kintigh
1989:31-39) and in southern New England (Lightfoot
1985:300-303; Lightfoot et al. 1987). The J score is
calculated as follows (see Kintigh 1987:29):
Tim CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL CHRONOLOGY
WeemployFredrickson's(1974c:49; 1984a:485)
regional chronology to designate the Prehistoric,
Protohistoric, and Historic periods that are necessary
to use the direct historical approach. The prehistory
of the region is divided into the Paleolndian period
(10,000 B.C.-6000 B.C.), the Lower Archaic (6000
B.C.-3000 B.C.), the Middle Archaic (3000 B.C.-1000
B.C.), theUpperArchaic (1000 B.C.-A.D. 500),and the
Lower Emergent (A.D. 500-A.D. 1500 ). The
Protohistoric period isdefinedas the UpperEmergent
(ca A.D. 1500-A.D. 1812)in theRossregion,whenthe
earliest contacts with native peoples were made by
Spanish and English explorers in nearby coastal Ma-
rin County. The Historic period, when Europeans
firstsettledthelocal region and sustainedcontacttook
place with native peoples, begins with the construc-
tion of the Ross Colony in A.D. 1812.
The dating of survey sites is based on three sets of
chronological data: obsidian hydration, projectile
point types, and historic ceramic and glass types.
Obsidian Hydration. The principal method for
dating survey sites is the measurement of hydration
bands on obsidian artifacts. Since the surface of
obsidian absorbs water over time, estimates on the
length of time a surface has been exposed to the local
environment can be made by measuring the width of
the hydration layer in microns. Generally, the thicker
the hydration layer, the greater the passage of time.
Unfortunately, the specific rate of hydration over time
is very complicated, varying significantly with local
obsidian flows and local environmental factors such
as emperaure(seeOriger 1987:1-5; Tremaine 1989:1-
6).
Over the last ten years, a tremendous amount of
research has been undertaken on the hydration prop-
erties of four different obsidian sources in the south-
emrn North Coast Ranges: Annadel near Santa Rosa,
Borax Lake and Mt. Konocti near Clear Lake, and
Glass Mountain in Napa Valley (Fredrickson 1987,
1989; Jackson 1989; TremaineandFredrickson 1988;
Tremaine 1989; Origer 1987; and Origer and
Wickstrom 1982). In particular, the Obsidian Hydra-
tion Laboratory, Sonoma State University, has been at
the forefront of developing an obsidian hydration
chronology for the southern North CoastRanges with
specific application to the interior of Sonoma County.
We employ Sonoma State University's obsidian
hydration chronology to date survey sites in the study
area. The vast majority of obsidian on Fort Ross sites
derive from one of the above four obsidian sources.
Obsidian is relatively ubiquitous on survey sites, and
at least a few obsidian artifacts were recovered from
most sites we surface collected. All obsidian samples
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
were analyzed by the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory,
Sonoma State University.
To aid in the chronological placement of Fort
Ross sites, we employ Tremaine's (1989:69-70) com-
parison constants derived from induced obsidian ex-
periments to compare the hydration band measure-
ments of obsidians from the four major sources. Hy-
dration band measurements are calibrated to the hy-
dration rates of the Annadel flow by multiplying Napa
Valley and Mt. Konocti readings by .77, and Borax
Lake measurements by .62.
We recognize that obsidian hydration is best used
as a relative dating method. Obsidian hydration mea-
surements can be employed to rank, in an ordinal
temporal scheme, the age of sites from oldest to
youngest; for defining the relative use-duration of a
location (short-term or long-term); and for assigning
"units of contemporaneity" (Fredrickson 1984b;
Tremaine 1989:6). Our research problem, however,
necessitates a temporal scheme that is refined enough
to distinguish cultural change in the Prehistoric,
Protohistoric, and Historic periods. To develop this
capability, we use the regression equation devised by
Origer (1987:55-59) for the hydration rate of Annadel
obsidian. The hydration rate is based on the associa-
tion of Annadel obsidian artifacts in radiocarbon dated
contexts from six sites in the southern North Coast
Ranges. The equation provides a rough approxima-
tion of the hydration band measurements in microns
that correspond to the periods outlined above. They
are as follows: Lower Archaic (6.6-5.3 microns),
Middle Archaic (52-4.1 microns), Upper Archaic
(4.0-2.9 microns),LowerEmergent(2.8-1.7 microns),
Upper Emergent (1.6-1.0 microns), and the Historic
period (1.0 micron or smaller). The temporal place-
ment of sites is based on the mean and standard
deviation of the hydration readings. Histograms are
generated for each site to examine the frequency
distribution of hydration measurements. In cases
where distinct clusters of measurements exist, the
mean and standard deviation of the readings for each
cluster are calculated. In such a manner we attempted
to defme the relative use-duration of individual sites.
We stress that the obsidian hydration chronology
employed in this analysis is tentative. Future research
on obsidian hydration rates will most certainly refine
Tremaine's (1989) comparison constants for obsid-
ians from southern North Coast Ranges sources. Fu-
ture research will probably also modify the regression
equation of Origer (1987) to fine tune the hydration
rate of Annadel obsidian for the temporal periods
outlined above. A potentially serious problem is our
application ofa hydration rate developed primarily for
interior Sonoma County to the cooler environment of
the coast. Cooler tenperatures tend to retard the
hydration rates ofmostobsidians. Origer's (1987:48)
research suggests that rates of hydration for Annadel
and Napa Valley obsidians are slower on the coast
than the interior. Additional research will eventually
be undertaken to refine the hydration rates of obsid-
ians from different sources found at coastal sites.
Projectile Point Types. The classic method for
dating survey sites in the southern North CoastRanges
is based on projectile point seriations (Beardsley
1954; Baumhoff 1982; Levulett and Hildebrandt
1987:31-37; Origer 1987; White et al. 1982). The
majority of projectile points recovered from survey
sitescanbeclassifiedintofourbasictypesafterOriger
(1987).
1. Comrner-Notched. This type is a small trian-
gular point whose basal portion is marked by corner
notches. The point is assumed to date to the Upper
Emergent and Historic periods (from A.D. 1500) (see
Origer 1987:32). In Origer's (1987:47) study of
ninety comner-notchedpointsof Annadel obsidian, the
hydmration measurements range from .9 to 2.2 microns
(x=1.3, sd=.26).
2. Serrated. These small points are character-
ized by distinctive square, rounded or pointed serra-
tions along the blade. The general shape is straight,
parallel, orslightly expanding stems. Theyare thought
to be diagnostic of the Lower Emergent period (see
Origer 1987:34-35). InOriger's(1987:47)analysisof
eighty-six serrated points of Annadel obsidian, the
hydration readingsrangefrom 1.2-2.2microns (i=1.6,
sd=.24).
3. Shouldered Lanceolate. This is a large
point demarcated by its leaf- or lanceolate-shaped
body. The triangular blade narrows to a convex
base. It is probably a dart point. Locally known as
an "Excelsior" point, large numbers in Sonoma
County appear to date to the Upper Archaic period,
although its temporal range is considerably greater
(Origer 1987:36). An analysis of forty-three shoul-
dered lanceolate points of Annadel obsidian yielded
hydration measurements from 1.5 to 4.8 microns
(1=2.6, sd=.67) (Origer 1987:47).
4. Large Side/Comner-Notched. These large
points are characterized by a triangular shape with
relatively parallel sides. The basal portion contains
eithersidenotches orcomernotches. The shapeof the
base may be convex. Dating of this point is rather
approximate, but traditionally it is believed to be
found on early Upper Archaic and Middle Archaic
sites (Origer 1987:35-36). In Origer's (1987:47)
study of ten large side/corner-notched points of
Annadelobsidian,hydrationmeasurementsrangefrom
1.2-2.8 microns (x=2, sd=.51).
Historic Artifacts. Ceramic and bottle sherds
provide another means of dating survey sites to the
Historic period (or even Upper Emergent period).
The majority of the glass recovered from survey sites
67
68        Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
(moldblown glass, dark olive-green in color, from
alcoholic beverage containers) appears to have been
manufactured in the nineteenth century (prior to 1910).
The majority of the ceramics from survey sites (white
improved earthenware and porcelain) could date from
the early nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries.
The dating of some ceramic artifacts was complicated
by the fragmentary condition and eroded surface of
the sherds.
FORT Ross SURVEY Srnms
Below we describe each of the thirty sites re-
corded in the Fort Ross State Historic Park. To
facilitate our presentation of survey data, we summa-
rize pertinent information in the following tables for
the twenty native Califomian sites surface collected
by U.C. Berkeley crews. Please note that CA-SON-
1897/H and CA-SON-1898/H are not included since
they will be described in detail in Volume 2 of the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, Califor-
nia series.
Table 5.2 presents data on site size, the total
surface area collected (sq m), the sample fraction
(percent of site area surface collected), lithic and
mollusk densities, and the diversity indexes for lithic
and mollusk assemblages. Lithic densities are calcu-
lated by dividing the total number of lithics by the area
surface collected on sites. Mollusk densities are
determined by dividing the total MNIls by the area
surface collected. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 are the counts
andpercentages,respectively,of lithicartifactclasses.
Tables 5.5 and 5.6 are the counts and percentages of
lithic raw material types. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 present
the counts and percentages of mollusk MNIs for each
sitecollected. Table 5.9 lists thecounts ofbeads,glass
sherds, historic ceramics, metal arfifacts, and animal
bones. Table 5.10 summarizes the study of the obsid-
ian hydration analysis. More specific information on
the catalog numbes and proveninces of lithic arti-
facts; mollusk MNIs; manmal and bird bones; glass,
caamic, and metal materials; and selected beads are
listed in appendics 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5, respec-
tively. murations of diagnostic artifacts are pre-
sented in appendix 5.6.
Tabk S.2
SIZE, SAMP FRAcoN, LrrMIc AND MotLUxS DNsrrms,
AND DIvrmtsrrY INbes oF Foirr Ross Srrs
Site       Size        Sample      Sample        Lithic        Mollusk                    Diversity Indexes
#    (m2)         Area       Fraction      Density        Density             lthics             Mollusks
(m2)        (%)         (n/m)         (MNUiM2)          R(%)   J(%)         R(%)     J(%)
174       346         10            3            2              .6           3(38)   367(38)     3(67)    .439(76)
228      4536        pp*            - -                        0             8(3)    .492(0)       -        -
670      3750         24           23            .67            .08          2(7)    .198(5)      4(96)  .579(96)
1878      2107         86            4            .2            0             12(94)  .806(98)    2(53)   .276(53)
1879         1.8        1.8        100           0              0              -         -          -        -
1880      2024         46            2            .65            .65          10(72)  .763(87)    7(93)   .617(98)
1881       471          8            2           1.0            2.7           4(8)    .406(5)     5(63)   .480(65)
1882       54         s18           33            .05            3             -         -        4(90)    577(96)
1883      8247        960           12            .46            .02          15(56)  .823(98)    7(99)   .672(100
1884      3044        126            4            .67            .03          11(68)  .735(65)    4(99)   .602(99)
1885      919          56            6            .05            .16          7(44)   .650(57)    7(100)   .80(100)
1886       94          22           23           9.86          32.86          11(11)  .658(0)     9(15)    395(0)
1887         .23         .23       100           0              0              -        --                   -
1888       85          22           26           1.04           2.14          4(0)    .470(1)     7(79)   .67(100)
1889       189          8            4            37            2.37          8(80)   .649(59)    5(38)   .447(40)
1890      871           2             .02        3.0            3.0           6(63)   592(59)     4(92)    540(89)
1892       120         12           10            .92           6.9           7(88)   .667(92)    5(6)    .494(54)
1894       155          -            -            -             -             8(39)   .665(48)      -        -
1895      203          32           16            .06            .34          4(59)   .470(59)    5(92)   .692(99)
1896      400          39           10            .18            .87            -       -         6(72)   .684(99)
* pp = point provaience
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
CA-SON-174                     cliff edge of the coastal terrace overlooking the ocean
in coastal prairie grass.
BriefHistory. Omer Stewart originally recorded  Site Description. The 346 sq m area contains
the site in 1935. It is depicted in his map (1943:28) as  three large depressions, aclusterof sandstone blocks,
site 16. The site was re-recorded, mapped, and  and scattered shellfish refuse (figure 5.4). The two
surface collectd by a U.C. Berkeley crew in the  easternmost depressions measure about8 m in diam-
summer of 1989                     eter, the westernmost about 6 m in diameter. The
Location. CA-SON-174 is situated 250m south-  sandstone blocks are remnants of the first Fort Ross
west of the Ross stckade and across the old highway  schoolhouse built in November 1884. In 1938, the
from the Call's ranch house (figure 5.3). It sits on the  original schoolhouse was dismantled, moved, and
Tablek S3
lrnuc Courts FRoM FORT Ross SuRvEY Srnrs
Site  BC     BI  BT    CO  EM  FC/GF   HA    HM    IF  HS   NW    PC   PE PP SC SH     SM     UN  T
174     1  0    2    0    1       0      0 0  0  0  0   0    0     0   0   0       0    0    0    4
228     2   1   5    2    4       0      0    0   23    1    0     0   0   0   0 1      0    0   39
670     0  0     1   0    0      16      0    0    0    3    0     0   0   0     0      0    0 0  0  20
1878    0   3    3    3   9       2      1     0   4    2    0     4    0   2   1  4    1    0    39
1879    0   0    0   0    0       1      0     0   0    1    0     0    0  0     0      0    0 0  0  2
1880    0   1    5    3   4       7      0     0   4    3    0     1    0   0    2 2    1    0    33
1881    0   0    0    1   0       2      0     0   0    0    0     0    0     0  1  5   2    0    11
1882    0   0    0    0   0       1      0     0   0    0    0     0    0  0     0      0    0 0  0  1
1883    2  17   20   35   30    296      5     0   51  28    1     4    3   5 15 44     4    0   570
1884    0   1    2    5   6      58      1     0   6    0    1     3    0   4   2 13    0    1   103
1885    0   0    2    1   3       6      0     0   3    0    0     0    0   1   4  2    0    1   23
1886    5   1    0   4    24     122     0     0   30  14    0     4    1   2  9    1   0    0   217
1887    00       0    0   0       0      0     0   0    0    0     0    0  0   0  0     0    0    0
1888    00       5   0    5       2      0     0   8    0    0     0    0   0   3  0    0    0    23
1889    0   1    1    1   5       5      0     0   2    1    0     0    1  0   00       0    1    18
1890    0   0    2   0     1      0      0     0    1   0    0     0    0   1   1  3    0    0    9
1892    1   0    1   0    2       6      1     0    1   0    0     0    0   0   1  2    0    0    15
1894    0   1    2   2    2       1      0     1   5    0    0     0    0   0   2  6    0    0   22
1895    2   0    0    1   0       4      0     0    1   0 0  0     0    0       1  0    0    0    9
1896    00       0   0    0       7      0     0   0    0    0     0    0         0   0 0  0  0   7
Legend:        BC = battered cobble
BI = biface
BT = biface thinning flake
CO = core
EM = edge-modified flake
FC/GF = fiure-coaked/ground
stone fragment
HA = hammerstone
HM = hopper mortar
HS = handstone
IF = interior flake
NW = net weight
PC = primary cortical flake
PE = pestlec
PP = projectile point
SC = seconday cortical
flake
SH = shatter
SM = slab millingstone
UN = uniface
69
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
FIgure 5.4
Site Map of
CA-SON-174
reassembled at the present location of the Fort Ross
School near Seaview. In 1973, the structure was
again moved to the nearby Sononma County park of
StillwaterCove where itcanbe viewed today (Tomlin
1991).
Collection Strategy. About 3% of the site's
surface area was collected. A segmented transect
containing five 1 by 2 m units was laid out north of the
site datum (figure 5.4). Additional surface materials,
scattered widely along the southern edge of the site,
were point provenienced and collected.
Lithic Artifacts. Only four lithic artifacts were
collected: 1 battered cobble,2 biface thinning flakes,
and 1 edge-modified flake. Three were manufactured
from obsidian and one from chert. The lithic density
(not including point provenienced material) is .2
anrtifacts/sq m.
Historic Artifacts. Glass sherds from seven dif-
ferent vessels were identified. These include 2
moldblown colorless glass containers; 1 moldblown
olive green wine bottle; 3 flat glass specimens prob-
ably from window panes; and the base sherd of a
square-shaped, black glass container embossed with
the letters '"ER." The latter is a "Hostetter's Stomach
Bitters" bottle. The surface collection yielded the
fragments of 2 ceramic vessels. One isrepresentedby
2 sherds of the handle of a white improved earthen-
ware pitcher, large cup, or serving vessel. The vessel
is very hard ("ironstone" weight), white and covered
by a thin clear glaze. The other ceramic vessel is
represented by the rim of a thin, whitish-blue bowl
(1.4 mm thick) of Chinese porcellaneous stoneware.
The exterior is decorated with a blurred cobalt design
below the rim. Metal artifacts include the fragments
70
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.4SA
PERCENTAGE OF Lmnc TYwS AT FORT Ross SURVEY Srrms
Site  BC  BI   BT  CO   EM   FC/GF  HA    HM   IF HS    NW    PC  PE PP SC SH     SM     UN
174   25  0   50    0   25      0     0    0    0   0    0    0    0  0     0      0   0 0  0
228    5   3   13   5   10      0     0    0   60   2    0     0   0   0  0   2    0   0
670    0   0   5    0   0      80     0    0    0   15   0     0   0  0     0      0   0 0  0
1878   0   8    8   8   22      5     3     0   10   5   0    10   0   5   3  10   3    0
1879   0   0   0    0    0     50     0     0   0   50   0     0   0   0   0  0    0    0
1880   0   3   15   9   12     22     0     0   12   9   0     3   0   0   6  6    3    0
1881     0     0 0  9    0     18     0     0   0    0   0     0   0   0   9 46    18   0
1882   0   0   0    0    0    100     0     0   0    0   0     0   0   0   0  0    0    0
1883   0   3    3   6    5     52     I     0   9    5   0     2    1  1   3   8   1    0
1884   0   1   2    5    6     56     I     0   6    0    1    3   0   4   2  12   0    1
1885   0   0   9    3   14     27     0     0   14   0   0     0   0   3  18  9    0    3
1886   2   0   0    2   11     57     0     0   14   7   0     2   0   1   4       0    0 0
1887   0   0   0    0    0      0     0     0   0    0   0     0   0   0    0      0    0 0  0
1888   0   0   22   0   22      8     0     0  35    0   0     0   0   0  13  0    0    0
1889   0   5   5    5   29     29     0    0   12    5   0     0   5   0   0  0    0    5
1890   0   0   22   0   11      0     0    0   11    0   0     0   0 11 11 34      0    0
1892   7   0   7    0   12     41     7     0   7    0   0     0   0   0   9 28    0    0
1894   0   4   9    9    9      4     0     4  24    0   0     0   0   0   2  6    0    0
1895  22   0   0   11    0     45     0    0   11    0   0     0   0   0  11  0    0    0
1896   0   0   0    0    0    100     0     0   0    0   0     0   0   0   0  0    0    0
Legend:      BC = % battered cobble
BI = % biface
BT = % biface thinning flake
CO= % core
EM = % edge modified flake
FC/3F = fire-cracked/ground
stone fragment
HA = % hammerstone
HM = % hopper mortar
HS = % handstone
IF = % interior flake
NW = % net weight
PC = % primary conrtical flake
PE = % pestle
PP = % projectile point
SC = secondary cortical
flake
SH = % shatter
SM = % slab millingstone
UN =% uniface
of two square iron spikes and nails, two iron tongue  the second lower premolar tooth of elk (Cervus
hinge valves used with a padlock, and other unidenti-  elaphus), a tibia from a mule deer (Odocoileus
fiable pieces.                                hemionus), and the remains of unidentified large
Faunal Remains. Mollusk MNIs include three  mammals (6 long bones, 1 unidentified bone ele-
chitons, two mussels, and one barnacle. The density  ment). The elk mandibles are both from the left side
of mollusks (not including point provenienced mate-  of the body, suggesting that at least two individuals
rial) is .6 MNIs/sq m. The surface collection also  are represented in the surface assemblage. The two
yielded 13 mammal bones and teeth, including a tibia  elements of a Bos taurus exhibit evidence of cut
and scapula of a cow (Bos taurus), 2 mandibles and  marks.
71
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Tabkle S5.S
CouNTs oiF Lrrc RAW MAmmAL Tys
AT FORT Ross SURVEY SrrEs
Site       BA         CH      GW        OB        QU       SA       SC        T
174
228
670
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1892
1894
1B95
1896
0
0
11
2
0
1
0
0
19
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Legn:
1
13
0
31
0
9
3
0
161
35
12
65
0
15
6
6
5
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
BA =basa
CH = m
GW = graywacke
OB = obdidian
3
21
1
0
0
13
3
0
62
5
5
7
0
6
5
3
2
10
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
8
5
2
10
4
1
312
59
6
123
0
2
7
0
7
2
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
4
39
20
39
2
33
11
1
570
103
23
217
0
23
18
9
S15
22
9
7
QU = quatz
SA = sandstone
SC = schist
T = Totald Cmount
72
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.6
PERCENTAGE OF LrmIic RAw MATERIAL TYPES AT FORT Ross SURVEY Srms
Site              BA           CH          GW          OB       QU        SA        SC        %
174                0           25            0         75        0         0        0       100
228                0           33            0         54        0         13       0       100
670               55            0            0          5        0        40        0       100
1878               5            80            0          0        3        12        0       100
1879               0             0            0          0        0       100        0       100
1880               3            27            0         40        0        30        0       100
1881               0            27            0         27        9        37        0       100
1882               0             0            0          0        0       100        0       100
1883               3            28            1         11        1        55        1       100
1884               0            34            0          5        2        57        2       100
1885               0            52            0         22        0        26        0       100
1886               6            30            2          3        1        57        1       100
1887               0             0            0          0        0         0        0        0
1888               0            65            0         26        0         9        0       100
1889               0            33            0         28        0        39        0       100
1890               0            67            0         33        0         0        0       100
1892               0            33            7         13        0        47        0       100
1894               0            32            0         45        0         9       14       100
1895               0            11            0         22        0        67        0       100
1896               14            0            0          0        0        72       14       100
Legend:   BA = % basalt    CH = % chert        GW = % graywacke     OB = % obsidian
QU = % quartz    SA =% sandstone     SC = % schist
Table 5.7
COUNTrS OF MOLLUSK MNIs FOR FORT Ross SURvEY Srms
Site      AB       BA     CH     LU       TU     DO      OL      MU       PE      HS      OT       T
174       0        1      3      0        0      0       0       2       0       0        0       6
228       0        0      0      0        0      0       0       0       0        0       0       0
670        1       0      1      2        1      0       0       0       0        0       0       5
1878       0       0       0      2        0      0       0       1       0       0       0        3
1879       0       0       0      0        0      0       0       0       0       0       0        0
1880       1        1      1      5       15      0       0       6       0       1       0       30
1881       0       2       1     15        2      0       0       3       0       0       0       23
1882       0        1      1      0        2      0       0       2       0       0       0        6
1883       1        1      2     11        3      0       0       6       0       1       0       25
1884       0        1      1      1        0      0       0       1       0       0       0        4
1885       0        1      2      1        1      1       0       3       1       0       0       10
1886       2       9      13    537       95     12       6      32       0       5       12     723
1887       0       0       0      0        0      0       0       0       0       0       0        0
1888       0        1      7     17       12      0       0       8       1       1       0       47
1889       0        1      1     21        6      0       0       3       0       0       0       32
1890       0        1      1      0        1      0       0       3       0       0       0        6
1892       0        1      3     45       12      0       0      22       0       0       0       83
1894       0       0       0      0        0      0       0       0       0       0       0        0
1895       0       2       2      3        2      0       0       2       0       0       0       11
1896       0       2       6      9        5      0       1      11       0       0       0       34
Legend:
BA = barnacle    CH = chiton      LI = limpet
MU = mussel      PE = periwinkle  HS = hooked slipper shell
DO = dogwinkle
T = total count
AB = abalone
OL = Olivella
73
TU = turban
OT = other
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 5.8
PERCENTAGE OF MOLLUSK MNIs AT FORT Ross SURVEY SITES
Site      AB    BA     CH       LI     TU     DO    OL    MU       PE     HS    OT     %
174
228
670
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1894
1895
1896
0
0
20
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
3
9
17
4
25
10
2
0
2
3
17
0
1
0
18
6
50
0
20
0
0
3
4
17
8
25
20
2
0
15
3
17.
0
3
0
18
18
0
0
40
66
0
17
65
0
44
25
10
74
0
36
66
0
0
54
0
28
26
0
0
20
0
0
51
9
33
12
0
10
13
0
26
19
17
0
15
0
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
33
0
0
34
0
20
13
33
24
25
30
4
0
17
9
49
0
27
0
18
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
0
100
0
100
100
Legend:      AB = % abalone
BA = % barnacle
CH = % chiton
LI = % limpet
TU'= % turban
DO = % dogwinkle
OL = % Olivella
MU = % mussel
PE = % periwinle
HS = % hooked slipper shell
OT = % other
Table 5.9
CouNTs OF OGIER ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS AT FORT Ross SuRvEY Srms
Site        GB              DB            GV               CV            ME            AB
174           0              0              7               2             15            13
228           0              0              1               0              0             0
670           0              0              0               0              0             0
1878          0              0              3               3              0             0
1879          0              0              0               0              0             0
1880          1              0              2               2              0            14
1881          0              0              0               0              0             2
1882          0              0              0               0              0             0
1883          0              0              2               0              0             1
1884          0              0              0               1              0             0
1885          0              0              0               1              0             0
1886          0              1              4               3              0            28
1887          0              0              0               0              0             0
1888          0              0              0               0              0             4
1889          0              0              0               0              0             0
1890          0              0              0               0              0             5
1892          0              1              0               0              0             0
1894          0              0              0               0              0             0
1895          0              0              4               1              0             3
1896          0              0              0               0              0             1
Legend:   GB = glass bead
CV = minimum number
of ceramic vessels
DB = clam disk bead
GV = minimum number of glass vessels
ME = metal artifact       AB = animal bone
74
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.10
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR THE FORT Ross SIrrEs
All Readings Are Calibrated for the Hydration Rate of Annadel Obsidian
Site     N          M          SD        Min         Max            Range          Multiple Clusters
or Outliers
174      2         1.65        .15      1.5           1.8          (1.5 -1.8)             no
228     12         2.82        .69       1.7          3.8          (2.1-3.5)              no
670      1         1.7        0          1.7          1.7                                 no
1878     0
1879     0
1880     9         2.04        1.46      .8           5.2          (.6-3.5)               yes
1881     2          1.20       .10       1.1          1.3          (1.1-1.3)              no
1882     0
1883     16         1.52       .50       .8           2.6          (1.0-2.0)              no
1884     3          1.01       .16       .9           1.2          (.8 -1.2)              no
1885     5          1.82       .49       1.4          2.5          (1.4-2.2)              no
1886     5          1.44       .39       1.0          2.0          (1.0-1.8)              no
1887     0
1888     3          1.4        .14       1.2          1.5          (1.3 -1.5)             no
1889     4          1.9        .75       1.4          3.2          (1.1 -2.6)             yes
1890     2          1.97       .87       1.1          2.8          (1.1-2.8)              no
1892     2          1.30       :10       1.2          1.4          (1.2-1.4)              no
1894     5          1.58        .67      .8           2.7          (.9-2.2)               no
1895      1         1.2        0         1.2          1.2                                 no
1896     17         .85        .12       .7           1.2          (.7 -1.0)              no
Legend:   N = number of obsidian hydration readings
M = mean hydration measurement in microns
SD = standard deviation in microns
DiversityIndexes. The diversityof chipped stone
artifact and ground stone tool classes is lower than
expected fora similar sized sample. The richness and
J scores for the lithic classes are 3 (thirty-eighth
percentile) and .367 (thirty-eighth percentile), respec-
tively. TIhe diversityofmollusksissomewhatgreater.
The richness and J scores for the mollusks MNIs are
3 (sixty-seventh percentile) and .439 (sixty-seventh
percentile), respectively.
Chronology. CA-SON-174 yielded only two
obsidian hydration measurements (table 5.11). The
average of the two measurements is 1.65 microns
(sd=.15; one standard deviation range: 1.5-1.8 mi-
crons), suggesting an approximate late Lower Emer-
gent or early Upper Emergent date. Of course, the
sample size is so small that this estimate is very
tentative.
Thbe historic artifacts suggest a later nineteenth
century date. The moldblown glass containers sug-
gest a pre-1910s date of manufacture. Hostetter's
Min = minimum hydration measurement in microns
Max = maximun hydration measurement in microns
Range = +/- standard deviation
Bitters bottles were produced from A.D. 1858 to ca.
A.D; 1910. The weight and style of the white im-
proved earthenware handle indicates a somewhat
later manufacturing date, possible sometime during
the 1860s through the 1900s. The metal spikes are
machine made and could range in date from the mid-
1800s to the 1940s.
Interpretation. The coastal teraceon which CA-
SON-174 sits has witnessed a long use-duration that
spans several hundreds of years. The archaeological
place may have been sporadically used as early as the
late Lower Emergent period based on two obsidian
hydration measurements. Theageof the three depres-
sions remains unknown and will require further ar-
chaeological investigation. Nevertheless, we feel the
major occupation of CA-SON-174 may have taken
place immediately after the withdrawal of the Rus-
sians from Fort Ross. Glenn Farris directed an ar-
chaeological excavation directly across the old high-
way from CA-SON-174 to mitigate the effects of a
75
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 5.11
OBSnmiAN HYDRAnTION DATA FOR CA-SON-174
Lab #         Catalog #                 Source                     Hydtion                Comparison Constant
(nm    )                    (microns)
78         F- 62/894-L:1               Napa Valley                     1.9                        1.5
79         F- 6/2/89-5-L               Annadel                         1.8                        1.8
80         F- 6/5/89-17-L1                ?                      No Visible Hydration
leach line. His project unearthed a variety of native
artifacts including glass projectile points, glass trade
beads, obsidian and chert flakes, various buttons, and
an 1854 U.S. dime with a hole drilled in one edge
(Farris 1986a:20-21). The analysis of the glass beads
suggests a date sometime during the 1840s and 1850s
(Glenn Farris, personal conummunication). It is pos-
sible that CA-SON-174 was part of larger village
where KashayaPomo people stayed whileworking as
agricultural laborers on William Benitz's Ross ranch
(see chapter 6). By the late nineteenth century, the
archaeological place was reused as the site of a small
school, and as an extension of the front yard of the Call
Ranch house, which was built in 1878 (Kaye Tomlin,
personalcommunication). Thelowdensityanddiver-
sity of remains fromn this site may reflect intensive
collecting of artifacts from the surface by school
children and other interested parties over the years
CA-SON-175
Brief History. Barrett (1908:230-231) identifies
this site as the historic village of "Metini" (site #37 in
figure 4.2). Omer Stewart recorded the site in 1935,
and designated it as site 17 in his map (Stewart
1943:28). It was re-recordedin 1949 by A. Pilling and
C. Meighan. Gifford (1967:9) also describes the
"Metini" site.
Location. The site is located 110 m directly north
of the Ross stockade on the coastal terrace in coastal
prairie grass.
Site Description. Gifford (1967:9) describes the
site as consisting of a large central depression, which
he interpreted as the remains of a "dance-house,"
surrounded by twelve to fifteen smaller "house pits."
Pilling and Meighan (1949) estimate that the size of
the site isabout 18,241 sq m. They note thatplowing
of the site area has obliterated most of the smaller
surface depressions. Today, only the large pitdepres-
sion is clearly visible on the surface. Mollusk debris,
animal bones, and artifacts are found along the eastern
edge of the site.
Collection Strategy. As far as we know, the site
has yet to be mapped in detail and surface collected in
a systematic manner. O'Connor (1984:12) notes in
passing, however, that the site was investigated by
archaeologists in 1970. If so, then no report of their
findings has been written up.
Interpretation. Little is known about the historic
village thatBarrettfirst designated as"Me.ni." Some
evidence suggests, however, that the village may
actually post-date the Russian occution of Fort
Ross. Glenn Farris (1986a 16) notes that the site is
marked as an Indian Rancheria in the 1859 Plat map
of the Muniz Rancho (Matthewson 1859). Stewart
(1935a) records.on the original site form that the
village probably dates to ca. A.D. 1850.
CA-SON-190 (Stockade Compound)
Brief History. As outlined in chapter 2, consid-
erable archaeological work has taken place in the
stockade compound and directly outside the northern
palisade walls. While most of this research has
focused on the Russian activity here, some of the
excavations unearthed lithic tools, artifacts manufac-
tured from glass (i.e., projectile points), and glass
beads that suggest a Native American presence (see
Treganza 1954:18; Smith 1974:7-9:45). Smith
(1974:2-6) hypothesizes that this material may reflect
an earlier Kashaya Pomo village that was abandoned
when the stockade complex was first constructed by
the Russians. She suggests that the original Metini
village was then moved to a new location some
distance from the fort.
A recent excavation along the southeastemrn pe-
rimeter of thee stokadewall sheds some light on
Smith's hypothesis. Directed by Thomas Origer and
Allan Bramlette of Sonoma State University in 1989,
field crews excavated along the original alignment of
the wall, as well as outside the wall proper. The
purposeof the fieldwork was to evaluate the impact of
reconstructing the palisade wall for the third time in
this section of the compound. In the final report,
MargaretPurser, Vickie Beard, andAdrianPraetzellis
(1990) describe obsidian and chert debitage, three
projectile points (including a comner-notched point),
six bifaces, a core, and various ground and battered
stones from theexcavation. Approximately235 grams
of shellfish, dominated by abalone, were also col-
lected.
Chronology. Purser et al. (1990) submitted 54
obsidian specimens to Thomas Origer for hydration
readings (table 5.12). The results suggestan extended
use-duration in the southeastern section of CA-SON-
190, spanning well back into prehistory. The mean of
76
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table S.12
OBSIDAN HYDRATION DATA FOR THE SourmEASTr SECrION OF CA-SON-190*
Lab #              Source                      Hydroion                     Comparison CSnant
(micnm)                            (mi  s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
77
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Amadel
Annadel
Napa Valley
Nap Valley
Nape Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Annedel
Napa Valley
Nape Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Annadel
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Annade!
Napa Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Nap Valley
Nap Valley
Konocti
Konocti
Konocti
Konocuti
Konocti
Konocti
Borax Lake
Borax Lake
Borax Lake
Borax Lake
Annadel
Borax Iake
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.5
3.4
3.9
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.5
3.8
2.8
1.8
1.8
3.8
2.9
2.4
3.5
3.1
4.3
4.4
3.1
2.3
2.9
3.4
2.5
1.8
2.7
1.6
3.4
3.7
2.6
2.6
3.4
2.1
2.3
6.0
3.1
3.4
3
8.4
8.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
15
2.6
3.0
2.2
2.7
2.9
2.5
2.9
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.9
2.2
1.8
35
2.4
3.3
3.4
3.1
2.3
2.9
2.6
2.5
1.8
2.7
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.6
1.6
1.8
4.6
1.9
2.1
1.9
5.2
5.0
con't. on next page
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 5.12 can't.
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA RoR THE SOUFHEAST SECTION OF CA-SON-190*
Lab #                Source                         Hydration                       Comparison Constant
(microns)                            (microns)
48                 Konocti                           4.9                                   3.8
49                 Konocti                           4.4                                   3.4
50                 Konocti                           4.8                                   3.7
51                 Borax Lake                        4.9                                   3.0
52                 Borax Lake                        5.0                                   3.1
53                 Borax Lake                        3.6                                   2.2
54                 Annadel                           -                                     -
* (from Purser et al. 1990: 88-89)
Figure S.S
Hitgram of
Obsidian Hydration
Measrements for
CA-SON-190
[--
Z
02
z
9
a-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2.
1-
A   --
.7     1
I    II                         !
7 . I .................... ?. 1Y ...... T..I IIII  I I   T..................... 1 1 1 .
2
3          4
HYDRATION MEASUREMENTS
the measurements for the entire sample is 2.57 mi-
crons (sd=.87). A histogram of the hydration mea-
surements suggests two separate clusters of readings
(see figure 5.5). Recalculations of the mean and
standard deviation for each cluster indicate l)an early
Middle Archaic date (n=3;i = 4.93 microns; sd=.25;
one standard deviation range: 4.7-5.2 microns) and 2)
a later Upper Archaic through early Upper Emergent
date (n=46; i=2.42 microns; sd=.65; one standard
deviation range: 1.8-3.1 microns).
Interpretation. Current evidence does not sup-
port the hypothesis that the stockade complex was
constructed over a recently abandoned Porno village.
The recent excavation reported by Purser et al. (1990)
indicates a broad lithic scatter may underlie the stock-
ade complex. However, this scatter appears to date
well into prehistory and was abandoned some time
before the Russians settled the Ross Colony. In turn,
we believe the native artifacts recovered from Mad-
ShuiNui, the locus of CA-SON- 190 along the north-
ern palisade walls, probably date to the Russian occu-
pation. These artifacts include glass projectile points,
glass scraping tools, and glass beads (Smith 1974:45-
52). Paintings of the stockade complex in 1828
S
(microns)
6      6.7
(Duhaut-Cilly 1946) and in 1841 (Vozensenksii's
"Ross Settlement"inBlomkvist 1972: 105-106) clearly
portray small "Russian-style" houses along the north-
ern wall of the compound. Glenn Farris (personal
communication) believes these structures may have
been used as general housing for unmarried men. The
ethnicity of these men is unknown at this time.
CA-SON-228
Brief History. The site was originally recorded
by Bauer in 1949. In the summer of 1989, a U.C.
Berkeley field crew re-recorded, mapped, and sur-
face collected the site.
Location. CA-SON-228 is in coastal prairie
grasslands of the coastal terrace (figure 5.3).
Site Description. The site consists of a broad,
dispersed lithic scatter covering about 4536 sq m. No
faunal remains were reported.
Collection Strategy. Given the broadly dis-
persedpatternof lithics,segmentedcollection transects
were not employed. Rather, artifacts from across the
site were point provenienced and collected.
Lithic Artifacts.  Thirty-nine artifacts were
10 I
78
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
collected. The majority are interior flakes (60%),
followed by biface thinning flakes (13%), edge-
modified flakes (10%) cores (5%), battered cobbles
(5%), shatter (2%), and handstones (2%) (tables 5.3
and 5.4). The most common raw material type is
obsidian (54%), followed by chert (33%), and sand-
stone (13%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). No lithic densities
are calculated.
Historic Artifacts. The surface assemblage in-
cludesonesherdofcolorlesscontainerglass,possibly
moldblown.
Faunal Remains. None were collected.
Diversity Indexes. The assemblage of chipped
stone artifacts and ground stone tools exhibits a much
lower diversity than expected for a Ross site with a
comparablesamplesize. The richness andJ scores for
the lithic classes are 8 (third percentile) and .492 (0
percentile), respectively.
Chronology. Obsidian hydration measurements
on 12 artifacts are listed in table 5.13. The mean of
the measurements is 2.82 microns (sd =.69). The
range of one standard deviation is 2.1-3.5 microns,
suggesting an Upper Archaic to Lower Emergent
date.
Interpretation. CA-SON-228 is a broadly dis-
persed, low-density lithic scatter distributed along the
coastal terrace. It appears that the archaeological
place was sporadically used over the last two thou-
sand years to perform a limited range of activities
involving the production, use, or discard of interior
flakes, biface thinning flakes, edge-modified flakes,
and cores.
CA-SON-670
Brief History. Initial excavations were under-
taken as part of a spring field class under the direction
of David Fredrickson in 1971 to mitigate the effects
of constructing a group campground on the site
(Stillinger 1975). Further excavations were under-
taken at the site by California State Parks-and Recre-
ation (DPR) archaeologists in 1979 and 1985. The
1985 excavation, directed by Breck Parkmlan and
Glenn Farris and staffed with volunteers from the
Santa Cruz Archaeological Association, evaluated
the impact of a proposed septic tank in the camp-
ground. In the summer of 1988, U.C. Berkeley field
crews recorded a small locus 30 m south of the main
site. Further excavations were undertaken in 1990 by
Thomas Origer and field crews from Santa Rosa
Junior College as part of the expansion of camp
facilities.
Location. CA-SON-670 is situated in a mixed
evergreen forest on the lower slopes of the first ridge
system at an elevation of 70 m above sea level (figure
5.3). The San Andreas Fault runs along the southern
edge of the site.
SiteDescription. Themainsite, a 3750sq m area,
sits in a small, protected valley overlooking Fort Ross
Creel In the original site fonnrm on file at the North-
west Information Center, Stillinger notes the founda-
tions of buildings probably built as part of a historic
logging operation. The southern locus recorded in
1988 is an elliptical-shaped area, measuring 104 sq m
in area, near the Fort Ross Creek. The locus consists
of a low density of ground stone tools, ground stone
fragments, and mollusk remains.
Collection Strategy. A total of 7.8 cubic m was
excavated in 1971. Excavation units were distributed
across the site. The 1985 field crew excavated four 2
by 2 m units. The southern locus of Son 670 was
surface collected in 1988 by laying out twelve 1 by 2
m units in the four cardinal directions from a central
e S.13
OBsumAN HYDRAON MsMEAsuwrs oR CA-SON-228
Lab #               Catalog #             Source                  Hydration             Comparison Constant
(microns)                 (microns)
81              H-6f/789-1-L:l         Napa Valley                 5.0                        3.8
82              H-617/89-4-L:l         Napa Valley                 3.4                        2.6
83              H-6/789-9-L            Napa Valley                 4.3                        3.3
84              H-67189-12-L:1         Borax Lake                  5.9                        3.6
85              H-6/7/89-13-L          Annadel                      1.8                       1.8
86              H-617/89-15-L          Annadel                     2.6                        2.6
87              H-6/889-20-L1          Annadel                    2.8                        2.8
88              H-6/8/89-24-L          Napa Valley                 4.9                        3.8
89              H-68/89-29-L2          Konocti                     3.8                        2.9
90              H-6/8/89-30-L          Annadel                      1.7                       1.7
91              H-6/8/89-32-L          Napa Valley                 2.9                        2.2
92              H-618/89-34-L          Napa Valley                 3.4                        2.6
79
80
Figure S.6
Site Map of
CA-SON-670
(Southern Locus)
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
datum point (figure 5.6). The collection represents a
23% sample of the surface area of the locus. Some
materials outside of collection units were also col-
lected by point proveniencing their exact locations.
Lithic Artifacts. Stillinger (1975) analyzed the
lithic artifacts from the 1971 excavation. He identi-
fies 2 battered cobbles, 4 choppers, 1 anvil, 5 large
bifaces, 2 scraper planes, 6 handstones, 2 net weights,
1 pestle, and 57 whole or fragments of projectile
points. In addition, Stillinger weighed a very large
number of flakes and other chipping debitage (total
chert debitage = 208.3 gr, total obsidian debitage =
16.39 gr). Counts of the debitage are not presented in
his report. The specific counts of projectilepoints are
19 shouldered lanceolate (Excelsior) points, 5 coner-
notched points, 3 serrated points, and 30 unidentifi-
able fragments.
The surface collection south of the main site
yielded 20 lithic artifacts. The bulk are fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments (80%) and handstones (15%),
as well as one biface thinning flake (5%) (tables 5.3
and 5.4). Of the raw materials represented, 55% are
basalt, 40% are sandstone, and only 5% are obsidian
(tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density (not including
materials point provenienced) is .67 artifacts/sq m.
Historic Artifacts. Stillinger (1975) reports 15
glass beads, a large quantity of nails, and 40 glass
fragments from the 1971 excavation. Two projectile
points are manufactured from glass. No historic
materials were recovered in the locus south of the
main site.
Faunal Remains. Stillinger (1975) notes that
some animal bones (29.1 gr) and a large quantity of
shellfish refuse (383.8 gr) were recovered in the 1971
excavation, although it is not analyzed in his report.
The 1988 surface collection of the southern locus
produced 5 mollusk MNls,including 2 limpets(40%),
1 uban snail (20%), 1 chiton (20%), and 1 abalone
(20%) (tables 5.7 and 5.8). The mollusk density is .08
MNIs/sq m. No animal bones were recovered in the
surface collection.
Diversity Indexes. Since Stillinger's (1975) re-
port does not provide counts of lithic debitage and
flakes, diversity indexes are calculated only for the
small surface assemblage south of the main site. The
diversity of chipped stone artifacts and ground stone
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
tools is lower than expected for a similar sized assem-
blage. The richness and J scores for lithic classes are
2 (seventh percentile) and .198 (fifth percentile),
respectively. The diversity of the mollusk assem-
blage is greater. The richness and J scores for mollusk
MNIs, respectively, are 4 (ninety-sixth percentile)
and .579 (ninety-sixth percentile).
Chronology. Stillinger (1975) suggests a long
use-duration for this archaeological place involving at
least three different cycles of occupation over time.
The first occupation is based on the association of
ground stone tools and shouldered lanceolate projec-
tile points in the lower levels of some excavation
units. The projectile points suggest roughly a Late
Archaic or early Lower Emergent date. The one
biface thinning flake of Annadel obsidian (catalog #
A-617/88-15-L:1) anfrom the southern locus of CA-
SON-670 exhibits a hydration layer measuring 1.7
microns. This very tentative evidence suggests a late
Lower Emergent date.
The second cycle of occupation appears to be by
native peoples during the Historic period given the
presence of glass beads, glass projectile points, and
corner-notched points. Preliminary indications sug-
gest this occupation took place during Russian times
(1812-1841) and/or in the early ranching phase (1841-
1867) (Farris 1986a:20).
The third occupation is that of James Dixon and
Charles Fairfax's logging operation established at
Fort Ross in A.D 1867 (chapter 6). Stillinger's (1975)
analysis of the nail types recovered from CA-SON-
670 suggests that this occupation postdates A.D. 1870.
The 1876 U.S. Coast Survey map of the Fort Ross
region, on file in the Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley,
illustrates a mill complex in the vicinity of CA-SON-
670. One structure is situated in the exact location of
the site. Kaye Tomlin (personal communication)
believes that the Dixon/Fairfax mill, originally estab-
lished in Kolmer Gulch in 1867, was moved to the
vicinity of CA-SON-670 in 1870. The lumber mill
was located just off the boundary line of the current
state park. The structure built at CA-SON-670 was
probably used to house workmen. Tomlin (personal
communication) also notes thatJames Dixon's house,
known as the "White House," was located further up
Fort Ross Creek and was part of the mill complex.
Interpretation. Many questions remain about the
occupation history of CA-SON-670. It appears that
the archaeological place is characterized by extensive
use-duration possibly spanning back to the Late
Archaic period. Stillinger (1975) reports a relatively
diverse range of lithic artifacts suggesting that a
variety of activities took place here. However, it is not
clear what range of native activities occurred during
the earliest occupation, and what took place in the
Historic period. It is possible that the site represents
asubstantial hamletoccupiedbyPomo/Miwokpeoples
working at the Ross Colony. This hypothesis will be
the subject of future work.
The locus south of the main site appears to be a
special purpose location where vegetable processing
and possibly cooking were taking place. A by-product
of the stone boiling method in baskets is the deposi-
tion of many fire-cracked rocks. It appears that native
peoples recycled former (possibly exhausted) ground
stone tools for use as cooking stones. The ground
stone tools were probably broken into fragments,
heated, and submerged into cool water, a process that
crated multiple ground stone remnants with the char-
acteristics of fitre-cracked rocks.
CA-SON-1446H
Brief History. The site was recorded and exca-
vated by Glenn Farris, Breck Parkman, and a DPR
crew in 1984. This site is also described as locus i of
Son 1446H.
Location. CA-SON-1446H is situated on the
lower slope of the first ridge (elevation 146 m above
sea level) in savannah grassland (figure 5.3). As part
of the original Russian Orchard, the site is located on
the San Andreas Fault line.
Site Description. The site is characterized by
Russian bricks distributed over a 20 sq m area.
Collection Strategy. The excavation involved
the shallow, areal exposure of bricks in situ.
Lithic Artifacts. Some obsidian flakes were re-
covered.
Historic Artifacts. A number of whole Russian
bricks as well as brick fragments, representing four
different brick styles, were mapped. Other historic
artifacts include iron spikes and nails, earthenware
ceramic sherds, and three glass beids.
Faunal Remains. Large mammal bones were
recovered in the excavation.
Interpretation. Glenn Fanris and BreckParkman
(personal communications) believe the brick and ar-
tifact scatter represents the remains of a four-room
house and kitchen built by the Russians near their
orchard. The house and kitchen are described in the
Sutter Inventory of Fort Ross (1841), in the Vallejo
Inventory of Fort Ross (1841), and in Duflot de
Mofras's (1842) description of Fort Ross. The Sutter
and Vallejo Inventories describe a kitchen and a
"new" four-room house that measures 9.6 m by 8.5 m
and is covered with planks. Duflot de Mofras de-
scribes a kitchen, measuring 5 sq m, next to a new
house covered with thin boards (see Farris 1984).
CA-SON-1451
Brief History. The site was recorded by Breck
Parkman in 1984.
81
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location. CA-SON-1451 is located in a dirt road
that leads to the group campground (CA-SON-670).
The site sits on the coastal terrace in open, coastal
prairie grassland.
Site Description. CA-SON-1451 isa small lithic
scatter measuring 75 sq m. Parkman (1984) notes that
the site may be larger, but that poor visibility in the
deep prairie grass makes it difficult to determine the
boundaries of the lithic scatter.
Collection Strategy. Artifacts were collected
from the exposed road bed.
Lithic Artifacts. Six chert flakes were collected.
Historic Artifacts. None were reported.
Faunal Remains. One Olivella shell was col-
lecled.
Interpretation. The scatter of lithics along the
coastal terrace, although more limited in its spatial
distribution, is similar to CA-SON-228. The age of
CA-SON-1451 is not known since no diagnostic
projectile points or obsidian artifacts have yet been
recovered there.
CA-SON-1453
BriefHistory. Thesite was initially recordedby
Glenn Farris and a crew of DPR archaeologists in
1984. Beginning in the spring semester of 1988, field
crews from Santa Rosa Junior College, under the
direction of Thomas Origer, undertook the mapping,
surface collection, and subsurface testing of CA-
SON-1453. A full report of their findings is in
progress. The information presented below is tenta-
tive awaiting the analysis of the excavated materials.
Location. The site extends along the eroding
sea cliffs of the coastal terrace in coastal prairie
grassland (figure 5.3).
Site Description. CA-SON-1453 consists of a
broad, low-density lithic scatter extending over a
10,000 sq m area.
Collection Strategy. Artifacts were first point
provenienced and collected from the surface of the
site. A number of 1 by 2 m units (STUs or surface
testing units) were then laid out across the site in
transects and excavated to a 10 cm depth. Finally,
some units were excavated completely to sterile un-
derlying deposits.
Lithic Artifacts. The majority of the lithics
observed on the surface are chert and obsidian flakes
and debitage, with some ground stone tools and schist
battered cobbles. Origer (personal communication)
reports that a similar range of artifact classes was
recovered in excavation units.
Historic Artifacts. None were observed on the
surface.
Faunal Remains. Few mollusk remains or
animal bones were found on the surface.
Chronology. Nine obsidian artifacts have been
analyzed by the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory,
Sonoma State University. We thank Eric Allison for
sharing this information with us. The hydration
measurements for each specimen will be listed in a
forthcoming Sonoma State University report. Suffice
it to say that the mean of the hydration measurements,
after converting all readings to the Annadel hydration
rate using Tremaine's comparison constants, is 3.02
microns (sd =.95). The range of one standard devia-
tion is 2.1 to 4.0 microns, suggesting a long use-
duration from the early Upper Archaic to the Middle
Lower EmergenLt
Interpretation. While a full interpretation of
CA-SON-1453 awaits the final report, the site ap-
pears to be very snimilar to CA-SON-228. It is a broad,
diffuse lithic scatter that extends along the coastal
terrace. Similar to CA-SON-228, it exhibits a long
use-duration that begins at a relatively early date,
possibly as early as 1000 B.C.
CA-SON-1454/H
BriefHistory. Jeanette Schulz initiallyrecorded
the site with a crew of DPR archaeologists in 1984.
Beginning in the spring of 1988, field crews from
Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State Univer-
sity, under the directions of Thomas Origer and David
Fredrickson, respectively, initiated an intensive study
of the site. The fieldwork includes mapping the site,
systematically collecting surface artifacts, and exca-
vating a number of 1 by 2 units. A full report of this
work is forthcoming.
Location. CA-SON-1454/H sits on the coastal
cliffs overlooking Fort Ross Cove (figure 5.3). It is
located directly east of CA-SON-1453 on the coastal
terrace in coastal prairie grassland.
Site Description. The site is an extensive lithic
scatter, covering an area of about 15,000 sq m that
contains several boulders with cupules. One sand-
stone outcrop contains 25 cupules; another, 17 cu-
pules; and a third, 2 cupules (see Schulz 1984). A
small discrete locus of shell fragments is also found
along the edge of the bluff. Historic features, prob-
ably associated with a loading chute and storage area,
are also found here. A stump of a spar-pole is believed
to have been part of the original chute (Schulz 1984).
Collection Strategy. Surface artifacts were
point provenienced during the mapping of the site in
1989. Similar to CA-SON-1453, a number of 1 by 2
m excavation units were laid out in transects across
the site. Some were STUs (surface testing units),
while others are characterized as VTUs (vertical test-
ing units) in which sediments are excavated down to
sterile, underlying deposits.
Lithic Artifacts. Primarily chert and obsidian
flakes and debitage are found on the surface. Origer
82
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
(personal communication) reports that the great bulk
of materials recovered from excavation units are
flakes and debitage. Some ground stone tools, includ-
ing a few handstones and a sandstone mortar were also
recovered. He notes that biface fragments, while
present, are rare. A few net weights were also identi-
fied from or near the shell deposit.
Historic Artifacts. Fragments of mill cut red-
wood lumber are scattered across part of the site, as
well as several metal artifacts (iron rings or eye-bolts,
a length of rusted chain) that are probably associated
with the loading chute. One brown glass bottle
fragment was also noted on the surface.
Faunal Remains.. None were noted on the
surface. Origer (personal communication) reports
few faunal remains in excavation units with the ex-
ception of the small discrete shell deposit near the
edge of the bluff. The erosion of the bluff into the
ocean is rapidly destroying the shell deposit
Chronology. One hundred and twenty-six ob-
sidian artifacts have been analyzed by the Obsidian
Hydration Laboratory, Sonoma State University. We
thank Eric Allison for generously sharing the results
with us. The specific hydration datawillbepresented
in the forthcoming excavation report. Using this data,
we calculated that the mean of the hydration measure-
ments, corrected to the hydration rate of Annadel
obsidian, is 2.19 microns (sd=l.0). A histogram (see
figure 5.7) of these measurements exhibits two dis-
tinct outliers of 6.2 and 6.7 microns, suggesting an
Early Archaic date sometime around 6000 B.C. The
mean of the rest of the measurements is 2.12 microns
(sd=.84). The range of one standard deviation is 1.3
to 3.0 microns, suggesting an extended use-duration
in the late Upper Archaic to the early Upper Emer-
gent.
Interpretation. While a full account of CA-
SON-1454/H is forthcoming in the excavation re-
port, Origer (personal communication) believes that
lithic production was taking place, but probably not
the manufacture of bifaces, since few fragments are
found. He also notes that the presence of ground
stone tools suggests activities involving the mashing
and grinding of plant products and other raw materi-
als. Finally, Origer suggests that the broad, diffuse
lithic scatter is probably the result of many different
kinds of tasks taking place in the area over an
extended period of time.
We note the similarities between CA-SON-228,
CA-SON- 1453,andCA-SON-1454/1H. All areexten-
sive lithic scatters on the coastal terrace with long use-
durations. CA-SON-1454/H differs from the other
two sites in its small shell deposit, its cupule rocks,
and its historic artifacts and features.
The loading chute and lumber storage area were
constructed by James Dixon in A.D. 1867 or 1868
(Tomlin 1991:31). The original chute, constructed of
wood, was built to facilitate the loading of lumber
onto ships. On December 9, 1898 the wooden chute
blew down in a terrific storm thatcreated havoc along
the north coast of California. Winds were clocked up
to 96 miles per hour at Point Reyes (Tomlin 1991:39).
In 1899, a wire-rigged chute was built to replace the
wooden one. The wire chute operated at Fort Ross
until 1921 when the chute, donkey engine, anchor
chains, cars and rails were sold to the Salsig Lumber
Company who moved the equipment to nearby Tim-
ber Cove (Tomlin 1991:43).
CA-SON-1455
Brief History. The site, originally designated as
Fort Ross Campground #1, was recorded in 1984 by
Glenn Farris. Since an access trail from the nearby
campground was impacting the site, a crew of DPR
archaeologists under Farris's direction excavated a
portion ofCA-SON-1455. The following description
of the site is taken from the excavation report (Farris
1986a).
Location. CA-SON-1455 is located next to a
rock overhang approximately .8 km south of the Ross
stocade (figure 5.3). The site is on the edge of the
rocky coastal terrace, adjacent to a small creek that
flows into the Pacific Ocean.
* Site Description. The site, a small shell midden
measuring about 500 sq m, sits on a small bench next
to a large boulder-bedrock outcrop. The archaeologi-
cal deposits, consisting of dark, charcoal-stained soil,
shellfish refuse, and some lithics, vary in depth from
.5 to 1.18m.
Collection Strategy. Surface artifacts were
mapped with a transit and collected. A four-inch-
barrel auger was then used to test the depth of the site.
This was followed by the excavation of four 1 by 1 m
units to bedrock. All sediments were passed through
1/8" mesh.
LithicArtifacts. The majority ofthelithicassem-
blage consisted of 540 chert flakes and debitage
analyzed by Mark Hylkema (1986). They include 225
interior flakes, 114 pieces of shatter, 108 biface thin-
ning flakes, 61 secondary cortical flakes, 16 primary
cortical flakes, 7 edge-modified flakes, 6 cores, 2
bifaces, and 1 drill. In addition, Farris (1986a:.25-37)
reports 151 "hammerstones" (rounded rocks from the
beach probably used as hammer and anvil stones that
showed some evidence of battering), 1 handstone, 2
net weights, and 63 obsidian flakes and tools, includ-
ing two cornmer-notched projectile points.
Historic Artifacts. One white cane glass bead
was recovered.
Faunal Remrains. The mollusk remains were
83
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.7
Histogram of Obsidian
Hydration Measurements
for CA-SON-1454/H
HYDRATION MEASUREMENTS (microns)
analyzedby Christina Swiden (1986). The bulk of the
mollusk MNIs is composed of limpets (70%), fol-
lowedby mussels (12%), turban snails (10%), hooked
slipper shells (3%), other gastropods (2%), and bar-
nacles(2%). Clams andabalonemadeup lessthan 1%
of the shell assemblage. Although Haliotis shells
made up a small percentage of the mollusk assem-
blage, one of the notable features unearthed was a
layercomposed of numerous Haliotis shells, presum-
ably marking a living floor. One Olivella bead was
also recovered.
Great numbers of fish bones were recovered.
They account for 97% of the vertebrae found in the
site. Unfortunately, the remains are not adequately
diagnostic to determine genus and species (Farris
1986a:.44). Few mammal bones were observed, and
these were fragmentary at best. The majority include
artiodactyls (primarily Odocoileus hemionus) and
rodents. One bone was worked into a point. Farris
(1986a:44) also reports the caudal end of a sacrum of
an adult sea lion (Zalophus californianus).
Diversity Indexes. We calculated diversity in-
dexes for the chipped stone artifacts and ground stone
tools tallied above. One must be cautious about
comparing these to other survey sites since they were
computed from an excavated assemblage. We expect
that surface assemblages may be somewhat less
diverse than excavated assemblages given the greater
impact of surface disturbances (unauthorized collect-
ing of artifacts such as projectile points and beads)
and poorer preservation. Interestingly, the results
suggest that CA-SON- 1455 is much less diverse than
expected for a survey site with a relatively large
sample size. The richness and J scores are 12 (0
percentile)and.613(0Opercentile),respectively. Since
Swiden (1986) does not present MNI counts, but only
percentages, diversity indexes are not calculated for
the mollusk assemblage.
Chronology. CA-SON-1455 is the best dated
site in the Fort Ross Study Area. Four samples of
charcoal and one abalone were submitted to the ra-
diocarbon laboratory at U.C. Riverside (Farris
1986a:33). The radiocarbon dates are as follows:
450?80 B.P. (charcoal), 460t100 B.P. (Haliotis),
510?70 B.P. (charcoal), 1120?100 B.P. (charcoal),
and 150 B.P. (charcoal).
Forty-one obsidian artifacts were submitted to
the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory, Soanoma State
University (table 5.14). The results suggest a late
Lower Emergent to Historic period use of the site.
The mean of the measurements, calibra  to the
Annadelhydration rate,is 1.18 microns (sd=.52). The
range of one standard deviation is .7 to 1.7 microns.
Interpretation. Farris(1986a:51)interpretsCA-
SON-1455 as a "small seafood processing station."
The site appears to have been reused by small groups
collecting shellfish, fish, and other marine foods pri-
marily during protohistoic and historic times. The
radiocarbon dates and corner-notched point suggest a
significant period of use around A.D. 1500 (Faris
1986a:51). In addition, the obsidian hydration mea-
surements and glass bead indicate the site was spo-
radically used during the Russian occupation of Fort
Ross.
CA-SON-1878
Brief History. The site was first recorded in the
summer of 1988 by a U.C. Berkeley field crew. The
site was assigned the field number, A-5-1.
Location. CA-SON-1878 sits on the intersec-
tion of the coastal terrace and lower slope of the first
ridge overlooking Fort Ross Creek (figure 5.3). The
vegetation is primarily coastal prairie grassland that
grades into a mixed evergreen forest.
Site Description. This extensive site, measur-
ing 2107 sq m, contains a diverse range of lithic
artifacts, historic materials, and some mollusk re-
mains. A small ranch shed enclosing a water barrel is
on the northern boundary of the site. A depression,
probably made by a bulldozer, is found in the north-
westcornerof the site (figure 5.8). Wenoted, in afield
visit to the site in the fall of 1990, slight depressions
not previously mapped, in the southern section of the
site.
z
R
84
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.14
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON- 1455
-,
Lab #
Source
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
(after Farris 1986a:49)
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Konocti
Naps Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Nap Valley
Nap Valley
Napa Valley
Nap Valley
Anns~el.
Naps Valley
Konocti
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Konocti
Borax Lake
Annadel
Borax Lake
Napa Valley
Annadel
Napa Valley
Annaddel
Konocti
Konocti
Annaddel
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Annadel
Napa Valley
Collection Strategy. From a central datum, 1 by 2
m collection units were laid out in the four cardinal
directions (figure 5.8). Forty-three units were surface
collected (a 4% sample of the entire site area). Some
materials were point provenienced and collected out-
side the units.
Lithic Artifacts. A total of 39 lithic artifacts were
surface collected. The most common are edge-modi-
fied flakes (22%), followed by interior flakes (10%),
shatter (10%), primary cortical flakes (10%), bifaces
(8%), biface thinning flakes (8%), cores (8%), fire-
cracked/ground stone fragments (5%), handstones
(5%), and projectile points (5%). A hammerstone
(3%), a secondary cortical flake (3%), and a slab
milling stone (3%) were also collected (tables 5.3 and
5.4). One of the projectile points is classified as a
large side-notched point. The majority of the lithics
wereproduced fxrom chert (80%) andsandstone (12%).
Two artifacts were manufactured from basalt (5%),
and one from quartz (3%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The
density of lithics (not including those point
provenienced) is .2 artifacts/sq m.
Historic Artfacts. The surface assemblage in-
cludes the sherds of three moldblown glass contain-
ers. One is colorless glass that has been modified by
hard percussion. It exhibits a bulb of percussion.
Another sherd is from a light blue-green colored
container of solarized glass. The third sherd is from
-
Hydration
(microns)
2.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.6
3.9
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.1
3.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
25
1.1
2.3
.9
1.7
.9
2.0
1.2
2.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
Com    son Constant
(microns)
1.5
.8
1.0
.8
.8
1.5
1.5
1.0
.8
.8
.8
.8
1.6
3.0
.8
1.3
1.0
1.2
.8
2.0
.7
.8
1.0
.8
2.5
.8
1.8
.9
1.3
.7
1.5
.9
1.8
.9
1.3
.9
85
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
the base of a light olive green alcoholic beverage
bottle. The edge exhibits evidence of intentional
chipping, possibly to sharpen it.
Sherds from three ceramic vessels were also re-
covered. One is the footring sherd of porcelain bowl
thatis very white with aclearglaze. The second vessel
is represented by a footring sherd of a Chinese
porcellaneous stoneware bowl. The body is whitish-
blue with cobalt blue linear decoration on the interior
surface. The sherd appears to be heavily surf-worn.
The third vessel is represented by the rim sherd of a
creamware hollowware form that is both glazed and
crazed. It may be a chamberpot.
Faunal Remains. Three mollusk MNIs were iden-
tified. They include 2 limpets and 1 mussel (tables 5.7
and 5.8). None of these were recovered in collection
units (mollusk density = 0/sq m). No animal bones
were recovered.
Diversity Indexes. The diversity of lithic artifacts
is much greater for CA-SON-1878 then expected for
a similar sized sample. The richness and J scores are
12 (ninety-fourth percentile) and .806 (ninety-eighth
percentile). The calculation of diversity indexes for
mollusk MNIs is rather dubious given the extremely
small sample size. The richness and J scores for the
mollusk MNIs are 2 (fifty-third percentile) and .276
(fifty-third percentile).
Chronology. The dating of this site is rather
ambiguous. No obsidian artifacts were recovered.
The identifiable projectile point suggests a relatively
early prehistoric age. The historic materials suggest
an early to late nineteenth century date. From the
moldblown glass one can infer a pre-1910Os date of
manufacture, while the solarized container glass indi-
cates the addition of manganese or "glassmaker's
bleach," which suggests a date between 1870 and
86
Figure 5.8
Site Map of
CA-SON-1878
Waler Shed
~~
22N
18N
14N
ION
.- ".--
,6N
o2N
[a               I  I  I  T  T 7 -                 I   I   I   I   I   I   I  I  I   I   I   I   I
3W  26W   22W   IW   14W     W   6W    2W    IE   E    9E   13E    17E  !21E  2E   29E
-os
I/gI
-.  SITE BOUNDARY
- - UNPAVED ROAD
20                                                /
I '\ \
N         0           4m                                                                   \
---
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
1910. Theopaqueporcelain was frst manufactured in
the mid-nineteenth century and continued to be pro-
duced through the turn of the twentieth century. The
dates for the Chinese porcellaneous stoneware span
from the 1760s through the 1800s, and some versions
of the same decorative patterns are still in use today
(Purser, personal communication).
Interpretation. CA-SON-1878 is a large scatter
characterized by a high diversity ofartifact classes but
a low density ofsurfacematerials. Itmayrepresentan
archaeological place with a relatively short use-dura-
tion where a diverserange ofactivities tookplace. We
believe it may be a native hamlet where a few families
resided for a short while in the Historic period. The
worked glass artifacts provide some support for this
interpretation.
CA-SON-1879
Brief History. The site was first recorded in the
summer of 1988 by a U.C. Berkeley field crew. The
original site designation was A-13-1.
Location. CA-SON- 1879issituatedonthecoastal
terrace overlooking Highway 1 in prairie grassland
(figure 5.3).
SiteDescription. lbThe siteisasandstoneboulderin
which nine cupules have been pecked (figure 5.9).
Each depression measures about 7 cm in diameter and
2-2.5 cm in depth.
Lithic Artifacts. Two artifacts, a handstone and a
fire-cracked/ground stone fragment, both manufac-
tured out of sandstone, were collected near the cupule
rock. No other archaeological materials were ob-
served in the nearby vicinity.
Interpretation. The site is a small cupule rock
which commands a good view of the ocean as well as
of CA-SON-175. The date of the site is unknown.
CA-SON-1880
Brief History. The site is first mentioned by
Gifford (1967:9) who describes its location as due
northofCA-SON-175. HenotesthatJohn McKenzie,
then curator of the Fort Ross State Historic Park,
showed him several "grooved stone sinkers" and a
round-tipped chert projectile point. A U.C. Berkeley
field crew frst recorded the site in the summer of
1988. It was assigned the field designation of B-3-1.
Location. The site is located on thecoastal terace
in coastal prairie grassland about 400 m due north of
the stockade (figure 5.3). Fort Ross Creek is 120 m
due east.
Site Description. CA-SON-1880 is an extensive
scatter of artifacts and faunal remains covering about
a 2024 sq m area. The western boundaries of the site
were determined by shovel probes given the thick
grassland that impeded a clear view of the ground.
The subsurface of the site is characterized by very
dark, organic sediments. A midden deposit consisting
of mollusk remains, animal bones, and fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments extends along the eastern
edge of the site where it drops off into the Fort Ross
Creek. Rodentactivity has brought some materials to
the surface. No clearly defined surface depressions
Figure 5.9
I   Map of Cupule Rock
at CA-SON-1879
*  at HOLES
O40cm
N
87
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
were recorded, although the thick grass precludes a
very detailed survey for surface features.
CollectionStrategy. Twenty-threecollection units
were laid out from four different datums (site datum,
subdatums A, B, C) distributed across the site (figure
5.10). The collection represents a 2% sample of the
entire site area. The grass sod was excavated from
each unit to provide a clear view of the site's surface.
LithicArtifacts. Thirty-three artifacts wererecov-
ered from the collection units (density = .65 artifacts/
sq m). The largestquantity of artifacts were classified
as fire-cracked/ground stone fragments (22%), fol-
lowed by biface thinning flakes (15%), edge-modi-
fied flakes (12%), interior flakes (12%), handstones
(9%), cores (9%), secondary cortical flakes (6%),
shatter (6%), one biface (3%), one primary cortical
flake (3%), and one slab millingstone (3%) (tables 5.3
and 5.4). Obsidian (40%) was the most common raw
material, then sandstone (30%), chert (27%), and
basalt (3%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6).
Figure 5.10
Site Map of                         -.-...
CA-SON-1880
Historic Artifacts. The surface assemblage in-
cludes one white opaque glass bead. Six glass sherds
of a dark olive-green moldblown wine bottle were
recovered. Another glass vessel is represented by the
base sherd of a lightolive-green container. This sherd
is burned and exhibits evidence of retouching along
its edge. Sherds from two ceramic vessels were also
recovered. These include one sherd of a very white
porcelain, and the rim sherd of a white-bodied earth-
enware cup or bowl that exhibits evidence of burning.
Faunal Remains. Thirty mollusk MNIs were
identified at CA- SON-1880 (density = .65 MNIs/sq
m). Almost half of the mollusk individuals are black
utai snails (51%). The remainderare mussel(20%),
limpets (17%), barnacle (3%), chiton (3%), hooked
slipper shell (3%), and abalone (3%) (tables 5.7 and
5.8).
Identifiable animal bones include 1 naviculo-
cuboid, 1 mandible, and 1 astragalus of mule deer
( O docoileushenmionus) , andthesecondlower premolar
88
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
of an elk (Cervus elaphus). Also recovered in the
surface collection were 6 long bones of large mam-
mals, 2 vertebrae of large mammals, an unidentified
element of a large mammal, and the scapula of a
medium mammal. None of the skeletal elements
exhibit evidence of cut marks or burning.
Diversity Indexes. The diversity of lithics from
CA-SON-1880 is somewhat higher than expected in
a similar sized sample. The richness and J scores are
10 (seventy-second percentile) and .763 (eighty-sev-
enth percentile), respectively. The diversity of mol-
lusk remains are higher than expected for a similar
sized assemblage. The richness and J score are 7
(ninety-third percentile) and .617 (ninety-eighth per-
centile).
Chronology. Nine hydration rim measurements
were taken on obsidian artifacts from CA-SON-1880
(table 5.15). The mean of the measurements is 2.04
microns (sd= 1.46). A histogram of the measurements
indicates an outlier and two distinct clusters (figure
5.11). The outlier is 5.2 microns, suggesting an early
Middle Archaic date. The first cluster (n=3) is char-
acterized by a mean of 2.9 microns (sd=.35). The
range of one standard deviation is 2.5-3.2 microns,
pointing to an Upper Archaic and early Lower Emer-
gent date. The other cluster (n=5) has a mean of .9
micron (sd=. 1). The range of one standard deviation
is .8-1.0 microns, indicating a date near the beginning
of the Historic period. The presence of the glass bead
and worked glass artifact tends to corroborate the
latter date. The sherds from the moldblown wine
bottle may date prior to 1910 given the absence of
turnmolding. On the other hand, it may be just a
cheaper bottle produced at a later date (Purser, per-
sonal communication).
Interpretation. CA-SON-1880, a large site not far
from the Ross stockade, is composed of a diverse
assemblageofartifactsandfaunalremains. An exten-
sive use-duration, dating back to 3000 B.C., appears to
characterize thisarchaeological place. Webelieve the
few, early lithics may be part of a broader, diffuse
lithic scatter, similar to others found along the coastal
terrace (i.e., CA-SON-228, -1453, -1454/H). The
later manifestation, which composes the great bulk of
the site, may be a historic native hamlet, probably
dating to the Russian occupation of Fort Ross and
possibly into early ranch times.
CA-SON-1881
Brief History. The site was first recorded by a
U.C. Berkeley field crew in the summer of 1988. The
field number assigned to the site is B-5-1.
Location. Loca edon the uppercoastal terrace in
mixed conifer woodland, the site is about 150 m
northwest of CA-SON-1880 (figure 5.3).
Site Description. A midden deposit with consid-
erable shellfish debris and some lithic artifacts, CA-
SON-1881 covers about a 471 sq m area on a small
tributary of FortRoss Creek. The material is eroding
down the face of the creek bed.
Collection Strategy. A site datum was estab-
lished at the bottom of the creek bed from which four
1 by 2 m units were surface collected. Another
subdatum (A) was placed at the top of the low cliff
face from which four 1 by 2 m units were collected
(figure 5.12). The collection represents 2% of the
entire site area. Some materials were point
provenienced andcollectedoutsideofcollection units.
Lithic Artifacts. Only 11 lithic artifacts were
recovered from the site. These include 5 pieces of
shatter, 2 pieces of slab millingstones, 2 fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments, a core, and a secondary
cortical flake (tables 5.3 and 5.4). Sandstone (37%),
Table S.15
OBSILIAN HYDRATION DATA IOR CA-SON-1880
Lab #          Catalog #                    Source                 Hydration           Comparison Constant
(microns)             (microns)
2            B-6/8/88-1-L:I               Napa Valley                  1.4                  1.1
3            B-6/8/88-1-L:2               Annadel                No Visible Hydration
4            B-6/8/88-2-L:4               Napa Valley                  1.1                  .8
S            B-6/8/88-2-L:5               Napa Valley                  1.1                  .8
6            B-6/8188-2-L.6               Annadel                      2.7                  2.7
7            B-618/88-2-L:7               Napa Valley                   -                    -
8            B-6/8/88-3-L:1               Annadel                      2.6                  2.6
9            B-6/8/88-11-L:1              Annadel                      5.2                  5.2
10           B-6W/88-15-L:1               Konocti                      1.2                  .9
11           B-6/8/88-15:L:2              Napa Valley                  1.2                  .9
12           B-618/88-24-L:1              Napa Valley                  4.4                  3.4
13           B-6/8/88-26-L:1              Annaddel                      -                    -
89
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.11
Histogram of Obsidian
Hydration Measurements
for CA-SON-1880
9
. ,.
7
6
fA
5
0
3.
2
I.
.7     1
chert (27%), obsidian (27%), and quartz (9%) were
represented (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density
(not including those pointprovenienced) is 1 artifact/
sqm.
Historic Artifacts. None were observed.
Faunal Remains. Twenty-three mollusk MNIs
were identified for CA-SON-1881. They include
limpets (65%), mussels (13%), black turban snails
(9%), barnacles (9%), and one chiton (4%) (tables 5.7
and 5.8). The mollusk density (not including point
provenienced material) is 2.7 MNIs/sq m.
Animal bones recovered in the surface collection
include the second phalanx of a large bird and the long
bone of a large mammal. The long bone exhibits
evidence of both cut marks and burning.
DiversityIndexes. Thediversityofchipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools is lowerthan expected
for a similar sized Fort Ross assemblage. The rich-
ness and J scores are 4 (eighth percentile) and .406
(fifth percentile). The diversity of mollusk MNIs is
greater than average for a similar sized sample. The
richness andJ scores are 5 (sixty-third percentile) and
.480 (sixty-fifth percentile).
Chronology. Two obsidian hydration readings
suggest an Upper Emergent date (table 5.16). The
readings, standardized to the hydration rate of Annadel
obsidian, are 1.1 and 1.3 microns respectively.
Interpretation. The site appears to be a place
where food processing activities took place given the
high density of mollusk remains and the presence of
fire-cracked/ground stone fragments and slab
millingstones. The site may date to the Upper Emer-
.6 ....7.
6.7
gent period, although this interpretation is very tenta-
tive given the tiny sample of obsidian hydration
readings.
CA-SON-1882
Brief History. The site was recorded in the
summer of 1988 by U.C. Berkeley crews and desig-
nated in the field as the "Traci" site.
Location. CA-SON-1882 sits on the lower slope
of the first ridge in savannah grassland/mixed ever-
green forests at an elevation of 134 m (figure 5.3).
Site Description. A small discrete shell midden,
covering a 54 sq m area, the site exhibits a low density
of mollusk remains and lithic artifacts.
Collection Strategy. Nine 1 by 2 m units, repre-
senting a 33% sample of the surface area, were col-
lected from a centrally placed site datum (figure 5.13).
Lithic Artifacts. One artifact, a. fire-cracked/
ground stone fragment, was collected, resulting in a
lithic density of only .05 artifacts/sq m.
Historic Artifacts. None were observed.
FaunalRemains. Six MNIs were identified in the
shellfish assemblage collected from the site. They
include 2 mussels, 2 black turban snails, 1 chiton, and
1 barnacle. The density of mollusks is .3 MNIs/sq m.
No animal bones were recovered.
Diversity Indexes. Diversity indexes were only
calculated for the mollusk assemblage. The diversity
of mollusk MNIs is greater than expected for a similar
sizedFortRossassemblage. TherichnessandJ scores
is 4 (ninetieth percentile) and .577 (ninety-sixth per-
centile), respectively.
k 5.16
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON- 1881
Lab #              Catalog #                 Source              Hydration            Comparison Constant
(microns)                 (microns)
14                B-6/9/88-2-L:1            Napa Valley             1.4                         1.1
15                B-6/9/88-9-L:1            Borax Lake              2.1                         1.3
IIl    II I     I
2          3          4            S
HYDRATION MEASUREMENTS (hda'om)
,A .
a - . - - - - - - - - - - - . .   .     I .        . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
...li. I. .
I . 1. ., 1 . , .  1  .1
90
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Figure 5.12
Site Map of
CA-SON-1881
Chronology. No chronological data is presently
available for this site.
Interpretation. The Low-density shell deposit is
probably a small, short-term food processing loca-
tion. The age is unknown.
CA-SON-1883
Brief History. The site was first recorded by a
U.C. Berkeley survey crew in 1988 and assigned the
field number, D-3-1.
Location. CA-SON-1883 is situated on a bench
in the upper slope of the first ridge in a mixed savan-
nah grassland and evergreen forest. The site, at an
elevation of 268 m above sea level, is the highest yet
recorded in the Fort Ross State Historic Park. It
affords a spectacular view of the coastline and coastal
terrace below. A pemanent spring is located 154 m
southwest of the site.
Site Description. CA-SON-1883, a very exten-
sive elliptical-shaped artifact scatter covering 8247 sq
m, is characterized by iwo spatial components (figure
5.14). The first is a midden deposit of mollusk
remains, some lithics, and a dark, charcoal-stained
soil in the south and west sections of the site, where the
surface banks downhill. The other component is in
the upper slope of the north and east sections of the
site. It contains an extensive lithic scatter and some
burned daub. Handstones and fire-cracked/ground
stone fragments are very common here. No features
were clearly detailed, but the surface has been greatly
impacted by logging activities in the past. A skid trail
runs through the middle of the site.
Collection Strategy. Archaeological materials
were collected from about 12% of the surface area. A
collection cross of fifty-six 1 by 2 m units was laid out
from the site datum. Additional 4 by 4 m units were
collected to augment the sample of the collection
cross. Fifty-three 4 by 4 m units were collected in the
southwest, southeast, and northeast quadrants of the
site (figure 5.14). Some additional materials were
91
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.13
Site Map of
CA-SON-1882
point provenienced and collected outside the units.
Lithic Artifacts. Five hundred and seventy arti-
facts were analyzed. The majority are fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments (52%), followed by interior
flakes (9%), shatter (8%), cores (6%), edge-modified
flakes (5%), handstones (5%), biface thinning flakes
(3%), bifaces (3%), secondary cortical flakes (3%),
primary cortical flakes (2%), projectile points (1%),
hammerstones (1%), pestles (1%), and slab
millingstones (1%) (tables 5.3 and 5.4). The projec-
tile point types include 1 corner-notched point, 3
shouldered lanceolate points, and 1 large side-notched
point. A diverse range of raw materials are repre-
sented, including sandstone (55%), chert (28%), ob-
sidian (11%), basalt (3%), graywacke (1%), quartz
(1%), and schist (1%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The
density of lithic artifacts, not including those point
provenienced outside collection units, is .46 artifacts/
sqm.
Historic Artifacts. Two sherds of a moldblown,
dark olive-green alcoholic beverage bottle were re-
covered. Another sherd of flat glass, blue-green in
color, was also collected. It exhibits evidence of
concoidal wear or impact scarring.
Faunal Remains. Twenty-five MNIs were iden-
tified for the mollusk assemblage. They include
limpets (44%), mussels (24%), black turban snails
(12%), chitons (8%), one barnacle (4%), one hooked
slipper shell (4%), and one abalone (4%) (tables 5.7
and 5.8). The mollusk density is .02 MNIs/sq m.
One long bone fragment of an unidentifiable
large mammal was recovered in the surface collec-
tion. The bone exhibits evidence of burning.
Diversity Indexes. The diversity of lithic classes
at CA-SON-1883 is greater than expected for a Fort
Ross assemblage of this size. The richness and J
scores are 15 (fifty-sixth percentile) and .823 (ninety-
eighth percentile), respectively. The diversity of
mollusk MNIs is much greater than expected for a
comparable sized assemblage. The richness and J
scores are 7 (ninety-ninth percentile) and .672 (100th
percentile).
92
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
N  o  1 m
N   o  15m
* DATUM
COLLECTION SQUARE
ROA
LII
12 ~   ~ i.,
!L!I /I
Lib i
:__,
Midden
.... ROAD
SITE BOUNDARY
'- COLLECTION UNIT
Figure S.14
Site Map of
CA-SON-1883
Chronology. The mean hydration measurement
for 16 obsidian artifacts is 1.52 microns (sd=.50). The
range of one standard deviation is 1.0-2.0 microns,
suggesting a date range of the Lower Emergent to the
Upper Emergent. The obsidian hydration data are
listed in table 5.17. Also, the projectile-point types
suggest a prehistoric age for the site, possibly extend-
ing back to the Upper Archaic. The historic materials
on the site are probably associated with historic log-
ging activities in the local area.
Interpretation. The location, areal size, and
diversity of artifacts and faunal remains are similar to
the ridge top "villages" described by Stewart (1943).
The site appears to be a major residential base occu-
pied in prehistoric times, probably sometime in the
Lower Emergent. While no features (i.e., "house
pits") are visible on the surface, logging activities
have greatly altered the landscape. We observed and
collected fired clay (daub) from the north section of
the site that is similar to that associated with pithouses
in the American Southwest. We believe the daub may
represent architectural materials used in the construc-
tion of subterranean structures on the site.
CA-SON-1884
Brief History. The site was first recorded in the
summer of 1988 by a U.C. Berkeley field crew. It was
designated as D-7-1 in the field.
Location. CA-SON-1884 is situated on a bench
in the mid-slope of the firstridge at an elevation of 207
m above sea level (figure 5.3). The nearby vegetation
communities include savannah grassland and mixed
evergreen forest. Apermanentspring is located on the
site.
Site Description. The site is an elliptical-shaped
areaof 3044 sq m with two spatial components (figure
5.15). A midden deposit containing shellfish refuse
and considerable numbers of fire-cacked/ground stone
fragments is distributed along the lower and southern
section of the site. The northern and upper section is
I
1I
I
F
93
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 5.17
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON-1883
Lab #             Catalog #                         Source              Hydration         Comparison Constant
(microns)              (microns)
16              D-6/888-11-L:3                      Borax Lake           3.8                      2.4
17              D-68/88-19-L:1                     Napa Valley           2.0                      1.5
18              D-6/9/88-4-L:3                     Napa Valley           3.4                      2.6
19              D-6/9/88-7-L:1                     Annadel               1.7                      1.7
20              D-69/88-9-L:1                       Napa Valley           1.5                     1.1
21              D-6/9/88-14-L 1                     Annadel               1.2                     1.2
22              D-6/10/88-1 -L:2                   Borax Lake            1.3                     .8
23              D-6/1IY88-14-L:2                    Konocti              2.5                      1.9
24              D-6/10/88-16-L:5                    Annadel               1.3                     1.3
25              D-61/(V88-17-L:1                    Konocti               1.8                     1.4
26              D-6/10/88-20-L 1                    Napa Valley          1.5                      1.1
27              D-6/13/88-2-L:1                     Borax Lake           3.2                      2.0
28              D-6/13/88-8-LI1                     Konocti              2.1                      1.6
29              D-6/14/88-7-L:7                     Napa Valley           2.3                     1.8
30              D-6/14/88-1 1-L:2                   Annadel               .9                      .9
31              D-6/14/8842-L:6                     Napa Valley          1.3                      1.0
characterized by a lithic scatter.
Collection Strategy. A collection cross contain-
ing sixty-three 1 by2 m units was laidoutfrom the site
datum. Some materials were also pointprovenienced
and collected outside the units.
Lithic Artifacts. One hundred and three artifacts
were analyzed, including a number of fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments (56%), shatter (12%), edge-
modified flakes (6%), interior flakes (6%), cores
(5%), projectile points (4%), primary cortical flakes
(3%), biface thinning flakes (2%), secondary cortical
flakes (2%), a biface (1%), a harmmerstone (1%), a
uniface (I1%), and a net weight (1%) (tables 5.3 and
5A). The projectile point types include 3 shouldered
lanceolate points and 1 corner-notched point. The
dominant raw material is sandstone (57%), followed
by chert (34%), obsidian (5%), quartz (2%), and
schist (2%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density is
.67 artifacts/sq m.
Historic Artifacts. One base fragment of an
industrial porcelain electrical insulator cylinder was
collected.
Faunal Remains. Four MNIs were identified
from themolluskassemblage. They include 1 mussel,
1 chiton, 1 limpet, and 1 barnacle. The mollusk
density is .03 MNIs/sq m.
No animal bones were recovered.
DiversityIndexes. Thediversity of chipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tool classes is somewhat
higher than expected for a similar sized assemblage.
The richness andJ scores are 11 (sixty-eighth percen-
tile) and .735 (sixty-fifth percentile), respectively.
The diversity of mollusk MNIs is higher than ex-
pected for similar, small-sized assemblages. The
richness and J scores are 4 (ninety-ninth percentile)
and .602 (ninety-ninth percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The mean hydration measurement
for three obsidian artifacts is 1.01 microns (sd=.16).
The range of one standard deviation is .8-1.2 microns,
suggesting a later Upper Emergent and Historic pe-
riod date. The obsidian hydration data are listed in
table 5.18. Theprojectilepoint types suggesta similar
or somewhat earlier date.
Interpretation. The spatial structure of CA-
SON-1884 resembles that of CA-SON-1883 with a
northern lithic scatter and a southern midden area.
While the density of both artifacts and shellfish refuse
is low, the diversity of differentclasses of materials is
relatively high, suggesting a variety of tasks were
performed at the location. The site exhibits character-
istics similar to ridge top hamlets described by Stewart
(1943). The dating is somewhatambiguous, given the
small sample of obsidian artifacts obtained. We
interpret the site as a native hamlet probably used
during the transition from the Upper Emergent to the
Historic periods.
CA-SON-1885
Brief History. The site was fist recorded in the
summer of 1988 by a U.C. Berkeley field crew. It was
94
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
/    0.'1
!
I.21W 26W  20W
/
? SUBDATUM
SPaRING
C COLECTION UNIT
TRAL SITE
SM BOUNDARY
I'
0 KM
N
\.
' .//
,, .....i
I~\      : x
12N
I'
KN.
'xW .s          :-. .
',
S'eep .''"'. es
'::',:'.".":.:':
.-,-.:2''2....::':.'.:'
26S:..-.
x.   ~..-....-.....-,v,.-:.in
:''0j  '~'''.:~'::"'''
0
designated the "Bill Walton" site, named after the
intrepid park ranger who introduced us to the site.
Location. CA-SON- 1885 is situated in the lower
slope of the first ridge in mixed savannah grassland
and evergreen forest It sits on an uplifted fault scarp
of the San Andreas Fault at an elevation of 134 m.
SiteDescription. The site is a small, oval-shaped
shell midden that covers about 919 sq m.
Collection Strategy. A 6% sample of the site was
surface collected by laying out twenty-eight 1 by 2 m
units along the four cardinal directions from the site
datum (figure 5.16). Some materials were point
proveniencedandcollectedoutsideofcollection units.
Lithic Artifacts. Twenty-three artifacts were
collected, including fire-cracked/ground stone frag-
ments (27%), secondary cortical flakes (18%), inte-
riorflakes (14%), edge-modified flakes(14%), biface
thinning flakes (9%), shatter (9%), one uniface (3%),
one projectile point (3%), and one core (3%) (tables
5.3 amd 5.4). The projectile point is classified as a
corener-notched point. The lithic raw materials in-
clude chert (52%), sandstone (26%), and obsidian
(22%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density, not
including materials point provenienced, is .05 arti-
facts/sq m.
Historic Materials. Two sherds of apolychrome
Table 5.18
OBSIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON- 1884
Lab #             Catalog                     Source                   Hydration           Comparison Constant
(microns)                 (microns)
32             D-6/15188-S15-L:1              Konocti                      1.6                      1.2
33             D-615/88-16-L:1               Napa Valley                   1.2                       .9
34             D-6/15/88-39-L:4              Borax Lake                    1.4                       .9
35             D-6S15/88-41-L:1              Napa Valley                   -
95
Figure 5.15
Site Map of
CA-SON-1884
96
Figure S.16
Site Map of
CA-SON-1885
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
pearlware cup were recovered. The base sherds
exhibit a flaring footring, are very white in body and
very porous. The clear lead glaze is puddled and
crazed. Adarkgreenfloralmotifpattern ishandpainted
on the interior surface, while a red foliate pattern is
painted on the exterior.
FaunalRemains. Ten mollusk MNIs were iden-
tified including 3 mussels, 2 chitons, 1 barnacle, 1
limpet, 1 dogwinkle, 1 turban snail, and 1 periwinkle
(tables 5.7 and 5.8). Themolluskdensity is .16 MNIs/
sq m. No animal bones were recovered.
DiversityIndexes. The diversity ofchipped stone
artifact and ground stone tool classes is aboutaverage
for an assemblage of this size. The richness and J
scores are 7 (forty-fourth percentile) and .650 (fifty-
seventh percentile), respectively. The diversity of
mollusk MNIs is much higher than expected for a
similar sized assemblage. The richness and J scores
are 7 (100th percentile) and .800 (1I00th percentile),
respectively.
Chronology. The five obsidian hydration read-
ings average 1.82 microns (sd=.40). The range of one
standard deviation is 1.4-2.2 microns, suggesting a
Lower Emergent to early Upper Emergent date. The
obsidian hydration data are listed in table 5.19. The
corner-notched point supports the late prehistoric
date. Pearlware ceramics were introduced in the mid-
1760s, but continued to be produced through the
middle and later nineteenth century.
Interpretation. The sit appears to be a small
camp used for processing local resources such as
shellfish. The midden deposit appears to have been
produced in late prehistoric times.
CA-SON-1886/H
BriefHistory. The sitewas firstrecordedby U.C.
Berkeleyarchaeologists in thesummerof 1989. In the
field the site was designated as the "Chapel 2" site.
Location. This site is located 50 m due east of the
reconstructed Fort Ross chapel. CA-SON-1886/H is
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.19
OBSIDiAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON-1885
Lab #              Catalog #           Source                    Hydration         Comparison Contamnt
(microns)             (microns)
76            C-6/688-48-L:l         Napa Valley                   3.3                    2.5
77            C-6/6/88-48-L:2        Naps Valley                   2.2                    1.7
102           C-6/S8-35-L:6           Napa Valley                   1.9                    1.5
103           C-6/88-35-L:7           Napa Valley                   2.6                    2.0
104           C-6//88-35-L:8          Borax Lake                    2.2                    1.4
on a small shelf overlooking Fort Ross Creek about
halfway down the steep embankment on which the
stockade sits. The site extends across the entire shelf
(10 by 12 m).
Site Description. CA-SON-1886/H is an ellipti-
cal-shalped midden about 94 sq m in size. The compact
site is characterized by dense concentrations of shell,
many lithic artifacts, and very dark, charcoal-stained
soil. No surface features were observed.
Collection Strategy. A 23% sample of the total
surface area was collected. Eleven 1 by 2 m units were
laid out in a collection cross (figure 5.17).
Lithic Artifacts. From the eleven units, 217 lithic
artifacts were identified yielding a density of 9.86
artifacts/sq m. The major lithic classes include fire-
cracked/ground stone fragments (57%), interior flakes
(14%), edge-modified flakes (11%), handstones (7%),
secondary cortical flakes (4%), primary cortical flakes
(2%), cores (2%), battered cobbles (2%), and projectile
points (1%) (tables 5.3 and 5.4). The projectile point
types includeacorner-notchedpointandan undiagnostic
triangular point. A diverse range of raw materials is
represented, including sandstone (57%), chert (30%),
basalt (6%), obsidian (3%), graywacke (2%), schist
(1%), and quartz (1%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6).
Shell Bead. One clam disk bead was recovered.
Historic Artfacts. Sherds from four glass vessels
were collected. One is a fragment of flat glass that is
colorless, patinated, and probably from a window pane.
The second is colorless moldblown glass container.
The third is an olive-green moldblown glass container.
The fourth is burned glass that could not be identified.
The fragments of three ceramic vessels were collected.
One is the body sherd of a white-bodied creamware
vessel that is soft and chalky in texture. The surface
exhibits a clear crazed glaze with no bluish or yellowish
tint. The second vessel is representedby the body sherd
of a buff-colored creamware with a yellowish (clear)
lead glaze. The third vessel is represented by a white
creamware sherd. None of the ceramic vessel forms
can be identified.
FaunalRemains. Seven hundred and twenty-three
MNIs were counted for the mollusk assemblage. The
majority (74%) are limpets (n=537). The others are
black turban snails (13%), mussels (4%), dogwinkles
(2%), chitons (2%), barnacles (2%), Olivella (1%),
and hooked slipper shells (1%). About 1% of the
mollusks are land snails. Also, abalone is piesent
(tables 5.7 and 5.8). The mollusk density is 32.86
MNIs/sq m.
Twenty-eight mammal bones and teeth were
recovered in the surface collection. Mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) skeletal elements (a third
lower molar, an astragalus, a metarpal, two hu-
meri, a naviculo-cuboid, and a fibula) are the most
common. The mule deer humeri are both fiom the
left side of the body, signifying that at least two
individuals are represented in the surface assem-
blage. Other identifiable mammal elements include
the mandible of a rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmanr), the
third phalanx of a cow (Bos taurus), the radius of a
sea otter (Enhydra lutris), the metacarpal of a sheep
(Ovis aries), the radius of a harbor seal (Phoca
vitulina),the tarsal oftheCaliforniasealion(Zaophus
californianus), and the ilium of a gopher (Thomomys
bottae). Other skeletal elements that could not be
identified as belonging to a specific species include
thirteen long bones and a cranium of large-sized
mammals. Of the bone elements, only one humeri of
the mule deer exhibited evidence of cut marks.
Evidence of burning was observed on the radius of
the sea otter and three of the long bones from large-
sized mammals.
Diversity Indexes. The assemblage of chipped
stone artifacts and ground stone tools is much less
diverse than expected for a similar sized sample.
The richness and J scores are 11 (eleventh percen-
tile) and .658 (0 percentile), respectively. The mol-
lusk assemblage is also much less diverse than
expected for similar sized sample. The richness and
J scores are 9 (fifteenth percentile) and .395 (0
percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The average hydration measure-
mentof 5 obsidian artifacts is 1.44 microns (sd=.39).
The range of one standard deviation is 1.0-1.8 mi-
crons, suggesting a late Lower Emergent to late
Upper Emergent date. TheM obsidian hydration data
are presented in table 5.20. The corner-notched
point tends to coroborate the results of the obsidian
hydration analysis. The thin, patinated "window"
97
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.17
Site Map of
CA-SON-1886/H
Table 5.20
OBSsmAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON-1886/H
Lab #              Catalog#               Source                   Hydration         Comparison Constant
(microns)             (microns)
93               L-6/2/89-3-L:9            Konocti                No Visible Hydration
94               L-6/5/89-6-L:2            Borax Lake                 1.7                    1.0
95               L-6/5/89-6-L:3           Annaddel                    1.3                    1.3
96               L-6/5/89-6-L:3            Napa Valley               2.6                     2.0
97               L-6/5/89-13-L:1             ?                        1.8                    -
98               L-6/5/89-13-L:1          Borax Lake                  1.8                    1.1
99               L-6/5/89-13-L:2          Annadel                     1.8                    1.8
glass looks early. Purser (personal communication)
estimates a date of sometime between the 1860s to
1880s. The moldblown bottle glass indicates a pre-
1910s manufacture.
Interpretation. CA-SON-18861H exhibits the
highest density of lithics and mollusk remains of the
survey sites examined. On the other hand, the assem-
blages are relatively limited in the kinds of materials
present. Many fire-cracked/ground stone fragments
are present, presumably from cooking activities. The
low diversity indexes calculated for the chipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools reflect the relatively
large number of interior flakes and edge-modified
flakes. The low diversity indexes for the mollusk
remains correspond to the great concentration of
limpets on the site. The site exhibits the greatest
diversity of mammal remains from any of the survey
sites that we surface collected, including domesti-
cated species (cow and sheep), terrestrial game (mule
deer) and sea mammals (California sea lion, harbor
98
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
seal, and sea otter). We believe that this archaeologi-
cal place has experienced a complex occupational
history that spans much of the Upper Emergent and
Historic periods, most probably during the Russian
occupation of the Ross Colony, or even in early Ranch
times. At certain times it may have been a special
purpose processing locus, at other times it may have
functionedasa smallresidentialbase. John McKenzie,
based on his interviews with the Call family, identi-
fied the site as the residence of the last Pomo family
(Lucari and Mary) at Fort Ross in the early 1900s
(McKenzie 1963:1-2).
CA-SON-1887
Brief History. The site was first recorded by a
U.C. Berkeley crew in the summer of 1989. The site
was assigned the field number, E-2-1.
Location. CA-SON-1887 sits on the coastal
terace in coastal prairie grassland (figure 5.3).
SiteDescription. The siteconsistsoftwocupules
pecked into the surface of a small sandstone outcrop
boulder (figure 5.18). One cupule is 8 cm in diameter
0              6m
and 5 cm deep; the other measures 7 cm in diameter
and 2 cm deep. No artifacts were observed in the
nearby vicinity.
Interpretation. The site is a cupule rock located
on the coastal terrace with a good view of the ocean.
The age of the site is unknown.
CA-SON-1888
Brief History. The site was fist recorded in the
summer of 1989. It was designated as E-6-1 in the
fiekL
Location. CA-SON-1888 sits on the coastal
terace in coastal prairie grassland (figure 5.3). The
site is on a low rise overlooking Clam Beach Creek.
SiteDescription. An elliptical-shaped shell mid-
den, the site covers about an 85 sq m area
Collection Strategy. A 26% sample of the site's
surface areawascollected. Eleven I by2 munits were
laid out in a collection cross (figure 5.19).
Lithic Artifacts. Twenty-three lithic artifacts
were analyzed. They include interior flakes (35%),
Figure S.18
Map of Cupukle Rock
at CA-SON-1887
~~31 m                       --
3,I
/   /AND.;TON  ROI)iI
~SANDSTONE BOULDER\
-  FENCE
A  SURFACE MODIFICATION
*    CUPULE HOLES
N
-1-                             4w%"WAAffwAM
-
a
I
99
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Chert
Concentration
- -....         -2N
I
{
I
I ,-,~
4'
2w/
Charcoal
Concentration
*   DATUM         .
STREAM       '
SITE BOUNDARY
N
2m
4S 1
6S
IE
I
i
i
I
I'
II
II
/.
I
!
/
/
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
edge-modified flakes (22%), biface thinning flakes
(22%), secondary cortical flakes (13%), and fire-
cracked/ground stone fragments (8%) (tables 5.3 and
5.4). The majority are manufactured from chert
(65%). Other raw materials include obsidian (26%)
and sandstone (9%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic
density is 1.04 artifact/sq m.
Historical Materials. None were observed.
Faunal Remains. Forty-seven MNIs were iden-
tified in the mollusk assemblage. They include lim-
pets (36%), black turban snails (26%), mussels (17%),
chitons (15%), a periwinkle (2%), a horned slipper
shell (2%), and a barnacle (2%) (tables 5.7 and 5.8).
The mollusk density is 2.14 MNIs/sq m.
Animal bones (n=--4) collected from the surface
couldbe identified only as large-sizedmammals. The
skeletal elements include a vertebra, a long bone, a
scapula, and a nib. None of the elements exhibit
evidence of cut marks; only one is burned.
DiversityIndexes. Thechippedstoneartifactand
ground stone tool classes on CA-SON-1888 are much
less diverse than expected for a similar sized survey
assemblage. The richness and J scores are 4 (0
percentile) and A70 (first percentile), respectively.
On the other hand, the mollusk assemblage is more
diverse than expected for a similar sized sample. The
richness and J scores are 7 (seventy-ninth percentile)
and .67 (100th percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The average of three obsidian hy-
dration readings is 1.4 microns (sd=. 14). The range of
100
Figure 5.19
Site Map of
CA-SON-1888
l.
./
/
/1
/1
I!
6W
4W
0
I
ff                                                   I                                                   I
m
0 - -                   I
-1
4N 1-
2S i
r7 '.."
i
/
/I
/i
/I
/I
/i
/I
/I
/i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Table 5.21
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON-1888
Lab #                  Catalog #             Source                    Hydration            Comparison Constant
(microns)                   (microns)
37                  E-6/7/89-8-L:1            Annadel                    1.5                         15
38                  E-6/7/89-8-L:1            Annadel                    1.5                         15
39                  E-6/7/89-10-L:2           Napa Valley                1.6                         1.2
one standard deviation is 1.3-1.5 microns, suggesting
anUpperEmergentdate. Theobsidian hydration data
are presented in table 5.21.
Interpretation. This small site appears to have
been characterized by a limited range of activities
involving theexploitation of coastal resources such as
shellfish. It seems to have been used primarily in the
Upper Emergent.
CA-SON-1889
BriefHistory. The site was furst recorded in the
summerof 1989 by a U.C. Berkeley survey crew. The
site was designated as I-2-1 in the field,
Location. CA-SON-1889 sits on the exposed
coastal terrace in coastal prairie grassland (figure
5.3). The site is on the lee side of a rock outcrop
(sandstone stack).
SiteDescription. An elliptical shaped shell mid-
den measuring 189 sq m, the site is borderedon the
north by a large rock outcrop and on the south by a
small drainage (figure 5.20). A relatively dense
concentration of shell and some lithic artifacts are
dispersed across the surface.
Collection Strategy. Four 1 by 2 m units were
laid out in a collection cross, representing about a 4%
sampleof the site'ssurfacearea. Othermaterials were
point provenienced and collected outside the collec-
tion units.
Lithic Artifacts. Eighteen lithic artifacts were
analyzed. These include edge-modifiedflakes(29%),
fire-cracked/ground stone fragments (29%), interior
flakes (12%), one biface (5%), one biface thinning
flake (5%), one core (5%), one handstone (5%), one
pestle (5%), and one uniface (5%) (tables 5.3 and 5.4).
The raw matrial     pes include sandstone (39%),
chert (33%), and obsidian (28%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6).
The lithic density is .37 artifacts/sq m.
Historical Materials. None were observed.
Faunal Remains. Thirty-two MNIs were identi-
fied for the mollusk assemblage. They include lim-
pets (66%), black turban snails (19%), mussels (9%),
a chiton (3%), and a barnacle (3%) (tables 5.7 and
5.8). The mollusk density is 2.37 MNls/sq m.
No animal bones were recovered in the surface
collection.
DiversityIndexes. Thediversityofchippedstone
artifacts and ground stone tools is somewhat higher
than expected for a similar sized assemblage. The
richness and J scores are 8 (eightieth percentile) and
.649 (fifty-ninth percentile), respectively. The diver-
sity of the mollusk assemblage is somewhat less than
expected for a comparable sample size. The richness
and J scores are 5 (thirty-eighth percentile) and .447
(fortieth percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The mean of four obsidian hydra-
tion readings is 1.9 microns (sd=.75). The obsidian
hydration data is presented in table 5.22. A histogram
indicates that the 3.2 microns measurement is clearly
an outlier (figure 521). Without this outlier the mean
of the measurements is 1.5 microns (sd=.05). The
range of one standard deviation is 1.4 to 1.5 microns.
The results suggest a long use-duration for CA-SON-
1888 beginning as early as the late Upper Archaic.
The major use of this site probably took place in the
Upper Emergent.
5.22
OBSnXAN HYDRAnON DATA iR CA-SON-1889
Lab #            Catalog #                 Source                    Hydration        Cmparison Constant
(micronas)            (microns)
40            I-68/89-1-L:1              Napa Valley                  2.0                    1.5
41            I-6J/89-3-L                Konocti                       -                      -
42            I-6/889-8-L:1               Borax Lake                  5.1                    3.2
43            I-68/89-8-L2               Napa Valley                   1.8                   1.4
44            I-6/89-1 1-L:2             Konocti                       1.9                   1.5
101
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.20 Site Map of CA-SON-1889
IA
9'
7'
6'
S'
4,
3-
z
cA4
ZO
A
2.
I-
-,,,.7,,,............................................
.7 I  I      2        3         4 S
HYDRATION MEASUREMENTS (microns)
Figure 5.21 Histogram of Obsidian Hydration Measurements for CA-SON-1889
102
* DATUM
COLLECTION UNIT
STREAM
SITE BOUNDARY
N0                                 S
,I                  I
SI        TT P9-------9.....
r y
I         I                                                                                                                                                I
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Interpretation. The relatively diverse range of
artifacts and shellfish types at CA-SON- 1889 suggest
it may have served as a residential base for a small
group of people exploiting maritime resources. The
processing and cooking of both shellfish and veg-
etableproductsprobablyoccurredhere. Thearchaeo-
logical place may have an extended use-duration, but
the shell midden appears to date primarily to the
Upper Emergent.
CA-SON-1890
Brief History. The site was first recorded by
a U.C. Berkeley survey crew in the summer of 1989.
It was assigned the field number, K-4-1.
Location. CA-SON-1890 is situated on the
lower slope of the first ridge in a mixed evergreen
forest (figure 5.3).
Site Description. The site consists of an
elliptical midden area (871 sq m) characterized by
black organic soil, shellfish debris, and lithics. Thick
grass precludes a clear view of the surface.
Collection Strategy. Given the thick grass
cover, only one 1 by 2 m unit was collected, about a
.02% sample of the surface. The sod was removed to
obtain a clear view of the surface. Other materials,
brought to the surface by rodents, were point
provenienced and collected outside the unit.
Lithic Artifacts. Nine arifacts were identified,
including shatter(34%),biface thinningflakes(22%),
aprojectilepoint (1 1%),anedge-modifiedflake ( 1%),
an interiorflake (11%), and a secondary cortical flake
(11%) (tables 5.3 and SA). The projectile point is
classified as a shouldered lanceolate point. Raw
materials include chert (67%) and obsidian (33%)
(tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density for the collec-
tion unit is 3 artifact/sq m;
Historical Artifacts. None were observed.
Faunal Remains. Six MNIs were identified,
including 3 mussels, one barnacle, 1 chiton, and 1
turban snail. The mollusk density is 3 MNIs/sq m.
Animalbones(n=5) includethescapulaof a mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus), the molar of a sheep
(Ovis aries), and three long bones of large-sized
mammals. None exhibitevidence of cutmarks, while
two of the long bones are burned.
DiversityIndexes. The diversity of chipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools is above'average for
an assemblage of this size. The richness andJ scores
are 6 (sixty-third percentile and .592 (fifty-ninth per-
centile), respectively. Thediversity of mollusk MNIs
is also above average. The richness and J scores are 4
(ninety-secondpercentile) and .540(eighty-ninthper-
cendtile).
Chronology. The mean of two hydration mea-
suements is 1.97 microns (sd=.87), tentatively indi-
cating a date sometime in the late Upper Archaic to
UpperEmergent (table 5.23). The shoulderedlanceo-
late projectile point also suggests a similar range of
time.
Interpretation. CA-SON-1890 appears to be
another small midden deposit where a moderate range
of activities took place sometime during late prehis-
toric times. Given the very small surface area col-
lected, it is difficult to say much about the site at this
time.
CA-SON-1891H
Brief History. John McKenzie, retired curator/
ranger, first pointed out the location of the site to us in
1988. The site was first recorded by a U.C. Berkeley
crew in the summer of 1989. It was assigned the field
number, L-l-1.
Location. CA-SON-1891H sits on the eastern
side of Fort Ross Cove (figure 5.3).
Site Description. The site consists of a 20 by 26
m rectangular, smoothed dirt platform (figure 5.22).
Some metal artifacts are scattered in the local vicinity.
Collection Strategy. The few artifacts visible on
the surface were point. provenienced and collected.
Lithic Artifacts. One edge-modified flake was
collected.
Historical Artifacts. A square nail, nail frag-
ments, and unidentified metal fragments were col-
lected.
Faunal Remains. None were observed.
Interpretation. The siteappears to be the founda-
ble 5.23
OIsns      H   ,YDRAON DATA FOR CA-SON-1890
Lab #           Calog #              Source                    Hydration               Co      son Conant
(ericlrs)                      (microns)
45            K-6/14/89-1-L          Borax Lake                    4.6                          2.8
46            K-65IS/89-2-L:1        Annadel                       1.1                           1.1
103
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Fgure 522
Site Map of
CA-SON-1891/H
.!
/
/'
./
s
/-
//
//
./
/!
~/
le
~/
4~..
.!
A~s
as
A.
4..
4   ..
'so
/        ro
X       A./'
*4.  /
\ .  ./
%  .!
% .
*   DATUM
.....  SITE BOUNDARY
N
0                   3m
tion of a potato "warehouse" constructed sometime
during the early to mid-nineteenth century. The 1859
plat map of the Muniz Rancho clearly marks the site
as a "potato warehouse" (Matthewson 1859). The
1876 U.S. Coast Survey map of the region, on file in
the Bancroft Library, shows a structure on the site.
The storage structure was probably used by William
Benitz in the 1840s or 1850s.
CA-SON-1892
BriefHistory. The site was first recorded in 1989
by a U.C. Berkeley survey crew. The site was desig-
nated in the field as L-8-1.
Location. The site is on a small bench at the
base of a drainage that dissects the coastal terrace
near CA-SON-1455 in the Fort Ross Campground
(figure 5.3).
Site Description. CA-SON-1892 is a shell mid-
den buried under about one m of overburden. The site,
exposed in the cut of the campground road, consists of
a 20-40 cm thick deposit of dark soil, shellfish refuse
and some lithics. The road exposes a 12 m long slice
of the midden (figure 5.23). We estimate that the size
of the midden is roughly 120 sq m.
Collection Strategy. Six 1 by 2 m collection
"profiles" were set up along the 12 m road cut.
Materials were collected from the surface of these
profile units. Materials were also collected from the
base of the profile where they had eroded out of the
wall.
Lithic Artifacts. We identified 15 artifacts, in-
cluding fire-cracked/ground stone fragments (41%),
pieces of shatter (12%), edge-modified flakes (12%),
a battered cobble (7%), a biface thinning flake (7%),
a hammerstone (7%), an interior flake (7%), and a
secondarycortical flake (7%) (tables 5.3 and 5A). The
majority were produced from local sandstone (47%),
followed by chert (33%), obsidian (13%), and gray-
wacke (7%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6). The lithic density for
only the surface profiles is .92 artifacts/sq m.
Shell Bead. A clam disk bead was collected.
104
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
Historical Materials. None were observed.
Fawunal Remains. Eighty-three MNIs were iden-
tified from CA-SON-1892. The largest numbers are
limpets (54%), followed by mussels (27%), black
tuban snails (15%), chitons (3%), and one barnacle
(1%) (tables 5.7 and 5.8). The mollusk density for
only the surface profiles is 6.9 MNIs/sq m.
No animal bones were recovered in the surface
collection.
DiversityIndexes. The diversity ofchipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools is higher than ex-
pected for an assemblage of this size. The richness
and J scores are 7 (eighty-eighth percentile) and .667
(ninety-setond percentile), respectively. The diver-
sity of mollusk MNIs is somewhat less than expected.
The richness and J scores are 5 (6th percentile) and
.494 (fifty-fourth percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The hydration readings for two
artifacts of Annadel obsidian are 1.2 and 1.4 microns
(table 5.24), suggesting an Upper Emergent date.
Interpretation. The site, similar to CA-SON-
1888, appeas tobe a smallcoastalcamporresidential
base where a moderate range of activities took place
in late prehistoric times.
of the Fort Ross Road.
Site Description. CA-SON-1894 is a diffuse
lithic scatter covering about a 155 sqm area.
Collection Strategy. Artifacts were collected
along the road cut.
Lithic Artifacts. Twenty-two artifacts were col-
lectd These include pieces of shatter (28%), interior
flakes (24%), secondary cortical flakes (9%), biface
thinningflakes(9%),cores(9%),edgemodifiedflakes
(9%), a biface (4%),a fe-cracked/groundstone frag-
ment (4%), and a hopper mortar (4%) (tables 5.3 and
5.4). Theraw matils includeobsidian (45%), chert
(32%), schist (14%), and sandstone (9%) (tables 5.5
and 5.6).
Historic Artfacts. None were observed.
Faunal Remains. None were observed.
DiversityIndexes. Thediversity ofchipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools is somewhat less than
expected foran assemblage of this size. The richness
and J scores are 8 (thirty-ninth percentile) and .665
(forty-eighth percentile), respectively.
Chronology. Five obsidian artifacts (table 525)
produceda mean hydration rim width of 1.58 microns
(sd=.67). The range of one standard deviation is .9 to
Tablek S.24
OBSSUwN HYRAnoN DATA lm0 CA-SON- 1892
Lab               Catalog#                Source           Hydratin         Compoiso Constant
(microns)             (microns)
47               L-628/89-6-L2           Annadel              12                     12
48               L-6/28/89-10-L2         Annadel              1.4                    1.4
CA-SON-1894                       2.2 microns, suggesting use sometime during the
BriefHistory. The site was first recorded in the  Lower to Upper Emergent periods.
summer of 1988 by a U.C. Berkeley fieldcrew. It was   Interpretation. CA-SON-1894 is a diffuse lithic
designatedinthefieldasLocus 4 ofCA-SON-1446H.     scatter found in the lower slope of the first ridge.
Location. The site is located on the lower slope  Lithic arifacts appear to have been deposited in both
of the first ridge near the Old Russian Orchard in  late prehistoric and early hisaxic times near the Old
savannah grassland. The site parallels the south side  Russian Orchard.
Tablek S.25
OssnN HYmAnoN DATA FOR CA-SON-1894
Lab#              Catalog               Source           Hydration          Compaison Costant
(ms)                   (micns)
1            C-6/14/88- 2L:1          Nap Valley              1.0                  .8
2            C-6/14/88- 2L:2          Nap Valley              13                   1.0
3             C-14/88- 2L:3           Konocti                 2.2                  1.7
4             C-6/14/88- 2L;4         Borax Lake              43                   2.7
S             C-6/14/88- 2L6          Annadel                 1.7                  1.7
105
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Figure 5.23
Site Map of
CA-SON-1892
STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE
A  '  CE
0     3mP'  -.,
An- -     =-j
A  Be  C  D  E  F  G
I   - 5
x   BOUNDARIES OF PROFILE
-   COLLECTION UNIT
* DATUM
' MIDDEN
OVERBURDEN
BATHROOM
--- DIRT ROAD
N
0                 20i
CA-SON-1895/H
Brief History. The site was described by Breck
Parkman and Glenn Farris in 1984 who designated it
as Locus 2 of CA-SON-1446H. The site is also
known as the North Orchard Site. We first recorded
the site in the summer of 1988.
Location. The site is located in the lower slope
of the first ridge adjacent to the Old Russian Orchard
(figure 5.3). The local vegetation community is
mixed savannah grassland.
Site Description. CA-SON-1895/H, a midden
deposit containing primarily shell, dark soil, and
some lithics, covers a 203 sq m area.
Collection Strategy. A 16% sample of the site's
surface area was collected by laying out sixteen 1 by
2 m units in a collection cross (figure 5.24). Some
materials were also point provenienced and col-
lected outside the units.
LithicArtgfacts. Nine lithic artifacts were iden-
tified, including 4 fire-cracked/ground stone frag-
ments, 2 batteredcobbles, 1 core, 1 interiorflake, and
1 secondary cortical flake (tables 5.2 and 5.3). The
raw materials rpresented include sandstone (67%),
obsidian (22%), andchert (11%) (tables 5.5 and 5.6).
The lithic density for only the collection units is .06
artifacts/sq m.
Historic Materials. Sherds from four different
glass vessels were collected. They include 1 black,
moldblownalcbholicbeveragebottle, 1 mamelon (base)
of a dark olive-green wine bottle, 1 dark olive-green
alcoholic beverage bottle, and 1 small glass sherd that
may be worked. A ceramic sherd of a white European-
style porcelain hollowware was also recovered.
Faunal Remains. Eleven MNIs were identified,
including 3 limpets, 2 black turban snails, 2 mussels, 2
chitons, and 2 barnacles (tables 5.7 and 5.8). The
mollusk density is .34 MNIs/sq m.
Animal bones (n=3) include the vertebra of a cow
(Bostaurus), thmetacarpalof a muledeer(Odocoileus
hemionus), and a fragment of a cranium of a large
mammal. None of the bone elements exhibit evidence
of cut marks or burning.
Diversity Indexes. The diversity of chipped stone
artifacts and ground stone tools is somewhat greater
than expected for a sample this size. The richness and
J scores are 4 (fifty-ninth percentile) and .470 (fifty-
ninth percentile), respectively. The diversity of mol-
lusk MNIs is greater than expected. The richness and
106
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
I W
I
I
'x
I.
I        %.
6W    4W     2W
8N
6N
4N
i
2N
I          I          I         I
low ~ ~  lE
2S
4S
6S
8S
*  DATUM             '
COLLECTIOK)N UNIT
-----.--    COLFENCE
-........... COLLECTION UNIT
N
0                  Sm
J scores are 5 (ninety-second percentile) and .692
(ninety-ninth percentile), respectively.
Chronology. The single hydration measurement
is from the secondary cortical flake (catalog # C-6/06/
88-18-L) of Annadel obsidian. Its hydration band is
1.2 microns thick. The otherobsidian artifactfrom the
site exhibited a weathered surface whose hydration
band could not be measured. The black moldblown
beverage bottle is of a style that dates from the 1820s
to the 1880s (Purser, personal communication).
Interpretation. This midden depositappears to be
a place where cooking and food processing activities
took place. Its age is notclear. Useofitmay date from
late prehistoric to the early historic times when the
Russians established the adjacent orchard.
CA-SON-1896
Brief History. The site, first described by Breck
Parkman in September of 1984, was originallydesig-
nated as Locus 3 of CA-SON-1446H. Parkman di-
rected a crew of ten volunteers from the Santa Cruz
Archaeological Society in mapping, surface collect-
ing, and excavating a small sample ofthe site (Parkman
1990a). We decided to record it as a separate site in the
Figure 5.24
Site Map of
CA-SON-1895/H
summer of 1988. It was designated in the field as
Locus 3 or C-6-1.
Location. CA-SON-1896 sits upon a protected
hilltop overlooking CA-SON-1895 and the Old Rus-
sian Orchard site on the lower slope of the first ridge
(figure 5.3). The elevation is 171 m above sea level.
The plant community associated with the site is sa-
vannah grassland and a mixed evergreen forest. The
site is located close to a spring (Patoman 1990a).
Site Description. The archaeological deposit,
which extends over about a 400 sq m area, is charac-
terized by a dark, greasy midden containing a consid-
erable number of faunal remains, lithics, and historic
artifacts. Parkman's excavation demonstratesthatthe
site is very shallow, ranging from 8-14 cm in depth,
and rests on sterile sandstone bedrock. No features
were noted in the excavation or on the surface of the
site.
Collection Strategy. The 1984 investigation in-
volvedtheexcavation of seven 1 by 1 m units from the
surface to the underlying bedrock. All sediments
were screened through 1/8" mesh. A total ofone cubic
m of midden was excavated (Parkman 1990a). Dur-
ing our reexamination of the site in 1988, we noted
107
.1.
i
I
I
I
I F
I
. low
I
N
I
.i
I
I                       I
i
IE          3E                       i
I
I
//
108
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
some archaeological materials eroding down the
hillslope. A collection cross of 1 by 2 m units was laid
out and 19.5 units were collected (figure 5.25).
Lithic Artifacts. Sixty-six lithic artifacts were
recovered during the 1984 excavation. They include
47 flakes and pieces of debitage, 2 edge-modified
flakes, 11 fire-cracked/ground stone fragments, 2
handstones, 1 mid-section of an obsidian projectile
point, 1 chert scraper, and 1 charmstone. The projec-
tile point is serrated along the blade. The surface
collection of the site in 1988 produced only 7 fire-
cracked/ground stone fragments.
Historic Artfacts. The 1984 excavation yielded
8glassbeads (six white, I blue,and I redwith a green
center). Thrleeglass sherds (1 green, 2 colorless) were
also recovered in the excavation. No historic artifacts
were collected from the surface in 1988.
Faunal Remains. Jeanette Schulz analyzed the
shellfish remains from the excavation of CA-SON-
1896. The majority of the MNIs include limpets
(186), mussels (167), chitons (132), barnacles (71),
Figure 5.25
Site Map of
CA-SON-1896
- '  6N
4N
2N
l I   I   I  I
lOW
\
8W    6W      4W    2W
2S-
4S--
6S--
l      I
4
-           9
I E  3E  5E  7E  9E  II E
i
.'f
.J
O.J
.,
.,-
,...,.,"'
..SITE BOUNDARY
[    EXCAVATION UNIT
.                   I  .
0                    4m
* SITE DATUM
z   EXCAVATION
DATUM
i    COLLECTION UNIT
hooked slipper snails (41), and black turban snails
(39). Other mollusk species, including abalone, are
present in fewer numbers. Three clam shell disk
beads were also recovered. Animal bones, identified
by Dwight Simons, include 5 whole vertebrae of
unidentified fish species, and the metapodial of a
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).
The surface collection in 1988 yielded a total of
34 mollusk MNIs, including 11 mussels, 9 limpets, 6
chitons, 5 black turban snails, 2 barnacles, and 1
Olivella shell (tables 5.7 and 5.8). One animal bone,
the axis of a large mammal that showed evidence of
burning, was recovered in the 1988 surface collection.
Diversity Indexes. Diversity indexes were not
generated for the lithic assemblages. An examination
of the excavated materials will be undertaken in the
near future. to classify the flakes and debitage into
categories that are consistent with the other Fort Ross
sites. The survey assemblage contains no chipped
stone artifacts or ground stone tools, only fire-cracked/
ground stone fragments. Theprevious surface collec-
I           I           I
N
- - -
I
/
.I
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
tion and excavation appears to have limited the arti-
fact types found on the surface.
The mollusk assemblages from the 1984 excava-
tion and 1988 survey are characterized by similar
proportions of MNIs. Limpets, mussels, chitons,
turban snails, and barnacles dominate both assem-
blages. The diversity of the 1988 assemblage is
greater than expected for a similar sized surface
sample. The richness and J scores are 6 (seventy-
second percentile) and .684 (ninety-ninth percentile),
respectively.
Chronology. A total of 18 obsidian artifacts from
the 1984 excavation were submittedtoThomasOriger
of the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory for analysis
(table 5.26). Themean of the hydration readings is.85
microns (sd=.12). The range of one standard devia-
tion is .7-1.0 microns, suggesting a historic date for
the site. The glass trade beads strengthen this inter-
pretation.
Interpretation. Parkman (1990a) concludes that
CA-SON-1896 probably represents the remains of a
historic Kashaya Pomo household encampment. He
suggests they may have served as orchard workers for
the Russians, but does not rule out occupation during
early Ranch timesaswell. Weconcurwith Parkmnan's
interpretation.
CA-SON-1897/H
Brief History. We describe the Native Alaskan
Village in chapter 1. Suffice itto say that this isa very
large archaeological deposit (2800 sq m) south of the
. .
stockade complex where the native Alaskans resided
while at the Ross Colony. Treganza (1954:18) is the
first archaeologist to mention the site. In the summer
of 1989 field crews from U.C. Berkeley recorded,
mapped, and surface collected the site. Dr. Lewis
Somers undertook a geophysical survey of the site. A
full report of our findings will be presented in Volume
2 of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross,
California series.
For the purposes of this volume we discuss the
results of the obsidian hydration analysis of 13 arti-
facts collected from across the site's surface. The
data are presented in table 527. The mean of the
readings is 2.05 microns (sd=.93). The range of one
standard deviation is 1.1 to 3.0 microns, suggesting a
Late Archaic to Upper Emergent date. Only one
reading (.9 micron) indicates a Historic period dae.
The results suggest that a broad, diffuse prehistoric
lithic scatter underlies the village. This lithic scatter
also appears to underlie the stockade complex as
well given the hydration measurements for CA-
SON-190. Similar to CA-SON-228, CA-SON- 1453
and CA-SON-1454/H, native peoples began to use
the coastal terrace of Fort Ross at a relatively early
date and continued to reuse it sporadically until late
prehistoric times.
CA-SON-1898/H
Brief History. The Fort Ross Beach Site was
first described by Treganza (1954:18). In the sum-
mers of 1988 and 1989, U.C. Berkeley crews
ble 5.26
OBsitAN HTYDRAON DATA FOR CA-SON-1896 (from Parkman 1990a(h)
Comparison Constant
(microns)
.8
.9
.9
1.2
.7
.7
.8
.9
.8
.8
.8
1.0
.9
.8
.7
1.0
.8
Lab #
Source
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Napa Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Napa Valley
Napa Valley
Nape Valley
Nape Valley
Annaedel
Nap Valley
Nape Valley
Nape Valley
Annadel
Annadel
Nap Valley
Konocti
Annadel
Annadel
Nap Valley
Hydration
(microns)
1.0
.9
.9
1.6
.9
.9
1.0
.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.9
1.0
.9
1.0
1.0
I
109
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Table 5.27
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR CA-SON-1897/H
Catalog #
KS-6/23/89-9-L:3
KS-6/23/89-15-L:2
KS-6/23/89-33-L: I
KS-6/26/89-5-L:4
KS-6/27/89-3-L:l
KS-6/27/89-13-L:2
KS-6/27/89-30-L
KS-6/28/89-14-L
KS-6/28/89-15-L
KS-6/28/89-10-L: 1
KS-6/27/89-16-L
KS-6/26/89-4-L:l
KS-6/23/89-1-L
KS-6/1I6/89-2-L
Source
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Annaddel
Annadel
Napa Vallcy
Napa Valley
Annaddel
Annaddel
Annadel
Annadel
Annadel
Napa Valley
Annadel
mapped, profiled, and excavated portions of the site.
A full description will be presented in Volume 2 of
the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross,
California series.
DIACHRONIC CHANGES IN
SUBSISTENCE SETTrrLEMENT PATTERNS
The long-term land use patterns of native people
in the Fort Ross Study Area follow similar diachronic
trends as those observed elsewhere in the broader
region. These trends include the early use of the
coastal terrace, and the later manifestation of a well
developed subsistence-settlement system in the Up-
perEmergent. TheUpperEmergentsettlementpattern
fits many of the expectations of a central-based vil-
lage settlement model. Some archaeological places
are distinguished by complex occupational histories
in which the nature of subsistence-settlement activi-
ties changed over time. In figure 5.26 we portray our
estimates of the age and relative use-durations of
survey sites using current data on obsidian hydration
measurements, projectile point types, historic arti-
facts, and historic maps.
Early Lithic Scatters
Archaeological evidence to date indicates that
the earliest human activities in the study area took
place along the coastal terrace. Similar to the early.
settlement pattern described by Pritchard (1970), and
Bramlette and Dowdall (1989) for Salt Point State
Park, the earliest dated sites are coastal lithic scatters.
Hydration
(microns)
4.2
1.9
2.8
1.7
1.2
4.5
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.1
2.2
1.2
1.2
Comparison Constant
(microns)
4.2
1.9
2.8
1.7
1.2
3.5
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.1
2.2
.9
1.2
In the Fort Ross area, these scatters (CA-SON-228, -
1453, -1454/H) tend to be broadly dispersed,
low-density manifestations that contain a low diver-
sity of lithic artifact classes. Interior flakes, biface
thinning flakes, edge-modified flakes, shatter, and
cores compose the bulk of the assemblages. Biface
fragments are present in low numbers. At both CA-
SON-1453 and 1454/H some ground stone tools and
battered schist cobbles are also present.
The obsidian hydration analysis suggests that
sporadic human use of the coastal terrace may have
begun as early as 8000 to 6000 years ago. However,
most data indicate the lithic scatters date primarily to
the Upper Archaic and Lower Emergent (figure 5.26).
The long use-durations of the sites coincide with
significant changes taking place in the coastal mor-
phology of the Fort Ross area due to post-Pleistocene
sea level rise, coastal erosion and tectonic move-
ments. The coastline was about 5 km west of its
present location about 10,000 years ago (chapter 3).
The early use of the coastal shelf occurred when sea
level rise and coastal erosion were rapidly inundating
the exposed continental shelf. The brisk rate of
eustatic rise continued until about 7000 years ago.
Subsequently, the present shoreline began to take
shape, probably sometime in the Middle and Upper
Archaic periods.
It is not clear what specific kinds of activities
produced the lithic scatters. Nonetheless, we believe
the entire coastal terrace can be characterized as an
extensive, non-site manifestation (Thomas 1975). That
is, a very broad, diffuse distribution of lithics appears
to extend along the entire terrace. This early
Lab #
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
110
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
-  ..                   ........ i  i  . -
_  i   m. .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 r ~
, ,    , le; I I I
- C'4  ('4  ('4
..4 ,  ,Ci , .
vi  ,i ,i , 0
I1
.   . L .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .
C-,7
UAU
c           U6
C         -
-        ,.-r.!I,
I
V.
a
.3C
I  1
6.
.9
0
11
8
U.
ci
I  ,
C-
.C  a.        I
S.LOt.I 1.    U         a ~     a
v.       'C%.1%
olmommmmiWomm
IIi
I    ?-~
a S
0 i   .
Igo
0
W
I;
I-
A
112
acidic soils of the Fort Ross region? The question is
impossible to answer at this time. On one hand, this
region may have been only used sporadically at an
early date by interior based hunter-gatherer groups
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
manifestation appears to underlie many of the settle-
ments thatwere later established on the coastal terrace.
For example, the Ross garrison (CA-SON-190) and
the Native Alaskan Village (CA-SON-1897/H) are
built upon an earlier lithic scatter that covers the
coastal bluff overlooking the Fort Ross Cove. The
bluff may have been used by native peoples as early
as the Middle Archaic period. Other settlements on
the coastal terrace that we suspect are placed upon
earlier lithic scatters include the historic villages at
CA-SON-174 and 1880, and the coastal camp at CA-
SON-1889.
Non-site manifestations are often produced from
foraging and hunting ventures over an extensive re-
sourcezonein which varioustoolsarelostordiscarded.
Simons, Layton, and Knudson (1985:266) suggest
that the earliest use of the coastal terrace in central
Mendocino County, dating back to 11000 B.P., in-
volved the hunting of terrestrial mammals. The
patchy, coniferous forest may have been an ideal
habitat for Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus) which
would have attracted hunters to the region. The lithic
scatters in the Fort Ross area may have resulted from
a similar hunting pattern, as well as the exploitation of
other available plant and animal resources. The
ground stone implements and battered colbles dis-
tributed across some scatters indicate that some raw
materials, not yet identified in archaeological con-
texts, werebeingprocessedbymashingand grounding.
The current data do not suggest that the lithic
scatters were a product of an early economy focused
on maritime adaptations. The first unambiguous
evidence of the exploitation of marine resources in the
study area is quite late. The earliest dated shell
midden is CA-SON-1885, a small processing station
that may date to the middle Lower Emergent, about
1000 years ago (figure 5.26). A similar diachronic
trend is described for Salt Point by Pritchard (1970)
and Bramlette and Dowdall (1989). Bramlette and
Fredrickson (1990) estimates that the earliest shell
middens in Salt Point date to 2000-3000 years ago.
However, Bramlette and Dowdall (1989) caution that
early remains of a coastal economy (shellfish refuse,
fish bones) may not have been preserved in the acidic
soil of the coastal strip.
The late date of marine resources in archaeologi-
cal deposits raises the age-old question of coastal
archaeology. Is the paucity of early shell middens an
accurate reflection of the late florescence of coastal
adaptations in the region? Or is it the result of coastal
sites being destroyed by rapid eustatic rise in the early
Holocene, coastal erosion in the later Holocene, or the
whoproducedtheextensivelithicmanifestationsalong
the coastal terrace. On the other hand, it is possible
that earlier coastal settlements were once established
several kilometers seaward of the present coastline in
the early and mid-Holocene. Theearly lithici manifes-
tations that we observe today adjacent to the coast
may have been deposited inland on a broad terrace
that served as the interior hinterland of the coastal
sites. Here coastal based hunter-gatherers may have
exploited nearby terrestrial resources such as deer,
elk, and seeds.
While purely conjectural at this time, the latter
scenario is motivated largely by the recent excavation
of the Duncan's Lading site (CA-SON-348) a short
distance south of the Russian River (Schwaderer,
Ferneau, and Paranan 1990). Here a stratified ar-
chaeologi cal deposit, a ee-meter-thickmiddenladen
with shellfish debris and animal bones, is situated in
a protected, rock overhang. The lower levels are
dominated by clams and oysters, while the upper
levels contain mostly mussels. The changes in mol-
lusk frequencies probably reflect sea level rise and the
transformation of nearby coastal landforms from xpro-
tected sand beaches and estuarine areas to rocky
intertidal habitats. Radiocarbon dates from the lower
levels (240 cm below surface) of the deposit suggest
that marine resources were being extensively col-
lectedas early as 8200 B.P. (Schwaderer, Femeau, and
Parkmnan 1990). Given the unique characteristics of
the rock shelter, early hunter-gatherers may have
made an extra effort to transport marine resources a
few akm inland to the protected location.
Central-Based Villages
Current evidence suggests that intensive occupa-
tion of the study area did not begin until the end of the
Lower Emergent and the beginning of the Upper
Emergent (figure 5.26). We note, however, that the
coastal terrace and lower slope of the first ridge were
probably never as intensively used by native peoples
as the coastal strip of nearby Salt Point. The density
of native sites at Salt Point (31 per sq kIn) is hree
times thatof the FortRoss State Historic Park (9.6 per
sq kIn). The more expansive coastal terrace at Salt
Point is distinguished by many more shell middens
and lithic scatters.
By the Upper Emergent period, a relatively
complex settlement pattern developed in the study
area that supports some aspects of the central-based
village model. We identify two sites, CA-SON-1883
and CA-SON-1884, in the Fort Ross State Historic
Park that correspond in many ways to the ridge top
"villages" recorded by Stewart (1943). Both sites are
large (8247 sq m and 3044 sq m, respectively), con-
tain a diverse range of artifact types and shellfish
MNIs, and are spaially organized into discrete
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
midden deposits and broad lithic scatters. Both sites
are distinguished by relatively large numbers of fire-
cracked/ground stone fragments. While no surface
architectural features were observed, fired daub at
CA-SON- 1883 suggests the presence of subterranean
structures. The kinds of activities that appear to have
taken place on the sites include cooking, lithic manu-
facture,plantandanimalfoodprocessing,andvarious
domestic chores. The age of CA-SON-1883 is some-
what earlier, initially dating to the late LowerEmergent
and persisting through most of the Upper Emergent.
The earliest occupation of CA-SON-1884 may over-
lap the other village and then extend into early historic
times (figure 5.26). However, we recognize that the
small sample of obsidian hydration measurements
from CA-SON-1884 may be a limiting factor in
interpreting the full use-duration of this archaeologi-
cal place.
We observed similar ridge top sites in the sum-
mer of 1988 southeast of the Fort Ross Study Area.
The sites are located on private pnpery on the very
upper slope of Campmeeting Ridge. At the owner's
request, we can not divulge the location of the sites.
One site (the Alex site) we recorded, mapped, and
surface collected. The other site (the Patch site) was
only briefly visited. Both sites are located about 425
m above sea level, near freshwater springs, and com-
mand good views of the ocean below. We observed
two spatial components on each site consisting of a
discrete midden deposit of faunal remains and a
broader lithic scatter. The Patch site contains a large
surface feature 18-20 m in diameter that is centrally
located with respect to three or four other smaller
surface depressions. We submitted obsidian artifacts
from the Alex site to the Obsidian Hydration Labora-
tory, SonomaStateUniversity. Themean of the seven
hydration readings is 1.37 microns (sd=.33). The
range of one standard deviation is 1.-1.7 microns,
suggesting a late Lower Emergent and Upper Emer-
gent occupation (table 5.28).
The spatial distribution of "village" sites (CA-
SON-176, -177,-178,-179,-231,-999,-1883,-1884, the
Alex site, the Patch site) suggests they are centered
along thecoastal-facing slopeandtopof the first ridge
(Campmeeting Ridge), although at least one (CA-
SON-999) is found on the slope of the second ridge
(Creighton Ridge) near a tributary of the South Fork
of the Gualala River. AU but one (CA-SON-231) are
located in higher elevations above the cool fog and
wind belt that marks the microclimate of the coastal
terrace throughout much of the year. Most sites we
recordedorvisitedarelocatednear freshwatersprings,
and they usually afford a spectacular view of the
coastline below. Three of the sites (CA-SON-1883,
CA-SON-1884, and the Alex site) appear to be rela-
tively contemnporaneous, dating primarilytotheUpper
nEmergent. The age of the other sites remains un-
known. Whether these sites were used year-round or
for only a portion of the year is not yet understood.
The village sites are dispersed relatively evenly
along the fust ridge system, about .5 to 2.5 km apart
(figure 5.3). It is not yet possible to evaluate whether
a settlement hierarchy exists of large sites with non-
domestic architectural features (i.e., assembly houses)
and smaller hamlets that lack such features. A full
study of all the ridge top and ridge slope villages will
first need to be undertaken to better estimate the size,
surface features, and constituents of the sites. There
is evidence, however, of substantial differences in the
sizes of sites, especially when one considers the
possibility that some small residential bases were
being occupied during some part of the annual round
on the coastal terrace and lower slope of the fuirst ridge,
as discussed below.
The ridge top and ridge slope village sites are
ideally located to take advantage of both coastal and
interior hinterland resources. The sites on the. first
ridge system are located no more than 5 km from
rocky intertidal habitats, the coastal terrace, the South
Forkofthe GualalaRiver,or the second ridge system.
Tablek 5.28
OBSDIAN HYDRATION DATA R)R THE AmEX SIE
lab #           Catalog #               Source             Hydration              Comparison Constant
(microns)                 (microns)
66         B-6/10/88-21-L:2            Annaeddel              -                          -
67         B-6/10/88-22-L 1            Borax Lake             2.0                        1.2
68         B-6/10/88-22-L:2            Annadel                1.6                        1.6
69         B-6/1I0/88-22-L:3           Napa Valley            1.5                        1.2
70         B-6/10t/88-24-L:1           Napa Valley            1.5                        1.2
71         B-6/10/88-29-L:1            Konocti                1.9                        15
72         B-6/10/88-36-L              Napa Valley            1.2                        .9
73         B-6/10/88-38-L              Annadel                2.0                        2.0
113
114
4) Still other sites (CA-SON-1885, CA-SON-
1895/H, andCA-SON-1890) appear to be camp spots
or residential bases above the fog belt on the lower
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
From these residential bases, foraging parties or spe-
cialized task groups could, within a few hours, walk to
a variety of resource patches. As described in chapter
3, these patches include the intertidal and coastal
terrace habitats that contain shellfish, rocky reef fish,
sea mammals, elk; the coastal-facing slope of the first
ridge that supports tan-oak acorns; the Gualala River
where salmon, steelhead trout, and rainbow trout run;
and the second and third ridge systems that sustain
deer, quail, and various kinds of acorns and seeds.
Archaeological investigations in the study area
indicate that a variety of archaeological remains are
found in these outlying resource patches. We have
described a number of shell-bearing sites on the lower
slope of the first ridge and on the coastal terrace that
date to the Upper Emergent. These sites vary in size,
in the diversity of artifacts and shellfish MNIs, and in
the density of archaeological materials as described
below.
1) Some sites on the coastal terrace appear to be
small sea food processing stations located near the
rocky intertidal zone. They include CA-SON-1455,
CA-SON-1888,andCA-SON-1886fH. Theyarechar-
acterized by a very low diversity of lithic artifacts
(only in the 1-11 percentile rangeof comparably sized
assemblages), but a relatively high density of ar-
chaeological materials. Limpets dominate the mollusk
MNIsatCA-SON-1455 andCA-SON-1886/H, while
a more varied range of shellfish species are found on
CA-SON-1888. All of these sites contain some skel-
etal evidence of terrest ialnd/orseamammalhunting.
2) Two sites (CA-SON-1881, CA-SON-1882)
appeartobelocations where small taskgroupsstopped
to process marine resources just out of the fog and
wind. Situated on the lower slope of the ridge or the
upper coastal terrace, they are similar to the seafood
processing stations described above.
3) Two additional shell deposits on the coastal
terrace (CA-SON-1889 and CA-SON-1892) may be
residential bases or campsites used for some part of
the annual cycle by small groups. These small sites,
measuring no more than 190 sq m in size, are distin-
guished by a much higher diversity of lithic artifact
classes (J score = fifty-ninth and ninety-second per-
centiles) than expected, a moderate density of lithics,
a high density of mollusk MNIs, and low diversity of
mollusk MNIs dominated by limpets. Similar to the
village sites described above (CA-SON-1883 and
CA-SON-1884), they are marked by relatively large
numbers of fire cracked/ground stone fragments. The
seasonal use patterns of the small coastal sites are
unknown.
slope of the first ridge. Somewhat larger in size (203
to 919 sq m), they are characterized by moderately
high J scores for lithic classes (fifty-seventh to fifty-
ninth percentile), low to moderate densities of
archaeological remains, and a diverse range of mol-
lusk MNIs including barnacles, chitons, black turban
snails, and mussels,but few limpets. The seasonal use
patterns of the sites are not yet understood.
The archaeological survey of the South Fork of
the Gualala River by Fredrickson (1974b) and King
(1974b) provides information on the settlement pat-
tern in the interior hinterland. In addition to two
possible residential bases (CA-SON-999, CA-SON-
1425), the area contains a large chert quarry
(CA-SON- 1001),andavarietyoflithic scatters, some
of which King (1974b:4) identifies as possible camp-
sites and plant processing stations. Others may be
places used for hunting game or fishing along the
river. King (1974b) suggests that these sites were
used in prehistoric times, although more specific age
estimates have not yet been generated. If some of
these sites date from the Upper Emergent, then they
may represent locations used by foraging parties and
task groups from the nearby ridge top and ridge slope
villages. Future work in the area will be undertaken
to evaluate this expectation.
The petroglyphs found in the study area exhibit
an intriguing spatial distribution. Four clusters of
cupule rocks (CA-SON-1452,-1454/H,-1879,-1887)
are dispersed along the coastal terrace with clear
views of the ocean. Four clusters of cupule rocks
(CA-SON-1004,-1006,-1010,-1423) are also found
in the northern most section of the Gualala Land
Development area. Three are distributed along the
South Fork of the Gualala River, and the fourth (CA-
SON- 1423)is locat edalong WardCreek(King 1974b).
A similar pattern is found in the nearby Navarro Land
Development area where 18 petroglyphs, including
cupule rocks, line groups, and deep grooves, are
distributed in the northern section along Ward Creek
(King 1974a).
The spatial pattern suggests that native peoples
selected two kinds of locations for petroglyphs. One
location, close to the ocean with a clear view of the
water, was reserved primarily for cupule rocks. The
other location, deep in the interior recesses of rugged
mountain valleys, was employed to produce a variety
of petroglyph types (cupules, line groups, deep
grooves). Interestingly, no petroglyphs have yet been
recorded along the fust ridge system where the major
villages are located (see chapter 4). This spatial
distribution may be explained in many ways: it may
reflect the lack of suitable sandstone or schist boul-
ders along the first ridge, or more likely the paucity of
intensive archaeological surveys along the ridge top.
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
It is also possible, however, that the petroglyphs
were placed intentionally at the outer margins of the
central-based village settlement system away from
population centers. Ridge top villages, such as CA-
SON-178 andCA-SON-179, are located atalmost the
center point of cupules carved in coastal bedrock
boulders and petroglyphs found in interior valley
locations (see figure 5.3). The locations may have
been selected so that activities associated with the
rocks could be conducted away from the populated
villages and/or to distinguish the boundaries of the
hinterland of local village groups. Of course,
petroglyphs are notoriously difficult to date, so that
this scenario remains highly speculative.
Parkman (1990b) has recently summarized cur-
rent research on cupule rocks. He suggests thatpitted
boulders may have a long tradition (going back 7000
years or more) as "rain rocks" that were part of fertility
ceremonies among some Mesoamerican and North
American peoples. By Lower Emergent times (A.D.
500), it appears that a formalized style of cupules or
cupulerockshaddevelopedintheNorthCoastRanges.
Later cupule rocks, described as "baby rocks" by
ethnographers, appear to have been locations where
women in want of children would visit to perform
fertility rites. Parkman (1990b:3) notes that these
rites normally involved the "ritual collection and
ingestion of powder from the rock" (see Barrett 1908;
1952; Loeb 1926).
Historic Native Settlements at Fort Ross
In addition to CA-SON-1884, which may dateto
the beginning of the Historic period, other native sites
that exhibit historic components include CA-SON-
174,-175,-670,-1455, -1878,-1880, -1886/H,-1895/
H, -1896, -1897/H, and -1898/H. The last two sites
compose the Native Alaskan Neighborhood and will
not concern us here. We interpret the majority of these
historic sites as villages, hamlets, or small residential
bases wherenativeCaliforniansresided whileserving
as agricultural laborers for the Russians and/or for the
William Benitz ranch. Some, such as CA-SON-670,
may have been used throughout much of the period
from A.D. 1812-1867. Others, such as CA-SON-174
and CA-SON-175, may date primarily to the 1840s
and 1850s.
Two sites (CA-SON-1455 and CA-SON-1886/
H) are exceptions to the above characterization. CA-
SON-1445 is interpreted to be a seafood processing
station used in both late prehistoric and historic times.
CA-SON-1886/H may have functioned as either a
small residential base or seafood processing station in
late prehistoric and historic times. However, we are
unclearas to whethernative Alaskans, Creoles, native
Californians, or some combination of the above were
occupying CA-SON-1886/H in historic times. The
presence of sea otter, sea lion, cattle, sheep, and mule
deer remains, the close proximity of the site to the
Native Alaskan Neighborhood, and the common oc-
currence of chipped stone and ground stone tools
similar to those found in Pomo/Miwok sites suggest
it may have been occupied by mixed household(s) of
native Alaskan hunters and Pomo/Miwok women, or
reused by native Alaskans and native Californians at
different times in its occupation. McKenzie (1963)
suggests that the last occupants were a Pomno couple
in the early 1900s.
THE EFFECT OF RUSSIAN MERCANTIUSM
ON NATIVE CALIORNIANS
We now compare the historic native settlement
pattern with that of the Upper Emergent to evaluate
the nature and magnitude of cultural change brought
about by the Russian colonization of Fort Ross. The
archaeological evidence to date suggests that native
responses involved a shift in the location of villages,
the abandonment of seafood processing stations and
camps near the colony, and changes in the local
obsidian trade network. Wesuspect thatthesechanges
reflectmodificationsin the organizationalsructure of
Pomno/Miwok communities. Surface assemblages
of late prehistoric and historic residential sites are
quite comparable, containing similar kinds of lithic
artifacts and faunal remains. While some changes in
food processing and diet were probably taking place,
many aspects of native Californian material culture
associated with lithic raw materials appear to have
been quite resilientandresistant to change. It appears
thata similar range of activities involving lithic mate-
rials was taking place on both Upper Emergent and
Historic period sites. These developments are ad-
dressed separately below.
Location of Villages
A comparison of the Upper Emergent and His-
toric settlementpatterns in the study area suggests that
a significant shift took place in the location of major
residential sites. Upper Emergent ridge top village
locations, suchasCA-SON-1883,and laterCA-SON-
1884, were abandoned Historic villages and hamlets
were subsequently located on the coastal terrace a
short distance north of the Ross Colony. This settle-
ment patterns indicates that population aggregation
took placewith the Russian colonization ofFortRoss,
and that this process continued during the 1840s and
1850s when William Benitz continued to employ
native laborers at his ranch (see chapter6). Judging by
the settlement data, the Russian-American Company
was successful in recruiting local native peoples into
the greaterFortRoss community. While theRussians
relied primarily upon economic inducements (food
115
116
bution of hydration measurements for each obsidian
source. Clearly, Borax Lake, and Mt. Konocti were
minor sources of obsidian through time. They were
most common between the upper Lower Emergent
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
and goods) to recruit native laborers, they occasion-
ally employed coercivetactics in rounding up natives
from outlying areas during the agricultural season as
described in chapter 2.
Location of Coastal Sites
During historic times small coastal camps and
seafood processing stations seem to have been aban-
doned. Of the ten small-shell middens found on the
coastal terrace and lower slope of the first ridge, only
three (CA-SON-1455, CA-SON-1886/H, CA-SON-
1895/H) exhibit evidence of use after A.D. 1812. One
appears to be a seafood processing station, while the
other two may have functioned as small residential
ba.
The abandonment of previously used coastal
places may be the result of three factors. First, much
of the coastal strip beyond the immediate boundaries
of the native villages north of the stockade was prob-
ably in cultivation sometime between A.D. 1812 and
1841. Access to some favored coastal places, such as
CA-SON-1889, CA-SON-1888, and CA-SON-1892,
was probably restricted or hindered because of the
broad distribution of wheat and barley fields across
the coastal terrace. Second, since historic villages
were now located closer to the intertidal zone, native
collectors may have wtransported marine resources,
such as mollusks, directly to the villages without first
processing them at coastal locations. Third, the pau-
city of historic seafood processing sites may reflect a
decline in use of some intertidal resources as new
sources of foods were integrated into local native
workers' diets.
Obsidian Exchange Network
The source of obsidian employed by native
peoples at Fort Ross changed dramatically in historic
times. A total of 329 obsidian artifacts from the study
area have been analyzed by the Obsidian Hydration
Laboratory, Sonoma State University. This includes
89 artifacts from the twenty survey sites summarized
in table 5.10; 49 artifacts from CA-SON-190; 9 arti-
facts from CA-SON-1453; 126 artifacts from
CA-SON-1454/H; 36 artifacts from CA-SON-1455;
13 artifacts from CA-SON-1897/H; and 7 artifacts
from the Alex site. Of this total, 152 (46%) were
sourced as Napa Valley, 131 (40%) as Annadel, and
23 each as Borax Lake (7%) and as Mt. Konocti (7%).
Relatively few obsidian pieces were obtained from
Clear Lake in contrast to the two sources almost
directly east of Fort Ross (i.e., Annadel and Napa
Valley).
In figure 5.27, we present a line-frequency distri-
tends across the highway near the Call Ranch house.
and lowerUpperEmergentperiods (1.4-2.1 microns).
Annadel obsidian peaks at 2.3, 2.6, 1.8, and 1.3
micronsduring theLowerEmergentandUpperEmer-
gent. It remains relatively common through the
Upper Emergent period, but then disappears during
historic times (.9 micron). Napa Valley obsidian
peaks at 2.6, 2.2, and 1.5 microns during the Lower
and UpperEmergentperiods, andthen explodes in the
Historic period at .9 micron. Evidently, Annadel
obsidian was completely replaced by obsidian from
NapaValleywiththecolonizationofFortRoss. Some
obsidian from Mt. Konocti was also obtained during
historic times.
Farris (1989a:492) suggests that the flow of ob-
sidian to the Kashaya Pornmo was disrupted in historic
times by the Spanish mission at Sonoma, as well as
various Spanish ranchos established between Fort
Ross and the obsidian sources. It appeas that the
Annadel source near Santa Rosa was completely cut
off. In contrast, an exchange linkage continued in
historic times that allowed Napa Valley obsidian to
reach the natives of the Ross Colony.
Village Layout and Material Culture
In examining diachronic changes in material
culture, we compare three village sites that overlap in
their temporal distribution and are represented by
relatively large surface assemblages. CA-SON-1883
dates primarily to the Upper Emergent period, CA-
SON- 1884 to the interface of the Upper Emergent and
Historic periods, and CA-SON-1880 to the coloniza-
tion of Fart Ross, and possibly later(see figure 5.26).
We now compare the spatial structure, Ethic artifacts,
and faunal remains primarily from these sites.
Village Spatial Structure. The spatial layout of
the three villages is similar. Discrete midden depos-
its, containing the majority of the mollusk remains,
are located downhill of broader lithic scatters. A
similar pattern is also observed at CA-SON-175 and
the Alex site. We suspect the midden deposits
represent discrete trash dumps where faunal remains
and other garbage were tossed. The broader lithic
scatters are probably residential areas where archi-
tectural features may be located. Here we speculate
that a variety of lithic manufacture, cooking, food
processing, and domestic chores took place.
While the sample size is small, there is a ten-
dency for the earlier sites to be larger than the later
ones. CA-SON-1883 and CA-SON-1884 measure
8247 and 3044 sq m, respectively, while CA-SON-
1880 is only 2024 sq m. Other histic villages are
comparatively small as well, including CA-SON-
670 (3750 sq m), CA-SON-1878 (2107 sq m),
CA-SON-1896 (400 sq m), CA-SON-174 (346 sq
m), and CA-SON-1895/H (203 sq m). CA-SON-174
is probably somewhat larger however, since it ex-
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
0t            c                 0o  I  e  o
N    N   eq   -    -    -   -   -
SINflOJ
la
g
I-
z
.
as
C  CZ
C eL.
o    0     CZ
Ca.
,0..
0
117
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
The one exception is CA-SON-175 which is esti-
mated to be about 18,241 sq m in size. This site has
yet to be fully mapped and recorded, however.
It is not clear what the size differences signify
between late prehistoric and historic villages. We
recognize that site size is not a direct measurement of
population, but only a reflection of how artifacts and
faunal remains are distributed across the surface. The
larger, late prehistoric sites may represent greater
populations or simply reflect different land use prac-
tices in which material remains were deposited across
the landscape. Yet the current data suggest that the
historic native neighborhood north of the stockade
was probably composed of small, multiple residential
compounds. The number of households in the small
villages and hamlets probably varied. Some small
villages, such as CA-SON-175, may have been com-
posedof 10 to 15 households,basedonthenumberof
"house pits" that Gifford (1967a) counted, while CA-
SON-1896 (as well as CA-SON-1895/H) may have
consisted of only one or two (Parkman 1990a).
The apparent differences in the sizes of Upper
Emergent villages and Historic residential compounds
may provide some insights into the process of popu-
lation aggregation at Fort Ross. We suspect that the
decision to participate in the economic activities of
the Ross Colony took place at the level of individuals,
families, and small groups. It appears that individual
households and small groups may have responded
differentially to Russian recruitment efforts, since the
evidence does not suggest that entire village units
moved intact to the Russian colony. While some
individuals and families chose or were coerced to
work at Fort Ross, other native peoples probably
elected to hide in the outlying woods, well beyond the
catchment zone where agricultural and wood cutting
activities took place.
LithicArtifacts. The three villages are character-
ized by a moderate density of lithics (.46 to .67
artifacts/sq m), and a diverse range of lithic classes.
The most striking difference is in the percentage of
fire-cracked/ground stone fragments. The earliertwo
sites are marked by very large numbers (53%-59% of
the total lithic assemblage), while we collected
relatively few from the latter village (22%). Other
classes of lithic artifacts such as edge-modified flakes,
interior flakes, cores, biface thinning flakes, bifaces,
primary cortical flakes, secondary cortical flakes, and
shatter are well represented on all three sites. Hand-
stones and slab millingstones were collected only on
CA-SON-1880 and CA-SON-1883.
The most common raw material on CA-SON-
1883 and CA-SON-1884 is sandstone, a reflection of
the large number of fire-cracked/ground stone frag-
ments on these sites. Chert is the next most common
raw material on these sites, followed by obsidian. The
chert to obsidian ratio is 2.5/1 for CA-SON- 1883 and
17/1 forCA-SON-1884. CA-SON-1880 is character-
ized by a smaller percentage of sandstone, more
obsidian, and less chert. The ratio of chert to obsidian
is .67/1.
The above comparison indicates a similar range
of activities involving lithic raw materials was taking
place at all three sites. Lithic production continued
into historic times. The cooking method involving the
immersion of hot rocks into water apparently contin-
ued into historic times, although the relative number
of fire-cracked fragments decrease. This finding may
indicate that other methods of cooking stews and
gruels (traditional foods of the Kashaya Pomo) were
being adopted, such as boiling foods directly over the
fire using metal wares available from the Russians. It
may also indicate that other kindsof foods were being
consumed that were not cooked as stews. Traditional
methods of plant food processing involving hand-
stones and slab millingstones continued into historic
times. Ofcourse, theplant foodsbeingprocessed may
have changed as well.
The most significant difference is the greater
abundance of obsidian than chert on CA-SON-1880,
suggesting that historic changes in the obsidian ex-
change network, while affecting source availability,
did not necessarily reduce the overall availability of
obsidian into the study area after A.D. 1812. We
recognize, however, that some of the obsidian found
at CA-SON- 1880 dates to the earlier lithic manifesta-
tion that covers the coastal terrace. Furthermore, we
note that other historic sites with smaller surface
assemblages vary in their ratio of obsidian to chert.
Obsidian dominates at CA-SON-174, while chert is
the major raw material type at CA-SON-1878. The
excavations at CA-SON-670 and CA-SON-1896 in-
dicate that while obsidian is common at both sites,
chert is present in greater numbers (Stillinger 1975;
Parkmnan 1990a).
Faunal Remains. The density of mollusk MNIs
at CA-SON-1880 (.65 MNIs/sq m) is much greater
than for both CA-SON-1883 and CA-SON-1884 (.02
and .03 MNIs/sq m). This difference may reflect a
bias in the collecting strategy, where more collection
units were placed in the midden deposit of CA-SON-
1880 than either of the other villages. However, it
may also indicate a greater volume of mollusks were
brought back to residential compounds for process-
ing. Such a pattern is not unexpected if small seafood
processing stations were largely abandoned in his-
toric times.
Diversity indexes indicate that a diverse range of
mollusk classes are found on all three villages. How-
ever, each site is characterized by a slightly different
118
Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area
combination of mollusk classes. At CA-SON- 1883,
limpets dominate, followed by mussels, turban snails,
chitons, horned slipper shells, barnacles and abalone.
At CA-SON-1884, an even distribution of limpets,
mussels, chitonsandbarnacles is found. AtCA-SON-
1880, black turban snails dominate, followed by
mussels, limpets, chitons, barnacles, and abalone.
Whether these differencesreflectchanges in the popu-
larity or availability of different mollusk classes over
time is not known.
We caution that the above MNI counts are not
directindicators of the importance of specific mollusk
classes in native diets. As mentioned previously,
surface collections will tend to be skewed orbiased in
favor of hard shelled mollusk species. Furthermore,
the nutritional values of different mollusk species
must be taken into account. The caloric intake of one
abalone is equivalent to many turban snails and lim-
pets. A nutritional study of the mollusk classes must
first be undertaken tocalculate the equivalency values
of different species to one another. This study will be
initiated in the near future. For the purposes of this
volume, we note that the collection of intertidal re-
sources continued from Upper Emergent to historic
times in the study area.
The limited number of mammal and bird bones
recovered in surface collections precludes any de-
tailed interpreation about their use in late prehistoric
and historic contexts.  It appears, however,that
hunting terrestrial game, such as elk and deer, contin-
ued to be practiced by native Califoamians in historic
times. OfthoseUpperEmergentperiod sites in which
animal bones have been recovered and analyzed (i.e,
CA-SON-174,-1880,-1886/H,-1895/H,-1896), deer
and/or elk remains are represented on all the sites.
Remains of domesticated animals (cow or sheep) are
found on only three of the sites (CA-SON-174, CA-
SON-1895/H, and CA-SON-1896).
CONCLUSION
The preliminary results of archaeological inves-
tigations todate indicate that the Russian colonization
of Fort Ross had significant consequences for local
Pomo/Miwok groups. One native response to the
mercantile colony appears to have been manifested in
the organizational structure of local communities. A
change in the regional settlement pattern took place
whereby Upper Emergent villages along the first
ridge system were abandoned near Fort Ross. Popu-
lation aggregation occurred north of the Ross stock-
ade where small, multiple, residential compounds
were established. Itdoesnotappear that entire village
units moved intact to the Russian Colony, but that
individual families and small groups responded dif-
ferentially to Russian recruitment efforts. We specu-
late that this settlement change had significant impli-
cations for the sociopolitical organization of historic
Pomo/Miwok communities. Traditional forms of
tribal organization might have become strained as
greater numbers of peoples from a variety of tradi-
tional village communities relocated to Fort Ross.
This is especially true in the late 1830s when several
hundred natives were serving as agricultural laborers.
A comparison of the archaeological assemblages
from Upper Emergent ridge sites with historic resi-
dential compounds indicates both continuity and
change in material culture. Surface assemblages from
these sites are quite comparable, containing similar
kinds of lithic artifacts and faunal remains. It appears
that similar activities involving the production, use,
and discard of lithics, the collection andprocessing of
mollusks, and the hunting of teestial game such as
deer and elk transcend both Upper Emergent and
historic times. The location of seafood processing
activities, however, may have shifted from small
coastal stations and camps to the historic residential
compounds. A decrease in the overall quantity of fire-
cracked rocks may indicate that new methods of food
preparation were being introduced. The remains of
domesticated animals (cow and sheep) in the surface
assemblages of several historic sites suggest that new
foods were being cooked and consumed. While
obsidian continued to be procured from Napa Valley
and employed in the manufacture of chipped stone
tools, moldblown glass from beverage bottles was
being used as an alternative raw material source for
manufacturing traditional native tool forms. Ceram-
ics are present on some of the historic native com-
pounds, but it is unclear whether they were used as
containers or as a new source of raw materials for
manufacturing ornaments or other native artifacts.
We stress, of course, that these findings are still
very tentative since they are based largely on survey
data. Excavation work yielding more refined ar-
chaeological data on faunal remains, artifacts, and
architectural features of Upper Emergent and historic
residences will most certainly modify and expand our
interpretations.
119
CHAoFR SIX
A DiACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE OF THE
KASHAYA POMO FROM ETHNOHiSTORIC OBSERVATIONS,
ETHNOGRAPHIC TEXTS, AND KASHAYA ORAL TRADmONS
FIrT6 aCHAPTER CONSIDERS early ethnohistoical
observations of native Californians at Fort Ross,
later ethnographic studies of the Kashaya Pano in the
late nineteenth and early.. twentieth centuries, and
Kashaya Pomo oral traditions as additional data sets
for examining native responses to European and
American colonial practices in the Fort Ross region.
We address diachronic changes in native lifeways
from A.D. 1814, when the first accounts were written,
to A.D. 1953, when the last major ethnographic study
of the Kashaya Pomo was completed. The criteria
employed in this diachronic study are subsistence
practices, material culture, sociopolitical organiza-
tion, religious activities, and gender relations. Spe-
cifically, we compare and contrast the archaeological
findings of the last chapter with eyewitness accounts
of the Kashaya Pornmo from the early nineteenth cen-
tury to the mid-twentieth century. Is therecorroborat-
ing evidence of changes in the orgnizational struc-
ture of historic Pomo communities and ofboth change
and continuity in native material culture?
The chapter begins with a brief historical sketch
of the Kashaya Pomo after the Russians abandoned
theRossColonyinA.D. 1841. We thensummarize the
different data sets (ethnohistorical observations, eth-
nographic texts, and native oral tradition) used in our
diachronic study. This is followed by a consideration
of each written account in terms of the criteria listed
above. The final section examines the degree of
corrobation between the different data sets when
considering Kashaya Pono history.
HISTORIC LAND USE PAnIERNS
IN THEm FoRT Ross REGION
The Kashaya Pomo people were greatly affected
by changing Euro-American land use patrns in the
region after the Russian colony was sold to John
Sutter in A.D. 1841. The void left behind by the
Russians was filled by Euro-American ranchers who
turaned the area into a patchwork of private pperfies.
Beginning in 1841, Sutter employed several manag-
ers at FortRoss (RobertnT. Ridley, John Bidwell, and
Samuel Smith) to remove supplies, livestock, and
equipment left behind by the Russians to his Hock
Farm near Marysville, California (Tomlin 1991:22-
24). In 1843, William 0. Benitz was appointed to
oversee Sutter's property at Fort Ross. At about this
time a conflict over ownership of the poperty devel-
oped. The Mexican Govewnor Pio Pico had awarded
the Muniz Rancho, a massive land grant extending
from the Russian River to north of Timber Cove, to
Manuel Torres in 1845 (Tomlin 1991:25). Benitz,
initially in partnership with Ernest Rufus, operated a
ranch on the Muniz grant, eventually buying the 7191
ha rancho for $22,500 in 1855. The land dispute with
121
122
of barley and peas.
William Benitz sold his ranch to James Dixon
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
William Muldrow was not resolved until 1859 when
Benitz paid $6000 to settle the suit (Tomlin 1991:28-
29; Farris, personal communication).
The establishment of ranchos, such as the Benitz
holding, in the 1840s and 1850s provided seasonal
agricultural work for local native peoples. Bean and
Theodoratus (1978:299) characterize his economic
system asoneof semi-peonagewherebynativepeoples
provided a cheap source of labor to local ranchers in
return for food or wages, protection, and a place to
live. Oswalt (1964:4) notes that just about every
ranch along the Sonoma County coast had a small
rancheria associated with it at this time. A large
Indian rancheria of between 100 to 161 people flour-
ished on the Benitz rancho, while oer native fami-
lies were associated with Captain Stephen Smith's
rancho near BodegaBay, the German Rancho imme-
diately north of the Muniz rancho, and the Kruse
Ranch not far from Salt Point where a small rancheria
of 20 to 30 Indians lived (Farris 1986a 15-16; Ross
Census 1848; Haase 1952:50-51).
The Benitz holding is probably typical of the
diversified ranchingoperationsundertakenintheFort
Ross region in the mid to late nineteenth century.
Benitz raised horses, cattle, and sheep; grew fields of
wheat, oats, and potatoes; maintained an orchard of
1700 trees; and established a brewery (Spencer-
Hancock 1980:24). In 1863, Benitzsigned aten-year
lease with the Fort Ross Coal Mine Company that
allowed them to mine coal, to harvest timber, and to
buildroadsandhousesontherancho(Tomlin 1991:29).
Benitz also signed another lease with the Ottilla
Copper and Silver Mining Company in 1863 that
permitted them to prospect for minerals and petro-
leum on the Ioprty.
William Benitz lived at the ranch with his family,
several Mexican cowboys, and his work force of
Pornmo Indians. In a census taken on January 8,1848,
a total of 161 Indians were listed as part of the
"Praesidio Ross" (Ross Census 1848). This included
62 men, 52 women countedas wives, and47 children.
Four of the men were listed as "chiefs" (Chief Tojon,
Chief Noportegi, Chief Kolob-biscau, and Chief
Cojoto). We believe the Indian rancherias were
located at CA-SON-174 and CA-SON-175 as de-
scnrbed in chapter 5. Benitz reportedly treated his
native workers fairly while maintaining a rigorous
work schedule. Native laborers were awakened at
6:00 A.M. for breakfast, labored until lunch at 11:30
A.M., and then continued to work until dinner at 6:00
P.. Kennedy (1955:76-77) notes that the Indian
workers received rations of whiskey with their lunch
and dinner. Benitz paid his native workers with sacks
and his partner Lord Charles Fairfax in 1867 for
$25,000 (Tomlin 1991:31). Dixon established acom-
mercial timber operation in the local region that
included the construction of a wooden loading chute
and Iuwnber storage yard at North Cove, the remains of
which can still be seen on CA-SON-1454/H (chapter
5). The first lumber mill was established at Kolmer
Gulch, and then later moved (probably around 1870)
to Fort Ross Creek not far from the old Russian
stockade (Tomlin personal communication). We
believe that the structure illustrated at CA-SON-670
in the 1876 U.S. Coast Survey map is part of this mill
complex (chapter 5).
By about 1870, Dixon had forced the Pomo
workers off his propert. Few Pomo people probably
lived in the immediate area while Dixon operated his
mill. In 1873, Dixon sold the ppeny to George
Washington Call who built the ranch house in 1878
nearCA-SON-174 thatcanbe visited today attheFort
Ross State Historic Park. At least one native couple
is reported to have stayed on the Call ranch into the
latter years ofthe nineteenth century (Farris 1986a: 17;
McKenzie 1963:1-2).
When Dixon forced the Pomo workers off their
ancestral lands, it appears many of the native families
shifted their residence to Charles Haupt's ranch on
Skyline Ridge about 13 km southeast of Stewarts
Point. Haupt was married to a Kashaya woman and
welcomed the Pomo people to live on his property.
Here they established the village of Potol (site #63 in
figure 4.1). Oswalt (1964:4) indicates that some
families may have also reoccupied the nearby ancient
village of Dukacal (site #77 in figure 4.1), and that it
became known as Abaloneville. Still other native
familiesremained scatteredacross theregion in small
rancherias (Kennedy 1955:89).
By the turn of the century some Pomo families
worked as migrant laborers in orchards along the
Russian River during the spring, summer, and fall
months. In the winter they returned home to their
rancherias in the Fort Ross region (Bean and
Theodoratus 1978:299; Oswalt 1964:4). Other Pomo
men were employed in local lumber operations, while
the women labored in ranch houses (Kennedy
1955:89). Haase (1952) indicates that by 1903 about
half the Kashaya Pomo people were living at the old
villageof Danaga(site#21 infigure4. l) nearStewarts
Point while working in logging camps.
In 1914, at the request of the Kashaya Pomo
people, the Bureau of Indian Affairs purchased prop-
erty for a small reservation. Known as the Stewarts
Point orKashiaRancheria, the 16 ha property located
about 5 ikm east of Stewarts Pointon MillerRidge was
acquired for $1100 (Kennedy 1955.:96). By 1919
most of the remaining Kashaya Pomo in the region
The Kashaya Pomo          123
had moved to the new reservation (Oswalt 1964:5). It
remains the center of Kashaya Pomrno culture today,
even though some younger families live in nearby
towns and cities (e.g., Santa Rosa) where more diver-
sified economic opportunities exist.
KASHAYA POMO ETHNoHsTORY
A historical sketch of pertinent ethnohistorical
accounts and ethnographic studies of the Kashaya
Pomrno in the Ross region follows.
Early Ethnohistoric Accounts
The Fort Ross Counter. We have found only a
few eyewitness accounts of native peoples in the early
years of the colony (1812-1830). An early accountof
the Indian village atPort Rumiantsev was recorded in
December 1814 by PeterCorney (1896). Corney was
chief officer on the merchant vessel Columbia owned
by Inglis, Eliice and Company trading house in Lon-
don, England. In 1814, the crew of the Columbia
visited Port Rumiantsev during a trip to Spanish
California to buy provisions for the Northwest
Company's trade outposts on the Columbia River.
The two most detailed accounts of the village at Port
Rumiantsev were recorded in September 1818 by
Vasilii M. Golovnin (1976 [1818]), a Russian naval
captain, and Fedor Lutke (1989 [1818]) who accom-
panied Golovnin on his ship the Kamchatka. The two
visitors describe a small Indian village not far from
where their ship anchored atPort Rumiantsev. Lutke
(1989:276 [1818]) noted that the Indian settlement
was very small and fluid, with its population ranging
between ten and fifty people depending upon the time
of the year. The village probably remained relatively
small through the early 1830s, as General Mariano
Vallejo described it in 1833 as a settlementcomposed
of a chief, known as Gualinela, and his band of forty-
tdree men and women (Vallejo 1979:1 [1833]). There
is no estimate on the size of the Indian community at
Fort Ross in the early years. In his diary Golovnin
(1976:160 [1818]) arecorded thathe visited the village
atFortRoss which consisted of a"collection of huts."
Finally, Captain Otto Von Kotzebue (1830), a Rus-
sian naval officer who commanded the Predpriatie
(Enterprise), visited the Ross settlement in Septem-
ber 1824 and made a few observations about the
native workers.
More detailed ethnohistorical accounts of native
peoples were recorded in the vicinity of Fort Ross in
the 1830s. Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell, the
chief manager of the Russian-American Company,
visitedFort Ross in September 1833. Wrangell (1974
[1833]) described a trip along the Russian River
during which a small Indian camp was visited. The
most detailed account of the natives is provided by
Peter Kostromitinov, (1976 [1830-38]) who served as
the manager of the Fort Ross Counter from 1830 to
1838 (Tomlin and Watrous 1990:1). He recorded a
number of observations about the lifeways of the
natives living and working at the Ross Colony. An-
other excellent account of the Indian community was
made by the French naval captain, Cyrille LaPlace, in
August 1839. He described the nearby settlement
where several hundred natives resided
William Benitz's Ranch. Unfortunately, few
accounts exist of the post-Russian rancherias in this
region. Farris(1986a: 14-15) recounts the brief obser-
vations made by the Swedish traveler, G. M. Waseurtz
of Sandels, who visited Fort Ross in 1843. He
described the native houses as "round, well-con-
structed and half underground." Sandels also noted
that the Indians missed the Russians, were withdraw-
ing from other white people, and denied their labor to
Mexicans or Spanish because of past mistreatment.
Kennedy's (1955:77) study of documents from the
Benitz ranch days suggests that the Pomo adopted
some innovations from the Mexican cowboys. These
include cooking with lard and making flour tortillas,
a food that remained a staple into the early 1950s.
According toKennedy (1955:80-82), the bulk of their
diet, however, remained aboriginal foods including
game, shellfish, and fish. Oswalt's (1964:4) study of
the Kashaya language indicates that about 150 loan-
words originated from MexicancowboysattheBenitz
Ranch, five times more loanwords than those origi-
nating from earlier Russian sources.
Charles Haupt's Ranch. An early observation of
the Indian rancheria at Haupt's Ranch was recorded
by Stephen Powers in the summers of 1871 or 1872
(Powers 1976). Powers interviewed Charles Haupt
and spent an undisclosed amount of time observing
the Indian group which he referred to as the Gua-la-la.
Powers visited a number of Indian groups in northern
and central California and published his observations
in several articles in the Overland Monthly and
Atlantic in 1872-1875, and later as a book, Tribes of
California, in 1877. While Powers had no formal
training in ethnography, and some of his interpreta-
tions have been dismissed by later anthropologists
(see Kroeber 1925:ix), his observations of subsis-
tence practices and material culture could be quite
extensive and relatively detailed.
Later Ethnographic Studies
In the early twentieth century, university-trained
ethnographers commenced their study of the native
inhabitants of the Fort Ross region. The fuirst ethnog-
rapher,SamuelBarrett(1908:54-68),dividedthePomo
linguistic stock into seven distinct dialects (Northern,
Central, Eastern, Southern, Southwestern, Southeast-
ern, and Northeastern). The Southwestern Pomo are
124
based on the "memory culture" methodology are
described elsewhere (see McLendon and Oswalt
1978:276-77). For the puxposes of this study we are
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
now usually referred to as the Kashaya Pomo. Further
linguistic research indicates that these seven linguis-
tic groups are diverse enough to represent members of
a Porno family of distinct languages (Oswalt 1964:7).
Barrett(1908:227) initially defuined the territory of the
Kashaya Porno as the coastline from the Gualala
River in the north to Salmon Creek in the south. The
eastern border followed the Gualala River and Fuller
Creek in the north and the Austin Creek watershed in
the south. Subsequent ethnographers have debated
abouttheexactterritoryoftheKashayaPomo. Kroeber
(1925:plate 36) drew the southern borderat Duncan's
Landing; Stewart(1943:49) indicaled it was either the
Russian River or "Duncan's Point"; while Kniffen
(1939:384) believed the area south of the Russian
River was shared by the KashayaPomno and the Coast
Miwok,theirneighbarstoithesouth. Stewart(1943:49)
argued that the northern boundary of the Kashaya
Pomo is Black Point, and that the coastal strip north of
Black Point to the Gualala River was used primarily
by Southern Pomo people. Oswalt (1964:2-3) sup-
ports Stewart's interpretation based primarily on lin-
guistic evidence. It appears that the eastern boundary
of the territory was never very exact, but rather an
outlying hinterland that included the watershed of
Austin Creek (Kniffen 1939:38; Oswalt 1964:3).
The majority of the ethfinographies were under-
taken by U.C. Berkeley graduate students trained in
California ethnography by Alfred L. Kroeber. The
goal of these ethnographic studies was to reconstruct
"pristine" native lifeways in California as they func-
tioned at the time of European contact. To filter out
the recent effects of Euro-American influences, eth-
nographers interviewed tribal elders who would talk
to them about the past. Employing this "memory
culture" methodology, the ethnographers relied on
tribal elders to portray traditional native lifeways as
they remembered them in the middle to late nine-
teenth century.
The native elders interviewed by these ethnogra-
phers had resided in a number of villages during their
lifetimes. While many of them resided on the Kashia
Rancheria after 1919, the life histories of some infor-
mants indicate considerable residential mobility in
the middle to late nineteenth century, with people
moving to and fromn such settlemanents as Potol, Danaga,
Dukacal, and Metini (see for example Gifford 1967:5-
6; Stewart 1943:30-31; Barrett 1952:18). Since the
fieldwork was conducted by various ethnographers
overa half-century period, from 1903 to 1953, several
generations of Kashaya Pomo tribal elders were inter-
viewed.
The many shortcomings of Pornmo ethnographies
concerned about two problems. First, the diachronic
context ofthe ethnographic studies is not very precise.
Since the intent of the fieldwork was not to describe
contemporary rancherias as they appeared to the eth-
nographers, but rather to reconstruct native lifeways
sometime in the past, it is difficult to determine
whether the native practices being depicted date to the
early twentieth, late nineteenth, or mid nineteenth
centuries or even earlier based on oral tradition.
Second, since the studies were based on interviews
rather than participant observations, it is not clear
whether the ethnographers observed fisthand the
subsistence practices, foods, and material culture de-
scribed in the reports.
The Ethnographers
Samuel Barret  Barrett visited Haupt's Ranch
sometime between 1903-1907 as part of his compre-
hensive analysis of Pomo culture that fulfilled the
requirements for the first doctorate degree in anthro-
pology from U.C. Befreley (see Hizer 1975:29).
The tribal elders. that Barrett (1952:18) interviewed
wereborn in the 1840sand 1850s. Barrett(1908:228-
39) sepaated the Southwestern Pomo territory into
twodivisionsofvillages: thecoastdivision (along the
coastline) and the river division (along the South Fork
of the Gualala River). This division has not been
recognized by other ethnographers. As described in
chapter 4, Barren (1908) compiled an exhaustive list
offormervillages and campsites from his informants.
He published a detailed aount of Porno buildings in
1916 that remains one the best descriptions of nine-
teenth and early twentieth century architecural styles
to date, including photographs of various kinds of
structres from the turn of the century. Later in his
life, Barrett (1952) published an extensive study of
Pomo material culture based on his earlier fieldwork
and museum research.
C. Hart Merriam. Merrianm visited someKashaya
Pomo people in August 1905, interviewing thaem
about the location of ancestral villages and campsites
(Merriamn 1977). Index cards on file at the Lowie
Museum of Anthropology, U. C. Berkeley, indicate
that one of his Kashaya consultants was Gib Jarris
(Meiam 1938). Merriam (1968:1-10) also com-
piled village names of the Southern Pno and Coast
Miwok peoples who became neophytes in the San
Rafael Mission. Outside of a very brief description of
the Bo'-yah or '"oast Pono" (Meniam 1967:303-
304), no ethnographic study of coastal Pomno in Men-
docino or Sonoma counties was ever published by
Merriam.
Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber (1925) wrote three
chapters on the Pomo in his classic monograph,Hand-
book of the Indians of California. Much of his
information, which includes details on the Kashaya
The Kashaya Pomo            12S
Pomo, probably was derived from Barrett's earlier
study. However,Barrett(1952:19) insists thatKroeber
did work with the Pomo, but that the informants were
younger and less well versed in ancient customs than
those he had interviewed.
Edwin Loeb. The next ethnography on coastal
PomopeopleswaspublishedbyLoebin 1926. Loeb's
account includes information obtained by graduate
students working iunder Alfred Kroeber in the winter
of 1921, and from his fieldwork funded by a
Guggenheim grant in 1924-1925. The relevance of
the study to the Kashaya Pomrno is somewhat limited,
since it involved interviews with only two coastal
Central Pomrno peoples.
Edward W. Gifford. Gifford conducted field-
work among the Kashaya Pomo from 1915 to 1918 as
part of a statewide study of kinship systems (Gifford
1922), in 1934 as part of the culture element distribu-
tion survey (Gifford and Kroeber 1937), and in Au-
gust 1950 (Gifford 1967). Gifford (1967) compiled
information on ancient villages and campsites, native
foods, and the cultural element list for the Kashaya
Pomo.
Fred Kniffen. Kniffen, a geographer trained at
U.C. Berkeley, published Pomo Geography in 1939
in which he compared Pomo groups from .Clear Lake,
the Russian River, and the Sonoma County coast.
When he undertook his study of the KashayaPomo in
the 1930s, about one hundred people resided at the
Kashia Rancheria (Kniffen 1939:381). Kniffen
(1939:384) noted that his informants disagreed with
someof the earlierconclusionsofBam randKroeber.
Omer C. Stewart. Stewart (1943) conducted his
ethnographic and archaeological fieldwork in the
Ross region in 1935 on a research grant from the
University of California Institute of Social Sciences.
His objective was to fill "in a few lacunae" on the
aboriginal culture as reported by Powers, Barrett,
Kroeber, Loeb, and Gifford.
Mary Jean Kennedy. Kennedy was the lastof the
U.C. Berkeley ethnographers of Kroeber's legacy to
work among the Kashaya Pomrno. Edward Gifford
served as her faculty advisor when she conducted
fieldwork at the Kashia Rancheria in 1952-1953.
Kennedy's (1955) study differs from the previous
ethnographic research on two counts. First, the ex-
plicit goal of her research was not to reconstruct the
aboriginal culture of the Kashaya Pomrno, but rather to
evaluate how ithad changedover thelast 150yearsor
so. She proposedtoexaminetheprocessofaccultura-
tion among the Kashaya Pomo through their contact
with Russians, Mexicans, and Americans. Second,
she undertook an ethnographic study of the Kashia
Rancheria as it functioned in the early 1950s.
Kennedy's acculturation study relied largely on
previous ethnographic studies to reconstruct the ab-
original culture of the Kashaya. She then evaluated
the nature of cultural change over time by analyzing
ethnmohistoric texts and by making detailed observa-
tions of native culture in the early 1950s. At the time
ofher study, the Kashia Rancheria consistedof twenty-
onehousesandlessthanone hued people(Kennedy
1955:92).
Kashaya Pomno Oral Tradition
Robert Oswalt, a linguisticanthropologist rained
at U.C. Berkeley,  deook a detailed study of the
Kashaya Pomo language beginning in the late 1950s.
During the course of his fieldwork, he transcribed
word-for-word native accounts as told to him by Esie
Panrish and Herman James. The native texts record
hi   al observations, folldore, myths, and other
stories that were part of Kashaya Pomno oral tradition.
Oswalt tanslated and published the texts in 1964 in
the monograph entitled Kashaya Texts.
More recent ethnographic research has been un-
dertaken with the Kashaya Pomno by the Department
of Anthropology, Sonoma State University. One
study, directed by Shirley Silver, collected informa-
tion on oral traditions and other aspects of Kashaya
lifeways at the Kashia Rancheria in the 1970s (Breck
Parkman, personal communication).
ANALYSIS OF THE
EHmoImsTluc TExS
In this section we compile information from the
original texts that describes the foods, subsistence
practices, material culture, sociopolitical organiza-
tion, religious institutions, and gender relations of the
Kashaya Ponmo. In presenting the text, parentheses
are used to denote words inserted by the original
authors, whilebracketsareemployed to denote words
added by the translators or ourselves.
Peter Corney
Dates of Observation. December 1814.
Citation. Corney'saccountsof his voyages in the
Pacific were first published serially in a weekdly liter-
ary magazine in London, 1821. These accounts were
republished in an 1896 book entitled Narrative of
Several Trading Voyagesfroml813to 1818,Between
the Northwest Coast of America, the Hawaiian Is-
lands and China, with a Description of the Russian
Establishments on the Northwest Coast [Honolulu:
Thomas G. Thrum].
Location. Indian village at Port Rumiantsev.
General Description of Village.
"On the 21st of December 1814 we sailed from
Monterey towards Bodago [sic], in the Latitude 38
126
their mouths except their fingers, which they dip into
the porridge and lick, and thus satisfy their hunger.
Although this form of eating does not arouse an
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
degrees 0, and Longitude 123 degrees, which we
reached in Due Time. On the 24th we saw a large
storehouse on shore; Mr. McDougal and myself went
in quest of its owners; we found it locked, and then
pulled up a lagoon, where we saw a number of Indians
collected around a large fire. We landed, and found
ourselves above an Indian village, for here they live
underground, and we could hear their voices beneath
us. Several old women and children made their
appearance; we gave them some beads and by signs
inquired where the Russians were; they pointed to the
men round the fire, to whom we accordingly went up,
and found them killing rabbits. Their mode of hunting
them is to fire the grass for a considerable distance,
and kill the rabbits as they are endeavoring to escape
from the flame. The natives, on this part of the coast,
apear tobe avery harmless race. We inquired for the
Russians, and they pointed to the northward. We then
left them, and, on passing the village, some of our
party had the curiosity to venture into their
subterraneous abodes, but were obliged to make a
hasty retreat, pursued by swarms of fleas, and an
intolerable stench from a mass of filth" (Comey
1896:33-34).
Fedor Lutke
Dates of Observation. September 4 - 28, 1818.
Citation. Original manuscript translatedby Basil
Dmytryshyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Tho-
mas Vaughan in The Russian American Colonies:
Three Centuries ofRussian EastwwdExpansion 1 798-
1867, Vol. 3 (Portland: Oregon Historical Society
Press, 1989).
Location. MostofLutke'sdescriptionsareof the
Indian village at Port Rumiantsev.
Subsistence Practices.
"When it was completely dark we had a very
interesting spectacle: a certain extent of land near the
settlement was all afire. The Indians who live in this
area (around the Ross settlement) eat a wild plant
which resembles rye, for which reason our settlers call
it rozhnitsa [rozh, rye]. When the kernels of the
rozhnitsa have been harvested, the straw which re-
mains is generally buned. This procedure makes the
next year's crop bigger and more flavorful"
(Dmytryshyn et al. 1989b:257).
"Theirfoodconsistsonlyofacornsandrozhnitsa,
and in the summer, whatever the sea provides. They
grind acorns as we do coffee, beat it up and mix it with
waterand heat it. This sweetporridge comprises their
main food. In place of saucepans they use reed or
grass baskets, into which they put heated stones.
There is no intermediary between these baskets and
twopersons atatime, andwhich in all fairness onecan
appetite in others, I decided to try it and found that this
provision is a bitter, rather unpleasant tasting blend.
We did not have an opportunity to observe how they
prepare rozhnitsa. It is probably not available at this
time of year, because we did not see anyone who had
any. However, the fields in many places were burned,
probably for the same reason mentioned earlier.
Aside from this they eat all sorts of shellfish and
some fish, but not much of the la erbecause they have
no means of catching them. However, we did see one
family eating small broadfish about two inches long,
whichcanprobablybetakenalong thecoas Theonly
preparation was to bury them in hot ashes for a while;
they were eaten whole, including the skin and ash
clinging to it" (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989b:276).
Material Culture.
"Their living quarters are more like beehives or
anthills than human habitations. They are made of
sticks stuck in the ground in a semicircle about one
and one-half arshins high; these are fastened together
and then covered with dry grass or tree branches.
These dwellings do not give them shelter from rain or
foul weather, which, fortnately for them, is quite rare
in the area where they live" (Dmytryshyn et al.
1989b:275).
"Industry among these Indians is still in a state of
complete infancy, or to state it better, it is nonexistent.
They walk around stark naked. Some of them make
a kind of shirt for themselves from blankets the
Spanish or the Russians give them, which garments,
however, do notcover their private parts. But there is
very little of this kind of clothing, because the Spanish
do not like to give them anything for free, the Indians
have nothing to give in exchange, and there are few
Russians here. We saw some Indians who had a kind
of cloak made out of sea gull skins, but this covered no
more than half the back. Considering the type of
clothing with which they attempt to cover the back,
rather than any other part of the anatomy, one can
conclude that they have no conception of modesty.
This refers only tothe men. The women wear the pelts
of wild sheep which they fasten around the waist and
allow to hang down below the knees. We saw very
few objects of their own handiwork. I have already
mentioned the baskets made of grass. Of all the items
they make, these deserve special attention because
they are so tightly woven that water does not seep
through.
Their only weapons are the bow and arrow,
which are rathercrudely made. Although they live for
most of the time near the sea, they have no boats
whatsoever. On the shore near the settlement there
was something resembling a raft, which consisted of
a few bundles of thin reeds fastened together. This
conaption, which cannot possibly hold more than
The Kashaya Pomo          127
term seaworthy, they use if they have to cross a
stream, or in some other such circumstance. Small
nets, cnrudely plaited of grass, conclude this list of
handicrafts" (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989b:277).
"Some of the promyshlenniks and Aleuts have
married these Indian women. Our interpreter, whose
wife is one of these people, told us that she had learned
his language very quickly and well, and that she had
also learned Aleut handicrafts, such as sewing the
whale gut kamleika [waterproof outer garment] and
other things. In one hut I saw a rather comely young
woman preping food, and when I approach  her I
was suopisad that she spoke easily and in clear
Russian. She invited me toeatheracornporridge, and
then complained about the rain. When I inquired I
found that she had lived for some time in the Ross
settlement with a promyshlenni, and then had re-
turmedtoher people" (Dmytryshynetal. 1989b:278).
"These Indians use a special kind of bathhouse
which is really just an underground iurt. An opening
is made on one side, through which one must crawl.
There is a smoke hole in the top" (Dmytryshyn et al.
1989b:278).
Sociopolitical Organization.
"Such people obviously can have no laws. Nev-
ertheless there was one among them who called him-
self theirleader,and whom ourpeopleby customrefer
to as a toion. But we could not determine how
extensive his power is over all the others. We did not
even see any exterior indications of respect shown
him by the others, and he would not have looked any
different from ethehers .if some ofour people had not
given him two shirts the day before, both of which he
wasted no time in putting on. It appe  that this
position is hereditary, because his father was also a
toion" (Dymtryshyn et al. 1989b:275-76).
Recreation.
"Their play is similar to thatof the Kolosh and the
Kodiak Aleuts. There are several marked sticks
which one person mixes up, concealing the marks; the
otherperson mustguess which is which. Idleness has
created a situation where persons who have almost
nothing to lose have a passion for the game. It is quite
remnrkable and amazing that among peoples who
inhabit the entire Northwest Coast of America, from
Kodiak to the 38th parallel, this game of chance is one
and the same, even though they have no other relation-
ship, nor the slightest similarity, nor do they have any
communication with one another at all" (Dymtryshyn
et al. 1989b:278).
Gender Relations.
"Women have no rights which would attract
them toreturn to theirprevious status. An Indian takes
as a wife an Indian woman whom he likes; he keeps
her as long as he wishes and discards her whenever he
chooses. Women do all the work. In the entire
settlement we saw only one man at work-he was
weaving a net-and perhaps he was doing that out of
boredom. Alltheresteither playordonothing. It was
a rare woman who was notoccupied with some work"
(Dymtryshyn et al. 1989b:278).
Vasilii M. Golovnin
Dates of Observation. September and October
1818.
Citation. The original manuscripthas been trans-
lated by Ella L. Wiswell in the book Around the
World on the Karmchatka, 1817-1819 by V. M.
Golovnin (Honolulu: The University Press of Ha-
waii and the Hawaiian Historical Society, 1979).
Location. Described Indian villages at Port
Rumiantsev and Fort Ross.
Subsistence Practices.
'"They do not bother to till the soil for food, but
take advantage of the free gifts of nature. Furer-
more, they are not too particular in their choice of
food; without the least repugnance they consume the
flesh of any animal they come across, any type of
shellfish or fish, and even reptiles, except poisonous
smakes. Themostimportantplantfoods consumedby
them are oak acorns, which they even preserve for
winter use, and wild rye grain, which grows in great
abundance here. To harvest the rye grain they resort
to a very simple, although rather curious, method:
they set fire to the entire field; the grass and stalks,
being very dry, burn very fast, while the grain is not
consumed by the fire but only scorched. Then the
Indians collect the scorched grain and eat it without
any furthr preration. They usually set these fires
at night, so that when appraching the coast one
always knows where the Indians have established
their camps. In addition to fish and shellfish, the
animal food most frequently consumed is the meat of
the wild deer, for they have a very easy and simple
method of killing these animals. The Indians cover
their bodies with a deer skin and tie on a deer's head;
disguised in this manner, they stealthily approach a
herd, very cleverly imitating the movements and leaps
of the animals. After penetrating the herd, they can
easily kill as many as they wish with their arrows"
(Wiswell 1979:. 168).
Material Culture.
"The Indians of New Albion, as well as those of
California, when living in freedom wear no clothing
except a loincloth; only .in winter during the cold
period do they throw on some skins of animals such
as deer, wolves, etc. Their costume consists of a
headgear nmade of feathers, and loincloths made of
grass and flowers. Spears and arrows constitute their
armaments" (Wiswell 1979:168).
128
cerain prescribed times. This went on for over an
hour in our presence, and when we left the shaman
was still continuing his cure" (Wiswell 1979:169).
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Sociopolitical Organization.
"Furthermore, the chief of the independent Indi-
ans who live at the bay came to see me, with an
interpreter, and gave me some very important infor-
mation concerning the unjust claims made to this
country by the Spanish, and requested that the Rus-
sians take them under their protection and settle
among them" (Wiswell 1979:160).
"In the preceding section I have already men-
tioned that the chief of the people living next to Port
Rumiantsev came to see me when my sloop was
anchoredthere. Hebroughtgiftsconsistingof various
parts of their regalia, arrows, and household items,
and asked to be taken under Russian protection. An
Aleut who had lived over a year among these people
acted as interpreter. This chief, called Valenila,
definitelywantedmoreRussians tosettleamong them
in order to protect them from Spanish oppession. He
begged me for a Russian flag, explaining that he
wanted to raise it as a sign of friendship and peace
whenever Russian ships would appear near the shore"
(Wiswell 1979:165).
Recreation.
"To pass the time, that hangs so heavily on their
hands that they do not know what to do with it, they
have invented a game: one player kneels in front of the
other, rapidly twirls a bunch of short, specially pre-
pared sticks in his hands, and at the same time emits
noises, sings and grimaces trying to be funny and
divert the attention of his opponIMent from his hands. At
an opportune moment he quickly thrusts his hands
into the grass, hides several of the sticks there, and
immediately puts his hands behind his back. His
opponent must guess how many sticks were left in the
grass; if he fails, he loses, otherwise he wins. They are
so addicted to this game, that in Port Rumiantsev,
where we gave them tobacco and various trifles in
exchange for some of their curios, they immediately
settled down to play and right then and there started
losing to each other the gifts they had just received.
They have some other games similar to this one, but
Ididnothavean oppom ity t observethem"(Wiswell
1979:168-69).
Religious Activities.
"I cannotcommenton theirreligion, butdo knlow
that they believe in the supernatural power of their
witch doctors, or shamans, as the Siberian natives call
them. In the above-mentioned port, I witnessed one of
these shamans curing a sick man. Sitting over the sick
man in the tent, he kept repeating incantations and
singing, while waving around a stick with feathers
attached to it. The patient's family, who were in the
same tent, responded and joined in the singing at
seeds, were stored in a small number of baskets; also
Otto Von Kotzebue
Dates of Observation. September 1824.
Citation. The English translation of Otto Von
Kotzebue's journal, ANew Voyage Round the World
in the Years 1823, 24, 25, and 26, was first published
in 1830(L1oon: HenryColbumnandRichardBentley).
Subsistence Practices.
"We sometimes also, but less frequently, saw
another species of stag, as large as a horse, with
branching antlers; these generally graze on hills,
from whence they can see round them on all sides,
and appear much more cautious than the small ones.
The Indians, however, have their contrivances to
take them. They fasten a pair of the stag's antlers on
their heads, and cover their bodies with skin; then
crawling on all-fours among the high grass, they imi-
tate the movements of the creature while grazing;
the herd mistaking them for their fellows, suffer
them to approach without suspicion, and are not
aware of the  achery till the arrows of the disguised
foes have thinned their number" (Kotzebue
1830:116).
"They have no permanent residence, but wan-
der about naked, and, when not employed by the
Russians as day-labourers, follow no occupation but
the chase. They are not difficult in the choice of
their food, but consume the most disgusting things,
not excepting all kinds of worms and insects, with
good appetite, only avoiding poisonous snakes. For
the winter they lay up a provision of acorns and wild
rye: the latter grows here very abundantly. When it
is ripe, they burn the straw away from it, and thus
roast the corn, which is then raked together, mixed
with acorns and eaten without any further prepara-
tion" (Kotzebue 1830-.126-27).
Recreation.
'Mhe Indians here have invented several games
of chance: they are passionately fond ofgaming, and
often play away everything they possess" (Kotzebue
1830:127).
Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell
Dates of Observation. September 1833.
Citations. The original manuscript was pub-
lished by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1839.
It was translated by Stross and Heizer in 1974 (Ber-
keley: Archaeological Research Facility, University
of California).
Location. ManyofWrangell's observations were
made on a trip up the Russian River some distance
from the Fort Ross settlement
Subsistence Practices.
"Their provisions of dough from ground acorns,
and a kind of gruel prepared from wild rye and other
The Kashaya Pomo           129
fish, which they catch in the brook by casting on top
of the water a powder prepared from a root, there
called soap root, which causes the fish to be sunned
and float to the surface" (Stross and Heizer 1974:4).
"Since theyderivetheirnourishmentmainlyfrom
acorns, wild chestnuts and seeds of diverse plants,
they cannot form populous groups and must, in order
to fmind adequate sustenance, abandon settlements that
have become too populous, and lead a nomadic life"
(Stross and Heizer 1974:5).
Material Culture.
"We found the Indian village on sandy soil,
entrenched behind shrubbery and dry ditches. It was
inhabited by five or six inter-related families. The
women had furnished these temporary dwellings,
made of flexible shafts of sand-willow and other
willows, which can be pushed into the ground quite
easily, in such an extraordinarily tasteful manner, that
I was most pleasantly surprised by the sight. The
colorful shading and the variety of sizes of the willow-
leaves (a tree which grows there in great abundance)
lent a quite special, rustic aspect to the open huts; the
sideopening, which servesas a door,isdecoratedwith
foliage with special care; several of the huts also
communicate with each others by means of internal
openings.
The foliage still retained its full freshness; but
before it could wither, the inhabitants would have left
their pleasant huts; the women load their babies and
meager possessions on their backs, on which they
carry their burden by means of a strap placed over the
forehead; the men decide on a new encampment, and
rapidly there rises a new little village, which is again
left behind in a few days". (Sumoss and Heizer 1974:3-
4).
"Their headdress, belts, earrings, etc., mostly
made of feathers, betray not only their inventiveness,
but also a certain penchant for beauty" (Stross and
Heizer 1974:5).
Sociopolitical Organization.
"They love their children with great tenderness,
but they demand patriarchal obedience, and all the
younger members of a tribe offer reverence to age,
experience, and skill in drawing the bow. The respect
shown for the father is often transmitted to the son;
however, the power of the headman in general is very
tenuous; for anyone is free to leave his birthplace and
to choose a different residence" (Stross and Heizer
1974:5-6).
Recreation.
"After having received tobacco, zwieback [rusk],
glass beads, and other trifles from us, they satdown in
a circle with their countrymen, our interpreters and
vaqueros, and started on their favorite occupation,
one may even say the only one engaged in by the men,
if circumstances permit, i.e. the game, even or odd.
Two players are seated opposite each other, while
on both sides of the players singing choirs are
placed; their melodious songs are interrupted only
by the abrupt, loud exclamations of the guessing
player. His opponentattempts toconceala number
of short sticks, which he holds in one hand behind
his back, while he makes diverse and rapid move-
ments with his arms, and beats his chest with his
other, free hand in time with the music. The game
lasts until one of the players has lost all his posses-
sions. It occupied our guests and the vaqueros all
through the night and until well into the morning"
(Stross and Heizer 1974:3).
Gender Relations.
"The hunt is the busi   of men, while the
women carry all the heavy burdens, and, quite
generally, they are burdened with the onerous asks.
This unusual distribution of the workload is prob-
ably the reason for the fact that the women here in
general have a much stronger physique then the
men who, although tall and well-proportioned, yet
seem to be weaker than the women" (Stross and
Heizer 1974:4).
Peter Kostromitinov
Dates of Observation. 1830-1838.
Citation. Translated from the original 1839
publication of the Imperial Academy of Sciences
by Stross and Heizer (1974).
Note. Kostromitinov provides some informa-
tion on several tribal groups and their different
languages in the vicinity of the Ross Colony (Sumtross
and Heizer 1974:7).
Subsistence Practices.
"The season dictates the place where they have
to find their sustenance. In spring they live in the
vicinity of the rivers and in locations that abound in
water, so that they may catch fish and collect roots
and herbs, while they spend the summer in woods
and plains, where they collect berries and seeds of
wild plants; in autumn they lay in stores of acorns,
wild chestnuts, and sometimes nuts, hunt bison and
goat [deer] with their arrows. The menu of the
Indians encompasses anything they can acquire,
large and small land and marine animals, fish,
crayfish, roots, herbs, berries, and other products of
the soil, even insects and worms. Meat and fish are
eaten slightly roasted on coals, all the rest mostly
raw. Acorns, collected in large quantity, constitute
their main staple food. They prepae them as
follows: after the acorns have been picked from the
tree, they are dried in the sun, then cleaned and
pounded in baskets with stones trimmed for the
purpose; then a pit is dug in the sand or some in
loose earth, the acorns are put into it, and covered
130
is unknown to them, and it is a comical sight to
sometimes see a savage dressed in women's clothes,
with a woman's chemise on top, or with all the shirts
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
with water, which is constantly absorbed by the soil.
This flushing is repeated until the acorns have lost all
their characteristic bitterness; having been removed
from the pit, they are then boiled in pots, into which
glowing hot stones are thrown. If, however, it is
desired to make pancakes or a kind of bread from
them, the acorns are pounded a little more coarsely,
and after their bitterness has been removed, they are
allowed to remain in the pit for a while. A kind of
dough is produced in this manner, which is then made
into flat cakes or cut into pieces, wrapped in broad
leaves, and baked on coals. This bread always looks
black. Wild chestnuts are prepared in the same
manner, but no bread is made from them, and they are
eaten as a pulp. The beginning July is convenient for
collecting acorns and seeds of wild plants.
When this is finished, they lose no time before
they start collecting the seeds of a plant that grows in
great quantity on the plain. Its appearance is as
follows: it reaches a height of 1 1/2 to 2 feet, several
sprouts start from the roots, the leaves are narrow-
oblong and covered with a delicate down, have a
peculiar aroma, and stick to the fingers, the flowers
are yellow and grow in pointed tufts, and the small
black seeds resemble Latuk [?]. These seeds are also
collected by the Indians in great quantity by shaking
them off the plant by means of a spade especially
made forthepurpose; thereupontheyaredried, ground
to meal and eaten dry. Their taste has some resem-
blance to toasted, dried oat meal. Wild rye, wild oats
and other grains are collected and, having been suit-
ably preparedarere eatendryoras a slightlysourmash"
(Stross and Heizer 1974:8-9).
Material Culture.
"These true children of nature have no idea of
clothing. The men go completely naked, but the
women cover the middle part of their bodies in front
and in back with the hides of wild goats [deer]; the
men bind their hair in a tuft on top of their heads, the
women at the nape of the neck; sometimes they let it
fall freely; the men fasten the bunches of hair by
means of little pieces of wood rather artfully carved
from a red palm [redwood?]. Both sexes decorate
themselves with pearls from mussels; they wear little
bones made from eagles' feet in their ears, and they
always go barefoot. This is the entire dress of those
that are yet unacquainted with our customs. The
Indians thatresideclosertoRoss andwho on occasion
work there, possess jackets, ruses, blankets and
other objects, which, however, they regard with com-
plete indifference. If they obtain something of this
sort, they immediately gamble it away or exchange it
for a trifle; the differences in our articles of clothing
"They do, however, enjoy smoking tobacco very
that he owns, so that he can hardly move. Without
attachment to any material thing, and being ignorant
of the value of things, they sometimes demand a great
deal for work performed by them, sometimes, on the
other hand, very little; their only purpose is to acquire
something so that they can gamble it away again"
(Stross and Heizer 1974:7-8).
"Their residences can be classified into summer
and winter quarters. During the summer they find
shelter in bushes, which are thinned below, and tied
together above; in winter, however, they construct
barabaras. A pit is dug, some vertical fixed poles are
driven into the ground with their pointed ends first,
and covered with wood bark, twigs, and grass; an
opening is lefthon topand on the side, the former to let
the smoke escape, the latter to serve as entrance into
the barabara. Grass and a few goat hides serve as
clothing and as bedding. A bow, arrows, a large pot,
and sometimes fishing nets constitute the only house-
hold goods. The bathhouses are constructed almost
the same as the barabaras. A pit is dug, a few poles are
placed around it and the whole is covered first with
bark, then with earth; on the side a small air vent is
made to allow the smoke to escape, and at the bottom
of the wall an opening is numade to allow entrance, but
it is so small that it can be entered only by crawling"
(Stross and Heizer 1974:8).
"Their weapons consist in bow and arrow and a
spear, all this is made mainly of young fir. The points
of arrows and spears consist of sharp, artfully shaped
stones, and their bow strings come froman sinews of
wild goats [deer]; in times of war they use, in addition,
a kind of sling, by means of which they throw stones
for long distances" (Stross and Heizer 1974:10).
Sociopolitical Organization.
"Under such rude conditions one would not pre-
sume thatthesepeople would have any ideaofa social
life or culture. As they live together at times in great
numbers, but usually in small compounds, they do not
know any kind of submissiveness. He who is en-
dowed with the most relatives is recognized as chief-
tain or toyon; in larger settlements there are several
such toyons, but their authority is negligible. They
have neither the right to conummand nor to punish
disobedience. Therefore any respect for the senior
members of the family is insignificant; sometimes the
experience of old age is consulted on the occasion of
some undertaking and that is all. According to their
view the bulk of the work is the duty of older men and
women; the younger people are saved for emergen-
cies; in other words, the toyons or elders in the tribe
do not enjoy the authority as for example with the
Kolosh, Aleuts, and similar peoples" (Stross and
Heizer 1974:9).
Recreation.
The Kashaya Pomo            131
much, as do all savages; they smoke it by means of
specially drilled wooden tubes having a pipe-bowl
carved from the same piece. At the thick end orin the
pipebowl an opening is hollowedout, into which they
stuff the tobacco; but since the pipe stem as well as the
pipe bowl is made in a straight line, they smoke with
their heads tilted back in order not to spill the tobacco.
They also have a special herb resembling tobacco,
which largely growsneartheriversin sandy locations,
but the smoke of this herb has a most offensive smell.
The Indians that dwell near the settlement are begin-
ning to abandon use of this herb, since they do not lack
the opportunity to obtain tobao by working; tlhse
living further away, however, still remain faithful to
their own tobacco" (Stross and Heizer 1974:9).
"Both sexes are extraordinarily devoted to gam-
bling, and that may be the reason that their dances are
not particularly varied, or much practiced. Once their
hunger is stilled, the remaining time is devoted to the
game. The most highly regarded and most popular is
the guessing game. The individuals that wish to play
with each other divide into two groups, sitting oppo-
site each other. Between them they spread a goat
[deer] hide, on which each of the parties has deposited
little sticks. One among the party takes some grass or
something similar into his hand. While holding both
hands behind his back, he places the object from one
hand into the other, while executing all kinds of
gestures. His opponent now must note in which hand
the grass is located. When he thinks he knows where
it is, he taps the hand in which he believes it tobe. If
his guess is correct, he receives a few sticks, if not, he
has toforfeitsomeof his. The nextpair thencontinues
the game in a similar manner. Once all sticks have
passed to one side, that party has won the game, and
the objects what were lying about are distrinbuted
among the community. The onlookersof whom thee
usually are many, pass the time by singing all the
while, and spur the players on with all kinds of teasing
and joking. It can be considered a sign of their
gentleness that disputes never arise among the play-
ers. The Indians are so given to the game that those
among them who work in Ross, sometimes, in spite of
being tired after the day's work, enjoy the games until
fouro'clock in the morning, and then goback towork
withouthavinghadsufficientsleep" (Stross andHeizer
1974:12).
Religious Activities.
"The deceased are cremated; all the relatives
gather around the pyre and show their griefby lamen-
tations and wailing; the nearest relatives cut off their
hair and throw it into the fire, and strike their breasts
with stones, throw themselves on the ground, and
even,outof special attachmentto thedeceased, pound
themselves bloody, or even to death; but such cases
are rare. The most valuable of his possessions are
cremated with the corpse of the deceased. There are
annual commemorative ceremonies; it has been no-
ticed that they almost always are held in the month of
February. These rituals consist in the following: ten
or more men are selected for presentation, according
to the size of the settlement; they first must undergo
purification by fasting, and for several days they
really consumne very little, and above all no meat.
Aftersuch prepartion thechosen persons dress up on
the eve of the designated day, in ababaraeeially
reserved for them, they smear themselves with soot
and various colors, ornament themselves with feath-
ers and grasses, and then they sing and dance until
darkness settles on them. Then they gointo thewoods
andrun around, with furbrands in their hands, singing
all the while; then they return to the brabaa and
spend the night sinsng, dancing andwithcontros.
The following day is spent similarly into the morning,
on the third day, however, they betake themselves to
the relatives of the deceased, who await them in their
barabaras and, after a suitable welcome, commence
lamentations all together, the old women scratch their
faces and strike their chests with stones. Therelatives
of the deceased positively believe that they are seeing
their deceased friends in these actors. During this
presentation the entire settlement exercises great ab-
stinence in matters of nourishment, and meat is not
eaten, sometimes for a long time.
They only grudgingly answered questions we
asked thanem concerning these rites, and for this reason
it was impossible to learn further details" (Stross and
Heizer 1974:10).
'"The recovery of a sick person usually gives rise
to festivities. The recovered person notifies all those
living in the vicinity, inviting them as his guests, and
the rich people and the toyons even invite Indians
living at a greater distance, as long as they are not
engaged in dispute with them. Upon arrival of the
guests the host presents them with everything he
possesses. Supplies acquired with difficulty, suffi-
cient to nourish the family of the host for several
months, areconsumed within afew hours. When they
are all satisfied, they start giving each other good
advice, to live in peaceand harmonyandnottoquarel
with each other, and this is followed by song and
dance; some sing, some dance, some play tricks;
sometimes a woman stands up in the centerand sings,
while the men take one another by the hands, turn
about, or hop around her, some of the men have
eagle's bones in their mouths and whistle a gay tune.
When a song is over, they all call out 'hoi' and then
continue their song. The entire song usually cnsists
of some few words as, for instance, "you love me, and
so I love you too"; this is repeated again and again
during the dance, the tune is pleasant, but almost
always melancholy" (Stross and Heizer 1974:11-12).
132
which frequent Bodega Bay; several chiefs and a good
number of young people, encouraged by the bounty
and generosity with which they were treated by the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
"The wizards of shamans of these Indians do not
excel in their adroitness and cleverness, as in the case
ofother savages. When they are about to practice their
magic, they go deep into the forest and, after their
return do their soothsaying to those that had come to
obtain their advice. In order to appease the evil spirit
if it is desired to prevent a misfortune, the shaman
takes into the forest with him some glass beads or
some other thing, which he maintains he gave the
demon. After some lapse of time he brings those
things back, passes them off as his own, and loses
them by gambling. The main art of the shamans
consists in healing the sick" (Stross and Heizer
1974:12-13).
Gender Relations.
"The men live in complete idleness; their greatest
gratification is to eat their fill and to do nothing. It is
up to the women to prepare the food and to do the other
housework; as they are almost continually following
their nomadic pursuits, the women, on their travels,
carry the children as well as the remaining baggage,
while the men lead the way with their bows and
arrowsand only very rarely carry any burden" (Stross
and Heizer 1974:8).
Cyrille LaPlce
Dates of Observation. August 1839.
Citations. LaPlace's description ofhis visit to the
Indian village near the Fort Ross stockade is trans-
lated from the original French version published in
1855 by Farris (1986b; Newsfrom Native California
2:22-23, 1988).
Description of Village.
"I accepted therefore with enthusiasm the propo-
sition made by my host [Rotchev, the last managerof
Fort Ross from 1838 to 1841] to visit one afternoon
before sunset an example of a hamnlet which the
natives and their families, employed in agricultural
work, had established in the vicinity of the fort. Its
population was rather considerable and was com-
posed of several hundred individuals" (Fanrris
1986b:65).
General Observations.
"Mr Rotchev, seeing my astonishment that the
contact with the compatriots [Russians] had notmodi-
fied more the ways and habits of the natives assured
me that these people, just like their counterparts in
New Archangel [Sitka], obstinately refused to ex-
change their customs for ours. 'However,' he added,
'thanks to a lot of perseverance and enticements, I
have succeeded in diminishing a little this adverse
sentiment to whites, among the natives of the tribes
Russian agents, and finding, with reason, horribly
miserable the life which they led during the winter in
the woods where they had no other protection against
the cold and snow than the caves or the shelter of trees,
and no other means of subsistence than the unreliable
products of the hunt, remain near the fort during the
bad season, working with our colonists and are nour-
ished like them. Also one sees their tastes change
more each day to the varied articles of adornment,
dress andother things with which are paid the services
which they provide to the colony. Thus one could
hope that if the company retains this establishment for
long enough, the natives will be led little by little to
submit to the yoke of civilization. Seeing their labors
generously paid for, their freedom and religious be-
liefs, absurd as they are, respected; the most indulgent
principleofjustice to the point thatdeportation to one
of our other establishments is the most severe punish-
ment which I may inflict on those among them who
have committed the worst derelictions against our
properties. Seeing, I say, the interest that the public
functionaries take in their well-being, they return each
spring in greater number than the year before, to
cultivate our fields, and attach themselves to us, to the
degree that in their desire to remain always in good
stead with the colonists, they are generally the first to
denounce the trouble-makers who, for vengeance or
by love of disorder, kill the beasts in the fields or even
destroy our crops.'
'But,' continued my helpful guide [Rotchev], 'I
have notyetbeenable tomake these children of nature
understand the value of foresight and the charm of
property. They are all, men and women, passionate
for self-adornment. They seek with eagerness that
which satisfies this taste and ask for it in preference to
all else. Hardly.have they obtained it, than they cover
themselves with necklaces, pants, shirts, vests, and
consider themselves in this ridiculous attire as being
very attractive, the happiest people on earth. But the
next day one encounters them as bereft of the orna-
ments and clothing as they were the day before. It is
even common that the tribe to which they belong, and
to which each member has been not less generously
paid, are found, when they return to Ross toward the
end of the bad season, as poor, as denuded of every-
thing with which they were well provided a few
months before.
What has become of these often considerable
quantities of varied merchandise which they had in
theirpossession? Wedon'tknowyet. Were theysold,
given to their compatriots who live in the forest all
year? This is not likely. One is struck with the
realization that giving in to thepassion forplay, which
among these miserable savages is pushed to a point
unknown, perhps, to the peoples of the old world,
they have seen their riches pass to the hands of players
The Kashaya Pomo            133
more clever or more lucky than they"' (Fanrris
1986b:68-70).
Subsistence Practices.
"The majority [of the women] were busy with
housekeeping, preparing meals for their husb ands and
children. Some were spreading out on the embers
some pieces of beef given as rations, or shell-fish, or
even fish which these unhappy cratures came to
catch either at the nearby river [Gualala River ?J or
from the sea; while the others eated the grain [wheat
?] in a willow basket before grinding it between two
stones. In the middle of this basket they shook
constantly some live coals on which each grain passed
rapidly by an ever more accelerated  oating move-
ment until they were soon p   , othmwise the
inner side of the basket would be burned by the fire"
(Farris 1986b:67).
"This superstition isespeciallyoddsince they use
these feathered darts [arrows] with a marvelous skill,
and can hit the smallest four-footed animals at enor-
mous distances" (Farris 1986b:78).
"To catch the timid creatures of the woods who,
ever on the watch, fled with the speed of lightning at
the least appearance of danger, these same hunters
utilize a subterfuge, thanks to which they nearly
always succeed.
One among them, disguised in the skin of a deer,
horns on the head and the hide on his back, moves
toward the poor beasts grazing peacefully on the
plain, until he finds himselfnear enough, thanks tohis
disguise, to that which he wishes to make his first
prey, to be able to shoot it with a killing arrow. A
second was taken the same way, then a third, and the
massacre continued thus here and there until the rest
of the herd, finally taking alarm, dispersed afar in the
high grass or nearby woods" (Farris 1986b:79).
Material Culture.
"Also, from this moment I could move freely in
the huts and admit myself thus to the secrets of their
interior.
This interiorwas hardly hidden, itistrue,because
the habitations of these poor peopleconsisted without
exception of miserable huts formed of branches
through which the rain and wind passed without
difficulty. It was there that all the family, father,
mother, and children spent the nights lying pell-mell
around the fire, some on cattle hides, the majorit on
the bare ground, and each one enveloped in a coverlet
of wool which served him equally as a mantle during
the day, when the weather was cold or wet.
Such was the costume of the men who sur-
rounded me, that it seemed to me all of them were
nearly nude, except the chief and several young men,
that without doubt the presence of the governor, for
whom they showed a profound respect, had decided to
wear European shirt and pants" (Farris 1986b:66).
"Some of these baskets (paniers), or more accu-
rately these deep baskets (vases) seemed true models
of basketmaking, not only by their decoration but by
the finished touches of the work. They are made of
shoots of straw [?] or compact gorse so solidly held
together by the threads, that the fabric was water-
resistant, as efficiently as baked clay and earthen-
ware. But, more behind in material civilization that
the Kaloches [natives of the Northwest,  bly
Tlingit], my savages [atFort Ross] did not know how
to construct wooden bowls in which the Indians
houekeees of the northwest came toboil liquidsby
immersing some stones red-hot from the fire" (Farris
1986b:67-68).
"Down in a circular hole, dug into the soil, and
having about five meters of diameter and a quarter of
this measure in depth, is placed a roof of a flattened,
conical form, constructed of branches covered with
sod, such t air could not pass through. In this type
of sweating-room, into the interior of which one can
only arrive by a very narrow opening, of which the
entry is severely forbidden to women, are assembled,
sitting on rocks ranged around an enormous brazier,
thebathris, amongwhom thelast arrivinghastheduty
ofclosingwith a flatrockorplank,thesingleent e
so that in a moment the air rises to a very high
temperature" (Fais 1986b:72).
Sociopolitical Organization.
"I had a number of reflections of this sonrt, in
conemplang the chief of the village who I had seen
the evening before and who had come to pay me a
formal visit. I found him seated on a rock in the
courtyard of the fort, surrounded by several of his
men, all warriors like him. Such was made suffi-
ciently clear by the tattoos which ornamented their
faces, also by irregular scars of various wounds, of
which the healing hadbeen abandoned, by all a ear-
ances, to the Care of Nature.
I was really struck by the dignified air of my new
acquaintance in hisgrandcostume. A large mantle of
tree bark decoratAed with brilliantly colored feathers,
littleshellsormother-of-pearl [abalone?] ingeniously
inaterspersed, was draped majestically on his shoul-
ders, and showed the bizarre but regular designs
which covered his large chest and muscular arms.
Around his neck were several necklaces of small glass
red or black beads; and in his hair, done up and
attached on top of his head, were placed some care-
fully carved wooden pins, crowned by a cluster of
black feathers similar to those which adorned his
temples, and blended nicely with a mass of copperear
pendants, colored pebbles [magnesite?], and even of
animal teeth. There was in the commanding appea-
ance, the attitude of this chief, something noble and
imposing. The large proportions of his body, one
134
bosom of civilized societies the women are so gener-
ously endowed by nature, they were so dirty, the hide
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
would have said a statue since he held himself immo-
bile, his proud air, the impassive look of his physiog-
nomy reminded me of the picturesque descriptions
that [James Fenimore] Cooper gave his prairie Indi-
ans" (Farris 1986b:77-78).
Recreation.
"At every moment of the day, when they have
something to lose, one sees them grouped four by
four, squatting down on the ground, surrounded by
numerous spectators awaiting, nearly always with
impatience, the moment when it is their turn to take
part. They play a sort of game which is hardly more
complicated than double or nothing, so common
among our school-children; but to which they have
come to give a wholly greater importance by the
singularly animated pantomimes to which the action
is accompanied among them. In his hands, the playing
partner holds two sticks, and while in the presence of
his two adversaries whose carefully watching eyes
follow with anxiety his least movements, he separates
the two sticks, or even rejoins them in one single hand;
his associate, sitting beside him, seeks to distract by
his cries, gambits, leaps and contortions, the attention
of the party hoping to know the truth. If two times in
three this person succeeds in saying, at a given mo-
ment, how many sticks the player has in the right
hand, the stakes belong to him; in the contrary case, it
is entirely lost.
So that this description would have some interest
for the reader, it would be necessary for me to render
all the vivid and lively (sudden) emotions which, on
the mobile features of these children of nature; the
cries, the gesticulations, the laughter of those who
won; the cold impassive air of those who, losing often
in a single stroke the fruit of many months of work,
* became again poorer than they had been before. In
every case they suffer the bad forame with a philoso-
phy, or to be more accurate, a dignified indifference
like the ancient stoics; and this savage who came to
the game bedecked with glass trinkets, or other omrna-
ments, from head to foot, who had found means in
order to make himselfmore attractive to cover himself
with four or five shirts, as well as pants and vests
superimposed one over the other, returned to his hut
gay as a finch and naked as a worm" (Farris 1986b:70-
71).
Gender Relations.
"In vain I sought to discover among the other sex
some analogous advantages. I found all the women
horribly ugly, having a stupid air, glum, their health
broken by misery, by the hard work; and if some
young woman showed in her figure, in the features of
her face, some vestiges of the charms which in the
or wool skirt which composed nearly their only gar-
ment was so filthy, their hair was so disheveled, that
they could only inspire pity and disgust" (Farris
1986b:67).
Stephen Powers
Dates of Observation. 1871-1872.
Citation. Powers (original 1877, reprinted in
1976; Tribes of California, [Berkeley: University of
California Press]).
Subsistence Practices.
"These Indians make considerable account of the
wild oats growing so abundantly in California, which
they gatherandprepare in the following manner: The
harvester swings a large, deep, conical basket under
his left arm, and holds in his right hand a smaller one
furnished with a suitable handle. When the oats are
dead ripe they shatter out easily, and he has only to
sweep the small basket through the heads in a semi-
circle, bringing it around to the larger one, into which
he discharges the contents at every stoke. When the
hamper is full he empties it in a convenient place, and
the squaws proceed to hull the grain. They place a
quantity inabasket,moisten itslightly, then churn and
stir the mass with sticks which cause the chaff to
accumulate on the surface,.when they burn it off by
passing feands over it. This process is repeated
until the grain is tolerably clean.
They then beat it into flour with stones, and roast
itforpinole or manufacture it into bread; and the latter
article is said by those who have eaten it to be quite
palable and nutritious.
Like all their brethren they are also very fond of
acorns, and the old Indians still cling tenaciously to
them in preference to the finest wheaten bread. To
prepare them for consumption they first strip off the
shells one by one, then place a large basket without a
bottom on a broad, flat stone, pour into it the hulled
acorns, and pound them up fine with long, slender,
stone pestles. I had often noticed these bottomless
baskets before, and wondered how the bottoms were
worn out while the sides remained so good; but here
I learned that they were so made for a good reason.
The flour thus obtained is bitter, puckery, and unfit to
be eaten, but they now take it to the creek for the
purpose of sweetening it. In theclean, white sand they
scoop out capacious hollows, and with the palms of
their hands pat them down smooth and tightL The
acorn flourispoured in andcovered with water. In the
course of two or three hours the water percolates
through the sand, carrying with it a portion of the
bitterness; and by repeating this process they render
the flour perfectly sweet. The bread made from it is
deliciously rich and oily, but they contrive somehow
to make it as black as a pot, not only on the crust but
throughout. Generally it is nothing but a kind of
The Kashaya Pomo            135
panada or mush, cooked with hot stones in baskets.
In a time of scarcity they cut down the smaller
trees in which the woodpeckers have stored away
acorns, or climb up and pluck them out of the holes"
(Powers 1976:187-88).
"The Gualala also eat a considerable quantity of
wild potato, probably cammas, which they call hi-po,
and which issaid tobequitegoodeatingwhencooked
and peeled There is a certain locality on the Gualala
Creek, called by them Hi-po-wi, which signifies '"po-
tato place." Unlike the Atlantic tribes, those on this
coast seldom consume anything raw, except dried
smelt and salmon.
Clams and mussels are great dainties in the sea-
son. They also trap ground-squirrels 'and such small
deer' by means of a noose attached to a pole bent over,
which springs up and hoists the animal into the air"
(Powers 1976:188-89).
Material Culture.
'"They construct their conical wigwams princi-
pally with slabs of redwood bark. I saw in the
possession of a Gualala squaw a fancy work-basket,
which evinced in its fabric and ornamentation quite an
elegant taste and an incredible patience. It was of the
shape common for this species of basket-hat ofa flat,
round squash, to use a homely comparison-woven
watertight of fine willow twigs. All over the outside
of it the down of woodpeckers' scalps was woven in,
forming a crimson nap which was variegated with a
great number of hanging loops of strung beads and
rude outlines of pine trees, webbed with black sprigs
into the general texture. Around the edge of the rim
was an upright row of little black quail's plumes gayly
nodding. There were eighty of these plumes, which
would have required the capture of that number of
quails, and it must have taken at least one hundred and
fifty woodpeckers to furnish the nap on the outside.
The squaw was engaged three years in making it,
working at intervals, and valued it at $25. No Ameri-
can would collect the materials and make it for four
times the money.
Charles Hopps [lHauptsl, a veteran pioneer, told
me that such richly-onamented baskets were quite
frequentamongtheCalifornia Indians,buttheAmeri-
cans were seldom permitted to see them" (Powers
1976:186-87).
"But among these southern tribes the rudest kind
of a pipe answers all purposes. The Indian takes any
straight stick he happens to find and whittles out of it
a stem a foot long and as large as one's little finger,
with a rough lump of wood at the end, which is burned
orbored out of little to serve for a bowl, the whole pipe
being straight, so that the smoker must cant it up a
good deal or lie on his back" (Stephens 1976:189).
"They reckon their beads "by the two hundred",
as one explained to me, up to a thousand, the word for
which is tush-op-te (literally 'five two-hundreds')"
(Powers 1976:192).
"Man and wife do not sleep apart, as in some
Algonkintribes,butliedownsnuglytogetherin a kind
of nest, and draw a hare-skin rug over them" (Powers
1976:193).
Sociopolitical Organization.
"The chieftainship is hereditary unless the heir is
incompetent, though its functions are very nebulous,
and their social system nowdays is patriarchal. But as
on Russian River the remnant of them is so shunken
and narrowed down that it saddens their hearts, and
they dwell all in one wigwam together for the com-
forting of their souls, though some who thus abide in
common are nowise related" (Powers 1976:193).
Recreation.
"While among the Gualala I had an excellent
opportunity of witnessing the gambling game of wi
and tep, and a description of the same, with slight
variations, will answer for nearly all the tribes in
Central and Southern California.
After playing tennis all the afternoon they as-
sembled in the evening in a large frame-house of one
room, made by themselves with tolerable skill, and
squatted on the ground around a fire, which it was the
children's task constantly to replenish with shavings.
Tere were about forty men, women and youngsters.
They first divided off in two equal parties, and then
proceeded to make up the grand sweepstakes. One
Indian would lay down a half dollar, and another of the
opposite section would cover the same. Another
would deposit a blanket or a pair of trousers, and one
of the other side would match it with an article agreed
to be of equal value. A squaw would contribute a
dress, or a chemise, or a string of beads, which would
be covered as above, and so on until they deemed the
stake large enough to be worth their while. It con-
sisted of $8 in silver coin, a large hatful of strings of
shell-money, and an immense heap of clothing and
blankets, some of then new and very good, and it was
worth at least $150.
They gamble with four cylinders of bone about
two inches long, two of which are plain and two
marked with rings and strings tied around the middle.
The game is conducted by four old and experienced
men,frequently gray-heads,twoforeachparty,squat-
ting on their knees on opposite sides of the fire. They
have before them a quantity of fine dry grass, and with
their hands in rapid and juggling motion before and
behind them, they roll up each piece of bone in a little
bale, and the opposite party presently guess in which
hand is the marked bone. Generally only one guesses
at a time, which he does with the word 'tep' (marked
one), 'wi' (plain one). If he guesses right for both the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
players, they simply toss the bones over to him and his
partner, and nothing is scored on either side. If he
guesses right for one and wrong for the other, the one
for whom he guessed right is 'out', but his partner rolls
up the bones for another trial, and the guesser forfeits
to them one of the twelve counters. If he guesses
wrong for both, they still keep on, and he forfeits two
counters.
There are only twelve counters, and when they
have been all won over to one side or the other the
game is ended. Each Indian then takes outof the stake
the article which he or she deposited, together with
thatplacedon it, so thateveryoneofthewinningparty
comesoutwithdoublethe amounthestaked"(Powers
1976:189-90).
"This singular game was protracted until mid-
night, when we came away, and we learned next
morning that it was not concluded til two o'clock.
One thing is praiseworthy in the Indian gamblers, and
that is the good naturewith which they acceptall their
losses. They very seldom quarrel over a game, and
never fight unless inflamed with the white man's a-ka
bish-i-tu (bad water).
But for all kinds of gambling both sexes and all
ages have a positive passion. The Gualala wife of
Hopps, although the mother of two little children,
abandoned them utterly to herhusband's care, watch-
ing the game until the 'wee sma hours', when it
closed; and, in consequence, Hopps was obliged to get
breakfast next morning, a task to which he seemed to
be accustomed, and which he accepted with becoming
resignation" (Powers 1976:191-92).
Religious Activities.
"Every year brings around the great autumnal
games, which continue a matter of two weeks. Be-
sides the spear dance, tennis, gambling, and the like,
they amuse themselves with divers[e] otherentertain-
ments. One of them is thedevil dance, which is gotten
up to terrify the women and children, like the
haberfeldtreiben of the Bavarian peasants. In the
midst of the ordinary dances there comes rushing
upon the scene an ugly apparition in the shape of a
man, wearing a feather mantle on his back reaching
from the armnn-pits down to the mid-thighs, zebra-
painted on his breast and legs with black stripes, bear-
skin shako on his head, and his arms stretched out at
full length along a staff passing behind his neck.
Accoutered in this harlequin rig he dashes at the
squaws, capering, dancing, whooping; and they and
the children flee for life, keeping several hundred
yards between him and themselves. If they are so
unfortunate as to touch even his stick all their children
will perish out of hand.
The object of this piece of gratuitous foolery
seemstobe,asamongmostofthePomotribes,merely
to exhibit to the squaws the power of their lords over
the infernal regions and its denizens, and thereby
remind them forcibly of the necessity of obedience.
Their fashion of the spear dance is different from
the Gallinomero (a Pomo group south of Healdsburg
on the Russian River). The man who is to be slain
stands behind a screen of hazel boughs with his face
visible through an apeiture; and ithe spearman, after
the usual protracted dashing about and making of
feints, strikes him in the face through the hole in the
screen He is then caried off, revives, etc.
The Gualala say the world was made by the Great
Manabove assisted by the Old Owl; here we doubtless
have a Russian graft of their aboriginal belief. The
lower animals were created first; man and woman
after" (Powers 1976:193-94).
ETmNo    A'muc AccoUNIns
Samuel Barrett
Dates of Fieldwork. Primary fieldwork in 1903,
1904, 1906; museum research in 1914-1915.
Citations. Barrett (1908, 1916, 1952 [volumes 1
and 2], 1975).
Subsistence Practices. Barrett (1952) presents
the most detailed description of Pomo subsistence
practices and related material culture yet written. The
majority of the subsistence activities are very similar
to those described in earlier ethnohistorical accounts,
especially by Kostromitinov. These include deer
hunts in which men stalked their prey dressed in deer
masks, antlers, and hides (1952:123); the preparation
ofmanyfoodsasgruelsorsoupsbyheatingtheliquids
in tightly woven baskets using fired hot rocks
(1952:60); the grinding of acorns in hopper mtars
with pestles, and their subsequent leaching in sand-
lined pits where water is percolated through the acorn
flour (1952:62,71); the cooking of black acorn bread
(1952:71-75); the broilingof many meats on hot coals
(1952:97); theprepartionof seeds (1952:85); and the
use of fish poisons (1952:149-50). Some subsiste
practices not mentioned in earlier accounts include
the use of bnrush fences to snare rabbits and quails
(1952:129-35).
Material Culture. Much of the material culture
described in detail by Barrett is mentioned in earlier
accounts. Theseincludehopper mortars,stonepestles,
hammerstones(1952:173-79); coodng stones thesize
of fists used in water tight baske and underground
ovens (1952:175); projectilepoints made from obsid-
ian (1952:176); clam shell disk beads (1952:289);
bows (1952:183); baskets (1952:276); and straight
wooden pipes with bulbous bowls (1952:116).
Some of the architectural forms exhibit consider-
able coherence over time. In general concordance
136
The Kashaya Pormo          137
with Lutke, Wrangell, Kostromitinov, and LaPlace,
Barrett describes temporary brush shelters used by
hunter-gatherer parties during ihe summer months
(1975:40), and small semi-subterranean structures
(4.5 to 9 m in diameter, 1.2 m deep) used as sudatory
and men's houses (1975:44). However, at least two
types of structures described by Barrett were not
recorded during the Russian occupation.
One is the classic coastal Pomo house type,
which Powers also mentions at Haupt's Ranch, con-
sisting of redwood bark leaned together on a central
pole to form an interior space of about 2.4 to 3.6 m in
diameter (Barrett 1908:24; 1975:37). In contrast,
Kostronitinov, Comrney, and Sandels describe houses
that were oval, semi-subterranean structures.
Kostromitinov describes these "winter" houses as
underground "barabaras" that consisted of an
understructure of poles placed in the ground covered
with bark, twigs, and grass. Barrett (1975:42) does
note that "men of means" did build semi-subterranean
earth covered lodges.
The other type of structure is the large semi-
subterranean dance houses that are a central focus of
theceremonialcycleoflaterPomorancherias. Barrett
(1975:45-51) defines these as very imposing struc-
tures constructed with eight major posts that are set
about 1 to 1.8 m underground to hold up a roof that
coversa 12 to 18 mdiameterspace. Thatsubterranean
dance houses were not described by early Russian
administrators and visitors to Fort Ross or by Powers
atHaupt'sRanch is rather interesting. Itmay suggests
that these structures were relatively late innovations
among Kashaya Pomo, dating possibly to the late
nineteenth century.
Sociopolitical Organization. Barrett (1908:16)
suggests that the village composed the only political
divisionofPomopeoples,andthateachvillageclaimed
the nearby land as part of its territory. Each village
unit consisted of a "big" captain or chief and several
lesser captains or chiefs. The captains or chiefs
formed a village council that represented the various
families in the community (1908:14-16).
Religious Activities. Barrett (1952:51-60, 64)
depicts a variety of ceremonies and feasts that relate
to hunting and gathering activities.
GenderRelations. Barrett(1952:64,85,118)notes
that men are primarily responsible for hunting and
fishing, and that women usually gather vegetable
foods.
Alfred Kroeber
Dates of Fieldwork. Not specified.
Citation. Kroeber 1925.
Subsistence Practices. Kroeber's (1925) synthe-
sis relies extensively on Barrett's data.
Material Culture. Kroeber's (1925) discussion
relies extensively on Barrett's (1908) data
Sociopolitical Organization. Similar to Barrett,
Kroeber (1925:228-29) defines the village commu-
nity or tribelet as a political unit. However, he
suggests that a community may be composed of one
principal settlement and several minor settlements of
related kinspeople. The villagecommunity is defined
as a tract of land that may measure 16 kmn along the
coast and extend a greater distance into the interior
hinterland (1925:234). Employing Barrett's Ioca l
information on ancient villages and campsites (figure
4.1),Kroeber(1925:233-34) speculatesthattheSouth-
western Porno were divided into ninetribelets, five on
the coast and four in the interior. A head chief who
lived in the principal village would represent each
tribelet, as well as lesser chiefs who resided in nearby
hamlets. The lesser chiefs would have coperated
with the head chief and formed an informal commu-
nity council (1925:250).
Religious Activities. Kroeber describes three
major ceremonies of the Pomo:
1) the Kuksu or Guksu impersonation rituals in
whichparticipantsworebig-head orimen and tust
spearsatsubjectsbehind a screenofbushes(1925:261-
63). This ceremony appears to be the "spear dance"
as described by Powers.
2) the "Old Ghost" ceremony in which dancers
impersonate deceased individuals from the commu-
nity (1925:263). This may be the ceremony described
by Kostromitinov at Fort Ross in the 1830s.
3) the "Modem Ghost" dance which diffused out
of Nevada in 1870 and probably reached the Pomo in
1872 (1925:269). This later ceremony is under the
leadership of the "maru" (dreamer or prophet) who
communicates with the spirit world through trances
and dreams. Kroeber (1925:270) notes that the cer-
emony represents an Indian revivalistic movement
that stresses traditional native lifeways as a reaction
against the encroaching Euro-American society.
Edwin Loeb
Dates of Fieldwork. 1921 (graduate seminar),
1924-1925.
Citation. Loeb 1926.
Subsistence Practices. Loeb's (1926:163-76)
discussion of hunting game, gathering vegetable re-
sources, and preparing and cooking foodstuffs is very
similar to Barrett. Many of the practices describedby
Loeb are mentioned in ethnohistoric accounts. Loeb
does provide greater detail on sea mammal hunting
and coastal fishing than Barrett. He describes the use
of crude rafts to paddle to offshore rocks where seals
and sea lions were bludgeoned with a heavy wooden
club (1926:169). Coastal fishing was done frm
138
gathered abalone, other seafoods, and most vegetable
products. At low tide both men and women went to
the shore to gather food (1926:164-65). Women did
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
onshore rocks using lines of kelp and wooden hooks
(1926:168).
Material Culture. Again, Loeb describes similar
kinds of material culture as outlined in Barrett. He
also describes conical redwood slab houses, summer
brush houses, sudatory or men's houses, and large
semi-subtearanean"ghosthouses"(1926:158-61). He
suggests that the large ghost or dance houses were
constructed every seven years in a community exclu-
sively for Old Ghost ceremonies (1926:161). He
suggests that the Old Ghost ceremonies may have
been rotated among nearby communities. Loeb notes
that contemporary Pomo people now use the ghost
houses to perform the modern ghost culL
Sociopolitical Organization. Loeb (1926:236-
37) recognizes "big chiefs" who served as peacemak-
ers and inachers and "boy chiefs" whoassisted the
big chiefs in coastal Pomo communities. The posi-
tions of leadership taded to be hereditary in so far as
the candidate possessed the proper skills for the job.
The territory around a village was regarded as the
property of the community (1926:234).
Recreation. Loeb (1926:212) describes gam-
bling games recorded by earlier observers, but indi-
cates that these games are played less frequently now
and always in the sweat house. At the end of modern
ghost dance ceremonies, feasting and gambling take
place.
Religious Activities. Loeb (1926:338) describes
the death and resurrection ceremony of the Old Ghost
ceremony that used to be held in semi-subterranean
ghost houses. The Kuksu ceremony that involved
secret societies of shamans was held in a brush house
or open enclosure in the springtime (1926:354-56).
The modern ghost dance started with the Northern
Paiute of Nevada in 1870 and diffused west. The
Pomo learned of the religious cult from the Patwin in
1872. Loeb (1926:394) notes that the modern ghost
dance replaced both the Old Ghost ceremony and the
Kuksu secret society. Maru priests or dreamers, of
which two or three may practice in one town, bor-
rowed some regalia for their dances, such as the big-
heads, from older Patwin Kuksu ceremonies
(1926:395-96). Loeb (1926:396) suggests that the
contemporary, semi-subterranean, earth-covered,
dance houses are similar to those found among tribes
to the east. He outlines several architectural innova-
tions, including an interior gallery, painted interior
poles, and a tunnel entance, that have been adopted
by Pomo peoples in recent years (1926:395-96).
Gender Relations. Among the coastal Pomo,
men reportedly did all the fishing, while women
all the cooking, while men carved up the meat. Men
also gathered firewood, obtained salt, made shell
money, and tanned hides for clothing. On trips,
women served as burden carriers, hauling infants and
household utensils on their backs while the men
stalked ahead with only their bows and arrows
(1926:176, 192).
Edward Gifford
Dates of Fieldwork. 1915-1918, 1934, 1950.
Citations. Gifford and Kroeber 1937, Gifford
1967.
Subsistence Practices. Gifford (1967:1-4) uses
Kostromitinov's account to describe the seasonal
rouind and economic activities of the Kashaya Pomo.
However, his detailed outline on the ethnobotany and
ethnozoology (1967:10-21) of the Kashaya is based
primarily on interviews with native informants, espe-
cially Herman James. These accounts of hunting
deer, preparing various meat and plant foods, and
cooking soups, gruels, breads, and meats correspond
very closely to early European and American obser-
vations. Gifford (1967:17, 19) emphasizes that the
Kashaya Pomo did not hunt seals or sea lions, and that
no deep-sea fishing took place because they lacked
seaworthy boats. He suggests that deep water fish,
such as flounder and cod, were not used as sources of
food until the coming of the Russians and native
Alaskans.
Material Culture. Gifford (1967:21-45) presents
a culture element list for the Kashaya Pomno that
includes many materials described by earlier observ-
ers.
Sociopolitical Organization. Initially, Gifford
and Kroeber (1937:117-19) argued that the Pomo
were divided into a number of small, autonomous
tribelets. Each tribelet or village community con-
sistedof a central village containing an earth-covered
assembly or dance house where one or more chiefs
resided. Other fanilies were dispersed away from the
central village due to quarreling, fear of witchcraft, or
for convenience in obtaining food. No tribelet sup-
posedly contained more than one assembly house. In
his latter publication, Gifford (1967:7, 43) maintains
that the Kashaya Pomo were integrated into one
political unit from the Russian Rivernorth. The chief,
known as Toyon, was the recognized leader of all the
Kashaya Pomo between the mouths of the Russian
andGualala rivers. He was replaced by his sonTihana
who was chief and preacher for the entire group
(1967:45). Herman James's granidmothernevermen-
tioned a place that had more than one chief. Gifford
believes that no multiple lineage villages existed in
the past (1967:43).
Recreation. The odd-even guessing game, de-
scribed in almost all early European and American
The Kashaya Pomno          139
accounts, was checked off in Gifford's 1934 culture
element list survey; however it was not checked off in
the survey he conducted in 1950 (see 1967:29).
Religious Activities. The Old Ghost society is
not checked off for either his 1934 or 1950 culture
element survey (1967:35). The Kusksu society was
remembered by informants and believed to be very
ancient. None of Gifford's informants ever saw the
Kuksu impersonationceremony,but theirparentstold
them about it. Some dances assoued with the
Kuksu society were performed at Haupt's Ranch, and
at least one informant (Rosie Smith) remembered the
Lole dance (1967:45).
Fred B. Kniffen
Dates of Fieldwork. Late 1930s.
Citation. Kniffen 1939.
Subsistence Practices. Kniffen (1939:385-88)
rcontucts the seasonalroundfortheKashayaPomo
that is very similar to the one observed by
Kostronmitinov. Again, many of the subsistenceprac-
tices described (e.g., boiling water using hot stones,
cooking meat and shellfish on embers;hunting with a
deer head mask) are similar to earlier observations.
Material Culture. Kniffen (1939:386) defines
Kashaya houses as slabs of redwood bark leaned
against a central post.
Sociopolitical Culture. Kniffen (1939:384-85)
believes the Kashaya Pomo were united as one tribe
under a single chief at Fort Ross subsequent to the
coming of the Russians. He believes that most of the
Kashaya people aggregated at Fort Ross under the
chief Toiyon, and that the flat vicinity near the stock-
adewas"covered with thehouses of Indians." Toiyon
was succeeded by Tahana, who was chief when the
Kashaya relocated to Haupt's Ranch. Tahana is
reportedto have died at the Haupt's rancheria. He was
succeeded by Sam Ross who died in 1908 at Haupt's
Ranch. Kniffen notes thatRobertSmith'is the present
chief of the Kashaya.
Kniffen (1939:385) disagrees with Kroeber's
extension of tribelet units into Kashaya territory. He
notes that contemporary Kashaya people have no
tradition of dividing the region into village communi-
ties or tribelets. There is a "unity" expressed that
suggests the Kashaya territory has always been a
single political unit.
Omer Stewart
Dates of Fieldwork. 1935.
Citations. Stewart 1935b and 1943.
SubsistencePractices. Stewart(1943:60-61 ) pre-
sents detailed information on native exploitation of
coastal plants and animals that largely corroborate
observations made in the early nineteenth century.
Much of his information was provided by Rosa Sherd,
who was the motherofRobertSmith (Stewart 1935b).
She noted that the Kashaya Pomo went to Lake
County for obsidian.
Sociopolitical Organization. Stewart (1943:49)
notes that all of his informants agreed that in prehis-
toric times there "was only one tribe and one chief for
the whole areaof the dialect." Metini was recognized
as a major pre-Russian town and Toyon was the
recognized leader of the KashayaPomo. However,
upon closer questioning of his native informants,
especially Rosa Sherd, Stewart (1943:50) adds that
there appears to be evidence of more than one princi-
pal village and multiple chiefs. He believes that
separate village communities probably existed in the
past, although they may have periodically assembled
as a larger group for initiation ceremonies and other
festivals.
Mary Jean Kennedy
Dates of Fieldwork. 1953-1954.
Citation. Kennedy 1955.
Subsistence Practices. Kennedy's (1955:106)
research indicates that an increasing reliance on Euro-
American foods took place among the Kashaya some-
time between 1910 and 1950. Essie Parrish, a well-
known Kashaya maru and healer, noted that aborigi-
nal foods were more commonly used in her youth
(about 1910). Kennedy reports in 1952-1953 that the
bulk of the peoples' diet consisted of groceries pur-
chased from stores in Stewart's Point, Healdsburg, or
SantaRosa. The mainstaysof theirdietwerepotatoes,
beans, bread, tortillas, beef, and pork. Acorn was still
used but primarily by the older generation. Middle
aged or older women drove miles to favorite tan oak
groves to collect acorns. The acorns were ground into
flour using grinders and then leached by pouring
water through dish towels placed over evergreen
branches. The acorns were still cooked as a mush or
baked as bread. Various seafoods, such as seaweed,
were still held in high esteem (1955: 106-107).
Material Culture. Houses in 1952-1953 were
clapboard frame structures of one or two bedrooms.
Some houses were surrounded by fences. The major-
ity contained modemrn butane gas stoves, and a few had
gas-burning refrigerators. Sincenoelectricity existed
in this area of Sonoma County, oil-burning lamps
were used. The houses were heated primarily by
wood-burning stoves. Chairs, tables, and couches
furnished the houses. Most households had washing
machines, and some had sewing machines (Kennedy
1955:92-95).
Kennedy (1955:11-12) observes that no Russian
accounts describe dance houses among the Kashaya.
Marie James, a Kashaya elder, told Kennedy that she
was eight years old (ca. 1857) when the dance house
140
Jarvis began to experience her first visions (Kennedy
1955:129). From 1912to 1943, when shedied, Annie
Jarvis was the marn, healer, and leaderof the Kashaya
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
at Fort Ross was constructed. Prior to this, only open
brush shelters were built for dances. Two earth-
covered dance houses and later an above-ground,
board dance house were built at Haupt's Ranch. An
above-ground,boarddancehouseexistedattheKashia
Rancheria at the time of Kennedy's fieldwork.
SociopoliticalOrganization. Kennedy(1955:18)
states that the Kashaya today have a tradition of
havingonlyonechiefoverall the tribe. However,she
argues that this may be a consequence of Russian
colonization. She believes that prior to and during
early contact with the Russians each village had a
chief defined on the basis of kinship. "The adoion
of a single chief gives evidence of the effect of the
Russian centraization of authority" (1955:19). She
points out that the earliest recognized chief of the
Kashaya, Toyon, is a Russian derived word. It is the
name given to a native administrator by the Russians
(1955:18-19). Kennedy (1955:101-102) lists the
KashayachiefssinceRussian timesasToyon, Tehana,
Sam Ross (who died in 1908), Robert Smith, Robert
Smith's son, and then Sidney Parrish. She notes that
Sam Ross was the last hereditary chief, and that
subsequent to his death the chiefs have served in the
capacity of chairman of the tribal council. According
to Kennedy, the chainnrmen of the tribal council serve as
spoke      to the outsideworld. They are accorded
little power in internal community affairs. Since the
rise of the Bole-Maru cult (modern Ghost cult), the
dreamers have become both the religious and secular
leaders of the group (1955:102).
Religious Activities. Kennedy (1955:125) pro-
vides a detailed picture of the development of the
Bole-Maru cult among the Kashaya based largely on
the work of Cora Du Bois (1939). The 1870 Ghost
Dance movement stimulated a secondary religion,
known as the Earth Lodge Cult, among the Hill
Patwin and Wintun in 1871/1872 which heralded the
end of the world. Subterranean earth lodges were
built to protect the faithful from the impending cata-
clysm. The Kashaya Pomno were invited to attend an
Earth Lodge cult ceremony in Lake County or Ukiah
around 1872. The Bole-Maru cult was an outgrowth
of the Earth Lodge Cult sometime during the spring of
1872. This cult employed dreamers to reveal the
"afterlife and supreme being." The first pophets of
the Bole-Maru cult arrived at Haupt's Ranch in 1874
(1955:128).
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries, several dreamers appear to have preached in the
rancheria at Haupt's Ranch. The dreamers were all
males (Kaokbad, Cristoval, Humbolt Jack, Big Jose,
Pete Antone) until about 1908-1910, when Annie
Pomno. Kennedy feels that the Bole Maru cult had run
its course until Annie Jarvis revitalized the movement
about 1912. Thefirstm female maru surssed traditional
Kashaya lifeways over the encroaching Euro-Ameri-
can culture. She banned gambling, alcoholic con-
sumption, fratenizion with white people, and send-
ing native children to white boarding schools. She
revitalized traditionaltaboos, native dances, and mar-
riage within the group. People were encouraged to
speak the Kashaya Pomo language on the rancheria
(1955:132-33,159).
Kennedy (1955:138) argues that World War II
was an important watershed for the Kashaya people.
Annie Jarvis died in 1943; local employment became
very scarce; and the reservation was closed. The
families looked for work elsewhere in the region.
Essie Parrish, who had assisted Annie Jarvis in Bole-
Main ceremonies, became the maru and leader of the
Kashaya after the death of Jarvis. When the reserva-
tion was opened after the war, it appemrs that some
people were no longer willing to remain segregated
from the white world (see also Oswalt 1964:5-6).
Both Pentecostal and Mormon missionaries began
visiting the reservation and converting people to the
Christian faith. Eventually Essie Parrish joined the
Mormon church, while still continuing to serve as the
spiritual leader of the Bole-Maru ceremnies. The
Mormon church allowed the Kashaya to continue
their native dances and feasts, and many of the taboos
recognized by Mormons (ie., no alcohol) were simi-
lar to the strictures laid down by Annie Jarvis
(1955:146-48). Kennedy (1955:149) suggests that
the acceptance of the Latter Day Saints' teachings
"ended the spiritual spremacy of the leader of the
Bole-Maru." Certainly, the social interaction with
white missionaries on the reservations and white
Mormons in nearby towns and cities broke down the
segregated nature of reservation life after World War
H.
Gender Relations. A very significant develop-
ment among the Kashaya people was the acceptance
of women as both preachers and tribal leaders after
about 1912. Since that timewomen have continuedto
play leading roles in the religious and political activi-
ties of the group. Prior to 1912, all the ethnohistoric
and ethnographic sources       that men were
the political leaders and preaches going back to the
initial Russian colonization of Fort Ross.
KASHAYA ORAL TRADITION
The following analysis is based on Kashaya
stories transcribed and translated by Robert Oswalt at
the Kashia Rancheria. Each story is numbered as a
separate text.
Dates of Fieldwork. 1957,98, 1959,1961.
The Kashaya Pomo             141
Citation. Oswalt 1964.
Subsistence Practices. Oral tradition strongly
suggests that Euro-American foods were not widely
accepted by Kashaya people during the early period of
contact. In Text 55, Essie Parrish recounts that when
white men first came to Fort Ross, they served the
Kashayawhiteman'sfood. TheKashayabelievedthe
food to be poisonous and threw it in a ditch. In Text
56, Essie Parrish recounts from her father's oldest
sister that the white men gave the Kashaya coffee and
a grinder. The people did not know how to use the
grinder so the coffee beans were leached and cooked
using the traditional methods employed for process-
ing acorns. The Kashaya found the coffee beans too
harsh and poured them out. In Text60, Herman James
recounts that the Undersea people (Russians) grew
wheat that blanketed the land and sted the flour at
FortRoss. Henotes that the KashayaPomo were used
to harvest and grind the wheat into flour. As Herman
James relates, at first, the Kashaya did not know about
flour, but eventually they ate the food. They still ate
pinole, however, in their traditional manner. In Text
67, Herman Jamesnotes that the white man's food
wasnotplentifulon therancheriawhenhewas a child.
Traditional methods of hunting and fishing were still
employed to harvest food to eat. Fishing spears,
composed of three sharpened nails attached to a
wooden pole, were used to spear salmon migrating
upstream after the first winterrains. In Text 70, Essie
Parrish tells about the old days when people gathered
mussels and turban snails from coastal rocks before
the winter storms. These were packed up the coastal
cliffs, probably to village locations. Here holes were
dug, lined with gravel, and sea water poured over the
shellfish. This method was employed to keep the
shellfish freshforsome time. InText 71,EssiePafrish
recounts how deer,rabbits,andsquirrelswerepounded
lightly with a pestleon a mortarstone andbakedonthe
coals. In some cases the meats were barbecued by
skewering them with a stick and placing them over the
fire. Abalne was pounded hard and then cooked
under the ashes. It was especially good with acorn
mush. In Text 72, Essie Parrish tells how the old
people used to prepare buckeyes by boiling them in a
pot, then mashing them on a mortarstone, followedby
leaching them in freshwater.
Material Culture. Many of the above texts de-
scribe mortars, pestles, harpoons, bows, and arrows
presumably still in use in the latter part of the nine-
teenth century.
Sociopolitical Organization. In Text 57, Essie
Parrish describes how leaders of the group would rise
in the morning and extol the Kashaya to be industri-
ous. Men should go hunt game and fish so that food
could be stored for the upcoming winter. Women
should gather acorns and buckeyes.
Religious Activities. In Text 66, Kashaya tradi-
tion recounts the trip to Clear Lake in 1872 to partici-
pate in theEarth LodgeCult. People fronboth Metini
and Abaloneville (Haupt's Ranch) travelled to Clear
Lake to await the world to end. The Kashaya were
given fish from Clear Lake when they arrived, but
they did not like the food. They stayed about one
month before returning home. In Text 69, Essie
Parrish recounts as a child that discipline in the group
was beutter and that people participated in traditional
dances and spiritual things. The Kashaya did not
know much about white man ways, and people did not
wear white man's clothes or eat his food.
SUMMARY OF THE
EmomsoiUCAL ANALYSIS
The examination of ethnohistorical texts, ethno-
graphic studies, and native oral tradition suggests a
complicated process of acculturation has taken place
among the Kashaya Ponmo since their initial contact
with Europeans, Creoles, and native Alaskans. The
timing, chalracter, and magnitude of cultural change
varied greatly with respect to foods, subsistence prac-
tices, material culture, architectural styles, sciopo
litical organization, recreational activities, religious
ceremonies, and gender relations. As summarized
below, the sociopolitical organization of Kashaya
society appears to have undergone rapid tansforma-
tions with the early colonization of Fort Ross, exhib-
iting evidence of greater centralization in leadership
positions. Religious activities seem to have remained
relatively unchanged until the 1870s, while many
aspects of Kashaya material culture and subsistence
practices were commonly employed into the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Subsistence Practices. While some kinds of
European and Mexican foods were adopted from the
Russians by the 1830s (beef, wheat) and from Mexi-
can cowboys by the 1850s (tortillas), aboriginal foods
were commonly used by Kashaya people until the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as observed
by Stephen Powers and recorded in the childhood
reminiscences of Essie. Parrish and Hermnnan James.
Common themes in early ethnohistoric observations
and later ethnographic interviews with native peoples
are the traditional methods of stalking deer in deer
costumes, cooking meats over open embers, cooking
stews using the stone boiling method, grinding and
leaching acorns, fishing with plant poisons, and col-
lecting and cooking shellfish over hot embers. Inter-
estingly, a numberofdescriptionsdetailthecollection
and preparation of wild oats (Avenafatua), a plant that
is not indigenous to the region (see Gifford 1967:11).
142
ians were still common (see chapter 5). While the
Russians traded glass beads to the native Californians
atFortRoss, these did not take the place of clam shell
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Wild oats were brought over to California by Europe-
ans, although it is unclear whether the plants dis-
persed northward from Spanish settlements or came
from the initial Russian agricultural fields at Fort
Ross. In any event, wild oats are an excellent example
of how traditional native harvest practices and food
preparation methods were employed to exploit a new
plant food. The harvesting of wild oats appeas to
have changed over time from 1818-1824, when wild
oat plants were burned in the field (Golovnin,
Kotzebue) to the 1830s (Kostromitinov) and 1870s
(Powers) when baskets were used to harvest the
grains. We suspectthat agricultural intensificationby
the Russians in the 1830sput a stop to the widespread
burning of fields in the vicinity, although itappears tb
have been revived briefly after the Russians left.
Kennedy (1955:161-62) suggests that aboriginal
foods were used long after contact with the first
Europeans given their availability, preferred taste,
and relatively low costs of harvesting. The changing
cultural geography of the Fort Ross region in the late
nineteenth century, however, greatly curtailed the
efficiency of regional based hunter-gatherer prac-
tices. Partitioning of the region into plots of private
roperty bounded by fence lines denied native people
access to critical plant and animal resources. At the
same time, the greater availability of wage labor
provided Kashaya families with an alternative to
native foods-the means to purchase potatoes, flour,
and beef in stores (Kennedy 1955:161-62). By the
1940s, the younger generation of Kashaya people was
apparntly developing an acquired taste for the white
man's foods. With the decline of the Bole-Maru cult,
in which native foods were treated as prestige items,
Kennedy (1955:162) notes that store-bought foods
composed the bulk of the diet by the early 1950s.
Material Culture. Both archaeological and docu-
mentary evidence point to cultural continuity in the
production and use of many native artifacts from late
prehistoric times through much of the Historic period.
These materials include the hopper mortar, pestle,
cooking rocks (groundstone fragments), clam shell
disk beads, projectile points, millingstones, hand-
stones, wooden pipes, and baskets.
While European raw materials (glass, metal) and
European products (glass beads, clothes) sometimes
supplemented native materials, thereis little evidence
that native peoples expended much effort in acquiring
or accumulating Europan goods based on the obser-
vations of Kostromitinov and LaPlace in the 1830s.
Although some glass tools and projectile points were
recoveredinthesurfaceassemblagesofhistoricPomo
sites, artifacts manufacturedfrom Napa Valley obsid-
building materials, layout, and construction methods.
disk beads as currency among the Kashaya Pomo.
The following quotation by John M. Hudson (1897),
who studied Pomo bead production near Ukiah, suc-
cinctly makes this point.
Counterfeits appeared as early as 1816,
when the Russian explorer Kuskoff ordered
made and sent him a certain pattuemrn of glass
beadsto trade withwild tribesinNewAlbion.
A number of these beads were exhumed
fromn a very old grave not long ago, and
prove to be good imitations, both in form
and color, but lacking in luster. It is re-
corded that wild tribes soon detected the
cheat and cast them out with abhorrence.
Tradition confirms the record with added
detailsof how thre Russian traders ofcharlil
kol (devil's beads) were taken unaware and
their heads burnt with the beads (Hudson
1897, reprinted in 1975:17-18).
Later ethnohistoric observations (Stephen Powers)
and ethnographers describe the continued use of clam
disk beads into the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century as mortuary offerings and as a means of
financing feasts and for obtaining foods and goods
within and between tribelet units (see especially Loeb
1926:194-95; Vayda 1967).
The timing of the most significant changes in
Kashaya Pomo material culture appears to have taken
place after the Russian occupation of Fort Ross,
especially during the period of Powers's visit to
Haupt's ranch in 1871-1872 and Kennedy's descrip-
tion of the Kashia Rancheria in 1952-53. This argu-
ment is best exemplified by the timing of architectural
innovations, especially in the construction of winter
residential structures and large dance or assembly
houses.
Residential Structures. Bythe 1870stheKashaya
PomowereadoptingarchitecturalinnovationsofEuro-
American ranchers, such as large frame or log houses.
Powers (1976:189) described one such house at
Haupt' s ranch, andBartta (1916) photographed them
among the coastal Pomo in 1901 and 1902. TheEuro-
American frame houses were supposedly replacing
the more traditional coastal Pomrno conical redwood
houses. However, the conical redwood houses de-
scribed in great detail by Barret (1916) and by most
subsequent ethnographers were not observed among
the Kashaya Pomrno until the 1870s by Powers. Prior
to the observation by Powers, winter houses are
described as semi-subterranean structures that re-
semble native Alaskan barabaras. (see Corney,
Kostromitinov, and Sandels observations above).
Unfortunately, the accounts of these semi-subterra-
nean structures are brief and lack specific details on
The Kashaya Pomo            143
Interestingly, Layton's (1990) excavations of
protohistoric house structures at Nightbirds' Retreat
and Three Chop Village in Mendocino County indi-
cate that above-ground, conical redwood houses may
have some antiquity among the Northern Pomo. Few
house structures have yet to be excavated and de-
scribed by archaeologists in the Fort Ross region.
The discrepancy between the ethnographic ob-
servations and later ethnographic studies suggests
that innovations in the construction of residential
structures took place either during or shortly after the
RussianoccupationofFortRoss. Itispossiblethatthe
conical redwood house is a waditional architecaual
form of the Kashaya Pomo, and that during the colo-
nization of Fort Ross the Indian workers began to
build their winter houses in the fashion of native
Alaskan barabaras. After the depaNrture of the native
Alaskans, they may have switched back to their tradi-
tional architectural form. On theotherhand, the semi-
subteanean structures described by Corney and
Kostromitinov may characteriz  e adtional native
winter houses prior to the settlement of Fort Ross.
While this question will not be resolved until
detailed excavations of late prehistoric, proohistoric,
and historic native "housepits" are undertaken in the
FortRossregion,webelievethereisevidence, atleast
among the neighboring Coast Miwok, that semi-
sublanean houses have some antiquity in the re-
gion. The description of native houses, somewhere
along the Marin County coast, by members of Sir
Francis Drake's crew in 1579 resemble laterRussian
observation of native houses at Fort Ross (see Quinn
1979a:465, 471)
Having thus had their fill of this times visit-
ing and beholding of us, they departed with
joy to their houses, which houses are digged
round within the earth, and have from the
uppermst brimmes of the circle clefts of
woodsetup,andjoynedclosetogether atthe
toppe, like our spires on the Steeples of a
Church: which being covered with earth,
suffer no water to enter, and very warme, the
doore in the most part of them, perfonnrmes
the office also of a chimney, to let out the
smoake: it is made in bignesse and fashion,
like to an ordinary scuttle in a shippe, and
standing slopewise: their beds are the hard
ground, onely with rushes strewed upon it,
lying round about the house, have their fire
in the middest, which by reason that the
house is but low vaulted, round, and close,
giveth a marvellous reflection to their bod-
ies to heate the same (Quinn 1979a:-.471
[original 1628]).
by Sebastian Rodriquez Cermneno in his visit to the
Marin County coast (probably Drake's Bay see
Wagner 1924:6,8) in 1595.
Accompanying him were Captain Francisco
de Chaves and his ensign, the sergeant and
the corporal and three men with shields.
These went ashore with the Indians and
landed on the beach oftheportnear someof
theirundergromd habiations,in which they
live, resembling caves and like those of the
Chichimecos Indians of New Spain (Quinn
1979b:410 [original 1596]).
Dance or Assembly House. Kennedy (1955:11)
notesthatitisodd that noRussianobservermentioned
alargedancehouseatMetini. Shereportsthatthe first
one may have been constructed at Fort Ross about
1857. It also seems strange to us that Powers did not
describe such a structure at Haupt's Ranch. The
communal house he describes, where much of the
village assembled for gambling, was a large, one-
room frame structure (1976:189). Perhaps he was not
permitted in or near the semi-subterranean dance
house, although he was allowed to view native cer-
emonies such as the "devil dance" and "spear dance."
We suggestthatthesemi-subteanen, earth-covered
dance houses described by Barrett (1916) may have
been a laterinnovation thattheKashayaPomoadoed
from prophets of the Earth Lodge Cult in the early
1870s(afterPower'svisittoHaupt'sRanch). Kennedy
(1955:11) reports that two such structures were even-
tually built at Haupt's Ranch. By the early twentieth
century, the earth-covered dance houses were re-
placed by above-ground, redwood-planked structures
used in the later Bole-Maru ceremonies of Annie
Jarvis and Essie Parrish at Haupt's Ranch and the
Kashia Rancheria. Maru leaders inspired innovations
in the design of the dance houses that included a
gallery and tunnel entrance.
Sociopolitical Organization. There is consider-
able debate about Kashaya sociopolitical organiza-
tion among ethnographers. We suggest that this
debate reflects significant changes that took place in
the decision-making structure of the Kashaya peoples
at the time of early Russian colonization. While later
ethnographers criticized Kroeber's (1925) interpreta-
tion of multiple, relatively autonomous tribelets or
village communities based largely on Barrett's settle-
ment information (figure4.1), ourpreliminary inves-
igation of the archaeological remains of the study
area in chapter 5 largely concurs with Kroeber's
model.
Russian colonialism apparently accelerated the
rise of one recognized tribal leader or "big chief," now
remembered as Toyon, among the entire Kashaya
linguistic group (see Kennedy 1955:18-19). We
A similar, but very brief, observation was made
144
We, the undersigned, hereby testify that in our
presence the chief toions responded in exactly this
way."
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
believe this shift in the regional structure of the
sociopolitical organization coincided with population
aggregation north of the stockade after A. 1812. We
speculate that a number of local chiefs from different
village communities would have been represented in
the historic community of "Metini." A common
practice of the Russian-American Company was to
work closely with a recognized leader of the native
group in contracting for labor and for local supplies
and goods. In the Russian friendship pact with the
KashayaPomothatwas signedinanofficial gathering
on September22, 1817, the Russian-American Com-
pany clearly favored one chief over the others repre-
sented at the ceremony. This chief, Chu-gu-an, may
have become the Toyon of the Kashaya. The brief
transcript of the pact, as translated in Dmytryshyn,
Crownhart-Vaughan, and Vaughan (1989c:296-98),
follows.
"On September 22, 1817, the Indian Chiefs
Chu-gu-an, Amat-tan, Gem-leleandothers,appeared
at Fort Ross by invitation. Their greetings, as trans-
lated, extended their thanks for the invitation.
Captain Lieutenant Hagemeisterexpessedgrati-
tude to them in the name of the Russian American
Company for ceding to the Company land for a fort,
buildings and enterprises, in regions belonging to
Chu-gu-an, [land] which the inhabitants call Med-
eny-ny. [Hagemeister] said he hoped they would not
have reason to regret having the Russians as neigh-
bors.
Having heard [what was] translated for him,
Chu-gu-an and a second, Amat-tan, whose dwelling
was also not far off, replied, 'We are very satisfied
with the occupation of this place by the Russians,
because we now live in safety from otherIndians, who
formerly would attack us and this security began only
from the time of [the Russian] settlement.'
After this friendly response, gifts were presented
to the toion and the others; and to the Chief, Chu-gu-
an, a silver medal was entrusted, ornamented with the
Imperial Russian seal and the inscription 'Allies
[soiuznye] of Russia' and it was stated that this
[medal] entitles him to receive respect from the Rus-
sians, and for that reason he should not come to them
without the medal. It also imposes on him the obliga-
tion of loyalty and assistance, incase this is needed. In
response to that he and the others declared their
readiness and expressed their gratitude for the recep-
tion.
After the hospitality, when [the Indians] departed
from the fort, a one-gun salute was fired in honor of
the chief toion.
In the early twentieth century, further changes
took place in the sociopolitical organization of the
Kashaya. Sam Ross, who died in 1908, was the last
hereditary chief of the Kashaya who provided secular
and possibly religious leadership for the group. After
his death, the Kashaya elected tribal leaders who
served as chairs of the tribal council. In this new
capacity, tribal chairs functioned primarily as
spokespeople to the outside community. Secular and
religious leadership within the group was now in-
spired by the maru dreamers. While earlier leaders
were all males, the rise of the Bole-Maru Cult pro-
vided women with access to positions of leadership.
Since 1912, women have been incrasingly influen-
tial in the decisionmaking of the Kashaya group.
Recreation. Various gambling games were de-
scribed by almost every early visitor to Fort Ross.
These gambling games continued to be an important
activity of the Kashaya Pomrno until sometime after
1912, when AnnieJarvis forb  gamblinganddrink-
ing. It is noteworthy that in the Cultural Element List
compiledbyGifford(1967:29),the '"Odd-evenguess-
ing game" is remembered by informants in his 1934
survey, but is not checked off in his 1950 survey.
Religious Practices. Kostromitinov and Powers
describe native ceremonies that may have been partof
the Old Ghost ceremony and Kuslku ceremony. Most
Pono ethnographers argue that these rituals have
considerable antiquity. Crew members of Sir Francis
Drake's 1579 sojourn along the Marin coast reported
similar ceremonies involving women scratching and
beating themselves until they bled as described by
Kostromitinov (see Quinn 1979a:471-72). Signifi-
cant changes took place in the early 1870s with the
advent of the Earth Lodge Cult and the Bole-Maru
Cult. The Bole-Maru Cult incorporated some aspects
of traditional religious practices with innovations
inspired by dreamers. This revivalistic crusade in-
spiredpridein traditional Indian lifeways andpreached
segregation from whites. Kennedy (1955:158-60)
sesses that the cult was really an anti-acc ultation
movement that motivated Kashayapeopletocontinue
to speak their own language, to seek mates among the
Kashaya Pomo, and to employ traditional material
culture, foods, dances, costumes, subsistence prac-
tices, and taboo observances. Kennedy argues per-
suasively that the isolation of the Kashia Ranchenria in
combination with the Bole-Maru Cult were respon-
sible for the late adoption of Euro-American foods
and material culture, and for the number of fluent
native speakers prior to World War II.
Gender Relations. Early ethnohistoric observa-
tions suggest that many domestic and subsistence
relatedactivities were segregatedbygender. Women
tended to gather plant foods, to collect shellfish and
The Kashaya Pomno          145
seafoods, to carry burdens, to undertake most domes-
tic chores, and to tend children. Men were inclined to
hunt and fish, carry on in the sudatory, and lead the
group on trips carrying no more than their bows and
arrows. Men served as both the secular and spiritual
leaders of the Kashaya Pomrno until the early twentieth
century, when women openly began to exert their
considerable influence in the decision-making orga-
nization of the local group.
CONLCUSION
The analysis of ethnohistorical texts, ethno-
graphic studies, and native oral traditions tends to
corroborate the general fi'dings of our archaeologi-
cal survey. Native responses to Russian colonial
practices were manifested in the organizational
structure of the local Indian community. Population
aggregation north of the Fort Ross stockade appears
to have coincided with the centralization of native
leadership positions. Whereas the sociopolitical or-
ganization of late prehistoric and protohistoric times
was probably characterized by many small polities
who maintained their own leaders, the Russians rec-
ognized and apparently facilitated the emergence of
a single leader for the amalgamated Kashaya Pomo
community there. An analysis of the archaeologi-
cal, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic data indicates
that significant changes took place in the material
culture, subsistence practices, and religious cer-
emonies of the Kashaya Pomo. The timing of the
most sipifiant changes, however, did not occur
during the Russian occupation of Fort Ross, but.
during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries. The initial native to responses to the Ross
Colony were much more subtle; no significant or
dramatic upheavals in the material culture, subsis-
tence practices, and religious ceremonies of the lo-
cal population appear to have taken place.
CHAFvR SEVEN
CONCLUSION
N THIS FIRST VOLUME of the Archaeology and
Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California series,
we outlined the research agenda that directs our in-
vestigation of the historic Ross Colony in northern
California. We are examining how Pacific Coast
hunter-gatherers responded to the mercantile prac-
tices of the Russian-American Company which ad-
ministered Fort Ross from 1812 to 1841. The com-
pany recruited Europeans, Creoles, and native labor-
ers from Siberia, the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Is-
land, coastal Alaska, and northern California to work
there. The close interaction of ethnic groups fiom
many different homelands repreMsents a fertile ground
for stimulating cultural exchange of architectural
styles, material goods, methods of craft production,
subsistence practices, diet, dress, and ceremonies.
Furthermore, the company's payment of commodi-
ties or scrip to its work force provided them with
access to various European, American, and Asian
goods in the company store. The research issues we
are addressing concern the effects that mercantilQ
labor and inter-ethnic relationships had on the accul-
turation process of native workers at Fort Ross. We
are especially interested in examining the long-term
effects of cohabitation and marriage between Pomo/
Miwok women and native Alaskan men.
The present study is a preliminary investigation
of thenativeCalifornianpopulationatRoss. Usingthe
directhistorical apprach   approach that incopo
rates information from archaeological investigations,
ethnohistorical observations, ethnographic studies,
andnativeoraltraditions-wedevelopedadiachronic
frameworkforevaluatingculturalchangefrom prehis-
torxic times to about A.D. 1953. In the future we will
collab  e with Kashaya tribal scholars to push the
diachronic framework to the present.
PREHISTORIC AND
PROTOmHsCouc DEVEoPMENTS
Current archaeological research suggests the
study area was used by native peoples as early as
60)00-8000 years ago. These early sites are broad,
diffuse lithic scatters that extend across the coastal
terrace. We speculate that these sites were produced
by repeated foraging and hunting ventures over an
extensive resource zone in which various tools were
lost or discarded. Other early sites may have once
been situated along former coastlines to the west of
the study area, but subsequent sea level rise, tectonic
activity, and coastal erosion would have destroyed or
inundated them.
Current data suggest that the intensive occupa-
tion of this area did not begin until about 1000 years
ago in the Lower Emergent period. The number and
147
148
study area. Furthermore,our analysisofethnohistoric
texts raises questions about the existence of large,
semi-subterranean assembly or dance houses in the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
diversity of site types increased greatly in the follow-
ing Upper Emergent or Protohistoric period (A.D.
1500-1812). We have identified a settlement pattern
composed of large sites with diverse lithic and faunal
assemblages distributed along the ridge tops and ridge
slopes, and lithic scatters, shell-bearing deposits, and
petroglyphs along the coastal terrace, the lower slopes
of the first ridge and the interior hinterland.
We interpret this settlement pattern as the remains
of central-based village communities that once flour-
ished across the region in protohistoric times. We
argue that villages were once dispersed along the
ridge tops and ridge slopes, probably about .5 to 2.5
km apart. These residential bases would have been
ideally located to take advantage of both coastal and
interior hinterland resources. The settlements on the
first ridge system would have been situated no more
than five kmn from rocky intertidal habitats, thecoastal
terrace, the South Fork of the Gualala River, or the
second ridge system. From these residential bases,
foraging parties or specialized task groups could have
exploited, within a few hours walk, a variety of
seafoods, terrestrial seeds, nuts, tubers, and terrestrial
game.
Our interpretation of the archaeological data sug-
gests that native peoples established small hamlets
and food processing stations along the coastal terrace
and lower slopes of the first ridge. Cupule rocks were
also produced in locations with good vistas of the
ocean. The interior hinterland of the Gualala River
contains sites that may have functioned as chert quar-
ries, hunting camps, and plant processing locations.
Cupulerocksandotherkindsofpetroglyphswerealso
produced in the interior recesses of rugged mountain
valleys.
The central-based village communities probably
maintained territorial boundaries in an east/west ori-
entation that crosscut the coastal, ridge top and slope,
valley, and riverine habitats, as proposed earlier by
Omer Stewart (1943). We also support Stewart's
(1943) and Kroeber's (1925) interpretations that each
village community was a relatively autonomous pol-
ity and under the influence of its own chiefs or leaders.
It is significant that these models derived from analy-
ses of regional settlement patterns: Kroeber relied on
Barrett's (1908) spatial information of ancestral vil-
lages and campsites, while Stewart undertook his own
reconnaissanceworkinthestudyarea. Stewart(1943)
suggested that a settlement hierarchy may have func-
tioned in the region comprised of large villages with
assembly houses and smaller hamlets lacking such
structures. It is not yet possible to evaluate critically
whether such a settlement hierarchy existed in the
process for the Kashaya Porno. Our analyses of
region prior to the late nineteenth century. In light of
this problem, it is important to recognize that in
Stewart's (1935b) original field notes some of his
Kashaya consultants (e.g., Rosa Sherd, Marie James)
described "important" villages as those associated
with "sweat houses." They did not mention the
existenceofassanemblyordance housesatearly Kashaya
villages.
Future archaeological research will be directed
towards addressing many unresolved questions con-
cerning the proposed central-based village model.
We are contemplating field research that will provide
more refined information on the overall spatial layout
of the settlements; the size, floorplans, and construc-
tion methods of architectural features; the occupation
histories of the sites (use-durations, seasonal use
pattemrns), and intra-site spatial patterning of artifacts,
floral remains, and faunal specimens. We are espe-
cially interested in documenting the residential archi-
tecture associated with late prehistoric and
prothistoricsettlements,aswellasevaluating wther
public architecture, such as sweat houses, dance
houses, or assembly houses, are found at large vil-
lages.
A provocative finding of our investigation to date
is the evidence of population increase during the
Protohistoric period. ThisfindingcontradictsDobyn's
(1983) prediction of substantial depopulation as a
consequence of "pandemics" that may have swept
across North America in the first half of the sixteenth
century. Evidently, early Spanish explorations along
the coast of California, and Sir Francis Drake's visit
among the native peoples of nearby Marin County in
1579 did notunleash a lethal "virgin soil epidemic"on
a regional scale. Strong evidence of measles, small
pox, whooping cough, chicken pox, and other dis-
eases was not documented among the Kashaya Ponmo
until about 1815 to 1839. However, we recognize that
the evaluation of Dobyn's hypothesis may be compli-
cated by additional factors that we have yet to con-
sider. Fort Ross may represent a relatively isolated
region in the rugged mountain terrain of coastal north-
emrn California that was comparatively immune from
sixteenthorseventeenth centuryepidemics. Itiseven
possiblethatthedemographic increase inprotohistoric
times at the Ross Colony may reflect refugee popula-
tions fleeing northward fromn inflicted populated ar-
eas, such as coastal Marin County or the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area.
TEE COLONIZATION OF FORT ROSS
The establishment of the Fort Ross Counter as
the southernmost counter of the Russian-American
Company initiated a very complex acculturation
Conclusion           149
archaeological remains, ethnohistorical texts, ethno-
graphic studies, and native oral traditions indicate
that the colonization of Fort Ross did not trigger a
sudden or catastrophic transformation in the tradi-
tional lifeways of the Kashaya Pomno. Rather the
timing, rates, and magnitude of cultural change fluc-
tuated widely among the different dimensions of
Kashaya society that we examined. Furthermore,
different causal factors appear to have kicked off
changes in some aspects of Kashaya society and not
in others.
The most significant initial response to Russian
colonial practices was the Leorgnizaion of the socio-
political structure of the Kashaya communities. Ac-
cording to our intra      of the archaeokgical
data, individual families and small gros from ridge
top village communities aggregat  north of the
stockadeinanumberofresidentialcompounds. Some
ofthesesitesappeartodate tothe Russian occupation,
whileothers may datetolaterranch times. Webelieve
the archaeological evidence of population aggrega-
tion coincides with ethnohistorical evidence of socio-
political changes taking place among the Kashaya
Pomo. We speculate thatformer, autonomous village
communities were each represented by their own
leaders drawn largely from influential families in the
local population. Thebreakupof theridgetop village
communities near Fort Ross and the movement of
some individuals and families to the Russian colony
(with others probably resettling in the outlying hinter-
land) would have significant implications forKashaya
Pornmo sociopolitical organization. Multiple chiefs
from the remnants of traditionally autonomous vil-
lage communities were now residing in residential
compounds that comprised the Indian neighborhood
at Fort Ross, as evidenced in both the 1817 Kashya/
Russian friendship pact and the later 1848 Ross cen-
sus. A single "big chief," known as Toyon, emerged
among the Kashaya Pomno to represent the entire
group to the Russian administrators. It appears that
the other chiefs were eventually ranked in a loosely
defined hierarchy that delineated different roles in the
political,ceremonial,andeconomiccycleofthegroup
(see Bean and Theodoratus 1978:295).
The rise of a more centralized political system
probably stemmed, in large part, from Russian colo-
nial practices of working with a recognized leader of
a native group. As Kennedy (1955:19) notes, "the
adoption of a single chief gives evidence of the effect
of the Russian centralization of authority." Other
factors, however, may havealso influenced this change.
The greatersiz of the historic Kashayacommunityat
Fort Ross may have stimulated a more hierarchical
organtion in order to control more effectively and
to monitor information from a greater number of
family units (e.g., Johnson 1973).
Russian colonization appears to have had less ofan
initial impact on other aspects of Kashaya culture.
Our archaeological survey data suggest that
prohisic and historic residential sites are very
comparable, containing similar kinds of lithic arti-
facts and faunal rmains. Similar activities involving
the production, use, and discard of lithics, the exploi-
tation ofmollusks,andthe huntingof  tstrial game
such as deer and elk transcend both Upp  Emergent
and historic times. Etm srical accounts, etmo-
graphic studies, and Kashaya oral tradion d sup t
these archaological finings. Many Kashaya mat
rial items and subsistence practices continued to be
employed into the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
Some changes, of course, did take place during
the initial period of Eop n colonization. These
changes include: a shift in the location of seafood
processing activities; a decrease in the overall quan-
tityoffire-cracked rocks that may indicate nwmeth-
ods of food preparation; and the presence of cow and
sheep bones in surface assemblages indicating that
new foods were being cooked and consumed. While
obsidian continued to be obtained from the Napa
Valley somce, moldblown glass from alcoholic bev-
erage bouttles were being used as an alternative raw
material source for manufacturing traditional native
tool forms such as projectile points. Ceramics are
present on the historic sites, but it is still unclear
whether they were used as containers or as new
sources of raw materials for manufacturing traditional
native artifacts (such as ornaments).
The timing of the most significant changes in
Kashaya Pomo material culture and subsistence prac-
tices appears to have taken place after the Russian
occupation of Fort Ross. Some Mexican foods were
adopted in the mid-nineteenth century, and changes in
residential architecture were taking place at this thnime.
It appears that earlier semi-subterranean house struc-
tures were modified or replaced by above ground,
conical redwood houses. By the late nineteenth
century, Euro-American frame houses and semi-sub-
teanean dance houses were being i   ted into
the Kashaya community. The tempo of cultural
change increased greatly in the early to mid-twentieth
century when a number of innovations were adop
as outlined in Kennedy (1955). Some of these inno-
vations include: above ground dance houses; Euro-
American household furnishings, appliances, and
tools; and Euro-American store-bought foods.
According to ethnohistorical accounts, "ancient"
religious rites including the "Old Ghost" ceremony
and Kusku ceremony were practiced up until the early
1870s. Subsequently, with the advent of the Bole-
Maru cult, the religious ceremonies of the Kashaya
Pomo appear to have been unsfnormed by maru
150
not ask to know how and why all this is
produced. Only such objects as might
frighten them make some impression, but
thatprobably more because of their timidity
than thirst for knowledge.
However, while the native Californian workers
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
dreamers. The development of the Bole-Maru Cult
had implications for traditional gender roles in Kashaya
culture. Beginning about 1912 women openly served
asreligious and political leaders of the group. Popular
recreational activities, such as gambling, were banned
at this time.
Changes in traditional Kashaya ceremonies in the
nineteenthcenturywerenot smulat edby Euro-Ameri-
can religions, such as the Russian Orthodox Church.
While a Russian Orthodox chapel was built at Fort
Ross, and occasional services were held in the struc-
ture, there is little evidence that the church had any
long-term influence on the Kashaya Pomrno. Rather,
innovations in Kashaya religion were adopted from
fellow Native American prophets who were preach-
ing m ananti-white,anti-acculuation, revivalisticmove-
ment in the late nineteenth century. In the twentieth
century, Euro-American religions, such as the Mor-
mon church, began to have an impact on Kashaya
religious practices.
NATIVE ACCULTATION AT FORT Ross
The   liminaryresultsofourrsea,,in contrast
torecem studies of Spanish missions inCalifonia (e.g.,
Hoover 1989; Hrnbeck 1989), suggest that the mer-
cantile colony of Fort Ross can not be chatacized as
an institution of "directed historical change" in which
one of its primary goals was to enculturate native
woers in European ways. While the Russians were
sometimes brutal in "recruiting" local natives as agri-
cultural wors, the general policy of the Russian-
American Company was not to produce Russian-Or-
dxbdox neophytes. Rather hey allowed the native
wokers toliveintheirowncommunities andtoobserve
their owncustoms, abos, ceremonies, andsubsience
praces. There is little evidence that the Russian
adminisators at Fort Ross aUmpted to regulate the
native Califrnians' material culture or religious prac-
tices. In fact, Kosbumitinov, LaPlace, and other Rus-
siuan-American Company employees and visitors were
amazed at how conservative the native Californian
workers were in adopting European customs.
Kostromitinov (1976:13[1830-38]) succinctly summa-
rizes the apparent ambivalence the local natives exhib-
ited towards European technology:
Their inattention and indifference to every-
thing goes to extremes. They look at our
watches, burning-glasses, and mirrors, or
listen to our music without attention and do
In fact, Gifford (1967) claims the Kashaya Pomo
may have exhibited little outward interest in Euro-
pean technology, the European observers wereamazed
at the fluid movement of European/Asian goods
within the native community. As agrarian laborers at
Fort Ross, the Kashaya Pomo were paid "in kind"
with tobacco, food, clothes, and other commodities.
AlmosteveryEuropeanwhomadeobservationsabout
the native workers described their propensity to
gamble away the goods exchanged to them by the
Russians. The European observers did not directly
identify any person or family who was accumulating
asurplusofEuro/Asiangoodsin thecommunity. The
questionsremainsastowhat happened t the nonlocal
goods. Were they simply recirculated among the
native workers at Fort Ross, or did some individuals,
such as Chief Toyon, accumulate these goods in
secret? Were the goods circulated to Pomno commu-
nitieswhoresided in"the woods" somedistance from
Fort Ross?
The inter-ethnic community at Fort Ross served
asaconduitofcultural exchangebetweentheKashaya
Pomo, native Alaskans, Creoles, and Russians.
Ethnohistorical texts demn ra that marriages be-
tween Kashaya Pomo women and native Alaskan
men were common in the Russian colony. Further-
more, Lutke (1989:278[1818]) observed that some
native California women had learned to make Aleut
handicrafts such as sewing the whale gut kamleika
(waterproof outer garment). Yet our study suggests
that the long-term impact of these inter-ethnic inter-
actions was relatively ambiguous. Current data indi-
cate that either the transfer of Aleut/Koniag technol-
ogy, material culture, or maritime-oriented lifeways
to the Kashaya Pomrno happened rarely, or that this
information was not transmitted to successive gen-
erations of Kashaya Pomo after the Russians and
native Alaskans withdrew from Fort Ross in 1841.
The native Alaskans stationedatFortRossbrought
with them a highly sophisticated technology for ex-
ploiting a diverse range of maritime resources. Em-
ploying theirbaidarkas,harpoonarrows,darts,throw-
ing sticks, and fishing equipment they hunted sea
mammals in open waters and harvested deep-water
ocean fishes. The adoption of this technology by the
Kashaya Porno would have allowed them to expand
the breadth of marine resources that dthey harvested
beyond the inter-tidal waters that they traditionally
exploited. Yet ethnohistoric and ethnographic obser-
vationsallconcurthattheKashayaPomoneveradopled
any kind of ocean-going vessels, and that their mari-
time subsistence practices remained relatively un-
changed through much of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. The KashayaPomo continued to
fish from rocks near the shore and to collect mollusks
and plant foods in inter-tidal waters.
Conclusion            151
did not hunt seals, sea lions, and sea otters. Leb
(1926) suggests that the coastal Pomo did hunt sea
mammals, but that they relied on crude rafts of red-
wood driftwood and clubs as weapons. This technol-
ogycontrasted dramatically with the hunting methods
employed by the native Alaskans in open water. As
Edwin Loeb (1926:169) observed:
The frail rafts of the coast people were
not strong enough to make the trip of a
mile to a mile and a half in the open sea to
the farthest sea rocks, so seals (piun, C)
and sea lions (Ka pduka, water bear, C)
were obtained after a long swim. Seal
hunting was done at low tide during a
certain month in the summer time. The
hunters chosen were all good swimmers,
and each took the precaution of abstaining
from meat and women for a day before the
enterprise, furthemore each man prayed
to sharks before entering the water. The
shark would be addressed after this man-
ner: yal kanea nigum capeduia, C (You-
two bite no O shark). The swimmers
carried a special club (piun catco kale hai,
C, seal hit for stick) for hitting seals, a
straight club made of half green hard oak.
When they landed at the rock they killed
three, four or five seals by hitting them
over the head while they slept; each swim-
mer then dragged back a seal or two at-
tached to a rope.
In conclusion, the mercantile colonial system at
Fort Ross allowed the Kashaya Pornmo considerable
latitude in choosing whether to adopt European and
native Alaskans innovations. Evidently the Kashaya
Porno maintained a very conservative world view,
selectively adopting only a relatively few traits (e.g.,
glass for making projectile points) that were inte-
grated into Kaishaya material culture. The fact that at
least some native Californian women and their chil-
dren rempurtedly went north to Alaska with their mates
(although some returned home, see Jackson 1983),
probably negated the influence of the most accultur-
ated segmentof the Kashaya population. The conser-
vative, tenacious, pro- ndian ethos of the Kashaya
Pomno continued to characterize the group during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it is
still very much in evidence among the Kashaya Pomo
people today.
APPENDICES
ov
e4
WI
0%
W-
a
m
I.5
0%
.0
4
0
0o
.0%
9-
-j
4)
I
.0
a a
en  .
0
4) 6
V--
V-
%.
02%
V-
le
0
0
q
en
0
4)a
e4
0%
* -
.0
3
E?
c)
0
0
0%
0
.-
IL)
oo
o en
S..
.-4
-4
v-
0
4)
0
-
C-
cin
0
e5
6
0
9
z4
g
an
e
:
rA
'-.
,4-
8
o
Is
.0%
Is             '    0 a
"a          at  0
"a
a
S.
SI
4   -  '0'  a
A.,do
S
as
a
'a
3
154
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
- .%
ao ao
0%0
- -
,-.  . ..
I  -4
4.-
O: 0
- .
sn s
V-  a
m :
Noo
o o
9-
o
'0
o,
S.-
o
1.4.
'-
0
0
al
o
*,a
w
V4)
f4
z
S.0
*
I                  a         4)
4)       LI..               U'
.0            01   4)4)
z           ..                C                   0
I     0         .  4)  i  S..IW  *   4)
a    00          a                       C
o           -    00  ?O
1    0  'i$   a                         I:'      LI..
* S                                  '8 *    .
0 00               5.! 2!            0
 Uz 5'Cd, O LZ..   U, 
S
I
a
4-
a
c
U
U
IC
a
4*
a.
4t
S..
Appendix 3.1
0ON
- 4
-
so -
4
*) -.
- 0
* -
4.'-
-4)
W-
3-4
0%
'-4
P4
* -
0
4
.-
V-
4.
8
Oa
.0
v
1-Z
No
(4
0
D
V-
X)
4)
U
Ca
o 0
m
t'-
V-
.- P-
- I
x 4
. C1
,,, o
0    Y
.-.   4
0 '-
M-
0   0
-%   0
('3
-4
O    eq
OO o
o  )-.
o 0% 0,0%
v  ,,~
0%
-i
am
r-
o"A
0%
-4
0
b"
cal
0
.4.
)
sg
.-E-
e~
4- -
'5-         '-        '-
- IS,'-5'..                                                    -
.-  .~                          5.- 1
4)  '-5    .-      )                         .'0  6 WI
4) FA                                                                              5
:~     ~z4         ~   'va
t5,t
'5,  ete 2.   -00
U. li .
.a
4)
U
de
vi
vi
4)
3..
U6
.3
'. 3-.
t
S
to  . do
-b    w
OS   6
a.   as
&"   E"
'3
a
0.   o
Sa
ft .!
--t  *
0
*    1.      as  *g. -, -
a.           a     - a-
de           a        %
155
'S "'
a   a
ob ho
*   a
X
a
a
156
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
oEso
in     WI
0%
4()
MV
>
--a
Le                  0%
o         -.0
z  ~ eA   ,,!2
p~p
O1 iM                          i        0
.                                  u a  .                 l
I               I'
_           'I
s  II          *
0
00
0%
I
00
a
:
hi
t
m
'0
W-
* -
0%
0-
go
'4;
0
a
so
*g4
hi
0.
'-
' 4-
0
.4
0%
c-,
0%
-%
o
4.
a o
o C
-
0%
01%
en
V
'-
W-
0%
'-
.3
3
0
0
0%
q
r-
1*
'V.&
0%
I
00
d
o
0-
m
a!
5s
t
m-
o'
- .
ow -
("4.
O
&-     '
*-iE
oijj
'.5-           -;'
.45              .
a
   2V                                              -
a.. *   5.Q                      p
-'p           a.                  .)          Z
1*                                             %J           a
                                           p.
U
U
 U                                      Lb
.
A ..[ 
* *.!3   US   
*    ...   U
A..  A..Q..  *1
Appendix 3.1
157
(14
0%
,.0
e4
ce.)
01%
oc
to-
in
*U
4.
**
FAe
a
Ot-
Vo -,
A-
t-
0%
hi
0
0
I t
0)
a
0)
U
a
a.
0)
z
vi
W
a
0
U
a
a
a0
I
"ii
'I
0;l
0
a
0
U
U
a
0
a
0)
0;
a..4
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
(.41
c(4
0'
8
IL
r...
i-
'..*
0
0%
o
10
.-
o0
C0
m
0
ro
s
,d
9-
a
m
.5
I
ru
000
-  'v
0-%   .0
00
0o
00    0-
No
.o o,
.c  W-0
0  gon
00.I
- i    C
.9  .  .2
* s   as
-)  -
o
0 (j
-  "
0 0
6i
.~ .-,
a 00
J en
-
0  -
0   I
0 .
*- I
W Z
0-,I
m zq
%n 6i
o-
O,
(vd
00c
C4
8 .g
V-
eo 2
8  .I
[L  9
iF..             >' 0i  >
~~0
0            00
. a:
*    .                                                 A :                   42%
00                  .0       a      1..                                                   ~                vU
to?
In,
a
vi
a
158
0-ml
00oo
lelF
(4
0
V-
0
0
.5
4),
-    -
'0     '
oe  0s     0%
..         -
' - .-      -
- ] -
-  4  4-   -
Bo ^
-  4)O  4) o4
*F  '>      '4- o
(. Z~
@0m
0%
94)
A
'4-
No
0%
'-4
-
0
C;
oo
a
4)
* -
0%    0%
-E S
4-
4) 'O 4)
,-  0
(  -
hi-
-
^ * -
- 0
, % .-
-   -
(A ~.,
0-.
m -,
4a 0I.
= -4
TA is
-    -4
p v
C4)
%0
(4
*h -
0 C %
- -C
jj4!\
-
4)S:
'.4
(4)1
04 0
J .~
4b
U
do
W
0
@0
4)
'4) -'* 
 ' 
&.  .!2  S
 *'

Appendix 3.1
159
0%
- 4
o 0
iii
ca
V']
~
(A
C1
oo
CS
~'0
'4-
--
.)
-       -   .i0
-0s
0%
'4
tie
co0 %O
* '0
*- 4- 4
- - -
- --
4- - 4-
4 - 4-i 4
888
4)  )4
(3
.h
CD      t:
,
de
U
0
4-0
4)
0  .0
Sk.Q
.!2 .!2 ~
iii *
4)
as
4)
w
as
be
U4
;ml
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
0% 0%
- -
~o oc
- -
-.
: :
aa
- -
No No
0% 0%
go
0
f.0
'    '0
- -
%ios
W    a
*6  @ 6.
~ mn
ON  0%
- -
m    m
Ii a
No ~o
N    N
A
4.0
U
'0
I
u
C4
0
-4
t3
m
-      .
No
C* Olto
WI 1-
I
0
a
.1
::
S-4
go
8
'0
0%
fit*
'0
0%
0 -4
t-
0%
q-
00
'0
.0
0
o
'A
UC
4
70
*-
0%
0
16
o
9
.0
/4
I
o
@0
(4
I
0
a
B'0
9-
0
a
*A
5
0
0%
@0
Ne
10
'0
98
-        . -
z~~~~~~ 8 t~ -  z t0  xgs
*  W3
*  0.  ~                  0as
LiJ                                          a
*~  ~   ~S lob
a
a
a
J
U
tU
a
-
I @ *U *
;azS
160
0
0%
0%
9-4
0
a
o
o
0
~o
0%
It
N
V-
0%
0~
q-
10
* 4
0
0
U
.-
c:
o
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOHISTORY OF
FORT ROSS, CALIFORNIA
VOLUME 1 INTRODUCTION
KENT G. LIGHTFOOT
THOMAS A. WAKE
AND
ANN M. SCHIFF
NUMBER 49
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY
BERKELEY
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY
Number 49                                   December 1991
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOHISTORY
OF FORT Ross, CALIFORNIA
VOLUME 1 INTRODUCTION
KENT G. LIGHTFOOT, THOMAS A. WAKE,
AND ANN M. SCHIFF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
Publication of this volume is made possible by generous donations from Vernon
Lightfoot, M.D., Dan Lightfoot, M.D., David Lightfoot, M.D., and the American
Home Shield Company of Santa Rosa, California.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-77906
? 1991 by the Regents of the University of California
Second printing, 1999; Third printing, 2003
Archaeological Research Facility
University of California at Berkeley
Printed in the United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, without written permission of the publisher.
Cover photographs: Sherry Pierce Parrish
CONTENTS
FoiEwowD (NovmER 1999)
Breck Parkman ................................................................................................................... v
PREFACE ... V..........................................................................................................................ii
CHAPM ONE
Research Objectives of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project ...........................................1
CHAPR Two
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community         ........................................... 11
CAPmIr THoE
The Natural Environment of the Fort Ross Region ........................................... 29
CiHAnm FouR
An Archaeological Overview of the Fort Ross Region ........................................... 43
CHAFER FIVE
An Archaeological Analysis of the Fort Ross Study Area ........................................... 57
CHA.M   SIX
A Diachronic Perspective of the Kashaya Pomo from Ethnohistoric Observations,
Ethnographic Texts, and Kashaya Oral Traditions.................................... ....................... 121
CHAPMr SEVEN
Conclusion.................................................................................. ................................... 147
Am     cES ...................................................................................................................... 153
REFENCES...................................................................................................................... 237
FoREwoRD
When this volume was first released in 1991,
many of us knew that it would be well received, but I
doubt whether anyone knew just how much interest
there would be in it. Indeed, the volume has become
the best-selling issue of Cal's time-honored publica-
tion series, "Contributions of the University of Cali-
fornia Archaeological Research Facility." It is also a
big seller at the Fort Ross Bookstore, and can even be
found at the Internet's cyber-bookstore, "Ama-
zon.comr."
Fort Ross is of obvious interest to many of us due
to its uniqueness. After all, there are not many
Russian-American Company sites in California, and
where else in California will one find the remains of
a Native Alaskan village! Of course, Fort Ross is the
scene of a much more diverse cultural history than
merely its Russian and Native Alaskan stories. We
know that the occupation and utilization of the imme-
diate area by Native Americans dates back at least 8-
11 thousand years ago (and probably much more than
that), and the past 150 years has seen a highly interest-
ing occupation by America ranchers, farmers, and
others. Few areas in California are as culturally
unique as Fort Ross, and that is a major reason why so
many people are interested in the site.
This is an important time for archaeology, and the
excitement it generates permeates many aspects of
our society. It seems as if every week we read in the
papers of another important archaeological discovery
somewhere in the world. The public's passion for
archaeology explains in part why this volume has
been so well received. The authors have helped to
capture archaeology's excitement, and to further dis-
seminate it among the public. Much of the credit for
capturing the excitement about the past rests with the
senior author, Professor Kent Lightfoot. Indeed,
through his research, lectures, and publications, he
has made the past come to life again.
Today, to be truly successful in one's work, an
archaeologist must articulate the many diverse and
important roles required of the profession. Some of
these roles are traditional, while others are more in
keeping with our modern times. The various hats
worn today include those of scientist, teacher, writer,
scholar, mentor, preservationist, in terpreter, referee,
therapist, storyteller, mechanic, carpenter, cook,
bottlewasher, and magician (well, what else would
you call someone who regularly makes the past come
to life again), to name but a few.
I know of no one who wears those hats better
than Kent Lightfoot. Beginning in 1988, Professor
Lightfoot created a highly successful and renowned
archaeological program at Fort Ross, and inspired
numerous spin-off projects, such as the UNESCO-
vi
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
sponsored Fort Ross - Global Village project (an
Internet-based educational program linking school
children in California, Alaska, and Russia), the
Kashaya Pomo-directed archaeological investigation
of Metini, their ancestral village at Fort Ross, as well
as other archaeological investigations of Russian-
American Company sites in Alaska and Hawaii.
Professor Lightfoot's hard work, humble man-
ner, keen curiosity about the past, and eager willing-
ness to educate both his students and the general
public is indicative of his professionalism and hu-
manity. He has helped to create much of the excite-
ment about Fort Ross, and about California archaeol-
ogy in general. It is a tribute to him that this volume
has been so well received, and, with this second
printing, will continue to inform our curiosity about
California's past.
November 1999
E. Breck Parkman
California State Parks
Sonoma, California
PREFACE
This volume inaugurates a new series on the
archaeology and ethnohistory of the Ross Colony,
an early nineteenth century Russian trade outpost
established in northern California. Founded by the
Russian-American Company in 1812, and operated
as a commercial enterprise until 1841, the Ross
Colony comprised an early multi-ethnic community
composed of Europeans, Creoles (people of Rus-
sian/Native American ancestry), native Alaskans,
and local Kashaya Pomo, Southern Pomo, and Coast
Miwok peoples. Located 110 km north of San Fran-
cisco on the scenic Sonoma County coastline, the
Ross Colony is now a state historic park adminis-
tered by the California Departmnent of Parks and
Recreation.
The intent of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory
of Fort Ross, California series is to publish the re-
sults of archaeological investigations, as well as re-
lated archival research, currently being undertaken
by a collaborative team of scholars from the Califor-
nia Department of Parks and Recreation, the Kodiak
Area Native Association (Kodiak Island, Alaska),
the Sakhalin Regional Museum (USSR), Santa Rosa
Junior College, Sonoma State University, and the
University of California, Berkeley. In the first vol-
ume of the series, we outline the long-term research
objectives of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project,
sketch the historical context and natural history of
the Ross region, and synthesize archaeological re-
search to date, including the results of a recent sur-
vey of the Fort Ross State Historic Park.
ACKNOWLEGDMENS
The archaeological research described in this
volume was supported by funds from the National
Science Foundation (Grant #BNS-8918960), the
California Department of Parks and Recreation, and
the American Home Shield Company of Santa Rosa,
California. A generous donation from the Lightfoot,
Lightfoot and Lightfoot Group of Ophthalmologists
in Santa Rosa, California and the American Home
Shield Company covered the costs of publishing the
volume.
We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the
many people who have supported or participated in
the Fort Ross Archaeological Project since its incep-
tion in 1988. Field investigations in the summers of
1988 and 1989 were undertaken by U.C. Berkeley
students enrolled in the summer field school course
(Anthropology 133) taught by Kent Lightfoot. The
1988 field crew included Eugenia Andruchowicz,
Marie Binneweg, Traci Carlson, Alan Carpenter,
Bruce Dahlstrom, Christine Denezza, Brian Drope,
Elizabeth Fassett, Paul Hays, Vickie Ives, Dean
viii
State Historic Park. We are especially indebted'to
Carl Chavez (Regional Director, Northern Region
Headquarters), Donald Ito (Manager, Visitors' Ser-
vices), Glenn Burch (Regional Historian), Ronald
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Matsuno, Mary Robbins, Okashi Robles, Susan
Schalit, Ann Schiff, Virginia Staubach, Loyda Tubis,
and Lauren Wang. The staff consisted of Marcia-
Anne Dobres, Mark Hall, and Roberta Jewett. The
1989 field crew consisted of Sara Atchley, Adele
Baldwin, Shannon Bonilla, Denise Boyce, Patrick
Clifford, Jordi Davis, Patricia Dolan, Christine
Franco, Susan Goddard, Michele Harrell, Allegra
Kim, Richard Kwak, Katherine MacKinnon, An-
thony Marais, Leslie Nelson, Kelly Park, Lloyd
Pena, Stacy Richardson, Patricia Rowley, Silvia Si-
erra, and Helen Wu. The staff included Paul Hays,
Richard Hitchcock, Heather Price, Ann Schiff, and
Thomas Wake. Michael Love served as field chef,
photographer, and general archaeological consultant
to the project during both field seasons. We greatly
appreciate Robert Schiff who volunteered his efforts
in setting up and closing down the field camps.
Archaeological materials from the 1988 and
1989 field seasons were sorted, processed, and ini-
tially analyzed in the Archaeological Research
Facility's laboratories at U.C. Berkeley. Much of
the preliminary work was undertaken by students in
the Analysis of the Archaeological Record course
(Anthropology 134) taught by Kent Lightfoot. Stu-
dents enrolled in the fall semester of 1988 included
Eugenia Andruchowicz, Bradford Bentz, David
Brittin, Alan Carpenter, Bruce Dahlstrom, Christine
Denezza, Emmanuel Gabet, Kristen Hauge, Paul
Hays, Renee Hendricks, Vickie Ives, Alison Kopf,
Cynthia Mc Clellan, Chinyere Madawaki, Laurie
Nielson, Mary Robbins, Okashi Robles, Mark
Shepard, Robert Smith, and Yvette Wojciechowski.
Mark Hall and Michael Love served as Graduate
Student Instructors. Students enrolled in the fall
semester of 1989 were Sara Atchley, Shannon
Bonilla, Denise Boyce, Jodi Davis, Patricia Dolan,
Christine Franco, Linn Gassaway, Susan Goddard,
Carol Halden, Michele Harrell, James Hoelter, Den-
nis Hurlbut, Kelli Kelley, Richard Kwak, Cynthia
Lawlor, Anthony Marais, Leslie Nelson, Stacy
Richardson, Matthew Riggsby, Patricia Rowley,
Julie Ruiz-Sierra, Ranbir Sidhu, Alexei Vranich,
Helen Wu, and John Yelding-Sloan. Heather Price
and Thomas Wake served as Graduate Student In-
structors. Ann Schiff has served as the Laboratory
Director of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project
since 1989.
The Fort Ross Archaeological Project would
not be possible without the support and assistance of
many people in the California Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) who administer the Fort Ross
north coast of California-Susan Alvarez, Alan
Hanshew (former District Superintendent), and Ro-
nald Brean (Acting District Superintendent). The
DPR provided camping facilities at Fort Ross, logis-
tical support during the field seasons, and funds for
laboratory analyses. The park staff at Fort Ross is
one of the finest that we have had the pleasure to
work with. Special thanks are due to Denise Abbott
(Interpreter), Doreen Mennell (Administration), Wil-
liam Mennell (Chief of Maintenance), Daniel Murley
(Ranger), Michael Stephenson (Supervising Ranger),
and Bill Walton (Ranger).
Two scholars of the California Department of
Parks and Recreation have made critical contribu-
tions to our field program at Fort Ross. Breck
Parkman (Regional Archaeologist) and Glenn Farris
(State Archaeologist) have been instrumental in pro-
viding background information on the Ross Colony,
assisting in both field and archival research, and
evaluating various interpretations outlined in this
volume.
The Fort Ross Interpretive Association (FRIA),
a nonprofit citizens group dedicated to the interpre-
tation of the Fort Ross State Historic Park, has been
extremely helpful in facilitating our fieldwork. We
are especially grateful to Lyn Kalani for her assis-
tance over the last three years, as well as Jay Harris
(past president), John Middleton (president), and the
Board of Directors of FRIA. Kaye Tomlin has been
particularly helpful in providing historical informa-
tion of the ranching period at Fort Ross.
A number of scholars from Sonoma State Uni-
versity and Santa Rosa Junior College have contrib-
uted greatly to the Fort Ross Archaeological Project.
David Fredrickson and Thomas Origer imparted to
us important insights on the prehistory of the North
Coast Ranges, and advice on archaeological meth-
ods that have proved effective in this region. The
Obsidian Hydration Laboratory at Sonoma State
University undertook the analysis of all obsidian
hydration data reported in this volume. Margaret
Purser analyzed the historical materials from survey
sites, including ceramic, glass and metal artifacts.
The amiable staff at the Northwest Information Cen-
ter, Sonoma State University, went out of their way
to assist us in finding and duplicating site records
and reports from the Fort Ross region. June Matsuko
of the Cultural Resources Center, Sonoma State Uni-
versity, worked many long hours processing paper-
work for members of the Fort Ross Archaeological
Project.
Daniel G. Foster has been extremely helpful in
providing information on sites on file with the Cali-
fornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
We also appreciate the advice and consultation of
other archaeologists who have worked along the
Preface        ix
Bramlette, Lynne Goldstein, Thomas Layton, Sannie
Osborn, Rene Peron, William Pritchard, Jim Quinn,
Dwight Simons, and Greg White. We would also
like to thank the following publishers for permission
to use material from their books: the Oregon His-
torical Society Press, the University Press of Hawaii
and the Hawaiian Historical Society, and the Uni-
versity of California Press.
The administrative staff of the Department of
Anthropology and Summer Sessions at the Univer-
sity of California at Berkeley deserve our special
thanks. We are especially obliged to M. J. Tyler,
Julie Martinson, Darlene Wright, and Catherine
Calderon who administered the summer field school
program in the Anthropology Department for the
1988 and 1989 sessions. William Simmons pro-
vided valuable support to the field school program
while serving as Vice-Chair for Personnel in the
Anthropology Department. Sally Senior and John
Wheeler of Summer Sessions greatly facilitated the
summer field program at Fort Ross.
We are most grateful for the excellent support
that the Archaeological Research Facility at U.C.
Berkeley has provided the Fort Ross Archaeological
Project Tanya Smith, editor of the monograph series
published by the Archaeological Research Facility,
designed this volume's format, copy edited the text,
and produced the camera-ready copy. Anne Sauter is
the administrator who oversees the distribution and
promotion ofour publications. Karyn Klinger drafted
all the illustrations included in the present volume.
The publications program of the Archaeological Re-
search Facility has been greatly enhanced by the
Office for Research. We deeply appreciate the sup-
port and assistance of Joseph Cemrny, Provost for
Research, Linda Fabbri, Executive Assistant, and
Jeanne Segale, Administrative Analyst.
We are grateful for the continued support of the
Pedotti family of Fort Ross. The weekly poker games
with the Pedotti clan during the summer field seasons
netted us ample funds to eat very well at the "archy
camp." We anticipate working with Alex, David,
Renie, Lucas, and Tyral for many years to come.
We are also most grateful for the continued
interest of coast Pomo and Miwok peoples in our
project. We appreciate their taking the time to talk
with us about the Fort Ross region, and look forward
to continued and closer collaboration in the future.
We are especially thankful to Violet Chappell,
George Frank, Vana Lawson, Ben Lucas, Jackie
Marufo, Warren Parrish, Delbert Pinola, Lanny and
Esther Pinola, Alice Poe, Lynn Poe, and Lorin Smith.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the years
of work that John and Alice McKenzie have dedi-
cated to the study and public interpretation of Fort
Ross. John McKenzie served as the curator/historian/
ranger at the Fort Ross State Historic Park beginning
in 1948. The senior author was fortunate, as a bud-
ding archaeologist growing up in Santa Rosa, to meet
John and Alice during his formative years. They
were patients of the distinguished ophthalmologist,
Dr. Vernon F. Lightfoot, who used to make house
calls to Fort Ross with his son and Peg Lightfoot in
the 1960s and 1970s. The McKenzies contributed
greatly to the education of the young scholar by
emphasizing the need for basic research on the multi-
ethnic community of Fort Ross. We are very grateful
for their continued support and friendship as we
attempt to follow their pioneering footsteps in the
study and interpretation of the Ross Colony.
CHAPTER ONE
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES OF THE
FORT Ross ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT
T HE FORTHCOMING quincenary of Columbus's
voyage to the Americas is sparking renewed
interest among anthropologists in native responses
to European and American colonialism. The conse-
quences of European expansion into North America
have been perceived in many different ways over
the years. In the early decades of this century,
native cultures were viewed as timeless and static
entities. This concept of the "ethnographic present"
was widely employed by anthropologists to trace
native traits back into early contact and even late
prehistoric times by interviewing elders in contem-
porary contexts (e.g., Barrett 1908; Kroeber 1925).
By the late 1930s and 1940s, acculturation studies
became an integral component of American anthro-
pology, involving the investigation of how native
societies changed with the encroachment of the
dominant Euro-American culture (e.g., Redfield et
al. 1936; Herskovits 1938). Some acculturation
studies tended, however, to assume that the expan-
sion of a monolithic European colonial system pro-
duced similar effects among native peoples across
all of North America, leading to the eventual de-
struction and breakdown of native societies in gen-
eral (see Fitzhugh 1985:6,9). Other anthropologists
found the study of native acculturation baffling, a
"hodgepodge of accident rather than a clue to a
social process" (Mead 1932:4).
It is now evident that native responses to Euro-
pean colonial practices varied greatly across both
space and time in North America. Some native
groups became completely engulfed in Euro-Ameri-
can culture. Other groups maintained strong social
identities while outwardly adopting many traits of
Euro-American culture. Still other groups stead-
fastly refused to accept nontraditional innovations
and they exhibited little outward sign of European
acculturation (see Fitzhugh 1985:7; Simmons
1988:8-9). While understanding how and why na-
tive societies varied in their responses to European
encounters will require more than assuming it was a
"hodgepodge of accident," it is nonetheless an ex-
trenmely complex process that is rapidly becoming a
focus of culture theory and studies of cultural change
in anthropology today (e.g., Deetz 1989:434;
Simmons 1988; Sahlins 1985; Wolf 1982; Thomas
1989).
In studying native responses to European colo-
nial practices, we advocate examining three critical
factors that contributed to the specific historical con-
texts in which early interactions took place.
1) LatePrehistoricSocieties. The native cultures that
confronted early Europeans varied greatly in their
population densities, economic organizations, reli-
gious practices, and sociopolitical structures. Itis not
unexpected that native responses to Europeans may
1
2
American colonialism should be undertaken on a
case-by-case basis that examines the above three
factors in their specific historical contexts. By
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
havevariedamongnomadicbands,largertribalgroups,
and complex chiefdoms (Fitzhugh 1985:8). Trigger
(1981:11) stresses that studies of culture contact
should begin with an understanding of the specific
developments of native societies in prehistoric times.
Native sociopolitical structures, economic organiza-
tions, and ideology, especially in late prehistoric
times, would "set the stage" for how native peoples
would react to European expansion into their territo-
nies.
2) European Introduced Diseases. Specific native
populations may have been influenced by "virgin
soil epidemics" prior to their first face-to-face con-
tact with Europeans. Dobyns (1983:8-25) provoca-
tively argues that the demographic structure of some
native populations may have collapsed prior to any
direct meetings with European populations. He hy-
pothesizes that widespread depopulation took place
across North America with the rapid transmission of
the first smallpox pandemic in A.D. 1520-1524. As
Dobyns (1983:25-26) notes, the demographic devas-
tation of native societies would have affected their
traditional lifeways and, in turn, greatly influenced
their responses to Europeans. Dobyns's (1983) hy-
potesis is hotly debated among North American
specialists. Studies to date suggest that the timing,
magnitude, and virulence of particular lethal patho-
gens varied greatly across North America (see
Ramenofsky 1987; Snow 1980; Snow and Lanphear
1988). It is clear that the impact of European dis-
eases must be considered in their specific historical
contexts.
3) European and American Colonial Policies. Na-
tive peoples of North America did not encounter a
monolithic European culture, but rather a "many-
headed" world-system that was the product of En-
glish, French, Spanish, Swedish, Italian, German,
Portuguese, and Russian spheres of interest
(Simmons 1988:6). Native populations in California
also had to contend with a variety of American and
Mexican colonial practices. Not only were many
countries involved in the colonial process, but the
individual participants varied greatly in their reasons
for transgressing into native territory. Some came as
businessmen representing mercantile companies,
ohers as Christians to convert the pagans, while still
others came as permnnanent colonists. Each coloniz-
ing party developed its own Indian policies that were
motivated by varied economic, political, and reli-
gious consideraons. Consequendtly, native peoples
were subjected to a wide range of colonial practices
that elicited different kinds of responses from them.
The study of native responses to Europemn  and
reconnaissance voyages to California since 1808 to
implementing such case studies, we may better un-
derstand how different native societies responded to
colonial policies of agrarian expansion, mercantil-
ism, proselytization, and slavery. In this way, we
may begin to compare how various kinds of native
societies reacted to particular colonial practices.
Tim FORT Ross
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJEcr
The Fort Ross Archaeological Project serves as a
case study for evaluating how Pacific Coast hunter-
gatherers responded to the mercantile policies of a fur
trade company. The Russian-American Company at
Colony Ross enlisted large numbers of native peoples
from Siberia, Alaska, and northern California to work
as sea mammal hunters andagricultural laborers. The
purpose of the Fort Ross project is to evaluate how
mercantile colonialism impacted the traditional
lifeways of these diverse native populations. We will
evaluate the degree to which native participation in
the broader Ross community resulted in significant
changes in their material culture, subsistence activi-
ties, religious practices, sociopolitical organization,
and gender relations.
This chapter outlines the research objectives of
the Fort Ross Archaeological Project in detail. We
begin byconsideringthediverseethnicpopulationsof
the Ross Colony. We then argue that research on
mercantile colonies, such as this one, is critical for
understanding the character of early contacts between
European and American colonial institutions and
hunter-galtherer societies along the Pacific Rim of
North America. Here, beyond the Spanish missions,
presidios, and pueblos of central and southern Cali-
fornia,representativesofBritish,Russian,andAmeri-
can merchant houses competed with each other over
access to natural resources and the exploitation of
native labor. The final section of the chapter outlines
our research design for evaluating native accultura-
tion in a mercantile colonial environment. We will
employ the direct historical approach in a long-term
diachronic study that examines different lines of evi-
dence of cultural change before, during, and after the
Russian colonization of Fort Ross.
THE NATIVE POPULATION OF Ross:
THE SIUiENT MAJORmTY
In March 1812, the schooner Chirikov from the
Russian-American Company'scommercial capital of
New Archangel (SitIa, Alaska) dropped anchor off
the northern California coastL On board was Com-
merce Councillor Ivan Kuskov, who had been making
Research Objectives            3
locate a suitable site for a southern colony. The new
colony was to serve as a staging area for hunting sea
mammals along the California coast, and as an agri-
cultural base forraising crops and livestock primarily
to supply theNorth Pacificcolonies. Inclosecollabo-
ration with AleksandrBaranov, Chief Managerof the
Russian-American Company, he chose a windswept
cliff overlooking a small cove about 29 lakm north of
Port Rumiantsev (Bodega Bay) (Tikhmenev
1978:134). AfterdisembarkingtheChirikov,Kuskov
directed a work force of twenty-five Russian men and
eighty native Alaskans (primarily from Kodiak Is-
land, Alaska) in felling nearby redwood timber for the
construction of a stout, square-shaped, palisade wall.
The "fort" would soon enclose administrative offices
and dwellings, barracks, warehouses, a kitchen, and
other service buildings (Khlebnikov 1976:107-108).
On August 30, 1812, in an official dedication cer-
emony, the colony was named Ross or Fort Ross as it
is known today.
Today we view the Ross Colony primarily from
the vantage of the elite Europeans who resided in and
visited the stockade complex founded by Kuskov and
his men. Eyewitness accounts were written either by
1) upper class Russians who functioned as Russian-
American Companyadministrators, military officers,
and natural scientists or 2) erudite visitors from other
countries, especially ship captains, who kept detailed
journals of their travels. Accounts of the Russian-
American Company dwell upon the economic opera-
tion of Fort Ross, including the costs of maintaining
the colony and the proceeds accumulated from such
economic ventures as sea otter hunting and agricul-
ture (e.g., Tikhmenev 1978:133-42; 224-33 [1861-
1863]). Foreign visitors, who perceived the Russian
colony as competition in the broader arena of early
nineteenth century geopolitics, tend to depict the
fortifications of the colony in detail and to describe the
Russian managers and officers who entertained them
(e.g., Duhaut-Cilly 1946:4-15 [1828]; Duflot de
Mofras 1937:5-13 [1841]; Vallejo 1979:5-6 [1833];
Payeras 1979:2-3 [1822]).
The European view of the Ross Colony is further
accentuated today at the Fort Ross State Historic Park
by the impressively restored stockade complex. The
stockade walls and blockhouses have been carefully
and faithfully reconstructed along with several Rus-
sian period buildings that were enclosed in the "fort."
By touring the palisadecompound today, park visitors
can behold firsthand the architecture and material
culture of the Russian elite who managed the Ross
Colony.
Yet the prevailing focus on the Russians in his-
torical texts and museum displays tells only part of the
story. Little is said about the sizeable non-European
work force who labored outside the palisade walls in
a variety of critical jobs. Native laborers were the
economic lifeblood of the Ross Colony, and the
Russians depended upon them to build, maintain, and
support the settlement during its three decades of
operation. Native workers, in fact, greatly outnum-
bered ethnic Russians in the local community. While
fluctuations took place from 1812 to 1841, ethnic
Russians made up only about 8-12% of the total
population (see Farris 1989a:489). The remainder
consisted of Creoles (mixed Russian/native ances-
try); native Alaskans from the Aleutian Islands
(Aleuts), Kodiak Island (Alutiiqs or Koniag Eski-
mos),andCook lnlet(Athabascans);andlocal K ya
Pomo, Southern Pomno, and Coast or Bodega Miwok
peoples.
Unfortunately, little is known about
this pluralisticpopulation, and few exhibits in the Fort
Ross State Historic Park document their daily life-
ways. At least two factors account for the paucity of
information. One concerns the uneven ethnographic
observations of the native populations at the colony.
The other is that past archaeological projects have
focused almost entirely on the excavation of Russia
structures.
Eyewitness accounts of native peoples at Fort
Ross tend to be spotty, abbreviated, and potentially
biased, often highlighting unusual native customs
(i.e.,gambling games) and thephysical appearance of
people, especiallywomen(Cyrill aPlace 1986[1839];
P. Kostromitinov 1974 [1830-1838]; F. P. Von
Wrangell 1974 [1833]; A. B. Duhaut-Cilly 1946
[1828]). Of lefewearly"ethnographic"accountsof
Ross natives, most describe the Kashaya Pomo and
Bodega Miwok whose first sustained contact with
Europeans took place with the colonization of Fort
Ross. We have found very few primary archival
sources that provide any substance on the .daily
lifeways, residences, religious activities, material
culture, and social organization of the native Alaskan
population stationed there. European observers ap-
parently perceived little that was noteworthy about
the nativeAlaskansinCalifornia. Certainly, theAleut
and Koniag workers were well known to the Russians,
since most of them had grown up under Russian
domination in North Pacific colonies prior to the
founding of the Ross Colony.
Since theearly 1950s, when archaeological field-
work began in earnest at Fort Ross, the great majority
ofresearch has focused on Russian architecture inside
the "fort." Most of thiswork was conducted to assist
in the restoration of the stockade complex (see Farris
1989a:490-92; O'Connor 1984:11-13 for summaries
of Ross archaeology). This research has generated an
excellent data base on the material culture of the
Russian administrators and officers who lived and
worked in the palisade compound. In conast, very
4
entepreeurs established a chain of colonies across
the North Pacific, from the Kurile Islands and
Kamchatka, across the Aleutian Islands and the Ko-
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
few excavations have been undertaken on archaeo-
logical remains in the hinterland of the stockade.
NATIVE ACCULTURATION IN A
MERCANTILE COLONY
The primary goal of our project is to study the
greater Fort Ross community by investigating ar-
chaeological remains in the hinterland of the stockade
complex. Specifically, we will evaluate how Russia
mercantile policies influenced the acculturation pro-
cesses of Pacific Coast hunter-gatherers who partici-
pated in the broader colonial community. Further-
more; we are interested in assessing how native popu-
lations, in turn, influenced the lifeways of Europeans
stationed there. We propose to examine the material
remains of native Californians and native Alaskans,
aswell asCreoles and lowerclassRussians, who lived
and worked outside the palisade walls, and to com-
pare and contrast this information with that already
known about the elite Russian managers.
The ultimate purpose of this project is tocontinue
the development of a public interpretative program in
the FortRoss State Historic Park. The archaeological
study of hinterland sites will provide the background
research to develop a"culture" trail as proposed in the
1975 General Development Plan for the park. The
trail will consist of trailside displays and on-site
interpretations that will take the public beyond the
Visitor's Center and reconstructed stockade com-
pound to view the archaeological remains of the
multi-ethnic Fort Ross community.
Fort Ross as a Mercantile Colony
InexaminingnativeresponsestotheRossColony,
we recognize from the outset the unique historical
context of this settlement in early nineteenth century
California. In contrast to the agrarian missions of the
Franciscan fathers in central and southern California,
which were the cornerstone of Spanish colonial ex-
pansion into North America, Fort Ross was founded
as a mercantile colony with the primary purpose of
making a profit in the North Pacific fur trade. The
Russian-American Company, amercantile monopoly
that represented Russia's interests in the lucrative fur
trade, harvested sea otters in Pacific waters, then
shippedthepeltstoChinatomeetthemarketdemands
of Manchu elites who trimmed their clothing with the
fine fur (Gibson 1986:5). The high prices paid for sea
otter pelts provided capital to acquire tea, silk, linen,
porcelain, candy, rhubarb, and other Asian goods.
The Chinese merchandise was then transported back
to Europe and sold at great profit. The Russian
peanandnativeencountersworldwide,recentlyraised
diak Island archipelago, and throughout coastal south-
em Alaska. Fort Ross was the company's southern-
most outpost in the Pacific. These colonies served as
bases not only for hunting sea otters, but for acquiring
other fur products, such as fur seal pelts, that were
earmarked primarily for Southeast Asian, American,
andEuropean markets (Gibson 1976:34-35,Fedorova
1973:187, Ogden 1933:42).
Mercantile Companies in the North Pacfc Rim
Studies of mercantile colonies, such as FortRoss,
are important for understanding the character of early
encounters between Europeans and hunter-gatherer
societies along the Pacific Rim of North America.
Here, beyond Spanish held territory to the south, the
natives' first sustained contact was not with mission-
aries carrying the holy cross or settlers arriving in
Conestoga wagons, but rather with European and
American businessmen. The colonization of this
region was initiated by large, international mercantile
companies whose common agenda was to exploit
local resources at great profits (see Jacobs 1988;
Horsman 1988; Pierce 1988; Ray 1988; Swagerty
1988; Farris 1989a). While some companies, such as
the Russian-American Company and some Boston
trading houses, specialized in the procurement of
marine mammal pelts from the North Pacific in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, other
companies focused on traping testrial game, espe-
ciallybeaver, from interior fveshwater wetlands. These
later British (Hudson Bay's Company, Northwest
Company) and American (American Fur Company,
Pacific Fur Company) companies maintained strings
of trade outposts deep in the heart of what was then
referred to as "Indian territory."
The colonization of the North Pacific Rim took
place with amazing rapidity. Fur companies were
continually searching for pristine rivers and creeks or
suitable coastal habitats where new outposts could be
established near untaedbeaverdensorseamammal
rookeries. As local regions became hunted out, the
incentivetopush intonew territorygrew. In relatively
short order, trade outposts and rendezvous sites were
founded across western United States and along the
entire coastline of the North Pacific Rim. The Lewis
and Clark expedition in 1806 passed no fewer than
eleven separate parties on the Missouri River who
were trading forfurs with Arikara, Sioux,andPawnee
people (Swagerty 1988:361). By the mid-1830s most
tribes in North America had access to a trade outpost
and company store, and in many regions stores were
placed no farther than 320 okm from any native family
(Swagerty 1988:369-70; Ray 1988:343).
Mercantile Conmpanies asAgents ofCultural Change
Eric Wolf (1982) in his seminal book on Euro-
Research Objectives           S
the question about the overall impact that mercantile
operations had on North American Indians. He notes
that the blitzkrieg expansion of companies into native
territories had far-reaching implications for the perpe-
tuity of traditional native lifeways. He suggests (see
also Trigger 1981:12-13) that significant cultural
changes took place long before ehnographers of the
late nineteenth and twentieth centuries began to study
native people in earnest. In fact, Wolf argues that
ethnogra  s far farom observing "pristine" native
societies, were making observations of tribal entities
tat were largely shaped by the spread of the fur trade
(1982:194).
In considering native responses to mercantile
policies, we will focus our investigation on two im-
pot developments that characterized many fur
coanties by the early nineteenth century. These
include: 1) the integration of native laborers into a
market economy and 2) the rise of multi-ethnic com-
munities. Webelieve these twodevelopments may be
impant factors that stimulated a feedback cycle of
cultual change among native populations who lived
and worked around trade outposts.
1) Native Laborers. Native people were incoiporated
as laborers in fur companies in many different ways.
Some served as independent middlemen who sold or
xchanged fur products to traders (Ray 1988:342).
Otrs served as day laborers who paddled canoes,
ared supplies, or provided necessities to outposts.
Some native laborers became wage-earning employ-
ees of the company (Swagerty 1988:365). Still other
natives served as specialized hunters who worked on
company-financed hunting expeditions. These hunt-
ers often received a share of the hunt or were paid an
annual salary (Gibson 1988:377).
Nativeworkersparticipatedin a marketeconomy
by either exchanging their labor directly for trade
commodities and/or food, or selling their labor for
wages which were used to purchase goods in com-
pany stores. As Swagerty (1988:351) argues, native
participation inthe fur trade of western North America
stimulated cultural change not only in material cul-
ture, but also in subsistence patterns, gender roles, and
sociopolitical organizations. The scheduling of fur
hunting trips often conflicted with the timing of tradi-
tional harvests of plant and animal resources, a prob-
lem that increased native laborers' dependence on
foodstuffs from company stores (Wolf 1982:175).
Swagerty (1988:367-68) notes that the fur trade dif-
ferentially affected the role of women in native soci-
eties of western North America, in some cases en-
hancing their status and prestige, in other cases ad-
vancingthedominantrelationsofmalehunters. Where
women served as the primary laborers who cured
o  Ands of hides for the market, polygyny among
successful hunters increased, as well as intertribal
raiding for women. Access to European goods also
stimulated changes in native political hierarchies,
especially in those societies where the accumulation
of wealth provided the basis forpolitical power. This
changewasespeciallyevidentin theNorthwestCoast,
where a proliferation of potlatches and chiefs took
place, and among neighboring interior groups who
adopted some characteristics of coastal political cer-
emonies (Gibson 1988:389; Goldman 1940).
2) Multi-Ethnic Communities. It was common prac-
tice for mercantile companies to transfer native work-
ers from over-hunted regions to newly-established
outposts. By the early nineteenth century, fur compa-
nies were.recruiting native laborfrom formerou s
across the continent to work at new colonies. These
pluralistic communities were established in the terri-
tories of other native people who became integrated
into the regional economic system as day laborers.
For example, British trade outposts in the Northwest
were managed primarilyby British, OrkneyIslanders,
and Metis (mixed French/Indian) personnel, while
Eastern Woodland Indians, primarily the Iroquois, as
well as other native peoples (Cree, Nipissing, and
Abenaki) served as trappers, hunters, and camp ten-
ders. In fact, by 1821 Iroquois made up one-third of
thehiredhandsintheColumbiaRiverregion(Swagety
1988:365). In addition,about300 Hawaiians whohad
been hired to serve as deck hands, freighters, and
general laborers worked in many British outposts
throughout the Northwest Territory (Swagerty
1988:365).
The pluralistic trade outposts of the larger fur
companies (i.e., Hudson's Bay Company, Northwest
Company, etc.) were organized into tightly-stratified,
ethnic hierarchies. A worker's job, social status, and
wage were largely determined by ethnicity. At the
apex of the stratified pyramid were a few ethnic
Europeans who managed the company's affairs at
home and in the field. The second tier, divided into
various ranks, consisted of a larger number of "other"
ethnic Europeans and people of mixed European and
native blood who served as clerks, traders, artisans,
and skilledorsemi-skilled tradesmen. The lowesttier
contained the contract and day laborers who per-
formed the bulk of the work in the field, mostof whom
werenativepeoplesfrommanydifferentNorthAmeri-
can tribes. This tier composed the majority of the
population of most trade outposts (for specific ex-
amples, see Shay 1985; Hamilton 1985; Monks 1985;
Burley 1985; Ray 1988).
The rise of pluralistic communities containing
stratified work forces of Europeans, mixed bloods,
and natives from many different homelands repre-
sents another potential agent of cultural change. Yet
6
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
scholars have paid little attention to the consequences
of ethnic pluralism on the acculturation process of
native peoples in colonial social environments. Con-
siderable interaction took place between ethnic groups
in early nineteenth century mercantile colonies, and
inter-ethnic marriages orcohabitations werecommon
(Swagerty 1988:371; Prager 1985:388; Farris
1989a:489; Jackson 1983). The close interaction of
ethnic groups from many different homelands repre-
sents a fertile ground for stimulating cultural ex-
change of architectural styles, material goods, meth-
ods of craft production, subsistence practices, diet,
dress, and ceremonial practices.
In sum, the specific research issues we will ad-
dress in this project concern the effects that mercantile
labor and inter-ethnic relationships had on the accul-
turation process of native workers in the Ross Colony.
When native workers received commodities or wages
for their labor, did this serve as a source of cultural
change, influencing the acculturation process of na-
tive Alaskans and native Californians? How did the
multi-ethnicenvironmentofmercantileoutposts,such
as Fort Ross, modify traditional native lifeways? Did
inter-ethnic interactions and marriages in company
outposts serveas importantsourcesofculturalchange,
ultimately affecting the architectural styles, subsis-
tenre practices, diet, and material culture of native
workers? Did many taditional native lifeways re-
main intact during the process of mercantile colonial-
ism?
DIREcT HsTroRic ANALOGY IN
CALFoRNIA ARCHAEOLOGY
The question of whether mercantile companies
served as agents of cultural change is not moot for
North American archaeologists. Since the beginning
of the discipline, archaeologists working in this re-
gion have relied on late nineteenth andearly twentieth
century ethnographies as sources for interpreting the
prehistoric past. Known as direct historic analogy
(Charlton 1981:133, 136), this method is still com-
monly used today to generate models that can be
tested with prehistoric data The method is predicated
on the assumption that significant cultural change has
not taken place between ethnographically described
peoples and their late prehistoric ancestors.
Direct historic analogy remains a cornerstone in
the practice of California archaeology. Here anthro-
pologists have long emphasized cultural continuity
during late prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic
times. Supportforthis assumption is based on the late
of Hispanic colonization in California. Heizer
pestles (Heizer and Elsasser 1980:28-56). While it is
generally recognized that the central and south coasts
of California were impacted relatively early by Span-
ish missionaries, and that the Gold Rush of 1848 had
devastating ramifications for some native peoples,
isolated pockets of Indians reportedly lingered on
uncontaminated by Euro-American influences into
the twentieth century (Heizer and Elsasser 1980:2-3).
The assumption of cultural continuity was so strong
tat Alfred Kroeberandotherethnogaphersattempted
to reconstruct traditional native societies by inter-
viewing elders into the late 1930s and early 1940s
(Heizer 1978:8-10). The childhood memories of
these elders provided ethnographers with a view of
mid-nineteenth century native lifeways that suppos-
edly reflected traditional aboriginal culture. This
"golden age" of ethnography still provides the inter-
pretative foundation from which many California
archaeologists reconstruct past lifeways and prehis-
toric linguistic/tribelet boundaries (see, for example,
Moratto 1984:530-74).
There are, however, ample reasons to be cautious
about using California ethnographies to reconstruct
prehistoric societies, even in the most remote areas of
the state. First, it is not yet clear whether lethal
epidemics of pathogens swept across California in the
1500s and 1600s when European exploers firstbegan
to probe the coastline, but before permanent colonies
were established. Second, the founding of early
colonies possibly had substantial repercussions far
beyond the local area of settlement. The founding of
Fort Ross in the heart of Kashaya Pomo territory may
have had reverberations across a broad region, possi-
bly extending throughout the linguistic region de-
fined by ethnographers as "Pomo and Coast Miwok."
The Russians explored many kilometers of interior
Sonoma County, following the Russian River in pur-
suit of beavers and other game and making firsthiand
observations about the agricultural potential of the
land (Wrangell 1974 [1833]; Golovnin 1979:170
[1818]). They also"recruited" nativelaborers from as
far as 70 km away (Wrangell 1969:211 [1833]).
At the same time that the Russians were explor-
ing the Russian River watershed, fur rappers from
small American companies, including the renowned
Jedediah Smith, and the giant Hudson's Bay Com-
pany were hunting beaver and other terrestrial game
along interior drainages throughout northern and cen-
tral California (Farris 1989b; Batman 1985:193-214).
By 1840, the Hudson's Bay Company opened a fac-
tory in San Francisco from which it administered its
commercial operation in California during the last
years of viable fur trapping in the state (Bauntman
1985:315, 320, 335-36).
Onemustalsoconsiderthebroaderconsequences
entry of Europeans into this region, and continuity
over time in some aspects of native material culture,
including house construction, hunting and gathering
practices, and the use of tools such as mortars and
I
Research Objectives            7
( 1941:105-112),Castillo(1978:103-107),andPhillips
(1981:33-40) describe how Spanish/Mexican occu-
pation along the central and south coasts had a rip-
pling effect among native communities throughout
California. As a result of historic epidemics and
Spanish raids in the interior to "recruit" natives into
the missions, native villages were often relocated to
defensibleinaccessibleplaces farfrom Hispanic settle-
ments. Here, escaped neophytes and landless Indians
from the missions often found refuge. Heizer
(1941:112) describes how refugees from many differ-
ent homelands who spoke diverse languages agre-
gated into these large villages for mutual ptection.
Phillips (1981:33-41) notes that some of these vil-
lages were established by influential native leaders
who actively recruited Indian refugees to th  settle-
ments.
In their exploration beyond the Ross Colony, the
Russians observed at least one native village com-
posed primarily of runaway neophytes from Spanish
missions (Wrangell 1969:212 [1833]). Furthermore,
theRussians r t  that many Indianswereterrified
of Spanish/Mexican raids (Wrangell 1974:2 [1833];
Golovnin 1979:160 [1818]; Lutke 1989:267 [1818])
and continually relocated their villages beyond the
frontierto scapethem. Thispracticebecameincreas-
ingly difficult by the 1830s, however, as Mexican
ranchos were established in strategic areas to isolate
theRussians from the rest of California and to contain
northern California tribes (Duflot de Moftas 1937:5
[1841]; Batman 1985:282-85).
By at least the 1820s and 1830s, the combination
of mercantile opations and Spanish colonization
may have had far-reaching repercussions for native
peoples across California. One must seriously ques-
tion-in light of reported refugee populations, the
shifting location of villages, deadly epidemics, and
the fur trade-how accurately ethnographic accounts
reflect "traditional" or pre-contact native lifeways.
Caution should be exercised in employing ethno-
graphic accounts to model prehistoric settlementpat-
terns, subsistence practices, sociopolitical organiza-
tions, tribelet units, and linguistic boundaries. In fact,
one can not help but wonder what the linguistic and
tribelet boundaries, which ethnographers have so
neatly traced out for different California native groups
(e.g., Kroeber 1925),are really depicting-especially
in light of the significant population movements that
were underway atleastone hundred yearsbefore most
of the seminal ethnographic studies were completed.
THE DnmEcTr HISTORICAL APPROACH
We recognize the potential problems of employ-
ing post-colonial ethnographies to reconstruct pre-
California. However, we also recognize the tremen-
dous wealth of information that California Indian
ethnographies can provide archaeologists. These
studies describe in great detail the material culture
associated with subsistence practices, residential ar-
chitecture, political activities, and religious ceremo-
nies. Should archaeologists dismiss this information
out-of-hand simply because some descriptions may
not reflect pre-contact lifeways? Should archaeolo-
gists, as suggested by Dunnell (1990), treat ethno-
graphically described native peoples and ancestral
prehistoric groups as two separate and distinct popu-
lations?
We argue that ethnographic data should con-
tinue to play an important role in California archae-
ology, but that the emphasis should shift away from
analogy. Rather than employing ethnographic ob-
servations to flesh out the prehistoric past, we advo-
cate their use as part of the "direct historical ap-
proach" to develop a diachronic framework for com-
paring and contrasting native societies before, dur-
ing, and after contact with European and American
colonial institutions. It is important not to confuse
the direct historical approach with direct historic
analogy, as do most current textbooks (e.g., Sharer
and Ashmore 1987:387; Knudson 1985:337; Bower
1986:381). The former is a straightforward study of
cultural change, while the latter evokes analogy
based upon the assumption of cultural continuity.
In its classic usage (see Strong 1935; Wedel
1938; Heizer 1941; Steward 1942, 1944), the direct
historical approach taces the ancestors of contem-
porary native peoples back through historic,
protohistoric, and prehistoric contexts using ethnmo-
graphic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data to
study the dynamics of cultural change. This ap-
proach developed, in large part, as an offshoot of
"acculturaion" research that was popular in Ameri-
can anthropology in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g.,
Redfield et al. 1936). The early advocates of the
direct historical approach recognized that European
contact and settlement produced tremendous up-
heavals in some North American native cultures (see
especially, Heizer 1941; Strong 1935). As Julian
Steward (1942:340) stated succinctly, its great
strength is that it provides the temporal framework
to evaluate systematically "revolutionary changes in
economy, village types, village distributions, migra-
tions and tribal contacts" brought about by European
contact. He argued that such an approach would
tend "to correct ethnography's attempts to recon-
struct pre-contact cultures" (Steward 1942:341).
We will employ pertinent ethnographic informa-
tiod in this project to help measure the rate and
magnitude ofcultural change. Ratherthan employing
colonial or even colonial period native societies in
ethnographic data as models to reconstruct the past,
8
field research in the hinterland of the Ross stockade
that is identifying prehistoric, protohistoric, and his-
toric sites. In this study we follow Trigger's (1981)
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
we view historic observations as revealing of the time
when they were recorded, and as the end sequences of
long-term developments in native societies (see, for
example, Kirch and Green 1987). TheHistoricperiod
represents an additional sequence of time for evaluat-
ing cultural change in a long-term diachronic frame-
work, and not a mirror of the prehistoric past.
In using the direct historical approach, we will
minimize the boundary between "prehistoric" and
"historical" archaeology. Unfortunately, there is a
growing trend in North American archaeology for
students to specialize in either the prehistoric or
historical periods. Prehistoric archaeologists tend to
work on Native American sites that are still pristine,
having not yet been "tainted" by Erpean contact.
Post-contact times are the domain of historical ar-
chaeologists who still tend to focus on the archaeol-
ogy of Europeans, such as the analysis of colonial
America and the reconstruction of nineteenth century
forts,battlegrounds, andplantations (Fitzhugh 1985:3-
4; Ramenofsky 1987:32). Yet by continuing this
dichotomous studyofarchaeology, the transition from
prehistory to history, which represents one of the most
interesting times of cultural change, tends to fall
between the cracks. As Deetz (1989:434) succinctly
notes, "it seems to have been relatively neglected by
prehistorians because it was just too late to be of much
interest, and by historical archaeologists since it is
prehistoric from their point of view. Yet this is the
time when some of the most radical changes were
worked on the peoples of the world as a result of
wholesale colonization, and its study, which by ne-
cessity must be archaeological, will shed light on
many current world problems."
The study of cultural change, by its very defini-
tion, requires a broad-scale, diachronic approach. To
evaluate the consequences of the European world-
system on native peoples demands that both prehis-
toric and historical archaeology be undertaken. Pre-
historic archaeology is needed to establish a baseline
from which to measure changes taking place after
European contact. As Trigger (1981:12-13) notes,
without this prehistoric baseline it is impossible to
determine the magnitude of change involved, since
any written records may be describing native societies
already affected by colonial processes.
In a nutshell, theresearch design for the FortRoss
Archaeological Project requires a holistic and
diachtonic approach that involves the study of perti-
nentethnohistorical documents, ethnographic sources,
native texts, native oral traditions, and the implemen-
tation of archaeological fieldwork (see Simmons
1988:10; Deetz 1988: 362-63). We have initiated
the best-documented native groups by California
lead in distinguishing theearlycontactorProtohistoric
period from the Historic period. The Protohistoric
period is defined as the "interval between the first
evidence of European contact influencing a native
culture, however indirectly, and the beginning of the
intimate well-documented contact that characterizes
the beginning of the Historic period" (Trigger
1981:11).
At the Ross Colony, the Protohistoric period is
defined as beginning about A.D. 1500 for two reasons.
Frst, at this time Dobyns (1983) hypothesizes that
possible lethal epidemics of palgens may have
spread across North America. Second, this is roughly
the time that early contacts with native peoples were
made by Spanish and English explers along the
coast of nearby Marin County. These brief visits
includedJuanRodriguezCabrillo in 1542, SirFrancis
Drake in 1579, Sebastian Rodriquez Cenneno in
1595, and Sebastian Viscaino in 1603 (Beardsley
1954:15; Barren 1908:27-37). Barrett (1908:36-37,
note 7) suggests that representatives of the Kashaya
Pomrno or Southern Pomo visited SirFrancis Drake and
his men when the Golden Hinde made an extended
landfall somewhere along the Marin County coast.
Barrett's interpretation is based on Drake's descrip-
tions of native words, baskets, and ornaments.
The Historic period, when Europeans firstsettled
in the region and sustained contact took place with
native peoples, begins with the construction of the
Ross Colony in 1812.
The Advantages of the Fort Ross Region
We feel that Fort Ross represents an ideal study
area to examine the effects of a mercantile colony on
native peoples using the direct historical approach.
The reasons are thrueefold.
1) This region is characterized by less commer-
cial and residential development today than during
the Russian occupation. Consequently, archaeologi-
cal sites have not been destroyed by creeping urban
sprawl, as has heed at many other trade outposts,
providing ideal conditions for undertaking archaeo-
logical survey work. Most of the coastal strip, even
beyond the Fort Ross State Historic Park, is now
owned by the state of California and administered by
the California Department of Parks and Recreation as
public park land. The Northern Regional Office of the
Department is committed to the development of pub-
lic interpretative programs that examine the local
histories of different ethnic groups who once resided
or still reside in northern California.
2) The direct historical approach is greatly facili-
tated by the rich ethnographic literature on coastal
Pomno peoples that describes their culture subsequent
to the Russian occupation. The Pomo remain one of
Research Objectives            9
ethnographers (Kunkel 1974:11; Stewart 1943:29), a
legacy of Alfred Kroeberand the many U.C. Berkeley
graduate students who worked in Sonoma and Men-
docino counties. Beginning in the early years of the
twentieth century with Samuel Barrett (who received
the first Ph.D. from the Anthropology Departent at
U.C. Berkeley for his work on the Pomo), and con-
tinuing through the 1950s, a long line of anthropolo-
gists, geographers, and linguists from the University
of California recorded the subsistence practices, so-
cial organization, and religious ceremonies of the
KashayaandothernearbyPomogroups. More recent
research beginning in the 1950s has involved the
transcription of Kashaya Pomno oral aditions as na-
tive texts (Oswalt 1964).
Today several hundred coastal Porno people live
in rancherias at Stewart's Point and at Point Arena/
Manchester not far from Fort Ross. Several Pornmo
"tribal" scholars are currently documenting the
lifeways of their people, reconstructing the move-
ments of their families across Pomo territory over
time, and recording their oral traditions (e.g., Lawson
and Lawson 1976; Goodrich, Lawson and Lawson
1980). We are working with Pomrno scholars in con-
structing a substantive, long-term diachronic frame-
work for examining different dimensions of local
nativeculture throughoutprehoricandhistoric times
to the present
3) IThe greater Fort Ross region presents the
opportunity to examine the effects of other kinds of
colonial practices on similar hunter-gatherer societ-
ies. In nearby Sonoma And San Rafael, Spanish/
Mexican missions were established several years af-
ter the founding of Fort Ross. By comparing the
acculturation processes at the Ross Colony with those
at the nearby missions, one can begin to evaluate
critically how similar hunter-gatherer populations
responded to very different colonial policies. Studies
of neophytes in Spanish missions in California (see
Costello and Hornbeck 1989; Deetz 1963; Johnson
1989; Hoover 1989; Farnsworth 1987) highlight im-
portant differences in the imperial colonial policies of
Spain and the economic policies of mercantile com-
panies, such as the Russian-American Company.
While both missions and mercantile companies de-
pended on nativepeople as cheap sources of labor, the
Spanish system is characterized as one of "directed
historical change" in which one of their primary
policies was to enculturate neophytes in European
ways (Hoover 1989:395; Hornbeck 1989:425). This
active enculturation process involved widespread
proselytizing toCatholicism, teaching European crafts
and wtrades to Indian men and women, and changing
their traditional work habits, subsistence practices,
dress, and menu. In contrast, as will be described in
effort was made to enculturate local natives in Rus-
sian ways. Rather, the Russians were perfectly happy
to let the local Indians continue their traditional ways,
as long as they remained an economical and reliable
source of labor. While Spanish priests frowned on
inter-ethnic marriages, the Russian-American Com-
pany actually supported it as a way of increasing their
labor pool in Russian-America (Feorova 1973:206).
Thus, one of the long-term goals of the Fort Ross
project is to compare the nature, extent, and direction
of cultural change of coastal hunter-gatherer peoples
in a pluralistic mercantile colony with similar hunter-
gatherer groups who were subjected to the tightly
controlled, directed encultation practices of nearby
Spanish missions.
CONCLUSION
The study of the native laborers who toiled in
the Ross Colony is long overdue. Fort Ross will
serve as a case study in which we will examine how
the Russian-American Company's mercantile prac-
tices affected native Californian and native Alaskan
labrers. We suggest that studies of mercantile colo-
nies are important for providing the historical con-
text of early contacts between native peoples and
European and American businessmen. The direct
historical approach will be employed to examine
long-term cultural change among native populations
before, during, and after the Russian occupation.
We will address whether the integration of native
laborers in a market economy and the development
of a pluralistic community with inter- ethnic social
relations and marriage stimulated fundamental
changes in native lifeways. We are especially inter-
ested in evaluating whether some components of
native societies, such as diet, technology, mateial
culture, architectural styles, sociopolitical organiza-
tions, religious practices, and gender relations are
more receptive to change than others in mercantile
communities. We are also interested in identifying
those cultural components that are more conserva-
tive and resistant to change under these colonial
conditions.
In the remainder of the volume we synthesize
current information on the region, including its his-
tory, physical environment, and past archaeological
and ethnographic fieldwork, from which we will
construct a diachronic framework for implementing
the direct historical approach. In chapter 2, we sketch
a brief history of the Ross Colony, the purpose of
which is to tease out the specific policies of the
Russian-American Company influencing its treat-
mentof native workers. Chapter 3 describes the study
area of the project, including the plant communities,
more detail in chapter 2, at Fort Ross no concerted
geology. topography. and zoology of the area. In
10
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
chapter 4 we summarize previous archaeological in-
vestigations in the greater Fort Ross region. The
results of recent archaeological fieldwork in the Fort
Ross Study Area, a 5 by 10 km area in the vicinity of
the original Russian colony, are discussed in chapter
5. Here weoutlinediachronic changes in subsistence-
settlement patterns over time. In chapter 6 we synthe-
size past ethnohistorical observations, ethnographic
studies, and native texts of the Kashaya Pomrno. The
seventh and final chapter provides a summary of our
current understanding of cultural change in the Fort
Ross region employing the direct historical approach.
CHAPTER Two
NATIVE LABORERS IN A
MULTI-ETHNiC COMMUNITY
THs CHAPTER WILL PROVIDE the historical con-
text for examining how the colonial policies of
the Russian-American Company may have influ-
enced the acculturation processes of Pacific Coast
hunter-gatherers at Fort Ross. We begin with a brief
discussion of the Russian-American Company, par-
ticularly its administrative organization and how the
company established policies for treating native
workers. A description of the commercial activities
thatemployednative workers and how these workers
were compensated for their labor follows. Next we
consider how the Russian-American Company inte-
grated European and native peoples into a multi-
ethnic community. The stratifiedhierarchy thatstruc-
tured inter-ethnic relations at Fort Ross is delineated.
Also, population estimates of the four ethnic neigh-
borhoods and their spatial layout are provided. Fi-
nally, we examine specific effects that the tightly
stratified, multi-ethnic community may have had on
native Alaskan and native Californian workers.
THE RUSStAN-AMERICAN COMPANY
The Russian-American Company was chartered
in 1799 by Tsar Paul I and granted exclusive mo-
nopoly to the Russian exploitation of Pacific marine
mammals, as well as other natural resources, in North
America. The imperial charter eliminated the compe-
tition of a number of smaller Russian fur companies
which had participated in the maritime trade since the
early 1700s. The newly-chartered company was
modelled after other commercial monopolies of the
day, including the Hudson's Bay Company and the
East IndiaCompany,whichplayed significantroles in
the mercantile colonization of North America and
Southern Asia (Gibson 1976:10; Fedorova 1973:132).
The Russian monopoly was run as a private commer-
cial company, financed primarily by private capital
from joint stockholders, and was closely monitored
by the tsar and the Russian Imperial government.
Although the bureaucratic structure of the com-
pany changed during its years of operation from 1799
to 1867, the basic administrative organization of the
Russian-American Company consisted of four tiers.
1) The Imperial Russian Government. At the
apex was the tsar and the Imperial Russian govern-
ment The tsar had the final say on any matter
concerning the company, and a number of govern-
ment deparntments dealt with company matters con-
cerning foreign powers, religious jurisdictions, de-
fense, and criminal actions (Dmytryshyn et al.
1989a:xxxvi). The tsar's family owned stock in the
company, with the majority of the dividends ear-
marked for various charities and educational institu-
tions (Tikhmenev 1978:56).
Dmytryshyn, Crownhart-Vaughan,and Vaughan
(1989a:1i) argue that the Russian-American Company
served as a "de facto agency of the Imperial Russian
Government." Especially in its later years (1840-
1867) the company's administration became increas-
ingly bureaucratic and bloated, employing a greater
11
12
tive units, known as counters (Gibson 1976:10). The
chief manager appointed the manager for each admin-
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
number of naval officers and government officials
(Gibson 1976:23). However, the company was none-
theless a commercial operation that had to answer to
stockholders and producedividends. Profits had to be
generated to operate its fur trade enterprise, and it
appears the commercial end of the business was
subsidized very little by the government. Although
the Russian government sent naval ships and troopsto
North America to protect and supply the Russian-
American colonies, the company was responsible for
covering the costs of sending ships around the world
(from the Baltic Sea), as well as paying at least some
of the salaries and expenses of navy and army
personnel stationed in the colonies (Gibson 1976:87;
Fedorova 1973:157-8).
2) The Board ofDirectors. The geneal commer-
cial policies of the company were established by the
board ofthe directors of the company. The stockhold-
ers elected four directors who administered the com-
pany from the "Main Administration" offices in St.
Petersburg. They were responsible for maintaining
capital assets, for increasing profit margins, and for
developing economic strategies of fur hunting and
world trade (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989a:xxxvii). The
board of directors reported directly to the tsar on
critical issues of the company. During the early years
of the company (the frst twenty-year charter), the
majority of the board were pragmatic merchants who
had worked in the North Pacific furtrade (Tikhmenev
1978:55). However, in latter years an increasingly
greater number of government officials and naval
offrers served on the board (Gibson 1976:23).
3) Chief Manager. The company's commercial
operations in Russian America were directed by the
"Chief Manager" or "Chief Administrator." Essen-
tially, the chief manager served as a governor for the
Russia-American colonies, supervising branch of-
fices, entertaining foreign visitors, enforcing Russian
laws, and hiring much of the work force (Dmytryshyn
etal. 1989a:xxxviii-xl). The chief manager reported
directly to the board of directors. Beginning in 1804
the commercial and administrative capital of the chief
manager shifted from Kodiak Island to New Archan-
gel on Sitka Island, Alaska.
During the first twenty-year charter of the com-
pany, theChiefManager-AleksandrBaranov--was
selected by the board of directors. However, in
accordance with the next two government charters of
the company (1821 and 1841), the tsar appointed the
chief manager from among senior Russian Imperial
Navy officers (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989a:xxxix).
4) AdministrativeCounters. The Russian-Ameri-
can colonies were divided into primary administra-
istrative unit, as well as other key personnel, and they
reported directly to his office in New Archangel.
Seven major administrative units were defined in
Russian-America: 1) Sitka (Northwest Coast of
America); 2) Kodiak (Kodiak archipelago and Alas-
kan Peninsula); 3) Mikhailovsk Redoubt (Norton
Sound area); 4) Unalaska (the eastern Aleutian and
Pribilof islands); 5) Atkhinsk (the western Aleutian,
Near, and Komandorskie islands); 6) Kurile (Kurile
archipelago); and 7) Fort Ross (Dmytryshyn et al.
1989a:xl).
MThe administrative structure of the company is
reflected in the settlement pattern of the Russian-
American colonies. The settlement system is highly
primate, with nearly half of the company's ethnic
Russian population andcapitalassetsinNorth America
aggregated in New Archangel (Gibson 1986:6). New
Archangel dwarfed all the other administrative units
in the size of the Russian population, the construction
of elite architecture, including "Baranov's Castle,"
and the availability of European goods.
The settlements, farms, and ouots of the Fort
Ross Counter extended along a 90 km stretch from
the fort to the Farallon Islands, due west of San
Francisco in northern California (figure 2.1). The
settlement of Fort Ross, consisting of the original
stockade compound and three ethnic neighborhoods
that sprang up alongside it, served as the adminiusta-
tive headquarters of the counter. The main port of the
counter, where most supplies were shipped and stored
for delivery to and from Fort Ross, was Port
Rumiantsev, situated 29 km south in what is now
known as Bodega Bay. Apermanent artel or hunting
camp was established on the Farallon Islands, 90 km
south of Fort Ross and 45 kmn west of San Franciso,
where sea lions and fur seals were slaughtered. At
least three farms were established between Port
Rumiantsev and Fort Ross: Kostromitinov's ranch
near the confluence of the Russian River and Willow
Creek; Khlebnikov's ranch about 8 In inland of Port
Ruminastev in the upper Salmon Creek valley; and
the Chemrnykh ranch situated about 16 In inland
between the contemporary towns of Occidental and
Graton on Purrington Creek (Tomlin and Watrous
1990:16-17; figure 2.1).
COMPANY POLICIES
REGARDING NATIVE LABORERS
Official policiesandpracticesregarding the treat-
ment of native laborers emanated from the tsar and the
company's board of directors. In the three twenty-
year charters of the company (1799, 1821, 1841), the
Russian imperial family decreed that native workers
were to be treated equitably as Russian subjects,
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
Lake
. -    Pillsbury
Big River  -.. '
....:  . ..
"..~r.. i .   ..,~. . , ..,.
f!bion Riveti1er
'L..
.~~~..NJ"."
.1 Mendocino
i
.',
. N
\.I
*\1
S
Drakes Bay
N
Scale 1:500,000
0             15km
i '"'FARALLON ISLANDS
' .  '
0\
FIGURE 2.1 THE FORT Ross COUNTER
13
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
compensated fairly for their work, and provided edu-
cational opportunities at the expense of the company
(Dmytryshyn et al. 1989a:xxxvi). In the second
charter of 1821, the government specified rates the
Russian-American Company would pay its native
employees, and the degree to which natives would be
compensated with food, tobacco, and hunting equip-
ment while participating in company hunting trips
(Fedorova 1975:16; Khlebnikov 1976:50-53).
However, the actual implementation of these
policies was left to the chief manager and the manag-
ers of the seven counters. In reality, the chief manager
and counter managers enjoyed considerable liberty in
their treatment of native workers. Abuse of the tsar's
policies was not uncommon, with native workers
being overexploited, mistreated, and underpaid
(Dmytryshyn et al. 1989a:xliii, Wrangell
1969:21111833]). The relative autonomy of the
company's managers in North America resulted from
their isolation and distance from the Main Adminis-
tration offices in St. Petersburg. New Archangel was
more than 19,000 km from St. Petersburg, via Siberia
and the Arctic Ocean, and nearly twice that distance
for Russian ships sailing from Baltic ports (Gibson
1976:44). It commonly took two years for managers
in Russian-America to get a reply back from the Main
Administration about company policies (Gibson
1976:45). Consequently, most decisions concerning
field operations in North America were probably
made on the spot, and if the Main Administration
office was informed at all, it was long after the fact.
NATIVE LABORERS IN THE
RUSSIAN-AMERICAN COMPANY
The Russian-AmericanCompanydepended upon
native labor for its survival. Throughout its six
decades ofoperation,thecompanycouldneverrecruit
enough ethnic Russians to work in its North American
colonies. The sparse recruitment and low retention
rate of Russian workers were a product of several
factors. Company employees were paid a low wage
to work hundreds or thousands of kilometers from
home in often dangerous or even life threatening
operations. Housing conditions in the colonies were
bad, food shortages common, and epidemics among
the counters' populations rampant (Gibson 1987:23-
24). While the men worked long hours enduring cold
and wet conditions, the company charged them ex-
pensive prices for food, clothing, and other necessi-
ties at company-run stores (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989a:
xlv). Fedorova (1973:237) estimates that up to 75%
of their salaries was spent on food at company stores,
and most of the employees were greatly in debt to the
company (Gibson 1976:48-50; Wrangell 1969:211
Census figures highlight the fact that relatively
few Russians worked in the Russian-American colo-
nies. While Russian fur traders founded more than
sixty settlements across the North Pacific Rimn from
the Kurile Islands (due north of Japan) to California,
only about 550 Russian men, on the average (range =
225 to 823) were stationed across this vast region
(Fedorova 1973:151, 1975:8). This is an extremely
low population density when one considers that about
half of them resided in the New Archangel. Few
Russian women lived or worked in the colonies,
especially in the early years. In 1819 the ratio of
Russian men to women was about 29 to 1, while by
1836 an increasing influx of women lowered it to 8 to
1 (Gibson 1987:27).
The reliance on native laborers may also have
been a pragmatic commercial strategy of the Russian-
American Company based on four lines of reason.
1) By employing native laborers rather than eth-
nic Russians the company realized considerable sal-
ary savings. In general, native men were paid on a
much lower salary scale than ethnic Russians under-
taking comparable asks. For example, in 1821 the
company agreed to raise the salaries of native hunters
to one-fifth the rates paid to Russian hunters (Fe-
dorova 1975:16-18). Native women were even more
of a bargain to the company since they made only
about half as much as native men (Tikhmenev
1978:157; Khlebnikov 1976:51). It was not uncom-
mon to pay native workers in kind. That is, they
received clothes, tobacco, and food in compensation
for their work.
2) The upkeep of native workers cost far less in
comparison to ethnic Russian workers. While the
Russian workers had to be provided with housing,
many native laborers, such as at Fort Ross, were
"commuters" who often returned home to their vil-
lagesafterwork. Russian workers also demandedthat
they be supplied with ethnic Russian foods, and they
became rebellious over food shortages which were
quite common in the colonies (Gibson 1976:47;
Fedorova 1973:233). Consequently, the company
went to considerable effort and expense to provide its
colonists with ethnic "European" foods such as grain,
beef, sugar, and fruits (see Gibson 1976 for an excel-
lent description). In contrast, native workers ate
"colonial supplies" that consisted of locally available
fish, sea mammal meat, terrestrial game, roots, and
berries (Gibson 1976:48).
The problems of supplying "European" foods to
the colonies highlight the difficulties of maintaining
European workers thousands of kilometers from their
homelands. Since the northern latitudes are poorly
suited for growing grains or raising cattle, almost all
ethnic European foods had to be imported into the
North Pacific colonies. The Russians relied on a
14
1 [18331).
mixed strategy for supplying the colonies. Some
foodstuffs were shipped from Russia, either over the
unpredictableSiberianlandroutetotheportof Okhotsk
and then across the North Pacific Ocean, or they were
transported by ship around the world from the Baltic
port of Cronstadt In either case it proved to be very
costly, and spoilage rates were very high (Gibson
1976:574-87). Otheroptions included sending ships to
Spanish California and Chile to purchase foodstuffs,
or relying on American traders to transport food and
goods to the colonies (Gibson 1976:153-98). How-
ever, these options were fraught with uncertainty
given the volatile nature of intnationl trade, with
ports being closed to Russian ships with no prior
notice and prices skyrocketing overnight. No matter
which option was used, importing European foods to
the colonies cut into the profits of the Russian-Ameri-
can Company. To mollify its Russian work force, the
company allocated monthly flour rations to each
worker and sold the remainder at a loss in company
stores (Fedorova 1973:237; Gibson 1976:48). Other
impored foodstuffs, however, were marked up as
high as seventy-seven percent in company stores
(Fedorova 1973:237; Gibson 1976:87).
3) Native people were employed as hunters. The
commercial success of the Russian-American Com-
pany in the North Pacific fur trade was based on a
very different economic strategy than that of com-
peting British and American fur companies. The
latter relied on commodity exchange to obtain sea
mammal pelts from independent native hunters and
tappnrs in the Northwest Coast region (Gibson
1988:380-85; Batman 1985:101-34). In the late
1700s and early 1800s, American skippers, sailing
primarily from Boston, made 127 voyages to the
Northwest Coast. They brought firearms, blankets,
liquor, tobacco, trade beads, iron, and copper goods
to trade with Tlingit, Haida, and other coastal
peoples in exchange for sea otter, fur seal, beaver,
and odther pelts (see Gibson 1988:386-88; Tikhme-
nev 1978:61-62). The furs were then transported to
Canton where they were sold for teas, silks,
nankeens, and porcelains. The Chinese goods, in
turn, were shipped back to New England where they
were sold at a handsome profit.
The Russian-AmericanCompanycouldnotcom-
pete with American and British traders in the ex-
change of European goods for pelts harvested by
independent native hunters. Not only were Russian
trade goods generally of lower quality, less plentiful,
and higher priced (Gibson 1988:377-78; Khlebnikov
1990:119-21),butitcosttheRussian-AmericanCom-
pany much more to transport these goods to North
America than the more efficient American and British
maritime rade houses. In 1842, the Russian-Ameri-
can Company'scosts of shipping goods toNew Arch-
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
angel were between 1.6 to 7 times higher than that of
the Hudson's Bay Company (see Gibson 1976: 60,
87).
The Russians avoided direct competition for na-
tive trade by conscripting native peoples to hunt
exclusively for them. In fact, the most effective sea
otter hunters in the world were Aleuts and Koniag
Eskimos. Trained from childhood to become skilled
hunters, they employed lightweight, maneuverable
baidarkas (skin kayaks) to pursue sea otters in kelp
beds and shallow, rocky intertidal waters. Using
teams of baidarkas, the northernm hunters paddled
quietly into position to surround unsuspecting otters
sunningonthesurface. Onceinrange, theyaccurately
cast short darts tipped with detachable, barbed-bone
points using throwing sticks or shot arrows tipped
witfih barbed bonepointswithbows(seeOgden 1941).
Aleut and Koniag hunters were the backbone of
the Russian-American Company's fur trade. Without
these specialized sea mammal hunters, the Russians
could never havecompeted with Anglo and American
companies for access to North Pacific furs. The
Russians enlisted the natives to hunt across the entire
habitat range of the sea otter, including much of the
North Pacific Rim from the Kurile Islands to Baja
California. Teams of native Alaskan hunters were
dispatched to almost every Russian outpost in North
America, and in many settlements they comprised the
majority of the population.
4) Native peoples also provided indispensable
foodstuffstotheRussian-AmericanCompany. Given
the tremendous logistical problems of importing food
to the North Pacific colonies, the Russians relied
extensively on native peoples to provide fresh sup-
plies of locally available foods (see especially Gibson
1987:13-21). While it irked the Russian workers,
especially during those frequent times when flour and
salted beef were in short supply, the major component
of just about everyone's diet, except possibly the top
managers, was fish (Fedorova 1973:234: Gibson
1987:17). The Russians employed Aleut and Koniag
men, women, and children to harvest and clean tons of
salmon, halibut, and cod on the Aleutian Islands and
Kodiak Island. Most were salted for export to other
Russian colonies orcounters. Forexample, more than
a half million fish were dried and salted each year on
Kodiak Island alone (Gibson 1987:18-20). In addi-
tion to the fish, Aleut and Koniag peoples also pro-
vided blueberries, cranberries, mushrooms, and roots
to the Russian colonies (Gibson 1987:21).
On the Northwest Coast, a substantial portion of
the food consumed by the Sitka counter was provided
by local Tlingits. As Gibson (1987:13-18) docu-
ments, the Tlingit provided mountain sheep, venison,
fish (halibut, herring, salmon, cod), shellfish, wild-
fowl, bird's eggs, berries, and roots to the Russians.
15
16
Francisco Bay in the south (Farris 1989a484). The
Fort Ross counter was also a supply center and storage
center for Russian and American ships (under con-
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
The local natives provided one of the few sources of
fresh vegetables, and often the only source of fresh
meat in the winter. Interestingly, the local natives
learned how to grow potatoes from the Europeans,
and, in turn, began to intensify production to meet the
market demand of the local Russian population. By
the mid- 1840s, 100 to 200 canoe loads full of potatoes
arrived each year at New Archangel for sale from as
far away as the Queen Charlotte Islands (Gibson
1987:15). A marketplace flourished for many years
outside the palisade walls at New Archangel where
Russians bartered with tough Tlingit saleswomen
over the exchange rates of potatoes, mountain sheep,
and halibut (Gibson 1987:13).
NATVE LABORERS IN THE Ross COLONy
Native workers were also the linchpin of the Fort
Ross Counter. Native labor was especially critical
because the company had a difficult time attracting
decent Russian workers to this counter. In general,
Russian-American Company employees, other than
those in management positions, endured a reputation
of being drunken, incompetent, and lazy (see quotes
in Gibson 1987:24-25). Fort Ross was considered to
be the end of the world, isolated almost completely
from Russia oreven Siberia, andonly the"worstof the
worst" Russian workers were stationed here (Gibson
1976:129). Bancroft (1886:632) claims that many of
the common Russian workers there were from the
"criminal class," and that company officials had to
maintain strict discipline in the counter.
We suggest that native labor was also critical in
attempting to keep down the operational expenses of
the counter. Company recordsindicate thatFort Ross
was never a profitable counter, as the costs of main-
taining and supporting the settlement greatly out-
weighed the combined revenues from all its economic
ventures. Tikhmenev (1978:141,228) describes the
first ten years of operation as a major loss, then shows
that by the late 1830s the deficit went from bad to
worse, with annual losses of more than 44,000 rubles
per year. It was largely for this reason that the colony
was sold to John Sutter in 1841.
Native laborers participated in all three major
economic activities at the Ross Colony-sea mam-
mal hunting, shipbuilding, and agriculture-as well
as other miscellaneous tasks.
Sea Mammal Hunting
Fort Ross served as a staging point for hunting
sea otters, fur seals, and sea lions along the Califor-
nian coast from Trinidad Bay in the north down to San
were hunted for meat, which was dried and shipped to
tract to the Russian-American Company) on hunting
expeditions to southern California and Baja Califor-
nia waters (Ogden 1933:41-49; Khlebnikov 1990:
130-63; 198-99). Seaotterand fur sealpeltswere sent
to New Archangel for trade in the Chinese and Euro-
pean markets, orsolddirectlyto American and British
captains whose merchant vessels frequently visited
the Russian colony (Ogden 1933:41-42; Khlebnikov
1990:. 148). Sea lions were hunted primarily for use
at Fort Ross. Their skins were used in the production
and repair of baidarkas and waterproof clothing, and
their meat, blubber, and oil were consumed by native
Alaskan workers (Ogden 1933:42). Khlebnikov
(1990:59) repord in 1820 that the primary food
source for both Russian and native Alaskan workers
at Fort Ross was sea lion meatl
The hunting of sea mammals was done almost
exclusively by native Alaskans. The wodrk was both
demanding and dangerous. Teams of baidarkas
paddled up the shore to Trinidad Bay, and south along
the Sonoma and Marin county coasts, where the
lightweight kayaks were  aged over to the San
Francisco and San Pablo bays (Farris 1989a:484).
However, to the north hostile Indians living on the
shore ambushed the sea mammal hunters (Khlebni-
kov 1976:108-109), while in the San Francisco Bay
presidio soldiers guarded freshwater springs, hoping
to capture Aleut/Koniag hunters (Khlebnikov
1976:108). Between 1814 and 1823, Russian ships
with baidarkas lashed on deck carried native Alas-
kans into Spanish territorial waters, where they se-
cretly poached sea ottrs from San Francisco Bay
down to the Baja coast (Ogden 1933:4245). Some
native Alaskan men and a few Russians werecaptured
by the Spanish (Tikhmenev 1978:138-39; Khlebni-
kov 1990:91). By 1823, theRussian-American Com-
pany had signed an agreement with the Mexican
government to legally hunt sea mammals in southern
California. The harvest was to be split evenly be-
tween the Mexicans and Russians, but the Russians
would often under-report the actual number of sea
otters taken (Khlebnikov 1976:110-11; 1990:159).
American and Mexican merchants also contracted
with the Russian-American Company to hire native
Alaskans to hunt sea otters in southern California in
the 1820sand 1830s (Ogden 1933:49-50; Khlebnikov
1990:198-99).
The Russians established an artel on the Farallon
Islandsin 1812 as a baseforhuntingfur sealsand sea
lions, and for harvesting sea gull feathers, meat, and
eggs. In the first six years, 1200 to 1500 furseals were
garnered each year, after which the harvest decreased
to about 200 to 300 a year (Bancroft 1886:633).
About 200 sea lions peryear were harvested for useat
the FortRoss Counterandabout 5,000 to 50,000 gulls
Fort Ross. A staff of one Russian overseer and from
six to thirty natives were stationed at the artel. They
lived on the windswept rocky islands in earthen dug-
outs or stone houses and received supplies from Fort
Ross about six times a year (Khlebnikov 1976:122-3;
Corney 1896:74A-75A). It is not clear how long a
worker was stationed there before being rotated back
to the Ross community. Riddell (1955:1,7,13) be-
lieves native Californian women, probably wives of
the native Alaskan workers, were also stationed at the
artel. His conclusion is based on both archival re-
search and archaeological fieldwork he underook on
the Farallons in the late 1940s (see also Corney
1896:74A).
Sea otter hunting was only profitable at the Fort
Ross Counter for a relatively few years. In compari-
son to northern sea otters, pelts from California were
typically smaller, brown-colored, and of poorer tex-
ture, yielding only one-half to two-thirds the price in
China (Khlebnikov 1976:35; Gibson 1976:32-34).
Also fewer sea otters were found in California waters.
Since sea otters are prone to overexploitationmost
mothers only produce one pup per year (Gibson
1987:2)-yields quickly declined in California.
In their initial trip to Bodega Bay in 1808, Ivan
Kuskov and his men harvested more than 1400 prime
sea otters. When they returned in 1811, few seaotters
were found, and they shifted their hunting operation
to San Francisco Bay. Here they collected more than
1100 prime sea otter pelts (Khlebnikov 1976:107).
By the time Fort Ross was founded, sea otters had
become relatively scarce in local waters. Yields
plummeted from only 714 prime pelts harvested in the
years 1812-1815 to only ten to fifty-eight pelts each
year after 1817 (Khlebnikov 1976:108). Tikhmenev
(1978:135) suggests that sea otters were extirpated
from Trinidad Bay to the entrance of San Francisco
Bay by 1817, and that few fur seals remained on the
Farallon Islands. The situation was bleak enough by
1818 that Leontii Hagemeister, the new chief man-
ager of the company, issued a memo stating that the
FortRoss Countercontained noseaotters and little fur
trade (Gibson 1976:16). While hunting shifted to
more distant southern California locales in the 1820s,
it was never very profitable given the considerable
costs of maintaining the Ross Colony. By the 1830s
sea mammal hunts in southern California had to be
undertaken under Mexican licenses that provided
little economic incentive for the company (Ogden
1933:49-50).
Shipbuilding
The Russian-American Company experimented
briefly, from 1818 to 1824, with shipbuilding at Fort
Ross. The reasons are twofold. One is that company
ships, always in short supply, were needed in in-
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
creasing numbers to service the developing mari-
time trade network. The other concerns the com-
mercial health of the Ross Colony. Once sea otter
yields began to plummet in the late 1810s, company
officials began searching for new mercantile ven-
tures that could turn a profit, or at least justify the
continued drain of rubles necessary to subsidize the
sou   nost counter. The nearby forests of red-
wood, Douglas fir, tan oak, and laurel trees made
Fort Ross an ideal choice for a shipyard. The first
160-ton brig, the Rwiantsev, was launched in 1818,
followed shortly by the Buldakov (200 tons) in 1819,
the Volga (160 tons) in 1821, and finally the iakhta
(200 tons) in 1823. Unfortunately, none of the ships
lasted for more than six years.before extensive re-
pairs had to be made due to wood rot (Khlebnikov
1976:116). Given what the Russians considered to
be inferior wood (Khlebnikov 1976:116-17), and the
fact that it was less expensive to buy American ships
than to build ships at the Fort Ross Counter (Tikhme-
nev 1978:228), the company terminated its produc-
tion of large brigs after the launching of the Kiakhta.
Little is known about the specific details of
shipbuilding at Fort Ross. The shipmaster was the
promyshlennik (Russian worker) Vasilii Grudinin, a
carpenter who had worked with the American ship-
builder Lincoln in New Archangel (Khlebnikov
1976:116; 1990:100). We also know that a large
number of men were needed to cut and    the
timber from the forests to Fort Ross Cove where the
shipyard was located (Tikhmenev 1978:228; Khleb-
nikov 1990:97), one reason why shipbuilding was so
labor intensive. We suggest that some of those
laborers were probably native Californians, super-
visedbyRussian foremen (seealsoKennedy 1955:63).
Below we will detail other labor intensive tasks per-
formed by this work force at Fort Ross. This organi-
zation of labor probably carried over to cutting and
hauling timber for shipbuilding.
Agriculture
A significant commercial activity at Fort Ross
was the production of grain, beef, and fruit to meet
local needs and for export to the company's counters
in the North Pacific. Company officials optimisti-
cally believed that the FortRoss Counter would serve
asthe"granarytothecolonies" (rhmenev 1978:228).
They maintained that if this colony could produce a
steady food supply, then that would reduce the expen-
sive import of ethnic European foodstuffs from Rus-
sia, and decrease the company's dependence on uade
with Spanish Californian, Chilean, and American
merchants.
Agricultural production began slowly at Fort
Ross. During the early years (1812-1817), Ivan
Kuskov was primarily concerned with sea mammal
17
18
able work climbing up and down the rough terrain.
Just about all tillable land within walking distance of
the Ross community was under cultivation by the
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
hunting, which occupied most of his men from spring
through fall (Gibson 1976:110). Since the scheduling
of sea otter hunts conflicted with the growing season,
there was little time for farming. Beginning in 1817,
as sea otter yields began to decline, more emphasis
was placed on agricultural pursuits. Subsequent
counter managers continued to intensify agricultural
production in the 1820sand 1830s,until"everypatch"
of arable land around the garrison was in cultivation,
andatleast threeoutlyingfannswereinoperation(see
Gibson 1976:116-18). By the 1830s farmning was the
primary economic operation in the Fort Ross Counter.
Chernykh (1967 [1841]; 1968 [1836]), Gibson
(1976:116-22) and Khlebnikov (1976:117-19) pro-
vide considerable detail on the agricultural practices
at Fort Ross. The primary crops were fall wheat and
fall barley: fields were plowed during the first rains
in November and December, sown in December and
January, and harvested in July and August. A wide
assortment of vegetables was double cropped in small
garden plots, including lettuce, cabbage, beans, peas,
potatoes, melons, pumpkins, beets, radishes, and
watermelons. Orchardscontainingapple,pear,cherry,
and peach trees grew not far from the Ross stockade,
in what is now called the Old Russian Orchard and on
someoftheoutlyingfarms. Finally, livestockproduc-
tion was begun at the Ross Colony with the gift of
twenty cattle and three horses from the Spanish in
1813. Eventually a large number of cattle, pigs,
sheep, and horses ranged freely in the hinterland of
Fort Ross.
The agricultural practices at this counter were
very labor intensive, a consequence of local environ-
mental conditions and antiquated agrarian methods.
They are outlined below.
1)Fields tended to be small and widely dispersed
intheimmediatehinterlandofFortRoss. About 33 ha
of land were eventually cultivated in the vicinity ofthe
Ross stockade (Gibson 1976:118). A narrow strip of
flat, arable land extends along the coastal tterrace.
Beyond this strip is a ridge system in which pockets of
tillable land are scattered. Early attempts at growing
wheat and barley along the coastal strip met with
mediocre success, as high winds and prevalent sum-
mer fogs reduced yields (Chernykh 1968:52-53
[1836]). Fields were then established on the ridge
slopes and ridge tops above the fog belt of the coastal
terrace. Eventually a number of small fields were
dispersed along the coastal terrace and ridge system
within three versts (about 3 kin) of the stockade
(Khebnikov 1976:117). The ridgetop fields were
only accessible by footorhorseback, andtheplowing,
sowing, and cultivation of crops involved consider-
1830s (Chemrnykh 1968:52 [1836]). When harvested,
the grain had to be carried on the backs of laborers a
considerable distance to be threshed near the palisade
compound (Wrangell 1969:208 [1833]).
2) Outlying farms had to be staffed. One strategy
for increasing crop yields in the 1830s was to place
farms in outlying, interior valleys out of the summer
fog belt. The holdings of these farms greatly ex-
panded the overall agricultural production of the Fort
Ross Counter. The Khlebnikov Rancho, the
Kostromitinov Rancho, and the Chernykh Rancho
encompassed holdings of 28 ha, 40 1/2 ha, and 83 ha
respectively, of fields, orchards, and pasture land.
Another farm also operted at Bodega Bay, but the
size of this operation is unknown (see Gibson
1976:117-118;TomlinandWatrous 1990:16-17). An
overseer and a small group of farnhands stayed in
barracks at each of these farms (Duflot de Mofras
1937:7 [18411). Additional labor was needed during
the harvesting season.
3) Agrarian methods were labor intensive. A
common observation of the agricultural operation at
Fort Ross is that few workers knew much about
farmning. TheRussian"riffrafr"stationed thereshowed
little interest in farming, and innovative agranrian
methods were not part of their repertoire (Tikhmenev
1978:135; Wrangell 1969:208 [18331). Not until
1836, with the arrival of Yegor Chemrnykh, did a
professionally-trained agronomist work in the Fort
Ross Counter. He and others noted in amazement the
crude tools and agrarian methods that were employed.
Fields along level ground were tilled using simple
plowsdrawn behindoxen (Chemrnykh 1967:16 [1841]),
while rocky ridgetop fields were prepared manually
using spades and digging sticks (Khlebnikov
1976:119). Weeds were so pervasive that fields had
to be plowed two or three times (Chernykh 1968:53
[1836]). A rotation system was employed so that
every three years plots of land were left fallow as
pasture land for livestock. This practice kept weeds
down and allowed some relief to exhausted soils
(Chemykh 1968:60 [1836]). Reaping was done by
hand using sickles. Before Chernykh made improve-
ments, wheat was threshed on an open floor about 11
to 17 meters in diameteror largerby running 70 to 150
horses across the grain, which dislodged the kernels
from the straw (Chemykh 1968:56 [1836]). At least
twenty-five men were needed to drive the horses and
collect the kernels (Chernykh 1968:55 [1836]).
4) Free-ranging livestock had to be tended. Dur-
ing the dry season, livestock searched for fodder as far
as 21 kim from the stockade (Wrangell 1969:209
[1833]). All cultivated plots within this area had to be
fenced to keep out the several thousand head of cattle
and several hundred sheep that grazed in the hinter-
land of Fort Ross by the late 1830s and 1840. The
tending of the livestock required apermanent group of
laborers, especially when meat was butchered for
local use or forexport to New Archangel (Khlebnikov
1976:119-21).
In general, the Russians at Fort Ross were char-
acterized as unmotivated and inferior agricultural
workers, at least in the labor they devoted to the
Russian-American Company fields as opposed to
their own garden plots (Tikhmenev 1978:135;
Wrangell 1969:208[1833]; Gibson 1976:128-29;
Khlebnikov 1990:97-98). Some Russian men did
serve in supervisory positions on outlying farms.
Native Alaskans were employed in agricultural task
andas hmen, when they were available (Khlebni-
kov 1990:98). However, they were frequently absent
nfrom Fort Ross while on extended hunting expedi-
tions, so they could not be depended on to perform the
bulk of the agricultural labor (see Khlebnikov
1990:210-11). Much of the agricultural labor-till-
ing the soils, cultivating the plants, hand harvesting
and transporting the wheat and barley crops, and
threshing grain-was done by native Californians
(see Gibson 1976:119; Khlebnikov 1976:119;
Wrangell 1969:210-11 [1833]). The local Pomo and
Miwokworkersalsotended livestock,especiallywhen
other Russian or native Alaskan herdsmen were un-
available for this duty (Khlebnikov 1976:119;
1990:141;Bancroft 1886:639). Khlebnikov (1990:. 141
repod in 1824 that he did not trust the Indian
workers to tend the herds, believing that they were
probably driving "the animals off into the country-
side," thereby contributing to the heavy loss of cattle
and sheep in the Fort Ross Counter.
Kashaya Pomo oral tradition, as transcribed by
Oswalt (1964), provides some insights into the farm
work of the native laborers. In Text 60, as told by
Herman James, the Kashaya people remember that
the undersea people (Russians) raised wheat that
"blanketed the land" around Fort Ross. When the
wheat was ripe, the Indian workers cut it down by
hand and then tied it together. The wheat was then
placed in sea lion skins and dragged to the Russian
settlement. Here it was threshed in a "big place"
where the earth was packed down by running horses
around in circles. The threshed grain was then put in
sacks and transported to a storehouse. Herman James
also related that some grain was threshed at a "flour
grinder" that spun in the wind. The Kashaya people
remember that at least one woman who tended the
flour grinder was caught in the grinding stone and
killed. She was cremated in the traditional manner of
the Kashaya people (see Oswalt 1964:267-69).
leagricultural endeavor intheFortRossCounter
was never very successful, and the counter never
realized its potential as the "granary of the colonies."
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
Poor yields resulted from inadequate agrarian meth-
ods, and from the combined effects of coastal fog,
wind, and rodents (Tikhmenev 1978:135; Khlebni-
kov 1976:121; Gibson 1976:138). Spanish missions
continually produced much better yields than those
reported for Fort Ross (Fedorova 1973:241; Gibson
1976:121). In some years the barley and wheat crops
atthe Ross colony were complete failures. Even in the
best years, such as in 1832 when the highest wheat
yields were reed, the counter still produced a
deficitof more than 7000rubles (Wrangell 1969:212
[1833]).
In the early 1830s, Ferdinand Wrangell, then
chief manager of the company, attempted to expand
the size ofthe Fort Ross Counter to include fertile land
along the Russian River watershed some distance
fran the coast. While he reached an agreement with
Mexican officials, Tsar Nicholas I refused to recog-
nize the "revolutionary" Mexican government. Con-
sequently, the agreement between Mexico and the
company became null and void (Gibson 1969:214).
The company decided to shut down its unprofitable
operation at Fort Ross when access to good amble
land in the interior was denied, and when an agree-
ment was reached in 1839 with the Hudson's Bay
Company to provide wheat and beef to the North
Pacific counters at a fair price.
Miscellaneous Endeavors
During the early years of the Fort Ross Counter
(1812-1821), a lively trade existedbetween Fort Ross
and nearby Spanish missions. While the trade was
officially banned by the Spanish government, a con-
siderable exchange of goods took place between the
padres and the Russian businessmen. The padres
were in desperate need of manufactured goods, espe-
cially items of iron or copper. Craftsmen at Ross
manufactured redwood barrels, rowboats, wheels,
and cooking implements, and repaired rifles, locks,
and instruments in their blacksmith, carpenter, and
cooperage shops (Khlebnikov 1976:122; Tikhmenev
1978:227; Bancroft 1886:639). In return, Spanish
padres exchanged wheat, barley, beef, tallow, lard,
and soap with theFortRoss Counter. This contraband
tadeended with Mexico's independence in 1821,and
shortly thereafter California ports were thrown open
to foreigners. American and British merchants, who
could supply better manufactured goods at cheaper
prices, quickly outmuscled the Russians in their com-
petition for Californian products (Gibson 1976:190,
Khlebnikov 1990:119-121). High duty taxes and
anchoring fees levied by the Mexican government
also cut into the profits of the Russian-American
Company (Khlebnikov 1990:119).
Other goods were produced at FortRoss for both
local consumption and export, often to the company's
19
20
Russian employers for more than three decades prior
to the founding of Fort Ross. In the early, stormy
years of that relationship, Russian merchants held
members of elite families hostage in the Aleutian
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
colonies in the North Pacific. Fired bricks of fine clay
were produced there until 1832, when the brickyard
was moved to Bodega Bay (Wrangell 1969:207
[1833]). In 1824 the Russian-American Company
requested that 3000 to 5000 bricks be shipped to New
Archangel (Khlebnikov 1990:135). Tallowand tanned
hides were also produced, the latter providing the raw
material for making boots (Khlebnikov 1976:122;
1990:159). The Ross Colony also shipped laurel
timber and pine pitch to the Sitka counter and to other
settlementsinCalifornia(Bancroft 1886:639; Duhaut-
Cilly 1946:13 [1828]; Khlebnikov 1990:.135).
The production of manufactured goods at Fort
Ross was undertaken by peoples of diverse ethnic
backgrounds. While Russian artisans were repre-
sented at Fort Ross, recent translations of Russian-
American Company records indicate that many of the
skilled craft occupations were filled by Creole and
native Alaskan employees (Spencer Pritchard 1991;
Khlebnikov 1990). Forexample,during theperiodof
1820 to 1824, Khlebnikov (1990.59, 64, 100, 186)
recorded that"Aleut" employees served in the follow-
ing occupations: coopersmith, tanner, blacksmith,
mason, and coal miner, as well as hunter and
baidarshchik (baidara crew overseer). Native Cali-
fornimans were also involved in some of the mercantile
activities. Wrangell (1969:211 [1833]) noted that the
Indians were used to haul clay for the production of
bricks.
Another economic role that native peoples prob-
ably played at Fort Ross was providing the commu-
nity with wild foodstuffs. We already noted that
native workers on the Farallon Islands artel produced
considerable quantities of dried gull meat, gull eggs,
and sea lion meat and blubber for local consumption
in the Fort Ross Counter. Native Alaskans, using their
baidarkas and deep-sea fishing lines, also may have
provided large, open water fish to the colony. In
addition, native Californians may have exploited lo-
cal game, fish, and plant foods in the hinterland ofFort
Ross for barter with the colonists. Fresh venison and
elk meatprobably were welcome dietary supplements
(see Khlebnikov 1990: 59, 192), as were steelhead
and salmon from the nearby Gualala and Russian
rivers. However, some hunting of deer and elk was
undertken byRussianemployeesusingguns(Khleb-
nikov 1990:51, 56),and theextenttowhich local wild
foods were provided by Indian hunters and gatherers
remains unknown.
COMPENSATION FOR NATIVE LABORERS
The Aleut and Koniag peoples had worked for
kov 1990:64, 100).
Islands and Kodiak archipelago in return for tribute
(yasak) paid in sea otter pelts (Knecht and Jordan
1985:19). For example, at Three Saints Bay on
Kodiak Island, the Russians held 300 natives hos-
tage, of which 200 were daughters of local chiefs
(Gibson 1976:3). When tribute extortion was banned
by the Imperial Russian government in 1788 (Pierce
1988:121), it was replaced by compulsory service in
which native Alaskan males between the ages of
fifteen to fifty could be drafted to hunt for the com-
pany. Gibson (1987:5-6) describes the native hunt-
ers as "corv6e serfs" who were paid in kind with
clothing, tobacco, and food, much of it produced
under company supervision by native women and
children (Knecht and Jordan 1985:32).
By the time Fort Ross was founded in 1812, the
company had become more enlightened in its treat-
ment of native Alaskans. The native Alaskans were
either paid on commission or received daily or yearly
salaries in scrip, a parchment token that could be
exchanged for goods in the company store (Tikhme-
nev 1978:144). The timing and amount of payment
depended upon the job and overall performance.
Unskilled Labor. In the early 1820s, daily com-
pensation for unskilled laborappears to have been 50
kopeks per person (Khlebnikov 1990:.99, 186). In-
terestingly, the native Alaskans at Fort Ross were
paid less than their couna n Counterparts in e Sia Cter
(who made one ruble per day), a di p   that did
not go unnoticed. Khlebnikov (1990:186) justified
the difference in salary by noting that at Fort Ross the
laborers can "work all day in their shirt-sleeves and
without shoes, whereas in Sitkha, owing to the bad
weather, clothing and shoes wear out faster."
SeaMammal Hunters. ThenativeAlaskanhunt-
ers appear to have been paid by the pelt. In 1815,
some company hunters were credited 30 to 50 rubles
per sea otter, depending upon the size, color, and
texture of the pelt (Tkhmenev 1978:144). In the
second charter of 1821, the company decreed that
"Aleut" hunters be '"paid for their pelts not less than
one-fift of the amount that earlier Russian promy-
shlenniks received," and that hides, obco, cloth-
ing, fishhooks, fiuearms, ammunition, and even rum
be provisioned for the hunts (Khlebnikov 1976:50-
51). Native Alaskan hunters who participated in
joint Mexican and Russian-American Company hunts
in the 1820s were credited two pias- per sea otter
adult, one piaster per yearling, and four reals per pup
(Khlebnikov 1990:182).
Skilled Craftsman. Native Alaskans who served
in craft occupations at Fort Ross were paid yearly
salaries. In the early 1820s, "Aleut" men working as
coopers, blacksmiths, and tanners were paid an an-
nual wage of between 120 and 200 rubles (Khlebni-
The native Californian workers were paid pri-
marily in kind for their services. They received food,
tobacco, beads, and clothing (Kostromitinov 1976:9
[1830-38]; Wrangell 1969:211 [1833]).
THE INTEGRATION OF NATIVE LABORERS
IN THE Ross C.oLNy
At the Ross Counter, as in other Russian-Ameri-
can colonies, a socio-economic hierarchy was em-
ployed to define the status, wage, and job classifica-
tion of its employees. Several factors appear to have
been important in assigning a person's position in this
economic system, including ethnicity, level of educa-
tion, job skills, and overall motivation. The Russian
administrators classified the multi-ethnic work force
of Ross into four major classes (or "estates," after
Fedorova 1975): "Russians," "Creoles," "Aleuts,"
and "Indians" (see Wrangell 1969:210-211 [1833],
Khlebnikov 1990:188-94). While these ethnic classes
provided the basic foundation of the socio-economic
hierarchy, some upward mobility existed for indi-
viduals who proved to be good workers or who
acquired special skills. Lydia Black's (personal com-
munication) archival research  dicates that the Rus-
sian-American Company would reward loyal and
conscientious workers regardless of their ethnic back-
ground, sometimes promoting them above workers
from higher status ethnic classes (i.e., Russian).
Russian workers were divided into three groups
(Fedorova 1975:15). At the apex of the hierarchy
were the "honorable ones*' who served as company
administrators and/or military officers. "Semi-hon-
orable ones" (men of lower rank) comprised the next
step as clerks, soldiers, navigators, and laborers. The
third group, "colonial citizens," was made up of
Russian laborers who remained in Russian America
after they retired from service in the company.
Creoles, children produced from Russian men
and native women, were classified as members of a
separate "estate." They were often not accepted by
either the Russian or Native American communities
(see Fedorova 1975:13-14). The Russian-American
Company educated them, and some served in impor-
tant positions as officers on company ships, and as
middle-level managers, clerks, and skilled craftsmen
(Spencer Pritchard 1991:43). While some of the
Creole workers at Fort Ross made a modest wage,
they tended to be paid less than ethnic Russians for
performnning the samejobs. Khlebnikov (1990:63-64)
justified this discrepancy by noting that the Creoles
were raised and trained at the company's expense.
Native Alaskans from the Aleutian Islands, Ko-
diak Island, and coastal Alaska were classified collec-
tively as"Aleuts." As outlined above, they were paid
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
different wages depending upon the job. While some
of the skilled craftsmen at Fort Ross made the same
salaries as those paid to Creole artisans (Khlebnikov
1990:64), the majority of the unskilled laborers were
compensated on a lower scale than the Creole work-
ers.
Native Californians filled the lowest rank in the
socio-economic hierarchy atFort Ross, and they were
not paid a standard wage. There is little evidence that
Indian men were ever promoted into better paying
occupations in the Russian-American Company.
Khebnikov (1990:193-94) did not Irust the local
Indians, and he urged considerable caution in dealing
with them.
Social interaction took place between the four
major ethnic groups at Fort Ross, and inter-ethnic
marriages and cohabitation were common (see, for
example, Jackson 1983). However, current evidence
suggest that most of the inter-ethnic associations
tended to take place between adjacent ethnic classes.
In the best documented camensus data, taken on
June 1,1820 by Ivan Kuskov (Fedorova 1975:12), the
numbers of women either married or cohabiting with
Russian, Creole, and Alaskan men were twelve, six,
and fifty, respectively. Of the women living with
Russian men, four were identified as Creoles, two as
native Alaskans, andfiveas Californian Indians. Four
native Alaskan, one Creole, and one native Califor-
nian woman lived with Creole men. Finally, of the
fifty women living with native Alaskan men, one was
Creole, eight were native Alaskans, and thirty-six
were native Californians from the Fort Ross, Bodega
Bay, Point Arena and the Russian River areas. Thus,
of the forty-two native Californian women involved
in inter-ethnic relationships, thirty-six were living
with men of the next higher adjacent ethnic class. Of
the fourteen native Alaskan women, twelve were
living with men of their own rank or the next higher
adjacent one (Creole). Of the six Creole women
identified, one was living with a man of her ethnic
class, while four were living with men of the next
higher adjacent rank (Russian). Only one woman, a
Creole, was associated with a man below her class.
The census data on the nature of inter-ethnic
relationships appear to be corroborated by linguistic
information. A study of loanwords in the Kashaya
Pomo language suggests that they commonly bor-
rowed native Alaskan origin words (Kari 1983:1-3;
Oswalt 1988:21). InOswalt's(1957:245-47; 1988:20-
21) study of Russian loanwords still employed in the
Kashaya Pomo language, there is evidence that some
Russian words they learned originated from Aleutian
or Eskimo (Alutiiq) speakers (e.g., see the word
kalikak for book orletterandputlka forbroken glass).
In sum, a socio-economic hierarchy existed at the
21
22
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Ross Colony that was based on both ethnicity and
individual achievement. The Russian administrators
recognized four primary ethnic classes or estates.
While social relationships crosscut the multi-ethnic
community, we believe that the closest interactions
took place primarily between people of the same or
adjacent ethnic classes. In reality, the Kashaya Pomo
and Coast Miwok workers probably had very little
interaction with the "honorable" Russian managers of
the colony. Rather their social relations extended
primarily to the native Alaskans, andto a lesserdegree
with Creoles and lower class Russians.
THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATIoN OF Tm
MuLTn-ETHNIC COMMUNrrY
We suggest, based on archival research and ar-
chaeological fieldwork, that the spatial structure of
the Ross Colony was organized into four ethnic resi-
dential areas or neighborhoods (figure 2.2). Below
we describe each ethnic neighborhood, presenting
population estimates when possible, and briefly dis-
cuss the nature of the archaeological research com-
pleted to date.
1) The Stockade Compound. The nucleus of the
Ross community consisted of the stockade and asso-
ciated administrative and residential buildings that
Ivan Kuskov and his men began erecting in 1812. It
PoPuLAToN ESTm     s oF Tm Ross COLONY
1812         1818          1818-1819           1820           1833
Russian
males        23            26            21-27                23           41
females       0            0               0                   0            4
children      0            0               0                   0            5
Creole
males         -            -               0                   5           10
females              -                     0                   6           15
children      -            -               0                   -           63
Native Alaskuan
males         80          102            75-78                116          42
females        -           -              -                   7            15
children       -           -              -                   -            26
Californian Indian
males          -           -                                   -           35
females        -           -               -                  41           37
children       -           -               -                   -            ?
iii
1812 (Fedorova 1973:135)
1818 (Golovmnin 1979:162)
1818-1819 (Gibson 1976:12)
1820 (Fedorova 1975:12)
1833 (Wrangell 1969:210)
was behind the stockade walls that the "honorable"
Russian administrators and military officers lived and
worked, along with some unmarried Russian men.
The structures reflected the elite status of the resi-
dents,containingaccoutennents such aswindow glass,
and other exotic goods not found in the rest of Califor-
nia (Bancroft 1886:630; Duhaut-Cilly 1946:10
[1828]). Census figures (see table 2.1) suggest that
the number of Russian men stationed at Fort Ross
ranged from about twenty to forty. Of this number,
probably only a handfulofmen,includingthecounter's
manager and close subordinates, resided in the garri-
son (see Duhaut-Cilly 1946:10 [1828]). No Russian
women are reported there until 1833, when four were
counted.
As noted in chapter 1, the stockade complex has
received considerable archaeological attention since
the early 1950s (see Farris 1989a:490-92; O'Connor
1984:11-13). The perimeterof the palisade walls was
first investigated in 1953 (Treganza 1954), and later
excavations took place in 1984 (Porter 1985) and
1989 (Purser et al. 1990). The foundation of the
Kuskov House or Old Commandant's House was
excavated in 1971, 1972, 1975, and 1976 (Thomas
1976a). TheOfficials'QuartersorOfficers'Barracks
was exposed in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1976, and
1979 (Thomas 1976b). The foundation of the chapel
was tested and mapped in the early 1970s (Spencer-
Hancock and Pritchard 1982). During this time exca-
k 2.1
Sources:
Native Laborers in a Multi-Ethnic Community
vations also took place directly outside the north
palisade wall, designated the "Mad-Shui-Nui" locus,
and along the new right-of-way of Highway 1 (Ritter
1972; O'Connor 1984:12). In 1975 limited testing
was done near the southern blockhouse (the "South-
East Area") and in the foundations of the eastern
barracks (alsoknown as the "Barns Area") (O'Connor
1984:12). Limited testing of the "Old Warehouse" or
"Fur Warehouse" took place in the early 1970s
(Edwards 1975), and a full scale areal excavation
commenced in 1981 (Fanis 1981, 1990).
Archaeological fieldwork is also underway at the
historic Russian Orthodox cemetery, located 170 m
northwest of the stockade complex. The project,
underFaken by Lynne Goldstein and Sannie Osbomn of
theUniversityofWisconsin, Milwaukee, is providing
demographic and ethnic information on the individu-
als buried in the cemetery. Initiated in the summer of
1990, the project will involve the restoration of the
cemetery including the marking of the graves with
Russian-Orthodox crosses.
2) The Russian Village. Situated primarily to the
south and southwest of the stockade compound, this
neighborhd consisted ofnumerousresidentialstruc-
tires, gardens, and orchards as illustrated in several
period paintings. In his 1828 visit to Fort Ross,
Duhaut-Cilly (1946:4) recoded that the stockade
compound and Russian village displayed a 'Euro-
pean air" in theirarchitectural style. He (1946:10-11)
described the Russian village "as the pretty little
housesof sixty Russian colonists." In 1833, Wrangell
(1969:207) observed "two rows of small company
and private houses" with associated gardens and or-
chards. The neighborhood probably consisted of a
mixed bag of lower class ethnic Russians, ethnic
Siberians [three were identified in Kuskov's 1820
census (Fedorova 1975:12)], and Creoles, who served
in the capacity as sentries, artisans, cooks, etc. (see
Wrangell 1969:211 [1833]). Interethnic households
werepmrobablycommon. Census figuresontheCreole
population (table 2.1) suggest they were a minor
component of the Fort Ross community until the
1830s. By this time the growing number of inter-
ethnic households had produced many "Creole" off-
spring, which by 1833 included sixty-three children.
Clearly, had the Russian colony persisted for another
decade or two, the Creolerank would have swelled dithe
population of the Fort Ross Counter.
Minimal archaeological research has been un-
dertaken in the Russian village. Glenn Farris
(1986a:20) directed an excavation to mitigate the
impact of a leach line for the state park's Visitors
Center here. The material remains recovered, how-
ever,appear to relate to a later Indian village that dates
to the 1840s or 1850s when local natives worked for
William Benitz who managed a ranch at Fort Ross
from 1843-1867 (see chapter 6). As described in
greater detail in chapter 5, the finds of the Leach Line
excavation are probably associated with the nearby
recorded archaeological site, CA-SON-174.
3) Native Alaskan Neighborhood. The Aleut and
Koniag hunters resided in a village directly south of
the southern portal of the garrison (see figure 2.2).
The village is identified on the 1817 map of Ross, the
only known cartographic rendition of the colony
undertaken by the Russian-American Company.
Reproduced in Fedorova's book (1973:353,358-60),
the map caption describes the village as "14 Aleut
Yurts madeofplanks." In 1816, the Spanish official,
Gervasio Arguello, counted thirty-seven huts for the
"Aleuts" and forty-seven baidarkas (Bancroft
1886:631, footnote 3). Duhaut-Cilly (1946:10) in his
visit of 1828 described "the flattened cabins of eighty
Kodiaks." liaG. Voznesenskii (Blomkvist 1972:107)
observed twenty-four "Aleut" buildings in his visit to
Fort Ross in 1840-41.
The Russians evidently allowed the native Alas-
kans great freedom in the style and specific location in
which they built their houses (Blomkvist 1972:107;
Tlikhmenev 1978:134). Some accounts suggest that
Russian style plank houses were constructed out of
redwood (Blomkvist 1972:107; Khlebnikov
1976:106b), although other observations suggest that
a few traditional semi-subterranean barabaras (sod
houses) or "flattened cabins" were also constructed
(Tikhmenev 1978:134; Duhaut-Cilly 1946:10 [1828]).
We suspect that various types of households resided
in these structures, including single native Alaskan
males,nativeAlaskancouples,andinter-ethniccouples
comprised of native Alaskan men and native
Californian women. It is also possible that other kin
relations of the native Californian women resided
here. In 1820, Khlebnikov (1990:102) observed that
many Indians lived under the same roof with native
Alaskan men in very crowded conditions. A barrack
wasbuiltnearthe"Aleuts' huts" thatcouldaccommo-
date fifty Indians during the winter months.
The population estimates for the native Alaskan
men, women, and children range from a low of about
seventy-five in 1818-19 to one hundred and sixteen in
1820 (see table 2.1). Most accounts indicate that the
majority of them were Koniag Eskimos from Kodiak
Island (Fedorova 1973:203; Blomkvist 1972:107;
Knecht and Jordan 1985:19-20), as well as a few
Aleuts from the Aleutian Islands, and Dena'ina
Athabascans from the Cook Inlet of Alaska (Kari
1983:1). bThedependenceon Koniagworkers appeas
to have resulted from a shortage of Aleut hunters. In
the early years of colonizing the North Pacific, Rus-
sian abuse and epidemics decimated the population of
the Aleutian Islands. Two-thirds of the population
had perished by 1790 (Gibson 1987:5-6). By the late
23
Appendix 3.1   161
CI
tcq
* ll1
x   *  n
t-     i    a
S
'
0%          -                      0fi
? (4
- e'                          0 X              &          -
-? .i
*0         -     0
!                               '
,f                   .'~ -,
'4.
e             U          ; .  =.
~~42
~w  ~  ~   a  * ~4.
4     R     -I4   ;
162
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
O0      0'     0
0-.J
0       m'     0
I ~
o              0
-        I
3 I
*E2*
c14
0%
e
Ch
-4
%..
-a
U~
x     %
0-1
NoI
-4
.V-
oo
o
.-
ot
v
a
cr
* -
0%
* -
In
t-
0
&
ON
-
la
I"
f-
0-
V-
-     -
M
*o    *o
.  % .
0     la
's    .1
0_~
I16                                                               W                                        a.  '
0                                                         '   3R.. .t
-00  0  h                                   .
0
@0
0%
"4
IO
OI
i1
4)0
4.&
0
m
..l
0%
A
c4
*-4
0
A..
1C4e
fo"
rl
q)-q
.00
t~o ,-
.-N
0
@0
0%
V4)
U
-j
*@
a
0%
4"
os
9-
e%
C4
@0
-4
0%
o
Ct
8
0
(-4
0
(.4
0%
q-
::
80
98
01%
0
i
0-%
No
04
a
1*-
V-
ej
0%
gI
Ot
en
0c
O~
-4
o~
I
'4-
0
0
9-4
:0
0%
"-4
ks
m
8
-%
0%
4-
'4.o
00
II-
CD
*E- 0
^..jO
~. .%                ^         j
i              C
CA      .. ..
asII
:P.i ~
a
a
a
t
ft
I                               .
a
a*   *                               ck 0  -
S
a
S
tj
a
'a
IC
"4
a
0 U3
Appendix 3.1         163
c"4
v
-
4)6
0
*0
4)
0
c.      8
3       as
m       u
'0   'a
164
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
00-
e4e
tz.g
?.                              0
,O         .                                Ii K..
3i,
-
42%
4i0
0%2
19                                _
O~o  c~a
-
,,      2    2.  8                           aL          L
Appendix 3.1         165
-     v
'i
6., :     0
M
og 4
*b;5i 1~ 'jI
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
A PPENDIX 3.2
SP]CED INVERTEBRATES OCCURRING IN THE FORT ROSS REGION AND
THEIR USES BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Information compiled from: Barrett 1952; Garth and Tilden 1986; Gifford 1967; Loebr 1926; Pogue and
Howell 1979; Ricketts et al. 1985; Smith and Calton 1975; Stewart 1943.
SaciENTIuc NAME
COMMON NAME
Cnldarla
Anthozoa
Actinlrla
Actinlidae
Anthopleura elegantissima
Anthopleura xanthogrammica
Coelenterates
Sea Anemones, Corals
Sea Anemones
Sea Anemones
Aggregated Anemone
Giant Green Anemone
Food (Gifford 1967:20; Loeb 1926:164; Stewart
1943:60)
Food (Gifford 1967:20; Loeb 1926:164; Stewart
1943:60)
Madreporala
Stony Corals
Balanophyllia elegans
Annelida
Oligochaets
Lumbrichus sp.
Arthropoda
Crustaces
Cirripedia
Thoracica
Orange Cup Coral
Segmented Worms
Earthworms
Angleworm
Arftopods
Crustaceans
Barnacles
Barnacles
Food (cf. Barrett 1952:110; Loeb 1926:164)
Balanus nubilis
Pollicipes polymerus
Semibalans cariossus
Decapoda
Caridea
Pailnura
Brachyura
Hemigraspus oregonensis
Hmigraspas nudus
Cancerproductus
Pachygraspus crassipes
Insects
Pterygota
Orthoptera
Acorn Barnacle
Goose Barnacle
Barnacle
Shrimp, Lobster, and Crabs
Shrimps
Spiny Lobsters
True Crabs
Oregon Shore Crab
Purple Shore Crab
Red Crab
Striped Shore Crab
Insects
Winged Insects
Grasshoppers
Food (Loeb 1926:164)
Food (Gifford 1967:20; Stewart 1943:60)
Food (Stewart 1943:60)
Food (cf. Barrett 1952:107)
Food (Loeb 1926:165)
Food (Gifford 1967:20; Loeb 1926:165; Stewart
1943:60)
Food (cf. Barrett 1952:108; Loeb 1926:164)
USE
166
Melanoplus devastator
Devastating Grasshopper
Appendix 3.2         167
SCIENTFIC NAME
Lepidoptera
Dioptidae
Phryganidia californica
Noctuldae
Pseudaletia unipuncta
Lycaenldae
Brephidium exilis
Plebejis acmon
Strymon melinus
Danaldae
Danaus plexippus
Numphalldae
NymphaliUs californica
Nymphalis antiopa
Polygonia faunus
Vanessa ataanta
Vanwsa cardi
Adelpha bredowi
Jwuonia coenia
Pleridae
Anthocharis sara
Zerene eurydice
Papillonidae
Papilio rutulus
Batthus philenor
Coleoptera
Clclndelidae
Omus californicus
Cicindela oregona
Elateridae
Alaus melanops
Limonius sp.
Tenebrlouldae
El/odes sp.
COMMON NAME
Butterflies and Moths
Oak Moths
California Oak Moth
Millers and Cutworms
Armyworm
Blues, Coppers, and
Hairstreaks
Pygmy Blue
Acmnon Blue
Common Hairstreak
Milkweed Butterflies
Monarch
Brush-Footed Butterflies
California Tortoise-Shell
Mourning Cloak
Rustic Anglewing
Red Admiral
Painted Lady
California Sister
Buckeye
Whites and Sulphurs
Sara Orange-Tip
California Dogface
Swallowtails
Western Tiger Swallowtail
Pipevine Swallowtail
Beetles
Tiger Beetles
California Black Tiger Beetle
Oregon Tiger Beetle
Click Beetles
Eyed Elater
Common Click Beetle
Darkldding Ground Beetles
Stink Beetle
UsE
Food (Barrett 1952:108)
168            Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME                COMMON NAME                      US E
Cocclnellidae                  Ladybird Beetles
Hippodamia convergens          Convergent Ladybird
Chilocorus orbis               Two-Stabbed Ladybeetle
Cerambycldae                   Longhorn beetles
Rosalia funebris               Banded Alder Borer
Chrysomelldae                  Leaf beetles
Diabrotica undecimpunctata     Western Spotted Cucumber Beetle
Hymenoptera                    Ants, Wasps, and Bees
Cynipidae                      Gall Wasps
Andricus californicus          California Oak Gall Wasp
Torymldae                      Chalcid Wasps
Torymus californicus           Oak Gall Chalcid
Formicidae                     Ants
Camponotus laevigatus          Giant Carpenter Ant
Vespidae                       Yellowjackets
Vespula pensylvanica           Yellowjacket                 Food (Barrett 1952:109; Gifford 1967:20)
Vespula maculata               White Hornet                 Food (Barrett 1952:109; Gifford 1967:20)
Arachnlda                      Spiders and Mites
Aphonopelma                    Tarantula
Lycosa gulosa                  Forest Wolf Spider
Latrodectus mactans            Black Widow
Denrmacentor sp.               Tick
Mollusca                       Molluscs
Cephalopoda                    Octopi, Squids,and Cuttlefish
Octopoda                       Octopi
Octopus dofleini               Pacific Giant Octopus        Food (Stewart 1943:61)
Polyplacophora                 Chitons
Acanthochltomldae              Giant Chitons
Cryptochiton gstelleri         Gumboot Chiton               Food (Gifford 1967:21; Stewart 1943:61)
Mopall'dae                     Mossy Chitons
Kgaharia u/nicata              Black Katy                   Food (Gifford 1967:21; Loeb 1926:61)
Gastropoda                     Snails
Archaeogastropoda              Limnpts, Abalones, and Tutbans
Appendix 3.2         169
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Hallotldae
Haliotis cracherodoii
Haliotis rufescens
Haliotis kamtschatkana
Fissurelldae
Diadora apra
Acmaeldae
COMMON NAME
Abalones
Black Abalone
Red Abalone
Little Abalone
Keyhole Limpets
Rough Keyhole Limpet
USE
Decoration (Loeb 1926:155)
Food (Gifford 1967:21; Stewart 1943:61)
Food (Gifford 1967:21; Stewart 1943:61)
Food (Stewart 1943:61)
True Limpets
Acmaea mitra
Coiisella pelta
Notoacmaea scutuwn
Collisella digitalis
ColiselUa scabra
Trochidae
Tegudafunebrale
Tegula brwunea
Calliostoma anmulatum
Turblnldae
White-Cap Limpet
Shield Limpet
Pacific Plate Limpet
Fingered Limpet
Rough Limpet
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Top Shells
Black Tegula
Brown Tegula
Ringed Top Shell
Turban Shells
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Astrea wndosa
Astrea gibberosa
Mesogastropoda
Littorinidae
Littorina scutulata
Neogasrtopoda
Thaldidae
Thais canaliculata
Thais emarginata
Thais lima
Olivella biplicata
Blvalvla
Mytilolda
Mytlidae
Mytilus californianus
Pterloda
Ostreldae
Osea lurida
Venerolda
Wavy Turban
Red Turban
Snails
Periwinkles
Periwinkle
Whelks, Rock Snails, etc.
Purple Dogwinkle
Emarginate Dogwinkle
Pale Dogwinkle
Purple Olive Shell
Food (Stewart 1943:61)
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
Beads (Gifford 1967:20)
Bivalves
Mussels et al.
Mussels
California Mussel
Scallops and Oysters
Oysters
Olympia Oyster
Food (Gifford 1967:21; Stewart 1943:60)
Clams
170            Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME                COMMON NAME                      Us E
Venerldae                      Hard-Shelled Clams
Saxidomus nuttali              Common Washington Clam       Beads (Gifford 1967:21; Loeb 1926:176; Stewart
1943:61)
Saxidomas giganteus            Giant Washington Clam
Cardildae                      Cockles
Clinocardium nuttali           Heart Cockle                 Food, Beads (Loeb 1926:176; Stewart 1943:61)
Echinodermata                  Starfish, Sea Urchins, and
Sea Cucumbers
Echlsoldea                     Sea Urchins
Strongylocentrots purpuratus   Purple Urchin                Food (Gifford 1967:20; Stewart 1943:61)
Asterloda                      Sea Stars
Patira miniata                 Bat Star
Pisater ocreaceus              Ochre Sea Star
Pychnopodia helianthoides      Sunflower Star
Holothuroldea                  Sea Cucumbers                Food (Stewart 1943:61)
Notes: Taxonomy follows Powell and Hogue (1979) for insects, and Smith and Carlton (1975) for marine invertebrates.
Appendix 3.3        171
APPENDIX 3.3
SELECTED FISH OCCURRING IN THE FORT ROSS REGION AND
THEIR USES BY INDIGENOUS PEOLE
Ifomanton compiled from: Barett 1952; Baumhoff 1963; Gifford 1967; Kniffen 1939; Loeb 1926; Moyle 1976; Roedel 1953.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Agnatha
Petromyzontes
Petromyzontldae
Lampetra trideata
Chondrichthyes
Lamniformes
Hexanchldae
Notorywchus macdatwn
Lamnlidae
Iswrw Glaus
Carcharodon carcharias
Lama ditropis
Cetorhlnldae
Cetorhi/s miaas
Trlaklidae
Triakis semifasciata
Rhinotriakis henlci
Carcharhlnidae
Galeorhinus zyopterus
Squalidae
Sqsalu acanthias
Rajiformes
Rajidae
Raja binoculata
Raja iorta
Raja rhina
Myllobatidae
Holorhinus californicus
Osteichthys
COMMON NAME
Jawless Fishes
Lampreys
Lamprey Family
Pacific Lamprey (a)
Cartilagenous Fishes
Sharks
Cowsharks
Sevengill Cowshark (s)
Mackerel Sharks
Bonito Shark (s)
White Shark (s)
Salmon Shark (s)
Basking Sharks
Basking Shark (s)
Smoothhound Sharks
Leopard Shark (s)
Brown Smoothhound (s)
Requiem Sharks
Soupfmin Shark (s)
Dogfish
Dogfish (es)
Rays
Skates
Big Skate (s)
California Skate (s)
Longnose Skate (s)
Eagle Rays
Bat Ray (s)
Bony Fishes
USE
Food (Gifford 1967:20)
All sharks were considered sacred (Loeb 1926:169).
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Aclpenserldae
Acipenser transmontanus
Acipenser medirostris
COMMON NAME
Sturgeon
White Sturgeon (a)
Green Sturgeon (a)
Clupelidae
Clupea pallasi
Engraulidae
Engraulis mordax
Salmonidae
Oncorhyncus tshawytscha
Oncorhyncas kisutch
Oncorhyncus gorbuscha
Salmo gairdneri
Osmerldae
Herring
Pacific Herring (s)
Anchovies
Northern Anchovy (s)
Salmon
Chinook Salmon (a)
Coho Salmon (a)
Humpback Salmon (a)
Steelhead/Rainbow Trout
(a,)
Food (Barrett 1952:104; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Barrett 1952:104; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Barrett 1952:104; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Loeb 1926:168)
Smelt
Hypomesas pretiosus
Spirinchus starksi
Surf Smelt (s)
Night Smelt (s)
Food (Gifford 1967:19-20; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Gifford 1967:19-20; Loeb 1926:168)
Cyprinidae
Minnows
Lavinia ecauda
Hesperoleucaus symmetricus
Mylopharodon conocephalus
Ptychocheilus grandis
Rhinichthys osculus
Catostomldae
Catostomns occidentalis
Gasterosteldae
Gasterosteus acduleatus
Pleuronectldae
Hippoglossus stenolepis
Eopsetta jordani
Parophrys vetdusl
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Food (Kniffen 1939:363)
Hitch (f)
California Roach (f)
Hardhead (f)
Sacramento Squawfish (f)
Speckled Dace (f)
Suckers
Sacramento Sucker (f)
Food (Kniffen 1939:363)
Sticklebacks
Threespine Stickleback (f,a)
Righteyed Flounders
Pacific Halibut (s)
Petrale Sole (s)
English Sole (s)
Rex Sole (s)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Athernlidae
Atherinopsis californiensis
Atherinops affinis
Carangidae
Silversides
Jacksmelt (s)
Topsmelt (s)
Food (Gifford 1967:19-20; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Gifford 1967:19-20; Loeb 1926:168)
Jack
Pacific Jack Mackerel (s)'
Us E
172
Trachurus symmetricus
Appendix 33          1 73
SCIENTIFC NAME
Cyblidae
Sarda lineolata
Sclaenldae
COMMON NAME
Spanish Mackerel
California Bonito (s)
Croaker
Seriphus politus
Cynoscion nobilis
Genyonemus lineatus
Emblotocldae
Hyperprosopon argenteum
Hypsurus caryi
Rhacochilus vacca
Embiotoca lateralis
Brachyistius frenatus
Hysterocarpus traski
Cymatogaster aggregata
Scorpaenldae
Sebastodes flavidus
Sebastodes melanops
Sebastodes mystinus
Sebastodes pinniger
Sebastodes rosaceus
Anoplopomatldae
Anoplopoma fimbria
Ophlodontldae
Ophiodon elongatus
Cottidae
Leptoconus armatus
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Comts asper
Cotus aleuticus
Comus gulosus
Queenfish/Sea Trout (s)
White Seabass/Sea Trout (s)
White Croaker (s)
Surfperch
Food (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:168)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Walleye Surfperch (s)
Rainbow Surch (s)
Pile Perch (s)
Striped Seaperch (s)
Kelp Perch (s)
Tule Perch (f)
Shiner Perch (s)
Rockfish
Yellowtail Rockfish (s)
Black Rockfish (s)
Blue Rockfish (s)
Orange Rockfish (s)
Rosy Rockfish (s)
Sablefish
Sablefish/Coalfish (s)
Lingcod
Lingcod/Blue Cod (s)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Sculpins
Staghorn Sculpin (s,f)
Cabezon/Bullhead (s)
Prickly Sculpin (f,s)
Coastrange Sculpin (f)
Riffle Sculpin (f)
Food (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:168)
Hexagrammidae
Hexagrammos decagrammus
Cebldlchthyldae
Cebidichthys violaceus
Stichaeldae
Xiphister mucosus
Kelp Greenling (s)
Monkeyfaces
Monkeyface-Eel (s)
Pricklebacks
Rock-Eel (s)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Notes: Classifcation follows Moyle (1976) and Roedel (1953).
(a) = Anadromous
UsE
Greenling
(s) = Salt water
(f) = Fresh water
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
APPENDIX 3.4
A COMPLETE LIST OF REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OCCURRING IN THE FORT ROSS REGION
AND THEIR USES BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Information Compiled From: Barrett 1952; Gifford 1967; Kniffen 1939; Loeb 1926; Stebbins 1985.
ScIENTnC NAME
COMMON NAME
Amphibia
Urodela
Ambystomatldae
Ambystoma gracile
Dlcamptodontidae
Dicamptodon ensatus
Rhyacotrltonldae
Rhyacotriton variegatus
Salamandrldae
Taricha granulosa
Taricha rivdaris
Taricha torosa
Plethodontidae
Ensatina eschscholtzi
Batrachoseps aaenaus
Aneides flavipwctatus
Aneides lugubris
Salientia
Bufonidae
Bufo boreas
Hylidae
Hyla regilla
Ranidae
Rana aurora
Rana boylci
Rana catesbiana
Reptilia
Testudines
Emydidae
Clemmys marmorata
Amphibians
Salamanders & Newts
Mole Salamanders
Northwestern Salamander
Giant Salamanders et al.
Pacific Giant Salamander
Olympic Salamanders
Southern Olympic Salamander
Newts
Rough-Skinned Newt
Red-Bellied Newt
Coast Range Newt
Lungless Salamanders
Ensatina
California Slender Salamander
Speckled Black Salamander
Arboreal Salamander
Frogs & Toads
Toads
Western Toad
Treefrogs
Pacific Treefrog
True Frogs
Red-Legged Frog
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
Bullfrog (i)
Reptiles
Turtles
Water Turtles
Western Pond
Turtle
Medicine (Loeb 1926:327-8)
Poisoning (Barrett 1952:105)
Food (Barrett 1952:105; Gifford
1967:19; Loeb 1926:170)
USE
174
Clemmys marnmorata
ScIENr  ic NAME
Western Pond
Turtle
COMMON NAME
Appendix 3.4         175
Food (Barrett 1952:105; Gifford
1967:19; Loeb 1926:170)
USE
Cheloniidae
Lepidochelys olivacea
Dermochelldae
Dermochelys coriacca
Squamnta
Seria
Iguanldae
Pacific Ridley
Leatherback Sea Turtles
Leatherback
Squamrnates
Lizards
Iguanas et al.
Scdloporus occidentalis
Sceloporus graciosus
Sclncidae
Emeces skltonianus
Anguldae
Medicine (Loeb 1926;328)
Poisoning (Ibid. p. 331)
Western Fence Lizard
Sagebrush Lizard
Skinks
Western Skink
Alligator Lizards
Charms (cf. Loeb 1926:310)
Elgaras muticarinata
Elgaria corudea
Ophidil
Boldae
Southern Alligator Lizard
Northern Alligator Lizard
Snakes
Boas
Charna bottae
Colubrldae
Rubber Boa
Colubrids
Diadopis pnctatus
Contia tenuis
Coluber constictor
Masticophis lateralis
Pituophis melanoleucus
Lampropeltis getuldus
Lampropeltis zonata
Thamnophis sirtalis
Thamnophis elegans
Thamnophis couchi
Hypsiglena torquata
Ringneck Snake
Sharp-Tailed Snake
Yellow-Bellied Racer
Striped Racer
Gopher Snake
Common Kingsnake
Mountain Kingsnake
Common Garter Snake
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake
Western Aquatic Garter Snake
Night Snake
Charms (Loeb 1926:310), Medicine (Ibid. p. 325)
Crotalidae
Crolaus viridis
Rattlesnakes
Western Rattlesnake
Medicine (Loeb 1926:328)
Note: Classification follows Stebbins (1985).
(i) = Inlodued
Sea Turtles
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
APrENDIX 3.5
SELECIED BIRDS N THE FORT ROSS REGION AND THER      USES BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Information compiled from: Barrett 1952; Gifford 1967; Grinnell and Miller 1944;
Kniffen 1939; Loeb 1926; Scott 1983.
SCIENTIC NAME
Aves
Gavlldae
Gavia iminer
Podicipedidae
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Podiceps nigricolis
Podylimbus podiceps
Diomedeldac
Diomedea nigripes
Procellarlldae
Puffinus griseus
Hydrobatidae
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Oceanodroma homochroa
Pelecanidae
Pelecanus occidentalis
Phalacrocoracldae
Phalacrocorax auritus
Ardeidae
Botaurus lentiginosus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Egretta thula
Casmerodius albus
Ardea herodias
Anatldae
Cygnus columbianus
Branta Canadensis
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas streptera
Anas crecca
Anas americana
COMMON NAME
Birds
Loons
Common Loon
Grebes
Western Grebe
Eared Grebe
Pied-Billed Grebe
Albatrosses
Black-Footed Albatross
Shearwaters and Petrels
Sooty Shearwater
Storm-Petrels
Leach's Stonnrm-Petrel
Ashy Storm-Petrel
Pelicans
Brown Pelican
Cormorants
Double-Crested Cormorant
Herons
American Bittern
Black-Crowned Night Heron
Snowy Egret
Great Egret
Great Blue Heron
Swans, Geese, and Ducks
Tundra Swan
Canada Goose
Mallard
Gadwall
Green-Winged Teal
American Widgeon
USE
Food (Barrett 1952:101)
Not Eaten, Medicine (Gifford
1967:18)
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:18,19),
Food (Loeb 1926:167)
Food (Barrett 1952:101)
Bone Whistles (Gifford 1967:18)
Food (Barrett 1952:100)
Food, Feathers (Gifford 1967:18;
Loeb 1926:156)
176
Appendix 3.5       177
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Anas acuta
Anas clypeata
Anas cyanoptera
Oxyura jamaicensis
Aix spinosa
Aythya valisineria
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya affinis
Melanita nigra
Melanitta perspicillata
Buchala clangula
Bucephala albola
Mergus nmerganser
Rallildae
Rallus lbnicola
Porzanma carolina
Fulica americana
Recurv Irostrldae
Recurvirostra americana
Charadrlldae
Charadrius aeandrinus
Charadrius vociferus
Pluvialis sqatarola
Scolopacidae
COMMON NAME
Northemrn Pintail
Northern Shoveler
Cinnamon Teal
Ruddy Duck
Wood Duck
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-Necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Black Scoter
Surf Scoter
Common Goldenye
Bufflehead
Common Merganser
Rails and Coots
Virginia Rail
Sora
American Coot
Stilts and Avocets
American Avocet
Plovers
Snowy plover
Killdeer
Black-Bellied Plover
Sandpipers
USE
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:18)
Not Eaten (Barrett 1952:101)
Food (Barrett 1952:101)
Limosa fedoa
Numenius americanus
Nuweus phaeopus
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Tringa melanoleuca
Actitis macularia
sLimnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Gallinago gallinago
Aphriza virgata
Calidris alpina
Calidris alba
Calidris mnauri
Calidris minutilla
Marbled Godwit
Long-Billed Curlew
Whimbrel
Willet
Greater Yellowlegs
Spotted Sandpiper
Short-Billed Dowitcher
Long-Billed Dowitcher
Common Snipe
Surfbird
Dunlin
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Poison (Loeb 1926:167)
Gulls and Terns
Herring Gull
Food (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb 1926:167)
Larldae
Larus argenaus
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Larus occidentalis
Larus glaucescens
Sterna forsteri
Alcidae
Uria aalge
Cepphus columba
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Ptychorampwhus aleuticus
Cerorhinca monocerata
Fratercula cirrhata
Cathartldae
Cathartes aura
Acclpltrldae
Aquila chrysaetos
Circus cyaneus
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter cooperi
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo lagopus
Pandion haliaetus
Falconldae
Falco sparverius
Falco peregrinus
Phaslanidae
Dendragapus obscurus
Callipepla californica
Meleagris gallopavo
Columbidae
Columba fasciata
Zenaida macroura
Tytonidae
Tyto alba
Strlgidae
Asio flammeus
Asio otus
Bubo virginianus
Strix occidentalis
Otus kennicottii
Glaucidium gnoma
COMMON NAME
Western Gull
Glaucous-Winged Gull
Forster's Tern
Auks and Puffims
Common Murre
Pidgeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Cassin's Auklet
Rhinoceros Auklet
Tufted Puffmin
Vultures
Turkey VulturA
Hawks and Eagles
Golden Eagle
Northern Harrier
Sharp-Shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-Tailed Hawk
Rough-Legged Hawk
Osprey
Falcons
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Grouse
Blue Grouse
California Quail
Wild Turkey
Pigeons and Doves
Band-Tailed Pigeon
Mourning Dove
Barn Owls
Common Barn-Owl
Owls
Short-Eared Owl
Long-Eared Owl
Great Horned Owl
Spotted Owl
Western Screech Owl
Northern Pygmy-Owl
USE
Food (Giffrod 1967:18; Loeb 1926:167)
Food (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb 1926:167)
Feathers (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb 1926:154)
Not Eaten (Barrett 1952:102)
Feathers, Whistles (Barrett 1952:102; Loeb
1926:167)
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Feathers (Gifford 1967:18)
Feathers (Gifford 1967:18)
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb 1926:167)
Food, Plumes (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb
1926:155,165)
Food (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:166)
Food (Gifford 1967:18)
Bad Omen, Medicine (Gifford 1967:18; Loeb
1926:167)
Bad Omen (Gifford 1967:18)
178
Appendix 3.5       179
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Aegolius acadicus
Athene cunicularia
Caprlmulgldae
Phalaenoptilus nuttaii
Chordeiles minor
Apodldae
COMMON NAME
Northern Saw-Whet Owl
Burrowing Owl
Nightjars
Common Poorwill
Common Nighthawk
Swifts
Chaetura vauxi
Trochllldae
Calypte anna
Selasphorus rufus
Seltasphorus sasin
Alcedlnldae
Vaux's Swift
Hummingbirds
Protected (Loeb 1926:167)
Anna's Hummingbird
Rufous Hummuingbird
Allen's Hummingbird
Kingfishers
Belted Kingfisher
Woodepeckers
Not Killed (Gifford 1967:19)
Colaptes auratus
Melanerpes formicivorus
Picoides albolarvatus
Melanerpes kewis
Sphyrapicus ruber
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Drycopus pileatus
Northern Flicker
Acorn Woodpecker
White-Headed Woodpecker
Lewis' Woodpecker
Red-Breasted Sapsucker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Food, Feathers (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:155)
Feathers (Barrett 1952:99; Loeb 1926:155)
Bad Luck (Gifford 1967:19)
Tyrant Flycatchers
Tyrannus verticalis
Myiarchus cinerascens
Contopus' borealis
Contopus sordidulus
Sayornis nigricans
Sayornis saya
Empidonax difficilis
Alaudldae
Eremophila alpestris
Hirundlnldae
Western Kingbird
Ash-Throated Flycatcher
Olive-Sided Flycatcher
Western Wood-Peewee
Black Phoebe
Say's Phoebe
Western Flycatcher
Larks
Horned Lark
Swallows
Food (Loeb 1926:166)
Tachycineta thalassina
Progne subis
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Hirundo pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Violet-Green Swallow
Purple Martin
Rough-Winged Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
USE
Ceryle alcyon
Plcldae .
Tyrannidae
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Corvidae
COMMON NAME
Jays, Crows, and Magpies
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Cyanocitta stelleri
Corvus brachyrhyncos
Corvus Corax
Scrub Jay
Steller's Jay
American Crow
Common Raven
Not Eaten (Barrett 1952:99; Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Barreutt 1952:99; Gifford 1967:19;
Loeb 1926:166)
Feathers (Loeb 1926:167) Not Eaten (Gifford
1967:19)
Feathers (Barrett 1952:102)
Musclcapldae
Chameafasciata
Parldae
Parus inrnatus
Parus rufescens
Aegithalldae
Psaltriparus minimus
Certhlidae
Certhia americana
Sittidae
Wrentits
Wrentit
Titmice and Chickadees
Plain Titmouse
Chestnut-Backed Chickadee
Bushtits
Bushtit
Creepers
Brown Creeper
Nuthatches
Sitta carolinensis
Sitta canadensis
White-breasted Nuthatch
Red-Breasted Nuthatch
Troglodytidae
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Thryomanes bewickii
Cistothorus palustris
Salpinctes obsoletus
Muscicapidae
Wrens
House Wren
Winter Wren
Bewick's Wren
Marsh Wren
Rock Wren
Thrushes
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Polioptila caerulea
Sialia mexicana
Myadestes townsendii
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus guttatus
Ixoreus naevius
Turdus migratorius
Lanlidae
Golden-Crowned Kinglet
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet
Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher
Western Bluebird
Townsend's Solitaire
Swainson's Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Varied Thrush
American Robin
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:19)
Food (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:166)
Shrikes
Lanius ludovicianus
Mimidae
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma redivivum
Loggerhead Shrike
Mimic Thrushes
Northern Mockingbird
California Thrasher
USE
180
Appendix 3.5       181
SCIENTIFiC NA M E
Motaclllldae
Anths spinoletta
Clnclidae
Cinclus mexicanus
Bombycillldae
Bombycilla garrulus
Bombycilla cedrorum
COMMON NAME
Pipits
Water Pipit
Dippers
American Dipper
Waxwings
Bohemian Waxwing
Cedar Waxwing
Vlreonldae
Virco huttoni
Virco gilvus
Emberlzidae
Parulinae
Vermivora celate
Dendroica coronata
Dadroica townsendi
Wilsonia pusilla
Geothlypis trichas
Cardinalinae
Pheucticus melanocephalus
Passerina amoena
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
P?ao fuscus
Emberlzinae
Passerculus sandwichensis
Melospiza melodia
Chondestes grammacus
Juwnco hyemalis
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Passcrella ilaca
Icterlnae
Stuarnella neglecta
Agelaius phoeniceus
Agelaius tricolor
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Molothrus ater
Icterus galbula
Icterus cucullatus
Piranga ludoviciana
Vireos
Hutton's Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Warblers and Sparrows
Sparrows
Orange-Crowned Warbler
Yellow-Rumped Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Grosbeaks and Buntings
Black-Headed Grosbeak
Lazuli Bunting
Rufous-Sided Towhee
Brown Towhee
Sparrows
Savannah Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lark Sparrow
Dark-Eyed Junco
White-Crowned Sparrow
Golden-Crowned Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Blackbirds and Orioles
Western Meadowlark
Red-Winged Blackbird
Tricolored Blackbird
Brewer's Blackbird
Brown-Headed Cowbird
Northern Oriole
Hooded Oriole
Western Tanager
Food (Loeb 1926:166)
Food, Feathers (Gifford 1967:19; Loeb 1926:166)
Not Eaten (Gifford 1967:19) Food (Barrett
1952:103)
Feathers (Loeb 1926:156)
Feathers (Loeb 1926:156)
USE
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Fringillidae
Carduelispinus
Carduelis tristis
Carduelispsaltria
Caprodacus purpureus
Caprodacus mexicanus
COMMON NAME
Finches
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Lesser Goldfinch
Purple Finch
House Finch
Note: Taxonomy follows Scott 1983.
182
. USE
Appendix 3.6         183
APPENDIX 3.6
A COMPLETE LIST OF MAMMALS OCCURRING IN THE FORT ROSS REGION AND
THEIR USES BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Information Compiled From: Barrett 1952; Gifford 1967; Hall 1981; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Kniffen 1939; Loeb 1926.
SCIENTIFIC NA M E
Mammalia
Marsupalia
Didelphidae
Didelphis virginianus
Insectivora
Soricidae
Sorex bendirii
Sorex pacificus
Sorex trowbridgii
Sorex vagrans
Talpidae
COMMON NAME
Mammals
Marsupials
Opossums
Opossum (i)
Insectivores
Shrews
Marsh Shrew
Pacific Shrew
Trowbridge's Shrew
Vagrant Shrew
Moles
Neurotrichus gibbsii
Scapanus orarius
Scapanus latimanus
Shrew Mole
Coast Mole
Broad-Footed Mole
Skin (Gifford 1967:17)
Skin (Gifford 1967:17)
Chiroptera
Vespertllionidae
Antrozous pallidus
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Lasiurus borealis
Lasiurus cinereus
Myotis californicus
Myotis evotis
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis volans
Myotis Yumanensis
Pipistrellus hesperus
Plecotus townsendii
Molossidae
Tadarida brasiliensis
B ats
Vesper Bats
Pallid Bat
Big Brown Bat
Silver-Haired Bat
Red Bat
Hoary Bat
California Bat
Long-Eared Bat
Little Brown Bat
Fringed Bat
Long-Legged Bat
Yuma Bat
Western Pipistrelle
Townsend's Long-Eared Bat
Free-Tailed Bats
Guano Bat
Lagomorpha
Leporidae
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus bachmani
Rabbits et al.
Rabbits
Jackrabbit
Brush Rabbit
Food, Skin (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:170)
Food, Skin (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:154,171)
USE
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Rodentia
Aplodontlidae
Aplodontia rufa
Sciuridae
COMMON NAME
Rodents
Mountain Beavers
Mountain Beaver
Squirrels
Spermophilus beecheyi
Sciurus griseus
Sciurus niger
Tamiasciurus douglasii
Tamias sonomae
Tamias ochrogenys
California Ground Squirrel
Western Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel (i)
Chickaree
Sonoma Chipmunk
Redwood Chipmunk
Food (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:170)
Food, Skin, Bone (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb
1926:170)
Food (Gifford 1967:17)
Geomyidae
Pocket Gophers
Thomomys bottae
Heteromyidae
Dipodomys californicus
Muridae
Cricetlnae
Neotoma fuscipes
Peromyscus boylii
Peromyscus lruei
Peromyscus maniculatus
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Microtinae
Arborimus longicaudus
Clethrionomys californicus
Microtus californicus
Murinae
Rattus rattus
Zapodidae
Zapus trinotatus
Erithizontidae
Erethizon dorsatum
Cctacea
Odontoceti
Delphinidae
Botta's Pocket Gopher
Kangaroo Rats
California Kangaroo Rat
Mice & Rats
Deer Mice & Wood Rats
Dusky-Footed Wood Rat
Brush Mouse
Pinyon Mouse
Deer Mouse
Harvest Mouse
Food (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:170)
Food (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:170)
Voles
Red Tree Vole
California Red-Backed Vole
California Meadow Vole
Old World Rats & Mice
Roof Rat (i)
Jumping Mice
Pacific Jumping Mouse
Food (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:170)
Porcupines
Porcupine
Cetaceans
Toothed Whales
Dolphins
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
Orcinus orca
Stenella coeruleoalba
Tursiops truncatus
White-Sided Dolphin
Killer Whale
Blue and White Dolphin
Bottlenosed Dolphin
USE
184
Appendix 3.6         185
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Phocoenidae
Phocoena phocoena
Phocoenoides dalli
Physeteridae
Kogia breviceps
Kogia simus
Physeter macrocephalus
COMMON NAME
Porpoises
Harbor Porpoise
Dall's Porpoise
Sperm Whales
Pigmy Sperm Whale
Dwarf sperm Whale
Sperm Whale
Beaked Whales
Berardius bairdii
Mesoplodon stejnegeri
Ziphius cavirostris
Baird's Beaked Whale
Stejneger's Beaked Whale
Cuvier's Beaked Whale
Mysticet
Eschrlchtldae
Eschrichtus robustus
Balaenopterldae
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Balaenoptera borealis
Balaenoptera musculus .
Balaenoptera physalus
Megaptera noveangliae
Balaenidae
Baleen Whales
Gray Whales
Gray Whale
Rorquals
Minke Whale
Sei Whale
Blue Whale
Fin Whale
Humpback Whale
Right Whales
Medicine (cf. Gifford 1967:17)
Balaena glacialis
Northern Right Whale
Carnivora
Canidae
Carnivores
Dogs et al.
Canis familiaris
Canis latrans
Canis lupus
Urocyon cinereoargentus
Ursldae
Ursus arctos
Ursus americanus
Procyonidae
Bassariscus astutus
Procyon lotor
Mustelldae
Enhydra lutris
Lautra canadensis
Domestic Dog (i)
Coyote
Wolf (e)
Gray Fox
Bears
Grizzly Bear (e)
Black Bear
Raccoons and Ringtails
Ringtail
Raccoon
Skunks and Weasels
Sea Otter (e)
River Otter
Taboo (Barrett 1952:112)
Taboo (Barrett 1952:112)
Killed when rabid (Gifford 1967:16), Taboo
(Barrett 1952:112)
Food, Hides (Gifford 1967:16; Loeb 1926:171)
Food, Hides (Gifford 1967:16; Loeb 1926:171)
Skin (Gifford 1967:16)
Food (Gifford 1967:16; Loeb 1926:171), Taboo
(Barrett 1952:112)
Skin (Loeb 1926:154), Food (Loeb 1926:170)
Food (Loeb 1926:170)
USE
Zlphildae
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Martes americana
Martes pennanti
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Mustela erminea
Mustelafrenata
Mustela vison
Taxidea taxus
Felidae
COMMON NAME
Marten
Fisher
Striped Skunk
Spotted Skunk
Ermine
Long-Tailed Weasel
Mink
Badger
USE
Skin (Gifford 1967:16)
Medicine (Gifford 1967:16), Food (Loeb
1926:170)
Both Skunks Taboo (Barrett 1952:112)
Skin (Gifford 1967:16), Food
(Loeb 1926:170), Taboo (Barrett 1952)
Cats
Felis catus
Felis concolor
Lylnx rufus
Pin n ipedia
Otarlldae
Domestic Cat (i)
Mountain Lion
Bobcat
Food, Hides (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb
1926:171), Taboo (Barrett 1952)
Hides (Gifford 1967:17; Loeb 1926:154),
Food (Loeb 1926:170)
Seals
Eared Seals
Arctocephalus townsendi
Callhorinus ursinus
Eumetopias jubatus
Zalophus californanus
Phocldae
Mirounga angustirostris
Phoca vitulina
Perissodactyla
Equldae
Guadelupe Fur Seal
Northern Fur Seal
Steller's Sea Lion
California Sea Lion
Food (Loeb 1926:169).
Seals
Northern Elephant Seal
Harbor Seal
Horses et al.
Horses
Food (Gifford 1967:17), Skin
(Loeb 1926:169)
Equus caballus
Artiodactyla
Suldae
Horse (i)
Pigs, Cattle, Sheep & Deer
Pigs
Sus scrofa
Cervldae
Pig (i)
Deer
Roosevelt Elk (e)
Odocoileus hemionus
Bovldae
Bos taurus
Ovis aries
Capra hircus
Mule Deer
Food, Hides, Antlers (Gifford 1967:16;
Loeb 1926:170)
Food, Hides, Sinew, (Gifford 1967:16)
Bone (Loeb 1926:156-7)
Cattle, Sheep & Goats
Cow (i)
Sheep (i)
Goat (i)
Cervus elaphus
Notes: Classification follows Hall and Kelson (1959) and Jameson and Peeters (1988).
(i): Introduced                     (e): Locally extirpated
186
Appendix 4.1         187
APPENDIX 4.1
FORT ROSS REGION DATA BASE
Site      S    RS          a LS  Q     C MF-O S           G    Sc    Area-m2   Lc
x
x
x
x
x
x
C-283
C-284
C-285
C-286
C-287
C-288
C-403
C-404
C-405
C-406
C-407
C-408
C-409
C-410
C-411
C-412
C-413
C-414
C-415
C-416
C-417
C-418
C-419
C-420
C-421
C-444
C-460
C-796
C-797
x
x.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
r
r
KEY
Srm TYPES
SM = shell middens
LS = lithic scatters
ENVIRONMENrrAL ZONES
C = conifers
G = grassland
Srm LCATIONS (Loc)
c = coast
RS = rock shelters
O = other site types
MF-O   =   mixed forest-with oak
Sc = scrub
Hab = habitation sites
S   = savannah
h  = hinterland
r = ridge
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SM     RS  b  LS   Q
C     MF-O      G   SC  Am2
C-903
C-905
MEN-789
MEN-1628
MEN-2019
MEN-2135
MEN-2136
MEN-2203
MEN-2233
MEN-2270
MEN-2303
MEN-2304
SON-162
SON-163
SON-164
SON-165
SON-166
SON-167
SON-168
SON-169
SON-170
SON-171
SON-172
SON-173
SON-174       x
SON-175       x
SON-176
SON-177       x
SON-178       x
SON-179
SON-180
SON-181
SON-182
SON-183
SON-184
SON-185
SON-186
SON-187/H
SON-188
SON-189
SON-191
SON-192
SON-193
SON-194
SON-195
SON-196
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X      X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Loc
x
x
x
x
x
.x
X
X
K
K
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
K
x
K
K
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2600
200
225
4000
16000
400
50000
13500
1750
900
139
139
254
372
116
139
117
254
74
70
1400
346
18241
x
x
c
h
c
c
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
r
r
r
r
r
r
h
h
h
h
h
h
c
h
c
c
C
C
C
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
X
K
X
X
X
K
X
K
K
X
X
K
K
X
x
x
x
x
1393
3716
929
x
x
292
50
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
182
502
348
56
37
188
Appendix 4.1
SM  RS Hak   L    Q
C    MF-O  S   G  Sc   Ae
x
x
x
x
x
SON-197
SON-228
SON-229
SON-230
SON-231
SON-232
SON-233
SON-234
SON-235
SON-236
SON-237
SON-238
SON-239
SON-240
SON-241
SON-242
SON-243
SON-244
SON-245
SON-246
SON-247
SON-248
SON-249
SON-250
SON-251
SON-252
SON-253
SON-254
SON-255
SON-256
SON-257
SON-258
SON-259
SON-260
SON-261
SON-262
SON-263
SON-264
SON-271
SON-342
SON-343
SON-344
SON-345
SON-346
SON-347
SON-348/HI
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x                                        x
x
x
x   x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x   x
Site
x      x
LOx.
x
x
348
4536
58
46
21
46
89
46
583
46
279
465
182
1760
174
182
232
244
46
410
89
174
348
114
180
3
900
81
697
81
66
29
697
29
29
465
2090
5900
182
46
23
150
68000
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
189
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SM      RS  Hab  LS     Q
C      MF-O    i   G
c       A[ea-m2
SON-357
SON-360       x
SON-361       x
SON-365/H     x
SON-366       x.
SON-368       x
SON-369       x
SON-373
SON-384
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SON-385
SON-386
SON-403
SON-453
SON-458
SON-459
SON-460
SON-462
SON-463
SON464
SON-465
SON467
SON-471
SON-472
SON473
SON-474
SON-475
SON-476
SON-477
SON-478
SON479
SON-480
SON-481
SON-482
SON-483
SON484
SON-485
SON486
SON489
SON490
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
c
279   c
111c
111   c
Site
SON-350
SON-352
SON-353
SON-354
SON-355
SON-356
x
x
x
x
x
x
748
56
1350
690
2240
1950
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3200
x
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
r
r
h
h
r
x     x
105
75
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
33r
33  C
x
x
690
35
348
232
261
650
400
160
465
1394
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
182
1452
182
7
30
186
348
929
523
1024
6070
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
h
190
Appendix 4.1
SM   RS   Hab
ME-Q           S    g
S&     Aream2
x
x
SON-493      x
SON494       x
SON495       x
SON-496
SON-497
SON-498
SON-499
SON-500
SON-501
SON-502
SON-503
SON-504
SON-SOS
SON-506
SON-507
SON-508
SON-509
SON-511
SON-512
SON-513
SON-514
SON-520/H
SON-526/H
SON-527/H
SON-528
SON-529
SON-530
SON-537
SON-538
SON-539
SON-540
SON-541
SON-659
SON-663
SON-664
SON-670
SON-687
SON-688
SON-689
SON-690
SON-691
SON-697
SON-698
SON-732
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x     x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x      x
x
x
x
x                                              x
SON-491
SON-492
232
84
465
66
1394
C
C
C
C
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
46       c
465
9
372
111
58
74
1045
697
130
1394
595
209
1338
523
2
900
4375
750
1250
1250
37500
182
410
8100
5400
90
1875
120
100
3750
450
1536
C
C
c
C
C
c
C
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
c
C
C
C
h
c
c
c
c
C
C
C
c
c
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
C
C
C
C
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
900
1000
100
1741
191
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
SM    RS  Hab   L      Q
C         MF-O             G     Sc      Area-m2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SON-733
SON-734
SON-735
SON-736
SON-737
SON-738
SON-739
SON-742
SON-743
SON-862
SON-863
SON-865
SON-867
SON-868
SON-869
SON-870
SON-876
SON-877
SON-923
SON-924
SON-925
SON-996
SON-997
SON-998
SON-999
SON-1000
SON-1001
SON-1002
SON-1003
SON-1004
SON-1005
SON-1006
SON-1007
SON-1008
SON-1009
SON-1010
SON-1011
SON-1012
SON-1013
SON-1043
SON-1057
SON-1091
SON- 1175
SON- 1183
SON- 1184
SON- 185
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
66
279
18
4645
2787
7330
730
450
161
375
875
460
30500
85
160
3
192
48
12500
500
962
36
10000
5000
h
8       h
h
4
100
45000
100
1
4000
x
12
1500
220
x      2028
130
448
2500
x
x
x
Site
LQc
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
c
c
c
c
c
C
c
c
C
c
c
c
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
r
r
r
h
h
h
h
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
h
c
c
c
C
c
c
C
C
192
Appendix 4.1           193
Site        SM        Rh L2   S      Q       ?       MFO      I    Q            Area-m      LQ
SON-1204     x                                                      x           145600        c
SON-1205     x                                                      x           292800        c
SON-1206     x                                                      x             3135        c
SON-1207     x                                                      x              232        c
SON-1309/H              x                                           x             6050        r
SON-1325                       x                                    x               100       h
SON-1327                       x                               x                    150       h
SON-1335/H              x      x                                    x                         h
SON-1346     x                                                      x             3780        c
SON-1350     x                                                 x                   750        c
SON-1392                       x                               x                   350        r
SON-1393                .      x                        x                         4292        r
SON-1423                              x                        x                      8       h
SON-1424                       x                        x                         2500        h
SON-1425                x                                           x             6000        h
SON-1426                       x                               x                   800        h
SON-1451                       x                                    x               75        c
SON-1452                              x                             x              300        c
SON-1453                       x                                    x            10000        c
SON-1454/H                     x      x                             x            15000        c
SON-1455     x                                          x                          500        c
SON-1481     x                                                      x              756        c
SON-1512/H              x      x                        x                        20000        c
SON-1513                       x                               x                  4400        r
SON-1514                              x                             x                4        r
SON-1516     x          x                                           x            30000        r
SON-1517     x                                                      x             4810        h
SON-1518                       x                                    x              660        r
SON-1519     x                                                      x             4000        r
SON-1520     x                                                      .x           30000        r
SON-1521     x                                                      x              900        r
SON-1522                       x                                    x            20000        r
SON-1523                x                                           x            10000        r
SON-1524     x                                                      x            40000        r
SON-1525                       x              x                                   2000        h
SON-1549     x                                                      x               100       c
SON-1566     x                                                      x             3600        c
SON-1586     x                                                      x              250        c
SON-1603/H              x                               x                        40599        h
SON-1604                       x                        x                         7800        h
SON-1605                       x                                    x             2000        h
SON-1606                       x                                    x              1320       h
SON-1609                       x                                    x               512       h
SON-1610                x                               x                         8263        h
SON-1618     x                                x                                     136       c
SON-1619     x                                x                                      625       c
194            Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Site        SM    RS    Hab LS        Q       C       MF-            G   S       Area-m2      Lx
SON-1620     x                                                        x              160        c
SON-1621     x                                                        x              136        c
SON-1622     x                                                        x              476        c
SON-1623     x      x                                                 x               90        c
SON-1624     x                                                        x              345        c
SON-1625     x                                                        x              900        c
SON-1626                        x                                     x              900        c
SON-1627                        x                                     x              330        c
SON-1628                        x                                     x             3800        c
SON-1629     x                                                        x               50        c
SON-1630/H                      x      x                              x            11700        c
SON-1631     x                                                        x              486        c
SON-1632     x                                           x                           725        c
SON-1633            x                                    x                            48        c
SON-1634     x                                 x                                      90        c
SON-1635     x                                 x                                     378        c
SON-1636                       x                                      x              629        c
SON-1637     x                                 x                                     300        c
SON-1638     x                                 x                                    4000        c
SON-1639     x                                 x                                     247        c
SON-1640     x                                 x                                      50        c
SON-1641     x                                 x                                    2992        c
SON-1642     x                                 x                                     204        c
SON-1643     x                                 x                                    1350        c
SON-1644     x                                 x                                    1664        c
SON-1645                       x                                      x             8550        c
SON-1646     x                                                        x               99        c
SON-1649     x                                                        x              940        c
SON-1650/H   x                                                        x             3192        c
SON-1651     x                                           x                           135        c
SON-1652     x                                                        x               60        c
SON-1653     x                                                        x               70        c
SON-1654     x                                                        x              180        c
SON-1655     x                                                        x              100        c
SON-1656     x                                                        x              100        c
SON-1657     x                                                        x              100        c
SON-1659                       x                         x                          3000        r
SON-1660     x                                           x                            90        c
SON-1661                       x                                      x                         c
SON-1672/H   x           x                               x                         25200        c
SON-1675     x                                 x                                    4000        c
SON-1676     x                                                        x              900        r
SON-1677     x                                 x                                   13750        r
SON-1682                       x                                      x             1280        c
SON-1686                       x                                      x              300        c
SON-1688     x                                           x                           300        c
SON-1710     x                                                        x              390        c
SON-1712                       x                                      x             4200        c
SON-1713      x                                                        x               484         c
SON-1714      x                                                        x                63         c
Appendix 4.1
SM    RS Ha      L
Q      C       MF-O   S.    G    S
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
SON-1715
SON-1716
SON-1717
SON-1718
SON-1719
SON-1720
SON-1721
SON-1727
SON-1728
SON-1729
SON-1730
SON-1731
SON-1740
SON-1741
SON-1742
SON-1774
SON-1793
SON-1808
SON-1809
SON-1814
SON-1815
SON-1816
SON-1817
SON-1825
SON-1829
SON-1878
SON-1879
SON-1880
SON-1881
SON-1882
SON-1883
S6N-1884
SON-1885
SON-1886/H
SON-1887
SON-1888
SON-1889
SON-1890
SON-1892
SON-1894
SON-1895/H
SON-1896
SON-1897/H
SON-1898/H
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x                         C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
1260
3750
260
1976
2640
3650
180
140
252
1290
129
24500
80
252
128
400
500
31250
1400
150
100
50
3750
3780
2107
2
2024
471
54
8247
3044
919
94
0
85
189
871
4
156
203
166
2800
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
c
c
C
C
c
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
h
h
h
h
h
h
r
h
h
h
h
r
h
c
C
C
C
C
r
r
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
195
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
APPENDIX 5.1
LITHIC ARTIFACTS FROM FORT ROSS SITES
Location   Collection-  Field-    Site        Unit              Artifact-  Count    Artifact-    Raw-
date      Spec-no                                  sequence             category   material
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
go        sa
mf        sa
fc       ba
go        sa
fc       ba
fc        ba
mf        sa
mf        sa
go        sa
go        sa
bt       ob
bf        ch
sc       ch
em       ch
sh       ch
em       ch
continued
KEY ARTIFACT CATEGORY
bc = battered cobble
bcf
bf
bi
bm
bmf
bt
cf
co
am
fc
go
ha
hm
if
nu = mano (handstone)
battered cobble fragment
biface fragment
biface
basin millingstone
basin millingstone fragment
biface thinning flake
core fragment
core
edged-modified flake
fire-cracked rock
ground stone fragment
hammerstone
hopper mortar
interior flake
nf
nt
oo
00
pc
pe
pp
ppf
sc
sh
Sn
smf
uf
un
mano (handstone) fragment
net weight
other
primary cortical flake
pestle
projectile point
projectile point fragment
secondary cortical flake
shatter
slab millingstone
slab millingstone fragment
uniface fragment'
uniface
RAW MATERIAL
ba   =  basalt
ch   =  chert
gw   =  graywacke
o   =   other
ob = obsidian
qu   =  quartz
sa   =  sandstone
sc   =  schist
NOrE
All point provenience coordinates listed under the column "Unit" in appendices 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.5 are measured
from the site datum unless otherwise indicated. The point provenience coordinate, 90 @ 1 lm is 90 degrees from site
datum at a distance of 11 meters. The point provenience coordinate, Sub B 6 @ 28 m, is 6 degrees from subdatum B at
a distance of 28 meters.
196
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
4
4
6
7
10
10
11
13
14
14
15
1
1
2
. 2
2
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 670
Son 1878
Son 1878
Son 1878
Son 1878
Son 1878
2s Oe
2s Oe
6s Oe
6s Oe
On 6w
On 6w
On le
nw quad
se quad
se quad
ne quad
On Oe
On Oe
22n Oe
22n Oe
22n Oe
Appendix 5.1          197
Location  Collection-  Field-  Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count  Artifact-  Raw-
date     Spec-no                               sequaece           category  material
a      6/10/88      1      Son 1878    6s Oe              1        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88      1      Son 1878    6s Oe              2        1        sh        o
a      6/10/88      2      Son 1878    14s Oe             1        1        bt       ch
a      6/10/88      3      Son 1878    12s Oe             1        2        pc       ch
a      6/10/88      3      Son 1878    12s Oe             2        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88      4      Son 1878    8s Oe              1        1        pc       ch
a      6/10/88      4      Son 1878    8s Oe              2        2        sh       ch
a      6/10/88      9      Son 1878    On 13e             1        1        bf       ch
a      6/10/88     10      Son 1878    On 17e             1        1        if       ch
a      6/10/88     11      Son 1878    On 23e             1        1        co       ch
a      6/10/88     13      Son 1878    90@ llm            I    1            ma       ba
a      6/10/88     14      Son 1878    nequad             1        1        ma       sa
a      6/10/88     14      Son 1878    nequad             2        1        ha       sa
a      6/10/88     14      Son 1878    nequad             3        1        cf       ch
a      6/10/88     14      Son 1878    nequad             4        1        go       sa
a      6/10/88     15      Son 1878    nequad             1        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom             1   I        an       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    se nonrandom       2        1        ppf      ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        3        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        4        1   .    bt       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        5        1        bt       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        6        1        ppf      ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        7        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        8        1        if       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom        9        1        if       ba
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    se nonrandom      10        1        em       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom       11        1         bf      ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom       12        1         pc      qu
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    senonrandom       13        1        cf       ch
a      6/10/88     16      Son 1878    se nonrandom      14        1         if      ch
a      6/10/88     18      Son 1878    swquad             1        1         go      sa
a      6/10/88     19      Son 1878    swquad             1        1         sm      sa
a      6/16/88      1      Son 1879    nonrandom          1        1         mf      sa
a      6/16/88      2      Son 1879    nonrandom          1        1         go      sa
b      6/08/88      1      Son 1880    On Oe              1        1         if      ob
b      6/08/88      1      Son 1880    On Oe              2        1         bt      ob
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              1        1         em      ch
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              2        1         bf      ch
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              3        1         co      ch
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              4        1         em      ob
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              5        1         bt      ob
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              6        1         bt      ob
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              7        2         if      ob
b      6/08/88      2      Son 1880    On le              8        1         sh      ch
b      6/08/88      3      Son 1880    2s Oe              1        I         bt      ob
b      6/08/88      5      Son 1880    On2w               1        1         sh      ch
b      6/08/88      6      Son 1880    On 2w              1        1         sm       sa
b      6/08/88      6     Son 1880    On2w               2        2        go      sa
b      6/08/88      7     Son 1880    2s Oe              1        1        go      sa
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count   Artifact-  Raw-
date      Spec-no                              sequence            category  material
b       6/08/88     11     Son 1880    Sub A 2nOe            1      1        bt       ob
b       6/08/88     15     Son 1880    Sub A 2sOe            1      1         sc      ob
b       6/08/88     15     Son 1880    Sub A 2sOe            2      1         sc      ob
b       6/08/88     17     Son 1880    Sub A 6sOe            1      1        ma        sa
b       6/08/88     19     Son 1880    Sub A On2w            1      1        cf       ch
b       6/08/88     20     Son 1880    Sub A On4w            1      1        cf       ch
b       6/08/88     24     Son 1880    Sub B On2w            1      1         if      ob
b       6/08/88     25     Son 1880    Sub B 2sOe            1      1        pc       ch
b       6/08/88     26     Son 1880    Sub A Onle            1      1         em      ob
b       6/08/88     27     Son 1880    138@ 10m              1      2         em      ch
b       6/09/88      2     Son 1881    Sub A 2sOe            1      1         sh      ob
b       6/09/88     4      Son 1881    Sub A On2w            1      1         sm       sa
b       6/09/88      5     Son 1881    268 @ 15.2m           1      1         sh      qu
b       6/09/88      6     Son 1881    Sub A 292@ 4m         1      1         sc      ch
b       6/09/88      9     Son 1881    166 @ 7.3m            1      1         sh      ob
b       6/09/88     10     Son 1881    On Oe                 1      1         cf      ch
b       6/09/88     10     Son 1881    On Oe                 2      1        go        sa
b       6/09/88     10     Son 1881    On Oe                3       1        go        sa
b       6/09/88     11     Son 1881    2s Oe                 1      1        smf       sa
b       6/09/88     12     Son 1881    On le                 1      1        sh       ch
b       6/09/88     14     Son 1880    SubC 0nw 0sw          1      1        go       sa
b       6/09/88     15     Son 1880    Sub C Onw4sw          1      1        ma       ba
b       6/09/88     16     Son 1880    Sub C Onw2sw          1      1        ma        sa
b       6/09/88     16     Son 1880    Sub C 0nw2sw          2      1         fc       sa
b      6/09/88      18    Son 1880     Sub C 140 @2.4m       1      1        go        sa
b      6/09/88      19    Son 1880     SubC 301 @ 7.5m       1      1         go       sa
c       6/06/88      9    Son 1895     On4w                  1      1         go       sa
c       6/06/88     15    Son 1895     6s Oe                 1      1         cf      ch
c       6/06/88     17    Son 1895     nequad                1      1         go       sa
c       6/06/88     18    Son 1895     nequad                1      1         sc      ob
c       6/06/88     18    Son 1895     nequad                2      1         go       sa
c       6/06/88     18    Son 1895     nequad                3      1         if      ob
c       6/06/88     19    Son 1895     swquad                1      1        go        sa
c       6/06/88     33    Son 1885     12s Oe                1      1         if      ch
c       6/06/88     35    Son 1885     swquad                1      1        cf       ch
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                2      1         sc      ch
c       6/06/88     35    Son 1885     swquad                3      1         sc      ch
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                4      1         sc      ch
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                5      1         if      ch
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                6      1         bt      ob
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                7      1         am      ob
c       6/06/88    35     Son 1885     swquad                8      1         bt      ob
c       6/06/88    40     Son 1885     On4w                  1      1         sh      ch
c       6/06/88    47     Son 1885     sequad/nw quad        1      1         sh      ch
c       6/06/88    47     Son 1885     sequad/nwquad         2      1         go       sa
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nwquad                1      1         un      ob
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nw quad               2      1         ppf     ob
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nw quad               3      1         em      ch
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nw quad               4      1         em      ch
198
Appendix 5.1         199
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count  Artifact-   Raw-
date     Spec-no                               sequence            category  material
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nwquad               5       1        if       ch
c       6/06/88    48     Son 1885     nwquad               6       5        go       sa
c       6/06/88    49     Son 1885     On 6w                1       1        sc       ch
c       6/08/88      1    Son 1896     On le                1       1        fc       sc
c       6/08/88     2     Son 1896     On 3e                1       1        go       sa
c       6/08/88     3     Son 1896     On 5e                1       3        go       sa
c       6/08/88     4     Son 1896     On 7e                1       1        go       sa
c       6/08/88    12     Son 1896     4nOe                 1       1        go       ba
c       6/08/88    22     isolate                            1      1        sm       sa
c       6/09/88      1    Son 1895     110  61m            1       1        bcf      sa
c       6/10/88     2     Son 1895     edge of nos          1       1        bc       sa
c       6/i0/88     9     Son 1882     2nOe                 1       1        go       sa
c       6/13/88      1    isolate                           1       1        sm       sa
c       6/14/88      1    Son 1894     roadcut              1       1        hm       sa
c       6/14/88     2     Son 1894     roadcut              1       3        if       ob
c       6/14/88     2     Son 1894     roadcut              2       1        sh       ob
c       6/14/88     2     Son 1894     roadcut              3       1        bt       ob
c       6/14/88     2     Son 1894     roadcut              4       1        bf       ob
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894    mroadcut              5       1        bt       ob
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut              6       2        if       ob
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut              7       2        cf       ch
c       6/14/88     2     Son 1894     roadcut              8       1        sc       ch
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut              9       2        sh       ch
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut             10       1        go       sa
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut             11       1        emn      ch
c       6/14/88      2    Son 1894     roadcut             12       3        sh       sc
c       6/14/88      3    Son 1894     roadcut              1       1        sc       ob
c       6/14/88     4     Son 1894     roadcut              1       1        em       ch
d       6/07/88      1    Son 1883     nonrandom            1       1        pp       ob
d       6/07/88      1    Son 1883     nonrandom            2       1        nt        sa
d       6/07/88     2     Son 1883     nonrandom            1       1        bf       ob
d       6/08/88     2     Son 1883     4s Oe                1       5        go        sa
d       6/08/88     2     Son 1883     4s Oe                2       1        bt       ob
d       6/08/88     2     Son 1883     4s Oe                3       1        if       ch
d       6/08/88     2     Son 1883     4s Oe                4       1        if       ch
d       6/08/88     2     Son 1883     4s Oe                5       1        em       ch
d       6/08/88     3     Son 1883     6s 03                1       3        go       sa
d       6/08/88      6    Son 1883     12s Oe               1       1        em       ch
d       6/08/88     6     Son 1883     12s Oe               2       1        em       ch
d       6/08/88     7     Son 1883     On Oe                1       1        go        sa
d       6/08/88     9     Son 1883     2n Oe                1       1        if       ch
d       6/08/88     9     Son 1883     2nOe                 3       4        go        sa
d       6/08/88    10     Son 1883     4nOe                 1       1     -  sh       ch
d       6/08/88    11     Son 1883     6n Oe                1       3        go        sa
d       6/08/88    11     Son 1883     6nOe                 3       1        if       ob
d       6/08/88    11     Son 1883     6nOe                 4       1        sh       ch
d       6/08/88    15     Son 1883     lOn Oe               I   1            go        sa
d       6/08/88    16     Son 1883     20s Oe               I       1        sh       ch
d       6/08/88    19     Son 1883     14n Oe               1       1        bf       ob
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location   Collection-  Field-   Site        Unit              Artifact-  Count    Artifact-   Raw-
date      Spec-no                                 sequence             category  material
d       6/08/88      19     Son 1883      14n Oe                2       1         bt       ob
d       6/08/88      19     Son 1883      14n Oe                3       1         cf       ch
d       6/08/88      19     Son 1883     14n Oe                 4       1         nf       ch
d       6/09/88       1     Son 1883      16n Oe                1       1         if       ch
d       6/09/88       1     Son 1883     16n Oe                 2       1         bf       ob
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                1       2         go       sa
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                2       1         co       ch
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                3       1         fc       sa
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                4       1         pc       ch
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                5       1         sh       ch
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                6       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       2     Son 1883      18n Oe                7       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       4     Son 1883     20n Oe                 1       1         pp       ch
d       6/09/88       4     Son 1883     2on Oe                 2       1         sh       ch
d.      6/09/88       4     Son 1883     20n Oe                 3       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       4     Son 1883     20n Oe                 4       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       5     Son 1883     22n Oe                 1       1         fc       sa
d       6/09/88       5     Son 1883     22n Oe                 2       1         if       ch
d       6/09/88       6     Son 1883     26n Oe                         1         if       ob
d       6/09/88       6     Son 1883     26n Oe                 2       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       6     Son 1883     26n Oe                 3       1         if       ch
d       6/09/88       6     Son 1883     26n Oe                 4       1         if       ch
d       6/09/88       7     Son 1883     24n Oe                 1       1         bf       ob
d       6/09/88       8     Son 1883     30s Oe                         1        pc        ch
d       6/09/88       8    Son 1883      30s Oe                 2       1         cf       q
d       6/09188       8     Son 1883     30s Oe                 3       1         go       sa
d       6/09/88       8     Son 1883     30s Oe                 4       I         go       sa
d       6/09/88       9     Son 1883     28n Oe                 1       1         bt       ob
d       6/09/88       9     Son 1883     28n Oe                 2       1        em        ch
d       6/09/88       9     Son 1883     28n Oe                 3       1         bt       Ch
d       6/09/88       9     Son 1883      28n Oe                4       1         go       sa
d       6/09/88       9     Son 1883     28n Oe                 5       1         cf       ch
d       6/09/88      10     Son 1883     34s Oe                 1       5         go       sa
d       6/09/88      10     Son 1883     34s Oe                 2       1         sh       ch
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 1       1        em        ch
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 2       1         if       ch
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 3       1         go       sa
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 4       3         bt       ob
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 5       1        sh        ch
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 6       2         go       sa
d       6/09/88      11     Son 1883     30n Oe                 7       1         pc       ch
d       6/09/88      13     Son 1883     OnSe                   1       2         go       sa
d       6/09/88      14     Son 1883     On 3e                  1       1        sh        ob
d       6109188      15     Son 1883     On le                 1        1         cf       ch
d       6/09/88      15     Son 1883     On le                  2       1         mf       sa
d       6/09/88      16     Son 1883     On 7e                 1       1         cf        ch
d       6/09/88      16     Son 1883     On 7e                  2       1         mf       sa
d       6/09/88      16    Son 1883      On 7e                  3       1       em         ch
d       6/09/88      17     Son 1883     On 9e                 1       1          go       sa
200
Appendix 5.1         201
Location  Collection-  Field-  Site        Unit            Artifact-  Count  Artifact-   Raw-
date      Spec-no                              sequence           category  material
d       6/09/88     18    Son 1883     On l9e              1i       1       go       sa
d      6/09/88      19    Son 1883     On 21e               1       1       sh       ch
d       6/09/88    20     Son 1883     13n 2e               1       1       sh       ch
d      6/09/88     21     Son 1883     8n4e                 1       1       if       ch
d       6/09/88    22     Son 1883     5e 97n               1       1       go       sa
d      6/09/88     23     Son 1883     27n 0e               1      1        cf       ch
d      6/09/88     24     Son 1883     29n 03               1      2        sh       ch
d      6/09/88     25     Son 1883     26n 2e               1       1       if       h
d      6/09/88     26     Son 1883     22n 8e               1       1       sm       sa
d      6/09/88     27     Son 1883     23n 10e              1       1       em       ch
d      6/09/88     27     Son 1883     23n 10e              2      1        ma       sa
d      6/09/88 .   27     Son 1883     23n 10e              3      2        go      gw
d      6/09/88     27     Son 1883     23n 10e              4      2        go       sa
d      6/09/88     30     Son 1883     6e 17.30n            1      1        co       ch
d      6/09/88     31     Son 1883     35n 2e               1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     33     Son 1883     32n 4e               1      1        ha       sa
d      6/09/88     36     Son 1883     2e 33n               1      1        sc       ch
d      6/09/88     36     Son 1883     2e 33n               2      1        em       ch
d       6/09/88    36     Son 1883     2e 33n               3      1        sc       ob
d      6/09/88     36     Son 1883     2e 33n               4      1        if       ch
d      6/09/88     36     Son 1883     2e 33n               5      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     37     Son 1883     31n 4e               1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     38     Son 1883     23n 8e               1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     38     Son 1883     23n 8e               3      4        mf       sa
d      6/09/88     38     Son 1883     23n 8e               4      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     38     Son 1883     23n 8e               5      1        if       ch
d      6/09/88     39     Son 1883     33n 8e               1       1       mf       sa
d      6/09/88     41     Son 1883     31n Oe               1      1        cf       ch
d      6/09/88     41     Son 1883     31n Oe               2      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     42     Son 1883     22n 10e              1      1        sh       ch
d      6/09/88     42     Son 1883     22n 10e              2      4        go       sa
d      6/09/88     43     Son 1883     21n 10e              1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     44     Son 1883     1%9n 8e              1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     45     Son 1883     4.2n 12e             1       1       ma       sa
d      6/09/88     45     Son 1883     4.2n 12e             2      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     46     Son 1883     18n 12e              1       1       mf       sa
d      6/09/88     47     Son 1883     27n 8e               1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     48     Son 1883     18n 12e              1      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     49     Son 1883     12n 12e              1      1        mf       sa
d      6/09/88     50     Son 1883     13n 12e              1      2        ma       sa
d      6/09/88     51     Son 1883     12n 8e               1      1        sc       ch
d      6/09/88     51     Son 1883     12n 8e               2      1        go       sa
d      6/09/88     51     Son 1883     12n 8e               3      1        pc       ob
d      6/09/88     52     Son 1883     25n 14e              1      1        pe       sa
d      6/09/88     52     Son 1883     25n 14e              2      2        go       sa
d      6/09/88     53     Son 1883     30n 14e              1      1        if       ch
d      6/09/88     53     Son 1883     30n 14e              2      1        if       ch
d      6/09/88     53     Son 1883     30n 14e              3      1        if       ch
d      6/09/88     53     Son 1883     30n 14e              4      1        if       ch
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location    Collection-  Field-
date       Spec-no
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09188
6109/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/10/88
6110/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6110/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6110188
6/10188
6/10/88
6110/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6110188
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
53
54
54
56
57
58
59
61
63
64
65
65
66
68
1
1
1
2
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Site
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Son 1883
Unit
Artifact-
sequence
30n 14e
20n lOe
20n lOe
20n 2e
31n 12e
23n lOe
4n 8e
25.5n 12e
32n 12e
21.5n 12e
9n lOe
9n 10e
14n lOe
Sn lOe
4n 32e
4n 32e
4n 32e
On 24e
12n 32e
16n 24e
16n 24e
16n 24e
8n 40e
lOn 36e
lOn 36e
24n 24e
24n 24e
32n 24e
32n 24e
32n 24e
32n 24e
32n 24e
32n 24e
4n 16e
4n 16e
12n 16e
20n 16e
20n 16e
20n 16e
20n 16e
20n 16e
20n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
32n 16e
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count    Artifact-    Raw-
category   material
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
go
go
sh
sc
cf
go
go
cf
fc
go
co
mf
go
go
if
go
go
go
go
em
fc
pf
go
go
co
go
fc
sh
Sc
if
if
go
ha
sh
em
bf
pc
go
em
sh
if
cf
go
PP
if
sh
sh
SC
fc
sa
sa
ba
ch
ch
sa
sa
ch
sa
sa
ch
sa
sa
sa
ch
sa
sa
sa
sa
ch
sa
sa
ba
sa
ch
sa
sa
ch
ch
ob
sa
sa
ch
ob
ch
ch
sa
ch
SC
sc
ch
ch
sa
ob
ch
ch
cp
ch
sa
202
Appendix 5.1         203
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site        Unit            Artifact-  Count   Artifact-   Raw-
date      Spec-no                               sequence           category   material
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              1       1        em       ch
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              2       1        sc       ch
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              3       1        em       ob
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              5       1        bf       ob
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              6       1        if       ch
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              7       1        pe       ba
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              8       1        go        sa
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e              9       1        go       ba
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e             10       2        go       gw
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38c             16       6        go       ba
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e             17      15        go        sa
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38c             18       1        mf        sa
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e             19       3        go       ba
d       6/10/88     16     Son 1883     32n 38e             20       1        bt       ob
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              1       1        em       ob
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              2       1        bt       ob
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              3       1        sm        sa
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              4       1        co        ch
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              5       1        cf       ch
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32c              6       1        mf        sa
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              7       1        sh        ch
d       6/10/88     17     Son 1883     36n 32e              8       9        go        sa
d       6/10/88     18     Son 1883     40n 24e              1       1        bf       ob
d       6/10/88     18     Son 1883     40n 24e              2       1        sh       ch
d       6/10/88     18     Son 1883     40n24e               3       1        if       ch
d       6/10/88     18     Son 1883     40n 24e              4       1        bc       sa
d       6/10/88     18     Son 1883     40n 24e              5       2        go        sa
d       6/10/88     19     Son 1883     48n 24c              1       1        go        sa
d       6/10/88     20    Son 1883      40n 22e              1       1        em       ob
d       6/10/88     20     Son 1883     40n 22e              2       1        bt       ob
d       6/10/88     20     Son 1883     40n 22e              3       1        em       ch
d       6/10/88     20    Son 1883      40n 22e              4       1        if       ch
d       6/10/88     21     Son 1883     36n 16e              1       2        go        sa
d       6/10/88     21     Son 1883     36n 16e              2       2        go        ba
d       6/13/88      1    Son 1883      On 2w                1       2        sh       ch
d       6/13/88      2    Son 1883     On 6w                 1       1        pp       ob
d       6/13/88      2     Son 1883     On6w                 2       1        mf        sa
d       6/13/88      2    Son 1883      On 6w                3       1        go        sa
d       6/13/88      4    Son 1883      On4w                 1       1        sc       ch
d       6/13/88      4     Son 1883     On4w                 2       1        go        sa
d       6/13/88      5    Son 1883      On8w                 1       1        sc       ch
d       6/13/88      6    Son 1883      On 20w               1       1        sh       ch
d       6/13/88      6     Son 1883     On 20w               2       1        sh       ob
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883     8s 12w                1       1        bf       ob
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883      8s 12w               2       1        cf       ch
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883      8s 12w               3       1        pc       ch
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883      8s 12w               4       1        sc       ch
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883      8s 12w               5       1        bt       ch
d       6/13/88      8    Son 1883      8s 12w               6       1        bt       ob
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location   Collection-  Field-    Site
date      Spec-no
Unit
Artifact-     Count      Artifact-       Raw-
sequence
category  material
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
8     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
10     Son 1883
1 1    Son 1883
1 1    Son 1883
12     Son 1883
12     Son 1883
14     Son 1883
15     Son 1883
.16    Son 1883
16     Son 1883
16     Son 1883
16     Son 1883
17     Son 1883
18     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
20     Son 1883
20     Son 1883
20     Son 1883
20     Son 1883
22     Son 1883
22     Son 1883
22     Son 1883
23     Son 1883
23     Son 1883
23     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
8s 12w
12s 20w
12s 20w
12s 20w
16s 28w
Os 12w
Os 12w
28s 20w
28s 20w
32s 12w
36s 20w
16s 12w
16s 12w
16s 12w
16s 12w
188 @ 31m
245 @ 67m
24s 12w
24s 12w
24s 12w
24s 12w
24s 12w
268 @ 51.8m
268 @ 51.8m
268 @ 51.8m
268 @ 51.8m
28s 4e
28s 4e
28s 4e
36s 4e
36s 4e
36s 4e
4s 4e
4s 4e
4s 4e
4s 4e
12s 4e
12s 4e
12s 4e
12s 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
2Os 4e
20s 4e
2Os 4e
7
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
1
4
5
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
8
1
1
3
1
3
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
.3
2
2
1
3
go
cm
sh
go
go
cm
go
sh
sh
go
go
SC
PC
pc
go
em
sm
co
an
sh
sh
fc
go
cf
Sc
cf
Sc
Sc
pc
PC
go
go
if
go
sh
sh
go
go
em
sh
go
go
if
PP
em
cf
sh
if
if
mf
go
sa
ch
ch
sa
sa
ch
sa
ch
ch
sa
sa
ch
ch
sa
Sc
sa
ch
ch
ch
ch
sa
sa
ch
ch
ch
ob
ch
ch
sa
sa
ch
gw
ch
sa
sa
sch
ch
ch
sa
ba
ob
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
sa
sa
204
Appendix S.1
Location   Collection-  Field-    Site
date
Spec-no
Unit
Artifact-    Count     Artifact-     Raw-
sequence
category    material
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/14/88
6114/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14188
6/14/88
6/14/88
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
2     Son 1883
4     Son 1883
5     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
7     Son 1883
8     Son 1883
8     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
9     Son 1883
11     Son 1883
11     Son 1883
12     Son 1883
13     Son 1883
13     Son 1883
14     Son 1883
14     Son 1883
15     Son 1883
15     Son 1883
15     Son 1883
16     Son 1883
17     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
19     Son 1883
20     Son 1883
21     Son 1883
22     Son 1883
23     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
24     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
25     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
26     Son 1883
27     Son 1883
27     Son 1883
20s 4e
20s 4e
8s 12e
4s 20e
12s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
20s 20e
170 @ 20m
170 @ 20m
23s 2e
23s 2e
23s 2e
23s 2e
19s 2e
19s 2e
135 @ 25m
28s 4e
28s 4e
28s 2e
28s 2e
174 @ 40m
174 @ 40mn
174 @ 40m
9.5s 2e
25s 1.4e
192 @ 39m
-192 @ 39m
184 @ 47m
2Ss 1.5e
6s 8.4e
On 24e, 164'@ 20min
On 24e, 324 @ 21m
On 24e, 324 @ 21m
On 24e, 324 @ 21m
On 24e, 320 @ 26m
On 24e, 320 @ 26m
On 24e, 68 @ 28m
On 24e, 68 @ 28m
On 24e, 68 @ 28m
On 24e, 68 @ 28m
On 24e, 9 @ 37m
On 24e, 9 @ 37m
10
11
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
24
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
go
go
go
go
cf
go
ma
bc
sc
bf
sh
if
bf
bt
em
if
go
if
go
pc
if
bf
pc
Sh
go
go
go
go
if
nf
cf
go
ha
go
co
co
sh
go
bf
go
go
em
go
if
cm
fc
go
bt
nf
ha
ba
sa
sa
ch
s
sa
sa
ch
ch
ch
ob
ob
ob
ob
ob
sa
ch
sa
ch
ch
ob
ob
ch
sa
S$
sa
sa
ob
ob
ch
sa
sa
sa
ch
ch
ch
sa
ch
sa
gw
ch
sa
ob
ch
sa
sa
ob
ob
205
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location   Collection-  Field-
date      Spec-no
Site
Unit
Artifact-   Count    Artifact-   Raw-
sequence             category   material
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14188
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
6/15/88
27     Son 1883
27     Son 1883
27     Son 1883
27     Son 1883
28     Son 1883
28     Son 1883
29     Son 1883
29     Son 1883
30     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
31     Son 1883
32     Son 1883
32     Son 1883
33     Son 1883
33     Son 1883
34     Son 1883
34     Son 1883
34     Son 1883
34     Son 1883
35     Son 1883
35     Son 1883
36     Son 1883
37     Son 1883
38     Son 1883
38     Son 1883
39     Son 1883
39     Son 1883
39     Son 1883
40     Son 1883
40     Son 1883
41     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
42     Son 1883
43     Son 1883
44     Son 1883
1     Son 1883
2     Son 1884
3     Son 1884
4     Son 1884
4     Son 1884
On24e, 9 @ 37m
On 24e, 9 @ 37m
On 24e, 9 @ 37m
On 24e, 9 @ 37m
On24e, 17 @ 40m
On24e, 17 @ 40m
On 24e, 354 @ 34m
On 24e, 354 @ 34m
On 24e, 348 @ 34m
On SOe, 347 @ 40n
On 50e, 347 @ 40mn
On SOc, 347 @ 40n
On 50e, 347 @ 40na
On 5Oe, 347 @ 40m
On so50e, 347 @ 40m
On SOc, 347 @ 44m
On SOe, 347 @ 44m
On 50e, 4 @ 26m
On 50e, 4 @ 26m
On 5Oe, 323 @ 21m
On SOc, 323 @ 21m
On 50e, 323 @ 21m
On 50e, 323 @ 21m
On SOe, 395 @ 27m
On SOe, 395 @ 27m
On 50e, 354 @ 20m
On SOe, 352 @ 30m
On SOe, 352 @ 30m
On SOe
On 50e, 359 @ 34m
On 50e, 359 @ 34m
On 50e, 359 @ 34m
On SOe, 349 @ 46m
On 50e, 349 @ 46m
On SOe, 349 @ 42m
On SOe, 8 @ 37m
On SOe, 8 @ 37m
On 50e, 8 @ 37m
On 50e, 8 @ 37m
On SOe, 8 @ 37m
On 50c, 8 @ 37m
On 50e, 8 @ 37m
On SOe, 7 @ 62m
On Oe, 340 @ 40m
On Oe, 274 @ 121m
sub A 2w On
sub A 2s Oe
sub A On 6w
sub A On 6w
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
if
cf
go
cf
go
ha
if
cf
co
bf
bf
cf
go
mf
go
if
ha
mf
go
go
em
go
go
go
mf
go
bf
go
mf
PP
go
smf
pc
go
bf
mf
go
en
cf
sh
if
pc
sh
go
go
go
sc
sh
go
ob
ch
sa
ch
sa
sa
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
ch
SC
sa
ob
sa
sa
sa
sa
ch
ba
sa
sa
sa
sa
ob
sa
sa
ch
gw
sa
ob
sa
ob
sa
s
C
ch
ob
ob
sc
ch
sa
sc
sa
ch
ch
sa
206
Appendix 5.1        207
Location   Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit            Artifact-  Count   Artifact-   Raw-
date      Spec-no                               sequence            category  material
d       6/15/88      5     Son 1884     sub A On8w            1      1        sh       ch
d       6/15/88      6     Son 1884     sub A On 16w         1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88      6     Son 1884     sub A On 16w         2       1        sh       sc
d       6/15/88      7     Son 1884     sub A On 16w         1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88      9     Son 1884     12n 16w              1       1        pp       ch
d       6/15/88      9     Son 1884     12n 16w              2       1        cf       ch
d       6/15/88      9     Son 1884     12n 16w              3       1        bt       ch
d       6/15/88      9     Son 1884     12n 16w              4       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     10     Son 1884     sub A 14nl6w         1       1        sc       ch
d       6/15/88     12     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,28@17m  1       1        go .      sa
d       6/15/88     13     Son 1884     subA 13n 10w         1       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     14     Son 1884     subA 14n llw         1       1        ppf      ch
d       6/15/88     15     Son 1884     subA lln 10Sw        1       1        pp       ob
d       6/15/88     16     Son 1884     subA lln l2w         1       1        un       ob
d       6/15/88     17     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,352@28m  1      1        if       ch
d       6/15/88     17     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,352@28m  2      1        nt        sa
d       6/15/88     18     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,2@ 30m  1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     18     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,2@ 30m  2       1        sh       ch
d       6/15/88     19     Son 1884     sub A Onl6w,68@llm   1       1        cf       ch
d       6/15/88     20     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,84@1Om  1       1        cf       ch
d       6/15/88     21     Son 1884     sub A On 16w,75@16m  1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     23     Son 1884     sub A ls31w          1       1        if       ch
d       6/15/88     24     Son 1884     sub A Onl6w,233@17m  1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     26     Son 1884     sub B Onle           1       1        go        sa.
d       6/15/88     28     Son 1884     sub B On3c           1       2        go        sa
d       6/15/88     29     Son 1884     sub B 2s Oe          1       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     30     Son 1884     subB 6sOe            1       1        cf       ch
d       6/15/88     31     Son 1884     subB 10s Oe          1       1        pc       ch
d       6/15/88     31     Son 1884     subB lOsOe           2       1        go        sa
d       6115/88     31     Son1884     sub B lOs Oe          3       1        sh       ch
.d      6/15/88     31     Son 1884     subB lOs Oe           4      1         pc       sc
d       6/15/88     32     Son 1884     sub B On 5e          1       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     32     Son 1884     sub B OnSe           2       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     32     Son 1884     sub B OnSe           3       4        go        sa
d       6/15/88     33     Son 1884     subB 14s 0e          1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     35     Son 1884     sub B On le          1       4        go        sa
d       6/15/88     36     Son 1884     sub B On9e           1       3        go        sa
d       6/15/88     37     Son 1884     sub B On Se          1       1        go        sa
d       6/15/88     38     Son 1884     sub B 7s4w           1       1        pc       ch
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           1       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           2       2        go        sa
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           3       1        ha       ch
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           4       1        if       ob
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           5       1        sh       ch
d       6/15/88     39     Son 1884     sub B 4n4w           6       3        go        sa
d       6/15/88     40     Son 1884     sub B 4n Oe          1       5        go        sa
d       6/15/88     40     Son 1884     sub B 4nOe           2       1        em       ch
d       6/15/88     41     Son 1884     subB 24s 22.5 w      1       1        pp       ob
d       6/15/88     43     Son 1884     subB 165    14m     1       1        sh        cp
208            Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count   Artifact-  Raw-
date      Spec-no                              sequence            category  material
d       6/15/88    43     Son 1884     sub B 16 S@14m        2      2         sh       ch
d       6/15/88    44     Son 1884     subB6@28m             1      1         cf       qg
d       6/15/88    44     Son 1884     subB6@28m             2      1         bt       ch
d       6/15/88    4 5    Son 1884     sub B 4s 0e           1     21         go       sa
d       6/15/88    45     Son 1884     sub B 4s 0e           2      1         bf      ob
d       6/15/88    45     Son 1884     sub B 4s 0e           3      4         sh       ch
d       6/15/88    4 5    Son 1884     sub B 4s0e            4      3         if       ch
d       6/16/88      1    d-7          isolate               1      2         cf       ch
d       6/16/88      2    d-7          isolate               1      2         ma       sa
e       6/07/89      1    Son 1888     On Oe                 1      1         if       ch
e       6/07/89     3     Son 1888     4nOe                  I      1         go       sa
e       6/07/89     3     Son 1888     4n Oe                 2      1         if       ch
e       6/07/89      6    Son 1888     On 6w                 1      1         bt      ob
e       6/07/89      6    Son 1888     On 6w                 2      1         em       ch
e       6/07/89     7     Son 1888     2s Oe                 1      2         if       ch
e       6/07/89     7     Son 1888     2s Oe                 2      1         go       sa
e      6/07/89      8     Son 1888     4s Oe                 1      1         bt      ob
e       6/07/89     9     Son 1888     6s Oe                 1      1         if       ch
e      6/07/89      10    Son 1888     On le                 1      1         em      ob
e      6/07/89     10     Son 1888     On le                 2      3         bt      ob
e      6/07/89      io    Son 1888     On le                 3      1         sc       ch
e       6/07/89     11    Son 1888     ln2w                  1      3         em       ch
e       6/07/89     11    Son 1888     ln 2w                 2      3         if       ch
e       6/07/89     11    Son 1888     ln 2w                 3      2         sc       ch
f      6/02/89      4     Son 174      On Oe                 1      1         bt      ob
f      6/02/89      5     Son 174      8n Oe                 1      1         bt      ob
f      6/05/89     15     Son 174      327@ 9m               1      1         bc      ch
f       6/05/89    17     Son 174      57 @24.9m             1      I         em      ob
h       6/07/89      1    Son 228      198 @ 3.47m           1      2         bt      ob
h       6/07/89     2     Son 228      220 @ 3.13m           1      1          nem     ch
h       6/07/89     3     Son 228      219 @ 3.62m           1      1         bt      ob
h       6/07/89     4     Son 228      203 @ 11.26m          1      1         bt      ob
h       6/07/89     5     Son 228      205 @ 13.12m          1      1         bt      ob
h       6/07/89     6     Son 228      208 @ 14.78           1      1          nem     ch
h       6/07/89     7     Son 228      209 @ 16.08m          1         .      sh       ch
h      6/07/89      8     Son 228      214 @ 11.89m          1      1         if      ob
h       6/07/89     9     Son 228      235 @ 8.6m            1      1         if      ob
h       6/07/89     10    Son 228      267 0 4.39m           1      1         cf       sa
h       6/07/89     11    Son 228      267 @ 3.46m           1      1         cf       sa
h       6/07/89     12    Son 228      282 @ 10.85m          1      1         if      ob
h      6/07/89     13     Son 228      310 @ 31.23m          1      1         if      ob
h      6/07/89       14   Son 228      316 @ 34.27m          1      1         if      ob
h       6/07/89      15   Son 228      316 @ 34.02m          1      1         if      ob
h       6/07/89      16   Son 228      330 @ 17.31m          1      1         if       ch
h       6/07/89      17   Son 228      342 @ 21m             1      1         if      ob
h       6/07/89      18   Son 228      344 @ 14.92m          1      1         if       ch
h      6/07/89       18   Son 228      344 @ 14.92m          2      2         emn      ch
h       6/07/89      18    Son 228      344 @ 14.92m          3       1         mf       sa
h       6/08/89      19    Son 228      346 @ 13.97m          1       1         if       ch
Appendix 5.1           209
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count   Artifact-  Raw-
date      Spec-no                               sequence           category  material
h       6/08/89      20   Son 228      347 @ 16.48m          1       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      21   Son 228       6 @ 19.26m           1       1        bf      ob
h       6/08/89      22   Son 228      2 @ 21.26m            1       1        if       ch
h       6/08/89      23   Son 228      21 @ 31.94m           1       1        if       ch
h       6/08/89      24   Son 228      31 @ 24.9(n           1       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      25   Son 228      39 @ 26.45m           1       1        if       ch
h       6/08/89      26   Son 228       118 @ 11.05m         1       1        bc       sa
h       6/08/89      28   Son 228      139 @ 18.10m          1       1        if       ch
h       6/08/89      29   Son 228      149 @ 30.30m          1       1        nf      ob
h       6/08/89      29   Son 228      149 @ 30.30m          2       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      30   Son 228      158 @ 31.78m          1       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      31   Son 228      159 @ 39.60mhn        1       1        if       ch
h       6/08/89      32   Son 228      164 @ 11.63m          1       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      33   Son 228      165 Q 30.66m          1       1        if      ob
h       6/08/89      34   Son 228      189 @ 46.60m          1       1        if      ob
h      6/08/89       35   Son 228      198 @ 53.00m          1       1        bcf      sa
i      6/08/89       1    Son 1889     On Oe                 1       1        bt      ob
i      6/08/89       3    Son 1889     On2w                  1      1         uf      ob
i      6/08/89       4    Son 1889     2s Oe                 1      1         go       sa
i      6/08/89       5    Son 1889     356 @ 5.lm            1      1         go       sa
i      6/08/89       8    Son 1889     96@ 5.lm              1      1         em      ob
i      6/08/89       8    Son 1889     96 @ 5.lm             2      1         if      ob
i      6/08/89       11   Son 1889     200 0 2.8m            1      1         fc       sa
i      6/08/89       11   Son 1889     200 0 2.8m            2      1         if      ob
i      6/08/89       12   Son 1889     33 @ 5.3m             1      1         em      ch
i      6/08/89       12   Son 1889     33 @ 5.3m             2       1        bf       ch
i      6/08/89       16   Son 1889     0 6.2m                1       1        mf       sa
i      6/08/89       16   Son 1889     0@ 6.2m               2      1         em       ch
i      6/08/89       17   Son 1889     322@ 6.2mn            1      1         co       ch
i      6/08/89       18   Son 1889     337 @ 3.9m            1      1         em       ch
i      6/08/89       20   Son 1889     352 @ 4.1m            1      1         go       sa
i      6/08/89       21   Son 1889     38 @ 6.5m             1      1         em       ch
i      6/08/89       22   Son 1889     120 @ 1.3m            1       1        pe       sa
i      6/08/89       23   Son 1889     348 @ 7.2m            1      1         go       sa
k      6/14/89       1    Son 1890     On Oe                 1       1        if      ob
k      6/15/89       1    Son 1890     On Oe                 1      3         sh       ch
k      6/15/89       1    Son 1890     On Oe                 2       1        bi       ch
k       6/15/89      1    Son 1890     On Oe                 3       1        sc       ch
k       6/15/89      2    Son 1890     16 @ 15.2m            1      2         bt       ob
k      6/15/89       5    Son 1890     313 @ 32.5m           1       1        em       ch
1      6/02/89       1    Son 1886     On Oe                 1      1         em       cp
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     On Oe                 1     20        fc        sa
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     On Oe                 2      1         em       ch
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     On Oe                 3      2         em       ch
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     OnOe                  4      1         pe      gw
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     On Oe                 5       1        mf       ba
1      6/02/89       2    Son 1886     On Oe                 6      4         go       ba
1      6/02/89     2    Son 1886   On Oe               7      1       bc      ba
1     6/02/89     2    Son 1886    On Oce              8     1        fc      sa
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Locatioh  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count   Artifact-  Raw-
date      Spec-no                               sequence           category  material
1       6/02/89      2     Son 1886     On Oe                9      3         go      gw
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                1      7         go       sa
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                2      3         emn     ch
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                3      1         ma       sa
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                4      5         fc       sa
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                5      1         sc      ch
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                6      3         if      ch
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                7      1         sc      ch
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                8      1         bf      ch
1       6/02/89      3     Son 1886     2n Oe                9      1         if      ob
1       6/02/89    . 6     Son 1886     On4w                 1      2         sc      ch
1       6/02/89      6     Son 1886     On 4w                2      1         if      ch
1       6/02/89      6     Son 1886     On4w                 3      1         go      ba
1       6/02/89      6    Son 1886      On4w                 4      2         go       sa
1       6/02/89      6    Son 1886      On 4w                5      3         go       sa
1       6/05/89      1    Son 1886      On 2w                1      1         an      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886      On2w                 1      1         pp      ch
1       6/05/89      2     Son 1886    On 2w                 2      1         pp      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On2w                  3      3         cn      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On2w                  4      1         co      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                 5      2         an      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886      On 2w                6      1         cf      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886      On2w                 7      1         if      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                 8      1         if      qCP
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                 9      1         an      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                10      1         if      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                11      1         pc      ch
r       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                12      1         an      ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                13      1         nem     ch
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                14      2        pc       ch
I       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                15      2         go      gw
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                16      1         go      ba
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                17      1        mf        sa
1       6/05/89      2    Son 1886     On 2w                18     25         fc       sa
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                        1        em       ch
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 2      1         go      ba
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 3      1         mf       sa
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 4      2         go       sa
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 5     27        fc        sa
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 6      4         bc      ba
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 7      1        em       ch
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 8      1        sc       ch
1       6/05/89      3    Son 1886     2s Oe                 9      1         pc      ch
1      6/05/89       3    Son 1886     2s Oe                10      1         nem     ch
1      6/05/89       3    Son 1886     2s Oe               11       I         em     sc
1       6/05/89      6    Son 1886     On le                 1      0         if      ch
1       6/05/89      6    Son 1886     On le                 2      1         em      ob
1       6/05/89      6    Son 1886     On le                 3      2         if      ob
1       6/05/89      6    Son 1886     On le                 4      1         go       sa
210
Appendix 5.1         211
Location  Collection-  Field-   Site       Unit             Artifact-  Count   Artifact-  Raw-
date      Spec-no                              sequence            category  material
1       6/05/89      6     Son 1886    On le                 5      5         fc      sa
1       6/05/89      6     Son 1886     On le                6      3         mf      sa
1   6/05/89      8     Son 1886     On 6w                1      1         sc      ch
1   6/05/89      8     Son 1886     On 6w                2      1         go       sa
1   6/05/89      10    Son 1886     6s Oe                1      2         if      ch
1       6/05/89      10    Son 1886     6s Oe                2      2         sc      ch
1       6/05/89      10   Son 1886      6sOe                 3      3         mf      sa
1       6/05/89      10   Son 1886      6s Oe                4      1         co      ch
1       6/05/89      11    Son 1886    4s Oe                 1      6         go      sa
1       6/05/89      11   Son 1886     4sOe                  2      3         fc      sa
1       6/05/89      11   Son 1886     4sOe       .          3      1        cf       ch
1       6/05/89      11   Son 1886     4s Oe                 4      1         sh      ch
1       6/05/89      11   Son 1886     4s Oe                 5      1         em      ch
1       6/05/89      13   Son 1886     4n Oe                 1      2         if      ob
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                2      1         em      ob
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                3      1         sc      ch
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                4      6         if      ch
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                5      1         em      ch
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                6      4         mf       sa
1   6/05/89      13    Son 1886     4n Oe                7      2 .       fc       sa
1   6/08/89      1     Son 1891     random               1      1         em      ch
1   6/28/89      1     Son 1892     309 @ 83m            1      2         go       sa
1   6/28/89      2     Son 1892     320 @86m             1      1         sh      ch
1   6/28/89      3     Son 1892     349@ 71m             1      1         sh      ch
1   6/28/89      4     Son 1892     e                    1      1         ha       sa
1   6/28/89      6     Son 1892     f                    1      1         go       sa
1   6/28/89      6     Son 1892     f                    2      1         em      ob
1   6/28/89      8     Son 1892     d                    1      1         go       sa
1   6/28/89      10    Son 1892     c                    1      1         if       ch
1   6/28/89      10    Son 1892     c                    2      1         bt      ob
1   6/28/89      10    Son 1892     c                    3      1         sc       ch
1   6/28/89      10    Son 1892     c                    4      1         bc      gw
1   6/28/89      10    Son 1892     c                    5      1         go       sa
1   6/28/89      14   Son 1892      1                    1      1         go       sa
1   6/28/89      15   Son 1892      b                    1       1        em       ch
212
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
APPENDIX 5.2
MOLLUSK REMAINS FROM FORT ROSS SWTES
iI
Location Collection- Field-  Site   Unit            Artifact- Count Element    Taxon
Date     Spec-No                          Sequence
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/07/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
1    Son 670    On Oe
1    Son 670    On Oe
2    Son 670    2n 03
3    Son 670    4n Oe
4    Son 670a   2s Oe
5    Son 670    4s Oe
8    Son 670    On 2w
11    Son 670    On le
13    Son 670    nwquad
13    Son 670    nwquad
13    Son 670    nwquad
13    Son 670    nwquad
14    Son 670    sequad
7    Son 1878   On 12w
13    Son 1878   90@ llm
15    Son 1878   nequad
15    Son 1878   nequad
15    Son 1878   nequad
15    Son 1878   nequad
17    Son 1878   350 @ 20m
1    Son 1880   On Oe
2    Son 1880   On le
2    Son 1880   On le
2    Son 1880   On le
2    Son 1880   On le
3    Son 1880   2s Oe
5    Son 1880   On 2w
10    Son 1880   Sub A OnOe
10    Son 1880   Sub A OnOe
10    Son 1880   Sub A OnOe
10    Son 1880   Sub A OnOe
10    Son 1880   Sub AOnOe
11    Son 1880   Sub A 2nOe
11    Son 1880   Sub A 2nOe
11    Son 1880   Sub A 2nOe
11    Son 1880   Sub A 2n Oe
12    Son 1880   Sub A4nOe
13    Son 1880   Sub A Onle
13    Son 1880   Sub A Onle
13    Son 1880   Sub A Onle
14    Son 1880   Sub A On3e
14    Son 1880   Sub A On 3e
15    Son 1880   Sub A 2s Oe
15    Son 1880   Sub A 2sOe
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
Note:  Under "Taxon" 'ul' = unidentlfiable shell.
4    fragment
1    plate
8    fragment
2    fragment
1    fragment
1    cap
4    fragment
1    fragment
10   fragment
2    fragment
1    cap
1    aperture
1    whorl
2    fragment
4    fragment
20    fragment
2    cap
2    umbo
1    fragment
1    fragment
20    fragment
10   fragment
2    fragment
1    fragment
1    plate
1    fragment
1    fragment
39    fragment
1    umbo
1    fragment
2    plate
1    body whorl
6    fragment
2    cap
2    umbo
1    body whorl
3    fragment
17   fragment
1    aperture
1    fragment
4    fragment
1    fragment
15    fragment
3    whole
ui
chiton
ui, barnacle
ui
ui
plate limpet
ui
ui
ui
abalone
plate limpet
black turban snail
abalone
ui
abalone
ui
plate limpets
mussel
abalone
abalone
ui, abalone
ui
abalone
limpet
chiton
ui
ui
ui
mussel, also 2 fragments
abalone
chiton
black turban snail
ui
plate limpet, dunce cap limpet
mussel
black turban snail
ui, abalone, mussel
ui
black turban snail
abalone
ui
barnacle
ui
black turban snail
Appendix 5.2        213
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
8    Son 1881   Sub A 204@1.4m     1
8    Son 1881   Sub A 204@ 1.4m    2
10    Son 1881   On Oe              1
10    Son 1881   On Oe              2
10    Son 1881   On Oe              3
10    Son 1881   On Oe              4
10    Son 1881   OnOe               5
11    Son 1881   2sOe               1
11    Son 1881   2sOe               2
11    Son 1881   2sOe               3
11    Son 1881   2s Oe              4
11    Son 1881   2sOe               5
12    Son 1881   On le              1
12    Son 1881   On le              2
12    Son 1881   On le              3
15    Son 1880   Sub A 2sOe
15    Son 1880   Sub A 2sOe
15    Son 1880   Sub A 2s Oe
16    Son 1880   Sub A 4sOe
16    Son 1880   Sub A 4sOe
16    Son 1880   Sub A 4sOe
16    Son 1880   Sub A 4sOe
17    Son 1880   Sub A 6s Oe
18    Son 1880   Sub A 8s Oe
19    Son 1880   Sub AOn2w
20    Son 1880   Sub A On4w
22    Son 1880   Sub B OnOe
22    Son 1880   Sub B OnOe
23    Son 1880   Sub B 2nOe
24     Son 1880  Sub B On2w
24    Son 1880   Sub B On2w
24    Son 1880   Sub B On2w
25    Son 1880   Sub B 2sOe
26    Son 1880   Sub A On le
26    Son 1880. SubAOnle
26    Son 1880   Sub A Onle
1    Son 1881   Sub A OnOe
1    Son 1881   Sub A OnOe
2    Son 1881   Sub A 2s 0e
3    Son 1881   Sub A Onle
3    Son 1881   Sub A Onle
3    Son 1881   Sub A Onle
4    Son 1881   Sub A On2w
4    Son 1881   Sub A On2w
4    Son 1881   Sub AOn2w
4    Son 1881   Sub A On 2w
4    Son 1881   Sub A On2w
4    Son 1881   Sub A On2w
4    Son 1881   Sub A On2w
5    Son 1881   268 @ 15.2m
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Taxon
1    cap
3    umbo
1    fragment
20    fragment
8    whole
4    fragment
1    umbo
1    body whorl
2    fragment
10    fragment
6    fragment
14    fragment
1    umbo
2    fragment
20    fragment
1    fragment
1    cap
13    fragment
8    fragment
1    umbo
1'   plate
16    fragment
1    umbo
14    fragment
7    fragment
1    cap
1    plate
4    fragment
1    umbo
2    plate
1    fragment
3    fragment
1    cap
2    fragment
1    cap
1    fragment
1    cap
7    fragment
7    cap
7    fragment
1    umbo
1    whole
5    fragment
1    plate
1    cap
1    fragment
6    fragment
6    fragment
1    cap
1    plate
plate limpet
mussel
barnacle
ui
black turban snail
barnacle
mussel
black turban snail
ui
ui
ui
ui, abalone, turban snail
mussel
ui
ui, mussel, barnacle
abalone
plate limpet
ui, abalone
ui
mussel
chiton
ui, abalone
mussel
ui
ui
plate limpet
chiton
ui
mussel
chiton
sea urchin
barnacle
plate limpet
abalone
plate limpet
abalone
plate limpet
ui
1 owl limpet, 5 plate limpets
barnacle
mussel
black turban snail
ui, mussel
chiton
dunce cap limpet
sea urchin
barnacle
ui
plate limpet
chiton
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
c
C
C
c
c
C
C
C
C
?
C
C
c
C
C
c
C
c
C
c
c
6/06/88  ' 10    Son 1895  On6w
6/06/88    10    Son 1895  On 6w
6/06/88    10    Son 1895  On 6w
6/06/88    11    Son 1895  On 8w
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88'
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
12    Son 1881   On le
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
13    Son 1881   On2w
14    Son 1880   Sub C Onw 0sw
14    Son 1880   Sub C Onw 0sw
14    Son 1880   Sub C 0nw 0sw
14    Son 1880   Sub C Onw Osw
15    Son 1880   Sub C Onw4sw
15    Son 1880   Sub C Onw4sw
15    Son 1880   Sub C Onw4sw
15    Son 1880   Sub C Onw4sw
15    Son 1880   Sub C Onw4sw
16    Son 1880   Sub C Onw2sw
16    Son 1880   Sub C Onw2sw
1    Son 1895   OnOe
1    Son 1895   On Oe
1    Son 1895   On Oe
1    Son 1895   On Oe
1    Son 1895   On Oe
2    Son 1895   On le
2    Son 1895   On le
2    Son 1895   On le
3    Son 1895   On 3e
3    Son 1895   On 3e
3    Son 1895   On 3e
3    Son 1895   On 3e
4    Son 1895   2n Oe
4    Son 1895   2n Oe
4    Son 1895   2n Oe
4    Son 1895   2n Oe
4    Son 1895   2n Oe
5    Son 1895   4nOe
5    Son 1895   4n Oe
5    Son 1895   4n Oe
6    Son 1895   6n Oe
7    Son 1895   8n Oe
8    Son 1895   On2w
9    Son 1895   On4w
9    Son 1895   On4w
9    Son 1895   On4w
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Taxon
2    fragment
12   fragment
2    umbo
2    cap
2    fragment
1   body whorl
4    fragment
1   plate
1    fragment
1    fragment
1    fragment
3    plate
1   umbo
14   fragment
1    fragment
1   umbo
2    fragment
1   cap
1    whorl
1    cap
27   fragment
1    body whorl
2    plate
1    umbo
2    fragment
20   fragment
3    plate
5    fragment
20   fragment
5    fragment
2    plate
1    body whorl
15   fragment
2    fragment
1   cap
1    umbo
1    plate
10   fragment
1    fragment
2    plate
2    fragment
3    fragment
6    fragment
8    fragment
1    fragment
1    umbo
3    fragment
2    fragment
1   plate
2    fragment
barnacle
ui
mussel
plate limpet
abalone
black turban snail
barnacle
chiton
sea urchin
ui
abalone
chiton
mussel
ui
abalone
mussel
barnacle
ribbed limpet
abalone, also 2 fragments
horned slipper 1
ui, chiton, mussel, abalone
black turban snail
chiton
mussel
barnacle
ui, mussel
chiton
barnacle
ui, mussel, abalone
barnacle
chiton
black turban snail
ui, chiton, mussel
barnacle
plate limpet
mussel
chiton
ui, mussel
barnacle
black chiton
ui, chiton
ui, barnacle
ui, mussel
ui, abalone
barnacle
mussel
ui, mussel
barnacle
chiton
ui
214
Appendix 5.2        215
Location Collection- Field-  Site  Unit
Date     Spec-No
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
C
C
c
c
c
c
C
C
C
c
c
c
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
.6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/06/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/06/88    11    Son 1895   On 8w
6/06/88    12    Son 1895   On lOw
6/06/88    13    Son 1895   2s Oe
6/06/88    13    Son 1895   2s Oe
6/06/88    13    Son 1895   2s Oe
6/06/88    13    Son 1895   2s Oe
6/06/88    14    Son 1895   4s Oe
6/06/88    14    Son 1895   4s Oe
6/06/88   14    Son 1895   4s Oe
6/06/88   15    Son 1895   6s Oe
6/06/88   17    Son 1895   nequad
6/06/88   18    Son 1895   nequad
6/06/88   19    Son 1895   swquad
6/06/88   20    Son 1895  sequad
6/06/88   22    Son 1895   81 @ 18.2m
6/06/88   23    Son 1885   On Oc
6/06/88   25    Son 1885   8n Oe
6/06/88   26    Son 1885   lOn Oe
6/06/88   28    Son 1885   14n Oe
6/06/88    2.8   Son 1885  14n Oe
6/06/88   35    Son 1885  swquad
35    Son 1885   swquad
40    Son 1885   On4w
41    Son 1885   On lOw
42    Son 1885   On 8w
42    Son 1885   On 8w
42    Son 1885   On 8w
42    Son 1885   On 8w
42    Son 1885   On 8w
42    Son 1885   On 8w
43    Son 1885   On 12w
44    Son 1885   14s Oe
45    Son 1885   On lIle
46    Son 1885   On 7e
48    Son 1885   nwquad
49    Son 1885   On 6w
49    Son 1885   On 6w
49    Son 1885   On 6w
49    Son 1885   On 6w
1    Son 1896   On le
1    Son 1896   On le
1    Son 1896   On le
2    Son 1896   On 3e
2    Son 1896   On 3e
2    Son 1896   On 3e
3    Son 1896   On Se
3    Son 1896   On Se
3    Son 1896   On Se
4    Son 1896   On 7e
4    Son 1896   On 7e
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2    fragment
5    fragment
20    fragment
6    fragment
1    plate
1    cap
10    fragment
1    cap
1    fragment
3    fragment
3    fragment
9    fragment
4    fragment
10    fragment
3    fragment
13   fragment
1    fragment
2    fragment
3    fragment
1    fragment
5    fragment
1    umbo
2    fragment
4    fragment
20    fragment
4    plate
1    cap
3    whole
2    umbo
4    fragment
7    fragment
1    plate
1    fragment
1    plate
5    fragment
20    fragment
2    fragment
3    plate
2    umbo
4    fragment
2    fragment
3    plate
4    fragment
2    fragment
1    plate
1    fragment
1    fragment
2    plate
20    fragment
1    body whorl
Taxon
barnacle
ui, barnacle
ui, mussel, abalone
barnacle
black chiton
plate limpet
ui, mussel, chiton
plate limpet
barnacle
ui, barnacle
abalone
abalone
abalone
ui, mussel, abalone, chiton
abalone
ui
ui
barnacle
ui, abalone
barnacle
abalone
mussel
ui
ui, barnacle, turban snail
ui
chiton
plate limpet
1 eroded periwinkle
mussel
barnacle
ui
chiton
ui
chiton
abalone
ui, limpet
barnacle
chiton
mussel
ui, chiton
barnacle
black chiton
ui, chiton, mussel
barnacle
black chiton
ui
barnacle
black chiton
ui, abalone, mussel, chiton
black turban snail
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
C
C
c
C
c
C
c
C
C
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
4
4
8
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
20
21
Son 1896   On 7e
Son 1896   On 7e
Son 1896   Os Oe
Son 1896   Os Oe
Son 1896   Os Oe
Son 1896   Os Oe
Son 1896   2s Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   On Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   2n Oe
Son 1896   4n Oe
Son 1896   4n Oe
Son 1896   6n Oe
Son 1896   OnOw
Son 1896   OnOw
Son 1896   On Ow
Son 1896   OnOw
Son 1896   OnOw
Son 1896   On Ow
Sonf 1896  2wOe
Son 1896   2wOe
Son 1896   4w On
Son 1896   4w On
Son 1896   4w On
Son 1896   4w On
Son 1896   4w On
Son 1896   6w On
Son 1896   6wOn
Son 1896   6w On
Son 1896   6w On
Son 1896   6w On
Son 1896   6w On
Son 1896   8w On
Son 1896   8w On
Son 1896   8w On
Son 1896   8w On
Son 1896   8w On
Son 1896   lOw On
Son 1896   lOw On
Son 1896   nequad
Son 1896   swquad
Taxon
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
1
1   fragment
1   plate
2    fragment
2    plate
1   umbo
1   fragment
2    fragment
20   fragment
1   body whorl
3    fragment
2    umbo
5    plate
1   cap
20   fragment
1   cap
9    fragment
4    umbo
7    plate
1   body whorl
1   fragment
3    plate
2    fragment
20   fragment
4    cap
6    fragment
6    umbo
8   plate
2    body whorl
10   fragment
5    plate
8    fragment
1   cap
2    fragment
2    umbo
2    plate
20   fragment
1   whole
1   cap
4    plate
6    umbo
7    fragment
10   fragment
1   cap
1   fragment
2    plate
1   umbo
1   fragment
2    fragment
6    fragment
20   fragment
barnacle
black chiton
ui
black chiton
mussel
barnacle
ui
ui, chiton, abalone
black turban snail
barnacle
mussel
black chiton
plate limpet
ui, mussel, abalone, chiton
keyhole limpet
barnacle
mussel
black chiton
black turban snail
barnacle
black chiton
ui, barnacle
ui, chiton, limpet
limpet
barnacle
mussel
black chiton
black turban snail
ui, abalone, chiton
black chiton
ui, chiton, mussel
plate limpet
barnacle
mussel
black chiton
ui, mussel, abalone
Olivella
plate limpet
chiton
mussel
barnacle
ui, mussel, chiton, snail
plate limpet
barnacle
black chiton
mussel
ui
Iarnacle
ui, abalone
abalone
216
Appendix 5.2        217
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/10/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6    Son 1882   nequad
7    Son 1882   nwquad
8    Son 1882   On Oe
8    Son 1882   On Oe
8    Son 1882   OnOe
8    Son 1882   OnOe
9    Son 1882   2nOe
9    Son 1882   2n Oe
10    Son 1882   4nOe
11    Son 1882   On le
12    Son 1882   On3e
13    Son 1882   OnOw
13    Son 1882   OnOw
14    Son 1882   On2w
15    Son 1882   OsOe
15    Son 1882   OsOe
15    Son 1882   OsOe
15    Son 1882   Os Oe
16    Son 1882   2sOe
16    Son 1882   2sOe
1    Son 1883   2s Oe
2    Son 1883   4s Oe
2    Son 1883   4s Oe
2    Son 1883   4s Oe
2    Son 1883   4s Oe
2    Son 1883   4s Oe
3    Son 1883   6s 03
4    Son 1883   8s Oe
5    Son 1883   lOs Oe
6    Son 1883   12s Oe
6    Son 1883   12s Oe
7    Son 1883   On Oe
8    Son 1883   14s Oe
9    Son 1883   2n Oe
10    Son 1883   4nOe
10    Son 1883   4nOe
10    Son 1883   4nOe
11    Son 1883   6nOe
11    Son 1883   6nOe
11    Son 1883   6n Oe
11    Son 1883   6n Oe
12    Son 1883   8nOe
12    Son 1883   8nOe
13    Son 1883   16s Oe
13    Son 1883   16s Oe
13    Son 1883   16s 0e
13    Son 1883   16s Oe
14    Son 1883   22s Oe
15    Son 1883   1On Oe
15    Son 1883   IOn Oe
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
Taxon
5    fragment
1    fragment
8    fragment
1    plate
1    aperture
1    fragment
10   fragment
1    body whorl
30    fragment
2    fragment
1    plate
4    fragment
1    umbo
1    fragment
15   fragment
2    umbo
3    plate
3    fragment
6    fragment
2    plate
6    fragment
11   fragment
1    fragment
2    umbo
1    cap
2    fragment
3    fragment
6    fragment
10   fragment
5    fragment
1    cap
10   fragment
5    fragment
5    fragment
20    fragment
1    cap
2    fragment
6    fragment
1    fragment
1    umbo
1    plate
1    cap
1    fragment
30   fragment
2    cap
2    plate
2    fragment
7    fragment
10   fragment
2    plate
ui, abalone
abalone
ui
chiton
black turban snail
barnacle
ui, barnacle
black turban snail
ui, barnacle, chiton
ui
chiton
ui
mussel
barnacle
ui
mussel
chiton
barnacle
ui
chiton
ui, barnacle, mussel
ui
abalone
mussel
plate limpet
barnacle
ui, chiton
ui
ui
ui
dunce cap limpet
ui, abalone
Ui
ui, abalone
ui, abalone, mussel
plate limpet
barnacle
ui
barnacle
mussel
chiton
plate chiton
sea urchin
ui
plate limpet
chiton
barnacle
ui, barnacle
ui, abalone, barnacle, limpet
chiton
Unit
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/08/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/09/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/98
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/13/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
6/14/88
16    Son 1883   20s Oe
16    Son 1883   20s Oe
16    Son 1883   20s Oe
17    Son 1883   24s Oe
17    Son 1883   24s Oe
18    Son 1883    12n Oe
3    Son 1883   26s Oe
4    Son 1883   20n Oe
8    Son 1883   30s Oe
9    Son 1883   28n Oe
9    Son 1883   28n Oe
11    Son 1883   30n Oe
15    Son 1883   On le
21    Son 1883   8n 4e
28    Son 1883   33n lOe
32    Son 1883   9n 6e
35    Son 1883   35n Oe
36    Son 1883   2e 33n
36    Son 1883   2e 33n
36    Son 1883   2e 33n
37    Son 1883   31n 4e
40    Son 1883   34n 03
44    Son 1883    19n 8e
51    Son 1883    12n 8e
55    Son 1883   10.2n 12e
65    Son 1883   9n lOe
1    Son 1883   On 2w
1    Son 1883   On 2w
2    Son 1883   On 6w
2    Son 1883   On 6w
2    Son 1883   On 6w
3    Sop 1883   On lOw
4    Son 1883   On4w
4    Son 1883   On4w
4    Son 1883   On4w
5    Son 1883   On 8w
5    Son 1883   On 8w
5    Son 1883   On 8w
7    Son 1883   On 22w
8    Son 1883   8s 12w
10    Son 1883   16s 28w
11    Son 1883   Os 12w
11    Son 1883   Os 12w
16    Son 1883   16s 12w
16    Son 1883   16s 12w
24    Son 1883   4s 4e
3    Son 1883   24s 12e
5    Son 1883   12s 20e
7    Son 1883   20s 20e
7    Son 1883   20s 20e
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
Taxon
5    fragment
1    body whorl
1    cap
5    fragment
1    cap
3    cap
2    fragment
1    fragment
5    fragment
3    fragment
1    umbo
10   fragment
1    cap
5    fragment
1    umbo
99    fragment
10   fragment
1    umbo
2    cap
1    fragment
2    fragment
1    whorl
1    fragment
5    fragment
2    fragment
1    fragment
5    fragment
1    fragment
3    fragment
1    plate
2    fragment
2    fragment
2    fragment
1    umbo
1    plate
30    fragment
2    umbo
1    fragment
2    cap
2    fragment
1    fragment
2    fragment
1    umbo
5    fragment
1    umbo
1    fragment
1    fragment
1    fragment
5    fragment
2    whole
ui
black turban snail
plate limpet
ui, barnacle, abalone
horned slipper limpet
plate chiton
ui, abalone
ui
ui
ui, abalone
mussel
ui, mussel, abalone, limpet
shield limpet
ui, abalone, turban snail
mussel
ui
ui, abalone
mussel
dunce cap, plate limpet
barnacle
ui, abalone
abalone
abalone
abalone
ui
abalone
ui
barnacle
ui, abalone
chiton
barnacle
ui
abalone
mussel
chiton
ui
mussel
barnacle
plate chiton
abalone
abalone
abalone
mussel
ui, abalone
mussel
abalone
abalone
abalone
ui, abalone
black turban snail
218
Unit
Appendix 5.2       219
Location  Collection- Field-   Site
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
e
e
e
e
c
e
e
ce
e
e
e
*e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Unit
l0
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
64
64
6/
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
6/
64
64
6/
6/
64
64
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
*6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
Date     Spec-N
/14/88    10
/14/88    11
/14/88    23
/14/88    28
/14/88    38
/14/88    39
/15/88    27
/15/88    32
/15/88    34
/15/88    34
'15/88    35
/15/88    35
/15/88    35
'15/88    35
/15/88    36
'15/88    36
/15/88    36
'15/88    39
'07/89     1
'07/89     1
'07/89     1
f07/89     1
f07/89     1
(07/89     2
f07/89     2
f07/89     2
f07/89     3
f07/89     3
f07/89     3
f07/89     3
f07/89     3
f07/89     3
f07/89     4
f07/89     4
f07/89     4
f07/89     4
f07/89     4
t07/89     4
f07/89     6
f07/89     6
f07/89     6
F07/89     6
f07/89     6
f07/89     7
f07/89     7
F07/89     7
F07/89     7
107/89     7
f07/89     7
107/89     8
Son 1883   1ls 3e             1
Son 1883   19s 2e             1
Son 1883   On 24e, 164 @ 20m  1
Son 1883   On 24e, 164 @20m   1
Son 1883   On 50e, 352@30m    1
Son 1883   On SOe, 359@34m    1
Son 1884   sub B 4s0e         1
Son 1884   subB On Se         1
Son 1884   subBOn7e           1
Son 1884   sub B On 7e        2
Son 1884   sub B Onile        1
Son 1884   sub B On le        2
Son 1884   subB On le         3
Son 1884   sub B On le        4
Son 1884   subB On 9e         1
Son 1884   sub B On9e         2
Son 1884   subB On9e          3
Son 1884   sub B 4n4w         1
Son 1888   On Oe              1
Son 1888   On Oe              2
Son 1888   On Oe              3
Son 1888   OnOe               4
Son 1888   On Oe              5
Son 1888   2n Oe              1
Son 1888   2nOe               2
Son 1888   2nOe               3
Son 1888   4n Oe              1
Son 1888   4n Oe              2
Son 1888   4n Oe              3
Son 1888   4n Oe              4
Son 1888   4n Oe              5
Son 1888   4n Oe              6
Son 1888   On 2w              1
Son 1888   On2w               2
Son 1888   On2w               3
Son 1888   On2w               4
Son 1888   On2w               5
Son 1888   On2w               6
Son 1888   On 6w              1
Son 1888   On6w               2
Son 1888   On 6w              3
Son 1888   On 6w              4
Son 1888   On 6w              5
Son 1888   2s Oe              1
Son 1888   2s Oe              2
Son 1888   2s Oe              3
Son 1888   2s Oe              4
Son 1888   2s Oe              5
Son 1888   2s Oe          '   6
Son 1888   4s Oe              1
Taxon
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
2
8
2
1
2
1
1
10
2
1
1
20
3
3
1
8
10
4
1
15
2
5
1
1
3
30
1
3
1
3
11
20
2
3
1
1
20
1
1
2
4
2
30
fragment
cap
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
plate
fragment
plate
fragment
cap
fragment
umbo
fragment
fragment
fragment
cap
fragment
fragment
plate
fragment
plates
fragment
fragment
umbo
plate
aperture
fragment
cap
fragment
cap
fragment
body whorl
umbo
plate
fragment
plate
fragment
umrnbo
whole
fragment
fragment
fragment
umbo
plate
whole
fragment
abalone
plate limpet
abalone
abalone
abalone
abalone
barnacle
ui, barnacle
mussel, abalone
chiton
ui
chiton
barnacle
plate limpet
ui
mussel
barnacle
abalone
ui, mussel
limpet
abalone
barnacle
chiton
ui, abalone, mussel
chiton
barnacle
ui, mussel, clam, snail
mussel
chiton
black turban snail
barnacle
plate limpet
ui; sea urchin, mussel, limpet
plate limpet
barnacle
black turban snail
mussel
chiton
ui, mussel, abalone
chiton
barnacle
mussel
eroded perwinkle
ui, abalone, chiton
barnacle
horned slipper limpet
mussel
chiton
black turban snail
ui, mussel, abalone
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
i
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/07/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/08/89
8    Son 1888   4s Oe             2
8    Son 1888   4s Oe             3
8    Son 1888   4s Oe             4
8    Son 1888   4s Oe             5
8    Son 1888   4s Oe             6
9    Son 1888   6s Oe              1
10    Son 1888   On le             1
10    Son 1888   On le             2
10    Son 1888   On le             3
10    Son 1888   On le             4
10    Son 1888   On le             5
10    Son 1888   On le             6
11    Son 1888   In 2w             1
11    Son 1888   ln2w              2
11    Son 1888   ln2w              3
1    Son 174    6n Oe             1
1    Son 174    6n Oe             2
1    Son 174    6n Oe             3
1    Son 174    6n Oe             4
2    Son 174    2n Oe             1
2    Son 174    2n Oe             2
2    Son 174    2n Oe             3
2    Son 174    2n Oe             4
2    Son 174    2n Oe             5
3    Son 174    4n Oe             1
3    Son 174    4n Oe             2
3    Son 174    4n Oe             3
4    Son 174    On Oe             1
4    Son 174    On Oe             2
5    Son 174    8n Oe             1
S    Son 174    8n Oe             2
5    Son 174    8n Oe             3
S    Son 174    8n Oe             4
6    Son 174    Sub A OnOe        1
6    Son 174    Sub A OnOe        2
7    Son 174    Sub A Onle        1
7    Son 174    Sub A Onle        2
7    Son 174    Sub A Onle        3
9    Son 174    Sub A 310@2.54m   1
9    Son 174    Sub A 310@2.54m   2
1    Sonl 174   149@1A.45 m       1
3    Son 174    217 @ 13.6 m      1
5    Son 174    174@ 17.2 m       1
9    Son 174    180@ 13.5m        1
10    Son 174    175 @ 193m        1
11    Son 174    245 @ 34.0 m      1
14    Son 174    316@ 10m          1
14    Son 174    316@ lOm          2
16    Son 174    327@ 12.3 m       1
1    Son 1889  On Oe              1
Taxon
7    fragment
6    cap
6    whole
3    umbo
17    plate
2    fragment
20    fragment
1    fragment
4    umbo
2    whole
3    cap
3    plate
5    fragment
1    cap
1    plate
16   fragment
10   fragment
1    umbo
S    plate
16   fragment
2    fragment
I    umbo
4    plate
1    fragment
2    fragment
1    fragment
3    plates
1    fragment
1    fragment
40    fragment
7    plates
3    fragment
1    umbo
3    fragments
7    fragments
3    fragment
1    fragment
1    fragment
1    plate
1    umbo
1    fragment
1    plate
2    fragment
2    fragment
1    fragment
2    fragment
2    fragments
3    plates
1    fragment
3    fragment
barnacle
plate limpet
black turban snail
mussel
chiton
ui, barnacle, limpet
ui, abalone
barnacle
mussel
black turban snail
limpet
chiton
ui, chiton
keyhole limpet
chiton
ui
abalone
mussel
chiton
ui
abalone
mussel
chiton
mussel
mussel
barnacle
chiton
mussel
clam
ui
chiton
abalone
musset
ui
abalone
ui,
abalone
barnacle
chiton
mussel
abalone
chiton
barnacle
abalone
abalone
abalone
abalone
chiton
abalone
ui, mussel, chiton
220
Appendix 5.2         221
Location Collection- Field-  Site   Unit
Date     Spec-No
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
i 6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
6/08/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
k     6/15/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1     6/02/89
1    Son 1889   On Oe
1    Son 1889   On Oe
1    Son 1889   On Oe
1    Son 1889   On Oe
2    Son 1889   On le
2    Son 1889   On le
3    Son 1889   On 2w
3    Son 1889   On 2w
3    Son 1889   On 2w
3    Son 1889   On 2w
3    Son 1889   On 2w
4    Son 1889    2s Oe
4    Son 1889   2s Oe
4    Son 1889   2s Oe
4    Son 1889   2s Oe
4    Son 1889   2s Oe
6    Son 1889   302 @ 3.2m
6    Son 1889   302 @ 3.2m
7    Son 1889    140 @ 2.9m
8    Son 1889   96 @ 5.1m
9    Son 1889   41 @ 8.6m
10    Son 1889   50 @ 4.7m
11    Son 1889   200 @ 2.8m
12    Son 1889   33 @ 5.3 m
13    Son 1889   22 @ 9.1m
13    Son 1889   22 @ 9.1m
14    Son 1889   14 @ 5.4 m
15..  Son 1889   8@ 6.8m
20    Son 1889   352 @ 4.1 m
1    Son 1890   On Oe
1    Son 1890   On Oe
1    Son 1890   On Oe
1    Son 1890   On Oe
1    Son 1890   On Oe
2    Son 1890    16 @ 15.2m
4    Son 1890   334 @ 3.13m
4    Son 1890   334 @ 3.13m
4    Son 1890   334 @ 3.13m
1    Son 1886   On Oe
1    Son 1886   OnOe
1    Son 1886   OnOe
1    Son 1886   OnOe
1    Son 1886   On Oe
1    Son 1886   On Oe
1    Son 1886   OnOe
1    Son 1886   On Oe
2    Son 1886   On Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
2     3    whole
3      1   plate
4      1   fragment
5     2    cap
1     3    fragment
2     2    cap
1    10    fragment
2     4    fragment
3     2    cap
4      2   umbo
5     3    whole
1    10    fragment
2      1   plate
3     3    cap
4      1   umbo
5     2    fragment
1     1    fragment
2     2    cap
1     1    fragment
1    10    fragment
1     2    cap
1     1    cap
1     1    umbo
1     1    cap
1     2    cap
2      1   fragment
1     1    cap
1     1    umbo
1     3    cap
1    30    fragment
2     5    fragment
3     5    umbo
4      1   body whorl
5     3    plate
1     5    fragment
1     5    fragment
2      1   fragment
3     3    plate
1    39    cap
2     13   fragment
3     4    plate
4     13   whole
5    22    fragment
6    20    fragment
7     5    umbo
8     2    whole
1     1    fragment
1    99    fragment
2     5    umbo
3     3    plate
black turban snail
chiton
barnacle
plate limpet
ui, mussel
ribbed limpet
ui, clam, chiton, mussel
barnacle
ribbed, horned slipper
mussel
black turban snail
ui, mussel, abalone, chiton
chiton
plate limpet
mussel
barnacle
abalone
plate limpet
barnacle
ui, black turban snail
ribbed limpet
plate limpet
mussel
plate limpet
plate limpet
barnacle
plate limpet
mussel
plate limpet
ui, abalone, snail, sea urchin
barnacle
mussel
black turban snail
chiton
ui, mussel
ui, abalone
barnacle
chiton
limpet
chiton
chiton
turban snail
barnacle
ui, mussel, abalone
mussel
dogwinkle
black chiton
ui, mussel, abalone, chiton
mussel
gumbo chiton
Taxon
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/02/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
4    Son 1886   2n Oe
S    Son 1886   On 4w
5    Son 1886   On 4w
S    Son 1886   On 4w
S    Son 1886   On 4w
5    Son 1886   On4w
S    Son 1886   On 4w
S    Son 1886   On 4w
S    Son 1886   On4w
S    Son 1886   On4w
S    Son 1886   On 4w
S    Son 1886   On4w
1    Son 1886   On 2w
1    Son 1886   On2w
1    Son 1886   On 2w
1    Son 1886   On 2w
1    Son 1886  On 2w
1    Son 1886  On 2w
1    Son 1886  On 2w
1    Son 1886  On 2w
1    Son 1886   On2w
1    Son 1886   On 2w
1    Son 1886  On2w
1    Son 1886  On2w
1    Son 1886   On 2w
2    Son 1886   On 2w
3    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
4    Son 1886   2s Oe
S    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
S    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
S    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
S    Son 1886   On le
S    Son 1886   On le
Taxon
5     9    fragment
6     4    whole
7    22    cap
8     11   cap
9     10   whole
1    30    fragment
2     9    umbo
3    36    cap
4    37    cap
5     2    whole
6     11   fragment
7 .   3    plate
8      1   plate
9     4    whole
10     3    whole
1 1    1    whole
1    50    fragment
2      1   whorl
3      1   plate
4     17   plate
5    58    cap
6      1   cap
7    28    cap
8     10   umbo
9    27    fragment
10    21    whole
11     4    whole
12     1    whole
13     2    whole
2      1   fragment
1     1    fragment
1    50    fragment
2      1   plate
3    21    plate
4    39    cap
5     18   cap
6     7    umbo
7    27    fragment
8      1   cap
9     13   whole
10      1   whole
1    50    fragment
2     7    umbo
3    41    cap
4      1   cap
5    24    cap
6      1   plate
7      1   plate
8    14    plate
9     14   fragment
barnacle
dogwinkle
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
black turban snail
ui, abalone, mussel, chiton
mussel
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
Olivella
barnacle
black chiton
gumbo chiton
black turban snail
land snail
dogwinkle
ui, abalone, mussel, limpet
abalone
gumbo chiton
black chiton
plate limpet
homed slipper limpet
ribbed limpet
mussel
barnacle
black turban snail
land snail
Olivella
dogwinkle
mussel
mussel
ui, abalone, chiton, mussel
gumbo chiton
black chiton
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
mussel
barnacle
horned slipper limpet
black turban snail
dogwinkle
ui, abalone, mussel, whelk
mussel
plate limpet
horned slipper limpet
ribbed limpet
gumbo chiton
ui chiton
black chiton
barnacle
222
Appendix 5.2        223
Location Collection- Field-  Site
Date     Spec-No
Unit
Artifact- Count Element
Sequence
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05189
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/05/89
6/28/89
5    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
5    Son 1886   On le
S    Son 1886   On le
7    Son 1886   On6w
7    Son 1886   On6w
7    Son 1886   On 6w
7    Son 1886   On 6w
7    Son 1886   On 6w
7    Son 1886   On6w
7    Son 1886   On 6w
7    Son 1886   On6w
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6sOe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
9    Son 1886   6s Oe
12    Son 1886   4sOe
12    Son 1886   4sOe
12    Son 1886  4sOe
12    Son 1886   4s Oe
12    Son 1886   4s Oe
12    Son 1886   4s Oe
12    Son 1886   4sOe
12    Son 1886   4sOe
12    Son 1886   4s Oe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4nOe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4nOe
14    Son 1886   4nOe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4nOe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4nOe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
14    Son 1886   4n Oe
5    Son 1892   e
Taxon
10      1   fragment
11      1   whole
12      1   whole
13    11    whole
1    30    fragment
2      6   fragment
3      1    whole
4      2   plate
5     11   cap
6      7   cap
7      1   cap
8      1   whole
1    50    fragment
2      1    whorl
3      6   umbo
4     27    cap
5     15   cap
6     15   fragment
7      1   whole
8      1   whole
9      1    whole
10      8   whole
11      1   whole
12      1   plate
13     2    plate
14     2    plate
1    30    fragment
2     17   fragment
3    41    cap
4     13   cap
5     11   plate
6      5   whole
7     4    umbo
8      1   whole
9      2   cap
1    50    fragment
2     13   plate
3      1   plate
4      1    plate
5     10   umbo
6    23    fragment
7     51   cap
8      1   cap
9      2   cap
10    11    cap
11     2    cap
12      2   cap
13      1   whole
14     9    whole
1    99    fragment
crab
Olivella
dogwinkle
black turban snail
ui, chiton, black turban snail
barnacle
Olivella
black chiton
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
rough limpet
black turban snail
ui, mussel, abalone, snail
abalone
mussel
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
barnacle
snail (ui)
dogwinkle
land snail
black turban snail
Olivella
chiton (ui)
gumbo chiton
black chiton
ui, mussel, chiton, limpet
barnacle
plate limpet
ribbed limpet
black chiton
black turban snail
mussel
land snail
rough limpet
ui, mussel, abalone, snail
black chiton
chiton (ui)
gumbo chiton
mussel
barnacle
plate limpet
keyhole limpet
rough limpet
ribbed limpet
horned slipper limpet
dunce cap limpet
land snail
black turban snail
ui, abalone, limpet, chiton
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Location Collection- Field-  Site   Unit
Date     Spec-No
Artifact- Count Element     Taxon
Sequence
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
1  6/28/89
5    Son 1892   e
5    Son 1892   e
5    Son 1892   e
5    Son 1892   e
5    Son 1892   e
5    Son 1892   e
7    Son 1892   f
7    Son 1892   f
7    Son 1892   f
7    Son 1892   f
7    Son 1892   f
9    Son 1892   d
9    Son 1892   d
9    Son 1892   d
9    Son 1892   d
9    Son 1892   d
9    Son 1892   d
11    Son 1892  c
11    Son 1892  c
11    Son 1892  c
11    Son 1892  c
13    Son 1892  a
15    Son 1892  b
15    Son 1892  b
2      4    fragment     barnacle
3      5    fragment     snail
4     26    cap          homed slipper, ribbed, plate
5      6    whole        black turban snail
6     24    umbo         mussel
7     11    plate        chiton
1     99    fragment     ui, mussel, abalone, limpet
2      7    fragment     barnacle
3      5    plate        chiton
4     10    cap          plate limpet
5     12    umbo         mussel
I     99    fragment     ui, abalone, mussel, snail
2      2    fragment     barnacle
3      6    whole        black turban snail
4      7    plate        chiton
5      6    umbo         mussel
6      8    cap          keyhole, horned slipper, plate
1     99    fragment     ui, abalone, snail (ridged)
2      1    plate        chiton
3      1    umbo         mussel
4      1    cap          plate limpet
1      1    fragment     abalone
1      1    umbo         mussel
2      1    fragment     ui, barnacle
224
Appendix 5.3         225
APPENDIX 5.3
VERTEBRATE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM FORT ROSS SURVEY SITES
Site       Taxon       Side   Element        NISP  Frag's. Cut Burned    Catalog #
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-174
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1880
Son-1881
Son-1881
Son-1883
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886,
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Bos taurus
Bos taurus
C. elaphus r.
C. elaphus r.
C. elaphus r.
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L Mammal
L. Mammal
L Mammal
0. hemionus
C. elaphus r.
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
M. Mammal
0. hemionus
0. hemionus
0. hemionus
L. Bird
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
Bos taurus
E. lutris
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
0. hemionus
r     Tibia
r     Scapula
I     Mandible
r     LPm2
I     Mandible
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Bone
-     Long Bone
1     Tibia
r     LPm2
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-.    Long Bone
-     Vertebra
-     Vertebra
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Bone
r     Scapula
r     Naviculo-Cuboid
r     Mandible
1     Astragalus
r     Phalanx 2
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
1     Phalanx 3
r     Radius
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Cranium
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
r     LM3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
6-2-89-8-f
6-5-89-11-f
6-5-89-8-f-1
6-5-89-9-f-i1
6-5-89-7-f-I1
6-5-89-6-f-1
6-5-89-9-f-1
6-2-89-6-f
6-2-89-5-f
6-5-89-3-f
6-5-98-8-f-1
B-6-8-88-24-f
B-6-8-88-19-f
B-6-8-88-24-f
B-6-8-88-2-f
B-6-8-88-S15-f
B-6-8-88-25-f
B-6-8-88-25-f
B-6-8-88-3-f
B-6-8-88-11-f
B-6-8-88-16-f
B-6-8-88-20-f
B-6-8-88-2-f
B-6-8-88-1-f
B-6-9-88-12-f
B-6-9-88-12-f
D-6-9-89-6-f
L-6-2-89-4-f
L-6-5-89-1-f-2
L-6-5-89-4-f
L-6-2-89-1-f
L-6-5-89-7-f
L-6-5-89-9-f
L-6-5-89-9-f
L-6-5-89-1-f-1
L-6-5-89-1-f-2
L-6-5-89-5-f
L-6-5-894-f
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Side   Element
NISP   Frag's.  Cut   Burned    Catalog #
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1886
Son-1888
Son-1888
Son-1888
Son-1888
Son-1890
Son-1890
Son-1890
Son-1890
Son-1895
Son-1895
Son-1895
Son-1896
O. hemionus
0. hemionus
0. hemionus
0. hemionus
0. hemionus
Ovis aries
P. vitulina
S. bachmani
T. bottae
Z. californicus
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L. Mammal
L Mammal
L. Mammal
O. hemionus
Ovis Aries
Bos taurus
L. Mammal
O. hemionus
L Mammnunal
I     Astragalus
I     Metacarpal
I     Humerus
r     Naviculo-Cuboid
1     Fibula
1     Metacarpal
I     Radius
I     Mandible
r     Ilium
r     Tarsal
-     Vertebra
-     Long Bone
-     Scapula
-     Rib
-     Long Bone
-     Long Bone
r     Scapula
-     Molar
-     Vertebra
-     Cranium
-     Metacarpal
-     Axis
1
1
2
1
i
1
i
1
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
2
i
1
1
i
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
I
I
I
1
1
2
1
i
1
1
1
i
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site
Taxon
0     L-6-5-89-4-f
0     L-6-5-89-1-f-2
0     L-6-2-89-5-f-1
0     L-6-2-89-5-f-i1
0     L-6-2-89-5-f-1
0     L-6-5-89-9-f
0     L-6-5-89-14-f
0     L-6-5-89-4-f
0     L-6-5-89-5-f
0     L-6-2-89-5-f-I
0     E-6-7-89-7-f
1     E-6-7-89-8-f
0     E-6-7-89-4-f
0     E-6-7-89-4-f
1     K-6-15-89-2-f
1     K-6-15-89-1-f
0     K-6-15-89-3-f
0   . K-6-15-89-2-f
0     C-6-6-88-4-f
0     C-6-6-88-3-f-1
0     C-6-6-88-7-f
1     C-6-8-88-1-f
226
Appendix 5.4         227
-0.0
IA                         -
la          :3 i: '
~O
- S 2     0      |  S .| | .i
13 i [0 f6 -4 3 A @]i  M;Mn[En10
~    0  Id
0  0
3..  O. 4)   J e  el
3.                     L.0 '-'
D    4)  .0  =    ) 4  ) - ) ~ 2 '
I-.
f%
0
Pk
I
S.   4
0 4c
I
4c
D.1
- -4       -
-      - -e       -e     (>      - -
4)                        0
00    .000o       00      00    .00be
.0  .0.I
:3
0    0
0   00O
00 0o o
00  00 00
8   88
00  00 0
Do  ,     ea
3  A      at
II I
48  a   A   - IS
<  <  < m  <
.0   .  0 .0.0
-0:  Is  00
00  00  0000  wa
0     0     0'0
oo 00 0000o
o      o       0o c
00    00    00 00
Ut4   Ut    "" V-4
-   - in   0   -   - - W
-   -4- (- 4   ('a  04 N
00    00 00
00    0o000
00    00 00
0 0 0
%O%0     %
00     00       000
00     c  00 *  000
00     00     o 00
%0    No      %0'N
000     0%m
00 00   00
--      -
88      8
V" Ut4  V-4
V- t-   co
00 00   00
ON c     00
'-o00    00
00       0
10..
- oo    Noo
.0  .0.0   .0  .0   .0 .0
U)
?
1   FA
- ;-o
I
00.0I
B1'"""1 1
0 4) ;)
I
8
0
s11w
A0
I4
-    -    -    --     -     -
-    -    -    --     t-  -c
o   oo   00           00   o0
g ? X ?? g g3
00   0t   oo   00. oo   oo
C)   C         00 (A   0
- en   N     - CD
oo  4 oo 4  V-4 ooo
00   00   00   0000 00     0
00   00   00   0000    00  co
-    -A -      - -    -    -
-    -    -    --     -    o
- -    -    1- -    -
00   00   00   000    0     00
00  0  0  000    0    0
.1
0.4
0
IA
a,
la
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
0
M  4)
O 000
58 8  8  'r
o   w
00 00
o   o,
?~  8   o
-e n
080 gs
64)
o4)
.s to
-4 :
04
.9 .s
. 5!
. 00
*g I
4) 0.
40
"a   I
'WI
a w
*S V:
.5 I
o 3
la&-
0
U,
8
0
.0
0
at
00
4)
- )
0
0
a
4)
0
4)
A
s:
.5.
4)
04
4.5
0
4).
-
0
4)
00
4)
oo
cq
o
.0
0
0
la
4)
0 4)
*a0
4   3
.- Z
) ?, :3
8 ea
.o      . SW
?? 9 I o
0
.-
0
oo
00
4-
-
0
4)
0
m
.14)
2
(a
0
0
0
. -e
4)
U,
.-l
u4)*
O .
4)
0
0
D)0
0 8 %
1"40
0I  0%
'4-
0
0
00
8
  00
b.
 4)
4) 4)
4) uR .
S    
. . 8 
4)
0A
go
.0
-  - -  -  "4  -    - WC4  m  -
-4  -  c4 e 4  -  -"  -  -"4"-  le
0 0
to     00     00    0e 0           E
00
oo
.-Q
0
0
.0
0W     a
V-4 V- V-    V-4
a
4)
I
a a
0 0
AA.
-- - -
44 4  "4 "- -4 - - -- -  - "   -4  -  -
0   a    0
00 A4  S b0a *
oo~~   ~ 0e0
00  00  00   A
a
on
0%
00
"-4
00
0%
00
"-4
0
0
r#
oo
C:
o0
00
0
00
O0
10
rs
0%
00
-4
0
00
0
A
O 4
00
8 - e0
* C0  en
4
n     en    eM
00     o0    00
00     o0    00
"-4   "-4    "4
o'o
oo    Cs     o
00 A
a 0
oo U,
o?w
"-4
0
00
oo9 9
0
0000
r A
00
t'- A
9-
?
r-
"-4
0
co
0
00
-4  -44   "4  "4  4  "4 -44   "4  "4  "-4 "   -"  -4
s s
00V0O
A A
r~4 r~
00oo
?
r.
w.
0
C)
00
co
00
"-4
0
?
a~
"         -4"4          -4   -4  -4      "-
"-4    0      "-4    R      (4 en
"4     e.4    (4     N
00
00
0
-4
5-..
No
00
00
00
-0
1.5.
%0
00
00
W.5.
N0
000%h
0000o
-0
* .%C
'0'0
a,
00
O.4I
0c
01%
00
(.4
0 .
.5.5
0%0%K0% 0%
o 000000
'%*. 5 -.  '..  '.5.
4C4 %n
000 0z 0 Po
40 No No N
0%
00
I...
'01
in W n               4 " t  4 -  e t  e
"-   V"  -49-   e
o 0%
0000o
0 0
'5.' .5
%C No
00 0000 00
5.. ,I.%.. ....
n %n 00 C
No No %a MD
oo    oo
0%    0%
00    00
C4    (.4
0,   0.
%C    N0
0    0 0    oi '0  '0   '0  la' %   '.-.  4.  ~4-4-d 4-d
228
0
I)
0
o
0
l"
4)
0
.0
0
0
Ci
co
A
g
i
0
00     0a*
0e
4)
.0
00
0
I
0%       "-4,...
"-4    c(4 l
'0
00
00
oo
"4
0
en
00
00
O0
'0
00 00
o 00
No %Q
0 0
5.'."..
:0
I
0
4)
>.
4)
Ii
C4
e4 at
0
0
en  a
1-4
44      4.4 44       4.4 4-d .4     -"     0-0
Appendix 5.4          229
0)
0  0
o         0
140%
Ca
Ca
X O.0.0
*l E @0
,    @,00
a
S
a
-i]
43
V-     V-     9-    -4
9-4     e14    W-4q        V-  p-4 V-
U
@0     @0      x      ba
00
r,
Vu4
14
VA
No
co
00
00
w
Cs
No
00
@0
V-
S
W,
Cs
8
IV
@*0
00
C-,
0%0
m 0@
n 00
50
0
0l
I
W-
@0
00
8
v)
-   - -   - eq q
0%  0
0%
@0
0
0%
00
0
0%
00
0
0,%
00
-   -  -4
c0 00 co
00 00 00
C! 0
I ft
c %C %C
o
I
V
i)
u
0
a.<3
I
c-,
C-)
IA
I.
A.!
230
Location  Collection     Field-           Site        Unit          Artifact      Artifact       Count
-Date       Spec-No                                   -Category      -Sequence
b       6/08/88         11          Son 1880      Sub A 2n Oe      be             1             1
1       6/05/89         4           Son 1886      2s Oe            be             1             1
1       6/28/89         12          Son 1892      e                be             1             1
KW
ARlFAcr CAmOORy be = bead
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
APPENDIX S5S
BEADS FROM FORT ROSS SrITES
Appendix 5.6         231
APPENDIX 5.6
Lrrncs
a
b
c
g
d
a. Side-notched projectile point
A-6/10/88-16-L-2
b. Comer-notched point
D-6/7/88-1-L-1
c. Comner-notched point
D-6/9/88-4-L-1
d. Comer-notched point
L-6/5/89-2-L-1
e. Shouldered-lanceolate point
D-6113/88-2-L-1
f. Shouldered-lanceolate point
D-6/13/88-26-L-2
g. Shouldered-lanceolate point
D-6/15/88-9-L-1
e
f
a
A
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
LrrmCS
a
d
b
e
C
f
g
a. Biface/Pojectile point
L-6/5/89-2-L-2
b. Biface
A-6/9/88-1-L-1
c. Biface
A-6/10/88-16-L-1 1
d. Uniface
D-6/15/88-16-L-1
e. Core
D-6/9/88-65-L-1
f. Edge-nmodified flake
I-6/8/89-8-I-1
g. Core
L-615/89-10-L-4
232
Appendix 5.6         233
GROUND STONE
a
b
c
a. Net weight
D-6/7/88-1-L2
b. Net weight
D-6/15/88-17-L-2
c. Pestle
D-6/9/88-52-L-1
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
GROUND STONE
..-.
Hopper Mortar
C-6/14/88-1-L-1
234
Appendix 5.6
GROUND STONE
Handstone fragment
L-6/2/89-3-L-3
235
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
GLAss, BEADS, CE.RAMIC
0
C
a
e
b
a Worked glass
A-10/16/90-1-G
b Glass fragment
F-6/5/89-4-G
c Glass bead
B-6/8/89-1 1-BE-1
d Clam shell disk bead
L-6/5/89-4-BE-1
e Ceramic
C-6/6/88-47-HC-1
d
236
REFERENCES
Allison, Eric
1989 Archaeological Site Record, CA-SON-1793.
On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
Alt, D. D., and D. W. Hyndman
1975 Roadside Geology of Northern California.
Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula,
Montana.
Alvarez, Susan Harding
1991 Cultural Resources Inventory of Austin Creek
Stae Recreation Area, A Unit of the
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Guerneville, Sonoma County,
California. On file, Noten Region
Headquarters, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Santa Rosa,
California.
Alvarez, Susan Harding and David Fh kson
1989 Cultural Resources Inventory, Sonoma Coast
State Beach From Goat Rock to Bodega
Bay, Sonoma County, California. On file,
Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma
State University.
Armstrong, C. F.
1980a Geologic Map Exclusive of Landslides -
Southen Sononma County. In Geology for
Plamning in Sonoma County. M. E.
Huffinan and C. F. Armstong. Plate 3k
Calornia Dvisvion of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 120.
1980b Geologic Map Exclusive of L   ides -
Southern Sonoma County. In Geology for
Planning in Sonoma County. M. E.
Huffmnan and C. F. Armstrong. Plate 3B.
California Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 120.
Bailey, E. H., W. P. Irwin, and D. L Jones
1964 Franciscan and Related Rocks, and their
Significance in the Geology of Western
California. California Division of Mines
and Geology Bulletin 183.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe
1886 The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, History
of Califora Vol. 19. The History
Company, San Francisco.
Barrett, S. A.
1908 The Ethno-Geogaphy of the Pomo and
Neighboring Indians. University of
California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology VoL 6.
1916 Pomo Buiings. In Holmes Anniversary
Volume: Anthropological Essays
Presentd to William Hny Holmes in
Honor of his 70th Birthday. J. W. Bryan
Press, Washington D.C.
1952 Material Aspects of Ponmo Culture. Bulletin of
the Public Mwuem of the City of
Milwaukee Vol. 20, Parts 1 and 2.
1975 Pomo Buildings. In Seven Early Accounts of
the Pomo Indians and their Cuure, edited
by R. F. Heizer, pp. 37-63.
Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
Batman, Richard
1985 The Outer Coast. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers, San Diego.
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal
California Populations. University of
Calfornia Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 49, no.
2, pp. 155-236.
1982 North Coast Point Types. In Cultural
Resource Overview for the Mendocino
National Forest and East Lake Planning
Unit, BLM, California, edited by H.
McCarthy, W. Hildebd-t, and L
Swenson, pp. 1-43, Appedix A.
California Archaeological Consultants,
Inc.
Bean, Lowell John and Dorothea Theodoratus
1978 Western Porno and Northeastemrn Pomno. In
Handbook of North American Indians,
California, Vol. 8, edited by R. F. Heizer,
pp. 289-305. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington D.C.
Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temnporal and Areal Relationships in Central
California Archaeology. University of
California Archaeological Survey Report
No. 24, Part 1.
Bedrossian, T. L
1974. Geology of the Marin HeadlamIs. California
Geology 27(4):75-88.
Bickel, P. M.
1978 Changing Sea Levels Along the California
Coast: Anthropological Implications.
Journal of California Anthropology
5(1):6-20.
Binford, Lewis
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31.
Black, Lydia T.
1977 The Konyag (Inhabitants of the island of
Kodiak) by Iosaf [Bolotov] (1794-1799)
and by Gideon (1804-1807). Arctic
Anthropology 14(2):79-108.
1989 Russia's American Adventure. Natural Histowy
12:45-57.
Blake, M. C., Jr., J. T. Smith, C. M. Wentworth, and R.
H. Wright
1971. Preliminary Geologic Map of Western
Sonoma County and Northermnost Marin
County, California. United States
Geological Survey.
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Blomkvist, E. E.
1972 A Russian Scientific Expedition to California
and Alaska, 1839-1849. Oregon Historical
Quarterly June 1972, pp. 101-170. (Article
translated by B. Dmrnytryshyn and E. A. P.
Crownhart-Vaughan).
Bloom, A. L.
1971 Glacial-Eustatic and Isostatic Controls of Sea
Level Since the Last Glaciation. In The
Late Cenozoic Glacial Changes, edited by
K. K. Turekian, pp. 355-79. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
1983 Sea Level and Coastal Changes. In Late
Quaternary Environments of the United
States, VoL 2, edited by H. E. Wright Jr.,
pp. 42-51. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Bowen, O. E.
1951 Highways and Byways of Particular Geologic
Interest. In Geologic Guidebook of the San
Francisco Bay Counties, edited by O. P.
Jenkins, pp. 315-80. California Division
of Mines Bulletin 154.
Bower, John
1986 In Search of the Past. The Dorsey Press,
Chicago.
Bramlette, Allan and Katherine M. Dowdall
1989 Differences in Site Constituents at Salt Point:
Alternative Explanations. In Proceedings
of the Society for California Archaeology
2: 139-51. Society for California
Archaeology, San Diego, California.
Bramlette, Allan and David Fredrickson
1990 A Cultural Resource Study for a Bum
Management Plan at Salt Point State Park,
Sonoma County, California. On file,
Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma
State University.
Burley, David
1985 Social Organization in Historic Societies: A
Critical Commentary. In Status, Structure
and Stratification: Current Archaeological
Reconstructions, edited by M. Thompson,
M. Garcia, F. Kense, pp. 415-18.
University of Calgary, Alberta.
Carlson, E. V. (Ed.).
1976 Fort Ross State Historic Park: Resource
Management Plan and General
Development Plan. State of California-
The1 Resources Agency, Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento,
California.
Castillo, Edward D.
1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and
Settlement. In Handbook of North
American Indians, California, Vol. 8,
edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 99-127.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Charlton, Thomas H.
1981 Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Ethnology:
Interpretive Interfaces. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol.
4, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 129-76.
Academic Press, New York.
Chernykh, Yegor
1967 Agriculture of Upper California. A Long Lost
Account of Farming in California as
Recorded by A Russian Observor at Fort
Ross in 1841. Original 1841 manuscript
edited and translated by James Gibson. The
Pacific Historian Vol 11, No. 1, pp. 10-
28.
1968 Two New Chernykh Letters: More Original
Documentation on the Russian Post
Relinquished in 1841 to General Sutter.
Original 1836 letters edited and translated
by James Gibson. The Pacific Historian
Vol 12, No. 3, pp. 48-56 and Vol 12, No.
4, pp. 54-60.
Chestnut, V. K.
1902 Plants Used by the Indians of Mendocino
County, California. Contributions of the
National Herbarium 7:295-422.
Chevigny, Hector
1965 Russian America The Great Alaskan Venture
1741-1867. Binford and Mort Publishing,
Portland, Oregon.
Clark, Donald W.
1974 Contributions to the Later Prehistory of
Kodiak Island, Alaska. National Museum
of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological
Survey of Canada, Paper No. 20. Ottawa.
1985 Archaeological Test at the Russian Three
Saints Bay Colony, Alaska. Historical
Archaeology 19(2):114-21.
Coleman, R. G., D. E. Lee, L. B. Beatty, and W. W.
Brannock
1965 Eclogites and Eclogites-Their Differences
and Similarities. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 76(5):483-508.
Compton, R. R.
1966 Granitic and Metamorphic Rocks of the
Salinian Block, California Coast Ranges.
In: Geology of Northern California. E. H.
Bailey, ed. pp. 277-88. California
Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin
190.
Comey, Peter
1896 (first published in 1821) Voyages in the
Northern Pacific. Narrative of Several
Trading Voyages from 1813 to 1818,
Between the Northwest Coast of America,
the Hawaiian Islands and China, With A
Description of the Russian Establishments
on the Northwest Coast. Thomas G.
Tlhun, Publisher, Honolulu. Hawaii.
238
References            239
Costello, Julia G. and David Hornbeck
1989 Alta California: An Overview. In Columbian
Consequences Vol. 1, edited by David
Hurst Thomas, pp. 303-332. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Crowell, Aron
1990 Archaeological Investigations at Three Saints
Bay, an 18th Century Russian Settlement
on Kodiak Island, Alaska.National Science
Foundation proposal,Washington D.C.
Deetz, James
1963 Archaeological Investigations at La Purisima
Mission. Archaeological Survey Annual
Report 5:163-208. University of
California, Los Angeles.
1988 American Historical Archeology: Methods and
Results. Science 239:362-67.
1989 Archaeography, Archaeology, or Archeology?
American Journal of Archaeology 93:429-
35.
DeLapt J. A., and W. R. Powell
1979 Soil-Vegetation Map for the Fort Ross 75
Minute Quadrangle (61D-3). Sonomna
County, California. Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Experimnt Station,
Forest Service, US. Department of
Agriculture.
1979 Soil-Vegetation Map for the Plantation 75
Minute Quadrangle (61C-4). Sonoma
County, California. Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Delapp, J. A., B. F. Smith, and W. R. Powell
1978 Soil-Vegetation Map for the Arched Rock 735
Minute Quadrangle (63A-2). Sonoma
County, Cal0rornia. Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Experi  t Station,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Dmytryshyn, Basil, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and
Thomas Vaughan
1989a Introduction. In The Russian American
Colonies Three Centuries of Russian
Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, Vol. 3, A
D   nemntary Record, edited by B.
Dmytryhyn, E. A. P. Crownhat-Vaughan
and T. Vaughan, pp. xxvii-lxxx. Oregon
Historical Society Press, Portland.
1989b September 4-28, 1818. From the Diary of
Fedar P. Lutke during his
Circumnavigation Aboard the Sloop
Kamchatka, 1817-1819: Observations on
Califoi. In The Russian American
Colonies Three Centuries of Russian
Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, Vol. 3, A
-Docm     y Record, edited by B.
Dmyryshyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan
and T. Vaughan, pp. 257-85. Oregon
Historical Society Press, Portland.
1989c September 22, 1817. A Treaty Between the
Russian American Company and the
Kashaya Pomo Indians, Ceding Land for
Fort Ross. In The Russian American
Colonies Three Centuries of Russian
Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, Vol. 3, A
Documientary Record, edited by B.
Dmytryshyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan
and T. Vaughan, pp. 296-98. Oregon
Historical Society Press, Portland.
Dmytryshyn, Basil and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan
1976 Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T.
Khlebnikov's Reports, 181741832.
Oregon Historical Society, Portland.
Dobyns, Henry F.
1983 TheirNumberBecome Thinned: Native
American Population Dynamics in Eastern
North America. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Dowdall, Katheine M.
1988 An Archaeological Collections Analysis of
Excavated Materials Frn CA-SON-473
(Salt Point State Park). On File, Northern
Region Headquarters, California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Santa
Rosa, California.
Dubois, Cora
1939 The 1870 Ghost Dance. Anthropological
Records. Vol. 3, No. 1.
Duflot de Mofras
1937 Travels on the Pacifc Coast Vol. 1 and 2.
Translation and editing of original 1844
publication by Marguerite E. Wilbur. Fine
Arts Press, Santa Ana, California.
Duhaut-Cilly, Auguste Bernard
1946 An Episode from the Narrative of Auguste
Bernard Duhaut-Cilly. Translation of 1828
account by Charles F. Carter. Silverado
Press, Bohemian Grove, California.
Dumnell, Robert C.
1990 Methodological Impacts of Catastrophic
Depopulation of American Archaeology
and Ethnology. Paper presented at the
55th Amnnual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Edwards, Robert
1975 Archaeological Field School at Fort Ross. On
file, Cultural Heritage Section,
Archaeology Laboratory, Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramnento,
California.
Ernst, W. G.
1965 Mineral Paragenesis in Fransiscan
Metamorphic Rocks, Panoche Pass,
California. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 76:879-914.
1979 California and Plate Tectonics. California
Geology 32(9):187-96.
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hammarm
1983 A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North
America. Houghton Mifflin, Co., Boston.
Farnsworth, Paul
1987 The Economics of Acculturation in the
California Missions: A Historical and
Archaeological Study of Mission Nuestra
Senora de la Soledad. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Farris, Glenn J.
1981 Preliminary Report of the 1981 Excavations
of the Fort Ross Fur Warehouse. On file,
Cultural Heritage Section, Archaeology
Laboratory, Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, California.
1984 Descriptions of the Russian Orchard at Fort
Ross from the Spanish and French
Language Inventories. On file, Cultural
Heritage Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
1986a Cultural Resource Survey at the Fort Ross
Campground, Sonoma County,
California. On file, Cultural Heritage
Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
1986b Description of a Visit to an Indian Village
Adjacent to Fort Ross by Cyrille LaPlace,
1839. Appendix B in Cultural Resource
Survey at the Fort Ross Campground,
Sonoma County, California, by Glenn
Farris, pp. 65-80. On file, Cultural
Heritage Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
1988 A French Visitor's Description of the Fort
Ross Rancheria in 1839. News from
Native California 2:22-23.
1989a The Russian Imprint on the Colonization of
California. In Columbian Consequences,
Vol. 1, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp.
481-97. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
1989b Recognizing Indian Folk History as Real
History: A Fort Ross Example. American
Indian Quarterlyl3:471-80.
1990 Fort Ross California: Archaeology of the Old
Magazin. In Russia in North America:
Proceedings of the 2nd International
Coference on Russian America, edited by
Richard A. Pierce, pp. 475-505. The
Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Fedorova, Svedana G.
1973 The Russian Population in Alaska and
California Late 18th Century - 1867.
Translated and edited by Richard A. Pierce
and Alton S. Donnelly. Limestone Press,
Kingston, Ontario.
1975 Ethnic Processes in Russian America.
Occasional Papers No. 1, Anchorage
Historical and Fine Arts Museum,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Fitzhugh, William W.
1985 Introduction. In Cultures in Contact: The
Impact of European Contacts on Native
American Cultural Institutions A.D. 1000-
1800, edited by W. Fitzhugh, pp. 1-15.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Foster, Dan
1983a Archaeological Site Record, CA-SON-1423.
On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
1983b Archaeological Site Record, CA-SON-1424.
On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
1987 Archaeological Survey of S-1 Study Area,
Fort Ross Quad. On file, Northwest
Information Center, Sonoma State
University.
Fredrickson, David
1962 Archaeological Investigations Within
Construction Site Area of Unit 1 of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company's Atomic Park,
Sonoma County, California. On file,
Manuscript No. 324, Lowie Museum of
Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley.
1974a A Preliminary Evaluation of the
Archaeological Potential of 2078 Acres of
the Navarro Ranch Near Cazadero, Sonoma
County, California. On file, Manuscript
No. 5-50, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
1974b A Preliminary Evaluation of the
Archaeological Potential of 1600 acres of
the Gualala Land Development Corporation
Located in the Drainage of the South Fork
of the Gualala River, Sonoma Coimty,
California. On file, Manuscript No. 5-55,
Northwest Infoirmation Center, Sonoma
State University.
1974c Cultural Diversity in Early Central
California: A View From the North Coast
Ranges. Journal of California
Anthropology 1:41-54.
1984a The North Coastal Region. In California
Archaeology by Michael Moratto, pp.
471-528. Academic Press, Orlando.
1984b The Use of Obsidian Analyses to Establish
"Units of Contemporaneity." Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology,
Portland, Oregon.
1987 The Use of Borax Lake Obsidian Through Time
and Space. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for California
Archaeology, Fresno, California.
240
References               241
1989 Spatial and Temporal Patterning of Obsidian
Materials in the Geyers Region. In Current
Directions in California Obsidian Studies,
edited by Richard Hughes, pp. 95-110.
Contributions of the University of
California Archaeological Research
Facility 48.
Fritts, H. C.
1965 Tree Ring Evidence for Climatic Changes in
Western North America. Monthly Weather
Review 93(7):421-43.
Garth, J. S. and J. W. Tilden
1986 California Butterflies. California Natural
History Guide #51. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Gibson, James R.
1969 Russia in California, 1833. Report of
Governor Wrangel. Pac#c Northwest
Quarterly 60:205-215.
1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The
Changing Geography of Supply of
Russian America, 1784-1867. Oxford
University Press, New York.
1986 Russian     ion in Siberia and America:
Critical Contrasts. Kennan Institute for
Advanced Russian Studies. Smithsonian
Institution Building, Washington D.C.
1987 Russian Dependence Upon the Natives of
Russian America. Kennamn Institute for
Advanced Russian Studie Occasional
Papers No. 70. Smithsonian Institution
Building, Washington D.C.
1988 The Maritime Trade of the North Pacific Coast
In Handbok of North American Indians,
History of Indian-White Relations, Vol. 4,
edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 375-
90. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Gifford, E. W.
1922 California Kinship Terminologies.
University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology
18:1-285.
1967 Ethnographic Notes on the Southwestern
Pomno. Anthropological Records 25:1-48.
Gifford, E. W. and A. L Kroeber
1937 Culture Element Distributions: IV, Pomo.
University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology
37:117-254.
Goldman, Irving
1940 The Alkatcho Carrier of British Colwnumbia. In
Acculturation in Seven American Indian
Tribes edited by Ralph Linton, pp. 333-89.
Peter Smith,. Glouchester, Mass.
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 The
University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Goodrich, Jennie., Claudia Lawson, and Vanna Parrish
Lawson
1980 Kashaya Pomno Plants. American Indian
Monograph Series, No. 2. American
Indian Studies Center, University of
California at Los Angeles.
Greengo, R. E.
1955 4-SON-299 Shell Analysis Progress Report.
On file, Manuscript No. 208, Lowie
Museum of Antropology, University of
California, Berkeley.
Griggs, G. B. and R. E. Johnson
1979. Coastline Erosion: Santa Cruz County.
California Geology 32(4):67-75.
Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller
1944 The Distnribution of the Birds of California,
Cooper Ornithological Club. Pacific Coast
Avifauna 18.
Haase, Ynez D.
1952 The Russian-American Company in
California. M.A. Thesis, University of
California, Berkeley.
Hamilton, Scott
1985 The Social Organization of the Hudson's Bay
Company: The Brandon House Case. In
Status, Structure, and Stratification.
Current Archaeological Reconstructions,
edited by M. Thompon, M. Garica, and F.
Kense, pp. 379-86. University of Calgary,
Alberta.
Hart, E. W.
1978 Limestone, Dolomnite, and Shell Resources of
the Coast Ranges Province, California.
California Division of Mines and Geology
Bulletin 197.
Heizer, Robert F.
1941 The Direct-Historical Approach in California
Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:98-
122.
1975 Seven Early Accounts of the Pomno Indians and
Their Culture, edited by R. F. Heizer.
Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
1978 History of Research. In Handbook of North
American Indians, California, Vol. 8,
edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 6-15. Smithso-
nian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Heizer, Robert F. and Albert B. Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Herskovits, Melville J.
1938 Acculturation the Study of Culture Contact. J.
J. Augustin Publisher, New York.
Hoover, Robert L.
1989 Spanish-Native Interaction and Acculturation
in the Alta California Missions. In
Columbian Consequences Vol. 1, edited by
David Hurst Thomas, pp. 395-406.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Homrnbeck, David
1989 Economic Growth and Change at the Missions
of Alta California, 1769-1846, In
Colwnbian Consequences Vol. 1,. edited
by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 423-34.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Horsman, Reginald
1988 United States Indian Policies, 1776-1815. In
Handbook of North American Indians:
History of Indian-White Relations, VoL 4,
edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 29-
39. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Howard, A. D.
1951 Development of the Landsca  of the San
Francisco Bay Counties. In Geologic
Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay
Counties, edited by 0. P. Jenkins, pp. 95-
106. California Division of Mines
Bulletin 154.
Hudson, Jolm W.
1897 Pomo Wampum Makers an Aboriginal Double
Standard. Overland Monthly 30:101-108.
(Reprinted in 1975 in Seven Accounts of
the Pomno Indians and their Culture, edited
by R. Heizer, pp. 9-20.)
Huffmnan, M. E. and C. F. Armstrong
1980 Geology for Planning in Sonoma County.
Calimornia Division of Mines and Geology,
Special Report 120.
Hylkema, Mark
1986 Analysis of Chert Debitage: SON-1455.
Appendix C in Cultural Resource Survey at
the Fort Ross Campground, Sonoma
County, California, by Glenn Farris, pp.
81-91. On file, Cultural Heritage Section,
Archaeology Laboratory, California
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
Jackson, Robert
1983 Intermarriage at Fort Ross: Evidence from the
San Rafael Mission Baptismal Register.
Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 5:240-41.
Jackson, Robert, Michael Boynton, William Olsen and
R. Weaver
1988 California Archaeological Resource
Identification and Data Acquisition
Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters. Manual
prepared by the Office of Historic
Preservation, Sacramento, California.
Jackson, Thomas L.
1989 Late Prehistoric Obsidian Production and
Exchange in the North Coast Ranges,
California. In Current Directions in
Cal'ornia Obsidian Studies, edited by
Richard Hughes, pp. 79-94. Contributions
of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility 48.
Jacobs, Wilbur R.
1988 British Indian Policies to 1783. In Handbook
of North American Indians History of
Indian-White Relations, Vol. 4, edited by
Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 5-12.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Jameson, E. W. and H. J. Peeters
1988 California Mammals. California Natural
History Guides #52. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Johnson, Gregory
1973 Local Exchange and Early State Development
in Southwest Iran. Museum of Anthro-
pology, University of Michigan
Anthropological Papers 37.
Johnson,John
1989 The Chumash and the Missions. In
Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1, edited
by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 365-76.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Jordan, Richard H. and Richard A. Knecht
1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak
Island, Alaska: The Development of
Koniag Culture. In Aurora The Late
Prehistoric Development of Alaska's
Native People, edited by Robert Shaw,
Roger K. Harritt, Don E. Dumond, pp. 225-
306. Alaska Anthropological Association
Monograph Series No. 4.
Kari, James
1983 Kalifornsky, the Californian from Cook Inlet.
Alaska in Perspective 5:1-11.
Kennedy, Mary Jean
1955 Culture Contact and Acculturation of the
Southwestern Pomo. Ph.d. Dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Khlebnikov, Kyrill
1976 Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T.
Khlebnikov's Reports, 1817-1832.
Translation and editing of original 1861
publication by Basil Dmytryshyn and E. A.
P. Crownhart-Vaughan. Oregon Historical
Society, Portland.
242
References              243
1990 The Khlebnikov Archive. Unpublished
Journal (1800-1837) and Travel Notes
(1820, 1822, and 1824). Edited by Leonid
Shur. Translated by John Bisk. University
of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
King, Robert F.
1974a An Archaeological Survey of the Navarro
Ranch Land Development in Northwestern
Sonoma County, California. On file,
Mnuscript No. S-ll, Northwest
Information Center, Sonoma State
University.
1974b An Archaeological Survey of 1600 Acres
(Gualala Land Development Corporation)
in the Drainage of the South Fork of the
Gualala River, Sonoma County, California.
On file, Manuscript No. S-110O, Northwest
Information Center, Sonoma State
University.
Kintigh, Keith
1984 Measuring Arclhaeological Diversity by
Comparison with  Simulated Assemblages.
American Antiquity 49:44-54.
1988 Diversity Module. In The Archaeologist's
Analytical Toolkit by Keith Kintigh, pp.
48-66. Computer program manual
available from Keith Kintigh, Deparment
of Anthropology, Arizona State
University, Tempe.
1989 Sample Size, Significn, and Measures of
Diversity. In Quant0ing Diversity in
Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard
and George T. Jones, pp. 25-36.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kirch, Patrick and Roger C. Green
1987 History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in Poly-
nesia Current Anthropology 28:431-56.
Knecht, Richard A.
1985 Nunakaxvak: Koniag Society on the Russian-
American Frontier. M.A. Thesis, Bryn
Mawr College, Pennsylvania.
Knecht, Richard A. and Richard A. Jordan
1985 Numakakhnak: An Historic Koniag Village in
Karluk, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic
Anthropology 22:17-35.
Kniffen, Fred
1939 Porn Geography. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology. Vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 353-400.
Knudson, S. J.
1985 Culture in Retrospect. Waveland Press, Inc.,
Prospet Heights, Illinois.
Kostromitinov, P.
1974 Notes on the Indians in Upper California. In
Ethnographic Observations on the Coast
Miwok and Pomo by Contre-Admiral F. P.
Von Wrangell and P. Kostromitinov of the
Russian Colony Ross, 1839, pp. 7-18.
Translation and editing of original 1839
publication by Fred Stross and Robert
Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
Kotzebue, Otto Von
1830 A New Voyage Round the World, in the Years
1823, 24, 25, and 26. Volumes 1 and 2.
Henry Colbum and Richard Bentley,
London.
Kroeber, A. L'
1925 Handbook of the Indians of Caldfornia.
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.
(Reprinted in 1976 by Dover Publications,
Inc., New York.)
Kunkel, P. H.
1974 The Pomo Kin Group and the Political Unit in
Aboriginal Califomrnia. The Journal of
California Anthropology 1:7-18.
LaMarche, V. C., Jr. and R. E. Wallace
1972 Evaluation of Effects on Trees of Past
Movements of the San Andreas Fault,
Northern Califomia. Geological Society
of America Bulletin 83:265-76.
LaPlace, Cyrille
1986 Description of a Visit to an Indian Village
Adjacent to Fort Ross by Cyrille LaPlace,
1839. Translation and editing of 1854
original French publication by Glenn
Farris. Appendix B in Cultural Resource
Survey at the Fort Ross Campground,
Sonoma County, California, by Glenn
Farris, pp. 65-80. On file, Cultural
Heritage Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, California.
1988 A French Visitor's Description of the Fort
Rosg Rancheria in 1839. Translation and
editing of 1854 original French
publication by Glenn Farris. News from
Native California 2:22-23.
Lawson, Claudia and Vanna Parrish Lawson
1976 Kashaya Ponmo Ethnobotanical Project.
Journal of California Anthropology 3:132-
35.
Layton, Thomas N.
1990 Western Pomo Prehistory: Excavations at
Albion Head, Nightbirds, Retreat, and
Three Chop Village, Mendocino County,
California. Monograph 32, Institute of
Archaeology, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Levulett, Valerie A. and William R. Hildebrandt
1987 The King Range Archaeological Project:
Results of the 1984 Field Season.
Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma
State University.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
1985 Shell Midden Diversity: A Case Example from
Coastal New York. North American
Archaeologist 6:289-324.
Lightfoot, Kent G. and Roberta A. Jewett
1986 The Shift to Sedentary Life: A Consideration
of the Occupation Duration of Early
Mogollon Pithouse Villages. In Mogollon
Variability, edited by Charlotte Benson
and Steadman Upham, pp. 9-43. New
Mexico State University, The University
Museum Occasional Papers 15.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Robert Kalin and James Moore
1987 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of Shelter Island,
New York: An Archaeological Study of the
Mashmack Preserve. Contributions of
the University of California Archaeolo-
gical Research Facility 46.
Loeb, E. M.
1926 Pomo Folkways. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnology 19(2):149405.
Louderback, G. D.
1951 Geologic History of San Francisco Bay. In
Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco
Bay Counties, edited by O. P. Jenkins, pp.
75-94. California Division of Mines
Bulletin 154.
Lutke, Fedor P.
1989 September 4-28, 1818. From the Diary of
Fedor P. Lutke during his Circmnaviga-
tion Aboard the Sloop Kamchatka, 1817-
1819: Observations on California. In The
Russian American Colonies Three
Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion
1798-1867, Vol. 3, A Documentary
Record, edited and translated by Basil
Dmytryshyn, E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan,
and Thomas Vaughan, pp. 257-85. Oregon
Historical Society Press, Portland.
Matthewson, R. C.
1859 Plat Map and Field Notes of the Muniz Rancho
Finally Confirmnned to Manuel Tonrres. Copy
on file, Cultural Heritage Section,
Archaeology Laboratory, California
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, California.
McGinnis, S. M.
1984 Freshwater Fishes of California, Natural
History Guides #49. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
McKenzie, John
1963 Historic Resources and Indian Sites at Fort
Ross State Historic Park as Identified by
John McKenzie, August 20, 1963.
Manuscript on file, Cultural Heritage
Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento.
McLendon, Sally and Robert L. Oswalt
1978 Porno: Introduction. In Handbook of North
American Indians, California Vol. 8, edited
by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274-88. Smithso-
nian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Mead, Margaret
1932 The Changing Culture of an Indian Tribe.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Meighan, Clement W.
1967 Appendix: Comparative Notes on Two
Historic Village Sites. In Ethnographic
Notes on the Southwestern Pomo, by E. W.
Gifford, pp. 4647. Anthropological
Records Vol. 25. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Merriam, C. Hart
1938 Indians Visited 1901-1929. Index Cards. On
file, M  scipt No. 427, Lowie Musewnum of
Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley.
1967 Ethnographic Notes on California Indian
Tribes III. Ethnological Notes on Central
California Indian Tribes. Compiled and
edited by Robert F. Heizer. Reports of the
University of California Archaeological
Survey no. 68, part 3.
1968 Village Names in Twelve California Mission
Records. Assembled and edited by Robert
F. Heizer. Reports of the University of
California Archaeological Survey no. 74.
1977 Ethnogeographic and Ethnosynonymic Data
from Northern California Tribes.
Assembled =d edited by Robert F. Heizer.
Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
Milliman, J. D., and K. O. Emery
1968 Sea Levels During the Past 35,000 Years.
Science 162:1121-23.
Monks, Gregory
1985 Status and Fur Trade in the Northem
Department, 1821-1870. In Status,
Structure and Stratification: Current
Archaeological Reconstructions, edited by
M. Thompson, M. T. Garcia, F. J. Kense,
pp. 407-411. University of Calgary,
Alberta.
Moratto, Michael
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida.
244
References               245
Moyle, P. B.
1976 inland Fishes of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck.
1973 A California Flora, With Supplement.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Nelson, Nels
1909 Russian River to Golden Gate Mounds
(General). On file, Manuscript No. 351,
Lowie Museum of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
O'Comnnor, Denise M.
1984 Trade and Tableware: A Historical and
Distributional Analysis of the Ceramics
from Fort Ross, California. M.A. Thesis,
California State University, Sacramento.
Ogden, Adele
1933 Russian Sea-Otter and Seal Hunting on the
California Coast, 1803-1841. In The
Rwians in Catomnia, edited by E. O.
Essig, pp. 29-51. California Historical
Society, San Francisco.
1941 The Calybornia Sea Otter Trade, 1784-1848.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Origer, Thomas M.
1987 Temporal Control in the Southern North Coast
Ranges of California: The Application of
Obsidian Hydration Analy4bsis. Papers in
Northern California Anthropology 1.
Northern California Anthropological
Group, Berkeley.
Origer, Thomas M. and Brian Wickstrom
1982 The Use of Hydration Measurements to Date
Obsidian Materials from Sonoma County,
California. Journal of California and Great
B4sin Anthropology 4:123-31.
Oswalt, Robert L
1957 Russian Loanwords in Southwestern Pomo.
International Journal of American
Linguistics 23:245-47.
1964 Kashaya Texts. University of California
Publicatio  in Linguistics Vol. 36.
1988 History Through the Words Brought to
California by the Fort Ross Colony.
News from Native California Vol. 2, No. 3
pp. 20-22.
Page, B. M.
1966 Geology of the Coast Ranges of California.
In Geology of Northern California, edited
by E. H. Bailey, pp. 255-76. California
Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin
190.
Pakman E. Breck
1984 Archaeological Site Record, CA-SON-1451.
On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
1990a Excavation of CA-SON-1446H. On file,
Northern Region Headquarters, California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Santa
Rosa, California.
1990b Toward a Proto-Hokan Ideology. Paper
presented at the 23rd Annual Chamnool
Archaeological Conference, University of
Calgary, Alberta.
Payeras, Mariano
1979 (entry for October 11, 1822) Diary of Mariano
Payeras, Travels of the Canon Fernandez de
San Vincee To Ross. Translated by
Midisael S. Tucker and Nicholas Del
Cioppo. Submitted for distribution at the
Conference on Russian America at Sita,
Alaska in 1979. Copy on file, Fort Ro
Interpretive Library, Fort Ross, California.
Peter, J.
1938
Site Survey of the Tomnales, Bodega Bay, and
Sonoma County Coast. On fie, Manu-
script # 436, Lowie Museun of Anthropo-
logy, University of California, Berkeley.
Phillips, George H.
1981 The Enduring Struggle: Indians in California
History. Boyd and Fraser Publishing Co.,
San Francisco.
Pierce, Richard A.
1988 Russian and Soviet Fskim Indian Policies.
In Handbook of North American indians
History of Indian-White Relaions, Vol. 4,
edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 119-
27. Smithsonian Institution, Washington
D.C.
Pilling, A. and C. Meighan
1949 Archaeological Site Survey Record, CA-SON-
175. On file, Northwest Information
Center, Sonoma State University.
Porter, Cris D.
1985 Archeological Monitoring of a Portion of the
West Wall Replacment, Fort Ross State
Historic Park, Sonoma County, California.
On file, Northn Region Headqurt,
California Departmnent of Parks and
Recreation, Santa Rosa, California.
Powell, J. A. and C. L Hogue
1979 Calfornia Insects. California Natural Historny
Guide #44. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Powers, Stephen
1976 Tribes of Calornia  University of California
Press, Berkeley (originally published in
1877 in Contributions to North American
Etnology Volume 3, Deparunent of the
Interior, U.S. Geographical and Geological
Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region,
Govenment Printing Office, Washington
D.C.)
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Prager, Gabriella
1985 A Comparison of Social Structure in North
West Company and the Hudson's Bay
Company. In Status, Structure and
Stratification, edited by Marc Thompson,
M. T. Garcia, and F. J. Kense, pp. 387-92.
University of Calgary, Alberta.
Prentice, C. S.
1989 Earthquake Geology of the Northern San
Andreas Fault Near Point Arena, California.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Califomrnia Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California.
Pritchard, Willinam E.
1970 Archeology of Salt Point. In Cooperative
Plsanning for Edational Use of Salt Point
State Park, edited by Eugene E. Morris, pp.
22-33. On file, Northern Region Headquar-
ters, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Santa Rosa, California.
Purser, Maqaret
1990 Historical Artifacts. Report on Surface Finds
from Fort Ross Quads A, B. C, D, F, and L
On file, Fort Ross Archaeological Project,
Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
Purser, Margaret, Vicki Beard and Adrian Praetzellis
1990 Archaeological Investigations for the
Stockade Wall Replacement Project, Fort
Ross State Historic Park, Sonoma County,
California. On file, Anthropological
Studies Center, Sonoma State University.
Quimnn, David B.
1979a America from Concept to Discovery: Early
Explorations of North America, Vol. 1.
Arno Press, New York.
1979b The Extension of Settlement in Florida,
.Virginia, and the Spanish Southwest, Vol.
5. Arno Press, New York.
Ramenofsky, Ann F.
1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of
European Contact. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Ray, Arthur J.
1988 The Hudson's Bay Company and Native
People. In Handbook of North American
Indians History of Indian-White Relations,
Vol. 4, edited by Wilcomb E. Washburnm,
pp. 335-50. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington D.C.
Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton and Melville Herskovits
1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation.
American Anthropologist 38:149-52.
Ricketts, E. F, J. Calvin, J. W. Hedgpeth, and D. W.
Phillips
1985 Between Pacific Tides. Stanford University
Press.
Riddell, Francis
1955 Archaeological Excavation on the Farallon
Islands, California. Reports of the
University of California Archaeological
Survey 32: 1-18.
Ritter, D. F.
1978 Process Geomorphology. Win. Brown, Co.
Dubuque, Iowa.
Ritter, Eric W.
1972 Preliminary Report on Archaeological
Investigations at Fort Ross. On file,
Cultural Heritage Section, Archaeology
Laboratory, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento,
California.
Roedel, P. M.
1953 Common Ocean Fishes of the California
Coast. California Department of Fish and
Game. Fish Bulletin #91.
Ross Census
1848 Praesidio Ross. January the 8th 1848. Liste of
Indians at Present Time. Manuscript on
file, Vallejo Papers, Vol. 3, No. 326.
Bancroft Library, University of California,
Berkeley.
Rousselot, Jean-Loup, William Fitzhugh, and Aron
Crowell
1988 Maritime Eonomies of the North Pacific Rim.
In Crossroads of Continents, edited by
William Fitzhugh and Aron CrowelL pp.
151-72. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Sahlins, Marshall
1985 Islands of History. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Schenck, E.
1926 The Emerville Shellmound: Final Report.
University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology
23(3):147-282.
Schulz, Jeanette
1984 Archaeological Site Record, CA-SON-1454/H.
On file, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
Schwaderer, Rae, Jennifer Ferneau and E. Breck Parkman
1990 Coyote's Hole: Preliminary Investigations of
CA-SON-348, the Duncan's Landig Cave
Site, Sonoma Coast. Paper presented at the
24th Annual Meeting of the Society for
California Archaeology, Foster City.
Scott, S. L. (Ed.)
1983 Field Guide to the Birds of North America.
National Geographic Society. Kingsport
Press. Kingsport, Tennessee.
Sharer, Robert J. and Wendy Ashmore
1987 Archaeology Discovering Our Past. Mayfield
Publishing Co., Mountain View,
California.
246
References             247
Shay, C. Thomas
1985 Aspects of Ethnobotany in the Red River
Settlemnent in the Late Nineteenth Century.
In Status, Structure, and Stratification,
edited by M. Thompson, M. Garcia, and F.
Kense, pp. 365-70. University of Calgary,
Alberta.
Simmons, William S.
1988 Culture Theory in Contemporary
Etbnohistory. Ethnohistory 35:1-14.
Simons, Dwight D.
1990 Vertebrate Remains fron the Albion Sites. In
Western Pomno Prehistory, by Thomas N.
Layton, pp. 37-51. Monograph 32.
Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Simons, Dwight D., Thomas N. Layton, and Ruthann
Knudson
1985 A Fluted Point fromin the Mendocino County
Coast, California. Jowrnal of Calfornia
and Great Basin Anthropology 7:260-69.
Smith, Janiuce C.
1974 Pomo and Promyshlenniki: Time and Trade
Goods at Fort Ross. MA. Thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Smith, R. I. and J. T. Carlton
1975 Light's Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates of the
Central Calfornia Coast. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Snow, Dean
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic
Press, New York.
Snow, Dean and Kim  anr
1988 Eupan Contact and Indian Depopulation in
the Northeast: The Timing of the First
Epidemics. Ethnohistory 35:15-33.
Spencer-Hancock, Diane
1980 Fort Ross: Indians-Russians-Americans. Fort
Ross Interpretive Association, Jenner,
California.
Spencer-Ha    , Diane and William E. Pritchard
1982 The Chapel at Fort Ross. California History
61:3-17.
Spencer Pritchard, Diane
1991 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Russian-
American Company Employees of Fort
Ross. The Californians 8 (no. 6):42-49.
Stebbins, R. C.
1985 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and
Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston.
Steward, Julian
1942 The Direct Historical Approach to
Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337-
43.
1944 Re Archaeological Tools and Jobs. American
Antiquity 10:99-100.
Stewart, Omer C.
1935a Archaeological Site Survey Record, CA-SON-
175. On file, Northwest Information
Center, Sonoma State University.
1935b Omer Stewart's field notes. On file, DWad
Theodoratus, JCR Research, Fair Oaks,
Califonria.
1943 Notes on Pomrno Ethnogeography. University
of Calornia Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 40, No.
2, pp. 29-62.
Stewart, Suzannrme B.
1980 Archaeological Overview of Sonoma and Napa
Counties. On file, Northwest Infomation
Center, Sonoma State University.
Stillinger, Robert
1975 A Preliminary Analysis of Sona S.D.A.-1
(CA-SON-670). On file, Manuscript No. S-
6295, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
Stirton, R. A.
1951 Prehistoric Land Animals of the San Francisco
Bay Region.. In Geologic Guidebook of the
San Francisco Bay Counties, edited by O. P
Jenkins, pp. 177-86. California Division
of Mines Bulletin 154.
Strong, William Duncan
1935 An Introduction to Nebraska Archaeology.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 93
(no. 10): 1-315. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington D.C.
Stross, Fred and Robert Heizer
1974 Ethnographic Observations on the Coast
Miwok and Porno by Contre-Admiral F. P.
Von Wrangell and P. Kostromnitinv of the
Russian Colony Ross, 1839. Archaeologi-
cal Research Facility, University of
California, Berkeley.
Sullivan, R.
1975 Geological Hazards Along the Coast South of
San Francisco. California Geology
28(2):27-33.
Swagerty, William R.
1988 Indian Trade in Tram-Mississippi West to
1870. In Handbook of North American
Indians History of Indian-Wkite Relations,
Vol.4, edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn,
pp. 351-74. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington D.C.
Swiden, Christina
1986 Analysis of Shellfish Remains from SON-
1455. Appendix A in Cultural Resource
Survey at the Fort Ross Cmnpground,
Sonoma County, California, by Glenn
Farris, pp. 55-64. On file, Cultural
Heritage Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross
Taliaferro, N. L.
1951 Geology of the San Francisco Bay Counties.
In Geologic Guidebook of the San
Francisco Bay Counties, edited by 0. P.
Jenkins, pp. 117-50. California Division
of Mines Bulletin 154.
Thomas, Bryn
1976a Historic Sites Researches at Fort Ross,
California. On file, Cultural Heritage
Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Deparment of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, California.
1976b Archaeological Progress Report of the Old
Conmmandants' House Excavation, 1976
Field Season. On file, Cultural Heritage
Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Deparntment of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Thomas, David Hurst
1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the
Creek Without a Site? In Sampling in
Archaeology, edited by James Mueller, pp.
61-81. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
1989 Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Thompson, Nelson B. and David Fredrickson
1979 An Archaeological Survey of the Sillwater
Cove Regional Park, Sonoma County,
California. On file, Manuscript No. 5-
1563, Northwest Information Center,
Sonoma State University.
Tikhmenev, P. A.
1978 A History of the Russian-American Company.
Translation and editing of original 1861-
63 publications by Richard A. Pierce and
A. S. Donnelly. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
Tomlin, Kaye
1991 Fort Ross State Historic Park Tlimeline.
Manuscript on file with author.
Tomlin, Kaye and Stephen Watrous
1990 Outpost of an Empire, Fort Ross: The Russian
Colony in California. Fort Ross Interpre-
tive Association, Fort Ross, California.
Treganza, Adan E.
1954 Fort Ross A Study in Historical Archaeology.
Reports of the University of California
Archaeological Survey No. 23:1-26.
Tremamine, Kim
1989 Obsidian as a Time Keeper An Investigation
in Absolute and Relative Dating. M.A.
Thesis, Sonoma State University.
Tremaine, Kim and David Fredrickson
1988 Induced Obsidian Hydration Experiments: An
Investigation in Relative Dating.
Materials Research Society Symposium
Proceedings 123:271-78.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present.
Anthropologica 23:3-17.
Vayda, Andrew P.
1967 Pomo Trade Feasts. In Tribal and Peasant
Economies, edited by G. Dalton, pp. 494-
500. Natural History Press, New York.
Vallejo, Mariano G.
1979 Confidential Information Concerning the
Ross Settlement. Copy of 1833 manu-
script tanslated by Michael S. Tucker and
Nicholas Del Cioppo. Submnitted for Dis-
tibution at the Conference on Russian
America at Sitka, Alaska in 1979. On File,
Fort Ross Interpretive Association
Library, Fort Ross, California.
Von der Porten, Edward
1964 Fort Ross, California Sites Investigated in
1962-64 by the Archaeology class of the
Community Service Program of Santa Rosa
Junior College. On file, Cultural Heritage
Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacrametno, California.
Wagner, Henrmy
1924 The Voyage to California of Sebastian
Rodriguez Cermefio in 1595. California
Historical Society Quarterly 3:3-24.
Wagner, D. L. and E. J. Bortugno
1983 Geology of the Santa Rosa Quadrangle.
California Geology 36(12):259-63.
Waselkov, Gregory A.
1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden
Archaeology. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory Vol.
10, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 93-
210. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Wedel, Waldo R.
1938 The Direct-Historical Approach in Pawnee
Archaeology. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collection 97 (no. 7):1-21.
West, G. J.
1988 Pollen, Sediment and Charcoal Analysis: A
Study of Fire and its Relationship to a
Coastal Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens
(D. Don) Endl.) Forest, Sonoma County,
California. Report prepared for the
Anthropological Studies Center, Rohnert
Park, California.
White, Greg
1989 A Report of Archaeological Investigations at
Eleven Native American Coastal Sites,
MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino
County, California. On file, Cultural
Heritage Section, Archaeology Laboratory,
California Department of Parks and
Recreation, Sacramento.
1991 The North Coast. Paper presented at the 25th
Annual Meeting of the Society for
California Archaeology, Sacramento.
248
References             249
White, Greg, Terry Jones, James Roscoe, and Lawrence
Weigel
1982 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Concave
Base Projectile Points from the North
Coast Ranges, California. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology
4:67-79.
Whittlesey, Stephanie and J. Jefferson Reid
1982 Cholla Project Settlement Summary. In
Cholla Project Archaeology, Vol. 1,
Introduction and Special Satudies, edited by
J. Jefferson Reid, pp. 173-204. Cultural
Resources Managenment Division, Arizona
State Museum, Archaeological Series No.
161.
Williams, J. W. and T. L Bedrossian
1977 Coastal Zone Geology Near Gualala,
California. California Geology 30(2):27-
34.
Wiswell, Ella Lmy (translator)
1979 Around the World on the Knamchatka, 1817-
1819 by V. M. Golovnin. The Hawaiian
Historical Society and the University Press
of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europe and the People Without History.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Wrangell, F. P. Von
1969 Russia in California, 1833, Report of
Governor Wrangel. Translation and
editing of original 1833 report by James
R. Gibson. Pacific Northwest Quarterly
60:205-215.
1974 Some Remarks on the Savages on the
Northwest Coast of America. The Indians
in Upper California. In Ethnographic
Observations on the Coast Miwok and
Porno by Contre-Admiral F. P. Von
Wrangell and P. Kostromitinov of the
Rusian Colony Ross, 1839, pp. 1-6.
Translation and editing of original 1839
publication by Fred Stross and Robert
Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California, Berkeley.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY
NUMBER 56
AUGUST 1997
PREHISTORIC USE
OF THE
COSO VOLCANIC FIELD
by
AMY J. GILREATH
and
WILLIAM R. HILDEBRANDT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
SAN
ANGELES
0          00 ML ETES
?- - - - - ' - 00 KlLOUETER9
ISBN 1-882744-09-8
PREHISTORIC USE
OF THE
COSO VOLCANIC FIELD
by
AMY J. GILREATH
and
WILLIAM R. HILDEBRANDT
1997
NUMBER 56
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY
BERKELEY
Library of Congress Catalog Number 97-61421
ISBN 1-882744-09-8
? 1997 by the Regents of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility
University of California at Berkeley
Printed in the United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trnmintted in  y form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any inforion  ra or retrieval estamn without the
written permission of the publisher.
PREFACE
CalEnergy, Inc., today operates four geothermal power plants and maintains over 70 supporting wells in
the Coso Known Geothermal Resources Area (KGRA) of China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in southern
California. Between 1986 and 1993, the authors directed numerous archaeological studies within the Coso KGRA,
to support CalEnergy's efforts to comply with federal and state historic preservation law and policy. Many technical
reports of these studies are filed with regulatory agencies. These reports typically are extremely descriptive, very
dry, and filled with compliance jargon. Their distribution is, unsurprisingly and mercifully, restricted. Our
e ig motivation for writing this monograph was to share the noteworthy results of "compliance archaeology"
studies in this fascinating part of the western Great Basin with you, the interested public.
Many preceding studies at Coso helped lay the groundwork for this report, and a brief history of the studies
is in order here, identifying the most substantive ones. Cultural studies related to geothermal development at Coso
began in the late 1970s with an ethnographic and historic overview of Coso Hot Springs (Iroquois Research Institute
1979). Soon thereafter, Clewlow et al. (1980) conducted a sample survey of the KGRA, providing data necessary
to develop a predictive model of site density across variable environmental settings. Numerous small-scale studies
were then accomplished as prospective developers began exploratory drilling in the early 1980s. Most of this early
work was by Intermountain Research (e.g., Drews and Elston 1983; Elston and Zeier 1984; Elston et al. 1981;
Zeier and Elston 1984), and focused on obsidian acquisition patterns across time and space. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, exploration accelerated. The roster of archaeologists working in the KGRA expanded, and is reflected
by the number of reports filed, such as Botkin et al. 1987, Cleland et al. 1990, Gilreath and McGuire 1987, Kelly
et al. 1989, and W&S Consultants 1985, 1986a, 1986b. Once exploration determined that full-scale geothermal
development was viable, small-scale studies were replaced by extensive surveys blanketing over 15,000 acres
(Gilreath 1987, 1988; Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1988; Gilreath et al. 1991; Hildebrandt and Gilreath 1988).
CalEnergy's preluinary development plans were then overlaid on archaeology base maps. Where feasible,
cosuction and project designs were redrawn to avoid sites andminimize disturbance to others. In the end, all
or portions of 34 prehistoric sites required excavation. This report describes the results of those excavations. Under
ideal circumstances, sites might have been chosen for investigation based on a strategy designed to obtain a
presentaive sample of the full range of site types present. Although geothermal development plans in large part
derined the sites investigated, we were fortuitous in obtaining robust samples of both quarry and off-quarry sites.
The reader interested in individual site reports and/or analytical raw data is directed to a three-volume report by
Gilreath and Hildebrandt (1995), filed with the Eastern Inforaion Center of the California Historic Resources File
System, of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. Volume I is similar in many ways to the report in
hand, but necessarily describes the project within the cultural resources management regulatory framework.
Individual site reports are pr ed in Volume II. Volume m includes analytical raw-data appendices for projectile
points, other flaked stone artifacts (e.g., bifaces, cores, flake tools, etc.), ground and battered implements (e.g.,
handstones, millingsnes, cobble tools, etc.), and faunal remains. Excavation unit summaries are also provided,
and obsidian sourcing (X-ray fluorescence) and obsidian hydration analyses conclude the appendices.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Completing an archaeological project of this magnitude is quite a challenge. Many people have contributed
to the effort, beginning with project planning, continuing through multiple seasons of field work, and concluding
with years of analysis and write-up. Carolyn Shepherd (China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station) was a primary
player throughout the process. She was instrumental in developing this study and, through determined interactions
with numerous parties, made sure we were able to finish the work. Her enduring patience was always welcomed.
CalEnergy, who financed the undertaking, also deserves a great deal of credit. Dave McClain and Phil Essner are
commended for their efforts to incorporate archaeological concerns into the development process. Greg Halsey, with
the help of Jony Homer and Becky Baker, assisted in all aspects of the project, ranging from field logistics to
budgetary concerns. Laurie McClenahan (MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc.) and Jean Hopkins (formerly of
MHA) developed the environmental documents necessary for our work to go forward; we appreciate their efforts.
We also thank Rob Jackson (then of the State Office of Historic Preservation) and Joan Oxendine (Bureau of Land
Management) for their assistance during early phases of the project.
Many people participated in the field effort, working hard under a wide range of climatic conditions. We
thank Laura Barrett, John Berg, Gary Buck, Kimberly Collins-Roscoe, Jery Doty, Willie Duddles, Rick Fitzgerald,
Mark Giambastiani, David Glover, Leslie Glover, Glenn Gmoser, Larry Hause, Jeff Hall, Jennifer Hider, Liz
Honeysett, Cristi Hunter, Mark Hylkema, Marilyn Jasmain, Robert Jobson, Kirk Johnson, Bob Johnson, Debbie
Jones, Ed Kaler, Eric Kaufnn, the late Ron King, Jan Lawson, the late James N. Leavitt, Susan McCabe, Kelly
McGuire, Pat Mikkelsen, Rochelle Mink, Peter Mundwiller, Jim Nelson, Daryl Noble, Bill Norton, Traci O'Brien,
Matt O'Connell, Jill Onken, Rex Palmer, Cindy Park, Bert Rader, Allise Rhode, D. Rogers, James Roscoe, Kristina
Roper, Gary Sauner, Barry Scott, Jill Shannon, Bill Slater, Linda Sickler-Hylkema, Bill Stillman, Chris Sublett,
Miranda Warburton, Laurie Walsh, Brian Wickstrom, Glen Wilson, and Eric Wohlgemuth.
We are grateful to all involved with analysis and report p tion, including Marguerite Badovinac, Kevin
Bell, John Berg, David Boe, Chris Carter, Bill Combs, Jerry Doty, Deborah Dyer, Jelmer Eerkens, Christine
Franco, David Glover, Leslie Glover, Carl Hansen, Susan Harris, Jennifer Hider, Liz Honeysett, Cristi Hunter,
Kandi Gillespie, Martha Jackson, Eric Kaufmann, Joe Mayeux, Bill Norton, Jessie Piper, Jennifer Richman, Barry
Scott, Paul Strader, Krislyn Taite, Nnika Tinney, Sharon Waechter, Patricia Welsh, and Derek Wheeler. We
especially appreciate the efforts of Eric Wohlgemuth throughout this project, leading excavation crews, directing
laboratory studies, and contributing his ethnobotanical expertise. Finally, we thank Tammara Ekness and Peter
Mundwiller for their fine graphics work, and Michael Delacorte for sharing information from ongoing projects.
The authors particularly appreciate Robert Bettinger and William Clewlow, Jr., for their efforts reviewing,
editing, and discussing an early draft version. We thank two anonymous peers for the time and attention they paid
our revised draft. Comments hey provided made us work harder at   ing certain aspects of this monograph,
and we are much obliged for their efforts.
ii
ABSTRACT
Excavations at 34 sites in the Coso Volcanic Field reveal a dynamic history of obsidian use spanning at least
10,000 years. Obsidian is common and abundant throughout the area, both in primary and secondary contexts.
Secondary lag deposits are widely distributed due to numerous pyroclastic eruptions that sent obsidian nodules and
other debris over much of the local laInscape. Primary flows, though less numerous and of more difficult access,
have greater quantities of material, often forming thick bands of glass extruded from the sides of rhyolite domes.
Dated primarily on the basis of obsidian hydration, analysisstl of over 90 chronologically discrete assemblages indicates
that prior to 2800 B.P., use of the area was largely restricted to generalized, short-term exploitation of lag quarries
by groups using an expansive, highly mobile subsistence-settlement system. Beginning around 2800 B.P., but
reaching peak proportions between 2300-1275 B.P., a major reorganization in production strategy took place. Lag
quarries were essentially ignored, and primary flows were intensively exploited, supplying obsidian to a
co     ding proliferation of off-quarry biface manufacturing areas. Increases in production volume were at least
partially related to long distance exchange. Contemporaneous parallel increases in Coso obsidian use among
consumer populations in the Owens-Rose Valley area, southern Sierra Nevada and, more importantly, several
locations in coastal southern. California provide evidence of this exchange. Contrary to expectations of some,
development of obsidian surpluses for exchange did not correlate with the emergence of sedentary populations and
local control of the source. Rather, subsistence-settlement pattern data from surrounding areas indicate that
residential mobility remained relatively high, but followed a more regularized schedule, allowing more predictable
interactions among neighboring populations.
Local control of the Volcanic Field appears to have occurred for only a short period between ca. 1275-800
B.P., co-occurring with a reduction in settlement mobility region-wide. During this short period, flaked stone
production became largely restricted to few primary deposits, even though obsidian consumption continued
unimpeded in outlying areas. After 800 B.P., continued decreases in settlement mobility, often accompanied by
higher degrees of territoriality, did not lead to an expanded inter-regional exchange system. Instead, production and
exchange of Coso obsidian items essentially stopped, and the Volcanic Field was used for subsistence, largely the
exploitation in unprecedented proportions of small seeds. Collapse of the Coso production-exchange system is
attributed to decreased demand caused by a variety of factors including technological change and a shifting
subsistence focus, while increases in territoriality may have inhibited its supply, not only by restricting direct access,
but also by increasing the number of exchanges required to move material equivalent distances across the land.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .......................................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    ...........................................
ABSTRACT .....................................................
LIST OF MAPS ............................................
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................
LIST OF PLATES ...........................................
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................
................ ii
............... ii
............... 1u
................ vii
................ vii
............   viii
.. ..........  viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH ISSUES .....................................
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY .................................
CHRONOLOGY   ...............................................
RADIOCARBON DATES FROM THE VOLCANIC FIELD .................
CROSS-DATING OF DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS FROM THE VOLCANIC FIELD
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATING IN THE COSO VOLCANIC FIELD .........
LITHIC PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE .............................
WHAT QUARRY DEPOSITS WERE EXPLOITED ......................
WHEN DID EXPLOITATION OCCUR ..............................
WHAT WAS BEING PRODUCED AND IN WHAT QUANTITIES ............
WHY WAS COSO OBSIDIAN EXPLOITED ...........................
WHO HAD ACCESS TO COSO OBSIDIAN............................
SUBSISTENCE AND SETTLEMENT ..................................
NORTHERN MOJAVE DESERT ..................................
WESTERN MOJAVE DESERT ....................................
OWENS VALLEY ..........................................
SOUTHERN SIERRA NEVADA AND WHITE MOUNTAINS ...............
DEATH AND DEEP SPRINGS VALLEYS ............................
COSO REGION ..............................................
DISCUSSION ..............................................
CHAPTER 3: FIELD AND ANALYTICAL METHODS . .
FIELD METHODS .......................
ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................
FLAKED STONE ANALYSIS ..............
GROUND AND BATTERED STONE ANALYSIS
Millingstones .....................
H adstones........................
Miscellaneous Ground Stone ............
Other Milling Equipment ..............
Non-Obsidian Cobble-Cores ............
MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS ...........
FLOTATION ANALYSIS (by E. Wohlgemuth) ...
FAUNAL ANALYSIS ...................
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY ....
PLANT RESOURCES .....................
PLANT RESOURCE SUMMARY ...........
ANIMAL RESOURCES ....................
DISCUSSION ............................
v
ee.......e 1
7
7
9
9
9
10
16
16
16
18
21
21
22
22
24
25
26
26
28
28
.31
.31
.33
.34
.38
.41
.41
.41
.42
.42
.42
.50
* 50
. 51
.54
57
.58
.58
CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER 5: CHRONOMETRICS .............................
RADIOCARBON ASSAYS ................................
PROJECTILE POINTS...................................
OTHER TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTICITEMS ...................
SUMMARY ...........................................
CHAPTER 6: LITHIC PRODUCTION PATTERNS ...................
EARLY PERIOD QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ..................
EARLY PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ..............
EARLY PERIOD DISCUSSION ..........................
LITTLE LAKE PERIOD QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES .............
LITTLE LAKE PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ..........
LITTLE LAKE PERIOD DISCUSSION ......................
EARLY NEWBERRY PERIOD QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES.........
EARLY NEWBERRY PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ......
EARLY NEWBERRY PERIOD DISCUSSION ..................
MIDDLE NEWBERRY PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES.
MIDDLE NEWBERRY PERIOD DISCUSSION .................
LATE NEWBERRY PERIOD PRIMARY QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ...
LATE NEWBERRY PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES .......
LATE NEWBERRY PERIOD DISCUSSION ...................
HAIWEE PERIOD PRIMARY QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ..........
HAIWEE PERIOD LAG QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES .............
HAIWEE PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES ..............
HAIWEE PERIOD DISCUSSION...........................
MARANA PERIOD LAG QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES .............
MARANA PERIOD OFF-QUARRY ASSEMBLAGES .............
MARANA PERIOD DISCUSSION .........................
DISCUSSION.........................................
TOOLSTONE WORKING PRACTICES AT COSO QUARRIES .......
TOOLSTONE WORKING PRACTICES IN OFF-QUARRY CONTEXTS
CHAPTER 7: SUBSISTENCE-SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ..
ARTIFACT AND FEATURE INVENTORIES ........
EARLY PERIOD ........................
LITTLE LAKE PERIOD ...................
EARLY NEWBERRY PERIOD ...............
MIDDLE NEWBERRY PERIOD ..............
LATE NEWBERRY PERIOD ................
HA1WEE PERIOD .......................
MARANA PERIOD ......................
SUBSISTENCE-SETTLEMENT SUMMARY .........
DIACHRONIC TRENDS....................
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS..................
GROUND AND BATE RED STONE ASSEMBLAGES
Millingstones  .......................
Handstones ..........................
Non-Obsidian Cobble-Cores ..............
FLORAL REMAINS ......................
FAUNAL REMAINS .....................
DISCUSSION..............................
vi
61
68
70
87
88
. 89
. 89
.94
. 95
. 97
100
102
102
107
108
109
110
110
112
118
118
121
123
124
124
124
128
128
129
130
.... 131
.... 131
.... 131
.... 132
.... 133
.... 133
.... 134
.... 135
.... 135
.... 139
.... 139
.... 141
.... 141
.... 141
.... 150
.... 152
.... 153
.... 157
.... 158
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
I . .
I . .
I . .
I . .
I . .
I .
CONTENTS - Continued
CHAPTER 8: COSO OBSIDIAN EXCHANGE PATTERNS ................................ 161
MOJAVE  B  RANGE  ..................................................  164
FORT  IRWIN  ..... ................................................  164
THE ROSE SPRING SITE (INY-372, LOCUS 1) ..................................... 166
COSO JUNCTION  RANCH  SITE (INY-2284)  ..................................  167
THE CONTEL PROJECT .................................................... 168
LUBKIN CREEK SITE (INY-30) ............................................... 170
KERN PLATEAU ...................................................... 170
LAKE ISABELLA AND THE TULE RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION .................. 171
GREATER LOS ANGELES VICINITY  ....................................... 171
ANTELOPE AND FREMONT VALLEYS ...................................... 173
DISCUSSION  ........................................................ 174
CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... 177
LOCAL CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE   ....................................177
PREHISTORIC LAND-USE CHANGE WITHIN THE COSO VOLCANIC FIELD ............ 177
RESOURCE INTENSIFICATION IN THE COSO VOLCANIC FIELD ................ 179
COMPARISON WITH OTHER OBSIDIAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS .................... 180
EXCHANGE, CRAFT SPECIALIZATION, AND SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION ....... 181
REFERENCES CITED ..................................................... 185
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1   Project Location  .................................................2
Map 2   Important Project Locations in the Region  .................................3
Map 3   Prehistoric Sites in Study Area  ........................................4
Map4    Geologic Map ................................................. 8
Map 5   Known Obsidian Quarries within the Coso Volcanic Field ........................12
Map 6   Major Obsidian Sources in Eastern California  ...............................17
Map 7   Regional Vegetation  ...............................................52
Map 8     a Vegetation...................................................... 53
Map 9   Distribution of Early and Little Lake Period Components .......................142
Map 10  Distribution of Early Newberry and Middle Newberry Period Components ............  143
Map 11  Distribution of Late Newberry Period Components  ...........................144
Map 12  Distribution of Haiwee and Marana Period Components ........................145
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Pairings of Coso Hydration Values and Uncorrected Radiocarbon Dates from
the Western Mojave Desert........................... ................ 14
Figure 2 Hydration Profiles for Coso, Casa Diablo, and Bodie Hills Source Areas ..............19
Figure 3 Obsidian Stage 2 Bifaces  ............................................36
Figure 4  Obsidian Stage 3 Bifaces ad Stage 2 Uniface-B ..............................37
Figure 5  Complete Obsidian Stage 3 Flake Blanks  ..................................38
Figure 6 Complete Obsidian Cores............................................39
Figure 7 Complete Obsidian Flake Tool and Unifaces ................................40
Figure 8 Complete Unifacial Slab of Granite ......................................42
Figure 9 Select Complete Unifacial Granite Millingstones  .............................43
Figure 10 Select Complete Unifacial Millingstones ....................................44
vii
VII
CONTENTS - Continued
Figure 11 Select Handstones   ................................................45
Figure 12 Select Handstones   ................................................46
Figure 13 Select Handstones   ................................................47
Figure 14  Select Complete Non-Obsidian Cobble-Cores  ................................48
Figure 15 Olivella Beads........................................................ 49
Figure 16 Miscellaneous Artifacts  .............................................49
Figure 17 Temporal Distribution of Single Period Loci in 250 Year Increments ...................63
Figure 18 Hydration Data Summary from Single Period Deposits in the Coso Volcanic Field ......... 65
Figure 19 Coso Obsidian Hydration Values on Projectile Points from the Volcanic Field ............ 83
Figure 20 Coso Obsidian Hydration Values on Elko and Little Lake Points..................... 85
Figure 21 Formalized Rock-lined Hearths at INY4329, Locus 1 ......................... 137
Figure 22  Informal Hearths at INY-1906, Locus 2...................................... 138
Figure 23 Seasonal Availability of Recovered Seeds ................................. 156
Figure 24 Frequency Distribution of Coso Hydration Values for Various Projects in
the Western Mojave Desert .................     ................... ........ 165
Figure 25  Frequency Distribution of Coso Hydration Values for Various Projects in
Southern Owens Valley and the Southern Sierra Nevada ......................... 169
Figure 26 Frequency Distribution of Coso Hydration Values for Various Projects in
Coastal Southern California and the Coso Volcanic Field  ....................... 172
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1   Desert Side-notched, Cottonwood, and Saratoga Spring Projectile Points ............... 74
Plate 2   Rose Spring Projectile Points  .........................................75
Plate 3   Humboldt Basal-notched and Undifferentiated Humboldt Projectile Points .............. 76
Plate 4   Elko Series Projectile Points  ...........................................77
Plate 5   Elko Series Projectile Points  .......................................... 78
Plate 6   Gypsum and Little Lake Series Projectile Points  .............................. 79
Plate 7   Silver Lake and Lake Mohave Variants of Great Basin Stemmed Projectile Points...........80
Plate 8   Lake Mohave Variants of Great Basin Stemmed Projectile Points  ...................81
Plate 9   Concave-based and Leaf-shaped Projectile Points  .............................82
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1   Excavated Sites ........................................................1
Table 2   Types of Loci Investigated  ...........................................               5
Table 3   Intra-source Hydration Relationships at the Lubkin Creek Site (CA-INY-30),
from Basgall 1990. ................................................. 13
Table 4   Pairings of Coso Hydration Values and Uncorrected Radiocarbon Dates from the
Western Mojave Desert . .............................................. 15
Table 5   Flaked Stone Assemblages from Selected Casa Diablo Sites.......................... 20
Table 6   Materials Recovered from Project Sites . .....................................32
Table 7   Average Monthly and Mean Annual Precipitation and Temperature
at Select Locations in the Region ........................................... 54
Table 8   Important Economic Plants of Southeastern California  ..........................55
Table 9   Chronological Data from Project Sits  .................................... 62
Table 10  Chronological Periods for the Coso Volcanic Field ............................64
Table 11  Chronometric Summary from Component Areas by Site .........................66
Table 12  Uncorrected Radiocarbon Dates from Project Sites ............................... 69
Table 13  Radiocarbon and Hydration Pairings from Project Sites  .........................70
Table 14  Projectile Points by Material Type  ......................................71
viii
CONTENTS - Continued
Table 15   Summay Metrics of Obsidian Projectile Points ..................................72
Table 16  Hydration Data Summary of Coso Obsidian Projectile Points from the Volcanic Field ....... 73
Table 17  Frequencies of Coso Obsidian Projectile Points by Type and Period  .................84
Table 18  Hydration Data on Coso Obsidian Projectile Points from Various Projects.............. 86
Table 19   Diagnostic Projectile Points in Components.................................... 88
Table 20  Assemblage Inventories in Early Period Components  ...........................90
Table 21   Summa    Metics of Cores in Early Period Components  ......................... 91
Table 22   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Early Period Components ............................................. 92
Table 23   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Early Period Components  .......................93
Table 24   S  ma    Metrics of Unifaces in Early Period Components.......................... 93
Table 25   Debitage S  ma    Data for Early Period Co onents   .......................... 94
Table 26   Summary Attributes of Simple Flake Tools at Off-Quarry Contexts by Period ............ 96
Table 27   Assemblage Inventories in Little Lake Period Components  .......................98
Table 28   Summary Metrics of Cores in Little Lake Period Components  .....................99
Table 29   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Little Lake Period Components ....................................... 100
Table 30   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Little Lake Period Components .....................101
Table 31   Summary Metrics of Unifaces in Little Lake Period Components  .................. 101
Table 32   Debitage Summary Data for Little Lake Period Components  ..................... 102
Table 33   Assemblage Inventories in Early Newberry Period Component  ................... 103
Table 34   Summary Metrics of Cores in Early Newberry Period Components ................. 104
Table 35   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Early Newberry Period Components .............................          ......          105
Table 36   Smmry Attributes of Bifaces in Early Newberry Period Components............... 106
Table 37   Summary Metrics of Unifaces in Early Newberry Period Components .................. 106
Table 38   Debitage Summary Data for Early Newberry Period Components ..................... 107
Table 39   Assemblage Inventories in Middle Newberry Period Components .................. 110
Table 40   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Middle Newberry Period Components ................................... 111
Table 41   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Middle Newberry Period Components.............. 111
Table 42   Debitage Summary Data for Middle Newberry Period Components ................. .111
Table 43   Assemblage Inventories in Late Newberry Period Component  .................... 113
Table 44   Summary Metrics of Cores in Late Newberry Period Components .....................114
Table 45   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Late Newberry Period Components ..................................... 115
Table 46   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Late Newberry Period Components ................. 116
Table 47   Smmary Metrics of Unifaces in Late Newberry Period Components ................... 116
Table 48   Debitage Summary Data for Late Newberry Period Components................... 117
Table 49   Projectile Points and Biface/Points from Late Newberry Off-Quarry Components  ........ 117
Table 50   Assemblage Inventories in Haiwee Period Components ......................... 119
Table 51   Summary Metrics of Cores in Haiwee Period Components    ...................... 120
Table 52   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Haiwee Period Components    ......................................... 121
Table 53   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Haiwee Period Components ....................... 122
Table 54   Debitage Summary Data for Haiwee Period Components    ....................... 122
Table 55   Summary Metrics of Unifaces in Haiwee Period Components ..................... 123
Table 56   Assemblage Inventories at Marana Period Comonents ......................... 125
Table 57   Summary Metrics of Cores in Marana Period Components    ...................... 126
Table 58   Summary Metrics of Bifaces, Uniface-B's, and Flake Blanks in
Marana Period Components      ......................................... 127
Table 59   Summary Attributes of Bifaces in Marana Period Components ....................... 127
Table 60   Debitage Summary Data for Marana Period Components     ....................... 128
ix
CONTENTS - Continued
Table 61    Subsurface Debitage Densities by Period and Context (CU-1/4" m3)
elf"%1L  AE ~','qt
1 Uale o
Table 63
Table 64
Table 65
Table 66
Table 67
Table 68
Table 69
Table 70
Table 71
Table 72
Table 73
Table 74
Table 75
Table 76
Table 77
Table 78
Table 79
Table 80
Table 81
Table 82
Table 83
Table 84
Table 85
Table 86
Table 87
............... 129
Fvarean renuo reatur.pes ................................................
Frequency Distribution of Component Types Across Time  ...................
Frequency Distribution of Selected Artifacts Across Time ........................
Frequency Distribution of Feature Types Across Time ......................
Millingstone Surface Configuration by Form  ............................
Millingstone Surface Configuration by Wear Type  ........................
Millingstone Form by Bifacial and Unifacial Wear ........................
Millingstone Surface Configuration by Bifacial and Unifacial Wear ..............
Millingstone Attributes Across Time .................................
Millingstone Surface Configuration Across Time  .........................
Millingstone Form by Condition  ...................................
Handstone Wear by Material Type ..................................
Frequency of Unifacial and Bifacial Handstones Across Time  .................
Handstone Shaping, Secondary Wear, and Condition by Material Type ............
Handstone Surface Configuration Across Time ...........................
Non-Obsidian Cobble-Core Material Types Across Time ....................
Non-Obsidian Cobble-Core Wear Intensity Across Time .....................
Non-Obsidian Cobble-Core Wear Type Across Time .......................
Plant Macrofossils from Select Features ................................
Faunal Remains from Components ..................................
Coso Glass Hydration Values for Various Archaeological Projects ...............
Coso Obsidian EHT Corrections for Select Locations (adapted from Basgall 1990) ....
Subsurface Distribution of Projectile Points and Debitage from
INY-372, Locus 1 (1987-89).  ......................................
Hydration Profile and Debitage Characterization at INY-2284  .................
Hydration Data Compiled from the Greater Los Angeles Vicinity ...............
Single Period Loci Densities Standardized to 100-year Spans in the Coso Volcanic Field
(from Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1991:Table 19) ..........................
... 136
... 139
... 140
140
146
... 146
... 147
. 147
... 148
... 149
... 149
... 150
... 151
... 151
... 152
... 153
154
... 154
.. 155
... 157
... 162
... 164
... 167
... 168
... 173
... 174
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes recent archaeological excavations in the Coso Volcanic Field, Inyo County, California (Maps
1 and 2). Adniistered by China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, the area is characterized by vast deposits of
naturally occurring obsidian that were extensively quarried throughout prehistory. It also contains a great
underground reservoir of super-heated water, currently evident at active fumaroles. In addition to providing hot
springs used by both prehistoric and historic peoples, the reservoir has been developed and generates enough
electricity for over 240,000 urban dwellers.
Known sites in the Coso Volcanic Field include about 150 quarry sites, identified as such by the natural
presence of workable obsidian, 300 off-quarry sites, and 100 segregated reduction locations. This report presents
results of excavations at 34 of 62 prehistoric sites within part of the Coso Volcanic Field (Map 3, Table 1). The
sites investigated include 20 quarries and 14 off-quarry sites, but no segregated reduction locations. It is apparent
from previous descriptions of these segregated reduction locations, where one or several cobbles were reduced to
a few cores and/or bifaces, that the reduction activities at them differed only in intensity, not in kind, from activities
carried out at quarry and off-quarry sites. Consequently, their absence in our data base is of minimal importance
since it creates little interpretive biases. Of the 11 prehistoric site types identified in the Coso Volcanic Field, our
data base includes at least one example of all but one of these types (Table 2). Brief Encampments are the most
common type of off-quarry loci in the Volcanic Field; over half of the off-quarry sites we investigated were
previously classified to this type (Table 2). Perfunctory Quarries are the most common type of quarry loci; nearly
half of the quarries studied here were of this type. In a general sense, then, the sites excavated and described
herein, include a variety of site types, with those most prevalent, best represented. Excavations were extensive
(435.4 mi3). Combined with surface collection, over 7,500 artifacts and 185,000 pieces of debitage were recovered.
Table 1. Excavated Sites.
Site Number              Site Number             Site Number
INY-1816                  INY-3015                INY-4320
INY-1824 Main            INY-3299                 INY-4322/H
INY-1824-B                INY-3300                INY-4324/H
INY-1824-X                INY-3456                INY-4325
INY-1906                  INY-4239                INY-4327
INY-1907                  INY-4240                INY-4328
INY-1984                  INY-4243                INY-4329
INY-2103                  INY-4244                INY-4330
INY-2825                  INY-4246                INY-4331
INY-2826                  INY-4252                INY-4378
INY-3004/3005             INY-4267
INY-3012                  INY-4319
NOTE: California State Trinomial site designations are employed.
This volume begins with a summary of our research goals, outlining the outstanding issues addressed by
the study (Chapter 2). Field and analytical methods follow, summarizing approaches to excavation, artifact
classification and sampling, and other procedural matters (Chapter 3). The next five chapters present data directly
corre   ing to the research issues outlined in Chapter 2. These include a review of critical local and regional
environmental variables (Chapter 4), development of a local chronological sequence (Chapter 5), a diachronic
accounting of lithic production activities (Chapter 6), and an evaluation of how these activities related to patterns
of subsistence and settlement (Chapter 7). Finally, Coso obsidian and its relevance to prehistoric exchange patterns
is addressed in Chapter 8, followed by a synthesis of important project findings (Chapter 9).
1
SAN FRANCISC  ~'-.
o              100 MILES
0                 200 KILOMETERS
~..+
{? ...
::
O~~ ti~.E
?            200 tOMEWR
AREA
RIDGECREST
LOS ANGELES
Map 1. Project Location.
2
VALLEY
*MOJAVE B RANGE
*FORT IRWIN
*ANTELOPE/FREMONT VALLEYS
ANGELES COUNTY
0
Cw
0I
d.,-
0                       100 MILES
0
Map 2. Important Project Locations in the Region.
3
Alts.
I? also 10
0-
V-0
*;p
(""I
V-A
V-t

V-A
C"I
13 C -Ari
CA-
1
rl
S1300 FEET
I   -
E l  ETN
Map 3. Prehistoric Sites in Study Area.
4
CA4
Table 2. Types of Loci Investigated.
Coso Volcanic Field       Sample Excavated
No.        %             No.        %
Quarry Loci/Sites
Limited Residential Quarry       34        18.6            5       26.3
Perfunctory Quarry              131       71.6             9       47.3
Quarry Location Encampment       13        7.1             3       15.8
Large Lag Quarry                  3        1.6             1        5.3
Quarry Milling Zone               2        1.1             1        5.3
Subtotal                        183      100.0            19      100.0
Unclassified/Unknown             50        --              2        --
Off-Quarry Loci/Sites
Brief Encampments               247       69.5            17       56.7
Limited Habitation Encampments   35        9.9             7       23.3
Production Station               11        3.1             2        6.7
Milling Camp                      13       3.7             3       10.0
Isolated Feature/Milling Station  49      13.8             1        3.3
Subtotal                        355      100.0            30      100.0
Unclassified/Unknown             54        --              1        --
Segregated Reduction Loci          89       --               --       --
NOTE: Many sites contain multiple loci.
5
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH ISSUES
The major goal of this project is to monitor the prehistoric production, use, and exchange of Coso obsidian, and
determine the relationship of these activities to other socioeconomic developments in the region. To achieve this
goal, several research problems have been developed. Derived from previous studies in eastern California and
similar projects conducted in other parts of the world, these issues reflect current perspectives in hunter-gatherer
research as applied to prehistoric use of obsidian-rich environments. The first of four issues considered is the area's
environmental productivity, both in terms of hard resources (e.g., obsidian) and soft resources (e.g., food). The
second research problem revolves around chronology and determining the age of project sites. Documenting
prehistoric lithic exploitation patterns is the third problem domain. The final issue concerns subsistence and
settlement practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY
The Coso Volcanic Field lies in the southwestern portion of the Coso Range, east of the Sierra Nevada,
south of Owens Valley, west of the Argus Range, and north of Indian Wells Valley (Map 2). It is characterized
by numerous explosion craters, rhyolitic domes, debris flows, and pyroclastic deposits, most originating from
volcanic events that occurred between 1.5 million and 33,000 years B.P. (Map 4; Duffield et al. 1980). Most of
the original basement rock consists of Mesozoic granitics which protrude the more recent volcanic material in the
form of sporadic, discontinuous ridge systems. Pyroclastic fallout fills most of the small valleys that have formed
between the ridges and domes, creating a landscape that clearly reflects its violent past. Due to the complexity of
these multiple volcanic events, many of the valleys have been enclosed, resulting in several small, internally drained
playas.
Naturally occurring obsidian is abu ly present throughout the Coso Volcanic Field, and available from
a variety of contexts. Survey of approximately 24,000 acres has identified over 150 quarry sites (Gilreath and
Hildebrandt 1991). These include several primary outs of glass flowing from the sides of steep rhyolitic domes,
with high quality obsidian often occurring as large boulders and slabs. Most of these are on Sugarloaf Mountain
where many tons of high quality material are still available. The most impressive of this group was originally
termed the "Colossal Quarry" by Harrington (1951) and described as:
More than two miles of ancient diggings, plainly visible along the edge of the
blufl.! A hillside covered with hundreds of tons of obsidian quarry refuse left by
prehistoric workers! It did not seem possible, yet there it was... We stood there
in amazement that day ...thinking of the inm  erable human hands, the countless
generations that must have been required to produce such a result [1951:15].
Secondary quarries occur as obsidian float in major debris flows or in concentrations of air fall sporadically
scattered across the land during volcanic eruptions. These quarries are numerous and usually more accessible than
the others. They vary from small pockets that could have been played-out during a single visit, to extensive nodule
scatters encompassing tens of acres. The amount of useable obsidian in the most extensive secondary deposits,
however, seems inconsequential when compared to the amount at extensive primary quarries. These secondary
quarries occur on ridgetops, exposed as lag after fine-grained sediments have eroded away (Elston and Zeier 1984).
The obsidian ranges from pebbles to cobble-sized fragments reaching 30 cm in diameter. Every major natural
obsidian deposit discovered during survey was exploited (i.e., contains chipping debris), but there are many tons
of useable obsidian still available both at primary and secondary deposits.
Subsistence resources are less abundant. Owing largely to the rain shadow effect of the Sierra Nevada,
precipitation averages only 14 cm (5 in.) per year, with the majority (75 %) occurring between December and March
(Troxell and Hofman 1954). Convectional thunderstorms originating from the Southwest and Gulf of Mexico
provide additional moisture from July through October, however, potential evapotranspiration exceeds annual
7
ANo~
K.
7
IH
ALLUVIUM ALLUVIAL PAN AND MINOR FLUVIAL DEOSr
BASE      ROCKS - PRINCIPALLY GRANITIC INTRUSIVE ROCKS OP MESOZOIC AGE.
PYROCLASnC DEPOSITS WELL-BEDD!D FRAGOM AL DEPOSITS OF PUMICE: OSIDIAN, AND BASIMENT ROCKS;
LOCALLY REWORKED FROM HILLSIDES, FORMS EXPLOSIVE RINGS AROUND SOME DOMES AND GENERALLY
MANTIES ENTIRE AREA OF VOLCANIC FIELD; INCLUDES MINOR PLAYA DEPOSITS
STEEP-SIDED FLOWS AND DOMES MOST COVERED BY A CARAPACE OF VESICULAR RHYOLME TIIROUGI I WHIaCt
OBSIDIAN PROTRUDES LOCALLY.
0                                    3
anOER VOLCANIC                                            MILES
MILETERS
0,                     3 ~CEt~s. a
Map 4. Geologic Map.
8
precipitation by a wide margin, resulting in a sparse vegetative cover of Mojave Creosote Bush Scrub, Mojave
Mixed Woody Scrub, and Desert Saltbush Scrub (Billings 1951; Leitner and Leitner 1988; Thomrthwaite 1948).
A wide range of plant and animal resources were exploited within these environmental zones, but their availability
varied considerably from one season to the next, and from year-to-year depending on local climatic conditions. To
evaluate the importance of these resources, and ultimately determine their influence on long-term strategies of
subsistence and settlement, it is first necessary to measure local resource abundance and diversity relative to that
of surrounding regions (e.g., the well-watered lands of Owens Valley). This will be accomplished through tracing
the distribution of local vegetation communities (Leitner and Leitner 1988) and translating this information into
measures of plant and animal productivity. Successful completion of this process requires review of ethnographic
accounts of subsistence technology and ecological data concerning seasonal and annual cycles in resource
pctivity. Much of this work has already been completed by Delacorte (1990) who organized particular habitat
zones common to eastern California into seasonally specific resource packages. Combining each package with the
most-likely techniques used in their exploitation allows estimates of search, pursuit, and processing costs for each,
and ultimately an overall ranking of the various environmental circumstances existing in the region.
CHRONOLOGY
Our ability to place prehistoric sites in their temporal context is prerequisite to developing a use-history for
the Volcanic Field. Because we want to know when the area was occupied, if occupational intensity and focus
changed through time, and if diachronic variability in obsidian exploitation patterns existed, we want to estimate the
age of as many sites as possible. The nature of the prehistoric record within the Volcanic Field is such that only
three dating techniques are useful in positing age estimates: radiocarbon assay, cross-dating of diagnostic artifacts,
and obsidian hydration.
RADIOCARBON DATES FROM THE VOLCANIC FIELD
Unfortunately, prehistoric cultural deposits containing organic residues are the exception, not the rule,
within the Volcanic Field. True midden deposits have accumulated at very few locations, and structural remns
are equally rare. Consequently radiocarbon samples are primarily obtained from hearths, roasting pits, and other
such comparatively small features. Furthermore, rarely are such features discovered in buried context. An
inordinately high percentage of those features excavated in the Volcanic Field could be seen on the ground,
suggesting in and of itself that they are fairly recent. Notwithstanding these problems of visibility, an occupational
history of the Volcanic Field reliant on the radiocarbon dates would also, in effect, document when specific kinds
of activities involving hearth usage occurred, but those episodes need not have been in phase with activities related
to stone working.
CROSS-DATING OF DIAGNOSTIC ARTIFACTS FROM THE VOLCANIC FIELD
Prehistoric artifacts from the Volcanic Field most amenable to cross-dating include projectile points, several
types of beads, and pottery. Projectile points occur at more sites than either beads or pottery, but only about 150
have been discovered.
Stating what many North American archaeologists before them had come to conclude, Heizer and Hester
wrote "projectile points are subject to distinctive morphological variation through time, and these changes have made
them extremely important as 'time markers' (the 'historical-index' types of Steward 1954)...no one can deny the
value of projectile point types as guides to the chronological ordering of prehistoric cultural development"
(1978:153). By compiling lists of radiocarbon dated deposits in the Great Basin where various projectile point types
had been recovered, Heizer and Hester reaffirmed that different styles occurred during different intervals, and
offered temporal ranges for various commonly recognized types: Pinto, Humboldt, Elko, Rose Spring, Eastgate,
Desert Side-notched, and Cottonwood, among others.
9
In seeking to develop a local chronological sequence for Monitor Valley, Nevada, Thomas (1981) devised
a classification scheme for projectile points that relied on a variety of metric attributes. This approach served to
remove much of the subjectivity from classifications, and allowed researchers working with different collections to
directly compare the morphological characteristics of their points to those found elsewhere. The Monitor Valley
projectile point chronological sequence has come to serve as a standard for cross-dating points throughout the Great
Basin.
Several years ago, Flenniken and Raymond made the observation that "the contingencies of point
manufacture, hafting, use, and rejuvenation create morphological changes that may render questionable use of these
morphological typologies as prehistoric cultural markers" (1986:603). In the course of repairing a break, the
morphology of the point may change such that the repaired one ill-conforms to the ideal type. This rather plain
observation has generated considerable debate (Bettinger et al. 1991; Flenniken and Wilke 1989; Thomas 1986;
Wilke and Flennien 1991) regarding the degree to which reworking is of concern to chronology: is there evidence
that prehistoric individuals actually did rework broken points in a fashion that mutes their veracity as chronological
markers; are particular types of projectile points more susceptible/amenable to reworking than others? The argument
has expanded, since, to question the temporal placement of dart-points (special emphasis given to Elko, Little Lake,
Gypsum, and Humboldt series) ine the Great Basin, with one side contending that varaious typies are derivatives of
one another (changing form during the use-life of the artifact), and that the types are not consecutively occurring
temporally diagnostic forms, rather they co-exist in deposits ranging from 8500-1500 B.P. (Flenniken and Wilke
1989). The other side maintains that they are temporally consecutive types that serve as chronological markers
(Bettinger et al. 1991).
Data from the Coso Volcanic Field may provide some insight into this issue. The projectile points
recovered from the Volcanic Field will be described in a fashion consistent with the Monitor Valley projectile point
key (Thomas 1981), and referenced using the point type nomenclature that has developed in the archaeological
literature for the region. Hydration rim values recorded on the projectile points will be presented, and used to
independently evaluate the temporal significance of morphologically distinct types.
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATING IN TE COSO VOLCANIC FIELD
That moisture penetrates volcanic glass at a predictable and, hence, quantifiable rate is at the foundation
of obsidian hydration dating. The assumption holds that the hydration rind on a surface of an obsidian flake broken
off from the parent mass some 2000 years ago will be consistently wider than the rind on a flake broken from the
same piece only 1000 years ago, all else being equal. Since the inception of obsidian hydration studies in North
America, Coso glass has commonly been a subject of discussion, resulting in it being one of the most thoroughly
investigated obsidians in North America.
Friedman and Smith (1960) were the first to recognize the chronometric potential of obsidian. Their initial
study concluded that: (i) "hydration thickness increased as the square root of time, (ii) the rate was independent of
relative humidity but increased with temperature, and (iii) the chemical composition of the obsidian appeared to
affect the rate" (Friedman and Long 1976:347). Picking up where the initial study left off, and through a series of
expments, Friedman and Long concluded: 'it is possible to calculate the hydration rate of a sample from its silica
content, refractive index, or chemical index and the knowledge of the effective temperature at which the hydration
occurred" (1976:347). These and other potentially key variables have been the focus of many subsequent studies.
In developing a hydration rate for Coso glass at the source, Zeier and Elston (1984) made pioneering
attempts to control for temperature variability, giving consideration to such factors as ambient air temperature,
ground surface temperature, slope, exposure, vegetation canopy, and elevation. Their results were far from
conclusive regarding many of these conceivably influential factors, but they were able to adequately reaffirm that
effective hydration temperature (EHT) greatly influenced hydration rates. Ambrose cells placed in the Sugarloaf
Mountain area verified that the EHT was high compared to many other parts of California and the Great Basin, and
quite variable within the Volcanic Field.
10
Hughes (1988) and Ericson (1989) have spent considerable energy examning obsidian geochemical
variability within the Volcanic Field. In spite of early geological studies that showed obsidian was available at
numerous localities within the field (Bacon et al. 1981, 1982; Duffield and Bacon 1981; Duffield et al. 1980;
Lamphere et al. 1975), early archaeological sourcing research was satisfied to recognize "Coso" as geochemically
dit from other major obsidian sources in eastern California and Nevada. Interest in the magnitude of intra-field
geochemical variability grew in response to increasing appreciation of the fact that glass from different sources
absorbs water at differential rates. To study intra-field variability at Coso, Hughes processed samples from 15
locations, and disrated four groups based on differing ratios of rubidium (Rb) and zirconium (Zr): West
Sugarloaf, Sugarloaf, West Cactus Peak, and Joshua Ridge. Map 5 (taken from Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1991)
shows the distribution of recorded obsidian quarries in the Volcanic Field. West Sugarloaf glass occurs in the south-
central portion of the project area, and Sugarloaf in the northern half of the project area. West Cactus and Joshua
Ridge quarries occur at the northern and southern ends of the Volcanic Field, respectively. Having shown that these
four subgroups have different chemical indices (Hughes 1988:Table 4), he concluded that "each of them should
hydrate at a slightly different rate" (Hughes 1988:262). Regarding prehistoric exploitation of the obsidian available
in the Volcanic Field, his analysis of projectile points found at the Rose Spring (CA-INY-372) and Stahl (CA-INY-
182) sites, which are located within 12 km of the Volcanic Field and each other, suggested West Sugarloaf and
Sugarloaf deposits were more heavily utilized in prehistoric ties than either West Cactus or Joshua Ridge deposits.
Sourcing data from the Lubkin Creek site (CA-INY-30 [Basgall and McGuire 1988]) provided additional support
for this pattern, with comparatively few West Cactus or Joshua Ridge specimens identified in archaeological
materials.
The prevalence of West Sugarloaf and Sugarloaf obsidian in prehistoric sites prompted subsequent hydration
and sourcing investigations to concentrate on these two subgroups, largely ignoring West Cactus and Joshua Ridge.
in an attempt to independently verify the geochemical distnctveness of West Sugarloaf and Sugarloaf glass, Bouey
(1991) re-analyzed 30 archaeological aricts htat had been previously ascribed to these two subgroups, and found
that many rubidium/zirconium ratios fell outside of the 95% confidence intervals Hughes (1988) delimited that
distinguished one from the other. Bouey offers two explanations for why his results diverged from Hughes': (1)
Hughes' study may have suffered from inadequate sample size (i.e., had Hughes used larger sample sizes and/or
mre sampling localities, he might have documented more variability and hence greater overlap between the two
subgroups); and (2) the geochemical fingerprinting technique is simply not precise enough to render such accurate
distinctions. Comparatively simple factors that influence precision include "slight alterations in sample surface
configuration and placement" relative to the angle at which the X-ray diffraction beam strikes the artifact or flake's
surface (Bouey 1991:309).
We will leave to others the issue as to whether analytical techniques are acure enough to distinguish true
West Sugarloaf glass from true Sugarloaf specimens. However, an important chronological issue remains: does
intra-field geochemical variability influence he rate of hydration in a fashion that we need concern ourselves with?
Data from the iLubkin Creek site have been  ied (Basgall 1990; Basgall and McGuire 1988) to address this
specific question. At that site south of Lone Pine, arfactal specimens of West Sugarloaf and Sugarloaf glass were
recovered together in some of the most intact depositional contexts imaginable. In two cases, tool caches were found
on the floors of burned prehistoric houses. As Table 3 shows, hydration measures on co-associated West Sugarloaf
and Sugarloaf specimens are not significantly different. The data are admittedly meager, but it is unlikely that more
robust, inarguably co-associated rits will be recovered in the near future. These data suggest that the magnitude
of influence that intra-source variability has on hydration rim formations is inconsequential.
On a different tack, Stevenson (1987), and Stevenson and Scheetz (1989), among others (Ericson 1989;
Tremaine 1989; Tremaine and Fredrickson 1988) have been emining variability in rim formation processes through
induced-hydration experiments. Results of the experiments conducted by Stevenson (1987, 1990) discussed by
Cleland (1988, 1989, 1990) raise serious questions about the replicability of induced-hydration experiments. In
1988, Cleland presented hydration rates for Sugarloaf and West Sugarloaf glass based on the results from a liquid
bath experiment involving one specimen ascribed to each subgroup. The rate for Sugarloaf was stated as 27.2
p3/1000 years and for West Sugarloaf at 38.7 p2/1000 years - the latter hydrating 42% faster than the former. This
set of experiments was followed by another that attempted to replicate the results using a vapor rather than liquid
bath matrix. The vapor matrix e rimnts resulted in  ted rates of 23.3 p2/1000 years for Sugarloaf glass and
12.9 p2/1000 years for West Sugarloaf glass (Cleland 1989), reversing the order of which subgroup hydrates fastest.
11
WEST SUGARLOAF
SUGARLOAF
* WEST CACTUS
i JOSHUA RIDGE
SUGARLOAF,
WEST SUGARLOAF,
AND WEST CACTUS
+  MATERIAL 1
A SUGARLOAF/CACTUS
WEST CACTUS AND
SUGARLOAF/CACTUS
* NON-OBSIDIAN
*  NO SOURCING DATA
Map 5. Known Obsidian Quarries within the Coso Volcanic Field (from Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1991).
12
Table 3. Intra-source Hydration Relationships at the Lubkin Creek Site (CA-INY-30), from Basgall 1990.
West Sugarloaf               Sugarloaf Mountain
mean hydra-                    mean hydra-
n     tion (i)   s.d.          n     tion (A)   s.d.
Cache 1 (Humboldt Basal-notched Points)   2       5.65    0.21           3       5.70    0.53
Cache 2 (bifacial preforms)               2       5.35    0.35           3       5.30    0.70
Desert Side-notched Points               11       3.45    0.69           1       3.00      --
Cottonwood Triangular Points              9       2.78    0.82           2       3.75    1.06
Humboldt Basal-notched Bifaces            6       5.36    0.50           4       5.45    0.66
Structure 11                              8       5.69    0.50           7       5.14    0.67
The profound difference in the liquid bath and vapor matrix experiments results for the West Sugarloaf samples
prompted the analyst to remeasure the liquid bath sample, and revise the 38.7 //1000 years to 10.9 /2/1000 years.
Depending on the results one prefers, Sugarloaf glass might be hydrating 80% or 161 % faster than West Sugarloaf
glass. A third set of experiments attempted to replicate results obtained in the vapor matrix tests (Cleland 1990).
The single West Sugarloaf and single Sugarloaf sample this time produced results comparable to one another -
results that were also similar to that of the West Sugarloaf sample in the first vapor matrix test. Supplemental
geochemical analysis of the piece of glass classified as "Sugarloaf" that was used in the liquid bath experiment and
the first vapor matrix experiment prompted Cleland (1990) to hypothesize that it derived from a not-previously-
identified, fifth, geochemical subgroup in the Volcanic Field. In short, the confusion resulting from the various
results reported for liquid bath and vapor matrix experiments on West Sugarloaf and Sugarloaf obsidian, leave us
doubtful that these induced-hydration results are replicable. Because of these problems, we do not consider their
results relevant to the current project.
Most recently, some glass scientists have turned their attention to inherent moisture content of the toolstone
itself as a potential factor influencing hydration rim formation (Knaus and Mazer 1991; Stevenson et al. 1990, 1993).
Citing Mazer et al. 1992, Stevenson et al. (1993:371) report "Recent experimental results have shown that the
intrinsic water content of an obsidian is the dominant hydration rate-controlling compositional parameter."
Analyzing specimens from the four subgroups defined by Hughes (1988), Stevenson et al. (1993) show that nodules
of obsidian from lag deposits within the Volcanic Field, in contrast to primary deposits, contain great amounts of
water due to the explosive events associated with their deposition. But, the intrinsic water content found within each
geochemical subgroup was found to be extremely variable. The authors suggest that this variability may in part
account for the numerous Coso rates that have been offered. Likthe iuced-hydration experiments, the e'intrinsic
water content" studies are nascent, and, as such, do not influence our interpretation of hydration results.
Continued refinement in interpretng hydration analysis is likely to result from studies such as the induced-
hydration experiments and intrinsic water content analyses. It is doubtful, though, that they will radically alter the
basic tenet that wider hydration bands result from exposure over longer periods of time, and, all other things being
equal, rim formation is slower in a cool depositional environment than in a warm environment. In spite of all the
potential sources of variability of Coso hydration, the archaeological record from the western Mojave Desert
indicates that Coso hydration rim values and age are strongly correlated (Figure 1). We can glean from the literature
28 pairings of Coso hydration values and radiocarbon dates from the western Mojave Desert (Table 4). Other
chronological indicators found in association with these pairings (e.g., projectile points and pottery) provide
independe  support of each locality's chronological integrity (see Chapter 5, Table 18). These data clearly indicate
that wider micron values mean older samples. Confronted with such compelling data, we are not inclined to join
the ranks of the hydration nay-sayers. It is clearly our position that Coso glass hydrates at a predictable and
quantifiable rate, and that EHT of the area in which sites containg Coso glass occur must be factored into the
hydration rate equation. Giving further examination to Figure 1, recognize that southern Owens Valley, where INY-
30 (depicted by triangles), and INY-3806/H and INY-3812 (depicted by hexagons) are found, has a lower mean
annual temperature than Fort Irwin; and that Rose Valley, where INY-372 occurs, has a mean annual temperature
nearer to that of southern Owens Valley than Fort Irwin. Since Fort Irwin has a higher EHT than the other areas,
13
16-                                                                             O
O
14-
0                     C
12
10
e                      0
Os
0
6
a       O
4
2
0
V- . ' ' ' . .. . .. .. .. .. ...
0       1,       2,000    300       4,0                         7?,000    8,0      00       10,   YEARS B.P.
RADIOCARBON DAMES
A INY-30 (n-10)     0 FORT IRWIN (n-12)       0 INY-372 (n-4)      O INY-306/H AND INY-3812 (n-2)
Figure 1. Pairings of Coso Hydration Values and Uncorrected Radiocarbon Dates from the Western Mojave Desert.
14
Table 4. Pairings of Coso Hydration Values and Uncorrected Radiocarbon Dates from the Western Mojave Desert.
_ Hydration                                                                 /
Site
INY-30
INY-30
SBR4504, L. 5
SBR-5365
INY-30
INY-30
INY-30
INY-30
INY-30
SBR-2659
SBR4483, L. 9
SBR-4449
SBR-4786
INY-3806/H
INY-30
INY-3812
INY-30
INY-30
SBR-4786
INY-372
SBR-5367
INY-372
INY-372
INY-372
SBR4966
SBR-5250
SBR-5250
SBR4562
mean
n     (A)
Uncorrected Radiocarbon
Mean in Years B.P.
9
4
14
26
12
27
34
34
3
6
10
10
2
9
96
22
19
40
Uncorrected Radiocarbon
Values in Years B.P.
2.3
2.4
4.6
4.3
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.9
4.4
6.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
4.4
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.4
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.8
8.4
8.2
12.4
15.4
14.2
12.8
NOTE: All hydration specimens were geochemically identified as 'Coso" glass using XRF analysis. Correlations
frmINY-30 presented in Basgall and McGuire 1988:Table 17 (hydration sample size and stnaddeviations not
presented there); SBR4562 from Basgall and Hall 1992; SBR-5250 and SBR-5367 from Hall 1992; all other SBR
(San Bernardino County) pairngs from Gilreath et al. 1987; INY-372 correlations from Drews and Elston (1983),
Clewlow et al. (1970), and Ericson (1978); INY-3806/H and -3812 from Delacorte and McGuire 1993.
the hydration band on a piece of Co  obsidian found there is thicker than the band on a specimen of the same age
found in Rose Valley. This trend  nts for the Fort Irwin smples shown in Figure 1 to plot higher than pairings
from other areas.
In an atte   to bring order to chaos, Basgall (1990) examined the radiocarbon/Coso hydration rim values
reported from  a variety of depositional contexts.  He derived a Coso hydration rate from   the 10
radiocarbon/hydration value pairings obtained at the Lubkin Creek Site, and using Lee's (1969) temperature
integration equation, he calculated EHT for a variety of contexts throughout the southern third of California, thus
allowing different depositional settings with differing EHTs to factor that influence. The EHT correction factor for
Haiwee/Coso was detemined to be 19.30 C. He concludes that much, if not most, of the variability in Coso glass
hydration values documented by many archaeologists- the variability that has spawned more than 15 hydration rates
(see Basgall and True 1985; Cleland 1988, 1989, 1990; Drews and Elston 1983; Ericson 1977; Friedman and
15
s.d.
0.4
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.7
2.7
1.1
0.0
0.2
3.1
1.5
1.6
2.5
180?60
270?70
275
290?i60
360
390
410?80
480?60
860
1180
1190?110
1290
1310?70
1380
1410
1470
1695
1745
2010?70
2240:?145
2240?50
2900?t80
3520?80
3580?80
7230
8240
8410?140
9440
260?60 and 290?60
330?60. and 390?90
310?70 and 470?70
760?100 and 960?100
1150?200 and 1210?70
1040?150 and 1540?70
two identical values
1160?90 and 1600?100
1220?70 and 1600?70
1340?50 and 1600?i60
1530?80 and 1860?70
1650? 100 and 1840?80
7140?290,7150?290, and7400?280
8180? 150 and 8300? 110
9410? 115, and 9470?115
Obradovich 1981; Garfinkel and McGuire 1981; Koerper et al. 1986; McGuire et al. 1982; Meighan 1978, 1981;
Michels 1983; Stevenson and Scheetz 1989) - can largely be explained by the effective temperature of the
environment in which the glass has been deposited. As an outcome of his review, he offers a single hydration rate
for Coso glass which factors in the mean annual temperature of the area from which the archaeological sites occur.
This rate and the conversion factors for temperature account for the radiocarbon/hydration pairings found at Malibu,
Orange County, Fort Irwin, Owens Valley, and the Coso area. The rate he has developed is:
LOG Y = (2.32 [LOG (X x a)]) + 1.50
where X is the rim measurement in microns, Y is the date in years before present, and a is the EHT correction
factor. The correction factor for Haiwee/Coso is 0.8723, it being slightly warmer than the Lubkin Creek site in
southern Owens Valley. In the subsequent chapters (see Chapters 5 and 8), this single rate is applied to the Coso
obsidian hydration data from our investigations, and to comparative data obtained from outlying areas.
LITHIC PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE
As Ericson has so aptly pointed out, "The quarry remains the logical site to begin the study of a stone-tool
using culture" (1984:1). This study approaches the Volcanic Field from two points of view. The first objective is
to document toolstone manufacturing patterns evident in the procurement zone. Our concern is with answering fairly
basic questions: where did production occur; when did exploitation occur, i.e., what is the shape of the
prtion/exloitation curve for Coso obsidian; and what kinds of items in what quantities were produced at Coso?
Attempts to place the exploitation of Coso obsidian in a regional context lead us to explore answers as to why Coso
obsidian was exploited (for the producer's consumption or for trade); and who was exploiting the quarry (resident
populations or visitors).
WHAT QUARRY DEPOSITS WERE EXPLOITED
Geological processes have determined the distribution of obsidian deposits, but many factors interacted to
determine the degree to which a deposit was used. Chief among them are the quality and abundance of workable
stone at a deposit, the deposit's location relative to other desirable resources (e.g., water and food), the ease or
difficulty of getting to the deposit (e.g., does it necessitate climbing to the top of a steep rhyolite dome, or
excavating a mining pit), and the acuteness of need for stone tools. Both lag and major primary deposits occur
within the Coso obsidian procurement zone. Virtually all exposures of workable quality stone were used, even small
patches of secondary deposits with comparatively few cobbles. By no means, however, was exploitation so extensive
that it approached exhausting the overall supply. When given ready access to both, what factors precipitated the
use of lag deposits instead of the seemingly superior primary deposits? We will begin to address this issue by
plotting the spatial distribution of lag and primary deposits in the Coso Volcanic Field through tme.
How the exploitation of the Coso quarries articulated with a group's exploitation of other quarries in the
region is also of interest. Basgall (1989) presents compelling data that early populations had direct access to many
obsidian quarries, e.g., Coso, Fish Springs, Casa Diablo, Queen/Truman/Hicks, and Bodie/Pine Mountain (Map
6), among others, as a consequence of their expansive mobility pattern. Changes in mobility range or pattern would,
of course, affect which quarries were visited, as well as how frequently a group would have been able to exploit
a particular quarry. Factors such as territoriality and resource control, in combination with population growth, may
have significantly determined what quarry locations a group could have exploited, as well as which specific deposits
they actually did exploit.
WHEN DID EXPLOITATION OCCUR
As the first step in exploring variables that affect the structure of a lithic production system, one must
necessarily determine when the resource was exploited, and assess the changing magnitude of quarrying activities
throughout the past. Production curves constructed for Casa Diablo (Hall and Basgall 1994), Bodie Hills (Singer
16
& MT. HICKS
OWENS LAKE
ACOSO
O
0
OBSIDIAN
BuTTE
0                       100 MILES
0
200 KILOMETERS
Map 6. Major Obsidian Sources in Eastern California.
17
m
V-6             . :
"IPP
Cl
vo^
vl

VO^
C*

and Ericson 1977), and the Sugarloaf Quarry (Elston and Zeier 1984) are remarkably similar (Figure 2). Each
shows one major period of -peak production, now commonly placed at roughly 3000-1000 B.P. corresponding with
the Newberry and early Haiwee periods, and a major production decline after ca. 1000 B.P. Given the similarities
of these three major obsidian quarries with respect to their geographical location (just off-set from the east front of
the Sierra Nevada), their shared cultural context (being at the western edge of the Great Basin culture region and
across the Sierra divide from foothill and central valley groups), the gross manufacturing activities that occurred
there (see below), and their spatial relationship to one another (Map 6), it would be remarkable had their production
histories been widely dissimilar.
Considering how different the methods were that derived these production curves, their similarity is even
more remarkable. The production curve for Casa Diablo is based on about 2500 hydration specimens mostly from
secondary reduction sites located along the west edge of the procurement zone, some of which were used at various
periods in the past also as habitation sites. The Bodie Hills hydration profile is built from approximately 100
hydration samples collected from across the quarry zone. The production curve for the Sugarloaf Quarry is based
on about 135 hydration rim readings on specimens from four sites in or imiatly adjacent to Sugarloaf Mountain.
Thus, one can rightfully be concerned with how representative each sample is of the quarrying and production
history of these large quarry exploitation zones.
We are not in a position to independently judge the veracity of the production curves for Casa Diablo and
Bodie Hills, but we are in a position to re-evaluate the production curve for the Coso Volcanic Field, and certainly
such an action is appropriate. Our interest in the spatial and temporal distribution of Coso obsidian, and the
relationship between the various aspects of the full lithic exploitation pattern, prompts us to develop separate
production curves for the primary quarries, the lag quarries, the numerous off-quarry obsidian reduction sites that
exist within the Volcanic Field, as well as major obsidian reduction sites located well outside of the procurement
zone.
WHAT WAS BEING PRODUCED AND IN WHAT QUANTITIES
Quarry studies have shown, ti  and again, that the predominant items manufactured throughout the western
United States are bifaces and cores, with the reduction techniques varying in response to time, place, and material
constraints.
The obsidian quarries in eastern California are no exception. Studies at and near the Casa Diablo obsidian
procurement zone (Adams 1986; Basgall 1983, 1984, 1987; Bettinger 1977; Bouscaren and Wilke 1987; Goldberg
et al. 1990; Hall 1983; Jackson 1985; Michels 1965; Mone 1986) consistently show biface production to have been
the overwhelmingly predominant activity (Table 5). Unifacially-thinned "bifaces" have recently been identified as
a common variant in Casa Diablo biface reduction strategies (Snner and Ainsworth 1990). Most Casa Diablo
studies, however, have been of secondary eduction locations, not locations where workable nodules of Casa Diablo
obsidian occur natally. It is worth noting that only MNO-577 listed in Table 5, is a quarry site and represents
the only site in the group where cores outnumber bifaces. Singer and Ericson conclude from their study at Bodie
Hills that the quarry deposit "was a single activity site devoted exclusively to the production of bifaces and blades
for export" (1977:181). They recognized that "two distinct artifact forms were produced for export: (1) prismatic
blades, and (2) partially finished bifaces..." (Singer and Ericson 1977:177-178). The "prsmatic blades" might well
be functional equivalents to Casa Diablo  acially tned bifaces and "Coso" cores as descnrbed below. They also
note that biface forms shift through time from large bipointed items to medium and small straight or concave-based
forms. In addition to identifying the major items of manufacture, they offer some necessarily rough calculations
that help us appreciate the manitde of stone working at Bodie, estmating that 470 million pieces of debitage exist,
and figung "somewhere between 4.79 and 8.62 million bifaces of all shapes and sizes were produced" (Singer and
Ericson 1977:185). These figures should be viewed, of course, very cautiously. In an early overview study of
quarrying activities at Sugarloaf Mountain, Elston and Zeier found that biface reduction had been the prevalent
activity. Referring to all "reduction pieces" as cores, they classify 39% (n=93; Elston and Zeier 1984:104) as
bifaces, 34% as irregular polyhedral or cobble/boulder/rhomboidal cores, and a remaining 23% as plano-convex
cores, alternatively referred to as 'Cosow" cores and large flake blanks. "Coso" cores are primarily large flakes that
18
coso -
SUGARLOAF
LL    n 1  n n  l in
i1
10
12
1'4
HYDRATION VALUE (MICRONS)
HYDRATION VALUE (MICRONS)
BODIE HILLS
HYDRATION VALUE (MICRONS)
Figure 2. Hydration Profiles for Coso (Elston and Zeier 1984; Basgall 1990), Casa Diablo (Hall and Basgall 1994;
Hall 1984), and Bodie Hills (Ericson 1982) Source Areas.
19
10-
5-
z
FK2 --
L-
0
4
C;
1O
O
F]
w
w
z
18-
12-
6
u    I                                                                                                                                                              -s  ?  - -  - m  ?
r.
F
LI
Table 5. Flaked Stone Assemblages from Selected Casa Diablo Sites.
CA-MNO                          -529      -561      -574      -577a      -578      -833      -1529
Bifaces                          35       539        49         25        100        16         176
Cores                            56b       32          1        33         23         -          5
Other Obsidian Artifacts        524c      322d        14         7         67         4         97
Debitage (weight)            25,338     32,402   40,521     88,500    121,025   -3,000    (35.2 kg)
NOTE: a - only site of this group where obsidian occurs naturally, qualifying it as a quarry. MNO-529 from
Basgall 1983; b - Basgall offers the following regarding the number of cores: "core fragments...may largely
represent shatter resulting from the reduction of large, tabular blanks, and not reflect core reduction at all" (Basgall
1983:64); c - includes 508 edge modified flakes of which 336 are from the surface. MNO-561 from Hall 1983;
d - unifaces (n=224) were not differentiated from edge modified flakes. MNO-574, -577, -578, and -833 from
Goldberg et al. 1990; MNO-1529 from Basgall 1984.
have been rudimentarily percussion flaked from one side, in a fashion that would tend to thin the item in cross-
section. They consider such items as a variant form affiliated with a biface reduction sequence, and the illustrations
they provide certainly indicate that subsequent work would generate regularized, thinned bifaces.
From these prior studies, one can reasonably expect that biface production was the prevalent reduction
activity applied to Coso obsidian; that cores might be more prevalent than bifaces at quarry loci, with the former
items virtually non-existent at off-quarry reduction locations; and that a unifacially worked variant figures into the
early and middle portion of the biface reduction sequence with some frequency. The degrees to which these trends
are supported by data from lag quarry deposits, primary quarry deposits, and at off-quarry sites both within and
outside of the Coso obsidian procurement zone remains to be documented.
Lithic production analysis has become increasingly concerned with reduction sequences used, the changing
techniques applied from one manufacturing stage to the next, and the various forms an artifact assumes during its
use-life. With this increasing desire to understand more fully the range of factors that account for the flaked stone
tool assemblages found in sites, artifacts as well as debitage have come under greater scrutiny. The earliest studies
of North American quarries have emphasized that items found at quarries are largely rejected items and unfinished
pieces. Consequently, those assemblages present a quite biased impression of the quantity and kinds of items
successfully produced and transported from an area. For that reason, in determining the magnitude and range of
stone-tool working that occurred at a location, debitage resulting from both failed and successful reduction events
is superior to the artifact assemblage as a basis for study. Flaked stone studies have shown that different stages of
the manufacturing process frequently occurred in disjunct locations. It is not uncommon to discover that the kinds
of items produced at a site differ from the kinds of items discarded there. Thus, in assessing the relative or absolute
frequencies of the kinds of items manufactured of Coso obsidian, it will be necessary to consider how much
production occurred at varying locations based on debitage types and quantities, and compare that to the number and
kinds of items discarded there.
An additional issue confounding attempts to determine the number of items produced or the amount of stone
working that occurred, revolves around the technological shift from dart to arrow-sized points. This shift is well
documented to have occurred throughout the United States by at least 1200 B.P. Whether this shift resulted in the
production of more or less stone-working debris is debated. Smaller arrow-sized items obviously can be generated
from smaller stardng forms, thus it is a safe assumption that all things being equal, more arrow-sized points than
dart-sized points could be produced from the same amount of toolstone; put another way, the quantity of debris
generated from producing 100 arrow-sized points very likely weighs substantially less than the debris generated from
producing 100 dart-sized points. Ericson (1982), however, has suggested that a bow hunter needed somewhere on
the magnitude of ten times as many arrows as an atlatl hunter. Holding the position that the pre-1000 B.P.
production peak at the quarries is a result of eastern Sierran groups producing items for exchange with California
groups west of the Sierra, he reasons that the need for more finished tools in later times, compounded by the fact
that population levels were sbstantially higher after adoption of the bow-and-arrow, actually resulted in a late period
decline in stone-working at eastern California obsidian quarries.
20
... the primary producers at the sources could not meet the increasing demands
for finished items from central California. To meet this increasing demand it
appears that the primary producers later changed their technology from biface
production to blade-flake production, to outright export of raw materials...
Most likely the dispersion of the production systems away from the sources is
a direct response to the limited manpower available for production under such
conditions [Ericson 1982:145-146].
WHY WAS COSO OBSIDIAN EXPLOITED
The sheer quantity of chipping debris and discarded items found at the major obsidian quarries in eastern
California has led many to conclude that production far exceeded the needs of resident populations. The western
Great Basin, excluding Owens Valley, is thought to have supported moderate to low population densities throughout
prehistory. While there is debate as to what those levels were over time, the notion that population densities were
higher in much of California west of the Sierran crest throughout most of prehistory meets with little opposition.
The market for stone tools west of the Sierran crest is often cited as the impetus for the development of extensive
exchange networks. The distribution of Coso glass in prehistoric sites quite far from the source (for example,
Ericson 1977; Hughes and True 1985; Jack 1976), and the presence of shell beads originating from the Pacific
Ocean or Gulf of Mexico in eastern California prehistoric sites are typically given as evidence that such a system
was in operation. Coso glass, for example, has been recovered from prehistoric sites throughout the southern half
of California, extending east to the Colorado River, west to the Pacific Ocean, and north to Monterey Bay.
Bettinger (1982a), Bettinger and King (1971), Ericson (1977, 1982), and Singer and Ericson (1977) all
assume that eastern California obsidians were traded across the mountains, and have explored the influence that
regularized exchange had on the socio-economic complexity of hunter-gatherers, considering alternately sedentism,
etoriality, and the like. In an attempt to explain the origin of hunter-gatherer exchange systems, Ericson (1984)
proposes a model of population growth which leads to sedenism and increased territoriality, which ultimately leads
to a growing need for non-local resources. These conditions are conducive to the development of large-scale
exchange systems operating to move important products among different groups.
The issues here revolve around how much Coso obsidian production occurred in excess of the resident
population's own needs; and what mechanisms account for the distribution of Coso obsidian throughout southern
California. Conceding that Coso obsidian was traded among groups, what does its distribution suggest about the
structure of the exchange network: in what forms was it exchanged, in what volume was it exchanged, in what
directions did it move, and was craft specialization involved?
Torrence (1986) and Arnold (1987) provide the following list of archaeological indicators of production
specialization: (1) very high volume of production materials; (2) identifiable workshops separated from other
subsistence/residential areas; (3) distinct pattern in regional distribution, reflecting organized and controlled
production and exportation; (4) high tcnological sandardization and high rates of success; (5) control over critical
resources; and (6) specialists' tools in certain burials. Further, if specialized production was practiced to produce
the exchange commodity, it is argued that the labor investment and the specialists must have been underwritten by
others. The degree to which the lithic production patterns documented for Coso support the existence of craft
specialization will be examined, after due consideration has been given to the production-for-consumption needs of
resident groups.
WHO HAD ACCESS TO COSO OBSIDIAN
Obviously resident populations had direct access to the resources available in the Volcanic Field. Were
they, however, single-handedly responsible for the vast mount of stone-working that occurred, or did non-residents
also have direct access? Considering this issue for the Casa Diablo quarry, Bouey and Basgall (1984) argue that
when quarry production was at its highest level, the socio-political condition of the resident population was not
consistent w si specialized production and exchange. At the same period of time when production appears to have
peaked, the organizational complexity and population level of people in central California (Goldberg et al. 1986;
21
King 1976; Moratto 1972; Moratto et al. 1978) are considered sufficiently developed to support a regularized
trade/exchange system., Consequently, Bouey and Basgall (1984) conclude that groups from the western Sierra
traveled to the quarry, where they manufactured the desired items, then transported them back over the Sierra. In
this scenario, residents and non-residents were independently both producers and consumers. Bouscaren and Wilke
(1987) cite the absence of western Sierran lithic materals and flaked stone tool artifact types in Long Valley, among
other patterns, to argue that producers were residents, leading to the tacit conclusions that residents generated the
massive amounts of chipping debris, and that Casa Diablo items obtained by western Sierra people were initially
fashioned by eastern Sierran people. Goldberg et al. take a third position, suggesting that perhaps "the group using
both the east and west side of the Sierra were one and the same, at least during the Middle Horizon" (1990:182-
183).
From the above discussions, four main objectives can be distilled regarding the obsidian production patterns
of Coso: (1) documenting the shape of the production curve and evaluating how it correlates with the production
curves of other eastern California obsidian sources, as well as consumption curves outside the procurement zone;
(2) documenting the pattern of obsidian acquisition, and assessing how it correlates with the acquisition patterns
modeled for other eastern California obsidian sources; (3) evaluating what the production pattern for Coso obsidian
suggests about population growth, territoriality, and mobility patterns; and (4) documenting the distribution of Coso
obsidian, and evaluating what it suggests about mechanisms for exchange.
SUBSISTENCE AND SETTLEMENT
As clearly documented by the foregoing discussion, useful inferences regarding obsidian production and
exchange cannot be made without considering the range of constraints associated with the larger socio-economic
system. At Casa Diablo, for example, Bouey and Basgall (1984) note that many of the requirements connected with
specialized obsidian production (e.g., sedentary population cotolling the source) were not entirely consistent with
the settlement system reconstructed during Newberry period use of the Inyo-Mono region (i.e., high residential
mobility). The following discussion suarizes subsistence-settlement pattern models offered for areas surrounding
the Coso Volcanic Field, developing the socioeconomic context necessary to evaluate the changing role of Coso
obsidian in southeastern California prehistory. By virtue of lying at the boundary between the Mojave Desert, Sierra
Nevada, Owens Valley, and arid lands to the east (e.g., Death Valley), and the likelihood that prehistoric peoples
from these localities visited Coso to some degree or another, subsistence-settlement pattern models developed for
these ars are outlined below. Emphasis is placed on research conducted in the norn Mojave Desert and Owens
Valley, as these areas have been the primary focus of large-scale subsistence-settlement pattern studies. Important
comparative data are also provided from the western Mojave, southern Sierra Nevada, White Mountains, Death and
Deep Springs valleys, and the Coso region.
NORTHERN MOJAVE DESERT
Until recently, models of early Holocene adaptations in the northern Mojave Desert have been largely
derived from the work of Warren and his colleagues (Warren 1967, 1984, 1986; Warren and Crabtree 1986; Warren
et al. 1984). Their sequence begins with the Lake Mohave Period (10,000-7000 B.P.), a temporal interval thought
to have been characterized by severe climatic change. Between about 10,000-9000 B.P., Warren argues that
temperatures increased, but precipitation remained relatively stable. This climatic regime filled the valleys and
basins with streams, mares, and lakes, and produced vegetation communities that supported abundant populations
of artiodactyls. Lake Mohave settlements, subsumed under the more general Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition
(Bedwell 1973; Hester 1973), were thought to have been concentrated along lake shores, and produced artifact
assemblages reflecting heavy emphasis on hunting; e.g., Lake Mohave and Silver Lake points, leaf-shaped bifaces,
large ovate-domed and elongate keeled scrapers, crescents, engraving tools, and only a minor presence of milling
equipment.
After 9000 B.P., trends toward increased temperature and aridity intensified, reaching critical proportions
between about 800-7000 B.P. Most lowland lakes and streams became dry, and vegetation communities providing
food for larger game animals retracted into a few isolated contexts. In response to increasing aridity, human
settlements appear to have been more restricted in space, concentrated in higher elevations where few ephemeral
22
streams and lakes still existed. Correlated with this environmental change was the emergence of the Pinto Basin
complex. Rather than representing a new cultural group with a different subsistence focus, the complex was thought
to have developed out of a single Lake Mohave-Pinto Basin cultural tradition, with continued emphasis on hunting
large game. Support for this interpretation was based on: (1) spatio-temporal overlap of Lake Mohave and Pinto
points; (2) the continued use of fine-grained igneous materials for bifacial tools, in contrast to cryptocrystalline
materials so prevalent in later cultural complexes; (3) continued reliance on percussion techniques of lithic reduction,
also distinctly different from later assemblages where pressure flaking is common; and (4) a dominance of
morphologically and functionally similar hunting and animal processing tools (e.g., projectile points, biface "knives",
and domed and keeled scrapers).
By 6500-4000 B.P., during the height of the mid-Holocene climatic optimum, the number of clearly defined
occupation areas decreased, and most appear at springs. In addition to this settlement location adjustment, domed
and keeled scrapers are replaced by flake scrapers and there is an increase in the frequency of handstone and
millingstones, the latter indicating a greater reliance on seed collecting and processing. Faunal assemblages indicate
that artiodactyls became a negligible compot of the overall diet, restricted only to high elevation spring locations.
Finally, toward the end of this temporal interval, sites of any kind are difficult to identify, further indicating a
substantial decline in human population.
The apparent continuity of a hunting focus in the face of deteriorating climatic conditions, and a
corresponding reduction in artiodactyl availability, indicates to Warren (1986) that Pinto Complex people practiced
an adaptive strategy that had outlived its viability. Perhaps due to strong cultural values and traditions, attempts by
early inhabitants of the Mojave Desert to preserve an adaptive strategy geared toward hunting may have ultimately
failed, forcing the near abandonment of the desert during the arid middle Holocene.
According to Warren et al. (1984), productivity of large game increased during the Gypsum Period (4000-
1500 B.P.) due to ameliorating mid-Holocene climatic conditions. Large game hunting resumed importance while
use of plant rources con ed to intensify, the latter reflected by increases in the frequency of milling equipment.
The combination of increased environmental productivity and intensification of production systems resulted in
population expansion, and a hypothesized shift from the family-based organization of the Pinto period, to multi-
family bands. By the end of the Gypsum period, the introduction of the bow and arrow (presumably increasing the
efficiency of large game procurement) combined with a period of increased aridity, required even greater reliance
on plant and small animal resources. Throughout the Saratoga Springs (10-800 B.P.) and Shoshonean (800 B.P. -
Historic) periods, these changes in subsistence orientation are thought to have caused a reduction in the number of
large residential bases and general dispersal of the population into smaller family groups.
More recent work at Fort Irwin (Map 2) by Basgall (1991) and Hall (1992) provides a contrasting view of
early Holocene adaptations. Based on an extensive review of paleoenvironmental data, they question long-held
assumptions about post-glacial habitats as portrayed by those who support the notion of the Western Pluvial Lakes
Tradition. Rather than characterizing the late Pleistocene/early Holocene interval as a time of perennial rivers and
lakes, it apes that by ca. 10,000 B.P. surface water in the north-central Mojave Desert was restricted to
spring/seep discharge and episodic playa lakes of variable frequency and duration. Vegetation was also somewhat
marginal, consisting of desert scrub below 1200-1500 m (39404920 ft) and juniper-shrub woodland in higher
elevations. By 7000 B.P. the juniper-shrub woodland had retreated to elevations above 1700-1800 m (5580-5900
ft) while the near-modern creosote scu community was probably in place throughout the area by about 3500 B.P.
(Basgall et al. 1988:33-53).
Artifact assemblages from Lake Mohave contexts, like those documented by Warren (1986), include an
abundance of bifaces made of fine-grained igneous materials (basalt, rhyolite, and felsite), formed flaked tools of
various material types, and only minor frequencies of milling equipment. Rather than viewing bifaces and formed
flaked tools as specialized implements used to process large game (butchering, skinning, and hide-scraping), Basgall
(1991) argues that most of the former were probably used as cores (many were early stage forms exhibiting very
little wear), while the latter apparently served a wide range of functions due to the presence of multiple wear
configurations. Although artiodactyls appear to have been exploited when encountered, faunal remains obtained from
a variety of sites indicate diversified diet centered on lagomorphs, rodents, and reptiles (not including tortoise).
Lake Mohave sites were also found to cross-cut a wider range of non-lacustrine settings, providing further evidence
for a more generalized adaptation than traditionally attributed to this interval of time.
23
Pinto/Little Lake period assemblages recovered by Basgall (1991) and Hall (1992) are broadly similar to
those described by Warre~n. Flaked stone tools and debitage are roughly comparable to the preceding period,
showing a continued preference for the use of fine-grained igneous materials. Faunal assemblages also remain the
same, emphasizing the exploitation of small game (now including tortoise). In contrast to the Lake Mohave pattern,
a sharp increase in the frequency of milling equipment and battered stone implements occurs, suggesting greater
reliance on hard seeds. Site location data show continued use of a wide range of habitats, not necessarily adjacent
to water. These distributions, coupled with the generalized mix of tools and faunal remains, suggested to Basgall
(1991) and Hall (1992) that a relatively broad-based subsistence regime was in place throughout the early and middle
Holocene. Furthermore, the presence of highly curated assemblages (i.e., well-worn tools made from exotic
materials), indicated a settlement system characterized by a substantial degree of residential mobility.
Gypsum/Newberny period (ca. 3300-1350 B.P.) deposits also contain highly curated assemblages, including
a full complement of flaked, ground, and battered stone tools, as well as diversified accumulations of faunal remains
composed largely of lagomorphs, tortoises, and artiodactyls (Basgall 1991; Basgall et al. 1988; Hall 1992). In
contrast to earlier periods, emphasis on percussive production of igneous tools shifted to the almost exclusive use
of cryptociystalline materials, often modified by pressure retouch - a change accompanied by major increases in
the frequency of bifaces and associated debitage. Whereas earlier settlement systems appear to have reused specific
locations on a regular basis, creating accumulations of debris within relatively large site areas, most
Gypsum/Newberry sites are relatively small, probably indicating a wide-ranging settlement system geared to
recurrent, short-term occupation of generalized areas rather than specific locations.
During the Saratoga/Haiwee (ca. 1350-650 B.P.) and Shoshonean/Marana (650 B.P. - Historic) intervals,
Fort Irwin data indicate that foraging radii decreased and became more regularized (Basgall 1991; Hall 1992).
Evidence of this shift includes a decrease in the frequency of curated tools (local materials dominate all artifact
types) and a more regular use of particular locations (sites became slightly bigger and in some cases contained
patches of midden). The density of milling equipment continues to increase, taken to reflect intensified use of local
plant resources. Faunal remains show a greater diversity of small game, including a higher frequency of tortoise.
Production of bifaces and associated debitage decreased substantially, perhaps a response to using bow and arrow
technology: because projectile points were no longer the outcome of biface reduction but made from modifying
flakes, both flaked stone material needs and the production of debitage were reduced. It was also noted that
decreased biface manufacture could have resulted from a reduced need to gear-up for long distance travel (see Kelly
1988).
WESTERN MOJAVE DESERT
In contrast to Fort Irwin, comprehensive subsistence-settlement studies have not been accomplished for the
western Mojave. A recent overview by Sutton (1988a) does identify several settlement trends that have interesting
implications when viewed from a larger, inter-regional perspective. Lake Mohave and Pinto/Little Lake period
materials have rarely been encountered, consisting of a few sites tentatively cross-dated with projectile points and
flaked stone assemblages dominated by rhyolite (Glennan 1971). After 3000 B.P. archaeological visibility increases
substantially, allowing several inferences regarding settlement struture. Sutton (1988a) identifies large permanently
occupied villages supported by numerous special purpose sites, the later used to exploit specific resources on a part-
time basis. Located in the vicinity of Antelope Valley (Map 2), major settlements were often quite large and
complex, containing deep middens, cemeteries, structures, and numerous ade items from coastal California (mostly
shell beads). This system, fully in place during the Saratoga Springs/Haiwee period, was thought to reflect a
transition from an earlier pattern of seasonal tanshumance to one charcterizd by a more sedentary existence made
possible, to some degree, by profits obtained from administering the exchange of Coso obsidian for shell beads
(Sutton 1988a:77). This general pattern is thought to have persisted until about 300 B.P. when, for reasons
unknown, large villages were abandoned.
A similar transition was also encountered by Sutton (1991) in Fremont Valley, just north of Antelope
Valley. Prior to 1500 B.P., evidence of occupation was sporadic, limited to a few scattered projectile points and
a low number of relatively wide hydration readings. Although less substantial than Antelope Valley settlements,
excavations at two Saratoga Springs/Haiwee period residential bases yielded diverse assemblages of artifacts and
faunal remains, as well as remnants of structures. The one site for which analysis is complete (CA-KER-221 1)
24
contained abundant milling equipment, as well as a faunal assemblage dominated by jack rabbit and, to a lesser
degree, tortoise. Similar to his findings in Antelope Valley, occupations in Fremont Valley appear to have extended
until around 300 B.P., at which time a shift to an unknown pattern occurred.
Evidence that jack rabbit exploitation was emphasized during Saratoga Springs/Haiwee times has also been
found in the El Paso Mountains (Map 2; McGuire et al. 1982). Prior to 1300 B.P., they argued, a broad-based
subsistence pattern focused on hunting large ungulates was present. In contrast, components dating between 1300-
700 B.P. produced faunal assemblages dominated by jack rabbit. These data, when combined with the abundant
presence of milling equipment, appear to reflect a shift to more intensive use of local plant and small game resources
in an attempt to mitigate increased human population density - a construct fully consistent with the resource
intensification model forwarded by Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982; see below).
OWENS VALLEY
Owens Valley (Map 2) has been the subject of numerous subsistence-settlement studies, the majority
conducted by Bettinger (1975, 1977, 1982a, 1989). Except for a few sites, however, data from the Lake Mohave-
Little Lake periods are quite sparse and have contributed little to these studies. One exception is the Lubkin Creek
Site (CA-INY-30), a large multi-component site just south of Lone Pine (Map 2; Basgall and McGuire 1988). The
early assemblage here includes projectile points, bifaces, a variety of formal and informal flake tools, some heavier
core-related implen, but no milling equipment. This narrow range of tools, associated with faunal remains that
include a relatively high proporton of artiodactyl, appear to represent short-term use of the area by people focused
on hunting. One of the most remarkable aspects of the assemblage was its diversity in flaked stone materials.
Obsidian from a variety of sources was identified, as well as various ciyptocrystalline, quartzitic, basaltic, and other
fine-grained igneous materials. Similar to findings at Fort Irwin, these data are thought to reflect a foraging area
extending hun  s of kilometers north, east, and probably other undocumented directions from the site (Basgall
1989; Basgall and McGuire 1988).
Although largely consistent with findings from the northern Mojave Desert, the above reconstruction
encounters difficulties incorporating results of Harrington's (1957) excavations at the Stahl site (CA-INY-182, Map
2). Excavations here revealed a Little Lake period occupation area consisting of hearths, obsidian caches, graves,
and a wide range of flaked and ground stone tools, in addition, perhaps, to "house floors." Most researchers,
including Harrington (1957), considered the site a perment village, an assessment that conflicts with a highly
mobile adaptive pattern. In a more recent evaluation of the site, however, Bettinger (1989) argues that it probably
functioned as a seasonal base camp regularly occupied by people who traveled over a wide area during other times
of the year.
Well-defined Newbeny period occupation of the Lubkin Creek site did not occur until around 2000 B.P.
Marked by burned structural remains associated with hearths, biface and bone tool caches, a variety of ground and
flaked stone tools, and diverse floral and faunal remans, these materials are thought to represent residential use,
but only on a seasonal basis. The non-permanent nature of these settlements is also reflected by patterns of flaked
stone material acquisiton and use. While Coso obsidian is the predominant material, non-loc  obsidians from Long
Valley and areas further north are represented by finished tools (and comparatively little debitage), indicating prior
visits to these localities. Unlike the Lake Mohave-Little Lake periods, when foraging radii seem to have
encompassed numerous geographic areas, Newberty period  support a more regularized settlement system, where
residential bases were occupied seasonally, moving along a north-south trending as. Regional climatic patterns
combined with seasonally specific ecofactual rem   suggest a transhumance pattern of summer occupations in
northern areas, moving to southern areas during cooler periods of the year (Basgall 1989; Basgall and McGuire
1988). Such an interpretation is largely consistent with Bettinger et al. (1984) findings at CA-INY-2146 (south of
Bishop) and Bettinger's (1989) recent evaluation of Newberty period subsie -settlement patterns, where relatively
mobile populations are thought to have focused on a carefully selected suite of plants, and favored the use of large
mammals. For this to have been the case, Bettinger (1989) further argues that population levels must have been
sufficiently low to allow groups to freely circulate between high quality resource concentrations, making it more
advantageous to shift residential locations when local resources diminished, than to remain in place and exploit lower
raking resources.
25
A major restructuring of these patterns appears to have developed during the Haiwee period, and continued
forward until ethnographic contact (Bettinger 1989; Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982). Excavations by Bettinger (1989)
at three sites near Big Pine identified a Haiwee period emergence of permanent or semi-permanent lowland villages
(characterized by residential structures, bedrock milling features, extensive assemblages of flaked and ground stone
tools, and a diverse set of floral and faunal remains), probably supported by upland pinyon camps, and centralized
seed production stations. The retionship between these sites suggested to Bettinger that seasonal movements had
become spatially confined, resulting in more intensive use of resources within progressively smaller foraging areas.
Probably responding to increased population pressure, these trends toward settlement centralization and resource
intensification are also reflected by data from CA-INY-30 (Basgall and McGuire 1988). Although Haiwee period
use of the Lubkin Creek Site was quite marginal, resource intensification was clearly evident in Marana components
by increased exploitation of riparian and lacustrine settings (e.g., shellfish, water fowl, tule seeds), and greater
emphasis on pine nut exploitation. Reduced residential mobility was also indicated by decreased flaked stone
mateal diversity, a more even balance between tool and debitage material types, and greater use of expedient, non-
curated milling equipment. According to Bettinger (1989), this adaptive shift culminated in Owens Valley during
the ethnographic period where inter-village exchange and inherited political authority (i.e., chieftainship) helped
maintain an increasingly rigorous degree of territoriality.
SOUTHERN SIERRA NEVADA AND WHITE MOUNTAINS
Excavations in the southern Sierra Nevada (Garfinkel and McGuire 1980; Garfinkel et al. 1984; McGuire
1981), west of the Coso Volcanic Field, have produced results consistent with the resource intensification model
proposed by Bettinger and others. Prior to 3500 B.P. (Little Lake period), evidence of human occupation in the
southern Sierran uplands (above about 1830 m [6000 ft]) is restricted to a sporadic scatter of projectile points and
the infrequent wide obsidian hydration reading. During the Newberry period, use increased to a limited degree, as
indicated by the presence of biface reduction locations, hunting camps, and short-term occupations that may have
been associated withe pinyon exploitation. Late in time (post 1400 B.P.), however, use of the uplands intensified.
Temporary occupation camps as well as large base camps, with their associated
subsistence and habitation activities, appear during this time... The increased
amount of vegetal processing equipment associated with these site types affirms
the primacy of plant resources, of which pinyon was undoubtedly the most
important [McGuire 1981:57].
High in the White Mountains northeast of Coso (Map 2), Bettinger also encountered late period resource
intensification in upland habitats (3050-3810 m [10,000-12,500 ft]). Prior to 1400 B.P., White Mountain uplands
are thought to have been used on a relatively short-term basis for hunting (probably bighorn sheep), reflected by sites
with hunting blinds, sparse lithic scatters, and debris/tools associated with hunting and butchering animals. Sites
after 1400 B.P. contain remains of well-built houses (with circular, multiple-course footings), diverse assemblages
of plant and animal procurement and processing tools, as well as debris associated with repair and production of
these tools.
This dramatic shift in alpine land use appears to have been a response to regional
population growth that decreased rates of return for lowland subsistence activities
to the point where it became cost-effective to use alpine plants and other costly
resources (e.g., pinyon, small seeds) previously used casually or ignored
altogether [Bettinger 1991:675].
DEATH AND DEEP SPRINGS VALLEYS
Interpretive summaries of Death Valley (Map 2) subsistence-settlement systems by A. Hunt (1960), C. Hunt
(1975), and Wallace (1958, 1977) elucidate trends broadly similar to those found elsewhere in eastern California.
26
Death Valley I (Lake Mohave) assemblages, thought to date between 9000-7000 B.P., include Lake Mohave and
Silver Lake projectile points, knives, scrapers, and choppers, but no milling equipment. Most of these sites are
located in the lowlands on gravel benches next to active as well as extinct springs, and they seem to represent
ea. nal, though recurrent, occupancy by mobile people focused on hunting large game (Wallase 1958:11). This
was followed by a substantial hiatus - a 2000 year period attributed to the mid-Holocene climatic optimum.
The subsequent Death Valley II/Mesquite Flat Complex dates between 5000-2000 B.P. and has two phases.
The earliest phase includes Pinto and Gypsum series points found at small sites that appear to have been temporary
camps. Other tools include knives, choppers, scraper-planes, and drills. The later phase is represented by several
large occupation sites, many on the edge of dry washes in lowland setti ngs. Elko series projectile points
predominate, and are accompanied by expanding-base drills, hanmerstones, choppers, scraper-planes, mortars and
pestles, and an abundance of large flakes and cores - the latter reflecting an extensive stone working technology.
Hunig is considered a pmary component of the economy given the bundance of projectile points, knives, and
other implements presumably used to slaughter and prepare large game. The presence of mortars and pestles is
considered to reflect increased reliance on plant foods, while settlement size implies a fairly large, semi-sedentary
population. Wallace (1958) viewed these sites as seasonal gathering areas, from which smaller groups would split-
off during other times of the year to hunt and forage elsewhere. Specialized hunting sites found in the uplands
potentially represent hunting parties originating from the lowland residential bases. Similar to Warren's work in
the northern Mojave, the expansion of population was largely attributed to increased environmental productivity
stemig from neoglacial events that took place during this interval (Hunt 1975; Wallace 1958).
Death Valley III (Saratoga Springs) dates between 2000-1000 B.P. and includes Eastgate and Rose Spring
points as signature artifacts, a diverse mix of flakred and battered stone tools (e.g., knives, scrapers, drills,
hammerstones, choppers), high frequencies of milling equipment (largely manos and metates), and a significant
presence of shell beads, bone implements, and pottery sherds of Puebloan origin (Warren 1984). Perhaps in
response to icing adity, populations appear to have occupied a wider range of habitats, focusing on the use
of plant resources more than during previous intervals (Hunt 1975; Wallace 1:977).
Death Valley IV (Desert Shoshone) is characterized by "many small and a few rather large settlements...
Their living sites are amongst the mesquite-covered dunes, usually some distance from springs or other water
sources. Although these were seasonal camps, many appear to have been inhabited recurrently" (Wallace 1958:14).
Mesquite camps include fire-affected rock, charcoal, a variety of flaked stone tools (including Cottonwood and
Desert Side-notched projectile points), Owens Valley Brown Ware pottery, twined and coiled basketry, Olivella
beads, abnmdant milling stones and handstones, as well as a significant presence of long, cylindrical stone pestles,
and wooden mortars    from mesquite logs. Upland seaal camps have also been encountered, many including
"storage pits, charcoal filled roasting pits, bedrock milling places and gathering crooks -- all connected with pinyon
harvesting" (Wallace 1958:15). This general pattern of seasoal movements from the valley floor up to the mountain
slopes appears to have continued into the ethnographic period (Warren 1984:371).
Delacorte's (1990) work in Deep Springs Valley reveals parallel patterns to those of Death Valley, 125 km
southeast (Map 2). Newberry period stement systems i    seasonal base camps in the lowlands (characterized
by a relatively high density and diversity of ground, battered, and flaked stone tools), as well as short-term seed
processing areas (milling equipent co ntrations with a lower frequency of flaked stone implements) and hunting
camps largely flaked stone tools and debitage scatters). Similar to Owens Valley reconstructions, the presence of
exotic lithic materials are taken to reflect a system with a high degree of residential mobility, with groups using
widely spaced base camps, and occupying areas well beyond the bounds of Deep Springs Valley.
These base camps served as residential hubs from which groups moved to
specialized logistical field camps to collect a narrow range of plants and to hunt
large game species. This expansive, narrow-spectrum strategy implies little
compettion between groups (Bettinger and Baumoff 1982), allowing free access
to critical resources [Delacorte 1990:247].
27
During the Haiwee and Marana periods in Deep Springs Valley, a reorganization of the subsistence-
settlement system occurred: Lowland base camps and temporary seed camps continued to be used, while temporary
camps used for hunting decreased in importance. Of greater significane was the appearance of three new settlement
types: pinyon camps (similar to lowland occupation sites but having a higher frequency of structures), pinyon caches
(largely structures), and alpine (summer) occupation sites (diversified assemblage scatters lacking associated
structures). The addition of these settlement types indicated that seasonal movements had become spatially confined,
increasing the need to exploit a broader range of lower ranked plant and animal species available from a wider range
of environments.
COSO REGION
The most comprehensive subsistence-settlement studies of the Coso region to date have been completed by
Whitley et al. (1987) and Delacorte (1988). Focusing largely on late Holocene adaptations, Whitley et al. (1987)
offer interpretations that contrast significantly with those outlined above. During the Newberry period, settlement
orgnition included major villages along pluvial Owens River... and the use of various upland environments, as
evidenced by multi-function and specialized purpose sites" (Whitley et al. 1987:20). Subsistence pursuits were
thought to have been quite general, exploiting a wide range of environments. This adaptive strategy was thought
to have persisted into the Haiwee period, differing from the Newberry period only by increases in population as
evidenced by the establishment of major villages at a variety of new locations. The Marana period, in contrast, was
thought to be marked by a great reduction in the number of sites and the range of environmental zones
exploited/occupied. Although changes in subsistence-settlement structure were considered a possible explanation
(i.e., land-use shifts reducing archaeological visibility), Whitley et al. (1987:22) hypothesize that "the change was
principally one of decreasing population, and that this decrease was in fact very substantial."
Delacorte's (1988) review of an expanded data base produced a different set of interpretations for Coso.
Represented by a series of limited habitation sites (including milling equipment, cobble tools, bifaces, and points),
the lake Mohave period was characterized as a highly mobile settlement system focused on the exploitation of plants
and animals in predominantly lowland settings. Little Lake habitation areas, particularly those in riparian settings
(e.g., the Stahl site), were thought to have been occupied for longer periods. Similar to characterizations of
Newberry period adaptations in Owens Valley (see Basgall and McGuire 1988; Bettinger et al. 1984), Delacorte
argues that logistically organized upland hunting cams were used in support of lowland residential bases. Newberry
period settet organization was considered similar to the preceding Little Lake system (Delacorte 1988:25-26):
"... during the Newberry period groups traveled between a series of lowland occupation sites from which many
resources were exploited through use of specialized temporary camps and limited habitation sites."
The Haiwee settlement pattern was thought to differ in several fundamental ways from the Newberry
pattern. First, occupation sites appear to have moved away from lowland riparian habitats to the desert scrub
communities along valley flanks. Accompanying this shift was a decrease in the number of temporary camps (e.g.,
logistically organized hunting sites) and, most importantly, the inception of pinyon camps in the uplands. The
overall stratgy was one of reduced logistical travel, but relatively frequent residential moves over short distances
within increasingly smaller territories - a strategy made possible by the exploitation of a wider range of subsistence
resources (see Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982). This same basic pattern is thought to have continued into the Marana
period, however, the frequency of residential moves appears to have increased later, creating more smaller sites with
reduced archaeological visibility. According to Delacorte (1988:30) "The difference between early (pre-Haiwee]
and late [Haiwee-Marana] settlement paterns reflects, therefore, a change in the organiztion of aboriginal land-use
from large, logistically oriented groups to small, residentially mobile groups, not a decrease in population."
DISCUSSION
The foregoing review indicates that subsise-settlement pattern strategies rem ed relatively consistent
from one area to the next during much of the early Holocene. Begnin in the mid-Holocene, however,
interregional variability appears to have progressively increased. As the following discussion seeks to demonstrate,
the uniformity of early adaptations is largely due to a subsistence pattern focused on the exploitation of a narrow
28
range of highly ranked resources irrespective of environmental circumstance. Later populations, in contrast,
intensified the use of local environments, exploiting a wider range of lower ranked resources, including those
regionally restricted in distribution. It follows, therefore, that inter-regional environmental differences had minimal
effect on early tool assemblages, while later such differences were amplified, creating greater variability in the
archaeological record.
Lake Mohave sites reflect a high degree of residential mobility (indicated by significant tool-debitage
disjunctions in the frequency of exotic versus local material types [Basgall 1989, 1991]), minimal use of seed
resources (based on the near-absence of milling equipment), and a probable emphasis on hunting large and small
game animals (the latter particularly prevalent in the more arid parts of the Mojave Desert). With the possible
exception of the Stahl site, Pinto/Little Lake period assemblages are quite similar between areas with respect to
patterns of flaked stone material acquisition and use, mobility, and hunting adaptations, but differ from earlier
assemblages by virtue of showing an increase in the frequency of milling equipment - a shift probably reflecting
a broadening subsistence base in response to declining environmental conditions (Warren 1986). The Stahl site
differs from most other Pinto/Little Lake period manifestations by the presence of hearths, graves, and perhaps
residential structures, and a diverse assemblage of flaked and ground stone tools, all attributes consistent with a long-
term residential base. Rather than reflecting a permanent residential base, however, it seems more likely that mobile
populations may have occupied the unique environmental setting of Little Lake more frequently and for longer
periods of time than was the case in most other localities (Bettinger 1989).
During the Gypsum/Newberty period, the settlement system remained mobile but appears to have been less
expansive and more regularized. This pattern is well-documented in Owens and Deep Springs valleys (Basgall 1991;
Basgall and McGuire 1988; Bettinger 1989; Bettinger et al. 1984; Delacorte 1990), and may also have been the case
for Death Valley, but it is difficult to determine with the data at hand (Wallace 1958). In contrast to the central
Mojave Desert, where numerous short-term occupations were used to exploit a variety of habitat zones, the Owens-
Deep Springs areas evidence greater residential stability. In Owens Valley, for example, groups appear to have
moved along a north-south axis, establishing a series of seasonal residential bases, probably occupying Long Valley
in summer and southern Owens and Rose valleys in winter. These sites appear to have been occupied and re-
occupied for substantial periods of tie judging from the presence of structures, features, and a variety of resources
obtained from vertically distant habitat zones (e.g., pinyon, mounta sheep, and marmots found in lowland sites
such as Lubkin Creek). This latter phenomena probably reflects exploitation of upland areas by task-specific groups,
a stratgy  nsistent with archaeological data from the southern Sierra (McGuire 1981), White Mountains (Bettinger
1991), and the uplands surrounding Death and Deep Springs valleys (Delacorte 1990; Wallace 1958).
Saratoga Springs/Haiwee and Shoshonean/Marana period adaptations in Owens Valley are characterized by
nreased sedentsm, territoriality, and socio-political complexity, developments made possible by more intensive
exploitation of local resources within progressively smaller units of land, as well as more extensive use of upland
areas used previously for hunting (Bettinger 1989, 1991; Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; McGuire 1981). In addition
to these subsistence shifts, Bettinger (1982a) and Bettinger and King (1971) argue that the exchange of Fish Springs
obsidian was also a primaiy contributor to the origin of this system, allowing those in control of the source to trade
for subsist  resources previously acquired hrugh some form of settlement mobility. Bettinger (1989), however,
suggests that other factors, such as increasing population, may also have contributed to the development of this
pattern.
Although territorial ranges after the Newberry period appear to have been reduced in all areas considered,
permanent or semi-permanent residential bases seem to have emerged only in the far western Mojave (e.g., Antelope
Valley [Sutton 1988aJ) and perps in Owens Valley (Basgall and McGuire 1988; Bettinger 1989). The more and
lands of Deep Springs and Death valleys, as well as much of the Mojave, required numerous short-term residential
base camps to exploit a more dispersed set of environmental zones throughout the Haiwee and Marana periods.
Continuation of these inter-regional differences are also found in the ethnographic record. Summaries of
subsistence-settlement information collected from the Owens Valley Paiute and Coso Shoshone (Delacorte 1988;
Delacorte and McGuire 1993; see also Bettinger 1982b) document several organizational differences between the
two groups. Rather than residing in large semi-permanent villages like the Owens Valley Paiute, inhabitants of the
Coso region were organized into independent family groups who moved frequently from one resource tract to
29
another. In early spring, when stored resources were exhausted, families moved to well-watered areas such as
Haiwee Springs to collect greens. This was also a time when larger groups would occasionally form to conduct
rabbit and antelope drives. By May, many families traveled to Owens Lake to gather brine-fly pupae, but soon
thereafter dispersed to gather seeds. Seed gathering was initiated in the lowlands, and progressively moved up in
elevation during the summer. The Coso Range was a favored locality; however, more distant upland areas were
also used if necessary. Trips could also be made to Saline or Panamint valleys to collect mesquite in years when
local seed production was below nonnal. By late summer groups often concentrated in upland areas to gather and
store late ripening seeds and prepare for the fall pinyon harvest. The Coso Range was a primary pinyon collection
area, but when local crops failed, families would go to the Inyo and Panamint ranges to collect and store the nuts.
After fall harvest and continuing through winter, several families would aggregate in favored lowland
settings (e.g., Olancha, Coso Hot Springs, Little Lake) or, in years when pinyon crops were exceptionally
productive, smaller groups might choose to winter in the Coso Range closer to their caches of nuts. Alternatively,
when local crops were insufficient, families could gather in neighboring uplands, and rely on stored foods and locally
available game.
As the foregoing discussions of archaeological and ethnographd itoic data indicate, the Coso Volcanic Field
comprised only a small component of several larger subsistence-settlement systems. Nevertheless, by virtue of lying
within an environment rich in lithic material, but relatively marginal with respect to subsistence resources, the area
provides an excellent opportunity to measure the relative importance of obsidian across a variety of adaptive modes
and historic circumstances.
30
CHAPTER 3: FIELD AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Extensive excavation was undertaken at 34 sites (Map 3; Table 6). Each locality was systematically surface
collected and subjected to a phased excavation strategy. The purpose of this approach was to develop a preliminary
evaluation of site/locus structure, followed by extensive excavation focusing on areas identified as potential single
component deposits. Potential single component areas were identified in the field as spatially discrete concentrations
of material, and typically were confined to areas less than 30-40 m in diameter. This method directed detailed
investigations to artifact/debitage concentrations and features; diffuse scatters were less thoroughly sampled.
FIELD METHODS
Two basic field strategies were applied, one in areas with subsurface deposits (usually off-quarry sites), the
other where cultural materials were essentially restricted to the surface (usually lag quarries). If subsurface deposits
were suspected, fieldwork began by establishing a 15 x 15 m grid, followed by surface collecting all formed tools
from the site (e.g., flaked, ground, and battered stone tools, but not debitage), provenienced relative to 3 x 3 m
cells. Subsurface distributions were then evaluated by excavating 1 x 1 m selective recovery units usually in the
southwest comer of 15 x 15 m quads. Selective recovery units were dug in 10 cm levels, deposits were processed
through 1/4" mesh, and all cultural material other than debitage was retained. Debitage densities were monitored
by Controlled Volume Samples (CVS) consisting of approximately 10% of a 10 cm level (1 x 1 m unit - 1/4" mesh).
This approach was designed to maximize recovery of information related to site structure, in order to decide the
placement of subsequent excavation units. Based on these data and surface distributions, control excavation units
(CUs) were placed where artifact and debitage concentrations appeared to be present. Control units were also
excavated in 10 cm levels with spoils processed through 1/4" or 1/8" mesh. CU-1/4" units were usually 1 x 2 m
in size, while CU-1/8" units were typically 1 x 1 m or 0.5 x 1 m. Where cultural material was largely restricted
to near-surface contexts, 3 x 3 m surface scrapes were excavated to a depth of 10 cm. Surface scrape matrices were
processed using regular combinations of 1/4" and 1/8" mesh.
At lag quarries, because subsurface deposits were usually lacking, a variety of surface collection techniques
were used. When such an area was of a manageable size and artifact densities were low, surface collection
procedures were the same as those described above, with the additional collection of debitage samples from a 3 x
3 m cell at the corner of each 15 x 15 m quad. When an area was very extensive and artifact densities were very
low, debitage and artifacts alike were collected from 3 x 3 m cells placed at constant intervals along widely spaced
transects. Interval widths varied from one site to the next in response to the size of the area, the steepness of the
terrain, and the perceived density of materials. For areas less than 150 x 250 m (e.g., INY-1816 and INY-1824
Main), sample cells were at 15 m intervals. For even more extensive areas, which usually had even more sparse
distributions, 30 m or wider intervals were used (e.g., INY-3200 and INY-3300) and transects were oriented at a
right angle to the landform. Temporally diagnostic artifacts or other particularly noteworthy artifacts found outside
the sample of surface collection cells were individually collected. When a concentration of materials occurred within
an otherwise extensive but sparse quarry, a 15 x 15 m grid was established overlaying the concentration, and all
formed tools within the grid were collected (again relative to 3 x 3 m cells). Based on documented surface
distributions, areas of further interest were test excavated with 1 x 1 m selective recovery units to verify that
subsurface deposits were lacking. Additional excavation was limited to 3 x 3 m surface scrapes overlaying the
densest artifact/debitage clusters.
Backhoe trenches were also used on occasion to discover features or significant concentrations of artifacts
below ca. 40 cm. As field work continued, it became apparent that subsurface deposits were largely restricted to
the upper 50 cm (and rarely extended to 80 cm) and correlated with surface distributions. Backhoe trenches were
cut only at INY-4267 and INY-4329, they proved to be of limited utility, and further use was discontinued.
Upon completing excavation, profiles were drawn of representative exposures, and soil samples were
collected so that color, consistency, and other characteristics of depositional strata could be examined under
laboratory conditions. Grid stakes, fencing, flagging, etc., were then retrieved, and units backfilled to original
contours.
31
0'q
Ii
m
o
R
v
4
'c
0
m
R
oo11
t -- W%
*       W0  -   'N
e4 m- U v m  N  t<
'C
GO            0'
*         W * N '--N
0--
%O- -~      N  'C 0o^
-'G~ '''~~
* 0  * ~  *  *-
, 0  N  i  0  0  i  !  i i
-, -
'N O'     >-
U)o @ @ @ @
IiI
I-  R
A00
(.j
N
t, %
.
' o
'C
9 U)
m
m
I ,
N
i m
0't
N
m -
s-
N
UC '''''-  0
'C  '  'C'C
~ ~N
,N, -  , .  ,  .-
U)-  *'*--  '.'
N . . * -  *
,   , '  ,   , ,
Nl  - -
-U  ' '' ''
II
vo
I ..,
- -)
I I .
i I I
I   .  .
I I .
I   , I
i -
.I -
I *     I
, . .
G     I
I
U    .    -
. I
I   I
I N
I-
I .
* I
.  -
o "
I. -
I ,
0 -
.
I e
. ge)
e4
oo
r-
N
0q
.d
N
0'
.C
oo
'C
'C
N1
'C
a       I
,        ,
? ~. .
U*   *  o
oo 8 8
,,
,. ,
.j .d d
-N
NO
e4 ,~  ,-
.  ,
'  '    0U)
i   , -
~- ~.00 .
' '    22 J ~
'l
. .
- -fS-
~.;.
,,o Fo
nI
4:v 1 1 DZ:
it  l
32
- C
I-I
. I .
, I I
, . .
- I -
. fC4 .
4-&
.-
8
CI)
ca
.
4W0
D
I-
"a
a9)
Co
o
o
q
0
0
C
%0
JRO
'4
C4
In
.
S
Ul
N
S
8C
4r.
la    I      i I
I I         I A
la p I A
I ,..; I .2    - 02
I =
0 1:2 I I k
I
I
II
4
I
II
a    q
Table 6. Materials Recovered from Project Sites (continued).
4244     4246    4252     4267    4319
-      -       -       3        1
98       26      25      301     109
5        2        -      33     157
5        2        -      14       14
16        9       2       45       15
-        -6                        -
2        -        -       S        -
6        1        -      13      15
7        -        1      26      24
139       40      28      446     335
4320    4322/H       4324/H     4325    4327    4328     4329    4330   4331
15
25
6
15
1
3
2
67
13
29
7
49
90
93
5
1S
13
216
1        -        1
33        8       70
7       19      73
4        -       4
5        2       11
-        1       1
3        -        1
2        6       13
2        -       11
57       36      185
4       1       -
446      52     18
306       8     15
1              -
58       -       -
225       4     13
8       -      2
7       2      1
50       1      4
56       2      1
1161     70      54
21984    2083    1321   25074     448       474       1229        12195
-       3      95     173       1         -          -           12
Ground nd Battered Stome
Milliptone                  -
Handstone                   1
Misc. Ground Stone          -
Mortar
Pestle
Bedrock Mortar              -
Bedrock Slick
Non-obsidian Cobble-Core     -
SUBTOTAL                 1
Abrader
Anvil                       -
Bead
Crystal
Historic                    -
Incised Stone
Misellnou Shaped Ston       -
Miseelbums Stone
Modified Stone
Palett
Sherd                       -
SUBTOTAL
2
I
2
1   56   5
1   18    -
-  10   -
5
- I    -
2
-   14  25*
2   106  30
I
3
4
o
3
3
4
4
I
1
771     400    610     33715   3314
465      3325     185300
7       3       7      251      36       1         -       1033
5
5
3
13
2
2
3
6
9
I
I
I
2
6
6
25
6
2
108
141
S
3
41
49
3
1
1
4
9
I
I
3
3
387
179
73
6
1
1
S
311
963
4
7
250
1
6
1
19
23
1
1
41
354
Artifact Total
orwa=s
Bone
Chmu
Excatlm Sismaris
On cubic metms)
140     42      30    558     366
71         52         221        70      38     194     1351      80      57       159      7549
2          1           -        20           -             -              -                 -            -          -          -          21           3
-          -        11         26            -            -              -                 -            -          -          -             1         8
-    -       315
-    -        47
Selective Recovery 1/4'  -   0.80    1.90  19.60   6.20
Contol Unit 1/4'     10.00   3.70   3.50   18.40   1.60
Control Unit 1/8"     0.60   0.63   0.70    0.90   0.80
10.60   5.13   6.10  38.90  8.60
2.10
0.60
0.15
2.85
0.70
2.50
0.30
2.95
2.85
0.70
1.40     -   4.90   45.70  11.50  1.50
1.00  3.60   1.90   35.60  14.00  1.20
2.76   0.40  0.30    1.55   0.85   0.15
3.50       6.50    5.16   4.00   7.10   82.85  26.35   2.85
NOTE: * - includes one obsidian core tool.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
All cultural      was washed and catalogued during fieldwork at a temporary lab at Coso Junction, or
soon thereafter at Far Western facilities in Davis, California. Accession numbers were obtained from the
Environmental Branch, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, and any materials previously collected from project
sites were loaned to us for re-analysis and incorporation in this study. Analysis during cataloguing was limited to
basic artifact description, saving more sophisticated observations for individuals in charge of particular artifact
classes. As the first step of analysis, catalogued artifacts were individually reviewed by the authors (flaked stone
by Gilreath, ground and battered stone by Hildebrandt) to verify type and condition ascriptions. Reassignments
33
Site (INY-)
Faked Stoe
Biface/Point
Biface
Core
Drill
Flank Blank
Flake Tool
Formed Flake Tool
Projece Point
Uniface
Uniface-B
SUBTOTAL
4378   TOTAL
Debt
Obsdian
Non-obsidian
27
122
2
2
1
3
157
40
2912
1856
2
167
649
35
60
208
303
6232
TOTAL
0.70    194.65
2.90    212.00
0.40     28.71
4.00    435.36
1
1
I
I
I
I
based on this full review of the collection were incorporated in the master catalogues. Detailed analyses were then
implemented. All recovered materials are now curated at the Naval Air Weapons Station. Field notes, field maps,
and project photographs accompany the collection. Master catalogues and analysis files exist in both printed versions
and as dBASE IV files on computer diskettes.
FLAKED STONE ANALYSIS
Our interest in documenting the flaked stone production history for the Coso Volcanic Field resulted in an
analysis structured to emphasize recognition of manufacturing activity, intensity, and technology; and artifact
morphology in the context of reduction trajectories. Functional analysis was kept to a mimum, in response to the
low number of flaked stone "tools," relative to the extraordinary quantities of cores, blanks, and preforms. For
descriptive purposes, artifact size, shape, and condition were stressed. The raw material itself sets upper limits on
attainable artifact sizes, may influence the shape of some artifact types, and sometimes is responsible for the broken
condition of a specimen (e.g., flaws in the stone, not poor execution on the part of the craftsperson might have
caused an item to break).  Prehistoric flintknappers' habits, techniques, and objectives are, however, more
compelling forces responsible for shaping the artifacts, and creating the archaeological record at Coso.
The following artifact categories were used for flaked stone at the catalogue level: projectile points,
biface/points, drills, bifaces, uniface-B's (items reduced like a biface but with modification largely restricted to one
face), flake blanks, formed flake tools, simple flake tools, cores, and unifaces. In addition to classifying each
artifact by material (obsidian, cryptocrystalline, basalt, etc.), basic measurements were recorded (length, width,
thickness, weight) for all analyzed specimens, as well as the condition or portion of the item represented. All
projectile points and biface/points were analyzed; analysis of all other flaked artifacts was largely restricted to those
occurring in temporally meaningful contexts.
Projectile points are bifacial implements fashioned by pressure flaking and having hafting elements present,
denoted by notches, shoulders, and/or a stem. Most can be readily classified according to Thomas' (1981) Great
Basin projectile point key; the remaing are large, shouldered forms considered Great Basin Stemmed and various
leaf-shaped items. A total of 60 projectile points was recovered (Table 6; see Plates 1-9 in Chapter 5); 112
additional points found during survey in the Volcanic Field supplement the sample. Attributes recorded for all 172
projectile points are those used in Thomas' key.
Non-diagnostic pieces of projectile points were classified as biface/points, of which 40 were recovered
(Table 6). In addition to recording the same attributes as those for bifaces, biface/point fragments were subjectively
identified as deriving from arrow or dart-sized points, based primarily on size.
Only two of the nearly 6,250 flaked stone items were classified as drills. Both exhibit elongate, bi-convex
bits fashioned by bifacially pressure flaking converging edges.
Bifaces exhibit percussion and/or pressure flake removal scars along opposing sides of a continuous margin.
Nearly 3000 bifaces were recovered (n=2912, Table 6). Two other artifact categories related to biface production
- uniface-B's (n=303) and flake blanks (n= 167) - are considered biface-equivalents. The former are typically
large flake-based items that were percussion flaked, removing thinning flakes from a single surface. Minor
modification sometimes occurs on the original ventral surface, but is confined to a narrow zone around the
perimeter, and related to edge and platform preparation. Flake blanks are complete or near complete flakes which
were edge trimmed by a series of short percussion flake removals, usually making a triangular form with rounded
basal comers. Planar and cross-section views indicate that bifaces and these two variants were systematically rather
than haphazardly formed.
The analytical utility of differentiating reduction stages is well established by such works as Callahan
(1979), Collins (1975), Crabtree (1973), Frison and Bradley (1980), Muto (1971), Newcomer (1971), and Sharrock
(1966). Bifaces, uniface-B's and flake blanks received comparable analysis, sing wth classification into five
stages based on size, reduction technique, appearance, and quality. Stage 1 items are typically large, very thick
items with percussion worked edges rendering an irregular planar form, and extremely sinuous and often
34
discinuous worked margin. Approximately 60% of the item's margin has been bifacially worked, suggesting its
affiliation with a biface reduction trajectory, rather than a flake-production core trajectory. The distinction between
Stage 1 bifaces and bifacial cores is admittedly often arbitrary. Modification on Stage 2 items, a term used
irchangeably here with bifacial blanks, is also restricted to percussion flaking, but they have less sinuous margins
and slightly thinner cross-sections than Stage ls. At least 80% of the margin has been bifacially modified (for
uniface-B's at least 80% of the margin has been unifacially worked), with flake removals having served to effectively
thin the item (Figures 3 and 4c). Stage 3 items, also referred to as preforms, are thinner and display more regular,
less sinuous, margins than Stage 2s. Evenly spaced, systematically removed percussion flakes have rendered a
symmetric, uniformly bi-convex cross-section on the bifaces (Figure 4a-b); plano-convex shapes on uniface-B's; and
slightly concave-convex cross-sections on the edge-trimmed flake blanks (Figure 5). Stage 4 items are small,
irittently pressure flaked bifaces, representing either fragmented projectile points or items which broke early
during tool finishing activities. Finally, Stage 5 bifaces are extensively pr   flaked ragents of final tool forms
such as projectile points and bifacial knives. Margins are heavily flaked, and entire opposing surfaces are
completely covered by closely spaced pressure flake removal scars. In addition to classifying bifaces to stage of
reduction and condition, a single edge-angle mauent was taken, plana and cross-sectonal shape were recorded,
and the reason for discard/rejection was assessed. As previously mentioned, high technological standardization and
high rates of success have been listed as indicators of production specialization. A high number of bifaces standard
in form and shape, combined with manufacturing failure patterns could provide evidence that such specialization
occurred at Coso. For the most part, uniface-B's and flake blanks will not be distinguished from true bifaces in
discussions hat follow, in order to minimize confusion and unnecessarily protracted assemblage characterizations.
For this study, a core is a mass of stone minimally exhibiting two flake removals. At least a portion of the
margin from which flakes were removed remains intact, so that direction of removals can be evaluated. This
definition served to eliminate the amorphous  ore-like" pieces of shatter produced during initial reduction and the
natally f   ed chunks of glass common in the Volcanic Field. A total of 1856 cores was recovered (Table 6);
they were classified as unidirectional, bidirectional, bifacial (Figure 6a), non-p(Figure 6b, d), or
cobble/chunk tests (Figure 6c),  ding on the orientation of flake removals and worked margins relative to one
another. Other attributes recorded include: the basic form of the mas reduced (tabular cobble, globular cobble,
angular cobble, flake, piece of shatter), type of cortex evident on the piece, and planar and cross-sectional shape
of the object.
Simple flake tools (n=649) are flakes that show minima amounts of deliberate flaking and/or damage
extending along a continuous segment of the perimeter. Edge modification occurs nearly exclusively as
microchipping, most commnly uicial    age, and rarely intrudes more than two or three millimeters from the
a    . As a result, edge damage has little chad the size and shape of the orginally detached flake (Figure 7a).
Analysis iluded mber of edges modified, shape of the modified edge (straight, convex, concave, etc.), length
of the mdified portion of an edge, type of modification (unifacial/bifacial microchipping, edge grinding), as well
as spine-plane and working edge anges. Formed flake tools (n=35) are flake-based tools where edge modification
was extensive and deliberate, resulting in reshaping of the originally detached flake. Recorded attributes parallel
those for simple flake tools.
Unifaces (n=208) display steep, unidirectional, percussion flake removal scars underlaying a 2-5 mm zone
of extensive edge modification (Figure 7b-d). Edge modification, apparently from use, takes the form of non-
invasive, percussive edge trimming flakes and/or mi Hipp . They differ from unidirectional cores in that they
tend to display fairly regularized planar shapes, keeled cross-sections, and inentional edge age; they differ from
uniface-B's in that percussion flake removals did not effectively thin the piece, rather they created a steep
platform/face juncture.
Flake stone debris lacking post-detachment modification (i.e., no subsequent edge damage or flake
removals) was considered debitage. Excavation and surface collection rendered over 185,000 pieces of obsidian
debitage, compared to about 1,000 pieces of non-obsidian chipping debris (Table 6). Preliminary review of the
collections revealed two major manu  ring trajectories, both largely confined to percussion flaking: biface
production and core production. Consequently, flake types developed for debitage classification sought to monitor
35
a
b
c
0
Figure 3. Obsidian Stage 2 Bifaces from INY-3456 (a, b) and INY-4252 (c, d).
(987-44-216); c. Base (987-93-96); d. End (987-93-68).
d
5 cm
. Whole (987-44-104); b. Whole
36
a                                                  b
J
0                           5cm
Figure 4. Obsidian Stage 3 Bifaces (a, b) and Stage 2 Uniface-B (c) from INY-4252. a. Complete (987-93-17/89);
b. Base (987-93-71); c. End (987-93-7).
37
a                                b                                 c
0                              5cm
Figure 5. Complete Obsidian Stage 3 Flake Blanks from INY-4239. a. 987-38-93; b. 987-38- 1; c. 987-38-172.
the relative importance of these two basic strategies. The initial separation of biface from core/flake percussion
reduction debris relied on complexity of the striking platform, platform to dorsal surface angle, complexity and
configuration of dorsal surface scars, and flake curvature as distinguishing characteristics. Biface percussion
reduction debitage categories include: primary and secondary decortication flakes, and early (large interior flakes
which tend to be thick, of variable shapes, and only slightly curved from proximal to distal ends), middle (smaller
than early tinning flakes, thinner, and slightly more curved from proximal to distal end, with moderately complex
dorsal surfaces), and late stage thinning flakes (thin, regularly shaped biface thinning flakes of uniform size, complex
dorsal surface, moderately curved from proximal to distal end, and multi-faceted, sometimes ground striking
platforms). Cortical tinning flakes and early interior thinning flakes were subsequently combined as early stage
biface reduction debris. Core/flake percussion reduction debitage categories include: primary and secondary
decortication flakes, simple interior (displaying two or fewer dorsal arrises), complex interior (displaying three or
more dorsal arrises), and rectangular/linear flakes. Other flake types recognized include: angular shatter (angular
chunks displaying sufficient flake attributes such as compression rings, hackles, or partial bulbs of force, signifying
that they were culturally produced), edge preparation flakes (small [ < 1.5 cm], usually whole percussion flakes),
indeterminate percussion flake fragments, pressure flakes, edge preparation/pressure flakes, and indeterminate flake
bits.
GROUND AND BATTERED STONE ANALYSIS
Milling equipment is dominated by millingstones (n=387), and handstones (n= 179), followed by fewer
miscellaneous fragments (n=73), and the rare bedrock slick, mortar, and pestle. These tools were analyzed using
methods applied to similar assemblages from Owens Valley and the central Mojave Desert (Basgall and McGuire
1988; Basgall et al. 1988), but modified to some extent to deal with analytical problems unique to our project's goals
(see also Fratt and Adams 1993).
38
a                                b
C
d
o                           5cm
Figure 6. Complete Obsidian Cores from INY-2826 (a, b,); INY-4327 (c); and INY-4319 (d). a. Bifacial (987-29-70);
b. Non-patterned (987-29-64); c. Cobble/Chunk Test (987-101-64); d. Non-patterned (987-97-352).
39
a
b
d
c
0                          5cm
Figure 7. Complete Obsidian Flake Tool from INY-2103 (a), and Unifaces from INY-4267 (b) and INY-4327 (C,7 d).
a. 987-27-385; b. 987-88-52; c. 987-101-17; d. 987-101-18.
40
Millingstones
Aboriginal decisions regarding materials used were often influenced by the natural form and consistency
of locally available rock. Rock types found only as boulders and cobbles, for example, were rarely selected when
a portable, thin slab millingstone was desired. Hardness also influences wear patterns, as softer rocks develop
diagnostic wear patterns more quickly than resistant stone. Finally, the presence of exotic rock types (usually in
the form of handstones and thin slab millingstones) can also provide information regarding settlement mobility,
particularly if the source locality is known. For all of these reasons, material type was the first major attribute used
to classify millingstones.
The vast majority of millingstones fall into four basic rock types: rhyolite, granite, basalt, or dike rock.
Rhyolite is least resistant of the four, and is common as natural blocks and slabs on the sides of rhyolitic domes.
It is quite light and friable, often exhibiting pumice-like qualities. Granitics are much harder, and various forms
found in the Volcanic Field include granite, granodiorite, diorite, and gabbro. Local basalts are also relatively hard,
and range from boulders to thin slabs. Most of this material is fime-grained, dense, and heavy; however, vesicular
basalt occurs in a few nearby areas. Dike rock is a fine-grained material extruded from fissures within the granitic
outcrops. Harder than the other three, it routinely occurs as thin tabular pieces.
Once identified by material, millingstones were classified according to maximal thickness. Block
millingstones are more than 13.0 cm thick (Figure 10b), and are believed to represent essentially stationary tools.
Slab millingstones measure between 6.0-13.0 cm thick, and could reasonably have been transported short distances
(Figures 8, 9b, 10a). Thin slabs, those less than 6.0 cm thick, were readily transportable (Figure 9a). In addition
to other morphological measures such as length, width, and weight, several important functional attributes were
recorded for each worn surface. Surface configuration measures the depth of the working surface, and was recorded
as flat (no visible concavity), slightly concave (depth < 1.0 cm), concave (depth > 1.0 cm), and irregular/convex.
Concave forms rarely achieved depths greater than 2.0 cm; deeply basined millingstones do not occur. Wear type
refers to some combination of polish, pecking, and striations, while surface wear attempts to measure how extensive
wear has been (smooth/complete, irregular, incipient). Other observations include length and width of the grinding
surface, whether the implement was intentionally shaped, the number of worn surfaces, and artifact condition
(complete, nearly whole, margin fragment, interior fragment).
Material-specific morphological forms outlined above (i.e., blocks, slabs, and thin slabs of granite, rhyolite,
etc.), were cross-tabulated with functional attributes to identify correlations between artifact form, function, duration
of use, condition, etc. Patterning among the millingstones, combined with attributes of the larger assemblage (e.g.,
flaked stone, features, plant remains), contribute to a variety of inferences regarding subsistence-settlement
strategies.
Handstones
Handstones were analyzed using an approach similar to that of millingstones. Material types include the
four outlined above, plus sandstone. Conceding that any and all handstones are portable, morphological types were
not explored. Instead, material type was cross-tabulated with a series of functional attributes including surface
configuration (flat, slightly convex, convex, rounded), wear type (polish, pecking, striations), and surface wear
(smooth/complete, irregular, incipient). Secondary wear patterns (edge battering, edge flaking, edge grinding) were
noted, as was tool condition. On bifacial (and the few trifacial) handstones, each milling surface was recorded
separately, including dimensions of the worn area. Representative unifacial and bifacial handstones of granite are
shown in Figures 11 and 13, rhyolite ones in Figures 11-13, and a basalt handstone in Figure 12a.
Miscellaneous Ground Stone
Miscellaneous ground stone does not represent a distinct functional class, but rather fragments of either
millingstones or handstones too small to classify. Analytical methods, therefore, were essentially equivalent to those
applied to millingstones and handstones, recognizing the same material types and functional attributes.
41