THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOHISTORY OF FORT Ross, CALIFORNIA * VOLUME 2 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood A Multiethnic Community at Colony Ross KENT G. LIGHTFOOT, ANN M. SCHIFF, AND THOMAS A. WAKE Number 55 Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility Berkeley Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-77906 ISBN 1-882744-05-3 ? 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 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. Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................... iii Foreword E. Breck Parkman ..................................................... x Editors' Preface ....................................................... 1 Interethnic Relationships in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood: Consumption Practices, Cultural Innovations, and the Construction of Household Identities Kent G. Lightfoot and Antoinette Martinez .............................................. 1 2 Archaeological Field Investigations at the Fort Ross Beach Site Kent G. Lightfoot and Ann M. Schiff ........................ 23 3 Archaeological Field Investigations at the Native Alaskan Village Site Kent G. Lightfoot, Ann M. Schiff, and Lisa Holm ................................. 42 4 Site Formation Processes at the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Heather A. Price .......... 96 5 Sensing the Past and the Remoteness of the Future: A Soil Resistivity Survey at the Native Alaskan Village Site Andre Tschan ....... 107 6 Historical Archaeology of the Native Alaskan Village Site Glenn Farris ....... 129 7 European Origins and Native Destinations: Historical Artifacts from the Native Alaskan Village and Fort Ross Beach Sites Stephen W. Silliman ............ 136 8 Glass and Ceramic Trade Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Lester A. Ross ........1 179 Lithic Assemblage at the Fort Ross Beach and Native Alaskan Village Sites Ann M. Schiff .......... 213 10 Slate Artifacts and Ethnicity at Fort Ross Peter R. Mills .......... 238 Bone Artifacts and Tool Production in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Thomas A. Wake .......... 248 1 2 Mammal Remains from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Thomas A. Wake ............................................... 279 13 Bird Remains from the Fort Ross Beach and Native Alaskan Village Sites Dwight D. Simons ............................................ 310 1 4 Fish Remains from the Early 19th Century Native Alaskan Habitation at Fort Ross Kenneth W. Gobalet .................................................. 319 15 Shellfish Remains at the Fort Ross Beach and Native Alaskan Village Sites Ann M. Schiff .................................................. 328 1 6 Chronology of Archaeological Deposits from the Fort Ross Beach and Native Alaskan Village Sites Kent G. Lightfoot and Stephen W. Silliman .................................. 337 1 7 Culture Change and Persistence in the Daily Lifeways of Interethnic Households Kent G. Lightfoot, Ann M. Schiff, Antoinette Martinez, Thomas A. Wake, Stephen W. Silliman, Peter R. Mills, and Lisa Holm ............................................... 355 1 8 Conclusion Kent G. Lightfoot, Ann M. Schiff, and Thomas W. Wake ............................................ 420 Three appendices occur in the text-appendix 1.1 (p. 17); appendix 6.1 (p. 135); and appendix 8.1 (p. 211). All other appendices are contained in microfiche, 278+ pages ...................... on inside back cover Figures P.1 Spatial Layout of Colony Ross ....................................................................... xii P.2 The Fort Ross Beach Site and the Native Alaskan Village Site in 1989 .................................................................. xiii 2.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Map ....................................................................... 25 2.2 Photo of the Fort Ross Beach Site from the East, Showing 30 m Long Profile and Bench in 1989 ......................... 26 23 Photo of East and Middle Profile Units in 1988 ....................................................................... 28 2.4 East Profile Units ....................................................................... 29 25 Middle Profile Units ....... ................................................................ 30 2.6 The Fort Ross Beach Site Pit Feature ....................................................................... 31 2.7 Close-Up of Stone Bench in the Fort Ross Beach Site Pit Feature ....................................................................... 32 2.8 Possible Post-Mold in front of Stone Bench in the Fort Ross Beach Site Pit Feature ................... ........................... 33 2.9 Plan Map of Floor of the Fort Ross Beach Site Pit Feature ....................................... ................................ 34 2.10 Photo of West Profile Units ........................................................................ 35 2.11 WestProfieUnits ....................................................................... 36 2.12 Profile of North Wall of East Bench (ON, 12W) ....................................................................... 37 2.13 Profile of North Wall of Southwest Bench ....................................................................... 38 2.14 Profile of West Wall of Southwest Bench ....................................................................... 40 2.15 West Wall of Southwest Bench. Note Bedrock in Lower Left Corner ................................................................... 41 3.1 Native Alaskan Village Site Map ....................................................................... 43 3.2 Native Alaskan Village Site Surface Collection Units ...................... ................................................. 45 3.3 Surface Distribution of Flake/Core/Biface ....................................................................... 48 3.4 Surface Distribution of Fire-Cracked Rocks ....................................................................... 49 3.5 Surface Distribution of Glass Beads ....................................................................... 50 3.6 Surface Distribution of Window/Bottle Glass ....................................................................... 51 3.7 Surface Distibution of Ceramics ....................................................................... 52 3.8 Surface Distibution of Metal Artifacts ....................................................................... 53 3.9 Surface Distribution of Fish Remains ....................................................................... 54 3.10 Surface Distribution of Bird Remains ....................................................................... 55 3.11 Surface Distribution of Marine Mammal Remains ....................................................................... 56 3.12 Surface Distribution of Artiodactyl Remains ....................................................................... 57 3.13 Surface Distribution of All Manmmal Remains ....................................................................... 58 3.14 Surface Distribution of Shellfish Remains ....................................................................... 59 3.15 Three Areas of the Native Alaskan Village Site Showing their Relationship to the "Village Core" in the 1817 Map . 61 3.16 Native Alaskan Village Site Excavation Units ....................................................................... 63 3.17 East Central Area Excavation ....................................................................... 65 3.18 South Area Excavation ....................................................................... 65 3.19 South Wall Profile of South Central Test Unit ....................................................................... 67 3.20 South Wall Profile of West Central Test Unit ....................................................................... 67 3.21 North Wall Profile of East Central Trench ....................................................................... 69 3.22 West Wall Profile of the East Central Extension Trench ............................. .......................................... 70 3.23 Close-up of Worked Antler in 75S, OE: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 .................................................... .......... 71 3.24 Close-up of Artiodactyl Remains and Abalone Shells in 75S, I E: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 .... .................. 72 3.25 Close-up of Fire-Cracked Rocks, Ground Stone, Turban Snail, and Abalone Shells in 75S, OE: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 ....................................................................... 72 3.26 Photo of 75S, OE: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 ..................... .................................................. 73 3.27 Photo of SW Quad of 75S, OE: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 ....................................................................... 73 3.28 Photo of the First Section (74S, 3E) of the East Central Area Excavation ........................................... .................. 74 3.29 Photo of the Second Section (74S, OE) of the East Central Area Excavation ................................ ......................... 75 330 Photo of the Third Section (75S, 2W) of the East Central Area Excavation ........................................................... 76 331 Close-up of Artiodactyl Remains, Ground Stone, and Fire-Cracked Rocks in 74S, 1W: East Central Bone Bed, Level 1 ....................................................................... 78 332 Outline of the East Central Bone Bed in the East Central Trench and Area Excavation .............. .......................... 78 3.33 Basemap for the East Central Bone Bed and Adjacent Deposits, Level 1 (East Central Trench and Area Excavation) ....................................................................... 79 3.34 Basemap for the East Central Bone Bed and Adjacent Deposits, Level 2 (East Central Trench) ............ ............... 79 3.35 Basemap for the Floor of the East Central Pit Feature (East Central Trench) ............................ ............................ 79 3.36 South Wall Profile of South Trench ....................................................................... 81 3.37 Outline of the South Bone Bed, Abalone Dump, Wooden Posts, Linear Clay Feature in'the South Trench and Area Excavation ..................................................................... 82 338 Close-up of Whale Bone Core and Mollusk Remains in 125S, 22W: South Bone Bed, Level 1 ............ .............. 83 3.39 Photo of 125S, 22W and 125S, 23W: South Bone Bed Level 1 .................................................................... 84 vi The Native Alaskan Neighborhood 3.40 Photo of 125S, 21W and 125S, 22W: South Bone Bed Level 2 ............................................................................ 84 3A1 Photo of First Section (124S, 19W) of the South Area Excavation ........................................................................ 86 3A2 Photo of Second Section (124S, 22W) of the South Area Excavation ............................................ ........................ 87 3A3 Photo of Third Section (124S, 24W) of the South Area Excavation ....................................................................... 88 3.44 Photo of Fourth Section (124S, 26W) of the South Area Excavation ................................................... .................. 89 3.45 Basemap for the South Bone Bed and Adjacent Deposits, Level 1 (South Trench and Excavation Area) . . . 90 3.46 Basemap for the South Bone Bed, Level 2 (South Trench) ................................................................................ 91 3A7 Basemap for the South Bone Bed, Level 3 (South Trench) ................................................................................ 91 3.48 Basemap for the South Bone Bed, Level 4 (South Trench) ................................................................................ 91 3.49 Close-up of Abalone Shell, Ground Stone, and Iron Axe Head in 121S, 26W: Abalone Dump, Level 1 ........ .... 92 3.50 Close-up of Iron Spike, Mollusk Shells, and Artiodactyl Remains in 122S, 25W: Abalone Dump, Level 1 ........ 92 3.51 Close-up of Worked Bone Tools, Abalone Shells, Ground Stone, and Fire-Cracked Rocks in 121S, 26W: Abalone Dump, Level I ................................................................................ 93 3.52 Close-up of Linear Clay Feature on Rock Rubble in 125S, 23W: (NW to SE - Photo Center) ............ ................. 93 5.1 Contact Resistance and Polarization Problems When Taking Ground Resistance Measurements (Text/Graph: Clark 1990:28) ................................................................................ 109 5.2 a) A Resistivity Measuring Circuit (used in the Martin-Clark meters) b) The Detection Hemisphere Resulting from a Wenner Configuration (Text/Graph: Clark 1990:28) ................................................................... 109 5.3 a) Simulating a Wenner Configuration Cross Section of the Current and Potential Distribution b) The Potential Gradient between Cl and C2 Represented as a Plot (rext/Graph: Clark 1990:29) .................. .............................. 110 5.4 a) A Centrally Located High Resistivity Feature Causes Marginal Interference of the Current Flow (Text/Graph: Clark 1990:28) b) The Percentage Difference in Potential between P1 and P2 Increases Due to the Feature Being Located Directly beneath P2 and C2 (Text/Graph: Clark 1990:28) c) A Centrally Located Conducting Feature Interferes to a Greater Extent Than its Counterpart Depicted in Figure 5.4a (Text/Graph:Clark 1990:28) ............ 111 5.5 Geoplot Resistivity Map of the Native Alaskan Village Site ................................................................................. 112 5.6 Survey Reference Stations ................................................................................. 114 5.7 Survey Grid Sizes .......... ........................................................................ 115 5.8 1817 Russian Map of Fort Ross ................................................................................. 118 5.9 Site Reconstruction of Native Alaskan Village Site Based on the 1817 Map ........................ ................................. 119 5.10 Middle Section Map Indicating the Dominant Resistivity Survey Features ........................ ................................. 120 5.11 6/1/64 Department of Water Resources Map of Fort Ross ................................................................................. 122 5.12 North Section Map Indicating the Dominant Resistivity Survey Features .......................... ................................. 123 5.13 1892 Veasey Map of Fort Ross ................................................................................. 124 5.14 South Section Map Indicating the Dominant Resistivity Features ........................................................................ 125 5.15 Entire Site Map Indicating the Dominant Resistivity Survey Features ................................. ................................ 127 6.1 Russian Cross Fragment from the Native Alaskan Village Site ............................................................................... 131 7.1 Counts of Refined Earthenware Types per Stratigraphic Layer for the South Central Test Unit ........................... 142 7.2 Counts of Refined Earthenware Types per Unit in the West Central Trench ........................ ................................. 142 7.3 Counts of Refined Earthenware Types per Unit in the East Central Trench ........................ .................................. 148 7A Counts of Refined Earthenware Types per Unit for the South Trench ...................................... ............................. 148 7.5 Ceramic Density for Excavation Units and Trenches at the Native Alaskan Village Site .............. ........................ 149 7.6 Vessel Counts per Excavation Area at the Native Alaskan Village Site ................................. ................................ 149 7.7 Historic Ceramics ......... ........................................................................ 152 7.8 Counts of Refined Earthenware Types for the East Bench, East Profile, Middle Profile, West Profile, and Southwest Bench at the Fort Ross Beach Site ............................. .................................................... 158 7.9 Glass Density for Excavation Units and Trenches at Native Alaskan Village Site .................. .............................. 158 7.10 Glass and Worked Glass ................................................................................. 162 7.11 MetalArtifacts .................................................................................. 165 8.1 Drawn, Cut, Undecorated Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 12) ................. .............................. 181 8.2 Drawn, Faceted Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 6) ................................................................. 182 8.3 Drawn, Hot-Tumbled, Undecorated Opaque and Translucent, Monochrome Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 153) ................................................................................. 184 8A Drawn, Hot-Tumbled, Undecorated Transparent, Monochrome Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (N = 115) ................................................................................. 186 8.5 Drawn, Hot-Tumbled, Undecorated Polychrome Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 224) ......... 187 8.6 Wound, Spheroidal, Undecorated Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 10) ................ ................... 188 8.7 Wound, Ovoidal, Undecorated Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 29) .................. ..................... 189 8.8 Wound, Decorated Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 5) ............................................................ 190 8.9 Wound-and-Shaped Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 7) .......................................................... 190 8.10 Blown Beads from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n = 2) .......................................11.......................... 8.11 Prosser-Molded Ceramnic Bead from the Fort Ross Beach Site (n = 1) ................................................................ 191 Figures and Tables Lists vii 8.12 Percentage Comparisons of Bead Colors and Manufacturing Types for the Native Alaskan Village Site ........... 193 9.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Lithic Assemblage: Raw Material Types ........................................................................... 215 9.2 Fort Ross Beach Site Lithic Assemblage: Functional Groups ........................................................................... 217 93 Fort Ross Beach Site Projectile Points ........................................................................... 218 9.4 Fort Ross Beach Site Ground Stone ........................................................................... 219 9.5 Fort Ross Beach Site Ground Stone ........................................................................... 220 9.6 Fort Ross Beach Site Ground Stone ........................................................................... 221 9.7 Native Alaskan Neighborhood Gun Flints ........................................................................... 222 9.8 Native Alaskan Village Site Lithic Assemblage: Raw Material Types ................................................................... 226 9.9 Native Alaskan Village Site Lithic Assemblage: Functional Groups ..................................................................... 228 9.10 Native Alaskan Village Site Projectile Points ........................................................................... 229 9.11 Native Alaskan Village Site Ground Stone ........................................................................... 230 9.12 Native Alaskan Village Site Ground Stone ........................................................................... 231 10.1 Slate Artifacts from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ............................................... ............................ 243 11.1 Bone Projectile Points from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ........................................................................... 252 Plate 11.1 Bone Harpoon Shaft Elements from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ..................... ................................ 255 11.2 Bone Harpoon Shaft Elements from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ..................................... ......................... 27 11.3 Bone Fishing Gear from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood .................................................................. ..... 257 Plate 11.2 Utilitarian Worked Bone Items from the Native Alaskan Village Site ........................................................ 259 Plate 11.3 Elk Antler Baton (top) and Whale Bone Platter (bottom) from the Native Alaskan Village Site .... ................ 260 Plate 11.4 Bird Bone Tubes from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ....................................................................... 262 11.4 Bird Bone Tube Fragments from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ................................................................... 263 Plate 11.5 Elk Antler Core (NAVS-8/14/91-34-WB-1) from the Native Alaskan Village Site ............ ......................... 264 Plate 11.6 Whale Rib Core (NAVS-8/15/91-159-WB-1) from the Native Alaskan Village Site ........... ....................... 264 Plate 11.7 Grizzly Bear Ulna (left) and Radius (right) from the Native Alaskan Village Site ............. ......................... 266 Plate 11.8 Chopping Flakes (left) and Carving Flakes (right) from the Native Alaskan Village Site ....... ................... 267 Plate 11.9 Sawn Sea Lion Femur (NAVS-8/8/91-28-WB-1) from the Native Alaskan Village Site . ..................... 269 11.5 Hand Holds from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ........................ ............................................... 269 Plate 11.10 Hand Holds from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ............................................................. .......... 270 12.1 Frequency of Pinniped Skeletal Elements in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ...................... ............................ 286 12.2 Identified Artiodactyl Skeletal Elements from the East Central Trench ................................................................ 296 12.3 Pinniped Skeletal Elements from the East Central Trench ....................................................................... 296 12.4 Pimiped Skeletal Elements from the South Trench ...................... ................................................. 299 125 Identified Artiodactyl Skeletal Elements from the South Trench ....................................................................... 299 15.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Shellfish Assemblage ....................................................................... 330 15.2 Native Alaskan Village Site Shellfish Assemblage ...................... ................................................. 333 17.1 Spatial Distribution of Deer and Elk Elements in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed . ............................. 365 17.2 Spatial Distribution of Domesticated Mammal Elements in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ............ ................. 365 173 Spatial Distribution of Marine Mammal Elements in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ........................................ 366 17.4 Spatial Distribution of Fish Elements in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ............................................................ 366 17.5 Spatial Distribution of Abalone Shells in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed .................................... ...................... 368 17.6 Spatial Distribution of Mussel, Clam, and Turban Shells in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ............ ................. 368 17.7 Spatial Distribution of Worked Bone Artifacts in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ..................... ......................... 369 17.8 Spatial Distribution of Ceramic Pieces in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed .......................................................... 369 17.9 Spatial Distribution of Glass Sherds in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed .............................................................. 370 17.10 Spatial Distribution of Nails and Spikes in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed . .................................. 370 17.11 Spatial Distribution of Other Metal Artifacts in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ..................... ......................... 371 17.12 Spatial Distribution of Chipped Stone Artifacts in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ............... ........................... 371 17.13 Spatial Distribution of Cobbles in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ................................................................... 372 17.14 Spatial Distribution of Fire-Cracked Rocks in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed .................. .............................. 372 17.15 Spatial Distribution of Ground Stone "Other" Artifacts in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ............ .................. 373 17.16 Spatial Distribution of Ground Stone Tools in Level 1, East Central Bone Bed ...................... .......................... 373 17.17 Spatial Distribution of Deer Elements in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ......................................................... 374 17.18 Spatial Distribution of Domesticated Mammal Elements in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ............ ............... 374 17.19 Spatial Distribution of Marine Mammal Elements in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed . .......................... 374 17.20 Spatial Distribution of Fish Elements in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ..................................... 376 17.21 Spatial Distribution of Abalone Shells in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ...................................................... 376 17.22 Spatial Distribution of Mussel, Clam, and Turban Shells in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ........... ................ 376 viii The Native Alaskan Neighborhood 17.23 Spatial Distibution of Worked Bone Artifacts, Ceramic Pieces, Glass Sherds, and Shell Beads in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ........................................................................... 377 17.24 Spatial Distribution of Nails in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ........................................................................ 377 17.25 Spatial Distribution of Other Metal Artifacts in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed .................. ............................ 377 17.26 Spatial Distribution of Chipped Stone and Ground Stone Artifacts in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ......... ... 378 17.27 Spatial Distribution of Cobbles in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed ................................................................... 378 17.28 Spatial Distribution of Fire-Cracked Rocks in Level 2, East Central Bone Bed .................... ............................ 378 17.29 Spatial Distribution of Deer and Elk Elements in Level 1, South Bone Bed ........................ .............................. 382 1730 Spatial Distribution of Domesticated Mammal Elements in Level 1, South Bone Bed . .......................... 383 1731 Spatial Distribution of Marine Mammal Elements in Level 1, South Bone Bed ................... ............................. 384 1732 Spatial Distribution of Fish Elements in Level 1, South Bone Bed .................................................................... 386 17.33 Spatial Distribution of Bird Elements in Level 1, South Bone Bed .................................................................... 387 17.34 Spatial Distribution of Abalone Shells in Level 1, South Bone Bed ................................................................... 388 17.35 Spatial Distribution of Mussel, Clam, and Turban Shells in Level 1, South Bone Bed ............... ....................... 389 1736 Spatial Distribution of Worked Bone Artifacts, Ceramic Pieces, Glass Sherds, and Shell Beads in Level 1, South Bone Bed ........................................................................... 390 1737 Spatial Distribution of Nails and Spikes in Level 1, South Bone Bed ........................................... ..................... 391 1738 Spatial Distribution of Other Metal Artifacts in Level 1, South Bone Bed ............................ ............................. 392 17.39 Spatial Distribution of Chipped Stone Artifacts in Level 1, South Bone Bed ...................... .............................. 394 17.40 Spatial Distribution of Cobbles in Level 1, South Bone Bed ........................................................................... 395 17.41 Spatial Distribution of Fire-Cracked Rocks in Level 1, South Bone Bed ................................ ........................... 396 17.42 Spatial Distribution of Ground Stone Artifacts in Level 1, South Bone Bed ....................... ............................... 397 17.43 Spatial Distribution of Deer Elements in Level 2, South Bone Bed ................................................................... 398 17.44 Spatial Distribution of Domesticated Manmmal Elements in Level 2, South Bone Bed ...................................... 398 17A5 Spatial Distribution of Marine Mammal Elements in Level 2, South Bone Bed ................... ............................. 398 17A6 Spatial Distribution of Fish Elements in Level 2, South Bone Bed .................................................................... 399 17A7 Spatial Distribution of Bird Elements in Level 2, South Bone Bed .................................................................... 399 17A8 Spatial Distribution of Abalone, Mussel, Clam, and Turban Shells in Level 2, South Bone Bed .......... ............ 401 17A9 Spatial Distribution of Worked Bone Artifacts in Level 2, South Bone Bed ....................... ............................... 401 1750 Spatial Distribution of Ceramic Pieces in Level 2, South Bone Bed .................................................................. 401 1751 Spatial Distribution of Metal Artifacts in Level 2, South Bone Bed ................................................................... 402 17.52 Spatial Distribution of Chipped Stone Artifacts in Level 2, South Bone Bed ..................... ............................... 402 17.53 Spatial Distribution of Cobbles in Level 2, South Bone Bed ........................................................................... 403 17.54 Spatial Distribution of Fire-Cracked Rocks in Level 2, South Bone Bed ............................... ............................ 403 17.55 Spatial Distribution of Ground Stone Artifacts in Level 2, South Bone Bed ....................... ............................... 403 17.56 Spatial Distribution of Mammal Elements from the Floor of the East Central Pit Feature ............ .................... 411 17.57 Spatial Distribution of Worked Bone Artifacts, Ceramic Pieces, Glass Sherds, Glass Beads, and Lithic Artifacts from the Floor of the East Central Pit Feature . ........................................................................... 411 1758 Spatial Distribution of Metal Artifacts from the Floor of the East Central Pit Feature ....................................... 411 Tables 1.1 Composition of Interethnic Households, 1820-1821 (from Istomin 1992:14-37) ...................................................... 5 2.1 Field/Publication Designations for Profile Units ....................... .................................................... 27 3.1 Counts and Density Figures for Materials from the Thirty-eight 2-by-2 m Units ..................... ............................... 46 3.2 Artifact Densities for Surface Features ........................................................................... 47 4.1 Color Values of Native Alaskan Neighborhood Sediment Samples . ....................................................................... 102 4.2 pH Values for Native Alaskan Neighborhood Sediment Samples ........................................................................... 103 43 Organic Carbon Content of Native Alaskan Neighborhood Sediment Samples ..................... ................................ 103 4A Calcium Carbonate Content of Native Alaskan Neighborhood Sediment Samples .................. .............................. 104 5.1 Geoplot Processing of the NAVS Dataset ............................................................................ 116 7.1 South Central Test Unit - Ceramics ........................................................................... 140 7.2 West Central Trench - Ceramnics ........................................................................... 143 73 East Central Trench and Extension - Ceramics ..................... ...................................................... 143 7A East Central Trench - Ceramnics: Topsoil ........................................................................... 143 75 East Central Trench and Extension - Ceramics: Dark Sandy Loam ....................................................................... 144 7.6 East Central Trench and Extension - Ceramics: Pit Fill ........................................... ................................ 145 7.7 South Trench and Extension - Ceramics ........................................................................... 145 7.8 South Trench - Ceramics: Topsoil .145 Figures and Tables Lists ix 7.9 South Trench and Extension - Ceramics: Dark Sandy Loam ............................................................................... 146 7.10 South Trench - Ceramics: Pit Fill ............... ................................................................. 146 7.11 Sherds from Native Alaskan Village Site ................................................................................ 151 7.12 Profile and East Bench - Ceramics ............... ................................................................. 151 7.13 Southwest Bench - Ceramics ............. ................................................................... 154 7.14 South Central Test Unit - Glass ............................................................................... . 154 7.15 West Central Trench - Glass ............ .................................................................... 154 7.16 East Central Trench and Extension - Glass: Topsoil . . ............................................................................. 154 7.17 East Central Trench and Extension - Ceramics: Dark Sandy Loam . . ................................................................... 156 7.18 East Central Trench and Extension - Glass: Pit Fill ............................................. .................................. 156 7.19 South Trench and Extension - Glass ................ ................................................................ 156 7.20 South Trench -Glass: Topsoil 7.21 South Trench and Extension - Glass: Dark Sandy Loam ............................................................................... 157 7.22 South Trench - Glass: Pit Fill ............. ................................................................... 157 7.23 Worked Glass at the Native Alaskan Village Site .................................. ............................................. 161 7.24 Worked Glass at the Fort Ross Beach Site ............................................................................... 163 7.25 Ceramic Comparisons: Frequencies of Ceramic Types for Other Areas Inside and Outside the Fort Ross Stockade (compiled from O'Connor 1984:table 2) . .............................................................................. 169 8.1 Glass and Ceramic Beads from the Fort Ross Beach Site . .............................................................................. 192 8.2 Glass Beads from the Native Alaskan Village Site ............................................................................... 194 9.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Lithic Assemblage: Raw Material Type Counts .................................................................. 215 9.2 Fort Ross Beach Site Lithic Assemblage: Artifact Category Counts ..................................................................... 216 93 Fort Ross Beach Site Diagnostic Projectile Points ............................................................................... 216 9A Fort Ross Beach Sit e Lithic Assemblage ................................................................................ 217 9.5 Native Alaskan Village Site Lithic Assemblage: Raw Material Type Counts ........................................................ 226 9.6 Native Alaskan Village Site Lithic Assemblage: Artifact Category Counts .......................... ................................. 227 9.7 Native Alaskan Village Site Diagnostic Projectile Points ............................................................................... 227 9.8 Native Alaskan Village Site Lithic Assemblage ............................................................................... 228 12.1 Identified Mammals from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood .............................................................................. 282 12.2 All Mammals from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ...................................................................... ......... 282 123 Identified California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) ............. . 285 12A Identified Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) .............. .......................... 287 12.5 Identified Cow (Bos taurus) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) .......................................................... 289 12.6 Identified Sheep (Ovis aries) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) ........................................................ 290 12.7 Black-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross ............................................... 291 12.8 Identified Mammals from the Native Alaskan Village Site ............................................................................... 294 13.1 Bird Remains from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ...................................................................... ......... 311 13.2 Habitat Preferences of Birds from the Fort Ross Sites ........................................................ ....................... 312 13.3 Major Groupings of Birds from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood ..................................................................... 312 14.1 Summary of Fish Remains from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood and Humboldt County Coastal Sites ..... 321 14.2 Summary of Fish Remains from Monterey County Sites (listed from north to south) .............. ........................... 322 143 Comparative Frequency of Total Elements Identified of Top Species Represented from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Excavations and from 10 Archaeological Sites on the Humboldt County Coast and 19 Archaeological Sites on the Monterey County Coast ............................................................................... 323 15.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Shellfish Assemblage MNIs ............................................................................... 330 15.2 Native Alaskan Village Shellfish MNIs .................. .............................................................. 333 16.1 Fort Ross Beach Site Obsidian Hydration Summary Statistics ............................................................................... 340 16.2 Hydration Readings for the East Profile by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type .................................................. 340 16.3 Hydration Readings for the Middle Profile by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type . . . 341 16A Hydration Readings for the West Profile by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type ................................................. 342 16.5 Hydration Readings for the Southwest Bench by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type .................. ... .................... 343 16.6 Hydration Readings for the East Bench by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type ................................................... 344 16.7 Native Alaskan Village Site Obsidian Hydration Summnary . .............................................................................. 345 16.8 Hydration Readings for the West Central Trench by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type .................. .................. 345 16.9 Hydration Readings for the East Central Trench by Source, Deposit, Feature, and Artifact Type ....................... 346 16.10 Hydration Readings for the South Central Test Unit by Source, Deposit, and Artifact Type ........... .................. 348 16.11 Hydration Readings for the South Trench by Source, Deposit, Cultural Feature, and Artifact Type .................. .... 348 17.1 Counts, Percentages, and Densities of Artifacts and Faunal Remains from Native Alaskan Village Site and Fort Ross Beach Site .................... 358 17.2 Cultural Constituents by Weight and Percentage in the Bone Bed Deposit of the East Central Trench .............. . 363 17.3 Cultural Constituents by Weight and Percentage in the Bone Bed of the South Trench ....................................... 380 Foreword THE HUMAN STORY weaves together the histories of both the famous and the forgotten, those important few who remain illuminated on center stage, and the many others whom history has pushed toward the edges of visibility. Upon this scene comes archaeology, the detective science that sleuths its way through the back alleyways and corners of the past, searching out clues to the events that transpired there, and from those clues, retelling the forgotten acts of humanity. Fort Ross is one of the more interesting stages on which this drama has been played. Fort Ross State Historic Park is one of the oldest and most unique of Califomia's state parks. Established in 1906, the Park now measures 3,000 acres in size and contains a diversity of archaeological resources. Since 1988, archaeologists from the University of California, Berkeley, under the direction of Professor Kent Lightfoot, have conducted ongoing investigations of Fort Ross. Their work has revealed important details concerning life at the Russian settlement, thus allowing the Park to better manage its cultural resources, and to enhance its interpre- tive program. During the Russian occupation of Fort Ross, a large number of Native Alaskans were brought to work there. Most of the Alaskans were Alutiiq men from Kodiak Island. For many of them, life at Ross was a bittersweet adventure. Leaving their families and friends behind, the Alaskans endured long stays in California. While at Ross, they lived in their own Village on a point of land between the Russian enclosure and the sea. This Village has been the focus of Berkeley's recent investigations. In the past, interpretation at Fort Ross focused on the ethnic Russians who were perceived to have dominated the settlement. We now know that the Russians played a much smaller role in the settlement's daily affairs, and that the Native Alaskans (and the Native Californians) carried out the brunt of the work. The story of the Native Alaskans at Fort Ross is not unlike that of the Native Californians who built and nourished nearby Mission San Francisco Solano. Although they formed the largest population of both settlements, the Alaskans and Califor- nians were relegated to the edges of history and public interpretation for many years, and consequently became "invisible" people in the public's eye. Today, at Mission San Francisco Solano, we are seeking to illuminate the Native Californians who were part of the Mission community, including the approxi- mately 900 individuals buried in the Mission's unmarked cemetery. There are plans to build a memorial on which we will etch the names of the deceased. A similar project has been undertaken at Fort Ross. During 1990-1992, archaeologists from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, under the direction of Professor Lynne Goldstein, located approximately 143 graves in the Fort Ross cemetery. As part of the project, the archaeologists compiled the names of the deceased, many of whom were Native Alaskans. In 1994, the graves were marked with crosses in a solemn Russian Orthodox ceremony. Eventually, the names of the deceased will be commemo- rated, thus helping to further restore the dignity and honor of those buried there. The series, The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, Califorma, is itself a fitting commemoration of the people of Fort Ross. Volume 1 of this series provides an overview of the ethnohistory of Fort Ross, and the results of an archaeological survey of the Park, while a future volume will report on the results of the cemetery project. The current volume is an examination of the Native Alaskan Village. Like the volume before it, this report contributes greatly to the study of California archaeology and history. It helps to illuminate the edges of Fort Ross, and to drive away the shadows that have long obscured our perception of the past In this new light, history's "invisible" people are seen again. E. Breck Parkman Associate State Archaeologist California State Parks Preface W HEN IVAN KUSKOV and his workers first began digging the foundations for the impressive redwood palisade walls of Fort Ross in March 1812, they initiated a distinctive chapter in California history Russian colonial expansion and settlement north of San Francisco Bay that continued for the next twenty-nine years. The Russian-American Company was a mercan- tile monopoly that represented Czarist Russia's interests in the lucrative North Pacific fur trade. It established Colony Ross as a staging area for sea otter and fur seal hunts along the coast of Califomia; as an agricultural community for raising crops and livestock primarily for the Company's North Pacific colonies; and as a small shipyard and crafts production center. Fort Ross was one of California's earliest pluralistic communities where peoples recruited from across Europe and the Pacific lived, worked, and socialized with one another. The Company's rosters at Fort Ross included an international work force of Europeans, Native Siberians, Creoles (people of mixed Russian/Native American ancestry), Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, and Native Califor- nians. In the first volume of The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California series, we intro- duced the research objectives of the ongoing Fort Ross Archaeological Project, outlined the historical back- ground and natural history of the region, and synthesized archaeological research up to 1991, including the results of a recent survey of the Fort Ross State Historic Park. The primary purpose of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project is to consider how Pacific Coast hunter-gatherers responded to Russian colonialism in northem California. We initiated a study of long-term cultural change that is examining the economies, gender relations, sociopolitical organizations, and religious practices of native peoples before, during, and after the colonization of Fort Ross. One fmding of our investigation is that the Ross Colony was organized into four ethnic residential areas or neighborhoods: 1) the Stockade compound, 2) the Russian Village, 3) the Native Califomian Neighborhood, and 4) the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (figure P.1). We focused our initial investigation on the Native Califomian Neighborhood, and used careful readings of ethnohistorical documents and interpretations of surface survey data to outline diachronic changes in native subsistence and settlement systems. Archaeological investigations are now underway at selected Kashaya Pomo village locations in the greater Fort Ross Region that will greatly refine and modify this preliminary study (e.g., Martinez 1995). This second volume of The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California series details the results of the archaeological investigation of two sites that constitute the material remains of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (figure P.2). The Native Alaskan Village Site, or NAVS, was the primary residential area for single Native Alaskan men, Native Alaskan families, and interethnic households composed of Native Alaskan men and local Native Californian women. This site, whose official trinomial number is CA-SON-1897/H, sits on an uplifted marine terrace directly south of the Ross Stock- ade walls. The extensive archaeological deposit, measur- ing over 8000 sq. m in size, was investigated by archae- ologists from the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) and U.C. Berkeley in the summers of 1989, 1991, and 1992. The second site, the Fort Ross Beach Site, or FRBS, extends approximately 30 meters along an eroding cliff face directly below NAVS at the base of the marine terrace. Assigned the state trinomial of CA-SON-1898/H by the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, FRBS is a midden deposit associated with the nearby Village and with other mercantile activities that took place in Fort Ross Cove. Excavations by State Parks and U.C. Berkeley crews took place in the summers of 1988 and 1989. xii The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Figure P.1 Spatial Layout of Colony Ross (Note that this is a revised version of the plan map published in Volume 1. The southern boundary of the Russian village is redrawn to reflect the results of recent subsurface testing of thefoundation of the Call Ranch House where very few Russian materials were unearthed.) The archaeological investigation of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood is being conducted for several reasons. It generates essential information for the cultual resource management program in the Fort Ross State Historic Park, provides background research for the further development of the public interpretation program in the State Park, and addresses two research objectives of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project. 1) Cultural Resource Management The investiga- tion of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood was initiated when it became apparent that winter storns were destroying a significant portion of FRBS. Breck Parkman, Associate State Archaeologist of the Califomia State Parks, concerned about the continued destruction of coastal archaeological resources in the State Park, requested that archaeologists from U.C. Berkeley investigate the site to determine the historical signifi- cance of the archaeological deposit and to evaluate the overall effects of coastal erosion on exposed archaeologi- cal materials. It soon became evident in the 1988 field season that materials in the Fort Ross Beach Site were associated with NAVS directly upslope, and permission was granted to investigate the Native Alaskan Village Site as well. Since a detailed archaeological study had never been conducted at NAVS, very little was known about the site, including the depth and stratigraphy of the archaeological deposits, the integrity of architectral features, and the overall diversity and preservation of Preface xiii Figure P.2 The Fort Ross Beach Site and the Native Alaskan Village Site in 1989. The 30 meter profile of the Fort Ross Beach Site is visible in the lower left of the photo. The Native Alaskan Village Site is situated directly above on the marine terrace in front of the Stockade wall. faunal specimens, floral remains, and artifacts. Our investigation provides pertinent data about the nature and complexity of the archaeological remains that will be used in State Parks planning to make informed decisions on how best to manage the two sites in future years. 2) Public Interpretation Program. Another important goal of the study is contributing to the public interpreta- tion program in the State Park (see Murley 1994; Parlanan 1994a, 1994b). The reconstructed Stockade complex, as it now exists, provides a wealth of informa- tion on the lifeways, architecture, and material culture of the Russian employees who were stationed at Ross. In contrast, there is little opportunity for Park visitors to view the house sites, work areas, and material objects of the native laborers who toiled at Ross and made up the greatest portion of its population. The archaeological invesfigation of NAVS and FRBS is undertaken to heighten awareness of the Native Californian and Native Alaskan workers' many indispensable contributions to the Ross Colony, and to provide details of their day-to- day lifeways to the public through the State Park's active interpretation program. This successful program includes ranger talks, on-site interpreters, and the annual reenact- ment of the Ross Colony on "Living History" day. The archaeological investigation is also undertaken to plan and promote a proposed "culture" trail in the State Park that will complement existing displays on the Russians by taking the public beyond the reconstructed Stockade complex to view the archaeological remains of the multiethnic Ross community. 3) Research Objectives. In considering native responses to Russian mercantile practices at Colony Ross, we outline two research objectives of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project in Volume 1 (Lightfoot et al. 1991:5-6). These research objectives guide the archaeo- logical investigation of the Native Alaskan Neighbor- hood. The first objective concerns the participation of native laborers in a commercial enterprise. Native workers in mercantile colonies participated in a market economy either by exchanging their labor directly for trade commodities and/or food, or by selling their labor for scrip which was used to purchase goods in the company store. In principle, native laborers at Colony Ross should have had access to a diverse range of products from the broader world system in which the Russian-American Company participated. In the first decade of the 19th century, the Russian-American Company established a trade network with American merchants and greatly expanded the range of manufac- tured goods and luxury foods offered for sale to Com- pany employees. Most of the manufactured commodities were believed to have been destined for native consump- tion (Gibson 1976:172). Furthermore, employees could purchase "European" foods (wheat, beef, pork) raised at Ross or shipped in from Spanish California (Gibson xiv The Native Alaskan Neighborhood 1976:186-87). One question we address in this volume is the degree to which participation in the broader world system is represented in the material culture of the native employees in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. More- over, did increased access to manufactured goods and domesticated foods serve as sources of cultural change among the Native Alaskan and Native Californian workers? The second objective examines the implications of recruiting a multiethnic labor force for mercantile colonies like Colony Ross. These trade outposts were pluralistic entrepots where people of diverse backgrounds and nationalities lived, worked, socialized, and procre- atd The close interaction of ethnic groups from many different homelands may have stimulated the cultural exchange of architectural styles, material goods, methods of craft production, subsistence techniques, diet, dress, and ceremonial practices. Residents of Colony Ross may have modified and adopted cultural practices from European, Creole, Siberian, Native Hawaiian, Native Alaskan, and Native Califomian peoples. Cultural innovations may have been created in these pluralistic social environments by combining or modifying tradi- tional cultural elements with those from other ethnic groups. Another question we address in this volume is the degree to which interethnic interaction and cohabita- tion in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood promoted cultul change as evident in the archaeological remains. Did the synergistic interplay of interethnic households in the Neighborhood produce significant changes in the material culture of Native Alaskan and Native Califor- nian residents? Volume 2 is divided into four sections. The first section (chapters 1-5) introduces the reader to the Native Alaskan Neighborhood and outlines the field investiga- tions undertaken at NAVS and FRBS. Chapter 1 begins with ethnohistorical observations of the Village, includ- ing census data on the occupation, gender, and ethnicity of its residents and the spatial layout of houses and work space. Lightfoot and Martinez then examine the two research problems in more detail and describe the research design employed to address them. They consider how the identities of Native Californians and Native Alaskans were constructed and unsformed through daily practice and interaction in interethnic households. In chapters 2 and 3, Lightfoot, Schiff, and Holm describe the specific field methods employed at FRBS and NAVS, respectively, and detail the strati- graphic units observed, the kinds of features recorded, and the diverse materials recovered. The field program was designed specifically to delineate the organization of space and daily domestic practices of interethnic house- holds in the Village. Price presents the results of her geoarchaeological study of FRBS and NAVS in chapter 4, concluding with several important observations on formation processes in the creation of both NAVS and FRBS archaeological deposits. Finally, Tschan presents the results of his geophysical survey of NAVS in chapter 5, outlining a spatial model for the Village that indepen- dently supports many of the conclusions in chapter 3. The second section (chapters 6-15) describes in detail the diverse material culture of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. Farris introduces the European artifact assemblages in chapter 6. Silliman follows with a thorough overview of the ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts in chapter 7. Ross then presents his detailed analysis of the glass beads in chapter 8. Schiff describes the chipped stone and ground stone assemblages in chapter 9, while Mills details the ground slate artifacts in chapter 10. Wake then reports on the extensive worked bone assemblage that includes both diagnostic tools and workshop debris in chapter 11. The next four chapters present analyses of the rich faunal assemblages, including Wake's study of the terrestrial and marine mammal remains (chapter 12), Simon's identification of bird bones (chapter 13), Gobalet's consideration of the fish assem- blage (chapter 14), and Schiff's investigation of the many shellfish remains (chapter 15). The third section of the volume (chapters 16-18) addresses the two research problems through a synthetic analysis of the artifacts, refuse deposits, and architectural features. Lightfoot and Silliman begin by detailing the chronological sequence of specific archaeological deposits in chapter 16. The spatial organization of household refuse disposal, the maintenance of house structures, and the layout of the Native Alaskan Neigh- borhood are then considered in chapter 17. This chapter addresses whether significant cultural changes or synergistic developments were taking place among the residents of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood through a comparison of traditional Native Californian (Kashaya Pomo) and Native Alaskan (Alutiiq) lifeways. In chapter 18, we conclude by evaluating the degree to which the residents of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood partici- pated in the broader world system through the consump- tion of nonlocal goods and domesticated foods. We also consider the organizational principles and world views of the women and men who made up the interethnic house- holds and whether evidence exists of new cultural constructs. The fourth section includes twenty-six appendices that complete the volume. These include seventeen tables presenting the provenience, count, and type of European goods, lithics, mammal bones, bird bones, fish bones, and shellfish remains. Finally, nine data tables detail the results of obsidian hydration and sourcing, and the spatial provenience of materials in the bone bed deposits. Preface xv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Fort Ross Archaeological Project research is supported by grants and funds from the National Science Foundation (BNS-8918960 and SBR-9304297); the California Department of Parks and Recreation; the American Home Shield Corporation, a Subsidiary of ServiceMaster Consumer Services L.P.; McDonald's Restaurant, 1198 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California; the Committee on Research, University of California, Berkeley; and the Lightfoot, Lightfoot, and Lightfoot Group of Ophthalmologists of Santa Rosa, California. We thank each funding source for their generous contri- bution to the study of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood at Fort Ross. The Fort Ross Ross Archaeological Project is a collaborative program involving the full support and assistance of the California Departnent of Parks and Recreation. Glenn Farris and Breck Parkman serve as co-directors of the program, and we thank them both for their unceasing generosity in mentoring many Berkeley students, for their continual advice and support in the field and laboratory, and their contributions to the diverse interpretations and conclusions resulting from these investigations. The archaeological research would not be possible without the ongoing assistance of many people at the Fort Ross State Historic Park. They provide camping facilities and logistical support during the field seasons, critical scholarly and strategic contributions, and much appreciated friendship. Special thanks are reserved for the Fort Ross Ranger staff-Daniel Murley, Michael Stephenson, and Bill Walton-who went beyond the call of duty in their special attention to the campground facilities and archaeological resources of the Park, by providing details on the history of Fort Ross, by working in the field with us, and by presenting lectures to students on the history and ecology of the greater Ross Region. The past and present maintenance staff at Fort Ross, especially Bill Mennell, Jens Shelby, and Doug Warren, have been a tremendous help to us over the years. In addition to maintaining the camping facilities and park grounds in pristine condition, they have provided many innovative solutions to excavation problems. On many occasions, they have also come to our rescue when Lightfoot miscalculated the time it would take to backfill excavation units, or when he ignored gale force storms that were about to shut down the excavation and tear apart the tent camp. We appreciate greatly Robin Joy and Caerleon Safford of the Interpretive staff at Fort Ross who assisted us in working with park visitors and setting up public tours of the field excavations. We are also indebted to the Board of Directors and members of the Fort Ross Interpretive Association for their part in facilitating our research. Lyn Kalani has been of tremen- dous assistance to Berkeley students, staff, and faculty using the Fort Ross Library. We miss very much the many insights on the history and past lifeways of Fort Ross enthusiastically provided by the late Kaye Tomlin. Important contributions to the Fort Ross project have also been provided by California Departments of Parks and Recreation personnel in the Russian River/ Mendocino District Office and the Archaeology Labora- tory in Sacramento. We are very grateful for the contin- ued promotion of archaeological research and public interpretation in the Russian River/Mendocino District by Bob LaBelle, District Superintendent, and Lee Banks, Maintenance Chief. John Foster, Peter Schulz, Christina Savitski, and the entire State Parks archaeological staff in Sacramento are to be thanked for their continued support of the Fort Ross project and the assistance they provide Berkeley students who use maps, reports, and artifact collections in the Archaeology Laboratory. The Archaeological Research Facility at the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley has provided critical support to our endeavors. We thank the current Director Meg Conkey and ARF administrator Sherry Parrish, and the past Director Pat Kirch, for their promotion of California archaeology, their camaraderie, and assistance in manag- ing the field program. We are most appreciative for the continued support of archaeology on the Berkeley campus by Joseph Cemy (Vice Chancellor for Research), Linda Fabbri (Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research), and Jeanne Segale (Senior Administrative Analyst). The administrative staff of the Department of Anthropology and Summer Sessions at the University of Califomia deserve our special thanks. We are especially indebted to Sandy Jones, Sherry Parrish, Sally Senior, and M. J. Tyler. William Simmons, Dean of Social Sciences, has been a critical supporter of California anthropology and archaeology at U.C. Berkeley and we appreciate his help and friendship. One of the greatest pleasures in partici- pating in the Fort Ross Archaeological Project is to work closely with U.C. Berkeley students in the field and laboratory. In Volume 1 of The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California series we thanked individually the field crews, staff, and laboratory assis- tants who worked many hours in excavating and analyz- ing materials from the Fort Ross Beach Site in the 1988 and 1989 field seasons. Here we wish to thank them again collectively and to express our deep gratitude to the individuals involved in the excavation of the Native Alaskan Village Site in the 1991 and 1992 field seasons and in subsequent analyses of archaeological materials. In both the 1991 and 1992 field seasons, Kent Lightfoot led the field and laboratory investigations and Ann Schiff served as Field Coordinator and Laboratory Director. Adele Baldwin served as the field "chef' and kept the crews content and looking forward to dinner. Lewis Somers of GeoScan Inc. provided technical assistance in geophysical methods involving magnetometer and soil resistance surveys. Robert Schiff, a key supporter of the xvi The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Fort Ross project, volunteered his efforts in setting up and closing down the field camps each season. Roberta Jewett also provided logistical support, counseled many Berkeley students, contributed to the development of the research design, and provided critical editorial guidance. We thank both Robert Schiff and Roberta Jewett for their instrumental roles in maintaining the emotional stability of the senior staff. In the 1991 summer field season, the graduate student staff included James Allan, Maria Franklin, Richard Hitchcock, Beth Prine, Jan McHargue, and Thomas Wake. The Anthro 133S field school class participants consisted of Ron Aizen, Heidelore Artega, Diane Askew, Paul Auday, Adele Baldwin, Elizabeth Carson, Allison Cohen, Jason Coleman, Michelle Day, Julie Firestone, Danielle Green, Carmen Hernandez, Mark Kern, Emily Landsverk, Robin Mantius, Doreen Ferguson, Stephen Midgley, Darren Moore, Ellen Moore, James Mulvihill, Tanya Rekow, Craig Roth, Sean Rozell, Philip Schofield, Hilary Sortor, Judy Stevenson, Joseph Vincent, Laura Wayne, and Derek Wheeler. Students enrolled in the Anthro 134 lab class in the fall of 1991 that processed and analyzed NAVS materials were Heidelore Artega, Mitchell Carlin, Elizabeth Carson, Allison Cohen, Jason Coleman, Lourdes Cuevas, Christopher Doty, Danielle Green, Emily Landsverk, Stephen Midgley, Darren Moore, Ellen Moore, James Mulvihill, Michelle Pyun, Tanya Rekow, Stephanie Rose, Craig Roth, Nicholas Sasson, Philip Schofield, Hillary Sorter, Judy Stevenson, Laura Wayne, and Jennifer Weinkam. In the 1992 summer field season, the graduate student staff consisted of James Allan, Antoinette Martinez, Peter Mills, Robin Sewell, and Thomas Wake. The excavation support staff included Allison Cohen, Dave Makar, Daniel Murley, Darren Moore, Ryan Mounds, and Philip Schofield. The students who participated in the Anthro 133S summer field school were Dave Abilgaard, John Anderson, Adele Baldwin, Hannah Ballard, Tina Choy, Lourdes Cuevas, Rebecca Custer, Andr6w Garcia, Lisa Holm, Joanna Kong, Angela Pearce, Aimee Plourde, Anne Retamal, Karri Sakai, Janet Sargent-Tracy, Andre Tschan, Helen Wahbeh, Laura Willman, Judy Wong, and Irma Zepeda. In 1992 through 1995, laboratory analysis and data entry, supervised by Ann Schiff, were conducted in the California Archaeology Laboratory at U.C. Berkeley by Dave Abilgaard, Adele Baldwin, Hannah Ballard, Julie Cooper, Susan Goddard, Lisa Holm, Joanna Kong, Antoinette Martinez, Peter Mills, Aimee Plourde, Anne Retamal, Karri Sakai, and Andre Tschan. Computer data base assistance was provided by Leslie Nelson, Lisa Holm, Andre Tschan, and Colleen Tschan. We are grateful for the support and friendship of the Pedotti family during our field seasons at Fort Ross. They introduced many of the Berkeley students to ranching as a way of life and the importance of beef in a well-balanced diet. We wish Alex, Dave, Renie, Lucas, and Ty all the best in their new ranch in Oregon. A large number of scholars have contributed to the Fort Ross Archaeological Project. We are particularly grateful to the following individuals. Thomas Origer and the Obsidian Hydration Laboratory at Sonoma State University analyzed the hydration rims of obsidian artifacts from both FRBS and NAVS. Steven Shackley assisted us in the chemical sourcing of glass and obsidian artifacts. Margie Purser helped us in the study of historical artifacts and provided much needed guidance in the analysis of 19th century ceramic and glass materials. Jim Quinn assisted in the identification of fish remains from the Fort Ross Beach Site. David Fredrickson has continued to provide much needed assistance, advice, and support since the inception of the Fort Ross project in 1988. Lynne Goldstein and Sannie Osborn have re- mained important collaborators and friends since they investigated the Fort Ross cemetery. Jay Noller, Lisa Wells, and Robert Brinkmann have contributed much to our understanding of the geoarchaeological context of the broader Fort Ross Region. Gene Prince, Lee Brumbaugh, and Therese Babineau of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology and Archaeological Research Facility have been very gracious in giving photographic expertise, equipment, and assistance to the Fort Ross project. We appreciate the assistance of Daniel Foster, John Holson, Rene Peron, and Thomas Layton who have contributed in various ways to the Fort Ross Archaeologi- cal Project. We are very grateful for the insights and constructive comments provided by three anonymous reviewers, who graciously critiqued sections of this publication. Several Russian scholars have provided invaluable information on Russian history, Russian translations of primary sources, and the material culture and organiza- tion of space in Russian-American Company outposts. They include Oleg Viktorovich Bychkov, Director of the Ethnographic Bureau, Irkutsk; Alexei Istomin, Research Fellow of the Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; and Valerii Shubin, Deputy Director of Sakhalin Region Museum, Sakhalin. We are especially thankful for the kind assistance of Donald Clark of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, Aron Crowell of the Smithsonian Arctic Studies Center, and Rick Knecht of the Kodiak Area Native Association for answering questions conceming Alutiiq archaeology and ethnohistory, village layout, features, and lifeways. We are most grateful for the continued interest of the Kashaya Pomo, Coast Miwok, and Alutiiq peoples in our project. We appreciate the continued assistance of various members of the Kodiak Area Native Association who Preface xvii have visited Fort Ross and who spent time talking with us about Fort Ross on our trips to Kodiak Island, Alaska. We are also indebted to the members of the coastal Pomo communities at Point Arena and Stewarts Point who have assisted us in the Fort Ross project. We are especially thankul for the expertise and consultation on Pomo lifeways and organization of space provided by Violet Parrish Chappell, George Frank, Vana Lawson, the late Ben Lucas, Otis Parrish, Warren Parrish, Alice Poe, and Vivian Wilder. Finally, we wish to thank the editorial staff of the Archaeological Research Facility who spent many hours producing this volume. Tanya Smith, editor of the monograph series, designed this volume's format, copy edited the text, and produced camera ready copy. Lisa Holm also provided assistance with text and illusation production, as well as much needed consultation and work on the computer graphics in the volume. We would also like to thank Kira Blaisdell-Sloan for her efforts in getting this publication to press. Judith Ogden prepared all the art work illustrations for this volume. We thank them for their patience and dedication in working with us. Funding for publication of this volume was provided by the Stahl Endowment Fund of the Archaeological Research Facility and McDonald's Restaurant at 1198 San Pablo, Berkeley. Kent G. Lightfoot Ann M. Schiff Thomas A. Wake REFERENCES Gibson, James R. 1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply of Russian America, 1784-1867. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Martinez, Antoinette 1995 Blurred Boundaries of the Nineteenth Century Kashaya Pomo. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Eureka. Murley, Daniel F. 1994 Peopling Ross' Past. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, M. Rosen, S. Hector, and D. Laylander, eds., pp. 61-65. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Parkman, E. Breck 1994a Preserving the Fort Ross Archaeological Record. In Proceedings of the Society for CaliforniaArchaeology, M. Rosen, S. Hector, and D. Laylander, eds., pp. 47-60. Society for Califomia Archaeology, San Diego. 1994b The News Media and the Curious: Interpreting Archaeology at Colony Ross. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, M. Rosen, S. Hector, and D. Laylander, eds., pp. 227-34. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego.