6 Historical Archaeology of the Native Alaskan Village Site GLENN J. FARRIS A S AN OUTPOST OF EMPIRE, Fort Ross was at the farthest extremity of the control of the Russian czars in the early 19th century. It had been established under the impetus of private enterprise to effect practical rather than political goals. The desperate supply situation faced by the Russian-American Company in their Alaskan settlements in the first decade of the 1800s required action. Through cooperative enterprises with American shipmasters, Russian-American Company employees had learned about the sea otter hunting possibilities of the California coast. Alexander Baranov, the Russian-American Company's able Alaskan governor, entered into an arrangement with Captain Joseph O'Cain in 1803 to provide baidarkas and their crews to be used to kill sea otters in various parts of the lengthy, ill-defended coasts of California ranging from San Francisco Bay down to Cabo San Lucas at the southern tip of Baja California The offshore islands were particularly exploited due to the incapacity of the Spanish to defend them. No standing naval force was available in Califomia, only the occasional ship sailing up from the Pacific ports of San Blas or Acapulco to deliver supplies. In order to safeguard its interests, Russan-American Company sent along certain employees to be in charge of the baidarka crews. These men gained invaluable knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish along the coast One particularly able promyshlennik, as these jacks-of-all-trades were called, was a man named Timofei Tarakanov (Owens 1990, Owens and Donnelly 1985). His actions paved the way for the eventual setlement of Fort Ross (Farris 1993). Tarakanov visited California on numerous occasions. Of particular interest was the sea otter hunting expedition of the American ship Peacock under the command of Oliver Kimball in 1806-07 and based at Bodega Bay. Tarakanov was the Russian-American Company representative on that trip (Ogden 1941:50). Since he later provided critical information to Baranov concerning Bodega Bay which the latter used in briefing Kuskov before his expedition in 1808, it may well have been on this occasion that Tarakanov negotiated with the local native chiefs for use of their lands (cf. Farris 1993; Payeras 1995:335). Apart from furthering the fur hunting goals of the Russian-American Company, Baranov was faced with a critical food shortage for his Alaska-based employees. They were lucky if one ship a year arrived from Mother Russia (Gibson 1976:76-82). If that one failed to arrive, the situation for food supplies other than meat and fish was dire. In 1805, when Court Chamberlain (and a major shareholder in the Russian-American Company) Nikolai Rezanov arrived in New Archangel as part of a world voyage, he was pressed into service by Baranov to sail down to Spanish California to purchase grain. Thus, in 1806, Rezanov sailed into San Francisco Bay and eventually managed to obtain from Commandant Antonio Argiiello a shipment to carry back to Alaska. Following this episode, Baranov organized two expeditions to explore the possibility of further settlement along the Pacific Coast in the area known since Francis Drake's visit as New Albion. Although the Spanish thought differently, much of the rest of the world saw the area north of San Francisco Bay as land of problematic ownership. In 1808 two ships were outfitted and sent south. One, the Sviatoi Nikolai, was destined for the Oregon Country and the other, the Kad'iak, under the command of Ivan Kuskov, went to California. Whereas the Sv. Nikolai had a disastrous expedition when it ran aground in what is now Washington state, Kuskov had a successful trip to California (Owens and Donnelly 1985). 130 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood During the next several years Xuskov returned annually to Bodega Bay (renamed for Rumiantsev) and finally, in 1812, began work on the fortified establishment which from then on became the headquarters of Russian Califomia. Although a base with a few buildings was maintained at Bodega Bay, the bulk of the population, including most of the Native Alaskans, settled in at Selenie Ross (or Colony Ross). THE NATIVE ALASKAN VILLAGE SITE Thanks to a plan map of the Russian commercial colony of Fort Ross dated 1817 (Fedorova 1971, 1973), a specific placement for the village of the Native Alaskans working and living at Fort Ross exists. The exposed nature of the Native Alaskan Village Site (NAVS), lying immediately to the south of the Stockade at Fort Ross, inhibited archaeological investigation in the past. The work conditions at the site can be less than ideal, but the selection of this spot by the Alaskans is natural and fully consistent with their familiarity with the wind-swept islands of the north. The Village site produced a m6lange of artifacts of both native manufacture and imports coming from Europe and China. The clear indications of adaptation to European and Chinese items supplied through the Russian administration of Colony Ross are sometimes obvious, such as in the case of trade beads. The large quantity of ceramic and glass fragments found at the site, however, requires closer consideration. The implication is that the Native Alaskans and their Kashaya Pomo or Coast Miwok wives had at their disposal whole ceramic or glassware vessels that were broken and discarded in the course of use. It is more probable, however, that few if any whole items of either of these materials (and then only selected vessel forms) were in the possession of Native Americans. Instead, the broken sherds of glass and ceramics were obtained secondhand for uses analo- gous to familiar raw materials of stone (chert, basalt, slate, granite, etc.) and volcanic glass (obsidian) to be rendered into useful tools, decorations, and playthings. European manufactured goods came to Fort Ross through various sources (cf. Gibson 1976). The Russian- American Company ships brought periodic cargoes. Other supplies came from the Yankee traders (often refered to by the Russians as "Boston Men") trading via Sitka or Monterey. In fact, the English merchant, Wllliam Hartnell based in Monterey, had close connec- tions with chief agent Kirill Khlebnikov by 1824 and functioned as a representative of the Russian-American Company (Dakin 1949:122-23; Khlebnikov 1990:152-54, passim). Also, supplies brought in to Yerba Buena (San Francisco) were available for trade. Occasionally, ships of other nations would make an appearance (cf. Khlebnikov 1990; LaPlace 1854; Ogden 1941) as well, adding to the goods available. The American ships, source of Chinese porcelain. Khlebnikov (1976, 1990) provides several lists of trade goods, giving a sense of the variety of types of items (i.e., dishes, glassware), but without reference to the actual makers. He even made a wonderfully direct statement that the Company should send certain color trade beads to California (Fedorova 1985:205). The archaeological record helps to clarify details not covered by archival lists, though the archival record is invaluable to fill out the picture, especially in cases of items that do not survive in most archaeological contexts (cloth, paper, etc.). NATIVE ALASKAN RESIDENTs The relation of the Native Alaskans at Fort Ross to the dominant Russian and Creole inhabitants, though certainly subordinate, differed greatly from the master-slave relationship found in various parts of the world and even from the missionary-neophyte relation- ship found in neighboring Spanish California. True, the Native Alaskans were largely brought to Fort Ross under some form of duress and were not free to leave at any time. They served seven-year stints working for the Company but were decidedly not Company employees. Rather they were "in service to the Company," much like contract employees. Another aspect of the relationship that differed particularly from the situation in Spanish California was that the Native Alaskans at Fort Ross were not being proselytized by the Russian Orthodox Church on a regular basis. In fact, there was no resident priest at Fort Ross, but rather a layperson (for much of the time, Fedor Svin'in) who would take care of periodic religious needs as required (Payeras 1995:333). For the most part, their culture was not being assailed directly by the Russians, although the disruption created by separating most of the men from their families, wives, and their own culture forced them to adapt somewhat to the cultures of their Coast Miwok, Southern Pomo, and Kashaya Pomo wives. From the evidence, the California Indian women were able to adjust remarkably to the needs of their maritime hunter husbands, but it is just as likely that they introduced a number of their own traditions into these households, especially since they were on home ground with family members nearby. In a number of cases, the Califomia women chose not to stay with their Alaskan husbands when their periods of service with the Com- pany were fimished, and instead retumed to their home villages (cf. Istomin 1992). Since little or no effort was made to effect cultural change on the Native Alaskans (in strong contrast to the California Indians in the missions), they were more likely to pick and choose what items of material culture would fit in best with their own needs. Unlike the Creole population in Russian America who tried to emulate the dominant Russian overlords, the Native Alaskans generally were not so inclined. This is not to say that having access to the Canton trade, would be a continuing while they were in Alaska they were not subjected to Historical Archaeology at NAVS 131 some level of proselytizing by the missionary Russian Orthodox priests and monks. It certainly happened, and many of the Native Alaskans had been at least nominally baptized into the Orthodox church. The Spanish priests recognized this when Natives Alaskans (called by them Codiacas) were either captured or fled to Spanish Califomia. Many of them were baptized sub conditione, meaning that their Orthodox baptism was recognized, although the priest could not vouch for the level of knowledge of Chrisdanity of the individual. In fact, many of the Alutiit had received only the most rudimen- tary knowledge of their faith, hardly more than how to make the sign of the cross in the Orthodox manner (i.e., forehead, heart, right shoulder, left shoulder). When speaking of an Unangas who was believed to have been martyred by the Spanish Catholic priests in California, the governor of Alaska, Semyon I. Ianovsky, stated in a report dated February 15, 1820, "One must note that this victim though baptized like the others was not taught Christianity, probably did not even know the dogmas of faith except God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" (Bearne 1978:177; Farris 1990). When Fr. Mariano Payeras, the one-time father-president of the missions in California, visited the Fort Ross cemetery in October 1822, he noted the presence of a number of Alutiiq graves there; their graves were said to be marked by simple crosses rather than the wooden boxes that marked the Russians (Payeras 1995:332). Two tangible items of faith found at NAVS included a part of a silver cross and a broken portion of a mold for casting crosses made of a soft stone (figure 6.1). They were identified by Dr. Oleg Bychkov (personal communication 1993) as being of an "old style" Baroque design which probably indicated that the wearers were of the lower class. The social order at Fort Ross followed Russian custom with each person being ranked according to certain rules. A most important division of the popula- tion would have occurred between those who lived inside the Stockade (officers of the Company) and those who lived outside: lower-class Russians, Creoles, Native Alaskans, and Native Californians. A Russian scholar familiar with early 19th century life in Siberia has stated that the Stockade at Ross would have been most used to keep the lower-class populace at bay. He pointed out that it would have been customary to read out proclamations, particularly ones that might not have been well received, outside the Stockade gate rather than within to provide a place for the ruling group to retreat to in case of violence (Oleg Bychkov, personal communication 1993). NAVS HiSTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL Linguist Robert Oswalt has shown that the Russian words learned by the Native Califomians were transmit- ted to them via the Native Alaskans (1988). In other instances, the main interaction between the people of Fort Ross and the Native Californians was apparently at the Figure 6.1 Russian Cross Fragmentfrom the Native Alaskan Village Site Illustration by Judith Ogden (actual size) level of the common people (cf. Farris 1992). A particu- lar example of the transmission of a word is the Kashaya word now meaning broken glass, ?utilka4 which was derived from the Russian for glass bottle, (bytika) Elsewhere, I have commented on the significance of this shift as an indicator of the importance of broken glass as a raw material simulating obsidian (cf. Oswalt 1971; Faris 1989:492). Such a situation also seems to have applied to ceramic vessels, wherein the broken sherds, rather than complete vessels, were the main and most important items being obtained by the Native Alaskans. This hypothesis is supported by the very small number of ceramic fragments found at NAVS, even in the trash dumps. Likewise, finding a number of pieces of broken ceramic that had been fashioned into artifacts both at NAVS and at the site of Mad-shui-Nui (a corruption of the Russian rendering of Med-eny-ny for the Kashaya name of M6tini) (cf Dmytryshyn and Crownhart -Vaughan 1989:296; Smith 1974; White 1977; Ballard 1995) reinforces the hypothesis that many refuse artifacts of certain material found their way to the native sites rather than ending up in a Russian trash pit Although it is possible that a few whole items might have been obtained by non-Europeans, the majority were most likely to have come in a broken state. The many pieces that do not show intentional flaking or other modification are almost certainly part of the debitage in the reduction of the larger broken bits. One type of trade artifact that was certainly utilized as it was intended was the glass and ceramnic trade beads. Lester Ross (chapter 8) has provided an excellent description and discussion of not only the beads them- selves, but probable sources and the unusual color makeup of the collection. This latter quality led him to suggest that the color preferences of NAVS residents may match preferences of Western Pomo and/or Coast Miwok rather than Alutiiq, Unangas or Tanaina hunters. In such a case, we must not forget the interaction of the local Californian women who formed a key part of the community at NAVS. In fact, when one thinks of the frequent journeys being made by the Native Alaskan men, one could state that the California women may have _ . 132 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood been principal contributors to the archaeological materi- als at this site. Considering the glass and ceramic artifacts in this light, we must not apply the normal analytic techniques of historic archaeology to them without a certain caution. If these objects are being used by the inhabitants of NAVS as raw materials, then the nonnal concems about proportions of certain types of vessels, relative value of ceramics, contents of bottles, minimum number of vessels, and so forth are of little or no importance. These pieces represent redeposition of the scavenged refuse of the people leading a more European existence. Consider the analogy of the site of a shantytown at the edge of a large city. One might carefully collect a vast number of flattened tin cans and perhaps be able to analyze them in terms of tomato cans, condensed milk cans, soup cans, etc. and work up a proposed consumption pattern for the populace when in fact, one is looking at roofing and siding material from the point of view of the inhabitants of the shantytown. Whereas some of the cans may have been whole with their contents intact and subsequently flattened out for use, the vast majority of them represent re-use of the leavings of a neighboring dominant group. TRADE GOODS BROUGHT OR MANUFACTURED BY THE RUSSIANS AT FORT Ross Thanks primarily to the journals of Kirill Khleb- nikov, an important agent of the Russian-American Company, we have detailed lists of a number of goods that were brought to California on Company ships for trade. These provide a sense of some of the items that would have been available in the area (and which could show up in the archaeological record). The overwhelm- ing majority of these goods, however, were targeted for trade with the residents of Spanish California and so would hardly be expected to end up in the living sites of Native Alaskan hunters. We must also consider that a large proportion of the goods are unlikely to survive such as cloth items which were a major part of each shipment. Khlebnikov (1990:70-74) provides a list of a remarkable selection of items along with their prices (see appendix 6.1). Lester Ross (chapter 8) discusses the broader trade potential with the Hudson's Bay Company, headquartered in Vancouver. Although the Hudson's Bay Company only became the primary supplier to the Russian- American Company following the treaty of 1838 (Gibson 1990), there were numerous opportunities for exchange through trade ships visiting Monterey and to some extent through the annual overland beaver-hunting expeditions. Coming closer to home is the list of items provided by the Company to an individual promyshlennik (Vasily Permitin) for himself, his wife, and his five children for the year 1832 (Gibson 1969:211). Eliminating items of copper utensils, Circassian tobacco, and soap. Unfortu- nately, few of these materials, except the copper utensils, would survive in the archaeological record. Domestic production must not be overlooked. Fort Ross had an active industrial base wherein a number of items were produced for local consumption, trade with Native Alaskans and Californians, trade with the Spanish, and export to other parts of Russian America. Enterprises such as shipbuilding required a variety of materials including copper tacks to attach copper sheeting to the ships (these show up in considerable numbers at NAVS). Other enterprises included a tannery, a brickworks, a blacksmith shop, an armorer, and a coppersmith. Many locally made items from these shops would be expected to show up at NAVS. In fact, it is remarkable that more copper items are not found. Each of the "Counters" of the Russian-American Company had its own special mark. The one for Fort Ross was the infinity sign (oo) (Gibson 1976:back cover). As reported by Mills, (chapter 10), a similar symbol is incised on a ground slate artifact from the Farallon Islands. Although this mark was mainly used on lead bale seals for skins, it is conceivable that it could show up in other contexts. Former Ranger/Curator John McKenzie reported finding such a bale seal at Fort Ross, though it has unfortunately been misplaced. Other examples of lead bale seals have been found in excava- tions on the Kurile Islands (Shubin 1990:444). CONCLUDING REMARKS The Native Alaskan Village Site is best termed "proto-historic" considering the essentially non-literate population composed of Native Alaskans and Native Californians. Little direct information in the way of descriptions is available to us concerning this site, and it will be up to the archaeology to tell 99% of the story. We have just enough clues to give some structure and identification to the area and its former use, but little in the way of details. In many respects, this site is analo- gous to former village locations or living areas of Native Californians residing in the vicinity of missions (cf. Allen 1995; Deetz 1978; Farnsworth 1992; Farris 1991; Layton 1990; Smith 1974). This means that despite the frequent appearance of European and Chinese artifacts at the site, the approach to their study must be carefully tempered with an understanding of the means of their acquisition and their pattem of use which would have been very different in a purely historical setting. Perhaps the item of trade that was most thoroughly incorporated into Native American culture, due to its identical use as ornamentation, was the trade bead. Lester Ross's (chapter 8) excellent analysis of the glass and ceramic beads derived from the NAVS deposit points out certain unexpected aspects (lack of Chinese beads) and the food and clothing, leaves the following: tallow candles, unusual frequencies of certain colors. Historical Archaeology at NAVS 133 Steve Silliman's fine study of the historical artifacts recovered from NAVS (chapter 7) provides the real meat of this analysis. It examines the range of what was present and what was not present in this rare site that, because of its exposed position, was not built over in subsequent years. NAVS is virtually uncontaminated with post-1841 occupation debris, a situation not shared by other contact period sites that have been studied in the Fort Ross area (cf. Riddell 1955; Smith 1974; White 1970, 1977). All in all, NAVS is a key source of comparative data to help sort out these other sites and to provide relevant information for other North Pacific studies of analogous locales. REFERENCES Allen, Rebecca 1995 An Archaeological Study of Neophyte Cultural Adaptation and Modification at Mission Santa Cruz, Califomia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in American Civilization, University of Pemnsylvania, Philadelphia. Ballard, Hannah S. 1995 Searching for Metini: Synthesis and Analysis of Unreported Archaeological Collections from Fort Ross State Historic Park, Califomia. B.A. honors thesis in Anthropology, University of California Berkeley. Beamie, Colin (Transl.) 1978 The Russian Orthodox Religious Mission in America, 1794-1837, with Materials Concering the Life and Works of the Monk German, and Ethnographic Notes by the Hieromonk Gedeon. Edited by Richard Pierce. Materials for the Study ofAlaska History, no. 11. Lime- stone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Dakin, Susanna Bryant 1949 The Lives of Williamn Hartnell. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Deetz, James J. F. 1978 Archaeological Investigations at La Purisima Mission. In HistoricalArchaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, ed. by Robert L. Schuyler. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, NY. Dymytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan 1989 The RussianAmerican Colonies: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion 1798-1867, Volume 3, A Documentary Record. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland. Famsworth, Paul 1992 Missions, Indians, and Cultural Continuity. Histori- cal Archaeology 26(1):22-36. Farris, Glenn J. 1989 The Russian Imprint on the Colonization of Califor- and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, chapter 30, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Smithsonian Institution Press. 1990 The Strange Tale of Saint Peter, the Aleut: A Russian Orthodox Martyr on the California Frontier. Paper given at 'The Spanish Missions and California Indians" symposium, D-Q University, March 3, 1990. 1991 Archeological Testing in the Neophyte Family Housing Area at Mission San Juan Bautista, California. Ms. on file, Archeology Lab, DPR, West Sacramento. 1992 The Day of the Tall Strangers and other Events at Fort Ross in 1833. The Californians 9(6):13-19. 1993 Talacani, the Man Who Purchased Fort Ross. Fort Ross Interpretive Association Newsletter September/ October 1993, unnumbered pages (7-9). Fedorova, Svetlana G. 1971 Russkoe naselenie Aliaski i Kalifornii. Moskva: Nauka. 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. 1985 Novorkangelsk. Moscow: Nauka. Gibson, James R. 1969 Russia in California, 1833: Report of Governor Wrangel. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 60:205-15. 1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply in Russian America, 1784-1867. Oxford University Press, New York. 1990 The "Russian Contract": the Agreement of 1838 between the Hudson's Bay Company and Russian- American Companies. In Russia in North America: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America, pp. 157-80, edited by Richard A. Pierce. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Istomin, Alexei A. 1992 The Indians at the Ross Settlement: According to the Censuses by Kuskov, 1820-1821. Fort Ross Interpretive Association, Fort Ross, CA. Khlebnikov, Kirill T. 1976 Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T. Khlebnikov's Reports, 1817-1832. Translated and with introduction and notes by Basil Dmytryshyn and E. A. P. Crownhart- Vaughan. Oregon Historical Society, Portland. 1990 The Khlebnikov Archive: Unpublished Journal (1800-1837) and TravelNotes (1820,1822, and 1824). Edited with introduction and notes by Leonid Shur; translated by John Bisk. University of Alaska Press. LaPlace, Cyrille nia. In Columbian Consequences, vol. 1, Archaeological 1854 Campagne de Circumnavigation de la Frdgate 134 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood L'Artemise pendant les ann6es 1837, 1838,1839, et 1840 sous le commandement de M. LaPlace, capitaine de vaisseau, vol. 6. Arthur Bertrand, Paris. Layton, Thomas N. 1990 Western Pomo Prehistory: Excavations at Albion Head, Nightbird's Retreat, and Three Chop Village, Mendocino County, California. Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 32, University of California, Los Angeles. Ogden, Adele 1941 The California Sea Otter Trade: 1784-1848. University of California Press, Berkeley. Oswalt Robert L. 1971 The Case of the Broken Bottle. International Journal of American Linguistics 37(1):48-49. 1988 History Through the Words Brought to Califomia by the Fort Ross Colony. News from Native California 2(3):20-2. Owens, Kenneth N. 1990 Timofei Tarakanov: Frontiersman for the Tsar. In Russia in North America: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America, Sitka, Alaska, August 19-22, 1987, ed. by Richard A. Pierce, pp. 136-43. Limestone Press, Fairbanks, AK. Owens, Kenneth N., and Alton S. Donnelly 1985 The Wreck of the Sv. Nikolai. Western Imprints, The Press of the Oregon Historical Society, Portland. Payeras, Fr. Mariano 1995 The Writings of Mariano Payeras. Edited and translated by Donald C. Cutter. Bellerophon Books, Santa Barbara, CA. Riddell, Francis A. 1955 Archaeological Excavations on the Farallon Islands, Califomia. Papers on California Archaeology, 34, Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey, no. 32. Berkeley. Shubin, Valery 0. 1990 Russian Settlements in the Kurile Islands in the 18th and 19th Centuries. In Russia in North America: Proceed- ings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America, pp. 425-50, edited by Richard A. Pierce. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Smith, Janice Christina 1974 Pomo and Promyshlenniki: Time and Trade Goods at Fort Ross. Unpublished M.A. thesis in Archaeology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles. White, John R. 1970 Historic Contact Sites as Laboratories for the Study of Culture Change-Fort Ross. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Bethlehem, Pemnsylvania, January 10, 1970. 1977 Aboriginal Artifacts on Non-Traditional Material: Six Specimens from Fort Ross, Califomia. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 11(2):240-47. Historical Archaeology at NAVS 135 APPENDIX 6.1: LISTS OF TRADE GOODS BROUGHT ON TIlE BULDAKOV, 1820 (KiHLEBNIKOV 1990:704). GLASSwARE First quality glasses Second quality glasses Half-a-dozen glasses in cases First quality wine glasses Second quality wine glasses Plates (dozen) Plates with cups First quality salt shakers (dozen) Second quality salt shakers (dozen) Third quality salt shakers (dozen) First quality mugs (each) Second quality mugs (each) Third quality mugs (each) Pepper shakers (dozen) First quality sugar bowls (dozen) Second quality sugar bowls (dozen) Third quality sugar bowls (dozen) First quality butter dish (dozen) Second quality butter dish (dozen) First quality carafe (dozen) Second quality carafe (dozen) Goblets (dozen) Green bottles (dozen) VARIOUS GOODS White wax (arroba [25 lbs]) Wax candles (arroba) Copper vessels (funt [.9 lb.]) Coffee (funt) Olive oil (bottle) Sharpening stone (dozen) Nutmeg (funt) Millet (arroba) Granulated sugar Lump sugar Fine paper Virginia tobacco (arroba) Russian tobacco (arroba) First quality pencils (dozen) Second quality pencils (dozen) Gloves (pair) Down hat (each) COPPER AND IRON PRODUCTS Iron shovel (each) Steel (arroba) Bar-iron (quintal [101.2 lbs]) Copper bell (quintal) Sickle (each) Simple knife (each) Koporulia (each) [plow share cleaner] Plowshare (each) Saw (each) Crosscut saw (each) Copper door locks (each) Second quality locks First quality iron door locks Second quality iron door locks Padlocks with springs (each) First quality simple locks Second quality simple locks Third quality simple locks First quality door-hinges Second quality door-hinges Third quality door-hinges Iron wire (funt) Fine copper wire Medium copper wire Wire brushes (pair) Clothes brush (each) Corkscrew (each) Corks (100) Large copper taps (each) Small copper taps (each) Steel for striking fire from flint First quality files (dozen) Second quality files (dozen) Gimlet (dozen) First quality razors (dozen) Second quality razors (dozen) Third quality razors (dozen) Fourth quality razors (dozen) First quality scissors (dozen) Second quality scissors (dozen) Third quality scissors (dozen) Sheep shears (pair) First quality table knife (dozen) First quality dessert knives (dozen) First quality simple knives (dozen) First quality simple dessert knives Bronze candlesticks (pair) Tall gilt candlesticks Medium-sized gilt candlesticks Short gilt candlesticks Needles (1000) CARPENTRY TooLs Rasp (each) Double metal plates (each) Single metal plates Comices with shoes Iron cornices Saws with iron spines Large frame saws Small frame saws Medium-sized one-man saws Small one-man saws Metal saws with mounting Metal saws without mounting Chisels (each) Large axes Medium-sized axes Small axes Barrel-making tools and screws Large adzes Small and round adzes SILK, COTTON AND LINEN ARTICLES (Left out because of unlikely archaeological preservation) HABERDASHERY (Selected items likely to survive) First quality watch chain Second quality watch chain Stamp, carried on watch chain (dozen) Keys, carried on watch chain (dozen) Buttons for uniform (dozen) Small buttons Package of pins First quality earrings (dozen) Second quality earrings (dozen) Copper thimbles (dozen) First quality copper rings (dozen) Second quality copper rings (dozen) Combs (dozen)