10 Slate Artifacts and Ethnicity at Fort Ross PETER R. MILLS SLATE WAS USED EXIENSIVELY by Native Alaskans and to a lesser extent by Europeans and Native Californians. Thus, the presence or absence of particular ground slate tools at Fort Ross may indicate continuity and change within the 19th century multiethnic commu- nity. In Alaska for example, Knecht and Jordan attempt to address why slate was still in use in the 1840s when iron "was no longer difficult for a Koniag household to acquire in quantity (1985:27)." They suggest that slate use may relate to cultural conservatism among the Alutiit who did not want iron coming into contact with their food. In support of this, they cite an account by Lt. Zagoskin in the 1840s: In spite of the fact that the coastal natives have dropped a great many of their superstitions and have become Russianized in many respects, they cannot bring themselves to cut the beluga with iron (knives). This metal is considered unclean because it comes from the Russians (Michael 1967:113). Another example comes from the first Russian-American Company (RAC) post (est. 1784) at Three Saints Harbor, Kodiak Island. Although Crowell (1994a) identified traditional Alaskan ground slate artifacts in Structure 3 at the site, he argues that Russian hunters occupied the structure due to the presence of metal knives and firearms that were contraband for Native Alaskans. He suggests that the Native Alaskan artifacts may indicate the presence of Alaskan co-inhabitants or that Russians were using Alaskan tools in the absence of an abundant supply of Russian tools. In order to address the significance of slate artifacts from Fort Ross, this chapter provides a review of traditional uses of ground slate in southern coastal Alaska (focusing on Kodiak Island), northern and central California, and Europe. This is followed by a description of the slate artifacts from Fort Ross and a discussion of their significance for interpreting the 19th century multiethnic community. SLATE ARTIFACTS IN SOUTHERN COASTAL ALASKA Little research in southem coastal Alaska focuses specifically on slate tools in the late prehistoric period and the Contact Period, although site reports and artifact collections document the heavy reliance on this material (Clark 1974a, 1974b; Shaw et. al 1988). Slate is the predominant lithic raw material on many Alaskan beaches including Kodiak Island, Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and the Alaska panhandle. It is rare, however, in the Aleutian chain (Crowell 1988:137). Where slate occurs, it can be gathered from shorelines in tabular sections that can be easily shaped into a variety of tools. Traditional slate tool manufacture often employed the "saw-and-snap" method in combination with rough flaking of the edges (Clark 1974a:79; Knecht and Jordan 1985:30). Final shaping and edge preparation commonly involved grinding against an abrasive surface. The types of artifacts produced during this process are numerous. I have attempted to characterize them within five very general categories: long blades, short blades, pencils/ splinters/awls, ulus/transverse knives, and incised tablets. LONG BLADES In keeping with Clark (1974a: 106), long slate blades are defined as double-edged blades over 11 cm in length. This division is arbitrary. Most double-edged blades appear to be shorter than 11 cm. Clark (1974a:106) describes numerous late prehistoric long blades on Kodiak Island and suggests that they may have served as knives, lances, spear heads, and daggers. Heizer Slate Artifacts 239 (1956:49-51) describes otherexamples from the Uyak site, Kodiak Island. This general fonn was common as early as the Ocean Bay II phase (ca. 4500 B.P.) on Kodiak Island (Clark 1984:138). Long slate blades also occur over several thousand years of prehistory for the Bering Sea region, the northern Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 1984:9, 103), and Cook Inlet (de Laguna 1934:71, P1. 31, P1. 32). One type of long blade that is found in late prehis- toric sites and Contact Period sites is associated with a whaling method unique to Kodiak Island (Birket-Smith 1941; Clark 1974b; Heizer 1956:48). These blades are finely made with well-formed barbs and elongated tiangular outlines. Cross sections generally appear diamond-shaped (Heizer 1956:PI. 62). The Alutiit hunted whales from baidarkas by throwing slate lances into the whale, preferably near a side fin (Gideon 1989:142). The slate heads would detach from a shaft after the whale was struck (Birket-Smith 1941:138; Clark 1974a:72). Accounts suggest that whaling was practiced by a select number of men who acquired whaling rights through descent and who remained isolated from the rest of the community (Birket-Smith 1941:138; Crowell 1994b; Heizer 1943; Lantis 1938, 1940). A poison made from the root of monkshood (Aconitum maximum), applied to the blade, would partially paralyze the whale so that it would drown over a period of days and eventually wash ashore (Black 1987; Crowell 1994b; Gideon 1989:142; Heizer 1943; Lantis 1938, 1940). Due to the long period between the initial strike and the death of the whale, whaling was usually attempted in deep embayments where there was less chance of the whale being lost in ocean currents. Whaling lances often bear the distinguishing mark of a particular hunter (Crowell 1994b; Dyson 1986:46; Rousellot et al. 1988:172) or hunter's village (Kittlitz 1987:169-70) so that no matter where a whale washed ashore, the kill could be claimed. Knecht and Jordan (1985:27-29) recovered two slate whaling lances in a Alutiiq structure dating to the 1840s. Based upon striations on the blades, they suggest that the lances were shaped with metal tools. Another archaeological speci- men was described by Clark (1974b:109-110) from a Russian artel at Igatsk, Ugak Bay. Ethnographic ex- amples are in the Holmberg collection (Birket-Smith 1941: P1. 16; Heizer 1956: P1. 62). SHORT BLADES Double-edged slate blades less than 11 cm long are common in coastal Alaska and occur in late prehistoric sites on the Northwest Coast as well (e.g. Hobler 1990:302). The majority of slate points depicted by Jordan and Knecht (1988:277-97) from prehistoric and historical deposits at Karluk, Kodiak Island fit this category. Heizer (1956:49) suggests uses on Kodiak heads. Birket-Smith (1941) suggests that slate points were used to hunt bear on Kodiak Island. While smaller marine animals such as the sea otter were often hunted with bone points, larger sea mammals such as walrus and sea lion were hunted with slate blades as well as toggling bone and ivory harpoons. Clark (1974b) clearly docu- ments the continued significance of these slate tools into the Contact Period. Crowell (1994a:226-27) recovered an end-blade preform that would fit this general category at Structure 3, Three Saints Harbor. Oswalt (1980:48,195) found two short blades and one blade fragment at Kolmakovskiy Redoubt (1841-1917) in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. While the form of short blades has changed through time and from region to region, similar forms occur over broad regions of the North Pacific. Blade forms generally vary from lan- ceolate to triangular, and cross sections are frequently both bi-planar and diamond-shaped. Thus, establishing a specific ethnic association for many of these tools without any regional context would be difficult. PEWcILsISPLINTE:sR/AwLs Clark (1974a:97, 98, P1. 17) depicts fourteen ground slate "splinters and bars" from Rolling Bay site 420 and ten similar artifacts from Kiavak site 418 on Kodiak Island. These artifacts vary from 5.7 cm and 15.5 cm in length and are modified from naturally bar-shaped slate gravel. Some are bluntly pointed while others are sharply pointed. Cross sections vary from irregularly round to rectangular. Similar artifacts were recovered on Kodiak Island from the Uyak site (Heizer 1956:49). Crowell (1994a:226-27) recovered a 4.5 x .8 cm "ground slate rod" from structure 3 at Three Saints Harbor. He suggests that the rod may have been used for honing tool edges. In terms of their function, Clark (1974a:98) states: The few sharply pointed specimens are probably piercers, while the dull implements could be creasing tools, embossing tools, etc. Specimens with sharp chisel edges are known from other sites on Kodiak. The asymmetry of some Kiavak specimens is noteworthy and may relate to their use. Similar artifacts are known from southern coastal Alaska including Cook Inlet (de Laguna 1934:79, P1. 36) and Prince William Sound (de Laguna 1956:a: P1. 30, 31). ULUS/TRANSVERSE KNIVES This class includes all single-edged slate tools. Ulus have a single semi-lunar cutting edge and are often back- hafted. Metal-bladed ulus continue to be used in the Arctic for a variety of purposes such as the cutting and processing of meat and blubber. Jochelson (1925) identifies these tools as "women's knives." This distinc- tion has continued in the literature for southem Coastal Island including dart points, arrow points, and harpoon Alaska (e.g. Clark 1974a: I 00), although some have 240 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood argued that distinguishing betw'een straight-edged transverse knives ("men's knives") and ulus is problem- atic with archaeological specimens (de Laguna 1934:74; Heizer 1956:48). Knecht and Jordan (1985) identify five complete ground slate ulus at Structure 1 in Karluk dating to the 1840s. Several of these ulus display iron stains suggesting that the blades were attached to the handle by iron pins. Crowell also recovered two ulus and a transverse-edged scraper or knife from Structure 3 at Three Saints Harbor (1994a:226). Other ulus and transverse-edged knives have been identified in late prehistoric sites on the Alaska peninsula as well (Harnitt 1988). INCISED TABLETS On Kodiak Island, incised slate tablets with distinc- tive anthropomorphic designs have been recovered from several Koniag Phase sites (Clark 1964, 1974b; Crowell 1988:135; Heizer 1952) including 88 specimens from the Kizhuyak site, Marmot Bay (Clark 1974b:20-21). Clark interprets these as purposefully discarded ritual objects. It seems that these items were manufactured from approximately 1350-1500 A.D. but they were no longer being manufactured by the time of Russian contact (Crowell 1988:135; Jordan and Knecht 1988:271). Knecht and Jordan (1985:30-32) did identify a slate fragment incised with a series of markings in the bottom of a leather quiver at a historical house structure in Karluk; they suggest it may be a hunting tally or may have served an ideological purpose. SLATE ARTIFACTS OF THE FORT Ross REGION In the North Coast Ranges surrounding Fort Ross, slate is not an abundant raw material. Most of the regional geology consists of uplifted marine terraces and intrusive igneous formations (Lightfoot, Wake, and Schiff 1991:32-35). The marine sediments contain occasional shales with some metamorphism of these materials along tectonic plate boundaries. The majority of the metamor- phic rocks, however, are schists and graywackes (Page 1966:266, 258). Layton (1990) reports on the excavation of several sites directly north of Fort Ross in Mendocino County dating from 2000 B.P. to the Contact Period. Hundreds of chipped stone tools were recovered, but no ground slate was identified. Two fragments of schist, however, were reported to have been polished and worn along an edge (Layton 1990:23). Baumhoff (1976) conducted an extensive locational survey of archaeologi- cal sites in the Warm Springs Dam/ Lake Sonoma Region, but millingstones and handstones are the only ground tools that he noted. In general, the use of slate by Native Californians in the North Coast Ranges appears to have been non-existent or extremely rare (David Fredrickson, personal communication 1995). through prehistory by Native Californians in areas surrounding the North Coast Ranges. To the south and east, Heizer (1949:23-24) describes several classes of slate artifacts from Early Horizon (4,000-3,000 B.P.) Windmiller burials in Central California. These include 19 small cylindrical "pencils" that measure about 5 mm in diameter and from 9 to 11.8 cm in length. He specu- lates that these were used as projectile points, awls, or perforators. Larger ground slate rods and "channstones" also were recovered. Channstones are cylindrical objects usually with a perforation in one end. Similar charmstones and flat perforated slate pendants occur in Middle Horizon (3,000-1,500 B.P.) sites in central California (Elsasser 1978:37-40). Barrett and Gifford (1933:213) showed charmstones to some Central Miwok informants who suggested that they had been "made by the supernatual being, Coyote." While the informants suggested that the stones may have been used as spinning tools and fire-drills, it was Gifford and Barrett's opinion that the informants were simply guessing at possible functions. EUROPEAN WRrTING SLATES AND PENCILs Petroski (1990:29) notes that slate was commonly used for writing tablets in the 19th century and that it continues to be used today "in primitive schools and third world countries." Some writing slates were marketed to be used with lead pencils and others with slate pencils (Israel 1968:356). Slate pencils continued to be used up to the end of the 19th century (Petroski 1990:29). In 1897, the Sears Roebuck catalogue carried a pack of twelve "German Slate Pencils" for 28 cents, and two varieties of "American soapstone slate pencils" for 80 cents and $1.05 per box of 1000, depending on the variety (Israel 1968:353). As early as the 1770s, how- ever, graphite pencils encased in wood were being competitively marketed in Germany and England (Petroski 1990). Slate writing tablets and pencils clearly became a part of the European material culture in the Pacific Rim in the 19th century. Ann Garland has documented the presence of slate pencils at excavations of mid 19th centry Protestant Mission houses in downtown Hono- lulu (Garland, personal communication 1995). An artifact of probable European origin at Structure 1 in Karluk is a slate tablet with Russian letters and various linear marks incised on the surface (Knecht and Jordan 1985:30, 31). They note that "incised characters and a burnished surface attest that the slate was used exten- sively prior to breakage. After breakage, the slate apparently was used to keep a tally or perhaps, as some local residents have suggested, to serve as a Russian-style calendar." SUMMARY In sum, what we know about the traditional tool kits Ground slate tools were manufactured sporadically Slate Artifacts 241 of the ethnic groups at Fort Ross suggests that slate would be introduced to the site primarily from Native Alaskan and European sources. Given the documented use of slate by Native Californians in regions surrounding Fort Ross, however, the introduction of slate to the site by local peoples should not be ruled out The Native Alaskan uses would be distinguishable in the manufac- ture of edged hunting tools, processing tools, and stylized art work. European slate use would be distinguishable in terms of writing tablets, but rod-shaped slate tools of similar sizes were produced by Alaskans, Europeans, and Californians. Therefore, these items at Fort Ross are simply called "slate rods", and no attempt is made to assign them to particular etinic groups. More research on the slate rods including production techniques, use- wear, petrographic and geochemical analyses, and refined stylistic typologies is necessary before any reliable distinctions can be made. GROUND SLATE AND THE Ross COLONY FARALLON ISLANDS Four slate artifacts were recovered during Riddell's (1955) excavations of the Ross Colony's sea-mammal hunting outpost on the Farallon Islands (SFr-1), and are housed in the collections of the Phoebe Hearst Museum. A re-examination of the pieces reveals that the slate fragments vary from 1.7 cm to 4.8 cm in length and between 3 mm and 4 mm in thickness. All fragments display two smoothed faces, but no grinding striations are visible with the naked eye and no purposeful marking beyond saw-and-snap lines are apparent. Riddell (1955:7) reported that one artifact (1-103494) had been sawed, and may be commercially produced slate. This piece displays saw cuts on one side margin and is ground flat on a perpendicular margin. No obvious saw-and- snap lines are present. Riddell also notes that "an attempt had evidently been made to break the other three pieces along previously incised lines and it can be suggested that the 'Aleut' hunters may have used this material for the manufacture of slate harpoon head blades. However, no such blades, or fragments of them, were found" (Riddell 1955:7). In re-examining the fragments, saw-and-snap lines appear on only two fragments (1-103450 and 1-103487). A third fragment (1-103385) appears roughly broken on all margins. There are two saw-and-snap lines on specimen 1-103450 that are nearly parallel and spaced approximately 2.4 cm apart. No lines are on the opposite face. Specimen 1-103487 displays three saw-and-snap lines on one face. These form the margins of an irregular triangle measuring 3.4 cm in length and 2.5 cm in width. In addition, it should be noted that Riddell recovered four fragments of a decorated stone tablet (1955:9, Plate I, specimen 1-103520). The stone was identified by Riddell as steatite. The decorations are made by a series angles. These lines enclose a symmetrical curvilinear motif. Adjacent to the curvilinear motif is what appears to be a figure "8" or "00" depending on which direction is considered to be vertical. The overall design bears no resemblance to the incised slate tablet designs from Kodiak Island. Farris (chapter 6) suggests this symbol may be the Fort Ross "Counter mark" used on lead bale seals for skdns. No function is suggested for this artifact, although it is listed under Riddell's category of "'non- aboriginal artifacts." In one orientation, it appears that the design may be a depiction of a house with a peaked roof. An examination of the artifact in the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology collections reveals that it is ground flat on both faces and is 6 mm thick. The refit pieces measure 5.2 cm by 6.8 cm along their longest dimensions. The rock is non-platy and light green in color, consistent with steatite rather than slate. The design has been incised, and it appears that the striations have been filled with white ink, possibly to assist in photographing the artifact in 1955. FoRTRoss STOCKADE No geochemical or petrographic analyses of slate from the Fort Ross excavations have been completed. As such, the identification of "slate" is based upon macro- scopic characteristics of a dark, indurated, fine-grained metamorphic rock with platy cleavage. A review of the archaeological collections from Fort Ross Stockade reveals nine slate objects recovered by the north Stockade wall and from the Kuskov House. Slate from the north Stockade wall came from "Trench A," excavated by A. Treganza (1954). While these objects were not mentioned in the report, they were found in the collections from the excavations at the State Parks Archaeology Laboratory in Sacramento. These include seven slate objects: a fragment of a slate tablet; three small pointed slate tools; two possible slate rod preforms; and an unworked slate fragment. The flat slate tablet fragment measures 4.5 cm x 4 cm and averages 4 mm in thickness. The fragment displays two perpendicu- lar saw-and-snap lines on two of the four margins. The other margins display rough breaks. The break along one saw-and-snap line was subsequently ground smooth. The two opposing flat surfaces of the fragment exhibit grinding striations, but no letters or geometric designs are apparent. Three slate objects are less than 4 cm in length and have been ground to points. One tipped tool is ground to a beveled tip parallel to the main faces, and has a triangular outline with beveled side margins. The base is ground flat. The second pointed tool appears very similar in form to a modem carpenter's pencil. It has pamllel sides, a flat base, and tapers to a tip that forms a beveled edge parallel to the main faces of the tool. The only sharp edge is the beveled tip; all other margins are of connected straight lines that fonn squares and tri- ground flat. The third pointed tool is irregularly ovoid in 242 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood outline. The slightly rounded margins are ground to a tip, but this tip is not beveled parallel to the main faces. Several incised lines are present on both faces that may be remnants of saw-and-snap lines from a larger slate blank. Also from Trench A came a fragment of slate measuring 1 cm by 4 cm and 4 mm thick that is broken across the long axis. It displays carefully beveled and parallel saw-and-snap lines along the sides and may have been a preform for a slate rod. An additional slate fragment from Trench A is very similar to the possible rod preform except that the sides taper slightly. It measures 3.8 cm x 1.3 cm and is 3.5 mm thick. One unworked fragment of slate, also recovered from Trench A, is approximately 4.5 cm x 2 cm in outline and 2 mm thick. In collections at the State Parks Archaeology Laboratory in Sacramento, there are two other slate tools from Karl Gurke's 1975 excavations of the Kuskov House (see Gurke, n.d.). Provenience data suggest that both of these objects were located within approximately 5 m of the north Stockade wall. One of these items closely resembles one of the pointed tools from Trench A. It is ground to a fine point but has rounded side margins and an irregular ovoid outline. The second item from the Kuskov House is a slate rod that is faceted with seven asymmetrical faces in cross section. It is approximately 4 mm in diameter and 2 cm in length. Both ends appear broken. NATIVE AL4SKAN VILL4GE SUrE Eleven slate artifacts have been recovered in the vicinity of NAVS (figure 10.1). These items include three small, unmodified fragments of slate (figure 10.1a, b, c), two broken slate rods (figure 10. Id, e), three fragments of ground slate projectiles or knives (figure 10.1f, g, k), two roughly rectangular slate tablets (figure 10.1h, i), and a small tabular fragment that has been ground and polished on one surface (figure 10.lj). The two slate rods are both ground to a tip and are broken on the opposite end. One slate rod (figure 10.1d) was located in the East Central Area Excavation (74S, 3E). It is 3.1 cm in length and4 mm in diameter. Ground to a nearly cylindrical cross section, it is slightly flattened on one side. On the main body, grinding striations run parallel with the length of the tool. Where it tapers to a tip, it is faceted to seven surfaces and grinding striations are visible at low magnification running in several directions. The tip itself is formed by four smaller facets ground at a slightly steeper angle than the tapering surface. The edges of the facets at the tip appear slightly rounded at low magnification suggesting that this was used as a stylus and/or an awl. The second slate rod (figure l0.1e) was located in the South Area Excavation (124S, 22W). It is 2.2 cm from the tip to the diameter of the rod gradually decreases as it approaches the point. No faceting is visible but the point is slightly rounded. The overall surface is slightly rough and pitted. No grinding striations or use-wear are visible. Three fragments of slate double-edged tools were recovered that appear to be portions of end-blades, lances, or knives. A tip fragment (figure 10.1f) and a midsection (figure 10.1g) were found during excavations of the East Central Area Excavation (74S, 2E; 73S, 1E), and a base fragment (figure 10.1k) was located by a local resident, Nancy Walton, near the center of the terrace directly to the east of the access road (Nancy Walton, personal communication 1995). Since all three artifacts are fragmentary, it is difficult to assign them to classes of short blades vs. long blades. The tip fragment (figure 10.1f) is diamond-shaped in cross section with a well defined central ridge on each face. Since the tip fragment is so small, it is impossible to suggest if this cross section was maintained for the entirety of the blade or if it is a function of the two ground edges coming to a point. The midsection (figure 10.1g) is a double-edged end-blade with a slightly lanceolate outline. While this fragment is being called a "midsection," part of the base may remain intact since a portion of it has been ground flat on one comer. This may be the original base or an attempt to rework the broken midsection. The fragment measures 3 cm in length between the "base" and a lateral snap near the tip. The blade is 2.1 cm wide at its widest point. The center of each face has been ground extensively to a slightly biconcave surface, much like a fluted point. The center of the blade is only 2 mm thick and the thickness expands to 3 mm near the beveled edges of the blade. Grinding striations in the center of each face run longitu- dinally. The side margins are formed by evenly beveled edges with grinding striations running in several direc- tions. No incised designs or maker's marks are apparent. The barbed basal fragment (figure 10.1k) is not a complete base, since the stem has been broken off at the point where the haft was apparently secured. The extent of the haft is evident from a purposeful flattening of the diamond-shaped cross section on the small portion of the stem that is intact. The blade is 3 cm wide at its widest point and 5 mm thick along the central ridge. Comer- notched barbs were formed at an angle of approximately 40 degrees to the longitudinal axis by grinding from both faces. The grinding for the barbs forms uniform notches with straight edges, possibly indicating the use of a metal file. No incised designs such as maker's marks are apparent. The blade edges are sharp and show little beveling in relation to the main faces, suggesting that the edges had not been reworked to any great degree prior to breakage. The breakage is consistent with a bending fracture from impact, resulting in snaps at the end of the haft and through the midsection. While the blade width and form fall within the general range of Alutiiq whaling break and is 5 mm in diameter at its widest point. The lances, several factors preclude a definite interpretation Slate Artifacts 243 Figure 10.1 Slate Artifacts from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood c -.\, 1. 'I d e 0 f t-A I % i k a. Unmodified fragment (NAVS-7/31/91-2-L-1: 75S, 20W; 10-20 cm bd). b. Unmodified fragment (NAVS-7/31/91-19-L-4: 75S, 16W; 10-20 cm bd). c. Unmodified fragment (NAVS-7/6/92-34-L-3: 73S, 1E; SE quad; Level A). d. Slate rod (NAVS-6/30/92-12- L-1: 74S, 3E; SE quad; Level A). e. Slate rod (NAVS-6/30/92-15-L-1: 124S, 22W; SE quad; Level A). f Blade tip (NAVS-7/l/ 92-36-L-5: 74S, 2E; SW quad; Level A). g. Blade midsection (NAVS-7/8/92-7-L-1: 73S, 1E; 100 cm N, 62 cm E, 42 cm bd). h. Slate tablet (NAVS-7/7/92-59-L-1: 72S, 2E; 55 cm N, 36 cm E, 28 cm bd; Level A). i. Slate tablet (NAVS-7/3/92-38-L-1: 73S, 3E; 53 cm N, 0 cm E, 31 cm bd; Level A). j. Polished tabular fragment (NAVS-8/14/91-73-L-3: 75S, OE; 30-40 cm bd). k. Blade base fragmnent: surface find by Nancy Walton directly east of the access road and near the center of the NAVS coastal terrace. (Illustrations by Judith Ogden) b, --. I a g E h I - Al /-:-K 0 1P Ot % - i , - I 1- -O -5cm I I I I ---,z I I i 244 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood as such. These factors are the uinknown length of the tool, the lack of maker's marks, and the slightly more acute angle of the barbs (40 degrees) in comparison to other known specimens. Of the six Alutiiq whaling lances depicted between Clark (1974b) and Heizer (1956:176), the average barb angle is approximately 60 degrees and varies from a right angle to approximately 46 degrees in relation to the longitudinal axis. Finally, two small rectangular slate tablets and a polished tabular fragment were recovered in the East Central Trench and East Central Area Excavation (72S, 2E; 73S, 3E; 75S, OE). One slate tablet (figure 10.li) measures 6 cm x 3 cm and is 3.5 mm thick. Two adjacent side margins are ground smooth and meet at a right angle. A rough break parallel with the longitudinal axis forms a third margin. This break appears to be the result of an intentional saw-and-snap reduction technique, but the saw line is only visible on one face. The fourth margin is broken roughly through the cross section. Both faces of this tablet have been ground smooth. On one face, a slight beveling of one margin suggests that someone may have been attempting to create an edged tool. On the same face, two perpendicular lines have been incised creating four quadrants. One quadrant appears to have been inscribed with a stylus, but the inscription was subsequently scratched out. Another quadrant displays numbers and Russian lettering, but the end of the word is missing due to damage. Alexei Istomin, an anthropologi- cal historian from the Russian National Academy of Sciences, examined the tablet and suggests that the inscriptions are the number "43" followed by a "JI" (which transliterates to an English L) in Russian script, and portions of another letter or symbol. When the letter L is written rather than printed in Cyrillic, it usually comes to a sharp peak. Alexei Istomin's tentative suggestion for the partially broken letter is a "b" or "bl". The remaining two quadrants display a few irregular striations over the polished surface, but nothing is discemable as a particular letter or design. The reverse face of this artifact has two incised lines running perpen- dicular to the longitudinal axis, but no further markings are apparent. The second slate tablet (figure 10.lh) is slightly larger, measuring 7 cm x 3.6 cm and is 3 mm thick. It also has a rectangular outline with two margins ground smooth and meeting at a right angle. The other two margins are roughly broken. Both faces have been ground smooth. One face has two parallel lines running with the longitudinal axis. One of these lines is crossed by a short, perpendicular hatch-mark close to a broken margin. Another deeply incised line crosses both of the parallel lines near a right angle, and two other incised lines run across the face at angles of 65/125 degrees and 115175 degrees to the longitudinal axis, forming an isosceles triangle. The other face of this artifact is the smoothed surface. The final tabular slate fragment measures 2.6 cm x 1.5 cm and is 1 mm thick. It is broken on all margins and one face displays an unground surface. The opposite face is polished smooth. This appears to be a fragment broken off of a larger polished slate tablet. DISCUSSION Worked slate artifacts recovered in the vicinity of the Fort Ross Stockade are limited to tablets, rods, and small fragments ground to a point on one end. No double- edged Alaskan hunting tools were identified here. It is difficult to interpret the slate tools from the Stockade due to their lack of similarity to any known ethnic tool kit Four of the nine artifacts in question are shaped to points, are less than 4 cm in length, and show no evidence of hafting, with one possible exception. From their design, it seems unlikely that they were intended to be used as projectile points or cutting tools. A possible interpreta- tion is that these were improvised tools for carpentry. This is supported by the close similarity of one of these artifacts to a carpenter's marking pencil (Israel 1968:352). The three other points recovered in this area are similar in size and general form, but are more crudely shaped. The remaining five slate artifacts from the Stockade appear to be a fragment of a writing tablet, two possible slate rod preforms, a slate rod fragment, and an unworked fragment. The preform and the unworked slate fragment suggest that some slate tools such as rods were being manufactured at the Stockade. In this context, it seems most likely that the rods were writing tools, but this should not be considered definite without corroborating data. Of the eleven slate objects recovered from NAVS, seven were recovered from the East Central Area Excavation, two others (both unmodified) from the West Central Trench excavation, one slate rod from the South Area Excavation, and the remaining artifact from an isolated surface collection between the West Central Trench and the South Area Excavation. While these differences are not overwhelming, it appears that slate tool and tablet manufacture/deposition was most common in the vicinity of the East Central Area Excavation and least common in the vicinity of the South Area Excava- tion. The recovery of ground slate Native Alaskan tools at NAVS and the Farallon Islands is notably sparse in relation to Native Alaskan Contact Period sites in the North Pacific. The lack of slate source material may have much to do with this, but numerous other factors may be influencing the paucity of ground slate at NAVS as well. The infrequency of slate ulus may be due to the limited number of Alutiiq women at Fort Ross, if indeed women primarily used ulus. It would also seem to relatively smooth with some random deep striations over suggest that the Native Califomian women who were Slate Artifacts 245 cohabiting with Native Alaskin men were not adopting Alaskan methods of processing food, a point that is elaborated on in chapter 17. Furthermore, since a large portion of the ground slate hunting tools in Alaska were used for hunting whale, walrus, and sea lion, the paucity of slate end-blades and lances may reflect changes in the methods used to hunt large sea mammals in the Fort Ross Region. A particu- larly strong argument can be made for the need to devise changes in Alutiiq style whaling at Fort Ross due to the cultural and geographic isolation of the Native Alaskan community there. As Crowell (1994b) has recently surmised for Kodiak Island, Alutiiq whaling was a highly specialized task ftat was embedded within and reliant upon a complex social system and particular environ- ment. As I have argued elsewhere in detail (Mills 1994), this whaling technology at Fort Ross would have been complicated by the lack of opportunity to retrieve kills from nearby villages, the presence of few deep embayments, the lack of locally available Aconitum maximum and slate, the traditional selection of whalers through descent, and the isolation of whalers from the rest of the community. The one basal fragment that is somewhat similar to a Alutiiq style whaling lance (figure 10.1k) lacks any maker's marks. If this was a lance used for whaling, the lack of maker's marks could be due to the lack of any need to claim the kill, since so few individuals and only one village (NAVS) were involved in whaling. It may also reflect more direct methods of retrieval of the kill. At the very least, the three fragments of double-edged slate blades attest to the continuity of a vestige of traditional Alaskan slate blade technologies in the Fort Ross region in addition to the well-documented continua- tion of bone dart sea-mammal hunting (see Wake, chapter 11). One particularly interesting aspect of the slate assemblage at NAVS is the presence of what appear to be writing tablet fragments, one with Russian lettering (figure 10. Ii). While the specific purpose of these tablets is unclear, the segmentation of the surface with different entries in each segment may suggest use by promeshlenniki or Native Alaskan hunters who were keeping records of hunters' catches or accrued debts. Keeping records on slate while in baidarkas would have been much more feasible than attempting to keep records with paper and pen. While it is tempting to infer that slate writing implements at NAVS in combination with slate rods suggest that at least some of the occupants of NAVS were literate, their condition suggests that these tablets were being scavenged from other contexts and reworked into different tools. This observation has also been made for glass and ceramic artifacts at NAVS (Farris, chapter 6; Silliman, chapter 7). Thus, the writing on the tablets may not be indicative of activities carried out by Native Alaskans in the context of their community. REFERENCES Barrett, Samuel A., and E. W. Gifford 1933 Miwok Material Culture. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee 2(4). Baumhoff, M. A. 1976 An Archaeological Study of the Prehistoric Cultural Resources in the Warm Springs Dam and Lake Sonoma Project, Sonoma County, CA. Ms. on file with the National Park Service. Contract #CX8000 S0008. Birket-Smith, Kaj 1941 Early Collections from the Pacific Eskimo: Ethno- graphical Studies. Nationabmuseets Skrifter Ethnografisk Raekke 1:121-63. Copenhagen. Black, Lydia 1987 Whaling in the Aleutians. Etudes Inuit 11(2):7-50. Clark, Donald W. 1964 Incised Figurine Tablets from Kodiak, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology vol. 2(1): 118-34. 1974a Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at Late Prehistoric Sites on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Tubinger Monogaphien zur Urgreschichte, vol. 1. Verlagsort: Stuttgart, Germany. 1974b Contributions to the Later Prehistory of Kodiak Island, Alaska. National Museum of Man Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper no. 20. Ottawa. 1984 Prehistory of the Pacific Eskimo Region. In Arctic, edited by David Damas, Handbook of North American Indians, 5:136-48. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Crowell, Aron 1988 Prehistory of Alaska's Pacific Coast. In Crossroads of Continents, pp. 130-40, edited by W. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. 1994a World System Archaeology at Three Saints Harbor, An 18th Century Russian Fur Trade Site on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. 1994b Koniag Eskimo Poisoned-Dart Whaling. In Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim, edited by W. Fitzhugh and Valerie Chaussonmet, pp. 217-42. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. de Laguna, Frederica 1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Reprinted in 1975, Alaska Historical Society, Anchorage. 1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 13, Seattle. Dumond, Don E. 1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea Region. In Arctic, edited by David Damas, Handbook of North American Indians, 5:94-105. Smidtsonian Institution, Washington DC. 246 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Dyson, George 1986 Baidarka. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage. Elsasser,. Albert B. 1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by R. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Gideon, Hiermonk 1989 Hiermonk Gideon: An Orthodox Missionary in Alaska, 1803-1807, translated and edited by L. Black. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Gurke, Karl n. d. Excavations at Fort Ross. Manuscript on file, Fort Ross State Historic Park, Fort Ross, CA. Harritt, Roger K. 1988 The Late Prehistory of the Brooks River, Alaska. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, no. 38, Eugene, Oregon. Heizer, Robert F. 1943 Aconite Poison Whaling in Asia and America: an Aleutian Transfer to the New World. Anthropological Papers 24, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133:415-68, Washington DC. 1949 The Archaeology of Central California I: the Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records 12(1):1-84. 1952 Incised Slate Figurines from Kodiak Island, Alaska. AmericanAntiquity 17(3):266. 1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. University of California Anthropological Records: 1 7(1). Hobler, Philip M. 1990 Prehistory of the Central Coast of British Columbia. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, Handbook of North American Indians, 7:298-305. IsraeL Fred L. (editor) 1968 1897 Sears Roebuck Catalogue. Chelsea House Publishers, New York. Jochelson, Waldemar 1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. Camegie Institution, Washington DC. Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht 1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island, Alaska: the Development of Koniag Culture. In Aurora: The Late Prehistoric Development ofAlaska's Native People, edited by Robert Shaw, Roger Harritt, Don Dumond. Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series No. 4. Kittlitz, Fredrich Heinrich Baron Von 1987 Denkwurdigkeiten einer Reis nach dem russischen America, translated by J. Moessner. In A Voyage Around the World 1826-1829 by F. P. Lutke. Alaska History no. 29. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Knecht, R. A., and R. H. Jordan 1985 Nunakakhnak: an Historic Period Koniag Village in Karluk, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(2):17-35. Lantis, Margaret 1938 The Alaskan Whale Cult and its Affinities. Ameri- can Anthropologist 40:438-64. 1940 Note on Alaskan Whale Cult and its Affinities. American Anthropologist 42:366-68. Layton, Thomas N. 1990 Western Pomo Prehistory. Monograph 32, Institute of Archaeology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles. Lightfoot, K., Wake, T., and Schiff, A. 1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California: Volume 1, Introduction. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, no.49. Berkeley. Michael, Henry (editor) 1967 Lieutenant Zagoskin's Travels in Russian America, 1842-1844. Arctic Institute of North America Anthropol- ogy of the North: Translations from Russian Sources no. 7, Toronto. Mills, Peter R. 1994 Alaskan Hunting Technologies and Cultural Accommodation at Fort Ross (1812-1841), Califomia. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 7:33-40. Oswalt, Wendell H. 1980 Kolmakwvskiy Redoubt: The Ethnoarchaeology of a Russian Fort inAlaska. Institute of Archaeology, vol. 8. Los Angeles. Page, B. M. 1966 Geology of the Coast Ranges of California. In Geology of Northem California, edited by E. H. Bailey, pp. 255-76. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 190. Petrosld, Henry 1990 The Pencil: a History of Design and Circumstance. Alfred Knopf, New York. Riddell, Francis A. 1955 Archaeological Investigations on the Farallon Islands, California. Reports of the University of Califor- nia Archaeological Survey, no. 34. Berkeley. Rousselot, Jean Loup, William Fitzhugh, and Aron Crowell 1988 Maritime Economies in the North Pacific Rim. In Crossroads of Continents, edited by W. Fitzhugh, and Aron Crowell, pp. 151-72. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Slate Artifacts 247 Shaw, Robert, Roger K. Harritt, and Don E. Dumond (editors) 1988 Aurora: The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska's Native People. Alaska Anthropological Associa- tion Monograph Series no. 4. Treganza, Adan E. 1954 Fort Ross: A Study in Historical Archaeology. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 23:1-26.