12 Mammal Remains from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood THOMAS A. WAKE D E-rALED TAmNAysis of the vertebrate faunal remains from Colony Ross provides a substantial amount of infonnation that aids in identifying the cultural saffliation of the occupants of various areas of the setlement and their respective levels of culuil change. The effects of intemhnic relationships and interactions are regieredtough observation of relative frequencies of dietary constituents, element distnbutions, butchery ns, fagmentation, and buming, with reference to models discussed by varous authors (Crabte 1990; Crader 1984, 1990a, 1990b; Gust 1983; Jolley 1983; Langenwalter 1980, 1987; Langenwalter and McKee 1985; Lyman 1987; McKee 1987; Mouer 1993; Reitz and Cumbaa 1983; Schulz and Gust 1983). In this chapter, I present the analysis of faunal rainans recovered from the Nadve Alaskan Neighborhood at Colony Ross, the Fort Ross Beach Site (CA-SON-18981H) and the Native Alaskan Village Site (CA-SON-1897/H). I also refer briefly to various north coastal Californian ahaeological maimmal samples in order to establish the parameters of the region's typical late prehistoric period m diet. The etinically distinct neighborhoods have been broadly delinated in the vicinity of the Stockade complex: Russian, Native Califomian, and Nadve Alaskan (Lightfoot et al. 1991, 1993). Excavation of two aras within tfie Native Alaskan Neighborhood at Colony Ross, the Fort Ross Beach Site (FRBS) and the Native Alaskari Village Site (NAVS), has yielded large verte- brate faunal assemblages. These assemblages are especially significant due to the fact that they come from an area associated with a strong Alaskan ethnic identity, as indicated in the historical record (Fedorova 1973; Khlebnikov 1976, 1990). A map of the Ross Colony, produced in 1817 and published by Svetlana Federova (1973), specifically points out the location of the "Aleut encampment" Given the fact that the marine environments along the California and Alaska coasts are more similar than different, if "Aleuts" were responsible for the fornation of FRBS and NAVS, then one would expect a faunal assemblage exhibiting Native Alaskan dietary pattens (Birket-Smith and De Laguna 1938; Clark 1974; De Laguna 1972; Denniston 1974; Grinnell 1901; Hughes 1984; Lantis 1984; Lippold 1972). The presence of a typical Native Alaskan faunal assemblage would indicate strong culaural continuity and a minimal level of dietary accultuation or change. A modified pattern, however, might indicate some degree of cultal or dietary ex- change. It is important to remember that the majority of Native Alaskan people present at Ross had been born and raised under Russian domination. Subtle changes in traditional diets in Alaska may have taken place before the occupation of Ross due to inrductions of new dietary items by the Russians. Even more likely, the breakdown of the traditional social order and sasal round by removal of Native Alaskan men for extended sea otter hunting expeditions (Veltre 1990) could have altred dietary patterns. On the other hand, the tradi- tional types of Alaskan resource exploitation may have had more effect on Russian diets than the Russians had on Alaskan diets. Numerous accounts tell of Russian promyshlenniks adopting aspects of traditional Native Alaskan subsistence practices (Gibson 1976; Hrdlicka 1944; Khlebnikov 1990). One other tremendously influential aspect of cultural interaction at Ross is cohabitation and marriage. The historical record makes it clear that individuals belonging to a number of different ethnic groups either lived 280 The Naive Alaskan Neighborhood together or were married to one anothe at Ross (Jackson 1983). Ross census infornation hfn 1820 and 1821 provided by Ivan Kuskov (see chapter 1), shows clearly that interemnic cohabitaton and i, often rsulting in Creole and mixed Native Alaskan -Californian chil- dren, were commonplace. Such relationships provide the most fertie ground for cultural intetion, accommoda- tion, and change at the Colony. NAVS was most likely composed of a number of interethnic houholds occu- pied by Native Alaskan men and Native Califonian womnen. The relative level of dietary acculturation of the inhabitts of NAVS and FRBS can be seen as a function of the degree of variation from triional late prehistoric period diets. If, once assgned a tentative ethnic identity, the faunal assemblages from Colony Ross do not show much varation from raditional precontact or early contact sites, then it can be assumed that the individual Native American peoples present at the Colony were still continuiing their usual dietary pattems without much influence from the other European and Native American groups t . If the Colony Ross faunal assemblages vary notieably from Alaskan or Californian precontact dietary assemblages, however, then some level of dietary accultation involving the incorporation of non- tditional foods into Native American diets probably occurred, and intepreons may be generated about the nature of culture change. MEFODS AND MATERALS The material exained in this chapter consts of the identiabe mammal r i at appear to be directly related to food conswnption. A nwnber of pieces of mammnal bone recovered from both NAVS and FRBS may have been consumed as food orginally, but have been modified as a result of bone tool production and hence are not luded in this analysis. Ihe worked bone speci s are described and icussed in chapter 11 of this volume. The bulk of the whale bone recovered from NAVS and FRBS is modified as a result of tool pr , but whale bone ta appears to be unmdified, except for consumption related activity such as meat removal or burning, is disssed here. Six idendfiable elements that show evidence of tool production related modification, but are also close to their initial post-consunption state, are included in this analysis. These include the two identified grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) elements, three elk (Cervus elaphus) antler specimens, and one Steller's sea lion (Eumetopiasjjubatus) element GENERAL SORTING AND IDEMTIFICATION METHODOLOGY Ihe majority of the vertebre faunal remains from FRBS and NAVS were sorted and catalogued in a preliminary fashion by graduate and undergraduate archaeology studints enrolled in the U.C. Berkeley laboraory analysis class, "Analysis of the Archaeological Record," offered subsequendy to each Fort Ross Ar- chaeological Project field season, during the fall semes- ters of 1988, 1989, and 1991. Preliminary sorting and analysis were also dertaken at various imes by undergraduate students taling independent study classes and woring on senior honors theses. In most instances the vertebr faunal rmains were simply seted from invertebmte faunal remains. Occasionaly some bags were sepaated by vertebrate class, i.e. fish, bird, or Mam . The audt is responsible for the final sorting by vertebrate class and identfication of all of the mamma- lian ai di in this chapter, except where noted from previously published sources. The skeletl ele- ments included in this analysis are identfiable at least to the taxonomic level of Order, such as Insectivore, Rodent, or Camivore. Bone not identfiable to the ordinal level is teated simply as non-identifiable bone and counted. Any evidence of modification of fragmen- tary bone such as burning, butchery, or artfact produc- tion is noted. The vertebrate faunal remains were first segregated into taxonomic classes: fish, amplubians, reptiles, birds, and mammal. he remains from each major vertebrate class were then bagged saely. All of the remains belonging to each respective class were subsequently sorted into identifiable and unidentifiable categories. Each class of identifiable vertebrate faunal was then asribed to the most discrete taxonomic level possible. Actual identfication of the mammalian remns to the lowest posstile axonomic level was aided by direct comparison to known specimens held in the osteological collections of the U.C. Berkeley Arhaeological Research Facility, the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Vertate Zoology, and the Califonia Acadany of Sciences. Reference to a variety of manuals and publications designed to aid in the identifriation of vertebrate fauna also proved useful (DeBlase and Martin 1974; Gilbert 1980, Hall 1981; Hildebrand 1955; Hill 1937; Hills 1992; Hooper and Hart 1962; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Kasper 1980; Lawrence 1951; Lyman 1991; Lyon 1937; Olsen 1960, 1964,1978, 1982; Smith 1979; Vaughan 1972). During the process of assigning each idenfifiable skeletal element to the most discrete taxonomic level possible, a number of biological and culurWal attributes were noted. In addition to provenience information and catalog numbers, the following data were recorded: taxon, skeletal element, side, condition (complete, proximal, distal, shaft, fragment, or any combination of the previous), age, burning, and food processing and/or butchery marks. To date, no amphibian or reptile remains have been identified from any excavations in the vicinity of the Mamnml Remins 281 Stockade complex at Ross. There are various species of both in the local area and it would not be surprising to fnd them in future investigations. James P. Quinn of Sonoma State University identi- fied the fish remains recovered from the 1988 excava- tions at FRBS. Dr. Kenneth W. Gobalet of Califonmia State University, Bakersfield identified the fish remains recovered from the 1989 excavations at FRBS and the 1991 excavations of the Native Alaskan Village Site (chapter 14). Dwight D. Simons identified the avian emains from the 1988 and 1989 excavations of FRBS and the 1991 excavations of NAVS (chapter 13). I focus on the manmal remains from the Native Alaskan Neighborhood (or Neighborhood) for several reasons: numerically, mammals represent the bulk of the vertebrate rema recovered at these sites; mammal remains represent the greatest potential source of protein at the Colony; and mammal remains, in general, can show specific ethnic preferences and point to social stafication (Crader 1984, 1990a, 1990b; Gust 1983; Ijzereef 1989; Jolley 1983; Langenwalter 1980, 1987; Langenwalter and McKee 1985; Lyman 1987; McKee 1987; Reitz and Cumbaa 1983; Schulz and Gust 1983). This is not to say that the other classes of vertebrate faunal remains from the Neighborhood do not reveal inrsting and informative patteming. On the contay, the species fequencies and distributions observed in the fishes and birds are noteworthy and appear to show specific ethnic, technological, and social signatures (see chapters 13 and 14). QUANTIFICAION Quantification of the mammalim skeletal remains relies on basic counting stategies to determine the tal numbers of bones and bone fragments, the number of identfiable specimens per taxon (NISP), and minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) for each mammal species (Grayson 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984). The faunal remains recovered from each site are teated as ate stagraphic aggregates for the pwposes of NISP and MNI generation (Grayson 1984). The NISP measure is a straight count of the number of skeletal elements per identified taxon. nimum numbers of individuals were determined by adding up numbers of the most common pared elements of a given taxon (Grayson 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984). Both NISP and MNI measures are discussed below. These measures are also treated relative to one another as firquencies (percentages) of the total faunal assemblage in order to determine the more economically important taxa and to observe any differ- ences in relaive frequencies of mammals between the four areas within the Colony. RESULTS The FRBS sample consists of mammal remains recovered during surface collections; excavation of 30 m of the eroding, ocean-facing portion of the site; and two excavation areas up slope to the north of the profiled face of the site, the Southwest Bench and the East Bench. All of these units were screened through either 6.5 mm or 3 mm mesh and excavated to sterile soil levels. The NAVS sample consists of mammal remains recovered from the 1991 and 1992 excavation of the 1 m square South Central Test Unit, and three 1 m wide trenches; the 3 m West Cental Trench, the 5 m East Central Trench, and the 7 m South Trench. The East Central and South trenches were placed in surface depressions ffiat appear to be remains of semi-subterranean house strucures (chapter 3). The South Central Test Unit was excavated near the eroding cliff edge of the site. All of the sample units at NAVS in 1991 were excavated to the underlying decomposing sadstone bedrock layer or sterile clay. IDETFIFD MAMMA The identified mammals recovered from excavations at FRBS and NAVS are presented together in table 12.1. A total of 2,815 mammalian skeletal elements were identified from FRBS. Skeletal elements identfiable to more discrete taxonomic levels than simply mammal numbered 735 at FRBS (see appendix 12.1). A larger total of 11,112 mammal elements were identified from NAVS. Mammal skeletal elements identifiable to more discrete taxonomic levels numbered 1,560 at this site (see appendix 122). The unidentified mammal remains from both NAVS and FRBS are presented in table 12.2. INSECT7VORES One of the interesting aspects of the faunal assem- blages from FRBS and NAVS is the relatively low number (n=3) of supposedly intrusive insectivores. These animals are usually much more common in Californian faunal assemblages (Basgall and Hildebrandt 1989; Bickel 1981; Chartkoff and Chardtoff 1983; Duque 1989; Gifford and Marshall 1984; Langenwalter et aL 1989; Schwaderer 1992; White 1984). Since much of the excavated sediments from both NAVS and FRBS was passed through 3 mm or 1.5 mm mesh, this patten is not attributable to recovery bias. It should be noted that insectivores, moles (Talpidae: Scapanus latimanus) specifically, were exploited by Native Califonians (Gifford 1967). It is possible, but not probable, that the mole remains may not be simply intrve. Herman James told E. W. Gifford that the skins of moles were used by the Kashaya Pomo: The mole, ka'wa, was not eaten but the skins of albino moles were supposed to bring good luck in gambling. Ordinary mole skins were not used. The litle aimals were dug from the ground in search of albinos, the albino skins being kept in a skin bag like a quiver. Shamans, however, did not use these skins in their profession (Gifford 1967:17). 282 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Table 12.1 Identifed Mammalsfrom the Natve Alaskan Neighborhood FRBS Comon name Scientifk name Broad-Handed Mole Black-Tailed J bit Brush Rabbit Bota's Pockt Gopher Bushy-Tailed Woodrat Califonia vole Porpoise Whale Wolf Coyote Dog Dog Canid Bobcat Mountain Lion Grizzly Bear Be Sea Ote Mustelids Camivore Steler's Sea Lion Caforna Sea Lion Northen Fur Seal Eard Seals Elephant Seal Harbor Seal Earless Seal Large Seal Seals Pig Wapiti Black-Tailed Deer Cow Goat Sheep Cow/Sheep$3oat Ariodactyl Total Scapanu latianS Lepus calkfornicus Syhilagus bachmani Thmomys botae Neotomafuscipes Microlus califonicus Phocoenidae Cetacea Canis cf. lupus Cans latrans Canis cf.famifiaris Canis sp. Camidae Felis rufus Felis concolor Ursus arctos Ursus sp. Enhydra lutris Mustelidae Camnivora cf. E sjubatus Zalophus caljfornianus Callorhinus ursinus Otaridae cf. Mirounga anguairostris Phoca vitulina Phocidse Large Pismiped Susscrofa Cervus ekphus Odocleus hemionus Bos taurus Capra hircus Ovis aries Bovidae Artiodactyla NISP 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 14 1 4 3 61 0 125 1 88 1 5 116 5 2 158 41 1 22 62 9 735 MN 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 5 3 1 3 2 1 44 NAVS NISP MNI 1 1 1 1 0 0 156 7 0 0 8 2 8 2 11 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 0 0 6 1 3 1 12 2 13 2 71 6 1 1 258 3 0 0 98 4 0 0 4 1 181 2 9 2 9 1 272 6 87 4 0 0 58 5 7 1 268 2 1560 64 NISP = Number of Identified Specimens per Taxon MNI = Minimnum Number of Individuals Table 12.2 All Mammalsfrom the Native Alaskan Neighborhood Category FRBS NAVS Identfied Mammals (table 12.1) 735 1560 Lage Mammal 1390 1338 Mediwn Mammal 464 17 Small Mammal 84 6 Mammal 142 8191 Total 2815 11112 . _ __ MammalRemans 283 Gambling was popular with the various Pomo groups and is well known among Native Califonians (Barrett 1952; Kroeber 1925; LaPlace 1986[1839]; Loeb 1926). Appar- ently common at Ross, Cyrille LaPlace describes gam- bling in a vilage close to the Colony (1986[1839]:70- 71). Consequently, it would not be out of the quesion to discover mole remains in non-intrusive contexts. The conservative approach is to c der hese mole remains as intrusive, however, due to a decided lck of evidence of butchery or buring and their sparse, radom distinbu- tion. RoDmvrs Another ineestng aspect of the FRBS and NAVS mammnal assemblages is the relaively low number of supposedly intusive rodents. Rodents, intrusive or not, are typically much more common in Cafonian faunal assemblages (Basgal and Hildebrandt 1989; Bickel 1981; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983; Duque 1989; Gifford and Mashall 1984; Langenwalter et aL 1989; Schwaderer 1992; Simons 1990, 1992; White 1984). Archaeologists, especially in Califoniia, commonly assume that rodent remains recovered frm archaeologi- cal eXCcavations are generally intusive. There are many accounts, however, of Native Califorians exploiting and consuming "intrsive" rodents for a variety of purposes (Bart 1952; Gifford 1967; Kniffen 1939). Kniffen (1939), Gifford (1967), and Barrett (1952) all mention rodents as being consuned by the Pomo peoples Gifford (1967: 17) sttes Eth gophers and voles, among odters, were snared and kiled with sticks. After their backboes had been pounded, they were then cooked over coals and eaten. Baett (1952:97) also descnrbes the pounding of rodents prior to cooking ". . . so as to reduce the meat and bones more or less to a pulp." Barrett goes on to state ta animals tread in this fashion were consed completely, meat, skdn, and, bones. If bones of rodents are pounded, consumed, and then passed through the digestive system, they will be difficult to recover a l gcally. In light of the many accounts of crop destruction by mdents at Ross (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990), large numbers of rodent bones might be expected. That was simply not the case, however. Fully 87 of the 119 gopher elements recovered from unit 75S, 3E at NAVS are from one relatively recent, itusive articulated skeleton. None of te rodent bones show any sign of burming or other modificat indicative of processg or consumption by humans. These remains are most likely intrusive and not the result of exploitation for food or other purposes. LAGOMORPHS Rabbits are typically well represented in faunal assemblages ughout much of Califoniia (Basgall and Hildebrandt 1989; Bickel 1981; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1983; Duque 1989; Gifford and Marshall 1984; Langenwalter et al. 1989; Schwaderer 1992; Simons 1990; White 1984). he presence of rabbits in the Ross Region is mentioned by Khlebnikov, so they were certainly available (1976:124). I expected to find a relatively high frequency of rabbits in samples but did not in either the Beach or Vilage sites. One jackrabbit element was recovered from NAVS. One brush rabbit element was recovered from FRBS. No rabbits were found in the sample from the Mad-Shui-Nui locus of CA-SON-190 (Wake 1995). It is interesting to note that no rabbit remains were recovered from the Albion sites (CA-MEN-1704, CA-MEN-1809, CA-MEN-1844) in Mendocino County (Layton 1990). Based on these data, rabbits apparently were not a very important food resource, even prehistorically, in the castal region north of the Russian River. In contrast, cottontail rabbits (genus Sylvilagus) and jacbbits (Lepus calfornicus) were exploited widely in most areas of California for food and furs (Gifford 1967; Moratto 1984; Steward 1933). Cottontails (Sylvlagus bachmam) are well represented at Duncan's Point Cave (CA-SON-3481H), a coastal site near the mouth of the Russian River in southern Sonoma County (Schwaderer 1992). This site is considered by many to mark the border of Kashaya Pomo territory to the north and Coast Miwok territory to the south (Gifford and Kroeber 1937; Kroeber 1925; McClendon and Oswalt 1978; Stewart 1943). CMNIVORE Remains of three groups of lage canivores (bears, dogs, and cats) are present in these assemblages (see table 12.1). Although low in number, these remains are epresentative of animals th were a very real dutrat to both the colonists and livestock, especially the bears and large cats. For example, Khlebnikov (1976:118) briefly recounts what could be a somewhat apocryphal tale in the light of bull and bear fights, common in Spanish and Mexican Califoniia during this period. Dwuing Kuskov's administration one huge bull came in all covered with bood, with pieces of flesh on out, and his hn all gory, which indicated dtat he had inflicted consideable injury on his atwker. He also states a... . sometimes livestock became separatd from the herd and were killed by bears and wildcats" (Khlebnikov 1976:118). SEA OTES Much can be said about the relationship between sea oters and the Russian-American Company. It will suff'ice to say that the Company would not have existed were it not for the great demand for sea otter furs, and that sea otters would certainly have fared better if they 284 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood did not have such luxurious pelage. Su igly low numbers (n=20) of sea otter remains are found in the FRBS and NAVS assemblagesT his was quite unex- pected for a fur company tding base like Ross. Tle available hial record contains no menton of consumption of oter as food (KhlebUikov 1976,1990; Tikhmenev 1978). Ralisically his pan is probably due to the Ing of otters for their pelts at sea, or elsewhem away from Rons (Ogden 1941:97). Sea o were quickly hunted out in areas close to the Colony (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990, Ogden 1941). This fact has serious ecological implis for the Ross area and other aeas wher it took place (Sind et al. 1978). Ihe near shore environment at Roms is likely very differnt than it was when otts were prt. In San Frawis Bay, tough not at Colony Ross, sea ots were app ny a mpoant, prehistoric food resource (Broughton 1994; Simons 1992). PINNIPEDS Seals are well esented in both samples. Two species of seals p inate: the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and the Califania sea lion (Zalophus californianu). Other seal species are found in the general ara of Colony Ross. These species include the northrn elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Steler's sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and the northUn fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). None of these other seal species are found in significant numbers at Colony Ross, however, with the exception of a few Steller's sea lion elements. Seals, in general, provided a variety of usefil raw mateials for the inhabitants of Colony Ross includ- ing food, blubber, oil, furs, gut for waterpoof clodting (kamleikas), hides for sin boats (baidarkas and baidaras), bladders for floats, and bone for tool manufac- tare (Khlebxov 1976, 1990). The less diely identifible seal skeletal elements are divided into two basic groups based on their relative levels of diagnosticity. Skeletal elements identifiable only as seal were classed as pinniped. Two pinniped bones show processing marks-one dismemberment mark and one chop mark from a heavy tool. Elements idendfiable to a more d e taxonomic level, such as Family, are assigned to either the Phocidae (the earless seals) or fte Otariidae (the eared seals). The bulk of the elements assigned to these levels of identfcaton lack specific diagnstic charactisics such as phalanges, bone, and teeth of some juveniles. Six of the otariid bones show evidence of butchery. Four bones show dismembernent cuts, and two bones show chopping blows from a heavy metal bladed tool. Tables 4.3 and 4A in Wake 1995a prnt further details on the seal skeletal elements. Califoria sea lions are common off the state's coast (Ingles 1954; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Riedman 1990; Scheffer 1958). Accwding to Kirill Khlebnikov (1976:123, 1990) sea lions were the most economically important pinniped species at Ross. Sea lions provided everying from fresh, salted, and dried meat, to gut and hides, and also oils and fat. California sea lions are numerous among the discreely idendfiable pinniped ains from Colony Ross. Individual California sea lion skl-etal elements recovered from FRBS and NAVS are presented in table 12.3. Many of these sea lion elements at Ross were probably procured on the Farallon Islands (Khlebnlkov 1976, 1990; Ogden 1941; Riddell 1955). According to Khlebnlkov (1976:123): Every year up to 200 sea lions are killed for dtir hides, cal lavts, itesnes and eat and fat The lavtas ae used to make baidaias n e settlement intesns are used for maicng kamleis, [waterproof garments] and as much as 100 or 150 puds of meat is salted; in ion, the Aleuts dry some 200 or 300 chumks of it The fat is sed in small kegs and is used both as food for the Aleuts and for lighting purposes. Te butcheay patterns and element distibuons of the sea lions suggest an interesting patem. Skeletal elements from the flippers dominate the sea lion assem- blage. Other relatively numerous elements in individual sea lion skeletons, such as v ae and ribs, are underrepesented (see table 12.3 and Wake 1995a, figures 4A, 4.5). Long bone elements, shoulder girdle, and pelvic girdle elements, all associa;ted with lage volumes of usable meat, are also underepresented. Twenty-five of the 132 California sea lion elements from both sites show evidence of procsing. Butchery evidence is found on 12 of the 25 flipper elements. Thirteen of the sea lion keletl elements exhibit exclu- sively dismembering cut marks. These cut marks are associated with the articular surfaces of the proximal or distal ends of bones and their associated connective tissue. All of these cut marks were made by metal tools (Walker and Long 1977). Five of the 132 sea lion elements show evidence only of filleting, the removal of meat from the bones. These cuts, near muscle attach- ments, are relad to the removal of muscle tissue from bones. Longudinal cut marks found on shafts are also associated with filleting. Seven bones show evidence of both filleting and dismemberment Three bones, all flipper elements, sow chopping blows frm a heavy tool. This evidence suggests that at least some butcher- ing was occurring in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. Harbor seals are also well presented. In ingly, harbor seal bones are more numerous than sea lion bones in the archaeofaunal assemblages from both NAVS and FRBS. Harbr seals have a much thicker layer of blubber than California sea lions. The greater fat content of harbor seals may have made them a more desirable Mammal Remains 285 Table 12.3 Identified California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) Element occipital condyle mcisor canine premolar U12 UPm2 LPmr3 atlas axis thoracic vertebra humbar vertebra caudal vertebra P scapula D scapula, S hlumerus D hunerus D radius ulna P ulna carpal cuneiform cuboid imntermedium hmar P metaapl D metacarpal metacarpal 1 P metarpal 1 D metarpal 1 metacarpal 2 metacarpal 3 P metacapal 3 metacapal 4 sacrun iliu pubis femur D femur P tibia fibula S fibula D fibula tarsa NAVS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 FRBS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 1. 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 cont'd. Element astragalu Scalcaeus metaasal P mettarsal D s metatasal 2 P metatarsal 2 D metatrsal 2 meatarsal 4 P metatasal 4 D metatarsal 4 P metatarsal 5 phalanx 1 phalanx 1 d 1 phalanx 1 d 2 phalanx 1 d 3 phalanx 1 d 4 phalanx 1 d 5 phalanx 2 phalanx 2 d 1 phalanx 2 d 3 phalanx 2 d 5 phalanx 3 phalanx 3 d 1 rib 1 Totals: MNM: D = Distal MNI = M imum Number of Individuals P = Proximal NAVS 4 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 3 1 0 71. 6 FRBS 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 0 3 0 1 61 2 S = Shaft UI2 = Upperlncisor2 U Pm 2 = Upper Premolar 2 LPrn3 = LowerPremolar3 - . 286 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood item of prey; they were probably more readily accessible from Colony Ross as well. Today they can be seen hauled out on the sand bar at the mouth of the Russian River and on some of the rocks in Fort Ross Cove. They are generally more common in sheltred areas along the rocky outer coast (Ingles 1954; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Riedman 1990; Scheffer 1958). The harbor seal skeletal elements recovered from these two sites are presented in table 12.4. Eighteen of the 186 harbor seal bones from both sites show evidence of butchery consisting of cut marks and a chop mark produced by metal-edged tools (Walker and Long 1977). All of the butchered or processed mammal remains observed to date from Colony Ross were processed using metal tools. Ten of the harbor seal elements show dismembering marks only. Three bones show only filleting marks. Four bones exhibit both filleting and dismembering marks. One element shows a chopping blow from a relatively heavy metal bladed tool. The butchery patterns and element distributions of the harbor seals are similar to those of the sea lions, suggesting a standardized seal butchery pattern (see figure 12.1, identified seal element frequencies; Wake 1995a, figures 4.4, 4.5). As seen in the sea lions, skeletal elements from the flipper elements dominate the harbor seal assemblage. Skeletally numerous elements such as ribs are underrepresented among harbor seals, as with the a- :ft sea lions. However, harbor seal head elements, such as skull fragments, and vertebrae are more common than their sea lion counterparts. As seen in the sea lions, harbor seal long bone elements, shoulder girdle, and pelvic girdle elements, all associated with large volumes of usable meat, are underrepresented (figure 12.1). Only one fur seal element appears in either assem- blage. This is noteworthy since, like the sea otter, the Russian-American Company sought fur seals from such places as the Farallon Islands for their valuable pelts and stored them at Ross (Khlebnikov 1976:123). According to Khlebnikov (1976:123), the Farallon Islands were heavily populated with fur seals during the first decades of the 19th century. From the beginning of the occupation, that is from 1812 to 1815, over the period of six years during Kuskov's administration, 8,427 fur seals were taken there, an average of 1,200 to 1,500 each year. Later this gradually decreased, and in recent years not more than 200 to 300 pelts are taken there each year. Khlebnikov (1976:123) adds that "some of the American captains said ta prior to our occupation of those rocks, they had stopped there one fall and taken as many as 10,000 fur seals." The fur seals captured by the Com- pany were probably processed on the Farallon Islands primarily for their pelts, and perhaps for their meaL They Figure 12.1 Frequency of Pinniped Skeletal Elements in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood 50~ IV) 40 30 cmJ cmJ * FRS M*AV (0 (0-0 Skulls Teeth Vertebrac '-6 ct _ _- J C0 to (0 Ribcage Pelves Arms Legs Skeletal Element Group *1 Flippers Mammal Remains 287 Table 12.4 IdentfIed Harbor Seal (Phoca vituina) Skeletal Elementsffrom Colony Ross (NISP) Element tempora squamosal jugal basisphenoid occital condyle auditory bulla mandible P madble M mandible mwisor canine premolar molar U I 1 Uc LC L Pm LPm3 axis cervical vertebra tracic vertebra humbar vertebra sacral vertebra c al vertebra vertebra scapula P sapul humerus P humerus S humerus D humerus P radius S radius D radius ulna P ulna S ulna carpal metacarpal P metacarpal D metacarpal metacapal 1 D metacarpal 1 P metacarpal 2 NAVS 2 1 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 7 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 6 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 FRBS 0 0 1 1 2 6 0 1 1 1 4 7 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 5 2 0 0 1 confd. Element P metacarpal 3 D metacapal 4 metacapal 5 D meacarpal 5 sacrum ilium pubis femur P femur S femur patella P tibia D tibia S fibula D fibula astragalus calcansal D metatarsal metatasal 2 P metatasal 2 metatarsal 3 phalanx 1 phalanx 1 d 1 phalanx 1 d 5 phalanx 2 phalanx 3 rib rib 1 Totals: MNI: D = Distal LC = LowerCusped LPm = Lower Premolar M = Medial NAVS 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 8 7 1 98 4 FRBS 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 88 4 P = Proximal S = Shaft UI = Upperlncisor UC = UpperCusped l- - 288 The Natiw Alas Neighborhood would rot yield much fat or oiL since fur seals insulate themselves with fur, not blubber. It is possible ta dried fur seal meat frm the Farallons may have been eaten at Colony Ross. Such a practice would result in very few osous rremin at the Colony. Irestingly, the two main attributes of FRBS and NAVS marne mammal assemblages, a low number of sea ottremains and a high pecentage of seal r , co d well to faual assemblages excavated from Kodiak Island (Amorosi 1987; Clark 1974, 1985; Knecht and Jordan 1985), from Yakutat Bay (De Laguna 1972), and the Aleutan Idands (Denniston 1974; Lippold 1972). he opposite is seen in fte San Francisco Bay region, where sea ote appear to have been an mpont food resource, and seals appear much less frequently (Broughton 1994; Simons 1992). ARMODAcnaS A number of elements clearly belonging to large terrestrial mammals were recovered fom FRBS and NAVS. They compare most favorably to bones of artiodactyls but are not distinguifable beyond the family level. Therefore, the elements are assgned O the Artiodactyla. hree families of ariodactyls are repre- sented in the FRBS and NAVS assemblages pigs (Suiae), deer and elk (Cervidae), and cattle and sheep (Bovidae). For a breakdown of artiodactyl skeletal element distributions at Colony Ross, see Wake (1995a, table 4.7). The majority of the domestic animals found in these assemblages such as cattle, sheep, and pigs were origi- nally purchased by the Russians from the Spanish and bred at the Colony (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990). According to hiical ds, a substantial number of pigs were at Ross (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990), but they are not common in either mblage. Khlebnikov (1976:120) states that 115 pigs were consmed as food during the period of October 26, 1821 to November 1822. That is the gtest number consmed in a year, according to Khlebnikov's records. From 1825 to 1829 the numbers of pigs con- sumed as food was considerably lower, 11 in 1825-26, 5 in 1826-27, 17 in 1827-28, and 11 in 1828-29 (Khlebnlkov 1976:120). Te low numbers of pigs seen in these two assem- blages is aually not that surprising. Kirill Khlebnikov (1976:119), a Rssian-American Company administrato, reates t the . . . pigs which wander along the shore eat shellfsh ad their meat has a dadful ste." Tikhmenev (1978:226) also refers to the poor quality of pork products at Ross stating that "the unpleasant smell of the pork, probably caused by the sea lion meat in the pigs' diet, made it unsuitable for salting." Many of the pigs reported killed for food were used to provision ships (Khlebnlkov 1990). Khlebnikov (1976:121) mentions shipping over 100 puds a year of salt pork to Sitka during the 1820s. While on Kodiak Island, the Russian explorer Davydov (1977 [1810]:174) reported .4.... it is amazing hdat the islanders will not eat pork, on the grounds that pigs eat dirt!" A combinatio of ese factors, such as the physical removal of pigs for the provisioning of ships, taboos, and unpalbility may explain the poor representation of pigs in both assem- blages. Cattle were used as draft animals and provided tallow, hides, butter, and meat to the Colony (Khlebnikov 1976:121). Cattle were most important as a source of meat, it apas, since Khlebnikov (1976:121) refers to tallow, hides, and butter as by-products. Khlebnikov (1990) remarks a number of imes that cattk were slaughtered in order to feed workers at the Colony. Rations of beef were also distributed as payment for manual labor (Khlebnikov 1990: 146). Cyrille LaPlace (1986[1839]:68) noted that durng his visit to a local Kashaya Pomo village '4. . . some were ing out on the embers some pieces of beef given as rations..." Salted dried beef was prepared and packed as provisions for sea voyages (Khlebnikov 1990:127). Khlebnikov (1976:120) states that 13 cattle were consumed as food in 1821-22, 18 in 1825-26, 34 in 1826-27, 38 in 1827-28, and 22 in 1828-29. Catle are well represented in both amblages, in much greater numbers of identified specimens than either pigs or sheep. As far as MNI counts go, however, cattle appear to have been the second most popular domesti- cated meat source in these assemblages, after sheep. Sheep MNI's outnumber cattle at NAVS, 5 to 4. At FRBS, sheep and catlle are equal (three each). It is important to remember, however, that one cow can weigh as much as five sheep. The catle skeletal elements recovered from these two sites are presented in table 12.5. Historical records indicate hat a number of sheep were present at Colony Ross (Khlebnikov 1976:120). Sheep were important for their wool. The Colony sheared roughly SOpuds of wool a year but did not use it all (Khlebnikov 1976:122). Sheep were even more important as meat sources (Khlebnikov 1990:146). Khlebnikov (1976:120) states that a gr number of sheep were consumed as food at Colony Ross. In fact, the number of shieep consumed at the Colony i stagger- ing, especially when compared to the numbers of cate and pigs, ately or in combinaton. Accoding to Khlebnilov (1976:120) 106 sheep were consmed as food in 1821-22,305 in 1825-26, 282 in 1826-27, 340 in 1827-28, and 72 in 1828-29. Sheep are present in both assemblages, but in nowhere near the numbers that Khlebnlkov (1976:120) indicates. It may be impossible to determine exactly where the remains of the sheep Khlebnikov discusses might have gone. He (1976:121) mentions that "sheep are sold for the most part as food in exchange for money. .." However, he does not say to whom or where the Mammal Remains 289 sheep were sold. Some of them may have ended up as fresh or dried meat for ships. Sheep could also have been consumed more frequently in the Russian Village or by the inhabitants of the Stoad. They cainly are not present in the Native AlIaskan Neighborhood in the great numbers reflected in Khlebnikov's repors. Discovery of high concentrations of sheep remains may shed light on certain aspects of status or ethnic differendation at the Colony. Sheep skeletal elements recovered from FRBS and NAVS are presented in table 12.6. Native teesial game mammals such as deer and elk (Cervidae) are well represented in both samples. In fact, both MNI and NISP counts show deer (Odocoileus hemionus) to be the most impotant indigenous estial mammal species at both si.The impance of cervids, especially deer, as a food resource at Ross is documented (Khlebnikov 1990:192). For a representation of the cervid elements recovered from these two sites, refer to table 12.7 (see also Wake 1995a, figures 4.6,4.7). Both cervid species were hunted by all ethnic groups present at the Colony (Khlebnikov 1990:51). Khlebnikov (1990), in his accounts of hunting in the North Coast Ranges, mnons that"deer" and "goats" were taken by hunters armed with flindocks. Considerabb debate surrounds the actual nature of these two classes of terrestrial game mammas (Glenn Farris, personal communication, 1993). It should be noted that deer and elk were apparenty common in the North Coast Ranges during the early 19th cenary (Khlebnikov 1976, 1990). However, there is no known evidence or historical record, other than Russian, of "goats" or "mountain goats" occurring in the North Coast Ranges. It is likely that the "deer" to which Khlebnikov and his ranslators (Khlebnikov 1990) refer are in fact elk, or wapiti (Cervus Table 12.5 Identi#ed Cow (Bos taurus) Skeletal Elementsfrom Colony Ross (NISP) Element cranium fragment parietal occipital basisphenoid occipital condyle -ijim bulla maxilla P mandible tooth incisor premolar molar L Pm 1 LPm2 UM 1 LM3 axis cervical vertebra thoracic vertebra lumbar vertebra sacral vertebra vertebra sternebra P scapula M scapula D scapula P humerus S humerus D humerus D radius P ulna NAVS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 7 7 1 1 0 4 8 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 FRBS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 cont'd. Element carpal unciform scaphoid cuneiform metarpal P metacarpal D metaarpal innominate P femur S femur D femur patella P tibia S tibia D tibia naviculo-cuboid astragalus P metatarsal D metatarsal phalanx 1 phalanx 2 phalanx 3 long bone fragnent rib Totals: MNI: D = Distal LM = LowerMolar L Pm = Lower Premolar NAYS 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 0 0 2 11 2 2 8 87 4 ?FKISS 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 9 1 0 7 41 M = Medial P = Proximal S = Shaft UM = UpperMolar - - b ... .. . _. s . rA .MqPgt9n - - - - ..L 'IL -. -- . ... - 290 The Native Alaska Neighborhood elkphus). Very similr animals bo to he same genus and species (Cervus elaphus) are known as red deer in Eurpe. Moreover, the "goats" and "mountain goats" to which Khlebnlov and his tanslators (Khlebnmlkv 1976, 1990) refer ae likely black-ailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Thirty-one of the der elements from FRBS and NAVS show evidance of butchery or s . None of these cut marks appear to be the result of stone tool use, thowugh. They all appea to be made by metal cutting tools One pelvis portion shows an ax blow. Ten elements exhibit dismemberment marks only. A combi- nato of filletig and dismemberment marks are visible on five elements. Deer and elk were an impnt food thoughout Cafnia (Broughton 1994; Simons 1992). Cervids are well known for their lean meat and scarcity of fat Fats are a critical par of the human diet, however and marrow, located iy wiin long bones, is a major souwe of this in large t r mammals. One aspet of the human consmption of cervids commonly found in California and elsewhere involves thopnng of the long bones in order to extct and conse the marrow (e.g., Enloe 1993). This makes deer a s imp to the in aion of these assenblages. BURNED BONE The amount of buned bone in an archaeological site can shed light on the inteni of p ing and con- sumption of nal r at that locality. It can also provide coargrined information regading meths of processing or coking meats, as well as dispoal tech- niques, which can help establish the tmik affimity of a given aea. he FRBS faunal mblage contains exaordinarily low frequency of burnt bone, only 1.14%. The NAVS sample contains a similarly low percentage Table 12.6 Identified Sheep (Ovis aries) Skeletal Elements from Colony Ross (NISP) Element civuum occipital maxilla P mandible M mandiable D mandible tooth premolar moia UPmI UPm2 UM 1 UM2 UM3 LPm3 LM1 LM2 LM3 atlas cervical vertebra thoracic v a P scapula M scapula D humerus radius P radius P uina metacapal P metarpal NAVS 2 0 3 2 0 1 8 3 2 1 3 1 6 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 FRBS 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 cont'd. Element S metacarpal D metacarpal mnommnate ilium S femur D femur patIla P tbia D tbia calcanus P mesal D metatarsal phalanx 1 phalanx 2 phalax 3 Totals: MM: D = Distal LPm = Lower Premolar M = Medial NAVS 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 58 5 FRBS 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 22 3 P = Proximal S = Shaft U Pm = Upper Premolar UM = UppperMolar . Mammal Remains 291 Table 12.7 Black-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Skeletal Elementsfrom Colony Ross Element anter parietal temporal squamosal jugal occipital basioccipil occipital condyle auditory bulla maxilla P mandible M mandible D mandible tooth incisor premolar molar U Pm 1 U Pm 2 U Pm 3 UM 1 UM2 UM3 L Pm 1 L Pm 2 L Pm 3 LM 1 LM2 LM3 adas axis cervical vertebra thoracic vertebra lumbar verebra sacral verteba caudal vertebra vertebra rib P scapula P humerus S humerus D humerus P radius S radius D radius P ulna NAVS 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 1 3 2 5 5 15. 3 9 23 2 0 3 5 2 3 7 4 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 9 7 0 1 3 4 5 5 3 5 6 1 5 2 FRBS 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 12 3 3 16 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 I 3 1 1 1 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 8 cont'd. Element S ulna D ulna carpal unciform pisiform swaphoid cuneiform P metacarpal D metacarpal sacrum innoriate ilium ischium pubis acetabulum P fernuir S femur D femur patela P tibia S tibia D tibia naviculo-cuboid astragalus calcaneus P metatasal S metatarsal D meatarsal phalanx I1 phalanx 2 phalanx 3 Totals: MNI: D = Distal M = Medial LPm = Lower Premolar NAVS 1 1 1 1 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 2 7 2 1 3 4 1 5 4 6 1 8 3 0 6 6 1 1 1 3 13 2 272 6 FRBS 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 7 0 7 0 3 3 3 3 2 1 10 6 5 158 5 P = Proximal S = Shaft U Pm = Upper Premolar U M I = Upper Molar l 292 The Native Aaskan Neighborhood (3.03%). Burned bone, as refered to here, consists of any bone or bone agment showing signs of heating, charring, or calcination. Its presence is often assumed to reresent evidence of w or some ldnd of prepara- tion prior to pi. Burned faunal remains also could represent some kind of dispal activity. The majrity of the buned bone fagments and diagnostic eemnts are from te ial mammals. Bones were ally used as a source of fuel in Russian America (Khlebnikov 1976:123). It should be noted tha, according to Khlebnikov (1976:123), the occupants of the Farallon artel "... cook by buming sea lion bones that have been soaked im oil." Such a practice would undoubtedly result in a great deal of buned bone frmens. At Coloy Ross, however, since wood was in abundance, it is unlikely tat the inhabitants would have had to resort to such desperate measures. Such low frequencies of burned bone as seen in the faunal assem- blages from outside the St walls are not typical for Native Califomian coastal sites, however. Most other archaeolocal sites in California contain somewhere between 20 to 80 percent bured bone (Basgall and HIldebrandt 1989; Duque 1989; Langenwalter et al. 1989; White 1984). The lack of burned faunal remains at both NAVS and FRBS is interesing and problematic. The remaably low frequency of burned bone in the Neighborhood may be attributed to food preparation thniques that would not result in the charring of animal remains. The Pomo were known to construct subteranean ovens that used smooth rocks heated by fires as a heat source (Barrett 1952:61). These ovens were used to cook a variety of vegetable foods and meats. Meat cooked in such ovens, by heat-not fire, is really baked, not Baking meats, with bones in them, will not char tn like roasing can. It is quite possible that the use of earth ovens in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood not only explains the low frequency of burned and charred bones, but the considerable amount of fire-cracked rock found there as well. SPATIAL PArERNING AT THE NATIVE ALASKAN VILLAGE SIm A number of recent studies have focused on the satial ning of f al remains at aeologcal sites (Bartram et al. 1991; Binford 1978; Jones 1993; Keeley 1991; O'Connell 1987; O'Connell and Marhall 1989; O'Connell et aL 1988,,1990, 1991). Studying the spatial patniag of artifaual and ecofacual ins at archaeological sites clearly provides valuable information regarding the distribution of activities, and hence, different aspects of the inhabitants' lives across a given area (e.g., Bartram et al. 1991; Carr 1984; Gamble 1983; Hodder and Orton 1976; O'Connell et al. 1991). This section focuses on analysis of the spatial patmting of mammalian faunal remains at NAVS. The goal of studying satial paning of dietary is to better unsnd the site's overall oianization and to locate and identify specific activity aras. By observing pattens in the distribution of mammal parts or species, other potential activity areas can be identfed. Analysis of the p of faunal remains will ultimately allow inferences to be made regarding the identity of the site's inhabitants and who may have been responsible for the formation of the aolcal paters visible at NAVS. On the surface, differential distibutions of mamal remains occur at NAVS, however to detemine this requres a more detailed analysis. MAMMAL REMAINS AT NAVS In order to invetgate intra-site paeg in the use of mammals at NAVS, the four excavation areas are each ureated as an independent assenblage in the section below. All four excavation areas differ in the frequency of mammL species represented. The distribution of skeletal elements in the excavated units varies as well. Only mammal remains recovered from excavation of the trench units in 1991 and 1992 are discussed here. The keletl elements of the terrestrial mamnal rains are grouped in the following categories. The vertebrae category includes all vertebrae, cervical thorcic, lumbar, sacral, and caudal. The pelves category includes the dtee pelvic bones from both sides, the ilium, ischium, and pubis. The long bone category c sts of all the upper arm and leg bones from the juncture of the axial leton to the wrists and ankles. Tbe lower limb category includes all bones from the carpals and tasals to the distal most phalanges. The teeth category consists of all of the teeth, deciduous and pennanent. he kull category includes all skull bones and fragments. The rib cage category consists of all ribs and all senal bone elements. Ctegorization of the piniped elements follows an identical pattem, but with the addition of a flipper category. This includes all bones Erom the carpals and tarsals to the distal most phalanges. WEST CEV7RAL TRENCH The West Central Trench yielded a total of 216 bones and identifiable mammal fragments. The total of 216 mammal specimens averages 72 bones per 1 x 1 m unit, the lowest for any area of NAVS. Five (2.3%) of the 216 skeleal elements were identifiable to some taxonomic level more disete than a mammal size class. Two artiodactyl teeth, two cow teeth, and one cow metaodial were identified from the West Central Trench. Four of the five identifiable elements came from the northwesten most I x I m square, the 75S, 20W unit Compared to the other areas, the most interesting features of the mammal assemblage from the West Centl Trench are the low numbers of bones per unit, the low percentage of identifable bone, and the overall Mammal Remains 293 conditon of the bone. The faunal remains from these units are more or less randomly distributed in the topsoil and dark sandy loam. The acul physical condition of the mammal bones from the West Cental Trench is poor. The whole assemblage is highly fragmented, eroded, and generally poorly preseved. The individual bones and bone fiagments are not hard, rather they are relatively soft, flaky, spongy, and worn, thus making identification much more diffliculL Seventy-nine (36.6%) of the 216 bone specimens from the West Cental Trench are burned, in marked conust to the other areas of NAVS where burned bone is re. Most of the burned bones are fragmentary, and the individual ragments quite small. Twenty-five of the burned bone specimens were recovered from an ash lens in unit 75S, 20W. It is likely that this ash lens represents the dumping of the contents of a hearth or felace. EAST CENTRAL TRENCH The East Cental Trench yielded a total of 3,369 individual mammal bones and bone fragments. Identifi- able keletal elements numbered 608, or roughly 18% of the total number of bones recovered (table 12.8). On average, ftis trench produced 122 identifiable bones per unit. The faual remains in this excavation, however, were not evenly distributed Preservation of the faunal reman *from this trench is excellent, especially com- paed to the West Centrl Trench. The majority of the mammal remains and all classes of faunal remains in general were recovered from units 75S, OE; 75S, IE; and 75S, 2E. Faunal remains were especially dense in units 75S, 0E and 75S, IE and in the westem half of unit 75S, 2E. These remains were located in a well-defined s um roughly 10-15 cm in thickness, confined to the thee previously mentioned units. This "bone bed" statum was encountered roughly 25 cm below the present ground surface. This stratum consists of a localy dense accumulation of mollusk, echinodenn, fish, bird, and mammal remains mixed with fire-acked rock, chipped and ground stone debitage and tools, trade beads, and glass, ceramic and metal artfacts. This stratum overlies 30 to 40 cm of relatively loose fill, which caps a densely packed surface, apparently a pit feature floor. It appears that the deposi- tion of the bone bed stratum was of a relatively short duration. Based on the excellent preservation and degree of completeness of the faunal remains, the debris making up this stratum was probably quickly covered over with soil, probably on purpose, to reduce the stench of rotting flesh. The mammal remains recovered from tfiis Trench are much more numerous and diverse than those recovered from the West Central Trench and the individual skeletal elements are also much better preserved. The majority of the bone specimens are quite hard and withstand handling well. Few specimens are soft, spongy, and crumbly like the elements fom the West Cental Trench. While the condition of the individual bone specimens is quite good, the collection as a whole is highly fragmented with few whole elements. Of the 3,369 bone specimens recovered from this area, 2,761, or roughly 82% are unidentifiable, a relatively high percentage but not unusual for the Califonlian coast (Simons 1990). Ihe frequency of buned bone in this area is quite low. Just 52 elements (15%) appear burned. This is a marked contrast to the West Cental Trench, 20 m farther west, where 36% of the bones recovered are bumed in some way. The mammal assemblage from this trench is domi- nated by artiodactyls (n=271, 44.6%), followed closely by pinnipeds (n=194, 319%) (table 12.8). The identified artiodactyls are dominated by deer (Odocoileus hemionus, n=132, 62.9%), then domesticd cattle (n=35, 16.7%), followed by sheep (n=33, 15.7%). Seven (3.3%) elk elements were recovered and hee (1A%) pig elements. The deer assemblage is dominated by teeth and tooth fragments (n=38, 28.8%) (figure 12.2). The more economically significant portions of a deer are repre- sented in order by ann bones (n=22, 16.7%); leg bones (n=18, 13.6%); vertebrae (n=17, 12.9%); skull fragments (n=18, 13.6%); toes (n=10, 7.6%); and finally pelves (n=9, 6.8%). No deer ribs were identified and no complete deer long bones were recovered. Most of the proximal and distal ends of long bones that were recov- ered exhibit evidence of marrow extraction. The catde remains are dominated by vertebrae (n=12, 34.3%); followed by leg bones (n=9, 25.7%); arm bones (n=8, 22.9%); skulls (n=4, 11A%); and toe bones (n=2, 5.7%) (figure 12.2). No cattle teeffi or ribs were recovered from this excavation area, nor were any complete cattle long bones. As with deer, most of the proximal and distal ends of the long bones that were recovered exhibit evidence of marrow extraction. The sheep remains are dominated by eeh (n=18, 54.6%); followed by skulls (n=7, 21.2%); arm bones (n=4, 12.1%); leg bones (n=2, 6.1%); vertebra (n=1, 3.0%); and toe bones (n=l, 3.0%) (figure 12.2). No sheep ribs nor complete sheep long bones were recovered from this excavation area. Most of the proximal and distal ends of the long bones that were recovered also exhibit evidence of marrow extracion. The majority of the pinniped bones from this area are identifiable only as seal (Pinnipedia, n=57, 29.2%) or eared seal (Otariidae, n=82,42.1%). The identifiable pinnipeds are dominated by both Califomia sea lions (Zalophus californianus, n=26, 13.3%) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina, n=26, 13.3%o), followed by Steller's sea lion (Eunetopias jubatus, n=4, 2.1%). The element distribution for the entire East Cental Trench pinniped assemblage in descending order of importance follows (figure 12.3): flipper elements 294 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood (n=91, 47.6%); teeth (n=47, 24.6%); rib cage elements (n=21, 11.0%); long bones (n=15, 7.8%), consisting of 7 (3.7%) arns and 8 (4.2%) legs; vertebrae (n=9, 4.7%); skuils (n=5, 2.6%); and pelves (n=3, 1.6%). The harbor seal remains are relatively evenly distributed among the 8 basic skeletal element categories for pinnipeds described previously (see figure 12.3). Teeth and flipper elemnents, with 6 each (23.1%), domi- nate the harbor seal assemblage, followed by 4 arm bones (15.4%). Three ull fragments and 3 vertebrae each mke up 11.5% of the total bone count. Two leg bones rvpresent 7.8% of the total. Ribs and pelves are repre- sented by 1 element each, or 3.8% of the total. In general, the harbor seal bones are relatively evenly distributed, with 8 of the 9 element categonres repre- sente The California sea lion remains, however, are not evenly distributed at all (figure 12.3). Only 5 of the 9 element categories are represented. This pattern could be due, in part, to the relatively genealized structure of otariid teeth, which makes specific identifications difficult. Mny of the otariid teeth could belong to Califoniia sea lions. This sub-assemblage is clearly dominated by 20 flipper elements out of the 26 total bone count, or 77%. Ann and leg bones (2 each) make up 7.7% of the assemblage. The vertebrae and pelves are each reprsented by 1 element (3.8%) per category. A relatively large number of gopher (Thomomys bottae) elements was also recovered. Most of the gopher elements are the remains of one relatively recent, Table 12.8 Identzfed Mammalsfrom the Native Alaskan Village Site Common name Broad-Handed Mole Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Botta's Pocket Gopher California vole Porpoise Whale Coyote Dog Bobcat Mountain Lioni Grizzly Bear Sea Otter Mustelids Camivore Steller's Sea Lion California Sea Lion Northen Fur Seal Eared Seals Harbor Seal Large Seal Seals Pig Wapiti Black-Tailed Deer Cow Sheep Cow/Sheep/Goat Artiodactyl Total Scientific name Scapanus latimanus Lepus cal4fornicus Thomomys boetae Microtus caIqfornicus Phocoenidae Cetacea Canis latrans Canis sp. Felis rufus Felis concolor Ursus arctos Enhydra lutris Mustelidae Carmivora cf. Eumatopiasjubatus Zalophus californianus Callorhinus ursinus Otarldae Phoca vitulina Large Pinniped Pinnipedia Sus scrofa Cervus elaphus Odocoileus hemionus Bos taurus Ovis aries Bovidae Artiodactyla ECT = East Central Trench SCTrU = South Central Test Unit ST = South Trench NISP = Number of Identified Specimens per Taxon ECT NISP 0 0 119 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 1 3 3 6 4 26 1 81 26 3 54 3 7 132 35 33 0 61 608 SCTU NISP 0 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 24 3 0 6 0 0 15 8 8 1 61 143 ST NISP 1 1 27 7 4 9 0 4 1 5 1 3 0 5 8 43 0 153 69 1 121 6 2 125 41 17 6 144 804 _ - Mammal Remains 295 Intrusive individual recovered from an old, filled-in gopher unnel. Simons (1990) does not include gophers in his account of economically significant mammals recovered from the Albion sites. Carnivores are present in low numbers in this area. Six unidentified carnivores, 4 canids, 6 mustelids, and 1 ursid element were recovered from this area (see table 12.8). By far the most interesting carivore element is this ursid fragment, which is identified as the right distal humerus of a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). Based on circumferential chopping marks on the proximal portion of the disarded distal end of this element, it was prob- ably used as a source of raw matial for tool manufac- tire. This and other worked bone artifacts are discussed in chapter 11. Four porpoise vertebrae were recovered from the East Central Trench units. While few in number, their presence does indicate a potentally significant contribu- tion to the overall diet of the inhabitants of this excava- tion area and the Colony in general. Porpoises are large mammals and can provide a large amount of meat and some blubber, which was highly desiable to Native Alaskans (e.g., Hrdlicka 1944; Tikhmenev 1978). SOUTH CEPRAL TEST UNIT A total of 959 mammal bones were recovered from 110S, 11W. A fraction of the total number, 143 (15%), are identifiable (table 12.8). The mammal remains from unit 11OS, 11W are well preserved, but quite fragmented, as is usual for mammal remains from NAVS. Burned bone makes up 3.6% of the total sample. No well- defimed bone-bearing statum was encountered in this unit and the fanl remains were more or less randomly distibuted throughout the topsoil and dark sandy loam, diminishig somewhat in number in the lower rock rubble and clay levels. The mammal remains in this unit are clearly domi- nated by artiodactyls (93 elements, 65%). Deer are the most common idenfiable rtiodactyl with 15 (48A%) elements. Cattle and sheep follow with 8 (25.8%) elements each. The deer assemblage is dominated by teeth (n=6, 40.0%) and leg bones (n=5, 33.3%), though 1 vertebra (6.7%), 1 alanx (6.7%), and 2 skull fragments (13.3%) were also recovered. The sheep bones include 2 arm bones, 1 phalanx, and 5 teeth. The cattle remains consist of 3 ribs, 3 phalanges, 1 vertebra, and 1 femoral shaft The second most common mammal group fnro this unit is the pinnipeds. A total of 36 (25.2%) pinniped remains were recovered. The majority (30) are identifi- able to the Pinnipedia or Otariidae with 3 harbor seal bones, 2 California sea lions, and 1 Steller's sea lion identified to the species level. One mountain lion phalanx was recovered from this unit as well as one piece of whale bone. It should be noted that this is the only excavation area at NAVS where artiodactyls dominate the pimipeds by more than 30 percentage points (Wake 1995a,1995b, figure 6.2). SoUTH TRENCH Of the 6,567 bone specimens recovered from the south area, 5,763, or roughly 88%, are unidentifiable. This is a relatively high frequency, but again, not unusual for the Califoniian coast (Simons 1990). A total of 804 (roughly 12%) mammal elements from the South Trench are identifiable (table 12.8). The mammal remains recovered from this trench are as numerous and diverse as those recovered from the East Central Trench, and individual skeletal elements are preserved as well as the ones found there. The majority of the bone specimens are quite durable and withstand handling welL Nonethe- less, the collection as a whole is highly fragmented, which seems to be the rule for NAVS. The bulk of the famal remains were recovered from units 125S, 24W; 125S, 23W; 125S, 22W; and 125S, 21W. Preservation was quite good, with general condi- tions similar to those found in the bone bed aea of the East Central Trench (units 75S, OE; 75S, 1E; and 75S, 2E). The faunal remains were located in a well-defined stratumroughly 10-15 cm in thickness. This "bone bed" stratum is confined to units 125S, 23W; 125S, 22W; and the immediately contiguous areas of units 125S, 24W and 125S, 21W. Like the East Central Trench, it consists of a locally dense accumulation of mollusk, echinoderm, fish, bird, and mammal remains mixed with fire-cracked rock, chipped and ground stone debitage and tools, trade beads, and glass, ceramic, and metal artifacts. This stratum overlies 10 to 20 cm of relatively loose fill, which caps densely packed clay and/or decomposing bedrock. The deposition of the bone bed stratum in the South Trench was a relatively short duration event, imilar to the East Central Trench. The debris making up this stratum was quicldy covered over with soil to reduce the noxious fumes of organic decomposition. The rapid, deliberate burial of this debris contributed greatly to its excellent preservation. Only limited post-depositional disturbance is evident in the South Trench, primarily as a result of gopher (Thmormys bouae) activity. The remaining three units of this trench produced much lower numbers of faunal remains. The occurrence of burned bone in the South Trench is quite low. Just 169 (2.6%) elements appear burned which is similar to the East Central Trench's frequency of 1.5% burned bone. This is in marked contrast to the West Central Trench where 36% of the recovered bones are burned in some manner. The mammal remains from the South Trench are dominated by pinnipeds (n=395, 49.2%) (table 12.8; Wake 1995a, figures 6.1, 6.2). Artiodactyls run a relatively close second with 340 identified elements or 42.4%. Rodents follow artiodactyls with 34 (4.2%) specimens including 27 gophers (Thonwmys bouae) and 296 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Figure 12.2 Idenfied Ariodactyl Skeletl Elements from the East Central Trench cY c4 0 tD~ Skulls Te?eh Vcrndra ?ibig? Pelivcs0 0 0 Arns Legs Toes Skeletal Element Group Figure 123 Pinniped Skektal Elementsfrom the East Central Trench a AllPiniped * HarborSeal * Califoria Sea Lion Skeletal Element Group 40 30 Sm 2014 soI z 10 0 *D * cow * Ship 100 80 60 z 40 20 0 Mammal Remains 297 7 California voles (Microtus cal4ornicus). Carnivores are next with 17 specimens (2.1%), including 3 sea otters (Enhydra lutris), 5 mountain lion (Felis concolor) phalanges, and a single bobcat (Felis ros) astragalus. Cetaceans are represented by 4 porpoise bones and 9 pic of whale bone. Lagomorphs are represented by 1 jackrabbit (Lepus cal#ornicus) element, as are insecti- vores (Scapanus latimanus, n=1). The majority of the pinnipeds are ideniable only to the order (n=121, 30.9%, Pinnipedia) or family (n=153, 38.7%, Otariidae) levels. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) dominate the identifiable pinnipeds with 69 (175%) elementL Califomia sea lions (Zalophus californianus) run second with 43 (10.9%) identified elements. Steller's sea lions (Eunetopiasjubatus) are represented by 8 (2.0%) elements. The overall pinniped element breakdown in the Soutfi Trench (figure 12.4) is dominated by flipper elements (n=151, 39.6%). Teeth and tooth fragments (n=95, 24.9%) are the next most common elements and rib cage (n=46, 12.1 %) and vertebrae elements (n=41, 10.8%) are quite close in frequency. Anns (n=21, 5A%) and legs (n=14, 3.7%) are somewhat less common, while skulls (n=9, 2.4%) and pelves (n=4, 1.1%) are the least common pinniped elements encountered in this area. Unidentifiable pinniped bone makes up 2.3% (n=9) of the assemblage. Element distributions of the two main identifiable pinniped species, harbor seals and Califomia seal lions, are simila in that both are dominated by flipper ele- ments. However, the harbor seal skeletal elements are far more evenly distnbuted (figure 12A). Bones are present in 8 of the 9 element categories for harbor seals. Flipper elements represent 26.1% (n=18) of all the elements; vertebrae, 17A% (n=12); teeth, 13.1% (n=9); skull fragments and arm bones, 11.6% each (n=8 each). Ribs make up 10.2% (n=7), with legs (n=4, 5.8%) and pelves (n=3, 4.3%) being the least common. The California sea lion bones, on the other hand, are much less evenly distnbuted (figure 12A). They have bones present in only 5 of the 9 element categories. Flipper elements (n=21, 48.9%) dominate this assem- blage as well, followed by arm bones (n=9, 20.9%), vertebrae 16.3% (n=7), leg bones 11.6% (n=5), and one pelvic bone (2.3%). The identified artiodactyl assemblage in the South Trench is dominated by deer (n=125, 65.9%) (table 12.8). Cattle make up 21.6% (n=41) of the assemblage; sheep, 8.8% (n=17); and pigs only 3.1%. Te deer skeletal remains (figure 12.5) from the South Trench show a predominance of teeth and tooth hagments (n=42, 33.6%). Long bones are the next most common bones in this assemblage with arm bones (n=28) at 22.4% and leg bones (n=24) at 19.2% of the total deer bone group. Proportions of other bone groups follow: 7.2% of the assemblage are vertebrae (n=9); 5.6% are toes (n=7); 4.8% are pelvic bones (n=6); 4.0% are skull fEragments (n=5); and 3.2% are ribs (n=4). The cattle remains from the South Trench (figure 12.5) are dominated by toes (n=10, 25.6%). Whole and partial teeth fragments (n=8, 20.5%) are the next most common elements. Long bones are close behind with 6 arm (15.4%) and 4 leg (103%) elements present, along with 2 long bone shaft elements. Vertebrae and ribs are represented by 5 (12.8%) elements each. Skull hagments (n=l, 2.6%) are the least common cow element Sheep bones are present in this trench but in rela- tively low numbers. The sheep assemblage (figure 12.5) is dominated by teeth and tooth fragments (n=9, 52.8%). Vertebrae, pelves, and legs are represented by 2 (11.8%) elements each. Arm bones and skull frgments are each reprsented by 1 (5.9%) element Pigs are represented in the South Trench by 6 elements, the greatest number of pig bones from any of the NAVS excavation areas. This assemblage contains 3 arm bones, 2 teeth, and 1 phalanx. DISCUSSIoN MAMAL REMAINS The results of the study of mammal remains from in and around the Native Alaskan Neighborhood exhibit a number of interesting pattens that help elucidate the dietary practices, ethnic identity, and social hierarchy of some of the many members of Colony Ross. These faunal assemblages offer evidence of substantial culural and/or dietary exchange. Other aspects of these assem- blages, however, show a strong continuity of both traditional Alaskan and Califorian diets. The mammalian faunal assemblages from both FRBS and NAVS are highly fagmented, most likely due to trampling (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985) and manrow exuction activities (Binford 1978; Lyman 1991). Many of the fragmented mammal long bone pieces exhibit crisscrossed scratches and abrasions characteristic of trampling (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985). Several of the identifiable proximal and distal terrestrial mammal long bone elements show evidence of marrow extraction activity such as spiral fractures and opposing impact points produced by bipolar cracking of the bones through the use of the hammer and anvil technique (Binford 1978; Enloe 1993; Johnson 1983, 1985; Lyman 1991). Besides being fragmentary, many of the mammalian skeletal elements discussed here are from juveniles or for some reason are identifiable only to the Order or Family taxonomic levels. Comparisons of faunas at even the Order level at these sites can provide general information concerning the relative importance of marine versus teestial mammals in different areas of the settlement This distinction mauers since maritime peoples, Native Alaskans, were present at Ross and in close contact with peoples more accustomed to hunting terrestial game, such as the Russians and Native Californians. 298 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Seals Of al te ma goups repented, the seas show some of the most tng nn. Seals are well represented in both NAVS and FRBS mammal assemblages, with relative numbers greater than or equal to those fmm the majority of late pistoric Northn Californian coastal sites (Gifford and Marall 1984; Hildebrandt 1979, 1984; Hilebrandt and Jones 1992; Jones and Hildebrandt 1995; Langenwalter et al. 1989; Lyman 1991, 1992,1995; Schwaderer 1992; Simons 1990, 1992). ITeir frequency indas the strongly aritime resource focus of the Native Alaskan Village and fte Foat Ross Beah sites. A total of 400 seal skeletalelements were recovered from FRBS. This total includes all skeletal elements fm the site that are identified as seal or to a more discrete leveL Seals make up roughly 55% of the identified mammal remains at the Beach site (Wake 1995a, figure 4.10). From NAVS, 626 seal skeletal elements were recovered. Again, this total includes all skeletal elements identified as seal or to a more discrete level. Seals make up approximately 40% of the identified mammals at the Village site. If the numbers of seal remains from these two sites are combined, 1,026 pinnped skeletal elements are represented. Seals make up roughly 47% of the idend- fied mammals recovered from the Neighborhood, rank first in both sites sVparately and combined, and are clerly the most imporant mammalian taxon there. While the tota frequency of seal elements between these two sites differs by 14 %, the actual frequency distibution of individual skeletal elements at both locationsis vhually the same (see figure 12.1). This indicates that when seals were being used or consumed, they were tated smilarly in both areas. Flipper ele- ments make up the majority of the seal bones recovered (figure 12.1). Meatier portions of these animals (Lyman et al. 1992), such as pelves, long bones, and vartae, are poorly representd. Rib cage elements make up only about 11% of all seal remains, yet are ranked first in meat utility by Lyman et al. (1992). Vertae make up roughly 8% of the seal remains and, according to Lyman et al. (1992:531), rank third out of five classes in food utility. It should be noted that vertebrae, according to Grinnell (1901), are typically left at butchery sites. The majoity of the pinniped long bone elements recovered from these sites are complete or at least very large distal or proximal ends with much of the shaft intact. These elements miake up roughly 7% of all the seal remains and are ranked fourth in im nce by Lyman et al. (1992). The only really underrepresented elements are pelvic elements, making up 1% of the total. Pelves rank second in ovweral meat utility according to Lyman et al. (1992). The fact that flipper elements dominate these assemblages is especially interesting. Lyman et al. (1992:531) ste clely that flippers rank as fte lowest part of a seal in potental food value, based on a meat to bone ratio. With con Aon of Native Alaskan seal consumption practices, strict calorie-based inetations of skeletal ement perg may not accurately explain the distribution of animal ins observed at Colony Ross. The pa ng seen in the seal remans at both the Native Alasan Village and the Fort Ross Beach sites, especially with respect to the flipper elements, reflects butchery practices and food preferences found in many areas of coastal Alaska (Birket-Smith and De Laguna 1938:99; Boas 1921; De na 1972:396-7; Grinnell 1901; Hughes 1984; Lantis 1984; Nelson 1899:268). Seal flippers were conswned as specially prepared delicacies in parts of coastal Alaska. For examnple, Birket-Smith and De Laguna (1938:99) state that amongst te Eyak of the Copper River Delta, "seal flippers, considered the best part of the seal (emphasis mine), were never given to children . . ." Edward William Nelson (1899:268) states that "walrus flippers. . . are also among the choice bits of the Eskimo larder." The high status of seal flippers as food items among the Kwakiutl is indicated by Boas (1921:458): 1 and 2, the hind-flippers, are given to the young chiefs; 3 and 4, the fore-flippers, are given to the next ones ... (Boas 1921:458). Frederica De Laguna (1972:396-97) provides a detailed description of how Minnie Johnson, a Tlingit woman from Yakutat Bay, butchered a seal. Using an ordinay kitchen carving knife, she exte tie slit in the belly to the jumction of the hind flippes and tail, slicing dtrough the blubber to the meat The skin and fat were removed in one piece, withi te tail and four flippes attached to it since dtey had been cut through at the joints. ... When she came to the hed flippers, she used the kitchen knife again to cut them off, leaving a small hole where the fore flippers h1d been, and simply slicing off the rear portion with the hind flipps and tail . . . Although MJ threw away the flippers on this occasion because she had so much meat, she said that they were usually eaten. (De Laguna 1972:396). De Laguna (1972:397) goes on to provide a brief description of how these seal flippers were prepared and consumed. Four hind flippers, stfill in their skins, were set in a roasting pan in the oven. The others she had thown away beause she had no time to bother with thm and the were too many blowflies on the front flippers. 'You peel them after you cook them. Taste like pigs' feet But I promised I'd cook my grnddaughs a good dinner. They don't like seal meat' (De Laguna 1972:397). Mammal Remains 299 Figure 12.4 Pinniped Skeletal Eknwntsfrom the South Trench U, * AllPin*peds 0 Harbor Seal C Sea Lions to qt Xv v- l; Met Tecth0 Vertebrae Ribcage Pelves Arms Legs Flippers Skeletal Element Group Figure 12.5 Identified Artiodactyl Skeletal Elementsfrom the South Trench cm co 0M U_ Skulls 0 O o~~~~~c C CM TcdAh Vertebrae Ribcag? PcBv es Arms cs Legs 0 Toes0 Skeletal Element Group I- U z U, CD 40 - hi D U 30 - 20 - 10 - 0- * ow * Sheep K- Al I cs- 300 The Natve Alaskan Neighborhood George B. Grinnell (1901:160) was silarly impressed with the contribution of seal meat to the diet and espe cially with the importance of flippers. .... There are flippers, sides of ribs, strips of blubber and braided seal intesnes. All of thee dings are eaten; and, in fact, dwing this fishng the Inians must subsist chiefly on the flesh of the seaL The fppers appear to be regarded as especially choice. We saw many women roasting dtem ova the fire. After they were cooked the women puIed dm out of the ashes, and heating an iron in the fir singed the hair which remaied on the skin and thn tore the flippers to pieces and picked the meat from the bones (Grinnell 1901:160). This iformation provides iight on two important points regarding the Colony Ross seal assemblages. First of all, seal flippers were remained when seals were butchered and perhaps preserved, despite their low meat utility (Lyman et al. 1992). The flippers were 4"cut off at the joint." These joints are most likely the radio-ulno- navicular articulation (the wrist) and the tibio-astragalar articulation (the ankle). This prctice helps explain the preponderane of seal flipper elements, from the astraga- lus to the terminal phalanges, in the Ross seal assem- blagesv Secondly, the flippers, fore and hind, were eaten and often teated as a delicacy. Children aently did not like them, or could not appreciate them (Birket-Smith and De Laguna 1938:99; De Laguna 1972:396-7; Grinnell 1901). This consumption practice, possibly the primary motivation to bring seal fippers to Colony Ross, also helps explain the grat numbers of seal eements at these sites. With the euhnographic record in mind, it would appr that Lyman et al. (1992) do not take into account potenial cultwally directed motives for consumption of low utlity seal parts in their alysis. Seals are clearly the most impoant mammal group in the Native Alaskan Neighborhod. This sets the Neighborhood apart from the rest of the Colony, since they do not appear to be a very impant resource elsewhere at Colony Ross (see Wake 1995 for a fuller discussion of other areas at Ross). Ardodactyls: Deer A com of the deer element distibutions in the Neighborhood also shows some very inteesting pans (figures 12.2, 1Z5). Deer were an imporant part of the diet in the Neighborhood. They rank second in impor- tance only to seals. Possibly these deer were brought to the site by Native Californian extended family members or were hunted by Native Alaskan men. The deer element distributions at the Village site and Beach site vary only slighdy. Differential preservation could possibly explain this pattern, accounting for the slightly greater number of denser elements at the Beach site. However, no portion of the deer skeleton appears to be missing from any assemblage. Differential preservation of deer and seal skeletal elements based on their bulk densities at these two sites is not indicated (Kreutzer 1992; Lyman 1984; Lyman et al. 1992). Hence, the differences in element distributions seen in the dee rains probably are not due to differen- tial preservation. Both the deer and seal bones have aparenty been subjected to roughly the same deposi- tional processes at both FRBS and NAVS. The pattern- ing observed in the mama remains from these two localities suggests that the Fort Ross Beach Site served as a dumping locus for the Native Alaskan Village atop the bluff. A number of the deer bones show evidence of butchery in the form of cut marks and ax blows. No readily discerible stone tool cut marks were visible on any of the butchered bones. The deer appear to have been butchered using metal tools. These cut marks are very precise, steep sided, and show few multiple striae per mared area of bone (Walker and Long 1977). The ax blows are steep sided and relatively wide, much wider, for example, than cleaver blows (Langenwalter 1987). This evidence e Russian temporal context of the NAVS and FRBS archaeological deposits. Artodactyls: Domesticated Mammals The domest d mammals present at Ross (horses, pigs, sheep, and cattle) represent Euopean influence on the diets of the Native American inhabitants of the Colony. Domestcated mamms, cially cattle and secondarily sheep, played an important role in the diets of the Native American inhabitants of Colony Ross (table 12.1). Thlis is clearly reflected in the histoical record (Gibson 1969, 1976; Khlebnikov 1976, 1990; LaPlace 1986[1839]; Tikhmenev 1978) and the zooarchaeological data. It is likely that both the Native Alaskans and the local Native Califorians adopted Eopean foods since domestic mammal bones are present in the archaeological assemblage. Interestingly, pigs were apparently not exploited to any meaningful degree by the Native American ihabit- ants of Colony Ross (table 12.1). This may be due to taditional belief systems of the Native Americans (Davydov 1977[1810]) or simply to the poor quality of the Ross pig meat (Khlebnikov 1976; Tikhmenev 1978). Large numnbers of domestic mammals were raised at Ross (Khlebnikov 1976). Khlebniov (1976) mentions great numbers of cattle, sheep, and pigs being killed for food there, at lest some of ese anm l isted as klHled for food may have ended up on hipsstping at Ross for provisions. As with the deer, the domesc mammals at Ross were pently butchered primarily with metal tools. While the zooarchaeological data show that domestic mammals were important to the diverse Native American inhabitants of Colony Ross, they appear to be more important to the European inhabitants of the Stockade Mammal Remains 301 complex, as would be expected (e.g. Gibson 1969, 1976; Hoover 1985, 1992; Hoover and Costello 1985; see also Wake 1995a for comparison of the Native Alaskan Neighborhood to the Stockade complex). Faunal remains from the yet to be excavated Russian Village houses outside the Stockade walls could shed a great deal of light on the utiliion and distribution of domestic mammals as food at Ross. MARROW ErAC.770N Many of the terrestial mammal long bone elements from all three areas of Colony Ross discussed here exhibit characteristics commonly associated with marrow extaction such as spiral fracturing and well-defined impact zones at their distal and proximal ends exhibiting focused conchoidal fractures (Binford 1978, 1981; Enloe 1993; Johnson 1985; Lyman 1991). None of the maine mammal skeletal elements show any evidence of marrow extaction activity whatsoever. That the marine mammal bones show no evidence of marrow extration is not surpising, since seal bones do not have medullary cavities that yield the kind of marrow ative to humans (Lyman 1991; Lyman et al. 1992). The marrow cavities of marine mammals are filled with bony cancel- Ious tissue. Its presence provides support for bones and keeps them from collapsing under the tremendous pressures exerted on mammal bodies during dives to great depths (Riedman 1990). The extraction of marrow was a common practice, however, among the majority of non-maritime Native Californians, such as the Kashaya Pomo, who depended on relatively large trrestrial mammals such as deer and elk for their protein. The majority of terrestrial wild and domestic herbivore long bones from both the Native Alaskan Neighborhood sites show evidence of proximal or disl impact points and flake scars. These bones exhibit morphologies indicating purposeful, high velocity impact consistent with the bone breakage paerns observed ethnographicaly and experimentally during manow extracion activity (Binford 1978, 1981; Johnson 1983, 1985; Lyman 1991). Furhermore, the characteris- tics of these broken bones resemble what Enloe (1993) refers to as an immediat consumption pattem, as opposed to a mass-processing pattern. This evidence of marrow extraction is likely the result of the continuing taditional Native Califomian practice or learned behavior of Native Alaskan hunters. At any rate, the facts that (1) "Califorian" marrow exuaction was occurring in an "Alaskan" habitation area, and that (2) deer appear to be an important food resource are strong indicators of the interaction between these two different Native American cultres. The practice of cracking open terrestrial mammal long bones, a poten- tially new and important food resource to Native Alas- kans, makes good nutrtional sense. DIscussIoN OF SPATIAL PATrERNING A number of intriguing distributional pattens of faunal remains are seen at NAVS. Analysis of the spatial patterning of these faunal remains leads to a number of conclusions regarding the processing and consumption of mammials across the site. The West Central Trench is clearly much different than the rest of the site. Intensive deposition of domestic tash did not occur in this area. The relative bone densities per unit here are much lower than at any other excavated area on the site, and the preservation of the bones is poor. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the West Central Trench is the high degree of burning (36%), much higher than any other excavated area of NAVS. It would seem that this aea was outside the more intensively udlized living areas of NAVS, and that more burning of trash or deposition of burned matials occurre here. The East Cental and South trenches and the South Central Test Unit are similar in that they all have high densities of well-preserved mammal bone per unit and have low (not greater an 3.6%) frequencies of burned bone. All of these areas have considerable amounts of both pinniped and artiodactyl skeletal remains, unlike the West Cental Trench which has primarily artiodactyl remains. The South Central Test Unit is set apart from the East Central and South trenches in that artiodactyl remains dominate all other mammal groups by more than 25 percent, a pattern repeated nowhere else (Wake 1995a, figus 6.1, 6.2). Perhaps the most important aspect separating the South Central Test Unit from the East Cental and South trenches is the absence of a discrete "bone bed" stratum. The faunal remains recovered from the South Central Test Unit appear to be randomly distributed in the soil column and not to be a part of any discrete dumping event. EAST CENTRAL AND SourH TRENCHES: SEMLARrrIES The mammal assemblages from the East Cental and South trenches share a number of slarities (figures 12.2-12.5). Both of these areas have diverse archaeofaunas for Colony Ross. The majority of the mammal skeletal elements in each assemblage were recovered from discrete concentrations of midden material, or bone beds. Both of these areas have low fequencies of burned bone; 1.5% in the East Central Trench and 2.6 % in the South Trench. Carnivores are present in each area, but only in relatively low numbers. Pigs are also present in both areas in relatively low numbers. The actual distributions of skeletal elements for the dominant identified species are quite similar between these two areas. The deer skeletal element distibutions, in particular, are remarkably similar (figures 12.2 and 12.5). Both assemblages are dominated by teeth and 302 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood tooth fagments (33.6% S, 28.8% EC), followed closely by arm bones (22.4% S, 16.7% EC) and leg bones (19A% S, 13.6% EC). Vertebrae, pelves, and skull fragents are all less common in each of these assem- blages. The distributions of the pinniped elements found in the East Centrl and South trenches also closely resemble each other (Wake 1995a, figures 12.3, 12.4). Both assemblages have elements present in all 8 of the previously described categories. Flipper elements dominate both pin ed mblages (39.6% S, 47.6% EC). Teeth and tooth fragments make up roughly a quarter of each asemblage (24.9% S, 24.6% EC). Rib bones are the next most common elemnts (12.1% S, 11.0% EC). The long bones, verbrae, pelves, and skll fragments are all less common in each assemblage. The element distributions of the two main identified species of pinnipeds, the harbor seal and fte Califomia sea lion, differ in the same way in these two areas. In general, harbor seal skeletal elements are more evenly distributed, with bones from every part of the skelton well rre Sea lions, on the other hand, appear to be more restricted in their element distibutions. In distibutions frm each wea, only 5 of the 8 element categoris are represented in the sea lion bone assem- blage. Flipper elements make up roughly 50% or more of the sea lion elements in each assemblage. EAs CENTRAL AND SourH TRENC S: DIFFERENCES Keeping the above similaities in mind, these two areas differ in a number of impnt ways. One of the more obvius differences has to do with the frequencies of the dominant mammal groups between the East Central and South trenches (Wake 1995a, figures 6.1, 62). he South Trench is dminatd by pinnipeds (493%), wi atiodactyls mnning a reladvely close second, representing 42.4% of the total assemblage. The opposite is seen in the East Cental Trench, which is dominated by artiodactyls (44.6%), with pinnipeds running second, making up 31.9% of the totl assem- blage. The distribution of cattle remains differs notieably between the East Central and South trenches (figures 122 and 12.5). Higher utility (Binford 1981) skeletal elemets are much more common in the East Cental Trench. Utiity-based intpretations might lead to the conclusion that the occupants of the East Central Trench, in respect to cattle, were of higher status than their coun ts in the South Trench, sic they consumed meatier paru of the animal. These differences could also reflect der ethnic prferences, and not simply status- based differendation. Other notable differences between these two areas include the distribution of elk and whale remains. While low in overall number, the distributions of these two taxa provide itional insight into the oveall spatial pattem- ing of certain broad mamma groups at NAVS. One whale element was recovered from the Souti Cental Test Unit and one from the East Cental Trench. The majority of non-workd identifiable whale remains are from the South Trench (n=9). Occupants of the South Trench appear to have consumed more whale than the inhabitants of the East Cental Trench did. The majority of the elk remains recovered at NAVS are from the East Central Trench (n=7). Only two elk elements were recovered from the South Trench, a tooth and a worked antler baton. Most of the identified elk emains from the Eaus Cental Trench are food remains (n=5). The hee antler s s (2 from the East Cental Trench and 1 from the South Trench) all show evidence of use as sources of raw matial, indicated by numerous chop blows and cut marks on many of the artifacts' surfaces. The inhabitants of the East Central Trench appea to have emphasized elk antler tool production much more than their count ts in the South Trench. Tbey also appear to have consumed more elk in the East Central Trench in general. The distribution of the large carnivore remains is also intresting. One gdzzly bear humerus was recov- ered from the East Central Trench, and one grizzly bear radius was recovered from the South Trench. Both grizzly bear elements recovered from NAVS exhubit evidence of use as sources of raw mateial and were worked in similar fashions. The mountain lion and half of the bobcat remains were recovered from the South Trench. The hunting of, or access to, large t al carnivores may have been more strongly emphasized by fte inhabitants of the South Trench. In geneal, it appears that he occupants of the East Central Trench placed greater emphasis on te ial mammals, espcially artodactyls, while still consuming a consderable amount of marine mammals. The inhabit- ants of the South Trench appear to have emphasized marine mammals, including whales, more than their neighbors to the north and east did. They still consmed a considerable amount of terestrial mam s, specifi- cally artodactyls. One should remember, however, that the atual distribudon of the skeletal elements of both the artiodtyls, with the exception of cattle, and the pinni- peds is quite silmilar between the two largest excavation areas (Wake 1995a; figures 12.2-12.5). CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the mammal remains from Ross provides insight into aspects of life at the Colony that are poorly documented or not included at all in the historical record. Some of the dietary preferences of the Colony's inhabit- ants arereferred to in passing by Khlebnikov (1976, 1990) and others (Essig 1933; LaPlace 1986[1839]; Odgen 1933, 1941). Little, however, was known about Mammal Remains 303 the level of dietary conservatism and accommodation of the various ethnic groups present at Ross. Dietary conservatism and acculturation reflect one measure of culture change at Ross. Infonnation regarding what was actually consumed as food and how it was treated is available only in the archaeological record. Analysis of the mmal remains from all examined areas of the Colony has identified specific, conservative ethnic dietary patterns, such as continued consumption of seal flippers in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood. New dietay patens directly related to multicultual colonial life are also evident, such as the combined focus on large wild and domestic terial and marine mammals, and the use of metal butchery tools to process them. Certain aspects of the diets of the people who lived in the Neighborhood appear to be quite conservative. These conservative aspects can help distinguish the edmicities of the inhabitants of various areas of the Colony (e.g., Hesse 1986; McKee 1987; Sanders 1980). The similar skletal element distributions and emphasis on flipper elements in both Neighborhood assemblages i-dicate a stanardized approach to the butchery and consumption of marine mammals by the Native Alaskans at Ross (Wake 1995a, 1995b). The continued consump- tion of maine mammals by Native Alaskans reflects their desire to maintain traditional dietary habits by consuming familiar food resources available along the Califomia coast Deer are an important part of the diet in the Native Alaskan Neighborhood, second only to pinnipeds. Also, tpically Californian marrow extraction practices are strongly indicated in the deer remains (Binford 1978, 1981; Lyman 1991). The dominance of deer amongst the terrestrial mammal remains in the Neighborhood, and the evidence of marrow extraction in all the land mammals, reflects dietary conservatism by Native Californians. For the most part, the distribution of mammal remains at NAVS is similar throughout the site. The West Central Trench has a high (36%) frequency of burned bone, the highest frequency yet seen at Ross. Skeletal elements of the dominant mammal groups at NAVS, the pinnipeds and todactyls, are distributed similarly in the main excavation areas. Both areas emphasize native terrestial herbivores (deer) and have lower numbers of domestic livestocL The East Cental Trench has a greater frequency of terrestrial herbivores and mammals in general than does the South Trench. In contrast, the South Trench has a greater frequency of pinnipeds than the East Centrl Trench and also has a great deal more whale bone than any other area at Ross. The occupants of the East Cental Trench empha- sized consumption of terstrial herbivores, while exploiting a considerable number of marine mammals, specifically pinnipeds. South Trench inhabitants placed greater emphasis on marine mammals, especially pinnipeds and whales, while consuming a considerable number of te ial herbivores. The whale bone at NAVS probably derives from at least one animal report- edly captured and consumed at Colony Ross (Khlebnikov 1990). It is possible, however, that the NAVS whale bone could have been gleaned from dead whales which regularly wash ashore in California. Based on the skeletl element distibution pans, the inhabitants of these two main areas procssed both marine mammals and terestial herbivores in very similar ways. Both the Native Californians and the Native Alaskans appear to have adopted some European dietary practices, as represented by caule and sheep (Wake 1995a, figure 4.20). However, there is no evi- dence of a strong shift towards European foods to the exclusion of more taditional Native Americ mammal foods in the faumn remains. Both Native Amerian groups definitely continued to consume familiar and locally available foods. The Native Alaskan Neighborhood provides archaeo- logical confirmation of the historical record, insofar as the record goes. There is much about life in the Neigh- borhood, and Ross in geneal, that was not recorded in the historical record. A much more complete interpreta- tion of the daily lives of Neighborhood residents is available from the archaeological record han was ever written by the Rusia n historianS or other visitors to Ross. REFERENCES Amorosi Thomas 1987 The Karluk and Uyak Bay Archaeofaunas: An Approach towards the Paleoeconomy of Kodiak Islad, Alaska Paper presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto. Barreut Samuel A. 1952 Material Aspects of Pomo Culture, Parts 1 and 2. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee 20(1,2): 1-508. Bartramn, Laurence E., Ellen M. KrolL and Henry T. Bum 1991 Variability in Canp Structue and Bone Food Refuse Patring at Kua San Hunter-Gathere Camps. In The Interpretation ofArchaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 77-148. Plenwn Press, New York. BasgalL Mark E., and William R. Hildebrandt 1989 Prehistory of the Sacramento River Canyon, Shasta County, California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 9. Bickel, Polly McW. 1981 San Francisco Bay Archaeology: Sites AL4-328, ALA-13, and ALA-12. Contributions of the University of Califoria Archaeological Research Facility, No. 43. Berkeley. Binford, Lewis R. 1978 Nunazmait Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 304 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood 1981 Bones: Anient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York Birket-Smith, Kaj, and F ica D Lgma 1938 The Eyaklndiaws of the Copper River Deka, Alaska. Levin & Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Boas, Franz 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Burau of Amican Ethnogy, 35thAnnual Report, Vol. 1, 1913-14. US. Govanment Printing Office, Washington D.C. Broughton, Jack M. 1994 les in Mammalim Foraging Efficiency duing the Late Hoocene, San Franisco Bay, Califoria. Journal ofAnthrpologicalArchaeology 13(3) 371-401. Carr, Christapher 1984 The Natur of Orgaiz of Irsite Archaeologi- cal Records and Spatal Analytic Approaches to their Investigation. In Advanes in Archaeological Methd and Theory, Vol. 7, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 103-221. Academic Press, New York. Chrtkoff, Joseph L, and Keny K. Chartkoff 1983 Excavations at the Patrick Site (4-Butte-i). In The Archaeology of Two Nortern Calfornia Sites, edited by Emestine S. Elster, pp. 1-52. Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 22. University of California, Los Angeles. Clark, Donald W. 1974 Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological Investigatios at L Prehistoric Sites on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Tubinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, Band 1. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. 1985 Archaeological Test at the Three Saints Bay Colony, Alaska. HistoricalArchaeology 19(2):114-21. Crabtree, Pan J. 1990 Zorchaeology and Complex Societies: Sone Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethniity. IMrchaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 155-205. University of Arizona Press. Crader, Diana C. 1984 The Zooachaeology of the Storehouse and the Dry Well at Monticel. AmericanAntiquity 49(3):542-57. 1990a Fanal Remains from Slave Quarter Sites at Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia. Archaeozoologia 3(1,2):229-36. 1990b Slave Diet at Monticelo. AmericanAntiquity 55(4):690-717. Davydov, Grigorni . 1977 [1810] Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802-1807. Traslated by Colin Beane, odited by Richard A. Piere. Mateials for the Stdy of Alaskan History, No. 10. Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska. De Blase, A., and R. E Martin 1974 A Manual of Mammalogy. W. C. Brown, Co., Dubuque, Iowa. De Laguma Fredeica 1972 Under Mowat Saint Elias: The Histoy and Culte of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smit Contrbuto to Andtopology Vol. 7, Pat 1. Smitonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Demisto G. B. 1974 Te Diet of the Ancient Ihbitants of Ashisi Point, an Akut COmmunity. Arctic Anthopology 11(supplement):143-51. Duque, Mrcedes 1989 Analysis of Famal Rmains fom the Tbree Springs VaDly. InArchaeology of h Thme Springs Vally, Calfornia A Study of Functional Cultural History, edited by Brian D. Dillon and Matthew A. Boxt, pp. 102-21. Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 30. University of Califomia, Los Angeles. Enloe, Janms G. 1993 E haeolgy of Marrow Cracking: Implica- tions for the Recognition of Prehistoric Subsistee Ornizi. In From Bones to Behavior: Etnwachaeological and Eqeimental Contributons to the Interpretatio of Faunal Remaiss, edited by Jean Hudson, p. 82-100. Cener for Araeological Investiga- tions, Occasioal Paper No. 21. Southern Illinois University at Cabondale. Essig, E. 0. 1933 The Russian Settlment at Ross. California Historical Society, Special Publication no. 7, San Fran- cisco. Fedorova, Svetlana G. 1973 The Russian Population in Alaska and Cafifoia in the L 18th Century - 1867. Translated by Richard A. Pier and Alton S. Donnelly. Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska. Frierman, Jay D. 1992 The Pastoral Period in Los Angeles: Life on the Ranchos and in the Pueblo, 1800-1850. In Historical Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century California, edited by Jay D. Frieman and Roberta S. Greemwood, pp. 1-52. William Andrews Clak Memorial Library, University of Califoria, Los Angeles. Gamble, Lymn 1983 The Organizatin of Artifacts, Featues, and Activities at Pitas Point A Coastal Clunash Village. Journal of Caliornia and Great Basin Anthropology 5:103-129. Gibson, James R. 1969 Feeding the Russian Fur Trade: Provisionent of the Okhatsk Seaboard and the Kamchatka Peinula, 1639-1856. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply of RussianAmerica, 1784-1867. Oxford University Press, New York. Mammal Remains 305 Gifford, Diane P., and Francane Marshall 1984 Analysis of theArchaeological Assemblage from CA- SCR-35, Santa Cruz County, Cafornia. Archives of California Prehistory, No. 2. Coyote Press, Salinas, Califoma. Gifford, Edward Wmslow 1967 Ethmographic Notes on the Southwesten Pomo. Anthopological Records 25. Gifford, Edward Wmslow, and Alfred L Kroeber 1937. Culte Element Distributions: IV Pomo. Univer- sity of Califonia Publications inArchaeology and Ethology 37(4):117-254. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Danrosch, Debra R. Damrsch, John Pryor, and Robert L ThImen 1985 The Third Dimnension in Site Structure An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. Ameri- can Antiquity 50(4): 803-18. Gilbert, B. Miles 1980 Mamnalian Osteology. Modemr Priming Company, Laraie Wyoming. Grayson, Donald K 1984 Quaitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analy- sis ofArchaeological Faunas. Acadenic Press, New YorkL Grinell, George B. 1901 Natives of the Alaska Coast Region. In Harrim Alaska E dition, Vol. 1:137-83. New York. Gust, Sheffry M. 1983 Problems and Prospects in Nineteenth Century Califoria Zooarchaeology. In Forgotten Places and Things: Archaeological Perspectes onAmerican History, edited by A. Ward, pp. 341.48. Center for Andtopological Studies, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Hall, E. Raymond 1981 The Mammals ofNorth America. 2nd Edition, 2 vols. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Heize, Robert F. 1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. University of California Anthropological Records 17(1t.i-vn,1-199. Hesse, Brian 1986 Animal Use atTel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Buletin oftheAmerican School of Oriental Research 264:17-27. Hildebrand, Milton 1955 Skeletal Differences between Deer, Sheep, and Goats. California Fish and Game 41(4):32746. Hildebrandt, William R. 1979 Vetebrate Faumal Analysis. In Report of the Archaeological Investigatin of Shelter Cove, edited by Valerie A. Levulet, p. 212-42. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, North Coast Region, Eureka, Califomnia. 1984 Late Prid Hunting Adaptations o the North Coast of Califoria. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 6(2):189-206. Hildebrandt, William R., and Terry L Jones. 1992 Evolution of Maine Mammal Hunting: A View from the California and Oregon Coasts. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 11:360-401. Hil John Eric 1937 Morphology of the Pocket Gopher. Mamnmalian Ges Thomonys. University of California Publications in Zoology 42(2):81-172. Hillson, Simo 1992 Mamnmal Bone and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methds of ldentification. Institute of Archaeology, London, England. Hodder, In, and Clive Orton 1976 Sptial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hooper, Emmet T., and B. S. Hart 1962 A Synopsis of Recent North American Microtene Rodents. Miscelaneous Publications of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 120:.1-68. Hoover, Robet L. 1985 The Archaeology of Spanish Sites in Califonia. In Comparative Studies ofthe Archaeology of Conalismn, edited by Stephen L Dyson, pp. 93-114. BAR Intera- tional Series 233. B.A.R., Oxford. 1992 Somne Models for Spanish Colonial Archaeology in Califo Historical Archaeology 26(1):37-44. Hoover, Robert L, and Julia G. Cosello (editors) 1985 Eavations at Mission SanAntonio, 1976-1978. University of California, Los Angeles Istitte of Archae- ology, Monograph No. 26. Hrdlicka, Ales 1944 The Anthropology ofKodiakIsland. The Wistar Institute of Anatomy amd Biology, Philadelphia. Hughes, Charles C. 1984 Saint Lawrence Island Eskimo. In Arctic, edited by David Damas, pp. 262-77. H o of North American Indians, VoL 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smtsnpian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Ijzereef F. Gerard 1989 Social Differentiation from Animal Bone Studies. In Diet and Crafts in Towns, edited by Dale Serjeantson and Tony Waldon pp. 41-54. BAR Itnaonal Series 199. B.A.R, Oxford. Ingles, Uoyd Glenn 1954 Mammals of California and its Coastal Waters. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Istomen, Alexi A. 1992 The Indians at the Ross Settlement; According to the 306 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood Censuses by Kuskov, 1820-1821. Fort Ross lntrpretive Association, Jene, Caiforia. Jkson, Robrt 1983 Intemarriage at Fort Ross: Evidenc from ithe San Rafal Mssion Bdpsmal Regist. Journal of California and Great BassinAnthropology 5:240-41. Jameson, E. W., Jr., and Hans J. Peetes 1988 California Mnmals. Califomia Natral History Guides: 52. University of Califomia Press, Bakeley. Johnson, Eileen 1983 A Framework for Interpretaion in Bone Technology. In Canivoe, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, edited by Genevieve M. LeMoine and A. Scott MwFachern, pp. 55-93. Proceed- ings of the Fifteenth Anmual Chacmool Conference. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. 1985 Curent Developments in Bone Technology. In Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Micael B. Schiffer, pp.157-235. Academic Press, New York. Jofley, Robert L 1983 North Americ H ic Sites Zooarchaeology. HistoricalArchaeology 17(2):64-79. Jones, Kevin T. 1993 The Archaeological Structue of a Short-Term Canp. In From Bones to Behavior: Ethnorchaeological and Experimnal Contribution to the Intrpretation of Fanal Remains, edited by Jean Hudson, pp. 101-14. Cente for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 21, Souten Minois University at Carbondale. Jones, Terry L, and Wlliam R. Hildebrandt 1995 Reasserting a Prehistoric Tragedy of the Commons: Reply to Lyman. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 14(1):78-98 Kasper, Jan C. 1980 Skeltal Identification of California Sea Lions and Harbor SealsforArchaeologists. Etnic Technology Notes, No. 17. San Diego Museum of Mm, San Diego, California. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1991 Tool Use and Spatial Patering: Complications and Soluticon In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Paterning, edited by Ellen M. KroU and T. Douglas Price, pp. 257-68. Plenwm Press, New York. Khlebikov, Kyrill T. 1976 ColonialRussianAmerica: Kyrill T. Khlbnikov's Reports, 1817-1832, translued and edited by Basil Dmytryshyn and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan. Oregon Historical Society, Pordand. 1990 The Kleikov Archive. UnpublhedJournal (1800- 1837) and Travel Notes (1820, 1822, and 1824). The Rasnuson Library Historical Translation Series, Vol. 5, edited by Leonard Shur, translated by J. Bisk. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Klein, Richard G., and Kathyn Cruz-Uribe 1984 TheAnalysis ofAninal BonesfromArchaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Knecht, Richard A., and Richard H. Jordan 1985 Nunakakhnak: An Histoic Period Koniag Village in Karluk, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(2):17-35. Kniffen, Fred B. 1939. Pomo Geography. University of Calfornia Pub lications nArchaeology and Ethnology 36(6):353-400. Kreutzer, Lee Am 1992 Bison and Deer Bone Mineral Densities: Conmpi- sons and Implicatios for the Interpretaton of Archaeo- logical Faunas. Journal ofArchaeological Science 19:271- 94. Kroebe:r, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Edmology Bulletin 78. Langenwalter, Paul E. 1980 The Archaeology of 19th Centwy Subsistence at the Lower China Store, Madera County, Calif In Archaological -Perspectives of Ethnicity inAAmerica, edited by Robert L Shuyler, pp. 102-12. Baywood Publishing Company, New York. 1987 Maumls and Reptiles as Food and Medicine in Riverside's Chintwn. In Wong HoLeun: AnAmerican Chinaown, Vol. 2: Archaeology, pp. 53-106. The Great Basin Foundation, San Diego. Langenwalter, Pal E., ad Larry W. McKee 1985 Vertebrate Faunal Rans. In Excaations at Mission SanAntonio, 1976-1978, edited by Robert L Hoover and Julia G. Costello, pp. 146-51. University of Califoria, Los Angeles. Instute of Archaeology, Monograph No. 26. Langenwalter, Paul E., H, Richard L. Reynolds, Brenda Bowser, and Richard W. Huddleston. 1989 Vtbrate Animal Remains from CA-MNT-108, An Early Peiod Archaological Site on the Monteey Peninsula, California. In Archaeological Exavations at CA -MNT-108, at Fishermans Wharf, Monterey, Monterey County, Calfornia, edited by Gary S. Breschini and Trudy Haversat, Appedix 1, pp. 97-126. Archives of California Prehistory, No. 29. Coyote Press, Salinas, Califoria. Lantis, Margaet 1984 Aleut. In Arctic, edited by David Damas, pp. 161- 84. Handbook of North Ameican hidians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smidtsonian lIstitution Press, Washington D.C. LaPlace, Cyrille 1986[1839] Description of a Visit to an Indian Village Adjacent to Fort Ross by Cyrille La Place, 1839 (translated by Glenn J. Farris). In Cultural Resource Swvey at the Fort Ross Campground, Sonoma County, California, edited by Glenn J. Farris, pp. 66-81. Report on file at the Mammal Remins 307 Califonia Departnent of Parks and Recreation Archaeol- ogy Laboratory, West Sacramento, Califomia. Lawrence, Barbara 1951 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Deer, Pronghom, and Sheep-Goat, With Notes on Bos and Bison. Papers of the Peabody Musenum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 35(32):9-43. Laytomn Thomas N. 1990 Western Pomo Prehistory: Excavations atAlbion Head, Nightbirds' Retreat and Three Chop Village, Mendocino County, California. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 32. University of Califomia, Los Angeles. LUghtfoot, Kent G. 1992 Coastal Hunter-Gateer Settlemnent Systems in the Southern North Coast Ranges. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime Calornia, edited by Terry L Jones, pp. 73- 104. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 10. 1994 The Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Continuity in Multiethnic Communities. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 7:7-12. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefinig the Relation- ship between Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2). Lightfoot, Kent G, Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff 1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, Caifornia Vol.), Introduction. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 49. Berkeley. 1993 Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile Colony of Fort Ross, Northen Califomia. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:159-75. Lippold, L K. 1972 Mammalian Remains from Aleutian Archaeological Sites: A Prelimimary Report. Arctic Anthropology 11(2):113-14. Loeb, Edwin M 1926. Pomo Folkways. University of California Publica- tions inAmericanArchaeology anEthnology 19(2):149- 404. Lyman, R. Lee 1984 Bone Density and Differential Survivorship in Fossil Classes. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 3:259- 99. 1987 On the Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeco- nomic Position and Cost-Efficient Meat Purchases. HistoricalArchaeology 21(l):58-66. 1991 Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeo- logical Inquiry. Academic Press, New York. Southern Nordtwest Coast. AmericanAntiquity 57(2):246- 61. 1995 On the Evolution of Marine Manmal Hunting on the West Coast of North America. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 14(1).45-77. Lyman, R. Lee, James M. Savelle, and Peter Whidridge 1992 Derivation and Application of a Meat Udlity Index for Phocid Seals. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:531-55. Lyon, Gretche M. 1937 Pinnieds and a Sea Otter from the Point Mugu Shell Mound of Califo Publications of the University of Calfornia at Los Angeles in Biological Sciences 1(8):133-68. McClendon, Sally, and Robert L. Oswalt 1978 Pomo: Introduction. In Californiam edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274-88. Handbook of North American nedians, Vol 8, VWlliam C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithnian Institution, Washington D.C. McKee, Larry W. 1987 Delineating Edtnicity from the Garbage of the Early Virginians: Faunal Remains from the Kingsmill Plantation Slave Quarters. American Archaeology 6(l):31-39. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 Californa Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Mouer, L. Daniel 1993 Chesapeake Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial Virginia. In TheArchaeology of Seventemth- Century Vrginia, edited by Denis J. Pogue and Carte Hudgins, pp. 105-66. Archaeological Society of Virginia Nelson, Edward William 1899 The Eskimo About the Bering Strait. In 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896-1897, pp. 3-518. United Staes Govermnent Printing Office, Washington D.C. O'Conne1L Janes F. 1987 Alyawara Site Strture and its Archaeological Inplications. American Antiquity 52:74-108. O'ConnelL Janes F., and B. Marshaull 1989 Analysis of Kangaroo Body Part Tranport among the Alyawara of Central Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:393-405. O'ConnelL James F., Kristen Hawkes, and Nicholas Blurton- Jones 1988 Had7a Hunting, Butchering, and Bone Tranwsport and their Archaeological Implications. Journal ofAnthropo- logical Research 44:113-62. 1990 Reanalysis of Large Mammal Body Part Transport among the Hadza Journal ofArchaeological Science 17:301-16. 1992 Prehistoric Seal and Sea-Lion Butchering on the 1991 Distribution of Refuse-Producing Activities at Hadza 308 The Native Alaskan Neighborhood R dal Base Camps: Implns for Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretion of Archaeological Spatial Patternuig, edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 61-76. Plenum Press, New York. Ogden, Adele 1941 The Cal#fria Sea Oter Trade, 1784-1848. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley. Olsen, Stanley J. 1960 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Bison and Bos. Papers o(the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Etimology 35(4). 1964 Ma al Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part 1 Soudteastern and Southwesten United Stat. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56(1). 1978 Bnes fron Awatovi Northasten Arizona The Faunal Analysis. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaelogy and Ethnology 70(1). 1982 An Osteology of some Maya Mammals. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Etnlogy 73. Reitz, Elibeh J., and Stepe L Cumbaa 1983 Diet and Foodways of Eighteent-hCentury Spaiish St. Augustin In Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community, edited by Kal Dagan pp. 151-85. Academic Press, New York. RiddedL Francis A. 1955 Arhaelogical Excavations on the Farallon Islands, Calif Paper on Califomia Arhaeology 34. Univer- sity of CaliforniaArchaeological Survey Report, No32. RieD n Marianne 1990 The Pwnnpeds: Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses. University of Califoria Press, Berkeley. Sanders, R. 1980 EPluribus Unum A Review of the Harvad Encyclpadia of Ameican Ethic Groups. The New Republic 183(23):29-33. Scheffer, Victor B. 1958 Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses: A Review of the Pinniea. Stnord University Press, Stanford. Schul, Peter D., and Shery M. Gust 1983 Faunal Remains and Social Stats in Ninteenth Cenury Sacrameto. HistoricalArchaeology 17(1): 44- 53. Schwaderer, Rae 1992 Archaeological Test Excavation at the Duna's Point Cave, CA-SON-3481H. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L Jones, pp. 55- 72. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 10. Simenstad, Charles A. James A. Estes, and Karl W. Kenyon 1978 Aleuts, Sea Ottes, and Altrnate Stable-State Communities. Scince 200.403-411. Simons, Dwight D. 1990 Vertebrate R from the Albion Sites. In Western Pono Prehistory. a t atAlbkmnHead, Nightbird's Retre, and Three Chop ViUlage, Mndcino County, California, edited by Thomas N. Layton, pp. 37- 51. Iitut of Archelogy, Monograph 32. University of California, Los Angeles. 1992 Prehistoric Ma al Exploitation in the San Franisco Bay Area. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California edited by Terry L Jones, pp. 73-104. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication No. 10. Smith, Geoge S. 1979 Mammalian Zooarchaeology, Alaska: A Manualfor Identyying and Analyzing Mammal BonesfromArchaeo- logical Sites inAlaska. Antopology and Historic Preservation Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Occasional Paper no. 18. Univesity of Alaska, Fairbanks. Steward, Julian H. 1933 Enophy of the Owens Valley Paiute. University Of Calfornia Pub ions inArchaeology and Ethnology 33:233-350. Stewart, Omer C. 1943 Notes on Pono Ethogeography. University Of Calfornia Publications in Archaeology and Etnology 40(2):29-62. Tlkhmenev, Petr Al ovich 1978 A History of the RussianAmerican Cony. Trnlated and edited by Richrd A. Piee and Alton S. Donelly. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Vaughan, Tery A. 1972 Mammalogy. W. B. Saunders Comny, Philadelphia. Veltre, Douglas W. 1990 Peretives on Aleut Culue Chmge during the Russian Period. In RussianAmerica: The Forgoten Frontier, edited by Babara Sweetland Smith and Redmond J. Banet, pp. 175-84. Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma. Wake, Thomas A. 1994 Social licaios of Mammal Remains fronm Fort Ross, Calif Proceedings of the Sociey for California Archaeology 7:19-32. 1995a Mammal Remainsfrom Fort Ross: A Study in Ethnicity and Culure Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissaaion. University of Califonia, Berkeley. 1995b Acclturation and Food.: A Study of Dietary Patterns Observed at Fort Ross, Califomia. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Mammal Remains 309 Denmis Sandgathe. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Walker, P. L, and J. C. Long 1977 An Expeimental Sudy of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks. AmericanAntiquity 42(4):605-16. White, Greg 1984 TheArchaeology ofLak-SlO, NearLLower Lake, Lake County, Cal4ornia. Report prepared for the California Departnent of TrAnsportation: Business, Traportation & Housing Agency. Anthropological Studies Center. Sonoma State University Academic Foudation, Rohnert Park.