Ethnicity and Chronology at Metini, Fort Ross State
Historic Park, California

Hanah Ballard

Pacific Legacy, Inc.

Introduction

This article presents the results of an analysis of collections from Metini1 (CA-SON-
190), a contact period site located in Fort Ross State Historic Park on the northern California
coast. This research is a component of the Fort Ross Archaeological Project (FRAP) which,
under the direction of Kent G. Lightfoot, endeavors to understand the effects of mercantile
colonialism on Native peoples (Lightfoot et al. 1991; in press). As a part of FRAP, researchers
employ the direct historical approach which combines ethnographic, ethnohistorical, and
archaeological information to track long term change among Native peoples prior to, during and
following the contact period (Lightfoot et al. 1991). In this article, I use this evidence to
investigate 1) which ethnic group or groups were the occupants of Metini, 2) which artifacts can
be used to identify ethnic groups at Fort Ross, 3) the dates and length of site occupation, and 4)
the ways in which this site elaborates on the impact of Europeans (Russians, Mexican, and
Americans) upon Native peoples (particularly Native Califomians).

To orient the reader, I begin with a brief discussion of the prehistory and history of the
Fort Ross Region. Then, through a comparison of the collections from Metini with the nearby
Native Alaskan Village Site (NAVS), I will explore the question of which ethnic group(s) lived
at Metini. This comparison is useful because in addition to being in similar proximity to the Fort
Ross Stockade as Metini, the ethnic composition and time of fornation of NAVS is already
understood. As a result of this comparison, I show that Native Californians were the most likely
occupants of Metini and suggest several ethnic markers for Native Californians and Native
Alaskans. Having established, who is at the site, I proceed to address when the site was
occupied. I discuss the chronology of Metini by focusing on the probability of a Native
Califomian occupation of the site from Prehistory through History. I explore the Native
Califomian presence during different periods through ethnohistorical documents and dates of
European and Asian materials that have been modified by Native peoples. Finally, I address the
nature of the Native Californian presence at Metini, thus elaborating on the ways in which the
lives of Native Californians were altered by the presence of Europeans.

The Fort Ross region (Figure 1) has undergone several periods of occupation:
Prehistory (pre-A.D. 1500), Protohistory (A.D. 1500-1812), and History (1812-1903). History
is comprised of the Russian (A.D. 1812-1841), Mexican (A.D. 1841-1846), and American (A.D.
1846-1903) Periods (Lightfoot et al. 1991; Haase 1952; Glenn Farris, personal communication

. Following the convention employed in my Honor's Thesis (Ballard, 1995), I use

"Metini" to refer to the archaeological site (CA-SON-190) and "Metini" to refer to
the Kashaya Pomo name for the Fort Ross region.

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Figure 1. The Fort Ross Region

Ballard

117

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

1995). The Mexican and American Periods consist of eras defined by the ownership of the Fort
Ross region: Sutter-Benitz (1841-1846), Benitz (1846-1867), Fairfax and Dixon (1867-1873),
and Call (1873-1903). All of these occupations have the potential to be expressed at Metini.

Though Fort Ross has been archaeologically explored for many years, only recently has
the emphasis shifted away from the stockade and the elite ethnic Russian minority, to the
surrounding Native workers' villages with the research at the Native Alaskan Village Site
(NAVS) (CA-SON-1897/H) and the Fort Ross Beach Site (FRBS) (CA-SON-18981H) (Figure
2) by archaeologists from the University of California, Berkeley and California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) (Lightfoot et al. 1991). This fieldwork now involves the
investigation of Kashaya Pomo villages in the hinterland (See Martinez, this volumne) and Metini
(Figure 2)):.

Metini has been excavated six times since the 1950's (Figure 3 John McKenzie in 1952,
Adan E. Treganza in 1953 (1954), Donald Wood in 1970 (1971), Eric Ritter in 1972 (1972), Karl
Guke in 1975 (1975), and Glenn J. Farris and Waltrand Taugher in 1983 (1983). Of these only
Treganza's excavations are organized into a published site report. Thus, despite a relatively large
amount of archaeological investigation, with the exception of two specialized ceramic studies
(O'Conner 1984; Wood 1971), there has been little data-backed research from the site. Perhaps
this lack of reporting is due in part to the emphasis on stockade reconstruction and the elite
Russian minority by Fort Ross archaeologists prior to FRAP (e.g. McKenzie 1975; Thomas
1976; Tryner 1975). Metini would not have been of much interest to early investigators as it
holds little information about the structure of the stockade and the Russian elite and much more
information about the people who lived outside the stockade. The material from the excavations
by Wood, Gurke, and Farris and Taugher are the basis for this article.

Prehistory, Protohistory and History in the Fort Ross Region

The following is an account of the history of the Fort Ross region related by Herman
James, a Kashaya Pomo (Kashaya), as it was told to him by his grandmother Lucaria Aipau
Myers. Though there are conflicting reports, James suggests that Lucaria Aipau Myers was born
at Fort Ross around 1808 and lived there until late in her life (James 1972:1). She lived through
the Russian, Mexican, and American Periods and witnessed, through her Kashaya eyes, many
important events which took place in the Fort Ross region.

Tales of Fort Ross

(told by Herman James)

This, too, my grandmother told me. She also really saw this herself. I am
going to tell about the land at Metini. They lived there. Where they originated,
where our ancestors originated, at Metini, is the place where they first lived.
They lived there for a long time....Then, unexpectedly, they detected
something white sailing on the water. It later proved to be a boat, but they
didn't know what it was--the Indians hadn't seen anything like that before.
Then it came closer and closer, and unexpectedly it landed, and it proved to be
a boat. They turned out to be the undersea people--we Indians named those
people that....Having landed, they built their houses close to where the Indians

118

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Figure 2. Archaeological Sites and Ethnic Neighborhoods in the

Immediate Vicinity of Fort Ross

Ballard

119

CA-SON-18%

,*-' Ph    *'-'

,CA-SON-1 895/ i

/     Native Califomian Neighborhood  \

/ *

'    CA-SON-1880 ,.'  .

CA-SON-1878
t    CA-SON-175   -. *-

V-_.                                    CA-'  *'._6

Russian Village

I . .

CA-SON-190

r                Ross Stockade
-CA-SON-1 897/H

Native Alaskan Village Site

4           ---   Native Alaskan Neighborhood

Fort Rons Cove

-----.. - -Uncertain Boundary of Metini

Ethnic Neigborhood

<MP      Site

North                            Ia

0                        1.5bon

CA-
4

'%                           i

q, /
%,                 c   I

,...%  %         if

't       i

4tig-li ..

AON-676--.? I

L.

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

Figure 3. Known Excavation Locations in Metini. The exact locations of the trenches

excavated by Wood in 1970 are unknown. The placement of these trenches is approximate
based on,4xisting maps on file at DPR Archaeology Laboratory, Sacramento, California.

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0             20m
True North

Known Excavation
Locations in Metini
9 Treganza, 1953
E Wood, 1970*
*   Gurke, 1975

*   Farris and Taugher,

1983

_____________________________________________________________ J. _____________________

120

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

were. After staying for a while, they got acquainted with them. They stayed
with them. The Indians started to work for them. They lived there quite a
while; having lived there for thirty years they returned home....Then they the
white people [literally 'miracles'] arrived. They, the white people, took over
the land where all the Indians had been living. But the Indians still
stayed....Then they put them [the Indians] to work. The womenfolk, too,
worked for the wives of the white men. My grandmother washed clothes for
a white woman there in her house. They lived there a long time....Then my
mother and grandmother [moved] from there and lived at a place named Much
Gravel. I was there too. I grew up there. We lived there... .This is a story she
told me of the old days. It, too, is a true happening that she saw herself. This
is all. (Oswalt 1964:277)

James asserts that the Kashaya were at Metini (the Kashaya name for the Fort Ross
region) for a long time before the arrival of the "undersea people," the Kashaya name for the
Russians (Farris 1989b:47 1). He mentions that the Kashaya worked for the "undersea people"
for the thirty years that they lived at Fort Ross (1812-1841). Following the departure of the
Russians, James discusses the arrival of "white people." This probably refers to the Mexican and
American Periods (Kennedy 1955; Farris 1989b:47; Thomas 1976) when Fort Ross was
managed and later owned by William Benitz (1843-1867) (Lightfoot et al. 1991:121-122). The
Kashaya worked for these new inhabitants of their land until some of the Kashaya moved to
"Much Gravel" which is located just south of Horseshoe Point on the coast north of Fort Ross
(Oswalt 1964:340).

Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest use of the Fort Ross region occurred
along the coast during the Upper Archaic (1000 B.C.- A.D. 500) and the Lower Emergent (A.D.
500 - 1500) (Fredrickson 1974). This early coastal occupation is represented by broadly
distributed low density lithic scatters located on the coastal terrace (Bramlette and Dowdall
1989; Lightfoot et al. 1991:110, 1993:166). These sites may have resulted from the foraging and
terrestrial hunting activities of Native Californians (Lightfoot et al. 1991:112, 1993:166). Early
extensive use of marine and tidal resources in the Fort Ross Region is evidenced by the midden
site CA-SON-1885 (Figure 2), which dates to the Lower Emergent (Lightfoot et al. 1991:112).
This late date may be the result of changes in the California coastline which may have submerged
or eroded many of the early coastal sites (Lightfoot et al. 1991:112; 1993:166).

Intensive use of the Fort Ross Region appears to have begun around A.D. 1500, at the
end of the Lower Emergent and the beginning of the Upper Emergent/Protohistory (A.D. 1500-
1812)(Lightfoot et al. 1991:111-112). A central-based village model has been proposed for this
time peniod. This model, which is derived from ethnographic and archaeological evidence,
suggests that Native Californians in the Fort Ross region lived in large and relatively permanent
villages centrally located on the first ridge system during the winter. During the summer, they
occupied "special purpose camps" from which they exploited available resources (Stewart 1943;
Lightfoot et al. 1991). According to this model, Metini would be a "special purpose camp"
which was occupied to take advantage of tidal and marine resources.

Ethnographic evidence suggests that Mebni was at the heart of the prehistoric territory
of the Kashaya Pomo. This territory encompassed "30 miles of coast of northwest Sonoma

Ballard

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

County and extended inland for 5 to 13 miles" (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:278; Lightfoot et
al. 1991). The exact time of their amrval to this part of California is unknown but linguistic and
archaeological data suggests that the ancestral Kashaya moved to the Fort Ross region some time
between 1,000 and 500 B.C. (Moratto 1984:557-558; Basgall 1982:17; Layton 1990:140).2
Robert Oswalt hypothesizes that the ancestors of the Kashaya Pomo migrated along the Russian
River from Clear Lake. Their movement into the Fort Ross region may have displaced the
Yukian speaking inhabitants of the area (Oswalt 1964; Bean and Theodoratus 1978; Layton
1990; Basgall 1982) (see also Barrett 1908, 1916, 1952, 1975; Gifford 1967; Gifford and
Kroeber 1937; Kennedy 1955; Kunkel 1962, 1974; Kniffen 1939; Loeb 1926; Powers 1976; and
Stewart 1943 for further ethnographic information on the Kashaya Pomo).

Protohistory (ca. A.D. 1500-1812) for the Fort Ross Region is defined as the "Upper
Emergent" (Fredrickson 1974). Results from the survey conducted by Lightfoot et al. (1991)
suggest that the central-based village settlement system may have developed at this time
(Lightfoot et al. 1991:110). Sites from this time period indicate that the Pomo intensified their
subsistence activities and became more specialized through greater tool kit diversity (Layton
1990; Basgall 1982). The appearance of bipointed chert drills at sites in Mendocino and Sonoma
Counties suggest increased craft specialization by the Pomo, in this case shell bead manufacture
(Layton 1990; Basgall 1982).

Europeans were present m northern California as early as 1579, when Sir Francis Drake
landed on what is today the Marin County coast (Meighan 1981; Bean and Theodoratus 1978;
Barrett 1908:36-37 note 7). Despite European--particularly Spanish Missionary--activity in San
Francisco and Marin County (Cook 1943:77; Wagner 1931) it appears that the first direct contact
between Europeans and the Kashaya was by a Russian-American Company employee,
Promyshlennik Timofei Tarakanov, sometime between 1807 and 1811 (Farris 1993).

The Russian Period (1812-1841) commenced with the establishment of Fort Ross on
the northern California coast. It was the hope of RAC officials that the Ross Colony would be a
base for sea otter hunting in Califomia and provide food for colonies in the north Pacific
(Lightfoot et al. 1991). As the California sea otter were hunted to extinction, Ross turned to other
commercial endeavors. These economic activities included agriculture, ship building, and other
ventures (such as brick production, black smithing, and timber hnrvest).

Fort Ross was the first multi-ethnic community in northern California (Lightfoot et al.
1993:161). The socio-economic hierarchy of the RAC and the Ross Colony was based on
ethnicity, education, job skills and motivation (Lightfoot et al. 1991:21). A few ethnic Russians
(consisting of elite and lower ranking hunters orpromyshtenniki) occupied the apex of the socio-
economic hierarchy. The remaining ethnic groups were ranked in descending order as follows:
Creoles (mixed Russian and Native Alaskan heritage); Native Alaskans (including Aleuts,
Alutiiqs or Kodiak Islanders, and Athabascans from the Cook Inlet); and local Native
Californians (Kashaya Pomo, Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo).3

2. See Basgall (1982:12) for problems with time depth estimates for linguistic differ-

entiation.

3 See Farris 1989a:489; Istomin 1992:9-11; Lightfoot et al. 1991:22 for more

detailed census information.

122

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

The Native peoples at Fort Ross were critical to the "success" of its various economic
endeavors. The Native Alaskans hunted sea mammals with a specialized, highly developed
hunting technology which was essential to the RAC sea mammal harvest (Gibson 1987;
Lightfoot et al. 1991). Native Californians were employed in most of the other RAC economic
activities, most commonly as agricultural laborers (Lightfoot et al. 1991; Dmytryshyn et al.
1989; Gibson 1976, 1969; Khlebnikov 1976; Oswalt 1964).

The Russians, unlike their Spanish neighbors, were not interested in the conversion or
the enculturation of the Kashaya Pomo (Farris 1989a:488-489; Lightfoot et al. 1991:150). The
Kashaya apparently "welcomed" the RAC as a buffer against the northward movement of the
Spanish (Farris 1989a:488). Initially, a group of Native Californians lived near the stockade
(Gibson 1969:210-211) while the majority of the Kashaya continued their traditional seasonal
rounds, which were altered to include agricultural work for the RAC (Oswalt 1964:4). This
changed in the late 1820s and 1830s when the RAC attempted to step up their agricultural
production and demanded increased Kashaya labor (Lightfoot et al. 1991:24). Possibly as a
result of the increased demand for labor, the Kashaya settlement near the stockade grew towards
the end of the Russian Period (La Place 1988; Oswalt 1964).

Fort Ross did not live up to the hopes of the RAC and by 1841 it had become an
economic liability (Farris 1990:476). Thus, the RAC sold the stockade and surrounding lands to
John Sutter ushering in the Sutter-Benitz era (1841-1846) and the Mexican Period (1841-1846).

Sutter stripped the stockade, taking virtually all of the removable items to Hock Farm
in Marysville and Sutters Fort in Sacramento (Lightfoot et al. 1991; Farris 1990). Despite his
Mexican citizenship, Mexico did not recognize Sutter's claim to the Fort Ross region.
Consequently, Manuel Torres was awarded the Rancho Muniz land grant which extended from
the Russian River to Timber Cove, including Fort Ross (Tomlin n.d.:25). In 1843, William
Benitz (Sutter's employee) became the caretaker of Fort Ross. The period of Benitz' tenure at
Fort Ross straddles the Mexican and American Periods.

The American Period (A.D. 1846-1903) begins with the Benitz era (1846-1867).
Benitz gained title to the Fort Ross region in 1859 by paying off William Muldrow who had filed
claim to the land a year before Benitz (Lightfoot et al. 1991; Glenn Farris, personal
communication 1995). During the period of Benitz's caretakership/ownership, the Fort Ross
region was run similarly to a Mexican rancho. He raised livestock, agricultural products,
established a brewery and opened his land to mining and timber harvest (Lightfoot et al. 1991;
Tomlin n.d.). The largest Kashaya Rancheria was on his land (Oswalt 1964:4). The Kashaya,
like many Native Californians at the time, worked in a state of "semi-peonage" for Benitz (Bean
and Theodoratus 1978). In exchange for cheap labor, the Kashaya were allowed to live on
Benitz's land. In addition to his "Pomo Indian work force," Benitz employed Mexican cowboys
to help run his rancho (Lightfoot et al. 1991:122).

Benitz sold the Fort Ross region to Charles Fairfax and James Dixon, the owners of
Fairfax and Dixon Lumbering Company, in 1867. This ushered in the short Fairfax and Dixon
era (1867-1873). Around 1870, Fairfax and Dixon forced the Kashaya off the rancheria, and
many of the families moved to the Haupt Ranch (Lightfoot et al. 1991:122).

Ballard

123

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

In 1873, George W. Call purchased the Fort Ross region, commencing the Call era
(1873-1903). In addition to farming and ranching, the Call family transformed the structures of
the Fort Ross stockade into a small "town": the Rotchev House became the Fort Ross Hotel; the
Officials Quarters were used as a saloon, office and outhouse; a dance hail was made of the
Warehouse; the Blockhouses held chickens or pigs; and the sheds along the eastern side of the
stockade became a blacksmith's shop, a wagon shed, horse stalls and a store (McKenzie 1975).
Two Kashaya individuals, Lucari (possibly Lucaria [Glenn Farris, personal communication
1995]) and Mary, stayed on the Call Ranch into the early 20th century (McKenzie 1963:1-2;
Farris 1986:17).

The stockade was sold to the State Landmark League in 1903 who held it for three years
and then deeded it to the State of California (Thomas 1976). Thus began a period of restoration
and archaeological investigation.

Ethnicity: A Comparison of Metini and the Native Alaskan Village Site

Establishing ethnicity at pluralistic contact period sites using archaeological materials
is difficult. The identification of clearly defined ethnic boundaries is problematic as material
cultures in multi-ethnic communities tend to merge (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995). The
interactions of ethnic groups has the potential to produce a unique material culture (e.g. artifacts,
spatial organization etc.) resulting from the incorporation or adaptation of new ideas (e.g.
Quimby and Spoehr 1951). Consequently, given the complexity of inter-ethnic interactions at
Fort Ross, it is impossible to fimly establish the etinicity of the occupants of Metini solely from
its archaeological record. Thus I look outside of Metimn at the Native Alaskan Village Site
(NAVS) (CA-SON-18971H) and compare the two assemblages. NAVS provides a fruitful
comparison for several reasons: because it was formed under the same general conditions at
Metini; it is situated on the opposite side of the stockade and; it was known to have been occupied
during the Russian Period and was utilized in some form during the Mexican and American
Periods.

The comparison of the NAVS and Metini assemblages showed that the shellfish,
chipped stone lithics, ceramics and some of the worked glass components were similar. These
similarities may be the result of several factors: 1) people of the same ethnic background
occupying both sites; 2) acculturation; 3) limited variation in available goods and natural
resources and/or the presence of a prehistoric deposit across the Fort Ross terrace (Ballard
1995:143-159). The similarities between the sites do not definitively show the ethnic
composition of Metini; ethnicity is better understood through the differences.

The most distinctive differences between NAVS and Metini were found in the amount
and types of worked shell, worked bone, faunal remains, lithics (specifically chert drills and
ground slate), worked ceramics, worked glass and glass trade beads. These artifactual
differences can be explained by variation in: 1) ethnicity, 2) gender; 3) status; 4) site use
patterns, 5) temporal variation, 6) post-depositional factors, and 7) recovery techniques at each
site. In particular, the worked shell, fauna remainsl, worked bone, lithics, worked ceramics and
possibly worked glass are strongly indicative of ethnic variation.

124

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Worked Shell

A striking difference between the two sites is the greater number of worked shell
artifacts at Metini and their virtual absence at NAVS (Ballard 1995:145-146; Schiff in press a).
If Metini was occupied protohistorically or during the Russian or Mexican Periods, it could have
been a site of abalone cutting and drilling, and possibly pendant production (Ballard 1995:145),
well-documented for Native Californians. (Merriam 1967:297-298).
Faunal Remains

The primary difference in the faunal assemblages of the two sites is the paucity of sea
mammal remains at Metini and their abundance at NAVS (Ballard 1995; Wake in press). The
consumption of sea mammals is well documented for Native Alaskans whereas it is less
characteristic of northern coastal Native Californians between San Francisco Bay and coastal
Mendocino (1Hildebrandt and Jones 1992). The absence of sea mammal remains strongly
suggests that Native Alaskans did not occupy Metini. In further support of this, the identifiable
mammal remains found at Metini are primarily composed of deer (0. hemionus), a well
documented Native Californian food (Barrett 1952; Loeb 1926). Some of the deer remains show
evidence of marrow extraction, which is typical of traditional Native Californian foodways or
pattems of consumption (Wake 1994:28).
Worked Bone

The worked bone at the two sites is also strikingly different. Items associated with
Native Alaskan hunting, such as sea otter darts and whale bone harpoon shafts, are notably
absent from Metini, whereas they have been found at NAVS. The only worked bone artifact
found at Metini which may be of Native Alaskan origin, appears to be a socket-piece lashing
tang. This artifact is unique in that it has a drilled hole. Most Native Alaskan socket-piece tangs
do not have drilled holes, which may suggest that this artifact was modified for use as an
omament, most likely by someone other than a Native Alaskan (Tom Wake, personal
communication 1995). Also absent from Metini are the "hand holds" that have been identified
by Wake (1995; in press, this volume) as debitage from the production of Native Alaskan bone
points and other tools. These hand holds have been found in abundance at NAVS (Wake 1995;
in press, this volume).
Lithics

One distinctive difference in the chipped stone from these sites is the presence of
bipointed chert drills at Metini and their absence from NAVS (Schiff in press b). Similar drills
have been found at Pomo sites in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties (Layton 1990:136; Basgall
1982:8,15). According to Layton's and Basgall's work, it appears that these drills show up in
late prehistory. Given the difficulty of distinguishing between late prehistoric and contact period
deposits, their fmdings do not rule out drill use during the contact period. The drills at Metini
may be associated with the abalone, and could represent a specialized activity area or for abalone
pendant or shell bead production.

The ground slate assemblages from both sites offer another example of ethnic
difference. Though not present in great abundance at NAVS, ground slate was more widely
distributed across that site than at Metini (Ballard 1995: 149; Mills in press). The ground slate

Ballard

125

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

found at Metini does not appear to be linked with the site's occupation (Ballard 1995:149).
Ground slate was commonly used by Native Alaskans on Kodiak Island and in Southern Coastal
Alaska, whereas little or no use of ground slate has been recorded for the Native Californians
from the North Coast Ranges (Mills 1995). As such, the ground slate may be a Native Alaskan
ethnic marker that is notably absent from the habitation related area of Metini.
Worked Ceramics

The worked ceramics from NAVS and Metimn are distinctly different. The collection
from Metini contains numerous ground ceramics and one drilled sherd (Ballard 1995:154-155).
Conversely, NAVS has few ground ceramics and a small number of flaked and notched sherds
(Silliman in press). Ground ceramics have been found at other Native Californian sites (Von der
Porten 1973; Smith 1974) and at Kolmakovskiy Redoubt, a RAC fort in southern Alaska (Oswalt
1 980:Plate 37s). Thus ground ceramics could be the product of either Native Alaskans or Native
Californians. The virtual absence of ground ceramics at NAVS, however, suggests that the
Native Alaskans at Fort Ross were not producing them.
Worked Glass

The worked glass artifacts from Metini consist of green vessel glass and flat glass
projectile points, bifaces, and edge modified sherds (Ballard 1995: 157). In contrast, the NAVS
worked glass artifacts are comprised of dark green glass projectile points; flat glass and colorless
edge modified sherds; and dark green and colorless cores (Silliman in press). Two obvious
differences are the amount of flat glass and the variety of vessel glass types modified at each site.
The greater amount of worked flat glass at Metini cannot be accounted for by differential
availability since the flat glass density of the two sites is similar (Ballard 1995:156). This
difference may be an indicator of ethnic preferences or of a difference in the time when flat glass
was used in buildings or deposited at the sites. The glass types of the projectile points do not
preclude contemporaneous use of the sites. That the glass working episodes at the sites may be
contemporaneous increases strength of an ethnic explanation for the differences. Worked glass
has been found both at Native Alaskan sites (e.g. Crowell 1994) and Native Californian sites (e.g.
Layton 1990:207), thus it is difficult to determine who produced the worked glass at NAVS. A
comparison of traditional prehistoric Native Californian and Native Alaskan point types with the
glass points might help to clarify this issue.

In conclusion, there appear to be qualitative differences between NAVS and Metini.
These differences have a variety of explanations that involve ethnicity, time and site function.
Several of these differences, such as the worked bone, sea mammal remains and ground slate,
are less dependant on temporal explanations as these artifacts at NAVS date to the Russian
Period. The virtual absence of Native Alaskan-style worked bone, ground slate, and sea mammal
remains at Metini suggest that Native Alaskans were not occupying or using this site during the
Russian Period. The chipped stone, sandstone groundstone, worked shelL and ground ceramics
at Metini are more typically Native Californian. These artifacts, however, are not fmly
established as belonging to the Russian Period, but they appear to be Native Californian (Ballard
1995).

126

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Chronology

Native Californians at Metini during Prehistory and Protohistory

What are the most likely time periods for a Native Californian occupation of Metimi?
Ethnohistorical documents clearly demonstrate that Metini was occupied during the Russian
Period (Alekseev 1987; Tomlin and Watrous 1993; Carter 1929) and the Call era (1873-1903) in
the American Period (Haase 1952). Production dates for ceramics, glass and nails found at
Metini support this evidence. Additionally, obsidian hydration dates from other sites (Purser et
al. 1990; Lightfoot et al. in press) on the Fort Ross terrace further support prehistoric use of the
general area. I discuss the ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence for the chronology of
CA-SON-190 and the most likely time for Native Californian occupation of the site.

One of the topics of the greatest speculation regarding Metini is whether or not it was
the site of the prehistoric Kashaya village that was displaced by the construction of the stockade
(Smith 1974:2, 4; McKenzie 1957:1, 1963:2; Glenn Farris, personal communication 1995). The
comparison of the Metini and NAVS assemblages support the inference that Metini was
occupied by Native Californians in prehistory and history. The ethnographic documentation
indicates prehistoric use of Ietini (Oswalt 1964: 1), however, I have not found any references to
the prehistoric occupation of Metini (CA-SON-190).

The strongest evidence for occupation of Metini during this time period comes from its
proximity to a prehistoric lithic scatter recorded near the eastern stockade wall (Purser et al.
1990). Obsidian hydration dates place the deposit in the early Middle Archaic and the Upper
Archaic through the early Upper Emergent (Purser et al. 1990:45; Lightfoot et al. 1991:80).
Hydration dates from NAVS support the findings of Purser, Beard and Praetzellis (1990;
Lightfoot et al. in press), thus pointing to a widely distributed prehistoric deposit on the terrace.

The projectile point types found at Metini are indicative of an Upper Archaic and Upper
Emergent and historical occupation (Ballard 1995:161-162; Lightfoot et al. 1991:67-68).
Additionally, the presence of exhausted, obsidian bipolar cores contrasts with large obsidian
flakes also found at the site. This suggests temporal variation in the availability of obsidian and
may indicate long term prehistoric occupation (Ballard 1995:162).

Occupation at Metini during the Upper Emergent or protohistoric period (A.D. 1500-
1812) (Lightfoot et al. 1991:66) is supported by the obsidian hydration readings from the eastern
stockade wall and by the point types found at Metini (Ballard 1995:161-163). Additionally, the
bipointed or hafted drills found at Metini suggest a possible late prehistoric, protohistoric early
historic date (Ballard 1995:163; Layton 1990:138; Basgall 1982). This is not enough evidence,
however, to support or discredit the notion that the Kashaya village was displaced by the
construction of the stockade.

Ethnohistorical documents do not specifically discuss a Kashaya village at Metini. In
"Tales of Fort Ross," Herman James states "having landed, they [the Russians] built their houses
close to where the Indians were" (Oswalt 1964:277). This statement suggests that the stockade
was not built in the Kashaya village, but rather close to it. In 1817, a "treaty" between the
Russian-American Company and the Kashaya was signed, establishing the right of the Russians
to maintain a colony in Kashaya territory (Haase 1952:27; Farris 1989a:48; Dmytryshyn et al.

Ballard

127

KroeberAnthropological Society Papers

1989:296-298; Spencer-Hancock 1978:11). Though this does not deal directly with Metini (the
site), it does show recognition on the part of the Russians of Kashaya presence in the area.

The datable European and Asian materials provide some insight into the timing of site
use. Production dates for ceramics, glass and nails can be used to suggest the earliest date which
an artifact could have been deposited on a site. These artifacts suggest that Metini was actively
or passively used from the Russian Period through modem times.
Native Californians atMetini during History

Russian Period accounts, by visitors to Fort Ross, refer to a Native Californian village
located near the stockade (Vasilii Golovnin 1979 [1818]; Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell
[1833] in Gibson 1969:210-211; Peter Kostromitinov [1830-1838] 1974; Cyrille LaPlace [1839]
in Farris 1988). In 1839, Cyrille LaPlace visited "a hamlet which the Natives and their families,
employed in agricultural work, had established near the fort." He described "huts formed of
branches" (Farris 1988:66) which suggests that he was not referring to the buildings at Metini
which were pictured by Duhaut-Cilly in 1828 (Carter 1929; Tomlin and Watrous 1993:20) and
Voznesenskii in 1841 (Alekseev 1987; Tomlin and Watrous 1993: 12b-12c). The Duhaut-Cilly
and the Voznesenskii drawings show plank structures with fenced areas at Metini (Khlebnikov
1990:138, 142). Thus, it is unlikely that a traditional Native Californian village was present at
Metini during or after 1828 (see discussion of the later periods). LaPlace may have visited a
settlement associated with the large dance house circle (CA-SON-175) (Figure 2) north of the
highway, also referred to as Metini (Smith 1974). Similarly, Golovnin refers to the Native
Californian village as a "collection of huts" (1979:160). Golovnin's observation predates the
Duhaut-Cilly drawing, therefore it is possible that Golovnin is referring to a Native Californian
settlement at Metini (CA-SON-190). However, the earliest Russian map of Fort Ross (1817)
does not show structures at Metini (Fedorova 1973; Tomlin and Watrous 1993:12a). This map
contains great detail of the hinterland structures, therefore the lack of buildings or "village" at
Metini is strong evidence that there was not a settlement, native or otherwise, there in 1817.

The key to addressing the question of a Native Californian historical occupation at
Metini lies in those artifacts that are most clearly the result of native use of non-native materials,
such as worked ceramics and glass. I will focus upon the artifacts that are European or Asian
materials that appear to have been modified by Native Californians, in order to better understand
the time frame of a Native Califomian historical occupation of Metini.

The worked glass and worked ceramic artifacts support a possible Russian Period
Native Califomian presence at Metini. The worked glass artifacts are fashioned from materials
that may have been available during the Russian Period. The dark green projectile points, in
particular, could date to the Russian period, since dark green (black) bottle glass has been shown
to have been available during this time (Ballard 1995). The window glass projectile points and
edge modified sherds are not as easily dated (Ballard 1995:168), therefore it is not certain when
the glass, which was later modified, was available. The ground ceramics are also made from
ceramic types that could have been available during the Russian Period (Ballard 1995:164-
165,221). Though all of these ceramics may have been in use during this time, their modification
could have occurred at a later date.

128

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Much evidence, however, supports a Russian Period Native Califomian occupation at
Metini: 1) the small amount of variability in the types of worked glass, 2) the lack of modified
ceramics that were manufactured exclusively after the Russian Period, and 3) the absence of
ground ironstone. Though establishing dates based on the absence of particular artifacts
(terminus ante quem) is somewhat tenuous (Noel Hume 1970; Deelz 1977:16), it may provide
some insight. Green glass is the only unequivocally worked vessel glass in the Metini
assemblage. Due to its thickness the dark green glass is generally the most appropriate for
knapping; however, the fact that so much flat glass is modified suggests that thickness of glass
was not always the most important factor for choosing which glass to work. The lack of worked
glass artifacts from other types of vessel glass (e.g. brown and blue) suggests that the glass
modification took place during or just after the Russian Period (i.e. Mexican Period or Benitz
era). All of the modified earthenware sherds have dates of manufacture that fall within the
Russian Period (Ballard 1995:164-165, 221). Only earthenware and porcelain sherds were
ground which may suggest an earlier date for ceramic modification. There is a notable lack of
ground ironstone and stoneware sherds, which post date the Russian and Mexican Periods. Their
absence cannot be attributed to the hardness of their body, since porcelain, the hardest of the
ceramic classes, was ground. Thus, the absence of ground stoneware and ironstone suggests that
they were not available during the period in which ceramics were being worked, namely the
Russian Period and/or Mexican Period.

Ethnohistorical documentation of Native Californian rancherias in the Fort Ross
Region during the post-Russian periods is scant (Lightfoot et al. 1991:123; Benitz 1852). G.M.
Waseurtz af Sandels visited the Fort Ross stockade in 1843, during the SutterfBentiz era of the
Mexican Period, at which time he noted that two Native Californian women were living inside
the stockade (Sandels 1926:58; Farris 1986). Two years later, in 1845, Ernest Rufus (Benitz's
partner) noted that twenty-five small dwelling houses were located on the northem side of the
stockade. According to Rufus, these houses were constructed of rough hewn redwood slabs and
measured 12 ft. to 14 ft. (Munro-Fraserin Haase 1952:33). He does not refer to the presence of
Native Califomians in or near these houses. The structures noted by Rufus may be the remnants
of the Russian village that was located to the northwest of the stockade rather than the buildings
that were at Metini (Glenn Fams, personal communication 1995). From these accounts it is
evident that in the middle of the Mexican Period at least a small number of Native Californians
were living inside or close to the stockade. Rufus's observations seems to rule out Native
Californians living in traditional style houses at Metini, though they could have occupied the
redwood dwellings.

The four years of the Mexican period is too short to be clearly distinguished from the
Russian. The archaeological evidence for a Native Californian occupation of Metini during the
Mexican Period is thus the same as for the Russian Period.

During the Benitz era of the American Period, William Benitz was reported to have a
"large group of well trained Indians working for him" (Haase 1952:61). In an 1852 letter, Benitz
stated that he was employing one hundred Indian families, who were living in the vicinity of Fort
Ross (Benitz 1852). A census taken in January 1848 recorded 161 Native Californians (Ross
Census 1848), in addition to the Benitz family and Ernest Rufus living near the stockade
(Lightfoot et al. 1991:122). A photograph taken ca. 1865, looking at Metini from the northwest
shows, two large barn-like buildings and a possible third structure, all located on the eastern side

Ballard

129

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

of Metini (on file Department of Parks and Recreation photo - negative no.21 in Thomas
1976: 18). The angle of the photograph does not allow a view of the western portion of Metini.
Therefore, though it is unlikely that a Native Californian village would have been situated in such
close proximity to the "barns," it cannot be ruled out.

The archaeological evidence for Native Californian occupation of Metimi during the
Benitz era is less solid than for the Russian and Mexican Periods. All of the worked ceramic
and glass materials have the potential to predate the Benitz era. Though their primary use during
the Russian or Mexican Periods does not preclude their modification during the Benitz era, the
absence of variety in the color of the worked glass and ground ironstone suggests pre-Benitz
modification.

Historical accounts, from the Fairfax and Dixon era, indicate that Fairfax and Dixon
forcibly expelled the Native Californians from their rancheria located at CA-SON-175
(Lightfoot et al. 1991:122). Therefore it is unlikely that Native Californians were residing at
Metini during this era. The archaeological evidence for Native Califomian occupation of Metini
during this time period is as ambiguous as that for the Benitz era.

During the Call era, the last two Pomo persons in residence at Fort Ross reportedly
lived adjacent to the stockade until the early 1900s (McKenzie 1963:1-2; Farris 1986:17;
Lightfoot et al. 1991:99). Their residence (CA-SON-1 886/H, Figure 2) is located east of Metini,
on the hillside of the west bank of Fort Ross Creek (McKenzie 1963; map; Lightfoot et al.
1991:99). A drawing published in the 1877 edition of Thompson and West's History ofSonoma
County (Spencer-Hancock 1978:23-24), depicts a road running through Metini as well as a
fenced area enclosing the seven-sided blockhouse. Similarly, a photograph from 1875 looking
southwest at Metini shows one fenced house-like structure (Haase 1952:Plate V photo 2).
Neither the drawing nor the photograph give any indication of a Native Califormian settlement at
Metini.

There is little archaeological evidence for a Native Californian occupation of Metini
during this era. As with the Benitz, and Fairfax and Dixon eras, the worked glass and ceramics
could have been modified during the Call era. As previously stated, however, the absence of
variously colored glass projectile points and unequivocally edge-modified sherds, as well as the
lack of ground ironstone, suggests that the worked glass and ceramics were not made during this
period. Additionally, the 1989 U. C. Berkeley survey of the reported residence of Lucari and
Mary (CA-SON-1 886/H), did not recover worked glass or ceramics (Lightfoot et al. 1991:96-
99). Thus, though the worked ceramics and glass from Metini may be related to the presence of
Lucari and Mary, it is unlikely.

The Nature of the Native Californian Occupation

I have established that Native Californians probably contributed to the accumulation of
cultural materials at Metini, most likely during the Russian and/or Mexican Periods. I will
proceed to discuss several hypotheses for their presence during the different periods at Fort Ross.

As I have noted, the graphic evidence beginning witfi Duhaut-Cilly, rule out a
traditional Native Californian style village at Metini after 1828. Though it is possible that some
time between 1812 and 1828 there was a Native Califomian village at Metini, the 1817 map

130

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

makes this scenario less likely. Smith (1974) contends that the Kashaya would have relocated
soon after the construction of the stockade because "[i]t would have been impossible for them to
continue living at the old village of Mad-shui-nui [Metini] after the construction of the fort, as
the north wall of the stockade cuts through a portion of the aboriginal settlement" (Smith
1974:4). It is possible that the Kashaya, if they were at Metini in the first place, rather than being
completely displaced, could have continued to reside outside of the stockade wall despite the fact
that the wall cut through their village. However, the deposit that lead Treganza to conclude that
the wall cut through the village is most likely part of the ubiquitous prehistoric deposit recorded
by Purser et al (1990) and Lightfoot et al. (in press).

It is uncertain whether or not the Russian-American Company would have wanted a
settlement of potentially unfriendly Natives adjacent to the stockade. Altematively, this location
might have been viewed as a safe place for the Natives, that kept them within sight of the
blockhouse and guns. This strategy for controlling the native populations, has been hypothesized
as partial justification for the location of NAVS on the southern side of the stockade (Tom Wake,
personal communication 1995). The relationship between the Native Califomians and the
Russian-American Company changed over time. It began relatively fnendly, as evidenced by
the signing of the 1817 "treaty," but in the 1820's it turned sour as the demands on the Native
Califomians for labor increased. This changing relationship between the RAC and Native
Californians allows for the possibility of a Native Californian village at Metini, during the early
Russian Period (1812-early 1820's), when relations were good. Alternatively, there may have
been a settlement at Metini subsequent to 1820, when the Native Californians were forced to
work and possibly forced to live where they could be closely watched.

The drawings by Duhaut-Cilly (1828) and Voznesenskii (1841) portray what appear to
be small dwelling structures at Metini. The Duhaut-Cilly drawing shows several of the structures
with adjacent fenced areas, one of which appears to contain a garden. A few of the structures in
the Voznesenskii painting have fenced areas as well, though, the painting provides no indication
as to the purpose of these enclosures. An inventory of Fort Ross taken at the time of the sale to
Sutter (1841) gives some insight into the Voznesenskii painting:

In addition there are 24 dwellings around the fort:...
4 dwellings, 5 sazhens long by 2

5 dwellings, 4 1/3 sazhens long by 2
9 dwellings, 3 1/3 sazhens by 2 wide.

3 dwellings, 2 sazhens long by 2 wide.

At almost every dwelling there is an orchard enclosed by
palings and there are 8 sheds and 8 bathhouses and 10
kitchens.

All these houses are covered with double planking; they have glazed windows and each
has a floor and a ceiling. (Dmytryshyn et al. 1989:432)

Ballard

131

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

This inventory of the dwellings matches the structures that were portrayed by
Voznesenkii. All appear to be no more than 5 sazhens long, most have a fenced area and some
sort of smaller outbuilding(s).

Voznesenskii depicted the buildings at Metini as few in number and well spaced. This
is particularly striking when compared to the areas to the west and south of the stockade where
there are many buildings in closer proximity. The layout of the buildings at Metini suggests that
its inhabitants were near the top of the social hierarchy, though not esteemed enough to live
inside of the stockade, such as Creoles or promyshlenniki. This relatively high level of status is
further supported by the presence of large decorated beads at Metini (Glenn Farris, personal
communication 1995). If the ground ceramics and worked glass found at Metini date from this
time, they may be the result of Native Californian women cohabiting with Creole or
promyshlenniki men. Such cohabitation was documented by Kuskov in 1820-1821 (Istomin
1992:6-7, 20-21, 34-35). The extended families of the women may have stayed with them,
contributing to the deposition of worked ceramics and glass.

Evidence suggests that Native Californians may also have been residing at Metini
during the Mexican Period (Sutter-Benitz era) and the early American Period (Benitz era).
Waseurtz af Sandels observed that Native Californians were residing in the stockade in 1843, and
Rufus noted many extra-stockade structures from the Russian Period were still present in 1845.
Thus it is possible that a group of Native Californians were living in some of the structures at
Metini.

Finally, a third possibility, is that Lucari and Mary spent time at Metini while they lived
adjacent to it at (CA-SON-1886/H). The modified ceramics and glass may be related to their
presence at Fort Ross. However, as I have already discussed the absence of modified later period
ceramics, the limited variety of modified glass types, and the lack of worked glass and ceramics
at their residence makes this the least probable explanation.

Conclusion

One recurring theme in this article is the question of the ethnicity of the of the occupants
of Metini. In order to begin to address this complex issue, I compared the collections from
Metini and the Native Alaskan Village Site, a site where the ethnic composition is better
understood. This comparison exemplifies the difficulty with identifying the ethnicity of the
occupants of sites in a multi-ethnic community. The similarities between the two sites could be
the result of: 1) ethnicity, 2) limited availability of goods and natural resources, 3) acculturation
and/or, 4) underlying prehistoric deposits. The differences between the sites could be due to: 1)
ethnicity, 2) gender, 3) status, 4) site use pattems, and/or 5) time of occupation. It is clear from
these explanations of the similarities and differences between the two sites, that there are many
issues that obscure the question of etinicity.

Though we cannot be absolutely sure that Native Califomians were occupying Metini
during the historical period, it is clear that some person(s) was modifying glass and ceramics.
Those materials that were virtually absent from Metini, but were present at NAVS--such as
Native Alaskan style worked bone, abundant sea mammal remains and ground slate--suggest that
the occupants of Metini were probably not Native Alaskan and thus were most likely Native

132

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Californian. However, the nature of culture contact does not rule out the possibility that the
Native occupants of Metini were Native Alaskans who adopted many Native Californian
practices.

Based on the inference that Native Californians created a significant amount of the
archaeological deposits at Metini, I presented the ethnographic and archaeological evidence for
the site's use in different time periods. There is strong evidence for prehistoric occupation based
on findings from other sites on the terrace. Ethnographic documents suggest that the Kashaya
had a protohistoric village on the terrace, which Herman James referred to as Metini, though it
was not necessarily at the site Metini (CA-SON-190). The archaeological evidence for
protohistoric occupation is slim, based mainly on analogy between the presence of bipointed
"hafted" chert drills at Metini and the late prehistoric to contact period Pomo sites in Mendocino
and Sonoma Counties (Layton 1990; Basgall 1982). Though there is abundant ethnohistorical
data for the Russian Period, none refer directly to a Native Califomian occupation of Metini.
Many accounts describe Native Californian village(s) within the vicinity of the stockade;
however, the descriptions of dwelling structures in these villages are incongruous with the
graphic depictions of buildings at Metini during this time period. The archaeological evidence
for a Native Californian presence during the Russian Period is based on modified ceramics and
glass (e.g. glass projectile points, edge modified glass sherds and ground ceramics) which are
made from materials that could have been available during the Russian Period, Mexican Period
(Sutter-Benitz era), and American Period (Benitz era). Similar materials that were only available
in later periods but were not modified (e.g. ironstone and clear vessel glass) lend support for
Russian Period, Mexican Period, or Benitz-era use of the site. The plausibility of Native
Califomian occupation during later periods is valuated through various accounts of a Kashaya
presence in the vicinity of the stockade, photographs, and drawings of Metini subsequent to the
Russian Period, as well as the nature of the worked ceramics and glass. These lines of evidence
suggest a possible Native Californian presence during the Sutter-Benitz and Benitz eras, and a
less probable presence after the Benitz era.

Finally, I dealt with the nature of the Native Californian presence at Metini by
addressing the notion of Metini as the site of a prehistoric, protohistoric, or historical Native
Californian "village." Though there may have been a village at Metini prior to 1817, the Native
Califomian presence at Metini after 1817 was not in the form of a traditional village. Drawings
of Metini from the Russian Period depict European style structures that may be dwellings of
Creole or promyshlenniki men. If the Native Californian element at Metini dates to the Russian
Period, it may be related to Pomo women cohabiting with the Creole or promyshlenniki men.

In the end, the search for Metini has shown it to be more than a traditional Native
Californian village. Though there may have been a traditional village at Metini during prehistory
or protohistory, the graphic depictions of the area during and after the Russian Period suggest
that any Native Califomian occupation was not traditional in form. It should be considered that
there was a Native Californian presence here rather than a traditional style village. The ground
ceramics may be a Native Califomian ethnic marker since they have been documented at other
Native Californian sites and so few have been found at NAVS. However, until they are
documented at other Native Califomian sites in the Fort Ross region, this association is
tentative. The Native Californian presence at Metini could have taken many forms. Native
Californian women and their extended families may have been cohabiting with Creole or

Ballard

133

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

promyshlenniki men in European style dwellings. Another possibility is that Native Californian
laborers stayed here during the Russian Period, Mexican Period or Benitz era. The greatest
source of information on the nature of the occupation at Metini will come from detailed
comparisons with other effinic neighborhoods at Fort Ross, such as I have attempted with NAVS.
These comparisons have the potential to reveal a great deal about ethnic interactions in the Fort
Ross region.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Kent Lightfoot and Glenn Farris for their guidance and support in
this research project. I am also grateful to Peter Mills for support and aid in so many areas. I
offer many thanks to Allan Bramlette, Antoinette Martinez, Dan Murley, Breck Parknan, Ann
Schiff, Steve Silliman, Tom Wake, Don Wood, and the staff at Fort Ross State Historic Park and
the Archeology Laboratory, California Department of Parks and Recreation in West Sacramento,
without whom this article would not have been possible.

References
Alekseev, A. I.

1987 The Odyssey of a RussianScientist: I. G. Voznesenskii in Alaska, California andSiberia 1839 to

1849. Translated by Wilma C. Follette. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Kingston, Ontario: Lime-
stone Press.
Ballard, Hannah S.

1995 Searching for Metini: Synthesis and Analysis of Unreported Archaeological Collections from

Fort Ross State Historic Park, Califomia. Unpublished honors thesis in anthropology,University
of California, Berkeley.
Barrett, SA.

1908  The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publica-

tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 6. Berkeley.

1916  Pomo Buildings. HolmesAnniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays Presented to William

Henry Holmes in Honor of his 70th Birthday. Washington D.C.: J.W. Bryan Press.

1952  Material Aspects of Pomo Culture. Bulletin of thePublicMuseum of the City ofMilwaukee 20(1

and 2).

1975  Pomo Buildings. Seven EarlyAccounts ofPomoIndians and Their Culture, edited by R.F. Heiz-

er, pp. 37-63. Archaeological Research Facility, University of Califomia, Berkeley.
Basgall, Mark E.

1982 Archaeology and Linguistics: Pomoan Prehistory as Viewed from Northern Sonoma County,

California. JowrnalofCalifornia andGreatBasinAnthropology4(2):3-22. Banning, California:
Maliki Museum, Inc., Morongo Indian Reservation.
Bean, Lowell John and Dorothea Theodoratus

1978  Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. Handbook ofNorth American Indians Volume 8 edited

by R.F. Heizer. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Benitz, William

1852 Unpublished letter from William Benitz to brother Anthony, dated March 14, 1852, quoted in a

letter from Anthony Benitz to their parents in Germany, dated May 6,1852. Copy on file at Fort

134

No. 81

Ballard                  Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini                          135

Ross State Historic Park, Fort Ross, California.
Bramlette, Allan and Katherine Dowdall

1989 Differences in Site Constituents at Salt Point: Alternative Explanations. Proceedings of the So-

cietyfor California Archaeology 2:139-51. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego, Cal-
ifornia.

Carter, Charles Franklin

1929 Duhaut-Cilly's Account of California in the Years 1827-1828. Translated by Charles Franklin

Carter. California Historical Quarterly VIII(4):322-328.
Cook, S.F.

1943 The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization: I The Indian versus the Span-

ishMission, IA:21. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Crowell, Aron

1994   WorldSystemArchaeology at ThreeSaintsHarbor, An 18th CenturyRussianFur TradeSite on

KodiakIsland, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley.
Deetz, James

1977  In Small ThingsForgotten: TheArchaeology ofEarlyAmericanLife. New York: Anchor Books,

Doubleday.

Dmytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan and Thomas Vaughan

1989 The Russian American Colonies 1798-1867 Vol. 3. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press.
Farris, Glenn

1983  Fathoming Fort Ross. HistoricalArchaeology, 17(2):93-99.

1986  Cultural Resource Survey at the Fort Ross Campground, Sonoma County, California. On file,

Cultural Heritages Section, Archeology Laboratory, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sac-
ramento, California.

1988  A French Visitor's Description of the Fort Ross Rancheria in 1839. Newsfrom Native California

2:22-23.

1989a The Russian Imprint on the colonization of California. Columbian Consequences, edited by Dav-

id Hurst Thomas, 1:481-493. Smithsonian Institution Press.

1989b Recognizing Indian Folk History as Real History: A Fort Ross Example. American Indian Quar-

terly 13:471-80.

1990  Fort Ross California: Archaeology of the Old Magazin. Russia in North America: Proceedings

of the 2ndInternational Conference on Russian America, edited by Richard A. Pierce, 475-505.
The Limestone Press.

1993  Talacani, The Man WhoPurchasedFort Ross. In Fort Ross Interpretive Association Newsletter,

September/October 1993. Unnumbered Pages (7-9).
Farris, Glenn and Waltrand S. Taugher

1983 Fort Ross Telephone Undergrounding, field notes. On file, Archeological Laboratory, California

Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Fedorova, Svetlana G.

1973 The Russian Population in Alaska and California Late 18th Century -1867. Translated and ed-

ited by Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press.
Fredrickson, David

1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View From the North Coast Ranges. Journal

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

of California Anthropology 1:41-54.
Gibson, James R.

1969 Russia in California, 1833, Report of Governor Wrangell. Translation and editing of original

1833 report by James R. Gibson. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 60:205-215.

1976 Imperial Russia in FrontierAmerica: The Changing Geography ofSupply of Russian America,

1784-1867. New York: Oxford University Press.

1987  Russian Dependance upon the Natives of Alaska. Russia's American Colony. edited by S. Fred-

erick Starr. Duke University.
Gifford, E.W.

1967 Ethnographic Notes on the Southwestern Pomo. Anthropological Records 25:1-48.
Gifford, E.W. and A.L. Kroeber

1937 Culture Element Distributions: IV, Pomo. University of CaliforniaPublications inAmericanAr-

chaeology and Ethnology 37:117-254.
Golovnin, V.M.

1979 Around the World on the Kamchatka 1817-1819. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by

Ella Lury Wiswell. Honolulu: The Hawaiian Historical Society and The University Press of Ha-
waii.
Gurke, Karl

1975 Unpublished letter to Dr. Rokitiansky, 8 August 1975. On file, Archeological Laboratory, Cali-

fornia Departmnent of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Haase, Ynez

1952 The RussianAmerican Company in California. Unpublished Masters of Arts Thesis. University

of California, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, William R. and Terry L. Jones

1992 Evolution of Marine Mammal Hunting: A View From the Californian and Oregon Coasts. Jour-

nal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 11:360-401.
Istomin, Alexei A.

1992  The IndiansAt TheRossSettlement: Accordingto the Censuses byKuskov, 1820-1821. Fort Ross,

California: Fort Ross Interpretive Association, Inc..
James, Herman Allen

1972 Chief of the Pamos: Life Story ofAllen James. Edited by Ann M. Connor.
Kennedy, Mary Jean

1955 Culture Contact andAcculturation of the Southwestern Pomo. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

California, Berkeley.
Khlebnikov, Kyrill

1976  [1861] Colonial RussianAmerica: Kyri11 T Khlebnikov's Reports, 181 7-1832. Translation and

editing by Basil Dmytryshyn and EA.P Crownhart-Vaughan. Portland: Oregon Historical Soci-
ety.

1990  The KhlebnikovArchive,UnpublishedJournal(1800-1837)andTravelNotes(18201822,1824)

edited by Leonard Shur, translated by John Bisk. University of Alaska Press.
Kniffen, Fred

1939  PomoGeography. UniversityofCaliforniaPublicationsinAmericanArchaeologyandEthnol-

ogy 36(6):353-400.

136

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

Kostromitinov, P.

1974  [1839] Notes on the Indians in Upper California. In Ethnographic Observations on the Coast

Miwok and Pomo by Contre-Admiral F.P. Von WrangeUl andP. Kostromitinov of the Russian

ColonyRoss, 1839, pp. 7-18. Translation and editing by Fred Stross and Robert Heizer. Archae-
ological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.
Kunkel, Peter H.

1962 Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A comparative study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

University of California, Los Angeles.

1974 The Pomo Kin Group and Political Unit in Aboriginal California. Journal ofCaliforniaAnthro-

pology. 1: 7-18.
LaPlace, Cyrille

1988 [1854] A French Visitor's Description of the Fort Ross Rancheria in 1839. Translation and Ed-

iting from French by Glenn Farris. Newsfrom Native California 2:22-23.
Layton, Thomas N.

1990  WesternPomoPrehistory: Excavations atAlbion Head Nightbird'sRetreat, and Thee Chop Vil-

lage, Mendocino County, California Monograph 32, Institute ofArchaeology, University of Cal-
ifornia, Los Angeles.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and Antoinette Martinez

1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. TheAnnual Review ofAnthropology.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake and Ann Schiff (editors)

1991  Introduction. In The Archaeology and Ethnohistory ofFort Ross, Caifornia, Vol. 1. Contribu-

tions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 49. Berkeley.

1993 Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile Colony of Fort Ross, Northern California. Journal

ofFieldArchaeology 20:159-175.

Lightfoot, Kent G., Ann M. Schiff and Thomas Wake (editors)

In Press T7he NativeAlaskan Village: A Multi-ethnic Community at Colony Ross. The Archaeology and

Ethnohistory of Fort Ross, California, Vol. 1. Contributions of the University of California Ar-
chaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.
Loeb, E.M.

1926  Pomo Folkways. University of CaliforniaPublications inAmericanArchaeology andEthnology

19(2): 149-405.
McKenzie, John C.

1957  Natural Features in the Area of Proposed Acquisitions at Fort Ross. Unpublished letter to Mr. G.

T. Kishbaugh, Superintendent. September 28, 1957. Copy on file Fort Ross State Historic Park,
Fort Ross, California.

1963  Historic Sites and Indian Camps at Fort Ross State Historic Monument, August 20,,1963. Un-

published manuscript on file at Fort Ross State Historic Park, Fort Ross, California.

1975  Restoration of Fort Ross from 1834 to 1975. Unpublished manuscript on file at Fort Ross State

Historic Park, Fort Ross, California.
McLendon, Sally and Robert Oswalt

1978  Pomo: Introduction. Handbook ofNorth American Indians Volume 8 edited by R.F. Heizer.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Meighan, Clement

1981 This is the Way the World Ends: Native Responses to the Age of Explorations in California. In

Ballard

137

Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers

Early Califonia: Perception andReality, pp. 45-66. William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.
Merriam, C. Hart

1967  Ethnographic Notes on California Indian Tribes HI, Ethnographic Notes on Central California

Indian Tribes. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey. No. 68, Part mI.

Edited and compiled by R.F. Heizer. University of California Archaeological Research Facility,
Berkeley.
Mills, Peter R.

in press Slate Artifacts and Ethnicity at Fort Ross. In The Native Alaskan Village: A Multi-ethnic Com-

munity at ColonyRoss. TheArchaeology andEthnohistory ofFortRoss, California, Vol. 11. Con-
tributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.
Moratto, Michael

1984 CaliforniaArchaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
Noel-Hume, Ivor

1970 A Guide toArfifacts of ColonialAmerica. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
O'Conner, Denise

1984  Trade and Tableware: A HistoricalandDistributionalAnalysisofthe CeramicsFromFortRoss,

California. Unpublished Masters in Arts thesis. On file, Cultural Heritage Section, Archeology
Laboratory, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, Califomia.
Oswalt, Robert

1964 Kashaya Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Oswalt, Wendell H.

1980 Kolmakovskiy Redoubt: The Ethnoarchaeology of a Russian Fort inAlaska. UCLA Institute of

Archaeology, Vol. 8., Los Angeles.
Powers, Stephen

1976 [1877] Tribes of California. 1877 in Contributions to North American Ethnology Volume 3,

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey for the Rocky Mountain

Region, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Reprinted Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press

Purser, Margaret, Vicki Beard and Adrian Praetzellis

1990  Archaeological Investigations for the Stockade Wall Replacement Project, Fort Ross State His-

toric Park, Sonoma County, California. On file, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State
University.

Quimby, George I., and Alexander Spoehr

1951 Acculturation and material culture. Fieldiana: Anthropology 36(6).
Ritter, Eric W.

1972 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Investigations at Fort Ross. On file, Cultural Heritage

Section, Archeology Laboratory, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento,
California.
Ross Census

1848  Presidio Ross. January the 8th 1848/ Liste oflndians at Present Time. Manuscript on file, Valle-

jo Papers, Vol. 3, No. 326. Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Sandels, G.M. Waseurtz af

1926  [1843] The Kings Orphan Manuscript. Swedish. Quarterly ofSociety of California Pioneers.

138

No. 81

Ethnicity and Chronology atMetini

March 1926, pp. 58. San Francisco.
Schiff, Ann

in press (a) Shellfish Remains at the Fort Ross Beach Site (CA-SON-18981H) and at the Native Alaskan

Village Site (CA-SON-1897/H). In The NativeAlaskan Village: A Multi-ethnic Community at

Colony Ross. TheArchaeology andEthnohistory ofFortRoss, California, Vol. 1. Contributions
of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.

in press (b) Lithic Assemblage atthe Fort Ross Beach Site (CA-SON-1898/H) and at the Native Alaskan

Village Site (CA-SON-18971H). In The NativeAlaskan Village: A Multi-ethnic Community at

ColonyRoss. TheArchaeology andEthnohistory ofFortRoss, California, Vol. 1. Contributions
of the University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.
Silliman, Stephen

in press Description and Interpretation of Historical Artifacts from the Native Alaskan Village Site (CA-

SON- 1897/H and the Fort Ross Beach Site (CA-SON-1898/H). In The NativeAlaskan Village:
A Multi-ethnic Community at Colony Ross. TheArchaeology andEthnohistory ofFortRoss, Cal-
ifornia, Vol. II. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility
52. Berkeley.
Smith, Janice C.

1974 Pomo and Promyshlenniki: Time and Trade Goods at Fort Ross. MA. Thesis University of Cal-

ifornia, Los Angeles.
Spencer-Hancock, Diane

1978  FortRoss: IndiansRussiansAmericans. Jenner, California: FortRossInterpretiveAssociation.
Stewart, Omer C.

1943  Note on Pomo Ethnogeography. University ofCaliforniaPublications inAmericanArchaeology

and Ethnology 40(2):29-62
Thomas, Bryn

1976 Historic Sites Researches at Fort Ross, California. On file, Fort Ross State Historic Park. Fort

Ross, California.
Tomlin, Kaye

n.d.  FortRossState HistoricPark Timeline. Unpublished manuscript on file with author.
Tomlin, Kaye (ed.) and Stephen Watrous

1993 Outpost of an Empire, Fort Ross: The Russian Colony in California.. Jenner, Califomia: Fort

Ross Interpretive Association.
Treganza, Adan E.

1954 Fort Ross A Study in Historical Archaeology. Reports of the University of CaliforniaArchaeo-

logical Survey 23:1-26.
Tryner, JR.

1975  Fort Ross Archeological Evaluation. Letter on file, Archeology Laboratory, Califomia Depart-

ment of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
Von der Porten, Edward P.

1973 Drake and Cermeno in California: Sixteenth Century Chinese Ceramics pp. 1-21. Drake Navi-

gators Guild, Point Reyes, Califomia.
Wagner, Henry R.

1931  The Last Spanish Exploration ofthe Northwest Coast. California Historical Society Quarterly.

Ballard

139

140                   KroeberAnthropological Society Papers                      No. 81

x(4):336-346.
Wake, Thomas A.

1994 Social Implications of Mammal Remains From Fort Ross, California. Proceedings of the Society

for CaliforniaArchaeology volume 7, San Diego, California.

1995 MammalRemainsFromFortRoss: a study in ethnicity and culture change. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, on file University of California, Berkeley.

in press Chapter(s) on Mammal Remains and Worked Bone. In TheNativeAlaskan Village: AMulti-eth-

nic Community at Colony Ross. The Archaeoloy andEthnohistory ofFortRoss, California, Vol.
II. Contributions ofthe University of CaliforniaArchaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.
Wood, Donald

1971  PartI Hallmarkldentification FortRoss State Historic Park, California and PartII Modified

Ceramic Fragments. Unpublished manuscript. On file, Cultural Heritage Section, Archeology
Laboratory, California Departnent of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, Califomia.