Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Kent G. Lightfoot
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
ABSTRACT
California is ideally suited to the study of the emergence, growth, and consequences of multiethnic colonial
communities. Research on how native peoples responded to Spanish, Mexican, Russian, and Anglo-American
exploration and colonialism can provide important insights into the roots of contemporary pluralistic Californian
populations. An ongoing study of the Russian colony of Fort Ross is examining the cultural landscapes of diverse ethnic
groups in a long-term temporal framework. This study questions the growing practice ofsplitting "prehistoric" and
"historical" archaeology into separate subfields, shifts the emphasis from artifact analyses to the study of spatial contexts,
and employs ethnohistorical and ethnographic data as end sequences oflong-term developments in native societies.
Proceedings of the SocIety for California Arobaeology. 1994. Vol. 7, pp. 7·12. Copynght () 1994 by the Society for CaliIDmia Arohaeology
along the Sonoma County coastline in northern A RECONSIDERATION OF THREE
California. The historic Ross community provides ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICES
an ideal case study to evaluate native responses to
a pluralistic mercantile Russian colony. Fort Ross Research on native responses to early mul
was administered from 1812 to 1841 by the Rus tiethnic colonies, such as Fort Ross, provides
sian-American Company. a mercantile monopoly critical insights into the roots ofcontemporary
that represented Russia's interests in the lucrative pluralisitic Californian populations. However, the
North Pacific fur trade. It served as a staging area study of the emergence, growth, and consequences
for sea otter and fur seal hunts in northern Califor ofpluralistic colonial communities requires that
nia, and as an agricultural base for raising crops we reconsider three common practices of Ameri
and livestock. Similar to other fur companies, the can archaeology. These include: 1) how we study
Russian-American Company recruited peoples long-term change; 2) how we measure cultural
from across Europe, North America, and the change in the archaeological record; and 3) how
Pacific Rim as part of its multiethnic work force. we employ ethnohistorical and ethnographic data
Ethnic Russians made up a relatively small por in archaeological research.
tion of the Fort Ross community. The majority
consisted of native Alaskan workers in which (I) The Study of Long-Term Change. The study
Koniag Eskimos dominated, followed by a handful of native and European encounters requires that
of Chugach Eskimos, Aleuts, as well as Tanaina we undertake studies of long-term cultural change
and Tlingit Indians from the Alaskan mainland. grounded in both prehistory and history. We
Other workers included Creoles (people of mixed believe that the common practice of segregating
Russian/native ancestry), Yakuts from Siberia, North American archaeology into "prehistoric"
native Hawaiians, and at least one African-Ameri and "historical" subfields is counterproductive for
can. Kashaya Pomo and Coast Miwok people this kind of research (e.g., Kirch 1992:26).
from nearby tribelets were also recruited as Prehistorians typically study Native American
general-purpose laborers and as mates in the material culture that is viewed as "pristine" or
formation of inter-ethnic households (cf Lightfoot "unspoiled" by European contact, while
et aI. 1991: 11-26). post-contact times are the domain of historical
archaeologists. Acculturation studies are usually
We are addressing the degree to which inter undertaken by historical archaeologists who do
ethnic interactions in a pluralistic mercantile not systematically connect the research directly
colony served as sources of cultural change. Did back to the prehistoric past. However, a strong
the close interaction and cohabitation of ethnic grounding in prehistory is essential to define the
groups from many different homelands stimulate cultural practices of native peoples prior to
the cultural exchange of architectural styles, European contact and colonialism. It is only ~
material goods, foods, technologies, and ceremo through a systematic, diachronic analysis of sentcl
nial practices? Were new cultural forms generated prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic contexts culu
by combining or modifying innovations from that we can evaluate the full magnitude of the diVerT:
European. Creole, Siberian, Aleut, Eskimo, and cultural transformations involved. These include, across
Indian peoples? What role did Creoles and native among others, changes that may have taken place theDD
Alaskans, who lived, worked, and socialized prior to face-to-face contact with Europeans as a practil
closely with Kashaya Porno and Coast Miwok consequence of the regional exchange of European mon11
families, serve as cultural mediators between the trade goods (Trigger 1981: II-B); the en
Russian administrators and local Indian laborers croachment of foreign weeds, insects, and animals It
at Fort Ross? (Crosby 1986: 145-216); and the rapid assault of analyr.
highly lethal diseases introduced into North span.
America by early European explorers (Dobyns long...
OfgaDI
8
1983; Dunnell 1991). tures and across the residential community,
provides one means of analyzing the material
(2) Measures of Cultural Change. Deagan manifestations ofcultural practices in archaeo
(1988:9) notes that research on native accultur logical contexts. The underlying organizational
ation has yet to be fully realized in historical structure of households, neighborhoods, and
archaeology. She argues that archaeologists have villages may be represented in a variety of archae
the yet to develop "principles of interpretation that ological spatial associations, including the spatial
iICCS allow us to recognize 'acculturation' in the archae layout of house features; the patterned distribution
It ological record, other than a vague idea that the of trash deposits inside and outside house fea
;i presence of European items on a non-European tures; the kinds of materials associated in different
lly site (and vice-versa) reflects 'acculturation.'" A trash deposits; the way in which house locations
significant constraint in analyzing materials solely were maintained, abandoned, and reused; and the
w from post-contact deposits is that it limits one's spatial relationship ofhouse features and public
lta ability to measure change in relation to pre-contact architecture in villages.
contexts. A common approach is to calculate
artifact ratios ofnativelEuropean materials from The study of culture contact in a multiethnic
tty post-contact deposits in Indian residences asso colonial environment requires a comparative
it ciated with missions, forts, and trade posts. The approach for understanding how different ethnic
IIgC greater the presence and quantity of European groups constructed their cultural landscapes. We
introduced materials or innovations, it is assumed are currently developing a diachronic sequence of
g the greater the degree of overall native accultura household and community spatial organizations
tion. for prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic native
Ifor Californian sites in the greater Fort Ross region.
However, acculturation research by cultural This approach demands not only intensive re
anthropologists indicates that the adoption of gional survey to locate and date sites, but also
specific technological traits (metal tools, glass broad-scale, areal excavations of selected ar
objects) in and of themselves is not a good mea chaeological deposits to reveal the organization of
sure of overall transformations in native cultural features, artifacts, and ecofacts across space. We
Ily practices (e.g., Linton 1940:485). Furthermore, are also undertaking back-ground research on how
artifact ratios of native and European materials the other ethnic groups at Fort Ross -- the Rus
alone may be poor measures of cultural change sians, Siberians, and native Alaskans -- organized,
that results from the close interactions of different constructed, and maintained space in their tra
Ie native ethnic groups in complex, pluralistic social ditional homelands and at Fort Ross. Detailed
environments. For example, native Alaskan archaeological investigations of the different
workers stationed at Fort Ross may have pre ethnic neighborhoods at Fort Ross are ongoing,
sented their own interpretation of "Russian" including the broad-scale excavations of SON
culture to local native peoples, exposing them to a 18971H and SON-I 8981H. These two sites, as
diverse range of native beliefs and lifeways from discussed in the following papers, comprise the
lie, across the North Pacific, and possibly encouraging Native Alaskan Neighborhood where native
ICe the maintenance and modification of local cultural Alaskan workers and their families lived and
a practices, especially those elements held in com worked, and where resided the interethnic house
IC8I1 mon with other Pacific peoples. holds of native Alaskan men and native Califor
nian women.
~ An alternative approach is to shift the unit of
:of analysis from artifacts per se to the broader (3) The Use of Ethnohistorical and Ethnographic
spatial contexts of archaeological remains in a Sources. North American archaeologists have
long-term diachronic framework. How people long employed ethnohistorical and ethnographic
organized space, both within and outside struc data of known ethnic groups as "simple" an
9
alogues for reconstructing the archaeological pated in colonization of Fort Ross. Accounts of oft!
remains ofthe ancestors of those groups. As administrators, sailors, and merchants provide COOl
Wylie (1988) notes, this rather unsophisticated important insights on the Europeans' view of the pret
use of simple analogy tends to stress similarities native workers. The third perspective is from :CrOll
between source and subject, and to be conspicu ethnographers, such as Powers, Barrett, Gifford, late
ously ahistorical in its approach. Ethnohistorical Stewart, and others, who undertook investigations
and ethnographic observations of people over sev of coastal Pomo peoples' lifeways beginning in the
eral centuries are often collapsed into a single 1870s. The fourth perspective is from the vantage abo
account of the "traditional" lifeways of a group, ofthe local Kashaya Pomo. Robert Oswalt rna
which is then projected back into prehistory. (1964) recorded word-for-word native accounts logii
that contain historical stories of the Kashaya For!
Rather than viewing ethnohistorical and Pomos' encounters and experiences with Russian, pap
ethnographic sources as simple analogues for Mexican, and Anglo-American settlers. In addi Wal
reconstructing the past, they should be viewed as tion, collaboration with tribal scholars, such as stra1
revealing of the time they were recorded, and as Otis Parrish, is providing us with powerful in anal
the end sequences of long-term developments in sights into the past as constructed by the Kashaya NaI.i
native societies (cf. Kirch and Green 1987). Pomo. GIa
Historic observations of native peoples represent f«li
additional lines ofevidence for evaluating cultural Fad
change, and not a mirror of the prehistoric past. CONCLUSIONS disc:
Information derived from archaeology, ethnohis an:b
tory, ethnography, and native texts may be em In conclusion, by rethinking several common KasI
ployed in the study of cultural change by compar practices of American archaeology, we hope to an:b
ing and contrasting these independently consti accomplish the following four goals at Fort Ross. eiP
tuted lines of evidence in a diachronic framework. One is to identifY the source, magnitude, and rate issuI
This approach allows you to "tack" back and forth of cultural change in prehistoric, protohistoric, and and
between the source and subject in a temporal historic Native Californian sites. That is, how did the.
framework that identifies both similarities and the spatial organization of Native Californian sites desc:
anomalies. Wylie (1988) argues that this more in the Fort Ross region change over time, and can
sophisticated analogical approach may identifY these changes in historic contexts be attributed to
similar social processes taking place across time, social relations with other ethnic groups? The
as well as significant differences that characterize second goal is to identifY the cultural practices of
the past and present. different ethnic groups in the historic Fort Ross
community. That is, can Russian, Siberian, Alas
We are employing this approach to identifY kan, and Californian households and neighbor
concordances and anomalies through which hoods be defmed by the architectural elements, the
different perspectives on European and native spatial layout of internal and external space tanco
encounters can be evaluated critically over time. around house structures, and the association of corp
We are examining four different historical per artifacts and ecofacts in archaeological deposits? SUCQ
spectives. The first perspective is derived from A third goal is to identifY archaeological spatial theCI
our intensive surface survey and ongoing excava contexts in the Fort Ross community that have atioa
tions of archaeological remains in the Fort Ross little or no concordance with our idealized spatial #8N1
State Historic Park, the results of which are models of different ethnic groups. These anoma Facill
providing us with micro- and macro-scale spatial lies are of special interest because they may Sity44
information on the cultural landscapes of the Fort represent cultural practices of inter-ethnic house Sbid
Ross region in prehistoric, protohistoric, and holds, cultural transformations of emerging R.estt
historical times. The second perspective is that of pluralistic societies, and/or explicit Russian terpII
the literate, affluent, male Europeans who partici colonial policies that structured the organization
10
11
Kirch, Patrick, and Roger C. Green Studies in the Philosophy oJScience 2: 134
1987 History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in 150.
Polynesia. Current Anthropology 28:431 M
456.
Linton, Ralph
1940 The Processes of Culture Transfer. In
Acculturation in Seven American Indian
Tribes, edited by Ralph Linton, pp. 483-500.
Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massa-chusetts.
Sahlins, Marshall
1992 Historical Ethnography: Anahulu the
Anthropology oJHistory in the Kingdom of
Hawaii (vol. I). University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Simmons, William S.
1988 Culture Theory in Contemporary
Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 35:1-14.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic
Present. Anthropologica 23 :3-17.
Wolf, Eric in :.
1982 Europe and the People Without History. Iii;
University of California Press, Berkeley. pel
Ka
Wylie, Alison pea
1988 'Simple" Analogy and the Role of Rele cal
vance Asswnptions: Implications of abI
Archaeological Practice. International
12