Bryn Mawr College Graduate Student Symposium: All for One or One for All? (Re)constructing Identity in the Ancient World

Tradition and Transcendance in Russian America An Archaeological Approach to Identity in Colonial Contexts Katharine Woodhouse-Beyer Brown University

Historical archaeologists have been increasingly drawn to the concepts of ethnicity, class and gender in understanding the formation and transmission of cultural identity during the North American contact period. These research emphases, adding to earlier empirical studies of pearlware and square-cut nails, take inspiration from a growing number of anthropological and historical works which demonstrate the complexly entwined nature of social phenomena. A variety of case studies across time and space suggest that ethnicity, as but one aspect of identity, is fluid, exists without geographical boundaries, and is both culturally and historically situated (Barth 1969; De Vos and Romanucci-Ross 1975). If ethnicity is so transitory, then how can historical archaeologists begin to understand the material dimensions of ethnic identity, as I define it, the means by which people perceive and represent their kinship, shared history and social boundaries? And how does identity formation and expression exist within hegemonic relationships, when people not only identify themselves in relation to others, but are also subjected to classification by dominant groups?

The complexities involved with culture change and ethnic identification create major methodological and operational problems for historical archaeologists (Schuyler 1980; McGuire 1982). A variety of approaches to identity in colonial contexts have used a combination of textual, oral historical and archaeological methodology to make sense of both variability, and similarity, within the archaeological record. Studies ranging from the Yukon gold rush, to the Spanish colonization of Florida , to the slave communities in New England and the American south have focused variously on commonalities of architecture, material culture, foodways and the frequency of artifact types as ethnic indicators (Ascher and Fairbanks 1971; Otto 1975; Deetz 1977, 1993; Baker 1980; Schuyler 1980; Deagan 1983; Pyszczyk 1989; Stevenson 1989). While archaeologists continue to struggle to recover identity in the archaeological record, with time it has become clearer that while the "building blocks" of ethnicity may change, the way they are re-arranged may be a clue to not only cultural predispositions (Bourdieu 1977), but also, ethnic identity(Leach 1954; Deetz 1977; Deagan 1983; Ferguson 1992). In this paper I present three arguments: 1. That identity is a relational and situational process, serving to distinguish one group from another on one or more axes of ethnicity, class and gender, 2. That identity is most visible during times of social and economic upheaval, when individuals may serve to gain or lose social or economic privileges within complex sociopolitical relationships, and 3. That identity is archaeologically visible, particularly through examinations of the spatial arrangements of household architecture and the organization of gender-related tasks. The following paper focuses on the nineteenth century provisioning post site, the Afognak artel, to discuss the symbolic role of material culture in both transmitting, and trancending, Alutiiq identity within the context of Russian colonialism in the North Pacific.

Based on the results of over six decades of archaeological research, scholars have argued that the Alutiiq of the Kodiak archipelago have been present as a north Pacific indigenous culture for the last 7,000 years (Clark 1984; Knecht 1995). When the Russians first arrived on the archipelago and settled at Three Saints Bay in the mid - 1780s, they classified these people as "Aleut", and later, "Kaniaga," based on what the Aleuts of the Aleutian chain called their traditional Pacific enemies; later, anthropologists variously termed these North Pacific people "Koniag" or "Pacific Eskimo." Since the early 1990s, the native people of Kodiak now formally distinguish themselves as "Alutiiq", although some elders continue to identify themselves as Aleut, and many of the "Alutiiq" have both Russian and American surnames as residues of the colonial period. Despite what may be seemingly confusing to the outsider, it is clear that these native people share a common cultural tradition, an ancestral Alutiiq language, and the firm belief that they are neither Eskimo nor Indian. After two hundred years of colonization, the Alutiiq people continue to exist as a discrete identity; while they may have added new elements to their cultural and technological repertoire, these elements have been combined in traditional ways. I believe that we can trace the roots of Alutiiq identity through examining the material remains of the Kodiak archaeological record; what is Alutiiq is the Alutiiq way of doing things. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Russian American period, when identity maintenance and transformation was the key to Alutiiq cultural survival.

While anthropologists and historians have attempted to produce comprehensive accounts of Russian American Company colonization in the north Pacific, surprisingly little is known of the actual "on the ground" mechanics as to what extent the Russians were successful in incorporating indigenous peoples into a growing global economy; neither are we certain, on either a regional or local basis, how these native peoples responded to the conditions imposed upon them (Gibson 1987; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988). Archaeologists have argued that at the time of Russian arrival in the late seventeenth century, traditional Koniag culture (this term being defined by archaeologists), was at the culmination of a steady trend of increasing socio-economic complexity since the initial occupation of the archipelago, circa 7000 BP. Tracing Alutiiq prehistory through Ocean Bay and Kachemak phases, scholars have argued for a cultural continuity in houseforms and material culture from the earliest times through to the Koniag period, 1200 AD to the time of Russian contact. The Koniag period, demarcated for its apparent growth in population on the basis of the number of recorded settlements and the complexities of house size, was a time during which there was a shift in emphasis from a sea mammal hunting economy to one based mainly on the procurement of anadromous fish (Clark 1984; Knecht and Jordan 1988). This change in subsistence was accompanied by a striking increase in items associated with personal adornment and ceremonialism, taken to be the archaeological correlates for what has been described by regional scholars as social stratification with a redistributive economy. Koniag society consisted of chiefs (anayugak) and classes of nobles, who inherited their positions, commoners, some who achieved their status by ascription and other by hunting skills (umialiks), and slaves; villagers were ranked between the free classes and stratifed between free and captive classes. Warfare, trade, intermarriage, feasting and ceremonialism not only encouraged interactions between settlements, but also reinforced status distinctions and enabled the accrual of coveted luxury items and resulting prestige.

When the Russians arrived in the late eighteenth century, they aimed to strategically transform Koniag traditions by introducing changes in space, economic and societal organization on the social geography of the archipelago. In its early years, the Russian American Company eradicated native villages and forced relocations of natives not only on the Kodiak archipelago, but also to other locations in the North Pacific (Shelikov 1981; Dymytryshyn and Crownhart-Vaughan 1979). The Company introduced changes in the built environment by introducing new methods of construction and settlement layout (Shelikov 1981; Senkevitch 1987; Lidfors and Peterson 1990). Russians changed the intensity and order of the Koniag seasonal round in order to maximize sea mammal hunting, a practice which disrupted both the traditional division of labor, as well as the ecological carrying capacity of the archipelago (Lisianski 1968; Pierce 1976; Black 1977; Dymytryshyn and Crownhart-Vaughan 1979). Russians introduced new trade items, materials and technologies to the archipelago, and with them, a new system of economic exchange based on barter, wage labor and debt (Federova 1971; Dymytryshyn and Crownhart-Vaughan 1979). And lastly, the Russians imposed a new social organization on the Koniag by not only choosing new native leaders (toions) as Russian American Company employees, but by re-classifying the Koniag on the basis of sex, age and occupation. The Russians enforced and maintained these new social and economic categories by means of a policy to classify all natives based on "Dependent", "Semi-Dependent", "Independent", and "Creole" categories.

Despite these great social and economic changes in the north Pacific, a critical analysis of archaeological data demonstrates that the Alutiiq continued to express their distinct ethnic identity through household architecture and task-related artifacts during the Russian American period. It may be that the very Russian dependence on the natives for survival may not only have encouraged Alutiiq cohesion, but in fact, created it. The evidence comes from the recently excavated Russian American Company settlement and provisioning post, the Afognak artel. Established in the late 1790s by Gregorii Shelikhov, the founder of the Russian American Company, the artel consists of at least eight structures now positioned on a forested beach ridge (Shelikov 1981; Pierce 1977; Woodhouse-Beyer 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997). Excavation of the structures has revealed a large timber-planked house (Structure 2), likely the household of a Company officer, and a number of other structures associated with Alutiiq workers' quarters and storehouses.

A number of social historians and anthropologists have posited that architectural space both reflects and molds social relations, ideologies and power relationships (Foucault 1980 ; Spain 1992; Massey 1994); following this research, historical archaeologists have further argued that spatial organization is both product and producer of daily behavior, including social and economic relations (Leone 1988; Rotman and Nassaney 1997). While historical sources claim that Gregorii Shelikhov brought not only a Russian toolkit of material culture, but also architectural plans for settlements, the actual "on the ground" archaeological data indicates that Russian hegemony was not total. This may have especially been true in the smaller, more isolated settlements such as the Afognak artel.

Psychologists and anthropologists have long known that a person or group's identity gains relevance through social dynamics and creative expression (Harris et al. 1995); historical archaeologists have documented architectural form in relation to socioeconomic and ethnic difference and maintenance (McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Kent 1990; Hodder 1990). Like other colonial cultures, such as the Spanish, British and French, the Russians expressed their overlordship through establishing planned communities in North America and continuing architectural traditions of the motherland (Senkevitch 1987; Lidfors and Peterson 1990; Canny 1987; Zuckerman 1987). The Russian American Company typically built houses for Company managers and supervisors which were larger, positioned in higher locations relative to the rest of the community, and were constructed with luxury materials, such as hewn timber logs, bricks, and glass windows. The Russians chose to architecturally distinguish themselves from the Alutiiq at the expense of efficiency and comfort. The Russian log houses were tremendously inefficient for surviving the rigors of the Kodiak seasons; not only did builders have to select straight spruce timber, but the trees needed to be felled. Kodiak winds necessitated frequent household maintenance and the heavy rains rotted the houses from the inside out as evidenced from the "Supervisor's House" (Structure 2) at the Afognak artel. Despite its seemingly advantageous large size, timber construction and higher location, the house had major drainage problems due to its positioning on rainforest soils. In short, to the Russians, the symbolic aspects of the structure outweighed the utilitarian ones; their construction choices not only expressed Russian ethnic identity relative to that of the Alutiiq laborers, but it also was a constant reminder, to both the Russians and the Alutiiq, of what the Alutiiq were not. (McGuire and Schiffer 1983).

Throughout its time of influence in the north Pacific, the Russian American Company was chronically undermanned and undersupplied; it is more than likely that the Alutiiq, in addition to other native peoples, were requisitioned as laborers to help build Company settlements. By Russian plan, native barracks were generally separate from Russian quarters. The native barracks were built in the traditional pre-contact barabara style, of semi-subterranean sod and driftwood construction, and at the Afognak artel, were advantageously set upon the well-drained beach gravels. The difference in construction between the Russian and native artel structures was an overt Russian strategy to express status distinctions (Feister 1984; Monks 1992; Staski and Reiter 1996). While these native houses were smaller than the earlier Koniag pre-contact structures, the continuation of Alutiiq houseforms implies that the Russians allowed Alutiiq traditions to persist. Living within similar material and architectural surroundings no doubt encouraged a sense of corporateness among the Alutiiq laborers, just as it did among the slaves of the American south and the Irish under British rule (Zuckerman 1987; Canny 1987; Stevenson 1989; Ferguson 1992).

Not only did the Alutiiq at the Afognak artel continue to live in their traditional houses, but their daily life and material conditions truly differed from that of the Russians. For many historical archaeologists, material culture not only evidences past human behavior, but the artifacts themselves both reflect and create social relationships (Deetz 1977; Hodder 1982; Leone 1988). The Russians depended on the Kodiak natives for their labor to support the north Pacific fur trade; it was the Alutiiq who were reknowned for their expertise and skill in hunting sea mammals, particularly the sea otter (Gibson 1987). While the Russian American Company aimed to change the traditional Alutiiq division of labor, it is clear that these changes really were an intensification of traditional tasks. Evidence from the Afognak artel is more than suggestive.

To identify particular artifacts with ethnic groups is not a new phenomenon in archaeology; such studies must prove spatial and chronological correlations (Wilkie 1996; Stine et al. 1996). Strong ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence from the artel suggests that artifacts associated with sea mammal hunting and fishing are Alutiiq (Lisianski 1968; Davydov in Pierce 1976; Gideon in Black 1977). Correspondingly, at the Afognak artel, all of the harpoons, socket pieces, fish hook shanks and sea otter darts were found in spatial contexts that were clearly Alutiiq (House 5, Midden 5) or outside structures that may have been jointly used by the Alutiiq and Russians (Midden 2, Midden 7). All items associated with sea mammal hunting are of traditional form and material; the association of these tools with ethnohistorically-identified Alutiiq male tasks suggests that these items, and others, deserve further attention for their potential engendered meanings. Some of the harpoons are even distinguished by traditional Alutiiq ownership marks, such as those seen in earlier Kodiak archipelago collections. In order to be paid for their quarry, laborers needed to prove that the weapon that killed the animal was theirs. Payment was also ethnically relative - during the early nineteenth century, Russians paid the laborers in lengths of beads; ethnohistorical texts and archaeological data confirm that the Alutiiq were highly selective for red, white and black, suggesting that beads themselves, while of European material and form, may be indicators of ethnic identity (Davydov in Pierce 1976; Gideon in Black 1977; Hammel 1983; Schapiro 1988; Crowell 1994; Stine et al. 1996). Therefore, on a daily basis, through hunting and payment, the hunters were reminded of their status as Alutiiq laborers within the Russian American community.

In both Alutiiq male and female cases, while the "lexicon" of Alutiiq occupations and tasks remained the same, and indeed, were intensified, the "grammar" of the material culture changed. Researchers of gender relations and the North American fur trade now also focus on women as powerful agents in both the formation and maintenance of native identity and survival. It was native women who were most incorporated into the Russian American sphere; women's intensified activities in the productive and maintenance areas of skin-processing, gathering and fishing actually "fed" the fur trade (Gibson 1987; Perry 1973; Woodhouse-Beyer 1995). While Alutiiq men were off to the hunt more than ten months of the year, it was the Alutiiq women who maintained the artel settlements. They passed on Alutiiq traditions to their children by molding Alutiiq tasks and values through their everyday activities. As the Russians failed at their attempts to promote agriculture and were chronically undersupplied, it is likely that women also continued to prepare native foods.

Archaeologically, how are these processes evident in the archaeological record of the Afognak artel? In the Supervisor's House, we have identified several spatially discrete areas in which ethnohistorically-identified Alutiiq woman's tasks, skin processing and sewing, are archaeologically visible. In addition to traditional ground slate ulus (women's knives), sinew thread and hammerstones, we have also found copper alloy thimbles. Left behind at the artels, Alutiiq women had more access to luxury goods than their male counterparts; elsewhere, I suggest that changes in gender relations in the Russian American period led to socioeconomic change for the Alutiiq. This led to more opportunities for women to gain status within both Russian and Alutiiq ideologies. Therefore, while Alutiiq material culture may look like what some have described as acculturation or assimilation, these "new" artifacts continue to be utilized within traditional Alutiiq comptetion for status.

While nowhere on the site do we find evidence of traditional cottonwood bowl and spruce baskets, we do find ceramics - nearly all of which are teacups and saucers; several scholars have noted the association between tea services and women's status acquisition (Burley 1989; Wall 1991; Jackson 1994). On one example, a pearlware plate, there is even evidence of Alutiiq use - it was repaired in the traditional Alutiiq manner - by drilling holes. While Alutiiq women also were left in charge of children while the men went hunting, a toy bow and a starter labret recovered in the area of the native barracks are evidence that Alutiiq mothers continued to transmit Alutiiq traditions. The Alutiiq case study adds to an increasing number of contact period studies which demonstrate that women, more than men, were the conservators of the traditional culture even while incorporating new goods(Deetz 1963; Deagan 1983; Burley 1989).

Alutiiq identity in Russian America was not only transmitted through architecture and artifacts, but also through interactions between people. Through intermarriage with Russian officers, a practice that was encouraged by the Russian American Company, Alutiiq women not only had access to luxury goods, but had the power to produce a new socio-economic class - the Creoles. Creoles were educated at the expense of the Company, and often served as skilled laborers, clerks and middle-level managers. While the Creole population of Russian America was small during the first years after contact, they steadily increased in number. In 1818, Russians numbered 450 and the creole population at 280; by the 1860s, Russians in the colonies numbered a mere 66, while out of 1081 natives, 431 men and 481 women were classified as Creoles (Workman and Clark 1979). Creolization, and the formation of creoles as a sort of ethnic buffer between full-blooded natives and Europeans, effected profound changes on concepts of citizenship and the allocation of resources, power and prestige (Cohen 1974). Being a Creole in Russian America certainly had its advantages, and to express oneself as a Creole meant access to power and resources that the other Aleuts were denied.

It is through the process of creolization, in its more general usage, that the Alutiiq culture maintained its old identity by combining diverse elements in new forms. This hybridity took place all over the Russian American sphere of influence, but most particularly at its margins and frontiers, the smaller Company settlements and artels. I believe we can identify this process at the Afognak artel, where some houses are native in form, but combine new and old elements. House 7 is of sod and driftwood construction and contains a native style hearth, such as the ones commonly recovered at a nearby prehistoric site dating 300 years before Russian arrival. Yet the structure also contains a Russian-style chimney and artifacts that are wholly Eurorussian. Directly outside the structure is an associated midden which contains a number of traditional harpoons found together with items of Eurorussian manufacture; one artifact displays a mixing of cultural elements: an incised slate stone with Cyrillic writing and an Alutiiq-style head. This architectural and material culture hybridity, especially when viewed in the context of the other clearly Russian and native houses at the artel, does acquire greater significance through a survey of the relevant texts. Interestingly, one of the first planned Creole villages in Russian America was located directly across the river at Afognak Village, established in 1840 - the same time that the Afognak artel was abandoned (Workman and Clark 1979; Dymytryshyn and Crownhart Vaughan 1979).

CONCLUSION

William Sturtevant, speaking of the Seminole, coined the term ethnogenesis to explain the emergence of an ethnic identity in opposition to a dominant group (Hill 1996). Ethnic groups use ethnogenesis as a creative adaptation to avoid demographic collapse or enslavement. The term ethnogenesis has been substituted for earlier foci of acculturation, which has been criticized for its view of cultures as bounded and static, and cultural change as linear. I see the term as no different from creolization: when two groups come into contact to exchange cultural materials, they select certain cultural elements and combine them in dynamic ways. Doing so, they may revitalize traditional culture, forge new alliances, and even appropriate European symbols of power. There is an ongoing, relational struggle to maintain and recreate identity, particularly in regard to other cultural groups doing the same.

In conclusion, I believe that the Alutiiq, who before Russian contact had, to our anthropological understanding, no geographical or social unity beyond the settlement per se, came to identify themselves as Alutiiq in relation to larger socio-economic and political processes during the Russian American period. This identification was the result of their classification by the Russians as Aleuts and Creoles, as well as e ever-present architectural and material culture reminders that they were not Russian. In the face of incorporation by a larger entity, an Alutiiq community was created that went beyond that of space and settlement alone. A common identity was forged from selected traditional and Eurorussian traits that were, within both Alutiiq and Russian ideologies, deemed advantageous to possess (Herskovits 1962; Hodder 1992). While the Russians strove to enforce and legitimize their dominance through metaphors and boundaries of space, material culture and classification systems, what they achieved was to actually promote the unity, the "we-ness", of those they had hoped to assimilate.

As archaeologists we must aim to approach our future investigations of ethnic identity with rigor. Archaeological research should be designed to investigate sites both extensively, and intensively as well as to target sites at both the community and household levels (Deagan 1983; Psyzczyk 1989; Stevenson 1989; Cusick 1995). These studies might be more productive if situated within historical or political contexts when ethnic identification determined survival. Examination of historical texts and oral histories may identify material culture traits and patterns important in ethnic identification; in turn, archaeology may illustrate the ways in which identity may vary within and between groups as well as overlap with gender and class variables. I believe that as archaeologists the onus is upon us to work on ways to separate out the many layers of variability in the archaeological record in order to investigate the material correlates of ethnic identity; yet if we view ethnicity as dynamic, we should not expect a one to one correlation between material culture and ethnic identification; we must expect that artifacts will have different meanings depending on their social and historical contexts (Upton 1996; Praetzellis et al. 1987). It is likely that we will never know from archaeology how people, particularly minority groups, actually perceived themselves in relation to colonizing groups; in other words, no text exists that explains whether native people utilizing European-style houseforms and material culture perceived themselves to be Alutiiq; however, as archaeologists we can investigate the material culture building blocks which may have been instrumental in forming and maintaining ethnic identity through contextual studies of site and text.

Today the Alutiiq of the Afognak Native Corporation have used the findings of archaeology to both recover aspects of the Alutiiq tradition as well as to set a course for Alutiiq culture in the present and future (Jones 1997). I do not subscribe to the theory that this development represents what some have called "invented identity" as from my situated understanding, this would assume that identity is a bounded and continuous "entity". The contemporary Alutiiq root their identity in both the past and the present - with an eye to the future. Today the Alutiiq still actively maintain their cultural boundaries by selecting certain Alutiiq symbols, building blocks if you will, - the lighting of the oil lamp, the practice of traditional crafts, and the tradition of subsistence, particularly, salmon fishing. To view the Alutiiq is to see a people with a strong sense of community based on conceptions of shared kinship and history; Alutiiq identity is a product of survival strategy, an ongoing process of self-definition and transcendance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Quyana, Afognak Native Corporation, for supporting my ongoing research. I am grateful for the graphics produced by Amy Steffian (Curator, Alutiiq Museum). Finally, acknowledgements to the Wenner gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (Grant 6051).

SOURCES
Anderson, B. (1992) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,

London: Verso.
Ascher, Robert and Charles H. Fairbanks. 1971: Excavation of a Slave Cabin: Georgia, U.S.A.

Historical Archaeology 5:3-17.
Baker, Vernon. 1980: Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An Example from Black

Lucy's Garden, Andover, Massachusetts, in Schuyler, Robert L. Archaeological Perspectives

on Ethnicity in America, 29-37. Farmingdale: Baywood.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969: Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, edited by Fredrik Barth,

pp. 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Black, L. T. (ed.) (1977) 'The Konyag (The Inhabitants of the Island of Kodiak) by Iosaf (Bolotov)

(1794-1799) and by Gideon (1804-1807)', Arctic Anthropology 14,2:79--108.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burley, D. (1989) 'Function, Meaning and Context: Ambiguities in Ceramic use by the Hivernant

Metis of the Northwestern Plains', Historical Archaeology 23:197-206.
Canny, Nicholas. 1987: Identity Formation in Ireland: The Emergence of the Anglo-Irish. In Canny,

Nicholas and Pagden, Anthony, eds., Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World:1500-1800.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Clark, D.W. (1985) 'Archaeology of the Three Saints Bay Colony', Historical Archaeology 19:114- 121.
Clark, D.W. (1984) 'Prehistory of the Pacific Eskimo Region', in D. Damas (ed.) Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 5: Arctic, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

Press, 136-146.
Conkey, M.W., and Spector, J.D. (1984) 'Archaeology and the Study of Gender', Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory 7:1--38.
Crowell, A. (1988) Prehistory of Alaska's Pacific Coast. In F. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell (eds) Crossroads of

Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 130

--140.
Crowell, A. (1994) World System Archaeology at Three Saints Harbor: An 18th Century Russian Fur

Trade Site on Kodiak Island, PhD Dissertation, Berkeley -- University of California.
Cusick, James Gregory. 1995: The Importance of the Community Study Approach in Historical

Archaeology with an Example from late Colonial St. Augustine. Historical Archaeology

29(4):59--83.
Davydov, G.I. (1977) 'A Selection from G.I. Davydov: An Account of Two Voyages to America', Arctic

Anthropology 13,2:1--20.
Deagan, K. (1983)Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community,

New York: Academic Press.
Deetz, James. 1993: Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619- 1864.

Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Deetz, James. 1977: In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life.

New York: Doubleday.
De Vos, George and Lola Romanucci-Ross, eds. 1975: Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and

Change. Palo Alto, CA:Mayfield Publishing Company.
Dilliplane, T. (1991) 'Archaeological Explorations of Russian America 1934-1989: A Critique of Material

Culture Analyses', paper presented at the 18th Annual Alaska Association Conference.
Dmytryshyn, B. and Crownhart-Vaughan, E.A.P. (eds) (1976) Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T.

Khlebnikov's Reports, 1817-1832, Portland: Oregon Historical Society.
Dmytryshyn, B. and Crownhart-Vaughan,E.A.P. (eds) (1979) The End of Russian America: Captain

P.N.Golovnin's Last Report, 1862, Portland: Oregon Historical Society.
Fedorova, S.G. (1971) The Russian Population in Alaska and California, Late 18th Century - 1867,

Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press.
Feister, Lois M. 1984: Building Materials Indicative of Status Differentiation at the Crown Point Barracks.

Historical Archaeology 18(1):103-107.
Ferguson, Leland. 1992: Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1900.

Washington D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fitzhugh, W.W. and Crowell, A. (1988) Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska,

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Foucault, M. 1980: Questions on Geography, in C. Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews

and Other Writings 1972-1977, pp. 63-77. New York: Pantheon.
Gibson, J.R. (1978) 'European Dependence Upon American Natives: The Case of Russian America',

Ethnohistory 25,4: 359--385.
Gibson, J.R. (1976) Imperial Russia in Frontier America: the Changing Geography of Supply of

Russian America, 1784-1867, New York: Oxford University Press.
Graburn, N. and Strong, B.S. (1973) Circumpolar Peoples: An Anthropological Perspective,

Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Hamell, George R. 1983: Trading in Metaphors: The Magic of Beads. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass

Trade Bead Conference, Rochester Museum and Science Center Research Records 16:5-28.

Charles F. Hayes III, ed. Rochester: New York.
Harris, Herbert W., Howard C. Blue and Ezra E.H. Griffith, eds. 1995: Racial and Ethnic Identity:

Psychological Development and Creative Expression. New York:Routledge.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 1982: Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmberg, H.J. (1985) Holmberg's Ethnographic Sketches, Rasmuson Library Historical

Translation Series No. 1, Fairbanks:University of Alaska.
Hrdlicka, A. (1944) The Anthropology of Kodiak Island, Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy

and Biology.
Jackson, L.M. (1994) 'Cloth, Clothing and Related Paraphernalia in Russian America',. In E. M. Scott (ed.)

Those of Little Note, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 27--53.
Jones, Sian. 1997: The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.

London: Routledge.
Kelly, Marsha C.S. 1972: The Society That Did Not Die. Ethnohistory 19:261-265
Kelly, Marsha C.S. and Roger E. Kelly. 1980: Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical

Archaeology, in Schuyler, Robert L., ed., Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America,

pp. 133-143. Farmingdale: Baywood.
Kent, Susan, ed. 1990: Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-

Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knecht, R.A. (1985) Nunakaxvak: Koniag Society on the Russian American Frontier, M.A. Thesis,

Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College.
Knecht, R. A. and Jordan, R.H. (1985) 'Nunakakhnak: An Historic Period Koniag Village in Karluk,

Kodiak Island, Alaska', Arctic Anthropology 22,2:17-35.
Leone, M. P. (1988) 'The Relationship Between Archaeological Data and the Doumentary Record:18th

Century Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland', Historical Archaeology 22,1:29-- 35.
Lidfors, K. and Peterson, S.M. (1990) 'The Architectural Legacy of Russian America', in B.S. Smith and

J. Barnett (eds) Russian America: The Forgotten Frontier, Tacoma, WA: The Washington

State Historical Society, 215--225.
Lightfoot, K. G., Wake, T.A., and Schiff, A.M. (1994) 'Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile

Colony of Fort Ross, Northern California', Journal of Field Archaeology 20:159-- 175.
Lisianski, U. (1968) A Voyage Round the World, 1803-1806, New York: Da Capo Press.
Marakova, R.V. (1975) Russians on the Pacific, trans. R. A. Pierce and A. S. Donnelly (eds),

Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press.
Massey, Doreen. 1994: Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: Univeristy of Minnesota Press.
McGuire, Randall H. 1982: The Study of Ethnicity in Historic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1:152-178.
McGuire, Randall H. and Michael B. Schiffer. 1983: A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2(3):277-303.
Monks, Gregory G. 1992: Architectural Symbolism and Non-Verbal Communication at Upper Fort Garry.

Historical Archaeology 26(2):37-57.
Mullings, L. (1994) 'Ethnicity and Representation', in G. Bond and A. Gilliam (eds) Social

Construction of the Past and Representation as Power, London: Routledge, 25--28.
Okun, S.B. (1951) The Russian-American Company, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Oswalt, W. (1980) Kolmakovskiy Redoubt:The Ethnoarchaeology of a Russian Fort in Alaska,

Monumenta Archaeologica 8, Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
Oswalt, W. and VanStone, J. (1967) 'The Ethnoarchaeology of Crow Village, Alaska', Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 199, Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Otto, John Soloman. 1977: Artifacts and Status Differences: A Comparison of Ceramics from Planter,

Overseer and Slave Sites on an Antebellum Plantation. In South, Stanley, ed., Research Strategies

in Historical Archaeology, pp. 91-118. New York: Academic Press.
Pierce, R. A. (ed.) (1976) 'A Selection from G.I. Davydov: An Account of Two Voyages to America',

trans. C. Bearne, Arctic Anthropology XIII-2:1--30.
Perry, R. J. (1979) 'The Fur Trade and the Status of Women in the Western Subarctic', Ethnohistory

26,4:363--375.
Praetzellis, Adrian, Praetzellis, Mary and Marley Brown III. 1987: Artifacts as Symbols of Identity: An

Example from Sacramento's Gold Rush Era Chinese Community. Historical Archaeology

Special Publication Series 5: 38-47.
Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 1989: Consumption and Ethnicity: An Example from the Fur Trade in Western

Canada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8(3):213-249.
Rotman, Deborah L. and Michael S. Nassaney. 1997: Class, Gender and the Built Environment: Deriving

Social Relations from Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Michigan. Historical Archaeology

31(2):42-62.
Schuyler, Robert L. 1980: Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America. Farmingdale:

Baywood.
Scott, E. M. (1991a) 'Gender in Complex Colonial Society: The Material Goods of Everyday Life In a

Late Eighteenth-Century Fur Trading Community', in D. Walde and N. D. Willows (eds)

The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual [1989] Chacmool

Conference, Calgary: Calgary Archaeological Association, 490--495.
Scott, E. M. (1991b) 'A Feminist Approach to Historical Archaeology: Eighteenth-Century Fur Trade

Society at Michilimackinac', Historical Archaeology 25: 42--53.
Scott, E.M. (ed.). (1994) Those of Little Note: Gender, Race and Class in Historical Archaeology,

Tucson:University of Arizona Press.
Senkevitch, A. (1987) 'The Early Architecture and Settlements of Russian America, in F. Starr (ed.)

Russia's American Colony, Durham: Duke University Press.
Shelikov, G. I. (1981) A Voyage to America, 1783-1786, trans. M. Ramsay, Kingston, Ontario:

Limestone Press.
Spain, Daphne. 1992: Gendered Spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Spector, J. D. (1983) 'Male/Female Task Differentiation Among the Hidatsa: Towards the Development of

an Archaeological Approach to the Study of Gender', in P. Albers and B. Medicine (eds) The

Hidden Half: Studies of Plains Indian Women, University Press of America, 77-- 99.
Stevenson, Marc G. 1989: Sourdoughs and Cheechakos: The Formation of Identity-Signaling Social

Groups. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:270-312.
Stine, Linda France, Melanie A. Cabak and Mark D. Groover. Blue Beads as African American Cultural

Symbols. Historical Archaeology 30(3):49-75.
Tax, Sol. 1960: Acculturation. In Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of

Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by Anthony F.C. Wallace.

Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Tikhmenev, P. (1979) A History of the Russian-American Company, trans. R.A. Pierce and A. S.

Donnelly (eds), Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Upton, Dell. 1996: Ethnicity, Authenticity, and Invented Traditions. Historical Archaeology 30(2):1-7.
VanStone, J.W. (1970) 'Akulivikchuk: A Nineteenth Century Village on the Nushagak River, Alaska',

Fieldiana: Anthropology 60, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
VanStone, J.W. (1972) 'Nushagak: An Historic Trading Center in Southwestern Alaska', Fieldiana:

Anthropology 62, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
VanStone, J.W. (1968) 'Tikchik Village: A Nineteenth Century Riverine Community in Southwestern

Alaska', Fieldiana: Anthropology 56,3, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
VanStone, J.W. and Townsend, J.B. (1970) 'Kijik: An Historic Tanaina Indian Settlement', Fieldiana:

Anthropology 59, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
Wall, D. D. Z. (1991) 'Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity in Mid-19th-Century

New York', Historical Archaeology 25: 69-81.
Wilkie, Laurie A. 1996: Glass-Knapping at a Louisiana Plantation: African-American Tools? Historical

Archaeology 30(4):37-49.
Woodhouse-Beyer, K. (1994) 'Casting a Gender Line: The Kodiak Archipelago and Russian

American Company Artels', paper presented at the Third Archaeology and Gender Conference:

Gender in Ancient America, Boone, North Carolina.
Woodhouse-Beyer, K. (1995a) 'Artels and Identities: Gender, Power and Russian America', paper

presented at the Society for American Archaeology Conference, May 4, 1995.
Woodhouse-Beyer, K. (1995b) Preliminary Report -- Afognak Artel Excavations 1994-1995,

manuscript deposited in the files of the Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak, Alaska.
Woodhouse-Beyer, K. (1996) Preliminary Report -- Afognak Artel Excavations 1996, manuscript

deposited in the files of the Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak, Alaska.
Woodhouse-Beyer, K. (1997) Preliminary Report -- Afognak Artel Excavations 1997, manuscript

deposited in the files of the Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak, Alaska.
Workman, W.B. and Clark, D. W. (1979) 'The Remaining 3800 Years of Prehistory and Contact History

at Afognak Bay', in Clark, D.W., Ocean Bay: An Early North Pacific Maritime Culture, National

Museum of Man [Canadian Museum of Civilization] Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of

Canada, Paper No. 86. Ottawa.
Zuckerman, Michael. 1987: Identity in British America: Unease in Eden. In Canny, Nicholas and Pagden,

Anthony, eds., Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, pp. 115-158. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Return to Symposium Home Page