Past Is Present: Comments on "In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for Public Participation
in African-American Plantation Archaeology"
Author(s): Michael L. Blakey
Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 31, No. 3, In the Realm of Politics: Prospects for
Public Participation in African-American and Plantation Archaeology (1997), pp. 140-145
Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25616555
Accessed: 13-01-2019 19:56 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Historical Archaeology
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COMMENTARY
MICHAEL L. BLAKEY
Patrice Jeppson's discussion of the politics of
South African archaeology is a richly textured
analysis of the use of history for the creation of
Past Is Present: Comments on
well as South African archaeology's emphasis on
essentialized African ethnic/tribal distinctions.
"In the Realm of Politics:
Prospects for Public
Participation in African-American
Plantation Archaeology"
Discussion
social distance between whites and blacks, as
What must appear to many Africaaners as an
objective appreciation of group traditions also
implicates archaeology in a strategy of divide
and rule.
I think of the former Kwazulu "Homeland" for
the effects of a divide and rule strategy fostered
by the National Party, which created political
opposition to the African National Congress
Many of the ideas and experiences expressed
throughout this volume are not only intellectually
engaging but encouraging with respect to a new
archaeology of public engagement. Progress to
ward new, responsive relationships between ar
chaeologists and the public suggested by these
papers emerges from encounters with the prob
lems inherent in current interactions of archaeol
ogy and the broader society. Therefore, just as
working through these problems offers real
promise, those experiences equally imply the
disturbing aspects of the current societal and
intellectual context in which these authors' expe
riences take place.
Four areas of concern seem to cover most of
the terrain, including the politics of the past,
Euroamerican insistence on control, relations be
tween archaeology and African-American schol
arship, and the democratization of knowledge.
Each of these politicized aspects of the archaeo
along "tribal" lines. I am reminded of my
South African refugee classmates who, when
asked about their ethnicity, would always make
a point of identifying themselves as "South Af
rican" in a conscious resistance to the divisive
use of their ethnic identities in the hands of
those who meant them little good.
The "situationalness" or constructed nature of
ethnicity, Jeppson claims, is liberating. One can
change that which one creates through dialecti
cal, social interaction. This is perhaps akin to
the decision even to identify oneself as "South
African." Drake Patten raises similar issues re
garding the Foster site in Virginia, stressing the
impact of current racial categories on perceptions
of historic identities. She too wishes the public
to recognize how identity is culturally con
structed. Yet who constructs these identities, for
logical and interpretive projects discussed here, is
whom, and for what purpose are questions that
are key to the significance of the identities ulti
mately constructed.
affected by racism. Many of the questions and
comments that I have about these papers derive
past head-on as she and her colleagues critically
Euroamerican attitudes and behaviors toward
examine and explicate the interests served by the
Jordan plantation archaeology, similarly to Leone
from an appreciation of contemporary
African Americans that are examined, below.
My basic contention is that the African-American
past being examined by these studies serves to
mediate a discourse about the relations between
Euroamericans and African Americans in the
present. I attempt to raise a mirror to the field,
and ask the reader to find the familiar.
Carol McDavid also takes the politics of the
and his associates in Annapolis (Leone et al.
1987). Jeppson and Christy Matthews point to
the importance of breaking bonds of white denial
by exposing the racism which structures the lives
of people in both settler states?Union of South
Africa and the United States of America.
Ywone Edwards and McDavid call for intereth
Historical Archaeology, 1997, 31(3): 140-145.
Permission to reprint required.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 141
Perhaps the degree to which blacks lack inter
nic dialogue to rediscover (or discover) the real
histories and identities of the peoples comprising est in, avoid, or reject interpretations, as
the nation. Euroamericans cannot begin to know Matthews shows, relates to the majority presence
about themselves until the African-American, and of Euroamericans in what might be seen as an
multicultural, story is told, Edwards tells us. intimate and painful "family" experience for
Archaeology may assist Euroamericans in tran African Americans. I want to ask, what would
scending the state of denial which fails our com be the reactions to these interpretations if
mon understanding and reconciliation. This state brought to the neighboring historically black
of Euroamerican denial, as it affects other university, Hampton? Perhaps that would be a
branches of anthropology, has been examined in more attractive context for black visitors. Yet,
detail elsewhere (Blakey 1994).
African-American denial, too, might undermine
The ideology of white supremacy continues to their participation there. Another explanation is
burden relations among Americans. Discrimina that the interpretations are themselves uninterest
ing because African Americans have had too
al. 1991), as do neighborhood segregation and little to say about what interests them at
the resegregation of public education, despite Williamsburg. This is not to suggest that one
tory hiring practices continue en force (Turner et
Euroamerican claims to egalitarian ideals (Jaynes should segregate archaeological interpretation, but
and Williams 1989). While the institution of acknowledges the existence of the social and
slavery may be a thing of the past upon which psychological dynamics of ethnic segmentation
to reflect, white racism continues to antagonize and antagonism within which these fields of
the already wounded relationships between Euro American art and science operate.
pean and African Americans. According to the
Archaeology, therefore, enters the political fray
National Research Council's study (Jaynes and in a difficult effort to bring new knowledge, to
Williams 1989), most African Americans ac reveal ourselves, and to create social change, or,
knowledge the continuity of racism, while most it reinforces the status quo by obfuscating the
Euroamericans deny it. If such denial can ex kinds of issues we all have trouble discussing.
ist regarding current practices, what must be the Concerns for patrons, clients, and the entertain
revisionist perceptions of the past?
ment value of interpretation as revenue-generat
Perhaps, due to this continuity of slavery's
ing must come into play as interpreters of ar
legacy, there are some issues blacks do not yet chaeological material think about the relation
feel comfortable about sharing with whites. between their career security and the stories they
can tell. This is the manner in which archaeol
Given the extent of denial and racist thinking,
Euroamerican visitors might not be trusted to
interpret African-American life and history with
out the use of stereotypical lenses. Are they
likely to laugh or cry in the "wrong" places
during colonial reenactments? Are
Euroamericans also likely to invoke justifications
for the inequities they historically fostered?and
continue to benefit from?which protect their
ogy is us. It articulates with broader political,
economic, and psychological interests and moti
vations. "Nevertheless," writes Edwards, "some
archaeologists still present strong authoritative
discourses disguised in a cloak of objectivity and
apolitical rhetoric."
By whom, for whom, and for what is archae
ology brought to bear on American political life?
own favorably-constructed identity at the expense As a politically loaded endeavor, archaeology
of an adequate sensibility toward the tragedy and
needs to take seriously the relevance of values
courage embedded in the African-American ex of participatory democracy for its practice, as
other anthropologists have begun to do (Forman
surveys and interviews meant to elicit racism 1994). If we acknowledge that politics influence
related attitudes and other sociological informa us, we, as producers of social knowledge, must
tion on the perceptions of colonial interpreta also acknowledge that we influence politics.
tions.
Given these intrinsic relationships, we have an
perience? It would be useful to have actual
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
142 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31(3)
obligation to decide the kind of political practice
in which we are willing to participate.
The traditional position, that archaeologists are
equipped as apolitical individuals to discern ob
jective truth, is materially baseless. Such notions
may actually be evidence of the field's cultural
influences. As Ruth Frankenberg's (Frankenberg
1994) interviews tell so convincingly, even lib
eral, antiracist white women tend to be imbued
with the notion that they have the unique right
have not had an opportunity to take for granted,
or even to agree with.
In my experience of North American and
Maya archaeology, in which I was engaged dur
ing the 1960s and '70s; and of bioarchaeology
and physical anthropology in the United States,
Europe, and Africa ever since, archaeologists are
afflicted by the same racist ills as other Ameri
cans. One thing comes through the numerous
cases of negotiation between African Americans,
to be in control, to lead, and to speak in the anthropologists, and museums in which I have
authoritative and objective voice reserved for been involved: if one is to understand how ar
"normal" individuals. They define whiteness as chaeology articulates with African-American
acultural, or otherwise express fears of recogniz communities, one must consider how
ing what Euroamerican cultural identity would Euroamerican racism is expressed by the behav
represent if it existed, especially considering the iors of archaeologists.
The way I see it, anthropologists and
critiques of other ethnic groups.
This emic construction of whiteness partly museologists have often sought to maintain con
denies that whites are a social group with re trol of cultural, and career, resources in a man
sponsibilities and privileges of membership, ner with which African Americans are all too
while ascribing to them, as individuals, an au familiar. In fact, I suspect this is where much
thoritative voice. This aspect of Euroamerican of Maria Franklin's "push and shove" originates.
culture contradicts egalitarian and democratic In our society, there is what might be called the
values, while it is nonetheless deeply influenced
by notions of the primacy of the individual to
which such rights and freedoms are ascribed.
This is, indeed, a fundamental contradiction of
American national life, informed by the legacy
of the liberal Revolutionary ideals and the white
supremacist and classist practices upon which the
"racist power relations routine," which governs
interaction between whites and "the other." It
partly governs the relations between African
Americans and archaeologists, but can be found
in any historically white organization.
The routine begins with thoughtless disregard
for "the other's" involvement in what had been
nation was founded.
a realm of white-controlled decision-making.
"The other" had not been involved previously,
and little thought is given to current involve
ment. In the second phase, if "the other" seeks
their culture in which archaeology is, therefore,
embedded. Or, is focusing on archaeologists as involvement, efforts will be made to exclude
white people unfair? Is it fairer to express what them, unless forced by laws or risk of social
the anthropologist Frankenberg shows to be the sanction. Laws governing public comment, af
emic view, that archaeologists, too, are just or firmative action, discrimination, and repatriation
dinary people acting as individuals who seek to do exist and are used as leverage by "the other"
seeking inclusion and empowerment. Persistent
be objective scientists? As those who just hap
efforts for inclusion are then likely to be toler
pen to exert control over the construction of
ated by Euroamerican organizations, but only in
everyone else's history as a result of personal
powerless roles and token numbers if necessary
career choices? No self-respecting social scien
tist would describe any other sociocultural group or opportune?or by bringing the "other" into a
as so amorphous and culture-free. American developing research, interpretive, or other pro
archaeology is a 99.9 percent Euroamerican or gram toward the end in order to validate deci
Archaeologists, with precious few exceptions,
were born and raised as white people, and it is
ganization, and Euroamericans seem bent on
controlling things to an extent that other groups
sions already made by Euroamericans. In the
third phase of the routine, should things progress
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 143
to that point, Euroamericans begin to cry "re white people, albeit their interest in African
verse racism" and "unfair" if "the other" claims American history.
equal or greater power in decision-making than
Black people do not want to work for white
is held by whites. African Americans with people's purposes at the expense of their own
equivalent or greater credentials are often more empowerment, perhaps especially not when it
adamantly obstructed because they are not easily comes to the study and interpretation of them
peripheralized. The practices of inclusion and selves. Franklin cautions that archaeologists are
meritocracy thus threaten the deprivileging of not the appropriate ones to determine who
whites, a conflict of Revolutionary ideals and among African Americans should represent the
white supremacist attitudes.
views of the descendant community. The ten
Each reaction is intensified when African dency to presume such authority relates to
Americans, as "the other," bring to the table the Frankenberg's findings, and the second phase of
most potentially confusing and insulting quality the "racist power relations routine." What is so
for many Euroamericans, that of equal or greater
encouraging, however, is that these archaeologists
qualifications for the task at hand. What could got the message and were secure enough to re
be more belittling and threatening to the social spond appropriately: they began to share real
status or ego of individual Euroamericans, control.
In the case of the New York African Burial
enculturated with notions of white supremacy,
than that individual blacks might be equally or Ground Project, African Americans cared too
more qualified than they? Whatever personal much to turn away. They would not allow
themselves to be defined or to have their ances
self-questioning of competence one may have
entertained must be heightened under those cir try constructed by archaeologists and physical
cumstances.
anthropologists who were openly taking them
This contradiction may be especially great in
through the "racist power relations routine."
a scientific field, given the profound When an African-American research institution
interpenitration among definitions of the "scien
tist," "whiteness," and modern "sapiens" which,
interestingly enough, anthropologists served to
create for our enculturation. Here I refer to the
characteristics of intelligence or objective reason
ing, leading to authority or control of natural and
human resources (Blakey 1990, 1991). This is
part of the culture with which African-American
anthropologists must contend in order to work.
Given that these power relations are grounded
in notions of white supremacy, it should be no
surprise that the African-American public shows
little interest in participation when they encoun
ter them. McDavid ran into that brick wall, and
I believe it is partly what Linda Deny also ex
perienced. They were proceeding under norma
tive Euroamerican cultural assumptions that drive
became involved, and regarded the descendant as
its ethical client, a choice became available that
allowed African Americans to redress racism and
claim control of their community's cultural con
struction (LaRoche and Blakey, this volume).
Some very positive results of community en
gagement have been shown. The community's
involvement and interest is essential to the sig
nificance and even financial support for archaeo
logical projects, as demonstrated by the African
Burial Ground. Public interest and pressure can
be more persuasive to federal agencies and other
funders than are anthropologists alone. John
Baker shows, furthermore, like Deny and others,
the richness of the database that communities, if
interested and empowered, may bring to the
table. All of the papers speak compellingly of
the routine. African Americans ignored or
avoided those archaeological and preservation
the promise of engagement, despite its problems.
Furthermore, as Edwards and others point out,
initiatives until they were afforded an adequate
share of real decision-making influence. Other
wise, they would simply serve the interests of
there are major African-American cultural and
historical institutions that, as I choose to put it,
have been interpreting African-American history
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
144 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 31(3)
since long before American archaeologists were
availed of contracts for studying those who pre
viously were of little interest. African Ameri
cans have long invested in the study of their
objects remains at the fore, some movement has
occurred to include obligations to the living in
archaeology. NAGPRA did not accidentally pre
cede these changes. (Physical anthropology has
own history. Now that archaeologists are so no formal ethical guidelines, and that is possibly
increasingly involved, how odd and telling it is for the better). Both fields would be served by
that they rely so little on African-American ex attending to the American Anthropological
pertise, curricula, literature, and professional or Association's Statement of Ethics, which, while
ganizations. There is no possibility of viewing vague, has benefited from the longer exposure of
"the other" as equal if they cannot also be fol cultural anthropologists to the ethical treatment
lowed in areas other than sports and entertain of living people. One thing is for sure, it does
ment. Certainly, the unusually high participation not much matter what one finds as a result of
of African Americans in "In the Realm of Poli research when the public is disinterested or even
tics" has made for a critical debate of issues that opposed to the way in which information is ob
might not otherwise have emerged.
tained. When Native American representatives
The great divide persisting between African compared bioarchaeological research to Nazi
American cultural institutions and African-Ameri medicine, I initially saw little relationship. Af
can archaeology?or the Euroamerican archaeol
ter some struggle with this, the comparison now
ogy of African-American life?continues to give seems useful. Should we use inhumanely ac
testament to the unbroken legacy of racial seg quired data?
The sharing of power and, yes, the ability of
regation within and without the academy. To
bridge these fields and the ethnic groups repre a people to tell their own story are in and of
senting them means sharing leadership and themselves among the most positive results that
power. Can Euroamerican scholars at times an archaeological research program can have on
choose to follow the intellectual lead of blacks? a community. The opposite case, of course, is
also true. To deny a people empowerment for
Is it somehow a racist proposition to suggest that
African-American scholars and institutions have self-definition is one of the most harmful results
accumulated leading insights about their own possible from archaeological research imaginable.
I have emphasized one of two fundamental
historical experience? Much obviously remains
unknown about their history, but the needed ex aspects of Euroamerican social relations, that
ploration should begin at its most developed which is guided by the norms and expectations
inherent in their albeit underexamined adherence
point.
to the ideology of white supremacy. There is, as
For African-American intellectual leadership to
be acknowledged and used requires, if not a
revolution beyond white supremacist thinking, at
least a process of inclusion and empowerment
where a difficult conversation can take place
between old antagonists. Both public engage
ment and an increase in the representation of
African-American archaeologists and physical
anthropologists are essential to that process.
That process should transform Euroamerican
identity in healthy if painful ways. Perhaps
through this process the levels of constructive
criticism can be raised and appreciated on all
sides.
In search of ethical principles for engagement,
Franklin finds that while protection of material
earlier discussed, another side guided by the
values inherent in the nation's Revolutionary
egalitarian ideals. This over-examined belief in
meritocracy, justice, diversity, and equality sheds
but half the light, leaving in shadow that side of
archaeological practice, Euroamerica, and the
United States that if illuminated would inform an
understanding of a conflict and contradiction that
better defines Euroamerica. Both sides should
be acknowledged, and were it not for the liberal
side of things, we would not be having this dis
cussion. My experience with archaeologists has
also repeatedly shown the progressive side of
American culture to be widespread. Hence, the
quandary of Euroamerican liberalism has been
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COMMENTARY: PAST IS PRESENT 145
emphasized in my comments because, in their
intrinsic conflict, there is hope. Rightists seem
beyond the pale, and black students of archaeol
Gathercole and David Lowenthal, pp. 38-48. Unwin
Hyman, London.
1991 Man and Nature, White and Other. In Decolonizing
Anthropology, edited by Faye V. Harrison, pp. 8-16.
ogy are still witness to their overtly racist behav
Association of Black Anthropologists and the
ior, just as my black mentors and I had been.
Yet, liberal or rightist, the modern
Euroamerican resolution of the American contra
diction tends to reside in a belief in human
American Anthropological Association, Washington,
DC.
1994 Passing the Buck: Modernization and Individualism
as Anthropological Expressions of Euro-American
Denial. In Race, edited by Steven Gregory and Roger
Sanjek, pp. 270-284. Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, NJ.
equality under the requisite condition that whites
retain privilege and control. African Americans
often see the hypocracy in that posture and fail
forman, shepard
to recognize the absence of racism among those
1994 Diagnosing America: Anthropology and Public
who insist upon controlling the construction of
Engagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, MI.
their heritage. Similar conflicts occur between
American archaeologists and national govern
ments or indigenous peoples in other parts of the
world where archaeologists work. These nations
and ethnic groups increasingly hold in check the
Frankenberg, Ruth
1994 Whiteness and Americanness: Examining
Constructions of Race, Culture, and Nation in White
Women's Narratives. In Race, edited by Steven
Gregory and Roger Sanjek, pp. 62-77. Rutgers
vestiges of colonialism that American
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
archaologists represent, when legal and bureau
cratic means are used to employ and empower Jaynes, Gerald D., and Robin M. Williams, Jr.
their own scholarship at the expense of the kind
1989 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society.
of wholesale discretion over the world's cultural
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
resources that antiquarians and scientists of Eu
Mark P., Parker B. Potter, Jr., and Paul A.
ropean descent once enjoyed. This is the con Leone,
Shackel
text in which African-American, and Native
1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology
American, archaeological issues need also to be
understood. This is the context in which archae
ologists-as-Euroamericans might better understand
the daily choices they are making about their
own roles in the making of tomorrow's history.
28(3):283-302.
Turner, Margery, Michael Fix, and Raymond J.
Struyk
1991 Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished.
Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
REFERENCES
Michael L. Blakey
Blakey, Michael L.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
New York African Burial Ground Project
Cobb Laboratory
1990 American Nationality and Ethnicity in the Depicted
Past. In The Politics of the Past, edited by Peter
Howard University
Washington, DC 20059
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.140 on Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:56:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Santa Clara University
Scholar Commons
Faculty Publications
Anthropology
2-2013
Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross
Kent G. Lightfoot
Sara Gonzalez
Darren Modzelewski
Lee M. Panich
Santa Clara University, lpanich@scu.edu
Otis Parrish
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/anthro_fac_pubs
Part of the Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation
Gonzalez, Sara, Kent G. Lightfoot, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider (2007). Cultures in Contact at
Colony Ross. In Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology, by S. Neusius and G. T. Gross, pp. 302-309.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
This material was originally published in Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology edited by Sarah W. Neusius & G. Timothy
Gross, and has been reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press. For permission to reuse this material, please visit http://www.oup.co.uk/
academic/rights/permissions.
This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty
Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact rscroggin@scu.edu.
Authors
Kent G. Lightfoot, Sara Gonzalez, Darren Modzelewski, Lee M. Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider
This book chapter is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/anthro_fac_pubs/63
Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross
221
CASE STUDY
When thinking about the European colonization of California, it is easy to forget that Russia as well as Spain was a colonial power along this part of the Pacific Coast. Yet Russians
competed for trade well south of Alaska , establishing a
colony, called Colony Ross, north of what today is San Francisco. Here the Russian-American Company rather than the
Spanish had considerable effect on Native people, as detailed
in this case study about the Fort Ross Archaeological Project.
The fort community was multiethnic, including Alaskan Natives, Coast Miwok and Kashaya Pomo Indians, and Russians.
This case study describes a collaborative program between
the Fort ·Ross State Historic Park, the Kashaya Pomo Tribe,
California State Parks, and the University of California at
Berkeley that focuses on the impact of Russian colonialism on
the Native peoples of this area. Because of their collaboration
with Kashaya Pomo elders, the archaeologists were able to
develop low-impact strategies for gathering data primarily by
using geophysical testing as well as traditional excavation.
They also are major contributors to changes in the interpretive program at Fort Ross through their work on a Kashaya
Pomo interpretive trail and a digital website that will make
the native story at Colony Ross more widely accessible. As you
read this case study, reflect on the example it provides of how
archaeologists now try to incorporate diverse stakeholders
in their work. How does this context change the story that
gets told?
CULTURES IN CONTACT AT COLONY ROSS
Kent G. Lightfoot, Sara Gonzalez, Darren Modzelewski, Lee Panich, Otis Parrish, and Tsim Schneider
For thousands of years before the coming of Europeans, Kashaya Pomo and Coast Miwok peoples inhabited the coastal lands north of San Francisco Bay. Like
many other California Indians, they were huntergatherers who harvested wild plants and animals from
the sea and land for food, medicine, clothing, housing
material, and ceremonial regalia. Villages nestled
along protected coastal embayments and ridge tops
of the Northern Coast Ranges mountains contained
tule-thatched or redwood bark houses, ceremonial
structures (round houses), sweat houses, dance enclosures, and extramural cooking and work areas. Large
villages served as the political centers for broader
communities of dispersed family groups who would
come together for periodic dances, ceremonies, initiation rites, and feasts.
With the founding of Colony Ross in 1812 by the
Russian-American Company (RAC), a mercantile enterprise licensed by the tsar of Russia, life would
change forever for the Kashaya Pomo and the Coast
Miwok. The Russian merchants placed the primary
administrative center of the colony, which they called
the Ross settlement, in the heart of Kashaya Pomo
territory, and they chose Bodega Harbor in Coast
Miwok country to be the principal port facility (Port
Rumiantsev) (Figure 7.15). The Russian-American
Company came to California to profit from the exploitation of the region's natural bounty. The mercantile
,;_
~ xkh
Ross Settl emen\_,...,tr
~,~❖
"r-'''-;
Ranch
* Kostromitinov Ran
* Khlebnikov
Port Rumiantsev
N
h
~
• Farallon Artel
Far
Purchase answer to see full
attachment