PRESERVING THE FORT ROSS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD]

E. Breck Parkman 2560 Meier Road Sebastopol, CA 95472

ABSTRACT

A major archaeological program is currently under way at Fort Ross State Historic Park, located on 's North Coast. The two major aspects of the program concern the Native Alaskan Village site and the Russian Orthodox Cemetery. Traditionally, little has been known about either the Village or Cemetery, and this lack of understanding has made their protection more difficult. It is the author's contention that the Fort Ross archaeological resources must be made more visible if they are to be preserved. This paper, then, is a discussion of the rationale behind the program's implementation.

INTRODUCTION the California Department ofParks and Rec­ reation (hereafter, DPR). Naturally, these goals Fort Ross State Historic Park (hereafter, pertain to archaeological sites as well as other FRSHP), located on the Sonoma County coast in kinds of cultural resources. Archaeological northern California, is an internationally-signifi­ preservation, or, perhaps more accurately, "con­ cant historic resource (see Farris 1989: Lightfoot servation," is accomplished by the DPR to a et al. 1991). The park contains numerous archae­ relatively high degree, in comparison to other ological sites, many of them associated with the public land stewards. However, the interpretation Russian-American Fur Company's 1812-1841 of the archaeological record is only occasionally outpost, "Colony Ross." Currently, a major undertaken. Those projects recently conducted at scientific undertaking, known as the Fort Ross FRSHP serve as examples of how both interpreta­ Archaeological Project, is underway at FRSHP. tion and preservation can be realized, and how the The project is being conducted under the direction former might positively affect the success of the ofDr. Kent Lightfoot, of the University of Cali­ latter. This paper, then, is a discussion of the Fort fomia at Berkeley (hereafter, UCB), and has Ross archaeological program, and a synthesis of involved the archaeological programs of UCB, the rationale behind its implementation. Sonoma State University, and Santa Rosa Junior College. Additionally, a second project, the Rus­ sian Cemetery Restoration Project, is also un­ BASIS FOR PRESERVATION derway at FRSHP, under the direction ofDr. Lynne Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin at FRSHP is an approximately 3,000-acre unit Milwaukee. of the California State Park System. It was ac­ quired by the State of California in 1906, in order The preservation and interpretation of cultural to protect the last architectural remnants of the old resources are two of the more important goals of Russian compound. Later acquisitions, including

Proceedings of the Society for Califonua Archaeology. 1994. Vol -. pp. 47·59 Copyright () 1994 by the Society for California Archaeology a 2,OOO-acre purchase in 1991, have allowed the archaeological sites. These outstanding resources park to absorb into its holdings, the surrounding are set aside and protected from development and historic viewshed, and the associated archaeologi­ destruction, so as to explain and justify our inabil­ cal sites found outside the compound. ity to protect other aspects ofour world. Parks are a basic element ofour civilization, and that fact The historic landscape that comprised the should not and must not be separated from any heart of Fort Ross was acquired by the State of review ofdevelopments that encroach on park California in recognition of its extreme signifi­ values. FRSHP represents a "set-aside" where cance, and in order to protect and preserve it for· some of California's fmest archaeological re­ future generations of Californians. These lands sources were deemed to be "irreplaceable" por­ were transferred to the DPR in recognition of this tions of our state's historic heritage, and were thus Department's responsibility for managing such acquired so as to protect them, and hold them in resource-sensitive properties. Indeed, the Mission "trust" for future generations. FRSHP exists in Statement of the DPR makes clear the reason why part due to the tremendous destruction realized Fort Ross became a state historic park: this century by California's archaeological record. Therefore, those development projects which are The function ofthe California State Park and not consistent with park values, should be per­ Recreation Commission and the Department of ceived as threats to the reason and being of the Parks & Recreation is to acquire, protect, develop, park. Such projects undermine the very founda­ and interpret for the inspiration, use, and en­ tion ofthe preservation movement, and are an joyment ofthe people ofthe State a balanced affront to our own moralistic defmitions of what system of areas ofoutstanding scenic, recreational and historic importance. These areas shall be held civilization entails. in trust as irreplaceable portions of California's natural and historic heritage. Those archaeological sites located within FRSHP are among the best protected of any If the concept of "historic preservation" is public-owned sites in California. The park's truly to have meaning, then it is at FRSHP that primary archaeological sites (those located adja­ "preservation" will ring true. Parks such as cent to the Russian compound) have been listed on FRSHP are created in order that we, as a society, the National Register of Historic Places. Fort might preserve some representative sample of Ross is listed on the Historic American Buildings what our world was once like. As we continue to Survey, and has been designated a State and develop and change forever the natural and cul­ National Historical Landmark, as well. Other turallandscapes around us, parks like Fort Ross protection is made available by the California become environmental islands (and, perhaps Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. The Fort eventually, "sacred" lands, such as Yosemite Ross sites are best protected, however, by inclu­ National Park), to which our population can sion in the state historic park. Additionally, the escape in order to better appreciate our natural and park's General Plan (Carlson 1976) created a historic heritage. "Zone of Primary Cultural Interest," and includes within it the park's primary archaeological sites. Another aspect of parks such as FRSHP is that they represent moral and legal commitments FRSHP was acquired in order to protect and to the belief in and necessity of preservation. preserve these sites, and they have been deemed to Indeed, as a society, we justify much ofour be "irreplaceable" portions of California's historic development and destruction of the environment heritage, to be held in "trust" for future genera­ on the fact that we have preserved representative tions. Indeed, Section 1832.1 of the DPR's samples of outstanding resources, be they the Operations Manual states that, "The Department fmest of the old-growth redwoods, the most scenic of Parks and Recreation is the 'conscience' of state of the , or the most significant of the government in relation to identification, descrip­

48 ICS tion, protection, preservation, and interpretation of one of the nation's preeminent authorities on parks ltd significant archeological sites, deposits, and and cultural resources. We will maintain our role IliI­ remains throughout California" (DPR 1979). In as leaders, not only in the eyes ofother park ire order to accomplish this, the Resource Manage­ professionals, but also in the public's eye. We will undertake initiatives to make sure that opinion ment Directives of the DPR mandate that: leaders and the public are aware ofthe benefits of the California park service. (50) The Department shall maintain a statewide inventory of all known archaeological sites, shall Recently, Governor Pete Wilson (1992) en­ participate in planning for preservation and protec­ tion of archaeological resources in California, and dorsed historic preservation with his Executive Order W-26-92, which mandates each state agen­ ws shall be responsible for protection, preservation, and interpretation of archaeological sites in the cy: state park system. (I) To administer the cultural and historic prop­ The preservation of cultural resources is man­ erties under its control in a spirit of stewardship ill. dated by numerous other DPR directives. For and trusteeship for future generations; and .,D example, in former DPR Director Henry Agonia's Directions: A Focus for Action (Agonia 1990), (2) To initiate measures necessary to direct its policies, plans, and programs in such a way that ten directives were presented for the Department. state-owned sites, structures, and objects of his tor­ Three of them concerned the proper management ical, architectural, or archaeological significance of cultural resources: are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people; and Foster a sense of responsibility on the part ofthe public for the natural, cultural, and recreational (3) To ensure that the protection of significant resources of California. heritage resources are given full consideration in all of its land use and capital outlay decisions. Protect significant natural, cultural, and recre­ ational resources. Given all of the resource protection cited IOn above, it is quite apparent that historic properties, Expand our commitment to natural and cultural such as FRSHP, should be and will be protected resource management and protection programs. ~ for future generations. But can they really be preserved? In spite of all this apparent protection, Current DPR Director Donald Murphy (1992) there is reason to fear that they cannot be pre­ has recently presented a list of six important goals served. for this Department. Two of them concern cul­ Drt tural resources:

Advocacy: CPS [California Park Service] will THREATS TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL position itself at the forefront of positive change by RECORD I assuming the lead role in proposing and sup­ porting beneficial mission-related legislation, in The Fort Ross archaeological record is very educating our legislative leaders about the recre­ well protected, and yet, it is not. Coastal erosion ational, environmental and fmancial importance of and other natural processes (including the destruc­ lto state parks and cultural resources, and in opposing tive effects of gophers, wild pigs, acidic soils, and legislation that could be detrimental to the mission Ie wildfires) are chipping away at the resource base. of the state park system. We must also establish and nurture our local communities as bases of Indeed, coastal sites along the entire California support for the state park system. coast are being impacted by erosion. Archaeologi­ It cal projects, including the Fort Ross Archaeologi­ ~ Public awareness: CPS will continue its role as cal Project, have been initiated in order to evaluate

49 and salvage precious samples of the eroding sites. the site deposits were excavated and analyzed, and Such projects include Sonoma State University's thus serve as important samples should the sites excavations at MacKerricher State Park (White be totally lost. A third site, SON-18981H, located 1989), Sinkyone Wilderness State Park (Waech­ on the north side of Fort Ross , was exca­ ter 1988), and (Lightfoot et vated by crews from the University of California al. 1991:82-83). at Berkeley, under the direction of Dr. Kent Lightfoot, in 1988-1989. This site represents a Archaeological sites are also being impacted Russian-era work site with both primary and 1 by way of cultural processes. Impacts are realized secondary deposits of Russian, native Alaskan, I as a result of illegal collecting ("pothunting") and native Californian materials. Whereas no I activities, by the degradation brought about by further work (or stabilization) is anticipated for c excessive site-visitation, and by the effects of the SON-1453 and SON-14541H, it is not yet clear 1: current fiscal recession and, consequently, govern­ what will become the fate of SON-18981H. An C ment's growing failure to protect its public re­ engineered solution to the site's erosion may yet be ~ sources. Archaeological resources throughout the attempted by the DPR. Y State Park System are potential casualties of these c impacts, Fort Ross included. Other natural impacts. including the adverse I effects of wild fifes, have happened to the Fort 1 Fort Ross might serve as an example, then, of Ross archaeological sites. A wild frre in 1991 SI how California's "protected" cultural resources are burned a substantial area within FRSHP. and D threatened. In the following, I discuss the kinds of resulted in significant damage to SON-171, a tJ impacts, actual and potential, that threaten the large Kashaya Porno ridge-top residential site. [II FRSHP archaeological record, and the strategy Through the use of prescribed burning, and the 1 that has been employed to combat them. archaeological survey work that accompanies it, it is possible to lessen or eliminate the adverse Coastal erosion constitutes one of the greatest effects of wild fife on archaeological resources f1 natural threats to the archaeological resources of (Parkman et al. 1981). To date, control bums IU FRSHP, and, in fact, the entire coastline of have not been implemented at FRSHP, although gll California. Although it is understood that coastal they have been initiated at nearby Salt Point State dt erosion is a natural process that cannot be elimi­ Park (see Bramlette and Fredrickson 1990). 8t nated, it can be slowed in certain situations. tal Engineered solutions, such as the rip-rapping of The adverse effects of feral pig rooting have t.e! an exposed site, are costly, and cannot realistically been relatively severe at FRSHP, especially in the trr be employed at every endangered site. With upland meadows and ridgelands. The pigs often hii relatively small amounts of funding available for root the upper 10-20 cm (sometimes more) of site tfn such projects, it is flfst necessary to evaluate the deposits in their search for edible foods. Although m relative significance of endangered sites so as to the DPR has conducted a successful pig-eradica­ DlI best utilize our monetary assets. At FRSHP, at tion project at nearby Annadel State Park, little ye: least three archaeological sites are being severely has been done to eliminate the problem at FRSHP. ec affected by coastal erosion. Two ofthese sites, aC SON-1453 and SON-14541H, both of which The Fort Ross archaeological sites are also ad contain pre-Contact deposits situated on the edge being adversely affected by cultural processes. For pu of a terrace immediately north of Fort Ross. were the most part, these cultural impacts are gradual, re: test excavated by crews from Sonoma State and often more a matter of resource degradation 11M University, under the direction of Dr. David than outright destruction. For example, with an lUll Fredrickson, and Santa Rosa Junior College, under ever-increasing park attendance, those sites de lie:: the direction of Thomas Origer, in 1988 (Light­ adjacent to the Russian compound are experienc­ foot et al. 1991 :82-83). Endangered portions of ing increasing amounts of pedestrian and vehicle

50 nd compaction, as well as illegal artifact collection. parklands, forests, and wilderness preserves have In the case of the latter, many tourists follow an undergone a 12 year siege, with disastrous results d old American custom of taking home a souvenir of (e.g., see Anonymous 1990; Findley 1990). their visit. These souvenirs are normally "only" an Indeed, the threats posed to parks by a resource­ artifact or two, and might consist of a square nail, hungry American society are not unlike those an especially attractive ceramic sherd, a glass facing parks throughout the developing world bead, gun flint, or stone projectile point. Al­ (e.g., see Lucas 1992). though it is illegal to collect artifacts within a state park, there is insufficient staffmg at FRSHP to The DPR has not been spared the growing prevent it. The Native Alaskan Village site, locat­ confrontations between environmentally-moti­ ed inunediately adjacent to the compound, is the vated resource professionals and their politically­ most heavily collected site, since it receives most motivated agency heads (see Dillinger 1990). The ofthe visitors. More serious collecting ("pot­ following examples illustrate how difficult it has be hunting") has not been noted at FRSHP in recent become to protect parklands from outside threats: years, although serious incidents have been re­ corded at nearby Salt Point State Park, and at the (I) California's Off Shore Oil: During the 1980s, Duncan's Landing Rockshelter site (SON-3481H). both the Reagan and Bush administrations pushed The Duncan's Landing incidents resulted in the to open the northern California coast to oil explo­ site being sampled, then protected by an engi­ ration. The Fort Ross coastline was part of the neered solution that included the placement atop affected area. Experiences elsewhere indicated the site of a protective mesh of fencing and fill that off shore oil drilling requires extensive on material (see Parkman 1993; Schwaderer et al. shore processing facilities. Although it was feared 1990). that park values could be adversely affected by off iit shore oil drilling, state park staff were denied Perhaps the greatest cultural threat at work at meaningful involvement in the democratic debates FRSHP is one of a more enigmatic and frustrating brought about by a concerned citizenry, which has nature. It is a problem involving the uncontrolled to date halted the drilling. Although considered growth of California's human population, its stewards of the parklands, park staff were practi­ Ie d"indling tax base and subsequent public pro­ cally silenced during these proceedings, and thus gram cuts, and the growing failure ofgovernmen­ not allowed to best protect the parklands they tal bureaucracies to uphold the public trust in serve. terms of resource protection. This is especially If: troubling given California's history as a leader m (2) Flood-Control at Anderson Marsh: Since the historic preservation (Owens 1987). Although late 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has :te these new threats are partly a result ofthe current attempted to build a by pass channel along Cache recession and California's changing demographics, Creek and through Anderson Marsh State Historic P much ofthe blame can be traced to the past 12 Park. The channel would destroy a large portion years of "Reaganomics": the "Trickle-Do"n" of the Anderson Marsh Archaeological District, !P. economic philosophies ofthe Reagan and Bush perhaps the best protected archaeological sites in administrations. From the very start, the Reagan California and the nation. Anderson Marsh State administration set a tone for what followed: that Historic Park was purchased by the state in order cor public lands, regardless of theIr status, were to preserve and hold in "trust" these sites as resource reservoirs to be exploited by private "irreplaceable" portions of the state's historic industry, be it ranching, mining conglomerates, heritage. Although the Army Corps is prepared to lumber companies, or the oil industry. Even the conduct an archaeological mitigation project along deeds of President Bush, who wanted to be the Cache Creek, no amount of excavation can justify "environmental president," did not match his the destruction of "irreplaceable" resources held in campaign rhetoric (see Craig 1991). As a result, the public "trust." Although there was a public

51 outcry against this project by many in the local philosophy of protecting archaeological resources community, DPR staff were, again, excluded from on parldands, as opposed to those on non-park­ the debate by the state's decision to have the Army lands, is much like the distinction that exists Corps' proposal handled by the office of the state's between the concepts of "preservation" and "con­ Secretary of Resources, who favored construction servation," as delineated by Sierra Club founder of the channel. Once again, state park staff were John Muir, and forester Gifford Pinchot (see Muir officially silenced, and thus not allowed to protect 1901:270-271,1908:217; Vickery 1986:88-91). parldands. Outside California's parldands, we are at best struggling to conserve our archaeological record, A recent Caltrans project to widen State High­ by attempting the preservation of some sites while way 53 at Anderson Marsh State Historic Park allowing the destruction of others. In the case of has further indicated that government is either many of the sites slated for destruction, we unwilling or incapable of truly preserving that mitigate the loss by preserving archaeological which it claims to preserve. In the case of the knowledge based on salvage excavations. How­ highway project, "irreplaceable" portions of the ever, preserving knowledge derived from a de­ state's historic and natural heritage were replaced stroyed site and preserving the site itself are two by nearby parcels so as to allow for the construc­ entirely different things. Within the parldands, tion of the expanded and rerouted highway atop our mission is to preserve the archaeological some of the most significant and best-protected record, and that requires preserving each and archaeological resources in California. Although every site. Every site is considered equally signifi­ considered an archaeological "preserve." the cant, and the whole (i.e., the district) is considered Anderson Marsh sites were not preserved. And it as important as any particular part (i.e., the site). CI is not just archaeological sites that are in danger of Whereas conservation allows us to value individ­ II disappearing. Caltrans plans to widen State High­ ual trees. or archaeological sites, while devaluing fl way 101 through Del Norte Coast Redwoods State the forest, or archaeological district, preservation Park, in northwestern California, although to do so means saving the entire forest, or district, so that ~ will mean the destruction of at least one hundred we preserve the many relationships existing U old-growth redwood trees, many of which are among the various parts. This, in tum, allows us !! 11 located in a memorial grove. These trees serve as to better appreciate a landscape's natural ecology, ]i living memorials for deceased individuals. the and the cultural dynamics of its human occupa­ II loved ones of whom have donated sizeable tion. amounts of money to the state for this honor. If these trees and the Anderson Marsh archaeologi­ Unfortunately, as increasing human popula­ cal sites are not safe from our development, then tion pressures tum parldands into environmental no site or tree in California is safe. And that is "islands," more and more adverse impacts loom on exactly my point! the horizon. When these impacts become real, the government usually confuses preservation with conservation, and thus determines how much of GIVING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL the resource is to be mitigated so as to allow the di destruction of the other. In light of the destruction RECORD VISIBILITY g that has been done to California's archaeological III Preserving archaeological resources, espe­ record - scholars fear that 98% of the nation's archaeological record could be destroyed by the OJ cially archaeological districts. such as Anderson ~ year 2050! (see Herscher 1989:68~ Knudson Marsh or Fort Ross, is similar to the preservation C 1989:71) - preservation is essential on parldands. of wilderness areas. No amount of human Impact I'll can be tolerated, especially that which is brought Allowing developments to destroy park resources, even if a portion of the sites are excavated, is no Si< about by development and exploitation. The iu different than allowing the clear-cutting of a ViI 52 lIteS protected wilderness. The dilenuna for park Under the direction of Drs. Lightfoot and k- archaeologists, then, is how to bring about true Goldstein, and Dr. Glenn Farris of the DPR, the preservation? That brings us back to Fort Ross, Fort Ross archaeological program has emerged as COll­ and the subject of this paper. one of the nation's premier archaeological investi· Ier gations, resulting in tremendous benefit to FRSHP Muir In 1988, we initiated the Fort Ross Archaeo­ and the DPR, the academic and professional 11). logical Project in order to evaluate the impacts conununities, members ofthe Russian Orthodox being realized by coastal erosion. Soon, the and Native Alaskan conununities, and the general I'd, project was expanded in order to afford more public. As a result of these projects, the park's lVhile visibility to the archaeological record. During the archaeological record has become increasingly :of mid-1980s, it seemed as if the DPR viewed more visible and interpretable. Indeed, the goals FRSHP as a relatively insignificant park, with law of the Fort Ross investigations include locating enforcement, rather than interpretation or resource the remains of a native Alaskan house and the WI­ management, being of primary concern. The individual grave locations within the Russian historic interpretation that was available did not Cemetery so that the two can be accurately recon­ wo always appear to be entirely accurate (see Park· structed. There is currently little for the public to iI, man 1992a). The Fort Ross Archaeological see outside the reconstructed walls of the Russian Project began with Dr. David Fredrickson's and compound. This results in their false impression Thomas Origer's field classes from Sonoma State that Colony Ross was nothing more than a fort, plifi­ University and Santa Rosa Junior College test when, in fact, the area outside the walls was a aed excavating SON·1453 and SON· 14541H. That thriving settlement (Parkman 1992a). Just as the re). same year, Dr. Kent Lightfoot and a field class public fails to appreciate the history that charac­ 00­ from the University of California at Berkeley terized the area outside the walls, the government 109 began an investigation of SON-18981H, the Fort has failed to appreciate the nature and significance ltOIl Ross Beach site. The Berkeley work has contin­ of the archaeological record found there. By nat ued at FRSHP, and has included a comprehensive reconstructing a portion of the settlement, we hope survey ofthe park, and an investigation of the to provide the visibility necessary to better protect IUS Native Alaskan Village site, SON· 1897/H (Farris the archaeological record, and make irrelevant the flY, 1991, 1993; Lightfoot 1992; Lightfoot et al. old saying, "out of sight, out ofmind!" 1991). The Fort Ross archaeological record has also Additionally, the Fort Ross investigations been made visible by the large amount of news Ill­ have been supplemented by the Russian Cemetery media coverage generated about it (see Parkman tal Restoration Project, under the direction of Dr. 1992b). The interest of the news media in Fort mon Lynne Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin at Ross in 1991 resulted in local, state, national, and ,the Milwaukee. From 1990·1992, field crews from international coverage. As a result of the cover­ Il Milwaukee excavated the historic cemetery to age, park visitation increased, with many of the I)f relocate what was thought to be about 50 Ortho­ viSItors coming to see the Russian Cemetery or the lie dox graves (Goldstein 1991). In fact, at least 136 Native Alaskan Village, and the archaeologists Ilion graves were found during the excavation. This who were working there. I8l project was conducted under the close supervision of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Kodiak Area With the increased visitor and news media = Native Association, and the Sonoma County interest, the DPR appeared to grow more ap­ Coroner's Office. Now that the cemetery has been preciative of FRSHP. In fact, in 1991, DPR Ids. redefined archaeologically, the next step in this presented its annual award for resource man­ :res, sensitive and significant project is to return it to agement to the Russian River District, primarily IlD its historic appearance, by marking each gravesite for its support of archaeological work at FRSHP. with an appropriate grave marker. For the first time in years, it appeared that DPR

53 recognized the significance of the Fort Ross DPR. (

archaeological record, as well as their responsibil­ ( ity for managing it (i.e., through protection, The de-emphasizing of resource preservation I preservation, and interpretation). occurs at all levels of the DPR's operation. For C example, the Department's official Mission C Whether park professionals will be allowed to Statement (quoted above) recently underwent ~ manage the archaeological record, however, is several revisions. In at least one ofthese, the last fi another matter entirely. Regardless of their own sentence, which reads, "These areas shall be held a sense of professionalism, the pro-resource and in trust as irreplaceable portions of California's \11 pro-park decisions made by state and federal park natural and historic heritage," was deleted. At the 51 superintendents and resource managers are in­ same time, and as a result of the recession-in­ 8l creasingly subject to override by the politically­ spired reorganization of the DPR, the De­ p: appointed and politically-motivated agency heads. partment's Resource Protection Division, which 81 The past 12 years of officially-sanctioned anti­ for years has safeguarded park resources, has been R environmentalism have resulted in both state and renamed the Resource Management Division federal bureaucracies top-heavy with non-environ­ (while the Development Division has been re­ mentalists. The California State Park System is named the Environmental Design Division) (DPR CI no exception. Among the upper management staff, 1992). The word "protection," like "irreplaceable" re resource management, especially the study and and "trust," was apparently perceived as not being M preservation of archaeological resources, is user-friendly. While these semantical changes may Nl usually seen as a low priority, when compared to be purely coincidental, they might also be an bIJ recreation, revenue generation. facility mainte­ indication of the environmental woes that are Wt nance, and law enforcement. about to befall the DPR. Regrettably, it has been W years since DPR's management (albeit with some PI Whereas the DPR was once the proud sponsor exceptions) demonstrated the environmental 0­ of resource preservation and recreation, its leader­ sensitivity appropriate for an agency that might be wi! ship during the Reagan/Bush era has increasingly considered the environmental conscience of state of[ identified recreation as the Department's primary government. c:oI mission, to the detriment ofresource preservation DJ (see Dillinger 1990:314-315). It was not until While the lack ofenvironmental sensitivity prj; after World War II that recreation became recog­ among an organization's upper echelon might be bu nized as an aspect of the DPR mission. By that acceptable for some agencies, it is unacceptable in WIll time, an improved highway system allowed the case of those responsible for environmental SOfI California's increasingly mobile population greater protection, such as the DPR and the National Park as access to the far reaches ofthe state. Whereas re­ Service. A solution to the problem will be found AD source preservation could not be viewed as a in removing state and federal park agencies from "da commodity for generating revenue, recreation political interference, while at the same time W1I could. As a result, there slowly developed an increasing the environmental professionalism of tim unconscious movement toward de-emphasizmg their staff (see Gordon 1989; Pritchard 1991). the: resource preservation as an aspect of the Depart­ ID8I ment's mission, while elevating the importance of "eltt recreation. During the era of Governor George LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE mil Deukmejian (1983-1991), the administrations of DP DPR Directors William Briner and Henry Agonia Although protected, the Fort Ross archaeo­ nee:: actively endorsed the movement toward emphasiz­ logical record is still far from being safe, given the IlCSI ing the role of recreation in the Department's many problems facing the DPR, the State of mission. This movement continues, and has been California, and the nation. Because of the state's intensified by the current fiscal crisis facing the current fiscal crisis, the DPR is undergoing a

54 drastic downsizing and reorganization. As a result sites for provision of recreational opportunities is of this reorganization, there is now very little the prime park system value. But in every in­ archaeological oversight for FRSHP. In the new stance, the value of resow-ces for park system organization, there are no cultural resourcespe­ purposes is not a commercial or commodity value, cialists assigned to the park or the Russian River­ but rather an intrinsic value that is significant to human appreciation and enjoyment of the environ­ Mendocino District Office. Oversight will come ment. It is this basic difference between park from Sacramento, where a single archaeologist system values and commercial values that makes assigned to the Northern Service Center will keep extremely difficult, ifnot impossible, the express­ watch on FRSHP, as well as the numerous other ing of environmental values in monetary terms for state park units of the former Northern, Inland, conversion to or comparison with commercial and Central Coast Regions, which together com­ values, despite many ingenious but inadequate prise approximately two-thirds of California. It is attempts to fonnulate such expressions. It also an almost hopeless responsibility, and the Fort requires of the resow-ce manager in the state park Ross archaeological record will certainly suffer. system an orientation toward resow-ces completely different from the attitude ofthe person who manages resow-ces for commodity production. At the same time, as a result of the state's fis­ [DPR 1979] cal crisis, the DPR's budget has been drastically reduced by the Governor. The late William Penn In order to empower the DPR's resource man­ Mott, Jr., former head of both the DPR and the agers in developing this orientation, or vision, they , warned that the Governor's are provided (in Section 1801 of the Department's budget cuts, unless lessened in their severity, Operations Manual) with the following directive: would destroy the park system (Philp 1992). While DPR's current director, Donald Murphy (a (2) To be effective, the state park system resow-ce park professional promoted from within the manager must be able to recognize the intrinsic Department), is attempting to make the cuts and inspirational values of the environment, and without jeopardizing park resources, the severity must continually strive to defend them from of the problem will almost certainly result in destructive or damaging influences. [DPR 1979] compromises. At Governor Wilson's mandate, the DPR is studying ways to open up parklands to Additionally, park managers are reminded that private commercial ventures, so as to offset the park visitors, unless properly managed, can lead to budget cuts (see McHugh 1992). Golf courses, the destruction of the State Park System: water slides, and bed-and-breakfast inns may someday be a common sight in parks. However, Wise management of the environmental and as Aldo Leopold (1966:289-290), the great cultw-al resow-ces of the park system should be ac­ American conservationist, pointed out, such companied by an understanding and sympathetic "developments for the crowd" are a step back­ management of people visiting units in the system. With the ever-increasing use of the state park wards, and "merely water poured into the already­ system, skillful control and management of people thin soup" (1966:290). Developments such as will assume greater significance in total manage­ these "stultify the human spirit and stupefy the hu­ ment of the system. Unless the significance of this man mind," whereas parks should be places that management duality is recognized, and equal at­ "elevate the human spirit and enlighten the human tention is given to management of both visitors and mind" (Callicott 1989:265). Section 1801 of the resow-ces, the values the system attempts to DPR's Operations Manual makes a similar con­ perpetuate may be destroyed. [DPR 1979] nection between parks and environmental aware­ But the DPR's dilemma is how to provide for ness: the increasing costs of preservation and public Sometimes, natw-al or cultw-al values may be of enlightenment when the funds come from the little interest, while the opportunity to enhance the decreasing tax-base? Surprisingly, state govern­

55 ment's answer is to commercialize the parks, the government, has been one that involved the very thing the DPR managers are supposed to be privatization and commercialization of public guarding against! To an increasing degree, DPR lands (see Lopez 1988:81-82). This is the con­ managers, like their U.S. Forest Service counter­ servative agenda. Many believe that it must be parts, are being asked to view park resources as replaced, instead, by a long-tenn vision involving commodities for economic exploitation. Of the "greening" of public lands. Society'S anthropo­ course, the commercialization of the parks must centric tendencies are endangering our public be seen as a giant step backwards, and perhaps lands at a time when we desperately need to adopt even an abandonment of the DPR's mission. a more biocentric vision (see Callicott 1989:264­ However, without completely overhauling the 265; Leopold 1966:261-262,271-272; Norton state bureaucracy and the collective consciousness 1984). Be it a wilderness or an archaeological of the California public, there are probably no district, parklands must be protected at all costs. immediate solutions to the dilemma. As Raymond It may even become necessary to redefme public Dasman noted in his classic study, The De­ parks as "sacred" places, for that is surely what struction o/California, "our very economic they shall become in the 21st century. Indeed, system prevents our doing the things needed to is already considered a protect our environment from destruction" sacred place by many! (1965: 191). Archaeologists must share in a vision that With the increased pressure to commercialize looks beyond our immediate condition, and recog­ the parks, there will come pressure to bend the nize the future for what it will be. Preservation rules, and further deprioritizing of resource may not save our planet, but it can serve as an protection and preservation as elements of the important step toward changing the way we think DPR mission. In fact, the DPR recently held about our place in this world, and that may prove much-needed empowennent workshops which to be our salvation. The preservation of an "irre­ instructed its staff to break the rules if the result placeable" portion of the cultural environment can benefits the program (see Anonymous 1993). facilitate the preservation of that which is irre­ While there is a genuine need for empowennent, it placeable in the natural environment, both being must be properly applied, otherwise there is the part of a common struggle to raise the American risk of adversely affecting park resources. For consciousness in regard to resources and public example, it is probable that the California Envi­ lands. ronmental Quality Act of 1970 will be one of the rules broken. CONCLUSIONS

Earlier fears ofenvironmental backsliding led In closing, I would like to offer several recom­ to the fonnation of the California Parks and mendations that might better enable the protection Conservation Association in 1989, comprised of the Fort Ross archaeological record: mostly ofconcerned state park professionals. A similar organization of U.S. Forest Service profes­ (I) The DPR must expand its commitment to sionals, the Association of Forest Service Employ­ cultural resource management by increasing the ees for Environmental Ethics, was begun that number ofcultural resource specialists on its staff, same year. Both organizations were fonned in providing them with more representation within response to a similar problem - the destructIon and the Department and allowing them greater author­ plundering of public lands by outside interests, ity m policy-making decisions. and the inability or unwillingness of agency management to prevent it. (2) The DPR must interpret the archaeological record. This means increasing the number of The recent vision of the DPR, and the federal mterpretive specialists on staff. Archaeologists

56 also need to become more involved with public struggle to keep it so. education. There is a tremendous need to make the archaeological record more visible to the public, so as to ensure their appreciation of it. REFERENCES CITED -s 110­ (3) The DPR must be more responsive to the Abbey, Edward public (see Dillinger 1990:315). (For example, 1989 A Voice Crying in the Wilderness. St. IPt the Fort Ross Citizens' Advisory Committee was Martin's Press, New York. disbanded by the state several years ago, against '"' the wishes of the Committee, and at a time when Agonia, Henry R. the DPR most needed its input. This occurred at 1990 Directions: A Focus for Action. the same time that the DPR was acknowledging its California Department of Parks and

~ need for public involvement [see Agonia 1990].) ¥ Recreation, Sacramento.

(4) Finally, the DPR's cultural resource specialists Anonymous must develop a strong, environmentally-grounded 1990 The Tongass National Forest: Under philosophy for handling their responsibilities. and Siege. Inner Voice 2:1, 8-9. Association of this philosophy must be endorsed by the DPR. Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Eugene, Oregon. 1­ According to the late Edward Abbey (1989:­ 84), "Wilderness begins in the human mind." I 1993 Changing the Organization's Bureaucracy. believe that preservation begins there, too. in­ Empowerment News, January, p. 4. lit deed, it is a new cornerstone ofour ever-evolving California Department of Parks and Ie collective consciousness. To deny preservation is Recreation, Sacramento.

~ to admit that which is savage about our society, IIID whereas to defend it, is to admit that which is Bramlette, Allan, and David A. Fredrickson civilized. It is our challenge, then, to help lead the 1990 A Cultural Resource Survey for a Burn B way toward a greater and more responsible civili­ Management Plan at Salt Point State Park. II zation, where the preservation of our natural and Sonoma County. California. Sonoma State cultural landscapes are considered utmost duties University, Rohnert Park. of both the individual and society. It is in such a society that the Fort Ross archaeological record Callicott, J. Baird might be truly preserved. 1989 InDefonse ofthe Land Ethic. State University of New York Press, Albany. 1111­ lOll NOTES Carlson. Earl V. (editor) 1976 Resource Management Plan and General 1. This paper expresses the personal opinions of Development Plan for Fort Ross State the author, and does not necessarily reflect the Historic Park. California Department of official position of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. nff, Parks and Recreation. Craig, Bruce tor- I thank my many friends and colleagues who 1991 Promises to Keep. National Parks 65 read and commented on earlier versions of this (11112): 18-19. paper. I also acknowledge my appreciation to the many fme men and women of the California State Dasman, Raymond F. Park System, who through their efforts have made 1965 The Destruction ofCalifornia. Collier this System the fmest in the nation, and who now Books, New York.

57 Dillinger, William Knudson, Ruthann 1990 Parks Left Out of the Green Revolution. 1989 North America's Threatened Heritage. California Journal 21(6):313-315. Archaeology 42( I ):71-73, 106.

DPR (California Department of Parks and Rec­ Leopold, Aldo reation) 1966 A Sand County Almanac. Ballantine 1979 Departmental Directives on Resource Books, New York. Management for the California Department ofParks and Recreation. Sacramento. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1992 Archaeology in the Fort Ross State 1992 Transition Plan. Sacramento. Historic Park: An Update. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 26(2): I, Farris, Glenn J. 3-5. 1989 The Russian Imprint on the Colonization I of California. In Columbian Consequences 1: Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Archaeological and Historical Perspectives Schiff on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by 1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of David Hurst Thomas, pp. 481-497. Fort Ross. California. Contributions of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington. University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 49. Berkeley. 1991 A New Focus at Fort Ross: The Alaskan Native Peoples in California. Society for Lopez, Barry California Archaeology Newsletter 25(1):4­1988 Crossing Open Ground. Charles 5. Scribner's Sons, New York.

1993 Life in the Sloboda: A View ofthe Village Lucas, P.H.C. at Fort Ross. California. Paper presented at 1992 The State of World Parks. National Parks the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for 66(1/2):22-23. Historical Archaeology, Kansas City. McHugh, Paul Findley, Rowe 1992 A Concession to Hard Times. San 1990 Endangered Old-Growth Forests: Will We Francisco Chronicle, December 13, pp. 8-10. Pi Save Our Own? National Geographic F [ 178(3): 106-136. Muir, John 1901 Our National Parks. Houghton Mifflin Goldstein, Lynne Co., Boston. [Reprinted 1991, Sierra Club 1991 Preliminary Report ofthe Fort Ross Books, San Francisco.] Cemetery Excavations. 1990-1991. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 1908 The Hetch-Hetchy Valley. Sierra Club Bulletin (January). San Francisco. Gordon, John C. p 1989 The Scientific Method. National Parks Murphy, Donald W. 63(5/6):16-17. 1992 Key Department Goals. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Herscher, Ellen Sacramento. 1989 A Future in Ruins. Archaeology 42(1 ):67-70.

58 Norton, Byran G. Schwaderer, Rae, Jennifer Ferneau, and E. Breck 1984 Enviromnental Ethics and Weak Parkman Anthropocentrism. Environmental EthicS 1990 Coyote's Hole: Preliminary Investigations 6:131-148. at CA-SON-348, the Duncan's Landing Cave Site, Sonoma Coast. Paper presented at the Owens, Kenneth N. 24th Annual Meeting ofthe Society for Cali­ 1987 Historical Resources Management in a fornia Archaeology, Foster City. Growth State: California. In Cultural Resources Management, edited by Ronald W. Vickery, Jim Dale Johnson and Michael G. Schene, pp. 173-195. 1986 Wilderness Visionaries. ICE Books, Robert E. Krieger, Malabar, Florida. Merrillville, Indiana. " Parkman, E. Breck Waechter, Sharon A. IA. 1992a A Fort by Any Other Name: 1988 Archaeological Investigations in Interpretation and Semantics at Colony Ross. Sinkyone Wilderness State Park. Sonoma Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting State University, Rohnert Park. of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks. White, Greg 1989 A Report ofArchaeological 1992b The News Media and the Curious: Investigations at Eleven Native American Interpreting Archaeology at Colony Ross. Coastal Sites. MacKerricher State Park. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting Mendocino County. California. University ofthe Society for California Archaeology, of California, Davis. Pasadena. Wilson, Pete 1993 Burying the Past: Archaeological Site 1992 Executive Order W-26-92. Issued by the ::.l Stabilization in Northwestern California. Governor's Office, State of California, Paper read at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Sacramento. Society for California Archaeology, Asilomar. t Parkman, E. Breck, Paul E. Nesbitt, Daniel G. Foster, Joe D. Hood, H. John McAleer, and Lucinda Woodward 1981 A Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan for Prescribed Burning at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. San Diego County. California (vol. II). California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacra­ mento

Philp, Tom 1992 California Park System Faces DrastIc Cutbacks. The Press Democrat, January 13, p. B3. Santa Rosa, California.

Pritchard, Paul C. 1991 Independence. National Parks 65 (11/12):4.

59