Chapter Four: Research Design by J. Dave McMahon
A comprehensive research design, based
on results of the 1995 testing program at Castle Hill, was set
forth in a data recovery plan prepared by OHA (McMahan 1997) (Appendix
4.1). As a part of the federal review process, the recovery plan
was developed in consultation with interested parties and reviewed
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This plan, which
anticipated that data recovery would be conducted in a single
field season, laid out a field mobilization and mitigation schedule,
defined field methods, and developed protocols in the event that
human remains were discovered. The document also discussed potential
types of analyses that the data might support, including a set
of 12 potential research questions that the analyses might address.
These questions, which were contingent upon the recovery of appropriate
data sets, were as follows:
(1) What are the interrelationships between the archaeological, archival, and oral history records of Castle Hill (cf. Dilliplane 1983; Leone 1988:29)?
(2) Are archaeological deposits from the earliest (Tlingit) use of Noow Tlein (Castle Hill) preserved? Are datable materials present? What was the nature and antiquity of the Tlingit occupation of Noow Tlein prior to European contact? Few details of Noow Tlein are known.
(3) What are the spatial relationships among artifacts and clusters of artifacts? Are patterns present which suggest specific activity areas that can be related to episodes of Tlingit or Russian use of the site?
(4) What is the pattern of material culture discard and curation at Castle Hill (cf. South 1977:195), and how does this pattern compare or contrast with other sites in Russian-America? For example, it may be possible to compare patterns of discard between Russian-American Company employees of management status (i.e., Castle Hill) with those of working class employees in outposts such as Kolmakovskiy Redoubt (Oswalt 1980). The Castle Hill assemblage may also be compared with Russian-American assemblages from manufacturing sites such as the Middle Bay Brick-kiln in Kodiak (Dilliplane 1980; 1981), institutional sites such as the Russian hospital in Sitka (Blee 1986), or with local assemblages related to activities of the clergy such as the Bishop's House (Shinkwin 1977).
(5) Is it possible, from the pattern of material culture discard discussed above, to define measures of socio-economic status (cf. South 1988:25) or behavior (Dilliplane 1985)? For example, studies have shown that the ratio of tea cups to flat ware is a correlate of socioeconomic status (Spencer-Wood 1987:16). It may be possible to define an archaeological measure of class distinctions by comparing the Castle Hill assemblage with assemblages from other sites in Russian-America, including those cited above.
(6) What Russian-American industries are represented by the Castle Hill artifacts? What types of items were manufactured locally or in the Russian-American colonies, as contrasted with imported items?
(7) How were materials modified for re-use? For example, preliminary excavations at Castle Hill revealed a glass fragment which had been intentionally retouched through the removal of pressure flakes. Prior to the Russian occupation of Castle Hill, its Tlingit inhabitants may have adapted broken trade items for re-use. A scarcity of supplies during the early Russian occupation of Castle Hill may also have necessitated the creative re-use or repair of some items which would have been discarded if replacements had been readily available.
(8) What are the patterns of subsistence and food preparation, determined through the study of fauna, flora, and kitchenwares? For example, butchering patterns have been studied as markers of ethnicity on historic sites (Williams and Cohen-Williams 1997).
(9) What are the consumer choices in material items used at Castle Hill? For example, Deagan (1988:9) has examined consumer choice on historical sites by comparing the archaeological record with locally available materials on inventory lists.
(10) What are the construction details of the earlier Castle Hill structures, including those of Tlingit as well as Russian design? For example, it may be possible to date and locate some of the cellars that are known (from archival records) to have been associated with Russian buildings that pre-dated the Castle.
(11) What are the formational processes that effect site deposits (or how the artifacts got to be where they were found) at Castle Hill? What time periods are represented or not represented in the archaeological record at Castle Hill, and why?
(12) How did patterning within the material culture record change through time? A rich but incomplete archival record of Castle Hill, coupled with sparse undisturbed deposits, provides a historic context in which to place materials from disturbed areas of the site. It may be possible to test a hypothesis that "average to below-average quality goods were generally imported to the colonies... [except 1840-1850]... and colonial products consistently registered at below-average standards without exception" (Dilliplane 1990:402-403). An agreement was reached with the Hudsons Bay Company in 1839 to provide supplies to the Russian-American Company. If artifacts from the 1840-1850 period can be isolated, it may be possible to compare these with artifacts from earlier and later periods.
Because the recovery plan was founded largely on the interpretation
of disturbed deposits encountered during the 1995 testing program,
it did not fully anticipate the range and complexity of data that
were eventually recovered during the 1997 and 1998 field seasons.
Consequently, the data set may address a much broader range of
research topics than initially proposed (e.g., topics related
to facets of industry, technology, trade, and metallurgy). The
authors of individual sections of this report have addressed research
questions supported by their respective data sets (i.e.,
ceramics, textiles, fauna, etc.). Individual databases, along
with the master catalog, are included on CD in Appendix 4.2.
In addition to data recovery, site interpretation and public
involvement were important components of the Castle Hill research
design (McMahan 1997:14-15, 1999:11-13). The site is unique in
that many of the elements important in state and local history
are contained within a single, confined location. Also, it is
often easier for the casual visitor to identify with the archaeology
of the recent past that they have read about in history books,
than with prehistoric materials. The Castle Hill Archaeological
Project presented a chance to demonstrate site stewardship while
interpreting a part of Alaska's history to the public.
Over 200,000 visitors are estimated to have traveled through
Sitka annually in 1997 and 1998 based on Chamber of Commerce figures.
During the summer of 1997, prior to construction, hundreds (sometimes
thousands) of visitors visited the site each day to observe the
archaeological excavations. These visitors were primarily cruise
ship and ferry passengers, but also included Smithsonian Associates
tours, elderhostel groups, school groups, and local visitors (Figure
4.1). The project received fewer visitors during the summer of
1998 due to ongoing construction and closure of portions of the
park. Public interest in the project, however, continued to be
encouraged by widespread media attention. The ongoing excavations
were the subject of local radio broadcasts, National Public Radio
broadcasts, and statewide television. To enhance public understanding
and appreciation for the site and the project, the Office of History
and Archaeology (OHA) sponsored a series of evening public lectures
during 1997 and 1998. These lectures, which included both project
personnel and visiting scholars, each ended with an update on
the progress and latest findings at Castle Hill. Some lectures
were video taped and shown on local television throughout the
summer season. On request, project update lectures were provided
to local organizations. Articles in Sitkas Daily Sentinel
provided periodic front-page coverage throughout the duration
of the project. Major and minor articles also appeared in the Anchorage Daily News,
the Juneau Empire and, through
syndication, newspapers throughout Alaska and the United States.
In February 1998, the international publication Islands Magazine
featured an article on the 1997 work at Castle Hill. In July
1998, Alaska Magazine published an article on the history
and archaeology of Castle Hill based on 1997 findings. This magazine,
on sale near the site, was available to visitors during the last
half of the 1998 field season. Alaska Magazine also published
a small article on the Ravens Tail robe fragment from Castle
Hill in November 1998. In December 1998, the magazine Alaska
Southeasterner featured lengthy articles on both the 1998
work at Castle Hill and the Ravens Tail robe fragment. A
1999 publication produced by the Federal Highways Administration
featured the Castle Hill project as a case study for the use of
transportation enhancement funds (NTEC 1999:24-25).
While there are no current plans to interpret the archaeology of Castle Hill to the public through pamphlets and on-site panels (refer Appendix 4.3), the findings continue to attract the attention of scholars. Some artifacts from the collection have been loaned to the Isabel Miller Museum in Sitka for display. Others were displayed in a major exhibition entitled Unseen Treasures: Imperial Russia and the New World, which opened at major venues across the United States before closing at the Russian State Historical Museum in Red Square, Moscow in September 2001 (McMahan 1999b). Concurrent with the Russian exhibition, other Castle Hill artifacts were part of a major exhibition entitled Beads Road in the North: Indigenous Trading and Development of Arts and Crafts in the North Pacific Rim, at the Japanese National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, during the fall-winter of 2001.
Figure 4.1. Archaeologist Ty Dilliplane examines an artifact with a visitor while Sitka volunteers excavate in the background.
From its inception, the Castle Hill Archaeological Project
was undertaken with public participation in mind. Archaeological
projects in urban settings always draw visitors interested in
procedures and findings. A broad cross-section of Sitka organizations
and individuals provided support and/or endorsements throughout
the project. These included the Alaska Native Brotherhood and
Sisterhood, the Alaska State Parks (Sitka) Advisory Committee,
the City of Sitka, the National Park Service, the Sheldon Jackson
College and Museum, the Sitka Historical Society, the Sitka Tribe
of Alaska, the University of Alaska Southeast (Sitka Campus),
and the U.S. Forest Service. A number of local volunteers participated
both in 1997 and 1998. This enabled first hand involvement of
the community, and provided an opportunity for OHA to teach site
stewardship and basic principles of archaeology. Experienced non-local
archaeologists and historians also participated in the excavations
on a volunteer basis, reducing the cost of fieldwork. The professional
staff of Sitka National Historic Park not only volunteered on
the site, but collaborated in the construction of a temporary
exhibit at the NPS visitor center. During both 1997 and 1998,
OHA collaborated with the University of Alaska Southeast to provide
an archaeological field school. The project benefited by acquiring
additional labor and inexpensive housing near the site for project
During the laboratory phase of the Castle Hill Archaeological Project, continuing opportunities were made available to students and scholars. A cooperative relationship between OHA and the University of Alaska Anchorage allowed graduate students to become involved with aspects of analysis outside the current reporting scenario. By prior arrangement, portions of the collection were also examined by visiting Japanese, Russian, and American scholars. This sharing of information contributed substantially to our understanding of activities at the site.