Courtesy copy only
Not to be copied or distributed
Archaeology and Places with Sacred Narratives
by Katherine M. Dowdall and Otis O. Parrish
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology
2005
I’m going to describe a collaborative project carried out on the Sonoma Coast of
California between the Kashaya Pomo and I where we are using the Kashaya tribal law of
reciprocity to steward their places with sacred narratives as well as understand Kashaya
place-making over time. The Kashaya law of reciprocity can be defined as ‘giving to be
given to’. It is a relational practice that involves the concept of sacrifice and requires
accountability to each other over the long term that involves an unending cycle of various
givings and receivings. The Kashaya are a small tribe of 600 people many of whom live
on the Stewarts Point Reservation which they call Sununushinal (or Huckleberry
Heights). Their last Bole Maru spiritual leader or “Dreamer” was Essie Parrish, the
mother of my co-author Otis Parrish. Like other Dreamers, she directed the roundhouse
ceremonies that made meaning in Kashaya life.
Our collaboration got its start at the California Department of Transportation (or
Caltrans) where I am an Archaeologist. In the 1990s we started interweaving tribal
understandings into Caltrans archaeological projects in Kashaya territory.
However, interweaving tribal understandings into archaeology did not prepare us
for difficulties encountered when we sought to steward and investigate places valued by
the Kashaya other than archaeological sites. The Section 106 regulatory process, under
which Caltrans does most of its cultural studies, works best for clearly bounded and
1
tangible properties such as buildings and archaeological sites. It is especially difficult for
Caltrans, whose lands are linear and used exclusively for transportation, to deal with
relatively large, less tangible places valued by tribes.
Another challenge for us was that interconnections perceived by the Kashaya
between archaeological sites and other places they valued ultimately changed what to
steward and investigate from “a site” or even “a place” to an entire tribal territory. This
led us to study all of Kashaya territory as a cultural landscape, which is a much larger
scope than necessary for Section 106 compliance. Finally, our collaboration, guided by
the tribal law of reciprocity, is an unending cycle of givings and receivings, making no
clear end point possible or desirable. Thus we restructured our work as a volunteer
project, though it may become part of Caltrans practice in the future.
In traditional Kashaya territory there are over 250 Native American
archaeological sites and in excess of 200 places with Kashaya names. Taken together, the
Kashaya define both places with names and archaeological sites as places with sacred
narratives (see graphic #1). According to my co-author Otis, places with names have
sacred narratives because a place would only have a name if it was blessed and sanctified
by the spiritual leader for Kashaya use. Related to this, the Kashaya Tribal Chair,
describes archaeological sites, “The remains of villages and camps have sacred narratives
because they were blessed by the spiritual leader when they were constructed. So even if
they are scraped away and there is no physical evidence, the blessings on the land are still
there”.
Kashaya Place-Making
2
Kashaya place-making is an ongoing and recursive practice and we use the
concept of ‘lived landscape’ proposed by Julian Thomas as the foundation for
understanding it. A lived landscape is a relational entity constituted by people in their
engagement with the world. It is a network of related places that have been revealed
through people’s routine practices and interactions. The Kashaya interact with their land
through the tribal law of reciprocity. Here, Otis describes the reciprocal relationship
between the Kashaya and their land as he recounts their creation narrative:
“In the before-world, reciprocity governed relationships between the earth and
the ancestors. Before Coyote made Kashaya people separate from all those entities that
inhabited Kashaya aboriginal territory we were one family and spoke the Kashaya
language. When we were separated into all these different things like humans, plants,
animals, and the earth, we didn’t speak the same language anymore but we have earthly
ways of communicating. The earth has places that are manifestations of sacredness from
the before-world. It can be positive or negative sacredness depending on the history of
what happened there. The land is always saying things to the people. How things are
structured over the landscape is part of that language”.
Within a landscape where everything is sacred, particular places are given
enhanced meaning. Places with either positive or negative sacredness, what the Kashaya
call places with sacred narratives, are particular places that invoke ancestral kinship and
tribal law.
According to Kashaya tribal scholars, Duwima?ca?eli (or Coyote’s Roundhouse)
a prominent, coastal hill with a variety of medicinal plants has had positive sacredness set
there in the before-world. It was created by Coyote for the Kashaya as their first
3
roundhouse. The earth extended that sacredness by making it a special place for the
spiritual leaders to collect medicine. The Kashaya know from the law of reciprocity that
the earth is saying “I made this sacred place for you”. It is the responsibility of all
Kashaya people to honor this sacrifice from the earth by, in turn, extending that
sacredness with songs and prayers that go with that kind of place to keep it healthy.
An example of a place with negative sacredness is Qhalecumawali, a ridge-top
boulder that is an ancestor who turned into a rock because she broke the rule. Here, tribal
scholars tell the story: Qhalecumawali is a Kashaya girl who was khela (or
menstruating). She turned into a rock because she broke the rule. She was supposed to
stay in bed. A girl’s feet should not touch the ground at all when she is khela. She should
stay inside the house. Her brothers wanted to take her to a roundhouse dance so they
carried her but they got tired and put her down on the ground. She started walking but
became stuck to the ground. She had turned into a rock. Now that rock is evil spirit. The
Kashaya law of reciprocity requires young girls to make a sacrifice by throwing bread to
it when they pass by to feed the evil spirit so it will not cause harm.
Though one is a manifestation of positive sacredness and the other negative, both
are places that need respect. Both are part of Kashaya moral teachings, giving instruction
on how to follow the rules and stay healthy.
Another manifestation of positive sacredness is the location of a village.
According to Otis, the Kashaya know from the law of reciprocity that the earth is saying,
“I’m giving you a place to live that is good for you”. A village was always built on land
that had a source of fresh water, a variety of food nearby, and was free of any negative
sacredness. Throughout construction, the spiritual leader held ceremonies to bless the
4
village and sanctify it for Kashaya use. The Kashaya consider their reservation to be a
modern village and it received traditional ceremonies and blessings when it was
constructed.
Gathering areas have positive sacredness that is manifested by what is growing
there. The law of reciprocity calls for people to sing the song beforehand that readies
them for gathering. Afterward, they make a sacrifice by holding a feast with some of the
gathered food. This both feeds the evil spirit and brings Coyote’s blessing so that things
of the spirit and of the earth stay in balance.
How the Kashaya Landscape Orders Time (see graphic #2)
Ethnographies and oral histories report that there was an annual cycle of
movement from winter villages to gathering areas. Today, a version of this cycle
continues, with the Kashaya reservation Sununishinal, serving as a year-round village.
Seasonally, modern Kashaya move through and use different kinds of places with sacred
narratives. Seasonal reciprocity with the earth is amplified and extended through the
performance of four food gathering ceremonies: the spring strawberry, the summer foods,
the fall acorn, and the winter seafood ceremonies. The ceremonies are a seasonal
sacrifice for food given by the earth. According to tribal scholars, when there was a
spiritual leader, these ceremonies and the accompanying dances were done in the
roundhouse. Now that there is no spiritual leader, the ceremonial songs are still sung on
earth while Coyote dances for the people in the spirit world.
Archaeology and Kashaya Ancestors
Theories of practice point out that as cultural meaning is made through interacting
with the land over time, a sense of balance is maintained yet reconfigurations are
5
possible. Like their descendents, Kashaya ancestors would have interconnected with their
land through enactments with sacred places. We propose that in the late 19th and early
20th century after ranchers had settled Kashaya territory, Bole Maru dreamers living at
the village of Du?kasal explicitly guided these enactments to protect the relationship
between tribal members and their land.
Du?kasal (which means Abaloneville) was on the property of a rancher who
married a Kashaya woman. The men of Du?kasal worked on the ranch and this hybrid
arrangement was echoed on other ranches where most had active Kashaya villages whose
men worked as laborers.
Living Kashaya speak of intricate interconnections between Du?kasal and other
villages. According to them, the village Pho’tol is geographically very nearby Du?kasal
because it was derived from Du?kasal and socially its extension in daily life, including
being under the direction of its spiritual leader. Smaller villages lacked roundhouses and
the people from these went to Du?kasal for ceremonies. Further, probable abalone
ornament fragments were archaeologically recovered from historic period contexts from
some smaller villages. Modern abalone ornaments or thilel) are exclusively worn by those
who adhere to the Bole Maru tradition suggesting that this was also true in historic times.
After 1880, all the spiritual leaders at Du?kasal were Bole Maru dreamers. They
mediated between the earthly and spiritual worlds, organized the making of meaning in a
disrupted daily life, and persisted in the making of social order through the seasonal foodgathering calendar. Their response to the settler intrusion was to protect Kashaya people
from its negative influences by not only forbidding drinking, quarrelling, gambling, and
disbelief but also prescribing residence in Kashaya territory. At least two spiritual leaders
6
had a vision that to leave their territory would be the death of the Kashaya. The protective
quality of Kashaya territory was also expressed through the belief that illness was caused
by poisoning, especially by members of other tribes. It was common for spiritual leaders
to require that the Kashaya attend ceremonies, lest they fall ill. Because of this, tribal
members who worked away from their territory made a great effort to return for the big
yearly ceremonies. Spiritual leaders imposed the law of reciprocity on individuals
whereby anyone who had something good happen to them such as a child being born or
money received had to make a sacrifice usually by holding a feast for the other tribal
members. Feasts were held in, and with foods from, tribal territory connecting the feastgiver to the land they were part of and to other tribal members who were part of it also.
According to tribal scholars, each one of the four food gathering ceremonies was
a group sacrifice led by the spiritual leader and governed by the law of reciprocity to keep
the land and the people healthy. These ceremonies organized annual cyclical movements
of tribal members through the landscape despite their labor entanglements with landholding intruders. Tribal scholars shed light on this connection to the land as they recount
the typical elements of the four food gathering ceremonies: the bighead dance was the
main dance at all the ceremonies. Dancing blessed the dancers and the spiritual leader
and brought forth the spirit to give power to the spiritual leader’s body in order to receive
the prophecy. The abalone ornaments on the dresses made a tinkling sound to call the
spirit. Further, during any of the ceremonies, the spiritual leader connected to other
spiritual places in Kashaya territory and received the teachings from them. Then the
spiritual leader received a prophecy from the spirit and delivered it to the tribe. After that
7
there was a big feast. From then on people were free to sing songs and do ceremonies that
the spiritual leader had sanctified for collecting the foods of that season.
In understanding the ceremonial performances that organized seasonal movement
through the landscape, the question is raised: Who is doing the moving? Kinship seems to
be a primary structuring principal. Archaeologists report that coastal summer villages
appear to have been used by extended families for at least 1000 years. In the 19th century,
Du?kasal had a ceremonial reach extending throughout Kashaya territory, but
ethnographies indicate that many small winter villages were occupied by a few close-knit
families using specific gathering areas. This is further supported by modern Kashaya
families tracing kinship to past winter villages. For example, Otis’s ancestors are from
Acashinacawali.
In the 20th century, when people were living first at Du?kasal and then at the
Kashaya Reservation Sununushinal, kinship was still involved in moving through the
landscape. According to tribal scholars, there were two ways of gathering: The spiritual
leader chose a formal leader for a particular type of gathering, such as coastal foods, and
he would pick the families to help. On the other hand, two or three families would gather
coastal foods on their own.
Today, there is no longer a spiritual leader or formal gathering leaders, but there
are at least 40 gathering areas, and many are still used by Kashaya families. The coastal
foods gathering area Chitibi?daqhali is used today by those living at the Kashaya
Reservation but was also used in ancestral times by those living at Du?kasal. At Du?kasal
the spiritual leader would have led the summer food ceremony, connecting annual coastal
8
food gathering to Kashaya ritual life. Further, as Kashaya families do today, they would
have sang the gathering song before traveling to the coast.
So, when modern Kashaya look at their landscape, they don’t see meaningful
separations between archaeological and non-archaeological places; or between places that
are actively used and those that are not. All are places with sacred narratives requiring
reciprocal enactments by those who are part of that particular land.
Conclusion
As we continue our collaborative investigation, tribal understandings guide our
investigation of the Kashaya landscape. Just as importantly, by incorporating tribal
understandings into archaeological interpretations, we better understand active
interconnections between past and present places. Taken together, this is what we mean
by collaborative stewardship.
9
References
Basso, K.H. (1996) Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western
Apache. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
Barrett, Samuel A. (1908) The Ethnogeography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1).
Bean, L. J. and D. Theadoratus (1978) Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. In
Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. R.F.
Heizer (ed.) Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Bean, L. J. and S. B. Vane (1978) Cults and Their Transformations.
In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. R.F. Heizer (ed.)
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Bender, B. (1998) Stonehenge, Making Space. Berg Publishers. Oxford.
Dowdall, K.M.
2002 Late Holocene Cultural Diversity on the Sonoma Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity:
Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. J. M. Erlandson and T. Jones(eds.).
Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles.
(1995) Interview with O. Parrish
(2000) Interview with V. Parrish Chappell
(2001) Interview with O. Parrish
(2002) Interview with O. Parrish
(2002) Interview with V. Parrish Chappell
(2004) Interview with O. Parrish
(2004) Interview with V. Parrish Chappell and V. Parrish Wilder
(2004) Interview with E. Wilder
(2005) Interview with O. Parrish
(2005) Interview with V. Parrish Chappell
(2005) Interview with V. Parrish Chappell and V. Parrish Wilder
(Notes in possession of K.M. Dowdall; taped copies of interviews in possession of all
participants)
Dowdall and Parrish (2003) A Meaningful Disturbance of the Earth. Journal of Social
Archaeology 3(1). Sage Publications, U.K.
Dowdall, K.M., O.P. Parrish, V.P. Chappell, V.P. Wilder, N. B. Thompson (i.p.) The
Kashaya Place Names Project. Manuscript in possession of authors.
DuBois C. (1939) The 1870 Ghost Dance UC-AR 3(1). U.C. Berkeley, California.
10
Gifford (1967) Ethnographic Notes on the Southwestern Pomo. Anthropological Records
25:1-48.
Gosden, C. and L. Head (1994) Landscape: a usefully ambiguous concept. Archaeology
in Oceania 29:113-116.
Hodder, I. (1999) The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers,
Oxford.
Huffman, Mary (1995) An Examination of the Kashaya Pomo Community at the Haupt
Ranch, Northwestern Sonoma County: A Case Study for Preservation and Planning.
Master’s Thesis, Sonoma State University, California.
Kennedy, M.J. (1955) Culture Contact and Acculturation of the Southwestern Pomo.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
King, Thomas F. (2003) Places that Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural
Resource Management.
Kniffen, F. (1939) Pomo Geography. University of California Publication in
American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 36, no.6, pp. 353-400.
Kroeber (1925) Handbood of Indians of California. Bulletin 78 Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Lightfoot, K.G., (2005) Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial
Encounters on the California Frontiers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meighan, Clement (1967) Comparative Notes on Two Historic Village Sites. In
Ethnographic Notes on the Southwestern Pomo. Anthropological Records 25:46-47.
Oswalt, R. L. (1964) Kashaya Texts. University of California Publications in Linguistics
36. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Parker, P.L. and T.F. King (1992) Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the
Interior National Park Service.
Parrish, O. (1996) Kashaya Pomo Cultural Properties. On file at Caltrans District 4,
Oakland, California.
Parrish, O. (1997) Rituals: A Case in Resource Management. Paper presented in
University of California at Berkeley graduate seminar. Manuscript in possession of
author.
11
Stapp, Darby C. and Michael S. Burney (2002) Tribal Cultural resource Management:
The Full Circle of Stewardship.
Stewart, Omar C. (1943) Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 29-62.
Thomas, J. (2001) Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory
Today. I. Hodder (ed.). Polity Press, Cambridge.
Tucon P.S.C. (1999) Identifying Ancient Sacred Landscapes in Australia: From Physical
to Social. Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. W. Ashmore and
A.B. Knapp (eds.). Blackwell Publishers.
12