European Colonialism and the Anthropocene - A View from the Pacific Coast of North America (2013) (15 pages)

G Model ANCENE-12; No. of Pages 15 es K.G. Lightfoot et al./Anthropocene xxx (2013) e1-e15 native peoples utilized new techniques and strategies to interact with rapidly changing environments in colonial and post-colonial times. The colonization of the Californias is not unique in marking a fundamental historical transformation in human-environment relationships, when indigenous landscape management practices, often in operation for centuries or millennia, underwent extensive modifications as new colonial resource extraction programs were unleashed in local areas. Although colonists often initiated their own prescribed fires to enhance grasslands for livestock grazing and in the creation of agricultural fields, they had little compassion for traditional burning practices that destroyed their homes and livestock (e.g., Hallam, 1979:35). Consequently, it was not uncommon for colonial administrators to prohibit native peoples from continuing to set fires in open lands in other regions of North America and Australia (Bowman, 1998:392; Boyd, 1999:108; Cronon, 1983:118-119; Deur, 2009:312-313). In North America, these prohibitions eventually became codified in rigorous fire cessation policies that were enacted by various government agencies on federal and state lands by the early twentieth century (Stephens and Sugihara, 2006). Future eco-archeological investigations are needed to evaluate the specific environmental effects of how modified indigenous resource management practices, in combination with colonial landscape strategies initiated by managerial, mission, and settler colonists, influenced local ecosystems. The transition from indigenous to hybrid indigenous/colonial landscapes in California appears to have marked a major watershed in environmental transformations that continues to the present (Anderson, 2005; Preston, 1997; Timbrook et al., 1993). There is little question that historical edicts that increasingly outlawed the burning of open lands in the late 1800s and early 1900s had _ significant environmental implications in California as they reduced the diversity and spatial complexity of local habitats, changed the succession patterns of vegetation (often producing homogeneous stands of similar-aged trees and bushes), augmented the number of invasive species, and substantially increased fuel loads that can Table 1 contribute to major conflagrations (Caprio and Swetnam, 1995; Keter, 1995; Skinner and Taylor, 2006:212, 220; Skinner et al., 2006:178-179; van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman, 2006:280). 6.2. The big hunt The Russian-American Company’s initial interest in California stemmed from its participation in the maritime fur trade involving the exchange of sea otter (Enhydra lutris) pelts (and other valuable furs) in China for Asian goods (teas, spices, silks, etc.), which were then shipped back to European and American markets for a tidy profit. As the Russians quickly discovered, however, sea otters are sensitive to heavy predation since mothers typically only produce one pup per year. By the early 1800s, hunters stationed at Russian colonies, extending from coastal Siberia across the Komandorski, Aleutian, Kodiak, and Pribilof archipelagos and into southern Alaska, had depleted much of the sea otter population in the North Pacific. In searching for new regions that supported sizeable populations of profitable sea mammals, along with other commercially exploitable resources, the RAC began making plans to extend its colonial reach southward into Alta California (Lightfoot, 2003:15-17). The earliest inroads the RAC made in exploiting the substantial E. lutris populations in Alta and Baja California were made jointly with American merchants between 1803 and 1812. They initiated a “contract” hunting system in which the Americans provided the ships to sail southward into California waters, while the RAC allocated the hunters to harvest the sea mammals. The latter were highly skilled indigenous huntsman from the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, and Prince William Sound, who were the backbone of the Russian fur trade enterprise in the North Pacific. American skippers transported the Native Alaskan hunters, along with their harpoons, skin boats (baidarkas), and other gear, to California waters where they successfully participated in at least 11 joint hunts (Table 1), with the pelts split evenly between the Russian and American merchants (Khlebnikov, 1994:8-10). Sea Otter Harvests Under the Contract System between the RAC and American Merchants 1803-1812. Compiled from Khlebnikov (1994:9-10) and Ogden (1933:29-38, 1938:80-108, 1941:161-164). Year Hunting expedition Region of hunt Adult sea otters Yearlings Pups Total given Grand total 1803-1804 Joseph O’Cain San Diego, San Quentin (Baja California) ? ? ? 1800 1800 “O’Cain” 1806°* Jonathon Winship Trinidad Bay, Baja California ? ? ? ? 17 “O’Cain” 1807 Jonathon Winship Farallon Islands, Catalina, Guadalupe, 3006 1264 549 4819 4819 “O’Cain” Navidad, Cedros, Redondo 1806-1807 Oliver Kimball Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, Baja California 753 228 250 1231 1231 “Peacock” 1808-1809 George Eayrs Trinidad Bay, Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, 844 128 68 1040° 2080° “Mercury” Monterey Bay, San Juan Capistrano 1809-1811 Jonathon Winship Baja California, Drakes Bay, San Quintin 2251 267 208 2726 5452° “O’Cain” 1810-1811 Nathan Winship Drakes Bay, Farallon Islands, San Francisco Bay, 389 70 101 560° 1120° “Albatross” Santa Barbara Island, San Quintin 1810-1811 William Davis Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, Drakes Bay 989 216 283 1488> 2976 “Isabella” 1811-1812 William Blanchard Baja California 626 93 39 758° 1516 “Catherine” 1812 Thomas Meek Baja California 655 49 17 721? 1442 “Amethyst” 1812-1813 Captain Whitmore Farallon Islands, San Quintin 798 68 30 896° 1792 “Charon” Total 10,311 2383 1545 16,039 24,245 * Voyage reported by Ogden (1933:32, 1941:159), but not in Khlebnikov (1994:9). > Sea otter shares (split with American merchants) allocated to RAC. © A discrepancy exists in the yields reported in the RAC sources and Ogden (1941), Appendix 1. Here we are using the yields reported by the RAC. Please cite this article in press as: Lightfoot, K.G., et al., European colonialism and the Anthropocene: A view from the Pacific Coast of North America. Anthropocene (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.09.002

G Model ANCENE-12; No. of Pages 15 es K.G. Lightfoot et al./Anthropocene xxx (2013) e1-e15 native peoples utilized new techniques and strategies to interact with rapidly changing environments in colonial and post-colonial times. The colonization of the Californias is not unique in marking a fundamental historical transformation in human-environment relationships, when indigenous landscape management practices, often in operation for centuries or millennia, underwent extensive modifications as new colonial resource extraction programs were unleashed in local areas. Although colonists often initiated their own prescribed fires to enhance grasslands for livestock grazing and in the creation of agricultural fields, they had little compassion for traditional burning practices that destroyed their homes and livestock (e.g., Hallam, 1979:35). Consequently, it was not uncommon for colonial administrators to prohibit native peoples from continuing to set fires in open lands in other regions of North America and Australia (Bowman, 1998:392; Boyd, 1999:108; Cronon, 1983:118-119; Deur, 2009:312-313). In North America, these prohibitions eventually became codified in rigorous fire cessation policies that were enacted by various government agencies on federal and state lands by the early twentieth century (Stephens and Sugihara, 2006). Future eco-archeological investigations are needed to evaluate the specific environmental effects of how modified indigenous resource management practices, in combination with colonial landscape strategies initiated by managerial, mission, and settler colonists, influenced local ecosystems. The transition from indigenous to hybrid indigenous/colonial landscapes in California appears to have marked a major watershed in environmental transformations that continues to the present (Anderson, 2005; Preston, 1997; Timbrook et al., 1993). There is little question that historical edicts that increasingly outlawed the burning of open lands in the late 1800s and early 1900s had _ significant environmental implications in California as they reduced the diversity and spatial complexity of local habitats, changed the succession patterns of vegetation (often producing homogeneous stands of similar-aged trees and bushes), augmented the number of invasive species, and substantially increased fuel loads that can Table 1 contribute to major conflagrations (Caprio and Swetnam, 1995; Keter, 1995; Skinner and Taylor, 2006:212, 220; Skinner et al., 2006:178-179; van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman, 2006:280). 6.2. The big hunt The Russian-American Company’s initial interest in California stemmed from its participation in the maritime fur trade involving the exchange of sea otter (Enhydra lutris) pelts (and other valuable furs) in China for Asian goods (teas, spices, silks, etc.), which were then shipped back to European and American markets for a tidy profit. As the Russians quickly discovered, however, sea otters are sensitive to heavy predation since mothers typically only produce one pup per year. By the early 1800s, hunters stationed at Russian colonies, extending from coastal Siberia across the Komandorski,

Aleutian, Kodiak, and Pribilof archipelagos and into southern Alaska, had depleted much of the sea otter population in the North Pacific. In searching for new regions that supported sizeable populations of profitable sea mammals, along with other commercially exploitable resources, the RAC began making plans to extend its colonial reach southward into Alta California (Lightfoot, 2003:15-17). The earliest inroads the RAC made in exploiting the substantial E. lutris populations in Alta and Baja California were made jointly with American merchants between 1803 and 1812. They initiated a “contract” hunting system in which the Americans provided the ships to sail southward into California waters, while the RAC allocated the hunters to harvest the sea mammals. The latter were highly skilled indigenous huntsman from the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, and Prince William Sound, who were the backbone of the Russian fur trade enterprise in the North Pacific. American skippers transported the Native Alaskan hunters, along with their harpoons, skin boats (baidarkas), and other gear, to California waters where they successfully participated in at least 11 joint hunts (Table 1), with the pelts split evenly between the Russian and American merchants (Khlebnikov, 1994:8-10). Sea Otter Harvests Under the Contract System between the RAC and American Merchants 1803-1812. Compiled from Khlebnikov (1994:9-10) and Ogden (1933:29-38, 1938:80-108, 1941:161-164). Year Hunting expedition Region of hunt Adult sea otters Yearlings Pups Total given Grand total 1803-1804 Joseph O’Cain San Diego, San Quentin (Baja California) ? ? ? 1800 1800 “O’Cain” 1806°* Jonathon Winship Trinidad Bay, Baja California ? ? ? ? 17 “O’Cain” 1807 Jonathon Winship Farallon Islands, Catalina, Guadalupe, 3006 1264 549 4819 4819 “O’Cain” Navidad, Cedros, Redondo 1806-1807 Oliver Kimball Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, Baja California 753 228 250 1231 1231 “Peacock” 1808-1809 George Eayrs Trinidad Bay, Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, 844 128 68 1040° 2080° “Mercury” Monterey Bay, San Juan Capistrano 1809-1811 Jonathon Winship Baja California, Drakes Bay, San Quintin 2251 267 208 2726 5452° “O’Cain” 1810-1811 Nathan Winship Drakes Bay, Farallon Islands, San Francisco Bay, 389 70 101 560° 1120° “Albatross” Santa Barbara Island, San Quintin 1810-1811 William Davis Bodega Bay, San Francisco Bay, Drakes Bay 989 216 283 1488> 2976 “Isabella” 1811-1812 William Blanchard Baja California 626 93 39 758° 1516 “Catherine” 1812 Thomas Meek Baja California 655 49 17 721? 1442 “Amethyst” 1812-1813 Captain Whitmore Farallon Islands, San Quintin 798 68 30 896° 1792 “Charon” Total 10,311 2383 1545 16,039 24,245 * Voyage reported by Ogden (1933:32, 1941:159), but not in Khlebnikov (1994:9). > Sea otter shares (split with American merchants) allocated to RAC. © A discrepancy exists in the yields reported in the RAC sources and Ogden (1941), Appendix 1. Here we are using the yields reported by the RAC. Please cite this article in press as: Lightfoot, K.G., et al., European colonialism and the Anthropocene: A view from the Pacific Coast of North America. Anthropocene (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.09.002