jwsr-v8n3- 390 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires: The Pacifi c Fur Trade, Incorporation and the Zone of Ignorance* Jon D. Carlson John D. Carlson Department of Political Science Monmouth College 700 E. Broadway Monmouth, Illinois 61462 jcarlson@monm.edu http://department.monm.edu/polsci/ journal of world-systems research, viii, 1ii, fall 2002, 390–442 http://jwsr.ucr.edu issn 1076–156x © 2002 Jon D. Carlson I . I N T RODUC T ION In an eff ort to refi ne the concept of “incorporation” into the world-system, I undertake a specifi c case study of a region plainly external to the system and trace the processes that correspond to this region’s interaction with systemic actors throughout its period of incorporation. Th e goal here is to rethink the assimilation of new regions and peoples with the larger purpose of gaining more understanding of the processes driving overall systemic expansion, historically and currently, in order to provide a model for modern development. It is the existence of the zone of ignorance at the edge of the system that often leads to confl ict between system members over new regions of expansion. Th is case study is meant to develop the ‘middle ground’ between Wallerstein’s analysis of incor- poration (European, state-centric, ‘inside-out’) and Hall’s research on incorpora- tion (external, indigenous peoples, ‘outside-in’). Furthermore, this may be taken as a critique of international relations theory in general, which tends to be overly Euro-state-centric in its focus and has a tendency to overlook important social, political, and economic adaptations that occur well before state polities develop (or are inserted) in a region of contact or expansion. Th e situation in North America is quite relevant for the purpose of carefully examining the incorporation process. A prime reason for this is obvious: there is * Th anks to Greg Marfl eet for suggesting a most appropriate title, Patrick McGowan for ongoing feedback and insight, and to the anonymous reviewer for her/his constructive suggestions. Th e usual statement applies regarding any errors, omissions, or misrepresentations of fact. Th is article examines the concept of the ‘external arena’, the relationship it holds to the expansion of the modern world-system, and the process of systemic incorporation. In order to address the notion of systemic expansion, I examine how boundaries of the system are defi ned by networks of exchange and interac- tion and I echo criticisms that information and luxury goods networks exert important systemic impacts. Signifi cant change occurs well prior to the point at which traditional world-systems literature considers an arena ‘incorporated’. Th e case of the sea-otter fur trade and the relationship with the natives of the Northwest coast of America is used as an example of these processes of change in action. Th is case is selected because there is no question that the area is ‘pristine’; initially it is outside the realm of European contact. Th is region characterizes a ‘zone of ignorance’ beyond the traditional world-system that must undergo a signifi cant ‘grooming process’ before incorporation is more fully expanded, and this process is par- tially operationalized by the use of historically contemporary maps. Finally, the case off ers a good example of the impact that external regions can exert on internal systemic behavior, as European powers were pushed to the brink of war in their eff orts to exploit the resources and peoples of the Nootka Sound region. I conclude by off ering a more developed concep- tualization of the process of incorporation and related concepts. abstract mailto:jcarlson@monm.edu http://department.monm.edu/polsci/ http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Jon D. Carlson391 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 392 no question that the area was ‘external’ to the modern world-system prior to its ‘discovery’ by Europeans. So, its assimilation into the world-system can be exam- ined in a detail that may not be achievable in other, more historically adjacent, geographic arenas. Various changes and developments in the political, social, and economic facets of everyday indigenous life that occurred during the process of incorporation can be analyzed. To understand incorporation, the process must be broken apart in order to recognize early changes that occur when a region moves from a status of existing in a virtual “zone of ignorance” to a status of being “within the system.”1 To reduce the incorporation process, I use Chase Dunn and Hall’s (1991, 1997) and Hall’s (1986, 1989, 1999a, 1999b) notion of nested networks of interac- tion. By treating these networks as various ‘states of being’ through which a given region passes, one can operationalize the process more carefully. Furthermore, since historically contemporary maps are essentially ‘freeze-frame snapshots’ of accumulated knowledge regarding a given region at a particular instance for an actor, these may be used to parse out the status of a region in regard to its posi- tion within the networks of interaction. Reference is made to historical maps (in conjunction with traditional textual sources) as a way to give a clearer ‘picture’ of a given region during the period of incorporation.2 However, this refl ects pri- marily the European perspective as native knowledge is manifested in a diff erent manner and only partially gets transmitted to the formal process of mapmak- ing. Th e Nootka Sound region is of particular import for this study, because it begins as a rather ‘pristine’ environment that is subsumed into the expanding capitalist system. Prior to the encroachment of European explorers and traders, the region and its peoples had developed a rather unique lifestyle that is readily diff erentiated from that of other native cultures in North America. Th e Indians of the Northwest Coast were fairly isolated from easy, overland travel by moun- tain ranges running along the coast, and depended on the ocean for many of their resources. Accordingly, emphasis was placed on sea travel via large, ocean-going canoes and contact with inland tribes was limited. Th e inhabitants had a highly developed woodworking culture (superior to any other in the Americas), and an established trade-goods network that extended along the coast. Furthermore, the political organization of the region is referred to as a ‘complex chiefdom’ (Diamond 1997) and had a formalized property-rights organization. How then, did this rather pristine region become, over the course of little more than one hundred years, absorbed into the larger, global system of capitalist Europe? To begin this analysis requires that we become familiar with the various systemic actors at work in the region during the time in question. I I . T H E STAGE Specifi cally, I will be examining the relations between the European powers and the Native Americans along the northwestern coast of North America, and the concurrent development of the fur trade. While initial European contact with this region began in the fi rst half of the 1700s and reached a climax in the 1790s with the peak of the fur trade, the drive to incorporate the region is best encapsulated in the dispute over a relatively limited geographic area—Nootka Sound.3 Incorporation necessarily will be considered in context and with refer- ence to other colonial activity in the region at large (e.g., Spain in the American Southwest, Imperial Russia in Alaska) as this colonial activity had policy impli- cations for the adjacent ‘zone.’ Of particular interest is the confl ict that arose in this area between systemic powers, known as the Nootka Sound Controversy, which also served to bring Europe to the brink of war. Since one would presume that impact on an external arena is largely monodirectional (i.e., from the core, or internal arenas, outward), this provides an intriguing example of when this is clearly not the case. Instead, contention for external regions and resources leads to considerable internal systemic disturbance. Th e reasons for the concentration on the western coast are twofold. First, most initial European activity, and hence impact, centered on coastal areas. So it is only natural to pay specifi c attention here, as activities inland from the coast developed only after the turn of the century. For example, the Lewis and Clark expedition (1803–1806) did not reach the coast until after the turn of the cen- tury, and Russian expeditions into the interior of Alaska were even later in time (See Michael 1967; Khlebnikov 1973; Dmytryshyn 1989). While Spain did have 1. See Carlson (1999, 2001) for a development of the concept of ‘zone of ignorance’ and its relationship to other ‘states of being’ in the incorporation process as described by Chase-Dunn and Hall (1991, 1997) and Hall (1986, 1989, 1999a, 1999b). Furthermore, Hall (2000a) provides an impressive overview of the literature that has developed from the world-systems perspective as promulgated by Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1989). 2. A discussion regarding the rationale and use of maps in this manner appears in Carlson (2001: 253-54). 3. Nootka Sound lies on the western coast of what is now Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada. Jon D. Carlson393 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 394 of Spanish cartographic desires. References to the hoped-for strait predate 1562, when geographer Giacomo Gastaldi fi rst called it the “Strait of Anián.” It is believed that he named this imaginary strait either for Marco Polo’s “Ania” (a province of northern China) or after Anus Cortoreal, a Portuguese mariner who explored the Labrador coast around 1500 (Cook 1973:2). Th e rather common practice of fi xing unknown regions with names associated with India, China, or Japan onto then-contemporary maps supports the likelihood that the name is taken from Marco Polo’s reference to a northern province of China (Hull 1962: 23). Th e name would continue to appear on maps for the next several hundred years.5 For example, on “America 1586” (Plate 1) ‘Anian’ is used to reference the region in the far northwest of America, as well as the strait separating this region from an unnamed landmass to the west. One should not take this to necessarily mean that the Spanish were aware of the true proximity of the Asian continent, but a substantial amount of penetration into the continent, this was limited to the Southwest, extending up to present-day Santa Fe, NM. Otherwise, Spanish pen- etration never developed far inland from the California coast (Hall 1989; Bolton 1914; Bolton and Marshall 1922; Gerhard 1993). Second, by concentrating on the coastal interactions, the area of geographic concern is limited as are the number of relevant actors that need to be examined. French trade activity in North America, while insightful for providing examples of economic, social, and political impacts of such behavior, did not extend to the western coast (Ray 1974; Krech 1984; Th istle 1986). Instead, French activity in the fur trade was limited mainly to the Mississippi drainage and to penetrat- ing the lakes and rivers of Canada, and did not push westward until later in the 1800’s (Skinner 1991; Rich 1960, 1966). Th e French were increasingly preoccupied with internal—especially economic—problems after the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which adversely impacted the French colonial struggle with Britain. But the French did manage to mount the major, yet ill-fated, La Pérouse expedition of 1786–17884 to the North Pacifi c, before being once again distracted by domestic issues—notably, the French Revolution of 1789. Similarly, American activity in the region only becomes relevant late in the 18th Century, since most American attention was diverted toward matters closer at hand for the emerging nation. So, the main European actors are Spain, Russia, to a lesser extent Great Britain, and only later the United States. As we shall see, European rivalry provides an underlying foundation upon which expansion in the New World was built, and which drove much of the policy guiding this particular expansion. I I I . T H E PL AY E R S A. Spain Spanish concern with the northwest coast of America began over two centuries prior to the documented voyages of the 18th century. After reaching the Pacifi c coast in 1522, Hernando Cortés proceeded to organize explorations northward. Later explorers recounted tales of riches and additional indigenous nations to the northwest. Also, a desire to ascertain the possible existence of a strait providing strategic entrance to the Pacifi c proved to be a recurring source 4. La Pérouse and his men perished on this expedition. One companion, Baron Jean Baptiste Barthelemy de Lesseps was put ashore in Kamchatka with many expedi- tion journals and maps. He traveled overland to Paris and subsequently published a four- volume account of the voyage (See Cook 1973: 112-113, 115; Batman 1985: 35-38). Plate 1 – America 1586 Author Unknown. “America 1586” (1586). Image courtesy of Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ 5. For example, see also Ortelius (1587) and Philippe Buache’s map of 1752. http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=69 http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=69 Jon D. Carlson395 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 396 rather that ‘straits’ by defi nition are narrow bodies of water between two land- masses. Th us, it makes perfect sense to at least place something beyond ‘Anian.’ If one looks closely, the California coast is somewhat accurately portrayed up to Cape Mendocino (the inlet just to the south of ‘Anian’), but the entire realm beyond Mendocino is squarely in the realm of myth. Inaccurate mountain ranges and a much hoped-for water route across the top of the map (with ‘ Terra Septemtrionalis Incognita’—roughly “Northern Unknown Lands”—above) off set the vast empty spaces toward the interior of the continent. Interestingly, lower California is quite accurately represented. Th is is expected, given the peninsula’s proximity to the colonial activity in Mexico and Central America. Similarly, we can see ‘Anian’ plainly in other contemporary representations (e.g., Abraham Ortelius’ map of 1587). Ortelius also has California fairly repre- sented, and limits the fanciful use of mountain ranges in the vast, empty interior of the continent. However, we see neither the ‘Straits of Anian’ nor the northern water passage. Additionally, New Guinea appears as an independent continent linked to Antarctica, providing another instance of a region existing in the zone of ignorance, similar to the reaches of the northwest in America. By pushing into the unknown, the Spanish are literally parting the veil of myth and ignorance. Interestingly, the early Spanish explorations of the coast were never men- tioned or publicized beyond Spain, largely because a policy of silence was deliberately instituted in order to keep geographic details as secret as possible, to protect against piracy and plunder. By 1527, Spanish galleons were crossing from Mexico to the Philippines and Moluccas. Because the Portuguese con- trolled return access through the Indian Ocean, considerable emphasis was placed on establishing a return route to Acapulco, which was accomplished by 1565. Th e trip from Acapulco to Manila averaged four months, while the return trip across the North Pacifi c took six, largely because the ships were so burdened with goods and faced more unfavorable winds. “From Acapulco galleons carried manufactured goods, cloth, tools, arms, and munitions, as well as Mexican silver. Th ey brought back silks, fi ne china, porcelain, gold coins, cinnamon and other spices, candles, and beeswax in bulk, and other oriental products in demand in Spanish America” (Cook 1973:6). By the late 1500s, several accounts of Manila galleons inadvertently visiting California harbors after being blown northward on their return journey had been established, though contact further up the coast had not. While Spain managed to keep its activities in the Pacifi c secret for decades, by 1578 Francis Drake, in the Golden Hind, had discovered a route around South America that avoided interception in the Straits of Magellan. Th us loosed in the Pacifi c, Drake was making captures off the coast of Costa Rica by 1579, and had seized charts, sailing directions, and acquired fi rst-hand knowledge from cap- tured Spanish sailors. With the Hind of questionable seaworthiness because it was damaged by shipworms and was overladen with booty, Drake headed north- ward before putting in at a sheltered cove. Here he spent thirty-six days making repairs, taking on water and fi rewood, and performing an act of possession for Elizabeth I. Debate surrounds the question of exactly where Drake put ashore, but most evidence suggests that ‘Drake’s Bay’ (28 miles north of San Francisco Bay) is appropriately named. After this brief respite, Drake used his newly- acquired navigational information and successfully crossed the Pacifi c Ocean, reaching Plymouth after two years and ten months at sea (Cook 1973:8). His success prompted imitation by Th omas Cavendish in 1587, who “took particular care to seize pilots and maps on captured vessels, as a means of pulling back the curtain of secrecy with which Spain had cloaked her realms” (Cook 1973:9). Very plainly, acquiring geographical and navigational information was a key goal of British mariners. Th e losses incurred by the Spanish led to an increased concern that similar losses would result from further foreign encroachment to the northwest of New Spain. Th e uncharted northwest coast provided potential havens for marauders, and the appearance of the British in the Pacifi c Ocean fueled Spanish suspi- cion that the British had discovered the ‘Strait of Anián.’ A desire to fi nd this legendary passage prompted Spanish explorations along the coast. However, these explorations were soon curtailed, as policy shifted to support the belief that more damage than good could come with the possible discovery of such a passage. If such a passage did exist, its revelation would merely provide an open access through which enemies could more readily enter the northern Pacifi c. So, throughout the seventeenth century—because of offi cial policy discourag- ing exploration—Spanish interest in expanding northward was dependent on private capital for exploratory expeditions, which were mainly concerned with pearling ventures. In Cook’s estimation: Madrid perceived no serious threat in that quarter from foreign rivals, so long as a northwest passage remained unfound. Spanish concern with Mexico’s northwestern frontier did not die, but official policy put a damper upon explorations by sea and failed to provide knowledge of the coastline beyond Cape Mendocino. Beyond, to Anián, the coast would avoid becoming a source of trouble and expense by remaining terra incognita (1973:19). By the start of the eighteenth century, Spain purposefully maintained a zone of ignorance with regard to its northern frontier. Th is was because the area was perceived as not holding suffi cient economic basis for exploration and develop- ment, coupled with the strategic belief that ignorance actually bestowed a certain amount of security in regards to the unexplored coastline. Th e fear was that if the Spanish were to fi nd a northern passage word would soon spread of its loca- Jon D. Carlson397 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 398 tion, making it that much more diffi cult to keep the English out of the Pacifi c and necessitating that Spanish resources be diverted to its guard. By not seeking out such a passage, the onus and expense of such an undertaking was placed on the English, with Spain in a position to dispute any British intrusion into the Pacifi c should it occur. Elsewhere during the seventeenth century, Spanish mis- sionaries extended settlements in Mexico and developed a string of outposts up into what is now New Mexico. Gerhard (1993) provides an adequate description of the extent of formal Spanish incorporation by 1700.6 Th ere is little formal- ized Spanish control along the outer California coast. Instead, Spanish authority is confi ned to Mexico proper and the inland ‘islands’ of Santa Fe, El Paso, and Janos-Casas Grandes. Gerhard’s representation is confi rmed by sources from the period. Father Chino’s map of 1702 (Plate 2) represents the body of “Californiae” at the time. We can see that only the southern portion of Baja California is shown, and Spanish place-names are concentrated around the Sea of California (“Mare Californiae”) and inland. Nothing further up the outer coast seems to be relevant (or perhaps known), though we can see that Spanish interests stretch into the interior, up beyond ‘Casa Grande’ (with a mission symbol) in what is now Arizona. Th is is in contrast to the Spanish position by 1800. Within 100 years, Spain extended its reach up the length of California to Monterey, and solidifi ed the range of Spanish dominion in Mexico and the American Southwest. Santa Fe and El Paso remain ‘islands,’ but are now joined by San Antonio and Nacogdoches. Regardless, the most relevant aspect for this study is the Spanish expansion up the California coast during the 1700s. Even though considerable resources were expended in an attempt to solidify control over the American Southwest, Madrid initially did nothing to explore the northwest coast. Th is would soon change with the emer- gence of the potentially lucrative sea otter fur trade, as well as the emergence of challengers for this trade. Th e sea otter, Enhydra lutris, would prove to be the source of great conten- tion in the northwest. Th e Spanish were fi rst introduced to international trade in the species in 1733, when Father Sigismundo Taraval described the otters on the western coast of Baja California. At this time, the range of the sea otter extended from Baja California across the northern Pacifi c to Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands north of Japan. Th e animals were so docile that Spanish seamen could club them with sticks, and several pelts were cured and sent to Mexico City. Soon they were being included as trade goods sent to China via Manila, though they were not a primary concern of the Spanish because the supply was limited once the otters learned to distrust humans (Cook 1973:43). When Russian fur traders came to eastern Siberia in pursuit of sable, they soon built up a thriving trade in sea otter pelts with China. An active trade in sea 6. For more information on the Spanish in the Southwest: (Bannon 1964; Cutter and Engstand 1996; Hall 1989, 1998). Plate 2 – Tabula Californiae Father E.F. Chino (1702). “Tabula Californiae” (map). Place of printing unknown. Image courtesy of Yale University Library, Yale University Map Collection. http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/ Note: the mission at Casa Grande and others to the south, a clear expression of Spanish incor- poration and the transition of a region into the political-military network of interaction. http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/calif.GIF http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/calif.GIF Jon D. Carlson399 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 400 otter fur already existed in the region prior to Spanish and Russian expansion, as China had developed an exchange network with natives of the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka. Th us, we have the case of the European system expanding into an already extant ‘prestige goods network’ (PGN) as described by Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997). Russia reached Kamchatka early in the 18th century, and by 1733 orders were given to map the American coast. Th e reason for this is seen in Philippe Buache’s map of 1752 (Plate 3). While Kamchatka and the north Asian coast are well represented, the region of North America is not. We still see the mythic region of ‘Fou-sang’ that had been associated with an area of China, a great ‘Sea of the West’ (‘Mer de l’Ouest’) where the American Northwest actually lies, and a ‘Great Water’ (‘Grande Eau’) stretching inland, with an outlet specula- tively reaching toward Hudson Bay. By the 1780s, orders were given not only to dispatch a naval squadron to protect Russian possessions, but also to stabilize and expand the Alaskan settle- ments and enterprises (Dmytryshyn 1988). Th is Russian trade in the Aleutians, and its by-product of greater geographic knowledge of the North Pacifi c, eventu- ally drew the attention of the Spanish. Diplomatic relations—which had been suspended for two decades—were reestablished, and a map of the North Pacifi c showing the extent of Russian discoveries in Alaska was acquired. (Plate 4) Interestingly, this map was widely republished and detailed images of later versions are also available.7 One can plainly see that the maps are identical in content, but diff er only in title (and language of publication). Th is provides an indication of the broad impact that these representations had, as this particular map is reproduced several times over a period of twenty years. Not only does it prompt strategic political response by Spain, but it also feeds a social hunger for information of the Americas. Plate 3 – Carte des Nouvelles Découvertes (1752) Buache, Philippe (). “Carte des Nouvelles Découvertes” (Map of New Discoveries), in Cook (: plate ). Originally presented to the Academy of Sciences, Paris. Image copyright Yale University Press, from Flood Tide of Empire by Warren L. Cook. Plate 4 – Nouvelle Carte des Decouvertes… (1758) Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences (). “Nouvelle Carte des Decouvertes…” (New Map of Discoveries…). Originally published by the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. Electronic version courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley. http://library.berkeley.edu/EART/maps/ 7. See for example, Carington Bowles, (1780). “Bowles’s New Pocket Map of the Discoveries Made by the Russians on the North West Coast of America” (map). Originally published by the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg (1758). Also republished as, “A map of the discoveries made by the Russians on the north west coast of America” (1761), London: Jeff reys. Electronic image available via Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/ antmaps/ http://library.berkeley.edu/EART/maps/siberia.jpg http://library.berkeley.edu/EART/maps/siberia.jpg http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=15 Jon D. Carlson401 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 402 While it is plain that the Russians maintained (at least temporarily) a zone of ignorance inclusive of Alaska and the Northwest, they had already pushed along the Aleutian Islands toward the American mainland. Th e relevance of the map, however, is that Spain was beginning to feel the threat of foreign encroach- ment on its territory. Madrid was now presented with defi nitive evidence that the Russians were poised to expand down the Northwest coast of America, and feared that Spanish claims to the coast would soon be challenged. Even though Spain had not ventured north of San Francisco, they did claim the entire western coast of America as their exclusive domain according to the ‘right of fi rst discovery.’ Accordingly, Spanish offi cials closely followed all pub- lished reports regarding Russian explorations into the North Pacifi c. In an eff ort to counter potential Russian development down the coast toward California, Spain vigorously expanded northward, establishing missions and presidios along the coast from San Diego (1769) and Monterey (1770), to San Francisco (1776). Between 1774 and 1793, Spain dispatched fourteen naval expeditions to the North Pacifi c in order to check on Russian advancement, the fi rst of which was that of the Santiago in 1774–1775 (Caster 1969; Cook 1973). It is important to note that unlike most of the contemporary English, Russian, and American voyages, these Spanish voyages of exploration “were conducted for reasons of imperial strategy and not for commercial purposes” (Tovell 1995:57) or for largely scientifi c purposes (Caster 1969, Engstrand 1981). Since this was offi cial governmental behavior, it seems arguable that the Spanish were expanding their political-military network (PMN) concurrently with their information network (IN). More importantly, here the PMN actively subsidizes the growth of the IN, which is in contrast to other strategies of expansion in which profi ts (or expected profi ts) from luxury goods are the motivating factor for expansion. Th e Santiago, piloted by Juan Pérez, reached as far north as the southern tip of the Alaskan panhandle, but never achieved the goal of reaching 60 degrees north latitude. More importantly, on his journey back to California Pérez became the fi rst European to visit Nootka Sound, which was believed to be the port of greatest strategic importance north of San Francisco Bay. In Nootka Sound, Indians came out to the Santiago and soon were bartering sea otter robes for abalone shells brought from California as well as other goods. For our purposes, “abalone shells and Mexican copper had a tremendous impact upon northwest coast art forms” (Cook 1973:67). So, almost immediately there is a concrete example of socio-cultural change in the external arena due to basic trade with members of the system. A key event occurred almost by chance that would later serve to support Spain’s claim to Nootka when later challenged by Britain: “several warriors came on board, and one managed to pilfer several spoons belonging to Martinez. When Cook visited Nootka four years later he purchased those spoons, recog- nized their manufacture, and mentioned in his journal that he regarded them as proof that the Spanish had been at or near the place” (Cook 1973:64–5).8 As the British would later argue however, there was no evidence that the Spanish ever landed at Nootka to offi cially take possession. Other Spanish voyages were made in the latter part of the eighteenth cen- tury, especially as the wealth of the fur trade became more obvious. Prior to this becoming relevant, additional Spanish voyages were made in 1775 and 1779. However, the important aspect of the situation is that Nootka Sound will prove to be the focus of considerable systemic-power attention. While Spain would continue to claim the expanse of the northwest coast, the riches coming out of the fur trade would place the region at the center of worldwide attention by 1784. Unfortunately for Spanish strategic aspirations, by 1780 Madrid once again curtailed expeditions to the north because the previous expeditions had proven to be a fi nancial drain on the northern Department of San Blas.9 Furthermore, Spanish policy of not publicizing the accomplishments of 1774, 1775 and 1779 later undermined their claim to the area by prior discovery. B. Russia In contrast to the Spanish, Russians were rather late in arriving in the area of North America, though their expansion into the North Pacifi c may be dated to the late 1600s. Russian expansion into North America was a natural extension of its drive across Siberia and the importance of furs in the Russian economy of expansion (Ohberg 1955). As Dmytryshyn (1988:xxxv) observes, Russian expan- sion into North America can be defi ned as falling into three distinct—though temporally overlapping—categories: The first was the initial phase by the government, 1700 to 1743. The second was a carefully government-controlled and monitored phase of private inter- ests, 1743 to 1799. The final phase, 1753 to 1795, in part concurrent with the second phase, consisted of a series of secret government-sponsored expedi- tions to promote and defend Russian interests in the North Pacific. 8. Estéban José Martínez was a second pilot on the Perez expedition, but would rise to command the later expedition that was at the center of the Nootka Sound contro- versy. 9. San Blas was a small town on an inlet about 140 miles west of Guadalajara and about 80 miles north of Puerto Vallarta. It was selected as a naval base of operations in 1767, and “was considered Spain’s most important naval station on Mexico’s Pacifi c coast” (Magnaghi 1999: 43). Th e Department of San Blas included the Californias and the coast up to Nootka. Jon D. Carlson403 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 404 43) notes that within a decade, “cargoes from the Aleutians grossed millions of dollars, and the trade became important to the Siberian economy,” which pro- vided impetus for Russian expansion into America. Permit holders also pledged to collect yasak (tribute in furs)13 from the natives as a sign of their submission to Russian rule. Th is tribute was initially to be turned over to royal authorities upon the ship’s return, but a tribute collector soon accompanied every vessel during its voyage. Additionally, the private ventures agreed to give a tenth of their furs to the Treasury, and supply the government with any relevant information about the expedition. Th e third phase of Russian expansion ran largely concurrent to the second, but is characterized by government-dispatched expeditions. Th ese were devel- oped by four departments of government with particular interest in the area: the College of the Admiralty, the College of Foreign Aff airs, the College of Commerce, and the Academy of Sciences. Th ese expeditions often were devel- oped to further particular government objectives in the region, but also had to fi ll in the gaps of information provided by the private entrepreneurs, as their data were often useless because many of the private traders were illiterate. Hull (1966: 35) makes the point that “Siberian offi cialdom, which tended to be grasping and mainly interested in levying its tax on cargoes and collecting the yasak tribute imposed in the newly conquered regions, provided an additional reason why fur traders often suppressed their fi ndings.” Th e fi rst government-sponsored expedition lasted from 1753 to 1764, and led to the recommendation that Russia gain control of the Amur River in Irkutsk in order to build a shipyard and provide an agricultural and industrial base to support Russian interests in the North Pacifi c. Government offi cials studied the fi rst expedition’s proposals, but ultimately did little to act on them. Offi cials wished to avoid a war with China, which almost certainly would have resulted from taking this action on China’s northern frontier. Also during this time, atten- tion in Moscow was increasingly focused on events in Europe, where Russia had become involved in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) (Dmytryshyn 1988:xlvi- xlvii; Gibson 1969). Interestingly, these ‘phases’ roughly correspond to Hall’s (2000b) nested networks of interaction (See also Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991, 1997).10 Phase 1 involves moving into the ‘Information Network’ (IN), phase 2 corresponds to the ‘Prestige Goods Network’ (PGN), and phase 3 is arguably the beginning of the ‘Political-Military Network’ (PMN). Th e initial phase mainly consisted of a series of information gathering expe- ditions, a main goal of which was to determine if Asia was connected by land to America. By 1733, the Russian government organized an expedition with the expressed purpose of reaching and claiming the western shore of North America. Th is expedition (the Second Kamchatka Expedition) ‘discovered’ and described the shores of Alaska and some of the Aleutian Islands, and opened a vast and unclaimed area to Russian expansion. Th is exposed an area rich in furs and other resources to the exclusive claim of Russians for a generation and initiated a new phase in Russian expansion. Expansion into the Aleutians in gave Russia its fi rst overseas colony. In turn, this necessitated that additional resources be devoted to the relatively new navy of the traditionally land-based power, in order to support Russian proprietary interest in the North Pacifi c. Suddenly, Russia had legiti- mate imperial interests and would need to display appropriate naval capability if it hoped to compete successfully in the last New World arena of international rivalry (Dmytryshyn 1988; Makarova 1975; Golder 1971; Gibson 1969). Th e second sphere of Russian expansion, that of private undertakings, began as soon as the Second Kamchatka Expedition completed its mission. Th e movement was triggered by the arrival of furs brought back by members of the expedition, and Russians increasingly began to move toward Kamchatka. Russian private entrepreneurs organized themselves into small venture compa- nies, which then purchased permits from the government to acquire furs (as well as to take along an offi cial government agent). Estimates put the number of such companies at over forty, operating between 1743 and 1799.11 Since many ships were lost at sea it is diffi cult to estimate the total value of all the furs taken. However, the parties that did return carried furs valued close to 8,000,000 rubles (Dmytryshyn 1988:xli; Makarova 1974:209–216)12. Similarly, Cook (1973: 10. Electronic image of these ‘nested networks’ available in Carlson (2001: 245). 11. Th e last two companies merged to form the Russian American Company in 1799. As a government-supported monopoly company, it lasted until Russian holdings in North America were sold to the United States in 1867. See (Okun 1951; Tikhmenev 1978) for histories of the Russian-American Company. 12. Dmytryshyn (1989) places the value of a silver ruble at roughly 50 cents, which indicates that Russia offi cially extracted approximately $4 million in US dollars (circa 1800) from the region over this period. Th is says nothing of the value of goods smuggled out or unreported. 13. Alternately spelled iasak, this is a system of taxation dating from Genghis Khan’s code of laws in which tribute equal to one-tenth the annual yield is extracted (Cook 1973: 44; see also Rich 1955). Jon D. Carlson405 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 406 Th e purpose of the second government expedition (1764–1767) was primar- ily to monitor the sea-borne fur trade carried on by the private entrepreneurs. A second purpose was to survey the islands lying between Kamchatka and America (the Aleutians), as well as to determine their resources. Th is expedition, as well as a third one undertaken in 1764–1769 to check on reports of abuses in the fur trade, did not meet expectations. Partly due to bad leadership and partly due to bad luck, the reports and maps submitted were fi lled with exaggerations and inconsistencies that took years to clarify (Golder 1971; Makarova 1975; Dmytryshyn 1988:xlvii–xlviii). Th is is a central aspect of the zone of ignorance: misinformation often carries as much weight as valid fact, but can take years to identify. Indeed, once some- thing is placed on a map—for whatever reason—it takes on the aspect of ‘reality.’ Only once the incorporation process is well advanced can these ‘hauntings’ of myth and fantasy be dispersed. In this particular case, the Spanish were better served than the Russians because the Spanish (with considerably more seafaring experience) used offi cial scientifi c expeditions to extend their ‘information net- work’ (and arguably their political-military network), instead of relying on the information provided by wanderers, traders, and private explorers. In contrast, the Russians had to return 20 years later to verify earlier reports and fi ndings. Th e fourth Russian expedition was organized in 1786–87, and had very broad objectives to guard Russian interests in the North Pacifi c, and was com- manded by Grigory Mulovsky. As its goals, this expedition was to verify and claim all discoveries made by Russia from the southern Kurils to the southern tip of Alaska. To this end, the expedition was outfi tted with 1,700 iron and copper plates engraved in Russian and Latin proclaiming, “Th is territory belongs to the Russian Empire” (Dmytryshyn 1988:xlix).14 Th is refl ects the common use of the claim of discovery as producing a fun- damental claim to territory, as such plates would serve as future proof of ‘prior discovery.’ Th e Spanish and English followed similar procedures. Th e Spanish commonly erected a cross with a cairn of stones covering a declaration of posses- sion, or erected a cross over such a declaration. Similarly, Captain Drake posted a bronze plate on a tree north of San Francisco Bay during his initial trip into the Pacifi c, laying a somewhat tenuous base for later British claims to territory in North America. Specifi cally, the purposes of this Russian expedition were fourfold: to warn Spanish, British, and French intruders to stay out of Russia’s sphere of infl uence; to establish a permanent Russian naval presence in the North Pacifi c; to open commercial relations with China and Japan; and fi nally to undertake additional scientifi c investigations. Th e expedition was to total some 639 men on 5 ships, with a considerable international contingent of astronomers, historiographers, natural historians, and navigators (Gibson 1969, 1999; Dmytryshyn 1988).15 Unfortunately for those involved, on the eve of their departure, this mission was aborted because of imminent war with Sweden (1788–1790) and the Ottoman Empire (1787–1792). Th e experience later proved helpful in organizing the fi rst Russian circumnavigational voyage (1803–1806). Also, another (and fi nal) gov- ernment-sponsored expedition did take place during this time and carried out similar objectives (Dmytryshyn 1988; Makarova 1974). Here it is important to clarify an important diff erence between Russian expansion into the region and Spanish expansion along the coast. Th e Russians built small wooden blockhouses or fortresses (ostrogs) on key river islands, which were then used to dominate the surrounding region. While this is similar on the surface to the Spanish use of the feudal encomienda system, it diff ers signifi - cantly. Th e Russians required tribute to be given in the form of the yasak, and thus are operating in a tributary mode of production for world-system concerns (Wallerstein 1974). Th e Spanish encomienda system also required that the Native Americans give tribute, but in the form of periodic labor in the mines, haciendas, and other public works. Th us, one is able to begin to diff erentiate levels of incor- 14. Gibson (1999:56) puts the number of cast iron markers (bearing the imperial coat of arms) at 200. But he states, “1,700 special medals of gold (110), silver (430), copper (660), and iron (500) were struck as awards for exceptional service”. 15. Crews of diff erent nationalities were fairly common during this time, especially if ‘skilled’ crews were needed. Th is is even more so in the case of Russia, as it did not have an extensive oceanic naval tradition and no signifi cant population of experienced seafarers on which to draw. Th is is not only a common method of information diff usion, but contributed to a rather interconnected community of seafarers. For example, Gibson (1999: 55-56f ) points out that one of the foreign offi cers recruited for the expedition was a Cornishman, James Trevenen, who had been a midshipman on the Resolution during Cook’s third voyage to the Pacifi c. In an attempt to exploit the wealth of the fur trade for himself (and thus avoid the monopolistic control of the British South Sea Company), Trevenen applied to the Russian minister in London to support a plan for ‘discovery and enterprise’ in the North Pacifi c in the name of Empress Catherine. Assured that his proposal would be accepted, Trevenen then declined a proff ered British naval command. Curiously, the ship he was off ered to command was the now notorious Bounty. Trevenen subsequently was killed during the Russo-Swedish War in 1790, again having been recruited by Mulovsky. Jon D. Carlson407 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 408 poration between the natives under Russian control and those under Spanish control. Th e Russian model operates at a purely tributary mode of accumulation while the Spanish model goes beyond the ‘grooming’ process of gathering tribute and resembles a system of full-blown production (Hull 1966:1–17; See also Wolf 1982).16 Because of their penetration into the North Pacifi c and the lack of any northern development by Spain, the Russians enjoyed a monopoly on the region for the fi rst half of the eighteenth century. However, the secrecy surrounding their activity, combined with traditional Russian reluctance to share information, ultimately led to increased suspicion among other European powers and to out- right challenge by Spain in the 1760s. Great Britain also expressed concern and American claims were pressed in the latter half of the century. More important national security concerns subsumed Russian imperial aspirations, and Russia was hard-pressed to recover its prior status in the North Pacifi c. However, Russia maintained a colony on Sitka Sound,17 and eventually expanded Russian presence southward to Fort Ross in California in 1810. Until the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, the colony “was serviced approximately every year by either a Russian Navy or a Russian-American Company ship from the mother country” (Gibson 1999:60; Dmytryshyn 1989). C. Britain Despite Spanish eff orts to keep activities on the northwest coast a secret, news of the fi rst two Spanish expeditions soon fi ltered out to other countries. In particular, these reports were relevant to the British, who were interested in any information that might pertain to the existence of a northwest passage and a shorter route to Chinese ports. Th is desire had led Parliament to post a reward for the fi rst British ship to fi nd such a passage. Since Captain James Cook had led two successful expeditions in the South Pacifi c, he was a logical choice to lead an expedition in search of such a passage. His instructions were to approach the coast at 45 degrees north latitude and proceed northward to 65 degrees, since that was the latitude at which knowledge of central Canada had relegated such a strait. Th is is an interesting aspect of the ‘zone of ignorance’ in North America and its interaction with policy decisions for the British. Although some knowledge of the area had been gained, all hope for a desired passage lay in the fact that an expanse of unexplored territory still existed. In turn, this necessitated its exploration. Th is is just the opposite of the earlier Spanish policy of purpose- ful—and possibly blissful—ignorance. Th e Spanish realized a strait may exist, but preferred not to explore since fi nding another entrance into the Pacifi c would require it be defended and would hasten foreign intrusion. As it was, the limited northern expeditions already were a strain on the limited resources of Spain at San Blas. Although the search for a northwest passage was a major objective, “Cook’s chief purpose was to visit and explore the northwest coast of America with a view to determining its future economic and strategic relevance to Britain’s impe- rial interests” (Cook 1973:86, emphasis added). Cook set sail from Plymouth in July of 1776 with two warships—the Discovery and the Resolution—despite the hostilities in the American colonies, and took two years traveling by way of the Indian Ocean, Tasmania, New Zealand and Tahiti.18 Th e course traversed across the Pacifi c was midway between the westward and eastward routes of the Spanish Manila galleons, and provided Cook with the ‘discovery’ of the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands.19 In March of 1778, Cook sighted the Oregon coast at about 44 degrees north. Traveling north, Cook was forced out to sea by bad weather, and when he once more sighted land he was off the entrance to a promising moorage, which he named King George’s Sound. Th is was actually Nootka Sound, and while there he purchased the silver spoons mentioned above.20 In addition, “with little eff ort 16. Elsewhere, Barth (1950) discusses Franciscan education and Trigger (1965), Donohue (1969) and Massey (1974) describe Jesuit missionary behavior, all of which may be viewed as furthering incorporation. Similarly, Th omas (1932) and Rock (1981) off er views of offi cial ‘policy’ in New Spain, and Naylor and Polzer (1986) deal with what may be considered the ‘political-military network’ of interaction in their coverage of the role of the militia and the institution of the presidio. 17. American and Tlinget opponents of the Russians burned Archangel St. Michael on Sitka Sound in 1802. It was rebuilt in 1804 as New Archangel, but commonly referred to as Sitka, and became the capital of Russian America in 1808 (Okun 1955; Golder 1971; Tikhmenev 1978). 18. As a peculiar historical sidenote, the sailing master of the Resolution was one William Bligh, who would later gain notoriety as captain of the Bounty. 19. Some Spanish reports of islands in this region exist before Cook’s visit, though the Spanish never solidifi ed the information with an offi cial claim. (See Dahlgren 1977). 20. It should also be noted that the Spanish had learned of Cook’s objective of visit- ing the northwest coast, and actually followed through with eff orts to stop him. Th ese were based not only on their concern with territorial encroachment, but the belief that English activity in the area would lead to an increased trade in contraband along the coast with Spanish subjects (Cook 1973: 88–89). Jon D. Carlson409 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 410 take advantage of the situation, and had long known of the value of sea otter pelts from those taken in Baja California and subsequently sold in China. However, this trade had stagnated for lack of native hunters of suffi cient ability or experience; the natives in the south did not commonly hunt the animal. Six years before the fi rst British fur traders emerged along the coast, offi cials in the Philippines learned of Cook’s crew selling pelts in Canton. Th is led the padres of the missions in California to encourage converts to bring in pelts, which began to fl ow to the Orient in growing quantities. In fact, there was discussion relating to offi cial participation in the sea otter trade as early as 1782. Ideally, the pelts could be used to purchase quicksilver (mercury) in China, which could then be used to refi ne gold ore in New Spain (Cook 1973:107). Th is raises two points for consideration. First, this provides an interesting example of a role ‘preciosities’ play in the expansion of the system. In this case, we have the example of luxury goods (furs) being used to fi nance the production of bullion, which Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1989) has considered a ‘necessity’ in terms of systemic incorporation. One could make the argument that these luxury goods are integral to the initial ‘hooking’ of an arena to the world-system, fi nancing the initial expansion of the system into new areas, and then subsidizing the increased incorporation of a region. Luxury goods provide a potentially highly compensa- tory incentive for systemic actors to broaden the scope of their activities, then serve as a mechanism to underwrite the deepening of development by off setting otherwise prohibitive ‘start-up’ costs associated with colonial expansion. Th is brings up the second point for consideration. Specifi cally, it appears that the initial leg of the familiar ‘triangular trade’ pattern of economic fl ows may be under-appreciated in its relationship to the larger linkages of the world- system and the relevant ‘commodity chains’ of global production (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994). For example, in the traditional triangular trade with Africa and the West Indies, slave labor was shipped to the West Indian plantations, “West Indian molasses went to the northern colonies, whose rum and trinkets went to Africa” (Wallerstein 1979:237).22 Yet Africa’s slave-regions are initially considered external to the world-system. Th e trade on America’s northwest coast developed similarly, though only the leg of trade including bullion from the East is considered part of the system according to a Wallersteinian interpretation of incorporation. some 1,500 sea otter pelts were acquired by the crew, who were not aware of their actual worth in China” (Cook 1973:87). Th e crew used them mainly as bedding. Continuing northward, Cook performed his fi rst act of possession at 61˚30’ north, perhaps purposely waiting until he was beyond land previously inter- preted as being claimed by Spain (which had been placed at about 58 degrees north). From here, Cook’s expedition visited the Russian areas along Alaska and the Aleutians, where Russian offi cials received him and off ered him their sup- port. Traveling into the Arctic Ocean, he continued along the American coast until the ice made any further advance impossible, and led to the conclusion that the hoped for northwest passage was not there. From the Aleutians Cook’s convoy traveled to Hawaii to winter, where Cook was killed. After further explo- rations along the Asian coast, the expedition fi nally reached Macao where the crew discovered that the cheaply gotten furs obtained as much as 100 Spanish dollars a pelt, and nearly mutinied in their desire to return for more pelts (Cook 1973; Hull 1966; Coughey 1933:188). Upon their return to England in October of 1780, elaborate precautions were taken to prevent the spread of the news of the sea otter wealth. Despite these eff orts, two anonymous accounts of the voyage were published in 1781 and the offi cial journal was published by 1784. In addition to alerting the Spanish to British intrusions into the Pacifi c, this also had the eff ect of making the Spanish aware of the true, more limited extent of Russian expansion into the Gulf of Alaska (Hull 1966:92). Commercially, the spread of the news from Nootka caused an ever-increasing number of vessels to head for the northwestern coast. After the peace treaty of 1783 with Spain21 the British merchant marine was eff ectively unleashed, and the competition to exploit the fur trade in the north Pacifi c rose dramatically as other nations also sought to carve out their share. I I I . T H E DR A M A A. Systemic-Power Competition for Nootka With the publication of Cook’s voyage to the Northwest and the subsequent sale of sea otter pelts in China, any nation with a claim to trade made an attempt to exploit the riches of the northwest coast. Spain was the best positioned to 21. With the Convention of Aranjuez (April 12, 1779), Spain had openly joined the war (American Revolution) against the British, which diverted Spanish resources from the northwest coast to more crucial areas in the Caribbean, the Philippines, and an unsuccessful attempt to retake Gibraltar. As part of the treaty in 1783, Spain retained the Floridas, which had been in British hands until being retaken by Spain in the war. 22. As Wallerstein (1980:238) also observes, we must recognize that these fl ows are analytic constructs and refl ect fl ows of commodities rather than the movements of indi- vidual ships. Jon D. Carlson411 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 412 While furs from beyond San Francisco did not fi gure into the initial Spanish plans of 1782, their relevant impact on the larger, truly global trade networks was increasingly realized. Th ere was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of sea otters along the central California coast, as long as the native Indians could be encour- aged to participate in the hunt. Th e Franciscans aided in supervising the ongoing collection, though the California Indians were largely unaccustomed to fur gar- ments and had little practical experience in killing the fur-bearing sea otter, as they neither hunted it for food nor clothing. In contrast, the Indians of the northwest coast were more culturally predis- posed to the hunting of the sea otter for two primary reasons. First, while the natives of the northwest coast were mainly fi shermen, hunting was “a source of luxury foods, of hides and pelts, and a way of demonstrating personal prow- ess. Anyone could catch fi sh, but only a man of special talents, and one favored by the spirit powers, could be consistently successful in the pursuit of the wary sea mammals or the animals of the forests and mountains” (Drucker 1965:17). Indeed, skill at ocean hunting was considered admirable and could even have mystical overtones, as evidenced by the relationship between shamanism and the hunting of the gray whale (Drucker 1965; Goddard 1972). Second, because of the proliferation of the potlatch, considerable prestige was achieved with the acquisition of sundry trade goods provided by the Europeans, as well as more traditional surplus goods of Indian origin—which include sea otter pelts. Th e potlatch-system is common from Oregon up to Alaska, wherein “social and political prestige hinged upon feasts at which the host enhanced his status by outdoing rival chiefs in the abundance and quality of gifts distributed” (Cook 1973:55). Th is tendency toward acquisition inherent in the potlatch-system resulted in an escalating competition for status, with “resultant sociopolitical fl u- idity” (Cook 1973:67). Th us, the mere introduction of a new source of luxury goods (i.e. European traders) had important impacts on the social and political structures of a region being incorporated, almost immediately upon the initia- tion of trade.23 Th e cultural importance of the potlatch should not be underestimated, as Goddard (1972:85) observes that the “Indians of the Northwest Coast diff er from other natives of North America in the amount of emphasis they place upon wealth and property and upon the ceremonial distribution of wealth.” Th e established tendency to favor acquisition and accumulation exhibited by the pot- latch-system considerably eased European penetration of the area. In turn, this made the Indians around Nootka Sound much more eager to undergo the rigors of sea otter hunting. Th e otter pelts were already prized within the society and later proved additionally valuable as a means of acquiring objects of wealth from the white men. Unfortunately for the Spanish, other European powers were soon seeking a portion of the lucrative sea otter trade. Th e Russians pushed farther along the Aleutian Islands and established fur-trading colonies on Kodiak Island and on the continent nearby in 1784 and 1786. Th e French even attempted to ensure that they would not be shut out of the race for position in the Pacifi c, sponsoring the La Pérouse expedition in 1785 with the goal of taking possession of an appropri- ate spot north of what was deemed Spanish territory. Additionally, American ships began probing the northwest, as British shipping also increased.24 23. Drucker (1965) has a good discussion of the potlatch as an aspect of social orga- nization, including the use of sheets of beaten copper as a means of transmitting wealth, and Barnett (1968) discusses the cultural background as well as socio-political aspects of the potlatch. Bracken (1997) provides a detailed history of the colonial administration and subsequent banning of the potlatch in Canada. 24. Th e information responsible for sparking American merchant interest can be traced to the rather fascinating story of John Ledyard, a Connecticut native who dropped out of Dartmouth to go to sea. Happening to be in London in 1776, the 24-year-old joined James Cook’s third expedition just before news of the Declaration of Independence reached Britain. After Cook’s return with the Resolution, Ledyard spent two years in an English barracks instead of transferring to a warship, but volunteered for a man-of-war heading to America after hearing of Cornwallis’ surrender. Th ere, he managed to desert and went into hiding with an uncle in Hartford, where he wrote an account of Cook’s voyage that was published after the war. In an attempt to fi nd backing for a return trip to Nootka Sound, Ledyard made his way to Paris (after fi nding no support in the economically depressed post-war United States). In Paris he found brief support from Commodore John Paul Jones, but more importantly impressed the American minister to France with the potential value of the northwest coast to the United States. Th is minister, Th omas Jeff erson, encour- aged Ledyard to try to reach the North Pacifi c with a Russian expedition, and then proceed alone (and on foot) to the Western frontier of the United States. Ledyard was turned back after reaching Yakutsk, and was thrown out of Russia on the Polish border, accused of being a spy. Disappointed, he made his way to London where he joined an expedition to explore the interior of Africa. Ledyard fell ill and died in Cairo in January of 1789 with- out ever returning to the North Pacifi c. However, Jeff erson continued to urge others to undertake this challenge, and as President, he sent the Lewis and Clark expedition across the continent. Ironically, Ledyard’s book had sparked enough interest among Boston-area merchants that two ships, the Columbia and the Lady Washington, arrived at Nootka in September of 1788 and remained through the crisis of the following year (Cook 1973:104- 106; Batman 1985:101-106; Buell and Skladal 1968:71-85). Jon D. Carlson413 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 414 In the context of this blooming interest in the northwest coast, Spain made the decision to occupy Nootka Sound. Several factors contributed to this deci- sion. First, Spanish authorities were now aware that the English were operating between Canton and Nootka. Second, it was believed (erroneously) that Russia intended to send an expedition down the coast to occupy Nootka Sound by 1789, or 1790 at the latest. Finally, the decision was based on the recognition that Spain needed a northern buff er for its territory along the coast. Otherwise, every indication was that Nootka Sound, as well as the long coastline down to San Francisco that Spain claimed by right of prior discovery, would be lost by default to the encroaching European powers. As part of Spanish hopes to consolidate their claim on the region, by 1790 the governor of New Spain25 was planning the creation of a private joint-venture company to engage in the sea otter trade. As conceived, this company would take advantage of two popular trade commodities in New Spain—beaten copper from mines in Mexico and abalone shells from the fi sheries of California. Th e Spanish would be able to off er more for pelts than the competition from other nations because of the much shorter shipping distances and greater supply of trade commodities, and would be eff ectively cutting off the competition’s abil- ity to turn a profi t. When this happened, foreign intrusion would cease. Th e envisioned company would engage in a triangular trade, and “carry cattle and supplies from Monterey and San Francisco. Furs and lumber could be shipped from Nootka to the Orient, and cloth and garments obtained in China and the Philippines should be shipped to the northwest coast for the Indian trade, the garrisons, and the crews operating there” (Cook 1973:197). International and domestic political circumstances resulted in this company not being realized, but that is not relevant for my investigation. Rather, for my purposes it off ers crucial insight into the motivation and the process behind the planned incorporation of new regions. Very specifi cally, private interests would be used to fund the exploitation of primarily luxury goods, in place of offi cial political-military expansion on an empire’s frontier. Th e high return on luxury goods allows for the development of the infrastructure needed to support trade in bulk goods, through which an imperial presence would eventually be sup- ported. Additionally, the potential costs associated with failure are passed to the private venture until appropriate levels of return are realized, when governmental involvement becomes either warranted or cost-eff ective. Similarly in the North Pacifi c, the Russians were fi rst drawn into the fur trade by private interests, and were soon contemplating agricultural stations and harbors on China’s northern frontier in order to support this trade and solidify their imperial expansion (Gibson 1969, 1999). Th e competition for the strategic natural harbor of Nootka Sound com- menced in earnest, which brought the European powers to the brink of war.26 Somewhat ironically, the controversy at Nootka Sound began as a rather minor dispute between sea captains at the edge of the known world. Simply put, the Spanish—in support of their claims to sovereignty—seized British ships oper- ating under Portuguese papers in 1789.27 Other ships present at Nootka, the American vessels the Columbia and the Lady Washington, maintained amiable relations with the Spanish commander Martínez and were allowed to proceed to China.28 Later that summer, an additional American vessel29 was also seized for operating in violation of Spanish sovereignty. Th ese seizures occurred in an atmosphere of resentment and distrust in Europe, and England used the situation to press diplomatic advantage over Spain. Because of the European political situation, Spain was isolated from its 25. Juan Vicente de Güemas Pacheco de Padilla Horcasitas y Aquayo, conde de Revillagigedo governed New Spain from 1789 to 1794. 26. See Cook (1973). Th e clash at Nootka provides an intriguing potential case of the impact an external arena can have on behavior in the system. As such, it is hoped that a more detailed examination of the crisis at Nootka can eventually be undertaken with this in mind. For an intricate discussion of the diplomatic and personal intrigues involved in the crisis, see (Cook 1973:146–270; also Manning 1966; Pethik 1980). 27. Estéban José Martínez (who also had his silver spoons pilfered on the earlier Pérez expedition) was the Spanish offi cer in charge. Th e Felice and Iphregenia, were seized and released under a bond that stated, if the Spanish courts requested, the ships were to be turned over to Spanish authorities. Later, British ships Northwest America, Princess Royal, and Argonaut were seized and sent south to San Blas. 28. Th e Columbia, captained by Robert Gray, returned to Boston on August 9th, 1790 and became the fi rst American ship to circle the globe, and the fi rst to start the triangle trade between the northwest coast, Canton and Boston (Buell and Skladal 1968). 29. Th e schooner Fair American, captained by eighteen-year-old Th omas Metcalfe, who was accompanying his father, Simon Metcalfe, and the brig Eleanora out of New York. Th ey had been separated and were to rendezvous at Nootka. Th e Fair American was sailed to San Blas, where viceroy Conde de Revillagigedo ordered the ship and crew released. Unfortunately, young Metcalfe immediately set sail for the Sandwich Islands where King Kamehameha’s warriors overpowered the ship. All were killed except for one crewmember, Isaac Davis, who was enslaved. Four years later, Simon Metcalfe and a younger son, along with the entire crew of the Eleanora, were killed by the Haida on the northwest coast (See Cook 1973:198). Jon D. Carlson415 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 416 traditional ally, France, and Britain argued that the “seizures at Nootka Sound in time of peace were an insult to His Britannic Majesty and an off ense ‘against the law of nations’ ” (Cook 1973:206). Britain demanded satisfaction on claims incurred by the seizure before any discussion on Nootka could even take place. Th is had the eff ect of requiring Spain to give reparations for an off ense it denied having committed, without providing means for discussion about the grounds which justifi ed its action (Spanish claims to sovereignty on the coast). British Prime Minister William Pitt knew from the outset that Madrid would refuse, and thus hoped to parlay the situation into a confrontation. Th e rationale behind such an approach is as follows: Construed as an insult to f lag and nation and employed adroitly, it could extort assent to a principle never before conceded by Madrid: recognition of a British right to make settlements in any unpopulated area nominally claimed by Spain by right of prior discovery, but never colonized. Pitt would contend that unless an area were settled and effectively controlled, titles based on prior discovery were not binding. The principle of occupation, once recog- nized in a treaty, would not only provide unhindered access to the northwest coast, but it would legitimize beachheads anywhere that Madrid’s territorial claims were not bolstered by settlement. The ploy, if successful, would facili- tate the achievement of a long-sought British objective: economic and politi- cal penetration of Spanish America (Cook 1973:206).30 Th e British recognized that if they acceded to Spanish claims of sovereignty they would eff ectively be shut out of the nascent fur trade. So, Pitt used the aff ront of the seizure at Nootka Sound to press for a diplomatic advantage over Spain. Additionally, the Nootka incident became tied to resentment over Spanish claims to Pacifi c islands and the “sore question of fi shing grounds off southern South America and the Antarctic” (Cook 1973:215).31 Essentially, the crisis at Nootka Sound was used as a rallying point for sys- temic power interests (particularly the hegemonic interests of Britain). Since the two sides’ positions were mutually exclusive—and the issues involved seemed of suffi cient import to go to war—the network of alliances at the time put Spain, France, Austria, Denmark, Russia, and the United States against the forces of Great Britain, the Netherlands, Prussia, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey (assuming that every nation lived up to its alliances). As Manning (1966:284) notes: “For a time it seemed that all Europe would be drawn into a war over what, on the face of it, appeared to be an insignifi cant quarrel between two obscure sea captains.” Th e dispute that began over exploitation of a ‘luxury good’ in an external arena was pushing the powers of the system toward a confl ict that could engulf the entire Western world and would involve confl ict on every ocean. Indeed, this had the potential to become a truly world war, with the victor gaining the spoils of hegemony in the continuing struggle for colonial possessions. Th e Nootka Convention of 1790 avoided the outbreak of war. Th is agree- ment was vague and somewhat ambiguous (and thus open to considerable interpretation), especially when translated from the original French to English or Spanish (Manning 1966:284; Cook 1973:235–236).32 However, the essential result of this and subsequent Conventions was that Spanish territorial claims were undermined, and Britain gained its fi rst internationally recognized access to the Pacifi c coast of North America.33 From then forward, the dispute would center on how far south British claims could be pushed, since Britain had also reached agreement with Russia regarding the southernmost extent of exclusive Russian claims in the northwest. Additionally, the crisis served to break the dip- lomatic ice between London and Washington, largely because of British desire for a neutral United States if war broke out with Spain.34 Eventually, further confl ict on the European continent, in the form of the French Revolution, served to draw European interest away from the northwest 30. It is important to recognize that Britain itself had traditionally observed and argued for the right of prior discovery as a means of protecting British interests. 31. Nor would this be the fi rst time Britain waged war for the control of fur-trading areas, as this was a prime motive for the French and Indian War of 1754-63 (a.k.a. the Seven Years’ War). 32. Cook (1973:236) gives an example of the diffi culty in strict interpretation of the Convention:“Th e French original reads depuis the month of April, 1789, which translates into Spanish as either desde (since) or después de (after). When published in Spanish and English translations, depuis was rendered as desde and since. Floridablanca interpreted the pact as entitling Britain to coastal access solely from Nootka northward. Th e British consistently construed article fi ve as giving subjects of both nations free access to the coast north of the northernmost Spanish settlement extant in April 1789. (Martinéz had arrived at Nootka on May 5.) Th e latter interpretation allowed the British to make settle- ments anywhere north of San Francisco Bay, to which the Spanish would also have free access.” 33. “By the terms of the convention on Nootka signed in late 1790, both powers had agreed to equal rights with respect to trade with the Indians and fi shing and navigation in Pacifi c waters, although English ships were barred from sailing within ten leagues of the Spanish American coast in that part of the new World” (Hull 1966:142). 34. Pitt also cultivated relations with the Republic of Vermont (which was indepen- dent of the United States) as part of an ongoing British eff ort to develop buff er commu- nities under British protection. Jon D. Carlson417 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 418 coast. Th is was complemented by the rise of America in the eastern part of North America. With the eventual arrival of Lewis and Clark overland in 1805 (despite Spanish eff orts to thwart their expedition),35 as well as American pur- chase of key areas of land from the Indians around Nootka,36 by the turn of the century the area was falling under increasing American infl uence. Incursions on former Spanish territory would continue, and the debate would soon shift to one of contention between competing British, Russian and American interests. B. Marking Territory: Formalizing Borders and Solidifying Claims Th e Spanish concession of exclusive sovereignty over Nootka Sound marks an ebb from the high-water mark of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Never again would Spain contend for new territory, but was forced instead to fi ght a rear-guard action in an eff ort to protect what possessions it already held. Other powers—notably Britain, Russia, and a nascent United States—were not hesitant to step into the void produced by imminent Spanish decline and would continue to encroach upon former Spanish holdings. In a context of Spanish domestic distractions and resultant international decline, the struggle for control over the northwest coast of America became a two-pointed question. Th e issue (as Britain had exploited) was not only which country had the most legitimate claim to the region, but also (and perhaps more relevantly) which country was best positioned to support and defend its claim. In discussing the process of incorporation, the struggle between Britain and Spain is a contest to determine which state would gain exclusive sovereignty over the region and thereby bring the new territory into the domain of the winning party. Accordingly, the region shifts from existing in the ‘prestige goods network’ to the ‘political-military network,’ and is more formally incorporated. By doing so, the region would shift from existing in the ‘prestige goods network’ to the ‘political-military network,’ and therefore be more formally incorporated. Th us, the delineation of borders and the resulting formalization of territoriality are critical steps in the incorporation process. Why? Th e very nature of territoriality in the expanding state system is such that it is exclusive. Th e process of resolving confl icting claims to territory is part and parcel of the process of incorporation, as clearly demarcated property rights are central to the concept of capitalism. If 35. Cook (1973:460, see 446-483 for full account of Spanish eff orts) notes that four successive expeditions set out from Santa Fe for this purpose between 1804 and 1806. Cook concludes that the triumph of Lewis and Clark “damaged Spain’s chances of retain- ing sway over the vast hinterland between New Mexico and Nootka” and that “Spain’s primary interest in the pacifi c Northwest was in retaining it as an unexplored buff er zone of protection for Mexico’s mines” (1973:485). Once again, we see the Spanish actively attempting to maintain a ‘zone of ignorance’ for their imperial benefi t. 36. Recognizing the enormous potential of the area, John Kendrick, captain of the Lady Washington, had purchased large tracts of land during his initial visit, and subse- quently recorded the deed with Samuel Shaw, the United States consul in Canton (See Buell and Skladal 1968:93). Cook (1973:323) records that Kendrick negotiated “a purchase from Ma-kwee-na and fi ve subaltern chiefs. In return for ten muskets the chiefs put their ‘X’s’ to a deed of sale of everything within a nine-mile radius of Chastacktoos harbor …on condition that natives be allowed to continue residing and fi shing there.” A year later the Spanish also secured a deed of purchase from Maquinna (Ma-kwee-na), though the chief expressly exempted the land already conveyed to Kendrick. Kendrick was killed in Hawaii in 1794, accidentally hit by a British trader’s (the Jackal) cannon charge being fi red as a salute to a recently victorious king of Oahu. Plate 5 – A New Map of America from the Latest Authorities Cary, John (1806). “A New Map of America from the Latest Authorities,” originally published by John Cary, engraver and mapseller, London. Image courtesy of Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail2&SingleEntry_uid1=13 http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail2&SingleEntry_uid1=13 Jon D. Carlson419 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 420 a region has goods of suffi cient import to drive trade linkages, property rights eventually have to be codifi ed, and territory delineated. By the beginning of the 19th Century, the region was fairly familiar to the outside world. For example, if we examine John Cary’s map of 1806 (Plate 5), the former zone of ignorance is considerably pushed back. Th e coast is well defi ned, and only regions inland lack considerable defi nition. Indeed, since Lewis and Clark had not yet returned with their wealth of information by 1806, we can see that the zone of ignorance is pushed toward the interior of the American West, north to Alaska, and now holds sway over the “Icy Sea” beyond. Upon the return of Lewis and Clark, the interior of the American West would be drawn into the ‘information network’ of the United States, and the political-military network shortly after. Even then, however, the information network had important distortions, as exhibited by American settlers bypassing the ‘American Desert’ of the Great Plains in their desire to reach Oregon and California. Once trans-frontier trade has begun (because some good is deemed to be “worth” more in the expanding capitalist world-system than in the goods’ native region), the eventual transition of a region from external arena to inclusion within the political-military network (PMN) is most explicitly characterized by the formalization of boundaries through treaties or other “offi cial” documenta- tion. Th is newly formalized territory is almost immediately refl ected in updated, contemporary maps, which may be evaluated to ascertain the “real” extent of the system. Th us, the process of drawing boundaries is a basic refl ection of, and one of the fi rst steps toward the insertion of, the political structures of the system into (formerly) external arenas.37 Much in the same way that a region is removed from the realm of “myth” and deemed “real” by merely placing it somewhat accu- rately on a map, the same region is moved further along the spectrum of incorpo- ration by offi cially designating recognized borders. Th us, it is not enough to have the lines drawn on a map, but other system members must recognize and tacitly agree to them. Furthermore, indigenous peoples have only limited infl uence on this dialogue. Local leaders are able to infl uence initial allocations of land or ter- ritorial access, but soon lose control once systemic interaction is more advanced and are left out of the later dialogue of demarcation. Th e Nootka Conventions marked the beginning of the process of formal- ization for the northwest coast of America. Suitably, the diplomatic squabbling over the placement of the “offi cial” border provides a framework for the fi nal stages of the region’s formal incorporation. Spanish interests were fi rst to thwart American expansion for fear that the northern frontier would prove vulner- able and Mexican mines would be threatened. While Jeff erson’s purchase of Louisiana did bridge the gap between the Mississippi and the Pacifi c, American claims were still vague and inconclusive on the Spanish frontier. Th is was solved in the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819, which fi xed the southern boundary of Louisiana. As a consequence, Spain surrendered to the United States any claim to territory west of the Rockies and north of the 42nd parallel, and withdrew from the stage of the northwest coast (Graebner 1988; Walker 1999). By contrast, the United States and Britain both maintained an interest in the region and had—through the Convention of 1818—agreed “to leave the region west of the mountains equally and freely accessible for a period of ten years to the vessels and citizens of either nation without prejudice to their respective claims” (Graebner 1988:8). Th is situation was brought back to the forefront of international diplomatic circles in September, 1821 when Czar Alexander I issued an imperial decree that declared the entire coast of North America above 51 degrees to be exclusively Russian (because this lay midway between the Russian settlement at New Archangel and the Columbia River). Th is decree complicated American claims based on the assumption of Spanish rights under the Treaty of 1819 up to 60 degrees, and considerably lowered the previous line of 55 degrees granted to the Russian American Fur Company in 1799. Vigorous British and American protests ultimately led to the Conventions of 1824 (with the US) and 1825 (with Britain), in which the Russians agreed to a southern boundary of 54.40’ degrees. Th is allowed Russia to maintain control of Prince of Wales Island and eff ectively solidifi ed the disputed border between contending Russian and British claims (Graebner 1988; Walker 1999). In his examination of then-contemporary maps, Walker (1999) makes an observation that is of interest for the consideration of the ‘zone of ignorance.’ He displays a portion of H.S. Tanner’s “A Map of North America” with the bound- ary and notation “Boundary as claimed by Russia” far inland, but also asks us to “note the presence still of…the Caledonia River…an imaginary river system 37. It is no coincidence that the notion of territoriality is also central to the defi ni- tion of “state”, as is the notion of distributing resources. It is noteworthy, however, that the defi nition of territoriality and notion of borders extends to external regions that have economic or political worth, yet often remains unresolved in regions that are “within” the system but relatively “worthless.” For example, some modern states still have unresolved border disputes but feel no pressing need to resolve them (e.g. China and India, Peru and Ecuador, Western Sahara), while others maintain “undesignated” boundaries (e.g. internal areas on the Arabian peninsula) because the undesignated regions contain no extractable resources or populations. It does not seem unreasonable to recognize that these phenomena exist only because these regions are perceived as not being worth the eff ort to formally codify. Jon D. Carlson421 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 422 which was also appearing on updated versions of both John Melish’s ‘Map of the United States’ and on Aaron Arrowsmith’s great map of North America” (1999: 81). Clearly, the realm of myth and ignorance is tenacious in its mental grip. Even when borders are becoming offi cial, the zone of ignorance is pushed only slightly into the hinterlands. Ultimately the resolution of Russian claims left the long coast between 42 degrees and 54˚40’ to two remaining contestants, the United States and Great Britain. Th e irony should not be overlooked that these are the two nations that arrived last on the scene and arguably should have had the least legitimate claim to the region, but such are the vagaries of international diplomacy and history. Originally, during the fi rst three boundary negotiations of 1818, 1823, and 1826, the British and Americans agreed on a joint occupancy without partition of the Oregon Country (as the region was now known). Th e Americans, however, maintained claims to the 49th parallel (and some as high as 54˚40’ due to the assumption of prior Spanish rights), and argued that prior discovery conferred rights to the Columbia River drainage system. Th e pres- ence of a Pacifi c Fur Company post (an American enterprise) at the mouth of the Columbia added support to this claim, and American negotiators argued that the principle of contiguity favored the extension of the 49th parallel to the Pacifi c. In contrast, the British were not willing to give up access to such a long stretch of coastline and its resultant frontage on the Pacifi c. Even though Vancouver read- ily admitted that Robert Gray had discovered the Columbia and that its course was fi rst explored by Lewis and Clark, British diplomats “hoped that by neutral- izing American claims of prior discovery, exploration, and settlement they could reduce the contest to a matter of actual occupation” (Graebner 1988:9). Th is was a stronger position for Britain, since the region north of the Columbia had been consistently in the possession of the Hudson’s Bay Company. However, negotia- tions stalled, and no settlement was reached. Th e principle of ‘joint occupancy’ was extended indefi nitely, with each nation holding the privilege of terminating the agreement with twelve-month’s notice. Th is state of aff airs continued into the 1840s (Graebner 1988; Walker 1999; Cook 1973). By 1842, the ‘Oregon Question’ was gaining increased political attention in the United States. President Tyler riled congressional interest when he placed the onus on the British for not resolving the boundary. Senator Linn of Missouri introduced a bill designed to encourage American occupation of Oregon, which was then narrowly rejected by the House Committee on Foreign Aff airs because it violated the joint occupancy convention. Nevertheless, the combination of the great westward emigrations of 1842 and 1843, the completion of John C. Fremont’s trans-Mississippi West survey in 1843 (with its resultant maps and publications), and increased public interest given to the Monroe Doctrine’s claim that the American continents “were not thenceforth to be considered subjects for future colonization by any foreign power” greatly increased political pressure to resolve the issue of Oregon. With Britain abandoning its claim to the Columbia River, by 1846 the Oregon Treaty was signed and the boundary was fi xed at the 49th parallel. It was quickly ratifi ed in Congress and Parliament. Th e dispute over the actual water-route boundary through the Straits of Juan de Fuca was not settled until October 1872, nearly 100 years after the start of the fur trade around Nootka Sound (Graebner 1988; Walker 1999). C. Impact of the Sea Otter Trade - External Arena Up until now, I have largely ignored the impact of the sea otter trade on the residents of the external arena. I shall briefl y distinguish some signifi cant ways in which the trade did impact the Indian material culture, economy and govern- ment along the Northwest Coast, and in the Nootka Sound area in particular. In order to do this, it is important to characterize the geography of the region, as this shapes the inhabitants as well as their pre-contact society. Th e northern Pacifi c Coast of America resembles that of Scandinavia in many ways. It is heavily forested with mountain ranges rising abruptly from the water, but the warm ocean fl ow of the Japanese current moderates the climate and prevents snow from remaining for any length of time. Rainfall, however, is a consistent characteristic during the period from October through April. Th e coast is characterized by many islands (large and small) with a multitude of navigable straits. Because of the steep mountain ranges running along the coast, the region is isolated from easy overland contact with the rest of the continent and has evolved largely as an ‘island’ unto itself with a very distinguishable native coastal culture. Th e waterways and sheltered channels along the coast formed natural highways for native travel, and there were few overland trails and trade routes (Drucker 1965, Goddard 1972). Because of the rather moderate climate and abundant rainfall, the region is densely covered with vegetation. Th is includes a variety of trees: hemlock, Douglas fi r, spruce, and cedar (red and yellow) which is especially important because of the ease with which cedar wood can be worked and its resistance to decay in moist environments. Several varieties of edible berries are prevalent, including blueberries, huckleberries, strawberries, thimbleberries and salmon- berries. Th ese complement other useful fl ora, such as a selection of ferns, reeds and mosses. Th e fauna of the region is also diverse. Th e important land animals include deer, elk, mountain goat, and along some river drainages, moose. Bears were also common, though the grizzly was generally found only in the north. Sea mam- mals, however, were of greater importance. Th ese include the whale, seal, sea lion Jon D. Carlson423 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 424 and porpoise, as well as the sea otter. Above all, the greatest food source was fi sh, and especially salmon. Salmon was a great staple in the region, and was as impor- tant to the natives of the Northwest as buff alo was in the Plains region. A variety of other salt-water fi sh—cod, herring, smelt, halibut, and eulachon—supple- mented this diet, and shellfi sh (oysters, clams, mussels, and crabs) were also of importance (Drucker 1965, Goddard 1972). 1. Pre-contact Status Quo Th e society, economy and culture of any region are shaped by the geogra- phy and resources available (or unavailable) to the people of that region. Th e northwest coast of America is no exception. Th e material culture of the region is dominated by two factors: extensive dependence on exploiting resources from the sea, and the development of a very skilled woodworking society. As may be imagined, the natives of the region were skilled fi shermen, and equally adept at hunting sea mammals. Travel was almost entirely by water, in large canoes made from cedar logs. Cedar is soft and easily worked, yet resistant to decay, and logs were often of suffi cient size to yield canoes up to sixty or more feet in length (Drucker 1965; Goddard 1972). Th e woodworking aspects of society should not be underemphasized, as woodworking skill in this region was unrivaled by anything else in the Americas. Cedar provided the essential basis for travel (canoes and paddles), and was also used to make numerous everyday items. Wooden containers and dishes were often stylized into zoomorphic shapes, and great skill was put into making even utilitarian items (e.g. sea otter clubs, cradles) functional and attractive. Boards were bent to create containers and boxes, and considerable eff ort was put into fi nishing the wooden beams of the communal houses (rectangular plank houses were universally used at important permanent locations, and each housed an extended family group). Weaving was also an important craft, and the basketry and the textiles of the region refl ect a variety of techniques. Th e main materials used were “the tough fl exible roots of the spruce, inner bark of both red and yellow cedar, cattail or tule stems, bark of the wild cherry tree, mountain goat wool, dog wool, down of ducks and other birds, the ‘down’ of various native plants, and for decora- tion grasses, fern stems and the like” (Drucker 1965:34). Some groups wove cedar-bark garments and blankets, though otter-fur robes were also worn when available. Additionally, conical hats of spruce root covered with cedar bark were common, as may be expected in such a rainy climate (Drucker 1965; Goddard 1972). Th e main focus of life in the region, though, is on the ocean. Many tribes in the region depended on the annual salmon run to set in stores for the winter, and would transport large cargoes of dried salmon to their winter villages by lashing two canoes together and placing planks over the space between. Th e Nootka were no exception. Th ey were exceptional, however, in their pursuit of whales and other large sea-mammals, often miles out to sea. Whaling is relevant not just for the food and oil it provided, but it also had important religious signifi cance as whaling rituals were used to infl uence supernatural forces. Regardless, the Nootkan skill at sea hunting exceeded that of most other societies in the region. Th e social organization of the region is best described as chiefdoms. Social groups were organized around kinship and associated with a geographic locality. Diamond (1997) notes that chiefdoms develop a redistributive economy based on tribute, and that complex chiefdoms often start to take on the characteristics associated with a traditional ‘state.’ He also notes that the American Indians of the Pacifi c Northwest, such as the Nootka, were in some ways unusual in that organized agricultural food production did not arise. Instead, the region was rich enough in sea and wildlife to support a complex hunting-gathering society and agricultural cultivation was largely absent. Th ere was a considerable level of societal complexity as “food surpluses generated by some people, relegated to the rank of commoners, went to feed the chiefs, their families, bureaucrats, and crafts specialists, who variously made canoes, adzes, or spittoons or worked as bird catchers or tattooers” (Diamond 1997:274). In general, signs of social com- plexity in addition to a stratifi ed society include slavery (which was present in the northwest), the utilization of luxury goods by the elite (evident in the process of the potlatch), public architecture (communal buildings, totems) and indigenous literacy. While not literate, the natives of the region exhibit many other charac- teristics of a complex society (Diamond 1997, see also Wolf 1982, Fried 1967). Th e role of wealth is closely related to the social organization of the region, as the emphasis placed upon wealth and property and the ceremonial distribu- tion of wealth distinguishes the natives of the Northwest Coast from other North American societies. Wealth, in turn, allowed a family to show its great- ness. A variety of objects were regarded as valuable: sheets of beaten copper from placer deposits, pelts of sea otter, robes of mountain goat wool, and rare shells (particularly Dentalium pretiosum). Drucker (1965:49) notes that “these shells are the only valuable that can be compared to money and then only in the southern part of the area, distant from the source of supply, where the slender tapered creamy-white shells were minutely graded into sizes with fi xed standards of value.” Th is is reminiscent of a similar practice in Africa, where cowrie shells were widely used as currency, though not as widely accepted or used (Hogendorn and Johnson 1986). Regardless of whether we consider this to be a genuine primi- tive currency, objects of value were traded in networks stretching hundreds of miles up and down the Pacifi c coast. A very active trading system and culture of Jon D. Carlson425 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 426 accumulation was present prior to European encroachment. Th is is most plainly manifested in the function and nature of the potlatch, as previously discussed. Various foodstuff s, materials for shelter, clothing, and means of transporta- tion were also calculated as wealth. Accordingly, so were the places from which these materials came, to the extent that each group regarded the areas it utilized as the exclusive property of the group. Th is lead to the creation of an intricate system of property rights. Each group “used habitation sites, fi shing grounds, clam beaches, hunting and berrying grounds, forest areas where timber and bark were obtained, through right; outsiders entered by invitation or in trespass” (Drucker 1965:49). Great emphasis was placed on the controlled access to spe- cifi c areas and their unique resources, and certain family groups even held rights of salvage along any given beachfront. Th is paid big dividends if a dead whale happened to wash up, and special varieties of whaling rituals were even per- formed in hopes that this would be the outcome. Controlled access to resources is an integral element to the accumulation of wealth. As Kardulias (1990:31, citing Torrence 1986) notes, restricted access to a resource area is a key trait in distinguishing specialized production. Th e other trait is the need for effi ciency if a commercialized system is involved, which is also evident in Native American cultures involved in the fur trade. In reference to indigenous development, specialized production may be defi ned as “non- subsistence activity which is performed by a particular or restricted number of households within a community; the individuals in such households then exchange their products or services for foodstuff s and items produced by other specialists” (Kardulias 1990:31–32). Additionally, specialization may also develop as a community-wide phenomenon. Th e Indian culture around Nootka Sound was defi nitely specialized, but such specialized production is not limited to the sea otter trade. Another example of specialization is found by examining the practice of dentalia fi shing. Th e species of dentalium valued by the natives grows in beds at moderate depth and in only a few places on the seaward side of Vancouver Island. Th e fi shing grounds were the property of particular family lines, and the knowledge of how to locate them was a closely held secret. Th e beds were located by calcu- lating an angle between two natural features onshore, though knowledge of the approximate angle and of the appropriate onshore features was crucial if one was to locate the dentalia beds. Rather ingenious gear was used to acquire the mol- lusks from the sea fl oor. “[T]he device was fairly effi cient, the dentalia beds rich, and the Nootkan dentalia fi shermen must have been industrious at their trade, for they obtained great quantities of the molluscs, which they carefully cleaned, sorted into three sizes (long, short, and in-between), and traded to neighbors packed in neat wallet-like cedarbark baskets or in fathom-long strings” (Drucker 1965:152). Th e shells increased in value the farther from the fi shing grounds one got, and were actively traded along the North Pacifi c coast. Th e preceding section should serve to give a quick overview of social, politi- cal and economic aspects of life in the region prior to contact with Europeans, though a number of detailed studies are available for those wanting more infor- mation. However, we should recognize that the region had a well-developed and distinguishable culture. Additionally, it had a robust network of trade and a defi ned property rights system. Finally, the social and political order was well evolved and possessed intricate rules of hierarchy and status. So what were the eff ects of European contact on this region? 2. Post-Contact Alterations I make no claim that the region was static and utopian prior to contact with European powers. Indeed, as there were two main language groupings among the coastal societies and some contact with other Indians from the interior, the coastal societies underwent modifi cation as a result of interaction with one another and the environment. However, once European colonization and explo- ration began, the pace of this change accelerated rapidly. Changes among the native inhabitants’ social order are readily apparent and traceable, almost to the moment of initial contact with Europeans. One of the most commonly discussed ways in which European expansion into the external arena of North America impacted native life is by the introduction of new diseases. Considerable literature exists relating the depopulation of Native American populations in general, with some areas experiencing up to a ninety- percent decrease in population (Reff 1991; McNeill 1998). While death rates this high were not experienced among populations on the northwest coast, reports of epidemics of measles and smallpox correspond to Spanish voyages and subse- quent contact in the region (Cook 1973). With each smallpox epidemic capable of killing 10–30 of the natives, it is not unreasonable to accept estimates that between 1774 and 1874 the native population along the Northwest Coast (from southern Alaska to the Oregon-California border) declined by 80, or from about 200,000 to approximately 40,000 individuals (Boyd 1999). Th e establishment of trading posts and missions served to further the spread of such diseases in the Spanish Southwest, as they served as centers of contagion as well as centers of commerce. In the Northwest, the second phase of the fur trade—that of land-based trading—began in the 1820s with similar con- sequence. Land-based traders established fi xed forts and posts (e.g., Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia), opened up interior routes of travel, and cultivated increased contact with basin, plateau, and coastal Indians. Boyd (1999) notes that commerce between natives and non-natives vastly increased the contacts Jon D. Carlson427 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 428 between peoples that accelerated the spread of disease. While this second phase of the fur trade lasted until about 1846, and eventually expanded to exploit other resources such as timber, fi sh, farmland and pastures, the deleterious impact on native populations would not be undone. Disease may play a particularly important role in the examination of the incorporation process as it is applied to diff erent geographic regions. Specifi cally, it is due in large part to the diff ering disease vectors (direction of infection) between North America and Equatorial Africa that the historical experience of colonization and incorporation diff ers. In North America, the local population suff ered, thus easing conquest and expansion. In contrast, in the tropics of Africa the Europeans were more likely to fall ill and perish, necessitating the use of local middlemen resulting in the rise of a merchant elite. In the Northwest, contact with European traders also generated new wants and created new trade fl ows among the northwestern Indians. Specifi cally, since the goods provided by the Europeans greatly enhanced the status of a chief who could give away such goods at a traditional potlatch, more emphasis was placed on gathering goods that the Europeans would want in exchange (e.g., sea otter pelts). Th is had several additional consequences beyond merely the creation of new wants. Despite the abundance of wildlife on the northwest coast, sources confi rm that during some winters after regularized trading, tribes in the Nootka Sound area experienced unaccustomed famine. After traders came with tempt- ing trade goods, “Nootka males became excessively preoccupied with sea otter hunting, whereas in former times they had dedicated more time to whaling, salmon fi shing, and other pursuits connected with laying in a food supply for the lean season.” (Cook 1973:313). Among the goods most in demand by the Indians were copper, cloth, aba- lone shells, and almost anything metal. Th ese new goods had a considerable impact on native art forms, and desire for metal was strong enough that initially Indians were seen taking down Spanish crosses (erected as means of claiming territory) in order to get the nails that held the crosses together. Th is thirst for iron is refl ected in other accounts, as Cook (1973:147) relates that Captain Gray had to replace barrels “as the natives had stolen most of his barrels to get the hoops” (though we should note that stealing was an acceptable way for a native to obtain property, and was not considered morally wrong). Captain Kendrick, on the Columbia, narrowly averted total failure on his fi rst trip to Nootka when the trade goods he had brought failed to interest the locals. Noting their interest in iron, he quickly had any unneeded iron (e.g., the spare anchor, capstans) fash- ioned into “chisels” by his blacksmith to trade with the natives (Buell and Skladal 1968:80). Buell and Skladal also note that on the next voyage, “a more adequate supply of trade goods was carried: sheets of copper, red, blue, and green cloth, iron chisels, shoes, pea jackets, buttons, gimlets or boring tools, penny nails, old muskets and blunderbusses” (1968:90). Soon, any trader headed to the north- west coast regularly carried quantities of iron “toes” that could be fashioned into desired implements. Why would the Indians have such a desire for metal? Th e answer should be obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of carpentry. Metal imple- ments are far superior to bone or stone tools when working with wood, the importance of which is magnifi ed when taken in context of the highly developed indigenous woodworking culture. In fact, because of apparent benefi ts such as the introduction of metal, scholars continue to debate how destructive the early fur trade was. Some indicate that the trade was benefi cial to both parties and produced the high point in Northwest Coast cultures (Fisher 1977). Others either take a more balanced tone, noting both advantages and disadvantages (Gibson 1992) or describe a native world much more dislocated because of the fur trade (Harris 1997). Th e Indians should not be viewed as passive recipients of European trade. Th ey very actively entered into the arrangement, seeking items that would ben- efi t their lifestyle and negotiated accordingly. For example, the eagerness for iron indicates that it was in short supply, yet it has little directly negative impact on the culture. In fact, an abundance of iron likely resulted in an increase in wood- working and carving. Similarly, the introduction of sails on canoes, the trade in blankets and cloth, and even the introduction of fi rearms did not directly disrupt the social patterns of native culture, but increased effi ciency and comfort. Other introductions, like smoking tobacco and the cultivation of potatoes, were simi- larly ambiguous. Tobacco was already cultivated in the region, but was chewed. Potatoes were introduced and quickly spread wherever conditions were favor- able. From the beginning the Indians were skilled at trading. Members of Cook’s expedition observed, “they are very keen traders getting as much as they could for everything they had, always asking for more than what you would give” (Fisher 1977:140). Indeed, many chiefs were able to shape the trade so that it took place largely on their terms. Cook (1973:312) relates that after the fi rst exposure to Europeans, “the chiefs had become exceedingly choosy in bartering their pelts.” Chief Maquinna38 grew adept at playing one nationality against another, and 38. Alternately spelled Maquilla or Ma-kwee-na, he was chief of the Indians at Friendly Cove in Nootka Sound, and is reported to have died in 1795. Some confusion appears on this point because the word ‘ma-kwee-na’ also corresponds to ‘chief ’; though there is little question that one individual was known by this name during the contro- Jon D. Carlson429 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 430 was well known by all the captains calling at Nootka. His fi rst exposure to the British, however, may have disinclined him to favor them in particular: Upon visiting the Harmon,39 Chief Ma-kwee-na was invited to sit in a chair on deck. A sailor sprinkled a small pile of gunpowder under the seat, with a thin trail of the substance leading out from it as a fuse. Ma-kwee-na was given to understand they were rendering him a salute reserved to honored person- ages, and he assumed the powder to be black sand until it was lit. Before he could get up, a blinding f lash and roar elevated him from the deck. His robe offered scant protection from the searing blast, wounding both person and chief ly dignity; as proof he showed the Spanish the scars still visible on his rump (Cook 1973:101). Over time the trade moved from the decks of the ship to shore and was drawn out over several days, which was more in keeping with native custom. Maquinna and other chiefs became more sophisticated about the prices they charged, eventually learning to wait until two or more trading ships arrived. Th en they could get the traders to bid against one another and drive prices higher. Clearly, the Indians were trying to maximize their own benefi t and were not just being passively exploited by the ship-borne traders. Some of the indirect impacts of trade do tend to be more negative, how- ever. For example, the impact of disease has already been discussed. In addi- tion, some native groups clearly benefi ted more than others did. Th ey tried to monopolize relations with the traders, and drive competitors away. Th is resulted in increased local confl ict and accelerated the cycle of warfare in the region (which was further accelerated with the introduction of fi rearms). Th e combina- tion of increased confl ict and the presence of the fur traders also resulted in an increase in the practice of taking and selling slaves, particularly children. Slaves were often taken during raids, but the presence of the traders opened up a new “market” for the children, as “the purchasing of slave children, ostensibly to save them from cannibalism, continued to be common” (Cook 1973:314). An increase in the use of female slaves as prostitutes—and a concomitant rise in venereal disease—is another of the darker aspects of the contact with the fur traders and the encroachment of capitalism. In addition to the introduction of disease, creation of new wants, and altera- tion of domestic cycles of accumulation, the contact with Europeans served to alter traditional modes of production/accumulation. Traditional socio-political patterns were impacted, as lesser chiefs were able to exploit newfound wealth as the traders represented a source of wealth that was not subject to existing under- standings of property rights. Th is resulted in a drastic increase in social fl uidity throughout the region and destabilized traditional power structures. Eventually this change resulted in a drastic alteration of the traditional potlatch ceremony into what became known as the spectacular ‘rivalry potlatch’ (Drucker 1965: 61–65; Barnett 1968; Bracken 1997). Additionally, the introduction of the trading post as an institution in the 1800s altered traditional demographic movements and served to create a local- ized dependent population (Krech 1984). Th e Spanish mission system similarly served as a mechanism of incorporation in the Californias (Pike 1956; Hall 1986). Missionaries arrived on northwest coast in the mid-nineteenth century with similar infl uence. Finally, once the region was more formally incorporated, native populations were either moved onto reservations or limited to a fraction of their traditional territory. Regardless of the actual mechanism, it is evident that considerable impact is being exerted on a given region’s inhabitants well before it is traditionally considered “incorporated.” It is likely that the “grooming” or preparatory process begins immediately upon contact. Th is process takes hold to a varying extent dependent upon the presence or absence of certain environmental variables. Potentially, it seems plausible that diverse factors such as the disease vectors, geography, strength of indigenous polities, presence of multiple distinct popula- tions, and population densities all play a signifi cant role in determining the rela- tive impact of core intrusion on an external area. Once eff ective trade patterns are established and appropriate desires ingrained, then a more active process of incorporation begins. It is at this critical juncture that control of the situation shifts to outsiders and the indigenous population is increasingly left out of the dialogue of incorporation. EVA LUATION OF I NCOR POR AT ION Th e strength of the incorporating state necessarily should be expected to play a signifi cant role in the incorporation process. For the purposes of this case, in the late eighteenth century Spain may be seen as a state that was losing strength. While Spain did have suffi cient authority to fend off initial advances into its territory, it lacked suffi cient resources to bring previously unexplored, yet claimed, territory under its control. Instead, Spain institutionalized the existence of a ‘zone of ignorance’ within its own claimed territory through conscious policy decisions. Why? Because exploration and discovery of a northern water route into the Pacifi c would have eased foreign intrusion (as secrets of such magni- versy at Nootka. Later, a diff erent ‘Ma-kwee-na’ was likely responsible for the massacre of the crew of the Boston in 1803. 39. An English merchantman brought from China in 1785 by Captain James Hanna. Jon D. Carlson431 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 432 tude eventually become public knowledge) and required considerable expense to defend. Only when threatened with potential challengers (e.g., perceived Russian expansion from the north, eventual British incursion into the Pacifi c, later over- land and maritime advances by the United States) did Spain attempt to expand its control to these new areas of contention. Unfortunately for Madrid, it was incapable of fully meeting the challenge. Th is also supports Hall’s contention that incorporation is a matter of degree, can be a volatile process and that location within, on, or beyond the frontier of state control is important (Hall 1986, 2000b). Further, this case also points out ways in which the type of society being incorporated may shape the incorporation process. Particular cultural, political, and economic aspects of the northwestern Indians (e.g., the institution of the potlatch, emphasis on woodworking, skill at ocean hunting) made them more easily adapted to engaging in the sea otter fur trade, as they had an increased utility for the trade goods—and hence pres- tige—that were provided in exchange. In contrast, the Indians of the California coast lacked similar social institutions and peculiarities, yet were more easily assimilated into the Spanish mission system because of diff erent environmental parameters and their more agriculturally oriented society. If we recall the typography of incorporation used elsewhere, specifi c dates can be assigned to particular phases of incorporation in this particular case. One can develop the concept of a ‘signaling event,’ or ‘trigger,’ to mark the delineation of new phases of the incorporation process. For example, the ‘signaling event’ underlying the shift from zone of ignorance to being in the ‘external arena’ of the European system is the voyage of the Santiago in 1774–1775 and its visit to Nootka Sound. Th is opened an era of ongoing trade and ‘grooming,’ which moved the region increasingly into the system. Eventually the region became more nominally incorporated with the arrival of settlers. Up to 1841, Americans in Oregon consisted of fur traders, missionaries, mission helpers, government explorers, or similar trans-frontier occupants, but no farmers or settlers per se. In 1841, the fi rst band of 32 settlers arrived. Th eir signifi cance is not in the numbers of individuals, but rather that they blazed what would become the Oregon Trail and provided a venue for increased interest in local mission proj- ects. Th e following year witnessed the additional immigration of more than a hundred persons, and the Great Migration of 1843 saw more than a thousand. Newspaper accounts purported that such migration was patriotic and holy, as mission (and national) interests in Oregon needed the protection that migration would aff ord. However, the economic motivations based on reports of free land, fertile soil, pleasant climate and abundant salmon, lumber, and waterpower had a signifi cant impact as well. In any case, Caughey (1933:241) notes that succeeding years saw continued use of the Trail: “For 1844 the fi gures are uncertain, but esti- mates waver between 475 and 700, though there is mention of a round thousand. Th e next year brought more than three thousand…. In 1846 there was a slump to 1,350, followed by 4,500 in 1847, and 700 in 1848.” While migration was reduced (and possibly reversed) the following year with news of gold in California, over 11,000 settlers moved to the region over just 8 years. Indeed, while the American claim to Oregon was formalized with the Oregon Treaty of 1846, “As clearly as in Texas the American settlers won Oregon” (Caughey 1933:246, emphasis added). By 1846, the region was well on its way to being eff ectively incorporated. Agriculture, and not the fur trade, would prove to be the focus for settlers. Th e case of the sea otter fur trade also serves to illustrate that diff erent policies of state expansion can have diff erent implications for incorporation. For example, Russian expansion and colonization was characterized by a tributary method of accumulation, and most of their behavior and policy was geared accordingly. In contrast, Spanish colonization was oriented toward what is considered more traditional capitalist incorporation (the encomienda system), especially in the regions of California and the Southwest. However, it is impor- tant to realize that most of the processes going on in the area in question would not necessarily be considered part of the capitalist world-system according to Wallerstein. Instead, we have an example of the transitional ‘grooming period’ that occurs prior to the emergence of incorporation, when a region moves from pre-contact zone of ignorance to post-contact external arena. Th en the process of incorporation can begin. Th e case of the fur trade on the Pacifi c Coast is illustrative for another reason. It off ers potential answers to the question, If ‘contact’ or ‘marginal’ incor- poration does not contribute to the accumulation of capital, either for the core or some class or class segment within it, then why does it happen? Th e answer to highlights two shortcomings of the Wallersteinian conception of incorpora- tion. First, by concentrating on the requirement of bulk trade in necessities, Wallerstein under-appreciates the role that ‘preciosities’ play in the expansion of the world-system, as well as the role they play in ‘hooking’ new areas into the II. State of Being Zone of Ignorance External Arena Nominal Incorporation Effective Incorporation Periphery I. Process (OVERLAYS TRANSITIONS IN TEMPORAL CONDITION) Grooming Incorporation Peripheralization Figure 1 – Typography of Incorporation III. Signaling Events Santiago 1774–1775 Fur Trade Great Migration of 1843 Oregon Treaty 1846 Alaska Purchase 1867 Adapted From Carlson (1999:30; 2001:249) Jon D. Carlson433 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 434 incorporation process. Second, by concentrating on the areas considered incor- porated, the relevance of external arenas (frontiers) is overlooked. As this case illustrates, luxury trade in an external arena can have tremendous impact on the core and other incorporated areas within the system. Why? Partially the answer lies in the desire for pre-emptive colonization. However, the underlying drive for such pre-emption, at least in the case of the northwestern coast of America, is for control of a profi table luxury trade and future income from it. Luxury goods appear to off set the otherwise prohibi- tive costs of expanding the capitalist system, and as such seem to play a key role in the broadening process. Th is indicates that the role such trade plays in the world-system is severely under-appreciated; it certainly indicates that the role luxury goods play in the process of incorporation needs to be more carefully considered. In fact, if one looks at American policy immediately following the emergence of the fur trade, it becomes increasingly clear that this trade is instrumental in initializing the incorporation process. After Americans fi rst entered the Pacifi c, ship owners supported the idea of offi cial exploring expeditions. Th is would lower the risk of navigating little-known or uncharted waters, and would allow a foundation for increased naval protection. Th e United States Navy responded with limited patrols by 1820 and the formation of the Pacifi c Squadron, which expanded regular patrols ever westward across the Pacifi c to Southeast Asia. Th is expansion of offi cial US naval presence was solidifi ed by the eventual acqui- sition of California and Oregon, and saw the establishment of the East India naval station in 1835. Dudden (1992:15) observes that: Indeed foreign policymaking was being imposed upon the United States, as it was upon Great Britain and France, by the growing numbers of its citizens active in the central and southern Pacific together with the increasing value of their properties there. The comparative abundance or lack of trade, then, created the policies to be formulated and enforced. Th e US Navy took on the role of offi cial constabulary, and served to sup- port American interests in the commercial rivalry between American and British competitors. Leaders of both parties in America hoped that the North Pacifi c Ocean would become “‘a vast American lake,’ the bridge to the wealth of the Far East from trading and whaling”40 (Dudden 1992:17). It is clear that economic issues were driving political decisions in this period. Finally, by taking a close look at various maps of the region as it is being incorporated one can actually “see” a degree of diff erentiation in the stages of incorporation. Th at the region fi rst exists squarely in the zone of ignorance is not in question, as maps of this period make clear: there are broad unmapped regions and fanciful, mythical names (Anián) appear regularly. Clearly, this region is even outside of what is the ‘information network’41 of the world-system, and more solidly in the realm of myth. Similarly, this is the case for the Buache Map (Plate 3). Lower California is reasonably accurate, but the northwest has been replaced with “Fou-sang des Chinois” and an inner sea leading to the fabled Northwest Passage. Even when a region is falling into the ‘information network’ anomalies still occur. First, not everyone has access to the same information. Th is imperfect dis- semination leads to considerable time-lags between countries having the same information, and the same literal world-view. Second, until more information is acquired (and a region is fi rmly in the realm of the “real”) it is easy for misin- formation to thrive. To illustrate the fi rst point, see the Russian Academy (1758) map (Plate 4). Th is Russian map of 1758 triggered Spanish eff orts to thwart Russian expansion, as the Spanish were unaware of the true extent of Russian presence in the Pacifi c. Th e same map still appears virtually unchanged over twenty years later, but translated into English and popularly marketed. To illustrate the second point (that misinformation thrives), one need only view other contemporary cartographic off erings. Recall that Lower California was represented with reasonable accuracy in the early maps of the region (e.g., Ortelius [1587], Author Unknown [1586], and even Chino [1702] maps). However, by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, California had achieved the status of an island on many depictions of the region. For example Homann (1707),42 has the North American continent tenuously stretching far to the northwest and California adrift in the Pacifi c. Th e appearance of California as an island is not a singular occurrence. Rather, it was quite common for Lower California to appear on maps as an island throughout the late 17th century. Th is is after being quite accurately repre- 40. Th is also resulted in President John Quincy Adams calling for “scientifi c explor- ing expeditions comparable to those of Britain, France and Russia to support the nation’s commerce with sophisticated knowledge of the globe” (Dudden 1992:16), which culmi- nated in the Great United States Exploring Expedition of 1838-1842. 41. See Hall (2000b:240) or Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997:54) for a discussion of these nested networks of incorporation. 42. Homann, Johann (1707). “Americae Septentrionalis ey Meridionalis, Novissima Repraesentatio…”(map), (North and South America, Newest Representation…), Nuremburg. Image available at the University of Minnesota Libraries, James Ford Bell Library. http://www.bell.lib.umn.edu/historical/Hamerica.html http://www.bell.lib.umn.edu/historical/Hamerica.html Jon D. Carlson435 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 436 sented by 1587! It is a telling case of a region existing in the fuzzy realm between the ‘zone of ignorance’ and actually being in the ‘information network.’ Th e region had slipped just far enough back into the realm of fantasy to require that more defi nitive proof be gathered if California was to be ‘reattached’ to North America. Similarly, Seutter (1731?)43 portrays California as an island, does not speculate as to the nature of the rest of Northwest America, but instead employs a well placed cartouche to fi ll in the otherwise empty region. Finally, as the northwest was more fully absorbed by the expanding system and drawn into the ‘prestige goods network’ of the fur trade, an accurate depic- tion of the coastline was forthcoming. However, even when the region was being pulled into the ‘political-military network’ and more formally incorporated (as characterized by the boundary negotiations between Russia, Britain and the United States), elements of the zone of ignorance crop up in the form of make- believe rivers or non-existent mountain ranges. Taken as a whole, the maps used in the boundary negotiations between Britain and the United States are illustra- tive of the wider region being absorbed into the global political networks of the expanding system (Walker 1999). And what of Nootka Sound and the sea otter? How did they fare in the tell- ing of this historical tale? Th e sea otter was all but eliminated from the waters around Nootka by 1820,44 though the animals were still commercially hunted until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1911 an international treaty protecting fur seals, sea otters, and polar bears from indiscriminate hunting was signed by Great Britain, Japan, Russia and the United States, and conservation eff orts have seen the return of the sea otter to much of its original habitat, though in reduced numbers. As a catalyst of history, the sea otter led to the mapping and settlement of the shores along a 6000 mile ‘river of fur,’ and resulted in the eventual margin- alization of the natives that had originally dominated the region. With the decline in the fur trade, Friendly Cove and Nootka Sound receded from the realm of interest for the players in the system. Instead, the seal hunters and whalers that followed the initial expansion into the Pacifi c shifted interest elsewhere. Vancouver Island existed as a preserve of the Hudson’s Bay Company and was only formally admitted (as part of British Columbia) to provincial status in 1871. Logging had a start in 1914, though the fi rst sawmill was not actually built around Nootka until 1938 (in conjunction with a gold rush in the area). More modern mills have been built, and once again ships from around the world sail into Nootka Sound. However, now the ships take lumber, pulp and newsprint to world markets, and leave the sea otter to amuse the growing number of tourists that are drawn to the region for its sea kayaking and sight seeing attractions. As should now be evident, important changes, processes, and interactions take place well before a given region is traditionally considered incorporated into the world-system. Using historically contemporary maps allows one to parse out a more accurate interpretation of when a given region enters various stages of the incorporation process, particularly in regards to the information network. Th is provides a ‘snapshot’ of a region at a given time, and taken in context with more traditional historic accounts provides a more complete story of the expan- sion of the global state system. As we see with the case of the Northwest Coast, a tremendous amount of action takes place well before the region is tradition- ally considered incorporated, and this is a part of the story that has been largely overlooked. By shifting the focus to what happens prior to contact with systemic actors and then tracing social, cultural and economic alterations that occur during the period of incorporation, insight into the broader functioning of the expanding capitalist system is provided. BI BLIO GR A PH Y Abu-Lughod, Janet L. . Before European Hegemony: Th e World System A.D. – . New York: Oxford University Press. “America ” (map—Author Unknown. . Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ Bannon, John Francis, ed. . Bolton and the Spanish Borderlands. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Barnett, H.G. . Th e Nature and Function of the Potlatch. Eugene, OR: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Barth, Pius Joseph. . “Franciscan Education and the Social Order in Spanish North America (–),” Ph.D. Th esis, University of Chicago, . Batman, Richard . Th e Outer Coast. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Publishers. Bennyhoff , James A. and Richard E. Hughes. . Shell Bead Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the Western Great Basin. New York: American Museum of Natural History. 43. Mattaeus Seutter (1731?). “Novus Orbis sive America Meridionalis et Septentrionalis” (New World with South and North America), Augsburg. Electronic image available at the Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ 44. Cook (1973:Appendix E) places the number of vessels visiting the Northwest coast between 1774 and 1820 at 450. Th is number does not include Russian vessels unless they traveled south of Sitka. Th e busiest year was 1792, in which 32 vessels were active on the coast. http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=69 http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=69 Jon D. Carlson437 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 438 Bowles, Carington. . “Bowles’s New Pocket Map of the Discoveries Made by the Russians on the North West Coast of America” (map). Originally published in London. Electronic image courtesy of Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ Boyd, Robert T. . Th e Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, –. Vancouver: UBC Press. Bracken, Christopher. . Th e Potlatch Papers: A Colonial Case History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Braund, Kathryn E. . Deerskins & Duff els: Th e Creek Indian Trade with Anglo- America, –. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Buache, Philippe. . “Carte des Nouvelles Découvertes” (map), in Cook (: plate ). Originally presented to the Academy of Sciences: Paris. Buell, Robert and Charlotte Skladal. ). Sea Otters and the China Trade. New York: D. McKay Co. Carlson, Jon D. . “World-Systems Incorporation and the Zone of Ignorance: Th e Northwest Fur Trade.” Paper presented at the  Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, March –. Carlson, Jon D. . “Broadening and Deepening: Systemic Expansion, Incorporation, and the Zone of Ignorance,” Journal of World-Systems Research, :  (Fall), pp. –. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Cary, John. . “A New Map of America from the Latest Authorities” (map). Courtesy of Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ Caster, James Garland. . “Th e Earliest Spanish Explorations to the Pacifi c Northwest,” thesis, University of New Mexico. Ann Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfi lms, . Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall, Eds. . Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview Press. Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall. . Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder: Westview Press. Chino, Father E. F. . “ Tabula Californiae” (map). Place of printing unknown. Yale University Library, Yale University Map Collection. http://www.library.yale.edu/ MapColl/ Cook, Warren L. . Flood Tide of Empire: Spain and the Pacifi c Northwest, –. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Coughey, John Walton . History of the Pacifi c Coast. Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press. Curtin, Philip D. . Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cutter, Donald C. and Iris Engstrand. . Quest for Empire: Spanish Settlement in the Southwest. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Cybulski, Jerome S. . “Culture Change, Demographic History, and Health and Disease on the Northwest Coast,” In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest. Clark Spencer Larsen and George R. Milner, Eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp –. Dahlgren, E.W. . Th e Discovery of the Hawaiian Islands. New York: AMS Press. Davis, James T. . Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. Ramona, CA: Ballena Press. Diamond, Jared. . Guns, Germs, and Steel: Th e Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Dmytryshyn, Basil, ed. . Russian Penetration of the North Pacifi c Ocean, –: A Documentary Record. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society. Dmytryshyn, Basil, ed. . Th e Russian American Colonies, –: A Documentary Record. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society. Donohue, John Augustine. . After Kino: Jesuit Missions in Northwestern New Spain, –. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis University. Drucker, Philip. . Cultures of the North Pacifi c Coast. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. Dudden, Arthur Power. . Th e American Pacifi c: From the Old China Trade to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press. Engstrand, Iris Wilson. . Spanish Scientists in the New World: Th e Eighteenth Century Expeditions. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Fisher, Robin . Contact and Confl ict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, –. Vancouver: UBC Press. Foote, Cheryl. . “Spanish-Indian Trade along New Mexico’s Northern Frontier in the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of the West, XXIV, , –. Fried, Morton H. . Th e Evolution of Political Society, An Essay in Political Anthropology. New York: Random House. Gereffi , Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds. . Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gerhard, Peter. . Th e North Frontier of New Spain. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Gibson, James R. . Feeding the Russian Fur Trade: Provisionment of the Okhotsk Seaboard and the Kamchatka Peninsula, –. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Gibson, James R. . Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: Th e Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast, –. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Gibson, James R. . “Th e Abortive First Russian Circumnavigation: Captain Mulovsky’s  Expedition to the North Pacifi c,” Terrae Incognitae, : , pp. –. Goddard, Pliny Earle. . Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc. Golder, Frank Alfred. . Russian Expansion on the Pacifi c, –: An Account of the Earliest and Later Expeditions Made by the Russians along the Pacifi c Coast of Asia and North America. New York: Pergamon Book Reprint Corporation. http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=15 http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail2&SingleEntry_uid1=13 http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/calif.GIF Jon D. Carlson439 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 440 Graebner, Norman A. . “Th e Northwest Coast in World Diplomacy, –,” in Th e Changing Pacifi c Northwest: Interpreting Its Past, David H. Stratton and George A. Frykman, eds. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press. Hall, Th omas D. . “Incorporation in the World-System: Toward a Critique,” American Sociological Review, , –. Hall, Th omas D. . Social Change in the Southwest, –. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Hall, Th omas D. . “Th e Rio de la Plata and the Greater Southwest: A View from World-System Th eory,” in Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern and Southern Edges of the Spanish Empire, Donna J. Guy and Th omas E. Sheridan, eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hall, Th omas D. a. “Precapitalist World-Systems,” in Encyclopedia of Political Economy, vol. , Phillip Anthony O’Hara, ed. New York: Routledge Publishing, pp. –. Hall, Th omas D. b. “World–System: Incorporation Into,” in Encyclopedia of Political Economy, vol. , Phillip Anthony O’Hara, ed. New York: Routledge Publishing, pp. –. Hall, Th omas D. c. “World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal,” in World- Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange, P. Nick Kardulias, ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp. –. Hall, Th omas D. a. “World-Systems Analysis: A Small Sample from a Large Universe,” in A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, Th omas D. Hall, ed. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp.–. Hall, Th omas D. b. “Frontiers, and Ethnogenesis, and World-Systems: Rethinking the Th eories,” in A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, Th omas D. Hall, ed. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp. –. Hanson, Charles E., Jr. . “Indian Trade Rings,” Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly, XVIII, , –. Harris, Richard Colebrook “Cole.” . Th e Resettlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographical Change. Vancouver: UBC Press. Hogendorn, Jan and Marion Johnson. . Th e Shell Money of the Slave Trade. New York: Cambridge University Press. Homann, Johann. . “Americae Septentrionalis ey Meridionalis, Novissima Repraesentatio…”(map), (North and South America, Newest Representation…), Nuremburg. Courtesy of the University of Minnesota Libraries, James Ford Bell Library. http://www.bell.lib.umn.edu/historical/Hamerica.html Hugill, Peter J. . World Trade Since : Geography, Technology, and Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hull, Anthony H. . “Spanish and Russian Rivalry in the North Pacifi c Regions of the New World, –,” thesis, University of Alabama. Ann Arbor, MI: Xerox University Microfi lms, . Irwin, Douglas A., ed. . Trade in the Pre-Modern Era, –. Brookfi eld, VT: E. Elgar. Jones, Herschel V. . Adventures in Americana, –. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. Kardulias, P. Nick. . “Fur Production as a Specialized Activity in a World System: Indians in the North American Fur Trade,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, :, –. Kardulias, P Nick, ed. . World-Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc. Karklins, Karlis. . A Bibliography of Glass Trade Beads in North America. Moscow, ID: South Fork Press. Kenner, Charles L. . A History of New Mexican-Plains Indians Relations. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Khlebnikov, K.T. . Baranov, Chief Manager of the Russian Colonies in America. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press. Krech, Shepard, III. . Th e Subarctic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Larsen, Clark Spencer and George R. Milner. . “Bioanthropological Perspectives on Postcontact Transitions,” in In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest. Clark Spencer Larsen and George R. Milner, Eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. –. Magnaghi, Russell M. . “San Blas: Gateway to the North Pacifi c,” Terrae Incognitae, : , pp. –. Makarova, Raisa V. . Russians on the Pacifi c, –. Kingston, Ont: Limestone Press. McNeill, William H. . Plagues and Peoples. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Manning, William Ray. . Th e Nootka Sound Controversy. New York: Argonaut Press Ltd. Massey, Lee Gooding. . “Jesuits and Indians: A Brief Evaluation of Th ree Early Descriptions of Baja California,” Pacifi c Coast Archaeological Quarterly, x: , pp. –. McNickle, Andrew J. Stanley. . Spanish Colonial Coins of North America, Mexico Mint. Mexico: Sociedad Numismatica de Mexico. Michael, Henry N., ed. . Lieutenant Zagoskin’s Travels in Russian America, – . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Nasatir, Abraham Phineas. . Borderland in Retreat: From Spanish Louisiana to the Far Southwest. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Naylor, Th omas H. and Charles W. Polzer, eds. . Th e Presidio and Militia on the Northern Frontier of New Spain: A Documentary History. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Ohberg, Arne. . “Russia and the World Market in the Seventeenth Century,” Scandinavian Economic History Review, : , pp. –. Okun, Semen Bentsionovich. . Th e Russian-American Company; B.D. Grekov, ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. http://www.bell.lib.umn.edu/historical/Hamerica.html Jon D. Carlson441 The ‘Otter-Man’ Empires 442 Ortelius, Abraham. . “Americae Sive Novi Orbis, Nova Descriptio” (America with New World, New Description) (map), from Abraham Ortelio, Th eatro de la Tierra Universal, originally published in Amsterdam. Electronic image courtesy of Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ Parry, J.H. . “ Transport and Trade Routes,” in E.E. Rich & C.H. Wilson, eds., Cambridge Economic History of Europe. IV: Th e Economy of Expanding Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, –. Pethick, Derek, . Th e Nootka Connection: Europe and the Northwest Coast, – . Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre Ltd. Pike, Fredrick Braun. . “Th e Cabildo in Spanish American Colonial Administration,” PhD dissertation, Th e University of Texas at Austin. Ray, Arthur J. . Indians in the Fur Trade: Th eir Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Reff , Daniel T. . Disease, Depopulation, and Culture Change in Northwestern New Spain, –. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Rich, E.E. . “Russia and the Colonial Fur Trade,” Economic History Review, nd ser., : , pp. –. Rich, E.E. . Hudson’s Bay Company, –,  vols. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Rich, E.E. . Montreal and the Fur Trade. Montreal: McGill University Press. Rock, Rosalind Z. . “Dying Quijote: Nemesio Salcedo and the Last Years of Spain in the Internal Provinces,” PhD Dissertation, University of New Mexico. Savelle, Max. . Th e Diplomatic History of the Canadian Boundary, –. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Schneider, Jane . “Was Th ere a Pre-Capitalist World-System?” Peasant Studies : –; in Chase-Dunn and Hall, eds. Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. –. Seutter, Mattaeus ? “Novus Orbis sive America Meridionalis et Septentrionalis” (New World with South and North America) (map), Augsburg. Electronic image courtesy of the Reed College Library, Special Collections Department. http://simeon.library.reed.edu/collections/antmaps/ Skinner, Claiborne. . “Th e Sinews of Empire: Th e Voyageurs and the Carrying of Trade in the ‘Pays d’en Haut,’ –,” PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago. Stratton, David H. and George A. Frykman, eds. . Th e Changing Pacifi c Northwest: Interpreting its Past. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press. Th istle, Paul C. . Indian-European Trade Relations in the Lower Saskatchewan River Region to . Winnepeg: University of Manitoba Press. Th omas, Alfred Barnaby. . Forgotten Frontiers: A Study of the Spanish Indian Policy of Don Juan Bautista de Anza, Governor of New Mexico, –. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Tikhmenev, Petr A. . A History of the Russian-American Company. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Torrence, Robin. . Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tovell, Freeman M. . “Th e Hezeta-Bodega Voyage of : Its Signifi cance for Spain’s Presence in the Pacifi c Northwest,” Terrae Incognitae, : , pp. –. Trigger, Bruce G. . “Th e Jesuits and the Fur Trade,” Ethnohistory, , pp.–. Turner, Frederick Jackson. . Th e Character and Infl uence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin: A Study of the Trading Post as an Institution (Reprint of ). New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. Walker, James. . “Mapping of the Northwestern Boundary of the United States, –: An Historical Context,” Terrae Incognitae, : , pp.–. Wallerstein, Immanuel. . Th e Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel. . Th e Modern World System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World Economy, –. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel. . Th e Modern World System III: Th e Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, –. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ward, Kathryn B. . Women in the World System. New York: Praeger. Ward, Kathryn B. . “Reconceptualizing World-System Th eory to Include Women,” in Th eory on Gender/Feminism on Th eory, P. Englund, ed. New York: Aldine, pp. –. Ward, Kathryn B., ed. . Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Wolf, Eric R. . Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail1&SingleEntry_uid1=68 http://administration.reed.edu/library/maps.taf?function=detail2&SingleEntry_uid1=22 Carlson Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Figure 1