[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.ádi to fight and caused them to attack the10 Russian fort (Kan 1989:225).11 In the opinion of some modern Tlingit, Tlingit enmity toward the Russians12 arose when the Russians took Indian women as wives without bestowing the[124], (313 traditional gifts on the relatives (Jacobs 1990:4).According to Captain William14 Sturgis, the Russians at Sitka killed several Indians, whether for real reasons orLines: 3015 because they imagined them to be part of a conspiracy, and seized others and16 sent them to Kodiak, despite the local Indians own peaceful conduct.It is 17 natural that the captives and executed persons friends and relatives thirsted 0.0pt 18 for vengeance against the new arrivals at Sitka (Sturgis 1978:123, 125).Normal19 K.T.Khlebnikov wrote that the reason for the exasperation of the Kolosh PgEnds:20 was that the Koniag (not the Russians) had allegedly killed up to ten Tlingit21 during altercations (Khlebnikov 1861:55).In Kan s (1999:60) opinion, the rea-22 son that the Aleuts and Koniag had killed several eminent Tlingit in 1801 was[124], (323 to avenge the loss of their own people who had died of food poisoning from24 tainted mollusks in 1799, which they ascribed to the sorcery of the Sitka people.25 Regarding this incident, a scholar referred to the well-known July 1, 1802, letter26 written by I.A.Kuskov to Baranov, in which the reasons for the Indians27 dissatisfaction were enumerated (K istorii Rossiisko-Amerikanskoi, 1957:120).In28 Kuskov s report he actually speaks of the murder of several Indians who were29 not Sitkas but rather the family of the chief of the Kuiu kwáan, who could30 hardly have had any relation to the Native party members lost in 1799.31 Other scholars have made additional attempts to find motives for the Tlin-32 git s actions against the Russians.One theory is that the promyshlenniki s33 urge to exploit independent Indians as they had earlier done in the Aleutian34 Islands was a contributing factor (Crass 1992:410; Polevoi and Okladnikova35 1994:73).Another, entirely fantastic theory holds that the Tlingit s indignation36 was provoked by the Russians delivering copper emblems of the Russian37 Empire to the Tlingit chiefs, which (according to the Indians totemic be-38 liefs) allegedly attracted corresponding economic privileges in relations with39 the Russians (Dzeniskevich 1992:70 71).Whereas the latter theory does not124 History of Tlingit Relations in Russian America 1 accurately reflect the Tlingit s religious views (see Grinev 1995:120 121), the2 former theory cannot be corroborated by primary sources.For the most part,3 the promyshlenniki at Sitka and the rac simply did not have sufficient power4 to force the bellicose and well-armed Indians into slavery.The notion that they5 would do so directly contradicted Baranov s instructions on relating with the6 Sitka people (K istorii Rossiisko-Amerikanskoi, 1957:96).7 In enumerating the reasons for the Indian insurrection of 1802, it must not8 be forgotten that the Indians themselves would not have minded plundering9 Fort Mikhailovskii and demonstrating their fighting prowess.The desire to10 loot, for example, was the chief motive for the Tlingit attack on Baranov s11 camp in Chugach Bay in 1792 (Tikhmenev 1863:2:Append.35 47).12 Another reason for the Indians animosity was the anti-Russian agitation[125], (35)13 of several American traders.In his report to Baranov, Kuskov mentioned an14 American vessel that wintered over from 1801 to 1802 at the Tlingit villageLines: 31215 of Kootznahoo, the crew of which directly appealed to the Tlingit to destroy16 Fort Mikhailovskii, extorting the Indians by assuring them that American ships 6.5pt Pg17 would stop coming to them because the sea otters would soon be exterminated 18 by the Aleut hunting parties and so there would be no furs to trade (K istoriiNormal Pag19 Rossiisko-Amerikanskoi, 1957:119).F.I.Shemelin, a manager of the Russian-PgEnds: TEX20 American Company who took part in the round-the-world voyage of the sloop21 Nadezhda between 1803 and 1806, wrote, The ship Globus, Captain Kiunnen-22Zhein, wintered over under the Kootznahoo village (Shemelin 1818:2:334).[125], (35)23The American historian Frederick W.Howay notes the ship Globe (Globus)24from Boston on his list of ships that traded on the Northwest Coast.This25ship actually visited the Northwest Coast between 1801 and 1802; its captain,26Bernard Magee, was killed in October 1801 by Haida Indians, and the first27mate, W.Cunningham, assumed his position (Howay 1973:45).28The official documents of the Russian-American Company and some of its29representatives usually identified foreign agitation as the main reason for the30Indian uprising of 1802 (K istorii Rossiisko-Amerikanskoi, 1957:134; Tikhmenev311861:1:89).Thus, the former head of the Novo-Arkhangel sk office of the rac,32K.T.Khlebnikov, wrote:33The exasperation of these peoples is the product of enlightened envy.3435 The fiend of greed and other base vices was revived among foreigners36 trading in the straits.They saw that with the occupation by the37 Russians of Sitka Island they would lose a large number of their38 advantages because the Aleuts, in comparison with the Koloshi, in39 essence were the most excellent hunters and the catch of beaversHistory of Tlingit Relations in Russian America 125 1 [sea otters] produced thousands annually; without their participation2 these thousands would fall into the hands of foreigners.This was the3 first and most powerful reason to arouse envy in the hearts of the4 greedy (Khlebnikov 1861:54).5It was advantageous for the company to accuse their trading competitors of6instigating the Indian revolt because they could thus secure government aid7and privileges.Later, this claim passed from the documents of the rac and8the works of its historians into the works of several prominent contemporary9researchers (Bolkhovitinov 1966:311 312; Fedorova 1971:124; Okun 1939:52;10Pasetskii 1970:17).However, one cannot agree with this claim, for even though11individual foreign captains agitated against the Russians and sold firearms to12[126], (3the Indians, foreign interference was not the chief reason for the Tlingit revolt.13Foreign skippers appeals could not, by themselves, rally independent Tlingit14Lines: 32kwáans and induce them to an insurrection against the Russians.Firearms15were a more effective means of fighting but by no means the reason for the16 uprising.Besides, the majority of English and American captains was neutral6.5pt17 toward or spoke benevolently of the Russians, which was noted by one of the18NormalRussian-American Company s directors, Matvei I.Murav ev (Narochnitskii19PgEnds:1963 1985:Ser.II, t.V, s.87 88).20The above reasons for the revolt resulted in unprecedented cooperation21among communities and clans previously hostile toward one another.It was22[126], (3not only the Tlingit who took part in the conspiracy but also, evidently,23the Kaigani Haida and even some Tsimshian Indians.Kuskov managed to24learn from the Yakutat Tlingit that in the winter of 1801 02 the chiefs of25almost all the Tlingit kwáans went to the village of Kootznahoo on Admiralty26Island (where the American ship Globe wintered over) to plan the attack on27Fort Mikhailovskii and the hunting party [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]