Natives in Russian Alaska

Natives played a vital role in the Russian American period of Alaskan history. Their influence is often overlooked both individually and corporately. Lydia Black and James Gibson highlight this unique position in their papers, “Ivan Pan’kov: Architect of Aleut Literacy”, and “Russian Dependence on Natives of Alaska.” Although the focus of Black’s paper is narrow, on an individual’s effect on the era and Gibson’s more general, on the tribal contributions, both agree on the necessary role of the native. Ivan Pan’kov is the Aleut chief without whom Aleut literacy and the “Aleut Church” would not exist in its present state. Aleuts, Kodiaks and Tlingits alike provided the necessities of life to keep the Russian colonies running. Black and Gibson both make strong arguments for the fact of these matters. Each is careful to build their case with personality, social effects and economic records. These all show the importance the native Alaskans played in the midst of the major cultural upheaval.

In terms of personality, personal testimony gives a historical bookmark to the role natives played. Black highlights the person of Ivan Pan’kov. Her support is from the translation work done by Pan’kov and Russian Orthodox priest Ioann Verniaminov, along with Verniaminov‘s own letters to the church in his motherland. Pan’kov’s relationship with his own people and the Russian priest acted as a bridge for two cultures to combine and a new identity for his people to emerge. This individual perspective gives an intimate appreciation for the native’s vital role. Much of Gibson’s support is from reports of various Russian officials and officers. These quotations paint the picture of the importance of the native populations. State Councilor Kostlivtsev is quoted as reporting, “In no respect whatever can the Kolosh be considered dependant on the company; rather, it can be said that the company’s very settlement’s on the American coast depend on them”. The historical role of various tribes is also outlined, with specialization in areas such as hunting, fishing and agriculture that the Russian colonies depended on.

Socially, both arguments continue to support their claim of native importance. Black’s effort is weaker here compared to other supports. She states that the Pan’kov line though not common, can be traced down some maternal lines to some prominent people in today’s native politics. She does this as well with some other names as well. “Members of the Cherepanov family still reside on the island of Akutan”. This connection with the modern-day may emotionally encourage, but doesn’t seem to be of much logical relevance to the argument. “Creoles outnumbered Russians 2 to 1 by 1843 and 3 to 1 by 1860.” Gibson on the other hand shows a stronger argument socially with records on the number of creoles born and working in the Russian-American company. This shows how native women played an important role for Russian men during this time.

“In October 1845 more than 2000 Tlingits in 160 to 250 boats ...assembled at Novo-Arkhangel’sk to sell potatoes”. It is interesting also, how both use economic records to back up their claims too. Gibson support is a mass of trade records. From the number of furs and goods traded to the number of native workers, he clearly shows the native economic impact on the Russian-American company. Black’s economic support is that of parishioner contributions to show the importance the man Pan’kov placed on his Russian orthodox faith. He gave more than the average. This is a decent argument.

Gibson’s support to his conclusion seems strong all around, while Black’s argument is weaker in some areas but still believable. Gibson strength is a preponderance of evidence. Black’s weakness being the use of a little storytelling. Gibson’s argument is also very much more straightforward in the support of his thesis, while Black’s is a more hidden as a narrative with the moral to the story being this native playing a crucial role in history.
It is apparent that popular perception is often far from recorded history. Natives were not “helpless dupes”, as Gibson plainly states and Black subtly defends against, but, played a vital role in Russian America. Without native support the Russian faith and fiefdom would not have survived in Alaska.

Bibliography

James R. Gibson, “Russian Dependence on Natives of Alaska" in eds. Stephen W. Haycox and Mary Childers Mangusso, An Alaska Anthology: Interpreting the Past (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 21-42.

Lydia T. Black, "Ivan Pan’kov , Architect of Aleut Literacy," in eds. Stephen W. Haycox and Mary Childers Mangusso, An Alaska Anthology: Interpreting the Past (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 43-65.