Иркутская область, города и районы Иркутской области, ее жизнь, культура, история, экономика - вот основные темы сайта "Иркутская область : Города и районы". Часто Иркутскую область называют Прибайкальем, именно "Прибайкалье" и стало названием проекта, в который входит этот сайт.

Supplying Russian America: a preliminary search for the Kiakhta role

Timothy (Ty) L. Dilliplane

During an archaeological trip to Central Siberia, Russia, in the Summer of 2008, the author — along with Alaska State Archaeologist J. David McMahan — ere shown, per our request, the site of the historic Russian-Chinese trading post of Kiakhta on the Russian side of the modern-day Siberian / Mongolian border. We found the site to be a still-standing, abandoned, four-walled compound with four entrance arches, with one of these being superimposed by now-faded Soviet-era artwork. We would learn that this particular compound had been built in 1842 for the exchange of tea and other goods between Russian and Chinese merchants (Dilliplane 2009: 3). Passing through this arch one finds the large, somewhat overgrown, interior plaza. It was in the latter that officially sanctioned trading took place between Russian and Chinese merchants over the years. McMahan and I were invited to return during the Summer of 2009 for archaeological investigations at the site, and we accepted given our interest in Russian America. This invitation was extended by Mr. Vladimir Tikhonov, Director to the Architectural-ethnographic museum «Talсi», headquartered in Irkutsk. Mr. Tikhonov and his museum had served as the principal Russian sponsor for previous archaeological visits / work during the Summers of 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008, and had organized and held the 3rd International Scientific Conference on Russian America in 2007  (Irkutsk). Dr. Artur Kharinsky, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Sociology and Mass-media at Irkutsk State Technical University, and professor of history, archaeology, and cultural anthropology there, would serve as director of the archaeological project. He had served in the same role during our 2007 and 2008  fieldwork — partly funded by the National Science Foundation — the still-standing Russian American Company building in Irkutsk (Kharinsky et al. 2007). It was felt that exploratory excavations at the compound may or may not reveal the same type of materials also recovered at colonial Russian sites in North America, thus possibly delimiting the level of impor tance of the Kiakhta trading center for the provisionment of the Russian settlements in Alaska and California.
Upon return to the United States, McMahan and I applied for a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support exploratory work at the site in the Summer of 2009. Dr. Kathy Arndt agreed to join us in the grant request as the archivist for the project. This was due to the potentially important and relatively unknown library materials which may concern this facet of history and which we had discovered in the local museum. NSF approved the grant in Spring, 2009. Unfortunately, last minute circumstances prevented Dr. Arndt from making the trip to Russia and reviewing the library's holdings.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND


The historic 18th and 19th century trading post at Kiakhta, on the current Russian — Chinese border, is well-known to students of the colonial Russian period in North America. For the Kiakhta story is a major economic tale, with an intriguing international flavor, that was a colorful part of the Russian expansion across Siberia and eventually to Alaska and beyond.

Major contact between Russian, Chinese, and central Asian peoples began in the 17th century in Siberia (Stolberg 2000: 322). This was the time of the Manchu Empire (Stolberg 2000: 322), and at the time the Manchus controlled what is now the sovereign nation of Mongolia. Following armed conflict with Mongol forces allied with the Manchus, Russian envoys entered into negotiations with their Chinese counterparts at the community of Nerchinsk in 1689 (Lantzeff and Pierce 1973: 179). The objective of the Russians was, in part, to establish an agreed-upon border with the Chinese; another related to trade relationships. The Russians wished to have permission for their merchants to conduct business in Peking, and for gold and silver to be brought into Russia by Chinese merchants (Lantzeff and Pierce 1973: 178). After hard negotiations, the Treaty of Nerchinsk was reached and signed in 1689. One of its provisions was to allow Russian and Chinese traders having legal passports to do business across their respective borders (Lantzeff and Pierce 1973: 180).

Although the Manchus were wary of outside influences entering their country, the Chinese market became highly interested in Russian furs, that product being the most popular Russian offering (Black 2004: 40). For their part, Russian merchants were keenly interested in Chinese tea. The inland port of Ki-akhta was to become the place where the wishes of both nations were to be satisfied.

The 1727 Treaty of Kiakhta established a major trading agreement between Russia and China. Ratified the following year, the treaty mandated that Kiakhta would become the official, recognized point-of-entry for Russian trading caravans wishing to enter China and travel to Peking. It also instructed that a center for trade between the two countries would be founded at Kiakhta (Black 2004: 40). Having a monopoly on the furs traded at Kiakhta, initiated under Catherine I in 1726, the Russian imperial government accrued both gold and silver hard currency as a result. However, the government did not stop there — five years later, in 1731, it established a governmental monopoly as well on Russian trading caravans entering China (Black 2004: 40). These monopolies would continue this level of control on trade with China — as well as extend to the earliest years of Russian fur hunting activities in the Aleutian Islands — through the reign of Empress Elizabeth I, who ruled from 1741—1761. The private sale of furs to the Chinese was finally allowed in 1762, during the first year of the rule of Empress Catherine II (Black 2004: 50).

Scholars of the period know well that one of the major categories of furs traded at Kiakhta was that of the sea otter, a luxurious pelt found in North Pacific waters stretching east from the Commander Islands, to Alaska, and thence south to California. However, other valued furs were discovered in these new regions as well, to include foxes found in the eastern Aleutian Islands. Indeed, volume-wise, fox furs «were probably the most important item in the Russian trade» (Black 2004: 69). It may not be as well-known that the most prized fur of all in the Kiakhta market was the pelt of the black fox. These furs brought double the money of that given for the sea otter. Indeed, the black fox pelt was highly popular at the Russian royal court, being the fur of the royal family, and was initially introduced to them following the voyage of Stepan Glotov in 1762—1764. The silver fox fur was also generally a popular item in the fur trade, although I don't know to what extent it was in demand at Kiakhta, per se (Black 2004: 69, 76).

As with most marketplaces, political and economic factors played key roles in the operation of the Kiakhta trade center over the years. One of the major factors affecting its operations was the 1763—1768 political dispute with China, this resulting in the shutdown of trade activities there. It would take 12 years, or until 1780, for the trade volume to return to its pre-dispute level. In addition, the market demand at Kiakhta changed significantly, switching to the pelts of squirrels, sables, and ermines as being the most popular. Due to an influx of sea otter pelts following 1785 at the international seaport of Canton, the popularity of the sea otter fur in Kiakhta had dipped (Black 2004: 101).

Given its economic importance, it is no surprise that Kiakhta played a role in the activities of those associated with the development of Russian America. One of these was the famous Grigorii Shelikhov, who contributed greatly to Russia's colonial efforts in the New World. An important achievement came not long before his death in 1795, and concerned the aftermath of another halt in the trade at Kiakhta, this one ending in 1794. Tikhmenev reports that Shelikhov was commended to Catherine II by the Governor-General of Irkutsk for his contributions to the trade at Kiakhta. The Governor-General wrote the Empress that: «Shelikhov has contributed a great deal to the development of the Kiakhta trade and has supported a profitable rate of exchange for our goods, despite many Chinese efforts to the contrary» (Tikhmenev 1978: 38). Later, during the relatively brief existence of the United American Company (1798—1799), and shortly before its renaming as the Russian American Company, several officials of the firm were stationed at Kiakhta to handle company operations there (Tikhmenev 1978: 50). During this time the Company's business at Kiakhta was apparently running smoothly. Tikmenev (1978: 60) reports that the «prices were well maintained in 1798 and 1799». Individual prices for various furs are also provided by the historian — some of these include a maximum price of 100 rubles for a sea otter pelt, with river beavers going for 10 or more rubles each (depending on how dressed), and a silver fox pelt bringing 20 rubles (Tikhmenev 1978: 60). However, the Company experienced trouble at Kiakhta from 1802-1803 — this was caused by the English trade in furs at the seaport of Canton, which, in turn, caused a decline in prices for Kiakhta-sold Russian furs. The only fur types that «partly sustained the trade» during this timeframe at the outpost were those of the river beaver and land otter (Tikhmenev 1978: 79).

During the first period of the Russian American Company, going up to 1821, between 100,000 to 150,000 rubles' worth of trade was achieved on an annual basis. The year 1815 saw a peak value of 270,000 rubles (Tikhmenev 1978: 162). It's interesting to note what other products were exchanged at the trade center, other than tea and furs. Tikhmenev explains that a course material known as «soldiers cloth» was also traded along with furs for Chinese items. The latter are reported as including «black and aromatic tea, nankeen, a small quantity of silk, and sugar candy» (Tikhmenev 1978: 162).

During the second charter period, the RAC was able to reap benefits in the Kiakhta trade due to the lease payment (in sea otter furs) it received from the Hudson's Bay Company for the leasing of the southeastern coastal strip of Alaska, known as the Panhandle today (Tikhmenev 1978: 206). And at the beginning of the third charter period, from 1841—1848, the furs-for-tea business at Kiakhta was quite good. However, this particular trade slumped after that, and in fact the overall fur trade volume at Kiakhta in the twenty years from 1841—1861 was down, per Tikhmenev, «considerably». This was due to the demand for Russian manufactured goods in the Chinese marketplace. Adding to this was another stoppage of business at Kiakhta, due to Chinese political turmoil, in 1853. Just two years later there was more trouble in the conduct of business in Kiakhta (Tikhmenev 1978: 331-332).
Trade continued at Kiakhta into the nineteenth century, but the market for furs there dropped off. St. Petersburg became the new fur center, from which the pelts would find their way to other points in Russia, as well as to more westerly European nations. Efforts to set up a base for fur sales in New York did not take hold (Black 2004: 282).

NOTES ON THE FIELD WORK

The initial research discussed above indicated high potential for significant artifactual finds within the plaza of the compound. We have seen that teas, nankeen, silk, candy, and Russian manufactured goods were all sought after and exchanged there. Due to the long-term period of trade at the site, it was felt that a number of the goods offered there may have been lost or dropped over the years, and consequently might be a part of the archaeological record, especially if the ground was undisturbed.
A complete archaeological report will be forthcoming concerning our work at the site. However, a quick snapshot of the excavations and findings are in order here.

It was determined that the project would be exploratory in nature, and would consist of two days of investigations. The objective was to identify what the historical archaeological potential was at the site, and — based on the results — plan for more substantive excavations there if justified. The field team arrived at the site during the early afternoon of Wednesday, 12 August 2009, and conducted a site survey to better understand the site's characteristics (Dilliplane 2009: 3). One of the questions of particular interest to the team focused on the location of the original compound of the 1700s — was it under the current ruins?
A satellite photo shot in 2004 showed a compound within a compound, the outermost compound formed from four substantial and now roofless walls, the interiors of which had been clearly subdivided into small cubicles, probably for office spaces. Each wall was accessed in its middle via an arch. The innermost compound was also formed from four, mostly intact, walls, these still having their roofs. Access gates to this interior structure were found on the latter's northern and southern sides. Within the interior compound the satellite image clearly showed a small building of unknown function. This feature, along with other architectural aspects of the overall site, was no longer in existence when we arrived. 

Interestingly, we were informed later that first day that the inner four-walled structure had been a Soviet textile factory. That same building may have been the inner building historically depicted having the trade activities in its center (Dilliplane 2009: 4-5).
It was decided to excavate a two meter by two meter unit, and a spot was selected on the eastern side of the site. However, work had to stop almost immediately due to the presence of concrete there. A second location was chosen, just west of the outermost compound's eastern arch (Dilliplane 2009: 4, 5). By the end of the first day, excavations had progressed to approximately half a meter, and had exposed a Soviet-era stratigraphic level. A field notebook entry referring to the first day of work provides further details for this level:

As we left the dig yesterday evening, it was quite hard to Excavate — the soil had become very dense and tough to get through, due to brick and stone debris. It remains as a highly disturbed / mixed level due to construction activities (Dilliplane 2009: 6).
A good variety of artifacts were recovered on the first day, to include modern windowpane glass sherds, miscellaneous iron artifacts, miscellaneous tile fragments, and miscellaneous wall plaster fragments (blue in color). One of the most interesting specimens   was   a   square-cut   nail   with   a   handmade   head. Unfortunately, the disturbed context in which it was found obscures its purpose for having been brought to the site. Was it intended for trade at the compound itself, or is it a reflection of actual construction at the site? What was the date for its introduction there? On the industrialized east coast of the young United States, such an artifact might be found in a late 18th to early 19th Century context (Dilliplane 1975: 47-48). In more isolated / rural / frontier settings, it would be expected that such items would be made and used in later years as well, until the arrival of the new machine-headed cut-nails. So, if the nail was lost at the site at a relatively late date, perhaps the isolation of Central Siberia may explain this particular find. Beyond that, it may be that the cut-nail with hand-wrought head was a popular item in both Kiakhta trade and building activities!

Work at the site on the second day proceeded smoothly. During the afternoon it was decided to restrict excavation efforts to one-half of the unit, that being on the southern side of a diagonal line drawn from the unit's northeastern to southwestern corners. By the end of the day (and the fieldwork), excavations had reached a depth of 1.7 meters (or, rounded off, 5.58 feet). The soil at this depth was a sandy clay, and was sterile in terms of material culture. Final actions at the site involved some of the crew backfilling the excavated unit (Dilliplane 2009: 10-12).

Thus ended the fieldwork. No material culture finds of known significance were recovered. Two important strata were exposed, one being the Soviet level, and the other an earlier level meeting the Soviet zone. No signs of an early Kiakhta trading post were observed (Dilliplane 2009: 12).

CONCERNING KEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

To understand the potential of the Kiakhta connection to Russian America, more research must be done. The next step needed is to compile a systematic inventory of the major items found at colonial sites in Alaska and California and needed by the Russian colonists there. For example, things needed for trade and other work activities, such as:

(1)  trade beads of all types;
(2)  Chinese «cash» coins, popular with Alaskan Natives in the fur trade;
(3)  axes (of special interest is the so called «Russian axe» with hook device);
(4)  other practical tools of all sorts;
(5)  foods;
(6)  liquors;
(7)  land building materials (nails, screws, bricks, etc.);
(8)  earthenware ceramics;
(9)  porcelain;
(10)  drinking glasses;
(11)  window glass;
(12)  eating utensils;
(13)  ship construction materials;
(14)  church items (icons, candles, bells [large and small], etc.);
(15)  clothing;
(16)  recreational items; etc.

The final step would be to compare these items with the goods transported to Kiakhta for exchanged with Russian merchants.
Only in this way can we hope to, with any certainty, clear up the question of the significance of Kiakhta to the provisionment of Russian America. Such systematic research will also do much, in general, to help clarify the colorful and long-lost details of many daily lifeways in the far-flung remoteness of Russia's North American settlements.

REFERENCES CITED

Black, Lydia T.
2004 Russians in Alaska, 1732-1867. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dilliplane, Timothy (Ty) L.

1975 Exploratory Excavations at Fort Granger. Franklin Jaycees and the National Park Service. Report funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service (project number 47-74-00043-00), under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Nashville, Tennessee.2009 Field Notes — Kiakhta, Siberia: 2009 Exploratory Excavations at Kiakhta Trade Center. Manuscript; author's files.Kharinsky, A. V., A. U. Isaev, A. M. Klementev, J. David McMahan, I. V. Sterhova, and Timothy (Ty) L. Dilliplane 2007 Investigations at the Office Building of the Russian American Company in Irkutsk. In Russian America: Materials of the III Interna¬tional Scientific Conference «Russian America» (Irkutsk, 8—12 August 2007). Federal Agency of Culture and Cinematography; Department of Culture and Archives of the Irkutsk Region; State Culture Institution Architectural-ethnographic museum «Talсi». Irkutsk, Russia.
Lantzeff, George V. and Richard A. Pierce
1973 Eastward to Empire: Exploration and Conquest on the Russian Open Frontier, to 1750. McGill — Queens University Press, Montreal and London.
Stolberg, Eva-Maria
«Interracial Outposts in Siberia: Nerchinsk, Kiakhta, and the Russo-Chinese Trade in the Seventeenth/Eighteenth Centuries.» In Journal of Early Modern History, V. 4, Nos. 3-4. P. 322-336.
Tikhmenev, P. A.
1978 A History of the Russian-American Company. Translated and Edited by Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

 

Russian America and Eastern Siberia: The materials of regional scientific practical conference with international participation (Kyakhta city, August 14 th, 2009). Irkutsk, 2011


Courtesy of Architectural-ethnographic museum «Talci»