A Brief History of Shee Atiká

Only accessible through air and sea, surrounded by glacial mountains in the heart of the Tongass Rainforest lies Shee Atiká. Sitka is the largest city in the United States by square mileage, but is home to a population of around just 8,400 people. Lifestyle, infrastructure, and most any of Sitka’s characterizations can be attributed to its native Tlingít and Haida people, culture, and practices, vibrant wildlife, as well as its resilience, despite the settler-colonial violence and subjugation it has faced. What we share with you is a simplified version of complex social structures and historical timeline, but it is essential to attempt to understand, even on a surface level, in order to contextualize the town of Sitka today. It is worth noting that early Tlingít history and knowledge was transmitted through word of mouth and represented symbolically in clothing and art. This fact, coupled with the repeated and deliberate erasure of Indigenous history, is the reason for a lack of representation of first person perspectives of this history. With this in mind, we hope to share some of our understanding of how Sitka came to be the place it is today. 

Prior to contact with non-natives, beginning at least 10,000 years ago, the Tlingít and Haida resided in Southeast Alaska and practiced non-exploitative relationships with land, resources, and one another. Alaska’s unique topography and seasonality provided ample food and infrastructure, from canoes made from cedar forests to the yearly spawn of herring eggs, a sign of spring, collected on submerged hemlock branches to share with the community, a tradition still carried out today. People lived in multi-familial homes and villages. 

That was until Russia came, who would later colonize and “own” Alaska prior to the United States purchasing it in 1867. After the Northern War, Russia was interested in developing a Northern sea trading route, as well as finding a new source in North America for furs because their own supply was depleted. Two Russian ships, each equipped with cannons and around 75 armed men, set out to gain information about this densely forested and distantly known land formation. 

On July 15, 1741, the first Russian ship had confirmation of Alaskan shorelines and a handful of men docked on land to replenish their fresh water sources. They had instructions to exert extreme caution when interacting with “hostile” natives and to offer them small gifts as a kind of “peace offering.” Five days after their arrival on land, without sight of their men, the Russian vessels saw fire and smoke at their landing, which they interpreted as communication to provide those on land with aid. In response they sent another group of men to shore, who also did not return. Eventually, Tlingít men rowed in a pair of canoes towards the Russian vessels still in the ocean, yelling “Agai! Agai!” and promptly paddled back to shore. From this interaction, as well as the negative stereotyping natives faced, the Russians assumed that those who were on land must have been tortured or held hostage by the Tlingít people. It turns out, according to ethnographers Nora and Richerd Dauenhauer, in Łingít the phrase “Ai Khaa” means “Row.” With this context, it could have been that Tlingít men may have been attempting to guide the Russians to shore. 

There are multiple theories regarding what happened to these first small group of Russian men. Popular amongst Russian scholars and researchers is the idea that they were killed by the Tlingít people. Alaskan ethnographers, however, highlight that these men were militarized and that the Alaskan summertime was often spent busily fishing and preparing for the winter, people commonly split into their respective houses. So, it is hard to imagine how this could be true especially with no warning of or preparation for the Russian’s arrival. It is possible, however, that these Russian men, without adequate knowledge of the land and climate, perished after choosing a dangerous location to dwell. Outlined in Tlingít oratory accounts, however, these sailors did not return to their ship, possibly for fear of dangerous waters and the potentially lethal journey they would have to face to return to their homeland. These 8 men accounted for would either perish or dwell on the land and later marry Tlingít women and flee South, for fear of being brutalized or outcast upon the return of their Russian counterparts. This account is legitimized by the diaries of Spaniards first making contact with Alaska thirty years later, in 1774, many of them accounting for the discovery of a variety of distinctly Russian items, Russian Bayonet and a knife made of a sword blade amongst them. These were ultimately thought to be traces of the original groups of men. It was also noted that some of the native people they encountered had blue eyes, an uncharacteristic trait of Tlingít/Haida people, suggesting that these men had been integrated to some degree into their lives.

The original reason Russians planned to come to Alaska was to acquire sea otter pelts and other various furs. They ultimately were successful in that goal. Between 1743 and 1800, there were over a hundred expeditions for furs to Alaska by Russia alone, beginning in the Aleutian Islands and parts of Northern Alaska. Hundreds and thousands of furs and pelts were all from the Alaskan waters, often through means of holding natives hostage and forcing them to supply resources. The Russians did not engage in the hunting of sea otters themselves; this labor and knowledge was exclusive to the Aluet and Alutiiq men that were forced into this work. There were many private companies that were involved in this fur trade, but in 1799, these companies were consolidated into one, the Russian American Company (RAC), which created a monopoly and operated mostly in Kodiak, AK and in the Aleutian Islands, north of Sitka. 

Once these resources were depleted, the RAC was interested in expanding its fur trade operations to Southeast Alaska, to Sitka. However, at this point, the Tlingít people had already established trading relationships with British and American companies, trading sea otter pelts for guns and militant arms. During this time, according to oral accounts, Russian men took Tlingít women by force and killed several prominent Tlingít men, causing subjugation of the Tlingít people. Sitka Tlingít people were compared to the enslaved Aeut and Alutiiq people amongst neighboring clans, losing respect and aid from their surrounding community. In 1799, the manager of the RAC proposed the establishment of a small trading post that sits 7 miles north of what today is Sitka, but the Russians quickly exploited the hospitality of the Tlingít people and instead established Fort Saint Michael, which included multiple buildings including storage facilities for pelts, large fortifications, housing, and a church. This was against the terms of their original negotiation, and, in response to this and their mistreatment, the Tlingít people defended their land and their agreement by destroying this Russian settlement in 1802 which, today, is known as Old Sitka.

Two years after this conflict, with several lesser conflicts with the Tlingít people occurring, the Russians returned with the intention of re-establishing their colonial settlement, resulting in the Battle of 1804. The Tlingít people prepared for this conflict, gathering in fort Shís’gi Noow with the anticipation that their allied clans would provide aid, but this reinforcement did not come. Baranov, the leader of this attack brought along with him nearly 400 Aleut and Alutiiq natives, likely held hostage and forced to fight for the Russians. The Tlingít people had caused the Russians to retreat, but during the battle, their gunpowder supply exploded and without it, they knew they would be unlikely to defend themselves again, so they retreated east and stalled by holding meetings with the Russians. The Russians reinforced this settlement, effectively continuing their dominance within the sea trading at the time. The Tlingít people engaged in a blockade, effectively stopping the entrance of Russian trading canoes and established trading posts to trade with Americans rather than the Russians, which hurt profits for the RAC. In 1822, after the Kiks.ádi, the displaced Sitkan kwaan, had been away from their home for 18 years, they began building around the Russian fortifications and had a message relayed that no Russians would be allowed to hunt on these mountains while the Kiks.ádi were there and if they were to engage in this, they would do so at their own expense. This did not in any way make up for the destruction of life, their relationship to their land, and their status as seen to the neighboring clans. 

This completely changed the socio-political structure of Sitka, as, over time, the Kiks.ádi became more involved in the Russian settlements and in the interactions with ships interested in trading, only with permission from the Russians. There were marriages officiated through the church, typically between Tlingít women and Russian men, some of which were strategic in hopes of diplomacy and acquisition of knowledge. Tlingít women became integral in settling disputes, as they learned the Russian language and many of them had influence on their husbands. Lower-ranking members of the Tlingít community took advantage of the fur trade to accumulate wealth and rise within the social hierarchy, which, before contact, would have been much more difficult to do. Although their interactions improved over time, many of the Tlingít people, especially the Kiks.ádi, regarded the Russians as intruders. The Russians would not leave these settlements until Alaska was bought by the United States in 1867 for 7 million dollars. Russia only sold Alaska to the US because the fur trade was economically less advantageous and politically, they had just lost the Crimean War to Turkey, Britain and France, so the US was the only viable country to make this deal with.

As previously displayed, the RAC engaged in a paternalistic, oppressive governmental relationship with the Tlingít people that was beneficial to growing Russia’s economic and social power and influence, but, another relationship that is integral to the understanding of the infrastructure and culture of modern-day Sitka is the Russian Orthodox Church. Since the earliest Russian contact with Natives of Siberia and the Aleutian Islands, baptism was offered as a way for indigenous people to be perceived as closer to the Russians than their otherwise characterized as “heathen” counterparts. In a ceremony of shedding an old self and being reborn, the baptized were typically given names of saints.  After the establishment of St. Michael, the Russian leader Baranov had plans to baptize the Tlingít leaders, so as to indoctrinate them and create allyships with Russia. Additionally, it was unheard of at this time for a Russian settlement to not have a church, as this was meant to keep morale high for the settlers and to sanctify their commercialized activities, as to anchor themselves within the plans of God. 

Although Tlingít people most likely did not have an extensive understanding of the rituals and ceremonies of the Orthodox church, socially, they placed importance on elaborate rituals and likely found the church’s processions to be of importance and interest. Few Tlingít people were asking to be converted in the first decades of Russian Orthodoxy, but those who did convert likely saw baptism as a means of protection and of gaining power. Baptism was presented as a  way of fostering a special relationship with a Russian “sponsor,” who would adorn the Tlingít converts with gifts, such as crosses, tobacco, knifes, needles, medals, certificates, the Tlingít people likened these ceremonies to their own, seeing these objects as a Russian version of aa.tow, or objects of high honor. Additionally, many of the Tlingít people who were allowed to re-establish their homes and villages near to the Russian settlements were able to do so under the pretense that they would be baptized and converted. Many of the Tlingít women were the ones who were being converted, as their husbands would want them to be baptized before marriage. In years to come, Christianity would serve as both an ideological weapon used to erase indigenous practices and beliefs, but also as a means of assimilation to help the Tlingít people survive in and grapple with a social environment that they no longer had autonomy or understanding over. The churches that are seen in Sitka today are a result of the Russian Orthodox influence and St. Michael’s Cathedral was a part of one of the first Russian settlements. 

After the United States purchased Alaska, the Tlingít people were not recognized as legal citizens and left legally defenseless, yet discriminated against in their own home. The early 1900’s were filled with many demonstrations of western ideology and society interfering with the needs of the Alaskan indigenous communities through legislature and regulations. This was because there were two common kinds of settlers: those interested in exploitation, believing Natives were in the way of economic progression and those interested in the success of the Indigenous community, but only as assimilated members of a Euro-American centric lifestyle. Both schools of thought prove to be violent. 

The Territorial school system was established in 1900 and was segregated, as well as movie theaters, hotels, and other public facilities built on Tlingít land. There was hardly any land left in legal Tlingít possession and the pressures to assimilate and Americanize increased, but not without influence from the US government and the Presbyterian Church. In 1902, 16 million acres of land in Southeast Alaska was designated as being a part of the Tongass National Forest. And, while this may seem like an attempt to preserve the land and environment, this infringed upon traditional sustenance practices that were mutually beneficial between Tlingít people and the land. Once enacted, the land was also “protected” from the Tlingít community, pushing men into the same over-hunted and overfished areas that Euro-American commercialized companies were actively exploiting, furthering the depletion of resources. This overuse of the land and resources forced Tlingít fishers, miners, and hunters alike to rethink traditional practices and pushed Tlingít people to participate in the very market economy that suffocated their land and people. The women would typically be on the sides of the streets of Sitka, selling baskets and other traditional crafts to tourists or working alongside Chinese immigrants to process fish and men working endless hours within the American economy in lumber, fishing, mining, etc. Still, many Tlingít discouraged the youth from learning the Łingít language, which inhibited this point of connection to their elders greatly. The language has only 500 speakers left, with very few under the age of 30. In the early times of Tlingít history, much knowledge and tradition was passed through generations by word of mouth and there has been an increased effort to preserve oral accounts from elders within the community today in a way that will withstand the death of the language. There also became inner-native separation, typically between those who became more affiliated with the Native Presbyterian Church, living in communities built with the sponsorship of the Presbyterian missions and the many who remained in the old village. Today, there are separations within ideologies and urbanization. 

Despite this, the Tlingít response to longstanding and ongoing colonial violence is a display of self-respect and strength, tolerating colonization as a necessary evil; they ultimately retained a considerable amount of independence and of their traditions. Within the labor market, it was understood that if prices were too high, Alaska Natives had the knowledge and expertise to live off of the land. Also, Tlingít people were unwilling to recognize American establishments as a valid means of infringing upon their rights to the land and often fought against this. There was a group of Natives that fought against one of the commercialized canneries and threatened to cut their nets if they did not lower their prices of fish. Another form of resistance to conformity was seen in the distribution of wealth amongst Tlingít people, as potlatching (ceremonial gatherings with opposite moieties, typically in monumental periods of life) remained the main means of climbing the social hierarchy and were no longer held in old log houses, but in the large living rooms in the newer Victorian homes. They continued the exchange of aa.tow (prized possessions of a clan) and monetary wealth, keeping them within their community. 

Sitka’s economy today is heavily dependent on seafood, tourism, health care, mining, timber and coast guard industries. Both commercialized and sport fishing play a key role in the culture of Sitka locals, with 19 percent of the local working-aged population involved in the seafood industry. Its ports exported 79 million pounds of seafood in 2021, worth 73 million dollars and they have held Seafood Festivals the first week of August in the past. For the local Tlingít community, the herring and salmon harvests are still essential parts of practices that tie them to their culture and history. There has been advocacy for stressing the importance of salmon hatcheries to compete with an overfishing crisis. You can learn more about the herring harvest and the fight for subsistence rights in Sitka at the Herring Protector’s website.  

Sitka saw a record breaking number of tourists in 2023 with around 600,000 people coming to visit and has a longstanding history of attempting to manage this volatile industry, which you can read more about in the Cruise Boom section below. The healthcare industry employs 43,000 people across Alaska, with 3.2 billion dollars in wages, and of Sitka's 4000 employed residents, 760 of them worked in healthcare. In 2021, there were around 250 uniformed Coast Guard Sitka residents. In Southeast Alaska, as a whole, land ownership is nearly entirely (94%)  managed by the federal government. The majority of this is still the nationally recognized Tongass Forest that was mentioned previously. The remaining federal lands are in Glacier Bay National Park. The state of Alaska manages 2.5% of the total land. Boroughs and communities own just a quarter of a percentage of the regional land base. Private land ownerships make up just half a percentage. There is also a high percentage of vacant homes in Sitka (17%), which is due to the seasonal nature of the town and its economy.