ann
(Ann)
#1
in servitor ranks.Šarhūda’s fears were confirmed two years after his own
major 1658 victory, the fourth military clash between the two powers
since 1652 .Afifth clash in 1660 , won by Bahai, also required the
“pacification”of 15 Fiyaka villages of more than 120 households near
the Sungari-SAH confluence in western Jilin.^84
For a generation starting in the 1650 s Qing sable tribute underwent a
decline in terms of both quality and quantity that reflected dynastic losses
in territory. Sable shortfalls began to appear among the tribute of the Dog-
Keepers and otheraiman,persistingintothe 1680 s. Starting around 1653 ,
incidents, including Cossack operations that scattered locals and disrupted
their hunting, contributed to tributary shortfalls. Cossack predation
became less systematic afterŠarhūda’s defeat of the main, authorized
Romanov forces under Onufrii Stepanov, but independent, often rebelli-
ous, Cossack bands continued to move aggressively into the basin. There
was little practical distinction, however, between these two types, and Qing
authorities only really began to note differences around 1669 .Bythistime,
pressure for full mobilization of dynastic forces against the resurgent threat
had formed and was expressed by one official proponent directly in terms
of pelts and peoples. Censor Mo-luo-hong justified his request for an
increase in Ningguta’s Manchu garrison by asserting that“the Cossacks
have frequently violated the lands beyond Ningguta and within Heilong-
jiang where the people who present sable pelt tribute live.”^85
Large-scale military action remained difficult for both sides during the
1670 s mainly because of problems elsewhere, including unrest in China
proper and a major conflict with the Zunghar Mongol leader Galdan
(r. 1671 – 1697 ). Both taxed Qing capacities far more than Russians ones.
So the deterioration in dynastic pelt quality and quota shortfalls con-
tinued largely unabated throughout the 1670 s, an unambiguous sign that
Russian incursion had made critical territorial inroads along the mid-
SAH. When dynastic officials questioned Solon-Ewenki about such
declines in the 5 , 089 tribute pelts due for 1680 , for example, it was
confirmed that Cossacks had cut off access to the best hunting grounds.^86
Russian and Manchu progress in creating imperial space in the basin was
in this way explicitly measured in pelt gains and losses. Tribute structured
the process of this competition and the new historical space it was creating.
One of Khabarov’s Qing prisoners affirmed during his interrogation that
indigenous peoples had come to Ningguta to petition for protection, saying
that if the Qing would not defend them,“we will be forced to pay theyasak”
to the Russians.^87 Such appeals were a primary reason for the dynastic
mobilization of indigenous peoples as ethnically remodeled New Manchus.
The Nature of Imperial Foraging in the SAH Basin 87
