20. A fight with Indians*.

Captain David Woodman (1991, p.66 and 310) found in Hall’s notebooks some testimony describing fighting between some of Franklin’s men and ‘Indians’. One was an ‘Aglooka’ (a man who walks with long strides) who was reputedly wounded in the forehead by a lance, but killed his attacker. The event was told to Too-shoo-ar-tar-i-u, the Inut who in 1850 befriended four survivors of the retreat who had almost reached Boothia Felix. Hall concluded that the fight may have taken place near the entrance to Back’s Great Fish River. The descriptions of the distinctive facial wound provides a thread of evidence that suggests an identity for this ‘Aglooka’ – one of the leaders of the 1850 retreat.

Sir George Back had descended Back’s Great Fish River and explored Chantrey Inlet in 1834. On his return trip, unknown to him, some of his men killed three Inuit and may have wounded others near the waterfalls where the Great Fish River entered Chantrey Inlet. Hostility might have existed towards any more western men arriving there (King, 1836, p.68-69). Such hostility would be from injured Inuit not the ‘Indians’ reported. The Inuit testimony might have cited ‘Indians’ to ensure Inuit attackers were not persecuted.

The fight probably occurred before the 1850 retreat, as Inuit testimony of the Washington Bay meeting describes a man with facial scarring. It is possible that one or two boats reached Chantrey Inlet during the 1848 retreat and some of the men started to retreat up Back’s Great Fish River. If so, then they returned to the ships to try again in 1850

Inuit descriptions of the men encountered in the 1850 retreat at Washington Bay include the description of ‘Aglooka’, here believed to be marine sergeant Solomon Tozer of Terror. This ‘Aglooka’ bore a scar on his face across the indent of his nose. The testimony was given by Ow-wer to Hall (who identified anyone called ‘Aglooka’ as being Crozier):

‘Aglooka (Crozier) about my (Hall’s) height, hair nearly like mine (aubern) but a little darker than mine & did not stand erect but with head and shoulders dropping forward a little (Something like Captain Christopher Chapel, as Ou-e-la and Jack say) – no grey hair, a scar mark across the small or indent (?) of nose.’
Later four survivors of the 1850 retreat met an Inuit near the Boothian Peninsula. The party comprised three men led by ‘Aglooka’. Ook-bar-loo’s testimony about the arrival of Aglooka and companions follows (Hall, December 7th 1864, in Nourse, 1879, p.591).
‘Mother Ook-bar-loo continued – ‘One man would not eat the flesh of his frozen and starved companions, and therefore when her nephew, Too-shoo-ar-thar-i-u, found Aglooka (Crozier) and three other Koblunas with him, Aglooka, who was the one that would not eat human flesh, was very thin and almost starved. One of the three men with Aglooka died, for he was very sick. He did not die from hunger, but because he was very sick.’
There is further testimony from Ouela and his brothers about the arrival of Aglooka and companions in the east (Hall, December 8th 1864 in Nourse (1879, p. 591):
‘This evening I have had another talk with Ou-e-la, Shoo-she-ark-nuk and Ar-too-a about some of the men of Franklin’s Expedition. The man who caught seals for Ag-loo-ka (Crozier) and some of his men – the three with him – is their cousin. His name is Too-shoo-ar-thar-i-u. When he first found Crozier and the three men with them, Crozier’s face looked bad – his eyes all sunk in – looked so bad that their cousin could not bear to look at his face. Their cousin gave Crozier a bit of raw seal meat as quick as he could when he first saw him. Did not give any to the other three, for they were fat and had been eating the flesh of their companions. It was near Neitch-il-le that this occurred on the ice. This cousin is now living at Neitch-il-le. When Too-shoo-ar-thar-i-u first saw Crozier and the men with him, he was moving, having a loaded sledge drawn by dogs; he was going from place to place, making Igloos on the ice – sealing – he had with him his wife, whose name is E-laing-nur and children. Crozier and his men had guns and plenty of power, shot and ball. The cousin took Crozier and his men along with him, and fed them and took good care of them all winter. Beside a high cliff Inuit saw something like Now-yers (gulls) fall down to the ground, dead, and would not touch them, for Crozier had done something to them – they (the Inuit) knew not what. In the summer Crozier and his men killed with their guns a great many birds, ducks, geese and rein-deer. Crozier killed many – very many of the latter. The Inuit saw him do it.’
Hall in a letter to Captain Chapel stated that ‘Aglooka’, before he departed for the south, gave his sword to Too-shoo-ar-that-i-u. A sword was presented to Hudson’s Bay Chief Factor Roderick MacFarlane from and old Inut man who said it had been given to him in 1857 by a ‘great officer’. The sword is kept in the Manitoba Museum in Manitoba. A photograph is shown in Potter (2016, Fig.26) who gave a detailed description and drew a surprising conclusion. The basket work on the sword’s hilt identifies it as a British infantry sword and not a naval sword. For the Franklin Expedition such a sword could be carried only by the Royal marines. However there were no Royal Marine officers on the expedition. Aboard Erebus were Sergeant Daniel Bryant, Corporal Alexander Paterson and five privates (one of whom William Braine had died and was buried on Beechey Island). Aboard Terror were Sergeant Solomon Tozer, Corporal William Hedges and four privates. The four survivors including the officer Aglooka were a remnant of the party encountered by the Inuit near Washington Bay, where Inuit testimony suggests they were led by a young officer and an older man with grey hair and a beard. The latter was suggested by Roobol (2019) to have been Terror’s Ice Master Thomas Blanky who died with four companions on a Todd Islet. There is a distinct possibility, if the sword is that presented to Too-shooar-that-i-u, that the ‘great officer’ who led his three colleagues almost as far as the Boothian Peninsula on route to Repulse Bay was Royal Marine Sergeant Solomon Tozer of Terror.
So here is a possible candidate for the man injured by an Indian lance possibly during the 1848 retreat. Royal Marine Sergeant Solomon Tozer would make an excellent candidate for an armed marine would accompany each shore party to protect them. One can imagine a marine sergeant challenging the Indians who replied by throwing lances at him.
In a very readable book published in 2020, former Royal Navy Lieutenant Ernest Coleman describes his journeys to King William and Prince of Wales Islands in search of Franklin information. He has however reverted to the Victorian ideal that there as no cannibalism. Instead he favours that the Franklin men were killed by hostile Netsilik Inuit or Netsilingmuit. Knife cuts on human bones revealed by modern forensic work, are attributed to the ritual mutilation of the corpses by the Inuit, to prevent spirits of the dead from persuing them. The re-emergence of this old controversy has resulted in some angry and bitter feelings today.
From my point of view I have followed the example of Captain David Woodman and tried to make sense of the Inuit testimony. The big question raised by Coleman is whether detailed testimony such as that above is the truth or a deliberate fabrication to cover up the murder of the Franklin men? The Inuit testimony concerning the Franklin expedition, including the parts concerning cannibalism, are graphic and detailed. I find the testimony, as above, to be too detailed to be simple fabrications especially when given by simple people who did not understand many of the things brought by the Franklin expedition into their area. Some reader compassion is needed. We are looking at men trapped for five years in the Arctic without food reserves in desperate death marches in attempts to get home. Is it such a crime if a few took the decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive and gain a few miles more nearer home. For the four men who were befriended and fed by Too-shoo-ar-thar-i-u, they almost succeeded in getting to Churchill. No one is saying Sir John or Captains Crozier and Fitzjames were cannibals. There were a few desperate and long starving men. Sadly the raising again of the controversy has removed the peaceful tranquillity of a quiet contemplation of an arm-chair detective exercise. Reader should ask themselves how they might behave in such a desperate situation.
*Modern terminology is ‘Native Americans’
QUESTION: Where would the Franklin expedition have met Indians?