‘k‘:' “*1 15 k V 3 u. ”mg, v a: ‘ 1”. vs . ' an o“! .3 3?; ¢‘..% :; . 4 . T: x” :5 4‘ Jrfi‘ x.‘ 57,. ,. ..:'J ‘9}; J»: Jul fun. -4 :1». *Q I Phlflal- ‘J {512; ::." "4193“" "‘ {‘3 ». “fir“ “wt-w»; 1. .::. ‘.§‘:.. (u L 21¢x; ‘3.)1.‘ um." -aau n. - :1 .- u .4 s. Ill. ‘ .A‘:\ _} ‘. «11—3....‘1 i?‘ 1.-.:ki Giff" v. ”We 01%.: :->‘ JAv; ." -u 'r: rh-.«¢ .. ~ 9 , . taxi-{z 1-5-1 ' x.“- "1-? ‘1. .«cm w. Law: in ii .334. '..'.' .‘L 'z‘» 4&1,“ ’74 «elf 0., ‘ ‘1‘! a! nun. - . m,» u VI: “K‘t'i J‘ .- 7 - r‘.’ ”- 4.4 ‘ 51m; ' a}: ”45:"! 1 'r .l 1: Ir: .- r "I ' n: ,~. 82%.; .,:;,. I H “and.“ .‘ H “ .,,.,,.., '- ' A o , - .t J .‘,:,..‘-1._.,,’ It." (I; ' F H L. ”'I.:'.!...’,'. r: r 1'- ‘ . . .y .» g.‘....... 3’57”, ‘1’? I {$67}, :7. ..-. g:. .N “011” .(,!....ru_ . v-nuv f'J 7,,v .....- ‘ 7’ -. ., ”up m, Jpz'w r W‘" ... 3.’ mm:- $1". , " "“ "'"R’r'u: " “29"»_ gig-M: u. v37'v‘w J“ '. 4’3 . I?» l‘)‘ ‘ . ‘ r ‘ sip; . ;h-':‘:-« M)?“ is . 7‘ ‘i-w‘fiu 1:: CTR“); | ‘.~-.-. «.5: 2;... .‘hr h‘hg’ A a. "i ! NM ‘1‘“'-‘L-vw."m~ 159% mg:- W 'E‘. I“ :31“ Ni: ““5;- '6- A"! » a: any“. x‘; u H “"912- “‘41; 3:}? Li “A...“ At. n‘lllh | \fi' .21?!“ ’ ”Jfiiwf .4”. ”4‘1: ‘y” $3: ,« , «:43.» “ i'f‘; ' fir; . 0- -'r r l I" » s...,. ....... " ‘.""(ll‘r' ‘1‘ -». ‘M—u-v - u. ,4 ' ’1 r'-; .-F»'.”.¢v.~-al¢ ,., ""fEI'Jfl.’ ”1'51. m,- .. PI -o_v-n . m. ', bnp«;.; 'Jfif‘ «5171‘er $75.1?» wm ~py~uq w M m. 1:123 .u... ITIT\ITTTTTT IT TT '"TT T L LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DOCUMENTARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EUROPEAN TRADE GOODS IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES REGION presented by Dean Lloyd Anderson ‘ ~.. v has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Anthropoiogy WM Major professor Date February 11, 1992 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ,V'..—h.‘—v-l - PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before one due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 69 o 4” o I) R 4 wt% 0 EP 2:200! “W1, L. W935. F— 80° 35 05 L _» 0CT1 5201f = I MSU le An Afflrmdive Aotlon/Equel Opportunity Institution emu-m 9< E'RCPI DOCUMENTARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EUROPEAN TRADE GOODS IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES REGION BY Dean Lloyd Anderson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Anthropology 1992 ’55 351370 Itctar. pea rst tangi Earscean t aszect of Erzpeans amnion 0 £951“: SEJNested, extend the "CHEOIOg ‘ha'acteri “march <1 cm in U ABSTRACT DOCUMENTARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON EUROPEAN TRADE GOODS IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES REGION By Dean Lloyd Anderson The development of the fur trade in eastern North America presented Indian peoples with new social, political and economic conditions. The most tangible element of the trade, however, was the introduction of European technology. The adoption of European goods was an important aspect of the adaptive response of native peoples to the encroachment of Europeans and to the development of the fur trade. Understanding the adoption of European goods by Indian peoples is important to understanding the way the fur trade affected native societies. Historical archaeology has played a part in investigating the introduction of European trade goods into Indian societies. It is suggested, however, that greater attention to documentary data can extend the contribution of historical archaeology. Importantly, the archaeological record and the documentary record have different characteristics which allow them to provide different insights into research questions. This study suggests that the use of documentary data in archaeological research is crucial to achieving an understanding of the flow of European goods into Indian societies. This study makes use of archaeological and documentary data to examine the flow of European goods into the western Great Lakes region during the French period. An archaeological perspective on trade goods is constructed using data from several French period sites. A documentary ‘ WSSECIIVE I :gs‘nESS d0€« traie ”339”“ 'ie decrerté sexually 6 Ir add‘t‘cr. we not use iata sets p'e :rs‘stercy Ird'an trace fr. the flow 3'39de inS‘ had of E. perspective is obtained through the analysis of an extensive body of business documents that record the flow of goods through the French trade system. The documentary data are important in revealing that perishable goods, especially clothing and textiles, were primary elements of the trade. In addition, the archaeological data document aspects of the trade that are not apparent in the documentary record. Further, although the two data sets present varying views of the trade, they also exhibit consistency that lends support to the identification of patterns of Indian trade for European goods. This study suggests ways that patterns in the flow of European goods into the western Great Lakes region provide insight into issues such as women’s roles in the trade and the impact of European goods on native subsistence. right i .jN Qt 0 P -li‘ LLOYD III-D Copyright by DEAN LLOYD ANDERSON 1992 7° II Da' I‘ith n To my parents who always believed it would get done; to Peg who worked with me and helped make sure that it got done; and to Nate whose presence helped keep it all in perspective. frag? t ’n‘luence to first reject t czr‘ttee Press. We in *rteracti mm, b P'Cgiects '19! think ”I my con tiirenCe QUIOBHCQ’ “METRE. f" my di. 'Ere jmi307 he direqe ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Through the course of producing this dissertation, I was aided, influenced, and encouraged by family, friends, and colleagues. I want to first thank the members of my dissertation committee who guided the project to completion. Dr. Charles E. Cleland served as chair of my committee and provided direction and advice through each stage of the process. Working with Dr. Cleland gave me not only the opportunity to share in his considerable knowledge of the fur trade and of the interaction between Euroamericans and native peoples in the Great Lakes region, but it also gave me the opportunity to be involved in other projects related to my research which proved very useful in stimulating new thinking about my own work. I also want to thank the other members of my committee - Dr. William A. Lovis Jr., Dr. Kenneth E. Lewis, Dr. Lawrence H. Robbins, and Dr. Richard white - for their intellectual guidance, for their unfailing encouragement, and importantly, for their patience. In addition, as the College of Social Science representative for my dissertation defense, Dr. Gordon Stewart offered insightful comments on my work. I want to thank my friend and fellow Ninnesotan Doug Birk for the influence he had upon my dissertation work. Conversations with Doug were important in my early efforts to formulate my research topic. Also, he directed me to the Montreal Nerchants’ Records as a source of data on vi the French pyratior Itsnsston research a I u! ind-3: ‘r. a WTDE Icrtreal r research. sorscred ’3.‘ work wi issoctate Wino the "Animal i I) 'ork ar IECO'ds a: Herthints prCIECI h. t0 see Ihr the French period fur trade. Beyond this, however, Doug has an uncommon dedication to research and an infectious enthusiasm for ideas. Discussions with Doug never failed to rekindle my interest in my own research and in the fur trade in general. I am indebted to the Minnesota Historical Society for aiding my research in a number of ways. The Society was instrumental in locating the Montreal Merchants’ Records and in helping to make them accessible for research. Further, in the late 19605 and early 19705, the Society sponsored the Montreal Merchants’ Records Project which did a great deal of work with the documents. The late Robert C. Hheeler, who was Associate Director of the Society at that time, was the driving force behind the project. When I talked with Bob about my interest in the Montreal Merchants’ Records data, he was enthusiastically supportive of my work and he went out of his way to help me become familiar with the records as well as with the information compiled by the Montreal Merchants’ Records Project. Bob was clearly pleased to see the work the Project had done being put to use and I truly regret that he did not get to see the finished dissertation. A major part of the Minnesota Historical Society’s Montreal Merchants’ Records Project was the work of Marie Gerin-Lajoie. She made an initial evaluation of the records, translated and transcribed portions of the records, compiled an extensive card file on the kinds of information available in the records, and produced a manuscript report on fur trade canoes using data from the records. I want to acknowledge the importance that Gerin-Lajoie’s path-breaking work with the Montreal vii IngNKS ‘ a Fat. to EEM‘nr: mt". ed rr Suiiort c M tars; iii anxic '3 eSpecr' lI'Ce'son, Sister, 11 ”when: 1 THEN gm I‘T‘COTIam digti‘act. IWUId a "tit me, 99‘9rall) Nrgaret [Sarey’ i ”(Bride’ Merchants’ Records had for my own research. My work builds upon, and in fact to a considerable extent was made possible by, Gerin-Lajoie’s work. The Minnesota Historical Society also provided me with a grant that enabled me to have the voluminous Montreal Merchants’ Records Project card files microfilmed, making them more accessible for my research. Former Director of the Society, Russell Fridley made this grant possible and I would like to thank him for his help. Both my family and my wife’s family have been constant sources of support during my dissertation work. To be a part of two such close- knit families is a blessing under any circumstances but during stressful and anxious times, which dissertation writing can certainly produce, it is especially important. I want to thank my parents Lloyd and Marjorie Anderson, my wife’s parents Ted and Marylou Uland, my brother and sister, my brothers-in-law and my sisters-in-law, and my nieces and nephews for their interest in my work and for their encouragement. Their good humor and the good times we have together have been so important in buoying the spirits of Peg and I and in providing a welcome distraction from the constant pressure of the dissertation. I would also like to thank a number of friends who discussed my work with me, commiserated about the trials of dissertation writing, and generally were patient listeners. These include Dave Barondess, Margaret Barondess, Mark Branstner, Sue Branstner, Katie Eagan, Mark Esarey, Mike Hambacher, Peggy Holman, Terry Martin, Brian Mavis, Kim McBride, Stephen McBride, Jim McClurken, Russ Skowronek, Bev Smith, and viii #0 IIS 3 351, and r639d me rssertati at: produt rertrai IC :rctess, i rare been Keith Hidder. I would also like to thank Sue Iversen, the former head of the Microforms department at the Michigan State University library, who was a great help to me in the use of the microfilm collection. Last, and especially, I want to thank my wife Peggy Anderson. Peg helped me in countless ways in the actual production of this dissertation, from organizing and entering computer data to designing and producing maps and tables to discussing and criticizing some of the central ideas. But more than that, she endured a long and difficult process, which, had it not been for her patience and help, might never have been completed. ix Ctapter Intre tr~q. ' 6? (LAT The F Chapter . HEIhm [haDIEr 4 The Dr TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Chapter I Introduction The Documentary Record in Historical Archaeology The French Period in the Hestern Great Lakes Region Contributions of the Study Chapter 2 The French Period Fur Trade: 1600-1760 The Early Phase 1600-1650 The Transitional Phase 1650-1715 Expansion Phase 1715-1760 Chapter 3 Methodology Documentary Inventories Archaeological Inventories Chapter 4 The Documentary Data: The Montreal Merchants’ Records Background The Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of the MMR The Fur Trade Invoices The Outfits Green Bay Outfits Michilimackinac Outfits Detroit Outfits Ouiatenon Outfits Sioux Post Outfits Nipigon Outfits Michipicoten Outfits Rainy Lake Outfits Page xiii XV ll 34 43 The MMR Invoices and the Flow of Goods into Indian Societies [teeter S Organrz {teeter 6 The Ar: | I l l l l l i i [iapter 7 Compar- "I.“ TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d.) Chapter 5 Organization of the Documentary Data 69 Translation and Transcription of the Invoices Isolating the Trade Goods Archaeological and Documentary Evidence Location of an Entry in the Invoice Quantity of an Item Chapter 6 The Archaeological Data 81 Rock Island II Site Marquette Mission Site Gros Cap Cemetery Site Lasanen Site Summer Island 111 Site Bell Site Dunn Farm Plateau Site Fletcher Site O’Neill Site Compiling the Data Chapter 7 Comparison of the Inventory Models 104 The Range of Types of Goods Traded Defining Functional Categories Presence/Absence of Categories in Each Inventory Variability in Trade Numbers of Types of Goods in Functional Categories Quantities of Goods Glass Beads Kettles Shot Musketballs Pins Needles Hawkbells Files and Rasps Hair Pullers Fishhooks Brooches Difference of Proportions Test Difference in Rank Test Trader Expenditure Rate of Frequency Burial Sites vs. Habitation Sites xi r‘ . ¢ $65.9?“ Cent TABLE or CONTENTS (cont’d.) Chapter 8 Conclusions Cloth and Clothing Subsistence Essentials vs. Non-Essentials APPENDIX A Documentary Inventory of Trade Goods APPENDIX B Glossary of Terms for Documentary Inventory APPENDIX C Archaeological Inventory Bibliography xii 155 163 191 197 200 i Ta: e Herr Out Exp Terr Arc Ira Ira Tra Ira Ira lre Tr; Tr; Pr; Der Arr Go: Table omwmmawn NHO—li—Ii—IHHO—IHt—li—I oomwmmawNu-oo LIST OF TABLES Merchants Represented in the Montreal Merchants’ Records ... Outfits Per Year ........................................... Expenditure in Ljvrgs for Trade Goods Per Year ............. Temporal Distribution of Outfits ........................... Archaeological Sites: Dates and Locations ................... Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Presence/Absence for Goods Goods Goods Goods Goods Goods Goods Goods Goods from the from the from the from the from the from the from the from the from the Rock Island Site 1642-1730 ............ Summer Island Site 1650-1700 .......... Marquette Mission Site 1670-1705 ...... Gros Cap Site 1670-1705 ............... Lasanen Site 1670-1705 ................ O’Neill Site ca. 1670-1760 ............ Dunn Farm Plateau Site 1699-1725 ...... Bell 1715-1730 ........................ Fletcher Site 1750-1765 ............... Burial and Habitation Sites ........... Documentary Inventory of Goods ............................. Archaeological Inventory of Goods .......................... Goods Exclusive to the Documentary Inventory ............... Goods Exclusive to the Archaeological Inventory ............ Trade Goods by Functional Category: Archaeological Inventory .................................................. xiii Page 48 58 59 60 83 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 103 106 107 108 111 116 22 23 24 25 25 28 29 30 32 33 34 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d.) Trade Goods by Functional Category: Documentary Inventory .................................................. Trade Goods Exclusive to the Archaeological Inventory by Functional Category ........................................ Trade Goods Exclusive to the Documentary Inventory by Functional Category ........................................ Archaeological Inventory: Quantities of Goods ............. Documentary Inventory: Quantities of Goods ................ Comparison of Quantities in Functional Categories between Archaeological and Documentary Inventories ................. Quantity Estimates ......................................... Comparison of Goods Common to the Archaeological and Documentary Inventories .................................... Difference of Proportions Test: Archaeological vs. Documentary Goods .......................................... Percentage of Total EXpenditure ............................ Comparison of Documentary Expenditure and Archaeological Quantity ................................................... Comparison of Documentary Frequency and Archaeological Frequency .................................................. Comparison of Habitation and Burial Sites: Quantities of Goods ...................................................... Comparison of Habitation and Burial Sites: Frequency of Goods ...................................................... xiv 117 121 122 124 125 126 129 136 137 143 144 148 151 152 Figure Ea Tr Tr E) E) Fl Ir Ar Figure CDQNOU'I‘CQN LIST OF FIGURES Page The Hestern Great Lakes Region ............................. 8 Early Phase Indian Sites ................................... 20 Transitional Phase Outposts ................................ 27 Transitional Phase Indian Sites ............................ 28 Expansion Phase Outposts ................................... 32 Expansion Phase Indian Sites ............................... 33 Flow Model for Trade Goods ................................. 36 Invoice Excerpts: Nipigon 1733 ............................. 51 Archaeological Site Sample ................................. 82 XV Same the aar'rrran ar trade has irst‘itutir D'Tmarily Euro-Ame,- ffiiioug t1 EXDIOIIS I has empha [Turner 1. North Ame c0“19111;; In this V their abs. Inspect]. “We are, Victims 0 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Since the pioneering work on the North American fur trade by Francis Parkman and Frederick Jackson Turner in the late nineteenth century, the trade has been predominately conceptualized as a Euro-American institution. For the most part, historians and other writers have primarily perceived the trade as the initial, path-breaking incursion of Euro-American influence into the interior of eastern North America. It follows that scholarly treatment of the trade has emphasized the exploits of Euro-american traders and that interpretation of the trade has emphasized its role as the vanguard of Euro-american settlement (Turner 1970), as the extension of the European economic system into North America (Innis 1970), and as a succession of Euro-American commercial enterprises and business mergers. In this view of the fur trade, Indian peoples have been conspicuous by their absence. Over the past two decades, however, a different perspective on the trade has been emerging. A number of recent studies have disputed the conventional wisdom that Indian peoples were powerless victims of the trade who were caught up and swept along in a tide of Euroamerican enterprise (Francis and Morantz 1983; Krech 1984; Lohse 1988; Ray 1974; Yerbury 1986). Instead, these studies have demonstrated that native peoples were active participants in the trade who endeavored l tc shape t tr pursue In the co." Eurepeans. and EMS” Iahg‘b7e 3 ‘It'tdutt‘ percertrcr 0f ohvior; SECTes c' that met ° Ittipierj; COISUmerg The ISSUE 1° the a'. technolog eaten“: liking Se W3 car fur trace The quest Sought It 2 to shape the trade according to their cultural values and use the trade to pursue their own cultural interests. In the complex exchange relationship that developed between Indians and Europeans, native peoples were confronted with new social, political, and economic circumstances and opportunities. Certainly among the most tangible of the new conditions engendered by the fur trade was the introduction of European manufactured goods. Contrary to the popular perception that Indian peoples were smitten by the irresistable appeal of obviously superior European goods, it has been shown that native peoples critically evaluated European products and appropriated those that met their needs and interests. Indian peoples were not passive recipients of European goods but were aggressive, discriminating consumers . The issue that this study addresses is, how did native peoples respond to the availability of European goods? Hhat aspects of European technology did Indian peoples adopt and how did they incorporate those materials into native technological systems? The study proceeds by asking several basic questions: what types of European goods did Indian peoples seek to obtain, what patterns in Indian acquisition of trade goods can be identified, and what can the investigation of patterns of Indian adoption of European goods tell us about Indian adaptation to the fur trade? The question of what elements of European technology Indian peoples sought to obtain in the trade may seem like a simple one. It may also 3 seem that it is a question that is already well-understood, since there is considerable discussion in the fur trade literature of the types of trade goods that Indian peoples acquired. It is the premise of this study, however, that the flow of European goods into Indian societies is not well-understood. It is suggested that the issue of Indian adoption of European technology is an important one and that it holds implications for understanding the way that Indian peoples adapted to the conditions of the fur trade. This study is concerned with the contribution of historical archaeological research to the question of the flow of European goods through the fur trade system into Indian societies. Hhile archaeological data recovered from historical period Indian sites have clearly had a bearing on this issue, it is suggested that the historical archaeological perspective could be developed much further. On one hand, archaeological data have been important in documenting the kinds of goods that Indian peoples acquired. On the other hand, archaeological observations have been instrumental in the development of a certain perception of the flow of European goods into Indian societies. Stated briefly, this perception is that the flow of goods into Indian societies was dominated by metal implements and glass beads. The fundamental concern here is not really so much for the validity of this perception, although that is certainly at issue. Rather, the concern is for the way the perception arose, and more importantly, for ways the perception can be refined. First, this perception of the flow of goods is not precisely articulated. Instead, it is expressed in occasiona‘ For examp‘ in: of: 197 ihd filth Hur to: axe 9% (Ga Bra 3 C pct Use. a q 4 occasional comments scattered through the archaeological literature. For example, with regard to glass beads: '. . . one article in particular - the glass trade bead - produced in one locality, has become in the eyes of historians and students of the American Indian, the denominator of the fur trade (Woodward 1970:15).' ”Glass beads were a very important medium of exchange in the fur trade (Quimby 1966b:65).' and with regard to metal implements: Huron traders were primarily interested in obtaining metal cutting tools. In particular, they wanted knives of all sizes, awls, axes, and iron arrowheads. The first three items were found in great abundance on archaeological sites of the historical period (Garrad 1969; Latta 1971) [Trigger 1985:209]. Brass kettles were marvelous things indeed. Once introduced into a community, their superiority over the traditional clay cooking pots ensured that there was no voluntary turning back from their use (Mason 1981:378). This seems to be because the perception does not derive from a systematic examination of archaeological data. It seems, instead, to be an impression based upon accumulated observations of archaeological evidence. Second, and more importantly, there has also been relatively little effort to systematically examine documentary data regarding the flow of goods into Indian societies. The archaeological view of the flow of goods is shaped by the relative frequencies of types of trade goods in the archaeological record. Thus, the huge numbers of glass beads and the predominance of metal goods on Indian sites leads to this perception arcvides ar recerd is I archaeolog It has its Ices the a :erishable toes not d Unjéftakg data in an 90023 Into this piece a{'DDIES ad W HISIOIIcaI document” IEIIUre of ”Search In record. E SOUICeg Of IhESe SOUP 5 perception of the flow of goods. Again, this does not mean that the perception is invalid. But, archaeologists know that the way the archaeological record is formed has a bearing on the information it provides and they are keenly aware of the fact that the archaeological record is biased and incomplete. But in historical archaeology, archaeologists also have access to the documentary record which, while it has its own limitations, contains different kinds of information than does the archaeological record. Documentary data may reveal the role of perishable goods in the trade or offer a perspective on glass beads that does not depend upon sheer numbers. The purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic examination of archaeological and documentary data in an effort to achieve an understanding of the flow of European goods into Indian societies. It is suggested that the understanding of this process will allow inferences to be made about the way native peoples adapted to the fur trade. t Recor ' ' ' r h e l Historical archaeologists are in general agreement that access to the documentary record as a second source of data is the distinguishing feature of their field (Deagan 1982:153). Of course, all archaeological research makes use of sources of data other than the archaeological record. Ethnography, ethnoarchaeology, and experimental archaeology are sources of data that are an integral part of archaeological inquiry. These sources of information are based upon observations that are made in the present. These observations are then linked to archaeological data in order to make inferences about the past. In the case of historil archaeo documen record. record, data uh CIearIy histori has bee documen Beaudry “Theces Trovide AS hISt dOCumen Increas d0cumen the arc IDEagan I(the Cr reSult 1987:39 6 historical archaeology, however, the relationship between the archaeological record and the documentary record is different. The documentary record was created contemporaneously with the archaeological record. As a result, the documentary record, like the archaeological record, is a product of past behavior and it provides another body of data which can be used to address archaeological questions. Clearly, the documentary record is important to the capabilities of historical archaeology. Still, one of the characteristics of the field has been the struggle to develop fruitful ways of incorporating documentary data into archaeological research (Leone 1977; Deagan 1988; Beaudry 1988) Too often, documentary data have only been used in unnecessarily limited ways, such as for artifact identification or to provide historical background. As historical archaeologists have endeavored to define the role of the documentary record in historical archaeology, they have become increasingly aware of the relationship between archaeological and documentary data. Today, historical archaeologists stress the fact that the archaeological and documentary records are independent sets of data (Deagan 1988; Leone and Potter 1988). Clearly, these two records sets were created by different people for different purposes and they are the result of very different sets of formation processes (Leone and Crosby 1937:399). The recognition of this relationship is central to the role of the documentary record in historical archaeology. The key to the differer that th: tore ac: differe differe archaeo archaec aedress TECOrd' Exists 7 differences between the archaeological and documentary records is not that those differences make one record or the other a more complete or a more accurate record of the past. What it does mean is that they record different behaviors and different contexts and that they contain different types of information. Consequently, access to both the archaeological and the documentary records provides historical archaeology with two independent and complimentary avenues by which to address questions about the past. The use of documentary data in this study takes advantage of the fact that a material record of human behavior, similar to the archaeological record, is also present in the documentary record. This material record exists in the form of account books, probate records, tax records, bills of sale, and other similar types of documents. Such documents contain itemized lists of materials which provide, in much the same way that archaeological data do, a basis for a quantitative search for patterns (Beaudry 1988). h Nestern Gre t ke R i _ The specific spatial and temporal parameters within which this study examines the flow of European goods into Indian societies is the French period in the western Great Lakes region (see Figure 1). While it is difficult to place a firm date on the beginning of the French period in the region, the study concerns the period from ca. 1640-1760. Part of the impetus for focusing on the flow of trade goods into the western . Great Lakes region before 1760 is the fact that it is not well cowmwm mega; aamsw ccmumu: on» a wc=m_m 233.25.: . the no In tha gezds . of dat 9 understood. By comparison, there have been a number of studies that have investigated the flow of goods into subarctic Indian societies to the north of the western Great Lakes region (Ray 1974; Morantz 1980). In that area, the Hudson’s Bay Company was the principal supplier of goods and the vast records of the NBC have served as a valuable source of data on Indian trading habits. There is no body of documentary records for the French period trade in the western Great Lakes region that is as extensive and as continuous as the NBC records. There are, however, business records for the French period trade which contain important data for the investigation of the flow of goods through the trade system. Another part of the reason for investigating the French period in the western Great Lakes region was in order to introduce an important body of documentary data into the archaeological study of historical period Indian peoples in that region. The documentary data used in this study is a collection of business records that is commonly known as the Montreal Merchants Records (hereafter referred to as the MMR). The MMR collection consists primarily of accounting records kept by various merchants in Montreal during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. As part of their business, the merchants sold trade goods and supplies to fur traders preparing to travel to posts in the interior. Consequently, the invoices in the account books contain lengthy lists of European goods purchased for trade. Most of the invoices record shipments of goods to posts in the western Great Lakes region during the latter part of the French period, from 1715-1760. Foe-er ‘9 ‘ b I-Eri' 0f n dcmg hist Sin rel. $114 In 10 These data are used to construct a documentary perspective on the flow of trade goods into the western Great Lakes region during the French period. An archaeological perspective on the acquisition of European goods by Indian peoples is also developed using data from reports of excavations at French period Indian sites in the region. The two data sets present different perspectives on the flow of goods through the system. A comparative examination of the archaeological and documentary records helps clarify the information each has to offer. Contributions of the Study This dissertation makes several contributions to the study of historical period Indian societies. First, this study presents an important body of new data on European trade goods in the French fur trade. Second, it demonstrates the importance of the use of the documentary record in historical archaeology. In particular, it emphasizes the respective strengths and weaknesses of the two data sets and the complementary roles they play in historical archaeological research. And third, this study suggests ways in which an understanding of Indian adoption of European trade goods can further our understanding of Indian adaptation in the fur trade. In addre useful t and the This car French 1 atthaeo' takes c One of was a S change the di: Into tr that t dEScri trade 1600~1 1715‘] frames Europq the 1' CHAPTER 2 THE FRENCH PERIOD FUR TRADE: 1600-1760 In addressing the issue of Indian acquisition of trade goods, it is useful to first examine the development of the French period fur trade and the introduction of trade goods in the western Great Lakes region. This can be done by tracing the historical course of expansion of the French trade system into the interior and by reviewing the archaeological evidence for the presence of trade goods in the western Lakes country. One of the important factors in the expansion of the French fur trade was a gradual change that occurred in the logistics of the trade. This change was a shift from a system in which intertribal trade carried out the distribution of European goods to a system based on French travel into the interior and direct trade with Indian peoples. It is suggested that this gradual logistical shift provides a useful way in which to describe the expansion of the trade. On this basis, the French fur trade can be broken down into three periods: the Early period, 1600-1650; the Transitional period, 1650-1715; and the Expansion period, 1715-1760. This breakdown of the expansion of the trade provides a framework within which the spread of the French fur trade and of European goods into the western Great Lakes area can be examined. Hhile the identification of these discrete periods imposes artificially sharp ll divisions dates do the trade Indian pa European fisherie: French, | Banks an: the fish Catch, hr ashore p Implemen' Shim-ed 1981:373‘ LawrenCe “Wage, they had the 16th for the I t0 trade lag the I coasta] r India” De Sporadica 12 divisions in the gradual process of change in the trade, the boundary dates do have validity as critical junctures in the transformation of the trade system, as will be discussed with respect to each period. Ibg Earl! Eh§§e 1600—1650 Indian peoples in northeastern North America first began to acquire European manufactured goods as a result of European exploitation of the fisheries of the Atlantic coastal waters. By early in the 1500’s, French, Portugese, and Basque fishermen were harvesting cod in the Grand Banks and other areas for import to their home countries. The crews of the fishing vessels occasionally made landfalls in order to dry their catch, hunt, gather firewood, or collect fresh water. These trips ashore produced opportunities for native peoples to obtain European implements either through trade, theft, or by scavenging campsites or shipwrecks (Dickinson 1987:29; Harris and Matthews 1987:56; Mason 1981:373). By the time Jacque Cartier sailed into the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1534, the way the Indian peoples he encountered Openly expressed interest in bartering for European goods made it clear that they had dealt with Europeans before (Eccles 1974a:12-13). For most of the 16th century, French expeditions to North America continued to be for the purpose of fishing or to search for a passage to the Orient, not to trade for furs. As a result, contact with explorers and fishermen was the primary source of European goods for Indian peoples of the coastal regions of the northeast. Through such intermittant contact, Indian peoples succeeded in acquiring European materials only sporadically through opportunistic trading and it is unlikely that large m=aotit Daring relativ concert Iatter 20 Emph becare the den deragd, horthea records IIIed f fish. that We The r13 DUTpOSe RS the The 150 the fur trade a‘ SeiSOna' Trading and In 1 French ‘ 13 quantities of European goods made their way into Indian societies. During most of the sixteenth century, furs appear to have been a relatively unimportant commodity to the French since they made no concerted effort to tap the supply of fur in North America. In the latter part of the century, however, clothing fashions in Europe began to emphasize the use of fur. In particular, the gentleman’s beaver hat became a virtual sartorial requirement. This fueled a sharp increase in the demand for the rich fur resources in the New World. Hith this new demand, trading for fur became an explicit goal of French expeditions to northeastern North America. Turgeon’s (1986) research with notorial records in Bordeaux, France indicates that up until ca. 1580, contracts filed for expeditions to North America were for the purpose of importing fish. But around 1580, the first contracts appeared for expeditions that were specifically intended for the purpose of trading for furs. The rise in demand for furs on the European markets launched the purposeful and,concerted Indian-European trade relationship we recognize as the fur trade. The 1600-1650 period was the first stage in the French effort to expand the fur trade in northeastern North America. From the beginning of the trade at around 1580 until the turn of the century, the trade was a seasonal, ship-based enterprise (Harris and Matthews 1987:47, 84). Trading vessels spent the summer months in the Gulf of St. Lawrence area and in the lower St. Lawrence river valley - regions with which the French were familiar from previous explorations - and then returned to France in the fall. At the turn of the century, French interest in the fur trade annual, i expand ti exploit 1 bases in ladoussac began. S settlemer SI. Laure the Frenc Three Ris “0 more 19681101} FT‘ench a As the Fr System of Contingen not We InStead, tI‘adlng p them to t WET Int {my DEr ind the A 14 fur trade was on the rise, but it was apparent that the logistics of annual, trans-Atlantic travel severely constrained their ability to expand the trade. It became apparent that in order to more fully exploit the trade, it would be necessary to establish year-round trading bases in the New Horld. Hith the construction of a wintering post at Tadoussac in 1600, the movement to establish a more continous presence began. Shortly afterward, in 1608, Champlain founded a permanent settlement at Quebec to serve as a base for fur trade operations in the St. Lawrence valley. Over the course of the first half of the century, the French sought to solidify their position in the St. Lawrence valley. Three Rivers was established in 1634 and Montreal was founded in 1642, two more settlements that became important trade centers (Kellogg 1968:101). By 1650, the settlements in the St. Lawrence valley gave the French a foundation from which to pursue the fur trade in the northeast. As the French established trading stations along the St. Lawrence, the system of trade that characterized the Early period emerged. The small contingent of French traders in the St. Lawrence valley at this time did not have the logistical capability to carry the trade to the Indians. Instead, the execution of the fur trade depended upon establishing trading partnerships with Indian groups who would collect furs and bring them to the St. Lawrence settlements. Essentially, the French sought to enter into Indian trading systems. The key partnership around which the Early period trade was organized was between the French and the Huron and the Algonquian allies of the Huron. However, as the French became participants in native trade systems, they were also subject to native control of those systems. For their part, the French would have preferred 1985:182) Mgonquin their pos meant not dso stor Heidenre‘ no French Gttava, r In the 5 With the trade of networks 'Ith otl Franch trade 9 this he dlstrit grImps. F“Erich. the We: 15 preferred to engage in as many trading partnerships as possible (Trigger 1985:182). However, the Huron, along with the Nipissing and the Algonquins who were trading directly with the French, wanted to protect their positions and exclude others from engaging in direct trade. This meant not only preventing other groups from reaching the French, but also stopping the French from contacting other native groups. As Heidenreich (1976) points out, the Huron and their allies saw to it that no French traders operated west of Lachine and that no Neutral, Petun, Ottawa, or Ojibwa was allowed to travel to the French trading stations in the St. Lawrence valley. Hith the French ensconsed on the banks of the St. Lawrence, the fur trade of the Early period was carried out through intertribal trade networks. The Huron and their allies would gather furs through trade with other Indian groups. They would then transport the furs to the French settlements and exchange them for trade goods. Some of those trade goods could then be used to trade for another supply of furs. In this manner, European goods entered native trade networks and were distributed far from the St. Lawrence valley to remotely-located native groups. It was this system of intertribal trade centered on the French-Huron alliance that was in effect during the 1600-1650 period in the western Great Lakes region. In turning to the western Great Lakes region specifically, it was noted previously that the Early period was defined in order to consider the earliest effects of the fur trade in this region. The key concern in this study with regard to the Early period is the extent to which European 9 clear tha' during th introduct should pe the first nd concl is docume region do data reco Since con goods, va I650—1650 900d: Her traders o Documenta IMO the hung Fre Coontry, . Indians v 1974:105. to “lie a: tUstOMS Sr Nltolet We the "Esta, 16 European goods began to flow into the western country. Although it is clear that the fur trade had some impact on the western Lakes area during the Early period, at this point it is necessary to state that the introduction of trade goods to this region during the Early period should perhaps be considered more hypothesis than fact. The timing of the first arrival of trade goods in the region is still open to question and conclusive evidence on this matter has proven elusive. While there is documentary evidence that suggests that European goods reached the region during this period, there has been very little archaeological data recovered to support that suggestion. Since control over the fur trade, and thus control over access to trade goods, was in the hands of the Huron and their allies during the 1600-1650 period, it is unlikely that any significant amount of trade goods were brought into the western Great lakes region either by French traders or through native trading trips to the St. Lawrence valley. Documentary sources record only a handful] of incursions by the French into the western Lakes area during the Early period. Etienne Brule, a young Frenchman who was perhaps the first European to visit the western country, was brought into the region around the year 1620 by the Huron Indians with whom he was living (Kellogg 1968:58-60; Butterfield 1974:105-108; Quimby 1966b:3). Brule had been sent by Champlain in 1612 to live among the Hurons in order to learn their language and their customs so that he could serve as an interpreter in the future. Jean Nicolet was sent west in 1634 by Champlain to continue the search for ‘the western sea and to make contact with distant Indian groups who might be recruited as allies and trading partners for the French (Johnson 1971:6-7; in Lake h 1541, tvc brief vis After att northern a group c These fee indicate that the doobt the region be UOCUmente iDDTeciar Given the that "951 French SE the Frenc of "ester commune “lies Wt unclear k HurOn, it trip to t 17 1971:6-7; Kellogg 1968). In this effort, Nicolet traveled to Green Bay in Lake Michigan where he struck an alliance with the Winnebago. In 1641, two Jesuit Fathers, Charles Raymbault and Isaac Jogues, made a brief visit to Sault Ste. Marie (Kellogg 1968:88—89; Johnson 1971:15). After attending a Huron-Algonkin feast of the dead ceremony on the northern shore of Lake Huron, the Jesuits were escorted to the Sault by a group of Chippewa who had invited the Jesuits to visit their homeland. These few episodes of French travel into the western Great Lakes region indicate that this was a time of initial exploration of the area and that the French were not yet making trading expeditions to the west. No doubt there were other unrecorded trips made by Frenchman into the region between 1600 and 1650. But based upon the nature of the documented excursions, it seems unlikely that French traders brought any appreciable quantity of European goods to the Indian peoples in the western country during this early period. Given the logistics of the trade at this time, however, it is possible that western Great Lakes Indians made the lengthy canoe journey to the French settlements on the St. Lawrence and traded their furs directly to the French. Eccles (1974a:31) states that in the summer of 1623 a group of western Indians traveled to Quebec to trade. Hhen they arrived, they complained that they had been harassed and robbed by the Huron and their allies who wanted to prevent them from going to Quebec. Although it is unclear whether or not these "western Indians“ came from west of Lake Huron, it does indicate that Indians who lived beyond the Huron made the trip to the St. Lawrence to trade. It is certainly possible that IEStC-l perior area. with 5 atong these trade HUron r .ake 1 regior 18 western Great Lakes Indians obtained European goods during the Early period through occasional trips to the French colony. The chief argument for the introduction of European goods into the western Great Lakes region during the Early phase is the likelihood that they arrived via intertribal trade. In his book, Huronia, Heidenreich (1971) outlines the intertribal trade connections that could have carried European goods to native peoples residing in the western Lakes area. The Ottawa and the Nipissing appear to have had trade connections with Siouan peoples in the Green bay region and with Algonquian groups along the eastern and northeastern shores of Lake Superior. Both of these groups had access to European goods, the Nipissing through direct trade with the French and the Ottawa through trade with the Huron. Huron pottery recovered archaeologically on the northeastern shore of Lake Superior also suggests direct Huron contact with peoples of that region. More recently, Heidenreich’s argument for the trading of European goods through intertribal channels into the western Great Lakes region has been presented graphically in the Historical Atlas of Canada (Harris and Matthews 1987). Plate 35 presents a series of three maps that depict the distribution of European goods in northeastern North America between 1600 and 1648. The maps also indicate the frequency of trade goods in different parts of the area during that period ranging from absent, infrequent, or common. The first map suggests that between 1600-1620, European goods were present but infrequent along the northeastern shore of Lake Superior, around the eastern end of Lake Superior, and in the Green Bay goods had Sault Ste around La European Superior Say regio first tra that by 1 Superior. The inter i'Chaeolc example c i'Chae01( This mtg! lost 11k, ”ecogniz deposits re91cm b on]! two are thou Creek 51 eastern occupied 1620. 19 Green Bay region. The second map suggests that between 1620-1640, trade goods had become common along the north shore of Lake Huron and in the Sault Ste. Marie region, and that they were present but infrequent ‘ around Lake Nipigon. The third map indicates that between 1640-1648, European goods were common around the entire eastern end of Lake Superior and were still infrequent around Lake Nipigon and in the Green Bay region. In summary, Heidenreich suggests that European goods were first traded into parts of the western country between 1600-1620 and that by 1650, such goods were common at the eastern end of Lake Superior. The interesting counterpoint to this argument is the lack of archaeological data to support it. One is hard-pressed to find an example of European trade goods in a solidly-dated, pre-1650 archaeological context in the Great Lakes region west of Lake Huron. This might indicate a lack of archaeological research in those areas most likely to produce such evidence or it may suggest difficulty in recognizing or isolating the specific data needed to identify such deposits. But it also may indicate a paucity of European goods in the region before 1650. Only two sites have been reported in the western Great Lakes area which are thought to date to the 1600-1650 period. One of these is the Dumaw Creek site (Figure 2), a terminal Late Hoodland site located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. Quimby (1966a) argues that the site was occupied up until the turn of the 17th century, and perhaps as late as 1620. 20 Figure 2 Early Phase Indian Sites However, n of the sit oeriod vhi Dorian tree in which t Given its Creek is r European g century, The other deposits , Droduced 1 mouth of I the Site between 1650;51-1 Ottawa 0C The two , tosoother 1550/51‘, thOUgh i' '9 Shall Roq m rEpreSEn Com-Dime” 21 However, no European goods were recovered from the site. If the dating of the site is accurate, it lies on the very threshold of the Early period which may account for the lack of European goods. Also, the Dumaw Creek site is not located in those areas identified by Heidenreich in which trade goods might be expected to occur during the Early phase. Given its early date and its location, the lack of trade goods at Dumaw Creek is not unexpected, and it lends support to the argument that European goods were not yet generally available early in the 17th century. The other site is the only site in the western Great Lakes region with deposits which have been dated to the Early French period that have produced European goods. That is the Rock Island II site located at the mouth of Green Bay (Figure 2). Mason (1986) argues that the deposits at the site represent four components: a Potawatomi occupation sometime between 1641-1650/51, a Huron-Petun-Ottawa occupation from 1650/51-1653, a second Potawatomi occupation from ca. 1670-1730, and an Ottawa occupation from 1760-1770. The two earliest components at the Rock Island 11 site are considered together here to represent the end of the 1600—1650 period. The 1650/51-1653 component is included with the earlier component even though it technically belongs to the Transitional period, 1650-1715. As we shall see in the discussion of the l650-l715 period, aside from the Rock Island II 1650/51-1653 component, the 1650-1715 period is represented by sites that date no earlier than 1670. The 1650/51-1653 component is more usefully considered as a short temporal extension of the prev evidence It is we upon eth The arch occupati dates to states t record 0 identifi rECOVEr‘e Beads te DEriod s comDonen head: a, of thEse Interest AlthOUQh York are t0 DOst- bEadS We Lasan9n °CCUTenC, SUQQEStS than prEi 22 the previous component since the significance of both components is as evidence for the occurence of European goods in the mid-17th century. It is worth noting that the dating of these components is based mainly upon ethnohistorical data, not temporally sensitive artifact typologies. The archaeological deposits were correlated with the documented occupations, primarily using native-made ceramics. Having assigned dates to the archaeological deposits in this manner, Mason (1986:212) states that, ”No incongruities with the comparative archaeological record of historic Indian sites elsewhere emerged to cast doubt on these identifications.“ In light of this, a comment on the glass beads recovered from these two components is in order. Beads tend to be one of the best chronological indicators on historical period sites. 0f the 88 artifacts of European origin from the two components, 49 of them were glass beads. Chevron beads and tubular beads are present in the assemblage. According to Quimby (1966b), both of these bead types are diagnostic of the period 1610-1670. Interestingly, however, there are also wire-wound beads present. Although wire—wound beads occur in pre-1670 contexts on sites in the New York area (Hray 1983; Karklins 1983), the occurence of such beads tends to post-date 1700 in the western Great Lakes region. No wire-wound beads were recovered from the Marquette Mission site (1670-1701), the Lasanen site (1670-1705), or the Gros Cap site (1670-1705). The occurence of wire-wound beads in the early components at Rock Island suggests the presence of this bead type in the area fifty years earlier than previous evidence has indicated. The implications of this are uncertain. western La But it may the ethnoi Clearly, e the HestEr sueziv. I Cf develo; us on the Preciseiy country 1'5 Suggests 1 1620. The Even at U The 1650 e ”intides mamies. between H am311w Mi soothern C ”any Hui‘or fled to th E Ye tie and C 23 uncertain. It may be evidence that wire-wound beads were present in the western Lakes country earlier than the data from other sites suggest. But it may also suggest that caution should be exercised in accepting the ethnohistorically-derived dating of these components. Clearly, evidence pertaining to the availability of European goods in the western Great Lakes region during the 1600-1650 period is in short supply. During this period, the trade was still centered in its cradle of development - the St. Lawrence river valley - and the western country was on the fringes of the sphere of influence of the developing trade. Precisely when during the period trade goods first came into the western country is unknown. The lack of trade goods at the Dumaw Creek site suggests that they were at least uncommon if not absent up until ca. 1620. The Rock Island data, if the dating is accurate, suggest that even at the end of the period, European materials were rather scarce. The 1650 ending date for the Early phase of French period trade coincides with the destruction of the Huron tribe by their Iroquoian enemies. This event was the culmination of long-standing hostilities between the two groups. In the winter of 1649-50, the Iroquois mounted a major military campaign against the Huron. The Huron villages in southern Ontario were destroyed and their inhabitants were scattered. Many Huron were captured and adopted into the Iroquois tribe, others fled to the west and took refuge with other groups. Over the next several years, the Iroquois attacked and dispersed the Neutral and the Erie and continued to pursue refugee groups of Huron. Life in the western country was violently disrupted as Indian peoples abandoned their hon IroquolS region as safe have destructi fur trade ’he Trans The dispe conconent subsided Huron as ' of the 16! takes reg the same ‘ French tr; trading pr 0W terri1 At the ene French 1m Effort 1' S aDharently “”1 1660 considerab 24 their homelands and fled to the west seeking safety from the Iroquois. Iroquois hostilities displaced populations throughout the Great Lakes region as Indian peoples abandoned their homelands and fled west seeking safe haven from the Iroquois. These disruptions, along with the destruction of the French-Huron trade system, threw the French period fur trade into disarray for several years. [he lransitignal Phase 1650-1715 The dispersal of the Huron did not end intertribal trade as an important component of the French period fur trade. As the Iroquois threat subsided in the 1650’s and the trade resumed, the Ottawa replaced the Huron as the primary trading partners of the French. For at least part of the 1650-1715 period, European goods flowed into the western Great Lakes region through restructured French-Indian trade connections. At the same time, however, the logistics of the trade were changing. French traders were beginning to venture into the interior, establish trading posts, and conduct trade directly with Indian peoples in their own territories. At the end of the 1650’s the first recorded trading expeditions by the French into the western Great Lakes region took place. This pioneering effort is generally attributed to Radisson and Groseilliers who apparently made two trips into the region during the late 1650’s and early 1660’s. Difficulties with Radisson’s journal have resulted in considerable debate over precisely when these trips took place and where the trac second c 1658-166 western nov Hinr some si: of Radi: country drew at' fur trae These 9 1nterfe the Hes 1nterio of the governm Proved Mm trade. 1681 th 1ic9nsi licenSe canoe 0 hOueVEr Borges” DOStS S 25 the traders went. There seems to be less controversy, however, over the second of their two trips. This expedition probably took place from 1658-1660. During this time Radisson and Groseilliers traveled to the western end of Lake Superior and into Sioux (Dakota) country in what is now Minnesota. In 1660 the traders returned to Montreal accompanied by some sixty Indian canoes carrying a great wealth of furs. The journey of Radisson and Groseilliers and others like them into the western country confirmed the presence of rich fur resources in that region and drew attention to the considerable returns to be gained by extending the fur trade in the west. These early trading ventures, along with the reduction of Iroquois interference, opened the way for French traders to carry the trade into the western country themselves. In an effort to prevent a rush into the interior, strict prohibitions were placed upon trade conducted outside of the St. Lawrence settlements unless permission was granted by the government (Eccles l974a:105; Kellogg 1968:111). Such restrictions proved to be unsuccessful in preventing illegal traders, or gggrggr§_gg hgis, from forging into the western country to seek the profits of the trade. Unable to stem the flow of illegal traders into the west, in 1681 the government of New France revised its policy and initiated a licensing system for trade in the interior. Each year, twenty-five licenses would be issued, each license permitting a trader to take a canoe of trade goods and three men into the interior. This strategy, however, still did not deter the activities of the gggrgg;§_gg_pg1s. Between the efforts of licensed and unlicensed traders alike, trading posts sprang up around the western Great Lakes region. Nith French traders and and other 1 By around 1 ofsuppiy c the focus r settiernent: country (E vestern Gr these post Duiuth’s F my two c Archaeoi 0c readily at TI'ansitr'o Corthonorit ptOdUced The atChe guods wet the Tran: 1.111319%”. that tra. ihpiemEn But 1t a during t 26 traders and trade goods so close at hand, the necessity for the Ottawa and other Indian groups to make trading voyages to Montreal declined. By around 1680, the intertribal trade system was in decline as a source of supply of trade goods to the western Great Lakes area. As a result, the focus of trading activity was shifting from the St. Lawrence settlements to the emerging network of trading posts in the western country (Eccles 1974a:112). Figure 3 illustrates French posts in the western Great Lakes region during the 1650-1715 period. A number of these posts, such as Fort Miami, Fort Trempealeau, Fort L’Huiller, and Duluth’s Fort St Joseph were very short lived, falling out of use after only two or three years. Archaeological evidence suggests that European goods became much more readily available in the western Great Lakes region during the Transitional phase. A number of historical period Indian sites or components dating to this period have been excavated, all of which have produced trade goods (Figure 4). The archaeological evidence from these sites suggests that European goods were readily available in the western Great Lakes region during the Transitional phase. At several of the sites listed, European implements dominate the archaeological assemblages. This is not to say that traditional native technology is not still in evidence; native implements continue to occur on Indian sites of the Transitional phase. But it appears that Indian access to trade goods increased markedly during this period. .s -.-.il..n»- ( u 27 mumoauao onus; Fa=o*u_mcash m mg=m_m m0<>b can ma_e3=o N m_n~p NN HN g HHHH—OH 3 I-to-t HMHNNI-OF‘ jam .5 3H wmsn mesg svsg ecu“ mvum evn~ mvsa N¢- ~¢N~ o¢s~ ans" ems“ smsa ems“ mm- ems" mmsm Nmsu "mud mNNH stm “Nu“ mas“ 59 w¢m.NNN mm¢ ~— mom.o~ mmN.NN ~Nsm mo¢m vmm.- mmN.m_ mam.o_ mm¢.m~ NvN.o~ gmmv mmv mmm mums ofimm mmmm v—N.~H 5mm.o~ mmm.m~ cme.N~ mmm.- -¢~ mom“ wHMHQH mfimm mmo.- ofimm ovmv N~¢m m¢~m .uouwa_;u_z comwawa Lam> cm; mecca munch so; wuHNHA =_ mg:a.u=maxm m mpnah ~N¢.N~ _m mme mung omo.o~ Nmm manMMHma Nmm.m~ mmom ooum mom“ com mNNH mN- fimm msmm mv wage xumewpflsu_a mom.~N mmHm News Nsmm moom Iqum xsowm mum.mN umm NH mam o¢m mom oooe NmN smoe «Ha mom~ MHmumma mso.om you“ mmom mNNn Ncsm NNNN m¢¢m .mmmq acpaz mom.mm www.c— aNm.ON anon msss Nave “New cmma mama Ncsm mmm» "mmm lama: cmmcu 60 the Hervieux records in the MMR is even more limited than that of the Guy records and they contain relatively few trade outfits. Further, the fur trade invoices in both the Guy and the Hervieux records were less useful for this study in that the destinations for the outfits were recorded less regularly than in the Moniere records. The earliest outfit taken from the MMR is from the year 1715, the latest outfit is from 1758. A temporal breakdown of the seventy outfits by decade from 1715 to the end of the French period in 1760 is given in Table 4. Table 4 Temporal Distribution of Outfits 1115:1112 1_z_112270- 1_3__1_3_70-79 11mm 1159:1112 1 9 36 23 1 The MMR do not contain trade outfits for every year for the period 1715-1760. This is due in part to the fact that there are some gaps in the records. The most conspicuous and unfortunate of these is Moniere’s missing Journal No.2 which presumably covered the years 1726-1731. The frequency of French period trade outfits in the MMR is also a function of the trajectory of the Moniere business. Moniere recorded relatively few trade outfits from 1715 to 1730. But as the business grew in the 1730’s and 1740’s, the frequency of fur trade invoices increased. By the same token, outfits for each post do not appear with regularity 61 in the account books. Different posts tend to appear sporadically, and the number and size of the outfits shipped to different posts in a given year varied considerably. This is because the trader clientle of the merchants fluctuated from year to year. Each year, the merchants did business with different traders who were operating at different posts. Consequently, outfits for the different posts occur with varying frequency and varying regularity in the account books. Further, as mentioned previously, the merchants did a greater volume of business with some traders than with others. As a result, the size of the outfits varied enormously. For example, if a trader bought all or most of his goods from Moniere, the outfit might involve an expenditure of several thousand ligge;. But if a trader purchased most of his goods from another merchant and bought only a few incidental items from Moniere, the outfit might total only a few hundred liege; or even less. To clarify the diversity among the outfits used in the study, the following paragraphs provide a brief discussion of the outfits for each of the posts. Green Bay Outfits The outfits for Green Bay comprise the most extensive record of goods shipped to any one of the eight posts in the western Great Lakes area. The pattern of sales to Green Bay traders reveals that Moniere had a strong association with the trade at that post, especially during the 1740’s. The account books indicate that In 1724 and 1725, Moniere curtfitted the partnership of Clignancour and Mogras (Moniere, M847, vol.1, p.431, 485). In 1739, Moniere sold goods to Marin (Paul Marin de 62 La Malgue [Eccles 1974b:431]) (Moniere, M849, vol.8, p. 108). In the years 1740-1742, Moniere supplied the partnership of Marin, Quesnal, and St. Germain (Moniere, M849, vol.8, p.177; p.234, p.292, 308). In 1743-1745, he outfitted the partnership of St. Onge and Leduc (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.355, 406, 445). And in 1747 and 1748, Moniere sold goods to the partnership of Clignacour and St. Onge (Moniere, M849, vol. 8, pp.514, 534). The size of the outfits in these transactions was substantial. The smallest yearly expenditure, which occured in 1739, was still over 3000 ligge;. In the 1740 outfit, Moniere debited Marin for 1250 liege; for half of the lease for the Green Bay post (Moniere, M849, vol.8, p.187). This suggests that Moniere held the lease for the post which would explain the large volume of sales. Michilimackinac Outifts In contrast to the situation with Green Bay, the MMR merchants did not do a large volume of business with traders headed for Michilimackinac. Although there are a number of outfits for Michilimackinac in the account books, most of them are relatively small. The largest single year sale volume for the post was 4108 liege; in 1725 (see Table 3). Also, the account books do not indicate a pattern of business with the same traders or partnership of traders at Michilimackinac. Nith the exception of Antoine Despains, who bought goods for three consecutive ,years from 1744-1746 (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.403, 448, 477, 482, 518), virtually all the other outfits were purchased by different individuals. The 1739 outfits for Michilimackinac were sold by Pierre Guy; one of the 1746 outfits was sold by the Hervieux brothers. 63 Detroit Outfits The group of outfits for Detroit in the account books is similar to that of Michilimackinac in that they are fairly numerous but are not especially large. Only the year 1758 produced a particularly large volume of sales: approximately 12,500 liege; (see Table 3). The Detroit outfits also show no pattern of business with the same traders. Both of the 1736 outfits and one of the 1737 outfits were sold by Pierre Guy. Ouiatenon Outifts The shipment of goods to Ouiatenon is most strongly represented for a single year: 1731. In that year, five outfits totalling over 10,000 liege; worth of trade goods were sold for shipment to the post. Most of the large volume of goods for 1731 was the product of a single outfit which represented an investment of approximately 7000 ligge;. This outfit was taken to Ouiatenon by Fauchee, Carignan, and Jervais (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.38, 44). The other four outfits were relatively small, the largest of them, which was purchased by an individual named Lacrois, totaled just over 1450 liege; (Moniere, M848, V01 .4, p.36). The purchasers of the other three outfits were the Pal~tnership of Grignon, Parant, and Chapaux (Moniere, M848, vol.4, PP..78, 85, 87), the partnership of J. Grignon and Mersier (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.79, 86), and Joseph Morent (Moniere, M848, vol.4, p.80). The yearly expenditure totals for trade goods for the other four years are considerably less than that for 1731, especially 1739 which is represented by only 31.10.00 worth of trade goods. 64 Sioux Post Outfits The outfits for the Sioux post represent a substantial volume of goods shipped to this post for each of four years during the 1730’s. Two partnerships purchased goods for the Sioux post from Moniere in 1731, 1732, and 1733. These were the partnerships of Lanouette and Joliette (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.45, 205, 347), and Porneuf and St. Onge (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.49, 208, 350). The 1736 outfit was purchased by the partnership of J. Giasson and Lebeau (Moniere, M848, vol.4, p.774). Nipigon Outfits The Nipigon outfits represent three years of fairly consistent volumes of goods shipped to that post. All of the outfits for Nipigon in the MMR were taken by an individual named Marin (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.168, 321-324, 424,439). This was probably Claude Marin de La Perriere, the half brother of Paul Marin who was trading at Green Bay during the 1730’s and 1740’s (Armour 1974:432). Michipicoten Outfit Trade goods shipped to Michipicoten are represented in the MMR by one moderately-sized outfit for 1735. This outfit was taken by the partnership of Claude Marin and De Quindre Douville (Moniere, M848, vol.4, pp.582, 590-593, 596). This is the same Claude Marin who took outfits to Nipigon in 1732, 1733, and 1734. 65 Rainy Lake Outifts Six outfits for Rainy Lake appear in the MMR, one each year from 1741 to 1746. The 1741 outfit was quite large, totaling 8445 liege; in trade goods. Although the size of the outfits decreased each year after that, the 1746 outfit - the smallest of the six - was still fairly substantial, totaling 1961 livres in trade goods. The 1741 Rainy Lake outfit was taken by the partnership of Jean Giasson and Louis Chappeau (Moniere, M849, vol8, pp.230, 238, 251). The 1742 and 1743 outfits were purchased by Jean Giasson and his brother Jacques (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.288, 299, 351). The 1744, 1745, and 1746 outfits were taken to the post by the partnership of Pierre and Charles Boyer and Charles Lulie Chevallier (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.398, 450, 478). It is clear that the MMR invoices contain a great deal of information about trade goods. But further discussion is necessary of the way the MMR relate to the flow of goods into Indian societies. The MMR are not specifically a record of goods obtained by Indian peoples. They are not a record of the actual exchange of commodities between Indians and Europeans. Instead, the MMR invoices record the purchase of goods by European traders from European merchants. How, then, is the flow of goods into Indian societies represented in the documents? The key, it is suggested, lies in taking an ethnohistorical view of the documents. Ethnohistory involves the study of non-literate peoples through documentary data recorded by outside observers. The objective of 66 ethnohistorical research is to discover the way cultural views of non- literate peoples are represented in documentary sources (Trigger 1985:164). Taking this approach to the MMR, it is argued that while they do not present an exact record of the goods Indians obtained, they do present a record of goods intended for trade. Or to put it another way, they provide a record of the goods that the European trader anticipated would be traded. It is argued that the anticipated trade recorded in the invoices was probably a reliable approximation of actual trade, especially in terms of general patterns of trade. It is suggested that the composition of trade outfits was a function of the knowledge and experience of the trader concerning his Indian customers’ interests and desires. Thus, Indian trading patterns implicitly shaped the composition of the outfits and those patterns are reflected in the outfits. This view is based upon the argument that the trade was a sophisticated exchange relationship in which both Indian and European traders were knowledgeable about one another. Of particular concern here are the actions of the European trader and the trader’s understanding of Indian interests in European goods. It is suggested that as profit-motivated businessmen, European traders were responsive to the demands of their Indian trading partners. There is evidence in the fur trade literature that Indian peoples developed well-defined sets of interests in trade goods and that European traders found it difficult to induce them to trade for other goods (Rich 1960:49; Ray and Freeman 1978:225-26). Further, Indians aggressively expressed their demands regarding European goods. Ray (1980) presents a good example of this in his discussion of 67 the interaction between subarctic Indian peoples and the Hudson’s Bay Company. Factors at the HBC posts reported to the company in England that the Indians were exceedingly demanding about the types of goods they wanted and the level of quality they expected in the goods. They were constantly criticizing the goods offered in trade, complaining that, for example, the guns were not made to specifications that would ensure their reliability under harsh subarctic winter conditions. The Hudson’s Bay Company, for their part, tried to respond to the Indians’ complaints and the committee in London encouraged the factors at the posts to inform them of the types of goods that were especially desired by the Indians. Ray notes, for example, that the company endeavored to replace the English tobacco they were shipping to the posts with Brazil tobacco for which the Indians expressed a preference. Clearly, for the European trader, an essential part of successfully pursuing the fur trade was to be responsive to Indian interests. On this basis, it is expected that traders in the MMR account books assembled their outfits based upon their knowledge of their Indian customers. This is not to sugggest that European traders could anticipate precisely what Indian peoples would purchase. It is not expected that every item in every invoice was traded or that European traders could predict every change in the needs and desires of their Indian customers. But it is expected that the general patterns that emerge from the invoices are a reflection of patterns in Indian trading for European goods. For the purposes of this study, the MMR are assumed tarreflect patterns in the flow of goods into Indian societies. It should be noted that this argument assumes that for the most part, the 68 goods which the traders needed for their outfits were generally available to them. Hhile recognizing that there undoubtedly were fluctuations in the availability of goods from time to time, it is assumed that the general patterns in the flow of goods into the interior posts were shaped predominately by Indian demand and not by the vagaries of supply. CHAPTER 5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY DATA cr “on th The first step in preparing the data for analysis was the translation and transcription of the invoices. This task presented a formidable challenge on several fronts. The general problem was one of deciphering eighteenth-century French fur trade terminology. Contributing to this was the fact that a number of different individuals recorded the invoices in the various account books so the style and the quality of handwriting varies considerably. Further, the recorders took a rather nonchalant approach to spelling; many different variations were used and sometimes the same word was spelled differently on the same page. Add to this the fact that the ink tended to bleed through the pages making the script even more difficult to make out and the picture is complete. Translation of the invoices was essentially made possible by previous work done with the documents during a project sponsored by the Minnesota Historical Society. The Montreal Merchants’ Records project, conducted from 1971-1975, focused on the fur trade-related information in the MMR. In the course of the project, Marie Gerin-Lajoie translated a number of the invoices and compiled a voluminous card file on trade goods and other information in the MMR (MMR Project Files 1971-1975). 69 70 Gerin-Lajoie’s work, especially her translations, was the primary tool used in translating other invoices in the documents. Since there is a great deal of repitition of vocabulary in the invoices, Gerin-Lajoie’s translations could be used as a guide in translating other invoices. As the invoice entries were translated, they were transcribed in their entirety, including quantities, units of measure, and prices recorded. In the course of transcribing the data, several types of adjustments were made in recording the cost information. First, errors in arithmetic made by the merchants in determining charges and in adding up the total cost of an invoice were encountered from time to time. These errors were assumed to be unintentional since they resulted in both under-charging and over-charging. Sometimes the mistakes were noticed and a correction was made at the end of the invoice. In the interest of obtaining an accurate picture of the cost of the individual types of trade goods and of the total cost of the invoices, mathematical errors were corrected in transcription. Second, some invoices did not include cost information for all the items recorded. At times, an isolated item appeared without a price, or in some cases, several items were listed without prices. The latter situation occurred in instances where a trader bought goods from more than one merchant but one of those merchants assembled the goods for shipment. For example, in 1739 Moniere recorded an invoice for Mr. Marin for Green Bay in which several items included in the crates and laales are listed without prices and are labeled ”furnished by Mr. Marin" (Moniere, M849 Vol.8, pp.108-114). Apparently these items were 71 purchased elsewhere but then packaged with the goods bought from Moniere. In cases where no price was given for an entry in an invoice, the price was estimated. If possible, a price recorded for the same item elsewhere in the outfit was used for the estimate. If not, prices for the same item recorded in the same year, or as near to that year as possible, were used to arrive at an estimated price. Third, a number of invoices include clothing made locally in Montreal. In some cases, the cost of the clothing was not listed for the finished pieces but for the materials and labor that went into making them. Rather than giving a price for 25 trade shirts, the cost of the cloth, the trim, the thread, and the labor to sew them was itemized in the invoice. In these cases, the costs for the labor and the materials were used to arrive at an estimated cost for the articles of clothing. Finally, in some invoices, the merchants added profit margin into the cost. Sometimes this was done at the end of the invoice; other times it was added just to certain sections of the invoice. 1n the interest of obtaining the true cost of the trade goods, when profit margin was charged, it was figured into the cost of individual entries. fighting the lgede Good; Although the outfits purchased by the traders were generally composed mainly of goods intended for trade to Indians, they also included a variety of non-trade items. Frequently, various kinds of supplies and equipment for the trip into the interior and for the stay at the post 72 were part of the outfit. For example, canoe gear and the materials needed to repair canoes were commonly listed in the invoices. These included poles to lay in the bottom of the canoe to support cargo, sponge to bail the canoe, and bark, gum, and spruce root to make repairs. On some occasions, even the canoes were purchased through the merchant. Camping gear for the trip was also invoiced, such as bark to construct temporary huts, an axe, a large cooking kettle, and sometimes tents. Provisions such as pork, flour, peas, and biscuit, along with wine and brandy were also purchased by the trader. Occasionally items were listed that were purchased by the trader to be given to the engages. These were usually articles of clothing or pieces of cloth but sometimes combs, knives or even guns were purchased for the engages. In a few of the invoices, some of the non-trade good materials were specifically identified. Canoe gear and equipment for the trip were listed under the heading, ”Furnished for the canoes“ (Moniere, M849, vol.8, p.358, 409). Provisions were identified as "Food and drink for the engages” (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.237, 294). And items purchased for the engages were listed as "For the men” or were listed under the names of specific individuals (Moniere, M849, vol.8, pp.112-113, 183). In many of the invoices, however, such non-trade items were not explicitly identified. In addition, a number of items appear in the invoices that may or may not have been intended for trade to Indians. Examples of these include playing cards, crystal drinking glasses, spelling books, soap, and shoes. Many of these types of items were probably intended for use by Euro-Americans, but at least some of them may have been trade items. Since t1 the priI entries each en trade t criteria documen‘ 3) the 1 did not 1east tI' 73 Since this study focuses upon trade goods obtained by Indians, one of the primary tasks in organizing the data was to segregate the trade good entries from the non-trade good entries in the invoices. To do this, each entry in the invoices was designated as either trade goods (for trade to Indians) or as supplies (for use by Euro-Americans). Three criteria were used to make the designations: 1) archaeological and documentary evidence, 2) the location of the entry in the invoice, and 3) the quantity of the item recorded in the entry. All three criteria did not necessarily apply to each entry, but usually a combination of at least two of the criteria played a part in making a designation. Archaeological and Documentary Evidence The first consideration was whether there was archaeological or documentary evidence to suggest that an item was a trade good. From an archaeological standpoint, if reported instances of the recovery of an item from French period Indians sites were found, it was considered evidence for designating the item a trade good. Preferably, such evidence came from sites in the western Great Lakes area (Quimby 1966b; Cleland 1971; Nern and Cleland 1974; Hittry 1963; Mainfort 1979; Mason 1986; Branstner 1984, 1985, 1986; Salzer and Birmingham 1981), but sites in other regions were consulted as well (Good 1972; Bradley 1987; Gibson 1980; Brown 1975). Similarly, the appearance of an item on French period trade lists in documentary sources was also taken as evidence for trade good status. Comparative lists specifically applicable to the western Great Lakes region are rare so lists for Hudson’s Bay Company POSts (Ray and Freeman 1978; Heidenreich and Ray 1976) and lists of 74 goods for the Illinois country were examined (Pease and Nerner 1934). Location of an Entry in the Invoice The position of an entry in the invoice was often a factor in designating an item as a trade good or as a supply. If the entry appeared in a list of goods whose purpose was specifically identified, such as those mentioned earlier, the designation was obvious. But there was also a tendency in the invoices, whether the specific purpose of some goods was identified or not, to group supplies and personal items together. The common pattern was for trade goods to be listed first in the invoice and for non-trade materials to follow. Thus, if an entry appeared in the latter part of an invoice surrounded by materials that were apparently supplies, it suggested that the entry in question was also a supply. By the same token, an entry appearing at the beginning of an invoice was more likely a trade good. The listing of goods by bales and by crates was virtually always done at the very beginning of the invoice. The contents of the bales and crates were heavily dominated by trade goods. If an entry was listed as part of the goods packed in a bale or in a crate, it suggested that the entry was a trade good. The inclusion of an item in a bale or crate was not, however, indisputable evidence that it was a trade good. For example, a bale shipped to Green Bay in 1725 contained such probable trade goods as: 42 tomahawks, 300 gunflints, 144 awls, and nine pounds of glass beads. However, the same bale also contained several items that were probably sMDplies, namely: one half-pound of sulpher, one half-pound of alum, two sticks of sealing wax, and 200 flooring nails. Consequently, the 75 presence of an item in a bale or crate was not taken as a definitive i ndication of its status as a trade good. Quantity of an Item I n some cases, the quantity of an item was also a clue in identifying it as a trade good. As a very general rule, trade goods tended to be purchased in large quantities. Again, this was not a hard and fast guideline. Vermilion, for example, a trade good that was included in most outfits, was often purchased in quantities of one pound or less. The purchase of large amounts of an item, however, especially in a number of different outfits, suggests that the item was intended for trade. Designating the items in the invoices as trade goods or as supplies presented essentially two problems. The first problem was with those goods that are comonly recognized as trade goods because of a"‘Chaeological or documentary evidence to that effect. In most cases, deS‘s‘lgnating these items as trade goods or as supplies was not difficult. The problem encountered in the invoices with these materials was the QUQStion of whether a specific entry was a trade good or a supply. Two exaIllples will help illustrate the problem and the manner in which these determinations were made. In an outfit for the Sioux post in 1731, axes were packed in three different crates. Twelve axes were placed in crate "°- 1 . eleven steel-edged axes and one Biscayan axe were placed in crate N°:2. and ten steel-edged axes and fourteen Biscayan axes were placed in crate No.3. The fact that axes were a cannon trade good is 76 well-documented in both the archaeological record and in the written record. Since these axes were packed in crates listed at the beginning of the invoice in lots of one or two dozen, they were designated as trade goods. Near the end of this same invoice, another entry for ”l axe, middle size," appears. This axe was listed among a group of materials that included a canoe, one kettle with a cover, and bark for butting. Since this was a single axe that was listed with what were apparently supplies for the trip, it was designated as a supply. In an outfit taken to Rainy Lake in 1743, the Giasson brothers purchased 59 capotes of different sizes. These capotes were all made of 093m (:1 0th and were listed at the beginning of the outfit. Capotes were long coats or cloaks, usually with hoods. They appear comonly among the trade goods in the MR invoices, along with other types of clothing. Ten blue capotes were recorded in a list of merchandise shipped to the 11 1 inois country in 1688 (Pease and Werner 1934). These 59 capotes were dESignated as trade goods. Later in the same invoice, two large capotes '“side of gad_i§ cloth were listed. Along with these capotes, two pairs of br‘eceches, two pairs of stockings, and two hats were recorded. The two capotes and the other clothing articles were judged to be personal items which the brothers bought for themselves, so they were designated as Suppl ies. The second problem was with those items in the invoices that are not coMonly recognized as trade goods. These are items for which dc“illllientary or archaeological evidence regarding their status as trade 9°°ds is lacking or inconclusive. To evaluate these items, the criteria 77 of location in the invoice and quantity had to be relied upon. Because these types of goods were not common in the invoices, there were fewer of these designations to make, but they were also more difficult. A1 though items such as playing cards, soap, and nails are not thought of as trade goods the way axes, kettles, and knives are, it would be remiss to dismiss the possibility out-of-hand that they could be trade goods. I n fact, the careful evaluation of these entries in the invoices presents an opportunity to contribute to our understanding of the types of European goods obtained by Indian peoples. Still, a conservative approach to the designation of these items was taken. Intuitively, many of‘ these items seem more likely to have been intended for use by Whites than as trade goods for Indians. The appearance of files and rasps in the invoices represents an example 0‘? this problem. These items were designated as trade goods but with some reservations. The main reason behind the decision to consider them as trade goods was the fact that files were traded by the Hudson’s Bay Company during the French period (Ray and Freeman 1978:128, 130). Hm"lever, files and rasps are not conlnon in the MR invoices and when they do appear, it is not in great numbers, nor does their position in the invoices tend to suggest strongly whether they are trade goods or supplies. But perhaps of more concern is the fact that archaeological evidence for files at French period Indian sites in the western country is extremely rare. No files or file fragments are reported from the Weber-t site (Good 1972), from the Lasanen site (Cleland 1971), or from the Bell site (Hittry 1963). One file fragment has been recovered from French period deposits at the Marquette Mission site (Branstner: 78 personal communication). Four triangular file fragments were reported from the Fletcher site, the dating of which spans the end of the French period and the beginning of the British period (Mainfort 1979). A single file fragment is also reported from Rock Island (Mason 1986), but it is unclear whether it was associated with French period deposits or with later deposits. On the other hand, 37 files were reported by Stone (1974:298) from excavations at Michilimackinac. He suggests that the specimens date to the period from 1740-1780 and that they were primarily of French use. The archaeological evidence, then, raises the possibility that files were transported to posts during the French period but that they were primarily for European use and were not commonly traded to Indians. Another item that represented an interesting problem in the identification of trade goods was playing cards. Decks of playing cards are not one of those items that are commonly understood to be trade goods. Yet playing cards appeared in at least one outfit for each of the eight posts under consideration, and in some cases they occurred in several outfits. Quantities varied markedly, ranging from two decks taken in an outfit to Detroit in 1737 to 4B decks in an outfit taken to Green Bay in 1724. Sometimes playing cards were packed in a bale with textiles and dry goods but there is a tendency for them to be listed among supplies in the invoices. It is also worth noting that in a British period bill of lading for goods sent to Michilimackinac in 1777, playing cards were included in eight different bales for a total of B4 decks of cards (Armour and Hidder 1978). If cards were traded to Indians, to what purpose did Indians put them? Here they used as gaming 79 pieces or were they perhaps used for decorative purposes? No mention of Indian use of playing cards has been found in the ethnohistorical literature. Further, the archaeological record offers no assistance in this problem since playing cards would not be preserved archaeologically. Taking all of these circumstances into account, playing cards were designated as a supply. It was decided that they were taken primarily for the use of the traders and their emplyees as well as for other Whites living at the posts. Of course, some decks of cards may have been traded to Indians and pending further evidence, it is believed that the possibility that cards were primarily a trade good is still open. The inventory model of trade goods compiled from the MMR invoices is presented in Appendix A. The inventory illustrates the numerous different varieties of goods that were traded. The data are presented in an informal item-type-variety system which is used simply as a descriptive format. The trade item is listed in the left-hand column and attributes of the item are listed under the headings: Type, Variety, Subvariety 1, and Subvariety 2. Inasmuch as possible, these headings were used to designate certain categories of attributes. Attributes of style, material, and shape were included under Type. Attributes of size, gender association, and weight were included under Variety. Color and use were recorded under Subvariety 1 and special purpose and origin were recorded under Subvariety 2. Appendix B provides a glossary which defines the terminology used in the inventory. In actual application in the study, only the Item level designations in 80 the inventory are used. In other words, as with the archaeological data, all types of knives are subsumed under the category ”knife." This was necessary in order to make the data more manageable and to facilitate comparison with the archaeological data. CHAPTER 6 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA An archaeological inventory model of the flow of European goods into Indian societies in the western Great Lakes region during the French period can be constructed from inventories of goods recovered from French period Indian sites in the region. In making use of the available data to compile an archaeological representation of trade goods, two factors were considered. First, an effort was made to include those sites which have produced the largest assemblages of goods so that most of the archaeological sample of goods for the region would be included. Second, the possibility that different types of goods may occur on different types of sites had to be taken into account. To address this possibility, data on trade goods were collected from both burial sites and habitation sites. Then, after the data from the sites were compiled and organized, the question of whether different types of goods occur on different types of sites is examined. The burial sites from which inventories of European goods were taken include the Lasanen site, the Gros Cap site and the Fletcher site. The habitation sites from which assemblages were taken include the Rock Island 11 site, the Marquette Mission site, the Bell site, the Summer Island 111 site, the Dunn Farm Plateau site, and the O’Neill site (Figure 9). These are all sites from which the data on trade goods have 81 82 «pasam mu_m Paquopowagus< a wgsm_m 83 been described so that the data are in a readily useable form. This chapter describes the process of compiling an inventory of trade goods from each of the sites. A brief description of each site from which data were drawn is given below. Following each site name, the source or sources from which artifact data from the site were compiled are cited. In addition, the locational and temporal information for the sites and components is summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Archaeological Sites: Dates and Locations Fletcher 1750-1765 Saginaw Bay region, MI. Bell 1715-1730 South—central WI. Dunn Farm Plateau 1699-1725 Northwestern MI. O’Neill 1670-1760 Northwestern M1. Lasanen 1670-1705 Straits of Mackinac, MI. Gros Cap 1670—1705 Straits of Mackinac, MI. Marquette Mission 1670-1705 Straits of Mackinac, MI. Summer Island 1650-1700 Northwestern Lake Michigan Rock Island 1642-1730 Northwestern Lake Michigan BQ£K_l§lind_ll_§11£ (Mason 1986) The Rock Island site is located on the southwestern shore of Rock Island Green the si occupa archae those Subsec site: Huron- 1760-] used 1 OCCUpg ”we 84 Island, one of the group of islands that stretches across the mouth of Green Bay in the northwest portion of Lake Michigan. Mason argues that the site is the location of an ethnohistorically-known sequence of occupations by aboriginal groups. The dating and interpretation of the archaeological deposits at the site are based upon the correlation of those deposits with the ethnohistorically-recorded occupations. Subsequently, Mason identifies and discusses four components at the site: a post-1641, pre-1650/51 Potawatomi occupation; a 1650/51-1653 Huron-Petun-Ottawa occupation; a 1670-1730 Potawatomi occupation; and a 1760-1770 Ottawa occupation. Data from the first three occupations are used in this study. The 1760-1770 Ottawa occupation is a British period occupation and no data from that component were used. Marquette Mission Site (Stone 1972; Fitting 1976, 1980; Branstner 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987) The Marquette Mission site is located in the city of St. Ignace, Michigan which lies on the north side of the Straits of Mackinac along the Lake Huron shore. Although the name suggests that this is a European site, it refers to a Huron-Ottawa village site occupied from 1671-1701 (Branstner 1984). The village was associated with a mission that was established by Father Jacques Marquette in 1671, thus the somewhat confusing application of the mission name to the aboriginal site. While Marquette’s mission probably was in the immediate vicinity of the Huron-Ottawa village, its location has never been conclusively determined (Branstner, in press). 85 firgs gap Cemetery Site (Nern and Cleland 1974) The Gros Cap site is located on the outskirts of St. Ignace, Michigan not far from the Marquette Mission site. The report by Nern and Cleland describes the Greenlees collection which is made up of artifacts recovered from the site over a period of years. The collection is comprised mainly of French period artifacts dating to the 1670-1705 period. Lasanen_§ite (Cleland 1971) , The Lasanen site is an aboriginal cemetery also located in St. Ignace, Michigan. The site dates to the 1670-1705 period, making it contemporary with the Marquette Mission site and the Gros Cap site. The dating of the cemetery may be even more circumscribed if it is indeed, as Cleland (Ibid.) suggests, the site of the burial ceremony witnessed by Cadillac between 1694 and 1697. Summer_lsland_111_§1te (Brose 1970) Summer Island is northern-most in the group of islands in Lake Michigan that stretches between the Door peninsula of Wisconsin and the Garden peninsula of Michigan. The Summer Island site is located on the northeast side of the island. Brose identified a protohistoric component at the site which he suggests dates to the 1650-1700 period. 86 Sell Site (Wittry 1963) The Bell site is located in east-central Wisconsin on the south shore of Big Lake Butte des Morts. Wittry argues that the site was a Fox village occupied from 1680-1730. It has also been argued by others, however, that the European artifacts from the site date to the latter portion of the occupation period. Stone (1971:84) suggests that the bead assemblage from the Bell site is not indicative of a late seventeeth century occupation but is much more compatible with an early eighteenth century occupation. Cleland (1972:207) also suggests that French influence at the site probably post-dates 1716. Dunn Eerm Eleteeg Site (Brose 1983) The Dunn Farm Plateau site is located in the northwestern portion of the lower peninsula of Michigan near the Lake Michigan shore. Brose recovered a small amount of European material from the site. He suggests that the site represents an occupation by a single extended family sometime during the period 1699-1725. £1etehe:_S1te (Mainfort 1979) The Fletcher site is a multicomponent site located on the banks of the Saginaw River in Bay City, Michigan. The aspect of the site that is of concern here is the French-British period cemetery which produced an extensive assemblage of European materials interred with the burials as grave goods. Mainfort suggests that the use of the cemetery began 87 sometime between 1740 and 1750 and continued until 1765 or slightly thereafter (1979:283). In a subsequent publication, he suggests that the dating for the site is 1750-1765 (1985:558). Although the dates for the cemetery extend into the British period, most of the years during which it was in use fall into the French period, so the decision was made to use the data from the site. Q’Neill Site (Lovis 1973) The O’Neill site is located in extreme northwestern lower Michigan on the shore of Lake Michigan. The site is predominantly a Late Woodland site that was occupied during the summer months by small, transient groups. The occurrence of a small number of trade goods attests to a late seventeenth or early eighteenth century occupation of the site. MW One of the problems in compiling archaeological data for comparison with the MMR data was in attempting to achieve as much temporal compatability between the two sets of data as possible. It may be noted in the descriptions of the sites, and in Table 5, that the sites do not all have some degree of temporal correspondence with the 1715-1760 period represented in the MMR data. The ideal situation, of course, would be to have archaeological data from sites whose occupations overlapped as precisely as possible with the temporal period circumscribed by the (iocumentary data. In the world of archaeological data, however, this is an unrealistic expectation. In fact, there are very few French period 88 Indian sites in the western Great Lakes region from which archaeological data are available whose occupations overlap even in part with the 1715-1760 period. Only the Bell site, the Dunn Farm Plateau site, the 1670-1730 component of the Rock Island site, and the Fletcher site have occupation spans which overlap with the 1715-1760 period. Further, some of the larger samples of archaeological materials from French period sites in the region are from sites that pre-date the 1715-1760 period, as in the case of the Marquette Mission site. In order to include as many of the major collections of French period archaeological material from the region as possible, assemblages from the entire span of the French period were incorporated into the study. The archaeological data were collected by compiling an inventory of the quantities of European goods present at each of the sites. One of the problems this presents is the question of which materials should be considered trade goods and which should not. Although there is a shared understanding of what is meant when the term "trade goods” is used in the literature, it is not a precise term that defines a specific body of materials. In fact, a number of types of European products occur on Indian sites that probably should not be considered trade goods. In initially recording the European materials from the sites, the question of trade good status was ignored. All materials of European origin were recorded. In most cases, identifying European goods is obvious, but with some materials it is not as clear-cut. In the literature, the question of European or Indian manufacture has been raised with regard to Micmac 89 pipes, catlinite artifacts, shell wampum beads, and other types of shell beads. The dilemma arises from the fact that these items were manufactured using metal tools, especially drills. But of course, Indian peoples could have obtained metal drills from Europeans and thus could have manufactured these items themselves. Ultimately, the decision was made to consider all of these items as European-made goods. While sensitive to the fact that attributing the manufacture of these items to Europeans might be considered a patronizing or even racist position to take, it can be Justified. There are a number of instances in the literature in which researchers who have worked with these materials have expressed the opinion that these items were predominantly of European manufacture. For example, Nern and Cleland (1974) comment that while some catlinite items were undoubtedly made by Indian peoples, most were probably made by Europeans. Good (1972) notes that there is evidence that Micmac pipes were made at Michilimackinac suggesting the European origin of that pipe style. Stone (1971) argues that the uniformity of the shell wampum beads from the Lasanen site indicates that they are of European manufacture. Further, it is significant that there are no reports of metal drills in the artifact assemblages from any French period aboriginal sites in the western Great Lakes region. Metal drills have been recovered, however, from French-period European sites such as Fort Michilimackinac (Stone 1974). Although it is likely that Micmac pipes, catlinite items, and shell beads were made by both Europeans and Indians, it would be difficult to 9O divide any one of these types of materials into European—made and Indian-made groups within an artifact assemblage. Instead, in order to be consistent, it is necessary to consider all of the artifacts in each category as either European-made or Indian-made. Based on the evidence discussed above, the decision was made to treat these items as European-made goods. Having made these determinations, an inventory of European-made materials was compiled for each of the sites. It is not necessarily the case, however, that all European-made materials should be considered trade goods. Consequently, some modification of the site inventories was done to produce inventories that contained only those goods considered to be trade goods. First, some materials were deleted from the inventories. A number of items of European construction hardware were recovered from the sites. While it is possible that such items were traded as curiosities or to be used for raw material, it is unlikely that these were standard trade goods. Further, at both the Marquette Mission site (Fitting 1976) and at the Rock Island site (Mason 1986), there is evidence that European structures which could have been the source of the hardware were located on the sites. As a result, all of the building hardware was deleted from the inventories. In addition, bale seals were also deleted from the inventories. Bale seals were attached to packages of trade goods but were not themselves a trade good (Adams 1989). A number of items appear in the inventories that are the result of 91 recycling European-made goods. That is, an object obtained in trade was altered or reformed to create a different object. The most common examples of this are the numerous different kinds of items made from kettle brass, such as tinkling cones, projectile points, and ornaments. These recycled items were not trade goods, rather, they represent the trade good from which they were recycled. Since the purpose here is to investigate trade goods, recycled items were treated as representing the goods from which they were made. Thus, brass items that were probably derived from kettles were inventoried as recycled kettle brass. Similarly, ornaments cut from silver bracelets were inventoried as recycled bracelet silver. Finally, some consolidation of the data in the archaeological inventories was done. This was necessary because the archaeological inventories and the MMR invoices often do not contain comparable levels of information about trade goods. As a result, the goods recorded in each data set are generally comparable at the "item” level of discrimination but it is frequently not possible to compare goods at the ”type" level. For example, a knife recovered from archaeological deposits may be identified as a clasp knife with a hawk bill-shaped blade. In the account invoices, however, knives may be described as ”bizallion' or 'siamese' and it is not always possible to distinguish clasp knives from sheath knives much less determine blade shape. Similarly, glass beads recovered archaeologically can be identified according to size, shape, color, and method of manufacture. In the account invoices, the description of beads is often minimal. Size is sometimes indicated but only in terms of large, small, or very small and 92 color is only occasionally recorded. In many cases, the descriptive detail achievable with archaeological materials is simply not available in the account books. For this reason, the goods in the inventories are distinguished only as different items but varieties of an item are not distinguished. All varieties of knives were subsumed under the item "knife” and all glass beads were subsumed under the item "glass bead." The one exception to this is the fact that all beads other than glass beads (shell, catlinite, metal) were recorded simply as ”beads." Organizing the data in this way focused attention upon the different functional kinds of goods that occur in each data set. Further, dealing with the goods on only an item level made the volume of data more manageable. To try and accommodate varieties of goods in the documentary data alone would have meant attempting to deal with hundreds and hundreds of varieties. With the completion of these modifications, a list of trade goods was produced for each of the sites. The individual lists of goods for each site are presented in Tables 6-14. The individual site inventories were then combined to produce an archaeological inventory model of trade goods in the western Great Lakes region during the French period. This inventory is presented in Appendix C. This inventory model is used for comparison with the documentary inventory model. After the inventories of trade goods from the sites were completed, a comparison was made of the combined inventory from the burial sites and the combined inventory from the habitation sites. This was done to 93 Table 6 Trade Goods from the Rock Island Site 1642-1730 Item Quantity 1. awl 12 2. ax 8 3. bead 73 4. bell 4 5. bottle glass 134 6. bracelet 12 7. braid 8. brooch 17 9. buckle l 10. ceramic sherd 17 ll. comb 2 12. copper mail 13. cross 1 14. disc 11 15. earring 1 16. effigy 4 17. file 1 18. finger ring 31 19. firesteel 9 20. fishhook 7 21. glass bead 1289 22. gun part 16 23. gunflint 181 24. hawkbell 2 25. iron, recycled 2 26. jew’s harp 1 27. kettle part 373 28. recycled kettle brass 157 29. knife 76 30. medallion 1 31. mirror glass 51 32. pendant 5 33. pipe 25 34. projectile point 2 35. scissors 1 36. shot 31 37. thimble 1 38. wire fragment 17 94 Table 7 Trade Goods from the Summer Island Site 1650-17OO tem anntity 1. awl 3 2. bead 18 3. finger ring 1 4. fishhook 1 5. glass bead 49 6. gunflint l 7. hawkbell 1 8. kettle part 1 9. recycled kettle brass 9 IO. knife 2 11. musketball 3 12. needle 1 l3. thimble l 14. wire fragment 1 95 Table 8 Trade Goods from the Marquette Mission Site 1670-1705 Item Quantity 1. awl 69 2. ax 3 3. bead 872 4. bottle 1 5. bottle glass 99 6. bracelet 4 7. buckle 2 8. button 5 9. ceramic sherd 6 10. chisel 1 ll. clothing eye 1 12. copper mail 13. crucifix 8 14. dagger 2 15. die 1 l6. disc 3 17. dividers 1 18. effigy 9 l9. ember tongs l 20. finger ring 79 21. firesteel 12 22. fishhook 14 23. glass bead 6126 24. gun part 26 25. gunflint 143 26. harpoon 2 27. hawkbell 17 28. ice chisel l 29. iron, recycled 8 30. kettle 1 31. kettle part 748 32. recycled kettle brass 558 33. knife 96 34. medallion 2 35. musketball 14 36. needle 73 37. pendant 79 38. pin 20 39. pipe 38 40. projectile point 16 41. punch 2 42. shot 157 43. sinker 6 44. sword 4 45. thimble 1 46. vermilion 47. wire fragment 154 96 Table 9 Trade Goods from the Gros Cap Site 1670-1705 4m. awl ax . bead . bowl bracelet . braid . comb . copper mail . dividers 10. effigy 11. finger ring 1 12. firesteel 13. fork 14. glass bead 15. gorget 16. gun part 17. gunflint 18. hair puller l9. hawkbell 20. kettle part 21. recycled kettle brass l 22. knife 23. needle 24. pendant 25. pipe 26. projectile point 27. runtee c N N NH-hNN "' OWNOMhWNt—I m to N N wHNmH‘Ofi-FJIU‘U'IHHONHOQH 97 Table 10 Trade Goods from the Lasanen Site 1670-1705 tem Quantity 1. awl 4 2. bead 14,435 3. box 1 4. bracelet 2 5. button 47 6. cloth 7. comb 1 8. c0pper mail 9. cross 1 10. effigy 3 11. ember tongs 1 12. finger ring 28 13. firesteel 2 14. glass bead 7213 15. gorget l 16. graphite l7. gunflint 18. harpoon 19. hawkbell 20. recycled kettle brass 21. knife 22. medallion 23. pail 24. pendant 25. pipe 26. projectile point 27. runtee 28. scissors 29. sword NN Huouwowwhmmr—m b—I 98 Table 11 Trade Goods from the O’Neill Site ca. 1670—1760 tem Quantity 1. earring 1 2. glass bead 4 3. gunflint 3 4. recycled kettle brass 3 5. knife 2 99 Table 12 Trade Goods from the Dunn Farm Plateau Site 1699-1725 tem Quentity l. bead 22 2. brooch l 3. button 2 4. finger ring 1 5. glass bead 206 6. gunflint l 7. kettle part 2 8. recycled kettle brass 2 9. pot 1 10. projectile point 1 11. shot 7 100 Table 13 Trade Goods from the Bell Site 1715-1730 tem . awl . ax bead bottle glass bracelet braid . button . finger ring . firesteel 10. glass bead ll. gun part 12. gunflint l3. hawkbell 14. hoe 15. jew’s harp 16. kettle part 17. recycled kettled brass 18. knife 19. mirror glass 20. musketball 21. needle 22. pipe 23. thimble omwmman—a I—i N u—o o—n—Iwomwu—Imi—t HNto-h-h E H as H NA Hume-ammo covenant-um.— 101 Table 14 Trade Goods from the Fletcher Site 1750-1765 . hairpipe 3 tem Quantity . armband 11 . awl l6 . ax 8 . bead 1128 bell 6 bottle 4 bowl 4 bracelet 44 recycled bracelet silver 29 . brooch 46 . button 6 . chest hardware 8 . cloth . comb . 3 . cross 21 . crucifix 1 . cup 3 . earring 18 . effigy 1 . finger ring 75 . firesteel 50 . fishhook l . fork 1 . glass bead 54,242 . gorget 4 . gouge 6 . gun 2 . gun part 12 . gunflint 46 . hair puller 10 Jim Quantity . harpoon 1 . hawkbell 46 . headband l . ice creeper 1 . kettle 37 . recycled kettle brass . knife . ladle . locket . mattock . medallion . mirror glass . mug . pendant . pike . pipe . pipe tomahawk . pistol . pot hook . projectile point . razor . scissors . scraper . spontoon . spoon . sword . tankard . thimble . trap . vermilion 311 65 H HNHHGHNO‘met-‘HJDMWHNHHHo—I b—l 102 determine whether different inventories of goods occur on burial sites and habitation sites. This comparison is presented in Table 15. All of the types of goods recovered from all of the archaeological sites are listed. Then, the presence or absence of each type of good at burial sites and at habitation sites is indicated. In this way, Table 15 identifies types of goods that appear only at burial sites, types of goods that appear only at habitation sites, and types of goods that appear at both burial and habitation sites. It is apparent that there is a substantial number of types of goods that occur at only one type of site or the other. Thirty-two types of goods, or thirty-five percent, appear only on burial sites. Twenty types of goods, or twenty—two percent, appear only on habitation sites. Thirty-nine types of goods, or forty-three percent, appear on both types of sites. Clearly, there are substantial contrasts in the inventories of goods from burial sites and habitation sites. This comparison demonstrates the importance of including inventories of goods from both burial sites and habitation sites in any attempt to compile an archaeological inventory of goods for the region. 103 Table 15 Presence/Absence for Burial and Habitation Sites Burial Habitation Burial Habitation new .flfle §flei he; fifle: fine: armband X harpoon X X awl X X hawkbell X X ax X X headband X bead X X hoe X bell X X ice chisel X bottle X X ice creeper X bottle glass X iron, recycled X bowl X jew’s harp X box X kettle X X bracelet X X kettle part X X recycled bracelet silver X recycled kettle brass X X braid X X knife X X brooch X X ladle X buckle X locket X button X X mattock X ceramic sherd X medallion X X chest hardware X mirror glass X X chisel X mug X cloth X musketball X clothing eye X needle X X comb X X pail X copper mail X X pendant X X cross X X pike X crucifix X X pin X cup X pipe X X dagger X pipe tomahawk X die X pistol X disc X pot X dividers X X pot hook X earring X X projectile point X X effigy X X punch X ember tongs X X razor X file X runtee X finger ring X X scissors X X firesteel X X scraper X fishhook X X shot X fork X sinker X glass bead X X spontoon X gorget X spoon X gouge X sword X X graphite X tankard X gun X thimble X X gun part X X trap X gunflint X X vermilion X X hair puller X wire fragment X hairpipe X N-nberof'mlnqparhgonlymmS'u: 32 Nuberofiaquear'ngonlyonflabifionsu 20 N-fierof'uI-qpeuigonm-flflabhfionaiea: 39 This inver Lake: the t lndil tYPE: lnfou effo: to u: as be Cate! CHAPTER 7 COMPARISON OF THE INVENTORY MODELS This chapter examines the way the archaeological and the documentary inventory models represent the flow of goods into the western Great Lakes region during the French period. Much of the analysis is done on the basis of functional categories rather than on the basis of individual types of goods. Dealing with the large number of individual types of goods is cumbersome, but more importantly, it is a less informative and less satisfying way of looking at the data. In an effort to identify the activities represented by the types of goods and to understand the purposes for which Indian peoples saw European goods as being useful, the types of goods were organized into functional categories. First, the range of types of goods traded is examined as represented by each of the two inventory models. Then, functional categories are defined and the two inventories are examined to see if they record different functional categories of goods. Finally, in an effort to understand the differential emphasis that Indian peoples placed on European goods, a detailed investigation is made of the way each of the inventories portrays variability in the trade for different functional categories of goods. 104 105 !he Range of Types of Goods Trgded Table 16 presents an alphabetical listing of the documentary inventory of goods. Table 17 presents an alphabetical listing of the archaeological inventory of goods. The most striking aspect of the two inventories is the degree of contrast in the types of goods they contain. Each inventory contains approximately as many types of goods that are exclusive to that inventory as it does types of goods that are common with the other inventory. To look at the differences between the inventories, lists of the goods exclusive to each inventory were compiled. For both inventories, the list of exclusive goods includes every item that does not specifically appear on the other inventory. In other words, for these lists, items that could be considered to represent one another, such as a clothing eye in the archaeological inventory and articles of clothing in the documentary inventory, were still placed upon the lists of exclusive goods. The question of archaeological correlates of goods in the documentary inventory will be discussed further in a later section. Out of a total of eighty-six types of goods in the documentary inventory, forty-two, or forty-nine percent, do not appear in the archaeological inventory. Table 18 lists the types of goods exclusive to the documentary inventory. The appearance of most of the types of goods on this list can be attributed to the fact that the materials in the documentary inventory are not subject to the processes of I deterioration that affect the archaeological record. In Table 18, the goods are organized into perishable and durable groups in order to magma-thump.- Table 16 adze awl ax azure bayonet bead bell black lead blanket brandy . breeches . brooch . brush . buckle . button . cap . capote . cloth . comb . dagger . dart . dress . dress suit . fan . file . finger ring . firesteel . fishhook . fishing line . fork . garter . gartering . glass bead . glove . gown . gun . gunflint . gunpowder . gunsheath . gunworm . hair puller . handkerchief . hat 106 Documentary Inventory of Goods . hawk bell . hoe . ice chisel . jew’s harp . kettle . knife . laces . ladle . legging . mantelet . mirror . mitten . musketball . necklace . needle . net . pickaxe . pin . pipe . pistol . powder horn . rasp . runtee . scarf . scissors . shawl . shirt . shoe . shot . sleeve . spoon . stocking . thimble . thread . tobacco . tomahawk . trim . tuque . verdigris . vermilion . wine . wire . yarn OWNO‘M-fl-uaN—a OONO‘thNt—o 107 Table 17 Archaeological Inventory of Goods . armband . awl . ax . bead . bell . bottle . bottle glass bowl . box . bracelet . recycled bracelet silver . braid . brooch . buckle . button . ceramic sherd . chest hardware . chisel . cloth . clothing eye . comb . copper mail . cross . crucifix . cup . dagger . die . disc . dividers . earring . effigy . ember tongs . file . finger ring . firesteel . fishhook . fork . glass bead . gorget . gouge . graphite . gun . gun part . gunflint . hair puller . hairpipe . harpoon . hawkbell . headband . hoe . ice chisel . ice creeper . iron, recycled . jew’s harp . kettle . kettle part . recycled kettle brass . knife . ladle . locket . mattock . medallion . mirror glass . mug . musketball . needle . pail . pendant . pike . pipe . pipe tomahawk . pistol . pot . pot hook . projectile point . punch . razor . runtee . scissors . scraper . shot . sinker . spontoon . spoon . sword . tankard . thimble . trap . vermilion . wire fragment OQNOMbWNa—I Table 18 PERISHABLE Item . azure . blanket . brandy . breeches . cap . capote . dress . dress suit fishing line . garter . gartering . glove . gown . gunpowder . gun sheath . handkerchief . hat . laces . legging . mantelet . mitten . net . scarf . shawl . shirt . sleeve . stocking . thread . tobacco . tuque . verdigris . wine . yarn 108 Goods Exclusive to the Documentary Inventory Quantity 3 lb. 2,499 1,709 gallon 42 237 1,441 12 6 39 lb. 262 pair piece 56 pair 14,966 lb. pair 378 22 pair 1 206 6 12 3,874 1,621 pair 128 pair 1,078 lb. 745 skein 4 bundle 6,316 lb. 5 10 lb. 712 gallon 264 lb. fathom DQNOMwaa—n DURABLE Item Qgentity . adze 10 bayonet 78 brush 12 fan 10 gunworm 2,671 necklace 288 powder horn 4 rasp 39 shoe 125 pair 109 illustrate the predominance of perishable items. Fans and brushes were included as durable items because they may have had bone handles which could survive archaeologically. Shoes were also placed with the durable goods because they may have had metal buckles or eyelets. It is also possible, however, that these goods would be more appropriately placed in the perishable category. Further, while bayonets are not listed in the archaeological inventory, swords are. It is possible that some archaeologically recovered sword fragments actually represent bayonets. Also, files and rasps appear in the documentary inventory but only files appear in the archaeological inventory. The inclusion of rasps in the list of goods exclusive to the documentary inventory may be mainly a matter of a semantic distinction that is not commonly made in archaeological assemblages. It may be that the list of durable goods exclusive to the documentary record could be even shorter which would emphasize the importance of perishability even more as the factor that accounts for most of the goods that appear in the documentary inventory but not in the archaeological inventory. Thirty-three of the types of goods exclusive to the documentary inventory can be considered perishable items and nine types can be considered durable goods. The most conspicuous feature of the list is the number of clothing and textile items; twenty-five of the thirty-three perishable items are clothing or textile goods. This suggests that the representation of the importance of this category of goods may be seriously affected by the preservation bias of the archaeological record. 110 Of the ninety-one types of goods in the archaeological inventory, forty-two types, or forty-six percent, do not appear in the documentary inventory. Table 19 lists the goods exclusive to the archaeological record. This list of goods is more difficult to explain than the corresponding list for the documentary record. Unlike the situation with the documentary record, there does not seem to be a single, predominating factor that accounts for most of the goods that are exclusive to the archaeological record. The list includes five types of goods made of trade silver: armbands, bracelets, earrings, gorgets, and headbands. All of the silver items were recovered from the Fletcher site. As noted in the discussions of the individual sites, the Fletcher site is the latest of the sites from which data were taken. The period during which the cemetery was in use - from approximately 1750 to 1765 - extends through the close of the French period, which ended in 1760, and into the beginning of the British period. Trade silver was principally a British period trade good and is diagnostic of the post-1760 era (Quimby 1966b:91). The appearance of silver articles in the archaeological inventory and not in the documentary inventory may be due in part to temporal disparity between the two data sets. Most of the MMR data are pre-1750. It is possible that the silver items from the Fletcher site post-date 1760 and are associated with the last few years of the use of cemetery. But some trade silver does appear in French period archaeological deposits. It may be that traders acquired silver items directly from the craftsman rather than from merchants which would preclude the appearance of silver in the MMR invoices. 111 Table 19 Goods Exclusive to the Archaeological Inventory Item n it . armband 11 bottle 5 bottle glass 235 bowl 5 box 1 bracelet 65 recycled bracelet silver 29 ceramic sherd 23 chest hardware ‘ 8 10. chisel l 11. clothing eye 1 12. copper mail 13. cross 2 l4. crucifix 15. cup 16. die 17. disc 18. dividers 19. earring 20. effigy 21. ember tongs 22. gorget 23. gouge 24. hair pipe 25. harpoon 26. headband 27. ice creeper 28. iron, recycled 1 29. locket 30. medallion 31. mug 32. pail 33. pendant 9 34. pike 35. pipe tomahawk 36. pot 37. pot hook 38. punch 39. razor 40. scraper 41. sinker 42. spontoon 43. sword 44. tankard 45. trap OQNOIU'I-tht—I NNt—o HHO'OD-‘ONWNWHHM‘OHHNHOHH-hwmmNMON-DHOOD“ Three nedall ohtair source that i India' items do no goods this their catl- trad- Monti the Ther mate arch °Ccu Obta abUn docu the inte It i 112 Three types of goods listed in Table 19 - crosses, crucifixes, and medallions - were associated with religious influence and were probably obtained from missionaries. These goods were apparently obtained from sources other than the merchants. The effigies, gorgets, and pendants that appear in the list are goods that were made from materials known to Indian peoples in North America, especially catlinite and shell. These items, however, were probably manufactured by Europeans and, since they do not appear in the documentary inventory, they apparently were not goods that were shipped by the Montreal suppliers. Most of the items in this category are effigies and pendants made of catlinite. Based on their absence in the MMR invoices, it is possible that the production of catlinite items for trade developed as a kind of cottage industry at the trading posts. This would have saved shipping catlinite all the way to Montreal to be worked when the posts were much closer to the source of the stone in southwestern Minnesota. There does not seem to be a common element among the remainder of the materials that helps explain their presence exclusively in the archaeological inventory. Many of the items included in this category occur in small quantities which suggests that they were not commonly obtained by native peoples. Ceramics, for example, are among the most abundant materials found on Eurooean sites, but their absence in the documentary inventory and the recovery of only twenty-three sherds from the aboriginal sites, is strong evidence that Indian peoples had little interest in obtaining European ceramics. It is likely, however, that some of these small-quantity items were shi tha Fre sym pre the of and fit In; SL195 Noni thai Furi trac She] hate made 113 shipped to the western country as trade goods. But it is also possible that a number of these items were originally personal posessions of French traders or soldiers and that Indian peoples obtained them as gifts or through opportunistic trade. For example, the use of pikes as symbols of rank was discontinued by the French military in 1758. The presence of these items on late French period Indian sites may have been the result of the French military either trading or giving their stock of obsolete pikes to native peoples (Brain 1979:158). The fact that the Fletcher site is the only site in the sample at which pikes were found, and that it is the only site that dates to the end of the French period, fits well with this interpretation. In summary, the list of goods exclusive to the archaeological record suggests that there was a substantial number of types of goods obtained by Indian peoples that did not come from the main merchant suppliers in Montreal. Many of these items occur in small numbers which suggests that they were probably novelties rather than stock trade items. Further, many of these goods are probably evidence of opportunistic trade that went on between Indians and Europeans. The catlinite and shell items also suggest that goods manufactured from traditional materials were produced for the trade and that these items may have been made at the posts rather than in Montreal. WW Functional categories were defined in the following manner. First, the types of goods in both the archaeological and the documentary 114 inventories were combined and the duplicates from the two inventories were deleted. This produced a single, comprehensive inventory of goods from the two data sets. This total inventory consisted of one hundred and thirty types of trade goods. This list was then used in identifying functional categories. In this way, categories were defined without specific reference to one inventory or the other. In attributing function, it was assumed that the goods were used for the purposes intended by the European manufacturers of the goods. The primary objective in the identification of categories was to create a valid representation of the functional diversity in the inventory. This resulted in the definition of the following fourteen categories: Clothing, Hunting, Cooking and Eating, Drinking, Tobacco Use, Weapons, Woodworking, Adornment, Grooming, Digging/Cultivation, Fishing, Maintenance, Storage, and Amusements. The process of organizing materials into categories always forces certain choices to be made. One of the problems encountered in assigning goods to categories was the question of whether firearms should be included in the Hunting category or in the Weapons category. The assumption was made that firearms were probably used more routinely for hunting and were used as weapons more sporadically, so they were included in the Hunting category. A comment is also necessary regarding bottles and bottle glass in the Drinking category. Certainly these items belong in this category, but it is unlikely that they are good archaeological correlates for alcohol 115 consumption. In the MMR invoices, alcohol was virtually always packaged in kegs. Only rarely are bottles of liquor mentioned and these seem to have been for the personal use of the trader. This puts the validity of bottle glass as an archaeological correlate for the trade in alcohol in question. Bottle glass may represent a minor aspect of the trade in alcohol such as occasions when a trader bartered some of his personal stock. Based upon the MMR evidence for the use of kegs, it would seem that barrel hoops might be a more likely correlate of alcohol. Barrel hoops, however, are not reported on French period Indian sites in the western Great Lakes region. It is possible that they occur in archaeological assemblages but are unrecognizable as anything but scrap metal. Eregegeelebsegce ef Qategories inggech Inventory Once the categories were defined, the types of goods in each inventory were organized according to the categories. Then, the categories were examined to see if any of them were made up solely of goods exclusive to the archaeological inventory or solely of goods exclusive to the documentary inventory. If functional categories exclusive to one inventory or the other were present, it would suggest that different activities were represented by the two inventories. Table 20 lists the archaeological inventory of goods according to functional category and Table 21 lists the documentary inventory of goods according to functional category. Interestingly, there is only one category that is present in one of the inventories but not the Table 20 Trade Goods by Functional Category: Archaeological Inventory 116 1 1 °.11§1 . ia- . giaiii . 1 I a §111111111 . gs _ [ape tomahawk 111%: .. 1111 .. 1111311511111111111121 211 iliilrifi 1331 a 1 11121 31% 11111 1111111111111: mentary Inventory Table 21 Trade Goods by Functional Category: Docu 117 11131111 . 1111 1 TH 1211111151111111112111111111311111115. ... 1111H1fl 11111 151 . 118 other; this is the Storage category which contains only archaeological inventory goods. It is worth noting that this single, unshared category is a minor category of goods. The Storage category is comprised of a single metal box from the Lasanen site and eight pieces of chest hardware from the Fletcher site. Small chests called cassettes appear in the MMR invoices but they are sold to traders for their personal use. The existence of the Storage category may be a product of the occasional trading of personal items to Indian peoples. In general, however, the presence/ absence comparison of functional categories indicates that although each inventory contains a number of types of goods that are exclusive to it, the two inventories are very consistent in the range of activities that they represent. ygriability in Tragg The archaeological and documentary inventories each provide a picture of the way Indian consumption of the functional categories of goods varied. Hhat patterns of variation does each inventory indicate among the categories of goods and how do they compare? Addressing this question is not as straight-forward as it might seem. This is because variation is expressed in the two inventories in ways that are not necessarily directly comparable. As a result, variation in the inventories is looked at in several ways. First, the relative number of types of goods in the functional categories is compared between the inventories. Then, quantities of goods in functional categories is considered. Difficulties with quantities in the documei archae invent examir goods Looki type: quit: cate 61th betw ther invs Coni Clo. dig] the The 17W arc Cat “Um 119 documentary inventory leads to a comparison between quantities in the archaeological inventory and trader expenditure in the documentary inventory. Next relative frequency of trade among categories is examined. Finally, the archaeological representation of categories of goods at burial sites versus habitation sites is considered. Numbers of Types of Goods in Functional Categories Looking at the relative size of the categories based upon the number of types of goods they contain, many of the corresponding categories are quite similar between the two inventories. In terms of the fourteen categories that the two inventories represent, ten of them contain either an identical number of types of goods or have a difference between them of one or two types of goods. In the Woodworking category, there is a difference of three types of goods between the two inventories. This leaves three categories which have more substantial contrasts in the number of types of goods they contain: Adornment, Clothing, and Cooking and Eating. Overall, however, the inventories display considerable agreement in the way categories are represented by the number of types of goods they contain. The Adornment category and the Cooking and Eating category are both larger in the archaeological inventory than in the documentary inventory. The Adornment category is the largest category in the archaeological inventory. In the documentary inventory, the Adornment category is one of the larger categories but it contains only half the number of types of goods as the archaeological Adornment category. Cooki conta docun Adoi Chai Tiie '3ar Vvas anc The bet in 11H 3"! Qt: 120 Cooking and Eating is the second largest archaeological category and it contains well over twice the number of types of goods that appear in the documentary Cooking and Eating category. Obviously, the archaeological Adornment category and the Cooking and Eating category contain items which the corresponding categories in the documentary inventory do not. And by the same token, the documentary Clothing category contains items which the archaeological Clothing category does not. This is illustrated in Tables 22 and 23 which show the goods exclusive to each inventory arranged in functional categories. The documentary Clothing category in Table 23 is comprised of perishable clothing and textile items. Table 22 demonstrates that it was mainly Adornment items and Cooking and Eating items that were obtained through channels other than the main supply system from Montreal. The Clothing category in the documentary inventory is nearly three times larger than the Clothing category in the archaeological inventory. As was seen in the list of goods exclusive to the documentary inventory (Table 18), this is due to the presence of numerous perishable clothing and textile items which do not appear in the archaeological inventory. The disparity in the Clothing category is the most striking contrast between the two inventories. Not only are there numerous types of goods in the documentary inventory Clothing category, but Table 18 indicates that many of these goods were large quantity items. In the archaeological record, on the other hand, clothing remains such as buttons, buckles, clothing eyes, and textile fragments occur in small quantities (Table 19). The archaeological evidence suggests that Stomouno .aco.uu::e an Stoucm>c~ pmotmo.ommco;< oz“ 0» m>.m:~oxm whoow whats mm mNQQK 121 pasvaugua. .31: mutant: assfilssea :5 (than .axa mflflduuldw. .Jmmmmw mnmmflanmmmm aldmmu .522:— mfimwwmmmmw _ o— In! .ia‘sgfiz ixaxl ..- v at [I all. “Blauziu 0!!- 22 E .8538 303»... in in 8585 8. .339 ea. 9:. tea. :5; 98.11:: mmnmmdannnmm wmaaflmfl mmfiHmuu uzagqazu _ummafl. mafidemu damfildau xsommuau pmcopuucam an zsoacm>=m paupmcpomazug< as» o» m>_m=puxu «coca munch Nu u—nmh 1.- 111111111111 2 ill-n3 813.:- 11 hLomwuwu pmcomuuczu Xe ALOucm>c~ NLMQCQEDUOQ mt» an m>fim=~uxm whoow mbmks MN QNQmK ntory by Functional Category Inve Documentary the T able 23 Trade Goods Exclusive to 122 1.. 11 11 11511111111111111111111115 a 11 11.. 1- 123 buttons and other materials that could serve as archaeological correlates were little used in making trade clothing. As a result, these goods have very low archaeological visibility. Quantities of Goods Next, an attempt was made to compare quantities of goods in the two inventories. Table 24 lists the quantities of goods in the archaeological inventory. Except for a few items which are indicated only as present, quantities of goods are measured are by count. This allows the goods to be listed in ranked order according to quantity. Table 25 lists the quantities of goods in the documentary record. In this case, rank ordering goods according to quantity presents a problem because the goods are measured in several different units. Arranging pounds of gunpowder, gallons of wine, and number of awls in ranked order is not feasible. However, in order to generate a list generally comparative to the archaeological list, the documentary inventory goods are listed in ranked order according to their numerical quantity value regardless of the unit in which they were measured. The multiple units of measure in the documentary inventory prevent a systematic comparison of functional categories on the basis of quantities of goods. Total quantities of goods in each category can be computed for the archaeological inventory but not for the documentary inventory. Still, the relative quantities of goods in the two inventories is certainly of archaeological interest. Consequently, Table 26 compares quantities of goods in the archaeological and omwmmawN—n 124 Table 24 Archaeological Inventory: Quantities of Goods Item Quantity glass bead 70,142 bead 16,581 kettle 38 kettle part 1289 recycled kettle brass 1239 . gunflint 397 knife 297 bottle 5 bottle glass 235 finger ring 233 . shot 195 . wire frag. 172 . awl 120 . hawkbell 101 . pendant 99 . pipe 85 . needle 78 . firesteel 75 . bracelet 65 . recycled bracelet silver 29 . brooch 64 . mirror glass 63 . button 61 . gun part 60 . ax 25 : effigy 25 . ceramic sherd 23 . cross . 23 . fishhook 23 . projectile point 22 . thimble 21 . earring 20 pin 20 . musketball l8 . hair puller 15 . disc 14 . runtee 13 . armband ll . bell 10 . iron, recycled 10 . crucifix 9 . comb 8 . scissors 8 . chest hardware 8 . medallion 7 . gorget 6 Item . gouge . sinker . spoon . sword . bowl . pike . pot hook . harpoon . buckle . cup . fork . hairpipe . razor . dagger . dividers . gun . Jew’s harp . punch . scraper . ember tongs . box . chisel . die . clothing eye . file . headband . hoe . ice chisel . ice creeper . ladle . locket . mattock . mug . pail . pipe tomahawk . pistol . pot . spontoon . tankard . trap . braid . cloth . copper mail . graphite . vermilion E l—u—u-u—u—u—u-u—oHHHHHHHH—n—u—u—mmmmmmwwwwwwhmmmmmmm DQNOm-tht—I Table 25 1m . gunflint knife needle pin gunpowder cloth shot finger ring awl musketball . tobacco . hawk bell . shirt . bead . gunworm . blanket . firesteel . comb . kettle . brandy . sleeve . mirror . ax . capote . tomahawk . thread . legging . glass bead . wine . pipe . vermilion . ice chisel . button . mantelet . hoe . trim . necklace . buckle . runtee . yarn . gartering . garter Documentary Inventory: 9mm 41,640 28,390 26,934 15,072 14,966 13,384 12,920 9,004 8,426 6,851 6,316 3,924 85 3,874 3,185 2,671 2,499 2,220 2,028 1,975 34 1,709 1,621 1,562 1,509 1,441 1,304 1,078 745 4 817 725 288 712 654 505 426 388 378 366 317 135 4 1 288 284 264 264 263 262 lb. ell lb. lb. lb. bundle lb. gallon pair lb. skein bundle pair lb. gallon lb. ell piece lb. carton lb. piece pair 125 Quantities of Goods 1t_eb . gun . cap . scissors . fishhook . gunsheath . net . thimble . handkerchief . dagger . dart . wire . stocking . shoe . hat . file . Jew’s harp . bayonet . glove . breeches . fishing line . hair puller . fork . pickaxe . laces . mitten . pistol . gown . brush . dress . shawl . spoon . adze . fan . verdigris . rasp . bell . dress suit . scarf . tuque . powder horn . azure . ladle . brooch . black lead Quentin 238 237 235 Ho—Io—nI—IthIO‘O’iOi bundle fathom lb. pair pair bundle pair lb. lb. lb. bundle lb. bundle Archaeological and Documentary Inventories Table 26 Comparison of Quantities in Functional Categories between 126 i i ii :41 a ,‘3 saggsaga'"3 24 817 378 22 26,934 [5 m CLQIEEELQQ!.IE%E§ sun-ummn 78 20 a 2 21 Esliliniimsiiz is. i.§‘ . iii 1 ages usaagg =‘223=s= ON “'— 0 O i i n u- - E O a» a g "1 . M 0 423603 3 fl — ssxhnozanggw~n§--~ 2' 16,581 lumuumuun: In!!! dgmagmu: 8133: * lannlmiefléfihmiiii u all .a 3 E a... w on...- _ E... u 835 833.: a: .1. _ .819 R. a 52.... .387... 83 m« .a c E... but... 2 a... 83: 2 169.!- a 3 _ 358. :0." luck-In 5 ...-Sal. a 3... 8.2.8.... 33 1:11.. 3.: :3 Jul. 8 .5... 8 :1. I. u i and n In 3 _ .8...— g m 9a.. B. u 88... 2. 88?. a _ 21.! w Ix... S I... 3&8. .- 2n. 883 m ...... .... 3...... 2i _ .... '3 a 2i _ 1.. a3 _ I... _ _ I! an. 5 a] 82 :1 8!. a cast... .88 .3 up... .82. . 8.. 9. an 88.. a 8 n ...... e a. a. 188.... a 8.! .2! n .3 .... ...: 2 glee m: «a m 33 3 a 3252 mag 319 sz< a @2558 A.c.»=ouv oN opaah 128 documentary inventories according to functional categories. All types of goods from both inventories are listed in each category. Then the quantity of the item in each inventory is listed. In listing quantities in Table 26, however, adjustments were made in some of the quantity values for goods in the documentary inventory. The problem that the documentary inventory presents is that there are several types of goods that could be quantified by count, but in the MMR invoices, they were quantified in some other unit of measure. These goods include glass beads, kettles, shot, hawkbells, needles, pins, musketballs, hair pullers, files, rasps, and brooches. It would be much more informative for the sake of comparison with the archaeological inventory if these goods were quantified by count. Toward this end, the quantities given for these goods in the MMR invoices were converted into estimates of quantities by count. Brief descriptions follow of how the estimated quantities were determined. The original unit of measure used in the MMR invoices is indicated in parentheses in the heading for each description. In addition, Table 27 summarizes the information on the conversion of quantities. It lists the goods for which conversions were done, the units of measure in which they were originally quantified in the invoices, and the estimated count calculated for the unit of measure. Glass Beads (livres, or French pounds) An estimate of the number of glass beads per 111:; was obtained by weighing a sample of beads recovered from the Fletcher site. (The French pound or 111:; of the period equalled 489.41 grams [Ross Item Brooches Files & Rasps Fishhooks Glass Beads Hair Pullers_ Hawkbells Kettles Musketballs Needles Pins Shot 129 Table 27 Quantity Estimates W I bundle - 50 brooches l bundle - 5 files or rasps 1 bundle - 100 fishhooks 1 liyrg - 4,721 beads l liyrg - 55 hair pullers 1 bundle - 48 bells average kettle weight (AKH) - 3.5 lbs. total liyrgs divided by AKH - # of kettles l liyrg - 28 musketballs 1 packet . 250 needles 1 paper - 500 pins 1 liygg - 810 shot 130 1983:58]; a rounded off equivalent of 489.5 grams was used in these calculations.) The biggest problem in making this estimate is that beads varied so much in size. Yet the MMR invoices gave no precise size description of beads. Oftentimes, no indication of size was given, or at best, beads were sometimes described using terms such as ”large" or "very small.“ Consequently, a sample of 50 seed beads and nine different types of necklace beads were weighed. The estimated number of seed beads per livre and the estimated number of necklace beads per liyrg were then averaged and that figure was used to convert all invoice entries for liyrgs of beads into numbers of beads. The sample of 50 seed beads weighed 2.7 grams. This resulted in an estimate of 9065 beads per liygg. The nine necklace beads ranged from 1.0 grams to 2.4 grams. This produced a mean weight of 1.3 grams which results in an estimate of 377 beads per liyrg. Averaging the figure for seed beads and the figure for necklace beads produces an estimate of 4721 beads per 1.1m. Kettles (livres) The problem in converting 111:2; of kettles into numbers of kettles is in determining the size of an average kettle. Traders reported that Indians preferred smaller kettles which were easier to handle, but what was meant by “smaller“ is not clear. Hheeler et al. (1975) describe a nested set of seventeen brass kettles recovered from the Granite River in northern Minnesota. The kettles were still largely intact so that relatively accurate dimensions, volumes, and weights could be determined. The kettles are not of French period vintage; the authors sugges centu‘ group kettl repor kettl authc part‘ The l aver. kett The to 1 at ; fFor wejE eSt.‘ and wej, The fer C0". 131 suggest they were manufactured in the latter part of the eighteenth century or even the early part of the nineteenth century. Still, this group of kettles provides an unusual opportunity to determine an average kettle size from a range of kettles. Table 1 in Appendix three of their report lists the seventeen kettles and their attributes. The median kettle in the distribution weighs three pounds, eight ounces. In the authors’ comments they do not indicate that this kettle was in a partially deteriorated condition as they do for some of the kettles. The weight of this kettle was used as an estimate for the weight of an average kettle and this figure was then used to convert liyrgs of kettles in the invoices into numbers of kettles. Shot (livres) The problem with converting livres of shot to numbers of shot is similar to that with beads: shot came in a number of different sizes. To arrive at an estimate of the average number of shot per liyrg, a sample of shot from the archaeological materials recovered from Fort Ouiatenon was weighed. Fort Ouiatenon was located in northwestern Indiana. It was established by the French in 1717, taken over by the British in 1760, and abandoned in 1791. Five samples of shot of different sizes were weighed. The largest shot produced an estimate of 377 shot per liyrg. The smallest size produced an estimate of 1127 shot per liyre. The mean for the five samples was 810 shot per liyrg. This figure was used to convert ljyggs of shot into numbers of shot. 132 Musketballs (livres) Hamilton (1980:128) reports that the standard French trade gun bores were 32 and 28 calibre. The calibre value refers to the size of the musketball the weapon fired based upon the number of balls per liyre (Ibid.:125). The more conservative figure - 28 balls to the ljvrg - was used to convert livres of musketballs to numbers of musketballs. Pins (papers) Gerin-Lajoie (MMR Project Files 1971-1975) notes that according to contemporary sources, papers of pins in the eighteenth century usually contained 500 pins. This figure was used to estimate numbers of pins. Needles (packets) An invoice in the MMR recorded by Pierre Guy (M851, vol. 18, p. 175) in 1743 contains an entry for ten packets of needles for a total of 2500 needles. This indicates that there were 250 needles in a packet. This figure was used to estimate numbers of needles. Hawkbells (bundles) In the MMR invoices, hawkbells were sometimes sold by numbers of bells and sometimes by the bundle. An average number of bells per bundle was calculated by first determining the average cost of individual bells of different sizes and then dividing the cost of the bundles by that 133 figure. This produced an average number of 54 bells per bundle. Hhen hawkbells were not listed by the bundle, however, they were virtually always sold by the dozen. There is a difference of only six bells between the calculated number of bells per bundle and four dozen bells per bundle. Consequently, a bundle of hawkbells was estimated to contain four dozen bells. Files and Rasps (bundles) An estimate of the number of files or rasps per bundle was determined in the same way that it was for hawkbells. Invoice entries that listed numbers of files or rasps were used to calculate an average price for an individual file or rasp. The price of a bundle was then divided by this figure. This produced an estimate of five files or rasps in a bundle. Hair Pullers (livres) To arrive at an estimate of the number of hair pullers per liyrg, a sample of six hair pullers from the Fletcher site was weighed. The sample produced a range in weight from 7.7 grams to 11.9 grams. Based on these weights, the corresponding range in estimated numbers of hair pullers per 111:; was 41 to 76. The mean value was 55. This figure was used to convert ljyrgs of hair pullers into numbers of hair pullers. 134 Fishhooks (bundles) The number of fishhooks per bundle was estimated in the same way that it was done for files, rasps, and hawkbells. An average price per individual fishhook was determined using invoice entries in which a specified quantity of fishhooks were listed. This price was then used to determine the number of fishhooks in a bundle. This produced an estimate of 100 fishhooks per bundle. Brooches (bundle) No information could be found that could help determine an estimate of the number of brooches in a bundle. Brooches are, very roughly, similar to hawkbells in size. An estimate of 54 hawkbells per bundle was originally calculated which was then revised to 48 or four dozen. On this less than ideal basis, brooches were estimated at 50 per bundle. Only one bundle of brooches appears in the MMR invoices so the use of this estimate has a minor impact on the quantitative relationship between types of goods. An examination of Table 26 reveals some interesting contrasts. For example, in the documentary inventory, shot and musketballs are two of the three largest quantity figures in the inventory. Yet in the archaeological inventory, shot, and especially musketballs, are not among the goods with the largest quantity values. Hhile further comparison of quantities cannot be done with the functional categories, comparison of quantities of individual types of goods which occur in 135 both inventories can be carried out. There are forty-three types of goods that are present in both inventories. Table 28 presents a comparison of the goods common to each inventory. In the left-hand column, the goods from the archaeological inventory are listed in ranked order according to quantity. In the right-hand column, the goods from the documentary inventory are listed in ranked order according to quantity. Those types of goods for which estimated quantities are given are indicated. Some of the items in the group of common goods had to be omitted from further comparison. Several items in the archaeological inventory which are not quantified were deleted. This included braid/trim, cloth, graphite/black lead, and vermilion. In addition, wire is quantified as fragments in the archaeological inventory and it is quantified by weight in the documentary inventory. Since there is no reasonable way to convert pounds of wire into fragments of wire, it was also deleted. r c P orti ns Te t Obviously, the magnitude of the quantities in the two groups are very different. But, the quantities of the goods in each group may represent similar proportions of the total quantity of their respective group. To examine this possibility, the percentage that each type of good represents of the total for its group was calculated. The percentage that each type of good represents in its respective inventory is given in Table 29 in the Documentary Percentage column and in the Archaeological percentage column. In the case of shot, glass beads, and NH 136 Table 28 Comparison of Goods Common to the Archaeological and Documentary Inventories Archaeological Inventory . glass bead . bead 3. kettle kettle part recycled kettle brass . gunflint . knife . finger ring . shot . awl hawk bell . pipe . needle . firesteel . brooch . mirror glass . gun & gun part . button . ax . fishhook . projectile point . thimble pin . musketball . hair puller . runtee . bell . comb . scissors . spoon . buckle . fork . dagger . jew’s harp . file . hoe . ice chisel . ladle . mattock . pistol . braid . cloth . graphite . vermilion . wire 70,142 16,581 38 1,289 1,239 397 297 233 195 120 HHHHHHNNwwmmm spooumma-wwm * estimated quantity cument n r . shot 10,465,200 . glass bead 3,423,603 . musketball 191,828 . gunflint 41,640 . knife 28,390 . needle 26,934 . pin 15,072 . finger ring 9,004 . awl 8,426 hawk bell 7,980 . bead 3,185 . ax a tomahawk 2,813 . firesteel 2,220 . hair puller 2,097 . comb 2,028 . mirror glass 1,562 . pipe 654 . kettle 643 . ice chisel 426 . button 388 . hoe 366 . fishhook 325 . buckle 284 . runtee 264 . gun 238 . scissors 235 . thimble 200 . dagger 186 . dart (projectile point) 153 . file 115 . jew’s harp 79 . brooch 51 . fork 30 . pickaxe (mattock) 26 . pistol 20 . spoon 12 . bell 6 . ladle 1 . trim (braid) . cloth . black lead (graphite) . vermilion . wire 137 Table 29 Difference of Proportions Test: Archaeological vs. Documentary Goods I 111151 ARCH ARCH noc DOC 11:01 - DECISION 005nm 91 005mm 96 smns'nc owl 120 .1352 0426 .0592 9.25 tq'ect ml 6: 25 .0201 2013 .0190 1.75 m to mm 0.0 16.501 10.6009 3105 .0224 1493.00 rq'ect ml ml 10 .0113 6 .00004 33.03 rqiect ml brooch 64 .0121 51 .0004 76.20 reiect ml men. 3 .0034 204 .0020 .93 1.11 m rq'eu Intu- 61 .0607 300 .0027 35.11 rq'cct ml 66-0 0 .0090 2020 .0142 -1.30 1.0 to nice! dagger 2 .0023 106 .0013 .03 m m rq'ect ”56:01. puma 22 .0240 153 .0011 20.26 mm ml E0 1 .0011 115 .0000 .03 m m nice! one m. 233 .2625 9004 .0632 23.34 reject ml 1 m 15 .0045 2220 .0156 16.11 reject ml m 23 .0259 325 .0023 14.30 reject ml 1m 3 .0034 30 .0002 2.24 rq'ect ml I I .1... 0.0 70,142 79.0252 3,423,603 24.0400 300.25 reject ml I [gm/.- pm 62 .0699 230 .0017 34.50 reject ml [pain 397 .4413 41,640 .2925 0.50 115000 ml I ' 1m: pals 15 .0169 2091 .0141 .54 1.11 to nae: J W 101 .1134 7900 .0561 7.17 rqiect ml hoe 1 .0011 366 .0026 -.00 m to réect I 1:. can 1 .0011 426 .0030 .104 tail to 11500! jew’l mm 2 .0023 19 .0006 2.10 reject ml I kite 297 3346 20,390 .1994 0.90 reject ml Me 1 .0011 1 .000001 9.94 "5661 ml munch/puma 1 .0011 26 .00010 2.14 reject ml nil-1w 63 .0710 1562 .0110 16.76 mm ml um 10 .0203 191,020 1.3475 .3429 reject ml man. 70 .0079 26,934 .1092 .6.94 reject ml .1... 05 .0950 654 .0046 37.04 reject ml .1- 20 .0225 15,072 .1059 -7.64 rqiect ml in: 1 .0011 20 .00014 2.5263 reject ml m 13 .0146 264 .0019 0.64 reject ml 0630011 0 .0090 235 .0017 5.29 «56cc ml mo: 195 .2197 10,465,200 13.5120 490.64 reject ml J mom 6 .0060 12 .00000 19.20 reject ml FM 21 .0237 200 .0014 17.02 rdect ml 138 heads, there are dramatic contrasts in the percentage of the total that these goods represent in the two groups. But for many of the other types of goods on the lists, the similarity or contrast in the proportions they represent is less clear. To test whether the proportions represented by the goods in one inventory are significantly different from those in the other inventory, a difference of proportions test can be used (Blalock 1979). The null hypothesis for the test states that there is no significant difference between the proportion of total quantity that a given type of good represents in the documentary group and the proportion of total quantity it represents in the archaeological group. Table 29 gives the quantity of each item in each group and the percentage of total quantity that each item in each group represents. Then the computed test statistic for the difference of proportions test is given. To attain a 95% confidence level, the test statistic must be greater than -1.96 or less than 1.96. The Decision column in Table 29 indicates whether or not the null hypothesis could be rejected. Failure to reject the null hypothesis indicates that there is no significant difference between the proportion of total quantity represented by a given type of good in the documentary group versus the proportion it represents in the archaeological group. Table 29 indicates that only eight of the thirty-seven types of goods represent similar proportions of total quantity in the two groups. The difference of proportions test demonstrates that, in terms of quantity, variation among types of goods is substantially different in the two inventories. A contributing factor in this outcome may be the fact that, in each group, a very small number of types of goods comprises a 139 ‘very high proportion of the total quantity for the group. In the documentary inventory group, shot, glass beads, and musketballs make up 99% of the total number of goods. In the archaeological inventory group, glass beads and beads make up 98% of the total. This results in the other goods in the groups having very small proportional values. Difference in Rank Test Although the difference of proportions test indicates a substantial contrast in the proportions represented by quantities of goods in the two inventories, Table 28 reveals that, on an impressionistic basis, many types of goods occupy a similar position in the ranked order list for each inventory. The validity of this impression can be tested using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Hammond and McCullagh 1980). The null hypothesis for the test states that there is no relationship between the ranked order list of goods from the archaeological inventory and the ranked order list of goods from the documentary inventory. A coefficient value of zero would indicate no relationship between the two ranked order lists; a coefficient value of +1 would indicate perfect agreement between the lists. The coefficient value computed for the two lists is .736. This indicates a positive correlation between the ranked order of goods in the two lists and allows the null hypothesis to be rejected. The difference in rank test demonstrates that although the quantities of goods in the two inventories are not proportionately similar, the ranked order of goods based on magnitude of quantity is similar.in spite of the contrasts between the two lists indicated by the difference of proportions test, they are statistically similar in terms 140 of'ranked order based on relative magnitude of quantity. Although the rank correlation test indicates that the ranked order lists from the two inventories are generally similar, it is the contrasts between the two lists that are especially interesting. In the documentary inventory, three of the top four items are firearms—related goods: shot, musketballs, and gunflints. Shot is far and away the most numerous item in the documentary list, out-numbering even glass beads three to one. Musketballs are third on the list and gunflints are fourth. In the archaeological list, however, of these three types of goods, only gunflints appear among the top four goods, ranking in fourth position. Gunflints out-number both shot, which is in seventh position, and musketballs, which fall all the way to twenty-second position. One would expect that far larger numbers of shot and musketballs would be expended than gunflints in the use of firearms and thus larger numbers of those items would be traded. In use, however, musketballs and shot were distributed over the landscape while gunflints could be saved and used with firesteels once they were no longer serviceable for firearms. This would produce a greater likelihood that gunflints would be recovered archaeologically. Further, the size differential between gunflints and shot especially, but also between gunflints and musketballs, is sufficient that if recovery techniques designed to retrieve small objects were not used in excavation, it would select against the recovery of shot and musketballs. The documentary list indicates that shot and musketballs were indeed obtained in much larger numbers than gunflints, which in turn indicates that shot and musketballs are markedly under-represented in archaeological 141 assemblages. The fact that shot outnumbers glass beads by a wide margin in the documentary inventory is also eye-opening from an archaeological standpoint. In the archaeological inventory, beads are far and away the most numerous item, which is commonly the case on historical period Indian sites. Clearly, both of these items were traded in large numbers. They are also both small items that would be susceptible to loss. Yet beads are found on sites by the thousands while there are less than 200 pieces of shot in the archaeological inventory. The striking contrast in the relationship between shot and beads in the documentary inventory versus the relationship between shot and beads in the archaeological inventory is a matter of use and deposition. Shot was an expendable item that was distributed far and wide during use. Beadwork, on the other hand, was done in a domestic setting making the likelihood of archaeological recovery of lost beads fairly high. The inclusion of beads in burials also contributed to the probability of archaeological recovery. T r n t r Although the numerous kinds of units in which quantity was measured in the MMR invoices created problems with comparison, the invoices do quantify goods in another unit of measurement that is common to all types of goods. That unit of measurement is trader expenditure. In each entry in the invoices, the cost of the goods was recorded in livres, 521;, and denigrs. All types of goods in the documentary 142 inventory, then, can be quantified on the basis of the amount the trader invested in them. Trader expenditure for goods recorded in the MMR offers a comparative view of goods that moved through the trade system. Total trader expenditure for each type of good was computed from the entries in each invoice. Then, the percentage of total expenditure represented by each type of trade good was calculated. These figures are presented in Table 30. These percentage figures could then be summed for all types of goods in each functional category to determine the percentage of expenditure represented by each category. The relationships between categories indicated by the percentage of trader expenditure was then compared to the relationships between categories indicated by percentage of trade good quantity in the archaeological inventory. This comparison is shown in Table 31. Clearly, the main difference between these views of the flow of goods through the system is the contrast between the Clothing category and the Adornment category. The archaeological inventory is heavily dominated by the Adornment category which is, of course, a function of the huge numbers of beads recovered archaeologically. The documentary inventory, on the other hand, suggests the strong importance of the Clothing category. This reflects the heavy expenditure on the part of the trader for finished clothing as well as for bolt cloth and the implements and accessories that went into making clothing. Although the categories commanding the largest frequency percentage in the two inventories are different, how do the two inventories compare overall in the representation of the categories? To address this ONNOM4thH 143 Table 30 Percentage of Total Expenditure .ax Item % of Exoend. . cloth 29.0606 . blanket 10.3871 . gunpowder 9 3172 . capote 6 5363 . shirt 5 7687 . brandy 3 8906 . kettle 3 0453 . shot 2 7843 . gun 2 4427 . knife 2 4425 . mantelet 2 1770 . sleeve 2 1330 . vermilion 2 0972 . legging 1 8834 . tobacco l 7476 1 6833 . musketball 1 4543 . tomahawk 1 0010 . thread .9659 . wine .9526 . glass bead .6468 . trim .6099 . gartering .5220 . yarn .5042 . mirror .4581 . stocking .4020 . cap .3377 . ice chisel .3032 . necklace .2768 . shoe .2761 . hawk bell .2535 . comb .2410 . wire .2295 . hat .2012 . dagger .1924 . finger ring .1907 . needle .1898 . bead .1629 . gunsheath .1592 . firesteel .1533 . gunflint .1395 . handkerchief .1366 . hoe .1251 Item % of Expand. . awl .1241 . pipe .0920 . gunworm .0908 . breeches .0902 . pistol .0826 . dress suit .0807 . dart .0801 . garter .0774 . scissors .0770 . runtee .0747 . buckle .0651 . pin .0579 . hair puller .0533 . file .0453 . bayonet .0431 . gown .0431 . dress .0366 . glove .0357 . button .0320 . pickaxe .0289 . fishing line .0217 . adze .0215 . net .0197 . shawl 0191 . verdigris 0180 . mitten 0162 . rasp 0135 . scarf 0130 . thimble 0119 . jew’s harp .0103 . tuque .0096 . fishhook .0050 . fork .0042 . bell .0040 . azure .0038 . laces .0036 . fan .0028 . powder horn .0027 . spoon .0027 . brooch .0012 . black lead .0011 . brush .0011 . ladle .0007 144 Table 31 Comparison of Documentary Expenditure and Archaeological Quantity Percentage of Percentage of Expenditure: Quantity: NC ONA AT GORY Documentary ' CLOTHING 62.85% .34% HUNTING 17.00% .94% COOKING a EATING 5.65% 3.30% DRINKING 4.84% .26% ADORNMENT 3.73% 94.90% TOBACCO USE 1.84% .09% HOODHORKING 1.70% .04% HEAPONS 1.32% .02% GROOMING .75% .10% OIGGING 8 CULTIVATION .15% .002% MAINTENANCE .06% .001% FISHING .05% .04% AMUSEMENTS .01% . 003% STORAGE .01% 145 question, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient can be used to test the similarity in the ranked order of categories for the two inventories. The coefficient value obtained is .814, indicating a strong positive correlation between the two ranked order lists. This indicates that in spite of the differences between the Adornment and Clothing categories, there is a great deal of similarity in the way the two inventories represent the relationships between the categories. Rate of frequency The MMR provide an opportunity to examine whether some types of goods were traded on a more frequent basis than others. If a given type of good was traded on a very frequent basis, this would be reflected in the MMR invoices by the fact that the trader purchased it frequently. By the same token, a type of good that was traded only occasionally would be purchased less frequently. The logistical cycle of re-supplying the interior posts generally took place on a yearly basis. Fresh goods and supplies were taken into the interior during the warm weather months each year. The precise temporal control provided by the dated MMR invoices allows a view of the ,year-to-year shipment of goods to the posts. Using this information, the frequency at which goods were traded can be measured according to the number of years they were shipped to the posts. Looking back at Table 2, we can see that forty-nine single year shipments of goods were recorded for the eight posts. This means that 146 the rate of frequency at which a given type of trade good was shipped into the western Great Lakes region could be measured on a scale from one to forty-nine. The question that can be posed, then, is: how were the different types of goods distributed across the range of frequencies? A frequency value was determined for each type of trade good by counting the number of years it was shipped to the posts. For example, axes were shipped to Green Bay in eleven out of eleven years, to Nipigon in three out of three years, to the Sioux post in four out of four years, to Rainy Lake six out of six years, to Detroit in three out of nine years, to Michipicoten in one out of one year, to Ouiatenon in three out of five years, and to Michilimackinac in four out of ten years. The frequency value for axes, then, is thirty-five, which is the number of years out of the possible forty-nine in which they were shipped to the eight posts. In this manner, frequency values were calculated for all eighty-six types of goods. The next question was, how could frequency be expressed for a whole category rather than for an individual type of good? He can think of the inventory of goods as having a possible total frequency value. If all types of goods had been shipped every year, then the total possible frequency value is the product of the number of types of goods multiplied by the total number of years (86 x 49 - 2214). Of course, all types of goods were not shipped every year, so an actual total frequency value for the inventory can be obtained by totaling the actual frequency values for all types of goods (1543). A frequency value for each 147 functional category can be obtained, then, by totaling the frequency values for each type of good in each category. This figure can be expressed as a percentage of total frequency by dividing it by the total actual frequency value for the inventory. For example, the total of the frequency values for all goods in the Clothing category is 616. ‘ Dividing this by the total actual frequency value (1543) and multiplying by 100 produces a frequency percentage of 39.9%. In this way, the relative frequency of trade represented by categories could be compared. The percentage frequencies are listed in Table 32. For purposes of comparison, the rate of frequency at which goods were traded cannot be measured archaeologically. But the frequency at which types of goods appear on sites can be measured. Hhile this does not measure rate of frequency in the way that was done with the documentary data, it does provide a basis for comparison between the two inventories. A frequency percentage value was obtained for the functional categories in the same way that it was done for the documentary data. First, a frequency value was determined for each type of good based upon the number of sites at which it occurred. These values were sumed to produce a total frequency value for the inventory. Then, the sum of the frequency values for the goods in each category was divided by the total frequency value. This produced a frequency percentage value for each category. 'Table 32 presents the frequency percentage values for the categories. 148 Table 32 Comparison of Documentary Frequency and Archaeological Frequency Frequency of Frequency of Trade %: Occurence %: EUNCTIONAL CATEGORY Documentary Arghagologjcal CLOTHING 39.9% 13.7% HUNTING 18.1% 12.5% ADORNMENT 10.6% 32.9% COOKING & EATING 7.5% 19.2% GROOMING 5.3% 3.9% DRINKING 4.6% 2.0% TOBACCO USE 4.2% 2.7% HEAPONS 3.3% 2.7% HOODHORKING 2.5% 3.9% OIGGING 8 CULTIVATION 1.6% .8% MAINTENANCE 1.2% .4% FISHING .58% 3.1% AMUSEMENTS .52% 1.2% STORAGE .8% 149 These may be compared with the frequency percentage values for the documentary inventory. The archaeological inventory indicates that Adornment category goods occur most frequently at sites, while the documentary inventory indicates that Clothing category goods were traded most frequently. The predominance of the Clothing category in the documentary inventory and the predominance of the Adornment category in the archaeological inventory is consistent with the results of the previous comparison of quantity in the archaeological inventory with expenditure in the documentary inventory. Here too, a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was conducted to examine the overall similarity or contrast between the way the categories are represented by each inventory. The test produced a coefficient value of .794, indicating a positive correlation between the two ranked order lists of categories. As with the comparison between documentary expenditure and archaeological quantity, the two inventories display considerable agreement in the representation of the relationships between the categories. Daria] Sites vs. Habitation Sites In Chapter 6, it was demonstrated that some types of goods in the archaeological inventory occur exclusively on either burial sites or habitation sites. The question that needs to be addressed is whether the inventories from burial sites and habitation sites are significantly different in the way they represent functional categories of goods. And further, is there a different relationship between the documentary 150 inventory and the burial site inventory or between the documentary inventory and the habitation site inventory than there is between the documentary inventory and the archaeological inventory as a whole? Let us look first at the way the burial site inventory compares to the habitation site inventory in representing the functional categories. This comparison was carried out similar to the way the comparisons described above between the archaeological and the documentary inventories were carried out. First, the two inventories were compared on the basis of the percentage of quantities of goods in functional categories. The percentage figures are presented in Table 33. Then a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test was performed to compare the degree of agreement between the ranked order of categories for each invetory. This produced a test value of .785, indicating a positive correlation between the two lists of categories. The same procedure was carried out to compare the two inventories on the basis of the frequency of occurrence of functional categories of goods on sites. Frequency percentages were obtained in the same way described above for the archaeological inventory as a whole. These figures are presented in Table 34. Then, the ranked order of the categories was compared using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The coefficient value that resulted is .739 indicating a positive correlation between the two ranked order lists. These comparisons suggest that at least in terms of the way the functional categories are represented, there is a substantial degree of 151 Table 33 Comparison of Habitation and Burial Sites: EDNQTIQNAL DATEGOR! ADORNMENT COOKING & EATING HUNTING DRINKING CLOTHING TOBACCO USE GROOMING FISHING HOOOHORKING HEAPONS AMUSEMENTS OIGGING & CULTIVATION MAINTENANCE STORAGE Quantities of Goods PERCENTAGE ON HABIIATIDN §IIE§ 70.86% 18.07% 6.15% PERCENTAGE ON S 98.80% .86% .10% .005% .13% .03% .04% .004% .02% .01% .001% .01% 152 Table 34 Comparison of Habitation and Burial Sites: Frequency of Goods PERCENTAGE ON PERCENTAGE ON EDNCTIONAL CATEGORY HABITATION SITES DDBIAL SITES ADORNMENT 29.71% 36.75% COOKING & EATING 18.84% 19.66% HUNTING 15.94% 8.55% CLOTHING 15.22% 11.97% HOODHORKING 4.35% 3.42% FISHING 3.62% 2.56% DRINKING 2.90% .85% GROOMING 2.17% 5.98% TOBACCO USE 2.17% 3.42% AMUSEMENTS 2.17% HEAPONS 1.45% 4.27% OIGGING G CULTIVATION .72% .85% MAINTENANCE .72% STORAGE 1.71% 153 concordance between the burial and the habitation inventories. This would lead one to suspect that using an archaeological inventory of goods taken either exclusively from burial sites or exclusively from habitation sites would not make a substantial difference in the comparison of functional categories of goods from archaeological and documentary inventories. This prospect can be tested by making the same comparisons between the burial site inventory and the documentary inventory and between the habitation site inventory and the documentary inventory as were made between the archaeological inventory as a whole and the documentary inventory. This comparison was set up in much the same way as the comparison between the total archaeological inventory and the documentary inventory. For the sake of economy, the reader is referred to the description of that comparison as a guide to the way this comparison was carried out. Suffice it to say here that the burial site inventory and the documentary inventory were compared in two ways. First, the documentary inventory categories ranked according to expenditure for goods were compared to the burial site inventory categories ranked according to quantity of goods. Then, the documentary inventory categories ranked according to rate of frequency of trade were compared to the burial site inventory categories ranked according to frequency of occurrence of goods on sites. The same set of comparisons were also conducted between the habitation site inventory and the documentary inventory. .As in the other comparisons, the similarity of the ranked order lists was examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The comparison of documentary inventory categories ranked by expenditure wit pro doc 900 the ran qua com fre cat Dost klnc the Sim' sig, exc‘ hab‘ Ups Cate fun: for the 154 with habitation site inventory categories ranked by quantities of goods produced a correlation coefficient value of .836. The comparison of documentary inventory categories ranked by rate of frequency at which goods were traded with habitation site inventory categories ranked by the frequency of occurrence of goods on sites produced a coefficient value of .726. The comparison of documentary inventory categories ranked by expenditure with burial site inventory categories ranked by quantities of goods produced a coefficient value of .739. The comparison of documentary inventory categories ranked by rate of frequency at which goods were traded with burial site inventory categories ranked by frequency of occurrence of goods on sites produced a coefficient value of .810. All of the coefficient values indicate a positive correlation between the archaeological inventories of both kinds and the documentary inventory. The analysis demonstrates that on the basis of ranked ordering of functional categories, the degree of similarity between the archaeological and documentary inventories is not significantly altered if the archaeological inventory is composed either exclusively of data from burial sites or exclusively of data from habitation sites. The analysis suggests, in other words, that the two types of sites record similar relationships between functional categories of goods. Implications of the patterned relationships among functional categories observed in archaeological and documentary data ‘for understanding Indian adaptation to the fur trade are considered in the following chapter. Arc C00 8109 arc per empht data vest Atth Euro occa the this trad DGFS An It archa CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS Archaeological research on historical period Indian sites has contributed to our understanding of the adoption of European trade goods by Indian peoples. It is argued, however, that a clear picture cannot emerge without examining documentary data in conjunction with archaeological data. Importantly, the two data sets present different perspectives on trade goods and offer different information. This study emphasizes examining the way that both archaeological and documentary data represent the flow of goods through the trade system into the western Great Lakes region during the French period. Although the archaeological literature makes reference to the flow of European goods into Indian societies, this mainly takes the form of occasioanl comments and observations. An archaeological perspective on the issue has not been articulated in detail. One of the objectives of this study was to systematically examine archaeological data regarding trade goods in the western Great Lakes region. The archaeological perspective could then be examined in relation to documentary data. .An important element of the approach used in this study is that the archaeological and documentary inventories of trade goods were examined on the basis of functional categories of goods. Using functional 155 156 categories allows numerous individual types of goods to be organized into a more informative framework and also helps clarify the range of purposes for which trade goods were used. Interestingly, although the archaeological and documentary inventories each include a substantial number of types of goods which the other inventory does not, the differences in types of goods did not require markedly different sets of functional categories to be constructed. The two data sets could be accommodated by virtually the same set of categories; only one category was created that did not contain goods from both inventories. The differences between the inventories are not a matter of the representation of completely different categories. Instead, the differences are a matter of the way the inventories represent the categories. The main contrast in the archaeological and documentary inventories is the representation of the Clothing category. The documentary inventory suggests that clothing and textiles were primary goods in the trade. The archaeological inventory, however, does not impart the same importance to the Clothing category. The discrepancy between the two inventories is a matter of preservation bias in the archaeological record. Clothing related artifacts do appear in the archaeological inventory and even cloth is present in the archaeological record. But these materials do not convey the importance of cloth in the trade suggested by the documentary inventory. It was stated at the beginning of the study that one of the expectations 157 of the documentary record was that it would provide a record of perishable goods that the archaeological record would not. This is an obvious expectation, but it is important that the documentary record can make explicit statements about the effects of preservation bias. In this case, this is clearly a very important role of the documentary record. It reveals that perishable goods in general, and cloth and clothing in particular, were mainstays of the trade. Perishable goods, by virtue of their need for replenishment, generated more constant demand. The trade in cloth and clothing, and other perishable commodities, was, to a considerable extent, the impetus that drove the fur trade. In contrast to the emphasis on the Clothing category indicated by the documentary inventory, the archaeological data indicate a primary emphasis on the Adornment category. An important factor in the archaeological emphasis on Adornment is the huge numbers of beads that are found on Indian sites. On the basis of sheer numbers, beads commonly account for a very high percentage of the total number of artifacts in any given assemblage. Beads are not the only factor involved, however. The archaeological Adornment category includes more types of items than the documentary Adornment category. The archaeological record documents the fact that Adornment items were obtained through sources other than the merchant- trader supply system. Hhat is more, Adornment items were the single most numerous type of items obtained through other sources. Of the forty-five types of goods that are exclusive to the archaeological 158 inventory, more of those goods are Adornment items than any other type. The archaeological inventory suggests the importance of Adornment items in the trade. This perspective is certainly influenced by the huge numbers of beads recovered from archaeological sites. It might be argued that this factor causes the archaeological perspective to exaggerate the importance of the category. However, as was discussed above, numbers of beads is not the only aspect of the archaeological inventory that points to the importance of the Adornment category. Importantly, the archaeological record documents numerous types of adornment items that do not appear in the MMR invoices. Thus the archaeological inventory provides a view of the importance of adornment items that is not conveyed by the documentary inventory. Although the archaeological and documentary inventories present varying views of the emphasis on the Clothing and Adornment categories, it is equally important that the two inventories display general consistency in the overall representation of the relationships between the categories. The examination of the ranked order listings of categories for the two inventories indicated that the inventories were in substantial agreement concerning the relative emphasis on categories. In other words, both inventories were generally in agreement about which categories were major categories and which categories were minor categories. Referring back to the ranked order listings of categories for both inventories, it can be suggested that the Clothing, Hunting, Adornment, 159 and Cooking and Eating categories tend to be the top four categories. Storage, Maintenance, and Amusements tend to be among the last four categories. In the documentary inventory, Fishing is the other category I among the last four. In the archaeological inventory, Digging and Cultivation is the other category among the last four. Grooming, Drinking, woodworking, Tobacco Use, and Heapons tend to be the middle group of categories, joined by Digging and Cultivation in the documentary inventory, and by Fishing in the archaeological inventory. The consistency in the relationships among the categories indicated by both inventories suggests patterns in the way Indian peoples traded for different types of European goods. These patterns, it is suggested, have implications for understanding Indian adoption of European technology and the impact it had upon native societies. glgth and Elgthigg The most striking result of the analysis is the strong emphasis on cloth and clothing across the region. The MMR data suggest that these categories were a major focus of native trading. This observation has implications for understanding the part that native women played in the fur trade. Access to ready-made clothing, bolt cloth and blankets, along with iron awls, pins, needles, and thread probably reduced the amount of time and labor that women had to invest in the production of clothing. It seems likely that women probably had considerable input into the decision about the types of goods to be obtained in trade. Further, the savings in time and labor could have been reinvested in the 160 production of clothing in the form of time spent adorning articles of attire with beadwork. Or it could have been invested in endeavors associated with the fur trade, such as the processing of pelts or the production of other trade commodities such as garden produce. If the trade in clothing and textiles reduced the domestic labor requirements for women and allowed them to become more involved in activities related to the trade, it may have had an important impact on women’s roles in historical period Indian societies. Sgbsjstence The main impact of European trade goods upon native subsistence appears to have been the use of firearms in hunting. The strong emphasis on the Hunting category translates into a strong emphasis on the firearms complex which dominates that category. Of course, the extent to which firearms were used as weapons is, of course, a factor in interpreting the emphasis on this category. Firearms were included in the Hunting category rather than the Heapons category based on the assumption that they were more routinely used as hunting tools. There is little evidence in the archaeological and documentary inventories that can shed light on this question. In the MMR invoices, shot commands more expenditure than musketballs which might suggest an emphasis on hunting over warfare, especially small game hunting, but this is speculative. It may also be noted that other European weaponry was not a major category of trade. It is interesting to note, however, that other than the use of firearms 161 in hunting, European goods appear to have played a minor role in subsistence pursuits. One might have expected that cultivating tools such as hoes may have been a popular trade item in the more southerly reaches of the western Great Lakes region, or that fishing implements would have been commonly traded in the more northerly part of the region. Nhile both fishing gear and cultivating tools do appear in the invoices, they are minor trade goods. Although it must be pointed out that thread in the invoices was included in the Clothing category and it is quite possible that at least some of the thread was used for making nets. On the whole, however, it appears that with the exception of firearms, Indian peoples made relatively little use of European technology in subsistence pursuits. Easentials vs.,Non-Essentia1§ The evidence also suggests that there was generally an emphasis on what might be considered essential materials over non-essential materials. Clothing, Hunting, and Cooking and Eating were clearly among the major categories of goods, along with Adornment which is the exception to the pattern. These categories predominated over what might be considered non-essential categories such as Grooming, Drinking, and Tobacco Use. In conclusion, this study makes important contributions on two levels. First, it contributes to our understanding of the way native peoples in the western Great Lakes region responded to, and participated in, the fur trade. It does not lend support to the commonly-held perception that for Indian peoples, the fur trade was an increasingly imperative on (tel CE ,1 fur NE! of P99 And den rec arc thi an Eu hi ta 162 quest for European metal goods upon which they were rapidly becoming dependent. Rather, it suggests that while metal implements were certainly part of the trade, Indian peoples were interested in a variety of European commodities. Further, by looking at trade goods in terms of functional categories, it allows us to go beyond the view that "Indians were interested in metal goods" and look more specifically at the types of activities that were represented by the body of goods that Indian peoples sought to obtain. And second, a more general consequence of the research is that it demonstrates the importance of taking advantage of the documentary record in historical archaeology. It is often the case in historical archaeology that we use the archaeological record but neglect the use of the documentary record. It is also the case, of course, that the archaeological record provides information regarding the consumption of European goods by Indian peoples. But an important strength of historical archaeology is the opportunity to examine both records and take advantage of the complementary information they provide. APPENDICES Q X~QZHQQ< 163 0000000 acmnnaum\3 o o o o omum.—mmam mmum.pwmam mmum.Pmmmm OOOOOO pauop.mmum.—mmum S- P > N U O 000°00'- o ma_::.¥u~_a Lapses“ capznsm Lapznau g OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ”coca munch mo meou=m>cm mgaucmsauoo pp~2m o meop acop.gmm:_m OOOOOO gOOOOOOOO < x~a2mmm< o sane“: ppugm ppmcm ppmgm ocmm mpmum.gmmmmu o c o ounce «was» com. cog. cos. meat must camaum.n camnumma o o o c o u:m.~cmm 02.30 c 2.50.. 52 C «an ppwn mama mama mama mama mucomaa macomaa amcoman “macaw: mgaua xa xa xa xa xa xa xa xa xa xn xa xa xn xm pza pxa pza «New o~ua 164 OOOOOOOOOO Pmoop.umee_gu pauop pmuop.umse_ca pauop o pauop.uwsepga ~auop o cacmp< o mcwz.xpe g OOOOOOOOOOOO m:— cwwL OOOOOO UOQOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO d) > +3 .D '9- .C 4: 3 goooooooooooooooooo .....mccuv < 52.8% Loppe_m mogm cam? :8 o o o ppm; eo>—.m o xwmpsce cmcwp.:ouuau :cuuou :ouucu couuou couuou :ouuou uopwEau mmvau o o o cwpoot mpvasu A...» 8.3 .5: .53 Scam .ua.~ ...—.Q6mofi mpxusa mpxuzm mpxuan mpxusn mpxusm mpxuan mpxuzn snag; mucosa guooea mogummgm mmgummga mmsummsm mmcummga mmsummcn mogummsn mosumoca mogummgn mmgummgn mmgummcn mucus; magnum umxcapn magnum; mmxcapa mmxcapn uuxcnpn umxcapa moxcapa umxcapn mmxcapm mmxcapa uaup.xuapn mad 165 OOOO nnesucu . nnes_cm n FauoP.—vw=-=_.La Pmuc — . “gm—EFL“ PGUOF n 'U Q) C OF P ngnu.c OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO GOOD 3 OOOOOOOOO uu:_P.umanu vn=_P.mm_Lnu OOOOO uupcnum .1.» cu P s. «I U In nus nn;m__o COO GOOOOOOOOOO Hummmmw mp_0.m.~ uppm.~ mppu.m.m uppu.m~.~ mppo.~ ammo." copczn c c o m>nopm o u>mmpm o o o n>nmpm m.:nso3 o m.cne m.:ne o m.:neoz aquflumu A.n.u=ouu n x.ncnna< OOOOOOOO cupoo3.vggnngnu coupoe.uconngnu coupos.ugonngnu aconngnu np>omum nm>umum n.>omum cuuuou o c o unnsom cnp_e_m cn>p_m cuuzug cmng L_n=.m.unom uncu>ou.o~=nm o unnEou unnEou puoum pnumm pnnum gop.a_n mng uuognu umognu naognu naognu umugnu naognu nuognu nucgnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu gnu couuza gunman comma: commas commas gunman commas couusa upxuaa upxusn opxuaa npxuzn upxuan upxuzn aqua 166 pnuup Pnuup pnuop.uussggu pnuo_ pnuop pnuop.cuee_gu pnuop.uues_gu pnuop pnuo. Fnuop.uuse_cu Pnuop.uueepcm pnuop pnuop.unespcu Pnuop Pnuop.uusspcu Pnuo_.unsspcu pnuop Pnuop Fnuop.umes_cm pnuup Pnuop.uusspsu Pnuop.uuss_cu pnuop Pnuop.uuseggu pnuop.vnss_cm gOOOOOOOO o upgsgg o o upggag unsopou c o upgsgg tuba _.OU o o upgggg upgggg ungopcu o o o mums: upgcag nugopou a OOOOOOOOOOOO mppu.m.m m-u.m uppu.m uppu.m uppm.m.~ mppu.m.~ mppm.m.~ mppo.m.~ mppm.~ m—Pu.~ uppw.~ appu.~ uppu.m.~ uppm.m.~ mppm.m.~ m—pu.m.~ mppm.m.~ mpPu.m~.~ mppu.~ uppu.m uppm._ mppu.~ mppu.~ uppu.m~_.m uppu.m m.:nso3 FPnEm m.:ns nmsnp umcnp.mppm.¢ uppo.v uppm.m.m m—pm.m ammmum» A.n.u=ou. < x_n=nna< mcmcagu unmeaou ucmcgoc unmcaou ucmgzou ucmgzou ucmcaoc ucmgaou ucmcaou ucmcaou ucmszou mcmcaou ucmgaou acmcaoc acmgauu acmcaou ucmgaou acucaov ucmcaoc mcmsaoc mangaou ucmcaou acmcaou mmvnu w v ”C I. U §°°°°°°°° uaognu naognu umognu maognu umognu uaognu nungnu naognu naognu uuognu uuognu uuognu maggnu npggnu uuognu ouognu uuognu umcgnu ouognu uuugnu muognu uaognu uuognu uaognu muognu nuognu macgnu upognu uuognu naugnu nuognu nuognu nuognu 167 umcuxuncu c snappm Fnuo_.unes_cu Fnuop.uusspsu Fnuop.umsspcu Pnucp.uuesmgu Pnuo_.uuvoo; Pnqu pnuc—.uuss.cu pnuo~.vmse_gu pnuo_.uueswcu pnuop.uues_ma _nuo—.vuesmcu pnuop.uuss_ca pnuo~.unssggm pnuop.uusewgu pnuop 6622.2» pnuop.umsegga pnuop pnuop.cmss_cu Pnuop pnuop.vneewcu pnuop.cuee_cu pnuup pnuo_.uneepcu pnuo_.uunou; pnuop.vnes_cu Fnuop pnuop.umeswgu pnuop.uues_gu Pnuop.uussggu mummmmw uncopou .o o o o nu_=z upgcag ungo_ou czocn.napn o mummmmw COO _. Pas—m mppm.v mppw.m.m mppm.m.m mppm.~.m uppu.m uppw.m.~ mppu.~ m—pu.~ «ppm.m.~ uppw.~ Esmuue mppu.m.m uppm.m mppu.m.m o mppu.¢ m—pu.v mp—u.¢ mppu.e uppm.¢ mP—u.v m—Fu.¢ mppu.mm.m «ppm.mm.m m.—u.m.m uppm.m.m appu.m.m appu.m.m mp—o.m.m muuaumu ..n.u=ouu n x.ncnan< mumpunn numFHna xgnn cmpooz coupes commas goupos commas coupes coupes compo: coupes coupes campus unannns unan~ns ausnnne unannns unannna ucmcaov acmcsoc ncmgaou ucmcaou ucmcgou ncmczov ucmgzou ucmgaov ncmgaov ucmcaou ucmmaoc ucmcacv ncmcgov ncmcsou mng guopu geopu cuopu nuggnu nuognu muognu upognu nmognu uaognu nmognu umognu wacgnu nuognu nmognu upognu nuggnu nuagnu nmognu uaognu uaognu uuognu uuognu nuagnu uuognu umugnu muognu uuognu nuognu nmognu uuognu nuognu uuognu muognu 168 uuuuogm mogusupm o o unsure.» 006000060 0) E OF H— o o ung.cum o o uug.gum uugnzo.m as.» o c cu.uo3 cncm.< o o o o ung.gum o Nunmmmw x > U M P OOOOOOOODOOOO OOOOOOOOO muo.cu.m.u>.. 555.2 55. OOOOO IOOOOO ac.3.m\s mc.:.e\m ma.3.¢\m mu.3.~\m EOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..5.5255. 2 2.525222 u~=nm u~=nm uuu.sm .uccnpm mummacc acmgzou ucmcgon ucmgzou ncmgaou ucmszoc mnnEnu :cuuou coauou comuuu coauou couuou 65.2nu uo.wEnu nucns.nu mucns.nu nucns.nu nucns.nu nucne.nu nucns.nu m.cnu m.unu n.cnu n.6nu c.22 5c.ua.con ugomgnmn =.~nn :.~nn ung 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 169 c m2=2m 55.5mnm o 52.. m2=2m 55.5»nm 5 52.. o 52.. mcsom 5.55mnm o o o o o 52.. 2n52..m 55.22u o 22n225u 55.22u 2n5m.5m 25:2: 5.2ng 22mm .n>n2 o o o 2.n.g «255555 55.2,. 55.2.. 55.2.. >53 0): L99- no. 300000000 55.2 Hummmmw OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 52.3.v\m 52.3.M\~ QOOOOOOOOOOOOO 35.5255. 2 2.525222 x.n.222 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 225.22 222.22 n..52 552n~ne u52n~ns 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252.. 252...mmn2m sn2m2.m 5~=nm mng 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 255.5 170 22n..2= 2 25.223 2.2.u 5u2n2m 2 25.223 2.2.2 .22n.22m 2 25.22: 2.2.u 22n.22m 2 25.223 2.2.u =n52=m 2 25.22: 2.2.u 2 2 25.223 2.2.u .22n.22m 2 25.223 2.2.u 22n.22m 2 25.22: 252.2 :n522m 2 25.223 2.2.u 2 2 25.223 2.2.u 2 52.: 252...52n2u 2.2.u 2 52.3.m\~ 252...52n2. 2.2.5 2 52.:.~\. 252...52n2. 2.2.u 2 2 n55..nu 2.2.2 2222: 2 gn2.u2222 2.2.u 2 2 52252 2.2.5 2 2 52252 222.2 2 2 552.5nm 2.52.2 2 2 2.2n2 2.2.u 2 2 52un5>52 2.2.u 2 2 52um5>52 2.2.u .552. ..5 5 5 52.252... 255.5 2n5.u 2 52.3.2\. 2..222 2.2.u 2n5.u 2 52.3.n\m 2.3.2.2 2.2.2 2 2 52.3.2\m 2..222 2.2.u 2 2 52.3.¢\m 2..522 2.2.u 2 2 2 2.3.5.2 2.2.u 2 2 52.: 252...x.n.222 2.2.u 2 2 52.3.m\~ 252...x.n.225 2.2.2 2 2 52.3.~\. 252...x.n.222 2.2.2 2 2 2 252...x.n.22e 2.2.u 52.. 2 52.3.2\m x.n.222 2.2.u 2 2 52.3.m\~ x.n.225 2.2.2 “2.522% a an» «an 254.. 2.5.5255. 2 2.525552 171 2 2 2 5.xum.x22.m 2522n2 2 2 2 2an525 2522n2 5 5 5 55.. 255555 2 2 2 25.n22u52 2522n2 2 2 522n. 2 2522n2 5222un2 2 2 2 2522n2 2n522nu 2 2 2 2522n2 5 5 5 5 255555 2 2 2 25222: 2222 2 2 2 52n2. 2225 2 2 2 m22>. 2222 2 2 25225.52.. 2222 222u 2 2.: 2 2222 222u 2 2 2 2222 222u 2 2 5.22 2223x22 2222 2 2 2.22 2223x22 222u 2 2 ~.2z 2223x22 222u 2 2 ..2z 2223x22 2222 2 2 ..2z.522n. 2223x22 222u 2 2 522n. 2223x22 2222 2 2 25225.52.. 2223x22 222u 2 2 2 2223x22 222u 2 2 ..n25 2 222u 2 2 522n. 2 222u 2 2 25225.52.. 2 2222 2 2 2 2 222u 2 52.2\252 2 25.223 2.2.2 22n..2= 252 2 25.22: 222.2 522n2m 252 2 25.223 2.2.u .22n.22m 252 2 25.223 2.2.2 22n.2cm 252 2 25.22: 222.2 2n5222 252 2 25.223 2.2.2 2 252 2 25.22: 2.2.u 2255255 5255255 555.25. 552H 255. ..5.5255. 2 2.525552 172 2 2 22225.2 2 2 22225.2.5 OOOOOOOOOOOO 225..2: 2252252 2 2 2 .522..2522.22 2 2 2 2 5.225.x=2.m 30°00 2 2252525225 52. OOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 5225 OOOOOOOr-OOOO . ..525 ..525 22.252 P a E On 0 U? L M P 5..2. 000°C DOOOOOO . Q3 O'N— LOU CUE PM 3. 2.5.2555. 2 2.555555 .555.5225.\3 25>..5 25>..5 22.5 2 2 2 25.5225.22 ..52.252 22222.».52 25.» 2552 2252552 2252552 25222555 0000000 25.223 25.223 2 2 22522225 2222252 25>552 25>552 5 5 5 5552 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 22.2.2522.» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 5..» 25» 2.25.55522 2.25.55522 55522 55522 2255 2255 2255 2255 2255 2255 2255 2525 173 600000 225..2= 25222 225..2: 522525 225.225 x2552222 2 2 .522. 2 55.2222.22.3 OOOOOOOOOOO 555.252 5 5552.52 5 5 2255555 0 ...: «I U! «I 252532. .552 OOOOOOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOO‘l—OOOOO 2525..22 2525..22 2 2 2 .um>2=w 55. 5225 O O OOOOOZOOOOOOOOOOv—OOOOOOOOOO IOOOOO 3 ..5.2555. 2 5.555552 2 2 5.525.352 52.» 5.525.25..225 OOOOOOOO 25.223 522225...5.5252 5252522.2..5 2 2 5.252 5.252 22522225 2 252252 2 22222 .522 222222 06000 .555\3 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 22.252252 252252 252252 252252 252252 252252 222» 222» 5522.5522522 5522.5522522 25555522 25555522 .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» .552552.» 22.2.2522.» 2555 174 52532252.25>..5 2 2 2 2252.»225»..255 2252.»225»..255 52555.25 5..2. 52532252.»225» 52532252.55522 2 .522. .522. S. > x ‘= 3 0000000000 5000 25252225 0000000r-000 52.23 52.23.22..2 52.23 2 52.23 2 52.23 25522 52.23.52.2 52.2 2 5 52.25.22225 52.55.5525 5555255 ..525.»25> ..525.»25> ..525 ..525 ..525 ..525 ..525 5225. 2 2 525.22“ 2.5.2555. 2 2.555552 00000000000 52252.52 52252.52 55525.5 5222252 52.» 52.» 2 2 252525.5>..2 252525.5>..2 222253.22.252.2. 252252 30000000000 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 2322 2322 5>2.2 5>2.2 5>2.2 5>2.2 5>2.2 5>2.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2552.555.2 2555 175 552.55 000000 .522. .522. .522. 2 .522. 2 .522. 2 5522..5252222 255222 000000000 2252.5225»..255 2 2 52532252.25>..5 52532252.25>..5 2255255 0000000000000000000000 "U 5 N c: O L 00.0 2552222 30000000 00 255».m.2 2 222. 2 5555555 ..5.2555. 2 52555552 2 52.3.55522 52.3.55522 52.3.55522 2 222225 25252225 2 2 .5225.» 5222222 5222222 5222222 55.252 55.252 000000 2252.222225..22\3 2252.222225..22\3 2252.222225..22\3 2252.22222553 2252.222225\3 2252.222225\3 25...2.2. 22..32» 52.» 52.» 5225» 5225» 5555 »5.222522252 25..22.2.52 25..22.2.52 25..22.2.52 25..22.2.52 2223222 2223222 2223222 2223222 225525222 225525222 225525222 225525222 225525222 225525222 225525222 225525222 252322222 252322222 252322222 25.22555 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 2555 176 2525>22 5552252 00000000000000 .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 2 .522..2522.22 j000000000000000000000000000000000 >22 52..mN. ..525 22.252 5225. 5225..522x5 00000000 ..525 5225. 2 2 ..525 5225..252222 252222 22.252 5225. 5225. 2 5555255 ..2.2252. 2 x.22555< m (I! CO L .0000 D C O L ...: no 000000000 252552.».52 52.22252 25252252 25252252 2 2 x..5 222222 222222 222222 222222 §0000000 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 2252.5.352 2252.5.352 .55.22.52. .55.22.52. 522 522 522 ..52.2352 ..52.2352 ..52.2352 ..52.2352 ..52.x352 252 252 252 252 252 252 »5.222522252 »5.2225x2252 »5.222522252 »5.2225x2252 »5.222522252 »5.2225x2252 »5.222522252 »5.222522252 »5.222522252 »5.222522252 »5.222522252 »5.222522252 2555 177 2 5.2252.2223 5.2252.2222 2 2 2 5.2252.222: 5.2252.2222 5.2252.2223 5.2252.2222 52.22252 52.225.2 2 52522.2. 2 2 225..2: 2 2 2525>22 225..2: 2 225..2: 225..2: 2 2525222 2525222 2525>22 2525>22 2525222 2525222 225..2= 2 2252222 3000000000000000000000000000000000 >22 ..522 ..522 ..522 22.252 222. 5225. 5225. :32. 00000 ”00000 m2..m.m~ ..522 ..522 5225. ~222.5..5 5222.5..5 m2..m.2v m2..m.vm m2..m..m m2..m~.2m m2..2~ m2..m..2~ m2.2.2. m2..m~.2 225225» 3.2282 2 £2.32 22:33 000000000000 22222 22222 252 5.222.22..22u 5.222.222.222 §0000000000000 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 52.22 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 5.2252 2542 178 2 2 5.2252.2222\3 2 5.2252.2222\: 2.2.22222 2.2.22.2.22 2 5.2252.2222\3 2.2.22222 2.2.2522.22 2 2.2.22222 2 2.22..552m 2 225522\ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 2.2.2222 ~2m>2=m ..522 22.252 5225. 2 ..522 22.252 5225. 2 222.22» 2.2.2222. 2 2.222222 25.22.52.52252 5.252 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 55525.2 52525.2 52525.2 52525.2 252222 252222 252 5.222.352 2.25.2 2522222 2522222 2522222 5252 522222252 522222252 2522222 2522222 2522222 2522222 22...5~.2 22...5~.2 22...5~.2 22...5~.2 «22H 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22 2242 179 .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. .522. 2 .522. 2 2 .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 .522. .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 2 .522..2522.22 .522..2522.22 300000 252...52.252 252....5225.2 252...52.252 252....5225.2 252....5225.2 252...52.252 252...52.252 252...52.252 252....5225.2 252...52.252 252...52.252 252....5225.2 252....5225.2 252...52.252 252...52.252 2 2 2 52.23 52.23.5.2222 5.2222 5.2222 2522.22 5.2222.52.2 52.2 52.2 2 5.2222.52.2 300000 a: 2..5.. 2..5.m.. 2..5.m.. 2..5.m~.. 2..5.2 2..5.2 2..5.2.2 2..5.~ 2..5.m.~ 2..5.m.~ 2..5.. 2..5.2.. 0000000000000000000 P P N E U) i 2.2.228. 2 2.222222 222.22.52252.52 222.22.52252.52 222.22.52252.52 222.22.52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 52252.52 2 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 222.22 5222222 2 22.222 2..2 :2..5» 225>.2.m.22.3 «an 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 25.52252 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 22.225. 5.25. 2525. 2525. 52.22 52.22 2222 180 uwngauap o we~Lm\3 asagm.gm=cu~p mews$.gm=aump wsmgm.gm=cua— os~g$.gm=auap o wsagu\3 o mamgw\3 cmmgmagm vwgoscump o gmguamp.=~uuogoz o oE~Lm\z :mwgmagm vmgwsauap wsmgm.upvm o —~uop pauop Faucp —auo— Pauop Faucp Fauop Fauop —~uop pauop pauop Pauop numammw OOOOOOO umsm>ou.ums o umgm>ou.ums c o o o um=.P._m==~.u vm=.p.mm_gau uwcwp.mmwgau umcwp.mm_smu uucpp._mccap& uw=.F._~==~_m uoc.p.mm_gau vmc_P._m==~_$ vm=.p.om_gau uwc_P._m==~_$ cmc.p.mmpgau um=.P._~==~_$ dummmmw ppasm ppmsm m.oz m.oz m.oz n_.cz -.oz Ezpvme Eapuwe mmgap mmgap magap «asap magmp OOOOOOO uppu.~ mppm.~ m—pm.m.~ mppm._ mp—m.m~o.~ m——m.m uppm.m mppm.~ mppw.~ mppm.m.~ mp—m.m.~ mp—w.~ Nwmwsmm A.u.»=au. < x.ucmag< OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o.aq.muc~sp~u mpaa.mucas_au mpaa.mucaepau mpan.mucmE—au >m:=.ugm.gn.mucaepau u:m.gn.mu=~sp~u acmvgn.mocaep~u ugm.gn.mucaE—au unm.gn.mucaepau usm.gn.mucmspmu ugm.gn.uu:~spau acm.ga.mucms_au «auH sogg_s sosgpe LoLLFE Lounge sogsws gogspe soggps gOLLPE Laggpe soggwe goggws gogg.e gogsPE sosgps sogspe sosg.s sosgpe sags.a Logg_s gogspe sogs.s umpmacae umpoacme umpoucae umpmucme ampmucme umpmucms popuucas uopmacas umpmacas umpmacae uumucms umpuacas auqq 181 an,» cmeepg OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO-OOO mc_ELm.o o o uuumaaw OOOOOOOO Lapsm=m_gu o o xuapn c o o o vases vwgm>ou.vms vases umgm>ou.uag oo'oooo umgm>ou.vms o o mpxum.nmga o o umgm>ou.umg Humxmmw ¢\m.=. su=_.m —pm2m mass, OOOOOOOOOO P—asm aqwflumu A.u.u=ouv < x.c:oaa< ppmsm mosap.pgamn Pgama awn o o o o a?» app cva :.u cwa a=PuFom mcpcpom mcwmmasu m=_mwmgc ucvmmugv m=.mmogv m=.mmogu mpnammopu opnammcpu «panama—u apnammopu o maxH uptown mpoomc m—ummc «puma: «puma: mpumwc mpomw: mpuomc mun—gum: mum—xumc mumpxumc uuapxumc muapxum: F_~nauxm=s gauu.s cmua.e sogspe sosg's goggpe gosg.a sosg*e song's boss’s song's gosg'e gosg_s Loss.s LoLLFE sous.s gosg.e gosgws goss.e sogs,s auqu acassm OOOOOO‘DOOOOO 182 page OOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 figs 32.. 3 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mcop asap U! C O P OOOOOOOOOOOOO pp~5m ¢_.oz ~_.oz c_.oz amsap c Fpmsm Eapume magap o map.~ map.o o o pp~2m Ezpvme magap awuflumu A.u.u=ouv < x.u=mqg< xp_m xp_m wepuacmsm P—mgm woe: o o o mPucmm uoxuaa o wq_a amaspau awaspau awas—au uwsspau OOOOOOOOOO enmggu uamgga.=oa.og muaga mcwxmm mcpxuaa mcpxuaa mc_xu~n maxH mgmum wgmum wgaum omega; awn; awn; ans; :gcg.gmu3on Poam_n poum_a Paum.a oa_a mapa mafia mQFu «avg up: :.a c_n c*q :.n :.n mxaxu.a mxmxu.a mxaxu.a mxaxu.a um: um: «puma: apummc mpumoc mpummc opcmoc aqua 183 o Pauop pauc— —auop.umsepgu pauo_.umeapga Fauc— pauc— pauc— paucp —~uop Fauop.umsewgu —~uop 8.: OOPOOOOOOOOOOO ~.:u o o o magmasogu ~.=u o uumuaaw a OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o o s=_ume m.:aE mvw:.¢\m mvw3.¢\m mv.3.¢\m mppw.~.~ ou':.¢\~ wup3.~\~ «ppm.m.~ o o m.:~sc3 ppasm aapuws.m.=~s magap.m.c~s m.c~e mm~.umg+u m.aoa mu.3.m\~ mu*3.~\~ mmga OOOPOOOOOOO 3 3553 < 5522 cmcpp.mm~gm Eagcha coauou gouacu coauou :oaacu couaou :oaaou ccuuou couucu couuou couuou coauou OOOOOOOOOO mmmgamsamm copmpuc. g m C 0’ 000°“- 2:.” 2:7. :2“ 22m :2" 22m 2:: 22m :2... 22... :2” 2:7. 2:; i=7. 2:; 2...... :2... it.“ t...” 22.». t...» 2:.” :2... pzagm pzagm pzagm mgommvum ”sommvum «sommpum mhcumFUM mgomm.um «sommpum msommPUm aqua 184 o pmuop.vmsepsu Fauop o Pauop Pauop Pauo. quop.:~mfi.um Pauop c Pmuop o Fauop.cmwfi.um o c 2.: c paucp.vweepsu pauop.umsewsu pauc— quop.umeepgu Pauop.umss.su pauop.umeepgu vmeswga o —~uop pauc— Pmuop Paucp Pauop pmuop pauop pauc— unnummw mu1>gm OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vmgmxumgu o Ammanmw o m.:a5o3 m.:aeoz m.caeo3 m.=as mm~.amg_m mvgauma mc_z.m\~ mu_3.m\~ «v.3.m\~ mupz.~\_ mu'3.~\_ o ppmsm o o o m.caeo3 m.:as mvxauan wcw3.n\w appo.m.~ o o o m.:~eoz m.:~e oma.umg_m wusaaan «v.3.m\~ mu.3.~\~ o o Hmuflumu 3.2.5 < 52.2.2 o cm:P—.mc~ga cmcpp.muagu cmc__.wcasu cw=_p.muasu cmcwp.mcaga cmcwp.muagu cm=_p.wuagu =w=_—.mc~ga cocwp.muaga :ch—.muaga =m=._.mnagu cm=.p.mcagu cm:_—.:m:om cw=._.=m=oa =m=.—.=m=c¢ cmc_p.co=c¢ x.~psce xFapgoe x_a_goe x'm—sos x_~—goe xvapsce x.~pgoe xwapsoe =m=__.=c»4 cm=_p.coa4 cmcpp.coad cocwp.:o»4 =m=_—.=o»4 can—p.co>d =o=.p cuc*—.mm~gm uuaH mega :2... :2; 22m 2:; :2... 22m :2... ts... t...” 2:; :2... :2" 2:; t2; :2... :2“ 22m :2“ 22m :2... t..." t...“ :2... :2... t...” t...” t...” 2:.“ it: :2“ t...“ :2” 185 pmuop.uwss_gu pauop.vmes_gu Pmuop :NOL: OOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :.~pa umgmu*cgnsm o o c c mucagu vmgmv_ognsm Numummw mpngsa.mapn o o o no; ‘0 O LO “.9: 85 OOPOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Humxmmw E=Puoe E=.ume sapcms pp~5m E=_voe e=_ume mogap «asap 3353 < 5522 mcmsaou mcmszou mcmgscv ugaamsa sm>~on o o o mc.xpaz uwou.oga:am swagF—m smaawpm ass; gang gw>~ma sw>ama gOOOOOO m>wmpm a>mo—m m>mmpm m>mmpm m>wmpm o>mm_m m>am—m m>mmpm m>wm—m aogm aozm pogm nogm aogm posm uogm aogm pogm aosm mogm coca mogm mogm mega mogm mogm mega mogm mega mega mogm mega mega ammq 186 o cmxuopu.poo3 acmx_az.um ucwx_~z.um memomgaom acmxpmz.um mcmomgzcm o o Fauop.cmss_ga Fauop.coeepgu o quop.umsspsu Pmuop.umee_ga pauop pauo_.umespga Pauop.umee_gu Pmuo_.omeswsu page—.umsewgu Fauop Pauop.umee_gu Pmuop.umse_ga Faun—.umespgu page—.umes_gu Faun—.umeevgu Fauop.umeevgu pauo_.uwee_sa o Pauop.umes,gu o pauo—.umeewgu page, Pauop.umea_gu Mummmmw ‘U 0) 0° LOOOOOOOOO mpagaa umgopou mpagan.m=pa maps o m=_n o mpngsq.mapn.umg mzpn.umg um; ou.=3.m—asan mpggaa umgopou mzpn o cm; opqgsq o o o vmgopou fiumxmmw o «mum. magmp o pp~2m ppmsm _—~Em ppnsm ppaEm Ezpums sawums maga— magm— mogap mags, maga— mmgmp magap mmgap c o o ppaEm p—~Em e:_uae NAMHHMH figs: < £2.32 apn. OOOOOON smuzma xopp~.Paume cmpcos cmpcox cmpcoz coupes cow—cs caupos coupos coupes cow—cs coupes coupes coupes coupes cow—cs coupes cow—cs coupes ecu—cs coupes sou—cs coupes ucmsaov acmsaou mcmszou mmxH mcpxuoum m:_xuoum mcwxuoam mcpxuoam mcpxuoam mchuoam m=_xuoum coonm cooam m>mmpm a>mmpm m>mmpm m>mmpm o>mapm m>mm—m m>mupm m>mmpm m>mmpm o>mmpm m>mopm m>mmpm u>mmpm m>mmpm o>mmpm m>mmpm u>ompm m>mmpm m>mmpm o>umpm o>mopm m>mopm m>mmpm o>mmpm amqw 187 o o o coumpxuca vamgga o guapn o xp,m camsgu o o o xp_m vamggu o o o am: umasgu o o o map» vmmgsa moccmz m»_:x o c cmmggu macaw: czosa o o cawsga «magma o o o vamgsa acupcm o o o amass» =_oumc o o o camggu ucappc: o o o ummsgu xa=_gu o o o unmsgu o o o o amass» o o o o mpnswgu o xcwn m.cmso: :mpooz mcvxuoum o xuapn m.:~so3 capoox mc—xuoum o o m.c~soz copooz m:_xuoum o o m.c~e cupooz mcpxuoum o :oppm» c cmpoo: mc'xuoum o c o copooz o:*xuoam m_g~m o m.:aeoz x~_m mcvxuoam o o m.=~5ox xp.m m:.xucum nan—mew o m.c~e x_.m mc.xuoum o o m.:~e x~_m mcvxuoum o o o 8,,” m=_xuoym o xcvn m.caso3 m:_u mcvxuoam o o m.=~eox we.» m:.xuoum o o m.up.;u we.» m=.xuaum mpgaa o - o m:_& mcwxucam o o o a=.$ mc.xuoum o o m.=me apa.¢ mcvxuoum o o o apa.¢ m=_xuoam o o m.=~s »_a.m mcpxuoam ~33 334% a: «an an A.u.uccuv < x.c=aag< 188 um=o_;maw.u_ OOOOO OOOOOOOOO mcosam czogu mumcmscgaag :amasau maps xuapa x 00 NS'U 0.05- Lm>P_ gm>~_m.mmpa OOOOOOOOOOQ—OOOOOOOO ”090°C dummmmw P—msm m.oz m.m.cz 3ogg~= magap :3: 000° MOOOOOOO amufium» A.v.¢=ouv < x_u=maa< conn_g gonapg connwg goanwg cann_g zonapg coga,g connpg cannpg connvg muap wuap muap mump wasp muap muap maau.m=.=_on m:_mua.m~wpsm ga>p_m.wmpam Lm>_.m.ompau gm>p.m.mmpam uF~Ln upasa mama.amx:apn gmmumu gunman gunman o o umgopou.~;a,_ umgopou.xsau o uqu avg» swga E_Lu avg» epga avg“ swsa avg» avg“ Epga avg» Erna avg» EFL“ ewgu avg» Epgu EFL“ EFL» Epgu Epga svgu epsu E's“ Ewsu x3~g~5ou xzagasou xzagaeou xzagasou xzagmsou ouuanoa ouuanou ouuanoa ammq 189 o ccapmu o ccapmu o coapau o o xsamugom o xammugom OOOOOOOOO acappo: acap.c= S. > OOOOOOOO o o ouapxum: U 0 000° LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO C 3 O L .0 0000 um; cmmgm o xuapa xuapn Hummmmw mung. mcwu o amgap OOOOOOOOOOOOOO d) C .P Q— mcosaa.p.~ ummggu.om o o m.oz ~.oz o o o o mu.) an.:.»gm> xHMflum» A.u.a=ou8 < x.u=mna< amass amass manna mange mums; o wa_=z to; c_° u_o c o m:_=mcam xuoe m=Pw mmgaou o o capooz o man» came mama was» mama unau.xp.m maaa.x__m maua.x_,m m:.mum.x—pm m:.mum.xp_m m:.mum.xppm canny; coca?» maxH mg?) ong mgpz mg“: mg“: ogpz map: map: map: maps mew: mew: coppwsgm> =o_F*ELm> co.P_ELm> copppssm> cowppegm> n.5mvugo> macs» macs» 5.x» 5.x“ EFL“ epgu E's» EFL» avg» 5.5“ avg» avg“ EFL“ 2.5» nga aqua 190 o tug o poo: cum» o umagomma o pact cgm» o o o poo: cum» o o o:_u g_~g.m.uaom :55» o o o couaou cga» o o o cog? ogvz o o p_~sm amass mg': sou—aw o maga. . ”mags mg_3 Mummmmw qumummw .xmmflumu maxH aqu A.u.»=ouv < x.ucmng< APPENDIX 8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR DOCUMENTARY INVENTORY Aignan - a city in the province of Gascony in southwestern France. Cadis cloth from this city has a sheared or curled nap with more of the latter. anchor mark - a mark on a gun lock plate representing the Government (Navy Board) stamp of approval. Some examples bear double marks. Anchor marked lock plates have been found archaeologically at Michilimackinac and Ouiatenon. a I’gumone - a white thread woven into bands. azure - a blue pigment. bark cloth - a fabric made in the East Indies from the long hemp-like filaments of a tree’s bark. bataggg - a clothing size; probably child’s or young adult’s. batistg — cambric fabric. Named after the originator, Baptiste Chambray. baygttg - a woolen cloth from Colchester, Essex County, England. hazin_- bombasin, an all-cotton fabric; plain with a pile nap on one side or striped without a pile nap. May have wide or narrow stripes. hggnfgnt - a type of linen. hisggygn -originally a type of ax imported from the Province of Biscay, Spain. By the late seventeenth century, the term probably refers only to a shape. Shape unknown. - probably a cutler’s mark. Jean Bizaillon, a cutler from St.Etienne, used his name for a maker’s mark. h13gk_1ggg - a pigment like white lead and red lead, used as a body paint. 5191; - a city in the province of Orleans in north central France. bgn_1g1nt T a fabric dyed with first quality hues for strong color fast resu ts. figgrg - a city in the province of Burgundy in east central France. 191 192 APPENDIX B (cont’d.) Baargagaa - an historic region in east central France. brjn - a plain-weave, strong linen from Brittany, Champagne, and Spain. Possibly made from hemp. butchgr knjfe - a long case knife with a wooden handle. Bureau - the warehouses of the Bureau of the Company of des Indes. cadi§ - a twilled woolen cloth, usually dyed exceptionally bright with brazilwood (red). galmandg -a twilled, warp-face, woolen cloth, sometimes with a silk or goat’s hair warp. Dyed in all colors, and very glossy. Patterns include flowered bands, stripes, and waves. Reputed to wear well. gamglat -a goat’s hair cloth commonly from Brussels, Holland, and Amiens,France. The Amiens’ fabric could also be of partial silk mixture. Some cloth was striped. Campgaa - a Montreal area blacksmith hired by Moniere to produce a variety of metal goods. £1291: - a long loose coat; some with hoods and a few with cuffs. garlag -a coarse woolen cloth, called Kersey. This may be from England; some cloth also produced in France. gartaaghg - a style of case knife, often including a sheath. Possibly with a cartouche mark on the handle. Caugabec - a style of felt hat that could be made from any of the following: wool, goat’s hair or swan’s down. Style declined through English competition. Chala; -a city in the province of Anjou in west central France. de - a company granted monopoly rights for beaver trade by the King of France. . Dalian - Dalton-in-Furness, England; a Lancaster ironworks and foundries’ city. aamaak - a firm, lustrous, reversible, figured fabric made of various fibers. Qanphina - an historic region in southwestern France (see hat). dagnhing - a dolphin; possibly a maker’s mark for the cutler Brunat from Moulins (see knife). 193 APPENDIX B (cont’d.) gogrgne -a woolen cloth in red, blue, or purple. a la douzaine - by the dozen; probably corresponds to the English "nested.“ Q££§§_§Hii - a complete suit of clothes in the French style. Often of woolen cloth, lined and trimmed. agaggal - a woolen cloth from England and Reims, France. Like linsey-woolsey. Commonly with blue and black stripes. da_1 - probably a cutler’s mark using the number ‘7.’ duty_ax_- a larger and sturdier style of ax. all - one English yard equalled 7/9 ths of a French ell. Enlaax - a type of white flax thread from Lille in Flanders. alarming - an ermine. Various emblems with ermines were used by cutlers as maker’s marks. e.g. Pierre Pernot, fils. Possibly used by cutlers on various items: knives, mirrors, scissors, etc. falsg sjlvg: - wire which is spun and drawn and then incorporated into woven goods such as braid. False silver braid was recovered archaeologically at Tunica. f1:§l_agg - a clothing size; probably for infants or small children. - a type of clasp knife named after Denis Flatin, the inventor of the folding knife. finial; - a strong, tight, woolen cloth from Colchester, Essex County, England. Has a pile surface of uncut looped wool. garlaning - a decorative tape used on garments or for garters. filhgau - Etienne Gibeau, a Montreal area woodworker hired by Moniere. granaag - a Z-ply silk thread made from fine quality silk from Granada, Spain. Often used for sewing and fringes. granadlng - made of silk grenade thread. half;hgaxa: - made of beaver and vicuna mixed. ggdaln - unknown term. Possibly a thread manufactured in one of Nicolas Gedoyn’s abbeys. 1a; - a dense black coal that takes a high polish and is used for jewelry. 194 APPENDIX B (cont’d.) Laaamga - Jean Lacombe, Jr.; a Montreal area blacksmith hired by Moniere to produce a variety of metal goods. Lapromenade - Jacques Lapromenade; a Montreal area blacksmith hired by Moniere to produce a variety of metal goods. Layal - a city in the province of Maine in northwestern France. Lyaa - a city in the province of Lyonnais in south central France. mantalat - a short cape; usually lined. Marog -Morocco. The short nap cloth mentioned may be from Morocco, or may be a cloth made to resemble a common cloth from Morocco. mazamet - a twilled woolen cloth, often in blue, red, or brown. Also a city in the province of Languedoc in southern France. melja - a strong, tightly-woven, hemp linen; often used for sails and packing cloth. maaalla - a short glove with open fingers. moltgn -a twilled woolen cloth with an uncut looped pile on one side; with green or blue selvedges. marlaix - a white, bleached linen. Also a city in the province of Brittany in northwestern France. Na, 1 o: 2 - designations for sizes. For combs, No. 1 indicates 4.5 inches long; and No. 2 indicates 5 inches long. nlnahlna -an untwilled woolen cloth which is heavy and strong. May be of French or Spanish wool. Pallag - an historic province in central France on the Bay of Biscay. Thread from this region is made from hemp. a_pal - possibly indicates kettles made of a Z-quart volume. £3d.££1£l§ - 'chaudiere rouge.” May be a shortened entry for 'cuivre rouge” indicating a copper kettle. Bannaa - a city in the province of Brittany in northwestern France. Thread from this region may be white or colored. It was made in all sizes and was used exclusively for sewing. Layaaana - an untwilled, heavy woolen cloth with a long looped pile. Hoven in white and then dyed in all colors. Bagan - a city in the province of Normandy in northern France. 195 APPENDIX B (cont’d.) rgnlaa - a shell disk with two parallel holes made with a fine drill through the long section of the disk. aaagalaa - a red pigment which may correspond to Moniere’s ‘mock’ vermilion. Segovia - a cap made in France from fine wool from Segovia, Spain. serga -a twilled woolen cloth dyed with basswood or walnuts or in a sky-blue color. shagraaa - a leather with a granular surface, prepared from the skins of various animals. May be dyed in any color, but red was more expensive. §hell -translations for shell items mentioned in the MMR: 'collier a fleche de porselaine' - shell necklace with triangular ' ornaments wampum bead tubular shell bead “grain de porceline' 'noyeaux de porselaine' 'noyeaux long du digit“ finger long tubular shell bead 'noyeaux rond de porceline' runtee 'rassade facon de porcelaine' - imitation wampum glass bead Nith the exception of imitation wampum glass beads, examples of all other styles of shell items have been archaeologically recovered from Lasanen. shot - types of shot are listed in decreasing order of size: wild goose, duck, pigeon, royal, half-royal. ,aiamaaa - type of clasp knife with a wooden handle. almilan - pinchbeck; an alloy of zinc and copper used as imitation gold. Sll_gaan - a city in France. St, Maixen; - a city in the province of Poitou in west central France. laffala - a fine light silk; very tightly woven with an extremely high lustre. lanabaad - an old style of deerstalker cap. taala_aa_ahlan - probably a maker’s mark; "the dog’s head." Inlalllan - one of the Thioller brothers; gunsmiths at the manufacture of arms at St. Etienne en Forez. lambaa - an alloy of copper and zinc, resembling gold. trada_llnan_- equivalent of the English 'garlix." 196 APPENDIX B (cont’d.) tramaalla - probably a cutler’s mark. Francois Veillard from Chatellerault registered his mark as the trumpet in 1701. lalla - an arms manufacturing center in the province of Limousin in south central France. yaralgzla - a green paint pigment; exclusively from the province of Languedoc, France. yazmiljon - ground Cinnabar, imported from France. APPENDIX C ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY 11E! armband awl ax bead bead bead bead bead bead bead bell bell bell bottle bottle bowl box bracelet bracelet brass bracelet bracelet recycled bracelet silver braid brooch brooch buckle buckle button button ceramic sherd chest hardware chisel cloth comb comb copper mail cross cross cross crucifix crucifix cup dagger die disc TYPE silver brass catlinite ivory pewter rosary shell shell brass brass table wampum clapper glass fragments pewter iron iron silver bangle false gold silver shoe brass iron ivory pewter silver corpora pewter catlinite 197 198 APPENDIX C (cont’d.) 11:! M disc lead dividers (compass) earring effigy catlinite effigy shell ember tongs clothing eye file finger ring finger ring brass finger ring catlinite finger ring iron firesteel fishhook fork glass bead gorget shell gorget silver gouge graphite gun gun part gun part barrel gunflint hair puller hairpipe harpoon hawkbell headband silver hoe ice chisel ice creeper jew’s harp kettle kettle part recycled kettle brass band recycled kettle brass diamond recycled kettle brass disc recycled kettle brass pendant recycled kettle brass projectile point recycled kettle brass saw blade recycled kettle brass scoop recycled kettle brass tinkling cone recycled kettle brass trapezoid recycled kettle brass triangle recycled kettle brass tube knife ladle IIEN locket mattock medallion medallion mirror mirror mug musketball needle pail pendant pendant pendant pendant pendant pike pin pipe pipe pipe pipe pipe pipe pipe pipe tomahawk pistol pot pot hook projectile point projectile point punch razor recycled iron runtee scissors scraper shot sinker spike spontoon spoon sword tankard thimble trap vermilion wire wire wire 199 APPENDIX C (cont’d.) TYPE IABIEII religious silver glass fragments pewter catlinite glass lead metal shell brass bowl lid catlinite effigy Micmac pewter stem white clay white clay stem iron iron spear tinkling cone shell hide lead brass iron BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Diane L. 1989 Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. Arahaeological Complatiaa Bengal Sarjaa, No. 14. Mackinac State Historic Parks, Mackinac Island, Michigan. Adams, William and Steven Smith 1985 "Historical Perspectives on Black Tenant Farmer Material Culture: The Henry C. Long General Store Ledger at Haverly Plantation, Mississippi.” In e Slavery and Plantatjaa Ljfa, Ed. Theresa Singleton, pp. 309-334. Academic Press, Inc. Armour, David A. 1974 ”Marin de la Perriere, Claude.“ In We Biography, Vol. 3, Ed. Mary McD. Maude, p. 432, University of Toronto Press. Armour, David A. and Keith R. Hidder 1978 At The Crossroads: Michilim Bavolution. Mackinac Island State Park Commission, Mackinac Island, Michigan. Axtell, James 1981 The ro ean nd th n ' n: 'n th h 0 at galanial North Amerjga. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Beaudry, Mary C. ed. 1988 WWW!- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. 1979 Saalal_§latlal1a§. Revised Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Bradley, JamesH 1987 Evolution of tnmwmmmmmm l§QQ_l§§§. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse. ZOO 201 Brain, Jeffrey P. 1979 Tunica Treasure. Papers of tha Paabpdy Mgsagm pf Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 71. Published jointly by Peabody Museum, Harvard University, and Cambridge and Peabody Museum of Salem, Salem, Massachusetts. Branstner, Susan M. 1984 1985 1986 1987 in press 983 Archaeolo ic nvest' ' n t Mission Site. Planning Report submitted to the St. Ignace Downtown Development Authority by The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1984 Archaeolo i a vesti i n t th M r Mission Site. Planning Report submitted to the St. Ignace Downtown Development Authority by The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1985 Archaeolo ical nvesti ti ns t t a e Mission Site. Planning Report submitted to the St. Ignace Downtown Development Authority by The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1986 Archaeologigal Investigatipns at the Marggatta Mission Site. Planning Report submitted to the St. Ignace Downtown Development Authority by The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. ”The Ethnohistory and Archaeology of the Tionontate Huron Occupation at The Marquette Misssion Site, 1671- 1705, St. Ignace. Michigan“ In W ed John Halthall. Brose, David S. 1970 1983 ”Summer Island 111: An Early Historic Site in the Upper Great Lakes.“ In filatpylaal_Arahaaplpgy 4: 3- 33. "Rethinking the French Presence in the Upper Great Lakes.“ In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby. Anthrppplpgiaal Papaya, No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Brown, James A. 1975 ”The Impact of the European Presence on Indian Culture.” In Contest fpr Empire 1500-1725, Proceedings of an Indiana American Revolution Bicentennial Symposium, Ed. John Elliott, pp.6-24. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Brown, Margaret Kimball 1975 "The Zimmerman Site: Further Excavations at the Grand Village of Kaskaskia.‘ In 3appat§_pfillpya§tlgatlpp§, No 32. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. 202 Butterfield, C.H. 1974 History of Brgle’s Diagoveries and Exploratiopa IGIQ-IQZG. Black Letter Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Originally published 1898, by the Helman-Taylor Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Cleland, Charles E. 1972 From Sacred to Profane: Style Drift in the Decoration of Jesuit Finger Rings. Amatlaap_Aptlgplty, 37(2), pp.202- 210. 1983 ”Merchants, Tradesmen, and Tenants: The Economics of Diffusion of Material Culture on a Late Nineteenth Century Site." In Geo§ajanaa and Map, 23:35-44. 1988 "Questions of Substance, Questions that Count.” In Histprjaal Arahaaalpgy, 22(1):13-17. Cleland, Charles E., ed. 1971 “The Lasanen Site: An Historic Burial Locality in Mackinac County, Michigan. In Aptnpppplpglaal_§aria§, 1(1): 1-147. Publications of The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Deagan, Kathleen A. 1982 "Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology." In Advances in Arahaeplpgjaal Nathan and lhappy, ed. Michael Schiffer, 5:151-177. Academic Press, New York. 1988 "Neither History Nor Prehistory: the Questions that Count in Historical Archaeology." In fllatprlaal_ALahaaplpgy, 22(1):7-12. Dechene, Louise 1974a 'Lemoine, dit Moniere, Alexis (Jean- Alexis). ' In D1ctieoa:x_o£_£aoadian_flioeraeh1 Vol 3 Ed Mary McD Maude, pp. 379, University of Toronto Press. 1974b flabitaots_et_uarsbands_de_bent:eal.au.l!lle_§1esle. Paris. Deetz, James 1968 ”Late Man in North America: Archaeology of European Americans." In Anthropologjcal Archaaplpgy jp tha Amarlaaa, Ed. Betty J. Meggers, pp. 121-130. Anthropological Society of Nashington. 1977 In Small lblpga Eppgpttap; lha Arghaaplogy pf Early Amerjaap Ljfa. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 1983 “Scientific Humanism and Humanistic Science: A Plea for Paradigmatic Pluralism in Historical Archaeology. In Geosciense_and_nan. 23: 27- 34 203 Dickinson, John A. 1987 ”Old Routes and New Hares: The Advent of European Goods in the St. Lawrence Valley.” In La Castp: Ealt Tppt, Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference. Eds. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise Dechene, pp.25-4l. Eccles, H.J. 1974a T e n di n ront I - 7 . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1974b "Marin de la Malgue (La Marque), Paul. ' In Qictjpnary pf tapa alan ijgraphy, Vol. 3, Ed. Mary McD. Maude, pp. 431- 432, University of Toronto Press. 1984 ”La Mer de l’Ouest: Outpost of Empire.” In Randazvpga; Sel c P er f e N topfaranta, 1981, Ed. Thomas Buckley, pp. 1-14. 1988 ”The For Trade in the Colonial Northeast. ' In flapapppk_pf North Ameriaap Indiana; Histpry pf lpdjap- flhjta Relatjppa, Vol. 4, Ed. Hilcomb Nashburn, pp. 324-334. Smithsonian Institution, Hashington, D. C. Fitting, James E. 1980 Te Oskoniae: The Village of the Tionontate Huron at Michilimackinac, 1671-1701. Unpublished Ms. held at the Michigan Bureau of History, Lansing. Fitting, James E., et al. 1976 "Archaeological Excavations at The Marquette Mission Site, St. Ignace, Michigan, in 1972." Michigan_A:shae21991§t. 22(2-3):103-282. Francis, Daniel and Toby Morantz I983 tne in F rs. t i - . McGill-Oueen’s University Press, Kingston and Montreal. Garrad, Charles 1969 'Iron Trade Knives on Historic Petun Sites.“ In Qatarlp Archaeoleex. 13:3-15. Gerin-Lajoie, Marie 1971-1975 NonLreal_uenchan1s_fiecords_£:elect. Research Files. Microfilm Edition, Minnesota Historical Society. Gibson, Susan G. 1980 'Burr’ s Hill, A 17th Century Hampanoag Burial Ground in Harren, Rhode Island. ' 2In Studies in Anthropology app Mata:1al_taltgaa, Vol. . Haffenreffer Museum of Anthroplogy, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 204 Good, Mary Elizabeth 1972 'Guebert Site: An 18th Century Historic Kaskaskia Indian Village in Randolph County, Illinois.” In _flamplr, No. 2. Central States Archaeological Societies, Inc. Guy, Pierre 1735-1811 ACCoun :.. - i-1 e- 1 -1t- - 1. 1 u' e. 1712-1806. Michigan State University Library Microfilm No. 19014 (microfilm of originals housed at the Antiquarian and Numismatic Society of Montreal). Hamilton, T. M. 1980 Colpnial Frontier Gaga. The Fur Press, Chadron, Nebraska. Hammond, Robert and Patrick McCullagh 1980 tit v ° n. Second Edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Harris, R. Cole and Geoffrey J. Matthews 1987 Hiatorjaal Atlas of C ° F to 1800. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1971 ro i ' lSQQ;1SSQ. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto. Heidenreich, Conrad E. and Arthur J. Ray 1976 Tpa Early Ear Iragea. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto. Hennepin, Father Louis 1974 WWW- Reprinted- Coles Publishing Co., Ltd., Toronto. Originally published 1903, Reuben G. Thwaites, ed., A.C. McClurg and Co., Chicago. Igartua, Jose E. 1974 The Merchants and Negociants of Montreal 1750-1775: A Study in Socio-Economic History. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Innis, Harold A. 1970 lha_£pr_1raaa_1p_tapaaa. Revised edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo. Johnson, Ida Amanda 1971 Iha_M15plgap_£pr_Irada. Black Letter Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Originally published 1919 by the Michigan Historical Commission. 205 Kalm, Peter 1972 lrayala_1ptp_flprth_5mar1aa. The Imprint Society, Barre, Massachusetts. Karklins, Karlis 1983 "Dutch Trade Beads in North America.‘I In £rpaaa81pga_pf tha 1882 Glass Trage Bead Conferepca, Ed. Charles Hayes III, pp. 111-126. Research Division, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York. Kellogg, Louise P. 1968 en Re ime in ' o i n t e . Reprinted. Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925 by The State Historical Society of Hisconsin, Madison. Krech, Shepard III, ed. 1984 We ub rTrade: "Wonk. Adaptatlpna. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.- Latta, M. A. 1971 “Archaeology of the Penetang Peninsula." In Balaapagplpgy , Research Report 2, University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology. Leone, Mark 1977 Foreword. In W511 Aranaaplpgy, Ed. Stanley South, pp. xvii-xxi. Academic Press, New York. Leone, Mark and Constance Crosby 1987 ”Middle Range Theory in Historical Archaeology.“ In W Ed. Suzanne Spencer-Hood, pp. 397-410. Plenum Press, New York. Leone, Mark and Parker Potter 1988 Iha_3aapyary_pflflaap1pg. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Lohse, E. S. 1988 "Trade Goods.“ In WW1. fljatory pf 1pdjap-flhlta Balatjppa, Vol. 4, Ed. Hilcomb Nashburn, pp. 396-403. Smithsonian Institution, Hashington, D.C. Lovis, Hilliam A. 1973 Late Hoodland Cultural Dynamics in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 206 Mainfort, Robert C. Jr. 1979 “Indian Social Dynamics in the Period of European Contact: Fletcher Site Cemetery, Bay County, Michigan." In Anthrppplpgical Serjaa, 1(4):269-418. Publications of The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1985 “Health, Space, and Status in a Historic Indian Cemetery." In Ameriaap Antjgpjty, 50(3):555-579. Mason, Randall 1984 A Taphonomic Comparison of Archaeological and Documentary Records of Material Culture from an Antebellum Porttown in Mississippi. M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Mason, Ronald J. 1981 great LQKES Arapaeplpgy. Academic Press, New York. 1986 Rock Island: Historical Indian Archaeology in the Northern Lake Michigan Basin. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Miller, George L. 1980 “Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics.” In fliatpriaal_Arapaaplpgy, 14:1-40. 1991 'A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880.“ In 81W. 25(1)=l-25- MMR Project Files 1971-1975 LOW. Research Files. Microfilm Edition, Minnesota Historical Society. See reference for Gerin- -Lajoie. Moniere, Alexis 1712-1768 -c 0 nt zoo. - ., - 1- 1 1 . ., -. 1212-1806. Michigan State University Library Microfilm No. 19014 (microfilm of originals housed at the Antiquarian and Numismatic Society of Montreal). Morantz, Toby 1980 ”The Fur Trade and the Cree of James Bay.“ In Qld_lra1la , Eds. Carol Judd and Arthur Ray, pp. 39-58. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. MPHC 1904 i l ' P Hiatprlaal_Spa1aty. Volumes 33 and 34. 207 Nern, Craig F. and Charles E. Cleland 1974 “The Gros Cap Cemetery Site, St. Ignace, Michigan: A Reconsideration of the Greenlees Collection." In Michigan Archaeologist. 20(I)=l-58- Pease, Theodore and Raymond Herner 1934 ”The French Foundations 1680-1693.” French Series, Vol. 1. In 0 l ti t e li t Librarx. Vol. 23. Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield. Quimby, George Irving 1966a "The Dumaw Creek Site: A Seventeenth Century Prehistoric Indian Village and Cemetery in Oceana County, Michigan." In fielding 56(1): 1966b "'T;1 ,T__r' -fld , 11'. .0: 010 : T ' ‘ 1:111. pf tha hiatorja Earjpg in tha flaatarn Sraat Lahaa Bagjon. University of Hisconsin Press, Madison and Milwaukee. Rathje, Hilliam and Michael McCarthy 1977 ”Regularity and Variability in Contemporary Garbage. In Re esaar rah Stratagi a; in 81 stprjaal Arahaaplpgy, Ed. Stanley South, pp. 261- 286. Academic Press, Inc. Ray, Arthur J. 1974 Indians jn tha Far Trade: thair rpla a; trappara, huntara, and njgdlemen in the langa_apnthyaat_p£_fladapn Bay 1860-1870. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1980 "Indians as Consumers in the Eighteenth Century. In Old l rajla and New ere eati pns, Papers of the Third North American Fur Trade Conference, Eds. Carol Judd and Arthur Ray, pp. 255-271. University of Toronto Press. Ray, Arthur J. and Donald Freeman 1978 ‘ e Us Good Me 5 r ’° A n w 9 1763. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Rich, E. E. 1960 "Trade Habits and Economic Motivation Among the Indians of North America" In BMW Epljtltal_Sa1anaa, 26(1): 35-53. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1967 W. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto. 208 Ross, Lester A. 1983 ”Archaeological Metrology: English, French, American and Canadian Systems of Heights and Measures for North American Historical Archaeology.” In H1§tpry_an8 Arahaaplpgy, No. 68, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada. Salzer, Robert J. and Robert A. Birmingham 1981 haeol l lva e xc v t ' ’ A 4 Mad e s . Report submitted to Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service. Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 “Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. ” In W. 37(2): 156-165 1976 8ehavioral Arahaaplpgy. Academic Press, New York. 1987 W. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schuyler, Robert L., ed. 1980 “Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History." WM. No. 1. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York. Sharer, Robert J. and Nendy Ashmore I987 eol ' c v i . Mayfield Publishing Company. Spencer-Hood, Suzanne M., ed. 1987 WW- PIenum Press. New York and London. Stone, Lyle M. 1971 “Rosary and Glass Beads.“ In The Lasanen Site, An Historic Burial Locality in Mackinac County, Michigan, Anthrppplpg1aal_Sar1a§, Ed. Charles Cleland, l(l):74-85. Publications of The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Stone, Lyle M. 1972 Archaeological Investigation of the Marquette Mission Site, St. Ignace, Michigan, 1971: A Preliminary Report. ' ° , No. 1. Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 1974 'Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. In Anthrppplpg1aal_Sar1a§, 2: 1- 367. Publications of The Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 209 Thwaites, Reuben 6., ed. 1896-1901 h s i tions d Allied o m t . 73 vols. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland. Trigger, Bruce G. 1985 Nativea and Newcomera. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston and Montreal. Turgeon, Laurier 1986 "Pour Redecouvrir Notre l6e Siecle: Les Peches a Terre- Neuve d’apres les Archives Notariales de Bordeaux.“ In ev ’ i o ’ , 39(4):523-549. Turner, Frederick J. 1970 lhe Charaatar and Inflpanaa of tha Ingjan lrage in Hiaapnsin. Burt Franklin, New York. "MC 1902 O] e '01 0 1' 1 ' 1 0 - I ‘ 1 01 Hheeler, Robert; Halter Kenyon; Alan Hoolworth; and Douglas Birk 1975 “Voices from the Rapids, An Underwater Search for Fur Trade Artifacts 1960-1973.“ In ' ' Arahaaplpgy_Sar1aa, No. 3, Publications of the Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Hhite, Bruce 1987 "Montreal Canoes and Their Cargoes.‘ In lpnt, Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference. Eds. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise Dechene, pp.164-192. Hittry, Harren L. 1963 ”The Bell Site, Hn9, An Early Historic Fox Village." In W. “(lid-57. Hoodward, Arthur 1970 r r ° n l ' ' e ' de. Socio- Techincal Publications, Pasadena, California. Hray, Charles F. 1983 “Seneca Glass Trade Beads, c.A.D. 1550-1820.” In Erpaaaginga of the 1882 Glass lrade 8ead tonfaranaa, Ed. Charles Hayes 111, pp. 41-49. Research Division, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York. Yerbury, J. C. 1986 W. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. ‘111111111111111“