'
AND THE HEROIC AGE
OF NEW FRANCE
(Revised Ediüön: 1989)
Bruce G. Trigger
THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
HI.GTORICAL BOOKLET No. 30
Series Editors:
Terry C’ook
(.S’aIiunaI A r‹’hiy‹’.s ‹›fl (’ana‹Ia)
Note: The editors of the original 1977 version
of this booklet were Peter Gillis
and A. Desilets.
Copyright by
THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
OTTAWA, 1977, 1989
C“over: “Battle of the Richelieu R iver. 19 .I line lf› I(1." from Samuel dc C’hamplain’s fr›i age.›
(1613), as reproduced in Rrucc (i. °frigger. I hildreit i›f‘z4 aloriil.s i‹ 1.' .•l Hi.st‹›r i r›/ fJic /fiiroo
Proyly f‹› /ddO (U ontreal. 1976), p. 259.
INDIANS
HEROIC AGE
NEW
CE
(Revised Edition: 1989)
Bruce G. Trigger
ISBN t1-88798-148-8 Historical BonLlels
lSSN 00ti 8-886X Llislorical Eooklels (Pt int)
ISSN 17 i 5-8G21 1-Iislorical Booklets (Onl(HC)
Ottawa, 1977, 1989
THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
HISTORICAL BOOKLET No. 30
Bruce G. Trigger was educated at the University of Toronto and Yale
U niversitv from which he received his doctorate in anthropology in
1964. He has written extensively on the histor of the Indians of
eastern Canada and is the author of The ffurra.' farmer.i o( lhe
.8’orih, The ChilJren of’Aalaeni.sir. A Histor i of the Htir‹›n Peo Ie to
166a, and S'aiii es and .S'ei ’corners. C’ano la’.s “Heroin A ge”
/ie‹’on.siâereJ. Dr. Trigger is Professor of A nthropologv at McCiill
University and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. 1 n 1985 he
received the latter“s I nuts-Gérin medal for his “distinguished and
sustained contribution to the literature of the social sciences.”
THE INOI ANS AND THE H ER OIC’ AG E OF NMW £ RAN( E
History is usua11 written with at least one eye to the future, historians are
limited to those data u’hich as a result of circumstances beyond their control
manage to survive the raVages of time, and their interpretations ma be
influenced by racial or cultural prejudices of which they are often una are.
All three of these problems have bedevilled the study of hew France prior to
the Royal Regime of 1663. Historians have been anx ious to trace the origins
of New France and, because the ' view the Indians as a lost cause, have
tended to dismiss or underrate their role in the ear)v historical period. I he
data for this period are mainly the self-laudatory accounts of explorers, such
as .1 acques C’artier or Samuel de C hamplain. or the missionary propaganda
of the Recollet and Jesuit orders. ,I- inallj it is often assumed that the Indians
had no history of their own or that what histor they did have consisted
solely of their reactions to L uropean colonic ation. The latter view has been
espoused even by historians primarily concerned with the 1 ndians, such as
George T. Hnot in his influential I“hc• Wars of the Iroquoi.s.
Contrary to conventional interpretations. the history of New L’rance prior
to 1665 was overwhelmingly shaped b;’ the Indians. Throughout that period,
they far outnumbered the Europeans and were militarily superior to them
They also knew Canada and its resources and had long interacted wit h each
other, both as friends and as foes. 1 i was therefore the I ndians’ reactions to
what theY perceived Europeans and each other to be doing, rather than the
initiatives of Europeans, that were crucial at that time. We must begin to
understand the early history of Canada by understanding the u a3•s of life of
the lndian grOupS that inhabited the northeastern part of Noah America in
the sixteent h and earl› seventeenth centuries. Relations between lndians and
Europeans at that time can be interpreted largely as a confrontatiOn between
the egalitarian values of the lndians and the ver ' different ones of a
technologically more complex societ j that was in a process of transition
from feudal to eapitalistic organization.
The Possessors
The first human beings to inhabit North America were big-game hunters
who may’ have crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia over 40,000 years ago.
Yet t hey were only able to enter eastern Canada from the south and u'est
following the retreat of the glaciers about 10,000 B.C. lt was not until around
5,000 B.C. that climatic conditions and patterns of vegetation resembling
those of today came to prey ail over southern Ontario and Quebec. Most
Canadian 1 ndians remained hunters and gatherers, but developed a more
complex technology and learned to exploit a more diversified range of plants
and animals. The result was a population that adjusted with increasing
sophistiCation and precision to various types of environments Over many
millennia. So long as the population remained relativel; small by modern
standards, it was able to live comfortably off the land without permanently
altering it.
Already by 7,000 II.t“., plants were being domesticated in tropical
A merica. li the first millennium b.C .. a series of plants unrelated to those
domesticated in the Old World were to prox ide ihe basis for the civilizations
that developed in Mexico and Peru. After experimenting with local plants.
the I ndians of the eastern United States adopted the Mexican triad of corn.
beans. and squash as the basis of their subsistence. I‘hese plants were
gradually adapted to a shorter growing season and, by about A.D. 1.000.
were being cultivated in southern Ontario and Quebec and on the southern
margins of the Canadian Shield.
When the Furopeans arrived in North A meriea. they found it occupied by
hundreds of what ant hropologists call bands and tribal groups. These
differed in customs and dialects and many spoke languages that were wholly
unrelated to one another. I n eastern Canada there were two such separate
language stocks: Algonkian and I roquoian. It was once believed that in late
prehistoric times the lroquoians had pressed northward, occupying upper
New York State. sout here Ontario, and the St. 1.aw rence Valley. I n so
doing. they were thought tO have forcibly displaced the indigenous
Xlgorikians to the east, north, and west, thus accounting for the hostility that
characterized relations between the Five bations I roquois and their
Algonkian neighbours in historic times. lt is now clear from archaeological
evidence that I roquoian- and Algonkian-:•peak ing peoples had lived side by
side for a long time in the lower Great Lakes region and that the I roquoian
waj of life had developed locally. There was no “tj pical” relationship
between Algonkians as a w hole and I roquoian speakers as a whole: rather
there u’ere various relationships between individual peoples. The friendship
between the I roquoian-speaking H uron and their Algonkian neighbours
(long viewed b ' historians as an act of treason on the part of the H uron) was
as normal a relationship between 1 roquoians and Algonkians as was the
hostility' between the lroquois and their neighbours.
Yet. u'hile the individual lndian societies across Canada differed from
each other, all of them ere based on similar principles, w hich in general
resembled those of egalitarian societies in other parts of the world.
Sout hem Ontario, southern Quebec, and the Maritimes were areas of
mixed deciduous and coniferous forest, rich in fish and game, and producing
many kinds of fruits. nuts. herbs. and berries. The most important plant
nutritionally n'as wild rice. The areas of densest human occupation w'ere
along the lakes, risers. and sea coasts. I n man parts of this region. during
4
S
‹P**!i•°pun sa¡dODd **!8*ads-ueionboJ¡)
009i ’o sa¡doad u•! • ¡ jo U•! J*• i * !*OJddp
the warm u'eathei’, bands of several hundred 1 ndians would gather by major
bodies of water’ and live off fish. eels, and shellfish. I n the lean winter months,
i he members of these bands were obliged to scatter in small family groups in
i he surrounding forest. where they sought tti catch enough game to survive
i he z inter. I ndians following this pattern in the early historic period included
the U icmac and Maleciie of ihe M arit imes, the Montagnais of Quebec, and
t he t)jibwa of northern (Ontario.
thy contrast, the l roquoians who lived in the vicinity of the lower CIreat
l.akes relied upon their crops fOr up to 50 per cent of the food they
consumed. thee ‹iccu pied settlements that had up to 1,500 inhabitants, and
in exceptitirial instances were even larger, Wuch a community remained at a
single site for a decade or longer until the exhaustion of the soil forced its
i’e1ocation, Women planted, tended, and harvested the crops and left the
ici iiit y tif their settlements only to visit nearby fishing spots or to help haul
meat htimc fi tim ctimmurial hunts. The men cleared the fields of trees, but
lived in their ctimmunitj only during the winter months. During the rest of
the s’eai , t he› spent long periods away from their settlements hunting,
fishing. trading, and waging war. The l roquoian peoples liv’ing in sout hem
Ontariti were lhe l*etun and two confederacies or groupings of allied natiOfis
that the L’i’eiich carted the H uron and the Neutral. In addition there were the
F rie, the Went o. and the five nations of the I roquois eonfederacv (the
Sencca. C aj tiga. Onondaga, Oneida, and M ohawk) in New York Siate. the
Susq ue hanntick in Pennsy lvania, and, in the sixteenth century, a scattering
of peoples in the Saint I.an rence Valley now known collectively as the Saint
1.at i’ence li oquoians. Some Algonkian groups, such as the N ipissing and
A lgonk in who lived to the north and east of the IN uron, grew corn around
their s ummcY campsites. but because of poor soil and an uncertain growing
season were u nablc to depend on horticulture. ’l’hey followed a seasonal
c ’cfc similar to that of the Montagnais and Ojibwa. £1t her groups, including
the f4tta va, dcpcnded nitire heavily on their crops. Some of them had their
main settlements strut h of(ieorgian Bay, but each year both sexes spent long
Per itids iin a; ft om t hose settlements hunting, fishing, and collecting berries.
l4 uniing and fishing provided the principal source of food for all of the
A lgonkian pcoples in C’anada (although many Algonkian groups farther
south depended on horticulture). This was predominantly men’s work and
w-as normall; a cooperative enterprise. Fven in winter, the danger of sick ness
or accidents made it unsafe for a man to hunt alone. ’rhc normal small winter
hunting group consisted of a man and his sons or several brothers. together
with i heir dependents. I he larger, summer fishing band seems to have been
madc up of’a number of such groups. whose members shared a more remote
genealogical relationship in the male line. Each band had a name, its own
hunting territor;', and a chief whose office tended to be inherited by a
qualified candidate belonging to a specific family. Wives normally were
obtained from neighbouring bands, thus maintaining friendly ties between
them. Adjacent bands sharing a common language and customs constituted
a nation or peoFle, however, the unity of hunting and gathering groups of
this kind was more cultural than political.
Unlike the male-centered Algonkian hunting band, the 1 roquoian
community was female-centered. While men were away much tif the time.
the women remained in their settlements and worked together. I he basic
unit of cooperation was a woman and her adult daughters, or a group of
sisters, who lived in a single longhouse. A number of these matrilinealljrelated extended families constituted a clan. Each clan had its own chiefs
(one for peaceful affairs and one for war), was named after a particular
animal or bird, and its members were forbidden by rules of incest to marr
one anoi her. A married man usually went to live with and work for his n'il’e’s
family. A number of clans together formed a communit ‹if up to 1.500
inhabitants and adjacent communities a people or nation which had up to
5,000 members. There were community' and national councils made up of
clan chiefs: the nat iOn in this case being a political as well as a cultural unit.
l‘he solidarity of the people was reinforced bi the grtiuping of local clans
into v arious associations which cooperated for ritual Furposes.
Indians highly valued politeness and good manners in their dealings with
one another. I t was considered immoral to coerce anyone into acting against
his or her own will, but from an early age individuals w’ere encouraged to feel
a sense of shame if they did not work hard ftir their family and learn to sut’fer
without complaint. These attitudes were extremely imFortant. since kinship
and tamil› life constituted the model upon which the Indians based their
broader social and political institutions. Both hunting and gathering and
horticultural groups had chiefs, and these offices tended to be hereditar; in
specific families. Yet, while a particular chief might be respected for his talent
as a hunter, warrior, trader, or mediator of disputes, none had the right to
order his people to do anything. Every person prixed his or her independence
and would have resenied being given orders. Chiefs had to rel› on Fublic
opinion for carrying out general policy and e›’en that did not alwa;'s win
universal support. Chiefs therefore were careful tti consider the wishes of
their people before proposing a particular course of actitin. The main
function of a chief in dealing wit h other groups was to act as a spokesman ftir
his clanspeople.
The 1 ndians considered it w rong that am one should go hungr; or lack
necessities while others had more than they needed. Visitors u'ere made
welcome and families or individuals who had suffered misfortunes were
never allowed to go hungrj’. The principal reason for accumulating surplus
7
food and Y’ai e gtitids from other gi’oups was to be able to give them away to
other metribers t›f one’s comm unit j , with prestige accruing to the donor.
Chiefly and their families worked especially hard to collect furs and other
valuable items so that lheir clan could win prestige by giv ing them away.
St ingincss, b› contrast, was strongly disapproved of and could lead to
accusatit›ns of witchcraft which eventually tnight put the life of a miser in
extreme danger. I he l ndians did not lack an incentive for working hard and
producing surpluses: prestige, however, was ntit derived from owning
pi ‹iperty but from giving it away.
F 'idence for intcrgroup trade in easter n C“aiiada goes back to at least
4,00fl i3 t’. Naiii e copper mined in the vicinit s of I.ake Superior was traded
frtim tone people to anot her’ as Jar as t he sout heastern tJ nited States, while
marine shells from the latter’ area web c traded ii(›rth intti C’anada. Most of
the material that u as ti’aded in this Fashit›n ii as used to make lux ur ' items,
some of n hich were of religious imptirtance. With the development of
horticult urc in rout hem Ontai’io. a trade in utilitai ian items grew up across
the s‹iiii hem margin oi’ the Canadian Shield. C oi’ii. nets, and tobacco from
swum hem (Ontario w'ere exchanged for’ furs. di’ied fish. and meat from farther
nt›rth. I radc routes generally n'ei’e controlled by the heads of particular
families ‹ir clans, iv ho ould grant permission to ot her traders to use them
truly in rcturn for presents. Traders n'ei’e not allowed to ci oss the territory of
tether pet pies wit hout first receiving permission to do so from local chiefs.
w htm normall; coliccicd tolls for the pri ’ilege. Most intergroup trade was
bent een specific trading partners. who had adopted one another as ritual
kinsmen and whti often exchanged children as cv idence of’ trust and good
will. ’I he › lue tif goods traded was related to scarcit y and l ndian traders
sought fa› ourablc rates of exchange for their own mares. I‘hey were not
unknon'n to manipulate Facttirs of supple’ and demand in their own fav our.
1 n spite of this, I ndians sctirned tO haggle t» er the price of individual items.
instead. trading part ners established ‹›vei all rates of exchange for their
goods at each trading session. The idiom of such bargaining was friendship
and alliance rather than economic considerations.
The I ndians had no police force or judicial’ ' that could bring a murderer to
justice. F›'eri man was responsible for protecting his kinsmen. The relatives
of a murdered person «ere requii ed to avenge the ›’ictim bi’ slaying the
suspected killer or someone related to him. Xt the same time. the family of
the murderer u'as honour’-bound to protect him. This frequently led to
prolonged blood feuds or u'arfare bet u een lhe groups in›'ol›’ed. I ndeed.
a ’enging murders w'as the reason gis en bi' the I ndians for all of their wars.
Within nat ions or betw'een peoples that traded v it h each other there was a
strong desire to avoid the destructis'e consequences of such behaviour.
Among such groups. an effort was made to replace bltlOd feud with compen-
sation paid b the clan to which the murderer belonged to that of his victim.
Although the settlement had to satisfy the family of the murdered person,
the leading men of the groups inv'olved worked hard to ari ange ter me that
were satisfactory, while public opinion unanimously supptirted such a
settlement in plaCe Of blood revenge.
The I ndians ’iewed most aspects of natui’e. such as the sun. woon. star s.
rivers, hills. lightning, and disease, as animate and therefore as resptinsive to
human behax iour. they’ also attributed souls to man-madc object s. such as
nets, The 1 ndians sought to invoke t hesc forces through ritual and to win
their support or avert their anger. C? harms were employed to bring luck in
hunt ing, fishing, and related activities. Men who went hunting and fishing
observed numerous tabOOS, Stich as not burning the bones of their catch, so
as not to anger the souls of animals. Rituals were also performed to ensure
the success of crops or the increase of’ wild plants. Among the lroquoians,
the torturing and killing of male pristiners was a i itual sacrifice in h‹int›ur tif
the sun, who was also the patrtin spirit of war. Warfare and its assticiated
rituals were a major source of male prestige. P inally, much ritual was
concerned with curing disease and alleviating psy chologicai distress. feasts
and gift-giving were important aspects of ritual: generosity' serving as a
prophylactic against witchcraft. Shamans w'ere employed as part-time
specialists to deal with the spirit w’orld. Among horticultural peoples the
uere assisted by curing societies. the membership of u’hich cut across clan
and even national boundaries. ’I he l ndians had no formal creeds. priests, or
community ritual centres. Yet. religion permeated every aspect of Indian life.
lt pi t» ided them with a sense of cosmic securit y, sanctioned the economic
rcdistribution ihat was the basis of their economy, and helped to regulate
healt h relations betw'een the l ndians and their environment.
[ndian societies wcrc not merely superficially different from those of
seventeenth-century Europe or our own: ther’ were based on w'holl›’ different
principles. They embraced small populations. which their econom›
permitted them tO live in harmony with their en ironment. All of’ their
political and social institutions were modelled on f.tmils’ relations and shared
in the › alues assigned to such relationships. I he I ndians str tingly ›-aiued
gencrosit; and sharing, as well as self-reliance and individual integrity, They’
loathed acquisitiveiiess, admired personal fortitude. and fiercely resented
even the appearance of coercion. They maintained law and order u ii hout
law courts, prisons, or capital punishment, and their chiefs did not give
orders but managed e›eryt hing ‹in the basis of consensus.
7”he Intruders
The Eurtipcan discovery of orth America late in the fifteent h century was
not the result tif a chance individual act, The merchants of liristol were
9
seeking ne cod fisheries in the western Atlantic at the same time that
Christopher Columbus was prtimoting plans to find a more direct r‹›iiie to
the riches of the lndies. 1 hese motives and a desire to exploit the riches of the
New World continued to spur the exploration of eastern Canada during
mosi of the sixteent h centur;'. Party in that century, fishermen from France.
Spain, and l•ortugal were landing each summer tO dry cod fish along the
coasts of New foundland, southern 1.a brad or, and tii-‹i Sctitia. 1 n the
mainland at eas. their annual return to the same fishing stations facilitated
the transftirmation tif casual trade it h local bands of 1 ndians into habitual
ti’ading alliances. ’1 he l ndians were able to supply’ the fishermen with a wide
› at iet› of furs I hat fetched high prices in Eurt›pe. Ont; later in the century
was this trade predominant i;' for beaver fur, u’hich uas felted in Fiii’ope to
inakc hats. I nitiallv, the lndians sought beads. strips of clol h. and other
[i uropcan trinkets as novelties or even as object s ha› ing super natural pow'er.
Yet t hej soon came to appreciate the ut ilit of iron knit es and axes, metal
kettles, and other’ utilitarian itcms and were anxious to obtain these goods in
larger quantities. to secure more furs. t hey’ spent longer portions of each
year’ hunting in the forest s, t herehy reducing their exploitation of coastal
food resources. ’I ti compensate for t his. t hey purchased biscuits, dried peak.
and (It her foodstuffs from the L uropeans and began to barter European
goods in exchange for cornmeal n'it h the horticultural tribes fif ñen
England, n hose coasts were visited only infrequent lj b›’ Europeans.
Luropean goods from the M aritimes eventuall were reported to be traded
from group to group as ter south as Virginia. 1 n the Marit imes, new material
riches enhanced traditional ftirms of ceremonialism. particu1ar1 ' the
entombment tif an I ndian’s personal possessions with his body .
l*i’ofessional fur traders began to operate in eastern C anada ahout 1550
and somc of thcm soon sought legal monopolies to control the iradc of the
region. Yet the indented coastline and many email watersheds of the
M ai’itiines made it extremcl› difficult for either I ndian or European traders
to cnf‹irce monopolies. A growing demand for furs led to warfare betw'een
different I ndian groups. w’hich enhanced the power tif those chiefs 5’ho were
successt ul i Y’ad ct s. 13› the l620s, some of the less w'eil-armed Malccitc were
colnpelled to cede their hunting territories to their eastern neighbours and
flee north of t he Saint 1.awrence. European traders relied increasingly upon
alcoholic beverages to attract and hold [ndian trade. At first, intoxication
w as valucd b;' the lndians as a potent means of achieving communion n'ith
their traditional spirits. Trade was little affected bi the limited and sporadic
F urtipcan settlement in the Maritimcs in the carl› part of the seventeenth
ccnlury. I ts main advantage n'as to allow some l ndians to trade with
Europeans throughout the year.
the S›aint 1.awrence Vallej offered ery different opptirtunities from the
Mai itimes. It provided the only entrance to a vast network of iakcs and
rivers that penetrated deep into the fi orth American continent and
northward acrtiss vast areas of the Canadian S hield. The latter areas were
rich in beaver. while the waterways made it relatively was to collect these
furs and transport them to trading stations. Whatever L uropean or I ndian
groups controlled the ltiwer Saint 1.awrence were in a position to derive
considerable profit from this trade.
I t appears that even before 1535 lndians living along the upper Saint
1.aw rence were collecting furs to trade with European fishermen around the
Strait of Belle Isle: however. the first substantial contact between the P rench
and the Saint Lawrence I roquoians occurred when ,Jacques Carticr was
commissioned to discover a navigable trade route through North America
to the I ndies. 1.ured by his misunderstanding of’ accounts of the nat ive
copper trade, Cartier travelled as far up the Saint 1.awrence River as the
1 ndian town of FI ochelaga. on Moptreal I s1and, searching for gold. When he
decided to spend the winter of i 535-36 near Stadacona, on the site of what is
now Quebec City, he was welcomed by the local chief, Donnacona, who
wished to have him as an ally and trading partner. f9onnacona’s people
taught the French how to cure scur v y and offered to share the meat frtim
their winter hunt with them. I n spite of t his, C“artier’s unwitting failure to
respond to Donnacona’s offer of an alliance, his general mistrust of the
l ndians. his unauthorixed use of their land, his kidnapping of local people,
and his uninformed involvement in disputes among various lndian groups
caused his relations with the I ndians to go sour. When Cartier attempted to
establish a colonY near Quebec in 1541, as a base frtim which to exp1‹iit the
region, he was attacked by the Saint Lawrence 1 roquoians, who harassed thc
settlement unt il ( artier abandoned it the following spring. After R ober val’s
colony at the same location failed in 1543, the Saint Lawrence l roquoians
orFosed any further European exploration upriver. Following the collapse
of these officially sponsored attempts at colonizat ion, the I ndians of the
upper Saint 1.awrence River continued to trade with European fishermen
and whalers at ihe Strait of Belle Isle and, after 1550, at I adoussac. li› the
beginning of the seventeenth century the I ndians at Tadoussac were trading
to the French furs that had come to them from as far away as James Bay.
By the late sixteenth centur v, the fur trade had produced extensive
changes among the I ndians of eastern C anada. IN nfortunatel , t hese changes
were poorly recorded in contemporary documents and must be inferred
from the small amount of historical and archaeological evidence that is
available. It appears that the landlocked I roquois of New York State were
anxious for European goods but found it difficult tti obtain them from the
Saint 1.awrence 1 roquoians or the Algonkin, with whom they were probably
at war. While the Onondaga and Seneca maV have obtained some goods
from the Chesapeake Bay area. the Mohawk. who wcre the eastern-most
I roquois people, raided the Saint 1.awrence Valley and seem to have
dispersed the Hochelagans and Stadaconans, some of whom journe; cd
iiestward to join the H uron. thy 1600. the M ohawk were attacking the
M ontagnais who lived down river frtim Quebec. These attacks appear to
have great ly strengt hened the I roquois c‹infederacy and may have bi’ought it
int‹› existence in the first place. I3y the late sixteenth centur y, F uropean
goods. mosilj obtained as botity, wcrc reaching all of the l rtiquois petiples.
L uropean goods also began to reach the 1 Iuron in the second half of the
sixteent h century. From Tadoussac. these goods were passed from one
people to the next along an important prehi,storic copper trading route that
ran through 1.ake Nipissing and acrtiss central Quebec from the upper £3 reat
1.a kes. I he Nipissing and Algon k in were no dou bt pleased to e.xchange
E uropean goods with the H uron in return ftir the fairer’s surplus c‹›i ii.
l3esire to participate in this trade seems to have motto ated all four H urt›n
peoples to settle in close prox imit j' at the sout hcasiern cxtremit› of I ieorgian
13a; . l‘his z as a rich agricultural area, idcall; located for cas› canoe-borne
trade with the north and long the home of two of the H uron peoples. I‘he
H uron confederacj' achie ’ed its full development at this period, w'hile
t’ormer ii'art’are u ith the Petun and beutral gave n'ai’ to peaceful trade z hen
the I-1 uron began to supply European goods to these groups. It was probabl›'
at this time also that the H uron began trading with the far-off
Susquehannock of Pennsylvania. who became their chief suppliers of
wampum. The small quantities of European goods reaching the H ui on and
their neighbours in the late sixteent h century n'ere unlikel to have tween tif
great utilitai’ian value. Ne› ert heless, they had the effect tif stimulating the
development of an extensive lux ury trade and many realignments of
intergroup relations. If the results of this trade seem out of prtiportion to its
practical significance, one must remember the social and ritual significance
that intergroup trade enjoyed at many periods in the Frehistor› of eastern
North A merica.
8› I fi02, the official French traders on the Saint 1.awrence had recognized
that more and better qualit y furs came from north of the river than from
sout h of it. l’hey therefore valued the friendship of the Montagnais and their
allies more than they did that of the I roquois. The were also an xious to
increase the v olume of their trade b5 establishing direct cOntact with I ndians
living in the northern interior. This conflicted with the desire of the
Montagnais to maintain a monoptily over trade bet seen the I-‘rench and the
[ndians living farther inland. fly refusing to allow these I ndians to cross their
territoi i and trade direct ly with the French, the Montagnais were able io
exchange 1- rench goods wit h them at a more favourable rate than i hey
had paid for t here goods and to sell the furs they obtained from these groups
to the L’rench fOr additional profit. 1 n this manner. the Montagnais
12
profited b› selling pelts t hey did not have to trap or cure i’or F.uropean items
the; did not have to manufacture.
U nfortunately. the Montagnais were threatened b› the I roquois and in
need of allies. Hence, while the› retained a monopoly over trade with
northern Quebec, t he allowed the Algonkin from the Ottawa Valley to visit
T’adoussac and trade direct ly’ with the French in return for the assistance of
these grou ps in war with the 1 roquois. I he french traders hoped that b›’
providing their 1 ndian allies with metal n'eapons (but not guns) these allies
uould be able to drive the I i oqutiis frtim the Saint 1.awrence Valle;' and to
use the rii'cr as a direci trade route in place of the older but more tortuous
copper route across central Quebec. I n 1608, the Montagnais gave ihe
French permission to found a colony at Quebec in the hope that this would
alit›w the local Montagnais to trade with the l-’rench year around and protect
them from the I roquois. I n spite of this, the 1 roquois continued to raid the
u pper Saint 1.awrence Valley and to prevent I ndian traders from using the
river.
l‘o d ri› e thc I roquois raiders from the Saint Lawrence and to hold the
loyalty’ of their I ndian allies against competition from private traders, in
1605 the k rench trading company decided to send musketeers to assist their
I ndian allies against the lroquois. I n the summer of 1609. at a battle on the
shore of make C“hamplain and, even more dec, isivel in 1610, near the mouth
of the R ichelieu R iver, Champlain helped his I ndian allies to defeat
Mohaw k war Fatties. I n 1609, the dutch explored the upper part of the
Hudson River and, soon after, they began trading with the Mahican and
other tribes who lived along its banks. The ohawk were now able to
plunder European goods from the Mahican or to cross Mahican territory to
trade their furs with the Dutch. As a result, the Mohawk abandoned their
attacks on the Saint I.awrence Valley, although they continued to raid and
plunder the Algonkin in the Ottawa Valley. This permitted the French
traders to ascend the Saint Lawrence River each summer as far as machine,
where t hey traded with the Algonkin within the latter’s own territory, This
action eliminated the last controls that the Montagnais exercised over trade
between the i- rench and the Algonkin.
the H uron also wanted to trade directly with the 1-‘reneh. 1 n 1609, a small
group of them secured an invitation from their Algonkin trading partners to
accompan› them on C hamplain’s expedition against the I roquois. The
Algonkin were opposed to direct trade between the H uron and the l-’rench,
but depended heavily on H uron corn and military assistance against the
1 roquois: hence they did not feel able to opFose the H uron openly. The
Algonkin knew that the H uron wished Champlain to visit their country so
that t heir’ chiefs could conclude an alliance with him. The Algonkin chiefs
13
therefore employed a series of ruses and deceptions which prevented
Champlain from travelling up the Ottawa River until 1615. That year, the
Huron invited both the French and the Algonkin to join them in a
retaliatory raid against the Oneida (the lroquois nation living next to the
Mohawk) that was to be launched from the Huron country. In this manner.
Champlain was able to visit the Huron country where he concluded a series
of alliances with the Huron chiefs. Hereafter. the Huron were able to trade
directly with the French on the Saint Lawrence River, although they still had
to pay tolls to the Algonkin for using the Ottawa River.
The Huron soon became the principal trading partners of the French.
They were now able to exchange both their corn and European goods for
furs with the Nipissing. Ottawa. and Algonkin. The Nipissing traded as far
north as James Bay. while the Ottawa traded along the shores of Lakes
Superior and Michigan. The Huron thus were able to acquire furs from as
far away as central Quebec, James Bay, and the upper Great Lakes. They
also retained their monopoly of supplying European goods to the Petun and
shared with the Iroquois the supplying of such goods to the Neutral. Each
year they carried the furs they had amassed across Lake Nipissing and down
the Ottawa River (gathering more along the way) to the French trading
stations. In this manner, they supplied well over half of the 12,000 to 22.000
pelts that were traded to the French along the Saint Lawrence annually.
In order to obtain these furs, the Huron seem to have grown more corn
and traded the surpluses they had formerly produced to tide them over lean
years. More time was also spent grinding corn and producing nets to trade
with the northern hunters. while traders were away from their communities
for longer periods. The riches derived from trade stimulated the Huron way
of life even more than they did that of hunting and gathering groups such as
the Micniac. Iron knives were used to produce more elaborate bone carving.
and the abundant metal from broken kettles was worked using the same
methods that had been used to work the formerly scarce native copper. All
of these developments marked the florescence of crafts that the Huron had
previously practised in a more limited fashion. As the Huron confederacy
came to embrace all four Huron peoples, ritualism and redistribution
occurred on a more elaborate scale. Large amounts of trade goods came to
be interned or given away at the Feast of the Dead, a ceremony that occurred
each time a major settlement moved to a new location and involved the
reburial of the bones of its dead in a common grave. While this ceremony
had long been practised by the Huron. the simple interments of prehistoric
times form a striking contrast with the elaborate burials of the historic
period. Yet. because trade continued to be controlled by traditional chiefs. it
tended to confirm rather than to challenge the basic social order. The main
impact of the early fur trade was to make a relatively simple and isolated
way of life more dramatic. It had allowed the H uron to realize a potential for
development that was inherent in their societ . but s’hich ot hcrw isc might
never have been realized.
Yet, because thc H ui on were so numerous and lii ed several hundred miles
from the F rench trading stat ions, their extensive trade did not yield enough
E uropean goods to undermine mtist native craft s. C”loth u as regarded as a
luxury and glass beads remained scarce and highly valued in the II uron
con ntry. Metal kettles were not sufficiently numerous to diminish
appreciable the P roduct ion of cla› cooking pot s. I3eing able to transport
only a limited amount of goods, the IIuron traded mainly’ ftir iron knives.
axes, and other cutting tools, which allowed men and w omen to work mtire
quickly. and metal arrow heads which could pierce the iv ooden armour of
their enemies. Yet the H uron continued to manufacture even stone tools
until long after 1650. The result was that. u'hile the H uron belie ’ed the›
needed metal weapons, the French remained more dependent on them than
thej’ w'ere on the F rench. [n particular, ihe F’rench feared that the H uron
might begin to trade with the hutch: hence t he; took special steps to
maintain their good will. Armed F’renchmen were paid to tive among the
H uron to encourage them to tradc and to protect H uron ctimmutiities and
traders from attack b the I roquois. A fen' missionaries lived among the
Huron priOr to the capture of ()uebec by the English in 1629, but t he; were
interested mainly in learning the H uron language. I he H uron’s ctintacts
with the I- rench on the haint I.awrence were limited Frincipall›’ tti ti aders
who understood them and catered to their ways.
By contrast, the Montagnais w'ho lived along ihe Saint 1.as rence were
exposed to a wider range of European influences and became more
dependent on the I- rench. By the 1620s, they were wearing large amtiunts t›f
E uropean clothing, eating food and smoking tobacco iinptirted from
France, and no longer manufacturing birch-bark containers and dishcs.
C hamplain. acting as a lieutenant for the Vicero› of ^iew I-‘rancc. was
anxious to develop a prosperous colonj' along the Saint Lawrence o› er
which he could be got ernor. He was unable, howev’er, to compel the trading
companies to prov’ide the financial support required to realize his grandiose
dreams. l n alliance w'ith the Recollet missionaries, he sought to create
colonists by forcing the Montagnais to settle among the French. take up
horticulture, and learn to speak and 1i›’e like frenchmen. This pot ic y u'as
justified by the Recollets’ claim that it was necessary’ to make I ndians
“human” (i.e., European) before t he;’ could be turned into true C’hristians. 1 t
w'as also argued that it was a Christian duty to pro ’ide P rench settlers u'ho
could set an example for these l ndians to Iollow and also supply the coercion
neeessar; to compel them to li›’e as Uhristians. Yet C”hamplain and the
kecollets lacked the means to force the M ontagnais to settle don'n and this
policy was opposed by the traders who wanted the lndians to continue
hunting. Even Champlain’s effous to have the lndians recognize themselves
as French subjects foundered, not least because the lndians did not
understand the necessary concept of subordination.
The Montagnais keenly resented the high prices that the French charged
for their goods after a trading monopoly was effectively re-established in
1614. Bad feelings led to quarrels between individual Indians and
Frenchmen and on three occasions Frenchmen were killed by the lndians.
Champlain refused to accept the reparations payments that were offered by
the Montagnais. This led to more trouble. following which he had to make
humiliating concessions to the lndians to make sure that trading was not
broken off. Champlain was probably correct when he described the
Montagnais as his worst enemies: what he did not admit was that his own
dealings had made them so. In 1628 and 1629. the Montagnais helped the
English to seize New France, believing the English to be free traders and that
it was in their economic interest to do so.
The Dutch traders on the Hudson River at first encouraged the Mohawk
to trade with them but to do this the Mohawk had to cross Mahican
territory. The Dutch soon learned that more and better quality furs could be
obtained from the north than were available from the Hudson Valley. They
therefore sought to obtain a portion of the furs that were being traded to the
French by luring the Montagnais and Algonkin to trade at Fort Orange,
near Albany. Their control of major sources of wampum beads. which were
produced in New Jersey and on Long Island and were much desired by the
northern Indians, made such a manoeuvre seem possible.
The Mohawk feared that an alliance between the Dutch and the Algonkin
would result in their being cut off from European trade goods if warfare
between the Algonkin and lroquois forced the Dutch to choose between
trading with one group or the other. To prevent this. in 1624 the Mohawk
declared war on the Mahican and after four years of hard-fought campaigns
succeeded in dispersing those who lived around Fort Orange. This gave the
Mohawk control over access to the trading post and they soon made it clear
that they would not let any native people from the north or west cross
Mohawk land to trade there. The Dutch, who at one stage in the war had
ineffectually assisted the Mahican against the Mohawk. deeply resented this
dictate but were too few in number to do anything about it. They therefore
decided that until they were strong enough to oppose the I roquois they
would trade with any lndians who could reach their fort, but not interfere
with native relations outside its gates. This. in effect. amounted to an
acceptance of Mohawk policy. The Dutch traders thereafter were to treat the
Iroquois with the utmost tact and forbearance, not offering resistance even
when angry Mohawk killed their cattle arid burned the company yacht.
In preparation for their war with the Mahican, the Mohawk had
exchanged prisoners and made a truce with the A lgonkin, Montagnais, and
L rench, so that they might continue to obtain Eur opean goods if theY were
cut off from ter b›’ the Dutch. After the war, they repeatedly urged the
I- rench to adopt the same policy of neutral it in relations with native grtitips
that the L7utch had enunciated. The general truce came to an end when the
Mohawk refused to renew it after t hey had been attacked wit hout provocation by stime M ontagnais. Alt hough C hamplain tried tti preserve the
peace, once it had ended he decided to conquer the I roquois or to destrtiy
them, so that they might no longer interfere with F rench trade or exploration into the interior. C hamplain never possessed the military t’orce to
attempt such a venture. M ore‹iver, his hatred tif the I rtiquois was not shai ed
by the French traders who feared that, without the 1 rtiquois to hold them in
check. the Algonkin and Montagnais would play k rench and Clutch traders
off against one another to demand more goods in exchange t’or t heir’ furs. 1 n
1634. the French traders totik ad› antage tif a dispute between the I rt›quois
and the hutch to visit the flneida and promote trade with i hem. Yet. the furs
that the Montagnais. A lgonkin, and IIuron supplied were so v’ital to the
econom ' of flew France that neither French traders nor F rench ol’ficials
dared to risk their alliance ii ith lhese groups bi agreeing to the I roq uois’
demand that they tibserve neutrality in disputes between native groups.
After Henri de 1.évis, Duc de Ventadour, became V iceroj' of flew L’rance
in 1625, the 3esuits replaced the Recollets as the dominant missionai ies
there. Unlike the Recollets, the Jesuit s did not seek to turn 1 ndians into
Frenchmen. Many 1- renchmen, and iii particular many sailors and traders,
did not live up to ,lesuit standards for model C’hristians, u hile the
missionaries regarded many I ndian customs. such as their generosity’ and
good nature, as being more C’hristian than those of Europeans. The .lesuits
therefore proposed to deal with the l ndians in their native languages and to
have them retain as manj’ of their old ways as were compatible w ith
C hristianity. They promoted the development of Quebec as a missionary
base but their demands did not strain the financial resources of the trading
company. I he .jesuits realized that, if they were to work effectii e1y among
the 1 ndians, they had to be accepted by them as part of the I ndians’ trading
alliance with the k rench. The safet y of the missionaries in iheir conflict w ith
the traditional religions would be assured onl›’ if the I ndians vere cont inced
that the French would refuse to trade wit h an; group that harmed a
missionary. 1 n return, the .jesuits were prepared to cooperate wit h the
trading company and to support its interest s. As ihe hu nting grtiunds of lhe
Montagnais who lived in the vicinit; of Quebec ( itj became ex haust cd, the
.lesuits undertook to look after these I ndians at what became C’anada’s first
1 ndian reser› e. which t he› established at Siller . ’the claims for assistance
that t hese impoverished lndians where making on their former k’rench
trading partners had been vexing the latter and they were pleased to have the
work of succouring these lndians taken over as a charity by a religious order.
1 n 1634. tn’o years after’ Quebec had been retroceded to the 1 rench, the
H uron accepted the return of the Jesuits to their country as part of a renewed
F rench-H uron trading alliance. Their arrival coincided with the beginning
of a series of epidemics that wiFe d out more than half of the population of
eastern Canada and adjacent parts of the United States over a six year
period and culminated in the smallpox epidemic of 1639. Although there
had been epidemics along the east coast earlier in the century and smallpox
and other communicable diseases were to continue to reduce the number of
I ndians thereafter, the effects of this series of epidemics on the Indians of the
lower CIreat Lakes region were Fi rticularly severe. Among the dead were a
high proportion of children and old people. The latter included many of the
I ndian’s most skilled craftsmen. chiefs, and ritual specialists. Their loss left
the H uron more dependent on European goods and more vulnerable to
missionary propaganda.
The H uron did not understand why the Jesuits wished to live among them
and during the epidemics. when the Jesuits did not die as they did, they
suspected them of practising witchcraft on a massive scale. Yet they did not
harm them for fear of rupturing their trading alliance with the I rench. The
Jesuits were regarded as members of a ritual curing society and baptism as
the ritual that admitted H uron to membership. While sick H uron initially
requested baptism in the hope that it would cure them, the l4 uron as a whole
came to fear the ritual when they observed that most of those who were
baptised died. the Huron were also worried b jesuit claims that the souls of
those ’ho were baptised would go to heaven and not be able to join those of
relatives in the traditional Huron villages of the dead. This claim caused
some H uron to seek baptism so that their souls might join those of baptised
relatives, while ot hers refused baptism so that they would not be separated
from the souls of non-Christians.
H uron traders and warriors sought the good will of the Jesuits in order to
enjoy the material benefits that fiowed from their favour. These included
numerous presents, the right of Christian 1 ndians to baner for trade goods at
the lower rate that t hey were sold to Frenchmen. and later the right to buy
guns, which were sold only.to Christians. After making some initial errors,
the ,jesuits refused to baptise adult males until they had been carefully
instructed and their faith tested. It was observed that when a man of
importance was converted his relatives often sought baptism also. The
Jesuits insisted that converts abandon all of their traditional charms, avoid
all H uron feasts and rituals. and be buried in a Christian fashion. After 1640.
this led to the development of distinct Christian and traditionalist factions
18
within each H uron i’illage and nation. The Christians w’it hdren from their
community obligations, refusing to rarticipate in vital healing i’ituals and the
redistribution of’ goods. Such beha› iour appeared to other H urt›n as
es’idence of witchcraft. The› also refused to fight alongside non-C hristian
countrymen, alt hough t he› foughi the [rtiquois separately. l n spite of t hcir
small numbers, ( hristian leaders remained influential because of their
connections with the French. New' corwerts seem to ha› e been able to
understand much of jesuit teachings. I3epri›’ed of most t›f their sticial
pleasures and of the charms and rituals that formerly had su pportcd cv crj
aspect of their lives. ( hrislian converts became psychologicall; › cr;
insecure.
In spite of their declining population, bi’ the late 1630s thc I rtiqtiois desired
so man European goods that t he;’ were no longer able to purchase all t he;
wanted w'ith furs taken from their own hunting territories. ’I’he I roquois
w'ere unable to barter for additional furs n'ii h their neighbours. since most of’
these were horticultural tribes w'ho were alread› trading furs on their ou’n
acctiuiit. I he H uron funnelled the furs from Ontario and the upper tire‹it
makes east ward to the F rench trading posts. hile the Erie seem to ha› c tween
carr\’ing the furs from the (Ohio Va1lej sout he ard to the Susquehannock
and New' Sweden. The I roquois were able to obtain tinly a small number of
furs from the ñeutral, w'hose main trade appears to have been u ith the
H uron. the M ohaw'k and Oneida. z ho formerl;’ had pltindcrcd Iiurtipean
goods from the Algonk in and Montagnais. non sought additional furs b;
robbing them from these groups. Some furs uere obtained in traditional
summer raids: othcrs in u inter raids. in which small bands of ohawk and
Oneida attacked dispersed Algonkin and Montagnais hunt ing groups and at
the same time poached in their hunting territor;'.
Dutch officials opposed the sale of guns to the I ndians. but beginning
around 1640 traders from cw Lngland who were operating in the
(ionnecticut Vallc j began to sell guns to the Mohawk. I o stok losing I rade
to the English and to enable t he lroquois to obtain more furs, hutch pri 'ate
traders began to sell large nu mbers of guns to the I roquois. To pa; t’or these
guns and for the pon’der and shot needed to t›perate t Item. i he I roquois had
to obtain still more furs. A tread j b› l63fi, either the Seneca, which u as the
western-most of the l roquois peoples, or the
eui rat apFear lo hat c
ex h anded their hunting territory bj' dispersing the intervening Wenro. Soon
after, the western 1 roquois increased their attacks on the 1-1 uron. seeking, in
the short term. to pm nder the fur s accumulated in their Nett leirents and. in
the long run. tti •Ferse them. 1 he elimination tif the H uron w ould per init
the western I roquois to rob the relativel› defenceless hunting Feoplcs n ho
lived to the north and west of them and to hunt in their territories u'ith
im, punity as the Moha ’k already did in ()uebec and eastern Ontario. I’here
19
is no evidence to support tieorge T, H unt’s assertion that the I roquois
sought tti dispcrsc the H uron so ihat they c‹›uld take over t heir role as
middlemen in the t)ntario fur trade. Nor were the I roquois alone in
attacking their neighbours. 1 n the earl;' 1640s. thc Neutral took advantage of
their superiority in iron weapons to attack the Algonkian-speaking peoples
of southeastern Michigan. apparently to win control of the rich beaver
grounds in the vicinity tif I.ake Saint Ulair.
I he 1 I uron Christians looked to i he .Jesuits to protect t heir confcderacj
‹ind derived some confidence from the .1 esuiis’ strongly fortified mission
headquartei's of Sainte Viarie. Yet. because the Jesuits feared that il’guns fell
into the hands t›f H urtin traditionalists thcj might be used against them, the
H urtin were able to obtain far few er guns than were the I roq uois. As the
,1 esuit s won more converts. H uron societ y grew increasingly crisis-ridden.
an› non-C’hristians came to prefer an alliance with the [roquois to
maintaining their alliance with the F rench. Although the I rtiq u‹iis had lting
been the H uron’s chief enemies. an alliance with them was viewcd as
reinforcing the traditional values that were being eroded b the .jesuits.
While the H uron as a confederacy were too suspicious of the 1 roquois to
entrust their fate to t hem, as I roquois military’ pressure increased man
H uron did so as individuals.
Iluring the l640s, the lroquois sought unsuccessfully to persuade the
1- rench to ador a neutral role in natii’e politics. I n 1645, the M ohan'k
concluded a truce wit h the 1- rench and t heir I ndian allies in order to recover
some of t heir warYini s who had been taken prisoner. I or twti J’ears, while
negotiations continued, there was peace aiming the Saint Lawrencc k iver,
alt hough the z estern I roq uois continued to attack the H ur‹›ii ctiuntri . Yet
the 1- rench htiped ftir more from this truce than the Mohaw k had intended
a nd, once the multilateral exchange of pt ist›nei s nsas ov’er, war resumed. I n
1649. a force made up of warriors from all the I roquois nat itins dispersed the
H uron and l•ctun, while a similar force d ispersed the Neutral b; I fi5 1. I n
1653. the western I roquois declared war ten the fi rie. The successful
ct›nc1usion tif t hese is re opened central Clntario. M ichigan, and the Ohio
Valley io I roq uois hunting and i aiding. I n the n'inter of I 651-52. the
Mohawk attacked the Susquehannock but where unable to disperse these
trading rivals. I n the course of these wars, the I roqu‹›is adopted large
nu m bers of captives and refugees apparently including the ancestors of the
great eighteent h-century Moha wk leader. .I osepli 8rant. Their descendants
became ivho!1j I rtiquois in language, culture, and identity. 1 n spite of this.
i he death rate from warfare and ctintagious diseases stood so high that the
total 1 rt›quois population continued to remain no more than half of what it
had been in 1630. 1 n addition to the many' II uron who n’ere adopted bi the
I i oquois, a small number fled with the Peiun to the upper Ci reat 1.akcs, while
about six hundred (“hristian ones joined the I- rench at Quebec.
20
The military successes of the 1 roquois did not produce harmony within
their confederaey. Even before the dispersal of the H uron, the ()nondaga
and Seneca peoples had been annoyed by the arrogance of the Mohawk,
who lived nearest to the hutch and tried to monopolize relacione with
Europeans. ln l ó53, in an effort to curb the Mohawk and gain addititinal
support against the Erie. the four western I roquois nat ions made peace with
the L rench. l n doing this, they were helFed by some of the H uron who had
joined them. The Mohawk were divided along clan lines into a larger faction
favouring war and a smaller faction favouring peace with the L rench. Rather
than see the confederacy shattered. the Mohawk reluctantly joincd in
making peace ’ith the i- rench. This Feace, whieh seemed a miracle to thc
beleaguered F’rench, was made on the same terms that the Mohaw k had
been proposing for over twent y years: it excluded the I ndian allies of the
I-rench. before long, the F rench were to witness their allies being killed and
captured by the l roquois in the vicinity of F rench settlements and. like the
hutch, had to remain silent while angry I roquois slaughtered their domestic
aiiimals.
The I roquois invited the .jesuits to establish missions in their towns so t he;
might have hostages to assure the continuing neutrality of the French. They
also sought, b means of t hreats and intimidation, to compel the H uron who
had fled to the Saint l.awrence to join them instead. This would deprive the
1- rench of allies experienced in forest warfare and eliminate the possibility
that H uron captives among the 1 roquois would seek to join relatives living
with the French. The J esuits were anxious to establish missions among the
I roquois and encouraged the H uron Christians at Quebec to follow them to
the 1 roquois country. The missionaries were led to believe that the I roquois
would accept them only if t hey regarded it as a way to lure the H uron
Christians to their countr ' and the priests hoped that the H uron would
constitute the nucleus of a Christian church there. Nevert heless, the .jesuits
nere u nable to protect t hese H uron and some men were slain for former
injuries thai t hey z ere held accountable for by the 1 rtiqutiis. As the Frie war
ended and the 1 roquois realized that no more H uron were to be lured from
Quebec, the Mohawk were able to arouse the anti F rench factions among
the other I roquois tribes. I n 1658, the d esuits fled from the €lnondaga
country' and war resumed bet ween the French and the lroquois.
l roquois raids against the peoples of rout heastern Michigan in the l650s
completed their dispersal. Peoples such as the Sank and box fled act oss
1.ake Michigan to Wisconsin. The sedentary Winnebago, who had been the
original inhabitants of that region, had already been much reduced b›
warfare with the better-armed Ottawa and then b the epidemics of the
1630s. H uron, Petun. and f)ttawa from southern Ontario also fled to the
21
uppci ti reat 1 ake . The short growing season of that region made it
impossi ble tor t hese grt›ups to relj on htirticulture as the basis of their
stibsistcncc iind i hey were often forccd by their enemies to move frtim one
placc tt anoi her. tJ nder i hese circumstances, the IIuron and I°etun bccame
primarily hunters and trappeivs, u hose n'ay of lit’e was not unlike that of
groups that wei e native tt› ihe area. I hese refugees continued to need h rench
ti abe gtitids. Particu larly as their encroachments on the hunting territories of
i he S ioux led to conflict with those groups. 1 n 1654, the Huron led the first
lane convo›’ of Ottawa and l°etu n t’ur traders doiv'n i hc ()ttawa R iver to
t rade u’ith thc 1- rcnch. l ’or several decades, because of their greater numbers,
the f)ttawa ware to dominatc the trade between the L’rench and the l ndians
of i he upper C›reat 1 akes. Alt hough the t3ttau-a did not produce surplus
corn to t rade w'it li t herr neighbours. the upper Cireat 1.akes area was rich in
giime. w’hich the t)t1awa could eiiher trap themsel› es or obtain in return for
L rench hoOds.
an› historians had c › ier ed the Ottan'a replacing the
1 I (lron as nlldéilemen in the t’ur trade as a major defeat for the l roquois. Yet
it is dou btfril i that the l roqiiois i iets ed it t hat w'ay. l hey were able tti raid the
()ttaw a fur ctini o; s and. ix it h all the sedentari peoples to the north and west
of i hem dispcrsed, the wcstern l roqtitiis were able to raid northern (lntario,
the upper Circat l.akes, and the t)hio Valle› as easily as the Mohaz'k could
raid Quebec and noi’t hem Nen England. I he flttawa’s role as middlemen in
the lur trade ct›ntinued uotil the F rench establishcd their ow n trading posts
iii the u pper fi i eat 1 akes beginning in the late l660s.
I n 1665, Alexandre de Proui'i11e. Marquis de, Track arrived in ñew
h rance iv ith o›’er I ,200 seasoned I- rench veterans. 1.earning of this arm;'. the
t lii ee n'es1erii I rtiquois peoples, iv ho were then inc olved in a difficult war
iv’ith the S usquehannoek, hastened to discuss peace with the French. 1n
l66G. I rac› led his troops against the Mohaw k villages and finding them
‹ib‹indoned set fire io the houses and crtips. H is ictorj resulted in a general
peace 'ith the I i’oquois that lasted for ten › ears and allowed the t)ttawa io
use the (ltlawa Itii’er u nmolested. l’his u as ihe first time that the French had
bccn ablC tO impose t heir will upon lndians b\' force. Yet. even this was a
l•i'rrhic 'ictori'. t/ ntil t he fall of Ne F rance. the 1 roquois were to play’ off
F’rench against F nglish in order to preseri’e their independence, w‘hile their
pt eference ftir the English as important in ensuring the latter’s mastery of
orth .A merica.
Throughout the Heroic edge of ew L rance, furs were ihe most › aluable
prt›duc1 ()f C anada. and trade wit h the I ndians n’as the cheapest method of
obtaining them. N ost of eastern Canada as unsuitable for European
seitlemcnt at thai time: hence conflicts bet ween I ndians and Whites over
22
land were minimal. Prior to 1665, neither the F rench nor the hutch had the
power to make lndians do as they wished. I n general, I ndian ways were
understood best by the fur traders and the most successful cross-cultural
relations were between these traders and their 1 ndian suppliers. Both French
and Dutch traders tried to conduct t hemselves in a manner that would please
the lndians and encourage the 1 ndians tti trade with them. The etiquette of
the fur trade conformed to 1 ndian usages that had been established in
prehistoric times. Attempts by French officials. such as Cartier or
C hamplain, to impose their will on the I ndians were ineffectual, while the
.Iesuits’ efforts to manipulate the Huron produced very different results front
what they had expected.
The fur trade at first enriched traditional 1 ndian life, but later increasing
competition for pelts generated conflicts that led to the dispersal of many
lndian groups. While European traders encouraged some of t hese conflicts
in order to secure more furs. they do not appear to have had the sagacity or
influence to initiate them. 1 nstead, lndian wars grew out of long standing
rivalries or developed as a result of I ndian disputes over furs. The greatest
impact that the Europeans had on the l ndians at this time was the epidemics
they introduced, which destroyed over 50 per cent of the native population
of eastern North America. This, however, was a whollY unintended result.
’I he lndians did not always understand the intentions of the Europeans
and were as prone to ascribe what they did not understand to witchcraft as
Europeans were to regard what they did not like about the 1 ndians as being
the work of the devil. Nevertheless, at this time. the 1 ndians’ numbers,
military strength, economic power. and knowledge of how to coFe with the
North American environment gave them a decisive voice in what happened
in eastern Canada and upper New York State. Their wishes had to be taken
account of by any Europeans hoping to have successful dealings in the
region. This suggests that the central focus of Canadian history prior to 1665
ought not to be its European cOlonisers but its native peoples.
23
I he documentation on which this essay is based and more detailed
ex planations are proc ided in iI.G. I rigger, The L’hilHren ‹›{A aiaent. i‹ .- A
//f.\/f7ri o/ the Huron f’eo/›fe i‹› l66ñ (2 i’olumes, Montreal. 1976).
I heoretical problems are cowered in D.ti. trigger, .\oiii'e.i and S'eii’‹’omer. .’
( ’ORQé!O'.$ ’ Jt’l f9ff’ 1 J£•’ Fl'on.siâ‹•re‹l ‹ M ontreal, 1985).
L or a discussion of the salient features of “tribal” society, see M.D.
Sahlins, /i’i’/›‹.iiiien (finglcwood C?liffs. 1968). .A general anthropological
survcj tif orth American 1 ndian u at s of life and prehistory’ is fou nd in R, F.
S penccr. .1. l4. .Jennings. ct o/., i’h P 8 at is!e A oit'ff£’ffft.\.’ Prehf.$ lot i’ and
f.i/iiir›/opt of the I'm lh ,A iiierfr‘pu lnâian.S (New York. 1965). ’their cultural
patterns arc examined in H . L. I9river, lndian› o/.S'orih A merit a (2nd ed..
rei ., t hicago. 1969). I he best description of the traditional cultures of the
t anadian l ndian ti’ibes is II. .ienness’ classic Th‹• lntIian.s of I anada
((Ottawa. 1932. 7th ed.. 1967): see also, A. I3. McM illan. .S alia e People› untl
I’ulitire,i ‹›f I ana‹la ( I oronto, 1959). The traditional cultures of the tribes of
the u pper (i reat 1.akes are described in W. V. K iniet z, The lndian.s ‹›f the
H ‹•.s horn I ’i Pol make.S, 16 15-17añ (Ann Arbor, l94fl).
the image of the I ndian in (anadian hi.storical u rit ing is discussed in J.
Walker. “ I he [ndian in C’anadian 14 istorical Writing." I anadian Historical
Association. flit torl‹'al Pa er.s bl97 I), pp. 21 -51. G.D. Smith, Ice Sam'age:
l’he S at ii e I’m o ale i’n Qael›e‹’ dli iori‹’al Writing on the lle rcii‹' Perf£Jd
(1534- 1663) oJ .S’ei›' I ran‹'‹• (Ottawn. 1974); and S.G. Trigger, “ 1’he
II istorians’ I ndian: at iv c Americans in C’anadian H isttirical Writing from
C’harle oi x to t he I°reseiit," I’ooorfiori Hi:i tori‹’ul Re ’i‹’ii d7 (1956), pp. 31542, 3 ldc first attempt i‹› surge Canadian 1 ndian histor; was E.P. I'atterson.
The I’unucliun fitJioo. 4 f$f.\/f7J‘t' › iHt’e 1500 ‹Iron U ills, 1972). Early h renchlndian relations are discussed by A.ti. l3ailey, The C oaTirr o/’ 1.ui ‹›l›‹air anal
1.a,› iei’n A lgonk ian I iifiui’e.s, 1504-170() (2nd ed., Toronto, l9fi9): [ ..-1'.
I7esrosiers, fruqt«›i.Plc ( MontreaL 1947): O.P. flickason, Th •
.tf i //i r›/ i/i‹ .Soi’oyt oo‹/ ih‹• fi‹y/oiiiny.i ‹i/’ £reii‹'/i L oloniali›m ia the
, ! m‹u’i‹a› (fed mont on. 1 984): C..I. .laenen, fri‹v«f and I“oe. A S e‹ i.S o/’
I !F£’!t‹ If- I itiei‘iit‹liait I ’iilmral I ‹›nia‹ i lti the ii.s i‹•‹•nth ancl Se› enleenth
( '£’uro/’f£’.\ ( i oronio. 1976): tL I . H unt, The War’.s oJ’ihe lroquoi›. A .Btu h in
lull rlrihul I rash H‹ lmion› ( M adison. 1940}; and I ..F. S. U pton. .Hi‹vna‹.‹
HII tJ L ’t1l‹1Iti.$ 1. .’ ltil P- /f1éJfOf7 H£"lution.s in llie .ilariiimeS, 1713-18d 7
(Vanct›uver. 1979). Mand’ of H nut’s interpretations now appear to be
erroneous. M an;' of t hcsc studies reflect the influence of II. A. 1 nnis, Thv I ur
I’m able iii I ’anu‹lu ( 1930, 2nd ed., rev., I’oronto, 1956): howe›’er, lnnis’
specific histtir; is now outmoded for the early period. To understand the
yen different rclatitins between F.uropean settlers and I ndians in b!ew
24
England, the reader should consult F. Jennings. I he In‹'a›ion of A nieri‹’a.’
lndian›, €’oloniali.em, nnd the Want o/ I onque.ii (ChaFel Hill, 1975).
Relations between missionaries and I ndians are discussed in 1*.C›.
1.eblanc, “1 ndian-M issionary Contact in H uronia, 1615-1649,” Uffiofff
Hi›ior , 40 (1968). PF 33-46: F . M. Ciagnon, I.a t“on› ‹•r.‹ion far /’finage
(Montreal, 1975), and J. W. Grant, tfoon o/’ Winieriiine. .dli.S.sionarieS anal
fh‹• lndian.s of I anada in I.‘arouii/rr .Yin‹’e 1534 (Toronto, 1984). Views of
native conversion that differ markedly from my own are found in .James
Axtell, The° Ini asion Wfthin: lhe L“onie.n of’ 6’ofiure.s ia L“olonial .S orth
A meri‹'a (flew York, 1985): and I.ucien C ampeau. f o .Ur‹.rim ‹/e.i ,letsuiie,s
‹’her- le.s Htirc›n.s. 1634-1650 (M ontreal, 1987).
For a general coverage of the traditional cultures, archaeology, linguistics,
histor›’, and current state of the native peoples of southeastern Canada and
adjacent regions of the United States, see B.G. Trigger (vol. ed.), ffandf›oo1
oJ’ 8’orlh A mexican lndian.i , Vol. XV, .S orlhea.st (Washington, 1975): and
R.C. Harris (ed.). Hutori‹'al A flu› o[ L’anada. Vol. I (Toronto, 1957).
A comprehensive stud of Miemac culturc is W. and R. Wallis. lhe
.Wf£‘Diar’ InJiun› of'Fra.e tern L"unuJa Minneapolis, 1955). C. ertain important
effects of the fur trade upon the Montagnais are anal5 sed in E.B. t.eacock,
The tfou/pgitOf.i Hunling Territor t’' and the L‘tir Tra‹:le, American
Anthropological Association, Ifemoir 78 ( 1954). A critical summary tif
information on Huron traditional culture is presented in E. 1 ooker. An
k“lhnogra ›hi’ od lhv Heron Indiani, Id 15- Id49 (Washington. 1964). l'his
material is analysed further in b.€i. I rigger, The Huron: L“arniei.e ‹›f the
h’orih (New York, 1969): and by a human geographer in C, fi. Heidenreich.
Huronia: A di.iiorr and Geograph i of the Lluron lntliun.e. I 500- Ih50
(Toronto, 197 l). H uron prehistory is covered in J.V. Wright, I“h£• é7ftiff/’ff2
lroquoi.e TraJit ion (Ottawa, l9ó6). The impact of the fur trade on the
lndians of the upper G reat 1.akes is discussed in two books by H. Hickerson:
The South ’e.stern Chippei ’a. An Lthnohi.uori‹al .$ tuali , American
Anthropological Association, .Hemoir 92 (1962): and Ihe L hippen a uiiJ
Their 8'eighhors. A Sindi in L“ihnohi.cor i (lew York. 1970): and by Ci.1.
Quimby. lndian Culim’e and 1-.“uropean Tra‹:le firrd.i (Madison, 1966).
Chippewa is the American term for Ojibwa.
Cieneral models of early l ndian-White interaction are provided by E.R.
Wolf. F.urope and lhe Peo ale Wilhoui Minor i’ (Berkeley, 1982): and Deiws
Delage, he pai's reDver.›e’ (Montreal, 1985). Uontrol ersial discussions of
native American perceptions of history are found in Calvin Martin (ed.),
The A meri‹’an lndian and the Problem of Histor i (Oxford, 1987). Studies of
earl post-Colombian demographic decline include H.U. Dobyns, 7Weir
25
Number Ben ome Thinned (K noxville. 1983): A.W. Crosby, Lñological
Inn ›eriali.em. The Biological Expansion of Europe. 900-1900 (Cambridge,
1986): and A.F. Ramenofsky, Sectors of death (Albuquerque. 1987). On
the meaning of early European goods to lndians, see C.L. M iller and CL R.
H amell, “A New Perspective on lndian-White Contact: Cultural Symbols
and Colonial Trade,” Journal of American History. 73 (1986), pp. 311-28.
26