Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INDIAN TRADE SILVER AS INTER-CULTURAL DOCUMENT

IN THE NORTHEAST

Laureen Ann LaBar-Kidd

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Early American Culture

Spring 2000

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 1398899

UMI”

UMI Microform 1398899 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INDIAN TRADE SILVER AS INTER-CULTURAL DOCUMENT

IN THE NORTHEAST

Laureen Ann LaBar-Kidd

Approved: J. Ritchie Garrison, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf on the Advisory/Thesis Committee

Approved: J. Ritf hie Garrison, Ph.D. Acting Director of the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved: Conrado M. Gerhpesajy/I, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE

For the purposes of this thesis, the terms Indian, Native American and

Native are synonymous. Unfortunately, I am bound to offend someone

regardless of which word I use. One member of the Penobscot Nation told me

he prefers the term Indian; his niece on the other hand, prefers Native

American. As a result, and for variety's sake, I have opted to use the three

terms interchangeably. I also use the terms to refer to those members of

various First Nations who lived in what is now Canada. While it might be

more accurate to say “Native Americans and Native Canadians,” I use the three

terms to mean representatives of cultures whose ancestors lived on this

continent before the arrival of Europeans.

When I refer to Europeans, I mean individuals who were recent arrivals

in North America. The term Euroamericans generally refers to descendants of

those Europeans. For the most part these people were permanent settlers,

whose lives were tied to this continent, and who saw themselves as natives of

Massachusetts and Montreal, and not simply as Englishmen or Frenchmen.

Here again, when discussing people of European cultural descent on both sides

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of what is now the border between the United States and Canada, I use the term

Euroamericans, for simplicity’s sake. If I refer only to silversmiths in

Montreal, however, I use the term Euro-Canadian. These terms should be clear

within the context of any given sentence or paragraph.

The trade silver within this study was used in an area bounded on the

south by New York City, on the west by Niagara, on the north by Montreal and

on the east by Maine. For this volume, that area defines the Northeast. While

some of the silver I discuss was made in Philadelphia, I am more concerned

with the area from near Albany, New York to Maine and Montreal.

Although the time period that I am most concerned with is well into the

Historic Period, I also provide background information about Native metal use,

extending back to the late Prehistoric Period. The Prehistoric Period is the time

before Native contact with Europeans or their trade goods. The Historic Period

refers to that time when European or Euroamericans were the dominant culture

in a particular locale. The difficulty with “Periods” is that they typically have

dates attached to them. However, terms such as Historic, Prehistoric,

Protohistoric and Contact Period refer to interactions between different

peoples, as opposed to the reign of a monarch or the popularity of a style of

furniture. Thus, these terms are somewhat fluid. Native groups living along

coasts and major rivers interacted with Europeans before their inland neighbors

did. The Contact Period covers the time between first contact between Indians

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Europeans, and when Europeans became a major presence in a given area.

The Protohistoric Period overlaps with and includes the early Contact Period.

In some cases, Indian villages acquired European trade goods from Native

American middlemen years before they encountered Europeans themselves. I

include this scenario in the Protohistoric, along with the period in which the

same group had rare or intermittent contact with Europeans. Just as the Queen

Anne or baroque style of decorative arts might linger longer in fashion in a

more rural or conservative area, the Protohistoric and Contact Periods began

earlier in some areas and lasted longer in others.

Frontiers are also fluid. The semantic concern with the term has less to

do with that mobility, and more to do with what the word implies. A frontier is

the border between “civilization” and “wilderness,” two other words with

negative connotations. The frontier as an area of often intense interaction

between Native American and European groups. It is the place where the

lifeways of the Contact Period intersect with those of the Historic Period.

In some cases, the problem with terminology is simply the spelling.

The Iroquois village of Caugnawaga, near Montreal, has been spelled

Caughnawake and Kanawake, along with other, phonetic variations on the

name. In other, similar cases, I have used the spelling of the source I cite.

The topic of trade silver is vast. My advisor, Ritchie Garrison, helped

keep me focused throughout the writing process. George Hamell and Penny

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Drooker at the New York State Museum helped me find that focus. I deeply

appreciate their help, enthusiasm and encouragement. Bruce Bourque, Steve

Cox and George LaBar reviewed the manuscript and provided helpful advice,

all of which I heeded, even if I was not able to include it all in the final product.

I anticipated that research and writing would be solitary occupations,

but my great joy throughout this endeavor has been the collegiality I have

encountered. Individuals at institutions and private collections from Delaware

to Montreal and Maine gave generously of their time and knowledge and

provided access— sometimes repeatedly—to their collections. They include:

Becky Cole-Will, Abbe Museum; Dana Lippett, Bangor Historical Society;

John Bauer; The Brick Store Museum; Fort Johnson; Mr. and Mrs. Richard

Godfrey; Bonnie Pulis, Johnson Hall; Joyce Butler and Stephanie Philbrick,

Maine Historical Society; Edwin Churchill, Maine State Museum; Moira

McCaffrey, McCord Museum; Lou Stancaril, National Museum of the

American Indian, Smithsonian; George Dalgleish, Lynn Wall and Maureen

Barrie, National Museums of Scotland; The New York State Museum; Melissa

Wagner, Bill Wierzbowski and Lucy Fowler Williams, University of

Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology; Pennsylvania

Museum of Art; Judy Guston, The Rosenbach Museum and Library; Laurent

Beauregard, Tarratine Club; Don Fennimore, Jan Carlson and Susan Newton,

Winterthur; Fred Wiseman; and Pat Kane and Dennis Carr, Yale University Art

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gallery. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the archaeology staff at the Maine

State Museum, Bruce Bourque, Steve Cox and Bob “Ernie” Lewis. Without

their open files, good humor, good advice, and excellent photography this

tome—and my purse— would have been poorer.

Brian Robinson of the University of Maine and Winterthur aiumnae

Martha Gandy Fales and Deborah Smith offered encouragement, sources,

references and publication tips that smoothed my path considerably. Neville

Thompson, Jeanne Solensky and the staff at the Winterthur library were

generous, supportive and patient, as were the reference librarians at the Maine

State Library. While these individuals all contributed to the success of this

research, any errors or omissions I must claim as my own.

If one can owe a debt of friendship, I do, to my classmates at

Winterthur. I will sorely miss the camaraderie and the joy of working such

kindred minds. These and other dear friends kept me connected to the real

world, while reminding me of the importance of the job at hand.

My parents, Joan and George LaBar, buoyed me with their enthusiasm

and support. To my husband, John Kidd, to whom I dedicate this work, I can

only say a most inadequate “Thank you.” I look forward to the rest of our

adventure.

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES...... x ABSTRACT...... xii INDIAN TRADE SILVER AS INTER-CULTURAL DOCUMENT IN THE NORTHEAST...... I Introduction ...... 1

Trade Silver...... 2 Trade Silver Categories ...... 4 Trade Silver Forms...... 6

Gorgets ...... 7 Arm and Wrist Bands...... 9 Brooches ...... 11 Large Brooches or Round Gorgets ...... 15 Hat Bands or “Crowns"’...... 15 Crosses and Crucifixes...... 16 Other Forms ...... 17

Decoration and Manufacture ...... 18

Native Use of Metals ...... 24

Multiple Perspectives and the Historical Record ...... 24 Pre- and Protohistoric Use of Metals ...... 28 Differing Perceptions and Hierarchies of Metals ...... 32 Inter-Cultural Contact and Trade Silver...... 36 Trade Silver, ca. 1750-1830...... 43

Silver, Trade and Diplomacy on the Western Fronder...... 44 Silver, Trade and Diplomacy on the Northeastern Frontier...... 49 Trade Silver in the Wake of a Removed Frontier...... 51

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Trade Silver as Inter-Cultural Document ...... 53

Trade Silver Production...... 53 Interpreting Inter-Cultural Silver...... _55 Native Decorative Motifs and Trade Silver...... 57 Trade Silver and the Wabenaki Confederacy...... 66 Native Maine Artisans and the Solid Brooch Form ...... 69

Conclusions ...... 71

NOTES...... 76

APPENDIX: FIGURES...... 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

1. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 65/a". Seibert collection, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology LI041-112. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger...... 89

2. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 6%”. Seibert collection, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology, L1041-114. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger...... 90

3. Three Brooches. Silver. Top and middle: early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameters: 6", 8'/i”. Bottom: marked JT for Jonathan Tyler. Montreal, 1817-28. Accession numbers: top, 86.4.2; middle, 86.4.1; bottom, 86.4.3. Courtesy Maine State Museum ...... 91

4. Brooch/gorget. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter: 4%". Accession number 56.54. Courtesy, Winterthur Museum ...... 92

5. Hat band or crown, and cuffs. Silver. Early nineteenth century. Height of crown: 5Va”; circumference: 23"; height of cuffs: 4,/2"; circumference: 11". Accession numbers 2204.2, 2204.1 a & b. Courtesy, Bangor Historical Society...... 93

6. Medal or Gorget. Brass. 1676, Boston. Height: 5'/4"; width: 3l/2". Accession number 23.9269. Courtesy, National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution ...... 94

7. Beaded powder horn. Early nineteenth century, Maine. Accession number 96.24. Courtesy, Maine State Museum ...... 95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8. Jeremiah Hardy. Portrait of Sarah Polasses. Oil on canvas. Ca. 1828, Bangor, Maine. Courtesy of the Tarratine Club...... 96

9. Birch bark tray. Early to mid nineteenth century. Maine. Courtesy, Maine State Museum ...... 97

10. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 3A". Catalog number 67. Courtesy, Maine Historical Society...... 98

11. Cuff. Silver. Ca. 1820, marked Z[ebulon] Smith, Bangor, Maine. Accession number 88.80. L Courtesy, Maine State Museum ...... 99

12. Cuff. Silver. Ca. 1820, marked Z[ebulon] Smith, Bangor, Maine. Height: 5" Circumference: 9". Accession number 1934.360. Courtesy, Yale University Art Gallery, Mabel Brady Garvan Collection...... 100

13. Beaded wallet. Mid nineteenth century, probably Maine. Accession number 96.6.1. Courtesy, Maine State Museum ...... 101

14. Hat band or crown. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Height: 4s/s"; circumference: 2114". Seibert collection, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology L I041-21. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger...... 102

15. Brooch and sketched detail. Silver. Mid to late nineteenth century, probably made in Maine. Accession number 53-1-22. Courtesy, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology ...... 103

16. Birchbark box. Early to mid nineteenth century, Maine. Accession number 86.47.1. Courtesy, Maine State Museum...... 104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

Indian trade silver in the northeast served as a cultural marker for both

Euroamerican and Native populations. The metal held different, positive

meanings to these groups, and was a logical outgrowth of earlier trade in

copper objects. Trade silver and its motifs can be read as inter-cultural

documents, illuminating the degrees to which Native Americans were active

participants in its manufacture. A group of early nineteenth-century brooches,

cuffs, and tall hat bands, or “crowns” with Maine provenance bear motifs that

were more commonly executed in Native-crafted media, such as birchbark

containers, beadwork and wood carving. This trade silver was, for the most

part, made by Euro-Canadian smiths and may be a product of diplomatic

exchange within the inter-tribal Wabanaki Confederacy. The conjunction of

Native symbols and Euroamerican silver forms transformed trade silver, a

product of many cultures, into a wholly Native American object.

xii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction

“When you make presents to the Indians let them be such as will be

most acceptable to their Wives and Mistresses.”1 When British frontier

diplomat Sir William Johnson included this advice in his 1755 “Hints for a

Commanding Officer,” he was probably thinking first of trade silver. Johnson

also gave blankets, clothing and other goods to members of the Iroquois and

other, Midwestern tribes he worked with, but to judge from the amount of trade

silver Johnson presented or gave, and the contexts of its exchange, Indians held

the material in very high regard. Johnson mentioned it in nearly every

description of diplomatic exchange. Trade silver’s centrality reveals that it

held meaning to its recipients. Silver was important to Europeans and

Euroamericans, as well. We cannot hope to recover every nuance of meaning

that silver in its various forms connoted to the many cultures that interacted in

the American Northeast in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As

Johnson’s statement implies, however, trade silver served as a cultural marker

for both Native Americans and Euroamericans. This thesis explores trade

silver’s meanings to multiple value systems, the ways in which it reflects and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. illuminates period politics, and the role Native Americans played in its

manufacture.

Trade Silver

The term “trade silver” encompasses a wide variety of forms. Some of

these, such as gorgets, were generally not traded, but presented by colonial

officials only to specific individuals. Given its variety of forms and social

context for its exchange, trade silver and its decorative motifs can provide clues

to the politics of its day that augment the written record. It also reveals a

degree of Indian agency in its manufacture that written records do not

acknowledge.

In both its variety of forms and context of acquisition, trade silver belies

the simple definition of silver made by Euroamerican smiths and given or sold

to Indians. While Native Americans purchased trade silver with cash, furs, or

other goods at trading posts and Indian stores, the term can also be broken into

several other production and acquisition categories. It encompasses items such

as gorgets, which were military emblems awarded to Indian allies, and not

available for purchase in a civilian context. Officials included trade silver and

other objects in the protocol of reciprocal giving that accompanied frontier

diplomacy between Native Americans and Europeans or Euroamericans. As I

use the term, trade silver also includes ornaments that Iroquois silversmiths

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. made in the nineteenth century. These forms are often indistinguishable from

those made by Euroamerican smiths. Trade silver as a label is therefore

somewhat misleading, given the multitude of social contexts under which these

ornaments changed hands.

In the sections that follow, I will summarize the types of silver that the

term encompasses, and the variety of contexts in which it played a role. The

use of the metal silver for articles of trade and diplomacy was a conscious

choice on the part of a complex network of players. I will discuss the subject

from both Native and Euroamerican perspectives to the extent possible, given

the paucity of data for certain periods and contexts. Finally, I will examine the

artifacts themselves as documents. Alongside written records, trade silver

serves as witness to shifting political alliances and to the relationships between

Native consumers and Euroamerican producers.

The articles of trade silver which form the evidence base for this study

have Maine provenance. Individual members of the Penobscot and, to a lesser

extent, Passamaquoddy tribes once owned these objects. In order to understand

what sets these pieces apart, I examined over two thousand brooches,

armbands, and other pieces of trade silver from the Northeast in one private and

twelve museum collections. I also reviewed published pieces from additional

collections, although I rely on these as little as possible, since I was unable to

personally confirm makers marks and provenance. Smiths in Montreal,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bangor, Philadelphia and upstate New York made the bulk of the trade silver in

this study. Most of the pieces I examined dated from ca. 1750 to 1830. After

1830, most Indian trade “silver” was made from “German silver,” an alloy of

copper, zinc and nickel. Several of the Maine silver pieces, however, post-date

1830, and I will further discuss these pieces and their contexts following page

52.2

Trade Silver Categories

David Ghere breaks gifts to Indians into three categories: ceremonial

presents, compensatory presents and supplicatory presents.3 Trade silver was

often a component of the first and last categories. It does not seem to have

played a large role in compensatory transactions. While Major General Jeffrey

Amherst gave a medal as a reward to Britain’s Indian allies in the 1760

campaign against Montreal, most compensatory gifts were items such as

blankets, “covering the Grave of the Deceased that they may moumn noe more

over it.”4 Gorgets were purely ceremonial presents, denoting military status.

Arm and wrist bands were often awarded on ceremonial occasions. Other

items, such as brooches, might be given at the same time, but for different

reasons. For example, Sir William Johnson, the British Superintendent of

Indian Affairs, frequently gave new allies and “gorget captains” presents

including blankets and brooches.5 While he gave these items on the same day

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as the ceremonial gifts such as gorgets and medals, they might be considered

supplicatory presents. Ghere defines such gifts as those given to convince the

recipient to do a particular task. Johnson seems to have given them to new

allies and gorget captains without verbal strings attached. Tacitly, however,

they may have fit into a system of reciprocal giving, as a debt to be repaid later.

At the same time, such largesse demonstrated Britain's wealth, and by

extension, its power. Such gifts also reiterated the language of European-

Native diplomacy, with Johnson, the representative of the British “father,”

bestowing gifts on Native “brothers.”6

George Hamell distinguishes between “trade silver,” made by

Euroamerican smiths, from “Indian silver,” most of which was made by

Iroquois smiths.7 While the distinction is conceptually important, the forms

involved are for the most part identical, and almost none bear makers’ marks.

Except in a very few cases, it is impossible to distinguish between, for

example, heart-shaped Luckenbooth brooches made by Albany smiths, from

those made by Onondaga or Mohawk smiths a generation later. The distinction

is most important for New York state, since no other groups practiced

silversmithing on as large a scale as the Iroquois. Although I agree with

Hamell, I have included “Indian silver” within the broader class of trade silver.

Pieces that Native Americans purchased, whether with furs, goods or

currency, constitute another category of trade silver. Here again, there are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. difficulties in distinguishing traded silver from awarded silver. In the late

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, European and Euroamerican officials

presented ornaments in almost all the same forms as those available for

purchase or trade. Gorgets are the sole exception. They remained political

symbols, even after the eclipse of their military symbolism.

In the section on trade silver as inter-cultural document, I will discuss

another category of trade silver, that which Native Americans commissioned

for their own use, or for diplomatic giving. Evidence for this type of trade

silver includes decorative motifs, ownership, and the political context of the

early nineteenth century in which the pieces occur.

Trade Silver Forms

Indian trade silver forms were objects of adornment, simultaneously

familiar to Euroamericans and foreign to their experience. Arm and wrist

bands, hat and head bands were either not worn by non-Indians, or expressed

differently in their vocabularies of costume. Some trade brooches were based

on English or Scottish prototypes, but Native Americans often wore them in an

abundance which set their use apart.

Silversmith Joseph Richardson, Jr. of Philadelphia made a wide variety

of trade silver between 1796 and 1800, including arm and wrist bands, gorgets,

brooches, ear bobs, hair pipes, and finger rings for the Indian trade. Forty years

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. earlier, his father had made crosses, “moons” and hair plates, as well as most of

the forms his son later fabricated. Other smiths also made head or hat bands,

and occasionally made leg bands or ear wheels. Montreal smiths such as

Jonathan Tyler made large round brooches, which could measure seven or

more inches in diameter. On rare occasions a silversmith might be

commissioned to make a special item, such as a pipe, or a cradleboard cover.

The most common forms referred to by smiths such as the Richardsons and

distributors such as Sir William Johnson include brooches, gorgets, arm and

wrist bands, and ear bobs. Types, styles and decorative motifs of trade silver

are discussed below.8

Gorgets. Gorgets were worn by both French and English military

officers. They were a vestige of medieval armor, originally designed to protect

the throat. By the eighteenth century military officers wore these ornamental

crescents as a symbol of rank. European officers’ gorgets were usually silver

or gold-plated brass. Most extant “trade” gorgets resemble the French

elongated crescent. Some, notably those made in Great Britain and exported to

North America, are more deeply crescentic, almost bib-shaped. They were

presentation items, rather than trade goods. When presented during council

ceremonies, gorgets generally conferred rank comparable to that of Captain

upon their recipients, and were easily recognized badges of authority. This

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. practice extended beyond the northeast: naturalist Mark Catesby observed

Indians in the Carolinas wearing similar ornaments in the early eighteenth

century, also as a symbol of rank.9

In his accounts of Indian expenses for July, 1755, while he was trying to

raise troops for an inter-colonial expedition against the forts of French Canada,

William Johnson presented “40 Silver Gorgets @ 21/. [per] for Chief

Warriors,” and again,” I Gorget to a head Warrior 26/. & 1 Looking Glass 3/.”

Johnson recorded these entries the twenty second and twenty seventh of July,

about three weeks after the close of a conference which was attended by

representatives of all five Iroquois nations. August 31, 1755, he recorded ‘To

an Onondaga Chief Cash in lieu of a Gorget.” By this time, Johnson and his

troops were in the field, and no gorgets were on hand. The sum given the

chief, £1.12., was six to eleven shillings more than the value of the gorgets

mentioned above. This may reflect Johnson’s chagrin at not having a gorget to

present, or it may simply reflect his awareness of the importance of Iroquois

warriors to the campaign then underway.10

Hamilton notes that the Ojibwa word for gorget is “ wagisi,” “bent

shell.”" They are occasionally called “half moons” in the literature, though

trade silver gorgets could be round, as well. Joseph Richardson’s reference to

“moons” likely refers to such gorgets. Measuring about four to six inches in

diameter, they were worn in the same way as the crescentic gorgets: suspended

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by means of bosses that passed through the front, convex surface of the gorget,

with loops behind for ribbons or thong ties. The presentation “moons” differed

from their aboriginal counterparts in that they showed their convex side to the

viewer, while those made by Native Americans tended to present their concave

side.12

Arm and Wrist Bands. Arm and wrist bands had aboriginal prototypes

in jewelry and in both tattooed and painted body decoration. Louis Nicolas

drawings of Northern Woodlands Indians, completed about 1680, show four

individuals with tattooed and/or painted bands of decoration on their arms,

wrists and legs. Other contemporary portraits and depictions of Native

Americans show both men and women wearing woven wampum bands on their

arms.13

Arm and wrist bands could be given to a “Chief Warrior” during the

ceremony accompanying the presentation of a gorget, but Indians also acquired

these and most other forms of trade silver through barter, or as gifts from

officials such as Sir William Johnson. While some women wore arm and wrist

bands, they appear to have been worn primarily by men. They were tied onto

the arms by means of ribbons or leather thongs that passed through holes at

either end of the silver bands. Their proportions and decorative patterns varied.

Wrist bands were often simple, narrow forms less than two inches wide, with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. swage-molded decoration across the entire surface. Arm bands tended to be a

little wider, up to three inches in height or so, and were often plain with modest

amounts of engraving and swage molding at top and bottom. Some armbands

made in the shop of Joseph Richardson, Jr. measure three inches in height and,

in addition to a swaged border, feature heavily chased shells along the top and

bottom margins and the Great Seal of the United States engraved at the center.

Richardson also made narrower arm and wrist bands without chased shells.

An unusual group of four wrist bands share Maine provenance.

Zebulon Smith, a silversmith working in Bangor, Maine, between ca. 1813 and

1849, made two of them. They likely represent survivors of two pair of wrist

bands, as each is decorated somewhat differently and they have slightly

different dimensions. Another pair of wrist bands from Maine, in the

collection of the Bangor Historical Society, are not stamped with a maker’s

mark, and I have attributed their ties to the area on the basis of provenance.

These four wrist bands are unusual in both their height—the Smith armbands

measure just over 5", and those at Bangor are 4 %"—and in their decorative

motifs. Unlike most wrist bands found in Canada and New York, they lack

swage-molded edges or engraved eagles. Instead, they are decorated with

geometric designs recalling those incised on decorative birchbark containers

made by Indians of the area. I discuss these arm bands further in the section on

trade silver as inter-cultural document.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Brooches. Brooches were made in many forms, but nearly all featured a

central opening, with a pin attached, like the tongue of a buckle (figures 1 and

2.). Fabric was pushed through the opening, pinned, and then pulled back

again, pulling the brooch flat against the garment. Brooches could be as simple

in design as a plain ring and pin, or as complex as elaborate interpretations of

masonic emblems. Pierced and engraved round brooches, some with rays like

stars, were common, as was a roughly square shape, now referred to as the

council square. Whether because they were small in size or in value, most

smiths did not mark their brooches, making it impossible to know where or

when they were made. Temporal attributions are difficult because Iroquois

smiths continued to make several forms, including the ring, council square,

masonic style, heart and double heart, into the nineteenth century. Ring

brooches, council square, heart and masonic-style brooches were most popular

in Iroquois country, and seldom appear east of New York.

Three brooch forms have direct, European or Euroamerican prototypes:

single and double heart brooches and masonic style brooches. The crowned

heart and double heart shapes are also referred to as “Luckenbooth” brooches,

as they are based on Scottish brooches of that name. Until the mid-nineteenth

century, and perhaps later, some Scottish Luckenbooths were still being made

with a central pin, as in the trade silver examples, rather than with a more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. delicate, concealed pin. The latter pin, in common use on brooches today, is

more appropriate for use with fine, machine-woven cottons and wools, whereas

the broader, central pin is better suited for use with more loosely woven

woolens, such as stroud and other blanket cloth. Scottish Luckenbooth

brooches were popular as love tokens from the seventeenth century. It is not

known whether British-trained smiths introduced the Luckenbooth form, or

whether Native Americans copied them from brooches being worn by settlers

and traders. Whatever the source, this form remained popular in Iroquoia well

into the nineteenth century. In his exhaustive 1903 summary, Metallic

Ornaments of the New York Indians, Beauchamp dedicates several pages of

text and thirty seven figures to Luckenbooth brooches.14

The term “masonic-style brooch” indicates the form’s clear derivation

from Euroamerican designs. Joseph Brant, a Mohawk leader of the late 1700s,

was a Freemason, and the possibility exists that his membership, and jewelry,

inspired the many interpretations of masonic emblems among Iroquois trade

silver. However, many traders, settlers and soldiers were Freemasons, as well.

Brant’s association with Freemasonry probably lent cachet to an already

popular form. Beauchamp illustrates two dozen variations of the brooch and

suggests its popularity: “in themselves far more in number than all the Indian

Free Masons known.”15

As Beauchamp indicates, the fact that Iroquois women and men wore

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. masonic style brooches does not imply their association with Freemasonry.

Neither does use of the Luckenbooth brooch imply any allegiance to Scotland,

though a carry over in its use as a love token is plausible. Many variations of

both styles were made by scores of both Iroquois and Euroamerican smiths. In

1907, M. R. Harrington conducted research into the question of Iroquois

silversmithing, interviewing several living smiths, and acquiring tools and

samples of their work. His interviews with Onondaga Chief Levi Joe, a

silversmith and grandson of a silversmith, provide clues to Native

interpretations of several trade silver forms:

Chief Joe had names for a number of the patterns. The simple disks he called o-ga-ha, which signifies “eye.” The omate-disk and star types he grouped together under the name de-yo-den- hai'en-da', interpreted as “sunshine.” The crowned heart brooches, double and single, were similarly grouped as o-go’ ji-a, meaning “ornamental head-dress or crown;” while the single heart form was known as a-we'-ya-‘sa’ or “heart.” The double [council]-square type he named de-yo-an-wa-gls'-hon, translated as “double brooch;”, the single [counci!]-square form being a jo-an-wa-gls'-hon (de- yo-an-wa-das-hon?) Or “single brooch.” When shown a Masonic brooch of pure type, the chief told me he knew no name for that variety; but the more common conventionalized Masonic design . . . he readily recognized under that name ga- ya‘ '-saa, “cross” or “crucifix,”so called, he said, on account of the fact that it usually bears from two to five engraved conventional crosses....

. . . He stated that the intertwined hearts surmounted by a crown represent the Iroquois nations united in friendship, and that these brooches were formerly considered a sort of badge or emblem identifying the wearer, man or woman, as an Iroquois. Chief John A. Gibson told me practically the same thing.16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Harrington states that the crowned heart brooches “are rarely, so far as I know,

found outside of the Iroquois Six Nations.” He also notes that the term

“brooch” is slightly different in the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and

Seneca languages, and reminds his readers that the meanings ascribed to the

brooch forms may vary from tribe to tribe, as well. Given the number of Indian

groups who wore such pieces, defining their general interpretations of trade

silver forms is difficult, if not impossible.17

Luckenbooth, masonic and other brooch forms common in Iroquoia

turn up elsewhere only occasionally. Native Americans throughout the

Northeast wore round brooches, however. These generally measure two to

about four inches in diameter. They often feature a scalloped edge, with half

moon cut-outs highlighting the scallops, and a pattern of geometric cut-outs

accenting the center of the brooch. These are similar to some contemporary

early to mid nineteenth-century Scottish provincial brooches. Some motifs,

such as bands of engraved triangles, appear on seventeenth through nineteenth

century Scottish ring brooches, as well as on trade silver brooches. Many

round trade brooches feature an outer pierced, scalloped border, which may be

based on the pierced borders of earlier ring brooches (figure 3). Immigrant

smiths such as Robert Cruikshank, who settled first in Boston in 1767 before

his move to Montreal in 1773, may have introduced round brooches. Scottish

merchants, settlers and traders could have imported such brooches as well,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. though no trade silver brooches with Scottish hallmarks have been identified.18

Large Brooches, or Round Gorgets. Some silversmiths, such as

Jonathan Tyler of Montreal, made large round brooches, that sometimes

measured over eight inches in diameter. These are sometimes referred to as

round gorgets, as their size often exceeds that of “moons." Like “moons” and

gorgets, large brooches were worn on the breast, sometimes in clusters and

sometimes in tiers extending to the waist. However, large round gorgets were

attached to clothing in the same way that smaller brooches were: with a central

pin, rather than suspended around the neck like gorgets. One piece in the

Winterthur collection could have been worn as either a gorget or brooch (figure

4). Large brooches were slightly dish shaped, and were worn with their convex

side outward.

Marked examples suggest that large round brooches became popular in

the early nineteenth century. They differ from gorgets in another, significant

way: women often wore them. Unlike crescentic gorgets, which derived from

vestigial European armor, and maintained their martial association, large

brooches were popular, civilian ornaments, without any apparent military

connotations.

Hat bands, and “Crowns”. Hat bands were another popular form of

trade silver. Between 1747 and 1756 Sir William Johnson repeatedly refers to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Castor Hatts different Sizes laced wth. broad Scalloped, & some plain Cheap

lace.” Johnson's 1761 “List of Such Merchandise as is Usually sold to the

Indians” does not include hats, however.19 Neither are hats included in the

1770, Fort Pitt “Invoice of Sundry Merchandize ship’d by George Morgan on

board the Batteau Sluggard,” bound for Fort Chartres in the Dlinois country.20

Hats may have been primarily presentation items given to tribal leaders, along

with lace-trimmed, European-style military coats and ruffled shirts.21 In

Johnson’s day, the hats would have been tricomers. By the second quarter of

the nineteenth century, variations of the top hat were in style and silver hat

bands came into their own as a Native fashion article.

While not all hat bands are marked, wide ones seem to have been made

in Montreal and Quebec. Narrower examples exist with New York contexts.

Their relative abundance suggests that silver hat bands replaced the “broad

Scalloped” or “plain cheap” lace in the early nineteenth century. High hat

bands are also referred to as “crowns,” and often feature heart shaped or

cruciform ornaments dangling from the rims (figure 5). In some instances,

their Indian owners stitched feathers inside the wide silver bands, rather than

affix them to a hat.

Crosses and Crucifixes. Trade silver crosses range in size from

pendants a foot in height to small, three-quarter inch ornaments that served as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ear bobs, or dangled from “crowns,"or leg bands. They represent a form of

trade silver with obvious European precedent. However, it is not known to

what extent the wearers of these trade crosses participated in the religion that

their ornaments represented. Religious associations undoubtedly varied from

individual to individual. Most of the extant crosses bear only simple engraving

which provides no clue to the spiritual beliefs of the owners. Some, however,

bear secular scenes, or engravings of animals. The latter imagery may have

been secular, or may have represented to its owner a combination of two belief

systems in one object. Crucifixes exist in both silver and brass or bronze.

Some, if not most, of these were given to Indians by Jesuit priests. Their often

extensive wear and more prominent Christian iconography suggest that the

recipients viewed them as religious articles.

Other Forms. Both Euroamerican and Iroquois smiths made several

other forms of trade silver, including leg bands, ear bobs, ear wheels, hair pipes

and hair plates. Indians in Maine do not seem to have used these forms to any

great extent, however. As they are marginal in this study, the interested reader

is referred to publications such as Fredrickson’s Covenant Chain, and

Hamilton’s Silver in the Fur Trade for further discussion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Decoration and Manufacture

Just as trade silver forms developed from both Native American and

European prototypes, the decoration of these objects shows a comparable blend

of influences. Ornamentation of very early pieces, however, derives solely

from European sources. Among the earliest known Native American

presentation pieces are passport badges issued by the Virginia General

assembly in March, 1661/62 to Indian Chiefs under their protection.22 The

decoration on these badges is consistent with other engraving of the period:

leafy tendrils extend from vases and cornucopias and trail over the surfaces of

the badges. Another early piece, a brass medal or gorget, was commissioned in

1676 and presented to Native Americans who sided with the Massachusetts

Bay colonists against other groups during King Philip’s War (figure 6). The

reverse side is without decoration and bears an engraved account of its

presentation. The obverse side is engraved with three borders, engraved with a

zig zag technique, called wriggle-work. Wriggle-work consists of narrow zig

zag bands of engraving, cut by rocking the burin across the surface of the metal

(see figures 1, 3-6). The engraved central figure is based on the seal of the

Massachusetts Bay Colony: an Indian woman holding a bow and arrow.

Although the image is of a Native American, the depiction of her costume and

props is European in conception and execution. 23

Some engraving, especially on presentation pieces, could be elaborate.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. British gorgets might be engraved with the royal coat of arms, and some of the

armbands Joseph Richardson, Jr. made for the United States government were

extensively engraved and chased. However, most trade silver was plain or only

simply decorated. The decoration applied to the 1676 piece described above

presages that used on later forms, with its combination of wriggle-work and

standard engraving. European cutlers used the wriggle-work technique as early

as the mid sixteenth century to embellish flatware handles and knife pommels.

While silversmiths commonly used the technique in the decoration of trade

silver, they seldom used it to embellish goods made for a Euroamerican

clientele, who were accustomed to more sophisticated visual expressions. It is

not until the early 1800s that wriggle-work appears with any frequency on

domestic silver. Even then, it is used to embellish small objects such as bottle

labels, necklace clasps, spoon handles and knitting needle sheaths. Among

silversmiths supplying the Indian trade, however, wriggle-work was the

technique of choice from the late 1600s onwards.24

One explanation for the widespread use of the technique might be that

much of the production of trade silver likely fell to apprentices, as opposed to

skilled journeymen or the master of a shop. While these objects are generally

well made, their forms and decorative motifs are much simpler than, for

example, a high-style coffee pot or tankard. They are essentially flat pieces of

silver, shaped slightly with a hammer, with relatively simple, engraved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decoration, and perhaps a swage-molded border easy to make, and quick to

produce. Fabricating hundreds of such brooches and scores of armbands would

provide ideal training for an apprentice.

Wriggle-work engraving likely served as on-the-job-training for

apprentice engravers, just as fabricating pieces themselves did for apprentice

smiths. Free-form engraving is a skill requiring firm pressure and a steady

hand, yet to be successful, its lines must flow freely. This combination of firm,

but flowing, control took dedicated practice to fully master. Engraving the zig

zags of wriggle-work on Indian trade silver provided that practice, on objects

with relatively low value compared to the more complex hollowares that the

same shops produced. This is not to say that all trade silver was made and

engraved by apprentices and junior journeymen, but much of it surely was.

Late in the 1700s a roulette tool was developed that engraved zig zag

marks similar to wriggle-work, further simplifying the work of decoration.

Hamilton notes its introduction “after I765.”25 Other silver scholars put the

date, at least in the Americas, about thirty years later, probably after the

American Revolution.26 Smiths began to use roulette-engraved wriggle-work

and bright work on tea and coffee hollowares after about 1795, when the

neoclassical style became the fashion. The marks made by this rotary tool are

easily distinguished by their uniformity, as well as the occasional overlapping

of marks where design elements intersect. The points of each chevron are more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. square than the neatly pointed zig zags of the hand engraved wriggle-work. The

development of the roulette tool did not preclude silversmiths from continuing

to engrave wriggle-work by hand, however, and the presence of hand-engraved

wriggle-work does not necessarily imply that the piece was made in the

terminal 1700s or early 1800s.

One of the most common designs executed on trade silver is a pattern of

stylized tendrils meandering at the borders of brooches, hat bands or “crowns,*’

and other forms (see figures 3-5). This motif is often further streamlined into a

simple wavy line. This motif appears to be based on baroque floral designs,

which feature an undulating line, interspersed at regular intervals with tendrils,

leaves and flowers. It is also similar to linear motifs seen on late eighteenth-

century drawstring pouches made by Indians in the region and decorated with

porcupine quills, and to applique designs on clothing of the period (figure 7).27

John Verelst painted portraits of the Mohawk leader Sa Ga Yeath Qua

Pieth Tow, called Brant, and Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Ronin, known as John, as

well as those of two other Iroquois leaders during their visit to London in 1710.

The paintings of Brant and John depict the sitters’ complex tattooing. On

John’s forehead is a wavy, almost looping line. Brant’s face features linear

designs of scallops, dots, zigzags and V’s.28 The motifs are strikingly similar to

those that ornament the above pouches, and are engraved into trade silver.

Though the silversmiths that manufactured trade silver likely considered the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wavy line to have derived from baroque, European origins, the motif was

similar enough to Indian designs that it resonated with Native Americans as

well, and persisted in Native decorative vocabularies. Strong linear designs

such as the undulating line continued to be major decorative elements of

beaded bags and moose hair embroidered items well into the nineteenth

century.29

Other motifs commonly engraved in trade silver may have held

meaning for Native Americans. Hamilton notes that Indians may have read the

zigzag of wriggle-work as “lightening, or wave-like lines of power, created by

the underwater panther,” a supernatural being. Phillips comments on the

parallel between the Christian equal-armed cross and Native expressions of the

four directions. As depicted by Verelst, Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow, or Brant,

had several crosses tattooed on his chest and shoulders, though what they

meant to Brant is not known.30

Many larger items such as gorgets were engraved with personalized

decoration in addition to that described above. Some of this work is

exceedingly fine, and was probably carried out in the engraving and

silversmithing workshops of cities like New York, Philadelphia, Montreal or

London. Other work shows less technical skill and artistic sophistication.

Every fort and trading post had its own metalsmiths, usually blacksmiths and

gunsmiths. They may have engraved some of the many pieces which were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decorated to their owners’ tastes after they left the silversmith’s shop. Many

gorgets are decorated with idiosyncratic animal designs, which presumably had

special meaning to their owners, and may represent clan symbols. Occasional

pieces depict Native mythological scenes which suggests they was not

engraved by urban silversmiths. Pieces such as these may have been engraved

by their owners themselves, as they learned techniques from local smiths.31

Just as an engraved motif, such as wriggle-work or an engraved tendril

would have been familiar to members of very different cultures, some silver

forms may have held differing meanings for both Euroamerican smiths and

Native American consumers. In her essay, “Like a Star I Shine: Northern

Woodlands Artistic Traditions,” Ruth Phillips notes the prevalence of the sun

motif in Indian art of the Northeast, and illustrates examples in widely varying

media. She states that gorgets may have represented the sun, and that Native

Americans in the region may have read round brooches, both the smaller, rayed

forms and the larger, gorget-like forms, as iconographic suns.32 The brooches

in figures 1 and 4 bear rayed motifs that may represent suns.

In a few cases, trade silver bears motifs that, unlike a meandering line,

are not common to both Native and European traditions. Motifs such as the

double curve, for example, appear on a handful of pieces with Maine

provenance. These objects, their decorative motifs and context are discussed in

the section on Native decorative motifs and trade silver.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Native Use of Metals

Prehistoric Native Americans in the Northeast used copper and valued

it highly. In the Protohistoric and early Historic Periods, silver overtook

copper as the more highly valued metal. As with so many social phenomena

during this complex period, the shift in popularity from copper to silver was

not caused by any single event. It was instead the result of a complex series of

events coupled with evolving Euroamerican and Native American perspectives.

Multiple Perspectives and the Historic Record

The fact that different cultures perceive objects and events in different

ways enriches the study of the Contact Period. It also adds what can be a

baffling complexity, which is compounded by the literature. Contemporary

accounts were written by Europeans whose pictures of life in the Americas, far

from being uniform, were colored by issues of nationality and self-interest.

The perspectives of a Dutch merchant could be very different from those of a

French Jesuit priest, an English husbandman or a Basque ship captain. The

number of Native American groups in the Northeast exceeded the number of

European groups with whom they interacted, but historians must to a large

extent depend upon non-Native accounts to provide glimpses of Indian

perspectives. Given the number of Native American groups in the Northeast

and the many ways they dealt with the newcomers, their opinions must have

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been just as varied and complex as were the Europeans’. Language difficulties,

both among the players and between Contact Period chroniclers and twenty-

first century scholars, add another layer of complexity: How well did one party

understand what the other was saying? Did either party even care to

understand? Can we fully fathom the subtleties of interactions hundreds of

years old? Yet another layer of complexity lies within the concept of “trade.”

To profit-minded Europeans it probably implied something different than it did

to those Native Americans operating under social rules of reciprocity. The

dimension I intend to explore is that of the “currency” in use in these

transactions: the “trinkets” themselves.

While first-hand accounts were written by Europeans, both the written

and material records can provide clues to Native perspectives on the subject.

Trade goods themselves, and written accounts which refer to them, can provide

insight to the different ways in which Contact Period Native Americans and

both their Euroamerican contemporaries and non-Natives of later centuries

construed the same event. For example; Indians’ perceived love of trinkets,

shiny, bright and of little value, has become firmly entrenched in American

folklore, largely through the story of the 1626 Dutch purchase of Manhattan:

From these Indians Minuit [the Dutch Director General,] bought the whole island, containing about 22,000 acres, for the value of 60 guilders in beads and ribbons . . . That must have furnished enough ribbons and beads to give every brave and every squaw a chance [to have some].33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Until at least the 1960s the message remained the same: “Minuit therefore

assembled the Sachems on Manhattan and made a treaty by which he paid them

in trinkets worth 60 guilders (about 24 dollars) for the entire Island.”34

Such versions of the story underscore the lack of importance modem,

non-Native scholars and the public in general ascribe to trade goods, as well as

a poor understanding of the dynamics of face-to-face trade at the time.

Seventeenth-century versions of the story, however, refer to “trinkets” only

obliquely: “They have purchased the Island Manhattes from the Indians for the

value of 60 guilders.”35 This statement implies that transactions paid in trade

goods were the norm, and that such objects acted as currency. It is also worth

remembering that barter was common to most transactions of the day,

regardless of the ethnicity of the participants, making the goods-for-land

transaction still less remarkable. Even after wampum and eventually cash

dominated Indian trading in New York, trade goods such as those that bought

Manhattan remained popular. The notion that sophisticated European settlers

pulled the wool over the eyes of a bunch of ignorant primitives and bought

Manhattan with a handful of gewgaws is based in part on bad scholarship and

Euro-centrism. However, even such “histories” illustrate what is and is not

valued by different cultures in different times.

A further issue which such stories and histories often overlook is the

role of reciprocity in Native American societies of the Northeast. Whether or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not Europeans were involved, nearly every interaction between groups involved

a formal exchange of gifts. Much as European governments and officials

would have liked to lower the cost of negotiations with the myriad Native

groups with whom they bargained for furs and land, gift exchange remained a

critical part of Indian diplomacy through the nineteenth century. The resulting

protocols melded Native American and European custom.36

Historical portrayals to the contrary, the Native Americans with whom

Minuit and other explorers, settlers and colonial officials traded were not naive

children, easily charmed by worthless trifles. The items Indians chose to

acquire in trade must have had some relevance to their lives. Novelty alone is

not enough to explain why “trinkets” remained popular. It is important to note

that Native and European exchanges varied. Generalizations must be made

with caution. Geographic location affected the sequence of first interaction

between Native villages and Europeans and their goods. Subtleties of cultural

organization affected how those goods were used and distributed. The

relationship between artifacts found in burials and those found in habitation

contexts is also complex, and was variable over time and between groups.37

Peter Cook, Daniel Richter, Richard White, Christopher Miller and George

Hamell, among other scholars, explore the topic of early trade relations in far

richer detail than is possible here, and they have by no means exhausted the

topic.38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the object-abundant turn of the twenty-first century, when modem

American homes hold innumerable goods, pretty trinkets can be valued for

their beauty and novelty alone. However, pre- and protohistoric Native

American houses and lives were dramatically different. Many inhabitants of

what would become New England, New York and southern Canada moved

several times a year, allowing to take advantage of seasonally abundant

foodstuffs, among other things. Even settled agricultural villagers moved their

homes on occasion. If one must move all one’s belongings several times a year

on one’s back or in a canoe, one is apt to have relatively few possessions.

Initially, there may have been one point for each individual where the novelty

of trade goods made them desirable on that merit alone. However, the

continued demand for various articles implies their physical or metaphysical

utility. These artifacts must have fit into Native American lives in some way to

make them an enduring currency of trade. Furthermore, Native Americans’

perceptions of trade goods and their place in Native lives evolved, as contact

with Europeans and their goods intensified.

Pre- and Protohistoric Use of Metals

Archeological evidence suggests that Native Americans throughout

much of the Northeast used artifacts made from European materials such as

brass and copper before they experienced any direct contact with individual

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Europeans. Native groups interacting with Europeans served as middlemen,

spreading trade goods far beyond areas of sustained contact.39 These earliest

trade goods are a bridge between prehistoric objects of adornment and ritual,

and trade articles such as seed beads and mouth harps. They also hint at ways

in which trade goods fit into indigenous worldviews. Prehistoric peoples in the

area used native copper from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, as well as from

Cap d’Or in Nova Scotia. Native copper was so pure that it could be worked

cold; no smelting was necessary to work it into simple objects. Probably due to

the purity of native copper, Indians in the prehistoric Northeast did not develop

smelting technology. These artisans were familiar with annealing methods,

however, and used them when making complex artifacts. The lack of smelting

technology and the small size of native copper nuggets likely caused pre- and

protohistoric Native artisans to fashion artifacts small, portable items, such as

awls and round or tubular beads.40

Artifacts made from European metals were generally made from scraps

cut from copper and brass kettles. The Fort Hill site, a Squakeag village in

southwestern New Hampshire, occupied in 1663 and 1664, yielded a large

sample of recycled brass in various stages of manufacture.41 Similarly, a site in

eastern Maine dating to the mid- seventeenth century, suggests the presence of

Native middlemen in this trade. The site is small, and probably represents a

lean-to which was inhabited for a very short time. Archaeologists recovered a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. few glass and copper beads and three European knives at the site, along with

thirty-three copper and brass scraps and a brass kettle lug. “Scraps,” implies

that these pieces were discards, but these small pieces of metal, cut into small

rectangles only an inch or two on a side, more likely represent a traders stock,

ready to be made into a variety of useful objects.42 Artifacts made from cut-up

kettle fragments were often similar to prehistoric native copper forms. They

include rolled cylindrical beads and an oval pendant found at a seventeenth

century site on the Kennebec River in western Maine, as well as awls, arrow

points, needles, punches and tinkling cones at the Squakeag Fort Hill site.

These small objects all have prehistoric counterparts, and like them were all

made from small pieces of metal.43

During the sixteenth century, Susquehannock and Five Nations Iroquois

Indians made spirals of sophisticated manufacture from tubes of rolled copper

and copper alloys. Bradley and Childs suggest these may have represented the

coiled tails of the supernatural underwater panther, worn as amulets. While

these objects differ from known, prehistoric forms, they provide continuity

with an earlier worldview, if not with earlier forms, and hint at the spiritual

nature of copper in the early Contact Period.44

Native craftspeople re-interpreted native-copper rolled tubular beads,

strung or sewn on to leather in rows, using European metals. Such tubes,

ranging from less than an inch to over ten inches in length are present at sites

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. throughout eastern New England.45 Before 1610, at Pemaquid, on the mid-

Maine coast, a woman and child were buried with four large sheets of brass and

a series of five large, rolled sheet-brass tubes. The tubes measured

approximately a half inch in diameter and9W to I O'/i" inches long, and were

arranged one above the other, strung on bark cordage. The brass sheets

included a semi-hemispherical piece approximately 13Vi by 7 inches and was

probably cut from the base of a large kettle. The largest sheet of brass

measured approximately 10 by 18 inches, and the smallest 4% bylA inches.468

While the metal was of European origin, the woman was wearing twined

textiles of indigenous manufacture. When Europeans began living in their

vicinity, ensuring a steady supply of woven woolen textiles, most Indians

adopted wool fabric. Warm, light, and exotic wool clothing was also far less

time consuming to produce than that of twined fabric. Since the woman buried

at Pemaquid was wearing twined textiles, her association with Europeans was

probably minimal, and may in fact have been limited to contact with trade

goods supplied by Native middlemen.

Burr’s Hill, a Warn pan oag cemetery in Warren, Rhode Island, dating to

about the third quarter of the seventeenth century, also yielded artifacts made

from relatively large pieces of sheet brass. Native artisans crafted these into

spoons, pendants, and elaborate combs, which measured as large as 11 by1?A

inches (28 x 7 cm). In both the Pemaquid burial and at the later cemetery at

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Burr’s Hill, the brass articles which were buried with individuals were often

significantly larger than those found in contemporary habitation sites,

underscoring the spiritual importance of the metal.47

Differing Perceptions and Hierarchies of Trade Metals

During the early Contact Period, Native Americans made extensive use

of copper and brass trade items. Early European visitors, such as explorers and

fishermen probably did not carry much in the way of silver, utilitarian base-

metal objects were more common, and much cheaper. Yet limited quantities of

silver and even gold made its way into Native hands. In 1501, GasparCorte-

Real “forcibly kidnaped” over fifty Indians from the northern New England or

Maritimes coast. One of these hostages possessed “a piece of broken gilt

sword,” and another wore two silver rings in his ears. The Venetian

ambassador in Lisbon examined these objects and suggested that the sword

and, “without doubt,” the earrings were made in Italy. Even if they possessed

little, if any, silver or gold themselves. Native Americans increasingly would

have seen Europeans wearing these metals—as military regalia such as gorgets,

or as buttons, or trim on hats and coats—and recognized that they were worn

by those with the most influence or power among the foreigners.48

The hierarchy of objects in general and metals in particular was

reinforced by the behavior of the foreigners themselves:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Since Europe and America were alike in generally adhering to social hierarchy, appropriate gifts were best given to the several ranks. When [in 1535,]Cartier was ready to distribute gifts to the Hochelegans, he made the men, women and children line up separately. ‘To the headmen he gave hatchets, to the others knives, and to the women beads and other small trinkets. He then made the children scramble for little rings and tin agnus Dei, which afforded them great amusement.”49

The popularity of “beads and other small trinkets” among Indians suggests a

second, Native, hierarchy with its own ranking criteria. In their article on

“Cultural Symbols and Colonial Trade,” Christopher Miller and George Hamell

reviewed historic documents and ethnographic and archaeological sources for

the early Contact Period. They suggest that many Indians in the Northeast

incorporated glass and copper artifacts into their ceremonial vocabularies

alongside native copper, crystal and shell, which were believed to have

supernatural origins:

In the Woodland Indian mythic world, crystal, shell and reflective metals were obtained . . . through reciprocal exchange with extremely powerful Other World Grandfathers, man-beings of homed or antlered serpent, panther and dragon forms .. .[whose] gifts often assured long life, physical and spiritual well-being and success, especially in the conceptually related activities of hunting, fishing, warfare and courtship.. . . [A]s other-worldly items, those substances were charged with great power.. -”50

Native Americans in the Northeast governed their use of powerful and

potentially dangerous crystal, shell and reflective metals by myth and tradition.

Early European contact with Natives would not have challenged Indians’

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. notions of a supernatural origin for these materials. Foreigners' ships, clothing

and behavior were exceedingly strange by Native norms, and Indians struggled

to fit them into existing understandings of the world.51 In and of themselves,

copper kettles would have been impressive objects to people who were used to

copper artifacts smaller than the palm of one’s hand. The size of these kettles

would have bolstered the notion of their supernatural origin. Many, if not most

Native Americans in the Northeast obtained their first European copper and

brass from Indian middlemen, in the form of cut-up kettles. While these

consumers might not have seen an actual kettle, the stories Native traders told

of Europeans would have reinforced the other-worldliness of the metal. Its

physical characteristics would also have set this material apart. Good quality

uniformly thin metal, it would have been easier to work with than the small,

irregular Cap D’Or nuggets Indians had been trading along the Maine coast in

the years before Contact. The ways in which Native Americans in the

Northeast used copper alloys: fashioned into small artifacts of daily use, and

larger significant articles of grave furniture, speak to the value placed on this

material.52

Color was as much a key to Native Americans’ attitudes toward these

trade goods as the materials themselves. Red copper was already in use

protohistorically; the newcomers just provided different forms of this rare and

valuable raw material. Clear and white glass were seen as metaphysically

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. similar to clear crystal and white shell.53 White and other light colors such as

sky blue were associated with positive, cognitive social values; black and other

dark colors were perceived as asocial and associated with death and mourning.

Mediating between the social and asocial was the color red, which also

represented the emotional and asocial:

whiteness connoted the cognitive aspects of life, redness connoted the emotional aspect of life, and blackness connoted the absence of either cognition or animacy, or both, that is, death, mourning, and other inferior and asocial states of being. Depending on the ritual context, redness could be contrasted with either whiteness or darkness, or could serve as a mediator between the two.54

The white shells and black (actually dark blue or purple) shells of wampum

represented the cognitive and the asocial. Woven together into a belt they

could represent the same qualities in society. Some wampum belts were then

painted red, the color of war, reflecting the turmoil of the communities that

made them.55

The widespread use of brass kettles as raw material for implements

seems not to fit the model of Indians favoring auspiciously colored objects. In

1524 Verrazzano reported that the Native Americans he encountered in

Massachusetts Bay particularly disliked gold, because of its color. He noted

that they favored “azure and red.”56 Hamell cites Wallace Chafe’s translation

of the Seneca word for yellow as “the color of bile,” and connects it with

jaundice and viral hepatitis.57 Indians’ use of brass may simply reflect the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. practical exploitation of available resources over the ideal of convergence of

material and color. It may also reflect another practical issue, that of taste.

Pure copper kettles that were not coated with tin would react with the foods

that were cooked in them. The more acidic the food, and the longer it was

cooked, the more pronounced the flavor. Copper salts are poisonous, and the

food cooked in an untreated kettle, or one with a worn tin coating could make

one sick.58

The majority of trade beads were white, blue, black or red, and so fit

neatly into Native symbolic vocabularies of color. Yellow, through its relative

absence confirms such vocabularies, as well. Red, blue and black trade goods,

including beads and blankets remained popular even after prolonged Indian-

Euroamerican contact, suggesting that the symbolic meanings attached to color

persisted, even while indigenous cultures changed as people responded to the

repeated crises of contact.59

Inter-Cultural Contact and Trade Silver

It is not clear what triggered a change in emphasis from the trade in

copper items to those of silver. The two metals were not equivalent. Although

objects of copper and its alloys had both utilitarian and ornamental uses, silver

was not generally used for purely utilitarian objects. With increased Native

American-Euroamerican contact, utilitarian goods became more common. As

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. guns replaced arrows, kettles increasingly became used only as kettles rather

than raw material for men’s supematurally-charged arrowheads, and Native

American men’s reliance on copper diminished. At the same time, increased,

direct, Native contact with European settlers meant a greater understanding of

them as eminently fallible human beings, which undercut the spiritual

significance of their trade goods. The spiritual value of copper alloys would

likely have slipped another notch toward the commonplace as Indian women

increasingly used kettles as vessels for everyday cooking. Kettles became

simply utilitarian objects that were more durable and portable than traditional,

low-fired ceramic vessels which were fragile and heavy. Native Americans,

especially women, would still have valued European kettles but in a more

secular sense than they had earlier. With the increased role of copper-alloy

kettles in the domestic, female sphere, Native American men may well have

seen in the newcomers’ use of silver, a metal worthy to take the place of

copper.

Sir William Johnson’s 1755 recommendation that young officers’ gifts

to Indians “be such as will be most acceptable to their Wives and Mistresses,”

points to a related issue. Native American women accustomed to cooking with

copper and brass kettles would hardly have been impressed by ornaments made

by such commonplace materials. Johnson’s advice may have been keyed to his

awareness of the matrilineal nature of Iroquois society and the importance of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. women to the political process in and beyond their villages. Because of his

close association with his Mohawk neighbors, he would also have been aware

of what did and did not impress these powerful women. It also underscores

Johnson’s awareness of the critical role of reciprocal gift exchange in frontier

diplomacy.60

As contact between Native Americans and European settlers intensified,

Indians became aware of the European hierarchy of metals, and the high status

accorded silver over “base” metals. Copper and brass are stronger metals than

silver, making them more practical in many ways for frontier life. A leather

tankard is as serviceable as one of silver. However, European and

Euroamerican use of silver had little to do with utility and much to do with

power, status and display. Silver was tangible wealth: often made from melted

coins, it could itself be translated back into actual currency. Not every family

could afford a silver spoon, let alone a silver tankard. Those who could afford

silver would have treated such objects differently than everyday articles of

wood, hom, copper or ceramic. Silver objects would have been accorded pride

of possession and of place, used by the senior member of a group, usually a

man of influence and power. They were given prominence in display when in

use and when at rest.

Another way that Europeans and Euroamericans signaled status through

silver was in the embellishment of clothing and uniforms and in symbols of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. military authority, such as gorgets. Though some gorgets were gilt copper, the

majority were silver. Indians would certainly have been aware of the status

conscious use of silver in public settings. Some would have also been aware of

silver’s comparable status in more private, domestic settings. The ways in

which powerful European and Euroamerican men used, displayed and wore

silver, whether in the masculine arenas of war and diplomacy, or in everyday

life may have contributed to Native Americans’ views of the metal. Just as

Europeans incorporated reciprocity into their diplomatic and economic

interactions with Native Americans, Indians may have seen in silver a way in

which to communicate with the newcomers in their own metaphoric language.

Increasingly, that metaphoric language, of silver representing wealth,

and by extension, power, was adopted by Native Americans, as well. Artists'

depictions of Indians increasingly portray prominent men wearing the full

complement of trade silver forms including gorgets, large brooches, medals,

arm bands, wrist bands and brooches. High-status women are depicted wearing

scores and even hundreds of silver brooches (figure 8).61

Many Native Americans would also have been aware of the importance

of silver in ecclesiastical settings. Because of their belief in transubstantiation,

communion vessels in Catholic churches were ideally made of silver or other

precious, stable materials.62 While those at the chapel at the Abenaki village of

Norridgewock on the Kennebec River were made of pewter, Indians visiting

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. churches in Montreal and Quebec would have seen ecclesiastical silver in use.63

Protestants also privileged silver over base metals or other materials for use in

worship. As a result of the visit of the four Iroquois “kings” to England in

1710, Queen Anne presented a set of Communion silver to the Iroquois for a

chapel she ordered built.64 Native Americans aware of the use of silver in

Christian worship services may have seen this as confirmation, by a different

theology, of the positive social connotations they saw in the metal. They may

have transferred to silver objects some of the spiritual associations once

connected with copper.

The European and Euroamerican use of presentation silver may also

have played a role in the shift towards silver trade goods. In 1676, officials of

the Massachusetts Bay colony issued an oval gorget, or breast plate, made of

brass, to Native American allies in the war against Metacomet, or King Phillip

(see figure 6 )65 However, by 1723, Massachusetts officials were awarding

silver medals. Penhallow reported that Iroquois, Mohegan and Scatacook

delegates at a conference with the Massachusetts general assembly were given

“a piece of Plate, with Figures engraven thereon, as a Turtle, a Bear, a Hatchet,

a Wolf, &c. which were the Escutcheons of their several Tribes.”66

The change from base metals to silver may reflect European and

Euroamerican concepts of status of individuals and a complementary ranking

of metals. This was certainly the case in early documented examples such as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that of Cartier, above, as well as in later cases. Officials in Virginia in the late

1600s, for example, made passport badges for friendly Indians out of both

copper and silver.67 While the badges were a way of identifying friend from

foe, the reasons officials assigned some individuals or villages copper badges

and others silver badges merits further investigation. The increased use of

silver may reflect a growing, if ambivalent, view on the part of Euroamerican

officials of Native Americans less as anonymous savages and more as potential

military allies who had to be cultivated. The change may also reflect Native

preference for light, white objects with their positive social connotations, over

the more ambiguous red of copper, or the sickly yellow of brass. Whether or

not the Euroamerican and European commissioners of presentation silver took

their allies’ preferences into account, some were undoubtedly aware of the

meanings of color to Native Americans. In the third quarter of the 1700s, Sir

William Johnson, British Superintendent for Indian Affairs north of the Ohio

River, repeatedly ordered blankets in black to “cover the dead,” and other

objects such as jackets, wool stroud, and face paint in appropriate colors.68

Objects such as white wampum shell connoted positive social states of being,

and light-colored silver would have held the same, positive, meanings. As

Europeans gained an awareness of Native color preferences, they may well

have expanded the supply of trade silver ornaments.

As with so many social phenomena during this time period, the shift in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. popularity from copper to silver was not caused by any single event. It was

instead the result of a complex series of events coupled with evolving

Euroamerican and Native American perspectives. Trade is not an enterprise

with one active participant—in this case the Euroamerican trader—and one

passive participant —the Native American consumer. Shoppers, be they in the

market for copper kettle fragments, silver arm bands, or electronics equipment,

make choices based on a series of complex, culturally-influenced criteria.

Merchants, if they are to succeed, act on their customers’ preferences in the

merchandise they carry. Given Native Americans’ opinions concerning white

silver’s inherent, positive social qualities, and the value Europeans and

Euroamericans placed on the metal, it should not be surprising that Natives

increasingly traded for silver. The shift in emphasis from copper-alloy trade

goods to those of silver is not explained in contemporary documents. Lacking

a written discussion of the shift, the causal factors that triggered it remain

speculative, but several conditions seem to have created pressure for change:

• Sustained contact between Native Americans and Euroamericans

eliminated copper’s importance as a material of supernatural origin, and

rendered it less exotic.

• Indians’ increased use of guns displaced the use of arrows and the need

for arrowheads of supematurally-charged copper.

• As trade between Europeans and Native Americans increased, formerly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. valuable metals such as copper and brass, became commonplace and

relegated to a domestic, female sphere.

• Women may have fueled demand for ornaments made of silver, rather

than a metal such as copper alloys which were used in the mundane task

of cooking.

• Increased ranking based on wealth increased demand for wearable

wealth in the form of silver omaments.

• Whether or not Christian ecclesiastical use of silver endowed the metal

with spiritual power in Indian eyes, Europeans and Euroamericans

expressed worldly status and power through domestic and military

artifacts of silver.

• Finally, Native Americans endowed white materials such as silver with

positive social meanings. The simultaneous interaction of these and

other social phenomena led to the increased emphasis on silver over

copper alloys in Native-Euroamerican trade.

Trade Silver, ca. 1750-1830

By the mid eighteenth century, Euroamericans were firmly entrenched

in the Northeast. Native American-Euroamerican interactions were as varied

and complex in this period as they were in the preceding centuries. Permanent

and prosperous cities displaced or marginalized Indians in some areas. In

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. other, more rural areas, the balance of power had not yet tipped in the favor of

the newcomers, and Native American lives and concerns were of great

importance to the few Euroamerican adventurers, traders and settlers with

whom they interacted. Just as for the Contact Period, the social and political

environment of interaction varied tremendously, and for many of the same

reasons. Generalizations for the historic period of Native American-

Euroamerican interactions should be made with caution, just as with the

Contact Period. Not only did French policies toward Native Americans differ

from those of the English, the policies of different colonial governments often

clashed, as well. The situation was no less complex from the opposite

perspective: different tribes, and factions within tribes, acted and reacted

toward Euroamericans in widely disparate ways. Political alliances shifted

rapidly on both sides of the Atlantic, further complicating the situation.

Perhaps the only generalization that holds true is that each, individual group

acted in its best interests, as they perceived them, at any given time.

Silver. Trade and Diplomacy on the Western Frontier. Trade silver

played a role in diplomacy in the Northeast, as both gifts and as presented

markers of status and accomplishment. Both French and British officials

awarded military allies with gorgets and medals as both recruitment and

reward. As part of the protocol of gift exchange, silver ornaments, especially

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. brooches, made up part of the “presents” the same officials gave to many of the

same individuals. At the same time, Indian agents at forts and trading posts

offered objects of trade silver for sale. These exchanges are well documented

by the records kept by Sir William Johnson, who the British in 1755

commissioned Superintendent of Indian Affairs, North of the Ohio River.69

Johnson's life on the New York frontier and his brief experiences as a

military commander forced him to learn the value of his Iroquois neighbors,

and respect them and members of other tribes. He wrote that making Indians

“satisfied & easy — is not so difficult a task as the prejudiced may pretend and

consists only in dealing justly with them and treating them like friends and

allies.”70 Johnson’s correspondence reveals not only his respect for Native

Americans, but also provides evidence that Indians were well aware of issues

such as the relationship in fine metals between weight and value. In 1761,

1764 and 1765, Johnson drew up price lists which included trade silver arm

and wrist bands, brooches, hair plates, crosses and ear bobs, with their values in

furs. In 1764, his list included “Silver gorgets for Men”, which were valued at

two large beaver skins, “and a lap,” apiece. A silver arm band, “of ye. largest,”

was worth three beavers, while a dozen brooches traded for one beaver pelt.71

The Native Americans with whom Johnson and his agents were trading would

have known the value in furs of these and many other trade goods. They also

recognized quality craftsmanship. In a letter to General Thomas Gage January

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30, 1766, Johnson noted that “Indians to the Westward are Extremely fond of

Medals, which is in fact with some a tye of fidelity.” He told Gage that he

(Johnson) “should be glad they were of more Value & a better make than they

Generally are, French Medals being much more Valuable & better finished.”

In a letter a month later, Johnson observed that “most of the

Workmanship...done at New York is so ill executed that it is observed by the

most distant Indians...the French Meddals are much thicker than those made

here.” This correspondence continued over a period of several months, with

Gage apparently negotiating with several makers to obtain a well-crafted medal

that would suit the Indians along the Illinois river.72 Numismatist John W.

Adams notes that the French medals with which the western tribes would have

been familiar “were weighty, of sophisticated workmanship, and up to 75

millimeters in diameter.” This compares to 56 millimeters for the 1764

English medals. The Montreal medals of 1761 were smaller still, at 45

millimeters, and were “poorly designed [and] crudely executed.”73 Johnson,

and apparently Gage, were aware that medals represented the government that

awarded them. To Native Americans, the poorly made British medals implied

a comparably poor opinion of them.

Another series of letters between Gage and Johnson in 1770 illustrates

Native American awareness of the value of the silver versus base metals. A

trader in Albany, “on his way to Detroit,” passed off and sold as silver several

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. arm bands of either “white metal” or “a mixed Metal only washed over [with

silver].” When he discovered the fraud, the purchaser, a member of the

Seneca tribe, brought the armbands to the commandant at Niagara in an attempt

to gain compensation for the deception. Both Gage and Johnson discussed the

necessity and difficulty involved in finding, and punishing the vendor.

Unfortunately, the letters do not reveal how or whether the trader was

punished.'4

Johnson’s papers reveal how closely trade and politics were interwoven

on the frontier. Both the French and the British needed western Indian allies in

the mid eighteenth centuries. Johnson’s accounts list many instances of

private, individual gifts alongside presents given to tribal officials on

ceremonial occasions.75 The first section of Johnson’s inventory, taken after

his death in 1774, details the goods in the “Indian Store” on the property. It is

not immediately clear whether “Indian Store” refers to a sales store or a store

house, since a “red Coach house Store” is also listed. However, as the

inventory subsequently moves on to the house and later to the smithy and other

properties, including one “Storehouse,” at least some of these goods may have

been available for purchase. While brass rings and thimbles are listed in the

Indian store inventory, no silver is included, except for “[A] parcel! of Ind’n

Trinkets over the Chimney” in the “blue Parlor,” valued at £4.76 In her Loyalist

claim to the British Crown, Molly Brant, Johnson’s domestic partner and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unofficial assistant, however, included the loss of 200 silver brooches and 300

silver crosses, along with many domestic articles. She may have acquired

some of this trade silver after Johnson’s death. Alternatively, they may account

for the absence of trade silver in Johnson’s inventory, as Brant’s

possessions—all the goods and furnishings in her room—were not included in

the document. 77

Johnson’s records also document the political alliance referred to as the

Covenant Chain. In June, 1755, at a council at Fort Johnson, he summarized

the importance of the relationship:

You well know these Books testifie that it is now almost 100 years since your Forefathers and ours became known to each other.—That upon our first acquaintance we shook hands and finding we should be useful to one another, entered in to a covenant of Brotherly love and mutual friendship.—And tho’ we were at first only tied together by a Rope, yet lest this Rope should grow Rotten and break, we tied ourselves together by an iron Chain— lest time and accident might rust and destroy this Chain of iron, we afterwards made one of Silver; the strength and brightness of which would be subject to no decay.—The ends of this Silver chain we fixt to the immoveable mountains, and this in so firm a manner, that the hands of no mortal Enemy might be able to remove it. All this my Bretheren you know to be Truth; you know also that this Covenant Chain of love and friendship was the dread and envy of all your Enemies and ours, that by keeping it bright and unbroken, we have never spilt in anger one drop of each other’s blood to this day. You well know also that from the beginning to this time we have almost every year strengthened and brightened this Covenant Chain in the most publick & solemn manner. You know that we became as one body, one blood and one people, the same King our common Father, that your Enemies were ours, that whom you took in to your Alliance and allowed to put their hands into this

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Covenant Chain as Brethren, we have always considered and treated as such.78

This alliance originated with the Dutch and their Native American

allies. With British control of Dutch colonial territory in the Northeast, it

evolved in to an alliance between Britain and the Five Nations Iroquois, and

was later expanded to include other groups in the Northeast. Essentially

serving as the symbol of Native American-British cooperation, through the

metaphor of “brightening the Covenant Chain,” it formally incorporated gift

exchange into its ritual of renewal. It also highlighted the importance of silver

over other metals in the language and customs of frontier diplomacy.

As an official of the British, Johnson’s focus lay westward in the

direction of more furs and more land. North and east, the part of

Massachusetts called Maine was as much a frontier as central and western New

York at the time. The situation in Maine, however, was even more complex

than that on the New York frontier. The Abenaki Indians were not a closely

knit confederation of tribes as were the Iroquois, and there was no sympathetic,

powerful English official like Johnson in the area.79 The non-Natives who

lived with Maine tribes at the time tended to be French priests.

Silver. Trade and Diplomacy on the Northeastern Frontier. While gift-

giving played an important role in the diplomacy of the Maine tribes, just as it

did for the Iroquois, the social obligations accompanying such gifts differed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abenaki acceptance of a gift did not imply compliance with the terms of the

gift, as it did with Iroquois diplomats. Religious ties to Catholic France, and

differences in social structure between the Abenaki and the Iroquois, combined

with the lack of obligation imposed by the acceptance of gifts limited the utility

of such objects to diplomacy, at least from a European point of view.80 As a

consequence, British colonial officials sent far less silver northeastward than

they did westward.

Placed as they were between French and British interests, the Indians of

Maine were continually involved in alternating and, at times, simultaneous

fighting and peacemaking with the French and English, as well as the Mohawk,

who were repeatedly drawn in to conflicts in the area by Massachusetts

officials. As part of often renewed attempts to keep peace, Maine Indians

entered into a Covenant Chain relationship in 1700 with the Mohawks, and by

extension the English, though in a subservient, relationship as “children,” not

as “brothers.” A year later, they participated in “the Great Peace” of Montreal.

Further meetings in Caughnawaga, an Iroquois village near Montreal, resulted

in the Wabanaki Confederacy. In it, the Ottawa carried the highest rank, and

the Caughnawaga Mohawk a high rank, as well. The Penobscot, who were the

closest to Caughnawaga, held the highest rank of the Maine and Maritime

tribes, with status decreasing as one went east. Despite continued conflict in

the region through the eighteenth century, meetings between tribes continued

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. every three to seven years until the mid nineteenth century, when a disgruntled

and divided Penobscot tribe withdrew, and the alliance slowly disintegrated.81

Just as the British had presented gorgets and armbands with national

images, the new United States Government was actively involved in producing

gorgets and armbands engraved with the Great Seal for its negotiations with

various tribes. In 1782, for example, officials in Detroit alone requested

approximately 18,600 pieces of trade silver for distribution and sale to Native

Americans.82 Newspaper accounts of the treaty negotiations between the new

state of Maine and the Penobscot tribe in 1820 related the continuing tradition

of presenting such silver, this time with the state seal, along with further gifts

of silver and other goods.83 No examples of presentation silver with Maine

context are known, however. With tribal members traveling to the Montreal

area every few years, it is not surprising that much of the trade silver with

Maine contexts was made in Montreal, or is stylistically similar to Montreal

trade silver. The trade silver of the Indians of Maine is thus a continued

reflection of old alliances that looked both north to Canada and south, first to

the British colonies, and then to state governments.

Trade Silver in the Wake of a Removed Frontier. As the frontier

moved westward, governmental distribution of silver moved west, as well. As

Benjamin Roberts put it so succinctly in an earlier context, in New York in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. early nineteenth century, “...all is peace and quietness. The Indians are look’d

upon of no consequence.” The United States government was commissioning

tens of thousands of pieces of trade silver, but they were shipping it to more

Western points, where land and resources for Euroamerican settlers was still

available. Governmental involvement with trade silver was linked to the

frontier, and as it moved west, so did the silver. In Johnson’s day, his

headquarters and personal involvement kept trade silver flowing to the

Iroquois, but after the Revolution, distribution centers moved south to

Washington, D.C., and west to forts like Detroit.

The Iroquois response to the decrease in gifts of silver as the frontier

moved west was to begin making it themselves. In Canada, however, the

center for the production of trade silver was Montreal. So for Indians in Maine,

access to goods made by Montreal smiths continued for decades. Some forms

popular with the New York Iroquois, such as masonic style brooches, are

known in small numbers from Maine, but the forms Penobscots and

Passamaquoddys favored were more typically those common to Montreal:

among them the large brooch, and tall hatband or crown. The styles and sources

of trade silver reflect and illuminate the complexities of international politics in

the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Trade Silver as Inter-Cultural Document

Styles and distribution of Indian trade silver in the Northeast reflect

politics. The decorative vocabulary of that silver reveals inter-cultural

communication. Because nineteenth-century Iroquois smiths in New York

fashioned “trade silver” themselves, their output offers direct evidence of

Native American preferences. In areas such as Maine, however, Indians did

not for the most part make their own silver ornaments. Just as for the Iroquois,

the silver they wore reflects their preferences. In this case, however, non-

Native craftsmen made the objects. Given the paucity of written records, the

decorative motifs on trade silver can in part document these inter-cultural

transactions, and offer a glimpse of the relationship between Euroamerican

maker and Native American marketplace.

Trade Silver Production

In his 1755 letter, “Some Hints for a Commanding Officer,” Sir

William Johnson noted the importance of considering the tastes of Native

American allies when conducting diplomacy: “When you make presents to the

Indians let them be such as will be most acceptable to their Wives and

Mistresses.”84 Fifty-three years later, General John Johnston drew patterns or

templates of the most popular forms of Indian jewelry at Fort Wayne, and sent

them to Washington, D. C.85 While Johnson and Johnston recorded the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. importance of Native American trade good preferences to their ventures,

written documentation regarding trade silver is rare. Johnson and others

responsible for Indian gifts or trade items Indians kept ledgers detailing their

purchases. A few such records survive. George Croghan received 2311 pieces

of trade silver “for the Illinois country” at Fort Pitt in early 1770. Of these,

“ 105 Doz: & 3," or 1263, were “Broaches,” and 168 were crosses, divided into

large, small and “nose” sizes. Only twenty-two were gorgets, half crescentic

and half “shells.”86 In the summer of 1757, Joseph Richardson, a Philadelphia

silversmith, was paid for 2860 pieces of trade silver made in his shop. These

included 1472 brooches, 374 crosses, 252 hair plates, as well as ear bobs, rings,

arm and wrist bands, hair bobs, 48 “moons,” and 30 gorgets.87 A generation

later, Joseph Richardson, Jr. was also involved in the manufacture of Indian

trade silver. His ledger records five transactions between 1796 and 1798, and

another, small order in 1800. Four of the five earlier transactions exceed £100.

His largest order, £323.2.814, in April, 1798, included fifty dozen pair of ear

bobs and eighty dozen brooches, as well as rings, wrist bands, gorgets, and hair

bobs among the 1926 pieces.88

Although these records are often incomplete, they document the scale of

trade-silver production, implying its importance in trade and diplomacy. They

also reveal changing patterns of trade silver preference among Native

Americans, at least to an extent. Brooches and earbobs far outnumber gorgets,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for example. “Shells” or “moons,” round gorgets patterned after Native

American prototypes made of shell, do not appear in Joseph Richardson Jr.’s

account book from the late 1700s, but outnumber the crescentic form in his

father’s accounts some forty years earlier. Brooch shapes are not identified,

but some general trends in fashion and in patterns of distribution appear.

Period documents often vaguely refer to trade silver or presentation silver as

“articles of ornaments.”89 Occasionally, however, such records confirm and

explain the trends in the lists of silver made by craftsmen such as the

Richardsons, and ordered by agents like Croghan. An 1818 inventory of goods

presented to Penobscot officials lists two gorgets, which were presented to the

Governor and Lt. Governor of the tribe, and eight epaulets to be given to

named Captains. Three other Captains received sashes. A dozen “breast

plates” are listed, without specific recipients, as are four yards of gold binding,

five powder flasks, six “hat buckles,” two earrings, six shawls, two

handkerchiefs, ten pounds of beads, and several more “bunches” of beads.

Although the list may be incomplete, it confirms the pattern of presenting

different types of ornaments to Indian officials of various ranks.90

Interpreting Inter-Cultural Silver

Although tens of thousands of trade silver articles were made between

1750 and 1850, relatively few survive. Most extant pieces bear no maker’s

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mark, making the source of the objects difficult or impossible to determine.

This is in contrast to domestic silver forms, such as teapots and tankards, which

nearly always bear the stamp of the shop where they were made. Studies of

such silver are based upon these marks, as well as upon stylistic considerations.

Knowing who made an object and when can aid in the process of

understanding inter-cultural forms. For example, many of the works of

silversmith Cornelius Kierstede, who worked in New York city and Albany

between 1698 and the early 1720s are similar to Dutch forms. Others show

influence from both Dutch and English design sources. After his move to New

Haven, Connecticut in the early 1720s, his silver becomes much more English

in style. Gerald Ward gathered written documentation, such as records

concerning Kierstede’s move to Connecticut, and physical documentation from

the silver itself, such as Kierstede’s mark and the engraved names of some of

his patrons. Comparing known Dutch and English examples with the

documented Kierstede works, Ward was able to trace the influence of Dutch-

American and Anglo-American clients on both form and imagery in

Kierstede’s work.91

Like Kierstede’s tankards, Indian trade silver incorporates inter-cultural

elements and motifs. In the case of trade silver, however, the situation is more

complicated than in the Kierstede example in that there were scores of

silversmiths and many more cultures involved. Both smiths and customers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. represented many different nationalities. Attempts to determine the source of

trade silver is further frustrated by the general lack of makers’ marks. Another

point at which the study of trade silver diverges from the study of other inter-

cultural forms of silver is the lack of a comparable forms produced by most

Native Americans. The obvious exception to this problem is in upstate New

York where, in the nineteenth century, Iroquois silversmiths produced

thousands of brooches and other jewelry forms. Elsewhere, however, one must

look to other forms of Native decorative arts, such as birchbark containers,

beadwork, and wooden objects with carved embellishment, for evidence of the

ways in which Native Americans contributed to trade silver design.

Native Decorative Motifs and Trade Silver

Many examples of trade silver with Maine provenance bear decorative

motifs different from pieces found elsewhere in the Northeast. These motifs

extend beyond the simple stylized tendril element, discussed earlier, which was

familiar to both craftsman and client, and include several regional, Native

motifs such as double curves. Ethnographer Frank Speck considered the

double curve “the primary element in the art of the region.” Cross-hatched

diamonds and triangles appear with enough frequency in the work of

Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, MicMac, and other Northeastern Native

artists that Speck refers to them as “conventionalities.”92 While the double

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. curve appears in art from New York to northern Quebec, different groups

expressed it in distinct ways. Iroquois artists executed the motif with its scrolls

facing out, like fern fiddleheads (see figure 5), while Penobscot, Maliseet,

Passamaquoddy and MicMac artists favored a form with inward-facing scrolls

(figure 9).93 A large round brooch or gorget at the Maine Historical Society

and a high hat band, or crown, at the Bangor Historical Society both feature

double-curve motifs (figure 10; see also figure 5). While these objects can be

firmly attributed to nineteenth-century Penobscot and Passamaquoddy

ownership, the double curves fall just as firmly into the Iroquois range of

expression of the motif. Neither piece is marked, but they were most likely

made in Montreal, as they are similar to marked examples from that city.

Given the proximity of Montreal to such as Caughnawaga, smiths there would

have been more familiar with the Iroquois than the Penobscot or

Passamaquoddy expression of the double-curve motif. It is not surprising,

therefore, that the Iroquois double curve appears on silver destined to be worn

by non-Iroquois Indians living in Maine.

Hatched diamonds and triangles also appear on silver with Maine

provenance. These motifs appear frequently on regional birchbark vessels and

wood carving, as parts of more complex subjects and as elements in their own

right (see figure 9).94 A pair of wrist bands, or cuffs, at the Bangor Historical

Society with Penobscot provenance bear both motifs as does a brooch at the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Winterthur Museum with Passamaquoddy provenance (see figures 4 and 5).

The triangles on the cuffs, with a smaller triangle inverted over the larger, are

similar to those frequently executed in birchbark. They resemble the conical

bark wigwams used as summer camps by Maine Indians into the nineteenth

century. Speck reports that the Penobscot term for the triangular and zigzag

motifs meant “little (round) wigwams,” but also states that “interpretations . . .

are by no means rigid or even general.”95 While triangular motifs are present in

birchbark, wood carving and ribbon-applique textile designs, the interpretation

on these cuffs differs from known, Native examples. Other elements on the

cuffs are atypical of birchbark designs, such as the punched stars, or

uncommon, such as the round, hatched motifs.96 Incised, scalloped edging,

though not as common as double curves, appears with some frequency on

birchbark.97 The overall composition of the cuffs suggests a craftsman with a

passing, though not an intimate, familiarity to Penobscot birchbark designs.

Two, similar cuffs also bear triangular motifs (figures 11 and 12). Both

were made by Zebulon Smith, who worked in Bangor, Maine, from ca. 1813 to

1849.98 Bangor is fifteen miles south of the Penobscot village of Oldtown on

Indian Island, and was the nearest large town to the village. Smith used the

same decorative vocabulary for the two wrist bands, though in a different

configuration on each. The slight variations in decoration and size suggests

that these are the surviving members of two different sets of cuffs. Near the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wrist end of each piece are cut-out arrows. The wriggle-work which outlines

them crosses at the point, extending like the poles of a bark wigwam.

The decoration on the Smith wrist bands is more carefully executed,

and the overall craftsmanship is of better quality than the unmarked, Bangor

examples. Though their decorative vocabularies are strikingly similar, the

craftsman of the Bangor pair filled his pieces with designs, while Smith

favored a more spare layout. Smith’s cuffs recall the neo-classical style in their

simplicity and restraint, suggesting that he may have made them early in his

Bangor career. These four cuffs are exceptional in another regard: they are

much larger than wrist bands from other contexts. The Zebulon Smith example

from Yale measures just over five inches, and the Bangor pieces measure four

and a half inches high. By contrast, wrist bands made elsewhere measure two

inches or less in height. Their circumference, nine to eleven inches wide,

narrower than known arm bands, and their taper confirm that they are, indeed,

wrist cuffs, despite their unusual height.

Other pieces of trade silver from Maine contexts bear similar

relationships between their decoration and that on objects of contemporary

Native manufacture. In addition to its double curves, the Maine Historical

Society brooch bears leaf clusters and four acute triangles at the center (see

figure 10). It is not clear whether the triangles represent wigwams or compass

points or are merely decorative. Clusters of two to three leaves, however, are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recurring motifs in regional art of the early to mid nineteenth century,

appearing on birchbark, and in carving, quillwork and beadwork (figure 13; see

also figure 9).” Speck considers leaves and leaf clusters to be prophylactic,

“magico-religious” symbols. He bases this on linguistic evidence rather than

on information from then-living artists. He fully discusses only one example in

which an elder describes the meaning of double curves, triangles and leaves in

mid nineteenth-century beadwork. The object in question is a beaded collar

commemorating the death of one chief, and the election of a new one. In this

very specific case, the leaves represent important men of the Penobscot Nation,

the triangles represent wigwams, and the double curves symbolize the bonds

that hold the group together. Speck describes other examples of leaves as

“herbs” or “willow leaves,” or states “the units have the usual leaf and blossom

names,” without being more specific as to what those might be, or revealing the

source of his information.100

The double curves of the tall Bangor Historical Society hatband or

crown have an unusual central element: a tendril, or slight S-curve extends

vertically from the center of each double curve (see figure 5). While this is an

unusual embellishment for a double curve, comparable tendrils can be seen on

several Montreal brooches from the early nineteenth century (see figures 1-5

and 10). Each curve is framed by an arch over which the artisan engraved a

wriggle-work lattice, the crossing lines following the curve of the arch. This

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. curved, lattice-like element can be seen on examples of birchbark and on

carved wooden tools, as well (see figure 9).101

A crown from the Seibert collection, now on loan to the University

Museum in Philadelphia, is strikingly similar to that at Bangor in two respects.

The wavy tendrils are exceptionally broad and bold. The crowns also share a

pattern of cutouts and wriggle-work: a pair of D-shaped voids, with a pair of

flanking triangle cut-outs (figure 14; see also figure 5). The overall pattern of

cut-outs is nearly identical, suggesting that, while the bands of decoration

differ, same silversmith may have made them. A simpler, lower hat band in the

Bangor collection, a pair of leg bands at the McCord, and a pair of armbands at

the National Museum of Civilization all share this pattern of cut-outs. Unlike

the Bangor and Seibert crowns, however, these are all marked. They were

made in Jonathan Tyler’s shop in Montreal, between 1810 and 1828. While

the Seibert example is more simply decorated, with wavy tendrils and across

hatched band as the primary motifs, it also has a solid Maine provenance, and

was probably owned by a member of the Penobscot Nation.102

Three brooches in the collection of the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor,

Maine, offer clues to two others with Maine context at the University Museum

at the University of Pennsylvania. The three are small, IVa” to 2V8" in

diameter. They are undecorated, neither pierced nor engraved, and have small,

irregular center holes which show heavy signs of wear. Their maker or makers

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. did not planish the brooches, and their surfaces remain slightly uneven. An

anonymous craftsman made the smallest of the three from a 1888 Canadian

fifty-cent piece, faint traces of which can been seen on both sides of the brooch.

The verso shows the dated reverse of the coin. A faint image of Queen

Victoria, and the words “VICTORIA DEI GRATIA REGINA/CANADA”

appear on the reverse of the brooch. The image is faint, and the date was

verified using a published catalog of Canadian coins. In the course of

manufacture, the coin was hammered from its original size of I '/a'" to l7/s” in

diameter.103

By the mid I820’s, Indians in Maine wore unadorned brooches like the

three Abbe examples, as seen in Jeremiah Hardy's portrait of Sarah Polasses,

the daughter of a Penobscot governor (see figure 8). Early in the twentieth

century, Frank Speck photographed Penobscots Myra Andrews and Elsie Paul

Tomer, each wearing an over-skirt of red wool with wide bands of blue silk and

yellow silk ribbon applique along one edge. The over-skirt was embellished

with small, plain brooches similar to both the Abbe museum examples and

those worn by Sarah Polasses. The garment is now in the collection of the

American Museum of Natural History.10* It is impossible to know the

circumstances surrounding the photographs. They were certainly posed, and in

Speck’s photographs each woman wore the over-skirt oriented differently.

Whether or not such garments were indeed the fashion in the first decade of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1900s, or whether this example was made after an older style, to please Speck,

is not known, but its pristine condition, the large scale of the silk bands and

ribbon applique, and the lack of a consistent orientation in the photographs

suggests the latter.

Two brooches at the University Museum were probably made between

the mid 1820s, the date of Sarah Polasses’s portrait, and the turn of the

twentieth century, when the brooch at the Abbe museum was made. The

smaller of the two brooches measures 'iVi' in diameter. Like the Abbe

examples, it has no piercings, but the hole, at 1 lA", is larger than that of most

brooches. The decoration is not engraved, but scratched, with the tip of an awl,

or other hard, sharp object. It features three concentric bands of decoration.

The outermost row features inward-pointing triangles, resembling wigwams;

on the middle band, hatched stars alternate with cross-hatched diamonds; the

inner row repeats the triangle motif, with the points facing outward, away from

the center.

The second brooch is larger, measuring six inches across (figure 15).

This brooch also has a large central hole, measuring 1 When the original

slot anchoring the pin wore out, the central hole seems to have been enlarged,

rather than cutting a new slot as was often done. The surface of the brooch is

uneven. Unlike the maker(s) of those at the Abbe, the craftsman of this brooch

made some attempt at planishing. However, the hammer head had several

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. flaws which have left impressions over the entire surface. Like the brooch

above, whoever decorated this brooch did not engrave the images with a graver

or burin, but scratched them with a pointed tool, such as an awl. Like the

smaller brooch in the University Museum, this features an inner and outer band

of triangles, which are oriented in the same way. The large, middle band of

motifs on this brooch, however, sets it apart from any others I have seen: it

consists of five large double curve motifs, alternating with smaller double

curves and cross-hatched diamonds. Speck reproduced nearly identical motifs

in Symbolism in Penobscot Art. He specifically identifies the principal motif as

one of several “Etched designs from birchbark basket,” and the notes that the

smaller motif was carved on a cradleboard. The designs are so close to those

on the brooch that they were either incised by someone familiar with the basket

and cradleboard featured in Speck, or the author’s notes are incorrect. The idea

that the motifs are also present in birchbark is supported by the execution of the

double curves on the brooch. The artist inscribed them as if they were incised

in bark: the outlines of the curves resemble wide incised lines on bark. The

hatching of the leaves nestling in the arms of the larger double curve and the

cross hatching of the triangle that fills in the center of the curves are thin, cut in

singly, as they would be in bark designs. The cross at the center of the double

curves of the brooch also appears on a Penobscot birchbark box in the Maine

State Museum collection (figure 16).105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The bands of triangles on the brooches above are similar to those on

Scottish ring brooches of one to two centuries earlier. This may be

coincidence, or may be an instance of an artisan copying motifs from other

objects. In any case, the bands of triangles, like the wavy tendril, were motifs

that were familiar to both European and Native American alike.

Trade Silver and the Wabanaki Confederacy

As the above examples show, trade siiver from Maine reveals patterns

of both politics and inter-cultural communication during the late eighteenth and

early nineteenth centuries. For the most part, Native Americans in Maine wore

silver fashioned by non-Native smiths. Many of these smiths worked in

Montreal, but at least one craftsman, Zebulon Smith, worked in Bangor, near

the Penobscot village of Old Town on Indian Island.

Just as with the Iroquois, the silver Maine Indians wore reflects their

preferences. In the Maine case, non-Native craftsmen made the objects, so one

might expect both European technology and style to dominate these objects.

However, many examples of trade silver with Maine provenance bear regional,

Native decorative motifs. This implies a close relationship between smith and

client. Some of these silver objects may have been “bespoke,” that is

commissioned by individuals. The embellishment of a piece of silver is

determined in one of two ways. In many cases, the smith determines a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decorative scheme that he feels will be acceptable to a general clientele or a

particular client. In the case of bespoke work, the commissioning client often

requests certain motifs, for example, the family crest for a piece of domestic

silver such as a tankard or waiter, or double-curves on a large trade silver

brooch.

Given the connection between Maine Indians and the Wabanaki

Confederacy which met at Caughnawaga, near Montreal, from 1770 or 1771

until the mid to late nineteenth century, Native American officials active within

that group may have commissioned some of this silver, and distributed it at

meetings of the Confederacy at Caughnawaga. If Native Americans acted as

the direct commissioning clients for these articles, they would have been in a

position to request craftsmen to engrave specific motifs.

Both the Penobscot and the Ottawa favored very large brooches, as did

others. Montreal smiths made much of the silver worn by members of both

groups. It is the examples from Maine, however, that bear native motifs. This

is not the case with all trade silver from Maine contexts, such as three now at

the Maine State Museum, (see figure 3). Similar pieces at the McCord

Museum in Montreal and other Canadian museums have more western

contexts. Euro-Canadian smiths in Montreal appear to have put Native designs

only on specific items, which lends credence to the idea those pieces were

commissioned, if not by Native Americans, then by agents who understood

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Native tastes and knew their decorative vocabularies.

That so much of the trade silver with Native designs appears to have

Penobscot, and to a lesser extent, Passamaquoddy, connections points to

bespoke work directed toward those tribes in particular. While the workings of

the Wabanaki Confederacy deserves further research, material evidence

suggests that their meetings might have been a source of Montreal silver with

Native motifs. The language of the Confederacy suggests that the tribes met in

much the same way as meetings described a generation and more earlier, by Sir

William Johnson and others. Wampum messages preceded the meetings, and

kinship terms, such as “brother” defined tribal relationships within the group.

It is reasonable to assume that reciprocal giving also played a role at these

diplomatic gatherings, as it had for generations. Silver held a positive

significance to all parties, regardless of their ethnicity, and held a traditional

role in such diplomatic giving. Penobscots had the highest stature of the Maine

tribes within the Confederacy, and as Bourque has pointed out, the relative

quantity and size of Penobscot trade silver from the early nineteenth century

may relate to their status within the group.106 It is possible that individuals

could have ordered such trade silver from Montreal smiths for their own use,

when they were in the city for Confederacy meetings. If that were the case,

however, one would expect to see comparable numbers of later Montreal silver

and German silver forms with Maine provenance. Their absence reinforces the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. idea that they represent Native-commissioned trade silver with ties to the

diplomatic gatherings of the Wabanaki Confederacy.

Native Maine Artisans and the Solid Brooch Form

By the mid-nineteenth century, the Penobscots had pulled away from

the Wabanaki confederacy. In the late nineteenth century, pictures of

Penobscot and Passamaquoddy individuals, especially elderly women, show

the large brooches and crowns popular a generation earlier. To judge from the

photographic evidence, the younger generation seldom wore silver. When they

did, it was often the smaller, plain brooches such as those worn by Sarah

Polasses (see figure 8).

Native American artisans could easily have made the small, plain

brooches at the Abbe museum, one of which was made from an 1888 coin.

Based on the rough texture, and uneven outlines of the openings, the artisan(s)

of these brooches had neither extensive training, nor a wide range of tools. The

two larger brooches at the University Museum in Philadelphia offer similar

evidence of manufacture. Their maker(s) used an awl, or other sharp

implement, not a burin, as a professional engraver would have. The surfaces

of the larger brooch is especially rough. Its craftsman attempted to planish the

surface, but his hammer face was pitted. A Euroamerican artisan with even a

meagerly equipped shop would have had tools for planishing. While that is not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. proof of Native manufacture, it suggests that whoever made them did not have

access to tools that were standard equipment in any silversmith’s shop, nor the

schooling in “proper” finishing techniques that an apprenticeship would offer.

It is likely that Native Americans made the five brooches at the Abbe and the

University Museum. One, and probably all three, of the Abbe brooches were

made at the end of the nineteenth century. This is well beyond the period when

Penobscot and Passamaquoddy delegates to Wabanaki Confederacy meetings

would have ordered silver for themselves in Montreal, or have been given it at

the meetings. The brooches at the University Museum probably post-date

Penobscot involvement in the Confederacy, as well. As early examples of

Native craftsmanship, these pieces are simple in construction. The decoration

on the smaller brooch at Penn has many, simple motifs common to Native

American art throughout the region. This suggests that Native Maine artisans

took up manufacture of so-called trade silver forms toward the end of their

heyday in the last half of the nineteenth century. The artisan of the larger

brooch, created a work that is unequivocally Indian (see figure 15). The

complex double curves he inscribed complete the process of transforming trade

silver, a product of many cultures, into a wholly Native American object.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conclusions

To define Indian trade silver as ornaments made by Euroamerican

smiths for Native American customers is to ignore its variety and multiple

meanings and to disregard the complexity of interaction that surrounded both

its manufacture and consumption. It implies that Indians were passive

recipients, with no input or control over the objects they were sold or given.

The silver itself contradicts this simplistic scenario. Indian trade silver

ornaments differed from those worn by Euroamericans, either in form or in the

way they were worn, which implies that smiths took their customers' tastes into

account. In the nineteenth century, Iroquois smiths in New York state crafted

thousands of brooches and other silver objects. Examples of silver with Maine

contexts incorporate Native decorative motifs, further suggesting Indian agency

in their manufacture.

Trade silver in its many manifestations reflects and illuminates political

alliances. It was used in the protocol of reciprocal giving that accompanied

official interactions between Native Americans and Europeans or

Euroamericans. Through this, silver became part of the vocabulary of

diplomacy incorporated into symbols of confederacy such as the Covenant

Chain.107 The French and British governments doled out thousands of pieces of

trade silver as they jockeyed for influence among tribes. The United States

government followed suit. As the frontier moved west, however, diplomatic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. trade silver followed it. In the nineteenth century, with less silver available

from the government, but the social importance of silver firmly established,

Iroquois smiths began to make “trade silver,” to meet the still-strong demand.

Silver, as a material, held strong positive connotations for both

Euroamericans and for Indians. Euroamericans used silver as a marker of

status and wealth. These values were incorporated into Native American

associations with silver, along with its positive social connotations. This inter-

cultural melding of social associations prompted silver’s replacement of other

trade metals. It also accounts for its importance in diplomatic exchange.

Montreal remained a center of trade silver production into the

nineteenth century. While most of their output went westward, in the first half

of the century Montreal smiths made a number of large silver brooches which

members of the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes brought back to Maine.

Native American motifs engraved on several of these large brooches indicate

that Indians and smiths communicated closely in their production. These

motifs, including double curves, clusters of leaves, triangular wigwam motifs

and other, geometric figures, were common to the decorative vocabularies of

regional Native decorative arts forms such as birchbark basketry, beadwork and

carved wooden tools. For the most part, however, these motifs are absent from

contemporary, non-Native art forms. In all likelihood, Native Americans

commissioned these pieces, probably as diplomatic gifts, and specified the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decorative vocabularies that were to be engraved on the pieces.

Maine tribes were diplomatically involved first with the French and

with the government of Massachusetts, and after 1820, that of the new State of

Maine. Some silver, such as the wrist bands made by Zebulon Smith of

Bangor, dates to approximately 1820, and may relate to Maine's early

diplomacy with the Penobscot tribe. From about 1790 until the mid nineteenth

century, Maine tribes were also members, with several Iroquois tribes, of the

Wabanaki Confederacy. This political alliance met every three to seven years

in Caughnawaga, near Montreal.108 Given that trade silver was an important

part of inter-cultural diplomacy by the late 1700s, silver exchange or

presentation likely played a role in these gatherings. The bulk of the Montreal

trade silver in Maine dates from the time local tribes were active in the

Wabanaki Confederacy, which suggests that Penobscot and Passamaquoddy

Indians acquired this silver within the context of that alliance. The large

Montreal brooches Penobscot and Passamaquoddy wore may have been gifts

bestowed at Confederacy gatherings.

As political symbols, trade silver served to identify membership within

an alliance, and status within that membership. Not all of Sir William

Johnson’s Mohawk allies wore gorgets, for example. Most probably wore

armbands and brooches. The presence or absence of such silver, as well as the

amount worn, offered clues to both military and social status within the group.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A century later, photographs show that Indians wore trade silver at political

gatherings and on major social occasions, times when it was important to

communicate who one was, and how one fit within one’s own group, and

relative to members of other groups. It was at once style and mode, inclusive

and exclusive.109

Maine Indians wore brooches throughout the nineteenth century, but the

forms changed through the period. Several brooches with Maine provenance

suggest that Native artisans there began crafting trade silver, perhaps in the

second half of the century. As was the case with Iroquois smiths, when outside

sources of silver dried up. Native Maine craftsmen stepped in to produce

it—though Iroquois artisans produced vastly more trade silver than their Maine

counterparts. A Penobscot craftsman decorated at least one brooch with

dramatic double curves, demonstrating the extent to which trade silver, a

product of the interaction of many cultures, had become incorporated into

Indian vocabularies.

The diversity of groups and social contexts associated with the

production, distribution and consumption of trade silver ensure that the topic

will provide research possibilities for years to come. Scot, French, Mohawk,

Abenaki, English, and others all looked at the material slightly differently.

Their opinions were colored by whether they were on the giving or receiving

end of each transaction, whether they saw silver as a promise to stand by a new

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ally, or as an inherently and potently positive metal. While their varied

opinions may never be completely understood, the silver itself provides clues to

how some of the myriad participants in its trade interacted, and reflects at least

some of the political complexity of its time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES

1. James Sullivan, et al. ed., The Papers o f Sir William Johnson, (Albany: University of the State of New York, 1921-1965), 1:539 (hereafter cited as SWJ).

2. N. Jaye Fredrickson, The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver, (Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1980), 33, 43; Martha Wilson Hamilton, Silver in the Fur Trade, 1680-1820, (Chelmsford, Massachusetts: Martha Hamilton Publishing, 1995). 47; Donald Fennimore, personal communication, February 16, 1999.

3. David L. Ghere, “The Maine Experience During the French and Indian War,” in Papers of the Twenty-Fourth Algonquian Conference, ed. William Cowen (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1993), 189.

4. SWJ 13:189.

5. SWJ 2:588, 626, 7:520, 9:796, 11:619.

6. For a discussion of the symbolic language of Iroquois diplomacy, see chapter 6, “Glossary of Figures of Speech in Iroquois Political Rhetoric” in Francis Jennings, et al., ed., The History and Culture of Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties of the Six Nations and Their League, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1985), 115-124.

7. George Hamell, personal communication, July, 1999.

8. Ledger of Joseph, Richardson, Jr. Original document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Microfilm on file, Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Ephemera, Winterthur Library; Gandy, Martha Lou, “Joseph Richardson, Quaker Silversmith,” unpbl. thesis, University of Delaware, 1954, 18.

9. Fredrickson, 31, 114, 116; Hamilton, 69, 71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10. SWJ, 2:584, 588, 592; Ian K. Steele,Betrayals: Fort William Henry and the “Massacre ”(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 32, 39-40.

11. Hamilton, 69.

12. Fredrickson, fig. 12 p. 32; Hamilton, figs. 04-35-04-38 p. 68; Ruth B. Phillips, “Like a Star I Shine: Northern Woodlands Artistic Traditions,” in The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions o f Canada’s First Peoples, ed. Julia D. Harrison et al. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987), fig. 61 p.72.

13. Phillips. “Like a Star,” fig. 43, pp. 54—55, fig. 56, p. 68.

14. William M. Beauchamp, Metallic Ornaments of the New York Indians (Albany: New York State Museum Bulletin 73, Archaeology 8, 1903), 87-90, plates 10, 13, 14; Fredrickson, 52, fig. 24 p. 53, fig. 34 p. 94, figs. 98-99, p. 122.

15. Beauchamp, 91—94, plates 9, 11—13, 15; Fredrickson, 52, fig. 25 p. 53, figs. 115-119 p. 127.

16. M. R. Harrington, Iroquois Silvenvork, (New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 1, part 6, 1908), 355.

17. Harrington, 356.

18. Fredrickson, 36.

19. SWJ, 9:561, 2:899; 9:21, 3:334-35.

20. Fort Pitt invoice depicted in Hamilton, fig 04-1 la & b between pp. 56 and 57.

21. Timothy J. Shannon, “Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier Hendrick, William Johnson and the Indian Fashion.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, vol. LUI, no. 1, (January, 1996), 22, 25—26.

22. Martha Gandy Fales, Jewelry in America, 1600—1900 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, England: Antique Collector’s Club, 1995), 56-57; Hamilton, 144.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23. Robert F. Trent, “Coastal Algonkian Culture 1500-1680: Conquest and Resistance,” in New England Begins, eds. Jonathan Fairbanks and Robert Trent (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982), 1:94.

24. Joan Clough, Eight Centuries o f European Knives, Forks and Spoons (Stuttgart: Amoldsche Art Publishers, 1997), fig. 38, 189, pp. 24, 71; A. P. E. Ruempol and A. G. A. van Dongen, Pre-Industrial Utensils, (Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, 1991), 143.

25. Hamilton, 48.

26. Donald Fennimore, personal communication, October, 1999, Patricia Kane, personal communication, November, 1999. Hamilton’s detailed figures on page 48 illustrate the differences in appearance of the hand vs roulette wriggle-work.

27. Sylvia S. Kaspyrcki, “Quilled Drawstring Pouches of the Northeastern Woodlands,” Indian Art Magazine, 22, no. 3 (summer, 1997): 66- 70, 73, figures 3, 5-6, 7, 9, 10, 15; Phillips, “Like a Star,” figs. 45b p. 59, fig. 76 p. 84.

28. Hamilton, fig. c-02 p. 112; Phillips, “Like a Star.” 82, figure 73; Bradford F. Swan, “Prints of the American Indian,” in Boston Prints and Printmaker, 1670—1775 A Conference Held by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts 1 and 2 April 1971 (Boston: The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, distributed by the University Press of Virginia, 1973), figs. 118-128 pp. 246-256.

29. See, for example, Phillips, “Like a Star,” fig. 59b p. 70; Gaby Pelletier, MicMac and Maliseet Decorative Traditions (Saint John: The New Brunswick Museum, 1977), 16,21,25,47.

30. Hamilton, 48; Phillips, “Like a Star,” 58.

31. See Hamilton, fig. 04-44 p. 72.

32. Phillips, “Like a Star,” 58-59, figure 45.

33. J. Fiske, The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899), 1:120-121.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34. Milton Hamilton, Henry Hudson and the Dutch in New York (Albany: University of the State of New York State Education Department, 1965), 46.

35. “Mr. Peter Schagen to the States General, November 5, 1626,” in Documents Relative to the Colonial History o f the State o f New ed., York, E. B. O’Callaghan (Albany: Weed, Parsons and Co., 1856), 1:37.

36. See Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) and Wilbur Jacobs:Wilderness Politics and Indian Gifts (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966). While both authors are concerned with events in the Midwest, many of their observations on the nature and politics of gift-giving are appropriate to the Northeast, as well.

37. For a discussion of trade dynamics of the settled, egalitarian Onondaga of upstate New York and the mobile, culturally stratified Pokanoket of southern New England, see James W. Bradley, “Native Exchange and European Trade: Cross-Cultural Dynamics in the Sixteenth Century,” Man in the Northeast 33 (1987): 31-46passim. James Axtell, “Last Rights: The Acculturation of Native Funerals in Colonial North America,” in Papers o f the Eleventh Algonquian Conference, ed. William Cowan, (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1980), 96-112; Elise M. Brenner, “Sociopolitical Implications of Mortuary Ritual Remains in 17lh-Century Native Southern New England,” in The Recovery o f Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, eds. Mark P, Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988), 147-181.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38. Peter Cook, “Symbolic and Material Exchange in Intercultural Diplomacy: The French and the Hodenosaunee in the Early Eighteenth Century,” in New Faces o f the Fur Trade: Selected Papers of the Seventh North American Fur Trade Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995,ed., Jo- Anne Fiske, Susan Sleeper-Smith, and William Wicken (East Lansing: Michigan State University. 1998): 75-100; George R. Hamell, “The Iroquois and the World’s Rim: Speculations on Color, Culture, and Contact,” American Indian Quarterly: Journal of American Indian Studies 16 (Fall, 1992): 451- 469; Christopher L. Miller and George R. Hamell, “A New Perspective on Indian-White Contact: Cultural Symbols and Colonial Trade,” Journal o f American History 73 (September, 1986): 311-328; Daniel Richter, “Ordeals of the Longhouse: The Five Nations in Early American History,” in Beyond the Covenant Chain, eds. Daniel Richter and James H. Merrell, (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1987), 11-28; Peter Thomas, “In the Maelstrom of Change. The Indian Trade and Cultural Process in the Middle Connecticut River Valley, 1635-1665,” (dissertation. University of Massachusetts, 1979); Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

39. For a discussion of early seventeenth century Native American traders see Bruce J. Bourque and Ruth Holmes Whitehead, “Tarrentines and the Introduction of European Trade Goods in the Gulf of Maine,” Ethnohistory 32, no. 4 (1985): 327-341; Bruce J Bourque and Steven L. Cox, “Maine State Museum Investigation of the Goddard Site, 1979,” Man in the Northeast, 22 (Fall, 1981): 24-25 discusses late prehistoric trade networks; further investigations by Steven Cox at the Goddard site, on the central Maine coast, suggest that these networks remained robust into the Proto historic period (personal communication).

40. James W. Bradley and S. Terry Childs, “Basque Earrings and Panther’s Tails: The Form of Cross-Cultural Contact in Sixteenth Century Iroquoia,” in Metals in Society: Theory Beyond Analysis, Philadelphia Applied Science Center for Archaeology, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 8, no. 2 (1991): 13, 15; Michael J. Heckenberger, James B. Petersen and Louise A. Basa, “Early Woodland Period Ritual Use of Personal Adornment at the Boucher Site,” Annals o f the Carnegie Museum, Vol. 29, No. 3 (September5, 1990): 187-193, figures 5-7, Bourque and Cox, 13-14, plate II.

41. Thomas, 386.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42. Steven Cox, “An Early Contact Native Site on the Upper St. Croix River,” Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin, 40, no. 2 (Fall 2000), forthcoming.

43. Ellen R. Cowie and James B. Petersen, “Archaeological Phase II Testing of the Weston Project (FERC No. 2325), Somerset County, Maine,” unpublished report prepared for Central Maine Power, on file at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, 1992, fig. 164, pp. 259, 262, 263; Thomas, vii, 386-87; William R. Fitzgerald et al., “Late Sixteenth-Century Basque Banded Copper Kettles,” Historical Archaeology 27, no. 1 (1993): 44- 57 discusses earlier kettle use in the St. Lawrence River valley, northern New Brunswick and northern Nova Scotia; their evidence demonstrates a similar pattern of kettle fragment use.

44. Bradley and Childs, 16.

45. Helen B. Camp, Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine 1965-1974, (Augusta, Maine: Maine State Museum, 1975), 75; Susan G. Gibson, ed., Burr’s Hill: A 17th Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island, (Providence, RI: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, 1980), 117, figure 110; Trent, 86. Fora discussion of sites in Pokanoket areas of southern New England, see Bradley, 35, 37-38,41-42.

46. Camp, 75; Laureen LaBar Kidd et al., “Inventory of Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession or Control of the Maine State Museum and Culturally Affiliated with Maine Tribes,” unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service Departmental Consulting Archaeologist, on file at the Maine State Museum, Augusta, 1995, 7.

47.Gibson, figs. 63, 64, 105-107, pp. 75, 114-16.

48. David B. Quinn, ed., New American World: a Documentary History of North American to 1612, (New York: Amo Press and Hector Bye, 1979) 1:149-51.

49. James Axtell, Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 66-67. See also Ramsay Cook, ed. The Voyages of Jacques Cartier (Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 64.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50. Miller and Hamell, 318.

51. See George Hamell, “Strawberries, Roaring Islands, and Rabbit Captains: Mythical Realities and European Contact in the Northeast During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Journal o f Canadian Studies 21 (February, 1987) for an examination of Native first-contact stories.

52. The archaeological record is biased, however. Burials contain objects intentionally placed in the ground, while habitation sites feature artifacts that were discarded, lost, or—occasionally—cached. The Burr’s Hill pendants and spoons could have been used in everyday life. Because none have been found, lost or discarded, in a habitation context, the archaeological evidence suggests that larger, more substantial objects were reserved for emotionally and spiritually charged events such as burials. A study of wear patterns of these articles would have provided clues to whether they were made expressly for burial, or were highly valued articles of everyday use. The artifacts have been repatriated, however, and are unavailable for analysis.

53. Miller and Hamell, 315, 316, 318; Native Americans were not the only groups to note the similarities between natural materials such as crystal and shell, and manufactured materials such as glass and ceramic. The French used “porcelaine” to mean white wampum shells, as well as the fine ceramic with which the term is associated today. For a full discussion of wampum nomenclature, see George Hamell, “Wampum: Light, White and Bright Things are Good to Think,” in One Man’s Trash is Another M an’s Treasure, ed., Alexandrea van Dongen et al., (Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen. 1995), 41-43.

54. Miller and Hamell, 325.

55. Miller and Hamell, 325-26; George R. Hamell, “Mythical Realities and European Contact,” 75-76; Hamell, “Wampum,” 47.

56. George Parker Winship, ed. Sailors Narratives of Voyages Along the New England Coast, (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1905), 15-16.

57. Hamell, “Speculations on Color,” 462. See also Wallace L. Chafe, Handbook o f the Seneca Language, (Albany: New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 338, 1963), 40, and Wallace L. Chafe, Seneca Morphology and Dictionary, (Washington DC: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 4, 1967), 62.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58. Thomas Webster,An Encyclopaedia o f Domestic Economy, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845), 825, quoted in Donald L. Fennimore, Metalwork in Early America, (Winterthur, DE: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Distributed by Antique Collector’s Club, 1996), 76.

59. Hamell, “Speculations on color, 461-62; Eric Johnson and James W. Bradley, “The Bark Wigwams Site: An Early Seventeenth-Century Component in Central Massachusetts,” Man in the Northeast, 33 (1987): 15; Miller and Hamell, 327; Thomas, 544-45; SWJ 1:110, 2:898, 3:334-35, 7:399, 824; “Penobscot Indians,”Kennebunk Weekly Visitor, 9 September, 1820.

60. SWJ 1:539

61. See also George Romney’s 1776 and Gilbert Stuart’s 1786 portraits of Joseph Brant, (illustrated in Isabel Thompson Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 1743-1807: Man o f Two Worlds, (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1984), II, 168), Joshua Jebb’s ca 1813-1820 painting of two Ottawa chiefs (illustrated in Hamilton, 113 and Fredrickson, 111) and Zachary Vincent’s ca. 1840 self-portrait (illustrated in Fredrickson, 107).

62. Barbara Ward, “ ‘In Feasting Posture:’ Communion Vessels and Community Values in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century New England,” Winterthur Portfolio 23 (Spring, 1988): 3.

63. Pewter pyx, plate and other ecclesiastic vessels from Norridgewock are in the collections of the Center for Maine History and the Maine State Museum.

64. Fredrickson, 28; W. Martha E. Cooke, The Four Indian Kings, (Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1977), I.

65. Trent, 94.

66. Wheelock, Edward, ed. Penhallow’s Indian Wars, 1726, (Williamstown, Massachusetts: Comer House Publishers, 1924, Reprinted 1973), 98. Author’s emphasis.

67. Hamilton, 144.

68. SWJ, 1:110, 2:898, 3:334-35, 7:399, 824.

69. See for example, SWJ 3:503, 530-31, 535, 4:481, 559, 10:389-91.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70. Shelburne Papers, Johnson to Board of Trade, July 10, 1766, 1:209, Walter L. Clements Library. Quoted in John W. Adams, The Indian Peace Medals o f George III or His Majesty’s Sometime Allies, (Crestline, CA: George Frederick Kolbe, 1999), 68.

71. SWJ 4:481

72. SWJ 5:20, 187, 303, 333, 346, 12:16-17, 23-24, 34, 70, 116-17, 132, 134-35, 143, 149, 179-80.

73. Adams, 55, 58, 67, 71.

74. SWJ 7:717, 12:860, 862

75. See, for example, SWJ 1:109-10, 539, 2:563, 898-900, 9:21, 56, 11:619, 12:32, 13:118-19

76. SWJ 13:647-665.

77. Lois M. Huey and Bonnie Pulis, Molly Brant: A Legacy o f Her Own, (Youngstown, NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997), 38.

78. O’Callaghan, 6:969-70.

79. See Bruce J. Bourque, “Ethnicity of the Maritime Peninsula, 1600- 1759,” Ethnohistory 36 no. 3 (Summer, 1989): 257-284 for a summary of the territorial fluidity and shifting European labeling of the ethnic groups of Maine and the Mari times. Since the word Abenaki was in use from the mid seventeenth century for groups throughout Maine (p.271), I use that term here.

80. Ghere, 188-198, summarizes the failure of both the English and French to secure allies in Maine in the mid eighteenth century, and the differences in the role of trade goods in negotiations between these European governments and potential Iroquois and Abenaki allies.

81. Bruce J. Bourque, “The Wabanaki Confederacy: A Brief History,” unpublished manuscript on file at the Maine State Museum, Augusta, 1999, 9- 12, 20-25.

82. Fredrickson, 20;

83. ‘Treaty in Bangor, August 24,” Eastern Argus, 5 September 1820; “Penobscot Indians,”Kennebunk Weekly Visitor, 9 September 1820.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84. SWJ 1:539.

85. Hamilton, 61, 63.

86. Original document reproduced in Hamilton, plate 04-11, a, b.

87. Martha L. Gandy, “Joseph Richardson, Quaker Silversmith,” Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1954, 18.

88. Ledger of Joseph, Richardson, Jr. Historical Society of Pennsylvania (microfilm, Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Ephemera, Winterthur Library).

89. Maine Historical Society, John Blake papers, M l59, Letter dated “Brewer [Maine] January 1, 1819." (copy, Bangor Historical Society).

90. Maine Historical Society, 1917 transcription by Fannie Hardy Eckstorm of an undated memorandum in the Blake papers, 970.3 El 7 (copy, Bangor Historical Society). Eckstorm notes that the list of goods “looks like an imperfect and hasty memorandum meant to be filled in more exactly.”

91. Gerald Ward, “The Dutch and English Traditions in American Silver: Cornelius Kierstede,” in The American Craftsman and the European Tradition, 1620-1820, ed. Francis J. Puig and Michael Conforti (Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for The Minneapolis Institute of Arts, 1989), 136-151.

92. Frank G. Speck, The Double-Curve Motive in Northeastern Algonkian Art, Canada Department of Mines Geological Survey Memoir 42, no. I, Anthropological Series, (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1914), 2, 6; Frank G. Speck, Symbolism in Penobscot Art, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. XXEX, part II (New York, The American Museum of Natural History, 1927), 59.

93. Speck, Double-Curve, figs. 1-9; pp. 6, 7, 9; Speck Symbolism, 32- 35, figs. 1-4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94. See for example: Speck,Symbolism, fig. 8 f, h, j, p. 39; Frank G. Speck, Penobscot Man, (1940; reprint, with a preface by David Sanger, Orono: University of Maine Press, 1997), figs. 23,48, pp. 75, 125, plates XII, Xin, XXI; Ruth Holmes Whitehead, Elitekey (Halifax: The Nova Scotia Museum, 1980), fig. 22, 26, 32, 33, pp. 33, 39, 47, 49; Ruth Holmes Whitehead, “I Have Lived Here Since the World Began,” in The Spirit Sings, ed., Glenbow Museum, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart for the Glenbow Museum, 1987) fig. 18, p. 29.

95. Speck, Symbolism, 59, 7 1.

96. A round, hatched motif appears on a 19th century carved, Malisseet canoe paddle; though not unknown, the motif is not common. See Whitehead, “Since the World Began,” fig. 18, p. 29.

97. Sylvia Kasprycki, “Quilled Drawstring Pouches of the Northeast Woodlands,” American Indian Art Magazine, 22, no. 3 (Summer, 1997): figs. 3, 7, pp. 66, 68; Speck, Symbolism, fig. 5 f, g, n, o, p. 36; Whitehead, Elitekey figs. 9, 10, 14 pp. 18, 19, 24.

98. Edwin Churchill, “Additions Made to the Museum’s Silver Collection ," JBroadside 11, no. 1 (Fall, 1998); Edwin Churchill, manuscript on file, Maine State Museum.

99. See, for example: Phillips, “Like a Star,” fig. 45 c, d, p. 59; Ruth B. Phillips, Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast, 1700-1900, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), fig. 2.7a, p. 60; Speck,Symbolism, figs. 1-4, 8-11, 36 pp. 32-35, 39- 42, 67; Whitehead, Elitekey, figs. 8-10,12, 19, pp. 17-19, 22, 28.

100. Speck, Symbolism, 59,62, 65, 69.

101. Speck, Symbolism, 33-4, 44-45, 47, figures 1-3, 15-16, 18; Speck, Penobscot Man, 125, figure 48.

102. Fredrickson, 90, 149, plates 29, 169.

103. J. E. Charlton, 1963 Standard Catalogue o f Canadian Coins, Tokens and Paper Money, (Racine, Wisconsin: Whitman Publishing, 1962), 80.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104. The accession number of the skirt at the American Museum of Natural History is 1911-61.

105. Speck, Symbolism, 32, 33 figures lm, 2a. Unfortunately, the cradleboard is currently unavailable for inspection, as it is now in the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian, which is in the process of moving its collections. Photographs of the front of the object show similar but not identical double curves. If the brooch and the cradleboard share identical motifs, the double curve must be carved on the back side of the latter.

106. Bourque, “Wabanaki Confederacy,” 14.

107. O ’Callaghan, 6:969-70; SWJ 11:309-10.

108. Bourque, “Wabanaki Confederacy,” 20.

109. Dell Upton, Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia, (New York: Architectural History Foundation, distributed by Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986), 102.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX

FIGURES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I

Figure I. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 65/s". Seibert collection, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology L1041-112. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger.

The maker of this Montreal-style brooch did not mark it, but it likely dates to the first half of the nineteenth century. The decoration, including wavy lines along the outer edge and a central, sun-like motif of triangles, is roulette- engraved wriggle-work. The name "‘Peter Swasin,” with a star, is scratched into the reverse of the brooch, along with another only partially legible name: “[...nici..?]/ Sousin.” These may represent owners’ names.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 6%". Seibert collection, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology, L1041-114. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger.

The maker of this Montreal-style brooch did not mark it, but it likely dates to the first half of the nineteenth century. The decoration includes roulette- engraved bright work, which was a popular embellishment on domestic silver in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. It also includes hand-engraved wriggle-work. The name “Sousin,” is scratched into the reverse of the brooch, along with a partially legible series of letters and accent marks, and a series of fifteen hatch marks. Note sprigs inside each of the six comers of the central engraved band of bright-work, the pierced scalloped edge, tendrils and wavy line motifs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3: Three Brooches. Silver. Top and middle: early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameters: 6",SV 2 ". Bottom: marked JT for Jonathan Tyler. Montreal, 1817-28. Accession numbers: top, 86.4.2; middle, 86.4.1; bottom, 86.4.3. Courtesy Maine State Museum.

The lower brooch bears the stamp JT for Jonathan Tyler of Montreal, who used this mark between 1817 and 1828. The reverse of the center brooch, 86.4.1 is marked J.BENNETT, an unidentified maker. “NIA SOSEPMALT’ is scratched on the back of 86.4.1 in large, serif capital letters, probably an owner’s name. Two other partially legible words are scratched in another hand on the back. Note roulette-engraved wriggle-work decoration, including tendrils and wavy lines.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4. Brooch/gorget. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter 4 Accession number 56.54. Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

The wear patterns of the pin slot and two of the round holes indicate that this unmarked piece was worn as both a gorget and as a brooch. The name “Salmo Francy” is scratched on the reverse, as well as “Passmoqoody” and another, illegible word. Note roulette-engraved tendrils, triangles, and star or sun motifs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 5. Hat band or crown, and cuffs. Silver. Early nineteenth century. Height of crown: 51/8n; circumference: 23"; height of cuffs: 4XA"\ circumference: 11". Accession numbers 2204.2, 2204.1 a & b. Courtesy, Bangor Historical Society.

Though unmarked, the crown is similar to a shorter hat band in the Bangor Historical Society collection, and to a pair of arm bands and pair of leg bands in the collections of the McCord Museum and National Museum of Civilization, respectively. These five objects all bear the mark of Jonathan Tyler, and were made in Montreal between 1817 and 1828. This crown may well have been made in the same shop. See figure 14 for another crown likely made by Tyler. The cuffs may have been made in Maine, and are probably contemporary. Note the Iroquois-style double curves with outward-facing scrolls on the hat band, the sprigs above the double-curves, the lattice-like motif above them, as well as the bold tendrils.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 6. Medal or Gorget. Brass. 1676, Boston. Height: 5V4"; width: 3Vi”. Accession number 23.9269. Courtesy, National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution.

This medal was presented by Colonial Secretary Edward Rawson to chiefs of tribes who aided Massachusetts in King Phillip’s War. The reverse reads “At A/ COUNCIL/ Held at Charlestown, June the 20th, 1676./ In the present Warr with/the Heathen Natives of this Land/they giving us peace and mercy/at there hands/Edward Rawson. The Indian figure is based on the Massachusetts Bay Colony seal (Trent, 94).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 7. Beaded powder horn. Early nineteenth century, Maine. Accession number 96.24. Courtesy, Maine State Museum.

Many of the motifs executed in beads on this powder hom are similar to those on early nineteenth-century trade silver with Maine provenance. Note the wavy lines, intersecting wavy lines, zig-zag band, and star or sun on the lower end.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 8. Jeremiah Hardy. Portrait of Sarah Polasses. Oil on canvas. Ca. 1828, Bangor, Maine. Courtesy of the Tarratine Club.

Sarah Polasses was the daughter of Penobscot governor John Neptune and Molly Belassee Necola, better known as Molly Molasses. Sarah wears nine plain brooches, which appear to be fixed to her blouse with separate straight pins. She also wears a large brooch below her belt and a silver hat band in addition to two wampum necklaces, ear bobs, several smaller bead necklaces, and a cross.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 9. Birchbark tray. Early to mid nineteenth century. Maine. Courtesy, Maine State Museum.

The double-curve motifs on this birchbark tray have inward-facing scrolls, which is typical of work made by members of Maine tribes. Note the hatched triangles and diamonds, and the clusters of leaves. The surface shown is the interior of the birchbark. Designs were made by scraping away the dark, inner layer of the bark, exposing a lighter layer.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 10. Brooch. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Diameter: Catalog number 67. Courtesy, Maine Historical Society.

The maker of this Montreal-style brooch did not mark it, but it likely dates to the first half of the nineteenth century. The roulette-engraved wriggle-work designs include tendrils, triangles, leaf clusters and double curves with outward-facing, Iroquois-style scrolls. The initials J. A. P. are scratched into the reverse of the brooch, which probably stand for James A. Purinton, Indian agent to the Penobscot Tribe in the mid 1800s, in whose family it descended. The circumstances under which he acquired the brooch are not known.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 11. Cuff. Silver. Ca. 1820, marked Z[ebuion] Smith, Bangor, Maine. Accession number 88.80.1. Courtesy, Maine State Museum.

Zebulon Smith worked in Bangor, Maine, ca. 1813-49. This is one of a pair of cuffs that may have been made for the Penobscots early in Maine statehood, around 1820. The cuff is unusually tall, but its taper and circumference verifies that it was worn on the wrist and is not an arm band.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 12. Cuff. Silver. Ca. 1820, marked Z[ebulon] Smith, Bangor, Maine. Height: 5" Circumference: 9”. Accession number 1934.360. Courtesy, Yale University Art Gallery, Mabel Brady Garvan Collection.

This cuff is similar to that illustrated in figure 11, and would have represented one of a pair. They were made in Bangor by Zebu Ion Smith for the Penobscots, possibly as part of early Maine efforts at diplomacy with the tribe soon after statehood in 1820. The cuff is unusually tall, but its taper and circumference verifies that it is was worn on the wrist and is not an arm band.

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 13. Beaded wallet. Mid nineteenth century, probably Maine. Accession number 96.6.1. Courtesy, Maine State Museum.

The double-curves of this wallet show that it was made by a MicMac artisan, who was most likely a woman. Clusters of two or three leaves appear frequently in beadwork, birchbark boxes and wood carvings in Maine in the early to mid nineteenth century, and also appear on some trade silver with Maine provenance.

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 14. Hat band or crown. Silver. Early nineteenth century, probably made in Montreal. Height: 4%"; circumference: 21*4". Seibert collection. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology L1041- 21. Courtesy, Mrs. S. Finger.

This crown is similar to one from the Bangor Historical society, illustrated in figure 5. It also resembles a shorter crown in that collection, and a pair of arm bands and pair of leg bands in the collections of the McCord Museum and National Museum of Civilization, respectively. These five objects all bear the mark of Jonathan Tyler, and were made in Montreal between 1817 and 1828. This crown may well have been made in the same shop. Note the pierced pattern and the bold roulette-engraved, wriggle-work tendrils.

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 15. Brooch and sketched detail. Silver. Mid to late nineteenth century, probably made in Maine. Accession number 53-1-22. Courtesy, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology.

The decorative elements of this brooch were engraved with a sharp, pointed object, such as an awl, and not with a graver. Its fabrication techniques suggest Native American manufacture, and its double-curve motifs point to a Penobscot artisan. The brooch saw heavy wear. The pin slot apparently wore out after which the central hole was enlarged and a new slot added.

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 16. Birchbark box. Early to mid nineteenth century, Maine. Accession number 86.47.1. Courtesy, Maine State Museum.

The double-barred crosses on the lid rim of this Penobscot box are similar to those on the silver brooch illustrated in figure 15. Note also the hatched triangles and diamond shapes, and the double curves with inward-facing scrolls.

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, John W. The Indian Peace Medals of George III or His Majesty’s Sometime Allies. Crestline, CA: George Frederick Kolbe, 1999.

Axtell, James. “Last Rights: The Acculturation of Native Funerals in Colonial North America.'” In Papers of the Eleventh Algonquian Conference, edited by William Cowen. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1980.

------. Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Bourque, Bruce J. “Ethnicity of the Maritime Peninsula, 1600-1759.” Ethnohistory 36 no. 3 (Summer, 1989): 257-84.

------. “The Wabanaki Confederacy: A Brief History.” Manuscript on file, Maine State Museum, Augusta, 1999.

Bourque, Bruce J. and Steven L. Cox. “Maine State Museum Investigation of the Goddard Site, 1979.” Man in the Northeast 22 (Fall, 1981): 3-27.

Bourque, Bruce J. and Ruth Holmes Whitehead. ‘Tarrantines and the Introduction of European Trade Goods in the Gulf of Maine.” Ethnohistory 32 no. 4 (1985): 327-341.

Beauchamp, William M. Metallic Ornaments o f the New York Indians. Albany: New York State Museum Bulletin 73, Archaeology 8, 1903.

Bradley, James W. “Native Exchange and European Trade: Cross-Cultural Dynamics in the Sixteenth Century.” Man in the Northeast 33 (1987): 31-46.

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bradley, James W. and S. Terry Childs. “Basque Earrings and Panther’s Tails: The Form of Cross-Cultural Contact in Sixteenth-Century Iroquoia.” In Metals in Society: Theory beyond Analysis, Philadelphia Applied Science and Archaeology 8 no. 2 (1991).

Brenner, Elise M. “Sociopolitical Implications of Mortuary Ritual Remains in 17,h-Century Native Southern New England.” In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United editedStates, by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988.

Camp, Helen B. Archaeological Investigations at Pemaquid, Maine 1965- 1974. Augusta, ME: Maine State Museum, 1975.

Chafe, Wallace L. Handbook o f the Seneca Language. Albany: New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin, 338, 1963.

------. Seneca Morphology and Dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 4, 1967.

Charlton, J. E. 1963 Standard Catalogue of Canadian Coins, Tokens and Paper Money. Racine, Wisconsin: Whitman Publishing CO., 1962.

Churchill, Edwin. “Additions Made to the Museum’s Silver Collection.” Broadside 11, no. 1 (Fall, 1998).

Clough, Joan. Eight Centuries o f European Knives, Forks and Spoons. Stuttgart: Amoldsche Art Publishers, 1997.

Cook, Peter. “Symbolic and Material Exchange in Intercultural Diplomacy: The French and the Hodenosaunee in the Early Eighteenth Century.” In New Faces of the Fur Trade: Selected Papers of the Seventh North American Fur Trade Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995. Edited by Jo-Anne Fiske, Susan Sleeper and William Wicken. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1998.

Cook, Ramsay, editor. The Voyages of Jacques Cartier. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Cooke, W. Martha E. The Four Indian Kings. Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1977.

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cowie, Ellen R. and James B. Petersen. “Archaeological Phase II Testing of the Weston Project (FERC No. 2325), Somerset County, Maine.” Unpublished report on file at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, 1992.

Cox, Steven L. “An Early Contact Native Site on the Upper St. Croix River.” Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin 40, no. 2 (Fall, 2000), forthcoming.

Fales, Martha Gandy. Jewelry in America, 1600-1900. Woodbridge, Suffolk, England: Antique Collector’s Club, 1995.

Fennimore, Donald L. Metalwork in Early America. Winterthur, DE: The Henry Francis Winterthur Museum, distributed by the Antique Collector's Club, 1996.

Fiske, J. The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1899.

Fitzgerald, William, et al. “Late Sixteenth-Century Basque Banded Copper Kettles.” Historical Archaeology 27, no. 1 (1993): 44-57.

Fredrickson, N. Jaye. The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1980.

Gandy, Martha. “Joseph Richardson, Quaker Silversmith.” Master’s Thesis, University of Delaware, 1954

Gibson, Susan G., editor. Burr's Hill: A ITh Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island. Providence, RI: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, 1980.

Ghere, David L. “The Maine Experience During the French and Indian War.” In Papers of the Twenty-Fourth Algonquian Conference, edited by William Cowen. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1993.

Hamell, George R. “Strawberries, Floating Islands and Rabbit Captains: Mythical Realities and European Contact in the Northeast During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” Journal o f Canadian Studies 21 (February, 1987): 72-94.

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hamell, George R. “The Iroquois at the World’s Rim: Speculations on Color, Culture and Contact.” American Indian Quarterly: Journal o f American Indian Studies 16 (Fall, 1992): 451-469.

------. “Wampum: Light, White and Bright Things are Good to Think.” In One M an’s Trash is another Man’s Treasure, edited by Alexandra van Dongen et al. Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-Van Beuningen, 1995.

Hamilton, Martha Wilson. Silver in the Fur Trade, 1680-1820. Chelmsford, MA: Martha Hamilton Publishing, 1995.

Hamilton, Milton. Henry Hudson and the Dutch in New York. Albany: University of the State of New York, State Education Department, 1965.

Harrington, M. R. Iroquois Silverwork. New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol, 1, part 6, 1908.

Heckenberger, Michael, James B. Petersen and Louise A. Basa. “Early Woodland Period Ritual Use of Personal Adornment at eh Boucher Site.” Annals o f the Carnegie Museum 29, no. 3 (September 5, 1990): 173-217.

Huey, Lois M. And Bonnie Pulis. Molly Brant: A Legacy of Her Own. Youngstown, NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997

Jacobs, Wilbur. Wilderness Politics and Indian Gifts. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

Jennings, Francis et al. “Glossary of Figures of Speech in Iroquois Political Rhetoric.” In The History and Culture o f Iroquois Diplomacy: An Interdisciplinary Guide to the Treaties o f the Six Nations and their League, edited by Francis Jennings,et al. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1985.

Johnson, Eric and James W. Bradley. “The Bark Wigwams SiteL An Early Seventeenth-Century Component in Central Massachusetts.” Man in the Northeast 33 (1987): 1-26.

Kasprycki, Sylvia S. “Quilled Drawstring Pouches of the Northeastern Woodlands.” Indian Art Magazine, 22, no. 3 (summer, 1997): 64-75.

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kelsay, Isabel Thompson. Joseph Brant, 1743-1807. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1984.

LaBar-Kidd, Laureen A. et al. “Inventory of Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession or Control of the Maine State Museum and Culturally Affiliated with Maine Tribes.” Unpublished report submitted to the National Park Service Departmental Consulting Archaeologist, on file at the Maine State Museum, Augusta, 1995

Maine Historical Society . John Blake Papers, M l59. Letter dated “Brewer, January 1, 1819,” (copy, Bangor Historical Society).

------. John Blake Papers. 970.3 E l7. Fanny Hardy Eckstorm. 1917 transcription of an undated memorandum, (copy, Bangor Historical Society).

Miller, Christopher, and George R. Hamell. “A New Perspective on Indian- White Contact: Cultural Symbols and Colonial Trade.” Journal o f American History 73 (September, 1986): 311-28.

O'Callaghan, E. B., editor. Documents Relative to the Colonial History o f the State of New York. Albany: Weed, Parsons and Co., 1855-56.

Pelletier, Gaby. MicMac and Maliseet Decorative Traditions. St. John: The New Brunswick Museum, 1977.

“Penobscot Indians.” Kennebunk Weekly Visitor, 9 September 1820.

Phillips, Ruth B. “Like a Star I Shine: Northern Woodlands Artistic Traditions.” In The Spirit Sings, edited by Julia Harrison,et al. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart for the Glenbow Museum, 1987.

Phillips, Ruth B. Trading Identities: The Souvenir in Native North American Art from the Northeast. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998.

Quinn, David B., editor. New American World: A Documentary History o f North America to 1612. New York: Amo Press and Hector Bye, 1979.

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Richardson, Joseph, Jr. Ledger. Historical Society of Pennsylvania (microfilm, Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Ephemera, Winterthur Library).

Richter, Daniel K. “Ordeals of the Longhouse: The Five Nations in Early American History. In Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and their Neighbors in Indian North America, 1600-1800. Daniel K. Richter and James H. Merrell, editors. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1987.

Ruempol, P. E., and A. G. A. van Dongen. Pre-Industrial Utensils. Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, 1991.

Shannon, Timothy J. “Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier. Hendrick, William Johnson and the Indian Fashion.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, vol. LIU, no. I (January, 1996): 13-42.

Speck, Frank. The Double-Curve Motive in Northeastern Algonkian Art. Canada Department of Mines Geological Survey Memoir 41, no. 1, Anthropological Series. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1914.

------. Symbolism in Penobscot Art. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. XXIX, part II. New York: The American Museum of Natural History, 1927.

------. Penobscot Man. 1940. Reprint with a preface by David Sanger. Orono: University of Maine Press, 1997.

Steele, Ian K. Betrayals: Fort William Henry and the “Massacre. ” New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Sullivan, James, et al., eds. The Papers o f Sir William Johnson. 14 vols. Albany: University of the State of New York, 1921-65.

Swan, Bradford F. “Prints of the American Indian.” In Boston Prints and Printmakers, 1670-1775: A Conference Held by the Colonial Society o f Massachusetts I and 2 April 1971. Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, distributed by the University Press of Virginia.

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thomas, Peter. “In the Maelstrom of Change: The Indian Trade and Cultural Process in the Middle Connecticut River Valley, 1635-1665.” Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1979.

‘Treaty in Bangor.” Eastern Argos, 5 September 1820.

Trent, Robert F. “Coastal Algonkian Culture 1500-1680: Conquest and Resistance.” In New England Begins, edited by Jonathan Fairbanks and Robert Trent. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982.

Upton, Dell. Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia. New York: Architectural History Foundation, distributed by the MIT Press, 1986.

Walter L. Clements Library. Shelburne Papers, Johnson to Board of Trade, July 10, 1766, 1:209.

Ward, Barbara. “ ‘In Feasting Posture:’ Communion Vessels and Community Values in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century New England.” Winterthur Portfolio 23 (Spring, 1988): 2-24.

Ward, Gerald. “The Dutch and English Traditions in American Silver Cornelius Keirstede.” In The American Craftsman and the European Tradition, 1680-1820, edited by Francis J, Puig and Michael Conforti. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for The Minneapolis Insitiute of Arts, 1989.

Webster, Thomas. An Encylopaedia of Domestic Economy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845.

Wheelock, Edward, editor. Penhallow’s Indian Wars, 1726. Williamstown, Massachusetts: Comer House Publishers, 1924, reprinted 1973.

White, Richard: The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Whitehead, Ruth Holmes. “Elitekey." Halifax: The Nova Scotia Museum, 1980.

Ill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Whitehead, Ruth Holmes. “I Have Lived Here Since the World Began: Atlantic Coast Artistic Traditions” In The Spirit Sings, edited by The Glenbow Museum. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart for the Glenbow Museum, 1987.

Winship, George Parker. Sailors Narratives o f Voyages Along the New England Coast. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1905.

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.