"Gift-Offerings to Their Own Importance and Superiority": Fur Trade Relations, 1700-1940

TOBY MORANTZ McGill University

In recent years, a number of us working on the subarctic fur trade have begun to challenge the old historical and anthropological views concern­ ing the effects of the early fur trade on Indian societies. We have rejected claims by historians that Indians became "utterly dependent" on Euro­ peans supplies (Rich 1967:102) or by anthropologists that the fur trade radically transformed economic relations within northeastern sub-arctic In­ dians (Leacock 1954:24, 1978:255, 1982:160). Although this paper further explores the relationship of the hunting society to the fur trade, it attempts to look at dimensions other than dependency, and asks questions about the role of Cree1 culture, ethos and personality. In order to do this it focuses on one of the important features of the fur trade, the credit system. Since historical studies of the subarctic regions of Canada are relatively new, one might ask why it is necessary to challenge old views. Yet, a num­ ber of social scientists over the years, among them Speck (1915), Jenness (1977), Bailey (1969), Leacock (1954) have felt justified in commenting on underlying or precipitating historical causes although they had no access to supporting historical information. Looking at the historical perspectives advanced over the years, it is my own personal view that they fall in the two camps noted above, as exemplified in the works of Rich and Leacock. E.E. Rich was the official historian of the Hudson's Bay Company, back in the 1950s, and consequently had full access to the vast array of doc­ uments. However, Rich, originally a naval historian, was writing history at a time when the emphasis was on producing imperial history and he certainly did not break out of this convention in his work on the Hudson's

1 "Cree" here refers to the Cree of eastern James Bay.

133 134 TOBY MORANTZ

Bay Company, except for one article on the Indian influences on the trad­ ing ceremony (Rich 1960). Thus, as so much of Canadian history of the time, and until recently, the Indians are represented as little more than a backdrop to the unfolding drama. It is not too surprising, then, to find that Rich (1987:102) wrote: "Within a decade of their becoming acquainted with European goods, tribe after tribe became utterly dependent on reg­ ular European supplies. . ." Those of us who have read the post journals know that he could not have formed these impressions if he had also read the Company records that originated at the posts. A more recent history of the Company by Peter Newman (1985), written for a popular audience, also falls into this trap of drawing on prejudices, stereotypes, whatever you call them, from elsewhere than the records. It is my personal belief that the utter dependency notion comes from the present-day Canadian perception of Indians. A recent portrayal was written by a senior editor at Le Devoir, Quebec's prestige, high-brow newspaper. The actual article, though, appeared in L 'Actualite, a monthly, highly respected current issues magazine. The author, Guy Deshaies, wrote the article on the present-day controversy over establishing a NATO base in Labrador that would send out low-flying aircraft over the hunting grounds of the Montagnais. His opening paragraph reads (translation mine):

In front of his shack surrounded by garbage, without running water or sewer, the man, a bottle in his hand, is swaying. His knees are wobbling as though he were walking on a waterbed. On the other side of the shack, three young children with a look of fright on their faces observe the movements of their inebriated father whose vociferous screams are echoed by the barking of the dogs. . . (Deshaies 1986:50)

There is no disguising on whose side this writer's sympathies lie on this issue of a NATO base. More importantly, such a portrayal of Indians is the commonly held Canadian one. It is this stereotype, I contend, that has fos­ tered the notion that the fur trade, connected as it was to a technologically (and perhaps morally) superior society had immediate and devastating con­ sequences for Indian society. Even historians and anthropologists have been ignorant of the intricacies of this long, 300-year history. Among one of the first to disseminate this view was Diamond Jenness, whose anthropological writings on Canadian Indians have been of popular and enduring interest for the past 50 years. His discussion in his 1932 book, still in print, entitled Indians of Canada, leaves no doubt that the fur trade rapidly produced grave consequences among the Indians. He writes at some length of de­ moralization, the changing of the old order and dependence on the trading posts. The other category governing Indian portrayals in the fur trade liter- FUR TRADE RELATIONS 135 ature derives from ideological positions. Here, Leacock's work is a good example. Her Marxist interpretation of the changing relations of produc­ tion in northern Algonquian society is augmented by another ideological position, namely that of primitive communism. I understand this to mean, in the northern Canadian context, that prior to contact with the Euro­ peans, the Indians enjoyed the classic communistic society. All property was communal. There were no leaders as society was egalitarian. Women and men were equal. However, all this changed with contact when mate­ rialistic values were introduced. Leacock's pre- and post-contact views of Algonquian society have not held up in the face of careful, detailed his­ torical research. Her judicious use of historical narratives has been the basis of her evidence. For example, in supporting her claim that relations between men and women in 17th-century Montagnais society were equal, Leacock uses the narratives of the Jesuit Father Paul Le Jeune (Leacock 1978:249). Although Le Jeune notes that "the women have great powers here" (Thwaites 1896:5:181), he also states that he "never heard the women complain because they were not invited to the feasts, because the men ate the good pieces or because they had to work continually. . ."(Thwaites 1896:6:233). Clearly, the historical evidence is ambiguous and in this ex­ ample, as so many others, Leacock practises what Ronald Cohen refers to as the "abandonment of scientific rigor for the service of ideological rhetoric" (in Leacock 1978:259). In both these examples, the historical research was not systematically developed to support these claims, in keeping with today's practice of rigidly applying good historical and ethnological principles. Those of us now doing ethnohistory have the advantages of hindsight and are now in the position of re-examining past interpretations of how Indians fared dur­ ing the fur trade period. It is a history we have discovered that is both long and varied from one geographical region and one time period to the other. The gun, within the fur trade context, has come to symbolize dramat­ ically the technological superiority the Europeans had over the Indians. It is a symbolism that has pervaded Canadian society, aided no doubt by the writings of people like Jenness. Implicit in this claim of technological superiority is the notion that social and political relations are likewise su­ perior and tend to dominate the technologically inferior people. Therefore this technological dependence has received most attention among the few ethnohistorians who have turned their attentions to the portrayal of the Indian-white relations. Joan Townsend (1983), among others, has shown the comparative inefficiency of firearmscompare d to native weaponry. More recently, Shepard Krech (1987), has refined the discussion of dependency on material goods, preferring to speak of substitutions and noting, as have others, that there were a range of economic adaptations to the subarctic 136 TOBY MORANTZ

Indian involvement in the fur trade. In this discussion, I would like to examine Cree-white relations in a context other than technological or economic dependency, for it seems to me there are other aspects that bear on this issue. It is only by con­ ducting particularistic studies that we can reconstruct all the variations leading to determining some of the general principles that governed such relations. We already know that a number of conditions affected the na­ ture of Indian-white relations, namely, availability of food, type of food re­ sources, fur trade competition, inland vs. coaster populations and so forth. Such factors helped determine the extent to which the Indian population could demand or expect that the Europeans conform to their sense of re­ ality. Thus, there is Rich's (1960) study of the Hudson's Bay Company conducting an elaborate Indian trading ceremony prior to actually trading and Ray's (1980:267) examination of subarctic Indians as shrewd consumers contrary to the stereotype of their being easily tricked. We also know that contrary to the belief that the fur trade swiftly engulfed all peoples, the Naskapi and/or northern caribou hunters as well as the Inuit stayed out of the fur trade for several hundred years until the Company made concerted efforts in the mid-1800s to draw them in (Morantz 1983). To continue this exploration of Indian-white relations, I would like to look more closely at the credit system as it operated within the Hudson's Bay Company sphere. Credit was an integral part of the fur trade and, surprisingly, has received little attention in fur trade studies. This system changed little over the 200 years for which I have documentation but the economic, political, social and ecological contexts changed, a topic which will be touched upon here. As applied to the fur trade, the practice of extending credit by the Hudson's Bay Company involved an advance of merchandise to the hunter by the trader in the late summer or early fall, to be repaid by the hunter in fur pelts the following June. As will be seen, often the total debt was not repaid and was carried over until the following sum­ mer. It seems as though the Hudson's Bay Company extended credit to the Indians of James Bay almost from the beginning of the trade. In 1696, the Albany post account books mention the payment of a debt (B.3/d/7:fo. 17) and when the journals of Eastmain, the first well-established post on the east coast of James Bay, begin in 1736, it is evident that the already 30 year-old regular trade there had involved Indians taking debt. Almost the first entry, dated September, 1736, reads: "Three canoos came downe the river of upp river Indians for to be trusted "(B.59/a/l:fo. 6d), and there­ after references in the journals to taking "trust" or paying "debtes" abound. Had the English merchants not wanted to extend credit, it seems they had little choice since credit was part of the French fur trade at least as early as 1626, when Champlain first mentions it (Champlain 1973:3:1104). FUR TRADE RELATIONS 137

That a credit system became a permanent feature of the fur trade is not surprising. It is said that the granting of credit had become routine in rural England before 1700 (Holderness 1976:98) and similarly was a widespread practice in New France (cf. Greer 1985). Fur harvests, like agricultural harvests, were subject to annual fluctuations so that it was in the merchant's interest not only to help keep his producer alive but also to ensure that he, not his competitor, received the harvests in exchange for his merchandise. An analysis of how the credit system operated in James Bay over a 200 year period, that is, from circa 1730 to 1930, indicates four distinct periods, according to the existence of fur trade competition. Such distinctions were made because it was expected, as Hickerson (1973:39) claimed, that "the system flourished best under conditions of monopoly." In this paper the monopoly period from 1821 to 1903 will be most fully explored.

1. First Period: 1700-1821 In this earliest period, during which there was vigorous competition from the French and later North West Company, the credit system was widespread and very bothersome for the English merchants. Throughout this period, they complained of the system and wanted to end it. For example, in 1739, the London office issued a directive to its chief trader at Albany. It reads, in part:

We are informed that it has been a Custom of late years to Trust the Indians, which we apprehend is of great Prejudice to us, and ought never to have been introduced. Therefore we desire you by Degrees and with prudence to reform and put a stop as soon as you can to so evil a practice. (A.6/6:fo. 34)

In 1812, 70 years later, the Company was still complaining and in that year they proposed that credit be restricted "to one half of the value. . . of all debts remaining unpaid on the day of closing the Accounts" (A.6/18:fos. 74- 75). Not only did the Company grant large amounts of credit, even to hunters they viewed as "lazy" (B.59/b/7:fos. 5-6), but there was an elabo­ rate system of presents as a means of enticing trading gangs to the Hudson's Bay Company trade.

2. Second Period: 1821-1903 The merger of the two English companies in 1821 left the Hudson's Bay Company with a virtual monopoly over most, but not all, of the Quebec- Labrador peninsula. The obvious policy for the Company to have imple­ mented, once competition ended, would have been to discontinue the giving of credit. This they did not do. Their reasons are outlined in the minutes 138 TOBY MORANTZ of a meeting of the council of the Southern Department, held at Moose Factory on August 5, 1825. According to these minutes the Company had tried switching to the "ready barter" system, i.e., the direct exchange of furs for goods, in the Lac Seul-Osnaburgh area. However, they decided that this new policy had been "productive of considerable discontent, dis­ satisfaction and injury to the trade" (B.135/k/l:fo. 20). Charles Bishop (1974:118-124), who has researched the records for this region, found that the Osnaburgh Indians either travelled farther to other posts where debt was still being given or became quite indifferent about fur hunting. In 1825, the Company reinstated the debt system in this area. Periodically, the Company rebelled at the mounting debts at Osnaburgh, a region that had become depleted of beaver by the early 1800s. Thus, on six more occasions, up to 1872, the Company abolished their debt system at this post and each time they quickly reestablished it. This attempt to abolish credit was never tried in eastern James Bay, probably because the posts' debts were more tolerable for the Company and perhaps because the region's potential for furs was more promising. The debts on the books in the James Bay region seem considerable. An analysis of the Rupert House account books of 1869-1873, the only years for which such detailed information is available, indicate that the average inlander's hunt was 76 "made beaver" (i.e., a single beaver pelt, the standard of trade) while his debts averaged 70 made beaver or 90% of advances to hunts. Several hunters managed to accumulate very large debts, such as Kishkamash who by 1873 owed 148 made beaver (B.77/d/27:fo. 16). In these cases of excessive debts, the Company did not refuse to do further business with a hunter but instead wiped out or reduced the amount of his debt to a more manageable level. Thus, in 1873 Kishkamash's debt was reduced by 65 made beaver to 83 made beaver, and his hunt for that year was 46 made beaver. Although there was no competition, the Company still felt compelled to provide incentives to the hunters. Thus, one Rupert House hunter with an "immense debt" in 1871 was promised a present if he cleared his debt in three year's time (B.186/a/97:fo. 90). The 1873 records show that such in­ centives were widespread and part of the Hudson's Bay Company's trading system. In 1873, it was calculated that the Company paid out in presents and premiums amounts representing about 45% of what the coasters traded in furs and 60% for the inlanders (B.186/a/97:fo. 64). For example, a hunter bringing in 45 made beaver and paying off his debt would receive a gift of flour, ammunition, sewing needles and thread, tobacco and some items of clothing (B.77/d/21:fo. 102, 1869). Even if a hunter did not clear his debt but brought in some furs rather than take them to another Hudson's Bay Company post he was still to be given what was called a "donation". In FUR TRADE RELATIONS 139 the case of those who brought furs to other than their own posts they were to be "merely traded with" (B.186/b/70:fo. 47d, 1866). One has to wonder how a company could operate with such a ratio of expenses to sales but the mystery is cleared up for us by the Osnaburgh post manager, Charles Mackenzie, who in trying to explain the very large debts at his post, noted that "the price of trade goods was too high and the value of furs too low" (Bishop 1974:122). Obviously, the Company had a large margin within which to operate for in 1873 at Rupert House, the Company abolished the practice of awarding presents and premiums. Instead, they raised the prices paid for furs by 50%. That summer, it is reported, so many more furs were traded that there was a near-depletion of store goods, evidently a rare occurrence (B.186/a/97:fo. 64). All this suggests that the Cree hunting and trapping activities were not totally governed by the Company even during a monopoly situation. The Cree had their own sense of whether or not it was worthwhile to partici­ pate in the fur trade and to what extent. When they chose to hold bear feasts instead of hunt furs, they did so, much to the annoyance of the post manager (B.186/a/97:fo. 49, 1872). Despite having complete control over the granting of credit, the Company still could not dictate the productivity of the Cree.

3. Third Period: 1903-1926 The year 1903 brought a return of competition to the James Bay area due to the arrival of the French company, Revillon Freres. This situation lasted until 1926 when the two companies came to a business arrange­ ment. Ten years later Revillon Freres was absorbed by the Hudson's Bay Company. In addition to this competition which introduced new trading schedules, these 20 or so years were marked by economic and social up­ heaval for the Cree. In brief, world events created slumps and booms in fur prices while the region's diminishing isolation resulted in greater numbers of strangers and greater exposure to devastating epidemics. During this period, as in 1915, the Company proposed once again to "cut the debt system out altogether or at least keep it within sight of the Indian earning capacity" (D.FTR/3:fos. 107-08), but acknowledged it was impossible because Revillon Freres were "seducing" the hunter with large advances of $300, double the amount given by the Hudson's Bay Company. These amounts rose to as much as $1500 in the 1920s (Richard Blackned quoted in Scott 1982) when silver foxes were in great demand and sold for as much as $130 per skin. 140 TOBY MORANTZ

4. Fourth Period: 1926-1936 Animal resources began declining around the turn of the century and began to be appreciably felt by the mid-1920s. As a result, the Cree became more dependent on store food, a trend that was made possible by the boom prices of the early 1920s. At this time, Revillon Freres competition also declined leaving behind some independent traders who were of considerably less threat to the Company. The international fur markets declined, or rather crashed, along with other world markets. Consequently, the Cree's fortunes also declined. The very worst years for the Cree of James Bay were between 1929 and 1932 when all food and fur animals were extremely scarce so that a number of people starved to death. Instead of hunts of $1500, the Cree were now bringing in hunts of $132, for the inlanders, and $50 for the coasters. The year 1932 was when the Company decided, at long last, to institute a policy of no credit, a policy which exacerbated an already desparate situation. Since the Hudson's Bay Company records for these years are not complete, it is not known for how long this ban on credit was in effect. It is likely that the Company policy was short lived since in 1933 the federal government expanded its relief program. Given that the communities now had a supply, however limited, of cash and given that there were independent traders around, it is likely that in 1933 the Company was back to issuing credit and securing the business of its Cree hunters. When the journals start again in 1938, individuals are receiving credit (B.186/a/112:fo. 1).

Discussion The above outline of the credit system as it functioned for over 200 or so years in James Bay indicates that it served, for the most part, the inter­ ests of the Cree. One might favour a more Marxist and broader economic interpretation and agree with Hickerson (1973:39) that it was "debt slav­ ery" , though his reference to their being "chained" to one post is probably overdoing it. Nevertheless, in terms of the needs of the individual hunter, being able to take out goods without having to pay for them immediately must have served well scores of Cree hunters, tiding them over with sup­ plies during winters of scarce resources or enabling them, some seasons, to reduce their fur trapping activities in favour of going to caribou lands or fulfilling some cultural imperative. For example, if a relative died during the winter, it was expected that the hunters would not trap furs for the duration of the season (B.59/a/109:fo. 19d, 1825). These short term benefits for the Cree are obvious but for me the per­ plexing question is why the Hudson's Bay Company permitted the credit system to flourishparticularl y during the 1821 to 1903 period when they FUR TRADE RELATIONS 141 held a monopoly. Not only was credit granted but debts were allowed to accumulate to the extent that the Company in many cases had to cancel large amounts of the debts. Moreoever, the Company added on a system of premiums and presents as incentives to pay the debts. To a large measure, the Cree themselves were subsidizing this costly layered system. The Com­ pany bought the furs at three to four times below market prices so that in 1918, furs bought at Fort George for $26,000 were resold for $100,000 (D.FTR/9:fo. 103). Similarly, trade goods were bought cheaply and sold dearly. A muzzle-loading rifle sold at the Company store at Abitibi in 1914 for $12, while a traveller commented that it would have cost him $2.50 in a U.S. department store (Miller 1914:18). Analyses have not yet been carried out to indicate which years the Company was turning a profit from the fur trade. By the turn of the century they were involved in numerous other enterprises and so the fact that they maintained the fur trade need not indicate that it was profitable. Even if the elaborate credit system was self-financed, one can still ask why the Company allowed it to develop such cumbersome features, surely an accounting nightmare for the ill-trained post manager. Certainly the question of why a credit system at all in monopoly or other times is an­ swered by the James Bay district manager, writing in 1915 before the Cree were dependent on store bought foods. He noted that: "Those Indians who travel far into the interior, if not out-fitted, must of necessity devote their time to catching food and no fur" (RG3 Series l/3:fo. 59, 1915). Thus, facilitating subistence hunting benefitted the production of furs. As for why the elaborate, expensive credit system, the answer may well lie with the Cree moral code. The Cree, as other Algonquians, traditionally adhered to an ideology of reciprocity which permeated their moral order (Scott 1983:289). Their basic premise was that if you looked after others, they would look after you. Such actions of sharing, usually food, initiated a debt that need not be immediately repaid. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the fur traders were naturally incorporated into this moral order particularly since, right from the beginning of the fur trade, the Cree were supplying the Europeans with food. As evidence that the Cree viewed the credit system as a natural out­ come of an ideology of reciprocity is the fact that they did, on the whole, pay their debts, even when they were not dependent on one trader. For in­ stance, in 1788, the Eastmain trader complained that the Canadians (North West Company) ensured themselves a right to some Indians furs "as they keep them constantly in debt" (B.59/b/7:fo. 29). Anderson, writing of his days in the early 1900s as a Company manager at James Bay posts, noted the Cree loyalty to the Company over the Revillon Freres, due, he said, to their indebtedness to the Company. Back in 1767, the traders 142 TOBY MORANTZ were instructed by their superiors not to allow the debt to grow too large for "nothing will drive an Indian sooner from a place than a large debt (B.3/b/5:fo. 2), indicating that the Cree took this obligation seriously. In addition to having to adapt to a Cree sense of obligation or debt, the Company traders seemingly had also to adapt to a strong Cree sense of self, as one trader vividly portrays it. Writing in a letter, dated 1865, about their system of trading, the Rupert House manager, Bernard Rogan Ross, vividly portrays this sense. The passage reads as follows:

I must nevertheless say that in my opinion we gain little by giving large gratuities to Indians and I think that when obliged to be liberal it is better to pay a higher rate for furs and thus get due credit for what we give as I do not believe that the natives ever consider their presents in the light of payment for anything, regarding them more as gift-offerings to their own importance and superiority. (B.186/b/70:fo. 48d)

Before being stationed in James Bay, Ross worked in the Mackenzie Dis­ trict for 15 years from 1847 to 1863. Besides his work for the Hudson's Bay Company as a trader, he was an amateur naturalist who contributed articles and collected animal specimens on behalf of the Smithsonian In­ stitution. In fact, the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1866 includes an essay by Ross on the Tinneh (Dene) people (Lindsay 1987). His long ex­ perience among the Athapaskans and his ethnographic contributions gives importance to his assessment of the mid-19th-century Cree of James Bay. Other traders also complained about them in this vein, saying they were "too independent" (B.186/b/15:fo. 33, 1829) or were "lazy" because they refused to go fur hunting even when foxes, for example, were plentiful as in 1872 (B.186/a/97:fo. 26). I am not well versed in the psychological or cognitive dimensions to culture, specifically to Cree culture. What I can do, as Richard Preston (1975:287) terms it, is provide the "surface detail" and hope that with enough of such details we will eventually understand better the dynamics of the fur trade relations. In this paper, I did want to signal that in assessing the Indian responses to their involvement in the European fur trade, factors other than economic or technological must be considered. This is especially so because cultural, religious, and psychological considerations may well have mitigated the impact of the technological change. This is not an especially novel idea as ethnohistorians working in other areas have found the Indian societies well equipped with cultural defences (cf. Axtell 1985:4). However, each region produces its own particularities and responses which need to be thoroughly explored and formulated. Hopefully, in future writings, we will not continue to see broad gener­ alizations that view the fur trade as having transformed the Indian hunter FUR TRADE RELATIONS 143 into, for example, "specialized laborers" (Wolfe 1982:194) or as a "vast pro­ letariat" (Hickerson 1973:39). Such sweeping statements ignore the com­ plexities of Indian and white accommodations to each other within the fur trade setting. Eleanor Leacock (1982:167) cautions anthropologists that they have a responsibility to be correct in describing these histories since many Indian peoples are embroiled in land rights issues with various gov­ ernments. Surely, besides maintaining our own academic integrity, we also have a responsibility to provide Indian societies with balanced histories since our histories are now, unfortunately, becoming their histories and our stereotypes are becoming their stereotypes. What will be passed on?

REFERENCES Axtell, James 1985 The Invasion Within. The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, Albert G. 1969 The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, 1504- 1700. 2nd edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bishop, Charles A. 1974 The Northern Ojibwa and the Fur Trade. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Champlain, Samuel de 1973 Oeuvres de Champlain. 3 vols. Montreal: Editions du Jour. Deshaies, Guy 1986 La Bataille de Goose Bay. L'Actualite 11:50-58.

Greer, Allan 1985 Peasant, Lord and Merchant. Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hudson's Bay Company Archives Headquarters Records A. 6 London Correspondence Outwards — Official

Post Records B. 3/a/ Albany Post Journals B. 3/b/ Albany Post Correspondence Books B. 59/a/ Eastmain Post Journals B. 59/b/ Eastmain Post Correspondence Books B. 77/d/ Fort George Account Books B. 135/k/ Moose Factory Minutes of Council B. 186/a/ Rupert House Journals B. 186/b/ Rupert House Correspondence Books 144 TOBY MORANTZ

District Fur Trade Reports D. FTR James Bay District Reports RG 3, Series 1-10 Report on Fur Trade: James Bay District. Hickerson, Harold 1973 Fur Trade Colonialism and the North American Indians. Journal of Ethnic Studies 1:15-44. Holderness, B.A. 1976 Credit in English Rural Society before the Nineteenth Century with Special Reference to the Period 1650-1720. Agricultural History Review 24:97-109. Jenness, Diamond 1977 The Indians of Canada. 7th edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Krech, Shepard 1987 The Early Fur Trade in the Northwestern Subarctic: The Kutchin and the Trade in Beads. Pp. 236-272 in Le Castor Fait Tout. Se­ lected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1985. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, Louise Dechene, eds. Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society. Leacock, Eleanor 1954 The Montagnais "Hunting Territory" and the Fur Trade. American Anthropological Association Memoir 78. Menasha, Wisconsin. 1978 Woman's Status in Egalitarian Society. Implications for Social Evo­ lution. Current Anthropology 19:247-255. 1982 Relations of Production in Band Society. Pp. 159-170 in Politics and History in Band Societies. Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindsay, Debra 1987 The Hudson's Bay Company-Smithsonian Connection and Fur Trade Intellectual Life: Bernard Rogan Ross, a Case Study. Pp. 587-617 in Le Castor Fait Tout. Selected Papers of the Fifth North Amer­ ican Fur Trade Conference, 1985. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, Louise Dechene, eds. Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society. Miller, Raymond 1914 A Canoe Trip from Lake Temiscaming to Lake Abitibi. Rod and Gun 16:2:14-18. Morantz, Toby 1983 An Ethnohistoric Study of Eastern James Bay Cree Social Orga­ nization, 1700-1850. Mercury Series, National Museum of Man, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 88. Ottawa. Newman, Peter 1985 The Company of Adventurers. Toronto: Viking. Preston, Richard 1975 Cree Narrative: Expressing the Personal Meaning of Events. Mer­ cury Series, National Museum of Man, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper 30. Ottawa. FUR TRADE RELATIONS 145

Ray, Arthur 1980 Indians as Consumers in the Eighteenth Century. Pp. 255-271 in Old Trails and New Directions. Papers of the Third North American Fur Trade Conference. Carol Judd and Arthur Ray, eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rich, Edwin E. 1960 Trade Habits and Economic Motivation Among the Indians of North America. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26:35-53. 1967 The Fur Trade and the Northwest to 1865. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Scott, Colin 1982 Collection of oral history accounts made by Colin Scott, 1977, 1981, at Wemindji, James Bay. On deposit at the National Museum of Man Ethnology Service. Ottawa. 1983 The Semiotics of Material Life Among Wemindji Cree Hunters. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University. Speck, Frank G. 1915 The Family Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social Organi­ zation. American Anthropologist 17:289-308. Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. 1896 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 vols. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. [1896-1901]. Townsend, Joan B. 1983 Firearms Against Native Arms. A Study in Comparative Efficiencies with an Alaskan Example. Arctic Anthropology 20:1-34. Wolfe, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. 146