A Dish with One Spoon: The Shared Hunting Grounds Agreement in the and St. Lawrence Valley Region

VICTOR P. LYTWYN Acton, Ont.

INTRODUCTION The words dish with one spoon and other similar terms1 have been used since time immemorial by aboriginal people in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence valley region to describe agreements concerning shared hunting grounds. The dish symbolizes a common hunting ground, while the spoon denotes that people are free to hunt within it and to eat the game and fish together. Agreements between aboriginal nations to share hunting grounds predate written records, but their antiquity is memorialized in oral traditions. Mnemonic devices such as belts have also preserved the image of a shared hunting ground in beadwork patterns crafted by aboriginal record keepers over the ages. Such agreements were sometimes formalized in treaties, and after the arrival of Europeans in North America the words were translated and recorded by French, Dutch and English interpreters and secretaries who attended treaty council meetings. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, treaties involving the dish with one spoon were renewed between Algonquian and Iroquoian nations in a vast area around the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence valley. This paper examines the concept of the dish with one spoon as it applied to agreements or treaties between aboriginal nations in the St. Lawrence valley and Great Lakes region. It reviews agreements to share hunting grounds which have been preserved in oral traditions, wampum belts and written records. Finally, it traces the continuity of such agree­ ments over the course of at least three centuries to the present.

Other terms such as bowl or kettle were sometimes used in place of dish and in some cases spoon was absent. However, the overall meaning, which conveyed the freedom of abonginal nations to hunt in neighbouring territories, remained remark­ ably consistent over the centuries. A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 211

THE DISH WITH ONE SPOON IN ORAL TRADITIONS The Haudonoshone, or Longhouse People, incorporated an image of the dish with one spoon in their oral tradition concerning the formation of the Great League of Peace, or Confederacy, which was made up originally of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca nations. Their oral tradition states that at the time the League was formed,2 an agreement was reached by the Five Nations to share their hunting grounds in order to avoid territorial conflicts. Tekanawita, also known as the Peacemaker, said:

We promise to have only one dish among us; in it will be beaver tail and no knife will be there... which means that we will all have equal share of the game roaming about in the hunting grounds and fields, and then everything will become peaceful among all of the people; and there will be no knife near our dish, which means that if a knife were there, someone might presently get cut, causing bloodshed, and this is trouble­ some, should it happen thus, and for this reason there should be no knife near our dish. [Gibson 1992:457^160] The oral history of the Ojibway nation also includes a tradition about sharing hunting grounds with neighbouring nations. According to an oral tradition recorded by William Warren, an agreement was reached to avoid warfare with the Sioux nation during the hunting season, when Ojibway and Sioux hunters ranged through a common territory. Warren explained that

Efforts were made to bring about a peaceable meeting between the two camps, which at last were crowned with success, and it soon became customary, let the war rage ever so furiously during all other seasons. The pipe of peace was smoked each winter at the meeting of the two grand hostile hunting camps, and for weeks they would interchange friendly visits, and pursue the chase in one another' s vicinity, without fear of harm or molestation. [Warren 1984 (1885):267]

EARLY WRITTEN RECORDS After the arrival of Europeans to the St. Lawrence River valley and Great Lakes region in the 17th century, there was a sharp increase in the fur trade which brought aboriginal nations into greater conflict over access to hunting grounds. Diplomatic initiatives brought nations together and

2 Most scholars agree that the formation of the League pre-dated the arrival of Europeans. (1883:177-180) calculated that the League was formed about 1459 A.D. 212 VICTOR P. LYTWYN council meetings were held to attempt to work out agreements to share hunting grounds and thereby avoid territorial conflicts. Sometimes European observers witnessed these negotiations and recorded the treaties which resulted. For example, in 1624 Samuel de Champlain recorded several remark­ able treaty council meetings between Montagnais, Algonquin and unspecified Iroquois nations at Trois Rivieres and . Champlain, writing at Quebec, had learned that negotiations between the Iroquois, Montagnais and Algonquin nations had begun "some time ago", but had so far been unsuccessful in securing a peace treaty. Champlain also observed that peace was desired by the parties because they wanted to hunt beaver without fear of being attacked. He explained that peace would secure "safety for our savages who go in quest of beavers, but do not dare to go in certain parts where they abound, because they are afraid of their enemies, though hitherto they have always worked in those places" (Champlain 1933:73). Chrestien Le Clercq, who described the event over sixty years later, noted that "One has never seen until that time, a conference of so many different nations." His description of the feast at the conclusion of the treaty included a reference to the "kettle of peace", which may have been symbolic of the dish with one spoon (Le Clercq 1690:260). Certainly the symbolism of shared hunting grounds was apparent in Champlain's observations about the treaty: the interview they were having with one another was a friendly one, they drawing a pledge from their enemies not to injure them, nor to prevent their hunting anywhere in the country; and promising that they would conduct themselves in like manner towards the Iroquois. This was all the treaty they had for making peace. [Champlain 1933:77] However, peace among Iroquoian and Algonquian nations proved difficult to maintain after 1624. French, Dutch and later English colonial officials promoted hostilities between aboriginal nations in order to gain greater economic and political power in North America. European traders supplied firearms and encouraged their use to settle territorial disputes. Fighting instead of diplomacy came to characterize meetings between Iroquoian and Algonquian nations who were increasingly allied to French and English economic interests. In 1645, another attempt was made to put an end to warfare and establish a new peace. In July 1645, a preliminary peace treaty was negot­ iated at Trois Rivieres between the French, Huron, Algonquin, Montagnais, A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 213

Attikamegue and Mohawk3 nations. The Mohawk spokesman, Kiotseaeton, brought 17 wampum belts which he displayed on a rope suspended between two poles. One of the wampum belts may have contained a bead-work emblem depicting a single dish as evidenced from the description by Jesuit missionary Barthelemy Vimont, who wrote: "The eleventh [wampum belt] invited us to eat with them. 'Our country is well stocked with fish, venison, and with game; it is everywhere full of deer, of Elk,4 of beaver'" (JR 27:261). In September 1645, the peace treaty was ratified by the Mohawk, Huron, Attikamegue, Montagnais, Kichesipirini (the Island Algonquin), Ononchataronon (the Iroquet), and other unnamed nations. The speeches which accompanied gift-giving and feasting included one by a Mohawk leader which clearly signified shared hunting grounds. The speech was recorded as follows:

"All the country that lies between us is full of Bears, of Deer, of Elk [moose], of Beaver, and of numerous other animals. For my part, I am blind; I hunt at hap-hazard; when I have killed a Beaver, I think that I have secured a great prize. But you," speaking of the Algonquins, "who are clear-sighted, you have but to throw a javelin, and the animal falls. This present invites you to hunt, we shall benefit by your skill; we shall roast the animals on the same spit, and we shall eat on one side, and you on the other." [JR 27:289-291] After the treaty was ratified, Vimont noted that one of the treaty delegates remarked: "Things are going well... we eat all together, and we have but one dish" (JR 27:303). Bruce Trigger observed that the Mohawk who negotiated the treaty were interested in obtaining rights to hunt in Algonquian territory. Trigger explained that During the previous years the Mohawk had penetrated Algonkin and Montagnais hunting territory and in the course of their negotiations with the French, they expressed keen interest in the hunting territories that lay in the no man's land between them. During the period of the truce, the Mohawk were free to trap as many furs as they wished in this area. It also may be that ritual kinship acquired through the truce gave the Mohawk the right to hunt in Algonkin territory. [Trigger 1987:653]

3 The records describe them as Iroquois, but contextual evidence indicates that they were Mohawk (see, for example, JR 28:275). 4 The term elk, or elan, was commonly used to describe the North American moose. See, for example, the drawing of a moose depicted as an "elan in the collection known as the Codex Canadiensis (Nicolas 1974:36). 2)4 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

The importance of obtaining hunting rights for the Mohawk is confirmed by events immediately following the 1645 treaty. For example, in the winter of 1645-^6, Mohawk hunters ranged freely in Algonquian territories. Jesuit missionary Jerome Lalemant noted that "The Annierron- non Iroquois [Mohawk] have hunted at every liberty in the borders of the Algonquins" (JR 28:279). In February 1646, a meeting was held at Trois Rivieres to reconfirm the peace treaty. During that meeting, a Kichesipirini Algonquin leader named Tesouehat5 gave gifts of moose-skin robes. In his speech accompanying the fifth robe, Tesouehat explained its significance: "that the chase be everywhere free; that the landmarks and boundaries of all those great countries be raised; and that each one should find himself everywhere in his own country" (JR 28:299).6 The 1645 peace treaty, like the one in 1624, failed when warfare erupted again between the Five Nations and the Huron-Algonquian alliance. As early as the fall of 1646, Five Nations warriors raided northward and westward against some of the nations who had joined the 1645 treaty. By the winter of 1649-50, Five Nations warriors had destroyed the Huron villages and forced the Hurons and their neighbours to flee. The Five Nations followed up these victories by raiding far to the north and west, into the territory known as the "Beaver Hunting Ground". Jesuit missionaries noted that Five Nations warriors raided as far north as James Bay (JR 45:233), and a oral tradition recorded a Five Nations attack as far away as the English River, northwest of Lake Superior (Wesley 1993:1-9). Although motivations for this far-flung warfare were complex and multi-faceted,7 one factor was the depletion of beaver in the vicinity of the Five Nations villages south of Lake . Beaver pelts, the mainstay of the fur trade, were most abundant and of highest quality in the northern

5 Tesouehat's Iroquoian name was Ondesson, while the French called him le Borgne del'Isle 'the One-Eyed of the Island'. The concept of shared hunting grounds was also memorialized in a wampum belt that was presented during a peace treaty between the Montagnais and the in 1653. The Abenaki delegates brought several large wampum belts to a council meeting at the Montagnais village near Sillery, and with the presentation of the second belt, the Abenaki spokesman said: "Come, brothers, arise and gird yourselves with this belt; and let us go together to hunt the Elk [moose] and the Beaver" (JR 40:205). 7 For example, Brandao (1994) has argued that taking captives to replenish popu­ lation within the Five Nations was a primary motivation for warfare. A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 215

forests. The so-called Beaver Hunting Ground was thus a strategic resource area which the Five Nations were determined to control. Cadwallader Colden explained that "The Five Nations have few or no Bevers in their own Country, and are for that reason obliged to hunt at a great distance" (Colden 1866 [1727]:91). Daniel Richter noted that "By about 1640 the Five Nations perhaps had exhausted the beaver stock of their home hunting territories; more important, they could not find in relatively temperate Iroquoia the thick northern pelts prized by Euro- American traders" (Richter 1983:539). Allan Trelease summarized this situation as follows: "Their economic mainstay continued to be their own hunting activity... The Iroquois were hunters to begin with, and it was only natural that they should meet the problem of depletion at home by extending their customary activity in adjacent territories" (Trelease 1962:48, 50). The successes in war achieved by the Five Nations covered a vast territory, the geographical extent of which may never be known with certainty. However, this warfare also stretched the logistical limits of the Five Nations and by the 1680s they were no longer in a position to sustain their long-distance raiding activities. Their position was weakened by war casualties, and through epidemic diseases which swept through the St. Lawrence valley and Great Lakes region during the 17th century. By the late 1680s, the Five Nations began to seek a general peace with the nations who lived north of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence valley. Once again, a key objective was to secure freedom to hunt in the territory known as the Beaver Hunting Ground.

THE GRAND SETTLEMENT AT IN 1701 Preliminary peace negotiations were held at Onondaga as early as 1688, involving delegates from the "Wagenhaer Nation", a term that was used to designate the Algonquian-speaking peoples who lived in the upper Great Lakes region.8 Cornelius Arnout, a Dutch interpreter from Albany, , witnessed and recorded the public speeches made at Onondaga which followed the peace talks, including the following observations:

Cadwallader Colden explained that the Iroquoian term Wagunhas referred to the Ottawa, but he also noted that the "English generally comprehend under the name Utawawas all the Nations living near Michilimackmac" (Colden 1866:xiii). John Norton used a variant of the term to describe "the nations of the Algonquin or Chippewa language, which the Five Nations call Dewakanka" (Norton 1970:98). 216 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

The Sennekas Spoke next, They gave the Assembly an Account, that they had entered into a Treaty of Peace and Alliance with the Wagenhaer Nation of Indians in behalf of themselves the Other 4 Nations and this Government and that the Three Wagenhaers were now present to ratify the same. This was accordingly accepted on all sides. The Wagenhaers promised to use their best endeavours to bring the Jenendades [Tionnon- dades] and Ottawawaes into the Alliance. [Wraxall 1915:15] On 17 August 1694, Onondaga chief Sadekawahtie visited Albany and reported on the "Peace which the 5 Nations had concluded with the Dowangeshaws and the Deonondas" (Wraxall 1915:26). Reports received at Montreal in 1695 and 1696 confirmed the peace, and Iroquois from the nearby Christian mission settlements returned from Onondaga with an invitation to join in a wider treaty. News also reached Montreal that Five Nations delegates had visited Michilimackinac and delivered wampum belts inviting the nations who gathered there for trade to join in the peace treaty (NYCD 9:594-632). English and French colonial officials reported with anxiety that peace talks were being conducted without their involve­ ment. For example, on 9 November 1696, New York Governor Benjamin Fletcher wrote to the Lords of Trade and reported that "Our Indians [the Five Nations] were hearty and well disposed but much inclining to make a peace for themselves" (NYCD 4:234). In the summer of 1700, a delegation of "Waghanes", or Upper Algonquians, visited Onondaga to continue peace negotiations (NYCD 4:691). As news of this delegation reached Albany, other information confirmed that peace talks had been conducted in the country of the Upper Algonquians during the winter. Robert Livingston, Secretary of Indian Affairs for New York, reported that the Five Nations had held a peace conference with the "Dowaganhaes" in their hunting grounds. This was followed up by a delegation of Dowaganhaes visiting Onondaga in the summer of 1700. Livingston noted that the Dowaganhaes said:

wee desire to have free liberty of trade; wee make a firme league with ye Five Nations and Corlaer and desire to be united in ye Covenant Chain, our hunting places to be one, and to boile in one kettle, eat out of one dish, and with one spoon, and so be one... The Five Nations answered with the following speech:

Wee are glad to see you in our country and doe accept of you to be our friends and allies and doe give you a Belt of Wampum as a token thereof that there may be a perpetual peace and friendship between us and our young Indians to hunt together in all love and amity. [NYCD 4:694-5] A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 217

On 3 September 1700, chiefs from the Five Nations as well as chiefs from 19 other nations met at Montreal. The Five Nations presented six wampum belts, the last one depicting a kettle, another metaphor for shared hunting grounds. In reading the belt, the Iroquois spokesman explained that it signified "to make one joint kettle when we shall meet" (NYCD 9:717). In reply, one of the Ottawa chiefs said "I exhort you also, you Iroquois Nations, to form but one body with us" (NYCD 9:719). The aboriginal nations and the French colonial authorities agreed to the terms and directed that the treaty be ratified at a grand council the next summer. The grand council proceedings began in July 1701 at the Mohawk village of Sault St. Louis, or , upstream from Montreal. French historian Bacqueville de la Potherie visited Kahnawake on 21 July and described feasting, singing and dancing involving a large gathering of about 800 people from many different nations. On 25 July, the council moved to Montreal where the French and other aboriginal nations joined the proceedings. At the time, it was the largest gathering ever observed and recorded by Europeans in the St. Lawrence valley and Great Lakes region. More than 1,000 people representing over 30 nations converged at Montreal to ratify the peace treaty.9 The council meetings lasted nearly two weeks, during which time many speeches were made and gifts exchanged between the nations. The ratification of the treaty was threatened midway through the proceedings when a deadly epidemic spread through the camps. However, the death of Kondiaronk (also known as The Rat), an important Huron chief, also signalled a turning point which propelled the nations toward the final agreement. During the ceremony of condolence on 3 August, Five Nations orator Aouenano presented a wampum belt and explained that "we pray to you to have the same spirit, the same feelings that he [Kondiaronk] had, henceforth to be of one body, the same kettle" (La Potherie 1722,4:230-1). On 4 August, the treaty was ratified,10 and many of the speeches made by the chiefs conveyed the same image of a single kettle or a dish with one spoon. Hassaki, chief of the Kiskakon Ottawa, addressed the assembly and said: "remember when we will meet them [the Five Nations] in the hunting grounds, that we regard them as our brothers and as our own children. We

9 For more information about the 1701 treaty at Montreal, see Havard (1992). 10 The Mohawk nation delegates arrived at Montreal late, but agreed to the treaty on 8 August 1701 (Charlevoix 1900 [1744], 2:273, 285). 218 VICTOR P. LYTWYN have a life-long obligation to them to be henceforth of the same kettle" (La Potherie 1722,4:242). The Seneca spokesman Tekaneot replied: "I would like that the land would be united and that the kettle was whole" (La Potherie 1722,4:243). Sauk chief Ounagince stated: "we will eat fromth e same kettle when we meet up during hunting", and Miami chief Chichikat- alo said: "When we meet up again, we will consider them as brothers and we will eat together" (La Potherie 1722, 4:260, 261). The French text of the treaty also conveyed the same agreement on sharing hunting grounds, stating that "whenever you shall meet each other [agree] to act as brothers and to agree as regards hunting, that no disturbance may occur, and this peace may not be troubled" (NYCD 9:722). Almost simultaneously with the Montreal proceedings, Five Nations delegates were meeting separately with English colonial officials at Albany, New York. On 19 July 1701, the Five Nations and the English agreed to a treaty, sometimes called the Beaver Hunting Treaty. In that treaty, the English agreed to protect the hunting rights of the Five Nations in a vast territory, covering about 800 miles in length and 400 miles in breadth, which was described as the "Beaver Hunting Ground" (NYCD 9:908-910). Although the precise boundaries of the Beaver Hunting Ground are impossible to decipher from the written description, it is apparent that it was intended to include the area occupied by the aboriginal nations who agreed to the 1701 Montreal Treaty.11 Thus, in what Olive Dickason has described as a "double twist", the Five Nations had achieved separate agreements with both the French and aboriginal nations in one treaty and with the English in another treaty, which guaranteed "hunting and fishing rights to that same territory" (Dickason 1992:155). The Beaver Hunting Treaty with the English gave the Five Nations a measure of insurance in the event of a future rupture of their peace accord

" Brandao and Stama (1996) depict the boundaries of the Beaver Hunting Ground as a relatively small tract of land between and Lake Huron and part of the lower Peninsula. This is far less than the 320,000 square miles described in the 1701 treaty, an area which would include nearly all of the Great Lakes and extend as far north as James Bay. It is obvious that the Beaver Hunting Ground would have included territory north of the Great Lakes because that area produced much of the prime beaver, whereas the beaver populations between Lake Erie and Lake Huron had been significantly depleted by 1701. Finally, the inclusion of moose (called elk in the text) in the description of the Beaver Hunting Ground would almost certainly rule out the area defined by Brandao and Starna, because moose were absent from all but the northern parts of the lower Michigan Peninsula (Banfield 1974:397). A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 219 with the French and other aboriginal nations. However, unlike earlier peace treaties, the one ratified at Montreal in 1701, also known as the "Grand Settlement", proved to be long-lasting. Although occasional flare- ups occurred which jeopardized the treaty, reconciliations were quickly achieved and the aboriginal nations continued to treat each others as brothers and to eat from the same bowl with one spoon. Likewise, the symbolic tree of peace was firmly rooted after 1701 and on many occasions thereafter treaty council fires were rekindled to renew the agreement to share hunting grounds.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY REFERENCES After 1701, many references to the dish with one spoon can be found in the written records. For example, it is referred to in the minutes of a 1757 council meeting at Montreal between the French and the Six Nations.12 In their opening remarks, the Six Nations reminded the French that "we can't write but know all that has past between us having good memories". This was followed by a recounting of the 1701 Montreal treaty:

[A]fter the Warrs and troubles we together met you at this place [Mont­ real] where every trouble was buried and a fire kindled here. Where was to meet and Treat peaceably; you are daily now working disturbances and Seem to forget the old agreement &c. The Tree Seems to be falling, let it be now put up the Roots spread and the leaves flowrish as before. You formerly said take this bowl and this meat with this Spoon let us Eat airways frindly together out the one Dish. [Johnson 1921-65, 2:705] After the fall of in 1760, the Six Nations reminded the English colonial authorities about their existing treaty agreement with the French and aboriginal nations which involved shared hunting grounds. For example, in 1765, Daniel Claus, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, wrote to Sir William Johnson, and explained what he had been told about the principles of the 1701 Montreal Treaty:

[T]he old Agreement made before the French Governor many Years ago, in the presence of Five Confederate, and all the other Nations in Canada, — that when a general Peace was made, and concluded between these Nations, the Governor told them, that as they were become one body, and of one mind, the Woods, and Hunting Grounds could be no otherwise than in common, and free to one Nation as to another, in the same manner

12 In 1722 or 1723, the Tuscarora nation was adopted into the League; thereafter the confederacy was commonly known as the Six Nations (Landy 1978: 519). 220 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

as a large Dish of Meat would be to a Company of People who were invited to eat it, when every Guest has liberty to cut as they pleased. [Johnson 1921-65, 11:917] In 1767, chiefs from (Oka) and Kahnawake met with the British governor, and reminded him about the 1701 peace treaty and the specific agreement about hunting. A spokesman said: [T]he old Agreement wch. was that all the Nations in Canada should enjoy free hunting wherever they thought proper that there should be no claim of property of any particular Spot, but all Indians in General should equally enjoy the Liberty of hunting in the woods (whenever they thought proper) which then wise forefathers concerted and agreed upon in order to prevent Jealousies and Envy wch. they but justly foresaw must produce Disputes and Quarrels and finally bring on their Destruction. And therefore have them their advice to [hear] use the Woods with the same freedom as they would a Kettle with Victuals when invited to a feast and with one Spoon and Knife to eat all together sociably and without begrudging those that had a better appetite and eat more than others. [Johnson 1921-65, 13:432] In 1793, Six Nations chief wrote a letter to Indian Affairs Superintendent Alexander McKee, and explained that the Six Nations shared the land in common with their aboriginal neighbours. Writing from Miami Rapids, Brant noted: We have been told that such a part belongs to the six nations but I am of opinion that the Country belongs to the Confederate Indians in Common... Upwards of one hundred years ago a moon of Wampum was placed in this Country with four Roads leading to the Center for the convenience of the Indians from Different Quarters to come and settle or hunt here a Dish with one Spoon was likewise put here with the moon of Wampum, this shows that my Sentiments respecting the Lands are not new. [Simcoe 1923-31,5:67] On 13 August 1796, a Council meeting was held at Kahnawake which was attended by the so-called Seven Nations of Canada,13 the Ottawa nation from Michilimackinac and the Micmac nation from the Atlantic seaboard. In a speech to General Prescott, the message carried in a treaty wampum belt which depicted a dish and one spoon was recited:

[W]e are the true Native Inhabitants of this Country and that God had placed us first on these Lands, it is there that our ancestors to preserve

13 The Seven Nations of Canada referred to a geopolitical confederacy in the 18th and 19th centuries of the nations who lived in the St. Lawrence River valley. The members were the Mohawk (including other Iroquoian peoples subsumed under the Mohawk), Huron (sometimes called Wendat or Wyandotte, and probably including the Petun or Tionondade), Algonquin, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Montagnais and Abenaki. A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 221

peace had resolved only to make use of one Dish and one Platter and to act all together (this parable signifies that there was no Limits for the Indian Hunting, that all the Country should be free). When the King of France set foot on our ground he did not conquer us he came as a Father who wishes to protect his Children. We communicated to him a parable of the Dish and the Spoon, he approved of it and encouraged us to continue in our way of acting. He did not tell us children I want to share in your Dish and have the best Bit in it. When our Father the King of England drove away the King of France, we were so earnest in nothing as communicating to him this Parable, He did more than the King of France for he had the goodness to prop up the Dish telling us that he did not wish that we should make use of Knives to eat our Meal, least they should hurt us as a proof of it we preserve his word (parolle). He did not tell us that he wished to eat with us, being accustomed to a different kind of food. [Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 1892, 20:465]

NINETEENTH-CENTURY REFERENCES Throughout the 19th century, the agreement known as the dish with one spoon continued to be recalled by aboriginal nations in the St. Lawrence valley and Great Lakes region. In many cases, the dish with one spoon was recited in defence of their hunting or fishingrights . For example, in 1824, Nicolas Vincent Tsaouenhohi, grand chief of the Huron nation at Lorette, delivered a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada which recited the principle of free hunting. He said: two hundred years ago, the Elders of the Seven Nations made an alliance together to live in peace and in common, that is to say that they must eat with the same micoine (spoon) from the same bowl: this meant that they must all hunt together on the same lands, to avoid any quarrel among them. [Sioui 1992:90] On 21 January 1840, a delegation of Six Nations chiefs attended an Ojibway grand council which was held at the Credit River. Ojibway speaker John Sunday explained that the Six Nations had been invited to rekindle the great council fire at which the peace pipe was smoked many years ago. The council fire was rekindled, and Onondaga chief John Buck presented four wampum belts which were symbols of "the old treaties" and "explained the talks contained in them". He held the firstwampu m belt and said: The first Belt contained the first Treaty made between the Six Nations & the Ojibways. This Treaty was made many years ago, and the great Council was held at the east end of . The Belt represented a dish or bowl in the centre which the Chief said represented that the Ojibways and the Six Nations were all to eat out of one dish — That is to 222 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

have all the game in common. In the centre of the bowl were five white Wampum which denoted a Beaver's tail the favorite dish of the Ojibways. At this council the Treaty of friendship was formed and agreed to call each other forever after 'Brothers.' That this Treaty of friendship was made so strong that if a freefel l across their arms it could not separate them or cause them to unloose their hold. [NAC, RG 10, 110:82] The next day (22 January 1840), Ojibway chief Yellowhead exhibited a wampum belt and "explained the talk contained in it." He said: this Belt was given by the Nahdooways [Five Nations] to the Ojibways many years ago — about the time the French first came to this country. That the great Council took place at Lake Superior... A dish was also placed at the Credit. That the right of hunting on the north side of the Lake was secured to the Ojibways, and that the Six Nations were not to hunt here only when they come to smoke the pipe of peace with their Ojibway brethren. [NAC,RG 10, 110:85-87] Mohawk chief John S. Johnson offered his own reading of the symbols on the wampum belt. Regarding the symbolic significance of the dish, Johnson remarked that "the dish and ladle represents abundance of game and food" (NAC, RG 10, 110:89). The council ended with an agreement to renew their treaty. According to the council minutes, Yellowhead presented the Six Nations with two strings of white Wampum as a memorial or pledges of this Council to what had been transacted between the two parties. The Six Nations Chiefs then returned the Wampum belt to Yellowhead and so parted by shaking each other by the arm, which was the method adopted by our forefathers when the Treaty of friendship was firstformed . Thus ended the renewal of the Treaty with which all present were much pleased. [NAC, RG 10, 110:89] Ojibway historian Peter Jones also wrote about the renewal of the 1701 treaty at the Credit River grand council meeting in 1840. Jones explained the historical background to the 1701 treaty as follows: A treaty of peace and friendship was then made with the Nahdoways residing on the south side of Lake Ontario, and both nations solemnly covenanted, by going through the usual forms of burying the tomahawk, smoking the pipe of peace, and locking their hands and arms together to call each other Brothers... the treaty of peace mentioned has from time to time been renewed at general councils. [Jones 1861:113^1] In discussing the 1840 Credit River council, Jones explained that the meeting between the Six Nations and the Ojibway was "for the purpose of renewing this ancient treaty." Jones then described the speech made by Onondaga chief John Buck as he exhibited the four wampum belts: The first contained the first treaty made between the Six Nations and the Ojebways. This treaty was made many years ago, when the great council A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 223

was held at the east end of Lake Ontario. The belt was in the form of a dish or bowl in the centre, which the chief said represented that the Ojebways and the Six Nations were all to eat out of the same dish; that is, to have all their game in common. [Jones 1861:113-4] On 13 February 1845, a letter was written in Ojibway, signed by 11 Ottawa chiefs at Wikwemikong (Manitoulin Island), and sent to the chiefs of the Algonquin and Nipissing who were living at Kanesatake (Oka). David Pentland's translation of that letter included the following paragraph concerning a dish: I have heard that one of your chiefs is going to come here next summer. If he comes, I would be greatly pleased if he would bring with him that which you greatly desire me to see, our Dish which is highly valued; that's what I ask. [Pentland 1996:265; emphasis in original] Pentland noted that the reference to the dish, or "Kidonaganina", was the most obscure point in the letter. He surmised that the dish may have been "a dish of religious significance — a piece of Communion silver, for instance — and perhaps of special historical importance to the Ojibwa nation as a whole" (Pentland 1996:266). It is more likely, however, that the dish referred to a wampum belt. As Pentland points out, the date of the letter fits into a time period of increasing pressure by the British colonial and American governments to make treaties with to surrender land around the Great Lakes region. The desire to obtain a wampum belt signifying an earlier treaty to share hunting grounds between the Ottawa, Algonquin, Nipissing and Mohawk may have been of special importance at that time.14 The fears expressed by the Manitoulin chiefs in their letter of 1845 materialized in 1862 when the British colonial authorities obtained a surrender of land on the western part of the island. The chiefs who lived on the eastern Wikwemikong Peninsula refused to surrender their land, and rebuked the other chiefs for their participation in the 1862 treaty. In their

14 A similar situation had developed earlier, when the Sioux nation attempted to unify their neighbouring nations to make a stand against American expansion into their hunting grounds. On 8 June 1805, a party of Sauk, Fox, Ottawa and Potawatomi arrived at the British colonial post at Amherstburg across from Detroit, and brought a war pipe from the Sioux nation to invite other nations to riseu p against the who were encroaching on their territories. A speech from the Sioux which accompanied the war pipe was recited by a Sauk chief at Amherstburg. He said: "Brothers, It is a long time since our common Dish and Spoon were made by our forefathers — and now we Nadouessies [Sioux] renew the friendship that subsisted between our ancestors" (NAC, MG 19, Fl, 9:110). 224 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

protests against the land surrender the Wikwemikong chiefs spoke about Manitoulin Island as a dish, meaning a common hunting ground. This was made clear in a petition written on 23 January 1864, on behalf of Chief Wakegijik: My friends, we want to eat out of one dish as it were — we do not wish to break a part of it to give away. All of us who met together at Grand Council there, agreed that we should eat out of one dish. [NAC, RG 10, D- 124:345] Toward the end of the 19th century, professional anthropologists and museum curators collected wampum belts and recorded oral traditions about the dish with one spoon. For example, in 1887, David Boyle of the Royal Ontario Museum visited the Six Nations at the Grand River and recorded the meaning of a wampum belt as read by Skanawati (John Buck): The firekeeper told the first belt, all white except for a round purple patch in the centre. This represents all the Indians on the continent. They have entered into one great league and contract that they will all be one and have one heart. The pot in the centre is a dish of beaver, indicating that they will have one dish and what belongs to one will belong to all. [Boyle 1928:51] In 1883, American ethnologist Horatio Hale wrote that the dish with one spoon agreement was still remembered in the oral history of the Iroquois League. Hale recorded the oral tradition as follows: The new treaty, confirmed by the exchange of wampum-belts and by a peculiar interlocking of the right arms, which has ever since been the special sign of amity between the Iroquois and the Ojibways, was understood to make them not merely allies but brothers. As the symbol on one of the belts which is still preserved indicates, they were to be relatives who are so nearly akin that they eat from the same dish. This treaty, made two centuries ago, has ever since been religiously main­ tained. [Hale 1883:91]

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY By the 20th century, the old agreements made between aboriginal nations and witnessed by the French and English were forgotten by the new governments in Canada and the United States. Instead, American and Canadian governments enacted laws and regulations which prevented aboriginal people from hunting and fishing freely as they had done in the past. Protests and petitions from aboriginal leaders fell on deaf ears as state and provincial authorities deliberately targeted aboriginal hunters and fishermen for transgressing against their regulations. For example, in 1915 A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 225 a petition to King George V was written by Seth Newhouse on behalf of the Six Nations protesting against the game laws of the provincial government of Ontario. Newhouse referred to the 1701 Beaver Hunting Treaty in which the British Crown pledged to protect their hunting rights. He called it their "Charter", and asked the King to send the 'Charter' to us, for we want to use it to protect ourselves against the Ontario Government, for they have already victimized us concerning our Wild Games... Please have Your Majesty's picture taken and have the 'Charter' unrolled in your hand and send Your Majesty's picture to us. [NAC, RG 10, v. 6743, file 420-8-3] The letter was intercepted by the Indian Affairs Department in Ottawa, and government officials refused to send it to the King. In addition to the government's inadvertence, other factors rendered their protests ineffec­ tive. Heavy fines, confiscation of hunting and fishing equipment and, in some cases, imprisonment, made it difficult for aboriginal people to exercise their treaty-protected rights. During the 20th century, many of the wampum belts, which were the sacred records of the agreements of the aboriginal nations, were hidden in private collections or put on display as curiosities in museums. One wampum belt, which was probably the "Dish Belt" held by Onondaga chief John Buck and referred to in the 19th-century records, was purchased by the Royal Ontario Museum (see Figure l).15 This wampum belt has been carefully preserved, but it remains effectively hidden from the domain of legal and political affairs between aboriginal nations and Canada and the United States. As a result, the sacred records of agreements or treaties negotiated between the nations have been forgotten and replaced by pages of regulations and laws written exclusively by the non-aboriginal govern­ ments in North America.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Chief Steve Stock of the Wahta Mohawk for his advice and helpful comments during the research and writing of this paper. Thanks are also due to Brant Bardy, Doug Maracle and Tom Northardt of the Mohawk of the Bay of Quinte, Dean Jacobs of Walpole Island First Nation, and Peter Owl ot Sagamok Anishnawbek. Peggy J. Blair helped me to understand the significance of the 1701 Treaties in the context of the current legal framework rn Canada. Paul

15 According to the Museum's records, the wampum belt WM "donated" by Evelyn HC. Johnson from Brantford on 30 November 1922 (Royal Ontano Museum 76 ETH 221, HD 12713 A (937.39.3.a)). 226 VICTOR P. LYTWYN

Figure 1. The Dish Belt. Photograph courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum.

Williams provided me with additional references to wampum belts depicting the dish with one spoon. Trudy Nicks, Curator of Ethnology at the Royal Ontario Museum, kindly allowed me to see the Dish Belt. I would also like to thank Laurie Leclair for her expert assistance in translating the French documents.

REFERENCES Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. : University of Toronto Press. Brandao, Jose Antonio. 1994. "Your fyre shall bum no more": Iroquois policy towards New France and her Native allies. Ph.D. thesis, York University (Toronto). BrandSo, Jose Antonio, and William Starna. 1996. The treaties of 1701: a triumph of Iroquois diplomacy. Ethnohistory 43:209-244. Boyle, David. 1928. What is wampum? Explained by Chief John Buck, Firekeeper, July 20, 1887. Ontario Archaeological Report 36:48-50. Champlain, Samuel de. 1933. The works of Samuel de Champlain, v. 5: 1620-1629, ed. by H. P. Biggar. Toronto: Champlain Society. Charlevoix, Pierre F. X. de. 1866-72 [1744]. History and general description of New France, ed. by John Gilmary Shea. 6 v. New York: John Gilmary Shea. Colden, Cadwallader. 1866 [1727]. The history of the Five Indian Nations depending on the province of New York. New York: William Bradford. Dickason, Olive Patricia. 1992. Canada's First Nations: a history of founding peoples from earliest times. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Gibson, John Arthur. 1992. Concerning the League: the Iroquois League tradition as dictated in Onondaga by , ed. by Hanni Woodbury, Reg Henry and A DISH WITH ONE SPOON 227

Henry Webster. Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 9. Hale, Horatio E., ed. 1883. The Iroquois Book of Rites. Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. (Reprinted in The Iroquois Book of Rites and Hale on the Iroquois (Oshweken, Ont.: Iroqrafts Ltd., 1989), 60-296.) Havard, Gilles. 1992. La grand paix de Montreal de 1701: les votes de la diplomatic franco-amereindienne. Montreal: Recherches Amerindiennes au Quebec. Jesuit Relations (JR.). 1896-1901. The Jesuit Relations and allied documents, ed. by Reuben G. Thwaites. 73 v. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. Johnson, William. 1921-65. The papers of Sir William Johnson, ed. by James Sullivan et al. 15 v. Albany: University of the State of New York. Jones, Peter. 1861. History of the Ojebway Indians, with especial reference to their conversion to Christianity. London: A. W.. Bennett. Landy, David. 1978. Tuscarora among the Iroquois. Handbook of North American Indians, v. 15: Northeast, ed. by Bruce G. Trigger (Washington: Smithsonian Institution), 518-524. La Potherie, C. C. Le Roy de Bacqueville de. 1722. Histoire de I 'Amerique septentrionale. 4 v. Paris: J.-L. Nion & F. Didot. Le Clercq, Chrestien. 1691. Premier etablissement de la foy dans la Nouvelle-France. 2 v. Paris: Amable Auroy. Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections. 1892. Lansing, Mich.: Robert Smith & Co. National Archives of Canada (NAC). RG 10. Records of the Department of Indian Affairs. . MG 19. Claus family papers. Nicolas, Louis. 1974 [c. 1701]. Les raretes des Indes: "Codex Canadiensis", ed. by Baron Marc de Villiers. Montreal: Editions du Bouton d'Or. New York Colonial Documents (NYCD). 1853-87. Documents relative to the colonial history of the State of New York, ed. by E. B. O'Callaghan. 15 v. Albany: Weed, Parsons. Norton, John. 1970. The journal of Major John Norton, 1816, ed. by Carl F. Klinck and James J. Talman. Toronto: Champlain Society. Pentland, David H. 1996. An Ottawa letter to the Algonquin chiefs at Oka. Reading beyond words: contexts for Native history, ed. by Jennifer S. H. Brown and Elizabeth Vibert (Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press), 261-279. Richter, Daniel K. 1983. War and culture: the Iroquois experience. William and Mary Quarterly 40:528-559. Sioui, Georges E. 1992. For an Amerindian autohistory: an essay on the foundations of a social ethic, transl. by Sheila Fischman. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Simcoe, John Graves. 1923-31. The correspondence ofLieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe, ed. by E. A. Cruikshank. 5 v. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Trelease, Allan W. 1962. The Iroquois and the western fur trade: a problem in interpreta­ tion. Mississippi Valley Historical Review 49( 1 ):32-51. Trigger, Bruce G. 1976. The children ofAataentsic: a history of the Huron people to 1660. Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. (Reprinted with revisions, 1987.) Warren, William W. 1984 [1885]. History of the Ojibway people. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society. Wesley, James S. 1993. Stories from the James Bay coast, ed. by Norman Wesley and Andy Faries. Cobalt, Ont.: Highway Book Shop. Wraxall, Peter. \9\ 5. An abridgement ofthe Indian affairs contained in fourfolio volumes, transacted in the colony of New York, from the year 1678 to the year 1751, ed. by Charles Mcllwain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.