Colonial French Insights into Early 18th-Century Algonquians of Central

TOBY MORANTZ McGill University

Some 284 years ago, on October 27, 1706, a quasi-judicial hearing, presided over by the Intendant Jacques Raudot, took place in , which saw a merchant/trader, Francois Hazeur, plead his case for compensation from the directors of the Compagnie de Colonie for losses he incurred in his trade, or at least to excuse him from paying the last three years rent.1 It was a case as unspectacular as it sounds but judicial procedures then, are similar to those now, and this case generated some 131 folios of testimony, much of it repetitious. Unspectacular as legal precedent, perhaps, but in the domain of ethnohistory, it provides us with some unusual insights into the history and functioning of several early 17th-century Algonquian societies in the -Lac St. Jean area. Social historians thrive on notarial records because they often contain all sorts of extraneous information on which social history is constructed. This series of documents is the closest one comes in the French colonial records for a region that was not settled by Europeans and therefore lacks the notarial accounts so valuable for the St. Lawrence River settlement. Thus, an incident related to a territorial dispute in 1705 and elaborated on in the various written petitions, permit us to ask several questions about group distinctiveness and contact, land use and Indian responses to fur trade competition. This limited body of early historical data also challenges previously written portrayals of eastern subarctic Algonquian society.

'I wish to thank Jose Mailhot and Sylvie Vincent for their helpful comments and directing me to further information on people and events in the Tadoussac region. My imperfect understanding of the history of this region is, of course, totally my responsibility, not theirs. The research of the French colonial records has been under the auspices of SSHRCC, through their Research Fellow program, for which I am most grateful.

213 214 TOBY MORANTZ

Francois Hazeur, son of a merchant of the same name and seigneur of la Malbaie, leased the rights (with Denis Riverin, a sort of silent partner) to the trade at Tadoussac for eight years at an annual sum of 12,000 livres, from the Compagnie de Colonie in 1701, at a time when the trade was profitable. However, in 1702, England and France were at war again in the War of the Spanish Succession, ending formally with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The outbreak of war, according to Hazeur, significantly increased the price of goods he purchased from Europe because of the drastic rise in the cost of shipping and insurance (AC C11A, vol. 25, 1706, f. 109v). He noted, in one of his documents, that the price had almost doubled: before the war he traded a blanket for 3 beaver, and now he had to trade for 5 beaver (59v). As a result, his suppliers, the Indians who are variously called Algonquin and Montagnais, deserted him, travelling, "fleeing" as he said, to the English at the "Baye du Nord" (James Bay) or to Trois Rivieres, a French post, much easier to supply and where prices were lower. Interestingly, Hazeur does not mention that at this time Europe was suffering from a glut of beaver and prices paid by the Company had dropped (Eccles 1983:135). This lease to the trade at Tadoussac also covered the post at Chicoutimi and two other dependent posts, Papinachois and Riviere Moisie (AC C11A, v. 25, 1706, fo. 88v). Hazeur had another complaint that he repeatedly advanced in order to convince the Intendant of the validity of his case. He claimed that in the winter of 1705, the Montagnais, (variously also called Algonquin), whose hunting lands were in the vicinity of Lac St. Jean, were the victims of pillag­ ing by a group of Abenakis coming from the Jesuit missions at St. Francois and Becancour, south of the St. Lawrence River. In only one of the docu­ ments is it mentioned that Hurons as well as Abenakis were bothering their Indian hunters (75d). As a result, his Montagnais trappers suffered terribly from both food and fur losses, so much so that they could not begin to repay their debts for two winters (AC C11A, vol. 25, f. 29v). A number of these hunters came into the post at Chicoutimi and were helped by the trader in charge, Robert Drouard. Remarkably, Hazeur, organized a hearing at Quebec on August 3, 1706, at which time three Montagnais of Lac St. Jean and one Abenaki of St. Fran­ cois, were interrogated,2 using interpreters, by Lotbiniere and Duplessis, with the questions originally submitted by Hazeur. This deposition was formally submitted to the Intendant. The three Montagnais were Guillaume

2This is not the first recorded case of natives being before a tribunal. In 1664, an Indian, Robert Hache, was tried for rape of a French woman before a council of chiefs of 5 different nations - Algonquins, Tadoussac, Nipissings, Abenakis and Iroquets. They handed down the sentence death by strangulation, a sentence that was said, by the French, to conform to the laws and ordinance of France (Nouvelle France 1664:174). COLONIAL FRENCH INSIGHTS 215

Chicheschef (sometimes shortened to Chiche), chief of Lac St. Jean, Joseph Marachicatik, listed as second chief (and in 1730 as chief at Chicoutimi in Laure's relation) and Francois Oucachy. The interpreter was Charles Cadieu du Courville. The interrogation covered 16 questions. In their responses, the Montagnais claimed that the Abenakis, at least six of them, came onto their hunting lands, within the Lac St. Jean area and even into their cabins as well as those of three others. Marachicatik testified that he gave six moose hides to chief Tekouerimat and his son. A later document gives a more violent account, claiming that Tekouerimat entered into the cabin with an axe in one hand and a knife in the other (84v).In addition, the Montagnais testified that the Abenakis killed all the moose and all the beaver, small and large. They even hunted their porcupine right into the spring, a devastation that was said, in another document (of 21 May, 1705), to extend from a half day's journey from Lac St. Jean to Lake Necouba (85). This loss of food and their fear forced the Lac St. Jean people to go to the French post at Chicoutimi. They were scarcely able to find animals, even the following winter, and were, consequently, unable to pay their debts. They were also asked if they considered it wrong that the Abenakis had come onto their land, by surprise, rendering them poor and miserable, to which, they replied, "yes". Furthermore, they were asked if there was a rule among the Indians that they needed permission to hunt on another's lands. Their response was that it was the rule among them that each one hunts on his [own] land (35). They also replied to a further question that they have not seen other nations hunting on their lands other than the Papinachois who are of the same lands, and Father Laure mentions in 1730 they have the same language as the Indians of Chicoutimi (Thwaites 1896:68:101).3 Seemingly, a consequence of their loss of hunting lands, as noted in another document (of 20 May, 1705), was the Indians requesting the trader at Chicoutimi to be allowed to go to Mirouabech, chief of the Mistassini, to seek permission to hunt on a part of the Mistassini lands (AC C11A:25:85). A slightly different rendition (important for ethnohistorians to note), has the Chicoutimi Indians going to ask permission of the chief at Mistassini without their making any request of the trader that he so allow them (86v). The questioning of the Abenaki was directed to one man, again through an interpreter, Sr. Lefeuve. The witness was Louis, the 33 year old son of Tekouerimat. It was the latter who had been accused of leading the raid, as he was considered the Abenaki chief from the mission at St. Francois, today known as St. Francis or Odanak. In a another series of unanswered

3 Jose Mailhot has commented that relations between these two groups of Mon­ tagnais were still very close in the mid-1800s, as she has found in the Oblate records. 216 TOBY MORANTZ questions directed to the trader Godefroy, at St. Paul, there is the sugges­ tion that this Abenaki chief acquired both the lands and the name from a now deceased Algonquin chief. The question asks: "if the lands of Lac St. Jean were given by the defunct Tekouerimat, chief of the Algonquins of Tadoussac to the chief of the Abenakis who carries his name today". We do know that in the earlier colonial records there is a Noel Tekouerimat, con­ sidered chief of the Algonquins at Quebec and Tadoussac in the 1660s, and succeeded by his sons Theodore and Charles (Larouche 1972: frontispiece). Unfortunately there is no reply to this question. A later document in the series, dated 21 May, 1705 at Chicoutimi, claims that this Abenaki's real name was Outakamachiouenon (AC CllA:25:84v). Louis testified that in­ deed he had been with his father but they had not been on land belonging to Lac St. Jean but rather to the trade of Trois Rivieres which belonged to his father. He denied pillaging the cabin of Joseph Marachicatik. This is his version of events. He claimed that he and his father were hunting on lands of Trois Rivieres when they came upon the trail of other Indians hunt­ ing. Being short of provisions, they followed this trail to find these Indians' cabins and thus came upon that of Joseph Marachikatik. They complained to him that the Montagnais were hunting on their lands and they could not find anything so Joseph gave them six moose hides to make a canoe so they could return and the next day Joseph indicated to the Abenaki where they could find the Montagnais' caches. Louis also denied that his father had told the Montagnais that the land of Lac Saint Jean belonged to them. When asked how far the cabin was from Trois Rivieres, he replied about as far as from Quebec to Batiscan, that is about 22 leagues (a league being 4 kilometres). He was also asked if they ordinarily hunt there and he said they hunted there when they wanted and have never been prevented from doing so. Furthermore, at present there were a large number of Abenakis which obliged them to seek their living where they could. (The Abenakis began seeking refuge in the late 1600s at such Jesuit missions as St. Fran­ cis, located on a tributary of the St. Lawrence River, upriver from Trois Rivieres, from the many wars ravaging their lands. Their numbers swelled at St. Francis and elsewhere, in the early 1700s; cf. Day 1978:151.) In his testimony, Louis insisted that the land under question belonged to his grandfather who had given it to his father and that the said Montagnais had killed all the animals in that place. Louis, further acknowleged that they were about 100 when they hunt on that territory and that, in general, they make a good hunt. The number given in one of the other testimonies was of 70 Abenaki having spread out over the land (AC C11A:25:86). The COLONIAL FRENCH INSIGHTS 217 trade resulting was taken to Trois Rivieres. This response marked the end of the testimony (33-36v). Actually, there is also a list of questions addressed to Pierre Poulin, the trader in charge at Trois Rivieres which asks him about Abenaki hunting and where they trade. Unfortunately, Poulin's reply has not been preserved but the questions themselves are somewhat revealing. They were questions prepared by Hazeur and presented to the Intendant on the 11th of October, 1706. Hazeur questions whether or not the Abenaki canoes were made of moose hides, whether or not moose could scarcely be seen 15 leagues from Trois Rivieres, whether or not the Abenakis would have had to be a long way off or to have pillaged the Montagnais or Algonquins in order to bring back so many furs, whether the French counselled them to hunt within the limits of the Lac St. Jean trade, whether some Indians from Trois Rivieres go inland with casks of "eau de vie" to trade with the nations they meet, whether it was not true that Tekouerimat, chief of the Abenakis, had told him that he had paid a tribute to the Algonquins (sic) of Lac St. Jean and if, in fact, it was true that one Indian nation could hunt on the lands of another without their permission or provide them with considerable presents to do so (44-44v). In the tribunal's decision they addressed the issue of the trespass and violence that was imputed to the Abenakis. They concluded that Abenakis were merely hunting in the depths of the forest where they met the Indians of Chicoutimi and that each group did its best to hunt the animals. They also noted that his loss of trade was attributable to the Indians being "trop raffines", very refined and experienced, in the ways of the trade (101). Ac­ cordingly, they saw no reason why the Company had to compensate Hazeur for his losses caused by the hunters — nor for any of the other reasons (63). As noted, much of the information presented above was repeated in all the depositions but there is also introduced some new relevant information. Thus, we learn that it is alleged that one of the reasons the Indians, trading at Tadoussac or Chicoutimi, had abandoned the French in favour of the English was the run-down condition of the posts (59) and, in fact, Hazeur did engage men especially to reconstruct the posts (73). Within this same perspective, on what measures the French took to keep or win the Indians to their side, is the reference to the trader at Cap Tourmente who cast off or presumably badly treated the hunters there, depriving them of their necessities with the result that more than 50 died (59). The comment that follows in a resume prepared by Hazeur, dated 10 April, 1706, reads to the effect that in order to win over these wandering Indians to their posts, they have to give them considerable presents (59v). A similar requirement of the trade is conveyed in the account of the chief of the Nicouba Indians with 12 canoes loaded with furs having sent in two men to see Drouard, the trader 218 TOBY MORANTZ at Chicoutimi. They argued for a good price but despite his having so promised, they took their trade to Trois Rivieres, depriving the Chicoutimi trade of 10,000 livres. At one point, Hazeur allowed that all these measures had worked and that in the last two years he had attracted far-off Indians who ordinarily traded at the Baye du Nord or fort de Rupert (73). On the other hand, he also suggested that the Company take measures to prevent the Indians from transporting their beautiful and good beaver pelts to the English (74). In discussing this threat, Hazeur also informs us that the trade at Ta­ doussac attracted in the summer of 1705, 109 men, all heads of families, their wives and their children (74d). It is not clear if the 109 is men only or all the population. It could be either but it should be noted that Cas- tonguay (1987:21) gives a population figure of 243 heads of families attached to nine posts in 1733. Hazeur also tried to sway the tribunal in his favour by, it seems to me, elevating the seriousness of the alleged Abenaki trespass on Montagnais land. He claimed, in one of his depositions, that if war broke out between the Algonquins and Abenakis, then all the posts would be abandoned and the Indians would flee towards the English in the Baye du Nord. This, he said, the Algonquins threatened at a meeting at Chicoutimi "where the nations were assembled" the previous year (60v). As for daily living, Hazeur's lengthy testimonies reveal that conditions were not uniform in that region. At one point he mentions that although the Indians of Lac St. Jean suffered from hunger, attributed to poor snow conditions for hunting moose (having seen 100 and killed none) and conse­ quently were dependent on the post for foodstuffs such as peas and corn, those at Chicoutimi did well. Evidently, someone thought of turning the Montagnais into farmers for it is noted that they do not want to garden for it will impede their hunting (83-83v). What does this testimony from a quasi-judicial process of 1706 tell us? First, we must be cautious about the claims of Hazeur; it is mainly his testimony we are seeing, the Indian questioning being structured to suit his aims. As well, this account records incidents over a mere five-year period, much too brief on which to make any historic claims. It must be remembered that this was an area that hosted the firstpermanen t fur trade post in New France in 1599 (Biggar 1922:98ff) and over the next century its inhabitants endured upheavals of far greater consequence than trespass. Perhaps the most devastating were the wars the Iroquois provoked by raiding in their territories, second party accounts of which are given by several of the Jesuits. Father Druillettes, the author of the Jesuit Re­ lation of 1659-60, noted that two to three years previously, the Iroquois overthrew three nations — Kepatawangachik, Outabitibek (identifiable as COLONIAL FRENCH INSIGHTS 219

Abitibi) and Ouakwiechiwek — in a region to the west of Lac St. Jean. They were compelled to seek a "refuge with more distant nations" (Thwaites 1896:45:233). However, perhaps the most devastating events were several epidemics, recorded first for the "Nations of the North" by Le Jeune in 1635 (Thwaites 1896:11:199). A more specific account is of an epidemic that occurred in 1661 and recorded at Tadoussac as "having swept away the greater number of those whom it attacked" (Thwaites 1896:46:255); or again, in 1685, when an epidemic killed off 35 sailors coming from France and was said to have ruined the fur trade at Tadoussac with the deaths and/or flighto f the Indians. Those who survived were said to be remaining in the interior due to fear of the illness and the Iroquois (AC C11A, v. 7, fos. 276, 323). There are several suggestions by the Jesuits that as a result of either the Iroquois raids or the epidemics, groups moved and sought refuge elsewhere, the North Sea (James Bay) was said to have become a refuge for several nations (Thwaites 1896:45:219). This central portion of the Quebec-Labrador peninsula was also a kind of crossroads, Tadoussac presumably being the attraction from the very ear­ liest days of the trade. Thus, aside from the many Indians of the region noted above, there were Nipissings (217) Attikameks and Obedjiwan (AC C11A v. 19, fo. 203), Abitibi and Micmac Indians (Thwaites 1896:56:76). As early as 1603, when Champlain firstvisite d Tadoussac, he barged in on a three-nation feast, celebrating a recent victory over the Iroquois at the Richelieu River, south of . There were 80 celebrants but an en­ campment of 1000 consisting of Etchemin (probably Malecite), Montagnais and Algonquins (Biggar 1922:98). It is evident, from both the 1706 records and the earlier Jesuit accounts, that the Tadoussac-Lac St. Jean area was not a quiet backwater region as is the impression given in the Hudson's Bay Company records and conse­ quently the impression I have given in past writings for the adjacent James Bay region. Groups seems to have moved in and perhaps amalgamated with others, given that hunting land was not necessarily theirs for the tak­ ing. Aside from the Abenakis, who, although Algonquians, were quite far removed geographically and linguistically, the free movement of others, in­ cluding Algonquins, originally from the Ottawa Valley, seems to have been acceptable. Note, that the Papinachois were hunting in this area and yet their home territory, according to Father Laure, was to the east, on the Betsiamites River (Thwaites 1896:68:101). Assessments such as this invite comments on the impact of the fur trade on the Indians, drawing in the issues of cultural continuity, dependency and nationhood. The latter is a topic of current interest in Quebec and Canada, as the Mohawks press their claim for such recognition within the context of Quebec's similar claim. Further analyses of regional histories will aid in 220 TOBY MORANTZ better formulating and addressing these problems in the literature, initiated by Castonguay (1987), for this area. One of the issues directly confronted in the Hazeur petition was that of rights to hunting territories. The evidence points to a group right to a recognized hunting area. The literature on family or individual hunting territories is extensive, and unnecessary to recapitulate. One would want to know if these beaver hunters had such a territorial system in the early 18th century. All one has as evidence is the comment that "chaqun chasse sur sa terre" (AC C11A, vol. 25, f. 35), as well as the justification by the Abenaki that the land had been given by his grandfather to his father. Using a greater time depth, Castonguay (1987:27) also could not find more explicit statements in the colonial records that would clarify this question for this early period, though he is inclined to believe there was a system of individual hunting territories. It is worth noting here that at Eastmain (James Bay), somewhat later, in 1745, a trader reported of a case of trespass by one hunter on another's lands (Morantz 1983:116). Similarly, in 1765, Father Coquart wrote, in very clear terms, to Governor Murray of individual hunting territories in the Tadoussac region (Simard et al 1980:56). Relations among Algonquian groups is the one subject that dominates the Hazeur testimony. Although, as it was noted above, all groups in the region but the Abenaki cooperated, one does have to ask if this incident of trespass was as significant for the Montangais as it was for Hazeur, who could well have exaggerated it to serve his own ends. On the one hand, in the 1830s, Mistassini hunters complained about Abenakis encroaching on their lands; the trader referred to them as "interlopers" and, in fact, two were shot by Weymontachie hunters in 1834 (HBCA B. 186/b/24:21d, Mar. 2, 1834). On the other hand, some Abenakis were said to have hunted with the Mistassini owner of the hunting territory (HBCA B. 133/a/18, Apr. 8, 1835). Even if Hazeur had been honest in his portrayal of the havoc caused by the Abenakis, we also must consider the complaints by the Indians in light of Mary Black-Rogers' work on analyzing the multiple meanings of "starving". Is it possible these complaints by the Chicoutimi hunters are to be seen within her category of "manipulative usage", as a means of exacting pity and perhaps better trade conditions (Black-Rogers 1987:635-641)? However, the empirical evidence of their need to rely on the post for provisions suggests that perhaps Hazeur was somewhat reliable in his testimony. Thus it seems as though the Abenaki were unwelcome guests but other Algonquians in the region were tolerated and invited as long as they recognized the other group's proprietary rights by permission and presents. The coalescing, in modern times, of a number of regionally contiguous bands under a central leadership, as the , Attikamek, Algonquins, and Montagnais, each have done, is more understandable given the apparent acceptance in the 16th COLONIAL FRENCH INSIGHTS 221

and 17th centuries of the free movement and incorporation of culturally and linguistically related groups. The presence of the Algonquins is intriguing because their homeland was in the Ottawa Valley, as Champlain tells us in 1603 (Biggar 1922:153) and yet they sometimes seem to be confused with the Montagnais trading at Tadoussac. To complicate matters, to those whom Champlain refers to as Algonquins some of the Jesuits give group names such as the Kichesipirini and "Nations de l'Isle" referring to Allumette Island in the Ottawa River (Thwaites 1896:5:239, f.n. 57). Then, in 1647, the Mohawks are said to have dispersed the Ottawa River Algonquins after a number of years of warring (Hessel 1987:56). Were they one of the Algonquin Nations who moved into the Tadoussac region in 1660, as discussed by Druillettes (Thwaites 1896:45:219)? Or were they there earlier, since Le Jeune refers to them in 1632 at Quebec, saying they "differ from the Montagnaits, only as Proven­ cals from the Normans" (Thwaites 1896:5:115). There were also Algonquins resident around Trois Rivieres, mentioned often by the Jesuits and finally Druillettes in his Relation of 1660 discusses those whom he calls the "Algon­ quin Nations", spread over 600 leagues (i.e., 2400 km.), clearly stretching from Lake Superior to Tadoussac (45:219). It is not clear if all these Algonquins were of the same socio-cultural, lin­ guistic grouping. The Relation of 1643 indicates there were "two sorts, some are of the Island and from various places, extending toward the Hurons. The others are neighbours of the Montagnais, and as if mingled with them" (23:305). The writer goes on to say that those of the Islands are nearly all ruined and reduced to nothing, also more resisting of conversion than those living closer to Quebec. Day and Trigger (1978:792-797) are vague about how these various divisions of Algonquins interacted or were related. Since the known documentary sources on the Algonquin remain the same as when Day and Trigger did their research, it is not likely that we will be able to refine our knowledge of the 16th and 17th century Algonquins. Perhaps, if the Canadian federal government ever grants the present-day Algonquins leave to pursue their land claims, more intensive research will lead to a better understanding of their history. As it stands, the Algonquins' prelim­ inary proposal, on which they were denied permission to continue, claims their territory as stretching from west of the Ottawa Valley to east of Trois Rivieres and northwards in the Abitibi-Lac St. Jean belt, a claim that is consistent with references to them in the colonial records. Perhaps the most fruitful enquiry one can make from the Hazeur records is the nature of French-Indian relations in this more northern region. The elaborate narration that Trigger (1976) has been able to unravel for Huron- French relations is unattainable for the Algonquians. Nevertheless, it is clear that the French pursued one of their goals, namely the Christianizing of the 222 TOBY MORANTZ

Indians at Tadoussac. As early as 1615, a priest, Jean Dolbeau, reached as far as the Sept lies region to "plant the sign of salvation" (Leclercq 1881:93-94) and in 1618, Father le Caron sojourned at Tadoussac for a year to instruct the Montagnais in the faith. Incidentally, he complained that since both the store-keeper and powder-magazine keeper at Tadoussac were Huguenots, he could not get them to build a seminary there as would a Catholic (135). The three Montagnais chiefs who are in Hazeur's story all have Christian names, indicating that at least some part of the leadership in 1706 was Catholic. One might expect that those Montagnais near Tadoussac were subject to more contact with the French than the interior Montagnais but the number of European men at the post of Mistassini in 1706 is a sur­ prising 15 men (AC C11A, v. 19:214), although the other outposts had only 2 to 4 men. Intermarriage occurred, as Sieur Pelletier, a Frenchman, was said to have married an Indian woman, the reference in the records being to his large family and small salary (213). Aside from further exploring the French/Indian relations, there is the whole question of interracial marriage that has not been delved into — to what extent did it occur, with what im­ portance in French or Indian society? To answer these questions, we would have to know to which society the Pelletier chidren attached themselves. The French fur trade seems to have operated similarly to the English trade in James Bay, as I have elsewhere outlined, keeping in mind that it is likely that the English, with the help of Radisson and Groseillier, bor­ rowed the system from the French. Thus, there was a system of gift-giving designed to satisfy the aboriginal ceremonial nature of the trade but at the same time create obligations, tying the Montagnais to their trade. Further­ more, the trading in tobacco and liquor, as well as the giving of credit, all were attempts at increasing the demands and turning the Montagnais into consumers. The Montagnais, for their part, were not without the means to exercise their form of control over the French traders. Their best weapon was the competition, that is, the English on James Bay and the French post at Trois Rivieres. Presents and better prices, as well, as good treatment is what the Montagnais were able to exact from both the French and the English, not to mention an economic and political independence that lasted, at least until the end of competition in the mid-1800s. The sources for the history of the northern Algonquians over which France claimed control are either the sometimes very rich Jesuit Relations or the official government correspondence. The latter source seldom gives details about Indian life. Thus, a series of documents, such as the Hazeur case, provide a rare glimpse into several aspects of Indian life. Much cannot be learned, such as the make-up of the social organization but for this we can consult the Jesuit Relations. Its importance lies in its presentation of COLONIAL FRENCH INSIGHTS 223 the historic processes impinging on the lives of the Montagnais and Algon­ quins and their responses to them, which are rarely found in the Relations. The Hazeur documents furnish us, in part, with another modest regional study but so necessary to answering, eventually, the larger questions float­ ing around in the literature — those of cultural continuity, dependency and the essence of nationhood. Hazeur may have lost 36,000 or more livres in 1706 but these losses are ethnohistory's incalculable gains . . .

REFERENCES AC n.d. Archives des Colonies, on deposit at the National Archives of Canada (MGl). (Transcripts of documents from the Archives Nationales, Paris.) C11A Series. General Correspondence sent to France. Castonguay, Daniel 1987 Les Montagnais et l'exploitation de la traite de Tadoussac dans la premiere moitie du 18eme siecle. M.A. thesis, Universite Laval. Biggar, H.P., ed. 1922 The Works of . Vol. 1. Toronto: Champlain Society. Black-Rogers, Mary 1987 'Starving' and Survival in the Subarctic Fur Trade: A Case for Con­ textual Semantics. Pp. 618-649 in Le Castor Fait Tout. Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1985. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, Louise Dechene, eds. Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society. Day, Gordon M. 1978 Western Abenaki. Pp. 148-159 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Day, Gordon M., and Bruce G. Trigger 1978 Algonquin. Pp. 792-797 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15: Northeast. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Eccles, W.J. 1983 The Canadian Frontier, 1534-1760. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hessel, Peter 1987 The Algonkin Tribe. The Algonkins of the Ottawa Valley: An His­ torical Outline. Arnprior: Kichesippi. Hudson's Bay Company Archives (HBCA) Post Records B. 133/a/ Mistassini Post Journals B. 186/b Rupert House Correspondence Books 224 TOBY MORANTZ

Larouche, Leonidas 1972 Le second registre de Tadoussac 1668-1700. Montreal: Presses de PUniversite du Quebec. Leclercq, Christian 1881 First Establishment of the Faith in New France. John G. Shea, trans. New York: John G. Shea. Morantz, Toby 1983 An Ethnohistoric Study of Eastern James Bay Cree Social Organiza­ tion, 1700-1850. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Cana­ dian Ethnology Service Paper 88. Ottawa. Nouvelle France 1664 Jugements et deliberations du Conseil Souverain de la Nouvelle France, vol. 1. Simard, Jean Jacques, Andre Veilleux, and Daniel Castonguay 1980 Du royaume du Saguenay a la Pointe-Bleue. Monographic sur la population autochtone du Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean. University Laval. Departement de Sociologie. Typescript. Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. 1896- The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 vols. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. [1896-1901.] Trigger, Bruce G. 1976 The Children of the Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.