57

"NOT ANNUALL VISITORS" THE DRAWING IN TO TRADE OF NORTHERN ALGONQUIAN CARIBOU HUNTERS Toby Morantz McGill University

Introduction This paper investigates the reasons that certain northern Algonquian caribou hunters were indifferent participants in the early fur trade and why this indifference seems to have diminished by the middle of the 19th century. Their marginal relationship to the fur trade stands in contrast to other northern Algonquians whose greater willingness to supply furs enabled the Hudson's Bay Company to maintain, from the late 1600s onward, a flourishingfu r trade in their coastal region. From an eth­ nocentric point of view it also conflicts dramatically with the values of our own consumer-oriented society and with its notion of conspicu­ ous consumption, as outlined by Thorstein Veblen, and is therefore of comparative interest to us. The geographical area under examination includes the northern part of James Bay and the southeastern portions of Hudson Bay, involving the coastal posts of Fort George, Great Whale River, Little Whale River, and Richmond Fort. Kaniapiskau and Nichikun were two inland posts whose records were also studied. They are located approximately in the centre of the Quebec-Labrador peninsula. The present-day descendants of the people inhabiting this vast re­ gion are the Cree of James Bay. They were not so named in historic times, nor was there a sense of a cohesive grouping. The journals make reference either to northward or far northward peoples, or to a Whale River tribe, or sometimes to Naskapi. For the purposes of this study, I focus on all the northward peoples who traded at the above-mentioned posts and who had access to the vast barren ground caribou herds of the coastal slopes of Hudson Bay. Some Indians coming to Great Whale River are said to have travelled 300 miles (CMS, Reel A-98, Vincent, Summer, 1867). By their geographical location those trading at the coastal posts are distinguishable, in the later period, from the Naskapi of the interior of Ungava who, in the mid-1800s, took their trade to Fort Chimo and its outposts. They are also distinguishable from the people who lived to the south in the James Bay region, and whose sub- 58 Toby Morantz sistence base was a more general one, living as they did on woodland caribou, beaver, waterfowl, fish and a variety of other small mammals. My past work has focused on these southern peoples. The records consulted for this analysis consist principally of the Hud­ son' s Bay Company (henceforth HBC) records for the aforementioned posts. In addition, the post records of Eastmain were also studied. At times it was the most northerly functioning post. Although the East- main records begin in 1737, the best information for this more northern region dates back to the early 19th century. These records, along with those of the missionaries, have been consulted only to 1870. Published materials for the area date from the last decade or so of the 19th cen­ tury. The firstEuropea n traders to establish themselves on the east coast of James Bay were the HBC, beginning in 1668. The trade did not become firmlyestablishe d there until the early 1700s due to skirmishes with the French who, for a while, operated posts on James Bay. Interest in the more northerly Hudson Bay coast did not materialize until the 1740s when a post was established for ten years at Richmond Gulf and its outpost at Little Whale River. Fort George was established in 1803 and for many years alternated with posts at one of the Whale Rivers until finally in the last half of the 1890s there were in operation posts at Fort George, Great Whale River, and Little Whale River. Kaniapiskau was an inland post only from 1834 to 1844, while Nichikun, open from 1815 to 1822, was again reopened in 1834 and remained so for the remainder of the period under study. The barren ground caribou, hunted by the Hudson Bay Indians, alternate habitats according to the season. Summers are spent on the tundra, where the strong breezes keep down the number of fliesan d they are out of reach of the wolves. In autumn they migrate inland and southward in order to pass the winter in the shelter of the forest tundra transition zone, made up of expanses of barren ground broken by stands of spruce forest. The northern edge of the treeline stretches northeastward from slightly north of Richmond Gulf, i.e., from the 56th latitude up to about the 59th latitude, ending at Leaf Bay in Ungava Bay. In the spring the return migration extends northward to the tundra. As Low (1896) and Calef (1981) report, the principal hunt was con­ ducted during the fall migration when the caribou, particularly the "Not Annuall Visitors" 59

males, were fat, having not yet mated with the females. Large num­ bers of hunters congregated at water crossing points where the cari­ bou, in herds of thousands, were ambushed. Both Low (1896:319) and Turner (1894:112) reported that this type of hunting in the late 19th century was carried out using lances or spears. The season for cross­ ing the waterways lasted only from ten to fifteen days. Hundreds of animals might be taken in good years. The meat was smoked for win­ ter use. The spring migration involved fewer animals which were not so easily taken. Weather conditions were an important factor. Deep snow enabled the hunters to drive the caribou into snowbanks. Snaring methods were also used. Where snow conditions were not favourable, caribou were chased and shot. In his article on caribou as a human resource, Burch (1972:344) has pointed out that this animal has a capacity for sustained movement, an adult being able to move as far as 65 km a day. As a result the hunting techniques of those people dependent on the caribou herds were based on the fact that they were unable to follow the herd. Instead, hunting strategies as outlined above were employed. Adding to the difficulty of hunting the caribou is the fact that migration routes or times were not always predictable. In the records (A.12/8:61,1856), it is noted that the caribou are "uncertain in their migrations." Low further points out that some years the caribou did not return to the wooded areas from the tundra, with the result that those Indians depending on them in winter were left in a starved condition. As well, the herd sizes in winter are much reduced in size from those in autumn (Juniper 1979:94) The records of the 19th century report a number of instances of deaths caused by starvation. Throughout the period under study the caribou never permanently disappearead from this area, as they are reported to have done in the 1880s (Elton 1942:356; Batty 1893:135). For instance, in 1864 caribou were said to be numerous inland of Great Whale River (B.372/a/5:43, March 27) and on the coast at Cape Jones (B. 372/a/6:l). Nevertheless, there still were periodic years of scarcity when the caribou were not found or successfully hunted (B.372/b/l:29d, July 1), as in 1860. The caribou provided not only food but also skins that were used for clothing, snow shoes, and shelter, and antlers used for tools, etc. Grenfell (1913:259), writing in 1913, commented that the hides need scarcely any dressing and they make the "most satisfactory clothing to 60 Toby Morantz use in cold climates." He further added that the moccasins made of the hides are the warmest foot gear known, and that stags furnish skins that make "admirable, light, soft, flexiblewind-proo f over clothes." Moreover, the thongs made from the skins show a remarkable elastic strength. Grenfell had more such praiseworthy things to say about the use of other parts of this animal. Once the HBC established themselves in the region they quickly added caribou skins to their list of goods received in trade. The skins were used for leather at the various posts, for wrapping packs of furs and other commodities, and for trading to Indians to the south in James Bay. As mentioned, both spears and guns were used for the kill. However, Turner (1894:115) comments that the muzzle-loading guns he saw in use at the end of the 19th century were of the cheapest kind. In addition he felt that the people he saw did not take the necessary care in loading their guns, with the result that they often backfired. Writing of this period as well, J.W. Anderson, a trader in James Bay in the early 1900s, comments that the muzzle-loading guns were "little better than a bow and arrow for the hunter had to get quite close to his quarry" (quoted in Elton 1942:365). It was frequently mentioned in the records that on seeing small herds of caribou the post hunters would shoot at them, scaring them off (B.372/a/5:43, March 27,1863) or at other times they could not get close enough even to shoot (B.147/a/l:10d, December 6, 1834). There are also reports to the effect that deer were numerous, as at Cape Jones in 1864 (B.372/a/6:10d, March 27) but few had been killed. Whatever the effectiveness of the old musket, it was obviously a most serviceable item, even though not the only hunting tool available. Whenever necessary items were listed, ammunition was always one of them. Traders noted in their journals that ammunition was necessary for winter hunting (B.372/a/5:69d, December 12, 1863). The introduc­ tion of the fur trade and this new technology seemingly involved all the northern caribou hunters within this European trading system. That is not under question here; the degree of their involvement is. As noted, when the caribou failed, life was precarious. Like the HBC men at the posts, the hunters turned in winter to the hunting of what they called "partridges," presumably willow and rock ptarmigan and spruce grouse. The ptarmigan undergo rather marked population "Not Annuall Visitors" 61

fluctuations, according to present day biologists (Weinstein 1976:68- 69) and a reference to the records shows this to have been so in the past. Fish in these more northern regions was less of a staple than in James Bay, particularly in winter when the lakes were frozen with sometimes as much as six feet of ice. One trader commented that it was impossible to fish between November and March. At Nichikun the fish supply was said to be less productive than in the lower part of the country (B.186/e/23:5, 1840). Hare, a cyclical animal, is mentioned but does not seem to have figured prominently in the diet of the hunters, at least in the reports emanating from the coastal regions. It seems that caribou was their most reliable food source. It was also their pre­ ferred one. Therfore it is not surprising to findth e trader at Nichikun (B.147/a/l:30d, June 25, 1835) commenting that they depend entirely on "deer" for subsistence, although this is not entirely true. For some, perhaps most, of these northern hunters, the summer months were spent at the coast hunting the beluga whales. The Hud­ son's Bay Company turned this activity into a commercial venture, but Indian whaling predates their involvement. When the first HBC trader arrived at Little Whale River in 1749 (B.59/a/9:7, July 23), he found there an encampment of 157 people hunting and feasting on these white whales. When the whales failed, the people went inland in search of caribou as on June 24, 1754 (B.182/a/6:64). Once the HBC was in­ volved the Indian men were hired to hunt the belugas. As well, both men and women were engaged to flenseth e skins and render the blub­ ber into oil. For their labour the Indians were paid in trade goods. Although beaver are found to have been traded at Great Whale River and Little Whale River, the fur animals which made up the bulk of these northern posts' trade were primarily marten, then fox, with otter lagging behind. Fox were also traded by the Inuit who were drawn into the trade at these posts in the 1840s. The HBC coveted the marten skins trapped in the far northern forests because of the richness of the pelt (D.4/105:6, August 20, 1837), but it must be remembered that for the Indians the marten was neither a preferred nor a high-yielding food. "Not Annuall Visitors" When the HBC first established a post at the limits of the boreal forest in the mid-1700s, it was for many of the local people their first direct encounter with Europeans and the trade. Trade goods were 62 Toby Morantz

known to all the Indian populations due to the efforts of northern Indian middlemen (A.ll/-/57:38, July 20, 1756). It must have been with some amusement that the chief trader, John Potts recounted his conversation with a Great Whale River leader to his superiors in London, in a letter dated September 3, 1750. According to Potts, this leader told him that they could "expect no beaver, few martins, but wolves, foxes, otter, wolverines and deer skins more than we shall have occasion for." Potts adds that this leader was "imagining we have no other use for them than for our food and apparells." The tone of this letter suggests that the naivete of this Indian man probably served to amuse the Englishmen at Richmond Fort and elsewhere for some time. As it happens, it was the northern peoples, and not the HBC men, who must have derived the greater and more longstanding amusement from the others' naivete. Try as they did for upwards of a century, the HBC could not induce the caribou hunters to become regular fur hunters or more than marginal consumers. As far as is known, the Englishmen firstbecam e acquainted with this intransigence in 1740. A coaster Indian (B.59/a/4:33, May 3, 1740) who had wintered with a northerner told the Master John Isbister, that "they did not endeiver to catch furs." What they did catch of foxes and martens they tore up to use for themselves. He further pointed out that they care not for the European goods as they make "neets of deer sinnos, ice chissels off deer horns." And so begins in the HBC archival records a common complaint registered by the traders against the caribou hunters. For instance, in 1815, writing from Great Whale River, Thomas Alder comments about the caribou hunters that: They are little beholdin to us; the Deer furnishes them with both food &raiment and if in return for a few Deerskins, or a little Venison, they can procure ammunition, tobacco, etc. with a hearty drink of grog, two or three times in the course of the year, their wants are wholly supplied: in the summer season the white whales are their chief support ... (B.372/e/l:5, 1815)

A more detailed account of their wants is in Clouston's (Davies 1963:41) journal of 1820. He is writing of the Nichikun Indians who, he says, consider necessary only a "kettle, hatchet, knife, gun, pow­ der, shot and sometimes a net..." Others were said not to come to the post for several years as long as they were supplied with ammunition (B.186/e/9:13, 1826). Even those who had begun to use cloth instead of caribou skins still saw themselves as not reliant on the latter. In 1816, from Great Whale "Not Annuall Visitors" 63

River, Thomas Alder reports on the poor quality of a certain type of cloth and blankets. Accordingly he adds this comment: The natives only ridicule it and say they will Clothe themselves with leather (to our great loss of Deer skins) rather than hunt furs to trade for so poor an article (B.372/e/2:4d) That the traders were frustrated by this behaviour is evident from an 1820 letter from Fort George. It reads, in part: Many others whom I by all the means in my power long been endeavouring to draw into a good fur are last Fall returned to the barren grounds and the deer and taken several others with them of our best hunters (B.186/b/3:3d, January 12, 1820) Traders in the HBC system were, of course, judged by the size of their trade. Similarly, back in 1758, the Richmond Fort trader despair­ ingly offered this observation: Their whole delight is in deer hunting for They mind nothing so much as stuffing Their guts and when They have plenty They never stir From the place till all is expended, then look out for more which hinders our fur trade here and whale fishery. (B.182/a/l0:22, March 12) This indifference to fur hunting persisted, even at a time when the records seem to be showing a more regular trade from the cari­ bou hunters. Thus, even as late as 1869, the trader at Little Whale River, in an April 28th letter to Moose Factory, complained that "the Little Whale River and Northard G.W.R. Indians have not been do­ ing much in the way of hunting Marten, preferring deer hunting" (B.135/b/53:47). Besides remaining on the fringes of the trade, the northern hunters further annoyed the HBC traders by taking their few furs wherever they wanted. For much of the period under discussion the North West Company was established on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and at several outposts inland. At times, delegations of the caribou hunters either traded at this coast or met in the interior with Indian middlemen who carried the trade to these places (B.186/e/9:13, 1826; Davies 1963:xlvii). The Indians' refusal to see themselves as regular suppliers to the HBC not only was vexatious to the individual English traders but was the cause of the Company's closure of posts. Richmond Fort had been established in 1749 with high hopes of exploiting what the Company saw as the rich resources of the north, both furs and whale oil. It was closed ten years later because "many years experience having convinced us it is impracticable to procure any Trade" (A.6/9:109). Similarly the Fort George and Great Whale River posts went through a series of 64 Toby Morantz

openings and closings as each time the Company raised its hopes of succeeding, only to find them thwarted by lack of Indian cooperation. Besides not being able to convince the Indians to supply them regularly with furs, the Company men also experienced a great deal of trouble in gaining the hunters' cooperation in whaling. Although the James Bay Indians to the south also had an obsession for caribou hunting (B.59/a/14:19, March 26, 1747), it was a more restricted dependence. The woodland caribou is a more solitary, less predictable animal and consequently an even less certain food resource. Clothing was therefore one of their requirements and their trade was more regularized. The independent manner of caribou hunters is common through­ out the subarctic. Athapascan peoples, particularly the Chipewyans, are described in an identical fashion. Whether it was Samuel Hearne (1911:123), writing of 1771, or the trader for Fort Resolution of 1826, the comments are the same, to the effect that "a file, knife and axe are the only articles which an intercourse with white people has embraced indispensable to the Chipewyans of Slave Lake" (Smith 1982:60). It is apparent from the foregoing excerpts that northern caribou hunters were not economically independent per se of the Europeans. Rather their independence is in the context of disinterest in those Eu­ ropean goods other than ones deemed necessary for their survival. Thus metal tools, guns and ammunition in seemingly small quantities were all they desired. The question is "Why?" Why? The most obvious explanation is in the nature of their subsistence activities. At those times when the barren ground caribou were abun­ dant, the hunt was relatively easy and the products thereof extremely utilitarian. By contrast, fishing in winter with a hook would have been laborious, relatively unproductive, and most unexciting. There would not be many stories there to tell one's grandchildren. Further­ more, successful caribou hunts permitted living in larger scale groups, a preferred Algonquian social arrangement (see McFeat 1974:36-38). Re­ liance on winter fishing or small game required drastically scaled-down co-residential groups. This assessment of their subsistence options is confirmed by a com­ ment of Clouston's in 1823. He remarks that 30 hunters, on receiving their supplies at Fort George, proceed inland one to two hundred miles and then must "Not Annuall Visitors" 65

choose whether to turn to the south and enter a country where they will have some chance to kill some Deer and furs to purchase clothing with; or turn to the North and enter a country where they will supply them with food and clothing at less trouble... (B.77/e/4:4, 1823) Clouston expected most to head north. One must also bear in mind that marten trapping is often done by women, old men and children. It could not have been a very attractive alternative to young men wishing to establish their reputations as hunters. Reluctantly, but of necessity, the Hudson's Bay Company contri­ buted to the Indians' minimal interest in fur hunting. The northern and inland posts in the early 19th century presented provisioning prob­ lems for the HBC so that the Company itself was reliant on the lo­ cal hunters for their food. When it was not forthcoming, in extreme instances they starved (B.147/a/l:27, May 3, 1835) or suffered from scurvy (B.372/a/3:22d, July 5, 1816). Consequently, they gratefully paid with goods for this food, a "liberal encouragement" as it was termed in 1815 (B.372/a/l:12d, April 28). The Company was still buy­ ing venison in 1867 (B.373/b/l:44, 1867). Not only food but caribou skins were in demand in order to supply the Indians and Europeans of the James Bay posts, east and west. For much of the trade, caribou skins were valued, the same as one prime beaver skin (e.g. B.77/a/2:21, 1807). The HBC conflict between furs and leather is shown in the previous quote from Alder where he notes that if the hunters choose to clothe themselves in caribou hides it will diminish the Company's trade in that article. There was yet another article the English company coveted - whale oil. It was used in Europe to process wool and other fibers and as a lubricant for machinery. Evidently it was profitably traded in Europe, for Governor Simpson pressed for a productive whale fishery along the southeastern Hudson Bay coast. It was a labour-intensive activity in­ volving, as the missionary Horden observed in 1858, 37 canoes (CMS Reel A-88, Horden, 1858). Even a hundred years earlier, in 1754 (A.ll/- /57:38), 20 canoes were employed in the hunt. It was arduous, danger­ ous work and the Indian hunters had to be cajoled to persevere, particu­ larly when their provisions were low. This inducement took the form of such European goods as brandy, tobacco and flour (B.182/a/9:31, June 15, 1757). Only when they left for their winter hunting did the Com­ pany pay them with their "necessaries," a system which they hoped would encourage the Indians to remain for the hunt (B.59/a/l 17:21, 66 Toby Morantz

April 4, 1837). The Company recognized this dilemma. In 1818 Glad- man advised that whale hunting was an "employment more agreeable to them" than the hunting of small furs (B.77/e/2a:August 10, 1818) and in 1821 Clouston (B.186/e/4:l) advised that the "oil trade is in no small degree prejudicial to the fur trade." Also hurting the Company's trade in martens and foxes was their difficulty in maintaining an adequate stock of trade goods at the more northern posts, as in 1816 at Great Whale River (B.372/e/l:8). This uncertain supply encouraged the hunters to take their trade to the competition even though it entailed longer journeys to the posts on the St. Lawrence or with middlemen trading there. Another inducement to trade at the Gulf of St. Lawrence was their being able to secure trade supplies of birch bark, a most scarce commodity in this northern region (Davies 1963:xlvii). This description of the caribou hunters' refusal to be drawn fully into the fur trade conforms to the findings of other hunters world­ wide. As with Lee's judgement of Bushman life, one could say that for the caribou hunters as well "life would be boring indeed without the excitement of meat feasts" (Lee 1968:41). Furthermore, writing in the same volume, Sahlins (1968:86) refers to a hunter's wants as being restricted because wealth is a burden to the nomad. Similarly for the caribou hunters, both the hauling of furs and surplus trade goods were difficult. Canoes were in short supply because birch bark was so scarce (B.59/a/4:29, April 2, 1740 and B.59/b/20:22, 1820). Although the northern caribou hunters do not quite live up to this portrayal of hunters as the original "affluent society," they conform in other respects. From our ethnocentric perspective and the HBC's, they were clearly representative of what he calls "uneconomic man" (1972:1, 13). Factors in Increased Involvement Nevertheless, there was a change, though perhaps it is better to speak of a shift, in the caribou hunters' participation in the fur trade. By the time Fort George reopened in 1835, the journals no longer com­ plained of their long absences or in general of restricted wants. No doubt this had a lot to do with the end of competition with the North West Company. This resulted in lower payments for articles a curtail­ ment of presents, and in general a less liberal treatment. In addition, the Company whittled away at their relative indepen- "Not Annuall Visitors" 67

dence. They tried everything. On the one hand people such as Clouston (Davies 1963:xliv) advised in 1820 that opening posts in their interior regions would facilitate the trade by reducing distances and would in­ crease the hunters' visits to the posts with furs. Yet in 1823 this same man (B.77/e/4:3d) was suggesting that if Fort George was closed (which it later was), the caribou hunters would have to travel farther south to Eastmain to trade. This would serve to pull them away from the cari­ bou country and make it more difficult to return. Both policies were tried at various times. Governor Simpson, who headed the Company, recommended in 1837 that interior posts be set up, as otherwise the Indians had little inducement to make the journey (D.4/105:6). Another Company policy deliberately conceived to stimulate fur hunting was the halting of trade in caribou skins in 1811 (B.59/b/30:24). However by 1867 it seems to have been reinstated (B.373/b/l:44). Those years that caribou were unobtainable they were compelled to do more fur hunting, as noted in 1829 (B.59/e/14:ld). The Eastmain trader describes the scarcity of deer as a great stimulant. Evidently the lack of caribou and therefore hides meant a reliance on cloth and blan­ kets. It must be emphasized that no food was traded, only occasional supplies of flour or oatmeal were distributed if the hunters were work­ ing for the post. Rations were also given, when available, to families who were in desperate straits, but most people dwelled too far from the posts to make it there in winter. However these were emergency rations only. The Company either was unable or felt itself unable to provide food under scarce conditions, and numbers of inland people starved to death throughout the period under study. The caribou hunters were, of course, drawn back to the post for their necessities - metal goods, twine and ammunition. Another item, a non­ essential one, also helped to lure them there. This item was tobacco. Back in 1798 the Eastmain trader wrote the following to his superior at Albany: Our indents for trading goods ... have been curtailed in the most principle articles but more particularly so in the brazil tobacco ... Our far off North'd trade almost depending on this article will be much hurt if you can't assist us. (B.50/b/17:3, September, 1708) Again, in 1816 a very similar plea for tobacco was made by the trader at Great Whale River (B.372/e/2:4d) for the same reasons. Comments in the records also suggest that rum was a desirable item, too, although tobacco was the more important one.

) 68 Toby Morantz

One might consider the use of credit as evidence of the Indians hav­ ing become firmly entrenched in the HBC fur trade system. To some degree, this is true, but it does not signify the Company's total con­ trol over the situation. Credit, or debt, as the HBC preferred to call it, was always extended to the northern peoples as to the southern ones. However, during the years of competition, having debt at one post did not prevent the hunters from taking their furs to the competi­ tors. Although each company decried the practice, there was nothing that could be done about it. Even after the end of competition and despite the Company's claims that it was enforcing loyalty to one post only, the northern hunters ignored these controls, taking their furs to whichever HBC post suited them best, as in 1835 (B.147/a/l:24). In the post-competition period the Company tried to curtail this prac­ tice of switching posts. They initiated a scheme of giving permission to change posts (B.147/a/l:24). Presumably this had the effect of es­ tablishing identification with a post and regularizing trade, but the Company's controls over the population should not be exaggerated. In the 1860s, with a full 40 years of a monopoly situation, there were still complaints by the traders of hunters taking their furs to posts other than where their debts were given (B.373/b/l:20, 1868). The Company accommodated to this situation by circulating debt lists of the hunters and crediting the posts where the debt was outstanding. Another policy of the Company traders, so they claimed, was that they would refuse hunters permission to visit "northern deer grounds" a particular season (B.373/b/l:55, 1869). Although there is no indication in the records of whether the Indians obeyed, it is hard to see how it could have been enforced. For instance, in 1873 there is a reference to the hunters having been finedb y one trader for some unknown reason. However, the succeeding post manager was told that if he could not collect the fine to cancel this debt (B.373/b/l:122, July 13). The Company's only weapon in manipulating the Indians was the withholding of credit, but this was in general used more as a threat. It was not a practice, the Company itself recognizing that a dead Indian was not a fur producer. Unlike in the Ungava region where an inept trader did withhold supplies, resulting in deaths caused by starvation (Cooke 1979:103), this did not occur in the Hudson Bay region. In fact the Ungava trader was censured for his insensitivity. It was to the Company's great advantage, both present and future, to advance "Not Annuall Visitors" 69 the hunters the necessary items such as ammunition to hunt for food. Furthermore as a hunter's perception of his necessities widened, credit financing would have helped to facilitate and encourage such a dispo­ sition, much as it does in the Euro-Canadian society. All these Company activities were deliberate attempts to control the Indian - location of posts, credit, threats, presents of alcohol and tobacco, etc. Evidently the traders knew what they were doing. John McLean, the HBC trader in the Ungava region in the 1830s, set down his understanding of the situation. He wrote: As trading posts however are now established on their lands I doubt not but artificial wants will, in time, be created that may become indispensable to their comfort as their present real wants: All the arts of the trader are exercised to produce such a result and those arts never fail of ultimate success. Even during the last two years of my management, the demand for certain articles of European manufacture had greatly increased. (1032:262) Part of this arsenal of the trader's arts was the giving of presents. People bringing in furs were given some alcohol and tobacco, those clearing their debts were given more substantial presents of coats and shirts (B.186/b/9:62, 1825). It is my judgement that this is in fact how the northern caribou hunters gradually deepened their involvement in the fur trade. It was not, though, a capitulation to the demands of the Company but rather an accommodation to the particulars of the fur trade. In his 1823 report from Fort George, Clouston gives detailed accounts of most of the hunters. What we findi s that many seem to be alternating between one winter on the barren grounds and one winter further south. For example, there is this report of two hunters trading at Big River (Fort George): Notaskeewas and Osineedshue were in the barren ground during the year 1821/22. These came to Big River, Feby 1822 with 14 MBr, furs. The winter 1822/23 they hunted near Big River ... and came to the house at Christmas and April ... and have brot 01 1/2 M.Br. (B.77/e/5:6d, 1823) Others, who were reported to bring in annually ten to thirty made beaver worth of furs, spent the fall season between Fort George and Cape Jones trapping the fur animals. In late December they went to the "deer country" (B.77/e/4:3, 1823). This movement back and forth, either seasonally or annually, evi­ dently enabled the caribou hunters to fulfill their material, spiritual and psychological needs. It was a fur trade adaptation that was still being practised in 1865 and 1869 (B.373/a/6:55, April 1, 1865; B.373/b/l:54, *

70 Toby Morantz

August 19, 1869). The journals of this later period seem to show that there were also those who were doing more fur trapping than caribou hunting. As well, there were now those who were called "coast Indians" (B.373/b/l:8, January 3, 1868). As their counterparts in James Bay, these men helped provision and maintain the post. They conducted the goose hunt and the whale fishery. What the HBC had accomplished was the creation of a heterogeneous population. Whereas before they were all caribou hunters, now, as in the south, they made up a continuum according to a hunter's degree of accommodation to the fur trade (Morantz 1980:337-39). Conclusion A similar inquiry has been conducted for the adjacent region, home to the Naskapis. Cooke (1979:103) found that severe shortages of food in the late 1840s, combined with an HBC trader's refusal to supply the hunters with sufficient ammunition to hunt, resulted in one hundred persons starving to death in a six-year period. These tragic events "broke," as he terms it, the independence of the Naspakis and they turned to marten hunting to supply themselves with ammunition. Although the Hudson Bay hunters, then trading at Fort George, also suffered serious food shortages during that period because fires had destroyed vast tracts of forest (B.77/a/22:16, May 3, 1848), this did not usher in a new relationship with the post. Nor did this occur during other periods of starvation. What we see in the records is a modification in the way the hunters are described. In 1828 there is this account of some hunters who were "not annuall visitors," who "with a small quantity of ammunition ... are able to procure subsistence two or three years and while not in want of those necessary articles ... do not care to hunt furs" (B.59/e/13:4d-5). Such descriptions are not found in the later years, in the mid-1800s. Instead the posts at Great Whale and Little Whale Rivers seemingly portray the hunters as regular suppliers involved in a "mixed economy." Thus the journal entry at Great Whale River on June 17, 1863 reads: Today Eight Canoes of Indians arrived from the Interior up this River ... They have nearly all of them made very good hunts but the latter three more than paid their debts. (B.372/a/5:40) Or, one finds this, dated July 4, 1866 at Little Whale River: Five canoes of Indians arrived here had a good few Martin and some Fine dressed deer skins. (B.37.1/a/4:44) "Not Annuall Visitors" 71

Referring back to the earlier discussion of HBC tactics and the Indians' notion of necessities, it seems there was no one causal factor responsible for making these northern peoples into fur suppliers. They became ha­ bituated to the trade goods and the system itself. They found a means of incorporating the European trade in a way acceptable to themselves and the HBC. To borrow and paraphrase from Richard Lee (1968:41), one could say that the totality of their economic activities thus repre­ sents an outcome of two individual goals; the first is to live well with adequate leisure time, in this case the use of European goods. The second is the desire to enjoy the rewards, both social and nutritional, afforded by the killing of game. The caribou hunters developed a strat­ egy for meeting these two goals. It was not, though, what Lee (1968:43) would call a "well-adapted way of life" for it may well have increased the incidences of starvation. However, Veblen, with his celebration of technical progress, would have approved. So did the Hudson's Bay Company.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Earlier research on which this paper draws was funded by the Direction de l'afcheologie et de l'ethnologie (today known as the Patrimoine autochtone) of the Ministere des Affaires culturelles du Quebec. More recent research and the writing of this paper have been undertaken under tha auspices of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council postdoctoral fellowship. 1 am most grateful to both agencies for their generous support. I also wish to express my appreciation to the Governor and Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company for permission to consult and quote from their archives on microfilm at the Public Archives of Canada.

REFERENCES

Manuscript Sources The manuscript collections cited here are on deposit at the Public Archives of Canada (PAC). CMS - Church Missionary Society (MG 17 B2)

Journals and Correspondence, 1851-70 Hudson's Bay Company Archives (MG 20) A. Headquarters'Records (selected volumes) A.6 London Correspondence Outwards - Official A.ll London Inward Correspondence from Hudson's Bay Company Posts A.12 London Inward Correspondence from Governors of Hudson's Bay Com­ pany Territories B. Post Records B.50/a...Eastmain Post Journals B.50/b...Eastmain Correspondence Books B.50/e...Eastmain Reports on District 72 Toby Morantz

B.77/a...Fort George (Big River) Post Journals B.77/e...Fort George Reports on District B.135/b...Moose Correspondence Books B.135/k...Moose Minutes of Council B.147/a...Nichikun Post Journals B.182/a...Richmond Post Journals

B.186/b...Rupert House Correspondence Books B.186/e...Rupert House Reports on District B.372/a...Great Whale River Post Journals B.372/b...Great Whale Correspondence Books B.373/b...Little Whale River Correspondence Books D. Governors'Papers D.4/105...Simpson's Official Report

Published Sources Batty, Beatrice 1803 Forty-Two Years amongst the Indians and Eskimo - Pictures from the Life of the Right Reverend John Horden... London: Religious Tract Society.

Burch, Ernest S. 1072 The Caribou/Wild Reindeer as a Human Resource. American Antiquity 37:330-78. Calef, George 1081 Caribou and the Barren-Lands. Toronto: Firefly Books.

Cooke, Alan 1070 L'independance des Naskapis et le caribou. Recherches Amerindiennes au Quebec 0:00:104.

Davies, K.G., ed. 1063 Northern Quebec and Labrador Journals and Correspondence, 1819-35. Lon­ don: Hudson's Bay Record Society.

Elton, Charles 1042 Voies, Mice and Lemmings. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grenfell, Wilfred T. 1013 Labrador: The Country and the People. New York: Macmillan.

Hearne, Samuel 1011 A Journal from Prince of Wales 's Fort in Hudson's Bay, to the Northern Ocean in the years 1760, 1770, 1771 and 1772. J.B. Tyrrell, ed. Toronto: Cham- plain Society.

Juniper, Ian 1070 Ecologie et distribution du troupeau de caribous de la riviere George. Recherches Amerindiennes au Quebec 0:03-08.

Lee, Richard B. 1068 What Hunter; Do for a Living, or, How to Make Out on Scarce Resources. Pp. 30-48 in Man the Hunter. Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore eds. Chicago: Aldine. "Not Annuall Visitors" 73

Low, A.P. 1806 Report on Explorations in the Labrador Peninsula...in 1802-03-04-05. Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada. McFeat, Tom 1074 Small Group Cultures. New York: Pergamon Press.

McLean, John 1032 John McLean's Notes of Twenty-Five Year's Service in the Hudson's Bay Ter­ ritory. W.S. Wallace, ed. Toronto: Champlain Society. Rowe, J.S. 1072 Forest Regions of Canada. Canadian Forestry Service Publication 1300. Ottawa: Dept. of Environment. Sahlins, Marshall D. 1068 Notes on the Original Affluent Society. Pp. 85-80 in Man the Hunter. Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Chicago: Aldine. 1072 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.

Smith, David M. 1082 Moose-Deer Island House People: A History of the Native People of Fort Res­ olution. Canada. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Ethnology Service Paper 81, Ottawa. Turner, Lucien M. 1804 Ethnology of the Ungava District. Eleventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Weinstein, Martin S. 1076 What the Land Provides: Report of the Forest George Resource Use and Sub­ sistence Economy Study. Montreal: Grand Council of the Crees. 4 Toby Morantz