fur trade – CanEHdian Stories

April 25, 2022April 25, 2022

Historic Glass Beads in Canada: Searching for Trends and Meaning (Part Two)

Dedicated to the work and memory of archaeologist Wayne London Davis. One of the first among us to appreciate the beauty and value of glass trade beads.

In my first segment on beads I looked at their antiquity around the world. In this second segment, I’ll lay out some basic facts and trends about glass beads in the Canadian fur trade. If you’re interested in more details, whenever you see a super-scripted footnote number, just point your cursor at it and it will pop up on your screen. ¹

A rare find discovered in 1975 while I was excavating at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Victoria (c.1863 – 1898), Alberta, Canada. The beadwork might be the remains of a dog or saddle blanket. Or some other personal item. Based on its context, it was most likely made by an Indigenous woman living in the fort. Both the color and design of the beadwork are preserved in these remains. ²
But, this example is the exception to the rule. Rarely do we find intact beadwork in the historic archaeological record. Instead we usually find thousands of beads scattered in and around buildings, cellars, trash pits, or privies. Often we have no idea who dropped or discarded them. In short, we often have little to work with when reconstructing their individual histories. ³

From James Isham, York Fort, 20 July 1739
Right Honourable Sirs;
With submission, this we humbly beg leave to observe to your honours, according to your honours’ orders, 1738 (paragraph the 7th) the Indians dislike of particular goods, their refusal and the reason for the same….Beads large pearl, the Indians dislikes for the colour, both large and heavy, the shape not being for the use they put them to, which is to hang at their noses, ears, and to make belts etc., so being few or none traded and lying useless in the factory, according to your honours’ desire I send them home…”

Glass trade beads. Recovered from the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830), northern Alberta, Canada

Not Just Any Beads Will Do

In his letter, James Isham, in charge of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s York Factory, listed three things about glass trade beads, that, if not strictly adhered to created serious problems in trade:

Color; Size; and, Shape

If these qualities were not satisfactory to First Nations Peoples, they simply refused to trade.

In this segment I’ll examine more closely how glass beads were made, and who made them. And how seemingly trivial traits, such as bead size and shape, were important in the Indigenous world. In a third segment in this series, I’ll consider in more detail the importance of bead design and color.

As I thought about the thousands of glass beads we’ve found at the many fur trade archaeological sites in western Canada, I wondered: What can we learn not only about how glass trade beads were made, but also their role and importance for the Indigenous People who acquired them?

However the task is difficult and fraught with obstacles. Archaeologically, the Fort Victoria beadwork example is rare. Unique almost. Glass beads don’t come in nice arranged designs. Often we don’t know who sewed those designs, or who purchased and used glass beads. ⁴

Slightly less spectacular than the Fort Victoria beads, is this string of glass trade beads exposed while excavating one of the Fort Vermilion I dwellings in 2016. Again, a rather unique find showing not only the types of beads Indigenous women living at the forts used, but also the color combinations they strung them together.

So let me lead you through this minefield of glass bead research. But first, we’ll briefly review how glass beads were made. And who made them. ⁵

Glass Trade Beads in the Americas: Who Made Them?

“Early demands for metaphorical counterparts of rare sacred materials like marine shell and natural crystals transformed with time to large-scale requests for beads of particular sizes, shapes, and colors for ornamentation of bodies and clothing. In all cases, American Indian worldviews determined selection, acquisition, and use of glass beads.” ⁶

It’s one thing to claim that Indigenous worldviews dictated bead selection. It is altogether another to figure out what they were. Or, where in a glass bead’s traits (e.g., shape, design, size and color) and patterning those worldviews resided. Especially when we consider that Indigenous people didn’t even make them. What bead types and quantities did Indigenous Peoples in Canada select that aligned with their beliefs and identities?

Early European Bead Makers

The majority of glass beads that entered the Americas, between c.1500 – 1900, were made in the Italian glass works in Venice/Murano. By the 1200s, a guild of glass makers began to make some of the best glassware in the world, including glass beads. By the 1500s Venice monopolized the glass bead industry, producing large numbers of beads in a variety of shapes, colors and sizes. The various factories were highly competitive, constantly upgrading their techniques to improve their product.

A modern glass factory in Murano. According to one source ⁷ glass making in Murano was a serious business: “We visited the Signoretti factory (http://www.signoretti.it/) and were able to observe in one of their 10 studio areas where three guys (the master and two apprentices worked) were working to make an amber-colored chandelier. The apprenticeship period is 15 years and while there are no laws about it, glass makers are only men…In the past, the glass masters were required to live on the island of Murano and if they were caught having shared any secrets of the factory they worked in, their tongue and one hand would be cut off in punishment.”

“About 1764 twenty-two furnaces were employed in that industry, [Murano, Italy] with a production of about 44,000 lbs. [beads] per week, and one house at Liverpool about this period bought beads to the value of 30,000 ducats annually. It may be readily conceived that a vast variety of patterns were produced. A tarriff drawn up in 1800 contains an enumeration of 562 species, and a ‘grandissimo’ number of sub-species of beads. The manufacture continues to be one of great importance.” ⁸

Venetian glass trade bead sample cards, 1898. The different types and varieties of glass trade beads was staggering. Many of the types and varieties seen in these sample cards appear in North America, including our Canadian fur trade and Indigenous archaeological sites. As you continue to read you will recognize some of these bead types recovered from the archaeological record. ⁹

Venice/Murano ruled the glass bead industry. However, according to Canadian bead expert, Karlis Karklins:

“Although Venice/Murano and Bohemia produced the bulk of the glass beads that were exported to the New World, Holland, Germany, France, England, Spain, Russia, China, and likely some other nations also contributed their share (Kidd 1979; Liu 1975a). Unfortunately, there is no routine method for determining the country of origin for any given bead type.” ¹⁰

So, we’ve hit our first snag when researching historic glass beads: determining their origins of manufacture. According to Karklins, even with mass spectometry (to ascertain the chemical composition of beads), it’s still exceedingly difficult to pinpoint a bead’s origins. What is often lacking are comparative bead samples from the European sources where they were made.

Fortunately, by using documentary records and bead collections, Venice’s dominance of the the bead industry has been generally validated. But occasionally the often vague North American documentary records leave some doubt as to origins and manufacturer. And, whether only Europeans made glass trade beads.

Glass Bead Manufacturing Techniques

European glass bead making techniques were complex. They evolved and changed over time. In order of their introduction, the four most common methods (which had derivatives or are used together) are: ¹¹

Wound Glass Beads – Although still used today, Venetians made glass beads individually by winding a molten blob of glass around an iron rod or mandrel by the end of 1200 A.D. They made beads of one (monochrome) or more colors (polychrome) by adding cobalt (blue), copper (green), tin (milky white), or gold (red) to the mixture. Or the bead could be decorated with a design pressed onto it or inlaid in the soft glass. As the demand for glass beads increased during the late 1400s this method could not keep up because it was too slow; each bead was hand-made.

Examples of mandrel or wound round monochrome glass beads (center and right) from the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Edmonton (c.1830 – 1915), Alberta, Canada. Wound beads generally have visible circular swirl lines aligned around the center hole. Air bubbles trapped in the glass are round. The white bead on the left (lacking the visible swirl marks), with embossed floral decoration on it, may have been made by glass forced into a mold with the floral design on it.

Using the Canadian glass bead classification chart produced by Kenneth E. Kidd and Martha Ann Kidd (and later updated by Karlis Karklins), these are the basic wound glass bead types found in Canada. The type list is incomplete. Other bead types will be added as more archaeological sites are excavated. The bead types are organized according to: 1) method of manufacture; 2) type of decoration; 3) shape; 4) color; and, 5) size.

Master list of wound glass trade bead types in Canada. The list was developed by Kenneth and Martha Kidd in the 1970s. It has been modified by Karlis Karklins and continually added to as we find more glass bead types at our Canadian archaeological sites. In this diagram the ‘W’ stands for ‘Wound glass beads’; ‘I’ for Type ; and, ‘a, b, c’ for variety (e.g., tubular, round, oval). Courtesy of Kenneth and Martha Kidd. ¹²

2. Blown Glass Beads – Also a very early method (but used into the 19th century), a glob of molten glass was shaped by blowing it through a glass tube. There was also a mold blowing method. First, you blow a small bubble at the end of a glass tube which was quickly inserted into a two-piece mold. Additional air was then blown in so that the glass bubble filled the cavity. A more complicated process involved placing a glass tube in a two-piece mold with up to 24 connected cavities. This method could produce beads with very complex designs. You could then produce a row of beads or break apart the segments to form individual beads.

This beautiful glass bead was made by blowing molten glass into a mold. This technique was time-consuming but capable of producing some extraordinary ornate beads. Typically these types of beads make up a very small percentage in fur trade assemblages. ¹³

Basic blown glass bead types found at Canadian archaeological sites. Courtesy of Karlis Karklins. ¹⁴

3. Drawn Glass Beads – By the end of c.1400 A.D. the Venetians made glass beads from long tubes of drawn glass (initially thought to be an Egyptian method). A master glass maker first formed a cylinder from a glob of molten glass. Then his assistant took the end of the rod and pulled it down a long corridor before the glass cooled, producing a long drawn glass tube. The length of the tube and the amount of glass determined the size of the beads. Once the tubes cooled, they were cut into three foot lengths. Later, smaller lengths were cut into beads and then smoothed and polished. This method, still used today, met the demand for large quantities of beads because it was much faster.

Drawn glass beads with diagram of drawn method. White, opaque, monochrome glass bead (left, photograph courtesy of Fort Vancouver Museum bead collection). Polychrome glass bead on the right found by the author at an unidentified archaeological site just south of Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830) northern Alberta, Canada. Diagram on the right showing how molten glass was drawn to form a long tube (from Kidd and Kidd). ¹⁵

Master list of drawn glass bead types found at Canadian archaeological sites. Courtesy of Kenneth and Martha Kidd. The one above found by the author is of the Ib type. ¹²

4. Pressed/Molded Glass Beads – To make a molded glass bead the end of a glass rod was heated until it melted. A piece was then pinched off the rod and pressed in a tong-like two-piece mold. As the glass was compressed, any excess was forced out at the seam. A moveable pin (or pins, depending on how many holes were desired) pierced the glass and formed the perforation. In a second method, two pieces of viscid glass, one in either half of a two-piece mold, were pressed together to fuse them. Glass beads with complex colored patterns were made by this method. Some faceted mold pressed beads have mold seams that zig zag around the middle, following the edges of the central facets.

Example of mold pressed glass beads from Fort Vancouver, Washington on the left (Photograph courtesy of Fort Vancouver Museum bead collection). Mold pressed glass beads from the HBC Fort Edmonton V (c.1830 – 1915) site on the right. In this method when making the hole, the outside diameter of the perforation becomes larger than the inside.

Master list of pressed, molded glass bead types from Canadian archaeological sites. Courtesy of Karlis Karklins. ¹⁴

In Bohemia the glass bead industry had started by the 16th century. But during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century machines were developed to mass-produce glass beads. These mold-pressed beads often had complex shapes. And by making use of patterned canes, or the glass rods fed into the machine, the resulting beads could be elaborately coloured, giving them a slightly random appearance, even if the shape was identical. Although mass-produced, and sold around the world, Bohemian glass bead making was a cottage industry that soon began to rival Murano’s bead industry.

Example of a Czech mold pressed beads. Molded beads, often similar in appearance, were made by different methods. Careful study, or consultation with an expert (of which there are few) is often required to tell them apart. Even then it is difficult. ¹⁶

Czech glass beads manufacturers were very aggressive businessmen. They sent out sample men who traveled worldwide (Africa, Japan and Tibet, and possibly the Americas) to speak with Czech glass bead wholesale suppliers to determine what beads styles would sell best in each market. They then returned to Czechoslovakia and advised on specific bead designs for sale to these markets. This proactive approach was highly successful, increasing the sales and demand for Czech glass beads worldwide.

North American Indigenous Glass Bead Making

When we think of the origins of North American glass beads, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland immediately come to mind. Wayne Davis, however, thought otherwise. His research suggested that Indigenous People occasionally also made glass beads. ¹⁷ Although probably a rare occurrence (and, to my knowledge, never documented in Canada), the Arikara, Mandan, Hidatsa, Cheyenne, and Snake First Nations in the USA made glass beads. How they did this is both fascinating and somewhat mysterious.

I’ll paraphrase one such historic Indigenous bead making process. For the complete quote, refer to this footnote: ¹⁸

Glass bottles, or glass beads were pounded fine and the powder thoroughly washed;
A platter was placed at the mouth of a three gallon ‘earthen pot’ (with a hole at edge to watch the beads);
A number of little rolled clay sticks the size of the bead hole were made and fired;
Small balls of clay were made for pedestals for the beads;
The pounded glass was heated and formed into an oblong shape and wound around the clay stick;
A hole was made in the center of each pedestal and the rolled glass bead and stick inserted into it.

“Then the platter is put in the coals and the pot is inverted over it; dry wood is placed about the whole and burnt….When the beads are whitish red and grow pointed, they are taken off. The clay center is picked out with an awl.”

The pot (presumably made from clay) probably served as a simple kiln increasing temperatures high enough to melt glass. Because even a large campfire can’t reach those temperatures. ¹⁹

Ethnologist, George Grinnell recounted another story of Cheyenne glass bead making. His description also suggests that they made glass beads and charms by melting sand. ²⁰

Also, according to ethnographer/painter George Catlin, in 1847, the Mandan highly valued these Indigenous-made glass beads:

“…the extraordinary art of manufacturing a very beautiful and lasting kind of blue glass beads, which they wear on their necks in great quantities and decidedly value above all others that are brought among them by the fur traders.” ²¹

These few examples of Indigenous bead making bring up more questions than answers. How widely spread was this practice? Did some Indigenous groups truly understand how to make glass from ‘quartz sand’ as Grinnell’s observations suggests? It takes high temperatures (higher than campfires) to melt quartz without adding a flux. Currently, without doing more research, we shouldn’t discount this possibility.

If so, where’s the proof? What makes Wayne Davis’s work so important, were his searches of the American bead collections for that proof. And he may have found it. What could be Indigenous-made glass beads are present in the Fort Leavenworth collections (and others as well). Those beads have slightly different characteristics than the European-made beads.

These two rows of glass beads were found at the Leavenworth historic Arikara archaeological site (c1803 – 1832). The beads are more irregularly shaped and the colors are not as well defined and not as bright as European glass beads. The glass has a grainy texture.

These glass trade beads are from the Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Vancouver (c.1829 – 1860), Washington State, USA. The glass, like the Leavenworth Indigenous glass beads, is coarser; almost as though it were only partially melted. The coloration, which also is not as well defined as most European beads, is similar to the Leavenworth Indigenous made glass beads. Were they made locally by Indigenous People? Or, are they truly European-manufactured? I read Lester Ross’s original site report and could find nothing suggesting he believed these beads to be somewhat different from European glass beads. ²²

Why would Indigenous People even make glass beads? By the early 19th century, glass beads, in a bewildering assortment of shapes and colors, were already available across North America. Was it important to add that personal touch to glass beads? If these Indigenous-made beads were passed down through generations, they certainly would have maintained a stronger connection to one’s past, one’s people, than a European glass trade bead.

Historic Glass Beads in Western Canada

With the exception of porcupine quill adornment, painting (and historically silk thread embroidery, and tufting), the glass bead’s diversity (found in its shape, size and color) allowing considerable artistic license, was almost unequaled by any other North American prehistoric traditional artistic medium.

By the end of the 17th century, when glass beads first began to appear in the interior of western Canada, there was already a considerable array of colors, sizes and types to choose from. Drawn, wound and blown (in that order based on quantities) glass beads were either traded or gifted to the interior Indigenous groups.

Amount of glass trade beads traded to western Canadian inland First Nations People between the early and late 1700s. Considering the minuscule weight of each bead, these figures would have numbered in the millions. And they only reflect those beads traded and not those also gifted before formal trade even began. The reduction of glass beads traded from York Factory by the 1750s and 1770s marks the inland incursions of the French, and then independent traders from Montreal cutting into the HBC’s domination of the inland Western Canadian trade. ²³

Once fur trade posts were established further in the interior of western Canada, the Companies kept stores of glass trade beads for both trade and gifts. At Peter Fidler’s Nottingham House (c.1802 – 1806) on Lake Athabasca, pre-trading ceremonies dictated gifts be bestowed on potential Indigenous trading parties. Especially during the highly competitive period between the Hudson’s Bay Company and Canadians (North West and XY Companies). The above figures were taken from the post’s trading inventory lists. These records give us a brief glimpse into the importance and purchase of glass beads in the interior of Western Canada. But they rarely tell us what bead types First Nations preferred. ²⁴

Encountering Problems When Researching Glass Trade Beads

In the following sections I focus primarily on glass trade beads present either in the documentary or archaeological records. Each type of record has limits as to what we can accomplish in the reconstruction of Indigenous glass bead histories. Those limitations are: 1) context; 2) clarity; and, 3) completeness.

Context

Context refers to the nature of the document or archaeological record that beads are found in. For example, sometimes glass beads are listed in fort inventories and personal debt lists. Those records document what company employees bought at the inland forts (potentially providing valuable information on Indigenous local and individual glass bead preferences and consumption in time and space). But often records are missing, descriptions vague or inconsistent. Context of beads in the archaeological record is equally problematic. Often we only know the date and place the beads were purchased and used; and less about the individuals who purchased them. ²⁵

Clarity

Clarity refers to the accuracy of identification of historic fur trade glass beads. Often in the documentary record it is difficult to match descriptions with actual glass beads types (because of inconsistent, vague descriptions as the above record shows). When we find glass beads in the archaeological record, the method of their manufacture is discernible. However, specific date of manufacture and length of use of certain bead types is not. It requires vast amounts of archaeological information from a long time period and geographical area reconstruct these dates of use.

Completeness

Often the available fur trade documentary and archaeological evidence is incomplete. Many of the fur trade Company bead records were lost. Of the hundreds of fur trade sites constructed few have been investigated archaeologically. Of those investigated, most sites are only sampled; and, some of those samples are poor.

And finally, there are issues with the recovery of glass trade beads archaeologically. Beads are amongst the smallest artifacts found, often being less than 2mm in size. They fall through our screens or are almost invisible when we excavate.

**Example of Archaeological Context, Clarity and Completeness**: An 1875 rendition of the Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Dunvegan, Peace River, northern Alberta, Canada. This fort was occupied from 1805 – 1878. First by the North West Company (1805 – 1821). And later by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Even though the various dwellings of company employees are well-defined, glass beads found in this context are problematic: 1) the fort was occupied by two different fur trade companies; 2) over time each dwelling would have been occupied by more than one family, perhaps of different ethnic backgrounds; and, 3) we have a poor sample from this fort added to the fact that it was also plowed, mixing up the archaeological materials. The bead assemblages recovered from this fort, presently only allow us to talk about glass trade beads in broad terms. We know their date and geographic area of use. And, that Indigenous women likely purchased them. But, very little else. ²⁷

**Example of Completeness**: These images of pressed faceted glass trade beads recovered from Fort Vancouver, Washington, USA (as well as small beads from other forts) indicate that while most beads are small, some, such as the seed bead on the right, are almost microscopic in size. Recovery of these beads is problematic and is uneven in archaeological excavations. Uneven recovery leads to biased samples making the results of quantitative comparisons difficult.

A Few Trends in Western Canadian Glass Bead Assemblages

Enough bad news. Now that we recognize the limitations of the historic bead evidence, what sort of information can we garner about historic glass beads, and the people who purchased them, in these records?

Over the years we have recovered a considerable variety of glass trade beads from excavated fur trade forts in Canada. In the west we now have enough information to assemble a basic list of the glass bead types and varieties recovered from these forts. We can also begin to establish date ranges for their use, by applying archaeological seriation. ²⁸

Hypothetical examples of contextual (upper) and frequency (lower) seriation. In the former method, only the date ranges of a particular artifact style are noted. In the latter method both the date ranges and frequency of occurrence within that range are noted. Many artifacts, including our automobile styles, or your eyeglass frame styles, have a range of use and also follow a curve of popularity. Once on the market a certain artifact type or style continually gains in popularity, reaching a peak, and then declines as other new styles are introduced.

Major Types of Glass Beads

In Table 1 (below) I have listed the major glass bead types (and when available, bead varieties) found at a number of western Canadian fur trade sites. ²⁹ From this list, I have summarized the major bead types and what they looked like, using the Kidd and Kidd bead classification scheme (see the visual images below).

Table 1. Major Glass Trade Bead Types.

Fort	Occupation Date	Company	Bead Types (Kidd and Kidd Classification System)
George	1792 -1800	NWC	Ia, IIa, IIb, IIg, Iva, WIb, WIc, WI, WIIIb, WIIId, WIII(oval/leaf, floral)
George, Plantation	1800 – ??	??	Ia, IIa, Wic, WIIIc* (oval/inlay lines)
Rocky Mountain House	1799 – 1834	HBC	Ia, IIa, WIb, WIc, WIIe
Rocky Mountain House	1799 – 1821	NWC	Ia4, Ia5, Ia15, Ia19, Ia, IIa12, IIa14, IIa56, IIa59, IIa, Iif, IIIa3, IIIa, IVa6, WIb, WIc1, WIc3, WIc, WIIIb(oval/leaf, floral)*
Edmonton/Augustus I	1795 – 1800	NWC/HBC	Ia, Ivb
Rivière Tremblante (Saskatchewan)	1791 – 1798	NWC	Ia2, Ia4, Ia7, Ia16, Ia19, Ia(a), Ia(b), Ia(c), Ia(d), Ib(a). Row 3: IIa7, IIa12, IIa14, IIa17, IIa47, IIa56, IIa59, IIa(a), IIa(b), IIa(c), IIa(d), IIa(e), IIa(f), IIa(g), IIb(a), IIf(a). Row 4: IIIa1, IIIa3, IIIa4, IVa6, WIb1, WIc3, WIc(f), WIIIb(b), WIIIb(c), WIIIb(f), WIIIb*(g), WIII(oval/leaf, floral)
Victoria	1864 – 1898	HBC	Ic13, If3, If, Ia18, Ia20, Ic(facetted), If9facetted), IIa7, IIa8, IIa13, IIa41, IVa6, Iva9, Iva18, WIb2, WIb7, WIb11, WIb16, Wic8, WIIc(facetted), WIIIb, IIa2, IIa3, IIa12, IIa16, IIa23, IIa27, IIa28, IIa36, IIa37, IIa40, IIa41, IIa47, IIb68, IVa6, IVa7, IVa9, WIb8, WIb11, WIIIa1
Edmonton/Augustus III	1810 – 1813	NWC/HBC	Ia, IIa, Ib, WIb, IV?
Edmonton/Augustus II/IV	1813 – 1830	NWC/HBC
Edmonton V	1830 – 1915	HBC	Ia4, Ic4, Ic10, IIa4, IIa6, IIa13, IIa17, IIa31, IIa56, IIb18, IIf1, IIf2, IIIf, WIc1, WIc12
Buckingham House	1792 – 1800	HBC	Ia, Ib, IIa, IIIm?, IIIk?, WIII(oval/leaf, floral), WIIIa
Last Mountain House (Saskatchewan)	1869 – 1872	HBC	Ic, IIa, Iva, WIb, WIc, MPIIa
Lac La Biche	1799??	??	IIa, IIIa, WIc

Nottingham House	1802 – 1806	HBC	Ia4, Ia19, Ia(not in Kidd), IIa2, IIa12, IIa14, IIa47, IIa56, IIa, IIb, IIf, Iva6, IIIa3, WIb, WIb, WIc1, WIc*, WIIe
Wedderburn	1815 – 1817	HBC	IIa12, IIa14, IIa59; IIa
Chipewyan	1803 – c.1900	NWC/HBC	Ic13, IIa2, IIa11, IIa13, IIa14, IIa28, IIa34, IIa37, IIa40, IIa41, IIa43, IIa56, IIa58, IIf2, IVa3, WIb10, WIc1, WId2, WId3, WIc16, WIc11, WIIba, WIb15, WIb7, WIb2
Vermilion II	1830 – c.1930	HBC	1a, IIa, Iva
Boyer’s Fort (1988 investigations only)	1788- 1792	NWC	Ia, IIa
Vermilion I	1798 – 1830	NWC/HBC	Ia, IIa, WIc, Ib10, IIb, If, WIb, WIc, WIIIb, WIII(oval/leaf, floral)
Dunvegan I	1805 – 1878	NWC/HBC	If5, IIa6, IIa13, IIa18, WIc1, WIc11
Dunvegan II	1878 – ??	HBC	IIa2, IIa37, IIa39, WIb11, WIb12
Rocky Mountain Fort (British Columbia)	1794 – 1805	NWC	Ia, IIa, WIb, WIc, WIIc, WIIIb, WIII (oval, floral)
Wegg’s House (Manitoba)	1795 – 1796	HBC	Ia, Ib, WIb, WIc, WIc1
Fort Union (North Dakota, USA)	1829 – 1865	American Fur Trade Company	Ia, IIa, Ic, IIIc, IVa, IIbb, IIh, Ibb, IVb, WId, WIb, WIe, WIc, WIIIa, WIIIb, WIIId, WIIIh, MPIIa, WMIa, WMIIb, WMIIc, BIf, BIg, Bia, WIII(oval/leaf, floral)

NWC – North West Company; HBC – Hudson’s Bay Company; ?? – Unknown; * – new bead types.

(This table is a work in progress. There are still some historic sites missing. Reports on others have yet to be written. Not all beads were identified to specific variety; this will require more detailed re-examination of the original assemblages).

Thus far we have identified 36 major glass bead types from these western Canadian fur trade posts (and one American post), dated between c.1788 – 1935. They represent the four major bead manufacturing methods (wound, drawn, mold/pressed, and blown). ³⁰ The most popular beads, in terms of quantity, are drawn glass beads which make up more than 95% in most fur trade glass bead assemblages. And the majority of drawn beads are very small (<3mm in diameter). These small beads become increasingly popular through time.

Examples of wound glass trade bead *types* found in the western Canadian fur trade post archaeological assemblages. A *type* refers to the label on the left side of each row of beads (e.g., WIIIa, WIc). The additional numbers below each bead (e.g., WIIe1, WIIIc1) refer to varieties based on different shapes, sizes or colors. Not all the varieties shown here have been found at the fur trade forts. But at least one or more variety in each of the major types has been found. Also, each of the fort assemblages are samples, and, with few exceptions, do not represent the total number of glass beads types potentially present at these sites. Therefore, both the glass bead types and varieties could change with additional sampling, or excavation of fur trade sites not yet excavated. ³¹

Examples of major types of drawn or tubular glass beads found at western Canadian fur trade posts. This is the most common bead type present in fur trade assemblages. And the most common drawn beads are the tiny ‘seed beads’, usually of the IIa variety above and less than 2mm in diameter. These beads, also referred to as embroidery beads, gained popularity throughout the fur trade as beads were used increasingly more for creating large patterns on garments, instead of just necklaces, earrings, or strung on leather fringe. Among Great Plains Indigenous groups, for example, *“…it is probable that very few embroidering beads were used by the Blackfeet before the American Fur Company opened its trade with them in 1831.”* One of the benefits of having archaeological samples of these bead types from forts spanning a long time period, allows us to document when various Indigenous groups first adopted them, and when they reached their popularity in various regions in North America ³²

Dating Glass Beads

We cannot determine, from the archaeological record, when beads were first manufactured, or ceased to be manufactured. But, we can at least get some idea of their dates of use. And, in a few cases, where our samples are robust, document their relative popularity through time. Then, with this knowledge, we can date archaeological sites or bead assemblages with unknown dates.

Some glass beads are more time-specific than others. For example, if we only look at their presence/absence (contextual seriation) the drawn, round (type ‘IIa’) beads occur at nearly every fur trade site resulting in a time range of use between 1788 – c.1872 (and likely much longer). Others such as the wound, oval, monochrome (type WIc) bead varieties have a slightly narrower range of use, based on their presence or absence at fur trade archaeological sites (c.1791 – 1869).

This figure shows fur trade sites which contained wound, oval, monochrome WIc glass bead types. The date range of occupation for each fur trade site having this bead type is plotted. Based on this evidence, the earliest known use of this bead type is based on the earliest dated site it was found at. The latest known date of use is based on the beginning of the latest dated site the bead type occurred at. Using only a presence/absence measure (or contextual seriation) it would be difficult to date sites of unknown age accurately with only this bead type (because the time range is so wide). Note also that this wound bead type is one of the earliest present at western Canadian fur trade sites. It occurs at the major fur trade company sites, including the American Fur Trade Company in the USA.

Examination of the range of use of the more elaborate wound IIIb(2) (leaf/floral oval beads) variety indicates they were only used between 1791 – 1829:

Date range of wound, oval glass beads with leaf/floral design (WIIIb(2) is between 1791 -1829, based on their presence at six western Canadian and one American fur trade post. Also, these beads, are mostly associated with the North West Company (NWC). According to some bead experts ³³ this might be the elusive ‘*China flowered*‘ bead listed in the 1825 Peace River men’s debt lists. The beads are white, resembling porcelain or china, thereby getting their name. And this bead type (which comes in numerous designs and colors) is the one of the few beads with a floral design on it. Although glass beads were imported from China, this specimen was likely made in Venice (see the Venetian sample bead cards). Unfortunately, many of the names of glass beads in the fur trade records cannot be accurately matched with those found in the archaeological record because of either poor or inconsistent documentation.

Popular Glass Beads – A Matter of Fashion?

From Joseph Isbister, Albany Fort, 24 August 1740:
“The beads that were indented for were a different sort from those remaining which go off at another time, the Indians being very much given to change their fancies.”

Joseph Isbister’s remarks brings up a word, about Indigenous People changing styles of beads, which we all are familiar:

FASHION!

Archaeological contextual seriation suggests that some glass bead types span a certain range of time. And then disappear being replaced by other bead types or styles. Why did this happen?

Ethnologist, Judy Thompson, suggests that Indigenous art (including beading) acts like fashion. Artistic trends and styles, “…came into vogue and were replaced with new ideas and techniques. Thompson challenged the old ideas of culturally pristine, static, unchanging tribal styles, subsequently polluted by outside influence. She identified a vigorous aesthetic climate….a Kroeberian analysis of artistic climax and decline.” ³⁴

Glass trade beads and dentalium from NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830). Even at a fur trade site occupied only a little over thirty years, we see a variety of bead types, which were used in combination or replaced earlier styles. Dentalium was highly prized by Indigenous Peoples, even with the introduction of glass beads. But tastes changed as different kinds of beads were introduced for trade.

Is this what our glass trade beads are doing? Are they simply objects of fashion for Indigenous People purchasing them? Are they going through cycles of ‘climax and decline‘, much like many of our styles today? To further determine whether fur trade glass beads are reacting this way, we need to examine some of them in more detail using frequency seriation where possible. ³⁵

To determine the popularity of a specific glass bead type or variety, we need to look at that bead’s proportional frequency through time (and space, if possible). To clarify what I mean, I will use only a few glass bead examples here.

With the available fur trade assemblages, I have calculated the relative percentages for wound, oval, monochrome (WIc), wound, oval floral/leaf (WIIIb), and wound, round, ‘Kitty Fisher’s Eyes’ (WIIIb, also known as ‘skunk beads’) bead types. These relative percentages are then plotted to time period:

This figure shows the relative percent of three major wound bead types (WIc, WIIIb KFE, and WIIIb (leaf/foral) plotted to time period using the western fur trade fort bead assemblages. Relative percent was computed by dividing the total number of each bead type by the total number of wound (WI) beads in each fort assemblage spanning a time period of c. 1750 – 1881. ³⁶ The graph shows an increase and then decline in the relative percent of each of these bead types. Unfortunately the sample of fur trade sites is small, so the results are currently only a crude approximation. What these results show however, is that each glass bead type might be following a curve (of gradual increase, peeking in popularity at the turn of the 19th century and then declining over time). There are a few things noteworthy about this graph: 1) The differences in the relative percent of each bead type (once we have more archaeological bead assemblages to work with) through time make it possible to date assemblages of unknown dates; and, 2) if the this type of curve (which comes in many shapes) holds up with a larger sample, then these bead types follow a typical ‘fashion’ curve: after its initial manufacture each bead style gains in popularity, finally reaching a peak in popularity and then gradually declines in popularity until no longer used. I call this a fashion frequency curve which describes quantitatively how fashions/trends (whether in clothing, automobiles, or eyeglasses) act. Fashion frequency curves come in many shapes depending on how frequently the object is consumed (e.g., rapid acceptance and decline, resulting in a very steep curve; to gradual acceptance reaching a peak and then a gradual decline resulting in a more gradual curve; and everything in between these two curves).

So, it seems that different bead styles, are not so much an indicator of static cultural traditions and identity, as they are about individual affiliation or differentiation. And a constant need to acquire new bead types as they become available. But each of these bead types could also be expressing group identity if we examine their use among specific Indigenous groups. ³⁷ Also, it is currently unknown how much of this change in glass bead styles was the product of choice among Indigenous People, as opposed to the manufacturer dictating styles, constantly coming up with new ones to promote trade. It’s likely a little of both but very difficult to accurately document. But, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Indigenous groups dictated what type of beads they wanted. And they sought new styles as a means of status and distinction from their peers. ³⁸

“Unable to provide the Indigenous men with their request, they counter offered with a “watch, handkerchief, a bunch of red beads, and a dollar….which was refused. Instead, the Indigenous men wanted beads they described as “tiaco-mo-shack” described as blue “chief’s beads” (Dubin 2009, 276); both sides of the trade were thus left empty-handed.” ³⁹

Combining the New and Old Traditions

More traditional methods of adornment were not immediately abandoned and quite often simply combined with glass bead adornment.

Sketch of a Inuit brow band collected at Repulse Bay by Captain Charles F.
Hall in the early 1860s. The band was made from seal or caribou skin. It has a row of
suspended seal teeth beads. Only the eleven central teeth have strings of alternate light and dark beads. An example of integrating new glass trade beads with traditional beading materials. What alludes us most in many of these historic examples is meaning. Was there social or spiritual meaning to using seals teeth, and only using strung beads of the central eleven strings? Or the colors of the beads used? Probably. Unfortunately traders or explorers rarely collected this information. Courtesy of Karlis Karklins. ⁴⁰

Based on historic documents and historic Indigenous artifacts, in western Canada Indigenous People retained their traditional bead forms (e.g., use of dentalium, elk canines, etc.) long after the introduction of the glass bead. This fact is born out archaeologically. For example, at the early period western forts, shell and bone traditional bead artifacts are present. ⁴¹ It is unclear whether these numbers represent changing Indigenous traditions and tastes, or growing unavailability of traditional beads. Nor is it known how much these figures differ from region to region.

Some traditional Indigenous beading methods left none or little archaeological evidence. Numerous historic references suggest that Indigenous People retained porcupine quillwork long after the introduction of glass trade beads. Glass beads were combined with quillwork.

“[Porcupine quillwork]…was never replaced by beadwork throughout the ‘real’ bead period, save possibly for the decoration of women’s dresses. Rather the two crafts existed side by side. The areas of decoration and the designs were much the same in both techniques.” (Ethnologist John Ewers describing Blackfoot clothing and decoration. Brackets mine) ⁴²

This First Nations girl’s dress, collected by George Catlin, contains glass beads, quillwork, and painted decorations. According to Wayne Davis (1972:44) among the Blackfoot in the US: *“This was particularly true of the last quarter of the nineteenth century which witnessed a florescence of Blackfeet beadwork and a decadence of quillwork.”* ⁴³

Other fragile organic materials, such as seeds, were also used as beadwork. And, unless carbonized or found in some other well-preserved context, might not survive in the archaeological record. Or not identified as beads. Lawrence J. Barkwell (Coordinator of Metis Heritage and Historic Research, Louis Riel Institute) descried how the Metis used Wolf Willow seeds as beads, even when glass trade beads were present. ⁴⁴

A combination of wolf willow and glass seed beads used to make necklaces (top left). A close-up of wolf willow seeds showing the long lighter colored lines adding structure and design to the seed. ⁴⁵

Many of these more traditional types of beading (i.e., dentalium, quillwork, and use of older forms of glass beadwork) have seen a resurgence in recent years as Indigenous artists identify with their histories.

Contemporary Indigenous beaders, by studying traditional beading techniques, have resurrected some of the Indigenous traditional forms of beading; such as making the once highly valued dentalium shell beads into earrings and necklaces. As Gwich’in beader Tania Larsson explains, it was her desire to retain traditions and identity: *“I always wanted to wear jewelry that represented my Gwich’in culture and it was really hard to find that.”* ⁴⁶ So, perhaps we haven’t finished that quantitative traditional bead curve representing the popularity of Indigenous traditional beadwork as we continue to follow it into the 21st century. ⁴⁷

‘Oh, Those Damn Seed Beads’

This was the cry that often went up when excavating at historic period sites. Too much of good thing. Thousands of tiny glass seed beads scattered in the dirt could make any archaeological investigation come to a grinding halt. Seed beads are really small (<2.0mm in diameter) drawn, tubular- or round-shaped beads that comprise most of the glass beads we find at fur trade sites. Sometimes they make up over 95% of the entire glass bead assemblage. ⁴⁸

And because they are so small, they create problems when excavating. Most of them would fall through our conventional one-quarter inch mesh screens. To avoid this, we often use fine screens to recover them. But, if we used only fine screens to sift through all our dirt, little would get done. So, we often use a combination of both. ⁴⁹

Photograph on the left is from the Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Victoria, Alberta, Canada of a beaded garment or bag. All the beads are the small glass seed beads used to decorate the object. One wrong stroke with the trowel and we would have lost this unique artifact. We would have only found hundreds of tiny beads scattered on the ground in its place. The photograph on the right shows seed beads found at the Fort Union site, North Dakota, USA. Seed beads, while always important throughout the fur trade, continued to become more popular throughout the nineteenth century. Indigenous People used more of these small beads for embroidery for larger designs and patterns on garments and other objects. ⁵⁰

The documentary evidence shows that these small beads become increasingly popular over time. More small beads were needed as decorating large areas of skins or cloth with designs increased. ⁵¹

These two images illustrate changes in the use of glass beads by Plains Indigenous through time. Increasingly throughout the 19th century, many Indigenous groups used the much smaller glass beads to embroider large areas of cloth and leather (right), unlike the larger beads used as hair and necklace decorations (left). ⁵²

Over the years archaeologists have done little with these beads except classify (to color and shape), count, and occasionally curse them. But a detailed look at them suggests much more. Over time they changed in size, shape and become more uniform. ⁵³

Drawn glass seed beads from some of the western Canadian fur trade forts showing the major changes through time. The upper diagram shows the gradual change from tubular- and square-shaped seed beads most common in the late 18th century – early 19th century archaeological assemblages, to round or circular seed beads by the mid-19th century. ⁵⁴ The glass seed beads are more frequently smaller after the mid-19th century, as the two photographs from Fort Riviere Tremblante and the later Fort Vermilion II beads indicate. There is also less variation in size, allowing First Nations and Metis women to sew more uniform, neater designs. The bottom photograph shows the amount of variation in bead shape of the larger seed beads on the left side, as opposed to the smaller, later period, more uniform seed beads on the right side. ⁵⁵

It’s hard to imagine Indigenous women threading some of these smaller seed beads. As the above image shows some of these beads were 1mm or less in diameter. But they preferred the smaller, more uniform beads, allowing them to produce beautiful, more intricate designs in an array of colors.

This beaded cushion is from Fort Vermilion, Alberta, Canada. It was made by Metis Francoise LaFleur Moberly, daughter of Jean Baptiste Lafleur. c.1879-1885. Metis women were superb embroiderers and artists. Because of their exquisite floral designs (in both silk embroidery and beadwork), the Metis became know as the ‘*Flower Bead People*‘, crafting floral beaded works in a rich variety of colors. ⁵⁶

A Few Closing Thoughts About Fur Trade Glass Beads

Another change, not discussed much here, occurred with those tiny seed beads. By the 1860s the number of bead colors had increased. But, that’s a topic for my next segment on glass trade beads. I’ll stop here before this blog becomes a book.

Besides providing you with some basic historical information about glass trade beads in the Americas, in particular Canada, I hope this work is valuable to the new Indigenous beaders out there. A lot of this information is not very accessible. A lot of our work never reaches the general public as much as we would like.

This second segment on historic glass beads focused more on some this artifact’s technical aspects. And the changes that occurred in glass bead styles over time. Some of these changes were related to changing European bead-making techniques. Others were driven by Indigenous People demanding either new or certain types of glass bead styles. The millions of tiny little seed beads represent a change to just not using beads as adornment in hair, ears or as necklaces. Instead they become works of art and design on clothing, dog and horse paraphernalia, allowing for a incredible degree and range of artistic variation, only possibly seen in pre-contact Indigenous quillwork and painting.

In the next, and perhaps last, segment on glass beads, I’ll examine in more detail Indigenous bead design, focusing primarily on bead color. Is this where group identity and distinctions reside? Is this where we see more cultural continuity? Or, is color, like different bead styles, simply a means of fashion, constantly changing, expressing affiliation or differentiation of individuals in Indigenous society? We’ll investigate further what those colorful glass beads can tell us about this topic?

Footnotes:

This is my first attempt at using footnotes. I hope this format is more satisfactory to my readership. There are those of you who are only interested about basic facts and results. And, there are those readers who want more details and references. Hopefully this format addresses both needs.[↩]
In my next segment on beads, I’ll tell you more about the meaning of the color combinations used for this beadwork.[↩]
You can find more information about this artifact in: Timothy C. Losey, et al. 1977. Archaeological Investigations: Fort Victoria, 1975. Occasional Paper No. 3. Historic Sites Service. Alberta Culture, Historical Resources.[↩]
Occasionally in archaeology we can assign artifacts to specific families or individuals, if the documentary or oral evidence is sufficient. However, in most instances we can only say that the glass beads were likely purchased, and the design made, by an Indigenous woman living at these fur trade forts. Little else is known about the owner. For example, was she of First Nations or Metis descent? Were her ethnic affiliations Cree, Chipewyan, Blackfoot, or some other Indigenous group?[↩]
There are many excellent works on historic glass bead manufacture. I will list some of these sources in my footnotes as we go along. My aim here is to provide you with only enough basic information to follow the terminology I use in this blog.[↩]
from Gregory A. Waselkov, David W. Morgan, and Billie Coleman. 2015. Ceramics and Glass Beads as Symbolic Mixed Media in Colonial Native North America. BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. Volume 27.[↩]
http://8weeksinitaly.blogspot.com/2012/08/glass-tour-in-murano.html[↩]
from: Alexander Nesbitt 1878:93-94. Glass. South Kensington Museum Art Handbook. Chapman and Hall, London. Brackets mine[↩]
These images are from Wayne Davis’s M.A. Thesis. 1972. GLASS TRADE BEADS OF THE NORTHERN PLAINS-‘UPPER MISSOURI REGION. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Wayne traveled to a number of major museums and institutions in the United States to look at the bead collections. He found these bead sample cards at the Peabody Museum. He sought advice about glass trade beads from renowned ethnologist John Ewers and archaeologist Waldo Wedel at the Smithsonian Institution.[↩]
From: Karlis Karklins. 2012. “Guide to the Description and Classification of Glass Beads Found in the Americas.” In BEADS. Journal for the Society of Bead Researchers 24[↩]
The glass bead manufacturing industry is much more complex than what I have set out here. There are many good sources describing the history of bead making in considerable detail. Perhaps one of the best for the beginner which is also available online, is this work from the Fort Vancouver Museum Series: Robert J. Cromwell Flynn O. Renard Elaine C. Dorset. Beads. NCRI Curation Series No. 5. This work describes the beads found at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Vancouver, Washington State, USA. Many of these beads are similar to those found at the western Canadian inland fur trade forts. What makes this work attractive for the beginner are the many excellent photographs of all the glass bead types recovered at this fur trade post. Also a very informative published Journal Series is: BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. This online journal includes a host of subjects on glass beads from all over the world.[↩]
Kidd, Kenneth E., and Martha Ann Kidd. 2012. A Classification System of Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeology. BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. Volume 24, Article 7.[↩][↩]
Photograph courtesy of Fort Vancouver Museum bead collection[↩]
Karklins, Karlis. 2012. Guide to the Description and Classification of Glass Beads Found in the Americas. BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. Volume 24, Article 8.[↩][↩]
Kidd, Kenneth and Martha Kidd. 2012. A Classification System for Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeologists. In BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. Volume 24(24).[↩]
Image courtesy of: https://www.thebeadchest.com/products/rare-super-jumbo-elongated-russian-blue-tube-beads-25x15mm?_pos=1&_sid=92e5f454f&_ss=r[↩]
Mathew Stirling, in a 1947 paper entitled: Arikara Glassworking. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 37:257-363, searched the early ethnographies for references to this practice. Wayne Davis, 1972, continued Stirling’s work, quoting other sources in his M.A. thesis and a published paper: “Time and Space Considerations for Diagnostic Northern Plains Glass Trade Bead Types.” In Historical Archaeology in Northwestern North America, edited by Ronald M. Getty and Knut Fladmark. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association. Although most of his work focused on historic Plains First Nations in the USA, his approach and questions he asked have important implications for historic glass bead archaeology in Canada.[↩]
From G. F. Will and H. J. Spinden. 1906. The Mandans. A Study of Their Culture, Archaeology and Language. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Paper, Vol. III. Cambridge: “The secret is only known to a few. Glass of several colors is pounded fine, each color separate;this is washed in several waters until the glass stops staining the water. They then take an earthen pot of some three gallons, put a platter in the mouth of the pot which has a nitch on its edge through which to watch the beads. Then some well seasoned clay, mixed with sand and tempered with water till of consistency of dough, is taken, and from it are made number of little sticks of the size of the hole desired in the bead. these are heated to a red heat and cooled again. The pot is also heated to clean it. Then small balls of the clay are made to serve as pedestals for the beads. The powdered with a little wooden paddle, where is is paddled into an oblong form, the clay stick is then laid across it and the lass is wound regular. To put in other colors the other end of the paddle stick, which is sharp, is used to make a hole which is then filled with another colored glass. A hole is then made in the center of each pedestal and a bead stuck in it . Then the platter is put in the coals and the pot is inverted over it; dry wood is placed about the whole and burnt….When the beads are whitish red and grow pointed, they are taken off. The clay center is picked out with an awl.”[↩]
Solid glass melts at 2552-2912F. Crushed or powdered glass melts between ~1300 – 1,500F. A large campfire can reach temperatures of over 1,100F. The clay pot might have increased these temperatures if the glass melted to be able to form beads. I’m searching for crushed or powdered glass as I write. I can’t wait to try out this technique.[↩]
“Long, long ago, we are told, the Cheyennes manufactured for themselves what might be called beads, but perhaps were small charms made of some vitrified substance—perhaps of pulverized glass—after the white people were met. Such beads are said to have been made within two or three generations. Many of them were fashioned in the shape of a lizard; that is, a four-legged object with a long tail and a small head. The ceremony connected with making such objects was secret, and he who wished to possess one was obliged to go to some person who himself had been taught the ceremony, and to ask that person to teach him how to make one. A payment was made for the service. The two went away together to conduct the ceremony in private. It is believed that in old times, long before the whites came, these beads were made from the quartz sand found on ant-hills, and that this was melted in an earthen pot. The secret of making them now seems to be lost.
In later times they melted the glass, with which to make the beads, in the ladles used in melting lead for their bullets. These ornaments or charms were made in various shapes, often in the form of a lizard, as said, or flat on one side and round on the other. Sometimes they had a perforation through which a string might be passed; at other times merely a constriction between two ends about which a string was tied. The mold was made of clay.” George B. Grinnell. 2008. The Cheyenne Indians. Their History and Lifeways. World Wisdom))
Grinnell also described how Arikara women used only a frying pan, wooden tool and a bend of sand to ‘remake the beads’. ((This is how Davis phrased it. I haven’t looked up Grinnell’s original quote. If this is the case, they might have been crushing glass trade beads to make their own types of beads.[↩]
George Catlin. 1848. Illustrations of the Manners, Customs and Condition of the Norther American Indians. London.[↩]
Photograph courtesy of Fort Vancouver Museum bead collection. Robert J. Cromwell, Flynn O. Renard, Elaine C. Dorset. Within the Collection. A Look Inside the Fort Vancouver Museum. BEADS, NCRI Curation Series No. 5.[↩]
Bead information from: Arthur J. Ray. 1974. The Indians in the Fur Trade. University of Toronto Press. HBCA B. 239/d/10-72[↩]
Data from: Karlis Karklins. 1983. Nottingham House: The Hudson’s Bay Company in Athabasca, 1802 – 1806. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch. Parks Canada. HBCA B. 39/a/2, fols. 65-68.[↩]
Occasionally glass beads can be assigned to individual households within the fort, when dwellings are well defined and occupation periods are short. We can also assume that both selection and use was gender-specific, being the domain of the Indigenous women working at the forts. It was a rare man that worked with glass trade beads.[↩]
Record from HBCA B.224/d/2[↩][↩]
Prior to the 1880s all women at these inland forts were of Indigenous descent. Thus, at the early forts we can be confident that either a First Nations or Metis woman purchased and used the beads. Diagram from: Heinz W. Pyszczyk. 1983. Historical and Archaeological Investigations: Fort Dunvegan, Alberta (GlQp-3). Final Report, Permit 82096. On File, Archaeological Survey of Alberta.[↩]
Seriation is a relative dating technique in archaeology. Artifacts from numerous archaeological sites are placed in chronological order. For example, often we don’t know when a particular bead was initially made. However, by identifying which beads were found at well dated fur trade sites, we can begin to place their range of use dates in chronological order. In this article I’ll use contextual and frequency seriation. In the former method, only the presence or absence of specific glass bead types recovered from well dated fur trade sites is noted. In the latter method the relative frequency of specific bead types recovered from trade sites is quantified through time.[↩]
These sites date from c.1788 to post-1900 A.D. They mostly come from central and northern Alberta, but also Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. I have also included the Fort Union, North Dakota glass glass bead assemblage on this list. It represents a Great Plains assemblage of which there are few in Canada. It contains a well documented, extensive list of beads. I also occasionally refer to the Fort Michlimackinac (c.1715 – 1781) glass bead assemblage which spans a much earlier date than any of our interior western forts. Also, most of the bead assemblages are only samples of varying sizes recovered from these posts. At some posts, over 50,000 beads were recovered; at others, as few as 50. A few posts, such as Nottingham House, were completely excavated. Thus, it should be kept in mind that the number of bead types present at each post may not be a true indicator of the actual number of bead types. Since number of bead types is usually a function of sample size, these numbers are inaccurate for making direct comparisons of number of bead types between fur trade posts.[↩]
wound bead types = 16; drawn bead types = 13; mold/pressed bead types = 4; blown bead types = 3[↩]
The bead type images are from: Kidd, Kenneth E., and Martha Ann Kidd. 2012. A Classification System of Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeology. BEADS. Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers. Volume 24, Article 7. This journal is online.[↩]
Quote is from: Ewers, John C. 1954:42-43. The Indian Trade of the Upper Missouri Before Lewis and Clark: An Interpretation. Bulletin Missouri Historical Society, 8(1), St. Louis.[↩]
Karlis Karklins, personal communication[↩]
Quote from Sherry Farrell Raceette. 2004. Sewing Ourselves Together: Clothing, Decorative Arts and the Expression of Metis and Half Breed Identity. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Manitoba. Judy Thompson. 1983. Turn of the Century Metis Decorative Art from the Frederick Bell Collection. ‘She Set the Fashion for the Whole North’. American Indian Art Magazine 8(2):37-53[↩]
I believe the need to differentiate or affiliate oneself with others, is a pan-human behavioral trait – humans, regardless of time period or specific culture, react to new objects in a similar way. In many historic and contemporary societies a few individuals, able to obtain new objects, use them as status symbols. Once those styles acquire a certain degree of popularity within the population, new objects are acquired as a means to differentiate oneself from others. There are exceptions to the rule, however. The Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites, based on religious beliefs, discouraged the use of material culture to distinguish oneself. Instead opting for a uniformity in clothing and other objects. North West Coast Indigenous Peoples accumulated wealth (objects) and then gave it all away, thereby gaining status.[↩]
The early 1750 median fort date represents Fort Michilimackinac (1716 – 1781) located in the Great Lakes Region. This bead assemblage was included because it has a much earlier date than any of the western forts, allowing us to determine the emergence of each glass bead type.[↩]
If some groups retained them much longer, or didn’t use them at all, they might then signify group identity. Our ability to do this kind of comparative analysis is limited, since we often don’t have the specific bead assemblages representing specific Indigenous groups available to us.[↩]
Again, I emphasize that this process was not consistent among all Indigenous groups. Some historic Indigenous groups, such as our North West Coast First Nations, had highly ranked societies, while others in the interior of Canada, were less so.[↩]
From Malinda Gray. 2017. Beads: Symbols of Indigenous Cultural Resilience and Value. M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto. Brackets mine. This is the encounter between the Lewis and Clark expedition Indigenous groups in the early 19th century.[↩]
Karlis Karklins. 1992. Trade Ornament Usage Among Native Peoples of Canada. A Source Book. Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada. This is a great source book on historic Indigenous ornamentation and decoration in Canada. Lots of historic descriptions, illustrations and photographs of ornament use.[↩]
As high as 33% at Fort Vermilion I (c.1798-1830), nonexistent at Nottingham House (1801-1804), 1.3% at Riviere Tremblante; 26% at Rocky Mountain House (1799-1821); and 34% at Fort Union (1829-1860); 0% at Fort Edmonton (c.1830-1915); 4% at Fort Victoria (1864-1898) and 0% at Last Mountain House. The general trend is towards the use of fewer traditional beads at the later period forts when these figures are averaged: Traditional beads at pre-1830 forts = 20.1%; post-1830 forts = 7.5%.[↩]
John Ewers 1945:34. The Indian Trade of the Upper Missouri Before Lewis and Clark: An Interpretation. Bulletin Missouri Historical Society, 8(1), St. Louis.[↩]
This image appears in Davis’ M.A. Thesis, pp.216. There is no information about group affiliation or date.[↩]
From: https://www.scribd.com/document/23383369/Wolf-Willow-in-Metis Culture?fbclid=IwAR1zpP2bCRastXKYbzrThONp5SerNGLn1c953aDs_GrKIG_ZSyrOIdzqGoc. Forrest Hagen, Donalda, Alberta, who makes his own wolf willow seed jewelry, introduced me to this method.[↩]
Upper left photograph courtesy of Lawrence Blackwell. Upper right image, courtesy of Forrest Hagen, who also posted more detailed information about this bead art form on my first bead segment.[↩]
From: Christian Allaire. 2017. Meet 8 Indigenous Beaders Who Are Modernizing Their Craft. VOGUE[↩]
Image on the left, courtesy of: https://ca.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrVk9g9H2NidjEAUgUXFwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?p=images+of+dentalium+jewelry&type=Y143_F163_201897_102620&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=trp&ei=UTF-8&fr=yhs-trp-001&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jYS5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tL3locy9zZWFyY2g_aHNwYXJ0PXRycCZoc2ltcD15aHMtMDAxJnR5cGU9WTE0M19GMTYzXzIwMTg5N18xMDI2MjAmcD1pbWFnZXMrb2YrZGVudGFsaXVtK2pld2Vscnk&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMODv0KntyIrZydIfvb_4kvXiteoSqe3nFUkbYEjFVzZgbkkFp5vthaTXHvA8c070096Lzk5zBhPP_2Qxb0PujBv8Ha-yUjvbVHKcX3eckrIChm9VNniLL07gfdXaVJ1gHsD1ZEjq2BdJ8Pfi5i6IRDCbQfCE3Jkb7t4RBzWQuBH#id=7&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimg1.etsystatic.com%2F076%2F0%2F11489053%2Fil_fullxfull.815585791_qyb9.jpg&action=clickImage on the right courtesy of: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6e/28/04/6e2804fea7702df59ca35da3158c3267.jpg.[↩]
My former colleague, Mike Forsman recovered over 20,000 seed beads in the Main House excavations at the NWC Fort George (c.1792-1800). At Fort Vancouver, Washington State, USA, Lester Ross recovered over 100,000 glass trade beads, mostly of the ‘seed bead’ variety.[↩]
Because the recovery methods are so erratic from one fort excavation project to another, quantitative comparison of seed beads to other larger types of beads, or between forts, is virtually meaningless.[↩]
Image on the right from: Steven Leroy DeVore. 1992. Beads of the Bison Robe Trade: The Fort Union Trading Post Collection. Friends of Fort Union Trading Post, Wilson, North Dakota.[↩]
According to Wayne Davis (1972:50) describing the Plains tribes: “In the “modern” period, that is, after 1840, practically everything which the tribes made of cloth or skin shows beadwork. Every kind of garment for both sexes, bags of all sizes’ and shapes, cradles, horse furniture, toys and tipi furnishings, and ceremonial paraphernalia are the principal objects’ which are beaded. The contrast between this profusion and relative scarcity of beadwork in the early period point to the great increase of the craft in the modern period.”[↩]
Left Image: Mandeh-Pahchu, Mandan Man, painting by Karl Bodmer. Right Image, courtesy of George Ranch Museum Collection (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth8340/m1/1/high_res/) [↩]
Wayne Davis, in his 1972 M.A. Thesis noted: “Douglas (1936:91) noted that “seed” beads were 1/16 to 3/32 of an inch in diameter, and varied in thickness considerably, especially the older specimens. Often he found that one edge was thicker than the other. Improved methods of manufacture in today’s bead factories make for much more regularly sized and shaped beads. The uneven nature of a sampling of beads would therefore suggest something
of their possible age.”[↩]
Fort example at the northern HBC post, Nottingham House (1801 – 1804), 15% of the glass seed beads were tubular-shaped. At the later Fort Vermilion II site (c.1830 – 1935) only 0.5% were tubular-shaped. When examined temporally, other forts produced similar results.[↩]
In his M.A. thesis, Wayne Davis, although he did not provide any quantitative analysis from his American Plains posts, already predicted these temporal changes in American Indigenous glass seed beads, that we can now quantify from our Canadian archaeological glass seed bead assemblages.[↩]
Photograph courtesy of the Fort Vermilion Museum, Alberta, Canada.[↩]

Posted on February 20, 2021February 20, 2021
THE STARGAZER(S) – Koo-Koo-Sint

This Canadian commemorative stamp for David Thompson was issued one-hundred years after his death, in recognition as a surveyor and cartographer of the then territories of Canada.
He was known as Koo-Koo-Sint (the man who looks at stars) by First Nations. David Thompson, trader, explorer, surveyor and mapmaker, became a highly renowned land geographer. Some say the best in the world. After studying his maps and how he managed to carry out his work, I tend to agree.
I’ve had the opportunity to apply Thompson’s work to furthering our history. In particular finding a few of the many fur trade posts in western Canada still lost in the wilderness. Or beneath our very noses.
This is my story of following in the shadows of these great ones. In this post I’ll focus on David Thompson. Perhaps in another post, Peter Fidler.
The sextant, one of the instruments David Thompson used to shoot angles to determine latitude and longitude.
David Thompson
Born in Westminster, Middlesex, England, in 1770, to Welsh immigrants, Thompson joined the Hudson’s Bay Company at the age of 14. He studied surveying with the Company and was soon exploring uncharted territory in the Canadian Northwest. At age seventeen, he penetrated west as far as the present-day Calgary.
In 1798 Thompson joined the North West Company and devoted all his time mapping and exploring. He comes by his reputation as a great land surveyor and cartographer honestly. His maps were accurate, and his exploits covered over 80,000 kilometers by foot, horseback, or canoe. All previous maps of western America paled in comparison to his maps.
This map of western North America drawn by Joseph La France in 1740, shows how little was known about the Canadian west. Try to find your home on this map.
In 1804, David Thompson visited Fort Vermilion, then called LaFleur’s Post, by the North West Company. We know this from his daily journal. Here is an excerpt from his journal and arrival at the post. Good luck reading it. It may strain your eyes.
A page of David Thompson’s original journal, 1804. Thompson’s script requires some getting used to. As a historical archaeologist, one of the hardest things I have had to do, is read journals, such as Thompson’s. And then, when I felt comfortable with his script, I went on to someone else’s journal and had to start learning all over.
In Search of LaFleur’s Post (Fort Vermilion I)
Before 1998 Fort Vermilion was still lost in the northern Alberta wilderness. In 1968 John Nicks (Provincial Museum of Alberta) and Karlis Karklins (Parks Canada) searched for the post but did not find it.
In 1998 a few members of the community of Fort Vermilion asked me if I would try to find the first Fort Vermilion. It was important to them because 1998 marked its 200 birthday.
I accepted their invitation. I’d found Boyer’s Post a decade ago. A post which too had been swallowed up by the northern boreal forest and lost for 200 years. This I believed would be much easier than finding Boyer’s post whose location was only vaguely alluded to by the occasional passing explorer.
One of the problems with finding old abandoned fur trade sites with vague references to their locations is the formidable bush along the lower terraces of the Peace River. For example, in 1792 Alexander Mackenzie passed the Boyer River Post on his way upriver near the Boyer River. He wrote: “In the summer of 1788 a small spot was cleared at the Old Establishment which is situated on a bank thirty feet above the level of the river and was sown with turnips, carrots and parsnips.” After finding Boyer’s Post in 1987, it took us over an hour to relocate the site in 2018. It’s in here somewhere…. The only fact we could come away with from this quote was that the fort was located on a bank near the Peace River where the Boyer River flowed into it.
Not only does the dense northern bush hide any signs of human settlement, so does urbanization. If you were to visit today’s Alberta legislature grounds in Edmonton, Alberta, you would be hard-pressed to see any signs of what was one of the most important 19th century forts in western Canada. When we interviewed people visiting our excavations in the early 1990s, the majority did not know this was the original location of Fort Edmonton. The fort was hiding in plain view.
The search for these long forgotten places is often difficult. The first problem with the Fort Vermilion site was its remoteness. There were no roads near where we thought it might be, and the bush was dense along the lower terraces of the Peace River. Ground surface visibility was bad.
Long stretches of the Peace River in northern Alberta are remote and very difficult to travel along. Any signs of settlement gets swallowed up immediately in the lower terrace forests. This is the stretch of river where we eventually found Fort Vermilion. It looks good from the air. Until you get on the ground and have to walk through the bush.
So, where was LaFleur’s post? Were there any records that talked about it? Did the Hudson’s Bay Company rebuild the post when the two companies amalgamated, or, did they move it in 1821?
The earliest known record of the location of LaFleur’s post comes from David Thompson’s 1804 journals. Thompson stated the post was on the left bank of the river 17 miles downriver from the mouth of the Keg River. Those seem like pretty good details until you begin to think about them a little more. For instance, what does left bank mean? As you travel upriver, or downriver? Thompson didn’t elaborate. And then, was the Keg River the same one as today’s Keg River? Finally, what did 17 miles downriver mean? Were those river miles, or, were those a direct line to the fort from the mouth of the Keg River?
There was no way of determining on which side of the river bank the fort was located from Thompson’s left bank remark. Best to check both banks. In fact Nicks and Karklins had already checked the east bank in the general vicinity, and found nothing. Then there was the Keg River. I assumed that the historic and present names were the same. The reason for this was that Thompson noted other important landmarks in his journals, such as Wolverine Point (Carcajou) which still exists today on the Peace River.
Next was the distance of 17 miles. I examined both Thompson’s journals and other documents and found that these were river miles. Thompson used river track surveys, where he took a compass bearing and a distance to a point in the river where it turned and then repeated it as he traveled on the river. But, how accurate were these readings?
“Co. N12 E1m NE3/4m” (David Thompson’s notebook, May 3, 1804, Fort Vermilion)
David Thompson used a 32 point compass rose to estimate directions, such as those above. Each point represented 11.25 degrees. In the above quote from Thompson’s 1804 journal, he traveled 12 miles north, then one mile east, then 4 miles northeast. Reckoning speed and distance was entirely another matter. He would have needed to estimate how fast his canoes were moving and then time the distance with a watch (which he did have). One way (and not the only one) would be to pace off an accurate distance on shore and then time how fast the canoes traveled that distance, giving him some idea of baseline speed.
Whatever methods Thompson used, his maps for the period were very accurate.
David Thompson’s line track survey of the North Saskatchewan River in the 1790s, compared to the river’s actual course today. Thompson wisely made several surveys and then averaged his distances and orientation, much like that of a carpenter taking the same measurement a number of times and averaging the distance.
When I saw Thompson’s North Saskatchewan River map I realized there might be a similar Peace River map, marking all the forts along it. I quickly found Thompson’s Peace River map published in his narrative (1916). Much to my dismay this is what it looked like.
This map is a reproduction of Thompson’s original map, accurately showing the Peace River. But alas, not a fort to be seen. When I looked closely, there was a note on the bottom of the map that said: “…reduced from a tracing of photostat of the original Thompson map in the Royal Ontario Archives, which is now too dark for successful reproduction.” (Tyrrell 1916).
At the Royal Alberta museum we had a full sized reproduction of David Thompson’s original ‘territories’ map, including the Peace River. When I looked at that map, this is what I saw.
On this map all the major forts and landmarks are clearly marked. The publisher decided to remove the names and locations of these places in the 1916 publication.
And, low and behold, there was Fort Vermilion on the west bank roughly where Thompson described it in his journals.
The lesson to be learned from this was to always go back to the original documents whenever possible. One of the rules of doing history and dealing with historic documents.
………………………….
Next we needed a fine water craft to get near the location where we thought the fort might be located. Below is a photograph of the official research vessel, known locally as the Barge, owned and operated by Mike Mihaly, High Level Alberta.
Getting ready to depart from La Crete Ferry Landing on the barge on one of many expeditions to Fort Vermilion I. Captain Mike jokingly told me that the barge was first a bridge across a creek at home and then over the years morphed into this river boat. What the barge lacked in appearance was made up with both its practicality and the gear on board. Depth finders, solar array, phones and an ingenious anchoring system of poles for the constantly moving river which in a few short hours could change depth, either sinking you or leaving you dry on land if anchored too securely.
I may never excavate at this fur trade site again. But, over the course of 30 years I said that at least a half-dozen times and kept comping back. Never say ‘Never’. However, to remind me of the good days and productive research between trips, I have this image on my desktop. The Barge. To remind me of those good times.
In October, 1998, two-hundred years after it was built we (Al and Marilee Toews, Fort Vermilion, and Mike Mihaly, High Level, Alberta) anchored about 500 metres from where after an afternoon of walking and stumbling through the bush we eventually found the long lost Fort Vermilion I. It was truly a day to be remembered for everyone.
As I later reflected after examining Colin Campbell’s (clerk for the Hudson’s Bay Company) journals at Fort Vermilion, we were fortunate to have such an astute observer as David Thompson. Or this fort might still be lost to us. Campbell spent nearly ten years at Fort Vermilion, keeping a journal for most of those years. There is not a single entry that would help identify the location of this and other forts along the river.
A Few Final Comments on David Thompson’s Maps and Journals
I am always amazed and somewhat in awe of how one man, using very simple, rudimentary instruments could so accurately map the Canadian West. In a canoe undergoing tremendous hardships and obstacles. Surely he deserves more recognition than a five cent postage stamp. Even the Canadian loon gets more monetary recognition.
As it turned out Thompson’s latitude reckonings (obtained by measuring the angle of the sun to the horizon at midday, or taking angle of the north star to the horizon with a sextant) were 11 seconds, or 220 metres off for the location of Fort Vermilion I. His estimation of longitude at Fort Vermilion were over 35 kilometres off. Not surprising, since you needed extremely accurate watches (one set at mean Greenwich time and one set locally to estimate longitude accurately). It would be later when Captain James Cook circumnavigated the globe mapping it, that more accurate time-pieces were available, thus producing more accurate maps.
Highly accurate time pieces were necessary to determine longitude. And they had to be small enough to carry through the Canadian wilderness. That and over a dozen mathematical computations. David Thompson was off a little over one degree in estimating longitude at Fort Vermilion. But even one degree was a considerable distance.
“…brass Sextant of ten inches radius, an achromatic Telescope of high power for observing the Satellites of Jupiter and other phenomena, one of the same construction for common use, Parallel glasses and quiksilver horizon for double altitudes; Compass, Thermometer, and other requisite instruments, which I was in the constant practice of using in clear weather for observations on the Sun , Moon, Planets and Stars…” (David Thompson)
THE STARGAZER – Koo-Koo-Sint
This is one of the first artifacts we found at the long-lost Fort Vermilion I. Can you guess what it is? Perhaps in another post I’ll write more about this very unique object.
………………….
References
Thompson, David, 1916. David Thompson’s Narratives of His Explorations in Western America 1784 – 1812. The Champlain Society. Toronto.

Posted on January 23, 2021January 23, 2021
Back in the Saddle Again: A Note About an Old Toothbrush

Hello everyone. It’s been a while since I last posted here. However that does not mean I haven’t been writing. I have. Just to a different audience – my archeological colleagues. And when I tell you that I’ve been writing about how deep objects sink when stepped on, and what that means for the archeological record, I can already hear the sighs of relief. ‘Sure glad he didn’t share that gem with us.’
For me it doesn’t get much more exciting than that. At least during these Covid times when repeatedly stepping on marbles was the highlight of my day. In fact, when I carried out some of these experiments along the banks of the North Saskatchewan River near Devon, Alberta, this summer they drew a lot attention. As in, ‘What’s that weirdo doing?‘ People were obviously bored.
After explaining to one mother and her ten year old daughter, why I was stomping on marbles in a sandbox, the mom quickly whisked her daughter away, looking over her shoulder to make sure I wasn’t following. I guess I left quite an impression. That young girl will now have forever an image in her head of what an archaeologist looks like and does for a living. And it won’t be the Indiana Jones kind, but some old guy, with long white hair tied in a pony tail, trampling on marbles, then carefully recording those results. And that poor mother’s ‘Indi’ dream archaeologist was forever shattered as well.
Just setting up my archaeological experiment in the beautiful North Saskatchewan River Valley near Devon, Alberta. As archaeologists we are always concerned about time and stratigraphy. And whether objects from one layer get mixed up with objects from another lower layer representing a different time period. Only one way to find out. Stomp on them to see how deep they go.
There are times however when my profession is a little more exciting and the things we find are jaw droppers. One-of-a-kinds, such as this bone/ivory artifact found at the Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830) fur trade post in northern Alberta. We think it’s a toothbrush, perhaps one of the earliest ever to enter the province. This perfectly preserved object, with some of the bristles still intact at both ends, currently is the only one found in Alberta and I have only seen a fragment of one like it found at a NWT fort.
So what is an object like this doing at a frontier wilderness post in what was then the middle of nowhere (and in some respects still is)? My colleagues and I have been asking ourselves that question for some time now. Aside from idle speculation, we have few definitive answers. Dental hygiene was not at a very advanced stage at the turn of the 19th century anywhere in the world, let alone some Canadian frontier trading post. Especially among the lower income fort laborer’s.
Although the toothbrush was already invented in China sometime in the 7th – 8th century A. D. by the Dang Dynasty, it took a while for Europe to catch on.
https://www.thehealthsciencejournal.com/the-history-of-the-toothbrush/
Here’s what the toothbrush history experts have to say on the subject:
“At around 1780, the first toothbrush was made by William Addis of Clerkenald, England. Addis, and later, his descendants, manufactured the finest English brushes, where the handles were carved out of the bone of cattle and the heads of the natural bristles were placed in the bored holes made in the bone and kept in place by thin wire. The natural bristles were obtained from the necks and shoulders of swine, especially from pigs living in colder climates like Siberia and China.
By the early 1800s the bristled brushes were in general use in Europe and Japan. In 1857, H. N. Wadsworth was credited as the first American to receive a toothbrush patent as America entered the growing toothbrush market.” (https://mrs-o-c.com/computers/history/toothbrush/toothbrushHistory.htm
Here is sort of a similar-looking bone toothbrush from 1844:
In 1844, the first toothbrush was manufactured by hand and patented as a 3-row brush of serrated bristles with larger tufts by Dr. Meyer L. Rhein.http://(https://mrs-o-c.com/computers/history/toothbrush/toothbrushHistory.htm
It’s not as if this was a common artifact in western Canada. No. It was essentially a ‘one-off.’ And how did this rather pristine, still functional object end up in the fort midden pile? We can only speculate, but it seems reasonable to assume it belonged to a person who did not linger long at this ‘silvan abode in the woods.’ (A tongue-in-cheek quote from Alexander Ross, 1825, describing the rather decrepit looking Fort Assiniboine, Alberta) Or we would have found more like it.
Let me assure you this find is unusual and not normal fur trade archaeology. But then trampling on marbles isn’t either. Both however do make for a good story. In my next post I’ll speculate even more about this object with a short story of historical fiction. I wish I could share this post with that mother and child to help restore their image of archaeology. Too late for that though.
Until then, stay safe everyone.
In the meantime, in order to fight Covid, I’m going to brush my teeth with the new toothpaste I just acquired. If they had this toothpaste in the fur trade, we would have found a lot more toothbrushes:
https://www.pinterest.ca/ultibrush/history-of-the-toothbrush/

Posted on March 25, 2020March 28, 2020
A Look Back at Our Canadian Diet: A Time When Animal Fat was King

During most of human history, hominins (that’s us, and all prehistoric humans before us) selected animals, and parts of animals, containing the most fat. Or, the most calories packed into the least amount of meat. For purely survival reasons, before the advent of agriculture and domestication (which did not occur in many parts of the world) the name of the game was to consume the richest foods possible, whenever possible.
“We Eat Everything Except the Manure.”
(Explorer, Peter Fidler, 1801, describing eating wild game, while traveling with the Dene in northern Alberta and the North West Territories, Canada)
Our Present Canadian Diet
FOOD. As Canadians we often take it for granted. For most of us, there’s always something to eat. Just a matter of selecting from the hundreds of different foods and dishes available.
And when it comes to the Canadian diet and the role animal fat plays in it, warning bells go off. BE AWARE. We’re told to eat it in minimal amounts. Because it’s bad for you.
However, for most of human history, that was not always the case. For example, in traditional Inuit diets, approximately 50% of their calories came from fat, 30–35% from protein and 15–20% from carbohydrates. Animal fat also ruled in the Canadian fur trade.
The 18th and 19th Century Canadian Diet
During the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth centuries, in western Canada, a wide variety of wild game animals provided First Nations peoples and Euro-Canadians with most of their calories. In eastern Canada during this time, domestic animals and agriculture had largely replaced wild animals and plants in peoples’ diet.
In western Canada, animal fat was highly desirable and sought after. At the fur trade forts, wild game meat and fat was even doled out according to social class. Ironically, the hard working fort employees who needed it most, received the least amounts.
In 1832, at the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Fort Vermilion, Northern Alberta, for example, Company employees received following meat rations:
Category Fresh Meat Dried Meat Pounded Meat Grease
Officers Mess (2 people) 2,250 lbs 57 lbs 57 lbs 105 lbs
Officers Families (6 adults) 4,283 159 6 108
Engages (8 people) 7,752 576 576 18
Engages Families (3 adults) 2,612 148 148 4
Note: From the above table, calories derived from animal fat versus animal protein is estimated to be ~4:1
At Fort Vermilion, each officer consumed about 1,125 pounds of fresh meat a year, or approximately three pounds (1.4 kilograms) per day. Each worker consumed 969 pounds per year. This figure does not include the dried and pounded meat, or fat. That’s about three bison per year, folks. Hard to imagine eating that much meat now. Every day.
Other historic references suggest that Company employees ate even more meat than listed above. For us these numbers are truly staggering. But also very difficult to verify:
“The ordinary ration, under these circumstances [no flour or vegetables] at any of the Hudson Bay Company posts is either three large white fish, or three rabbits, or two pounds of pemmican, or three pounds of dried meat, or eight pounds of fresh buffalo meat per day per man.” (Alexander Sutherland, 1888)
Along the Saskatchewan River, where forts had access to the vast herds of Plains Bison, an enormous amount of meat was needed to feed the fort occupants for a year:
“Daily requirements for the fort – approx. 20 men, 11 women, 19 children, 36 train dogs. Of fresh meat – the tongues, bosses, ribs and fore and hind quarters of 3 animals.” (From the journals of Issac Cowie in the service of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1867 -74) Total bison/year = 1095.
At the North West Company’s Fort George in Alberta, Clerk Duncan M’Gillivray noted: “…we have finished a Glaciere containing 500 thighs & shoulders for the consumption of April & beginning of May…” (From the journal of Duncan M’Gillivray, at Fort George 1793-94)
Also, First Nations traded huge amounts of meat to this fort:
Article (lbs) Traded from Indians & C Supplied the Factory Expended Remains
Buffalo Meat 26,230 “ 19,673 6,557
Buffalo Fat 2,900 2,500 400 “
Pemmican 7,200 7,200 “ “
And over two hundred years later, this is what the archaeological record at these Fortes des Prairies looks like. Both photographs are from the North West Company Fort George (c.1792-1800), central Alberta. In the top image we found a cellar filled with animal bone. In the bottom image, this line of bone lies along the fort palisade wall. These early Saskatchewan River forts were ‘meat factories’, processing tens of thousands of pounds of meat to make pemmican for the Company canoe brigades. Imagine what this place must have smelled like in the spring and summer months. There are many theories why these forts were abandoned relatively shortly after being built. According to most documents, animal populations were soon decimated near the fort requiring a move. But the ‘Stink Factor’ must have played a role for an early exit as well.
The More Fat, the Better
Fort occupants ate a variety of game animals. Lynx, bear, dog, wolf, porcupine, squirrel, skunk, owls, muskrat, varying hare, raccoons, beaver, elk, caribou, moose and bison. Also a variety of fish (especially whitefish) and waterfowl.
“…a rich, agreeable, and very wholesome fish (whitefish), that never palls the appetite; and is preferable, and other fish of this country…” (from the journals of Sir John Richardson, surgeon and explorer)
“…ducks of various kinds, which having shed their feathers, are easily killed in the numerous lakes and ponds. The larger ducks are generally fat at this season, the young of the year are lean and insipid.” (from the journals of Alexander Henry (the younger), Fort White Earth, Saskatchewan River, central Alberta)
Sometimes the consumption of some rather unorthodox critters got just a little out of hand. Explorer Samuel Hearne describes one such incident: “…the warbles out of the deer’s backs, and the domestic lice, were the only two things I ever saw my companions eat, of which I could not, or did not, partake. I trust I shall not be reckoned over-delicate in my appetite.” (from Samuel Hearne’s diaries)
While it’s hard to imagine eating something like this warble off an animal, hunger often trumps all. As Peter Fidler’s rather blunt words suggest, when people are driven to extremes of hunger they will eat almost anything. And, at some of the northern fur trade posts, near starvation situations occasionally occurred.

“Friday gave the men a parchment skin to eat – a Canadian that came home from the hunting tent informed me that the hunters was all starving as they could kill no cattle [bison].” (HBC trader, Thomas Swain, Mansfield House, 1802, near Fort Vermilion, Alberta)
On the other end of the extreme, Company employees often had considerable choice and selection of wild game. Whenever possible they chose the fattiest animals, and selected the parts of the animal that contained the most fat.
Fatty, and Fat Animals
The large plains and woodland bison provided First Nations and first Euro-Canadians with considerable amounts of meat. A two year old bison weighs approximately 850 pounds, yielding about 300 pounds of usable meat.
Some game animals were fatter during certain times of the year. The flesh of some animals contained more fat than others any time of the year. According to fur trade records, bison tasted best when fat:
“We killed a great many buffalo, which were all in good condition, and feasted…..luxuriously upon the delicate tongues, rich humps, fat roasts, and savory steaks of this noble and excellent species of game….We had found the meat of the poor buffalo the worst diet imaginable, and in fact grew meager and gaunt in the midst of plenty and profusion. But in proportion as they became fat, we grew strong and hearty…” (from S. Phillips 1940:42)
The fat of some animals were considered inferior to others:
“The Red Deer is next in size to the Moose, but it is not equal to it in its delicious flavor, on account of the peculiar quality of the fat, which turns cold so very fast, that a person must eat it the instant that it is taken from the fire, and even then the mouth is sometimes lined with a grease of the consistence of tallow.” (from the journals of Edward Umfreville, trader, 1790)
The Canadian Beaver, economic driver of 18th and 19th century Canada. Valued for both its fur and its meat. Sometimes the fort workers valued its meat far more than its fur.
Not only was the Canadian beaver valued for its fur but also for its flesh, and in particular, its fat. In its prime, beaver meat is composed of over thirty percent fat. The tail, considered a delicacy among fur traders and First Nations, was almost all fat.
“In summer, the beavers are lean, and their fur poor, for which reason they are usually not caught at this time. But in winter they get fat and have thicker fur. Their meat is very palatable. The tails, which are fat all through, are especially regarded as delicacies.” (from the journals of F. A Wislizenus 1839).
“The flesh of the Beaver is much prized by the Indians and Canadian Voyageurs, especially when it is roasted in the skin, after the hair has been singed off. In some districts it requires all the influence of the Fur Trader to restrain the hunters from sacrificing a considerable quantity of beaver fur every year to secure the enjoyment of this luxury…” (from the journals of James Richardson 1819)
At many of the northern Peace River fur trade sites, beaver bones were the most common. Such as this beaver pelvis and ulna found near the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion (c.1798-1830) site. And and most of this bone shows knife marks from butchering, not skinning. This evidence, and its occurrence with other domestic household refuse, suggests consumption of the highly sought after meat.

(Now that I look closely at this photograph I see the Canadian nickel used for scale. And the beaver on it. Believe me, this was not intentional. But fitting, I guess. Couldn’t find a loonie.)
Not only were certain animals with high fat content selected for, but the parts of the animal, such as bone marrow, tongues, nose, some organs, and the fattest portions on the carcass (hump of the buffalo, rib meat, etc.) were also preferred.
Moose nose, or ‘muffle’. A great Canadian delicacy. Image courtesy of Four Pounds Flour. For a great read, go to this post and read all about preparation of this dish. And the historic quotes about its delicacy and flavor.
Other parts of the animal, now rarely eaten, often were very high in fat content:
“…and, oh shade of Eude, the marrow bones!” (author, unknown)
“Marrow was held in such high esteem that the term “marrow” seems to have come to be applied to other parts of the animals which were considered good to eat. As well as the frequently mentioned “marrow bones”, there are references to “marrow ribs”, “marrow fat”, and “marrow guts”…but the marrow guts were eaten by the Blackfoot and by the French Canadian voyageurs, who considered them a treat.” (from Isobella Hurburt 1977:16)
“…rich cow [bison] tongues cooked with buffalo marrow, which had been preserved in the autumn when the animals were fat…” (from the journals of John Palliser, 1853)
Bison tongue was considered a delicacy by First Nations and Canadian fur traders alike.
Animal bone marrow contains approximately eighty-five percent fat. It was highly sought after in the fur trade. We find animal long bones that have been spirally fractured (green bone fracture) by a heavy implement to extract the marrow inside.
The shaft of this large ungulate femur, found near the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion (c.1798-1830) was deliberately smashed open to extract the marrow inside.
Fort personnel even boiled animal bones to extract every ounce of fat. The evidence? We often find hundreds of thousands of crushed pieces of animal bone at fur trade archaeological sites.
“…bones were also crushed, and all the marrow fat extracted from them. This was done by boiling the bones in sufficient water to cover them, and as the marrow or grease rose to the surface it was carefully skimmed off….This fat was eaten with “pounded meat”, and was also used in making pemmican.” (Amelia M. Paget, 1909, at HBC Fort Qu’appelle in Saskatchewan)
Crushed animal bones from a historic site near Fort Vermilion. Evidence of possible bone boiling for the extraction of grease.
In the words of Paul Kane, one of Canada’s earliest artists, while visiting Fort Edmonton in 1847, Christmas dinner contained many of these dishes:
“At the head, before Mr. Harriot, was a large of boiled buffalo hump; at the foot smoked a boiled buffalo calf. Start not, gentle reader, the calf is very small, and is taken Caesarean operation long before it attains full growth. This, boiled whole, is one of the most esteemed dishes amongst the epicures of the interior. My pleasing was to help a dish of mouffle, or dried moose nose; the gentleman on my left distributed, with graceful impartiality, the white fish, delicately browned in buffalo marrow. The worthy priest helped the buffalo tongue, whilst Mr. Rundell cut up the beaver’s tail. Nor was the other gentleman left unemployed, as all his spare time was occupied in dissecting a roast wild goose….Such was our jolly Christmas dinner at Edmonton; and long will it remain in my memory…”
In Times of Scarcity
At the other end of the spectrum, when times were tough, people would eat other, leaner types of animals, such as varying hare, or greater portions of lean meat containing higher amounts of protein. When humans ingest large amounts of protein or lean meat, and less fat, some severe health issues may occur. This malady is described below by one of Canada’s greatest arctic explorers, Vilhjalmur Stephanson:
“If you are transferred suddenly from a diet normal in fat to one consisting wholly of rabbit you eat bigger and bigger meals for the first few days until at the end of about a week you are eating in pounds three or four times as much as you were at the beginning of the week. By that time you are showing both signs of starvation and of protein poisoning. You eat numerous meals: you feel hungry at the end of each: you are in discomfort through distention of the stomach with much food and you begin to feel a vague restlessness. Diarrhea will start in from a week to 10 days and will no t be relieved unless you secure fat. Death will result after several weeks.” (Vilhjalmur Stephanson, Arctic Explorer)
Protein poisoning is also commonly known as ‘Rabbit Starvation.’ Rabbit, or varying hare, meat is very lean. Fat comprises about six percent of the meat on a domestic rabbit and about two percent on a wild rabbit, or varying hare. In comparison, bison meat contains approximately sixteen percent fat. Explorer, David Thomson, while in Alberta, got sick from eating too much lean fresh meat from very thin game animals in the early spring.
Rabbit starvation is best explained by how much energy humans use to digest and metabolize certain types of macronutrients. Here is the SDA (specific dynamic action), or metabolism of macronutrients:
Carbohydrates = 6%
Fats = 14%
Animal protein = 30%
This may explain why high lean meat diets result in weight loss. But these diets could potentially also be extremely dangerous. Also some studies (the China Study by C. Campbell, 2005) suggest there might be a relationship between high animal protein consumption and high heart disease rates. This study, however, is not without its critics.
The fur trade archaeological record
Whenever we excavate a fur trade site, we collect and identify all animal bone to animal taxa and element whenever possible. We can then reconstruct diet. So, what do the bones we find say about human diet during times of plenty versus times of scarcity? A lot. Here are a few examples:
FORT/NISP
(# of Identifiable specimens) Bison Moose Elk Beaver Varying Hare

Rocky Mt. Fort (1794 -1804) 181 678 12 748 143
Fort St. John’s (1806 -1823) 313 720 1595 136 639
In the above table, animal bones are listed from two fur trade forts in eastern British Columbia along the Peace River (from Burley et al, 1996). Rocky Mountain Fort was occupied when game animal populations were still very abundant. Fort St. John’s was occupied after nearly thirty years of fur trade activities in the region. When you do the math, at the latter fort, as game animal populations dwindled, the use of varying hare nearly tripled. Why? Fewer large game animals? Or, the cyclical population patterns of varying hare?
Region % Varying Hare
Lower Peace River Posts 14.2
Upper Peace River Posts 15.7
Fortes des Prairies Posts 2.2
The above table shows the percent of varying hare that made up the faunal assemblages of forts of various regions along the Peace River and along the Saskatchewan River. At the Saskatchewan River posts, large game animals were much more plentiful than at the Peace River posts. And consequently, there was a considerably less amount of varying hare animal bone present in those assemblages.
At Dunvegan, located along the Peace River, north of Grande Prairie, Alberta, for example:
“The men all hunting and fishing, but very unlucky….We are now in a very alarming situation, not having a mouthful to eat. The children are always going about the fort crying for something to eat.” (Dunvegan journals, 1805, one year after the fort was opened)
When the hunters brought in 855 pounds of moose meat in on June 11, 1854, it was, “…welcome enough as we were at our last gasp for Grub.” (Dunvegan journals, 1854)
Animal Grease/Fat Selection
Archaeologists have devised ways to determine whether there is a deliberate selection of those parts of the animal containing the highest amounts of fat. On the Y-axis the anatomical parts of large mammals are ranked according to the amount of fat in that part or anatomical unit(e.g., bison hump). The X-axis represents the relative number of bone elements from each unit (e.g., thoracic vertebrae for the hump of the bison) found in the archaeological record (adjusted for number of elements). If there was a deliberate selection of units with the most grease/fat, then bone elements with the lowest grease/fat content will occur in the lowest numbers and bone elements with the highest grease content would occur in the highest numbers.
At Fort George, where dietary stress was almost non-existent and large game was plentiful, there is a relatively good fit in the selection of animal parts containing the largest amounts of grease. Because people had more choice in meat selection, they choose parts of animals with the highest amount of fat, or grease.
At Fort Vermilion, northern Alberta, where game animals were often scarce, there was no deliberate selection of only animal units containing high amounts of grease. In other words, nearly every part of the animal was eaten.
How Did This Diet Affect the Health of People in the Fur Trade?
Well, that’s the interesting question, isn’t it. What does a diet in high meat protein and fat do to you over your lifetime? Currently, according to everything we’re told by experts, it could shorten your lifespan. Or causes other major health issues.
But these statements seem to fly in the face of other evidence in our human history. Humans for hundreds of thousands of years, when given a choice, selected meats with the highest fat content. And what about those Inuit? Reportedly very healthy before they started eating a North American diet.
I’ll try to answer that question in my next post. Read about the interesting approach I took to answer it with the available fur trade data.
And no, I am not secretly working for any Canadian bacon brands. Maybe they’ll approach me with advertising when they see this post. Not even promoting a greater use of fat in the Canadian diet.
A Few Key References
Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 2015. The Last Fort Standing. Fort Vermilion and the Peace River Fur Trade, 1798 – 1830. Occasional Papers of the Archaeological Society of Alberta. Number 14, April 2015. (In particular, Chapter 7 discusses the faunal remains found at the site in detail).
Hurlburt, Isobella. 1977. Faunal Remains from Fort White Earth N.W.Co. (1810-1813). Human History Occasional Paper No. 1. Provincial Museum of Alberta. Alberta Culture, Edmonton.
Brink, John W. 2001. Carcass Utility Inidces and Bison Bones from the Wardell Kill and Butchering Sites. In People and Wildlife in North America. S. Craig Gerlach and Maribeth S. Murray (eds), pp. 235-273. BAR International Series 944. (Jack Brink, formerly at the Royal Alberta Museum, has done extensive research on animal fats and their use by Plains First Nations in western Canada and the United States.)
Burley, David V. 1996. Prophecy of the Swan. The Upper Peace River Fur Trade of 1794 – 1823. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Posted on January 23, 2020March 26, 2020
The Anthony Henday Story – Is There Another Point of View?

“By its very nature, history is always a one-sided account.” (Dan Brown, The DeVinci Files)
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/04/new-zealand-history-maori-culture-indigenous-language-te-reo/587599/
The Significance of Names and Places
I recently cruised the South Pacific, ending up in Australia, before returning to Canada. I saw some pretty interesting displays of Indigenous history and culture on many of these islands, and Australia. What caught my attention was an article in THE AUSTRALIAN, December 2019 , similar to the above New Zealand piece, suggesting that there be more recognition of Australian Aborigine places in Sidney, New South Wales. But in a more visible, concrete manner – Signs for key places and suburbs in the City. That led me to thinking back about Anthony Henday’s journey into Alberta.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/city-to-consider-dual-indigenous-names-for-sydney-streets-suburbs/news-story/ebb8e09a9cb8e5789398da4e106a825e
Back in Canada
What are we doing in Canada (which means settlement or place in St. Lawrence Iroquois language) to recognize Indigenous history and place? A very cursory review suggests we’ve done plenty, but there is a long ways to go.
Powell River, Sunshine Coast
Recently I looked at a tourism map of the Powell River Area, Sunshine Coast, British Columbia. An area I am very familiar with and where I live for parts of the year. Most islands, and other major places, have an equivalent Tla’amin (Coast Salish) name beneath the English name. A good start, but I saw few Indigenous road or place signs in the City. It was only recently, in 2017, that the popular Willingdon Beach area in the City, the spot of a former Tla’amin Village, was recognized and signed.
In 2017 steps were also taken to incorporate more Indigenous names in the Powell River region.
Edmonton
When I look around my City, the number of Indigenous names for roads, places, etc. are few and far between. I counted two names (Bearspaw, and Ekota up to the letter M) when going through the list of streets and avenues which numbered in the thousands. The City of Edmonton claims there are a 128 Indigenous place names. However, that list contains places such as St. Albert Drive and Whitemud Drive. For me, these names are hardly Indigenous. At least I don’t see the connection.
The original settlement was named Saint Albert by Bishop Alexandre-Antonin Taché, OMI after Lacombe’s name saint; Saint Albert of Louvain. (Wikipedia)
But, there is a movement afoot in the Edmonton area to rectify this problem. I refer you to an article written by Caroline Barlott, 2017, entitled, “Naming Amiskwaskahegan: Why Edmonton’s Place Names Matter.” The author makes a convincing argument why a more Indigenous visible presence is valuable. She interviewed Calvin Bruneau, Chief of the local Papaschase Band, whose views about Indigenous place names are enlightening.
Back in 2000, while attending the EPCOR Hearings in Edmonton (on whether to expand the existing power facility), I listened to Cree Elder, Wilson Gotchew speak about the Edmonton area. He recalls that it was called, ôtênaw (A place where everyone came). The Cree also called it, ‘Amiskwaskahegan‘ (Beaver Hills House). While that may have been the name specifically for Fort Edmonton, the region where the fort was located may have had a different name – such as ôtênaw. Regardless of what it was once called (and it probably had many over the centuries) the City and region have an Indigenous equivalent which is now being recognized.
From what I understand more Indigenous names are planned for some of the new southeast neighborhoods – such as Decoteau. But surely there must be other local names. One of the problems that arises, is where do we look to find them?
The new Decoteau neighborhood, southeast Edmonton is named for Alex Decoteau, a Cree Olympian in track and field, and the first aboriginal police officer in Canada.
Back to The Henday Story and Attickasish
In my earlier Anthony Henday blog, it was evident that there were other members in Henday’s party, such as his Cree guide Attickasish, whose name could just as easily have been put on that Edmonton road, or a neighborhood, sign (or signs of any highways that run from Saskatchewan into central Alberta, such as highway 13) for his courage and knowledge in leading Henday into Alberta. Without this man, and others like him, Anthony Henday, Samuel Hearne and Henry Kelsey would not have traversed parts of the Canadian west or north, and made it out alive.
What were Middlemen/Women in the Fur Trade?
Individuals, such as Attickasish, walked in many worlds – sometimes among different First Nations or in the white traders’ world. They often brokered deals in trade and exchange between the two parties. Similar Indigenous individuals likely existed for centuries before any white contact or the advent of the Euro-Canadian fur trade. Trade and exchange were always part of First Nations culture in almost every part of North America. A few other names come to mind:
Thanadelthur
Thanadelthur (c.1697-1717) was a Chipewyan (Denesuline) woman of incredible courage. She was many things to many people – a peace maker, guide, teacher, interpreter. During this period of history, tensions between the Cree and Chipewyan were high. Thanadelthur managed to negotiate peace between the Chipewyan and Cree peoples during the early fur trade. She was also instrumental in creating ties between the Chipewyan people and the Hudson’s Bay Company. The Hudson’s Bay Company was indebted to her for being an important conduit to negotiate peace, and eventually trade.
Matonabbee
Serving as Samuel Hearne’s guide in the 1770s, Matonabbee was a powerful leader of his people and revered by the Hudson’s Bay Company. Hearne described him as the “carriers of the rest.” He organized and led his people to trade with the Hudson’s Bay Company. Without his help and influence, among his people and other First Nations, Samuel Hearne would have been toast. Dead, lying somewhere out on the Arctic tundra. Matonabbee, by bringing his people to trade with the Hudson’s Bay Company, became very wealthy; only to redistribute that wealth among his people (sometimes he was given gifts of 1,400 made beaver by the HBC before trading even began). His generosity with his people and others, earned him more power and prestige. After all, then, and now, that’s what wealth got you.
“…persevered with courage…to visit the Athapuscow Indians for several years successively; and at length …brought about a lasting peace, but also…established a trade and reciprocal interest between the two nations”. (Samuel Hearne, describing Matonabbee)
Attickasish
We know little about Attickasish except through Henday’s eyes and his few journal entries, where he is occasionally marginalized – put in the background as the ‘help’. But when you read carefully, Attickasish was a force. He, like Thanadelthur and Matonabbee, had considerable influence among his people, as well as others such as the Blackfoot, and with white traders. Here are a few excerpts about Attickasish from Henday’s journal:
July 22, 1754: “…at night I went to my tent, and told Attickasish, or Little Deer, my Leader, that had the charge of me…”
October 14, 1754: “…Attickasish, Canawappaw, Cokamanakisish, and the other of our leaders walked in from about 4 Miles farther then we; came to 200 tents of Archithinue Natives…Attickasish my guide, informed him I was sent by the Great Leader who lives down at the great waters, to invite his young men down to see him…”
From these few lines it is clear that Attickasish knew the country to successfully guide Henday west. He was the intermediary between Henday and the Blackfoot. And, he must have known some Blackfoot to interpret Henday’s wishes to their leader. Without his guidance, Anthony Henday would not have made it to the Edmonton Area.
Why Then, No Attickasish Names?
Anthony Henday is commemorated on that freeway sign. Attickasish’s name is nowhere to be found, either in the City or the Province. Eventually maybe there will be an Attickasish Highway sign, instead of that boring Highway 13 sign which runs partly across two provinces where he traveled (becoming HWY 14 in Saskatchewan). Surely we can do better than that!
The Many Problems of Naming Communities and Places
Equal voice is the key in naming places. I’m not advocating that indigenous names replace current signage or completely replace signs like Highway 13 (they should compliment them or be added when new place signage is needed); only that they have a greater presence than currently is the case. The McGillivrays, Campbells, and Rutherfords are important historic figures and should also be recognized. But they hardly represent all of Alberta’s history. To ignore the fact that other people had names for places or contributed to our past, is to evade reality.
There is a danger in denying or erasing a people’s history and identity; whether it be deliberately or inadvertently. As one famous person (whose name eludes me at the moment) aptly put it, denying a people their history results in a loss of their culture, and eventually their identity. Small, concrete gestures matter. Gestures that are seen often, by many people.
A Work of Collaboration
People from many walks of life can help in this process: Indigenous peoples, historians, ethnohistorians, archaeologists, City planners and politicians, and you the public. As an archaeologist, I can point out key places in the City that have a long Indigenous history, based on the archaeological evidence. Places you would never think of, such as Mt. Pleasant Cemetery or Magrath Heights Park, or the old Strathcona Science Park. Then its up to members of the Indigenous community to come up with appropriate names for some of these long-forgotten places.
I leave you with these last words about the significance and importance of places and signage by our current Mayor, regarding Indigenous place names and signs :
“In the gesture of working to acknowledge that the language of this place historically was a different language, that’s how we recognize and decolonize what is otherwise a narrative of conquest — and language is part of conquest.” (Mayor Don Iveson, Edmonton, 2016)
A good start but there is still much more that can be done, in the City, and the province.
In my next blog I will explore other Indigenous names and places in Alberta gathered from one of the most extraordinary, rare pieces of historic evidence – a preserved over two-hundred year old Indigenous map, drawn by a Siksika man, for trader and explorer, Peter Fidler.