Canadian Fur Trade Archaeology: Alberta’s Forgotten Legacy

The once proud and famous Hudson’s Bay Comany Fort Edmonton V (c.1830 – 1915), one of the largest fur trade establishments in the Canadian Northwest, sits dwarfed by the New Alberta Legislature building, as Alberta moves onto a new era, c.1912. 1

When I took my first trowel strokes, as a field school student at the historic Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Victoria (c.1864 – 1898), Alberta in 1974, I knew immediately I could get to like this work. Nearly fifty years later that feeling remains.

Removing the sod layer at the Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Victoria in 1974. Beneath the sod, we found the archaeological remains of the fort trading store, which after over a hundred years, still contained the foundation logs and well-preserved cellar remains.

Canada has a long, colourful, and often tumultuous fur trade history. The fur trade, in beaver pelts, was the prime economic driver of early Canada for over three centuries. However, the trade was often viewed with either disdain or opportunity by Canada’s First Nations people who participated in it.

What the people of the Canadian fur trade did and how they lived is preserved in the thousands of documents left behind by Company officers, clerks, explorers, and first missionaries. It was occasionally captured in paintings by frontier artists such as Paul Kane.

A painting of the Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Edmonton V (c.1830 – 1915) by artist Paul Kane, 1849-56. 2

But fur trade history is also preserved in the remains of many fur trade forts constructed across Canada as it expanded westward in search of new fur-rich lands. Often those fur trade forts left behind a rich archaeological record.

Alberta is no exception. In fact, the then Athapuskow Country in today’s northern Alberta, was among the richest fur districts in North America. When American fur trader Peter Pond first discovered it in 1778, he acquired so many furs that he had to cache some because he couldn’t take them all back to Montreal.

Trader Colin Fraser, in his warehouse, examining his lot of furs worth an estimated $35,000 – a huge sum of money in the 19th century. As the Hudson’s Bay Company 1826 fur returns show, both the Athabasca and Saskatchewan Districts, mostly located in today’s Alberta, had among the highest numbers of beaver pelts in the entire Canadian Northwest. 3

I am often asked, how many fur trade establishments were there in Alberta? According to our Alberta inventories, that number is over 300. We are probably missing a few forts that were never recorded in the sometimes ‘sketchy’ historic documents. And as Alexander Ross’s description of Fort Assiniboine suggests, some of these places hardly deserved the name ‘fort’.

The majority of fur trade posts were located in central and northern Alberta, built by the various fur trade Companies operating from eastern Canada or England. The ‘Whiskey’ posts listed here are a later nineteenth-century addition to the trade, located mainly in southern Alberta and operated primarily by American pedlars.

Many of these forts have not been found. Often their locations were poorly documented. The physical evidence they left behind is difficult to see in the dense bush when traipsing through Alberta’s densely forested river valleys.

Graph showing the number of fur trade posts whose location is known and those that have not been found. Only approximately seven percent of these forts have been excavated.

In the dense bush of the Peace River floodplain, there are only a few hints suggesting a fur trade post once existed there – mounds representing collapsed building fireplaces and depressions representing cellars or some other type of pit. Occasionally faint depressions marking the ditches dug to place in the palisade pickets for the fort walls, still appear on the surface of the ground.

But even these features are often hard to see. Despite having found the Boyer River fort site thirty years earlier, it took over an hour to relocate a few depressions and mounds in the dense undergrowth of the Peace River floodplain.

Students from the University of Lethbridge searched through the dense bush for evidence of the 1788 North West Company’s Boyer’s Post in 2018. Only a vague description of the location of the post existed – it was built near the confluence of the Boyer and Peace Rivers.
With new technologies, we are now able to find archaeological sites hidden in the dense boreal forest more easily. LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery strips the vegetation from the surface and then maps the surface contours with a high degree of accuracy. Above is an example of LIDAR imagery, an optical remote sensing technology that can measure the distance, or other properties of a target by illuminating the target with light often using pulses from a laser. Not only did LIDAR reveal the large cellar depressions at Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830) marked by the upper two circles, but a large depression of an unknown site marked by the lower circle.

The fur trade documentary record leaves many things to be desired. It is often a biased, one-sided description of the trade and the more important members operating in it. Company workers and Indigenous people have little or no voice in those documents.

Despite being an incomplete testimony of human history, the archaeological remains we find reflect not only the lives of a literate few but also those of the many Company servants and Indigenous peoples living at the posts who left no written record behind. Their lives are reflected in the dwellings they lived in, the possessions they made or bought, and the food they ate.

Fur trade society was stratified, primarily by one’s occupation, ethnicity, and gender. The fur trade archaeological and documentary records reveal that those individuals in the highest positions had access to the best resources. Officers’ quarters were bigger, and better constructed than those of the servants 4.

The schematic drawing of the buildings at the North West Company Fort George (c.1792 – 1800) is a case in point. This drawing was completed primarily from archaeological remains since no map of the fort existed. The men’s quarters on the left housed the Company workers and their families, sometimes holding up to 10 – 12 people in tiny, confined single rooms. These dwellings were dwarfed by Chief Trader, Angus Shaw’s two-storey Big House, where he and his family resided.

The layout of Fort George is based on archaeological evidence. There are only five references to fort construction in clerk, Duncan McGillivray’s 1794-95 journal, the only surviving document from this late 18th century Fortes des Prairie.

The personal possessions of the Fort population inform us about their gender, beliefs, and cultural affiliations. For example, early in the fur trade when metals were new to Indigenous people, old, leaky copper pots and larger pieces of silver were repurposed and made into jewelry.

Copper and silver tinkling cones and tags, likely made by the Indigenous wives of Company men, were highly prized objects often replacing or incorporated with traditional shell and bone adornment. They also remind us of the importance of women in the trade and everyday operation of the forts.

Artifacts from Fort Vermilion I (c.1798-1830) were repurposed from metal and made into ornaments to suit the needs of Indigenous people living at the fur trade posts: A. Copper Tinkling cones to adorn jingle dresses; B and C. Silver tags (to adorn dress as in illustration D) cut from a larger piece of trade silver; D. A leather Dene dress adorned with metal tags made from scrap metal 5

The inequality existing among fur trade ranks is also reflected in their diet. During the early years of the western fur trade, wild game made up most of the food fort personnel ate. Often our fur trade posts contain an abundant, rich array of faunal remains.

Those animal bones, along with the surviving documents, show the large quantities of meat eaten by fort personnel. Meat and fat were rationed differently, depending on employees’ rank and position at the fort. Officers and their families often had more and better cuts of meat and were given more of the highly prized fat.

That amount of meat, representing 500 animals (likely bison), consumed over approximately sixty-one days, averages out to about most of eight bison a day required to feed the 160 hungry mouths at Fort George.

Faunal remains from the North West Company Fort George, Alberta. This fort, while primarily there to acquire furs, was essentially a meat factory, processing tens of thousands of pounds of meat necessary to supply the fur trade brigades on the journeys from the east into the Canadian interior. The photograph on the left shows butchered bone remains thrown up against the south palisade of the fort. Bone debris fills an old building cellar in the photograph on the right.
CategoryFresh MeatDried MeatPounded MeatGrease
Officers Mess (2 persons)2250 lbs57 lbs57 lbs105 lbs
Officers Families (6 adults)42831596108
Engages (8 persons)775257657618
Engages Families (3 adults)26121481484
Meat rations at Fort Vermilion II, 1832-33. While the Engages and their families are getting less fresh, dried, and pounded meat than the officers, they received far less fat per individual than the Officers and their families. 6

Despite the Northwest’s seemingly endless supply of resources, the fur trade’s impact on game animal populations soon showed, often in ugly ways.

Alberta’s fur trade era, and that of the rest of Canada, has left a rich and varied historic footprint. It represents not only how an elite, literate portion of the population of the fur trade lived, but also how the rest of the many employees, representing a diverse number of ethnic groups, fared. While considered a darker side of Canadian colonialism, it nevertheless is part of Canadian history and cannot be ignored.

Footnotes:
  1. City of Edmonton Archives. EA-10-2517[]
  2. Courtesy Royal Ontario Museum, 912.1.38[]
  3. Provincial Archives of Alberta. B10018.[]
  4. Pyszczyk, Heinz. 1992. The Architecture of the Western Canadian Fur Trade: A Cultural-Historical Perspective. Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada, Bulletin 17(2):32-41[]
  5. D from Kate Duncan. 1989. Northern Athapaskan Beadwork. A Beadwork Tradition. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver.[]
  6. Source: HBCA B60/d/2a/fa.12[]

Her ‘Spirit Colours’. Colour Selection in Canadian Historic Glass Beads

“…colours are the mother tongue of the subconscious” (Karl Jung)

“Even if people don’t think too hard about the colours they prefer, they are subconsciously programmed to associate certain colours with specific situations and emotions: and this is true for adults all over the globe.” 1

Note: I’ve posted two blogs about beads in human antiquity and those we find in western Canada during the post-contact period (starting approximately c.1680). In them you will find many examples of glass bead types, found in an array of colours. In this third, and final blog I’ll examine one glass trade bead attribute in considerably more detail – colour.

In my last segment on glass fur trade beads, I started with this image of glass beads on an object found at the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) Fort Victoria (c.1863 – 1898) site, Alberta, Canada. It was a unique find. Glass beads barely hanging together forming a distinct pattern, clinging to a rotten garment thrown away perhaps over 150 years ago. But the beautiful colour patterns formed with these tiny glass ‘seed’ beads, taking hours to complete, were still discernible.

I’ve always been fascinated by colour. Beautiful hues and shades of red, blue and green are found both in nature and on the objects humans make.

Often I don’t know why I choose one colour over another. Others, however, know where to look for answers. As the title of this blog suggests, contemporary Indigenous beaders, such as Anishinaabe Malinda Joy Gray, know where to find their ‘spirit colours’. In their dreams. 2

Therefore, to better understand colour, I study it. Not only from my personal perspective. But from those of others as well. I examine how we choose a colour with one of the most colourful historic objects that humans ever made – beads. Beads, fashioned from every conceivable material throughout history, in almost every conceivable colour.

While visiting South Africa last fall (2022) I watched a San woman making beads out of Ostrich eggshells. These simple, beautiful beads, whose origins of manufacture go back thousands of years, mostly come in shades of white. Their often singular colour was offset by intricate beading designs made by the San women. However, some prehistoric people also dyed ostrich eggshell beads with hematite.

Nor it seems do others. Oh, I understand why plants are green and water is blue. Why hares are brown in the summer and white in the winter. But I’m often baffled why humans choose certain colours. Because when you look closely at their choices, there often are no set rules for doing so. Or obvious reasons for their choice. There are exceptions. But for the most part, humans choose colours for a host of reasons which are often very difficult to unravel and explain.

In this blog, I’ll examine the selection of historic bead colours more closely. First, I’ll start with a little background on why we choose specific colours, and how they affect us. Then, with a current example that we all can relate to, how we choose the colour of our automobiles. Finally, I’ll examine the colours of historic glass trade beads from Canada and the United States. Did Indigenous people prefer specific colours of beads over others and, if so, why? It’s a fascinating journey that takes us from the practical to some very unorthodox ways of thinking about colour. And the world we live in.

A few of the thousands of glass trade beads I have recovered from western Canadian late 18th – 19th-century fur trade forts. The range of colours of these glass beads was considerable. Everything from bright blues to amber and reds. Often single beads contain a variety of colours ranging from solid opaque to transparent.

Theories of Colour Choice and Effects

“There isn’t really a rational influence to our decisions other than the color evokes an emotional and physiological response in us. Ultimately we decide what colors we like because of what we associate them with and the meaning that accompanies them.” 3

Theories about human colour choice can be divided into two basic categories: 1) theories about how certain colours affect us; and, 2) theories about why we choose certain colours.

Different colours evoke different feelings in humans. Research shows that blood pressure and EEC scores differed when subjects looked at a certain coloured sheet of paper. 3 For example, red produced a higher anxiety state in people than blue.

The reason why people choose certain colours is often associated with the cultural meanings of those colours. But, here things get a little tricky. Certain colours do not project the same meaning in different cultures, countries, or even regionally. Nor do they historically. 4

“In Japan, the color yellow is associated with courage whereas in parts of the American south it can be slang for cowardice. In many Latin American cultures, it’s the color of mourning and death. In China, yellow can have vulgar connotations. In Germany, you go yellow—not green—with envy. Head over to the Middle East and you’ll find yellow is imperial and sacred (not purple, which is associated with royalty in European cultures) often worn by members of the ruling or royal classes.” 1

However, we can make a few generalizations about colour choice and meaning. For example, people in different countries liked blue, green and white the most which often also had similar meanings (i.e., white = purity, cleanliness). However, they also liked black and red, but the meaning of those colours varied cross-culturally.

Currently, the most popular theory of why humans choose certain colours is referred to as Ecological Valence Theory. In short, this theory states that humans prefer certain colours over others because of objects they either like or dislike associated with that colour. 5

“…people often like blue hues because it reminds them of clear skies and clean water. On the other hand, people tend to shy away from brown hues because they remind us of feces or rotting food… 6

I happen to own a pair of brown pants. As an archaeologist who often works in the dirt and associates it with good things, perhaps that’s the reason I’m among the few who like brown.

Some researchers have even gone so far as to suggest that is difficult if not impossible to find a negative object to associate with blue. In other words, there are few blue objects we think about negatively.

Not everyone, but many would have negative feelings about this group. And associate blue with something negative. Perhaps they are among the 12% that don’t conform to the Ecological Valence Theory of colour, that don’t like the colour blue. It would be interesting to ask Maple Leaf fans and non-Leaf fans how they felt about the colour blue.

Other theories state that colour has functions. For example, the colours you choose inform others about yourself, your family or your group. Or, certain objects are certain colours because of their high degree of visibility. According to one researcher, among the western Canadian Metis, many objects such as firebags, mitts, and whips were highly colourful so they wouldn’t get lost. 7 I can relate to this idea. When working in the boreal forest we tie bright orange flagging tape to our equipment so we don’t lose it in the dense foliage.

Whatever the reason(s), the choice of colour and the feelings we associate with it, is far from a random event. Whether we consciously know it, or not.

The Colours of the Automobiles We Drive

Before examining why people preferred certain glass bead colours historically, we’ll first look at colour choice in an object we all can relate to. The colour of our automobiles.

In a recent article in Autoloansolutions, the three main reasons people pick certain colours for their automobiles are: 1) Personal preference; 2) Resale value; and, 3) Bird droppings. 8

Yes, you read right. Bird Droppings! According to some studies, for whatever reason, birds like to dump most on red and blue cars.

As already suggested certain colours have certain meanings in human cultures and therefore signal to others something about you. In the automobile article, for example, black = intrigue/mystery; blue = confidence/integrity/stability; red = aggressive/expensive; white = innocence/purity.

However, according to colour symbolism experts, each of those same colours may have different meanings in different countries throughout the world. But, studies have shown, regardless of where you live on this planet and what those colours signify, black, white, and silver are the top colours for automobiles.

And this is where resale value comes in. If you want to eventually sell your car, you might pay attention to the most popular colours for cars (if they’re still in style when you want to sell). Given today’s colour preferences, no one’s going to buy that bright neon green auto of yours.

My Automobile Colour Study

I did a little automobile colour study in Alberta (Canada), Iceland, Istanbul (Turkey), and Stellenbasch (South Africa) this past year. I picked spots at random and counted the number of different car colours. My sample size ranged from 52 – 115. Today colours are no longer primary or secondary but different shades of grey, blue, silver and white; and a dizzying array thereof. I simply chose the one that was closest to a primary and secondary colour.

While there is considerable variation of colours of automobiles in various parts of the world, white, silver, and grey are amongst the most popular automobile colours when the four regions are combined. But when simply ranked on the ordinal scale (from 1 – 5), there are differences in colour preferences in the different regions. For example, white automobiles generally rank first in Iceland, Istanbul, and Stellenbasch, but not in central Alberta where grey cars rank first. Or, black ranks low in most countries, except in Istanbul, where it ranks third.

“Gray is the color of intellect and of compromise. It’s a diplomatic color, negotiating all the distance between black and white. We typically consider gray to be conservative, elegant, and cool, though it can be a bit mysterious. We think of gray as solemn and serious, the color of business suits and sophistication.”9

What theories about colour, including my automobile study, basically point out is that even though there is considerable overlap of colour choice among peoples throughout the world, there is often a difference in the ranking of those preferences in different parts of the world. And the meaning of those colours is not constant in the world. The meaning of black differs in the Muslim and Western world. Grey is considered a very conservative colour in the West. In China silver is a symbol of wealth, cleanliness, and purity; in Germany, sophistication.

The bottom line is that trying to interpret meaning from colour, only leads to a diverse array of possibilities. Many of which cannot be determined if we cannot ask people about them. Such as the historic period. That is because, if Ecological Valence Theory has any merit, people’s choices of colour are based on their associations and history with it – either bad, good or perhaps neutral. Many of those associations and histories are different to some degree. However, what is also interesting is that white, silver, and grey are all seen as positive, regardless of their different specific meanings.

Therefore, if we simplify these results, we might conclude that the most popular colours are associated with positive objects, feelings and meanings, regardless of what those are. When we dive into the murky past, this fundamental fact becomes important, because we cannot always determine precisely what meanings or significance of colours were for a diverse North American Indigenous population.

A Description of Fur Trade Glass Bead Colours in Historic Canada

“Oh I love all colours, I go to a store where they have beads and I imagine all kinds of flowers and I pick up everything when I’m in there – colours I don’t have. I must have over 200 kinds of colours…” (Isabelle Dorion Impey, Cumberland House, northern Saskatchewan, Canada) 10

Blue glass beads from the HBC Fort Vancouver, Washington State, USA. 11

Sources of Information and Accuracy About Historic Glass Bead Colours

Information about fur trade bead colours and varieties comes primarily from historic White written records and fur trade archaeological collections. And, unfortunately, less so from historic Indigenous written or oral accounts.

The accuracy of these types of historic evidence varies. Written accounts can be biased or records vague, or incomplete. But while there are problems, it should be kept in mind that Euro-Canadian traders had to be accurate about Indigenous bead preferences because their very business depended upon it.

Glass beads recovered from the fur trade archaeological record reflect both what was used by Indigenous women living in the forts and what was traded to Indigenous people regionally.

In this figure, the percent of glass trade beads found in the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) Nottingham House (c.1801-1803) inventories, listed as ‘Presents’, and those found in the archaeological remains at the site, were compared. In all three contexts, the ordinal ranking of colours was the same: blue beads always occurred in higher numbers than white beads. However, because these were samples coming from different contexts, the proportional differences in these three categories were not the same. Similar trends occur in other fur trade assemblages in both Canada and the United States. 12

Basic Characteristics of Colour and Its Description

To better understand glass bead colours we first have to know a few things about colour. Not only what different colours look like, but how they are categorized and described.

The standardization of different colours first started with Issac Newton’s colour wheel in 1666, and eventually to other standardized schemes including the Munsell colour system, developed by Albert Munsell in the early 1900s.

A three-dimensional representation of a Munsell Colour Wheel, showing hues (different colours), values (degree of darkness/lightness) and chroma (degree of brightness/saturation). Hues are divided into primary (red, blue, yellow), secondary (green, orange, purple) and tertiary colours (yellow-orange, red-orange….). Primary colours refer to the building blocks from which all other colours are derived. Also known as basic colours, as they can’t be recreated by colour mixing. Secondary colours refer to colour combinations created by an equal mixture of two primary colours. 13

The charts classify colours numerically based on three categories in three-dimensional space: hue, value (lightness/darkness), and chroma (intensity of colour). Hue refers to basic colours, such as red, green, blue, etc. In the Munsell system, these are given letter codes, i.e. Red (R), Yellow-Red (YR), Green (G), Green-Yellow (GY) and so on. Value is how light or dark a colour is. In the Munsell system, value is indicated with a number, i.e. 2, 4, 6 and so on. The value scale runs vertically and moves from lightest (at the top) to darkest (at the bottom) in descending order, so a 2 is going to be lighter than a 6. Chroma refers to the degree of strength of a colour. Chroma ranges from 2-14 (upwards of 30 for colours in the fluorescent family). Archaeologists, when researching glass bead colour, also refer to diaphaneity – the degree of transparency or opacity of a bead, or, the quantity of light that can travel through a bead.

However, the Munsell Colour Chart is not the Holy Grail of colours. Based on my personal experience, the problem with this colour scheme is threefold: 1) it wasn’t used historically to describe colours; so the historic colours don’t match the Munsell colour descriptions; 2) it isn’t used consistently by archaeologists; and, 3) people see colours of objects differently depending on their eyesight, the degree of light present, or even the degree of moisture in sediment, for example. These problems, added to the fact that glass bead batch colours were often not standardized, make for an interesting stew.

“All told, therefore, there is room for considerable variation in colour, and 18th-century and earlier beads differ considerably in this regard from those made in the 19th and 20th centuries when strict standardization became the rule.” 14

I am certain that European glass bead makers devised their bead colours using some sort of basic standard scheme, as some of the descriptions of historic bead colours suggest. For example in the Fort Union, Montana inventories, glass beads are listed as ‘blue, white, chalk white, red, green, black, yellow, coral, Cornelian, mock garnet, milk white, agate, sky blue, and purple. 15 While all the basic hues are listed, value, and chroma are absent or somehow embedded in the colour’s name. Milk or chalk white might be descriptors for diaphaneity, in this case likely ‘translucent’ or ‘opaque’. If you look up ‘Cornelian’, it refers to a variety of oranges and reds to almost black, which if we don’t have the bead, really doesn’t tell us much. And ‘sky blue’ likely refers to a bead’s value on the lightness/darkness scale, but where exactly is often difficult to determine from the name in the historic documents.

While determining a bead’s colour by using the various colour wheels has its drawbacks, the importance of these colour descriptions of glass beads recovered in the archaeological record is considerable, given the often poor, inconsistent historic documentary descriptions available. However, many of the archaeological bead colour descriptions are of our making, often based on the colour wheel such as Munsell’s. But, at least we can assign photographs of the beads with these descriptions, giving readers the opportunity of seeing these colours.

In the table below, is a word description of glass seed bead colours, from the American Fur Company (1858-59). Since colour wheels and some sort of standardization were already common then, would these colours also be similar to what we call them today?

A list of bead colours from the American Fur Company 1858-1859. This is as extensive as it gets. I have added the colours that these names refer to, assuming that some of the names have remained relatively consistent over the centuries. The different hues are apparent (e.g., blue, green, red…) But what ‘values’ and ‘chroma’ do these colours refer to? And the meaning of some of the colour descriptions such as ‘Hortentin’, and ‘Celestial’, is questionable. Often in the Canadian fur trade company inventories glass beads colours are simply listed as ‘assor’t colours’. Generally blue and white beads are listed separately but after that, it’s hit or miss. 16

Before delving further into glass bead colour, my final warning is that at a comparative level, between different glass bead assemblages collected archaeologically, the data are a minefield to be trodden through carefully. And so is the photography of different glass bead colours in the available publications. According to archaeologist Steven Devore, there is colour distortion when looking at photographed beads. He is one of the few researchers who try to get around this problem by using a colour bar in his photographs and describing exactly what Munsell colour it represents. I have borrowed his idea and applied it to some of the figures below.

Glass trade beads from the American Fort Union (c.1829-67) fur trade post. 17 Devore put a colour bar under each bead photograph and gave the bar a specific Munsell colour. White = N9.5/0; Blue = 7.5PB4/12; Yellow = 5Y8/12; Strong red = 5R4/12; Black = N2/0. Purists can then compare his bar to their Munsell colour chart to determine the amount of photographic distortion.

Archaeologists come in two forms when it comes to categorizing glass bead colour. There are ‘lumpers’ and there are ‘splitters’. Some archeologists have used the Munsell Colour chart extensively (listing hue, value, and chroma); others to a lesser extent when analyzing bead colours. Still, others haven’t bothered with variety/shades of colours. They use mostly colour hue in their descriptions, with some degree of ‘value’ (light, medium, dark), and ‘diaphaneity’ (transparent, translucent, opaque). As we shall see shortly, both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

Below is an example of a range of glass bead colours taken from both American and Canadian fur trade forts from western North America. The colour varieties go from one extreme to the other and are often difficult to compare unless the actual bead is illustrated in colour.

Bead Color NWC George (1792-1800)Nottingham House (1801-03)Fort D’Tremble (1791-98) Fort Union (1829-67) Fort Vancouver (1829-66)
Amber   xx
Light amber    x
Reddish amber     
Yellowish amber    x
Amethyst   x 
Opaque blackxxxxx
Bluexxxxx
Light blue  xxx
Shadow blue xx  
Turquoise blue xxx 
Aqua blue  x  
Dark bluex  x 
Dutch blue x   
Medium blue x   
Dusty blue x   
Copen blue x   
Grayish blue    x
Purplish blue    x
Light purplish blue    x
Dark purplish blue    x
Dark brownx    
Cinnamon  x  
Colorlessx  xx
Greenxxxxx
Light green   x 
Dark pale green xxxx
Aqua green x xx
Apple green  x  
Palm green xx x
Yellowish green    x
Light gold xx  
Light gray xx  
Pink   xx
Light pink    x
Light purple    x
Bluish purple    x
Light reddish purple    x
Dark purple   xx
Redx   x
Red-bluex    
Brownish red     
Light red  x  
Dark red   xx
Dark purplish red    x
Opague redwood xx  
Rose   x 
Light cherry rose x   
Rose winexxx  
Ruby xx  
Scarlet   x 
Turquoise  x  
Bright turquoise  x  
Opague whitexxxxx
Oyster white x   
Pale yellow white    x
Yellowx xxx
Greenish yellow    x
Varieties =1120211929
Basic colors =86899
The presence of glass bead colour hues and varieties (according to value, chroma, and diaphaneity). Some archaeologists list basic hues and diaphaneity, and perhaps a value. While others, such as Lester Ross, National Parks Service, go into considerably more detail in glass bead colour description. I will consider Ross’s bead colour descriptions in more detail below.

Archaeologist Wayne Davis lists glass bead colours for twenty-six historic fur trade sites and Indigenous sites in Canada and the USA, but keeps it relatively simple: white, blue, black, green, yellow, red, pink, purple, turquoise, amber, grey, magenta, orange, clear, and violet. Each of those basic colours could be opaque, translucent, or transparent, resulting in a slightly different value and chroma, and thus ultimately a different shade of colour. 18

Bead ColorPeriod I: 1700-1740Period II: 1741-67Period IIIa: 1768-80Period IIIb: 1781-1820Period IV: 1821-361837-1850
Brittanyx
Blue opxxxxxxxxxx
Gobelinx
Blue tlsxxxxx
Fern greenxx
Blackxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
White opxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Magenta opx
Magenta-blackxx
Red opxxxxxx
Amber-black
Green opxxxxxxx
Yellow opxxxxx
Purplexxxxx
Brown, darkxx
Yellow-blackxx
blue tlsxxxx
Green, tslxxxxxx
Clearxxxxxxxx
Magenta tslxx
Light Blue tslxxxx
Dark Blue tslxxxxxxxxx
Violet tslx
Maroon opx
Green, dark opx
Violet-blackx
Amber tslxxxxxxxx
Pink tslxx
Red tslxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Navy bluex
Pale green tslx
Dark violet tslxx
Dark red tslx
Sky blue opxxx
Peacock blue tslxxxxxx
Yellow, tslxx
Emerald greenxxxx
Pink opx
Yale blue tslxxxxxx
Dark green tslx
Yellow-amber tslx
Turquoise opxxxxxxxx
Dark wine stslx
Gold opx
White tslxxxxx
Bronze opx
Bright orangex
Yellow-orangex
Cobalt blue tslx
Jade green opxx
Indigo bluex
Peacock blue opxx
Robin’s egg blue opxx
Dark purple tslx
Brilliant blue tslx
Yellow opxx
Aquamarine opxx
Peacock green opx
Yale blue opx
Surf green opx
Heliotrope opx
Pearl whitex
Chrystalx
Total Varieties10196144227
***(tsp = transparent; tsl = translucent; op = opaque)

Wayne Davis’s glass trade bead colours were taken from 26 trading posts and First Nations archaeological sites from the USA and Canada. The glass beads range from as early as c.1700 to c.1850. The x’s in each column represent how often the various glass bead colour types occur in each period found in the various collections. Because the number of sites and beads in each period varies, the number of colour varieties may not be a true reflection of preference for each period. However, after 1820 when fur trade posts were established further west in the USA, and direct trading at posts began there is a greater proliferation of bead colour varieties. This increase in varieties may have more to do with glass bead assemblages coming from trading posts instead of Indigenous campsites.

I have taken Lester Ross’s glass bead colour scheme and presented his colours, to give you some idea of the range and variation in glass bead colour. Often it is considerable, even in just one primary colour. This enormous collection of over 120,000 beads, spanning a considerable period likely contains every possible bead colour ever sent to the fort. It would reflect what the Hudson’s Bay Company would have in stock at the time in that region. I personally, after looking a many fur trade assemblages, rarely see beads outside Ross’s bead colour range. The exceptions may be gold and silver beads which are more common in the latter part of the 19th century.

An example of basic information about glass beads found at the HBC Fort Vancouver, Washington State, USA. The authors cross-reference their glass beads with those of Kidd& Kidd’s classification system whenever possible. Chroma is used differently than the standard means (which is found in the Munsell colour description). Here it simply refers to whether a bead is single-coloured (monochrome) or multi-coloured (polychrome). 19

Below are examples of Ross’s Fort Vancouver glass bead colour varieties. I have listed the Munsell code under each colour so that if you wish you can check these published colours against those found in the Munsell colour chart. I found, even when pasting certain colours into a word program that the colours occasionally changed slightly.

These different coloured glass trade beads represent the potential selection of colours Indigenous people had in the western United States. But, which ones did they choose most and prefer? 20

Historic References to Indigenous Colour Preference and Meaning

I was fascinated by an article about the use of colour on the Northwest Coast, written in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, by Melonie Ancheta. 21 In it she makes two very important points about the meaning and use of colour: 1) Northwest Coast First Nations had a long history (before colonization) of using colours – primarily black, red, blue and green; and, 2) these colours were integrated into their culture, their, “…cosmologies, rituals and daily life…”

And, as Ancheta points out, there were long-standing rules, or customs, of ways of using these colours and painting specific pieces of art or spiritual attire. Or certain colours were associated with certain segments of Northwest Coast society. Blue (made from vivianite), 22 for example was more associated with shamans, clan treasures, ceremonial objects, and reserved for nobility in Tlingit society.

Haida female portrait mask with labret and facial tattooing, Peabody Essex Museum, E3843. According to Ancheta, “On three-dimensional pieces such as rattles and masks, the fields are not so clearly demarcated. For instance, the eyebrows on masks are usually painted black, red fills the lips and nostrils, and blue or green, if present, represent the color of skin or “tattooing.”23

My point is, that before European contact, many primary colours (red, yellow, blue, green, white, black) 24 were already well-established in North American Indigenous societies. There were likely rules for their use (now mostly lost) and meaning behind them. Glass trade beads, and the various colours they came in, were integrated into already well-established Indigenous traditional schemes.

Since blue was difficult to make, it’s not surprising to find historic quotes stating that on North America’s Northwest Coast, many First Nations tribes valued blue glass trade beads the most. Just how the introduction of these beads, now more readily acquired by anyone who would trade, affected traditional uses of the colour (which because the mineral vivianite was hard to acquire and therefore relegated to only certain objects and people), is a question worth considering. 25

And on the Great Plains of North America, various First Nations societies had similar preferences. Here are a few examples:

Among the Arikara: “…any object which exceeds that of a buffalo robe. Ammunition, knives, spears, blue beads, tomahawks, and framed mirrors are the only articles for which they are willing to exchange their robes.” 26

Among the Sioux: “The blue bead, as precious here as porcelain among the nations of the Mississippi…” 27

Archaeologist Wayne Davis summarizes colour preferences (supported by numerous historic quotes), by North American Plains First Nations this way:

“As these different excerpts seem to suggest, blue and white, in that order, were without question the most popular colors for all the Plains’ tribes, as well as for many of the tribes in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.” 28

Undoubtedly as the archaeological glass bead samples suggest, although Indigenous people used other bead colours, blue and white glass trade beads were by far the most common. In 1854, for example, according to ethnographer, Edwin Denig discussing glass bead colour preference on the Upper Missouri, “Small round beads of all colors are used in adorning every portion of their dress.” 29

It is evident then, that there was also a great deal of commonality in glass bead colour preference amongst different Indigenous groups over a large geographical area. As an example, western Plains and coastal peoples preferred blue and white beads over all others. Archaeologist Steven DeVore (1992:60-61) states that blue, white and black were generally the most popular colours amongst Northern Plains First Nations, but red, green, yellow, and lavender were also used but in smaller quantities. 30

During the initial contact period in the mid to late 18th Century, Alaskan First Nations peoples preferred blue and white beads most, but used other bead colours as well. 31

According to ethnologist Kate Duncan (1989:44) the Fort Yukon journals indicate that there was a definite change in bead colour preference by the late 1860s to more of a demand for amber, crystal, blue, white, black, red, and ruby. As well, in other parts of the northwest, more variation in bead colours occurs temporally 32

According to Alexander Henry for the Assiniboine during the late 18th to early 19th Century, the most sought-after trade goods included, “…brass rings, brass wire, blue beads, and other trinkets.” 33

Others, however, suggest that not only were blue beads the most highly valued but that certain colours had meaning or rules about where they could be worn. “The women ornament their dresses….with broad diversified stripes of sky to blue and white beads. The Indians do not like beads of other colours, for instance, red next to the skin.”34

When the Kutchin people met Alexander MacKenzie they demanded blue beads over all others. 35

Unfortunately, virtually nothing is said about the degree of variability of colour preference within specific First Nations groups or other potential temporal changes of colour preference between First Nations groups. According to Duncan (1989:78), there was individual variability in colour preference and regional preferences even among Athabascan-speaking people. Pink, aqua and green beads dominated Eastern Athabascan beadwork, while white, navy, green, red, pink, greasy yellow, and green dominated western Athabascans. 32

If we can generalize, these are the predominant glass trade bead colours used historically by First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people:

  • Sioux: white background, bold blues, yellow, shades of green and pink;
  • Cheyenne: white background, more turquoise and transparent beads, red;
  • Ojibwa: multi-coloured backgrounds, dark red, clear, and black;
  • Cherokee: more black in beading than other First Nations groups;
  • Eastern Woodland: floral patterns and lots of multi-coloured designs;
  • North West Coast: heavy emphasis on dark blue, and white;
  • Blackfoot: white background, heavy emphasis on blue beads; other colours used sparingly;
  • Dene: multi-coloured backgrounds and many colours used in designs; greater emphasis on blue further west;
  • Inuit: white and many black beads;
  • Metis: “the more colours, the better.” (Bertha Desjarlais) 36

Unfortunately, there are only a few references, such as Duncan’s, in the literature about any continuity of colour use from the prehistoric to the initial contact period, and beyond, in western North America. According to Alexander Mackenzie, at the time of contact, quill work and moose hair were the primary decorative embroidery in the Northwest Territories using natural dyes of red, black, yellow, white, and blue. 37

SITE/REGIONVolume (lbs)White (%)Blue (%)Other (%)
HBC Inland, western Canada, 1799330.525.348.426.3
NWC Inland, western Canada, 1792113.033.067.0
HBC Nottingham House Inventory, 18037.7538.761.3
Nottingham House – Presents or Traded, 18033.033.066.0
Fort Union, 1840 Inventory1,72846.853.2
Glass trade bead inventories from three different sources, ranging from 1792 – 1840. These figures show not only how extensive the trade of glass beads was but that blue and white were by far the most preferred colours among Indigenous people living on the Northern Great Plains to people much further north in the Athabasca region of Northern Alberta, Canada.

But, by the late 18th century, and then by the end of the 19th century the glass bead colour palette was extensive. Glass bead styles and colours were in high demand in the Indigenous world. And if not met, trade suffered:

“….the frustrations involved in trying to ensure an up-to-date inventory of beads of acceptable size and color for a market that changed faster than the time required to order and receive goods from England.”  (Trader Alexander Murray, Fort Yukon) 38

Colour as a Means of Communication

“People give objects meaning, but cultural meaning is rarely stable. Objects and clothing actions that had significance in certain historic contexts are sometimes forgotten, while others endure for generations.”39

Different colours can have meaning – which is often very elusive to determine historically, as the above quote suggests. But, at a more base level, colour can also be used as a means of communication, and thereby carry information and meaning. For example, different colours or colour combinations can be used to communicate one’s ethnic affiliation and social position to others. Historically we may be able to reconstruct ethnic affiliation (i.e., certain groups using a specific array of colours or proportionally more of one colour than others) and social position (i.e, the use of a certain colour by certain individuals in a group) by simply aligning various colours with different ethnic groups or sub-groups.

Colour and bead patterns can therefore be examined using different units of analysis of comparison. In historical archaeology, unlike most prehistoric archaeology, we often have an accompanying historic record to help identify and define those units of analysis, enabling us to then investigate whether people, regionally, in communities or individually used colour as a means of social expression. There are hints that indeed this might be true. But, as we have seen it is difficult, if not impossible, to examine this question with fur trade post inventories, because the records are often incomplete or vague to use for comparative purposes.

According to those historic records, colour, including that of glass trade beads, defined groups and social positions (i.e., rank, gender).

  1. Regional Level: According to Sherry Farrell Racette, when discussing Metis beadwork and colours: “The vitality of the colour palette of nineteenth century beadwork and embroidery corresponds with the comparative prosperity and vigor of that collective identity. Smaller Half Breed collectives, not associated with the Métis, also used clothing and common aesthetics to communicate distinctiveness.” 40

2. Community Level: Distinctions between communities are often also expressed in bead colour differences: “Small decorative elements could also distinguish the work of one community from another. Moccasins made in Ile à la Crosse, particularly those made by the grandmothers of the community, have a distinct visual marker that identifies their community of origin. Three to four rows of alternating deep blue and white beads outline the beaded vamps. The same blue and white border is used on cuffs and other pieces of beadwork. Within the larger aesthetic tradition, regions, communities and individuals developed recognizable styles.” 41

3. Family level: “Some elders recalled specific colours and designs associated with particular families. I remember] that story my grandfather told me about the sashes and it was in the context of him lamenting that you couldn’t leave your stuff out any more that people just stole it. He said that long ago you didn’t do that because people knew what was yours. If you had it wrapped with your sash everybody knew it was yours because of the colours the family used. They knew that it belonged to the Bouviers, or it belonged to the Gardiner’s or to the Daigneault’s. It was essentially a way of marking.42

4. Individual Level: Among Metis men, different coloured hats distinguished them from white gentlemen and officers. “Cowie described “low, broad brimmed black hats” worn by the Métis, while “grey felt” was worn by “gentlemen and officers.” Age was also a factor in headgear chosen by “younger Metis [who] favored rather than the hat, pill box caps of fine black cloth or velvet, adorned with beads or colored silk work and a large black silk tassel attached to the crown.” 43

What the Archaeological Record Reveals About Bead Colour Preference

“It is doubtful if comprehensive examination of all records for a number of posts over a period of time would yield a clear understanding of beads traded there, particularly since the bead company records to help in the clarification of terms, sizes, and colors are not available.” 44

Ethnographers have essentially dismissed the reliability of historic fur trade fort records to provide accurate information about Indigenous glass trade bead preferences, including colour.

What about the archaeological records in western Canada? Are they a reliable source of information about Indigenous bead colour preferences? Where we often find thousands of glass trade beads at these forts. It seems, here too there are problems. Let’s investigate a few of them.

Researcher Bias in Glass Bead Colours – A Small, but Necessary Diversion

What is it about these archaeological assemblages that might make us hesitate to use them to investigate Indigenous bead colour preference? Two types of bias come to mind: 1) whether fort bead assemblages truly represent what Indigenous people used in a region; and, 2) whether there is any bias in the way the beads were collected.

In the first instance, most glass bead assemblages come from excavated fur trade sites and very few historic indigenous encampments or settlements in western Canada. Is it safe to interpret outside (the fort) Indigenous bead colour preference directly from these fort assemblages which represent both what beads were traded to people bringing in their furs and what Indigenous people living at the forts were consuming?

However, the fort inventories, representing what bead colours were traded or gifted to Indigenous people do seem to be similar (on an ordinal scale of comparison) to the fort bead archaeological assemblages. 45

Occasionally there are instances where direct proof can be obtained, such as comparing a historic fort bead sample directly to an Indigenous camp sample to see how similar they were.

Archaeologist, Aaron Crowell was able to make such a comparison. 31 He compared the Indigenous encampment bead samples to the fort bead assemblages. I summarized Crowell’s results below. In terms of proportions, and ordinal rank the two later period (post-1830) bead colours were very similar.

In this figure, when bead colours are categorized simply to ‘white’, ‘blue’ and ‘other’, the relative percentages collected for the post-1830 Indigenous and fort assemblages are relatively similar, while bead colour proportions collected from those pre-1830 assemblages are considerably different from the later period assemblage. They contain fewer ‘other’ colours and a greater proportion of blue beads.

The second problem with the archaeological bead assemblage involves recovery bias. Seed beads, less than 2mm in diameter, are the most common type of bead. They are hard to see when excavating and historically some of the darker-coloured beads may have been more easily lost if accidentally dropped. While it’s virtually impossible to verify the latter inference, we can examine whether our methods might be biased toward the recovery of more visible coloured beads (white, and yellow, for example).

Just to give you some appreciation of glass bead size, consider trying to find these beads while excavating. They range from small to tiny. Once we get into the latter half o the nineteenth century, some seed beads are 1mm or less in diameter.

Some archaeological studies suggest there is no bias in bead colour recovery during excavations. 46

In this experiment conducted by Bundy et. al., a one-metre square was divided into four quadrants. Only the NW quadrant was fine-screened (1mm mesh screen) while the other three quadrants were screened using regular screening methods (~6.4mm mesh). The results indicate there is virtually no difference in either the recovery of different-sized or different-coloured beads. Suggesting of course that the more visible white seed beads are not being found more easily than other darker coloured beads. 47

While excavating at the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion I (c.1798-1830) site we conducted a similar experiment to see if we could replicate the Bundy et. al results. As the figures below show, our results differed considerably from theirs. Not only did we recover proportionally more seed beads (twenty-three percent more) in the fine screens, but also proportionally more of the darker bead colours. 48

Results obtained when comparing glass seed bead colours obtained from fine-screened (1mm mesh) and regular-screened samples at Fort Vermilion I, Alberta, Canada. Our results show there is a bias toward the recovery of the more visible white seed beads when fine-mesh screens are not used.

So, as you can see, most types of historic evidence used to examine Indigenous bead colour preference have their setbacks. Including the archaeological record. Those deficiencies must be kept in mind when considering my following interpretations about Indigenous bead colour preference.

Temporal and Regional Trends in Archaeological Bead Assemblages

Despite difficulties with the archaeological evidence can we still discern some trends in the glass trade bead data that inform on Indigenous glass bead colour preference in western Canada? And, the meaning of, or factors responsible for, those trends?

In a 2015 monograph describing the Fort Vermilion I archaeological results I undertook an extensive investigation of the archaeological bead assemblage and Indigenous colour preference. 49 Consult this source for a more in-depth look at my results. And, where I feel more detail is necessary here, I will include it in the footnotes.

My glass bead samples come primarily from fur trade posts in Alberta, Canada, but occasionally I incorporate evidence from further afield.

The location of some of the fur trade posts described in this study. The Hudson’s Bay Company divided the then-Northwest Territories of Canada into major districts. In Alberta, the Athabasca and Saskatchewan Districts each had a major headquarters (Fort Chipewyan in the Athabasca District; Fort Edmonton in the Saskatchewan District). The Company supplied the district forts with trade goods that the Indigenous populations of those areas preferred. Preferences varied, for glass beads for example, over this vast region which consisted of mostly Dene and Cree peoples in the Athabasca Region and Blackfoot, Cree, and Assiniboine peoples in the Saskatchewan District. Eventually, a large Metis population would inhabit both regions,

Below is a list of glass bead assemblages from fur trade forts and other historic sites used in this study. Although there are more archaeological assemblages, not all of them were used because some cover long periods and therefore are inadequate to examine possible glass bead colour changes over more discrete periods of time.

For the first comparisons I have simplified the bead colour palette because of the many different ways glass bead colours have been described in the literature. Also, historically blue and white were the most common or popular colours. And the most profound changes, either temporally or ethnically (e.g., Dene vs Blackfoot) occurred in the proportions of the use of these two colours but also the use of a more different or diverse range of colours either temporally or regionally. This then leaves us with three basic bead colour categories: 1) white; 2) blue; and, 3) other (all other coloured beads). Even though there are many hues of blues or whites, I have simply lumped them all together for these comparisons.

I also divided the available glass trade bead assemblages into broad categories representing time and space. These divisions were chosen for practical and historical reasons. Unfortunately, not all fur trade sites were occupied in neat discreet units of time. This unevenness makes it difficult to examine bead colour preferences over time. 50

Secondly, according to Kate Duncan 32 and Karlis Karklins 51 somewhere around 1830, the Indigenous floral design in embroidery and beadwork continued to spread to northwestern North America from its place of origin in eastern Canada. How did this change from the use of primarily geometric patterns to floral designs by Indigenous populations affect the proportions of the above bead categories? Surely flower designs weren’t just blue and white.

Therefore, based on these historic circumstances, I divided the bead assemblages into those that represented the pre-1830 period and those that represented the post-1830 period to answer this question.

Based on historic paintings and ethnographical references, after European contact not only are the designs used by some First Nations and Metis people different, but the proportions of either thread or bead colours may also have changed. Metis were also renowned for their use of floral design motifs and their rich array of colour schemes. In other words, they all used an array of thread and bead colours to decorate their belongings, but it is difficult to document how the proportions of these colours varied over time and space.

Nor were the various Indigenous groups relegated to discreet geographical areas. Boundaries were fluid and overlap occurred. To complicate things even more, as the population of people of mixed ancestry (white-first Nations unions) grew, most women (partners of fort employees) living at the fur trade forts were of Metis origin. However, as the above diagram shows First Nations groups who used a mostly geometric design occupied the southern parts of the Saskatchewan District and those that used a floral design lived mostly in the Athabaska District. Metis people, highly renowned for their floral embroidery and beadwork, resided in both districts.

Fort/Region Pre-1830TOTAL% White% Blue% Other
Athabasca District Posts
Nottingham House 523,18146.029.025.0
Wedderburn 538934.857.37.9
Boyer River Post 547848.040.012.0
Fort Vermilion I (1999-2004 sample) 5511460.534.25.3
Fort Vermilion I (2014-16 sample) 56146050.835.713.5
Fork 574311.616.372.1
Rocky Mountain Fort 584,01447.619.032.8
Lac La Biche Post 592070.015.015.0
TOTAL4431.224.14
Saskatchewan District Posts
Piegan Post 601346.253.80.0
HBC Rocky Mountain House 6110,63369.030.10.9
NWC Rocky Mountain House 626,47342.852.64.7
Augustus/Edmonton I 631266.733.30.0
Augustus/Edmonton III 6470336.750.113.4
Buckingham House 6459443.443.313.3
Fort George 6520,58867.020.013.0
Paint Earth House 6612524.852.822.4
Fort D’Tremblante 6719,647533314
TOTAL4941.89.2
List of fur trade fort glass bead assemblages dated before 1830 from the Athabasca and Saskatchewan Districts.
Fort/Region Post-1830TOTAL% White% Blue% Other
Athabasca District Posts
Fort Vermilion II 6841030.224.944.1
Dunvegan 695440.727.831.5
All Northern Posts45435.526.937.8
Saskatchewan District Posts
Fort Victoria 70 8030.972.027.1
Edmonton V 71 8048.833.817.5
Jasper House 7290620.840.838.4
All Saskatchewan River Posts178923.548.927.7
List of fur trade posts, dated post-1830 and their respective glass bead assemblages.



Indigenous Dunvegan, Burial #1 (Early)27562.936.70.4
Indigenous Dunvegan, Burial #2 (Early)~6,500Primarily white and blue
Dunvegan, Hearth (?)250.050.00.0
Peace Point (First Nations)250.00.050.0
Alaska Sites (Pre-1830)1,09329.741.716.8
Kolmakovskiy – Russion Alaska Fur Trade post (1870-1917)1,54138.121.737.9
Alaska Indigenous Sites (Post-1830)1,09643.819.733.4
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen Early (pre-1800)1687.56.36.3
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen (1820-1850)16158.47.552.8
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen (1850-1880)120.041.758.3
Site/RegionTOTAL%White%Blue%Other
Indigenous Dunvegan, Burial #1 (Early) 7327562.936.70.4
Indigenous Dunvegan, Burial #2 (Early) 73~6,500Primarily white and blue
Dunvegan, Hearth (?) 73250.050.00.0
Peace Point (First Nations) 74250.0050.0
Alaska Sites (Pre-1830) 751,09329.741.716.8
Buffalo Lake Metis, Cabin 3 76 1,54138.121.737.9
Alaska Indigenous Sites (Post-1830) 771,09643.819.733.4
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen Early (pre-1800) 771687.56.36.3
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen (1820-1850) 7716158.47.552.8
MacKenzie District – Gwitchen (1850-1880) 77120.041.758.3
Buffalo Lake Metis, Cabin 3 78 3,2182.113.884.1
Cypress Hills Metis, Cabin B 792201.881.816.4
Cypress Hills Metis, Cabin E 79260.073.126.9
Victoria Metis Settlement 8014.342.942.9
Batoche, Latendre Metis 818219.518.356.1
Red Deer River Forks Metis 822412.562.525.0
Fort Chipewyan III-IV (1803-1872) 835616.167.916.1
Rosebud, Burial (c.1855) 8461890.06.63.4
Last Mountain Post 8556,92919.623.457.0
For Union (Montana, USA) 8638,49034.842.722.5
Other First Nations, Metis and fur trade fort bead assemblages.

Glass Bead Colour Proportions

When glass beads became available to the Athapaskans in sufficient quantity for embroidery, they were readily applied to garments and accessories in the decorative traditions already established using porcupine quills and seeds. Beads were definitely present among some Athapaskans in both the east and the west sometime during the eighteenth century, but the details of their arrival remain lost to history.” 87

Not only was the first adoption of glass beads by Athabascan speakers murky but so also were bead colour preferences by various other historic Indigenous groups in western Canada. Did those colour preferences change over time?

I will first examine this question with two northern fur trade bead assemblages spanning the pre- and post-1830 periods – Fort Vermilion I (c.1798-1830) and Fort Vermilion II (c.1830-1934). Both forts are located in northern Alberta along the Peace River approximately eighty kilometres apart from one another. Both forts served a primarily northern Athapaskan population, but to a lesser extent also Cree and Metis. The results of the comparison of their respective bead colour proportions are shown below. There was a considerable increase in the ‘other’ bead colour category in the post-1830 Fort Vermilion II assemblage.

A comparison of the three bead colour categories between the two forts shows a considerable increase in the use of other bead colours, aside from white and blue.

In the next comparison, I combined all the fur trade fort bead assemblages and then divided them into two time periods. The results, shown below, indicated that there is an increase in the ‘other’ bead colour category in the post-1830 bead assemblages.

Comparison of bead colour preference from all regions between the two major periods. There is a significant increase in the proportions of ‘other’ colours of beads in the post-1830 assemblages.

Since we are also interested in comparing possible regional differences in bead colour preferences, I divided the bead assemblages into both time (pre-1830) and space (Northern and Central/Southern). The results, shown below, indicate that not only do bead colour preferences change over time, but also regionally. But, at different rates. Over time, there is a far greater increase in the ‘other’ bead colour category in the northern bead assemblages (31%) than in central/southern bead assemblages (19%).

This comparison suggests that while bead colour preference changes over time in both study regions the difference in change is significantly greater in the northern bead assemblages than the central/southern bead assemblages.

Are these changes in bead colour preferences just a regional phenomenon or are they more widespread than just in Western Canada? Although currently my database is limited to examine this question more thoroughly, the results (shown below), suggest it is more widespread. 88 But, again there is a far higher rate of change in the ‘other ‘ bead category in these northern assemblages than in those further south. When all the northern assemblages (Athabasca, Mackenzie, Alaska) combined are compared to southern assemblages there is a 26% increase in the former and only 16% in the latter (shown in the table below).

While the changes in these bead colour proportions are real enough, finding explanations for them is somewhat more difficult. Especially when we consider that various different ethnic groups inhabited each region. The crux of the issue comes down to this: even though different Indigenous groups occupied each region, their greater spatial proximity to one another (than to people in other regions) resulted in more similar use of bead colours. Is spatial proximity that powerful a factor, despite considerable Indigenous ethnic diversity in a region, to create continuity in bead colour choice?

Unfortunately, currently, I don’t have the kind of data to explore this possibility in more detail. Numerous historic references seem to support this view. Our automobile colour study also seems to suggest as much despite the considerable ethnic diversity in some of those countries (more so in Canada and South Africa than Iceland and Turkey).

Number of Glass Bead Colour Varieties

While there seem to be differences in bead colour proportions temporally and regionally, exactly what was changing? The above bead colour categories mask some of the changes that might be occurring in the ‘other’ bead colour category. Were more bead colour varieties being added temporally or regionally to account for these higher proportions? Or were only certain colours in the ‘other’ category being used more frequently thereby increasing the relative proportions in the ‘other’ bead colour category?

Source/FortMedian Occupation DateBead Colour VarietiesTotal Beads
Davis172010N/A
Davis175419N/A
Davis17746N/A
Fort D’Tremblante17942020119
Fort George17961120894
Buckingham House1796N/A
Augustus/Edmonton I1798.5412
Rocky Mountain Fort1799917176
Davis1800.514
Nottingham House1802202887
Rocky Mountain House (HBC)1810710832
Rocky Mountain House (NWC)1810266512
Edmonton/Augustus III1811.5141308
Vermilion I1814131460
Wedderburn1828981
Davis1828.542N/A
Davis1843.527N/A
Fort Union18481938490
Vancouver1847.52955000
Fort Edmonton V1867.51280
Last Mountain House18712160063
Vermilion II188011419
Fort Victoria188116803
Dunvegan1898827
Mean: Median Dates 1720 – 182813
Mean: Median Dates 1828.5 – 189819.4
Data come from the same sources cited in an earlier Table. The median occupation date refers to the central date of occupation for a fort. For example, if a fort was occupied from 1800 – 1810, the median occupation date would be 1805.

While seemingly straightforward forward this is a very difficult question to answer with bead archaeological assemblages. Namely, because bead colour variety is not just a function of what people used historically. It is also dependent on archaeological sample size, and even archaeological site occupation length. 89

I took what available data there was regarding bead colour variety and made some preliminary comparisons. In these comparisons, bead colour variety refers to all bead colours, including shades of white and blue. Although the historic documentary literature points toward a greater variety of bead colours in the market over time, this does not necessarily mean that people used more of them. The raw data for these comparisons are shown in the table below.

The scattergram below, comparing the median archaeological site occupation dates (X-Axis) to the number of bead colour varieties (Y-Axis) seems to confirm this observation. There was no steady increase in the number of glass bead colours over time.

The relationship between median archaeological site occupation date and the number of glass bead colour varieties. The results show that through time there is a great deal of variability in the number of bead colour varieties present at these sites. While there may have been a greater number of varieties to choose from in the latter part of the 19th century, at this level of comparison this greater choice did not occur. 90

When the mean variety of bead colours is compared between sites with occupation dates before and after c.1828 there is an increase (from 13 to 19.4 colour varieties in the total sample and from 15 to 19.3 colour varieties in the samples with high bead numbers). However, despite this increase, statistically the means are the same. 91

The above results suggest there was considerable variability in several glass bead colour varieties through both time and space. Keeping space constant (comparing assemblages of different periods within a region), I wanted to see first if differences existed. I examined bead colour variety between Fort Vermilion I and II – two forts in the same region but from different periods. The results shown in the figure below along with comparisons between regions and time, do not show the expected trend of the use of more colour varieties through time. Nor do they show what the comparisons of bead colour proportions showed – namely a greater use of ‘other’ colours in the northern bead assemblages.

Comparison of the Mean number of glass bead colours over time and regionally.

It seems, therefore, that the greater proportional use of ‘other’ bead colours either temporally or regionally (i.e., higher in the northern bead assemblages than the Saskatchewan District assemblages), is not a function of the use of a greater variety of bead colours.

If it’s not the result of a selection of greater bead colour variety, then why do the proportions of the ‘other’ bead colour category increase over time and regionally? Let’s take a specific example where bead colour proportions change through time but bead colour remains relatively similar – Fort Vermilion I and II. Below is a breakdown of the glass bead colours recovered from the two forts.

Fort Vermilion I (2014-16 sample)Fort Vermilion II
ColourQuantityPercentQuantityPercent
Black17900
Clear4211
Dark Indigo221100
Turquoise10.521
Grey10.511
Pink on Green18900
Pink428149
Pink, medium2100
Dark Purple3221
Red41214225
Yellow794185
Green002616
Total19299163
Total Bead Sample1460
Total Colours118
Comparison of glass bead colours (other than white or blue) from Fort Vermilion I (c.1798 – 1830) and Fort Vermilion II (c.1830 – 1930). The total bead sample size for Fort Vermilion II is 419. 92

The first thing to note is that some colours are either absent or change in importance (percent) over time – there is a dramatic increase in pink and green over time and a decline in Dark Indigo, black and yellow while red remains relatively constant. Preference for certain different bead colours is changing while it seems the use of greater varieties of bead colours is not. 93

And if you look more closely at the data, even though there are fewer bead colours in the Fort Vermilion II bead assemblage, the first three highest bead colour percentages make up 90% of all colours while they only make up 73% in the Fort Vermilion bead assemblage. In short, fewer bead colours occur in larger quantities in the Fort Vermilion II assemblage. And their high numbers relative to total bead assemblage (counting all the whites and blues) account for the proportional increase in the ‘other’ bead colour category. These differences are graphically depicted below in the cumulative percentage graph.

Cumulative percent glass bead colours between the two fort bead assemblages.

A comparison of two bead assemblages from different regions in Alberta produced similar results to those above. Below is a list of bead colours from the Athabasca region HBC Nottingham House (c.1801 – 1803) and the Saskatchewan District NWC Rocky Mountain House (c.1799 – 1821). Even though Rocky Mountain House had 26 different colour varieties, most of these were different shades of blue with only twelve actual different colours. It is also obvious that the ordinal rank of colours between the two assemblages differs. And the Rocky Mountain House coloured bead assemblage only represents 4.7% of the total while the Nottingham House assemblages make up 25% of the total. And like the temporal comparison between the two Fort Vermilion sites, it was not a greater increase in bead colour varieties at Nottingham House that created these differences. It was simply a higher proportional use of certain coloured beads that created that difference.

Nottingham HouseRocky Mountain House
Bead ColourQuantityPercentQuantityPercent
Black110.6257.7
Redwood39120.9257.7
Ruby402.100
Rose Wine27314.623271.4
Scarlet00175.2
Red Mahogany0041.2
Bright Green30.261.8
Dark Pale Green1859.910.3
Apple Green75400
Aqua Green10.0500
Dark Grass Green0010.3
Turquoise77341.310.3
Light Gold1206.400
Mustard Gold00123.7
Sunlight Yellow0010.3
Total 1872325
Total Bead Sample36106512
In this comparison, unlike the Fort Vermilion I and II comparisons, both bead samples are sufficiently robust to eliminate possible bias from sample size.

In summary, historic glass bead colours differed proportionally over time and in large regions of western Canada and the United States. Certain bead colours were preferred over others in specific regions or during specific periods. Although there was likely a greater potential selection of bead colour varieties later in the 19th century, it did not necessarily result in the use of a greater variety over time or regionally. People preferred certain colour schemes during certain periods and regions. The reasons and meaning for the choice of those colours were likely as complex as they are today, being influenced by the personal, cultural and ideological customs and values of their people. And, let’s not forget the role of fashion driving the choices in colours that were made.

Canada’s Metis – The Flower Beadwork People

It is perhaps fitting to end this blog about historic glass bead colour with Canada’s historic Metis who were also known as the ‘Flower Beadwork People‘, renowned for their brightly coloured floral designs in both beadwork and embroidery. 94 How does their use of bead colours compare to other assemblages?

A beautiful example of floral beadwork on a firebag in the Royal Alberta collections (part of the Earl of Sothestk collection). James Carnegie, the 9th Earl of Southesk, acquired the bag during his North American travels including stops in western Canada. The initials “WJC” in the beadwork suggest this octopus bag was made for Chief Factor of Fort Edmonton, William J. Christie by his wife, Mary Sinclair Christie – a Métis woman with Anishinaabe roots who in her teens spent time in Red River before moving to Fort Edmonton in 1858.

This is also a good example of the transmission of the eastern Indigenous floral beadwork design and other design elements from Eastern to Western Canada in the nineteenth century. For more details about this bag go to the attached footnote and the Royal Alberta Museum website. 95

Unfortunately, there are very few archaeological bead assemblages that are definitely Metis. Below I have listed the archaeological sites that represent Metis settlements or farmsteads (river lots) and have beads samples available for examination. Keep in mind that this sample size is small and the results preliminary. However, the results indicate that the ‘other’ bead colour category in these assembles is very high. Higher even than most other Saskatchewan District bead assemblages. However, also like these assemblages the Metis were not necessarily using a greater variety of bead colours at any given time. Only a higher proportion of some colours.

The image below of a beaded cushion, dating around c.1880, and like the octopus firebag, supports my contention that relatively few varieties of bead colours were used, but some in very high proportions. White and blue beads were used in lesser numbers in this flower bead pattern.

A beaded cushion, Fort Vermilion I region, made by Metis Francoise LaFleur Moberly, wife of fur trader, Henry John Moberly. This cushion is thought to date between 1879-1885.
(Photograph courtesy of the Fort Vermilion Museum, Alberta, Canada)

Also at the beginning of this blog, I showed an image of a colourful piece of beadwork found at the HBC Fort Victoria (c. 1864 – 98). It was found in the men’s quarters and was likely fashioned by a Metis woman perhaps living at the fort. As with the cushion, the proportion of coloured beads relative to white and blue beads is quite high. Below is a schematic drawing of the colour pattern that was used based on this archaeological find.

Below is a photograph of a Metis sash I was given at Lac La Biche, Alberta, Canada for my work with the Metis. It’s quite evident that there is considerable similarity in the colour scheme of both these objects. Not the same but similarity nevertheless. The sash, a major symbol of Metis identity in Canada varies in colour schemes but certain colours seem to reoccur.

This is the reconstructed bead pattern from the garment found at the HBC Fort Victoria (c.1864-98). The types and proportions of bead colours are relatively similar to the Metis sash below, with blue and red dominating the colour spectrum. This image was modified from information in the Fort Victoria report. 96
This Metis sash from Lac La Biche, Alberta, Canada contains five basic colours, ranked according to their frequencies. Red and blue dominate. According to an article in New Journeys.ca 97 even today there is more than one meaning for these colours on the Metis sash among Metis: “According to the BC Métis Nation, red stands for the blood shed over many years of Métis people fighting for their rights, blue is for the depth of spirit among Métis people, green is for the fertility of their great nation, white stands for their connection to the earth and creator, yellow is for prosperity and black stands for the dark period of suppression and dispossession of Métis land.
Other organizations say the red and blue stand for the two Métis flags: the blue infinity flag signifying Scottish and French heritage and the red infinity flag some say was for hunting.”

A Few Concluding Remarks

The use of colour by humans and the reasons for choosing them are complex and often difficult to understand. When we step back into history the task of understanding colour becomes even more difficult because of either scant or biased evidence.

Despite these issues, I believe the historic archaeological bead data have been under-utilized when it comes to documenting and understanding historic Indigenous bead colour. Investigation of these assemblages has its advantages. Instead of guessing what the historic names for colours might mean, we can examine the actual bead. And, because the assemblages cover a considerable period of time and space, we can take a comparative approach to investigate them.

It is clear, both in contemporary and historic Indigenous societies, colour preference is a moving target. It is not a static entity but seems governed by ever-changing preferences over time and space.

To tag a certain colour with a certain meaning is therefore difficult if not impossible. Perhaps we have to reduce the entire mess down to the fact that some colours, because we associate them with specific things or events, make us feel good while others do not. And it seems there is a great deal of variability among humans in those choices. In other words, a colour I might prefer would not always be preferred by others, or in different periods, giving rise to an array of colours, used in different proportions by people.

Despite this seemingly incredible variability and sometimes randomness in colour preferences, there are trends in colour preferences both regionally and over time in Northwestern North America that are very difficult to explain if the choice is only individual and highly random. Like our car example, are Indigenous people thinking the same way about bead colour choices? Certainly, the floral pattern in embroidery and beadwork, thought to have spread northwest from eastern North America, influenced a greater use of colours other than white and blue by Indigenous people. Some evidence suggests that style dictated colour preference among Indigenous groups. And, if you wanted to communicate your affiliation with a particular group, then the use of certain colours as means of communicating that identity was an option.

To conclude glass trade beads were a very important article among Indigenous people in Canada. The colours of beads people chose have significance in their everyday lives. Not just historically but even today.

On August 10th, 2023 I attended an Edmonton Elks football game. The highlight of this event wasn’t the Elks’ superb play (they lost and now have lost twenty-two consecutive games at home). The highlight was the half-time show featuring Canadian Indigenous dancers, clad in their colourful dancing regalia covered with many glass beads.

The bead colours they chose, and the meaning behind them, are often very personal, steeped in their history and cultures. I leave the last word about the importance of Indigenous beads and colour to an Indigenous voice, Anishinaabe 98 beader Malinda Joy Gray’s thoughts about the colours of beads chosen in dance regalia and the meaning behind them:

“Colors and patterns are not merely adornment, they should be intertwined with their identity and their status as a dancer with other members of the community. When an Anishinaabe artist beads regalia for themselves, they are instructed to use their spirit colors. I have been taught by Elders that if you don’t have any colors that have special meaning to you or are unsure what your spirit colors are, you must put tobacco in some water and sleep with it beside your bed. Doing so will ensure that during your dreams your ancestors will come and show you which colors should be worn. Regalia is not just for this dimension, it transcends time and waking reality. Beadwork has impacted every aspect of Indigenous culture including its spirituality.” 99

Footnotes:
  1. From “The Pyschology of Colour in Advertising.” https://www.newdesigngroup.ca/logo-graphic-design/psychology-colour-advertising/[][]
  2. From Joy Gray, Malinda. 2017. Beads: Symbols of Indigenous Cultural Resilience and Value. M.A. Thesis, The University of Toronto, Canada.[]
  3. from “Why Do We Prefer Certain Colors?” in Psychology and Neuroscience; https://psych-neuro.com/2015/03/13/why-do-we-prefer-certain-colors/[][]
  4. Madden, T. J., Hewett, K., & Roth, M. S. (2000). Managing images in different cultures: A cross-national study of colour meanings and preferences. Journal of International Marketing, 8(4), 90-107.[]
  5. This is only a theory of high correlation (i.e., most people), not an absolute theory (i.e., all people).[]
  6. from “Science Explains Why We Have Favorite Colors” by Allison Turner, 2022.[]
  7. Farrell Racette, Sherry. 2004. Sewing Ourselves Together: Clothing, Decorative Arts and the Expression of Metis and Half Breed Identity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba.[]
  8. https://www.autoloansolutions.ca/blog/3-good-reasons-to-spend-more-time-choosing-your-cars colou/#:~:text=3%20Good%20Reasons%20to%20Spend%20More%20Time%20Choosing,tell%20them%20to%20vamoose%21%20…%205%20Apply%20Now%21[]
  9. From “Color Symbolism & Meaning of Gray”. https://www.sensationalcolor.com/meaning-of-gray/[]
  10. Quote from Farrell Racette, Sherry. 2004. Sewing Ourselves Together: Clothing, Decorative Arts and the Expression of Metis and Half Breed Identity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba.[]
  11. from Bead Types at Fort Vancouver. US National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/fovabeads.htm[]
  12. Data from Karklins, Karlis. 1983. Nottingham House: The Hudson’s Bay Company in Athabasca, 1802-1806. History and Archaeology 69. Ottawa, Parks Canada, Ottawa.[]
  13. On the colour wheel, secondary colours are located between primary colours. According to the traditional colour wheel, red and yellow make orange, red and blue make purple, and blue and yellow make green. Tertiary colours refer to the combination of primary and secondary colours due to their compound nature. Blue-green, blue-violet, red-orange, red-violet, yellow-orange, and yellow-green are colour combinations you can make from colour mixing. While we are all familiar with what primary and secondary colours resemble, we are perhaps less familiar with tertiary colours. The six tertiary colours often come with names. For example, vermilion refers to orange combined with red; magenta, red combined with purple); violet, purple combined with blue; teal, blue combined with green; chartreuse, green combined with yellow; and, amber, yellow combined with orange. I cannot think of one primary or secondary colour, and many tertiary combinations as well, that has not been applied to glass trade bead colours in the Americas.[]
  14. Kidd, Kenneth and Martha Ann 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[]
  15. Devore, Steven Leroy. 1992. Beads of the Bison Robe Trade: The Fort Union Collection. Williston, North Dakota.[]
  16. American Fur Company data from Farrell Racette, Sherry. 2004. Sewing Ourselves Together: Clothing, Decorative Arts and the Expression of Metis and Half Breed Identity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba.[]
  17. Steven Leroy Devore. 1992. Beads of the Bison Robe Trade: The Fort Union Collection. Williston, North Dakota.[]
  18. Wayne Davis. 1974. Time and Space Considerations for Diagnostic Northern Plains Glass Trade Bead Types. In Historical Archaeology in Northwestern North America. University of Calgary, Canada.[]
  19. https://www.nps.gov/articles/upload/Within-the-Collection-Beads.pdf[]
  20. Courtesy of https://www.nps.gov/articles/upload/Within-the-Collection-Beads.pdf []
  21. Melonie Ancheta. 2016. Colouring the Native Northwest Coast. Magazine of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian: Volume 17, No. 1[]
  22. a mineral consisting of a phosphate of iron which occurs as a secondary mineral in ore deposits. It is colourless when fresh but becomes blue or green with oxidization[]
  23. from Melonie Ancheta. 2016. Coloring the Native Northwest Coast. Magazine of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian: Volume 17, No.1.[]
  24. both white and black technically are considered colours and so treated here as such[]
  25. And to my knowledge has not been answered. Certainly, like many European trade goods introduced into Indigenous society, they might have affected traditional values. If blue dyes were difficult to acquire, and therefore relegated to only a few people, such as shamans and nobility, the greater accessibility to objects by others to this colour may have had a profound effect on Northwest Coast cultural traditions.[]
  26. Abel, A. H. 1939. Tabeau’s Narrative of Loisel’s Expedition to the Upper Missouri, pp.170-71. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.[]
  27. Abel, A. H. 1939. Tabeau’s Narrative of Loisel’s Expedition to the Upper Missouri, pp.174-76. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.[]
  28. Davis, Wayne. 1972. Glass Trade Beads of the Northern Plains – Upper Missouri Region. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Calgary, Alberta.[]
  29. Denig, Edwin. 1930. Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri. Edited by J. N. B. Hewitt, Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report (1928-1929), Vol. 46: 375-628. Washington, D. C.[]
  30. Ross, Lester A. 1976. “Fort Vancouver: 1829-1860, An Historical Archaeological Investigations of the Goods Imported and manufactured by the Hudson’s Bay Company” United States Department of the Interior National Park Service and the Fort Vancouver Historic Site, USA.[]
  31. Crowell, Aron L. 1997. Archaeology and the Capitalist World System: A Study of Russian America. Plenum Press, New York.[][]
  32. Duncan, Kate C. 1989. Northern Athapaskan Art. A Beadwork Tradition. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.[][][]
  33. Coues, Elliot (ed). 1965.  New Light on the Early History of the Greater Northwest:  The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry, Fur Trader of the Northwest Company, and of David Thompson, Official Geographer and Explorer of the Same Company. Ross and Haines, Minneapolis. pp.517.[]
  34. Thwaites, Reuben, Gold (ed.). 1904-05. Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition 1804-05. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York.[]
  35. McKenzie, Roderick. 1889. Reminiscences. InLes Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Quest, recits de voyages, lettres et rapports inedits relatifs au Nord-Quest Canadien, L. R. Masson (ed) (Quebec: A. Cote, 1889-90, pp.51.[]
  36. From Farrell Racette, p.313[]
  37. McKenzie, Roderick. 1889. Reminiscences. InLes Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Quest, recits de voyages, lettres et rapports inedits relatifs au Nord-Quest Canadien, L. R. Masson (ed) (Quebec: A. Cote, 1889-90.[]
  38. From Duncan, Kate C. 1989. Northern Athapaskan Art. A Beadwork Tradition. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver. pp.44.[]
  39. Farrell-Raccette, p. 217[]
  40. Raccette Farrell, p.307[]
  41. Raccette Farrell, p.[]
  42. Raccette Farrell p.316[]
  43. Raccette-Farrell, p.307[]
  44. Duncan, Kate C. 1989. Northern Athapaskan Art. A Beadwork Tradition. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver. p.43[]
  45. see the Nottingham House data shown earlier.[]
  46. Bundy, Barbara E., Allen P. McCartney, and Douglas W. Veltre. 2003. Glass Trade Beads from Reese Bay, Unalaska Island:  Spatial and Temporal Patterns. Arctic Anthropology 40 (1):29-47[]
  47. from Bundy, Barbara E., Allen P. McCartney, and Douglas W. Veltre.
    2003. Glass Trade Beads from Reese Bay, Unalaska Island:  Spatial and Temporal Patterns. Arctic Anthropology 40 (1):29-47[]
  48. However, at Rocky Mountain Fort, Scott Hamilton fine-screened all soil matrix to recover all small beads. His results suggest that the bead colour proportions from this fur trade post are within the range of variability of other post assemblages (where the soil was not fine-screened) and white beads do not occur in significantly greater numbers. ((Hamilton, Scott, David Burley, Luke Dalla Bona, Rick Howard, Heather Moon, and Bill Quakenbush. 1987. The End of Season Report of the 1986 Excavations at Rocky Mountain Fort, HbRf-31. Preliminary report submitted to the B.C. Heritage Trust.[]
  49. Pyszczyk, H. 2015. The Last Fort Standing. Fort Vermilion and the Peace River Fur Trade, 1798-1830. Occasional Papers of the Archaeological Society of Alberta 14. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta. Chapter 6[]
  50. For example, the NWC/HBC Fort Chipewyan was occupied from 1802 to 1872 covering the two time periods in question. More discreet temporal divisions have not been established archaeologically at this fort. Therefore the bead assemblage from this fort is a mixture of bead preference for over seventy years – a length of time too long to investigate any meaningful trends.[]
  51. Karklins, Karlis. 1992. Trade Ornament Usage Among the Native Peoples of Canada: a Source Book. Ottawa, Ont.: National Historic Parks and Sites, Parks Service.[]
  52. Karklins, Karlis. 1983. Nottingham House: The Hudson’s Bay Company in Athabasca, 1802-1806. History and Archaeology 69. Ottawa, Parks Canada, Ottawa.[]
  53. Karklins, Karlis. 1981. The Old Fort Point Site: Fort Wedderburn II? Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 26. Ottawa, Parks Canada.[]
  54. Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 1993  A “Parchment Skin” is All: The Archaeology of the Boyer River Site, Fort Vermilion, Alberta. In The Uncovered Past:  Roots of Northern Alberta Societies, Patricia A. McCormack and R. Geoffrey Ironside (eds), pp. 33-44. Circumpolar Research Series Number 3. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta.[]
  55. Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 2000-131  Archaeological Investigations: Fort Vermillion I (IaQf-1) and Unknown Fur Trade Site (IaQf-2) (1998-2000 Field Seasons), Final Report, Permit 2000-131. Manuscript on file, Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Edmonton, Alberta; Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 2002-227  Archaeological Investigations:  Fort Vermilion I (IaQf – 1) and Unknown Fur Trade Site (IaQf-2). Final Report, Permit 2002-227. On File, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton. Pyszczyk, H. 2015. The Last Fort Standing. Fort Vermilion and the Peace River Fur Trade, 1798-1830. Occasional Papers of the Archaeological Society of Alberta 14. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta.[]
  56. Catalogue only, Royal Alberta Museum, Edmonton[]
  57. Arnold, Ken. 1972. The History and Archaeology of Fort Fork (Draft). Manuscript on file, Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta[]
  58. Hamilton, Scott, David Burley, Luke Dalla Bona, Rick Howard, Heather Moon, and Bill Quakenbush. 1987.  The End of Season Report of the 1986 Excavations at Rocky Mountain Fort, HbRf-31. Preliminary report submitted to the B.C. Heritage Trust.[]
  59. Smith, Brian J. 1992. Archaeological Mitigation of Site GePa-10, Lac la Biche, Alberta for M & J Cats Ltd. ASA Permit Number 92-006. Consultant’s report on file with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. Edmonton, Alberta.[]
  60. Forbis, R.G. 1958a. Archaeological Site Inventory Data, Borden No. EgPr-1, Peigan Post (Old Bow Fort). Site form on file with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. Edmonton, Alberta.[]
  61. Noble, William C. 1973. The Excavation and Historical Identification of Rocky Mountain House. Canadian Historic Sites. Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 6. Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa.[]
  62. Steer, Donald N. and Harvey J. Rogers. 1978.  Archaeological Investigations at an Early Nineteenth Century Fur Trading Fort, Rocky Mountain House National Historic Park, 1975-77. M.S. on file, Parks Canada, Calgary.[]
  63. Kidd, Robert S. 1987. Archaeological Excavations at the Probable Site of the First Fort Edmonton or Fort Augustus I, 1795 to Early 1800s. Human History, Occasional Paper No. 3. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton.[]
  64. Nicks, Gertrude. 1969. The Archaeology of Two Hudson’s Bay Company Posts:  Buckingham House (1792-1800) and Edmonton House III (1810-1813). M.A. thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, The University of Alberta, Edmonton[][]
  65. Kidd, Robert S. 1970. Fort George and the Early Fur Trade in Alberta. Publication No.2, Provincial Museum and Archives of Alberta. Alberta Culture, Historical Resources.[]
  66. McCullough, E.J., A.J. Landals, and B.J. Kulle. 1992. Historical Resources Mitigation FjOn 1 Fort Vermillion/Paint Creek House. Permit 91-73. Consultant’s report on file with Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. Edmonton, Alberta.[]
  67. Karklins, Karlis. 2021. appendix F. The Trade Beads of Fort Riviere Tremblante. In Meyer, David. 2021. Archaeological Investigations of Fort Riviere Tremblante. Manuscript on File, Saskatchewan Heritage Center, Regina.[]
  68. Walde, Dale. 2004. Historical Resource Monitoring of a Replacement Waterline within Lots 1, 4 & 5, Block 1 Fort Vermillion, Alberta Map Sheets 84 J/5 & K/8 Final Report. Permit 2004-209. Consultant’s report on file with Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. Edmonton, Alberta.[]
  69. Smith, Brian J. 1991a. Archaeological Investigations, Dunvegan, Alberta: Hudson’s Bay Company 1877 Factor’s House (GlQp-8) and St. Charles Mission Roman Catholic Church (GlQp-6), Permit 89-20. Vols. 1-3. Report on file with the Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.[]
  70. Forsman, Michael. 1985. The Archaeology of Victoria Post 1864-1897. Archaeological Survey of Alberta Manuscript Series No. 6. Alberta Culture, Edmonton; Losey, Timothy, et. al, 1977. Archaeological Investigations: Fort Victoria, 1975[]
  71. Pyszczyk, Heinz W. n.d. Archaeological Investigations: Fort Edmonton V, 1992-1995. Manuscript report on file, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.[]
  72. Pickard, Rod and Heather D’Amour. 1987.  Archaeological Investigations at the National Historic Site of Jasper House. Microfiche Report Series 475. Environment Canada Parks Service, Calgary, Alberta.[]
  73. Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.[][][]
  74. Stevenson, Marc G.
    1981. Peace Point – A Stratified Prehistoric Campsite Complex in Wood Buffalo National Park, Alberta. Research Bulletin No. 158. Parks Canada.[]
  75. Crowell, Aron L.
    1997.  Archaeology and the Capitalist World System: A Study of Russian America. Plenum Press, New York.[]
  76. Doll, Maurice,F. V., Robert S. Kidd and John P. Day. 1988. The Buffalo Lake Metis Site: A Late Nineteenth Century Settlement in the Parkland of Central Alberta. Human History Occasional Paper No. 4. Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism, Provincial Museum of Alberta.[]
  77. Crowell, Aron L. 1997.  Archaeology and the Capitalist World System: A Study of Russian America. Plenum Press, New York.[][][][]
  78. Doll, Maurice, F. V., Robert S. Kidd and John P. Day. 1988. The Buffalo Lake Metis Site: A Late Nineteenth Century Settlement in the Parkland of Central Alberta. Human History Occasional Paper No. 4. Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism, Provincial Museum of Alberta.[]
  79. Elliot, W. J. 1971. Hivernant Archaeology in the Cypress Hills. M.A. Thesis, University of Calgary.[][]
  80. Panas, Timothy
    1999. Statistical Comparison of Spode/Copeland Ceramics between Historic Metis and European Occupations in Central Alberta. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The University of Montana.[]
  81. Brandon, John Daniel. 1989. The Artifacts and Stratigraphy of the Letendre Complex, Batoche, Saskatchewan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan.[]
  82. Klimko, Olga, Peggy Mkeand, Terrance Gibson. 1993. The Chesterfield House Research Project. Permit 93-047. Saskatchewan Heritage Branch, Regina.[]
  83. Heitzmann, R.J., J. Preigert, S.S. Smith. 1980. Historical Resources Inventory and Assessment Programme 1979 Fort Chipewyan III and IV, Final Report. Permit Number 79-100. Consultant’s report on file with Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture.[]
  84. Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 1989. The Rosebud Burial. Manuscript on File, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton.[]
  85. Klimko, Olga and John Hodges. 1993. Last Mountain House: A Hudson’s Bay Company Outpost in the Qu’Appelle Valley. Western Heritage Services Incorporated, Saskatoon.[]
  86. Devore, Stephen
    1992.  Beads of the Bison Robe Trade:  The Fort Union Trading Post Collection. Friends of Fort Union Trading Post, Williston, North Dakota.[]
  87. Duncan, Kate. 1989, Northern Athapaskan Art. A Beadwork Tradition. p.40. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.[]
  88. These limitations are the result of both a low number of archaeological site bead assemblages and often very low sample sizes.[]
  89. Much has been published in the archaeological literature on how sample size affects artifact richness (or in this instance bead colour variety) (i.e., as sample size increases, so will the number s of different bead colours, until a saturation point is reached). I have touched on the subject in my 2015 Fort Vermilion I monograph, conducting rarefaction curves to examine artifact richness between different-sized archaeological samples.[]
  90. Even when sites having small bead sample sizes are omitted (which could bias the number of bead colour varieties) the results are similar to those above.[]
  91. I conducted a two-tailed T-Test for means (unequal variances). Because of the high degree of variability and overlap in the sample, there was no statistical difference in the mean colour varieties in the two samples.[]
  92. for some reason WordPress is not allowing me to insert a number in the appropriate box for the total bead sample for Fort Vermilion II.[]
  93. However, currently, without a larger bead sample from Fort Vermilion II, I can’t rule out that unequal bead sample sizes are biasing these results.[]
  94. According to Canadian Geographic the Dakota and Cree called the Metis Flower Beadwork People. (https://indigenouspeoplesatlasofcanada.ca/article/material-culture/). There are also countless references by explorers describing Metis’ beadwork and embroidery skills[]
  95. From the Royal Alberta Facebook page here is a brief history of this firebag design: “Where do octopus bags get their names? An octopus bag has eight hanging tabs or legs, much like the animal. The octopus bag is thought to be based on Algonquin animal skin bags, also known as “many legs bags,” which had the legs and tails left on and were quill-worked or beaded. The Métis adopted this bag style when many Anishinaabe moved west to Red River, where Métis women utilized their distinct floral beadwork style. The eight-legged style of bag became popular in the 19th century in Métis and Cree communities across central Canada. This style of bag – used to carry smoking pipes, tobacco, flint, and steel to make fire (hence “fire bag”) – was carried across the continent as far west as Tlingit communities in Alaska.” Courtesy of Royal Alberta Museum: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10154041317827815&set=this-weeks-ramwow-is-a-m%C3%A9tis-octopus-bag-from-1859-it-is-part-of-the-southesk-co[]
  96. Losey, Timothy C., et al. 1977. Archaeological Investigations: Fort Victoria, 1975. Occasional Paper No. 3. Alberta Culture, Historic Resources.[]
  97. https://newjourneys.ca/en/articles/the-story-of-the-metis-sash[]
  98. The Ojibwe, Chippewa, Odawa, Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing and Mississauga First Nations are Anishinaabeg. Some Oji-Cree First Nations and Métis also include themselves within this cultural-linguistic grouping[]
  99. From Joy Gray, Malinda. 2017. Beads: Symbols of Indigenous Cultural Resilience and Value. M.A. Thesis, The University of Toronto, Canada.[]

‘At the Junction of the Bad and Red Deer Rivers.’ Searching for Peter Fidler’s Long Lost Chesterfield House. Have We Finally Found It?

Wooden statue of trader, mapmaker, Peter Fidler, Elk Point, Alberta, Canada. Fidler served at the nearby Hudson’s Bay Company Buckingham House (c.1792-1800), located along the North Saskatchewan River, just southeast of Elk Point. https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3529/3967919062_060d0fee79_z.jpg

Note: This is a revised and condensed version of an article we recently published in the Saskatchewan Archaeological Newsletter Quarterly, May, 2021 edition, regarding our search for the the Chesterfield House fur trade sites in Spring, 2021. Readers are referred to this edition of the Quarterly for a more detailed version of our findings.

Time and the Unknown

Ah, the mystery of the unknown! It’s one of the things that first drew me to history and archaeology. The thrill of discovering new facts, objects or places, lost or abandoned centuries ago. It didn’t matter if they were only minor footnotes in the bigger picture of human history.

One of the most rewarding and challenging experiences in my career was searching for the many lost fur trade posts in western Canada. The remains of some lay hidden in front of our very noses. Others, so remote and covered by nature, it took considerable effort or sensitive equipment to eventually find them. Still others guard their hiding places well, and to this day, elude discovery.

The remains of the last Hudson’s Bay Company Fort Edmonton (c.1830-1915), located on the Alberta legislature grounds. A fort, whose location was known by only a few historians and archaeologists. In a survey, conducted while excavating this fort in the early 1990s, we discovered that over 60% of the public had no idea the original fort was located on the current Alberta legislature grounds in the heart of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

This is a story about a search for one of those fur trade post that has eluded us for many years – Chesterfield House. A search that began in the mid-1960s. But for me it began in c.2005 and continues to this day. Because no one has yet found Chesterfield House.

Searching for Canada’s Fur Trade Forts

In an earlier blog I talked about explorer and mapmaker David Thompson. One of the world’s most remarkable geographers and mapmakers. Thompson visited many western fur trade forts and wrote about them or mapped them. Often he left behind clues for us relocate them. Such as the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion I (c1798-1830) site in northern Alberta. (https://canehdianstories.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1894&action=edit)

In this post I focus on another lesser-known but equally competent trader, surveyor and mapmaker, Peter Fidler of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). And in particular, his brief, and sometimes scary stay in southern Saskatchewan at the confluence of the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers where he would build his fort.

In the fall of 1800 Fidler built Chesterfield House for the HBC. Soon after the North West Company (NWC) built alongside the HBC post, followed by the XY Company. Many (including me) have searched for them but, to this day, they have never been found.

The confluence of the South Saskatchewan and Red Rivers today, near the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, Canada. Somewhere down there on the river flats are the remains of three fur trade forts, over two-hundred years old. Their whereabouts remains a mystery.

Peter Fidler

Born at Bolsover, Derbyshire, England, Peter Fidler (16 August 1769 – 17 December 1822) joined the HBC in 1788. He was trained in surveying and astronomy by Philip Turnor who also trained David Thompson. Fidler became the Company’s chief surveyor and map-maker, much like David Thompson for the NWC.

While acting as trader, explorer, and mapmaker, Fidler also observed and wrote about the Indigenous peoples of the region. He married a Cree woman and learned Native languages to carry out the trade. Occasionally he convinced his Native informants to draw maps of their territories for him. Today these are some of the few surviving Native maps of western Canada (see a former post on the Ki-oo-cus map of southern and central Alberta. (https://canehdianstories.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=266&action=edit). His journeys, largely undertaken in western Canada, covered an estimated 48,000 miles on horseback, foot, canoe and dog team.

Fidler’s superiors admired his toughness and fortitude. For example, while traveling and wintering with the Chipewyan in northern Alberta and the NWT, a near-starving Fidler mentioned what parts of a game animal they ate to stay alive: “We eat everything except the manure.”

Fidler had some incredible adventures as a trader and explorer for the HBC. A few could have ended his life. One of these adventures required constructing a fur trade post on the Western Canadian prairies. He built the fort with the intent of trading with Plains First Nations peoples. After only a few years, Fidler and the other Companies abandoned their forts, barely escaping with their lives.

A map, by Peter Fidler, of the Upper Assiniboine and Swan Lake Regions. Fidler was a very accurate surveyor and cartographer. Not only did he map the lakes, rivers and important land features, he also accurately plotted the locations of the various fur trade post on those maps. This point becomes important later.
Like David Thompson, Peter Fidler used a line-track survey method when mapping the South Saskatchewan River. He would take a compass bearing and then estimate a distance to map that part of the river. This is part of Fidler’s survey of the South Saskatchewan River, up to the confluence of the Red Deer River, superimposed over today’s South Saskatchewan River route. Based on these and other evidence, we assume that Fidler was an accurate surveyor, especially calculating latitude.

Where did the Companies Build?

For many years I heard about the mysterious Chesterfield House(s) and attempts to find them. All searches ended in failure. But why? How could three forts of considerable size, just disappear, without a trace, in the valleys of the Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers? Or perhaps, as some researchers suggested, had those waters already swallowed them up leaving no trace behind?

In 2005, while visiting and hunting in the area, and intrigued with the lost Chesterfield House, I too joined the search.

The South Saskatchewan River Valley near Empress. So beautiful with its wide open prairie expanses and bright blue skies.

As with other similar searches, nothing is ever as simple as it first appears. This quest was no exception. It has taken me since 2005 to finally piece enough evidence together to make the modest claim that I might have a candidate where these fur trade forts were built. And I, like others before me, could be totally wrong.

Let’s start our search with Fidler’s Chesterfield House HBC journals (1800 – 1802). In them he gives only a few but very specific references to the fort’s location.

This photograph was taken from the east looking towards the forks of the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers. Fidler’s two references to the fort’s location are pretty specific. At first I thought he might have built on the island you see in this image which is in front (east) of the juncture of the two rivers. But then in the second quote he specifically says they built on the north side of the river(s). The ‘Bad’ River refers to the South Saskatchewan River. But Fidler has some reservations building on this spot: “Crossed the river to north side and looked out for a place to build at. The woods here are few and bad for building with.” (From Alice Johnson 1967:268. Saskatchewan Journals and Correspondence 1795 – 1802. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Volume XXVI) So, Fidler either moved to where there was more suitable wood to build with or he cut wood from elsewhere and hauled it to the junction of the two rivers.

Fidler gives the latitude of the south bank of the Red Deer River where he intends to build: 50o, 55’, 5” (50.9222o). Fidler’s latitude calculations were quite accurate. Longitude was not. But, if we take Fidler at his word, we really don’t need longitude because Fidler gives us a fairly precise east-west reference point where he built the fort – the confluence of the two rivers.

A satellite image of the confluence of the two rivers. The problem with river confluences, is that they can move. You can see the old Red Deer River channels in this image (shown in dark green). At one point in time it flowed into the South Saskatchewan River further north. Some researchers believed this was the original confluence in 1800 and looked for the forts in that area. But, Fidler’s 50o, 55’, 5” (50.9222o) is much closer to the present confluence than to the northern older one.
Peter Fidler’s longitude for the confluence of the rivers was out a considerable distance. Not unusual in those days when highly accurate time pieces were required to estimate how far west from Greenwich Mean time you were located. Fidler’s latitude however, was remarkably accurate, being approximately 15″ or +/- 450 metres out.

While rereading Fidler’s published journals (for the umpteenth time) this spring, I noticed at the end of the 1800-01 trading season a note by the editor: “[Meteorological and Astronomical Observations, made at Chesterfield House, covering 15 manuscript pages, not printed]” (From Alice Johnson 1967:268. Saskatchewan Journals and Correspondence 1795 – 1802. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Volume XXVI). I wondered if Fidler gave a more accurate reading of latitude and longitude for Chesterfield House in those unpublished notes. Fortunately I was able to get hold of a copy of his original journal, including the missing 15 pages.

Yes, indeed. Fidler gives two readings for latitude at Chesterfield House: 1) 50o55’12” (50.920o); and, 2) 50o55’21’’ (50.9225o). Both readings are relatively similar to his original north riverbank reading recorded at the confluence of the two rivers where initially he wanted to build. Had they been significantly different then it might suggest he built elsewhere (than right at the confluence).

Next I looked at a few historic maps of the area. One map shows the location of Chesterfield House, marked by a dot, on the north side of the South Saskatchewan River, some distance downriver from the forks. But Fidler stated, “…opposite the mouth of the Red Deers River where we are to build…”

This particular map of the western prairies, shows the confluence of the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers, with a dot depicting the location of Chesterfield House. That dot is east of the forks on the north bank of the South Saskatchewan River. It likely refers to the later post built by the HBC downriver from the forks in 1821 (which also has never been found). (https://earlycanadianhistory.ca/2018/06/18/what-peter-fidler-didnt-report/)

Then I found another map drawn by both Fidler and his Blackfoot informant, Ak ko Wee ak in 1802. Does the straight line across the Red Deer River, with Chesterfield House’ written on it, indicate where the fort was built? If so, it was built upriver from the confluence of the two rivers.

A map drawn by Fidler’s Blackfoot informant Ak ko Wee ak in 1802. Fidler wrote the names of places on the map. On that map there is a straight vertical line across the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers. If the line represents where the fort was built, then Chesterfield House was located some distance (distance unknown, because there is no scale) up the Red Deer River. (From HBCA PAM: E.3/2 fos. 103d)
On this map, drawn by Fidler’s informant, Ak ko mok ki, in 1802, there is a little drawing of Chesterfield House located on the north side of the river(s). But its location is very general. The fort could be anywhere within miles of the forks. (From HBCA B.39/a/2 fo.93)

Unfortunately no one, while searching for the forts, has taken the Native maps or Fidler’s latitude reading of the forts location very seriously. Keep in mind, Fidler was a very accurate surveyor for his day, especially when it came to calculating latitude. His readings were out by about 15 seconds of latitude, or +/- 450 metres.

If we ran his latitude for Chesterfield House as a straight straight line across a current map, assuming about 15 seconds (~450m) of error (shown by orange dashed lines on either side of the black line), where might the fort(s) be located?

Peter Fidler’s latitude projected onto a current map of the confluence of the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers. The orange dashed lines represent the margins of error around his calculations. The orange elliptical shapes are where other archaeologists have searched for the lost forts. The blue elliptical shapes are where no one has searched but are well within Peter Fidler’s margin of error for latitude.
Peter Fidler’s latitude for Chesterfield House, and margins of error, superimposed on a current satellite image of the area. The small yellow rectangle represents the area we are interested in and will discuss shortly. The other dashed line further north is another area archaeologists searched for the forts. The latitude of this area is well beyond Fidler’s margins of error.

Another little hint, where the Chesterfield forts might have been built, was a comment in Peter Fidler’s journals. “Dug up the small bateau that was laid up in the spring: the heavy rise of water in the summer had buried it four feet deep in sand.” (From Alice Johnson 1967:268. Saskatchewan Journals and Correspondence 1795 – 1802. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Volume XXVI). Presumably the boat was near the fort. If so, it suggests the fort was located on an inside meander of the river, where flood sediments are deposited. Instead of the outside meander where high water cuts away the bank.

We haven’t looked for these forts at all the possible places that are within Fidler’s range of error for latitude. And there are reasons for it. This is large area filled with dense wolf willow scrub and wild rose bushes that is not too pleasant to walk through, or find things. And Fidler’s reference to the forts being built at the forks of the rivers has perhaps been taken too literally. Would the London Committee reading his journals really care if he built a mile or two either way of the forks?

Searching for rock historic building chimney piles in the dense bush on the lower terraces of the Red Deer River. In some places visibility is poor and walking is tough. Currently there is no LIDAR (laser imaging, detection, and ranging coverage) for this area, which would help immensely to expose detailed surface ground contouring and possible evidence of the sites.

To add yet another obstacle to our search, not everything historical in this area is related to the early 19th century fur trade. This area was occupied and traveled over for thousands of years by First Nations Peoples. It became an important Metis settlement, Riviere La Biche, in the 1870s and 1880s, which would have left physical remains similar to those present at earlier fur trade forts.

A late 19th century chimney and fireplace, built by trappers, the Adsett brothers, still stands in one of the local farmyards in the area. The former Metis settlement of Riviere La Biche, was located around the confluence of the South Saskatchewan and Red Deer Rivers. People built chimneys and fireplaces, similar to these, during the early fur trade. These and other building remains, such as cellars, would be indistinguishable from one another without detailed archaeological exploration. However, unlike the Metis cabins which are scattered over a large area, the Chesterfield House forts, and their buildings, were built in a smaller area, surrounded by stockades.

The Search Continues, Spring 2021

This spring (2021), when preparing this blog, I wanted a good satellite image of the forks area where Chesterfield House might be located. While doing so I noticed a long rectangle-shaped, light-colored outline on the satellite image.

This is the image of the Red Deer River flats on one of the meanders that I first looked at. At this height do you see what I see? Or, do I just have an supercharged imagination?
Here is a closer view of the satellite image. Do you see the long rectangle, lightly highlighted, oriented in a northeast-southwest direction in this image? Quite often simple aerial photography and other types of imagery can pick up features from the air, not seen on the ground by the naked eye.

This is the feature I see when looking the the satellite image. The long rectangle is relatively well-pronounced. The other lines to the west are not as definite. The NWC and HBC were built together, enclosed in a common stockade, which is explains the long, rectangular outline. Fidler states the XY Company built just west of his fort.

After reviewing the historic documents, satellite images, and constructing arguments that this might be the lost Chesterfield House forts, the next step was to re-revisit the site and look for physical clues on the ground.

So, my wife, Gabriella Prager, also an archaeologist, and I drove to the Empress area in April to see what we could see. When I visited this same location in 2005, I saw some rock scatters and slight depressions. It was time to reevaluate what those features might be, relative to this new-found evidence.

Once there, we looked for depressions, pits, rocks or mounds or any other evidence that could indicate a human occupation. The surface of this area is quite undulating and uneven from repeated flooding and scouring over the years. Just how much sediment covers the original 1800 ground surface is uncertain without excavating. However, based on other floodplains of this vintage (e.g., the NWC/HBC Fort Vermilion I site, northern Alberta), there could be as much as one-half metre or more sediments covering the original land surface and the remains of anything built on that surface. Fidler’s description of the bateau buried in over four feet of river sediments is most telling in this regard. And that was just one of many flooding events since then.

The area in question, where the long rectangular outline in the satellite photograph appears. Slightly elevated, the area contains little shrubbery, as was also the case in 2005.

When walking the area we noticed the ground was slightly elevated on the east and south sides. These elevated areas were likely responsible for the light-colored lines we saw on the satellite image. Normally, old stockade lines are slightly depressed, even after flooding. We did however also notice a few rock scatters and slight depressions with the rectangular outline.

Walking along the elevated ridge on the east side of the rectangle. This could be an old river terrace edge. The south edge is also elevated. However, there are no visible surface signs of anything where the west and north lines occur on the satellite image.
A small scatter of rocks. Possibly the remnants of a fireplace. But from what time period? Remember, this is a floodplain and rocks don’t float. So, it’s not a natural event. This definitely is evidence of human activities.
Gabriella Prager taking notes and GPS coordinates of a small depression on the site.

What We Concluded

It would be folly to state, without first excavating and testing this area, that we have discovered the Chesterfield House sites. We first need to find certain kinds of other archaeological evidence to suggest that these features, and that intriguing rectangular satellite image, are related to the early 19th century fur trade, and not some later period Metis household: 1) footer trenches representing palisades; 2) early 19th century artifacts representing the time period in question; 3) more building remains confined to the rectangle; and, 4) considerable amounts of animal bone from both human consumption of wild game and making meat provisions for the trip downriver.

There are things about this site that are troubling and do not fit what I expect to see on the surface of the ground; if this were a historic fur trade fort. First is the lack of more obvious visible surface features such as chimney piles and cellar depressions. Second, is the lack of visible faunal debris, or any artifacts. Given the amount of meat consumed, animal bone remains are typically considerable at forts such as this.

To some degree, this lack of evidence might be explained by the amount of flooding that has occurred in the area. If substantial, it may have covered any historic remains with considerable sediments and infilling most depressions that would be cellars, privies, and refuse pits. However, at other fur trade sites abandoned for over 200 years and constantly flooded, we have observed more pronounced surface features than we see here. However, currently we know little about flooding episodes and depositional rate of sediments of the Red Deer River, which could be quite different from our northern rivers.

To be clear, without further investigations, what we (and others) have found is definite proof of a human occupation of some sort at this spot. Based on the historic evidence regarding Chesterfield House, this location is a suitable candidate for these early NWC, HBC and XY Company forts. But, that’s as far as we can go presently. The area warrants further archaeological investigations to either refute or verify our claim.

EndNote

For those of who you who are aspiring students of history or archaeology, there’s a simple lesson here. Combining the evidence from two disciplines (history and archaeology) usually results in a more complete understating of human history. Not always, but better two independent lines of evidence to examine a problem of history, than only one. And perhaps, with the new remote sensing imagery, more than only two disciplines is necessary to eventually find these rather elusive historic forts.