Maine History Maine History

Volume 33 Number 3 Jefferson Cattle Pound (1830) Article 2

1-1-1994

Beaver, Blankets, Liquor, and Politics Pemaquid’s Fur Trade, Beaver, Blankets, Liquor, and Politics Pemaquid’s Fur Trade,

1614-1760 1614-1760

Neill DePaoli

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal

Part of the Economic History Commons, and the United States History Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation DePaoli, Neill. "Beaver, Blankets, Liquor, and Politics Pemaquid’s Fur Trade, 1614-1760." Maine History 33, 3 (1994): 166-201. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mainehistoryjournal/vol33/iss3/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine History by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact um.library.technical.services@maine.edu.

NEILL DePAOLI

BEAVER, BLANKETS, LIQUOR, AND POLITICS PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE, 1614-1760

The trading posts at Pemaquid typified the trans­actions, administrative phases, and cross-cultural con­tacts that made up the New England fu r trade in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Using archaeo­logical and documentary evidence, Neill DePaoli ex­plores this important yet volatile industry through several stages, including early informal transactions, a merchant entrepreneurial phase, provincial supervi­sion, and illegal exchanges during the closing years of the fort's significance.

In 1623 English adventurer Christopher Levett was told that a group of Casco Bay Indians were traveling up the Maine coast to Pemaquid with beaver pelts and coats to trade with fisherman John W itheridge.1 By the end of the decade, a fur trading post had been established in the recent English settle­m ent of Pemaquid. This business rapidly became an integral part of the plantation’s economy and would remain so for m ore than a century. The following essay focuses on the structure and dynamics of Pem aquid’s fur trade, from its presettlem ent roots to its collapse in the mid-eighteenth century. Pemaquid was typical of early English settlements that were sites of Anglo-Indian fur trade. In this case, the trade began with exchanges between Indians and English fishermen sailing in local waters. These m odest ship- and land-based transactions expanded into larger, m ore regularized affairs with the establishment of a perm anent English settlem ent and trading post owned by Old-World En­glish merchants. Private ownership was succeeded by crown and provincial control in the latter half of the century. With this shift

166

came a change in emphasis from profit-making to politics, as England’s struggle with France for N orth American supremacy intensified. Pem aquid’s decline in the eighteenth century7 came under provincial adm inistration, until the trade finally collapsed with the dim inution of both the European beaver market and M aine’s beaver stocks.

Until recentlv, study of M aine’s fur trade was confined to a handful of publications. Most notable were three essays written between 1931 and 1958. Francis Moloney’s 1931 study focuses on the southern portion of New England. Coverage of Maine is cursory, although Maloney did recognize the region as New England’s “first fur trading frontier,” and he established the linkage between the prescttlem cnt fishing industry and the em ergence of the fur trade. Nearly a decade later, Ronald MacFarlanc dealt with M assachusetts’s truck house system in Maine during the eighteenth century. MacFarlane argued that

167

the system grew out of the province’s concern for good Indian relations and its desire to win M aine’s Indians from New France .2 William R oberts’s 1958 history of New E ngland’s seven­teenth-century fur trade is by far the most comprehensive. His work was the first to carefully reconstruct the complex interna­tional trade that tied New England’s fur trade to New N ether­lands, Acadia, England, and Europe. He also made the first serious effort, albeit flawed, to explore the role of the region’s Indians in the trade and its impact on their traditional ways.3

Since the mid-1970s, the quantity and scope of scholarly study has increased dramatically. One of the most geographi­cally extensive is John Reid’s study of the colonies of Acadia, Maine, and New Scotland - territory presently comprising Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Reid devotes considerable attention to the interactions between the English, the French, and the Indians, and he recognizes Pem aquid’s im portance in this fur-trading nexus. 1 Emerson Baker’s 1986 ethnohistorical study of the demise of peaceful Anglo-Indian relations in Maine includes a thorough and balanced survey of the fur trade, which he considers an im portant factor in the outbreak of warfare in 1675. Baker places blame on both English and Indian traders, claiming they were “much m ore concerned with the short-term benefit of material goods and overlooked the long-term benefits of cultural understanding which the trade could have pro­m oted .” '1

Scholars such as Baker draw upon a growing body of historical and archaeological inform ation about Maine’s early English, French, and Indian settlem ent and trade sites. Archaeo­logical investigations by the late Helen Camp and the author on the lower reaches of coastal Maine’s Pemaquid River have exposed the ruins of several early truck houses. On the Kennebec River, Baker and Lee Cranm er located the sites of Clarke and Lake (Arrowsic), Nehumkeag(Pittston), and Cushnoc (Augusta), English trading outposts active during the third quarter of the seventeenth century. The work of Alaric and Gretchen Faulkner on the French fortified trading post of Pentagoet (1635-1654, 1670-1674) and a French and Etchemin settlem ent (1680s) just

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

168

NORTH

Figure 2. Colonial Pemaquid Historic Park. This state-owned property is part of seventeenth-century Pemaquid’s primary settlement nucleus.

Adapted from D.B. Peck (1985).

upriver from the fort also illuminates the close social, political, and com m ercial relations between the two groups .6

P reh isto rian s and e thnoh isto rians such as K enneth M orrison, Bruce Bourque, Ruth W hitehead, David Sanger, and A rthur Spiess have focused on the impact o f English and French trade contact on the Indians’ traditional settlem ent and subsis-

169

tence patterns. Morrison explores the social, political, and spiritual worlds of the Indians and the changes wrought by Anglo- and Franco-Indian relations. Morrison attributes deterio­rating relations largely to English fear and mistrust of the Indians and a provincial legal system that did not protect Indians from white abuses. Two historic Indian camps excavated by David Sanger and A rthur Spiess on the Pemaquid and St. Georges rivers illustrate some of the European trade goods incorporated into Indian life and the resulting decline of traditional skills such as stone tool production .7

Despite the progress of the last two decades, research gaps remain. This essay addresses one of them. It is not only the first comprehensive study of Pem aquid’s fur trade, but also the first to focus on M aine’s south-central coast. R econstructing Pem aquid’s fur trade is critical to understanding M aine’s pio­neering English settlement, since the operation was an im por­tant facet of the province’s economy.

PEMAQUID’S EARLY FUR TRADEThe origin of Pem aquid’s fur trade was closely tied to the

expansion of England’s North American fishing industry from Labrador and Newfoundland into the Gulf of Maine, This was spurred on by enticing accounts of M aine’s rich fishing grounds and sheltered harbors made by explorers and colonizers such as Giovanni Verrazano, George Waymouth, George Popham, and John Smith. One English visitor from Plimoth Plantation claimed in 1623 that 400 English vessels were fishing between Cape Ann andM onhegan. Bye. 1624, year-round fishing stations had been established in Maine’s southern coast at Damariscove, Monhegan, and Cape Newagen.H

From the outset, the primary concern of the fishermen and their England-based merchant sponsors was cod-fishing. The seemingly boundless stocks of cod were processed on shore and shipped back for sale in England and Europe. Nonetheless, there was growing English interest in the New-World fur trade. Their response stemmed from increasing European dem and for beaver pelts and 111x1117 furs of the m arten, otter, ermine, fox,

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

170

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

raccoon, and lynx, in addition to the hides of moose, caribou, and wapiti. The beaver was especially sought after since it provided European furriers with pelts for clothing and adorn­ment and the hatter with "wool” for hats. By the early seven­teenth century, the wide-brimmed Swedish cavaliers’ slouch hat was the latest fashion craze in Europe. The prolific and higher quality N orth American beaver provided an ideal replacem ent for its nearly extinct European coun terpart/’

Taking the cue from the sixteenth-century European fisher­men and explorers who traded with Indians while frequenting the G rand Banks and o ther northern waters, early seven­teenth-century English explorers and fisherm en sailing in Maine coastal waters sought Indian fur traders or traded with those seeking their business. George Waymouth, during his 1607 exploration, traded with Maine Indians, exchanging four or five shillings worth of “knives, glasses, combes and other trifles’ for “40 good Beaver skins, otters skins, Sables and other small skins, which we knew not how to call.” 10 Seven years later, John Smith claimed to have procured from Indian traders "eleven hundred Bever skins beside Otters and M artins” worth £1,500 for mere “trifles.” Smith also spoke of a fishing vessel of Sir Francis Popham ’s, “right against us in the Main” (presumably New H arbor) that had captured most of the local Indian trade. In addition, several Bristol m erchants sent vessels carrying Indian trade goods over to the Maine coast. Francis Moloney claims that by 1620 there were six or seven trading vessels engaged in the business.11

The earliest docum ented Anglo-Indian fur trade in the Pem aquid area is that of Francis Popham. Smith claimed that Popham ’s fishing vessel had frequented these waters before 1614. A lead cloth seal reputedly dated “1610” found on the New H arbor shore in the early nineteenth century may represent an exchange between Maine Indians and fishermen. By 1624 Casco Bay Indians were traveling to Pemaquid with beaver to trade with Barnstaple fishing m aster John W itheridge. The fact that the Indians m entioned W itheridge by name when speaking to Christopher Levett points to the likelihood of previous trade

171

with these or other Maine Indians. Wilbur Spencer states that W itheridge was based in Pemaquid waters during the 1623-1625 fishing seasons. That W itheridge did business with Casco Bay area Indians also reveals something of his trading reputation or stock of trade goods: These Indians could have traded m ore conveniently at posts in Piscataqua or Casco Bay, or with the traders and fishermen sailing M aine’s southern coast.12 None of the accounts refer to the locations of these early exchanges. The most likely meeting places would have been on board the fishing vessels and coasting traders or at Indian coastal settlem ent sites. Archaeological investigation indicated the Pemaquid area sup­ported Indian settlements long before contact and during the later seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

THE ERA OF MERCHANT BACKERSThe modest fur trade of presettlem ent Pemaquid expanded

into a m ore formalized and lucrative undertaking with the establishment of an English settlem ent at Pemaquid by 1628. At the forefront were two Bristol merchants, Gyles Elbridge and Robert Aldworth, and their on-site manager, Bideford, England native Abraham Shurt. Their commercial investment in the Pemaquid area began modestly enough with the c. 1626 pur­chase of Monhegan for £50 from A braham jennings and William Cross, Plymouth and London importers and exporters. Aldworth and Elbridge looked to the Pemaquid mainland as the site for a perm anent fishing settlement. The first English planters began settling on the mainland the following year. When the Council of New England granted Aldworth and Elbridge the 12,000-acre Pemaquid Patent in 1631, the two merchants also gained the right to “Trucke Trade & Traffique in all lawfull Comidityes with the Salvages in any part of New England or neighbouring thereabouts.” While docum entation of the early years is sparse, existing accounts indicate the plantation rapidly grew into a small but flourishing community. Not surprisingly, given the bountiful waters off the Pemaquid mainland, the local economy was based heavily on fishing. The fur trade and agriculture played lesser but im portant roles in the plantation’s econom y .111

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

172

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

Abraham Shurt m anaged Pemaquid from the purchase of M onhegan until mid century. The location of Shurt’s residence and trading post remains open to debate. A 1662 deposition made by him suggests he first established himself on Monhegan. By c. 1630 he was operating a truck house on the Pemaquid m ainland .11 Period docum ents provide no details on the post’s location or appearance. However, archaeological investigations have exposed three possible sites. Two are situated at the Colonial Pem aquid historic site on the eastern side of the Pem aquid River at its mouth. The third is on the western side of the river north of the state-owned historic property.

The first two buildings were unearthed in the 1960s during excavations led by the late Helen Camp. S-2/2A is the founda­tion of a large seventeenth-century structure (roughly 35 X 20 feet; Figure 3). Its contents suggest use as a truck house and tavern. Artifacts of note include glass beads, cloth seals, Jews’ harps, spear points, lead shot, and gun flints, items commonly used by English traders (Figure 4). The second site is a short distance northwest of the first. In this case, excavators exposed the foundation of a similarly sized seventeenth-century structure (S-4). The structure’s contents, while lacking a trade assemblage com parable to that of S-2/2A, did include a cache of 108 cannon balls stacked against the northeast corner of the building’s cellar walls. The variously sized cast iron shot may have been used to arm the cannon thought to have defended the warehouse .15

The third possible site of Shurt’s trading post was found by the author on the opposite side of the Pemaquid River. Excava­tions have unearthed a fortified English ham let occupied from c. 1640 (possibly earlier) toe. 1676. Most notable are the remains of a large cellared and fortified building housing living quarters, a truck house, and a blacksmith shop (Figures 5, 6 ). Existing evidence suggests the structure was utilized throughout most, if not all of the ham let’s occupation .15

During Abraham Shurt’s tenure, Pem aquid’s fur trade flourished. By the mid-1630s, the settlem ent’s trade operation em erged as one of the m ajor concerns in provincial Maine. Shurt’s enterprise com peted with truck houses operated by

173

The persons following are appointed and have "liberty to keepe houses of publique intertaynmente iV are to be provided with permits &c accordingly and to retayle beere wyne & Iitjuors....for Pemaquid fonatlum Cole alsoe Lieutenant Gardner to his fishermen & fohn Earthy. ”

Records of the Massachusetts General Court granting licenses for persons to keep taverns at Pemaquid, 1674.

Figure 3.Archaeological plan and conjec­tural view of Structure 2/2A, Colonial Pemaquid. Indians probably destroyed the tavern/ trading post during their 1676 attack on Pemaquid.

Drawing by D.B. Peck, courtesy of Maine Bureau oj Parks and Ret real ton.

Plymouth Colony on the upper Kennebec (Cushnoc), by Tho­mas Purchase near the m outh of the Androscoggin River (Pejepscot), and by Charles d ’Aulney at the m outh of the Penobscot River (Pentagoet), and with the ship-based traders and fishermen that ranged M aine’s coast and major rivers. Pem aquid’s trading post had already outlasted Plymouth Colony truck houses at Penobscot and Machias, which had fallen to French traders.1'

The early success of Pem aquid’s fur trade can be attributed to the wealth and entrepreneurial expertise of Aldworth and

174

Figure 4 Fur-trade artifacts from S-2/2A: brass Jews' harp: light-blue imitation (glass) wampum: chevron (multiple layers of dark blue, brick red, ivory) glass head (c. 1 (>2f>-lb50) Venetian): light-blue imitation wampum; iron Jews’ harp.

Figure ”>. Archaeological plan and conjectured layout of fortified multipurpose structure (c. 11)40 l()7h). lVmaquid I larhor. The building was probably abandoned shortlv before the ll)7l> Indian attack on Pemaquid. However, it apparently survived the conflagration.

175

Figure f>. Ti ade-relaied artifacts from building in Figure 5. Top row: brass Jew’s harp (seventeenth-centurv); possible lead scale weight; iron Jews' harp. Bottom row: lead cloth seal; light-blue glass seed bead; light-blue oval glass bead; dark-blue tubular glass bead; lead cloth seal (textile fragment visible on left side).

Elbridge, to S lum 's skill and reputation as a trader, and to the post’s location on an established Indian overland travel route. Pem aquid’s two Bristol patentees were well suited to undertake such an enterprise. Aldworth was one of Bristol’s most prom i­nent citizens - a mayor of the city in 1609 and an alderm an from 1614 until his death in 1634. He was also am ong the leading merchants of Bristol and was heavily involved in trade with continental Europe. Aldworth is credited with establishing the first sugar refining house (1609) in Bristol. Lastly, Aldworth came from a family with substantial interest in New-World exploration and colonization. His father, Thom as Aldworth, secured support from Bristol’s m erchant community for Sir Hum phrey Gilbert’s 1583 attem pt to establish an English colony on Newfoundland. Robert was one of the “chiefe A dventurers” who underwrote Martin Pring s 1603 exploration of the coasts of Maine and Massachusetts. Pring, in fact, nam ed a hill overlook­ing Plymouth H arbor “Mount Aldworth.” '* Gyles Elbridge, Aldworth s son-in-law, was a well-to-do m erchant in his own right, owning five ships, a farm at Yatton, and a m anor in

176

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

Somerset. He also held several posts in the influential Merchant Venturers of Bristol. Elbridge inherited a considerable portion of his father-in-law's holdings in 1634, including the St, Peter’s sugar house and the o ther half of the Pem aquid Patent.19

Shurt utilized a blend of New- and Old-World commercial contacts to obtain and m arket animal pelts and hides, a common pattern am ong English fur traders. The majority o f the furs and hides were obtained from Kennebec and Penobscot river Indi­ans. W hat they brought for trade was most likely a mix of pelts and hides from animals speared or shot in the wooded interior or bartered from others from Maine, New Brunswick, or the St. Lawrence River region .20

Unfortunately, docum entation of Shurt’s trade stock is poor. The sole reference is a letter to John W inthrop in 1638 in which Shurt referred to his purchase of “a parcell of Dutch trading cloth valued at £30.21 The post was undoubtedly stocked with o ther popular items, such as English trading cloth, food­stuffs, clay smoking pipes and tobacco, shot, powder, kettles, axes, liquor, and beads. By this time, Maine traders had shifted from curiosities such as the m irrors, rings, and bells used by explorers and early fishermen to practical goods intended to satisfy the Indians’ changing needs and m eet the challenge of their French trading rivals.22

Shurt would have utilized an exchange policy common am ong English traders. Indians were “trusted” or given credit, enabling them to obtain goods in advance. Indian debts were reduced or eliminated once furs or hides were brought to the post. The am ount of credit a trader extended to his clients depended on their reliability and the state of the trader's finances and trading stock. Indian clients who accumulated large debts and showed no signs of reducing them were usually denied further credit. Successful traders benefited not only from dependable financial support but from good business acumen and sound relations with Indians. Inadequate or infe­rior supplies of trade goods could lead Indians to seek other English or French traders, and several English traders who regularly cheated Indians were killed by disgruntled clients.2:1

177

Abraham Shurt enjoyed a good reputation am ong the region's Indian population, as attested by the longevity of his trading career and Indian acceptance of him to negotiate peaceful resolution of a dispute between Maine or New Brunswick and Massachusetts Bay Indians in 1631.21

Shurt obtained additional supplies of furs and hides from Pem aquid’s northern rivals, the French of Acadia. Shurt and other English traders regularly did business with bitter rivals Charles D’Aulney at Pentagoet and Charles de la Tour at the mouth of the St.John River - the preem inent Acadian traders of the second quarter of the century. Shurt supplied his French counterparts with powder, shot, and “all m anners of provisions,” much to the consternation of Plymouth Colony authorities.25 The furs and hides stockpiled at the Pem aquid truck house had a num ber of destinations. The majority were probably shipped directly to England or to Massachusetts Bay. In both cases, several modes of transportation were available. Shurt was fortunate to have access to several ocean-going vessels owned by his merchant-backers. Research has located several references to the proprietors’ vessels leaving for or returning from New England. The earliest and most detailed is a 1628 Plymouth Company business entry acknowledging a £187 payment for the shipm ent of three hogsheads of beaver to Bristol on board the Wh it tA ngell (White A ngel), a vessel owned by Gyles Elbridge. The ship had presumably sailed to Plymouth to pick up the company’s cargo of beaver after putting in at Pemaquid. The White Angel and Elbridge’s Charles and Angel Gabriel continued to shuttle cargo and passengers back and forth between Bristol, Massachu­setts Bay, and Maine’s south-central coast throughout the follow­ing decade.2h

T hose furs and h ides no t ca rried to England on m erchantm en owned by the Bristol entrepreneurs would have been shipped on colonial bottom s to the num erous commercial contacts Shurt had scattered along the New England coast. The bulk of these domestic shipments were destined for Massachu­setts Bay. Boston’s John W inthrop was Pem aquid’s primary client. Pem aquid’s furs, hides, fish, wood products, and agricul­

PEMAQUIDS FUR TRADE

178

PEMAQUID S FUR TRADE

tural produce would have found a ready m arket in the region's primary entrepot. With their sale, Shurt could clear old debts and replenish stocks of consumables for Pem aquid’s planters and Indian clients. Much the same was undoubtedly done, but on a smaller scale, with the m erchants and traders from Massa­chusetts South and North shores, New Hampshire, and Maine who did business with the Pem aquid m anager.27

By the late 1640s several changes occurred in ownership and m anagem ent of Pemaquid Plantation. Gyles Elbridge died in 1643, leaving his personal finances in disarray. He owed his father-in-law, Hum phrey Hooke, £3,000 and had to mortgage the St. Peter’s sugar house. These difficulties were com pounded by the outbreak of the English Civil War (1642) and the deaths of the next two Elbridge heirs, Robert in 1643 and John in 1646. The war hurt English commercial trading centers and merchants such as the Elbridge family. The fighting disrupted Bristol’s domestic and international trade links and threatened its politi­cal standing. Thus, as Bristol historian Donald Jones suggests, Thom as Elbridge (younger b ro ther of now-deceased John and Robert) sailed from England to his recently inherited Pemaquid Plantation with little social standing and limited financial m eans.28

Abraham Shurt stopped managing the Pemaquid Planta­tion and its fur trade between 1648 and 1653. The first date m arked the appearance of Francis Knight (probably the paten­tees’ next manager) in Pemaquid. By the early 1650s, Shurt was a resident of Charlestown, Massachusetts.29 His ‘‘retirem ent” after twenty or m ore years signaled the end of the longest and most successful stint of the settlem ent’s fur traders. None of those who followed were active for m ore than thirteen years. Furtherm ore, Shurt established, with the logistical and financial support of Aldworth and Elbridge, a trade network that would remain in place during the rem ainder of the seventeenth cen­tury.

The upheaval the Elbridge family underw ent in the 1640s had severe consequences for their Pemaquid fur trade. The family’s financial losses cut into funds necessary to their distant New-World enterprise. Pem aquid’s fortunes were further dis­

179

rupted by the rapid succession of deaths of Gyles, Robert, and John Elbridge. Subsequent docum entation of Pem aquid’s fur trade is sparse. Francis Knight appears to have m anaged the operation for Elbridge from 1647 until 1650 when the latter began selling off the Pemaquid Patent. Knight came to Pemaquid from Nequasset (Woolwich) where one docum ent suggests he was operating a trading post, quite possibly for the Pemaquid patentees.

Francis Knight did a brisk business with Boston-area m er­chants and distributors during these years. He had unpaid accounts with vintner Hugh Gunnison, brewer Isaac Grosse, and merchant Robert Button. The “half tun [126 gallons] off strong beare” he purchased from Grosse and £23 of wine from Gunnison may have been intended to replenish stocks at the truck house or a Pemaquid t a v e r n .K n ig h t ’s sole itemized trading account from business transacted during his residence at Nequasset provides an indication of who might have done business with the Pemaquid trading post, the types and quantities of furs and hides brought there, and its stock of trade goods.

Francis Knight’s Nequasset clientele were largely from the Pemaquid-Sheepscot and Kennebec regions. O thers were based in Casco Bay, Boston, and Bristol, England. There is little doubt he kept most, if not all, of these clients when moving to Pemaquid, considering Pem aquid’s well established reputation and its proximity to these individuals. Beaver and moose constituted the majority of the animal furs and hides. They consisted of nearly seventy-seven pounds of beaver furs, more than sixteen pounds of beaver coats, fourteen moose skins, and seventy pounds of moose skins. The rem ainder included moose hides, bear and otter skins, skins, and one otter "coat.” Some may have come from the local settlers, who often supplem ented their income with small-scale fur trading. The rest came directly from Kennebec and Penobscot Indian hunter-traders.

Knight received a num ber of items commonly used in trade with the Indians. They included shot, gunpowder, “Trading cloth,” “Shagg bages1' (a coarse cloth), aqua vitae, sack, and probably brandy.^ Alcoholic beverages were popular among

PEMAQUIDS FUR TRADE

180

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

English traders despite the debilitating effects on the Native Americans. However, it is unlikely the alcohol was intended solely for Indians; Knight probably sold a sizable portion to local settlers and coasting fishermen.

Thomas Elbridge, while delegating most of the day-to-day m anagem ent of the Pemaquid trading operation to Knight, likely was in regular contact with his manager. Shortly after his arrival at Pemaquid, Elbridge held a “C ourt” unto which “divers of the then inhabitants of M onhegan and Damariscove repaired, and continued their fishing, paying a certain acknowledgement....” Elbridge had the advantage of living in Pemaquid during his proprietorship, in contrast to his late uncle and father who never visited the settlem ent/ 1 However, his presence did little to revitalize the proprietorship. Elbridge was in financial difficulty throughout his brief ownership. A num ber of suits were brought against him, and in 1650 he was jailed for five months for debt in a case stemming from the sale of goods from the Angel Gabriel. Not surprisingly, Elbridge soon began selling off the patent, beginning with Monhegan and Damariscove to Richard Russell of Charlestown for £100 in “Bevar or merchantable dry codfish.” By Septem ber 1657 Massachusetts Bay m erchant Nicholas Davison was the sole owner of the Pemaquid Patent/ 5

PEMAQUID’S LAST PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURST ransferal of the plantation to Davison was far from smooth.

As late as 1657, he and a form er partner were still in court, hoping to resolve an earlier dispute between Elbridge and Paul White. Davison claimed that while they waited four years for White to pay off debts to Elbridge, the latter had “spent and sold away all the stock & moveables & is now altogether unable to deliver or make good the sam e.” This last statem ent illustrates the deteriorating circumstances of the last of the original paten­tees1 heirs and quite likely that of the plantation's fur trade. Thomas Elbridge’s sale of “all of the stock & moveables” may well have included his truck house stock, which would have devas­tated the fur trade operation/ 5 Thom as Elbridge’s relinquish­m en t o f the P em aqu id P a ten t m arked the end o f the

181

Aldworth-Elbridge era; never again would the plantation be owned by Old England business interests. In the century that followed, control shifted to Massachusetts Bay, and from private to provincial ownership. The change was part of a larger shift in control over Maine from crown-supported English merchants to the increasingly powerful business community of Boston, a phenom ena that had roots extending back to the 1630s.

Nicholas Davison relocated in Pemaquid soon after pu r­chasing the patent, establishing himself on the western side of the Pemaquid River near its m outh, where he lived and traded until his death in 1664. An elderly fisherman, who claimed in 1737 to have frequented the Pemaquid area with his father as a youth, described Davison as a "man of considerable estate.” Davison’s personal and real estate at the time of his death was valued at£ l,896. Holdings included u2 houses,...dwellinghouse and wharf;...2100 acres at Winsor, Conn.; house at Boston; property at Pemaquid, an old bark .”*7

Details of Davison’s business affairs were even more ob­scure than those of his predecessor. The only docum entation of his fur trade operation is an 1666 Massachusetts court case filed by his widow against Philip Swadden. The suit centered around Swadden’s debt to Davison. Swadden, who ran a trading post near the mouth of the St. Georges River, owed the Pemaquid trader £45 of beaver and m o o s e .D a v is o n undoubtedly did business with other m erchant traders and fishermen between the Penobscot and the Piscataqua, considering the settlem ent’s trading tradition with other outposts. Although period records make no reference to Indian clients, he probably continued to trade with the Kennebec and Penobscot River Indians. Davison’s relocation from the Boston area and the settlem ent’s continued regional im portance suggests he relied heavily on Boston m er­chants when restocking fur trade goods and supplies and market­ing animal furs, pelts, and hides.

How Davison's fur trade operation fared can be surmised from the extensive changes the business was undergoing in Maine during the 1650s and 1660s. A great deal of growth had taken place since Pem aquid’s heyday as a fur trading center in

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

182

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

the 1630s and the early 1640s. Expansion was especially p ro­nounced on the Kennebec River where a partnership of Boston m erchants acquired two massive tracts bordering the river and established new posts at Teconnet (Winslow) and Nehumkeag (Agry’s Point, Pittston) between 1648 and 1653. In 1654 two of the Boston partners, Thomas Clarke and Thomas Lake, erected a third post at Arrowsic near the river’s mouth.

The placem ent of these truck houses above and below Plymouth Colony’s Cushnoc trading post not only isolated that facility bu t must have cut into Davison’s fur trade with the Kennebec Indians. The deep pockets of Clarke and Lake made the com petition formidable. In addition, the Pemaquid trader had to contend with English posts established on the Penobscot River following the capture of French Acadia in 1654. U nder the proprietorship of Sir Thomas Temple and William Crowne, the first Penobscot post was situated at the form er French outpost of Pentagoet, and a second subsidiary operation further up the Penobscot at present-day Veazie. 10 The growing num ber of ship-based traders frequenting Maine’s coast and major rivers provided additional com petition. Finally, the trade suffered as a whole from the Abenaki-Iroquois warfare of the 1650s and 1660s. M aine’s Indians were forced to divert their efforts from hunting to defense . 11 It is likely that Davison’s operations continued to decline relative to these newer posts, despite m odest local success.

With Davison’s death in 1664, Pem aquid’s fur trade fell to Thom as Gardner, who moved to the area by the mid-1660s, after com m anding the English fort and trading post of Penobscot (formerly Pentagoet).12 Although there is no docum entation of the Salem native’s purchase of the Pemaquid patent, his appear­ance in Pem aquid about the time of Davison’s death and his familiarity with the fur trade make this likely.

Thomas G ardner quickly established himself as a dom inant force in the Sagadahoc region. In 1665 he was appointed Pem aquid’s sole justice of the peace under the short-lived royal territory of Cornwall. Eight years later, G ardner was selected by the Massachusetts General Court as one of four commissioners

183

to establish a new government - Devon or Devonshire County - including all territory east of the Kennebec River. In 1674 the court appointed Gardner, Edm und Patteshall of Kennebec, John Palmer Sr. of Monhegan, and Robert Gam m on county commissioners. The four men adm inistered a county court responsible for enforcem ent of civil and criminal law. In addition, the Pemaquidian was selected county treasurer, ‘‘com­m ander of all the military forces to be raised in the country,’ and one of three operators (another was his son-in-law, John Earthy) of “houses of publicke entertaynm ent.” 11

Although docum entation is sparse, G ardner clearly traded with Maine Indians and French Acadians. Piscataqua residents John Abbott and John Lux claimed in 1675 that “certaine Frenchmen...com ashoare at Pemaquid & Carry up their moose & bevar to Left Gardiners house....” Their complaints to the Boston Council resulted in an order to Pem aquid officials to “A prehend Left Thomas Gardiner...for traiding wth the french & or Indians ....” 11 This trade included La Rochelle m erchant and Compagnie du N ord official Henri Brunet. G ardner’s debt to Brunet (1,200 livres) was substantial enough in 1675 that he sold Brunet a bark to clear his account. What the two exchanged is not docum ented, but G ardner probably sought im ported goods and supplies for his employees and truck house. Louis-Andres Vigneras, in his translation of several of B runet’s business letters, points out that the French trader typically exchanged French goods such as “salt, fishing tackle, pork, flour, brandy, pins and needles, cards, hats, shoes, shirts, and even corsets...for fish, oil, logwood, tobacco, lumber, and elk and beaver skins.” 1'1

Despite Pemaquid’s continued prom inence in Maine’s fur trade, developments in the 1670s cut further into local business. Expansion of white settlem ent brought even m ore fur traders to the region. Their appearance increased com petition am ong the English and encouraged Indian overhunting of beaver. These problems were com pounded by the declining m arket value of beaver and moose - the mainstays of the fur trade. Prices for beaver pelts dropped from ten shillings a pound to eight shillings between the 1630s and the 1670s, and moose-hide prices began

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

184

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

to drop in the 1670s. The crowning blow for Maine's fur trade came with the outbreak of Anglo-Indian warfare in Septem ber 1675. Pem aquid was abandoned and then destroyed by Indian forces the following sum m er. 16

The fighting grew out of a com bination of long-festering problems and recent events. Accelerating expansion of white settlem ent and trade abuses fed growing Indian resentm ent and mistrust. In turn, English fears o f the region’s Indians grew when news of King Philip’s War, the rifling of several homes on the Kennebec River, and the m urder of nine Casco settlers spread through Maine late in the sum m er of 1675. English efforts to contain the “Indian th reat” only magnified Anglo-Indian ten­sions. In 1675 m en from the Kennebec and Sheepscot rivers disarm ed the Kennebec River Indians, despite their neutrality. The Native A m erican’s loss of their weapons and subsequent English prohibition o f the sale of shot and powder to Indians led to a severe food shortage the following winter. To make matters worse, several Machias and Cape Sable Indians were kidnapped and sold into slavery in spring 1675 by a Boston-based trading vessel sailing along the Maine coast. 17

G ardner was one of a handful of English settlers who rem ained sympathetic to the Indians’ circumstances. In a letter to Governor John Leverett, G ardner attributed much of the Anglo-Indian tension to the actions of the English. He pointed out that the Kennebec Indians “never Apeare dissatisfied until their Armes were Taken Away,” while their Penobscot brethren only fled the English because they “well Know it may Cost them their Lives if the wild fishermen m eet with them ....” In addition, he and his son-in-law, John Earthy, were active in efforts to bring about a negotiated settlem ent to English and Indian differ­ences.1S

Pem aquid’s fur trade resum ed following the signing of an English-Abenaki peace accord at Pem aquid and the settlem ent’s reoccupation in 1677. However, there were two notable changes. First, Pem aquid’s fur trade was no longer controlled by private interests. The provincial governm ents of New York (1677-1686), Dominion of New England (1686-1689), and Massachusetts

185

(1689-1696) assumed this role. Immediate authority was placed in the hands of the com manders of Fort Charles (1677-1689) and Fort William Henry (1692-1696). Second, the primary objective of the Anglo-Indian fur trade changed with the assumption of governm ent control. English provincial and crown authorities used the trade to encourage and solidify Indian alliances with the English, as French competition for control of Maine and the Canadian Maritimes intensified and fears of French-inspired Indian attacks grew. Officials also believed centralized control would reduce English trade abuses and subsequent Indian animosity. Since profits were of secondary concern, it was necessary to subsidize the sanctioned English truck houses with provincial funds. England m aintained this policy until the conclusion of English and French hostilities in N orth America in 1763.19

THE ERA OF GOVERNMENT REGULATED TRADENew York officials established the first set of com prehen­

sive trade regulations in the late 1670s. They designated Pemaquid the sole “trading place” between the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers. Trade was to be carried out in approved truck houses situated outside, but within sight of Fort Charles. Traders ignoring regulations lost their trading privileges and goods .50 Placing oversight of Pem aquid’s fur trade in the hands of the military com m ander had several drawbacks. Typically, such men served at the post for only three or four years - not long enough to establish stable relationships with local English and Indian traders. Furtherm ore, at least two of the Fort Charles com man­dants were of questionable character. In 1683 Captain Skinner was reprim anded by New York Lieutenant Governor Brockhols for the “loosenesses and Carelessnesse” of his command. Local residents described another case of physical abuse and threats by a Pemaquid com m ander.51

By designating Pemaquid Sagadahoc’s trade center, New York hoped to monopolize the region’s business affairs. Accom­plishing this goal was difficult. Maine settlements like Pemaquid were tied into an existing commercial network centered in

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

186

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

Massachusetts Bay. Commercial links to M anhattan and regula­tions prom ulgated from Albany seemed rem ote by comparison. Not surprisingly, Bay merchants continued to send coasters to Maine to do business.52 However, the large num ber of vessels clearing M anhattan for Pemaquid and Newfoundland during the 1680s attests to the fact that New York did capture a substantial portion of the trade in timber, fish, and Indian peltry, and hides .51

Pem aquid’s clients rem ained unchanged throughout the late seventeenth century, despite the uneasy Anglo-Indian peace. In addition to trade with Kennebec and Penobscot Indians, Pem aquid retained commercial ties with French Acadia, most notably with Baron de St. Castin on the Bagaduce River, a short distance north of the now abandoned Fort Pentagoet. Here, within a village of 160 Etchemin, he lived with his family am ong the Indians as a trusted leader and trader between 1677 and 1700.51 Pem aquid’s trade ties with the Frenchm an were seriously dam aged when provincial authorities im plem ented a campaign of harassm ent (1685-1688) to force Castin to acknowledge English royal authority. Instead, Castin shifted from a position of neutrality to support for New France. That situation, com­bined with already strained Anglo-Indian relations, provided the im petus for a series of French-inspired Indian attacks on Maine settlem ents in the sum m er of 1689. Pemaquid fell in August to a force of Canadian-based Abenaki led by Jesuit Father Peter T hury .55 The English fur trade was not resum ed until after the construction of Fort William Henry on the form er site of Fort Charles in 1692. By this time, most English settlements had been abandoned as a result of King William’s W ar (1688-1697). Pem aquid’s population appears to have been limited to Fort William H enry’s garrison and the one or two sanctioned fur traders operating outside the fort’s walls.56

During this time, Massachusetts authorities designated Pem aquid as M aine’s primary military and fur trade outpost. The settlem ent’s im portance was evident when a contingent of Massachusetts officials and leaders of “all the Indians” inhabiting the Saco, Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot rivers m et at

187

Fort William Henry in 1693. Terms of the resultant Anglo-Indian accord included Indian agreem ent to end the war and a promise to abandon their alliance with the French for a comparable arrangem ent with the English. Bay officials, in turn, assured the Indians of continued Anglo-Indian “trade and com m erce” un­der the “managem ent and regulation” of Massachusetts.58

Anglo-Indian fur trade guidelines, im plem ented the follow­ing year, were intended to maintain a tightly controlled opera­tion that benefited Massachusetts militarily and economically, ensured the security of the “Eastern Frontier,” and protected Indian clients from trade abuses. Regulations were similar to the earlier New York statutes. All business was to take place within sight and under com m and of the fortifications and their com­manders. Enlisted men and officers were forbidden to trade with Indians, and approved truck masters were to offer goods at fair market prices. Indians could purchase a variety of items including clothing, powder, shot, and lead (presumably lead bars for casting shot). The latter three trade items were perm itted only in amounts deem ed “necessary for their hunting.” Strong liquors were prohibited .58

Three docum ents illustrate the limitations and strengths of this strategy. French-Canadian com m andant Joseph Robineau de Villebon wrote in 1694 to France that the English offered “all the merchandise [Indians]...required at the low prices current in Boston.” However, Villebon confidently predicted that English overtures would have little long-term impact on the Franco-Indian alliance; the Indians would return to French traders once they had replenished their trade stocks. What Villebon did not acknowledge was the fact that the Indians were manipulating both the French and the English, a tactic they used throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to improve their bargaining position with the Europeans . 1'1

Nevertheless, the trade did seem to foster close relations between the English and the Indians. The 1693-1694 account of French Marine Captain Sebastian de Villieu, made while leading an aborted Etchemin and Kennebec Indian attack against Fort William Henry, pointed to active Anglo-Indian trade at Pemaquid.

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

188

Adapted from Baker, Clarke and Lake Company.

Villieu and three Indians traveled to Pem aquid in July 1694. The Indians carried several pelts to Fort William henry (given to them by the Frenchm en) “so that they might have a pretext to trade.” Villieu, disguised as an Indian, set off separately and surrepti­tiously made plans of the fort and surrounding area. He com m ented that a “minister had come to the fort of Pemaquid to teach the Indian children to read and write.” This appears to be the earliest instance of English church-affiliated individuals working am ong Maine Indians. Villieu’s reference to Indian children suggests at least some of the trading parties came as family groups. Furtherm ore, that a m inister intended to teach them to read and write indicates the Indians were rem aining in the Pem aquid area for m ore than a few days.60

Two years later,Joseph Giddings, a soldier stationed at Fort William Henry during the com m and of Pasco Chubb, subm itted

189

a deposition to provincial authorities detailing C hubb’s behavior in an affair that resulted in the death of Indian sachem Edgeremet and several others. In the process, Giddings provided a vivid account of fraternization and trade between English troops and an Indian party (including sachems Edgeremet, Abenquid, and Toxus) that traveled to Pemaquid ostensibly to negotiate a prisoner exchange. For six weeks, garrison members “went frequently abroad a gaming & went am ong the Indians 8c were greatly entertained.” The Indians, in turn, “came frequently [to the fort] & traded for bread tobacco & rum .” Giddings claimed that the com m ander used the trade and socialization to lull the Abenaki into a false sense of security. At the right m oment, the Indians were seized. C hubb’s actions and the resultant Indian deaths aggravated already tense Anglo-Indian relations. This event was one of several factors that inspired the French and Indian attack on the fort several m onths later.hl Giddings account revealed the ease with which provincial trade regula­tions could be ignored on the frontier, even by those responsible for enforcing themA2 The frequent presence of Indians ready to trade was tem pting to officers and enlisted men alike.

THE CLOSING YEARS OF THE FUR TRADEThe brief fluorescence of Pem aquid’s fur trade ended with

the French and Indian destruction of Fort William Henry in 1696. Thirty-three years passed before English settlers returned. In the interim, Indians had alternate sources of European trade goods. On at least one occasion (1701), Massachusetts Bay authorities agreed with Penobscot Indians to send a trading vessel along the Maine coast as far as Pem aquid or New Harbor. The ship was to carry goods such as kettles, hatchets, sword blades, shot, powder, duffels, broadcloth, pennistone coats, shirts, molasses, and apples. The Indians were to meet the ship and exchange beaver furs, moose hides, bear skins and "small furs” (most likely otter, mink, and fox) for the vessel’s trade stock.1 The Penobscots also could turn to Baron de St. Castin and his sons, who lived am ong and traded with the Abenaki and Etchemin on the Bagaduce. The m ore southerly Indians had

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

190

Figure 8. Fur-trade artifacts from post-172!) dwelling/truckhouse (S-13A B). Top row: gimsp.ilb (eighleenth-centuiT French or Fnglish). Bottom row: cast lead musket halls; light-blue glass seed heads (probable eighteenth-century).

access to the trucking operations at the recently established Forts Saco (1693-1708) and Mary ( 1708-c. 1734) in the Saco-Biddeford Pool area and Fort New Casco (1700-1716) at the mouth of the Presumpscot River in Falmouth (Figure 7)."1

In 1729 resettlem ent of Pemaquid began under the direc­tion of the controversial Colonel David Dunbar. Mis accomplish­ments included construction o f a new fortification on the ruins of Fort William Henry. Fort Frederick was one of several fortifications and truck houses established in Maine by Massa­chusetts during the first half of the eighteenth century. In addition to Forts Saco, New Casco, and Mary, these also included Forts Richmond on the lower Kennebec, Fort George on the St. Georges, and Fort Pownal on the Penobscot. These fortifica­tions and renewed trade regulations were intended to stabilize the eastern frontier, minimize Anglo-Indian tensions, and fur­ther England’s claims against France in North America."’’

Interestingly, provincial plans did not include reestablish­ment of an authorized truck house at Pemaquid, despite re­peated Indian requests.1’" By then, Massachusetts had shifted the focus o f its eastern fur trade to the o ther four provincial

191

outposts. Presumably, officials based their decision on the settlem ent’s diminished economic im portance, but this remains somewhat surprising considering the area’s long history as an Anglo-Indian meeting place and its continued popularity among the Abenaki.

Even so, fur trading continued at Pemaquid on a limited basis outside the legal sanction of Massachusetts, probably in the village and in the general vicinity of the fort. The most likely village site was S-13A/B. (See Figure 2.) The structural remains appeared to be those of a dwelling and privately run truck house that operated for an undeterm ined period after c. 1729. Archae­ologists recovered a num ber of items com monly used in Anglo-Indian trade, including wine and liquor containers, glass beads, gun flints, shot, and kettles (Figure 8).07

A small am ount of illegal trade probably took place be­tween Maine Indians and Fort Frederick’s garrison. Conditions were ideal for illegal transactions: The area was frequented by Indians eager to trade; Fort Frederick was m anned by a small, ill-trained, and poorly paid garrison far from home; and at least one of the post’s commanders was of questionable character.HH Indians continued to travel to the fort into the 1750s, and during these visits, the fort’s com m ander entertained and supplied them with items such as pork, bread, rum, tobacco, smoking pipes, shot, and powder, as part of crown policy to win Indian support. Enlisted men (and possibly officers) had ample oppor­tunity to use these occasions to exchange small quantities of trade goods, either from personal holdings or stolen from the fort’s stores for a likely mix of furs, hides, deer and moose meat, and bird feathers.hl) Many Indians were reduced to casual exchanges brought on by a contracting European m arket for beaver and additional decreases in northern New England’s beaver population due to Indian and white overhunting and white encroachm ent on Indian lands .70

Pem aquid’s fur trade appears to have persisted at least until the decommissioning of Fort Frederick in 1759. However, transactions in these later years were linked to Fort Frederick's declining im portance as a military outpost and m eeting place.

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

192

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

These conditions, com bined with the worsening economic plight of Maine's Indians, relegated Pem aquid's fur trade to occasional exchanges between local residents and small, destitute parties of Indians. Nonetheless, Indians continued to make seasonal forays to Pemaquid into the early twentieth century. During these sum m er visits, Old Town Indians sold craft items such as basketry and bows and arrows to vacationers and local resi­dents .71

CONCLUSIONThis study of Pemaquid's fur trade reveals a business

venture that had been at the core of the settlem ent's economy at least since its formal establishment. Pem aquid’s early success as a fur trading center was due to a com bination of factors. Most im portant were the wealth and commercial expertise of the original Pemaquid patentees Robert Aldworth and Gyles Elbridge, the skill of their New-World manager, Abraham Shurt, the small num ber of com peting trade operations, and the com munity’s location on a traditional Indian travel route. The Bristol m er­chants and their Pemaquid-based factor operated through con­tacts in Massachusetts Bay, no rthern New England, New Brunswick, England, and continental Europe. Research indi­cates that a substantial quantity of beaver, moose, and otter furs, skins, and hides were obtained from English or French fur traders, in addition to those traded by Abenaki or Etchemin hunters or middlemen. Much of this trade network rem ained in place throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centu­ries.

Scrutiny of Pem aquid’s trade ties reveals the im portance of French Acadia in the settlem ent's fur trade. The strength of these Anglo-Acadian contacts was dem onstrated by their persis­tence well into the last quarter of the seventeenth century, a period of rapidly escalating English-French and English-Indian tensions. Differing national and ethnic affiliation had little impact on commercial relationships. In turn, English and French directives, while making the trade m ore difficult, did not stop it. W hat m attered most to Pem aquid and Acadian fur

193

traders and to Indian hunters and middlemen was the availabil­ity, price, and quality of the goods offered.

Pem aquid’s glory days as a thriving fur trade center were short lived. The death of Gyles Elbridge and the outbreak of the English Civil War in the early 1640s signaled the beginning of the decline. This pair of events brought an end to the guiding force and fortune that were critical to the operation’s early success. Thomas Elbridge’s lack of financial backing and expertise and increased com petition for a shrinking market in beaver and moose accelerated the trend. Nonetheless, the collapse of the settlem ent’s fur trade only came in the eighteenth century with the rejoined decline of the trade and the official decision to cease sanctioned truck house operations at Pemaquid.

At no time did Maine’s trading post enjoy the success of the French and English operations based in the St. Lawrence River, Great Lakes, and Hudson Bay regions. This was due primarily to Maine’s smaller supplies of fur bearers and the New Englander’s greater emphasis on other financial pursuits, particularly fish­ing, lumbering, and farming. The French and Anglo-Canadian fur merchants had access to seemingly boundless supplies of fur- and hide-bearers hunted and trappedby Indians in the expansive Canadian interior. It was not unusual for Canadian posts to obtain 9,000 or more furs and hides a year. In contrast, in 1653 the Plymouth colony’s Cushnoc truckhouse was owned 1,050 beaver pelts by Indian clients, a substantial total by Maine standards.72

A num ber of issues rem ain unresolved. Most pressing is clarification of the volume of Pem aquid’s fur trade. To date, no records have been found to docum ent the am ount and propor­tions of the type of animal furs and hides exchanged at the settlement. Such data would allow com parisons between Pem aquid’s business and com peting operations in New Hamp­shire, Maine, and Acadia, perm it an assessment of changes in proportions of the various furs, pelts, and hides over time. What impact did economic trends and warfare have on the volume and overall success of Pem aquid’s fur trade? A great deal remains unknown about the plantation’s Indian clients. There is little

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

194

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

question that Indians from the Kennebec and Pentagoet rivers were Pem aquid’s primary contacts, and period sources suggest there was some trade with St. Georges River Indians. Was there contact with other “local” groups, such as those based in Boothbay or the m ore distant Eastern Etchemin of the St. Croix and St. John rivers? How large were the Indian groups, and how long did they rem ain at Pemaquid? Was the six-week stint of trade between Fort William Henry troops and nearby Indians typical? W here did they establish their trading encampments? The m atter o f an English minister teaching reading and writing to Indian children is intriguing: was this the effort of a single individual, o r part of a provincial or crown plan to win their hearts and minds?

While a num ber of im portant questions remain, this re­search provides a better understanding of the role the fur trade played in Pem aquid’s early development. It also suggests much about M aine’s early economy - particularly about the complex and far-reaching economic system M aine’s traders were part of. In addition, the study once again dem onstrates the growing im portance of archaeology in reconstructing the European and Indian worlds that coexisted in Maine during this time of peace and war.

195

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

NOTES

'R o g e r H o w e l l , J r . , a n d E m e r s o n W . B ak er , ed s , Maine in the Age of Discovery: Christopher Levett's Voyage, 1623-1624 (P o r t l a n d : M a in e H is to r ic a l S ocie ty , 1988), p. 44.

-F ran c is X. M o lo n e y , The Fur Trade in New England, 1620-1676 ( C a m b r i d g e ’ H a r v a r d U n iv e r s i ty P ress , 1931), p 39.

'W il l iam I R o b e r t s , “T h e F u r T r a d e o f N e w E n g la n d in th e S e v e n t e e n th C e n t u r y , ” Ph D d i s s e r t a t io n . U n iv e rs i ty o f P en n sy lv a n ia , 1958.

J o h n G. R e id , Acadia, M a in e and New Scotland. Marginal Colonies in the Seventeenth Century ( T o r o n t o U n iv e rs i ty o f T o r o n t o , 1981).

’E m e r s o n B ak er , “T r o u b l e to th e E as tw a rd : T h e F a i lu re o f A n g lo - In d ia n R e la t io n s in E a rly M a in e ," P h D d i s s e r t a t io n , C o l le g e o f W il l iam a n d M ary , 1986, p . 94

"H e le n C a m p , Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine, 1965-1974 ( A u g u s ta : M a in e S ta te M u s e u m , 1975), Neill D eP ao li , “P e m a q u id , M aine: P re l im in a ry R e c o n s t ru c t io n of a S e v e n t e e n t h C e n tu r y C o a s ta l C o m m u n i t y ’s D o m e s t i c a n d I n t e r n a t io n a l T r a d e C o n n e c t i o n s , ” Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 45 (A pril 1984)* 24-31; “A n g lo - In d ia n T r a d e at P e m a q u i d , ” in R o b e r t L. B rad ley a n d H e le n B. C a m p , The Forts of Pemaquid, Maine. An Archaeological and Historical Study, O c c a s io n a l P a p e r s in M a in e A r c h a e o lo g y n o . 10 (A u g u s ta : M a in e H is to r ic P re s e r v a t io n C o m m is s i o n a n d M a in e A rc h a e o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty , 1994); E m e r s o n B a k e r , The Clarke & Lake Company. The Historical Archaeology of a Seventeenth-Century Maine Settlement, O c c a s io n a l P u b l ic a t io n s in M ain e A rc h ae o lo g y n o 4 (1985); L e o n C r a m m e r , Cushnoc: 'The History and Archaeology of Plymouth Colony 'Traders on the Kennebec, O c c a s io n a l P u b l ic a t io n s in M a in e A rc h a e o lo g y n o 7 (1990), A la n d F a u lk n e r a n d G r e t c h e n F a u lk n e r , The French at Pentagoet, 1633-1674.

Archaeological Portrait of the Acadian Frontier, O c c a s io n a l P u b l ic a t io n s in M ain e A rc h a e o lo g y n o . 5 (1987).

'K e n n e t h M o r r i s o n , The Embattled Northeast ’The Elusive Ideal of Alliance in Abernaki-Euroamerican Relations (Berkeley* U n iv e rs i ty o f C a l i f o r n ia P ress , 1985); B ru c e J. B o u r q u e a n d R u t h H W h i t e h e a d , “T a r r a n t i n es a n d th e I n t r o d u c t i o n o f E u r o p e a n T r a d e G o o d s in th e G u l f o f M a in e , ” Ethuohistory 32 (1985) 327-41; D av id S a n g e r , R o b e r t L. B r a d le y , a n d A r t h u r Sp iess , “N a h a n a d a . A 1 7 th C e n tu r y S ite o n th e C o a s t o f M a in e , ’" p a p e r p r e s e n t e d at th e 1983 E a s t e rn S ta te s A rc h a e o lo g ic a l F e d e r a t i o n M ee tin g , Salem , M a s s a c h u s e t t s

'E m m a n u e l A l th a m , “L e t te r to Sir E d w a rd A l th a m , S e p t e m b e r , 1 6 23 ,” m S ydney V J a m e s , Jr , Three Visitors to Early Plymouth (P ly m o u th : P I im o th P la n ta t io n , 1963), p. 25.

“G ill ian T Cell, English Enterprises in Newfoundland, 13 77-1660( T o r o n to : Lhiiversity of T o r o n t o P re ss , 1969), p. 26; D av id B. Q u in , ed , New American World: A Doc umentary History oj America to 1612 (N e w York: Ai n o P ress , 1979) IV: p p . 113, 117; J . F . G re e n , “ H ats a n d th e F u r T r a d e , ” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Sc lence 28 (A u g u s t 1 9 6 2 )’ 378-79, W i l l iam J Eccles, “T h e F u r T r a d e tu th e C o lo n ia l N o r t h e a s t , ” m W i lc o m b E. W a s h b u r n , e d , History oj Indian-White Relations' Handbook oj North American Indians 4 ( W a s h in g to n , D C.* S m i th s o n i a n In s t i tu t io n , 1988): 324

" J a m e s R o s i e i , “A T r u e R e la t io n o f C a p ta in e G e o r g e W a y m o u t h his V o y ag e M a d e T in s P re s e n t Y e e re 1605; in th e D isc o v e r ie o f th e N o r t h P a r t o f V i rg in ia ,” in C h a r le s H. L e v e r e m o r e , ed , Forerunners and Coni jreti tors oj the Pilgrims and Puritans 1 (B ro o k ly n : N ew E n g la n d S o c ie ty o f B ro o k ly n , 1912), p. 327 .

" G e o r g e P W m s h ip , ed . , “A D esc i l p t io n o f N ew E n g la n d by J o h n S m i th (1 6 1 6 ) ,” Sailors ’Narratives of \ "oyages along the New England Coast, 1324-1624 ( B o s t o n ’ 1905), p. 220; M o lo n e y , 'The Fur 'Trade in New England, p 32.

196

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

' - D e p o s i t io n o f J o s h u a T h o m p s o n , M ay 12, 1871 , B r is to l , M a in e ; H o w e l l a n d B a k e r , Maine in the Age of Discovery, p . 44; W i lb u r S p e n c e r , Pioneers on Maine Rivers r e p r in t (B ow ie , M a ry la n d , 1990), p p . 19-20; 2 99 ; 300 .

" S p e n c e r , Pioneers, p p . 347-48 , 350; Suffolk Deeds 3 (B o s to n : R o ck w ell a n d C h u rc h i l l , 1885), fo l io 54; “A t the I n n e r S t a r c h a m b e r , th e 3 0 th o f O c t o b e r 1639," New England Historical and Genealogical Register 8 (B o s to n : S a m u e l G. D ra k e , 1854): 144; M e m o r ia l o f C o l o n e l R o m e r to L o r d B e l lo m o n t , J u n e 22, 1700 , C ecil H e a d la m , ed . , Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies 1700 18 ( L o n d o n : H e r M ag es ty 's S t a t i o n a r y O ff ic e , 1910): 365-66; P au l J . L in d h o ld t , e d .,John Josselyn, Colonial T raveler A C e n tra l Edition of Two Voyages to New England ( H a n o v e r , N ew H a m p s h i r e : U n iv e rs i ty P re ss o f N e w E n g la n d , 1988), p. 141.

' ‘T o w n s o f B r is to l , e t als., Petition and Memorial of the Towns of Bristol, Nobleborough, New Castle, Edgecomb and Boothbay (B o s to n : J . B e lc h e r , 1811), p . 40; S p e n c e r , P ioneers , p p . 202 , 378-79.

' ’C a m p , Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine, p p . 11 14-15, 66, 68, 74. F o r t i fy in g t r a d i n g p o s t s w i th w o o d e n p a l i s a d e s ( u p r i g h t p o s ts ) a n d c a n n o n was c o m m o n p r a c t i c e a m o n g th e E n g l ish a n d F r e n c h t r a d e r s in M a in e a n d N ew B ru n sw ic k T h e s e fo r t i f i c a t io n s d e f e n d e d th e p o s ts f r o m a t ta c k by rival E u r o p e a n t r a d e r s a n d I n d ia n s

"N e il l D eP ao li , “Self-Suffic iency o n th e 17 th Century Maine Frontier* G u n s m i t h i n g, S h o t M a n u fa c tu r e , a n d F l in tk n a p p in g at th e M C L ot , P e m a q u i d H a r b o r , M a in e , ’ p a p e r d e l iv e r e d at 1993 a n n u a l C o u n c i l f o r N o r t h e a s t H is to r ic a l A r c h a e o lo g y M e e t in g , P o r t s m o u t h , N ew H a m p s h i r e .

’'B ak e r , “T r o u b l e to th e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 96-98; C r a n m e r , Cushnoc, p p 22-25I V. H all , “J o h n K n i g h t , J r , S u g a r R e f i n e r at th e G r e a t H o u s e o n St. A u g u s t i n e ’s

B ack ," 'Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 68 (1951): 110; P a t r ic k M c G ra th , ed . , Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth Century Bristol, B rit ish R e c o r d S o c ie ty P u b l ic a t io n s (B ris to l: J .W . A r r o w s m i t h , L td . , 1955), xxv; A rl i ta D o d g e P a rk e r , A Histoiy of Pemaquid (B o s to n : M a c d o n a l d a n d E vans, 1925), p . 91; “T h e Y o v ag e o f M a r t in P r in g ," in L e v e r e m o r e , ed . , Forenuiners and Competitors of the Pilgrims and Puritans, p p . 60, 62.

" D o n a l d J o n e s to F ra n k W h i te , J u ly 2 6 ,1 9 9 3 ; M c G r a th , Merchants and Merchandise, p p . 210-13; G e o f f r e y T. R o b e r t s to F ra n k W h i t e , J u n e 18, 1989. My th a n k s to F ra n k W h i te w h o k in d ly p r o v i d e d m e w ith his r e s e a r c h a n d th a t o f B r is to l h i s t o r i a n D o n a l d j u n e s a n d G e n e a lo g i s t G eo ffn * R o b e r t s .

- " "A b rah a m S h u r t to J o h n W i n t h r o p , J u n e 28, 1 6 3 6 ,” Winthrop Papers, 1631-1637 3 (B o s to n : M e r r v m o u n l P re ss , 1943), p p . 277-78; R e id , Acadia, p . 70.

- ’" A b r a h a m S l u i r t t o j o h n W i n t h r o p , O c t o b e r s , 1638," Winthrop Papers, 163S-1644 4: 69 . T r u c k i n g c l o t h o r " d u f f e l s ” w as a c o a r s e w o o l c o a t c l o th p o p u l a r in s e v e n te e n th - c e n tu r y A n g lo - In d ia n t r a d e . S e e D a n ie l G o o k in , “H is to r ic a l C o l le c t io n s o f th e In d ia n s m N ew E n g la n d ," Collections oj the Massachusetts Historical Society ( B o s to n , 1905), 1: 152; R o b e r t s , “T h e N ew E n g la n d F u r T r a d e , ” p p . 51-52.

- -B aker, “T r o u b l e to the E a s t w a r d ,” p p . 139-41; R o b e r t s , “N ew E n g la n d F u r T r a d e , ’ p p . 51-52.

" B a k e r , " T r o u b l e to th e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 100, 102, 121-22.- 'S ee G e o r g e F o ls o m , Histoiy of Saco and Biddeford, r e p r i n t ( S o m e r s w o r th , N ew

H a m p s h i r e , 1975), p 47; J o h n J o h n s t o n , ,4 Histoiy oj the 'Towns oj Bristol and Biemen (A lbany : Joel M u n sc l l , 1873), p. 59.

■’’W ill iam B r a d f o r d , Of PIimoth Plantation ( B o s to n : W r ig h t a n d P o t t e r P r in t in g C o m p a n v , 1901). p 40 1 ; C a p ta in J o h n M a s o n , The Publications of the Prime Society 17 ( B o s t o n : J o h n W i lso n a n d S o n , 1887): 91; “ E d w a r d W in s lo w t o j o h n W i n t h r o p , A pri l ,

197

PEMAQUID S FUR TRADE

1637," W inthrop Papers, 7 6 7 7 -7 6 5 7 3 : 391-92.-'’" P ly m o u th C o lo n y A c c o u n ts (1 6 2 8 ) , ’’ Collections of the Massachusetts Historical

Society 1 {B o s to n , 1846): 199, 201; S p e n c e r , Pioneers on Maine Rivers, p p . 3 18 , 321; "A tt W h i teh a l l , th e 2 1 s t o f July, 1639," a n d "Pass o f Privy C o u n c i l , A p r i l 10, 1640 ," The New England Historical and Genealogical Register 8 ( B o s to n , 1854): 144; P e t e r W i l s o n C o l d h a m , The Complete Book oj Emigrants, 7 60 7- 7 6 60 ( B a l t im o r e G e n e a lo g ic a l P u b l i s h in g C o m p a n y , 1988), p p . 212-13; T h o m a s L e c h fo rd , “N a th a n ie l P a t t e r n c h a rg e s u p o n H e n r y W o lc o t t , T h o m a s M a rs h f ie ld a n d S a m u e l W a k e m a n . , . , ” in “N o t e b o o k k e p t by T h o m a s L e c h f o r d , ” Transact ions and Collections oj the American Antiquarian Society 7 (C a m b r id g e , M assach u se t ts , 1885): 324-25. T h e Angel Gabriel as w r e c k e d in a l e g e n d a r y s to r m in A u g u s t 1635 w h ile a n c h o r e d at P e m a q u id .

-""A cco u n t o f J o h n W in te r , 1639," in J a m e s P. B a x te r , ed . . Collections of the Maine Historical Society 3 ( P o r t l a n d : H o y t , F o g g a n d D o n h a m , 1884): 194-95, 3 3 4 , 335, 355; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1574-1660 1 ( L o n d o n , H e r M ajes ty 's S t a t i o n a r y O ff ice , I8 6 0 ): 307, 336; N oyes , e t als., Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and Hew Hampshire ( B a l t im o re : G e n e a lo g ic a l P u b l i s h in g C o m p a n y , 1979), p p . 410 , 718, 765-66, Wmthrop Papers, 163S-1644 4' 69, 123, 2 2 3 n , 309; M a in e H is to r ic a l S ocie ty , Province and Court Records of Maine 1 (P o r t l a n d : S o u t h w o r t h P re ss , 1928), p p . 7, 48.

-’,1'C .G A . C la y , Economic Expansion and Soc ial Change England, 1500- 7 700. Industry, Trade and Government 2 (C a m b r id g e : C a m b r i d g e U n iv e r s i ty P ress , 1984), p p . 26, 264-65; Hall , ' J o h n K n ig h t ," p. 116; D o n a ld J o n e s to F ra n k W h i te , Ju ly 26, 1993.

-"Noyes, et als., Dictionary of Maine, p p . 632-33; M a in e H is to r ic a l S ocie ty , Province and Court Records 1: 251.

'"F rancis K n ig h t , “G o o d s R e c e iv e d f r o m M r. J o h n H o l l a n d (1 6 4 7 )," Suffolk Deeds 3: fo lios 100-101.

" " In v e n to ry ' o f Isaac C r o s s e ’s E s ta te , M a rc h 29, 1649," New England Historical and Genealogical Register 7 (1 853), p . 2 2 8 ; M a in e H is to r ic a l S ocie ty , Province and Coin t Records 1: 251-52; “I n v e n to r y o f R o b e r t B u t t o n ’s E s ta te , N o v e m b e r 21, 1650 ," New England Genealogical and Historical Regs ter 8 (1854), p . 59; J o h n W o r l id g c , D/c tionanum and Vrbantcum, facs im ile o f 1704 e d i t io n (Los A n g e le s , 1970)

' - " G o o d s R e c e iv e d f r o m Mr. J o h n H o l l a n d (1 6 4 7 ) ," Suffolk Deeds 3, fo lios 100-101; “D eb t S e t t l e m e n t b e t w e e n T h o m a s P h ill ip s a n d J o h n S m i th , D e c e m b e r 12, 1652," York Deeds 3 ( P o r t la n d : J o h n T. H u l l a n d B. T h u r s t o n a n d C o m p a n y , 1887), fo l io 173.

" " G o o d s R e c e iv e d f ro m M r. J o h n H o l la n d " ; The Comfmet Edition oj the Oxford English Dictionary 2 (O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n iv e rs i ty P ress , 1987), p. 598 .

' 'T o w n s o f B r is to l , e t als., Petition and Memorial of the Towns, p p . 40-41.'"Noyes, e t als., Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, p p 216-17;

Suffolk Deeds, fo lios 46-52, 57-53.“’"R ich a rd a n d N ich o la s D av iso n vs. P au l W h i t e , J u n e 16, 1657"; “T h e D e c la r a t io n

o f R ic h a rd Russell & N ich o la s D av iso n A g a in s t C a p t . P au l W h i te d ef . , in a n A c t io n o f th e C ase ," C o u r t File no . 1657-19-2"; “P au l W h i te to R i c h a rd R usse ll a n d N ic h o la s D av iso n , J u n e 25, 1657 ( h o u s e h o l d in v e n to ry ) ,” Middlesex County Court Deeds 2: 26-28, M id d le se x C o u n t y C o u r t , C a m b r id g e , M a ssac h u se t ts . T h a n k s a r e d u e E m e r s o n B a k e r f o r p r o v id in g his t r a n s c r ip t io n s o f t h e s e d o c u m e n ts .

" T h o m a s L y m a n , The Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown.. 1629- IS IS 1 (B o s to n - D av id C la p p a n d S o n , 1879), p. 284; N oyes , et als., Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, p . 139; D e p o s i t io n o f T o b i a s O a k m a n , F e b r u a r y 16, 1737, M a s sa c h u se t t s S ta te A rch ives , B o s to n .

wN oyes , et als , Genealogical Du lionary of Maine and New Hampshire, p. 189; B aker , " T r o u b le to th e E a s tw a r d ,” p p . 116-17.

198

'’’B ak er , Clarke and Lake Company, p p . 7, 9-10; C r a n m e r , Cushnoc , p . 30; F a u lk n e r a n d F a u lk n e r , Pentagoel, p . 22,

"’F a u lk n e r a n d F a u lk n e r , Pentagoel, p p . 20-22; R e id , Acadia, p p . 135-38.‘'B ak e r , “T r o u b l e to t h e E a s t w a r d ,” p. 114; C r a n m e r , Cushnoc, p p . 28-30.‘- 'Baker, “T r o u b l e s to t h e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 117-18; F a u lk n e r a n d F a u lk n e r , Pentagoet,

p. 22; J o h n s t o n , History of Bristol and Bremen, p p . 103-06.“J o h n s t o n , History of Bristol and Bremen, p p . 105, 111-15. In 1665 , C h a r l e s II

g r a n t e d th e S a g a d a h o c r e g io n ( in c l u d in g P e m a q u i d ) a n d N e w Y o rk to h is b r o t h e r t h e D u k e o f Y ork . S a g a d a h o c th e n e n c o m p a s s e d t e r r i t o r y f r o m th e K e n n e b e c to t h e St. C r o ix r ivers , n o r t h to th e St. L a w re n c e .

“J a m e s P. B a x te r , ed . , “A t t A C o u n c i l h e l d a t B o s to n th e 16 O c t o b e r 1675 ," in B a x te r , ed . , Collections 6: 96-97.

“ L o u is -A n d re V ig n e ra s , “L e t t e r s o f a n A c a d ia n T r a d e r , 1 6 74-1676 ," New England Quarterly 13 (M a rc h 1940): 98-99, 105,

‘"B aker, “T r o u b l e to th e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 143-45, 186, 188-200; E d w in C h u rc h i l l , “I n t r o d u c t i o n : C o lo n ia l P e m a q u id , " in C a m p , Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, p . xi.

“ B ak er , “T r o u b l e to th e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 189-192; “T h o m a s G a r d n e r to G o v e r n o r L e v e re t t , S e p t e m b e r 22, 1675," B ax te r , ed . , Manuscripts 6: 96-97; “P e t i t io n f r o m T h o m a s G a r d n e r a n d o t h e r I n h a b i t a n t s o f P e m a q u i d , 1676," ib id ., p p . 118-19; “M o x e s to G o v e r n o r o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s , ib id . , J u ly 1, 1 6 7 7 ,” p p . 177-79.

“ B a k e r , “T r o u b l e to t h e E a s tw a rd ," p p . 194-200; “T h o m a s G a r d n e r to G o v e r n o r L e v e re t t , " B a x te r , ed . , Manuscripts 6: 118-19; The Present State of New England, facs im ile o f 1677 e d i t i o n (B a in b r id g e , N ew Y o rk , 1972), p p . 54-56.

‘“B ax te r , ed . , Manuscripts 6: 179-180, 185-86, 189-93; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Senes, A met ua and West Indies 2 (1 8 6 1 ): 740; F ra n k l in B. P lo u g h , ed ., Papers Relating to Pemaquid and Parts Adjacent in the Present State of Maine (A lbany: P a r s o n s a n d C o m p a n y , 1856), p p . 18-21; A n t h o n y L im m a m , “Life a t F o r t R i c h m o n d , D is t r ic t o f M a in e : F r o m th e A c c o u n t B o o k o f J o h n M in o t , T r u c k m a s t e r , 1737-1742 ," The Kennebec Proprietor 5 ( W in t e r 1988): 15; M a c F a r la n e , “T h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s Bay T r u c k - H o u s e s , ’' p p . 48-65.

’" H o u g h , Papers Relating to Pemaquid, p p . 18, 20 , 21.“J o h n s t o n , History of Bristol and Bremen, p p . 146, 148.’- H o u g h , Papers Relating to Pemaquid, p p . 29-31.“ Ibid .; J o h n R o m e y n B r o a d h e a d , ed . . Documents Relative to the Colonial History of

New York 3 ( B o s to n , 1853), p p . 2 38 , 334.’1 Cal end a r of State Pa pers, Co lomal Sen es, A m erica a n d Wes t Ind les, 16S5-16SS 12

(N o rw ic h , N o r f o lk C h r o n ic l e C o m p a n y , 1899), p . 567; “D e p o s i t i o n o f L e n o x B ev er ly A u g 17, 1689," B a x te r , ed . , Collections 9: 31; J o h n C. W e b s t e r , ed . , Acadia at the End of the Seventeenth Century, M o n o g r a p h i c S e r ie s n o . 1 (S a in t J o h n : N e w B ru n sw ic k M u s e u m , 193 4 ) , p p . 193-94; A la r ic F a u l k n e r a n d G r e t c h e n F a u lk n e r , “A c a d ia n M a in e in A rc h a e o lo g ic a l P e r sp e c t iv e ," Northeast Historical Archaeology 14 (1985); 13-18; F a u lk n e r a n d F a u lk n e r , Pentagoel, p p . 29, 38; A la r ic F a u lk n e r , “L e a d w o r k in g at St. C a s t i n ’s H a b i t a t i o n : N ew In s ig h ts o n th e W o r k s h o p s o f th e A c a d ia n F r o n t i e r , " p a p e r p r e s e n t e d at 1993 C o n f e r e n c e f o r N o r t h e a s t H is to r ic a l A rc h a e o lo g y M e e t in g s , P o r t s m o u t h , N ew H a m p s h i r e .

"’"’B r o a d h e a d , ed . , Documents Relative to the Colonial History oj New York 3: 551-54; C h u rc h i l l , “I n t r o d u c t i o n to C o lo n ia l P e m a q u i d , ” p. xiii; Calendar of Stale Papers, America and the West Indies, 16S5-I6S8 12: 261 , 306, 467 .

"’" C h a r le s E. C la rk , The Eastern Frontier: The Settlement of Northern New England,

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

199

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

1610-1763 (N ew Y ork : A lf re d A. K n o p f , 1970), p p . 67-69; J o h n s t o n , History of Bristol and Bremen, p . 186; “E d w a rd R a n d o l p h to L o r d s o f T r a d e a n d P la n ta t io n s , S e p t e m b e r 5, 1689; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Senes, America and West Indies, 1689-92 13: ( L o n d o n : M ack ie a n d C o m p a n y , 1901), p. 40.

"'’ P ro v in c e o f M a ssac h u se t ts , “T h e S u b m is s io n a n d A g r e e m e n t o f th e E a s t e r n In d ia n s , A u g u s t 11, 1 6 9 3 ,” vol. 30, p. 339, M a s s a c h u s e t t s S ta te A rc h iv e s .

'“P ro v in c e o f M a ssac h u se t ts , “Bill f o r th e R e g u la t io n o f T r a d e w i th th e In d ia n s , J u n e 12, 1 6 9 4 ,” vol. 30, p p . 346-47, M a s s a c h u s e t t s S ta te A rch iv es .

' " W i lb u r J a c o b s , Wilderness Politics and Indian Gifts: The Northern Colonial Frontier, 1748-1763 (L in co ln , N e b ra sk a : U n iv e r s i ty o f N e b r a s k a P re ss , 1967), p p . 30-31; R o b e r t s , " T h e F u r T r a d e o f N ew E n g l a n d , ” pp . 65-66; “V i l le b o n to C o u n t P o n t c h a r t r a i n , A u g u s t 20, 1 6 9 4 ,” W e b s te r , ed., Acadia, p p . 67-68.

'’" " A c c o u n t o f a j o u r n e y M a d e by M. D e V illeu , 1 6 9 3 -1 6 9 4 ,” W e b s te r , ed . , Acadia p p . 61, 63

" 'D e p o s i t io n o f j o s e p h G id d in g s , O c t o b e r 3, 1696, ty p e s c r ip t , C o lo n ia l P e m a q u i d M u s e u m , B ris to l , M aine . P e r io d d o c u m e n t s p r o v id e few d e ta i l s o n t h e lo c a t io n (s ) o f e n c a m p m e n t s e s ta b l i s h e d in P e m a q u i d by I n d ia n t r a d i n g a n d n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t ie s . O n e likely lo c a t io n is at th e m o u t h o f th e P e m a q u i d R iv e r o n a p r o t e c t e d s a n d y b e a c h . A rc h a e o lo g is t s d i s c o v e re d th e r e m a in s o f an I n d ia n c a m p d a t in g to t h e m id - s e v e n te e n th a n d e i g h t e e n t h c e n tu r ie s . K a th y C a l lu m , p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1993.

" -C a p ta in C h u b b ’s d e c is io n to c a r ry o u t s u c h a p la n was h is o w n . T h e r e was n o in d ic a t io n th a t M a s s a c h u s e t t s a u th o r i t i e s e n c o u r a g e d his a c t io n s o r th e illicit t r a d e .

"’P ro v in ce o f M assachuse t ts , “P eac e a n d T r a d e N e g o t ia t io n s B e tw e e n M a ssach u se t ts A u th o r i t i e s a n d E a s te rn I n d i a n R e p re s e n ta t iv e s , D e c e m b e r 27 , 1 7 0 1 ,” vol. 30, fo lios 480-83

" 'R o b e r t L. B rad ley , The Forts of Maine, 1607-1945: An Archaeological and Historical Siovey (A u g u s ta : M a in e H is to r ic P r e s e r v a t io n C o m m is s io n , 1981), p p . 8, 13; W e b s te r , ed , Acadia p p . 192-97.

" J o h n S.C. A b b o t t , The Histoiy of Maine (B o s to n , 1875), p p . 338 , 359; L im m a n i , “Life a t F o r t R i c h m o n d , ” p. 15.

'" 'Province o f M assachuse t ts , “P eac e a n d T r a d e N e g o t ia t io n s B e tw e e n M a ssach u se t ts a n d E a s te rn I n d ia n R e p re s e n ta t iv e s , Ju ly 24-28, 1 7 1 4 ,” vol. 39: 44; “C o l o n e l D av id D u n b a r to th e D u k e o f N ew cas t le , D e c e m b e r 1 0 ,1 7 2 9 , ” B a x te r , ed . , Collections 10: 460-62; “G o v e r n o r J o n a t h a n B e lc h e r to C a p ta in A r t h u r S av ag e , S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 7 4 0 ,” Jonathan Belcher Letterbooks, A u g u s t 24, 1 7 3 9 - S e p te m b e r 23, 1740, M a s s a c h u s e t t s H is to r ic a l Socie ty , B o s to n . I n d ia n le a d e r s m e t w i th p ro v in c ia l o ffic ials in 1714 , 1729, a n d 1740 to d iscuss t r a d e r e la t io n s O n th e firs t tw o o ccas io n s , th cv r e n e w e d r e q u e s t s fo r a t r u c k h o u s e a t P e m a q u id . T h e E n g lish n e v e r a c te d o n th e r e q u e s t s .

" 'C a m p , Auhaeologcal Excavations at Pemacjuid, p p . 20-21, 63, 66-68."“" G o v e r n o r J o n a t h a n B e lc h e r to C a p ta in A r t h u r S av ag e , S e p t e m b e r 1, 1740";

H a r r i n g t o n a n d P e m a q u id R e s id e n ts P e t i t io n , F e b r u a r y 26, 1757, Towns, Etc., 1755-1762, vol. 117: fo lio 276, M a ssa c h u se t ts S ta te A rch iv es ; J o h n s t o n , History of Bristol and Bremen, p p . 296, 310 , 312; P ro v in c e o f M a ssac h u se t ts , The Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts Bay 12 (B o s to n , 1904): 20, 25.

""Prov ince o f M a ssac h u se t ts , Accounts, 1676-1734, vol. 244: fo l io 379 .' " P e n o b s c o t a n d N o r r i d g e w o c k I n d i a n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o m p l a i n e d to

M a ssa c h u se t t s officials in 1738 a n d 1740 a b o u t t h e i r in c re a s in g ly d if f icu l t t r a d i n g c o n d i t io n s a n d c i rc u m s ta n c e s . S o m e t r a v e le d to t r u c k h o u s e s w ith n o t h i n g to t r ad e . T h e In d ia n s a s k ed th e p ro v in c ia l a u th o r i t i e s to a llow th e i r p e o p l e “ to t r a d e w ith th e s o ld ie r s fo r sm all th in g s , . . . ” Typically , th e se w o u ld h av e b e e n s u c h i te m s as n e e d le s , knives,

200

PEMAQUID’S FUR TRADE

c o m b s , J e w ’s h a r p s , a n d b e a d s . T h e I n d i a n s w e r e a lso f r u s t r a t e d by th e c o n t i n u i n g p r o b l e m o f a b u s iv e a n d d i s h o n e s t t r u c k m a s te r s . P ro v in c e o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s , “ P eac e a n d T r a d e N e g o t i a t i o n s b e t w e e n M a s s a c h u s e t t s A u t h o r i t i e s a n d E a s t e r n I n d i a n R e p re s e n ta t i v e s , " J u n e 28, 1788 a n d A u g u s t 25 , 1740 , vol. 29: fo l io s 8 36-854 , 364-375 , M a s s a c h u s e t t s S ta te A rc h iv e s .

;I C a r d a n d , Twenty Yea rs at Pemaquid ( P e m a q u i d B e ac h , 1914), p p . 179-80; M i ld re d Ross, p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1992.

'2H a r o l d In n is , The Fur Trade in Canada ( T o r o n t o : U n iv e r s i ty o f T o r o n t o P ress , 1977), p p . 34, 87 , 137-38, 142; B a k e r , “T r o u b l e to t h e E a s tw a rd ," p. 109.

Neill DePaoli directed a number of archaeological excavations of early historic sites in the Pemaquid area. He is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of New Hampshire. Currently he is working on his dissertation, a historical and archaeological study of Pemaquid’s commercial development and integration into the Atlantic trade.

201