T of the characteristics of what have been

Transcription

1 Wabanaki Family Hunting Territories DEAN R. SNOW University of Maine It is now generally concluded that hunting and trapping territories developed among the Northern and Eastern Algonquian Indians largely as a result of the fur trade and other factors directly connected with European colonization. Although this appears to be a valid conclusion, this article argues that both prior and subsequent conditions were unique in the case of the Eastern Algonquian in general and the Wabanaki in particular. Evidence for a riverine orientation and the regular exploitation of the beaver in aboriginal time indicates that Wabanaki territoriality was quite different from that described for the Northern Ajgonquian, and that its development did not require an abrupt shift away from previous patterns. HIS PAPER once again explores some T of the characteristics of what have been called family hunting territories among the Algonquian-speaking Indians of the Northeast. Specifically, the features of family territories as they existed among the Wabanaki groups of northern New England and the Maritime Provinces will be examined. It will be shown that although it is probable that the same stimuli that caused the crystalization of family territories among the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi Indians also operated in the Wabanaki area, the nature of Wabanaki territoriality was never the equivalent of that found among other Algonquian speakers. The primary cause of this unique but previously overlooked aspect of Wabanaki cultures appears to have been their strong riverine (as opposed to terrestrial) orientation. THE NATURE OF ALGONQUIAN FAMILY TERRITORIES One of the first to investigate Algonquian family hunting groups and the territories they exploited was Frank G. Speck. He defined the territories as fixed tracts of country whose boundaries are determined by certain rivers, ridges, lakes, or other natural landmarks, such as swamps and clumps of cedars or pines (1915b34, see also 1915a:290). The family hunting band that occupied such a tract has since been regarded as the fundamental social and political unit for much of northeastern North America in early historic times (see Cooper Accepted for publication May 22, :71). Such political developments as the Wabanaki confederacy in Maine and the Maritimes developed out of this base as a response to later pressures by European settlers. Prior to these relatively late developments, there had been no formal political organization above the hunting band level, and the major contrast in Eastern Algonquian socio-political systems in the seventeenth century seems to have been between the bands with territories in the forest and the nomadic bands on the tundra of the Labrador Peninsula (Speck & Eiseley 1942: 219). Fundamental similarities that were observed cross-culturally for groups having family territories led Herskovits to compile a list of six features common to cultures having this kind of land tenure. Drawn largely from Davidson s work in Australia, Herskovits list of features includes (1) a concept of land ownership either by individuals or by families, (2) well-defined boundaries, (3) restrictions on trespassing, (4) patrilineal inheritance, (5) the right of the proprietor(s) to sell or otherwise dispose of the land, and (6) patrilocal residence (Herskovits 1952:338; see also Davidson 1928:627, 1938: ). However, it is clear from the literature available on the subject that these features do not apply with equal force even within the Northeast Algonquian area. Regional Vuriutions There has been a history of disagreement among ethnologists in this area regarding the relation of particular features of family 1143

2 1144 American Anthropologist [70, 1968 territories to historic, ecological, and other factors. For example, Speck (1926: ) says that the sizes of the territories tend to relate to population density, and that the larger and more sparsely populated areas are those most recently established. This inference is made on the basis of historical data that indicate a northeastward movement of Montagnais-Naskapi Indians into areas not previously occupied by them, where the family territories are presently the largest and most sparsely populated (Speck 1923:461). Speck goes on to infer a northwest-southeast movement of the Penobscot for analogous reasons (1915a: 302), an inference that is not supported by other data. Hallowell (1949:43) resolved the question by showing that the relative abundance of game and particularly fur-bearing animals seemed to be the most important factor governing the size of the territories. He points out that trapping was the major preoccupation of the Indians in question, and that the density of the animal population was the most important variable controlling territory size. The rapidity with which territories apparently change in response to changing ecological conditions supports Hallowell s argument (Cooper 1946: ). Another area of disagreement regards the presence or absence of an early allotment system. Cooper (1938:57-58, 1939:67, 75) cites evidence for this kind of system from Jenness relatively recent work among the Parry Island Ojibwa, and for the Fox and Micmac from early historical records. However, Cooper (1939:78) doubts the existence of an allotment system among the Micmac that is implied by some of Le- Clercq s statements from the seventeenth century. LeC!lercq implies a rather formal system, but Speck s more recent investigations indicate something else. The family territories seem to be less permanent, less hereditary, than elsewhere, and the judicial power of the chief in the reassignment of territory seems to be rather more definite (Speck 1922:86). The chief s authority, therefore, seems to have been the product of default. If there was no one to inherit the land, it was allotted to someone else (Speck 1922:92). Similarly, Kinietz (1940: 179) questions the validity of the early records on the Fox. Taken together, the evidence for an early allotment system of family territory redistribution is slim. Further, there is considerable evidence against strict or even preferred patrilocal residence among Algonquian groups having family territories. Speck (1923 :462) found at least as many and perhaps more examples of matrilocal than patrilocal residence within one generation in the Mistassini band. Similar residence practices can be seen among the Wabanaki (Speck 1915a, 1940). Leacock (1955) sums up the case for a strong matrilocal tendency among the various groups of the Labrador Peninsula, and points out that in many cases, the local band form is best termed composite. It is clear from all of this that the characteristics of the family territories of the Northeast were by no means uniform. The Effect of the Fur Trade Overriding all of the above points of debate has been the controversy involving conflicting interpretations of the genesis of the family territory systems. In 1939, John Cooper pointed out a few of the characteristics of the Algonquian family territory in a relatively obscure article that dealt with systems of land tenure. He noted that the hunting and trapping rights claimed by the holder of land have reference first of all to the most sedentary of the furbearers, the muskrat and especially the beaver (Cooper 1939:68). This correctly emphasizes the importance of trapping in the perpetuation of the systems and suggests by implication that the term family hunting territory is a misnomer. Nevertheless, Cooper goes on to reject earlier suggestions that such systems developed as a result of the very specialized economy introduced by the fur trade (Steward 1936:339). He concludes that the family hunting ground system as found among the northern Algonquians is in its main lines aboriginal and precolumbian (Cooper 1939:89). Speck and Eiseley supported Cooper s interpretation (1939, 1942). They outline four possible explanations: ( 1 ) an historical explanation linking family territories with the fur trade, (2) an explanation resting entirely upon ecological considerations, (3) one that interprets them as archaic survivals, and (4) an explanation that takes both diffusion and ecology into consideration. At

3 SNOW] Wabanaki Family Hunting Territories 1145 the time of the publication of this outline, they clearly rejected the first possibility. Speck and Eiseley state that early historical sources refer consistently to small bands ( 1939:275), that these small bands depended heavily upon the beaver before European contacts were established, and that the beaver is almost the sole northern furibearing animal the numbers of which have not been observed to fluctuate with the unsteady cyclic variability to be found among other northern forms of life (1942:221). They conclude that the beaver s sedentary habits and easy location for exploitation argue for a pre-columbian origin of the family hunting (trapping) territories. But Leacock later presented a strong argument against the notion that the beaver was an important food source before the advent of the fur trade on the Labrador Peninsula. The conclusion offered by Cooper and Speck and Eiseley was shown to be at least questionable, and in her opinion an obvious non sequitur (Leacock 1954). In 1946 Cooper restated his conclusion that the family territory developed before European contact, but went on to say that it was relatively not as ancient or archaic as the underlying taiga economy itself (Cooper 1946:292). Other statements indicate that he was no longer as convinced as he had been earlier. Specifically, he mentions the rapidity with which this kind of land tenure system is known to have changed recently in response to changing local ecological conditions (Cooper 1946:294). The doubt that is implicit in these statements had been voiced earlier by Steward (1936), Jenness (1955: 124), and others, and was developed into a convincing argument by Leacock (1954) in her discussion of Montagnais territories and the fur trade. Leacock pointed out that the hypothesis seemed to be untenable for at least four reasons. First, it has been assumed but never satisfactorily demonstrated that the beaver and other small sedentary game was of significant importance to the precontact Indian economy. Second, the hypothesis rests heavily upon the unsupported assumption of aboriginal conservation, especially of beaver. Third, there is no evidence for early population pressures that might have stimulated the development of family territories. Fourth, the significance of the uneven development of family territories on the Labrador Peninsula was generally overlooked by earlier writers (Leacock 1954: 3-4). Here Leacock is referring to the inescapable fact... that the strength of individualized landholding patterns characteristic of the western Montagnais decreases not only northward toward the tundra, where the Naskapi used to depend almost entirely upon the migratory caribou, but also outward from the center of the earliest and most interne fur trade (1954:6). Leacock sees the key feature in the development of the territories as the substitution of production for exchange in place of production for use, in concert with a shift from migratory to sedentary fauna. The speed with which such a shift takes place depends upon such things as the introduction of steel traps, increased scarcity of game, the introduction of a cash economy, European colonization, and the establishment of trading posts (Leacock 1954:7-9). This kind of argument appears to have convinced most recent students of the subject. In a recent article that has Northern Algonquian atomism as its central topic, Hickerson supports a postcontact interpretation. Of the thirteen ethnologists that provided comments on the article, two explicitly agreed, one agreed with qualification, four implicitly agreed, and the remainder offered no opinion (Hickerson 1967). However, Leacock s argument applies with more force in the case of the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi than among the Eastern Algonquian, specifically the Wabanaki. Archeological evidence from Maine alone indicates that the beaver and other sedentary fauna were of considerable importance aboriginally. Historic evidence I will cite later indicates that the advent of the fur trade intensified but did not initiate this hunting pattern. Similarly, it will be shown that in the case of the Wabanaki, the fur trade led to the crystalhation of family territories along the lines of a preexisting pattern of economic exploitation. The above discussion has not been a detailed recapitulation of all that has been said relevant to family territories in the northeast, but it is an adequate background for the interpretation of these phenomena as they existed among the Wabanaki groups. A more exhaustive discussion of the various

4 1146 American Anthropologist [70, 1965 points of debate is available in Rogers monograph on the Mistassini (1963:77-89). A most significant point is Rogers observation that there has been a general failure on the part of previous writers to adequately distinguish between family hunting bands and family hunting territories. Family hunting groups and family hunting territories are two different things and should be analyzed separately. This point has been obscured by most previous writers, who seem to regard them as necessarily related and interdependent (Rogers 1963:77). That the first of these phenomena (but not the second) appears to have been aboriginal in the case of the Mistassini is an important part of Rogers analysis. It is of at least equal importance as regards the Wabanaki. However, to adequately evaluate the differences between Wabanaki territoriality and that of the other Northern Algonquian groups, variations in the characteristics of a few of these systems must first be summarized. Northern Algonquian Territories Family territory systems are found among many but not all of the Algonquian-speaking Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi and Ojibwa Indians. Speck (1915a: ) quotes Montagnais and Ojibwa men regarding their traditional division of land into family territories and the conservation of the beaver population. Among other things, they say that under ordinary circumstances, each family had exclusive rights over its territory. This occasionally included an implicit right to sell the land, but Cooper (1939:68) points out in the case of the TCtes de Bode that although there was no specific prohibition against the sale of land, it simply was not done. Within most local groups land was frequently loaned for a year or two, but as a favor only and not for rent or some form of deferred compensation (Cooper 1939: 66). The various Montagnais-Naskapi bands for the most part are located in the drainage areas of the rivers and lakes whose names they bear (Speck 1926: 278). But this statement does not apply to the family territories within these divisions. The latter are more or less fixed tracts of country whose bozinduries [italics mine] are determined by certain rivers, ridges, lakes, or other natural landmarks, such as swamps and clumps of cedars or pines (Speck 1915b34). The emphasis here is clearly terrestrial as opposed to riverine. The boundaries were often quite well known (Cooper 1939:66). Among the Timaganii there was a strong sense of proprietorship, and the various boundaries were known by all of the hunters (Speck 1915a: ). Among the Mistassini, however, the boundaries were far less definite (Speck 1923:460; Rogers 1963:69). The strength of prohibitions of trespass seems to have varied in the same way. Early sources report conflicts centering around hunting and trapping rights among groups that presumably had well-defined family territories (La Potherie 1931 :233). However, trespass seems to have been of little concern among the Mistassini, and conjuring is reported as the only form of punishment for it (Speck 1923:460; Rogers 1963 : 72). Some variations in the usual pattern of this form of land tenure appear to have depended upon local conditions. Tirnagami families, for example, divided their territories into quarters that were exploited in rotation over the course of four years. A tract was left in the center as insurance against starvation, and was exploited only when absolutely necessary (Speck 1915a: ). Among other groups, the central portions of individual territories were sometimes left as breeding grounds for beaver (Cooper 1939:69). In at least one case a small section was set aside near a trading post for older men that could no longer make extended trips into the more remote areas (Cooper 1939:66). Some groups practice no conservation at all (Rogers 1963:72). This sampling of variations within a generalized pattern supplements the variations away from Herskovits list of six features that were mentioned earlier. He regards these features as being common to most or all family territories, but it is clear that they do not apply with equal force everywhere. In spite of all these variations, however, there is a feature that is apparently basic to all Northern Algonquian territories, but that contrasts strikingly with the situation as it existed among the Eastern Algonquian, specifically the Wabanaki. This is the marked tendency for Northern Algonquians to use lakes and streams as boundaries, whereas the Wabanaki defined individual territories in terms of drainage areas such that lakes

5 SNOW] Wabanaki Family Hunting Territories 1147 and streams were at the nucleus rather than the periphery of each of them. Eastern Algonquian Territories The Eastern or Coastal Algonquian Indians extend from Nova Scotia to North Carolina. However, there is convincing evidence for the existence of family territories only among the northernmost of these, the division usually referred to as the Wabanaki or Dawn-Land-People (Herzfeld 1939: 171). This convenient term is usually used to refer to the Micmac, Malecite, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Abnaki, and Pennacook, although there is some question regarding the inclusion of the last (Dodge 1957:68-69). There are significant differences in detail between all of these, but in the case of the Pennacook, these differences are more marked. For example, agriculture was more firmly established and villages more permanent among the Pennacook in New Hampshire than among the other Wabanaki groups to the northeast. But although they were transitional culturally and geographically, the Pennacook appear to have been linguistically more closely related to the Penobscot and Abnaki than to the Algonquian-speakers to the south of them (Voegelin & Voegelin 1946: 189). Despite the fact that the Pennacook have often been omitted from lists of Wabanaki groups because of their transitional character or because they were not part of the historic Wabanaki Confederacy, they will be included here (see Speck 191%: , 1926:282, 1940:21). Dodge has pointed out that the entire tier of Algonquian tribes south of the St. Lawrence from the Mahican, adjacent to the Iroquois country in New York, to the Micmac form a series of tribes centered on the large river valleys each varying only slightly from its neighbors (1957:68). It is clear from this that the use of boundary lines is misleading. Moreover, the drainageoriented kind of territorial definition seen here obtained not only on a regional level, as in the case of the Labrador peninsula, but applied to the definition of family territories as well. The distribution of Wabanaki Indians appears to have followed a dendritic pattern that coincided with major streams and tributaries. Micmac family territories generally sur- round lakes, ponds, or sections of rivers, few being at any distance from water. The bounds do not seem to be as strictly defined as among the Ojibwa, Montagnais, and Algonkin, nor does resentment against trespassing amount to much (Speck 1915a: ). Wallis and Wallis (1955:172) point out that even though there was little conflict over trespassing, boundaries were indicated by blazings on trees, presumably on heights of land separating drainages. A map of Malecite territory shows that it is coterminous with the drainage basin of the St. John River. All hunting territories except for two in Micmac territory and two in Passamaquoddy territory can be defined in terms of tributary drainage areas within the St. John basin (Speck & Hadlock 1946: 356,373). Penobscot territories also occurred in tributary basins of a major river drainage, in this case the Penobscot River. In later times at least, two pairs of paths crossed each other at right angles in every territory such that the territory was divided into quarters. These quarters were exploited in rotation, much as in the case of the Timagami. The trails (but not territorial boundaries) were blazed either with the owners totems, or with simpler markings. Shamans in each family group attempted to prevent trespassing by supernatural means (Speck 1940:77, ). The Abnaki probably had a system similar to that of the Penobscot. Morgan obtained a list of fourteen band names from an unknown informant among the St. Francis, Quebec, Abnaki in about 1878 (Morgan 1907: 174). These names parallel those known for Penobscot bands, and therefore indicate that these two closely related tribes had similar forms of territoriality. The Passamaquoddy have not been adequately studied, but their hunting and trap ping system appears to have been similar to those of the Penobscot and Malecite on either side of them (Speck 1915a:302). Similarly, there is little information for the Pennacook, but the available evidence suggests land owned in severalty (Johnson 1940:4). For Eastern Algonquian groups south of the Wabanaki, historical evidence is just as scarce, and conclusions are therefore often inferences at best. Speck (1915a:292)

6 1148 American Anthropologist [70, 1968 points out references by Roger Williams to what seem to be family territories among the Narragansett of Rhode Island. MacLeod (1922:463) from his scanty evidence on the Delaware infers the existence of named hunting territories with defined boundaries in the early colonial period. Rights of use and sale of the land appear to him to have rested with the family head. MacLeod also cites unpublished research by Speck that supports the existence of hunting territories or something like them for the Wampanoag of Massachusetts and the Pamunkey of Virginia (MacLeod 1922:448). Wallace offers a more precise interpretation of Delaware political and territorial organization for the period between 1600 and According to him, the smallest identifiable unit of the Delaware territorial order was a hunting territory covering up to two hundred square miles of land, including one or more large streams (and often a strip of sea-shore), bounded by natural landmarks, and having a name (1947:3). Each of these territories appears to have been seasonally occupied and exploited by a matrilineage. Several such matrilineages gathered together in the summer to form an autonomous horticultural village. They dispersed to their territories for hunting and fishing after the annual harvest (Wallace 1947: 18). As among the Northern Algonquian, there are variations within the general character of family territories among the Wabanaki. But once again there is a feature that appears to be basic to all the groups of this region. That is the location of family units on streams and ponds rather than between them. The generalization applies equally to coastal bands that were also canoe-oriented. Like the other ethnic groups north of the St. Lawrence the Mistassini refer to their hunting grounds by using the term nambckanu, my path or road, as though their business of life lay along the well-known track over which they pass in canoe and with sled in setting their traps and killing the meat- and fur-producing animals. The term otestd, his land, is also given. South of the St. Lawrence among the Wabanaki divisions the corresponding term is nzi bum, my river, through analogous reasoning [Speck 1923:460]. Despite the existence of terms meaning my hunting ground or hunting area (Speck & Hadlock 1946: 362; Speck 1915a: ) among some of the Wabanaki groups, the reference to my river in the above quote is revealing. Another extended quote by Speck, this time with regard to the Penobscot specifically, is just as significant. The northern tracts were, we learn, not definitely appropriated by any people, the same being true in general of some unclaimed stretches of wilderness lying between the river systems occupied by adjacent tribes. Thus nearly all the Penobscot villages were on the Penobscot River, and their hunting grounds bordered it. The bounds were less sharply defined as the distance increased until the recognized outlying territory of some neighboring tribe was reached, and eventually, in proceeding farther, the river upon which were its villages [Speck 1940:7-91. The preceding discussion has shown that family territories are not equivalent wherever they are found among the Algonquianspeaking Indians. There are many differences in detail that have resulted from variations in historical developments and regional ecological factors. But overriding all of these was the more fundamental contrast between the riverine Wabanaki and the Iandoriented Algonquians to the north and west of them. The discussion that follows deals with this unique but largely overlooked aspect of Wabanaki territoriality. THE DEVELOPMENT OF WABANAKI FAMILY TERRITORIES During the early colonial period, and presumably in late prehistoric times as well, the various Wabanaki divisions alternated between two basic patterns of economic pursuit. They spent winter upstream hunting in small bands, and the summer on the lower courses of the major streams and/or at the coast, fishing and gathering shellfish. Presumably, the late prehistoric introduction of maize horticulture modified the previous subsistence pattern, but there is no way of knowing the extent of this modification at the present time. Maize was being grown by the Malecite and many of the local groups south of them at the time of first recorded European contact, but this was quickly modified by the influence of a developing fur trade. As in the case of the Cree-Montagnais- Naskapi, the crystalization of Wabanaki

7 SNOW] family territories appears to have resulted from the fur trade. Speck and Eiseley (1939:270) argue that fur trade was not extensive in the Algonquian area until after the formation of the Hudson s Bay Company in 1670, and that in any case this company never had a significant impact in New England and the Maritimes. They conclude that family territories in this area could not have resulted from the impact of the fur trade and must therefore have been of pre- Columbian origin. However, this argument is not tenable. In 1604 Champlain visited the Penobscot Indians and entered the following statement in his journal. This our Indians made them understand, whereat they signified that they were well satisfied, declaring that no greater benefit could come to them than to have our friendship; and that they desired us to settle in their country, and wished to live in peace with their enemies, in order that in future they might hunt the beaver more than they had ever done, and barter these beaver with us in exchange for things necessary for their usage [Champlain 1922: The advent of fur trading allowed the Penobscot and other Wabanaki groups to formalize their methods of exploiting the environment by way of the institution of family territories in tributary drainage basins. This, however, need not have involved a drastic change in the previous pattern. The use of the birch-bark canoe as the primary mode of transportation on the rivers and tributaries of the area continued as before. A riverine orientation continued to prevail with the exception of the increased importance of the lesser streams and ponds away from the major courses. It is probable that family hunting bands had been in the habit of returning to the same tributaries each winter before the development of territories. A shift to a slightly more formalized system might not have been even perceptible to an observer, had one been present. The most important long-range effect of the fur trade appears to have been that larger and more permanent settlements were made possible. These tended to develop on major rivers, but not at the seacoast. The hundreds of prehistoric shell middens along the coast seem to have been gradually abandoned, and summer residences and villages like that at Old Town, Maine, predomi- Wabanaki Family Hunting Territories 1149 nated. By the eighteenth century the initial acculturation of the Wabanaki via their involvement in the fur trade had progressed to a point where Joseph Chadwick was able to make the following observations. 1764, Indian Lands so called, since they had a conference with Governor Bernard at Fort Pownall; at which the Indians plea was first, in the last war they were in alliance with the French, by which they supposed themselves to have a Right to enjoy their lands in common with the inhabitants of Canada by the Capitulation; that their hunting ground and streams were all parcelled out to certain families, time out of mind; that it was their rule to hunt every third year and kill twothirds of the beaver, leaving the other third part to breed, and that their Beavers were as much their stock for a living as Englishman s cattle was his living; that since the late war English hunters kill all the Beaver they find on said streams, which had not only empoverished many Indian families, but destroyed the breed of Beavers, etc. [Chadwick 1889:143]. Speck (1935, 1940: ) obtained information for about 20 Penobscot family territories in Each of these was held by an elder male, and passed by inheritance to a son, nephew, or son-in-law. Each band was known by the name of some special animal that in some cases was said to be the major food source within its territory. This kind of rationale, however, does not seem to have applied in the case of Frog, Insect, Water Nymph, or other unpalatable creatures. The use of a particular animal totem was also rationalized occasionally by an origin myth that described the family s descent from that animal, sometimes in terms of a legendary family hero. There was a feeling that members of a given family had the characteristics of their totem, such that members of the squirrel family were regarded as bright and active, and the Bear family big, orderly, and dignified. This feature, physical similarity, offers another possible origin for the band names. Finally, in at least one case there is evidence for the development of a taboo against killing the band family totem. In this case, members of the Bear band were forbidden to kill female bears. By the nineteenth century, what had been relatively small family hunting bands were clearly developing into more formal kin

8 1150 American Anthropologist [70, 1968 units. Morgan (1907: 174) thought that he had found clans among the Abnaki, but Speck (1935) vigorously opposed this interpretation, maintaining instead that these were clearly equivalents of Penobscot bands. Nevertheless, Siebert sees the family groups as weakly developed clans. He points out that they are named, formal, totemic, exogamic, and unilateral. The only weak point, he says, is exogamy. A Penobscot Bear can marry a Passamaquoddy or Malecite Bear, even though he cannot marry another Penobscot Bear (see Speck 1940:20&205). However, there is also some question regarding unilateral descent. There appear to have been no rigid residence rules, and leadership of a family band occasionally passed to an in-marrying son-in-law. It is not clear by what name he and/or the band were then known. It seems apparent that informally named bands had taken on some but not all of the characteristics of clans by the time of their disappearance as economic units. There had even been a development of an informal split between bands named after terrestrial animals and those named after aquatic animals among the Penobscot, each group sharing essentially the same origin myth. There was also a rough geographic separation with the aquatic or salt water families being generally located on the lower course of the Penobscot River (Speck 1940: ). The total number of named Penobscot bands appears to have changed from time to time as large bands split and small ones united. Of the total of twenty-two listed by Speck, two seem to have been recent immigrant Malecite and Passamaquoddy bands. A third, Sculpin, is indicated by modern informants :is having been a derogatory term rather than a band name. Siebert adds four more names to Speck s remaining list of nineteen. The result is probably the most complete list now possible for the Penobscot (Speck 1940: ). Morgan lists fourteen bands lor the Abnaki, nine of which share their names with Penobscot bands (Morgan 1907: 174). Fourteen family bands are indicated for the Malecite, although these generally do not have names that can be equated with Penobscot and Abnaki totems (Speck & Hadlock 1946). The effect of the fur trade on Wabanaki sociopolitical organization was clearly not the same as that outlined by Leacock (1954) and others for the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi. The initial establishment of territories in the context of an older riverine pattern of family band distribution eventually led to the development of these into more formal kin groupings, and to the nucleation of the people into larger and more permanent settlements for at least part of the year. When the Wabanaki tribes were later confronted by increasing pressures from the Iroquois and European colonization and exploitation, the systems had crystalized and local bands were united enough that the formation of the Wabanaki Confederacy, modeled after the League of the Iroquois, was made possible. NOTE I should like to thank Douglas S. Byers, Edward D. Ives, and an anonymous reader for many helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. I, of course, remain responsible for its contents. REFERENCES CITED &ADWICK, JOSEPH 1889 An account of a journey from Fort Pownal-now Fort Point-up the Penobscot River to Quebec, in Bangor Historical Magazine 4: CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE 1922 The works of Samuel de Champlain. Vol. 1. H. H. Langton and W. F. Ganong, trans. and ed. Toronto, The Champlain Society. COOPER, JOHN M Land tenure among the Indians of eastern and northern North America. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 8: Is the Algonquian family hunting ground system pre-columbian? American Anthropologist 41 : The culture of the northeastern Indian hunters: a reconstructive interpretation. In Man in northeastern North America. Frederick Johnson, ed. Andover, Mass., Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology. DAVIDSON, D. S The family hunting territory in Australia. American Anthropologist 30: An ethnic map of Australia. American Philosophical Society Proceedings 79: DODGE, ERNEST S Ethnology of northern New England and the Maritime Provinces. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin 18:68-71.

9 SNOW] Wabanaki Family Hunting Territories 1151 HALLOWELL, A. IRVING 1949 The size of Algonkian hunting territories: a function of ecological adjustment. American Anthropologist 51 :3545. HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE J Economic anthropology. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. HERZFELD, R. F An analysis of Coastal Algonquian culture. Washington, Catholic University of America. HICKERSON, HAROLD 1967 Some implications of the theory of the particularity, or atomism, of Northern Algonkians. Current Anthropology 8: JENNESS, DIAMOND 1955 The Indians of Canada. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 65, Anthropological Series No. 15. JOHNSON, FREDERICK 1940 The Indians of New Hampshire. Appalachia (n.s.) 7:3-15. KINIETZ, VERNON 1940 Notes on the Algonquian family hunting ground system. heiican Anthropologist 42: 179. LA Phl%ERIE, M. DE BACQUEVILLE DE 1931 Letters of La Potheric. 111 Documents relating to the early history of Hudson Bay. J. B. Tyrrell, ed. Toronto, The Champlain Society. LEACOCK, ELEANOR 1954 The Montagnais hunting territory and the fur trade. American Anthropological Association Memoir No Matrilocality in a simple hunting economy (Montagnais-Naskapi). Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 : MACLEOD, WILLIAM C The family hunting territory and Lenape political organization. American Anthropologist 24: MORGAN, LEWIS H Ancient society. New York, Henry Holt and Company. l<ooers, EDWARD s The hunting group-hunting territory complex among the Mistassini Indians. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 195, Anthropological Series No. 63. SPECK, FRANK G. 1915a The family hunting band as the basis of Algonkian social organization. American Anthropologist 17 : b Family hunting territories and social life of various Algonkian bands of the Ottawa Valley. Canada Geological Survey Memoir 70, Anthropological Series No. 8. Ottawa, Government Printing Bureau. 191% The Eastern Algonkian Wabanaki Confederacy. American Anthropologist 17: Beothuk and Micmac. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation Mistassini hunting territories in the Labrador Peninsula. American Anthropologist 25: Culture problems in northeastern North America. American Philosophical Society Proceedings 65: Abenaki clans: never! American Anthropologist 37: Penobscot man. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. SPECK, FRANK G., AND LOREN C. EISELEY 1939 Significance of hunting territory systems of the Algonkian in social theory. American Anthropologist 41 : Montagnais-Naskapi bands and family hunting districts of the central and southeastern Labrador Peninsula. American Philosophical Society Proceedings, 85: SPECK, FRANK G., AND WENDELL S. HADLOCK 1946 A report on tribal boundaries and hunting areas of the Malecite Indian of New Brunswick. American Anthropologist 48: STEWARD, JULIAN H The economic and social basis of primitive bands. Essays in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber, pp Berkeley, University of California Press. VOEGELIN, CARL F., AND E. W. VOEGELIN 1946 Linguistic considerations of northeastern North America. In Man in northeastern North America. Frederick Johnson, ed. Andover, Mass., Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology. WALLACE, ANTHONY F. c Woman, land, and society: three aspects of Aboriginal Delaware life. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 17: WALLIS, WILSON D., AND RUTH SAWTELL WALLIS 1955 The Micmac Indians of eastern Canada. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.