The Abenaki Indians Their Treaties of 1713 & 1717, and a Vocabulary — Reading Companion

(0 User reviews)   2657
In Category - Social Conditions
Kidder, Frederic, 1804-1885 Project Gutenberg 2008 Not confirmed
Abenaki Indians; Abenaki Indians -- Treaties; Abenaki language Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 10,500
Reading time 46 min
Text sections 2

The source record for The Abenaki Indians Their Treaties of 1713 & 1717, and a Vocabulary — Reading Companion measures this digital text at 10,500 words, 46 min estimated reading time, and 2 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 29.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Abenaki Indians,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Frederic Kidder's 1859 work presents the texts of two Abenaki treaties (1713 and 1717) with a historical introduction and a vocabulary list, offering primary sources for colonial-era diplomacy and language.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Quebec was found not adapted to their needs and condition, probably from its close contiguity to that city, two convenient tracts of land were granted for their use; the first bears date Aug. 23, 1700, the second, May 10, 1701. These were on the St. Francis river, which has given a name to the tribe. In 1704 another settlement of refugees from New England received a grant of land at a place called Beçancour, near Three Rivers, and during this year the Governor addressed a letter to the ministry in France, giving his reasons for inducing the Abenakis to settle in his colony, and from this period it was a constant policy to encourage their immigration there, for more than half a century.

Here was the place where parties were to be fitted out to carry war, destruction, and misery to the frontiers of New England.

In 1704 these Indians piloted a body of French to the vicinity of their former homes, on the Connecticut, and entirely destroyed Deerfield. The writer not long since conversed with an ancient member of this tribe, who claimed to be the great grandson of Esther Williams, daughter of Rev. John Williams, who was, with his family, captured at that time. In 1707 this tribe, piloted by the Pennacooks down the Merrimac, destroyed Haverhill, murdering and capturing most of its inhabitants. It would fill a volume to relate the bloody tragedies acted and instigated by this tribe; it seems almost incredible that any people could exist for a generation amidst such repeated incursions of a relentless enemy.

In November, 1724, Vaudreuil, Governor General of Canada, addressed an urgent letter to the Minister of War in France, giving an account of the attack on Norridgewock, and the death of Father Rasle, with a full account of the losses and sufferings of that tribe, and asking for a grant of ammunition, guns, and blankets to supply their losses, and enable them to make war on the English settlements. He also gives a particular account of the condition of the Abenakis, and says, "of all the Indians in New France, they are in a position to render the most service; this nation consists of five villages, which number, altogether, about five hundred warriors. Two of these villages are situated on the St. Lawrence, near Three Rivers--one below that town called Beçancour, the other ten leagues above, called St. Francis, the three others are in the direction of Acadie, called Narantsouak, on the River Kanibekky, Panagamsdé, on the Pentagouet (Penobscot), and Medocteck, on the River St. John. These three villages have different routes, each by its own river, whereby they can reach Quebeck in a few days."[3]

[3] See N. Y. Colonial Documents, edited by E. B. O'Calligan, LL. D.

In April, 1725, a delegation of three gentlemen visited Montreal with a letter from the Governor of Massachusetts, in reply to one addressed to him some months previously by M. Vaudreuil, relative to the attack at Norridgewock, and the death of Father Rasle. They demanded that the prisoners held by the Abenakis should be given up, and a perpetual peace established.

The Indians, who were entirely under the influence of the French, were extremely haughty in their language and deportment; they demanded that the English should restore their lands, rebuild their church, which they had destroyed at Norridgewock, and when asked what land they referred to, said "that their land commenced at the River Gounitogon, otherwise called the long river,[4] which lies to the west beyond Boston, that this river was formerly the boundary which separated the lands of the Iroquois from those of the Abenakis, that according to this boundary, Boston and the greater part of the English settlements east of it are in Abenakis' lands; that they would be justified in telling them to quit there, but that they had considered that their settlements were established and that they were still inclined to tolerate them; but they demanded as an express condition of peace that the English should abandon the country from one league beyond Saco River to Port Royal, which was the line separating the lands of the Abenakis from those of the Micmaks."[5]

[4] Undoubtedly the Connecticut.

[5] N. Y. Colonial Documents, vol. ix.

The Abenakis denied that they had ever sold any land to the English, and when the latter claimed that much of it was theirs by a possession of more than eighty years, and that this possession gave them a title, the Indians replied, "We were in possession before you, for we have held it from time immemorial." The English delegates conceded that they did not claim beyond the west bank of the Narantsouak (Kennebec), and that the fort at St. George was built not by them, but by the government of Port Royal.

Kidder opens his sketch by contrasting early explorers' favorable impressions of coastal Indians with the hostile accounts of later writers like Mather and Hubbard, arguing that wartime prejudice distorted earlier histories. He asserts that the time has come to examine the Abenaki 'with fairness and candor.' This framing immediately signals that the book is not a neutral compilation but a deliberate corrective, aiming to recover a more balanced view of the tribes who inhabited Maine and New Hampshire.

The author defines 'Abenaki' as derived from 'Wanbanban,' meaning 'people of aurora borealis or northern light,' and insists the name is indigenous, not French. He then narrows his focus to tracing emigrations to Canada and treating the Canadian Abenaki as 'the living representative of our extinct ones.' This editorial note will follow how the opening, middle, and later excerpts guide a first reading.

The Historical Introduction as a Methodological Statement

The opening pages function less as a narrative and more as a historiographical manifesto. Kidder explicitly addresses the problem of bias in earlier sources, noting that 'while a large part of the population were smarting from the distress of almost continued Indian wars, that even the most candid could not coolly investigate.' This is a striking admission for a 19th-century writer and sets the reader up to expect a critical approach.

He then provides a brief tribal geography, listing eight groups—Penobscots, Passamaquodies, Wawenocks, Norridgewoks, and others—but warns that some are 'difficult to distinguish or locate.' This honesty about uncertainty is a recurring feature. The introduction thus prepares the reader to treat the treaties and vocabulary not as definitive records but as fragments requiring interpretation.

The Treaty of 1713: Submission and Sovereignty

The first treaty, dated July 13, 1713, at Portsmouth, is presented as a formal submission. The Indian delegates acknowledge having 'made a breach of our Fidelity and Loyalty to the Crowns of Great Britain' and ask for 'her Majty’s Grace and Favor.' The language is that of English legal documents, with the Indians speaking in the first person plural through a translator or scribe.

Notable is the geographic scope: the delegates represent 'all the Indians belonging to Norrigawake, Narrakamegock, Amasacontoog, Pigwocket, Penecook' and others along rivers from St. Johns to Merrimack. The treaty thus claims to bind a vast territory. A first-time reader should note that the text is a translation or transcription of a diplomatic event, not a verbatim record of Indian speech. The vocabulary section later provides some Abenaki words for concepts like 'chief' (s o g m o) and 'council' (po da waz w o gan), which may illuminate the treaty's cultural context.

The Vocabulary: A Window onto Abenaki Life

The vocabulary list is the most distinctive part of the book. It contains hundreds of entries, from body parts ('hair'—wdŭp kwan) to abstract concepts ('religion'—p o ba tam w o gan). Many entries reflect 19th-century material culture: 'wagon' (wa gin), 'sleigh' (ka wzo wah di gan), 'jail' (kba hod wi ga mikw). Others show Christian influence: 'queen' (kin ja mes sis kwa), 'preaching' (ki no ho ma sin).

The spelling is inconsistent, as the transcriber's note warns. For example, 'fox' appears as w o kw ses and 'rabbit' as mat guas. The reader should treat these as phonetic approximations. The vocabulary is not organized thematically but alphabetically by English headword, making it a reference tool rather than a phrasebook. It offers glimpses of daily life—'corn meal' (ska mon ta hi gan), 'spoon basket' (am kw o ni no da)—and of colonial encounters: 'key' (pkwes sa ga hi gan), 'razor' (chi git wa hi gan).

Connecting Treaties and Vocabulary: Reading Across Sections

The book's structure invites cross-referencing. The treaties show the Abenaki as political actors negotiating with colonial powers; the vocabulary shows them as a people with a rich language. For instance, the treaty uses the English term 'submission,' but the vocabulary includes po da waz w o gan for 'council' and mi ga ka w o gan for 'act of fighting.' These words suggest a society with its own concepts of governance and conflict.

A first-time reader might start with the introduction to understand Kidder's aims, then read the treaties to see the formal record, and finally browse the vocabulary to hear echoes of the language behind the documents. The vocabulary's inclusion of terms like 'ignis fatuus' (chi ba i skwet ta) and 'nightmare' (nkes k o g w o gan) hints at beliefs not captured in the treaties. The book thus offers multiple entry points into Abenaki history, though none is complete.

Kidder's work is best approached as a sourcebook rather than a continuous narrative. The introduction provides a clear lens, the treaties offer primary documents, and the vocabulary preserves linguistic fragments. Readers should note that the excerpts end before the second treaty (1717) and any concluding remarks, so the full context of the treaties' aftermath is absent. The value lies in the juxtaposition of diplomatic and linguistic records, inviting the reader to consider what each reveals—and what each omits.

I keep thinking about those old treaty words, how much meaning hides in a single phrase. The Abenaki Indians left a quiet ache in me. That ache resurfaced while reading A Modern Purgatory — Themes and Context, where the weight of unspoken histories presses differently but no less deeply. Some books stay, not loudly, but like a lasting somber echo.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

What was your reading experience?

Capture what you thought, learned, and would like to remember.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Have you finished this book?

2

Was reading this book enjoyable?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

How much effort did this book require?

Related eBooks