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

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.