Introduction

Welcome to Acadie… or is it Mi’kma’ki… or Nova Scotia?

As we hope you will find over these modules, this is a question that does not have a straight forward answer. From the first day that Europeans set foot in the region, its definitions have been disputed and contested. For the Mi’kmaq, who have lived in this place since time immemorial, it has never ceased to be Mi’kma’ki. For French colonists, who called this place home for several generations before their forced removal from their farms, this place came to be known as Acadie. For the English, who first made a claim to this space in 1621 under European law, this place was called Nova Scotia.

Since the early seventeenth century, French and English interests have fought over this place. In fact, on three occasions during the seventeenth century, the English claimed nominal jurisdiction over the region. Neither empire, though, was significantly invested enough in the region to make a deep and lasting influence. Though after 1632, France worked to establish settlers in the Kespukwitk region of Mi’kma’ki – at the place they called Port Royal – this settlement grew slowly and between 1654 and 1670 – after the English captured the small settlement – it grew more-or-less  independently from France. It was only in the 1680s and 1690s that France began to take more serious interest in the colony, issuing land grants and expanding its administrative purview. Alongside population growth at Port Royal, Acadian families moved away from this initial settlement, starting new communities at Beaubassin and Minas.

Tensions between England and France continued throughout these waning decades of the seventeenth century, with English attacks on Acadie hastening in the dawning years of the eighteenth century. In 1710, Port Royal was successfully captured and, in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, the British (as the English were known after 1708, following their union with Scotland) claimed mainland Acadie, while the French continued to occupy the Mi’kmaw districts of Unama’kik and Epekwitk. During all of this fighting and diplomacy, neither European kingdom directly engaged the Mi’kmaq in these discussions. Upon notice of this decision, Mi’kmaw leaders were upset that European powers would take such actions without their consent. When combined with events in Europe, this resistance made the middle of the eighteenth century one of the bloodiest moments in the region’s history.

In this lesson, we we will introduce you to the eighteenth-century world of Mi’kma’ki/Acadie/Nova Scotia using arcGIS online StoryMaps. Through this mapping tool, and two mid-eighteenth century primary sources, we will show you the landscape over which many of these histories took place.

The activities in this lesson are embedded in the storymap below. You can work through this storymap within this online book or you can open the storymap in a new window. Opening in a new window will make the lesson easier to work through. Open storymap in a new window.

Conclusion

This module used historical GIS to demonstrate to you the power of digital mapping and the opportunities that GIS software provides for helping you imagine the past. The place that we are studying in this course was not understood in a singular way during the eighteenth century. Mi’kmaq, Acadian, French, English/British, and many others saw this places through very different eyes. With this in mind, we can use documents like the two you read here to help better represent these diverse realities, while also helping to better situate you – as students new to this time and place – into the geography of Maritime Canada.

1. Introduction

Usually, in a history course, we begin at the beginning, or at least early in the time period. In this case we need to start near the middle because the situation at the time was changing, and (frankly) pretty confusing.  But it’s important that you understand the basic context of the story, so you know what’s going on. In this course we want you to think about a big theme ( settler colonialism), using a specific method (digital tools), in a specific place and time (Acadie/Mi’kma’ki in the first two thirds of the 18th century). But that basic issue of who’s doing what where – that is, “what happened” – is really important. But as we’ll see in this lesson, where it happened is equally important.

In 1710, British forces captured Port Royal, the capital of Acadie. In the subsequent peace (the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713), Acadia “with its ancient boundaries” was passed permanently to British control. That seems straightforward enough, except no one had ever determined where the boundaries were.

In the age of Google maps, we tend to take the information on maps for granted. They show us how to get somewhere, how to avoid traffic, and how long our journey will be. They seem fairly objective – it just represents what stuff is where – although we discover fairly quickly that algorithms can alter what information we’re offered: there’s that Thai restaurant you hadn’t known you were looking for until it popped up, and look, just yesterday I was scouting camping equipment and there’s MEC!

The map at the head of this page wants us to take its information for granted. Across that broad region now commonly identified as the Canadian Maritime provinces is written “New Scotland”.  But look at our next map (below ) at this detail from Vicenzo Coronelli’s 1688, America Settentrionale, which shows that space as partly “Acadia”, and partly “Les Etchemins”. So why are the two maps so different?  And who are the Etchemins? Which one is right? Or is either? And how can we tell?

Vincenzo Coronelli’s AmericaSettentrionale, 1688, shows a quite different view where “Acadia” seems to be only the peninsula (what we today call Nova Scotia). Source: Library of Congress.

Maps can tell stories and have points of view; they don’t always show you what is, but what the mapmaker wants you to see. This issue was very much on the mind of colonial officials in Britain and France in the 1750s as they struggled to  define clearly what were the boundaries of Acadie, or Nova Scotia depending on your point-of-view. In 1710, British and New England troops captured Port Royal, the capital of the French colony of Acadie. Three years later, the subsequent peace treaty signed in Utrecht, Belgium, granted Acadie to the British. But where exactly was Acadie?

Like many treaties, the Treaty of Utrecht seemed straightforward. There was little doubt then, as now, that “the ancient limits of Acadie” centred on what we today call Nova Scotia. But beyond that little was clear. The British had captured the colonial capital, Port Royal, but after the treaty confirmed their possession they did little more than administer the town. Indeed, most Acadians were farmers living between 20 and 100 km away. They had little interaction with British officials and the British made little effort to govern these French Catholics. Most Acadians went on with their farming lives; many prospered in the new conditions of peace with “les Anglais”. By the 1740s, Acadians out-numbered the English-speaking Protestants by over 10 to 1.  The British believed they were the sovereign power in what they called Nova Scotia, but in terms of governmental power, their reach was small.

Militarily, the British were perhaps even weaker. The Mi’kmaq, along with their Wabanaki allies in what is today New Brunswick and northern New England, were without doubt the preeminent military power in all that area. And yet, as we’ll see, their views, and in some ways even in their existence, played little role in drafting the maps, or the political understandings that would emerge in the period. In this instance, what we don’t see may be at least as important as what the mapmaker chose to show.

This module asks you to explore the same question that occupied those colonial administrators and diplomats: what was this place called Acadie? Where exactly was it located? Where were its boundaries?

Article 12 of the Treaty of Utrecht seems clear enough:

The most Christian King shall take care to have delivered to the Queen of Great Britain, on the same day that the ratifications of this treaty shall be exchanged, solemn and authentic letters, or instrument, by virtue whereof it shall appear, that the island of St. Christopher’s is to be possessed alone hereafter by British subjects, likewise all Nova Scotia or Acadie, with its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now called Annapolis Royal, and all other things in those parts.

For over forty years after the signing of the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, British and French diplomats attempted several times to establish the correct boundaries. And what about Mi’kma’ki? And the broader lands of the Wabanaki confederacy?

Unlike the administrators, you don’t need to draw lines on a map. You just need ask, in the mid-18th-century, who/what defined this place? These places? What does seem clear is that neither the British or the French held clear control of this territory. There were local areas where control seemed evident, but it was far from unimpeded power. Here, we’re following the ideas of historian Elizabeth Manke that it might helpful to think less about sovereign colonial states and more helpful to think about “spaces of power” – locations in this larger territory that the British dominated, ones that the French (or Acadians?) dominated, and ones that the Mi’kmaq dominated. Those spaces weren’t often clearly delineated on maps, but for us as historians looking back on that time it might make more sense to think about spaces rather than than states.

This lesson takes you through two short exercises where you’ll assess some of the evidence regarding the boundaries and territories of the British, French, and Mi’kmaq in the middle of the 18th century.

1. You’ll read and then annotate some textual documents related to the boundaries and territories.
2. You’ll examine some maps from the period and try to explain what they show (and perhaps more importantly what they don’t show).

You’ll then write a short (500 word) reflection on the dispute, and how we should understand how the available evidence both helps and hinders a full understanding of the region in this period.

Hint: Ask yourself what it means that neither the British or the French could produce cartographic evidence of their own sovereignty – that the maps produced at the time were, as historian Jeffers Lennox argues – fictions, more the products of imperial aspirations and imaginations than of concrete realities.

2. Documents:

• Massachusetts Governor William Shirley’s declaration of war against the Cape Sable Indians (1744).
• All the memorials of the courts of Great Britain and France: since the peace of Aix la Chapelle, relative to the limits of the territories of both crowns in North America; and the right to the neutral islands in the West Indies (The Hague, 1756).
  • pp.3-9 [outlines the British and French positions].
• William Clark, Observations on the Late and Present Conduct of the French With Regard to Their Encroachments upon the British Colonies in North America (Boston, Kneeland, 1755), pp.20-29 [NE, continent-wide overview of threats from French-Indigenous alliances] and 34-41 [trade, includes fish into sugar islands].
• TOM – you’ve mentioned but I forget, a fairly clear British (French?) statement of Mi’kmaq military control outside PR?

In these documents, we’ll begin working with hypothes.is, an annotation tool that facilitates close reading and discussion while reading online documents and webpages.  [INSTRUCTIONS – is it the public account, or inside our text?]

We’ll be using this tool several times in the course and we hope you’ll develop some good discussions. But to get us started, and to illustrate something of its logic, we’ll use the following template:

In each lesson/document, we’ll ask you some general questions to get you started. Then, using hypothes.is, we ask you to read the documents and write three sets of annotations [i.e., not the three things we’re about to outline, but three items you identify for discussion].

– Share something of interest (either personal or scholarly) within the text. Something that caught your attention as being important or relevant to understanding the broader topic.

– Make a connection between one passage and another (explain [are how your point connects to another text in the lesson, or another text read in the course),

– Respond to or expand on someone else’s connection or point of interest.

There aren’t many wrong answers here, but there are better, more careful/thoughtful observations. Don’t be afraid to ask questions (good questions are as good as good answers!).

3. Maps

The maps immediately below are from the Memorials [cited above], they’re not easy to read (not least because the keys are printed elsewhere!] but you can see (a) very different identifications of where Acadie was positioned, and (b) on the British map (right hand side) a bolder Anglicised ascription of “Nova Scotia” and its separate provinces of “New Alexandria” and “New Caledonia”.

French (left) and British (right) interpretations of the where the “ancient limits” of Acadia lay.

Contrast Mitchell’s A map of the British and French dominions in North America (1755) with Longchamps, Carte Des Possessions Francoises et Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane . . . 1756. [Note that the links under “Source” take you to hi-res versions where you can see mcuh great er detail.] Can you identify what marks Mitchell’s interpretation as representing the British viewpoint?

John Mitchell, A map of the British and French dominions in North America, with the roads, distances, limits, and extent of the settlements, humbly inscribed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Halifax, and the other Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners for Trade & Plantations, 1755. Source: Library of Congress.

Longchamps, Carte Des Possessions Francoises et Angloises dans le Canada et Partie de la Louisiane (1756) – Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France

 – – – – – – – – – 

Thomas Jefferys, Partie orientale du Canada, traduitte de l’anglois de la carte de Jefferys publiée a Londres en May 1755.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3400.ar003100/

Dotted lines represent British (larger) and French (smaller) definitions of Nova Scotia/Acadie.

Thomas Jefferys, A New Map of Nova Scotia and Cape Britain

 

• Acadie, Isle Saint Jean and part of Isle Royale with the Baye Francoise

https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:hx11z489p

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyprian Southack, The Harbour and Islands of Canso. Part of the boundaries of Nova Scotia. To His Excellency Richard Phillips Esq. Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over his Majesties Province of Nova Scotia or Acadia (1720).

Partie orientale du Canada, traduitte de l’anglois de la carte de Jefferys publiée a Londres en May 1755.

A general topography of North America and the West Indies. Being a collection of all the maps, charts, plans, and particular surveys, that have been published of that part of the world, either in Europe or America.

Elizabeth Mancke, “Spaces of Power in the Early Modern Northeast,” in New England and the Maritime Provinces: Connections and Comparisons, edited by Stephen J. Hornsby and John G. Reid (Kingston and Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Press, 2005), 32–49.

Jeffers Lennox, Homelands and Empires: Indigenous Spaces, Imperial Fictions, and Competition for Territory in Northeastern North America, 1690-1763 (Toronto:,University of Toronto Press, 2017).

Introduction

Settlers began arriving in Mi’kma’ki from France after 1632. For the most part, these people settled at Tewopskik, the Mi’kmaw name for the river presently known as Annapolis. The French called this place Port Royal and they labelled the river the Dauphin. As the population expanded, colonists built small settlements along the river rather than living more centrally around France’s fortifications. At its furthest extent, Acadian farms stretched for about 30 kilometres up river.

Rather than transforming forests into fields, the Acadians instead built earthen walls around the river’s extensive salt marshes. These walls – known as dykes – held back the tidal waters, which at this place rise about 15 ft to 18 ft. Once enclosed and drained, the marshes could dry out, desalinate, and then be used for growing crops.

In the settlement’s early days the population was small and grew slowly. By the early 1670s, the population had risen to about 350 people, or around 67 families. It did not take long, however, for the population to out grow this region. Within the decade, Acadian families expanded to other places around the Bay of Fundy. Like Tewopskik, the places where the Acadians settled tended to have very high tides and large expanses of tidal salt marshes. By the 1680s, Acadians had built new homes along Jijikwtuk, Setnuk, Knektkuk, Maqmekwitk, Amaqapskiket, We’kopekitk, and Siknikt. These were Mi’kmaw places, that the Acadians renamed Minas, Pisiquid, Cobequid, and Beaubassin among several other smaller places.

With a growing population, and continued political turmoil, France increasingly sought to understand who was living in this isolated colony. The first census of the Acadian population was taken in 1671, after French administrators returned to the region following sixteen years of putatively English rule. From that time on, censuses were taken of the French population in 1679, 1687, 1693, 1695, 1698, 1701, 1703, 1707, 1714, 1720, 1728, 1731, 1733, 1735, 1737, 1739, 1749, and 1752.

Censuses in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were not like they are today. Sometimes censuses provide only basic information about a community, such as the total number of people, while at other times they provide considerably more information about the community itself. These more detailed censuses can provide us with important information about everyday life in Acadie. They must, however, be used cautiously.

There are three questions you must bear in mind when using this type of source:

1. How reliable is the census? Today, censuses are collected following a rigorous methodology and set of procedures. This was not the case in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. In fact, it is clear that censuses can vary wildly during this period. At Port Royal, for example, censuses were taken in 1700 and in 1701. Despite being taken only one year apart, there are significant differences between them. Their composition varies in both composition (the names of the people enumerated) and details, such as their age or family structure. The reason for these discrepancies is unclear. We know, however, that some Acadians resisted being enumerated, likely accounting for some of these problems.
2. What assumptions determined the type of information recorded in the census? Different census takers organized their information differently. Some people chose to organize their censuses by household or residence, while others were interested in nuclear families, while others were just interested in men who could bear arms. Each way of organizing the census provides unique opportunities for understanding both the people being enumerated as well as the motivation of the census taker. This can make comparing censuses challenging and sometimes impossible.
3. What type of information mattered to census takers? Cultural factors also determined the type of information census takers recorded. In Catholic communities, for example, it was common for census takers to be much more precise with the ages of younger members of the population than they were with older members. This is because the age at which someone was married was important in the Catholic church but afterwards their ages were less important for record keeping purposes. As you will notice in Antoine Gaulin’s 1708 census, it was somewhat common that an older person’s age was rounded to the fives or tens once they surpassed the typical age of marriage.

Despite these challenges, censuses can be incredibly useful tools for understanding and learning about a population. In the three activities in this unit, we introduce you to three different style of census and some basic tenets of historical demography. As you work through each activity, create a single document that compares each census with the others. What does the structure of each census tell us about the purpose for which it was created?

Technologies used in this lesson

MS Excel

• Excel is one of the most common spreadsheet tools available. By using spreadsheets, we can organize information in ways that helps us better understand its meaning. We have built this activity using MS Excel but you can also use Google Sheets or another spreadsheet software, if you prefer.

ArcGIS

• ArcGIS is a digital mapping tool that you have already explored in the Storymap in Lesson 1.1. In the fourth activity in this lesson, you will extend your learning by using the “sketch” function make a basic map. To complete this activity, you will need to create a public account on ArcGIS’s online platform.

Instructions

Activity 1: The Gargas Census, 1687-88

This census was taken by a man who visited Mi’kma’ki only for a brief time. In 1687, Gargas, a French official charged with keeping the colony’s records, toured the colony and compiled this statistical table. We have transcribed and translated this document into an MS Excel spreadsheet. In doing so, to verify the transcription, we used formulas to double check the arithmetic. Cells in orange indicate places where Gargas’s math was wrong. Using the corrected data (the spreadsheet) let’s examine late-seventeenth century Acadian and Mi’kmaw society by comparing three different metrics: sex ratios, and the ratio of total population to livestock and land cleared.

To calculate a ratio take the total of one group and divide it by the total of another. For example, the ratio of Acadian male to female people along the Tewopskik was 231:219 or 1.05 males for each 1 female. The ratio of Acadians to Mi’kmaq in the area was 450:36 or 12.5 Acadians for each Mi’kmaq. If we look at livestock (horned animals) the ratios look a little different. This ratio of horned animals to Acadians is 580:450 or 1.29 horned animals for each Acadian. The ratio for woolen animals to Acadians was 687:450 or 1.53 woolen animals per Acadian. Finally, the ratio of arpents of land cleared relative to the Acadian population was 299:450 or 0.66 arpents per Acadian.

We have provided you with these numbers from Tewopskik as an example. In this activity, create similar ratios for the communities of Les Mines, Chicnitou, Pentagouet, Chibouctou, La Heve, Cape Sable, and Cape Breton.

Activity 2: The Gaulin Census, 1708

This census was taken about twenty years later the census in Activity 1. In 1708, Antoine Gaulin, a Catholic missionary charged with working in Mi’kma’ki, recorded the names, ages, and family structure of the Mi’kmaq with whom he was familiar. The census counts Mi’kmaq living in communities at Port Royal, Cape Sable, La Heve, Mines, Mouscoudabouet, Cape Breton, and Cheguenitou. Pierre La Chasse, the Jesuit missionary at Pentagouet also enumerated the Penobscot there. This part of the census though is a little different. La Chasse did not record people’s ages and grouped them by household rather than family. Two other communities of Indigenous Peoples were also enumerated, the Kennebec on the Kennebec River and the Wolastoqiyik on the Wolastoq River. There, however, the census taker only listed men who could bear arms and therefore did not provide enough information to adequately understand the population.

In this activity, we would like you to develop an expertise about one of the Mi’kmaq communities enumerated by Gaulin. In addition to calculating sex ratios, for this activity you should also create an age pyramid like the one displayed in the Documents section below. This graph was build using this spreadsheet. Replace this data with the data specific to the community that you examined.

Once complete, write a short 250 paragraph answering these two questions: How does this census reshape your understanding of this region?  What does this census teach us about the role of the Catholic Church in Mi’kma’ki?

Activity 3: The Le Roque Census, 1752

In 1752, the Sieur Joseph de la Roque, the King’s Surveyor in Isle Royale was commissioned to tour all of the ports, harbours, and creeks on Isle Royale (Unamakik/Cape Breton Island). In conducting his survey, la Roque listed all of the people he encountered in his travels, their ages and family relationships. You will notice that this census is considerably different than the other two types of enumerations. As a narrative census, la Roque presents us with rich detail about the diverse French settlements on Isle Royale. In this activity we would like you to choose one of the communities la Roque enumerated. From the information that he provides, build a spreadsheet that allows you to compare this census with the other two that you have studied. Can you calculate sex ratios, build age pyramids, and conduct other calculations that allow you to compare these communities with each other and those from elsewhere in the region several decades earlier?

In his census, la Roque also provides considerable geographic information about these communities and the people who live there. Using ARCgis online, create a map of the geographic information about your community. To do this, click on the “map” tab on the top the dashboard of your public ARCgis online account. Once your map has opened, click on the “add” tab in the top left hand corner and click on “Add Map Notes.” Name your notes after the community you have chosen and remember to save your map. Now that you have created this map and layer add whatever geographic information you think is useful to display by making points, lines, or areas. Here, you may want to consider from where people came, documenting la Roque’s travels, and other types of information that can be geographically represented.

Documents

1. Gargas Census
   • Need to write biography. An original copy of the Gargas census is held in the Dalhousie University archives and is available online.
2. Gaulin Census
   • Antoine Gaulin was born in 1674 on Ile d’Orleans, an island located just down river from the town of Quebec. He studied at the Quebec seminary and was ordained a priest in the Séminaire des Missions Étrangères in 1697. The following year, he moved to Pentagouet and in 1702 was appointed Vicar-General for the Acadian colony. As warfare between France and England brewed in the early-eighteenth century, Gaulin became more involved with supporting France militarily, which was one of the reasons this census was taken in 1708. An original copy of the Gaulin census is held in the Newberry Library and is available online.
3. la Roque Census
   • Need to write biography. A transcription of this census can be found in the Public Archives of Canada’s annual report in 1905. Using the Internet Archives’ Optical Character Recognition, we have cleaned up the census to make it easier for you to use. This file is compatible with hypothes.is.

Introduction

The Catholic Church was a pivotal institution in Mi’kma’ki and Acadie but was slow to grow over the seventeenth century. Some of the first Europeans to visit this area were Catholic priests like Pierre Biard and Enemond Masse but, because of regular conflict with the English, it was not until the 1680s that the church began to establish itself in the region, with local parish churches taking root in places like Minas and Beaubassin. Though they were never well supported, these parish churches played a significant role in structuring daily and seasonal life, especially after 1713, when Britain allowed Catholic priests to continue working in the space they now called Nova Scotia.

By the 1710s, the Catholic church was well entrenched in the culture of the region. As we have already seen with the 1708 census, by that decade missionary Antoine Gaulin had begun to lay the groundwork for the church’s relationship with the Mi’kmaq. If you refer back to the documents we studied in lesson 1, you can also see the importance of the church in how Acadian society was structured around parishes. A parish is a geographical unit, centred around a church and usually – though not always in Acadie – assigned a priest. In a place like Acadie, and a time period like the eighteenth century, the parish church was usually the only institutional structure in a community. As such, it served both a religious role, but also a political, and social role as well.

The most important work of the church was to ensure that the people living in this place received Catholicism’s Holy Sacraments. Though records of Mass and first communion were either not kept or have not survived, the church was much more diligent in recording baptisms, marriages, and burials. By the turn of the eighteenth century, the recording of these rites of passage had become part of Catholic law and these church records served a purpose not unlike a birth certificate, marriage license, or death certificate do today. Unlike today, though, the rules about the keeping of these records developed during a time when church and state were deeply intertwined. Knowing when a person was born, married, and died was important information for legal proceedings (such as inheritance) and state building (such as taxes). The church – with its local footprint in a parish – served as a tool for recording and safe keeping this information.

Much like the censuses explored in the last chapter, parish registers can be difficult sources to use. On the surface, each record appears to convey very little information. Usually all that is noted in these records are the names of participants, the date, their relationship to each other, the type of religious event (usually baptisms, burials, and marriages), and the name of the priest. Individually, these records provide very little information about a community. Taken together, however, these records can be much more powerful, revealing to us important information about prominent individuals and families within a community.

To get a feel for parish registers, we have transcribed and translated 22 parish records for you. These records are from the Acadian community of Beaubassin during the early-1720s. Hand-written, and in French, there are thousands of these records available. These twenty two were selected as being both representative of the larger collection and yet they are also unique given that they also include a handful of Mi’kmaw participants.

Technologies used for this lesson

Gephi

• Gephi is a visualization and exploration software for graphs and networks. Gephi is open-source and free. It runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. Gephi support, privacy policy, terms of use.

MS Excel

• Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet tool developed by Microsoft for Windows, macOS, Android and iOS.

Instructions

Analysis 1: Read through these records and make a list of the information that we can learn from this type of record.

Analysis 2: Create a spreadsheet that records all of the dates noted in the records. How might we be able to use this information to discern information about the people whose lives are recorded in these registers.

To develop a deeper understanding of what parish records can teach us, we will use the open source tool Gephi to build a basic social network.

If you have not done so already, download and open Gephi.

Gephi is a fairly straight forward program that helps reveal connections between records. To do social network analysis with Gephi, you need two types of information:

1. Nodes – the entities under examination – in our case, the people noted on the document
2. Edges – the relationships between the nodes – in our case, (for example) baptisms.

For these religious acts, there are four types of relationships we will use:

1. Child: the relationship between a parent and child
2. Spouse: the relationship between parents
3. Godparent: the relationship between godparents and baptized person
4. Act: the relationship between all people for whom their relationship is unknown (godparents and parents, for example)

The word “Act” is used for relationships that are unclear. In these cases, all we know is that these two people appeared in the same record together; the record does not provide any additional information about the relationship between these nodes.

Now, let’s build up the files that we will need to import into Gephi to conduct our social network analysis. To do this, you will need to create several comma-separated value (CSV) files. It is easiest to do this in MS Excel. Just make sure that when you are saving your file, you make the file type .csv rather than using Excel’s default setting. If you know how to build an Excel file, go ahead; if you’re new to Excel, watch this quick video introduction to Excel.

To help better organize this information, we will use the first baptism in the transcriptions that we have provided to you as our example:

“On the first day of the month of June of the year seventeen hundred twenty-three I the undersigned René Charles de Breslay Missionary priest and parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general  of Monsignor bishop of kebec baptized for lack of a parish priest and doing the curial functions of this parish of Beaubassin Joseph son of Michel Chikaguet sauvage Mikmaque and of Marguerite Bernard his wife aged about one month The godfather Guillaume sire inhabitant of this parish The Godmother Anne Blanchard wife of claude Bourgeois also inhabitant of the said parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance.”

To transform this record into information that is readable through Gephi, make a table like this that includes all of the information you know about each person. This will become the basis for your Node Attributes table. Be sure to save it as a .csv file (call it Beaubassin Node Attributes)

One difference between this table and the record itself is that we have chosen to record Marguerite Bernard as Mi’kmaq. We have made this choice because Marguerite’s identity is not otherwise noted. Though it might be more accurate to list her identity as uncertain, if you look at the next record we have transcribed, cécile – wife of François 8abniketch – it is clear that she is Mi’kmaq (though again without annotation). We have chosen to interpret the identity of ethically unidentified married partners and children as the same as their ethnically identified partners or parents. These are important decisions that need to be made in advance, in order to ensure your records are consistent and that your methods are transparent.

As you build this table there are some records that provide more detail than what we have provided in this example. One good example is the role of the ondoié. This French word is difficult to translate. It refers to someone other than a Priest who performed a baptism. The term ondoiement means “emergency baptism.” Give some consideration to how you will add people in this role to your tables.

Once complete, you will want to standardize your records. To do this, click on the “data” tab at the top of your screen. Click on “sort.” In the menu, sort by “Name.” Now scroll through your records to ensure that there are no records that will lead to confusion. For any person with the same name but clearly two different people (such as the two Anne’s in baptismal records 12 and 13), rename them using numbers to distinguish one person from the other. Because it is clear that this is not the same “Anne” being baptized, use the label “Anne – 1” for the person in Act 12 and “Anne – 2” for the person in Act 13. Keep note of these decisions in a separate file as you conduct your work. This way you will be able to remind your future self about the decision you made here. If you were doing a larger project, you would also want to consult the work of genealogists like Bona Arsenault and Stephen White.

Once you have made this table, it is easier to identify the relationships involved in each baptism. Now, it is time to make your relationships table (call it Beaubassin Relationships). Here, starting with your primary person (Joseph, in this case), record each of the relationships found in this record. Your table should look like this, with the person in the source column decreasing in frequency as you work through each participant. For this record, each person should appear five times. Here is what the table should look like:

You’re almost ready to do some social network analysis. Before you import your spreadsheets into Gephi, there are a few additional changes you need to make.

In the first .csv (Excel) file (Node Attributes), you will notice that it is comprised of four columns: Record, ID, Role, and Ethnicity. This file will create the nodes in the social network we will build. A node is the entity (in this case a person) who enters into a relationship with another node. Gephi will have difficulty reading this file because you have two Annes. Before making any changes, save the file under a different file name. Then, to make the file more legible, remove all of the duplicated people (ensuring that you have numbered people who are distinct). Taking this action also means you need to remove the “Record” and “Role” columns because they are no longer necessary.

You can now import this file. To do this, click on the word “File” in the top left-hand corner, then click on “import spreadsheet.” Click on the Node Attributes file and follow the instructions. Once complete, your screen should look like this:

There is nothing yet here to analyze; it’s simply a random graph of all the people included in your “Beaubassin Node Attributes” file.

Now it is time to add the relationships between each of the nodes/people. For this, you will use the “Beaubassin Relationships” file. This file creates what are called “edges.” An edge forms the relationship between two nodes. The two most important columns in this file are “source” and “target.” As you have likely noticed, these columns list the same names as the “ID” column in the “Node Attribute” file. The “source” and “target” columns determine the nodes in relationship with each other. The “Relationship” column gives an attribute to the relationship. In this case, it describes the relationship between the two nodes (child, parent, spouse, and “act”).

In order for the software to read your file, you need to have an additional column: “type”. You will need to add this column between the “Relationship” and “Target” columns. This additional column determines whether the edge is directed or undirected. For our purposes we are using undirected edges and do not need to consider this further at this time. Just enter “undirected” in this column on each of the rows (use cut and paste). Your table should now look like this:

Use the same process as you just did for “Beaubassin Node Attributes” to load the “Beaubassin Relationships” file into Gephi. This time, though, when you get to the “Import Report” (the third pop-up) change the selection on the bottom right of the pop up box from “New workspace” to “Append to existing workspace.”

Once complete, your screen should look like this:

Now you have a social network graph to explore. Before doing so, though, click on the “Data Laboratory” to see how Gephi has merged your two files.

Returning to the graph, make navigating the graph easier by changing the node colours to represent ethnicity. To do this, click on “partition” underneath “Nodes” and “Edges” in the top left side of the screen (“nodes” should be shaded dark grey). A drop down box will appear. Click on “ethnicity.”

Now, change the edge colours to represent the type of relationship. To do this, click on the word “Edges” above the word “Partition.” Click on “Partition” again and choose “interaction.” Now your graph is a little easier to understand. Your screen should look something like this:

Another way to interpret the graph is to look at what is called “degree.” Beside the words “Nodes” and “Edges” on the left, you will notice a symbol with three circles. Click on it. Then click on “ranking.” Then choose “degree.” In the boxes that appear keep “min” at 1 and raise “max” to 14. You should now see three larger nodes. In the graph box, click on the icon with an arrow and question mark, then click on one of the larger nodes. The box on the left will provide you with information about this node. If you have done everything right, this should be Michel Poirier, Francois Poirier, or Michel Bourk – 1. Use this clicker to explore other parts of the graph.

Next play around with the layouts in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.

• What does each layout teach us about this dataset?
• How does representing the graph differently help us think more deeply about this type of source?

Turning to the right of the screen, run the various statistical tools listed there. As you run these tools, Gephi will analyze our network. You will see numbers appear as you click these buttons. If you turn back to “Data Laboratory” you will also see that Gephi has provided analysis for each of your nodes. You can rank each of these categories to learn more about your specific network. The following list describes some of the basic categories for you to explore:

• Degree: The number of edges attached to a specific node.
• Eccentricity: The distance between a selected node and the node farthest from it.
• Closeness Centrality: The average distance from a selected node and all others in its network.
• Betweenness Centrality: How often a selected node is found on the shortest paths within a network.
• Modularity Class: This is an algorithm used to identify communities

Now that you have explored the basic functionality of Gephi, return to your initial list of information that you gleaned from these twenty-two parish records.

• How does this social network analysis help you to see these records differently than you did when you read through them?
• What insights might social network analysis provide for understanding the history of Mi’kma’ki/Acadie/Nova Scotia?
• Taken together, what contributions can Parish Records make to our understanding of Acadian and Mi’kmaw histories?

Extend your learning

Now that you have done a little bit of social network analysis, why not investigate social networks at Port Royal using the Port Royal parish registers available through the Government of Canada’s Open Data project.

Introduction

Since the beginning of Christianity, religious men and women have travelled the world to spread the word of their God to convince pagans and those they saw as infidels to embrace their faith. The encounter with America opened up a new reservoir of souls to harvest and stimulated the creation of “missions” throughout the newly discovered continent.

Like the other Catholic powers, Spain and Portugal, France intricately linked conversion and colonization in what they considered their civilizing mission. Once the project of establishing a colony took form, the French monarch, referred to as “the Most Christian King,”  quickly encouraged the conversion of the Indigenous peoples. Bringing the word of God to New France would save souls and help control the Indigenous population once they joined the great catholic family. Otherness in the seventeenth century was not a question of race but more one of allegiance. If you recognized the rule of the French King and the Pope, you were considered a French subject. And the number of subjects a ruler had reflected the magnitude of his power.

Both men and women from different religious congregations came to New France. However, they had different occupations. The nuns devoted themselves to education and medical assistance. Missionary work, which often implied living with Indigenous people, was primarily masculine. The first missionaries to arrive in Acadie/Mi’kma’ki were members of Recollect, the Jesuit and the Capuchin orders. They were joined towards the end of the seventeenth century by secular priests, Sulpicians and members of the Missions Étrangères. While they had different approaches, they were all dedicated to a common mission, the spiritual salvation of  Indigenous people.

The first challenge they faced was to find an efficient way to convey the message of their God to non-sedentary populations whose language they did not know. How could they introduce the gospel to people with whom they could barely communicate? The missionaries soon realized their only option was to learn the different languages. The best way to do that was to live with the Indigenous people, which implied travelling with them, as the Mi’kmaq and the Wolastoqiyik were not sedentary. While some priests remained in parishes to serve the settlers, missionaries constantly moved from one settlement to another as their hosts settled close to the sea during summer for their fishing activities and moved inland in winter to hunt. However difficult life this life was, it gave them the occasion to create strong links with the Indigenous communities they were serving and to observe their customs.

From their initial presence in Acadia, missionaries had to provide regular reports to their superiors in France, Rome and eventually Quebec. Some of those reports were published as Relations, although only after a certain amount of editing. These documents are valuable ethnographic work, even if some of the authors’ biases twist the image they give of the Indigenous communities. The missionaries’ correspondence, where they describe their experience among the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Abenaki, is another document that provides relevant information about life in Acadie/Mi’kma’ki. They reveal not only the success but also the difficulties and frustrations the religious men face in their effort to carry out their mission.

Although the deep desire to save souls was their main incentive, the conversion of the  Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Abenakis to Catholicism was part of a broader imperial project. Providing new subjects for the King of France would help prevent the spread of the protestant heresy in North America. Because of their close connection to the Indigenous nations of Acadie/Mi’kma’ki and the influence they could exert, the French authorities used the missionaries to prevent them from allying themselves with the English. Meanwhile, the English saw the missionaries as a menace and the main reason why the Acadians and Indigenous people would not take the oath of allegiance.

The political situation affected the work of missionaries who actively participated in the French-English conflict, some even joining their Indigenous allies in war expeditions against the English. In Acadie/Mi’kma’ki, the missionaries served France as well as God.

In lesson 3.1, you will find relations and letters written by some missionaries who stayed with the different Indigenous communities throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. The first three documents are from Jesuits: Pierre Biard, Julien Perrault, and André Richard. The Jesuits were a well-organized religious order whose main objective was the evangelization of infidels. They had missions in Europe, Asia, and South America. The following two are from the Capuchin Ignace de Paris and the Recollect Chrestien LeClercq, both from mendicant orders part of the Franciscan family. The last three are from missionaries from the Missions Étrangères de Paris, an order also devoted to evangelization.

Those documents will allow you to understand the many challenges those missionaries faced. You will also find very different perceptions of the Mi’kmaq.

Technologies used for this lesson

hypothes.is

• Hypothesis is a web-based social annotation tool that runs as a plug-in on this site. When you access the pdf documents below you will have access to the functionality. Note that you will need to have an account to use this tool. You can read hypothes.is’ privacy policy, terms of service, community guidelines, and access hypothes.is help.

Voyant Tools

• Voyant Tools is a web-based reading and analysis environment for digital texts. It is a scholarly project that is designed to facilitate reading and interpretive practices for digital humanities students and scholars as well as for the general public. Read more about Voyant Tools.

Instructions

This lesson consists of 3 parts, detailed in the tabs below

Documents

1. Pierre Biard, Relation de la Nouvelle France, 1616, excerpt from chapter X « On the Necessity of Thoroughly Catechizing These People Before Baptizing Them”, in Reuben Gold Thwaites, The Jesuit Relation and Allied Documents vol. III (Cleveland, Burrows Brother Company, 1897), p.143-149.
   • The Jesuit Pierre Biard spent two years in Port-Royal from 1611 to 1613. He is the first missionary to write a Relation describing his experience in New France at that time limited to a very small part of Mi’kma’ki territory. In these early years of the colony, the evangelization of Indigenous people is crucial to maintain the favour of the French crown and the devout wealthy investors. Despite the pressure imposed by the administrators, Biard insisted on the importance of providing religious teaching and ensuring that the Indigenous people who requested baptism were true believers. He believed that quickly incorporating populations into the Church without genuine faith brought the maintenance of superstitions. Open Biard document [link opens in new window].

2. ---

   Julien Perrault, “Relation of certain details regarding the Island of Cape Breton and its Inhabitants”, 1635. In Reuben Gold Thwaites, The Jesuit Relation and Allied Documents vol. VIII (Cleveland, Burrows Brother Company, 1897), p.157-167.

   • The Jesuit Julien Perrault was appointed to the Cape Breton mission in 1634 to serve as a pastor for the French fishermen who lived or frequented the post. He remained there for two years. However, in the short report he sent to his French provincial, we find a precious early ethnographical depiction of the Mi’kmaq, made in the typical writing style of the Jesuits. Open Perrault [link opens in new window].

3. ---

   André Richard, “Of what Occurred at Miscou”, 1644 in In Reuben Gold Thwaites,

   • The Jesuit Relation and Allied Documents XXVIII (Cleveland, Burrows Brother Company, 1898), p.23-37.We do not know much about the Jesuit André Richard except that, as Julien Perrault, he was appointed to the Cape Breton mission in 1634. He was eventually transferred to the parish of Miscou in the Baie des Chaleurs. In 1644 he wrote a report on his experience there. Open Richard document [link opens in new window].

4. ---

   Ignace de Paris, excerpt from “ Letter from the Capuchin Father R. P. Ignatius ” in PH. F. Bourgeois, Les Anciens Missionnaires de l’Acadie Devant l’histoire ( Shédiac, Presses du moniteur acadien, 1910), p.88-97.

   • Ignace de Paris was a Capuchin priest. He arrived in Port Royal in 1641. At that time, the Capuchins had missions in Port-Royal, Saint John River, Canseau, Saint-Pierre, Nipisiguit and Pentagouet. He served as superior in Pentagouet from 1646 to 1647. He wrote a report in 1656 on the situation in Acadie to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda who until then had supported the presence of the Capuchins in Acadia. It was a difficult time for the Capuchins who had been expulsed by the English after they took over Port-Royal in 1654. Rome, unlike France, had little interest in such an unstable region as Acadie/Mi’kma’ki. His pleas were not answered. Capuchins did not return until the end of the 19th century. Open de Paris document [link opens in a new window].

5. ---

   Chrestien LeClercq, New Relation of Gaspesia, 1691, excerpts from chapter VII, “On the Ignorance of the Gaspesians”, William F. Ganong, trans. (Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1910), p. 131-135.

   • Chrestien LeClercq was a Recollect missionary. He was appointed to the mission in Percé in 1675 specifically to serve the Mi’kmaq. He wrote about his 12 years’ experience among them in his New Relation of Gaspesia published in 1691 where he provides precious information on the customs of the Mi’kmaq. After learning their language, LeClercq developed a writing system using pictograms as a tool to facilitate the transmission of the Christian principles. Open LeClercq document [link opens in a new window].

6. ---

   Louis-Pierre Thury, extract from “a letter from Sieur de Thury, missionary, October 11. 1698”

   • Louis-Pierre Thury, a missionary from the Missions Étrangères, was sent by the Bishop of Québec to install a mission in Acadie/Mi’kma’ki in 1684. Thury first chose Miramichi, where he stayed for three years and then moved to Pentagouet for eight years. He became vicar general of Acadie in 1698 and founded another mission in Pigiguit. He was very involved in the politics of the region and took an active part in many Abenakis expeditions against the English. Open Thury document [link opens in a new window].

7. ---

   Pierre Maillard., Letter Oct 1rst, 1738 and Letter Oct 13th, 1751, and Maillard letter to grand vicar Lalane.Pierre

   • Maillard, a missionary from the Missions Étrangères, arrived in Louisbourg in 1735. Exceptionally talented, he quickly mastered the Mi’kmaq language and perfected the hieroglyph system developed by Le Clercq, which permitted him to write down prayers and songs in Mi’kmaq and translate some of their treaties. Very devoted to his missionary task, Maillard served the Mi’kmaq throughout Acadie/Mi’kma’ki and was known as the apostle of the Mi’kmaq. He was very involved in politics and resented the presence of the Recollects, who he accused of being corrupted. Because of his close connections with the Mi’kmaq, he took part in their military campaigns during the French-English conflicts. You have two of his letters, one dated 1738 and the dated 1751. Open Maillard document 1 [link opens in a new window].  Open Maillard  document 2 [link opens in a new window]
     

     ---

     Jean-Louis Le Loutre, Letter Oct 1rst, 1738.

     • Jean-Louis Le Loutre is a controversial figure perceived by some historians more as a French agent than a devoted missionary.Coming from the Missions Étrangères, he arrived in Louisbourg in 1737. While he was supposed to serve as a parish priest in Annapolis Royal, he stayed first in Maligouèche with Pierre Maillard to learn the Mi’kmaq language and then went on the year after with his missionary work in Shubenacadie from where he served the Mi’kmaq and the French on a vast territory from Cap Sable to Chedabouctou. Like Maillard, he was deeply involved in the conflicts and encouraged the Mi’kmaq in their attacks against the English. Open Le Loutre document [link opens in a new window].

References

• Archives nationales d’outre-mer COL C11D 3/fol.118-132. https://nouvelle-france.org/eng/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=7243&
• SME-Fonds Séminaire de Québec / SME2-L’administration au Séminaire de Québec / SME2.1-La correspondance précieuse / Lettres P, no 64. https://collections.mcq.org/objets/270886
• Lettres P, no 68. https://collections.mcq.org/objets/270890
•  SME-Fonds Séminaire de Québec / SME2-L’administration au Séminaire de Québec / SME2.1-La correspondance précieuse / Lettres R, no 87. https://collections.mcq.org/objets/268460

You will find that some of the words used in this lesson’s documents are considered offensive and expressions of racism. We have left them because they are part of the original texts and historical context.

As you have noticed in previous documents, we have left the word “Sauvage” in French. The English translation “savage,” generally used for this word, is misleading as it implies a dimension of violence and cruelty that does not correspond to the french meaning. The word “Sauvage” comes from the Latin silva, which means forest. It referred in the early modern world to ‘wild’ plants as opposed to cultivated plants and people who lived in the forest. Through time it took the meaning of ‘uncivilized’. It is a pejorative and homogenizing term that has generally been used to describe Indigenous people without referring to their nations or their names. It has contributed to the dehumanization of Indigenous peoples.

In the captivity narratives, you will notice that both Rowlandson and Gyles refer to Indigenous women as ‘squaw’. The term is an adaptation of an Algonquin word meaning woman. However, it has become offensive because of its usage to demean and objectify Indigenous women.

The term ‘negro’ is another sensitive word. The Spanish first used it as an evolution from the Latin word ‘niger’, which translates as black. Like the other terms mentioned above, it has been used as a pejorative way to amalgamate all people of African descent and has a strong racist connotation. In a similar way the term Panis, which is supposed to refer to a specific Indigenous nation in the Illinois, was  applied to all enslaved Indigenous people in New France.

***

Second activity; ????

Rowlandson and Gyles captivity narratives are well known because they were published and provided exciting stories of settlers who had survived and kept their moral integrity after living among those they considered uncivilized. However, many other captivity experiences remain untold, those of the Indigenous and African descent people who were enslaved by the French and the English. We rarely hear their voice but legal documents, primarily deeds of sale or inheritance reveal how they were an inherent part of the Acadian society.

Because of the close trade Acadia had with the West Indies and New England, most of its enslaved people were men and women of African descent. However, Indigenous people were also enslaved.

You will find here documents that inform you about the enslaved people in Acadia. They are treated as commodities, merchandises to be exchanged, so unlike in Rowlandson and Gyles narratives, you will not hear their voices. They remain silent but they were an inherent part of Acadia’s society and participated actively in the colony.

• Sale of 11 years old Jean
• Sale of the Creole Jacques
• Sale of Tousaint
• Sale of Catherine
• Sale of the Panis Louise
• Recognition of Baptiste, slave of the recollets.

Introduction

After decades of back-and-forth between French and English claims to Mi’kma’ki, the European geopolitical context changed in 1713. In that year, and 5,000 kilometres away, in the Netherlands, European diplomats came to an agreement that ended the War of Spanish Succession. Though there were no North American diplomats at the meetings that brought about the peace, the resultant Treaty of Utrecht had lasting results in Mi’kma’ki. Just three years before, the British had captured Port Royal (for the fourth time) and – at Utrecht – France and Britain agreed to a division of territory that effectively ripped Mi’kma’ki into two. For the first time since Europeans set foot on Mi’kmaw Homelands, Mi’kma’ki was divided between French and British claims to their Land. The Mi’kmaw regions of Kespukwitk, Sipekne’katik, Eskikewa’kik, and Piktuk were claimed by Britain, while Unama’kik, Epekwitk, Siknikt, and Kespe’k were claimed by France. Despite European agreement about this new geopolitical situation, no one informed the Mi’kmaq. When they learned to what France and Britain had agreed, they were shocked. By what right had the King of France ceded Mi’kma’ki to Britain, they asked.

In this lesson, we will listen to the Mi’kmaq and their Wabanaki allies as they responded to this type of unilateral European action. Though we can assume that there might have been similar tensions before 1713, the small-scale nature of the European presence in Mi’kma’ki meant that evidence of this type of opposition is difficult to find. After this period, with almost every extension of the French or British occupation of Mi’kma’ki, the Mi’kmaq and their allies made their position clear. Listening to their words helps us understand the structures of power at work in the region over the course of the eighteenth century. In their documents we read about how these people envisioned their relationship to the European newcomers, to each other, and to the Land. Though each document was penned by French allies – and have sometimes been dismissed because of this – we see these sources as some of the most direct and clearest articulations of contemporary Indigenous perspectives available to us.

To better understand each of these documents, we are going to return to ArcGIS and ask you to build a storymap that helps interpret how the Mi’kmaq and Wabanaki responded to the Treaty of Utrecht and subsequent British encroachment into Mi’kma’ki. The collected documents will take you from Utrecht and its immediate aftermath through to the founding of Halifax in 1749.

Technologies used for this lesson

hypothes.is

• Hypothesis is a web-based social annotation tool that runs as a plug-in on this site. When you access the pdf documents below you will have access to the functionality. Note that you will need to have an account to use this tool. You can read hypothes.is’ privacy policy, terms of service, community guidelines, and access hypothes.is help.

Voyant Tools

• Voyant Tools is a web-based reading and analysis environment for digital texts. It is a scholarly project that is designed to facilitate reading and interpretive practices for digital humanities students and scholars as well as for the general public. Read more about Voyant Tools.

ArcGIS

• ArcGIS is a digital mapping tool that you have already explored in the storymap in lesson 1.1 and map making in lesson 2.1. In this lesson, you will need to use the storymap feature in your ArcGIS public account. To prepare you for making your storymap, read through this tutorial before beginning this lesson.

Instructions

Documents

1. Lettre des Abénaquis au roi de France pour obtenir son appui alors que les Anglais cherchent à s’emparer de leurs terres, vers 1715. C11A-1 fol. 266-267v.
   • Open 1715 Translation [Opens in a new window]
2. Antoine and Pierre Couaret to Philipps, 2 Oct 1720, CO217-3, f. 155.
   • Open Couaret letter – 1720 [Opens in a new window]
3. Grand Captaine des Anglois… , 28 July 1721, UKNA CO 5, vol. 869, fol. 106-107
   • Open Great Captain of the English – 1721 [Opens in a new window]
4. Lettre de M. Maillard à l’abbé Dufau et un recommendation pour une promotion à DuCaubet, Musée de la civilisation, fonds d’archives du Séminaire de Québec, Lettres P, no. 66, https://collections.mcq.org/objets/270888.
   • Open Maillard to Dufau – 1749 [Opens in a new window]
5. At a council holden at the Governor’s house on Monday, the 9th day of September 1754, T.B. Akins, Selections from the Public Documents of the Province of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1869), 216. This is from a translated letter sent by Le Loutre. See also Copie de la lettre de M. l’abbé Le Loutre, prêtre missionnaire des sauvages à l’Acadie, à M. Lawrence, commandant en chef de la province d’Acadie à Halifax, 26 Aug 1754, C11D-8, f. 209-210.
   • We need to transcribe this document still.

1749 Renewal at Chebucto [Halifax] of the Treaty of 1725 – signed by several British, New England and Nova Scotia figues, plus four Mi’kmaw leaders: Joannes Pedousaghtigh, Francois Arodowish, Simon Sacrawino, and Jean Battiste Madoounhook

Between 1725 and 1761, numerous treaties were signed between Great Britain, or its colonial governments in Boston and Halifax, and the Wabanaki peoples of the northeast. They are called Peace and Friendship treaties. For the British, the treaties sought to pacify the Mi’kmaq, and their Wabanaki allies – all traditional allies of the French – from participating in an on-going series of wars over territory in what is today termed eastern Canada and the northeast of the United States. For the Mi’kmaq, the treaties aimed to restrain British, settler incursions into Mi’kma’ki.

The Casco Bay conference ratified the peace treaties signed at Boston in 1725. The 1727 conference drew together Wabanaki people from Massachusetts, along the coast to riviere St-Jean/Wolastoq and across into Acadie/Nova Scotia.

Beginning in the 17th century, Britain signed a number of treaties with Indigenous peoples in what is now the US northeast. The most important of these came in the decade after a major war in the 1760s between Indigenous peoples and two British colonies, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The biggest of these wars is most commonly called King Philip’s War; it was probably the most destructive war in the colonial era. That war ended in 1678, and peace treaties were signed. But as historian Lisa Brooks explains, that war was primarily caused by aggressive land grabs by Massachusetts settlers. In the years after the peace, those land grabs continued, as the New England colonies expanded north along the coast and inland to the west. That expansion also brought the British colonies into conflict with the French colonies to the north (Canada) and the northeast (Acadia). Much of the period between roughly 1680 and 1760 was dominated by on-going wars in western Europe between its two great powers, Britain and France, and these spilled over in northeastern North America. Thus, the land between British and French settlements, whether by land or by sea, was often a war zone. And that war zone was Wabanaki territory.

In one of those later wars, the one European history calls the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14 – a long war!), Britain captured Port Royal, the administrative capital of Acadia. And in the subsequent peace treaty, Britain was awarded Acadia. As we’ll see in a few weeks, that simple statement was much messier on the ground than on paper. But among a lot of blurred lines, two things were indisputable. First, that the French Catholic Acadians were now, nominally at least, ruled by Britain. We’ll come back to that issue later. Second, “Acadia”, as we’ve seen, was really a series of small agricultural settlements and even smaller fishing settlements. The territory labelled “Acadie” on European maps was still controlled by the Mi’kmaq and other Wabanaki peoples. It was still Mi’kma’ki. The British hold on Acadie was smaller even than that of the French, and so it was imperative that peace be established with the region’s Indigenous peoples. That meant that if Britain wanted to maintain its very tenuous hold on the peninsula, it would need to negotiate treaties with the Mi’kmaq.

Second, we’ll examine set of records related to the 1725 treaty [BOTH?] and explore the context of the 18th-century colonial-Indigenous treaties as well as the process of making them.

Third, we’ll use Voyant-tools to explore the broader context. Historians are limited by the sources available to them. Most of the documents we’re reading in this lesson come from two sets of records published by archives in Maine and Nova Scotia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Examining the entire corpus of records, not just the ones we’ve identified as relevant, offers inisghts into the broader historical context and  the biases of colonial archives.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

• Identify the nature of the agreements formed by Wabanaki-British treaties
• Describe how the historical context alters/confirms our understanding of those treaties
• Describe the relationship between Wabanaki-British diplomacy and settler colonialism

Technologies used for this lesson

hypothes.is

• Hypothesis is a web-based social annotation tool that runs as a plug-in on this site. When you access the pdf documents below you will have access to the functionality. Note that you will need to have an account to use this tool. You can read hypothes.is’ privacy policy, terms of service, community guidelines, and access hypothes.is help.

Voyant Tools

• Voyant Tools is a web-based reading and analysis environment for digital texts. It is a scholarly project that is designed to facilitate reading and interpretive practices for digital humanities students and scholars as well as for the general public. Read more about Voyant Tools.

---

Instructions

This lesson has three activities.

Activity 1: You’re going to annotate two of the most important treaties signed between the British colonial governments: the Treaty of Boston (1725) and the Treaty of Halifax (1752). Your task here is to understand what the treaties actually say? A treaty is an agreement between two or more people/groups. Does this treaty reflection a conversation? A negotiation? At first glance, the treaties seem fairly clear, pointing to “submission” and other terms suggesting Mi’kmaq surrender. Many of the court cases have turned on whether the treaties were restrictive (limiting what people could do) or positive (enabling activities). Where do you see restrictive or positive language? What kind of treaties are they? Do they end wars? And if so, who won, and what does that mean in the treaties’ terms? Does one side surrender land? Sovereignty? Commit to an alliance? Engage in trade practices?

Original handwritten Council minutes from November of 1724. One member of Council took notes. He was there; he recorded what he heard, so we know it’s a primary source. But we must remember that these were very much from his perspective: the political and cultural differences that were part of these discussions were not intended to be neutral: they reflect the British viewpoint. And, we’re not reading his original notes; we’re reading the transcribed and curated version that’s available to us. Does that mean they inaccurate? That’s hard to say. They no doubt come close to the basic story, but this selecting, distilling process is something we should be aware of. We might then ask what it means that so much of our data comes from only one side of the conflicts – and what does mean for how we think about settler colonialism?

Using hypothes.is describe and discuss what you see in the treaties and what they appear to mean for the signatories.

Activity 2: The treaties reflect the history and nature of the relationship to that point. What led up to the treaties, the process of actually negotiating the treaties, the difficulties faced negotiating across different languages – indeed, quite different cultures – and the simple problem of getting representative peoples together: all of these factors, and more,

Here you’ll find two sets of documents (one labelled 1725 and the other 1752 [fix “HERE” is only one doc]) related to the negotiations themselves: something of their context (though note we address something of that above in the introduction) and the process by which the treaties were negotiated. One set of documents relates to the 1725 treaty; the other relates to the 1752 treaty. What do these contextual documents tell us about the treaties? Do these change our understanding of the treaties? Do we see evidence of language and cultural challenges? Using hypothes.is annotate one of the two documents. Describe and discuss what you see as evidence that seems important to our understanding of the treaties themselves.

Remember: the Wabanaki are a confederacy, not a nation. Who’s doing the negotiating? How are the other members of the confederacy participating?

Activity 3: Much of the primary source material we use in this course, and all that we use in this lesson, comes not from the original 18th-century documents but from transcriptions made by archives and historical societies in Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, Maine, and Québec. These are fantastic resources and we’re really happy to have them available to us; they make available materials that would otherwise be very inaccessible.

They also provide us with both an opportunity (not just some excerpts here and there, but a substantial body of evidence) and a potential trap (these documents represent selections, what some 19th-century guy [and it was almost invariably, a guy!] chose and edited for us to read). Now, to be clear, we’re not suggesting a conspiracy, just a bias. And if we can identify the bias, and critically evaluate them, we can work within the limits they provide. We can see three fairly obvious potential issues here.

• That the collection itself was curated – selections from a larger archive of materials.
• That the archive from which the collection was drawn may reflect the bias the archivists (what to keep? what’s important?).
• That the officials who produced these documents no doubt crafted materials that best described their own points, not that of their opponents.

These issues are limits on our research, but they are not insurmountable problems. If we’re aware of those limits, we can think through both the wealth of information still present as well as the absences, and the sometimes misleading details we may encounter.

Thus, in this activity, we ask you to undertake two quick exercises that might allow you to reflect on our sources – the sources we’re using in this course and the wider world of sources. All good historical writing is limited by the quantity and quality of the sources that are available. Here, using Voyant, we’d like you to examine two wider set of documents.

First, use Voyant to read the entire volume of documents from which our excerpts were drawn. Half the documents you’re using are from New England and all these from one volume of a collection produced in the late-19th century by the Maine Historical Society. Find the volume [here] and enter the URL into the search box of Voyant-tools. Make use of some of the simple clean-ups (you’ll certainly see some stop words worth adding), and then examine some of the tools we used in Lesson [TWO??]. Voyant gives us a wider view of data contained in that volume; does it confirm what we’ve been reading as we annotate? Does it suggest other possibilities?

Then follow this link which gives you a page with sixteen URLs, one each to sixteen volumes of the Maine collection. Copy and paste all those URLs (at the same time) into Voyant. You’ll be getting an output of the entire corpus of the Maine Historical Society collections. Are the patterns we saw earlier evident here? Are new themes evident? What does this exercise suggest about the place of settler colonialism in the writing of history in the North American northeast over the past century?

Documents

OR (as a third activity or a mini-assignment -= map the movement of messages/belts/communications from Boston to Casco, St. Francis, Annapolis, Cape Sable, Wolastoq.

Instructions:

Portsmouth, 1714 – discusssion of terms, lots of emphasis on truck-houses and beaver prices – comparing prices at Saco (near Portsmouth), Penobscot (up the cast, near modern-day Bangor), and “Port Royal” [Querrebuit, 167]

Mi’kmaq at Boston, Nov 1725 -this version, from Early American Indian documents : treaties and laws, 1607-1789, specifically notes the Cape Sable Indians” to be present. It comes from CO5 – Tom do you have this?

Plan of the Chignecto Isthmus showing Forts Beauséjour and Gaspareaux. c. 1760. McCord Museum

Introduction

The founding of Halifax marked a radical turn in Mi’kma’ki and Acadie. Before 1749, the British presence on the land was fairly marginal. Though they had begun to push beyond the fortifications at Annapolis Royal, for the most part the region was one defined by the Mi’kmaq and their Acadian neighbours. With the establishment of Halifax at Kjipuktuk in 1749, the British presence became much more ubiquitous and contested. Not only did Britain build a new fort there, but with this imperial investment, they also brought settlers in the hundreds. With Halifax, the British established German speaking Protestants at Lunenburg as well. All told, by 1755 there were as many as 5,000 British settlers now living in the colony.

Halifax is emblematic of broader changes in how Europeans thought about empire. As imperial official encountered growing challenges of managing overseas affairs, imperial policies began to change. There were two key consequences of these changes. First, as we saw with treaties, increasingly imperial decisions were made by people with neither a deep understanding of the local context or on-the-ground relationships, making it easier to implement policies that might harm local communities. Second, both empires were willing to invest in North America in unprecedented ways. To protect its economic interests, for example, France built Louisbourg in Unama’kik, as well as several new fortifications in the Lower Great Lakes and along the Mississippi, connecting its colonies of Canada and Louisiana. France also build a new fort at Beaubassin in 1750, known as Fort Beausejour (depicted above) at Beaubassin.

These changes were part of a military contest that by 1749 had already brought considerable violence to the the region. The War of Austrian Succession yielded significant casualties in Mi’kma’ki. Though warfare really only arrived here in the later years of the war, its impact was significant. The French, with Mi’kmaw, Wabanaki, and Wendat allies attacked Annapolis Royal twice unsuccessfully. In 1747, the had more success in a raid on a British encampment at Grand Pre. This victory was relatively insignificant, however, given that just the year before New Englanders had successfully captured Louisbourg. The French position in the region was weak. With the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle peace returned in early 1748 but the lesson learned on both sides was that Mi’kma’ki needed to be militarized. In addition to building at Beaubassin, France reinvested at Louisbourg and fortified Baie Vert (Fort Gaspereaux) and the mouth of the Saint John River. While the British, in addition to building Halifax, extended its military presence to Piziquid (Fort Edward) and Sackville, and also at Beaubassin. By 1751, France’s Fort Beausejour lay only four kilometers across the Missaguash River from Britain’s Fort Lawrence.

Rather than bringing peace, as all of this fort building attests, it is more accurate to state that the 1748 peace caused a pause in the fighting. By 1754, violence between Britain and France was renewed in the Ohio Country (between the Mississippi and Lake Erie) and shortly thereafter it was sparked again in Mi’kma’ki. Beaubassin was the only place in the world where British and French fortifications were located in such close proximity to each other. Further, despite the growing British Protestant population at Halifax and Lunenburg, the French Catholic Acadian population had topped 15,000 people. British officials with limited relationship to either the Acadians or Mi’kmaq feared that with the French military so close, these people would rise up. With a large population of New Englanders (many who were upset that Britain had returned Louisbourg to France), British officials at Halifax and in Boston planned to seize Fort Beausejour.

The attack came in June 1755 and was over almost as quickly as it had begun. The British capture of Fort Beausejour, however, was only the beginning. In addition to removing the French military threat, British and New England officials quickly sought to solve the Acadian problem that had long been a thorn in the colony’s side. Right from Britain’s initial occupation of the fort at Annapolis, tensions over the loyalty of the Acadian population threatened the region’s stability. At issue was whether this French Catholic population would take an oath of allegiance to the British crown. Though it had festered for decades, British administrators had been willing to compromise until the new regime arrived in 1749. With administrators with limited on-the-ground experience, the issue of loyalty flared up again in the 1750s, specifically in the weeks after Beausejour fell. On July 28, 1755 British officials decided to deport the entire Acadian community. By 1763, when the deportation came to a close, over 15,000 people had been forcibly removed to Britain’s American colonies, England, France, Louisiana, and the Caribbean.

This module will introduce you to several accounts written at Beaubassin during the 1750s. Using the digital tools we have drawn upon in earlier modules, you will form an understanding of the circumstances that led to the Acadian Deportation.

Technologies used for this lesson

hypothes.is

• Hypothesis is a web-based social annotation tool that runs as a plug-in on this site. When you access the pdf documents below you will have access to the functionality. Note that you will need to have an account to use this tool. You can read hypothes.is’ privacy policy, terms of service, community guidelines, and access hypothes.is help.

Voyant Tools

• Voyant Tools is a web-based reading and analysis environment for digital texts. It is a scholarly project that is designed to facilitate reading and interpretive practices for digital humanities students and scholars as well as for the general public. Read more about Voyant Tools.

ArcGIS

• ArcGIS is a digital mapping tool that you have already explored in the storymap in lesson 1.1 and map making in lesson 2.1. In this lesson, you will need to use the storymap feature in your ArcGIS public account. To prepare you for making your storymap, read through this tutorial before beginning this lesson.

Instructions

Activity 1: Carefully read and annotate (using hypothes.is) one of the assigned documents. Do some research about the author and write a 150 word explanation about how useful this source is for understanding the events that took place at Beaubassin in 1755.

Activity 2: Use Voyant Tools to read all of the assigned documents together. What conclusions can we draw about these events from the information Voyant provides you? Does this analysis align well with the work that you conducted in Activity 1?

Activity 3: Use the information that you have learned from Activities 1 and 2, as well as the map included with the documents below, to create a sketch layer in ARCgis online that will help students better understand what took place at Beaubassin in the summer of 1755.

Documents

Source: Leventhal Map and Education Centre, Boston Public Library

Introduction

Having expelled most Acadian settlers in 1755 and 1758 and negotiated a series of treaties Mi’kmaw and Wabanaki nations, Britain and its colonial officials in Boston and Halifax set about efforts to remake the colony as an Anglo-American place. From a British-New England perspective, they now had a blank slate upon which they could write as they pleased. Part of that process occurred through measured state-led endeavours to properly administer settlement and proper government; part of it was a land grab, a period one notable historian describes as a series of “wild schemes, conflicting claims, and unfulfillable promises that actually hindered the colony’s recovery from the devastations of war and depopulation” [Anderson, CoW, 523]. In many ways it was both.

Though small compared to the rapidly growing New England colonies, Acadians had built a series of successful agricultural settlements. Acadian farms regularly produced surpluses of cattle and wheat that found a ready market in Annapolis Royal and Boston, and from a British perspective more problematically in Louisbourg and Quebec. That made these lands attractive. Knowledge of this was widespread and in fact was one of the reasons the British never pushed hard for the removal of the Acadians after 1713: they knew Acadian crops were vital supports for the feeding the fishery and the military. As we’ve seen, that thinking changed, and now imperial and colonial planners set about putting a British stamp on Mi’kma’ki/Acadie.

One of the most important of these British planners was Charles Morris, a Boston-born army officer who was stationed at Annapolis Royal, and in 1750 was appointed Crown surveyor for the province. His reports and maps outline many of the specific actions that would unfold over the next decade, as well as the general views of British officials in acquired territories.  Morris was one of the architects of the expulsion of the Acadians. In a series of reports written between 1749 and 1755, he outlined various schemes for marginalising the Acadians (mostly swamping them with British, New England, Swiss and German Protestant settlers), and renaming places: the Acadian village of Beaubassin became Sackville; the Mi’kmaw settlement of Mirligueche became Lunenburg, and they would be populated not with “Indians” and French Catholics but European Protestants. He quickly shifted his position, however, to simply removing the French Catholics who had farmed those lands for three, sometimes four generations.  His 1755 map of the French settlements was very much a tool of identifying the major and minor Acadian settlements and how best to organize their removal. By that point he had become one of the most influential figures in Boston and Halifax. The Surveyor-General had become the most knowledgeable Briton alive on the geography of the province; that knowledge would now allow him to be the principal architect remaking Acadie into Nova Scotia.

This lesson asks you to examine texts and maps related planning Nova Scotia after the Seven Years War. In Acadie/Mi’kma’ki that language, and indeed the story itself,  is tricky because it’s not simply European colonizers displacing Indigenous peoples, but of one set of European colonizers dispossessing Indigenous peoples and another set of European colonizers – and this latter group was not an army, but several thousand farmers who had occupied their lands for generations.  The relationship between the Acadians and the Mi’kmaw was not the happy to co-existence often presented  mythic description of Acadia, but at minimum they had spent decades sharing space without large-scale conflicts and had come to share a common enemy. We can’t explore that relationship in this lesson, but we can explore how the Anglo-Americans saw the the two groups and how they planned for their removal.

These documents will allow you to see the strategies employed by the mapmakers, their aims and how the maps were designed to both reflect existing policy and to envision new approaches and possibilities. In exploring the production of maps, this exercise will enable you to better understand the language and strategy of mapping and its role in turning Mi’kma’ki/Acadie into British Nova Scotia.

Technologies Used in this Lesson

Hypothes.is

• Voyant OR
• ArcGis !!!!

Instructions

Maps, as we’ve seen, have strategies and arguments; they are usually intended to convince the reader of some point. We saw this in the first module as British and French maps competed to represent their country’s position on the question of Acadie’s “ancient boundaries”. The following are two maps, both produced by Charles Morris, one in 1755 (on the eve of the expulsion and just before the start of the Seven Years War) and one in 1761 (after the expulsion and after the capture of Louisbourg and Quebec). What’s different? Some of the differences are very clear, others less so. Knowing the author, and the context of each map’s timing, discuss the strategies and purposes of each map.

Read and annotate one of Morris’s reports. Think about the author (read a brief biography here) and his position. Can we discern from his writing the strategy employed by the Nova Scotia officials in their plans to remake Acadie into Nova Scotia. Can you see, as suggested in the introduction, careful thoughtful planning? Can you see the “wild schemes” of a land grab?

Students will read a series of reports and maps generated between 1749 and 1763 by the British Surveyor General for Nova Scotia, Charles Morris, in the years leading up to and immediately following the expulsion of the Acadian settlers in 1755 and 1758. Using Hypothes.is, students will undertake a close reading of excerpts from the reports and, using Voyant, a distant reading on the full reports, along with their accompanying maps, as an examination of the patterned languages of dispossession.

Documents

Compare following two maps:

Charles Morris, “A Chart of the Sea Coasts of the Peninsula of Nova Scotia“, 1755.  Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center.

Charles Morris, “A chart of the peninsula of Nova Scotia“, [1761], Library of Congress.

Read one of Morris’s post-expulsion reports (Hypothes.is).

• [Charles Morris], “Description and State of the New Settlements in Nova Scotia in 1761 by the Crown Surveyor”, Report on Canadian Archives, 1904 (Ottawa, Dept of Agriculture, 1904), 289-301. [file in Teams]
• Charles Morris “State and Condition of the Province of Nova Scotia [1763] in PANS Annual Report, 1933, pp.21-6. [copy in Teams]

his reports from before 1755 and after do very different things – the pre-1755 are very much strategic/planning for future actions, whereas after we can see an outcome being fulfilled, but it’s much less full of account of the “bigoted” Acadians and the dangers of the Mi’kmaq –  THESE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER USED IN A DISCUSSION OF THE DEPORTATION

we discussed using GIS to map one of these reports as a mini-assignment – that would work – also, using the “Topics” tool on the “Breif Report” would be good – imprecise [different answer every time] but potential for thoughtful discussion.

• An Act for the Quieting of Possessions to the Protestant Grantees of the Lands formerly occuppied by the French Inhabitants, and for preventing vexatious Actions relating to the same. (Nova Scotia, George II, 33, 1759).
• Belcher Proclamation, 1763.
• Reports of Charles Morris, 1749, 50, and 53
• https://archives.novascotia.ca/deportation/archives/?Number=NSHSII&Page=158&Language=French

Mémoire on the missions of the

sauvages mikmak and of L’acadie

All the sauvages of the jurisdiction of Lisle Royale

are called Mikmak, they are about

six hundred bearing arms, they receive

their presents in the colony and are divided

by villages, namely

Maniguaouiche in Lisle Royale at the end

of la Brador, towards port Toulouze.

Antiguonische on the coast of l’acadie, in

the Baye d’antiguonische, which is opposite

the Coast of Lisle Royale, in the north

of the passage of [canseau] fronsac.

Malpec in Lisle St Jean.

  Pictou on the coast of L’acadie opposite

Lisle St Jean.

Tagmegouche on the coast of lacadie, opposite

  port lajoye en Lisle St Jean.

   Beaubassin in l’acadie

   chedaik ——-

in l’acadie

beyond the Baye Verte

chibouctou —

  Chebnakadie at the entrance of Rivière de la

chebnakadie which falls into the

minas basin in l’acadie

Port Royal and la hêve which form

a single village in relation to the sauvages

although distant from each other

because the same sauvages

fix themselves alternately, in one or

the other place, these two places are

in acadie, and connect

easily by the Rivers

[Page 2]

Cap de sable, at the southwestern tip of

Lacadie

Miramichy —

in la Baye des chaleurs

ristigoutchy—

The sauvages of all these villages were

educated in the catholic religion

apostolic and Roman; the missionaries

who contributed the most to their education

were the Sr Gaulin who retired several

years ago in Canada, and the late Sr

Courtin; these missionaries translated into

mikmak language, the church prayers

some catechisms, and instructions on the

religion for these sauvages.

The missionaries who serve them

presently are Sr Maillard, priest

of the St. esprit seminary in Paris, of which

he was taken by the superior of the missions

etrangeres to be sent to Lisle Royale

the Sr le Loutre who is from the same seminary

and the Sr St.Vincent; but the said Sr St.Vincent

is currently in france and does not plan

to return to the Colony; it will

be necessary to replace him.

although these missionaries have their

principal residence, in Maniguaouiche,

in Malpec and in Chebnakadie, they go every

year to their mission in the other

villages of the sauvages, and as these villages

are dispersed and very far from each other

they proposed organizing differently

[Page 3]

the villages they have to serve.

The missionary of Lisle Royalle

who must establish his residence in Maniguaouiche,

also must serve the village of antiguonische

The missionary of Lisle St Jean who must

establish his residence in Malpec, has

to serve at the same time, the villages of

Pictou, of Tagmegouche, of Beaubassin,

of Chedaik and of Chibouctou.

And the missionary of Chenakadie has

to serve the villages of port Royal

of la heve and of Cap de sable

as for the villages of Miramichy and

of Ristigoutchy, as they are too

far, they are served by the Recollects

missionaries of the Sauvages of Canada

who are closer: it is father

Gelas (Gélase de Lestage) Recollect who is actually serving

those two villages

The condition of these missionaries is very difficult

the life they lead is very hard and they

often find themselves exposed.

The Sr maillard has lot of zeal and

intelligence, good behavior, disinterestedness

for all that is his concern and he fully possesses

the language of the Sauvages, and he

puts in practice all the virtues and

qualities of an excellent missionary, he

has his ordinary residence in Maniguaouiche

in the Brador.

The Sr le Loutre does not have as much easiness

nor knowledge as far as the

[Page 4]

Sauvages are concerned as the Sr Maillard, but he has

zeal and attachment for his mission

he made his principal residence in

Chebnakadie.

The mission of Lisle Royale [was diverted]

many years ago at Maniguaouiche

in the Brador, a church was built in that

place for the sauvages and a

presbytery for the missionary: the idea

that we had in mind with this establishment

was to attract and make the Sauvages sedentary;

but the site we chose for that

is devoid of the conveniences and

the advantages it should have;

The soil is not good, there is no water and

almost no hunting; as a result

the sauvages not being able to live there,

it proved impossible to keep them there.   even

the church and the presbytery of Maniguaouiche

are now impracticable, it was proposed

to transfer this mission at [Rachebou]

which is at the end of the Brador, the

latter place being more suitable

in all respects than the first, following the

memoire which was addressed to

Monsignor [Jo] in the letter started

from Lisle Royale on 22. 8bre, 1738.

The soil is good enough at Antiguonische

the Sauvages have some gardens there, and there is also

a church that Sr Gaulin arranged to be built for them.

The Sauvages of Malpec are established in

[Page 5]

an island that is in the port of Malpec

in Lisle St Jean;  they made Gardens there

and fields of corn, the grains and

herbs that they grow with the hunting

and fishing they do in the vicinity, provide what they

need to live; It is the late Sr Courtin who

settled the Sauvages in that place and they

like it: they do not have a church yet

it would be pertinent to have a church built there.

as well as a presbytery for the missionary.

There are very few sauvages in Pictou and

in Tagmegouche, it should not be difficult

to attract them to Malpec.

All the Sauvages of Chebnakadie also

have a church built at their demand

and where there is a missionary. The other Sauvage

villages do not have a church.

All the Mikmak Sauvages are naturally

very lazy, without foresight

and prone to debauchery: and as the hunting and fishing

often do not provide them enough to live, many

of them prefer to suffer

than to make Gardens that would provide them

with grains and herbs which would help them

to live. we notice that the Sauvages

who are in the neighborhood of the french

of the acadians and of the English are even

lazier and more drunkards than the others.

The Mikmaki Sauvages are much less warlike

than the Sauvages of Canada, they

[Page 6]

would be little able to lead

a considerable enterprise; however they are

able to cause concern and we could use them for our profit

tomorrow; the english fear them, and

neglect nothing to attract them.

The presents that the King grants those Sauvages

every year consist of

15000. flints
15001. g.x war gunpowder
15002. g.x grain lead
15003.  g.x bullet lead
15004. grenadier riffles without bayonet
15005. pickaxes or tranchets

we distribute these presents in each village

in proportion to the number of Sauvages

who live there; this distribution is made towards

the month of June or July of each year

to this end the Sauvages are warned

by the missionaries; they usually assemble

partly at port Toulouze and partly at

Lisle St Jean; we transport their present

in these places; we have their (???)

in which we strongly recommended them

fidelity and attachment to the King,

attention and confidence for

their missionaries. in each place

we have a feast done for them, we distribute

their presents and they go back to their

villages.

some of those Sauvages go every year

to slaughter sea cows (walrus) and

seals at the isles de la magdelaine for

[Page 7]

The oils; for this purpose we have provided

them rowboats; but most of those who go there

instead of converting into food and

into effects that they need the oils they make,

they drink them; if they knew how to

profit of this slaughter they would

get great benefits out of it

there is still at the western tip of Lisle St Jean a

haulout of sea cows where the Sauvages

could also do their slaughter.

The general ideas of the Sauvages’ missionaries,

are to establish increasingly

the religion among these people, to hold them back

on the debauchery to which they are

naturally inclined and to inspire them

a deep Respect, an attachment and

inviolable fidelity for the King; they

also make sure as much as possible that they

do not trade with the English

these missionaries each have five hundred

livres in wages per year for their

maintenance paid to them at lisle Royalle

and one Ration to each of them issued from the

King’s store to facilitate

their subsistence; when they are summoned and

remain in Louisbourg on business

about the service, it is costumery

to pay their pension during their stay:

we also send them from

the King’s store in the fall when

[Page 8]

they leave to spend the winter in their missions a bit of

gunpowder and lead and supplement of

provisions, this supplement of provisions is

especially intended to assist the

Sauvages: the King provides them also

with all the chapel utensils

which are necessary for them.

L’acadie having been ceded to the english by

the peace treaty concluded at Utrecht therefore

it has been agreed by this same treaty that

the french inhabitants who would like (to remain ?)

on their goods in Lacadie could

stay and that they would have free

exercise of their religion: almost all

the inhabitants have remained and this country is otherwise

populated only by the french few english

families having settled there, and in conformity

with the treaty’s article which grants the french

inhabitants the free exercise of their religion

the King has provided them until now with

missionaries.        they are four namely

Mr de la Goudalie priest from the

St Sulpice de Paris seminary and Vicar general of

Québec, the Sr Lesclaches and the Sr de St Poncy

priest of the diocese of Quebec and the Sr Chauvreux

priests of the St Sulpice seminary.   Those

four missionaries serve all Lacadie

Mr De La Goudalie serves the parish of

the grand pré      (???) close to the one of La Rivière des canards and

[Page 9]

two parishes of pesiguit; those four

parishes are situated at the entrance of the minas

Basin.

the Sr de St poncy serves the parish of

port Royal where the english governor lives

and where there is an english garrison, and the

inhabitants who are around.

the Sr chauvreux serves the three parishes

of Cobequit at the end of the minas basin

and the Sr Lesclaches serves the parish of

Beaubassin and the parish of chipodik which

is outside the entrance of beaubassin

Besides all these parishes there are several

other places of lacadie, where there are

inhabitants and where every Day new

establishments are formed by the natives

of the country who multiply a lot.

The land is good in l’acadie and especially

the lowlands, by the sea which produce

a lot:    there is no need to clear

those lowlands nor the

highlands as there is no wood; the

inhabitants have no other work to do

than to make dikes to prevent

the sea from entering, and these dikes are

not difficult to make in these places,

they then let these lowlands dry out

for around two or three years, plow them

and scatter their seeds.     these types of

lands are frequent particularly

around the minas Basin.

[Page 10]

The inhabitants of L’acadie live

easily from the product of their land; they

make their cloth themselves and a part of their

canvases: and they sell the cattle and the

grains that they have in surplus

to buy the other effects that they need.

They are peaceful, docile, skillful,

intelligent and obedient to their Religion, they

are at the same time extremely [not]

interested, concealed in their thoughts and [little]

prone to work and weariness.

The sr Lesclaches is of an age that does

not allow him to fill his function

he asks to be retired;  Mr dela

Goudalie likewise wants his (?)

and to return to france; therefore there are two

missionaries to be replaced, they have been

in lacadie for a long time:  moreover as

the number of inhabitants of lacadie

increases Daily, four missionaries

are not sufficient to serve them: there

are currently more than twelve thousand souls

in lacadie french and catholics,

dispersed in different places

we have every reason to be very satisfied with

the missionaries they fervently maintained the

inhabitants of lacadie in their religion

and it is principally to their zeal and their

attention and to the care they took

with the proper circumspection

that we owe the attachment that the inhabitants

[Page 11]

of this country retain for the King. they

sometimes had inconveniences to endure

from the english governor, it is in

those occasions that they most need

to have good conduct: they are presently

quiet and the english governor

as well as the principal officers

esteem and consider them.

although there are four missionaries

à Lacadie, the King grants only 1200#

of wages for three at the rate of

400# each:  until now they have shared these

1200# between the four of them according to

The need each of them had:  they

know how to reduce their necessities

to a few things; they help each other

with cordiality; and we have not yet

noticed that they could be susceptible (?)

(B. J Chikaguet sauvage Mikmaque, Joseph)

On the first day of the month of June of the year seventeen hundred twenty-three I the undersigned René Charles de Breslay Missionary priest and parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general  of Monsignor bishop of kebec baptized for lack of a parish priest and doing the curial functions of this parish of Beaubassin Joseph son of Michel Chikaguet sauvage Mikmaque and of Marguerite Bernard his wife aged about one month The godfather Guillaume sire inhabitant of this parish The Godmother Anne Blanchard wife of claude Bourgeois also inhabitant of the said parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance.

R.c. De Breslay vicar general

(B. A. 8abniketch Sauvage Mikmaque, A.)

On the first day of the month of June of the year seventeen hundred twenty-three I the undersigned René Charles de Breslay Missionary priest and parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec and doing the curial functions of this parish of Beaubassin for lack of a parish priest the late baptized Agnes daughter of François 8abniketch Sauvage Mikmaque and of cécile his wife aged about one month The godfather guillaume Belisle sauvage Mikmaque The godmother Marie cormier wife of pierre Bourgeois also inhabitant of this parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

R.C De Breslay vicar general

the year of grace seventeen hundred eighteen I brother Vincent coeult Beaubassin’s missionary certify having buried Michel Boudrot and administered all the sacraments of our mother the holy church in witness whereof I signed on 21 may of the present year.

(S. M Boudrot)

f vincent coeult

(S. J Cormier)

the year of grace seventeen hundred nineteen I the undersigned brother vincent certify having buried Jean cormier son of germain and of mariele lebland one year old in witness whereof I signed 29 September 1719.

f vincent coeult, recollect missionary

(S. A Girouard)

On this day seventeen hundred nineteen I the undersigned brother vincent certify having buried aldegonde Girouard jeanne daughter of germain girouard and of marie  bariau (?) pere et mere aged about one month in witness whereof I signed this 2 nov 1719

f vincent coeult, recollect

(S: F mellacon)

the year of grace 1720 I brother vincent coeult recollect missionary of Beaubassin certify having buried in the cemetery of this parish françoise mellanson wife of jean sire administered of all the holt sacraments of the holy church on the 12 of the month of june in witness whereof I signed this same day and year as above.

f vincent coeult, recollet

(S. P Richard)

The year of grace 1721 I vincent coeult Beaubassin’s recollect missionary certify having buried paul in this parish cemetery paul richard son of martin richard and of marguerite bourg legitimately legitimately common law spouse five years old in witness whereof I signed this same day and year as above

f vincent recollect

the year of grace seventeen hundred twenty-one I the undersigned certify having buried in this parish cemetery on august 16th of the same year magdelaine boudrot wife of jean baptiste chiasson approximately 23 years old

(S: M. Boudrot)

f vincent

(S: Michel Sauvage)

the year of grace seventeen hundred twenty-one on 31 october died michel sauvage son of thomas sauvage and anne lapierre aged about two months and a half who was buried by me the undersigned the first of November of the same year

f vincent coeult recollet

(B: P Arghimout)

The first day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest of the Sauvages of the Mission St. Louis above the island of Montreal in canada parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish baptized pierre son of Joseph Arghimout son of Philippe Arghimaout chief of the Beaubassin Sauvages and of  Marie his wife born on the same day of the said month and year The godfather Pierre Arsenaud inhabitant of Beaubassin The Godmother claire cormier wife of pierre sire also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay grand vicaire

(B: M Sire )

The second day of the month of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin administered the baptismal ceremonies to Marguerite daughter of guillaume Sire inhabitant of the said parish and of Marguerite Bourk his wife born on the nineteenth of the month of july of the present year and ondoié at home by jean sire also inhabitant of the said locality The godfather Michel Richard inhabitant of Port Royal The Godmother Elisabeth Bourk daughter of the late Michel Bourk which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay vicar general

(B. P Cormier)

The second day of the month of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin have administered the baptismal ceremonies to pierre son Of pierre cormier inhabitant of the parish and of Marie sire his wife born on the fourth of May of the present year and ondoié at home by Michel haché inhabitant of the said parish the godfather Jean B Bernard inhabitant of the said parish The Godmother Marie Bourk wife of Antoine godet also inhabitant of the said parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay grand vicaire

B. M Cormier

The second day of the month of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec administered the baptismal ceremonies to Marie daughter of François cormier inhabitant of the parish of Beaubassin where there is no parish priest and of Marguerite Le Blanc his wife born May sixteenth of the present year and ondoiée at home by Michel poirier also inhabitant of the said parish The godfather François Bourk also inhabitant of the parish The Godmother cécile cormier daughter of  François cormier  also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay grand vicaire

B. JB Poirier

The second day of the month of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and other dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin have administered the baptismal ceremonies to Jean B son of François poirier inhabitant of the said parish and of Marie Haché his  wife born and né et ondoié at home on May six of the present year The godfather Jean B Porhier son of Jean porhier inhabitant of Lisle de St-jean The Godmother Jeanne Gautro wife of Jacques Hebert inhabitant of this parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay vivar general

B: f  Poirier

The second day of the month of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and its dependencies vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin administered the baptismal ceremonies to François son of Michel poirier inhabitant of the said parish and of Magdeleine Bourgeois his wife born and ondoié at home by Marie guerin wife of pierre Arsenaud inhabitant of the parish The godfather Nicolas Gautier inhabitant of Port Royal who signed with me the Godmother Anne Bourk daughter of the late Michel Bourk which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance as well as the father Nicolas gautier

De Breslay vivar general

B: M Richard

The tenth day of July seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned Rene charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec in canada administered the baptismal ceremonies to Marie daughter of Martin Richard et de Marie cormier his wife born + and ondoiée on the same day at home by François Doucet inhabitant of the said Beaubassin The godfather germain girard inhabitant of the said Beaubassin The Godmother Marie cormier wife of Michel Bourk also inhabitant of the parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance + on April twenty-six of the present year [?] seventeen hundred twenty-two # Aout

R.c. De Breslay vicar general                                          R.c. D. B

B: A godet

The tenth day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec in Canada administered to + Agnes daughter of Augustin godet inhabitant of the parish of Beaubassin and of Agnes chiasson his wife born on April twentieth of the year seventeen hundred twenty-two and ondoiée at home on the same day of the said month and year by Jean veco also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin The godfather Abraham Chiasson son of gabriel Chiasson also inhabitant of the said locality The Godmother Anne Doucet wife of Denis Godet also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance + the baptismal ceremonies.

De Breslay grand vicaire

D.B

B: MM doucet

The tenth day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned + De Breslay Missionary priest parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec in canada administered the baptismal ceremonies to Marie Magdeleine daughter of François Doucet inhabitant of the parish of Beaubassin and of Marguerite girouard his wife born on the ninth of the said day and year + The godfather François poirier son of Michel poirier also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin The Godmother Magdeleine Doucet daughter of Louis Doucet + and ondoiée at home by Martin Richard son of Martin Richard which all declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance  + René charles.

De Breslay vicar general

B: A. chiasson

The fifteenth day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned Missionary priest of the Sauvages of the Mission St. Louis above the island of Montreal in canada parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor gave the baptismal ceremonies to Anne daughter of Jacques Chiasson inhabitant of this parish and of Marie Joseph Arsenaud his wife born and ondoiée in this church by jean erre also inhabitant of the said parish on the twenty seven of July of the said year seventeen hundred twenty-two The godfather François Lapierre also inhabitant of this parish The Godmother Jeanne godet wife of Abraham Arsenaud also inhabitant of the said parish which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay vicar general

B: A lambert

The fifteenth day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned Missionary priest of the Sauvages of the Mission St. Louis above the island of Montreal in canada parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec administered the baptismal ceremonies to Anne daughter of philippe Lambert inhabitant of this parish and of Marie Boudrot his wife born and ondoié at home by François poirier also inhabitant of the said locality on the twenty seventh of the month of July of the said year seventeen hundred twenty-two the godfather Anselme Boudrot son of Michel Boudrot also inhabitant of this parish The Godmother Anne Boudrot daughter of claude Boudrot inhabitant of mines which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance

De Breslay. vicar general

B: C doucet

The fifteenth day of August seventeen hundred twenty-two I the undersigned René c De Breslay Missionary priest of the Sauvages of the Mission St. Louis above the island of Montreal in canada parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor bishop of Kebec for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin administered the baptismal ceremonies to charles son of charles Doucet inhabitant of this parish and of cécile poirier his wife born on the fourteenth of the said month and year, The godfather François poirier son of Michel poirier from France also inhabitant of the said Beaubassin + which declared not to know how to sign, as required by the ordinance + the godmother Francoise Arsenaud daughter of Abraham Arsenaud also inhabitant of Beaubassin

De Breslay. vicar general

B: M bourgeois

The sixteenth day of August of the present year seventeen hundred twenty-two for lack of a parish priest in this parish of Beaubassin I the undersigned René charles De Breslay Missionary priest of the Sauvages of the Mission St. Louis above the island of Montreal in canada parish pastor of Lisle de St. Jean and of its dependencies and vicar general of Monsignor Leveque of Kebec baptized Michel son of charles Bourgeois inhabitant of this parish and of Magdeleine cormier his wife born the fifteenth of the said month The godfather Charles Bourgeois also inhabitant of the said parish

Description of L’Acadie with the names of

the parishes and the number of inhabitants

L’Acadie is a peninsula that is linked to the

mainland of Canada 300 leagues from Quebec

Capital and Episcopal city, it was Established by the

french who built a fort there in one of its parts

which is called Port Royal, in the peace of 1712 Louis the

Fourteenth ceded l’Acadie to the English with its inhabitants

on the conditions that the said inhabitants enjoy the privilege

to profess the Catholic religion, and that they would have the right

to have missionaries to instruct them in the said

religion.

L’Acadie is divided into six parishes, the first is port

Royal as named by the french also called Annapolis

Royalle by the English, the Church is built quite near

the fort, and this is what we call the lower town, the name of the Priest is

Mr Desenclaves, the inhabitants are Established on both sides of

the river that goes very far in the woods, there are twelve

leagues of cultivated land, we find in this parish two

thousand communicants.

the fort is built with pickets and terraces, it is made up of four

bastions, there are twenty-four pieces of cannon there, in times of

peace there are a hundred garrison men, note that the english are

only in the fort, the rest of l’Acadie is inhabited by the french

the English go there only for Commerce.

[Page 2]                         

From Port Royal to the mines there is a portage of twenty leagues, there is

a path made through the woods, it is by this path that the

detachment of Louisbourg, of Canada, and of the Sauvages passed through to

go to the siege of port Royal.

the second parish is the rivière aux Canard, it has for priest

Mr. de Miniac grand archdeacon and vicar general of the diocese of

Quebec, there are five or six leagues of well-cultivated country, we find there six hundred Communicants.

the third is the grand pré, it has for priest Mr. De la Goudalie

grand vicar of l’Acadie, there are four to five leagues of well

cultivated land, we find a thousand communicants there.

the Fourth is pegiguitk, it is a river that goes very far

into the woods, the inhabitants are established on both sides of this river

there are ten leagues of well-cultivated land, in this river there are two

parishes, one named Assumption, and the other Saint Famille,

Mr. Chauvreulx is their priest. We count eighteen hundred communicants

in this parish there are two portages to go to the east coast

by one we go in bark canoe by different rivers lakes and

portages at Misliquesch, by the other one there is a path made through

the woods which is twenty leagues long and which leads to Chibouctouk, where

the aurore commanded by Mr du vigneau, was anchored, we use this path to

transport beefs sheeps and poultries to Louisbourg.

We call the last three parishes by the common name of les mines

because it is claimed that there are many mines in this part

of L’Acadie

the Fifth is Cobequitk, it is a river that goes very far

into the woods, the inhabitants are established on both sides of this

river, there are fifteen leagues of cultivated land, the priest is Mr Girard

there are eight hundred communicants there

[Page 3]

ten

From Cobequitk there is a portage of leagues which leads to Takamigousch

there is a path through the woods, very beautiful and well made, we use it

to transport beefs, sheeps and poultries to louisbourg, this

parish depends on that of Cobequitk, and has no other priests

we count there one hundred and fifty communicants.

the sixth is beaubasin or Chiqueniktouk, there are eight

considerable rivers all inhabited by the french, there is still only one

parish which has had no priest for four years, there are two thousand

five hundred communicants, two priests would be needed.

from beaubassin there is a one-league portage to baye verte,

we use it to transport beefs, sheeps and poultries to louisbourg

From beaubassin we can go to Quebec in fifteen days, going through

the Riviere St. Jean which is opposite the port royal, in this river

there are Fifteen to twenty french families, the rest are the Sauvages called

Marichites whose missionary is the Jesuit Father Germain

from the mission of these Sauvages we can reach the St. Lawrence River by rivers, lakes and portages and arrive forty leagues away from the city of Quebec.

L’Acadie is very fertile in wheat, fodder and cattle. Like beefs, cows

sheeps, horses and poultries of all species; from the entrance of port royal

the sea rises through bay françoise in all the rivers named above,

and by tide the sixty-ton boats or schooners from the port go there to trade.

there are three missionaries from l’Acadie who must return to france after

the evacuation of the English from Louisbourg, Mr de Miniac because he

has problems with his eyesight, Mr. De Goudalie because he is old and a bit

deaf, Mr. desenclaves because he has chest exhaustion, thus l’acadie

will soon have only two priests, namely Mr chauvreulx and

Girard, we must be careful as it is not expedient to leave port

royal without priests, because of the proximity of the English, it would be necessary to choose a good, wise and prudent missionary to protect the interests of the french people from the English, so we have to decide quickly to be able to test him before boarding time

[Page 4]

In l’Acadie there are a thousand Sauvages who live in the woods and who are

scattered along the coasts from Campseau to port royal, the

Sauvages are called Mikmak, they are all baptized and Catholic

irreconcilable enemies of the English, and very loyal to the king of france, they live from fishing and hunting and never eat bread except when they come

among the french; their missionary is Mr. Le Loutre, The mission is in

the top of the Riviere chigabenacadie twelve leagues from Cobequitk, where they

assemble in numbers from 3 to 400 twice a year namely on all saints day

and at pentecost; from chigabenacadie we go in a bark canoe by the rivers

lakes and portages on one side to chibouctouk and on the other to mousquedaboit

there are several french dwellings along the east coast, the first

is chegekkouk, the missionary had a Church built there, there are Fifteen

french family, it is three leagues away from chibouctouk.

the 2nd is mirliguech three leagues from la haive, the missionary had

a Church built, there are twenty french families and 3 to 400 Sauvages assemble there at the end of June

the 3rd is miristiguesch in other words the passage, the missionary had a Church built there, there are ten french families.

the 4th is peaubomcoup or otherwise Cap de Sable, the missionary had a Church built there, there are ten to twenty french families, and 2 to 300 Sauvages gather there in august.

the 5th is Tbok, the missionary had a Church built there, there is twenty-five french families, every year the missionary is obliged

to visit these places to visit these French and Sauvages.