threads across the atlantic: tracing the european origins
TRANSCRIPT
© Cathrine Davis, 2018
Threads Across the Atlantic: Tracing the European Origins of Eighteenth-Century Imported Cloth in New France Using Lead Seal Evidence from Three French
Colonial Sites
Mémoire
Cathrine Davis
Maîtrise en histoire - avec mémoire
Maître ès arts (M.A.)
Québec, Canada
ii
RÉSUMÉ
Les sceaux de plomb sont des artefacts relativement inconnus mais très importants
comme sources d’information sur les textiles et leur consommation aux XVIIe et XVIIIe
siècles. Ces étiquettes en plomb souvent attachées aux textiles ont servi comme indicateurs
de qualité, de possession et de paiement des impôts sur ces textiles et autres biens
commerciaux. Trouvés sur plusieurs sites archéologiques en Amérique du Nord, ces sceaux
sont des indicateurs des origines éuropéennes des textiles ainsi que des réseaux marchands
nécessaires pour les transporter vers la Nouvelle-France, un espace colonial fort
dépendant de la métropole. Cette étude vise à découvrir de nouveaux détails sur les formes
de consommation textile uniques de trois sites différents par leur localisation, leurs
fonctions et leur population en utilisant les sceaux de plomb qui s’y trouvent. Les sceaux
de trois sites français de l’époque coloniale seront examinés; le fort Saint-Joseph (Niles,
MI), fort Ticonderoga (à Ticonderoga, NY, aussi connu sur le nom de fort Carillon) et la
forteresse de Louisbourg (Louisbourg, NÉ).
iii
ABSTRACT
Lead seals are relatively unknown artifacts, but are important as sources of information
concerning textiles and their consumption in the seventeeth and eighteenth centuries. These
lead tags were often attached to textiles and were proof of quality, ownership, and payment
of taxes on textiles and other commercial goods. Found at many archaeological sites in
North America, these seals are indicators of the European origins of imported textiles as
well as merchant networks needed in order to transport them to New France, a colonial
territory that was very dependent on the metropole. This study aims to discover new details
concerning the unique consumption patterns present as three sites with different functions,
locations, and populations, using the lead seals found at these sites. Seals from three
French sites from the colonial period will be examined; Fort St. Joseph (Niles, MI), Fort
Ticonderoga (Ticonderoga, NY, also known as Fort Carillon), and Fortress Louisbourg
(Louisbourg, NS).
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Résumé ............................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations and Units ................................................................................................ vii
Dedicace ....................................................................................................................... viii
Aknowledgements .......................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
A Brief Note on the People Mentioned in this Study .................................................. 1
Small Beginnings ......................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 4
Progression of this study ............................................................................................. 9
Historiography ............................................................................................................... 11
Central, but little-known: Lead seals in Numismatics ............................................... 11
Seals and North American Historical Archaeology .................................................. 12
The Economic history of France: the raison d’être of French lead seals .................. 14
Commercial History of the French Atlantic .............................................................. 15
Textiles and the History of New France .................................................................... 17
Textiles and Commerce among Canadien colonists and habitants........................ 17
The Fur Trade and Native American Clothing Consumption ............................... 18
Methodology and Sources Used in this Study ............................................................... 22
Sources Used in this Study ........................................................................................ 22
Methodology .............................................................................................................. 26
v
Chapter 1: Contextual Information ................................................................................ 30
1.1 The World of Lead Seals ............................................................................... 30
1.1.1 Lead seals in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century France and New France
..................................................................................................................................... 30
1.1.2 Bales, seals, and packaging in the 18th century ............................................ 36
1.2 Reuse and Related Items...................................................................................... 39
1.2.1 Reuse ............................................................................................................ 39
1.2.2 Similar items from Louisbourg .................................................................... 42
1.3 Cloth Use and Consumption in New France ....................................................... 44
Chapter 2: Fort St. Joseph ............................................................................................. 48
2.1 Historical & Archaeological Resumé: Clothing & Textiles at Fort St. Joseph ... 48
2.1.1 Native dress at Fort St. Joseph and in the Pays d’en Haut ........................... 50
2.1.2 Canadien dress at Fort St. Joseph and the Pays d’en Haut ........................... 55
2.1.3 Trade Lists and Documentation from Fort St. Joseph .................................. 57
2.2 Lead Seals from Fort St. Joseph .......................................................................... 59
2.2.1 French seals from Fort St. Joseph ................................................................. 59
2.2.2 English Yorkshire Seals ............................................................................... 66
Chapter 3: Fort Ticonderoga (Fort Carillon) ................................................................. 68
3.1 A Brief Historical, Archaeological, and Sartorial Overview ............................... 68
3.2 Lead seals from Fort Ticonderoga ....................................................................... 70
Chapter 4: Louisbourg ................................................................................................... 81
4.1 Historical and Archaeological Overview ............................................................ 81
4.2 Cloth and Clothing at Louisbourg ....................................................................... 83
vi
4.3 Lead Seals from Louisbourg................................................................................ 84
4.3.1 French Lead Seals ......................................................................................... 85
4.3.2 English “Jersey” Lion Seals ....................................................................... 108
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings .............................................................................. 110
5.1. Merchants, Négociants, Networks, and the Canada Trade: A Case Study of the
Mariette Family and Their Affairs as Revealed by Lead Seals ..................................... 110
5.1.1 Seals of the Montauban Merchant Families ............................................... 110
5.1.2 Montauban and the Canada trade ............................................................... 114
5.1.3 Procurateurs, négociants, and marchands ................................................... 115
5.2 A Discussion and Comparison of Textiles at Fort St. Joseph, Fort Ticonderoga,
and Fortress Louisbourg based on Lead Seal Identification and Interpretation ............ 117
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 122
Epilogue ....................................................................................................................... 124
Annex .......................................................................................................................... 126
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 202
Sources .................................................................................................................... 202
A- Primary Manuscript Sources ....................................................................... 202
B- Printed Primary Sources .............................................................................. 202
C- Maps ............................................................................................................ 204
Research Aids and Dictionaries ............................................................................... 204
Studies ..................................................................................................................... 204
Websites .................................................................................................................. 213
vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS
Archives Centers
ANOM : Archives nationales d’outre-mer
BAC : Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
BAnQ-Q : Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, centre d’archives de
Québec.
DBC : Dictionnaire biographique du Canada
Museums
THM: The History Museum, South Bend, IN (formerly the Center for History,
identified as CFH in previous works)
FSJM: The Fort St. Joseph Museum
Units and Unit Equivalencies
Monetary Systems:
# - Livres s – Sols d – Deniers
1# = 20s = 240d (12d=1s)1
Textile Measures2:
1 Aune de Paris = 3 pieds, 7 pouces, 8 lignes3
1 Aune de Toulouse et Languedoc = “demi aune davantage que Paris”4
1 Dominique CARDON, The Dyer's Handbook: Memoirs of an 18th Century Master Colourist. Havertown,
PA, Oxbow Books, 2016, p. 147. 2 Jacques SAVARY, Le Parfait négociant, ou Instruction générale pour ce qui regarde le commerce de toute
sorte de marchandises…par le sieur Jacques Savary, Paris, Chez Louis Bellain, 1675, p. 63, 65-66. 3 1 pied = 12 pouces = 144 lignes (12 lignes in a pouce). An aune de Paris is roughly equivalent to 118cm.
E.S. WINSLOW, The Universal Modern Cambist, and Foreign and Domestic Commercial Calculator…,
Eighth Edition, Boston, E.S. Winslow, 1872, p. 20a. 4 (5 pieds, 5 pouces, 6 lignes) Other regional differences in the aune can be found in Le Parfait Négociant
and other period manuals on trade. SAVARY, Le Parfait négociant…, 324 p.
viii
DEDICACE
Dedicated to Ivor Noël Hume. Though we never met, he helped me stumble my way
into historical archaeology and the world of artifact identification through the passion
inherent in his writings.
“Beware the self-professed expert, for he has ceased to learn; and look closely at the
man who bestows that distinction on another, for it means only that the recipient is
less ignorant than he.”
–Preface to Artifacts of Colonial America (1969), Ivor Noël Hume
ix
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would have been impossible without the cooperation, collaboration, and
guidance of many. Firstly I would like to thank the curators who enabled and facilitated my
access to the artifacts included in this study, especially Heidi Moses and other Parks
Canada staff at Fortress Louisbourg, Matt Keagle and Miranda Peters at Fort Ticonderoga,
the staff at The History Museum (South Bend, IN), and the past and present curators of the
Niles History Center (Niles, MI). Secondly I wish to acknowledge the guidance, patience,
and companionship of my director, Alain Laberge, who kept faith and enthusiasm in my
ideas even when I was struggling to believe in myself, and who supported me through my
education in Québec both during my undergraduate and graduate programs. I would also be
remiss not to acknowledge the instruction and mentorship of Michael Nassaney, who first
introduced me to lead seals and who directed the study that provided the roots of this
comparison. I would additionally like to thank Michel De Waele and Allison Bain for their
input and for serving on my thesis committee. Additionally I would like to thank Greg
Waselkov, Stuart Elton, Michel Royer, Mike Patrick, Philippe Halbert, Beau Robbins,
David MacDonald, Nick Barber, Sophie Imbeault, Renald Lessard, Marie-Hélaine Fallu,
Michel Thevenin, Joseph Gagné, and many, many other colleagues, friends, and family
members (including my ever patient parents and grandparents) who have supported me
throughout my research and during the writing process. Additionally I am compelled to
acknowledge the financial aid that supported this research, especially those funds provided
by the Bourse Rév. Dr. Bernard-J.-O'Connor en numismatique, the CIÉQ (Centre
interuniversitaire des études québecois), and the Faculté des lettres et de sciences humaines
at Université Laval.
1
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF NOTE ON THE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THIS STUDY
Throughout its history, New France was a geographic area that was home to many
different cultural groups, both of European and Native American origin. In this study I will
address these cultural groups in various ways when possible in order to be as specific as
possible. I fully recognize that even as I write this, the manner in which ethnicity and
identity are treated, both culturally and otherwise, is in constant evolution as descendant
groups and those that study their history come to terms with the legacy of colonialism. My
interpretation is far from written in stone. I am sure I will have critics, and that my own
ideas on these topics may evolve in the future as discourse on the subject thickens, but for
the purposes of this study, I will operate under the following assumptions. Firstly, “Native
American” will often be used as a blanket term to refer to peoples present in the Americas
before the arrival of Europeans due to the non-specificity of most period accounts.
However, when possible, I will use specific tribal names. In this case, the tribal names I
choose to use are the modern anglicized versions of names used in eighteenth century
French accounts (though I acknowledge that these may not be the original names used by
the tribe to describe itself, my overall goal is to avoid confusion within this thesis).
Secondly, in regards to discussions of the genetic and cultural combination of various
Native American groups and French language groups, I will operate under the following
assumptions. 1) That no group or individual in the eighteenth-century is to be referred to as
Métis(se) or métis(se) with the exception of the Red River Métis of Manitoba, as this term
has with time acquired a certain very direct legal association with this particular group and
their self-identification. I will also regard this as the only example of ethnogenesis as a
result of cultural métissage (see below). Though variations on the term Métis(se) (and
métis(se)) were used in the eighteenth-century by the French speakers in Louisiana in order
to call attention to the baptismal state of individuals, it was in an effort to categorize them
in an imposed system of classification within that particular colonial context. This has little
to do with the use of such terms in Canada (including the Illinois country until 1717 and
2
the Pays d’en Haut), and Acadia, which are the focus of this study5. It is also worth noting
that in the eighteenth century, it is incredibly rare for an individual of mixed French
speaking and Native American descent in northern New France (Acadie, Canada) to be
referred to (or to refer to themselves) as métis(se). Rather, they tend to be associated or to
associate themselves with either one group or the other6. 2) That for discussions of the
incorporation of elements of Native American cultures into European cultures and vice
versa (in material or immaterial manners), the term “cultural métissage” will be employed
to describe this phenomenon. 3) In regards to French speaking cultures of European
descent and ancestry, there is a distinction that should be made between French-Canadians
(those French-speaking populations that populate and settled the geographic area of
Canada and Acadia in New France) and the French (metropolitan French-speakers).
Though New France should be thought of as a province within the kingdom of France, just
the same as those in the metropole, it must also be stated that France itself contained within
its boundaries many distinct cultural and ethnic subgroups. One could even argue that just
as the Potawatomi and Iroquois are referred to using the term “Native American,” the
Bretons, Picards, and Lyonnais in the eighteenth century (and still to some degree, in the
present) were distinct regional groups (in dialect, dress, and other cultural markers) within
the geographic area designated as France, though they may be referred to (or refer to
themselves) as “French.” French-Canadians in the eighteenth century were often separated
from visitors and troops from the metropole through the use of the term “Canadien(ne)s”
(or canadien(ne)s in adjectival form) to specify their particular geographic situation and
culture, which was in essence a blend of various regional cultures from France proper7. In
this study, I will be using this original term- canadien(s) and acadien(s) to refer to those
French speaking populations living in northern New France, and “French” to refer to
5 Gilles HAVARD, Empires et métissages : Indiens et Français dans le Pays d’en Haut, 1660-1715, Second
edition, Québec, Septentrion, 2017, p. 474-475; on the administration of the Illinois country, see Glenn R.
CONRAD, “Administration of the Illinois Country: The French Debate,” The Journal of the Louisiana
Historical Association, Vol.36, No. 1 (1995) p. 31-53. 6 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…p. 475. 7 Of course, ironically, the term Canadien was adopted from the original French and used by Anglophone
populations living in the modern geographical area of Canada to describe themselves, leading to the use of
“Canadian’ in modern English, and leading the Anglophone populations of Canada to distinguish themselves
from their French predecessors and neighbors through use of the term “French-Canadian.”
3
French speakers with immediate metropolitan origins8. This is, of course, keeping in mind
that though eighteenth-century Canadiens sought continually to enhance their “French-
ness” through close imitation of metropolitan styles and lifeways, but that this emulation
was along a continuum between success and failure to perfectly imitate the desired subject.
With my definitions set according to the above reasoning, I hope to avoid confusion and
offense to descendant groups implicated in this study.
SMALL BEGINNINGS
This study will examine lead seals from three French archaeological sites in North
America and how these little known artifacts can help further the understanding of
commercial and cultural networks associated with textiles. Lead seals are small tags of
stamped lead that were placed on merchandise by European merchants, artisans, and
government inspection offices. They often hold information that allows us to learn more
about the people and places associated with textile manufacture, and what role
merchandise played in daily life. Lead seals are often found at various sites in North
America, particularly those dating from the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries. Three of
these sites are included in this study : Fortress Louisbourg (Louisbourg, NS.), Fort
Ticonderoga (Ticonderoga, NY —also known as Fort Carillon), and Fort St. Joseph (Niles,
MI). Since these sites are varied in function, raison d’être, cultural environment, and
geographic situation, the seals present within this study should be representative of the
differences.
Despite their European origins, lead seals are of special interest to historical
archaeologists working on North American sites. They can provide information about
textiles that have long since been lost to the ravages of time. These imported textiles were
an integral part of the daily life and commerce in North American colonies in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Textiles were especially important in the North
American fur trade and at associated sites. In this system, pelts (usually those of beaver),
were acquired by European traders and their Native American middlemen in exchange for
European goods. It is known that textiles accounted for about forty percent of trade goods
8Acadiens are those French speaking populations that inhabited territory in the government of Acadie,
including those in and around Louisbourg.
4
present in merchant stocks in Montréal at the start of the eighteenth century9. Native
Americans were avid consumers of textiles, and in many cases used them to express
membership in a certain cultural or social group, and status or function within these groups.
It should be noted that these cultural groups could be Native American or European in
nature, and that in both cases dress was used as a means of non-verbal communication10.
Without the aid of probate inventories or other written documents available to help us
better understand the individuals and tribe members and their styles and dress, lead seals
found at archaeological sites associated with Native Americans are one of the only ways
we can understand the role of cloth in their everyday activities.
Seals present at the sites in this study that are not as implicated in fur trade activity and
that are more aptly described as urban or military centers are also informative, despite the
presence of various documentary sources regarding clothing at these sites. In these cases,
seals can help confirm or support interpretations of clothing based on personal
correspondence and clothing orders, inventories, etc., but they can also help prove the
existence of unmentioned textiles present at that site. These “unmentioned” textiles could
even include contraband items or fabric obtained and used illicitly. Together with
documentary sources, seals from these locations can help connect the site and its textiles to
specific merchants in France and their North American distributors, or to trading
companies. Identifying these links helps complete yet another part of the enormous puzzle
of trade connections between Europe and New France. Seals can also provide us with new
data on textile consumption that contradicts existing documents and studies. In short, lead
seal research can contribute greatly to the understanding of past textiles and can help not
only archaeologists and historians that study transatlantic trade and textile consumption in
the French Atlantic better understand the impacts of early globalization on a site level.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The ultimate goal of this study is to use lead seals to explore three main ideas that
9 Louise DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands de Montréal au XVIIe Siècle, Paris, Librairie Plon, 1974, p. 151,
Tableau 16.
10 This is indeed the case for cultures all over the world today and in the past: dress is both a practical
adaptation and a form of communication.
5
enable a better understanding of the French Atlantic and the beginnings of modern
globalization; 1) the patterns of textile consumption in New France (including the varieties
of textiles available in the colony), 2) the breadth, structure, and individuals involved in
transatlantic merchant connections, and 3) the social and cultural influences on textile
consumption and production11. Seals themselves are only the roots of this study, and their
identification and interpretation serve as starting points in the exploration of locations,
persons, and past events. Therefore, the information that seals convey to us in their
function as documentary artifacts must be supplemented and expanded upon using
auxiliary archival documents and existing studies. Some of my principle primary sources
include archives held at the Bibliothéque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ), in
microfilmed sub-series C11A and C11B of the Archives nationales d’Outre-Mer, which
include inventories that mention the names of négociants and locations present on seals12.
They also tie these people and places to specific textiles, both imported in the form of
finished clothing items and as raw material. Other various secondary sources enable the
identification of seals, including sigillographic works mentioned in the historiography to
follow. Many seals are identified using various online sources and digitized period
documents that contain information on specific towns or regions mentioned on seals or seal
fragments in combination with various other regional histories. Once identified the seals
can be used to guide research in order to learn more about the places and people that the
seal connects. Other secondary sources help to situate this study by furnishing general
information on the various aspects of commerce at the start of the modern Atlantic World.
What I hope to find in this study are details and patterns that reinforce and support
extant historical knowledge concerning textile consumption in New France. Since lead
seals are less biased than documents and their presence at a site is unencumbered by
narratives written from an upper class, white, male European viewpoint, they are likely to
11 It should be noted that the word “transatlantic” has some attachment to the slave trade through which
Africans were sold and trafficked to the Americas (though not exclusively to the Americas). In this case, I am
not talking about the slave trade specifically, but rather all textile commerce between the Old and New
Worlds. However I do recognize that textiles did play a role in human trafficking in the infamous “triangle
trade,” from the fifteenth into the nineteenth century. Robert S. DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic: Clothing,
Commerce, and Colonization in the Atlantic World, 1650-1800, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2015, 351 p. 12 The term négociant holds a distinct meaning that is different from that of the term merchant (marchand),
this is discussed later in the text (p.123)
6
produce information on the aspects of society that are rarely mentioned on paper. I expect
to see a heightened number of varieties of seals and of the textiles they represent at
Louisbourg, because it is a port city and has a more urban identity than the other two sites.
The urban flavor of Louisbourg would implicate higher percentages of cottons and silks
than more rural locations in the St. Lawrence Valley and further inland13. These urban
tendencies are noted by Duplessis and others in their analysis of period sources from New
France and elsewhere in New World colonies14.
This study is not particularily concerned with information on laws, regulations, and
economic prohibitions of seventeenth and eighteenth-century France (and other European
countries) concerning textiles. Based on other studies, it appears that these regulations did
not have a huge consequence on textile consumption, in spite of threats and severe
punishments promised to those who bought and wore foreign textiles15. Numerous authors
have also presented the French government as an entity forced to react in response to
changes in the consumption and production of textiles as influenced by the forces of
fashion and the changing winds of commerce, rather than an active influence on these
forces16. Even if the government controlled the production and inspection of textiles,
changes in the market and in fashion controlled and created government responses.
However, seals that may be linked to English or Dutch contraband or to counterfeits will
certainly be noted if they appear, especially considering the supposedly commonplace
illicit trade spanning the corridor between Montréal and Albany where Fort Ticonderoga is
located17. This is of course not discounting the possible presence of contraband at Fort St.
13 The presence of cotton texiles would be expected to expand as the end of the French régime approaches
and into the British period, as cotton replaces woolens as the textile of choice in the Atlantic world. Robert S.
DUPLESSIS, “Cottons Consumption in the Seventeenth- and Eighteenth- Century North Atlantic,” RIELLO,
Giorgio and PARTHASARATHI, Prasannan, eds., The Spinning World: A Global History of Cotton Textiles,
1200-1850. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 227-246. 14 Giorgio RIELLO and Prasannan PARTHASARATHI, eds., The Spinning World: A Global History of Cotton
Textiles, 1200-1850, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 489. ; DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic...,
351 p. 15 DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p.224. The laxity of enforcement of these laws and restrictions in a
colonial environment is also remarked upon in some studies as a result of the limits of centralized power in
an expanding empire. Christopher HODSON and Brett RUSHFORTH, “Absolutely Atlantic: Colonialism and the
Early Modern French State in Recent Historiography,” History Compass, Vol.8 Issue 1 (2010), p. 101-117. 16 DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 223-224; Christopher MOORE, “Merchant Trade in Louisbourg, Isle
Royale,” Master’s thesis, Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 1977, p. 6. 17 According to the many documents found at the BAnQ-Q, Archives des Colonies, Séries C11A.
7
Joseph that would show penetration of these illegal goods into the heart of French
influence in the west18.
It is my suspicion that the seals from Fort Ticonderoga are mostly linked to the military
presence there and the clothing and supply of French troops, and that seals associated with
cloth intended for trade with Native American allies will be rare, if present at all. It appears
that commerce was infrequent at the fort, in spite of the presence of large numbers of allies
on the eve of offensives. Also, it is worth mentioning that given the preparatory nature of
these gatherings and the inadequate of military supplies throughout New France during the
French and Indian War (likely a consequence of the infamous Canada Affair), any lead
seals present on textiles given as gifts to allies may very well have been melted down into
ammunition or more practical items19. The possibilities of the reuse of lead seals is
discussed in depth later on in this study.
In regards to the varieties of textiles that are most likely represented by the seals at Fort
St. Joseph, little guesswork or hypothesizing is needed. In my undergraduate thesis I
explored the seals from this site and found that the majority of textiles that could be linked
to the seals present there were woolens, likely intended for trade. Among the woolen
varieties identified were mazamets, dourgnes, écarlatines, and other high quality woolens
and broadcloths20. Other seals that may be found at this site could be linked to finer textiles
including hosiery or lace, as is the case at nearby Fort Michilimackinac21. These details
would appear to reinforce the metropolitan tastes of the French inhabitants. Though the
possibility that they are evidence of the consumption or adoption of European fashions by
18 Throughout the French period, Native American trade with the enemy at Fort Oswego (Chouagen) was a
constant concern and threat in the eyes of French colonial administrators. Many of the primary
correspondence documents found at the BAnQ-Q mention the looming threat of trade at Oswego (C11A). 19 The Canada Affair was the scandal that insued after the discovery of the mismanagement and
embezzlement of the colony’s finances by the colonial government during the French and Indian War
following the loss of Canada. Steve DELISLE, “An Introduction to the 1757 General Inventory of the King’s
Storehouses at Carillon,” The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XVII, No.2 (2017), p. 11-12;
Fred ANDERSON, The Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North
America, 1754-1766, New York, Knopf, 2007, p. 187-189; Lynn L. MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort
Michilimackinac, Mackinac Island, Mich, Mackinac State Historic Parks, 1994, p. 40-44; Cathrine DAVIS,
“Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” Undergraduate Thesis, Kalamazoo, Western Michigan
University, 2014, p. 67-69. 20 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 65-66, 69-72. 21 Diane L. ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781, Mackinac Island, MI, Mackinac
State Historic Parks, 1989, p.17
8
local tribes or should not be completely discounted. As a result of the work already done
concerning this site, the section on Fort St. Joseph will be a résumé of previous findings.
However, new information and precisions will of course be included.
New France is a subject that is gaining in popularity in the United States, due to its
ability to cross borders and to reunite the remnants of a French colonial empire spread
across a continent. Researchers hope to better understand the daily lives of various cultures
within this zone of French influence, from Louisbourg to the American South, and in what
ways they existed and coped with the colonial projects of Ancien Régime France. At the
center of the colonial experiment, we see the goods and merchandise sent from the
metropole to women and men throughout America, and who used them to express
themselves culturally and individually through their possessions and clothing styles.
In spite of the ever-growing field of knowledge concerning New France and the
Atlantic world, textiles are still only one small part of the historiography, often relegated to
a few pages or footnotes in works on the general history of the fur trade, French commerce,
or the history of Canada. I propose to elucidate the voyage of textiles and the importance of
their consumption in the colonies both in New France and France using lead seals as a
guide. Found throughout North America, these seals are still enigmatic. However, in the
past few decades, a select few archaeological studies have demonstrated the potential of
seals as witnesses to the larger world of transatlantic textile commerce22. Therefore, I will
use lead seals as a starting point to lead my investigation of textile consumption in New
France, choosing collections from three sites with distinctly different (yet shared) histories;
a trading post in the Pays d’en Haut (Fort St. Joseph), a central French and Indian War
military post in the hotly contested Lake Champlain Valley (Fort Ticonderoga), and a
fortified town and entrepôt on the Atlantic (Fortress Louisbourg)23. This study will also
allow insight into how textile consumption in New France influenced regions in France
concerned with textile production and commerce with Canada.
22 These sources will be discussed later in the chapter on historiography. 23 Among these collections, the materials recovered from Louisbourg and some of the material from Fort St.
Joseph were recovered through modern archaeological work, while the majority of seals from Fort
Ticonderoga and Fort St. Joseph were recovered at some point in the past, and were not found as part of a
formal excavation. Their context information is clearly tied to the sites, but their precise location of recovery
is unknown.
9
In order to support the lead seal evidence, I consider some subjects linked inevitably to
the study of textiles in New France: the economic history of France, the history of Atlantic
commerce, and the cultural and economic history of New France. This study rests with one
foot in economic history and the other in the numismatic archaeology of French North
America24.
PROGRESSION OF THIS STUDY
Due to the innate interdisciplinarity of my subject, my study lends itself awkwardly to
the organizational conventions of works common in both history and archaeology. This
issue is further exasturbated by the inclusion of large collections from three different sites
that must be examined independently as well as comparatively, and the well known
difficulty of understanding textiles in France and New France25. The goals of this study, in
brief, are to 1) document, 2) identify, 3) interpret, 4) compare and contrast, and 5)
conclude. Step one, documentation, is accomplished by means of the lengthy classification
and plates included in the annex of this thesis. These are simultaneously my sources and
my subjects, and must be included in this study to allow the critique of my work and to
provide other researchers with the possibility to compare and contrast their own lead seals
with those mentioned and analysed in this study. The analysis, in essence, is steps two,
three, four, and five combined. Identification and interpretation are very intertwined as is,
and to include a section dedicated soley to the identification of seals would cause
unnecessary repetition in any section dedicated to documentation or interpretation. Step
four is in fact the combination of these three site wide analyses in order to discuss the
differences and similarities between them, which will lead eminently to some discoveries
which will then be discussed and later summarized in that section. In order to aid in the
identification and interpretation of seals, it is necessary to be familiar with some base
knowledge concerning lead seals as well as the operation of inspection systems in Ancien
Régime France. Therefore, a preliminary section of contextual information containing
24 More specifically, this study is a material culture study of artifacts that borrows some ideas from
archaeology and is designed to be of aid to archaeologists seeking to identify lead seals, but is above all a
thesis produced within a history program and therefore seeking to satisfy historical exigences. 25"Peu d'auteurs se sont véritablement intéressés aux tissus en Nouvelle-France probablement en raison de la
complexité du sujet." Jean REGIS and André PROULX, Le commerce à Place Royale sous le Régime français,
Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la culture et des communications, 1995, Collection
Patrimoine, Vol. 94, p. 343.
10
sections on offices using lead seals and their greater connection to the French economy,
merchants and trade networks, packaging in the eighteenth century and the role of seals
within such processes, and some other useful information to consider concerning seals that
will come into play later in this study.
The organization of this thesis, therefore, is as follows. The introduction and
historiography preceed a section on the discussion of sources and methodology, after
which the first chapter will present contextual information and an introduction to lead seals
that will help explain the terminology on the seals discussed later on. Three analysis
chapters will follow, one for each site. It is important to recognize that the chapter on Fort
St. Joseph will include updated information and a general summary of the findings
avaliable in my undergraduate thesis on that site, whereas the chapters on Fort Ticonderoga
(Carillon) and Louisbourg will feature an analysis of collections that have never been
previously studied in depth26. Chapter five will consist of comparisons and contrasts
between the three sites and a discussion of these patterns, and finally a conclusion will tie
my study together and relate it to the world around us.
26 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” 101 p.
11
HISTORIOGRAPHY
CENTRAL, BUT LITTLE-KNOWN: LEAD SEALS IN NUMISMATICS
Lead seals were first used in the Hellenistic period, though seals of the Byzantine
Empire are arguably the most commonly studied27. First used commercially, historic lead
seals (sixteenth through seventeenth centuries) communicated information concerning tax
payment, quality checks during production and circulation of merchandise (especially
textiles), and possession of goods (as used by merchants or commercial companies during
transportation and before sale)28. Today, the study of lead seals is largely concentrated in
Europe, especially in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, where
antiquarians, collectors, academics, and museums (like the Museum de Lakenhal in Leiden
or the British Museum in London) often find them. In the case of the United Kingdom, a
now longstanding tradition of mudlarking and metal detecting has given rise to online
databases and forums dedicated to the identification of lead seals, among other artifact
types, along with the establishment of guidelines to protect archaeological sites within
these hobbies29. One of the first studies on historic lead seals, and the most useful to my
research is the work of Antoine Sabatier. Written in the first part of the twentieth century,
his book focuses on seals found in the region of the Saône and Seine rivers in France, most
of which were part of his private collections. This book uses official documents to explain
various types of seals and includes many plates in the back of the book and illustrations
that are indispensable in the identification of a large variety of French lead seals30.
Perhaps the most commonly used study among archaeologists in North America to
identify seals is the work of Geoffrey Egan on lead seals and related items in the British
Museum31. Though this work is mostly concerned with the identification of English lead
seals, some foreign seals are also included. Though unarguably packed with information on
27 Nicolas OIKONOMIDÈS, Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks, 1985, 28 p. 28 Geoffrey EGAN, Lead Seals and related items in the British Museum, London, Department of Medieval and
Later Antiquities, British Museum, 1994, Occasional papers of the British Museum, No. 93, 199 p; Antoine
SABATIER, Sigillographie historique des administrations fiscales, communautés ouvrières et institutions
diverses ayant employé des sceaux de plomb (XIV-XVIII siècles): plombs histories de la Saône et de la Seine,
Paris, H. Champion, 1912, 527p. 29 One of the more prominent forum sites is http://bagseals.org. 30 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, 527 p. 31 EGAN, Lead Seals and related…., 199 p.
12
English seals and the function of seals in general, this work relies on Sabatier for the
identification of most of the French seals included, and as such does little to aid in the
identification of French lead seals not included in Sabatier’s study. In the footsteps of
Egan, the most recent book on lead seals is one on lead cloth seals written by Stuart F.
Elton32. Though also focused mainly on English lead seals, it expands upon general
information on lead seals and their use and provides an up-to-date view of the world of
lead seal studies. This book is wonderfully illustrated and elaborates on many seals that are
also present on the popular website bagseals.org, which is curated by the author. In spite of
its name, all varieties of lead seals can be found on this public online database that could
provide a model for future collaborative lead seal research. At least one article on North
American lead seals, which includes some French seals, was recently written by David
Macdonald, professor emeritus and archaeologist specializing in ancient coins. This article
is brief, but it provides a clean, crisp overview of lead seals and a helpful bibliography for
those starting in historic sigillography33.
SEALS AND NORTH AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
North American archaeologists that work on colonial sites in the United States and in
Canada have begun to take an interest in lead seals in recent years. In regards to the
archaeology of the the thirteen American colonies, seals found in this territory are often
English and are somewhat easily identifiable using the work of Egan. In addition, the
indispensable archaeological field guide to early American artifacts by Ivor Noël Hume
provides information on some common English seals, while providing some flawed
information on at least one French seal34. Though these works remain nevertheless useful,
their lack of French materials presents a lacuna in the historiography.
With relatively few resources on lead seals available to archaeologists that work on
French sites, some have conducted further research on lead seals found at these sites in
hopes of better understanding them. The majority limit themselves to a short explanation of
32 Stuart F. ELTON, Cloth Seals: An Illustrated Guide to the Identification of Lead Seals Attached to Cloth,
Summertown, Oxford, Archaeopress Archaeology, 2017, 414 p. 33 David MACDONALD, “Introduction to Colonial Era Lead Seals,” Le Journal, Vol.29, No.4 (2013), p. 1-6. 34 Ivor Noël HUME, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, New York, Knopf, 1970 (1969), p.270-271. In
this guide, a seal from Nîmes (possibly a draperie seal) is incorrectly identified as a seal of the “French India
Company.”
13
seals within larger site reports or within studies focused on classification and typology of
artifacts from a single site. Some sites that have included lead seals studies on general
artifacts are Fort Ouiatenon, Fort St. Joseph, and Fort Michilimackinac35. The only book
written by an archaeologist that specifically focuses on lead seals from a French site is that
of Diane Adams, which examines archaeologically recovered seals from the site of Fort
Michilimackinac36. My undergraduate thesis on seals from Fort St. Joseph has roots in this
small but essential report, but also includes a brief comparison of these seals with the seals
reported on in the work of Stone and Adams37.
The slow adoption of lead seals as an archaeological subject could be due to the
migration of interest from material culture towards larger interpretive questions. However,
it may be a side effect of attitudes resulting from the continual reinterpretation of
archaeology’s relationship to history. The inclusion of both archaeology and history are
needed to make sense of lead seals as documents and as artifacts38. Research on French
lead seals found at sites in the United States appears to suffer because of the barrier posed
by the lack of comprehension of eighteenth-century French necessary to make sense of
many of the phrases commonly found on seals, or as the result of an inability to read
French sources required for their identification. Even the in depth study conducted by
Adams was based largely on English language sources, and includes only Sabatier and
Louise Dechêne’s work as French language sources39. Clearly, a study that concentrates on
lead seals from several French sites in North America that relies on French language
sources is much needed both in archaeological and historical circles.
35 Vergil E. NOBLE, “Functional Analysis and Intra-Site Analysis in Historical Archaeology: A Case Study
from Fort Ouiatenon,” Master’s Thesis, East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University, 1983, 359 p; Charles
A. HULSE, “An Archaeological Evaluation of Fort St. Joseph: An Eighteenth Century Military Post and
Settlement in Berrien Country, Michigan,” Master’s Thesis, East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University,
1977, 483 p; Lyle STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the
Revolutionary Frontier, Lansing, The Museum, Michigan State University, 1974, 367 p. 36 Diane L. ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781, 48p. 37 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” 101 p. 38 Jacques MATHIEU, “Comment analyser un objet,” Jocelyn LÉTOURNEAU ed., Le Coffre à Outils du
Chercheur Débutant. Quebec, Les Éditions du Boreal, 2006, p.107-114. 39 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 45-48
14
THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF FRANCE: THE RAISON D’ÊTRE OF FRENCH LEAD SEALS
The Economic history of France has in the past focused mostly on famous figures and
their lives or economic policies. One of the earliest important works concerning the
economy of the Ancien Régime is that of Charles Woolsey Cole. This book is an excellent
summary of the system and economic changes imposed by Jean Baptiste Colbert, minster
of finances to Louis XIV. However, this study focuses intensely on the life of Colbert and
his contemporaries, and contains less information on commerce and inspection at the
time40. Likewise, the other works of Cole tend to focus on biographical details of the life of
Colbert and subsequent ministers, rather then on the policies in place, and lack detailed
information on the role of these seventeeth-century changes in the eighteenth century41.
More recent studies, including several written by Pierre Goubert, focus on how economic
systems and changes to this system affected the daily lives of ordinary people in France.
These books, written by a prolific author, are a product of the rise of social history and are
now regarded as key texts and a starting point for any study or analysis concerning the
history of French economy in this period. Goubert’s Beauvais et les Beauvaisis de 1600 à
1730 and Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen focus on the influence of absolutism
on the economy and the everyday people involved in commerce, production, and
manufacturing42.
More recently, the work of Philip Minard on French production and inspection systems
present during the reign of Colbertism directly discusses the work and organizaton of
offices and other entities that used seals43. This work is important in interpreting the
confusing web of bureaucracy that existed in seventeenth and eighteenth-century France,
and much of it focuses on the textile industry in particular because of its prominence in
world trade at the time. Textile production is also discussed in Paul Butel’s book, which
commits a whole chapter to textiles, discussing different regions of production, the
40 Charles Woolsey COLE, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, Hamden, CN, Archon Books,
1964 (1939), Vol. 1, 532 p. Vol. 2 675 p. 41 Charles Woolsey COLE, French Mercantilism : 1683-1700, New York, Octagon Books, 1971 (1943), 353
p. 42 Pierre GOUBERT, Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 à 1730, Paris, S.E.V.P.E.N., 1960, 653 p; Pierre
GOUBERT, Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen, Trans. by Anne CARTER, New York, Pantheon Books,
1970, 350 p. 43 Philip MINARD, La Fortune du colbertisme: État et industrie dans la France des Lumières, Paris, Fayard,
1998, 505 p.
15
changing nature of the industry and longstanding textile traditions in various regions, while
also touching on consumption and changing tastes in textiles within France44. Butel is also
important as a pertinent source of information on translatlantic commerce- he and others
demonstrate how French economic policies extended to New France. Though these
geographic areas are so often treated separately, they ought to be considered jointly if one
is to truly understand life in either location 45.
COMMERCIAL HISTORY OF THE FRENCH ATLANTIC
The French Atlantic is a subject in vogue among archaeologists and historians alike
because it allows the integration of many regions in the colonial periphery into the larger
narrative of the French empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries46. Studies of the
Atlantic world are an opportunity to demonstrate how past connections between peoples
and geographic regions have influenced the beginnings of globalization and the rise of
today’s society and culture. The French colonial empire influenced the past and present of
people living in Québec, the Carribean, India, Africa, South America, and beyond. In
regards to Canada, explorations of these colonial commercial connections have often
focused on the study of marchands immigrés that came to New France to “get rich quick”
and return to France, and less on the négociants that never left France but were still
involved in the Canada trade47. Merchants, négociants and their affairs on both sides of the
Atlantic are examined in many studies, including those by Dale Miquelon, J.F. Bosher,
Brice Martinetti and Olivier Le Gouic48. The information presented in these studies
concerning individuals and companies involved in the Canada trade presents itself as a
useful enumeration of names and associations that can be cross referenced with names on
44 Paul BUTEL, L’Économie francaise au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, C.D.U et Sedes, 1993, p. 220-239. 45 Laurent DUBOIS, “The French Atlantic,” Jack P. GREENE et Philip D. MORGAN, dir., Atlantic History :
A Critical Appraisal, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.137-161. 46 Ibid., p. 137-8. 47 Ibid., p. 140. The Canada trade is the provisioning of metropolitan goods to Canada in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. This term is used by many scholars, especially J.F. Bosher. 48 Dale MIQUELON, “Havy and Lefebvre of Quebec : A Case Study of Metropolitan Participation in Canadian
Trade, 1730-60,” Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 56 No. 1, 1975, p. 1-24; Dale MIQUELON, Dugard of
Rouen : French Trade to Canada and the West Indies 1729-1770, Montreal and London, McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1978, p 282; J. F. BOSHER, The Canada Merchants 1713-1763, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1987, p.234; Brice MARTINETTI, Les Négociants de La Rochelle au XVIIIe siècle, Rennes, Presses
Universitaires de Rennes, 2013. Collection “Histoire,” 447 p; Olivier LE GOUIC, Lyon et la mer au XVIIIe
siècle : Connexions atlantiques et commerce colonial, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2011, 384
p.
16
seals included in this study. They also operate as a framework for my explorations of new
connections between French négociants and sites in New France, and my attempts to
explain the circulation of these textiles.
Other studies explore specific quantitative data concerning cargoes and the movement
of goods from port in Europe until their arrival at a colonial port, or focus on one port in
particular and the aspects of economic life in that location (trade in and out of the port,
families that dominate the towns commerce, the economy of the town). These works
contain information that is relevant to my study, expecially those that include details on
textiles and merchants dealing in them. Information on the destinations of cargo being
shipped to Canada and the families involved in textile commerce of French port towns,
such as La Rochelle, as presented by John G. Clark and other studies are also useful49.
Though my interests lie primarily in the French Atlantic, other studies that consider
parallel colonial situations are important to consider. The Spinning World of Riello and
Parthasarathi provide case studies on textiles throughout the world50. Other works such as
those of Robert Duplessis concerning textiles in the Atlantic world focus on colonies and
less on production in the metropole, but discuss patterns in clothing consumption related to
cultural, geographical, and climatic differences51. Duplessis also mentions means of textile
acquisition in the colonies and how access played a role in consumption. Additionally, he
does not cover the use of textiles by European colonists to the detriment of Native
American patterns of use, and in his inclusivity therefore fills a hole in the historiography
of the “Amerindian Atlantic52.” This book is a solid guideline to build my study of
consumerism upon, and the use of lead seals is an added dimension that I suspect will
prove in accord with these observations.
49 John G. CLARK, La Rochelle and the Atlantic Economy during the Eighteenth Century, Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, 286 p. 50 RIELLO and PARTHASARATHI, The Spinning World, 489 p. 51 DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., 320 p. 52 Paul COHEN, “Was there an Amerindian Atlantic? Reflections on the Limits of a Historiographical
Concept,” History of European Ideas, Vol. 34 Issue 4, 2008, p. 388-410.
17
TEXTILES AND THE HISTORY OF NEW FRANCE
Textiles and Commerce among Canadien colonists and habitants
Textile consumption in Canadien culture in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
has been researched, but not as extensively as other subjects. Sparse information on textiles
appears in works on commercial links with France, or the subject is given some treatment
in general histories of the colony. Perhaps the best sources of information on textile use in
New France include the section on textiles in Louise Dechêne’s study on Montréal
merchants and Sophie White’s book on the Illinois country and Louisiana53. Though
White’s work does not necessarily focus on the St. Lawrence Valley or Acadia, some of
her information is reasonably applicable to the Pays d’en Haut. Studies that focus more
generally on the economy of New France are typically more interested in the fur trade,
forestry, and the collection of raw materials and their export to the metropole54. However,
some more recent works have included a little more information on goods destined for the
colony. As previously mentioned, Dechêne focuses briefly on textiles in merchant stocks in
Montréal, which may include some items meant for local sale. She also presents tables and
illustrations that help the reader better comprehend information on the popularity and
quantity of European goods present in Canada.
In the same vein as Dechêne’s work, some other general works on New France have
sections that speak to the commercial activity, colonial merchants, and European
importations55. As a result, I have a rough idea of the larger movements and events in the
economic life of the colony. In terms of specifics of dress and textile use, there are few
resources available. Séguin includes some sparse information on clothing in his classic La
civilisation traditionnelle de l' "habitant " aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles56. Perhaps the best
53 Sophie WHITE, Wild Frenchmen and Frenchified Indians: Material Culture and Race in Colonial
Louisiana, Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press, 2012, 329p.; Louise DECHÊNE, Habitants et
Marchands de Montréal au XVIIe Siècle, Paris, Librairie Plon, 1974, p. 150-154. 54 Jean LUNN, “Economic Development in New France, 1713-1760,” Doctoral Dissertation, Université
McGill, 1942, 495 p; Harold A. INNIS, The Fur Trade In Canada : an Introduction to Canadian Economic
History, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962, 446 p; Bernard ALLAIRE, Pelleteries, manchons, et
chapeaux de castor: Les fourrures nord-américaines à Paris 1500-1632, Sillery, Septentrion, 1999, 400 p. 55 Marcel TRUDEL, La Nouvelle-France par les textes : les cadres de vie, Québec, Bibliothèque québecoise,
2011 (2003), 399 p; Guy FREGAULT, La civilisation de la Nouvelle-France (1713-1744), Quebec, Biblio-
Fides 2014 (1944), 285 p. 56 Robert Lionel SÉGUIN, La civilisation traditionnelle de l' "habitant " aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Ottawa,
Fides, 1967, 710 p.
18
resources on clothing in New France are the Lexique illustré du costume en Nouvelle-
France of Suzanne and André Gousse, and a book that focuses largely on clothing on Île
d’Orléans in the seventeeth and early eighteenth centuries57. The latter mostly pulls from
probate inventories of common people, so it provides a foil to the inventories of the
noblesse that are much more often mentioned in texts. My research on Louisbourg has
resulted in the discovery of a few sources regarding textile imports and clothing there. I
have relied on the work of Christopher Moore for general historical information on the site,
but his work for Parks Canada on commerce on at Louisbourg and on Île Royale has been
insdispensable, as have works by Ken Donovan58.
The Fur Trade and Native American Clothing Consumption
Contrary to the situation of research concerning clothing and textile consumption
among the French inhabitants of New France, the historiography of Native American dress
and the fur trade is a rich one. It is a historiography with roots in observations recorded in
the seventeeth and and eighteenth centuries by European travelers, missionaries, and
military officers59. One very important and well known work that discusses cultural
constructs and the exchange of trade goods between Europeans and Native Americans is
The Middle Ground, which is widely used by both historians and archaeologists60. In this
book, Richard White discusses how seventeenth through nineteenth-century Native
Americans coped with colonialism and how they played French and English colonial
projects to their advantage as they sought to sustain their power and agency in a changing
world61. White and other authors that have followed in his line of reasoning have in a way
57 Suzanne and André GOUSSE, Lexique illustré du costume en Nouvelle-France, 1740-1760, Chambly, La
Fleur de Lyse, 1995, 62 p; Bernard AUDET, Le costume paysan dans la région de Québec au XVIIe siècle: Île
d'Orléans, Ottawa, Leméac, 1980, 214 p. 58Christopher MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg, Fortress of Louisbourg unpublished manuscript
report, No. 317, 1975, 115 p; MOORE, Christopher, “Merchant Trade in Louisbourg, Isle Royale,” Master’s
thesis, Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 1977, 144 p.; Kenneth DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes and Powdered
Wigs: Case Studies of the Poor and Well-To-Do in Eighteenth-Century Louisbourg," Kenneth DONOVAN,
ed., Cape Breton at 200: Historical Essays in Honour of the Island’s Bicentennial 1785-1985, Sydney, NS,
Cape Breton University Press, 1985, p. 1-20. 59 J.C.B., Voyage au Canada dans le nord de l’Amérique septentrionale fait depuis l’an 1751 à 1761,
Québec, Imprimerie Léger Brousseau, 1887, 255 p; Pierre POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre de
l'Amérique septentrionale, Sillery, Septentrion, 2003, 324 p; Louis-Antoine de BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le
Canada, Sillery, Septentrion, 2003, 430 p. 60 Richard WHITE, The Middle Ground : Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-
1815, Second edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010 (1991), 576 p. 61 DUBOIS, “ The French Atlantic,” p.142-143; COHEN, “Was there an Amerindian Atlantic…,” p. 394.
19
returned agency to colonial era Native Americans previously ignored in past studies tainted
by political rhetoric, prejudices, and misinterpretation. His approach provides basic
viewpoints that play into many other studies discussing the textile preferences of Native
Americans as consumers and the impact that these preferences had on European merchants
and manufacturers. However, this approach has been recently criticized for portraying
Native Americans as reactionaries instead of as instigators of change. This style of thinking
has been brought to the forefront in recent publications, especially the book Masters of
Empire, whose title refers to Native Americans rather than the Europeans historically
portrayed as such62.
One important source to consider in my work is Bruce Trigger’s Natives and
Newcomers, a book that uses an approach that pulls from both anthropology and history,
and includes archaeological data to support his interpretation of the traditional narrative
regarding the early period of French colonization63. Trigger puts forth a rationialist
argument that Native American consumption of European goods was driven more by the
utilitarian qualities of these goods than other motivations, as noted by Havard. Havard
warns, however, that a similar approach runs the risk of falling into ethnocentrism by
assuming that Native Americans thought in terms of utility, just as Europeas often did64. I
would suggest that the true nature of Native American consumerism lies somewhere
between this rationalist approach and culturally motivated consumption based on intrinsic
attributes offered by goods not commonplace in traditional society.
Trigger is a prime example of the use of interdisciplinarity in studies of the past.
Interdisciplinary studies are fairly common in the case of the fur trade, with another prime
example being the work of Dean Anderson. His analysis of the Montréal merchant records
uses archival sources to compliment archaeological findings at various fur trade posts in a
quest to better understand the flow and distribution of trade goods in the Western Great
62 Michael MCDONNELL, Masters of Empire: Great Lakes Indians and the Making of America, New York,
Macmillan, 2015, 416 p. 63 Bruce TRIGGER, Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Reconsidered, Montreal, McGill-
Queens Press, 1986, 430 p. 64 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 33.
20
Lakes region65. Where Two Worlds Meet, a book that reads more like an exhibit than an in
depth study, is also incredibly useful because it uses objects as starting points to explain
how European goods made their way to the Great Lakes, all while written in a way that
reaches the larger public66. It is useful because it accomplishes a similar goal to the one I
have set for this study in its explanation of larger phenomena in the history of New France
using small and often overlooked artifacts.
Another classic study that approaches Native American consumption along with a
spatial analysis of the fur trade is Give Us Good Measure67. This book takes a different
angle of approach on the fur trade: through the use of geography alongside historical and
archaeological data, it shows patterns in the trade between trading posts around and near
Hudson’s Bay. It also explains how the fur trade evolved over time, from a system heavily
controlled by Native Americans and the construct of gift giving, up until the fusion of this
model with more European economic traditions68.
Like Louise Dechêne’s study that enumerates the merchandise in stocks at Montréal,
Empires et Métissages by Gilles Havard includes within it a section on material culture and
trade goods as well as an essential and in depth analysis of Native and French relations in
the Pays d’en Haut69. This work adds further to the study of the “Amerindien Atlantic” in
that it discusses how the Pays d’en Haut and other borderlands of New France were not
necessarily peripheries, as colonialist discourse would classify them, but were rather
important commercial and cultural centers that were full and active participants in the
Atlantic economy70. Finally, a classic text on the economic history of the fur trade by
Harold Innis, though “beaver-centric” provides basic background on the fur trade as an
economic system and provides an understanding of the fur trade as the beginnings of the
65 Dean ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade Goods into the Western Great Lakes Region, 1715-1760,”
J.S.H. BROWN, W.J. ECCLES, and D.P. HELDMAN eds., The Fur Trade Revisted, East Lansing, MI, Michigan
State University Press, 1994, p. 93-115. 66 Carolyn GILMAN (dir.), Where Two Worlds Meet : the Great Lakes Fur Trade, St. Paul, MN, Minnesota
Historical Society Press, 1982, 136 p. 67 Arthur J. RAY and Donald B. FREEMAN, “Give us Good Measure”: an Economic Analysis of Relations
between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Company before 1763, Toronto, University of Toronto Press,
1978, 298 p. 68 Ibid., p. 236. 69 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, 603 p. 70 COHEN, “Was there an Amerindian Atlantic…,” p. 409; HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 46-50.
21
Canadian economy, fitting it into the rest of Canadian history71. This study includes
information on the fur trade from its very beginnings up until its decline in the twentieth
century.
Drawing from the sources discussed in the above historiography will enable me to
inform and ground my approach to lead seals by providing me with the most holistic
possible view of the world within which they circulated. These sources will guide my
interpretation of textile use at North American sites as well as my understanding of
production and inspection systems in place in Europe. They provide me with the building
blocks I need in order to arrange this study in a manner that uses already existing work on
lead seals and numismatic archaeology as a base.
71 INNIS, The Fur Trade In Canada…, 446 p.
22
METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES USED IN THIS STUDY
SOURCES USED IN THIS STUDY
In this study, I will examine lead seals as sources with the potential to inform the
subjects mentioned in the previous sections. The use of primary and secondary sources will
aid me in my identification of governmental offices, trading companies, négociants,
merchants, and manufacturing centers linked to and mentioned on seals. These sources
may also hold clues and information concerning the textiles that are associated with the
above persons and institutions, especially archives that include inventory lists for the
Magasins du Roi in the colony, inventories for merchant stores, or probate inventories.
The use of lead seal analysis instead of depending soley on written documents is
innovative in two respects. Firstly, through seals have been studied before by
archaeologists, the studies that exist do not explore the interpretive implications of lead
seals outside of the basic identification of their marks. The identification of seals is often
hampered by problems of preservation that render seals unintelligible, or by a lack of
familiarity with the French economic vocabulary on seals. Pushing research further than in
these preliminary studies, in an attempt to reveal the whole of a trading network, from
producer to consumer, is to proceed while using a level of documentary research that is
rarely accorded to individual objects in the discipline of archaeology. Where other artifact
categories such as clay smoking pipes or ceramics (or the materials that compose them-
wood, lead, clay, etc.) are concerned, the origins of the artifacts and their production is
often explored by archaeological study, but how they moved from point A in Europe to
point B in the Americas is often left untouched or left to future researchers72. In the case of
this study, chemical analysis of the lead used in seals will not be used as it cannot
necessarily inform us of the origin of textiles. However, someday such analysis could be
used to source lead used in seals in order to determine if the lead used in seals was sourced
locally within France, which in turn could help identify unmarked or damaged seals.
However, because of the size of these seals, whatever methold used for this chemical
72 Yves MONETTE, “La recherche des métaux sous le Régime français et le cas particulier de l’exploitation
des gîtes de plomb en Nouvelle-France,” Hélène CÔTÉ, dir. and Christian ROY, Rêves d’Amériques :Regard
sur l’archéologie de la Nouvelle-France / Dreams of the Americas: Overview of New France Archaeology,
Québec, Association des archéologues du Québec, Archéologiques, Collection Hors Série 2, 2008, p. 205-
220.
23
analysis cannot require a large sample size, or risk damaging the seal and obscuring its
markings.
This is not to say that archaeologists have not contributed to the identification and
precision of trading networks, expecially considering the aforementioned work of Dean
Anderson, for example73. Secondly, in order to successfully link these seals to merchants,
networks, and the beginnings of modern globalization, my research demands an
interdisciplinary approach. It is vital that my study, and the field of historical archaeology,
grows to include a balance of both anthropological thought and historical research together.
Though the fusion of archaeological and historical elements is often not present enough
in either discipline, for the purpose of this study, interdisciplinarity is borne out of
necessity74. As explained by Duplessis, the information that documentary sources provide
concerning textile consumption is not always trustworthy for a number of reasons; the
possible skew exerted by the life experiences and prejudices of the writer or artist, the
difficulty in understanding historical nomenclature used for various textile types across
different cultures, the absence of probate inventories that represent minorities or non-
European cultures (these documents are usually created by Europeans for Europeans), and
because of, quite simply, a lack of documentation concerning the fate of textiles once they
were purchased or distributed75. Though lead seals have their own ensemble of problems,
as artifacts they are innately free of bias and prejudice, and are not necessarily subject to
issues involving historical nomenclature (at least where textiles are concerned). They are
most often found in post-consumption contexts, where they are deposited after a textile is
put into use, and are therefore able to inform us about what happens to textiles after the
paper trail ends. Additionally, they are not limited to telling a narrative associated with one
particular culture- they reveal as much about European culture as they potentially reveal
about Native American cultures. Seals are often the only way to discover specific
73 ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade…,” p. 93-115. 74 Many archaeologists may argue that this study is a material culture study, which still places it within the
larger field of archaeology according to some and within history according to others. As my training in the
United States has always shown it to be within the field of archaeology, I have chosen to use the term
archaeology in my writing. It should once again be noted that this is a thesis produced in a history program
and thus does not take an approach that could be strictly described as an archaeological or anthropological
one. 75 DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 8-14.
24
qualitative information concerning the textiles present at sites where there is insufficient
documentary evidence.
The lead seals chosen for this study were drawn from archaeological collections from
three sites (Fortress Louisbourg, Fort St. Joseph, and Fort Ticonderoga) were selected for
several reasons. First of all, the seals from these three sites are easily accessible to me and
have yet to be studied in depth, with the exception of Fort St. Joseph of course, which was
the subject of my previous thesis76. Secondly, these sites are geographically, culturally, and
functionally different. The chronology of French occupation at each site is varied, which
may permit some attempts to assign dates to different seal designs with the help of archival
sources and dated events associated with the sites and seals. Locational differences allow
for an analysis that will reveal regional consumption tendencies, including those caused by
variations in the availability of textiles or differences in the commodity demands in rural
versus urban areas or coastal versus interior settlements77. Cultural and functional
differences could also explain the variety of textiles present at a site. For example, at Fort
Ticonderoga, which was constructed and occupied by military personnel, lead seals from
the site likely represent material for the creation of uniforms and other essentials, or less
likely, gifts meant for maintaining diplomatic relationships with Native American allies.
Meanwhile at Fort St. Joseph, where the principal activity at the site was commercial and
where military activity was less intense than at Ticonderoga, the lead seals likely represent
textiles imported for trade or civilian consumption.
There are still many issues endemic to lead seal analysis. The paucity of lead seals is
likely due to a variety of situations: poor or partial preservation, site looting, historic
anomalies in the distribution or consumption of textiles, and the reuse and melting down of
lead account for several of the possible explanations. The latter reason, melting and reuse
of lead seals, is in itself an interesting phenomenon that will be addressed in this thesis.
Lead seals are also inherently difficult to identify, with identification guides being
relatively rare, particularily for French seals. Again, the readablility of lead seals is largely
dependent on the quality of preservation at a site and the conservation of artifacts in
76 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 101 p. 77 RIELLO and PARTHASARATHI, The Spinning World…, p. 246.
25
collections. Lead seals that are damaged, separated, fragmentary, or abraded are difficult to
examine for lettering or motifs that often lead to identification. In cases where one side of a
seal is imprinted with merchant information and the other with hints concerning the place
of fabrication of the textile, the loss of even one side of the seal is a loss of information
concerning merchant networks. However, in other cases, the motifs and phrases on a seal
are impossible for the researcher to match to extant sources, leaving a perfectly preserved
seal unidentified (though never truly unidentifiable). Such is the frustrating fascination of
lead seals that leads few experts to devote their lives to their study.
There is not yet a method of dating for lead seals. Though many seals are stamped with
dates, these dates are of little use when considering the date of use of the cloth or in
pinpointing its date of importation. Though likely indicative of the date of the sealing
process, these dates cannot be unquestionably relied upon because of the short or long term
storage of cloth during transit or before use78. The most accurate means of attaching
temporal information to lead seals so far appears to be through gathering information on
dates of merchant activities and genealogy. Lastly, quantitative analysis of seals poses a
problem because any piece of cloth may have had several seals attached to it at one time79.
This being said, a sample of six seals does not represent the equivalent amount of cloth
pieces, unless each seal is identical. In this case, the seals may theoretically function in the
same manner as a single bone (the right femur) may be used to highlight the minimum
number of individuals (MNI) at a site, giving researchers a minimum number of pieces of a
particular type that may have been present80. Not knowing which seals were once on the
same piece together, however, renders this sort of analysis impossible except in rare cases.
In regards to my auxiliary sources, some tools allow discovery and access to archival
and secondary sources necessary to find more information on my seals. In order to easily
find primary sources housed at the BAnQ, I implement a guide on archives of French
78 ELTON, Cloth Seals: An Illustrated Guide…, p. 33. 79 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 16. Note that “piece” refers to the raw
woven form of cloth after its removal from the loom, it is the basic unit of existence for textiles. A modern
equivalent would be a bolt. 80 Brian FAGAN, Linking to the Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
2007, p. 311-313. This MNI approach is essential in the study of faunal remains in biological archaeology.
26
origin and also rely on the aid of the helpful experts that work at the center81. Pistard, the
online database for digitized sources available at the BAnQ, and Parchemin, a BAnQ
database of notarial records, also aid in the search for materials available for my
consultation, though the documents they provide are very merchant-specific (Parchemin in
particular) and perhaps too informationally rich to do justice to in this study. Additionally,
internet access has allowed me to discover and make use of multiple primary sources
online, including period commercial and language dictionaries, textile swatches, and
government documents.
METHODOLOGY
With the possibilities and problems that surround lead seals and their study, and
understanding the fusion of historical and archaeological concepts at play in this study, my
methodology will resemble that of an archaeological study, with some elements that are
generally expected of a historical work. Due to the relatively unpopular nature of my
subject, and so that my colleagues and other researchers are able to critique my work and
build upon it, it is necessary to make my primary sources as accessible as possible to
others. Therefore, the first step in my methodology is to document the seals included in this
study through photography, measurements, and careful notetaking82. These measures,
notes, and photographs will also help me to work to identify seals without consulting them
in person more than once, since my research covers a large geographic region. The notes
and images are organized into a classification and made available in the annex of this
thesis.
Second, I will need to identify lead seals using the marks and entities represented in
their impressions. It should be noted that within this study, I will not be attempting to
analyse the textile impressions left on the inside of plates due to the force of sealing and
the softness of the lead, though they ideally should be the subject of a future study led by
81 Rénald LESSARD, Guide des copies d’archives d’origine française, Québec, Gouvernement du Québec,
1990, 488 p. 82 In the case of Fort St. Joseph this was accomplished in my previous undergraduate thesis. DAVIS, “Lead
Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” 101 p. Images of the seals involved in that study and
discussed briefly in this one are available in its annex, while the typology created for that site is included in
the classification section in the annex of this study in order to at least provide descriptions of the seals for
those unable to access my previous work.
27
someone with a much greater practical knowledge of period textiles. Likewise, though an
ever watchful eye will be kept open for correspondances in the appearance of fractions and
numerals scratched into the reverse plates of various seals, proper analysis and matching of
these numerals will also have to wait for another study at another time. It has been deemed
too labor intensive to focus on these markings, giving the scope of this study and the
existing challenges already presented by the analysis of stamped impressions.
Returning to the classification of seals in this study based on their impressions, in a
typical archaeological study, a typology based usually on formal attributes of these artifacts
would help separate and group together contrasting or like seals in order to make them
more manageable for study. My classification accomplishes this regrouping based on
shared features, but does so by region and town represented rather than by attachment type,
as has been used in the past, including in my analysis of seals from Fort St. Joseph83. There
are a few issues with using attachment type classification and a new system should be
thought out to cope with these issues. Firstly, some smaller lead seals are very difficult to
assign to series B or C, since in the corrosion process often the tunnels on seals are
obscured84. The most one can do in many cases is to choose between one or the other and
hope that the future can clarify. Further, classification by attachment type does not
necessarily provide a meaningful grouping of seals, because attachment type does not
always determine textile association or origin. Series A, B, or C seals may have marked
bags, textiles, hosiery, or paquets, so separating them by attachment type may split up seals
that have other shared attributes, such as origin. Origin makes more sense, therefore, as a
means of classification because it allows seals from the same areas to be grouped together
and understood as a representation of textile production and commerce in that given region,
relative to the activities at the site examined. Further, the classification of lead seals based
on their region is a staple in the European lead seal studies I rely upon for other
conventions85. In order to proceed with a stable interpretation of marks and impressions on
seals, it is important to link these designs to a merchant, négociant, manufacturing center,
83 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” 101 p. 84 The intricacies of lead seal attachment style typology will be discussed in the next chapter. 85 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, 527 p.; EGAN, Lead Seals and related…, 473 p; ELTON, Cloth
Seals: An Illustrated Guide…, 414 p.
28
or governmental office, and to identify the region or town from which the seal may
originate. The use of regional histories or merchant records can then help identify other
marks on the seal, leading to a more complete identification and more data available for
interpretation.
Finally, the identity of seals together with details concerning their North American
contexts will allow me to proceed with an interpretation of the seals and the textiles they
may have marked. In other words, the identity of the seal will be considered alongside the
archaeological and historical contexts that surround it in an attempt to understand the role
of the textile that it marked both in daily life at the site, as well as in its role as a connector
of people at each extremity of the Canada trade in textiles. Regarding the archaeological
contexts associated with the seals in this study, though some very specific contexts are
available for seals from Louisbourg and Fort St. Joseph, overall archaeological information
concerning material culture at the site is more valuable at the moment considering the
scope of this research. This being said, at a later date, the specific location of lead seal
recovery within a site should be examined in a different study in order to determine the
relationships of the seals with individuals or cultural groups. This decision to overlook for
the instant more precise contextual and spatial archaeological data will afford all seals the
same treatment within this analysis, since many are without context data or have somewhat
dubious information concerning their original context. In order to identify the products
associated with the represented towns and regions, period commercial dictionaries and
regional histories will likely be consulted. Futher, primary and secondary sources such as
inventories, trade lists, and published import lists will help reveal use patterns concerning
identified textile types at these sites.
After gathering all this information on seals, it is possible to learn more about textile
consumption at each site and how they and their inhabitants tie into the larger French
Atlantic World. Through selection of my three sites, comparing and contrasting the lead
seal evidence from each location will help highlight the differences and similarities in
consumption, and permit the identification of trends on regional and geographic levels.
Though this study at first glance appears to be more archaeological and artifact based than
historical, it is important to note that the extensive documentary research and
29
understanding of seventeeth and eighteenth-century French economic thought and
commercial systems is necessary to understand the European extremity of the Canada
trade. This training in European economic and commercial history is slightly more
specialized than required by the average North American historical archaeologist.
Historical archaeologists are generally driven by more scientific and holistic means of
interpreting objects, which is borne out of anthropological influences and is in many cases
necessary to understand the aspects of North American sites with spotty documentation and
phenonomena unique to the continent. This study cannot be considered fully within the
domain of either discipline, being too material culture oriented to be plainly historic, and
too historically-minded to be entirely archaeological, and finally too occupied with gobal
tendencies and trends to be considered a detail study of numismatic objects. Being a
veritable combination of elements of numismatics, economics, history, and archaeology,
this study is one that best served by a multi-disciplinary approach. It is not interdisciplinary
by choice, but by necessity. In consequence, the above methodology is a fusion of methods
of each of these domains, from examination and identification to contextualization and
comparison.
30
CHAPTER 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
1.1 THE WORLD OF LEAD SEALS
1.1.1 Lead seals in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century France and New France
Various types of lead seals have been in use since at least Roman times, when they
were used to mark official documents and goods traded around the Mediterranean86.
During the medieval period they began to be used to mark textiles in order to associate
them with manufactures of a certain reputation and as signs of quality and in order to track
customs taxes. Their use became much more widespread, peaking in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries87. Lead seals are still used today by the military and on cargo
transported by trucks, trains, and ships as tamper-evident devices88. Seventeenth and
eighteenth-century seals varied in size and form according to their intended use. Lead seals
can be bag seals, bale seals, document seals (this is a more medieval phenomenon, but
some instances persist), or textile (“cloth”) seals. Lead seals can range in size from 5 cm to
7 mm, making their examination at times difficult. Textile seals themselves vary in form,
with different types and marks being used by weavers, dyers, alnagers, guilds, merchants,
and government inspection offices89.
This thesis focuses mainly on textile seals, which compose the majority of the three
assemblages consulted for this study, and account for most of the seals found
archaeologically on this continent. Lead seals tend to attach to cloth in three main styles,
and these attachment types are the formal attribute most often used to classify seals. These
styles are discussed by Sabatier and were used in Lyle Stone’s typology at
Michilimackinac, which simplifies the terminology used to describe them buy assigning
them to a lettered series90. Though Stone’s typology and Sabatier’s descriptions do not
cover all the attachment types seen in this study (which has led to some amendments and
additions to Stone’s identified seal typology for my own purposes), they are a good base
86 EGAN, Lead Seals and Related…, 8-9; SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 2-3; Michael Charles
William STILL, “Roman Lead Sealings, Vol. 1,” Doctoral Dissertation, London, University College London,
1995, p. 26-27. 87 STILL, “Roman Lead Sealings…,” p. 28-30. 88 Most of these seals are tunnel seals (Series C). 89 EGAN, Lead Seals and Related…, p. 2. Alnagers inspected cloth quality and length, they are roughly the
English equivalent to gardes jurés in France. 90 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 281-297.
31
for describing the appearance of seals when images are not available and are therefore
present in my classification91. Image 1 in the annex of this study is a visual representation
of these basic attachment styles92.
The most common attachment style for seals in general is the Series A style (Sabatier’s
“sceaux à plateaux”)93. These seals are composed of two plates joined by a connecting
strip or flange. One plate has a hole in the center, while a pointed knob or projection is
present on the opposing plate, as seen in Image 1. These seals are known to have been
made in some of the extant soapstone molds found in Europe94. In order to affix to textiles,
the pointed projection (knob) on the one plate (the reverse, as defined in all of my studies
and articles) is forced through the weave of a textile, presumably after a hole is made
though use of an awl in order to avoid weakening the cloth. The opposite plate with the
hole is then bent over, the knob aligned and pressed into the hole, and the seal is hammered
shut. Seals were affixed to the head (le chef) or foot of a textile piece, possibly at both
ends95. Series A seals are generally associated with woolens, linens, or cottons, but are not
generally used to mark silks. This could be because their weight would damage finer
textiles. Series A seals generally have one or two knobs/holes, but never more than two96.
The second most common attachment style are tunnel seals (sceaux à tunnel), or Series
C seals. These seals are one piece with two faces, like a coin blank, but are thicker and
have one or two tunnels running through them. Some tunnel seals have a “Y” shaped
tunnel system, with two tunnels running into one97. To attach these seals to cloth, cord,
bales, or bags, they would have a wire or textile cord run through one tunnel, though or
91 The typology for Fort St. Joseph relies on Stone’s system, while the other two sites take a model more akin
to the location based classification that appears in works by Egan. See Annex, p. 140-190. 92 See Annex, p. 139. 93 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 8. 94 EGAN, Lead Seals…, p. 5. 95 CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE, Arrêt du conseil d'Etat servant de réglement aux marchands négociants, et
pour rectifier les abus sur les draps étrangers et des manufactures de France qui se vendent à Paris sans
avoir les plombs ordonnés par l'arrêt du 27 mars 1731, Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1732. The word “piece” in
this study means a designated textile length, usually the textile as it exists after being taken off the loom-
essentially it is the equivalent to a modern bolt of cloth, but smaller because of the types of looms used in the
eighteenth-century. 96 Two holes and two knobs is often called a double knob attachment style, Series A Type II according to
Stone’s classification. STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 289. 97 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 7. Sabatier also mentions seals with three tunnels.
32
around the product, and back through the other tunnel98. The seal would then be hammered
shut, collapsing the tunnels and securing the cord. Some seals of this variety may have
acted as bale seals, as is discussed later in this chapter. Many tax, company, and customs
seals fall into this attachment style category.
Series B seals (which appears to include sceaux agrafés, sceaux troués) appear nearly as
often as Series C seals, and consist of a single plate and a long flange that bends back onto
the plate and attaches by means of a hole in the plate or by being pressed back onto the
plate99. These seals are very small and often broken, and so their means of attachment are
often questionable. Sabatier suggests that some may have just had a small hole and were
sewn onto the textiles they marked, in the case of his sceaux troués. He may be correct, as
some seals do not have a flange, but they may have lost it after their removal or deposition
in the archaeological record. Their markings single them out as seals used on bonneterie
(knit goods such as stockings) and fine textiles, such as silks. Sabatier’s sceaux agrafés
seem to be triangular seals with multiple flanges that are inserted through the cloth and
bent back onto the plate100. Other seals exhibit various other styles of attachment that are
less often seen. Notably, this study includes a seal that has been assigned a new type under
Series A (Series A Type 3)101. This seal (47L.58B3.1 from Louisbourg) has four plates,
two connected by a flange with both plates exhibiting a hole, and the other two similarily
connected, but with a knob on each plate.
In eighteenth-century Europe, mercantilist economic theory prevailed. Every country
sought to attract the most gold and silver possible through domination of the markets102.
Nowhere was this more true than in France, where Louis XIV’s financial minister, Jean-
Baptiste Colbert, led a campaign to launch France into a position of economic (and
therefore military) power over its neighbors. Colbertism, the intensified version of
mercantilism that possessed France throughout most of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, focused a great deal on textiles. Textiles were, after all, the most sought after and
98 See Annex p. 139, Image 1. 99 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 13. 100 Ibid. 101 See Annex p. 140-142. 102 Mercantilist thought assumed that specie (gold and silver bullion) were to be found on Earth in a finite
amount.
33
traded of European goods103. Whatever nation controlled the textile market, had the
strongest domestic manufactures, and lost the least amount of gold and silver in the
purchase of foreign goods, would dominate Europe. Colbert sought to control the market
through intensive quality control measures and inspection systems.
In 1669 Colbert introduced rules and statutes that lasted until 1779. These reforms were
effective until around 1750, when they started to be less accepted and questioned. Colbert’s
system put in place a system where a body of merchants and makers would designate a
garde juré each year that worked with an inspector of manufactures. These positions
operated within a network of bureaux de fabrique and bureaux de contrôle present in the
majority of cloth producing centers. These offices inspected and marked cloth, making sure
that the pieces being circulated outside of the town were of the correct quality and length.
Production of textiles in seventeenth and eighteenth-century France was both rural and
urban in nature. Textiles had been a rural “cottage industry” starting in the seventeenth
century, and often occupied the winter months104. Despite regulations stating that
production was to be done in the country and then the textiles brought to market, most of
the time these country weavers took direct orders from merchants and created textiles to
their specifications105. Throughout the eighteenth century, spinning and weaving moved
from the country to the city as the beginnings of industrialization set in. As this occurred,
production rose while the number of fabricants actually employed in making textiles
diminished. In Montauban, for example, 235 textile makers in 1709 passed to 176 in 1745,
and finally to only 60 in 1779106.
The primary purpose of lead cloth seals was to mark textile pieces that were
appropriately sized and of the correct quality to be circulated and sold. Pieces were usually
marked with the identities of the weavers, dyers, and merchants involved in their
production, by means of stitched marks into the edges of cloth, or more commonly though
the use of seals. In the event that the cloth was found to be of incorrect quality, the seals
103 Jan DE VRIES, The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600-1750, Cambridge University Press, 1976,
p. 98. 104 Daniel LIGOU and Gilbert CASTAING, Histoire de Montauban, Toulouse, Privat, 1984, p. 175. 105 Ibid. p. 175. 106 Ibid. p. 175-176.
34
enabled the law to identify all accountable parties, and to fine them. This is seen clearly in
an arrêt from 1743 that deals with the discovery and identification of three pieces of serge
that were too short for the market and not fine enough (or as the document states,
“grasse”). Were fined one merchant, three fabricants whose marks (seals) were found on
the pieces, and the gardes jurés at the bureaux de contrôle that had approved and marked
cloth of an insufficient length and quality107. At least one arrêt from the 1730s mentions
the use of counterfeit seals and promises heavy fines for those caught using them.
“III
Faisons aussi très-expresses inhibitions & defenses a tous Marchands, de joindre ou
faire rentrayer à aucune piece de drap ou autre étoffe cy-dessus designee, le chef
d’une autre piece d’étoffe de même qualité, dans le vûë de déguiser le nom du
fabriquant & le lieu de fabrique, à peine de confiscation desdits draps & autres
étoffes, & de mille livres d’amende pour chaque pieces, & d’estre exclus du corps des
Marchands108.”
Inadequacies in sealing and in quality were often detected by inspections that took
place at bureaux de visite, which inspected textiles that were coming into a town for sale.
Additionally, there were customs offices (“douanes”) and bureaux forains. While the
bureaux forains had little to do with the modern definition of the word forain, “having to
do with fairs,” they were much more focused on the inspection and payment of the traite
foraine on textiles that were leaving or entering France, as per the eighteenth-century
meaning of the word109. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, this word
not only applied to articles coming from other nations, but to goods circulating within the
Kingdom of France. Tariff lines that had existed since the fourteenth century and were
additionally solidified in the customs system put in place in 1661 crisscrossed what is now
modern France, creating an imaginary line between provinces as it went. This line, borne
107 CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE, Arrêt du conseil d'état qui ordonne la confiscation de 3 pièces de serge de la
manufacture d'Hanvoile, envoyées de Beauvais à l'adresse du Sieur Le Roy marchand drapier de Paris et
saisies à la halle aux draps de cette ville, tant pour s'être trouvées trop étroites et grasses que pour autres
défauts, Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1743. Draps roughly equate to woolen broadcloths, often called “strouds”
in the English tradition. 108 CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE, Arrêt du conseil…, Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1732. 109 ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie françoise, dédié au Roy. Chez Vve J.B.Coignard et
J.B.Coignard, Paris, 1694. ; COLE, Colbert and a Century of French…Tome 1, p. 104.
35
out of a refusal of many provinces to pay a new tax levied by King John in 1360 and a
consolidation of obedient provinces in 1598 under Henri IV, was known as the Royal
Customs Line, and the populous and centralized provinces included within its boundaries
were known as the cinq grosses fermes110. Provinces of the cinq grosses fermes included;
Île de France, Normandie, Picardie, Champagne, Burgundy, Bresse, Poitou, Aunis, Berry,
Bourbonnais, Anjou, Maine, Orléanais, Perche, Nivernais, Touraine, Touars (and
dependencies), and the Chatellanie of Chantoceaux111. The inclusion of these provinces in
the cinq grosses fermes entitled them to the benefits of living in France “proper,” in the
form of free and untaxed trade and circulation between other provinces within the customs
line112.
As for the unfortunate provinces left outside of the cinq grosses fermes, business
was a little more complicated. These “provinces réputées étrangères” included; French
Flanders (annexed 1668), Brittany, Artois (annexed 1659), Angoumois, La Marche,
Limousin, Saintonge, Guyenne, Gascony, Basse Navarre, Béarn, Roussillon, Languedoc,
Auvergne, Rouergue, Forez, Vivarais, Provence, Dauphiné, Lyonnais, and Beaujolais113.
These provinces were subject not only to the traites foraines, tariffs levied on goods
moving in and out of the cinq grosses fermes, but also various douanes, such as the
Douane de Lyon114. These were collected upon at the bureaux de recette, where a receipt
was given to the transporter of goods to prove payment and to be double checked at a
secondary bureau de passage115. At some point in this process, seals were attached to cloth
goods making the passage over the customs line. In return for the taxes imposed by the
government on the flow of goods between provinces, many of these rejected provinces
reputées étrangères created and installed their own taxes on goods from other provinces
entering into their boundaries. The Douane de Valence, for example, applied to all goods
destined for Languedoc, Provence, Piedmont from Vivarais, Forez, Dauphiné, Lyonnais, et
110 COLE, Colbert and a Century of French…Tome 1, p. 416-418. 111 Ibid., p. 416-417 112 Ibid. 113 Included as “provinces de l’étrangère effective” were Alsace (acquired 1648), Lorraine (1633-1697), and
Franche Comté (acquired 1678). Ibid. p. 416. 114 Ibid. p. 416-17 115 Ibid. p. 417
36
Beaujolais116. As a result of these myriad discontinuities and quirks of Ancien Régime
commerce, any given textile piece could have been marked with several seals by the time it
reached its destination within France or in New France.
1.1.2 Bales, seals, and packaging in the 18th century
In the eighteenth century, goods were shipped in bales, chests, and barrels. Though
chests and barrels are oftentimes preserved on shipwrecks and provide a wealth of
information on the shipment of non-textile goods, bales are not as favored by the march of
time117. As shown and described in documents and images, bales are cloth coated bundles
sewn closed and tied up with ropes, usually exhibiting a mark on the bundle painted in
thick black paint as an identifier. Some research has been done concerning the meaning
and nature of these bale marks, though merit further examination118. Further research may
even help identify some common quatre de chiffre merchant’s marks found elsewhere,
including on seals.119
Evidence from Languedoc suggest that bales of woolen broadcloth appear to have
consisted of two bundles of cloth, each bundle containing 10 pieces120. Regarding the
shipment of completed clothing items, a list enumerating the items salvaged from the
wreck of the Chameau from September 5, 1725 notes how some textile goods were
packaged121. Mentioned are; “Cinq paquets contenant douze vestes [du moins trois]
chaque paquet,” “Trois paquets de culottes de douze chaque paquet [idem],” and “Seize
paquets de chemises de douze chaque paquet122.” In reviewing the documents related to the
salvage expenses and process, it appears that no toile d’emballage was purchased to create
116 Ibid. p. 417 117 Peter MARSDEN, The Wreck of the Amsterdam, New York, Stein and Day, 1974, p. 153, 156-157. 118 J. GOTTFRED, “Marking of Pieces.” Northwest Journal, 2012, http://www.northwestjournal.ca/. 119 Quatre de chiffre or chiffre quatre is a term used to describe the style of eighteeth-century trade and bale
marks that are often the combination of the number 4 and other symbols such as hearts, X’s, V’s and crosses.
SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 175-188. 120 CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 21. 121 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, Fo 241-242v, État des effets et marchandises provenant du Naufrage du Navire
du roi Le Chameau, on board La Baleine, 5 September, 1725. Paquet is defined as “Assemblage de plusieurs
choses attachées ou envelopées ensemble,” while ballot (bale) is defined as “Gros paquet de meubles ou de
marchandises.” ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, Quatrième edition, Tomes
1-2. Paris, Veuve B. Brunet, 1762. These definition seems to suggest that the only true difference between a
paquet and a ballot is the size, and does not seem to negate the idea that the two are similarly formed through
the use of toile d’emballage to envelop merchandise within them. 122 Ibid.
37
the paquets mentioned in this list of salvaged goods, which seems to suggest that these
goods were packaged in this manner before, during, and after their ill-fated voyage123. Also
represented is apparent damage to certain paquets of like colored woolens as described
below.
“…Dans une nappe:
-Une piece d’etoffe bleu de 2 aunes et ½ dechiré en quelque endrois
-Une piece idem de 3 aunes
-Une piece idem de une aune ½
-Une piece idem de 2 aune dechiré et percé en pleusieurs endroits
-Une piece idem de dix aunes idem…124”
The wrapping of these pieces in a sheet (nappe) seems to have occurred after their
recovery, as many of the items listed have “in a blanket (couverte)” or “in a sheet”
specified next to the designated recipient, with the contents of the blanket or sheet listed in
a bracket125. This further supports the idea that the paquets were not created after the
recovery of the objects. A paquet is defined in period dictionaries as an “assemblage de
plusieurs choses attachées ou enveloppées ensemble,” whereas a bale (ballot) is defined as
a “gros paquet de meubles ou de marchandises126.” Therefore, it appears that if there is a
real difference between a paquet and a bale, it is that the use of the word bale is more
associated with commercial goods and is somewhat larger than a paquet. In other words,
the difference is minimal.
Though at the outset of this study I was convinced that there was no such thing as a
true bale seal, my research has provided evidence to the contrary. I had been hesitant to
accept Sabatier’s descriptions of large bale seals applied to the outside of bales by means
of a separate cord attached to the ropes ties around the outside of a sewn bale, until I found
123 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, Fo 250-250v, État de la depense et frais qui à été faite au Debris du Vaisseau du
roi Le Chameau, 18 September 1725; Toile d’emballage is the term most commonly used in eighteenth-
century trade and inventory lists to describe the canvas-like, somewhat waterproof cloth that creates a bale
and protects its contents. 124 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, Fo 241-242v, État des effets et marchandises provenant du Naufrage du Navire
du roi Le Chameau, on board La Baleine, 5 September, 1725. 125 It is useful to remark that both the words couverte and couverture are used in the eighteenth century to
designate blankets. 126 ACADEMIE FRANÇAISE, Le Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, 1762.
38
seals at Louisbourg that matched these descriptions127. These seals, mentioned later in this
study, are far larger and thicker than the average cloth seal and have large tunnels through
them- at least one contains the remains of a 5 mm thick cord128. A cord of this size would
have been of improper size for marking individual pieces and so it likely marked bales or
interior bundles of cloth that were examined together and given a customs seal so as to
facilitate future inspections and avoid having to visit (inspect) each piece individually
multiple times. This problem is noted in an arrêt from 1730129. An arrêt from five years
later references this earlier rule put in place, and warns that bales of merchandise that have
no control seals applied to the exterior of the bale will be seized, reopened, and visited
piece by piece in order to ensure that each piece is marked properly130.
Though the use of seals on bales seems very highly probable, the sealing of other types
of packaging is possible but unsupported by archaeological evidence. Cases were a
common method of commercial and personal transportation of goods and possessions, with
some mentioned instances in New France131. Sabatier mentions the possible use of seals to
mark chests, though they likely consisted of one plate with no flanges that was nailed to the
outside of cases132. Sabatier also suggests that barrels received cords that were then marked
with seals, though barrel fragments from a Dutch wreck show marks and brands, which
would seemingly render the sealing of barrels redundant and pointless133. However, the use
of seals on bales also could be considered redundant if the bales were already marked with
painted symbols.
127 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 8, 121-122. Pictoral evidence in Paintings by Joseph Vernet
(1714 – 1789) of port scenes show the painting of symbols and the sewing closed of bales for transport. 128 See Annex p. 195-198, Figures G, P, Q, T, and W. 129 CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'Etat qui ordonne que les draps, serges et autres étoffes de
laine ou fil et laine marqués du plomb de fabrique et qui, après avoir reçu leur dernier apprêt, seront
destinés soit pour les villes du royaume y mentionnés ou pour l'étranger, seront préalablement apportés dans
les bureaux des marchands drapiers et merciers desdites villes, pour, avant leur départ, y être visités et
marqués du plomb de contrôle desdits bureaux, s'ils se trouvent fabriqués, teints et apprêtés en conformité
des règlements. Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1730. 130 CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE, Arrêt du conseil d'État qui ordonne que les gardes et jurés des marchands et
fabricants seront tenus de saisir les draps et autres étoffes de laine, ou mêlées de laine, soie, poil, coton et
autres matières, qui, lors des visites qui en seront par eux faites dans les bureaux de fabrique et de contrôle,
ne seront pas trouvés conformes aux règlements, Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1735. 131 One of these instances is mentioned in the writings of Élizabeth Bégon. BÉGON, Lettres au cher fils…, p.
385 132 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 12-13. 133 Ibid p. 114; MARSDEN, The Wreck of the Amsterdam, p. 153, 156-157.
39
What is likely is that no matter what the means of shipment to New France were, the
packages that arrived in the entrepôts of Québec and Montréal were most likely opened and
repackaged. This is especially true concerning goods bound for western posts, where each
bale contained an assortment of goods, and were probably smaller in size to accommodate
their transport in canoes134. Goods were generally sent from French merchants to their
connections in Québec, who then forwarded the goods to their connections in Montréal
which were implicated in fur trade activity (or in the case of some, military supply)135. The
use of seals on bales sent west for exchange with Native Americans is undocumented.
Though a study of seals from Québec and Montréal could answer some of these questions,
the majority of seals are curated by Parks Canada, whose collections are currently
inaccessible to the researcher136. The possibility of their existence is not supported by the
seal evidence, since larger seals that appear to have acted as bale seals appear only at
Louisbourg and other entrepôts, where goods would have been unpacked, and such seals
removed and discarded137.
1.2 REUSE AND RELATED ITEMS
1.2.1 Reuse
One of the challenges that presents itself to those who study lead seals (and any lesser-
known artifacts, for that matter) is the classification of recovered artifacts. Often, lead seals
are not identified as “lead seals” in catalogue systems, but as “lead cloth seals,” “merchant
seals,” “bale seals,” or even catalogued with other pieces of “unidentified lead138.” This
134 Timothy KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit : A Guide to the Daily Lives of Fur Trade and Military
Personnel, Settlers, and Missionaries at French Posts, Ossineke, MI, Silver Fox Enterprises, 2002, Vol. 2, p.
942. The bales shown in port scene images are nearly the size of the men painting marks on them and laying
on them, which would make their transport in a canoe, even a large one, downright impossible. 135 MIQUELON, “Havy and Lefebvre…,” p. 1-25. 136 This has been the case since at least 2012, and is a result of government plans to centralize all Parks
Canada artifacts. This has inspired protest from local groups and has led to years of inaccessibility with no
clear end in sight. 137 One probable bale seal is in the collections of the Îlot du Palais in Québec City, site of the Magasin du Roi
for the city. 138 Though some of these terms are accurate to describe certain lead seals, some do not apply to ALL
varieties of lead seals (bale seals, lead cloth seals, merchant seals), and others are too broad and too full of
objects irrelevant to the study of lead seals to be easily sorted through in a brief research trip (lead scrap, lead,
unidentified lead). Nomenclature and the classification of objects within collections is a problem inherent in
the profession and a subject that is continually being debated, changed, and improved upon, and in remarking
upon the difficulty of finding objects in museum and institutional databases, I am not blaming hardworking
40
inconsistant nomenclature at times brings attention to other lead objects that should be
noted and studied in their own right. One of the peculiarities of lead seals is the material
they are formed out of. Though lead (Pb) is not an element particularly prized for its value
or aesthetic, it is a rather useful one. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the uses of
lead were myriad. Musket balls, shot, pewter objects, gunflint patches, tablets used to mark
territory boundaries or claims, toys, pottery glazes, paints, cosmetics, ceramic repairs and
patches, plumbing, smoking pipes, glass, solder, stained glass window cames, fishing
weights, coat weights, sounding weights, tokens, and projectile points were all partially or
entirely composed of lead139.
The diversity of lead objects can be attributed to the malleability of lead as a
substance140. This is perhaps best illustrated archaeologically through the commonplace
recovery of chewed musket balls complete with tooth marks141. It can be cut into, chopped
up, carved, and pressed to form all manner of objects. Sadly, for sigillographers this means
that many of the lead seals used in commerce must have been recycled in the past, since
once removed from textiles, lead seals were left without meaning and were of little use as
seals or carriers of pertinent information. In geographical areas of New France where lead
was scarce or had to be imported in order to produce essential items such as shot for
hunting, it is likely that hundreds if not thousands of lead seals are missing from the
archaeological record in their original form, having been melted down and recast. Evidence
from Fort Michilimackinac seems to suggest that some lead seals were transformed into
whizzers (also called buzz-saws or whirligigs)142. These simple toys appear in surprising
quantities at eighteenth-century sites, and may merit further study, as they are among the
few traces that could represent the leisure activity of children (or perhaps adults) at these
sites.
museum professionals. Rather, I am bemoaning the situation that the few and far between historic
sigillographers find themselves in when it comes time to locate and examine seals. 139 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 40-47, 75. 140 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 40. 141 David R. STARBUCK, Excavating the Sutlers’ House: Artifacts of the British Armies in Fort Edward and
Lake George, Lebanon, NH, University Press of New England, 2010, p.42, 45; David R. STARBUCK, Rangers
and Redcoats on the Hudson: Exploring the Past on Rogers Island, The Birthplace of the U.S. Army Rangers,
Lebanon, NH, University Press of New England, 2004, p. 77, 80. 142 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 42, 44.
41
The reuse of lead seals by Native Americans is also an interesting prospect. It has been
suggested to me in the past that lead seals may have been used as decorative pendants with
very little alteration by Native Americans. Though their appreciation of adornment and
their habitual reuse of European materials for that purpose is undeniable, it seems that lead
seals would be somewhat problematic to employ in such a manner. Firstly, lead seals that
adhered to cloth using a knob and loop attachment style are often found still attached to
cloth, with cloth between the plates, or in a closed position. This suggests that lead seals of
that type were sufficiently annoying to remove from the cloth that many consumers simply
cut the seal off along with the strip of textile they were attached to. Cloth seals of this
variety, after all, were supposed to be more or less non-removable from the cloth until it
reached the consumer in order to prevent fraud.143 Removing cloth from a closed seal in
order to suspend it by the closed flange seems like an unrewarding and tedious process, and
prying a seal apart in order to suspend it using the loop on the obverse portion seems
equally unsatisfactory.
Secondly, if series B seals were used, they would run the constant risk of breaking off
of their tiny flange(s). Though this problem would explain why so many seals of this type
seem to have stubs where flanges once were, it seems like an experiment that would not be
repeated with enough frequency to produce the number of examples represented in this
thesis. Series C seals that close with tunnels and cords could have been suspended using
the tunnels or the cord, if the cord was either removed from the tunnels or from the textile.
However, short of the rather small seals of the Compagnie des Indes, it seems unlikely that
the larger customs seals found at Louisbourg would be found at sites with a considerable
enough Native American presence to be subject to this reuse. In short, though technically
there are ways lead seals could be used as an adornment item, there are multiple factors
inherent in the distribution patterns and form of lead seals that seem to weigh against this
interpretation.
Apart from the concept of lead seal use as possible adornment items, Michilimackinac
once again yields an additional example of the reuse of lead seals. One item appears to be a
143 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 9.
42
lead seal that has had a small projectile point cut out of it144. Whether this intriguing
episode of reuse was realized by the native Ojibwa or the European occupants of the fort is
unclear. Other lead items that appear to have been at times formed from intact or melted
seals are coat weights and fishing weights145. These artifacts merit future study, in spite of
their seemingly unsophisticated nature. These are almost always in the same collections
box as lead seals, and each site appears to classify them either as fishing or coat weights,
begging the question: which are they? In order to isolate them from lead seals and to
appreciate the information that they have to contribute, it is necessary to delve further into
how and why these artifacts are used. Once the difference between coat weights and
fishing weights is made clear and diffused, we can not only extricate them from being
grouped with lead seals, but we can also further our understanding of clothing production,
fashion, subsistence, and/or leisure at the sites where they appear.
The supposed availability of raw lead (often in bar form) on the frontier and the
existence of French lead mines in the Illinois country implies that lead was not as scarce as
it could have been146. Native Americans were also apparently mining lead for their own use
as well147. Lead seals were likely melted down to supplement this already present supply.
The appearance of Rupert’s shot, lead shot runners (also known as sows), sprue, scrap, and
other artifacts at many French and English colonial sites are witnesses to the omnipresence
of lead casting activities at seventeenth and eighteenth-century sites148. Unfortunately for
those seeking to learn more about past textiles and trade networks, a potentially large
amount of information on life in the eighteenth century left along with the original form of
many lead seals- in a puff of smoke from a melting spoon.
1.2.2 Similar items from Louisbourg
Though this study focuses on lead seals, there are still non-seal lead items that
appear to be of value enough to the numismatic archaeology of these sites to merit some
144 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 35-36; STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p.
290; MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 44. 145 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 43. 146 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 40. 147 Ibid. p. 40. 148 MORAND, Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac, p. 40-44; NOBLE, “Functional Analysis and Intra-Site
Analysis…,” p. 46.
43
small attention. These three items come from Louisbourg, where the collections remain
largely unexplored, yet full of archaeological material with enormous potential149. I have
chosen to include in this section these lead pieces because they exhibit manmade imprints
that appear to have an aesthetic or practical use. Item 17L.27D2.9 (Plate 9 fig. A) has some
sort of impression, though it seems to be made haphazardly in a piece of scrap lead, or
perhaps acted as a test imprint of some sort of stamp. This impression seems to include the
letters “LLE”, a center channel, and two dots in brackets “(••)” connected to that channel.
Since the letters and parts of the impression are raised, it would suggest that the item that
made this imprint was carved with the design. The depth of the impression might suggest
that the lead was semi-solid when the stamp was applied to it, or that a significant amount
of force was used to produce the impression. The globular and irregular form of this scrap
piece appears to be the result of molten or semi-solid lead being flattened against a smooth
surface on one side. The hole in this lead piece seems to be incidental.
One particularly revealing lead piece is item 47L.28C10.2 (Plate 9 fig. B). It is a round
piece of lead with two holes in the center, similar to the holes made in whizzers. It features
the impression of the reverse side of a Spanish real, identifiable based on the backwards
“HISPANIA(R)[UM REX {unknown date}]” that accompanies a cross motif. This motif,
found in the center of the lead piece, has four quadrants with alternating lions and castles,
and is enclosed in a flower-like shape with eight alternated pointed and rounded “petals.”
The coin has a beaded grenetis150. Spanish real coins with variations on this design were in
use throughout North America throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and
the date of the coin that made this impression is uncertain without the coin itself or the rest
of the obverse impression151. However, it does serve as evidence that Spanish reales were
in circulation at Louisbourg at some point in time. More research on this item could help
149 These collections, curated by the gracious and helpful Parks Canada staff at the site, include, among other
wonders, archaeologically recovered textile scraps that, though unexplored in this thesis, could yield
mountains of information on sartorial trends at the site. 150 In this case the grenetis exists to act likely as an anti-counterfeit measure, but additionally fulfills the more
well-known and practical use of a grenetis in coinage- to ensure users that none of the silver of the coin has
been removed and that the coin is truly worth its face value in specie. 151 Spanish reales and cobs with a different reverse appear at Rogers Island and Fort Edward. STARBUCK,
Excavating the Sutlers’ House…, p. 93-98.
44
further identify the coin that created this impression, but the scope of this thesis limits my
abilities to draw or diffuse yet more information concerning this find.
Finally, item 47L.90P2.7 (Plate 9 fig. C) is as enigmatic as the others. It is not a seal,
but rather appears to be a pierced token. Its rough surface seems to suggest that it was cast
in a crude bivalve mold. One side has the initials “MF” with a small flourish above these
letters. The other side has an unrefined image of what appears to be a head smoking a pipe.
Strangely, the hole is not in line with either of these motifs. This object appears to be a sort
of roughly fashioned charm or ornament. Alternatively, the use of this token as a tag may
have marked ownership of something belonging to “MF,” perhaps a chest or case. Though
these items do not figure into the analysis of lead seals, it is worthwhile to note their
existence for future researchers.
1.3 CLOTH USE AND CONSUMPTION IN NEW FRANCE
Native American use of European cloth in New France extends back to before Cartier’s
explorations of Canada. When he arrived in the New World, one of his expedition’s first
encounters was with a group of pelt laden Montagnais attempting to trade with the party152.
Native American clothing and cloth use will be discussed in the section on Fort St. Joseph
which immediately follows.
Central to understanding the sartorial circumstances of New France is to think of the
colony not as a separate land far away and quasi-isolated from the metropole, but rather as
a French province like any other, with close trade ties with and a dependency on the rest of
France. Sartorial styles among French colonists in New France varied according to their
occupations and status, their sex, and their proximity to the materials and means to clothe
themselves. Relatively little work has focused on Canadien clothing styles and imported
textiles153. However, some general trends are evident based on documents concerning cloth
consumption. The consumption of imported cloth by Canadiens in the St. Lawrence Valley
differed between the elite noblesse (nobility) of the colony and the lower classes that
worked the lands of their seigneuries. More expensive and more delicate textiles such as
152 TRIGGER, Natives and Newcomers…, p. 127-128. 153 Much more ink has been devoted to works on the Seven Year’s War, seigneuries, fur trade societies, and
the exploration and foundation of New France.
45
cottons and silks were consumed by those with the means and lifestyles to afford them,
while working class people generally wore simpler, hardier textiles such as wools and
linens154. Indeed, those within the noblesse would have dressed in styles consistant with the
laws in place in France allowing various social ranks to identify themselves through
dress155. Urban populations had a greater access to new imports and more stylish cloth,
while rural populations relied on durable clothing that lasted as long as possible with
repeated wear, or less commonly, homemade toile or étoffe du pays156. Many of these
trends likely applied to Canadiens living in more western reaches of the colony. Elites
likely continued to express their higher social status through dress, and working class
voyageurs opted for more pratical clothing styles. Clothing and goods from France were
often imported, and higher class individuals tended to own several outfits.
The account of goods recovered from the wreck of Le Chameau off of the coast of Île
Royale helps to shed light on the nature of textile goods traveling to New France from
France. Bound for Québec with a host of important passengers including Charles-Hector de
LaGesse (son of Claude de Ramezay, Governor of Montréal) and Guillaume de Chazelles
(the newly appointed intendant of the colony), the ship sank with no survivors, but much of
the debris recovered from the sea included clothing items157. Examples of the variety of
textiles recuperated in 1725 include pieces of blue woolen and black serge, as well as the
following garments:
• Un vieux manteau Ecarlatte fendu par le dos
• Un habit du drap gris de fer doublé d’une Serge Rouge galonné d’une galon [à
joins en pleize]
• Un habit de pinchinat brun doublé d’un [souel] Rouge les boutonnières a plaque
d’argent
• Un habit cannelle Brodé d’argent mauvaise doublure et manches à la [matelot]
154 DUPLESSIS, “Cottons Consumption…,” p. 234, 238; DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., 2015: 219-220. 155 Diana DiPaolo LOREN, The Archaeology of Clothing and Bodily Adornment in Colonial America,
Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 2010, p. 27-28, 48. 156 Domestically produced rough linen and woolens of low quality. DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p.
218-220 157 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, F°213-215. Procès-verbal de la perte du Chameau, Monsieur de Mézy and
others, Louisbourg, August 29, 1725.
46
• Un idem Caffé doublé d’une Serge du meme couleur à [boutons] et Boutonnière
dos dechere au dos
• Un idem de pinchinat brun doublé d’une grosse Serge Rouge, et bordé [du] plis
galon d’argent
• Un habit et veste d’un [drap] gris blanc doublé d’un voile gris La veste d’un
[chagrin] blanc bordé d’un galon d’argent
• Un idem de Camelot Rouge doublé de même à boutons d’or et manches à la
[matelot]
• Un habit gris blanc doublé d’une Serge gris bordé d’un grand Galon d’argent et
une autre grand galon sur les [boutonnières] du devant du derriere sur Le manches
proches Et [Cossez]
• Une Robbe de Chambre d’indienne doublé d’un taffetas vert
• Un autre Robbe de Chambre de Calmande doublé de molton blanc158
• Un habit de femme de [m…] Gris Sans doublure
A cursory glance at this list confirms that woolens accounted for a majority of the
materials used in clothing. Even with high status passengers on board, we see that though
wool is still the most common textile type, the class of the wearer is evident in the presence
of gold and silver trim and buttons. Also interesting to note is printed cotton and silk robe
de chambre. Though indiennes were known to be worn and used in décor fairly often in
France and New France, they rarely appear on import lists, possibly because their wear and
purchase was technically illegal159. Seals meant to mark printed cottons (“toiles peintes”)
do appear at eighteenth-century sites in North America, but almost certainly date later than
the fall of New France160. Foreign printed cottons were only legally allowed into French
lands after 1759, and were only allowed to be liberally manufactured within France in
1779, with both of these changes in legality and availability facilitated by the use of seals
158 Moleton of molleton is roughly the equivalent of a melton in English; it is a serge woven worsted wool of
a thicker variety. 159 BÉGON, Lettres au cher fils…, p. 390; Philippe L.B. HALBERT, “Power Houses: Furnishing Authority in
New France, 1660-1760,” Master’s Thesis, Newark, University of Delaware, 2014, 249 p. Indiennes are
printed cotton textiles originally brought from India but later imitated by Europeans. In English textile
terminology, indiennes are often known as chintzes or calicoes. 160 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 277-284.
47
to mark foreign and domestic products apart from one another161. Since the basis of this
thesis is that my sites will have fairly diverse sartorial environments, the groups present at
each site, as well as the clothes they may have worn, will be discussed in more detail later
in the chapters concerned with each location.
161 Ibid. p. 277, 279.
48
CHAPTER 2: FORT ST. JOSEPH
2.1 HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESUMÉ: CLOTHING & TEXTILES AT FORT ST. JOSEPH
Fort St. Joseph, also known as the poste de la Rivière Saint-Joseph, is located near
present-day Niles, Michigan. The site was a gathering point for Native Americans along
the St. Joseph River and in the 1680s became the site of a Jesuit mission founded by Père
Claude Jean Allouez162. The Jesuit concession was followed by the gradual establishment
of a trading post and the addition of a minor military presence at the site. The site remained
overwhelmingly civilian throughout its history and maintained close ties with the
surrounding Miami and (later) Potawatomi villages. This post was situated at the juncture
of three important paths of communication and trade in the Western Great Lakes region;
the Great Sauk Trail (now a highway known as Old Route 12, running from Detroit to
Chicago), the St. Joseph River which runs from central Michigan to Northern Indiana and
finally empties into Lake Michigan, and the portage to the Kankakee River system, which
eventually joins the Mississippi and French Illinois163. As a result of this ideal placement
within age old trade routes, Fort St. Joseph was a highly profitable trading post, supplied
both through Michilimackinac and Detroit at various points in time164.
Fort St. Joseph’s role in the fur trade in North America both ties it to the other two
sites included in this study, while pushing the boundaries of the traditional French Atlantic
trade network narrative. The fur trade was much more than simply an economic and
commercial system: it created points of convergence between Native Americans and
Europeans grounded in commercial and political prospects but maintained through social
and cultural integration of “the other.” These small points of convergence at the frontier of
very large but separate existing networks are where White’s “Middle Ground” exists-
perhaps more appropriately, one should call them “middle grounds,” the occasional spaces
where two cultures interact on a near daily basis165. They are small buoys of Canadien
162 Dunning IDLE, “The Post of the St. Joseph River During the French Régime 1679-1761,” Doctoral
Dissertation, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois, 1946, p. 5. 163 Michael S. NASSANEY et. al., “The Search for Fort St. Joseph (1691-1781) in Niles, Michigan,”
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 28 No. 2, 2003, p.107; Michael S. NASSANEY, The Archaeology
of the North American Fur Trade, Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 2015, p. 167. 164 IDLE, “The Post of the St. Joseph…,” p. 1 165 WHITE, The Middle Ground…, 576 p.
49
occupation in a sea of Native American territory. European goods and visitors were
evaluated in the Native American eye, and then assigned a place in their worldview
through various means including intermarriage, gift giving, alliances, wars, and yet more
interactions166. Similarly, Europeans made sense of Native American culture, society, and
use of objects in ways that are far more familiar and well known to modern historians and
archaeologists.
The identity of Fort St. Joseph as a point of contact and coexistence is highlighted
by the artifacts recovered from this site. Excavated by the Fort St. Joseph Archaeological
Project since 1998, the site has yielded objects that attest to the cultural métissage present
at the site and others in the Pays d’en Haut, including tinkling cones and other ornaments
cut from copper kettles, flattened musket barrels that served as hide scrapers, and trade
silver ornaments cut from larger pieces167. Cloth was not exempt from this commonplace
refashioning and integration. Many eighteenth-century accounts mention the use of
imported European textiles by Native Americans and the ways in which they incorporated
these non-traditional materials into clothing styles that were consistent with traditional
garments168. European textiles were appealing to Native Americans because of their
practicality and versatility as well as their appearance169. They offered an improvement
from woven plant fibers, feathers, furs, and skins that were the staple of dress in the pre-
contact Americas in that they were dried faster and were easier to sew and to use in
clothing construction170. The valuable time freed up by the use of these more tailor-friendly
166 NASSANEY, The Archaeology of the North American…, p.11; Bruce M. WHITE, “The Trade Assortment:
The Meanings of Merchandise in the Ojibwa Fur Trade,” Sylvie DÉPATIE dir., Catherine DESBARATS,
Danielle GAUVREAU, Mario LALANCETTE, Thomas WIEN, Vingt ans après, Habitants et marchands:
Lectures de l’histoire des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles canadiens, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press,
1998, p. 115-137; Michael WITGEN, An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North
America, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012, 456 p. 167 NASSANEY, The Archaeology of the North American…, p. 176, 188; Michael S. NASSANEY and Terrance
J. MARTIN, “Food and Furs at French Fort St. Joseph.” Elizabeth M. SCOTT, ed., Archaeological Perspectives
on the French in the New World, Gainsville, University Press of Florida, 2017, p. Figure 4.4. 168 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 93; POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 263-268;
DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 105. 169 Bruce M. WHITE, “The Trade Assortment…,” p. 123; HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 404-405;
DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 48-49. 170 ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade…,” p. 11; DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 47-48, 99.
50
materials could instead be allotted to the preparation of skins and pelts for trade and the
accomplishment of other vital tasks within society that were usually fulfilled by women171.
2.1.1 Native dress at Fort St. Joseph and in the Pays d’en Haut
Native American dress at Fort St. Joseph and in the rest of the Pays d’en Haut
varied from tribe to tribe, but generally included the following elements. Women generally
wore woolen wrap skirts composed of an aune of blue or red drap (broadcloth) similar to
those produced in Berri or Carcassonne (sometimes called machicotés), mitasses of hide or
of moleton frisé (melton with a prominent nap) in blue, white, or red (thigh-high leggings),
blankets, and chemises (which appear to have been the same style worn by Native
American and European men), but are also known to have worn woolen strap dresses with
separate sleeves, a style most associated with Ojibwa women172. Men also wore a chemise,
mitasses, a blanket, and a woolen brayet (breechclout) in lieu of a wrap skirt173. The
blanket appears in the equipment of both sexes, and was essential as a multipurpose
clothing and bedding item174. It also may have played a role in intimate social interactions,
if European reports of the Native American tradition of “courir l’allumette” are to be
believed and not simply discounted as misinterpreted or fictitious means of fetishizing a
perceived sexual liberty within Native American communities. This could be simply a
mythical account that was perpetuated and accepted over time, contributing no doubt to the
further sexualization and objectification of Native American women by Europeans175.
These essential and indispensable blankets used by men, women, and children are known
to have existed in a few different materials, always woolen in nature. Pouchot provides a
fair amount of information on what these blankets were composed of in the following
extract.
171 ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade…,” p. 111. 172 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 93; POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 264-265;
ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade…,” p. 110. 173 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 265-266. Many of the chemises worn by Canadians and
Native Americans in New France may have been made at Montréal or imported from France. Suzanne
GOUSSE, Les Couturières de Montréal au XVIIIe siècle, Sillery, Septentrion, 2013, p.74-75. 174 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 267-268, 270-271. 175 Ibid. p. 270-271; Robert CHALLES, Mémoires: Correspondance complete, Frédéric DELOFFRE and Jacques
POPIN eds., Geneva, Librarie Droz. 1996, p. 150-151.
51
“Ils portent hommes et femmes, sur leurs épaules une couverte, soit en laine qu’ils
achetent des Européens, soit en drap, ou en peaux passes. Il n’y a guere que ceux de
l’interieur des terres qui se servent de ces dernieres. Celles en laine sont des couvertes
faites en Normandie, d’une laine assez fine, et meilleures que celles fournies par les
Anglais, qui sont plus grossieres. Pour les enfants ells sont de la grandeur d’un point
et d’un point et demi. Pour les hommes, de deux et de trois points. Après les avoir
portées de deux à trois jours blanches, ils les barbouillent de vermillon, d’abord avec
une croix rouge. Quelques jours après ils s’en couvrent; ce qui contribue encore à
leur render la peau rouge. Lorsque les filles ont quelque dessein de conquête, ells
peignent leurs couvertes de nouveau, celles en drap sont d’une aune et un quart de
drap rouge ou bleu, de la qualité des machicotés. Ils garnissent le bas d’une douzaine
de bandes de rubans jaunes, rouges, et bleus, et de tavelle anglaise, laissant la largeur
du ruban d’intervalle d’un rang à l’autre. À l’extrémité de ces bandes, on laisse
décousus cinq à six doigts de rubans qui flottent176.”
From this excerpt we know that the materials used in blankets ranged from skins (the
traditional material, which by Pouchot’s time was only used by tribes to the west of the
Great Lakes), to light and fine Normandy produced worsteds, to broadcloth and blankets
from Carcassonne and Berri177. From Pouchot’s account and others, trade lists and
merchant stock analyses at Montréal, and from extant garments, it is clear that woolens
composed the majority of textiles consumed by Native Americans178.
What is also made clear by period accounts is their selectiveness as consumers.
Bougainville mentions the following case of Native American selectiveness in the face of
supposedly superior English woolens.
“La Compagnie des Indes donne aux Sauvages des couvertes pour eux, pour leurs
femmes, et des machicotés en draps rouges et bleus avec des bandes noires; elle est
obligée de les prendre dans les manufactures d'Angleterre; elle a voulu essayer de les
prendre dans celles de Carcassonne, mais les Sauvages n'en ont pas voulu. Ce n'est
176 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 267-268. 177 Both draps from Carcassonne and Normandy worsteds are discussed later on in this work, in this section
and in the section on Louisbourg seals. 178 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 262-268; BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, 430 p. ;
DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 150-155, 505.
52
pas que les draps n'en fussent meilleures et n'en fussent aussi beaux pour les couleurs,
mais on n'a pu encore y faire les bandes d'un beau noir; en général nos marchandises
valent mieux pour la qualité que celles des Anglais, mais les Sauvages préfèrent les
leurs; ils attrapend mieux leurs gôuts179.”
Color and design were clearly not the only factors in Native American consumer decisions.
Writing in 1716, Intendant Bégon mentions that the integrity of cloth’s construction is of
great concern to Native American consumers, stating that écarlatines (a type of broadcloth
blanket that was known for its rich scarlet color, but was also produced in blue) being
produced in Languedoc to counter the dominance of English écarlatines must be of
incredibly high quality180. He writes the following:
“Il est important…que ces pièces d’Escarlatine, tant a la couleur qu’à la qualité,
soient si bien imitées qu’on ne puisse pas en connoitre la difference parce que les
sauvages sont aussy rafinés pour connoitre la qualité de l’Étoffe que les plus habiles
negotians, ayant attention de faire bruler le poil d’un echantillon pour en voir la
corde181.”
It should be noted that the “poil” of the wool is most probably referring to its nap, the
fuzzy raised fibers that obscure the weave (“la corde”) in most broadcloths, and that
contribute to qualities such as the wool’s ability to somewhat repel water. The longstanding
saga of French and English economic warfare and industrial espionage concerning woolens
is an intriguing one, with the production of écarlatines and Native American consumption
patterns at its center. However, this being a topic for future exploration, and as far as lead
seals are concerned, this study need simply note that the importation of English écarlatines
by the French Compagnie des Indes was one of the rare exceptions to the rigid trade
restrictions that France applied to its colonies. This importation, noted in the
aforementioned section of Bougainville’s writings, was allowed solely as a measure to
satisfy Native American demands and to retain alliances dependent on trade while the
179 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 89. 180 Jacques LACOURSIÈRE, Histoire populaire du Québec : Des origines à 1791, Sillery, Septentrion, 1995, p.
244; HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 405. 181 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 405.
53
manufactures of Languedoc, in particular Carcassonne and Montpellier, worked to produce
a superior cloth182.
The availability of cloth in general and the patterns of how it was worn appear to
have served to distinguish certain tribes from others, at least in the European eye. In a few
cases, western tribes (the Illinois and Peoria are specified in some accounts) are mentioned
as majoritarily reliant on traditional materials, with the exception of cloth traded to them by
other Native American tribes (likely Ottawa or Potawatomi “middlemen”)183. Similarily, in
1718 the Potawatomi near Detroit are compared in their dress to the “domiciliés,” those
missionized Native Americans living near Montréal (and Québec). The women in this
account are noted to wear white chemises in nighttime dances, and while summer months
members of the tribe wear blue and red draps, they are noted as wearing “robes de boeuf”
(bison robes) in the winter184. Likewise, it is mentioned that of the Hurons in the Detroit
area, many were wearing justaucorps185.
In areas of greater French influence, some Native Americans are known to have
added more “Frenchified” clothing styles to their existing sartorial traditions, such as the
adoption of mantelets and jupons by women in the Illinois country186. However, in many
other instances, prefabricated European clothing was reiterated and appropriated in order to
fit the role of traditional clothing items or to express societal standing, such as is likely in
the case of the consumption of frock coats developed for the Native American market and
often given as gifts187. European notions were also in some cases recycled and reused as
trim on Native American clothing, as evidenced by examples related to the Natchez and
Tunica tribes and the tradition of ribbonwork that still occupies a prominent place in the
182 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 405; BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 8; LACOURSIÈRE,
Histoire populaire du Québec…, p.244 183 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 267; HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 405-406. 184 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 406. 185 Ibid. 186 WHITE, Wild Frenchmen and Frenchified…, p. 62-63, 70-71, 74. 187 Diana DiPaolo LOREN, “Material Manipulations: Beads and Cloth in the French Colonies,” Carolyn
WHITE ed., The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives, New York, Springer,
2009, p. 117; Margaret Kimball BROWN, “An Eighteenth Century Trade Coat,” Plains Anthropologist, Vol.
16 No. 52 (1971), p. 132; R.C. MAINFORT Jr., “Wealth, Space, and Status in a Historic Indian Cemetery,”
American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 3 (1985), p. 562-565.
54
material culture of Great Lakes tribes188. In essence, Native Americans did not seek to
replace traditional ways of dress, but rather applied new materials in old and tested ways.
Even when incorporating European styled clothing using traditional materials, they did not
assemble garments in the European manner, but rather used their existing methods to create
a garment that was European in style but inherently Native American in material and
construction189.
Armed with new materials and longstanding cultural traditions, Native Americans
artfully combined their resources in order to create styles that embodied both old values
and meanings as well as styles that played a role as silent statements and social lubricants
within the context of European-Native American diplomacy190. Some accounts even
mention situations in which Native Americans appeared dressed “à la française,” most
likely in an effort to communicate in a language that needed little interpretation- the
language of fashion. One example from Bougainville describes an extreme example of the
employment of dress in order to claim an identity or status among both French and Native
Americans present:
"Le conseil des Iroquois de la Présentation s’est tenu ce matin. Les deux Sauvages que
l’abbé Piquet a montrés à Paris, y ont assisté, vêtus à la française de pied en cap.
Pierre, l’un d’eux, portait la veste que lui a envoyée Mr le Dauphin. Il m’a semblé voir
Arlequin Sauvage en perruque blonde et en habit galonné191."
The existence of such examples of adoption of European clothing items (or at least their
occasional wear), down to even wigs and trimmed habits (suits), makes the differentiation
of textiles destined for Native American consumption versus consumption by Europeans in
the Pays d’en Haut a daunting task. The identity of a group of consumers is very often too
difficult to determine without rootless and biased assumptions.
188 LOREN, “Material Manipulations…,” p. 115-116; Sarah M. NEILL, “Emblems of Ethnicity : Ribbonwork
Garments from the Great Lakes Region,” M.S. NASSANEY and E.S. JOHNSON eds., Interpretations of Native
North American Life : Material Contributions to Ethnohistory, Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 2000,
p.146-70. 189 E.S. LOHSE, “Trade Goods,” Wilcomb E. WASHBURN ed., Handbook of North American Indians,
Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1988, p. 397. 190 ANDERSON, “The Flow of European Trade…,” p. 111; LOREN, “Material Manipulations…,” p. 115, 120;
LOREN, The Archaeology of Clothing…, p. 85. 191 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 180.
55
2.1.2 Canadien dress at Fort St. Joseph and the Pays d’en Haut
Though the presence of inter-cultural influences on both Canadien and Native
American dress were present in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it should be noted
that the intensity of this influence and of cultural métissage in general was not uniform
throughout New France. As previously stated, New France was essentially just another
French province, and the influence of metropolitan styles is seen and remarked upon
throughout historical sources and represented in the archaeological record, even in the
Western Great Lakes region. We should of course embrace and recall examples of French
and Canadiens adopting Native American styles and technology, all while remembering
that each of these cultures maintained their expressions of identity while confronting and
adapting to the changes brought on by the experiment of empire and the meeting of worlds.
Simply because a Canadien was living in the Pays d’en Haut does not mean that he was
consistently dressing in a combined French-Native American style with a brayet and
moccasins. Though this could undoubtedly be the case, it is just as likely that he would
maintain the clothing styles distinct to himself as an individual and as a member of the
larger St. Lawrence Valley population of Canadiens. Of course, this main Canadien
population had by the eighteenth-century adopted or adapted many Native American
clothing items as suited to the environment (moccasins, snowshoes, capots, and mitasses,
to name a few). However, often any examples of expressions of “French-ness” among the
Canadiens seem to be overpowered by the bias of metropolitan writers in emphasizing
what sets the Canadiens apart from the French- i.e. their adoption of these material culture
traits. Nevertheless, one should consider the possibility that the average Canadien’s tenue
at Michilimackinac may well have been the same as his style of dress growing up on
farmland outside of Montréal.
The same could be said for the few and far between Canadien women present at these
western posts192. Though their personal effects almost certainly appear in the
archaeological record, mentions of Canadien women and their clothes are even scarcer
than mentions of Native American women, who at least are noted for their role in fur trade
society as links between cultures, interpreters, and traders in their own right. In the Illinois
192 HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 442-444.
56
country, settlements in the French style and involving many Canadien women were clearly
present, and at posts in the Pays d’en Haut the archaeology is somewhat similar193. Though
the count certainly increases as the eighteenth century wears on, in 1701 only a smattering
of Canadien women appear in records for the Pays d’en Haut194. What is known about
feminine style in New France is that outfits generally consisted of (at least) a chemise,
underpinnings (stays “corps baleinés, corps”, jumps “corset, corset blanc”, and in upper
class cases, false hips “paniers”), jupons (petticoats), a mantelet (a jacket, also known as
justaucorps, justes) or manteau de lit (bedgown), a tablier (apron), and hair dressings that
included usually a cap and a coiffe (a sort of lightweight hood worn for modesty and to
protect the cap and hair)195.
Canadiens, in particular voyageurs, were often described in clothing that was very
similar to what Native Americans were wearing (with the exception of Canadien
women)196. This style of clothing makes sense for the average working class outfit and was
adapted to fit the demands of action on decidedly North American terrain. In addition to
the use of European cloth in Native American ways, Canadiens were also using this
imported cloth in styles consistant with French style. Little to no textile production took
place in New France in spite of attempts to install industry. Between 1650 and 1720,
merchant stocks in Montréal reveal that only five percent of textiles leaving Montréal for
trade were produced locally197. Toile du pays and étoffe du pays would not truly see their
heyday until later in the nineteenth century, and were relegated to household use when a
habitant possessed enough savoir-faire to create them198. Until then, New France was
reliant on a constant trickle of cloth from across the Atlantic.
In the St. Lawrence Valley, as in France, clothing was a marker of status and
position in society. Artisans, domestics, merchants, farmers, and nobles all wore their
193 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 367; Robert MAZRIM, At Home in the Illinois Country:
French Colonial Domestic Site Archaeology in the Midwest, 1730-1800, University of Illinois, Illinois State
Archaeological Survey, 2011, 247 p. ; WHITE, Wild Frenchmen and Frenchified…, 329 p. 194 Fifteen or so, by the count of Gilles Havard. HAVARD, Empires et métissages…, p. 442. 195 Suzanne and André GOUSSE, Lexique illustré du costume…, p. 35-41. 196 Gilles HAVARD, Histoire des coureurs de bois: Amérique du Nord 1600-1840, Paris, Les Indes savants,
2016, p. 524-529. 197 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 151-152. 198 Ibid. p. 152.
57
identities on their backs for all to see. Sumptuary laws were in place in New France and in
the metropole, with silks, finer textiles, and extravagant fashion being the domain of the
noblesse and wealthy merchants. However, these laws may have been less rigid in the
colonies than they were across the sea. Variances from these prescribed dress codes can be
found in many records and throughout the small field of literature allotted to clothing in
New France199. These relaxations of metropolitan legal imports can be attributed to the
difficulties that French administration faced in effectively controlling and policing an ever
expanding territory on another continent in a time when communication was often a
lengthy and onerous process200. As best put, “the most important limitation on absolutism
was not theoretical but practical201.” In a colonial world where regulations were a struggle
to enforce, the rules of fashion may have been regularly bent by individuals for a wide
variety of reasons and motivations that have largely been lost to time. It is highly probable
that this laxity applied to dress on the edges of French influence to an even greater degree
than in maritime and fluvial areas of the colony.
2.1.3 Trade Lists and Documentation from Fort St. Joseph
Though textiles were without a doubt the mainstay of the fur trade and of daily life in
New France, only some clues concerning textiles at Fort St. Joseph have been passed down
to us through the ages in the form of trade lists. Trade lists from 1694, 1739, and 1740
mention textile imports to Fort St. Joseph202. The earliest list from 1694 includes three lace
trimmed jackets, three pairs of breeches, and two sails, and another list from the same year
mentions six pairs of stockings, nine chemises, and a capot203. From these lists, the role of
cloth at the post is already identified as an important one.
In 1739, two blankets, two and a half ells of toile de Lyon, and five ells and two and a
half ells of two other unnamed cloth varieties are sent to the fort204. The two blankets
199 Diana DiPaolo LOREN, “Social Skins,” Journal of Social Archaeology, Vol. 1 No. 2 (2001), p.172-189;
SÉGUIN, La civilisation traditionnelle…, p. 114-116. 200 HODSON and RUSHFORTH, “Absolutely Atlantic…,” p. 103-105. 201 William BEIK, Louis XIV and Absolutism: A Brief Study with Documents, New York, Bedfort ⁄ St. Martin’s, 2000, p. 4. Cited in HODSON and RUSHFORTH, “Absolutely Atlantic…,” p. 103. 202 IDLE, “The Post of the St. Joseph…,” p. 16; Joseph L. PEYSER, Fort St. Joseph Manuscripts:
Chronological Inventory and Translations, Niles, MI, J. L. Peyser, 1978, p. 86, 88-89, 101, 104, 123. 203 IDLE, “The Post of the St. Joseph…,” p. 16. 204 PEYSER, Fort St. Joseph Manuscripts, p. 86. Ell is the English translation of the French aune.
58
mentioned in this list might be the same two blankets buried with an Ottawa chief near the
post in the same year205. Likely evidence of the use of new blankets in Native American
mortuary context comes from a seal found in a burial at an eighteenth-century Tunica
cemetary in Louisiana. The seal was found at the foot of an individual, which would be
consistant with the often referred to placement of lead seals at the selvedge or extremity of
a cloth piece. Though in the reports associated with this site the lead seal is interpreted as
an anomaly “not definitely associated with the burial” and labeled as a probable result of
backfill, its function as a textile marker seems to have been unexplored, and the seal itself
is described as “unmarked206.” Other examples of the use of European textiles in Native
American burials lend support to this interpretation207.
Lists in 1739 and the following year attest to the presence of premade mitasses,
chemises, women’s chemises, a brayet, a blue blanket, and a four-point blanket208. The
specificity of the mention of women’s chemises apart from the others sent to the post may
suggest that they were destined for Canadien women there, since previously mentioned
accounts identify Native American women as consumers of chemises made in a style
consistant with those worn by European men. The presence of a four point blanket is
intriguing because the largest blanket size mentioned by Pouchot is the three point variety,
which were used by Native American men209. A few years later in 1742, documents
mention the importation of various types of woolen to Fort St. Joseph. These include 889
yards of moleton cloth (melton), 282 yards of dourgne, and unknown quantities of
polimiez, kersey and cadis210. Even with these mentions, however, consumption patterns
and the separation of textiles intended for Native American use from those of Canadien use
is unclear.
205 PEYSER, Fort St. Joseph Manuscripts, p. 88. 206 Gregory A. WASELKOV, “Tunica Archaeology. By Jeffery P. Brain,” Ethnohistory, Vol. 38 No. 3
(Summer 1991), Duke University Press, p. 346; Jeffrey P. BRAIN, Tunica Archaeology, Cambridge, Peabody
Museum Press, 2004 (1988), p.172-173, 401. 207 NASSANEY, The Archaeology of the North American…, p. 100-101. 208 PEYSER, Fort St. Joseph Manuscripts, p. 89,101,104, 123. 209 POUCHOT, Mémoires sur la dernière guerre…, p. 276. 210 KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit…, p. 663-665, 667.
59
2.2 LEAD SEALS FROM FORT ST. JOSEPH
In my previous analysis, sixty-six seals, seal fragments, and related objects recovered
from the site of Fort St. Joseph were examined along with the sparse documentary
evidence that exists for the site concerning cloth consumption. Forty-three of these seals
and fragments are housed and curated by the Fort St. Joseph Museum in Niles, MI.
Seventeen of these seals were archaeologically recovered by the Fort St. Joseph
archaeological project since 1998. The others were recovered by local collectors since the
early nineteenth century and later donated to the museum211. Artifacts from Fort St. Joseph
were previously classified and organized by Charles Hulse, who includes 31 seals in his
work. At the time of my analysis, only 26 of these seals were accessible to me for various
reasons212. The remaining seals in the study are housed at The History Museum in nearby
South Bend, Indiana (formerly known as the Center for History). These seals were
acquired by the museum from a private collector in the 1990s and are part of a larger
collection of artifacts from the site of Fort St. Joseph213.
2.2.1 French seals from Fort St. Joseph
Seals of the Compagnie des Indes at Fort St. Joseph
The Compagnie des Indes Occidentales (also known at various points as the
Compagnie de la Louisiane or the Compagnie du Mississippi) was the French West India
Company, created in 1717 by famous and fated Scottish economist John Law during his
time as a financial advisor to Duke of Orléans (regent on behalf of young Louis XV). Most
remembered for its role in the infamous financial crash known as the Mississippi Bubble,
the Compagnie operated as a cog in Law’s paper currency and investment schemes borne
out of the new Banque Générale of France. In 1719 it grew to absorb a number of other
companies including the La Compagnie de L’Assiente (Also known as La Compagnie de
Sainte-Domingue, whose affairs concerned Guinea), La Compagnie du Castor (La
Compagnie du Canada), La Compagnie de la Chine, La Compagnie du Sénégal, La
211 HULSE, “An Archaeological Evaluation of Fort St. Joseph…,” p. 15-16. 212 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 21. 213 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” 101 p.
60
Compagnie de l’Afrique, and La Compagnie des Indes Orientales214. At this point the name
was changed from La Compagnie des Indes Occidentales to La Compagnie des Indes
(having absorbed the East India Companies).
Law sold shares in the company in exchange for newfangled paper money, promising a
return on investments derived from the rich soils and gold spattered lands of Louisiana, a
sensationalist dream, as it turned out. When investors began demanding their shares cashed
out in gold, the bank was unable to meet their demands because the paper money printed
did not actually represent the amount of wealth present in specie within the institution. In
fact, of the around three million billets in paper money that were issued in part to enhance
investment in Compagnie shares, only about 500,000 were actually represented in gold215.
When word spread that the bills issued by the Banque Générale were not worth their face
value, a panic ensued, enveloping the rue de Quicampoix, center of the stock exchange,
and radiating through Paris in a frenzied mass of riots and stampedes that would help
cement Law’s fate. The Scotsman was detained to help remedy the problem and in
December of 1720, once the grip of the Duke loosened, he quickly and quietly fled France,
and never returned216. The Compagnie des Indes, however, remained in existence until it
suffered bankruptcy in 1763, followed by a sharp decline and liquidation, and the
revocation of its charter in 1769217.
There are three seals of the Compagnie des Indes at Fort St. Joseph including two
different varieties. Though both versions feature the company crest on one side, they are
different in the presentation of this crest (one shows it flanked by Native Americans) and in
that one includes the company motto, florebo quo (cumque) ferar on the opposite side218.
Unfortunately the examples of this seal design at Fort St. Joseph and at Fortress
Louisbourg , as is the case with many seals bearing this design, have obscure, incomplete,
or damaged impressions that obscure the supposedly present rock at the foot of the right
214 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 388; René ESTIENNE, dir., Les Compagnies des Indes, Paris,
Gallimard, 2013, p. 59. 215 ESTIENNE, dir., Les Compagnies des Indes, p. 60. 216 Ibid. p. 60-61. 217 Ibid. p. 72-73, 75; SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 391. 218 Florebo quocumque ferar is a Latin phrase best translated as “I flourish wherever I go” or “I flourish
wherever I am brought” see Fort St. Joseph Series C, Type 1, Variety B in classification, p. 148.
61
hand figure next to the company arms219. This rock, found on other similar seals of the
company, has been known to exhibit the letter D, H, I, K, M, N, O, S, Z, or emblems
including a crown or a hatchet/calumet shape, which may exist as anticounterfeiting
measures, marks corresponding to sale records, or possibly an indication regarding the
fabric marked by the seal220. Sabatier suggests, based on records describing a change in the
design of the Compagnie’s seals in 1748-49 and on the lettering style, that this design
postdates 1749221.
Seals of the Compagnie des Indes are uniform in size and attachment types at all sites
consulted in this study, though at other sites in New France, such as Old Mobile, this
appears to vary222. The most common seal variety for the Compagnie at Fort St. Joseph is
that which includes the initials CDI (Compagnie des Indes) on one side surrounded by a
laurel crown, which appears on two seals223. The backside to this version includes the same
crest featured on all company seals, but it is not flanked by stylized standing Native
American figures. In both Compagnie des Indes designs, the company crest is shown,
which consists of the Mississippi (or the Ganges) reclining on a cornucopia or mountain of
wealth with a lush green sky behind the scene (this vert color is represented by the hatching
lines present in the seal’s design)224. This design is also present at Fort Michilimackinac
and Fort Ouiatenon, but its date is uncertain225. At any rate, seals found at these sites are
unlikely to be any newer than at least 1759, when trade from France to Québec was
severed, and certainly cannot post-date 1763 and the collapse of the company.
Compagnie seals of the variety that include the motto are known to have marked
cottons prior to their sale in French ports to French merchants and négociants226.
Remaining examples of these seals have been found which include attached slips of paper
219 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 405-406; DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph
(20BE23),” p. 63-64. 220 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 405-406 221 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 404-405. 222 Those seals of the Compagnie at Old Mobile also do not appear to feature the company crest or the motto,
but instead include lettering and dates. Gregory A. WASELKOV, Old Mobile Archaeology. Center for
Archaeological Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, The University of Alabama Press, 1999,
p. 25. 223 See Fort St. Joseph Series C, Type 1, Variety A in classification, pg. 147. 224 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 63-64. 225 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 64. 226 ESTIENNE, dir., Les Compagnies des Indes, p. 241.
62
with informational stamps on them, as instructed in company documents227. This would
support the possibility that these seals marked striped, bleached or checked cottons or
muslins, imports that the Compagnie is known to have dealt in228. Though the Compagnie
was without a doubt responsible for the propagation of printed cottons in France, and
though there are many cases of indiennes consumption in New France, indiennes were
technically illegal in France and its colonies until after the conquest, as previously
mentioned. Many of the indiennes that entered France during the ban did so semi-legally
and often on the sly in the pacotilles allotted to employees of the Compagnie returning
from the East Indies229. Though technically the importation of printed textiles in pacotilles
was not outlawed, it was limited and discouraged, though limits do not seem to have been
enforced, and profits made from the sale of these printed cloths straight from India were
immense230. One account describes the frenzy surrounding the arrival of Compagnie
vessels at Lorient.
“A l’arrivée des vaisseaux venant des Indes, les habitants de Lorient de rendent en
foule à bord...où ils prennent des marchandises qu’ils introduisent ensuite dans leurs
poches et sous leurs vêtements avec la plus grande sécurité, d’autant qu’il est
impracticable de faire la visite de leur personne. Ce tourbillon dure environ une demi-
heure231.”
With tableaus such as this one playing out in port regularily, and the apparent laxity
surrounding the rampant fraud in the pacotille allowances, it is little wonder that a 1757
report of the director of Lorient offices of the Compagnie describes the participation of
company officials in this enthusiastic city-wide circulation of contraband.
“Les officiers au service de la Compagnie...font commerce public de marchandises
prohibées. Elles sont toutes vendues à Lorient. On y tient boutiques ouvertes de toutes
227 Ibid. p. 241; SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 390-396. 228 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 390. 229 Pacotilles were (in theory, if not in practice) non-policed non-merchandise personal packages that
company employees were allowed to carry onto the vessels. Claude NIÈRES, Histoire de Lorient, Toulouse,
Privat, 1988, p. 41. 230 Ibid. p. 41. 231 Ibid. p. 42.
63
espèces et des mieux choisies, malgré toutes les défenses que l'on a pu faire à ce
sujet232.”
Though clearly indiennes made it into France and her colonies, these textiles were probably
never sealed, since seals were after all a mark of compliance with company and
governmental regulations. Therefore seals of the Compagnie must have marked their legal
imports. These included the aforementioned non-printed or painted varieties of cotton, but
also English écarlatines, as specified by Bougainville233. These écarlatines were likely
shipped from La Rochelle to Québec and Montréal, which each had one resident agent of
the Compagnie to contrôle and visite (respectively) outgoing furs and imported goods234.
The classification of seals of Compagnie des Indes by location, as used to organize the
seals from Ticonderoga and Louisbourg, is problematic because sales took place in Nantes
between 1689 and 1734, and after 1734 company activity moved to Lorient, the more
famous headquarters of the Compagnie235. However, knowing this, Lorient has been
chosen to represent the home port of the company due to its notoriety but also because it
hosted the Compagnie during the height of economic prosperity in New France.
Mazamet
Seals from Mazamet at Fort St. Joseph are easily identified by the presence of a coq
gaulois and three fleur de lys, and by the stylized backwards “Z” used in the name of the
town236. Four seals from Mazamet are present at Fort St. Joseph; seal 94.3.317K (THM),
seal G (FSJM), seal A (FSJM), and seal F (FSJM). This town will be discussed further on
in the chapter devoted to Louisbourg, but it should be noted that the seals originating from
Mazamet found at Fort St. Joseph include seals of the bureau de contrôle, bureau de visite,
and bureau foraine of the town237. Ergo, some of these seals (the bureau of contrôle
especially) may have marked textiles produced at Mazamet such as the worsted that bore
232 NIÈRES, Histoire de Lorient, p. 41-42 233 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 89. 234 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 153; BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 91. 235 ESTIENNE, dir., Les Compagnies des Indes, p. 240. 236 The coq gaulois is the Gallic Rooster, a symbol of France and a key symbol on the crest of the town of
Mazamet. 237 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 54-55
64
its name, which others most likely marked textiles from elsewhere transiting through
Mazamet or being sold there.
Mazamet came in a range of colors including blue, red, brown, grey, white, olive,
and bright yellow (lemon), and is known to have been sent to Fort Detroit and other posts
in the Western Great Lakes region, as well as Louisbourg and settlements in the St.
Lawrence Valley238. Mazamet imported to Fort St. Joseph may have been used in capots or
a variety of European and Native American style garments created at the post239. As
discussed in my previous study, the woolen manufactures of Mazamet seem to have been
negatively influenced by the loss of New France, but appear to have recovered somewhat
through supplying British imports of French cloth to Canada240.
Montauban
Fort St. Joseph, like the other two sites in this study, has a connection to the town of
Montauban and the Mariette family. The town of Montauban and its merchant dynasties
are discussed in the comparative section of this thesis for that reason. Seal 94.3.317Q
(THM) most likely bears the mark of Pierre Mariette, a prominent négociant from
Montauban. Likewise, seal Z (FSJM) has a motif of men in a canoe or rowboat that appears
elsewhere, in Montréal and at Michilimackinac with some slight differences241. Cross-
examination of this seal variety between these three sites appears to confirm that this seal
impression is also tied to the Mariette family. Lastly, one obverse fragment from this site
(seal 94.3.317U (THM)) is broken in a very typical spot for seals from Montauban, yet is
identifiable solely by the word ending “BAN” alone on its own line, a common way of
dividing the lengthy name of the town up in order to fit it onto seals242.
Carcassonne
At least two seals from this site appear to have marked textiles made at Carcassonne.
Seals H and I (FSJM) both have fragmentary parts of what appears to be an impression of
238 Its use outside of Fort St. Joseph is discussed later in this thesis. KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit…, p.
664. 239 KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit…, p. 569-570. 240 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 56-57. 241 Ibid. p.55; STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 286. 242 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 55
65
the phrase “FABRIQVE DE CARCASSONNE” encircling the outside of their obverse
plates. Seal H also includes the words “DRAP DE” across the center of its obverse portion,
which signifies that this seal was alikely attached to a woolen broadcloth from that city.
The full range of products being created at Carcassonne is discussed in the section later in
this thesis that deals with Carcassonne seals from Louisbourg. However, the presence of
these seals at a site with a heavy fur trade culture taken in combination with the presence of
seals of the Compagnie des Indes that may have marked écarlatines and the known
importation of broadcloth from Carcassonne for the Native American market seems to
point to these seals having marked woolen blankets bound for trade and consumption near
the site by local Potawatomis or Miamis243.
Lille
Textiles circulating in and around the city of Lille also appear to have been imported
and sent to Fort St. Joseph. Two seals from the site, seals A (FSJM), and another seal that
was recovered from the site in 2011 bear the marks of the bureau foraine of Lille244. These
seals both exhibit a Series A Type 2 attachment style- a “double knob” style, which
Sabatier associated with foreign seals and seals from regions in the north of France245. At
the time of the completion of this study, all seal evidence I have seen in my time working
on lead seals seems to align with Sabatier’s statement. Lille is located immediately south of
the border of France and the Netherlands, and in the eighteenth century it was a transit hub
for foreign imports and French exports to northern Europe246. Lille itself was known to
have produced lace, linens, cottons, woolen broadcloths, camelots (camlets), polimiez
(polimy), and persianes247. Its proximity to other major cloth producing centers such as
Ypres (Netherlands), Valenciennes, and Douai means that the bureau foraine of Lille could
243 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 58-59. 244 Ibid. p. 60-61; MACDONALD, “Introduction to Colonial Era Lead Seals,” p. 8. Credit for this identification
goes to MacDonald. 245 Antoine SABATIER, « Étude Révisionnelle des Sceaux de Plomb Fiscaux et Commerciaux, » Bulletin de la
Société des Sciences & Arts de Beaujolais, No. 33 (January-March, 1908), p. 11; SABATIER, Sigillographie
historique…, p. 9. 246 MACDONALD, “Introduction to Colonial Era Lead Seals,” p. 8. 247 KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit…, p. 667; SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502.
66
have been responsible for the sealing of the broadcloths and other products of these nearby
neighbors248.
2.2.2 English Yorkshire Seals
Two seals from Fort St. Joseph are from late eighteenth-century to early nineteenth-century
Yorkshire woolen merchants. The first one was identified in my undergraduate thesis on
seals from the site, and is associated with James Eyre, a woolens merchant from Leeds,
center of the Yorkshire trade in cloth249. Leeds was well known as a broadcloth producer,
and the region in general was also well known for producing quality kerseys and bays250.
Since the publication of my last study, I have identified additional information
associated with the seal from Halifax mentioned in the text251. This seal is that of the
partnership of Buck and Kershaw, woolen merchants of Halifax252. The first mention of
either of these merchants is in a London Gazette notice from 1814 announcing the
dissolution of a partnership between William Kershaw (of Buck and Kershaw) and a
certain Edward Swain. The Buck and Kershaw partnership appears again in an 1818-1820
commercial directory253. The Halifax store of Buck and Kershaw was located on Union
Street, not far from the Piece Hall, where cloth would be inspected, measured, and sealed.
William Kershaw and Sons, merchants located at “Warley-House,” in Halifax are also
listed in this commercial directory254. A later commercial directory for 1834 notes that
Buck and Kershaw are still located on Union Street in that year255. It therefore appears that
at the very minimum, Kershaw was active from 1814-1834. Though records for the
company are elusive, they would have likely sold a range of locally produced woolens256.
248 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 249 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 40 (Variety K, Seal U), 59-60, 89 (Plate
XIII, fig. UO, UR). 250 Ibid. p. 60. 251 Ibid. p. 39-40 (Variety J, Seal P), 59-60, 87 (Plate XI, fig. PO, PR). 252 Halifax, England, not the Nova Scotia city of the same name. 253 THE LONDON GAZETTE, PART 1, London, T. Neuman, January 1, 1814- June 18, 1814, p. 939; J. Pigot &
Co. 1818. The Commercial Directory for 1818-19-20 Containing the Names, Trades, and Situations of the
Merchants, Manufacturers, Tradesmen, &c. James Pigot, Manchester. P.144. 254 J. PIGOT & Co. The Commercial Directory…, p. 144. 255 http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Halifax/Halifax34Dry.html. 256 Indeed, it is even difficult to determine which iteration of Buck & Kershaw’s companies or partnerships
this seal belongs to.
67
These two seals and the activity of the associated merchants appears to hint at the existence
of commercial activity at the site of Fort St. Joseph into the early nineteenth century.
Though there is no shortage of unidentified seals included in the collections
examined in my earlier work on Fort St. Joseph, I am interested at the moment in
determining how the information learned in this study compares with the information
discovered concerning other sites included in this thesis. For information on these
unindentified seals, it is best to consult the images and typology in my earlier work257.
257 Very little text in my previous work is devoted to these seals, as they remain mysterious. DAVIS, “Lead
Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 59.
68
CHAPTER 3: FORT TICONDEROGA (FORT CARILLON)
3.1 A BRIEF HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND SARTORIAL OVERVIEW
Fort Ticonderoga (Fort Carillon), which has been called the “key to a continent” was
built as the first and southernmost French point of defense along the contested Champlain
corridor between Montréal and Albany. Its construction was ordered in 1755 and
construction began in earnest in October of that year under the supervision of architect
Michel Chartier de Lotbinère258. Six-hundred and fifty men of the La Reine and Languedoc
regiments were engaged in this construction, as well as some possible civilian carpenters
and artisans259. The fort was more or less defensible but evidently not reliable enough to
withstand a siege by the time of the Battle of Carillon in 1758, when Montcalm chose to
face the British attack on the fortified heights of Carillon. Montcalm’s forces were about
3,500 strong at Carillon, which was arguably the height of a relatively brief yet intense
period of French occupation260. Native Americans appear to have frequented the fort from
time to time, including warriors and on at least one occasion, women and children as
well261. However, it does not appear that the Magasin du Roi at the fort was equipped with
trade goods substantial for the amount of gift giving and trade needed to maintain a strong
Native American presence, let alone to conduct extensive trading at the site (such as seen at
Fort St. Joseph)262. This makes sense since Fort Ticonderoga was built with the imperative
to defend the Champlain Valley and not to protect an extant fur trading population at the
site.
Archaeologically speaking, Fort Ticonderoga is the least explored of the three sites
considered in this study. The site was left abandoned after the American War of
Independence and was purchased in 1820 by the Pell family, so it has seen minimal
258 Edward Pierce HAMILTON, Fort Ticonderoga: Key to Continent, Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Press,
Second Edition, 1995 (1964), title page. 259 HAMILTON, Fort Ticonderoga…, p. 39-40; René CHARTRAND, The Forts of New France in Northeast
America 1600–1763, New York, Osprey 2008, p. 36. 260 ANDERSON, The Crucible of War… p. 776, note 6. 261 HAMILTON, Fort Ticonderoga…, p. 41; BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 210, 218. 262 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 218; Steve DELISLE, “The 1757 Inventory of the King’s
Storehouses at Carillon,” The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XVII, No. 2. (2017), p. 32-57.
69
disturbance and development263. It has been officially accessible to the public since the
opening of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum in 1909, though it was explored by tourists from
time to time in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries264. Before opening to the public the
fort was restored to its current appearance, and some disturbance occurred as a result of
uncovering the base of the stone structures265. Areas with high potential for undisturbed
eighteenth-century archaeological remains include the areas immediately surrounding the
fort, where soldiers may have camped, and the battlefield located on the heights of
Carillon. The fort was a site of conflict and occupation during the American War of
Independence as well, therefore any material recovered could date from 1755 onwards to
the end of the century, and perhaps even later.
Though much of the museum’s archaeological collections are composed of material
collected before the birth of modern archaeological technique, some fieldwork has been
done at the site266. The first archaeological work at the site was carried out by the Pell
family and J. Duncan Campbell starting in 1957, and focused on the “French Village”
shown as the “lower town” on period maps. This excavation uncovered “civilian lodging”,
a blacksmith’s shop, storehouses (including a “trader’s store” and wine shop), and a
bakery267. The interior of the fort was explored by Hartgen Archaeological Associates in
2001 and 2005 excavations of the terre-plein and the Magasin du Roi, respectively268.
Neither of these excavations appear to have recovered lead seals, suggesting that though
the Magasin du Roi may have held cloth, none appears to have been cut or used there, or
the seals were deposited elsewhere after said activity was completed. The lead seals
examined in this study are in the collections of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum and housed
at the Thompson-Pell Research Center. They appear to have been in the collections for
some time, as they are noted in the book “History Written with Pick and Shovel” (1950)
263 David R. STARBUCK, The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields, Gainesville, University Press of Florida,
2011, p. 34. 264 Ibid. p. 34. 265 Ibid. p. 34. 266 DELISLE, “An Introduction to the 1757…,” p. 14. 267 STARBUCK, The Archaeology of Forts…,. p. 35. 268 Ibid. p. 35. The Magasin du Roi excavation extended along the eastern curtain wall from the northeast
bastion to southeast bastion.
70
and thus pre-date any archaeological work at the site269. Very little has been written
concerning clothing styles and textiles at Ticonderoga, most likely due to the military
nature of the site and its implications on appearance and consumption. Since most of the
occupants of the site would have been in uniform, their individual sartorial expression
would have been limited. With so many clothing items provided for them by the state and
army, it would also be fair to suggest that perhaps there was not even a demand for more
personalized and individual clothing items or raw textile pieces.
3.2 LEAD SEALS FROM FORT TICONDEROGA
Montauban
The Fort Ticonderoga Museum collections include 24 seals and seal fragments which
are detailed in my classification. While this site includes the smallest and the least varied
seal assemblage, it is also arguably the most informative collection in regards to merchant
connections. This is perhaps truest concerning the Canada merchants of Montauban, whose
marks appear on over a quarter (33%, a total of 8 marks) of seals present in the collection.
Overwhelmingly represented are the Rauly brothers and Daniel Mariette “l’ainé” in his
partnership with one of the Dumas. These families and others will be discussed much more
in depth later in this study. One seal (Seal F) bears a mark that may mention a certain
“Lourdes” family, as yet unidentified. Interestingly enough, this seal also appears to have a
strange stylistic choice in its inclusion of what appears to be a leaning “A” conjoined to the
“M” in “Montauban,” giving us an unknown first name or variation of “frères” followed by
the last name Lourdes, Negts à Montauban. Seals from Montauban are often identifiable
through the last line “MONTAV” or “BAN” depending which portion of the obverse is
present as a fragment or portion. Seals with this breakage pattern and impression are found
fairly often, for example, at Michilimackinac and Fort St. Joseph270.
269 William L. CALVER and Reginald P. BOLTON, History Written with Pick and Shovel, New York, New
York Historical Society, 1950, p. 272-273.
270 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 282, Figure L; DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St.
Joseph (20BE23),” p. 37, Figure 5, UO, p. 82 Plate V, UO.
71
Toulouse
Most prominent in the collection are seals from Toulouse (41%, 10 marks). This is
unique among the sites in this study, since neither Louisbourg nor Fort St. Joseph have any
identifiable seals from this major city. Toulouse was an important commercial center
situated at the junction of the Canal du Midi (AKA “Canal royale de Languedoc” running
west from Mediterranean) and the Canal de Garonne (running east from Bordeaux). As
noted in Savary’s Commercial Dictionary of 1750;
“TOULOUSE. Cette Ville est la Capitale de Languedoc; elle est située sur la Garonne,
& son heureuse situation la rend une des plus grandes Villes du Royaume, & des plus
riches par son trafic. Ses manufactures sont des couvertures de laine, des bas du
même matiére, des chapeaux, des cuirs, de bergames & de petites étoffes. Les
couvertures sont faites de laines du pays; il s’en fait depuis 5 liv. jusqu’à 12 liv. la
piece; autrefois il s’en faisoit pour jusqu’à 70000 livres par an, presentement le débit
ne va qu’à 5000 livres. La Communauté des Couverturiers n’est composée que de neuf
Maîtres, qui n’ont chacun qu’un métier. Toulouse même, Montauban, Bordeaux &
Limoges, sont les lieux du débit de cette merchandise271.”
The main product of Toulouse was blankets, which were transported to Montauban and
Bordeaux, both locations that were heavily involved in the Canada trade. However, gazes
(silk gauze), broadcloths, silks, and cotton toiles were also produced at Toulouse, and the
city was home to commerce that included both broadcloths and worsteds due to its
prominent canalside position272.
Of these ten Toulousian seals, nine are associated with l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la
Grave273. This hospital in Toulouse was the Hôpital Général of the city, as opposed to
l’Hôtel Dieu, which acted as a place of medical treatment in the way one generally thinks
271 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 266. 272 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 273 (http://www.chu-toulouse.fr/-histoire-de-la-grave-). Seals C, E, G, H, J, P, S, T, U. It should be pointed
out that the cross included on the seal of this hospital is not a Maltese-style Occitan cross with equal arm
lengths, but rather a classic cross with one longer arm, as found on most crucifixes. However, this cross does
have similar serif-like flourishes at the extremities of each arm. One can see the offset hub of the arms of the
cross on seals H and J.
72
of a modern hospital274. Both of these institutions appear to have been well established by
the time of Colbert and his policies275. In fact, l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave began
accepting its first inhabitants in 1648, having been called to house “The mendicants,
‘coureuses’(prostitutes), and other beggars” of Toulouse in order to “relieve the inhabitants
of the city of the oppression and importunity of the large numbers of poor” found there276.
In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, these general hospitals were
subject to the control of mercantilist policies, since the poor were thought to be best served
if they were taught a skill and given work. The manufactured goods and cloths produced as
a result of the labor of the poor would be beneficial to the state and the profit would come
back at least partially to the workers277. The inhabitants of l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la
Grave included orphans and abandoned children, young girls of marrying age with no
fortune, the old and infirm, the mentally ill and physically handicapped, as well as the
homeless, beggars, delinquents, and prostitutes rounded up and kept there in detention278.
Residents of the hospital would occasionally be sent to l’Hôtel Dieu for treatment, and
often transfers included prostitutes with venereal diseases, the dying, those with incurable
diseases, and pregnant women279.
Both hospitals in Toulouse were known for their productivity in their respective
trades, or rather, the trades practiced by the residents of their halls. The Hôtel Dieu was a
center for the manufacture of burial shrouds and beer, much of which was made by the
more able patients with incurable and chronic diseases that were treated at the hospital280.
Meanwhile, at l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave, the textile arts were at the forefront, and
in 1750, around fifteen shops kept by weavers, button makers, cordonniers, turners/lathers,
woodworkers, locksmiths, and glassmakers could be found within the hospital, all reliant
on the labor of the residents281. As early as 1682, there was even an artisan from the Royal
274 Michel TAILLEFER, Vivre à Toulouse sous l’Ancien Régime. Paris, Perrin, 2000, p. 111. 275 COLE, Colbert and a Century of French…, p. 275. 276 Original French: “les mediants, coureuses, et autres gueux’ and ‘soulager les habitants de la ville de
l’oppression et importunité du grand nombre de pauvres.” TAILLEFER, Vivre à Toulouse…, p. 110. 277 COLE, Colbert and a Century of French…, p 264, 347. 278 TAILLEFER, Vivre à Toulouse…, p. 112. 279 Ibid. p. 112. 280 Ibid. p. 111. 281 Ibid. p. 112.
73
Manufacture at Paris was brought to the hospital to show girls how to create varieties of
lace including Venice style re-embroidered lace (“passements rebrodés façon de
Venise”)282. More notably, prostitutes and “pauvres valides,” poor residents able to work in
the task, were known to be employed in the spinning and weaving of wool, cotton, and silk
textiles283. Toulouse was well known for its silks and woolens, and in the 1650s and 60s,
an influential merchant dyer named Jean Albo pushed for forced relocations of the poor in
order to augment the workforce at de la Grave and to further develop the city’s silk
industry. Albo was also the author of a book “Le travail utile et charitable” (1669), which
embodied many of the thoughts on the economic merits of introducing trades to the poor
that were espoused by Colbert and his contemporaries284.
Though Colbertism championed the benefits of integrating the poor into trades,
both for their own good and the good of the state, the realities of life within l’Hôpital
Saint-Joseph de la Grave were less than ideal. Children who were found or abandoned
between the ages of two and seven were placed in the care of foster families in the country
before being brought back to the hospital to learn a trade from priests and artisans. While
housed at the hospital, they followed the same schedules as the adult workers and were
often deprived of bread or whipped as punishment285. When they reached the age of
fourteen to sixteen, they were placed in the surrounding region or in the city as apprentices
or domestics. Boys were given a small stipend with which to establish themselves in life,
and girls were equipped with a small dowry286.
Those who chose to admit themselves to the hospital had similarly austere and
minimal lives. Men, women, and girls were separated, even during mandatory masses, and
expected to adhere to strict moral standards287. The admitted received a pair of sabots and
one blue uniform (created on site) that would serve them until it wore out. Residents slept
in groups on large straw mattresses that were likely infested with fleas, lice, and bedbugs,
and worked from approximately 5 am to 9 pm. Their diets were simple, and consisted of
282 Ibid. p. 112. 283 Ibid. p. 111. 284 Ibid. p. 118. 285 Ibid. p. 113. 286 Ibid. p. 112. 287 Ibid. p. 113.
74
bread (often cheap cornbread), vegetable soups, mutton or beef (except on lean days),
salted fish, dried vegetables, eggs, cheese, some fruits, and watered down wine in small
quantities. This non varied and processed diet was conducive to the development of scurvy
and rickets288. Leisure time was nearly nonexistent, and workers were subject to constant
surveillance and severe discipline that was known to include stints in the dungeon and
whipping. Authorities were continually displeased by the behavior of many of the
residents. There was reportedly a special ire directed towards some of the looser women
confined there, who on some occasions skipped mass and stood in front of their
dormitories, where the most brazen would “show off their nipples and say indecent
things289.” Residents were not allowed to leave the hospital except with permission to seek
profit through their trade or sales of goods, or to follow funeral parades. Residents were
allowed to leave twice a year to participate in annual religious processions for Saint-
Étienne and Saint-Sernin, and some were employed in public works such as the removal of
snow or the cleaning of ditches290. Nevertheless, many found conditions inside the hospital
preferable to a life of poverty and instability outside its walls, and so the number of
residents grew from a few hundred in the seventeenth century to about 2,500 by the time of
the French Revolution291.
The mark of l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave is found on various obverse
fragments, but also on complete seals. In one of these instances, the hospital mark appears
on the obverse of a seal (Seal J) with a reverse marked “MANUFACTURE DE
COUVERTURES DE TOULOUSE292.” This mark appears to be that of an office
inspecting the blankets made in the city of Toulouse, which would place it as a type of
bureau de contrôle within the city. The seals from the hospital may have been attached at
the hospital by its own inspection office, or perhaps by the laborers or artisans themselves
in order to identify the product as issue of their shop. The existence of an inspection office
specific to the hospital would be unsurprising, since the whole idea of textile manufactures
288 Ibid. p. 113. 289 Original French “montrent leurs tétins et disent des paroles indécents.” TAILLEFER, Vivre à Toulouse…, p.
119. 290 Ibid. p. 114, 117. 291 Ibid. p. 114. 292 “Blanket manufacture of Toulouse,” seal seen in CALVER and BOLTON, History Written…, p. 272-273.
75
there relying on the labor of the residents was one that heavily involved the state. At least
one Toulouse blanket in very poor state is mentioned in the 1758 inventory of the Magasin
du Roi at Ticonderoga293. Import lists from the 1740s connected to the Montauban
merchants provisioning the site, the Mariette family, include shipments of white city-made
blankets (“Couvertures de Laine blanches de Ville”)294. Other records mention large blue
and green Toulouse blankets (“Couvertures de Toulouse vertes et Bleües grandes a couvrir
Deux hommes”) in stores at Québec295. At Louisbourg, green blankets of unknown origin
also appear on supply requests and inventories for the Hôpital du Roy296.
One seal (Seal D) from this site is double struck with this same “MANUFACTURE
DES COUVERTURES DE TOULOUSE” seal on top of the seal of Daniel Mariette l’ainé
et Dumas Négociants de Montauban, solidifying the relationship between the Mariette
family (and Dumas, for that matter) and the blankets of the city of Toulouse. Due to the
connection between the hospital shops and the blanket manufactures of Toulouse
reinforced by their appearance together on the aforementioned seal (Seal J), one may
conclude that D. Mariette and Dumas were ordering Toulouse blankets produced by the
poor at l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave. Merchants and négociants were known to put
in orders with artisans to create cloth to meet demand. The lead seal evidence therefore
informs us that the Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave in Toulouse was employing the poor
to produce blankets, which were then bought by the Mariette family (possibly in
partnership with the Dumas family) and shipped to New France, where they were likely
distributed by Joseph- Michel Cadet, munitionnaire du Roi.
Cadet was charged with supplying the troops and the Magasins du Roi at various
posts with munitions and provisions, and was active from 1756-1760. He maintained a
293 “une couverture de Toulouse avariée.” DELISLE, “The 1757 Inventory…,” p. 43. 294 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 89, Fo 332, État du fonds a remettre au [sort] de Rochefort pour le payement de la
premiere moitié du prix des molton voilet et bleu, molton blanchi, et mazamet maron, dourgne maron,
couvertures de Ville et Toile d'emballage que les Srs. Mariette freres de Montauban ont fourni dans les
magasins de ce [sort] pour garnir ceux de Quebec, et seront payés sur les fonds de la d. colonie de la presente
année 1747, Rochfort, 7 April, 1747. 295 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 93, Fo 342-344, État des munitions, marchandises et grand habillement qu'il est
nécessaire d'envoyer de France pour garnir les magasins du Roi à Québec pour l'année mille sept cent
cinquante, Québec, 28 October 1749. The importers of these blankets are unknown. 296 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 14, Fo 227-229, Estat des meubles et ustanciles necessaires pour l’hopital Royal de
Louisbourg, Louisbourg, 19 October 1733; ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, Fo 300-345, État de l’habillement,
munitions de Guerres…, Louisbourg, 1 October 1725.
76
storehouse at Québec and corresponded with various metropolitan merchants to fill orders
requested by the colonial authorities and the Ministre de la Marine. Many of these
commercial contacts were ones formed before acquiring his post in wartime supply, since
he was and remained first and foremost a négociant at Québec. Among his merchant
contacts are found Mariette l’ainé et Dumas in 1758297. This would appear to date the seal
mark of D. Mariette l’ainé et Dumas found at Fort Ticonderoga to the second half of the
1750s and likely before 1760 at least, if they are indeed seals that were to attached to
blankets ordered by Cadet from this partnership298. Cadet’s other correspondants in France
include a host of négociants in Bordeaux; Abraham Gradis, Pierre Desclaux, Jean-Patrice
Dupuy, la veuve Guin et Fils, and la société de Lamaletie et La Thullière299. Though Cadet
also supposedly had connections in Rochefort, his ties with Gradis and Desclaux seem to
have been the most utilized300. Many Montauban commercial families such as the
Mariettes and the Dumas’ had connections to other négociants in Bordeaux, and so it
would be reasonable to suspect that many of the goods acquired by Mariette and Dumas
were shipped by way of one of these Bordeaux connections. The Mariette family is also
shown to have shipped goods from Rochefort to Québec in the 1740s301.
The seals from Fort Carillion provide the most complete picture of a trade network
at any of the three sites included in this study. It appears, with all clues and relations
between markings considered, that blankets that were in use at Fort Ticonderoga were
produced by prostitutes and able bodied poor workers in l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la
297 André CÔTÉ, Joseph-Michel Cadet: 1719-1781, négociant et munitionnaire du Roi en Nouvelle-France,
Sillery, Septentrion, 1998, p. 124, Tableau 16. Note that in this book, Mariette and Dumas appear as “Damat
et Marielle l’ainé,” likely a result of a misreading or more likely of a historical phonetic spelling variation on
their names found in the consulted archival records. No merchants with these names are found in studies on
Montauban merchants. 298 See the later section on the Mariette family in this study for information on the 1760 cutoff date and the
bankruptcy of the Mariette family. p. 110-112. 299 CÔTÉ, Joseph-Michel Cadet…, p. 124, Tableau 16. 300 Ibid. 301 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 86, Fo 313-313v, Etat du fonds a remettre au sors de Rochefort pour Le payement
de la premiere moitié du prix des Molton, Mazamet et dourgne necessaires pour Garnir Les Magasins de
Québec Sur les fonds de La d.te Colonie de La present année 1746, Rochefort, 30 January 1746; ANOM,
Colonies, C11A 89, Fo 332, État du fonds a remettre au [sort] de Rochefort pour le payement de la premiere
moitié du prix des molton voilet et bleu, molton blanchi, et mazamet maron, dourgne maron, couvertures de
Ville et Toile d'emballage que les Srs. Mariette freres de Montauban ont fourni dans les magasins de ce [sort]
pour garnir ceux de Quebec, et seront payés sur les fonds de la d. colonie de la presente année 1747,
Rochfort, 7 April, 1747.
77
Grave in Toulouse. They were at the order of the Mariette family, responding to an order
from Cadet, who was in turn responding to an order given to him by colonial authorities.
The blankets were sealed upon completion, likely by hospital officials or an office in place
nearby. Afterwards, the blankets were visited (inspected) by a city office for blanket
manufactures in Toulouse, receiving a seal there, and then receiving the seal of the
Mariette and Dumas partnership before being sent to Cadet at Québec. Once in port at
Québec, these blankets were likely inspected once again, but probably received no seal,
since there is no evidence to support that sealing took place in New France. They were then
taken to the storehouse of Cadet at Québec before making their way down the St. Lawrence
River to Sorel. After this they descended the waterways onboard Cadet’s fleets of batteau
to Fort Chambly, Fort St. Jean, and then finally to Fort St. Frédéric (Crown Point)302. The
textiles were stored there until they were sent down the lake to Fort Ticonderoga to
provision the Magasin du Roi and the troops. Since the fort was under construction and not
fully operational before 1757, the dates of these imports must have fallen between then and
1759. Most of Cadet’s known imports to the region fall between these few years303.
One could also argue that the nine marks from l’Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave
found on the seals from this site represent each one blanket. Though blankets may have had
several seals attached to them at any given time, they would probably not have had
multiple examples of the same mark. It follows then that the 1757 inventory does not
include more than one Toulouse blanket for a few possible reasons. Firstly, the shipment
which included these seals might not have arrived until after this inventory was compiled.
Secondly, Bougainville notes that each soldier, along with a brayet, mitasses, two cotton
chemises, a bonnet, and a capot, was issued a couverte at Fort St. Jean in February 1757304.
If the blankets were immediately put to use and issued to the troops before their arrival in
1757, such as is noted by Bougainville, they might not have been in the stores when the
inventory was taken. In a way, one should regard the items listed on the Magasin du Roi
inventories of New France as a record not of what is being actively used and consumed at
the site, but what is lingering in storage and not necessarily being used. Finally, the
302 CÔTÉ, Joseph-Michel Cadet…, Tableau 18. 303 Ibid. Tableau 18. 304 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 168.
78
blankets bearing these nine marks may have simply arrived in 1758 or 1759 and may not
have an extant paper trail attached to them.
Orleans
One seal in the collections is from Orléans (Seal X). It appears to be a type of
Series B with missing flanges, or what is described by Sabatier as a sceau agrafé, with a
few flanges used to affix the seal like a staple305. One side is marked “D’ORLEANS A2
FIL” with possibly another word around the outside, likely the abbreviation “FABR306.”
This seal is associated with hosiery from Orléans, which was known for the manufacture of
both silk and woolen stockings. The “A2 FIL” is the equivalent to the English “two ply,”
indicating that the products marked with this seal were created with two threads combined
in the knit307. The opposite side has three ivy leaves, which feature in the coat of arms of
Orléans, and what appears to be the name of a merchant or fabricant ending in “UIT308.”
Another Orléans hosiery seal appears at Louisbourg and will be discussed later in this
study. Similar seals from Orléans are also found at Fort Michilimackinac, with one seal
showing a comparable shape and the “sceau agrafé” attachment style309. In the eighteenth
century, New France was the main market for Orléans stockings and knit goods, an
industry which slumped into a decline after the loss of Canada in yet another example of
the impact of loss of the Seven Years’ War310. Orleans is not known for many other
products, with the exception of cotton toiles311.
Bordeaux
Also appearing at Ticonderoga is a seal from Bordeaux (Seal W) that exhibits a
sans serif lettering style that is likely not from the eighteenth century. The backside appears
to have a portion of a name on it. This seal appears most analogous to some lead seals that
can be found hanging on older twentieth or nineteenth century bottles of spirits. This seal
305 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 362. Listed in classification as Series B seal, with no assigned
type 306 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 362. “FABR.” in this case being an abbreviation of fabrique. 307 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 42. 308 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 362. 309 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 282, Figure Z and C. 310 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 154-155 (footnote 95). 311 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 502.
79
could be a connection to the more recent history of the fort grounds or perhaps even a link
to some of the earlier tourists who visited and enjoyed the “old stone fort.”
Unidentified Seals and fragments
Seal O, while still unidentified, is intriguing because it is nearly an exact match to
seals found at Michilimackinac. One seal at Michilimackinac, in fact, is marked “32 AV”
on the reverse half while the one in the Ticonderoga collections is “31 AV312.” The obverse
side of the seal at Michilimackinac helps support the identification of this seal as French
due to its inclusion of a portion of the phrase “VIZITE DE…” with the characteristic
backwards “Z.” Other seals from Michilimackinac with similar marks reading “31 A 3/4”
and “32 A 1/(2)” also have fragments of French phrases on the obverse portion that
associate them further with bureaux de visite (Stone Figure A) and bureaux de controle
(Stone Figure B)313. It is probable that “AV” and “A” are abbreviations of aune, one of the
basic units of textile measure in Ancien Régime France, and that the numbers that proceed
these abbreviations and the fractions below indicate the aune measure of the pieces to
which these seals were attached.
In the collections there is also a seal with a quatre de chiffre mark of unknown
nationality (Seal A). These marks are notoriously difficult to link to the artisans,
merchants, or dyers that used them, and a match has not been found as of the publication of
this study. Also unidentified is a small seal (Seal I) with an unknown attachment style
(perhaps a sceau agrafé) that has been classified as a Series D seal (a new classification
series) in this study because of its domed shape on one side. The marks on the flat side are
undecipherable at the moment, but it seems likely that this seal, like the previously
mentioned seal from Bordeaux, is not of eighteenth-century origin. Aside from an obverse
fragment of a seal (Seal B) from Montauban, identifiable by the last line “BAN,” the rest of
the seal fragments from this site remain undiagnostic.
In all, the seals from Fort Ticonderoga provide a limited, yet informative glimpse
into textiles in the French period. These textiles are indicative of the military presence and
312 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 284, Figure P. 313 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 286, Figures A and B.
80
nature of Carillion, and represent almost exclusively the equipment provided to troops
during the Seven Years’ War in North America. As a result they speak much less to the
consumption of raw materials in clothing at the site, since most clothing and uniforms were
brought from France or imported with the units stationed at Ticonderoga rather than made
on site. Interestingly, the myriad raw cloth pieces mentioned in the 1757 inventory of the
Magasin du Roi do not appear to be represented by the seals in the collections, with the
possible exception of Seal O. Future archaeological work at Ticonderoga would be highly
informative and could provide seals that better represent the consumption of raw textiles at
the site. The overwhelming availability of documents and maps for this site would enable a
pointed spatial analysis of textile consumption if any are found in future excavations.
81
CHAPTER 4: LOUISBOURG
4.1 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
Louisbourg is the most metropolitan site analyzed in this study, and the closest
geographically to France. It exhibits the most intense French and Acadien civilian
population of all three of my sites, and is known to have been a key entrepôt for imports
from the metropole, other French colonies, and even English possessions. Unfortunatley no
in depth study has been done concerning the population of Louisbourg or its demographics,
which limits discussion of consumption but not of importation and possible use. As early
as 1719, the port was already trading substantially with Canada, France, the West Indies,
Acadia, and New England314. A 1737 list of imports to Louisbourg provides a cross section
of the goods consumed in the colony. First in importance was food, which was brought
mostly from New England and Acadia and accounts for well over half of the bulk and
value of imported materials315. Cloth is located further down the import list at Louisbourg
than in other parts of New France where the fur trade was more prevalent. It falls beneath
construction and fishing tools and supplies and represents 8.4 percent of the year’s imports
by value, the third largest category of imports316. The fishing industry no doubt influenced
the varieties of textiles imported and the demand for textiles, but it is not yet clear to what
extent. The majority of imported textiles are of French origin, a fact that is perhaps
reflected by the overwhelming majority of French seals in the Louisbourg collections317.
Multiple English possessions of the site do not seem to have affected the lead seals
deposited at the site.
Louisbourg experienced a boom in the 1740s, with its population increasing from 1,963
inhabitants in 1737 to 4,174 in 1752 (according to census data)318. This population was
overwhelmingly French, and had very little contact with local Mi’kmaq tribe of Native
Americans. Some visits and baptisms are recorded, but it appears that the city was mostly
314 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 18. 315 Ibid. p. 21-22, 17. 316 Ibid. p. 21-22. Clothing ranks above Household goods and Miscellaneous categories identified by Moore.
Fishing tools and supplies account for 32 percent of imports value for 1737. 317 Ibid. p. 21-22. 318 Ibid. p. 13; René CHARTRAND, French Fortresses in North America 1535-1763: Québec, Montréal,
Louisbourg, and New Orleans, New York, Osprey, 2005, p. 48.
82
avoided by these tribes, in spite of the beginnings of settlement in the region having roots
in fur trading319. A certain exception to this occurred in the year 1757 when some Mi’kmaq
and Malecites sought refuge in the fortified city during British attacks320. For this reason,
Louisbourg acts as a perfect comparative context to both Fort St. Joseph with its intensive
trading environment and surrounding Native American (Miami/Potawatomi) population,
and to Fort Ticonderoga and its short term military occupancy and relative lack of civilian
presence.
Louisbourg has been excavated conducted at Louisbourg in its history, with
excavations starting under the direction of J. Russel Harper in 1959, and control of the
direction changed hands in 1966, 1968, and 1970321. Though these excavations which were
discontinued in 1979 informed the current reconstruction of the site, the recovered area
counts for only a small portion of the entire surface of the site as a whole322. Additionally,
the contexts associated with these seals, though mostly present, are vague or do not seem
cohesive in many cases. Therefore, any conclusions concerning consumption drawn from
the contexts provided to me by way of an unpublished report by Donald A. Harris could
lack substance and should be considered more as leads for future research rather than
definitive statements323. Since through this report Harris was working to re-associate the
relations between artifacts and their contexts, it is both helpful and fallible at the same
time324. I will therefore occasionally remark on the context of a seal (in this case, its event
associations assigned by Harris) if deemed notable. I will, however, will leave further
artifact-context articulations and understanding to future researchers due to the constraints
of this study, which above all focuses on the identification and interpretation of the seals
themselves and the site as a whole.
319 A. J. B. JOHNSTON, Life and Religion at Louisbourg, 1713-1758, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Press, 1996,
p. 8-9. 320 JOHNSTON, Life and Religion at Louisbourg…, p. 9. 321 Donald A. HARRIS, A Summary of the Archaeology of the Town Site of Louisbourg: 1959-1979, Fortress
of Louisbourg Unpublished Report. 1979, p. 34-35. 322 HARRIS, A Summary..., p. 669. 323 As Harris puts it “Since the quality of data collection ranged from very good to abysmal, some comments
were felt necessary to apprise subsequent researchers of the reliability of any conclusions based on that data.”
Ibid. p. 8. 324 Ibid. p. 4.
83
4.2 CLOTH AND CLOTHING AT LOUISBOURG
The sartorial atmosphere at Louisbourg appears to be similar to that of Québec or New
Orleans, though with perhaps an even easier access to the metropole due to its involvement
in the fishing industry, its proximity to Europe, and its role as an entrepôt. The existing
research on clothing at Louisbourg has revealed that clothing was as a key marker of social
class and status, as it was in Québec, New Orleans, and France325. Examples within the
case studies by Ken Donovan show that lace trim, damask gowns, fine red woolen suits,
stylish wigs, multiple pairs of shoes, riding coats, hats, and cravats were not out of place
among the elite class of Louisbourg326. The links to France shown through the same case
studies parallels some of the work done by Sophie White regarding the elite ladies of New
Orleans, especially in the written letters and clothing orders to correspondants in France.
For example, just as the French connections of wealthy New Orleans elite appear to know
the clothing preferences of their colonial friends, one of the French commercial
connections of an elite Louisbourg woman, Madame Peré, assures her that though the
damask she requested for her daughter’s wedding dress was not available, the substitute
material would be “…in the latest style and to your daughter’s taste327.”
Among lower classes in Louisbourg, information is scarcer, but it is likely that the
working class wore durable woolens and linens as elsewhere in the French Atlantic world
and the American colonies328. One example of working class garb comes from the
description of a corpse found in a snowbank at Louisbourg in 1737. The frozen body of a
young apprentice lime burner wore a vest and bottoms made of marmet cloth (presumably
a woolen), a waistcoat of grey carrise cloth (carisé/Kersey wool), worn wool stockings, a
pair of mittens, and seal skin moccasins. The only other possessions of the deceased boy
were a few old shirts, reflecting the few changes of clothing allotted by his meager
income329. Though the colonies often held more promise of economic advancement than
325 Sophie WHITE, “This gown...was much admired and made many ladies jealous": Fashion and the Forging
of Elite Identities in French Colonial New Orleans,” Tamara HARVEY and Greg O’BRIEN eds., George
Washington's South, University Press of Florida, 2004, p. 86-118; DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes…,” p. 18. 326 DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes…,” p. 7, 18-20. 327 DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes…,” p. 19; WHITE, “This gown...was…,” p. 94, 101. 328 DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., p. 217-222. 329 DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes…,” p. 7-8.
84
France, wealth distribution in New France was still very unequal330. Therefore, in a way,
there was no middle class, only a small and privileged upper class and a numerous lower
class containing everyone from small artisans to beggars (300 of which were reported in
Québec City as early as 1674) 331. Unfortunately, sources that provide precise information
on clothing and cloth use are usually limited to describing the households that had enough
possessions to merit a probate inventory, or descriptions rely on the work of literate
persons wealthy enough to afford an education.
However, studies of probate inventories of habitants from Île d’Orléans dating from
1670 to the turn of the eighteenth century provide a bit more detail about lower class dress
in the Saint-Lawrence Valley, which may have resembled clothing styles at Louisbourg
towards the beginning of its settlement. The fairly close trade relations between Québec
and Louisbourg and the close connection each port had to France would suggest that
available materials and the use of those materials were relatively similar332. On Île
d’Orléans most of the clothing mentioned in inventories is made of toiles or woolens, with
some cottons and cotton blends, and even fewer silk objects, primarily caps and
neckerchiefs333. This profile is consistent with the cloth being imported to Louisbourg
between 1737 and 1754, though some of the goods on the import list appear to be almost
certainly destined for the urban upper class, such as gold and silver cloth, large imports of
silk, gold braid, gilded copper buttons, velvet collars, and silk vestes334. This suggests that
the majority of seals discussed in this section account for woolens, with some toiles and
silks appearing in fewer numbers.
4.3 LEAD SEALS FROM LOUISBOURG
The Parks Canada collections at Fortress Louisbourg are an untapped source of
archaeologically recovered French and English colonial artifacts ripe for analysis. There
330. In Louisbourg, for example, 13% of people owned 73% of the wealth. Ibid. p. 3. 331 DONOVAN, "Tattered Clothes…,” p. 8. 332 This is further supported by some scarce evidence of cloth imports of the same type of European material
(cloth from Montauban) to Louisbourg from Québec and from France in several years between 1737 and
1754. MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 56-57. 333 Toile is a problematic term. It is used to refer to non-woolen textiles, linens, hemp textiles, and cottons,
but rarely is it possible to assign any of these specific textile types to the term when it is used. AUDET, Le
costume paysan…, p. 183-191. 334 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 49-59.
85
are ninety-one lead seals in the Louisbourg collections, along with other related objects
such as whizzers and coat weights. Of the three sites included in this study, Louisbourg
exhibits the widest variety of lead seals, which hail from at least seventeen French
locations and one English one. As a result of the effort needed to identify so many different
seals, this site has yielded less complete information concerning trading networks within
the scope of this examination. This seal collection deserves more attention in the future and
merits continual reevaluation and identification efforts. Archaeologically recovered textile
fragments curated at Louisbourg could also reveal much more about textile varieties at the
site, but were not examined or included because of the large quantity of seals and the
demands on time and resources required to subject them to adequate scrutiny and study. No
study has been completed on these textile scraps, but I note their existence in hopes that
one might be done in the future.
Of the ninety-one lead seals included in this study, 45 percent (forty-one seals) remain
entirely unidentified335. These seals are generally well preserved, and are simply marked
with motifs that have not yet been linked to the entities they represent. In fact, the
preservation contexts at Louisbourg and the careful curation of these objects has allowed
the identification of the nationality or specific origin of just over half of the seals. The vast
majority (93 percent of those identified) of seals from this site are French336. There are also
two possible English seals tentatively identified as seals from a Jersey based fishing
company. Though Louisbourg is known to have traded extensively with New England and
been occupied by English soldiers, there does not appear to be evidence of this in the lead
seal collections. However, the scope and variety of the French seals from this site is a
glimpse into the textile imports available in this prominent Atlantic entrepôt.
4.3.1 French Lead Seals
Seals from Montauban
The importance of Montauban in trade to New France is once again demonstrated
by the number of seals from this town present at Louisbourg. Seven seals from Montauban
are found here, and of those seals a majority (four) are definitively associated with the
335 See Table 2, p. 128. 336 Ibid.
86
Mariette family. Seals from this site that hail from Montauban have produced a few
interesting symbolic references to the town. Notably, the willow tree that is featured in the
field of the crest of the town of Montauban appears on two seals of the Mariette family
alongside the name of the town, and a variation with roots appears on seal 17L.23B2.1337.
Two of the four Mariette seals are varieties that are multiple horizontal lines of text, one
with the “father and sons” text and the other with the “brothers” text338. This implies that
during the occupation of the site, both of these family run business configurations must
have been providing cloth to the site. These seals both have numbers scratched into the
reverse portion of the seal, a trait that appears to be commonplace with seals from
Montauban exhibiting this style of horizontal lines of text on the obverse portion.
Though no dates are attached to these seals to cross-reference import data, several
substantial shipments of woolens from Montauban were made to Louisbourg in the 1740s-
50s. Montauban cloth arrived directly from France in 1737, 1752 (5,986 aunes worth),
1753(5,370 aunes), and in 1754 (2,535 aunes)339. Further, Montauban cloth was imported
from Québec to Louisbourg in 1737, 1740, 1752, and 1754340. The majority of cloth
produced in Montauban and the surrounding regions were worsteds with a serge-like
pattern of construction that were known to be strong, yet unrefined341. These woolens were
probably the mainstay of working class clothing, and the considerable import of these to
Louisbourg is possibly one pattern of consumption that may be linked to the demand of the
underprivileged yet numerous working and lower class inhabitants of the fortified city.
Other products of Montauban included silks and bonneterie342.
Two of the four Mariette seals are Series C Type 1 seals (4L.53M5.1, 16L.100D3.2),
with two small tunnels now fairly difficult to see. These seals are intriguing not only
because they are marked with a willow tree, the symbol of Montauban, and “Frères
Mariette” (rather than “père et fils”) but are also because of their size and attachment
337http://emblemes.free.fr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=869:armoiries-de-
montauban&catid=13004:montauban&Itemid=209. 338 These are respectively Mariette types 1 and 5 as described in this study in Table 1, p. 132. 339 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 56. 340 Ibid. p. 57. 341 See p. 114-115 in this study as well as Table 6, p. 132-134. 342 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 501-502.
87
style343. They appear to be light enough to have been used on cottons, linens, other toiles,
knit stockings, or perhaps even heavier silks. Seals of a similar size belonging to the
Compagnie des Indes appear at this site (Seal 4L.55B5.1), at Fort St. Joseph, and at
Michilimackinac, and as mentioned in the section on CDI seals in chapter 2, are known to
have marked specifically cottons imported by the company344. Therefore, these Mariette
Series C Type 1 seals may have served to mark these lighter textile types, or even possibly
paquets of cloth as suggested by Sabatier and Adams345.
Seals of the Compagnie des Indes
In the collections at Louisbourg, only one seal of the Compagnie des Indes is
present (4L.55B5.1). It is one of the same types found at Fort St. Joseph, and the marks on
it consist of the ever present company motto “florebo quo(cumque) ferar” encircling the
coat of arms of France (complete with horizontal hatching to indicate the color blue in the
field) on one side, and the company arms flanked by two Native American figures346. This
is the only seal of the company found at the site, which is strange considering many
archaeological collections throughout the territory that once was New France exhibit
multiple seals of the CDI, including Old Mobile, Michilimackinac, Fort St. Joseph, and
Fort Ouiatenon347.
Amiens
Both lead seals from Amiens are complete, and both include the mark of the fabrique
d’Amiens on their obverse plates. These marks both include dates as well, with seal
3L.1G4.2 dated 1756 and 16L.97D9.3 indicating 1742. These dates, of course, must not be
relied upon to provide a date for the use of the textiles connected to these seals at
Louisbourg, because of the high probability of long storage periods or transatlantic
343 See Table 1, p. 127. 344 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 33, 36 (MO, MR), 37 (WO, WR), 61-64,
66, 70, 80 (MO, MR), 82 (WO, WR), 90 (YO,YR); STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 294,
Figures A, B, C. 345 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 26 346 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 63-64, 82. 347 WASELKOV, Old Mobile Archaeology, p. 25; DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph
(20BE23),” p. 63-64; STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 294; NOBLE, “Functional Analysis and
Intra-Site Analysis…,” p. 273. The author has informally examined seals from Old Mobile in the University
of Southern Alabama Archaeology Museum thanks to the generosity of Gregory Waselkov.
88
crossings. Amiens was and still is well known as production center for both broadcloths
and a wide variety of light woolens including peluches d’Amiens, camelots, and étamines
(cottons which existed in blends with both linen and silk)348. A textile sample book from
1736 shows two striped varieties of camelots from Amiens produced in ½ aune lengths,
noting that they sold well in Provence for 19s to 19s 3d per aune349. In the eighteenth
century Amiens also produced camelots meant to compete with English and Irish
varieties350.
Louisbourg import lists show the presence of all of these cloth types; camelots in 1737
(60 aunes), 1752 (2 pieces), 1753 (125 aunes), camelot de Paine in 1754, étamines in 1737
(60 aunes) and 1753 (12 pieces), and two suits’ worth of cuttings in peluche, imported in
1743351. These suit cuttings are not likely to have been imported with seals on them, as it
would have caused some damage to the textiles that would be unwanted considering the
nuances of clothing construction. Étamine is known to have been used in corsets (jumps),
jupons (petticoats), female justaucorps (mantelets, jackets) and manteaux (possible
regional term variation on justaucorps), and tabliers (aprons), while camelots appear to
have been used for jupons and underpinnings (corps) as well352. Seal 16L.97D9.3 is one of
two seals from Louisbourg that still contain textile fragments between their plates. The
other example is 47L.58B3.1, which is tentatively identified as a seal from Saint-Mayeux.
If further examined by an expert in period textiles, these scraps could be aligned with one
of these imports and provide researchers with an idea of how long it took for a piece to
circulate to Louisbourg from its origin in Amiens. This textile fragment seems to be
consistent in appearance to the above mentioned textiles, and is most likely a light woolen
348 Pierre DEYON, “Le mouvement de la production textile à Amiens au XVIIIe siècle.” Revue du Nord,
Volume 44, No. 174, (April-June 1962), p. 201-202. Peluches d’Amiens are a woolen based type of velours
(a velvet-like cloth). 349 ANONYMOUS, Etoffes de Provence et des provinces voisines dont le peuple fait usage en provence, 1736. 350 Archives départementales de la Somme, Fonds de l'intendance de Picardie (1C), sous série 1 C, 1C405/9,
Echantillons de camelots fabriqués à Amiens imités des fabrications provenant d'Irlande, d'Angleterre et de
Flandres, annexés à un mémoire sur la manufacture d'Amiens
http://archives.somme.fr/ark:/58483/a011353927000f4Hd4m; Archives départementales de la Somme, Fonds
de l'intendance de Picardie (1C), sous série 1 C, 1C405/9, Carte d'échantillons et étoffes faites à Amiens à
l'imitation des anglaises et autres. Online: http://archives.somme.fr/ark:/58483/a011353927000f4Hd4m. 351 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 55-58. 352 AUDET, Le costume paysan…, p. 71, 184, 186.
89
or a cotton blend, and has a red-orange color to it that may be a result of the composition of
the soil at Louisbourg353.
Bordeaux
Bordeaux was one of the most prominent French ports exporting to Canada, so it is
logical to see it represented in this assemblage. Though La Rochelle was originally the
supplier par excellence, in the early years of the eighteenth century, its position was taken
over by Bordeaux and Le Havre. At the height of the Canada trade between 1749 and 1756,
Le Havre was the main exporter (333 ships), followed by Bordeaux (179), Marseille (167),
and finally La Rochelle (121)354. The prominence of Le Havre is surprising because up
until 1700, trade to the colonies was a privilege granted only to La Rochelle, Nantes,
Bordeaux, Rouen, and Marseille355. From 1704 to 1716, this privilege was further extended
to include Dunkirk, Bayonne, and the ports of Languedoc356. Bordeaux merchants were
located in the provinces réputées étrangères, and as such were required to pay tariffs in
order to export their goods to other provinces or countries. La Rochelle was exempt from
these fees because they were located within the cinq grosses fermes and within the Royal
Customs Line357. Nevertheless, in the last sixteen years of New France’s existence, La
Rochelle shipping was surpassed by Bordeaux358. Instead of causing a decline in trade, as
one might expect, the Seven Years’ War was responsible for the largest shipping boom in
the history of the colony359. One can clearly see the increase and the importance of
Bordeaux in the records of shipping to Louisbourg, where in 1719, ships from that port
353 It should be noted that seals of the bureau de contrôle of Amiens should exhibit the name of the guard juré
inspecting the piece, as per an arrêt of 1747. Though neither of these seals are from this office, it is still
interesting to note that such rules existed and may have been applied to inspections in other towns. CONSEIL
D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE, Arrêt du conseil d'état qui dispense les Gardes-jurés de la communauté des marchands
réunis de la ville d'Amiens de faire graver la première lettre de leur nom et leur surnom en entier sur les
coins ou marques dont ils se serviront pour appliquer les plombs de contrôle sur les draps et autres étoffes
qu'ils auront visités, Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1747. 354 John G. CLARK, La Rochelle and the Atlantic Economy during the Eighteenth Century, Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, p. 30. Ship counts are for the period spanning 1749 and 1756, not
annually. 355 CLARK, La Rochelle and the…, p. 8 356 Ibid. p. 8. 357 Ibid. p. 21. 358 James S. PRITCHARD, “The Pattern of French Colonial Shipping to Canada before 1760,” Revue française
d’histoire d’outre-mer, Volume 63, No. 231 (1976), p. 197. 359 Ibid. p.198
90
accounted for 5 percent of traffic, rising over time to 2 percent (1733), 6 percent (1742), 18
percent (1743), and finally 14 percent in 1752360. La Rochelle trails behind with an all time
maximum of 11 percent shipping in 1752361. However, both of these locations and their
fellow French sister ports (with the occasional exception of Saint-Malo) were outnumbered
by the amount of Bostonian ships that came to trade at Louisbourg, particularily before
1743362.
Bordeaux was producing many of the same varieties of woolen cloth found at
Mazamet, Montauban, and throughout the region. Shipping from Bordeaux and textiles
circulating through Bordeaux appear to be represented by the two seals (both Series C
Type 1) from this site. Seal 47L.22.J2.6 is from either an inspection or tax bureau, and its
size seems to suggest that it may have marked either a piece of cloth or possibly a bundle
of several pieces. Seal 2L.29L2.7 ressembles other customs seals found at this site, and its
tunnels still contain parts of a cord, possibly one of hemp, measuring about 5 mm in
diameter. Given its size, it likely marked bales or interior bundles of cloth that were
examined together and given a customs seal so as to facilitate or avoid unnecessary future
inspections. The crest on the reverse seems to support the interpretation of this seal as a
customs seal, because it also appears on other known customs seals from this site, notably
the seal of the Douane de Paris363.
Caen
Two seals bearing the arms of Caen are present in the collections at Louisbourg,
seals 4L.50P12.1 and 16L.98B3.4. The crest consists of three fleur de lys, one on a field of
blue (azur), and two in chief with a red field (gules)364. This crest is the old crest of the
city, which now has a more distinctive crest consisting of a tower on a red field365. At the
top of the crest is a figure which may be a hand grasping the crest, or possibly a burling
360 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 16. 361 However, both of these are dwarfed by the sheer amount of ships arriving from Saint-Malo, which
accounted for between 19 to 29 percent of all shipping to Louisbourg in the aforementioned years, with
heavier traffic shown in the latter years. Ibid. p. 16. 362 Ibid. p. 16-17. Bostonian ships represented 70 percent of shipping in 1733, 49 percent in 1740, 32 percent
in 1742, and 26 percent in 1743. 363 See p. 102. 364 Azur and gules are the heraldic tincture names associated with these colors. 365 http://herald-dick-magasin e.blogspot.com/2015/04/les-departements-francais-et-les.html.
91
iron used in the finishing of wool. Burling irons appear in some English heraldry
associated with various clothmaking trades and were used to tweeze out loose threads and
imperfections in finished fabric without damaging it366.
Caen in the eighteenth century was a center of production for bonneterie (knit
goods such as stockings), lace, woolens, and toiles in cotton, linen, and hemp367. However,
because at least one of these seals (seal 4L.50P12.1, marked “MARQVE • FORAINE”)
would likely have been attached to textiles entering the cinq grosses fermes through Caen,
the origins and varieties of these textiles remain unclear. What is known is that serge de
Caen was imported to Louisbourg in 1737, 1752, 1753, and 1754 (16 aunes), which would
be a very likely explanation for the seals present in the collections368.
Carcassonne
Carcassonne was above all else a woolen producing town, focused on the production of
draps (woolen broadcloths), including écarlatines, of the kind that were at times
competing with or seeking to imitate their English contemporaries369. The competition
between the woolens of Carcassonne and English woolens was one of the common
concerns in North America, as noted by Bougainville370. Carcassonne was also one of the
main centers of broadcloth production for exchange in the Levant trade and the town
housed expert dyers skilled in making the colors desired by the Middle Eastern market371.
The obverse seal fragment found at Louisbourg (3L.1L2.4) is marked with the date 1734
and appears to have a similar layout to the Carcassonne seal pictured in Sabatier’s 1912
work372. This seal may be a manufacture or inspection seal from Carcassonne, but with the
detail that remains it is difficult to place it as one or the other. What is almost certain is that
it was at one time attached directly to a textile, due to the marks present on the interior of
366https://coadb.com/surnames/burland-arms.html;
http://www.tuckershall.org.uk/incorporation/incorporation/125-grant-of-arms#prettyPhoto;
http://www.textileglossary.com/terms/burling.html. 367 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 368 MOORE, “Merchant Trade in Louisbourg, Isle Royale,” p. 58. 369 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500; KENT, Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit…, p. 660-661;
BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 83. 370 BOUGAINVILLE, Écrits sur le Canada, p. 89, as mentioned in chapter 2 on Fort St. Joseph. 371 CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 10, 13, 28. 372 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, Planche IX, no. 171.
92
the fragment. It is possible that this seal was attached to broadcloth imported to Louisbourg
in shipments in 1737, 1740 or 1752 (300 aunes), as “drap de Carcassonne” appears in
records from those years373.
Comines
Toiles of cotton, linen, and hemp (sometimes bleached) and ribbons appear to have been
the main products of Comines in the eighteenth century374. This being said, seal 1B5A7.47
in the collections of Louisbourg attests to the production of moletons in the region
surrounding Comines through its vague rather markings375. Comines is located on the
border between Dutch Flanders and France, just southeast of Ypres and northwest of
Roubaix and Lille. The size of this seal is consistant with its use on woolens, and this area
is known to have produced some woolens- one need only recall World War One era photos
of the medieval cloth hall in Ypres to bring to mind the ancient traditions of woolen
manufacture in Flanders. It is interesting that this seal refers to the surroundings of
Comines, since it is a rather small town in comparison to some of the more prominent
centers in the area. Whether this seal may have designated woolens from the modern Dutch
side of the border is unclear, but if so, this seal may have signaled payment of import
duties. In its wording (“des environs de Comines”), this seal appears to demonstrate the
countryside nature of cloth production in the eighteenth century.
Laval
Seal 16L.4A6.14 is tentatively identified as a seal from Laval, France. It is of a size similar
to the other customs seals from this site, and so may have functioned to mark bales or
packs of cloth within bales. Laval itself was a well known production center for bleached
and unbleached cottons and linens, as well as woolens and worsteds376. This seal, however,
is marked on the reverse side with the arms of France and portions of the phrase “cinq
grosses fermes,” and so appears to have been above all a fiscal seal to track the payment of
customs taxes on goods leaving or entering Laval. Due to volume of shipping out of nearby
373 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 56. 374 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 375 In fact, the least clear part of the mark is the name of the town, which appears to be spelled using a
phonetic variation. 376 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502.
93
Saint-Malo (in Brittany, a province réputée étrangère) to Louisbourg, it is possible that this
seal was attached to a bale of toiles leaving Laval and the cinq grosses fermes by way of a
nearby exit point, bound for export377. This interpretation is supported by the mention of
various imported toiles from Bretagne and Nantes, both implicating areas nearby Laval378.
Toile from Laval is specifically mentioned as an import to New France by Louise
Dechêne379.
Lodève
Seal 17L.28D2.1 includes with the arms of Lodève, a well known as a producer of
woolens used in uniforms of the French army in New France. The identification was
verified using the image of a Lodève seal from Sabatier’s collections380.This seal is in fact
that of the manufacture of Lodève, and marked cloth being produced in that town. Lodève
was nearly exclusively a broadcloth and dye manufacturing center381. As noted in the entry
for Lodève found in Savary’s Commercial Dictionary:
“LODÈVE. La fabrique de draps qui est établie à Lodève, est très considerable et
d’une grande reputation; elle fournit des draps blancs & gris pour les Troupes; il s’y
en fait jusqu’à 45000 piéces: Il s’y fabrique aussi quantité de toiles & de
chapeaux382.”
Lodève broadcloth appeared to be well made yet cheap, in its undyed greyish-white form,
and was thus the perfect choice for soldier’s uniforms383. These soldiers uniforms, with
their distinctive grey-ish white justaucorps and blue vestes (often made of mazamet), were
probably shipped from Lodève to Bordeaux and assembled in Rochefort before being sent
377 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 16. 378 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 58-59. 379 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 154. 380 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 521, Planche XI. 381 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 382 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 286. 383 Pierre CARLES, “L'infanterie du Roy de France à la mort de Louvois,” Histoire, économie et société, Year
15, No. 1 (1996), p. 57-73, p. 67.
94
to clothe troops in New France384. This was true until at least 1732, when broadcloth from
Marseille was used instead385.
This does not, of course, exclude the use of Lodève broadcloth in civilian garments. It
could have easily been imported in its raw form and used in upper class woolen clothing.
Drap de Lodève was imported to Louisbourg at least three times; in 1737, once in 1753 (a
specified quantity of thirty aunes), and in 1754386. These years are the same that saw
imports of cloth from Montauban, suggesting they were often shipped together- it would
have been easy enough to ship Lodève broadcloths along the Canal du Midi, picking up
merchant shipments of woolens from Toulouse and Montauban on the way to Bordeaux387.
Marseille
Two very different seal types from Marseille appear in the collections at Louisbourg,
and demonstrate the range of goods from that city that may have been imported to Acadie.
The Levant trade was the chief occupation of the city of Marseille, heritage of its Roman
roots and the centuries of amphorae that surely circulated its coasts in ancient times. Its
prime location on the Mediterranean made it the main port of this trade, of which fine
broadcloths were a mainstay388. Levantine merchants were just as particular about the
colors and quality of the woolens brought to them as many Native American tribes
thousands of miles away, and so the merchants in Marseille may have been used to meeting
such specific demands389. The woolens made in Marseille were known to be more
“grossière” and unrefined in comparison to woolens made in Languedoc centers such as
Lodève and Carcassonne. This suggests that though it was conducting commerce with the
Levant, it may not have been doing so by means of its own products390.
384 Gilles PROULX, Étude sur le costume militaire à Louisbourg : 1713-1758. Louisbourg, Parks Canada,
c1971. 385 Ibid. 386 MOORE, “Merchant Trade in Louisbourg, Isle Royale,” p. 56. 387 Ibid. p. 56. 388 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 240. 389 CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 13. 390 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 240. Grossière is defined as :
“Espais, qui n' est pas delié, qui n' est pas delicat.” as well as “Il se dit aussi des ouvrages qui ne sont pas
proprement & delicatement faits.” ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie françoise…, 1694.
95
Due to its links with the Ottoman Empire and other eastern trading partners, Marseille
and the rest of Provence was a hotbed for the importation indiennes and imitation indiennes
from the Ottoman Empire391. Marseille had already a long established history as a “port
franc” (free port) where trade was legally open to any and all merchants of all nationalities,
a distinction it shared only with Le Havre392. In order to encourage trade in and out of
Marseille for the benefit of the country, exports leaving the port were exempt from taxes
and tariffs393. In addition to being a center of printed cotton import, Marseille was also a
producer of silks and cotton toiles394. It was given the exclusive right to manufacture and
consume indiennes in France, which remained as such until 1759, when printed cottons
were finally legalized in France395. Marseille vessels were known to trade with the French
Carribean, and may have been the source of the “Indiennes de Provence” with a West
Indian origin that come to Louisbourg in 1737 and 1753396.
Seal 16L.91H4.7 appears to be an artifact representative of Marseille produced silk at
Louisbourg. The size of this seal is consistant with the size of other silk and hosiery seals
from sites such as Michilimackinac. Though marked “Marseille” clearly on one side, its
other marks were enigmatic due to the use of Roman symbols associated with the city.
While one side of the seal has the colorless and very basic crest of Marseille, a blue cross
on a white field, the opposite side has a mark that places a miniscule bull at the center of
the plate. The bull appears as one of the supports present in the modern coat of arms of the
city of Marseille, and its association with the city seems to have arisen out of a historical
misunderstanding been fabricated and later solidified as a part of traditional identity by the
time of the eighteenth century397. An early work on medallions of Marseille from 1771
provides the following explanation for the connection between Marseille and its heraldic
bull.
391 Georgio RIELLO, “The Globalization of Cotton Textiles: Indian Cottons, Europe and the Atlantic World,
1600-1850,” Giorgio RIELLO and Prasannan PARTHASARATHI eds., The Spinning World: A Global History of
Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 264, 276. 392 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 245-246. 393 Ibid. p. 245, 394 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 395 Olivier RAVEUX, “The Birth of a New European Industry: L’Indiennage in Seventeenth-Century
Marseille,” Giorgio RIELLO and Prasannan PARTHASARATHI eds., The Spinning World: A Global History of
Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 305. 396 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 57. 397 http://decouvrir-marseille.marseille.fr/histoire-de-marseille/blason.
96
“Les revers de ces huit Médailles sont les mêmes; c’est un taureau à qui les jambs de
devant manquent & qui tombe. Etienne de Bizance, qui a écrit sur la Géographie à la
fin du cinquième siècle, cite un ancien Géographe, nomme Apollodore, qui avoit dit
que le Vaisseau, qui porta la Colonie des Marseillois qui bâtit la ville de Tauroentum,
avoit pour enseigne un taureau, & que c’étoit à cause de cela qu’on avoit nommé cette
Ville Tauroentum. Là-dessus pleusieurs Auteurs ont pensé que le taureau étoit
l’enseigne de tous les Vaisseaux Marseillois, & le symbole de cette Ville, & que c’étoit
par cette raison que les Marseillois l’avoient mis sur leurs monnoies. On voit jusqu’où
ces conjecture peuvent être fondées398.”
If we believe the anonymous author of this mémoire, the use of the bull has its roots in
the founding of the nearby Roman city of Tauroentum, now a known archaeological site
not far from Marseille at Saint-Cyr-sur-Mer399. The symbol was mistaken for an emblem of
all ships from Marseille and was therefore associated with the town, which then adopted
the symbol as its own.
The second seal from Marseille lies at the other end of the spectrum of lead seal size
and use. 52L.6A5.1 is 3.4 cm in diameter with two 8 mm attachment tunnels. Its size is
consistant with that of other customs seals, but in this case it could be speculated that
because no customs taxes were paid on goods leaving Marseille, this seal may be a mark
destined to notify handlers of that exemption. The lettering appears to support this
interpretation because the fragments of phrases on the obverse of the seal do not seem to be
part of a formulaic phrase used to designate an inspection office or customs office. The
crest on the reverse of the seal, however, is similar to others included on customs seals. It is
always possible, therefore, that this is a customs seal of a unique design because of the port
franc status of Marseille. In this sense, it may have instead marked foreign goods imported
and then transported from Marseille to other points in the kingdom.
Mazamet
Mazamet is one of the more commonly referenced centers of production in the woolen
belt that runs along the Canal du Midi throughout southern France. This town is known
398 ANONYMOUS, Memoire sur les medailles de Marseille, 1771, p. 16. 399 http://www.saintcyrsurmer.com/en/visit/the-tauroentum-museum.
97
best as the namesake of mazamet, a variety of twill woven molleton with a thick nap that is
comparable to the other varieties being made in the surrounding areas (dourgne, cadis,
etc.), many of which were also likely produced there400. Mazamet appears often in trade
lists throughout New France and is featured in marine uniforms, as mentioned above in the
section on Lodève401. At Louisbourg and Île Royale, mazamet is present in the Magasin du
Roi and is recovered from the wreck of the Chameau in 1725, as seen in table 4402. Further,
the association with the Mariette family of Montauban with the importation of mazamet
could mean that some of their seals found at Louisbourg are tied to mazamet imports noted
in various records403. Mazamet was used not only in military uniform, but also by working
class civil populations for jupons (petticoats), capots, chemisettes (worn by men, similar to
a gilet), and vestes404. Mazamet was one of the towns that was subject to financial
turbulence after the loss of Canada in the 1760s and 1770s, though it seems to have
eventually found a place in the post-conquest Canada trade of French goods405.
Nevertheless, Mazamet serves as a reminder, along with Montauban, of the impacts felt in
France commerce as a result of the Seven Years’ War and the Treaty of Paris.
Seals of Mazamet are very distinctive, and as seen on seals from Fort St. Joseph, they
often sport a coq gaullois and three fleur de lys on the obverse side, symbols that appear on
the crest of the town. Neither of the seals from Louisbourg include the mark with the coq
gaullois, but they are equally uncomplicated to identify based on the prominence of the
stylistically backwards “Z” that appears in the lines of lettering usually present on the
reverse side of a seal (though in this case, both marks exhibiting this trait are on the
obverse side of the seals). Seal 3L.22D3.4 is a seal of the bureau de contrôle of Mazamet,
but the top line of the seal is not legible, and does not appear to have components of the
word “bureau.” It is possible, perhaps, that this is the name of one of the inspecting gardes
jurés present at the office and required to put his name on the seals for accountability
reasons. A date at the bottom of this seal places this seal design in the decade of the 1740s,
400 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 52-53; SABATIER, Sigillographie
historique…, p. 500-501. 401 See p. 93-94. 402 See Table 4, p. 130. 403 See Documents 1, 2, and 3, p. 135-138, as well as Tables 1 and 4, p. 127, 130. 404 AUDET, Le costume paysan…, p. 188. 405 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 53.
98
but the last numeral in the date is obscured. Seal 16L.92N19.21, however, has a much
clearer date in the bottom line of the obverse portion- 1744. Interestingly at least two of the
Mazamet seals from Fort St. Joseph also exhibit 1740s dates in their lettering406. This
second seal, however, is not readable enough to make out the upper lines of the mark, and
so this seal may belong to either a bureau foraine, bureau de visite, or bureau de contrôle,
all of which have appeared at other sites in New France407. These lines are crucial to
determining if the seal marked cloth from Mazamet or from elsewhere, and so we know
only that seal 3L.22D3.4 marked a type of cloth from Mazamet.
Nîmes
Nîmes is another town near the Mediterranean coast with Roman roots that influenced
the symbols included on its seals. The unmistakeable ancient emblem of the city of Nîmes
adorns its lead seals, making them easy to identify nearly instantaneously. The arms of
Nîmes consist of a crocodile chained to a palm tree, with the abbreviation “COL-NEM”
split on either side of the tree’s trunk. COL-NEM is an abbreviation of the latin name for
Nîmes, colonia Nemausensis408. In some cases, this classic abbreviation is replaced by NI-
MES409. According to period sources, Nîmes was the place of a Gallic village which was
visited by Augustus during his western campaigns, and a Roman colony was set up there
which bore the full name colonia Nemausensis Augusta410. This colony was mostly formed
of Roman veterans that had accompanied Augustus on campaign in Egypt, and indeed
patriotic spirit and still present excitement over the victory of Augustus at Actium
motivated their choice in symbols used on early coinage of the town.
“Ils choisirent pour sujet de cette médaille l’évenement qui se présentoit alors le plus
glorieux & le plus flatteur pour Auguste, c’est-à-dire, la célebre victoire d’Actium, par
laquelle ce prince étoit devenu maître de l’Egypte & de l’Empire. C’est ce qu’ils
exprimerent par un crocodile attaché avec une chaîne à un palmier, d’où pend une
couronne civique ou de chêne d’un côté, & une maniere de bandelettes ou de rubans
406 Ibid. p. 54-55. 407 Ibid. p. 54-55. 408 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 361; Léon MÉNARD, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire
de la ville de Nismes avec les preuves…, Tome 1, Paris, Chez Hugues-Daniel Chaubert, 1744, p. 26. 409 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 361. 410 Léon MÉNARD, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique…, p. 24.
99
de l’autre; symbols evidens de l’Egypte, & de la conquête qu’Auguste en avoit faite.
Ils y joignirent ces mots COL.NEM. qui tiennent lieu de légende, & qui signifient
colonia Nemausensis, pour marquer que c’étoit la nouvelle colonie de Nismes qui
consacroit ce monument a son fondateur411.”
The crocodile of Egypt in chains was apparently a fervent enough metaphor to weather the
ages, and was still in use in the eighteenth century (and even today) as a symbol of the city.
Clearly Léon Ménard, the author of the above lines, was aware of the meaning of this
mark, but one does wonder how these symbols were viewed in seventeenth and eighteenth-
century North America, and whether the crocodile was perhaps compared by some to the
alligators of the Louisiana colony.
Nîmes in the eighteenth century was home to the production of bonneterie, silks,
worsteds, and cotton toiles, and also included a community of dyers. The textile industry at
Nîmes is responsible for the roots of that most cherished indigo-dyed material known the
world over as “denim”. This term is commonly recognized as the result of a fusion of the
words describing a cotton or blended textile “serge de Nîmes” or a garment made “de
nim,” the latter being a type of cloth named after the city of Nîmes412. It was also a
commercial center for the trade of woolens and worsteds alike413. Most of the Nîmes seals
that appear on North American sites, however, appear to be of a form consistant with an
association with the bonneterie or silk industries of the city. The two identified seals from
Louisbourg measure thirteen and fourteen milimeters in diameter, and are therefore a
similar size and form to identified hosiery seals from Michilimackinac414. Though the
names on these seals do not appear to correspond with the seals from Michilimackinac, one
(2L.80B17.2) does have “A2 FILS” on its obverse side, identifying it as a hosiery seal
attached to a “two ply” pair of stockings (likely silk or wool)415. This “two ply”
identification means that the yarns used in the creation of the knit stockings were in fact
composed of two standard yarns spun together for added strength. The second seal from
411 Léon MÉNARD, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique…, p. 25-26. 412 CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 32; Lynn DOWNEY, A Short History Of Denim, Levi Strauss &
Co, 2014. Online at http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/A-Short-History-of-
Denim2.pdf. 413 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502 414 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 42. 415 ADAMS, Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, p. 24, 42.
100
Nîmes, 17L.24B1.1, appears to include the phrase “POUR LESTRANGER” on its obverse
face, surrounding a fleur de lys inside a grenetis. This phrase denotes that the merchandise
marked with this seal is meant for markets outside of France (“l’étranger”), and may be
either a commercial seal or perhaps a sort of customs seal. This idea remains to be explored
through more in depth research on hosiery at Nîmes and the industry throughout France.
Though this phrase appears on a few hosiery seals from Michilimackinac, the design does
not match any presented in publications from that site416. This last design appears to be a
hosiery seal due to its similarities in form with 2L.80B17.2 and other hosiery seals, but
because it does not exhibit the telltale “A2 FILS” marking, it could be a silk seal.
What we know concerning hosiery and silk imports to Louisbourg can be gleaned from
Magasin du Roi and hospital inventories and import records from 1737 through into the
1750s417. A 1725 inventory of the Magasin du Roi lists in its hosiery section twelve “paires
de bas de Nîmes pour Sergents,” in addition to six “paires de bas rouges pour Tambours”
and 344 “paires de bas bleues pour Soldats.” In this inventory, only 2 pairs of blue
stocking were left unissued in the stores- the others all appear to have been issued since the
previous year (1724)418. Also noted in 1725 are stockings salvaged from the debris of the
Chameau- fifteen pairs of “bas de munition” and 5 pairs of “bas de differentes
couleurs419.” In 1724 ten pairs of stockings are noted as missing from the inventory of the
Magasin du Roi, explained by the garde magasin as result of change in location of the
store and general confusion surrounding the move420. Ordered merchandise for the year
1732 included “480 paires de bas y compter 16. de Sergent et 8. paires Tambour” which
416 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 292. It should be noted that the author has conducted a
very preliminary examination of seals from Michilimackinac that have not yet appeared in publication, and
that they will perhaps prove to reveal more on these seals in the future. 417 Unfortunately the magasin du roi and hospital records consulted only extend from 1725 to 1733, though
more records of similar nature exist for the rest of the 1730s through to 1757. Luckily, at least the archival
records consulted cover the earlier period not represented in the import analysis done by Moore. MOORE,
Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, 115 p. 418 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, F° 300-345, État de l’habillement, munitions de Guerres..., Louisbourg, 1
October 1725. 419 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 8, F° 132-141, État de la Recette et depenses..., Louisbourg, 3 December 1726. 420 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 12, F° 65-69, État des effects que magasin de l’examen de S. Philipe Carrezot
garde des Magasins du Roy a Louisbourg…, Louisbourg, 18 November 1731. The garde magasin was in
essence the guard and for the stores, a sort of quartermaster in charge of supplies.
101
were to be sent from Rochefort421. In 1732 the same stockings issued in 1724-1725 are
once again noted, though with less specifics on color and origin, which were likely the
same; Bas de Sergents (16 pairs), Bas de Tambours (8 pairs), Bas de Soldats (556 pairs)422.
That year the same order is made (for the year 1733) with the same number of stockings
for sergeants and drummers, yet with one hundred less soldier’s stockings asked423. In
1733, the inventory lists the same quantities of sergeants and drummers stockings, with
478 pairs of soldiers’ stockings (16 left in stores)424. In the order for 1735, once again the
only alteration in quantity is of soldiers’ stockings, with a requirement of 456425.
Import lists for the years 1737, 1752, 1753, and 1754 mention various stocking types
coming to Louisbourg. These varieties include stockings in cotton, de fisland, de la Lic,
woolen stockings for both sexes, de St. Maixent, de Segovie (Spain), silk stockings, and
silk stockings from Burgundy426. Also included in imports are chausettes, which are best
described as half-hose427. Stockings with Nîmes as a specified origin are not mentioned on
import lists as such, but are at least mentioned as the origin of the sergeants’ stockings in
the Magasin du Roi. Their association with a higher rank in the military may indicate that
the quality or material of Nîmes stockings were finer than the red and blue stockings being
issued to the lower ranks. Though silk holds dye well, woolens and cottons also are gifted
in color retention and are more durable than silk stockings, making them likely candidates
for the stockings ordered for drummers and soldiers. The regular importations of between
twelve and sixteen Nîmes stockings per year would explain the presence of these two seals
at Louisbourg, but at the same time these lone witnesses paints a grim picture of the
survival rate of these small seals.
421 Most of the other demands made for troop clothing also specify Rochefort as their anticipated origin.
ANOM, Colonies, C11B 13, F° 44-45, Estat des vivres-habillement et munitions…, Louisbourg, 28 November
1731. 422 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 12, F° 70-83, Extrait Balance de recette et depense faites de Vivres, Munitions…,
Louisbourg, October 1732. 423 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 13, F° 96-97, Estat des vivres, habillements…,Louisbourg, 15 November 1732. 424 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 14, F° 242-258v, Estat des vivres, habillement…, Louisbourg, 1733. 425 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 15, F° 194-196v, Estat des vivres, habillement, & munitions…, Louisbourg, 31
October 1734. Table 3 (p.129) seeks to simplify the data presented on stockings in the Magasin du Roi at
Louisbourg. 426 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 51. 427 Ibid. p. 51.
102
Orléans
Just as in the case of the Nîmes seals just discussed, the one seal from Orléans present
in the collections at Louisbourg appears to have marked stockings. Seal 3L.2F2.4 includes
a portion of the phrase “A2 FIL” or “A3 FIL” on its obverse side, and the possible name of
a merchant on its reverse. As discussed in the section on Orléans seals from Fort
Ticonderoga, the city was well known for its bonneterie industry and the production of
woolen and silk stockings. Stockings from Orléans are not mentioned in any import list or
inventory at Louisbourg consulted during this study, meaning that this seal has indeed
revealed an unknown product present at the site, the details of which remains to be
discovered.
Paris
The only seal from Paris present at Louisbourg is a large double tunnel customs seal
that clearly displays the mark of the Douane de Paris. This douane functioned as a way to
inspect merchandise entering the city and served to expedite goods being shipped out of
Paris by limiting the number of openings and inspections of the bale to which the
transporter would be subjected428. There does not appear to have been a tax associated with
this seal429. Sabatier records a very similar mark present on a square double tunnel bale
seal, with the same double “N” spelling of “DOUANNE” found on seal 1B14DD5.1, and
states that his seal likely predates 1737430. The lettering and circle style around the center
motif, however, are distinct from the example found at Louisbourg. This seal is difficult to
associate with any one product, but is a wonderful example of a bale seal meant to attach
by means of cord to the outside of a paquet or a bale. Sabatier mentions that seals from the
Douane de Paris are rare, making this one possibly unique on the continent as of the
publication of this study431.
428 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p.115-122 429 Ibid. p.115-122 430 Ibid. p. 121-122, Planche VI, Fig. 101. 431 Ibid. p. 121
103
Pont-de-l’Arche
One seal (3L.12A5.2) from Louisbourg is tentatively identified as a seal from Pont-de-
l’Arche, based on the design on its obverse, which is a close match to the old crest of the
town432. Pont-de-l’Arche is a somewhat populous town along the Seine upstream from
Elbeuf in Normandy433. Elbeuf was a competitor in the manufacture of draps to Rouen,
which was accused more than once of dirty dealings in their production to the detriment of
producers in Elbeuf and the surrounding area. Complaints against Rouen included the
removal of Elbeuf seals from cloth and the reattachment of these seals to sub-par cloth in
order to hurt the reputation of the manufactures there434.
Savary de Brûlons notes that Pont-de-l’Arche is in the generalité of Rouen and that “Il
s’y fait & dans ses environs des draps façon d’Angleterre & de Hollande435” It appears
from all accounts that Pont-de-l’Arche was making broadcloths to compete with the
English and Dutch market, like its neighbors Elbeuf and Rouen. Savary de Bruslons also
includes more detail about the manufacture of cloth in Pont-de-l’Arche, mentioning that
“…il se fabrique des draps très fins, façon d’Angleterre, (…) très estimée; mais elle n’est
composée que de six ou sept métiers. Les filages sont conduits par des fileurs et des
fileuses de Hollande436.” It should be noted that efforts to establish an official manufacture
in the town were thwarted in 1715 by the surrounding cities, which feared a loss of workers
and resources if Pont-de-l’Arche began production in earnest. A decline in the agricultural
productivity of the region was also to be feared if farming families converted the seasonal
creation of cloth into a year-round focus437. This seal therefore appears to be rare, with ties
to the small clothmaking community in the town and countryside, apparently composed of
some knowledgeable Dutch artisans working seasonally in “cottage industry” style
production. Drap d’Elbeuf was imported to Louisbourg in 1737, 1753 (50), and 1754, and
432http://pontdelarche.over-blog.com/2014/01/blason-et-logos-de-pont-de-l-arche-l-identit%C3%A9-visuelle-
de-la-ville-au-cours-des-si%C3%A8cles.html. 433 Alain BECCHIA, La draperie d’Elbeuf (des origines à 1870), Rouen, Publications de l’Université de
Rouen, 2000, p. 136. 434 BECCHIA, La draperie d’Elbeuf…, p. 134. 435 Jacques SAVARY DES BRÛLONS and Philémon-Louis SAVARY, Dictionnaire universel de commers:
contentant tout ce qui concerne…, Tome 1, Waesbergae, Chez les Jansons, 1726, p. 1949. 436 BECCHIA, La draperie d’Elbeuf…, p. 180. 437 Ibid. p.135
104
its importation could explain this seal’s presence at the site, if the cloth it was attached to
was inspected and processed in Elbeuf or acquired by merchants in the region438. The
qualities of cloth from Pont-de-l’Arche also might have been difficult to distinguish from
those of drap d’Elbeuf, since the fabrique there was begun by two négociants from Elbeuf
in 1690 and may have set the foundations for a similar production process and textile
tradition439.
Rouen
Rouen was a bustling commercial center renowned for its textile production in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As a result, it produced a large and varied array of
textile varieties, including woolens, worsteds, bonneterie, tapestries, and various cotton,
linen, and hemp toiles440. The généralité (region) around Rouen was known for the
production of toiles that included fleurets, blancards, and toiles de coffre (in addition to
those used in chemises and handkerchiefs), toile d’emballage (baling cloth), sailcloth, and
striped and checked cloth “dont une partie passe dans la Nouvelle-France,” and toiles
brunes (natural colored) for lining garments441. Though the varieties of toiles produced at
Rouen are impressive, the town also produced many types of woolen. Rouen produced
three main varieties of broadcloth; draps d’Usseau, draps façon d’Elbeuf (broadcloth in the
style of those produced at Elbeuf, mentioned in the previous section), and draps façon
d’Angleterre (the least common of the three varieties, imitations of English cloth)442.
Though draps d’Elbeuf were being made at Rouen, according to at least one source, these
imitations still fell short of the quality inherent in genuine draps d’Elbeuf made at
Elbeuf443. It appears that these cloths may have been used as blankets, or that blankets were
also produced in Rouen. In a 1725 inventory of the Magasin du Roi at Louisbourg, thirty
couvertures de Roüen blanchis (bleached or white Rouen blankets) are present on a list of
438 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 56. 439 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 189. 440 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 500-502. 441 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 185-186. Fleurets seem to be
toiles made using some silk elements, and blancards appear to be very light bleached toiles, often made for
consumption in the Spanish Indies. ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE and É. LITTRÉ, Le Dictionnaire de la langue
française, Paris, Librarie Hachette et Cie., 1873. 442 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 186. 443 John SMITH, Chronicon Rusticum-Commericale; or, Memoirs of Wool, &c... Vol 2, London, 1747, p. 449.
105
“effets destinez pour les present des Sauvages,” which places them in a trade context with
Native Americans444. Other woolen varieties (“étoffes de lainage”) made at Rouen are
white droguets (also commonly called Espagnolettes) and others in various colors, usually
with a half an aune width, as well as white ratines described as “cinq quarts aussi de
large445.” Both of these varieties appear to have been worsted stuffs446. The same can be
said for the barracans that were produced in Rouen (these seem to be in the same category
as serges, camelots, berluches and droguets, “étoffes de laine mêlées de fil447.” The stuff
fabriques at Rouen included about 60 looms in 1747, while the draps were made in much
higher quantities and required about 200 looms448. These numbers give us a sense of the
scale of the woolen industry at Rouen at the time of Louisbourg’s population and economic
boom. In New France, droguets are known to have composed female justaucorps449.
It follows that if Rouen was creating both woolens and toiles that it was also producing
mixed textiles. Silk and wool combination textiles made at Rouen included Papelines or
Ferandines, brocatelles, and ligatures450. The latter two varieties were tapestry like textiles
composed of silk and wool fibers, and woven with methods and designs similar to what the
modern lexicon would label as brocade451. Additionally, Rouen was well known for the
manufacture of Bergame (Bergamo), another brocade or tapestry that was made in three
distinct classes based on their fineness. The finest bergames were made with fine woolens,
silks, and linen or hemp yarns. The second finest were made of lesser quality woolen wefts
444 ANOM, Colonies, C11B 7, F° 300-345, État de l’habillement, munitions de Guerres..., Louisbourg, 1
October 1725. 445 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 186. 446 Droguet is defined in period dictionaries as an “espèce d’étoffe faite ordinairement de laine & de fil.”
ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE, Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1762. A later dictionary provides a more
detailed description: “Autrefois étoffe de laine de bas prix, qui était une espèce de drap, mais fort mince et
fort étroit, FURETIÈRE. Le droguet était une espèce de serge moitié fil et moitié laine ; il s'en faisait aussi
tout de laine. Droguet ou petit drap, première qualité ; chaîne, laine d'Auxois ou de Berry, peignée ; trame,
belle laine de Ségovie, cardée.” ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE and É. LITTRÉ, Le Dictionnaire de la langue
française, 1873. Similarily ratines are defined in the aforementioned 1762 dictionary as a “sorte d’étoffe de
laine,” while in a later dictionary they are an “étoffe de laine ou drap croisé don’t le poil est tire en dehors, et
fries de manière a former comme de petite grains.” ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE, Le Dictionnaire de la langue
française, 1835. Stuffs is a general name for worsteds of lower quality. 447 SAVARY, Le Parfait négociant…, p.73; SMITH, Chronicon Rusticum-Commericale…, p. 449. 448 SMITH, Chronicon Rusticum-Commericale…, p. 449. 449 AUDET, Le costume paysan…, p. 186. 450 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 187. Ferrandines are composed
of silk warps and woolen wefts. AUDET, Le costume paysan…, p. 187. 451 https://vintagefashionguild.org/fabric-resource/brocatelle/.
106
and linen or hemp yarn warps. Finally, even lower quality bergames were made of lower
quality wool woven against cow or goat hair. The linen and hemp warps were the
background of a pattern produced by the wool weft threads- usually these patterns included
flame, flower, or scale motifs452. This intricate cloth appears to have been popular in Paris,
enough to earn it the nickname “tapisserie de la Porte de Paris,” due to their consistant
presence at market stalls set up near the old fortifications of the city453.
Some of these products may be represented in import lists from Louisbourg. Ratine
appears in 1737 (379 aunes), 1752, and 1753 (8 aunes)454. Additionally, Camelot is listed
for 1737 (60 aunes), 1752 (2 pieces), and 1753 (125 aunes)455. Drap d’Elbeuf appears as
well for several years, as mentioned in the previous section on Pont-de-l’Arche, and seals
from either of these locations could have been attached, since both locations are producing
drap “façon d’Elbeuf.” What is certain is that both seals from Rouen noted in the
classification for Louisbourg are seals of the bureau de contrôle and therefore must have
marked products of the city of Rouen. The reverse motif composed of a lamb and pennant
on seal 47L.90K9.1 is typical of seals from the fabrique de Rouen, which as early as 1451
was sealing their draps with a lamb on one side456. This avant guarde use of seals earned
woolens from Rouen the moniker “Draps du Sceau457.”
Saint-Mayeux
Seal 47L.58B3.1 is tentatively identified as a seal from Saint-Mayeux. Both the origin
and the attachment method of this seal are unusual. This seal has merited its own brand
new formal classification type (series A type 3), being uniquely composed of a four plate,
two part configuration. Two plates (one half of the seal) have holes, and the other two have
single knobs that are put through the cloth and hammered into the loops. How this attaches
to the cloth is unclear, but reddish woolen cloth scraps still present between the plates are
between both sets. This type of seal does not appear to have dangled off of the end of a
452 Florence M. MONTGOMERY, Textiles in America, 1650-1870, W. W. Norton & Company 2007 (1984), p.
165. 453 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1750), p. 187. 454 MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg…, p. 58. 455 Ibid. p. 55. 456 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 247. 457 SABATIER, Sigillographie historique…, p. 247.
107
piece or wrapped around it as with a classic Series A Type 1 or 2 seal. The reverse portion
of part 2 of the seal seems to have a stylized Y and U converted to a “V” shape (as is often
seen in seventeenth and eighteenth century lettering) forming “MAVEVX.” The rest of the
lettering is consistant with phrases used on seals of a bureau de contrôle marking cloth
from that town, with one side (part 1) containing possible merchant, producer, or dyer
information. Saint-Mayeux is a small, sparsely populated commune in Brittany located
near the midpoint between Brest and Rennes. It has a largely unknown pre-revolutionary
history and therefore no pertinent information concerning textile production in this town
could be found, which is unfortunate because of the precise dating possible for this seal,
which may likely have arrived between 1757 (the date on the seal) and the capture of
Louisbourg in 1758458. It is possible that this small town was part of the countryside
manufacture of toiles that Brittany was best known for459.
Unidentified French seals
There are eighteen seals in the collections at Louisbourg that are almost certainly
French, but that were unable to be identified during the course of this study460. Their
“French-ness” was determined based on the phrases and letter combinations in the
impressions, rather than based on symbols such as the fleur de lys461. One unidentified seal
appears to be from Montauban based on the willow-like design present on its reverse.
However, because the lettering on (“DE VILLE”) does not appear to relate directly to
Montauban, it awaits future identification. Some of these seals have very clear text that is
simply partial or unmatchable to known locations or merchants, such as seals 2L.81F5.10
and 16L.94A7.8. A number of these seals are seals of bureaux de visite in various places in
France including seals 47L.50B5.7, 47L.50B5.11, 47.90G4.3, 16L.101A3.1, and
43L.1A3.2. Others are from bureaux de contrôle, such as seals 1B5A7.654, 2L.81F5.10,
and 59L.79D5.4. A complete breakdown of the offices and entities (merchants,
458http://www.infobretagne.com/saint-mayeux.htm;
http://cassini.ehess.fr/cassini/fr/html/fiche.php?select_resultat=33607. 459 SAVARY DES BRULONS, Dictionnaire universel de commers… (1726), p. 872-873. 460 See Table 2, p. 128. 461 Geoffrey EGAN, “Provenanced Leaden Cloth Seals,” Doctoral Dissertation, London, University of
London, 1987, p. 29, 77, 164, 254.
108
manufactures, etc.) that appear to be represented by the marks on these seals is included in
Table 5.
4.3.2 English “Jersey” Lion Seals
Two lead seals yet to be positively identified in this study, both from Louisbourg,
appear to be exact matches (Plate 3 fig. R, Plates 5 & 6 fig. Q). They both exhibit a lion
rampant guardant encircled by simple scrollwork, with initials at the bottom. One appears
to have the initials “CR” at the bottom next to the word ending “SEY.” This ending is
fairly uncommon in the French language. Though there appear to be no more complete
examples of this seal, there is a possible lead that might prove fruitful in the future. Charles
Robin and his brothers from St. Aubin, Jersey, founded a commercial fishing empire in
Gaspé and the St. Lawrence in the late eighteenth century. Their company, Robin, Pipon &
Co., was established in 1766, and each settlement tied to the company was equipped with a
general store and other basic institutions. In fact, their first foray into commercial fishing
had them exploring the waters and coast near Louisbourg, so the attachment to that area
and the continued post-conquest occupation of the site would explain the presence of the
seal462.
Many of the company’s posts were attacked by Americans in the 1770s, forcing the
company to cease the majority of its activity in the Baie de Chaleurs. These attacks came
as a result of mixture of revolutionary hostility and already strong competition between
New Englanders, Nova Scotians, and Québec firms. At one point the company’s foothold
on Cape Breton Island was wiped out by American Revolutionary naval hero John Paul
Jones463. This seal may have been used by the company to mark textile goods (as
evidenced by the textile marks on the seal) being imported to one of their posts to provision
the fishermen working for them or for use in the fishing industry. These fishing settlements
were fairly isolated and could be compared in scope and environment to fur trade posts.
However the company owned the only store in town and had no competition, which
therefore left it able to inflate prices on necessary goods and merchandise at will. The
462 David LEE, “ROBIN, CHARLES,” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 6, University of
Toronto/Université Laval, 2003, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/robin_charles_6E.html. Consulted 6/24/18. 463 Ibid.
109
fishermen working for the company were paid in credit valid at these company stores,
creating a cycle of dependence and indebtedness464.
Though the identity of this seal is still tentative, the Robins imported cloth and
other necessities for the locals during their first years in business in the Baie des
Chaleurs465. Some of these cloths are specified in a journal entry from 1767 written by
Charles Robin himself. He had hoped to include in shipments for the next year "Near the
same quantity of strouds we had last year, two thirds blue, one third red; two pieces blue
cadiz, two pieces white, two pieces brown. Four pieces half Calamanco, broad stripes466."
Judging by this information, it would appear that if these are seals of Charles Robin or his
company, they would have very likely marked stroud cloths (broadcloths with thick naps)
or calamanco ( a woolen with a glossy sheen on one side and a pattern on the other). These
would also be interesting from a consumption standpoint because these cloths appear to
have been meant for use by the workers at the post (who were mostly from Jersey), rather
than imported as trading goods, though the Robins were also supposedly dealing alcohol
and gunpowder to local Native Americans467.
464 Mario MIMEAUL, “La continuité de l'emprise des compagnies de pêche françaises et jersiaises sur les
pêcheurs au XVIIIe siècle Le cas de la compagnie Robin,” Histoire sociale- Social History, Vol. XVIII, No.
35 (May 1985) p. 63-64. 465 David LEE, “Gaspé 1760-1867,” Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History
No. 23, Parks Canada, 2006, http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/chs/23/chs23-2k.htm. 466 Naomi GRIFFITHS, Mason Wade, Acadia, and Quebec, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s Press, 1991, p. 71. 467 LEE, “Gaspé 1760-1867.”
110
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This study has uncovered unexpectedly rich information concerning some
merchants of the town of Montauban in particular, and so the first part of this discussion
chapter will present most of the findings concerning lead seals tied to this community and
on findings concerning the interworkings of merchant networks. This discussion is
followed by a discussion of the consumption patterns that emerge among the three sites
considered for this study based on the sum of many of the findings discussed in the
previous chapters.
5.1. MERCHANTS, NÉGOCIANTS, NETWORKS, AND THE CANADA TRADE: A CASE STUDY OF
THE MARIETTE FAMILY AND THEIR AFFAIRS AS REVEALED BY LEAD SEALS
5.1.1 Seals of the Montauban Merchant Families
One connection between all three sites in this study is the presence of seals that relate
to the merchant families of Montauban, France. Due to their presence, much of my
research was geared towards understanding the networks connecting these merchants to
each site. The earliest known appearance of any of these families in the records is a
mention of the Mariette family in 1731, in a letter from Hocquart to the Ministre de la
Marine regarding their procurator in the colony and the collection of a debt owed to
“Sieurs Mariette négocians de Montauban468.” The Mariettes were one of the large
merchant families in the town of Montauban, a key textile producing center in
southwestern France. It has been previously noted that the majority of woolen textiles
imported into New France seem to originate from this region469. Other prominent
merchants of the Dumas and Rauly families of Montauban were also involved in the
Canada trade, and their names are also present on various seals from the selected three
sites. In the eighteenth century, merchant families were essentially commercial dynasties,
where the family business was passed down from father to son(s). This allowed the passage
of trade secrets and savoir-faire from generation to generation, which was of great
468 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 54, F°181, Lettre de Beauharnois et Hocquart au ministre - créance des sieurs
Mariette négociants à Montauban, 15 October 1731. 469 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, 588 p.; David ROBERTS, “DUMAS, ALEXANDRE,” Dictionary of
Canadia Biography, Vol. 5, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 1983.
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/dumas_alexandre_5E.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
111
importance in a world where success as a merchant or master artisan was one of the most
frequented paths to achieving a noble status470. This status allowed textile merchants in the
south of France to live a life of ease in a region that was otherwise impoverished471. As one
French army captain from the major broadcloth producing town of Lodève noted in 1749,
"Négossients... fait icy noblesse472."
The Rauly family is first mentioned as “Rauly père et fils” in 1739, alongside of the
“Mariet frères473.” Therefore we know that at least by 1739, two Mariette brothers appear
to have assumed control of the family business. This seems to establish 1739 as the
terminus ante quem for any seals that are marked: PIERRE MARIETTE / PÈRE * ET /
FILS * DE MONTAV / BAN, assuming there are not multiple branches of the Mariette
family engaged in commerce at the same time474. These “father and son” seals are found at
Louisbourg, as well as at Fort Ouiatenon and Place Royale, Québec475. The collections at
The History Museum in South Bend include a seal that clearly reads MARIETTE /
NÉGOCIANT(S) / DE / MONTAU / BAN, but which could either be completed as
PIERRE / MARIETTE / NÉGOCIANT / DE / MONTAU / BAN or as FRÈRES /
MARIETTE / NÉGOCIANTS / DE / MONTAU / BAN. Though the genealogy of the
Mariette family awaits closer study, it appears that the seals indicate at least two
generations of the family in North American endeavors. Pierre Mariette, his eldest son,
most probably Daniel (D. Mariette l’aîné), as well as an unknown second son (possibly
Étienne) are all mentioned on seals (Ticonderoga Seal C, FSJ seal Q, Louisbourg seals
1B5A7.655, 3L.10P2.3, 4L.53M5.1, 16L.100D3.2) 476.
The design of the seals of the Mariette family appear to have changed multiple times
over the thirty year period that can be attributed to their affairs in Canada. This phenomenon
470 CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 10. 471 François de DAINVILLE, “Un dénombrement inédit au XVIIIe siècle: l’enquête du Contrôleur general
Orry- 1745,” Population, 7e Année, No. 1 (1952), p. 61-62. 472 “Négociants…here make nobility.” CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, p. 10. 473 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 72, F° 150, État de douze lettres de change tirées sur M. de La Tuillerie, trésorier
général de la Marine, Québec, 30 October 1739. 474 The genealogy of the Mariette family of Montauban merits a closer examination in the future 475 NOBLE, “Functional Analysis and Intra-Site Analysis…,” p. 271; MINISTÈRE DE CULTURE ET
COMMUNICATION DE QUÉBEC and ARCHÉO-QUÉBEC. “Métropole-Monopole: une place marchande.” La
Collection de Place Royale se révèle. 2016. http://placeroyale.archeoquebec.com/. 476 Étienne Mariette is mentioned as the Montauban Mariette that pulled the rest of the Canada merchants in
town with him in 1760 when he went bankrupt. BOSHER, The Canada Merchants, p. 198.
112
could perhaps be the result of anti-counterfeiting measures, or possibly seen as an indication
of the participation of more than one nuclear family unit in the Canada trade (for example, if
Pierre’s brothers or nephews share the same name as his sons, if Daniel and Étienne are
cousins or nephew and uncle, rather than brothers, etc.). Interestingly, Swiss and German
merchants bought furs from the Mariettes, including one Georges Sacher, a merchant skinner
with Silesian origins living in Bordeaux. Sacher is recorded as having bought 8,152# of furs
from the Mariettes and from a certain Zorn, Messiers et Valet of Bordeaux. These furs were
in turn sent by Sacher to his connection in Canada, André Portes, for sale in Québec477. The
origin of the furs acquired by the Mariettes is unclear, but one may suspect they could have
come from any of their family connections in New France, or have been a form of payment
for cloth and goods sent to Québec.
We do, however, know what sort of textiles the Mariettes were importing to Québec.
Two lists of goods sent from Rochefort in the second half of the 1740s mention the types of
woolens being imported by the family. Document 1 and 2 in the annex of this study show
that imports of the Mariette brothers included mostly red and blue shades of mazamets,
moltons, and dourgnes, in addition to the white blankets mentioned in the previous section
on Toulousian seals from Fort Ticonderoga. They appear in documents throughout the 1730s
and 40s as providers of these woolen goods478. The substantial consumption of woolens in
the first part of the eighteenth century helps account for the great number of seals of this
family and from Montauban found throughout sites in old French territory. As a result of the
high frequency of seals of the Mariette family that appear on sites in North America, I have
compiled a table and given seals of this family their own private typology, while at the same
time including them in my overall typology of the three sites included in this study479.
Curiously, the decorative elements present on seals of the Mariette family range from
symbols of the town of Montauban (the willow tree), to maritime (birds on an anchor) and
perhaps even Canadian images (men in a canoe or rowboat) 480.
477 Ibid. p. 181. 478 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 64, F° 23-24, Lettre de Hocquart au ministre - bonne qualité des munitions et
marchandises reçues cette année…, Québec, 2 October 1735; ANOM, Colonies, C11A 88, F° 138-140v, Lettre
de Hocquart au ministre au sujet des poursuites.., Québec, 18 October 1747; Document 3. 479 Table 1 can be found in the annex, p. 132-134. 480 See Table 1 and Plates 1, 2, 5, 6, p.127, 192-193, 197-198..
113
Returning to the mention of “Rauly père et fils” in 1739, it appears that the transition
from father to son is present in the Rauly family based on this mention and the seals
recovered from Ticonderoga481. The identical impressions on seals K (Plate 2 fig.K), Q
(Plates 1 & 2, fig. O), R (Plates 1 &2, fig. P), and V (Plates 1 & 2, fig. T) all read, either
completely or partially, “RAVLY FRERES NEGOCIANS DE MONTAVBAN.” This seal
is evidence of the change that occurred between 1739 and 1752, when the two sons of
Rauly père took over the family business in the Canada trade. The Rauly brothers were
active in Canada from at least 1752 to 1759, when they are listed among the Montauban
partners of the combined Québec firm of Pierre Delannes and Jean-Jacques Gauthier482.
The mix of family and business connections between the négociants of Montauban and the
extension of these connections across the Atlantic is highlighted in the case of Gauthier.
Gauthier and his brother Pierre (who resided in Montauban) were both married to
daughters of Marc Dumas and Marie de Rauly483. The Rauly family originated in Castres
(about 95 km from Montauban), but the marks on the aforementioned seals associate the
brothers very clearly with the town of Montauban484. Gauthier’s other partners included the
elder Mariette brother, Daniel, and the Dumas family485.
Familial relations formed the glue that held together the Canada trade. The Mariette,
Rauly, Malroux, Dumas, and Serres families of Montauban were closely related through
blood and marriage, and had even more connections in town and in the surrounding region.
Many merchants at Québec were born in Montauban, including Joseph Rouffio, Antoine
Malroux, and Alexandre Dumas486. If one were to explore the relations of all Québec
merchants, procurateurs, and clerks, you would be hard pressed to find more than a
handful that were not related to the town of Montauban and its inhabitants in some way.
Canada merchants had developed a strong and sensible strategy for staying ahead in the
trade- putting their relatives and connections on the front line in Québec. Yet more
481 ANOM, Colonies, C11A 72, F° 150, État des lettres de change payables à Mme de Freneuse, Mariet frères,
Rauly père et fils…, Québec, 30 October 1739. 482 BOSHER, The Canada Merchants, p. 137. 483 Ibid. p. 136. Jean Taché, from Gargauvillar (Diocese of Montauban) was a well known procurateur for
the Mariettes. C. BAROLET, notary at Québec, “Contrat de marriage entre Jean Taché (40 ans) négociants, de
la ville de Québec…” 25 October, 1742. 484 Ibid. p. 136. 485 Ibid. p. 137. 486 Ibid. p. 42.
114
intriguing was the connection of merchants in Québec with Protestantism: Huguenots
dominated the trade not only in Québec (despite the discouragement of protestant
immigration to New France), but also controlled much of the Canada trade in La Rochelle,
Bordeaux, Montauban, Rouen, and even Paris487. In fact, the first Huguenot buried in a
Roman Catholic cemetery in Québec was Joseph Snilh (d.1764), a relation of the Mariette
family488.
5.1.2 Montauban and the Canada trade
Montauban as a town was built around these négociants and the Canada trade. Today
the town is a sleepy shadow of the economic hub it once was, but in the eighteenth century,
the lifeblood of the town was its woolen trade. Though it had been involved in the
manufacture of textiles during the medieval period, its woolen industry boomed after 1628,
when David d’Aignan, a local fabricant, introduced cadis sergé drapé (Often known
simply as cadis), which would become the staple product of the town489. This serge-like,
strong, yet unrefined woolen with a similar finish to more substantial broadcloths was
judged similar to woolens being made at Carcassonne and throughout Languedoc490.
Produced alongside cadis were a large amount of other woolen varieties (mostly worsteds)
including cordelats, drapés, rases, drouguets, burats, and diverse types of sergés and
bayettes produced with fine wool from Navarre that aimed to match or surpass those of
English manufacture491. Most of these varieties of woolen appear to have been made from
local wool and of a rough quality destined for use by the lower and middle classes, and are
often contrasted with the fine draps (broadcloths) produced in Lodève. However, the
production of these worsted varieties was ubiquitous throughout the south of France492.
487 BOSHER, The Canada Merchants, p. 10, 137. 488 Ibid. p. 137. 489 LIGOU and CASTAING, Histoire de Montauban, p. 174; Jacques SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Philémon-
Louis SAVARY, Dictionnaire universel de commerce: d'histoire naturelle, & des art & métiers, tome
cinquieme…, Nouvelle edition, Copenhagen, Chez Claude Philibert, 1765, p. 71. 490 SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de commerce…(1765), p. 71 491 LIGOU and CASTAING, Histoire de Montauban, p. 175. 492 The manufacture of cordelats and bayettes are also mentioned at Toulouse, Bordeaux, Castres, Mazamet,
Nîmes, Lyon, Alby, and few other places. SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Dictionnaire universel de
commerce…(1750), p. 267-268.
115
Despite the production of these other woolen varieties, cadis production was the main
work, with 4,500 pieces produced by the manufacture of Montauban in the year 1725493.
The decline in importance of Montauban, likely due in part to the decline of the Canada
trade after 1760, is shown by the drop in the number of pieces produced in town from the
4,500 produced in 1725 down to a maximum of 1,500 pieces in 1789494. The tanneries of
Montauban started to decline in 1756 due to difficulties associated with the Seven Years’
War, and recovered slightly in 1763 only to be squashed by a flood495. Where stable and
stately négociants had once plied their business and spread wealth to regional artisans and
workers, bankruptcies brought on by the war and its consequences flooded the town and in
their tides came multiple misfortunes that washed away the golden age of Montauban’s
Canada trade496.
5.1.3 Procurateurs, négociants, and marchands
As Canada merchants based in France, the Mariette and Rauly families relied on a
procurateur in Québec City. Procurateurs, in essence, conducted business and legal
transactions in the place of their clients or associates who were unable to do so in person
due to distance, illness, or similar causes. The Canadian affairs of the Mariette family fell
to several known procurateurs; Jean Taché, Pierre Delannes (1749-60) and Jean Jacques
Gauthier (1752-60). Being attached to the affairs of the Mariette family was probably not
an exclusive contract, as some procurateurs are known to have handled the interests of
various French merchants or companies at the same time497.
Interestingly, Jean Taché is one of the prominent signatories of the document
submitted to Ramezay on September 15, 1759, demanding the capitulation of Québec. This
strongly worded plea for surrender signed by both local négociants and marchands forains
trapped inside the besieged capitol contributed not only to the end of French control of the
city, but ultimately of the continent. It also very likely indirectly led to the bankruptcy
experienced by the Mariette family and many other merchants in 1760, following the loss
493 LIGOU and CASTAING, Histoire de Montauban, p. 175. 494 LIGOU and CASTAING, Histoire de Montauban, p. 175. 495 Ibid. p. 188. 496 Ibid. p. 180, 188. 497 REGIS and PROULX, Le commerce à Place Royale…, p. 144.
116
of Canada. This contribution to the loss of land and business may have been somewhat
unanticipated, as in the case of the capitulation of Québec, residents feared more for their
lives than for business in the midst of a European-style siege498. These merchants may not
have expected the total turnover of Canada in treaty negotiations, but may have instead
anticipated a return to normal French control over the territory as had been granted
following the previous Treaties of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle (in 1713 and 1748,
respectively). Further, in this document the négociants of Québec identify themselves as
just that- négociants rather than simple marchands499.
The term négociant usually signifies a greater importance and status in the
merchant class, as opposed to a simple marchand500. The definition of “marchand” in Le
Dictionnaire de l'Académie française (1762) is: “Qui fait profession d' acheter & de
vendre”, versus the definition of “négociant” in the same work: “Qui fait négoce501.” A
marchand was more occupied with the immediate and local selling and buying of objects,
whereas a négociant was implicated in the traffic and movement of goods, having been
trained in the art of commerce. This difference in scope and training is expressed
throughout Le Parfait Négociant, which continually distinguishes between merchants and
négociants502. For example, Savary states in the description of one of his chapters:
“La raison pourquoy les Marchands Grossiers ne doivent point vendre leur
merchandise en détail aux personnes qui ne sont point de profession mercantille, &
quelles en sont les raisons. Et à l’égard des Negocians en gros qui vendent
ordinairement leur Marchandise dans les Provinces, & dans les Foires, je parle des
considerations qu’ils doivent avoir, avant que de s’engager d’aller aux Foires; &
498 Michel THÉVENIN, “Nous étions réduits à la dernière extrémité » : la reddition de Québec de 1759 vue par
son signataire,” Pier-Alexandre DORÉ et al., Actes du 16e colloque étudiant du Département des sciences
historiques de l’Université Laval, Québec, 2017, p. 159-161. 499 BAnQ-Q P224, P17 Fonds Jean Baptiste Nicolas Roch de Ramezay., Lettre adressée aux commandants et
aux officiers majors de la ville de Québec, fournissant les raisons du passage du pouvoir aux ennemis anglais
et mentionnant qu'il ne faut pas avoir honte de céder quand on est dans l'impossibilité de vaincre…, 1759. 500 Josette BRUN, “Les femmes d’affaires en Nouvelle-France au XVIIIe siècle: le cas de l’Île Royale,”
Acadiensis, Jounal of the History of the Atlantic Region, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 1997) p. 51; Elinor
BARBER, The Bourgeoisie in 18th-Century France, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2015, p. 25. 501 ACADEMIE FRANÇAISE, Le Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, 1762. 502 SAVARY, Le Parfait négociant…, 324 p.; BARBER, The Bourgeoisie..., p. 25.
117
ensuite neuf observations qui leur marquent la manière dont ils doivent se comporter
dans leur Negociation pour y bien reussir503.”
The difference between the two, in essence, appears to be best expressed in the following
citation:
“Unlike most other French businessmen of the time, except perhaps financiers, the
négociants and armateurs were men of enormous resources and willing to take risks,
large risks, in their enterprises. Their fortunes and their fleets were immense504.”
In short, the négociant was less of a local shopkeeper or salesmen and more of an
internationally involved, high-risk fortune making character the likes of Antonio in The
Merchant of Venice. The term négociant implied that one was involved in a certain type of
commercial negotiation with great risks and great rewards that carried with it a certain
amount of recognition. The distinction between the two being clear in the eighteenth
century, it appears that in using this term to describe themselves, the businessmen of
Québec were well aware of the global nature of their affairs. They sought to express the
prestige that went along with being part of this heavily engaged, more lucrative class of
merchants, in spite of their somewhat isolated colonial surroundings.
5.2 A DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON OF TEXTILES AT FORT ST. JOSEPH, FORT
TICONDEROGA, AND FORTRESS LOUISBOURG BASED ON LEAD SEAL IDENTIFICATION AND
INTERPRETATION
These three sites, as hoped, have provided this study with an intriguing range of
different seals and locations tied to textiles that once played a role in daily life. Though
many of the findings concerning lead seals, textiles, and the garments that may have been
fashioned from imported cloth have been discussed in the chapters devoted to the
collections at each site, this section will highlight the general trends in textile
representation between sites and how their consumption could be explained.
As suspected, Louisbourg is the site with the most variety in its seals, and the largest
selection of seals that may have marked finer textiles and lighter woolen types.
Interestingly, though Louisbourg has the highest number of hosiery seals, it is still far
503 BARBER, The Bourgeoisie..., p. 19. 504 BARBER, The Bourgeoisie..., p. 28.
118
surpassed by the number of probably hosiery and silk seals at Michilimackinac. In fact,
contrary to its position in the further flung reaches of French colonial influence,
Michilimackinac has the highest silk and hosiery seal count of any site’s published or
consulted seal assemblages505. This is even more intriguing when one recalls that so far no
seals from nearby Fort St. Joseph can be identified as hosiery seals. This could either be a
function of the size of the collection, or it could be a testament to the lack of stockings
worn or imported to the site or a heightened adoption of mitasses and Native American
clothing styles by the site’s Canadien populations. Another possible explanation would be
a heightened number of nobles and officers at Fort Michilimackinac, though the little
information on population available for these sites indicates the presence of officers and
their families early on at both sites506. This is in contrast not only to Michilimackinac but
also to Fort Ouiatenon, which can claim at least one apparent hosiery seal507.
Louisbourg’s proximity to France may explain the increased varities of seals found
there, with the civilian population appearing to play a large part in the consumption of
textiles. The representation of so many locations involved in the manufacture of worsteds
and toiles of average quality and popularity with upper classes and lower classes of
Acadiens alike and the relative scarcity of seals most directly and most likely associated
with woolen trade cloths (“strouds”). The lack of woolen broadcloths such as those from
Lodéve or Carcassonne could correspond with the lack of Native American consumers at
the site, or could simply be representative of a different taste among the Acadien
inhabitants.
This is in contrast to the situation at Fort St. Joseph and other posts in the Pays d’en
Haut such as Michilimackinac. Though the size of the lead seal assemblage at Fort St.
Joseph is still growing as the site is explored, and will likely never achieve the same
volume as those at Michilimackinac, there is a great similarity in the seals and their origins
present across these two sites and others in the area (Ouiatenon especially)508. The presence
505 This statement is based in the author’s personal experience, having examined firsthand a number of
unpublished lead seals from Michilimackinac, and from continued consultation of published materials
concerning French lead seals in North America. 506 STONE, Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781…, p. 8; IDLE, “The Post of the St. Joseph…,” p. 151. 507 NOBLE, “Functional Analysis and Intra-Site Analysis…,” p. 273. 508 DAVIS, “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23),” p. 64-72.
119
of seals for écarlatines at Michilimackinac and draperie seals from Carcassonne at Fort St.
Joseph are the more conspicuous markers of trade activity if we take into account the
writings of eighteenth-century eyewitnesses.
Fort St. Joseph and Louisbourg both have a fairly substantial sample of seals from
Montauban (in relation to collection size), but at Ticonderoga, they account for a huge
portion of the seals, which is interesting considering the collections are fairly small. If
future work is done at Ticonderoga it would be of interest to see if this trend continues on
as the assemblage grows. This presence of many similar seals at Ticonderoga appears to be
very much a function of the military culture of the site and the uniformity imposed on the
materials of daily life in an eighteenth-century European fighting force. Further, though
each site can attest to the presence of some French soldiers, Ticonderoga and Louisbourg
are the only ones that housed thousands of them at a time. At Louisbourg this military
presence in the archaeological record may be somewhat equalled out by the civilian
component of the population, but at Ticonderoga soldiers were by far the majority of the
site’s population, particularily during the siege of William Henry and the Battle of
Carillon509.
Unsurprisingly, woolens appear to be the dominant textile (as represented by seals) at
all three sites considered in this study510. Numerous historical studies, especially in recent
years, have stressed the importance of woolens overall in eighteenth-century trade
throughout the Atlantic World (and beyond, in the case of the Levant trade)511. The strong
presence of seals tied to worsted producing locations was unexpected at first, seeing as the
majority of my research concerning Fort St. Joseph revolved around seals that most likely
marked woolens. This study has shown that this abundance of woolens is not an occurrence
at all sites in northern New France. Seen in this light, woolens present at Fort St. Joseph
could very well be tied to fur trade activity rather than Canadien consumption. What is
509 Canadian (and in the case of Ticonderoga, allied Native American) forces were also present at these sites,
usually to a larger or equal degree. Before the attack on William Henry, for example, the French presence at
Ticonderoga was 2,570 regulars, 524 troupes de la marine, 180 artillery troops, and around 3,470 Canadian
militia. ANDERSON, The Crucible of War… p.769, note 10. 510 Table 6, p. 132-134. 511 DECHÊNE, Habitants et Marchands…, p. 150-154, 505; NASSANEY, The Archaeology of the North
American…, p. 100-101; DUPLESSIS, The Material Atlantic..., 351 p. In the case of the Levant trade,
CARDON, The Dyer’s Handbook…, 160 p.
120
truly valuable about the seals identified in this study is their ability to tangibly showcase
the number of locations in France supplying Canada with materials for everyday clothing.
The lead seals provide an intimate connection with the consumers of the past as one sees
the scope of the Atlantic world contained in a tiny, dusty lead object.
The ability of seals to contradict or verify documentary evidence is one of their main
appeals, and in this study the information drawn from the seals did not disappoint. Most of
the seals identified aligned with historical records- Toulouse blankets, stockings from
Nîmes, mazamet imported from Montauban, and drap d’Elbeuf from Rouen or Pont-de-
l’Arche are some of the written mentions represented by seals from these sites. Others were
more fruitful in providing new evidence on cloth producers, but many of the seals
presented in this study remain to be explored more in depth- now that they are identified,
the real work can begin in scouring local and regional histories to discover the average
middle and lower class producers and artisans that fall between the lines on the pages of
history.
Though the regional boundaries within France have changed several times since the
end of the Seven Years’ War, Table 6 provides an overview of the regional and local
origins of seals from the three sites included in this study using modern regional devisions.
The region with by far the highest quantity of seals representing it is Occitanie, which in
the early eighteenth century included the regions of Languedoc, Roussillon, Béarn, and
parts of Gasconne and Guienne512. At Ticonderoga and Fort St. Joseph, seals from this
region account for 90 and 64 percent of identified French seals, repectively, while in the
larger collection at Louisbourg they compose 43 percent. In all three cases, seals from
Occitanie occupy the largest percentage of identifed French seals, and the region includes
the largest number of identified towns and cities taken from the seals. At Louisbourg,
Normandy and Hauts-de-France are also well represented regions, but are not as present at
the other sites, or not present at all in the case of Ticonderoga. This majority representation
of seals from Occitanie and Southern France appears in large part due to the presence of
512 JAILLOT, Alexis Hubert (1632-1712), and Guillaume SANSON. Le royaume de France. 45 x 63 cm. 1724.
(Online at https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5830.ct000741/?r=-0.132,0.268,1.057,0.337,0).
121
seals from Montauban and the prominence of these merchants in supplying textiles for
import to Canada.
The number of identified locations represented by the seals in this study is an example
of interconnectedness across the French Atlantic. While researching these textile producing
communities, statements and examples of the impact on industry caused by the loss of
Canada were often found within local histories. There may have been an awareness on both
sides of the Atlantic of the roles people were playing as consumers and as producers, and
the demand for cloth in Canada was central to industries that employed wintertime farmers,
locked away prostitutes, and master dyers. In between the “little people” producing textiles
in France and the Native Americans and soldiers in North America consuming them were
those that profited the most from this economic chain: the French négociants and their
Canadian connections. Consequently, when the Canada trade fell, these wealthy
middlemen arguably fell the hardest, and the ripple of their losses hit their partners and
suppliers. The impacts of the loss of Canada felt in France, combined with spending to
maintain armies across the globe could arguably be seen as the start of the downwards
economic movement that eventually led (in combination with the costs of involvement in
the American War of Independence) to the French Revolution later in the century.
122
CONCLUSIONS
This study, though informative, has some shortcomings. I have accomplished my
three goals defined at the outset of the study- to identify consumption patterns between the
sites, the merchants and structure of trade in the French Atlantic, and the social and cultural
influences on textile consumption and production, all to varying degrees. However, it
appears from this study that the lead seals involved need to be subjected to more
discriminating spatial and contextual analysis in order to associate them and the textiles
they marked with any specific consumer group. In regards to merchant networks, I have
identified a few of the prominent merchants, négociants, and families, but further research
may inform us about the sources of their products and the producers themselves. In the
future I believe that research conducted in France in the cities and towns of origin for these
seals could provide additional knowledge concerning the impacts of colonial consumption
and daily life in the textile industry of the eighteenth-century. Port records would also be
worthy of consultation and could potentially help understand the numbers scratched on
many seals.
It is clear from this study that expanding the corpus of French seals in North
America will allow for the identification of partial seals across sites as more complete
impressions become available. Studies in the future should strive for the diffusion and
comparison of seals from even more than three sites, and seek to overcome the challenges
of organizing such a potentially huge amount of qualitative information. It is appropriate to
suggest that experts accustomed to working with extant period textiles and the material
culture of existing clothing from the eighteenth century should be implicated in the study
of the textile fragments and imprints present between the disks on lead seals. More
attention should be paid as well to related lead objects, since the line between what is and
what isn’t a lead seal remains, in many cases, blurred. A study concerning the differences
between lead seals, coat weights, and fishing weights would be incredibly useful.
Geneaeological works concerning kinship ties within the trade networks of the Atlantic
World can also help us understand how consumers and producers communicated with each
other and how much each side of the chain knew about those at the other end. Regrettably,
123
this study could have been even more in depth, but even the simple identification of seals is
an immensely time consuming process. Encouraging and perpetuating interest in lead seal
identification and interpretation could lead to more contributions in this fascinating,
frustrating, and highly rewarding speciality of historic sigillography. Lead seals, once
better understood, could be used to great efficacy in public interpretation and telling of
even the lesser known stories in history that make up the roots of our modern world.
124
EPILOGUE
As well articulated by Michael Nassaney, “The field of comparative colonial studies
aims to examine how the fur trade and other empires laid the foundation for the globally
connected world in which we live today513.” This study looks beyond the fur trade to
demonstrate the reach and interconnectedness of the eighteenth-century French Atlantic
world and the ways in which our own world is the heritage of its systems. Lead seals are
material evidence of the bonds of trade that linked individuals together across oceans. They
are objects borne out of necessity and out of the complexities of commerce, and they tie
together the lofty ideals of state economies and the lived experiences of the individuals that
came into direct contact with textiles. They offer us a window into a world that is
simultaneously unfamiliar yet incredibly similar to the world we inhabit. The next time we
reach for our everyday garments, we should ask ourselves the questions posed in this
thesis- where our textiles come from, how they reached us, and who is at the other end of
this global chain.
These questions are starting to matter more and more as the twenty-first century
progresses. Western society is beginning to question the nature of textile consumption,
from production to disposal, as we become aware of the consequences of our consumer
oriented society. There is a new realization with every passing day of the impacts of fast
fashion on the environment and on the people abroad involved in its production. There are
fewer and fewer places in the world untouched by cast off pieces and molecules of the
synthetic fibers and dyes in our clothes as they break down in landfills and on
shorelines514. The energy alone needed to produce and even to recycle these synthetic
fibers is taking a toll on the environment. Furthermore, the cheap labor provided by
underpaid workers living below the poverty line and often working in unsafe environments
calls into question the value of humanity in the face of global capitalism and an obsession
513 NASSANEY, The Archaeology of the North American…, p. 32. 514 Alden WICKER, “Fast Fashion is Creating an Environmental Crisis,” Newsweek Magasin e, 9/1/2016.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/09/old-clothes-fashion-waste-crisis-494824.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
125
with profit and appearance515. With these concerns gaining more mainstream media
coverage, other historians and researchers have seen the correlation of these modern
phenomenon in past events. Some have even compared the working conditions at the
Lowell textile plants in the nineteenth century and deadly incidents such as the Triangle
shirtwaist fire of 1911 to the challenges, horrors, and unsafe conditions faced daily by
female textile workers in Southeast Asia today516.
Perhaps in looking to the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Atlantic worlds, we can
inform our understanding of what it means to exist within a commercial system that
influences others. We could draw inspiration from the shadow of Colbert’s inspection
systems and consider how quality may come once again to rule the market, in place of high
quantities of unsubstantial seasonal clothing. Maybe the absence of textiles in the
archaeological record at these sites is sort of whisper from the past. Perhaps it is a reminder
that some materials should disappear with time- and that we are all linked together by the
threads of human memory moreso than by any tangible objects. Perhaps lead seals are a
timely reminder of how society has changed in only a few hundred years, or suggestion
that if future generations are to look back on us someday, we must provide them with a
story worth discovering.
515 Karen MCVEIGH, “Cambodian female workers in Nike, Asics, and Puma factories suffer mass faintings,”
The Guardian, 6/24/2017, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/female-cambodian-garment-
workers-mass-fainting; Hannah TRAVIS, A Day in the Life of a Sweatshop Worker,” Odyssey, 7/18/2016,
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/day-in-the-life-of-sweatshop-worker. 516 Beth ENGLISH, “Global Women’s Work : Historical Perspectives on the Textiles and Garment Industries,”
Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 67 No. 1 (Fall/Winter 2013), p. 67-82; Rich APPELBAUM and Nelson
LICHTENSTEIN, “An Accident in History,” New Labor Forum, Vol. 23 No. 3 (Fall 2014), p. 58-65.
126
ANNEX
127
TABLE 1: SEALS OF THE MARIETTE FAMILY
Mariette Type
Designation† Description Presence at sites
Frequency of mark
in study*
1
SAT1 “PIERRE /
MARIETTE / PÈRE ET /
FILS DE / MONTAV / BAN”
written across plate
Site patrimonial de l’Habitation-Samuel-De
Champlain, (Québec City) QC
(http://placeroyale.archeoquebec.com/metropol
e-monopole/)
Fort Ouiatenon, IN (Noble 1983)
Fortress Louisbourg, NS (this study p. 179)
(2) 1
2
SAT1 “… MARIETTE /
NEGOCIANT… [A] /
MONTAV / BAN” written
across plate
Fort St. Joseph, MI (Davis 2014 p.31, 37, 81) 1
3
SAT1 “ • MARIETTE
[FRÈRES] …
MONTAVBAN” around
edges with center motif of 5
men in a canoe, with double
heart and stars above, beaded
outer grenetis
Fort St. Joseph, MI (Davis 2014 p. 41, 90) 1
4
SAT1 “[MARIETTE]
FRERES • A •
MONTAVBAN” around
edges with 4 men in a canoe,
with double heart and stars
above, circle around center
motif
Pointe-À-Callières (Montréal), QC (link
removed, see Davis 2014 p.55) (1) -
5
SAT1 “MARIETTE FRÈRES
NÉGOCIANTS DE
MONTAVBAN ” around
edges, unknown center
Fortress Louisbourg, NS (this study, p. 179) 1
6
SCT2 “MARIETE • FRERES
• ” around edges with fleur de
lys in center of seal within
circle
Fortress Louisbourg, NS
(this study p. 179-180) 2
7
SAT1 “D. MARIETTE
L’AINÉ ET DUMAS NEGT
A MONTAUBAN {flower}”
around edges, circle in center
of seal containing motif of an
anchor with two sea birds
perched on it
Fort Ticonderoga, NY (this study, p. 170) 2
† Type numbers are in order of suspected chronology, 1 being earliest.
*() designate known quantities of seals that are not part of this study. Mark may be superimposed over others on seal.
128
TABLE 2: ORIGINS OF LEAD SEALS FROM LOUISBOURG
Origin # of
Seals
% of Total Seals
from Site (n=91)
% of Seals of Specific
Identified Origin (n=32)*
French Total 48 52.6% 93% (30 seals)
Amiens 2 2.1% 6.2%
Bordeaux 2 2.1% 6.2%
Caen 2 2.1% 6.2%
Carcassonne 1 1.1% 3.1%
Comines 1 1.1% 3.1%
Laval 1 1.1% 3.1%
Lodève 1 1.1% 3.1%
Lorient (Compagnie des Indes) 1 1.1% 3.1%
Montauban 7 8.0% 21.8%
Mazamet 2 2.1% 6.2%
Marseille 2 2.1% 6.2%
Nîmes 2 2.1% 6.2%
Orléans 1 1.1% 3.1%
Paris 1 1.1% 3.1%
Pont-de-l’Arche 1 1.1% 3.1%
Rouen 2 2.1% 6.2%
Saint-Mayeux 1 1.1% 3.1%
Unidentified French 18 20.0% -
English Total 2 2.1% 6.2% (2 seals)
Jersey 2 2.1% 6.2%
Unidentified Nationality 41 45.3% -
*Not including Identified Nationality or Unidentifed Nationality
129
TABLE 3: STOCKINGS IN MAGASIN DU ROI AT LOUISBOURG, 1725-1735*
Year †
Sergeants’ stockings
(de Nîmes)
Drummers’
stockings (red)
Soldiers’ stockings
(blue)
1725 inventory 12 6 344
1732 inventory 16 8 556
1733 order 16 8 456
1733 inventory 16 8 478
1735 order 16 8 456
*For sources, see footnotes on p. 100-101.
†Orders are for provisions needed for the year listed (ex: 1733 order is placed and writted in
1732)
130
TABLE 4: MAZAMET AT LOUISBOURG / ÎLE ROYALE, 1724-1753
Circumstances Year Amount
(aunes) Notes Source
Magasin du Roi
Inventory 1724-25 89
None left in store as of
October 1725
C11B Vol.7
Fol.300-345
Salvage of
Le Chameau 1725-1726 13
Sent to Louisbourg “à
diverses personnes qui
ont reclamé des dits
effets et pour
gratification”
C11B Vol.8
Fol.132-141
Magasin du Roi
Missing goods
1724
(interview
with garde-
magasin in
1731)
22 ¼
Explained as missing
possibly due to
confusion surrounding
the moving of stores to
new location
C11B Vol.12
Fol.65-69
Magasin du Roi
Inventory 1731-1732 5
In stores, sent from
France to Canada
C11B Vol.12
Fol.70-83
Magasin du Roi
Inventory 1733-1734 12
In stores, sent from
France to Canada
C11B Vol.14
Fol.242-258v
Imported from
France to
Louisbourg
1737 553 aunes,
14 pieces* -
Moore 1975
p.57
Imported from
France to
Louisbourg
1752 Not
mentioned* -
Moore 1975
p.57
Imported from
France to
Louisbourg
1753 Not
mentioned* -
Moore 1975
p.57
*Two different lines, taken to mean imports from France but from different sources in the
same year
Sources:
ARCHIVES NATIONALES, OUTRE-MER, COLONIES (AIX-EN-PROVENCE) VIA MICROFILMS
AVAILABLE AT THE BANQ-Q AND ONLINE COURTESY OF THE BAC:
Sous-série C11B : correspondence générale. Île Royale
Christopher MOORE, Commodity Imports of Louisbourg, Fortress of Louisbourg
unpublished manuscript report, No. 317, 1975, 115 p.
131
TABLE 5: ENTITIES REPRESENTED BY MARKS ON UNIDENTIFIED FRENCH
SEALS FROM LOUISBOURG
Seal/Provenience Entity
Represented Dated Image Association
Page in
Classification
1B5A7.654 Bureau de
contrôle - Plates 3-4, Fig. D p. 184
2L.81F5.10 Bureau de
contrôle
1753 or
1755 Plates 3-4 Fig. X p. 184
16L.94A7.8 Manufacture,
Merchants - Plate 5 Fig. EE p. 184
47L.50B5.7 Bureau de visite 1755 Plates 7-8 Fig. B p. 185
47L.50B5.11 Bureau de visite - Plate 7 Fig. D p. 185
47L.90G4.3 Bureau de visite - Plate 7 Fig. G p. 185
47L.90K5.4 Bureau foraine - Plate 8 Fig. H p. 185
16L.101A3.1 Bureau de visite - Plates 5-6 Fig. JJ p. 186
43L.1A3.2 Bureau de visite (17)46? Plates 5-6 Fig. OO p. 186
59L.79D5.4 Bureau de
contrôle - Plates 7-8 Fig. M p. 186
2L.30G3.13
Bureau de cinq
grosses fermes
(bureau douanier)
- Plates 3-4 Fig. Q p. 187
2L.31E2.6 Bureau de (…)
(douanier?) - Plates 3-4 Fig.S p. 187
132
TABLE 6: TRI-SITE BREAKDOWN OF ORIGINS OF LEAD SEAL MARKS BY
NATIONALITY, REGION, AND LOCATION *
Location Fort St.
Joseph
Fort
Ticonderoga Louisbourg Known Products
FRANCE (ID’d) 14 20 30
Occitanie 9 18 13
Carcassonne 2 - 1
draps, écarlatines,
imitation British
écarlatines
Lodève - - 1 draps
Montauban 3 8 7
worsteds; cadis sergé
drape, cordelats, drapés,
rases, drouguets, burats,
sergés, bayettes
Mazamet 4 - 2 worsteds; mazamet,
moletons, drouguets
Nîmes - - 2
silks, serge de Nîmes,
nims, bonneterie,
worsteds, cotton toiles
Toulouse - 10 -
blankets, woolen
stockings, bergames,
worsteds, silk gazes,
draps, silks, cotton toiles,
some Venetian style lace
Hauts-de-France 2 - 3
Amiens - - 2 draps, peluches d’Amiens,
camelots, étamines
Comines - - 1
cotton, linen, and hemp
toiles, ribbons, possibly
moletons ( in “environs”)
Lille 2 - -
draps, lace, linens,
cottons, camelots,
polimiez, persianes
133
Normandy 5
Caen - - 2
bonneterie, lace, woolens,
cotton, linen, and hemp
toiles, serges.
Pont-de-l’Arche - - 1
draps, draps d’Élbeuf,
imitation Dutch and
English draps
Rouen - - 2
bonneterie, tapestries,
cotton, linen, and hemp
toiles (toile d’emballage,
toiles de coffre, fleurets,
blancards, sailcloth,
checks & stripes) woolens
(draps d’Élbeuf, draps
d’Usseau, English
imitation draps, blankets),
worsteds (drouguets
including Espagnolettes,
ratines, barracans),
Papelines, Ferrandines,
brocatelles, ligatures,
Bergame
Brittany 3 (3 CDI) 2 (1 CDI)
Lorient (CDI)† 3 - 1
British écarlatines, French
écarlatines, indiennes (not
represented by seals),
cottons (striped, checked,
or bleached), muslins
Saint-Mayeux - - 1 woolens and/or worsteds?
Pays de la Loire - - 1
Laval - - 1
cottons and linens
(bleached and
unbleached), woolens,
worsteds
Centre-Val de Loire - 1 1
Orléans - 1 1 bonneterie, cotton toiles
134
Île-de-France - - 1
Paris - - 1 customs seal (products not
explored)
Nouvelle Aquitaine - 1 2
Bordeaux - 1 2 customs seals (products
not explored)
Provence-Alpes-Côte
d’Azur - - 2
Marseille - - 2 draps, silks, cotton toiles,
indiennes
Unidentified French 11 1 18
ENGLAND/GREAT
BRITAIN 2 - 2
Yorkshire 2 - -
Halifax 1 - - Woolen broadcloths,
kerseys, bays
Leeds 1 - - Woolen broadcloths,
possibly kerseys and bays
Jersey - - 2
Strouds, cadiz,
calamanco? (possible
merchant seals)
Identified Total
(Specific Location) 16 20 32
Unknown Total
(No Nationality) ⁂ 40 [11] 3 [1] 41 [9]
* Modern regional boundaries used
†CDI (Compagnie des Indes) location of Lorient used but not necessarily representative of origin
within France, rather used to simplify classification of CDI seals. Nantes, the other headquarters is
located in what is modern-day Pays de la Loire Region.
⁂ Numbers in brackets [-] represent seals of identified nationality but not location.
Note that though Ticonderoga’s total markings total 24 as well as its seal count, not every seal
included from that site in this analysis is marked, and some include two marks. Also note that seals
from Fort St. Joseph that include two marks from the same town on the same seal (such as is the case
of Mazamet) are not counted as two marks, but rather one. The total for Mazamet with this taken into
account would be 7.
135
DOCUMENT 1:
BAnQ-Q C11A Vol. 86 Fol. 313-313v
Fonds Québec 1746.
Etat du fonds a remettre au sors de Rochefort pour Le payement de la premiere moitié du
prix des Molton, Mazamet et dourgne necessaires pour Garnir Les Magasins de Québec Sur
les fonds de La d.te Colonie de La present année 1746:
Sçavoir-
Pour les Srs. Mariette freres de Montauban
2143. Aunes ¼ de Molton violet frizé a 55s l’aune…………………………..5893#. 18s. 9d.
824. Aunes ¾ de Molton blanchy frizé a 50s l’aune………………………….2061#. 17s. 6d.
1811. Aunes ½ de Mazamet maron frizé a 44s l’aune………………………...3985#. 6s.
702. Aunes de dourgne maron frizé a 38s l’aune……………………………...1333#. 16s.
62. Couvertures de Laine blanche de Ville a 4# piece………………………....248#.
155. Aunes de toille d’Emballage a 10s l’aune………………………………...77#. 10s.d.
Et pour la premiere moitié la somme- 13600#. 8s. 3d.
de six mille huit cent livres, quatre sols, un denier Cye - 6800#. 4s. 1d.
Fait a Rochefort le 30 Janvier 1746.
Veu [Wereandre] [de Lemoine] [DuBoisboubito]
136
DOCUMENT 2:
BAnQ-Q C11A Vol.89 Fol. 332
Fonds 1747. Québec. Le 7 avril 1747
État du fonds a remettre au [sort] de Rochefort pourle payement de la premiere moitié du
prix des molton voilet et bleu, molton blanchi, et mazamet maron, dourgne maron,
couvertures de Ville et Toile d'emballage que les Srs. Mariette freres de Montauban ont
fourni dans les magasins de ce [sort] pour garnir ceux de Québec, et seront payés sur les
fonds de la d. colonie de la presente année 1747.
Sçavoir.
2933. aunes ½ de mazamet violet et bleu..a 58s. l’aune……………………8507#. 3s. 11d.
1109. aunes ¼ de molton blanchi a 53s. l’aune…………………………….2939#. 10s. 3d.
2811. aunes ¼ de mazamet maron a 46s l’aune…………………………….6465#. 17s. 6d.
1705. aunes ¼ de dourgne maron a 40s l’aune……………………………...3410#. 10s.
94. couvertures de ville a 4#. 10s. piece……………………………………..423#.
234. aunes ½. de Toile d’embalage a 10s. l’aune……………………………117#. 5s.
21863#. 5s. 9d.
Et pour la premiere moitié la somme de dix mille neuf cent trente-une livres douze sols dix
deniers, cy..... 10931#. 12s. 10d.
Fait a Rochefort le 17 mars 1747
Vu Beaulieubre[?], Givry[?]
P2 insert slip: Pre. moitié des moltons et mazamets pour les Srs. Mariette pour Québec.
Expedie le 2 avril 1747.
137
DOCUMENT 3:
BAnQ-Q C11A Vol. 60 Fol. 59-61v (Original F-60)
Canada 6 8bre 1733 M. Hocquart
Monseigneur
M. Delajonquiére a fait débarquer toutes les munitions et marchandises embarquées à
Rochefort, destinées pour cette Colonie et tous s'est trouvé bien conditionné. M. De
Beauharnois Intendant m'en a envoyér L'état avec les proces verbaux de la visite qui en a
esté faite, suivant les quels ces marchandises on esté rebuteés: mais, vû la difficulté de
faire venir d'autres marchandises de mesme nature, et la nécessité de les envoyer à Québec
acause du départ précipité du vaisseau du roi, Mr De Beauharnois a ordonné une
réduction d'une douzieme dur les couvertures de Rouen, de deux points, de 3" [livres]. sur
celles a 4 points et de 5 pour cent sur les moltons Dourgne et mazamets attendu que ces
marchandises sont inferieures aux échantillons que je luy avois envoyés L'année derniere.
Si au moyén de cette reduction je pouvoir faire un employ utile de ces marchandises pour
les traite du roi rien ne serois plus juste: mais outre qu'à mon avis La réduction n'est point
assez forte, Les Sauvages qui viennent traiter trouvents ces marchandises si défectueuses
qu'il n'enveulent point traiter à moins qu'on ne leurs donner à très vil prix, ou bien il faut
Les garder pendant nombre d'années dans les magasins ou elles dépérissent [diminish in
price or quality], inconvénient également préjudiciables au service. Pour y remedier je
croy qu'il conviendroit d'astraindre Les fournisseurs a livrer les marchandises
conformement aux échantillons, et de regler que faute par eux de s'y conformer dans leurs
Livraisons, il seroit procedé a une nouvelle adjudication à leur folle enchére méme en
Canada, si le temps ne permis pas d'y proceder en France. Je suis encore persuadé,
Monseigneur, que si vous aprouviez que M. de Beauharnois L'adressas directement aux
meilleurs négociants de Montauban comme sous[?] Les Srs Mariette au autres pour faire
la fourniture des draperies, ils s'en acquitteroint fidellement. Ce sont eux d'ont les
manufactures & fournisseurs au Commerce de ce Pays, nos négociants se louent beaucoup
de leur droiture et de la qualité de leurs étoffes. A légard des couvertures, Mr. De
Beauharnois pouvait aussy d'adresser a quelques négociants de Rouen, on m'a parlé ici de
Mr. Lemoine sur La fidelité desquels on peut compter, il ne restera de difficulté que pour
la décharge a donner au Trésorier, ce ces achats. Mais il seroit aisé à Rochefort en
rassemblant Le frais d'achats, de voitures, et autres d'en faire un seul prix qui seroit celuy
d'une adjudicaiton simulée. je vous suplie, Monseigneur, de donner votre ordres à Mr De
Beauharnois en conséquence de ce que j'ay l'honneur de vous proposer. L'un et l'autre
partie m'ont parû bons. Le dernier qui est de s'adresser a Mrs. Mariette et Lemoine me
parois cependant Le plus [sur] et le plus aisé a suivre. J'informe M. De Beauharnois de ce
que j'ay L'honneur de vous escrire a ce sujet. Dans l'envoy des marchandises de cette
année on a remplacé cent couvertures de deux points et 50 de 4 points qui furent prises
138
L'année derniere pour le service des malades du vaisseau du roi relaché a Louisbourg et
qui n'ont point esté remises dans les magasins de Québec: mais en mesme temps Le prix en
a esté retunû sur le proces verbal d'émbarquement de [fonds?] montant en total a 900#, ce
qui n'aurois pas dû estre, puis que La retenue en a déja esté faite sur le proces verbal
d'émbarquement de [fonds] de 1732- Je vous prie, Monseigneur d'ordonner que cette
erreur soit [rectifié] a Rochefort et que sur la quantité de ces Couvertures que je demande
pour l'année prochaine il en soit envoyé cent de 2 points et 50 de 4 points sans que le prix
en soit retenû. L'habillement des troupes et les autres munitions envoyées cette année se
sont trouvées de fort bonne qualité. Je suis avec un très profond repect de Monseigneur.
Votre très humble et [très] obéissant serviteur
Hocquart
à Québec le 6. octobre 1733.
139
IMAGE 1: ATTACHMENT STYLES FOR LEAD SEALS AND THEIR POSITION ON CLOTH
Illustration by C. Davis
140
CLASSIFICATION OF LEAD SEALS FROM FORT ST. JOSEPH,
FORT TICONDEROGA, AND FORTRESS LOUISBOURG
This classification system requires some explanation as it goes against the conventions
used in most North American studies on lead seals and artifacts in general. In my undergraduate
thesis on seals from Fort St. Joseph, I continued with the typology schema used by Lyle Stone
in his study of artifacts from Michilimackinac. However, in working my way through this
study, I have come to realize that the very simple and straightforward system of classification
used in European publications on lead seals, as exemplified by the works of the late Geoffrey
Egan, lends itself better to meaningful analysis and discussion of these seals. Since the seals
from Fort St. Joseph have already been classified in my undergraduate thesis, for the sake of
time and simplicity, I will reproduce that classification, even though it is based on the formal
attribute of attachment type rather than on the impressions and their origins or location. I will
still make use of a typology loosely based on Stone’s system in order to describe and further
organize unidentified seals (see rules below). The word unidentified will be used in lieu of
unidentifiable, since the latter implies that the seal cannot and will not be identified in the
future, which is obviously not certain.
Collections Information:
Seals from Fort St. Joseph are split between several institutions. Some are curated by The
History Museum in South Bend, IN (formerly the Center for History), while others are in the
collections of the Fort St. Joseph Museum in Niles, MI. Newly recovered seals undergoing
processing are generally cared for in university facilities at Western Michigan University by the
Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project.
Seals from Fort Ticonderoga are in the collections of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, in
Ticonderoga, NY.
Seals from Fortress Louisbourg are curated by Parks Canada and housed at their designated
facilities within the boundaries of Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site.
Classification Rules:
(1) Only objects that can be positively identified as lead seals and classified under a series
assignment (at the very least) will be included in this classification and this study. Seals
included in the photographic plates are only those with definite markings that may be
considered diagnostic. Additionally, the seals associated with the site of Fort St. Joseph will not
be included in the illustrations for this study as they are available in my previous thesis.
(2) Division is as follows;
A) Site
141
B) Nationality
C) Origin (alphabetical)
E) Individual seal or fragment
(3) Seals with marks referencing multiple origins are included in the “origin” category that is
appropriate for the mark found on the obverse of the seal, if identifiable. If not, the reverse will
be used to classify the seal.
(4) Seals of the Compagnie des Indes will assume the origin of the company headquarters at
Lorient (though this was not the only headquarters, it is the current and most well known).
(5) Unidentified seals will be classified based on series and type in the typology below because
they have no clear origin. For seals with a known origin, their series and type will be included
in the description.
(6) Note some conventions used in describing seals:
// - seperates obverse and reverse plate descriptions
/ - indicates line break on seal
( ) - completion by author of disfigured letter or letters
[ ] - completion by author of phrase known from other examples
{ } - description of a symbol or image included in lettering
… -Hole, obscuring flaw, or apparent missing letters that cannot be divined
Obverse in this study and all others by the author is defined on SAT1 seals as the portion
consisting of the plate with the hole or loop in it, and when impressed, the portion of the reverse
knob that is pressed into this loop.
Reverse will always refer to the portion of the seal that is the plate with the knob or spike, and
when impressed and applied, the backside of this plate that is often in one piece, as opposed to
the obverse side which breaks apart along the division of the impressed knob and the loop.
(7) Seal Series and Type are as follows (See Image 1):
Series A: seals that close and attach to cloth with knob and loop attachment
Type 1: Seals that close with a single knob and loop per plate
Type 2: Seals that close with two knobs and two loops per plate
Type 3: Seals consisting of four plates, two connecting pairs, with one loop and knob per
pair.
Series B: Seals with one plate that attach using a thin flange that bends back onto plate
Type 1: Seals that have no hole and a single plate with a thin flange (even if missing)
142
Type 2: Seals that have a hole in a singular plate and a thin flange (even if missing)
Series C: Seals that attach via tunnels and cord threaded through them.
Type 1: Double tunnel seals
Type 2: Single tunnel seals
Series D: Seals with a domed shape and possible flanges
(8) Most seals illustrated are diagnostic and discussed in text. Unidentified seals are included
in hopes that they will be recognized and identified or compared to other collections.
143
FORT ST. JOSEPH 517
Seals in the South Bend Center for History Collections
Series A: Knob style attachment
Type I: Single Knob attachment
Variety A: 2 specimens, 94.3.317 A, K. Defined by obverse or reverse lettering horizontally across
seal and including fully or partially the words “Mazamet”, or presence of Gallic cock
1. 94.3.317 A:
Maximum diameter: 1.8 cm // 2.5 cm
Obverse: "(CONT)RO(L).. / DE / (MA)ZAM(ET) / (1)74(8)”
Reverse : “PVLCH / au / (M)AZAMAT”. “29” Stamped separately over existing impression
2. 94.3.317 K:
Maximum diameter: 1.7 cm // 2 cm
Obverse: In circle, Gallic cock with 3 fleur de lys in triangle above. (Seal of town of Mazamet)
Reverse: “• DE • / (C)ONTROLL.. / • DE • / (M)AZAMET / 174(8)”.
Variety B: 2 specimens, 94.3.317 B,T. Defined by “1734” on obverse face
1. 94.3.317 B:
Maximum diameter: 1.8 cm // 2 cm
Obverse: “1734 / AVNEVR” in crest/circle with fleur de lys above. Fleur de lys flanked on the right
and the left by dots. “…L • H…” on outside edge. Possible textile markings visible on the inside of
reverse face.
Reverse:
2. 94.3.317 T:
517 Extracted from Davis 2014 p. 28-35, 38-50.
144
Maximum diameter: 1.1 cm // 2 cm
Obverse: “ • • / 173(4)” with fragment of circle rim.
Reverse: “…MO… / …NA…” 2-3 lines of distorted and unreadable text, faintly discernable in
photograph.
Variety C: 3 specimens, 94.3.317 C, G, V. Defined by obverse marking “AN,” complete or
fragmentary, and by presence of scratched numbers or lines on reverse.
1. 94.3.317 C:
Maximum diameter: 2.7 cm // 1.7 cm
Obverse: “..A..”
Reverse:
Inside of reverse, textile markings
2. 94.3.317 G:
Maximum Diameter: 2.1 cm // 1.1 cm
Obverse: “..AN”, with a small 5 petaled flower design with leaves above, at top center of seal
Reverse:
3. 94.3.317 V:
Maximum diameter: 1.7 cm // 2.7 cm
Obverse: “..A..”, large stamped line or linear distortion to the right of the letter A.
Reverse:
145
Variety D: 2 specimens, 94.3.317 E, O. Defined by presence of Lizard in a crest with the letters P and
V on the obverse side.
1. 94.3.317 E:
Maximum diameter: 2.2 cm // 2.5 cm
Obverse: In circle, Lizard flanked by “P” on the left and “V” on the left. Above in upper third of
circle, three crescents, tips up, with possible remnants of vertically striped background on this upper
portion. Above that, the bottom tip of a possible badge shape or heart. Scrollwork remnants around
the left side of the circle, possible error in impression to the left of P.
Reverse:
2. 94.3.317 O:
Maximum diameter: 1.8 cm // 3 cm
Obverse: Circular crest with lizard-like quadruped flanked by “V” on right, with top third occupied by
three crescents, tips up. Crosshatching in background of top third. Leaf motif at bottom of circle/crest.
Textile markings on back of reverse.
Reverse: (flange pressed into reverse shown in grey).
Variety E: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 D. Defined by fragments of lettering for “De / Control(le) / De” on
obverse.
1. 94.3.317 D:
Maximum diameter: 2.1 cm // 1.3 cm
Obverse: “DE / …NTRO… / …DE…”
Reverse: -
Variety F: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 F. Defined by unreadable obverse and reverse, and remnants of a
grènetis on obverse
1. 94.3.317 F:
146
Maximum diameter: 1 cm //2.1 cm
Obverse: - ,Warped, corroded
Reverse: Circular, beaded grènetis remnants. Warped design, unreadable.
Variety G: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 G. Defined by smooth oval crest at center, with lettering remnants
circling it.
1. 94.3.317 P:
Maximum diameter: 2 cm // 2.7 cm
Obverse: “…N…”, circle crest, blank/abraded. Possibly surrounded by lettering around edges at one
time.
Reverse:
Variety H: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 Q. Defined by 3 lines of lettering on obverse that do not fall into
other varieties.
1. 94.3.317 Q:
Maximum diameter: 2.2 cm // 2.2 cm
Obverse: “M..R…TT / NE…/ MO…” corded grènetis on face of seal.
Reverse:
Category 1: 4 specimens, 94.3.317 H, I, N, U. Partial Series A Type I seals, obverse half. Described
separately.
1. 94.3.317 H:
Maximum diameter: 3.1 cm
Abraded seal fragment. Circular, no flange. Hole in center, obverse portion.
Not Illustrated.
147
2. 94.3.317 I:
Maximum diameter: 2.5 cm (without flange). Maximum diameter of center hole: 1.6 cm. Minimum
diameter of hole: 1.2 cm. Flange: 1 cm x .6 cm.
Textile Marks
Obverse half of seal with flange portion.
Obverse: Scrollwork. See Illustration, photo
3. 94.3.317 N:
Maximum diameter: 2.6 cm Flange: .7 cm
Obverse: Stamped circle fragment
Inside of Obverse : -
4. 94.3.317 U:
Maximum diameter: 2.2 cm, center hole: 1.2cm.
Obverse: “(M)… / ..BAN”
Inside of obverse shows possible textile marks
U shaped fragment.
Series C: Tunnel style attachment
Type I: Double Tunnel attachment
Variety A: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 M. Defined by the presence of “CDI” in a wreath with distinctive
beaded grènetis on obverse, and crest on obverse.
1. 94.3.317 M:
Maximum diameter: 1.7 cm//1.7 cm
Obverse: “CDI” with design beneath. In wreath, with beaded grènetis around outside edge of seal
face.
148
Reverse: Crest with clouds or mountains on diagonally striped background. Above is half circle with
four diamonds surrounding it. Entire crest is surrounded by scrollwork. Beaded grènetis around
outside edge of seal face.
Variety B: 1 specimen, 94.3.317 W. Defined by 3 fleur de lys in a crowned oval crest surrounded by
scrollwork and lettering.
1. 94.3.317 W:
Maximum diameter: 1.7 cm // 1.7 cm
Obverse: Shaped scrollwork crest with three fleur de lys, two on top, one on bottom horizontally
striped background. Crown over crest. Surrounding crest along edge of seal face: “…(F)ERAR ”.
Beaded grènetis remnants around edge of face.518
Reverse: Crest flanked by two figures, crowned. Crest contains small human figure at bottom, the rest
is undistinguishable. Beaded grènetis around edge of seal face.
Non-Classifiable lead fragments
1. 94.3.317 J:
Series A or Series B Type I
Measurements: 1 cm x .7 cm
Seal fragment. Flange piece, rectangular.
2. 94.3.317 L:
Classification Unknown
Maximum diameter: 2.5 cm. Length of folded portions: 1.5 cm, 1.3 cm.
Bent, abraded seal.
518 There is an inconsistency in this illustration, which shows a star rather than a fleur de lys. Before
photographs were take, it was unsure whether the symbols on this seal were stars or fleur de lys due to
abrasion, though Sabatier’s examples show that this seal, that of the Compagnie des Indes, included fleur de
lys in this placement, and closer examination of the photograph taken of this seal seems to rule out the idea of
a star.
149
3. 94.3.317 R:
Classification Unknown
Maximum diameter: 1.5 cm // 1.9 cm
Bent and abraded seal or lead scrap
Obverse: scratched very faintly
Reverse: - Corrosion
4. 94.3.317 S:
Diameter: 1.9 cm
Abraded, corroded lead piece.
Related Artifacts
94.3.445:
Pierced Lead Disk
Possible reused Series A Type I seal, visible flattened knob, obverse and reverse sides.
Three holes in the center of disk suggest use as whizzer or button. Evidence of pressed knob
characteristic to lead seals. No discernable intentional markings.
150
Seals in the Fort St. Joseph Museum Collection
Donated Specimens
Series A: Knob style attachment
Type I: Single knob attachment
Variety A: 2 specimens. Defined by obverse or reverse lettering in horizontal lines across seal and
including fully or partially the word “Mazamet”, or presence of Gallic cock.
1. Seal F:
Maximum Diameter: 1.1 // 2.1 cm. Flange length: .2 cm
Fragment, reverse portion of seal.
Obverse: N/A
Reverse: “(F)O(RA)IN(E) / •DE• / MAZAMET” with three fleurs de lys below, two above the third
in V pattern.
2. Seal G: Photo: Plate IX
Maximum Diameter: 1.4 // 2.5 cm.
Obverse: “MA(ZAMET)” around outside rim of seal, with impressed circular border interior to
lettering, three fleurs de lys in a V pattern over Gallic cock at seal center.
Reverse: “(VI)ZIT(E) / …OU(I)… / ..DE• / MAZAM(ET) / 17(4).. ” with three dots in V pattern
between first and second lines.
Variety I: 3 specimens. Defined by obverse consisting of horizontally positioned lettering or
fragments of lettering “DRAP” interior of lettering around edges.
1. Seal H
Maximum Diameter: 2.5 // 2.5 cm
Obverse: “…RIO…RCA…” around edges of seal, with interior markings horizontally across seal
center “(D)RAP / D E / …” The fleur de lys is larger than the lettering and placed between the D
and E in “DE.”
151
Reverse: paper remnants stuck to seal as if it had been adhered to a paper and then pulled off, appears
to be blank.
2. Seal I
Maximum Diameter: 3.1. Maximum diameter center hole: 1.4 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal
Obverse: “…PRIOVE •DE• CARCA…” around outside edges, with horizontally placed lettering
“…AP” interior to that. Beaded grènetis and raised circular line present interior to the lettering at the
edges, and exterior to the horizontal lettering.
Reverse: N/A
3. Seal J
Maximum Diameter: 3 cm. Maximum diameter center hole: 1.3 cm
Fragment, obverse portion of seal
Obverse: “…INE…TOV…” around edges. Interior to that and horizontally placed, “D”. Raised
circular line exterior of edge lettering.
Inside of obverse shows faint fabric marks.
Reverse: N/A
Variety J: 1 specimen. Defined by presence of “Vo” in center and “BUCK…ER SHAW •
HALIFAX” around edges of reverse side
1. Seal P:
Maximum Diameter: 1.5 // 3.2 cm
Obverse: Stamped numerals:
Reverse: “BUCK…ER SHAW • HALIFAX” stamped around outside edge, interior to large beaded
grènetis and exterior to that, a circular impression, interior to another large beaded grènetis. “Vo”
stamped in center of seal, possibly with “O” stamped above the “V”.
152
Variety K: 1 specimen. Defined by presence of obverse marked with “Leed” in cursive at center of
seal, with lettering around edges.
1. Seal U:
Maximum Diameter: 2.9 // 3.3 cm
Obverse: “…S EYRE & C…” around edges of seal, interior to raised circular line around seal. “Leed”
appears in cursive at center of seal.
Reverse: Stamped letters over scratched letters:
Variety L: 1 specimen. Defined by stag with letters to each side and below with crescent flanked by
two stars above on obverse face.
1. Seal X:
Maximum Diameter: 1.6 // 2 cm
Obverse: Stag passant guardant surrounded by letters. L to the left, and F or P to the right, and an E
to the bottom. Above stag in chief, a crescent with tips up flanked on each side by a star.
Reverse: 28-1/4 scratched above 2294 thickly engraved.
Variety M: 2 specimens. Defined by fragmentary scratched numbers on reverse, with unreadable,
obliterated, or blank obverse.
1. Seal M:
Maximum Diameter: 2.2 // 2.4 cm. Flange length: .1 cm
Obverse: Corrosion, remnants of circular pressed line near edges.
Reverse:
153
2. Seal W:
Maximum Diameter: 1.5 // 2.3 cm. Flange length: 1.2 cm
Obverse: Fragmentary beaded grènetis
Reverse:
Variety N: 1 specimen. Defined by presence of scene with five men in a canoe on obverse, and
scratched numbers on reverse
1. Seal Z:
Maximum Diameter: 2.7 // 2.3 cm. Flange length : 1.5 cm
Obverse: Five figures in a canoe, one (second in from right side) is higher than the rest and appears to
be holding an arm out to the left. The right side of the canoe has a curved prow, and below the canoe
appear calm and realistic waves. Above men in canoe, a five pointed star to the left, and a crown or
heart in the center. On the body of the canoe there are 3 vertical lines, possibly paddles.
“NBANMA…ETTE•” around edges of face, interior to a beaded grènetis.
Reverse: 3903 deeply engraved into lead.
Variety O: 1 specimen. Defined by lettering around obverse edge and presence of horse/unicorn head.
1. Seal T:
Maximum Diameter: 2.3 cm. Maximum diameter center hole: 1.1 cm. Flange length: 1.4 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal. Flange bent at tip.
Obverse: “…LL…” and other unclear lettering around edges. At center, a head from a horse or a
unicorn appears, but the rest of the animal is missing with the reverse portion of this seal.
Inside of obverse shows possible textile marks.
154
Variety P: 1 specimen. Defined by obverse with lettering “…AME…EA…” around edges.
1. Seal Q:
Maximum Diameter: 2.1 cm. Maximum diameter center hole: 1.1 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal.
Obverse: “…AME…EA…” stamped around outside edges of face.
Inside of obverse: paper scraps stuck on seal.
Variety Q: 3 specimens. Defined by obverse of unclear or nonexistent motifs and/or lettering, either
accompanied by a grènetis or scrollwork fragments.
1. Seal L:
Maximum Diameter: 1.6 // 2.5 cm. Flange length : .4 cm.
Fragment, reverse portion.
Obverse: paper scraps stuck over obverse stamped face / knob portion of reverse side.
Reverse: Mostly obliterated motif, excepting fragmentary scrollwork and beaded grénetis.
2. Seal O:
Maximum Diameter: 2.4 cm. Maximum diameter center hole: 1 cm. Flange length: 1.2 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal.
Obverse: Large beaded grènetis, elaborate and thick “I…” or square/building edge.
Inside of obverse: paper scraps stuck to seal.
3. Seal S:
Maximum Diameter: 2.3 cm. Maximum diameter center hole: 1.4 cm. Flange length: 1 cm.
Obverse: “…N,” with faint corded grènetis.
Inside of obverse: paper scraps stuck to seal.
155
Variety R: 1 specimen. Defined by obverse with unclear lettering and reverse with lettering and three
fleur de lys in V pattern.
1. Seal K:
Maximum Diameter: 1 // 2.2 cm. Flange length: .2.
Obverse: “…V…”
Reverse: “…A…T…V…/ D•E/ ALL…OV…” with three fleur de lys in V pattern under final line.
“…A…” appearing halfway between the lines containing “D•E” and “ALL…OV…” as if double
struck. Two fleur de lys off to the left side over main lettering, possible result of the die double
striking the seal.
Variety S: 1 specimen. Defined by presence on obverse side of regular rectangular shape with lines
printed within a heavy border, partial lettering around outside, and another horizontally printed line of
partial lettering interior to that.
1. Seal R:
Maximum Diameter: 2.6 cm.
Maximum diameter center hole: 1.4 cm. Flange length: 1 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion.
Obverse: “…M…” printed around edge of seal, “…L” printed interior to that as part of a horizontal
line of text. To the right of “…L” is a large printed rectangular shape with thick borders and interior
vertical lines/stripes.
Type II: Double knob attachment
Variety A: 1 specimen. Defined by lettering on reverse: “ B / FORAINE / DE / LILLE”
horizontally across seal in multiple lines.
1. Seal A:
Maximum Diameter: 1.8 cm.
Fragment, reverse portion.
Reverse portion: “ B / FORAINE / DE / LILLE” in horizontal lines across seal.
Inside reverse: two knobs
156
Variety B: 1 specimen. Determined by lettering around edges of seal, with grènetis exterior to that,
and fleur de lys on the obverse side.
1. Seal C:
Maximum Diameter: 2.2 cm. Maximum diameter of holes: .5 cm, .6 cm. Flange length: 1.1 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion.
Obverse: “…T…RO… / …” with two fleurs de lys visible below last line, one set higher than the
other, as if part of 3 fleurs de lys V formation present on other seals. Exterior to the lettering and the
fleurs de lys is a faint beaded grènetis.
Variety C: 1 specimen. Defined by circular crest with three fleurs de lys on obverse.
1. Seal E:
Maximum Diameter: 2.2 cm. Maximum diameter holes: .4 cm, .3 cm. Flange length: .7 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion.
Obverse: Very corroded. Circular crest with three fleurs de lys inside.
Variety D: 1 specimen. Defined by several lines of lettering horizontally across obverse face of seal,
excluding those seals which appear with lettering “ B FORAINE DE LILLE”.
1. Seal V:
Maximum Diameter: 2.3 cm. Maximum diameter of holes : .5 cm, .5 cm. Flange length: .6 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal
Obverse : “• /…P…EMERI… / …VSIVR…DE… / …AN • B • (unclear lettering) … / …
/…RARET • / (cut off numbers [1738 ?])”.
157
Variety E: 2 specimens. Defined by unreadable or indistinct markings or lettering on obverse.
1. Seal B:
Maximum Diameter: 2.2 cm. Maximum diameter holes: .4 cm, .4 cm. Flange length: 1.1cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal.
Obverse: “IO (hole) …”
Inside of obverse: paper scraps stuck to seal.
2. Seal D:
Maximum Diameter: 2.4 cm. Maximum diameter holes: .4 cm, .4 cm. Flange length: .2 cm.
Fragment, obverse portion of seal.
Obverse: No distinct markings except for printed
Series C: Tunnel style attachment
Type I: Double Tunnel attachment
Variety A: 1 specimen. Defined by the presence of “CDI” in a wreath with distinctive beaded grènetis
on obverse, and crest on obverse.
1. Seal Y:
Maximum diameter: 1.9 cm//1.9 cm
Obverse: “CDI” with (…) design beneath. In wreath, with pearled grènetis around outside edge of
seal face.
Reverse: Crest with clouds or mountains on diagonally striped background. Above is half circle with
four diamonds surrounding it. Entire crest is surrounded by scrollwork. Beaded grènetis around
outside edge of seal face.
158
Unclassified Seals
1. Seal N:
Maximum Diameter: 2.7cm. Flange length: .4 cm
Thick, singular disk with flange fragment. Partially punctured in the center of disk. No discernable
markings. May have been in the process of being repurposed for use as fishing weight or adornment
item, appears to have both obverse and reverse disks melded together, or possibly only had one disk
and functioned as a Series B seal (see Figure 2). Glue on one side of disk.
Archaeological Specimens
Series A: Knob style attachment
Type I: Single knob attachment
Variety T: 1 specimen. Defined by presence of three fleurs de lys in oval crest with crown,
surrounded by scrollwork.
1. 98-3-0:
Provenience: shovel test pits / survey
Maximum Diameter: .7 // 2.4 cm. Flange length : .2 cm
Obverse : partial letter, possibly “A” on obverse pressed knob portion.
Reverse: Three fleurs de lys in oval crest. Crest topped by a crown and surrounded by beaded grènetis
interrupted periodically by flower-like marks. This grènetis is surrounded by scrollwork. “H” in
sunburst near top of crest.
Inside of reverse: Very fine cloth imprints
Variety U: 3 specimens. Defined by presence of scratched numbers on seal reverse.
1. 06-2-6w:
Provenience: N19 W6, 16-22 cmbd
Maximum Diameter: 2.3 // 2.2 cm. Flange length : .9 cm.
Obverse : Corroded, knob pressed sideways onto seal, not squarely flattened.
Reverse:
159
2. 11-2-65w:
Provenience: N28 E15, 45-50 cmbd.
Maximum Diameter: 2.6 // 2.5 cm. Flange length : .7 cm.
Obverse : Corded grènetis and possible remnants of scrollwork.
Reverse: Numbers partially hidden by folded portion of reverse plate
3. 11-2-86w:
Provenience: N21 W7, 45-50 cmbd.
Reverse portion and separate fragment. Same coloration, likely same seal, bagged together.
Maximum Diameter (Main portion): 1.7 // 2.2 cm. Fragment length : 1.6 cm.
Obverse : unreadable printed marks
Reverse:
Variety V: 2 specimens. Fragments or seals with lettering or printed marks present on obverse face,
and with blank reverse faces.
1. 09-2-132
Provenience: N24 W7, 40-45 cmbd.
Twisted strip, likely edge fragment of obverse face of seal
Length : 3 cm. Maximum width: .8 cm.
Obverse: “…R …OIS…” with circular impression near rim.
160
2. 11-2-15w:
Provenience: N28 E15, 24-30 cmbd.
Fragment of obverse
Maximum length: 2 cm.
Obverse: Impressed with marking “ ” near rim, interior to remnants of a corded grènetis.
3. 11-2-23w.01:
Provenience: N34 E16, 30-35 cmbd.
Obverse plate and start of flange fragment.
Obverse: Corroded, with unclear grènetis remnants.
Variety W: 5 specimens. Fragments of obverse portion with blank or obliterated surfaces.
1. 07-3-54:
Provenience: N28 E2, 35-40 cmbd.
Folded fragment of obverse with flange.
Width of folded strip: 1 cm. Length of folded fragment: 1 cm. Flange length: 1.3 cm.
2. 08-2-105w:
Provenience: N25 E10, 45-50 cmbd.
Fragment of obverse face of seal, charred and corroded.
Estimated Maximum Diameter of entire seal: 2.5 cm.
3. 12-2-49w:
Provenience: N23 W2, North ½, 55-60 cmbd.
Maximum diameter: 2.2 cm. Maximum diameter hole: 1.3 cm.
Obverse portion fragment, corroded.
161
4. 09-2-110:
Provenience: N27 E16, 45-50 cmbd.
Length: 2.3 cm.
Slightly charred and twisted fragment of seal rim.
Variety X: 2 specimens. Fragments of reverse portion of seal with blank sides or obliterated markings.
1. 07-3-11w:
Provenience: N27 E7, 19-25 cmbd.
Maximum Diameter: .6 // 1.6 cm.
Highly corroded reverse portion of seal.
2. 06-2-1:
Provenience: N27 E8, 35-45 cmbd.
Maximum diameter: 2 cm.
Reverse portion of seal, pressed knob highly abraded and corroded, only slight rise remains on inside
of reverse. Lead is thin and brittle.
Variety Y: 1 specimen. Flange fragments with evidence of attachment to either side of seal, but
without significant fragments of either plate.
1. 11-2-10w:
Provenience: N21 W7, 22-30 cmbd.
Flange length: 1.2 cm.
162
Variety Z: 1 specimen. Open seals in two fragments.
1. 04-1-74:
Provenience: unlabeled.
Seal in two fragments. No visible markings, knob pressed down, suggesting use and then separation
of disks due to taphonomic processes.
Fragment 1 (Obverse):
Maximum Diameter: 1.9 cm. Maximum diameter of hole : 1 cm. Flange length: 1 cm.
Fragment 2 (Reverse):
Maximum Diameter: 1.3 // 1.9 cm. Flange length : 1.2 cm.
Non-Classifiable Seals or Fragments :
1. 04-1-20 :
Provenience : N26 E8, 35-45 cmbd.
Maximum Diameter: 3.2 cm.
No markings, thick lead disk with large impression in one side. Possibly the result of exposure to heat,
appears melted or warped. Impression / crater may have been the result of flange melting away,
leaving ring portion of obverse. May have been very large and thick seal.
2. 06-2-44w:
Provenience: N19 W6, 27-32 cmbd.
Maximum Diameter: 2.2 cm.
Thick lead disk. May be remnant of seal after exposure to heat and fusion of plates. No discernable
markings.
163
FORT TICONDEROGA
French
Bordeaux
(1) Seal W Plates 1 and 2, Fig. U
Wire attachment, judging by rust colored corrosion. Elongated lettering with no serifs. Obverse:
“(G)RU…EG(E)…” // Reverse: “(B)ORDEAUX”
SCT2 Max diameter: 1.4cm Plate thickness: 3mm
Montauban
(1) Seal B Plate 1, Fig. A
Partial seal, obverse portion, ring with hole. Obverse: “[MONTA](V) / BAN”
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.7cm Plate thickness: 2mm Hole diameter: 11mm
(2) Seal F Plates 1 & 2, Fig. F
Complete seal. Obverse: “…RRES / …LOVRD(E) / …[NEG]TS / AMON / [TA]VBAN” surrounded
by corded grenetis // Reverse: “8751” scratched deeply into lead.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.5cm Plate thickness: 3mm
(3) Seal K Plate 2, Fig. K
Reverse portion. Blank obverse. Reverse: “{lion or dragon rampant facing left} / RAVLY [•]
FR(E)[RES] / [N](E)GOCIAN[S] / [A • MONTAV] / [B](AN)” surrounded at the exterior by solid
circle grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.8 Plate thickness: 1mm
164
(4) Seal Q Plates 1 & 2, Fig. O
Seal with flange pressed onto obverse portion remnants. Obverse: “() {lion or dragon rampant
facing left} [] / [R]AVLY • FR(E)[RES] / [N]EGOCIA[NS] / [A • ]MONTA[V / BAN]” // Reverse:
“…MAN(V)[ / FACTVRE]…” and faint shapes that appear to be letters arranged in several lines.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.9cm Plate thickness: 1mm
(5) Seal R Plates 1 & 2, Fig. P
Complete seal. Obverse: “[] {lion or dragon rampant facing left} [] / [R]AVLY • FR[E](R)[ES] /
[N]EGOCIANS / [A • ](M)ONTAV / (B)AN” with a thick corded exterior grenetis apparent on the
flange. // Reverse: “605” or “509” incised into seal.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.3cm Plate thickness: 1mm Flange dimensions: 1.4cm x 4mm
(6) Seal V Plates 1 & 2, Fig. T
Complete seal. Obverse: Faint “V” shaped impression, other marks that appear to be unintentional. //
Reverse: “{lion or dragon rampant facing left} [] / RAVLY • FRE[R]E[S] / NEGOCIA(N)S / A •
MONTAV / [BAN]” surrounded by corded grenetis to the exterior of a solid circle.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.8cm Plate thickness: 1mm
Orléans
(1) Seal X Plates 1 & 2, Fig. V
Small hosiery seal. Obverse: around edges, “DORLEANS---” surrounded by beaded grenetis. In
center of seal, “A 2 FIL” // Reverse: “…UIT” with three ivy leaves in the center of seal. Exterior
beaded grenetis. Two nubs at opposite sides of the seal are what remains of flanges, or a result of
molding the seal.
SB Max diameter: 1cm Plate thickness: 1mm
165
Toulouse
(1) Seal C Plates 1 & 2, Fig. C
Complete seal with separated plates. Obverse: lettering around outside of seal “(*) L’HOSP(I)TAL
[ST JOSEPH DE LA GRAVE]” surrounded by beaded grenetis // Reverse: two seabirds framed by
two dots perched on an anchor on waves in the center of a circle. Around the edges of circle, lettering
“… N (I) () D MARIETTE LAINE ET DUMAS NEG. A(R)…” the star before “D MARIETTE”
may also be a five petaled flower. Lettering surrounded on outside by two beaded grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 3.4cm Plate thickness: 2mm Hole diameter: 1.8cm
Flange dimensions: 3cm x 5mm Total length: 9.4cm
(2) Seal D Plates 1 & 2 Fig. D
Reverse portion of seal. Blank obverse. Reverse: “ MANU / FACTURE DES /
COUVERTURES / [DE TOULO]USE” in center of plate. Around edges is a second impression
“NEGT A MONTAUBAN {flower} D (M)[ARIETTE LAINE ET DUMAS]” which also includes in
the center of the seal an anchor with two sea birds perched on it, as seen on the reverse of Seal C,
encircled by a solid line separating it from lettering around the edges. Beaded grenetis around outside
of seal, exterior to edge lettering.
SAT1 Max diameter: 3cm Plate thickness: 2mm
Flange dimensions: 3cm x 5mm. Maximum depth of impression: 3mm
(3) Seal E Plate 1, Fig. E
Obverse portion of seal. Obverse: lettering around edges, with exterior beaded grenetis “[HOSP]ITAL
ST (JO)S(E)[PH DE LA GRAVE]”
SAT1 Max diameter: 3.2cm Plate thickness: 2mm Hole diameter: 1.6cm
166
(4) Seal G Plate 1, Fig. G
Obverse portion of seal. Obverse: “[J]OSEPH DE LA GRAVE {flower} LHOSPIT(A)[L ST.” around
edges, with exterior beaded grenetis and interior solid line circle around missing center motif or
lettering.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.9cm Plate thickness: 1mm Hole diameter: 13mm
(5) Seal H Plates 1 & 2, Fig. H
Reverse portion of seal. Obverse: Part of cross motif. // Reverse: “ MANU / FACTURE DES /
COUVERTURES / DE / TOULOU[SE] / I (C)” surrounded by exterior corded grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.9cm Plate thickness: 2mm
Flange dimensions: 16.cm x 6mm
(6) Seal J Plates 1 & 2, Fig. J
Reverse portion of seal. Obverse: Cross motif with serif like form at the extremities of the cross
branches. Around outside of plate “[LHOSPITAL ST] JOS [EPH DE LA GRAVE]” with exterior
beaded grenetis. // Reverse: “ MANU / FACTURE DES / CO[UVER]TURES / DE /
TOULOUSE / I C” with an incised “X” mark over the impression. Exterior corded grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.8cm Plate thickness: 2mm
Flange dimensions: 7mm x 6mm
(7) Seal P Plate 1, Fig. N
Obverse portion of seal. Obverse: around edges “ D(E) LA G[RAVE {flower} LHOSPITAL ST
JOSEPH]” with fragments of cross motif such as found on Seal J. corded grenetis to the exterior of
lettering around edges, solid circle to the interior of lettering.
SAT1 Max diameter: 2.9cm Plate thickness: 1mm
167
(8) Seal S Plate 1, Fig. Q
Obverse portion of seal. Obverse: around edges “[G](R)AVE {flower} LH(O)[SPITAL ST JOSEPH
DE LA]” with solid line circle towards interior, part of cross motif at center. Beaded grenetis to the
exterior of lettering. Twisted flange.
SAT1 Max diameter: 3.2cm Plate thickness: 1mm Hole diameter: 1.5cm
Flange dimensions: 9mm x 4mm
(9) Seal T Plate 1, Fig. R
Obverse portion of seal. Obverse: “[J]O(SE)[PH DE LA GRAVE {flower} LHOSPITAL ST]” around
outside of plate, surrounded by corded grenetis to the exterior of the lettering, repeated in some spots
due to double stamping or missed strike.
SAT1 Max diameter: 3.4cm Plate thickness: 1mm Hole diameter: 1.6cm
Flange dimensions: 2mm x 5mm
(10) Seal U Plate 1, Fig. S
Obverse portion seal. Obverse: “[JOS]EPH DE LA G(R)AVE {flower} LHOSPITAL S(T)” around
edges, circle interior to lettering, fragments of cross motif within the circle at center. Exterior corded
grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 3.2cm Plate thickness: 1mm Hole diameter: 1.6cm
French seals of unknown origin
(1) Seal O Plates 1 & 2, Fig. M
Complete seal. Obverse: two lines of heavily deformed and abraded text, “…O… / …O…” //
Reverse: “(3)1 • AV”
Max diameter: 2.3cm Plate thickness: 1mm
168
Unknown nationality
SAT1 seals
(1) Seal A Plates 1 & 2, Fig. A
SAT1 reverse portion. Quatre de chiffre mark with initials “SJ” on obverse portion // Reverse:
scratched numerals on reverse, possibly “27 / 333”.
Max diameter: 3cm Plate thickness: 3mm Flange length: 7mm
(2) Seal L Not pictured
Obverse portion of SAT1 lead seal, no markings.
Max diameter: 2.3cm Plate thickness: 1mm Flange dimensions: 7mm x 2mm
(3) Seal M Plate 1, Fig.
L
Fragment of obverse portion of SAT1 seal. Corded grenetis, no discernable lettering.
Estimated max diameter: 2.3 cm Plate thickness: 1mm Estimated hole diameter: 1.5cm
(4) Seal N Not pictured
Fragment of SAT1 seal obverse.
Max diameter: 2.1cm Plate thickness: 1mm Flange dimensions: 3mm x 4mm
169
Series D seals
(1) Seal I Plate 2, Fig. I
Seal with two small numbs (possibly once flanges) composed of a single part, with one flat side and
one domed side. Flat side designated reverse because of the presence of incised marks such as found
on the reverse of many seals.
SDT1 Domed seal Max diameter: 1.5 cm Thickness: 6mm
170
FORTRESS LOUISBOURG
English
Jersey
(1) 2L.30Q13.1 Plate 3, Fig. R
Obverse: "...CAM│NEL…", lion in center surrounded by scrollwork frame, beaded grenetis. //
Reverse: Blank
SAT1 Max diameter: 25mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 78.83
(2) 4L.55F2.8 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. Q
Textile marks on inside, Obverse: lion in center surrounded by scrollwork, encircled by
"…SEY.C•R…" "C•R" located at direct center of bottom of lion. Beaded grenetis. Reverse: "607"
carved, "43" scratched.
SAT1 Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 2.6mm Seal ID: 4D16 (92-465)
French
Amiens
(1) 3L.1G4.2 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. Z
Complete seal. Obverse: Beaded grenetis: "FA/BRIQUE / 1756 / (AM)IEN" Reverse: Arms of
France, worn. 3 fleur de lys, too worn to read text around edges.
SAT1 Max diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 3A2 (L90-304)
171
(2) 16L.97D9.3 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. GG
Complete SAT1 seal with small textile fragment still between plates, reddish-orange in color Obverse:
R(I)OV/(1)742/(A)MIENS // Reverse: Crowned crest surrounded by "MANUFACVRE DE
[AMI]ENS" around edges.
SAT1 Max Diameter: 20mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: L06-100
Bordeaux
(1) 2L.29L2.7 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. P
Cord still present in tunnels. Obverse: Crowned arms of France-3 fleur de lys, corded grenetis //
Reverse: "...R.../DE/BORDEAUX/{three fleur de lys} on outside: "...GENERALLES (end) (N?)IES
DE (F?)..."
SCT1 Tunnel dimensions: 5mm diameter.
Max diameter: 33mm Plate thickness: 5mm Seal ID: 2K2 (92-592)L13-3
(2) 47L.22J2.6 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. A
Series C seal with metal wire attachment. Obverse: Royal crest: crowned crest with 3 fleur de lys,
azur/blue (horizontally striped) field.// Reverse: "BUREAU / DE / (B)ORDEAU(X)"
SCT1 Max diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: 6mm Seal ID: 47A3(BKIVp.35)
Caen
(1) 4L.50P12.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. L
SAT1 with seperated disks, complete seal. Obverse: "FORAI(N)E•MA(L)OVE" around outside
edges, "1(7)(5 or 6)4" in center; beaded grenetis. // Reverse: Crest with a hand in the helm position
holding the crest, two fleur de lys in a chief with gules/red (horizontally striped) field, bottom portion
of the crest has an azur/blue field (vertical stripes) with one fleur de lys. Crest framed by leaves and
flowers. Beaded grenetis around edge of motif.
172
Max diameter: 26mm Plate thickness: 2mm (7mm both plates together)
Seal ID: 4E45(88-1456)
(2) 16L.98B3.4 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. HH
Obverse: Hand holding a crest with three fleur de lys, two in chief with horizontal striped field, the
lower portion of crest has the last fleur de lys in the center with a vertically striped field. Reverse:
"…M… /(L)TIEN(_...) / NE DES / …(O)OES"
Max diameter: 18mm Plate thickness: 5mm Seal ID: L08-57
Carcassonne
(1) 3L.1L2.4 Plate 3, Fig. AA
SAT1 obverse portion. Textile marks on interior of plate, Around outside of exterior: "1734 /
(C)[A]RCAS[S]ONNE " circle in center, hole obscures device.
SAT1 Max diameter: 30mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 3A2 (L90-304)
Comines
(1) 1B5A7.47 * Plate 3 & 4, Fig. C
SAT1 complete seal. Obverse: Three fleur de lys within circle // Reverse: “MOLETON /
DESENVIRON[S] / DE / COMMI(E)(N)…”
*Lacuna in notes, seal is clearly labeled “1B5.A7.42” but all other records note “1B5.A7.47.”
Possible transcription error
173
Laval
(1) 16L.4A6.14 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. W
Large double tunnel seal, split open along tunnels, with cord showing through split. 2 holes through
plates, with tear beginning at these holes. Obverse: "[F](E)RME(S)…DU (R)OY" with royal crest,
maltese cross pendant at bottom of crest, 3 fleur de lys on azur/ blue (horizontally striped) field.
Beaded grenetis. // Reverse: "(BU)R(EAU) / DE ( ) / (L)AVA(L)" scrollwork at top of phrase,
beaded grenetis at edges.
SCT1 Max diameter: 36mm Plate thickness: 8mm Seal ID: 16A2(L97-968)
Tunnel dimensions: 5mm diameter (cord is roughly the same diameter)
Maximum depth of impression: 6.5mm into 8mm plate.
Lodève
(1) 17L.28D2.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. MM
Reverse portion of SAT1 with a small part of obverse impression. Obverse: beaded grenetis, “AU /
(S)" A has broken arch // Reverse: Crest with 4 quadrants; top right crescent with tips up, bottom
right: "D", bottom left: "L", top left, star. Around outside: "[LOD](E)UE MANVFACTVRE [DE]"
Max diameter : 23mm Plate thickness : 1.5mm Seal ID : 17B3(83.760)
Lorient / Compagnie des Indes
(1) 4L.55B5.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. P
Seal of the Compagnie des Indes. Obverse: Beaded grenetis, “[FLOREBO QUO] FERAR " plus
Arms of France with azur/blue (horizontal striped) field, 3 fleur de lys //Reverse: stylized Native
American figure at left, flanking coat of arms, seated figure, mountain of wealth with green/vert field
(diagonal stripes NW/SE orientation) with fleur de lys patterned chief.
SCT1 Max diameter: 16mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 4D16(2001-1155)
174
Montauban
(1) 1B5A7.655 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. E
Obverse: “PIERRE / MARIETTE / (P)E(R)E ET (F)(I)LS DE / (M)(O)NT[AU / BAN]” //
Reverse: 2172 (carved/etched)
SAT1 Max diameter: 25mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 81.1044
(2) 2L.1J1.1 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. J
Obverse: "•P(•) / (C)AST(E) / (1)748" // Reverse: "FA/BRIQVE / DE / MONTAU / (BAN)" corded
grenetis
SATI Max Diameter: 29mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 2I1 (90-2097)
(3) 3L.2M2.1 Plate 5, Fig. C
Obverse portion of SAT1 "(MARIET)TE FRERES • DE • MONTAUBAN • " at edges, circle
around center device, solid double line grenetis. No textile marks on interior of plate.
SAT1 Max diameter: 27mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 3A23 (L91-263)
(4) 4L.53M5.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. N
Reverse:: "FRERES•MARIETE•" fleur de lys in center, surrounded by a circle, around outside a
corded grenetis. Obverse: willow tree in center circle, surrounded by "*MONT(A)VBAN" inside
corded grenetis around outside.
SCT2 (single tunnel)
Max diameter: 17mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 4E2(88-1304)
175
(5) 16L.4A1.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. V
Reverse: Pitted and obscured, “06” carved into lead. Obverse: "…/(FR)ERES /…N…A /
(MO)NTAUV - / (B)AN"
SAT1 Max diameter: 26mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 16B1(89-387)
(6) 16L.100D3.2 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. II
SCT2 (single tunnel) Obverse: "{5 petaled flower or asterix} MONTAUBAN" tree (Willow) in the
middle of a circle, 9 branches, corded grenetis. // Reverse: Fleur de lys in center, "MARIETE •
FRERES" around outside edges, corded grenetis
Max diameter: 16mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: L11-30
(7) 17L.23B2.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. KK
Separated complete SAT1 Seal, Reverse: “6630/19(381)” scratched into lead, the “6630” more boldy
engraved than other numerals // Obverse: Tree with roots and plants, flanked by 2 stars, surrounded
around outside edge by "DE • MON(T)[AU]BAN"
SAT1 Max diameter: 25mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 17A2(H03-47;82-1147)
Mazamet
(1) 3L.22D3.4 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. H
Reverse: unreadable reverse, flattened markings or motif. Obverse: "Z(E)DL/(•)DE• /
(CON)TROLL(E) / •DE• / (MA)ZAME(T) / (1)74(?). "Z"s are backwards, stylised in usual
eighteenth-century style for Mazamet seals.
SAT1 Max diameter: 29mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 3B24 (91-743)
176
(2) 16L.92N19.21 Plate 5, Fig. AA
Reverse: illegible. // Obverse: "…• (DE)(•) / MAZAM(ET) / 1744 / • " In circle surrounded by corded
grenetis.
SAT1 Max diameter: 27mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 16C37(91-791)
Marseille
(1) 16L.91H4.7 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. Z
Obverse: "M[AR](S)EILLE” around outside, in middle, crest with cross in field, crowned. Reverse:
"…(N)BOYERTO(S)…" around figure of bull in center of seal.
SBT1 Max diameter: 16mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 16C58(91-774)
(2) 52L.6A5.1 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. L
Double tunnel seal, two small holes in center of seal plate. Reverse: Crest remnants, three fleur de lys
in circular crest topped with large crown. Worn lettering appears to read “…SN(O)U…” Obverse:
"…(R)(V)… /DV R(O)I… / ETC…SS / MARSE[ILLES]” with a scallop shell underneath the final
line.
SCT1 Max diameter: 34mm Plate thickness: 10mm Seal ID: 2001-127
Tunnel dimensions: 8mm max diameter
Nîmes
(1) 2L.80B17.2 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. U
No holes, very thin. Obverse: "…LIER ★ PIERRE" around outside, "A2 FILS" at center; Reverse:
"COL N[EM]" Nimes seal crocodile chained to palm tree
SBT1 Small hosiery seal
Max diameter: 13mm Plate thickness: .05mm Seal ID: 2E46 (90-188)
177
(2) 17L.24B1.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. LL
Nimes hosiery seal. Obverse: fleur de lys in center, small beaded grenetis "..LESTRA(?)-
(S)QU(E)…" around outside // Reverse: crocodile chained to a palm tree, facing right. "COL NEM".
SBT1 Small hosiery seal
Max diameter: 14mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 17A1(82-1150)
Orleans
(1) 3L.2F2.4 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. B
Obverse: "… E / ...(O)R • / (L)EANS /…FIL", beaded grenetis. Reverse: 3 Fleur de lys in circle in
center "...R(E)NE R..." around the edge, beaded grenetis
SBT1 hosiery seal. Max diameter: 11mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 3A23 (L91-254)
Paris
(1) 1B14DD5.1 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. G
SCT1 (Double tunnel) Obverse: "DOUANE (DE) PA(RIS)" around edges. Ship with 6 fleur de lys
above, beaded grenetis. //Reverse: Beaded grenetis with zigzag, crowned crest with 3 fleur de lys in
horizontally striped field.
SCT1 Max diameter: 31mm Plate thickness: 10.5mm Seal ID: N/A
Pont-de-l’Arche
(1) 3L.12A5.2 Plate 6 Fig. F
Blank obverse // Reverse: “…AR…"around crest of ramparts with 2 towers with three notches at top,
cross between them. "1749" underneath picture.
SAT1 Max diameter: 27mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 75A4(95-1169)
178
Rouen
(1) 2L.80C6.1 Plate 3, Fig. V
Fleur de lys on base of flange, faint beaded grenetis "C [ON] / TRO[LE] / D(E) / RO(U)[EN]"
SAT2 Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: .5mm Seal ID: 2E13 (89-2883)
(2) 47L.90K9.1 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. I
Reverse: Lamb carrying pennant on pole in crest with 3 fleur de lys in chief and surrounding
scrollwork. "…[D]E ROVEN…(D)…" around edges, beaded grenetis // Obverse: "(C)ONT[ROLE] /
(•)(D)E • RO[UEN]. Textile marks on inside of plates, attached portion of flange.
SAT1 Max diameter: 25mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 47C29
Saint-Mayeux
(1) 47L.58B3.1 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. E
Reddish woolen textile fragments between plates. Obverse Part 1: "•L•B• / …(EC)… / 17 …" //
Reverse Part 1: "…(R)APIER •A • BEA…" with knife in circle and beaded grenetis, Fleur de lys on
base of flange. ║ Obverse Part 2: Beaded grenetis, "• {flower} •(C)ONTROL / LE-D(E) /
..."//Reverse Part 2: "MAVEV(X) / 17 57" beaded grenetis, fleur de lys stamp on flange.
SAT3 Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: H03-0049
Unknown French
SAT1 and fragments
(1) 1B4L59.14 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. B
Willow tree with 6 branches, lettering around edges: “…(L)(O)(V)…”
Max diameter: 23mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: N/A
179
(2) 1B5A7.654 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. D
Obverse: “• DE / (C)ONTER(O)(L) / E • DE • …(O) / …(G)N… / E(?)…” , blank reverse.
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 3mm S Seal ID: 81.1043
(3) 1B5A8.76 Plate 3, Fig. F
Obverse portion. Textile marks on inside of plates. "•GERMA(I)(N)•(M)" around edges.
Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 2008-349
(4) 2L.81F5.10 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. X
Reverse: "DAMI/CONTROL(L)/LA HAL/EN NOI/17(3or5)(7?), beaded grenetis, line along flange.
Obverse: "(R)(T)" beaded grenetis, crowned coat of arms with crossed crescents, stars or fleur de lys ,
three in a chief at top.
Max diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: .3mm Seal ID: 2E21 (L96-485)
(5) 3L.10P2.3 Plate 5, Fig. D
Obverse portion of SAT1, reads: "…ARC/AM//E(R)/(1)7(6) 0…"
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 75A2(95-1120)
(6) 16L.94A7.8 Plate 5, Fig. EE
Obverse portion of SAT1, textile marks on inside of plate, Obverse: "…OL(…)C /
(M)ANUF(AC)TU(RE) / ★ D(E) / ELEUB(I..) / PIERRE (…) LOUIS / ★ LE(M)(…)CIS / •
F(RER)ES • / ★ " with zigzag grenetis
Max diameter: 32mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 16B41
180
(7) 46L.10E2.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. PP
SAT1 reverse portion. Obverse: "…AU… / ..EFO" // Reverse: (IMAGE) "[M]ARCH / [AN]DISE"
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 46A1(L98-204)
(8) 47L.50B5.7 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. B
Complete SAT1 seal, corroded and worn, Obverse: Crowned coat of arms with 3 fleur de lys with
scrollwork and beaded grenetis. // Reverse: “VISITE / DE / ROMO / …TI (N) / 1755" beaded
grenetis.
Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 47A9(95-1106)
(9) 47L.50B5.11 Plate 7, Fig. D
Complete SAT1 Blank reverse // Obverse: "VI(SI)T(E) / (E)…RA(I)"
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 47A9(95-1108)
(10) 47L.90G4.3 Plate 7, Fig. G
SAT1 obverse portion with twisted flange. Around outside: "…VISITE…interior of that "MA…."
Textile marks on interior of plate.
Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 47C16(89-1299)
(11) 47L.90K5.4 Plate 8, Fig. H
Reverse portion of SAT1 seal. Textile marks on interior of plate, Reverse: "…(F)ORA[INE]…"
around edge, crowned crest with 3 fleur de lys in the center.
Max diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: .5mm Seal ID: 47C1(89-1259)
181
SAT2 seals and fragments
(1) 4L.55L5.2 Plate 5, Fig. R
Obverse portion of SAT2 seal: 3 fleur de lys in circle, large crown on top.
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 4E24(88-1448)
Series B seal and fragments
(1) 16L.101A3.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. JJ
SBT2 Obverse: "VISIT" with small 5 petaled flower at center. Reverse: "…ON…"
Max diameter: 15mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: L12-15
(2) 43L.1A3.2 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. OO
SBT2. Small seal with flange and hole, recently recovered, undergoing conservation. Reverse: “46”
Obverse: "(V)ISITE"
Max diameter: 14mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: N/A
(3) 59L.79D5.4 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. M
SBT2 Obverse: "…TROL…/…(I)…" Reverse: "(Q)UO…/ D(E)/ …"
Max diameter: 14mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: L91-1782
182
Series C seals and fragments
(1) 2L.30G3.13 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. Q
Obverse: Arms of France, horizontal striped field, 3 fleur de lys, crown on top and embellishment.
Corded grenetis. On edge of seal: "(B)UREAU (D)[E]...(E)(S)MES (LV?)..." Reverse: "SM" with
leaves above a bush-like detail, in circular beaded grenetis, restruck 3 times. Between inner and outer
beaded grenetis are stars or fleur de lys.
SCT1 Tunnel dimensions: 10mm wide with a 4mm tall opening.
Max diameter: 41mm Plate thickness: 10mm Seal ID: 2C23 (94-66)
(2) 2L.31E2.6 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. S
Side 1: "BUREAU/( )DE /(I)(O)...EAU", Beaded grenetis, embellishment/scrollwork above text.
Side 2: Arms of France, 3 fleur de lys, horizontally striped field, dangled maltese cross on bottom of
arms, crown on top. Beaded grenetis.
SCT2, obscured tunnel
Max diameter: 27mm Plate thickness; 2.7mm Seal ID: 2C3 (94-81)
(3) 2L.62A2.3 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. T
Obverse: Arms of France, horizontal striped field, with crown and embellishment, around outside
edge of seal in between two corded grenetis: "...AU...(T)(R)(I)" Reverse: Beaded grenetis, possibly
restruck over an older impression. Outside edge reads; "...(I)ONE ★★..." Interior strike:
"...(S)(C)(I?)TAI..." Center shows large "No."(?) and small "v" shaped mark. There appears to be
some bubbling in the form of the seal that might be a result of molding process, though a possible C
shaped impression may have been intentionally made and not a result of these flaws.
SCT1 Tunnel dimensions: 10mm wide
Max diameter: 42mm Plate thickness: 10mm Seal ID: 2C3 (L92-676)
183
Unknown Nationality
SAT1 and fragments
(1) 1B1J13.3 Plate 3, Fig. A
Obverse portion, scrollwork and fragments of a crest
Max diameter: 29mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 2008-252
(2) 1B16F1.34 Plate 4, Fig. H
Reverse portion. Reverse: 2298 scratched on plate, "D" lettering on flange. No textile marks
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 2008-288
(3) 1L.16HH2.12 Not Pictured
Obverse portion, no markings, scratches on one side of plate
Max diameter: 42mm Plate thickness: .05mm Seal ID: 1C (L98-2)
(4) 1L.43H3.1 Plate 3, Fig. I
Fragment of obverse portion, "…(O)MI(A?)…"
Max diameter: 25mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 75B13(L00-276)
(5) 2L.1T1.7 Plate 3, Fig. K
Obverse portion. Corroded, crown elements, 3 fleur de lys finials on crown and dotted band below the
fleur de lys portion of the crown
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 2M1 (94-287)
184
(6) 2L.12D2.7AB Plates 3 & 4, Fig. L
Complete seal, in two parts (A and B). Textile marks on inside of obverse and reverse, no markings
aside from that. Obverse: "I" deeply stamped // Reverse: “TM” combination mark in circle
Max diameter: A: 21mm B: 24mm Plate thickness: A: 2mm B: 2mm
Seal ID: 2FGH1 (95-977)
(7) 2L.17K2.16 Not Pictured
Beaded grenetis remnants on obverse, unreadable and pitted.
Max diameter: 33mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 2K2 (92-316)
(8) 2L.18B3.4 Plate 3, Fig. M
Textile marks on inside. Around outside of plate: "BOVAVL...ET★PIHER(I)(?)" Animal head(?) in
center within circle. Beaded grenetis around outside
Max Diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 2K2 (92.361)
(9) 2L.19F3.7 Plates 3 & 4, Fig. N
Obverse: quatre de chiffre with “SB” initials, surrounded by beaded grenetis, Reverse: “12 / 232”
scratched into lead, triangular impression within circular impression
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 2M2 (94-230)
(10) 2L.24H4.3 Plate 4, Fig. O
Reverse portion. Fabric marks on interior Reverse: “24 / 91” with possibly other numerals more
lightly scratched in background.
Max diameter: 28mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 2M17 (94-122)
185
(11) 2L.71D5.7 Not Pictured
SAT1 obverse portion. No markings.
Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 75B3(95-1176)
(12) 2L.80T11.76 Plate 4, Fig. W
SAT1 reverse portion. Flattened lettering, corded grenetis
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: .05mm Seal ID: 2E25 (90-88)
(13) 2L.110A2.10 Plate 3, Fig. Y
Obverse fragment missing reverse. Flange piece included, roped grenetis, "...T * (E)..."
Max diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: .06mm Seal ID: 2E18 (2008-284)
(14) 3L.1M6.1 Plate 5-3 Fig. A
Complete SAT1 seal. Obverse: quatre de chiffre mark with one initial “O”, Blank reverse.
Max diameter: 27mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 3A3 (L90-333)
(15) 3L.10R3.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. E
Complete SAT1 seal, no impression or mark, scratched lines on obverse and reverse.
Max diameter:-- Plate thickness: -- Seal ID: 75A2(95-1123)
(16) 3L.16E3.2 Plate 6, Fig. G
Complete SAT1 seal, corroded obverse. Reverse appears to have scratched numerals “214 / 5”
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness; 6mm Seal ID: 3D5 (95-996)
186
(17) 4L.9L3.3 Plate 5, Fig. I
Obverse portion of SAT1 seal. Corded grenetis, "…A(? ?)... /...DOLE(D)” around edges. Dotted belt-
like motif at center, obscured by hole from missing reverse portion. Textile marks on interior of plate.
Max diameter: 28.5mm Plate thickness; 1mm Seal ID: 4A (95-1015)
(18) 4L.22C3.7 Plate 6, Fig. J
Complete SAT1 seal, obverse: blank or worn beyond recognition. Reverse: "...ST..."
Max diameter: 23mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 4B3 (L96-302)
(19) 4L.53K11.4 Plate 6, Fig. M
Corroded, blank obverse. Reverse: what appears to be "...M / LALVNE / CARDE…/…" with
indistinguishable grenetis.
Max diameter: 23mm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 4E4(88-1347)
(20) 4L.60B2.3 Plate 6, Fig. T
Complete SAT1 seal. Reverse: "…(ES) LL…" // Obverse: unreadable
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 3mm Seal ID: 2008-198
(21) 16L.3B33.3 Plate 6, Fig. U
Reverse portion of SAT1. Fabric marks on interior of plate. Reverse: "FABRECA /• DE• /
…ARIEU(X) / …(77)…" in solid circle grenetis.
Max diameter: 28mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 16B3(L85-107)
187
(22) 16L.21P2.35 Plate 5, Fig. X
Obverse portion of SAT1 seal. Fabric marks on interior of plate. Obverse:"...T • /TRI(…)" with three
petaled flowers below in staggered pattern. Beaded grenetis.
Max diameter: 28mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 16D(99.474)
(23) 16L.24P1.1 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. Y
Complete SAT1 seal with separated plates. Obverse: "...EM…" around outside edge, solid line
grenetis. // Reverse: "SC" Scratched into lead.
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness; 2mm Seal ID: 16D(2005-290)
(24) 16L.94A7.3 Plate 5, Fig. CC
SAT1 obverse portion. Possible textile marks on interior, leaves/scrollwork remnants impressed into
lead.
Max diameter : 23mm Plate thickness : 1mm Seal ID : 16B41(L90-25)
(25) 16L. 94A7.6 Plate 6, Fig. DD
Reverse portion of SAT1 seal. Textile marks on inside of plate, Reverse: Stamped impressed
numbers:"202I" Impression fragments on obverse side have been distorted. Line down center back,
likely from molding process.
Max diameter : 24mm Plate thickness : 1.5mm Seal ID : 16B41
(26) 16L.97H2.1 Not Pictured
Obverse fragment -no markings.
Max Diameter: 19mm Plate thickness: -- Seal ID: L06-120
188
(27) 17L.70B5.1 Not Pictured
Corroded obverse portion of SAT1 seal with flange, no discernable markings.
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 75B13(LQ0-240)
(28) 36L.1A3.2 Plate 6, Fig. NN
SAT1 reverse portion, Reverse: “226” engraved boldly and “18” faintly scratched below.
Max diameter: -- Plate thickness: -- Seal ID: --
(29) 38L.3A2.3 Not Pictured
Complete SAT1 seal, shallow impressions. Newly recovered, undergoing conservation.
Max diameter: 18mm Plate thickness: 5mm Seal ID: N/A
(30) 47L.50B5.10 Plates 7 & 8, Fig. C
Complete SAT1 seal. Reverse: “3602 / (…6)” scratched into lead // Obverse: Beaded grenetis, three
bunches of grapes
Max diameter: 24mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 47A9(95-1107)
(31) 47L.90G3.3 Plate 7, Fig. F
Obverse portion of SAT1 seal. Obverse: "…R…/…I…", beaded grenetis. Textile marks on interior of
plate.
Max diameter: 22mm Plate thickness: 2mm Seal ID: 47C4(89-1262)
189
(32) 47L.90M3.10 Plate 7, Fig. J
Complete SAT1 seal. Reverse: blank // Obverse: double diamond shape, abraded and rough.
Max diameter: 21mm Plate thickness: 1.5mm Seal ID: 47C20(89-1283)
(33) 47L.90M3.12 Plate 7, Fig. K
SAT1 complete seal. Bird shape on obverse, “2620” scratched into reverse.
Max diameter: -- Plate thickness: -- Seal ID: 92-1924
SAT2 and fragments
(1) 1L.11D1.2 Not Pictured
Reverse portion of SAT2 seal.
Max diameter: 31mm Plate thickness: .07mm Seal ID: 1A50 (L93.1253)
(2) 16L.92X10.1 Plate 5, Fig. BB
Obverse portion of SAT2 seal. Obverse: possible fleur de lys on flange base. Fragments of a beaded
grenetis. Blank reverse.
Max diameter: 20mm Plate thickness: 1mm Seal ID: 16C2(91.830)
SC and SB and fragments
(1) 4L.22C3.8 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. K
SBT1 small hosiery seal. Obverse: “D” with a 90 degree angle, part of larger figure, symbol or letter
underneath or within the angle towards center of imprint. Imprint not centered on seal. Reverse:
Undefined and distorted figure.
Max diameter: 11.5cm Plate thickness: 4mm Seal ID: 4B3 (L96-303)
190
(2) 4L.54F2.19 Plates 5 & 6, Fig. O
SCT2 single tunnel seal. Obverse: One fleur de lys in center, in circle. "... LES • (E)…" around
outside. // Reverse: " A LA (I)…" laurel wreath frame on half of the seal, unknown figure (stockings
on legs?) within circle in center.
Max diameter : 14mm Plate thickness : 3.5mm Seal ID : 4D2(2001-1150)
(3) 4L.56L9.8 Plate 5, Fig. S
SBT2 Small disk with hole, long, thin, bent flange. Obverse: Fleur de lys in center, around edges is
lettering "(L)ARGVIE - …L" Reverse: "/375"? Tiny scratches, solid line grenetis.
Max diameter : 14.5mm Plate thickness : 2mm Seal ID : 4E30(--)
(4) 16L.94A7.9 Plate 5, Fig. FF
SBT1 Obverse: corroded, illegible // Reverse: "L" in circular impression
Max diameter : 12mm Plate thickness : 1.5mm Seal ID : 16B41
(5) 38L.3A2.4 Not Pictured
SCT1 Large SC double tunnel seal (appears to be, needs cleaning), recently recovered, undergoing
conservation. Reverse: crest remnants, possibly royal crest.
Max diameter: 43mm Plate thickness: 11mm Seal ID: N/A
(6) 47L.91C3.1 Not Pictured
SCT2 single tunnel seal. Corroded, with wire cord and unreadable flattened impressions.
Max diameter: 15mm Plate thickness: 2.5mm Seal ID: 47B6(L92-115)
191
192
PLATE 1: LEAD SEALS FROM THE FORT TICONDEROGA MUSEUM, OBVERSE SIDES
Fort Ticonderoga Museum Collection, Photos by C. Davis.
193
PLATE 2: LEAD SEALS FROM THE FORT TICONDEROGA MUSEUM, REVERSE SIDES
Fort Ticonderoga Museum Collection, Photos by C. Davis.
194
195
PLATE 3: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, OBVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
196
PLATE 4: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, REVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
197
PLATE 5: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, OBVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
198
PLATE 6: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, REVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
199
PLATE 7: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, OBVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
200
PLATE 8: SEALS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG, REVERSE SIDES
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
201
PLATE 9: RELATED ITEMS FROM FORTRESS LOUISBOURG
Fortress Louisbourg, Parks Canada, Photos by C. Davis.
202
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
A- Primary Manuscript Sources
ARCHIVES NATIONALES, OUTRE-MER, COLONIES (AIX-EN-PROVENCE) VIA MICROFILMS
AVALIABLE AT THE BANQ-Q AND ONLINE COURTESY OF THE BAC:
Série C : correspondance générale à l’arrivée
Sous-série C11A : correspondance générale. Canada.
Sous-série C11B : correspondence générale. Île Royale.
ARCHIVES DÉPARTEMENTALES DE LA SOMME
Fonds de l'intendance de Picardie (1C)
Sous série 1C
BANQ-Q CENTRE DE QUÉBEC
Fonds Jean Baptiste Nicolas Roch de Ramezay
ANONYMOUS. Etoffes de Provence et des provinces voisines dont le peuple fait usage en
provence. 1736. http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40504681s.
B- Printed Primary Sources
ANONYMOUS. Memoire sur les medailles de Marseille. 1771, 21 p.
ANONYMOUS. The London Gazette, Part 1. London, T. Neuman, January 1, 1814- June 18,
1814.
BOUGAINVILLE, Louis-Antoine de. Écrits sur le Canada. Sillery, Septentrion, 2003, 430 p.
CHALLES, Robert. Mémoires: Correspondance complete. Frédéric DELOFFRE and Jacques
POPIN eds. Geneva, Librarie Droz. 1996, 764p. Rapports sur l'Acadie et autres pièces.
Textes littéraires français, Vol. 466.
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'Etat qui ordonne que les draps, serges et
autres étoffes de laine ou fil et laine marqués du plomb de fabrique et qui, après avoir
reçu leur dernier apprêt, seront destinés soit pour les villes du royaume y mentionnés
ou pour l'étranger, seront préalablement apportés dans les bureaux des marchands
drapiers et merciers desdites villes, pour, avant leur départ, y être visités et marqués
du plomb de contrôle desdits bureaux, s'ils se trouvent fabriqués, teints et apprêtés en
conformité des règlements. Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1730.
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'Etat servant de réglement aux marchands
négociants, et pour rectifier les abus sur les draps étrangers et des manufactures de
France qui se vendent à Paris sans avoir les plombs ordonnés par l'arrêt du 27 mars
1731. Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1732.
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'État qui ordonne que les gardes et jurés
des marchands et fabricants seront tenus de saisir les draps et autres étoffes de laine,
203
ou mêlées de laine, soie, poil, coton et autres matières, qui, lors des visites qui en
seront par eux faites dans les bureaux de fabrique et de contrôle, ne seront pas trouvés
conformes aux règlements. Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1735.
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'état qui ordonne la confiscation de 3
pièces de serge de la manufacture d'Hanvoile, envoyées de Beauvais à l'adresse du
Sieur Le Roy marchand drapier de Paris et saisies à la halle aux draps de cette ville,
tant pour s'être trouvées trop étroites et grasses que pour autres défauts. Paris,
Imprimérie Royale, 1743.
CONSEIL D’ÉTAT DE FRANCE. Arrêt du conseil d'état qui dispense les Gardes-jurés de la
communauté des marchands réunis de la ville d'Amiens de faire graver la première
lettre de leur nom et leur surnom en entier sur les coins ou marques dont ils se
serviront pour appliquer les plombs de contrôle sur les draps et autres étoffes qu'ils
auront visités. Paris, Imprimérie Royale, 1747.
J.C.B. Voyage au Canada dans le nord de l’Amérique septentrionale fait depuis l’an 1751
à 1761. Québec, Imprimerie Léger Brousseau, 1887, 255 p.
MÉNARD, Léon. Histoire civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire de la ville de Nismes avec les
preuves… Tome 1, Paris, Chez Hugues-Daniel Chaubert, 1744, 167 p.
PEYSER, Joseph L. Fort St. Joseph Manuscripts: Chronological Inventory and
Translations. Niles, MI, J. L. Peyser, 1978, 163 p.
J. PIGOT & Co. The Commercial Directory for 1818-19-20 Containing the Names, Trades,
and Situations of the Merchants, Manufacturers, Tradesmen, &c. Manchester, James
Pigot, 1818, 510 p.
POUCHOT, Pierre. Mémoires sur la dernière guerre de l'Amérique septentrionale. Sillery,
Septentrion, 2003, 324 p.
SAVARY, Jacques. Le Parfait négociant, ou Instruction générale pour ce qui regarde le
commerce de toute sorte de marchandises, tant de France que des pays estrangers...
par le sieur Jacques Savary. Paris, Chez Louis Bellain, 1675, 324 p.
SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Jacques, Philémon-Louis SAVARY. Dictionnaire universel de
commers: contentant tout ce qui concerne…. Tome 1, Waesbergae, Chez les Jansons,
1726, 2032 p.
SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Jacques, Philémon-Louis SAVARY. Dictionnaire universel de
commerce: d'histoire naturelle, & des art & métiers, tome cinquieme…, Nouvelle
edition, Copenhagen, Chez Claude Philibert, 1765, 1712 p.
SAVARY DES BRÛLONS, Jacques, Philémon-Louis SAVARY. Dictionnaire universel de
commerce: d'histoire naturelle, & des art & metiers divisé en quatre volumes: Tome
quatrieme, commerce et compagnies. Geneva, Chez les Freres Cramer & Claude
Philibert, 1750, 1128 p.
SMITH, John. Chronicon Rusticum-Commericale; or, Memoirs of Wool, &c... Vol 2,
London, 1747, 576 p.
204
WINSLOW, E.S. The Universal Modern Cambist, and Foreign and Domestic Commercial
Calculator; Or, A Dictionary of Numerical, Arithmetical, and Mathematical Facts,
Tables, Data, Formulas, and Practical Rules for Business-men, Merchants, Bankers,
Brokers, and Accountants. Eighth Edition. Boston, E.S. Winslow, 1872, 252 p.
C- Maps
JAILLOT, Alexis Hubert (1632-1712), and Guillaume SANSON. Le royaume de France. 45 x
63 cm. 1724. (Online at https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5830.ct000741/?r=-
0.132,0.268,1.057,0.337,0). Consulted 6/24/2018.
RESEARCH AIDS AND DICTIONARIES
ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie françoise, dédié au Roy. Chez Vve
J.B.Coignard et J.B.Coignard, Paris, 1694.
ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Quatrième edition. Paris,
Veuve B. Brunet, 1762.
ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE and É. LITTRÉ. Le Dictionnaire de la langue française. Paris,
Librarie Hachette et Cie. 1873.
ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE. Le Dictionnaire de la langue française. Sixième edition. Paris,
Imprimerie et Librarie de Firmin Lidot Frères. 1835.
LESSARD, Rénald. Guide des copies d’archives d’origine française. Québec,
Gouvernement du Québec, 1990, 488 p.
Parchemin. Banque de données notariales 1626-1789. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales
du Québec. Consulté à BAnQ-Q.
STUDIES
ADAMS, Diane L. Lead Seals from Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781. Mackinac Island,
MI, Mackinac State Historic Parks, 1989, 48 p. Archaeological Completion Report
Series, No. 14.
ALLAIRE, Bernard. Pelleteries, manchons, et chapeaux de castor: Les fourrures nord-
américaines à Paris 1500-1632. Sillery, Septentrion, 1999, 400 p.
APPELBAUM, Rich and Nelson LICHTENSTEIN. “An Accident in History.” New Labor
Forum, Vol.23 No.3 (Fall 2014), p. 58-65.
ANDERSON, Dean. “The Flow of European Trade Goods into the Western Great Lakes
Region, 1715-1760.” J.S.H. BROWN, W.J. ECCLES, and D.P. HELDMAN eds. The Fur
Trade Revisted. East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University Press, 1994, p. 93-115.
ANDERSON, Fred. The Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in
British North America, 1754-1766. New York, Knopf, 2007, 912 p.
205
AUDET, Bernard. Le costume paysan dans la région de Québec au XVIIe siècle: Île
d'Orléans. Ottawa, Leméac, 1980, 214 p.
BARBER, Elinor. The Bourgeoisie in 18th-Century France. Princeton, Princeton University
Press, 2015, 178 p.
BECCHIA, Alain. La draperie d’Elbeuf (des origines à 1870). Rouen, Publications de
l’Université de Rouen, 2000, 869p.
BÉGON, Élisabeth. Lettres au cher fils: Correspondance d’Élisabeth Bégon avec son
gendre (1748-1753). Québec, Boréal, 1994, 432 p. Boréal compact No. 59.
BEIK, William. Louis XIV and Absolutism: A Brief Study with Documents. New York, Bedfort ⁄ St. Martin’s, 2000, 272 p.
BOSHER, J. F. The Canada Merchants 1713-1763. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987, 234 p.
BRAIN, Jeffrey P. Tunica Archaeology. Cambridge, Peabody Museum Press, 2004 (1988),
449 p. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Vol. 78.
BROWN, Margaret Kimball. “An Eighteenth Century Trade Coat.” Plains Anthropologist,
Vol. 16 No. 52 (1971), p. 128-133.
BRUN, Josette. “Les femmes d’affaires en Nouvelle-France au XVIIIe siècle: le cas de l’Île
Royale.” Acadiensis, Jounal of the History of the Atlantic Region. Vol. XXVII, No. 1
(Autumn 1997) p. 44-66
BUTEL, Paul. L’Économie francaise au XVIIIe siecle. Paris, C.D.U et Sedes, 1993, 317 p.
CALVER, William L., and Reginald P. BOLTON. History Written with Pick and Shovel. New
York, New York Historical Society, 1950, 320 p.
CARDON, Dominique. The Dyer's Handbook: Memoirs of an 18th Century Master
Colourist. Havertown, PA, Oxbow Books, 2016, 160 p. Ancient Textile Series Vol. 26
CARLES, Pierre. “L'infanterie du roi de France à la mort de Louvois.” Histoire, économie et
société. Year 15 No. 1 (1996), p. 57-73.
COHEN, Paul. “Was there an Amerindian Atlantic? Reflections on the Limits of a
Historiographical Concept.” History of European Ideas, Vol. 34 Issue 4, 2008, p. 388-
410.
CONRAD, Glenn R. “Administration of the Illinois Country: The French Debate.” The
Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, Vol.36, No. 1 (1995) p. 31-53
CÔTÉ, André. Joseph-Michel Cadet: 1719-1781, négociant et munitionnaire du roi en
Nouvelle-France. Sillery, Septentrion, 1998, 402 p.
CHARTRAND, René. The Forts of New France in Northeast America 1600–1763. New
York, Osprey 2008, 64 p. Fortress, Book 75.
CHARTRAND, René. French Fortresses in North America 1535-1763: Québec, Montréal,
Louisbourg, and New Orleans. New York, Osprey, 2005, 64 p. Fortress, Book 27.
206
CLARK, John G. La Rochelle and the Atlantic Economy during the Eighteenth Century.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, 286p.
COLE, Charles Woolsey. Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism. Hamden, CN,
Archon Books, 1964 (1939), Vol. 1, 532p. Vol. 2, 675p.
COLE, Charles Woolsey. French Mercantilism : 1683-1700. New York, Octagon Books,
1971 (1943), 353p.
DAINVILLE, François de. “Un dénombrement inédit au XVIIIe siècle: l’enquête du
Contrôleur general Orry- 1745.” Population, 7e Année, No. 1 (1952). p. 49-68.
DAVIS, Cathrine. “Lead Seals from Colonial Fort St. Joseph (20BE23).” Undergraduate
Thesis, Kalamazoo, Western Michigan University, 2014, 101 p.
DAVIS, Cathrine. “Lead Seals as Witnesses to the Flow of Textiles from France to New
France.” Le Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3 (2016), p.3-12.
DECHÊNE, Louise. Habitants et Marchands de Montréal au XVIIe Siècle. Paris, Librairie
Plon, 1974, 588 p.
DELISLE, Steve. “An Introduction to the 1757 General Inventory of the King’s Storehouses
at Carillon.” The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XVII, No.2 (2017),
p.10-31.
DELISLE, Steve. “The 1757 Inventory of the King’s Storehouses at Carillon.” The Bulletin
of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XVII, No. 2. (2017), p. 32-57.
DE VRIES, Jan. The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600-1750. Cambridge
University Press, 1976, 300 p.
DEYON, Pierre. “Le mouvement de la production textile à Amiens au XVIIIe siècle.” Revue
du Nord, Volume 44, No. 174, (April-June 1962). p. 201-211.
DONOVAN, Kenneth. "Tattered Clothes and Powdered Wigs: Case Studies of the Poor and
Well-To-Do in Eighteenth-Century Louisbourg." Kenneth DONOVAN, ed. Cape Breton
at 200: Historical Essays in Honour of the Island’s Bicentennial 1785-1985. Sydney,
NS, Cape Breton University Press, 1985, p. 1-20.
DOWNEY, Lynn. A Short History Of Denim. Levi Strauss & Co, 2014. Online at
http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/A-Short-History-of-
Denim2.pdf.
DUBOIS, Laurent. “The French Atlantic.” Jack P. GREENE and Philip D. MORGAN, dir.
Atlantic History : A Critical Appraisal. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.137-
161.
DUPLESSIS, Robert S. The Material Atlantic: Clothing, Commerce, and Colonization in the
Atlantic World, 1650-1800. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015, 351 p.
DUPLESSIS, Robert S. “Cottons Consumption in the Seventeenth- and Eighteenth- Century
North Atlantic.” RIELLO, Giorgio and PARTHASARATHI, Prasannan, eds. The
207
Spinning World: A Global History of Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2009, p. 227-246.
EGAN, Geoffrey. Lead Seals and related items in the British Museum. London, Department
of Medieval and Later Antiquities, British Museum, 1994, 199 p. Occasional papers of
the British Museum, no. 93.
EGAN, Geoffrey. “Provenanced Leaden Cloth Seals.” Doctoral Dissertation, London,
University of London, 1987, 473 p.
ELTON, Stuart F. Cloth Seals: An Illustrated Guide to the Identification of Lead Seals
Attached to Cloth. Summertown, Oxford, Archaeopress Archaeology, 2017, 414 p.
ENGLISH, Beth. “Global Women’s Work : Historical Perspectives on the Textiles and
Garment Industries.” Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 67 No. 1 (Fall/Winter
2013), p. 67-82.
ESTIENNE, René, dir. Les Compagnies des Indes. Paris, Gallimard, 2013, 286 p. ALB Beaux
Livre.
FAGAN, Brian. Linking to the Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2007, 496 p.
FRÉGAULT, Guy. La civilisation de la Nouvelle-France (1713-1744). Québec, Biblio-Fides
2014 (1944), 285p.
GILMAN, Carolyn (dir.). Where Two Worlds Meet : the Great Lakes Fur Trade. St. Paul,
MN, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1982, 136 p.
GOUBERT, Pierre. Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 à 1730. Paris, S.E.V.P.E.N., 1960,
653 p.
GOUBERT, Pierre. Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen. Translated by Anne Carter.
New York, Pantheon Books, 1970. 350 p.
GOUSSE, Suzanne. Les Couturières de Montréal au XVIIIe siècle. Sillery, Septentrion,
2013, 280 p.
GOUSSE, Suzanne and André. Lexique illustré du costume en Nouvelle-France, 1740-1760.
Chambly, La Fleur de Lyse, 1995, 62 p.
GRIFFITHS, Naomi. Mason Wade, Acadia, and Quebec. Montréal, McGill-Queen’s Press,
1991, 209 p. Volume 167, Carleton Library Series.
HALBERT, Philippe L.B. “Power Houses: Furnishing Authority in New France, 1660-
1760.” Master’s Thesis, Newark, DE, University of Delaware, 2014, 249 p.
HAMILTON, Edward Pierce. Fort Ticonderoga: Key to Continent. Ticonderoga, NY,
Ticonderoga Press, Second Edition, 1995 (1964), 241 p.
HARRIS, Donald A. A Summary of the Archaeology of the Town Site of Louisbourg: 1959-
1979. Fortress of Louisbourg Unpublished Report. 1979, 669 p.
208
HAVARD, Gilles. Empires et métissages : Indiens et Français dans le Pays d’en Haut,
1660-1715. Second edition, Québec, Septentrion, 2017, 610 p.
HAVARD, Gilles. Histoire des coureurs de bois: Amérique du Nord 1600-1840. Paris, Les
Indes savants, 2016, 885 p.
HAVARD, Gilles and Cécile VIDAL. Histoire de l’Amérique française. Edition revue, Paris,
Flammarion, 2008 (2003), 893 p.
HODSON, Christopher, and RUSHFORTH, Brett. “Absolutely Atlantic: Colonialism and the
Early Modern French State in Recent Historiography”. History Compass, Vol.8 Issue 1
(2010), p. 101-117.
HULSE, Charles A. “An Archaeological Evaluation of Fort St. Joseph: An Eighteenth
Century Military Post and Settlement in Berrien Country, Michigan.” Master’s Thesis,
East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University, 1977, 483p.
HUME, Ivor Noël. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York, Knopf, 1970
(1969), 323 p.
IDLE, Dunning. “The Post of the St. Joseph River During the French Régime 1679-1761.”
Doctoral Dissertation, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois, 1946, 169 p.
INNIS, Harold A. The Fur Trade In Canada : an Introduction to Canadian Economic
History. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962, 446 p.
JOHNSTON, A. J. B. Life and Religion at Louisbourg, 1713-1758. Montréal, McGill-
Queen’s Press, 1996, 256 p.
KENT, Timothy. Fort Ponchartrain at Detroit : A Guide to the Daily Lives of Fur Trade
and Military Personnel, Settlers, and Missionaries at French Posts. Ossineke, MI,
Silver Fox Enterprises, 2002, Vol. 1 and 2, 1147 p.
LACOURSIÈRE, Jacques. Histoire populaire du Québec : Des origines à 1791. Sillery,
Septentrion, 1995, 480 p.
LEE, David. “Gaspé 1760-1867.” Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in
Archaeology and History No. 23. Parks Canada, 2006.
http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/chs/23/chs23-2k.htm.
LEE, David. “ROBIN, CHARLES.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 6, University
of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/robin_charles_6E.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
LE GOUIC, Olivier. Lyon et la mer au XVIIIe siècle : Connexions atlantiques et commerce
colonial. Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2011, 384 p.
LIGOU, Daniel and Gilbert CASTAING. Histoire de Montauban. Toulouse, Privat, 1984, 350
p. Pays et villes de France.
LOHSE, E.S. “Trade Goods.” Wilcomb E. WASHBURN ed. Handbook of North American
Indians. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 1988, p. 396-403.
209
LOREN, Diana DiPaolo. The Archaeology of Clothing and Bodily Adornment in Colonial
America. Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 2010, 121 p. The American
Experience in the Archaeological Perspective.
LOREN, Diana DiPaolo. “Material Manipulations: Beads and Cloth in the French
Colonies.” Carolyn WHITE ed. The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies
of Individual Lives. New York, Springer, 2009, p. 109-124.
LOREN, Diana DiPaolo. “Social Skins.” Journal of Social Archaeology. Vol. 1 No. 2
(2001), p.172-189.
LUNN, Jean. “Economic Development in New France, 1713-1760.” Doctoral Dissertation,
Université McGill, 1942, 495 p.
MACDONALD, David. “Introduction to Colonial Era Lead Seals.” Le Journal, Vol.29, No.4
(2013), p. 1-6
MAINFORT, R.C. Jr. “Wealth, Space, and Status in a Historic Indian Cemetery.” American
Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 3 (1985), p. 555-579.
MARSDEN, Peter. The Wreck of the Amsterdam. New York, Stein and Day, 1974, 290 p.
MARTINETTI, Brice. Les Négociants de La Rochelle au XVIIIe siècle. Rennes, Presses
Universitaires de Rennes, 2013. “ Histoire” Collection, 447 p.
MATHIEU, Jacques. “Comment analyser un objet.” LÉTOURNEAU, Jocelyn, Le Coffre à
Outils du Chercheur Débutant. Québec, Les Éditions du Boreal, 2006. p. 107-114.
MAZRIM, Robert. At Home in the Illinois Country: French Colonial Domestic Site
Archaeology in the Midwest, 1730-1800. University of Illinois, Illinois State
Archaeological Survey, 2011, 247 p. Issue 9, Studies in Archaeology.
MCDONNELL, Michael. Masters of Empire: Great Lakes Indians and the Making of
America. New York, Macmillan, 2015, 416 p.
MCVEIGH, Karen. “Cambodian female workers in Nike, Asics, and Puma factories suffer
mass faintings.” The Guardian. 6/24/2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/female-cambodian-garment-
workers-mass-fainting.
MILLER, Heather Margeret-Louise. Archaeological Approaches to Technology. Walnut
Creek, CA, Left Coast Press, Inc., 2009, 282 p.
MIMEAUL, Mario. “La continuité de l'emprise des compagnies de pêche françaises et
jersiaises sur les pêcheurs au XVIIIe siècle Le cas de la compagnie Robin.” Histoire
sociale- Social History, Vol. XVIII, No. 35 (May 1985) p. 59-74.
MINARD, Philippe. La Fortune du colbertisme. État et industrie dans la France des
Lumières. Paris, Fayard, 1998. 505 p.
MONETTE, Yves. “La recherche des métaux sous le Régime français et le cas particulier de
l’exploitation des gîtes de plomb en Nouvelle-France.” Hélène CÔTÉ, dir. and Christian
ROY. Rêves d’Amériques :Regard sur l’archéologie de la Nouvelle-France / Dreams of
210
the Americas: Overview of New France Archaeology. Québec, Association des
archéologues du Québec, 2008, p. 205-220. Archéologiques, Collection Hors Série 2.
MONTGOMERY, Florence M. Textiles in America, 1650-1870. W. W. Norton & Company
2007 (1984), 496 p.
MOORE, Christopher. “Merchant Trade in Louisbourg, Isle Royale.” Master’s thesis,
Ottawa, University of Ottawa, 1977, 144 p.
MOORE, Christopher. Commodity Imports of Louisbourg. Fortress of Louisbourg
unpublished manuscript report, No. 317, 1975, 115 p.
MIQUELON, Dale. “Havy and Lefebvre of Quebec : A Case Study of Metropolitan
Participation in Canadian Trade, 1730-60.” Canadian Historical Review Vol. 56 No. 1,
1975, p.1-24
MIQUELON, Dale. Dugard of Rouen : French Trade to Canada and the West Indies 1729-
1770. Montréal and London, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1978, 282 p.
MORAND, Lynn L. Craft Industries at Fort Michilimackinac. Mackinac Island, Mich,
Mackinac State Historic Parks, 1994, 89 p. Archaeological Completion Report Series,
No. 15.
NASSANEY, Michael S., et al. “The Search for Fort St. Joseph (1691-1781) in Niles,
Michigan.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 28 No. 2, 2003, p.107-144.
NASSANEY, Michael S. The Archaeology of the North American Fur Trade. Gainesville,
University of Florida Press, 2015, 280 p. The American Experience in Archaeological
Perspective.
NASSANEY, Michael S. and Terrance J. MARTIN. “Food and Furs at French Fort St.
Joseph.” Elizabeth M. SCOTT, ed., Archaeological Perspectives on the French in the
New World. Gainsville, University Press of Florida, 2017, p.83-111.
NEILL, Sarah M. “Emblems of Ethnicity : Ribbonwork Garments from the Great Lakes
Region.” M.S. NASSANEY and E.S. JOHNSON eds. Interpretations of Native North
American Life : Material Contributions to Ethnohistory. Gainesville, University Press
of Florida, 2000, p.146-70.
NIÈRES, Claude. Histoire de Lorient. Toulouse, Privat, 1988, 319 p. Pays et villes de
France.
NOBLE, Vergil E. “Functional Analysis and Intra-Site Analysis in Historical Archaeology:
A Case Study from Fort Ouiatenon.” Master’s Thesis, East Lansing, MI, Michigan
State University, 1983, 359p.
OIKONOMIDÈS, Nicolas. Byzantine Lead Seals. Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks, 1985,
28 p.
PRITCHARD, James S. “The Pattern of French Colonial Shipping to Canada before 1760.”
Revue française d’histoire d’outre-mer. Volume 63, No. 231 (1976), p. 189-210.
211
PROULX, Gilles, Étude sur le costume militaire à Louisbourg : 1713-1758. Louisbourg,
Parks Canada, c1971. Online at
http://www.krausehouse.ca/krause/FortressOfLouisbourgResearchWeb/Search/HF17R-
3.htm.
RAVEUX, Olivier. “The Birth of a New European Industry: L’Indiennage in Seventeenth-
Century Marseille.” Giorgio RIELLO and Prasannan PARTHASARATHI eds. The Spinning
World: A Global History of Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850. Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2009, p. 291-306.
RAY, Arthur J. and Donald B. FREEMAN. “Give us Good Measure” : an Economic Analysis
of Relations between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Company before
1763. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1978, 298 p.
REGIS, Jean and PROULX, André. Le commerce à Place Royale sous le Régime français.
Québec, Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la culture et des communications,
1995. Collection Patrimoine, Vol. 94. 548 p.
RIELLO, Giorgio and PARTHASARATHI, Prasannan, eds. The Spinning World: A Global
History of Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, 489 p.
RIELLO, Georgio. “The Globalization of Cotton Textiles: Indian Cottons, Europe and the
Atlantic World, 1600-1850.” Giorgio RIELLO and Prasannan PARTHASARATHI eds. The
Spinning World: A Global History of Cotton Textiles, 1200-1850. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2009, p. 261-287.
ROBERTS, David. “DUMAS, ALEXANDRE.” Dictionary of Canadia Biography, Vol. 5.
University of Toronto/Université Laval, 1983.
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/dumas_alexandre_5E.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
SABATIER, Antoine. Sigillographie historique des administrations fiscales, communautés
ouvrières et institutions diverses ayant employé des sceaux de plomb (XIV-XVIII
siècles): plombs histories de la Saône et de la Seine. Paris, H. Champion, 1912, 527 p.
SABATIER, Antoine. « Étude Révisionnelle des Sceaux de Plomb Fiscaux et Commerciaux.
» Bulletin de la Société des Sciences & Arts de Beaujolais, No. 33 (January-March,
1908), p. 5-30.
SÉGUIN, Robert Lionel. La civilisation traditionnelle de l' "habitant " aux XVIIe et XVIIIe
siècles. Ottawa, Fides, 1967, 701 p. Collection Fleur de Lys.
STARBUCK, David R. The Archaeology of Forts and Battlefields. Gainesville, University
Press of Florida, 2011, 129 p. The American Experience in Archaeological Perspective.
STARBUCK, David R. Excavating the Sutlers’ House: Artifacts of the British Armies in Fort
Edward and Lake George. Lebanon, NH, University Press of New England, 2010, 132
p.
STARBUCK, David R. Rangers and Redcoats on the Hudson: Exploring the Past on Rogers
Island, The Birthplace of the U.S. Army Rangers. Lebanon, NH, University Press of
New England, 2004, 139 p.
212
STILL, Michael Charles William. “Roman Lead Sealings, Vol. 1.” Doctoral Dissertation,
London, University College London, 1995, 236 p.
STONE, Lyle. Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the
Revolutionary Frontier. Lansing, The Museum, Michigan State University, 1974, 367
p.
TAILLEFER, Michel. Vivre à Toulouse sous l’Ancien Régime. Paris, Perrin, 2000, 424 p.
Collection Vivre sous l’Ancien Régime.
THÉVENIN, Michel. “Nous étions réduits à la dernière extrémité » : la reddition de Québec
de 1759 vue par son signataire.” Pier-Alexandre DORÉ et al., Actes du 16e colloque
étudiant du Département des sciences historiques de l’Université Laval, Québec, 2017,
p. 153-172.
TRAVIS, Hannah. A Day in the Life of a Sweatshop Worker.” Odyssey. 7/18/2016.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/day-in-the-life-of-sweatshop-worker.
TRIGGER, Bruce. Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Reconsidered.
Montréal, McGill-Queens Press, 1986, 430 p.
TRUDEL, Marcel. La Nouvelle-France par les textes : les cadres de vie. Québec,
Bibliothèque québecoise, 2011 (2003), 399p.
WASELKOV, Gregory A. “Tunica Archaeology. By Jeffery P. Brain.” Ethnohistory, Vol. 38
No. 3 (Summer 1991), Duke University Press, p.345-347. Book review.
WASELKOV, Gregory A. Old Mobile Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Studies,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, The University of Alabama Press, 1999, 64
p. University of South Alabama Archaeology Booklet 1.
WICKER, Alden. “Fast Fashion is Creating an Environmental Crisis.” Newsweek Magasin
e. 9/1/2016. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/09/old-clothes-fashion-waste-crisis-
494824.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
WITGEN, Michael. An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North
America. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012, 456 p.
WHITE, Bruce M. “The Trade Assortment: The Meanings of Merchandise in the Ojibwa
Fur Trade.” Sylvie DÉPATIE dir., Catherine DESBARATS, Danielle GAUVREAU, Mario
LALANCETTE, Thomas WIEN. Vingt ans après, Habitants et marchands: Lectures de
l’histoire des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles canadiens. Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 1998, p.115-137. Studies on the History of Quebec/Études d’histoire du Québec.
WHITE, Richard. The Middle Ground : Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes
Region, 1650-1815. Second edition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010
(1991), 576 p.
WHITE, Sophie. Wild Frenchmen and Frenchified Indians : Material Culture and Race in
Colonial Louisiana. Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press, 2012, 329 p.
213
WHITE, Sophie. “This gown...was much admired and made many ladies jealous": Fashion
and the Forging of Elite Identities in French Colonial New Orleans.” Tamara HARVEY
and Greg O’BRIEN eds. George Washington's South. University Press of Florida, 2004,
p. 86-118.
WILLMOTT, Corey. “From Stroud to Strouds: The Hidden History of a British Fur Trade
Textile.” Textile History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2005). p. 196-234.
WEBSITES
“Armoiries de Montauban,” Les Emblèmes de France, 11/3/2009.
http://emblemes.free.fr/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=869:arm
oiries-de-montauban&catid=13004:montauban&Itemid=209. Consulted 6/24/18.
Bagseals.org - for all lovers of Sigillography and Sphragistics! http://bagseals.org.
Consulted 6/24/18.
“Blason et logos de Pont-de-l’Arche, l’identité visuelle de la ville au cours des siècles,”
Pont-de-l’Arche ma ville…Histoire patrimoine & tourisme, 1/8/2014.
http://pontdelarche.over-blog.com/2014/01/blason-et-logos-de-pont-de-l-arche-l-
identit%C3%A9-visuelle-de-la-ville-au-cours-des-si%C3%A8cles.html. Consulted
6/24/18.
“Le blazon de la ville de Marseille,” Decouvrir Marseille.
http://decouvrirmarseille.marseille.fr/histoire-de-marseille/blason. Consulted 6/24/18.
“Brocatelle,” Vintage Fashion Guild, 7/8/2012. https://vintagefashionguild.org/fabric-
resource/brocatelle/. Consulted 6/25/18.
“Burland Family Coat of Arms,” Coat of Arms Database.
https://coadb.com/surnames/burland-arms.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
“Grant of Arms,” The Incorperation of Weavers, Fullers and Shearmen.
http://www.tuckershall.org.uk/incorporation/incorporation/125-grant-of-
arms#prettyPhoto. Consulted 6/24/18.
“Histoire de La Grave,” Le Centre hospitalier universitaire de Toulouse au service de la
vie et de l’innovation. http://www.chu-toulouse.fr/-histoire-de-la-grave-. Consulted
6/24/18.
“Transcript of professions and trades for Halifax in Pigot’s Directory of 1834,” GEN UKI,
UK and Ireland Genealogy.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Halifax/Halifax34Dry.html. Consulted
6/24/18.
“The Tauroentum Museum,” Saint-Cyr-sur-Mer Porte du littoral Varois Office de
Tourisme. http://www.saintcyrsurmer.com/en/visit/the-tauroentum-museum. Consulted
6/24/18.
214
“Un trésor oublié: l’Armorial de La Planche- 1669- Normandie- Bailliage de Caen,”
Herald Dick Magazine, 6/10/2012. http://herald-dick-magasin
e.blogspot.com/2015/04/les-departements-francais-et-les.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
“What is "Burling" - Definition & Explanation,” TextileGlossary.com.
http://www.textileglossary.com/terms/burling.html. Consulted 6/24/18.
“Saint-Mayeux,” infoBretagne.com. http://www.infobretagne.com/saint-mayeux.htm.
Consulted 6/24/18.
“Saint-Mayeux.” http://cassini.ehess.fr/cassini/fr/html/fiche.php?select_resultat=33607.
Consulted 6/24/18.
ANONYMOUS. Etoffes de Provence et des provinces voisines dont le peuple fait usage en
provence. 1736. http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40504681s.
GOTTFRED, J. “Marking of Pieces.” Northwest Journal, 2012.
http://www.northwestjournal.ca/. (Site with some history of the fur trade, page
concerning bale markings and their meanings). Consulted 6/24/18.
MINISTÈRE DE CULTURE ET COMMUNICATION DE QUÉBEC and ARCHÉO-QUÉBEC.
“Métropole-Monopole: une place marchande.” La Collection de Place Royale se
révèle. 2016. http://placeroyale.archeoquebec.com/.