AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Daniel on May 08, 2017, 11:18:49 PM
-
am looking for any documentation on if there were any Dutch or French trade guns with the Plains Indians.
So far I can't find any.
-
Are you looking for documentation on the specific guns and specific tribes?
The French were trading directly and indirectly with several of the "Plains Indians" in the 18th century. The Dutch would have been limited to the eastern seaboard. I have no idea if any of their guns made it as far east as the Great Plains along the complex trade networks.
-
Looking at Northern Plains. Sioux, Cheyenne, Blackfeet.
-
Gotcha. I don't have any books on specific French trade guns at hand, but there are some out there that may cover that. You might check out Ryan R. Gale's books for details. Hopefully someone else here will chime in.
Here's what I can think of off the top of my head, so don't quote me on it. The French were technically not involved in the trade after 1763, but French-Canadians would have still been mainstays of the trade into the mid-19th century. Most of the later period guns would have been northwest guns. Most of their trading network remains centralized around the Mississippi River Valley and Great Lakes, but their forts did stretch west into Minnesota and west-central Canada. Other Native American groups also acted as middlemen and spread trade goods further west than the French traders themselves. I'm guessing you are looking for info on pre-1763 guns? They would have been various trade type fusil de chasse.
-
Two books you need to get. "Colonial Frontier Guns" by Hamilton and "The French trade gun In North America" by Gladysz. Dutch trade guns were distributed in the North East and that's about it. I have one. The French got there stuff as far as Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri,Minnesota, Wisconsin for Western areas and all over the South east, South and New England and of course Canada. I have no doubt they were traded in the area you're interested in but I don't think there is any archeological evidence to support it.
-
Thanks guys. I have the Hamilton book. Forgot that.