Robert Beverley's description of the Virginia Indians. Many writers quote Beverley as if he had been a primary observer in the early seventeenth century. Historians seem to feel that Beverley's descriptions of the Indians refer to the Powhatan Indians who lived in the vicinity of Jamestown when it was first discovered by the English. Beverley, however, was not born until 1673. Even though he was born in Virginia, he went to England for his schooling until he was nineteen years old.1 According to Briceland, he started his history, while still living in London at the end of the 17th century, by "....making use of a number of documents located there..".2 His book was published after his return to America in 1705. Beverley stated in the preface of his book: "If an honest author might be believed in his own cause, I would solemnly declare, that I have not knowingly asserted any untrue thing in the whole text."3 He, also, stated in the preface: "I have been very scrupulous, not to insert any thing, but what I can justify, either by my knowledge, or by credible Information" However, Briceland claims that Beverley did not always followed the documents as previously written by primary observers. He uses Fallam's Journal as his example when he states: Beverley departed greatly and imaginatively from the Fallam text.4 Robert Beverley's book covers a period of over one hundred years, from the first exploration of Sir Walter Raleigh, Greenville, and White to the governorship of Francis Nicholson in 1690.5 Three factors influenced the decision to treat Beverley's descriptions separately from those of John Smith and others. Firstly, in order for Beverley to access information on how the Indians dressed historically, he had to use information gleaned from either written or verbal sources. Thus, his information is, at best, second hand. Therefore it should not be included with primary source material since it, by definition and circumstance, is based on that same material. Secondly, the title of his book reflects that he is dealing with both the past and present history of Virginia. His writings do not differentiate clearly between the two although the assumption can be followed that he is mainly describing the Virginia Indians of the early part of the seventeenth century. This assumption seems accurate because the title to book four of the work is The Present State of Virginia and the titles to Books One and Two imply the past. Thirdly, he attributed his "Virginia" Indians with characteristics of both the Roanoke and Jamestown (Powhatan) Indians. He used De Bry's renditions of White's pictures of the Roanoke area Algonquian Indians as the basis for his descriptions of many aspects of his "Virginia" Indian's material culture. He, further, inferred that the pictures in his book were recently drawn from life by stating: "The following Print, (as all the others in this Book,) was drawn by the Life."6 When he wrote the book The History and Present State of Virginia, the colonies of Virginia and Carolina had been distinct entities since 1663.7 However, as can be seen from the following table and will be discussed in the text that follows, he used many of the characteristics of both the Carolina Algonquians and the Virginia Algonquians as described by Hariot and Smith et al. Unfortunately, scholars have attributed this melange of characteristics and customs to the Indians in the vicinity of Jamestown in the early seventeenth century. The following table shows a comparison of the dress and adornment of the Algonquian Indians of early Jamestown and Roanoke and Beverley's use of the material as applied by him to the early Powhatan Indians of Jamestown: Dress and Adornment of the Algonquian Indians in the Southeast
Beverley - Tab # 2 Beverley, according to his writings, had a high regard for the Indian's physical appearance. "They are so perfect in their outward frame, that I never heard of one single Indian that was either dwarfish, crooked, bandy legg'd, or otherwise mis-shapen. But if they have any such practice among them as the Romans had, of exposing such children till they dyed, as were weak and mis-shapen at their Birth, they are very shy of confessing it, and I could never yet learn that they had."8 "Their women are generally Beautiful, possessing an uncommon delicacy of Shape and Features, and wanting no Charm, but that of a fair Complexion."9 Since Beverley felt that "...a Draught of these things [Indian's dress] will inform the reader more at first view than a description in many words,"10 he described the Indian's dress more through pictures than through words. However, he did devote approximately a page to a general description. "The Men wear their Hair cut after several fanciful Fashions, sometimes greas'd, and sometimes painted. The Great Men, or better sort, preserve a long Lock behind for distinction. They pull their Beards up by the roots with a Muscle shell; and both Men and Women do the same by other parts of their Body for Cleanlines sake. The Women wear the Hair of the Head very long, either hanging at their Backs, or brought before in a single Lock, bound up with a Fillet of peak or Beads; sometimes also they wear it neatly tyed up in a Knot behind. It is commonly greased, and shining black, but never painted." "The people of Condition of both Sexes, wear a sort of Coronet on their heads, from 4 to 6 inches broad, open at the top, and composed of Peak or beads, or els of both interwoven together, and workt into Figures, made by a nice mixture of the Coulors. Sometimes they wear a Wreath of Dyed Furrs; as likewise Bracelets on their Necks and Arms. The Common People go bare headed, only sticking large shining Feathers about their Heads as their fancies lead them. "Their Cloaths are a large Mantle, carelessly wrapped about their Bodies, and sometimes girt close in the middle with a Girdle. The upper part of the Mantle is drawn close upon the Shoulders, and the other hangs below their Knees. When that's thrown off, they have only for Modesty sake a piece of Cloath or a small Skin tyed round about their Waste, which reaches down to the middle of the Thigh. The common sort tye only a String round their Middle, and pass a piece of Cloath or Skin round between their Thighs, which they turn at each end over the String [a breech clout as distinct from an apron-skirt.] "Their Shoes, when they wear any, are made of an entire piece of Buck-Skin; except when they sow a piece to the bottom, to thicken the Soal. They are fasten'd on with running Strings, the Skin being drawn together like a purse on the top of the Foot, and tyed round the Ankle. The Indian name of this kind of Shoe is Moccasin."11 "The dress of the Women is little different from that of the Men, except in the tying of their Hair. The Ladies of Distinction wear deep Necklaces, Pendants and bracelets, made of small Cyllnders of Conque shell, which they call Peak: They likewise keep their Skin clean, and shining with Oyl, while the men are commonly bedaub'd all over with paint. "They are remarkable for having small round Breasts, and so firm, that they are hardly ever observ'd to hang down, even in old Women. They commonly go naked as far as the Navel, by which means they have the advantage of discovering their fine Limbs, and compleat Shape."12 If Beverley in his discussion of the women's appearance is referring to how they looked in the early seventeenth century, then he contradicts all known reports by the early Virginia settlers who stated that the Indian women wore paint and were tattooed. Beverley's description of the dress of the priest also does not follow the descriptions of the early Jamestown settlers but is almost identical to the picture that Hariot described and White painted. "The Habit of the Indian Priest, is a Cloak made in the form of a Woman's Petticoat; but instead of tying it about the middle, they fasten the gatherings about their Neck, and tye it upon the Right Shoulder, always keeping one Arm out to use upon occasion. This Cloak hangs even at the bottom but reaches no lower than the middle of the thighs, but what is most particular in it, is, that it is constantly made of skin drest soft, with the pelt or Furr on the outside, and revers'd; insomuch, that when the Cloak has been a little worn, the hair falls down in flakes, and looks very shaggerd, and frightful. "The cut of their Hair is likewise peculiar to their Function; for 'tis shaven close except a thin Crest, like a Cocks-comb which stands bristling up, and runs in semi-circle from the Forehead up along the Crown to the nape of the neck: They likewise have a border of Hair over the Forehead, which by its own strength, and by the stiffening it receives from Grease and Paint, will stand out like the peak of a Bonnet."13 As stated previously, Beverley used some of De Bry's images of John White's paintings of the North Carolina Algonquian Indians. He used some without any modification and changed others to better reflect his text. Beverley - Tab # 3 "Figure 2 wears the Duffield Match-coat bought of the English, on his Head is a Coronet of Peak, on his Legs are Stockings made of Duffields: That is, they take a length to reach from the Ankle to the Knee, so broad as to wrap round the Leg; this they sow together, letting the edges stand out an inch beyond the Seam [not visible in the illustration]. When this is on, they Garter below the Knee, and fasten the lower end in the Moccasin."14 Beverley's illustration found in Tab. 6, is almost the same as that of De Bry. However, Beverley has changed the gender of the child from female to male, while leaving the appearance the same except for the articles in his hands. Most reports do not show the male child as wearing any type of covering. Beverley has also modified De Bry's etching entitled "Their manner of careying ther Childern" to represent one of the women in winter dress carrying her child in her match-coat. He has also changed the background and included a picture of a cradle board which does not represent the usual depiction of such. While Beverley's information on dress and adornment is interesting, its lack of chronological specificity precludes it from being used in this text in relation to a particular time frame. Comparison of White-DeBry and Beverley
3. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts, 1705 edition, p. 2 of preface. 5. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts, 1705 edition, table of contents, pp. 7 & 8. 8. Beverley, The History and present State of Virginiain Four Parts, 1705 edition, Book 3, pp. 1 & 2. 10. Ibid., bk 3, p. 3. |