Authors Note: This is the first part of a two part series of related articles and was originally published by the Journal of the Early Americas, Volume III, Issue I, March/April 2013, p. 6. A follow-on article called "...we must here mention that there manner of walking differs from that of white men", found [HERE].
In addition, in this increasingly politically correct world, I felt it wise to emphasize the following disclaimer: George Henry Loskiel, writing in 1794, stated that European colonists were called “white people…thus the Europeans and their descendants are called in America, to distinguish them from the Indians”. I will use this terminology throughout the article, in keeping with the conventions of the colonial and post-colonial era.
Several months ago I was reading,
“The Escape Of McKean’s Scouting Party In Otsego County”, in Josiah Priest’s Stories
of the Revolution; when I was struck by several passages,which went as
follows:
“…we discovered the track of a white man1, which was easily distinguishable from that
of an Indian.
…After
having squatted a long time, our Captain rose up and beckoned us together,
stating that he would go alone to the path and endeavour to discover whether
Indians or white men had now gone by and how many there were.
…Accordingly
he did, and followed on till he came to a wet spot; he soon returned, saying,
they are Indians, and not less than fifty in number
…this
very hour fifty-four Indians and tories have called here to tarry all night…”
2
These passages raised two questions
for which I had no answers. Exploring
these questions brings to light some interesting facets of colonial North
American life, and in particular some details about 18th century methods
of tracking. Additionally, having the answers
to these questions would make Josiah Priest’s account of McKeen’s scouting
party all the more intriguing, as we would understand how and why Captain Robert
McKeen3 and his rangers came to the conclusions that they did, and
also what they actually saw when they studied the first and second set of
tracks.
Firstly, why were the tracks of
white people easily distinguishable from those of Indians? And secondly, if the tracks of white people
were so easy to distinguish, why did Captain McKeen mistakenly think that the
party that had gone by had been made up of only Indians; when in fact it had
been made up of both Tories and Indians?
So why did Captain Robert McKeen and
his rangers find that the tracks of white people were so easily distinguishable
from those left by Indians?
Trackers can determine many things
from the tracks that a person leaves behind. Tracks can tell a tracker such things as the
direction the person was travelling, whether the person was walking, running or
carrying a heavy load, and how many people had passed by. A geography written in 1807, noted that
Indian trackers could discover from the tracks left behind, the time since the
tracks had been made, the sex, the stature, and the tribal nationality of the
person who had made the tracks.4
During the 18th century,
the type of tracks that a person left, whether they were made by shoes or were
made by a moccasins or shoepacks, would give a tracker clues as to that person’s
ethnicity, whether they were white people or Indians, and in some cases their
nationality, whether they were of British or French origin.
Because of the heels, shoes leave
tracks that are different from those left by moccasins and shoepacks: shoes
leave a two piece track, with a gap between the heel and the rest of the shoe.
 |
| Shoe tracks, photographed from personal experimentation |
Shoe tracks, drawn from personal
experimentation
Moccasins and shoepacks are a type
of heel-less foot covering, shoepacks were described as being “…a kind of half shoe and half moccasin…”.5.
Doddridge described shoepacks as being fashioned like a moccasin, except that “To the shoepack a sole was sometimes added…”.6
Because both are heel-less,
moccasins and shoepacks leave a one piece track that shows the imprint of the
whole foot.
 |
| Center seam moccasin tracks, photographed from personal experimentation |
Center seam moccasin tracks, drawn
from personal experimentation
Prior to the 17th
century, European shoes typically did not have heels; shoes with heels became
fashionable because of King Louis XIV of France, who reigned during the late
17th century. King Louis was
a very short man, who was obsessed with fashion and in particular with
shoes. He took to wearing shoes with
heels to make himself appear taller. The
well to do and the nobility quickly adopted this royal fashion and the poorer
classes followed. The fashion of wearing
shoes with heels spread throughout Europe and her colonial dependencies and was
firmly established by the 18th century, where by the end of the century
shoes with heels had become the norm for both men and women.7
Because the wearing of heeled shoes
was a European fashion, if a tracker found shoe tracks, then it was a strong
indication that a white settler had passed by.
That 18th century
trackers distinguished between the tracks that shoes made and those that
moccasins or shoepacks left, when guessing the ethnicity of the person who made
the tracks, is clearly shown in the passages below.
On June 10th 1778, at a settler’s house,
near present day Muncy, Pennsylvania three white settlers were
either taken captive or killed during an Indian raid. Colonel Hosterman, when describing the
results of the attack, clearly differentiates between the tracks made by
moccasins and the tracks made by shoes when he described the scene of the
attack.
“…near
the House, saw several mockasen & shoe tracks…”8
On May 21st, 1791 Joseph Cutter was
taken captive by Indian raiders near Cincinnati,
Ohio. He was the only white settler taken captive
during the raid and it appears from the account, that the Indians were clad in
moccasins, while he was wearing shoes.
The trackers in the rescue party were able to spot the differences
between the shoe tracks and the accompanying moccasin tracks and noted that the
person leaving the shoe tracks had lost a shoe.
Apparently they had already found one of Cutter’s shoes and that is how
they knew that he was still with the raiding party, as their captive.
“They soon were able to distinguish Cutter’s tracks, in consequence of
his losing one of his shoes; and discovered also, that the Indians were equal
to themselves in number.” 9
In the account of the 1793 capture
of Major Goodale in Ohio,
the tracker distinguished between the tracks shoes made and the tracks that
moccasins made when determining the fate of Major Goodale.
“…The
tracks of two Indians with mocasins on, and those of the Major with shoes on,
between the Indians’ tracks, showed the manner in which he was led off into
captivity.”10
The fact that it was the print of
the heel that made the track of a shoe clad white settler easily
distinguishable, from that of a moccasin clad Indian, for the 18th
century tracker can be seen in the account of the capture of Mrs. Glass. Samuel Kercheval, writing about the results
of an Indian raid in western Virginia
on March 27th,
1789 in which Mrs. Glass was taken captive, describes how the heel
mark of her shoe was the characteristic that set the shoe track apart from all the
other tracks:
“Mr. Glass could distinguish the track of his wife by the print of the
high heel of her shoe.” 11
The shape of the shoe tracks, also
gave the 18th century tracker clues as to the nationality of the
person who had left the tracks: the French wore shoes with sharp, narrow toes and
based on the Fort Ligonier finds, the British typically wore shoes that had wide,
rounded toes12. The first person
accounts below show how 18th century trackers used the shape of the
track to determine the nationality of the person who had passed by.
Captain John Knox, writing during
the Canadian campaigns of 1757 to 1760, implied that the tracks left by shoe
wearing Frenchmen, were different from the tracks left by shoe wearing
Englishmen. He also noted that there were
a clear differences between these shoe tracks and the tracks left by moccasins.
“…we
came upon human footsteps: some had the impression of a Moggosan, or Indian
slipper; and others a sharp-toe’d shoe, with a high short heel; these last, as
our guide informed us , are what are usually worn by the French regulars, and
sometimes by Canadians,…”13
William Thompson, writing from Fort Littleton, Pennsylvania,
on August 17th,
1756 also noted the difference between moccasin tracks and shoe
tracks. He noted that the tracks left by
shoe wearing Frenchmen were noticeably different from the tracks left by shoe
wearing Englishmen.
“When
viewing the Place where they Indians were supposed to be, found Tracks, and
following them down the Creek the [sic] Increased to a Larger Number, and
Several Shoe Tracks with Narrow Toes being among them, there is no doubt both
French and Indians are in the Gang.”14
When Captain McKeen and his Rangers
first saw “the track of a white man”
15 it would appear that what they saw were tracks made by someone wearing
shoes. This is the only way that the
tracks would have been easily distinguishable from those made by a moccasin
clad Indian. In fact, Captain McKeen and
his Rangers believed that the tracks belonged to a Tory named Regnal, who lived
on the east side Otsego Lake near its outlet,16 and who might have
seen them pass by at the beginning of their scout.
Secondly, if the tracks of white people
were so easy to distinguish, why did Captain McKeen, after studying the tracks
at the wet spot, conclude that the raiders that had passed them on the trail
had consisted of only Indians, when later on a witness confirmed that the raiding
party had been made up of both Indians and Tories?
When the tracks that had been left behind
had been made by moccasins or a shoepacks, then there were fewer clues left
behind for the 18th century tracker, since both Indians and white people
wore moccasins and shoepacks. That 18th
century trackers had difficulty in determining the ethnicity of the person who
was wearing moccasins or shoepacks is clearly shown in the following first hand
accounts.
Colonel Adam Stephen, writing from
Fort Cumberland, on September 27th, 1755, stated that by wearing
something other than shoes, the tracks that his scouts made when on patrol
would go unrecognized by French and Indian trackers as being made by white people.
“The
Indians discover our Parties by the Track of their Shoes. It would be a good thing to have Shoe-packs
or Moccosons for the Scouts.” 17
Even Daniel Boone, who was
recognized as an expert tracker, had difficulty determining the ethnicity of a
moccasin or shoepack clad person. This
is shown in a letter written by Colonel Williams from Boonesborough on January
3rd, 1776 where he describes the aftermath of an Indian ambush that
took place on December 23rd, 1775 and that had been investigated by
Colonel Boone.
“…could
make no other discovery than two mockisson tracks, whether Indians’ or not,
could not be determined.” 18
So what did Captain McKeen actually
see when he went back to the trail to discover who had gone by and “followed on till he came to a wet spot…”,19
where he would have found clear, well defined tracks?
It is obvious that the tracks he saw
were not made by shoes, since if they had been shoe tracks; he would have correctly
concluded that they had been made by white people. Instead, what Captain McKeen must have seen
in the mud of the trail were tracks that had been made by people who were all wearing
moccasins or shoepacks.
In fact, the party that had passed
them by on the trail had been made up of both Indians and Tories, but due to
the difficulty in distinguishing between moccasin tracks made by Indians and
those made by moccasin clad white people, he mistook their ethnicity, when he
guessed that the entire raiding party was made up of Indians.
So, now we understand more about the
practices of 18th century trackers and their ability to gather
information from the tracks left behind.
Also, we now know what Captain McKeen and rangers actually saw when they
came upon the first and second set of tracks and why they came to the
conclusions that they did: this is what makes Josiah Priest’s account of “The
Escape Of McKean’s Scouting Party In Otsego County” all the more intriguing.
Notes
3Josiah Priest misspelled
the Captain’s name in his account, it is actually spelled McKeen
4 “They perceive the
track of a foot on the smoothest grass, and on the hardest substance. From the track they discover, with amazing
certainty, the nation, the sex, the stature of the person who has passed; and
the time that has elapsed since the track was formed.”
6 Rev. Dr Joseph
Doddridge, Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of the Western Parts of
Virginia & Pennsylvania, from the year 1763 until the year 1783 inclusive,
(Wellsburgh, VA; printed at the office of the Gazette, [1824]) 144 Reprinted in
http://www.archive.org/details/notesonsettlemen00dodd
(accessed July 26, 2011)
7 Anthony G. Randolph,
Jr., The Analysis and Conversation of the Belle Footwear Assemblage, (A
Thesis submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A & M
University, [December 2003]), 75-77. http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/Randolph-MA2003.pdf
(accessed August 16, 2011)
12 Of the 63 shoes discovered
at the Fort Ligonier archeological investigation
during 1960-1965, where the toe tip could be identified from the sole, 44 shoes
or 69% of the discoveries were described as having wide, rounded toes. Of the remaining 19 shoes, 22% or 14 shoes
were described as having wide, square toes.
Jacob l. Grimm, Archeological
Investigation of Fort Ligonier, 1960-1965, (Pittsburgh, PA,
Annals of Carnegie
Museum, [1970] 105, 135.
16 “…we discovered the
track of a white man, which was easily distinguishable from that of an
Indian. Immediately we felt assured that
our plan was discovered, and did not doubt but it was by the vigilance of a
tory named Regnal, who lived exactly where the house now stands which was built
by the noted Bowers, at the foot of Otsego, on the east side.”
Ibid. 16.
17 Stanislaus Murray Hamilton,
editor, Letters to Washington and Accompanying Papers, Vol I 1752-1756, (New
York, printed by, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, [1898]), 99. Reprinted in http://books.google.com/books?id=UoN6tkdByacC&pg=PA99&dq=%22The+Indians+discover+our+Parties+by+the+Track%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OogbT57pIqLz0gG5k-WmCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Indians%20discover%20our%20Parties%20by%20the%20Track%22&f=false
(accessed April 11, 2011)
18 James Hall, Sketches
of History, Life, and Manners, in the West, Vol. II, (Philadelphia, printed
by Harrison Hall, [1835]), 241-246. Reprinted in http://books.google.com/books?id=2ykVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=%22could+make+no+other+discovery+than+two+mockisson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DIkbT4qTI8PW0QHu9v2ZCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22could%20make%20no%20other%20discovery%20than%20two%20mockisson%22&f=false
(accessed May 5, 2011)
