Part 2 - Chapter 5

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

     TOPIC     PEOPLE

ROANOKE

JAMESTOWN

VIRGINIA
according to Beverley

I
HAIR

Women

Wore fringed over eyes & hanging a little below the ears on sides; long in back in a knot at nape of neck. Also, could wear it in the same style but not caught in a knot. Defined marital status. Married  women had all hair the same length & tied in a pleat down the back; Unmarried women had forepart of head and sides shaved closely; wore a long pleat behind. Worn very long hanging in back or brought forward in a single lock or tied back. Could be worn greased but never painted.
     HAIR

Common Men

Cockscomb ended in a loose knot; hair thinned or shaved around sides; old men might let a thin beard grow in. Hair cut on right side of head; left let to grow long; wore left side in a knot or in a long lock over left shoulder. Worn after several fashions; could be worn in a cockscomb with rest shorn off or knotted behind. Worn greased or painted.
     HAIR

Chief

Same as common man. ---------------- -------------
     HAIR

Chief
Powhatan

---------------- Hair hanging to shoulders. -------------
     HAIR

Distinguished
Men

     -------------- --------------- Long lock worn behind.
    HAIR

Priests

Completely shaven but for a crest and a cockscomb in front. Shaven on right side of head with a little lock at left ear.

Beards possible.

Completely shaven but for a crest in front and a cockscomb.
     HAIR

Conjurer

Hair on head completely shaven but for a cockscomb. ---------------- Hair on head completely shaven but for a cockscomb.

II
DRESS

Women

Usually wore double apron-skirt; worn high under breast or near navel reaching knees; sometimes decorated with beads.

Possibility of wearing fringed mantles over one shoulder and reaching knees.

No moccasins.

All covered themselves from the waist down.

Better sort wore mantles painted and fringed.

Wore large mantles sometimes girded at middle.

Cloth or small skins worn underneath on lower part of body.

Sometimes wore moccasins.

     DRESS

Males

Common Man

Single apron-skirt.

Mantle tied over one shoulder and ending at knees.

Breech clout worn.

No moccasins.

When hunting, could  wear a Puma tail as a quiver holder.

Skins to cover front and back private parts.

Poorer class used natural vegetation to cover private parts.

Mantles of skins in winter or mantles of feathers.

Leggings worn to thighs. 

Moccasins worn in cold weather or when hunting.

Wore large mantles wrapped around body; sometimes girt at the middle.

Common man wore a breech clout.

Fastened quiver to himself with an animal tail.

Sometimes wore moccasins.

     DRESS

Males

Chiefs

Garments decorated more than those of the common man. Garments decorated more than those of the common man. Better class wore apron-skirts; decorated their garments more than did the common man.
     DRESS

Priests

Wore short circular cloak to thighs; worn with fur on the outside; tied so right arm was free. Clothes more highly decorated. Wore short circular cloak to thighs; worn with fur on the outside; tied so right arm was free.
     DRESS

Conjurer

Wore a breech clout of a skin from a small animal with head in front held up by a thin girdle. ------------------- Wore a breech clout of Otter skin  with tail fastened between legs; Bottom fringed with tassels.

III
TATTOOING
and
PAINTING

Women

Tattooed on face in a series of straight lines.

Tattooed bands on arms and legs.

Painting of faces, arms, etc.

Tattooing to resemble jewelry.

Tattooed with beasts, serpents, fruits, etc.; black and in colors.

More painting than tattooing for decoration and as a msoquito repellant.

Skin kept clean and shiny with oil.

No use of paint.

TATTOOING
       and
  PAINTING

Males

Not tattoed except for identification mark on shoulder.

Geometric designs painted on body and jewelry painted on.

Used painting instead of tattooing for jewelry and to show rank and as a mosquito repellant.

Painted intricate geometric designs on their bodies.

Tattoos on breast, shoulder, legs.

Tattooed mark on shoulder blade  for identification.

Painted themselves.

IV
JEWELRY

Women

Wore 5 & 6 chains of large pearls, copper beads, & smooth bones.

Wore necklaces with hanging pendants.

Wore twisted headbands.

Wore large earrings

Wore elaborate earrings that could be made from bird claws, pearls, copper, etc.

Wore necklaces and other jewelry.

Wore bird wings in hair.

Wore only feathers in hair.

Wore simple necklaces, bracelets, and earrings.

  JEWELRY

Queen

---------------- Wore a crownet of copper; wore feathers and flowers in hair. --------------
  JEWELRY

Women of
Rank

--------------- ---------------- Wore beaded-woven coronets on head or wreaths of dyed fur.

Wore necklaces, bracelets, & earrings.

  JEWELRY

Common
Men

Wore earrings, & necklaces of beads.

Wore a feather in front of roach & two longer ones in back of ears or just one in back.

Wore feathers in knot of hair.

Wore other items in knot such as wings of a bird.

Wore very elaborate earrings including live snakes, etc.

Wore only feathers in hair.

Also wore other jewelry.

  JEWELRY

Chief

Wore much jewelry to show rank.

Authority was shown by chains and pearls.

Wore a coronet of deer's hair dyed red.

Wore plate of copper & 2 feathers on shaven side of head and a crown of deer's hair around knot.

--------------
  JEWELRY

Men of Rank

---------------- -------------- Wore woven-beaded coronet on head or wreath of dyed fur.

Wore earrings, bracelets, & necklaces.

  JEWELRY

Priests

Wore no visible jewelry other than earrings. Hierarchy defined by degree of ornamentation.

Inferior priests were not differentiated from common man.

High priests decorated their heads with stuffed snakes & moss which extended over their faces.

----------------
  JEWELRY

Conjurer

Wore a bird over his right ear to signify office. --------------- Wore skin of dark colored bird upon ear.

V
MISCEL-
LANEOUS

Children

Small children went naked; young girls of 8 wore a pad of moss between their legs. Girls of 11 or 12 wore a single apron-skirt. Young boy described was wearing a piece of soft skin fastened to a string running between legs and around waist.

            Beverley - Tab # 2
Tab2sm.jpg (19542 bytes)Robert Beverley's book, The History and Present State of Virginia, is divided into four sections. Section three deals with the dress and customs of the Indians. While this section, according to scholars and through innuendo is supposed to deal historically with the Indians circa 1600, Beverley's text is written in the present tense.

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
Tab3sm.jpg (15807 bytes)Some of these pictures describe the Indians as he thought they would have appeared in their "natural state," while others depict them dressed after "European contact." Figure 2 in Tab 3 is such an example. However, this picture might possibly present a contradiction from his earlier text in which he appeared to described the coronet on the Indian's head as having been worn when in his "natural state" prior to European influence. The match-coat he is wearing is described as being made of the English Duffield as are his leggings.

"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 comparisonsm.jpg (27476 bytes)


1. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, edited by David Hawke, p. xii.

2. Briceland, Alan, Westward from Virginia, p. 128.

3. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts, 1705 edition, p. 2 of preface.

4. Briceland, Westward from Virginia, p. 128.

5. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts, 1705 edition, table of contents, pp. 7 & 8.

6. Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts, book 2, p.34.

7. Parkes, The United States of America, p. 42.

8. Beverley, The History and present State of Virginiain Four Parts, 1705 edition, Book 3, pp. 1 & 2.

9. Ibid., bk 3, p. 2.

10. Ibid., bk 3, p. 3.

11. Ibid., bk 3, pp 2 & 3.

12. Ibid., bk. 3, pp. 6 & 7.

13. Ibid., Bk. 3, pp. 5 & 6.

14. Ibid., bk. 3, p. 5.