Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 12

A Survey of Louisbourg Gunflints

by T. M. Hamilton and Bruce W. Fry

Conclusions

Since two dissimilar aggregations of gunflints have been described, it would be best to present separately specific conclusions on the two lots.

The Battery Island Gunflints

Taken as a whole, the gunflints found on Battery Island are not typical of those from the second quarter of the 18th century. Of the 541 measurable flints, standard French gunflints compose less than 9 per cent of the total. On the other hand, chalk-heels, which are seldom seen in what may be called "normal" collections of French gunflints, represent 26 per cent. The peculiar pseudo-Dutch flints found among both the chalk-heels and the regular flints are, to our knowledge at least, a completely new variety, while the almost total absence of Dutch style gunflints has never before been observed by us in a mid-18th century context.

Just how this remarkable assembly of low quality gunflints ever got to such an important location as Louisbourg, as well as why they are almost exclusively confined to the precincts of Battery Island, are intriguing questions which we are in no position to answer. In this connection, the references to Louisbourg gunflints in correspondence during the years 1740, 1741 and 1745 are of interest. Can the "quantity of some thousands which are condemned," mentioned by Bigot in his letter of 5 December 1740, be represented today by the Battery Island gunflint cache?

It seems that the following conclusions can be drawn:

1) That this collection represents used French gunflints.

2) That they were used sometime between the completion of the fortification of Battery Island in 1734 and its abandonment after 1758.

3) That when these gunflints were bought (a) neither the procurement officer nor the supplier observed even rudimentary standards of quality, or (b) the art of making French style gunflints was in a rudimentary stage.

4) The four regular Dutch flints offer too small a sample upon which to base any conclusions.

5) The two peculiar gunflints with bulbs of percussion and conchoidal faces (Figs. 4, d; 5, e) may or may not represent abnormal Dutch-style flints. The only definite statement which can be made at this time is that the flint from which they are both made is indistinguishable from many of the French-style gunflints found on the island.

The Gunflints from within Louisbourg

So far as we can see, based upon our own observations and experience (Hamilton 1964: 52-7), the gunflints from within the fortress are about what one would expect in a site of this type and age. Unlike Witthoft, we have continued to feel that his original estimate (Hamilton 1960: 74) of a one to one ratio for French and Dutch gunflints at the time of the French and Indian War was approximately correct, The word "approximate" must be emphasized for there are bound to be variations in this ratio from site to site, not the least of which is the specific time bracket within which it was occupied; but if a sizeable military campsite occupied only during the 1750s could be isolated, we believe the count would show about 50 per cent French and 50 per cent Dutch. Though we believe that French flints were in the American trade before 1700, they did not become a significant factor until an as yet undetermined later date. Also, we suspect that French flints were used in quantity first by the French military, and only later by what may be termed the civilian population, including the fur traders and Indians. Therefore, in contrast to the hypothetical French military site of the 1750s, we would expect an Indian site of the same period to produce a greater proportion of Dutch than French gunflints, although the French flints should definitely be present.

The situation at Louisbourg is, of course, more complex. It was occupied by the French from 1713 to 1758, with a four-year New England and British occupation (1745-49), and a British occupation from 1758 until 1768. Our hypothesis concerning Louisbourg is that at the time of its founding, the French gunflints present were insignificant in number, but that their introduction in quantity began sometime during the 1730s, perhaps around 1735. We base this assumption primarily upon the French gunflint contract of 1740. Like all innovations, it took time for the new flints to gain acceptance. Presumably they did not supplant the Dutch style immediately, but more and more French flints were introduced, until by the time of the final capitulation enough French flints had arrived to bring the over-all ratio of French to Dutch flints to 1:2.4.

Unlike the material from Battery Island, the French gunflints from within Louisbourg proper appear to be the product of an established and mature industry. The flint from which they are made is of an excellent quality, and the flaking and knapping is expertly done. There is nothing to indicate that the men who made these gunflints could not have easily complied with any reasonable specifications as to length or width contained in any contract with French procurement officers.

The contract of 1740 is the only standard for comparison known at this time, and it specified that the length for musket flints should fall approximately between 34 mm. and 36 mm. Only 34 per cent of the Battery Island gunflints and 30 per cent of the Louisbourg French flints comply with those dimensions. It appears, therefore that for some reason no attempt was made to enforce compliance and it is doubtful whether specific gunflints were made to fit specific weapons; if the gunflint could be squeezed between the jaws of the cock, it was used.

In this respect it is interesting to note that the Dutch gunflints conform more nearly to our 20th-century conception of how a flint should fit the frizzen, for 65 per cent of them are less than 34 mm. long, while only 39 per cent and 41 per cent of the French flints from Battery Island and Louisbourg respectively, fit in that category. This difference must have some significance since the percentages of French flints from Battery Island and from within the fortress are similar in each of the three categories listed in the table below:

The fact that no Nordic or English gunflints have been found so far on Battery Island or within Louisbourg is worth noting. According to Witthoft, neither of these types should be present on a site occupied from 1720 to 1758, and their absence lends credence to his over-all thesis.

On the other hand, practically none of the French flints shows evidence of having been used exclusively as fireflints, and the one or two which do, are indistinguishable from the other gunflints in form: they are simply ordinary gunflints which happened to be used only for firemaking purposes. In short, the French flints from Battery Island and from within Louisbourg are indisputably gunflints and not fireflints. There is nothing here to support the supposition that French flints before 1760 were primarily intended for fire-making.