 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 2
by Edward McM. Larrabee Description of ArchaeologyThe following description of the archaeological research is organized by units of excavation presented in the chronological order in which the work progressed. As such, it is a narrative of the excavation with comments on each area rather than a full exposition of the results of the studies which have been made. The full account will not be possible until all the reports on separate areas have been synthesized into one over-all study of the archaeology of the citadel (the King's Bastion and the Chateau St. Louis, surrounded by the outer and townward works) at the Fortress of Louisbourg. The various excavations and the studies resulting from them were planned so that such a comprehensive single study could be made; however, the specific way the citadel was divided into separate excavations, and the order in which these were dug, are largely a result of the construction schedule. Archaeology was required to provide specific information about structures where planning for reconstruction was already underway or about areas which would be buried, disturbed, or rendered inaccessible as a result of reconstruction elsewhere. Consequently, this description will seem heavily biased towards structural information. Such information was needed first in order that the reconstruction aspects of the work could continue. Furthermore, the structural units will seem disarticulated. A major element in the archaeological program, developed in the fall and winter of 1963-64, was the effort to fill in the pieces missing as a result of this necessary disarticulation and to concentrate and consolidate efforts which had been spread too thinly. This was part of a larger research program in which we were trying to bring archaeological and historical studies into proper sequence. An ordered dialogue between the disciplines would present the evidence and draw the conclusions for an accurate mental reconstruction of the citadel, and would record all the steps by which this reconstruction had been reached. This record would answer any questions which might be raised in the future about the research information upon which the physical reconstruction was based. The condition of work required special adaptation, it is hard to convey the size of the site, or the difficulty of working on it throughout the year and against reconstruction deadlines. Shelters were built to cover many of the areas where intensive excavation was necessary, because even during the summer there is often rain to interfere with excavation. These shelters were heated during the winter to keep the ground from freezing and to make it possible for men to work in spite of the bitter weather (Fig. 6).
Equipment of all sizes was used for the removal of back-dirt and often for actual excavation. There were small tractor-mounted backhoes and a large power shovel available, as well as a bulldozer and a Michigan front loader. Conveyor belts and powered concrete buggies were also used, but most dirt was removed from excavations by wheelbarrows. Due to the difference in elevation in some places, such as the deeper casemates, elaborate staging was often necessary for removing the dirt (Fig. 7). The archaeological labour force which did this work ranged from about ten men to more than thirty in the summer.
The work done under these conditions combined the pressures of the two kinds of "applied" archaeology. The first of these is general; the external conditions are controlled, but the results of excavation and analysis are not necessary for the progress of non-archaeological work. This is "salvage" or "rescue" archaeology. The work here was like salvage archaeology in that any information which could not be rescued in the reconstruction area would be irrevocably destroyed by the process of total reconstruction. The second type of applied archaeology is specific. It involves an external agency which has requested certain particular information. At Louisbourg the archaeology was specifically applied because fully half the decisions upon which a detailed plan of reconstruction could be made were based on the analysis of excavated data. The alignment and slope of walls and particularly the elevations of related features were barely suggested by historical data, despite the mass of cartographic evidence available. Such facts are necessary for reconstruction and could come only from excavation. Most of the details of appearance which give reconstruction an accurate atmosphere, concerning cut stones, bricks, rubble masonry, slate, mortar, building hardware and furnishings come from archaeology. The problem was particularly pressing because data, which it might or might not be possible to "salvage," in the first sense, were "required" in the second sense. As a further feedback effect, the results of whatever specific findings it was possible to present might affect the course of the reconstruction in progress, and so aggravate the threat of destruction to some other area which would then have to be salvaged. I should like to express my thanks to Mr. J. D. Swannack, Jr., Supervising Archaeologist, and to the members of the archaeological staff at the Fortress of Louisbourg who have helped with the preparation of this report and who have read the portions concerning their work. However, I am responsible for any inaccuracies. Mr. Fred Allen, research illustrator for the archaeology unit at Louisbourg, prepared and drew the maps for this paper, and Mrs. Yvonne McNutt, archaeological administrative assistant, worked very hard to make certain that the drafts and other material were produced. Mr. B. C. Bickerton, then Senior Historian, also gave helpful advice. Fall, Winter Spring, 1961-62 John H. Rick was sent by the National Historic Sites Service on loan to the Fortress of Louisbourg Restoration Section to help start archaeological research. He investigated the Royal Battery, which is halfway around the harbour, for a few weeks in the fall of 1961 and in the spring of 1962. He also initiated the basic artifact recording system. Also, at the same time, surveys were made in the surrounding area for outlying siege works by John R. Graham (1961, 1962). Summer, 1962 Excavation was under the direction of James H. Howard, who arrived at the beginning of the summer and who stayed for the season (Howard 1963a, b). Iain Walker, the first staff archaeologist on the project, also arrived at this time. All work was concentrated in the citadel, with some excavation in the Chateau and in some of the casemates during wet weather, and major trenching was done across the fortifications of the King's Bastion to the outer works. This could best be described as a "general" excavation, in which there was digging done in every major type of unit existing in the bastion and Chateau itself. No one of these was fully investigated. Main Ditch and Escarp Major trenches were cut across the fortifications from the interior of the bastion to the covered way of the outer works. These did not provide any stratigraphic information, but did locate the major stone revetting walls of the citadel. Clearing both faces of the bastion was started, with the major objective of locating the flanked and the two shoulder angles. A few cut stones were found at the left shoulder and flanked angles, but the right shoulder was completely destroyed. The search for it produced the most dramatic find of the summer: a crudely-made lead box inside which was a wooden block with three chiselled holes containing two copper or bronze medals and one silver medal. Except for material, the medals were identical, and dated 1720, commemorating the construction of Louisbourg. They had the head of Louis XV as a youth, modelled by LeBlanc, and on the reverse side of the medals was a projection of what Louisbourg would eventually look like. Historical research showed that 18 such medals had been struck and sent to Louisbourg to be placed at the corners of major units of construction or royal buildings. One identical medal had been found previously, when the foundations of the French light house were stabilized in the 1920s. Work Outside the Bastion Stephen J. Gluckman was in charge of an underwater survey done that summer (1963a, b). This survey located all the known wrecks and some hitherto unknown on the harbour bottom, so that they could be studied in the future. A preliminary attempt was made to identify each of these with known French ships which had sunk. (The harbour and vicinity are under protection to prevent disturbance of these wrecks.) Patricia L. Gall was in charge of the processing of artifacts in the laboratory (Gall and Lynch 1962). There were six site assistants (undergraduate or graduate students who acted as recorders) during the summer of 1962. Fall, Winter, Spring, 1962-63 Walker was in charge during this period, as the Senior Archaeologist did not arrive until the beginning of the spring. Excavation continued uninterruptedly in the citadel, and because of the weather, this was almost entirely under shelter (Walker 1963). Although some of this work was in the left flank casemates, most of the work was done in the Chateau. During this period, the main ditch of the bastion was cleared by machinery, and the exposure of the escarp of the two faces was completed. Kathleen R. Lynch was in charge of the laboratory. In the fall, Walker supervised the excavation of a well found during the course of deepening the basement of the First United Church in the modern town of Louisbourg (1964a). Summer, 1963 Walker continued as Staff Archaeologist. The author arrived as Senior Archaeologist in March and Peter D. Harrison was Seasonal Staff Archaeologist during the summer. Work concentrated on the circuit around the terreplein of the King's Bastion. The left flank casemates (reported on later by Jeremy B. Akerman 1965) and the right face casemates (Harrison 1964) were completely excavated and work was started on the right flank casemates. Outside the bastion some work was done on the left flank escarp and part of the adjacent curtain. Some clean-up was done at the English star fort in front of the bastion, and exploratory excavations were made on the right re-entrant place d'armes on the outer works in front of the right shoulder of the bastion. The remainder of the Chateau, with the exception of a few rooms and the chapel, was also excavated by the end of this summer. John V. N. Dunton arrived as Conservator to be in charge of the artifact processing and study. There were ten site assistants. Left Flank Casemates These were six vaulted chambers each about 35 ft. long and 12 ft. wide filling the space between the escarp (or outer wall) and the interior revetment of the left flank. A seventh casemate, an almost square chamber behind the left shoulder of the bastion, was entered by the corne de vache passage. The vaults and ends of the first three casemates were almost intact, partly due to repairs and some reconstruction by Kennelly. For this same reason, the interior fill of these chambers was of relatively little interest, because much of it had been removed or disturbed during the first half of the 20th century.
Construction of these seven casemates began when the main walls in this area were built in 1722, and they were completed and covered by 1725. They were not more than a few feet deep below the terreplein of the bastion and did not accumulate much fill. This was shown by the condition of the last four casemates, where the casemate vaults had collapsed primarily due to the 1760 demolition. The resulting sealed deposits represented the entire period from the early 1720s to 1760, yet they were comparatively sterile of artifacts. All evidence, historical and archaeological, suggests that these latter casemates, and perhaps all of the left flank, saw very little use except as shelters in the time of siege. The structural remains preserved on the left flank were important in visualizing missing portions of the bastion. In Casemate 6 Left, the door was found warped but otherwise intact up to about two-thirds of its original height, and the two vents were undisturbed. The vents and doors in Casemates 2 and 3 Left were disturbed and partly rebuilt by Kennelly, but investigation showed that many of their features were original. There were traces of doors in Casemates 4 and 5. Nowhere else in the bastion were such complete remains present. Right Face Casemates Beginning in 1720, the foundations of eight small casemates were constructed along the interior revetment of the right face near the right shoulder (Fig. 8). By 1725, when work was shifted to other parts of the fortress for six years, the two casemates next to the shoulder (8 and 9 Right, since the numbering starts on the right flank) had been vaulted. A decision was made not to complete the other casemates (10 to 15 Right). However, a temporary powder magazine was established in Casemates 11 and 12 Right, which had some masonry wall construction and a wooden roof added for this purpose. All these casemates (each about 11 ft. wide by 16 ft. long) then stood until 1731. The doors of Casemates 11 and 12 were blocked and the temporary roof removed at probably this same date. By 1732 only Casemates 8 and 9 were still open. They seemed to have collapsed during the thorough demolition of the right shoulder area in 1760. Casemates 10 through 15 were filled with earth and ceased to exist except as buried foundations after 1732. Thus Casemates 8 and 9 had one story to tell (with differences between the two), 10, 13, 14 and 15 another (having been open foundations for a decade and then filled), and Casemates 11 and 12 yet another history, involving the temporary magazine. These differences were reflected in the stratigraphy (which distinctly showed the dislocation caused by the demolitions) and the contents. Fortunately, the two with the longest history were also the deepest (as much as five or six feet below the terreplein in places) and so had a continuous record of use (Walker 1966b). In the case of Casemate 8 Right, this use seems to have been partly for sewage, as the floor at one phase was cobbled, and a cut stone drain was set into it. An interesting find in Casemate 8 was an undisturbed stump left in situ by the French when they were clearing the hill and building the walls, and buried almost immediately when the floor level was raised. The buried forest floor material (The A° zone of the Louisbourg Iron-Pan Podsol which was characteristic of this site; soils of the fortress area were studied by MacDougal 1964) was recognized in the central areas of a number of other casemates but had been disturbed by wall trenches or construction around the edges. Much informative material, especially construction hardware, was found during these excavations. Star Fort This was the name commonly given to a small earthwork redoubt with three salients which the British constructed after the demolition of the 1760s. It was built at the flanked angle of the outer works, over the covered way, and its ditches were cut into the French glacis. The access to a wooden blockhouse inside was provided by a causeway, built of robbed stones and fill, which ran from the area of the flanked angle of the then ruined bastion across the partially filled ditch. Excavation revealed the size and shape of the masonry foundations of the blockhouse, but this post-French structure, abandoned or dismantled when the British left the fortress, has not received thorough study. The star fort and causeway can be seen quite clearly in front of the bastion in the 1961 aerial photograph (Fig. 4). Fall, Winter, Spring, 1963-64 Larrabee and Walker continued on the staff, Bruce W. Fry was added as second Staff Archaeologist during the fall, and Donald L. MacLeod during the winter. Excavation continued during the winter, as it had the previous winter (Fig. 9). By the end of this time, investigation of the circuit around the terreplein of the bastion had been completed. The right flank casemates (MacLeod 1965) and the remaining rooms in the Chateau, with the exception of the Chapel, were completely excavated and the left flank escarp was completely exposed.
Dunton continued organizing the work in the laboratory and commenced the systematic study of the artifacts, and Jeremy B. Akerman arrived as archaeological artist-draftsman (a title later shortened to Archaeologist-Illustrator). By the end of the spring it had been decided to increase the staff further so that a major effort could be made to push the archaeological research ahead of construction. A similar effort was undertaken in the historical research at this time. There was a recruiting campaign and the staff was organized in such a way as to improve the quality, speed of production, and pertinence of the archaeological reports. Excavation was aimed toward obtaining thorough information from areas which were going to be completely removed or changed and reconstructed, such as the Chateau and casemates; less critical areas, such as earthworks, were excavated less intensively and more economically by test-pits and trenches. Thus, this was to be both salvage archaeology of the most necessary sort, and archaeology providing a practical base for accurate reconstruction. There was one site assistant during this winter. Chateau St. Louis This structure was about 360 ft. long and from 45 ft. to 52 ft. wide (Fig. 10). There were 26 separate cellars in the basement, not counting the two ovens and the three small spaces by the drawbridge and central passage. Only a portion of this basement was used because it was never excavated to a depth sufficient for use. The rooms were about 20 ft. square, except the four longer rooms in the wings at each end.
For convenience, the Chateau was considered and studied in three major sections. One of these was the north half (Walker 1964b), with four rooms in the Intendant's wing (in which no Intendant of the Fortress ever lived), and twelve rooms under the barracks portion of the building. The two bread ovens were in the centre of this half. The dampness in the cellars finally caused the French to abandon these ovens and bake elsewhere in the Fortress; however, the ovens — one in good condition — were important because they were largely untouched by work in the 1930s. The next unit (excavated and discussed later) was the Chapel (Vogel 1965) across the central passage from the barracks half of the building. Beyond that was the south half (Fry 1964c) of which the Chapel was really a part. Next to the Chapel were six rooms under the officers' quarters and then four rooms under the Governor's wing. The only basement feature of interest in the officers' area was a possible cistern, but in the Governor's wing two of the basement rooms were cobbled, having served as wine cellars. The excavations of the north and south halves revealed the entire foundations of the building and showed that many alterations and variations from the historic plans existed in important features such as doorways and fireplace bases. Excavation uncovered hundreds of the cut stones which had once adorned some of the doorways, windows, and fireplaces so that reconstructions of some of them could be made. The excavations also produced many thousands of artifacts which are providing the basis for some of the first efforts to define types of ceramic vessels in use at Louisbourg. The bulk of garbage and debris accumulated during the occupation of the Chateau was perhaps deposited elsewhere, such as the Chateau ditch and subsequently the right flank casemates; however, a great deal of material was used in the Chateau fill, such as room E in the Governor's wing which had been filled with earth in which were mixed many fine faience pieces. The debris from the collapse of the structure during sieges and after abandonment had fallen into the basement spaces. Except for the destructive removal of fill above 35 ft. elevation during the 1930's, this remained untouched. This large central building of the French royal administration could well have been described as still containing a gold-mine of information when the project started. Louisbourg has had magnetic declinations recorded since the 18th century, and the site provided an excellent control for starting a thermo-remanent magnetic dating grid in northeast North America. This could have had practical use in the reconstruction by helping to date unknown fireplaces and ovens. For this purpose, samples of bricks were taken from two Chateau ovens. Hugh Bergh of Princeton University analyzed these samples. Right Flank Casemates These casemates were of the same horizontal dimensions as those on the left but, due to the original slope of the land on which the French built, the right flank casemates were much deeper. Their vaults and doors were at approximately the same elevation as those on the left flank; however, the foundations of these right flank casemates were in some cases as much as 14 ft. below the terreplein level. In most cases, this great depth was filled during the 18th-century occupation of the Fortress to within a short distance of the terreplein. This was done in stages, and appears to have been the result of intentional actions to fill undesirable space or to find a place to put a large amount of debris at one time. The casemates do not seem to have been filled by gradual midden-type accumulation. Probably there were as many artifacts, originally from the Chateau, found on the right flank as there were found in the Chateau itself. This was due to periodic cleaning and filling. In one case, we know of the decision of the French, when they reoccupied the fortress in 1749, to clean an accumulation from the Chateau ditch and place it in the right flank casemates. Thus, the casemate fill could in many cases be referred to as secondary or redeposited material rather than as a primary accumulating midden. In any event, it was very rich with artifacts, especially ceramics and tobacco pipes, the latter studied by Walker (1965a; 1967b, c) and by H. Geiger Omwake (1965). Conditions were good for the preservation of cloth (possibly bandages, uniform parts, a felt hat, etc.), ivory (a religious figurine), wood, and other normally perishable materials. In the right flank casemates, as in the right face casemates, there was evidence of the pre-construction ecological conditions. What had once been swampy forest floor was still preserved with many roots and small stumps intact in one of these casemates. Present in another was a drain used during the early phases of construction of the bastion to drain the terreplein area. It had been blocked at a later date, but confirmed the existence of a drain indicated on maps. Stratigraphic evidence showed that there were excavations made by the French to repair and largely reconstruct the escarp at the outer ends of these casemates. Study of the artifacts contained in the well-preserved stratigraphy was particularly important because it provided confirmation that certain repairs (that is, the intrusion to certain levels at which repairs were visible in the wall) fell within particular dating brackets. This showed that the intrusion and repair or reconstruction must be certain ones referred to in documents, rather than other possible disturbances. This helped the present reconstruction to simulate the appearance of features present at a specific date. One major problem was the interpretation of evidence for drainage. Drains were found leading into Casemate 6 Right and from 8 Right into and out of 7 Right, the square corner casemate. It is likely that the two drainage systems represent two periods. The problem was made more difficult to resolve due to the total demolition of the right shoulder area in 1760. Pieces of a cut stone drain opening were found in the rebuilt 1755 escarp (Fry 1966). The remains of a wooden floor support structure was found in Casemate 1 Right (Fig. 11). This confirmed historical evidence to the effect that at least some of these deep casemates were used with wooden floors near terreplein level. The lower parts were either filled, left vacant and unused, or in one or two cases, according to documentary evidence, used as dungeons.
Left Flank Escarp and Fill This escarp was originally a wall about 130 ft. long and 8 ft. thick at the base. Its height from an irregular foundation to a relatively level cordon at the top varied between 18 and 24 ft. The first stage of the history of the till against this wall was one of gradual accumulation — a normal course of events according to documentary evidence and forts of the period which are still standing. After the siege of 1745 and the occupation by the English and re-occupation by the French, the outer portion of this escarp, from Casemate 4 towards the shoulder, was in very bad repair. The same was true of a portion of the curtain wall near the re-entrant angle, by the drain. Shortly before the second siege the French made interim repairs to various parts of the fortifications. They revetted the damaged portions of the escarp and the curtains here with earth. This has been proven because the level construction strata of the French earth-cover went into holes and cavities in the masonry of the escarp. Between the two damaged areas, behind Casemates 1 to 3, the escarp was in good condition, except for a slight bulge behind Casemate 3 which may have occurred during the original construction. However, it was also necessary to cover this portion with the same earth fill to avoid having a blind area or hiding place in which enemy infantry might be able to hide it they reached the ditch. The earth covered the opening of the drain and filled the channel, which action was also shown in the stratigraphy. This was done only one or two years before the second siege so that the long-range effect on the terreplein drainage due to the blocking of this drain is not known. Probably what small part of the terreplein drained in this direction was served by the small drain into the Chateau ditch. The earth used to secure this escarp was tamped in layers; it was revetted with fascines which showed as evidence of an organic layer in the excavations. The earth revetment had an outer slope of about 1:1. By projecting the eroded and missing portion we could see that originally it reached to within a few feet of the cordon. The earth rested against the escarp wall which, in its undamaged and undisturbed portion behind Casemates 1 to 3 was found with a slope of approximately 8:1. The construction strata extended tight against the wall and showed no evidence of dislocation or compression, even at the area of the slight bulge. Therefore, the wall must have stood at this angle when the earth was piled against it. Since the escarp had not separated from the casemates at all, nor showed signs of cracking, it is unlikely that it moved before the earth was placed in this location. Although documentary sources state that the French intended to build a 6:1 slope, our findings indicate that this was not always the case at Louisbourg. The use of earth by the French here made possible the excavation and study of a beautifully preserved section of original French masonry. About one-half the length of this entire escarp up to approximately two-thirds of its height, or a total of about one-third of the entire original wall, was preserved intact. Although much of the mortar had leached out, there were even some portions still evident of the heavy mortar rendering used to hold chinking stones in place. From this well-preserved wall and the earth against it, it was possible to study both permanent masonry and temporary earth construction methods used at the Fortress (Fig. 12).
It was also possible to study closely the methods of destruction used by British engineers in 1760. The location of charges in Casemates 5 and 7 Left was still clearly visible upon the walls of those casemates when they were excavated as part of the left flank casemate excavation. Further evidence showed in the destruction of the escarp in this area. Finally, this excavation provided tightly dated earth fill. Unfortunately, there were not very many artifacts in this fill and, since this was redeposited material, the artifacts found need not have been broken or lost at the time of the construction of the earth revetment. Summer, 1964 The field staff continued with Larrabee, Walker, Fry and MacLeod. John P. Marwitt, Joseph O. Vogel, and Richard B. Lane joined it at the beginning of the summer as Staff Archaeologists. This gave an organization in which there was one Senior Archaeologist, the Conservator immediately under him in the laboratory, six Staff Archaeologists, and the Archaeologist-Illustrator. The staff archaeologists were to operate in such a way that there were three or four of them in the field at one time. This reduced the conflict of all reports being at the same stages of production during the winter months, made for maximum speed of report completion, and allowed the labour crew of approximately 30 men to be used effectively. The number of site assistants was again ten. During the summer of 1964, the excavation concentrated on completing the work in the bastion and working on the perimeter or circumference around the outside of the bastion (Fig. 13). Vogel excavated the Chapel (Vogel 1965), which was the remaining portion of the Chateau, and Lane excavated the terreplein of the bastion (Lane 1966). Marwitt excavated the glacis of the outerworks and Fry did clean-up work on the interior revetments of the faces in the late spring (Fry 1964a) followed by a rescue excavation of a musket loop at the Princess Demi-bastion which was about to collapse into the ocean (Fry 1964b).
Near the end of the summer, Fry started work, under a shelter, on a house structure in Block 16. This structure was selected for excavation in the town because there was no feasible wet-weather work or covered area remaining in the bastion in which to keep men profitably employed in the fall and spring. Block 16 had been chosen as the one area in which the most information was readily available to guide excavation and where the least harm could be done by starting before full historical information was available. Work continued in the laboratory under Dunton and on illustration under Akerman, who had several seasonal assistants. A labour force ranging from four to seven worked in the laboratory. The Chapel The Chapel was part of the Chateau, about 63 ft. long and 40 ft. wide, with four buttresses creating five bays on each side. The altar was at the south end, towards the officers' quarters, and the main entrance was opposite it, opening from the central passage through the Chateau. The French left most of the Chapel area unexcavated except for wall trenches around the periphery and foundations at the north end. They made excavations under the floor for burials as necessary. Because it was known that there was at least one burial here (exposed and replaced during the 1930s), and that there might be others, intensive preparatory tests were made in this area. Elizabeth K. Ralph, Associate Director, Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, surveyed the area with a proton magnetometer, resistivity meter, seismic surveyor and a metal detector. These tests were not conclusive as to the location of any of the burials found by later excavation. This is probably because the disturbance of each burial resulted only in slight mixing of the soil. The French had already removed the A and most of the B horizon in this area, so that their burial pits contained only mixed C material, which recompacted to approximately the same density. Bedrock was only from two to five feet below the surface. It is also possible that nails and the effect of fire on wooden beams or the earth floor may have affected the instruments' sensitivity. Excavations found a pattern of regularly spaced beams which had supported a floor for the Chapel. It is possible that this was not the original floor of the 1720s. It seemed that the altar area was raised, but because of the damage to the Chapel during the second siege, when this portion of the Chateau had burned, there was not much evidence remaining. What information there might have been was largely lost during the 1930s. Consequently, all that was left was the general outline of the major supporting beams. This clean-up had also removed almost all artifacts from this area, so that the excavation shed relatively little light on the original fittings and details of this area where ornamental work could be expected. It is likely that the windows were of clear glass, as none of the fragments found was coloured. The most interesting finds in the Chapel were the five burials. Four of these were adult and one was a child, perhaps two to three years old. The pins of the winding sheet were the only artifacts associated with this, or any of the burials, except for coffins and coffin nails. Three of the adults and the child were buried in the body of the Chapel, two on each side, and the remaining adult at the centre directly in front of the altar. This last was the burial which had been disturbed in the 1930s and redeposited, enclosed in concrete slabs. Two of the other adults had been buried in wooden coffins which had almost entirely disappeared, and one adult was in a lead casket which was well preserved. This had once been inside a wooden box which had since disappeared (Fig. 14).
James E. Anderson, at that time at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and now of the University of Toronto, came to the site in order to assist in the final excavation and to reconstruct the material for study (Anderson 1964). The major objective was the identification of the individuals so that the sites could be marked after reburial. With the exception of the skeleton in the lead casket, restoration was necessary on all the skulls before measurements could be made, especially as autopsies had been performed on two of the individuals. The cutting of the skull caps had greately weakened the facial bones which had then collapsed completely or warped as the coffins decayed. All the adult burials were male and within a range of middle age. Sex of the child could not be determined. The burials dated from before the destruction of the Chapel as shown by the superposition of the floor beams over all of them. The individuals known to have been buried here were Governor Forant (1740), Governor DuQuesnel (1744), the Duc d'Anville (secondary interment in 1749; he had first been buried near Halifax in 1745), and Michel de Gannes, the King's Lieutenant (1742). Until complete biographical information is available it will not be possible to make certain the identification of the bodies. However, the burial in front of the altar, reinterred in the 1930s, is almost certainly that of the Duc d'Anville, as shown by location, age, medical care (fillings in the teeth for example) and autopsy. The nearest burial on the left side facing the altar is almost certainly that of Governor DuQuesnel, who had one leg missing and also had an autopsy. The two adults buried on the right side, then, are probably Governor Forant and Michel de Gannes, but it is not possible at this stage to say which is which. Apparently all burials were made in winding sheets, as there was no evidence of clothing. The Terreplein This area was excavated by a series of long trenches. They were located to find the slopes of the surfaces but were also affected by some construction activity. The forward centre portion of the terreplein, near the flanked angle, had been completely removed by bulldozing or covered by ramp construction during the early phases of the project, so that it was not possible to determine slopes there; however, this was a high area from which drainage flowed, so that the slopes could be projected. Excavation took place under particularly difficult conditions due to the miserable weather (Fig. 15).
There was an organically rich, artifact-bearing stratum of varying thickness which was the occupation layer during the mid-18th century. This was deposited in some places on bare subsoil of which the upper layers had been removed by the French to bring the terreplein to the desired level. Where fill had been placed there were sometimes early and temporary occupation levels below it. This main occupation layer may have increased a slight amount during the 18th century use of the site by accumulation, but it is probable that the major portion of its thickness simply represents the depth of a zone which was disturbed by constant traffic during the wet weather. Thus, there is no simple equation, such as saying that the bottom of the zone represents the beginning levels of the terreplein and the top of it the final. There were complex slopes involved in the terreplein. The function or effect of these was drainage of this enclosed area, but finding out what the slope had been, and how, if at all, the drainage had worked, was a very difficult problem of research made even more difficult by subsequent 19th- and 20th-century deformation of the terreplein. This happened due to consolidation of sediments (i.e., the construction fill below the occupation layers), by weather, ground water, and by heavy recent traffic and use starting in the summer of 1962. First of all, there were considerations of what the specific soil or stratigraphic evidence showed regarding surfaces, and whether these had been deformed after the French occupation. Secondly, there were theoretical questions which could only be resolved when the entire area had been investigated, regarding whether the surfaces and slopes found would have drained, and if so, how they would have drained. The hyraulic topography here is probably, but not necessarily, a controlling external determinant, which could be tested against the levels found by excavation. The third consideration was whether such a surface, if re-exposed or reconstructed, would drain now. This involved comparing the apparent drainage pattern with the structural indications of possible water outlets which surround the terreplein. There was over 5 ft. difference in elevation from about 38 ft. above sea level near the left shoulder to a low of nearly 32 ft. near the right shoulder. Some features in the terreplein were in a fenced enclosure in the southern quarter. This held livestock and possibly some garden plots for the Governor's use. Within this fenced enclosure was a small building against the left flank casemates (3S), excavated separately, and discussed under the 1965 season, and a long thin building 14 ft. wide and about 52 ft. long (3Q) which was against the interior revetment of the left face. Its use is not known. Next to the right flank interior revetment was a well between Casemates 3 and 4, and against the right face interior revetment, near the shoulder, were several posts from a wooden platform which had been constructed during the 1745-49 New England and British occupation. These posts helped to provide a control on the finer divisions of the stratigraphy in that part of the terreplein. There was an extensive cobbled walk or drain preserved near the right flank, and parts of a cobbled walk along the Chateau. Interior Revetment of the Two Faces The interior revetments were vertical walls on the right and left faces of the inside of the bastion. They did not meet at the flanked angle because this area was covered by the joining wall of the two ramps, and the remains of this whole area were not sufficient to determine wall height. Other main features of interest in the interior revetments were the remains of sealed or blocked doorways to the temporary powder magazine in Casemates 11 and 12 Right, and the openings to Casemates 8 and 9 Right. At the left shoulder was the opening to the curved corne de vache passage which led into Casemate 7 Left. Building 3Q was built as a lean-to against part of this left face interior revetment. Musket-loop at the Princess Demi-bastion This musket-loop was one of a row which had once existed on the seaward flank of the Princess Demi-bastion. It had been designed to provide fire cover along the beach; not so much to prevent a landing at that point, as reefs and the surf made this unlikely and there was crossfire from artillery, as to prevent a force from working its way along the beach or in small boats and around the end of the fortress. It was good luck that the musket-loops were preserved until the spring of 1964. The row of musket-loops had been abandoned and plugged, and a wall built inside the passage against the musket-loops. Later the passage was filled with earth. Earth was placed against the outside of the wall as a revetment. The filling of the loops could be roughly dated by pieces of ca. 1745-50 British Staffordshire pottery in the construction debris under the layered fill. This coincides with a recently found historical reference to the blocking of the passage by the British between 1745 and 1749, providing excellent confirmation of the artifact dates. The other musket-loops in this row appear to have been destroyed in the demolition of 1760, or to have suffered from subsequent surf action and erosion of the earth fill from above. This one, nearest the flanked angle or salient of the demi-bastion, had escaped the effects of the blasts behind it, and the earth cover had been added to by earth falling from the top of the bastion. Thus it had remained protected until the spring storms of 1964. As soon as it was discovered, shoring was hastily placed to hold it for the few weeks until the weather would permit a quick salvage operation. The best example of French cut-stone masonry found intact anywhere in the Fortress, it served as an important example. The upper course of stone had been displaced slightly forward, but the rest were undisturbed. In shape, it was like an inverted keyhole. The height of the cut-stone masonry was about 5 ft. and the slot itself about 4 ft. (Fig. 16).
House in Block 16 According to historical evidence, this was the second structure built on the northeast corner property of the block, after subdivision in 1731, adjacent and to the south of the first, which was built in the early 1720s. We uncovered masonry foundations for a wooden superstructure measuring about 53 ft. by 25 ft. in external dimensions. There was no cellar, and the floors could not have been more than a foot or two above the earth underneath them. There was a drainage channel running across the south end from west to east under the floor, and a back-to-back double fireplace base near the centre of the building. The back yard of the building had various structures. The building was certainly damaged in one of the sieges. Many thousands of artifacts were found, most of them in the yard rather than inside the building, as would be expected. This is the only evidence of civil residence excavated during the period covered by this article. These artifacts were extremely valuable, not only for their wealth of detail and relatively good condition, but because an area in the civil town such as this had not suffered the same continuous alteration, disturbance, reconstruction and renovation as the military and government areas of the citadel. Although the Chateau was occupied by a large number of people, the data obtained were relatively incomplete. This was accentuated by the reconstruction in the 20th century. Despite all the excavation in the citadel area, we found that the material in the only house and yard excavated in the town before 1966 provided a preponderance of the archaeological evidence for the way of life of the Louisbourg inhabitants. Fall, Winter, Spring, 1964-65 The staff remained the same with the addition of Jervis D. Swannack, Jr., as Supervising Archaeologist. This position was on a level with that of the Conservator and came immediately under the Senior Archaeologist. During the fall, excavation continued on the terreplein of the King's Bastion. The burials were replaced in the Chapel and it was back-filled with the same earth which had come from it. This was the first phase in the restoration of the Chateau to its previous condition. The interior of the postern tunnel was excavated by Vogel in the fall (Vogel 1966a). With the ending of Lane's terreplein work in December, excavation which had lasted for approximately 33 months since the spring of 1962 was stopped. This continuous excavation had placed considerable strain on the laboratory, on project photographic services, and on the mapping facilities of the architectural draftsmen of the project. It had also drawn enough energy and attention to interfere with the production of reports. However, work which was very similar to excavation continued through the winter: cuts were made in the walls of the south half of the Chateau; the right flank escarp of the bastion was dismantled; and pits were dug to find the counterforts of the north half of the Chateau. Although this work involved men and time, there was no major excavation. Fry, Walker and MacLeod were involved in this continuing work. Lane was detached on loan for a month to the Halifax Citadel. There were three site assistants during most of this winter, and the archaeological labour supervisor, T. Marmon Smith, acted as additional site assistant. During the wet spring season, the crew was employed on the house in Block 16. The excavation of the house was nearly finished when the summer began. In the laboratory, Dunton was joined by Renée Hine Marwitt as artifact research assistant, who gave much-needed help in the study of artifacts. During this time, a foreman in the laboratory, Velma McComber, was added to the staff as an assistant technician. Akerman had assistants for part of the winter for drafting and illustration, and during the spring he wrote a report on the left flank casemates (Akerman 1965). During the winter, cut stones found in excavations were arranged in a shed constructed for them and work began on their cataloguing and analysis. The Postern This was a sloping tunnel about 50 ft. long, 4-1/3 ft. wide and about 6 ft. high, with two right angle bends in it. The vaulted roof was made of flat stone, set on edge. It led from the left flank of the townward defences covered way near the north end of the Chateau out to the main ditch by the right re-entrant angle of the King's Bastion. The two ends or entrances had cut-stone surrounds, and there was a vent with a cut-stone surround and wooden lintel opening into the Chateau ditch. The tunnel itself, and the masonry which comprised it, constituted a very complex shape. Three major units of the fortification met here — the right flank, the Dauphin curtain, and the left flank of the townward covered way. It was bounded by the Chateau ditch, the main ditch, and by the space behind the curtain. Since this end of the bastion flank had originally been constructed as a free-standing structure, and the postern masonry later was placed against the terminating wall of the bastion flank, the sequence of construction was particularly complex and difficult to determine. The tunnel was intact except for the ends which had been damaged by the 1760 demolitions at which time it was probably sealed. It was not particularly rich in artifacts, but those found, and the stratigraphy of the postern fill, indicated three apparent building stages which correlate with historical evidence. Dates calculated from the bore diameters of kaolin tobacco pipes were especially useful. In 1719 and 1720, the French started the major excavation which produced the main and Chateau ditches, and the surface upon which the right flank was constructed in those places where the casemates went below the original ground level. This excavated surface in the vicinity of the right re-entrant area remained open and allowed passage between the main ditch and the interior of the work, where the townward fortifications were to be built. In 1736, the walls of the postern were erected and several layers of fill, amounting to about a foot and a half, were laid along the base of this construction. The tunnel was left uncovered until 1739, when additional fill forming the graded floor was laid. This floor slope compensated for the difference in elevation between the curtain entrance at the main ditch and the covered way of the then newly constructed townward fortifications. The masonry sequence here produced valuable evidence concerning the pre-1745 right flank escarp, since a portion of that original escarp had been buried in the masonry of the construction for this postern tunnel. Most other evidence had been destroyed when the first escarp was completely reconstructed by the French. Summer, 1965 The staff remained the same except that MacLeod left for a National Historic Sites Service excavation in Newfoundland and Robert Grenier was hired as seasonal Staff Archaeologist. Work this summer was spent on finishing work previously begun and completing the perimeter of the Citadel outside the bastion (Fig. 17). Swannack was Field Director during the summer excavation. Walker excavated the so-called demi-caponnière, or revetted glacis, off the right shoulder in the ditch (Walker 1966a). Fry completed his work on the house under the Block 16 shelter and then finished the major task of removing and studying the right flank escarp and the right re-entrant area where the postern tunnel opened into the ditch (Fry 1966). J. P. Marwitt continued his work on the outer works in front, excavating more than a thousand linear feet of counterscarp of the main ditch and revetment of the covered way, and studying the counter-mine gallery under the outer works (J. P. Marwitt 1966). Vogel (1966b) excavated the townside place d'armes and related fortifications and cleared the Chateau ditch and the counterscarp, which completed the periphery of the citadel. Grenier did intensive excavation of the hitherto unexplored building 3S within the terreplein of the King's Bastion. Lane sectioned the curtain wall towards the Dauphin Demi-bastion immediately beyond the area where Vogel, Fry and Walker had worked in the ditch off the right flank and at the right re-entrant angle (see Figs. 5, 18, 19, 20, 21).
Revetted Glacis This was a mass of stone covered with earth in the main ditch off the right shoulder of the King's Bastion. The side facing the King's Bastion was a single thickness of dry-laid masonry about 140 ft. long. The length of the toe of the slope, facing the Dauphin Demi-bastion, was only 124 ft., as the west end of this structure tapered towards the front. It was about 40 ft. from front to back and a distance of only 10 ft. away from the counterscarp. There was no evidence of a firing step, so that it could not have served very well the purpose of permitting infantry fire over the pond in the ditch towards the Dauphin, and hence was not a true demi-caponnière, although often called such. It was built to deflect or absorb fire coming from beyond the Dauphin towards the right shoulder of the King's Bastion, an area which suffered very heavily during the first siege. This work was built shortly before the second siege to correct this basic defect in the defences. During the second siege, additional defence work was done here. Evidence of this was found in the form of barrels filled with earth placed in the narrow 10 ft. gap between this work and the counterscarp. It is possible that rubble stone was used as the core of this structure in order to conserve earth, which was in short supply. It was necessary to conserve what earth was available to make an absorbent surface. The dry-laid wall had a slope of approximately 4:1 or 5:1 and was probably over 3 ft. high originally, with a foot or so of earth on top of it. This would have provided adequate shelter for men going to the outer works. Right Flank Escarp The right flank escarp, built by the French in the 1720s, had been very badly damaged in the first siege. They took down the remains and constructed a new one in 1755 before the second siege, trying a new technique to solve construction problems faced at Louisbourg. This second wall was well preserved and provided a very interesting example of the use of heavy timber in masonry construction, reminiscent of a murus Gallicus. Heavy horizontal and vertical timbers had been fastened together in the wall at regular intervals, with a plank facing, probably with a clapboard or lap effect, sheathing the surface of the wall. This allowed the mortar to cure properly, preventing collapse during the first season or two by leaching of uncured mortar from the surface. It also served to give the wall greater longevity in general by allowing the wood to weather rather than the masonry (Fig. 22).
This later wall was of the same length and one foot thinner than the left flank escarp, and had the same steep slope (approximately 8:1) as that found on the left. However, the evidence here was not necessarily pertinent to the pre-1745 wall. There was some evidence of the original at the foundation of the wall, but as noted above, the main portion of the wall left in situ was a column of cut stone quoins and a stub of the rough masonry buried and preserved by the construction of the postern tunnel where the curtain wall from the Dauphin Demi-bastion joined this flank of the King's Bastion. Parts of the column of cut stones appeared to have shifted, so that a different batter or slope could be measured at different places. What evidence there was from apparently unmoved quoins, combined with the greater thickness of the pre-1745 wall at the base, suggested a slope of between 6:1 and 7:1, Additional evidence of this was the discovery of a set of quoins carefully cut to 6:1 on one face and 12:1 on the other face (the latter the approximate slope or batter of the remaining right flank terminating wall). These stones are oriented so that they could only have been intended for the juncture of escarp and terminating walls on the right flank. Unfortunately all were found re-used as construction blocks in the 1755 escarp, so the evidence is indirect. This is especially so since the batter of a wall can only be measured from stones in situ. Stones found out of context can be placed in such a way as to give a different slope from that to which they are cut. In any event, a specific wall batter was certainly not adhered to with geometric precision by the French. The reconstruction of this wall by the French provided a very interesting effect in relation to the deep fill of the casemates behind it. The known dates of some of their work provided dating controls for the artifacts found in the earth fill, and as a result gave dating evidence for construction elsewhere in the Fortress. Outer Works In 18th-century fortification, every surface and angle is affected by other surfaces and angles. The Fortress of Louisbourg was a double-crowned work facing the marshes. This meant that there were three fronts of fortification; the flanked angle of the Dauphin Demi-bastion to the flanked angle of the King's; the King's Bastion to the Queen's Bastion; and the flanked angle of the Queen's Bastion to the flanked angle of the Princess Demi-bastion. The angle of these fronts with relation to each other was determined by the necessity of providing enfilade fire from each bastion to the bastion on the other side of it. On a smaller scale, within each front or with reference to the immediate surroundings of a given bastion, the requirements were that the bastion should command the outer works and that there should be no "dead areas" in which an advancing enemy could shelter from fire. The rules for constructing fortifications in the 18th century are usually stated in terms of an idealized or regular fortress, with the notation that for an irregular fortress the engineer must make modifications to suit the situation. Louisbourg was an irregular fortress by virtue of the uneven surface of the promontory on which it was built, by its exposure at two ends of the line to the ocean and the harbour, and by the command of the line of fortifications by certain hills in front and higher hills to the right. For these reasons it was mandatory, even when trying to understand as limited an area as the citadel, to study the surfaces and angles around it. In this case the missing portions of the citadel complex, particularly the upper elevations and surfaces, could only be postulated with any likelihood of accuracy by studying the surrounding lower slopes. Hence the analysis of the outer works was particularly significant in attempting to understand and make it possible to reconstruct the citadel on paper. Counterscarp Approximately 600 ft. of wall surface was cleaned on the outer side of the main ditch, facing the escarps of the two main faces of the bastion. This wall was standing from 3 to 7 ft. high above its base, which must have been nearly the original height in places. It was well-preserved, although usually standing higher at the back than on its face or surface which had been in the ditch. Common to most other walls of the fortifications examined at Louisbourg, there was a rough or irregular coursing about every 1.5 to 2.5 ft. in height. This rough coursing generally followed the contour of the underlying foundation of the counter scarp which rested on outcrops of bedrock or on the hard C-horizon material, a sandy loam packed with many rock fragments. Revetment of the Covered Way This was better preserved than the counterscarp. The mortar was still solid, and the wall was less displaced due to earth pressure. There was enough wall left in some places to determine the level of the banquette tread. In most places it was possible to find the approximate level of the covered way itself, and to postulate the width of the banquette tread and slope combined. The revetment of the covered way was a stone wall which did not reach to the top of the glacis slope. As with most walls which were designed so that men could shoot over them or take shelter from fire immediately behind them, the top 12 to 24 in. of the actual height of shelter would have been provided by a turf or sod-block revetted mass of earth. This prevented a splintering or shrapnel effect, should solid cannon shot penetrate through the very crest of the wall where the mass of protecting earth was the thinnest. It also absorbed musket fire and shrapnel, thus preventing ricochet. Apparently there was a palisade along this revetment, as two posts were found, as well as a trench from which others had been removed. Glacis The glacis provided good stratigraphic evidence of the extreme soil shortage during the French period. After the revetment of the covered way had been built, a small amount of earth with a very steep slope was thrown against it. This would have been useless against artillery, but it served to protect the wall from the weather and served as a minimum shelter until more earth could be provided. Later, filling was carried out in several phases, with the lines of the strata showing how the fill had been placed. Even at the final stages of construction there was insufficient earth to provide adequate covering for the King's Bastion. The thickness at the top of the glacis was more on the order of 10 to 12 in., as determined by glacis surface projections and probable breast-height from the banquette, rather than an ideal thickness of 12 to 24 in. (see Revetment of the Covered Way, above). Because of these complex strata and slopes, in which there were several surfaces existing at different times at different locations, it was difficult to determine which surfaces of the glacis were co-existent before the final topography. In an ideal fortification these exterior glacis slopes would be directly related to the height of the parapet of the bastion, and to the angle of the superior slope. On this irregular work, with insufficient earth, the exact relationship remains to be determined. Right Re-entrant Place d'Armes This area had been tested separately in the summer of 1963. Since then, the data produced were analyzed in relation to the data from the rest of the outer works, as the more comprehensive examination progressed (Fig. 23). The right re-entrant place d'armes was built after the outer works were started, to give enfilade of the area in front of the right face of the King's Bastion. This was a means of increasing the length of wall over which infantry could provide fire down the glacis. From its location it could as logically have been called the right shoulder place d'armes, but traditionally, and in the French documents, places d'armes in the outer works were supposed to be opposite a re-entrant area rather than a salient area. This one assumed its peculiar, long, narrow shape because the pond to its right prevented it from being at a normal location and of normal width.
Due to the slope of the hill on which it was built, this place d'armes was higher on the left side than on the right, and appears to have had a double banquette step on the left side. This is logical considering the short range of musket fire, as the works to the left of the place d'armes were higher than the pond to its right; however, the backs of the men firing over the left side were exposed to long range artillery fire coming from the northwest, beyond the Dauphin Demi-bastion. This is further proof of the irregularity of the whole fortress, and of the scarcity of adequate building materials. Fortifications like the Fortress of Louisbourg were best built where there were large amounts of earth available, but this condition did not exist on this shore of Cape Breton. Countermine Tunnel This gallery was built during the earliest phase of construction on the outer works. On a level surface in front of the King's Bastion a trench about 3 or 4 ft. deep was dug and lined with stone walls. A stone-arched vault joined the walls above the trench. The vault, which had sloping outer sides and a flat top, was covered with the earth with which the glacis slope was being built. It was thus built largely in the open and then buried to make it a tunnel. This countermine gallery was cruciform, with a main gallery approximately 120 ft. long to the crossing, and three arms each about 40 ft. long with a mine chamber at the end. There was a series of beam holes, some with stubs of beams still in place, about halfway up the wall on each side, and pieces of wood had fallen out of these to the floor. These short sections of wood may have held fuse lines above the water but must have been used primarily to support a board form for the arch construction, impressions of these boards still remain in the roof mortar. The tunnel entrance, directly opposite the flanked angle of the bastion, was completely sealed by the causeway the British built after 1760. It is possible that the doorway may have been covered with fallen debris by the time the British occupied the fort in 1758 and that they were unaware of its existence. In any event, it was perfectly preserved except for the doorway itself. The mine chambers had not been charged when the tunnel was sealed. At the entrance there was evidence of alteration in the plans for the main ditch, which was originally to have been narrower. This was indicated by a continuation of the tunnel wall foundations about 12 ft. towards the bastion into and below the floor of the ditch. There were cut-stone stairs on either side of the tunnel entrance leading to the counterscarp which provided access to the covered way of the outer works. The lower treads of these were well preserved when first uncovered. There was a cut-stone surround to the entrance of the gallery, and a short funnel-shaped section of brick vaulting just inside. General In all of the outer work excavations, very few artifacts were found, as most of the earth fill had been brought from outside the fortress. Some of the fill was provided by levelling small hills immediately in front of the fortress which could have provided cover for the enemy. The few artifacts included a crowbar which may have been used by the British when they were demolishing this outer area. It has been indicated that this demolishing was done "by hand." This probably meant that the tops of the stone wall were pried loose so that erosion would break the walls down. Well-preserved indications of barrels were found in several places, with the iron hoops still supporting the earth casts of the shape. These barrels were probably filled with earth and used like gabions during the last siege. This would account tor the preservation of their mould or shape. Elevation of the artifacts was important as evidence in determining the elevation of the covered way. The Townward Defences These were the defences (combined with the Chateau which closed the gorge of the bastion) which made the King's Bastion into a citadel, by making its defences face in all directions. Townside Place d'Armes This was the rallying ground or small parade immediately to the northeast of the Chateau. It faced the town, so that its directions of left and right are the opposite of those of the bastion, which faced the country. Because of the monumental entry, the Chateau also can be considered to face the town. The only way to enter the King's Bastion was through a curved roadway which led into the place d'armes. An ésment covered its open end. After coming up the slope and through the gateway, one would pass a guardhouse. This corps de garde was about 35 ft. by 20 ft. in exterior dimensions, and the foundations indicated two interior chambers. An intruder would pass the guard and cross the Chateau ditch on a bridge, the inner portion of which was drawn up each night or at any time that danger was thought to be present. After crossing the bridge, he would go through the central passage of the Chateau, where there was another guardroom facing the entrance to the chapel, and finally would emerge in the inner court or the terreplein of the bastion. The terreplein of the place d'armes was used for burials in the British period. Two burials were uncovered during the test excavation, one in the remains of a brass-studded coffin, the wood of which had largely decayed. Gravestone fragments were found which may refer to other burials. There was a thick occupation layer on the terreplein. The place d'armes was built only a few years before the first siege, probably being finished about 1740. It was partly built over the site of such earlier structures as a temporary barracks and a government headquarters building, occupied during the construction of the citadel. Evidence of these underlying structures was found while uncovering wall foundations at the salient or flanked angle of the place d'armes and under the corps de garde. The revetment walls around the place d'armes were well preserved, standing in most places to half or more of their original height. This would normally have been 4.5 to 5 ft. of wall, of which about 1.5 ft. would have been buried by the banquette, so that about 3 ft. of wall were exposed. There would have been about 1 to 1.5 ft. of turf above that, so that a man standing on top of the banquette would be exposed from the shoulders up, and could fire over the top of the wall. By stepping down from the banquette to the terreplein he would be completely sheltered from enemy fire. In this particular case, it seems that the masonry walls were well preserved because earth was piled against them higher than usual, leaving very little, if any, of the masonry exposed. This was done after the construction of the masonry to hold the palisade in place. The palisade, of fairly small wooden posts, was flush against the stone wall. The posts were between 3 and 6 in. in diameter and about three-quarters of a foot apart (Fig. 24). To judge from historical references they probably projected over the top of the defence. This was more for visual effect than strength. The palisade could not have been very strong as the poles were not really dug into the earth of the banquette or terreplein below it, but were only held up by the earth piled against the stone wall. From outside it would have looked fairly menacing, as the poles would have undoubtedly been sharpened at the top, and it would have given additional cover to men firing. Because the town capitulated after heavy bombardment in both sieges there was no direct assault on any of the defences and the effectiveness of the palisades and revetments was not tested.
Other Parts of the Townward Defences There was an extension of the covered way on both the left and the right flanks of the place d'armes. A zig-zag passage or crochet went around the traverse at each corner of the place d'armes to provide access to the covered way. These traverses shielded the central rallying place from any long, low shot which might just clear a wall. The Chateau ditch was originally about 8 ft. deep and about 27 ft. wide, but narrower where the wings of the Chateau projected. It was drained by a channel running under the left flank of the covered way. This drain was lined with rock and covered with short lengths of timber. The ditch appears to slope from south down to north, which is similar to the slight slope in the Chateau itself. This ditch accumulated a great deal of refuse from the Chateau despite several clearings such as those providing fill for the right flank casemates. One burial was found here during our excavations near one that had been found in the 1930s. Also in the 1930s, two siege casualties were found beneath debris from the drawbridge. In addition to the main bridge at the centre of the Chateau ditch, the English had built the foundations for another bridge near the Governor's wing, when they occupied it after 1758. The only use made of the ditch as shown in French construction was the one door which opened from the wine cellar under the Governor's wing. It is not known how access was gained to the ditch to get to this door. At one time there was a latrine attached to the Governor's quarters which emptied into the ditch near the intersection of the Chateau and the left flank. The 1930s work obliterated evidence of this, but historical references indicate that it was abandoned and taken down because its proximity to the wine cellars affected the flavour of the wine. General The townside fortifications would appear to have been influenced by the slope of the pre-existing topography so that the highest point was by the counterscarp in the vicinity of the bridge. Thus the masonry work slopes downward from each of the crochets towards the shoulders of the covered way, and toward the salient angle of the place d'armes. These differences in elevation appear to have made areas of the interior of the fortification vulnerable to both frontal and enfilading fire and probably influenced the French engineer Franquet in his low opinion of the townside works as a defensive fortification. Building 35 This was a small irregular building attached to the front of Casemates 2 and 3 Left, and projecting into the terreplein of the bastion within the fenced area. It probably served as a stable or storage house within the Governor's yard, it was approximately 22 ft. by 25 ft. in outside dimensions, although one corner was cut back to allow entrance to Casemate 3 Left. There were three subdivisions or rooms indicated in the foundations. (See the photomosaic, Fig. 25). A brick floor seems to have covered the floor of two of the three rooms. There is good evidence that the long room (number 3) on the west was a later addition, and had no brick floor.
Despite disturbances by Kennelly, by private use after his restoration work, and again perhaps during the 1930s, many artifacts were obtained with good stratigraphical control, so that a detailed study of cross-mends was possible. A complicated series of ditches had been dug here during the above-mentioned intrusions, but the configuration of strata and their contents made possible tentative identification of the different periods of work, which the cross-mends confirmed. There were more ditches extending beyond the building toward the centre of the terreplein. Dauphin Curtain Indications are, from the excavations that were done next to the left flank, that the King's curtain probably resembled the Dauphin curtain which ran from the Dauphin Demi-bastion to the King's Bastion. The Dauphin curtain had a stone escarp between 11 and 12 ft. thick at the base to revet the front of the mass of earth, but only an earth slope on the back — insofar as has been examined. It appears that the main drainage of the Chateau ditch ran under the earthwork of the left flank of the covered way of the town defences. From there it ran in an open ditch along the toe of the slope at the back of the curtain. This curtain was a complex structure, lower at the Dauphin Demi-bastion end than at the King's Bastion end. French documents report that the Dauphin Demi-bastion was about 23 ft. lower than the King's Bastion at their flanked angles. Test excavations across this curtain up to 110 ft. away from the bastion have produced information on its construction, physical appearance, and the damage suffered in final demolition. Most important, these investigations have made it possible to project a line and contour of the escarp foundation from the right re-entrant corner by the postern. This answered questions made difficult to solve by the rebuilding of the right flank escarp after the first siege. Fall, 1965 Work in the laboratory during the summer and fall proceeded to take the form of specific studies. Dunton studied faience and R. H. Marwitt studied coarse earthenware and table glass (Dunton and R. H. Marwitt 1965). This and Walker's work on pipes (Walker 1965a, b; 1966b, c, d; 1967b, c) were mentioned in the discussion of the right flank casemate excavations during the winter of 1963-64. Another assistant technician, Clarence Saulnier, was added to the laboratory staff. Akerman continued his work with his assistants during the summer. This illustration program served to provide professional quality illustrations for the reports of the staff and also to illustrate the artifact studies of the laboratory (Fig. 26). Type-series for ceramics, hardware and glass have been started to facilitate analysis of data for excavations (R. H. Marwitt 1965, 1966, 1967a, b). This was closely tied to the refurnishing of the Chateau, for which historical work had been underway for some time (Dunton and R. H. Marwitt 1965; Walker 1966c).
Besides the work by members of the laboratory staff, additional major areas of interest or studies were undertaken by the other members of the staff. Swannack (1966) studied paving stones as the beginning of a series of studies of such classes of artifacts with the immediate requirement of working out the pattern for covering the terreplein of the two flanks of the bastion (Fig. 27). Walker concentrated on kaolin tobacco pipes as a dating tool (Walker 1965a, b; 1966b, c, d, e; 1967b, c; also Omwake 1965), J. P. Marwitt on structural iron, Lane on soils and stratigraphy, and Vogel on nails and bricks. Few of these studies have developed to a point where they are publishable, but all have shown their usefulness in the immediate and practical problems of reconstruction. Further contributions, to appear eventually, will show the fruits of these studies.
At the end of 1965, the archaeological field investigation of the citadel of Louisbourg was complete except for a well in the King's Bastion terreplein and two traverses in the bastion ditch between the revetted glacis and the Dauphin curtain. This archaeological program functioned successfully as a concentrated team effort to provide pertinent information toward the accuracy of the reconstruction, and at the same time to salvage the information which has been destroyed forever by that reconstruction. Any such archaeological effort must try to provide sufficient information, in both breadth and depth, so that the reconstruction program may be whatever the people in charge of policy may wish to make it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||
