Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 5

Excavations at Lower Fort Garry, 1965-1967; A General Description of Excavations and Preliminary Discussions

by James V. Chism

Summary and Preliminary Discussion

The Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, completed three years of archaeological field work at the site of Lower Fort Garry National Historic Park, Manitoba, under contract to the National Historic Sites Service, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Twenty-two major excavations, four minor excavations and numerous tests were conducted during that period. This report has been a summary of that field work with correlation where possible with the documentary data bearing on each excavation.

Excavations oriented toward the recovery of structural detail have certain special requirements and pitfalls most of which were represented in the work done by the project at Lower Fort Garry. Documentation of structural detail was often absent altogether or when present was misleading or not very helpful. The reader will recall that the troop barracks-warehouse was cited as "frame" when drawings indicated log-filled post-on-sill (or post-in-sill) sometimes improperly called "Red River frame." Besides normal frame types, it could also have meant a type of rubble-filled post-on-sill construction related to what is sometimes called half-timber construction. The distillery on the other hand was called "log" and Figure 36 suggests that the northeast corner was probably post-on-sill log while excavations had indicated that it might possibly have been rubble-filled post-on-sill. This is complicated by the knowledge that the walls of the building were extensively repaired in 1870 (Miquelon 1970) and the reconstruction could have been in a different style than the original. ""Stone" was used to describe both the horse stable and the ox stable while other documentation, photographs and excavation proved them to be rubble-filled post-on-sill. "Log" is also of little aid. The term could mean saddle notch, post-on-sill, dovetail or any of several other variations of log construction.

Use of words like "log" or "wooden" or "stone" in documents could cover such a wide range of superstructure types that they are practically useless. Still, there were accurate or otherwise helpful documentary references to the construction of specific buildings such as the very fine one quoted with the report on the horse stable. We would have been lost without that description and its confirmation by a photograph to offset the "stone" description of that building by Watson. Interpretation from archaeological evidence alone would have confirmed that the building was indeed of stone since a heavy stone foundation with no indication of wood was found. A higher than normal floor had made it necessary that the top of the stone foundation which held the timber framing be built so high that subsequent destruction removed the top course(s) of stone along with the only evidence of timber structural elements.

Comparative architecture was also of utmost importance in the interpretation of in-ground remains, although sometimes there was simply not enough left to clearly associate remains with a known superstructure type, or the remains were a variant unknown in the body of comparative data being used. The grain-flailing barn and cow stables exemplified the former. The above discussion of the horse stable is a good example of the latter. Sometimes comparative architecture was not advanced enough in a specific construction detail to be of aid during excavations, but the excavations themselves provided the missing elements by direct association elsewhere with details that were understood from comparative material. For example, the problem of whether sub-sill supports at Lower Fort Garry were indicative of post-on-sill in the same way as pier construction in other regions was partially solved by finding an upright mortise and tenon joint preserved in the wall sill at the later blacksmith shop. On the other hand, it is known that a wooden sill and subsill supports can be a base for a stone foundation as well, so the archaeologist must watch for evidence of this having been the case.

The presence on the site of two rubble-filled post-on-sill structures, one of which was being stripped for restoration while the project was excavating the ox stable and malt barn, was helpful in realizing some of the attributes concerned with such construction even though it did not always solve our interpretation problems for us. Much comparative work is still needed in the examination of wall sills and sub-sill supporting arrangements for the several varieties of log construction. The author is still unsure about the necessary association of sub-sill supports with post-on-sill construction. It must also be determined whether there can sometimes be a log above the sill into which the upright framing member fits, so sometimes, as in the case of the troop canteen, an archaeologist could expect to find sills and sub-sill supports but no evidence of notches to hold the upright timbers in place. It is possible that archaeologists must face the prospect that notches for holding vertical construction members will normally not be detectable and instances such as the mortise and tenon joint preserved in blacksmith shop II will be rare. The presence of sub-sill support in the form of extra wood and stone piers and extended floor joists will be the only clues to post-on-sill construction. In general, too little has been noted in the literature about what type of superstructure can be interpreted from those parts of a building which would normally be left behind after its destruction. Many archaeologists may not be aware that there are such clues to superstructure. One often reads reports stating that sills, foundations and so forth, were found without detailing clues pointing toward superstructure. This may be because a carefully collected body of comparative architectural data is not to be found in the literature and has therefore apparently not been investigated by architects interested in archaeological evidence and vice versa. Some work has been done on post-in-ground log construction which is naturally obvious when excavated and an inadequate minimum has been done toward describing archaeological attributes distinctive of post-on-sill construction.

The inclusion of some information regarding portable artifacts based on surveys of certain artifact collections by artifact analysts has been helpful to the author despite the briefness with which they were dealt.

Data on ceramic objects has been bewildering in that pre-1847 and post-1867 ceramics were practically non existent in the collections. Twentieth century contexts which were not clearly Motor Country Club debris, and even some which were, still contained overwhelming numbers of ceramic objects manufactured between 1847 and 1867.

The glass dates have raised the clear possibility that for this site and probably for the last half and certainly the last quarter of the 19th century and later, container glass is consistently a sensitive time indicator. On this site glass has tended to indicate terminal and post-occupation dates. Perhaps this is because buildings, cellars and elaborate privies were kept cleaned out until they finally fell into disuse.

The nail percentages for the buildings have been surprising for at least two reasons. Priess has pointed out (1969) that there has been a trend in archaeology toward the acceptance of what he termed "the 1800 fallacy," that is the belief that cut nails had replaced wrought nails for construction purposes by 1800. Archaeologists who have accepted this idea will be shocked at the figures presented in this report. Hopefully Priess will be able to develop the Lower Fort Garry sequence and determine whether the late persistence of wrought nails in quantity at this site was a matter of its relative isolation or whether it has wider implications. Also, the author was pleasantly surprised to discover that despite the vagueness of the 19th-century nail sequence as seen at Lower Fort Garry, it is still somewhat predictable even when other categories of artifacts have become discouragingly late or indistinct.

On the basis of the preliminary survey of portable artifacts recovered, it is the author's opinion that the project did not recover material clearly representative of the 1831 to 1845 period. A few stray specimens of dated ceramics, however, were from that period and the nail sample from the early blacksmith shop was probably from that period as well. Although the overwhelming majority of ceramics recovered was manufactured in the 1847 to 1867 period, almost all layers excavated to date were probably laid down since 1860, as clearly indicated by both the history of the site and the presence of late glass containers. The conclusion then must be that the building remains themselves and the nails which held the buildings together are the only clear representation of the 1831 to 1860 period the project has recovered to date.

The late discard of earlier ceramic objects may at least indicate what ceramics were brought to the site sometime between 1847 and 1867. Where is the earlier material? Not in the buildings because they were kept cleaned out until they fell into disuse. The middens and standard privies of the period, not the buildings, will contain the trash of the period. It was not until the late 1870s that buildings excepting the early blacksmith shop began to be razed and portable artifacts began accumulating on and in them. Indeed, with detailed artifact reports, it may even become clear that the early blacksmith shop was the only general artifact context which is clearly and uncontaminatedly pre-1883.