Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

Obviously, there must have been a kitchen associated with the first Big House located in the 1829-c. 1836 square fort, but no definite record of this structure has come to light. [1] The first kitchen at Fort Vancouver of which there is any detailed knowledge was that connected with the second Big House which, as has been seen, was built during the winter of 1837-1838 in the new section enclosed when the fort was expanded to the eastward.

The new kitchen must have been completed about the same time as the second Big House, that is by about March 19, 1838. But no known records prior to July, 1841, provide an adequate indication of its size and location. The Emmons ground plan of that date shows a large structure identified as "No. 2," the "Commander's Kitchen and servants quarters," situated directly north cf the Big House and connected with the latter by a passage of some type. According to the Emmons map the kitchen was the same length as the Big House, that is 70 feet, although it was not quite as deep, and it butted against the north palisade wall (see plate III). [2]

As has been seen, the Emmons diagram is not to be relied upon for the exact dimensions of particular structures. Also, the representation of so many buildings as immediately adjoining the stockade walls is not confirmed by archeological findings or by later maps. Nevertheless, Emmons's ground plan provides a highly valuable view of the general locations and the number of the fort structures.

Even if there were no confirming evidence, Emmons's representation of the kitchen as a separate structure from the manager's residence, placed in the rear of the latter but joined to it by a passageway, could be accepted without question. Such a location was in accordance with the prevailing practice at Company posts across the entire continent. The dread of fire seems to have been the chief reason for this isolation of the cooking facilities. [3]

Emmons was observing another widespread Company practice when he noted that the servants' living quarters were in the kitchen building. In 1840, for example, the wife of the chief factor at York Factory described her home in a letter. Among the features she mentioned were the "men servants rooms off the kitchen." [4] Writing of Fort Qu'Appelle in 1867, Isaac Cowie stated: "Behind and connected by a short passage with the 'big house' was another building, divided by log partitions into a kitchen and cook's bedroom, and into a nursery for Mr. McDonald's children and their nurse." [5] Similar testimony is available concerning other posts. Incidentally the cooking -- and much of the house work -- was largely performed by men at Hudson's Bay Company posts. [6]

The information provided by Emmons concerning the kitchen is confirmed and refined by the very accurate ground plan of Fort Vancouver drawn by Lieutenant Vavasour late in 1845 (plate VII). This map places the kitchen about eight feet north of the Big House and about 13 feet south of the north stockade wall. Since, as shall be seen, the kitchen was 24 feet wide from north to south, the distance between the north wall of the Big House and the north palisade should have been 45 feet according to Vavasour. Remarkably enough, this figure coincides almost exactly with the findings of the archeologists.

The Vavasour plan further shows that the east wall of the kitchen was in line with the east wall of the Big House. The west kitchen wall, on the other hand, was inset about 10 feet from an extension of the west wall of the Big House.

The kitchen shown on the Emmons and Vavasour plans continued to stand at least until the spring of 1847. It is listed in the inventory of 1846-1847 and can be surely identified by comparing the size there given with that indicated on the Vavasour map. [7]

By 1854, however, this kitchen had disappeared. The Plan of Survey of the Fort Vancouver Military Reservation made under the direction of Colonel B. L. E. Bonneville in that year shows the buildings within the Hudson's Bay Company's stockade with evident care (plate XIX). Where the kitchen of Emmons and Vavasour had stood there was only empty space on the 1854 map.

The fate of the kitchen is still uncertain. Dugald Mactavish, who was at Vancouver as chief factor from Outfit 1853 through Outfit 1857, later testified that the 60 x 24-foot kitchen was "pulled down" sometime between 1846 and 1858. [8] Another witness confused the issue by remembering that a building, which he thought was the kitchen, burned down in the fall or winter of 1852. This structure, he said, was rebuilt. [9]

It has already been seen in Chapter VIII, however, that it was not the kitchen which burned on November 23, 1852, but a wash house, part of which had been used "lately" as a cookhouse or kitchen. [10] The fact that a portion of the wash house was being used for the preparation of meals may indicate that Mactavish was correct and that the old kitchen had already been demolished by November, 1852.

At any rate, by the time Colonel Bonneville completed his survey of the Fort Vancouver Military Reservation in 1854 a new kitchen had been erected. It stood adjacent to the northeast corner of the Big House and thus lay immediately northeast of that structure. Although not labeled on the Bonneville map or on at least two later military reservation surveys on which it appears, the identity of this new structure as a kitchen is clearly established by the ground plan (see plate XXX) and inventory of Hudson's Bay Company structures drawn up by a board of army officers on June 15, 1860. Building no. 4 on that plan is named "Kitchen (Governor's house)" in the accompanying report by the board. [11]

By the time the new cookhouse was built, Fort Vancouver was well into the period of its economic decline. Expenses of the common mess had been severely curtailed, a condition which seems to be reflected in the small size of the new kitchen as compared with the old. By June, 1860, the building was "entirely out of repair," but it seems to have served its function as long as the Company remained at the post. Then it undoubtedly soon shared the destruction which was the fate of the other buildings after their occupation by the army.

The Fort Vancouver kitchen was presided over by a series of cooks and stewards, few of whom served for any considerable length of time. At intervals, sometimes of several years, the rolls of fort employees list no persons designated as "cook," leading to the assumption that there were periods when laborers or even voyageurs were pressed into service in the kitchen.

That something of the sort took place is shown by the sudden listing of a veteran Hawaiian employee named Jack Ropeyarn as cook at an annual salary of £22 on the roll for Outfit 1846 (the period June 1, 1846, to May 31, 1847). The previous year, and for a number of outfits before that, he had been carried as a laborer at £17 a year. After Outfit 1847 Ropeyarn disappears from the lists of servants at the post, and no cook can be found on the rolls from that time until the post was abandoned in 1860. But one can safely assume that the manager and his family did not personally prepare the meals for the gentlemen's mess. [12]

Perhaps one reason it was so difficult to keep cooks at Fort Vancouver was the fact that, at least during the early years, the cook was also supposed to be the manservant to the "gentlemen" of the establishment. In 1829, for instance, he was required to bring them water for washing and shaving, to brush their shoes, to make the beds and sweep the rooms of the bachelors, and to perform other assorted tasks. [13]

Most visitors to Fort Vancouver spoke in glowing terms of the plentiful and varied food served from the post kitchen. Narcissa Whitman, Thomas Jefferson Farnham, and Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, among others, described the "abundance of good fare" they enjoyed at the fort. The roast duck, boiled pork, fresh salmon, numerous vegetables, melons, puddings, pies, and many other dishes served in "course after course" made a distinct and favorable impression. [14]

Miss Anna Maria Pittman, in 1837, was quite overwhelmed in fact. She wrote in her diary: "Our first course was soup, next boiled salmon, then roasted ducks, then such a roast turkey as I never saw or ate. It was a monster, it was like cutting slices of pork, then wheat pancakes, after that bread and butter and cheese all of their own make, and excellent too." [15] Evidently Clerk George B. Roberts was correct when he remembered years later that "We often had a bountiful table in those days." [16]

But given the frequent changes of cooks, many of whom must have been quite unskilled, there undoubtedly were periods when the food left something to be desired. The Reverend Mr. Herbert Beaver was hypercritical of conditions at Fort Vancouver, and most of his complaints can be discounted. He may have had a valid point at the time, however, when he wrote on March 19, 1838: "We have seldom anything good to eat, and when we have, it is generally so badly cooked, as to be uneatable." [17]

Sharing the commissary department with the cook was the steward. Occasionally there was a second steward, listed simply as "Steward" or sometimes as "Mess Steward." There is no direct evidence that the steward lived or even conducted his major business in the kitchen, but such almost certainly was the case. At York Factory a corresponding functionary seems to have been termed the butler, and the "butler's table" evidently was in the kitchen. [18]

It should be noted, however, that there was a storeroom or larder called the "dépense," for the holding, sorting, and dispensing of rations and other foodstuffs, evidently those for fairly immediate consumption. There is no indication as to where the dépense was located. It is not described as a separate building in any known source, yet it was sometimes spoken of almost as if it were. The dépense may have been under the supervision of the steward, though for Outfits 1846 through 1848 there was a "Depense Keeper" in addition to one or two stewards. [19] In 1829 Dr. McLoughlin placed the fort surgeon in charge of issuing the provisions for the mess hall, but how long this arrangement lasted is not known. [20]

One of the best-known stewards at Fort Vancouver was William Burris, a Londoner who appeared on the post rolls as cook for Outfit 1839 at £27 per annum. The next year he was listed as a steward, but he went home to England on the Company's vessel Vancouver during the fall of 1840. He returned on the same ship during Outfit 1842 and took up his former position as steward at £30 a year. He continued to serve until the last day of 1844 when he retired to a claim he had purchased in the Willamette Valley. [21] According to George B. Roberts, Burris had a European wife, an extremely rare circumstance at Fort Vancouver at the time. Unfortunately, once free from the Company's discipline he lost control of himself and eventually killed his wife and children. [22]

During Outfit 1845 (June 1, 1845, to May 31, 1846), the period to which Fort Vancouver is to be restored, the steward was Edward Spencer. He was carried on the Vancouver rolls in 1843 as an apprentice with six years of service. His salary was £17 a year, close to the minimum for the Columbia Department. He undoubtedly was of part Indian blood, since his birthplace was listed as "native" or "Rupert's Land." He must have been a man of ability, because by 1845 he had been promoted to steward at a salary of £25. For the three succeeding outfits his title was "Dépense Keeper," and by 1849 he was an interpreter and was placed in charge of Fort George at the mouth of the Columbia River. Two years later he bore the rank of postmaster and ran the Company's establishment at Coweeman. [23]

In addition to Edward Spencer, the only person known to have been connected with the culinary department during Outfit 1845 was Joseph Thibeault. About 23 years old at that time, Thibeault was a French-Canadian from Montreal who was serving as a "middle man," the lowest rank of boatman or voyageur. The records show that for the year he received, in addition to his salary £17, a gratuity of three shillings for acting as "Mess Steward." [24] No cook is listed on the rolls for 1845, but the post gardener, William Bruce, may have assisted in the kitchen since it seems to have been his habit to frequent that strategic location and, as we have seen, to be on hand when Chief Factor McLoughlin called for his snuff. [25]

Construction details

As is the case with so many Fort Vancouver buildings, very little is known about the physical structure of the kitchen. Archeologists uncovered a "smooth floor-like area of white plaster" from 10 to 12 inches below the present ground level when exploring northeast of the Big House site in 1948. The western edge of this plaster layer was defined by a section of plank which, Mr. Caywood surmised, might have been a part of the east wall of the 1838 kitchen or a portion of the west wall of the post-1852 kitchen. He concluded that the plaster probably marked the floor of the latter structure. [26]

In 1950 and 1952 Mr. Caywood examined the area behind the Big House site. Another plaster layer about 10 inches below the present ground surface was struck. It seemed to the archeologists that the "entire area" -- presumably of the 1838 kitchen -- "had at one time been plastered," although no definite limits could be determined. The plaster seemed to blend "finally" into the surrounding soil. The plaster of the earlier kitchen was "blackened and burned," and from evidence in the overlying soil Mr. Caywood concluded that the building must have been destroyed by fire. No footings, sills, or other structural remains were found. [27]

During the summer of 1971 another team of archeologists under the direction of Mr. J. J. Hoffman reexcavated the two kitchen sites. The evidence then uncovered concerning the post-1852 kitchen will not be considered here, as it is not relevant to the problem of reconstructing the fort to its 1845-1846 condition. The finds concerning the 1838 kitchen, however, were both germane and significant.

Like Mr. Caywood, the later investigators found nothing that could positively be identified as footings, and the floor of plaster had so disintegrated since 1952 that it was of almost no help in indicating the size or exact location of the kitchen. But Mr. Hoffman and his associates succeeded in finding an area, approximately five feet by eight feet in size, of stones which seemingly had once been set in mortar. Mixed in with the rocks were pieces of metal which appeared to be parts of grills and spits. Here, evidently, was the base of an "open hearth or fireplace." Its center was about 28 feet north of the north Big House wall and about 20 feet west of a northward extension of the east wall of the Big House. [28]

Since the archeological evidence throws no reliable light upon the size of the kitchen, the documentary record must serve. Both the Vavasour ground plan of 1845 and the 1846-1847 inventory agree in showing the building to have measured 60 feet by 24 feet. [29] The Emmons map of 1841 (plate III) provides the additional information that a door in the south wall of the kitchen opened into a passageway which gave access to the Big House midway along the latter's rear wall.

Dugald Mactavish later remembered that the kitchen was a frame structure. [30] Exactly what he meant by that description is not evident, except that he probably intended to indicate that it was not built of squared logs as were most of the other buildings. Yet even these heavy timber structures had frames, and it will be remembered that Lieutenant Wilkes in 1841 had found all the buildings constructed of logs except the granary. [31]

Dr. H. A. Tuzo, who arrived at Fort Vancouver during November, 1853, testified years afterwards that the post when he first saw it contained a two-story frame kitchen. [32] It is probable, however, that the structure he saw was not the 1838 kitchen but its post 1852 successor.

Three pre-1852 pictures show the roof of the 1838 kitchen with reasonable clarity: the unsigned painting at the Yale University Library (plate XVI); the Paul Kane pencil sketch (plate XIV); and an 1851 drawing by George Gibbs (plate XVIII). From these views it is evident that the kitchen had a gable roof, with the ridge line running east and west. From the manner in which Gibbs indicated the roof, it is probable that the building was plank covered. All the pictures agree in showing the kitchen as a rather low structure with its ridge rising to or only a few feet above the eave line of the Big House. No chimney appears in the views, although archeological evidence makes it clear that there was one. The Yale painting, further, shows the kitchen as being brown in color, indicating that it was unpainted.

In summary, the following facts are known about the kitchen:

a. Size: 60 ft. x 24 ft.

b. Floor: of hard-packed earth and plaster.

c. Hearth: of stones set in mortar, center located about 20 feet west of east wall and about 4 feet south of north wall (approximate distances only).

d. Doors: only one known for certain, in south wall and connected by a passageway with the Big House.

e. Roof: gable, probably covered with vertically ranged planks.

f. Height: lower than the Big House.

g. Rooms: a kitchen proper and several rooms for servants' living quarters; very probably the pantry was in the same building.

h. Exterior finish: unpainted.

With only this meager basis from which to work, the architects who prepare the drawings for a reconstructed kitchen obviously will have to make a number of arbitrary decisions. As a possible assistance in making such commitments, the following comments are offered:

a. Type of construction. Despite the somewhat vague references to the kitchen as a "frame" building, it seems probable that it was actually constructed in the usual Canadian, Red River frame, or post-on-sill style so nearly universal at Hudson's Bay Company establishments of the 1830's. What are purported to be the timbers from the Fort Victoria "cook house" are preserved at the Fort Victoria Museum, Victoria, B. C., and they are clear evidence that the traditional style was followed at that post at least (see plates LXXVI and LXXVII). One observer in 1841 later said that some of the smaller buildings at Fort Vancouver were built of puncheons (split logs or heavy slabs) set in a frame, evidently intending to make a distinction between these slabs and the heavier squared logs. [33] Seemingly the kitchen fell into this category of "frame" or "slab" structure, but the basic style was still the Canadian.

b. Passageway to Big House. For reasons which have already been discussed in Chapter IX, it seems most likely that the passage way which gave access to the Big House entered the latter structure at its main floor level rather than at ground level. If such was the case, it is also probable that the passageway level was reached from the kitchen floor at ground level by a stairway within the cook house building. In such case, since the eave line of the kitchen was considerably lower than that of the Big House, there must have been a gable where the passageway roof joined that of the kitchen.

c. Second floor. Although the reference to the kitchen as a two-story building seems to apply to the post-1852 structure, it seems reasonable to assume that the servants' quarters were in the space under the roof gable, off the damp ground and away from the cooking and food storage areas. Access to this living space could be by a stairway from the passageway level if the stairs ascend toward the south.

d. Cooking facilities. The Fort Vancouver inventory taken in the spring of 1844 lists "1 Cast iron Stove" in the kitchen and pantry, and that for 1845 itemizes "1 Stove w[it]h funnel." [34] Unfortunately, it is not clear whether this stove was for cooking or simply for heating. Iron cooking stoves were available on the American frontier by the early 1840's, and one Company employee was advocating the use of one at York Factory by 1843. [35] Since" cast iron single Canada Stoves" in 30-inch and 36-inch sizes were carried in the depot stock, however, and since "1 stove & funnel" were listed in a room in which cooking probably did not take place, it seems most likely that the stove in the kitchen was intended to provide warmth in the living quarters. [36]

Whether there was a cooking stove or not, there certainly was a large open fireplace, probably with attached oven, at which the roasting, boiling, toasting, and baking were conducted as had been the European practice for centuries. The active utilization of the hearth is proved beyond a doubt by the listing of such items as fire tongs, poker, roasting hooks, "Iron Dogs," and Dutch ovens in the inventories of "articles in use" in the Fort Vancouver kitchen. [37]

That such as the usual method of preparing meals for the common mess and for the families fed from the Big House kitchen at Company posts is demonstrated by the words of the manager's wife at York Factory in 1840. Writing to her mother, she said she would prefer having a chaplain with few children "as the meals of the family are cooked here [the manager's kitchen] & sent from this, & y^u may imagine what roasting at a wooden fire & no grate it takes for the Gladman family." [38]

There is no information available as to the design of the kitchen hearth at Fort Vancouver. The splendid example in the basement kitchen of the Big House at Lower Fort Garry may be a bit extensive in scale for duplication at Vancouver, but it should provide general guidance for the project at the latter post. The book, The Domestic Encyclopedia, by Dr. A. F. M. Willich (Philadelphia, c.1800), contains drawings of typical cooking facilities of that day.

e. Pantry. The Fort Vancouver inventories contain a separate heading, "Kitchen & Pantry," under which are listed the items used in preparing and serving meals from the Big House kitchen. As has been seen, in at least one Company post, Fort Simpson on the Mackenzie River, the pantry was in the Big House itself. There is no conclusive evidence as to where it was situated at Fort Vancouver, but if the hypothetical floor plan already suggested has any validity, there would seem to have been no convenient location for the pantry in the manager's residence proper. It would seem logical, therefore, to place the pantry in the kitchen building, near the north end of the passageway leading to the mess hall.

f. Miscellaneous features. "I went into the kitchen today & found Betsy the washing woman busy over a tub," wrote Letitia Hargrave from York Factory in 1840. [39] That much the same type of activity went on in the Fort Vancouver cook house is demonstrated by the listing of such items as "1 Wash Tub" and "1 pair smoothing Irons" in the kitchen and pantry inventories. [40]

Space for this type of work should be allotted in a restored kitchen. Also, it must be remembered that it was against the rules at Fort Vancouver to hang laundry out to dry in the yard. [41] Therefore, facilities for indoor drying should be provided.

Undoubtedly the steward, cook, and other Big House servants ate in the kitchen proper. They also probably spent what little evening leisure they had before the open fire during the appropriate seasons.

Furnishings

Thanks to the careful inventories of "Articles in Use" kept at Fort Vancouver each year, there is excellent knowledge of the Company-owned property situated in the kitchen and pantry. The inventories made in the spring of 1844 and the spring of 1845 are reproduced below. Although the lists lump all the items together under the heading "Kitchen & Pantry," it would appear that in the 1844 inventory the tableware and utensils kept in the pantry were recorded first.

Articles in Use
.  . . .

Kitchen & Pantry

Articles in Use
.  . . .

Kitchen & Pantry

It will be noted that certain articles which would seem to belong in every well regulated kitchen do not appear in the above lists. One such item is brooms. It is known definitely that there were brooms at Fort Vancouver and their use undoubtedly was a part of the work of the kitchen servants. They probably were not inventoried because, in the early years at least, they were locally manufactured or "country made" objects.

Narcissa Whitman was struck by the unique character of the brooms at Fort Vancouver during her visit in 1836. Noting that there was no broom corn at the post, she added that the Company used "hemlock boughs for broom[s], hemlock I say, there is no such tree known here. It is balsam." [44] Of course there are hemlock trees near the mouth of the Columbia River, so we will leave it to the naturalists to determine which tree Mrs. Whitman meant when she spoke of the "balsam."

Perhaps this situation had changed by 1844, however. The depot inventory for that year listed "broomhead Brushes" whatever they may have been, among the items kept in stock. [45]

It can be assumed that there were at least a couple of fir tables and several locally made chairs in the kitchen proper. There probably were cupboards both in the kitchen and in the pantry. And there must have been shelves and bins for supplies such as flour, dried peas, sugar, and salt.

1. There are references to the cooks and the cooking at Fort Vancouver during the 1829-1838 period, but evidently little was written about the structure itself. For examples of mentions of the cooking arrangements, see Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for October 15, 1829; Beaver, Reports and Letters, 21, 79, 83.

2. Emmons, Journal, MS, III, entry for July 25, 1841.

3. A separate kitchen was not universal at Company posts by any means, but it seems to have been the most usual arrangement. The lack of space will not permit a more extended, documented, discussion of this interesting point. For quotations from a number of primary sources concerning the locations of the kitchens at assorted fur-trading posts, see Leechman, Notes and Comments on Hudson's Bay Company Trading Posts, MS, section on kitchen. For a diagram showing the location of the kitchen at Fort William, the model for many later posts, see Thompson, Grand Portage National Monument, Great Hall, illustration 17.

4. MacLeod, Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 62.

5. Cowie, The Company of Adventurers, 210.

6. For a direct statement to this effect by Narcissa Whitman in 1836 see Drury, First White Women, I, 95. It was a common practice, however, to employ women, particularly Indian women from nearby villages, to clean the living quarters and fort yard on occasions, and native women were hired by individual employees for such tasks as washing and sewing.

7. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 118-119. The size given in the inventory is 60 x 24 feet. The kitchen also is shown on the Covington map of 1846 (plate XIII).

8. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 202-203.

9. Ibid., [VIII], 137.

10. H.B.C.A., B.223/b/40, MS, fols. 42-43.

11. The original report is in Adjutant General's Office, Oregon Department, Document File, 212-S-1860, in War Records Division, the National Archives. More convenient is the printed version in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [IX], 75-77.

12. The two paragraphs immediately above are based upon a perusal of a long series of account books in the Company's London Archives. Most useful were the District Statements, York Factory, covering Outfits 1837 to 1852 (B.239/l/8 to B.239/l/23); and Abstract of Servants' Accounts . . . Columbia District, Outfit 1843 (B.223/g/8); and Abstract of [Servants'] Accounts . . . Oregon Department, covering Outfits 1853 to 1860 (B.223/g/9 to B.223/g/16).

13. H.B.C.A., B.223/b/5, MS, fols. 30-31d.

14. For a sampling of favorable comments on the Fort Vancouver cuisine see Drury, First White Women, I, 106; Farnham, Travels, 195; and Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 328-329.

15. Gay, Life and Letters of Mrs. Jason Lee, 152-153.

16. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 183.

17. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 79.

18. MacLeod, The Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 72.

19. The sources for these general remarks on stewards are the same as those cited in note 12 in this chapter.

20. H.B.C.A., B.223/b/5, MS, fols. 30-31d. The surgeon was also ordered to tell the cook how to prepare the foods thus dispensed, that is whether they were to be "boiled or Roasted &c &c as may best suit them."

21. H.B.C.A., B.239/l/l0, MS, 55; B.239/l/11, MS, 58; B.239/l/13, MS, 58; B.239/l/14, MS, 60; B.239/l/15, MS, 59; B.223/g/8, MS, 8. See also Lowe, Private Journal, MS, 10.

22. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," in OHQ, LXIII (June-September, 1962), 225.

23. H.B.C.A., B.223/g/8, MS, 33; B.223/g/15, MS, 3; B.239/l/16, MS, 61; B.239/l/17, MS, 45; B.239/l/18, MS, 44; B.239/l/19, MS, 43; B.239/l/20, MS, 46; B.239/l/22, MS, 44.

24. H.B.C.A., B.223/g/8, MS, 35; B.239/l/16, MS, 62. Thibeault evidently did not serve as mess steward for long. During Outfit 1846 he seems to have been back at his regular job as middleman.

25. Dease, Memorandum Book, 1829, MS, entry for October 15, 1829.

26. Caywood, Excavations at Fort Vancouver, 1948 Season, 7.

27. Caywood, Final Report, 7, 15.

28. J. J. Hoffman, memorandum to Chief, Archeological Inves tigations, Western Service Center, NPS, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, August 2, 1971; September 1, 1971, MS: J. A. Hussey telephone conversation with Mr J. J. Hoffman, April 3, 1972. In addition to the plaster floor, the archeologists in 1971 also found evidence of hard-packed earth floor in places. J. A. Hussey, interview with J. J. Hoffman and L. Ross, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, February 23, 1972.

29. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 118-119.

30. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [X 74.

31. Wilkes, Narrative, IV, 332.

32. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [II], 176-177.

33. Testimony of T. R. Peale, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [IX], 345.

34. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 154; B.223/d/160, MS, 144.

35. John Charles to James Hargrave, Red River, December 2, 1843, in Glazebrook, The Hargrave Correspondence, 453-454.

36. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 114, 152. This conclusion seems to be supported by the fact that the 1847 inventory listed "5 Stoves with Funnel," in the kitchen and pantry. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/174, MS; information through the courtesy of Mrs. Joan Craig (Archivist, H.B.C.) in letter to the writer, May 24, 1972.

37. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 154.

38. MacLeod, The Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 85.

39. MacLeod, The Letters of Letitia Hargrave, 72.

40. For example, see H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 153.

41. Beaver, Reports and Letters, 81-82.

42. Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 93, 143, 153-154.

43. Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1845 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/160, MS, 85, 129, 144.

44. Narcissa Whitman to "Brother Oren and Sister Nancy," Vancouver, October 24, 1836, in Drury, First White Women, I, 110.

45. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, 96.