Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

History and location

The Blacksmith's Shop presents one of the most difficult historical problems relating to the physical structure of Fort Vancouver. There had, of course, been a smithy at the Columbia depot ever since the old Astorian William Cannon, or William Canning as his name appears in the Company's records, set up his bellows and anvil under a tree in late 1824 or early 1825 and pounded out nails and other hardware used during the construction of the new post. [1]

When the fort was moved down onto the river plain early in 1829, the smithy went with it and was situated within the pickets. Its exact location is not known, but recent archeological excavations have uncovered metal scrap and other evidence that hopefully will enable the establishment of the site within quite narrow limits.

The Blacksmith's Shop that concerns us for reconstruction purposes, however, was an entirely different building from the smithy of 1829. It first appears as a located structure in the records of the Wilkes expedition of 1841. The Emmons ground plan, drawn on July 25 of that year, shows the "Blacksmiths shop--4 furnaces" situated in the extreme southeastern corner of the fort enclosure as it existed at that time (see Plate III, vol. I). Obviously, this smithy had been built between the time the stockade was enlarged to the east about 1836 and the date of Emmons's visit. [2]

According to Emmons, this smithy was directly east of the Missionary Store and southeast of the Bachelors' Quarters. He showed the smithy as being close against the east and south stockade walls, with room for no other buildings in the southeastern corner of the fort. Yet the two drawings of Fort Vancouver sketched by members of the Wilkes party, one by Eld (Plate IV, vol. I) and the other attributed to Agate (Plate LIII, vol. I), very clearly show two structures in the southeastern angle and east of the Missionary Store. Because the drawings could have been made, at most, only a little more than a month later than the map, this writer is unable to account for this major discrepancy.

The next available ground plan of Fort Vancouver, the so-called "Line of Fire" map drawn by Henry N. Peers shortly after the great conflagration during September 1844, shows the Blacksmith's Shop though it is unidentified, in approximately the same position as depicted by Emmons (Plate V, vol. I). By that time the east stockade wall had been moved to the east about fifty-six feet from its position in 1841. Yet the "Line of Fire" map shows no other building than the Blacksmith's Shop between the old Missionary Store and the southeast stockade corner. In other words, the two structures appearing in the Eld and Agate sketches were not both depicted by Peers on his quite detailed and accurate, if extremely small-scale, diagram.

Not until the ground plan drawn by Lieutenant Vavasour late in 1845 are two structures shown in the extreme southeast corner on any known map of the fort. That plan places the "Smith's Shop" on about the same spot as did Emmons, and directly east of it is a second building identified as the "Iron Store" (see Plates VI, VII, VIII, vol. I). In shape-- their longer walls ran north and south--they correspond well with the two buildings shown in the southeast corner by the Eld and Agate sketches, but both the Emmons and the "Line of Fire" maps seem to indicate that only one of these structures, the Blacksmith's Shop, existed prior to 1845.

Thus the question of why the two 1841 sketches depicted two structures in the southeast corner is brought no nearer to solution by later data. And there remains still another problem. It is probable, but not absolutely certain, that the Blacksmith's Shop of 1845 was the same structure as that (No. 10) shown on the Emmons map. The sizes appear to be similar, but the locations in relation to the Bachelors' Quarters and the south palisade are slightly different. After a study of the available data it is the opinion of this writer that the discrepancies were due to the conditions under which Emmons was forced to prepare his plan and that the Blacksmith's Shop of 1841 was the same building as that plotted by Vavasour. The location of this Blacksmith's Shop, which was that of the 1845-46 period chosen for reconstruction, is today identified as Building No. 22 on the site plan of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site.

After 1845 the continued existence of the smithy in its same location is demonstrated by a number of maps and pictures. The board of army officers that appraised the fort buildings on June 15, 1860, the day after the Company abandoned the post, found the "Blacksmith shop" to be still standing in its old position but "long since abandoned" and in a ruinous condition (see Plate XXX, vol. I). [3] Evidently it disappeared soon thereafter with the rest of the fort buildings.

One other question connected with the history of the Blacksmith's Shop also remains unanswered. Lieutenant Vavasour's fellow officer, Henry J. Warre, kept a journal while he was at Fort Vancouver during the winter of 1845-46, and from it he later wrote a narrative in which he said: "Within the stockade were several dwelling houses, a kitchen, oven, blacksmith's house and shop, and cooperage." [4] Here is a clear statement that at least one of the depot blacksmiths lived inside the palisades, either in a separate dwelling or in quarters that were a part of the smithy.

Such could have been the fact, but this writer has not yet found any supporting evidence for Warre's assertion. The uses of all the structures inside the fort are reasonably well recorded, and no quarters for blacksmiths are mentioned. Also, a blacksmith shop containing four forges would have been a crowded, noisy, dirty place, scarcely a suitable location for lodgings, even if they were in a garret. The Blacksmith's Shop inventories list no articles associated with domestic use.

There does remain the possibility, however, that one or more of the smiths could have lived in a loft over the adjoining lion Store. This location would have been more suitable, but no evidence supporting such a possibility has been found. For the present, the question of whether one or more blacksmiths lived within the pickets must remain unanswered. [5]

Blacksmith Shop operations. Though the Blacksmith's Shop was an essential feature in the depot operation--so necessary in fact that there were two blacksmith's shops at Fort Vancouver--there evidently was nothing so unusual about its functions or design as to stimulate lengthy comment from visitors. Seemingly a blacksmith's shop was a blacksmith's shop the world over. Thus the written record concerning the work of the smithy is rather scanty.

H. H. Spalding, who first visited Fort Vancouver during the fall of 1836 with the Whitman party, noted that there were then "8 or 10 blacksmiths constantly at work" at the depot. [6] In October 1838 James Douglas told the London directors that there were nine "tradesmen and others" engaged at the "Forge." [7] Because the employee rolls for Outfit 1838 listed only four blacksmiths under the headings "Fort Vancouver Depot" and "General Charges," it can be assumed that the remaining five men at the smithy were largely ordinary laborers or voyageurs assigned to assist at the forges. [8] In fact, as will be seen by the list of smiths appended to this chapter, the identities of two of these men are known.

This condition undoubtedly still prevailed during 1845-46, the period of immediate consideration for purposes of this report. Clerk George B. Roberts, though he did not specify any date, seems to have been speaking of the mid-1840s when he later said that there were eight men in the Blacksmith Shop. [9] Yet the district statements for Outfit 1845 listed only four blacksmiths. [10] Obviously these four skilled tradesmen, whose annual salaries ranged between £30 and £35, were being assisted by about four "middlemen," or laborers. How these eight or more workmen were distributed between the two depot blacksmith shops is not recorded.

Strangely enough, there exists a better description of the second smithy, which was situated several miles upstream at the sawmill, than there does of the main Blacksmith's Shop within the fort. In 1841 Lt. Charles Wilkes visited the sawmill, which he later described in his Narrative. Then he continued:

They have a large smith's shop here, which, besides doing the work of the mill, makes all the axes and hatchets used by the trappers. The iron and steel are imported: the tools are manufactured at a much less price than those imported, and are more to be depended on. A trapper's success, in fact, depends upon his axe; and on this being lost or broken, he necessarily relinquishes his labours, and returns unsuccessful. Fifty of them, it is said, can be manufactured in a day, and twenty-five are accounted an ordinary day's work. They are eagerly sought after by the Indians, who are very particular that the axe should have a certain shape, somewhat like a tomahawk. [11]

Wilkes was in error when he stated that "all" the axes and hatchets used by the trappers were made at the sawmill forge, at least if he meant to imply that all the hatchets used in the Indian trade were manufactured there. Fourteen parts of trade axes in various stages of manufacture were found by archeologists who excavated the site of the blacksmith shop within the pickets during 1947 and 1952. From these parts it was possible to reconstruct the process by which the axes were made and to determine that these tools came in at least four sizes: 2 inches, 1-3/4 inches, 1-1/2 inches, and 1-1/4 inches in width. [12]

Both archeological findings and the historical record prove quite conclusively that the Blacksmith's Shop on the site of Building No. 22 was indeed the principal depot smithy. Here were made not only axes, but a vast variety of iron and steel objects needed for the conduct of the trade throughout the Columbia District. These articles ranged from large bolts, eyes, straps, and other ironwork required for the repair and building of ships and barges down to the most delicate parts for beaver traps and for gun repair. Nails in a great variety of sizes and types were made at the fort, as were hinges, door pulls, hasps, and other hardware needed for building construction.

Narcissa Whitman in 1836 reported that the fort's blacksmiths were "all" employed in making the farming utensils needed for the missions to be established in Oregon by the American Board. [13] A visitor during the early 1840s found that the farming implements available at Fort Vancouver were "very reasonable" and that the "best Cary ploughs can be had to order from an excellent blacksmith at the place at 31-1/4 cents per pound." [14] Among the "country made" articles found in the depot Sale Shop and warehouse inventories during the mid-1840s were such items as axes of a variety of shapes and sizes, garden hoes, "hunters knives," beaver traps, canoe adzes, swingletree irons, crooked knives, drawing knives, horseshoes, and fish spears. [15]

It should be borne in mind, however, that by no means all of the nails, beaver traps, hardware, plows, and other iron and steel objects employed by the Company in its own Columbia operations or sold in its shops were made at Fort Vancouver. Requisitions and inventories, some of which have been quoted earlier in this report, clearly demonstrate that large quantities of finished ironware and steelware were imported from England along with the sheet and bar metal from which to manufacture many of the same items locally. Also, there were blacksmith shops at other principal posts throughout the district that manufactured many iron and steel articles used in the interior and on the Northwest Coast.

Whether such items were ordered from London or fabricated "in the country" seems to have depended in large part upon comparative costs. For instance, when making out the Columbia District requisition for Outfit 1846, Chief Factor McLoughlin on March 20, 1843, included a request for "50 beaver Traps with springs," ex plaining, "We have ordered 50 of these traps with springs on trial, and if the springs answer our purpose and are cheaper than we can make them here, we shall order all we require from England." [16]

Only occasionally did the operations of the Vancouver blacksmith shops become a matter of general concern on the part of the Company's upper management. Shipping coal from England for the Columbia District forges was expensive because it was bulky and occupied space that might better have been devoted to more profitable goods. In 1839 the London directors informed McLoughlin that they intended to.send "no Coals" in 1841 and evidently urged the Columbia superintendent to find another source of fuel for his forges. In desperation McLoughlin answered on November 20, 1840, pointing out that coal found on Vancouver Island and on the Cowlitz River had already been tried and found wanting and that in 1826-27 he had made charcoal from the available local woods but that it would not answer the purpose. "You will see the absolute necessity there is that you send us coals by the Vessel to sail from London in 1841," he urged, "as I need not state the ruinous consequences which will result if we are deprived of Coals to manufacture &c. the Iron Works for the Trade." [17]

The Governor and Committee relented and agreed to continue the coal shipments in 1841 and 1842, but they told McLoughlin that they were inclined to think he had not made his charcoal correctly, "as the best iron of Sweden and Norway is produced and worked by charcoal made from fir." [18] Governor George Simpson must have shared this opinion, because while he was at Sitka late in 1841 he arranged for the Russian American Company to send two charcoal burners to Fort Vancouver for a year to instruct "our people" in the proper method of preparing charcoal. [19] One Russian actually reached the Columbia depot during the next spring, but Dr. McLoughlin reported, seemingly with some scorn, that the visitor's efforts had been unsuccessful because he had found "the wood of this place, does not answer to make Coals so well as that at Sitika [sic]" and that it would cost as much to manufacture unsatisfactory charcoal at Fort Vancouver as to import good coal. [20] As far as this writer has examined the records, at least, this exchange marked the end of the charcoal experiment, and the importation of "seacoal" continued.

The last blacksmith to be listed as such on the Fort Vancouver rolls was David Smith, who served during Outfit 1852. [21] By the summer of 1857 Chief Factor Dugald Mactavish, then in charge of Fort Vancouver, had to advise W. F. Tolmie at Nisqually to obtain his beaver traps from Victoria. "I have had some springs made but they are not the thing," he added. "There are in fact few black smiths in the Country who understand how to temper them." [22] Evidently the representatives of the Company south of the 49th parallel had been reduced to shopping around among nearby American blacksmiths for beaver traps!

The Fort Vancouver blacksmiths, 1845-46. The Columbia District personnel rolls for Outfit 1845 list only four blacksmiths at the Fort Vancouver depot. They were George Aitken, Joseph Ovide Beauchamp, George Folster (b), and Thomas Scott. [23]

George Aitken seems to have been the chief blacksmith, if salaries were any indication. He received £35 per annum, whereas the other three smiths were paid only £30. He had served the Company about ten years by 1845. [24] His family status at that time is unknown to this writer.

Joseph Ovide Beauchamp had only been in the service three years in 1845. [25] He could write, or at least sign his name. On May 12, 1845, he married Margherita (Marguerite) Dechestes (of the Shastas) at Fort Vancouver in a ceremony conducted by Father Jean Nobili, S. J. She died on December 17, 1847, "aged about 20 years." [26]

George Folster, the second of his name in the Company's service, was a veteran by 1845, having then been employed about sixteen years. He first appeared on the Fort Vancouver rolls for Outfit 1830 at a salary of £30 per annum, and he remained at the depot evidently through Outfit 1832. [27] Apparently he was then transferred to Fort McLoughlin on the Northwest Coast, for W. F. Tolmie found "Folster" to be blacksmith there early in 1834. Tolmie described him as "an ingenious Orkneyman." [28] Back at Fort Vancouver during Outfit 1835, Folster evidently served well for in 1838 his annual salary was raised to £40--quite high for a tradesman. But somehow or other he must have fallen from grace, for in Outfit 1842 his salary was reduced to a low £20. By 1845 he had worked back up only to the £30 level. [29]

Something is known of Folster's domestic arrangements. On August 15, 1844, Father Modeste Demers buried in the Fort Vancouver cemetery a woman named Helene, "aged about 24 years, having lived with George Folster." On March 20, 1847, Alexandre Dundass Folster, "natural son of George Folster and of Waskopam woman, aged 1 month," was baptized at Fort Vancouver; and on October 30, 1849, William, aged about two weeks, "son of Georges Folster and of Marguerite of the Dalles [evidently the same Wascompam woman]," was baptized. [30] Folster died at Vancouver during 1850. [31]

Thomas Scott had been in the Company's service about four years by Outfit 1845. His family status has not yet been ascertained.

Construction details

a. Dimensions and footings. All three versions of the remarkably accurate Vavasour ground plan of late 1845 agree in depicting the long (north-south) dimension of the Blacksmith's Shop as measuring about fifty feet. On the two original versions the width (east-west dimension) scales out at approximately twenty-six to twenty-seven feet, each differing slightly from the other; but the copy published in the Oregon Historical Quarterly in 1909 gives the width as thirty feet (see Plates VI, VII, VIII, vol. I). According to the 1846-47 inventory, the "Forge" measured forty-five by thirty feet. [32]

Unfortunately, it appears that archeological surveys may not have yet resulted in a complete resolution of the problem caused by the discrepancies in the historical evidence. After preliminary testing in 1947, Mr. Louis R. Caywood excavated the apparent perimeter of the Blacksmith's Shop site in 1952. Published descriptions of his results are not as detailed as could be wished, but evidently he found a short piece of plank at each of the northwest and northeast corners. These perhaps were fragments of "soles," or they may have been footings. At any rate, it is not completely certain that they actually marked the northern corners of the building. Two long inter secting "planks" at what was evidently the southwest corner of the smithy were interpreted as being "soles" and apparently defined the positions of the west and south walls of the structure. If Mr. Caywood was correct in interpreting his findings as marking the smithy outlines, the building measured approximately forty-five by twenty-seven feet. [33]

During the fall of 1973 a more detailed excavation of the site of Building No. 22 was begun under the supervision of Mr. J. J. Hoffman, but the work had not been completed by the time this chapter was written. As of April 11, 1974, the data available was not sufficient to enable a determination of the exact smithy dimensions. [34]

In preparing the plans for the reconstructed Blacksmith's Shop, therefore, architects will wish to give careful attention to the final reports on the archeological excavations at this site. Meanwhile, the dimensions of forty-five by twenty-seven feet may be considered as reasonably correct and the best estimate currently available.

The 1973-74 archeological explorations have already been of much value in another respect, however. They have uncovered subsurface wooden footings spaced "at regular intervals" as at most other building sites in the fort. Framing sills at "ground level, or slightly below," rested on these footings. [35]

These findings prove at least two points: first, that Mr. Caywood's excavations, which after all were only intended to locate the fort buildings, were not deep enough to reveal the true foundation structure and that his plank "soles" were not the actual foundations; and, second, that the Blacksmith's Shop was constructed in the Canadian or post-on-sill style of most of the buildings at Fort Vancouver.

b. General construction. No clear pictures and no plans of the Blacksmith's Shop are known to exist, although several sketches and paintings of the 1840s provide glimpses of the roof (see Plates IV, XIV, XV, XVI, and LIII, vol. I). Frustratingly, the views that might be expected to be most useful, those by Henry J. Warre (Plates IX and X, vol. I, and XLII, this vol.), are of no value whatever in the present case, because the representation of the structures in the southeast corner of the fort appears to be incomprehensible when compared with the facts as presented by Vavasour's accurate ground plan of approximately the same date.

However, there are enough data available to provide a reasonably complete general description of the building. As shown by the sketches, particularly that by Paul Kane (Plate XIV, vol. I), the shop was an unusually low structure for Fort Vancouver, with the eave line well below the tops of the pickets and, in fact, with the ridge of the roof not much higher than the palisade. The roof was gabled, with the ridge running north and south. This evidence agrees with the testimony of one well-qualified witness who swore that the "blacksmith's forge" was only one story high. [36]

The archeological evidence already cited proves that the walls were of the usual post-on-sill construction. The Emmons journal (Plate III, vol. I) indicates that there were four "furnaces," or forges, but rather strangely no chimney can be positively identified in any known view. Furthermore, the findings of the archeologists, to be cited in detail later in this section, reveal that the Blacksmith's Shop had a dirt floor.

All in all, the general construction of the "forge" at Fort Vancouver appears not to have been very different from that of the smithy at the subordinate post of Fort Colvile. A committee of appraisers reported in 1866 that Fort Colvile contained "a smith shop 20 by 15 feet, and eight feet high, walls grooved-posts set in the ground and filled between with flatted timber, no floor, bark roof, much decayed." [37]

Walls. The footing pattern uncovered by archeologists during 1973-74 demonstrates conclusively that the walls were of the usual post-on-sill construction. Because they appear to be so low in available pictures and because of the comparative data from Fort Colvile, it is probable that the walls rose only about eight feet above the sills, or possibly slightly more due to the relatively large size of the building when compared with the smithy at Fort Colvile. The walls of the restored blacksmith's shop at Lower Fort Carry are planned to be only eight feet three inches high including sills and plates. That structure was only twenty-six by eighteen feet in size (see Plate LI).

Because the smithy was one of the earlier structures standing in 1845-46, having been erected between about 1836 and 1841, and be cause the Company ordinarily paid scant attention to fine finish in its workshops, it probably would not be amiss to employ hewn timbers in the reconstruction. As has been discussed elsewhere witnesses were about equally divided as to whether the wall timbers at Fort Vancouver were sawed or hewn, and it is possible that both positions were correct in part. [38]

In such a structure, the ceiling or tie beams would have been morticed into the plate and not into the wall timbers. In other words, there would have been no garret of the usual type (i.e., with low walls that were upward extensions of the building walls above the ground-floor ceiling).

Undoubtedly the walls of the gable ends of the smithy above the plates were closed in with vertical board siding. Probably this siding was similar to that shown in Plate LI. It will be noted that in the Lower Fort Garry blacksmith shop there was no framing behind this siding other than the cross-tie beam and end rafters (see Plate L).

In the framing of this building during the reconstruction absolutely no diagonal bracing should be used--except possibly for horizontal tie beams morticed into the plates across the four corners--unless it can be completely concealed within the infill timbers.

Roof. As has been seen, the Blacksmith Shop had a gable roof with the ridge line running north and south. No drawing provides sufficient detail to permit a firm decision as to whether the roof was covered with vertical boards or with shingles. Because it was a workshop and because of its early date, the smithy could still very well have had a board roof during Outfit 1845. The construction of such roofs is described on pages 114-15 in volume I of this report and under the heading "Roof" in Chapter II of this volume.

Doors. The Emmons ground plan of 1841 shows only one entrance to the Blacksmith's Shop, and that was in its west wall somewhat north of the center (see Plate III vol. I). Archeologists excavating during 1973-74 have found evidence of what probably was this same door. [39] Their final report undoubtedly will provide information as to its exact location and width.

It seems reasonable to assume that there was at least one other door in the Blacksmith's Shop, particularly by the latter half of 1845 when it is known that the Iron Store was standing directly to the east of the smithy. Almost certainly there must have been a more direct route for bringing the heavy iron and steel stock into the smithy than a circuitous path around to a door on the west side.

There is no information whatever as to the size and appearance of the smithy door or doors. Hopefully the archeologists will at least be able to determine the width of the openings. If, as seems likely, one of the doors should prove to be double, the architectural drawings of the Lower Fort Garry blacksmith shop might prove useful for design purposes (see Plate XLIX).

If one of the doors was a double door, there is a strong possibility that it was approached from the exterior by a wide wooden ramp. Because the sill undoubtedly was low, the ramp would not have been absolutely required in order to permit horses and vehicles to enter the shop, but it would have served to protect the interior from the mud that plagued the fort's inhabitants during the winter. A plan for such a ramp at another H.B.C. post is shown in Plate LIII.

Windows. Nothing concerning the number, location, or type of windows is revealed by the historical record. One can only speculate that there may have been two windows each in the north and south walls and about four each in the east and west walls.

It seems impossible to state a stronger case for double-hung windows than for casement windows. Either type could have been employed. If it is decided to use the double-hung variety in the reconstruction, the framing and sash details for an H.B.C. window at Lower Fort Garry, shown in Plate XLIX, may be useful.

Chimney or chimneys. No chimney can be seen for sure in any available picture showing the smithy roof. On the 1846-47 pencil sketch by Paul Kane (Plate XIV, vol. I) a low mass depicted rising slightly above the ridge line from the west side of the smithy might represent a chimney, but there seems no way to be certain.

Yet it is virtually certain that there were one or more chimneys. The plans for the reconstructed H.B.C. smithy at Lower Fort Garry call for a massive chimney for a single forge (see Plate LII), whereas there were four forges in the shop at Vancouver. For another example of a massive chimney on a Company blacksmith shop, see Plate LIV. It is possible that a single chimney could have served several forges. At Fort Vancouver it is probable that the chimneys would have been of brick, though local stone could have been used for a structure erected as early as the late 1830s.

Exterior finish. The painting of Fort Vancouver by an unknown artist in 1847-48 shows the upper section of the north wall within the gable as dark brown in color. Undoubtedly that portion of the wall and the entire rest of the Blacksmith Shop were unpainted, except for the doors and windows. The doors and the door and window frames were probably Spanish brown, while the window sash was probably white. Almost surely there was no weatherboarding on the Blacksmith's Shop. Also, there probably was no visible chinking.

c. Interior finish and arrangement. The interior of the Blacksmith's Shop probably was entirely open, without interior partitions and without posts supporting the ceiling or tie beams. In other words, those beams were of a clear span.

The inventory of 1846-47 does not list the "Forge" as being lined or ceiled, and undoubtedly it was not. Company workshops of this type were seldom carefully finished on the inside. Almost surely the walls and open beams of the smithy looked very much like those of the boat .shed shown in Plate LV. In fact, that picture might well serve as a guide in designing the reconstructed Blacksmith's Shop (except for the diagonal metal braces that undoubtedly were later additions made when several of the tie beams were removed). It will be noted that the boat shed was open to the roof above the tie beams and that stored materials were laid across the beams.

It may safely be assumed that the Blacksmith Shop was not painted on the inside.

Floor. Archeological evidence uncovered both in 1947-52 and in 1973-74 clearly indicates that the Blacksmith Shop floor was of hard packed earth. Particularly in the forge areas, layers of cinders, coal dust, burned earth, and "smithing detritus," all well packed, indicated prepared working surfaces. Archeologists have determined that the blacksmiths customarily dug temporary soaking or annealing pits in the shop floor. When no longer needed, the holes were filled, and the locations once more became part of the floor. [40]

Forges, anvil bases, etc. There is impressive historical evidence to the effect that there were four forges in the Blacksmith Shop known today as Building No. 22. Lieutenant Emmons, on his plan of 1841, definitely said that the shop he portrayed contained "4 furnaces" (Plate III, vol. I). Dr. H. A. Tuzo, who lived at Fort Vancouver during the 1850s, later testified that the "blacksmith's forge" contained, in addition to "other apparatus," two "ordinary" forges and two "very large" ones for ship work and similar tasks. [41]

Archeologists have not yet located the remains of more than one or possibly two forges. When their work is completed, evidence of four forges may have been found. If not, studies of nineteenth-century blacksmith's shops may reveal that one foundation could have served for at least two forges.

The inventories reproduced later in this chapter seem to support the presence of four forges, at least to the extent that they included four anvils, four fire shovels, four pairs of bellows, four rakes, and four sets of hammers. To date, archeologists have located only two anvil bases, but probably further excavation will reveal two more.

Anvil bases were simply the butts of substantial logs set deeply into the dirt floor. This fact is known both from actual remains uncovered in the Fort Vancouver smithy and from comparative data (see Plates XLVIII and L).

The design and construction of nineteenth-century forges is a subject too technical to be treated in this historical report. They should be the topic of a special study. For the purposes of preliminary planning, however, the information concerning the forge at Lower Fort Garry presented in Plate LII should be useful.

Furnishings

The Blacksmith's Shop is one structure at Fort Vancouver whose furnishings are known almost down to the last detail. The evidence--archeological, historical, and comparative--is virtually complete, or will be when the archeological excavations have been finished and described.

Workbenches. During 1973-74 National Park Service archeologists discovered a series of rectangular postholes parallel with the interior face of the west wall. These depressions apparently indicate the locations of "work benches, vise frames, post drills, and sundry items expected in a shop of the period." [42] With the holes to provide the dimensions and with comparative data to furnish the designs, there should be little difficulty in reconstructing these features. The plans for the workbench in the Lower Fort Garry smithy given in Plate XLVIII should be of assistance in this regard, and there are numerous technical works that have information on the equipping of nineteenth-century blacksmith's shops.

Coal box. Another item not mentioned in the historical record but known from comparative data is the coal box. Almost certainly there was one in the Fort Vancouver smithy. The plan of that at Lower Fort Garry given in Plate LIII will provide the general design, although the box at Fort Vancouver undoubtedly was larger.

Bases for bellows. Four pairs of bellows are listed in the in ventories. The larger sizes, at least, undoubtedly had bases of some sort. Archeologists have discovered a "large wooden foundation" that may have been for such a purpose. A combination of the archeological evidence and technical data gained from handbooks should provide suitable designs.

Inventories. Archeological excavations in 1947-52 and 1973-74 have produced a vast amount of iron, steel, and other types of metal scrap at the site of the Blacksmith's Shop and in its vicinity. Most of these thousands of pieces were merely waste metal, ends and pieces cut off of stock during the manufacturing process and too small to reclaim. But many others represented products of the forges in various stages of production or broken objects. From them the archeologists have been able to determine not only a wide range of products made at Fort Vancouver but also a very good inventory of the tools and equipment used in the smithy itself. [43] When this information becomes available it should provide superb guidance for refurnishing the building.

Meanwhile, the inventories in the archives of the Hudson's Bay Company are excellent records of the smithy furnishings. Under the subheading "Articles in Use," the Fort Vancouver depot inventory taken during the spring of 1844 contains the following list:

For some reason not apparent the list made during the inventory taken in the spring of 1845 was much shorter. Several of the items noted in 1844 were included, but a number, several of which would appear to have been of prime importance, were omitted. The 1845 list is as follows:

By the spring of 1847 the smithy inventory had undergone a considerable change. For one thing, the fact that only three each of certain key items such as anvils, fire shovels, and pokers were listed may indicate that only three forges were operating at that time. At any rate, the inventory of 1847 was as follows:

As usual, the inventory made in the spring of 1848 was the most detailed of all those thus far examined by the writer. It presents an excellent view of the articles in use in the Blacksmith Shop during that year:

Recommendations

a. It is proposed that architects and curators planning both the building structure and the furnishings of the reconstructed Blacksmith's Shop carefully study the reports of the 1973-74 archeological excavations at the site when they are completed. The only hope of answering a number of questions about the structure, such as those concerning the locations and sizes of doors; locations of windows; and the number, sizes, and locations of the forges, anvils, workbenches, and bellows, lies in the findings of the archeologists.

b. It is suggested that the Blacksmith's Shop be in accordance with the structural data provided in the chapter. Special attention is called to the following reconstructed body of this recommendations:

(1) The walls, of the usual post-on-sill type, should be formed of hewn timbers and should be little more than eight feet high. The sills should be at ground level, and the tie beams, or ceiling beams, should be morticed into the plates. The roof rafters should rest on the plates. There should be no visible diagonal bracing.

(2) The ends of the gables above the plates should be closed with vertical board siding, preferably without battens. There should be no framing under these boards except the end cross-tie beams. Evidently there were no windows in the gables.

(3) The roof should be covered with vertical boards, grooved at the edges.

c. The exterior was not weatherboarded, and it should be un painted, except for the doors and the door and window trim, which should be painted Spanish brown. The window sash should be white. The interior should not be painted.

d. The interior should be unlined; there should be no ceiling. There should be no interior posts or partitions.

e. Before the final design is made there should be a special technical study, based upon the archeological findings, upon the historical evidence, and upon nineteenth-century smithy design and practice, to determine the locations and design of such features as forges, chimneys, workbenches, anvil bases, and other shop equipment.

f. It is suggested that the Blacksmith's Shop be re-equipped, refurnished, and exhibited as a house museum.

At the request of National Park Service archeologists who desire the information in order to help date remnants of "country made" blacksmith tools marked with initials, there follows a list of all employees identified as blacksmiths on the Fort Vancouver rolls from 1828 to 1852 examined by the writer. Prior to Outfit 1837 the district statements (or rolls) seen by the writer did not note the occupations of tradesmen except under special circumstances, such as the granting of a "gratuity" or extra pay when, say, an ordinary laborer served as a blacksmith, baker, etc. Before Outfit 1837, therefore, the annual lists given below are largely fragmentary and constructed from scattered miscellaneous sources. But lists of employees are to be found in more than one place in the Company's records, and probably rolls exist that will permit the naming of the blacksmiths for all the years from 1825 to 1852. After the latter date there does not seem to have been a blacksmith at Fort Vancouver.

Outfit 1828 (men not identified by trade)

Francois Bouvet. Ten pounds extra wages for blacksmith's service.

William Canning (William Cannon). Not identified as a blacksmith, but had been on Fort Vancouver roll since at least 1825; known from other sources to have been a millwright and blacksmith; remained on Fort Vancouver roll through Outfit 1835, at which time he was earning £45 per annum; during Outfit 1833, at least, he was at the Fort Vancouver sawmill.

André Lachapelle. His wages at this time were £22 per annum, more than those of an ordinary laborer. He may not have been a blacksmith at this time, as he was not identified as such until Outfit 1837.

Outfit 1829 (men not identified by trade)

André Lachapple [sic]. £22

Outfit 1830 (men not identified by trade)

George Folster. Listed under "General Charges." André Lachapelle. £25

Outfit 1831 (men not identified by trade)

George Folster. £30

André Lachapelle. £25

Outfit 1832 (men not identified by trade)

George Folster. £30

André Lachapelle. £25

Outfit 1833 (the following men listed as blacksmiths)

Jean Racine dit Noyer.

John Alexander Saunders (assisting)

Greely Sargent

Isaac Thibault [or Thibeault]

Outfit 1834 (men not identified by trade)

André Lachapelle. £30

Jean Racine de Noyer. £30

John Alexander Saunders. £17

Greely Sargent. Served only 6 months; sent to Oahu 12/1/34.

Isaac Thebault [sic]. £40

Outfit 1835 (men not identified by trade)

William Canning. £45. Possibly still at mill.

George Folster (b). £30

André Lachapelle. £30

John Alexander Saunders. £17

Outfit 1836 (men not identified by trade)

William Canning. Drew only £8.0.3 in wages, so probably retired during the year.

George Folster (b). £30

André LaChapelle. £30

John Alexander Saunders. £17

Outfit 1837

James Dickson. £30

George Folster (b). £30

André LaChapelle. £30

John Alexander Saunders. £17. Listed as "middleman."

Outfit 1838

James Dickson. £30

George Folster. £40

André LaChapelle. £30. Listed as a middleman, but this description probably was an error.

Jean Baptiste Roi. £30

John Alexander Saunders. £22. Listed as middleman.

Allan Morrison. £25. Listed under "general charges. "

Outfit 1839

James Baker. £22

James Dickson. £30

George Folster (b). £40

André Lachapelle. £30

Allan Morrison. £25

John Alexander Saunders. £22. Listed as a middleman.

John Flett. £25. Listed under "general charges," perhaps not at Fort Vancouver.

Outfit 1840

James Dickson. £30

John Flett. £25. Transferred to steamer Beaver after seven months.

George Folster. £40

André Lachapelle. £30

Allan Morrison. £25

André Louttit. £30. Listed under "Columbia Charges," perhaps not at Fort Vancouver.

Outfit 1841

James Dickson. £30

George Folster. £40

André Louttit. £30

Allan Morrison. £25

George Aitkin. £35. Listed under "Columbia Charges."

Kenneth Campbell. £28. Listed under "Columbia Charges. "

Outfit 1842

James Dickson. £30

George Folster B. (sic). £20

André Louttit. £30

Joseph Plouffe. £22

Kenneth Campbell. £28. Listed under "Columbia Charges."

Outfit 1843

Joseph Ovide Beauchamp. £30. Listed under "Columbia Charges."

Kenneth Campbell. £30.

James Dickson. £12.10.0. Returned to England, 10/31/43.

John Flett (c). £30.

George Folster (b). £20

André Louttit. £30

Joseph Plouffe. £22. Listed as a "boute" in H.B.C.A., 8.239/l/14, MS, p. 63.

Outfit 1844

George Aitken. £35

Joseph Beauchamp. £30

Kenneth Campbell. £30

George Folster. £25

André Louttit. £8.15.0. Went "home" from York Factory on the Prince Rupert, fall 1844.

Thomas Scott. £30. Listed under "Columbia Charges."

Outfit 1845

George Aitken. £35

Joseph Ovide Beauchamp. £30

George Folster (b). £30

Thomas Scott. £30

Outfit 1846

George Aitken. £35

Joseph Ovide Beauchamp. £30

George Folster (b). £30

Thomas Scott. £30

Outfit 1847

George Aitken. £35

George Folster (b). £30. Does not appear on rolls after 1847.

Joseph O. Beauchamp. £30 Outfit 1848

George Aitken. £30. Went to California; wages to March 1, 1849.

Outfit 1849

Kaihé. £25

Outfit 1850

Kaihé. £8.6.8. Wages to March 1, 1851.

Jonathan Moar, Jr. £25. Listed under "General Charges."

Outfit 1851

(No blacksmiths listed.)

Outfit 1852

David Smith. £48

Outfit 1853

(No blacksmiths listed at Fort Vancouver, but one page of the departmental personnel list for that year does not give the posts at which the men were stationed; thus there is a slight chance that there actually was a smith at the old Columbia depot.)

Outfit 1854

(No blacksmiths listed at Fort Vancouver.)

1. H.B.C., District Statements, York Factory, 1824-1826, H.B.C.A., B.239/l/1b, MS, pp. 38, 77; Clinton A. Snowden, A History of Washington; the Rise and Progress of an American State, 4 vols. (New York, 1904), 1:477.

2. In 1866 W. H. Gray, who was well acquainted with Fort Vancouver from the time of his first visit in 1836, testified that a new Blacksmith Shop had been erected in the eastern section of the fort after the enclosure was doubled in size about 1836. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [8:]184.

3. "Proceedings of a board of officers, Fort Vancouver, June 15, 1860," A.G.O., Ore. Dept., Doc. File 212-S-1860, in National Archives.

4. Warre, "Travel and Sport in North America, 1839-1846," p. 104.

5. The map of Fort Vancouver and vicinity drawn by Richard Covington in 1846 (Plate XIII, vol. I) shows a structure labeled "Smith's h[ouse]" close to the bank of the Columbia River near the boat sheds. Perhaps this was the dwelling of Malcolm Smith, a dairy man, and not of a blacksmith.

6. H. H. Spalding to David Green[e], Fort Vancouver, September 20, 1836, in American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Papers, Cherokee Mission, MS, vol. 9, item 203, in Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

7. H.B.S., 4:260.

8. H.B.C., District Statements, York Factory, 1838-1839, H.B.C.A., B.239/l/9, MS, pp. 44, 49.

9. Roberts, "The Round Hand of George B. Roberts," p. 197.

10. H.B.C., District Statements, York Factory, 1845-1846, H.B.C.A., B.239/l/16, MS, pp. 57, 58, 61.

11. Wilkes, Narrative, 4:336.

12. Caywood, Final Report, pp. 34-35 and figs. 6 and 8. These drawings are reproduced as Plates LVI and LVII in this report.

13. Archer Butler Hulbert and Dorothy Printup Hulbert, eds., Marcus Whitman, Crusader, Part One, 1802-1839, Overland to the Pacific, vol. 6 ([Denver,] 1936), pp. 248-51.

14. George Wilkes, The History of Oregon, Geographical and Political . . . to Which is Added a Journal of the Celebrated Emigrating Party of 1843 (New York, 1845), p. 98.

15. See pp. 230-31, 290-92, in vol. I of this report; also Caywood, Final Report, pp. 34-45.

16. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Account Book, 1838-1852 [Requisitions], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/207, MS, fol. 116.

17. H.B.S., 6:22— 23.

18. Ibid., p. 22 fn.

19. Ibid., pp. 302-3; ibid., 29:132—33.

20. Ibid., 6:94-95.

21. H.B.C.A., B.239/1/23, MS, p. 30.

22. Dugald Mactavish to W. F. Tolmie, Vancouver, July 27, 1857, MS, in Fort Vancouver, Correspondence Outward, 1850-1858, Letters Signed by Dugald Mactavish, in Provincial Archives of British Columbia.

23. H.B.C., District Statements, York Factory, 1845-1846, H.B.C.A., B.239/l/16, MS, pp. 57, 58, 61.

24. H.B.C.A., B.223/d/162, MS, p. 7.

25. Ibid.

26. Warner and Munnick, Catholic Church Records, Vancouver II, pp. 58, 86; An H.B.C. axe, marked "JB," is in the collections of the Oregon Historical Society, and a pair of blacksmith's tongs bearing the same initials was recently excavated at Fort Vancouver. Could these have been made by Joseph Beauchamp? Lester A. Ross, telephone conversation with J. A. Hussey, April 18, 1974; Caywood, Final Report, p. 34.

27. H.B.C.A., B.239/l/4, MS, pp. 13, 66; B.239/1/5, MS, p. 37.

28. Tolmie, Journals of William Fraser Tolmie, pp. 266, 279.

29. H.B.C.A., B.239/1/6, MS, p. 45; B.239/l/9, MS, p. 44; B.239/l/13, MS, p. 59; B.239/l/16, MS, p. 59.

30. Warner and Munnick, Catholic Church Records, Vancouver II, pp. 45, 80, 107.

31. H.B.C.A., B.223/g/10, MS, p. 14.

32. H.B.C., Fort Vancouver, Miscellaneous Items, 1845-1866, H.B.C.A., B.223/z/5, MS, fol. 265.

33. Caywood, Final Report, p. 18, and Map of Archeological Excavations, sheet 6.

34. J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, April 11, 1974.

35. Ibid.

36. Testimony of H. A. Tuzo, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [2:]176-77, 183.

37. Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [8:]275.

38. For a discussion of this point, see Hussey, History of Fort Vancouver, p. 161.

39. J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, April 11, 1974.

40. Caywood, Final Report, p. 18; J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, April 11, 1974.

41. Testimony of H. A. Tuzo, in Br. & Am. Joint Comm., Papers, [2:]183.

42. J. J. Hoffman to J. A. Hussey, April 11, 1974.

43. Telephone conversation, Lester A. Ross with J. A. Hussey, April 18, 1974.

44. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1844 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/155, MS, pp. 160-61.

45. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1845 [Inventories], H.B.C.A., B.223/d/160, MS, p. 141.

46. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1847, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/174, MS, fols. 98d-99.

47. H.B.C., Account Book, Fort Vancouver, 1848, H.B.C.A., B.223/d/181, MS, fols. 82—82d.