Northeast Historical Archaeology

Volume 14 Article 5

1985 The rB itish Gate of : An Archaeological Reconstruction Bruce A. Morton

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Morton, Bruce A. (1985) "The rB itish Gate of Fort Beauséjour: An Archaeological Reconstruction," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 14 14, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol14/iss1/5 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol14/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. The rB itish Gate of Fort Beauséjour: An Archaeological Reconstruction

Cover Page Footnote The uthora would like to thank Gérard Gusset for his recollections of the excavation of the gates and John Light for his helpful comments on blacksmithing. E. Ann Smith deserves special thanks for her comments regarding the manuscript.

This article is available in Northeast Historical Archaeology: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol14/iss1/5 Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 14, 19_85 55

THE BRITISH GATE OF remains do not answer all questions com­ pletely, but they do provide enough informa­ FORT BEAUSEJOUR: AN tion to effect a logical reconstruction. In the ARCHAEOLOGICAL absence of other hardware assemblages that are as complete, the following artifact dis­ RECONSTRUCTION cussion and reconstruction should be of value to archaeologists involved in excava­ Bruce A. Morton tion of similar sites. At the time of the 1755 siege, the main Fifteen years after its initial excavation, the entrance to Fort Beausejour was located on reanalysis of field notes, the final report, and the the northeast curtain between two bastions artifact collection, in addition to communication that the British later named Prince Edward with the site's original excavator, has resulted in a and Prince Henry (FIG. 2). The north side detailed reconstruction of the main gate at Fort of the fort faced high ground and, as a re­ Beausejour, , . Interpreta­ sult, received the main thrust of the Brit­ tions generated by this recent reconsideration con­ ish bombardment. The French were forced tribute significantly to what is at present only a to barricade their own main gate in an scant body of data concerning North American effort to strengthen the north curtain wall. fort gates of the mid-18th century. The strategically-weak location and the Located at the head of the Cumberland barricade undoubtedly convinced the Brit­ Basin at Aulae, New Brunswick, Canada ish to site their own gate to the south­ (FIG. 1), Fort Beausejour, a pentagonal earth­ east where it overlooked falling, open work, was constructed by the French in 17 50 ground. to protect their claims in . Over the Within days of taking Fort Beausejour, next four and one-half years, they continued the British filled and leveled the attack to strengthen the fortifications in readiness trenches dug during the siege, permanently for the inevitable clash. reinforced the curtain wall in the area of the When hostilities between and En­ French entranceway, and relocated the gland again developed, the fort was attacked main entrance to the south side between the by the British, and on June 16, 1755, after a Prince William and Prince Frederick Bas­ brief two-week siege, it fell to troops under tions (FIG. 2). the command of Brigadier Robert Moncton. The main entrances to forts have always Although the British renamed it Fort been vulnerable. As a consequence, much Cumberland, the fort is most frequently re­ thought went into their design and con­ ferred to today as Fort Beausejour in honor struction. Main gates had to be massive to of its French founders. allow relatively easy passage of not only One of the tasks the British undertook troops but also vehicular traffic; they also upon capturing the fort was relocating and had to open and close quickly and with constructing new main gates. Specific infor­ ease. Sturdiness, in order to withstand mation on fort gates of the mid-18th century assaults by enemy forces, was another and later in is minimal essential requirement. Such gates needed (Nadon 1965; Lee 1973; Young 1979). None well-made hardware of an abnormally large of the sources the author researched indi­ size. cated anything other than passing reference Entrances were well guarded. The Or­ to gates or entrances. The recovered hard­ derly Book of Fort Cumberland for May 18, ware from Fort Beausejour, however, pro­ 1759 (Nadon 1966: 43), states that "under vides us with an almost complete assem­ normal conditions the fort was guarded by blage that gives valuable insight into how 15 men during the day and 29 during the the main gates of a fort of this period were night." The breakdown by posting was as constructed. To be sure, the archaeological follows: 56 British Gate of Fort Beausejour/Marton

GULF OF

ST. LAWRENCE

Figure 1. The location of Fort Beausejour National Historic Park. (Drawing by C. Piper.)

Day Night the entrance. Approximately one-third of the Main Gate 8 8 way through the curtain wall, each Covered Way 4 4 entranceway wall was provided with a one-ft Bake House 2 2 recess into which the massive gate leaf Hospital 1 2 swung when it was opened. The distance Spur 0 9 from entrance wall to entrance wall within Beer House 0 2 the recessed area was 11.0 ft so the entrance­ Hay Yard 0 2 way would not be constricted when the gates were open. Beyond the recesses, toward the The eight-man guard was posted at the interior of the fort, the entranceway walls gate at all times; in times of alarm, 40 narrowed to 10.0 ft apart. The entire additional men were sent to guard the bas­ entranceway was paved with a mixture of tions on either side of the entrance. cobblestones and brick frag- ments that pro­ In the late summer of 1968, Parks Canada vided a relatively level, well-drained surface. archaeologists, under the direction of Ger­ Of the original entranceway walls, only ard Gusset, excavated the British entrance­ the bottom seven courses remained intact, way to the fort as part of a large-scale, rising slightly over six ft in height. A pho­ multi-year project (Gusset 1969). Excava­ tograph of the interior of a curtain wall at tions revealed that two walls of the entrance­ Fort Beausejour, taken in the early 20th way, each 4.2 ft thick, cut a 32 x 9.8 ft century, clearly shows at least 15 regular passage through the curtain wall. They were courses of stone (Nadon 1966: Sec. H, facing constructed of rubble fill between carefully p. 4). Assuming that these courses averaged laid inner and outer faces. Archaeological 0.9 ft high including mortar, as did those evidence shows the outer face to be of excavated, the entranceway walls would coursed ashlar. Outside the fort, on either have been 13.5 ft and indeed could have side of the entranceway proper, two but­ been higher. tresses, located 13.7 ft apart and perpen­ Most fortifications of the period and those dicular to the curtain wall, strengthened of later years were constructed with a lintel the curtain wall and defined the approach to of some sort over the gateway. Mention is Northeast Historical Archaeo/ogyNol. 14, 1985 57

FORT BEAUSEJOUR FORT BEAUSEJOUR N.B. BRITISH ENTRANCE GATE

PRINCE EDWARD

I LEGEND N

MATERIALS

S'IOINUBOlTjaOtlGUIO[S DOOR BOll H~SP & t!OLI GUTOlS 0

llll)STA&HO Bv CPIPER 10 o• 8~ - Figure 2. Fort Beausejour after 1755. The British gate was built between the Prince William and Prince Figure 3. Plan view showing the location and Frederick bastions. The outlines of the 1751 French distribution of gate hardware in the British fort and some structures are indicated by dotted lines. entranceway. (Drawing by S. Epps.) (Drawing by C. Piper.) made of a structure over the main French bolt with hasp and staple (FIG. 7c-d), one slid­ entrance (Nadon 1968: 38), but there ap­ ing bolt guide (FIG. 7e), and one 1-headed nail pears to be no reference for any such similar (FIG. s), which served as a vertical bolt catch. construction in conjunction with the British The relationship of these pieces to each other occupation. Furthermore, no archaeological can be seen in Figure 3. All items are much evidence suggests anything like a projecting larger than those normally associated with gallery or parapet above the gates. For these an average-sized gate or door. reasons, no lintel has been included in the Three of the four double strap hinges used reconstruction drawing (FIGS. 4, 5). to hang the two main gates were recovered; Excavation also revealed remnants of the exception was the upper hinge shown in wood from one of the two gates and massive Figures 4c and 5c. The only T-strap hinge hardware in situ, including a substantial recovered was the one illustrated in Figures number of wrought nails, several hinges, 5f and 6b. The sliding bolt and catches and sliding bolts with guides (FIG. a). All of illustrated in Figure 5k were never found this hardware was uncovered within the and may not have existed in that form. The entranceway. means of securing the sally port within the Artifacts related to the gates and their con­ gate leaf may in fact have been entirely struction consisted of 318 hand-wrought different. In the absence of evidence to the nails, three double strap hinges (FIG. sa, c-d), contrary, however, this author has chosen to one T-strap hinge (FIG. sb), two handled slid­ illustrate a locking device similar to the ing bolts with guides (FIG. 7a-b), one sliding recovered gate bolts. 58 British Gate of Fort Beausejour/Marton

A ' I c ··-r .....L , I ---. j_ --- L ~.-._ C"+~+-~-,-,c-r.--,:-:-c\-::-T-'ci-' '...L- .L - ·- .. - ' I -'-- '--!- ..L -'- ., -·' -r 1~ ,J' ..1. ,i--­ ..., - ~),._JIL~,·~

Figure 4. View of the British gates from the exterior of the fort-as they probably appeared after 1755. Not to scale. (Drawing by J.C. Farley and C. Piper.)

I \· ~ '': A c '~' ·,

Figure 5. View of the British gates from the interior of the fort-as they probably appeared after 1755. Note the recesses where the open gates would rest. Not to scale. (Drawing by / J.C. Farley and C. Piper.)

The three double strap hinges were made considerably shorter than the other. The in the same fashion, the lower, and presum­ longer leg has been tapered and thinned and ably the upper, hinges being mirror images has a rounded end. On each of the two of each other. A wrought-iron bar has been bottom hinges, a circular pin has been forge­ hand-forged into a rectangular strap, then welded to the long leg of the squared "U" bent to form a squared "U" with one leg where it makes its right-angle turn. The Northeast Historical Archaeo/ogyNol. 14, 1985 59 circular pin forms the pintle of the bottom hinge and fits into a square, wrought-iron a block. The iron blocks have rusted to the pintles of both lower hinges (FIG. 6c-d). The short leg of the hinge was tack-welded to a rectangular, thinned, tapering strap with a rounded end. Holes punched through both straps of the hinge hold rivets that would b have passed completely through the door planking. The manner in which the three double strap hinges were manufactured sug­ gests that the smith who made them was working with six-ft lengths of bar stock Jl I I I I I I c measuring 21/2 in wide and 5/s in thick (Light 1985: personal communication). The gates were made of two layers of planks-the planks in one layer running at d right angles to the planks in the other layer-held together with wrought nails d.riven through the wood and clinched on the inside surface of the gate. It is estimated that each gate was five ft wide and at least eight ft high. The widest distance between Figure 6. Gate and construction-related artifacts: a, right upper hinges (see FIG.•• ), 481/2 in inside length, the parallel straps of each of the three gate 1 43/4 in to 5 /• in wide between straps; b, T-strap hinge hinges is found to have been 51/2 in. As there used on the sally port door, top of the "T" is 14 in is no deformation of the hinges and no sig­ long, strap is 29 in long; c, lower left-hand hinge, (see nificant deterioration resulting from oxida­ FIG.

a

b - .. -- -

Figure 8. L-headed nail. One of the two used as bolt catches for vertically-mounted sliding bolts.

e The locations within the entranceway (FIG. ae) of the T-strap hinge in relation to the other artifacts led Gusset to postulate the presence of a smaller door, a sally port, "' ... -...... ,...... ,...... ,.. within the right hand gate (Gusset 1969: 71), as seen in Figure 5. The archaeological Figure 7. Gate and construction-related artifacts: a, evidence supports the theory. Although only vertical bolt for left hand gate leaf, as viewed from one hinge (FIG. 5f) was found during excava­ the inside, 26 1/2 in long, 1% in dia.; b, upper horizontal bolt for left hand gate leaf, as viewed from tion, it is almost certain to be one of a pair. the inside, 25 1/2 in long, 1 % in dia.; c, lower Figure 5 illustrates how a smaller sally port horizontal sliding bolt, 34 V2 in long, 1% in dia.; d, using T-strap hinges might have been incor­ staple for locking bolt (c); e, bottom bolt guide for porated into the larger right gate leaf. The vertical bolt on right hand gate as viewed from the inside. size of the T-strap hinge found in the exca­ vation and the estimated size of the two main gates suggests that the sally port mea­ of 6.5 ft above ground. All sliding bolts were sured three ft wide and five ft high. A gate of attached to the gates by wrought nails that size would allow the easy passage in driven through the wood and clinched. and out of the fort while the larger main All of the bolt guides and the bolt keeper gates remained closed and barred. were manufactured in the same manner. A The British force besieging Fort Beause­ section of strap stock was curved to form a jour included a corps of engineers who were guide that was riveted to a roughly square responsible for the digging and later demo­ backplate. The backplates were then nailed lition of attack trenches and for other con­ into place and the nails clinched. Like the struction required at the time. Among their double strap hinges, all three sliding bolts number would have been carpenters, ma­ were hand-forged and the handles and hasp sons, and one or more blacksmiths. It is expertly butt-welded. believed that it was those people who were The oversized T-strap hinge (FIGS. 5f, sb) responsible for the fabrication of the gates has a five-part joint and a fast pin. The and entranceway of the newly-captured Fort tapered strap and the top of the "T" both Beausejour. While masons labored to face have five attachment holes punched through the passage dug through the curtain wall, them. This hinge also was attached with carpenters no doubt prepared the lumber clinched wrought nails. and built the gates to a predetermined size. Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 14, 1985 61

The smiths meanwhile forged the necessary Beausejour en 1968: operations 2E12 et 3E26. ironwork. There is no evidence, either his­ Manuscript Report Series 126. Parks Canada, Ottawa. torical or archaeological, to suggest that the Hannon, Leslie F. British built their gate using salvaged 1969 Forts of Canada. McClelland and Stewart, French hardware. . Fort Beausejour remained operative for Lee, David E. some 78 years after the British captured it 1973 Structural History, Fort Lenox. Manuscript in 1755, although its military importance Report Series 108. Parks Canada, Ottawa. waxed and waned. In 1834 the Board of Nadon, Pierre Ordnance leased the lands and buildings to 1965 : A Narrative History. Manu­ script Report Series 17. Parks Canada, Ot­ private individuals. Throughout the period tawa. of 1755-1834 the original British gate hard­ 1966 Fort Beausejour, N.B. Manuscript on file, ware remained in place, although the gen­ National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, eral state of repairs of the fort worsened Parks Canada, Ottawa. with the passage of time. The missing pieces 1968 Technical Study at Fort Beausejour, N.B. Manuscript on file, National Historic Parks of gate hardware were very probably left and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa. exposed when the general collapse of the Wilson, A.E. entranceway occurred sometime in the sec­ 1969 Notes, Illustrations, and Plans for the Partial ond quarter of the 19th century. Perhaps Restoration of the 1755 British Entrance to they were salvaged to be reworked by some Fort Beausejour. Manuscript Report Series 6. later, unknown, blacksmith. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Young, Richard J. 1979 West Curtain Wall and Sally Ports Three and Acknowledgments Four, Halifax Citadel. Manuscript Report Se­ The author would like to thank Gerard ries 329. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Gusset for his recollections ofthe excavation of the gates and John Light for his helpful comments on blacksmithing. E. Ann Smith Author: deserves special thanks for her comments regarding the manuscript. Bruce A. Morton Parks Canada References 1600 Liverpool Court Gusset, Gerard Ottawa, 1969 Fouilles archeologiques effectuees au Fort Canada KlA 1G2