Fort Vancouver Historic Structures Report

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.