Bigotyard Website Design and Content © December 14, 2001, by Eric Krause, Krause House Info-Research Solutions (© 1996)
      All Images © Parks Canada Except Where Noted Otherwise

Researching the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada
  Recherche sur la Forteresse-de-Louisbourg Lieu historique national du Canada

Fortress of Louisbourg, Block Two,
Lots F/G/H Properties:
Landscape Arrangements as of 1744

MINUTES

BACK
 
Chronological Index ~ Extracts from the Structural and Period Presentation Minutes of the Fortress of Louisbourg, 1961 - Present

1985 - 2001

1985

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 125 436 - 442
March 28, 1985

...

8. Dugas Fence ...

Head of Engineering and Works recommends that we remove the existing concrete pilasters and rotted intermediate posts and replace same with treated posts. This will require archaeological clearance. (See attached plan)

BASIS ... Safety Committee Inspection 
D. T. Recommendation ...

[ATTACHED MATERIAL:]

[Please click on the image to enlarge it]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 227 30 - 37
March 28, 1985

[See B 125 436 - 442, March 28, 1985]

1987

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
August 12, 1987

1. Comissaire's Kitchen and yard

Sandy Balcom spoke on the desirability of bringing the Comissaire's yard and kitchen more into the interpretive program. He has already had preliminary discussions with Anne O'Neill and Lee Ann Reeves on the topic and asked if a team should formally be convened. The committee agreed and Terry McCalmont said he would like to work with Sandy in planning what could be done, in both the short and long term ...

... [Action] ... Sandy, Terry & E&W ...

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 238 196 - 200
August 12, 1987

[See B 330, August 12, 1987]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 227
September 2, 1987

...

2. Operations /Volunteers Request No. 06-87 
Access to Bigot Theatre from Restaurant Complex

Request: 

It was requested by Head of Operations that a section of fence be removed from behind the Destouches to allow easier access to the Bigot Theatre for restaurant staff travelling back and forth, their argument being that removal of such a fence would not be viewed by the public (see attached). 

Discussion

It was felt by the Design Team that the interpretive value of these fences would be destroyed as this area can actually be viewed by the public from several focal points. In addition, future planned development of the Bigot Gardens would be affected. 

Design Team Recommendation

This request will be forwarded to Period Presentation for their consideration ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 227 153 - 156
September 2, 1987

[See B 227, September 2, 1987]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
November 12, 1987

1. Comissaire's Residence - House and Yard

Sandy Balcom submitted a proposal to enlarge the interpretive scope of this property. After meeting with Terry McCalmont and Lionel Wadden, and seeking input and ideas from others, Sandy tabled a concept to improve the property. The elements of the proposal are as follows: open and furnish the commisaire's kitchen (which can mostly be done using pieces already in the collection); provide visitor access to and from the residence via the interior yard by opening both the kitchen door and the door off the hall; and improving the presentation in the yard. While there remain many questions concerning the yard (such as when and to what degree gardens might be introduced, what the archaeology revealed, and so on) the committee was pleased with the concept and gave its approval for planning to proceed. The path/walkway question was referred to Structural Design, furnishings matters to Derek and Sandy, and general gardening and animal questions to Lee Ann Reeves.

Eric raised the issue of visitor access to the yard. He pointed out that in the 18th century people would not have been able to enter a yard without the owner's knowledge and permission. He suggested that the gate be closed and people routed through the house. Bill suggested this question be discussed another day

In the talk of the yard the commissaire's dovecote came up (and by extension, the governor's as well), The consensus was that these two structures need interpretation. Exhibit panels was no one's first choice. Some proposed pigeons, others tapes of pigeon sounds. A compromise seemed to be pigeons or doves that lodged in cages that would be out of site. Lee Ann was asked to investigate and make a recommendation ...

[COMMENT SHEETS:]

...

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 238 207 - 212
November 12, 1987

[See B 330, November 12, 1987]

1988

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
February 05, 1988

2. Garden Proposal for Commissaire's Yard

Brian Harpell and Lee Ann Reeves presented a proposal for the development of beds, walkways, fruit trees, shrubs, compost barrels, cold frames and other features. Their layout was a modification of Yvon LeBlanc's rough plan for the yard. There were many questions concerning the proposal, and various assignments were handed out to further the development. In general, there was strong support for the concept of developing the yard.

Among the many requests that were made for people to refine the submitted concept were:

Sandy Balcom brought up the need to clean up and then put to a period look the walk area between the commissaire's residence/storehouse and the enclosed garden. In addition, access to the two entrances must be finalized, whether they are to be steps or some sort of ramp ...

[COMMENT SHEETS:]

[ATTACHED MATERIAL:]

                                                        P.O. Box 160, Louisbourg, 
                                                        Nova Scotia. BOA 1NO 
                                                       10 February 1988 
                                                                                     8440-100

Conservation, Landscape Architect,
Restoration Services Division, 
Architectural & Engineering Services, 
Environment Canada, 
10 Wellington St., 4th Floor, 
Ottawa, Ontario, 
KlA 0H3

Attention: Linda Fardin

Dear Ms. Fardin,

As you are aware, the Fortress of Louisbourg has a number of operating 18th century period gardens. Next year we wish to open a formal garden in the yard of the Commissaire-Ordonnateur. while our primary evidence is sketchy we have sufficient secondary evidence to proceed.

In the near future, our Engineering & Works Section will be issuing detailed drawings of the garden in question. However, our operational people have drawn up a rough sketch which I have attached.

The concern that I have is whether the 4 and 3 foot beds next to the fences are in keeping with standard 18th century French formal gardening techniques. Operations has introduced these beds because the size of the original French formal garden was very large, and they wished to simplify the interior design as such as possible.

The beds are kept off the wooden piquet fences to prevent rot, and to allow access to the back of the beds for maintenance purposes (of both the beds and fences).

As there is a good chance that we will begin work on this garden this spring, I would appreciate your views at your earliest convenience.

                                                               Sincerely,

                                                               Eric Krause, 
                                                               Historical Records Supervisor, 
                                                               Fortress of Louisbourg 
                                                               National Historic Park.

---

[Please click on the image to enlarge it]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 01 - 04
February 05, 1988

[See B 330, February 05, 1988]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 247
February 11, 1988

Multi-Purpose

...

3. Bigot Garden 

Discussion

Head of Engineering and Works pointed out that while Period Presentation approved in principle the concept of Bigot Garden Development, it was still not clear what the detailed design specifications for the garden would be. E. Krause commented that research for this project was limited to his letter to Ottawa for recommendations from restoration landscape architects. 

Design Team Recommendation 

1. Curator of Gardens & Animals provide research analysis and detailed design plan and specifications for approval by Design Team. 

2. Primary and secondary research should be completed before implementation of recommendation #1 ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 228 07 - 11
February 11, 1988

[See B 247, February 11, 1988]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
April 06, 1988

It is believed that E & W has stockpiled some soil. Historical Resources has provided Ken Donovan with some research time and he will report back on the garden later this summer ... Action ... Donovan ...

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 05 - 09
April 06, 1988

[See B 330, April 06, 1988]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
May 04, 1988

Garden Proposal for Commissaire's Yard

Eric reported that the contact person in Ottawa was sending information that might be of use in developing this garden/yard. Andree Crepeau raised her concern that there were three major reasons for temporarily putting off (or slowing down) the development. First, there is an artifact-rich area near the well at the entrance to the yard; second, the nature of the walkway along the side of the storehouse needs to be resolved; and third, there seems to have been a latrine in the area where the garden is proposed. Andree urged that these questions be resolved before the current plans be implemented. She suggested that these questions would be looked at in depth in October or November 1988, which is when the Maintenance Standard for that property is scheduled to be done.

Various members of Visitor Services asked that the garden development go ahead as they have planned, even though the matter has not yet received the approval of the Structural Design Committee. Roger Wilson concluded that Structural Design should meet as soon as it can, and pass on its decisions to Lee Ann Reeves. The garden proposal is to go ahead, but not necessarily exactly as planned. Moreover, every precaution is to be taken so as not to affect the various ruins below ground. Should Structural Design find that a latrine is required where the ruins are, the garden plan will eventually have to be altered ....

[COMMENT SHEETS:]

[ATTACHED MATERIAL]:

From: ERIC KRAUSE ...
CC: LEANNE REEVES ...
CC: PERIOD PRESENTATION ...
Subject: LETTER TO OTTAWA ON BIGOT GARDEN

LEANNE:

I had a nice discussion with Linda Fardin , the Conservation, Landscape Architect to whom I wrote (file 8400-100). She has mailed back (last week) your plan with numerous suggestions. One thing that may not come out in her letter are some questions I asked her on the phone concerning the beds along the fence. If these are beds, no problem with pulling them off the fence line, with perhaps a gravel walkway in behind. if you were to opt for hedging instead (which might be even more appropriate than beds), again no problem.

Her telephone number is 613-997-6250. She is easy to talk to. Also, she suggested that if we had some French gardening text with difficult technical terms, she would be more than willing to translate the material (or send it to translation services). if you want, you could FAX it to the 25th floor of her office building, her attention. The FAX number is 613-997-2443.

At any rate, good luck.

                                                                        Eric

---

Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H3

April 11, 1988 ...

                                      8440-100 ...

Erie Krause 
Historical Records Supervisor 
Fortress of Louisbourg National 
Historic Park ...

Dear Mr. Krause,

This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1988. 1 had hoped to be able to give some time to research the question of 18th century French formal garden beds, and their dimensions. Intuitively I believe beds varied a great deal in depth from site to site and I do not think you need to worry about a three or four foot bed.

I do have some reservations though about the sketch, and would like you to consider these questions or recommendations:

1. If the intent of this design is to create a formal garden, then the apple trees should go elsewhere. There may be some justification for "espalier" fruit trees in the background.

2. Cold frames (and compost barrels) should be out of sight in an ornamental garden. They are usually relinquished to the back of the garden, maybe behind a hedge, or to the kitchen garden; seldom, in fact never, have I come across evidence supporting their presence as a backdrop to an ornamental French formal garden.

3. The French formal gardens usually leave nothing to chance. They are flawlessly symmetrical and balanced, every object is on an axis with some other garden element. For example. benches are in axis with pathways, and I doubt seating arrangements such as those proposed would be faithful to such an intent. 

4. Centre pieces are usually in the center garden.

P.S. I have enclosed an alternative plan for your consideration

[Please click on an image to enlarge it]

---
[Two Image Sizes]

Small	Large

1. Artifact-rich area 2. pavé walkway 3. latrine

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 12 - 16
May 04, 1988

[See B 330, May 04, 1988]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 330
June 01, 1988

9. New Bigot kitchen Exterior Steps ... E and W received a Work Order for this step without any review by the Period Presentation Committee ... Action ... The Committee is to also review the step proposal upon receiving archaeological guidance ...

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 22 - 28
June 01, 1988

[See B 330, June 01, 1988]

1989

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 247
June 13, 1989

Multi-Purpose

...

5. Stone Step Outside Entrance to the Guide Lounge. 

The existing rise of 10" going into the King's Bastion presents a tripping hazard. Suggested that a piece of stone be used as opposed to putting in a wooden step. 

A similar situation exists at the Bigot Kitchen; it was also suggested that a temporary stone be placed here until the design of the Bigot yard has been completed. L. Wadden to check with Sandy Balcom to determine if the handicapped ramp will be interfered with before placing stone step ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 228 26 - 29
June 13, 1989

[See B 247, June 13, 1989]

1990

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 333
June 19, 1990

...

Ken Donovan presented a background paper in which, he discussed the myth that Isle Royale underwent a period of agricultural inactivity during the French Regime (1713-1758). While A. H. Clark has been the most famous of the writers to have pushed this view, Christopher Moore has been the most recent to dispute it. Alex Storm also presented Denys period evidence in support of the Moore faction.

Ken presented his recommendations for interpreting the Bigot Garden:

1) See Ken's Paper (attached) entitled "The myth of French Agricultural Inactivity: Gardens and Gardening in Ile Royale" in which he recommends the Levasseur Garden an excellent example which to follow for setting up the Bigot Garden (In summary, the Bigot Garden is to be ornamental with arbours, trellises, shrubbery and fruit (apple) trees

Brian recommended posts with lampions and examples of the technology of the period (cold frames, etc.).

Bill recommended mounting a capital programme to fund this project. ACTION: George Burns.

Eric recommended that our Ottawa Landscape Architect be consulted for viewpoints and possible designs. ACTION: Lee Anne Reeves. At the same time, he again emphasized that someone (Operations?) initiate a Landscape/Animal Research Programme.

The Committee recommended that a Bigot Garden Team be formed, consisting of Lee Anne Reeves, Ken Donovan (who is working on a Garden Report), and Alex Storm - GOAL: To produce a BIGOT GARDEN WORKING MANUAL.

Andrée Crépeau to be consulted if additional information on the Bigot Garden exists. ACTION: Lee Anne Reeves.

[Memo from Andrée Crépeau to Period Presentation]

.... JUNE 20, 1990 ...

COMMENTS RE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE BIGOT GARDEN

I would like to clarify the status of the archaeological evidence for the Bigot Property. There seems-to be a general impression that only a limited amount of excavation was done in the the yard, that nothing of import was found, and that archaeology has little or nothing to offer towards the interpretation of the yard.

These assumptions are presumably the source of the following quote from the recently tabled "Recommendations for the Interpretation of the Bigot Garden":

" ... there was no archaeological report written for the scattered excavations in the yard. At best, the archaeological evidence can be described as inconclusive."

Let me state quite clearly that there was very extensive excavation of the property, considerable evidence for yard and garden features was found, and there is sufficient evidence in the archaeological records to provide a significant input to the interpretation of this property.

In some detail, the facts are as follows:

1. Both the yard and the house were completely excavated. In fact , some 2194 square meters of area was excavated. The only materials that are still in place are the remains of architectural features, such as the Prevost addition foundations, wells etc. Where no substantial features were found the area was excavated to sterile, which simply means we took everything out that was movable down to the level of naturally occuring [sic] strata. The house and yard were tested by Harper in 1959, and excavated by Cox in 1968 to 1970. Further, excavations in the yard were. done by Stevens in 1974, Council in 1975 and Cox in 1978.

2. While it is true that there is no single comprehensive archaeological report for the property, each of the various archaeologists has produced summaries and or reports of their work and D.A. Harris completed an archaeological summary of the property as a whole. Cox, who was responsible for most of the work, left a draft report that is admittedly inadequate. He asserts various findings but often does not substantiate his conclusions. Thus, the report is of little use to anyone who does not have sufficient archaeological training to be able to check Cox's conclusions against the extensive field records which include notes, drawings, maps, plans, slides and photographs.

3. The "Recommendations .... " contends that the archaeological evidence is "at best ... inconclusive." This is simply not the case. In fact, the archaeological evidence has not been fully analysed: primarily because there simply haven't been enough archaeologists available to do it. It is not because the archaeologists have no interest or have nothing to contribute.The park has decided to proceed with the interpretation of this yard without our input. This is a management decision. one which I can understand and accept. I still feel, however, that it is unfortunate that we do not have the resources to fulfill our responsibilities.

For the record, I should state that I have reservations about proceeding with the interpretation of the property without looking at the yard as a whole. I have expressed my concern in the past. (February 5 & May 4, 1988 Period Presentation Meetings). While there is no doubt that the yard contained a garden, we have not addressed what else it might or should have. Did this property have a latrine? It certainly had one until the sale of the Rodrique [sic] property in 1741. I've marked it's location on the attached plan as "A". The latrine most likely in use in 1745 is located along the west property line. (marked B on attached plan). Proceeding with the full interpretation of this yard without condersidering [sic] these questions is forcing us to make interpretative statements that we may not want to make. Consider the following. Did the large Bigot household dispose of waste by hauling it away on a daily basis? If so where and how was it taken away, or did they just pile it in the yard? Where did people relieve themselves, should we have chamber pots everywhere? If the latrine was in the oranamental [sic] garden area did the clerks and servants use it or should there be two?

Furthermore, what happens when, or if, we finally get around to answering these questions in a few years and the garden is fully established with a bower and trellises etc? It it fair or even realistic to expect to be able to obtain funds for substantial redesign or redevelopment of the garden to correct errors that we could have avoided if we had done the research completely when the property was being designed the first time.?

Finally, as a matter of both professional courtesy and operational effectiveness, I believe it would have been appropriate for the author of the "Recommendations..." to have reviewed with me the proposed wording concerning the archaeological evidence in advance of tabling the document. If he had done so, this memo would have been unnecessary.

[signed: Andrée Crépeau]

[COMMENT SHEETS:]

---

[Please click on an image to enlarge it]
[Two Image Sizes]

Latrines "A" and "B" 
-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 120 - 123
June 19, 1990

[See B 333, June 19, 1990]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 333
June 29, 1990

Discussion:

Recent historical evidence relating to gardens in 18th-century Louisbourg has been made available and this group met to incorporate developmental ideas within the context of the Bigot garden.

Initial development of the Bigot garden began 3 years ago. While representative of an upper class style garden, a number of additions have been suggested to improve the garden's aesthetic qualities.

It was proposed that a number of items be designed and purchased through a capital project. Specific suggestions include: lanterns, trellis, arbor, a latrine, large clay/ceramic flower pots, additional benches, improved walkways (perhaps flint), small statues, a walkway roller to compact the walkway surfaces, large planter boxes for fruit trees and more elaborate bushes and shrubs.

It was suggested that an historical landscape advisor would be contracted to suggest design-improvements.

Andree Crepeau will be asked to sit on a Bigot garden development team which will also include Lee Anne Reeves and Ken Donovan. It is important that some archaeological expertise be made available so that decisions can be made relevant to our archaeological database.

[signed] ... George Burns, A/Chief, Visitor Services ....

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 124
June 29, 1990

[See B 333, June 29, 1990]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 333
August 15, 1990

....

3. Commissaire's (Bigot's) Garden

Andrée Crépeau was not present so the issue was deferred. But the PAD for the Bigot garden is attached for information ....

......

[PAD] ...

Bigot Garden Presentation ...

PROJECT DEFINITION FOR PROJECT ...

The bigot garden was once owned by Louisbourg's Financial Commissary, a man of considerably high statue. initial development of the garden began three years ago. While representative of an upper class style garden, a number of additions are required to improve the period presentation of this area. The purpose of this document is to outline items that will be required for the garden if we are to accurately interpret the lifestyle of this resident. Requirements for the garden will include: outdoor lanterns and lantern
supports. a trellis and arbor, a latrine, ceramic flower pots. appropriate walkway stone, large plant boxes, etc. Final list of Project Components available after design.

The archaeological removal of materials from the Bigot garden has been done, but research and report work has never been completed. Part of this project would require hiring an archaeologist who could interpret the "as found" data and incorporate it into the context of the operation. Funds for this have been identified for 1993/94 (6 month work term).

Funds (5.0) have been identified in 1994/95 to cover design and historical landscape consultant fees ...

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 127 - 132
August 15, 1990

[See B 333, August 15, 1990]

1992

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 334
June 24, 1992

....

2. Well - Bigot Yard

The well is not satisfactorily presented. It should be excavated at least to the same depth as the Rue Toulouse well. Eric will check archaeology records to determine the well's condition.

If there are safety concerns they must be solved in a better way than is presently the case - a well full of dirt!

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 179 - 180
June 24, 1992

[See B 334, June 24, 1992]

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 334
October 14, 1992

...

B) Wells - Bigot Yard (and Duhaget and Bakery)

These should be dug to proper depth, equipped with period covers (as appropriate) and pulleys. Design work is to be referred to structural design. Engineering and Works should be asked to dig out the wells; the committee was unable to determine if any maintenance costs might be incurred.

-------------

PERIOD PRESENTATION TEAM MINUTES
B 239 181 - 188
October 14, 1992

[See B 334, October 14, 1992]

1993

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 254
June 3, 1993

1994

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 255
May 19, 1994

...

3.  Review of New Business

(a) Piquet Orders for 94/95 Recap: Fences

Advised by L. Wadden those fences requiring replacement this year include:

... 

- east side, Destouches property (Block 2) ; ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 246 75 - 83
May 19, 1994

[See B 255, May 19, 1994]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 255
June 10, 1994

...

... Piquet Orders for 94/95 Recap

Fences:

Destouches Property, Block 2:

East fence at rear yard is presently constructed as per reconstruction drawings - Fence Type 8, Drawing No. HAFLR 80/P1 (see attached). 

D. Christianson reviewed archaeological evidence of fence trench at this location, which it is believed was associated with either the 1721 house or the 1737-8 [1739-5?] house constructed on this property. R. Cox described as fence of one period (contemporary), but evidence suggests two distinct fences, adjacent: 

Type 1: 

6" to 8" diameter piquets, evenly spaced at approx. 1 foot apart (i.e. 1'-6" to 1'-8" on centre), with a row of large (8" - 12") stones filling the trench - packed against one side of piquets. 

Type 2: 

3" to 5" diameter (occasionally 6") piquets, evenly spaced at approx. 6" apart (i.e. 9" to 11" on centre). This section of fence is closer to the Destouches Residence, and is represented by an as-found section approx. 12 feet long. 

Depth of the piquets in the ground may have varied between 8" and 12" - D. Christianson to check further for information. No evidence of below- ground ribband. 

Note that flat pickets were found archaeologically, on the opposite side of the property (i.e. another fence). 

The reconstructed fence, Type 8, has piquets 1'-8" deep in ground, braces at 10 ft. on centre, and stone fill both sides, at change in grade (see attached drawing). 

Interpretation of the as-found spaced piquets was discussed. It was felt that they could not reflect posts supporting some above-ground piquets, as were too closely spaced, but the spacings were so regular that they seemed to reflect a specific construction type - not just some piquets missing from trench. It was noted that a wattle-type fence, with horizontal wattles/brush woven between the in-ground piquets, would be consistent with the evidence. 

E. Krause to check fence information and historic Plans for evidence of wattle fencing. S. Myers to check previous Design Team minutes for basis of present fence design. D. Christianson to check as-found information for: depths of piquets in ground, shape of base of piquets (driven?), location and alignment in relation to Destouches Residence ...

[ATTACHED MATERIAL:]

[Please click on the image to enlarge it]

Fence Type 8,  Drawing  No. HAFLR  80/P1

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 246 102 - 108
June 10, 1994

[See B 255, June 10, 1994]

-------------

-------------

Destouches Property, Block 2: T. Meagher advised there is a variance between the drawing and field condition; field condition has two ribbands, while drawing shows only one. Agreed to rebuild with one ribband.

-------------

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 255
August 9
July 29, 1994

Multi-Purpose

(j) Ramps - Access Action Plan 

...

 1. Back door of Bigot (Block 2) - Proposing addition of approximately 7" of Class "C" fill (as a temporary measure which can later be removed, if required) to provide wheelchair ramp. It was noted that flintstone paving shown on the reconstruction drawings had not been installed, and that grade in entrance area is lower than surrounding. D. Christianson recommended geotextile barrier on top of existing grade, to assist reversibility ...

Approval given in principle to proceed ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 246 137 - 144
August 9
July 29, 1994

[See B 255, August 9  July 29, 1994]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 255
August 18, 1994

Multi-Purpose

(i) Ramps - Access Action Plan: 
Bigot (Block 2)

Material referred to in previous minutes as Class "C" fill to match period street fill. A. Crépeau requested accurate existing grades be recorded before material is added to area. Also noted that OPS project exists to research and complete flintstone paving at this doorway ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 246 145 - 153
August 18, 1994

[See B 255, August 18, 1994]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 255 
September 27, 1994

Multi-Purpose

(e) Ramps - Access Action Plan: 
Bigot (Block 2)

L. Burchell to provide previous grades ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 246 173 - 177
September 27, 1994

[See B 255, September 27, 1994]

1995

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 314
May 19, 1995

Multi-Purpose

Special-Purpose 

...

2. Piquet Orders for 1995 Recap Projects 
(Fences and Buildings) ...

FENCES: ...

D. Bigot Garden Fence (Block 2) 

Includes Fence Types A and B, Block 2. No archaeological evidence where fence is built now; archaeological evidence relates to piquet fence found in centre of yard. E. Krause to review basis for this garden and provide information for next Design Team meeting. Archaeological concerns noted in Attachment #1.

[ATTACHED MATERIAL:]

                                                                      Attachment # 1

1995/96 RECAP FENCES
Archaeology EARP Screening

...

Piquet Diameters

          A linear analysis of 160 extant piquet fence posts found within the collection was undertaken. The evidence as presented in the attached table indicates a range in diameter from 3" to 7 1/2" with 58% falling within 4 1/2" to 6". Only 11% would appear larger than this to a maximum of 7 1/2' diameter. Due to deterioration about 30% fall within the range from 3" to 4 1/4" in diameter. This conforms well with the review of the archaeological field drawings by Christianson for the 1993 recap fence replacement (DTM dated June 9, 1993). Archaeology recommends that the piquets diameters follow the sizes outlined in table 1 with most in the range from 4 1/2 to 6 inches and only 10% greater than this to a maximum of 7 1/2 inches ...

[C] ... 

Block 2 Fence at Northwest corner Destouches running west/east to Bigot

          This area received extensive excavation in the past. In 1754 a west addition to the Bigot house was constructed between the Bigot house and the Destouches. It is generally referred to as the Prevost addition. The north foundation lies north of the existing period fence which is constructed within the north east and north west rooms of the building.

Mitigation

Although the present period fence lies south of the actual north foundation wall, the in situ west wall and the in situ wall dividing the north east and north west rooms may [be] disturbed by fence replacement. Profile drawings should be made at each king post location and the extant walls he covered vith geotextile cloth when uncovered. Again plastic sleeves should be place at each king post location.

Block 2 Bigot Garden Fence

[D] ...

          Test trenches were dug in the yard with most of the features such as the four  wells , latrine, catch basin and drain and interior terrace excavated (Harris 1982:206). No fences were recovered archaeologically in the area of the present period fencelines. In the centre of the yard (2L13J) near the 1749 brick well the remains of piquets were found. Archaeological drawings 2L10A69 & 2L10B69 indicate two sizes of piquets. The larger piquets were 6 - 6 1/2 inches in diameter and were set 2 1/2 feet in the ground with blunt ends. The larger piquets were spaced from 6 feet to 7 feet apart. Between these latter posts were smaller 4 3/4 inch diameter posts set 1 1/2 feet into the ground. There also appears to have been a buried riband 3 3/4 inches thick. The basic plan appears to be similar to the reconstructed period fence.

Mitigation

          Surveillance by Archaeology is required as the north/south and north east period fences cross the in situ drain that enters and exits from the catch basin. As these may be encountered they should be covered as above with geotextile cloth. The surveillance archaeologist will record the stratigraphy at each gate post location and plastic sleeves should be placed around them ...

References ...

Harris D.
1982 A Summary of The Archaeology Of The Town Site Of Louisbourg 1959 - 79. Unpublished manuscript FOL ...

HAFLR 68/P26 No. 3 Prevost Addition ...

[Please click on an image to enlarge it]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 112 - 123
May 19, 1995

[See B 314, May 19, 1995]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 314
May 26, 1995

3. PIQUET ORDER, 1995: FENCES 

ENGINEER'S YARD, BLOCK 1 AND BIGOT - 
DESTOUCHES FENCE, BLOCK 2 

S. Myers had consulted S. Holman re possible need for better windbreak at Engineer's north fence. S. Holman reported serious wind problem both there and at fence at north of Bigot yard: these 2 gardens are stunted at north end, due to wind. L. Wadden to provide as-built fence details to S. Myers. S. Myers to propose modifications, at next meetin ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 124 - 129
May 26, 1995

[See B 314, May 26, 1995]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 315
June 9, 1995

...

(n) ORDERING OF PIQUETS - 1995 ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 130 - 140
June 9, 1995

[See B 315, June 9, 1995]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 315
June 13, 1995

Special Purpose:

...

ORDERING OF PIQUETS - 1995

C. FENCE AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF 
DESTOUCHES RUNNING WEST/EAST TO 
BIGOT' (BLOCK 2) 

A change to be noted from discussion of Jun 9/95: piquets for the width of the half-lap joint in the ribband will be nailed from the ribband side, not just the main posts.

D. BIGOT GARDEN FENCE (BLOCK 2) 

S. Myers provided brief historical review of Lot H: 1737 fire destroyed Lot H house, Rodrigues built small charpente building on Lot H in 1738-9, Lot H expropriated by King in 1741, Lot H house demolished 1742, addition to Ordonnateur's house on Lot G not built until 1754. 

BASIS: ... Block 2 Report, Brenda Dunn, 1971, pp. 17-24. 

Previous Design Team minutes reviewed by E. Krause and S. Myers for basis of current design. After some discussion, Design Team agreed that the design of the fence is highly conjectural, as well as the location of the fences surrounding the garden. Plan 744-5 shows a garden layout, but in a different location than the reconstructed garden. Other detailed plans (734-4, 739-5) show the yard before the acquisition of Lot H, or are proposals. The basis for the design of the fence is not given in the Design Team minutes but it would seem to be based on the piquet fence indication on Plan 744-5, as well as to suit the gate, which is drawn on the Gibson Clough sketch of 1759, and perhaps also to suit the plank and groove construction of the dovecote (see attached design sketches by Y. LeBlanc). 

BASIS ... From Louisbourg Journal, Gibson Clough, Print No. P84-5790 ...

Possibility of board fence was discussed, as alternative to piquet. Documentary evidence suggests almost all fences were piquet, however (only documentary evidence re board fence is at Engineer's Residence), and Plan 744-5 does appear to indicate piquets. It was agreed that Bigot garden fence should remain piquet, and that more elaborate style than simple palisade fence is appropriate here, although no evidence exists as to what that more elaborate style might have been in 18th century. It was noted that the widely-spaced piquets (2 1/2" - 4" apart in field), while allowing wind damage at the north end of the garden, do provide more light to plantings at the east fence. Low height also enhances light and view of the garden; fence is within a private yard, so height not required for privacy. 

Problem with this fence design is the unsuitability of the tenon at top of piquets; requires filling below piquets in trench after assembly, which seems inappropriate and is not thought to be supported by archaeological evidence re piquet trenches. Other way of assembling would be to erect panels of pre-assembled fence but, since main posts are only at gate and corners, panels would be too long. Drawing shows individual mortises for each piquet; built with running mortise in field, but problem the same. Tenon detail therefore does not suit piquet fence technology. 

It was agreed to change cap detail, to built-up cap of horizontal ribbands either side of piquets with cap applied over (see attached sketch). 

Piquets to be notched around ribbands, similar to lower ribband. Appearance very similar to existing, but easy to assemble: piquets can be erected against one ribband (which is nailed to a few spaced piquets), then capped. Ribbands to be half-lapped into gate posts, as per existing ribband detail. Ribbands (upper and lower) to be butt-jointed, since are mainly to give line of fence. Nailing to be staggered and from ribband side. Piquets to be spaced as per existing, 2 1/2" to 4" apart. 

At north fence, where spacing causing wind damage, spaces to be filled-in after main fence erection with small piquets of diameters to suit, toe-nailed to main piquets. S. Myers to check with S. Holman whether infill required along entire north fence. 

BASIS: ... To reflect filling-in as needed, in 18th c. 

Re Gate No. 3 details, T. Meagher questioned off-setting of sleeper beam from line of gate post and braces; if post and brace half-lapped onto this offset sleeper as noted, joint is very poor structurally. E. Krause to check period sources for basis for offset beam ...

[ATTACHED MATERIAL:]

Attachment # 1 [See STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES B 127 219 - 232, January 20, 1981 for the two images of the Dove Cote reproduced in these minutes as attachment # 1] ...

Attachment # 2

[Please click on the image to enlarge it]

June 13, 1995

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 141 - 145
June 13, 1995

[See B 315, June 13, 1995]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 315
June 22, 1995

(k) ORDERING OF PIQUETS - 1995 

BIGOT GARDEN FENCE (BLOCK 2) 

S. Myers discussed the wind problem with S. Holman; she indicated infilling required for full length of the north fence ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 146 - 157
June 22, 1995

[See B 315, June 22, 1995]

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 315
November 30, 1995

Multi-Purpose

(i) BIGOT GARDEN FENCE (BLOCK 2) 

Drawing revised.

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 313 236 - 242
November 30, 1995

[See B 315, November 30, 1995]

2000

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 379 03
March 22, 2000

Multi-Purpose

...

ITEM (10)  PERIOD FENCES AND GATES

...

Lot F, Block 2, Bigot Stables: Period Fence for Pig Enclosure - Recent information has come to light about the previous pig fence reconstructed here, prompting a return to a pig enclosure approximately 9 feet by 10 feet and a gate in the fence. S. Myers presented preliminary drawing, with simple board-and-batten gate, hardware based on D. Ross' recommendations for the gate beside the dovecote and post-and-pole fence based on pig fence at the King's Bastion (see Attachment #1). Design Team approved general approach ...

-------------

STRUCTURAL DESIGN TEAM MINUTES
B 379 03 22 2000 CI
March 22, 2000

[See B 379, March 22, 2000]