The Quebec Settlement:
A Page of Historical
Archaeology
by
Françoise Niellon
The Storehouse:
A New Era (1633-1688)
Champlain returned to Quebec in 1633. He lived at Fort Saint-Louis,
which became the headquarters of the colonial administration. At the foot of
the Cap, the former settlement, which had since been converted into a
storehouse, remained the centre of commercial activity. When Champlain died,
on December 25, 1635, Quebec had a population of about 300. The Laurentian
colony, the fruit of his labour, was finally a reality.
At the time, the storehouse belonged to the Company of One Hundred
Associates. It changed hands in 1645, when the Communauté des
Habitants took charge of the colony. In 1663, it became the "king’s
storehouse" when the One Hundred Associates had to return their New France
seigneury to Louis XIV. Twenty-five years later, it was demolished.
|
|
Fig. 10 - The Quebec
"storehouse" (c. 1635)
Drawing by J. Bourdon
Taken from Plans of the First French Settlements on the Saint Lawrence,
1635-1642,
McGill University Library, 1958.
Photo: Steven Darby, Canadian Museum of Civilization
|
From Reconstruction to Demolition
Upon his return in 1633, Champlain
"set everyone to work repairing and maintaining the
buildings". He had "the ruins of the fire and demolition rebuilt . . .
and tons of rubbish and rocks removed", while salvaging what
remained of the main dwelling "to build a new storehouse" The
storehouse, which was "very beautiful and very good", was 13 toises long, 22
feet wide and about 12 or 13 feet high. Across from the storehouse, near the
river, Champlain erected "a nice platform for three or four cannons to
strike the other side of the river at water level"
(Note). Jean
Bourdon, the king’s surveyor, arrived in Quebec the following year and drew
the plans of the new structure shortly after (Fig. 10).
Major repairs were made to the storehouse in 1644. Still, the new
Communauté des Habitants had a second one built in 1647, north of the
public square. But the "new storehouse" was sold in 1655 to an individual,
so the one built in 1633 once again became the Communauté’s only
warehouse. Around 1666, the battery built in 1633 was replaced, and the new
one is clearly visible on the plans of the city drafted in the 1670s.
|
|
Fig. 11 - The Quebec
"storehouse" (c. 1681)
Drawing accompanying a paper
written by Mgr. Laval
Archives nationales de France, Colonies, C 11 A 5, fol. 188
|
In 1681, the bishopric of Quebec asked the king to grant it the site
of the storehouse, which had been closed down, for the construction of a
chapel. The fire that ravaged Lower Town in August 1682 facilitated the
transaction. In 1688, Claude Baillif, who was in charge of building the
chapel, was given permission to demolish the "king’s storehouse" but to
reuse materials as he saw fit. The west wall of the chapel was built over
the west foundation of the storehouse, which had been levelled, and the
south wall was built more or less at the centre of the former south wing of
the storehouse. The north wing, which had become private property in 1656,
was also demolished at the beginning of the following century, making it
possible to extend the chapel towards Place Royale and expose its
façade.
The storehouse built by Champlain was the site of considerable
activity over several decades. A warehouse, supply centre and bank, it was
the hub of commercial activity, and it must have housed clerks, assistant
clerks and engagés. Once in a while, it also served as a public
meeting place. Pierre Corneille’s play Le Cid was presented there in
1646. The governor was in attendance that night, but it was no longer
Champlain.
|
|
Fig. 12 - Location of the
"old storehouse" given to the seminary
Drawing by Claude Baillif, August
11, 1685
Archives du Séminaire de Québec, Séminaire, 1, no. 46
|
The Archaeology of the Site
What proportion of the vestiges unearthed by archaeologists under the
church, Notre-Dame Street and Place Royale does the "storehouse" account
for? In 1633, the building’s superstructure must have been modified, but
were the foundations touched?
The south wing - the initial storehouse, of which only a cellar and a
"lean-to" remained in 1633 - was rebuilt, but it is not known to what
extent. The few metres of structure that were found are too fragmentary; no
renovation is discernible.
As for the central dwelling, the work done in 1633 seems to have
included repairs to the walls, as far down as the base in certain spots. The
trenches built parallel to the walls, which were clearly identified, are
much too wide to be from the original structure. The trenches from the
original structure were only 1 m deep, for a foundation that was about 65 cm
thick. It was therefore not necessary to make them as wide (2.5 m) as the
trenches that were found. However, if they were dug during the renovations,
the presence of walls made it necessary to clear a larger area. The central
dwelling may have been covered with a slate roof at that time, but the slate
found at the site may also be from subsequent renovations, perhaps those
made in 1644.
The north wing may have been built not only after the work done in
1624-1628, but also after that of 1633-1635. The building found at the site
had a cellar; however, the legend of the plans Bourdon drafted around 1635
and more recent documents indicate that this was a residential wing. The
storehouse’s main clerks lived there until 1656, the year it was sold to an
individual. If it was strictly residential, there was no need for a cellar.
Could this building have been built, or at least completely renovated,
around 1656? The stratigraphy of the soil on the south side, the side of the
inner courtyard, seems to support this. Indeed, the construction of this
wall of the north wing seems to have cut through all the layers of soil
accumulated at the site from prehistory up to and including the work done in
1633. This implies that the building drawn by Bourdon around 1635, which was
no doubt brand new, was subsequently replaced by the one found at the site.
The lower courses of the long walls of the latter are of limestone, the
others being of a mix of shale and limestone. This may very well indicate
that the structure was rebuilt.
At the location of the public square, there is considerable evidence
of the work done on the settlement and the intense occupation of the site
over a long period. It is possible to see that the ruins of the settlement
raised the level of the square, trenches were filled and, finally, the
storehouse was demolished. Curiously enough, though, there is no trace of
the 1682 fire. Archaeological research often reveals realities that history
misses, but the reverse is also true.
|
