GRAND PORTAGE NATIONAL MONUMENT 

MAINTENANCE AREA PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT

BY 

DOUGLAS A. BIRK

ARCHAEOLOGIST/HISTORIAN

FEBRUARY 2006 

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED FOR: 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

GRAND PORTAGE NATIONAL MONUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

Acknowledgments 1 

Introduction 2 

The Grand Portage National Monument 2 

The Survey Area 2 

Previous Investigations 3 

Ancient Landscapes 5 

Tracts and Trails 6 

The Fur Trade Settlement Area 7 

John Askin and the Infant NWC 10 

The Lengthening Shadow of the NWC 11 

The Portage, Portage Landing, and Depot Trails 12 

The Public Road 13 

The First XYC “Fort” at Grand Portage Bay 15 

The Second XYC Fort at Grand Portage Bay 21 

The Phases of XYC Developments 23 

Rethinking the Trails at Grand Portage Bay 24 

The 2005 Survey 29 

The Artifacts 30 

The Features 31 

Conclusions and Recommendations 32 

References Cited 34 

TABLES

Table. Survey notes recorded by Jonathan Carver at Grand Portage Bay, 1767 9 

Table. Distances measured in rods, derived from Daniel Harmon’s Journal. 18 

FIGURES

Figure 1. Map showing location of 2005 Survey Area 

Figure 2. Map showing the southern part of the 2005 Survey Area 

Figure 3. Photograph of shovel testing by the ford, 2005 

Figure 4. Map showing the northern part of the 2005 Survey Area 

Figure 5. Photograph of the NPS maintenance shop and parking lot, 2005 

Figure 6. Map part of Cultural Resource Management Base Map, 1979 

Figure 7. Photograph of hydrant replacement work October 2004 

Figure 8. Photograph from Mount Rose of central part of survey area, 1920s 

Figure 9. Map U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Grand Portage, 1940 

Figure 10. Photograph of shovel testing in northern part of 2005 Survey Area 

Figure 11. Photograph from Mount Rose of southern part of survey area, 1920s 
FIGURES (CONT’D)

Figure 12. Photograph of collapsing bank of Grand Portage Creek 

Figure 13. Map showing fieldwork foci in southern part of 2005 Survey Area 

Figure 14. Map, selected road corridors surveyed by Monk, 1984 

Figure 15. Map, part of Grand Portage Historic Base Map, 1969 

Figure 16. Map showing deltaic east trailhead of Grand Portage 

Figure 17. Map, hypothetical arrangement of fur trade related sites, Grand Portage 

Figure 18. Map, Jonathan Carver survey of Grand Portage Bay, 1767 

Figure 19. Map, course surveyed by David Thompson, Grand Portage, 1824 

Figure 20. Map, part of Grand Portage settlement, 1941 

Figure 21. Map, course surveyed by David Thompson, Grand Portage, 1798 

Figure 22. Photograph from Mount Rose of the church hill and environs, ca. 1940 

Figure 23. Map, sketch by Douglass Houghton, Grand Portage, 1840 

Figure 24. Portrait of George Washington Whistler 

Figure 25. Map, Whistler’s Map of Grand Portage, 1822 

Figure 26. Photograph of shovel testing on Old Ford Road, 2005 

Figure 27. Photograph of miscellaneous metal artifacts recovered in 2005 

Figure 28. Photograph of kettle-metal grater recovered in 2005 

Figure 29. Photograph of small trunk or cassette lock recovered in 2005 

Figure 30. Photograph of rectangular brooch recovered in 2005 

APPENDICES

Appendix A. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, Record of Mapping Points 

Appendix B. Northern Part Maintenance Area Survey Artifact List 

Appendix C. Southern Part Maintenance Area Survey Artifact List 

Appendix D. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, Record of Shovel Tests 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Documents, artifacts, and stories help propel current thoughts about what happened at 

Grand Portage in the past. While I wish prior generations had left more, I am thankful for 

even the smallest crumbs of information that have allowed a stream of residents, scholars, 

and buffs to speculate about old sites and old times there. The accumulated voices, living 

traditions, and archeological findings bring greater understanding and appreciation of this 

awesomely scenic and historic place. I hope the present work will inspire new inquiries 

and discussions. 

I thank park superintendent, Tim Cochrane, for authorizing and supporting the 2005 

Survey Project, and my co-investigator, David Cooper, for his thoughtful and enthusiastic 

approach at getting the job done. 

Together we thank our many industrious friends and volunteers, Jim and Sue Alling, 

Shane Ausprey, Shae Brown, Carolyn Howard, Jeremy Kingsbury, Karl Koster, Al and 

Linda Larson, Jon Sage, Randy and Roni Sushko, Collin Swift, and Steve Veit. 

To all, miigwech! 

 1 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

During 2-9 June 2005, archeologists conducted a preliminary field survey of selected 

areas around the maintenance (and former seasonal housing) complex at the Grand 

Portage National Monument (GRPO), a park unit of the National Park Service (NPS). 

The survey sought material evidence of the historic fur trade, including a reported 

segment of the old Grand Portage and a possible contemporary trail that forded Grand

Portage Creek. The survey team conducted surface and subsurface investigations, 

retrieved a small sample of fur trade era artifacts, and found previously unrecorded 

archeological features outside the designated project area. 

This report discusses the methods and results of the field survey. It also reviews prior 

archeological investigations and scrutinizes historical information relative to the 2005 

Survey Area. 

The author, and archeologist David Cooper, Chief of Resource Management at the 

GRPO, led the field investigations. Other NPS staff and volunteers assisted the fieldwork 

(see Acknowledgments, above). 

THE GRAND PORTAGE NATIONAL MONUMENT

The GRPO is located near the United States-Canadian Border in Cook County, in 

extreme northeastern Minnesota. The 709.97-acre GRPO is over eight miles long. It is 

bounded on the north and south by the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, on the west by 

the Pigeon River, and on the east by Grand Portage Bay of Lake Superior. The lakefront 

unit of the park is within the community of Grand Portage, home to the Grand Portage 

Band of Minnesota Chippewa (Ojibwe, Anishinaabeg). An iconic feature of the GRPO is 

the reconstructed North West Company (NWC) Depot set on the shore of the lake below 

Mount Rose. 

The GRPO was established in 1958 to preserve historical properties, to protect scenic and 

natural values, and to foster relations and promote employment with the Grand Portage 

Ojibwe. At the GRPO and elsewhere the National Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 96-

515) requires the NPS to identify and evaluate archeological resources on its lands to 

determine their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Birk 

2005). The 2005 field survey is part of this ongoing process. 

THE SURVEY AREA

The 2005 Survey Area is within the lakefront unit of the GRPO (Figure 1). Upper Road 

(CSAH 17) borders the survey area on the east, Grand Portage Creek (or floodplain) on 

the west, and West Townsite Road or BIA 9 (hereafter, “Speedy’s Road”) on the north. 

The south limit is a short segment of CSAH 17 lying west of where the Stone Bridge 

crosses Grand Portage Creek. The survey area is between UTM Zone 16 coordinates 

299707/5315752 and 299675/5315956. 

The visible remains of at least two old roadbeds are evident within the survey area. One 

is a road segment (hereafter, “Old Ford Road”) lying in a wooded area east of an old 

 2 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

stream crossing (hereafter, “the ford”) (Figures 2 and 3). The other is a remnant of Old 

Upper Road (the temporal origins of which are uncertain) that now largely underlies the 

present Upper Road (Figure 4). 

For purposes of discussion, the survey area can be divided into three parts. The central 

part, long used for park maintenance (Figure 5) and formerly, seasonal housing facilities 

(Figure 6), is widely disturbed. Known impacts to this area include landscaping, 

construction, utilities installation and maintenance, material storage, and vehicular traffic 

and parking (Figure 7). In the early twentieth century an Ojibwe residence and a segment 

of the “original” or Old Upper Road occupied the central area (Figures 8 and 9). 

The northern part of the 2005 Survey Area is a narrow and densely wooded tract north of 

the maintenance complex (Figure 10). The tract lies west of the present Upper Road, 

above the floodplain of Grand Portage Creek. It is overlooked by the church hill, part of 

an elevated ridge where the Catholic Church and cemetery are now located. Within this 

tract, part of the Old Upper Road now forms the west ditch of Upper Road (Figure 4). 

The southern part of the 2005 Survey Area is south and west of the maintenance complex 

(Figure 2). Ojibwe structures occupied this tract in the early twentieth century (Figure 

11). The ground surface is uneven in this southern area, particularly south of Old Ford 

Road where erosion is now undercutting the east bank of Grand Portage Creek 

(Figure12). 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Prior field studies have been conducted within and around the 2005 Survey Area. The 

most pertinent of these studies include the 1961 excavations of University of Minnesota 

archeologist Elden Johnson, the 1975 investigations of Minnesota Historical Society 

archeologist Alan Woolworth, the 1984 survey of NPS archeologist Susan Monk, the 

1988-1989 survey of NPS archeologist Vergil Noble, and the 1994 observations of 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) archeologist Karl Hagglund. 

Johnson’s 1961 excavations in the southern part of the survey area were recorded in 

relation to the northeast corner of the Stone Bridge (Figure 13). His Test Unit 35, about 

29m east-northeast of the bridge, uncovered a rectangular, “dry-coursed rock foundation” 

associated with a deposit of heavily burned clay. His Test Units 38-39, about 12m eastnortheast of the bridge, revealed a “probable Indian house floor marked by a central fire 

pit and oval exterior wall.” The wall was defined by in situ posts and post molds. In 

addition to physical evidence for two structures, Johnson’s excavations produced artifacts 

(including gunflints, glass beads, nails, and a musket ball) that at the time were dated to 

the nineteenth century (Johnson 1961; Woolworth 1962). The 2005 survey was 

terminated about 15m northwest of Test Units 38-39 and 18m west of Test Unit 35 

(David J. Cooper, personal communication) and therefore did not infringe on the area 

tested in 1961. The 2005 survey also avoided the site of nearby residential structures seen 

in an early 1920s photograph (Figures 11 and 13). 

 3 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

In 1975 Woolworth brushed out part of Old Ford Road on the east bank of Grand Portage 

Creek and found the “visible portion” of the road to be about 50 feet long, ten feet wide, 

and up to 1.5 feet deep. Through field and documentary research, Woolworth concluded 

that the ford was in use before 1778, that British troops may have built a small wooden 

bridge at the ford in that year, and that a road leading from the area of the NWC Depot 

likely crossed the ford or bridge to join the main stem of the Grand Portage just east of

the creek (Figure 6). The ford was used until completion of the Stone Bridge in ca. 1939 

(Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, II: No. 74). 

In November 1984, Monk surveyed two proposed new road alignments--Road Alternates 

2 and 3--that passed near or through the 2005 Survey Area below the church hill (Figure 

14). A light snow coated the ground at the time of her visit. Monk did a walkover survey 

and shovel tested the proposed road corridors on the high ground east of Grand Portage 

Creek with negative results (Monk 1984). 

The 1988-1989 Noble monitored the excavation of holes needed to install wooden 

gateposts at the overflow parking lot on the east side of Upper Road just across from the 

maintenance complex. Two holes were augured. Neither produced artifacts. A fill deposit 

in the upper levels of the soil column was probably added “during construction of the 

adjacent roadway.” Given the proximity of the gateposts to suspected fur trade activity 

loci, Noble felt that this area likely “saw frequent use during the early Historic period” 

and recommended additional archeological review there in advance of any future park 

developments (Noble 1989:31). 

In 1994 Hagglund conducted a reconnaissance survey to determine potential impacts that 

improvements to West Townsite Road might have on cultural resources. The proposed 

improvements included grading, bituminous surfacing, and some ditching. The south end 

of the road, which passes by the church cemetery and through part of the GRPO, was 

found to be archeologically sensitive. Hagglund suggested an alternate road alignment 

along a telephone transmission /water forcemain line north of the church. That alignment 

would eliminate the need for more southerly improvements and thus avoid impacts to the 

cemetery and the adjacent area of the GRPO (Hagglund 1994). 

In addition, in 1969, NPS historian Erwin Thompson analyzed documentary evidence for 

an eighteenth-century voyageurs camp--the “Northmen’s” camp--and the possible 

interrelationship of that former site to the 2005 Survey Area. The Northmen were 

winterers from the NWC’s northwestern trading houses who frequented the summer 

rendezvous at Grand Portage. During the early 1790s, they camped apart from the 

Montrealers (the voyageurs from Montreal) in an area west of the creek and on either side 

of a road leading from the NWC Depot to the Grand Portage. Each post or brigade of 

Northmen camped as a separate group, “in tents of different sizes pitched at random” 

(Thompson 1969:65; Gates 1965:93). In the late 1790s, with the growth of the NWC, 

hundreds of Northmen annually congregated at the rendezvous and the size of their camp

must have been “considerable” (Thompson 1969:168; Lamb 1970:98). By then some

Northmen may have also pitched tents east of the creek. A Historic Base Map in Erwin 

Thompson’s report shows the Northmen’s camp spilling into the south half of the 2005 

 4 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Survey Area (Figure 15). The designated camp area is arbitrary, however, and according 

to Thompson it is something that he has “generally located rather than specifically 

identified” (Thompson 1969:167). 

Another unidentified feature thought to be in or near the 2005 Survey Area is a rill (a 

natural drainage or possibly a low area given to holding water) noted by the surveyor 

David Thompson in June 1823. According to Thompson, the rill was east of the creek 

and 220 yards from the lakeshore, which puts it somewhere below the church hill. 

ANCIENT LANDSCAPES

Old beach ridges and erosional bluffs have long shaped human settlement and land use 

options in the lakefront area of Grand Portage Bay. The stepped arrangement of these 

features marks a succession of prior surface levels of Lake Superior or earlier glacial 

lakes. Geomorphologists have assigned names and dates to many of the ridges and bluffs 

(e.g., Phillips 2003). 

The present surface of Lake Superior stands at 602-feet above mean sea level. During the 

Lake Minong stage, dating to around 9,500 years BP, the lake level stood at 715-feet. 

That higher level flooded the present lower valley of Grand Portage Creek creating a 

deep embayment near its mouth. A peninsula incorporating Mount Rose defined and 

sheltered the bay on the south. These features may have attracted Paleo-Indian peoples 

(Phillips 2003:19, 31), just as later shoreline configurations in this same locale invited 

more recent episodes of human occupation. 

Several Post-Minong shorelines are identified at Grand Portage Bay between 675-feet 

and 582-feet amsl. Some of these features have been reworked or are now flooded 

(Phillips 2003:19). According to geomorphologist Brian Phillips, the former Grand 

Portage Store or “Trading Post” (north of Mount Rose) is on a Post-Minong surface 

around 675-feet. The Grand Portage Band Headquarters and school, the log-school, and 

the Catholic Church are on a Post-Minong surface above 660-feet (Phillips 2003:33). The 

eastern flanks of Mount Rose were exposed to wave action during the Nipissing 

transgression when the lake level was at about 636-feet (Phillips 2003:31). The GRPO 

Canoe Warehouse is near the elevation of the Algoma stage, which stood around 621-

feet, and the Great Hall (within the reconstructed NWC Depot) is on a gentle bluff of the 

Sault stage, which stood around 610-feet. The 2005 Survey Area east of Grand Portage 

Creek involves the Algoma surface as well as adjacent higher and lower intermediate 

surfaces. A United States Geological Survey map (Figure 1) shows the elevation of the 

survey area varies from about 615-feet amsl in the south to about 640 feet in the north. 

Indian peoples probably visited or occupied the area around the mouth of Grand Portage 

Creek from time to time during the circa 9,200-year interval between the Lake Minong 

stage and the first arrival of Europeans in the late 1600s A.D. However, demonstrating 

that probability has proven difficult. To date, no diagnostic stone tools or prehistoric 

ceramics have been recovered within the lakefront unit of the GRPO and no prehistoric

cultural features have been verified. A possible Woodland-era, lithic scatter found at an 

 5 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

elevation of about 607-feet near the Superior shoreline east of the creek is considered by 

some researchers to be the “oldest known local archeological site” at the GRPO 

(Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, II). Some “cultural pit features” are reported on an 

elevation near the creek beyond the limits of the GRPO (Phillips 2003:34), but the exact 

age and purpose of the pits are presently unknown. 

Beach ridge deposits at or in the vicinity of the GRPO typically range from gravel and 

boulders to fine sands and impermeable clays. Some are underlain at no great depth by 

bedrock. Areas behind or between the lower ridges at Grand Portage Bay are often poorly 

drained or subject to flooding (e.g., Woolworth and Johnson 1963:1). An example might 

be David Thompson’s Rill, said in 1823 to be east of the creek and 220 yards from the 

lakeshore. Drainage is just one factor that has influenced settlement and land-use choices 

by the portage landing at the bay in postcontact times. Others, no doubt include soils, 

elevation, slope, viewshed, exposure, defense, distance to water, and relation to local 

trails. The general sparsity of prime settlement areas on the lakefront hints that some

landscape features at the GRPO may have attracted recurrent human use over 

considerable periods of time. Any cultural remains there might help date the ancient 

beach ridges near the bay as well as lake-levels associated with those ridges. 

TRACTS AND TRAILS

The GRPO contains the historic Grand Portage, a “carrying place” on the old Voyageurs 

Highway canoe route. The portage extends 8.5-miles from Lake Superior to the Pigeon 

River. First used by Native American/First Nation peoples, the portage was opened to 

commercial traffic by French traders in the early 1700s. With French capitulation in 

1760, rival British traders soon swarmed the portage. After a new trading fort was built 

on a tract of land west of Grand Portage Creek in 1768, the erection of other outposts 

soon followed. The core settlement area, spread along the shoreline, likely fostered the 

development of a “deltaic trailhead,” with branch trails leading inland from the various 

landings, camps, and outposts to the main portage corridor. Given the nature of the 

terrain, it is likely that all such trails converged somewhere below the 720-foot contour 

(Figure 16), which is about the suspected location of the first posé (resting place) on the 

portage inland from the lake. 

In 1778 Major Arent Schuyler De Peyster, commander of Fort Michilimackinac at the 

juncture of Lakes Huron and Michigan, sent British troops under Lt. Thomas Bennett to 

Grand Portage to keep order among the adversarial traders. Once there, the soldiers 

busied themselves building a fort and establishing a “Public Road.” The thoroughfare 

apparently ran for some distance inland from the bay to allow all parties free and equal 

passage from the shore to some point beyond the core settlement area. 

Following the American Revolution, trade activities at Grand Portage peaked under the 

NWC, a Montreal-based coalition of British traders. Some competitors staked the 

location of a new fort at Grand Portage Bay in 1793. NWC rivals later became more 

aggressive and in 1798 organized the XY Company (XYC) or the “New North West 

Company.” The XYC soon followed the NWC model by opening transshipment centers 

 6 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

at both ends of the Grand Portage. Under growing American pressure to vacate the 

portage, the NWC began seeking parallel travel routes to the interior farther north. In 

1798, Nor’westers reopened the old Kaministiquia canoe route between Lake Superior 

and Lac la Croix, and the NWC began planning its relocation to the mouth of the Dog or 

Kaministiquia River. By 1805 both firms had abandoned intensive use of the Grand 

Portage in favor of the more northerly route. 

There is substantial documentation for later occupancy of the lakefront at Grand Portage 

Bay, particularly from the 1830s on. The present study includes the analysis of historic 

photographs to learn the nature and extent of “modern” developments within the area of 

the 2005 survey and to predetermine, as far as possible, the impacts of those 

developments on fur trade era resources. 

THE FUR TRADE SETTLEMENT AREA

Some facilities documented at Grand Portage Bay in the late 1700s have yet to be 

identified on the ground. The remains of certain of these facilities may lie east of Grand 

Portage Creek. Of interest in this regard are some British trading establishments built 

before the American Revolution, the barns and corrals used by the NWC to keep horses 

and livestock, the XYC forts and barns from the period 1798-1805, and the exact routes 

of the Public Road and other trails that funneled into the Grand Portage near the bay. The 

2005 survey was open to discoveries that might address these matters. 

From the time of its formation, the NWC controlled the area between Grand Portage Bay 

and Mount Rose west of Grand Portage Creek, as well as an adjoining point of land and 

contiguous spaces on the east side of the creek. The only room available for competing 

traders was up the shore to the northeast. The core settlement area (including the NWC 

Depot) may have extended for as much as a half-mile along the lake (Figure 16). 

Some justification for a half-mile or less distance is found in written accounts. In 1803 a 

trader named Paul Hervieux was at the center of a court case in which various individuals 

testified about conditions at Grand Portage in the summer of 1802. The proceedings tell 

of a clearing or open space by the mouth of Grand Portage Creek and describe the 

whereabouts of Hervieux’s various summer camps in relation to the clearing, the lake, 

and rival traders. The clearing (Figure 17), which plays a considerable role in the 

following discussions, was bounded in front by the lake, on the southwest side by the 

NWC Depot, on the northeast side by a little fort called “Fort Boucher,” and in the rear 

by the woods (Nute 1940:138). The NWC claimed possession of the clearing through its 

traditional use of that space as a landing and camp and trading grounds (e.g., Pendergast 

1957:109; Campbell 1962:106). 

Hervieux was a newcomer to Grand Portage operating under American license. Upon 

arriving there in July 1802 Hervieux first pitched his tents in the clearing “near the 

waterside” and “not more than half an acre from a little River.” The “little River” is 

Grand Portage Creek. A half-acre distance puts Hervieux’s first camp about 35-yards 

(104-feet) east of the creek (Figure 17) (Nute 1940:133). 

 7 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

The NWC jealously protected the clearing and NWC agents soon prompted Hervieux to 

relocate “a gunshot” distance up the shore (Nute 1940:123, 127). He then moved to a 

second camp about “an arpent or an arpent and a half” away (Nute 1940:128, 132, 136). 

An arpent is an old French linear measure equal to 191.838 English feet or about 64 yards 

(McDermott 1941:15-16). Hervieux thus moved up the shore between about 64 and 96 

yards. As for a “gunshot,” anything over 75 yards is considered a generous distance for 

shooting a musket offhand with any accuracy (Collin Swift, personal communication). 

The same “gunshot” or “arpent or an arpent and a half” distance was also judged to be a 

about a three-minute walk (Nute 1940:141). The move from the clearing put Hervieux‘s 

second camp just beyond the NWC-affiliated “Little Fort” or Fort Boucher (Figure 17), 

perhaps 30 to 60 feet east of that outpost (Nute 1940:129, 136). 

At his second camp Hervieux reported another man named St. Valier Mailloux (or 

Mallioux) trading “about five or six arpents away” (Nute 1940:126). Thus, Mailloux’s 

establishment was assumedly between 320 and 384 yards (959 to 1151 feet) farther up 

the shore (Figure 17). 

Adding the maximum noted yardage (35 from the creek, 96 to the second camp, and up to 

384 to Mailloux’s) suggests the core settlement area could have stretched as much as 515 

yards (1545 feet or almost three-tenths of a mile) along the shore east of the creek. That 

distance extends beyond the limits of the GRPO, but it falls well short of what is now the 

east line of Section 4 (Figure 16). The core settlement area east of the creek contained the 

pork eaters’ camp, Fort Boucher, and the proposed site of Grants’ Fort, as well as 

Mailloux’s store and other facilities belonging to the XYC. Still there are unresolved 

claims that other fur trade developments lie well up the shore from the GRPO (e.g., 

Thompson 1969:168-169 and Map 5). 

For example, one researcher suggests that, from prehistoric times through the year 1767, 

the head of the Grand Portage and the locus for local settlement were near Mount 

Josephine, well east of Section 4. After 1768, according to this source, the portage 

landing and settlement locus shifted “about one and one-half miles” westward to the area 

by Grand Portage Creek (Woolworth 1993:51-53, 70). Based solely on the records of 

Jonathan Carver who explored Grand Portage Bay in 1767, these assumptions represent a 

radical departure from prior assertions by the same researcher and others that French 

colonial traders operated more nearly in the shadow of Mount Rose between 1731 and 

1761 (e.g., Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:26-33). If the Mount Josephine scenario is 

correct then few if any French materials should await discovery at the lakeshore unit of 

the GRPO. Conversely, if the Mount Rose scenario holds true there is a seemingly high 

potential for finding evidence of French presence near the mouth of Grand Portage Creek. 

Obviously, Carver’s survey warrants closer scrutiny. Carver, a veteran of the French and 

Indian War, was an alert and capable man who gained his surveying and mapmaking 

skills through reading books (Parker 1976:6). He also trained himself to calculate 

distances over water by pacing out a mile along a shoreline and then viewing and 

 8 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

traveling the same expanse in a canoe or bateau (Parker 1976:59). Nonetheless, his 

recorded estimates are as often inaccurate (Parker 1976:viii, 59). 

Carver surveyed Grand Portage Bay on Monday, 20 July 1767. In mapping the bay he 

recorded just four traverses (here numbered 1 through 4) (Figure 18). The traverses are an 

apparent mix of passages (traveled courses) and sightlines. Carver rounded each traverse 

to the nearest mile or half-mile in length and to the nearest 221⁄2-degrees by compass. The 

results are predictably crude. His Traverses 1 and 3 point to mountainous elevations back 

from the shoreline. Traverse 2 led directly “to the landing place” at the Grand Portage.

Traverse 4 ended at the tip of Hat Point. 

It is impossible to plot Carver’s traverses within the bay at their given scale. It is also 

difficult to reconcile the length of Carver’s traverses with his observation that Grand 

Portage Bay “is about a mile and a half deep and about so broad...being nearly square” 

(Parker 1976:131). The bay is actually about two miles wide and 1.25 miles deep. Other 

observers who early guessed the size of the bay had trouble too. For example, in 1793 the 

NWC clerk, John Macdonell, thought the bay was about 4.5 miles wide and three miles 

deep (Gates 1965:92)—a more than two-fold exaggeration. 

One could explore the notion that some of Carver’s traverses were meant to extend 

beyond the shores of the bay, but downplaying Carver’s estimated distances and relying 

more on his compass bearings alleviates some of the complication. Indeed, this exercise 

is useful for reviewing much of the early historical documentation from Grand Portage. 

Setting aside questionable distances and emphasizing other descriptive elements left by 

observers often provides a more accurate understanding of the subject terrain. The goal is 

to develop explanatory models that consider and reconcile all available evidence. 

Carver’s Traverses 1 and 2 assumedly define his course of travel along the west and 

northwest margins of Grand Portage Bay (Figure 18). When considered together these 

traverses suggest that the portage landing, in 1767, was much closer to Mount Rose than 

to it was to Mount Josephine. Traverse 3, a sightline projecting east-northeast from the 

landing along the north shore of the bay, shows the landing must be well west of Hat 

Survey notes recorded by Jonathan Carver at Grand Portage Bay on 20 July 1767 

after entering the bay at its southwest corner (Adapted from Parker 1976:172). 

Traverse Course Distance Remarks &c

[1] NW 2 Miles “Back of this is a high mountain” 

[2] NE 11⁄2 Miles “This mile and half brings to the 

landing place and Indian castle” 

[3] ENE 11⁄2 Miles “Back of this is a high mountain” 

[4] ESE 3 Miles “In this small bay is an island in the 

chops of it” 

 9 
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Point and almost certainly within Section 4. Carver’s fourth bearing, a sightline looking 

east-southeast from the landing to the tip of Hat Point, narrows the window by seemingly 

anchoring the portage landing within the present area of the GRPO. While none of these 

interpretations are ironclad, they are more convincing than any theory that uses Carver’s 

survey records to place the portage landing and local Indian village 1.5-miles east of 

Grand Portage Creek. 

Carver supplemented his survey by saying that the landing was “at the bottom of the bay” 

(Parker 1976:131), just as John Macdonell later described it (Gates 1965:92). At the 

landing place in July 1767 Carver met a gathering of Ojibwe, Cree, and Assiniboine 

Indians waiting to meet with British traders from Michilimackinac. These groups were on 

friendly terms, but their camps might have been strung out for some distance along the 

shoreline. The following year, associates of the trader John Askin had to clear land west 

of Grand Portage Creek to ready that space for occupancy (Nute 1940:134). This too 

implies that, long before 1768, the historic portage landing and traditional settlement 

locus were centered just east of the creek. 

JOHN ASKIN AND THE INFANT NWC 

John Askin (Erskine), who likely knew Carver, was an early developer at Grand Portage 

and is worthy of further mention here. Born in Ireland in 1739, Askin went to North 

America in 1758. He was a sutler with the British army near the end of the Seven Years’ 

War and became an Albany merchant and fur trader before moving to Michilimackinac in 

1765 (Wallace 1968:425). There, through about 1780, he had a trading store, was 

commissary for the garrison, and farmed. There, too, he formed close ties with northwest 

traders Alexander Henry, James McGill, and Isaac Todd, and with the post commander, 

Major De Peyster (Farrell 1983:37-38). He also associated with Lt. Thomas Bennett, the 

post adjutant, with whom, later in life, he engaged in land speculation in Ohio and 

Michigan (Woolworth 1975:207). Officers at Michilimackinac were not above taking 

NWC bribes (e.g., Denney n.d.:12), and it is no surprise that Askin’s cozy relations with 

De Peyster and Bennett left him perfectly positioned to give and receive special favors 

(Farrell 1983:38). 

The growing American threat during the American Revolution hastened the consolidation 

of British trade interests (Thompson 1969:28). Various combinations of traders formed, 

and by 1778 a group of traders serving as “Gentlemen of the NWC” was transacting 

business through Grand Portage (Wallace 1968:4-5). Some had shifted their supply base 

to the portage from Michilimackinac a few years earlier (Rich 1966:72). Askin had 

business connections with some of the gentlemen and became an agent for the infant 

NWC (Wallace 1968:425). In May 1778 Askin sent them a shipment of goods, to be 

followed by later cargoes of provisions and alcohol. He also informed his associates that 

an officer and several soldiers were to “pass the summer” at the portage, and asked that a 

house be readied for them. It was, he insisted, “the great Company’s duty to furnish a 

dwelling” for the troops (WHC 19:239-240). If Askin wasn’t in bed with De Peyster and 

Bennett on this deal, he was at least fluffing their pillows. 

 10
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

THE LENGTHENING SHADOW OF THE NWC 

Since time immemorial the Grand Portage has probably followed the shortest viable 

course between Grand Portage Bay and a landing on the Pigeon River. Through at least 

1731, the portage followed an established Indian trail. Between 1731 and 1761, French 

traders probably made minor changes to the existing foot trail, like removing fallen trees 

or installing catwalks. In 1768, British traders associated with Askin built a fort on the 

lakefront west of Grand Portage Creek and opened a trail over the creek to reach the 

portage. Within a short time other branching trails were likely opened or enhanced by 

opposition traders on landscapes east of the creek. By one estimate there were as many as 

“four palisaded log cabins or ‘forts’” there in the years preceding the American 

Revolution (Woolworth 1975:201). The competition became so fierce Grand Portage was 

portrayed as “a pent-up hornets’ nest of conflicting factions intrenched in rival forts” 

(Bigsby 1850, II:240). 

In 1778, British troops sent to maintain order among the traders established a Public 

Road. The unruly competition faded in 1783 with the reorganization of the NWC as a 

firm with sixteen shares. The following year the Nor’westers sought (and were denied) a 

government-sanctioned monopoly of the northwest trade through Grand Portage. Other 

opposition traders established new facilities at each end of the trail in 1785 but then 

merged with the NWC, restoring its dominance at the portage. 

In 1787 the NWC apparently erected a stockade around its house (Fort Charlotte) on the 

Pigeon River or extended a preexisting stockade, blocking the far west end of the Grand 

Portage. When the rival trader, Donald MacKay, approached the fort after walking the

trail from Lake Superior he found that the NWC had indeed “Shut up the Road with 

Picketts.” MacKay was told that if he wanted to get to the river he “must make another 

Road.” Taking matters into his own hands, MacKay cut open the gate of the fort with a 

“tomahawk,” passed through the fort to the Pigeon River landing, and marked out a place 

there for his canoes (Denney n.d.:12-13). 

The following year, the NWC boldly requested (and was denied) a special land grant to 

remake the entire Grand Portage trail into a private wagon road. Beyond claiming 

ownership to the segment of road at Fort Charlotte, the NWC may have also begun to 

assume proprietary rights to certain “built” sections of the trail that it improved or kept in 

repair. Indeed, the Nor’westers so dominated the use of the trail by the late 1780s they 

flattered themselves by thinking of it as a company road. To avoid running the NWC 

gauntlet at the portage some opposition traders began taking a southerly route to the 

northwest through what is now central Minnesota--by way of Fond du Lac, Sandy Lake, 

the Crow Wing and Leaf Rivers, Otter Tail, the Red River, and Pembina. 

In 1793 John Macdonell said, “Every improvement at...[Grand Portage Bay] appertains 

to the North West Company.” At the same time, the Nor’westers continued their 

dominance at the upper landing on the Pigeon River (Gates 1965:94, 97). When John 

Tanner and his adopted Ojibwe family brought their furs from Fort Charlotte to Lake 

 11
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Superior one year in the 1790’s they were so fearful of NWC interference they tried to 

avoid the “trader’s road” when crossing the portage (James 1956:51). 

The XYC formed in 1798 and quickly muscled in at Grand Portage. A NWC agent 

lamented that the XYC was “very industrious in picking up men” at Montreal for the 

northwest trade (Pendergast 1957:109). Within short order the XYC built transshipment 

facilities at both trailheads. 

By 1803 the Nor’westers had moved from Grand Portage to Kaministikwia. Thereafter, 

the reorganized NWC had but a token outpost at Grand Portage Bay. In 1806 when rival 

traders set out to cross the portage, the NWC dropped trees to block the road. Earlier 

improvements on the portage trail were also allowed to deteriorate. In 1822 William

Morrison of the American Fur Company said the portage had gone unused for so many 

years that it was hardly passable (Lass 1980:38). The Grand Portage was not closed for 

long, however, as it saw continued if only sporadic use throughout the remainder of the 

nineteenth century. 

THE PORTAGE, PORTAGE LANDING, AND DEPOT TRAILS

Some of the best early descriptions of the Grand Portage, dating to the 1790s and later, 

are left by men sympathetic to the NWC—particularly the celebrated David Thompson. 

Thompson made his most detailed surveys in the 1820s, long after the NWC left Grand 

Portage and shortly after the demise of the company itself (Cooper 2004). By then old 

bridges on the portage were probably gone, and the “old causeways that once crossed the 

swampy places,” were “entirely rotten, full of holes and dangerous” (Thiessen n.d.:7). 

Thompson’s surveys make no mention of other trails intersecting the Grand Portage 

though such are known from other sources. 

According to Thompson, in the 1820s the portage “road” began on the shore of the bay 

near the mouth of Grand Portage Creek (Figure 19) and ran northward to the hill where 

the church and cemetery are now located. From there the trail went around the west side 

of the hill, generally paralleling the creek as it ascended to higher ground (Figure 20). 

Thompson said the portage was “very Hilly” at its lower end and at first ran “along the 

cut in the Hills” on side elevations above the creek. At about the 740-foot contour the 

trail veered away from the meandering stream to follow a more direct route to a gap in 

the rock ridges a mile or so back from the lake (Figure 16). This trail alignment, from the 

lake to the 740-foot contour, will for present purposes be termed the main portage. For 

purposes of this report, that part of the main portage lying between the lake and the 

church hill may also be referred to as the portage landing road. 

As already noted, in 1768 traders built a fort on the lakefront west of the creek that later 

become the NWC Depot. To access the main portage from the fort the traders had one or 

more formal trails that crossed the creek and perhaps some informal ones as well. One 

formal trail ran from a gate at the northeast angle of the Depot and crossed the creek at no 

great distance from the lake. The same trail went through the Depot to the “west gate” on 

the opposite side completing a passage to the lake. This road might be called the depot 

 12
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

trail. The NWC maintained the depot trail as a private access to the main portage. In 

1798 when David Thompson surveyed the trail from the west gate, through the fort, and 

onto the Pigeon River, he called that course “the Grand Portage” (Figure 21) (Thompson 

1969:78). 

Photographs from the early 1900s show footpaths traversing the creek northeast of the 

old NWC Depot site and reveal that such trails did not necessarily intersect the streambed 

at right angles (Figures 8 and 11). One prominent crossing seen in these photographs is a 

ford set perpendicular to the stream. The location is so accommodating for purposes of a 

stream crossing that at least one historian has called it “a natural ford” (e.g., Gilman 

1992:8). While its origins and history are uncertain, the ford did see great use prior to 

about 1939 or 1940 when the Stone Bridge was completed downstream. 

Alan Woolworth’s 1975 investigations led him to conclude that the ford was in use 

before 1778 and that it (or possibly a bridge at the ford) later became the Nor’westers’ 

primary stream crossing to the main portage. Old Ford Road, a segment of roadway now 

preserved east of the ford, is assumed by Woolworth to be part of the NWC’s depot trail 

(Figure 6). Woolworth observed that Old Ford Road extended just 50 feet east of the 

creek and assumed that the old depot trail intersected the main portage there (Woolworth 

and Woolworth 1982, I:258). This scenario draws the main portage close to the creek and 

even onto the creek’s floodplain north of the present maintenance shop (Figures 6 and 

20). If Woolworth is correct, then parts of the main portage and the depot trail must run 

right through the 2005 Survey Area, and their intersection must lie within the survey area 

as well.

THE PUBLIC ROAD

So, what and where was the enigmatic Public Road? The earliest reference to the road is 

found in the postscript of a letter written by Major De Peyster at Michilmackinac in 1779. 

De Peyster wrote on behalf of his subaltern, Lt. Thomas Bennett, of the King’s 8th

Regiment of Foot. Bennett was stationed at Grand Portage in the summer of 1778, and he 

was now seeking recompense for “laying out and directing the route at the Portage” 

(WHC 11:123; Thompson 1969:30-31). No other contemporary accounts of Bennett’s 

road activities are known to survive. 

Some readers take De Peyster’s words to mean that Bennett was responsible for laying 

out and constructing the Public Road (Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:258; NPS 

2003:169), and they credit Bennett’s men for actually building the road (e.g., Woolworth 

1975:205; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:12; Woolworth 1993:53). No evidence is 

presented to support these claims. Even if Bennett had ordered his men to build a road 

such work could not have been extensive. He had but a small force at Grand Portage (one 

sergeant, five privates, and seven Canadian civilian engagés); his goal was to build an 

outpost, befriend Indians, and ensure the cooperation and allegiance of traders (Armour 

and Widder 1978:77; WHC 11:112); and there is no indication that he had proper 

equipment, work animals, and expertise for road construction. Beyond that, his 

expedition arrived at Grand Portage in June 1778, left in August, and did not return. 

During that brief time his men labored at constructing a fort (Woolworth 1975; Armour 

 13
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

and Widder 1978:77; Gilman 1992:55); an outpost that apparently later became the 

NWC-affiliated “Little Fort” or Fort Boucher. 

The most detailed description of the Public Road is found in the 1803 testimony of 

Daniel Sutherland. An experienced fur trader, Sutherland had once been a partner in the 

NWC before joining the XYC. He apparently first went to Grand Portage in 1788 (Nute 

1940:137). Sutherland described the aforementioned clearing by the mouth of Grand 

Portage Creek and said the Public Road passed through that open space “to the North side 

of the Portage” (Nute 1940:138-139). 

Past researchers provide a medley of possible interpretations regarding the nature, course, 

and length of the Public Road. Some have it either following the portage-landing road 

north from the lakeshore or taking a separate line to merge with the main portage some

distance inland (e.g., Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:258, 267). They have the Public 

Road ending by the ford (e.g., Woolworth 1975:205; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, 

I:47; II:No.74), running beyond the ford to the foot of the church hill (e.g., Woolworth 

and Woolworth 1982, I:67), or going around the hill on the northwest (Woolworth and 

Woolworth 1982, I:258; NPS 2003:169) or northeast sides (Woolworth 1993:52). 

It is even suggested that Bennett and his men “laid out a road across the portage,” all the 

way to the Pigeon River (Buck 1931:7). Is that what Sutherland meant when he said the 

Public Road led “to the North side of the Portage?” Maybe. But De Peyster specifically 

says that Bennett was involved with directing the route at the portage not directing the 

route of the portage (or at least the entire portage). “At the portage,” as used by De 

Peyster, likely means “at the settlement” on Grand Portage Bay. If Bennett directed the 

route through the settlement and not far beyond, then the designated Public Road would, 

by definition, be confined to an area near the lake. 

For the Public Road to lead to the portage suggests that it had to somehow be separate or 

distinct from the portage to begin with. By saying the Public Road led “to the North side 

of the Portage,” Sutherland again seems to describe a short corridor; perhaps one that 

converged on the main portage on the “north” (northeast) side of the creek, on the north 

side of the clearing, or (as will be discussed at greater length later in this report) on the 

north side of what is now the church hill. 

Sutherland also testified that, “a Cart may pass in the said [Public] Road from the Beach 

to the little River” (Nute 1940:139). This statement reveals that, in 1802, the Public Road 

was suited for cart traffic and that the road (or a section of road suited for carts) went at 

least as far as Grand Portage Creek (the “Little River”). A public road designed for 

commercial use might logically intersect the creek at only one of two places. One place is 

between the church hill and the lake within the area of the aforementioned clearing 

(Figure 17). That could be at the ford or somewhere nearby. The party most likely to take 

a cart from a landing east of the creek to a nearby stream crossing would be Nor’westers 

bound for the NWC Depot. 

 14
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

A second possible intersection for the Public Road and creek is where the main portage 

crosses the northeast fork of Grand Portage Creek beyond the high rock ridges, about 1.5 

miles inland from the lake. This option makes little sense. In 1822 when the American 

surveyor, Joseph Delafield, numbered the stream crossings on the portage above Lake 

Superior, he called the northeast fork the “First River.” As far as is known, that branch of 

the creek was never referred to as the “Little River.” In 1802 it would also have been 

strange to emphasize that carts could pass from the lake to the northeast fork. The 

northeast fork was hardly a common or worthy destination for carts, and besides, long 

before Sutherland’s testimony the NWC had run carts over the entire length of the Grand 

Portage. 

Based on available evidence, the Public Road can likely be thought of as an access that 

provided free passage to all comers between the lake and the main portage. Bennett 

appears to have defined and marked the corridor before declaring it an open thoroughfare. 

Bennett’s men may have worked to improve the designated roadway, but most labor 

probably came from the traders and most specifically men attached to the NWC. The 

NWC had already bore some expense in accommodating the troops at Grand Portage, and 

it had the greatest need and incentive for having a cart path leading from the lake towards 

a nearby stream crossing. By facilitating such a Public Road, the NWC may have already 

anticipated its larger goal of getting a government-approved trade monopoly through 

Grand Portage and a special land grant to remake the portage into a private wagon road. 

Sutherland seems to settle the argument over who actually built the Public Road by 

voicing his opinion that it was made by the NWC—or an early version of that firm that 

predated the 1783 organization (Nute 1940:139). 

From these sketchy details it is perhaps safe to say the Public Road began at the shore 

and ran through the clearing to link either with the main portage or the depot trail, or 

both. This fuels speculation that some part of the road may enter, cross through, or pass 

near the 2005 Survey Area (e.g., Phillips 2003:33-34). Whatever improvements were 

made to the road in 1778 might now be impossible to identify or to differentiate from

later road developments. Indeed, physical evidence of most trails in use near the lakefront 

in the eighteenth century is almost certainly obscured, modified, or erased by more recent 

activities. 

THE FIRST XYC “FORT” AT GRAND PORTAGE BAY

The exact placement of XYC facilities at Grand Portage Bay has often been guessed but 

never reconciled. Some researchers put the “traditional” XYC area near the lake just east 

of Grand Portage Creek (Thompson 1969:165) or report “evidence” that the ruins of an 

XYC Depot may be “under the present seasonal housing and maintenance facilities”

(NPS 2003:169; Thompson 1969: 169 and Map 5). Others have XYC facilities well up 

the shore, eastward of the GRPO (Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:261; Thompson 

1969:169). Obviously, no review of fur trade resources in the vicinity of the 2005 Survey 

Area would be complete without a discussion of XYC operations at Grand Portage Bay. 

 15
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Early events foreshadowed the emergence of the XYC. In 1793 the traders David and 

Peter Grant, sworn enemies of the NWC, determined to build a fort at the portage. 

Accordingly, they marked the four corners of a proposed fort “between two and three 

hundred yards to the East of the N.W. Fort beyond the Pork eaters camp” (Gates 1965:94; 

Thompson 1969:81). The NWC fort in this instance is unquestionably the NWC Depot. 

The Pork eaters’ (Montrealers’) camp was in the clearing east of the creek (Figure 17) 

(Thompson 1969:167). Within the area of the camp and the clearing was the portage 

landing later mapped by David Thompson (Figure 19). Just northeast of the portage 

landing was a house or “little fort,” perhaps the same one earlier built as a cooperative 

effort by the NWC and British troops. The Hervieux court proceedings put this facility 

(Fort Boucher) within about 125 yards of the creek. The site of the Grants’ proposed fort 

was a short distance farther up the shore in an area southeast of the Speedy’s Road-Upper 

Road intersection and south-southwest of the log-school (Figure 17). 

The Grants’ proposed fort was never built. Nonetheless, the site chosen for the fort offers 

some intriguing insights. So does the fact that the selected site was not in the clearing by 

the creek. The clearing was a traditional, summer-gathering place for NWC voyageurs 

and the launching pad for many an outfit that crossed the Grand Portage. As already 

noted, it was jealously protected by the NWC. By not intruding on the clearing, the 

Grants avoided heated confrontation with the NWC (as later experienced by Hervieux) 

and the harassment of Montrealers and others who camped there. The clearing was a 

minefield of controversy destined to remain an “unoccupied” and “open” space through 

the end of NWC operations at the portage (Nute 1940:132-133). 

Areas up the shore northeastward from the clearing were far less contentious. The spot 

selected by the Grants to build upon had a range of desirable qualities that are still 

evident today (despite considerable shoreline erosion). The chosen site was approachable 

from the lake, adaptable as a landing, suitably elevated and drained for use as a fort site, 

available for development, and easily connected by a short overland trail to the main 

portage. Together with Hervieux’s tale of forced relocation to a second camp, the Grants’ 

prior claim to the same general area puts the little fort (Fort Boucher) at the eastern limits 

of NWC territorial aspirations on Grand Portage Bay. 

By 1800 the NWC was already preparing to move to Kaministiquia. That summer, the 

NWC clerk, Daniel Harmon, said, “it was only three years since” the XYC first “made an 

establishment” at Grand Portage (Harmon 1903:15). “Three years since” might be 

construed as 1797. However, archeologist G. Hubert Smith has shown that by counting 

1798, 1799, and 1800, the three-year look back could just as easily correspond to 1798, 

the year the XYC formally organized (Smith 1961). Just what developments the XYC or 

its constituent firms may have made at the portage in either year is unknown. 

There is greater knowledge of early NWC developments east of the creek. The NWC 

outfitted Joseph Lecuyer to trade there from 1794 through 1798, and Boucher (Bouché) 

replaced him in 1799. At first, Boucher may have worked in arrangement with a NWC 

agent named Joseph Faniant (Fainant, Fannante, Fanieant, etc.) (Pendergast 1957:109). In 

any case, these men traded liquor and dry goods (like “capotes, jackets, and breeches”). 

 16
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Coincident with Boucher’s arrival, St. Valier Mailloux also began a similar operation, 

under agreement with the XYC (Peers and Schenck 2002:213). At the time, the great 

companies segregated their men during the summer rendezvous to curb fighting, 

fraternization, and promiscuous trading with rival agents—particularly for rum (Nute 

1940:126, 133, 140-143, 146-147). Mailloux’s operations were said to be conveniently 

near the NWC canoe camp (Pendergast 1957:109). Lecuyer and Boucher catered 

primarily to NWC engagés, and Mailloux mainly to XYC employees, but each actually 

welcomed transactions with just about anyone. Paul Hervieux, who began trading at 

Grand Portage under American license in 1802, also sold to all comers. For reasons of 

discretion, crossover trading was often done “secretly at night” (Nute 1940:128-129). 

Such trading activities typically required formal structures. Lecuyer operated from a 

“little house” or NWC company store on the eastern margin of the clearing. The house 

may have been the one earlier built by that firm as part of a cooperative venture with 

British troops. Boucher later occupied the same site and probably the same house. 

Hervieux, when at his second camp, east of Boucher’s, in 1802 (Figure 17), stored his 

goods in “a little cabin covered with bark” (Nute 1940:136). Because he and the other 

traders had houses, Mailloux must have had one, too. If so, his house likely belonged to 

the XYC, and it probably stood somewhere near the XYC landing and Depot (Figure 17). 

Hervieux, who, in 1802, was able to sell “his goods freely to the men of the new 

company” (Nute 1940:136), traded nearby. The area between Boucher’s and the XYC 

developments formed a buffer between NWC and XYC interests on the bay. Hervieux’s 

cabin was likely within this DMZ. 

Not coincidentally, the first definite record of XYC facilities at the portage dates to 1799. 

That summer, according to the celebrated trader-explorer Alexander Mackenzie, NWC 

rivals erected a “Hangard [store] & House” at some undisclosed location by the bay 

(Thompson 1969:89). The presence of these structures riled the NWC. So did the 

development of an XYC fort at the upper end the portage, within spitting distance of the 

NWC’s Fort Charlotte. The latter two forts stood like bookends at the Pigeon River, sideby-side on opposite banks of Snow Creek. The XYC was no shrinking violet. Its sudden 

and aggressive ingress caused the Nor’westers to think the XYers might soon try to 

occupy the clearing at the mouth of Grand Portage Creek. In response, the NWC began to 

“make matters as difficult as possible” for the their new neighbors (Thompson 1969:91-

92). Part of the NWC’s strategy in 1799 may have been to install or reinforce a stockade

around Boucher’s house, making it the “Little Fort” or Boucher’s Fort. 

Nor’wester Daniel Harmon made his initial visit to Grand Portage in June 1800. In his 

journal first published twenty years later he described the bay, Grand Portage Island, 

Mount Rose, and the NWC’s big depot. Edited versions of his journal put an XYC fort 

about two hundred rods from the NWC Depot (Harmon 1820:40; 1903:15; 1905:15), 

while the autograph version has it within two hundred rods (Lamb 1957:20; Thompson 

1969:96). 

Two hundred rods is equal to 1100 yards, 3300 feet, or just over six-tenths of a mile. At 

face value, rods seems a strange choice of measurement to guess a distance that might be 

 17
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

better expressed as some fraction of a mile. Likewise, 200 rods could easily be a copyist 

error for 100 rods or 200 yards (Smith 1961). It is certainly anomalous, for no other 

contemporary observer places the XYC fort at Grand Portage so far to the northeast. A 

distance of 200 rods up the shore from the NWC Depot would have the XYC fort well 

outside the known fur trade settlement area at the bay (Figure 16) and beyond what is 

now the east line of Section 4 as well. The great distance to the portage from that remote 

locale would also unnecessarily add to the labor and expense of portaging. Considering 

the in-your-face attitude the XYers displayed on the Pigeon River and elsewhere in the 

northwest, such a location seems wholly uncharacteristic of that firm. 

Did Harmon really mean or have the necessary skill to say that the XYC fort was 200 

rods up the shore (northeast) from the NWC Depot? A casual scan of Harmon’s journal 

reveals 17 instances in which he gives distances in rods (see table below). Most of his 

notations, relating to things like the width of rivers and the size of forts, define distances 

of 30 rods or less. Three other notations describe distances between 60 and 70 rods (up to 

1155 feet or two-tenths of a mile). As seen in his inflated dimensions for the NWC 

Depot, even at short distances Harmon’s estimates can be exaggerated. 

The remaining four notations (italicized) involve distances that locate forts in relation to 

other nearby forts or water features. Three of the fort-location estimates are patently 

rounded to 200 rods. That includes Harmon’s placement of the XYC fort at Grand 

Portage Bay. Rather than instill confidence in his observational skills, this revelation 

makes Harmon’s use of 200 rods seem like a generic measure—more a standard wild 

Distances measured in rods, derived from Daniel Harmon’s Journal (Harmon 1903).

Measurement(s) Application Page No.

10 rods broad River width 113 

10 to 12 rods wide River width 3 

About 11 rods wide River width 30 

12 or 15 rods broad River width 20 

About 30 rods wide River width 141 

Flooded river about 60 rods broad River width 95 

60 to 70 rods wide River width 240 

About 70 rods in breadth River width 141 

{Several] Rods from dry land Point within a river 97 

Come within a few rods of them Approaching Buffalo 42 

Came within 10 rods of the fort Approaching Buffalo 46 

16 rods long by 12 in breadth Fort size 33 

24 by 30 rods Fort size (NWC Depot GRPO) 15 

Fort about 200 rods from another fort Fort location (XYC Fort GRPO) 15 

Fort is 200 rods from another fort Fort location 117 

Fort about 200 rods from outlet Fort location 160 

Lake is 400-500 rods below the fort Fort location 114 

 18
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

guess than a studied approximation. His fondness for 200, appears again in his 

description of the Saskatchewan River, which he said was “about two hundred fathoms 

broad” (Harmon 1903:115) 

Happily, Harmon gives some measurements that are readily compared with other sources, 

including dimensions that exaggerate the size of the NWC Depot by up to twenty-five 

percent. More telling is his estimate intended to give the location of the NWC fort (later 

Fort William) on the Kaministiquia or Dog River. According to Harmon, the 

Kaministiquia fort was “about four or five hundred rods” above the mouth of the river 

(Harmon 1903:114). A distance of 400 rods (2200 yards) is equal to 11⁄4 miles, and 500 

rods (2750 yards) equals 1.56 miles. In other words, Harmon estimated the fort was 

between 11⁄4 and 11⁄2 miles up the river from Lake Superior. 

Near its mouth the Kaministiquia River divides into three channels. The NWC built its 

fort on the north side of the dominant North Channel. In 1802 the British military 

engineer, Capt. R. H. Bruyère, determined the North Channel to be just 3⁄4-mile long. On 

a map, he shows the NWC fort about one-quarter of the way up the North Channel, a 

distance probably less than 1⁄4-mile (under 80 rods) from the river’s mouth (Morrison 

2001:26). Later, Dr. John Bigsby, a British member of the Joint International Boundary 

Commission, put the fort “800 yards” (145 rods or 0.45-miles) from the lake (Bigsby 

1850:230). George Heriot, the deputy postmaster general of Canada, also implied that the 

distance was less than 1⁄2-mile (Heriot 1971:205), while Joseph Delafield, an American 

agent with the Joint Boundary Commission said the fort was just “a little distance” up the 

river (Delafield 1943:400). For sure, some other writers put the fort nearly a mile or as 

much as a mile above the lake (e.g., Long 1978:230; Coues 1965, I:220n; Morrison 

2001:25), but not even their guesses approach the 11⁄4 and 11⁄2 miles distances fronted by 

Harmon. Indeed, by comparison, Harmon’s claim that the XYC fort and the NWC Depot 

at Grand Portage Bay stood as much as 200 rods apart could easily be a two or three fold 

exaggeration. 

If the distance between the two forts was one-half of 200 rods (550 yards), the XYC fort 

site might be near the east boundary of the GRPO. If the distance was one-third of 200 

rods (i.e., 366 yards) the XYC fort site might be in the area of the present NPS equipment 

boneyard (Figure 17). Though obviously speculative, these figures are more compatible 

with other contemporary estimates of the fort’s location on the bay. 

The Hervieux court proceedings, which tell of conditions at Grand Portage Bay in 1802, 

fail to mention XYC facilities other than Mailloux’s establishment. Some readers see this 

omission as further evidence that the XYC’s developments were somewhere much farther 

to the east, where Harmon’s estimate of 200 rods seems to suggest (e.g., Figure 15). It is 

now clear, however, that the proceedings simply ignore XYC affairs at the bay as being 

outside the legal issues under review. 

In 1801 the XYC had “Forts & other buildings at both ends of the Portage” (Thompson 

1969:104, emphasis added). By 1802, according to Donald Sutherland, the XYC facilities 

at Grand Portage included a barn and living quarters for a farmer (Thompson 1969:111). 

 19
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Is it possible the XYC opened lands well to the east for gardens and for access to building 

materials, firewood, or hay crops, but kept its main depot closer to the portage? Like the 

NWC, the XYC apparently had horses or oxen to shuttle supplies and materials over the 

portage to the Pigeon River. If the XYC’s “farm” were somewhere up the shore, but not 

the XYC fort, the added distance to the main portage would be of little concern. 

The NWC held its last rendezvous at Grand Portage in 1802. In that same year the newly 

knighted Sir Alexander Mackenzie became fully allied with the XYC and attended its 

summer gathering at the portage. So did the novice XYC clerk, George Nelson. 

In June 1802, according to Nelson, the XYC “had a few buildings, a few hundred yards 

to the East of the N. W Co below the hill” (Peers and Schenck 2002:42). A question that 

immediately comes to mind for many researchers is where, east of the creek, is there a 

hill within a “few hundred yards” of the NWC Depot?” If one assumes that “a few 

hundred yards” equates to 200-300 yards, then the best answer is likely somewhere below 

what is now the church hill. Such a location could have been aside the main portage in 

1802, and distinctly in-the-face of the NWC. 

Interestingly, while mapping the perimeters of the 2005 Survey Area on 3 June 2005, the 

author stumbled onto some possible old building sites at the foot of the church hill, just

north of Speedy’s Road. These include a large depression and an earthen berm, and what 

appear to be some small platforms cut into the slope of the hill. All of the observed 

features lie within “Area A” (Figure 22) beyond the limits of the present survey and were 

not further explored (although the berm was mapped: see, Figure 4). If the features mark 

a building complex in use in 1802, the structures would almost certainly be noted and 

identified in the 1803 Hervieux court proceedings; however, they are not. 

Also, while exploring the lower end of Speedy’s Road at the southwest side of the church 

hill the survey team encountered a series of depressions on what appears to be an ancient 

terrace just below the church cemetery and just beyond the limits of the GRPO (Figure 

22). Though difficult to judge from 20-foot contour USGS topographic maps, the terrace 

appears to stand at about 650-feet. A literature review reveals that BIA archeologist Karl 

Hagglund noted these same depressions in 1994 and thought they might be unmarked 

graves (Hagglund 1994). The quick perusal by the 2005 survey team noted a distinct 

similarity between the depressions and ancient Pukaskwa (Puckasaw) Pits seen elsewhere 

along the North Shore of Lake Superior. If the features are such pits, then they might 

result from Paleo-Indian activity around the mouth of Grand Portage Creek and they 

could be among the oldest known archeological sites at Grand Portage Bay, in the 

vicinity of the GRPO. 

Whatever secrets the pits and the Area A features might hold there is ample reason to 

suspect the XYC established its initial bayside depot elsewhere. This scenario looms 

large if one simply shifts the starting point of this exercise. Nelson indicated that the 

XYC buildings were east of the NWC (not specifically the NWC Depot), and he was at 

Grand Portage when Boucher’s Fort marked the eastern limits of NWC oversight at the 

bay. Perhaps, the XYC buildings Nelson saw “below the hill” were a few hundred yards 

 20
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

east of that little fort rather than the NWC Depot, as commonly believed. A place a few 

hundred (200-300) yards east of Boucher’s Fort would fall “below” the log-school ridge. 

It might be at or near the present NPS equipment boneyard where archeologists have 

detected a locus of fur trade materials at a site on La Plante Knoll (Figure 17). According 

to archeologist Vergil Noble, that site (21CK12) has yielded “abundant late eighteenthor early nineteenth-century materials, seems to be relatively undisturbed and may contain 

intact early Historic period cultural features” (Noble 1989:33; Birk 2005). The quandary 

is, if the initial XYC fort was in the area of the NPS boneyard, why is it not 

acknowledged in the 1803 court proceedings? The answer, again, is that the court case 

did not involve the XYC. 

So, what was the nature of the first XYC Depot? Mackenzie reports the construction of a 

“Hangard & House” at the bay in 1799, and Harmon has an XYC fort there by 1800. 

Nelson notes only a few XYC buildings as late as 1802, but later implies that they were 

enclosed within a fort. There seems little doubt that all of these individuals are describing 

the same complex, which, whether actually surrounded by pickets or not, was likely 

called a “fort.” 

THE SECOND XYC FORT AT GRAND PORTAGE BAY

Nelson continued his recollections of June 1802 by adding that the XYC was then “busy 

building a very fine ‘fort’ upon the hill” (Peers and Schenck 2002:42). The inferred 

location for this second fort is above the buildings or fort he observed “below the hill.” 

None of this is mentioned in the 1803 court proceedings. The push to erect a new hilltop 

fort may have come from Mackenzie, the new namesake of the XYC (or Alexander 

Mackenzie and Company) who thought the older buildings below the hill were 

inadequate (Gilman 1992:85). 

Nelson went on to say that at Grand Portage in 1802 some men left the NWC to work for 

the XYC. As these malcontents readied XYC canoes on the shore to go to their new 

wintering stations, a NWC agent approached them and started an argument. Mackenzie, 

Nelson, and others were having dinner in the nearby XYC Depot at the time, when, 

according to Nelson, “some of the People ran up to inform us that Mr

 Duncan 

Mc

Gillivray was at our beach attempting to carry off those men” (Peers and Schenck 

2002:45, emphasis added). This firsthand account infers that the XYC canoe landing was 

at a beach (and not a rocky shore) that probably lay directly opposite (south of) the 

company’s main structures (e.g., Figure 17). 

In 1803 Thomas Vercheres de Boucherville, a young French Canadian clerk with the 

XYC, arrived on his first trip to Grand Portage. Upon landing, De Boucherville got his 

personal belongings ashore, and “carried them up to the fort” (emphasis added). He said 

the fort “had been built by the North West Company,” but he obviously meant the “New 

North West” or XY Company, for the NWC had by then generally vacated its depot and 

its Fort Boucher and moved to Kaminstikwia. De Boucherville added that the fort was,

“Situated on the brow of a sloping hill” from which the view “was very fine” (Thompson 

1969:118). The upper part of the log-school ridge north of the NPS boneyard would 

 21
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

easily fit that bill, but so might the church hill. Both features, the ridge and the hill, are 

parts of a Post-Minong surface above the 660-feet contour (Figure 17). 

De Boucherville gives the best-known firsthand description of the hilltop fort. 

Unfortunately, his reminiscences were put down more that forty years after the fact. In 

any case, he recalls that the fort was surrounded by “palisades of tall cedar pickets with 

bastions at the four corners. Within the enclosure were several good buildings...and 

towering over all was an immense flagstaff” (Thompson 1969:118). 

When George Nelson returned to Grand Portage again on June 29 1804, he was received 

and treated “very kindly” by Mailloux. He tented nearby, and the next morning when he 

arose he “went up to the upper Fort” (Peers and Schenck 2002:170). This indicates that 

Mailloux’s establishment was still in operation and probably at its original spot close to 

the XYC’s landing, shoreline tent camp, and first fort. It hints, again, that the “upper 

Fort” is most likely somewhere more or less behind/above/north of this complex. 

In his volume, Travels Through the Canadas, first published in 1807, George Heriot, the 

deputy postmaster general of Canada, gives a secondhand description of the depots at 

Grand Portage Bay. According to Heriot, the NWC Depot included a “large picketed 

fort” with three gates, two guardhouses, and extensive ranges of buildings for stores and 

dwellings, as well as a sizeable canoe-yard for building canoes. Heriot put the 

“establishment of the new company,” meaning the XYC, “about a quarter of a mile from

that of the old” NWC. The XYC Depot “consisted of a fort, picketed, and of buildings on 

the same plan as those of the latter, but upon a more circumscribed scale” (Heriot 

1971:204). Heriot was referring to the XYC’s hilltop fort. His estimate of “about a 

quarter of a mile” would easily put the hilltop fort on what is now the church hill or 

somewhere near the log school on the adjacent log-school ridge (Figure 17). 

Some new evidence for an old fort, unavailable to previous scholars, is found in Dr. 

Douglass Houghton’s 1840 field notes/diary. Houghton was the surgeon, naturalist, and 

geologist for Henry Schoolcraft’s expedition to the Mississippi Headwaters in 1832, and 

he later became the first state geologist of Michigan (Nute 1944). Writing about Grand 

Portage in 1840, Houghton said: 

This place was originally one of the strong points in the Northern Fur trade of the 

French & the remains of their establishment are still visible upon a beautifully 

elevated spot at a Short distance from the bay which it overlooks...The extent of the 

old French establishment shows the importance it held in those days [Houghton 

1840]. 

The old French establishment or “Old Fort” on Houghton’s 1840-field map (Figure 23) 

could easily be the site of the second XYC fort. The map shows the fort well east of the 

portage and American Fur Company’s (AFC) facilities, and set back from the shore in an 

area where (though not shown) the terrain is elevated. The designated place can hardly be 

confused with the church hill, which is adjacent to the main portage and more directly 

north of the AFC developments. The more likely location is atop the log-school ridge, 

 22
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

which is certainly “a beautifully elevated spot” (Figure 17). The vantage gave the fort a 

panoramic view of the lakefront and the entire bay. It also allowed the XYers to literally 

look down their noses at the NWC. Conversely, when seen from below, the imposing 

walls and commanding height of the hilltop sanctuary gave it an aura of wealth, authority, 

and innovation; qualities almost certain to impress Indians and rival traders alike. 

It should be noted that, after Houghton returned to Detroit in 1840, he transcribed his 

Grand Portage field notes and map into another volume. His second-generation map has 

caused some scholars to conclude that Houghton’s “Old French Fort” is the remains of 

the first XYC compound at the bay, the XYC post built “in 1797.” That fort, they say, is 

the same one Daniel Harmon placed “about two hundred rods east of the NWC 

establishment” (e.g., Peters 2003:106, 111n14). 

THE PHASES OF XYC DEVELOPMENTS

The XYC had two forts at Grand Portage Bay between 1798 and 1805. They were built in 

two phases, east of the creek. The forts were more confined and “much smaller” than the 

nearby NWC Depot (e.g., Heriot 1971:204; Campbell 1957:124). 

The first phase of XYC operations (1798-1802) coincides with the formation and early 

development of that firm. During this initial phase the XYC carved a niche within the 

core settlement area at Grand Portage Bay. The primary Phase I facilities likely included 

stores, shops, and dwelling(s), and possibly a mess hall and kitchen, perhaps all set off by 

a fence or stockade. On the shore opposite this central compound was a beach used as a 

canoe landing. Near the landing was the XYC-affiliated canteen/store operated in 

summers by St. Valier Mailloux. The company also had farm buildings, but the 

relationship between these structures and the central compound is unknown. 

Available evidence places the Phase I facilities northeast of Boucher’s Fort, below a hill, 

and near the lake. The actual sites of the Phase I developments are yet undetermined. The 

highest priority location for the central compound, the canoe landing, and Mailloux store 

sites is somewhere near the NPS boneyard or the eastern limits of the park (Figure 17). 

Mailloux’s store may have defined the southwest or northeast margins of the main XYC 

complex. Secondary facilities, like farm structures, could lie up the shore or somewhere 

inland. Researchers who make no adjustment for Harmon’s claim of 200 rods would have 

the Phase I facilities farther to the northeast, even beyond the east line of Section 4 (e.g., 

Thompson 1969:Map 5; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:175). G. Hubert Smith 

suggests that any search for early XYC facilities at the bay might do well to focus on 

areas below the 630-foot contour (Smith 1961). That seems a logical place to start. 

The second phase of XYC operations at the bay (1802-1805) involve the construction, 

use, and abandonment of a second fort. The Phase II fort was apparently more extensive 

and, no doubt, better planned than the first. It stood on the brow of a hill, possibly north 

of and overlooking the Phase I facilities. When construction of the new hilltop fort began, 

desirable shoreline property near the portage was at a premium. Rather than excite bloody 

confrontation with the NWC by infringing of the clearing, or moving a greater distance 

 23
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

up the shore northeast of their Phase I facilities, the XYers chose to build their new fort 

inland as a “second tier development.” 

The new fort was designed to showcase Alexander Mackenzie’s wealth as well as the 

company’s maturing optimism and determination. Ironically, the fort was obsolete before 

construction began, and it might never have been fully completed. The NWC pulled its 

major operations out of Grand Portage by 1803, the XYC merged with the NWC in 1804, 

and the XYers left Grand Portage after their summer rendezvous and closing inventory of 

1805 (White 1977:13). 

A high priority search area for the hilltop fort site is on the log-school ridge northward of 

the NPS equipment boneyard and possibly at or very near the place now occupied by the 

old log-school. If the hilltop fort was intended to more directly overlook the main portage 

and insult passing Nor’westers, then the more likely site is atop the church hill. This 

conclusion is hardly unique; scholars have long pinpointed both of these locations as 

potential sites for the fort (e.g., Smith 1961; Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:175; 

Gilman 1992:85). 

The two XYC fort sites were bustling with workers during summers, thinly occupied 

during winters, and abandoned after just a few years. Nonetheless, each site should 

contain quantities of habitation debris such as personal or business items and durable 

food wastes. Artifacts and ecofacts might appear in loci, groupings, or profiles might help 

to define past human activities and activity areas. Each site should also contain 

archeological features like collapsed fireplaces, trash middens, palisade and building 

trenches, and storage and trash pits. Unfortunately, one potential site for the hilltop fort—

the old log-school property—was considerably landscaped in about 1935-1936 to prepare 

a level platform on which to build the log school complex (Figure 22). The landscaping 

apparently involved cutting and filling with a bulldozer or road patrol. As early as 1961 

G. Hubert Smith felt some remains might have survived such treatment either as the 

intact, lower levels of subsurface features or as in situ deposits buried under layers of fill 

(Smith 1961). Even if no cultural remains endured the landscaping operations, 

meaningful concentrations of materials might still be found on the side slopes of the 

reconfigured hill. 

RETHINKING THE TRAILS AT GRAND PORTAGE BAY

The NWC’s main commercial thoroughfares in the core settlement area at Grand Portage 

Bay were the depot trail and the portage-landing road (a segment of the main portage). 

The Public Road may have overlain the portage-landing road or it could have been a third 

branch in this system. Each of these trails began on the shore of Lake Superior within 100 

yards or so of Grand Portage Creek. It is generally assumed that a short distance inland

all three funneled into the main portage trail, which ran northward between the church

hill and the creek. The NWC dominated this trailhead from the mid 1780s through 1802. 

Conceivably, their control extended further inland, perhaps up portage to beyond the 680-

foot contour or even closer to the first posé (resting place) a half-mile from the lake. 

 24
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

David Thompson consistently placed the Grand Portage on the west side of the church 

hill (Figure 19). However, Thompson was associated with the NWC so when conducting 

his surveys he may have purposely disregarded any branch or bypass trails that were not 

germane to its operation. Is it possible that the trail noted by Thompson west of the hill 

was only opened in 1768 as a road leading inland from new trading houses west of the 

creek? Could the segment of trail west of the hill been claimed by the NWC sometime 

later as a private thoroughfare? Could the original portage trail have gone around the east 

side of the church hill? Could there have been two primary traffic lanes around the 

church hill during the fur trade era, one that ran up the west side and another on the east 

side? In fact, there is reason to suspect that a trail, perhaps an auxiliary trail, a wagon 

road, or even the Public Road, at some time, did run around the east side of the hill. 

In the late 1700s, up the shore from Boucher’s Fort, beyond the domain of the NWC, 

another system of trails led inland from fur trade era landings, shore camps, and trading 

houses. Some scholars believe these trails stretched westward, veering from the shore to 

merge with the main portage below the church hill, from where they followed the main 

portage northward (e.g., Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, I:67; Woolworth 1993:52). 

Conversely, some or all of the trails could have climbed the slopes of the log-school ridge 

or gone up the east side of the church hill to intersect the main portage farther inland. 

Such alternative routes might have allowed Indians and traders to slip unnoticed into the 

hills, thereby avoiding the direct scrutiny or insults of rivals or spies. Particularly for 

persons camped well up the shore from the main portage landing, independent feeder 

trails would seemingly offer the most direct, convenient, and efficient routes to the 

interior. If such trails did exist, all likely connected with the main portage somewhere 

below the first posé (Figure 16). 

The XYC’s canoe landing was on a beach opposite its Phase I fort, perhaps somewhere 

by the present NPS boneyard or the east boundary of the park (Figure 17). To walk from 

that locale to the foot (south end) of the church hill is no farther than walking to the foot 

of the hill from the west gate of the NWC Depot via the depot trail. Early on, however, 

the XYers may have opened a trail from their canoe landing that passed by the west end 

of the log-school ridge to connect with what shows on Figure 17 as the “Bypass Trail.” 

To walk from the XYC landing to the first posé via that route would actually be shorter 

than walking to the first posé from the west gate of the NWC Depot via the depot trail. 

In any case, in 1802, when the XYers began building their hilltop fort, they probably 

opened a direct trail from their canoe landing upslope to that facility. The initial plan

could have been to go from the established canoe landing by the shortest distance past the 

first fort and then straight up the hill to the new fort. At least that is the impression one

gets from reading George Nelson’s 1802 mention of XYC forts “below” and “upon” the 

hill (see page 21, above). 

By the following year things had changed. The NWC’s withdrawal from Grand Portage 

in 1803 gave the XYC plenty of freedom and opportunity to adjust its operations and 

territorial prerogatives. Among other things, the XYC may have taken control of the old 

 25
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

NWC store, Fort Boucher (Woolworth 1975:205n19), or whatever was left of that 

seemingly abandoned outpost, including, possibly, just the space it once occupied. 

When XYer Thomas De Boucherville landed at Grand Portage in 1803 and walked up to 

the new XYC fort, he thought the fort was “over a mile from the landing” (Thompson 

1969:118). The estimate of a mile between the landing and the hilltop fort seems a gross 

exaggeration, and for present purposes will be treated as such. A one-mile walk from the 

shore, for example, would bring one to the second posé on the Grand Portage. Such a 

claim would likely not be made if De Boucherville had simply walked from the original 

XYC canoe landing directly upslope to a fort on the brow of the log-school ridge. 

Although uncertain, after the NWC left Grand Portage the XYC may have shifted its 

canoe landing to the one in the coveted clearing by Grand Portage Creek. From there, 

XYers bound for the interior could have gone directly up the main portage on the west 

side of the church hill to the first posé and beyond. From there, too, another trail might 

have diverged from the main portage at the foot of the church hill and run up the east side 

of that hill to the XYC Phase II fort. That trail to the hilltop fort could be twice as long as 

a direct course from the bay but it might have the advantage of ascending a gentler slope 

and, at least in its lower reaches, would follow an old, established road. If fully exposed 

to view from the portage landing, as it might have been, that trail could give the 

impression of being “over a mile” in length. 

Once the XYers gained the elevation of their hilltop fort it seems unlikely that they would 

backtrack or descend again to the foot of the church hill before traveling up portage to the 

Pigeon River. It would be easier and more logical to just cut across country north of the 

church hill to intersect the portage. The rather gentle terrain lying between the 680 and 

720-feet contours in that vicinity provides a fitting surface for such a cutoff. Following 

heavy use by the XYC this imagined “Bypass Trail” (Figure 17) could have remained a 

notable route between the lake and the first posé for some years after the XYers left 

Grand Portage. Indeed, the lingering presence of such a trail on the east side of the church 

hill could have been an added incentive for building the Catholic Church on the hill in 

1865 (Woolworth 1965:310). As already noted, the envisioned Bypass Trail could have 

connected with an earlier trail leading inland from the original XYC canoe landing. 

Probably all major fur trade era trails at Grand Portage are the children of earlier Indian

paths. It is possible that the original portage or an alternate trail went up the east side of 

the church hill or that the Public Road blazed commercial use of that same route. 

Remember Sutherland’s statement that the Public Road passed “to the North side of the 

Portage” (Nute 1940:139)? Well, if the Public Road led from the lake to the foot of the 

hill and then continued on, hooking northeastward around the hill to merge with the main 

portage farther inland that could be considered its “north side.” Theoretically then, an 

ancient Indian trail, the Public Road, and the XYC’s hilltop fort trail could be forerunners 

of the present Upper Road. 

Unfortunately, there is little in the way of documentary evidence to support speculations 

about an early trail on the east side of the church hill. An exception might be a map of 

 26
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Grand Portage drawn by United States Army Lieutenant George Washington Whistler in 

the 1820s. 

Whistler, who was destined to become one of the most celebrated civil engineers of his 

time, began life as an army brat. He was born at Fort Wayne Indiana on 19 May 1800, 

spent much of his childhood at Fort Dearborn, and entered military service as a cadet at 

age 14. Whistler graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 

July 1819 a trained engineer and a Second Lieutenant in the Corps of Artillery. He was 

noted for his skills in projective geometry, and got the nickname, “Pipes,” from his 

mastery of the flute. Whistler worked as a topographer in 1819-21, and the following year 

was Assistant Professor of Drawing at West Point. In 1822 he was recruited to serve on a 

United States Commission to trace the international boundary between Lake Superior and 

Lake of the Woods, a position he held through 1828. In 1829 Whistler was promoted to 

First Lieutenant. He later got involved in railroad design and construction and resigned 

his commission in 1833. From 1842 to 1849 Whistler designed and built the first Russian 

railway, a line connecting Moscow with St Petersburg. He died in Russia in 1849 while 

supervising the construction of that railway. 

Whistler’s “Grand Portage Map” is less celebrated than his son, the noted artist James 

Abbott McNeill Whistler who painted the iconic image of the “Artist’s Mother” (better 

known today as “Whistler’s Mother”). At this writing it is unclear to the author if James 

Whistler also made the oil portrait of his dad—what might be called “Whistler’s 

Father”—now held by the Freer Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution (Figure 24). 

George Whistler, too, had a “remarkable artistic talent.” In 1818, while still a cadet, he 

drew a strikingly handsome topographical map of the academy at West Point, using pen 

and ink with watercolor (Schwartz and Ehrenburg 2001:242-243, 252-253). 

George Whistler’s “Grand Portage Map” (Figure 25) is a fine example of the hachure 

method of cartographic representation in which elevations are inferred but not quantified. 

Hachures are series of short, parallel lines drawn to show rising or sloping surfaces. The 

hachures are laid down in the direction of maximum slope. In the hands of an expert, the 

thickness and spacing of hachures further defines the coarseness of the terrain. In 

contrast, contours are imaginary lines that connect all points of the same elevation 

(Thrower 1972:169-170). Some examples of modern contour maps appear in this report 

as Figures 1, 15, 16, and 17. In 1822, before contouring was adopted as the standard for 

topographic mapping, Whistler collaborated in drawing a defensive plan for Salem

Massachusetts. The plan shows side-by-side comparative renderings of the same

landscape; one map with contours and the other with hachures (Thrower 1972:90-92). 

There is no doubt that George Washington Whistler was an accomplished observer and 

surveyor when he passed over the Grand Portage in 1822. Though only 22 years of age at 

the time, he was assigned to prepare maps for the U.S. Boundary Commission under the 

leadership of the 24-year old, chief surveyor, James Ferguson. According to historian 

William Lass, Whistler and Ferguson set out from Fort William in the summer of 1822 

and headed down the North Shore of Lake Superior to the mouth of the Pigeon River. 

 27
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

After completing some explorations there, they went on to Grand Portage. On August 7 

the two men fixed the latitude and longitude of the portage landing at the bay. On August 

12 they did the same at the west end of the portage. The time in between was apparently 

given over to mapping the portage and the ambient terrain. They later continued 

surveying up the Pigeon River and along other waterways farther to the northwest (Lass 

1980:38, 40). A regional map (one of a series) produced from this fieldwork includes the 

Grand Portage or what is referred to here as the “Grand Portage Map.” Whistler signed 

the map as “Draftsman & Asst. Surveyor.” 

Many scholars have admired Whistler’s “Grand Portage Map,” but apparently none have 

analyzed its content. Versions of the map in NPS cultural resource studies are redrawn or 

xerographic copies ill-suited for this purpose. In any case, Whistler’s map is commonly 

seen as further evidence that the Grand Portage, from the eighteenth century on, ran up 

the west side of the church hill. That judgment might now be in need of revision. 

During his 1824 survey Thompson recorded a traverse of 63 courses when crossing the 

portage, along with notes on terrain features, like rills, ascents, and descents. Despite 

problems usually associated with open traverses, time-based coursing, changes in 

magnetic declination, possible recording errors, etc., his 1824 survey provides a 

“reasonably accurate” overall representation of the historic trail (Cooper 2004:179, 181). 

Another appraisal states that the 1820s Thompson and Whistler/Ferguson surveys bear a 

close resemblance, particularly with regard to the course of the portage (Woolworth 

1993:35). While these surveys are sufficiently accurate for their initial, intended, purpose 

and do provide exacting descriptions of selected portage segments (e.g., Cooper 

2004:183), the comparative resemblance is only generally true when the results are 

viewed at a large scale. Close examination of the eastern trailhead areas of the surveys

shows what appear to be major discrepancies between the surveys of 1822 (Figure 25) 

and 1824 (Figure 19). For example, Thompson has the portage closing on Grand Portage 

Creek about 450 yards (a quarter mile) inland from the lake, while at that same distance 

Whistler shows the trail and the creek widely separated. 

Whistler illustrates continuous topographic features on his map with hachures. The 

printed version of Whistler’s map available to the author has the scale of one-inch to a 

mile. Even at that scale there is plenty to see. Indeed, keeping in mind that Whistler and 

Ferguson had just a few days to explore and map the vast, rugged, and forested, portagearea landscape in late summer, in the thick of mosquito season, the level of detail on 

Whistler’s map, particularly near the lake, is quite remarkable. The map gives no 

indication of XYC sites near the lakefront, but it does include a credible rendering of the 

creek and the old NWC Depot site at the foot of Mount Rose (Figure 25). It also shows 

the XYC and NWC fort sites at the west end of the portage. 

Comparing the eastern trailhead area of Whistler’s map with a modern USGS quadrangle 

map reveals many points of correspondence. The details of this inquiry are too extensive 

to cover here and will be the subject of another paper. Suffice it to say that Whistler’s 

map strongly suggests he surveyed a trail that passed up the east side of the church hill. 

From there the trail apparently crossed less sloping terrain to link up with the main 

 28
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

portage again farther inland, possibly at about what is now the center of Section 4, below 

the 720-foot contour and the first posé. Whatever the case, there is little doubt that a 

principal segment of the Grand Portage—whether described as the main portage, the 

portage landing road, the Public Road, or any other name—ran very close to the 2005 

Survey Area during the fur trade era.

THE 2005 SURVEY

The 2005 survey sought physical evidence of historic fur trade activities in an area of a 

reported section of the main portage (north of the maintenance shop) and a possible 

associated ford across Grand Portage Creek (south of the shop). The field investigations 

included remote sensing, targeted ground truthing, and shovel testing. A pedestrian 

survey was used to locate surface features, explore the setting of the project area, and 

establish mapping points. All map work was done using a tape and compass. 

A map of the northern part of the survey area is anchored by a one-inch, GRPO 

Boundary Marker pipe set at the S-1/16 Corner of Section 4, Township 63 North-Range 6 

East. The pipe is on the floodplain west of Grand Portage Creek, 9.9m south of a NPS 

footbridge (Figure 4; Appendix A). Metal spikes were driven at points A, B, C, D, and E 

on the high ground east of the creek. Pins B and E delimit the ends of the baseline used 

for remote sensing and shovel testing. The baseline has two sectors. The north sector, 

between Pins B and D, is on a magnetic bearing of N185. The bearing of the south sector, 

between Pins D and E, is N200. 

A map of the southern part of the survey area is anchored by the northeast end of the 

Stone Bridge, a hydrant near the maintenance shop, Pin F (a spike set on the south edge 

of Old Ford Road 3.4m from the east edge of the creek), and other pins set in relation to 

these points (Figure 2, Appendix A). 

Parts of the survey area were scanned using a White DFX (E-Series)TM metal detector

equipped with an 8.5-inch DFX coil. The detector was operated in a non-discriminating 

mode to detect ferrous and non-ferrous metal objects with an estimated detection depth of 

20cm (about eight inches). The many trees and dense brush in the survey area also 

reduced the horizontal coverage of the scan. All detected, metal targets were exposed 

through careful hand excavation guided by White Bullseye PinpointerTM detectors 

(Figure 26). Some non-metallic artifacts of glass, ceramic, and plastic were also 

encountered during this process. All artifacts observed on the ground surface or detected 

through remote sensing are recorded in Appendices B and C. 

The survey involved the excavation of eight shovel tests (STs). Five of the tests (ST1 

through ST5) were placed in the northern part of the survey area (e.g., Figure 10). ST1 

contained modern, beer bottle fragments, but the remaining northern tests were negative. 

Three tests (ST6 through ST8) were opened in the southern part (e.g., Figure 3), and all 

produced late nineteenth or early twentieth century cultural materials. None of the eight 

tests yielded fur trade era artifacts, and no cultural materials were found below a depth of 

30cm. Soil profiles were recorded for each test (Appendix D).

 29
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

THE ARTIFACTS

A total of 496 artifacts was recorded during the 2005 survey. Only eight of these items

(less than two percent) were exposed in shovel tests (Appendix D). Of the 488 artifacts 

revealed through remote sensing and surface observation, 163 artifacts (33-percent) were 

found in the northern part of the survey area (Appendix B) and 325 (66-percent) were 

found in the southern part (Appendix C). Only 17 of the 496 artifacts were collected; 

four from the northern part and 13 from the southern part. Thus, only three percent of 

the total recorded artifacts were actually recovered. 

The northern part of the survey area produced very few artifacts that might be related to 

the fur trade. Indeed, all four of the collected items are incomplete and could be late 

nineteenth century materials or heirlooms still in use during the twentieth century. 

Notable in this regard are part of a thimble (Figure 27A), part of a pair of “blacksmith” 

tongs, a knife blade fragment, and a wrought-iron chisel. Most prevalent in the northern

area was modern litter apparently discarded piecemeal by travelers on the adjacent Upper 

Road. Nearby banks of the creek floodplain obviously strewn with dumped trash were not 

examined. 

The southern part of the survey area yielded a somewhat broader, yet modest sample of 

possible fur trade era materials, including two buttons (one flat with a soldered eye, the 

other spunback), part of a serpent side plate (Figure 27C), a two-tined dining fork (Figure 

27D), eight wrought nails, one wrought spike (Figure 27E), four scraps of cupreous kettle 

metal, a grater fashioned from kettle metal (Figure 28), a possible kettle bail fragment, 

and a lock for a cassette or small chest (Figure 29). 

Most of these suspected fur trade artifacts were found east of the creek, within 15m of 

Pin F on the north and south sides of Old Ford Road (Figure 13). Within that radius, the 

artifacts were thinly scattered with a density averaging about one fur trade era artifact per 

28 square meters. The artifact distribution does not appear to result from trailside littering 

along the margins of Old Ford Road, and some of the distribution extends into areas of

irregular ground surface south of the road that are ill suited for camping. Nonetheless, the 

artifact profile and distribution are not inconsistent with materials found in posé loci 

farther inland along the main portage and could conceivably result from seasonal 

camping activities such as a summer rendezvous camp. Erwin Thompson’s 1969 Historic 

Base Map shows the conjectured location of fur trade era cultural resources in the lake 

unit of the GRPO and suggests the NWC’s Northmen’s campsite might fall partly within 

the 2005 Survey Area (Figure 15). Unfortunately, no period features or distinct artifact 

concentrations were revealed during the survey that might bolster the argument for 

episodic, fur trade era camping in this locale. That is not to say such evidence doesn’t 

exist. The 2005 remote-sensing scan was designed to detect the presence, nature, and 

distribution of metal artifacts, rather than subsurface features like fire pits. The exposed 

distribution of possible fur trade artifacts may also reflect a sampling bias, since the locus 

of these finds was more heavily examined than adjacent areas during the survey. In any 

case, the fieldwork and attendant documentary research suggest the entire southern part

of the survey area was considerably disturbed and contaminated by later events. 

 30
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

More commonly found in the southern parcel is nineteenth and early twentieth century 

structural debris like machine-cut and wire nails, spikes, bolts, screws, and window glass, 

and assorted household materials like woodstove and frying pan fragments, bottle glass 

and ceramic fragments, and part of a kerosene lantern. Objects of personal adornment 

included a cheap, cigar-band style, finger ring, a hairpin, and a brooch (Figure 30). Other 

observed items include fence staples, a horseshoe and ox shoe (both machine-made), 

animal shoe nails, a three-tined pitchfork, and lead, fish net sinkers. Much of this debris 

results from historic Ojibwe habitations and outbuildings pictured in early twentieth 

century photographs (e.g., Figures 8 and 11). 

The survey also uncovered two boot calks or spikes (such as used on loggers’ boots), one 

near Old Ford Road and the other north of the maintenance shop (Figure 27B). 

THE FEATURES

As already noted, parts of two abandoned roadways lie within the 2005 Survey Area. One 

is a segment of Old Ford Road east of the ford. The other is a part of Old Upper Road (or 

an extension of Speedy’s Road) now largely overlain by the present Upper Road. 

Old Ford Road cuts into the ground surface and is ramped from the creek to a point on

that road 15.4m (or about 50-feet) N50 from the creek, or about 12m N50 of the 

aforementioned Pin F (Figures 2 and 26). The bed of Old Ford Road is actually visible 

from the creek to beyond Pin G, a point 35m N50 from Pin F. The visible roadbed thus 

extends for at least 130 feet N50 from the creek to where it is obscured by dense 

vegetation very close to the west ditch of the present Upper Road. The visible segment of 

roadbed is arrow straight. 

In 1975 Alan Woolworth determined that the remains of Old Ford Road extended just 50 

feet east of the creek. Based on that observation he assumed that the NWC’s old depot 

trail intersected the main portage precisely there (Figure 6), at a location well within the 

2005 Survey Area. The present research reveals that Woolworth recognized only the 

ramped part of the road and did not see the visible continuation of that corridor farther to 

the northeast. The 2005 discovery undermines the basis for his premise that the main 

portage passed more or less directly through the maintenance shop area. 

The 2005 field survey identified a segment of the “original” or Old Upper Road (or an 

extension of Speedy’s Road) in the west ditch of the present Upper Road, east and 

northeast of the maintenance shop (Figures 4 and 9). No artifacts found within that old 

road corridor date to the fur trade era. Unlike a modern road (such as the present Upper 

Road), the old roadbed cuts into the ground surface. The depth and breadth of the incised 

road suggest considerable cash and energy expenditures in road construction and hint of 

enduring problems with rutting, drainage, and snow removal. The combined footprints of 

the old and present Upper Roads now heavily impact the most probable route of the main 

portage and Public Road south of the church hill. If any evidence of those trails or fur 

trade era use of those trails survives it is likely buried or disturbed by the robust, paved, 

corridor of the present Upper Road. 

 31
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In June 2005 archeologists conducted field investigations in selected parts of the 

maintenance shop survey area to search for evidence of historic fur trade trails and 

activities. The fieldwork involved surface reconnaissance, remote sensing, and the 

excavation of eight shovel tests. None of the tests produced fur trade era artifacts or

evidence of cultural features. Remote sensing scans and ground-truthing exposed 496 

artifacts, the vast majority of which are modern. Only 17 possible fur trade items were 

collected. No prehistoric materials were found. 

The northern part of the survey area, a heavily wooded tract north of the maintenance 

shop, was found to be basically devoid of metallic fur trade materials. The only surface 

feature noted there is a remnant of what might be called Old Upper Road, an incised 

roadbed partly within the ditch of, and partly underlying, the present Upper Road. Other 

than modern debris, no dateable materials were found in association with this old 

roadbed. Speculatively, it could be part of an early trail that followed the route of the 

main portage or the Public Road. 

The central part of the survey area is widely disturbed by various historic developments 

and uses. This parcel incorporates the maintenance shop and the former locations of 

seasonal housing trailers, along with driveways, parking areas, septic and water main 

systems, and other modern features. Parts of the creek bank in this area have been leveled 

and extended westward onto the creek floodplain. No large, fur trade era deposits are 

likely to survive in this area, though it is possible that displaced fur trade materials might 

be present, as well as some scattered pockets of in situ artifact-bearing soils. 

The southern part of the survey area holds the greatest number of artifacts and has the 

greatest potential for conducting further fur trade investigations. A thin and rather diverse 

scatter of fur trade materials found in proximity to the ford may be vestigial to British era 

camping activities. Prior archeological investigations and early photographs reveal the 

presence of numerous historic structures on this parcel. Some of the structures and 

deposits might date to the fur trade era, but most are associated with later Ojibwe houses 

and outbuildings. The most visible surface features in this area are the ford and a 130-foot 

segment of Old Ford Road. A section of the creek bank south of the ford, being undercut 

by the stream, is in need of additional stabilization. 

The 2005 Survey demonstrates the desirability for further research and discussions 

focusing on landforms and early cultural resources and events within the lakeshore unit 

of the GRPO. In some cases, the areas of interest for this work extend beyond the limits 

of the park and will require continued cooperation and interchange between the GRPO 

and the Grand Portage Ojibwe community. Other researchers have also proposed many of 

the same recommendations given here: 

1. There is obvious need for more detailed mapping and analysis of relic beach ridges and 

erosional bluffs on the terrain above Grand Portage Bay (Phillips 2003:31). More precise 

definition and dating of these natural features can explain local, Holocene, water level 

 32
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

fluctuations and help to unravel the long and complex history of human experiences and 

interactions at Grand Portage. It might also facilitate the development of predictive 

models regarding site and resource locations on local landscapes. 

2. There is further need to identify, trace, and date various fur trade era trails and roads

within the deltaic trailhead area at Grand Portage (Figure 17). This work is a logical 

extension of ongoing investigations elsewhere on the main portage. One logical goal is to 

determine the course and period of use or abandonment of early trails on the east, west, 

and north sides of the church hill. This could also involve an expanded or intensified 

search for the Phase I and II XYC fort sites. Some principal areas of interest for this 

research lie outside the boundaries of the park. Conducting meaningful surveys along 

certain trail corridors will also be challenged by the impacts of modern land use. The bed 

of Upper Road, for example, is built up and paved. That part of the main portage now

known as Speedy’s Road is also disfigured by modern road construction. 

As part of this exercise, new signage or markers should be installed to indicate the route 

of the historic main portage trail, at least in the area between the lakeshore and the foot of 

the church hill. This work might require additional testing for ground disturbance, 

particularly if the reconstructed portage trail is laid out parallel to the extant Upper Road. 

3. Another trail initiative should be to locate any extant field records, notebooks, or 

correspondence left from the surveys of James Ferguson and George Washington 

Whistler at Grand Portage in August 1822. While the level of detail on Whistler’s 

published “Grand Portage Map” is quite remarkable, the accuracy of certain 

representations on the map, including the course of the portage trail, is still open to 

question. 

4. Plans are underway to remove the NPS maintenance shop from its present high 

visibility and intrusive setting to a new location. When such is done, any efforts to restore 

landscapes at the shop and parking area should include further archeological testing and 

monitoring. 

5. The ford and the segment of Old Ford Road lying east of the creek should be brushed 

out and interpreted. On a more ambitious scale, much of the forest and brush vegetation 

within the 2005 Survey Area could be thinned or removed to recreate the open space of 

the former historic clearing near the mouth of Grand Portage Creek. 

6. There is ongoing need to stabilize the east bank of Grand Portage Creek between the 

ford and the stone bridge. Some of the eroding landscape has archeological potentials.

7. Archeological features located during the 2005 survey on the southern margins of the 

church hill should be further examined and evaluated. These include possible ancient 

Pukaskwa Pits on the ancient terrace by the cemetery, and historic building sites within 

“Area A” (Figure 22). 

 33
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

REFERENCES CITED

Armour, David A. and Keith R. Widder 

1978 At the Crossroads. Michilimackinac During the American Revolution. 

Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 

Bigsby, John J. 

1850 The Shoe and Canoe or pictures of Travel in the Canadas, Illustrative of 

Their Scenery and of Colonial Life. 2 volumes. London: Chapman and Hall. 

Birk, Douglas A. 

2005 Grand Portage National Monument. National Register of Historic Places 

Registration Form. Copy on file at the Grand Portage National Monument Office, 

Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

Buck, Solon J. 

1931 The Story of the Grand Portage. Minneapolis: Private printing. 

Campbell, Marjorie Wilkins 

1957 The North West Company. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada. 

1962 McGillivray Lord of the Northwest. Clarke, Irwin, & Company, Toronto. 

Cooper, David J. 

2004 “Of Sextants and Satellites: David Thompson and the Grand Portage GIS

Study.” Papers of the Rupert’s Land Colloquim 2004, 175-189. David G. 

Malaher, compiler. Winnipeg: The Centre for Rupert’s Land Studies at the 

University of Winnipeg. 

Coues, Elliott (editor) 

1965 The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry, Fur Trader of the 

Northwest Company, and of David Thompson, Official Geographer and Explorer 

of the same Company, 1799-1814. Two Volumes. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines. 

Delafield, Major Joseph 

1943 The Unfortified Boundary. A Diary of the first survey of the Canadian 

Boundary Line from St. Regis to the Lake of the Woods by Major Joseph 

Delafield. Robert McElroy and Thomas Riggs, editors. New York: Private 

Printing.

Denney, C.D. (editor) 

n.d. “Narrative by Donald MacKay of Gordon Bush, Sutherlandshire, 

Scotland, while a clerk for the Hudson’s Bay Company.” Hudson’s Bay Company 

Archives, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, E.223/1 

 34
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Farrell, David R. 

1983 "John Askin (Erskine)." Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 5:37-39. 

Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Gates, Charles M. (editor) 

1965 Five Fur Traders of the Northwest. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society. 

Gilman, Carolyn 

1992 The Grand Portage Story. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society 

Press. 

Hagglund, Karl 

1994 “An Archeological Survey of West Townsite Road Grand Portage, 

Minnesota.” Unpublished report. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Roads Archeology 

Program. 

Harmon, Daniel W.

1820 A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interiour [sic] of North America. 

Andover: Flagg and Gould. 

1903 A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America. New 

York: A. S. Barnes. 

1905 A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America. New 

York: Allerton Book Company. 

Heriot, George 

1971 Travels Through the Canadas Containing a Description of the Picturesque 

Scenery on Some of the Rivers and Lakes. Reprint edition. Rutland, Vermont: 

Charles E. Tuttle Company. 

Houghton, Douglass 

1840 “Douglass Houghton’s Notes on the Grand Portage, August 4-8, 1840.” 

Transcribed by Douglas A. Birk. Copy on file at the Grand Portage National 

Monument Office, Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

James, Edwin 

1956 A Narrative of the Captivity and Adventures of John Tanner During Thirty 

Years Residence Among the Indians in the Interior Parts of North America. 

Reprint. Minneapolis: Ross & Haines. 

Johnson, Elden 

1961 “Interim report on excavations at the Grand Portage National Monument, 

June 12-July 14, 1961.” Unpublished memo to Russell Fridley, Director, 

Minnesota Historical Society, dated August 16, 1961. Copy in the Grand Portage 

National Monument Archives, H2215, File No. 1. 

 35
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Lamb, W. Kaye (editor) 

1957 Sixteen Years in the Indian Country. The Journal of Daniel Williams 

Harmon, 1800-1816. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. 

1970 The Journals and Letters of Sir Alexander Mackenzie. Toronto: Macmillan 

of Canada. 

Lass, William E. 

1980 Minnesota’s Boundary With Canada. Its Evolution Since 1783. St. Paul: 

Minnesota Historical Society Press.

Long, Stephen H. 

1978 The Northern Expeditions of Stephen H. Long. The Journals of 1817 and 

1823 and Related Documents. Lucile M. Kane, June D. Holmquist, and Carolyn 

Gilman, editors. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

McDermott, John Francis 

1941 A Glossary of Mississippi Valley French, 1673-1850. Washington 

University Studies, New Series, Language and Literature, 12. St. Louis. 

Monk, Susan 

1984 “Archeological survey at Grand Portage NM.” Unpublished report, date 

November 5, 1984. National Park Service. Lincoln: Midwest Archeological 

Center. 

Morrison, Jean (editor) 

2001 Superior Rendezvous-Place: Fort William in the Canadian Fur Trade. 

Toronto: National Heritage Books. 

Noble, Vergil E. 

1989 An Archeological Survey of Development Projects Within Grand Portage 

National Monument, Cook County, Minnesota. National Park Service. Lincoln: 

Midwest Archeological Center. 

NPS 

2003 Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement Grand 

Portage National Monument—Cook County, Minnesota. United States 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

Nute, Grace Lee 

1940 A British Legal Case and Old Grand Portage. Minnesota History

21(2):117-148. 

1944 Lake Superior. The American Lakes Series. Milo M. Quaife, editor: 

Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis. 

 36
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Parker, John (editor) 

1976 The Journals of Jonathan Carver and Related Documents, 1766-1770. 

Bicentennial Edition. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press. 

Peers, Laura, and Theresa Schenck (editors) 

2002 My First Years in the Fur Trade. The Journals of 1802-1804, George 

Nelson. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

Pendergast, Russell A. 

1957 The XY Company 1798 to 1804. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of 

Ottawa. 

Peters, Bernard C. 

2003 “A Michigan Geologist Visits Grand Portage in 1840.” Inland Seas, 

Summer 2003. 

Phillips, Dr. Brian A. M. 

2003 Geomorphological and Historical Observations in the Grand Portage 

National Monument. A Report for the National Park Service, Grand Portage 

National Monument, Grand Marais, Minnesota. Unpublished report. Thunder 

Bay: Lakehead University. 

Rich, Edwin E. 

1966 Montreal and the Fur Trade. Montreal: McGill University Press. 

Schwartz, Seymour I. and Ralph E. Ehrenburg 

2001 The Mapping of America. Edison, New Jersey: Wellfleet Press. 

Smith, G. Hubert 

1961 “XYC forts at Grand Portage National Monument.” Unpublished, untitled memo 

to P. L. Beaubien, National Park Service, Region Two, dated March 22, 1961. Copy in

the Grand Portage National Monument Archives, H2215, Archeological research relating 

to NPS areas (No.1) July 1960-Dec 1962, Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

Thiessen, Thomas D. (editor) 

n.d. “David Thompson’s Notes on the Grand Portage Trail.” Unpublished, 

typewritten, transcription of Thompson’s field notes. Copy in the Grand Portage 

National Monument Archives, Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

Thompson, Erwin N. 

1969 Grand Portage. A History of the Sites, People, and Fur Trade. U. S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington: National Park Service. 

Thrower, Norman J. W.

1972 Maps & Man. An Examination of Cartography in Relation to Culture and 

Civilization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 

 37
GRPO Maintenance Area Preliminary Survey Report Birk, 2006

Wallace, W. Stewart (editor) 

1968 Documents Relating to the North West Company. Reprint edition. New 

York: Greenwood Press. 

WHC 

1855-1931 Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 31 Vols. 

Madison. 

White, Bruce M. 

1977 The Fur Trade in Minnesota. An Introductory Guide to Manuscript 

Sources. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society. 

Woolworth, Alan R. 

1993 “An Historical Study of the Grand Portage. Grand Portage National 

Monument, Minnesota.” Unpublished, typewritten report prepared for the 

Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. 

Woolworth, Alan R. (compiler) 

1962 “Archeological Test Excavations At Grand Portage National Monument, 

June-September, 1961.” Unpublished report compiled from the notes of Dr. Elden 

Johnson. Copy in the Grand Portage National Monument Archives, H2215, File 

No. 1. 

Woolworth, Alan R. and Loren C. Johnson 

1963 “Summary Statement Concerning the Grand Portage Archeological 

Project, 1963.” Unpublished, typewritten report prepared for the National Park 

Service. Copy in the Grand Portage National Monument Archives, H2215, 

Archeological Research Relating to National Park Service Areas (No. 2), Grand 

Marais, Minnesota. 

Woolworth, Alan R. and Nancy L. Woolworth 

1982 “Grand Portage National Monument. An Historical Overview and An 

Inventory of Its Cultural Resources.” Two Volumes. Unpublished, typewritten 

report prepared for the National Park Service. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical 

Society. 

Woolworth, Nancy L. 

1965 The Grand Portage Mission: 1731-1965. Minnesota History, 39(8):301-

310. 

1975 Grand Portage in the Revolutionary War. Minnesota History, 44(6):198-

208. 

 38
Figure 1. Map showing the 2005 Survey Area within the lakefront unit of the Grand 

Portage National Monument. The survey area lies between the floodplain of Grand 

Portage Creek and a segment of Upper Road. Approximate scale: One inch = 250 

yards. (Adapted from: Grand Portage, Minn. 1959, Photo-revised 1976, USGS 

Quadrangle, 7.5 min.). 
UPPER ROAD: Paved

UPPER ROAD: Paved

Ditch

Ditch

10

METERS

0

Birk-Cooper-Swift Jun 2005

MAG

N

Trail

Septic 

System

Rip Rap

Rift

Stone Bridge

Elec. Pole

Pin H

Pin 6

Pin 5

Pin 3

Pin 2

Pin 1

Pin 4

OLD FORD ROAD

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

ENTRANCE 

 ROAD

LOW

GRA

ND

PORTA

GE

CREEK

 NPS

MAINTENANCE

 AREA

Fill

DISTURBED

DISTURBED

DISTURBED

Figure 2. Map showing the central and southern parts of the 2005 Survey Area. The 2005 survey 

here focused on examining archeological potentials on the south and west margins of the 

Maintenance Shop clearing in upland areas around the old ford and Old Ford Road. The areas of 

the 1920s residential structures and the 1961 tests were avoided.

Area tested by Elden Johnson in 1961

Area of 1920s 

 residential 

 structures

Pin G

Pin F

Hydrant

ST6

ST8

ST7

FORD
Figure 3. This north view shows the old ford crossing on Grand Portage Creek about 120-

feet upstream from the Stone Bridge. The ford intersects the creek at a right angle. NPS 

volunteers, Carolyn Howard and Collin Swift are excavating Shovel Test 8 (ST8) in the 

bed of the Old Ford Road on the creek’s east bank. (Digital photo by the author, 6 June 

2005). 
GRAND PORTAGE CREEK

NPS Grand Portage Trail

Toe of Slope

Unidentified 

Depression w/Berm

West Townsite ("Speedy's") Road: Unpaved

 One-inch Pipe Set at 

S 1/16 Corner of Section 4,

 9.9m S of Foot Bridge

A

B

C

D

E

Culvert

Ditch

Ditch

Trail

Trail

NPS Foot Bridge

UPPER ROAD: Paved

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

Maintenance

 Shop

BASELINE

BASELINE

N185

N145/ 27.6m

Pt. A is 25.1m E

 of Foot Bridge

N200

0/0

10m

25m

50m

Shoulder of 

Road

NPS Parking Area

Old Upper Road Bed/ Ditch

Shoulder of Road

10

METERS

0 20 Birk-Cooper-Swift Jun 2005

(Approximated)

MAG

N

Figure 4. Map showing the northern part of the 2005 Survey Area. The 2005 remote sensing and shovel test survey on this parcel was 

conducted on the upper terrace along and on either side of the baseline extending from Pin B southward to Pin E. 

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

ST5

Disturbed

Disturbed
Figure 5. This north view shows the parking lot and buildings at the NPS Maintenance 

Shop complex. The densely wooded area to the left (west) of the buildings is the 

floodplain of Grand Portage Creek. Visible through the trees to the right (east) of the 

buildings is the raised and paved surface of Upper Road. Modern earthmoving and landuse activities have considerably disturbed the areas of the road, the buildings, and the 

parking lot. (Digital photo by the author, 29 October 2005). 
Figure 6. This portion of a 1979 Cultural Resource Management Base Map of the GRPO 

shows a possible route of the Grand Portage through the NPS Maintenance Area. At the 

time this map was made that area was occupied by mobile homes used for NPS seasonal 

housing (Adapted from: Hamilton, Graham, and Norris 2005: Figure 12).
Figure 7. This northwest view shows hydrant replacement work in the parking lot 

clearing south of the Maintenance Shop in October 2004. The backhoe excavations, 

monitored by NPS management staff, uncovered a mix of apparent late-nineteenth 

century household debris in previously disturbed soil contexts. Among the observed 

materials were pieces of spiral-fractured, mammalian bone, machine-cut and wire nails, 

stoneware crockery (including some RED WING), transfer-print ceramics, brown bottle 

glass, and other materials. (Digital photo by the author, 20 October 2004). 
Figure 8. This early 1920s view looking eastwards from Mount Rose shows roads, pathways, and structures in th

2005 Survey Area. The “Original Upper Road” could overlie the historic Grand Portage/Public Road, just as Old the other paths might be part of the historic depot trail (Photo courtesy: Minnesota Historical Society). 
Figure 9. This portion of a 1940 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers map of Grand Portage 

focuses on the area between the creek and the present Upper Road. A segment of the 

“original” or Old Upper Road is visible today in the west ditch of Upper Road south of 

Speedy’s Road. (Adapted from: Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, II: Map 8). 
Figure 10. The northern part of the 2005 Survey Area is a narrow tract covered by a 

dense stand of conifer trees. This south view shows NPS volunteer Collin Swift 

excavating Shovel Test 2 on the N185 sector of the north baseline (Digital photo by the 

author, 3 June 2005). 
Figure 11. This early 1920s view looking east from Mount Rose shows some former and extant roadways and co

in relation to terrain features in the southern part of the 2005 Survey Area. (Photo courtesy: Minnesota Historical 
Figure 12. This east view shows a collapsing section of stream bank, recently riprapped, 

just below the old ford on the east side of Grand Portage Creek (Digital photo by the 

author, 6 June 2005). 
UPPER ROAD: Paved

UPPER ROAD: Paved

Ditch

Ditch

10

METERS

0

Birk-Cooper-Swift Jun 2005

MAG

N

Trail

Septic 

System

Rip Rap

Rift

Stone Bridge

Elec. Pole

Pin H

Pin 6

Pin 5

Pin 3

Pin 2

Pin 1

Pin 4

OLD FORD ROAD

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

DRIVE

LOW

GRA

ND

PORTA

GE

CREEK

 NPS

MAINTENANCE

 AREA

Fill

MOWED

& MOWED

WOODED

WOODED

WOODED

MOWED

MOWED

Figure 13. Map showing the area tested in 1961, the area of some 1920 residential structures, and 

the general distribution of possible fur trade era artifacts found in 2005 within 15-meters of Pin F

on the upland terrain north and south of Old Ford Road. 

Area tested by Elden Johnson in 1961

Area of 1920s 

 residential 

 structures

Pin G

Pin F

Hydrant

FORD

15-Meter Radius From Pin F

Wrought nails (7)

Kettle metal scraps (4)

Kettle metal grater (1)

Kettle bail fragment (1)

Serpent sideplate (1)

Cast buckle (1)

Button (1)

Wrought nails (2)

Wrought spike (1)

Two-tined fork (1)

Cassette lock ? (1)

Gunflint (1)

Button (1)
GRAND PORTAGE CR

NPS Grand Portage Trail

Toe of Slope

D

West Townsite ("Speedy's") Road: Unpaved

 One-inch Pipe Set at 

S 1/16 Corner of Section 4,

 9.9m S of Foot Bridge

Culvert

Ditch

Ditch

Trail

Trail

NPS Foot Bridge

UPPER ROAD: Paved

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

FLOOD PLAIN

Maintenance

 Shop

Shoulder of 

Road

NPS Parking Area

Old Upper Road Bed/ Ditch

Shoulder of Road

10

METERS

0 20 Birk-Cooper-Swift Jun 2005

(Approximated)

MAG

N

Figure 14. Map showing the approximate location of the proposed alternate road corridors surveyed by NPS Archeologist Susan 

Monk in November 1984 (Corridor locations adapted from: Monk 1984: Appended Map). 

Disturbed

MONK: Road Alternate 2

MONK: Road Alternate 3
Figure 15. An enlarged portion of historian Erwin Thompson’s 1969 Historic Base Map of Grand Portage sh

location of the Northmen’s camp (circled area number 4), Boucher’s Fort (circled area number 8), the propo(circled area number 2), and the XYC forts (circled areas 5, 9, and 10) as well as the NWC Depot (site 1) (AThompson 1969: Map 5). 
Figure 16. This map shows the area at the east trailhead of the Grand Portage. The 

historic trail runs southward and downhill from a gap in the high rock ridges to land on

the bay just east of the creek. The deltaic trailhead contains the principal pathways that 

converged on the main portage during the fur trade era. The core settlement area might 

have spread for up to a half-mile along the lakefront. Trails originating at various 

competing facilities there likely intersected the main portage somewhere below the 720-

foot contour, the locale of the first posé (resting place) on the portage, about one halfmile inland from the bay. (Adapted from: Grand Portage, Minn. 1959, Photo-revised 

1976, USGS Quadrangle, 7.5 min.). 
Figure 17. Map showing a hypothetical arrangement of fur trade sites and features at 

the east trailhead of the Grand Portage during the period of NWC-XYC competition.

Some of the sites shown here have not been found, and their exact locations remain 

unknown. The XYC built a second fort in the area of the log-school ridge or church 

hill in 1803 (Adapted from: Grand Portage, Minn. 1959, Photo-revised 1976, USGS 

Quadrangle, 7.5 min.). 
Figure 18. In 1767 the British explorer, Jonathan Carver, surveyed Grand Portage Bay 

and judged it to be “nearly square” in outline. This map shows a possible arrangement of 

the four survey traverses Carver recorded within the bay. 

Carver was among the first to document the “landing” of the Grand Portage “at the 

bottom of the bay,” somewhere near Grand Portage Creek. He and his party had just 

traveled by canoe up the North Shore from the west end of Lake Superior. They arrived 

at Raspberry Point on the southeast corner of the bay on 19 July. The party entered the 

bay the following day. They may have gone northwest along the shore of the bay before 

turning northeast to reach the portage landing (Traverses 1 and 2). At the portage they 

found a summer camp of Ojibwe, Cree, and Assiniboine. At the portage landing Carver 

presumably took his last two traverses: Traverse 3 looking east-northeastward along the 

shore towards either the highest (1120-foot) segment of Hat Point ridge or nearby Mount 

Josephine, and Traverse 4 looking east-southeast to the end of Hat Point (Adapted from: 

Grand Portage, Minn. 1959, Photo-revised 1976, USGS Quadrangle, 7.5 min.). 
TRAVERSES:

A = S50E 3.25'

B = S25E 3'

C = S3E 4'

D = S65E 2/3'

E = S25E 1.75'

F = S36E 1.75'

G = S45E 1.75'

H = Due S 1'

 I = S35E 2.5'

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

GRAND PORTAGE CREEK

Here close to brook

Winding

Ascend & descend

Smooth rocks, winding

Sight the lake

Rill

GRAND PORTAGE BAY

MOUNT ROSE

PORTAGE

N

Birk 2006

Figure 19. Map showing the course followed by David Thompson when surveying the Grand Portage from 

the Pigeon River to Lake Superior on 3 September1824. Traverse H and part of Traverse I probably 

underlie today's Upper Road south of what is now the church hill. Traverses A through G generally define 

the course of what is now West Townsite ("Speedy's) Road.

CHURCH

 HILL
"Original Foot Trail used in 1731" 

to portage between Grand Portage 

Bay and the Pigeon River.

Figure 20. This map shows some features of the Grand Portage Settlement as they were in 1941. 

The heavy dashed line traces the early eighteenth century route of the Grand Portage pedestrian 

trail as interpreted from documentary sources by archaeologist Alan Woolworth (Adapted from: 

Woolworth and Woolworth 1982, II: Map 10).

Stone 

Bridge

Church

Upper Road

N
GRAND PORTAGE CREEK

GRAND PORTAGE BAY

CHURCH

 HILL

MOUNT ROSE

PORTAGE

PORTAGE

N

NWC Depot

Ford?

Figure 21. Map showing the possible course followed by surveyor David Thompson when measuring the 

length of the Grand Portage from the west gate of the NWC Depot to the Pigeon River on 16 June 1798. Birk 2006
Figure 22. A circa 1940 view northeast from Mount Rose showing various roads, trails, and paths, the recently la

ridge (top right), the forested northern part of the 2005 Survey Area between Upper Road and the creek (lower ri

(upper left), and the ancient terrace and “Area A” on the flanks of the church hill. (Photo courtesy: Minnesota Hi
igure 23. Douglass Houghton’s1840 map (top) and map detail (bottom) of Grand 

ack

from the bay. (Courtesy the Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University). 

F

Portage Bay showing the site of American Fur Company (AMC) operations at the 

trailhead east of Grand Portage Creek and the remains an old fort farther east and b
Figure 24. Portrait of George Washington Whistler (Courtesy the Freer 

Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution) 
LAKE SUPERIOR

Old NWC

 Depot 

CREEK

PORTAGE

HILL

N

Figure 25. Part of Whistler's 1820s map overwritten with text showing selected features near 

Grand Portage Bay. The Grand Portage, used for pedestrian and cart traffic, appears to ascend 

from the shore to higher ground on the approximate course of today's Upper Road on the east 

side of the church hill. The remains of the NWC Depot are outlined near Grand Portage Creek. 

A projecting line at the head of the portage vaguely suggests the presence of a wharf or dock.

GENTLE SLOPE

LOG-SCHOOL RIDGE

MOUNT ROSE
Figure 26. This southwest view shows NPS volunteers, Collin Swift and Linda Larson, 

exposing metal artifacts detected in the incised and ramped roadbed of the Old Ford Road 

on the east side of Grand Portage Creek (Digital photo by the author, 6 June 2005). 
 A B

 C D 

 E

Figure 27. Miscellaneous metal artifacts recovered during the 2005 Survey. (A) Thimble 

fragment and (B) Boot calk found near the N200 baseline north of the Maintenance 

Shop. (C) Serpent side plate fragment found north of Old Ford Road. (D) Two-tined, 

dining fork and (E) Robust, hand-wrought spike found south of Old Ford Road. NO 

SCALE. (Digital photographs by the author) 
Front 

Back 

Figure 28. Two views of a grater handmade from cupreous sheet metal (possible reused kettle 

metal) recovered during the 2005 Survey. This object was found north of Old Ford Road, 5.4m

N207 from Pin H on 8 June 2005. NO SCALE. (Digital photographs by the author). 
Front 

Back 

Figure 29. Two views of a small trunk or cassette lock recovered during the 2005 Survey. 

The lock has a cupreous casing and a ferrous metal spring. Found south of Old Ford 

Road, 3.8m N139 from Pin F on 9 June 2005. NO SCALE. (Digital photographs by the 

author). 
Front 

Back 

Figure 30. Two views of a rectangular brooch (cupreous with faceted glass inset) 

recovered during the 2005 Survey, south of Old Ford Road, 7.6m N110 from Pin F on 9 

June 2005. NO SCALE. (Digital photographs by the author). 
APPENDIX A. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, June 2005

Record of Mapping Points

From To Bearing Distance 

(Meters)

 Starting point is a 1" pipe set at S-1/16 Corner of Section 4, T63N-R6E, on GRPO boundary

1" Pipe South edge of NPS footbridge over Grand Portage Creek Due N 9.9

1" Pipe Center of NPS footbridge over Grand Portage Creek Due N 10.65

Center of 

Bridge West end of footbridge Due W 6.6

W end of 

Bridge Center of present NPS Grand Portage Trail N262 17.5

Center of 

Bridge West bank of Grand Portage Creek Due E 3.4

Center of 

Bridge East bank of Grand Portage Creek Due E 8.4

Center of 

Bridge East end of footbridge Due E 11.2

E end of 

Bridge Pin A, a turning point at top of ridge, N of trail Due E 25.1

Pin A Pin B, a spike set at the north end of the N185 baseline sector N145 27.6

Pin B Center of Upper Road at intersection w/ West Townsite Road N116 19.3

Pin B Pin C, a spike set 10m down the N185 baseline sector N185 10

Pin C Pin D, a spike set 25m down the N185 baseline sector at the head 

of the N200 baseline sector, 10cm W of a small rock N185 15

Pin D Pin E, a spike set at the south end the N200 baseline sector N200 25

Pin E NE corner of NPS Maintenance Shop N223 8.3

 Starting point is Pin F a spike set on the S edge of Old Ford Road 3.4m from the E edge of creek

Pin F Pin 1, a temporary pin on the N50 line on Old Ford Road N50 10

Pin F Pin 2, a temporary pin on the N50 line on Old Ford Road N50 20.5

Pin F Pin 3, a temporary pin on the N50 line on Old Ford Road N50 30

Pin F Pin G, a spike set on N50 line at center of Old Ford Road N50 35

Pin 1 Pin H, a spike set in wooded area north of Old Ford Road N304 9

Pin 2 Pin 4, a temporary pin set on ridge south of Old Ford Road N196 18.1

Pin 3 Pin 5, a temporary pin set 1m Due W of an NPS hydrant N4 15.1

Pin 5 Pin 6, a temporary pin set near floodplain of creek N95 32

Pin 5 NPS septic standpipe N105 12.7

Pin 5 NPS septic standpipe N41 19.4

Pin 5 NPS septic standpipe N40 18.3

Pin 5 Shovel Test 6 (ST6) N99 18.5

Pin 5 Shovel Test 7 (ST7) N67 16.6

Pin F Shovel Test 8 (ST8) Due N 1

Appendix A
Appendix B. Northern Part Maintenance Area Survey Artifact List, June 2005

Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N185 June 

Distance down N185 

line from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N185 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

9.6 0.7E 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Lid, can, snuff, COPENHAGEN9.7 0.45W 11 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.

9.9 1.55W 10 N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, fragment, brown glass9.9 1.55W 10 N 1 Metal Various Lid, rouge compact, cupreous w/ ferrous liner, stam

THE GEORGE W. LUFT CO. NEW YORK MADE 

10 N270 3 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, pc.10 N284 5.8 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 2.5"10 N284 6.4 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Lid, jar, fragment

11.6 3.3W 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.5"

11.8 0.2E 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

12 N61 3.2 15 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped12 N69 4.3 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Lid, can (soda pop?)12 N74 3.3 18 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nut, large

12 N83 4 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped, HAMM'S BEER12 N83 4 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Bottle, beer, brown glass

12 N88 4 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, cone-top, beverage (beer?), very rusted12 N88 1.9 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

12 N103 2.5 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

12 N103 1.7 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Bolt, hex head12 N103 4 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, cylindrical (old Thermos bottle jacket?) 10cm 

12 N130 4.5 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, barbed, pc.

12 N123 3.8 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N185 June 

Distance down N185 

line from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N185 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

12 N133 3.3 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Rod, shelf bracket, modern, 52cm long

12.65 0.9E 10 N 1 Metal Various Can, soda or beer, ferrous w/aluminum top, flattene

12.9 4.8W 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

12.9 N281 6.1 2 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nut, hex, large

12.9 N278 6.6 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

12.9 N272 6.5 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped, pierced by 2.75" wire nail

12.9 N272 6 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 4.5"

12.9 N266 3.8 ? N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

12.9 N266 4.5 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

12.9 N266 5.7 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5", bent

13 0.1E Surface N 1 Metal Various Can, ferrous w/aluminum top, w/attached pop-top o

14.1 0.1W Surface N 1 Various Jar, baby food, clear glass w/ ferrous lid & bottom 

14.9 0.1E Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, brown glass

15 0.4W 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped16 N292 2.7 14

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Tong, wrought, one side of a "pair of tongs," black

16 N292 2.7 16 N 1 Metal Ferrous Kettle, bowl, cast iron, fragment

16 N292 2.7 16

Y 1 Metal Various Lantern, lid (ferrous w/ cupreous hinge) DIE-- [DIE

16 N324 2.3 5 N 2 Metal Ferrous Caps, bottle, crimped

16 N324 3.5 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3"

16 N311 3.5 15 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, fragment

16 N311 3.9 Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, brown glass16 N302 4.4 8 N 1 Metal Cupreous Shell, shotgun, w/ headstamp: PETERS TARGET 16 N292 3.8 15 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment16 N288 4.9 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cast iron, pc., unidentified

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N185 June 

Distance down N185 

line from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N185 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

16 N281 4.6 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"16 N281 5.5 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Pin, hair, ladies', modern, pc.

16 N270 3.1 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Oil filter (?), w/ perforated inner liner, very rusted

16 N264 4.3 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"16 N334 0.7 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Washer, 3cm O.D.

16 N254 1.4 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

16 N254 4 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.25", bent16 N248 3.3 13 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.

16 N25-- 5.2 10 N 1 Metal Coin, Canadian, 10-cent piece, 1921

16 N220 3 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, 1.25", bent

16 N220 3.9 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 1-5/8", bent16 N198 3.5 16 N 1 Metal Ferrous Knife, blade, fragment

16 0.2E 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 2"

18.4 0.4W 3 N 1 Metal Coin, Canadian, 1-cent piece, Maple Leaf-motif, da

18.6 0.1W 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

19 N36 2.3 18 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, panel edge fragment, cast iron (20cm 19 N49 2.7 Surface N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pack, KOOL-AID JAMMERS19 N62 4 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Tubing, pc.19 N62 4.5 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc.19 N86 2.8 Surface N 1 Various Bottle, beer, brown glass, neck fragment w/ foil col19 N94 3.1 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

19 N123 2.9 3 N 1 Various Hard hat, head strap liner, fragment, plastic w/ met

19 N127 1.6 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.25"19 N138 1.6 4 N 3 Metal Ferrous Nails, wire, 2.25"

 ** East (E) and West (W) distances are at right angles to the "baseline." 

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N200, June 

Distance down 

N185/N200 Baseline 

from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N200 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

30 N96 1.6 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped, raised concentric circles on to30 N96 2.5 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, end, with lapped outer edge30 N122 2.7 3 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, cap, bottle, fragment30 N122 2.7 3 N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, fragment, brown glass30 N142 3 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, machine-cut, 5.3"30 N156 2 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment30 N162 2.8 2 N 1 Metal Aluminum Pop-top, can, opener30 N174 3.9 Surface N 1 Metal Aluminum Can, COCA-COLA30 N187 2.8 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2"30 N187 3 Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, brown glass30 N192 3.5 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Pc., unidentified30 N272 3.4 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

30 N256 3.6 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, bent

30 N250 4.1 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Bolt, hex-head, 2-3/4" long30 N248 4.6 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Strap w/ rounded ends & attachment holes (2.5 cm 

30 N248 5.4 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, "tin" (filled with congealed oil?)

30 N243 3.9 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fragment30 N240 4.5 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

32.1 0 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Strap or possible knife tang fragment (w/ possible r

32.2 0.5W 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 2.5"

32.4 0.8W 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment32.5 N74 3.6 Surface N 1 Clay Ceramic Chimney flue (square, orange, ceramic pipe), fragm

32.5 N74 3.6 Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, fragment, brown glass32.5 N82 5.2 Surface N 1 Metal Various Can, ferrous w/aluminum top, COCA COLA

32.5 N84 6 Surface N 1 Metal Various Can, ferrous w/aluminum top, SPRITE

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N200, June 

Distance down 

N185/N200 Baseline 

from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N200 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

32.5 N84 6.5 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet, scrap

32.5 N93 6.7 Surface N 1 Various Bottle, clear glass w/ lid STARBUCKS COFFEE F32.5 N97 6.5 7 N 1 Metal Aluminum Lid, beverage can, pop-top type32.5 N112 4.9 8 N 1 Various Bottle, beer, brown glass, w/ foil collar at neck32.5 N112 7.3 4 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, collar or ring, (part of the twist off cap assemb32.5 N118 5.2 Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, brown glass33.3 0.1W 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment34.9 0.1E 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2"

35.1 0.6W 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

35.6 0 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

36 N355 2.2 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2-5/8"36 N333 2.9 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.25", bent

36 N316 3.6 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, fragment w/ eyelet on one end

36 N300 2.6 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 1.25"36 N293 2.3 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

36 N281 2.6 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

36 N267 3.7 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, "tin," flattened36 N262 3.5 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, fragment

36 N277 2.1 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, unidentified

36 N131 1.1 20 N 1 Metal Ferrous Chisel, wrought, w/ dull edge & blunted butt

36 N147 1 Surface N 1 Glass Bottle, beer, brown glass36 N240 1.3 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.5"36 N251 2.5 5 N 1 Metal Cupreous Washer, 0.5" O.D. (rivet washer?)36 N251 3.6 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet, scrap

36 N257 4.1 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 1.5"

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N200, June 

Distance down 

N185/N200 Baseline 

from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N200 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

36 N248 4.5 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, fragment36 N242 4.4 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, fragment

36 N242 4.8 7 N 1 Various Barrett, hair, girl's, owl figure, plastic w/ metal clas36 N240 3.9 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N236 5 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, braided, pc., about 70cm long

36 N235 4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Can, "tin," flattened36 N235 3.2 8

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Logger's boot spike, ridged & tapered shank 

36 N235 3.5 3 N 1 Metal Cupreous Thimble, finger, fragment w/ dimpled exterior

36 N229 4.1 5 N 1 Metal Various Button, crown, plain face (cupreous) w/ ferrous line

36 N223 3.4 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N219 4.2 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 1.25"36 N216 3 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

36 N211 3.4 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, wire, 4.75"

36 N210 4.2 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, unidentified36 N155 3.1 5

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Disk, rusted, unidentified (US 5-cent pc.size)

36 N56 1.9 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N92 2.5 19 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N92 5.8 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

36 N95 4.6 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"36 N95 7 Surface N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pack, HEINZ KETCHUP

36 N97 5.5 3 N 1 Metal Cupreous Wire, looped, pc.

36 N99 7 2 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pack, shredded

36 N100 4.8 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Opener, can & bottle, stamped: FITGERS36 N114 4.4 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N116 5.6 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, unidentified

Appendix B
Artifacts recorded on ridge N of NPS Maintenance Shop & E of Grand Portage Creek along baseline sector N200, June 

Distance down 

N185/N200 Baseline 

from Pin B (m)

Distance E or W of 

N200 Baseline (m)**

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

36 N127 4.8 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, chromed trim (automobile?), w/ H intaglio 36 N127 6.7 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire (?), extremely rusted

36 N132 6.1 8 N 1 Metal Aluminum Cap, bottle, screw-top, PETRI WINE

36 N132 6.1 8 N 2 Glass Bottle, clear glass, fragments36 N137 4.9 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 4"

36 N141 3.7 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3"

36 N141 3.7 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large36 N148 2.6 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 1.25"

36 N148 4.5 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N148 5 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36 N150 5.4 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

36 N139 7.7 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, bent

36.4 0.4E 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment36.7 0.1W 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, fragment

37.2 0.1E 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

Appendix B
Appendix C. Southern Part Maintenance Area Survey Artifact List, June 2005

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin F, a spike set on S edge of Old Ford Road 3.4m E of Grand Portage Creek, June 2

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N193 1 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 1-5/8"

N141 0.7 2 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

N160 1.6 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

N160 2.1 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, machine-cut, fragment

N168 2.4 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.5"

N135 1.4 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3"

N337 0.4 15 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nut, wing-style, large

N293 1.4 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Rod, curved, fragment (shank of machine-cut spike?)

N292 2.3 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3", bent

N316 3.2 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N82 0.8 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

N70 1.6 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3"

N341 2.5 2 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.5"

N13 2.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, heavy (robust), pc., 36cm long

N17 2.5 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3.25"

N17 2.5 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2"

N24 2.8 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, animal shoe, fragment

N57 2.9 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 1.5"

N41 2.8 5 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.

N30 3.1 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Rod, curved, fragment w/ eye-like loop on one end (old nail 

N28 4 6 N 1 Metal Aluminum Pop-top opener, pop or beer can type

N28 4.7 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought (?), fragment, rusted & twisted

N43 3.7 Surface N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.

Appendix C
Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin F, a spike set on S edge of Old Ford Road 3.4m E of Grand Portage Creek, June 2

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N32 5.1 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.25"

N12 4.7 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc., bent, about 25cm long

N19 5.2 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3"

N46 4.7 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2"

N59 4.3 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Logger's boot spike, ridged & tapered shank, 1.9cm long 

N59 4.6 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scissors, pair, fragment (missing both handles as well as bla

N43 5.8 10 N 1 Metal Lead Foil, pc., folded twice (four-fold), about 1.7cm long

N43 5.9 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N36 6.6 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Rivet (?), bulbous head & rounded shank, 1" long

N30 6.6 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, pc.

N30 7.1 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal, pc., 3cm x 5.5cm x 0.2cm thick

N62 6.6 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N333 3.5 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wheel, sheet metal, w/ cogged outer edge & a central hole f

1.75" O.D. (The gear of an inexpensive egg beater?)

N169 3.5 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N169 4.2 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment (?)

N74 4.2 11

Y 1 Metal Cupreous? Button, flat w/ soldered eye

N160 3 10 N 5 Metal Ferrous Nails (machine cut: four 1.5" to 2"; wire: one 2.5")

N149 3 15 N 8 Metal Ferrous Nails (machine cut: one 4", one 3.5", & five fragments; wir

N143 4.6 13 N 11 Metal Ferrous Nails, machine cut (four 2.5", two 3", and five 3.25")

N139 3.3 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N139 3.8 6

Y 1 Metal Various Lock, cassette or box (?), cupreous w/ ferrous spring

N136 3.6 14 N 3 Metal Ferrous Nails, machine cut (two 2", one fragment)

N133 2.9 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N133 4.1 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3.5"

Appendix C
Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin F, a spike set on S edge of Old Ford Road 3.4m E of Grand Portage Creek, June 2

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N126 4.6 2 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

N122 3.2 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, top panel fragment w/ part of circular lid openi

N98 1.8 9 N 1 Metal Cupreous Cartridge, w/ headstamp: PETERS .38-55

N106 2.3 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3"

N117 5.9 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Strap, 4.5 cm wide x 50 cm long (barrel hoop fragment?)

N114 4.4 10 N 3 Metal Ferrous Nails, wire, 1.5"

N114 5.9 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3.25"

N105 3.7 14 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal, pc.

N105 3.7 14 N 3 Metal Ferrous Nails (machine cut: one 2.5", one 2-7/8"; wire: one 1.25")

N105 3.7 14 N 1 Glass Flat glass (window), small sliverN105 3.7 14

Y 1 Metal Various Whistle, toy (?)

N105 5.1 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

N103 4.4 21 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, panel fragment (?), cast iron

N90 3.2 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.5"

N90 3.2 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, bridge (?), 5.75" w/ square cross-section & chisel poi

N90 3.7 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3"

N87? 2 13 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails, machine cut (one 1.5"; wire: one 3.25")

N84 3.8 10 N 3 Metal Ferrous Frying pan, fragments, cast iron (one w/ handle part)

N84 3.8 21 N 1 Metal Ferrous Ox shoe, machine made, w/ narrow tread pierced by 5 nail h

N84 5.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Frying pan, fragment, cast iron (matches pan fragments liste

N84 5.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Frying pan, fragment, cast iron (matches pan fragments liste

N80 4.3 12 N 1 Various Knife, pocket, w/ plastic grips (modern)N79 5.7 10 N 1 Metal Aluminum Cap, bottle, pull tab top, BIG MOUTHN77 5.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2"

N77 6.2 17 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails, machine-cut, fragments

Appendix C
Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin F, a spike set on S edge of Old Ford Road 3.4m E of Grand Portage Creek, June 2

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N108 6.4 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Bolt, threaded, 4.25" long, 5/8" diam, w/ crude or worn diam

N110 7.3 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N110 7.6 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N110 7.6 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal, pc.

N110 7.6 11 N 1 Glass Flat glass (window), pc.N110 7.6 11

Y 1 Various Brooch, cupreous buckle frame & screen, w/ violet glass ins

N121 8.2 7

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Fork, dining, two-tine

N87 6.3 17 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N87 6.3 17 N 2 Metal Ferrous Strap, pcs., 3.5 cm wide (barrel hoop fragments? w/ rivets)

N96 7.5 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 1.5"

N98 6.9 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N98 6.9 8 N 1 Ceramic Whiteware, sherdlet

N98 7.9 16 N 1 Glass Flat glass (window), pc.N98 7.9 16 N 1 Metal Ferrous Strap, pc., 2.6 cm wide (barrel hoop fragment?)

N98 7.9 16

Y 1 Stone Flint Gunflint, British, heavily used fragment

N111 7 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N111 7.7 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N111 8.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N116 7.4 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

Appendix C
Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin 1, a temporary pin set on Old Ford Road 10m N50 from Pin F, June 2005:

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N220 3.3 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N222 3.2 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N283 2.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, unidentified

N281 3.2 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc.

N238 1.9 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3"

N238 2.9 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, panel fragment, cast iron

N224 2.3 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Sheet, scrap, unidentified

N248 2.9 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc.

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin H, a spike set 9m N304 from Pin 1, June 2005:

N118 1.4 3 N 1 Metal Cupreous Kettle metal, scrap

N321 1.5 14

Y 1 Metal Cupreous Buckle or cinch (?), cast, handmade (like a chain link in app

N321 1.9 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc.

N312 2.6 11

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, rosehead, about 1-3/8" long, good condition

N148 2.9 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.25", clinched

N148 2.9 16 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 4"

N151 3.3 9 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails (machine cut: one 1"; wire: one 2")

N142 4.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Bolt, square head

N138 4.1 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N138 4.7 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

N129 5.3 7 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails, wire (one 2-1/8", one 2.25")

N107 4 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Head of a key or latch (?), stamped from sheet metal

N112 4.9 2 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, wire, 4"

N112 5.9 13 N 2 Metal Lead Sinkers, fish net, ovoid cylindrical (2.5 to 2.7cm long)

N110 5.4 15 N 1 Metal Cupreous Kettle metal, scrap

Appendix C
Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin H, a spike set 9m N304 from Pin 1, June 2005 (cont'd):

Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N272 0.8 11

Y 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, rosehead, about 4.25" long, good condition

N93 0.6 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2.5"

N6 2.3 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc., w/ pigtail twist on one end

N353 2.2 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

N342 2.4 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc.

N340 2.3 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 3"

N12 1.2 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 2.5"

N57 1.6 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N57 2.6 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Pin, hair, ladies', 3.25" long, modern

N57 3.3 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, rosehead, about 4.5" long, twisted

N58 2.2 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 2.75"

N68 1.7 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 2"

N82 5.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, panel fragment (?), cast iron

N82 2.8 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N74 4 2 N 1 Metal Cupreous Ring, finger, cigar-band style, stamped, w/ traces of gilding 

N74 6.4 9 N 3 Metal Ferrous Container, sheet metal w/ rolled rim, pcs., rusted, unidentifie

N68 6.6 10 N 4 Metal Ferrous Container, sheet metal w/ rolled rim, pcs., unidentified (sam

N74 4.6 9 N 12 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal pcs., unidentified (same as above?)

N76 6.2 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Horseshoe, machine made

N68 7.3 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

N69 5.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 1.5"

N51 5.9 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N51 3.7 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Fishhook, 2.25" long w/ looped eye

N48 3.1 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, rosehead, about 3.25" long, bent

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin H, a spike set 9m N304 from Pin 1, June 2005 (cont'd):

Appendix C
Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N48 3.5 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3"

N48 3.6 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, finishing, 2.5"

N40 3.2 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Scrap, cast iron, rounded edge, small

N40 3.6 3 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, pc., 6cm long

N35 5 6 N 1 Metal Cupreous Cartridge, w/ headstamp: PETERS .32 W.S. [Winchester Sp

N133 2 8 Y 1 Metal Button, spun back, eye/shank missing

N292 2.2 18 N 1 Metal Cupreous Kettle metal, scrap

N292 2.9 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N268 1.6 20 N 1 Metal Cupreous Kettle metal, scrap, triangular w/ sheared edges

N268 2.1 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N269 3.2 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N269 3.3 12 Y 1 Metal Ferrous Bail (?), kettle, wrought, fragment w/ open loop on one end

N232 3.8 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, animal shoe, machine made, bent

N232 5.6 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Pitchfork, three tine, broken, lacks handle, attached rivets

N220 2.2 8 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails (machine cut: one fragment; wire: one 1.75")

N220 4.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Pin, hair, ladies', 2.5" long, modern

N218 5 6 N 1 Metal Various Tube, ferrous, 37.3 cm long x 0.5 cm O.D. w/ short cupreou

N210 2.6 5 Y 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, chisel point

N210 6.8 Surface N 1 Various Bottle, flask-type, clear glass, w/ threaded cap, modernN207 5.4 7 Y 1 Metal Cupreous Grater, fashioned from kettle metal

N202 4.4 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Button, stamped, w/ small crossbar (blue jean fastener?)

N200 6 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 1.5"

N200 7.3 6 N 2 Metal Ferrous Wire, two pig-tailed pcs., looped together, very rusted & fra

N185 0.9 13 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wrought, rosehead, 2.5"

N185 3.8 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1-1/8"

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin H, a spike set 9m N304 from Pin 1, June 2005 (cont'd):

Appendix C
Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? (Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N185 6.5 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, wire, 5.5", bent, head broken

N183 4.8 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, pc., about 1.25" long

N181 2.2 11 N 2 Metal Ferrous Wire, very fine, pcs.

N181 6.8 11 Y 1 Metal Cupreous Gunpart, serpent sideplate, fragmentN175 5.5 7 N 2 Metal Ferrous Wire, very fine, pcs.

N172 2.4 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 3.5"

N172 3.3 7 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.N165 3.4 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Screw, wood, slotted head, 1.25"

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin 6, a temporary pin set 32m N95 from Pin 5, June 2005:

Due N 3.8 Surface N 1 Metal Cupreous Tubing, copper, modern

N358 3.2 5 N 1 Metal Cupreous Tubing, copper, modern

N351 5.6 11 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil cigarette packN348 4.1 3 N 1 Metal Aluminum Can, soda pop, flattenedN342 3.5 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 1.25"

N342 5.6 16-Aug N 25 Metal Ferrous Can, condensed milk, w/ center hole soldered on one end, di

N337 1.3 Surface N 1 Metal Chain link fence connector w/ attachment straps

N330 4.6 Surface N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, box, 2.5"

N303 4.4 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wire, fine, pc.

N212 2.5 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Lid, spittoon (?), 22 cm diameter, concave w/ 3.5 cm center 

N215 3.3 Surface N 6 Metal Ferrous Five wire nails & one thumb tack (all within recent charcoal 

N126 1.3 Surface N 1 Concrete Building block, pc.N135 2.1 6 N 1 Metal Ferrous Lid, "tin can," end cap w/center hole soldered (part of conde

Artifacts recorded in relation to Pin 4, a temporary pin set 18.1m N196 from Pin 2, June 2005:

Appendix C
Bearing

Distance (m) 

Depth (cm)

Collected? 

(Yes/No)

Quantity

Material Material Type Description

N244 0.6 5 N 1 Metal Aluminum Pop-top opener, pop or beer can type

N244 1.8 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N244 2.3 8 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N244 3 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Staple, fence, large

N240 3.5 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Cap, bottle, crimped

N236 4 11 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, fragment

N218 1.4 9 N 12 Metal Ferrous Spikes, wire, 6", concentration

N218 1.4 9 N 2 Metal Ferrous Spikes, wire, 5", part of same concentration

N218 2.7 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, animal shoe, machine made, 2"

N206 2.3 4 N 1 Metal Aluminum Foil, pc.N206 2.7 15 N 1 Metal Ferrous Rectangular (5.5 x 11.5 cm), notched & blunted on one end 

N194 0.7 10 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails (wrought, rosehead: one fragment; wire: one fragment

N191 1.9 7 N 1 Metal Cupreous Cap, lantern wick

N191 2.9 12 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, animal shoe, machine made, 2"

N191 2.9 12 N 4 Metal Ferrous Nails, machine cut (one 1.5", one 2", one 3.25", one fragmen

N191 2.9 12 N 6 Metal Ferrous Nails, wire (one 1.25", one 1.5", two 2", one 3", one fragme

N191 2.9 12 N 2 Metal Ferrous Spikes, wire (one 4.25", one 4.75")

N175 1.7 6 N 4 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal, scraps, unidentified

N175 2.2 4 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, 1-5/8"

N165 0.9 7 N 4 Metal Ferrous Sheet metal, scraps, unidentified

N165 0.9 7 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, machine-cut, fragment

N155 1.8 9 N 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, machine-cut, 4"

N134 1.4 10 N 1 Metal Ferrous Wood stove, panel fragment, cast iron

N109 0.6 11 N 1 Glass Flat glass (window), pc.N109 0.6 11 Y 1 Metal Ferrous Spike, wrought, robust, flat shank, 3"

N109 1 5 N 1 Metal Ferrous Nail, wire, 3.25"

N83 0.8 12 N 2 Metal Ferrous Nails (one machine-cut fragment; one wire, box, 1.25")

N83 0.8 12 N 1 Glass Flat glass (window), pc.

Appendix C
Appendix D. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, June 2005

Record of Shovel Tests

Shovel Test 1 (ST1)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-13 Very dark brown loamy sand. Bottle, beer, broken, brown glass (fragments)

13-30 Very dark brown clayey sand w/ dense gravel. NONE

ST1 is north of the Maintenance Shop, 8m south of Pin B on the N185 sector of the baseline, and 30cm west of that 

baseline. Test terminated at 30cm level by dense rock and gravel. No materials collected.

Shovel Test 2 (ST2)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-15 Very dark brown loamy sand.

 NEGATIVE 15-30 Very dark brown clayey sand w/ dense gravel & 

some greasy wood charcoal.

30 Hit large rock.

40 Test terminated.

ST2 is north of the Maintenance Shop, 18.5m south of Pin B on the N185 sector of baseline. Test terminated at 40cm level 

after encountering a large rock at 30cm depth that covered 80-percent of the test unit. No materials collected.

Shovel Test 3 (ST3)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-20 Homogeneous black (7.5YR 2.5/1) loamy sand

 NEGATIVE 20-22 Discontinuous, black (10YR 2/1), greasy, wood 

charcoal seam (?)

22-45 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clayey sand w/ 

fine gravel

ST3 is north of the Maintenance Shop, 3m south of Pin D on the N200 sector of the baseline. Test terminated at 45cm. No 

materials collected.

Appendix D
Appendix D. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, June 2005

Record of Shovel Tests (cont'd)

Shovel Test 4 (ST4)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-10 Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clayey sand

NEGATIVE

10-25 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clayey sand w/ 

dense gravel.

ST4 is north of the Maintenance Shop, 16m south of Pin D on the N200 sector of baseline. No defined A-Horizon. Test 

terminated at 25cm. No materials collected.

Shovel Test 5 (ST5)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-16 Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clayey 

sand.

NEGATIVE

16-30 Dark brown clayey sand (7.5YR 3/3) w/ dense 

gravel.

ST5 is north of the Maintenance Shop, 24m south of Pin D on the N200 sector of baseline. No defined A-Horizon. No 

materials collected.

Shovel Test 6 (ST6)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-16 Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) clayey 

sand. (8cm): Whiteware, pc.

16-45 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clayey sand w/

dense gravel. NONE

 ST6 is south of the Maintenance Shop, 18.4m N97 from Pin 5 (a temporary pin 1m due west of the base of a hydrant). 

Whiteware fragment collected for short-term analytical purposes only.

Appendix D
Appendix D. GRPO Maintenance Area Survey, June 2005

Record of Shovel Tests (cont'd)

Shovel Test 7 (ST7)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-13 Dark brown clayish fill (10YR 3/3) w/ gravel.

 (8-15cm): Some mixed wood charcoal 

13-19 Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) clayey fill w/ gravel (15cm): Wire, ferrous, pc.

19-55 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clayey sand.

 (15-25cm): Bottle, neck fragment, brown glass

 (15-25cm): Nail, machine-cut, fragment

 (25-30cm) Wire, ferrous, w/ pc. sheet metal on one end

 (30-55cm): NEGATIVE

55 Dense gravel & rocks.

 ST7 is south of the Maintenance Shop, 16.6m N67 from Pin 5 (a temporary pin 1m due west of the base of a hydrant). No 

materials collected.

Shovel Test 8 (ST8)

Depth (cm) Description of Natural Materials Description of Cultural Materials

0-11 Black (10YR 2/1) clayey sediments. (9cm): Whiteware, spall, minute

11-40 Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) clayey sand 

w/ dense rock & gravel.

 (15cm): Bottle, glass sherd, clear

 (20cm): Bottle, glass sherd, clear

 ST8 is south of the Maintenance Shop, 3.5m east of Grand Portage Creek and 1m north of Pin F (a spike set on the west 

end of the Old Ford Road N50 baseline). No materials collected.

Appendix D