Talk:Fort Durham

Photos

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS photos do not seem to be available for this site.
• NRHP photos seem not to be available on-line for this site.
• New photos would be helpful.

Comment - since Fort Durham/Taku was abandoned by the 1840s or '50s, before the first camera was brought to the region (in the 1860s), it's highly unlikely that any photo of this will ever turn up :-| "reqmap" is more appropriate and there's a map upcoming (I hope soon) of Fts durham, Stikine, Simpson and McLoughlin, maybe Fort Rupert as well depending on teh range of hte map. I'll see what I can do about fleshing out the history here a bit, as other articles alraedy relate to it, though in a very scattered way; it and Fort Stikine both have complex stories to do with Russian Ameic an/HBC_British arrangements in the region (and had they not been abandoned, it would ahev been much harder later on for hte US to argue for hte boundary it got in 1903...). The only possible photo here, to get back to that, is of the site/location; maybe at least a flickr link or another such gallery site could be externally linked≥Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"competition with the Russians"

It was one of three Hudson's Bay Company posts set up in Alaska, competing with Russians for the fur trade.

Actually Taku/Durham and Stikine were set up because of an arrangement between the HBC and RAC that included the lease of the southern panhandle, other than Prince of Wales and adjoining outer islands, to the British as or 1838, the boundary running from Dixon Entrance up Clarence Strait to 56-30 N. Essentially the Russians had agreed not to compete in certain areas, the mainland-side of the Panhandle being one of them, as the British traders ahd more experience with inland aspects of the trade (similarly for Stikine). I'll find more on Durham/Taku but that stuck out to me as a bit of something needing re-wording; Durham was founded as an accommodation with the Russians, not in competition with them.....what's/where's the third HBC post btw? in the mid-Yukon area?Skookum1 (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the "three forts" info comes from this source cited, which simply says Constructed in 1840, this was one of three posts established in Russian America by the British Hudson's Bay Company. But it doesn't say what the other two were. I don't know what the third would be, after Stikine. Will try to improve later if I have time. The NPS info is also misleading in saying the HBC established three posts, since Fort Stikine was established and built by the Russians and only later leased by the HBC. Pfly (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "fuzzy history" - museum-like short accounts which sum up stuff improperly, then gets repeated as-if-fact but nver clarified and damned if you can ever find the person who wrote it in the first place...ditto with the Klondike Museum in Seattle and countless, countless examples in BC; though local museums tend to be a lot more accurate on omst issues, other than the "big po;litics" like the boundary/territorial disputes; all repeat cliches, or create them≥......I suspect it's a mid-Yukon fort, somewhere between what became Dawson and Faribanks; I seem to recall it. Begg makes mention of Fort Tongass, or in one example "a fort on Tongas Island" in two regards, one seemingly in reference to the US garrisoned it after the Purchase and also apparently to harrass British-papered travellers en route to the Cassiar via the Stikine (more on that later); but there seems to be a British Fort Tongas, or rather a short-lived HBC one; though that may have been just another reference to the American Fort Tongas....Anyway that Fort Stikine link to Wrangell has gotta be "done", it's bugged me for a while. In the next few days (and if I remember given how ADD I am); even Fort Wrangel isn't the same thing as the Russo-British Fort Stikine, yet Fort Wrangel also deserves its own article; like Thompson's River Post (which I think should be the primary name there, and Fort Kamloops and Fort Shuswap can redirect there, unless you think there's enough on the PFC's Fort Shuswap to warrant a separate article...Fort Stikine's one of those articles-to-be-made that "impliies" or rather requires parallel writing of several others - including the Stikine and Cassiar rushes and also the backgrounder/depth stuff on the Alaska boundary dispute I go off about all the time.....maybe there was a Fort Skagway or something, but I've never seen a precise reference except maybe a tidbit in Berton's Klondike - AFAIK the first white resident of Skagway was Capt. John Irving but maybe he was an HBC agent? More of a farm/homestead than anything else; I think he was anturalized British subject by then, from what I remmber of BErton's umbrage at Skagway being overrun b y American criminals and how it shoule have been "British"....And of course there's lots more on Fort Durham that this article can be enriched by; do you think there might be a point in WikiProject Fur trade the way there's a WikiProject Ghost towns? Anyway no doubt you're busy with the nappes, i've got like twenty real-world emails to do, tracks to edit, and Leno to watch (only for the political humour....I'll cc. you tonight's and yesterday's tracks which I'm gonna mail out when I download 'em in a bit....Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Name change proposal

In revisiting this article this morning, and on the edge of starting Fort Stikine, I added the usual name of Fort Taku to the lede, plus a few of its variants ("Taco" is Gov. Simpson's own usage, in fact...).....It seems that ANHS designation is Fort Durham, but historically and in most writings this fort is most commonly referred to as Fort Taku; calling it Fort Durham is like referring to Fort Victoria as Fort Camosack (the origianl form before even Fort Camosun).....Skookum1 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The name for the site in the NRHP/NHL infobox should be the NHL program name for the site. If there is a different common name for the archeological site that is more correct, more used, then the article name could be changed to something different, while still showing that NHL name in the infobox. But, there seems to be some confusion about where this site is located. Perhaps there needs to be one article about the archeological site, and a different article about some other fort location 50 miles away in Canada, and state any questions in each article about whether the site actually covers the former Fort Durham or not. The archeological site is a fixed place, though, and it must have something historical there. Given the current confusion, I don't think there is a clear proposal here on what should be named what, so for the time being i think the article should stay as named, or at most changed from "Fort Durham" to "Fort Durham Site". Fort Durham Site is the official U.S. NHL program name for the archeological site. doncram (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose it's like the Klondike Nat'l Historic Site, part of which is in Seattle; it's a different entity than Klondike Gold Rush, i.e. a legal entity related to an historical episode, but different in nature. Maybe I'll just make Fort Taku and deal with it separately, something like the idea of an Indian Reservation/Indian Reserve having a legal designation/land history distinct from the people on it, and distinct from actual communities within it.....I've approached this with the creation of Fort Stikine (Taku's "sister fort") as separate from Wrangell, Alaska, and also with Fort Simpson separate from Lax Kw'alaams.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

founding/location of Fort Taku and re Rod Finlayson

According to this cite, Fort Durham/Taku was located 50 miles upriver, which would put it near the confluence of the Nakina and Inklin, and not at the river's mouth. This is nowhere near Alaskan territory, of course....what proof does the HNSC have that the archaeological site in question is, indeed, a Hudsson's Bay Company fort? From the same source I'll add the episode concerning Roderick Finlayson, who was the first assistant trader (second-in-charge) of the fort....Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I visit in response to your posting at wt:NRHP. I am not sure what HNSC refers to. And, I don't know if the archeological site actually contains the former Fort Durham. But, whatever it does contain, the archeological site which is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and further is designated a U.S. NHL, is absolutely positively 100% certain located in the U.S., i say from some experience in working with NRHP documents and knowing their system somewhat The exact legal boundaries of the land parcel designated would be included in the NRHP nomination document, a copy of which can be obtained for free by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. Actually it should probably be on-line, too, at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/ but that website is down right now. If the address is restricted, the specific location info may be redacted from the document. Does this help? doncram (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HNSC must be a typo/dysgraphica - an NHSC is a Nat'l Historic Site of Canada, the Canuck counterpart of your NHL (which, speaking as a Canuck, is a real odd acronym to see in any context but hockey...).Skookum1 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Plans of the fort and its site may be in the archives of teh Hudson's Bay Company, but they're certainly not on line for review; other than land-title description, would there be any reference to the results of the archaeological dig on the site? I should note also that "fifty miles upstream" might be a reference not to the distance from saltwater, but from the opening of the inlet the river feeds (up to 30 miles, I think....). Ft Stikine gets a lot more copy than Taku does, historiographically-speaking, but I'll write the author of the very interesting article linked at Fort Stikine#Further reading and see what he might know about Taku....thanks for you help.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I didnt do much, but glad you think it was helpful. :) I do recommend you request the NRHP nomination documents from the U.S. National Register. I'd be interested to hear if they just sent it or if you are in Canada and they wouldn't send it to you. Anyhow, good luck with your researches. doncram (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"three sites"

I scratched my head over that when I first saw it; could it be Fort Selkirk that's meant? i.e. as the third post other than Taku/Durham and Stikine?Skookum1 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this Talk page is still on my watchlist. About the mention of 3 Hudson's Bay Company sites in Russian-America, that is an interesting factoid, which would be good to know more about. The factoid comes from the GNIS reference, which if you look at it gives more direction, again towards the U.S. Nrhp/NHL documents: "Data received from an Internet site or email other than USGenWeb (Reference code US-T146). The website title or email originator follows (if known): 2008/National Historic Landmark Program". So, again, to find out more about this place, it would be most helpful to get the U.S. National Register / National Historic Landmark documents, which would be sent by postal for free, upon request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, or be sent by email if a scanned version is available. I did check the on-line system just now and find the documents are not available on-line (as most but not all NHL ones are). --doncram (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, I figured this out recently. The third HBC post in Russian America, as defined by the 1825 treaty (ie, the present state of Alaska), was Fort Yukon, Alaska. So Fort Stikine, Taku/Durham, and Yukon. Pfly (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh, forgot that one....for the record, neither of the Yukon River posts were under Columbia Department administration (unlike Taku and Stikine).Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)