Sloop Island Canal Boat Study - Lake Champlain Maritime Museum

Transcription

Sloop Island Canal Boat Study:
Phase III Archaeological Investigation in
Connection with the Environmental Remediation of
the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site
Prepared for:
Vermont Division for
Environmental Protection Agency
Historic Preservation
Region 1
National Life Building
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Montpelier, VT 05620-1201
Boston, MA 02109
Prepared by:
Final Report • February 2010
Sloop Island Canal Boat Study:
Phase III Archaeological Investigation in
Connection with the Environmental Remediation
of the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection
Agency Region 1
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109
Vermont Division
for Historic Preservation
National Life Building
Montpelier, VT 05620-1201
Prepared by:
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
4472 Basin Harbor Road
Vergennes, VT 05491
by
Adam I. Kane
Joanne M. Dennis
Scott A. McLaughlin
and
Christopher R. Sabick
Prepared under the direction of:
Arthur B. Cohn
Final Report
February 2010
Sloop Island Canal Boat Study
PUBLICATION DATA
DISCLAIMER
Issuance of this report does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of
any of the organizations and agencies involved in this project, nor does the mention of trade
names or commercial products in the report constitute endorsement or recommendation by the
organizations and agencies involved in this project.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Please address any questions or comments regarding this report to:
Maritime Research Institute
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
4472 Basin Harbor Road
Vergennes, Vermont 05491
Phone: (802) 475-2022
Fax: (802) 475-2953
Website: www.lcmm.org
Email: [email protected]
i
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a Phase III archaeological investigation of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat submerged in the Charlotte, Chittenden County, Vermont waters of Lake
Champlain. The archaeological study was undertaken as an off-site mitigation in connection
with the Pine Street Canal Superfund site, located in Burlington, Vermont. The archaeological
fieldwork at the Sloop Island Canal Boat was conducted during ten weeks in 2002 and 2003 by
the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and included over 400 SCUBA dives on the site.
Located below 85 feet of water on the bottom of Lake Champlain, the Sloop Island Canal
Boat wreck is well preserved despite over 90 years on the lake bottom. The archaeological
investigations at this site centered around two primary tasks: recording and recovering the
artifact collection in the cabin and documenting the vessel’s structure. Each of these tasks
enabled researches to identify the vessel type and use life, as well as the possible character of
those who lived aboard.
The archaeological study of this vessel indicated that the vessel is an 1873 class canal
boat and it likely sank between 1915 and 1920. The sinking of the vessel occurred while it was
traveling northbound on Lake Champlain with a load of Pennsylvania bituminous coal.
Archaeological evidence suggests that this event likely happened at night. The artifacts in the
cabin also suggest that the vessel was occupied by a nuclear family that included a mother,
father and possibly one child. Additional historical and archival documents, as well as oral
histories, complimented and supplemented this study, allowing a more holistic perspective on
what canal boat life may have been like for those that lived onboard these working and
domesticated vessels.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat site (VT-CH-843) was nominated to the National Register
of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D in 2010 and was opened as a Vermont State
Underwater Preserve site in 2006.
ii
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to the canalers who once made their livelihoods on the
Champlain Waterway. Between 1819 and 1940 canal boating was a successful livelihood for
over 15,000 northern canalers but, at times, they struggled with shortsighted government
agencies, railroads, bad weather, economic depressions, and poorly maintained waterways and
docking facilities. Despite these ups and downs, the existence of northern canalers persisted for
roughly 120 years. Not all northern canalers shared the same mother tongue, heritage, religion,
or political views, yet they worked alongside one another with a supportive attitude and the
feeling of a common identity. These inland mariners were held together by their common
occupation and pride in their way of life and in their vessels. The northern canalers were as
much a community as any local neighborhood despite the fact that the area they called home
was 170miles (274 km) of lake, canal and rivers.
Most contemporary urban and rural folk along the Northern Waterway knew nothing
about the canalers’ unique way of life. The importance and even existence of northern canalers
was largely unrecognized by their contemporaries. We hope that this study and the continued
research that it stimulates will enlighten others about northern canal boat life and the important
roles the northern canalers played in the development of North America.
One very special member of this community is Cora Archambault. Cora’s father Frank
began working with mules on the canal as a boy of sixteen and later acquired his own canal
boat. Frank married a woman named Isabelle and, as was typical, they worked the northern
waterway together while having their family. Cora, her siblings Viola, Stella and Frank Jr.,
spent their childhood aboard the family’s boats, traveling the region’s waterways. Cora’s
personal recollections from the early twentieth century are the most insightful oral histories of
this community ever recorded.
Photo on left is of Cora in 1918, Photo on right is Cora in 2003 at her home in Whitehall.
Cora celebrated her 105th birthday on March 13, 2009, and still lives in the home her
father built at Fiddler’s Elbow, in Whitehall, New York. Cora has given us the priceless gift of
her recollections of life aboard the family’s canal boats. Through her clear memory Cora recalls
iii
day-to-day life and travels as if they occurred only yesterday. The pictures Cora paints of the
working and family routine, the layout of the cabin and the challenge to keep the kids from
falling overboard are told with a strong voice that, with Cora’s encouragement, we have
recorded for future generations. Cora credits her mother Isabelle with the inspiration to share
her memories with us. We are all enriched by Cora’s stories about life on the northern
waterway.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
GENERAL SUPPORT
The Sloop Island Canal Boat Project was made possible only through the strong support
of the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP) and Environmental Protection
Agency, New England (EPA). In particular, Giovanna Peebles, Eric Gilbertson and Scott Dillon
at the VDHP and Karen Lumino and John Vetter at the EPA were instrumental in achieving
project goals.
INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
This project received the assistance of a number of organizations and individuals
throughout all phases of the project. Their contributions to the preparation, fieldwork, research,
analysis, and documentation of this project were crucial to its success. Thank you one and all.
We are especially grateful to Luther and Elizabeth Bridgman, Craig and Susan Sim and the
Wings Point Association for allowing us to stage our field operations from their properties.
Institutions
Burlington Department of Planning and
Zoning
Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum
Diver’s Alert Network
Duofold
Erie Canal Museum
Fort Ticonderoga Association
Hazellet Strip-Casting Corporation
Historical Society of Whitehall
Lake Champlain Basin Program
Lake Champlain Committee
MajaDesign
National Archives
National Printfast
New York State Archives
New York State Library
New York State Museum
Office of Senator Patrick Leahy
Onondaga Historical Association
Point Bay Marina
South Street Seaport Museum
Standard Laboratories, Gould Energy
Division
Ticonderoga Historical Society
University of Vermont Bailey/Howe Library
U.S. Coast Guard, Station Burlington
Plattsburgh University Fienberg Library
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
Vermont Department of Libraries
Vermont Historical Society
Vermont Archaeological Society
Vermont Folklife Center
Vermont State Police-Marine Division
Waterfront Diving
Wings Point Association
WPTZ, News Channel 5
v
Individuals
Michael Arbuthnot
Luther and Elizabeth Bridgeman
Barbara Bartley
Prudence Doherty
Connell Gallagher
Kathleen Kenny
Floyd McLaughlin
Vesta McLaughlin
Rebecca McLaughlin
Charles Mazel
Dan Nord
David Pikul
Craig, Susan and Brendan Sim
Roy Whitmore
FUNDING
The Sloop Island Canal Boat Study was funded as part of the Memorandum of
Agreement for Mitigation of Adverse Effects for the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site,
Burlington Vermont. As per this agreement, the Potentially Responsible Parties transferred to
the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum $150,000 to fulfill their obligations for mitigation of
known historic resources at the Pine Street Canal Superfund site. We sincerely appreciate the
support of Green Mountain Power, National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., and Vermont
Gas Systems, Inc. in making this project possible
Additionally, Scott A. McLaughlin and his parents Floyd A. and Vesta K. McLaughlin
also provided substantial support for the data collection, documentation, and analysis phases of
the project.
RESEARCH TEAM
The Sloop Island Canal Boat Study, begun in 2002, was an outstanding success due to
the support and dedication of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum's (LCMM) membership,
staff, interns and volunteers. These people gave LCMM's Maritime Research Institute (MRI) the
necessary support to conduct the project, which could not have succeeded without their efforts.
Adam Loven
Sarah Lyman
Eloise Beil
Chris McClain
Sara Brigadier
Scott A. McLaughlin
Gordon Cawood
Rebecca Roberts
Justin Clement
Christopher Sabick
Arthur Cohn
Brian Spinney
BobbyeJo Coke
Hillory Taglienti
Joanne Dennis
Erick Tichonuk
Neil Dixon
Jane Vincent
Alexis Godat
Sara Vukovich
Sarah Hallet
Robert Wilczynski
Brenda Hughes
Adam Kane
Thomas Keefe
Krissy Kenny
Pierre LaRocque
vi
AUTHORS' NOTE
Information about historic resources gained through investigations that use federal and
state funds is a part of the public record, and every effort is made to make these data available
to all who are interested. It is sometimes necessary, however, to withhold information about the
specific location and character of certain sensitive archaeological sites in order to protect these
resources. The underwater cultural resources in Lake Champlain are often fragile and can easily
be destroyed by theft, vandalism, and anchor damage that results from unauthorized public
visitation. Federal and state agencies involved in this project request that the location of
undocumented canal boat shipwrecks be withheld until each resource has been adequately
evaluated. To comply with this request, the location of each resource has been given in a general
nature with approximate depths. We ask that divers do not try to locate these historically
valuable resources while efforts to make them publicly accessible are underway.
This technical report and the research performed meet the archaeological standards and
guidelines of the National Park Service and the State of Vermont. 1 The style and format of the
endnotes and references are based on those of the Chicago Manual of Style. 2
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Publication Data ............................................................................................................................. i
Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................... i
Questions or Comments .............................................................................................................. i
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... v
General Support ......................................................................................................................... v
Individual and Institutional Support .......................................................................................... v
Institutions ............................................................................................................................. v
Individuals ............................................................................................................................ vi
Funding ..................................................................................................................................... vi
Research Team .......................................................................................................................... vi
Authors' Note .............................................................................................................................. vii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
The Ill-Fated Voyage: A Hypothetical Narrative....................................................................... 1
Project Background .................................................................................................................... 3
Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Theoretical and Methodological Framework ......................................................... 7
The Application of Systems Theory .......................................................................................... 7
Community and Household Archaeology .................................................................................. 9
Life Course Approach .............................................................................................................. 10
Use of Multiple Sources of Data .............................................................................................. 11
Archaeological Methods .......................................................................................................... 13
Project Logistics .................................................................................................................. 13
Archaeological Diving Summary ........................................................................................ 13
Vessel Documentation......................................................................................................... 14
Photographic and Video Documentation ............................................................................ 16
Wood Species Identification ............................................................................................... 17
Cabin Investigations ............................................................................................................ 17
Underwater Florescence ...................................................................................................... 18
Artifact Conservation Procedures ............................................................................................ 20
Artifact Documentation ....................................................................................................... 20
Iron ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Copper ................................................................................................................................. 23
Pewter .................................................................................................................................. 24
Tin ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Ceramic ............................................................................................................................... 26
Glass .................................................................................................................................... 26
Wood ................................................................................................................................... 27
Leather ................................................................................................................................. 28
Enameled Ware ................................................................................................................... 29
viii
Wool .................................................................................................................................... 30
Shell ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Linoleum ............................................................................................................................. 31
Silver ................................................................................................................................... 32
Composite Artifacts............................................................................................................. 33
Archival and Oral History Research ........................................................................................ 34
Development of Interpretations................................................................................................ 34
Site Archive and Public Outreach ............................................................................................ 35
Chapter 3: Environmental Setting of Lake Champlain .......................................................... 37
Champlain Valley..................................................................................................................... 37
Water Column .......................................................................................................................... 39
Climate and Biota..................................................................................................................... 40
Non-Native Aquatic Nuisance Species .................................................................................... 40
Chapter 4: The Champlain Waterway ..................................................................................... 43
An International Highway ........................................................................................................ 44
Chapter 5: Navigating the Northern Waterway ...................................................................... 51
Hudson River and New York Harbor ...................................................................................... 51
Animal Towing on the Old Champlain Canal.......................................................................... 56
Tugs on the Old Champlain Canal ........................................................................................... 65
Champlain Barge Canal ........................................................................................................... 67
Lake Champlain ....................................................................................................................... 68
The Canadian Waterways ........................................................................................................ 77
Chapter 6: Northern Canal Boats and the Region's Shipwrights .......................................... 79
Canal Boat Types ..................................................................................................................... 79
Shipwrights and Their Canal Boat Designs ............................................................................. 82
Methods of Construction .......................................................................................................... 88
Chapter 7: Northern Canalers................................................................................................... 91
Their Unique Community ........................................................................................................ 91
Layout Aboard ......................................................................................................................... 97
Cabin ................................................................................................................................... 98
Cargo Hold .......................................................................................................................... 99
Forecastle .......................................................................................................................... 100
On Deck ............................................................................................................................. 100
Life Aboard ............................................................................................................................ 100
Foodways .......................................................................................................................... 100
Obtaining Food, Supplies, and Equipment........................................................................ 102
Boatmen ............................................................................................................................ 103
Canal Boat Women ........................................................................................................... 105
Canal Boat Children .......................................................................................................... 106
The Off Season ....................................................................................................................... 109
Ship Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................................... 112
Chapter 8: End of an Era ......................................................................................................... 115
Nostalgia ................................................................................................................................ 115
Rails and Roads ...................................................................................................................... 116
Commercial Changes ............................................................................................................. 117
New York State Barge Canal ............................................................................................ 118
ix
The End of an Era .................................................................................................................. 119
Chapter 9: Previous Archaeological Investigations ............................................................... 121
Canal Boats in Burlington Harbor.......................................................................................... 123
US Coast Guard Basin Canal Boat (VT-CH-575) ............................................................ 123
Canal Boats in the Pine Street Canal...................................................................................... 124
VT-CH-801 ....................................................................................................................... 125
VT-CH-802 ....................................................................................................................... 128
VT-CH-798 ....................................................................................................................... 132
VT-CH-799 ....................................................................................................................... 134
VT-CH-800 ....................................................................................................................... 135
Canal Boats Elsewhere in Lake Champlain ........................................................................... 137
Wreck A ............................................................................................................................ 137
Wreck B............................................................................................................................. 138
Wreck D (VT-GI-30) ........................................................................................................ 140
Wreck G ............................................................................................................................ 140
Wreck N ............................................................................................................................ 142
Wreck V ............................................................................................................................ 143
Wreck X (NYSM 11414) .................................................................................................. 144
Wreck VV (VT-GI-23)...................................................................................................... 144
Chapter 10: The Sloop Island Canal Boat Wreck ................................................................. 147
Site Condition ........................................................................................................................ 147
Wood Identification Results................................................................................................... 149
Edge-fastening Construction .................................................................................................. 151
Hull Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 152
Bottom ............................................................................................................................... 152
Sides .................................................................................................................................. 152
Internal Framing ................................................................................................................ 154
Bow Construction .............................................................................................................. 156
Stern .................................................................................................................................. 162
Decking ............................................................................................................................. 166
Hatch Coamings ................................................................................................................ 168
Cabin Roof and Trunk ....................................................................................................... 169
Cabin Interior .................................................................................................................... 175
Booby ................................................................................................................................ 181
Deck Equipment ................................................................................................................ 182
Cabin Artifact Assemblage .................................................................................................... 194
Odds and Ends ................................................................................................................... 194
Enameled Ware ................................................................................................................. 198
Ceramics ............................................................................................................................ 199
Lighting ............................................................................................................................. 203
Flatware ............................................................................................................................. 205
Personal Objects ................................................................................................................ 206
Glass Containers ................................................................................................................ 206
Tools .................................................................................................................................. 210
Ship's Equipment ............................................................................................................... 212
Florescence Investigations ..................................................................................................... 214
x
Cargo Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 215
Chapter 11: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 216
Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 216
The Sinking of the Sloop Island Canal Boat ..................................................................... 217
The Crew and Their Vessel ............................................................................................... 217
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 219
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 221
Appendix 1: Glossary ............................................................................................................... 241
Appendix 2: Memorandum of Agreement for Mitigation of Adverse Effects .................... 247
Appendix 3: Permits and Permit Applications ...................................................................... 257
Appendix 4: Coal Cargo Analysis ........................................................................................... 265
Appendix 5: Non-Technical Publications .............................................................................. 267
Appendix 6: Artifact Inventory ............................................................................................... 281
Appendix 7: 2002/2003 Dive Log ............................................................................................. 371
Appendix 8: National Register Nomination Form ................................................................. 379
Endnotes .................................................................................................................................... 415
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Vermont showing the location of the Sloop Island Canal Boat and the Pine
Street Canal Superfund Site (after Vermont Center for Geographic Information). .................. 4
Figure 2. Archaeologist equipped with headlamps and a pony bottle preparing to dive on the
Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque). ......................................... 14
Figure 3. Archaeologist documenting the stern of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM
Collection, by Pierre LaRocque)..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Archaeologist video documenting the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by
Pierre LaRocque). ............................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 5. Photograph of cabin interior, showing scattered timbers and artifacts
(LCMM Collection). ......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6. Charles Mazel and Arthur Cohn with fluorescence equipment (LCMM Collection, by
Pierre LaRocque). ............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 7: Pre-treatment and Post-treatment photographs of the cast iron stove leg. ..................... 22
Figure 8: Drawing of the cupreous drawer pull, artifact number SI.02.843.136 after conservation.
............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 9: Drawing of the Pewter Spoon, artifact number SI.02.843.003.009 after conservation. .. 25
Figure 10: Photographs of artifact SI.02.843.007 after conservation. ................................................ 26
Figure 11: Drawing of artifact number SI.02.843.102 after conservation. ........................................ 27
Figure 12: Drawing of artifact SI.02.843.254 after conservation. ....................................................... 28
Figure 13: Photograph of artifact SI.02.843.050 after conservation. .................................................. 29
Figure 14: Drawing of artifact number SI.02.843.052 after conservation. ........................................ 30
Figure 15: Reconstruction drawing of the wool coat found on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 16: Post-treatment drawing of portions of the linoleum found on board the Sloop Island
Canal boat.......................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 17: Photograph of artifact SI.02.843.003.031, a silver spoon, after conservation................. 33
Figure 18. Map of Lake Champlain showing the lake’s segments. ................................................... 38
Figure 19. Drawing of a zebra mussel. .................................................................................................. 41
Figure 20. Map of the Northeast showing the regional canals (LCMM Collection). ...................... 43
Figure 21: Building the Champlain Canal ............................................................................................ 44
Figure 22: Photograph of the canal, with the railroad and road system running along its banks.
The railroad would ultimately cause the demise of canalboats in the commercial transport
industry. ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 23: Building the New York State Barge Canal. ........................................................................ 49
Figure 24. Canal boats in their winter quarters at Long Dock, Pavonia Ferry, Jersey City from
Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, May 6, 1871 (excerpted from Bellico, Life on a Canal Boat,
77). ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 25. Canal boat tow winding through the Hudson River highlands (Augusta Brown). .... 53
Figure 26. Washday on a canal boat in Whitehall, New York. .......................................................... 55
Figure 27: Mule tow on the Champlain Canal. .................................................................................... 58
Figure 28. Canal boats passing each other on the Champlain Canal................................................ 62
Figure 29. Fort Edward Lock on the Champlain Canal. ..................................................................... 64
Figure 30. Fort Ann lock on the Champlain Canal.............................................................................. 64
Figure 31:Canal boat and tugs on the canal. ........................................................................................ 66
xii
Figure 32: Canalboat tow on Lake Champlain.................................................................................... 69
Figure 33: Towlines off the stern of a canalboat in tow. ..................................................................... 71
Figure 34: Captain Ell B. Rockwell, captain of the tugboat Robert H. Cook. ..................................... 74
Figure 35: Shipbuilding operation. ........................................................................................................ 83
Figure 36: Trio of new canaloboats ready to be launched. ................................................................. 83
Figure 37: New Canalboats ready to be lauched. ................................................................................ 85
Figure 38: The John E. Matton boatyard in Waterford, NY ............................................................... 86
Figure 39: The Ryan Boatyard in Whitehall, NY. ................................................................................ 88
Figure 40: Canalboats docked at Whitehall for the winter............................................................... 110
Figure 41. Map of Lake Champlain showing the approximate locations of 1873-class canal boats.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 122
Figure 42. Plan view of the US Coast Guard Basin Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Kevin
Crisman). ......................................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 43. Archaeological drawing of canal boat VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 44. Photomosaic showing the port side profile of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane and Chris
Sabick, LCMM Collection). ........................................................................................................... 126
Figure 45. Plan view drawing showing the repair techniques documented on canal boat VT-CH801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection)..................................................................................... 127
Figure 46. Archaeological drawing of VT-CH-802 (by Scott McLaughlin, LCMM Collection). . 129
Figure 47: Photograph of the bow of VT-CH-799 from the fall of 2002(LCMM Collection). ...... 135
Figure 48. Archaeological drawing of canal boat VT-CH-800 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM
Collection). ...................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 49. Preliminary plan view of Wreck A (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick)................... 138
Figure 50. Preliminary plan view of Wreck B (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick). .................. 139
Figure 51. Preliminary plan view of Wreck N (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick) .................. 143
Figure 52. Plan view of Wreck VV showing the bottom of the hull in the bow (LCMM
Collection, drawn by Arthur Cohn, inked by Adam Loven)................................................... 145
Figure 53. Perspective view of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Adam Kane).
.......................................................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 54. Transverse cross section located amidships (by Erick Tichonuk, LCMM Collection).
.......................................................................................................................................................... 155
Figure 55. Transverse cross section located at the forward end of the cabin (Erick Tichonuk,
LCMM Collection). ........................................................................................................................ 155
Figure 56. Plan view of the bow with decking removed showing the framing pattern (by Chris
Sabick, LCMM Collection). ........................................................................................................... 158
Figure 57. Plan view of the bow (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection). ......................................... 160
Figure 58. Interior elevation of the upper and lower transom of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (by
Adam Kane, LCMM Collection). ................................................................................................. 163
Figure 59. Detailed drawing of the tiller and tiller bar extender bracket of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (by Pierre LaRocque, inked by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection). ................................. 165
Figure 60. Plan view showing the typical deck plank edge-fastening pattern observed on the
walkways of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, drawn by Adam Kane, inked
by Adam Loven)............................................................................................................................. 167
xiii
Figure 61. Transverse cross-section at the after end of the cabin showing the cabin hatch
coaming (by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven, LCMM Collection). ................................. 169
Figure 62. Plan view, profile and elevation of the cabin roof of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (by
Pierre LaRocque, rendered by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection). .................................. 171
Figure 63. Profile views showing the reconstruction of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin trunk
(by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection)............................................................................................ 173
Figure 64. Drawing of a typical window frame and plate glass which was used for the cabin
windows along the port and starboard sides of the cabin trunk (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ...................................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 65. Drawing of a typical shutter that was used along the port and starboard sides of the
cabin trunk (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection). ..................................................................... 174
Figure 66. Plan view reconstruction of cabin interior (by Scott McLaughlin). .............................. 176
Figure 67. Photograph of the cabin showing a dresser drawer face (labeled 126) amongst other
disarticulated fragments of the cabin (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM Collection). ................. 177
Figure 68. Wall shelf found in the Sloop Island Canal Boat's cabin (LCMM Collection). ........... 177
Figure 69. Underwater photograph showing the cook range (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM
Collection). ...................................................................................................................................... 178
Figure 70. Fragments of an armchair found in the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin (by Erick
Tichonuk, LCMM Collection)....................................................................................................... 178
Figure 71. Doors used to separate the kitchen from the living area in the Sloop Island Canal
Boat’s cabin (LCMM Collection). ................................................................................................. 179
Figure 72. Drawing of a linoleum sample recovered from the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (LCMM Collection). .............................................................................................................. 180
Figure 73. Photograph and drawing of the hutch drawer while undergoing archaeological
conservation (LCMM Collection). ............................................................................................... 181
Figure 74. Port side cleat with rope still wrapped around it (LCMM Collection, by Pierre
LaRocque)........................................................................................................................................ 183
Figure 75. Plan view and profile of a cleat that collapsed into the booby (LCMM Collection,
drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven). ....................................................................... 183
Figure 76. Drawing of a broken windlass recovered from the forecastle (by Gordon Cawood and
Justin Clement, LCMM Collection). ............................................................................................ 185
Figure 77. Sloop Island Canalboat’s bow windlass (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque). .. 185
Figure 78: Image of the stern windlass. (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven, LCMM
Collection) ....................................................................................................................................... 186
Figure 79. Sloop Island Canalboat’s stern windlass (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque). . 187
Figure 80. Sloop Island Canalboat’s turning block (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).... 188
Figure 81. Sloop Island Canalboat’s anchor (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque). .............. 189
Figure 82. Sloop Island Canalboat’s steering mechanism (LCMM Collection, by Pierre
LaRocque)........................................................................................................................................ 190
Figure 83. Sloop Island Canalboat’s wheel (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque). ................ 190
Figure 84: Line drawing of the steering wheel on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM
Collection) ....................................................................................................................................... 191
Figure 85: Drawing of the steering mechanism found on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat
(LCMM Collection) ........................................................................................................................ 192
Figure 87. Overall view and detail of the burr valve found in the canal boat's hold (LCMM
Collection, drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven). ................................................... 194
xiv
Figure 88. Photograph of a wallpaper fragment found in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat................................................................................................................................................... 195
Figure 89. Salt shaker found in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal Boat. .................................... 196
Figure 90. Drawing of a nozzle found in the booby of the Sloop Island Canal Boat................... 197
Figure 91. Drawing of a chamber pot found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat. .................. 198
Figure 92. Photograph of a lamp base found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat.................... 204
Figure 93. Lamp chimney found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat. ...................................... 204
Figure 94. Scale drawing of the Stanley Liberty Bell Plane found onboard the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (LCMM Collection, by Gordon Cawood). ......................................................................... 212
Figure 95. Photograph showing the roll of tar paper in the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s forecastle
(LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).................................................................................... 213
xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
THE ILL-FATED VOYAGE: A HYPOTHETICAL NARRATIVE
The following short narrative illustrates the story of the Sloop Island Canal Boat. Details were
pulled from research, historical documents, and artifacts recovered from the shipwreck; whereas some
details are fully supported by these findings, other details have been assumed or theorized.
In early fall about 1918, a family and their deckhand left Whitehall, New York for
Canada with their two canal boats lashed together. They went where the railroads did not and
where profits were small. Their yearly income barely supported this family of captain, wife, and
son. The family picked up cargoes wherever they could; typically heading north the freights
were coal, clay, or sugar, and returning south they were lumber, hay, or pulpwood. The
family’s first stop on their way north was to load with Pennsylvania coal along the lower
Hudson River. As the weather grew colder, like all canalers, the family began to worry about
the winter ahead, which they planned to spend with other canalers moored in New York
Harbor.
On this trip, after loading with coal, they were towed up the Hudson River to Albany by
a large river tug in a fleet of boats of varying types and sizes. At Albany, the canal boat captain
hired a canal tug to tow them to the entrance of the Champlain Barge Canal, and then by a canal
tug to Whitehall. The ride was just fine, except for a moderate leak, which developed in the boat
the family was living aboard. Developing a leak was nothing unusual, especially after loading
with coal. The force of the coal slamming into the bottom of the boat after coming down the
shoots placed a lot of strain on the vessel. The crew could handle this leak with a little extra
pumping several times a day. Fixing a boat in Canada was a lot cheaper than in the United
States so the captain delayed putting the boat in a dry dock until then. After several days
behind a small canal tug with five other canal boats on the newly expanded Champlain Barge
Canal, they finally reached Whitehall at the southern end of Lake Champlain. Here, the wife
and son visited with some of the other canal boat families and went shopping for supplies for
the trip to Canada. The captain and deckhand cleared the lines and caulked some of the deck
around the cabin in preparation for the tow down Lake Champlain.
The next leg of the trip was a 120-mile (193 km) journey on Lake Champlain and the
Richelieu River to the entrance of the Chambly Canal at St. Jean. The next stop would be the
United States Customs Office at Rouses Point, New York, near the entrance to the Richelieu
River. That night at Whitehall, a tugboat with the southbound tow arrived and after a few hours
rest, the tugboat captain began assembling the northbound tow early the next morning. The
weather was fair and the tow consisted of approximately twenty boats. Before six o’clock, the
tow began to wind its way single file down the narrows of the lake. The canalers tended to their
lines and fended boats off the ledges and shoals. Once they reached open water north of Crown
Point, the canal boats were paired off and arranged in a double line. The captain’s two boats
were placed side by side with his family in one boat’s cabin and their hired deckhand in the
other. Now on the open water and it growing dark, the captain sent his deckhand below to take
a nap for a few hours, while he stood watch. A slow, steady cold rain began to fall as he
wandered about his boats, checking lines and the bilge water levels. The leak in his main boat
grew slightly worse but it did not concern him much. Within a few days, they would be in the
1
Chambly Canal, where they would run the boat over the clay beds in the canal and temporarily
caulk the seams the “natural” way.
Shortly after sunset, his wife tucked their son into bed after he had said his prayers.
Before turning in herself, she turned down the main cabin lamp, which was always kept
burning while under tow. In bed, their heads and the surface of the water outside the boat were
at about the same level. Only four inches of hull planking lay between them. They fell asleep
listening to the water rushing by and the creaking of the boat’s lines. Several hours later, the
captain woke his deckhand to take his watch and pump the bilges. He then retired to his cabin
but only removed his hat, coat, and boots. Propping his feet up on the second stair of the
companion way, the captain fell asleep in his wife’s rocking chair. Several times during the
night he half awoke and listened to the rain but then fell quickly back to sleep, dreaming about
his prospects for the remainder of the navigation season.
Before daylight, the family was awakened by a shout from their deckhand. Noticing the
severe list to the boat, the captain immediately snatched his son out of bed and tossed him over
his shoulder. The captain’s wife was already on her feet waiting impatiently next to the stairs.
The family quickly made their way up to the deck. The captain handed his son to the deckhand
and told him to take the boy and his wife aboard the family’s other boat. The captain looked
into the dark pump box of his boat in an attempt to gauge the water level and the seriousness of
the situation. By the swiftness of the water filling up the hold, it appeared that the boat had
sprung a bottom plank and no matter how much pumping they did, it would not help to save
the vessel. The sinking boat was now pulling down heavily upon the others around it,
endangering everyone in the tow. After the deckhand returned, the captain told him to awaken
the crews of the neighboring vessels and prepare to cut his sinking boat loose from the tow.
There was no point in calling the attention of the tugboat crew. The sinking boat was doomed
and it would take the tugboat captain several miles to stop the tow; there was little chance of
getting the boat into shallow water before it sank.
The captain searched in the dark for his axe to cut the lines and by the time he had
returned, several other boatmen were there to help. After some of the lines were cut, the canal
boat began to drift out away from the tow and with one last blow of the axe, the boat was set
adrift. The kerosene lights, still glowing within the cabin, could be seen as the boat drifted away
toward the Vermont shore. Shortly thereafter, the lights went out as the boat sank to the lake
bottom near Sloop Island in Charlotte. Without fanfare and within a matter of minutes, the boat
and the family’s belongings were all lost. The vessel’s sinking happened so quickly that the
tugboat crew, shoreline residents, and even some of the canalers within the tow did not realize
what had happened.
The boat was too old to insure so the canal boat family lost everything – their personal
belongings, a shipment of coal, their vessel, and their home. This accident would very likely
have bankrupted the family. The oncoming winter would be a difficult one.
2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, this
project was undertaken as an off-site mitigation to the proposed cleanup of the Pine Street
Canal Superfund Site, located in Burlington, Vermont. This report presents the results of a
Phase III archaeological investigation undertaken by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum on
a late nineteenth/early twentieth century canal boat wreck in Lake Champlain. This vessel,
known by researchers as the Sloop Island Canal Boat (VT-CH-843), was studied during ten
weeks of fieldwork in 2002 and 2003. Life onboard canal boats of this type (1873-1940) is further
detailed by the results of a historical investigation using archaeological, documentary, pictorial,
and oral history records.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat was found in 1998 by the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum during its systematic underwater remote sensing project, known as the Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey (Lake Survey). The 1998 sonar records
showed a canal boat, sitting upright on the lake bottom in 85 feet (26 m) of water near Sloop
Island in the town of Charlotte, Chittenden County, Vermont. Several weeks after its initial
discovery, archaeologists preliminarily documented the vessel through photographs, video and
a few key measurements. Researchers noted numerous artifacts exposed in the cabin and a
cargo of coal in the hold; both indicators that the vessel sank unexpectedly. At 97 feet (29.6 m)
long, 17 feet 10 inches (5.4 m) wide and with a height of 10 feet (3.1 m), the vessel is an
impressive wooden structure on an otherwise featureless bottom. The dimensions are consistent
with canal boats built after the 1873 expansion of the Champlain Canal locks. These 1873-class
canal boats were built until the 1915 New York State Barge Canal expansion; however, they
continued to operate on Lake Champlain into the 1930s. After its 1998 discovery, there were no
immediate plans to conduct further documentation of the site. 3
At the same time that LCMM researchers were conducting the Lake Survey, the issues
surrounding the environmentally contaminated Pine Street Canal in Burlington, Vermont were
being resolved. In the late 1860s, the Pine Street Canal was constructed just south of the current
location of the Burlington Wastewater Treatment Facility. As Burlington’s waterfront boomed
with the shipment of millions of board feet of lumber, the Pine Street Canal was created to
facilitate loading and unloading of canal boats, barges, and sailing craft. In the 1890s,
Burlington’s lumber industry collapsed, and other industries moved in on the facilities around
the canal. In 1895, a coal gasification plant, which produced manufactured gas from coal and
oil, was established next to the canal. Waste products from this process which included coal tar,
fuel oil, tar-saturated wood chips, cinders, cyanide, and metals were disposed of in the
wetlands around the canal, leaving a legacy of contamination.
3
Figure 1. Map of Vermont showing the location of the Sloop Island Canal Boat and the Pine
Street Canal Superfund Site (after Vermont Center for Geographic Information).
4
In 1983, the Pine Street Canal was placed on the National Priorities List and designated a
Superfund Site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The descendant companies of
those that worked along the canal and the current landowners were charged with cleaning up
the contaminated site. As part of this process, an archaeological study was conducted in the
canal by LCMM; it located five canal boats, two ship’s ways, and historic research found
reference to two additional canal boats abandoned in the canal in the 1930s. 4 In 2001, an historic
resources study of the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site determined that the five located canal
boat wrecks were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 5 The Vermont Division
for Historic Preservation determined that the environmental remediation in the canal would
adversely affect the canal boats. Regulators and the potentially responsible parties were left to
determine the best way to conduct an economically feasible archaeological study of these
contaminated vessels in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Given the difficulties and costs of diving in the Superfund Site, all parties agreed that an off-site
mitigation should be considered. The recently located Sloop Island Canal Boat was the ideal
candidate. It is of the same class of canal boat as those in the Pine Street Canal and investigating
the Sloop Island Canal Boat in the clean, clear water of the broad lake would be safer for the
researchers and cost only a fraction of a comparable Phase III project in the hazardous
conditions of the Pine Street Canal. An additional advantage to studying the Sloop Island Canal
Boat was its research potential. Unlike the canal boats abandoned in the Pine Street Canal, the
Sloop Island Canal Boat contained nearly all of the artifacts left onboard when it sank. The
study of that artifact collection would be of great value in understanding early twentieth
century canal boat culture. A Memorandum of Agreement and the Scope of Work were signed
in June 2002, and the Sloop Island Canal Boat Project was formally launched the following
month.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
During the nineteenth century, North Americans built some 4,500 miles (7,250 km) of
canals. Although the early canals were soon supplemented and later overshadowed by the
railroads, the effect canals had on North America's development was profound. Canals were
one of the primary means by which North Americans were able to make effective economic use
of substantial portions of the interior continent and to establish national markets on which
industrial development could be based. The canal boats and canalers were the vehicles and
labor force that made this development possible. Canal boats were specifically adapted to the
socioeconomic and environmental requirements of North America. These were highly
specialized watercraft and quite different from other river and lake vessels.
This study focuses on the canalers and their boats from the Champlain Canal and Lake
Champlain, two water bodies that along with the Canadian Richelieu River, Chambly Canal,
and St. Ours Canal constituted the Champlain Waterway. This north-south corridor was part of
an international transportation route called the Northern Waterway, which linked the Hudson,
St. Lawrence, and Ottawa Valleys. The Northern Waterway connected New York Harbor to the
south with Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec City to the north.
Previous documentary research into the Champlain Waterway's canal era has
concentrated on the building and enlargements of the route’s canals and the general maritime
activities along the route. The previous archaeological research has focused on the construction
details of the canal boat shipwrecks lying on the bottom of Lake Champlain and Richelieu
5
River. The study of the Sloop Island Canal Boat adds to the growing database of information on
canal boat construction and ventures beyond previous studies by emphasizing the northern
canalers' household economy, social structure, gender relationships, sociocultural interactions,
and kinship ties to others operating on the Northern Waterway during the last half of the canal
era (1870-1940).
The field component of the Sloop Island Canal Boat project was undertaken during ten
weeks fieldwork in the summers of 2002 and 2003. The archeological project was divided into
two primary tasks: the documentation of the boat’s hull and the mapping and recovery of the
artifact collection in the cabin. Between four and seven archaeologists worked on the site each
day with each archaeologist able to conduct two divers per day. Upon completion of the
fieldwork, LCMM staff began fulfilling the other components of the project as dictated by the
Scope of Work. The over 300 artifacts recovered were stabilized and documented in LCMM’s
conservation laboratory. A select number of these artifacts were displayed in an exhibit entitled
“Life Aboard: Lake Champlain’s Canal Boat Community” in LCMM’s West Gallery.
Completion of the technical project report was also set as a high priority. Researchers devoted
hundreds of hours to recopying and drafting field notes, drafting numerous views of the vessel,
and writing descriptions of its components. Additionally, the historical research element of this
project dovetailed with the dissertation work of Scott A. McLaughlin. His ongoing research into
Lake Champlain canal boat community from its origins to its demise was invaluable to the
ultimate success of the project.
Overall, the Sloop Island Canal Boat project was a linear process that moved in an
orderly series of stages from data recovery to publication. 6 It followed the general practice in
historical studies, which can be divided into five steps: (1) formulation of a problem for which
relevant sources were sought, fragmented, and reorganized, (2) determination of which sources
were authentic through external criticism, (3) determination of which details in a source were
credible through internal criticism, (4) analysis and synthesis of the data, and (5) organizing the
reliable information into a narrative in which the problem was resolved or refined in summary
interpretations. 7 Each stage of the project was carried out according to the principles and
standards for archaeological and historical research established by the National Park Service,
the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, and professional standards within the field. 8
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report contains eleven chapters. Chapter 1 presents a general description of the
project, its location, and objectives. The theoretical and methodological framework used to
conduct this study is presented in Chapter 2. History of the Northern Waterway is developed in
Chapters 4 through 9, including an overview of the currently known 1873-class canal boats in
Lake Champlain. The results of the structural documentation and cabin artifact analysis of the
Sloop Island Canal Boat are presented in Chapter 10. Chapter 11 contains the report’s
conclusion. This report also contains eight appendices, including a glossary, specialized
analyses, National Register Nomination form, the applicable permit and correspondences
between the LCMM and affiliated parties, an Artifact Inventory, as well as examples of
published literature pertinent to this shipwreck.
6
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK
In order to create the most complete reconstruction of the past, a multidisciplinary,
multiple source approach is needed, as well as a wide range of practical skills. All available data
must be included in any honest attempt to get through the barriers thrown up by time, namely
the alteration and erosion of evidence. Such an approach provides the means by which a
researcher can achieve results that are accurate, informative, and relevant to the initial project
goals. 9 The difficulty in conducting such a research project is using a theoretical framework that
allows for flexibility in research methodology and questions but still provides guidance. We
have selected such a theory in systems thinking.
THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS THEORY
For over a century, the fields of anthropology, sociology, history, and psychology have
used elements of systems thinking to study the processes of how social structures are created,
maintained, modified, and destroyed. This theoretical framework views the world as a complex
living system in which individuals, social groups, and institutions are dynamically interrelated
actors involved in ongoing processes with their environments through interaction networks.
The idea highlights the bounded nature of culture and focuses on the comprehensiveness in
developing models to explain how things work in real life. 10 Systems theory provides sensitivity
to the complexity of human interaction, social structure, and social change. It views the effects
of actions as extending over time and space, and the effects are understood as always being
multiple. 11
With this notion of change, systems theorists claim that the nature, purpose, and
meaning of any individual, group, or event can only be understood in relation to a field of
forces involving other actors and actions. 12 The key idea is that, in order to account for change,
we cannot look at just one factor, or set of factors, in isolation but instead need to understand
the system as a whole. Systems theory also assumes that every phenomenon has its place in a
hierarchy of organization or structure, where it is based upon all of the lower levels beneath it,
and fits into a place where it is affected by all of those levels above it. System theorists assume
that everything may be regarded as a system, subsystem, or a part or element in either
depending upon what questions and data a researcher is working with. Those subsystems or
elements that lie outside of a particular system constitute the system’s environment. 13
Social systems theorists conceptualize human social structure as boxes within boxes, that
is, individuals within social groups and small groups within larger ones. This is a conceptual
framework that researchers use to discern order within and among the complex relationships
that exist between individuals and various groups. Thus, the social world is conceived as
various levels, spheres, or groups of institutional complexes. One way to employ the notion is to
think of an individual as an element of a household, households making up a community,
communities as elements of a region, and regions as the more inclusive structural elements of a
society.
After modeling the social structure of a group, it is possible to view any structural
element as a system that functions or operates as a bounded whole. In this case, the larger
structural elements are conceptualized as part of the general ecological field or environment in
which the selected structural element operates. 14 The system and subsystems are conceived as
7
being embedded within physical, temporal, socio-cultural, and organizational contexts.
Embedded within each subsystem are its members, who are also complex, adaptive, and
embedded in multiple groups. Effective study of a system requires attention to the interchanges
that connect the different levels, including the interchanges between groups within each
subsystem and with their various embedding contexts, and each group’s interchanges with its
members. 15
Social systems are open, complex, adaptive, and dynamic. 16 However, most social
systems are static during their history, meaning that the relative motion of their parts is routine,
not stopped - a common misperception. System equilibrium is a steady or continuous state in
the sustaining distribution of a system’s tasks and energy. 17 System changes are constantly
taking place in microscopic ways as people and, by extension, groups, modify their perceptions
and definitions of their world as they conduct their daily routines. Systems constantly change
with every minute, but participating individuals experience a permanence and continuance
most of the time due to the limited impact of most changes or the accepted range of variation
within the system by the individual. 18 It is only a difference in scale of observation that reveals
the underlying activity of a system’s elements that may lead to a noticeable system change.
Relative stability in a system can be promoted by several different characteristics: rigid
structure, shared norms, negative feedback loops, and loose coupling. Rigid structure makes it
difficult for changes to be implemented. Shared norms ensure that members’ beliefs about how
they should behave converge. Negative feedback loops correct deviations from a norm or
standard, that is a desired state, and thus tend to counteract change, although the correction is,
of course, a change in itself. Loose coupling makes it less likely that change in one part of the
system will require change in other parts of the system. All of these characteristics help
maintain a perceived status quo for a group or individual. 19
The most profitable application of systems thinking to the study of change in the
canaler's way of life revolves around the concepts of community and household. These
categories allow for information to be grouped, analyzed, and discussed using units that are
generally definable based on various sources of data located during this project. The canal boat
community, seen as a social system, consists of a number of major subsystems of which are the
institutions of government, economy, education, religion, family, and household. The region
and society to which the community belonged are viewed as part of the community system's
environment. Each of the community subsystems was composed of a variety of social and/or
associational groups. The individual canaler became a part of one of these groups and hence a
member of the subsystem and the larger community. 20 In this view, the actor, that is the
individual canaler or group, participated in multiple subsystems. Within each subsystem, there
were unique sets of persons and groups that required different kinds of behavior by the actor
and affected the actor in different ways. 21
The household, as a subsystem of the canal boat community, was an economic,
biological, and/or social unit made up of individuals that interacted through constantly
changing sets of relations based upon time and location. The household was a shifting locus
that brought together different strands of interaction. 22 In fact, the canal boat household may be
the place in the canal boat community social system where the widest diverse influences came
together in a complex knot. 23 The other subsystems of the canal boat community had more
limited roles. The political subsystem of government consisted of the individuals and groups
that formulated the community's rules and guidelines, which controlled and regulated the canal
boat community and some aspects of its subsystems. The economic subsystem of credit, debt,
8
and assets consisted of the wealth and resources of the community and the individuals and
groups that managed the community's resources. The social subsystem of education consisted
of the body of knowledge and the methods of instruction limited to its members. The social
subsystem of religion provided religious education and guidance dealing with the divine or
supernatural powers believed to control their world. The biological and social subsystem of
family consisted of those groups of individuals that were related to one another by blood and
marriage. Much like the household, the family was there to provide support in many ways,
both practical and in the form of influence upon its members.
The inherent difficulty of using systems theory in historical studies, which attempt to
explain change, is fulfilling the requirement of identifying and including in a study all relevant
variables, parameters, and linkages of a system, and identifying and evaluating the attributes
that affect the variables leading to change. For this reason, the successful development of
systems models nearly always involves an explanation of data relevant to a particular situation
occurring during a limited time frame. 24 Thus, the value of systems analysis to researchers is
limited by the completeness and accuracy with which they can model the past. The fact that
researchers must simultaneously look at numerous relationships between all the various parts
of a system when employing a systemic approach makes it difficult to comprehend and use
effectively when explaining change. 25 The key to systems thinking is to gather sufficient
information from different viewpoints and sources to paint a rich and complex picture, without
compromising the analysis by over-inclusion, which can paralyze a project. 26
The benefit of systems theory to this study is that it allows for a methodical way to
formulate accurate models of human social and cultural behavior from logical deductions based
on various sources of data including artifacts, images, oral testimony, and documentary
evidence. 27 The theory provides a framework that directs attention to the units of which the
canal boat community was composed and to the relationships and interaction that develop
between the canalers and their environment. 28 Systems theory provides sensitivity to the
complexity of human interaction, social structure, and social change within the canal boat
community. In a system, such as the canalers, the chains of consequences of action are
recognized as extending over time and space, and the effects of action are always viewed as
multiple and the resulting changes as multiple and complex. 29 Systems theory allows us to
develop a rich and complex history of the Champlain Waterway's canalers at various points in
time. 30
With the system theory perspective on interaction and change, we have attempted to
reconstruct the canaler’s way of life as people lived it and also to connect that individual life on
the small scale with the larger social structures and processes taking place within the canal boat
households, extended families, and within the canal boat community operating on Lake
Champlain. Another objective of our research is to propose some specific hypotheses about the
relationship between canaler household structure and individual and collective household
behavior. We explain what canal boat households looked like as structural units, what they did,
and how they functioned. More importantly, an attempt has been made to determine the
important events that created change in the canaler’s way of life.
COMMUNITY AND HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY
This project uses the growing theoretical and methodological approaches in the study of
community and household archaeology to examine the canal boat community and its
9
households that operated from Lake Champlain and the Champlain Canal. Community and
household archaeology are fairly recent fields, with the majority of their literature being
produced in the last two decades. They have been described as having grown out of a marriage
between settlement analysis and activity area research. Household archaeology uses the
organization of archaeological features and their associated material remains in conjunction
with other historical records to focus on the socioeconomic aspects of the household unit, such
as production, consumption of food and basic commodities, and division of labor. Community
archaeology investigates the broader issues of identity, social stratification, infrastructure, and
development.
Household archaeologists propose five functions of a household: consumption,
production, distribution, transmission, and reproduction. The first three categories are related
to domestic economy and therefore have greater potential to be recognized in the archaeological
record. The later two, having to do with property inheritance and rearing children, respectively,
are found more readily in the documentary and oral history records; however, archaeological
evidence is still present. 31 This project investigates all five functions of the canal boat
households and uses various data sources to address each household function.
Archaeological evidence recovered from the Sloop Island Canal Boat, the five canal boat
shipwrecks in the Pine Street Canal, and other shipwreck surveys was supplemented by
historical documents and oral history to reconstruct canal boat life. These additional resources
helped to describe the perishable and extremely buoyant household and personal effects, which
leave no durable archaeological signature aboard the canal boats. They also provided
information about objects and property that were never onsite at all, for example, other vessels,
landholdings, and mules and events or actions not easily identified through the archaeological
record.
Spatial analysis was used to identify the functions of different activity areas aboard the
Sloop Island Canal Boat wreck and of comparable vessels. The spatial organization of the
separate sections of the vessel is an indication of priorities and status hierarchies. The cabins of
canal boats are confined quarters so the amount of space allotted to a particular function or
segment of the crew or activity is a strong indicator of the value attached to that function or
individual.
LIFE COURSE APPROACH
Anthropologists and historians have demonstrated that the most profitable method of
studying any group, (such as a community or household), or individual has been the use of the
life course approach. A life course perspective views the interrelationships between individual
and collective group behavior as they constantly change over people’s lives and in the context
of historical conditions. The life course approach is concerned with the movement of
individuals over their own lives and through historical time, and with the relationship of group
members to each other over time. 32
The life course concept is organized around three primary principles. (1) The life course
of individuals or groups is embedded in and shaped by the historical times, events, and places
they experience over their lifetime. (2) Lives are lived interdependently and social and historical
influences are expressed through this network of shared relationships. (3) Individuals and
groups construct their own life course through the choices and actions they take within the
constraints and opportunities of history and social circumstances. 33 The objective of the life
10
course approach is to study expressions of the general course of change in particular settings
and to represent the process of how and under what conditions communities and households
have changed over the life course and in historical time. 34
The life course of a group or individual can be characterized by three logically ordered
modes that are conceptually distinct but have fuzzy temporal boundaries: formation, operation,
and metamorphosis. The formation mode is the process by which a group or individual
emerges. As a group forms, people, intentions, and resources become organized into an initial
network of relations that distinguishes that group as a bounded social entity. The operations
mode encompasses most of the group’s existence. As a group operates in the service of member
needs, its members elaborate, enact, monitor, and modify the coordination network established
during formation. Groups learn from their own experience and also adapt to events occurring
in their embedding contexts. The metamorphosis of the group is the process that ends the
existence of that group. A group undergoes metamorphosis when it dissolves or is transformed
into a different social entity. 35
A life course model for the study of Lake Champlain’s canal boat community is viewed
in terms of the interdependent life histories of its members and their households. The life course
approach models the canal boat household’s adaptation and change over time; the timing,
arrangement, and duration of events in its life course; the ever-changing pattern of
interdependence and synchronization among the life histories of its members and other
households; and the cycle of generational exchange and succession. 36 This model is achieved
through a detailed reconstruction of specific household histories based on historical data,
including the temporal movements of people in and out of residence, household positions, and
kinship statuses. Such a chronology also contains information on the changing size of the
household, its control and allocation of resources, and changing producer/consumer ratios.
Important to a life course study of a community is the household developmental cycle.
The household development cycle is a concept recognizing that the form and structure of
individual households are not constant but undergo a process of formation, growth, decline,
and eventual dissolution. The ways, rates, and reasons persons are recruited or leave a
household may vary between communities or within the same community over time. The
developmental cycle is strongly influenced by the demographic processes of marriage, birth,
and death, and by various social and economic factors such as inheritance rules, housing and
land availability, and the economic situation of the time. The factors that affect household
composition do so through their effect on the development cycle; the rates at which households
pass through the stages of the development cycle affect the amount of structural variation and
the dominant household type in a community. 37
USE OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA
The value in using multiple types of sources to reconstruct past life course histories is
based on three observations. First, what has survived in the archaeological, documentary,
material, and oral records is only a fraction or sample representing the past. The evidence
collected for this project was indeed found to be fragmentary and in complex associations with
both relevant and irrelevant material. Second, each source type provides a unique perspective
on past life course histories because material culture, oral history, images, and written records
were used and produced by different people and for different purposes. Third, every source is
biased in that it is concerned with only select elements of the past and ignores others. 38
11
Therefore, archaeological deposits, documents, oral testimony, historic images, and material
culture all play a role in our endeavor to reconstruct canal boat life during the second half of the
wooden canal boat era (1873-1940). No full or accurate understanding of the canal boat
community could be achieved without consulting them all. 39
The lives of canalers involved both tangible and intangible elements, all which worked
together to define the canalers operating from the Champlain Waterway. Primary documents,
pictorial records, oral history, and archaeological evidence from sunken canal boats were used
to identify the various spheres of life for canalers from 1873 to 1940. These forms of information
may be thought of as interdependent and complimentary, or as independent and contradictory.
Both of these outlooks are viable depending upon the questions one is asking and the point of
view of the interpretation. Based on this research, it is believe that the data are indeed
interdependent and complimentary. However, an interpretative context must and will be
created to evaluate each data set. 40
Written and pictorial documents provide possibly the most detailed information about
northern boatmen and their vessels. The types and content of these documentary sources varies
greatly from vessel enrollment papers to detailed daily diaries to high quality photographs.
However, the majority of canalers are not well represented in most historical documents except
in impersonal census-type records and in less than objective views by contemporary outsiders.
A vast collection of detailed records concerning the activities of canalers exists in various
archives across the Northeast. However, most of the written records discuss the commercial
activity of the canalers and the laws, rules, and regulations that structured their lives. Few
documentary sources address directly the unique nature of canalers and the canal boat
community living and working on the Champlain Waterway. 41
Much information about any period is neither written down nor readily accessible
through a study of the material record. Historians studying relatively recent periods have the
opportunity to collect information orally from informants. This project investigates the
maritime activities on Lake Champlain from 1873 to 1940. The activities during the later part of
this period remain within the memories of a select few of the region's elderly. Some of these
individuals were interviewed at length for this project. Previous interviews with canalers and
other mariners also proved invaluable.
The authenticity and accuracy of historical research are complex issues. Authenticity
involves verifying the claims that a person makes. Just as a person recording contemporary
events through writings or images always selects and sometimes distorts the past, so does a
person undergoing an interview. A narrative that is provided by an informant becomes
distorted by the original psychological and cultural blinders in force at the time of the past
event and the beliefs of the informant at the time it is recorded by the researcher. 42 Written and
oral stories are not necessarily meant to be taken literally. Many stories have symbolic and
interpretive elements. They reveal not so much facts about the past, as the significance of the
past. It is thus more appropriate in many cases to look for meaning rather than for facts. It is the
meaningfulness of a story that ensures its transmission, not its historical accuracy. 43
Objects were used by all canalers for a wide range of functions and are potentially a
more direct source of information about canal boat life than written documents. As a result,
material culture studies offer the possibility of a way to understand canalers and their way of
life. Two contrasting conceptions of artifacts and the material record vastly affect their use and
importance: the physical model and the textual model. The physical model is characterized as
considering the archaeological record as a direct record of physical objects and processes. The
12
textual model views artifacts and features as material signs and symbols of rule-guided
behavior. Each method provides a different representation of the past through the study of
material culture so both methods have been applied in this study. 44
ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS
The methods and procedures used during the fieldwork of this project are standards in
the fields of nautical archaeology and are discussed in a number of archaeological manuals. 45
Common references to specific archaeological techniques, for example those concerning
archaeological illustration and photography, were used to develop standards for the project. 46
The following sections describe the methods used by the project team.
Project Logistics
Logistical arrangements for Sloop Island Canal Boat project were ideal due to the site’s
proximity to a boat launch and lakeshore facilities. The primary dive platform used for the
survey was Terri Ann, a 23-foot (7 m) fiberglass hulled powerboat captained by Pierre
LaRocque. In 2002 a 12-foot (3.7 m) inflatable powerboat was also used as a support vessel. The
facilities of the Wing’s Point Association in Charlotte, Vermont were used as the staging area for
daily diving activities. The boats were kept at the Association’s docks and extra equipment was
stored in their shed. During the 2002 field season a garage owned by Luther and Elizabeth
Bridgeman was used as the project’s headquarters. The facilities at the Point Bay Marina in
Charlotte were used to launch and retrieve the research boat at the beginning and end of the
project and for fueling.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is located approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) from the Wing’s
Point Association’s docks. Running time to the site was less than five minutes; the field crew
typically returned to shore during the afternoon surface interval to eat lunch, work on
fieldnotes, and rotate SCUBA cylinders.
In 2002, before beginning the fieldwork several pieces of dive infrastructure were
established at the site. In June the U.S. Coast Guard Station Burlington, using their 49-foot (14.9
m) buoy stern loading boat, placed a 3,000 pound (1,361 kg) concrete mooring block 20 feet (6.1
m) off the vessel’s bow. This block provided a fixed point to which the survey boat could be
moored and an ascent-descent line established. The mooring/ascent-descent line consisted of
0.5 inch (1.3 cm) polypropylene line and a Hazelett Elastic Mooring. Divers were guided from
the mooring block to the wreck by a small guideline.
Archaeological Diving Summary
The archaeological field study was conducted during two field seasons with ten total
weeks of fieldwork. Between four and seven archaeologists participated each day. Underwater
conditions proved favorable to the vessel’s archaeological study. The site lies in 85 feet (25.9 m)
of water; at this depth some ambient light was present, especially on sunny days. Divers always
brought lights with them, which typically consisted of two mask-mounted Underwater Kinetics
Mini Q40 lights. When aided by lights, visibility was generally good ranging from 10 to 25 feet
(3.1-7.6 m). Water temperatures during the fieldwork varied widely between 38 and 60ºF (316ºC) at the bottom. At least one, and more typically two, thermoclines were present during the
descent to the wreck site. Underwater currents were normally modest, however, several days of
13
currents exceeding 1knot were observed. The breathing gas used for all dives was NITROX 36.
All divers were required to carry a 13-ft3 (0.37 m3) pony bottle to minimize the risks associated
with out of air emergencies or equipment failure (Figure 2). Each archaeologist conducted two
dives per day; the first dive was thirty minutes and the second was twenty-five minutes. Safety
stops at 15 feet (4.6 m) of three and five minutes were observed after the first and second dive,
respectively.
Figure 2. Archaeologist equipped with headlamps and a pony bottle preparing to dive on the
Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
The archaeological study required 298 dives for a total bottom time of 194.5 hours. A
summary of diving operations is included as Appendix 8: Diving Summary. LCMM staff that
dived for this project included: Sara Brigadier (5 dives), Arthur Cohn (29 dives), Adam Kane (61
dives), Pierre LaRocque (47 dives), Scott McLaughlin (62 dives), Chris Sabick (52 dives), and
Erick Tichonuk (42 dives).
Vessel Documentation
The documentation of the hull was the most time-consuming task undertaken during
the fieldwork component of the Sloop Island Canal Boat study. Many nautical archaeology
studies document the preserved portion of the vessel hull, which, depending on environmental
conditions can be a small percentage of the original vessel. In many cases these types of remains
lend themselves to placing a survey grid over the site to establish datum points for recording
features. In the case of the Sloop Island Canal Boat, however, at least 95 per cent of the vessel
was extant. At nearly 100 feet (30.1 m) long and standing 10 feet (3.1 m) proud of the bottom,
placing a grid over the shipwreck was not practical. The intact nature of the site was the most
significant factor affecting the methodological approach.
The hull’s structure lent itself to its use as the reference grid for recording the locations
of features. Baselines, consisting of fiberglass reel tapes, were established on the site. Using
multiple baselines, archaeologists recorded where features were located
14
Small steel rulers were used map smaller details of the shipwreck. Other recording tools
included clipboards with drafting film, staplers, and awls. The recording of curved portions of
the hull was aided by the use of a digital goniomenter. This tool is a digital level set in a 1 foot
(30.5 cm) wide waterproof housing. The level allows the curvature of a structural member to be
recorded in a series of 1 foot (30.5 cm) increments as the goniometer is “walked” along a
baseline. This methodology has been used dozens of times by LCMM archaeologists over the
past twenty years on Lake Champlain, and was again proved effective during the fieldwork on
the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Figure 3. Archaeologist documenting the stern of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM
Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
The field techniques were designed to gather the data necessary to accurately
reconstruct the vessel’s structure. Data were gathered in a logical progression from general to
more detailed. Documentation initially focused on the canal boat’s overall construction plan,
with later dives devoted to filling in specific construction details. Because this project had the
advantage of continuity of crew, individual team members were given large portions of the
vessel to record. 47 All field measurements were recorded in feet and inches, which was the
system of measurement by which the vessel was originally constructed.
The underwater recording of field measurements was only the first step in the
documentation process. The fieldnotes were initially recorded on gridded drafting film.
Fieldnotes had a pre-printed title block, which noted the site name and number, and had spaces
to fill in the date, area of investigation, the recorder’s name, and the fieldnote number. Each
fieldnote was given a unique fieldnote number, with each archaeologist receiving a block of
numbers from which to work. Immediately after finishing the dive, archaeologists were tasked
with recopying their field notes onto graph paper. These recopied notes were used to record
observations that were too complex to note while working underwater. Recopied notes were
given a recopied fieldnote number that corresponded with the original field note number. This
system allowed matching original and recopied notes to be easily relocated and compared. All
fieldnotes and recopied notes were also inventoried.
Each archaeologist was responsible for converting his or her own field measurements
into scale drawings. Numerous drawings of the vessel and its features were created during this
study. These include five cross sections, plan view, profile, interior profile, bow view, stern
15
view, and numerous detailed drawings of smaller individual features. The plans of the vessels
were drafted at 24:1, however, many of the smaller drawing were drafted at larger scales such
as 4:1 or 8:1.
Photographic and Video Documentation
Photographic and video documentation of the Sloop Island Canal Boat was undertaken
during the entire project. Underwater photography equipment included a Nikonos V
underwater camera with a 15mm wide-angle lens or a 35mm lens for close-up photographs. The
strobe used for all photographs was an Ikelite Substrobe 150, with TTL capabilities and a sixfoot power cord for optimum hand-held strobe positioning. Photography subjects included hull
construction components, cabin artifacts, and divers working. The camera used for land
photography was a 35mm Cannon AE-1 program and a variety of lenses. Out-of-water photo
documentation included site logistics, personnel, and dive platforms. The film used for all
underwater and land 35mm photos was Kodak E100VS Ecktakrome. Digital images were also
taken using a Sony Mavica Digital Still Camera (MVC-FD88).
Video of the site was accomplished using a Sony Digital 8 Handycamm (DCR-TR7000
NTSC) in a SEACAM composite housing (Figure 4). Video of the site included imagery of
construction features, site mosaics, and divers working. Although the video documentation
overall was successful, it was not without challenges. Due to the composite material of the
housing and the extreme temperature changes between surface and bottom temperatures (60°F
[15.6°C] at times) fogging of the housing lens was encountered. Although several techniques
were employed to prevent this from occurring, fogging was a continual hindrance throughout
the project.
Figure 4. Archaeologist video documenting the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by
Pierre LaRocque).
16
Wood Species Identification
Most of the techniques used to study the hull were non-destructive, however,
researchers did remove sixty-five wood samples from the hull. The samples were removed with
a hammer and chisel, with each sample having a volume of approximately 1 in3 (1.6cl).
Immediately after removal, samples were placed in pre-labeled zip lock bags. Samples were
taken to Roy A. Whitmore, Jr., Professor Emeritus of the University of Vermont’s School of
Natural Resources, for identification. The samples were viewed as whole specimens using a
binocular dissecting microscope and/or as thin mounted sections with a binocular compound
microscope. When necessary the samples were compared to known wood samples. The Sloop
Island Canal Boat wood samples were catalogued based on general common tree names (see
page 149).
Cabin Investigations
The cabin of the Sloop Island Canal Boat was found in a state of disarray. The fasteners
of the bulkheads, flooring, and cabin furniture and fixtures had long since rusted away and
allowed things to fall into the structure, creating a disorganized jumble of timbers and artifacts.
Although all of the elements recovered from the cabin were above the mudline, the process of
removing the entangled material was very much like that of an archaeological excavation and
the association of each artifact or feature within the cabin was crucial to understanding the
context of this space. After any archaeological excavation, the contents of a site are fragmented
and disassociated into individually bagged remains and the provenience information recorded
by the archaeologists is crucial to understanding the site as a whole. The cabin of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat was thus treated like an archaeological excavated unit, where the provenience
of each artifact that was documented or collected was used to interpret how certain artifacts
related to one another within the context of the cabin and the events of the structure
collapsing. 48 In order to ensure that as much information was gathered as possible during the
removal of loose material from the cabin, the project archaeologists collected locational
information of the cabin’s structural features and artifacts, including direct measurement
between objects, sketches, video footage, and still photography.
The data and objects collected from the cabin were used in conjunction with
contemporary oral history, documents, and historic images to reconstruct the layout of the
cabin and how the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s household used the space. The analysis of the
artifacts also served as indicators as to the age, gender, and role of the household members and
their relationship with the communities along the Northern Waterway. This analysis also
provided clues as to the nature of daily life for these Northern Canalers.
17
Figure 5. Photograph
(LCMM Collection).
of
cabin
interior,
showing
scattered
timbers
and
artifacts
Underwater Florescence
When the Sloop Island Canal Boat was initially found in 1998, LCMM researchers noted
that flecks of paint were still visible on the transom. This paint represented the remains of the
vessel’s name and homeport. Since historical investigations had failed as of that time (and as of
yet) to determine the canal boat’s name and port of origin, we were particularly interested in
applying techniques that might allow us to read the name from the remnant paint. Our interest
in pursuing new technologies was further spurred by the findings during an inspection of the
canal boat in 2001. Researchers noted that the vessel’s registration numbers were carved into a
deck beam as was required by law, however, not all of the numbers were legible.
In the winter of 2001/2002 we contacted Dr. Charles Mazel of Physical Sciences, Inc. and
NightSea, LLC. He was researching underwater fluorescence and narrowband reflected light
imaging; techniques that often allow the user to see features that are not visible to the naked
eye. Our reasoning was that the paint on the transom was almost certainly lead-based, and since
lead fluoresced using these tools, we might be able to read the vessel’s name.
On July 22, 2002, Dr. Mazel conducted research dives on the Sloop Island Canal Boat to
investigate whether any of several specialized imaging techniques might be of value in
investigating the vessel. The techniques included fluorescence and narrowband reflected light
imaging. The specific questions that motivated the effort included: 1) could the imaging
techniques assist in reading the lettering on the transom; 2) could the imaging techniques assist
in reading the tonnage and registration marks; and 3) do the techniques show anything else of
interest about the site (Figure 6)?
18
Figure 6. Charles Mazel and Arthur Cohn with fluorescence equipment (LCMM Collection, by
Pierre LaRocque).
Fluorescence is the process by which light of one color is absorbed by a substance, and
light of another color is emitted with less energy than the light going in. For example,
ultraviolet light going in could be emitted as any visible color from blue to red. Blue light could
come out as green to red, but not as ultraviolet.
Humans normally view surfaces illuminated by white light, which encompasses all the
colors of the spectrum. The source of the light might be the sun, or in the case of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat in relatively dark conditions, the light from an underwater dive light. In some
mcases there can be greater contrast if only a narrow band of wavelengths (colors) is used for
illumination. It is well known, for example, that many flowers contain patterns that are only
visible to insects that are able to see the ultraviolet light reflected from the flower’s surface.
Humans cannot see ultraviolet light, but it can be revealed with the appropriate lights and
cameras. In July 2002, the Sloop Island Canal Boat was observed in reflected blue light by eye,
and in reflected ultraviolet light by means of a customized underwater video camera.
Two underwater lights were used for this project. The first was the Underwater Kinetics
Light Cannon. This light uses a 10-watt high-intensity discharge bulb that emits very intense
light, rich in ultraviolet and blue wavelengths. The spectral output was controlled by placing
filters in front of the lamp. The filters were attached so that it was easy to switch between them,
allowing more than one to be used during a given dive. Ultraviolet-transmitting, bluetransmitting, and green-transmitting filters made by NightSea were used on this project. The
second underwater light was the UltraMax manufactured by NightSea. This light uses a 35-watt
high-intensity discharge bulb that is especially rich in the ultraviolet. A visible-blocking,
ultraviolet-transmitting filter was mounted in front of the light to restrict its output to the
ultraviolet.
A camera was needed to image the reflected ultraviolet light since humans cannot see
ultraviolet. The camera system was a low-light, sensitive black and white camera mounted in an
underwater housing. The front surface of the housing included a sapphire window transparent
to ultraviolet light. A filter that transmitted only ultraviolet light was mounted in front of the
19
camera to ensure that only ultraviolet would be recorded. This camera was connected to the
surface by a cable that carried power down to the camera and carried the video signal back up
to the surface. The signal was recorded on Hi 8 tape on a Sony TR700 camcorder on the surface.
ARTIFACT CONSERVATION PROCEDURES
Lake Champlain is an ideal environment for the preservation of archaeological remains.
A combination of low light levels, relatively stable and cool water temperatures at depth, thick
anaerobic silt on the lake bottom, and a lack of chlorides in the fresh water produce an
environment, which is very effective at preserving both organic and inorganic materials. Over
time artifacts that have been submerged in Lake Champlain reach a state of equilibrium within
the environment of the lake bottom. When they are removed from the site and brought to the
surface, they are exposed to a different environment and will often rapidly deteriorate. Artifacts
that had remained virtually unchanged on the lake bottom for more than a hundred years can
crumble to dust in a matter of days or weeks once removed. In order for these artifacts to
remain intact for study, display, and long-term storage, they must be properly conserved.
Different types of artifacts require different treatments, and the majority of treatments
are material-specific, i.e. what works for wood may in fact damage iron. For this reason,
composite artifacts, or items composed of more than one material, are the most complicated to
preserve. The following sections summarize the material-specific treatments that were applied
to many of the Sloop Island Canal Boat artifacts that were recovered from the site.
Artifact Documentation
The conservation of any artifact begins with a detailed recording of the item through
written descriptions, drawings, and photography. The artifact must be fully documented before
any type of treatment due to the possibility of damage during the course of conservation.
Photographs and scale drawings are also used to record the item before the process of
conservation begins. These images also allow researchers to use a collection for comparison and
study without actually handling the artifacts. In addition to recording the artifact itself, the
treatment process of each artifact is recorded for future reference. This will allow conservators
and curators in the future to fully assess the condition and history of an artifact and develop
additional treatments should they prove necessary.
After completion of the conservation treatment, each artifact is again drawn,
photographed, and its condition described. This final stage of documentation allows
conservators to determine any change that occurred during treatment and makes the
information gathered available to researchers who do not have direct access to the artifact
collection. These records were also used in the analysis of the artifact collection.
Iron
A considerable number of iron artifacts were recovered from the Sloop Island Canal
Boat site. These items can be broken down into two subcategories: cast iron and wrought iron.
Wrought iron artifacts were manufactured with iron that was heated and hammered into the
desired shape in a forge. This process creates an alloy of iron and carbon. Deteriorated wrought
iron artifacts display a “wood grain” appearance, which is actually a core of pure iron
surrounded by layers of carbon and iron. This combination of hammered iron and carbon create
20
an extremely strong and durable product. Wrought iron was typically used to make items that
required considerable strength including nails, bolts, and anchors.
Cast iron artifacts are created from a molten alloy of iron and carbon that is poured into
loam or sand molds. This process creates a product that has an even distribution of carbon
within the item. The molding technique allows for the creation of items with detailed designs
and intricate shapes. For this reason cast iron was typically used in the manufacture of
decorative items and pieces like stoves or pots with shapes that would be impossible to
manufacture on a forge. Unfortunately, cast iron is more brittle than wrought iron, an attribute
that is exacerbated through long-term submersion in fresh water. In many cases cast iron
artifacts from fresh water archaeological sites are very fragile. As cast iron corrodes it turns to
graphite, which retains the item’s details, but has very little mechanical strength. These artifacts
often require a more delicate treatment approach.
After documentation, the iron artifacts were assessed to determine their composition.
Initial cleaning of both wrought and cast iron items consisted of brushing with toothbrushes
and dental picks followed by electrolytic reduction (ER) for those artifacts determined to have
sufficient structural integrity. The durability of an artifact was determined by probing the
object’s surface and testing the iron content with a magnet.
ER is an electrochemical reaction maintained by an externally applied electrical current
that can be used to conserve metal. An electrolytic cell is created in a vat that contains two
electrodes (anode [+] and cathode [-]), submerged in an electrolyte solution. A variety of
electrolytes can be used; a dilute solution of Sodium Carbonate (soda ash) was used for the
Sloop Island Canal Boat artifacts. Electricity for the cell is provided by an adjustable direct
current (DC) power supply. The artifact to be cleaned is attached to the cathode, and mild steel
mesh is attached as the anode. As the electrochemical reaction takes place, positively charged
metallic ions are attracted to the artifact and hydrogen is evolved, while oxygen and chloride
ions are attracted to the sacrificial anode. The evolution of hydrogen is the primary corrosionremoving mechanism in the ER treatment. Hydrogen bubbles form along the surviving iron of
an artifact; as they escape to the surface they help to loosen and flake off corrosion. The
duration of the ER process is adjusted to the requirements of each artifact. Larger or heavily
corroded items typically require a longer treatment period than small delicate iron pieces.
During the process the item is periodically removed from the ER vat for mechanical cleaning
with brushes and dental picks, and to determine if further ER is required.
Iron artifacts, particularly cast iron pieces that are determined to be too fragile for
treatment through ER, are cleaned by entirely mechanical means. This is usually accomplished
with brushing and picking off the corrosion, and when deemed appropriate a pneumatic air
scribe (i.e. a controllable sand or particle blaster) can also be used to remove gross corrosion.
These more gentle techniques are employed in order to maintain structural integrity and to
preserve surface details.
Once the artifact is free of corrosion it is necessary to rinse the remaining electrolyte and
other impurities from the iron. This is accomplished by placing the object in three baths of
boiling deionized water for sixty minutes each. Rinsing is followed by the application of tannic
acid. When tannic acid coats the surface of an iron artifact it reacts with the metal and forms a
black, protective coating of ferric tannate. Ferric tannate is a stable corrosion product that helps
to create a barrier between the iron artifact and oxygen and humidity that can cause the
formation of new rust.
21
The final step in the treatment of iron is the application of a non-permeable sealant that
acts as an additional oxygen and moisture barrier. The preferred method for sealing an iron
artifact is to submerge it in molten microcrystalline wax, heated to 300°F, and then allowed to
cool, leaving a thin film of wax as an environmental barrier. The high temperature to which the
wax is heated completely dehydrates the iron prior to sealing it.
Example Artifact: Cast Iron Stove Leg SI.02.843.059
The cast iron stove leg recovered from the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal Boat is an
excellent example of the rewards and difficulties of conserving cast iron artifacts (Figure 7).
Upon recovery the artifact was covered with a layer of corrosion so thick that it could not
initially be identified as a stove leg. Treatment began with mechanical cleaning using dental
picks to remove the gross corrosion. During this cleaning it became apparent that portions of
the cast iron were quite graphitized and fragile. After initial cleaning, the artifact was placed in
ER for several short sessions to help loosen the remaining rust. As the cleaning progressed it
became apparent that ornate detail was present under the corrosion. More mechanical cleaning
with picks and brushes successfully removed the rust and revealed the decoration. After
cleaning, the item was placed in three boiling deionized water rises each lasting approximately
one hour. When rinsing was complete six thin coats of tannic acid were applied, followed by
immersion in microcrystalline wax which was heated to 300 degrees then cooled to 180 degrees.
The treatment of this artifact revealed considerable detail including the ornate decoration on the
front of the item and maker’s marks on the back.
Figure 7: Pre-treatment and Post-treatment photographs of the cast iron stove leg.
22
Copper
Quite a few cupreous artifacts were discovered in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat. The majority of the cupreous items were trunk hardware and small fasteners, as well as
two pennies. The largest cupreous artifact was a brass and copper gasoline torch. All copper
alloy artifacts were well preserved. The conservation of copper and its alloys began with
removal of corrosion on the object’s surface. This was accomplished by applying a very dilute
solution of citric acid in combination with gentle mechanical cleaning. Following the citric acid
treatment, the artifact was put through a series of three 100% isopropyl alcohol baths in order to
remove all acid residues from the item. The artifact was coated with Incralac, a sealant that
contains a dilute solution of benzotriazole (BTA). BTA creates a protective coating on the
surface of the metal, retarding corrosion while the Incralac seals the artifact from the
environment.
23
Example Artifact: Drawer Pull SI.02.843.136
Treatment of the cupreous drawer pull began with mechanical cleaning. Cleaning with
picks and brushes proved ineffective, so the artifact was placed in a 3% solution of citric acid.
This acid soak was followed by gentle brushing with a fiberglass bristle brush. This
combination removed the surface corrosion, revealing the name of the manufacturer on the
drawer pull face (Figure 8). Once clean of corrosion, the artifact was put through a series of
three 100% isopropyl alcohol baths in order to remove all acid residues from the item. Finally,
three coats of Incralac were applied to the artifact’s surface to retard future corrosion and seal it
from the environment.
Figure 8: Drawing of the cupreous drawer pull, artifact number SI.02.843.136 after conservation.
Pewter
The pewter artifacts from the Sloop Island Canal Boat consist of flatware. These items
were treated in a process similar to that for iron objects. The corrosion product on pewter
artifacts recovered from fresh water environments is lead oxide. Lead oxide is a stable corrosion
product that hides surface details. The pewter artifacts were typically put through a short ER
session, usually for only a few hours to remove the outer layer of lead oxide. After ER the items
were rinsed in boiling deionized water baths and submerged in molten microcrystalline wax to
seal them from the environment. It is also possible to clean pewter artifacts using a strictly
mechanical process. Several spoons were cleaned with an air abrader at a B. F. Goodrich facility
in Vergennes, Vermont. This process effectively removes surface corrosion. After cleaning, these
artifacts were also rinsed and sealed in microcrystalline wax.
24
Example Artifact: Pewter Spoon SI.02.843.003.009
In preparation for conservation, several pewter spoons that were recovered from the
Sloop Island Canal Boat cupboard drawer were sent for cleaning to the B. F. Goodrich facility in
Vergennes, Vermont. Here mechanical cleaning with an air abrader was undertaken on several
spoons including SI.02.843.003.009 (Figure 9). Cleaning was carried out with glass beads at very
low pressure. This technique proved very effective at removing the surface corrosion on the
artifact while preserving decorative details. After cleaning, the artifact was placed in a bath of
100% alcohol to dehydrate the spoon and to remove any surface residue. Finally the artifact was
sealed in microcrystalline wax.
Figure 9: Drawing of the Pewter Spoon, artifact number SI.02.843.003.009 after conservation.
Tin
Unfortunately the tin artifacts from the Sloop Island Canal Boat were in such a poor
state of preservation that conservation treatment could do little to stabilize or consolidate what
remained. Many of the tin pieces were very fragile and often already disarticulated. Some items
like the tin cone (SI.02.843.003.024) and nutmeg grater (SI.02.843.049) were documented as
thoroughly as possible and the artifact remains discarded. Other tin items, such as the salt and
pepper shakers, were found to retain enough structural integrity for ER treatment. A tin anode
was used instead of mild steel mesh to avoid plating on the artifact. Once free of corrosion the
item was rinsed in several baths of boiling deionized water. Finally, the artifact was sealed with
a coating of molten microcrystalline wax or a brushed on coating of Acryloid B-72, depending
on the structural integrity of the object.
25
Ceramic
The large collection of ceramic artifacts located on the Sloop Island Canal Boat was well
preserved. The conservation of these artifacts was straightforward, primarily involving the
removal of sulfide or iron staining. The pieces were first cleaned with running water and mild
detergent soap. If this proved insufficient to remove staining, the item was placed in a dilute
solution of hydrochloric acid (2%-5%). This was effective in removing both sulfide and iron
staining. Once free of staining the items were rinsed in deionized water until their pH was
neutralized. Items that needed reconstruction were reassembled using polyvinyl acetate (PVA)
dissolved in acetone.
Example Artifact: Ceramic Plate SI.02.843.007
The ceramic plate had organic and iron staining from its decades on the lake bottom
(Figure 10). After documentation and cleaning with soapy water, the artifact was placed in a
dilute solution of hydrochloric acid until the staining was removed. The item was rinsed in
baths of deionized water to ensure removal of all acid from the plate. This treatment was quite
effective at preparing the artifact for long-term storage and display.
Figure 10: Photographs of artifact SI.02.843.007 after conservation.
Glass
The conservation techniques used for the collection of glass artifacts from the Sloop
Island Canal Boat parallel those used for the ceramic artifacts. Like the ceramic collection, the
glass was in good condition, though more of these items exhibited damage due to their more
fragile nature. Many of the glass items also displayed sulfide and iron staining and like the
ceramic items they were placed in a dilute hydrochloric acid bath to clean them. After cleaning
they were carefully rinsed in deionized water to insure a neutral pH.
26
Example Artifact: Root Beer Bottle SI.02.843.102
The root beer bottle was largely clean when initially recovered; however, some organic
and iron staining remained present (Figure 11). To remove the stains the artifact was placed in a
dilute solution of hydrochloric acid. The bottle was next put through a series of deionized water
rinses until it reached neutral pH to insure that all acid was rinsed from the artifact.
Figure 11: Drawing of artifact number SI.02.843.102 after conservation.
Wood
Waterlogged wood is one of the most challenging materials to preserve because it has
lost much of its structural integrity through bacterial action and the process of hydrolysis. If
these items are allowed to dry upon recovery they can shrink dramatically and catastrophically,
this internal damage cannot be repaired. Treatment of waterlogged wood focuses on replacing
the water with a substance that will support the weakened structure. The wooden artifacts
recovered from the Sloop Island Canal Boat were conserved with a process known as the
alcohol-rosin treatment. The wooden items were kept wet prior to treatment to minimize
shrinkage and damage to the artifacts from drying. Conservation began with dehydrating the
wood. The artifacts were placed in bath of 50% water and 50% isopropyl alcohol, followed by a
75% alcohol bath and then two 100% alcohol baths. The dehydrated artifacts were then
suspended in a supersaturated solution of pine rosin dissolved in 100% alcohol. The wood
remained in the alcohol-rosin solution for several weeks to insure thorough penetration of the
rosin into the structure of the wood. When removed from the rosin bath, excess solution was
wiped from the surface of the wood with soft cotton cloths and the artifact was placed in a high
humidity environment to slow drying. The items treated with this process exhibit minimal
shrinkage and are extremely strong and durable if kept in a stable environment.
27
Example Artifact: Gaming Piece SI.02.843.254
The black wooden gaming piece found on the Sloop Island Canal Boat site was put
through the alcohol rosin treatment with great success. The item was cleaned under running
water with a soft bristled brush and then dehydrated in alcohol baths. When the item was free
of water it was submerged into a supersaturated solution of pine rosin dissolved in isopropyl
alcohol. The item remained in this solution for two months to ensure thorough penetration of
the wood. Once removed from this solution excess rosin was removed with an alcohol soaked
cotton cloth, then the artifact was allowed to dry very slowly in a high humidity environment.
The finished artifact displayed minimal shrinkage and is strong and stable (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Drawing of artifact SI.02.843.254 after conservation.
Leather
A small number of leather artifacts were found in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat. These include shoe fragments and a bilge pump sock. The leather artifacts were well
preserved. Leather artifacts were treated by submerging them in a dilute solution of
polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG penetrates the leather and helps to support the structure of the
material and to lubricate it to retain flexibility. After soaking in PEG the leather was placed in a
frost-free freezer for 4 to 6 weeks. In the freezer, the remaining water in the leather sublimated.
After freeze drying, a surface application of leather treatment was applied to further enhance
the appearance and flexibility of the item.
Example Artifact: Shoe Sole SI.02.843.050
The shoe sole was soaked in a PEG solution, prior to freeze drying (Figure 13). A leather
dressing was then applied.
28
Figure 13: Photograph of artifact SI.02.843.050 after conservation.
Enameled Ware
A considerable number of enameled ware containers were found in the cabin. Enameled
ware was commonly used in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Enamelware
consists of a thin iron-walled container coated with ceramic enamel for protection and
decoration. Unfortunately, all of these items were damaged and many were completely
fragmented. The thin iron of the container walls deteriorated underwater, causing the artifacts
to collapse. Preservation process consisted of dehydration in a series of alcohol baths followed
by the application of tannic acid to the exposed iron portions. Finally, the entire artifact is
coated with Acryloid B-66 to isolate it from the environment and prevent further deterioration.
Example Artifact: Chamber Pot SI.02.843.052
The treatment of the enameled ware chamber pot began with gentle brushing of the
artifact’s surface under running water. Though some iron staining was present in the enamel, it
was left in place because treatment to remove the iron staining would have damaged the stable
iron of the artifact. After cleaning, the chamber pot was placed in increasing strength baths of
isopropyl alcohol until it was free of water. Once dehydrated, tannic acid was carefully applied
to the exposed iron of the artifact and the entire piece was sealed with several coats of Acryloid
B-66 (Figure 14).
29
Figure 14: Drawing of artifact number SI.02.843.052 after conservation.
Wool
One of the most interesting artifacts recovered from the shipwreck was a wool coat that
was found pinned in the cabin by a piece of iron. This garment, believed to be a man’s coat, was
carefully cleaned on a water table with mild acid solutions applied to particularly stubborn rust
stains. Unfortunately the same piece of iron that kept the coat on the wreck stained it badly as
the metal corroded. While many of these stains were removed during cleaning, some stains
were left in place in order to limit damage to the artifact. The cleaned fragments of the coat will
be mounted on a backer board and stored archivally (Figure 15).
30
Figure 15: Reconstruction drawing of the wool coat found on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Shell
A single shell item, a clothing button (SI.02.843.003.030), was found in the silverware
drawer in the cabin. The button was treated through dehydration in the form of alcohol baths
and then applying several thin coatings of polyvinyl acetate (PVA) to ensure the artifact’s
structural integrity.
Linoleum
Several sections of linoleum flooring were discovered under the stove (SI.02.843.087 and
SI.02.843.263) and toolbox (SI.02.843.088) in the cabin (Figure 16). Linoleum is a material type
that has not often been encountered by underwater archaeologists. For this reason these
artifacts have been shipped to the Conservation Research Laboratory at Texas A&M University.
There, the linoleum will be subjected to a number of different conservation procedures to
determine which is most effective in preserving this rare find. The linoleum found on the Sloop
Island Canal Boat offers the rare opportunity to help develop new treatments for an
archaeological material that although currently rare in historic contexts, will certainly be
encountered by other archaeologists in the future.
31
Figure 16: Post-treatment drawing of portions of the linoleum found on board the Sloop Island
Canal boat.
Silver
Two pieces of silver flatware were discovered in a cupboard drawer. These items were
found to be in immaculate condition. As silver was the most noble metal found in the drawer,
they were very well preserved. Treatment of these items consisted of cleaning with brushes and
running water then sealing them with Incralac, which contains BTA, a sealant typically used on
cupreous items. In the case of these artifacts, it is assumed that some cupreous materials were
used in creating the silver alloy and therefore Incralac is the most appropriate sealant to isolate
them from further environmental damage.
Example Artifact: Silver Sugar Spoon SI.02.843.003.031
This spoon was found in virtually pristine condition amongst the crumbled corroded
remains of the other implements in the cupboard drawer (Figure 17). Cleaning of this item was
quite simple and involved only rinsing and brushing under running water. After thorough
drying, the spoon was coated by three thin layers of Incralac to protect it from further
environmental damage.
32
Figure 17: Photograph of artifact SI.02.843.003.031, a silver spoon, after conservation.
Composite Artifacts
The most difficult artifacts from underwater environments to conserve are those
composed of two or more material types. Numerous composite artifacts were recovered from
the Sloop Island Canal Boat. They can be broken down into three subcategories: 1) wood and
iron; 2) iron and bone; and 3) iron, leather, and lead.
The wood and iron artifacts include a hatchet and two block planes. These artifacts were
treated with the alcohol rosin method outlined in the wood treatment section. This method is
ideal for artifacts containing wood and iron because the method stabilizes the wood and
dehydrates and seals the iron portions of the artifacts.
Several bone-handled iron utensils were recovered from the site. These artifacts were
subjected to careful cleaning with dental picks and soft bristle brushes to remove gross
corrosion from the iron and dirt from the bone handles. Once clean, the artifacts were put
through a series of alcohol baths in order to dehydrate them completely. Once free of water, the
iron portions of the utensils were coated with tannic acid to retard future corrosion. Finally both
the iron and bone portions of these artifacts were coated with several thin layers of PVA diluted
in acetone. This sealant will protect the structural integrity of the bone and isolate the iron from
the environment.
The most challenging composite artifact to preserve from the wreck site has been a bilge
pump valve. This item consists of an iron base with leather flappers and lead caulking. The item
was carefully cleaned by hand using dental picks, brushes, and a pneumatic air scribe. This
combination of materials requires that the item be thoroughly dehydrated in baths of alcohol.
After dehydration, the iron was coated with tannic acid and the leather was treated with leather
dressing to ensure its stability and flexibility. Finally the metal portions of the pump valve were
coated with PVA to isolate them from the environment.
33
ARCHIVAL AND ORAL HISTORY RESEARCH
The archival and oral history research techniques used were developed based on current
accepted methods. 49 The search for archival and oral history data involved visits to dozens of
public and private libraries, government offices, and museums located along the Northern
Waterway from New York City to the United States-Canadian border. In addition to the
regional sources, additional material was located on visits to the Library of Congress, National
Archives, and museums located along the Erie Canal. Hundreds of books and articles were also
made available through interlibrary loan.
As a result of this search, an extensive amount of primary and secondary data about
canal boat life, in the form of documents and images, were located in institutions throughout
the Northeast. These historical records are in the form of vessel enrollment documents, canal
lock records, customs records, and other relevant government documents at the New York State
Archives, Vermont State Archives, United States National Archives, Library of Congress, and
National Archives of Canada. These documents provide information about the vessel names,
ownership, gross dimensions, crew number, construction location, homeport, cargoes, and
cumulatively, a résumé of each vessel's entire working career. In addition to these documents,
census records, tax rolls, probate records, wills, and genealogical material provide data about
individual canalers, their families, and the canal boat community on the Champlain Waterway.
Boatmen throughout most of seafaring history have been illiterate and canalers were no
exception; hence primary documents written by canalers revealing their lifeways are greatly
lacking. 50 However, small collections of personal documents exist throughout the Northeast in
public archives and private collections. 51 Much effort was made to locate as many of these
documents as possible. The most impressive collection that survives is that of Theodore
Declarmont Bartley (1830-1914), a canal boatman from Dresden, New York. Bartley's collection
consists of diaries, journals, letters, sketches, sheet music, and photographs archived by the
Ticonderoga Historical Society and his descendants.
Accidents, violence, and hardships of canalers are the common issues that appear in
contemporary newspapers and histories of the Champlain Waterway. 52 These sources usually
present either a romanticized or extremely harsh view of life on the Champlain Waterway, but
if viewed with a critical eye they yield a tremendous amount of information about canal boats
and the activities of canalers. These documents form the core of our knowledge about the
canalers’ way of life.
The oral sources in this study are few and in most cases old unpublished recordings,
although a few canalers still survive to the present. These sources provide information that
cannot be found in most printed accounts. The remembrances of surviving canalers exist only in
their memory and generally are unique glimpses of the past. Transcribed interviews of former
canalers exist at various canal, state, and regional historical societies. These oral accounts, when
added to the other historical sources, provide greater depth to this research and a wider range
of voices. Most of the surviving canalers were children during their experience aboard canal
boats, which provides a perspective not well documented in other historical records.
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPRETATIONS
Despite the large number of specific methodology texts concerning each data type we
used for this project, there is little written about how to use the various sources in combination
34
to develop interpretations. 53 There appear to be few rules or prohibitions at this stage of a
historical research project. Although methods for historical and archaeological research do
guide scholars in generating their interpretations, ultimately ideas about the past come partly
from the authors' attitudes, perceptions, and educational experiences. 54 What is desired during
this phase is as much creative thought as possible and the free association of ideas and
perceptions tempered only by our common sense and judgment as to what was even vaguely
plausible. 55 Developing interpretations can test a researcher’s skills, insights, and understanding
to the maximum. 56
After the synthesis phase, we faced the task of explaining our data and the results of our
team's analyses. The explanations for our observations were then constructed into a narrative.
This final phase was the integration of the whole project into a coherent summary with
interpretations. 57 The first step in speculation involved sifting through the information
contained in the various sources and listening to the many voices. 58 This is the time for
summing up what has been learned from the internal evidence and developing theories that
might explain the various effects observed and felt by the analysts. 59
A scholar’s understanding of the past, however, will always be a mere approximation: a
conjecture based on evidence that is fragmentary at best. 60 No interpretation can be entirely free
of conjecture and assumption, which arise from missing data, and from distortion,
displacement, and fragmentation of what does survive in the historical and archaeological
records. 61 The historical accuracy of our understanding of the past is also problematic due to the
differences in how past actions and objects were perceived by their contemporaries and the
researchers of today. 62 It is unrealistic for researchers to believe that they can understand
completely the intentions and ideas of those that they study. 63 Researchers cannot experience a
reality other than the one into which they are locked in terms of time and space. They can only
make limited use of an artifact, document, or folklore as an information sign or window into the
past. Historians are dependent upon the degree of similarity between the present and the past.
Many believe there to be multiple histories: the actual series of events that once occurred, the
ideal series that contemporaries affirmed, and the reconstructions established by researchers. 64
Despite the many qualifications and pitfalls in historical research, we strive to produce the most
accurate reconstruction possible in order to convey how historic events have been perceived,
remembered, and made significant by both past and present people.
SITE ARCHIVE AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
Upon completion of the work, the project archive has been housed in the Nautical
Archaeology Center at the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum (LCMM). The materials have
been processed, documented, and curated as outlined by the National Park Service and the
State of Vermont. 65 The material is made available to public and private organizations and
individuals with sincere research interests. The results of the project have been incorporated
into exhibits at LCMM and copies of the report have been disseminated to appropriate
repositories and researchers.
As per the educational mission of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, our staff
made a concerted effort to share the study’s findings with the public. During the 2002
fieldseason every LCMM staff member was invited to spend the day on the research vessel with
the archaeological crew. This gave LCMM educators the opportunity to understand the
archaeological process first-hand, and share that experience with museum visitors. The story of
35
the Sloop Island Canal Boat was related to visitors through LCMM’s publicly-accessible
Conservation Laboratory. LCMM archaeologists gave numerous presentations on the study at
LCMM’s Basin Harbor site and Captain White Place in Burlington, and at regional rotaries,
American Legions, senior centers, and historical societies. Presentations were also given to other
archaeologists at the Society for Historical Archaeology’s 2003 conference in Providence, Rhode
Island and at the Vermont Archaeological Society’s spring 2003 meeting at LCMM’s Basin
Harbor site. The findings of the study were also communicated through several publications
including articles in LCMMnews, the Journal of Vermont Archaeology, The Dish, and Canadian
Bottle and Stoneware Collector.
36
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN
The environmental setting of any region plays an important role in shaping the lives and
activities of its residents. The Champlain Valley’s location in relationship to other important
regions within North America and its rocks, plants, animals, waterbodies, and landforms have
placed limitations and provided opportunities for those interested in developing maritime trade
in the valley. For historians to understand why and how canal boats and the canal boat
community developed as it did, below is a discussion of the environmental setting in which
they flourished for nearly 120 years. This same environment also controlled most of the factors
that have led to the preservation of dozens of canal boat shipwrecks on the bottom of Lake
Champlain.
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
Lake Champlain is the focal point of the geographical region known as the Champlain
Valley, which is characterized by rolling hills, islands, wetlands, river systems, and Lake
Champlain. The topography and landforms visible today throughout the Champlain Valley are
products of ancient mountain-building processes and of glaciers and rivers that gouged the
valley and scoured the surfaces of the surrounding mountains. The Champlain Valley is cradled
by the Green and Taconic Mountains to the east and the Adirondack Mountains to the west.
These three mountain ranges represent the highest elevations surrounding the Champlain
Valley and form the headwater areas of tributaries entering Lake Champlain. 66
Lake Champlain is an elongated lake that occupies a portion of a long, north-south
valley that extends from the St. Lawrence River to Long Island Sound. Lake Champlain lies in
this valley with the Hudson River to the south and the Richelieu River to the north. With a
mean elevation of 95 feet (29 m) above sea level, Lake Champlain has a maximum length of 120
miles (200 km), a maximum width of 13 miles (21 km), and a maximum depth of 400 feet (122
m).
After the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain is the sixth largest freshwater lake in the United
States. The lake flows north from Whitehall, New York, across the U.S.-Canadian border to its
outlet at the Richelieu River in Quebec. From the Richelieu River, the water joins the St.
Lawrence River and eventually drains into the Atlantic Ocean at the Gulf of St. Lawrence. For
much of its length, Lake Champlain defines the state border between Vermont and New York.
The lake's watershed is bound to the east by the Connecticut River basin and to the southwest
by the Hudson River basin, which is connected to Lake Champlain by the Champlain Canal.
The environmental setting of Lake Champlain is unique because of its narrow width, its great
depth, and the size of its watershed. 67
In most areas surrounding Lake Champlain the shoreline profile is quite gentle, except
for some steep cliffs along certain areas of the New York side of the lake. Unlike many other
lakes, which are bowl-shaped and tend to be more evenly mixed, Lake Champlain is made up
of lake segments, each with different physical and chemical characteristics, split apart by the
lake’s eighty islands. Morphologically, the lake is divided into three distinct, but connected
sections.
The largest section is called the Main Lake, which extends from Isle aux Têtes (Ash
Island), Quebec, to Crown Point, New York, west of the Champlain Islands (Figure 18). This
segment contains about 81 percent of the volume of the entire lake and has the deepest, coldest
37
water. The lake reaches its maximum depth and width in the Main Lake, near Thompson’s
Point, Vermont, and north of Burlington, Vermont, respectively. 68 It is within this area that the
Sloop Island Canal Boat is located.
Figure 18. Map of Lake Champlain showing the lake’s segments.
The second section of Lake Champlain is known as the Restricted Arm, which is located
to the east of the Main Lake and is composed of three primary basins, including Mallets Bay, the
Inland Sea (often referred to as the Northeast Arm or East Bay), and Missisquoi Bay. These
primary basins are connected to each other and the Main Lake by shallow narrow passages, all
of which are part of the Restricted Arm. Mallets Bay is along the Colchester, Vermont shoreline,
southeast of Grand Isle, Vermont. The Inland Sea is east of the Champlain Islands, stretching
38
from the Sand Bar causeway in Colchester north to Missisquoi Bay, and includes the narrow
passages between the islands of Grand Isle and North Hero and Alburg Tongue. Missisquoi Bay
begins from the southern end of Hog Island, Swanton, Vermont, and extends into Quebec.
The third section of Lake Champlain is the South Lake. Resembling a river with an
average depth of 20 feet (6.1 m) and a width of less than 1 mile (1.6 km), the South Lake runs
from Whitehall to Crown Point, New York. At the lake’s southern end in Whitehall, the
Champlain Canal, (completed in 1823), connects Lake Champlain to the Hudson River. 69 It is
through this section of Lake Champlain that the Sloop Island Canal Boat had just passed before
sinking to the bottom of the lake.
WATER COLUMN
The hydrodynamics of Lake Champlain are still very much unknown. The water of Lake
Champlain is constantly in motion by complex processes that change both seasonally and over
longer periods of time. In the last two decades scientists have begun to study flow patterns
within Lake Champlain that control the transport of sediment, nutrients, and toxic substances.
Most of these studies have examined actual movement of the lake water at varying depths. A
few of these studies, including LCMM’s Lake Survey Project, have also looked at bottom
sediment features created by currents. 70
Varying bottom currents affect the lake's sediment erosion, transport, and deposition,
but they create predictable geomorphic features. Previous studies have generated several facts
about Lake Champlain. For example, the general flow of water in the Main Lake, where the
Sloop Island Canal Boat is located, occurs from south to north. Water movement is different,
however, in the Restricted Arm, where the water generally moves south and west to reach the
Main Lake through the narrow openings between the Champlain Islands and modern
transportation causeways. The variation of the flow patterns in the Restricted Arm changes with
the seasons and the weather. Like other deep lakes, Lake Champlain stratifies in the spring and
summer into water layers with distinctly different temperatures. In the spring, the sun warms
the surface of the lake. This warmer water is less dense than the colder, deeper water, so it floats
on the surface and forms a layer called the epilimnion. This layer is typically about 33 feet (10
m) deep in the Main Lake during the summer. Below this layer, sharp transitions in
temperature define the boundary of the next layer, called the metalimnion, and the much colder
waters below, called the hypolimnion. 71
Wind and temperature are the primary forces that drive water currents in the lake. Once
the lake stratifies by temperature in the early summer, changing wind directions and speeds can
set up an internal wave, called a seiche, within the lake. This large wave, which involves water
at the surface and at deeper depths, causes the general northward flow of bottom water to
reverse direction. A few days of consistent winds from the south gradually pile up warm
surface waters at the northern end of the lake, pushing the colder, deep water to the southern
end of the lake. When the wind slows or reverses its direction, surface water flows southward
and the bottom current flows northward, causing a sloshing motion of the lake water. This very
long wave creates currents of up to 1 mile per hour (1.6 kmph) in the Main Lake. The internal
seiche causes a mixing of water and also a turbulent resuspension of sediments to create unique
sedimentary features on the lake bottom. These changes in currents and water temperature
were observed on the wreck during the two-year survey. The results of the bottom currents
could also be seen in the erosion of the bottom sediments from immediately around the wreck.
39
As the surface waters cool in late fall, they become more dense than the underlying water. As
the denser, colder surface water sinks, it mixes with the water below. In the winter the
temperature of the entire lake approaches 4º C (39º F), while the surface waters are cooled to the
freezing point and form ice. 72
CLIMATE AND BIOTA
Because of the protection offered by mountains on three sides and the moderating effect
of Lake Champlain, the climate in the Champlain Valley is the mildest in Northern New York
and Vermont. The temperatures of the region are moderated year round by the lake. Cool
breezes blow inland off the lake in the summer. In the winter, the lake holds more heat than the
land and air, so nearby land areas stay warmer as well. Of all the surrounding regions, the
Champlain Valley receives the least precipitation. Ample rainfall, moderately warm summers,
and fairly cold winters are characteristic of the Champlain Valley. The north-south orientation
of the Champlain Valley creates prevailing winds in the same direction. They tend to blow from
the south in the summer, although north winds and south winds are about equally frequent in
the winter. The frost-free season is longer, the precipitation less abundant, and the temperatures
not so extreme in the Champlain Valley as in other surrounding regions.
The current climate in the Champlain Valley differs from that in surrounding
geographic regions because of three main factors: the distance from the valley to the North
Atlantic Coast, the shape and orientation of the valley, and the moderating influence of Lake
Champlain. When the prevailing winds from the west reach the mountains and rise to move
over them, the air is cooled, causing rain in the summer and snow in the winter. For this reason,
higher elevations surrounding the valley receive greater amounts of precipitation. The average
annual precipitation in the mountains is generally over 50 inches (127 cm), as compared to
about 30 inches (76 cm) in the valley. The growing season also varies in different parts of the
valley, lasting only 105 days in the higher, cold pockets of the basin, but 150 days along Lake
Champlain. The longer growing season and the region’s fertile soil make the valley a rich
agricultural area. 73
The Champlain Valley was covered by forest since the retreat of the glaciers, although
the predominant trees changed over time with fluctuations in temperature and precipitation. At
the time of the European discovery of the Champlain Valley, the region was dominated by an
oak-chestnut forest that appeared as average temperatures rose after about 3000 B.C. For lack of
data, little can be said about changes in mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, and fish populations
that must have occurred after the oak-chestnut forest was cleared around Lake Champlain
during the nineteenth century.
NON-NATIVE AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES
One of the most significant effects of human activity on Lake Champlain has been the
relatively recent introduction of several non-native aquatic nuisance species. These plants and
animals, most of which were inadvertently carried into the Champlain Valley via the
Champlain Canal and the Richelieu River, are causing severe problems for the lake’s ecology
and cultural resources. Although zebra mussels are impacting the lake’s shipwrecks most
profoundly, other organisms such as water chestnuts and Eurasian watermilfoil introduced to
Lake Champlain in the 1940s and 1962, respectively, are also problematic. These nuisance plants
form dense mats on the surface of the water that severely restrict boat traffic and limit access to
40
the lake's underwater cultural resources. Such conditions make it especially difficult to locate
and document submerged resources in shallow waters where the plants grow.
No methods have yet been found that successfully eradicate these invaders from the
lake system or prevent other non-native nuisance species from entering. The future impact to
the lake’s cultural resources is not entirely unknown, but experience has shown that control of
all non-indigenous species is extremely difficult.
The most profoundly disruptive phenomenon to have occurred recently in Lake
Champlain is the introduction of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), a small freshwater
mollusk native to the regions surrounding the Caspian and Black Seas of Eurasia. The zebra
mussel was accidentally introduced to North America in 1987, ejected into Lake St. Clair with
the ballast water from a transatlantic vessel. This is the same way that many other non-native
species now thriving in North America have entered. Zebra mussels were first discovered in the
Great Lakes region in 1988. Since then, the mussels have spread across eastern North America
by following the flow of water, by attaching themselves to boat hulls, and by the inadvertent
transport of zebra mussel juveniles, called veligers.
Figure 19. Drawing of a zebra mussel.
In 1993, zebra mussels were found in the southern section of Lake Champlain and in the
north near Rouses Point, New York. After gaining a foothold in the Champlain Valley, they
have rapidly expanded their range within the lake. The microscopic planktonic zebra mussel
larvae, which are free-swimming, can be unknowingly transported in bait buckets, bilge water,
SCUBA equipment, and boat engine cooling systems. Once the mussels mature enough to grow
a shell, they settle out of the water column and generally attach to a hard surface (or substrate).
The mussels grow rapidly, with adult colonies reaching densities as high as 700,000 mussels per
1.2yd2 (1m2). Zebra mussels encrust boat hulls, engine cooling systems, intake/outtake pipes,
and the entire lake bottom within their optimum depth range. These mussels also threaten to
encrust any historic object lying on the lake bottom, thus presenting the single largest threat to
Lake Champlain's cultural resources. Once the mussels have covered these resources,
documentation is much more difficult, an eventuality which has generated the current urgency
to locate, inventory, and document the collection of cultural resources on the bottom of Lake
Champlain, and which resulted in the discovery of Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Since 1995, LCMM has also worked with the joint New York/Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation Zebra Mussel Monitoring program. At LCMM’s suggestion,
several shipwreck sites have been included at times in the monitoring program. The additional
sites significantly expanded the database that the states of Vermont and New York were
compiling about the density and distribution of zebra mussel veligers.
41
In 1999, LCMM commenced the study “Zebra Mussels, Shipwrecks, and the
Environment” in partnership with the University of Vermont’s School of Natural Resources to
investigate zebra mussels’ direct effect on Lake Champlain’s cultural resources. Six of the lake’s
shipwrecks were selected and monitored as study sites. The first season’s preliminary results
indicated a demonstrably higher level of dissolved iron in the water column just above the
zebra mussel colony than in the water column in general. These data lead to the troubling
hypothesis that zebra mussel colonies are dissolving the iron fasteners on shipwrecks at a
measurable rate and may therefore threaten the wrecks’ long-term structural integrity.
The results of the ongoing zebra mussel survey have not suggested a promising future
for Lake Champlain. The study has determined that Lake Champlain's water chemistry and
food supply were sufficient to sustain zebra mussels throughout the entire lake. Despite all the
research on a biological control for zebra mussels, no easily applicable method has been found
to eliminate the zebra mussel or to protect Lake Champlain's submerged cultural resources.
Zebra mussels are now found in even greater numbers on shipwrecks throughout Lake
Champlain. 74
In 1991, the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), another non-native mussel very similar
to zebra mussels in both appearance and characteristics, was discovered in the Great Lakes.
This species is now present in the Erie Canal System and is migrating eastward. No one knows
how long it will take for quagga mussels to reach Lake Champlain, but it is almost inevitable
that they will become part of Lake Champlain's growing list of invasive species. The habitat of
quagga mussels ranges from 0 to 350 feet (0-107 m) in water depth, which includes almost the
entire bottom surface of Lake Champlain and certainly the Sloop Island Canal Boat shipwreck.
During the first season of documentation of the Sloop Island Canal Boat shipwreck, a very small
number of zebra mussels were found on the site. These mussels were most frequently found on
the iron fasteners and iron artifacts located on the wreck. During the second season of the
documentation project, a noticeable increase in mussels was evident to the archaeologists.
Although not as conducive to zebra mussel colonization due to its deep water depth, it appears
that the zebra mussels will continue to have an adverse affect on the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
42
CHAPTER 4: THE CHAMPLAIN WATERWAY
During the eighteenth century, inland waterway transportation was important to the
development and growth of North America; however, navigation of the natural waterways was
greatly hindered by falls, rapids, and inconsistent water depths. To improve upon their natural
waterways, the United States and British Canada during the early nineteenth century began
construction of a canal network linking their deep natural waterways. These all-water routes
allowed the efficient movement of goods from the interior of the continent to the Atlantic
Coast. 75 One of the earliest transportation routes of the Northeast was called the Northern Route
or Waterway, which linked New York City to the south with Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec
City to the north. This route utilized, from south to north, the natural waterways of the Hudson
River, Wood Creek, Lake Champlain, Richelieu River, St. Lawrence River, and Ottawa River. To
create a continuous navigable waterway, several dams were constructed to increase the water
depth and short canals were built around rapids. The longest canal occurring along the route
was the Champlain Canal at 64 miles (103 km), which was necessary to link the Hudson and
Champlain Valleys.
Figure 20. Map of the Northeast showing the regional canals (LCMM Collection).
43
AN INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY
The Champlain Waterway or Route, which links the Hudson and St. Lawrence Valleys,
is the central section of the Northern Route and consists of American and Canadian
components. The Champlain Canal and Lake Champlain make up the American section, and
the Richelieu River, Chambly Canal, and St. Ours Canal make up the Canadian section. The
other sections of the Northern Route were also part of maritime routes that lead to the Great
Lakes. The Champlain Canal was always viewed as second to New York's Erie or Western
Canal and the Chambly Canal was certainly a poor sister to the other Canadian canals. 76 Despite
this contemporary and historical view of the Champlain Waterway, it ranked a close second to
the western routes throughout most of the nineteenth century.
The Champlain Canal was opened in October 1823 and was such a success that New
York State began to enlarge the canal locks and prism in 1835. Due to a lack of funding and the
political might of Erie Canal supporters, the enlargement of the Champlain Canal was not
completed until 1862 (Figure 21). Planning of the Chambly Canal began about the same time as
the Champlain Canal; however, due to the fear of a renewed war with the United States and an
interest in protecting British control over Canadian commerce, officials dragged out the project.
The Chambly Canal was finally completed in 1843. However, navigation along the Canadian
section of the Champlain Waterway was poor until improvements were completed in 1860,
which included an enlargement of the locks and canal prism, dredging the Richelieu River, and
the construction of a dam and the St. Ours Canal near the mouth of the Richelieu River. 77
Figure 21: Building the Champlain Canal
The work of maintaining and improving the Champlain Waterway was an enterprise of
individuals, state and provincial agencies, and of federal governments. 78 The Champlain
Waterway did not have continuous and adequate improvements during the nineteenth century,
44
as the system of determining the waterway's needs was largely based on efforts made by
politicians who were working in state, provincial, and national government for their own
district's interest. A politician's efforts usually led to numerous detailed surveys by government
agencies responsible for the waterway. The surveys were then reviewed by political committees
that made recommendations to legislative bodies. Despite the fact that the government agencies
responsible for the waterway's management were better able to determine their needs, the final
resolution depended upon politicians. 79
Throughout the late nineteenth century, the issue of maintenance and improvements of
the Champlain Waterway was a political football. Many politicians were reluctant to
appropriate funds to enlarge or make improvements to the waterway. Various groups and
politicians outside of the Champlain Waterway also attempted through political maneuvering
to obtain transportation funds for their constituents, leaving little money left for the Champlain
Waterway. These politicians rarely looked at the benefits that enlarging or improving the
Champlain Waterway would have on their state, province, nation, or to North Americans in
general. As a result, the policy of making small appropriations to simply maintain the
Champlain Waterway continued throughout the nineteenth century. 80
A deep-water navigation route or ship canal along the Champlain Waterway was a
dream of prominent citizens in Quebec, New York, and Vermont from the late eighteenth
century until the mid twentieth century. It was a project that had the potential of making the
Champlain Waterway a key element in the bond between Canada and the United States. This
waterway was claimed to have the potential to be a critical transportation route between the
Great Lakes and the Atlantic Seaboard. Its construction, however, required a favorable
configuration of military, economic, political, and environmental factors, and its supporters
were never able to positively align all of these factors. Each time the waterway was proposed at
least one crucial element was missing. During most of the early nineteenth century, military
tensions and the erroneous predictions of another war between the United States and Canada
effectively blocked the canal. Neither side wanted to make the passage of its adversary easier.
During most of the period from 1870 to 1940, protectionist economic policies of both countries
seriously damaged the prospects of developing a deepwater route. 81 Certain politicians
attempted to sabotage the project because of personal economic and political motives, which
were usually connected somehow to the railroad companies. 82
Various Erie Canal constituencies were another force in opposition to the ship canal.
They were powerful enough to deter serious considerations to developing the deepwater route
along the Champlain Waterway and argued instead for the enlargement of the Erie Canal. 83 The
ship canal idea was also hindered by its great expense and almost continuous economic
constraints, especially during World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II, which
made it impossible to consider its construction. 84
With each renewed interest in the ship canal, there were proposals, counter proposals,
studies, surveys, and political procrastination that lasted for years. 85 All of the major
engineering studies concluded that the idea was technically feasible but the project never
moved forward. 86 The great expense of constructing the waterway and the fact that it would
have to involve two national governments made it nearly impossible for a private company or
individual state or province to undertake the effort. The American and Canadian governments
conducted several separate and joint studies but these never produced a material gain. One of
the greatest blows to the project was the completion in 1876 of the Delaware & Hudson Railroad
along the New York shore of Lake Champlain. This railroad completed a vast network of
45
railroads linking the Atlantic Coast with the St. Lawrence Valley and Great Lakes. The network
of railroads made it difficult for deepwater route supporters to make a solid case for the
waterway's construction (Figure 22).
Between 1835 and 1858, New York State slowly replaced the locks of the Champlain
Canal as need arose and completed the enlargement of the canal prism in 1862. Everyone
recognized that this enlargement was inadequate for the freight that was and could potentially
be carried along the Northern Waterway. As a result of public pressure, the second enlargement
of the Champlain Canal began after a flurry of suggestions by politicians, boatmen, and
shippers, all urging New York State to build the Champlain Canal to at least the dimensions of
the Erie Canal, while some encouraged the construction of something large enough to handle
sea-going vessels. In 1864, New York resolved to enlarge the Champlain Canal to the same
dimensions as the Erie Canal. 87
Figure 22: Photograph of the canal, with the railroad and road system running along its banks.
The railroad would ultimately cause the demise of canalboats in the commercial transport
industry.
In 1870, the New York State legislature finally appropriated money for making surveys
and estimates for enlarging the Champlain Canal for a second time. Some improvements were
made during 1871 and 1872, but for the next three years little was done. The new locks,
completed in 1873, measured at least 110 feet (33.5 m) long and 18 feet (5.5 m) wide. Then in
1876, a law was passed modifying the plans for the canal prism enlargement; the surface width
was to be at least 65 feet (19.8 m) and the depth was to be 6 feet (1.8 m). This fell short of the
Erie Canal's dimensions by 5 feet (1.5 m) in width and 1 foot (30.5 cm) in depth. 88 This
modification of the canal enlargement was passed because many politicians believed that the
falling revenues from the Champlain Canal would make it impossible to secure support for the
46
appropriations necessary to enlarge the canal as originally planned. The 1876 appropriation was
spent in such a way to enlarge the Champlain Canal at the least possible expense. Bridges were
repaired, much dredging was done, and the canal prism was widened and deepened in several
places, although a uniform depth of 6 feet (1.8 m) was never achieved. The enlargement and
improvement of the canal prism continued sporadically until the 1890s, at which time only 20
miles (32.2 km) of the canal prism had been enlarged to a depth of 6 feet (1.8 m) and a bottom
width of 44 feet (13.4 m). 89 Despite the failure of the Canal Department to complete the
enlargement, the improvements still resulted in giving the Champlain Canal the best navigation
in its history. 90
Many of the problems encountered in improving the Champlain Canal stemmed from
its original design. Canal boatmen claimed that the canal was built about as crooked as a
corkscrew. The canal's original engineers were under the misguided notion that if the canal
were made straight, the current would be too strong for the upstream boats to make any
headway. As a result, the canal was made as nearly the reverse of straight as possible with
sharp bends that collected sediment, reducing the depth and width of the canal prism. This
situation made it nearly impossible to maintain a consistent depth and width in the canal
prism. 91
Despite continuous outcries by the public for the enlargement of the Champlain Canal,
New York State politicians refused to budge on the issue during the last quarter of the
nineteenth century. Hampered by mismanagement and the inability of the Champlain
Waterway to compete favorably with the railroads, the supporters of the waterway were able to
do little in fostering interest in its improvement. Since 1873, the dimensions of the canal prism
and locks on the Champlain and Chambly Canals remained the same. A canal boat's size was
limited by the smaller locks and shallower canal prism on the Champlain Canal, which allowed
a boat up to 99 feet (30.2 m) long, 18 feet (5.5 m) wide, and with a maximum draft of 4.5 feet (1.4
m). The same boat loaded to a maximum draft of 6.5 feet (2.0 m) for the Chambly Canal was
considered a double load. 92 The canal equipment and animal towage employed since their
construction also remained the same. By the 1880s, the only change in operations on the
Champlain Waterway was the system of moving boats along the canals in trains of two in place
of single boats. Two boats operated in such a fashion were called a ”double header” and the
practice itself was called “doubling”. 93
As the population increased in the towns along the Champlain Waterway, bridges were
constructed over the waterway to allow foot and vehicle traffic. These bridges usually led to a
narrowing of the navigational channel, which frequently restricted the movement of canal boat
tows and also led to accidents. Under windy conditions on November 14, 1873, a tug pulling
four canal boats abreast through the railroad draw bridge at Ticonderoga, New York, struck the
west side of the bridge with such force that the canal boats tore away some of the bridge
timbers and rendered it impossible to close for the passage of trains. 94 Another incident that
occurred at the drawbridge was the sinking of the Essex-built canal schooner B. Noble of
Vergennes, Vermont. On June 15, 1882, John Daniel’s schooner B. Noble was passing a canal boat
tow at the bridge and ran into one of the canal boats, crushing the schooner’s bow. B. Noble
immediately sank in about 30 feet (9.1 m) of water. The schooner was later raised on July 12 and
towed to Whitehall where the vessel was repaired and put back into service. 95
Throughout the late nineteenth century, the American government improved on the
navigational aids that had been constructed throughout the Champlain Valley since the late
eighteenth century. These included buoys, lighthouses, and breakwaters. During the last three
47
decades of the nineteenth century, new breakwaters were constructed at Swanton Harbor
(1873), Gordon’s Landing at Grand Isle (1880), and Rouses Point (1884). The federal government
also maintained consistent water depths in Lake Champlain, Otter Creek, Ticonderoga Creek,
and the Great Chazy River. 96 The growing size of canal boat tows and side-wheel steamers, and
the increase in traffic on Lake Champlain made it necessary to also build additional lighthouses
along Lake Champlain. The newest navigational aids made it possible for vessels to travel
under increasingly inclement conditions, eliminating shipment delays due to darkness and poor
weather. 97 New York State at different times also made appropriations to improve the
navigation of various rivers and harbors in the Champlain Valley. 98
As the nineteenth century came to a close, however, New York State grew less
concerned about keeping up their section of the Champlain Waterway. During the early 1890s,
the apathy of New York State led to the formation of a boatmen’s organization called the Union
for the Improvement of the Canals of the State of New York. The object of this organization and
many others like it across New York State was to develop a clear canal policy for the state and
act upon it. 99 Many of the Champlain Waterway's canal boatmen belonged to these
organizations and used them to express their frustration and anger at New York State's
mismanagement of the canal system.
By the 1890s, the people of New York State began to realize that the old plan of gradual
improvements to the state’s canals was neither wise nor economical. The only practical move
was to make a single large appropriation, sufficient to cover all expenses for enlarging the New
York State canals. New York businessmen and politicians, fearing that New York City and their
state were losing their commercial leadership to other Eastern seaports with railroad
connections, waged a vigorous campaign for canal improvement. In 1895, the legislature and
people of New York State authorized the issue of nine million dollars in State bonds, to be
expended in the improvement of the Champlain, Erie, and Oswego Canals. By the summer of
1898, nearly all the money had been expended, but the work was far from completed. Less than
6 miles (9.7 km) of the Champlain Canal had been improved over the three years. The
appropriation was grossly inadequate and rumors of alleged fraud and extravagance in the
administration fueled a debate about the future of New York's canals. 100
New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt, who entered office on January 1, 1899, decided
that before any further action was undertaken, there was a need for a careful examination of the
commercial advantage of improving the canals of New York State. For this purpose, he selected
prominent businessmen and engineers, who were requested to undertake the investigation and
to formulate a definitive canal policy for New York State. Their report vigorously opposed the
abandonment of the canals, and took the stand that with adequate improvement they could
become active promoters of the commercial and industrial interests of New York State. 101 The
committee recommended that the Champlain, Erie, and Oswego canals be enlarged. 102
After numerous studies and political battles with railroad supporters, New York State
finally put its energy and funds into establishing the New York State Barge Canal System in
1903 (Figure 23). Ground was broken for the Champlain Barge Canal in April 1905 at Fort Miller
and was completed in the late fall of 1915. Its concrete locks could accommodate a vessel 300
feet (91.4 m) long by 43.5 feet (13.3 m) wide that drafted just under 12 feet (3.7 m) of water.
Bridges and overhead power and telephone lines limited the vessels to a height of less than 15.5
feet (4.7 m) at normal water levels. The new barge canal was built without towpaths; canal boats
were to be towed by tugboats through the entire waterway. 103
48
Figure 23: Building the New York State Barge Canal.
While the Champlain Barge Canal was under way, the Canadian government did
nothing to improve their section of the Champlain Waterway. The reason for this decision was
due to the fact that in 1898, by an act of Canada's Parliament, the Lake Champlain and St.
Lawrence Ship Canal Company was incorporated, with the powers to construct a canal from the
St. Lawrence River at Longueuil, Quebec to the Chambly Canal or Richelieu River. This charter
was extended several times and the last extension was granted in 1911. The company, however,
failed to gain enough support and private funds to begin construction of the canal. 104
By 1905, when construction began on the Champlain Barge Canal, the Champlain
Waterway had become comparatively unimportant from a commercial standpoint, especially
when considering the freight carried by New York State's railroads. The survival of this
commercial waterway had been under attack from increasing competition during the previous
twenty years. First were the great improvements in the efficiency and power of the railroads
and second, the discovery of cheaper sources of forestry, mineral, and agricultural products in
other locations outside of the region. To eliminate these pressures, many thought the lower
shipping rates resulting from increasing the carrying capacity of the canals would again enable
the companies of the Northeast to under-price any other market. Others, however, doubted that
the Champlain Barge Canal would restore the waterway and the region's businesses to anything
like their former importance. In 1890, the volume of commerce on the Champlain Canal reached
a peak of 1.5 million short tons (1.36 metric tons). By 1907, it had dropped to less than half that
amount. Part of the change resulted from the gradual reduction of trade through New York City
as freight was shipped by rail to other seaports. Iron ore traffic by boat had nearly ceased, and
the lumber and coal trades had moved much of their business to the rail systems. In spite of the
railroads, some canalers continued to work the Northern Waterway carrying pulpwood for the
49
region’s paper mills and coal to isolated ports along the Northern Waterway that had no easy
access to the railroads. 105
Some of the canal boatmen that navigated the Champlain Waterway predicted that the
income derived from the Champlain Barge Canal was likely to disappoint its sponsors. This
prophecy was based on the needed improvements to the Canadian section of the Champlain
Waterway the existing, international trade restrictions between Canada and the United States,
lack of inexpensive freight facilities along the Northern Waterway, and cutthroat competition
offered by the railroads. 106 Freight dropped on the waterways so much after the opening of the
New York State Barge Canal System that a report published in 1926 claimed it would be
cheaper to pay for canal freight to be carried on railroads than to maintain the State’s canals.
Reduced usage was blamed on the long winter closings and the low bridge clearances on the
Champlain Barge Canal. 107 But the greatest problem was the poor condition, limited size, and
antiquated technology used on the Canadian section of the Champlain Waterway. Shortly after
the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal, forwarding companies and freight operators along
the Northern Waterway pleaded with the Canadian government to make the necessary
navigational improvements to follow the example of New York State in standardizing their
portion of the Champlain Waterway. These companies cited the navigation problem as the
cause for the lack of shipping along the Champlain Waterway and the depression in Canada's
lumber, pulp, and paper industries in eastern Ontario and Quebec. 108
The Canadian government understood clearly that navigation in the Richelieu Valley
was hindering the efforts of Canadian and American business enterprise. The pleas from
business interests to improve navigation were met favorably by the Canadian government.
However, Canadian politicians dragged out any decision to move forward with the
improvements because in 1909 the Canadian and American governments had established the
International Joint Commission (IJC). The members of the commission were instructed to
investigate the suitability of a deep waterway route between Montreal and New York City.
These discussions, which continued throughout the first half of the twentieth century, delayed
any real progress in the improvement of the existing navigational conditions of the Chambly
Canal, St. Ours Canal, or Richelieu River. 109
The pleas to improve and enlarge the Canadian section of the Champlain Waterway
never stopped and every suggestion made to parliament was followed by high-powered
political discussions. During the late 1920s and 1930s, the Richelieu River was finally deepened
to 12 feet (3.7 m) between Sorel and Chambly and in 1933 a new lock was built on the St. Ours
Canal with the same dimensions as those used on the Champlain Barge Canal. These limited
improvements, however, had no effect on the ability for larger vessels to operate through the
Canadian section of the Champlain Waterway. The larger vessels built to fill the locks on the
barge canal could not travel on the Chambly Canal until all the locks and canal prism were
enlarged. 110
In 1936, the International Joint Commission (IJC) was given the task of studying, once
again, the possibility of establishing a deepwater route from Montreal to New York City, using
the Champlain Waterway. As in the past, public interest was greatly aroused along the route
with many supporters. Equally determined were the opponents of the scheme; some of them
were politically motivated and some represented powerful railroad interests, which were quite
bitterly opposed to any improvement of the Champlain Waterway. Eventually, the IJC decided
against any major improvement, except for a water-control dam, which was never completed as
a result of the labor and economic needs caused by World War II. 111
50
CHAPTER 5: NAVIGATING THE NORTHERN WATERWAY
The time, energy, and expense it took to travel from one end of the Northern Waterway
to the other varied greatly for the northern canalers between 1873 and 1940. The over 525 mile
(845 km) trip from Quebec City or Ottawa to New York City took generally three to five weeks,
depending upon the weather and the availability of a cargo, tugs for towing, and assistance in
loading the canal boat. 112 With the enlargements to the canals and improvements to the towing
and navigational systems, canaling became easier and more efficient for the canalers later in this
period.
Towing canal boats by animal or towboat constituted a large and profitable business.
Organized towing companies fiercely competed for the opportunity to tow vessels. Towing
rates were highly variable year to year. At times, canalers were even paid by companies for the
privilege of towing their vessel. As freight traffic steadily declined after 1900, the towing
companies either consolidated or went bankrupt from the cutthroat competition. By the 1920s,
the towing rates became stable but the services were dramatically reduced, making it difficult
for the canalers. 113
HUDSON RIVER AND NEW YORK HARBOR
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, New York Harbor's waterfront was
a district of bustling wharves, piers, and ferry terminals. Its harbor streets teemed with traffic
and were lined with cargo. This vast quantity of goods that passed through the Port of New
York fueled the city's economy. By 1900 this trade made New York City America's most
significant seaport and metropolis, and one of the world's major international ports. 114 Some of
this trade involved the use of canal boats arriving from inland ports located throughout the
Northeast. The canal boats bobbed awkwardly about behind tugs and side-wheeler steamers as
they carried large quantities of finished goods and raw materials between New York Harbor
and businesses scattered throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Mid Atlantic, and Eastern
Canada. Throughout the year, canal boats were ever-present among the ship-fringed wharves
of New York Harbor. 115
Some canal boats monopolized select wharves of New York Harbor year round between
1870 and 1940. Many northern canalers left their vessels in New York Harbor for the winter
while the canals were closed. Some canalers remained aboard their vessels in the harbor, while
others returned to them in the spring before the opening of the Champlain Canal. Canalers
found benefits and drawbacks to leaving their vessel in the greater New York Harbor area for
the winter. In 1876, Samuel and Alzora Stiles tied up their northern canal boat at Weehawken,
New Jersey to spend the winter. While at dock, a schooner plowed into the side of the Stiles’
canal boat, ripping off the canal boat's cabin roof with its bowsprit. Samuel was on deck at the
time and Alzora was in bed. Rudely awakened by the collision, Alzora looked up where the
cabin roof had been and saw the morning sky, along with a ring of men's faces peering down at
her all asking if she was hurt. Among the men were her husband and the captain of the
schooner. 116
51
Some New York City residents called the canalers, "harbor gypsies." For the winter,
canalers huddled in picturesque communities about Manhattan Island and in blind waterways
along the Brooklyn waterfront. Northern canal boats could be found scattered among other
canalers along the Harlem River, tied up along the shores of South Brooklyn, clustered in
sheltered coves of Newark Bay, up the Gowanus Canal, along the Buttermilk Channel, under
the piers of the Brooklyn Bridge, or clinging to the North River docks in the shadow of
skyscrapers (Figure 24). Wherever the northern canalers were, they maintained a lifestyle
wholly apart from most that lived in the city. 117
Figure 24. Canal boats in their winter quarters at Long Dock, Pavonia Ferry, Jersey City from
Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, May 6, 1871 (excerpted from Bellico, Life on a Canal Boat, 77).
As the navigation season approached, the northern canalers made repairs to their
vessels, collected needed supplies and equipment, usually borrowed some money, and
prepared to begin another season. The first cargo of the year for the northern canal boats that
wintered in New York Harbor was usually a load of coal destined for Canada. The canalers
began their journey by joining a tow for Albany, New York, a trip that took between 30 and 50
hours. The tow might consist of 40 to 100 canal boats behind a towboat. Generally between sixty
and eighty canal boats made up a good-sized tow on the Hudson River; although, the record
was 108. The large canal boat tows were sometimes four to six boats abreast with approximately
15 feet between each tier and stretched out nearly a mile behind the towboat's wake. The first
tier of boats was called the hawser tier. Each boat in this hawser tier received $2.50 for taking
the towboat's hawsers or towlines. This payment was made until about 1915 when the Cornwall
Company stopped the practice. 118
The tows were usually gathered together at Coenties Slip along Piers 5, 6, and 7 and
other locations along the Hudson River where they lay waiting for the tow to take them up
river. At the request of the canal boat captains, small tugs took their vessels to the northbound
tow, which the tugs assembled in the middle of the Hudson River to a large group of pilings.
The voyage to Albany usually began in the early evening as a half dozen little tugs, wheezing
52
and puffing, put the tow together in preparation for a large towboat to take hold of the
towlines. 119 Not all the tug boatmen were as careful or experienced as they should have been.
One day when John Neary was a young boy, a tug, sitting high out of the water, prepared to
tow his parents' northern canal boat from its bow. A deckhand from the tugboat looked down
at young John and told him to attach the tug's towline to the canal boat's bow cleat. After John
tied the line tight, the tug lunged in reverse instead of gradually pulling the canal boat from the
dock. The yank on the towline ripped the cleat off the bulwark along with some of the planking.
The damaged canal boat was one missing board away from causing the vessel to sink. John's
father was understandably mad at the tug boatmen. After taking the canal boat to a dry dock,
Captain Neary contacted the towing company, and made them pay for the repairs and lost
wages from the delay caused by the accident. Captain Neary charged the towing company
enough in damages to make money on the deal. 120
Until the 1920s, the large towboats were generally old passenger steamers, rebuilt and
adapted for towing by the removal of most of their upper works, saloons, and staterooms. Big
steam and later diesel tugs replaced the old side-wheel steamers. Working with the towboats
were small helper tugs that were propeller driven. The helper tugs moved the towboat around
sharp bends and added or removed canal boats from the tow when necessary. With the smaller
helper tugs, the towboats left New York City and Albany daily. The Beverwyck tow consisted
of only canal boats, while the Cornell Steamboat Company of Rondout, New York, towed
vessels of all descriptions. 121
Night and day alike, the Hudson River tows continued without pause. The towboat was
usually so far ahead of the canal boats that the sounds from the vessel, except for its whistle,
could hardly be heard (Figure 25). 122 However, there were other vessels moving about
everywhere whistling and puffing, and, on a hazy evening, the scene was full of movement,
mystery, strange noises, and points of various colored lights: green, red, white, and yellow.
Lanterns on the canal boats and along the shore twinkled all night long. 123
Figure 25. Canal boat tow winding through the Hudson River highlands (Augusta Brown).
53
The tows looked like floating towns with long lines of level decks for streets and squat
awning-covered cabins with little shining windows and brightly painted blinds for houses. The
scattering populations of men, women, and children running about brought each tow to life.
Everywhere there was movement; smoke traveled up from the cabin stovepipes and clothes of
all sorts, kinds, and colors fluttered in the breeze from lines that were stretched the lengths of
the boats. 124
When the tow arrived at Albany, the little individually owned tugs of the area swarmed
around the tow. Each tugboat captain tried to get the towing job for one or more of the canal
boats. The tugboats picked apart the tow right in the middle of the river channel. Some of the
northbound canal boats went into the Champlain Canal by way of the Sidecut but most
preferred to go through the Sloop Lock at Troy and enter the Champlain Canal via the
Waterford Sidecut. For most of the period between 1870 and 1910, the towing fee from Albany
to Troy was $4 to $6 in cash. The tugboat captains cut the price slightly if competition was very
great or the canal boat was lightly loaded. The tug Thomas Miller, Jr., owned by George Cooley,
was available to tow from the Sloop Lock in Troy to Waterford for a fee of $2. 125
For northern canal boats that remained the winter in the upper Hudson Valley, they
generally began their navigation season with a load of lumber or building stone for New York
Harbor. Since the Hudson River flows south barely eight miles a day, far too slowly for a canal
boat to drift from Albany to New York City, canalers made the trip down the river behind a
towboat. While being towed on the Hudson River, the duties of the boatmen were light, and the
men sang, danced, drank, and debated with spirit and determination. However, the women
were busy the daylong. The first day on the Hudson River, after leaving Albany for New York,
was washday because freshwater would not be available on the second day as they entered salt
water. On the first day usually right after breakfast, the table was cleared and, if it was raining,
a washtub was set up in the cabin. On sunny days, a member of the crew brought up the
washtub on deck and set out clotheslines the length of the vessel. Early in the morning, in a
uniform dress of brown calico, and a red sunbonnet, which hid their features, the women
washed clothes and hung them out to dry. They hung up garments of all kinds and spread any
surplus clothing all about the vessel and weighed it down. The boats with all this bunting had
quite a gala look (Figure 26). 126 Later the canal boat women brought on deck and scrubbed a
swarm of chubby little children. Toward noon, the women peeled potatoes or dressed meat for
dinner. In the cool of the evening, when the crew had been served supper, the women changed
into spruce attire and alternated between their sewing, chatting, and reading. Social gatherings
among the men, women, and children frequently took place on the tows throughout the day. 127
The tidal waters of the Hudson River offered a very different environment than that
experienced on the fresh waters of the Champlain Waterway. These waters often created
unexpected dangers. One day in 1876, Samuel and Alzora Stiles tied up their canal boat at a
small dock along the Hudson River. Samuel went ashore to see if he could buy fresh eggs and
milk at one of the local farms. The couple was far enough down the Hudson River that the tide
made a difference of several feet in water level as came in or went out. While the captain was
gone, the tide went out, leaving the canal boat resting on the muddy river bottom. When the
tide started coming in, the mud had formed a vacuum on the bottom of the boat and, as the
water rose, the canal boat held fast to the bottom. Samuel had not come back and Alzora was
almost frantic, for the water level was getting close to the top of the boat. The owner of a
passing vessel saw the predicament Alzora was in. He grabbed a coil of half-inch rope from his
deck, and when he got alongside, he dropped down to the Stile's boat. Running to the bow of
54
the canal boat, the captain took the rope with one end in his right hand and the other in his left
and let the middle loop down under the bow. He then slowly backed up and pulled first the
rope end in one hand then the other. The captain kept sawing back and forth until he had
worked the rope between the bottom of the boat and the mud. He had gone about half the
length of the canal boat when, with a great sucking noise, the vessel bobbed to the surface. He
had broken the suction and freed the boat. 128
Figure 26. Washday on a canal boat in Whitehall, New York.
With laundry flying, dogs barking, and people sitting on deck or peering out their cabin
windows, the canalers entered New York Harbor with tremendous excitement. In contrast, the
canal boat tows shuffled about the harbor like stumbling old men, causing the pilots of river
steamers to curse the tows’ doddering ways. Rude ferryboat crew bellowed profanity at the
canalers as their tow temporarily blocked the ferry’s path. Sometimes a tow crossed the bow of
an incoming ship and tiny figures with megaphones on lofty decks could be barely heard
saying unkind things about the canalers. Most canalers did not mind. Seated atop their cabin
roof with their children tied to a stanchion, they beamed with good nature as the other vessels
passed by. 129
After entering New York Harbor, small tugs took the canal boats to their destination at
one point or another about the harbor where they were to unload along the crowded shores.
When the canal boats were relieved of their burden, the captains went to a forwarding office
and took their pick of orders for the return trip. Usually the cargo was iron, merchandise, or
coal to be loaded at Newburgh, Cornwall Landing, or another port on the Hudson River. While
the canalers were at work, visitors could find several quiet transient communities of canal boats
rising and falling with the tide among the warehouses, factories, piles of freight, and heavy
machinery. Gray corkscrews of smoke rose lazily from their tiny cabin roofs, drowsy dogs
sprawled on their decks, and crowds of children played about the boats and docks. The children
seldom fell overboard, but when they did, usually no great harm was done. For most of these
55
children were quite at home in the water. After a splash and a high-pitched yell, usually some
stern matron or burly figure in a striped undershirt would run to the side of the vessel with a
boathook and haul out the dripping youngster for discipline. 130
When the canal boat was prepared to leave New York Harbor, the captain notified a
towing company and his vessel was picked up and added to the northbound tow to Albany. 131
As the canalers left the docks under tow of a small tug, their children frequently rushed on deck
to wave goodbye as the tug blasted their whistle. 132 The transient community of canalers then
clung together for the voyage up the Hudson River from New York City to Albany and from
there the northern canal boats were separated off and brought to the entrance of the Champlain
Canal. 133
ANIMAL TOWING ON THE OLD CHAMPLAIN CANAL
At Waterford, a series of three locks raised the canal boats up into the Champlain Canal.
It was first come, first served at the locks and a boatload of iron ore had to jockey for position
with one of coal, lumber, merchandise, or other cargo. The first boat arriving within three
hundred feet of the lock had the right of way, if the lock was at his level. If it was on the other
level and a boat was coming shortly, but not necessarily within sight, the lock tender held the
lock open for the other boat. 134 This rule was designed to conserve water use within the canal.
Some, not all, of the canal boats had a horn for signaling. It was said that the northern boatmen
did not need a horn because most of them had “long distance voices.” 135 When approaching a
lock at night or when it was foggy the canalers would yell “Hurrah, lock!” and if the lock was
ready, the lock tender would reply “Come ahead!” 136
A team of horses or mules towed the vessels through the three locks at Waterford to the
canal office in the weighlock building. Here, the canal boat captain presented his canal permit
and bill of lading. The canal permits were obtained in person yearly from the canal department
in Albany. This permit was required of all vessels operating on New York State’s canals. 137
Before tolls were abolished on the Champlain Canal in 1882, all canal boats traveling on
the Champlain Waterway and their freight were weighed to assess the tolls that were due to
New York State. At the weighlock at Waterford, state workers placed the canal boat onto a
hydraulic scale while a clerk prepared a form showing the boat’s current weight as well as its
weight when it was last weighed empty or light. The clerk calculated the weight of the freight
by determining the difference in the two measurements. Next, a boat inspector verified the
captain’s bill of lading by comparing it with the vessel’s actual cargo. After paying any
necessary tolls and stating the name of their craft, where it was coming from, and where it was
bound, the canal boat captain finally received their clearance papers, which recorded the
amount of toll paid, the weight and content of the boat, the date, and the toll collector’s
signature. 138
Boats that were well beyond the legal limit scraped the canal bottom and did harm to
the canal prism, lock sills, the canal boat, and the team that was towing the vessel. The canal
boat entered the weighlock building to determine if the vessel was under the allowable draft
limit set by the canal department. The allowable draft of a vessel on the Champlain Canal from
1873 to 1904 was 4 feet (1.2 m) and between 1904 and 1915 it was increased to 4.5 feet (1.37 m).
To verify that a canal boat had the proper draft, a measurer or gauger calculated the draft of
each boat with a measuring board that had an iron right angle at one end, which he would hook
under the flat bottom of the boat. The boat’s draft was recorded along the side of the graduated
56
board. If the boat’s draft was greater than the allowable limit, some cargo was supposed to be
removed or “lightered” until the legal draft was reached. Occasionally, the boat owner could
avoid this by making an unofficial cash adjustment with the gauger and be allowed to pass
through the canal. It was said that some of the boards were marked so as to show the boats
loaded deeper than they actually were. If a settlement could not be agreed upon, then the boat
was lightened to read the acceptable draft. A sufficient amount of the cargo would be unloaded
and left in charge with someone or sold immediately. The gauger, as an agent for the state, was
responsible for the safekeeping of the cargo, but he would often sell it and pocket the cash.
Gaugers did very well from these sales. 139
After leaving the weighlock at Waterford, the captain had to arrange for a steersman, if
necessary. A captain needed a steersman to help with the trip through the canal and if his
family could not provide the assistance then he frequently picked up an experienced steersman
at Waterford for the trip north through the canal. The steersman and captain of a canal boat
took turns at the tiller as the boat was guided through the narrow, winding canal both day and
night. The captain usually took the best hours from 6 AM to noon and 6 PM to midnight. 140
Many of the steersmen had the reputation as an irresponsible lot interested in working only
enough to survive and have the cash to drink themselves into a stupor. When aboard a boat, the
steersman was fed by the boat owner and would recover somewhat from the latest drinking
binge, but as soon as he was discharged, he would head for the nearest saloon. If the steersman
could persuade some cash out of the captain, he would buy alcohol before the trip began, much
to the chagrin of the captain. 141
At Waterford, the canal boat captain also hired towage through the Champlain Canal,
and, before the 1910s, this meant a team of horses or mules and a driver. There were two
systems of towing on the Champlain Canal: line teams and trip teams. Line teams were owned
by companies that had hundreds of mules and barns spaced out along the canal. Each line team
would tow from one line barn, or station, to the next station. 142 The trip from one station to the
next was called a route. 143
Two line companies dominated the towing on the Champlain Canal during the last
quarter of the nineteenth century: the Northern Transportation Company and H. G. Burleigh
Company. After Henry Burleigh died in 1900, the two companies merged into a stock company
called the Lake Champlain Transportation Company. This company was owned by many of the
same individuals as the Champlain Transportation Company, which was the passenger
steamboat line and tug service on Lake Champlain. 144
All canal boats owned, leased, or working for the Lake Champlain Transportation
Company had to use their line teams for towing through the canal. Independent operators had
a choice to use trip teams or line teams. Members of the Inland Seaman’s Union used only trip
teams. This organization was formed by canal boat owners in the 1870s to provide opposition to
the major transportation companies. They feared that these companies, with their equipment
and facilities, would monopolize the freight on the canal and also be in a position to charge
exorbitant towing fees. The union maintained offices in Waterford and Whitehall. 145
57
Figure 27: Mule tow on the Champlain Canal.
The Line, as the Lake Champlain Transportation Company was called, had its
headquarters in Whitehall and provided mules for towing along the Champlain Canal, leased
canal boats, owned canal boats, and operated a fleet of tugs on Lake Champlain. Line barns
provided for the tow animals along the Champlain Canal were at approximately 12 mile (19.3
km) intervals. There were line barns at Waterford, Baker’s Lock (between Mechanicville and
Stillwater), Schuylerville, Fort Edward, Fort Ann, and Whitehall. Line teams pulled with three
or four mules in single file, called a string team. The four-mule team was commonly used on the
Champlain Canal. The mules were called the leader, first swing, second swing, and saddle
mule. The driver would go from one barn to the next and then be replaced by another driver
and team. A boat in tow behind a line team could go all day and night if the teams were
available. If no relief or change team was available, the driver and team would eat and rest four
to six hours before continuing on with the same canal boat to the next line barn. 146
Trip teams were usually two horses, rarely mules, and, unlike the line teams, they
worked side by side, called an abreast team. Their name “trip team” comes from the fact that
they hired on for the complete trip, one way, through the length of the Champlain Canal. Some
trip teams were teamsters regularly engaged in this work while others might be farmers with a
team who had time to make a little extra money. The canal ran through fertile farmland so the
boatmen and farmers were always in contact and making deals for towing and shipping. The
farm teams charged $25 for the trip from Whitehall to Waterford and it generally took about
three days. Towing northbound cost more money and took longer because it was against the
current most of the way and the boats carrying coal, which drafted more than southbound boats
carrying lumber. 147
58
Trip teams stopped, fed, watered, and rested at day barns along the canal, which were
owned by the canal grocers. The barns were on the towpath, while the groceries were on the
heelpath or berm bank. Trip teams were feed morning and night in the barns, and, during the
day, they were fed often using feed baskets held in place by a strap that buckled over the
horse's head. 148 A trip team’s day began at 3 or 4 AM and ended sometime between 9 and 11
PM or when the team and driver were too tired to continue. 149 Unless they were towing with
the current or with a light tow, the team stopped several times a day to fed, water, and rest in
shady spots along the canal. 150
At various points beside the Champlain Canal, liveries occasionally offered horses and
mules for rent to tow canal boats for short distances. A few transportation companies that
owned large numbers of canal boats had their own barns and tow animals. 151 Rarely did
northern canalers have their own tow animals because they had no accommodations for them
aboard their vessels. Those that owned their own tow animals had to board them in liveries
along the canal, which was probably more effort and expense then it was worth.
Many canalers worked with the same drivers and steersman whenever they could,
knowing that they were reliable and trustworthy. 152 The drivers of the Line were at the bottom
of the social ladder and consisted of mostly drunks and social outcasts. These drivers received
$18 a month, provided they stayed the entire season. Otherwise, they only got $9 a month for
the months worked. There were no paydays until the end of the season. The men slept in
bunkhouses at the stations or line barns, carried their personal belongings in large feed sacks,
and, for companionship, most of them had body lice. Their nicknames included Charlie Pickle,
Whiskey O'Rourke, Whiskey O'Toole, Whiskey Collins, Pokey Joe, Stonewall Jackson, Patch-eye
Kelley, and Peg-leg McCarthy. 153
The boatmen and drivers had to work hard when traveling in the old Champlain Canal.
The hours were long and rest was short and unpredictable. Work involved at locks or when
boats became wedged was strenuous. 154 With one hand on the towline, the other holding the
team’s reins, the drivers walked at a pace approximately two miles an hour in the hot sun, rain,
snow, mud, and darkness, until it was time to change teams or rest. On many occasions, drivers
could be found walking with their animals sound asleep. 155 The canal boat captains provided
some incentive to the drivers at the beginning of a run by buying them a beer or tobacco at a
lock grocery. At the end of their route, the captain's gave the drivers a dime or a quarter
providing they had done their work well; otherwise, they received nothing. 156
The line drivers worked twelve hours a day and often used profane and vulgar language
to both their mules and the canal boat captains. In the case of their mules, it was often
accompanied by a considerable amount of kicking by the drivers, except when they had taken
off their shoes and swung them over the towline to rest their feet. 157 This was generally not the
case with the trippers who owned their animals and tended to be family men. Most drivers
walked behind their animals on the dusty, shadeless towpath but some trippers hitched behind
their team a two-wheeled cart with a driver’s seat, called a tow cart. The towline was hitched to
the back of the cart. 158
The line drivers were a tough group of men and were the constant subject of many of
the canalers’ jokes. One story about a driver concerned a liquor salesman that came into a
Whitehall barroom and sat a few stools away from a mule driver. The liquor salesman said to
the bar owner "Who's that?" The owner replied, "He's a mule driver. They're lousy most of the
time and they have body lice, so don't get too close to him." Peaked by curiosity, the salesman
said to the mule driver, "The owner says you have body lice. Is that true?" "Yeah, do you want
59
to see one," mumbled the mule driver? With interest the salesman leaned in and said, "Yeah."
So the mule driver reached into the front of his shirt, pulled out a louse, showed it to the
salesman, and then safely tucked it back under his filthy shirt. The mule driver, not finished yet,
took another louse from the back of his neck, showed it to the salesman, and then smashed it on
the bar. The shocked salesman asked, "What did you do that for?" Patting his chest, the mule
driver warmly said, "That's a bosom buddy." Then pointing at the smear on the bar, he
shouted, "That's a back bitter!" 159
Many of the line drivers on the Champlain Canal were large, burly men. A story was
told of a driver called Stonewall Jackson, who was a big man, with a loud voice, hands like
hams, and was feared by many along the canal. One day, Stonewall Jackson drove his four
mules into a saloon and said to the bartender, “Set ‘em up for the boys.” The “boys,” or mules,
were not served and were promptly removed from the premises, but no one dared attempt to
eject Stonewall Jackson. 160
Through the canal, the canal boat captain fed the driver and steersman. To save time and
money, someone from the canal boat, often one of the captain’s children, would relieve the
driver when it was time for him to take a break. 161 The drivers used this time to eat, rest, and
entertain the canalers with music and tall tales. 162
During the 1870s, all canal boats were towed singly in the Champlain Canal but during
the 1880s, many canalers began to own and operate two boats following a practice used on the
Erie Canal. When vessels were towed in tandem, the boats remained attached to one another
using two teams of mules and two drivers. 163 Single loaded boats were usually towed from the
bow bitts. When boats were towed in tandem, called a double header, the head or first team
towed from the bow bitts of the lead vessel. The second team, with its towline shortened, towed
from the forward bow cleat of the lead vessel. A triple header, practiced only during the early
twentieth century, used three teams of mules and three drivers; the first two were attached
similarly to a double header and the third team towed from a line attached to a bow quarter
cleat, which was halfway between the stem and the center of the boat. 164
Light or empty boats were always towed singly on the Champlain Canal because of the
sharp bends and narrow channel, which caused difficulty in keeping them from running
aground. If there was no wind, light boats were towed with about two-thirds the normal length
of towline, with the bight in the line passed through the second scupper to the windlass bitts. A
boatman used the full towline when he was fighting a wind and working alone. One end of the
towline was attached to the stern cleat and the other to the mules. A second towline was
attached to the bow bitts, went around the towline leading to the team, then was led through
the towpath side bow chalk at the center of the bow, and finally back to the stern cleat on the
towpath side. The captain slacked off or hauled in on this bridle to help him steer his slowly
moving vessel. Operating in such conditions took tremendous concentration and skill. One
boatman commented it was so difficult to operate under these conditions that, “You would not
have time to take a ten dollar bill if someone offered you one.” 165
After leaving the weighlock at Waterford, canal boats were pulled for 2 miles (3.2 km) to
the first lock, called Lower Two Lock. Just past this lock was the Upper Two Lock. These locks
received their names because they were close together. The locks along the canal were
numbered by the canal department but the boatmen always referred to them by name. 166 The
locks on the Champlain Canal were all single locks, meaning that only one boat could use the
lock at a time. The locks were fascinating and dangerous elements of the canal system and the
boatmen took great care when operating around them. Entering some locks was made
60
exceedingly difficult because the canal boats rubbed hard against the lock walls or a current was
created by water running by a leaky upstream lock gate. 167 Teams of mules, called lock teams,
remained stationed at some of these bothersome locks and pulled the canal boats into the locks
using block lines attached to snubbing posts located along each side of the lock. 168 The boatmen
and drivers also used a block and tackle for added power to get their vessels into the tight
fitting or leaky locks when a lock team was unavailable. After entering the lock, boatmen
generally put out two lines to hold their vessel steady. The boatmen had to be cautious when
the lock was filled because it was often with such force that it might break one of the vessel’s
lines or cleats. 169
Next on the canal after the Upper Two Lock came a 3 mile (4.8 km) level to Flynn’s Lock
and a 1 mile (1.6 km) level to Hewitt’s Lock, where a grocery was operated by locktenders.
Many of the locktenders ran their own stores to supplement their income. These stores
provided the canalers with a variety of necessities from fresh milk and eggs to paint and canvas.
Grocers sold local products as well as items produced from around the world. 170
The next 4 miles (6.4 km) to Baker’s Lock was hard towing, as there were many places
that were too narrow for two boats to meet or pass one another. The canal was very crooked
and in poor condition during the late nineteenth century. At certain locations, two loaded boats
could not pass by one another for a distance of half to three quarters of a mile (0.8-1.2 km). 171
Vessels that met along these sections usually ended up getting wedged together, causing long
delays. Getting out of tangles and wedges meant great exertion on the part of the tow animals
and stress upon the boatmen who spent hours in hard pulling and poling. 172 This was trying on
everyone’s tempers. The drivers became more abusive and profane and the tow animals all
became kickers. The captains could not complain too loudly about the conditions of the canal to
the canal officials or drivers, as they were dependent upon their assistance. The steersmen, who
were hired for the single canal trips, were not bound as the captains were and as a result, many
of them did not cease complaining loudly, nor was their language the most choice. 173
When a boat was being overtaken or passed, it was held close to the heel path. The
overtaking or passing boat held to the towpath side. When the passing boat’s team was
approximately half way up the side of the boat being passed, the boat being passed stopped its
team on the outside of the towpath, allowing the passing team to walk over its towline. 174 In
meeting, neither boat stopped or lost headway. One team stopped for the other team to cross
the towline, then continued to tow until its towline touched the bow of the advancing boat.
Then it stopped long enough for the towline to go under the bottom of the on-coming boat. It
then proceeded to tow with the line dragging under the bottom. 175 Vindictive drivers sometimes
swept the mules of rival drivers right off into the canal when passing, which involved the canal
boat captains in fights they frequently did not wish to take part in. 176
A driver could usually be bribed to pass another boat. The rate in the early twentieth
century was 10 cents. 177 However, there was risk involved in passing another vessel. The
towline dropped quickly to the bottom of the canal and ran the risk of being snagged on a rock
or dead tree or limb. The team could also start towing again too soon, as the towline passed
under the bow of the crossing boat, not waiting until the boat had cleared the line. If there were
any loose iron or wood on the bottom of the boat, the towline would undoubtedly snag, often
with dire consequences. Mules were thrown into the canal usually as a result and sometimes
damage was done to the canal boat. 178
At Baker’s Lock during the early twentieth century, Bill Severence operated a saloon
with entertainment from New York City. He had girls who would dance on the tables and
61
possibly performed other illegal services. 179 After Baker’s Lock, came the “long level”, which
was 16 miles (25.8 km) to Schuylerville. About half a mile (1.6 km) north of Baker’s Lock, on the
west side, was a dry dock. Part way across the level after Baker’s Lock was Wilbur’s Basin,
sometimes called Van Wie’s Basin. This was a spot where teams stopped to feed, water, and
take a brief rest before proceeding on. On this stretch was also Costello’s saloon, right beside the
towpath. 180 After leaving Costello’s, the next little community was Coveville, where there was a
small store and saloon, complete with a pool table, run by a man named Millett. A short
distance farther on was a place called “The Hemlocks.” There was no lock or basin there, but a
little grocery store that did a good business with the boatmen. 181
Figure 28. Canal boats passing each other on the Champlain Canal.
Just before reaching the next lock after Baker’s Lock, the towpath moved from the west
side of the canal to the east side. The team got across to the opposite side of the canal by means
of a change bridge. The team walked up a northbound ramp to the bridge, crossed over the
bridge to the other side, walked down a ramp that headed southward, back the way they had
come, turned under the bridge, and then finally pointed northward again. Next the boats
arrived at the Schuylerville Lock or Lower River Lock, which raised boats up to the level of the
Hudson River. In midsummer, when the river was very low, the water levels of the river and
canal were almost equal and the lock gates might be found “pressed,” which meant left open at
each end. This procedure saved time from having to lock a vessel but it made for very hard
towing going against the current of the river passing through the narrow lock. Going with the
current made it necessary for steady steering on the part of the canaler so that he could enter the
open lock without damaging his boat. After passing through the Lower River Lock, the canal
route went across the Hudson River. A bridge at this point carried the teams across the river.
When the water was high, the boaters feared the strong current pulling them down onto the
62
dam. So at high water, some of the boatmen used a river stick, which was a plank about 1.25
inches (3.2 cm) thick, 5 to 6 inches (12.7-15.2 cm) wide and about 4 feet (122 cm) long. One end
of the plank was rounded to create a handle. A 2 inch (5.1 cm) hole was drilled about 8 inches
(20.3 cm) from the opposite end from the handle and a tapered wooden pin about 3 feet (91.4
cm) long was driven through the hole halfway of the pin’s length. The river stick was fastened
about 6 feet (1.83 m) behind the team. The boatmen doubled the towline, placing both ends on
the boat’s bow cleats and attaching the bight of the line to the river stick. The driver held the
stick upright as it slid along the rail of the bridge, thus taking some strain off the team and also
allowing him to release the towline if there was a danger of the team being pulled backward off
the bridge. 182
After a boat was towed safely across the river, it arrived at the Upper River Lock. The lift
here was very small and the upper end of the lock had miter gates. Up until now, all the locks in
the Champlain Canal had a tumble gate on the upper end. This was a solid wooden ramp-like
door, hinged at the bottom so that when the lock was full it could be swung outward from the
lock and down to the canal bottom. The boats would then float over the gate, which was
manually cranked upright against a sill at the bottom and the ends of the lock walls. Miter gates
were two wooden doors, hinged at the sides of the lock, which were swung to meet each other
in a v-shape in plan view. These gates were opened manually by pushing against a long
wooden balance beam fastened to the gate and projecting out at the hinge end. 183
Following the Upper River Lock was a 2 mile (3.2 km) level to Bassett’s Lock, after
which the team soon crossed a change bridge to get to the towpath on the east side of the canal.
After a short level, the boat locked through Fort Miller Lock and then again used a change
bridge to get to the towpath now on the east side of the canal. A narrow three mile (4.8 km)
level, with few places for loaded boats to pass each other, led to the Moses Kill Lock. A big bend
in the canal before and after this lock made it difficult to navigate. North of the Moses Kill Lock
was an aqueduct that carried canal boats over the Moses Kill Creek. This hard-towing level
brought a boat to Fort Edward where a change bridge put the towpath back on the west side of
the canal. The level was 5 miles (8 km) long and brought the boat to the Fort Edward Lock, also
called the Brewery Lock because of the large brewery nearby (Figure 29). The level after the Fort
Edward Lock was the summit level, which was the highest in the Champlain Canal and fed
south to Waterford and north to Whitehall. The water used in the Champlain Canal was from
the Hudson River above Glens Falls, which was channeled through the Glens Fall Feeder
Canal. 184
From the Brewery Lock to the Fort Ann Locks was 12 miles (19.3 km). After passing the
Glens Falls Feeder Canal, the towing along this level became much easier because the canal boat
was going with the current. 185 Just past Fort Ann, there were two combined locks then a short
level and a single lock, which all had mitered gates. After the third lock, there was another
change bridge and the towpath moved to the west side of the canal, which now made use of the
riverbed of Wood Creek. Although this section had many bends, it was easier towing because it
was generally deeper and wider. At a place called Flat Rock or Driver’s Rock, the side of the
channel had been carved into bedrock and was straight up and down. Boats could land right up
against the channel’s side, which made this a popular spot for the boats to stop and allow the
drivers to come aboard for a meal. To save time when traveling southbound, a son or daughter
of the captain might drive the team the 2 miles (3.2 km) to Fort Ann while the driver ate, rested,
and told tall tales. 186
63
Figure 29. Fort Edward Lock on the Champlain Canal.
Figure 30. Fort Ann lock on the Champlain Canal.
64
The next lock to be encountered was Wood Lock and after negotiating some large bends,
a boat would come to another change bridge permitting the teams to move to the east side of
the canal. After the change bridge, boats approached the Guard Lock, which protected a
manmade channel into which the vessels would enter. This lock remained open when Wood
Creek was at the same level as the manmade channel, allowing boats to travel right through.
The current flowing through the open lock made the 5 mile (8 km) tow to Whitehall a little
easier. 187
The level to Whitehall after the Guard Lock was long and straight but there were many
places where boats could not get past each other without going aground. To pass, one boat
would have to stop in a good spot and wait for the other boat to pass. At Whitehall, the
clearance office was located directly beside the first of the three locks. Here, the boat's papers
were examined and the boat was issued a pass out slip, which was in turn taken by the head
lockmaster as his receipt that the boat had cleared north or outbound from the Champlain
Canal. 188 After locking down into Lake Champlain, the line boats usually went to the west shore
to wait for a tow down the lake. 189
TUGS ON THE OLD CHAMPLAIN CANAL
One of the first tugs used on the Champlain Canal was a small, experimental twin-screw
tugboat owned by the Lake Champlain Transportation Company. The hope was that it would
eventually replace the use of tow animals. The company used the tug to tow canal boats
between Whitehall and Fort Edward but it was not very successful. 190 This late nineteenth
century experiment occurred before its time. The poor condition of the canal and the attitudes
of the canalers likely led to its failure. By the early 1900s, canal tugs became a common sight on
the Champlain Canal. These tugs continued to compete directly with the line and trip teams
until the completion of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915.
In the Champlain Canal, the normal tow for a tug was four canal boats in line. The tug
was attached to the first coupled pair of canal boats or double header by a long towline or
hawser. The first double header was separated from the second by a 150-foot (45.7 m) long
towline. 191 A tug towing two double headers, that is four canal boats, through the Champlain
Canal took about five days, working fifteen to sixteen hours per day, to travel the 62 miles (99.8
km) from Waterford to Whitehall. With a smaller tow, longer hours, and a lot of luck, they
made the trip in four days. The line and trip teams that towed generally made better time than
the tugs, especially going upstream. The tug captains seldom used their steam whistles to notify
a locktender of their arrival because they traveled at such a slow speed that the locktender
usually saw them and had the lock ready. 192
A typical northbound trip towing a single double header from Waterford to Whitehall
by tug would get underway about 4 AM after a big breakfast. A fast trip meant more money for
the boatmen in the tow, so some canalers threw stones at the tug to wake up its crew if an early
start was not underway. The boatmen also got angry if the tug captain tied up too early for the
night. The boatmen liked to see the tugs have a workday twenty hours long. The first day, they
generally covered 10 miles (16.1 km) and went through five locks. The tow tied up at Baker’s
Lock between Mechanicville and Stillwater for the night. 193
Day 2 began very early in the morning and ended at the Upper River Lock. When at
Schuylerville, the tug usually “coaled up” at Funston’s Coal Yard. The tugs used hard coal and
the yard owner left canvas bags filled with three or four tons of pea-sized hard coal setting on
65
the dock. Often the canalers would help with the chore of loading the coal to speed up the
process. Canalers were always in a hurry and unwilling to stop for long. In later days of the
canal era, the tugs burned soft coal because it was cheaper, though a lot dirtier for the tug
boatmen and the canalers who had to deal with the soot. 194
Day 3 brought another difficult long day’s work. At the end of the day, the tow tied up
at Smith’s Basin. 195 Day 4 was better. After the usual early start and an easy run with the
current, the tow reached Fort Ann. Here, there were three locks: two combines and a single lock.
A man named Ike Terry, with a team of mules, charged 50 cents per boat to lock them through
all three locks. This saved wear and tear on the tug and allowed the tug’s crew to get some
badly needed rest. By the end of the day, the tug and tow would reach Whitehall and the canal
boats would pass through the triple locks into Lake Champlain. At times, the canal tugs would
work twenty-four hours straight until they reached Whitehall in time for the canal boats to
make the large tow down the lake. This also meant that the canalers in the southbound lake tow
could hook onto the canal tug immediately upon arriving at Whitehall. 196
Figure 31:Canal boat and tugs on the canal.
The canal tug towing rates from Waterford to Whitehall during the early twentieth
century were $30 for a loaded boat with any cargo and $15 for a light boat. The rates from
Whitehall to Waterford were $25 for a loaded lumber boat, $18 for a loaded hay boat, and $12
for a light boat. 197
Locking up or traveling upstream with a tug and tow was hard work. When the tug and
tow approached an open lock, it was up to the canal boat captains to manage their vessels. The
canal boat captain in the lead vessel, when he thought they had enough headway, shouted “All
right!” and threw off the hawser connecting the tow to the tug. The tug's deckhand coiled up
66
the hawser on the tug’s stern. The tug entered the lock, while the canal boat captains threw lines
over posts along shore and snubbed their boats to a stop at a safe distance below the lock. The
locktender then locked through the tug, which stopped about 50 feet (15.2 m) above the lock.
The tug captain put a line on a post located on shore to hold it there. 198
After getting ashore, the tug's deckhand ran as fast as he could with a towline over his
shoulder, extending this line from the tug across the full length of the lock. He then lowered the
eye of the line down to a boatman on the lead canal boat who put it on the vessel's bow bitts or
cleat. In the meantime, the locktender dumped the water out of the lock. The deckhand now ran
back to the tug and when the gates were opened the tug pulled the coupled canal boats toward
the lock. The first canal boat uncoupled from the second boat, which stopped in the same
location below the lock as had the first. Now the captain of the first canal boat put out a line to
stop his boat from hitting the closed lock gate ahead and another line to prevent his vessel from
drifting out of the lock. The locktender locked the first canal boat through and after the upper
gate opened, the tug towed the boat up the canal 300 or 400 feet (91-122 m). When the canal boat
had sufficient headway, the tug backed down past the canal boat and the deckhand flipped the
towline off the canal boat's bow. The canal boatman would steer his vessel in close to the heel
path and put a line around a tree or post. When the tug had backed down to within 50 feet (15
m) of the upper gate, the deckhand put out the towline to lock through the second canal boat.
After each boat had been locked up, the canal boats were coupled again and the tug and tow
continued on their way to the next lock. 199
CHAMPLAIN BARGE CANAL
The opening of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915 marked the end of many of the old
customs and routines that were apart of life on the Champlain Canal. No towpaths were
provided on the new waterway, which brought an end to towing on the canal by horses and
mules. Drivers were no longer needed. The barns and resting sheds along the canal were closed.
Saloons on or near the old locks lost their business and none were allowed along the new canal.
Other small businesses along the old canal suffered for lack of business. 200
Small tugs were first introduced on the Champlain Canal in the late nineteenth century.
The construction of the Champlain Barge Canal began in 1905, and the number of tugs
increased as they were required on the completed sections of the Champlain Barge Canal. By
1915, the size and power of the canal tugs had increased greatly, allowing them to pull a far
greater number of canal boats at faster speeds. The normal tow for a tug in the old Champlain
Canal was four boats, whereas on the Barge Canal, they towed as many as ten boats. 201
The canal boatman had to work hard when towed by either animals or a tug in the old
Champlain Canal. The hours were long and sleeping time was short and unpredictable. The
larger Barge Canal caused a great change in the amount of work required of a boatman. On the
Barge Canal with its broad width, a hawser was placed on each bow corner of the head boat in a
tow and none of the canal boatmen had to steer. The boatman’s only work when transiting the
canal was putting out a snubbing line at each lock to hold their boat in place. 202 Despite these
improvements, the canal tugs introduced a new danger for the canalers with their greater speed
(up to 10 mph or 16.1 kmph), larger tows, propellers, and complicated machinery. It was not
like the old days when the power could be turned off with a "Whoa!" 203
With the Champlain Barge Canal came changes in the business of canaling and in the
personnel of the canal boat crews. Many of the tasks performed by children on the old canal
67
were not called for in operating on the barge canal. There were no mules for the children to
drive while the driver ate, and the boats, with their greater carrying capacity, were much too
heavy and moving too fast for a child to steer. 204 Before the opening of the barge canal, many
canalers owned and operated two boats in tandem and required a crew of at least three adults –
a captain, cook, and steersman – and usually several children. The canal boats on the barge
canal were towed in fleets consisting of a tug and usually five or six canal boats, called consorts.
In this arrangement, it was unnecessary for every vessel to carry a full crew. A tow was
considered adequately manned if one individual was available to handle the lines of each canal
boat. 205 Grouping boats in fleets greatly reduced the number of crew necessary and
consequently decreased the number of families living on the boats.
The practice of traveling by consort also had an effect on the system of canal boat
ownership. For owners of one standard canal boat, the expense of towage on the barge canal
was so serious a matter that many dropped out of the canaling business; and those that did not
want to quit canaling were forced to acquire at least one additional canal boat to allow them to
carry large enough cargoes to afford the towage charges. Some canalers owned and operated
three or more vessels at one time with the assistance of hired captains and deckhands. The day
of the individual canal boat operator had passed with the opening of the barge canal. In 1920, a
large part of the canal traffic on the Northern Waterway was handled by companies operating
fleets of canal boats and tugs. To survive, some independent canalers chartered their boats to
these companies, attaching them to the company fleets, and were paid a salary. In such cases,
the canalers could not control their working conditions as they did when boating
independently. The canalers’ working hours and the type and size of the cargo were regulated
by the company. “When we come to a town,” complained the wife of a canal boatman, “the
tugboat pilot does not give me time to go to market. The only safe way for me to manage is to
lay up supplies for the trip, and it is not always convenient for me to do that.” Besides losing
their independence, canalers that worked on company canal boats had to endure living
conditions that they may not have tolerated if the situation were within their control. 206
There was a great difference between the cabins of independently owned canal boats
and company boats; the canalers that owned their own vessels made them their home. The
immaculate, neatly painted cabins of some of the independent boatmen, with their attractive
curtains at the windows, spotless linen on the bunks, good lamps, and stationary washstands,
were in marked contrast with company cabins that lacked the feeling and comfort of being
someone’s home. 207
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
The canal and lake basin at Whitehall, New York was often solid with canal boats. It was
at Whitehall that the canal boat tows were made up to travel down Lake Champlain. 208 Between
1873 and 1915, as many as 40 canal boats were tied together for the tow down Lake Champlain
from Whitehall. The towboats on the lake were far inferior to those of the Hudson River towing
companies. The lake tugs were generally not as powerful, fewer in number, and did not run as
frequently. But like the towing service provided on the Champlain and Chambly Canals, the
canalers were obliged to put up with it. 209
The tows, which reached nearly 1 mile (1.6 km) in length, began their trip by making it
around the sharp bend at Fiddler’s Elbow in Whitehall. Despite the long length of the tows, the
canal boats made it around safely and with little difficulty because each vessel turned
68
independently like links in a chain or beads on a string. As the tow twisted itself around the
Elbow, some of the canal boats would rub the shorelines. 210 The larger towboats used a warping
post placed on the Elbow. The lighthouse keeper and his mate who took care of the string of
lights along the narrows of the lake assisted in the process. These men took the hawser of the
towboat into their rowboat, and then carried the line ashore and slipped the bight or loop over
the post. The towboat then warped around the bend on a taut cable. This process was no longer
necessary after a new channel was excavated from the Elbow to the canal locks in 1920. 211
The southern reaches of Lake Champlain are very narrow and tortuous, so a tow
consisted of a chain of canal boats one vessel in width. Standing upon one of the rearmost boats
looking forward, the long line of slow moving boats took the appearance of some strange
gigantic water serpent with a smoking head, wriggling through the narrow waterway. Without
the effective use of their rudders, the canal boats glided through the narrow channel at the
mercy of the lake and the inertia of the tugboat. Surprisingly the tow followed in and out
through the crooked channel with few mishaps. Occasionally, the long line of boats almost
grazed the jagged rocks of some hillside, and the boatmen would run along their decks,
straining with long poles to push off the boats, keeping them from being dragged along the rock
face. Boats would occasionally run upon some rocks or run aground upon the shallow flats that
edge the narrow channel. 212
Figure 32: Canalboat tow on Lake Champlain.
The tow made 4 to 5 mph (6.4-8 kmph) on the lake. There was a 100 foot (30.5 m)
clearance between the tug and the head boat, but between each canal boat was only 12 feet (3.66
m). Connecting the canal boats in each tier were 7 inch (17.8 cm) rope lines called spring lines.
The boatmen positioned two lines, one from each corner of the bow and stern to the next boat.
To visit one’s neighbor in the same tier required only to step over the bulwark of each vessel.
This however was not as safe as one might assume. On Thursday night, November 13, 1890, the
tug Robert H. Cook with a northbound tow left Whitehall. As the tow passed the marshes several
miles north of Whitehall, a canal boatman attempted to step from one boat to another but
slipped on the frost-covered deck and fell between the boats. Fortunately for the boatman,
another canaler caught him by the hand and pulled him back aboard without injury. If the
boatman had fallen unnoticed, he surely would have been crushed by the boats and
drowned. 213
69
At night the boatmen put a lantern on a pole over their cabin in the stern. Against the
black velvet of the evening sky, the string of lights formed a line of golden dots. 214 It was
common practice for men to spend an evening with the crew of a canal boat three or four tiers
away from their own. Telling tall tales and playing poker were their most popular pastimes.
The boatmen returned to their own boat later in the night by crossing the spring lines under the
dim light of the lanterns. 215
To visit a boat from a different tier required skill to climb across the spring lines or a
narrow plank a distance of approximately 12 feet (3.7 m). If one should topple overboard while
attempting this they would fall into the water below and certainly be killed. In order to go from
one tier of boats to the next, the boatmen crossed the spring lines with great care. To do this,
they sat facing outboard with one leg on each side of the line. The boatmen slid themselves
across the line using one hand forward and one hand behind their body. With practice, crossing
the lines was easy to do in smooth water. The spring lines were usually rigid as an iron rod on
calm waters, but in a heavy sea the line would suddenly go slack and in the next second come
taut with a sudden jerk. 216
Boatman Frank H. Godfrey remembered one night on Lake Champlain when he was
forced to cross the spring lines during a storm. The wind was rising rapidly and a heavy sea
was building. The boatmen immediately began crossing back and forth between the boats in the
tow with additional lines. Godfrey had a heaving line tied around his waist, so in case he
landed in the lake, the other boatmen could pull him out. When about half way across the
spring line connecting the boats, it suddenly went slack and lowered Godfrey into the lake
nearly to his waist and then just as quickly the line went taut and Godfrey had all he could do
to hang on. Just as Godfrey got off the line safely onto the next canal boat aft in the tow, the
spring line broke and whipped back, clearing his head by inches. If the spring line had struck
Godfrey, it would have certainly killed him. 217
70
Figure 33: Towlines off the stern of a canalboat in tow.
The canalers were never beyond the touch of the wooded shores within the Narrows at
the southern end of the lake. When reaching their destination in this region, the canal boats
would separate from the tow and drift slowly into their port of destination. The towboat seldom
stopped in this region because the canal boats from the rear of the tow would push the entire
tow ahead as they bumped into one another, creating a zigzag of boats. 218 Great damage could
be done to the canal boats and tug if the towboat stopped too quickly. The situation and
procedures changed dramatically after the tow ventured north of Chimney Point in Addison,
Vermont. 219 When towed past this peninsula, the canal boats were usually rearranged into
pairs, side by side, for greater stability. The tow was also handed off to another tug, larger in
size and of greater strength, for the remaining passage across Lake Champlain, which expanded
to a width of nearly 12 miles (19.3 km) near Burlington, Vermont. 220
When the winds were adverse on the broad lake, the canal boat tows would moor in a
sheltered bay and wait for more favorable weather before crossing the open expanse of Lake
Champlain. They often used natural harbors such as Ore Bed Harbor, Snake Den, or manmade
harbors such as Burlington or Plattsburgh. These canal boat tows at times would anchor off
North Beach in Burlington, leaving behind their refuse on the lake bottom. 221 However, not all
of the harbors were favorable, such as Port Kendall located opposite Willsboro Point, which the
canalers called Port Misery or Despair because of its unprotected docks. 222
Many canalers feared traveling over the deep, wide waters of Lake Champlain.
Traveling on the open water was hazardous for the canalers and very different than the
confines of a canal or narrow river. The storms encountered on open water were a distressing
threat to canalers. When canaler Martha Bartholomew was boating she always felt safe when
71
her boat was dragging bottom in the canal, as she knew if the boat filled with water it would
not sink much further. 223
For a variety of reasons, many canal boats came to rest on the bottom of Lake
Champlain. Storms on the lake could be treacherous, especially for a vessel overloaded with
iron ore or coal. When the lake became turbulent during storms, sailing canal boats and
towboats would try to navigate into protected harbors, but some vessels never reached the
safety of a sheltered bay. Being the highest object on the lake, the canal boat tows were
frequently struck by lightening. While on route from St. Johns to Whitehall, the tug Robert H.
Cook of the Champlain Transportation Company encountered a severe electrical storm on
Thursday morning October 12, 1922. About opposite Port Kent, the canal boat Bird S. Cooler,
owned by Alex Gereau and loaded with lumber for Albany, was struck by lightning. The bolt of
lightning entered the cabin and shocked the captain, then passed to the cabin of the neighboring
canal boat and shocked Captain Frank LaFountain of Champlain, who was transporting
pulpwood to Mechanicville. The lightning caused both boats to fill up rapidly with water.
Fortunately for both canal boat families, their cargo kept their vessels afloat enough to be towed
to shore where they could be repaired. 224
During storms, canal boats frequently broke loose from their tows, or rigging aboard the
sailing canal boats was destroyed. As these loose boats were blown crosswind, crews
desperately struggled to control their powerless vessels. Without engines, sails, or enough
anchor line to reach bottom in deeper waters, the boats were at the mercy of the waves and
wind. While some canal boats sank because of bad weather and human error, others were
abandoned when they outlived their usefulness. 225 Such an incident happened while the tug
Tisdale was rounding Shelburne Point on Friday, October 17, 1884, with a tow of seven canal
boats. Five of the vessels parted from the hawser and were rapidly carried towards the rocks by
a heavy northwest wind. The tug succeeded in recovering all but the canal boat A. R. Noyes,
which struck the rocks and sank in 65 feet (19.8 m) of water off Proctor Shoal at the southern
end of Burlington Bay. As the vessel sank, its cargo of coal, intended for the coal yard of Elias
Lyman, shifted forward, sending the vessel quickly to the bottom. No one was apparently hurt
during the incident but the vessel and cargo were a total loss. 226
The most horrific occurrence of a tow breaking loose occurred in November 1911 during
a severe storm that pounded the Champlain Valley for almost four days, becoming one of the
worst storms to ravage the region in decades. On Friday, November 10, 1911, the weather was
warmer than usual and a storm was building. The tug Defender had set out from Rouses Point
under the command of Captain Charles Bridge with the intention of reaching Whitehall before
the Champlain Canal closed for the season. As a south wind began to increase in the early
afternoon, Captain Bridge set anchor under the protection or lee of Providence Island. It
appeared evident to Captain Bridge that he could not make it to port. He therefore went into the
lee of Providence Island, hoping that the tow would hold together. The tow had been there only
an hour when the hawser connecting the tug and tow parted. Despite the efforts of every man
and woman aboard the canal boats, the tow soon broke apart, sending the canal boats in every
direction. 227
Captain Bridge got word to shore that he needed assistance. During the late afternoon,
someone called the LCTC office at Whitehall, which located Captain Eldon J. Rockwell. Captain
Rockwell along with his family and a crew of about six men were on the tug Robert H. Cook,
which was weather bound behind Trundall Mountain near Port Kent. The LCTC office
requested that Captain Rockwell make every attempt to help Captain Bridge. 228
72
As night fell and the wind began to change directions, Rockwell decided to put his wife
on one of the canal boats in the tow and leave them all at the Port Kent dock. It was pitch black
and most of the running lights aboard the tugs and canal boats had been blown out and no
attempt could keep them lit. Just as things began to look serious for Defender and its tow, the
tugboat Robert H. Cook left its tow of empty boats in Port Kent and came to Captain Bridge's aid.
The two tugs rounded up all the canal boats and remained in the lee of Providence Island
throughout Saturday. During the entire time, there was little or no sleep for the canalers and tug
boatmen. 229
As the wind shifted to the west-southwest and a break appeared in the weather very
early Sunday morning, Captain Bridge made an attempt for Port Kent with his southbound
tow. When nearly to the Colchester Reef Lighthouse, the wind shifted to the west and reached
speeds up to 50 miles an hour. Defender alone could not hold the tow in place against the heavy
gale and incredibly high seas. 230 Julian Rockwell, who was at the wheel of the tug Robert H. Cook
for his father, had difficulty navigating through the huge swells, one of which smashed through
the glass of a porthole in the hull. Upon approaching the tug Defender, Captain Rockwell with a
megaphone asked Bridge how they could help. Captain Bridge said, "Put your hawser around
me and pull ahead so we can make some headway." After a desperate struggle to get a hawser
onto the tug Defender, the two tugs slowly moved toward Port Kent. 231
A short time after starting for safety, fourteen of the canal boats in the tow broke loose
and were adrift. Captain Rockwell left the tug Defender, which now had the power and steerage
to pull the tow into Port Kent alone. Rockwell immediately set out to rescue the drifting canal
boats. However, luck was not on their side. Soon after picking up the drifting boats and heading
for Port Kent, seven of the fourteen boats broke loose again. At this point, the heavy seas
prevented Rockwell from returning to pick up the seven canal boats adrift. He knew that
turning around would risk swamping the canal boats he had in tow. 232
73
Figure 34: Captain Ell B. Rockwell, captain of the tugboat Robert H. Cook.
The tugs Defender and Robert H. Cook made it safely to Port Kent with their tows.
However, Captain Bridge refused to go back out on the broad lake because he was unfamiliar
with the waters around Colchester Point. Instead he spent the night in his pilothouse watching
the fleet of canal boats and praying for everyone’s safety. After looking at the tug's rudder,
which was giving Captain Rockwell trouble, he told his son, "We're going. We aren't going to
leave those people." Rockwell would not give up on the canalers, so he and his crew went out
in the rough seas to rescue the remaining helpless canal boats. The crew of the tug Robert H.
Cook could not see any sign of the canal boats but assumed based on the wind that the boats
were drifting toward Sunset Island and Laws Island. Captain Rockwell's son, Julian, prepared a
lifeboat to pick up the canalers in case the tug could not get close enough to attach to their
boats. 233
As Captain Rockwell at the helm slowed down to navigate through the dangerous
shallows around Colchester Reef, he heard a loud bang and then he lost control of the rudder
and propeller. Unfortunately, before Rockwell could even get close to the canal boats, the key of
the propeller had fallen apart, allowing the propeller to partially slip off and become jammed in
the rudder. This left the tug Robert H. Cook completely disabled, just like the canal boats. The
tugboat crew managed to get two heavy bow anchors over the side of the tug. But because of
the extreme depth of water and rocky bottom, the anchors did not hold until the tug nearly ran
up on Laws Island. 234
During Sunday night, the tug Robert H. Cook rode out the storm unharmed despite the
huge waves breaking over the ice covered deck. The rolling and pitching were so violent that a
young husband aboard one of the canal boats figured that his family was going to die during
the storm. The young captain set his anchors the best he could, and then he tied one end of a
small rope to the cabin bulkhead and the other end to his wife, young child, and himself.
Fortunately, the young boatman's fears were never realized as his anchors held, allowing the
family to safely ride out the storm. 235
Six of the seven canal boats adrift were able to set anchors just before being washed up
onto Stave Island. By morning, most of the canal boats were sitting on the lake bottom in
shallow water. The captain of the seventh boat was ill and failed to get good anchorage during
the storm. That night, their boat washed up on the Rutland Railroad causeway. By morning, the
badly beaten canal boat was beginning to break up. Fortunately, none of those on board any of
the tugs or canal boats were hurt badly. The buoyant canal boat cargoes of the southbound tow
kept the vessels afloat despite the fact many of the boats were full of water. Had the seven boats
that wrecked been in a northbound tow with coal or iron ore, there would have been heavy loss
of life. 236
The tug Defender remained with the canal boats in port until Monday morning. Not
knowing what had happened to Rockwell, Captain Bridge moved the canal boat tows from Port
Kent to Port Douglas at daylight and began a search for the tug Robert H. Cook and its crew.
Meanwhile, Julian Rockwell and another deckhand rowed his father over to the Rutland
Railroad causeway, where Captain Rockwell set out on foot for Colchester Point to get to a
telephone. The 18-year-old Julian and the deckhand then rowed to the canal boat wreck along
the causeway to rescue those aboard. They got the canal boat couple off their boat and then took
them to the railroad station at the South Hero end of the causeway. The canal boat captain was
a diabetic and caught a severe cold during the storm. The man survived the ordeal, but he was
74
never well enough to work on canal boats again. 237 Upon locating the canal boats, Captain
Bridge attempted unsuccessfully to retrieve some of the stranded vessels. Instead he was able to
safely carry off some of the crew, which in some cases were made by a narrow margin due to
the effects of the cold water. 238 No one was killed or seriously injured during the event, and,
over the following two weeks, all of the canal boats were raised and their cargoes salvaged.
Accidents aboard canal boats occurred quite frequently resulting in everything from a
horrifying death to simply an awful scare. Numerous canal boatmen drowned in Lake
Champlain, while their vessel was at dock and underway. In the year 1890 two canal boatmen
drowned while their vessels were at dock. On Friday, October 3, 1890, Phillip Maxon fell from
the deck of the canal boat James Kelley into Lake Champlain near the Isle La Motte Bridge. His
badly decomposed body was not found until Saturday October 18 after it had washed ashore in
Alburgh. The authorities were notified at once but it was not thought necessary to hold an
inquest, so Phillip's body was turned over to Mr. N. J. Powers for burial. 239 In late November,
Henry Young, a young boatman employed on the canal boat M. V. B. White, fell into the lake at
Whitehall. Before anyone could assistance Henry, he had drowned in the cold water. 240
Mishaps on the deck of a canal boat while under tow could lead to disaster and even
death because of the long time it took to give the person assistance. The tows could not stop or
turn around quickly, nor could a small boat be launched easily. Hilda Garneau remembered a
story of a young man who lost his balance while he was putting up a clothesline on the deck for
his mother. The boy tragically fell into Lake Champlain around Split Rock and likely drowned.
His body was never found. 241
Another incident that happened near Split Rock occurred about 1899 when Captain
Archibald "Archie" St. Clair and his son of Whitehall, New York were in a northbound tow on
Lake Champlain. As the tow passed the Split Rock Point lighthouse, St. Clair's twenty-one year
old son was near the side rail tightening the cabin awning ropes. The rope broke and the young
man fell backward into the lake and never came up. St. Clair took his canal boat out of the tow
and tied up in Grogg Harbor, just south of Split Rock. St. Clair stayed in the small bay searching
desperately for his son every day in his small boat, but the body of his son was never
recovered. 242 Despite the tragic death of his son, Captain St. Clair continued boating with his
wife, Lavina, for about twenty more years.
Traveling on the Northern Route during the early canal era was dangerous. Islands,
rocks, shallows, and shifting sandbars made towing and sailing difficult during the best of
weather conditions. No navigational charts and only a few privately maintained navigational
aids helped the early captains find their way. Practical experience and familiarity of the rivers
and lakes are what guided the tows safely to port. Piloting by daylight and moonlight was done
using hills, houses, trees, and other natural and manmade features. With the development of a
system of government maintained navigational aids in the United States and Canada,
navigation on the Northern Waterway had improved greatly by 1873. The first accurate and
widely available navigational charts of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain were distributed
to all towboat captains and canal boatmen by the late 1870s. Despite all these efforts, after a bad
foggy night, frequently the next morning canal boats would be seen with spilled deck loads and
even entire canal boat tows found firmly aground. 243
On October 19, 1908, the tug Protector, owned by the Lake Champlain Transportation
Company and commanded by Captain George Sweeney, was coming up Lake Champlain from
Rouses Point with twenty boats, consisting of canal boats and Canadian pinflats, laden with
pulpwood. During the very early morning, they ran into a dense cloud of smoke. Unable to get
75
an exact bearing, the tow ran aground at Fisk's Point on Isle La Motte. Shortly after the accident,
a gale sprang up from the north and drove the boats further ashore. Bad luck struck again when
the tugs hawser broke as Captain Sweeney was engaged in pulling the boats off in groups of
three and four boats at a time. Mr. H. W. Fisk telephoned to Rouses Point for the tug Defender to
help remove the boats. By late Monday, the tugs had removed all the boats except for the canal
boat Sullivan. The tug Protector continued on its way with the rest of the tow, leaving Sullivan
behind on the rocks. On Tuesday the schooner N. W. Fisk was used to lighter Sullivan, which
was leaking badly. The crippled canal boat was hauled back to Rouses Point by the tug Defender,
where the boat was repaired and reloaded. 244
Tugboat crews, who worked endless hours during the navigation season, also made
poor decisions that resulted in tragic results for the canalers. One night about 1900, the wind
was blowing hard out of the south and Captain Murray was pulling a northbound tow from
Burlington with the Lake Champlain Transportation Company tug Tisdale. That night, despite
the foul weather, Captain Murray decided to go between the Colchester Reef Lighthouse and
Colchester Shoals. The captain was having difficulty keeping the tow straight due to a lack of
power. The two canal boats in the last tier were loaded with coal and owned by Captain
Sussinger of Champlain, New York. That night, the captain was working with his son. As the
tow approached the Colchester Reef Lighthouse, Sussinger noticed in horror that his boat on the
eastern side of the tow was about to strike the lighthouse. In distress, the captain hollered to his
son to jump to their boat on the western side of the tow. The captain briefly thought about
trying to make the jump, but the distance was simply too far. With a violent crash, his boat
struck the west side of the lighthouse, removing part of the boat's stern. The canal boat at once
broke loose from the tow and for a short time became stuck on the reef. Water quickly began to
fill the canal boat, which then began sliding off the reef as it sank. Shortly thereafter, the boat
disappeared leaving the canal boat captain in the water. The lighthouse keeper and his wife
came running out of the lighthouse after being awakened by the crash, and rescued the captain
by throwing him a rope. 245
Another incident of poor navigation involved the canal boat Will J. Clark. At Whitehall
on Thursday September 3, 1914, Captain Fred Peters of Rouses Point put his canal boat Will J.
Clark into the northbound tow of Captain E. M. Rockwell. Will J. Clark was the first vessel in the
tow behind the tug and was carrying a cargo of 150 tons of soft coal for Burlington. At noon the
next day, the tow was nearing Schuyler Island, which lay ahead on their port side. About 1 PM,
the tug struck Schuyler Reef and was brought to a standstill on the rocks. A few brief moments
later, Will J. Clark, along with the other vessels tied close behind, struck the steamer's stern and
stove in the bow of Captain Peters’ boat. Lake water quickly filled the bow of Will J. Clark,
causing it to sink. Like so many other canal boat disasters, there was no heroic rescue or million
dollar loss, just a terrible blow to a canal boat captain. Captain Peters was saved but Will J. Clark
had to be abandoned, which was estimated to have been worth $200. 246
Finally after crossing Lake Champlain with or without incident, northbound tows were
brought behind the protection of the Rouses Point breakwater and tied to the dock. Every canal
boat had to stop at the US customs office before crossing the US-Canadian border. The canal
boat captain had to present his vessel’s registration, license, and bill of laden to the officers at
Rouses Point, New York. The captain of each canal boat then received his clearance papers,
allowing the boat to leave United States waters. 247
76
THE CANADIAN WATERWAYS
Many of the northern canal boats traveling into Canada from Lake Champlain were
bound for the Ottawa River Valley with loads of Pennsylvania coal, and would return with
lumber, pulpwood, grain, or hay. Without the restrictions of fixed bridges along the Canadian
Waterways, canal boats could have extremely high deck loads, consisting of as much cargo as
the vessels could handle. Northern canal boats generally carried a full load in their holds and a
heavy deck load.
On June 15, 1914, the crew of the canal boats Alonzo F. Burt and George C. Donahue
completed loading their cargo of lumber at Calumet, located on the Ottawa River about 15 miles
(24.2 km) east of Ottawa. The following account of their trip south was typical for northern
canalers. After loading the boats, the crews of Alonzo F. Burt and George C. Donahue were forced
to wait nearly three days for a tug, which finally arrived at 6:30 AM on June 18. The northern
canalers were accustomed to the long waits for towage. The Ottawa Transportation Company
tug Harris towed the vessels down the Ottawa River to the entrance of the Granville Canal. At 8
AM, the northern canal boats began their 4.5-hour journey on the Granville Canal behind a
canal team. At 10 PM, the canal boats entered the Carillon Canal, also called by the boatmen, the
Carry All Canal. By 1 AM, June 19, the vessels had returned to the Ottawa River and were
placed under the tow of a river tug. At 8:30 AM, the northern canal boats were docked at the
entrance of the St. Anne’s Canal, which they crossed in about 3.5 hours. In the afternoon, the
canal boats were then towed to La Chine, where the vessels lay in wait for three hours for a tug
to tow them to Montreal. Shortly after arriving at Montreal at 1 AM on June 20, Alonzo F. Burt
and George C. Donahue cleared in a tow of the McNaughton Towing Company behind the sidewheel towboat Hudson. 248
Leaving Montreal, the tow entered the deep, open water of the St. Lawrence River.
Around the turn of the century, lighthouses stood at every bend on the river, while buoys and
lightships, moored in midstream, pointed out the channel to the tug captains. When night
closed in, the beam of the lights reflected across the water for miles. Huge black masses loomed
up and glided past in silence. The St. Lawrence River tows were long, snake-like monsters
snorting as they traveled in the dim, shadowy night. The moon occasionally burst through the
heavy clouds, showing the dull outline of the distant banks and reflecting off the white canvas
of passing ships. 249
After an 8-hour journey during the night, Hudson and its tow arrived in Sorel at the
mouth of the Richelieu River, which was called the Little River by the northern boatmen. 250
Alonzo F. Burt and George C. Donahue lay waiting at Sorel for a tow up the Richelieu River until
the early afternoon. The northern canal boats joined thirty-eight other vessels behind the sidewheel steamer Rival. At 7:30 PM, the tow arrived at St. Ours Lock. After a long night for the
boatmen, the tow was locked through by 4 AM and arrived at Chambly at 5 AM the following
morning. After a day of waiting their turn at the Chambly Basin, the vessels finally entered the
Chambly Canal at 5 AM, June 22. Canal boats towing through the Chambly Canal were
required by the Canadian government to carry a local steersman, who was usually an old man
or teenager that more often than not, merely rode through the canal and did nothing for his
pay. 251
Vessels were towed through the Chambly Canal for the most part by teamsters or
drivers with horses. These men had a relatively free hand and there were few regulations to
hamper their activities. Towing agreements were made between the drivers and the captains
77
with virtually no involvement on the part of the canal administration. 252 Rarely captains
arranged with towing companies to look after their towing needs in the Chambly Canal
throughout the navigation season. Usually captains made use of the men and horses that were
available when they arrived at one end of the canal or the other. This system was similar to that
used on the American canals that the northern canalers traveled upon regularly. 253
Alonzo F. Burt and George C. Donahue arrived at St. Johns, located at the southern end of
the Chambly Canal after a ten-hour trip. The tow stayed at St. Johns waiting for one of the Lake
Champlain Transportation Company tugs. The tow left St. Johns at 11 PM behind the tug
Protector and made its way up the Richelieu River to Lake Champlain. At the swing bridge over
the river in Lacolle, the entire tow swiftly made it through the narrow passage. This situation
was not the case when going north or downstream. The tow was generally turned around and
the current was used to help drop the boats through safely. However, vessels often ran aground
when turning the tow about as a result of the shallow, narrow river channel. 254
After reaching Rouses Point, New York at 11 AM, it took the canal boat captains five
hours to clear with customs, at which time the tow left for Whitehall. At 11 PM, the tow
encountered a very heavy thunderstorm just to the southeast of Point au Roche, New York. The
winds were of gale force and changed directions so rapidly that there was very little in waves,
but there was extremely heavy rain and chain lightning. The entire tow was struck by lightning.
The running lights (lanterns) and light poles on Alonzo F. Burt and George C. Donahue were
destroyed but with no other damages. The lights on the tug Protector were also destroyed and
all the boats in the tow sustained moderate to very heavy damage. Captain Robert Lester and
his wife were in their cabin when the lightning struck their cabin’s stovepipe and blew the stove
apart sending pieces of it throughout their cabin. The captain and his wife barely escaped to
their deck. Several of the canal boats that were struck by the lightning started to leak badly and
required continuous pumping until the tow reached Whitehall at 4:30 AM, June 26. 255
Like this freak incident on Lake Champlain, accidents also occurred all too frequently to
northern canalers traveling in Canadian waters. During the summer of 1907, eight canal boats
loaded with lumber and towed two abreast were caught in a bad summer storm while on route
between Murray Bay and Quebec City. During the storm, canal boat Captain Cornelius Reardon
of Whitehall, New York, about sixty-five years old at the time, was tending lines at the bow of
his canal boat B. W. Burleigh of Whitehall. Captain Reardon had donned his heavy raingear
including an oilcloth hat, long coat, and three-quarter length rubber boots. Without warning,
Captain Reardon was washed overboard from the bow of his boat by a huge wave. Amazingly,
the captain was then washed onto the bow of the boat in the tier behind his vessel by another
enormous wave. The very lucky Captain Reardon found himself unhurt and only wet from his
dunk into the St. Lawrence River. 256
In November of 1912 at Three Rivers, Quebec, canal boat Captain Patrick Colcomb and
his twenty-year-old son were discharging coal from one of their boats at a government wharf in
the St. Lawrence River. During the night, a northeasterly gale came up and they had no way of
getting their boat into the shelter of the St. Maurice River. At 1 AM, the boat broke lose from the
dock and waves began to swamp the helpless vessel. The boat drifted onto a rocky reef near the
center of the river and sank. Only the cabin roof remained above the water. The canal boat
family lashed themselves to the boat's roof and waited for help. After spending the night with
icy water breaking over them, the Three River ferry finally spotted the canal boat family and
launched a lifeboat to rescue them. 257
78
CHAPTER 6: NORTHERN CANAL BOATS AND THE REGION'S
SHIPWRIGHTS
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, canal boats were by far the most
numerous type of wooden vessel to operate on the Champlain Waterway. During the peak
years of operation, the number of canal boats operating was approximately 400 each year.
Between 1870 and 1940, approximately 1,500 northern canal boats in total worked on the
Champlain Waterway and were supported by shipyards along the route. Each year, several
canal boats were abandoned or cut up for scrap wood because of the excessive cost for their
repair. During the end of the nineteenth century, new canal boats took the place of many of
these old vessels so that the number of boats operating on the Champlain Waterway seemed to
stay approximately the same. 258 Between 1900 and 1940, the number of northern canal boats
dropped from several hundred to fewer than ten. The shipping that had averaged about one
million tons each year between 1870 and 1900 declined dramatically to just over 200,000 tons.
As a result, northern canal boats and their shipyards were abandoned in record numbers and
the need for new boats and large commercial shipyards no longer existed.
CANAL BOAT TYPES
Two types of wooden canal boats were employed during the period 1870 to 1940:
standard or unrigged canal boats and sailing canal boats. All canal boats were towed through
the canals by teams of horses or mules until the 1910s. When they entered open water, sailing
canal boats had their own mode of propulsion, while standard canal boats had to be towed by
steamboats. The standard canal boats upon reaching open water were formed into tows or rafts
of boats. 259
The standard and sailing canal boats were predominately freight or cargo carriers and
very rarely carried passengers for hire. The type of cargo to be carried determined the design of
a canal boat. For example, many of the boats that carried clay, gravel, sand, lumber, coal, and
iron ore had open decks to allow easy access to the loose cargo. Boats that carried
predominately grain and merchandise had full decks and hatches. Despite the type of cargo a
northern canal boat carried, the average life of a canal boat built between 1870s and 1930s was
approximately twenty-five years. 260
The smallest lock in the canal network dictated the maximum size the canal boat could
be constructed. Although one day in the late nineteenth century, a visitor came to Henry
Cossey's shipyard at Ticonderoga and asked Mr. Cossey, "How long a boat do you make?"
Cossey jokingly replied, "We make them by the mile and cut them off any damn length you
want them." 261 The size of canal boats operating on the Champlain Waterway after the
construction of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915 was the old locks on the Chambly Canal.
Although larger than the locks on the old Champlain Canal, the Chambly Canal was a
tremendous limiting factor to maritime commerce after the construction of the larger
Champlain Barge Canal. 262
After the opening of the Chambly Canal in 1843, the typical route for canal boats
operating on the Northern Waterway was from Montreal to New York City, a trip of almost 400
miles (644 km), upon which less than 78 miles (125 km) was confined to canals. Since canal
boats on the Champlain Waterway conducted trade largely on open water, they were markedly
79
different in design and construction than those working on other North American canals. Until
the early 1860s, sailing canal boats played an important role in this trade, but this changed after
the development of efficient propeller driven steam tugs and an increase in the availability and
lower costs of towing services. Beginning in the 1870s, the existing sailing canal boats were
dismasted and converted into standard canal boats. The time and expense one saved by
carrying a sailing rig was no longer economical. The loss of space taken up by a centerboard
and rigging equipment above and below deck was a great disadvantage. Compared to the open
decked standard canal boats, sailing canal boats were also more difficult to load and unload
through their small hatches.
Between 1870 and 1940, all the northern canal boats were constructed by professional
shipwrights who served as the designers and builders, often using the most innovative
shipbuilding technology. For these shipwrights, the construction of northern canal boats was
that of machines designed to transport raw materials, goods, products, and passengers, and it
was this primary function that constrained the principle features of the vessel. However, these
boats also were required to have accommodations for their crew, which might live aboard the
vessel year round.
Many issues had to be balanced during the construction of these vessels, such as the
design, method of construction, incorporation of safety features, and the type and size of
materials. These decisions ultimately determined the comfort, economic success, and life span
of the vessel. The ship owner and shipwright had to negotiate a number of obstacles in the
vessel’s design to accommodate these very different needs. All northern canal boat shipwrights
understood that their canal boats had to meet several basic requirements to function effectively
as a machine, element of an economic system, and the dwelling for a household.
First and foremost, the northern canal boat had to be able to operate on the canals and
on open water in all weather conditions that it was likely to encounter, and secondly, it had to
be able to move efficiently and in a controlled manner with a very limited crew. 263 Another
important issue to resolve was determining how to maximize the cargo space without
infringing too much on the needs of the crew and on the vessel's operation. However, in the
effort to build the cheapest, largest, and lightest northern canal boats under these conditions,
some shipbuilders made choices to use inferior materials and techniques, eliminated safety
features, and weakened the structure of the vessels where they thought strength was not
critical. These designers created boats serviceable boats but they had significantly shorter life
spans and frequently became more difficult to operate and maintain as they aged. 264
Most northern canal boats were built along the New York shores of Lake Champlain,
where the most important shipyards had been located since the beginning of the nineteenth
century. Historian Gertrude E. Cone noted that this fact is probably due to the physical
geography of the Champlain Valley. The New York shoreline is steep and has less farmable
land. The settlements were made close to the shoreline, and, as a result of the mountainous
terrain, the settlers depended greatly on the lake for transportation. While in Vermont, the land
is composed of plains and rolling hills and few towns have direct access or need for lake
navigation. Practically all of the lake’s New York villages were established around sheltered
bays that were ideal for shipbuilding. Vermonters stripped the countryside of its timber early in
the nineteenth century and concentrated on agricultural production. New York villages were
settled later and not as rapidly. Lumbering in the Adirondacks continued throughout much of
the nineteenth century, offering a plentiful supply of lumber for the construction of canal
boats. 265
80
There were three classes of northern canal boats used during the period 1870 to 1940.
One class built between 1873 and 1915 was a very low sided boat, like the canal boat Georgie,
built with sides only 4.5 feet (122 cm) tall and used almost exclusively on the Champlain Canal
and upper reaches of the Hudson River and Lake Champlain. The cargoes carried aboard these
boats were iron ore and pig iron from Port Henry or Crown Point, New York to the Burden Iron
Mills at West Troy, New York, and coal from Albany, New York to places along the Champlain
Canal and as far north on Lake Champlain as Vergennes, Vermont. These boats also worked on
the Champlain Canal as lighters, taking deck loads from the deeply laden canal boats at either
end of the canal and transporting the cargo to the opposite end of the canal, where it was
reloaded on the larger canal boat. Some of these low sided boats in the lighter trade also had
their own teams but no stable was built into the boats. The teams were stabled in what were
called day barns at various places along the canal, such as the Hemlock grocery and Willow
grocery. 266
The high sided, full decked boats built between 1873 and 1915 were divided into two
groups. The first group consisted of canal boats that carried iron ore from Port Henry to
Wilmington, Delaware and pig iron from Crown Point to Black Rock, Connecticut on Long
Island Sound. These boats, of which the canal boat Fred H. Wilkins was one, were braced with
extra athwartship beams approximately half way between the bottom and the deck. The sides of
these boats were 9 to 9.5 feet (2.74-2.90 m) high in order to have enough freeboard for the heavy
seas on Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay. The boats were generally loaded on the
Hudson River to a draft of 8 feet for Black Rock, but only 7 feet (2.13 m) for Wilmington because
the boats had to travel through the Delaware & Raritan Canal, which had a draft limit of 7 feet
(2.13 m). Approximately one-third of these heavy cargoes of iron ore or pig iron were carried on
deck to avoid the heavy strain on the vessel's bottom. 267
The second group of high sided canal boats consisted of vessels that had open decks and
traded between Canadian ports and those in New York Harbor. The canal boats that traveled
between Ottawa and New York City generally had sides between 7.5 and 8.5 feet (2.29-2.59 m),
while those that traded on the St. Lawrence River in ports around Quebec City had 9 foot (2.74
m) sides. All the northern boats, except for those that operated only as lighters, were built with
large, strong towing bitts, chocks, and cleats and carried anchors, lines, warps, poles, and other
equipment necessary to operate on the rough open waters encountered on their runs. 268
The canal boats Georgie, Maggie Sheppard, and other boats of this class had nearly straight
stems or at most a set back at the top of about 2 to 3 inches (5.1-7.6 cm). The stems of the canal
boat class including Clarence M. Curtis, Cedar Point, and Fred H. Wilkins with their very high
sides could not carry a bow lamp on the top of their stem, even when loaded to a draft of 4 or
4.5 feet (1.22 or 1.37 m), (the maximum draft on the Champlain Canal), as the lamp would not
clear under the bridges spanning the Champlain Canal. To carry the bow lamp required by
New York State law, the stems of these vessels were severely set back. Frank Godfrey
remembered his grandfather's canal boat Fred H. Wilkins had an Erie Night Hawk bow lamp,
the largest bow lamp available, that hung over the stem. Only about 2 to 3 inches (5.1-7.6 cm) of
the bow lamp could be seen above the top of the stem. The stem was perpendicular until the top
few feet, where the stem was thrown back about 30 to 36 inches (76.2-91.4 cm). This set back
allowed Godfrey's grandfather to place the bow of his boat against a lock gate, dock, or another
boat without fear of breaking his bow lamp. 269 Around the turn of the century, the bridge height
over the Champlain Canal was increased, allowing the stems of the canal boats to become more
upright. 270
81
The canal boats built up to about 1905 also had the sides drawn in at the stern, starting at
about the middle of the cabin or about 15 feet (4.57 m) forward of the stern. Each side was
drawn in about 4 inches (10.2 cm) and wooden frogs were spiked to each plank between the
light water mark and the shear strake. The frogs protected the ends of the stern planks from
being damaged when coming out of a lock. 271
SHIPWRIGHTS AND THEIR CANAL BOAT DESIGNS
The shipbuilding industry along the Champlain Waterway was protected by the
Registry Law of 1789, which laid down the rule that American ships operating in interstate
trade and under American registry must be American built. 272 Cheap timber was also readily
available along the Champlain Waterway in large quantities so the shipbuilding industry
prospered as long as the canalers needed new vessels. During the late nineteenth century, the
master shipwrights of the Champlain Waterway built vessels on both contract and speculation.
However, the majority of the vessels were laid down on speculation. The bulk of the canal boats
consisted of vessels of common overall design, which made it possible for shipwrights to
construct readily marketable vessels. 273 The practice of building on speculation ended during
the early twentieth century with the decline in shipping and the limited capital of the
shipwrights.
The design and construction techniques of northern canal boats evolved during the late
nineteenth century. Due to the rapid and prolific growth of the boat building industry in the
1870s and 1880s and the relatively small size of most boat yards, there was a great variety of
boat designs and construction methods employed. The northern canal boat designs were known
by the place where they were built (e.g., Fort Edward boat, Orwell boat, Champlain boat). For
those communities that had more then one shipyard, like Whitehall, the boats were known by
the name of their builder (e.g., Jack Ryan boat, Neddo boat, Stone boat). 274 The master
shipwrights at these shipyards followed their own designs, since outside naval architects or
consultants were rarely employed by owners or builders. Each shipyard built their canal boats
with distinctive features. For example, the Champlain boatyards built their canal boats with
cabin windows that had curved upper corners. Northern boatmen used these unique features to
determine at a distance from which shipyard the boats were built. 275
A canal boat took from three to five months to build. The production rate of most of
these yards was fewer than ten canal boats a year. 276 Several shipyards were building canal
boats for use on the Champlain Waterway between 1870 and 1940. However the number of
shipyards continued to drop as demand for new vessels decreased dramatically over the
seventy year period. By 1900, after the closing of many of the shipyards along the Champlain
Waterway, the major shipyards were located at Waterford, Whitehall, and Champlain, New
York. 277
82
Figure 35: Shipbuilding operation.
Figure 36: Trio of new canaloboats ready to be launched.
83
Most prospective owners allowed the shipwrights a large amount of latitude in the
planning of a new canal boat, contenting themselves only with specifying the general
characteristics of the boat. The master builder consequently carried the full burden of
developing a canal boat design with the desired carrying capacity and speed as well as such
elementary requirements such as seaworthiness, stability, and strength. 278 The design and
construction techniques used by these boatmen were rarely, if ever, recorded on paper. 279
The shipbuilders had certain basic requirements with respect to ship timber, which only
a few types of wood met. It was necessary that timber be light in weight, resistant to dry rot,
resilient to blows, stiff, tenacious in holding fastenings, easy to fashion, and available in suitable
sizes and shapes. In these respects, the hull planking and frame timbers, which determined a
vessel’s strength and durability, were the most important. For frames, the most widely used
wood was white oak, which was of medium weight, quite resistant to dry rot, and possessed the
other desired physical properties. The hull planks were usually white pine, which was light
weight and resistant to rot. 280
During the late nineteenth century, shipwrights developed new methods of
strengthening the wooden hulls of canal boats to enable them to stand the strains imposed by
their larger size and heavier cargoes. 281 In 1880, there were shipyards at Fort Ann, Ticonderoga,
Whitehall, Essex, Crown Point, and Champlain, which in all employed 90 men. The yearly
product was about 90 canal boats, worth from $2500 to $3000 each, and registered from 110 to
125 tons. 282 After the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal, several new wooden boats of the
old design, but much greater in size were constructed, however, these wooden craft did not
prove to be practical because they could not hold the capacity of steel barges and were more
difficult to maintain. 283
James Adams (1828-?) was a prominent businessman and boat builder of Whitehall.
James worked on his father’s farm in West Haven, Vermont until he came of age then he
worked for two years learning the trade of a shipwright at Whitehall. In about 1848, he then
established a shipyard with his brother Henry Adams under the firm name of J. & H. Adams.
This firm existed up to 1871, when another brother, George Adams, was taken in, and the firm
name was succeeded by J. & H. Adams & Company, which continued to 1884, when Henry
withdrew, and the firm name changed to J. & G. Adams, which lasted up to 1890, when George
died. From 1890, James Adams carried on his business alone. During the history of the
company, it employed between five and seventeen men constructing canal boats. James was
also involved in local Whitehall politics as a democrat and a member of many Whitehall society
groups. 284
From 1856 until at least 1900, one of the most extensive and best boat builders in
Whitehall was James Williamson, whose yard was located near the railroad depot, just north of
the track that ran to Rutland, Vermont. Mr. Williamson built up a reputation for quality boats
that extended throughout the Champlain Waterway. During the winter of 1880/81, he
employed seventeen men constantly; his pay roll amounted to $150 per week. Not a day at the
shipyard was without the music of hammers and axes between the hours of early morning and
evening. In the spring of 1881, he had on the stocks four first class boats, all finished with the
exception of a last coat of paint. Three of the boats were built for Cook, Mahar, & Reed and were
open deck boats for carrying lumber and coal. Williamson’s fourth boat was not sold as of early
April but he no doubt found a buyer without difficulty. Besides these vessels, Williamson had a
first class boat underway, which was to be finished on May 1st for Captain Ad Reed, just in time
for the opening of the Champlain Canal. A sixth boat begun at the yard was to be finished on
84
June 1st. During the previous year, Williamson's yard had turned out eight large first class boats,
which was more than any other yard along the Champlain Waterway. Williamson built boats
for cash only and each vessel was worth from $2800 to $3100. 285
Figure 37: New Canalboats ready to be lauched.
Henry Cossey (1816-1892) was one of thirteen children of Joseph Cossey, a French
shipbuilder in Ticonderoga for more than half a century. Henry started his own shipyard in
Ticonderoga at Port Marshall in 1842 and built canal boats in the area until 1890. 286 Henry’s
brother William was also a canal boat builder in Fort Ann, New York. Henry acquired a
substantial amount of property during his career; at one time, he was the owner of or had a
controlling interest in fifty northern canal boats. During the 1870s, he turned out eight canal
boats a year, these averaged in price from $2,000 to $4,000. In 1880, he invested between $50,000
and $75,000 into the construction of new canal boats and was prepared to put about $30,000
more into fifteen new boats in 1881. Their craft were each 98 feet (29.87 m) long, 17.67 feet (5.39
m) in width, and 8 feet (2.44 m) deep, decked, and carried 150 short tons (136.1 metric tons) on 4
feet (1.22 m) of draft and 250 short tons (226.8 metric tons) on 6 feet (1.83 m) of draft. 287 Henry’s
son George W. (1851-?) worked with his father during the summers since he was fourteen years
old. Upon his father’s death, he took over his father’s business. Henry had accumulated wealth
during his career; and although he met with heavy losses before his death, he left an estate
worth $50,000 to George and his widowed mother Celestia (Sampson) Cossey. 288
The canal boat shipwrights along the Champlain Waterway were very active in the
construction of new canal boats, especially in the winter months. The winter of 1879/80 was
probably typical for the latter nineteenth century. In April 1880, J. and H. Adams were finishing
a large class grain boat and another canal boat that had been started was due to be completed
by summer. Three canal boats built by Mahan and Reed were launched and ready for use once
the canal was open for the season. The boats names were B. S. W. Clark of Malone and John W.
Eddy and John Reed, both of Whitehall. The builders claimed that these three boats would out
carry any of the largest canal boats ever built on the Champlain Waterway. M. T. Jillson
launched a canal boat the week of April 7th. James Wiliamson finished two first class boats for
85
Swift, Courtney, and Beecher Match Company. These boats were M. Marty Allen and William H.
Ketchum. Bise Putnam launched three canal boats belonging to James Quinn, John O'Neil, and
Henry G. Burleigh. George Neddo was building a canal boat at the Elbow for Murray
Manville. 289
Most of the shipyards along the Champlain Waterway took advantage of the developing
technology of the day; however, canal boats at Belden's shipyard in Orwell, Vermont were built
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century from hand sawn timbers using a pit saw, a
technique long since outdated. Belden also incorporated other unique and seemingly weak
features into his boats. For example, he crossed planked the bottoms of his boats and used
diagonal floors. The bottom planking was installed perpendicular to the chine logs. The floors
were spiked into the chine logs at a diagonal. The spikes quickly rusted out and failed. The
ceiling planks were installed diagonally to the chine logs and perpendicular to the floors. The
boats were built along a hillside and as a result they never sat level in the water but listed a
little. Limber holes were only in one end of the floors and it seemed that they were always in
the high end so the water never would run to the pump wells. After Belden drift bolted the
sides together, they were adzed smooth on the outside but the inside was left rough and often
the planks on the inside were off by as much as a half inch in places. Belden ended his career as
a shipwright penniless. 290
Figure 38: The John E. Matton boatyard in Waterford, NY
Understandably, there were many boatyards to provide repairs and to build new boats
along the Champlain Canal. One that was well known in the early twentieth century was that of
John E. Matton, which was formerly operated by his father Jesse Matton (Figure 38). This yard
was located on the west side of the canal just above the Upper Two Lock at Waterford. A basin
had been dug out alongside the canal and operated much like a lock. A tumble gate separated
the canal from the basin and when the basin was filled with water from the canal the tumble
gate was raised, the water drained, and the boat could then be worked on. Many canal boats
were built there at a cost of about $3,500 each in 1910. 291 Stave bow boats were built by John
Matton's shipyard at 2 locks above Waterford. 292 This was a patented design by Joseph Hunt of
West Troy, who also patented designs for a center board and canal boats that had a cabin set
way to the stern and rounded at its after end. The steersman used a tiller that went over the
86
cabin roof and worked forward of the cabin. 293 This latter design does not appear to have been
very popular among the northern canalers since none appear in historic images or has been
found on the bottom of the Champlain Waterway.
During the canal boat era, each shipyard depended upon local merchants and craftsmen
to provide the supplies and accoutrements to outfit their newly constructed vessels. In 1900, M.
W. Murphy was manufacturing canal boat supplies for the local shipwrights and northern
canalers. 294 These features were often distinctive to the Champlain Canal and made the boats
comfortable and appealing to the northern canalers. During the early twentieth century, canal
boats built at Champlain, New York were acclaimed as the pride of the canal for their looks. 295
During the same period, Louis Stone & Brothers built canal boats at Whitehall, and there vessels
were also acclaimed as the best looking boats on the canal. This rivalry between canal boat
appearances was probably at its peak around the turn of the twentieth century.
As sections of the Champlain Canal were moved out of Wood Creek and straightened,
many of these old sections were turned into dry docks where shipwrights repaired old canal
boats. 296 In Schuylerville there was a dry dock on the west side, which was run by Jud Whaley
of Fort Edward and later by George “Boney” Sanders of Moses Kill. 297 Jesse Billings of
Northumberland was a shrewd businessman, who owned a canal store in Northumberland
called Cheap Side No. 1, where patrons could buy anything from a safety pin to a canal boat.
Jesse Billings, a shipwright by trade, built and repaired boats but owned a coal yard as well as a
grocery store, saloon, tenant houses, ice houses, and a bank. Billings also traded in old canal
boats. A young boatman, anxious to go into business, could buy an old boat for $50 to $100
down and Billings would finance the rest. It would take a lot of hard work and many hours at
the weeping willow before the lad would finally get out of debt. It was expected that all boat
owners who were indebted to Billings would patronize his many businesses. 298
Along the Champlain Waterway, several small canal boat shipyards existed during the
late nineteenth century, including the shipyard of the Burleigh Brothers, who also owned
several businesses in Ticonderoga and Whitehall. The company’s shipwrights built canal boats
at Larrabees Point in Shoreham, Vermont. 299 This company among others lasted only a short
time before competition and lack of business forced them to close. The firm of Hoskins, Ross, &
Company of Essex, New York specialized in the construction of sailing craft, including sailing
canal boats. These vessels were affective traders on Lake Chaplain but were uneconomical by
the 1870s for regular transport through the canals. The last of the region’s sailing canal boats
were built in the Champlain Valley during the 1880s. The last of these vessels remained in
service through the 1910s. 300
Since the early nineteenth century, entrepreneurs experimented with the use of
steamboats on the Champlain Canal. None of these ventures were successful, including an
attempt made in 1890 by a Mr. Jones from New York City. Mr. Jones proposed using his steam
canal boat Saranac, built in Buffalo, as part of a fast freight line along the Northern Waterway. In
August 1890, Mr. Jones along with five others made a trip from New York to Montreal aboard
the Saranac, but the scheme went no further. 301
The last canal boat to be built at Whitehall was at John (Jack) Ryan's boatyard in 1929
(Figure 39). 302 Just before entering from the south into Whitehall, on the west bank, was Ryan’s
shipyard, which had no dry dock. Instead he winched the canal boats up onto the launching
ways when they needed to be repaired. The Jack Ryan boat was strong, well built, and probably
the best of the northern canal boats during the early twentieth century. His vessels were easily
recognized in the Champlain Canal because of their distinctive stern called the Jack Ryan stern,
87
which was a transom or bustle stern. The bow also had features that were much like a laker on
the Erie Canal. Ryan during his career changed the method of constructing the molded bow of
his vessels and adopted the stave bow developed by Joseph Hunts of Troy, New York. 303 Unlike
some of his competitors’ vessels, Ryan’s boats could be used in New York Harbor in winter
because of their strength and sound construction. In 1905, a new boat from Ryan’s shipyard cost
$2000 to $3000. Other northern canal boats could carry a little more cargo because of their
lighter construction but they lacked the durability of Ryan’s boats. The goal for most northern
canalers was to carry 180 tons in the Champlain Canal, which was certainly unobtainable with a
Ryan boat. Some owners of competitors’ vessels bragged that their boats could do this but, if so,
they were probably drafting 5 feet (1.5 m) instead of the legal 4.5 feet (1.37 m) and the team or
little tug towing them suffered because of it. 304
Figure 39: The Ryan Boatyard in Whitehall, NY.
The Ryan boats had another disadvantage. With their high sides, when light in the canal,
they could not clear some of the bridges, so water would be put into the boat’s hold to sink it
lower. There were no bulkheads in the canal boats to control the water ballast, which would roll
around causing the boat to quickly and dramatically tilt back and forth. The cabin roof usually
ended up being badly damaged when the vessel healed while going under a bridge, the ballast
water was taken on through a hole in the vessel’s bottom, either in the bow or stern. When not
in use this hole was sealed by a treenail. A board was fastened across the treenail to prevent it
from working loose. The water was later removed by use of a weeping willow. 305
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The canal boat shipwrecks located in Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River indicate
that these vessels were built in a range of sizes, reflecting the changes that occurred in lock
dimensions of the Champlain Canal, and with an astounding diversity of hull forms and
construction techniques. Some vessels were assembled with the traditional plank-on-frame
method of construction, while others were built of thick planks edge-fastened with long iron
bolts, using little or no interior framing at all. Some canal boat wrecks exhibit a molded bow
88
and transom stern, others are double ended, and still others have sterns that resemble a square
box. 306
While canal boats may not have been the prettiest boats on Lake Champlain, they were,
second to the railroad, the prime movers of most of the region’s bulk goods in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, and were built in huge numbers and varied greatly in
their design and construction. 307 In sheer numbers, the standard or unrigged canal boat was the
most prevalent type of canal vessel employed in transporting cargo through the Champlain
Waterway. The construction of the standard canal boat was often dictated by the type of cargo
to be carried. Many of the boats that carried ore and coal were slab-sided with much of their
deck open to the cargo hold of the vessel. 308
Two basic types of canal boats plied Lake Champlain. One was strictly a canal boat that
had to be towed on the open lake; the other was a new class of boats, which adapted to both
lake and canal navigation. These latter vessels, developed by shipbuilders around the lake, had
features of both the traditional sloop and schooner and the standard canal boat. The maximum
size of the vessels was dictated by the smallest lock in the canal network. The masts would be
taken down when the vessel entered the canal in order to pass under low bridges. Along the
canal, the boat would be towed by mules or horses, but once out of the canal it would sail on the
open lake. This convertible vessel would save three or four days for shippers at Whitehall, the
entry point for the canal when going south. Steamers and traditional sailing craft would have
their cargoes reloaded on canal boats at each end of the canal, whereas the canal schooners and
sloops simply dropped their masts and continued on, sometimes cutting the total time for a
voyage in half. This was especially crucial in the sale of the Champlain Valley’s dairy products.
By 1831, even guidebook writers took notice of “numerous canal boats, some fitted with masts
for schooners for sailing. 309
Orwell, Vermont shipwright Belden was the only boat builder along the Northern
Waterway to use diagonal floors and two inch maple cross bottom planks. Belden never
changed his boat plans or installed power saws as the other boatyards did and as a result he
went broke. His boats all had very nice cabins but the boats themselves were poorly constructed
with weak bottoms and bows. The 4 inches sided and 5 inches moulded diagonal floors were
not mortised into the chine log but attached by two spikes at each end of the floor. The diagonal
floors were spaced 18 inches apart. Belden's canal boats had 4 inch sides with two oak wales.
When reminiscing about his grandparents' Belden canal boat Julie E. Tyler, Frank H. Godfrey
remembered the boat well for he believed he had pumped all of Lake Champlain and the St.
Lawrence River through her hold. In old age, he still dreamed of the hand pump and spring
pole. 310
89
90
CHAPTER 7: NORTHERN CANALERS
THEIR UNIQUE COMMUNITY
The life of northern canalers was a curious blend of domestic and nomadic existence.
Unlike the typical mariner, northern canalers consisted of individuals ranging in age from
infants up to grandparents, who made their home as well as their living on the Champlain
Waterway. In 1896, author and artist Howard Pyle described northern canalers as a class of
people that had no parallel; their culture was dissimilar to other mariners and from those living
in the communities along the Northern Waterway. Unlike the great expanse of water on which
seafarers traveled, there was less than 40 feet (12.2 m) of water separating them from dry land
when in the canal and not 5 miles (8.1 km) when on Lake Champlain or Lake St. Pierre on the
St. Lawrence River. The canalers frequently stepped ashore briefly at a lock to snub their boat or
to buy something at a canal store, but they were as remote from the interests of the villages and
hamlets as they were from the woods and fields that they traveled by. The same can be said
about the cities to which they delivered cargoes and where they frequently moored during the
winter. 311
Canalers lived lives of almost constant mobility throughout the navigation season,
which distinguished them from most people living in urban centers and rural communities
along the Northern Waterway. One author called the northern canalers America's "Water
Gypsies.” 312 They were a group unto themselves and were described as "a long-lived lot with a
family resemblance among them all, perhaps the result of selection as much as environment."
Despite the fact that canalers never went to sea, there still was a spiritual kinship between
seamen and boatmen. For both, once the water had called them, there was no turning back. 313
91
At the heart of northern canal boat culture were the natural and cultural environments
along the Northern Waterway that shaped their behavior. As a result of their nomadic maritime
lifestyle, the culture of the northern canalers took on elements from the varied groups they
encountered along the Northern Waterway, which included a wide spectrum of American and
Canadian society. For over a century, the northern canalers were bound together by their
interpretation of the imperatives and traditions of the Northern Waterway. 314
Between 1870 and 1940, most of the northern canalers, especially from the Champlain
Valley, were families with French-Canadian heritage. In the early 1920s, author J. D. Gleason
claimed “As Ohio produced presidents, so Champlain, a town of but eighteen hundred
inhabitants, which yet boasts of two hundred and twenty-five barges [canal boats], one to every
eight people, is the port of hail of the [Northern] canal boat captain.” Most of Champlain’s
canalers were of French Canadian birth, and French was generally the language of choice
spoken among the boatmen of Champlain. 315
The northern canalers constituted an occupational community and at the core of their
identity were the techniques, equipment, and procedures of canal boating. Although the basic
system of navigation was well known to canal boatmen all over the Northeast, the distinctive
maritime, commercial, and social practices of those along the Northern Waterway was best
known by those who traveled the waters regularly. It was this familiarity that separated the
northern boatmen from other canalers in the Northeast. Certain kinds of traditional knowledge
were shared only among northern canalers: the ways the canalers used their tools, responded to
their environment, and interacted with others. There were also many related expressive forms:
words and gestures used by the canalers, the arrangement of equipment and other objects on
their canal boats, and customs practiced there. 316
During the nineteenth century, the first language of many of the northern canalers of
French-Canadian heritage was almost always French; however, all of them spoke English, with
varying success. During the early twentieth century, many of these families abandoned the
tradition of speaking French in their home and at work and stopped teaching it to their
children. The northern canalers were nearly all Catholic, which included those of Irish and
French-Canadian heritage. One was almost sure to find a picture of the Virgin enshrined in
some particular place in the canal boat cabin of the French-Canadian canalers. 317
The French language was an important part of the identity of many northern canalers
but was not shared in common by all of them. However, all northern canalers shared a unique
jargon of words and phrases seldom known outside of the occupation, which labeled
equipment, procedures, and occupational roles. Place names were of great significance to
northern canalers and included docks, waterways, hazards to navigation, and landmarks used
for lining up courses.
Before the construction of the New York State Barge Canal System in the early twentieth
century, boats built for and operated on the Champlain Waterway were never called, at least by
the boatmen, by any other name than canal boats. After construction began on the Champlain
Barge Canal, the public, officials, and the media called them barges, to the annoyance of many
canal boatmen. The word canaler was another word disliked by all of the nineteenth century
boatmen. Many believed it was the most insulting word you could call them; however, a
boatman might use it as a joke on himself or another boatman. 318 The reason why the words
barge and canaler were hated so intensely was probably because they seemed to diminish the
importance of the canal boatmen in the maritime world. Barges were traditionally roughly built
92
work vessels that received little attention, and the canal was not seen as the most challenging
environment for a mariner.
The vernacular names used for familiar things and places were important elements of
the traditional knowledge of the northern canalers. The boatmen created unique names for
communities, docks, and waterways that they used. Whitehall, for example, was known as
Mule Town. 319 Port Kendall was called Port Despair by the boatmen, due to its location in a
most unprotected spot on the west side of Willsboro Bay. 320
Another traditional rule regarded how formal names were given to individual boats.
Every canal boat had a name, and no two boats on the Champlain Waterway were permitted to
have the same name. Between 1870 and 1940, canal boat owners had by tradition only a small
selection of possibilities. Some names were family names, after the owner's mother, father, wife,
son, daughter, sister, or brother. Boats owned by their captains often had the name of the
captain’s wife or some other member of his immediate family that lived aboard the boat. Now
and then a canal boat was named after two individuals, usually siblings or couples. Other
names that were chosen included prominent businessmen or members of their families.
Frequently these important families lived in the canal boat's homeport or the hometown of the
canal boat owner. The names of these leading families were used as a means to generate trust,
support, and business for the canal boat owner.
Although northern canalers could be found anywhere between Philadelphia and
Ottawa, they remained connected throughout the year. In the winter, the mass of moored canal
boats in New York harbor consisted of hundreds of canalers from throughout the Northeast and
included of men, women, and children of all ages with their homes about them. 321 Northern
canal boat families would seek one another out among the maze of boats located at dozens of
piers along the New York and New Jersey shorelines. Northern canalers would also leave their
vessels in port under someone's care and visit fellow northern canalers, traveling by train to
wherever they might be along the Northern Waterway.
The canal boat families crossed paths on the Northern Waterway during the navigation
season and caught up on business, community, and family events. If they were in a tow
together, canalers would walk from boat to boat to visit and play cards. Canaler Evamay
Wilkins recalled fondly of her childhood days on the canal, "There was always somebody who
knew how to play the accordion or the guitar or the fiddle. And the families then…we'd get
together and they'd sing. When people would come down in the cabin, my father would recite
these poems and tap dance. And we'd serve coffee and cake and it was always one big happy
family. I just can't explain it. It was just wonderful, that's all." 322
Music was an important recreational and educational tool for canalers. “Those
gondoliers,” noted a nineteenth century newspaper, “seem to be possessed with an
unaccountable furor for bugles and French horns, and the whole country is serenaded by them
to a painful extent.” 323 Many canalers were also fine piano, accordion, and violin players. On a
still summer night while tied up in port, canalers would gather under an awning and play
music, which would float softly out across the water. When phonographs or talking machines
came available, every canal boat family had one aboard and later battery-operated radios also
found their place in the canal boat cabin. 324
Although many of the songs that were sung by northern canalers were not their own,
they frequently changed the words of songs to make them relevant to their lives. The song
“Attend, All Ye Drivers” is one of the many bragging songs sung on the Champlain Waterway
and one of the few that is believed to have originated from the region.
93
Attend all ye drivers, I sing of my team;
They’re the fleetest and strongest that ever was seen.
There’s none that will toil with such speed down the creek
Or start at the word of the driver so quick.
Derry down, down, down, Derry down.
There’s Dandy, my leader, looks boldly ahead,
With his tail raised aloft, and majestic his tread.
He has a bright, shining coat of a beautiful bay;
His eyes sparkle bright as the sun at noon-day.
He’s a roarer, no doubt, there’s few can match him,
Once let him loose, and the devil may catch him.
At the call he is ready like a reindeer to jump,
Obedient, when ordered he stands like a stump.
The next in procession is my Charlie, a buster.
General Pluck might feel proud on his back at a muster.
So graceful he moves in the midst of his team,
So strong, you would think he traveled by steam!
And lastly my Jimmie, my saddle-horse true,
It’s hard to tell how much this horse cannot do.
He has the pride of an emperor, the wisdom of kings;
He moves o’er the ground like a bird on its wings.
The three altogether in motion outdo,
Any team of their age, the whole canal through.
Should any company try to go by us,
We’ll show them our steam whenever they try us.
While Baker and Walbridge their packets run daily,
Proud Dandy and Jimmie and Charlie so gaily,
Will waft all the passengers through the canal,
In spite of all others, and in style, so thy shall.
Derry down, down, down, Derry down. 325
Northern canal boats were built in shipyards along the Champlain Canal and Lake
Champlain and were very much a part of the identity of the northern canalers. For a number of
years at the end of the nineteenth century, the prized boats on the Champlain Waterway were
94
built by Joseph and Louis Stone in an old channel of the Champlain Canal at Whitehall. These
canal boats had full decks, moulded bows, transom sterns, and beautifully paneled cabins. One
of the last boats built by the Stone shipyard was the canal boat Joseph W. Stone in 1896 for
Jerome P. Tyler of Whitehall. The boat's first load was iron ore from Port Henry for New York
City. On arriving at Whitehall in a southbound tow, Captain Tyler dropped out below the locks
to put another light coat of paint on the boat so it would shine like a yacht. Captain Tyler,
without a doubt, was one of the greatest braggarts at the time on the Champlain Canal. 326
The day after Captain Tyler finished painting his boat, he dressed up and went into
town where he met Captain John Martin, whose boat was at the coal dock waiting for a load.
"Now, John," Tyler said, "I want you to arrange for the lock team, get a man to go with you, and
lock my boat up into the canal. I'll pay you, but I want you to tend the bowline. As the boat goes
into the middle lock, I will be standing on the bridge. I'll have a crowd with me, and I'll holler
down and ask you who owns that good looking boat. I want you say load and clear, "Jerome
Tyler." 327
Later that day, Tyler was on the bridge with a crowd, and Captain Martin was on the
towpath lock wall with the bowline coiled on his arm as Tyler's boat started to enter the middle
lock. Tyler shouted to Martin, "Hello, John," and Martin looked up from his work and replied
"Hello Jerome." Tyler asked, "Say, John, who owns that good looking boat?" In a load and clear
voice, Martin answered, "I do you damn fool! Who do you think owns her?" Pleased with
himself, Martin took the boat through the locks and tied it to the heelpath of the canal. Once
Joseph W. Stone was docked, the disgusted Tyler proceeded to show everyone all through the
boat, telling about how great it was, and that he and not Martin owned the vessel. 328
About 8 AM the next morning, after a team had been harnessed to the canal boat, Tyler
learned that the boat was sitting on the bottom of the canal full of water. Despite the
humiliation, he was forced to scurry around and find boatmen with hand pumps that were
willing to help him get his boat to the Fort Ann dry dock. An inspection of the vessel's bottom
found that a knot in one of the maple bottom planks had worked loose and fallen out, letting
the water into the hold. The same thing happened to many new boats, but no canal boat captain
received as much teasing about it as Captain Tyler. 329
Most northern boatmen operated canal boats built by shipwrights located along the
Champlain Canal and Lake Champlain. The number of canal boats built on the Erie Canal or
elsewhere that were operated by northern boatmen was relatively few. In 1902, Eddie J.
Broughton, a young northern boatman about twenty-five years old, bought the Erie Canal boat
George W. Pike, which was built in 1886 at Tonawanda, New York. The canal boat's scow bow
made Broughton the object of much kidding by the northern boatmen, who jokingly asked if
Broughton had ever heard the frogs on the Champlain Canal hollering at the scow. They told
Broughton that it seemed the small frogs in the swamp kept bellowing "Scow, scow, scow!" and
then a large wise frog would always reply, "Round the bow, round the bow!" The frogs seemed
to know that towlines would always foul on the bow of an Erie scow instead of going under the
bottom like that of a rounded bow of a northern canal boat. 330 Despite the teasing, Broughton
kept the canal boat George W. Pike until 1906 when he sold it to Joseph LaChapelle of Whitehall,
New York. By the early twentieth century, some northern boatmen found it necessary to
purchase old Erie Canal boats because they were cheaper and more readily available to
purchase.
Due to the different lifestyle of the northern canalers, they were occasionally teased and
the focus of aggression by residents living along the Champlain Waterway. Some of the
95
indignities suffered by the northern canalers included teenage boys throwing stones at the canal
boats as they passed under bridges. The boys would chant "Canaler, canaler, you'll never get
rich for working on Sunday. You'll die in the ditch, you son of a bitch!" People of all ages also
came up to the canal boat cabins and stared into the windows. Although they strongly
protested being stared at like some strange animal in a zoo, most northern canalers were
welcoming when asked politely to show inquisitive people through their cabin. 331
On occasion when a northern boatman was unjustly harmed, the community swiftly
came to his or her aid. Just after supper one evening in Chambly, a young northern boatman
from a northbound tow was attacked by four drunken Frenchmen while he was in town. The
young man managed to get away and run back to the canal boat tow where he told everyone he
met of his scuffle in town. In less than ten minutes, thirty northern boatmen were on their way
into town, and shortly thereafter they taught the thugs a lesson about the brotherhood of canal
boatmen. Needless to say, no canal boatmen were ever bothered in Chambly after that. 332
Members of the northern canal boat community supported one another in times of need
and also assisted other canalers that infrequently worked on the Northern Waterway. About 4
miles (6.4 km) up a small winding river that lies about halfway between Sorel and Three Rivers,
Quebec, is the small town of Louiseville. Small tugs towed light canal boats from Sorel to
Louiseville where they loaded 4 foot (1.22 m) pulpwood for paper mills in New York State.
About 1911 or 1912, an elderly couple with an old northern canal boat was bound for Sorel after
loading pulpwood at Louiseville. Among the many boats in their tow were four boats owned
and operated by Fred and Charles Gates of Champlain, New York. Although the elderly couple
was new to all of the northern boatmen, they had apparently operated canal boats before, for
they understood well the operations of boating. During the trip from Louiseville to Sorel, the
couple’s old boat was leaking badly, so the Gates brothers helped to pump it out. While still on
Lake St. Peter, a heavy electrical storm came up suddenly. While pumping his leaky boat, the
old captain was struck by lightning and killed instantly. When the tow arrived at Sorel, all of
the northern canalers went to work pumping and repairing the elderly couple's boat. They also
took up a collection that more than covered the captain's burial. The northern canalers then sent
the elderly woman, her husband's body, and their belongings home by train. The Gates brothers
took over the couple's canal boat, and, after unloading it at Fort Miller, they sold the boat and
sent the money received from the sale of the boat and its freight to the woman's home. 333
In spite of the hard work, the long hours, and the exposure to the elements, there was a
fascination and a sort of freedom that not only bound some men and women to the canal for life
but also drew their sons and daughters after them as well. 334 The job of a canal boat captain
became an occupation handed down from father to son and in rare cases from father to
daughter or mother to son. One canal boat mother explained the family tradition in canal
boating this way: “The children are brought on the boat and don’t know nothin’ else, and that is
the only reason they take up boating.” 335
When times were good for canaling, more households could become established and
support children within the maritime community. Bad times, however, pushed many canal boat
family children out of canal life and even out of the region when the reached working age.
Success in bringing up children with good prospects in canaling, was a rigorous test of
ingenuity and good household management by the canal boat families. Ultimately, some
children grew up and married other canalers and remained in boating, but others married shore
sweethearts from their winter hometowns and left the canals for other vocations. While in part
children had the opportunity to see a great variety of jobs from building skyscrapers in New
96
York City to farming the rich agricultural fields along the Champlain Canal; examples of
vocations abound. 336
Like many canal boat families, Captain Henry Walrod of Fort Edward passed his canal
boating business down to his children. His daughter, Alice Etta Walrod, lived in Fort Edward
while he was boating and occasionally rode with him as his cook and deckhand. When Henry
retired from boating, he left his business to his son Frank Walrod. Alice, however, returned to
boating later in life with her own family. Alice met and married a printer for the Fort Edward
Advertiser named Godfrey. The couple had four sons, Frank, George, Clayton, and Fred, before
Godfrey fell ill and could no longer work as a printer. The Godfrey family then purchased a
canal boat, which was run by Alice and the older boys. Alice’s husband eventually died aboard
the family’s boat one night while crossing Lake Champlain on a return trip from Canada. As the
three older Godfrey boys reached their late teens, they left their mother and began to operate
their own canal boats. With the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal the Godfrey boys later
switched careers and began working on tugboats, and all eventually became tugboat
captains. 337
LAYOUT ABOARD
The canal boat served not only as a workspace and a storage space but also as living
space for those aboard. 338 The living quarters on sailing and standard canal boats that operated
on the Champlain Waterway lie in the stern, the cargo area amidships, and a ship's locker, (also
called a forecastle or focsle), in the forward end of the vessel. The living accommodations were
small but generally comfortable. During the late nineteenth century as more northern canalers
came to live aboard their boats year round, the living space was enlarged and provided with
greater comforts, such as running water and separate sleeping quarters. These conditions likely
worsened as the ownership of these vessels changed hands to corporations during the 1920s
and 1930s. As the canal boat operators struggled to make a living, they likely also had a location
aboard the vessel that constituted a workshop or storage space for small money making
97
activities unrelated to shipping. This space occurred in the vessel’s booby, a storage space aft of
the cabin in later canal boats. 339
Cabin
Entrance to the cabin was by way of a small door usually on the port side of the aft end
of the cabin trunk. A hatch was cut into the cabin roof at this point and fitted with a sliding
hatch cover allowing people to enter the cabin down a short, steep stairwell. There were
generally five steps to go below into the cabin of a northern canal boat. The tread of the second
step from the bottom often hinged to provide access to a box used to store potatoes and other
root crops. Evamay Wilkins and her husband Herb used this space in 1939 to store the coal bin
aboard their canal boat Mary F. Chapman. 340
The riser of the next step hid a drawer used for storing tools. Each step had a brass plate
on the riser and one’s housekeeping was judged by the shine of the plates. 341 The northern canal
boats built after 1873 had large “parlor” cabins with two or three windows on each side, two
forward and one aft over the cook range. The cabins on these boats were located at the stern and
usually had 12 by 14 feet or 10 by 12 feet of open space. The size of the open space of the cabin
could be seen by the size of the cabin trunk, which projected above the deck. The cabin ceiling
barely missed one’s head. 342 The bedroom was a side berth, also called a bed lounge. At the foot
of the berth about a foot from the ceiling was a shelf for books. Under the berth was a drawer
long enough to layout a lady’s long dress skirt full length. Over the lounge was a shelf draped
with fabric for knickknacks.
In the bedroom at the foot of the bed were a small closet and a shelf over the bed. A wall
cubby built in the bedroom was large enough for brushes, combs, letters, and other personal
belongings. Under the bed, hidden by a bed skirt, were boxes filled with goods. Between the
foot of the couch and the bed was a sewing machine. At the foot of the berth were three large
drawers and a large cupboard that extended back toward the stern of the boat. In fact, to reach
to the rear it was necessary to crawl into the cupboard. 343 Aboard W. S. Slingsby, Cora
Archambault recalls her parents' boat was "comfortable and cozy" with linoleum and throw
rugs on the cabin floor and curtains and potted geraniums in the windows. 344
The cabin had several different phases, one at mealtime, one during the day, and a final
one at night. After a few manipulations of the furniture, a cast iron double bed and a folding
double bed would be pulled out from under the sides of the cabin into the open space. These
beds afforded ample sleeping accommodations for four people. Then another transformation
ensued when several cords along the sides of the cabin were released and from the ceiling very
heavy curtains descended to the floor, dividing the cabin into two bedrooms. After the beds and
curtains had been put away, the small table and chairs were placed in the center of the cabin.
The extra leaves were fitted into the table and soon a table of generous length was ready for
breakfast. Ceramics, glassware, and flatware appeared upon the table from their various hiding
places in cupboards, shelves, and other nooks and crannies around the cabin. During the day,
the table's leaves were removed, some chairs were tucked away, and space was made for
working, playing, and sitting within the cabin. 345 Lighting during the night or on dark days was
provided by kerosene lamps and heat for warmth and cooking was provided by a combination
wood and coal burning cook range.
Typically, all sailing canal boats and the standard canal boats built before the 1870s had
four windows in their transom. These windows do not appear on later canal boats when the
cabin was moved forward some distance to accommodate for a storage space in the stern called
98
the booby. The trunk of the cabin, which extended a few feet above the deck, usually had two or
three windows on each side, with the exception of the stern side, which had one window and
the companionway door. Cabin windows were often not screened, allowing flies and
mosquitoes to infest the living quarters.
The canal boats varied greatly in the amount of comfort and living conditions. The
young boatman just starting out would have a mortgaged, leaking, vessel with a small cabin
very scantly furnished. A canal boat family would have a boat built with more comfortable
quarters. The cabin could have as many as four small rooms but this was not the usual. Some
had a large room, which could be divided off by curtains. The best cabins had one side
partitioned off with sliding doors, making altogether three compartments: one large enough to
accommodate a double bed or bunk, another containing the cook stove and a cupboard, while
the main cabin was utilized as a living room and additional sleeping space. The partitions
insured some privacy, which was entirely lacking in more simply constructed cabins. No toilet
facilities were provided on the older canal boats, but some of the newer vessels did provide
them. 346
Under the stern deck aft of the cabin of vessels constructed between the 1880s and 1920s
was a small storage space called the booby or booby hatch. Boats with large cabins had no after
cabins, and in order to load the stern down, as well as not to place so much strain near the
amidships section of the boat, there was a hatch aft of the cabin called the stern booby hatch.
347Young children were frequently threatened with being put in the windowless booby hatch if
they misbehaved. 348
Cargo Hold
These working canal boats carried cargoes of coal, lumber, iron, and agricultural
products such as apples and grain. The cargo hold comprised the vast majority of the interior
vessel space, and was accessed from a series cargo hatches, often three, in the deck. Apart from
loading and unloading, a captain and his crew spent little time in the hold.
99
Forecastle
The forward most compartment in a canal boat, the forecastle, housed tools, spare line
and equipment for the vessel. It was occasionally used as sleeping quarters for deckhands or
other male crew members that were not part of the captain’s immediate family. Accessed by a
small hatch in the deck, the forecastle was small and less comfortable than the main living space
in the aft cabin.
On Deck
On a hot day, the pitch between the deck planking oozed up in the heat of the sun and
stuck to the canalers’ feet. Despite this inconvenience, the deck of a canal boat served many
purposes. It often held additional cargo as a deck load; it was also an outdoor space for the
family. It was a playground for the children aboard and a working space for those navigating
the vessel.
The canal boats owned by families might have a short fence constructed around the
stern deck, especially if small children were aboard. The family dog was tethered near the stem
while they were in port but once on the open water, he was allowed to roam the deck. Dogs
served to deter would-be thieves from stealing cargo or the crew’s belongings. A cat might also
be found on board soaking up the sun on the cabin roof. Cats kept the mouse population aboard
in check and safeguarded the crew’s food supply. A clucking hen might be found picking her
way over the deck and cargo. She provided fresh eggs for the crew and helped reduce the
spider and insect population. Upon rare occasions, there were even goats kept aboard to
provide the family with a steady supply of milk and entertainment. 349
As a tow progressed on its way, an onlooker might see the captain’s wife washing
clothes just outside their cabin door and on another boat, the entire wash hanging up to dry.
Little shirts and dresses indicated the presence of children living aboard a boat. Brightly hued
geraniums and other flowers would be found placed in boxes in front of the cabin windows or
in flowerpots decorating the deck.
Canal children did not have backyards or playgrounds to use. Decks of canal boats
made a picturesque but somewhat restricted playground. 350 When the sun shined, the glare of
the white paint and the heat made the exposed deck of the canal boats uncomfortable. 351
Toddlers were hitched into a leather harness and connected to a rope that allowed them the
freedom to run around the cabin roof but not fall off into the water. 352 Children might be seen
playing with others from the tow, running over the decks with their dogs, or playing marbles
on the narrow deck along the side of the cabin, all under the watchful eye of their mother, who
had parked her rocking chair on the small stern deck.
Some of the cabin roofs were fitted up with canvas awnings to keep the cabin cooler.
This provided a place to sling a hammock for sleeping and places for rocking chairs in which to
rest, read, do handiwork, or gossip with the neighbors in the tow.
LIFE ABOARD
Foodways
Water for laundry, washing dishes, bathing, and scrubbing the deck was usually drawn
from anywhere along the Northern Waterway where the water appeared clean. In a 1921 survey
100
of northern canal boat families, it was found that most drinking water came directly from Lake
Champlain north of Split Rock in Essex, New York, which was considered the best for drinking.
Water was obtained from municipal water supplies when in port. The better cabins had fixed
basins with gravity fed water from a tank on the deck; others simply had a barrel of water on
the deck or in the cabin from which the water was dipped out of with a small pail. 353 No
plumbing was found onboard to suggest the crew had running water in the cabin. A spigot was
found in the debris of the kitchen cupboard on the Sloop Island Canal Boat, which may have
been a spare to a water tank on deck.
The kitchen aboard northern canal boats had a large cook range, which burned coal or
wood and was typical for home use. Canalers did not seem to think it necessary to use marine
stoves as a rule used on commercial vessels. The stovepipe generally came up through the cabin
roof or deck near the after starboard corner of the cabin. The walls nearest the stove were often
covered by sheets of zinc to protect the wood walls from being scorched by the tremendous heat
thrown off by the range. The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cook range, made by the Liberty Stove
Works of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has four large burners. The walls around this range were
not shielded from the heat, which badly scorched the deck beam immediately behind the stove
pipe. It is possible that this scorching may have even been the result of a small fire. The crew
may have added a heat shield to the stovepipe after the beam was scorched but the pipe could
not be located in the wreckage.
Surrounding the range were the cook's enameled pots and pans and utensils hanging
upon hooks and nails in the walls. Shelving under the starboard deck kept the heavier kettles
and roasting pans out of sight, but close at hand. In cold weather, a comfortable glow radiated
from the warm kitchen nook that filled the cabin. In the heat of the summer, two sliding doors
glided out at right angles from each side of the kitchen and were closed by a hook, completely
shutting off the kitchen corner. A large round covered opening in the cabin roof above the range
called the ventilator was opened on warm summer days to draw off the heat and cooking
odors. 354 Cora Archambault remembers, "When we were up on the cabin roof, sometimes you
could take that [the ventilator] off and look down and see what my mother was cooking or talk
to her or something like that." 355
The cook range was difficult to build a fire in and heat quickly for cooking. Coal fires are
especially difficult to start because the burning of coal requires patience and a specific
procedure. As with a wood fire, one must start by using paper or cloth and dry softwood
kindling to start the fire. After the fire is started, hardwood is slowly added to the firebox. Once
a thick bed of hardwood embers is built up, coal can be added in small amounts. Coal is
continuously added slowly until a thick layer of coal is burning. Then the stove damper can be
closed down to control the stove temperature for cooking. To speed up this process of creating a
coal fire, charcoal briquettes and a starting fluid such as kerosene or gasoline can be used with
great caution. Found in a toolbox under the companionway on the Sloop Island Canal boat were
two charcoal briquettes, which may have been intended for use in the cook range. Burning coal
had advantages over burning wood because coal does not create creosote that can lead to
chimney fires; however, it did create sulfuric acid, which tended to corrode the cast iron stoves.
Both fuels created a tremendous amount of soot within the cabin and over the entire canal boat.
To avoid heating the cabin by using the cook range during the hot summer, many
canalers had a small portable kerosene or wood-burning stove that could be used on deck.
These stoves generated less heat and used far less fuel with which to cook. During the 1920s,
101
Cora Archambault's mother used a small portable oil stove to cook their meals, which she
placed on top of the cook range in the cabin. Cooking was also done ashore when possible. 356
From the late nineteenth century on, most northern canal boats had large iceboxes
usually placed on deck near the cabin. The iceboxes were charcoal insulated and had a
galvanized metal lining. The top of the boxes was made slightly lower than the cabin rooftops
and had a thick insulated cover that was on hinges. Ice was placed into the box under
removable shelves that supported the food. These ice boxes held about 600 pounds (272.2 kg) of
ice, which lasted about ten to twelve days, even during the heat of summer. Canalers kept
roasts of beef, lamb, fresh pork, eggs, bacon, large hams, and canned goods in their iceboxes. 357
When there was a need, canalers frequently shared their food, supplies, and equipment
with one another. If a canal boat was carrying a cargo that others needed, such as ice or
cordwood, small unnoticeable quantities were shared with others in the tow. 358 Frequently in
the heat of the summer, northern canalers in a tow would have an ice cream party. A boatman
would bring out his two gallon ice cream freezer from his boat, crush up a piece of ice from the
icebox, and make a large batch of tasty ice cream. 359
The canalers ate three regular meals a day and consisted of a plain and coarse diet but
not unwholesome. A common meal would be beans, meat, potatoes, bread, butter, crackers, and
tea. 360 All canal boat women were good cooks, but bachelors or men whose wives stayed ashore
could also cook.
Obtaining Food, Supplies, and Equipment
In keeping house on a canal boat, the canalers had to purchase their food and supplies
whenever they could. The pantry always had to be stocked, for the corner store was not always
just around the corner. 361 Each canaler had their preference as to where to buy their food,
supplies, and equipment. Well-stocked general stores, groceries, and saloons lay at different
points adjacent to the Northern Waterway. At the canal locks along the route one almost always
found a canal side store, saloon, or farm stand. The canalers had time to shop while waiting to
be raised or lowered, or while waiting for a mule or horse team to rest at a turning basin. There
were also lunch wagons and peddlers that traveled on the canal banks. In some cases, the lock
tenders ran the store out of the lock house and sold fresh produce that they had grown in their
own garden along the canal. 362
These canal side stores sold just about everything a canaler needed from needles to
anchors. Canalers frequently got off their vessel to get groceries and allow their boat to continue
traveling. The boats moved at such a slow speed that they could catch up to the boat farther
down the canal and board the boat from the towpath or from a bridge. 363
To supplement the canal stores, farmers sold fresh fruit and vegetables and peddlers
sold everything imaginable. As a boat passed, the canalers could call out an order and have the
goods thrown over to the boat. Payment was made by sticking coins into a potato and throwing
it to the vendor. These transactions were done without ever stopping the boat. 364
Many families made it a practice of stocking up at the larger communities along the
Northern Waterway, especially New York City, Waterford, Whitehall, St. Johns, Chambly, and
Sorel. These ports were the locations where the canalers switched tows or frequently unloaded
freight. The canalers usually had more spare time to shop while lying at these locations than at
anywhere else along the Northern Waterway. 365
In the 1870s, all along the Hudson River peddlers using punts, a flat bottomed boat
propelled by long poles, made their way to the northbound tows. As the peddler neared the
102
first tier of boats, he sounded a dinner horn, which brought out all the canalers to their decks
with baskets and pails in their hands. A rope was thrown out from a canal boat to the peddler,
who was hauled in and tied along side the first tier in the tow. The peddlers sold fruits,
vegetables, and beverages but refused to serve anyone until cash was placed in his hands. After
passing down the tow, tier by tier, the peddlers stock was depleted and he would drop astern of
the tow and drift on the river back to his homeport. 366
Later in the nineteenth century, the punts were replaced by bumboats that came from
the river towns to peddle food and supplies. These rusty little tugs, not much larger than a big
rowboat came out from a dozen different points all day long with a tremendous amount of
tooting and piping of their whistles. The cabins of these little tugs were fitted out like peddler’s
wagons with all sorts of necessities and luxuries including buttons, shoestrings, bananas,
tobacco, peanuts, fresh milk, ice, and bottled beer. 367 After tying off to the tow, the captain of the
bumboat did what trading he could, then cast loose, and with another announcement of lengthy
toots, dropped back to the next tier. Visits by bumboats were always welcome because they
allowed canalers to shop without stopping or going ashore, whether heading north or south
along the Hudson River. 368
Around 1915, a typical trip from Whitehall to New York City and back started by giving
a grocer at Whitehall, such as R. H. Brett, a large order, which included something like a half
bushel of potatoes, 5 pounds (2.3 kg) of lard, 5 pounds (2.3 kg) of dried beans, 5 pounds (2.3 kg)
of select salt pork, six cans of tomatoes, a dozen cans of Eagle brand condensed milk, a sack of
flour, a couple bags of salt, 3 pounds (1.4 kg) of cheese, 2 pounds (0.9 kg) of mixed cookies, a
couple dozen eggs, a package of Magic brand yeast, a few cans of corn and peas, a cake of
Baker’s brand chocolate, a gallon (3.8 l) of vinegar, a couple of lemons, a box of matches, coffee,
couple of boxes of Sensation brand tobacco, and one towline for the Champlain Canal. When
the canaler paid the bill, Brett gave the customer a free cigar. Grocer Baker Sullivan usually
gave his customers a bag of candy. 369
After the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal, the locations where the canalers were
able to purchase their food and supplies was dramatically decreased as the construction of
businesses along the new canal banks was not permitted. The wider canal and towing by tugs
on the barge canal also did not allow farmers and peddlers access to the canalers. Northern
canalers were forced to purchase what they needed from the stores in the communities at either
end of the Champlain Canal. These supplies were supplemented by bumboats along the
Hudson River and at the stores in ports were they loaded and unloaded cargo. 370 The most
difficult food stuff to get during this period was fresh milk. So condensed milk in a can was
used for coffee, cooking, and occasionally thinned with water for oatmeal when fresh milk was
unavailable. 371
Boatmen
In the spring every year during the late nineteenth century, the port towns along the
Champlain Waterway were beehives of activity and the excitement of boating tempted many
farm boys from their plows to work as deckhands. These young men usually volunteered to
assist the captain for a trip or two during the early season, with plans to find another job. A
quest for adventure and independence frequently drove some to take the job as a deckhand,
while others came out for the prospect of making good money. Some of these young men
became full-time canalers and accepted to live their lives by the navigation season. The glamour
and novelty attached to canal life, plus the possibility of making good money, encouraged
103
many to turn to boating as an occupation and way of life. Both married and single men saw
working on the Northern Waterway as an opportunity to make their fortune and to travel to the
great cities of the Northeast. After as little as one season as a deckhand, some of these men had
the experience and capital to invest in a canal boat and become captain of their own boat the
following season. 372
Northern boatman Frank H. Godfrey described himself and other canal boatmen as a
cross between a monkey, for their climbing ability, and a cat because of their sure footing in
jumping and excellent eyesight at night. Frank boasted that if a boatman could jump and catch
even one handhold, he could climb up anything. Men sixty-five years old thought nothing of
running up and down a plank from a moving boat to shore, shimming across lines spanning 12
feet (3.7 m) between moving canal boats in a tow, or placing the end of a pike pole into the canal
bottom and leaping 20 feet (6.1 m) to shore. Boatmen frequently did these acrobatic acts on cold,
dark, stormy nights without complaint, incidents, or fanfare. 373
A canal boatman had to be a jack-of-all-trades in order to make a success of canal boating.
Conducting general maintenance and making minor repairs to the boat, equipment, and
furnishings were all handled by the captain and his crew. A basic knowledge of carpentry,
shipbuilding, metalwork, sewing, and painting were required of the captain. This knowledge
was especially necessary for all owner-operators because it allowed them to avoid the expense
and time lost in stopping at a boat yard to have any necessary work completed. Each boatman
was expected to learn these skills through his experience as a deckhand. 374
A boatman, besides having skills and incredible agility, had to have the brawn to cope
with the hard work. Most boatmen were strong and had the ability to pick up and move by
themselves their largest anchors, weighing as much as 300 pounds (136.1 kg). Two boatmen
frequently would lift a canal steering wheel with its cables attached, weighing 600 to 700
pounds (272.2-317.5 kg), from the deck of a canal boat to the top of a load of lumber. 375 The
work was heavy and tiring for the northern boatmen, who loaded and unloaded many of their
cargoes by hand. The boatmen would strap on a leather apron and stow 50,000 to 60,000 linear
feet (18,288 m) of lumber a day. 376
A boatman's strength also came in handy when it was necessary to stand up to the
occasional bully he might meet along the way. However, fighting among the northern boatmen
was probably less than has been reported by some historians. Northern boatman Frank H.
Godfrey only remembered hearing of a half dozen fights during his thirty years on the
Champlain Waterway, three of which he was involved in. On one occasion at Bassetts Lock on
the Champlain Canal, Godfrey gave a locktender a short lesson on being more respectful to
boatmen. Another time, Godfrey confronted fellow canal boatman Bill Warren, who was one of
the bad apples when it came to canal boatmen. Warren was a rather heavy-set man weighing
over 200 pounds (90.7 kg) and captain of the canal boat Myron P. Bush. Warren was disliked by
shippers and boatmen alike. One load from any shipper on the Northern Waterway was usually
his limit, as they would not hire him a second time. According to Warren, he was always going
to or had already beaten some boatman at a fight. One day Warren was using some rather dirty
language, which upset Godfrey, who jumped from the stern of his boat to the bow deck of
Warren's boat. Without hesitation, Godfrey then put a sleeper hold on Warren in order to "make
a better Christian out of him." After that incident, Warren was always respectful of Godfrey and
refrained from cursing in his presence. 377
According to Godfrey, not all northern canal boatmen were good men, but by
percentage the number of bad boatmen was very small. Despite the fact that Bill Warren was
104
bad, his brother, who operated canal boats for many years, was well liked and an honorable
man. The few bad apples like Bill Warren did not stay on the Champlain Waterway for very
long. 378 Most canal boatmen were family men that were always willing to lend a hand. While at
a pier in New York City, young John Neary noticed a drunken man sitting on the bow of his
father's canal boat. Without warning, the man toppled over and went right into the water. John,
shocked by the scene, hollered for his father, who came running out of the cabin to see what
was wrong. After sizing up the situation, Captain Neary climbed down the bow of his boat to
the water using the rub rails like a ladder. As the drunken man came bobbing back to the
surface, Captain Neary grabbed him by the back of his coat and dragged him up onto the deck.
A witness to the rescue then called for the police, who took the drunken man away. Later, the
police department gave Captain Neary an award for saving the man's life. 379
Canal Boat Women
Most of the women living aboard canal boats were related to either the captain or a crew
member by birth or marriage. These women were responsible for providing for the crew's
domestic needs and maintaining the cabin and all of its equipment and furnishings. The cabin
was their domain. Frequently, these women also handled the legal paperwork associated with
canal boating and the household expenditures and bookkeeping.
Like the stereotypical housewife on land during the late 1930s, canaler Evamay Wilkins
listened to soap operas on her battery-operated radio in her cabin as she did her ironing.
Evamay also had geraniums and a little white poodle to keep her company while her husband
was on deck operating their boat. When not doing her household chores, Evamay learned to
crochet and enjoyed it as a pastime. However, Evamay, like other canal boat women, had little
free time during the boating season, as most of her day was filled with cooking, cleaning, and
sewing. There was always something for the canal boat woman to do, especially when there
were children on board. Evamay admitted humorously that her baking efforts were not always
successful thanks to her combination wood and coal cook range. When she burned the biscuits,
she would toss them into the canal, unbeknown to her husband Herbert. 380
Women not only cooked, cleaned, and cared for many of the crew's needs, but they also
served as deckhands when the need arose, which was usually when none were available or
when the captain could not afford to pay for one. One day Captain Chauncey Ingelston found
himself without a deckhand and so he asked his wife to steer their canal boat for him as they
locked through on the Champlain Canal. The captain said to her, "No matter if the mule driver
swears and cusses you out, you don't pay any attention, just steer the boat as I showed you."
Before going to the tiller, Mrs. Ingelston did up her hair and put on pants and a hat. At the first
sight of Mrs. Ingelston, the mule driver said, "Well, what kind of a thing has he got on here?
Can't do anything, I'm sure." Undeterred, Mrs. Ingelston did just as her husband told her and
ignored the mule driver. After they got through the locks, Mrs. Ingelston took off her hat with
the satisfaction of a job well done. The mule driver approached her and said sincerely, "Well,
I'm sorry! Well, haven't you got a pitcher? I'll get you some beer." Without hesitation, Mrs.
Ingelston went below and brought up her Bennington-ware pitcher and handed it to the mule
driver to get her some beer. 381
Other canal boat women found themselves in charge of their canal boat after the
untimely death of their father or husband. Mr. Bouchard was in poor health and had been
advised to live outdoors, so he and his wife bought the northern canal boat Eustace. Captain and
Mrs. Bouchard worked together as a team while raising their children aboard Eustace. In time,
105
Mr. Bouchard's illness grew worse and he died about 1892, leaving his wife to raise their four or
five boys and a girl. After her husband’s death, Mrs. Bouchard continued to operate their vessel
with the assistance of her children. In the winter, the boat was moored in a large basin at the
foot of 21st Street in Brooklyn, New York and the children went to public school from November
until April. During the navigation season, they traveled the lengths of the Northern Waterway.
At the instruction of Mrs. Bouchard, her young daughter learned to help with the housework
and her boys became expert boatmen. 382
Canal boat women were tough and could handle most of the same tasks as boatmen.
Isabel Archambault of Whitehall lived on canal boats for over forty years and brought up her
family in their floating home. Isabel and thousands of other women made canaling their way of
life and passed their knowledge, skills, and strengths onto the next generation.
Canal Boat Children
Thousands of canal boat children played, worked, and grew up on the Champlain
Waterway. Despite the hardships of canal boat life, it was fairly common between 1870 and
1940 to see children living on a canal boat. From the age of seven, Martha Robbins lived on a
Whitehall-built canal boat with her mother and uncle between the years 1897 to 1907. 383
Martha's life aboard her uncle's canal boat was similar in many ways to other children living on
land. She played similar games and learned the same virtues of thrift, honesty, morality, and
patriotism. Certain elements of family interactions, whether in the city, country, or on a canal
boat, remained remarkably similar. 384
For children, life on a canal boat had its drawbacks but also its advantages. Among the
advantages parents claimed was the healthy outdoor living on the Northern Waterway
compared to living in a city's tenements, which were cramped and often unwholesome. Parents
also claimed that their children did not have the evil influences of the city. One observer
reasoned that canal boat children were better behaved because of their isolated home life
confined to a canal boat, where they learned quickly to be more amenable to their mother’s
governance. Of course with the hazards of traveling on the water and docking in industrial
work areas, parents had to keep a sharp eye on their children who frolicked around the
waterfront. 385
Free public school systems were well established in the Northeast by the Civil War, and,
by the end of the nineteenth century, public high schools were a regular feature of urban life.
Whereas most children living on land attended school regularly, canal boat children usually
went to school from December to March, when the canals were not in operation. 386 For some
canal boat children, however, their time on the Northern Waterway only lasted as long as their
summer school vacation. The wives and children of these families started boating in June and
left the Northern Waterway in September so that the children could return to school. During the
summer, however, learning did not end for canal boat children. Most of them were taught by
their parents and had regular daily academic or religious lessons to study and recite. The
exception to this occurred when the parents did not have the education or interest to instruct
their children in the disciplines of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
In addition to their school lessons, parents taught their children how to operate and
maintain the canal boat and how to cook, sew, crochet, and keep house. Canalers also taught
their children life skills and canal boat culture as they worked and played together. Families
gathered on their boats to enjoy singing, dancing, and storytelling. Jews harps, accordions,
fiddles, and even an occasional organ were played by canalers of all ages. The dimly lit canal
106
boat cabin was the perfect setting for telling ghost stories and other tales. Parents and children
took turns reading stories from popular magazines and books; some were even about canal boat
life. 387
Canal boat children had few literary role models that lived the same lives as they did on
the inland waterways of the Northeast. One exception was that of Eliza Hamilton in the story
Broken Adrift, written by Charles Barnard and published in the children’s magazine St. Nicholas
of New York City in 1888. Eliza, born on the Hudson River lived aboard the Erie Canal boat
Betsey Jane of Buffalo, New York with her parents, baby brother, cat Nig, and their tow horses.
One evening Eliza’s parents left her in charge of caring for her baby brother, while they visited
others in their tow as they traveled down the Hudson River. Shortly after Eliza's parents left
their boat, she found that the towline had broken and her family’s home was adrift. Eliza, being
a captain’s daughter, knew exactly what to do and steered the boat safely down the river. To
help her control the boat she even rigged a sail! After steering all night and avoiding a number
of dangers, Eliza, to the amazement of everyone, successfully made it back to the tow. 388
Although likely fictitious, Eliza's independence, knowledge of boating, and confidence in
herself probably resembled that of many canal boat children living along the Northern
Waterway.
Not having regular attendance in school and frequently spending the winter in different
locations affected not only the intellectual lives of canal boat children but also their emotional
lives as well. Canal boat children lacked the opportunity to make close lasting friendships with
either schoolmates or neighbors. Consequently, they relied on siblings and other family
members for companionship. 389 Canal boat children also frequently built a bond with the
steersman and mule drivers that their parents trusted. The drivers and their mules captivated
some of the children. These hardy men enjoyed telling tales, some true to life and others
completely imaginary. Some of these tales had morals or life lessons from which the children
could learn something, while others were simply to amuse the children. The physical
appearance of some of the mule drivers also drew the curiosity of the canal boat children. Many
of the Champlain Canal drivers were handicapped as a result of injuries received during the
Civil War or accidents with agricultural or industrial machinery. Some of the drivers named
Patch Eye Kelly, Peg Leg Pete, and One Arm Collins reveal their handicaps. Young Martha
Robbins, as well as other canal boat children, loved to listen and watch the drivers act out their
tales. Martha as a young girl was so captivated by One Arm Collins that, for a time, she imitated
him by eating with one arm. 390
In January 1883 a ten-year-old girl from Whitehall wrote a letter to the editor of the
Whitehall Times from Philadelphia, where she and her parents were living on their canal boat
after having been frozen in by early winter ice. This family was not the only northern canal boat
family in Philadelphia; several other canalers from Whitehall also found themselves spending
the winter there. Although away from their homeport towns for much of the year, the children
still held a close love for the land community they associated with. "Polly Miller," knowing that
her way of life was different, wished to share some details about what it was like living on
board a canal boat.
"Philadelphia, January 1883
Mr. Editor:
107
I don't think you know me, but I know you, you are the man who makes
the paper for folks to read about what they do in Whitehall. A friend of mine has
been telling me of little folks, boys and girls, writing letters for the newspapers,
so I thought I would just write one to you, and ask you please to print it in your
paper, and perhaps some other little boy or girl may write some time, and you
will print it for them, too, and then you will have a children's column for the
little ones to write for. Wouldn't it be nice? But I will first tell you who I am, then
you will know who it is that writes this letter.
I am a little girl ten years old. We live in Whitehall sometimes, when we
are not on our boat. As you know a good many of the folks in Whitehall go to
boats in the summer. My papa owns a boat and runs on Lake Champlain and on
the Hudson River to New York and Philadelphia sometimes. Last fall my papa
came to Philadelphia and we got froze in here and will have to stay here until
next spring, when the river will open, then we will go to New York. There are a
number of boats here. I know some of the folks on them. They live in Whitehall
too. It is very cold here; sometimes it snows or rains and I am lonesome when I
can't go outdoors, but I have got a big dolly and a lot of nice dresses for it, a little
carriage, and a trunk to put my dolly's clothes in. I have got some china dishes
and lots of other things, such as little girls have, you know, which I would like to
tell you about sometime, if you will print this letter. I think you would like to
hear about them as well as some other little folks in Whitehall I know. The other
day, I was reading a story about a little girl that went to a picnic, whose name
was Polly Miller, and since then my friends call me Polly Miller." 391
As canal boat children grew up, the canal boat, towpaths, and waterways were their
playgrounds. Canaler Evamay Wilkins, as a young child, was never allowed to play on the deck
of her parents' canal boat. Most playing occurred in the cabin or on the cabin roof under an
awning, which sheltered the children from the sun. Evamay and her siblings played with toys
their father made, including carved tugs and canal boats. 392 Children also had corncob dolls,
jacks, dominoes, and checkers and made their own toys of wood, buttons, coal, scraps of cloth,
and anything else they might find. "Playing boat," a game was similar to playing house, kept
canal boat children happily busy. The children used wooden chips pulled by string on the water
to simulate being towed through the canal, and when there was a collision, they pretended to
fight and swear just like their elders. 393
The cargo hold also served as another playground. After the hold had been swept clean
of the remnants of the last cargo, Evamay Wilkins roller-skated and played catch with her
siblings. Her father put up a swing made from scrap boat lines in the hold and a teeter-tooter
made of old planks. When the hold was filled with grain, Evamay's father let the children play
in the cargo as long as the grain inspectors were nowhere in sight. Evamay's brother, Joseph
Mosso, recalled trying to play in flaxseed: "It was so slippery, we just went right through," he
laughed. 394
Canal boat children often rode the tow animals for fun. As a small girl, canaler Martha
Robbins desperately wanted to ride a canal mule. For several years, Martha begged her uncle
Bartholomew for a ride on a mule. One day her uncle gave in and while giving the driver a
break to eat breakfast, Bartholomew set Martha on one of the canal mules. After Martha had
been jostling about quite a while, the towline suddenly snapped causing the mule to lose its
108
footing, throwing Martha onto the towpath. This incident ended her interest in ever riding a
mule again. Not all of the children’s experiences were quite as rough. 395
Evamay recalled that at every lock, her father gave the children a chance to run on the
towpath, where they would collect dandelions or some other flower for their mother. Her father
on occasion used this opportunity to buy fresh milk from a local farmer and then Evamay's
mother would make ice cream or strawberry shortcake and milk. During these special
occasions, Evamay’s family would gather with other canal boat families and they would eat and
sing along to Evamay's harmonica. 396
Some canal boat children never learned to swim, while others swam every chance they
got. Moving canal boats gave young boys the opportunity for many daring stunts. A favorite
game, when permitted, was stemming. This game involved riding the bow wave of a moving
boat by floating on their back with their feet against the stem. The force of the boat pushed the
daredevil headfirst through the water in a seemingly rapid and effortless glide. If the steersman
would permit it, there might be two or three other boys trailing in the water from the rudder's
tailboard. As the tows of canal boats were pulled up the Richelieu River in 1880, one group
witnessed young boatmen diving off the high lumber piles aboard their boats into the water.
While the tow was still moving upstream, the boys swam ashore and ran along the bank in
order to get up stream far enough to enable them to swim back to the boat they had just leaped
from. The young boatmen were able to do this because the total speed of the tow was about 5
miles per hour (8 kmph), therefore giving them plenty of time to enjoy themselves. 397 An empty
boat, which draws about 12 inches (30.5 cm), also made for a daring show of prowess by boys
trying to swim under the boat from side to side or even end to end. The stem of an empty boat
also made an excellent high diving platform and the rub rails made an easy ladder to get back
aboard. 398
As canal boat children grew older, they learned how to cook, sew, tie lines, steer, and
maintain their family's boat. Children were expected to help by doing chores around the boat
and stay out of the way when necessary. By the time children were twelve years old, they were
expected to become part of the boat’s crew. Canaler Austin Huftill of Waterford, New York did
some painting and steering as a young lad for his parents. Austin remarked, "It wasn't too bad a
life [for a child]. You didn't know any better." 399 Besides helping with the domestic chores,
many of the boating tasks were something that children could do or at least assist with. Both
boys and girls steered their family's boat in the canal, blew a tin horn to warn lockmasters that
their boat was coming, operated a bilge pump, and cleaned and painted their boat. They also
frequently drove the mules while the driver was taking a break or eating a meal. 400
THE OFF SEASON
In the final months of navigation, the northern canal boats carried large quantities of
coal to the region's coal dealers for their winter supply. For those dealers too far from the
railroads, canal boats served as their only supply of coal. 401 For many years each fall several
boats were loaded with eating potatoes drawn from communities along the Champlain Canal to
be transported to New York City, where the boatmen would spend the winter peddling
potatoes from their boats. 402
As winter approached, the boatmen began to seek out a dockage for their canal boats,
where they could remain until the start of navigation in the spring. Some captains chose to
spend the winter in the canal itself, taking advantage of the seasonally drained waterway to
109
perform hull repairs. There were numerous inlets along the Hudson River and Lake Champlain
where large communities of boats were laid up for the winter. If an unforeseen cold snap closed
navigation early for the season, the northern canalers would be forced to stay in ports away
from their usual winter residences. In that case, the whole family spent the winter on the boat.
In larger cities, the children of canal boat families would attend local schools.
When a large number of boats were crowded together in a basin to spend the winter,
they resembled a small village. Although being tied up was more monotonous for the canalers
than the constant movement of the summer months, it was a comfortable and busy time for
them. With their boats moored side by side, they got to know one another very well by spring.
The children went to school in the town nearby; they played together on deck or went coasting
on shore. Meanwhile, the men would make repairs on their boats, and get odd jobs in town. 403
Although the boatmen were not responsible for property taxes, they typically paid for their
vessel’s dockage during the winter. 404
Many berths for canal boats existed up and down the Champlain and Hudson
Waterways, but Coenties Slip in New York Harbor was the mother port for many canalers. 405
New York City had a relatively moderate climate and offered many amusements for the
canalers that stayed in the harbor for the winter. Dances were held by the canalers in New York
City at Tammany Hall. The Erie Canal boatmen held a large dance that was called the Pork
Fryers Dance by the northern boatmen. Northern boatmen called their own celebration the
Merry Friends Dance, but it was better known by its nickname, the Pea Suppers Dance. 406
Figure 40: Canalboats docked at Whitehall for the winter.
110
Another popular wintering port was at Erie Basin in South Brooklyn; every winter there
lived a flourishing community of canal boat families. To the visitor, as reported in the New York
Times, all the canal boats at Erie Basin looked alike; in the 1890s, the large winter fleet consisted
of more than 300 canal boats with solid rows of vessels. To gain access to the fleet, a cleated
plank descended from the dock to the nearest canal boat. Everyone was free to walk throughout
the fleet without question, although occasionally someone would appear in a cabin window to
see who was passing. 407
There was an unwritten code of operations among the canalers that was followed. 408
When several boats were tied up, every attempt possible was made to have them face the same
direction so that when going or coming from shore, people could cross only the bow of other
vessels, which were kept clear, to reach their desired boat. This was done so as not to disturb
those in the aft cabins. Secondly, when several boats were tied up to a dock for the winter, it
was the duty of the boatman who lay alongside of the dock to maintain a gangway from shore
to his tier of boats. The gangway was some four to five feet wide with side railings and cleats to
avoid anyone slipping off. Thirdly, clothes lines, strung from the after end of the cabin to rings
in the bow breast hook at ankle height, were taken in at night to avoid tripping those crossing
the boats. 409
After spending the off season in port or at home along the Champlain Waterway, the
northern canalers began to ready their boats for the season in March and April. 410 When spring
came, and there was no threat of a hard freeze the water was let back into the channel and the
date the canal would be opening for business was announced in the region’s newspapers. 411
Before leaving their winter community, the boatmen caulked and painted their canal boats, and
scrubbed and holystoned their decks, waiting their turn to leave the area and start off on their
first trip of the season. 412
Every spring, the sailing canal boats of the Champlain Valley were some of the earliest
vessels to venture out on the lake. The quiet and peaceful town of Champlain, New York,
located 4 miles (6.45 km) inland from Lake Champlain on the Chazy River, felt the opening of
the canals unlike any other town in the Champlain Valley. This little hamlet was the winter
home of many canalers during the off-season of navigation. With the Chazy River affording
navigation for canal boats to the lake, every spring one boat after another slipped away from its
winter river mooring and headed for the lake, where it joined one of several tows bound for
Ottawa. As late as the 1920s, there were still sixty families who made the town their winter
home but spent the remainder of the year on their canal boats, plying between New York City
and Canadian ports. 413
111
SHIP OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
In addition to navigating their boat along the Champlain Waterway, a captain’s daily
activities included loading or unloading cargoes, collecting payments, negotiating shipments,
and maintaining the vessel itself. Drift bolts loosened up with time as the vessel moved. Each
year, the bolts would be tightened up as much as half an inch (1.3 cm). 414 The canal boats were
frequently painted or touched up. If boating was slack, boatmen took the opportunity to paint
their boats with liquid lead and linseed oil purchased at one of the local stores. 415 Most boatmen
took good care in maintaining their boats and felt pride in having a clean and sound vessel. 416
Despite the captains’ efforts, all canal boats leaked to some degree and usually required
daily pumping. Most leaks were easily located and controlled by the crew. Even those leaks that
became extreme were usually resolved safely. Controlling the increasing water level within a
sinking boat required a lot of pumping. However, as the water reached a certain level within
the hold, the distance the water had to be lifted by a boat’s pumps for removal was decreased,
making it easier to work the pumps and keep pace with the leak. After the water in the hold
raised enough to cover the leaks, the rate of the water flow into the vessel was reduced due to
less exterior pressure. At some point, therefore, a state of equilibrium could be reached between
the volume of water being pumped out and the volume of water entering the hull. So it was
possible to keep a canal boat afloat through continual pumping, even with a great volume of
water in the hold. Most canal boats could be kept afloat until they reached shore, a dock, or
shipyard, provided their pumps remained in working order. 417
The tin pumps used on northern canal boats could suck the bilge water down to 0.75
inch (1.9 cm) in depth. Boatmen rarely allowed more than 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of water to remain
in the boat at any time. 418 According to folklore, some worrisome boatmen hung a leg over the
edge of their bunk as an early indicator of the water level in the boat. 419 This, however, was
hardly necessary because as the canal boat took on water, the boat tended to list to one side due
to its flat bottom. This story was likely a tall tale since by the time water reached the boatman’s
foot, there would be at least 2 feet (61 cm) of water in the boat if he were sleeping in the bow
and 3 feet (91 cm) of water if he were sleeping in the cabin.
To make the job of pumping easier, every boat on the waterway carried a spring pole,
which was generally made from a small tree, as uniform in size as possible, about 16 to 18 feet
(4.9-5.5 m) in length. One end of the pole was placed under the horn of a cleat or in a scupper. A
thick block of wood was placed under the pole near the cleat or scupper in a position to give the
desired tension. The other end of the pole was tied under the pump handle. This pole took
much of the strain off the person having to do the pumping. However, keeping a badly leaking
boat afloat was not a pleasant job. After working a bilge pump with a spring pole steady for
several hours, most boatman felt so tired they felt like weeping, hence the device was called the
weeping willow. 420
The most common type of leak appeared along planking seams when the oakum
caulking had worked loose as the vessel moved through the water or after the vessel had struck
something. If a leak was becoming a nuisance or was severe, it had to be stopped. The biggest
problem in stopping a leak was finding it. Most leaks were found by simply listening for the
gurgle of water flowing through the hull planks. One method was to listen with a clean, dry
glass or ceramic container to amplify the sound transmitted through the planking. By placing
the mouth of the container against the planking and putting one's ear to the container’s bottom,
112
the leak could be heard as a low rumbling. The leak was located by moving the listening device
to where the noise was the loudest. Another method was to take a 2-foot (61 cm) folding
carpenter’s rule, open it into a V-shape, and place the ends on the vessel. This procedure was
done while holding the point of the V in one’s mouth without allowing the rule to touch the
lips. Next the boatman would place a finger in each ear and listen. The vibration of the water
rushing into the hold would be transmitted through the rule to the boatman's teeth, allowing
him to feel the leak. 421
After the leak had been found, it was plugged or stopped in various ways, depending on
its size, severity, location in the hull, the materials at hand, and the degree of panic among those
aboard. Ideally, the captain would prefer to put the vessel in dry dock to have the hull caulked.
But many leaks appeared in the course of a voyage, often during a storm, with no shipyard in
sight. Stopgap methods were employed to eliminate or control the leak until a safe port could
be reached. Leaks could be plugged temporarily from inside the hull, especially in areas that
were inaccessible from the outside. 422
A “medicine spoon” was often used to temporarily stop a leak that was in an area
difficult to access. This medicine spoon consisted of a pole attached to a box or sack filled with
dry sawdust or manure. The incoming water drew the sawdust or manure into the leak. To
reach leaks in a vessel’s bottom, the medicine spoon was rigged with ropes on opposite sides of
its open mouth. The mouth was placed against the bottom of the boat and dragged back and
forth down the whole length of the boat, covering all of the joints in the bottom planking with
its contents. 423
The sawdust or manure had to be administered frequently until the vessel could be
placed in a dry dock and repaired properly. 424 When a French-Canadian boatman from
Whitehall was asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the medicine spoon, he said “You can talk
about stopping de leak with de medicine spoons and de saws dust, but give me some good
mallets and hokom [oakum]!” All canalers recognized that the medicine spoon was a
temporary fix. If a leak was encountered while on the Chambly Canal, boatman with the
“know-how” would run their vessels over the thick, dark blue clay banks near DuBuque Lock,
effectively caulking their vessels temporarily. This caulking usually lasted until heavy waves
knocked out the clay. 425 Concrete was apparently a common last resort method for repairing
canal boats. Concrete was found between the bow frames of a canal boat shipwreck in the Pine
Street Canal in Burlington and one recorded in 1960 in the Glens Falls Feeder Canal. 426
One way to prevent leaks was to load the boat gently and take care to ensure the load
was evenly distributed during loading and discharging the cargo. Boatmen relied on local
laborers to work as trimmers and dock wallopers, whose job was to load and unload the canal
boats. Trimmers leveled out the cargo inside the hold of the canal boat, while the dock
wallopers moved the cargo from the dock into and out of the hold. Cargoes were transferred
from the dock to the boat using derricks or wheelbarrows. A gang of four men could fill two
canal boats, each carrying 100 short tons (90.7 metric tons) of ore, in a single day. 427 Canal
boatmen looked for those with skill, agility, and brute strength, when it came to hiring men to
assist in transferring cargo. 428
113
For decades the same method was used to load and unload coal from canal boats. A
young boy tended a horse and derrick, several men in a canal boat shoveled the coal into the
bucket, and a man on the dock dumped the bucket into a wagon. This method moved
approximately 10 to 15 short tons (9.1-13.6 metric tons) of coal an hour. By the end of the
nineteenth century, however, many coal docks, including those at Burlington, Vermont, used
steam powered derricks and narrow gauge railroad cars. The large iron bucket on the derrick
was run by an engineer, and had wheels that allowed it to be moved throughout the hold by the
workmen, who still shoveled the coal into the bucket by hand. This derrick could move a
greater amount of coal with each bucket. The mobility of the bucket also made it unnecessary to
move the boat’s position. The greatest savings of time was in the use of the railroad cars, which
quickly hauled and piled the coal in sheds. With the new method 30 short tons (27.2 metric
tons) of coal per hour could be unloaded. 429
If loaded or unloaded incorrectly, northern canal boats could be badly damaged and
sink. This could happen to any canal boat, old or new. 430 It was common for canalers to place
cargo on the decks of their vessels. To support the weight of these cargoes, temporary wooden
posts were used to provide additional support to the deck beams. Planks were laid down in the
hold below the posts and under the cargo to distribute the weight. Some canalers took the risk
of not using supports, with varying consequences.
In late November 1908, Captain Joseph Kane of Burlington was transporting lumber
from a Canadian pinflat to the Robinson & Edwards Lumberyard inside the Pine Street Canal
on the Burlington waterfront because the lake level was too low for the heavily laden pinflat to
enter the canal. Captain Kane piled huge stacks of lumber on the deck of his boat Lake Boy but
neglected to place supports under his vessel’s deck beams to distribute the unusually heavy
load. When near the Rutland Railroad drawbridge at the entrance to the canal, some of Lake
Boy’s deck beams gave way and the deck caved in, penetrating the bottom of the canal boat.
Lake Boy doubled up like a jackknife. Captain Kane, luckily, had just left the inside of the boat,
where he had been searching for rope. Shortly after the accident, the wreck and its cargo of
lumber were removed because they obstructed navigation into the Pine Street Canal. 431 This
incident was a hard lesson that unfortunately was repeated many times during the canal era.
114
CHAPTER 8: END OF AN ERA
By 1940, the wooden canal boat trade on the Champlain Waterway, which had
continued uninterrupted since 1819, came to an end. The reason for the decline and ultimate
disappearance of the canal boat trade is complex and stems from events that span over a sixtyyear period. The major events revolve around New York’s railroads, international support for
the Northern Waterway, and the changing economy and trade of the Northeast. These events
did not go unnoticed by the canalers or those that supported the inland waterway trade.
NOSTALGIA
Between 1880 and 1930, some Americans began to feel a nostalgia for its canals and
those that worked on them. This feeling may have been as a result of the abandonment of
dozens of canals that crisscrossed the Northern and Midwestern states between 1860 and 1900.
Many authors, artists, and curious travelers took trips aboard a few of the remaining canal boats
and experienced the life of a canaler firsthand. Life aboard a canal boat was viewed as free from
many of the cares, trials, and tribulations of the landlubber. City life, according to one traveler,
was humdrum compared to the life of an inland mariner, where one day was never twin of
another. 432
During the turn of the century, several tourists had made the trip along the Champlain
Waterway aboard the canal boat Fred H. Wilkins, one of the large classes of boats built for
transporting lumber and freight between Ottawa and New York City. The boat was owned by
Captain L. Pike, who named the boat after an influential lake merchant. 433 Captain Pike, among
other canalers, took tourists as a last resort to continue his way of life as a canaler. His tourist
business also stemmed from a public curiosity that may have begun in 1879 when the Tile Club,
a group of New York City writers, artists, and musicians, charted a canal boat for three weeks.
The group furnished and decorated the vessel's hold in the most remarkable manner
imaginable. With an ample supply of food and articles of distraction, the Tile Club embarked on
their trip from New York City to Lake Champlain. 434 The arrival of the Tile Club at Whitehall on
Monday July 7 created considerable excitement. The colored awnings and the oddly dressed
passengers on the canal boat drew a crowd of spectators. In the evening, the romantic
appearance of the canal boat was enhanced by colored lanterns and bright lights. Rain
prevented people from paying their respects to the artists on Monday, but on Tuesday many
ladies and gentlemen inspected the salon and were most cordially invited aboard. 435 During the
trip, the Tile Club members worked at their vocations. After returning to New York City, the
group published an illustrated article about their journey in Harpers Weekly magazine.
The Tile Club’s journey would inspire several more similar trips made by journalist and
would-be writers. During the summer of 1895, fifty-four year old Augusta Woodruff Brown
(1840-1937) and three female friends from Brooklyn embarked on a month and a half long
journey from New York to Canada aboard the canal boat Bertha M. Bullis of Whitehall, New
York. Brown began her journal of the trip with the remark that “people who seldom see a canal
boat gliding along over a quiet mirror of water, have little idea how great an undertaking it is to
carry the merchandise of a country through its winding ways. To get a better idea of this, and
also to pass away, in a novel fashion, a few weeks of the summer, a party of four impecunious
women made up an excursion to Quebec [City] and Montreal”. 436
115
Augusta Brown’s excursion occurred at a time when this form of commercial
transportation was still a vital part of the transportation network of the Northeast. She
recognized the importance of canals and ended her journal with the comment that “the reader
will see, (if he has had the patience to wade through these dry notes), the necessity for having
more water in our waterways; more width to the narrow channels; more and better service in
transporting our boat freight; and last, but not least, stronger boats propelled by steam. When
this is accomplished who could resist the temptation of a trip to Canada in a canal boat?” Less
than a decade later, the New York State Legislature authorized the construction of the New
York State Barge Canal. 437
RAILS AND ROADS
Canal shipping companies faced one competitor they could never defeat. Each year with
the coming of winter, the waterways began to freeze. The canal boats were forced to stop
running, not to commence again until sometime in April or early May. The closed season on the
waterway was a permanent and unalterable limitation to the canal boat trade. Hence, a
competitor that could carry goods year-round, such as the railroad, was a serious threat to the
canalers’ way of life. 438
Railroads did not immediately eclipse waterborne transportation, and in fact they
enhanced the importance of certain types of lake shipping. Willingly, canalers even transported
supplies that were used to build the new rail line. 439 The early railroad lines drew some
passengers, manufactured goods, and perishable good products away from the lake boats, but
they had little initial impact on the busy canal traffic in iron ore, timber, coal, hay, stone, and
other heavy or bulky materials. 440 In an effort to protect its investment in canals, New York
State legislated at the beginning of the nineteenth century that railroads could carry only
passengers and baggage. Later the state allowed railroad freight traffic, but required the
collection of tolls equal to the cost of using the Champlain Canal and other state owned canals.
Eventually this requirement ended, and as the nineteenth century advanced, the railroads
became stronger, more reliable, and covered a greater portion of the Northeast. 441
When the long gap between the railroads at Ticonderoga and Plattsburgh, New York
was closed in 1874 by the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, they established a through
line from New York City to the St. Lawrence and Ottawa River Valleys. This railroad milestone
was of such significance that the first train from Albany to Montreal carried such luminaries as
President Chester A. Arthur, John Jacob Astor, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J. P. Morgan. These
distinguished railroad travelers speeding along from the Hudson Valley to Lake Champlain
saw glimpses from their car windows of the Champlain Canal. Here and there, they passed
bluff bowed, boxy canal boats, preceded by teams of straining mules or horses, which dragged
the lumbering craft along their route. The unimpressive canal boats, the toiling animals, and the
slow pace they set contrasted greatly with the railroad cars drawn by the powerful, exciting
locomotives. It was easy for these travelers to believe that they were witnessing a relic of bygone days from their railroad cars. 442 For the northern canal boats, this railroad line was a
milestone of a different kind, ending their monopoly of inland north-south trade. 443 Within a
few years, the effects of the railroad were felt by the boatmen working along the Champlain
Waterway. 444
There were other causes responsible for the success of the railroads along the Northern
Waterway. When the business was transferred to the railroads during the winter months, it was
116
impossible for the canalers to maintain the continuity of business relations that were so
necessary to their success. The railroad had several other advantages including its wider area of
distribution and its ability to easily run tracks to the very shaft of the mines and quarries or to
the sawmills and factories. This advantage was very important to the businesses scattered along
the Northern Waterway because it saved them time, money, and reduced the likelihood of
damage caused by transshipments. 445
Another major factor impacting the decline and abandonment of the Champlain
Waterway was the development of superior road systems in the region, which encouraged raw
materials, goods, and products to be transported farther distances and at a cheaper rate than
ever before. These road systems allowed for goods to be shipped between ports without the use
of vessels. Transportation advocates stressed the need for paved and improved roadways and
bridges to span the Northern Waterway. The waterway that had been the principal stimulus to
the Champlain Valley had turned into an obstacle for automobile and railroad traffic. In 1929,
Lake Champlain was crossed by a massive bridge linking Vermont and New York between
Crown Point and Chimney Point. 446 This bridge was the first of several automobile bridges to
cross the lake.
COMMERCIAL CHANGES
Another impediment to the canalers’ success was the aging, antiquated, and unsafe
dockage in New York Harbor. Docks periodically broke up in the river currents or collapsed
from the weight of freight. During the 1870s, widespread dumping of sewage, toxic waste, and
refuse made Manhattan's slips a public health hazard for the canalers. Most of the docks and
warehouses of New York Harbor were built during a mid-century commercial boom in the
1840s and 1850s. Due to poor construction and maintenance, these structures were in a
dilapidated state by the 1870s. 447 The wretched condition of the wharves and docks of New
York Harbor and their approaches threatened the prosperity and safety of the canalers during
the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The warehouses were flimsy sheds of wood or at best
of corrugated iron, which offered little protection for perishable cargoes. The narrow, congested
riverside streets were poorly maintained tracks filled with ruts and holes, which slowed the
movement of freight and people. The canal boat trade in New York Harbor was impeded
everywhere by neglect, confusion, filth, outdated equipment, and obstructions. 448
Canal boats were typically owned by boatmen or small companies having each a few
boats, with too little capital to make use of the most modern labor saving devices or to control
their own terminal facilities. Also with no organized system for soliciting traffic and often
unable to make long-term contracts, canal boat operators had little to encourage large shippers
to patronize their businesses. The absence of large transportation lines on the Champlain Canal
was due in part to the lack of physical improvement to the waterway and its terminal facilities,
which inevitably discouraged active business managers from exploiting the canal. In 1896, a
statutory provision restricted canal transportation to corporations with not over $50,000 capital.
This provision affectively made it impossible for large companies, who might have the capital
and interest, to greatly improve upon the canal freight system. This seriously hampered the
development of transportation business on the Champlain Canal. 449
Throughout the last quarter of the nineteenth century, few improvements were made to
the Champlain Canal or the way freight trade was conducted along the Northern Waterway;
whereas, the railroads of the region had advanced rapidly in efficiency, one improvement
117
following close on another. Public ignorance and apathy prevented the development of
competitive artificial waterways in North America. There was strenuous opposition to a United
States policy to pursue aiding inland navigation during the last quarter of the nineteenth
century. 450 By century's end, the boats that made up the Champlain Waterway’s once extensive
commercial fleet remained only rare curiosities. A few sailing canal boats were present on Lake
Champlain around the turn of the century and were captured in photographs. However, these
vessels were largely relegated to conducting trade on Lake Champlain. A federal government
report prepared just after the turn of the century recalled the heyday of commercial activity on
the lake and observed: "All this has now practically disappeared. The visitor to the lake today
[1905] will see at rare intervals a solitary line of canal boats. [More often the visitor] will see
nothing but a large expanse of water backed by blue mountains and intercepted here and there
by groups of islands." 451
In 1891, the lumber industry, one of the major shippers on canal boats in the Champlain
Valley, began to decline as planing mills were constructed on the St. Lawrence River and a
direct rail line opened between the mills and the ports of Boston and New York City. The
geographical advantage that Burlington, Vermont one of the major lumber ports on Lake
Champlain, had enjoyed as a port of transshipment from canal boat to rail lines was lost
forever. 452 The discovery of cheaper suppliers of lumber and other cargoes, and the
unpredictable markets caused great shifts in the commercial business on the inland waterways,
putting many canalers out of work.
New York State Barge Canal
Construction began on the New York State Barge Canal in 1905, in response to
continuous outcries by the public for an enlargement of the canal. It was opened in 1915, but
many doubted that it would restore the waterway to anything like its former importance. The
Chambly Canal remained at its old dimensions; even though larger vessels could travel from
New York City to Lake Champlain, they could not complete the trip north to Canada,
significantly limiting shipping. In fact, the shipment of freight on the New York’s canals
dropped so much after the opening of the New York State Barge Canal System in 1915 that a
report published in 1926 claimed it would be cheaper to pay for canal freight to be carried on
railroads than to maintain the State’s canals. 453 However, the big blow came in 1897 when the
Dingley Tariff was imposed, placing a duty of $2 on every thousand feet of imported Canadian
lumber. The tariff was designed, like many other tariffs of the period, to protect American
markets. Although, the tariff aided the lumber industries of the Great Lakes and Northwest
Coast, it severely hurt the canal boat freight trade of the Northern Waterway.
Immediately after its opening, New York State‘s Barge Canal System altered the
northern canalers’ way of life. The new canal was designed to accommodate towing by tugboat,
so towing by mule or horse was eliminated; this ended the need for steersmen and drivers. The
mule line barns and resting sheds along the canal were closed. 454 Businesses that lined the old
canal were shut down, with few customers to patronize them. Many canalers relied upon the
canal facilities to restock them with food and goods. The new system cut off a nearly century
old direct method of supply. Most canalers adapted to the new canal system by stocking up
with greater amounts of canned and less perishable food stuffs.
The canalers always had to be selective upon which days they hung their laundry when
in tow. The soot and smoke of an old coal burning tug or towboat was dirty and could quickly
soil clean wash hung to dry if the winds did not carry the smoke clear of the tow. Although
118
diesel tugs that appeared on the New York State Barge Canal were cleaner burning, canalers
preferred the sweet smell of soft coal smoke and steam rather than the stink of the fuel oil
burning tugs, which could make any boatman sick. The level of noise was dramatically different
between the two propulsion systems as well. The old steam engine was much like a soothing
heart beat compared to the clamber of a diesel engine. These foul smelling and noisy tugs began
to appear on the New York State Barge Canal at the end of the wooden canal boat era.
Although the canal was designed to allow bigger vessels and quicker travel, it was met
only by declining usage. The canal boat way of life had reached its end. By 1933, there were
fewer than ten independent canal boat owners on the Champlain Barge Canal. 455
THE END OF AN ERA
Beginning in 1819 and for more than a century, the Northern Waterway, canal boats, and
canalers were continually adapting to economic challenges, new technologies, societal changes,
and rival means of transportation. No single cause exists for the decline of the Champlain
Waterway’s canal boat community. A combination of events and innovations led to the
abandonment of their way of life. As the nineteenth century advanced, the railroads became
stronger, more reliable, and covered a greater portion of the Northeast. The development of
trucks and superior road systems in the region also allowed raw materials, goods, and products
to be transported farther distances and at a lower cost than ever before. The discovery of
cheaper suppliers and varying markets caused great shifts in the economy of the Northeast.
And finally, the development of new marine technology, including diesel tugs, deepwater
canals, and steel barges, ultimately made the need for canalers obsolete. All of these changes, as
well as many others, led to the disappearance of the unique maritime community that once
lived and worked along the Champlain Waterway.
119
120
CHAPTER 9: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The vessels that lie on the bottom of Lake Champlain are proof that life on the lake was
hazardous. Numerous vessels sank due to storms, structural failure, collisions, fire, and
negligence; however, the majority of the vessels appear to have been intentionally sunk or
abandoned along the lakeshore. Due to the different reasons why these canal boats ended up
on the lake bottom they rest in varied conditions of preservation and environmental settings.
Those that sank during unplanned or extreme situations sank with everything or almost
everything onboard. Scuttled or abandoned vessels were usually stripped of their useful
components, cargo, and the personal effects of the crew. The timbers of some vessels left in
shallow water were frequently scavenged for firewood or burned for their iron fastenings.
The lake's canal boat shipwrecks range from being partly to totally underwater and
partially to completely buried in lake bottom sediments. The depths at which these vessels are
found vary from 0 to 300 feet (0-91.4 m) below the surface of Lake Champlain. 456 Of the
hundreds of shipwrecks that lie in Lake Champlain, approximately fifty of them are canal boats.
Of these canal boats, fourteen have been identified as boats built after the 1873 expansion of the
Champlain Canal, and are therefore the same boat type as the Sloop Island Canal Boat (Figure
9-1). To facilitate this study, LCMM researchers re-examined all of the archaeological
information from these wrecks. The information ranges from notes taken in the 1980s by
recreational divers to recent ROV footage of deep-water shipwrecks. The quality of the
information varies, but collectively it allows for a much better understanding of the canal boats
of this era. For example during LCMM’s 2003 Lake Survey Project, which was a sonar survey in
the southern part of Lake Champlain, the team located numerous canal boats (thirty or more)
many of which are certainly 1873-class boats. This section of the lake has very limited visibility
and most of these boats were undoubtedly abandoned at the end of their use life. However,
these vessels have not yet been documented, thus there is as yet no substantive construction
information about these vessels to date. As this report is being prepared, LCMM researchers are
developing plans for their study.
121
Figure 41. Map of Lake Champlain showing the approximate locations of 1873-class canal boats.
122
CANAL BOATS IN BURLINGTON HARBOR
US Coast Guard Basin Canal Boat (VT-CH-575)
In 1984, LCMM documented the hull of a canal boat in the US Coast
Guard Basin in Burlington, Vermont (Figure 42). The site was later
re-investigated by John Milner Associates in 1991. 457 The canal boat
lies on the east side of a timber crib in shallow water. Much of the
hull is buried below sediments and rubble from the adjacent
cribbing. The vessel has an overall length of 95 feet (29 m) and is 18
feet (5.5 m) in beam.
The canal boat was built using the plank-on-frame
construction method with 59 frame sets noted in the 1991
documentation. The stern has a tapered shape while the bow is bluff.
The cabin roof is still extant, although it had collapsed. Probing along
the hull indicated that there is considerable hull structure preserved
below the bottom sediments.
The dimensions of this canal boat are consistent with those of
an 1873-class canal boat, however, the construction features are not
typical. Most canal boats of this era are edge-fastened and have
vertical sterns. This vessel’s plank-on-frame construction and
especially its tapering stern indicate that it is likely an 1873-class
sailing canal boat. Contemporary photographs of this type of sailing
canal boat show that they retained the hourglass stern that had been
employed by previous generations of sailing canal boats. To date,
this type of stern has not been noted on any type of canal boat other
than sailing canal boats. If this vessel were an 1873-class sailing canal
boat, it would be the only vessel of this type located to date.
Figure 42. Plan view of the US Coast Guard Basin Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Kevin
Crisman).
123
CANAL BOATS IN THE PINE STREET CANAL
In January 2003 archaeologists from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
documented the remains of five canal boats (VT-CH-798, 799, 800, 801, and 802) in the Pine
Street Canal in Burlington, Vermont. The boats were abandoned in the Canal in the 1930s
according to the lake’s nautical charts. These vessels were sunk by the 1940s. The later is based
on the fact that all of the boats have quantities of salvageable iron fasteners and cleats, which
would have been recovered during the scrap iron drives of World War II if the boats were
accessible. The presence of these National Register eligible canal boats in the Pine Street Canal
Superfund site led to the off-site mitigation of the Sloop Island Canal Boat. No one had
anticipated that these boats would ever be available for study due to their location in the
contaminated Superfund Site. However, during the environmental remediation in 2002 and
2003 the canal was partially drained. In the fall of 2002, LCMM staff had taken numerous
photographs of the exposed canal boats, however, they were not accessible for further
documentation. In January 2003 extremely cold weather set in, freezing the remaining water in
the canal. The canal boats were left partially exposed with 1 to 4 feet (0.31-1.2 m) of their
structure exposed above the waterline.
LCMM researchers were made aware of the frozen state of the canal and that the boats
were accessible due to the circumstance. LCMM staff discussed the merits of such a
documentation project on the ice, and decided that despite the absence of funding to support
the project, it was a unique opportunity that needed to be seized. The documentation was
undertaken during three days of fieldwork by LCMM archaeologists Adam Kane, Scott
McLaughlin, Chris Sabick, and Erick Tichonuk. Weather during the fieldwork was clear and
cold, with daytime highs in the single digits above zero Fahrenheit and windchill factors
between 10 and 30 below zero Fahrenheit. Both digital photographs and 35mm slide film were
taken, although temperatures were so cold that the 35mm cameras did not work well.
Overall, the canal boats in the Pine Street Canal are not well preserved. They are all near
the water’s surface and thus have been subjected to damage from ice, biological growth,
sunlight, periodic exposure to the air, and human vandalism. Despite the condition of the
vessels, their documentation still yielded a considerable amount of important technical
information. LCMM archaeologists, who are more accustomed to documenting submerged
shipwrecks, found the study of these exposed wrecks to be especially rewarding. There were a
number of features observed that would likely have gone unrecorded had the sites been
underwater. The constraints of underwater archaeology with limited bottom times, and in Lake
Champlain’s cold, dark waters often make it impossible to record the level of detail which was
taken with relative ease from these boats.
124
VT-CH-801
The remains of VT-CH-801 are located in the southeastern corner of the basin portion of
the canal. The remains have a length of 96 feet 9 inches (29.5 m) and a beam of 18 feet (5.5 m).
The hull is preserved up to approximately 1 foot (30.5 cm) below deck level (Figure 43). Damage
from ice and salvaging for firewood have completely removed the deck and deck beams,
rudder, coamings, and most hanging knees. The extant components of the remains include the
stern, sides, and bow. During the 2003 documentation between 1 and 4 feet (0.31-1.2 m) of
remains were exposed above the ice; approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) were below the ice and not
accessible for documentation. The sides of the boat are edge-fastened, while the bow and stern
are built using plank-on-frame construction technique.
The remains of the canal boat’s bow was the best-preserved portion of the vessel. The
boat’s stem, which was preserved up to its original height, was angled slightly aft. In crosssection the stem was rectangular with rabbets cut on both sides of its forward face to accept the
bow planking. The framing was vertical or angled slightly to the stern on either side of the stem.
Typical frames were 6 inches (15.2 cm) molded and 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) sided with room and
space of 4 to 6 inches (10.2-15.2 cm). The bow frames were taller toward the stem, creating the
sheer in the bow. The bow planking consisted of 2 inch (5.1 cm) thick and 5 inch (12.7 cm) wide
planks. The planks were angled upward toward the stem paralleling the sheer of the bow. Two
preserved rub rails were fastened onto the exterior of the bow planking. These were 3 inches
(7.6 cm) wide and 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) thick. Their forward faces were covered with a 0.5 inch (1.3
cm) thick iron band. The bow structure was reinforced on the interior by two laminate breast
hooks, although there were certainly several more below the ice. The visible lower breasthook
was well preserved, consisting of six 1.25 inch (3.2 cm) thick and 4 inch (10.2 cm) wide planks
laminated together from the stem outboard to frame 8. From frame 8 and aft the breasthook
consisted of only four planks. The breasthook was bolted to every other frame and to the stem.
VT-CH-801’s edge-fastened sides were not well preserved; however, in some respects
the degraded nature of this part of the boat allowed for a closer examination of construction
techniques. Upon initial inspection of the side it appeared to be constructed in a haphazard
manner. Numerous different types of scarf joints were observed and many of the strakes were
much smaller than would be expected of a boat of this type. Careful documentation of the side
revealed the reason behind this pattern: approximately fifty percent of the strakes were not
original to the boat. These extensive repairs suggest that the boat was quite old when it was
abandoned in the canal.
125
Figure 43. Archaeological drawing of canal boat VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
Figure 44. Photomosaic showing the port side profile of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane and Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
126
Prior to this study LCMM researchers had not observed repairs to any edge-fastened
vessels. This is almost certainly because repairs are difficult to observe in an under water
setting, especially if the vessel is well preserved. The documentation of VT-CH-801 revealed
three different techniques used to replace a damaged or rotted edge-fastened strake (Figure 45).
The first step was to remove the original strake, while leaving the vertically oriented drift bolts
in place. This was certainly an unpleasant affair requiring substantial manual labor. Technique 1
was accomplished by making 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick fillers to place between each drift bolt. These
fillers and the drift bolts would then be sandwiched between two 1.5 to 2 inch (3.8-5.1 cm) thick
planks from either side. The three layers of wood were then held together by iron bolts and
corresponding square nuts on the interior. Technique 2 is similar to technique 1 except no fillers
were used. To fill the void between the drift bolts, the exterior replacement strake had grooves
cut on its interior face corresponding with the location of drift bolts. The plank was then fitted
into the opening and a 1.5 inch (3.8 cm) thick strake was inserted from inboard. The two layers
are held together with iron bolts. Technique 3 was accomplished by taking a plank that had the
same width as the original plank and grooves were cut out of its interior side corresponding
with the location of drift bolts. The plank was then fitted into the gap, and small vertical wedges
were placed over the grooves on the inboard face. The entire plank was then re-edge-fastened
from the strake above. Technique 3 had limited use compared to technique 1 and 2 because it
could only be undertaken on strakes that could be edge-fastened from above, meaning that the
replacement strake could not be more than 2 to 3 feet (61-91 cm) below the gunwale.
Figure 45. Plan view drawing showing the repair techniques documented on canal boat VT-CH801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
Along the interior of the sides of VT-CH-801, there are several remnants of hanging
knees used to hold deck beams. The knees are spaced at 13 to 14 feet (4.0-4.3 m) intervals and
127
are bolted into the sides. The upper faces of the knees are 1 foot 11 inches (58.4 cm) long and 3.5
inches (8.9 cm) wide.
The remaining portions of the boat’s stern are well preserved although none of the
upper transom is extant. The lower transom consists of the sternpost, framing, planking,
transom log, and a lodging knee. The vertically oriented sternpost is 13 inches (33 cm) wide and
11 inches (27.9 cm) thick, and it is rectangular in cross-section with rabbets cut out of the after
face to accept the stern planking. The after face of the sternpost is flush with the planking. The
stern framing is also vertical, however, across the breadth of the hull the frame placement gives
the stern a modest transverse curvature. There are eight stern frames; two are made of two
timbers sandwiched together. The upper end of each frame is cut in the shape of a tenon to fit
into a mortise on the underside of the transom log. Each tenon is held in place by a bolt driven
fore and aft through the transom log. The transom log is the uppermost preserved member of
the stern assembly. It consists of two timbers which span the breadth of the stern. The transom
log is 17 feet (5.2 m) long, 6 inches (15.2 cm) thick, and from 7 inches to 2 feet (17.8-61 cm) wide.
The after face of the transom log has a 10.5 inches (26.7 cm) semi-circular cutout which once
held the rudderpost. This enclosure for the rudderpost may have been completed with a semicircular iron band; however, this feature is no longer present. The forward outboard face of the
transom log is bolted to a lodging knee. This knee connects the transom log to the side of the
hull.
VT-CH-802
The remains of VT-CH-802 are located in the eastern half of the canal's turning basin
with the bow pointed toward the south. The vessel likely had a maximum length of 98 feet (29.9
m), although the remains are only 92 feet 2 inches (28.1 m) long (Figure 46). The maximum
beam of the vessel is 16 feet 11 inches (5.2 m). With the exception of the bow and stern, the hull
is preserved up to the underside of the deck beams; however, all but one of the hanging knees
that supported the deck beams are missing. The bow and stern are also largely missing. During
the 2003 survey six strakes were visible above the ice, which accounts for approximately 5 feet
(1.52 m) of the vessel's sides. Drift bolts projected above the extant hull about 5 inches (12.7 cm),
suggesting that only one additional strake, the bulwarks, was missing. Probing inside the hold
suggested that approximately 3 feet (91 cm) of the vessel lie below the ice and mud, and not
accessible for documentation. The sides of the boat are edge-fastened, while the bow and stern
were built using the plank-on-frame construction method.
128
Figure 46. Archaeological drawing of VT-CH-802 (by Scott McLaughlin, LCMM Collection).
129
Unfortunately, the bow and stern were not well preserved and most of their structural
elements were not visible as they lie in the mud and ice. Approximately ten cant frames
projected above the water during the fall of 2002 but were buried below the ice during the
documentation survey in the winter of 2003. From the data collected, it is clear that the bow and
stern were constructed after the vessel's edge fastened hull was completed. The vessel's sides
stop in a vertical line approximately 5 feet (1.52 m) aft of the stem. The inboard surface of the
edge fastened hull planks are between 2.5 and 3.5 inches (6.4-8.9 cm) longer than the exterior
surface of the hull planks, creating an angle of between 50 and 60 degrees. It was upon this
angled surface that the bow planks joined the hull planks. This joint between the bow and hull
strakes occurs in a vertical line, as no attempt was made to stagger the joinery. To reinforce the
junction between the plank-on-frame bow and the vessel's edge fastened hull, the shipwrights
relied on numerous breast hooks, the deck planking, and several layers of interlocking floor
timbers that spanned both sections of the vessel. We can only speculate on these construction
features since much of this section of the vessel is missing or inaccessible.
A laminated breast hook covered portions of the fourth and fifth strake below the deck
beams in the bow. The laminated breast hook was built up on a filler piece that was equal in
sided dimension to the futtock-like composite timber attached to the end of the edge fastened
hull, at the transition point between the vertical sides and curved bow. The filler pieces on each
side extended approximately 10 feet (3.05 m) aft of the point were the bow began. The laminate
elements of the breast hook consisted of three planks of equal thickness and breadth. These
planks were 5 inches (12.7 cm) wide, 2 inches (5.08 cm) thick, and 1.5 feet (45.7 cm) shorter than
the filler piece. The laminated breast hook was broken just aft of the forward ends of the filler
pieces.
Another breast hook was located within the rubble of the bow. This breast hook was
originally located above the deck and held the upper ends of the rider bitts in place. The breast
hook was constructed of two 8 inches (20.3 cm) thick timbers through bolted in a fore and aft
direction. The aftermost timber, which is almost 17 feet (5.18 m) long and has a maximum width
of 28 in (71.1 cm), has a large square hole in it, through which the 6 inches (15.2 cm) sided and
12 inches (30.5 cm) molded rider bitts project well above deck level. Oval iron stains 2.75 inches
(7 cm) wide and 24 inches (61 cm) long suggests that two heavy iron cleats were also attached to
the upper surface of this timber at its outboard ends. From the rust stains, it appears that the
iron cleats have fallen off or were removed well after the vessel was abandoned.
The vessel's edge-fastened sides are well preserved, including the oakum used to caulk
between the 4 inches (10.2 cm) thick hull planks. The spacing between the 0.75 inches (1.9 cm)
iron drift bolts used to hold the hull planks together is between 14 and 16 inches (35.6-40.6 cm).
There are very few exceptions to the regular spacing of the drift bolts. Only one irregularly
placed drift bolt is located on the port side of the vessel and four on the starboard side. The
function of these irregularly spaced drift bolts is uncertain but may have to do with repairs to
the vessel’s bulwarks.
The shipwrights established a standard method of assembling the hull. The number of
planks each strake was composed of alternated between two and three planks, which effectively
spaced apart the 4 foot (1.2 m) long flat scarf joints used to join the planks. When a strake was
made up of two planks, the scarf joint lies amidships, and, in the case of three planks, the scarf
joints are placed nearer the fore (or forward) and quarter (or after) ends of the vessel. When the
shipwrights assembled three planks to make up a strake, they attached the middle plank first
then the bow and stern planks. When the shipwrights were making up a strake from two
130
planks, they alternated between attaching the stern plank first and the bow plank first. These
alternating patterns were likely done because the shipwright assumed it increased the strength
of the hull.
To increase the height of the bow and stern of the canal boat, the shipwrights used two
steelers at each end of the vessel. The first steeler lies between the second and third strake below
the underside of the deck beams. The second steeler lies on top of the first plank below the
underside of the deck beams. The steelers in the bow start about 9 feet (2.7 m) aft of where the
hull transitions from the vertical sides to curved bow. The steelers in the stern start about 17 feet
(5.2 m) forward of the lower transom.
As canal boats entered and exited locks and slips, their ends received a great deal of
damage. To protect the stern of this vessel, the hull narrows slightly in its after quarter. Some of
the strakes on VT-CH-802 are protected at the stern using two methods. Beginning with the
third strake below the deck beams, each strake is protected by a wooden frog approximately 3
feet (7.6 m) long, 6 inches (15.2 cm) wide, and 2 inches (5.1 cm) thick. Each frog is fastened to the
hull by six cut iron nails. The upper five strakes and two of the steelers that are visible in the
stern stop short of reaching the lower transom. The after ends butt instead into a plank that
follows the rake of the lower transom, covering the vulnerable end grain of the strakes and
steelers. This construction technique, however, does not appear on the lower hull planks.
Evidence of repairs is present throughout the hull of the canal boat. Graving pieces or
wooden patches were used to replace small rotten sections of planking, which were easily
removed with a chisel. Nine graving pieces appear on the starboard side and seven on the port
side. Graving pieces only worked when the rot covered a relatively small area and did not
penetrate through the entire thickness of the plank.
One area on the port bow has a large repair where rot must have been extensive. A 10
foot 7 inch (3.22 m) section of the third strake below the deck beams and the steeler above it
were replaced with two corresponding pairs of wide planks. One pair of planks covered the
forward 4 foot 7 inch (1.4 m) section and the second covered the remaining 6 feet (1.83 m). The
exterior planks were 2.5 inch (6.4 cm) thick and had vertical grooves cut into their inboard face
corresponding with the locations of the drift bolts. This repair method allowed for the 0.75 inch
(1.9 cm) iron drift bolts to remain in place. The interior planks were 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) thick.
The exterior and interior planks were then fastened together using iron cut nails driven from
both the interior and exterior sides.
Within the hull, there are eleven regularly spaced futtocks that range in dimension from
6.5 to 7 inches (16.5-17.8 cm) sided and 3.5 to 4.5 inches (8.9-11.4 cm) molded. The room and
space between the futtocks is approximately 6 feet (1.8 m). The regular futtocks begin
approximately 15 feet (4.6 m) aft of where the bow and vertical sides of the hull intersect. The
regular futtocks end approximately 14 feet (4.3 m) forward of the transom. There are three
irregular futtocks that do not correspond with any other timber on the opposing side: one on
the port side and two on the starboard side. The function of these irregular futtocks is unknown.
Each futtock was attached to every hull plank it intersected with an iron through bolt.
The bolts were located between one-quarter and one-half of the way down from the top of each
hull plank. To prevent the futtock from splitting, the shipwrights varied the locations of the
bolts from one hull plank to the next. They alternated the bolt location from the forward to the
after side of the centerline of the futtock.
Only one hanging knee remains intact within the hulk; however, evidence of the other
hanging knees is still evident. The surviving hanging knee is attached to the third regular
131
futtock aft on the port side. It is 5.5 inches (14 cm) sided and 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) molded on its
lower arm and 6 inches (15.2 cm) molded on its upper arm. The lower arm is 36 inches (91.4 cm)
long and the upper arm is 20 inches (50.8 cm) long. Each hanging knee was attached with four
bolts to the inboard surface of each regular futtock. The outboard surface of the hanging knees
was notched to cover the bolt and nut holding the futtock to the hull planking. These hanging
knees supported the vessel's deck beams, to which they were attached by a single bolt.
The shipwrights constructed futtock-like composite timbers at the fore and after ends of
the vessel's sides. These elements strengthen the joint between the vessel's vertical sides and its
round bow and between its sides and the raked lower transom. They served very much the
same function as a chine, which is to reinforce the connection between two planes, (the vessel's
bottom and side in the case of a chine). These composite elements consist of a vertical, (as in the
bow), or raked, (as in the stern), timber larger in dimension than the regular futtocks. This
timber is supported on its fore and aft inboard surface by a large triangular shaped block. The
two timbers are through bolted to create a solid structural element.
The stern of the canal boat has a slightly raked lower transom. The framing on this area
consists of eleven raked stern frames 3 inches (7.6 cm) sided and 7 inches (17.8 cm) molded with
a room and space of approximately 14 inches (35.6 cm). Located forward of the central stern
frame is a laminated inner sternpost, which is made up of five 5 inch (12.7 cm) wide and 1 inch
(2.5 cm) thick boards. Attached to the exterior of the frames is 2 inch (5.1 cm) hull planking,
which had been repaired. All of the planking ends met over a stern frame except one, where a
plank was attached to a backer or nailer, which was scabbed onto the port side of the central
stern frame.
VT-CH-798
The remains of VT-CH-798 are located on the western side of the canal basin facing
north and it lists heavily to its starboard side. Approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) in height of the
plank-on-frame constructed bow and stern were visible and found to be in good condition. The
edge fastened central portion of the vessel was obscured by debris, water, and ice during the
survey completed in the winter of 2003. The vessel's dimensions appear to be just over 99 feet
(30.2 m) in length and approximately 17 feet (5.2 m) in beam. Due to the deteriorated condition
of the vessel, the vessel's original dimensions could not be determined exactly.
The stern of the boat is a flat vertical plane with a cantilevered upper transom. The
structural elements of the stern consists of a large sternpost flanked by eight 3.5 inches (8.9 cm)
sided and 5.5 inches (14 cm) molded frames on each side. The farthest outboard frames, which
are larger in molded dimension, 14 inches (35.6 cm), are likely connected to the vessel's chine.
The heads of the stern frames and the sternpost are covered by a transom log, which is made up
of two 5 inch (12.7 cm) thick timbers through bolted together in a fore-and-aft direction. The
upper ends of the sternpost and stern frames are mortised into the underside of the transom
log. The tenons of each frame are located on their forward face. The transom log is pierced by
an 8in (20.3 cm) diameter hole outboard of the sternpost for the rudder post. The upper transom
was formed by posts attached to the outboard edge of the transom log. Nine posts were used,
four to each side of a central post located directly aft of the rudderpost and sternpost. These
posts were held in place by one long fore-and-aft drift bolt, with the exception of the central
post, which was held on by two shorter drift bolts. This latter arrangement was necessary
because of the closeness to the rudderpost directly forward of the central post.
132
Each stern strake was made up of two 1.5 inch (3.8 cm) planks that are seated in a rabbet
on the outboard edges of the sternpost. The stern planks are wider at their outboard ends and
taper as they near the sternpost, giving them the appearance that they run diagonally. Each
plank is attached to the stern frames using two iron cut nails.
The 7 inch (17.8 cm) diameter rudderpost has a flat carved into its after surface for the
attachment of the rudder blade. A 2 inch (5.1 cm) vertical plank is mortised into the flat and
held to the rudderpost by iron bolts. The rudder blade is made of 1.5 inch (3.8 cm) planks
running perpendicular to the rudderpost. These planks are fastened to the vertical plank
mortised into the rudderpost with iron cut nails.
Much of the central part of the vessel was buried under ice. However, a short section of
the port side of the vessel's hull was exposed, revealing its 3 inch (7.6 cm) thick drift bolted
planks. Amidships, the upper surface of only one deck beam, which was 5.5 inches (14 cm)
sided, was projecting above the ice.
Most of the canal boat's bow was visible during the winter of 2003; approximately onethird of the port side lay imbedded in the ice and mud. The structure of the bow consists of an 8
inch (20.3 cm) sided by 11 inch (27.9 cm) molded stem, flanked by several cant frames
measuring 2.5 to 3 inches (6.3-7.6 cm) sided by 4 inches (10.2 cm) molded. The frame heads are
covered by two cap timbers, one on each side of the stem. Each cap timber spans the distance
from where the drift bolted hull begins to the outboard sides of the stem. Just outboard of the
stem, each cap timber has a 6 inch (15.2 cm) long chock, which was used to direct lines from the
vessel's windlass or cleats to objects or structures to which the boat was tied.
On the inboard face of the cant frames and stem was bolted a 12 foot 2 inch (3.7 m) long
by 5 inch (12.7 cm) thick breasthook. At the widest point just aft of the stem, the breasthook is 13
inches (33 cm) wide. Attached to the center of the breasthook are two bitts spaced 10 inches
(25.4 cm) apart. The bits project above the deck level approximately 30 inches (76.2 cm) and
originally supported a cast iron windlass, which is missing. Attached to the after surface of each
bit is an iron block, held in place by two iron drift bolts. These iron blocks originally served as
the seat for the axle of the vessel's windlass, which is missing. Below deck, the bitts were
supported on their after face by a deck beam measuring 6 inches (15.2 cm) sided and 6.5 inches
(16.5 cm) molded.
Nine strakes, ranging in width between 4 and 5 inches (10.2-12.7 cm), are visible in the
starboard bow. The 1.75 inches (4.4 cm) thick hull planking was protected by a several long 3
inch (7.6 cm) thick wooden rub rails, capped by an iron plate 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) thick and 2.5
inches (6.4 cm) wide. The spacing between the rub rails is approximately 12 inches (30.5 cm).
Only three rub rails were visible above the water and ice; although, probing within the open
water around the bow located several additional rub rails.
The length of the stem was also protected on its forward face by an iron plate 0.5 inch
(1.3 cm) thick and 3.75 inches (9.5 cm) wide. This plate continues over the top of the stem and
down the after face 10.75 inches (27.3 cm). Atop of the stem is attached an iron traveler, which is
held in place by a large single iron bolt. Attached to the traveler is a 6 inch (15.2 cm) diameter
iron ring.
Directly aft of the bitts is a companionway or hatch leading down to the forecastle of the
canal boat. The opening is 23 inches (58.4 cm) wide and 32 inches long (81.3 cm). The opening is
framed below the 1.75 inch (4.4 cm) deck planks by a deck beam on its forward and aft ends,
and by a 3.5 inch (8.9 cm) wide carling on each side. The opening is surrounded by a low 1 inch
(2.5 cm) coaming, which slopes outward on its outboard edges to help shed water. Originally,
133
the hatch had a cover that locked into two semi-circular notches cut into the combing along
each side of the hatch. Approximately 12 inches (30.5 cm) aft of the companionway, there is a 6
inch (15.2 cm) diameter copper lined hole that likely originally held a deck light.
VT-CH-799
The hulk of VT-CH-799 is located on the western side of the canal basin to the south of
canal boat VT-CH-798. The bow and amidships sections of this vessel were still standing during
the fall of 2002; however, during the winter of 2003, the vessel's sides had collapsed into the
water and lie on the muddy bottom. The bow also received a great deal of damage when the
sides collapsed and was also inaccessible during the documentation survey in the winter of
2003. However, a great deal of information has been gleaned from the photographs taken of the
vessel during the fall of 2002.
This canal boat was approximately 98 feet (29.9 m) long, 17 feet (5.2 m) in beam, and
built with edge fastened sides and a plank-on-frame bow. The stern, which is missing, was also
likely built using the plank-on-frame construction technique. The bow framing consists of
approximately sixteen cant frames on each side of the stem. Long hull planks ran from
amidships around to the stem, interlocking the hull with the bow. There is no evidence of
steelers used to increase the height of the bow or stern of the vessel. Iron nails fasten the bow
planks to the cant frames, while drift bolts hold the hull planking together. Each drift bolt
fastens three adjacent hull planks together.
A futtock and hanging knee secured the outboard ends of six widely spaced deck beams
that supported the vessel's deck. Under the center of each deck beam was a saddle and
stanchion. A large iron band held the three elements together. Atop each deck beam was a thick
plank that took the routine abuse of loading and unloading cargo into the hold, protecting the
large deck beams. This plank was easily replaced when worn out.
134
Figure 47: Photograph of the bow of VT-CH-799 from the fall of 2002(LCMM Collection).
VT-CH-800
The remains of VT-CH-800 were located in the northeastern corner of the canal basin.
The vessel’s bottom, stern, and a large portion of the canal boat’s port side are buried by fill
from the eastern wall of the basin (Figure 48). The bow of VT-CH-800 points southwest. The
remains of the starboard side extend for 81 feet (24.9 m) while those of the port side are exposed
for only 41 feet 9 inches (12.8 m). The vessel has a beam of 17 feet 6 inches (5.4 m) and is
preserved up to approximately 1 foot (30.5 cm) below deck level. Between 2 and 4 feet (61-122
cm) of structure were exposed above the ice during the January 2003 examination. All evidence
of the deck and ship’s equipment were destroyed by ice or salvaged.
The bow of VT-CH-800 is the most extensively preserved portion of the exposed
remains. The vessel’s stem is 12 inches (30.5 cm) molded and 7 inches (17.8 cm) sided. On either
side of the stem the shape of the bow is defined by sixteen futtocks molded 6 inches (15.2 cm)
and sided 4 inches (10.2 cm). These futtocks are spaced 6 to 12 inches (15.2-30.5 cm) apart with
the closest spacing at the nearly right angle curves in the bow. The futtocks located close to the
stem are taller than the others giving the bow considerable sheer. One interesting discovery in
the bow was cement between the stem and the first futtock on the starboard side. Historical
research has revealed that cement was employed as a quick and cheap way to repair small leaks
in the bow planking. 458
135
Figure 48. Archaeological drawing of canal boat VT-CH-800 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
136
The outer planking of the bow is composed of 2 inch (5 cm) thick planks that are spiked
to the futtocks. The planking runs curve upward as they near the stem following the sheer. The
structure of the bow is further reinforced by two laminated breasthooks. These timbers are
composed of six 2-inch (5 cm) thick, 4 inch (10 cm) wide planks that are bolted to the interior
face of every other frame. On either side of the vessel, at futtock 11, the laminated breasthooks
are thinned down to only four planks which continue along the side of the vessel to the juncture
with the first deck beam of the cargo hold, (approximately 8 feet [2.5 m] aft of the stem). Two
rider bitts are located 6 feet (1.8 m) aft of the stem, although they are canted aft, so their exact
original location cannot be ascertained. These 6 inch (15.2 cm) sided by 8 inch (20.3 cm) molded
timbers would have supported an iron windlass during the vessel’s operational life.
The sides of VT-CH-800 are composed of 4 inch (10 cm) thick planks that are edgefastened. Numerous 0.75 inch (1.9 cm) drift bolts, spaced approximately every 18 inches (45.7
cm), were used to join the planks. The planking displays a number of repairs suggesting that the
vessel was quite old at the time of its abandonment. Five repairs were observed in the port side
planking and fourteen were recorded on the starboard side of the vessel. These repairs fall into
the three categories outlined in the description of VT-CH-801. Internally, the planking was
reinforced by a series of vertical and diagonal timbers. These timbers, which are 4 inches (10
cm) thick and range in width from 6 to 9 inches (15.2-22.9 cm), are spaced rather randomly
throughout the length of the hull. It appears that the diagonal reinforcements were intended as
additional support for hanging knees which reinforced the juncture of the sides and deck
beams. These knees are spaced between 12 and 14 feet (3.7-4.3m) apart along the sides of the
vessel.
CANAL BOATS ELSEWHERE IN LAKE CHAMPLAIN
Wreck A
Wreck A was the first shipwreck located by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
during its Lake Survey Project. Found in 1996, it was investigated by ROV in 1997 (Figure 49). It
is relatively intact, although portions of the hull’s side planking have separated from the rest of
the vessel.
The construction of the bow is, as yet, unique among Lake Champlain’s 1873-class canal
boat wrecks. The juncture between the bow and the side of the hull is angular, rather than the
more common rounded juncture with interlocking bow and side planks. Wreck A’s extreme
“bluffness” allowed the vessel to carry the maximum amount of cargo while still obeying a ban
on square shaped bow construction that was initiated on the Erie and Champlain Canals in
order to prevent damage to the canal prism.
Wreck A’s hull is edge-fastened. The deck may also be edge-fastened, however, this is
difficult to determine from the ROV footage. The deck’s intact nature and the large distance
between deck beams are indicative of an edge fastened deck. The entire center of Wreck A is a
single large open hatch surrounded with a tall coaming, approximately 2 feet (61 cm) high. The
coaming is taller than those typically found on northern canal boats. The leading edge of the
coaming has the words “Jersey City” still partially preserved in white paint. This almost
certainly represents the boat’s homeport. The interior of the coaming is supported by standing
knees on top of the deck beams. The bow has an iron windlass supported by a single massive
bitt, an unusual feature as all of Lake Champlain’s other canal boats have two bitts. Along both
137
sides of the cargo hatch are large iron cleats in a fore-and-aft orientation. The forward starboard
cleat still has line or cable wrapped around it.
Figure 49. Preliminary plan view of Wreck A (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick).
The cabin trunk of Wreck A has collapsed allowing the cabin roof to settle directly onto
the coaming. On the port side of the cabin roof is a companionway typical of northern canal
boats. However, the chimney rises through the cabin roof on the forward starboard corner,
which is untypical of northern canal boats. Aft of the cabin a small windlass is attached to the
deck along the boat’s centerline. The tiller is present; attached to this S-shaped timber are two
iron eyes that held an extender bar for steering from atop the cabin roof. The wreck has a barn
door rudder with a tailboard. The rudderpost on Wreck A is supported by an external
framework of two horizontal transom timbers joined by short vertical supports.
The aft windlass indicates that this boat was the lead vessel in a double header and
likely the boat on which the captain lived. Some of the most interesting views of the wreck are
presented in the bow where a section of the forward starboard quarter has broken away. The
hole provides an excellent view of the interior construction of the stem assembly showing that
the scarf between stem and keel is reinforced with a trapezoidal chock. The juncture of the base
of the bitt with the keelson can also be seen. Also observed were rounded log rollers that may
have been used for moving heavy cargo around in the hull of the canal boat. Similar rollers
were found aboard the sailing canal boat General Butler, which sank in Burlington Bay in 1876.
Wreck A exhibits several characteristics that are unlike other canal boats of this era
found in Lake Champlain. These features include a single bitt in the bow and the angular
juncture between the bow and sides. These features and “Jersey City” painted on the cargo
hatch coaming conclusively indicate that this vessel was not built on Lake Champlain or the
Champlain Canal. Because of the vessel’s homeport outside of the region, it cannot be truly
classified as an 1873-class canal boat. Boats of this size, (i.e., 97 feet long or 29.6 m), were
permitted on the Erie Canal after the 1835 enlargement and upon the New Jersey canals shortly
after that, thus this vessel’s construction date could be before 1873; however, it had to sink after
1873 because it had to have traveled through the enlarged Champlain Canal. Based upon the
vessel’s characteristics, it appears that the boat was likely initially constructed for use on the
Delaware & Raritan Canal of New Jersey.
Wreck B
Wreck B was located during the 1996 Lake Survey Project, and because of its depth was
investigated with an ROV in 1997 (Figure 50). The vessel is an 1873-class standard canal boat in
good condition. The wreck is largely intact with the exception of significant damage to the port
138
bow and the absence of the cabin roof and trunk. No cargo was evident during the ROV
inspection; however, considerable silt in the hull may have obscured this feature. The boat’s
location in the shipping channel and the apparent presence of artifacts in the cabin indicate that
this boat sank in distress.
The remains are typical of a canal boat of this vintage; it has edge-fastened sides and a
deck with a large open cargo hatch. The cargo hatch is surrounded by a high coaming. The
interior of the coaming is supported by standing knees on top of the deck beams. White paint is
evident on the coaming in a number of locations. The deck beams are supported by stanchions
reinforced by an iron strap wrapped over both members. No saddle appears to be present
between the deck beams and stanchions.
The boat’s stern reveals a large deck opening for the cabin with a jumble of timbers
noted inside. The cabin coaming has remnants of tongue and groove paneling on its interior
face. The chimney for the cabin’s cook range was placed through the deck along the starboard
side of the aft corner of the cabin trunk. The deck aft of the cabin contains a stern windlass
located along the boat’s centerline. The windlass is oriented fore-and-aft with the drum facing
aft. At the forward end of the windlass base is a transversely oriented cleat. The rudder
configuration consists of an S-shaped tiller bar with a tiller bar extender and a barn door rudder
with a tailboard. The stern is a Type C consisting of two transverse transom logs separated by
chocks. There is some white paint preserved on the stern, however, not enough to discern any
writing.
Wreck B’s bow is built plank-on-frame with the planks joined in an interlocking pattern
with the edge-fastened sides. The exterior of the bow contains at least three rubrails, all of
which, as well as the stem, are covered with iron bands. The foredeck contains an iron windlass,
which is supported by two bitts and a large breasthook. On the starboard side of the foredeck
there is a small forecastle hatch. Finally, a pump housing case can be seen sticking out from
under the starboard side on the forward end of the cargo hatch.
Figure 50. Preliminary plan view of Wreck B (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick).
139
Wreck D (VT-GI-30)
Wreck D was located by LCMM during the 1996 Lake Survey Project. This deep water
target was examined by an ROV in 1997. The vessel is an 1873-class standard canal boat in poor
condition. The vessel’s bow and stern are still standing; however, the sides have collapsed
outward. The canal boat does not appear to be carrying any cargo, providing an unobstructed
view of the construction of the bottom of the boat. The remains show the vessel’s construction
to be typical of canal boats of this vintage with edge-fastened sides and a plank-on-frame bow
and stern.
The vessel’s bow remains standing. It appears to have at least five rubrails, all of which
have iron bands fastened to their forward faces, as does the stem. The windlass and two bitt
posts are still present, although they have collapsed into the hull. The interior of the bow is
constructed of cant frames held in place with laminated breasthooks. One significant repair is
evident in the bow; this section has a number of frames inserted in the spaces between the
original frames. This area, which may have been stove in at some point during the boat’s career,
is reinforced with a small bit of ceiling held in place with two horizontally oriented iron rods
that formerly were connected to the bitts.
Wreck D has a Type A stern. Despite the overall poor condition of the boat, there are still
remains of paint on the transom. Careful examination of the ROV video footage reveals the
word “JOHN” followed by an “O.”, “G.”, or “C.” in large letters across the top of the transom.
Below the large letters, several smaller letters spell out “OF CHAMP”. There is additional paint
to the right of the boat’s middle initial; however, it is not legible. These words represent the
vessel’s name, followed by its homeport. Unfortunately, LCMM files do not have any records of
a vessel with this name home ported in Champlain, New York. Future research may reveal the
history of this boat.
The interior of the stern contains numerous features, which have parallels in other boats
of this type, especially the Sloop Island Canal Boat. A plain tiller bar, still attached to the head of
the rudder, is now swung completely over to the port side of the vessel. The rudder is of the
typical barn-door style seen on most canal boats. The rudderpost is housed in a lightly built
rudder box, and adaptation necessary for boats with this type of stern in order to keep water
from coming in through the rudderpost hole in the transom. The sternpost is constructed in a
manner similar to the Sloop Island Canal Boat. The post appears to be rectangular with the
rabbet formed by fastening additional frames on either side of the sternpost.
The bottom of the boat contains three types of longitudinal features: chine logs, sister
keelsons, and a keelson. These run the length of the vessel. The boat has transverse ceiling, large
sections of which are no longer present. Short sections of the sides are still standing where they
were attached to the intact bow and stern. Several hanging knees are attached to these portions
and fastened to deckbeams, which have collapsed into the interior of the canal boat.
Although Wreck D does not contain any evidence of cargo, its location indicates it was
lost unintentionally. It is located in the broad lake several miles from any likely homeport.
Vessels that are scuttled tend to be sent to the bottom in proximity to a port.
Wreck G
Wreck G was located during the 1996 Lake Survey, and was documented in 1997 by the
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and Texas A&M University’s Institute of Nautical
140
Archaeology. During this investigation the exterior of the vessel was recorded in detail, but
time did not allow thorough documentation of the interior. No excavation was undertaken, so
only those interior elements not covered by sediment were recorded. The site was thoroughly
documented with both still and video photography.
Wreck G is in fair condition. It has an overall length of 95 feet 9 inches (29.2 m), a
maximum beam of 18 feet 6 inches (5.6 m), and an estimated height of approximately 10 feet (3
m). The vessel is a flat-bottomed, chine-built wooden canal boat with an edge-fastened hull.
Most of its principle elements remain intact, although substantial sections of the deck have
collapsed. The cabin trunk and roof are no longer extant. The bow and stern of the vessel are in
excellent condition.
Wreck G’s framed bow construction is similar to many other canal boats of this vintage.
It is built plank-on-frame, with the bow planking woven into the side planking in an alternating
pattern. The exterior of the bow was reinforced by a series of six rub rails. All were made of
wood except for the uppermost port side rub rail, which is iron. The stem is made up of two
timbers: a rabbeted true stem to seat the hood ends of the hull planking, and a false stem
attached to the first timber’s forward edge. The height of the stem, measured from the upper
end to the keel, is 11 feet 3 inches (3.4 m). The stem is sheathed in iron along its flat forward
surface for protection against wear and impact.
A bow windlass and the bitts it was attached to now rest upside down along the wreck’s
port side. They were probably ripped out at the time of sinking by ropes that could not be freed
when the boat foundered.
The stern of Wreck G is in excellent condition. This type of stern is referred to as Type B.
It consists of a single horizontal transom log extending aft of the hull through which the
rudderpost passes. Wreck G was steered by an 8-foot (2.4 m) S-shaped tiller, which was
mortised into the top of the rudderpost. The rudder is a barn door shaped type with a tailboard.
A thick layer of silt complicated the recording of the vessel’s interior hull construction;
however, some of the principal timbers of Wreck G’s bottom construction were examined. The
keelson, made up of two timbers, runs the entire length of the vessel. The bottom timber is 10
inches (25.4 cm) moulded and 10 inches (25.4 cm) sided along its entire length. A second timber
is fastened directly on top of the keelson. Its dimensions are 5 inches (12.7 cm) moulded and 6
inches (15.2 cm) sided from the bow to crossbeam two, and 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) moulded and 10
inches (25.4 cm) sided from crossbeam two aft. Three sister keelsons are present on each side of
the keelson. The first is spaced 20 inches (50.8 cm) from the keelson, and the other two are
spaced 14 in (36.6 cm) apart. The sister keelsons are 4 inches (10.2 cm) moulded and 7 inches
(17.8 cm) sided.
The deck of Wreck G is supported by large transverse deck beams and a series of half
beams from the beginning of the cargo hatch aft to the forward edge of the cabin. These deck
beams are reinforced with stanchions fastened to the keelson and beams with iron bands. Half
beams also supported the booby hatch aft of the cabin. The beams at the bow average 5 inches
(12.7 cm) sided. The half beams average 4 inches (10.2 cm) sided
and 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) molded. On average, they are spaced 8 in (20.3 cm) apart. The outboard
edges of the beams are nailed to shelf timbers that run the entire length of the vessel, just below
the deck planking. The inboard ends of the half beams are attached to the underside of the
cargo hatch coaming for support. The timbers used for the hatch coamings are 4 in (10.2 cm)
molded, (sided dimension not available), and consist of multiple pieces scarfed together.
141
The booby hatch measures 6.75 feet (2.04 m) long and 9 feet (2.75 m) wide. Positioned
equidistant from each side, it would have been covered while the vessel was underway by a
strong hatch cover on which the helmsman stood. The cover, however, is missing and likely
floated away when the vessel sank. The cargo hatch, which was likely covered by a canvas, is 61
feet (18.6 m) long and 8 feet (2.44 m) wide. Between the aft end of the hatch and the cabin is a
strip of deck planking used as a crossover. The two complete planks are 18 inches (45.7 cm) in
width, and would have provided just enough space to walk across safely. Wreck G originally
had a cabin typical of this class of canal boat. While the cabin trunk and roof are no longer
present, the area of the cabin is delineated by coaming in the stern and the transverse walkway
forward.
No evidence indicates that the vessel was carrying a cargo at the time of its sinking, but
certain artifacts suggest that it was occupied. The wood-burning stove rests near the starboard
side of the cabin, and earthenware crocks are visible in the sediment. At the bow, in what could
have been a separate cabin for a crew member, was a small, simple pot-bellied stove and
additional ceramic storage containers. Also, the presence of parts of a simple burr pump in the
central area of the hull aft of amidships suggests that at the time of its sinking the pump was not
in use and the sinking was sudden and unexpected by its crew. In addition to these signs of
occupation, damage to the bow suggests that it underwent tremendous strain when the vessel
sank. The vessel’s windlass sustained considerable damage and was apparently ripped
violently out of the bow, and an iron cleat once located on the port side of the fore deck was
pulled out and broken in half.
This combined evidence hints at a possible scenario of events. The vessel was probably
under tow when it sought shelter from strong winds on the lee side of a point of land. The
sinking probably occurred very suddenly. Serviceable artifacts were not removed from the
vessel, and crew members were unable to remove tow and other securing lines before the vessel
went under, causing considerable damage to the boat.
Wreck N
Wreck N was located by LCMM in 1997 during its Lake Survey Project and was
investigated via ROV later in the same season. This deep-water wreck is the best-preserved
example of an 1873-class standard canal boat in Lake Champlain (Figure 51). The sedimentation
pattern around the wreck is highly unusual. Both the bow and stern are completely exposed,
however, amidships the boat is buried almost up to its gunwales. The boat sank unexpectedly
as evidenced by its coal cargo and two bow anchors.
The boat has a single large open cargo hatch, which is supported by a series of beams,
standing knees, and stanchions. The coal cargo nearly rises to the deck beams, and has spilled
out onto the deck in the bow. The bow houses typical features for this type of boat including a
windlass attached to two bitt posts and two anchors. The gunwale in the port bow has a fairlead
attached to it and a hole just abaft it for a pump box. There was likely a corresponding fairlead
on the starboard side.
Wreck N’s most extraordinary feature is the well-preserved cabin trunk and roof. The
cabin trunk contains two arched windows on each side, which are covered by sliding shutters.
The forward face of the cabin trunk has two windows, whereas the after face has one window
and the companionway entrance. The window frames and shutters are identical to those found
on the Sloop Island Canal Boat. Aft of the cabin is the boat’s booby hatch. The presence of coal
around this hatch indicates that it was used for loading cargo in the stern, and not as a living
142
area or workshop. Wreck N has a Type A stern through which the rudderpost passes. The
rudderpost is attached to a barn door rudder, and the rudder extension or tailboard is partially
deployed. There is no stern windlass as appears on the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
The resemblance of Wreck N to the Sloop Island Canal Boat is striking. The vessels have
identical windows and shutters in the cabin trunk; both have Type A sterns that are planked in
the same style and the rudderpost just above the rudder is beveled in the same unique manner.
There are a few differences, however, including the lack of a wheel on Wreck N and the absence
of a walkway in front of the cabin. The lack of these features and a fairlead on the bow indicates
this boat was the second vessel in a tandem tow or doubleheader. The Sloop Island Canal Boat
is an example of a lead boat in a similar arrangement. It is highly likely that Wreck N and the
Sloop Island Canal Boat were constructed at the same boat yard.
Figure 51. Preliminary plan view of Wreck N (LCMM Collection, by Chris Sabick)
Wreck V
Wreck V is the intact bow of a canal boat in Willsboro Bay, near the site of a known
shipyard. It is currently unknown how this portion of the wreck came to be in this location, but
the wreckage has some archaeological potential and may be more fully documented in future
field seasons. An assemblage of partial hulls in Willsboro Bay has prompted research into the
theory that this area may have served as a “ship graveyard” for vessels that had reached the
end of their useful lives. While this hypothesis is so far unconfirmed, research continues.
143
Wreck X (NYSM 11414)
Wreck X was reported by regional divers, and was preliminarily examined by staff from
the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum in 2002. The structure consists of the bow section of an
1873-class canal boat. The remains are lying with the exterior side down, leaving only the
interior of the structure exposed for documentation. The canal boat bow was approximately 17
feet (5.2 m) wide and 13 feet (4 m) deep with a modest transverse curvature. Its components
include the stem, four breasthooks, two bits, framing, ceiling, standing knees, and planking.
This portion of the canal boat was constructed using the plank-on-frame method, and
would likely have been joined to an edge-fastened hull. The outboard edges of the planking are
staggered in a regular fashion so that they could be woven into the hull planking of an edge
fastened hull. This type of construction is considered typical for canal boats of this era. The bow
was secured to the bottom of the hull via standing knees at the base of the bow. These knees
were likely fastened into a breasthook in the base of the hull. The bow framing is vertical and
tightly spaced, although it is largely obscured by ceiling. The most prominent features of the
bow are five breasthooks. The topmost breasthook was 7 feet 6 inches (2.3 m) long, while the
lower four are 10 feet 3 inches (3.1 m) long. Each breasthook has a modest curvature that
parallels the shape of the bow. Two bitts for the windlass are fastened perpendicularly to the
breasthooks. These bitts begin just below the top of the stem and terminate at the lowest
breasthook, without extending all the way to the bottom of the hull. An iron tie rod connects the
two bitts just above deck level.
Wreck VV (VT-GI-23)
Wreck VV (VT-GI-23) is an 1873-class canal boat investigated in 1983 as part of a
Nautical Archaeology Course for local recreational divers. Led by dive instructor Arthur Cohn,
(now director of LCMM), the class devoted two days to recording the remains of the “Alburg
Wreck” (Figure 52). Wreck VV has a length of 96 feet 4 inches (29.4 m) and a breadth of 17 feet 4
inches (5.3 m). The vessel is poorly preserved with only the bottom of the hull remaining intact.
Significant portions of the wreck, especially toward the stern, were overlain with sediments,
making a full recording of the vessel impossible.
Wreck VV was edge-fastened. The transverse bottom planking is overlain by the
longitudinally-oriented chine logs, bilge stringers, and keelson. The bilge stringers have room
and space of 12 to 14 inches (30.5-35.6 cm), and are 3 to 5 inches (7.6-12.7 cm) sided and 4 inches
(10.2 cm) molded. Each bilge stringer was constructed of several timbers joined together via
simple lap joints. Wreck VV’s most interesting feature is its breasthook. This large member
curves across the entire breadth of the bottom of the hull in the bow. This unusually large
timber was constructed by laminating multiple layers of 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick boards together.
The breasthook seems to have also served the function of a chine log; the vertically oriented
bow frames are mortised into the breasthook. The bow’s curvature is reminiscent of that found
on Wreck A.
144
Figure 52. Plan view of Wreck VV showing the bottom of the hull in the bow (LCMM
Collection, drawn by Arthur Cohn, inked by Adam Loven).
145
146
CHAPTER 10: THE SLOOP ISLAND CANAL BOAT WRECK
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is a large wooden structure lying on an otherwise
featureless bottom. At 97 feet (29.6 m) long, 17 feet (5.2 m) wide and standing 10 feet (3.1 m)
proud of the bottom the structure of the wreck is truly impressive (Figure 28 and Plate 1). One
way to grasp the scale of the boat is to imagine that if it stood on end its height would be
equivalent to a nine-story building. Its cargo capacity (98 short tons or 9800 ft2 [277.6 m2]) is
roughly equivalent to two standard 40 foot (12.2 m) long tractor-trailer containers. In 2002 and
2003, this large submerged structure received 298 research dives, most of which were devoted
to recording the canal boat’s construction. The vessel’s hull is the largest and most complex
artifact studied during this investigation.
SITE CONDITION
In terms of understanding canal boat construction, the boat’s exceptional preservation
made it an ideal candidate for archaeological documentation. Many shipwreck studies
document a relatively small preserved section of the hull and reconstruct the rest of the vessel
by combining the extant archaeological data with historical information. In the case of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat, however, the boat’s structure is at least ninety-five percent complete,
allowing an accurate set of plans to be drafted based almost exclusively on the shipwreck
remains.
The canal boat’s study was aided significantly by environmental conditions at the site.
The vessel sits upright on a hard clay bottom in an area that has had little sedimentation since
the boat’s sinking. The boat has settled into the bottom sediments approximately 1 foot (30.5
cm); however, the hindrance of this settling was reduced for the archaeologists by a 1 to 2 foot
(30.5 to 61 cm) deep natural scour surrounding the boat. The chine log at the very bottom of the
hull was readily accessible in many locations. This gave LCMM archaeologists the significant
advantage of not needing to excavate sediments to expose the vessel’s structural timbers, with
the exception of the boat’s bottom within its interior.
At 85 feet (25.9 m), the site’s depth is considered advantageous. The vessel has not been
subject to waves and ice damage, which severely impacts shallow sites. The low ambient light
and cold temperatures at this depth also deterred the growth of aquatic vegetation, and, in
general, slowed the boat’s decay. Eighty-five feet (25.9 m) is also at the far end of the range for
zebra mussels. Although there were some zebra mussels present, especially on iron features,
their numbers were not significant enough to hamper documentation.
The only noteworthy hindering factor in the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s documentation
was its cargo full of coal, which made the study of the interior bottom of the hull impossible.
LCMM researchers devoted several dives to excavating a trench in the coal to expose at least a
small portion of the interior; however, this proved impractical. Chunks of coal continually
slumped into the excavated hole and the excavation itself had to be done in zero visibility
conditions due to sediments disturbed during that work. After considerable effort with little in
return, LCMM researchers abandoned this effort.
147
Figure 53. Perspective view of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, by Adam Kane).
148
WOOD IDENTIFICATION RESULTS
During the study of the Sloop Island Canal Boat, samples were taken from the vessel’s
wooden components for species identification. The construction narrative for the canal boat’s
sub-components contains information about the type of wood used to make each structural
member; however, a discussion of the broader results of the wood identification is appropriate
here. Sixty-five wood samples were taken yielding eight different types of wood: elm (5), maple
(1), red oak (1), southern yellow pine (4), spruce (6), white ash (3), white oak (17), and white
pine (28).
The largest wood type represented in the timbers sampled is the white pine (pinus
strobes) consisting of forty-three percent of the wood samples. This species of pine is found
primarily in Great Lake’s region, the Northeast, and the Appalachian region. In the early 1800s
the supply of white pine in the United States and Canada was immense with individual trees
approaching 150 feet (45.7 m) in height and over 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter. White pine’s value
as a shipbuilding wood, especially for spars, made it one of the first trees to be exhausted in
coastal New England. Through the 1800s the harvesting of white pine trees moved steadily west
through New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Writing in
1882, Henry Hall noted the cutting of white pine trees had moved to Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota; however even that far west the large specimens of white pine “will be totally
exterminated within the next ten or twelve years.” 459 For shipbuilding purposes, the wood is
considered light in weight, low in strength, soft in hardness, very coarse straight-grain, and is
very susceptible to splitting. The decay resistance of the heartwood is moderate. 460 White pine is
most suitable for decking, cabins, and spars. 461
In the construction of the Sloop Island Canal Boat, white pine was used for a wide range
of features. The major structural use for the wood was in the planking along the vessel’s vertical
sides, deck beams, decking, and coamings. These features represent the majority of the total
structure of the vessel. Inside the cabin white pine was used structurally for the cabin floor
joists, flooring, roof, and roof rafters. It was also used for many other non-structural cabin
features such as the doors, window frames, shutters, and moldings.
The second most common wood type used in the building of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat was white oak (quercus alba), representing twenty-six percent of the samples. White oak
was historically the most common wood used in North American shipbuilding. It is
characterized as heavy, hard, stiff, strong, and resistant to splitting. It also holds fastenings well,
has excellent shock-resisting ability, and bends well. 462 These attributes led to the continuous
depletion of white oak resources in the United States and Canada throughout the nineteenth
century. Prior to European colonization extensive oak forests were found in the Northeast, the
Mississippi Valley, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Great Lakes region. In 1882, Hall notes that the
supply of white oak had been largely exhausted along the entire Atlantic coast; however, some
reserves remained in Vermont, the Delmarva Peninsula, the Appalachian Mountains, and the
Mississippi Valley. 463
The limited use of white oak in the construction of the Sloop Island Canal Boat is
reflective of its scarcity in the late nineteenth century. White oak was employed for structural
members that required strength or were subject to extensive wear and so all were made of white
oak. The boat’s white oak stem, sternpost, and transom beam all needed to be strong; while the
boat’s bitts, bow planking, stern fenders, bow rub rails, and rudderpost were all subject to
149
considerable wear. The sparing use of white oak in the Sloop Island Canal Boat can be
contrasted with its extensive use in the canal schooner General Butler. Built in 1862 in Essex,
New York, white oak was the dominant wood type used in General Butler’s construction. Of the
seventy wood samples removed from the wreck during the 1993 and 1995 archaeological
fieldwork, fifty-eight percent, (thirty-eight), were white oak. White oak was used for coamings,
deck beams, framing, planking, sternpost, and stem in that vessel. 464
Spruce (picea spp.) represents nine percent of the wood samples taken from the Sloop
Island Canal Boat. The wood has moderate strength, stiffness, toughness, moderate fine grain,
and medium hardness, but it is not resistant to decay or to splitting. 465 Spruce has limited uses
as a shipbuilding wood, although was commonly used for spars. On the Sloop Island Canal
Boat spruce was used for knees, and inside the cabin for components not exposed to water.
Wood samples of elm (ulmus) represent eight percent of those taken from the Sloop
Island Canal Boat. Elm is characteristically heavy, strong, shock resistant, moderately hard, and
very good at resisting splintering. It also has the quality of good decay resistance when
continually submerged below water. Elm was commonly used for the keels of English
warships. 466 On the Sloop Island Canal Boat elm was used primarily for framing the bow.
Southern yellow pine was represented in six percent of the wood samples. This type of
pine falls under the hard pine group. 467 Among the softwoods, southern yellow pine has the
best combination of properties required for shipbuilding timbers. It is moderately hard and
strong, has good decay resistance, and holds fasteners well. Southern yellow pine is found in a
belt running approximately 100 miles (160.9 km) in from the seacoast starting in southern
Virginia and all the way to Texas, with the exception of the lower part of Louisiana. 468 On the
Sloop Island Canal Boat the principle application of southern yellow pine was for knees.
White ash constituted five percent of the samples recovered from the Sloop Island Canal
Boat. White ash is heavy, strong, hard, stiff, has a high resistance to shock, and good resistance
to splintering. Ash has only limited shipbuilding applications because of its tendency to rot
when exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions. 469 It is primarily used for handles and
oars. 470 On the Sloop Island Canal Boat white ash was used for the bilge pump pole and box,
and the transom framing.
Red oak (Quercus rubra or falcata) is represented in only one sample. It is similar in most
of its properties to white oak, although it is less decay resistant and was not a commonly used
as a boat building timber. 471 On the Sloop Island Canal Boat red oak was used for the
companionway coaming in the bow.
One example of maple (acer) was found among the wood samples. Maple is not
commonly used as a shipbuilding wood. It is heavy, moderately hard, strong, stiff, and has a
good resistance to splintering; however, it has low resistance to decay. Maple was used for the
transom fender on the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
The overall results of the wood identification from the Sloop Island Canal Boat reflect on
both the structural requirements for components of the vessel and the availability of natural
resources in the late nineteenth century. The construction of wooden watercraft like the Sloop
Island Canal Boat required tremendous volumes of lumber. During the era of wooden
shipbuilding the availability of timber was a primary factor in the prosperity of the
shipbuilding industry in any region. This natural resource was continually being depleted;
during the nineteenth century at no time did the volume of maturing timber ever nearly equal
the quantity cut for ship construction and other purposes. 472 The waning supply of good ship
timber in the Northeastern portion of the United States is reflected in the wood types used in
150
the Sloop Island Canal Boat. It is most clearly seen in the decreasing proportion of slow growing
white oak employed relative to the increasing amount of relatively rapid growing white pine.
EDGE-FASTENING CONSTRUCTION
The Sloop Island Canal Boat was built using the edge-fastening construction technique
rather than the more traditional plank-on-frame method. In plank-on-frame construction a
ship’s hull is commonly described as being like a human torso. The backbone of the ship is its
keel, while the frames form its ribs. Water is kept out of the hull by planking, which creates a
skin over the framing. This simplified, but useful analogy does not work for an edge-fastened
hull that derives its strength largely from the planking of the hull rather than a skeleton-like
internal framing system.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s vertical sides are fastened with iron drift bolts driven
down into the edges of the planking. Each side of the hull was built up one strake at a time with
drift bolts driven with spike mauls down through an auger hole into one, two, or three strakes
below. The result was that the planks were thoroughly locked together. They acted as a single
timber, lending significant longitudinal strength to the hull thus countering the tendency for the
vessel to hog or sag. Within the planks, the drift bolts eventually rusted and became more
firmly embedded, imparting longitudinal strength to the vessel by joining the strakes together
to form a rigid shell. No amount of working of the vessel’s hull would loosen the drift bolts. 473
This technique was used extensively in the latter half of the nineteenth century for
building canal boats. The technique was used to assemble the bottom, sides, and decks of the
vessels. Their extreme length to breadth ratio, vertical sides and flat bottoms made them ideally
suited to this method. An additional benefit of edge-fastening construction was that it was less
costly than traditional shipbuilding techniques in both materials and labor. White pine planks
could be substituted for the more costly white oak, and since this type of construction required
carefully shaped frames only in the bow fewer skilled boat builders were needed. Edgefastening reduced the cost of boat building by replacing expensive hand shaped timbers and
skilled labor with cheaper grades of milled wood, widely available iron, and unskilled labor. 474
The use of edge-fastening construction on the Sloop Island Canal Boat dictated its
construction sequence: bottom, sides, bow and stern, and deck. Unfortunately, the boat’s coal
cargo entirely obscures the bottom of the hull making its documentation impossible; however,
archaeological studies of edge-fastened barges and other canal boats have documented the
construction techniques used for this area of the hull. Based on these studies the bottom likely
consisted of longitudinal stringers, chine logs, and a keelson, and transverse planking and
ceiling. The vertical sides of the hull were next built up upon the chine logs. One strake was
installed at a time with each strake edge-fastened to the strake beneath it. With the sides
completed the distantly spaced futtocks and deck beams were installed. Next, the bow and
stern were built, both using the plank-on-frame technique rather than edge-fastening
construction. The stern was constructed of transversely oriented strakes fastened to the
sternpost and internal framing. The bluff bow was built of vertical futtocks with planking and
wales attached to their exterior and breasthooks to the interior. The edge-fastened side planking
just aft of the bow was cut out in a staggered pattern to receive the planks from the bow. The
deck was installed next, followed by the hatch coamings and cabin trunk and roof.
151
HULL ANALYSIS
The hull of the Sloop Island Canal Boat was the largest, most complex artifact studied
during this project (see Plate 1). To facilitate the analysis of its construction we divided the
structure into ten sub-components: the bottom amidships, sides, internal framing, bow, stern,
decking, coamings, cabin, booby, and deck equipment. To the lay reader these sections may
present an array of nautical terms unknown to them; most of these terms are defined in the
glossary. Two shipbuilding terms that describe the dimensions of timbers deserve mentioning
here, as they are used so frequently in the text: molded and sided. The sided dimension is the
width of a timber as seen in the plan view of a vessel, whereas the molded dimension is the
height as seen in a profile view.
Bottom
The bottom of the canal boat was not accessible for documentation due to the vessel’s
coal cargo. Based on other archaeological studies of edge-fastened canal boats and barges and
contemporary accounts, it is possible to generalize about the construction of this portion of the
hull. According to historical accounts, the bottom would have been built of a keelson, several
bilge stringers, two chine logs, transverse planking, and possibly ceiling. Of these various
components the chine logs were the only members that were partially documented during the
survey. The outboard edges of the chine logs were accessible from the exterior of the hull; they
are 7 inches (17.8 cm) molded.
Contemporary accounts of canal boat construction indicate the bottom planking could
be either 2-inch thick maple planks held in place by spikes or 4-inch edge-fastened spruce
planks, called a bolted bottom. The spruce planks were held together with 0.75-inch (1.9 cm)
drift bolts, 18 to 24 inches (45.7-61 cm) in length, called short drift iron. Boats that had edgefastened spruce bottom planking usually did not have any ceiling. 475 The longitudinally
oriented bilge stringers or sister keelsons and keelson would have been bolted on top of the
bottom planking. In boats with ceiling the keelson would be constructed of two oak timbers, the
lower of which was 12 inches (30.5 cm) sided and 5 inches (12.7 cm) molded and ran the length
of the vessel. The second timber, 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided and 12 inches (30.5 cm) molded, was
stacked atop the first and they were drift bolted together. The ledge that was created along the
top surface of the first timber was used to carry the ends of the ceiling. 476
Sides
The sides of the Sloop Island Canal Boat represent a large proportion of the overall
structure of the vessel. Amidships the sides are 9 feet 10 inches (3.0 m) high composed of edgefastened white pine strakes. Each strake is 3 inches (7.6 cm) thick and ranges in width from 5 to
14 inches (12.7-35.6 cm). Remnants of white paint were observed in some areas, especially on
the starboard side. The documentation of the sides focused on the port side because this area
had some structural damage allowing researchers to view its edge-fastenings.
For most of the vessel’s length its sides were vertical with each side running parallel to
the other. However, in the boat stern the sides tapered inward. At the transom the breadth of
the hull was 16 feet 2 inches (4.9 m), as compared to 17 feet 9 inches (5.41 m) for the bulk of the
hull. According to Frank Godfrey, a canal boatman, this feature was diagnostic of boats built
before 1905. 477 The tapering in the stern was accompanied by the attachment of frogs, or small
152
white oak fenders on each side at the stern. The frogs were designed to protect the ends of the
stern planks from being torn loose when the boat was coming out of the lock. 478 The Sloop
Island Canal Boat has six wooden frogs located one above another, with 5 to 10 inches (12.7-25.4
cm) between each. Each frog is approximately 2 feet 6 inches long (76.2 cm), 1.5 inches (3.8 cm)
thick, and 3.5 to 4 inches (8.9-10.2 cm) wide. Their after ends are located 4 inches (10.2 cm) from
the after end of the side.
The sides of the hull were edge-fastened with 0.75-inch (1.9 cm) diameter iron drift bolts.
The hull is in such good condition that observing the pattern used to edge-fasten the strakes
together was difficult. Only one significant portion of the port side of the hull was damaged
enough to examine the drift bolts. This area did not show any definitive pattern in the edgefastenings. The drift bolts seem to be randomly spaced with each drift bolt driven through two
planks.
Each side strake was made up of several planks. For the most part, planks were scarfed
together with an “S” or “Z” scarf. These scarfs were between 2 and 3 feet (61-91 cm) long.
Several butt joints were also noted in the construction of the side. These were located in the
gunwale and the first strake below the gunwale. These butt joints may represent areas of
planking that had been replaced. Butt joints were also used to join the side planking to the bow
planking. Many contemporary photographs of 1873-class canal boats show one or two wales
running down the entire side of the boat. This feature is absent on the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Although the widths of individual side strakes vary, along the run of the hull all strake seams
run parallel to each other. These types of horizontal seams were expected on a vertically sided
edge-fastened vessel. The only exception to this rule is in the stern where one stealer is found.
Each side of the vessel contains ten scuppers. The scuppers are cut out of the gunwale
with each between 12 and 15 inches (31-38 cm) long and 2 to 2.5 inches (5.1-6.4 cm) in height.
The scuppers are not evenly spaced; they are more tightly spaced at the stern than in the bow.
The first four scuppers are all spaced 5 feet 4 inches and 5 feet 7 inches (1.63-1.7 m) from each
other, while the three forwardmost scuppers are separated by spaces of 12 feet and 12 feet 2
inches (3.66-3.71 m). Two scuppers, the sixth and seventh forward of the stern, are sited based
on avoiding scarf joints in the gunwale. These two scuppers are placed only 4ft from each other
in a portion of the gunwale, which is 14 feet 2 inches (4.32 m) long. This spacing is likely to
reduce the amount of water from bow waves from entering through the forward scuppers.
153
Internal Framing
The method used to frame the Sloop Island Canal Boat is directly related to the use of
edge-fastening for its sides. In plank-on-frame vessels, the framing gives the hull much of its
strength; in edge-fastening construction the hull’s strength resides in the edge-fastened sides.
Thus, the framing serves the purpose of supporting the deck above and keeping the sides from
splaying apart or collapsing inward. On the Sloop Island Canal Boat, the typical framing at a
deck beam cross-section consists of a deck beam that is supported on its outboard edges by
hanging knees and at its center by a stanchion and saddle. These sets of framing were regularly
spaced at just over 13 foot (3.96 m) intervals inside the cargo hold and otherwise were
positioned underneath the end of each hatch coaming. Both the bow and stern also have
framing; however, these elements are discussed in those respective sections.
Each framing cross-section has two spruce hanging knees that are bolted to the side of
the hull and the deck beam above. The height of each knee is uncertain because the bottoms
extend into the coal cargo. They are almost certainly paired with a standing knee in the bottom
of the hull. The knees were typically 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided (Figure 54 and Figure 55).
The center of the deck beam is supported by a six-inch by six-inch (15.2 by 15.2 cm)
white pine stanchion. Although the bottoms of all stanchions are buried in the coal cargo, their
bases are almost certainly mortised into the keelson. An elm saddle is positioned on top of the
stanchion and below the deck beam. The saddle serves to distribute the force of the lift of the
stanchion to a larger area of the deck beam. Each saddle is between 3 feet 5 inches and 3 feet 7
inches (1.04-1.09 m) long, 4 to 5 inches (10.2-12.7 cm) molded, and 7 to 8 inches (17.8-20.3 cm)
sided.
The white pine deck beams span the breadth of the hull. Each beam is 16 feet 8 inches
(5.08 m) long, 12 to 15 inches (30.5-38.1 cm) molded, and 7 to 8 inches (17.8-20.3 cm) sided. The
underside of the beam is horizontal while the upper face is slightly arched. This arch gives the
deck its crown, allowing it to shed water. The deck beams exposed in the cargo hold are
constructed of two timbers while the other beams are made of one. The cargo hatch beams also
have a larger molded dimension than the other beams, and have a two-inch (5.1 cm) thick layer
of sacrificial planking laid over their upper face. These differences are evidence of the stress
placed on deck beams in the hold as cargoes, such as coal, were loaded into the hull.
The junction between the deck beam, saddle, and stanchion at each framing section was
secured with a 3-inch (7.6 cm) wide iron strap. The bottom of the strap was buried in the coal
cargo; however, the exposed portion ran up the after face of the stanchion, saddle and deck
beam and then the end of the strap is bent over the top and down the forward face of the deck
beam.
154
Figure 54. Transverse cross section located amidships (by Erick Tichonuk, LCMM Collection).
Figure 55. Transverse cross section located at the forward end of the cabin (Erick Tichonuk,
LCMM Collection).
155
Bow Construction
The design and construction of the bow section of the Sloop Island Canal Boat is
completely different in design from that seen in the rest of the hull. Whereas the majority of the
vessel relies on solid walls of edge-fastened planks for its strength, the bow, with its complex
shape, demonstrates a more traditional shipbuilding technique based on planking supported by
internal framing. The bow of the Sloop Island Canal Boat was certainly one of the most difficult
portions of the hull to design and construct due to its elaborate curvature, massive
reinforcement, and the issue of connecting it to the hull.
From its juncture with the sides of the canal boat, the bow continues the boxy shape
forward for a short distance before curving sharply toward the stem. The curvature of the
forward quarters of the bow is so drastic that at the point the planking reaches the stem it is
almost perpendicular to the sides. In addition to these dramatic curves, the top of the bow rakes
aft approximately 12 inches (30.5 cm) from its forwardmost point near the waterline. Historic
documentation indicates that this odd stem shape was adopted to allow for the attachment of a
lantern to the front of the stem. This placement of the bow lantern was necessary so that it
would not stand too tall to clear low bridges or be crushed when the bow impacted the canal, a
dock, or another vessel. 479
The frequent contact of the bow withthe walls of locks, the canal prism, and other canal
boats required extremely strong reinforcement of this portion of the vessel. The reinforcement
takes several forms, including an extremely strong bottom structure, a series of substantial
breasthooks, and closely spaced framing. Below, the elements of the bow are described in the
order in which they were assembled by the shipwright. Unfortunately, the exact construction of
the lowest portions of the bow are unknown because this section is inaccessible due to the cargo
of coal shifted forward and filled a large portion of the forecastle at the time of its sinking.
Therefore, the bottom structure of the bow is reconstructed from historical documentation
describing similar vessels.
According to historical accounts, an athwartship timber known as the mud sill is found
at the point where the edge-fastened hull meets the bow. The mud sill lies directly below the
forward most deck beam and completes the “box” of the hold. The mud sill is typically 10
inches (25.4 cm) molded and 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided. At its outboard ends, the mud sill is
notched into the chine log. Amidships, the mud sill is notched to allow the keelson to pass
beneath it and notched down from the top to allow a rider keelson, running the length of the
vessel, to pass over. In addition to these notches, the eight sister keelsons, which extend from
the stern, terminate as tenons into the mud sill.
Forward of the mudsill, the flat bottom of the Sloop Island Canal Boat was likely built
with a slight angle upward in a fore-and-aft direction. This feature of the hull is to reduce the
chances of the vessel’s bottom from snagging on obstructions in shallow water. This is a very
slight incline totaling only 4 inches (10 cm) and equals the thickness of the keelson. The bottom
face of the keelson is also angled upward and diminishes as it travels forward to the point
where it intersects with the stem. Since the strength of this timber is reduced as it travels
forward, it is reinforced by a 10 inch (25.4 cm) sided and 12 inch (30.5 cm) molded rider keelson.
The rider keelson begins at a point 24 inches (61 cm) aft of the mud sill and at its forward end it
is scarfed to the stem.
Forward of, and parallel to, the mud sill are probably a series of timbers called cross
bow floors. These transverse floors stretch across the breadth of the vessel and are attached to
156
the bases of the curved futtocks that define the shape of the bow. Therefore, the spacing of the
cross bow floor timbers is determined by the arrangement of the futtocks; so as they get closer
to the stem, they are more closely spaced and shorter in length. The floors are sided 4 inches
(10.2 cm) and fashioned to be flush with the top of the mudsill so they vary in their molded
dimensions.
Atop the cross bow floors, and perpendicular to them, (i.e., longitudinally), are probably
another set of floor timbers that stretch from the after edge of the mud sill to the foot of the
futtocks. These floors are more closely spaced outboard than inboard due to the arrangement of
the futtocks. These floors are molded 5 inches (12.7 cm) and sided 4 inches (10.2 cm). This
molded dimension makes them flush with the top of the rider keelson allowing level ceiling
planking to be laid in the forecastle.
According to historical accounts, the bow frames and futtock timbers are probably
joined together by a pair of two inch (5.1 cm) thick by six inch (15.2 cm) wide planks that extend
around the circumference of the bow called the bow band. These planks are located along the
foot of the outboard edge of the futtocks, which are notched to seat them. They are fastened to
the futtocks and floor timbers by 0.75 inch (2 cm) thick threaded bolts with nuts on the inboard
end.
The profile of the Sloop Island Canal Boat bow is determined by its white oak stem. This
timber appears to have been crafted from a single piece of complexly shaped compass timber. In
profile the stem is shaped like a “lazy S” with the top of the timber raked aft 12 inches (30.5 cm)
from its forward most projection. The portion of the stem exposed above deck measures 9
inches (22.9 cm) molded and 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) sided with chamfered edges. The forward face
of the stem is protected by a 1-inch (2.5 cm) thick iron plate, which wraps over the top of the
timber as well. Below the under deck breasthook, the stem broadens inboard of the hull
planking to 12 inches (30.5 cm) sided and 10 inches (25 cm) molded with a projection on its
forward face that extends through the planking and is 3 inches (7.6 cm) molded and 6.5 inches
(16.5 cm) sided and retains the chamfered edges seen above deck. The difference in size
between the internal portion and the exposed section creates a surface on which the ends of the
bow planking are rabbeted. Though the bottom of the stem is not visible, it is believed that the
portion of the stem standing proud of the planking is gradually reduced until it is flush with the
strakes. At its lower aft end, the stem is scarfed into the rider keelson.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s curved outboard edges of the bow in plan view occur at
what might be called a soft or rounded right angle. The complex shape of the bow seen in plan
view is defined by the futtocks that were formed from elm compass timber (Figure 56). A total
of thirty-two futtocks, sixteen on each side of the stem and continuing around to the first deck
beam, support two-inch (5 cm) thick hull planking. The futtocks measure 5.5 inches (14 cm)
molded and between 3 and 3.75 inches (7.6-9.5 cm) sided. Spacing of the futtocks varies from 7
to 12 inches (17.8-30.5 cm) on their centers. The futtocks are more closely spaced at the soft right
angle or corner of the bow and the spacing gradually increases as the futtocks approach the
vertical sides of the hold and the stem.
157
Figure 56. Plan view of the bow with decking removed showing the framing pattern (by Chris
Sabick, LCMM Collection).
The structure of the bow below deck is heavily reinforced by an assembly of eight elm
timbers that form a large breasthook. These eight timbers are sided 6 inches (15.2 cm) and range
in thickness from 1.75 to 10 inches (4.4-25 cm). The timbers are constructed around the rider bits
and form the forward edge of the forecastle hatch. Timber 1, the forwardmost element, is
curved on its forward face to fit the shape of the bow and has a molded dimension of 10 inches
(25 cm). Timber 2 is molded 4 inches (10.1 cm); timber 3, 2.375 inches (6 cm); timber 4, 1.75
inches (4.4 cm); timber 5, 3.75 inches (9.5 cm); and timber 6, 3.25 inches (8.3 cm); timber 7, 2.75
inches (7 cm); and timber 8, 2.5 inches (6.4 cm). These timbers are further reinforced by large
lodging knees that butt against the after face of the breasthook and extend aft to the first main
hatch deck beam. As these knees do not fit the shape of the hull, a curved filler piece fills the
gap between the knees and frames. A second pair of smaller lodging knees strengthens the
juncture of the large knees with the hatch deck beam.
158
The structure of the bow is further reinforced by at least two laminated breasthooks.
These additional timbers are located inboard of the frames and are fastened to them; the
breasthooks extend from the stem in each direction around the curve of the bow back to the
starboard and port pump boxes just forward of the first major deck beam. The first laminated
breasthook is located 2 feet (61 cm) below the under deck breasthook; the second 2 feet (61 cm)
below the first. It is very likely that a third laminated breasthook is present in the bow below
those described, but this could not be proven at the time of this survey do to the presence of a
thick layer of silt and coal that has collected in the bow. These laminated breasthooks are
assembled from 4 inch (10.2 cm) wide 1.25 inch (3.2 cm) thick planks. In the forward portion of
the bow there are seven of these boards, giving the breasthook a molded dimension of 9 inches
(22.9 cm). Half way around the curve of the bow, the breasthooks are reduced to five planks
with a total molded dimension of 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). These breasthooks also support the large
chocks of wood that anchor the rider bitts to the bow below deck.
The forecastle storage space is separated from the cargo hold by a simple bulkhead
located 5 feet 9 inches (1.8 m) aft of the inner face of the stem. This bulkhead consists of vertical
white pine boards supported by two horizontal cross timbers, which are notched to rest on the
laminated breasthooks on either side of the vessel. The cross timbers are 4.5 inches (11.4 cm)
molded and 2 inches (5 cm) sided except where they are notched down to 2 inches (5 cm) square
to fit on the breasthooks. These timbers support the vertical 9 inch (22.9 cm) wide, 0.5 inch (1.3
cm) thick boards on their after side. As more than half of these boards have collapsed into the
bottom of the hold it is unclear whether any opening existed between the hold and forecastle,
however it is unlikely since there is no evidence of framing for a doorway.
Above deck, the bow of the vessel is supported by a large one-piece breasthook made of
white pine. The forward face of this timber is curved to fit the shape of the bow. Its maximum
length is 12 feet 6 inches (3.8 m) and the timber is 5 inches (12.7 cm) thick and sits 9 inches (22.8
cm) off the deck planking amidships. Six iron rings are bolted to the after face of the timber and
were used as attachment points for fenders that were hung off the bow of the canal boat to
protect it from collision with other vessels, docks, or the canal locks. The breasthook also
supports the upper portions of the rider bitts. The breasthook is notched 1 inch (2.5 cm) where
the bitts are fitted into it. An iron traveler is mounted into the upper surface of the breasthook
just aft of the stem. This traveler consists of a 20 -nch (50.8 cm) long iron horse, which is 2 inches
(5 cm) in diameter with a 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter iron ring attached.
In addition to the large main deck beams, the decking in the bow is supported by two
lightweight 4.5 inch (11.4 cm) by 4 inch (10.2 cm) beams that run athwartship. On either side of
the vessel, the deck beams rest on the breasthook knees. The forward most beam is located 18
inches (45.7 cm) aft of a massive bow deck beam and forms the after edge of the forecastle
hatch. The second light weight deck beam is located 15 inches (38 cm) aft of the first and the
main hatch deck beam is 15 inches (38 cm) further aft.
The white pine deck planking in the bow of the Sloop Island Canal Boat differs from that
alongside the cabin or hold. The majority of the vessels’ deck planking is edge fastened while
that in the bow and stern is fastened to deck beams with iron spikes. In the bow, the spikes were
countersunk in predrilled holes and covered by wooden plugs. The bow deck planks range in
width from 4.5 to 6 inches (11.4-15 cm) and have a thickness of 2 inches (5 cm). Access to the
forecastle was available from the deck through a small hatch located just aft of the rider bitts.
Two rectangular glass deck lights, measuring 10 inches (25.4 cm) long by 3 inches (7.6 cm) wide,
provided natural light into the interior of the forecastle. The deck lights are located 22 inches (56
159
cm) outboard of the forecastle hatch. The bottom surfaces of the glass have a convoluted surface
to diffuse light throughout the forecastle. These lights suggest someone may have been living or
working regularly in the bow with the hatch cover closed.
Figure 57. Plan view of the bow (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
Two large white oak rider bitts are built into the bow. These bits support an iron
windlass and are notched into the breasthook. The bits extend 2 feet 7 inches (78.7 cm) above
deck and 4 feet 8 inches (1.4 m) below deck. The bottom of the bits are not attached to the
bottom structure of the vessel but instead are connected to the below deck laminated
breasthooks with large wooden chocks fastened with 0.75 inch (1.9 cm) bolts and nuts. The
chocks are trapezoidal in shape, the forward faces are 30 inches (76.2 cm) and the aft faces
(against the bits) are 2 feet (61 cm), the chocks are 6 inches (15.2 cm) thick. Considerable wear is
evident on the bits suggesting that they had been used for many years.
An iron lined hawsehole is located on either side of the forecastle hatch, just aft of the
windlass drums. These holes would have allowed a line to come off the windlass drum and
pass through the deck into the forecastle storage area. These openings are located 11 inches (28
cm) outboard of the hatch and 3 feet (91.4 cm) from the bow of the vessel. The holes themselves
160
are 4 inches (10.2 cm) in diameter and the iron lining that surrounds the holes is 9 inches (22.9
cm) around.
Two line chocks were originally located in the bulwarks on either side of the stem,
though only the port side one still remains. Chocks are positioned there to guide line onto the
windlass drums. The opening in the line guides is 3 inches (7.6 cm) across and 4 inches (10.2 cm)
deep. The opening at the top of the chock for the line to pass through is 3 inches (7.6 cm) wide.
A thin iron sheet is tacked to the inside of the line chock to protect the wood from wear.
The juncture of the 4-inch (10.2 cm) thick side planking and the 2 inch (5 cm) thick white
oak (quercus alba) bow planking is intricate in design. At first, observation of the interlocking of
the two sets of planking seemed straightforward; some bow planks extend aft beyond the last
framing and some side planks come forward to be attached to the futtocks. Closer examination
revealed a complex system of inter-locking planks. The planks that form the strakes of the bow
are narrower than the wide planks of the side. Therefore some of the side planks are reduced in
width to accommodate the bow planks. Some side planks are even reduced in thickness with
the thinner bow planking overlapping, and fastened, to them. This system effectively combines
the separate constructions of the sides and the bow into a single unit.
The hull planking in the bow of the canal boat is protected by eight white oak timbers
known as rub rails. These timbers are not an integral part of the bow structure but are, rather,
timbers that were added as an extra measure of protection for the bow planking which would
have been constantly subjected to abuse in tows and in canal locks. These timbers do not follow
the planking runs but are merely fastened with iron spikes to the planks they cross. The rub
rails are 4 inches (10.2 cm) square and reinforced by a 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) thick iron plate on their
outboard face; they are spaced between 6 and 10 inches (15.2-25.4 cm) vertically. The timbers
begin at the stem and extend around the circumference of the bow to protect the bow side
juncture. In addition to protecting the bow, the rub rails were occasionally used as a ladder.
The bow portion of the Sloop Island Canal Boat demonstrates that the ship carpenters
who built it were quite adept at solving the difficult problems faced in its construction. They
were able to build an extremely strong and complexly shaped bow and to attach it securely to
the remainder of the vessel, which was built in an entirely different manner.
161
Stern
The Sloop Island Canal Boat has a style of stern that LCMM researchers have designated
as a type A stern. 480 The type A stern is characterized by a large overhanging curved upper
transom and a vertical lower transom. When viewed from behind, the upper transom is tallest
in the middle and tapers downward toward the sides, while from above it is curved slightly aft,
allowing the rudderpost to come up through just forward of the transom. This style is
diagnostic. It is indicative of canal boats built in the early years of the 1873-class of canal boat.
Boats of this style first appear on Lake Champlain, corresponding with the 1873 expansion of
the Champlain Canal locks and the consequent enlargement of the canal boats. Type A sterns
were constructed through the 1880s, but are eventually replaced with the easier to construct
Type B and C sterns. 481
The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s stern is divided into two areas: the upper transom and the
lower transom (Figure 58). The upper transom consists of the overhanging portion of the
transom upon which the name and homeport of the vessel was painted. The lower transom is
the vertical area below the upper transom.
The components of the upper transom include the transom log, framing, ceiling,
planking, wale, and taffrail. The transom log serves as the foundation for the upper transom
and also constitutes a considerable portion of the exposed face of the upper transom. This white
oak beam is 16 feet 8 inches (5.1 m) long, 7 inches (17.8 cm) molded, and its sided dimension
varies. The base of the transom log rests upon the sternpost, lower transom framing, planking,
and ceiling. The after edge of the transom log is curved in plan view, forming the exterior curve
of the transom. This curve protrudes 18 inches (45.7 cm) from the lower transom amidships and
is flush with the lower transom at the outboard edge of the transom log.
The upper face of the transom log is used to support ten vertically oriented white ash
frames. These frames are 3 to 3.5 inches (7.6-8.9 cm) molded and sided. The framing at the
upper transom’s outboard edge is composed of a small standing knee and a vertical frame. The
yellow pine standing knee is 5 inches (12.7 cm) sided at the bottom and 3 inches (7.6 cm) sided
at the top. The knee is fastened to a futtock on its outboard edge.
The upper transom framing has planking, ceiling, and a taffrail fastened to it. All three
of these components are white oak. The interior of the upper transom only has one extant
ceiling timber, but it is likely that the entire face was once covered. The one remaining piece of
ceiling, which is fastened just below the taffrail, is 2 inches (5.1 cm) thick and is between 4 and
7.5 inches (10.2-19.1 cm) wide. The 2 inch (5.1 cm) thick planking on the exterior of the upper
transom ranges from 3 to 8.5 inches (7.6-21.6 cm) wide. The planking conforms to the curvature
of the upper transom framing. The top of the transom is capped by a taffrail, which is a 2 inch
(5.1 cm) thick and 8 inch (20.3 cm) wide plank, which follows the curve of the transom.
162
Figure 58. Interior elevation of the upper and lower transom of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (by
Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
LCMM researchers were unfortunately not able to discern the most significant feature of
the upper transom. This portion of the boat once had the boat’s name and homeport painted on
it. Flecks of paint were clearly observed in this area, and even one small linear painted area that
was part of a letter. Despite best efforts, it was not possible to visually decipher the name of the
vessel from this extremely fragmentary evidence. This area of the hull was also examined with
underwater florescence technology to enhance our abilities but was unsuccessful.
The lower transom is composed of the sternpost, framing, planking, standing knees, and
ceiling. The central feature of the lower transom is the 7 feet 9 inches (2.4 m) tall, white oak
sternpost. Width measurements taken on the inboard and outboard faces of the sternpost were
both 8 inches (20.3 cm). This indicates that the sternpost does not have a rabbet for accepting the
planking which would make sternpost’s outboard face smaller than the inboard face. The
absence of a rabbet was made up for by fastening small southern yellow pine hanging knees on
the each side of the sternpost. These knees served as a shelf for fastening the planking.
The ten lower transom frames were composed of elm. These frames were 3 to 4 inches
(7.6-10.2 cm) molded and sided with a room and space between 13.5 to 15 inches (30.8-38.1 cm).
163
The lower transom framing has ceiling and planking fastened to it. The planking was oriented
horizontally with each plank spanning the distance from the outboard edge of the hull to the
sternpost. The stern planking is attached to the frames by iron nails.
It seems that the framing in the lower stern was at one time covered with ceiling.
However, much of the ceiling has fallen off and is lying in the booby. Four ceiling strakes were
still present, one just below the transom log and three near the silt line in the bottom of the
exposed booby.
Rudder Assembly
The canal boat’s rudder is of the type known as a barn door rudder, a name derived
from the resemblance of its large rectangular shape to a barn door. The rudder assembly is
composed of the tiller, rudderpost, blade, and tailboard. During the 2002 and 2003 fieldwork the
rudder assembly was still in place with the blade angled approximately 60° to port. Both the
rudderpost and the planks of the rudder blade are white oak, while the tiller was fashioned
from white pine.
The backbone of the rudder assembly is the vertically oriented rudderpost. It extends
from the bottom of the hull to 13.5 inches (30.8 cm) above the deck for a total height of 11 feet 4
inches (3.45 m). The rudderpost can be divided into an upper and lower section. The upper
portion passes through the transom, the section into which the tiller is notched. The lower
section is outside of the hull, the section to which the blade is attached.
The upper portion of the rudderpost is circular in cross-section with a diameter of 8
inches (20.3 cm). The top of the rudderpost extends above the deck 13.5 inches (34.3 cm). The
forward face of the rudderpost has a 5 inch (12.7 cm) sided and 3.5 inch (8.9 cm) molded mortise
designed to receive the tiller (Figure 59). The rudderpost is reinforced with iron bands both
above and below the mortise. The tiller is held into the rudderpost by two small iron rods with
turn buckles. Although the rods were no longer present, their attachment points on the tiller
and the rudder post were noted by the presence of iron bolts. This arrangement is present in
most contemporary images of northern canal boats.
164
Figure 59. Detailed drawing of the tiller and tiller bar extender bracket of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (by Pierre LaRocque, inked by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
The 6 foot 3 inch (1.91 m) long tiller is arched and tapers in all dimensions towards its
forward end. The tiller had an extension, of which two pieces of hardware remain attached to
the tiller. This hardware held a long tiller extension pole, effectively lengthening the tiller so
that the boat could be steered from atop the cabin roof. The forward piece of hardware consists
of a tiller bar extension bracket, which has a circular loop on top through which the tiller
extension pole was passed. The smaller after tiller bar extension bracket has a small hole which
held the end of the tiller extension pole. The forward tiller bar extension bracket still has rope
wrapped around it. This rope was likely tied off to the transom to keep the tiller hard over to
port while under tow. A spare forward tiller extension bracket was found inside a chest of
drawers within the cabin.
The lower portion of the rudderpost has three distinct shapes. For the first 6 inches (15.3
cm) below the transom log the rudderpost is circular in cross-section with a diameter of 8 inches
(20.3 cm). From 6 to 14 inches (15.2-35.6 cm) below the transom log the after face of the
rudderpost is beveled forming a six-sided shape. These facets are remnants of the shipwright’s
process of making a square timber round. The lowest portion of the rudderpost is rectangular
with a 2-inch (5.1 cm) deep rabbet on either side for the rudder planking.
The rudder blade is composed of three parts: port and starboard sides of the blade and
the tailboard. The rudder blade is 6 feet 10.5 inches (2.1 m) tall and 6 feet 7 inches (2.0 m) long
from the after end of the blade to the leading edge of the rudderpost. The sides of the blade are
composed of horizontally oriented edge fastened 2-inch (5.1 cm) thick planks. The after edge of
the sides is held in line by a vertically oriented plank, covering the end grain of each plank. An
interesting feature noted on the starboard side of the blade was a plank, which had been reused
after an apparent mistake while being edge-fastened. The 19.25 inch (49.5 cm) wide plank had
an 18-inch (45.7 cm) long cylindrical gouge through its side. This seems to be an errant hole
drilled in the process of edge-fastening this plank when it was at least twice as thick. The
165
shipwright then thinned the plank and found an alternative use for it. This mistake did not
occur with in its current position, as it is the same thickness as the other planks.
The sides of the blade are separated by a 5-inch (12.7 cm) gap within which the tailboard
is housed. The tailboard is an extension of the blade, which pivots on an iron pin set through
the width of the blade. The tailboard would be rotated down to aid the helmsmen in steering
the ungainly canal boat within the canals or harbor, when there was little room or time to steer
abruptly. The tailboard was hidden by the sides of the blade during the archaeological study,
therefore very little information about its construction could be determined. The pin upon
which the blade rotated was located in the lower aft portion of the rudder blade. The pin
consisted of a large iron bolt with a square nut on one side. Surrounding the pin there was a 3
by 5 inch (7.6 by 12.7 cm) rectangular hole through the rudder blade. The hole had a notch on its
lower aft edge within which the pin was resting. The exact purpose of the hole is not clear,
however, it seems to have been important to the deployment of the tailboard. Another
interesting feature of note was 3 by 5.5 inch (7.6 by 14 cm) sheet iron patch tacked above the pin
and hole through the blade. The patch was not removed therefore researchers cannot be certain
of its use; however, its positioning suggests that it may have been covering a hole through the
blade for a previous tailboard.
Decking
The deck can be divided into areas: the longitudinally oriented walkways and the
athwartship spans of decking in the bow, stern, and between the hold and cabin. The port and
starboard walkways span the length on the boat and are 3 feet 11 inch (1.2 m) wide alongside
the main cargo hatch and 26 inch (66 cm) wide alongside the cabin. The walkways, which are
constructed of white pine, slope at an eight degree angle so that water on the deck will run out
the scuppers. The notable feature of these walkways is that they are edge-fastened (Figure 60).
The observation of edge-fastened decking on the Sloop Island Canal Boat was initially thought
to be a feature unique to this vessel. However, in the re-analysis of ROV video footage of other
1873-class vessels it is now understood that this is a commonly employed construction
technique.
The presence of edge-fastening is reflected in the cross-section of the hull at the after end
of the cabin. The thickness of the deck planks, which constitute the walkways, and those that
span between the walkways is different. Between the longitudinal walkways the decking is 1.5
inch (3.8 cm) thick, while the edge-fastened decking in the walkways is 2.5 inch (6.4 cm) thick.
The longitudinal walkways needed to be thicker in order to have sufficient mass to accept the
iron drift bolts. These longitudinal walkways are in very good condition, thus the edgefastening pattern proved difficult to study. One small, degraded area indicated that the
fasteners are driven from both directions. The fasteners were in sets of two with one fastener
driven from the outboard edge of the boat and the second fastener driven from inboard. The
fasteners in each set are spaced 4.5 inch (11.4 cm) from each other. Each pair of bolts is spaced
30 inch (80 cm) from the next set.
166
Figure 60. Plan view showing the typical deck plank edge-fastening pattern observed on the
walkways of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM Collection, drawn by Adam Kane, inked by
Adam Loven).
There are two additional notable features to the longitudinal walkway. First, both the
gunwale and the cargo hatch coaming are placed on top of the walkway decking. This means
that an edge of a deck plank can be viewed along the side of the vessel and from inside the
hold. In the construction of most ships the decking is located between the side of the hull and
coaming, although the technique seen on the Sloop Island Canal Boat seems to be commonly
employed in the construction of 1873-class canal boats based on a review of contemporary canal
boat shipwrecks and historical photographs. Second, the butt joints between individual deck
planks are not positioned over deck beams or half deck beams. In most ship constructions these
joints would have invariably been supported from below by a beam. In the case of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat the ends of planks are supported by iron drift bolts.
The random positioning of the walkway butt joints may be reflective of the construction
sequence for the walkway. If the walkway had been built in place, that is, assembled from
individual deck planks in its current position, it would be expected that the shipwrights would
have naturally placed the joints over beams to support them but this does not seem to be the
case. Since the positioning of the joints is not over the deck beams, it is inferred that the
walkway was built independent of the deck beams and in fact may have been added as an
167
independent structure. Construction in this manner would be easier for the shipwrights because
the walkways could be assembled vertically making both auguring and hammering easier.
The second area of the deck, the athwartship spans in the bow, stern and between the
hold and cabin, are less remarkable than the walkways. They consist of 3 to 4 inch (7.6-10.2 cm)
wide, 1.5 inch (3.8 cm) thick non-edge-fastened white pine planks. These areas are slightly
crowned, following the arched shape of the deck beams below. The most significant features of
this area are two deck lights in the bow.
Hatch Coamings
The deck of the Sloop Island Canal Boat has hatch coamings for the forecastle hatch,
cargo hatch, cabin and booby. These hatches provided access, either for people or cargo below
deck. All but the cargo hatch had wooden covers. The cargo hatch, likely had a canvas cover
supported by a wooden framework. The smallest of the four hatches is the forecastle hatch,
located along the boat’s centerline just abaft the rider bitts. The hatch measures 23 inches (58.4
cm) athwartship and 20 inches (51 cm) fore and aft. The coaming is 3 inches (7.6 cm) square.
Below deck, the hatch is framed by 4 inches (10.2 cm) square carlings on either side, the below
deck breasthook on its forward end, and a 4 inch (10.2 cm) deck beam aft.
The cargo hatch is the largest of the hatches with a length 64 feet 9 inches (19.7 m) and a
width of 8 feet 8.5 inches (2.7 m). The fore-and-aft portion of the coaming stands 10.5 inches
(26.7 cm) tall and is constructed of two pieces of white pine attached to each other with a long Z
scarf joint. The coaming is set on top of the decking and is fastened to the decking and the deck
beams with iron bolts driven down through the coaming and secured with square nuts on their
underside. The bolts are placed in sets of two with each bolt in a pair spaced 2 to 5 inches (5.112.7 cm) apart and each pair approximately 1 foot (30.5 cm) apart.
The interior top edge of the cargo hatch coaming has notches cut into it to receive beams
to support a canvas cover over the hatch. There are fourteen pairs of notches along the length of
the coaming. Each notch is 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide. The notches on the port side have a
downward angled hole drilled through the coaming. Although none of the beams for the cargo
hatch cover were found, it seems that they had an iron pin on one end, which was inserted into
the hole in the port coaming notch. This pin and the two notched held the beam securely in
place. The cargo hatch coamings, at its forward and aft end, are arched on their upper surface to
parallel the deck’s camber. The upper face of the after coaming is covered with an iron band. It
is uncertain if the entire coaming was once covered by a similar iron band. The booby hatch
coaming is quite simple consisting only of a 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) wide by 2 inches (5.1 cm) tall
coaming laid on top of the decking. It was fastened to the decking with nails. Simple shiplap
joints were used to join the coaming sections at the corners.
Only one of the four sides of the coaming surrounding the booby is still extant. The
starboard side of the deck in the stern of the boat has collapsed into the hull taking with it most
of the booby hatch coaming. Fortunately, several pieces of the booby coaming were located
inside the booby; their documentation allowed for a complete reconstruction of the feature. The
athwartship width of the hatch is 8 feet (2.4 m) and its fore-and-aft length is 5 feet 1 inch (1.5 m).
The each side of the coaming is 3 inches (7.6 cm) sided and 5 inches (12.7 cm) molded and is
constructed of white pine.
The opening in the deck for the cabin is surrounded by a white oak coaming. This cabin
coaming serves as the foundation for the cabin trunk and roof above (Figure 61). The opening
into the cabin measures 12 feet (3.7 m) longitudinally and 12 feet 4 inches (3.8 m) transversely.
168
Both transverse coaming sections are curved slightly so that they parallel the deck camber. The
coaming rests on top of the decking and is 6 inches (15.2 cm) tall. The exterior face of each side
of the coaming has a 2-inch (5.1 cm) tall, 1-inch (2.5 cm) deep rabbet along its upper side. This
rabbet was used to secure the ends of the cabin trunk’s vertical planking. Along both the
forward and after faces of the cabin coaming there are three iron brackets used to hold the
vertically oriented awning supports.
Figure 61. Transverse cross-section at the after end of the cabin showing the cabin hatch
coaming (by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven, LCMM Collection).
Cabin Roof and Trunk
The construction of the cabin includes its interior, trunk, and roof. During the vessel’s
sinking, the cabin roof was torn off. It settled just off the starboard side of the boat. During this
event, the cabin trunk was ripped apart and its components, (windows, shutters, framing, and
planking), distributed inside the cabin, on the walkways, and overboard. Substantial sections
also likely floated, and are no longer at the wreck site.
169
The cabin roof rests off the boat’s starboard side setting upright and embedded slightly
into the bottom sediments (Figure 62). On account of its upright position, the rafters and other
features on the underside of the cabin roof were not visible and could only be seen after one
side of the roof was propped up approximately two feet (61 cm) above the bottom, allowing
video documentation of the interior components.
The cabin roof is slightly arched paralleling the camber of the deck. The roof is built
upon eight transversely oriented white pine rafters. Each rafter is 4 inches (10.2 cm) square and
is 13 feet 2 inches (4m) long, spanning breadth of the cabin. The roof itself is constructed of
white pine planks fastened to the rafters. Typical planks are 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) wide, 2 inches
(5.1 cm) thick, and 13 feet 6 inches (4.1 m) long. Each plank is nailed to the rafter below with a
wooden plug covering the recessed fastener hole. The video documentation of the underside of
the roof showed that the rafters were exposed inside the cabin with a thin white pine corner
molding used to cover the intersections of the rafters with the cabin roof.
The port side of the cabin roof contains a 2 foot 3 inch (68.6 cm) wide by 2 foot 6 inch
(76.2 cm) long cut out for the companionway. On the roof, along the starboard side of the
companionway is a wooden track for the sliding roof door, which likely broke off along with
the port side track and floated away during the vessel’s sinking. The port, starboard and
forward edge of the cabin roof are bordered by low coamings. The coamings along the forward
edge were necessary to direct water from the cabin roof onto the deck and out the scuppers
rather than into the cargo hold.
170
Figure 62. Plan view, profile and elevation of the cabin roof of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (by
Pierre LaRocque, rendered by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).
171
The cabin trunk consists of the four-sided short vertical walls, which connects the cabin roof to
the cabin hatch coaming. It was lined with windows on all sides and a door in the stern. The
Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin trunk is no longer standing, but portions of its remains were
found inside the cabin, along the deck, and on the lakebed. In particular, most of the windows
and shutters from the trunk were found. However, few of the other trunk components, such as
tongue-and-groove facing and interior framing, were located. The presence of the windows and
shutters and the absence of other remains indicate that the cabin roof was ripped off violently
during the sinking. As the cabin roof separated from the boat, the cabin trunk was torn apart. Its
buoyant framing and siding floated to the surface, while the heavier windows and shutters
remained on or near the boat.
The cabin trunk is the only structural component of the Sloop Island Canal Boat that
necessitated reconstruction from fragmentary archaeological evidence (Figure 63). In the
reconstruction three sources of information were employed: the archaeological data,
contemporary canal boat photographs, and ROV video from Wreck N (see 142). The
information from Wreck N was particularly useful. The remarkably similar construction
features of Wreck N indicate that it was likely built at the same shipyard at the Sloop Island
Canal Boat. Features such as the unique bevel on the after face of the rudderpost, and the design
of the windows and shutters were indistinguishable between the two vessels. Fortunately,
Wreck N’s cabin trunk was largely intact allowing for a thorough video analysis of its
construction. With Wreck N to work from, LCMM researchers began to piece together the Sloop
Island Canal Boat’s cabin trunk with the existing archaeological evidence. It soon became clear
the archaeological remains contained too many windows for the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin
trunk to be a duplicate of Wreck N’s cabin trunk. The explanation for this discrepancy is that
Wreck N had two windows on each side of the cabin trunk, whereas the archaeological
evidence suggests that the Sloop Island Canal Boat had three per side. On Wreck N the
windows and shutters on the forward face had fallen apart, and the video coverage of the after
face of the cabin was quite poor. Therefore, reconstruction of these faces of the cabin trunk
relied on contemporary photographs. Dozens of canal boat photographs were examined for
clues as to the window and shutter arrangement.
The port and starboard sides of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin trunk would have
been identical. As reconstructed, the sides of the cabin trunk consisted of three windows on
each side with their own shutters. Both the windows and shutters were made of white pine.
These windows were 20 inches (50.8 cm) wide, 16 inches (40.6 cm) tall, and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm)
thick. The windows’ most distinctive feature is their arched upper edge and windowpane.
Traces of white paint were recorded on several frames, indicating they were once painted white.
The shutters are 10.5 inches (26.7 cm) wide, 20.25 inches (51.4 cm) tall, and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm)
thick. The top rail of the shutter is angled or sloped outward. These shutters were slid within a
track. The interior stiles of each shutter were beveled so that they would interlock with their
mate. Remnants of green paint were noted on several shutters, indicating the shutters were
painted green.
172
Figure 63. Profile views showing the reconstruction of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin trunk
(by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
173
Figure 64. Drawing of a typical window frame and plate glass which was used for the cabin
windows along the port and starboard sides of the cabin trunk (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
Figure 65. Drawing of a typical shutter that was used along the port and starboard sides of the
cabin trunk (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
174
The after face of the cabin trunk is reconstructed based on contemporary photographs and a
window and shutter found inside the booby. This face of the cabin trunk typically had only one
small window positioned on the starboard side to provide light for preparing food at the cook
range. At 15.5 inches (39.4 cm) square, the window for this face was smaller than the side
windows. Its upper face was arched and it had a small ceramic knob on its side. This window
has a sliding shutter which is 19 inches (48.3 cm) tall, 17 inches (43.2 cm) wide, and 0.75 inches
(1.9 cm) thick. The shutter is shaped similar to that of the window frame with an arched upper
face. The shutter slides within a frame that surrounds both the shutter and window. The port
side of the after face of the cabin trunk contained the companionway door. The door was not
found during the survey; however, its location is known based on the documentation of the
cabin roof.
The forward face of the cabin trunk as reconstructed contains two windows. Its window
and shutter arrangement is similar to that found on the after face of the trunk. Both the
windows and shutters found in the wreckage was an arched upper edge. Each set is contained
in a frame in which the shutter can slide to either side. The windows on this face are the same
size as those used on the port and starboard sides of the trunk: 20 inches (50.8 cm) wide, 16
inches (40.6 cm) tall, and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) thick.
Cabin Interior
Over time, the fasteners that once held in place the wooden elements of the cabin and
booby rusted away, allowing the timbers to collapse into the vessel, creating a jumbled mess of
flooring, ceiling, and bulkhead planks, fragments of the cabin trunk, cabin furniture, and
numerous artifacts. However, through observations, measurements, photographs, and video
footage, LCMM’s archaeologists have identified the specific function of spaces within the cabin.
Structural elements, artifacts, and oral history have provided clues to the many roles the cabin
served for the Sloop Island Canal Boat household.
By any measure the cabin was a small living space. It measured 13 feet (4m) (fore and
aft) by 17 feet (5.2m) (port and starboard). The extreme port and starboard sides of the cabin
were situated under the walkways, therefore their reduced headroom was only 2 feet 9 inches
(83.8cm). The headroom for the remainder of the cabin underneath the cabin roof was 5 feet 9
inches (1.75m). The cabin had three general use areas: a storage area, a living area and a
kitchen.
175
Figure 66. Plan view reconstruction of cabin interior (by Scott McLaughlin).
The cabin stairwell of the vessel was located on the after end of the cabin on the
portside. The treads of the stairs were covered by zinc plates covered by large headed tacks to
reduce the wear and improve traction on the treads. Beneath an upper stair tread was a built-in
storage area, containing a toolbox that was accessed by lifting up the decorated stair tread.
Although the stair treads were found within the cabin, the stair stringers were not.
To port of the stairs, under the deck along the cabin trunk were two softwood shelves
setting on cleats attached to the aft bulkhead, vessel’s port side, and the after end of a built-in
chest of drawers. This shelving was used to store food, including fresh grapes, salt pork, and
pickled fish, within crocks and canning jars; to store drinks, including, beer, soda, milk or
buttermilk, and wine, within glass bottles and ceramic jugs. Also stored on the shelves were two
oil lamps, a stack of wallpaper, and possibly other supplies.
Forward of the pantry was a built-in chest of drawers and within its three drawers were
stowed a soap dish, tools, shoes, and money (Figure 67). The drawers also likely contained
clothing long since disintegrated. Forward of this and also under the deck along the portside
was a folding iron bed, under which was found an enameled ware chamber pot. Along the port
side near the chest of drawers was also found a mirror, wall mounted kerosene lamp with a
reflector mirror, and a half circle wooden shelf (Figure 68).
176
Figure 67. Photograph of the cabin showing a dresser drawer face (labeled 126) amongst other
disarticulated fragments of the cabin (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM Collection).
Figure 68. Wall shelf found in the Sloop Island Canal Boat's cabin (LCMM Collection).
In the center of the cabin was a caned rocking armchair (Figure 70). It is likely that the cabin also
contained a dinner table, though it was not present on the Sloop Island Canal Boat. Located in
the forward starboard corner of the cabin was a cast iron double bed under the deck and a fourlegged stool. Along the entire starboard side of the cabin were two shelves used to store things,
including enameled ware dishes. Aft of the bed was a large cast iron cook range, which was
177
separated from the rest of the cabin by a sliding panel wall, made of two mismatched doors on
an iron track (Figure 69 and
Figure 71). This common system, which appears in illustrated hardware catalogs, was probably
available through most local hardware stores. 482
Figure 69. Underwater photograph showing the cook range (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM
Collection).
Figure 70. Fragments of an armchair found in the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s cabin (by Erick
Tichonuk, LCMM Collection).
178
Figure 71. Doors used to separate the kitchen from the living area in the Sloop Island Canal
Boat’s cabin (LCMM Collection).
The kitchen floor and the pantry were covered by parquet patterned linoleum (Figure
72). The reason for the linoleum may have been to facilitate easy clean up in the food
preparation and storage areas aboard the vessel. Linoleum was a popular floor covering during
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was manufactured by companies
including Nairn of Kearny, New Jersey (1886 to present); Armstrong Cork Company of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania (1908 to present); and the American Linoleum Manufacturing
Company of Staten Island, New York (1872 to present). Both parquet patterns found within the
cabin were sold in the 1910s by Nairn. Although linoleum was often sold as linoleum rugs,
replacing oil cloth, the parquet patterns were advertised for full-floor coverings in formal
rooms. The wood pattern looks fake but that did not deter customers, including those that lived
aboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat. 483
179
Figure 72. Drawing of a linoleum sample recovered from the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (LCMM Collection).
To port of the stove, there was a large hutch with multiple shelves and drawers housing
the dishes, glassware, utensils, and the household’s patent medicines and liquor. One drawer
was filled with odds and ends including door and cabinet hardware, buttons, marbles, and
kitchen tools (Figure 73).
180
Figure 73. Photograph and drawing of the hutch drawer while undergoing archaeological
conservation (LCMM Collection).
Booby
The booby is the interior area of the hull abaft the cabin. The booby was used on canal
boats with large cabins in order to load the stern of the boat, removing some of the strain
amidships from the cargo in the hold. 484 Contemporary accounts of canal boat life relate a
secondary inventive use: young children were frequently threatened with being put in the
booby if they misbehaved. This space had only one exit and no windows, making it a dark,
scary place aboard the boat.
The booby of the Sloop Island Canal Boat spanned the 16.5 foot (5 m) breadth of the
stern of the hull and ran from the sternpost 8.5 feet (2.6 m) forward. The forward end of the
booby was delineated by a white pine tongue-and-groove bulkhead wall, which separated it
from the cabin. This wall has mostly fallen apart. The booby was originally only accessible by
an 8 foot by 5 foot 1 inch (2.4 by 1.6 m) hatch on the starboard side of the stern deck. The hatch
was sealed with a wooden hatch cover, which is no longer present.
The booby of the Sloop Island Canal Boat contained a significant quantity of artifacts;
however, all of these artifacts appear to have spilled into the booby from the cabin, as the
bulkhead between the two parts of the vessel gave out. Inside the booby there is coal at a depth
consistent with the rest of the hull, indicating that coal was loaded into both the cargo hold and
the booby. There is no evidence that the booby was used as living or workspace aboard this
particular canal boat. However, historic documents suggest the booby was often used as a
workshop or storage space by the northern canalers.
181
Deck Equipment
The Sloop Island Canal Boat has several remaining pieces of deck equipment, including
a snatch block, eight cast iron cleats, bow and stern windlasses, an anchor, four bilge pumps,
two turning blocks and a ship’s wheel. The design and layout of canal boat deck equipment
underwent continual refinement from 1819 until the 1930s. The deck equipment of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat represents one of the last stages of this development and is reflective of the
techniques necessary to tow and maneuver a canal boat using a steamer or diesel tug.
The analysis of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s deck equipment has proven challenging
for LCMM researchers. Although documenting the actual features was relatively
straightforward, extrapolating their exact uses has proven more difficult. Information that any
canal boatman would have considered common knowledge just 80 years ago now must be
carefully reconstructed by meshing the archaeological record with historic sources.
Snatch Block
A single white oak snatch block was found on the port side of the vessel lying on the
deck. The hook end was hooked into an eyebolt on the forward end of the gunwale buttress.
The snatch block was used in the process known as snubbing. Snubbing was used to pull canal
boats into the locks. A line would be attached to a snubbing post along the side of the canal. The
line would be run back to the snatch block on the boat, and then forward to the other side of the
canal and to the boat’s team of horses or mules. The team would then pull the line moving the
boat forward into the lock.
Cleats
The Sloop Island Canal Boat has eight cast iron cleats, four on each side, used for
making ropes fast both when in a tow and at port. The cleats are placed in pairs on either side of
the deck with two in the bow, two near the middle of the cargo hatch, two just aft of the cargo
hatch, and two in the stern. (see Figure 74). All of the cleats appear to be identical. Although no
maker’s marks were observed, cleats were almost certainly produced by the same
manufacturer. The bases of the cleats were 22 inches (55.9 cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide,
while the arms were 33 inches (83.8 cm) long and 3 inches (7.6 cm) wide. Each cleat was
attached to the boat via three iron bolts, which extended 7 inches (17.8 cm) below the bottom of
the cleat. These bolts passed through the decking and were held in place by either the deck
beams or specially inserted wooden chocks. All four cleats on the boat’s port side still had
remains of rope attached to them, preserved by the iron oxide formed by the deteriorating cleat.
The stern starboard cleat had collapsed into the booby along with the section of deck to which it
was attached (Figure 74 and Figure 75).
The decking around several of the cleats had been repaired and/or replaced. This attests
to the age of the vessel and the strain placed on those wooden components during the standard
daily use of the deck cleats.
182
Figure 74. Port side cleat with rope still wrapped around it (LCMM Collection, by Pierre
LaRocque).
Figure 75. Plan view and profile of a cleat that collapsed into the booby (LCMM Collection,
drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
183
Windlasses
The Sloop Island Canal Boat has a windlass in both the bow and stern. An additional
broken windlass was also found in the interior of the bow (Figure 76). A windlass is a
horizontally oriented winch used to raise and lower the anchor, and tighten and loosen lines to
other boats in a tow. During the last decades of the nineteenth century a number of different
types of windlasses were available for shipboard use. These devises included the steam
windlass, capstan windlass, steam capstan windlass, pump-break windlass, crank windlass,
and ratchet windlass. Manufactures such as the American Ship Windlass Company in
Providence, Rhode Island; the Hyde Windlass Company in Bath, Maine; and the Eckford Ship
Windlass Company in New York, New York were some of the larger windlass American
manufacturers. Windlasses were quintessential pieces of equipment for northern canal boats,
and at least one windlass, or evidence of a salvaged windlass, has been noted on each of Lake
Champlain’s sunken 1873-class canal boats.
All three of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s windlasses were of the ratchet type. This basic
windlass type required more effort to use than other varieties. The windlass was worked by
inserting a handspike into the heaver, and pushing down on the handspike. This motion would
cause the pawl on the heaver to engage the ratchet gear on the warping drum. The warping
drum would then rotate, taking in line as it rotated. The heaver was then freely pulled upward
as the pawl disengaged from the ratchet gear.
The manufacturer(s) of the windlasses on the Sloop Island Canal Boat are unknown. All
three of the windlasses almost certainly had maker’s marks, however, corrosion on the bow and
stern windlasses made it impossible to locate this information. Researchers had hoped to find a
mark on the recovered windlass during conservation. However, the remains represented only
half of the original artifact; despite the excellent state of preservation of this artifact, no markers
were found. The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s windlasses are very similar to those made by the
Hyde Windlass Company and the Eckford Ship Windlass Company; however, images of both
types have subtle differences from those on the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
The bow windlass revolves around a 3.5 inch (8.9 cm) diameter, 18 inch (45.7 cm) long
iron spindle which is mortised 2 inches (5 cm) into the aft face of the rider bits and fastened to
them with iron brackets (Figure 77 and see Figure 57). The spindle is positioned 12 inches (30.5
cm) above the deck. On either end of the spindle are ratchet gears, which are 14 inches (35.6 cm)
in diameter and 2 inches (5 cm) wide. Attached over these gears are the heavers, though no
hand spikes are present in their sockets. Outboard of each ratchet gear are the warping drums
around which line would be wrapped. These drums are 10 inches (25.4 cm) wide and range in
diameter from 7 to 10 inches (17.8-25.4 cm). It does not appear that the windlass was in use at
the time of the vessel’s sinking because no evidence of line was found on the drums.
184
Figure 76. Drawing of a broken windlass recovered from the forecastle (by Gordon Cawood and
Justin Clement, LCMM Collection).
Figure 77. Sloop Island Canalboat’s bow windlass (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
185
A stern windlass has been noted on Wreck A and Wreck B, two other 1873-class canal
boat wrecks in Lake Champlain. 485 This windlass was used to take up and release line as the
boats were under tow in a double header within the canal. To facilitate turning, it was
important that the two boats were held tightly together, which was only achievable by use of a
windlass. The stern windlass was located only on the forward boat in the double header.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s stern windlass is oriented fore-and-aft, and is bolted to
the deck just to port of the boat’s centerline. Unlike the windlass in the bow, which is mounted
into the bitt posts, the stern windlass stands by itself (Figure 78 and Figure 79). The shaft is held
5.5 inches (14 cm) above the deck by two iron arches. The forward end of the shaft has the
warping drum attached to it. The drum is 7.5 inches (19.1 cm) in diameter at its forward end,
while the after end is 11 inches (28 cm). This ratchet windlass was worked with a handspike,
which is 13.25 inches (34.3 cm) long, with its base mounted into the heaver.
Figure 78: Image of the stern windlass. (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven, LCMM
Collection)
186
Figure 79. Sloop Island Canalboat’s stern windlass (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
Turning Blocks
Two turning blocks are found on the Sloop Island Canal Boat, one on each side or
gunwale outboard of the boat’s wheel (Figure 80). The turning blocks were used when the boat
was traveling in a double header while in the canal. The turning blocks were designed to accept
cable from the wheel directing it aft to a turning block in the bow of the stern boat in the double
header. The turning blocks were bolted on the top of the gunwale and a gunwale buttress. The
gunwale buttress expands the size of the gunwale so that the turning block could be mounted
on it.
187
Figure 80. Sloop Island Canalboat’s turning block (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
Anchor
A wrought iron folding stock anchor is on the boat’s forward starboard deck, partially
tucked under the breasthook (Figure 81). The stock is not attached to the anchor, but lying next
to it. The form of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s anchor is similar to those noted on other
northern canal boats and to a number of anchors recovered or documented on the bottom of
Lake Champlain. It is a Board of Admiralty anchor better known as an Admiralty or a kedge
anchor. An anchor was a necessary piece of ship’s equipment aboard northern canal boats,
which often found themselves in isolated harbors lacking adequate docking facilities or when
kedging was necessary to get to a dock where towing services were not available. Kedging
involved the process of setting an anchor some distance from the vessel using a small rowboat;
Then using the windlass to pull the boat to the anchor, the process could be repeated as
necessary. This was useful in helping to get the boat off the bottom, or at least keep her from
being driven harder aground. In the case of an emergency, an anchor came in handy if a canal
boat broke loose from a tow or dock. Sailing canal boats also used an anchor to hold a boat from
drifting while waiting for favorable winds. By the late nineteenth century, the Admiralty anchor
was the most common anchor used aboard canal boats. With its heavy weight and large flukes,
the Admiralty anchor worked well on all bottom types found along the Northern Waterway –
clay, sand, mud, and rocks. The anchor had a folding, removable cast iron stock, making it
possible to neatly pack the anchor under the bow breasthook. The anchor’s arms had a graceful
188
curve, the iron forming them and the shank as elliptical in cross section, which eased the
chafing of ropes.
Figure 81. Sloop Island Canalboat’s anchor (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
Wheel
The canal boat’s steering wheel consists of two parts: the wheel itself and a drum
wrapped in steel cable (Figure 82, Figure 83 and see also Plate 1). Although the canal boat’s
wheel was used for steering the vessel, it did not manipulate the rudder. The wheel was used to
wind and unwind the steel cable, which lead to a turning block on each side of the vessel and
aft to the bow of another canal boat. The ends of the steel cable were attached to the bow cleats
of the second vessel. The two boats hinged at the point were the stern of the first boat, carrying
the wheel came in contact with the stem of the second boat.
189
Figure 82.
LaRocque).
Sloop Island Canalboat’s steering mechanism (LCMM Collection, by Pierre
Figure 83. Sloop Island Canalboat’s wheel (LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
190
Figure 84: Line drawing of the steering wheel on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat (LCMM
Collection)
191
Figure 85: Drawing of the steering mechanism found on board the Sloop Island Canal Boat
(LCMM Collection)
Pumps
All wooden vessels leak and canal boats were no exception. The Sloop Island Canal Boat
has a pump arrangement, which consisted of four white ash pump boxes, two in the bow and
two in the stern, and one removable bilge pump and tube. The single bilge pump and tube
would be moved from pump box to pump box as necessary.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s four pump boxes are evident on the deck by their iron
pump heads that consist of an 8 inch (20.3 cm) diameter iron collar set into the deck. The collar
has a hinged iron cap that could be lowered to cover the pump box. Below decks the white ash
pump boxes extend from the underside of the decking to the bottom of the hold. Both pump
boxes in the bow are well preserved, whereas those in the stern were more degraded. The pump
boxes created a shaft to the bottom of the boat into which the bilge pump and tube could be
inserted.
Three pieces of a bilge pump were found in the hold of the boat: a burr pump valve and
spear, a common pump lower valve body, and the upper part of a sheet-iron pump tube (Figure
86). Although it is not certain, these three components went probably with the same bilge
pump; however, it is very likely since they constitute the primary components of a pump. The
lower valve body would have sat at the bottom of the pump tube. It consists of an iron ring with
192
a leather bivalve flapper fastened to its upper face. The burr pump valve and spear consists of a
conical leather burr valve attached to a 6 foot 9.5 inch (2.1 m) long white ash pole, called a spear.
These two components worked in conjunction (Figure 87).
Once the pump tube is filled with water or primed, the spear is moved up and down by
a T-handle attached to its upper end. During the down stroke the leather cone attached to the
end of the spear closes, and on the upstroke it opens like an umbrella filling the diameter of the
pump tube and not allowing water to flow by. The upward motion of the handle causes water
to be drawn up from the boat’s bilge through the pump’s foot valve and into the pump tube. As
the water above the leather cone is pulled up above deck level it is directed overboard by a Tshaped dale on the side of the pump tube. Since bilge water is notorious for its foul smell; it is
directed overboard rather than having it spill on the deck. When the spear is in its down stroke
the foot valve and the spear’s leather cone is closed. Once the T-handle is pushed down all the
way, the pump is ready to lift some additional water out of the bilge.
The pump arrangement described above represents the combination of two different
types of pumping mechanisms. 486 The combination of the burr valve with a common pump
lower valve was previously noted on the Isle La Motte Canal Sloop and the canal schooner
General Butler. The continued presence of this type of pumping mechanism aboard northern
canal boats, despite significant advances and popularity in suction pumps at the time, attests to
the burr pumps simplicity of use, reliability, easy of maintenance, and its low cost for use
aboard canal boats.
Figure 86. Sheet iron pump tube lying on the deck of the Sloop Island Canalboat (LCMM
Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
193
Figure 87. Overall view and detail of the burr valve found in the canal boat's hold (LCMM
Collection, drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
CABIN ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE
The artifacts found in the cabin and those that spilled into the booby from the cabin
represent the members and activities of the canal boat household. Articles of adult clothing and
shoes were found in the cabin. A wool coat was discovered near the center of the cabin; its size,
shape and appearance suggest it was designed for a man. The heel of a woman’s shoe was also
found near a cast iron bed, and the heel of a man’s shoe was found in a chest of drawers.
Located within a cupboard drawer were several colored clay marbles and small buttons, which
suggest a child lived on board. Also suggestive of a child’s presence aboard the vessel is a
collection of “treasures” recovered from a toolbox once built into the stairs. These treasurers
consisted of a checker, several small oddly shaped pieces of wood, several clusters of conifer
needles, and a quartz pebble. However, most of the artifacts recovered are related to the
foodways of the canal boat household.
The following descriptions of artifacts in the cabin contain illustrations of selected
artifacts. Extensive additional artifact drawings are contained in Appendix 7.
Odds and Ends
Among the many things found in the cupboard drawer were three brass knobs with iron
wood screws (843.02.136, 137, 138; Numbers refer to artifact numbers referenced in the Artifact
Inventory in Appendix Six). Cast into the knobs are the words “SHOW TOP,” “PAT’D,”
“DOZIER,” “NAT’L BIS’ CO.” The assumption is that the knobs were once attached to cracker
194
or cookie canisters sold by the National Biscuit Company. No connection could be made
between the knob and a patent despite the fact the knobs have the word patent on them. The
name Dozier that appears on the knobs is believed to refer to Lewis David Dozier (1846-?) of St.
Louis, Missouri, who was a large stockholder and director of the National Biscuit Company
shortly after its founding in 1898.
Surprisingly, a small stack of wallpaper scraps or squares were found preserved under a
small one gallon crock (.035) resting on a pantry shelf. The wall paper is of a Dutch-like
landscape with a windmill and a small sloop rigged sail boat (Figure 88). The pattern consists of
blue printing on a white background. This “colonial” wallpaper was produced during the early
twentieth century as part of a revival of classical wallpaper styles of the early eighteenth
century. One of America’s largest wallpaper companies at the turn of the century was the
Syracuse Paper & Pulp Company of Syracuse, New York. 487
Figure 88. Photograph of a wallpaper fragment found in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat.
Among the kitchen tools found in the cupboard drawer was a spice grater, which had a
small piece of nutmeg attached to it. Nutmeg during the early twentieth century was grown in
Indonesia and Grenada, and would have been available in most well stocked dry goods stores
along the Northern Waterway.
A set of aluminum salt and pepper shakers, also found within the rubble of the cabin,
were likely stored in the cupboard (.264 and .292) (Figure 89). Ground pepper was found
within one of the shakers, and during the early twentieth century as well as today this spice
remains the most popular one in the world. Pepper, during the early twentieth century, was
195
grown predominately in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brazil. Pepper, like nutmeg, would
have been widely available to the northern canalers.
Figure 89. Salt shaker found in the cabin of the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
A plain compression bibcock or bib (.268), a faucet with a downward curved nozzle, was
found in the booby, but probably was originally stored in the kitchen cupboard. This brass
plumbing fixture with a flange and ¾-inch standard pipe threads would have been attached to
an iron pipe possibly installed in a water barrel that was on deck of the vessel. An identical
bibcock is listed in the 1902 Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog for 55¢. 488
196
Figure 90. Drawing of a nozzle found in the booby of the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Two pillow-shaped sawdust charcoal briquettes were found inside of the toolbox
beneath the stairs. These briquettes were used as a source of fuel for heating and cooking
during the early twentieth century. The briquettes were often used as starter fuel in the cook
ranges when burning coal. The process of making the charcoal briquettes involved burning
wood to produce charcoal, grinding the charcoal into a powder, adding a binder like starch or
flour, compressing the mixture into molds, and then drying the product. The first United States
patent for the production of charcoal briquettes was issued in 1890 and at least five additional
patents for charcoal briquettes were issued before 1920. The widespread use of briquettes,
however, did no occur until the mid twentieth century.
Also within the toolbox several clusters of Jack pine needles (Pinus banksiana), also called
gray and scrub pine, were found. The Jack pine tree is the most northerly growing of the
eastern North American pines. Its range extends from the Artic Circle to northern New York.
However, it is most commonly found in the forests of Quebec and Ontario. Jack pine was used
extensively in the Canadian pulpwood trade to make paper products.
197
Enameled Ware
By the end of the nineteenth century, enameled ware was preferred by many cooks over
the heavy cast iron wares of earlier years because of enameled ware’s light weight, easy
cleaning, and no maintenance. Enameled ware came in a large variety of colors and shapes that
made cooking containers more appealing to look at than blackened cast iron. These strong,
lightweight vessels were made of stamped sheet iron coated with a baked layer of ground
granite, which explains why they are also called granite ware. Several vessel forms and types of
enameled ware were found aboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat. Unfortunately few of the
vessels have maker's marks. A white enameled ware chamber pot (.052) is marked on the
bottom with Germany inside a circle, which is the country where the product was
manufactured. Two small white bodied enameled ware bowls (.016 and .020), which have a
flared blue rim and straight blue rim respectively. On their bottoms, both bowls have a
geometric design maker’s mark with the letters “KER” over an encircled flag. Below this
cartouche is the word “SWEDEN.” KER is the abbreviation for Kockums Emaljerverk Ronneby,
which means Kockums Enamelware Factory. This company, established in 1893, was located in
Ronneby, Sweden and was part of the Kockums Ironworks Company. The first enamelware
made by the factory had white and granite bodies. About 1920, the company introduced
additional colors into production.
Figure 91. Drawing of a chamber pot found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Sweden and Germany were the two largest producers of enameled ware products in all
of Europe. A great number of their products were exported to markets in the United States.
198
Located in the artifact assemblage from the Sloop Island Canal Boat were a wide variety of
enameled ware containers, including a coffee pot (.193), chamber pot (.032), the copper bottom
of a wash tub (.086), a small covered pail (.047), bowls (.016 and .020), spittoon (.051), a straight
sided milk pan and a cuspidor or spittoon. The copper bottom of a tin wash boiler was also
found inside the cabin.
It appears that the canalers aboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat had no cast iron ware
and had acquired assorted pieces of enameled ware made in Germany, Sweden, and probably
the United States. Enameled ware was generally sold in large sets by merchants and catalog
companies but it does not appear from the variation in enameled ware shapes and decorations
that the canalers purchased such a set.
Ceramics
At least seven different Ohio potteries are represented in the small ceramic collection as
well as one German, five English potteries, and possibly one Canadian pottery. It appears from
the great diversity of the ceramics that they were not purchased as part of large sets and were
likely acquired from friends, relatives, or second-hand shops. The oldest ceramics in the
collection that date prior to 1900 were almost exclusively made in England. Those ceramics
dating after 1900 were made largely in the United States. Since American made ceramics made
up most of the later ceramics, it appears the interests of the canalers aboard the Sloop Island
Canal Boat were similar to most Americans at the time.
Throughout much of the nineteenth century, British ceramic manufactures dominated
the American tableware market; however, other European, Chinese, and American-made goods
also appeared in homes across the Northeast. By the beginning of the twentieth century,
American potters had wrestled dominance of the tableware market away from the hands of
British manufacturers. Prior to 1900, English pottery was considered the finest tableware
available in North America. Canadian and American made ceramics, which mimicked British
products, were considered second-class wares. Though British manufacturers made identical
products, American potters by 1900 became famous for their sturdy and simply decorated white
ironstone earthenwares. The better-made white ironstone was comparable to stoneware and
porcelain and was also referred to as semi-porcelain, semi-vitreous china, hotel china, or
hotelware, royal stone china, graniteware, and opaque porcelain. These vessels commonly had
molded relief patterns, and the surface treatments included a clear glaze with decals, simple
hand painted engine turned bands, or transfer prints.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the utility wares continued to be stoneware
and redware, such as crocks and jugs. Stoneware had an extremely hard and durable body.
Many redwares with their red-brown paste had been fired high enough to create a hard and
non-porous paste to resemble stoneware. Thousands of grape seeds (Vitis) were found in the
bottom of one of the two four gallon stoneware crocks stored in the pantry.
199
Homer Laughlin China Company: Seneca
Found within the cupboard was a set of Homer Laughlin China Company (HLC) cups
and saucers. The remains of the set included three cups (.014, .060, .201) and six saucers (.010,
.011, .012, .013, .026, .202) of a shape called Seneca. The Homer Laughlin China Company of
East Liverpool, Ohio was founded in 1873 and is still a large producer of American ceramics.
Beginning about 1900, the company’s trademark was the stylized initials “HLC” beneath which
appeared Homer Laughlin and the name of the pottery shape. The “L” in Laughlin seen on the
Sloop Island saucers has a distinctive loop that appeared on ceramics dating from c. 1900 to
1919. From about 1910 to the present, the company has also used along with the trademark a
series of numbers and letters designating the month, year, and plant at which the piece was
manufactured. Since none of the Homer Laughlin ceramics found on board the shipwreck have
the number and letter series, it is assumed that these ceramics were produced early in the
production of the Seneca shape before the practice became routine by 1910. 489
The Seneca shape made its appearance about 1901 and was discontinued about 1920.
The Seneca dinner service consisted of numerous pieces including an individual butter plate,
bone dish, sauce boat, teapot, covered sugar bowl, cream pitcher, jugs, nappy, deep bowl, coffee
cup and saucer, teacup and saucer, pickle dish, fruit dish, oatmeal bowl, soup bowl, baking
dish, deep plate, plate, cake plate, platter, casserole dish, covered dish, covered butter dish,
sauce tureen, oyster tureen, sauce ladle, soup ladle, spoon holder, celery tray, and egg cup.
Homer Laughlin ceramics, including the Seneca shape, were sold through large mail order
firms and department stores during the early twentieth century. An undecorated Seneca shape
set of 100 pieces was advertised in the 1902 Sears, Roebuck & Company catalog for $4.98, which
was one of the cheapest sets available for purchase. The 1903 Sears, Roebuck and Company
catalog states, "Next to the celebrated English ware, this product [Seneca] of Homer Laughlin is
considered the best in the market. Edges, handles, and knobs are gold stippled, which gives the
set a rich appearance." A 100-piece set was offered for $8.70. In the 1909 catalog of Sears,
Roebuck & Company, the Seneca shape set was listed as "our leader, 100-piece dinner set" and
was priced at $3.98, which was one dollar cheaper than the comparable English china. The
Seneca shape was apparently discontinued by HLC before 1920. 490
Knowles, Taylor, and Knowles
One of HLC’s largest competitors was the pottery company Knowles, Taylor, and
Knowles (KTK) also of East Liverpool, Ohio. The eagle maker’s mark on the back of a plate
(.319) found in the cabin was used by KTK from about 1900 to 1915. About 1900, KTK adopted
the practice of printing a code on their ceramics that indicated the production date and/or
factory at which the ceramic was made, a system similar to that used by HLC. The number 329
that appears below the KTK trademark stamp on the plate (.319) found in the cabin is an
example of the production code. The number nine, the last digit in the series, represents the
year 1909, which is the date the whiteware plate was produced by KTK. 491
200
D. E. McNicol
One saucer (.027) found in the cupboard debris was produced by D. E. McNicol of East
Liverpool, Ohio. The company began production of ceramics in 1892. The backstamp on the
saucer was used from about 1895 to 1900. 492
Standard Pottery Company
The coat of arms with two lions that appears on the whiteware saucer (.206) is that of the
Standard Pottery Company of East Liverpool, Ohio. The mark was used by the company
between 1886 and about 1910. 493
Pope-Gosser China Company
The trademark of the Pope-Gosser China Company of Coshocton, Ohio appears on two
decal decorated plates (.007, .080, .090) in the collection, one of which is broken in half. The
company first made an ornamental line of ceramics but quickly changed to dinnerware with a
decal decoration. The company’s ceramics were harder than the usual dinnerware of the times.
Pope-Gosser made two noteworthy shapes during its early years, which included Louvre and
Edgemore. Louvre was an imitation of a shape by Theodore Haviland of France. The PopeGosser plates found on the shipwreck appear to be of the Louvre shape. This trademark was
used from 1905 until 1913. 494
Harker Pottery Company
The Harker Pottery Company of East Liverpool, Ohio began production of whitewares
shortly after it was incorporated in 1890. The company’s mark appears on the bottom of five
whiteware bowls (.008, .028, .029, .185, .303) and a broken covered dish found in the cabin.
Based on the style of mark, the bowls were produced between 1890 and 1900. The design of the
bowls appears to be the Lorain shape. 495
W. S. George Pottery Company
A rare undocumented mark of the W. S. George Pottery Company of East Palestine,
Ohio appears on a platter (.301) found in the cabin of the canal boat. The company began
production in 1909 and the mark is believed to have been used during the company’s first few
years of production. The pottery company made dinnerware, plain and decorated table and
toilet ware, hotel ware and an assortment of white and decorated articles. Due to the thick body
of the platter, it appears to be an example of hotel or restaurant ware. 496
Henry Alcock & Company
The McKinley Tariff Act of 1891 required that foreign ceramics imported into the United
States had to have permanently affixed on each piece the name of the country where they were
made. This requirement can assist in the dating of ceramics, however, sometimes the country's
name was used already part of a company’s trademark before 1891. In 1891, the Henry Alcock
& Company of Cobridge, England added the word "England" to its trademark and sometimes
201
the phase "Royal Warranted." The abbreviation "Ltd." was later added to the trademark in 1900
or 1901. One of the company’s bowls (.025) and a dish (.054) found on the shipwreck have the
words England and Royal Warranted on the maker's mark but do not have the abbreviation
Ltd., which dates the wares to the period 1891 to about 1900. 497
Alfred Meakin (Ltd.)
A plate (.005) made by Alfred Meakin (Ltd.) of Tunstall, England was part of the canal
boat household’s collection of tableware. Working from a number of pottery works in Tunstall,
this firm produced earthenwares and good ironstone wares from 1875. The word “England”
was added to their trademarks in 1891. After 1897, their trademarks included the abbreviation
"Ltd." In 1913, the company was renamed Alfred Meakin (Tunstall) Ltd.; however, their
trademarks did not include “(Tunstall).” 498
Wood & Son
About 1907, the name and trademark of the company Wood & Son of Burslem, England
was changed to “Wood & Sons” and from 1910 onward “Ltd.” appears on the company’s
trademark. The trademark “Wood & Son” appears on one of the household’s whiteware bowls
(.009), suggesting it was produced between 1891 and 1907. 499
Arthur J. Wilkinson Ltd.
The trademark of Arthur J. Wilkinson Ltd., another pottery company in Burslem,
England, appears on two plates found in the rubble of the kitchen cupboard. The abbreviation
“Ltd.”, which appears on the plates, was added to the firms mark in about 1896. The trademark
that exists on the plates is an undocumented mark; however, it appears to be an early variation
of a mark that appeared about 1930. 500
Meigh & Forester
Some British ceramic designs were registered or patented with the government, which
protected the use of the design for three years, after which the registration could be renewed
only once for an additional three year period. According to the registration marks on the plate
(.089), the patent number is 404652-3, which was taken out on October 2, 1883 by the pottery
firm Meigh & Forester of Longton, England. By 1888, the firm was renamed Thomas Forester &
Company. It is believed that the trademark found on the plate is that of the pottery firm Meigh
& Forester. Although the trademark on the plate is undocumented in the literature, a similar
trademark was used by Thomas Forester for a Staffordshire pottery that he owned with Hulme
in 1887. The data suggests that the plate was made between 1883 and 1888. It is possible that
this plate may have been a family heirloom. 501
202
Made in Bavaria
A saucer with the mark “Made in Bavaria” is the only ceramic attributed to being
manufactured in mainland Europe. Bavaria was a state in the German Empire beginning in
1871, was later established as a republic in 1918, and was dismantled in 1933. In 1887, the British
Merchandise Marks Act demanded that on all imported foreign merchandise the name of the
country of origin be applied as “Made in…” or just the name of the country. The American
McKinley Tariff Act of 1891 required the same such marking of imported foreign ceramics.
However, the wording of this mark suggests that the saucer was made after 1887 and before
1933. 502
Lighting
Lighting within the cabin was provided by kerosene lamps of various types as shown by
the wide variety of lighting devices found within the cabin and booby. In the center of the cabin
there likely was suspended a hanging lamp suggested by the discovery of an opal smoke shade
or saucer found on the deck alongside the cabin. Canaler Cora Archambault has stated that
most canal boats had a suspended lamp within the cabin. The saucer was designed to collect the
soot or lamp black and heat from the burning kerosene so that the ceiling paint would not get
soiled and peel. Chimneys and globes frequently broke due to accidents and stress to the glass
caused by the heat of the flame. In 1902, Sears, Roebuck and Company sold an 8-inch smoke
shade for 18¢. 503
To provide better lighting along the port side of the cabin, there was a bracket lamp,
which was commonly found in hallways and kitchens or other work areas. The one found
consisted of a cast iron bracket (.175) with an art deco design and a silvered glass reflector. It is
likely that the glass font (.200) was used in the bracket lamp (Figure 92). At the time it was
found, however, there was no burner, chimney, or filler closure attached to the font. However, a
loose filler closure was found nearby (.181) as well as a burner (.192). The base of the font (.200)
is reduced in size to fit inside a ring in the wall bracket, which was missing. Several bracket
lamps appear in the 1902 Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog and range in price from 75¢ to
90¢ each. The removable font made this style lamp very versatile. The side lamp, a cheaper
version of the wall bracket lamp, was available during the early nineteenth century. This
cheaper version was made of tin and had a fixed position on the wall. The cast iron wall bracket
swung side to side and the reflector could move up and down as well as side to side. This
allowed someone to direct the light were it was needed most. 504
203
Figure 92. Photograph of a lamp base found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
Two standard-size plain-top chimneys were recovered from the cabin and were
intended for use in household lamps. These chimneys were likely on lamps that were burning
at the time the vessel sank. This assumption is based on the presence of soot or lamp black and
holes broken out of the sides of each chimney. These characteristics suggest the lamps tipped
over and the heat from the flame caused the glass to break. Both household chimneys have
three inch bases although one has what was called a pearl top, which was a common decorative
feature copied by most chimney makers (Figure 93). 505
Figure 93. Lamp chimney found onboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
In a properly functioning kerosene lantern, it is the fuel that burns, not the wick. The
liquid kerosene, however, will not burn; it must be vaporized by heat of the nearby flame.
Adding more oxygen to a flame makes it burn hotter and brighter. The chimney is added to
restrict the escaping heat, creating a draft so that more air is pulled in below the flame. The
extra oxygen allows more fuel to burn and make a brighter flame. As oil lanterns developed,
several different methods of getting oxygen to the flame were tried. The ordinary kerosene
light, with simply a font, burner, and chimney, was called a dead flame lantern or lamp. The
tubular lantern is any lantern with a tube or tubes used to carry air to the burner for better
combustion. The hot blast and cold blast are the two primary types used during the early
twentieth century. A hot blast lantern has a tube or tubes that carry used, hot exhaust gas from
the chimney to the burner. A cold blast design routes heated fresh air to the flame. 506
Since canal boats operated day and night, those working on deck needed lanterns to see
when dark and as well as for running lights of the vessel. Found in the pantry area was a burner
204
(192) with the markings "C.T. Ham Mfg., USA, Hot Blast/No. 5 Dash-Clipper & S.S.S." The
burner is made of brass and had a wire mesh screen guiding the wick into the burner. (This
screen fell apart during the conservation process). The C.T. Ham Manufacturing Company of
Rochester, New York made a wide variety of commercial lanterns using a cold and hot blast
draft. The hot blast draft design produced a brighter light than a typical lantern, but the cold
blast design produced an even brighter light by forcing more oxygen into the flame. The
problem with the hot blast technique was that spent air was forced down into the burner. Spent
air from the flame has less oxygen to fuel the flame. The cold blast design used the rising warm
air of the flame to create a draft that drew fresh air through the tubes supplying air down to the
burner. 507
In 1886, the C.T. Ham Manufacturing Company was founded by Charles Trafton Ham
in Rochester, New York. The company made tubular, street, square, headlights, railroad,
commercial, and vessel lamps and lanterns. A 1908 C. T. Ham Manufacturing Company catalog
made the claim that "If it's a Ham's you can depend on it." The company’s products were well
known and respected by its customers and competitors. In 1914, the company closed and was
then purchased by the R. E. Dietz Company. 508
By 1920, the construction of kerosene lanterns was fully standardized among the
American manufactures, so only a small number of globe styles were made and they were
interchangeable. Two kerosene lantern globes were also found in the cabin. These globes were
intended for use in portable lanterns. Although both globes were broken into fragments, there
were no carbon deposits or other evidence that they were attached to a lit lantern during the
sinking of the canal boat. These may have been spare parts on hand. One of the globes is the
standard No. 0 globe that fits most barn-style lanterns, while the other has a flared lip at the top,
which is an older style of globe. In the 1902 Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog, clear globes
cost 8¢ each. 509
Throughout the 1920s, the popularity in battery powered lights increased for
commercial purposes, including use aboard ship. There was no evidence of battery-powered
lighting aboard this shipwreck. Those living aboard the Sloop Island Canal Boat were still using
kerosene as their primary light source at night and during inclement weather. 510
Flatware
Several different types of flatware were found in a cupboard drawer within the cabin.
The manufacturers represented in the collection include: Williams Brothers Manufacturing
Company, International Silver Company, and the Royal Manufacturing Company. The
remaining unmarked flatware found in the drawer is of a pattern called “Tipped”. Most
nineteenth and early twentieth century flatware makers had their own version of this popular
pattern. All of the flatware found in the cupboard drawer represent the least expense solid
silver and plated silver available during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The
diversity of manufacturers found in the collection suggests that the canal boat household was of
modest means. 511
In 1880, the Williams Brothers Manufacturing Company was founded in Naubuc,
Connecticut by James B. and William Williams. The company manufactured plated silver
spoons, forks, and a general line of flatware until 1950. In 1890, the company introduced the
Geisha pattern seen on some of the spoons in the collection of flatware found in a cupboard
drawer within the cabin of the canal boat. It is uncertain as to when the company stopped
production of the Geisha pattern. 512
205
In 1862, the Rogers Brothers firm, the same firm that established the 1847 Rogers
Brothers Line, was acquired by the Meriden Britannia Company of Meriden, Connecticut. By
the end of the nineteenth century, the Meriden Britannia Company had become an international
company with branches and sales offices throughout North America and Europe. In 1898, the
company was the leading organization in the formation of the International Silver Company,
which continued production of the 1847 Rogers Brothers Line. In 1887, the Assyrian pattern was
introduced by the company in its 1847 Rogers Brothers Line, the same pattern that adorns one
of the spoons found in the cupboard drawer on board the Sloop Island Canal boat. 513 The
International Silver Company established a system of weight markings on its sterling silver
flatware. This system is exhibited on several pieces of the flatware found in the drawer. The
symbol "AI" following the maker's mark “1847 Rogers Bros.” on the backside of the spoon
handle is an indication of the quality of the silver and the pattern group. "A" represents the
lightest and cheapest amount of silver available, called teaspoon or five o'clock silver. After
1917, the 1847 Rogers Brothers Line was made in only one quality and all “quality” marks were
discontinued. "I" represents pattern group one. The 1847 Rogers Brothers line was divided into
four pattern groups. Based on the markers found on the collection of 1847 Rogers Brothers Line
spoons found in the cupboard drawer were produced between 1887 and 1917. 514
The serving spoon (3.007), which is marked “Brazil Silver” on the backside of the handle,
was probably part of the same set as the knife (3.015), which was made by the Royal
Manufacturing Company. This simple knife pattern is commonly found with the sets of tipped
pattern spoons, such as the serving spoon (3.007). The Royal Manufacturing Company of
Detroit, Michigan was in operation from about 1894 to at least 1910. To promote sales, the
company gave away children's toys and inexpensive jewelry to purchasers of their "celebrated
Brazil silver goods.” In a 1900 guarantee of quality certificate, the Royal Manufacturing
Company stated that all Brazil Silver goods were guaranteed to be the same metal all the way
through as shown on the surface and to wear and to give perfect satisfaction to the purchaser
for twenty-five years or their money would be refunded. 515
Personal Objects
In the collection of objects found in the cabin is the lower half or sole of a right shoe,
including the leather insole or innersole, welt, outsole, and heel, and a rubber top piece. The
edges of the shoe’s insole are split and the upper is chain stitched to the upper split section of
the shoe’s insole. The outsole is attached to the insole using copper tacks. The heel is a
composite of leather, wood, and rubber.
Found within the cupboard drawer containing the flatware was a large assortment of
articles, including safety pins. During the early twentieth century, safety pins came in a variety
of standard sizes. In the 1923 Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog safety pins were sold in
packages of dozens. All of the safety pins found in the drawer seem to have been made by the
same manufacturer as indicated by their design, based on the shape and the fact that they all
have a single sided shield. 516
Glass Containers
With the increasing distance to markets during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, glass containers became a primary method to protect and preserve goods in small
quantities during shipment. As a result, glass bottles and other containers were common in
206
every household by the end of the 19th century. Sealed glass containers helped to assure
consumers that the contents were pure and sanitary. Brand names on glass containers
reinforced consumer confidence. Packaging was also adopted to make it easier for customers to
bring home and store their purchases. Bottle shapes and markings often indicate a bottle’s
contents, function, and provenience, inviting researchers to guess the tastes, wealth,
connections, and habits of the people who used the bottles. However, empty bottles were often
reused for different purposes. Reuse of storage objects must be considered whenever bottles are
found, which can complicate archaeological analysis. 517
For example, during the early twentieth century, druggists commonly charged
customers for new prescription bottles and then refunded the charge if the bottle was returned
or omitted the charge if the bottle was refilled. Customers also brought their own bottles to
druggists to be filled; sometimes these were medicine bottles, sometimes they were not. When
reuse is taken into account, bottles cannot be seen as an easy guide to consumer behavior. To
avoid simplistic interpretations, archaeologists look for wear such as scratches and abrasions to
indicate how long a bottle was used as well as the way it was used. 518
Several glass containers were found in the kitchen cupboard and in the pantry. These
articles included medicine bottles, beverage bottles, fruit or canning jars, a perfume bottle (18),
and an ink bottle (.115). The aquamarine ink bottle was made by a fully automatic bottling
machine, which indicates it was made no earlier than the 1910s. The bottle, which originally had
a paper label, is unmarked. The patent medicine bottles were originally stored in the kitchen
cupboard, probably on one of the upper shelves behind the cupboard doors. Most of the
containers were made of “clear” glass, which actually varied in color from clear to blue to green.
One milk glass container was found near the location of the cupboard. The pumpkin-shaped
container had a screw top and probably held a fragrant cream or other cosmetic product. The
date the container was manufactured is unknown; however, the popularity of milk glass
reached its peak during the first decade of the twentieth century. 519
A rectangular patent medicine bottle (.032) was found in the rubble of the kitchen
cupboard. The small bottle has rounded corners, a flat indentation on the bottom, a ball neck, a
patent lip, and recessed panels for paper labels on its two broad sides. The bottle was originally
sealed by a cork. No distinguishing marks or characteristics appear on the bottle to suggest
what its contents were at the time of the boat’s sinking. This style of bottle was widely used
during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for patent medicines. The broken top of
another possible medicine bottle (.198), which has a prescription lip, was also found inside the
cabin.
At one time, the medicine bottle (.032) contained Sloan's Nerve & Bone Liniment made
by Dr. E. S. Sloan of Boston, Massachusetts. As the medicine’s name suggests, the adults of the
household likely used the medication to ease their joint pain. Dr. Sloans liniment, made mostly
of turpentine oil, had been trusted since 1885 to relieve joint pain from arthritis, overwork, and
fatigue.
The patent medicine bottle (.203) contained Atwood's Jaundice Bitters, which was a
medicine first developed by Moses Atwood in Georgetown, Massachusetts about 1840. 520 On
the bottom of the bottle is the sequence “P17,” which may represent a plant abbreviation and
the date of production. Unfortunately, these codes are impossible to decipher without the
internal documents of the company, which are rarely available. Atwood’s Jaundice Bitters was
designed to cure jaundice, a condition in which there is an excess of bile pigments in the
bloodstream and bodily tissues caused by a disturbance to the liver. The most obvious sign of
207
jaundice is the yellowish discoloration to a person’s skin and the whites of his or her eyes. Some
of the various diseases that cause jaundice are anemia, congestion in the circulatory system,
pneumonia, congenital liver abnormalities, degeneration of the liver cells caused by poison or
an infectious organism, and obstructions or tumors in the liver or bile ducts. Since these
diseases afflict people of all ages, the medicine could have been used to cure anyone in the canal
boat household.
A small medicine bottle is embossed “C. H. Humphrey Druggist, Mooers, New York.”
The bottle was manufactured by Whitall-Tatum & Company, which was located in Millville,
New Jersey and made glassware from 1857 until 1938. The maker's mark on the bottom of the
bottle was used until 1901, when the company changed its name to Whitall-Tatum Company
and changed its maker’s mark to “W.T. Co.” The company was a leading manufacturer of
chemist, druggist, and perfumers’ wares of white and green glass. This bottle has a Philadelphia
oval shape, a shape generally found on medicine bottles of the late-19th and early 20th-century.
The bottom is embossed “W.T. & Co. /AN USA.” 521
An unmarked clear soda bottle (.210) with a crown finish was found in the pantry.
William Painter patented this style of finish in the United States in 1892. The crown cap used
with this type of finish proved to be the ideal single-use closure for carbonated beverages,
which is still in use today. 522 On the bottom of the bottle are embossed the numbers “1620” over
top of a very faint “1621.” These numbers may represent two different mold numbers.
Two root beer bottles (.102 and .209) from a private brand bottler called G. B. Seely's Son
were found in the pantry area. G. B. Seeley’s Son was established in 1857, according to the
company’s advertisements that appear in New York City directories during the early twentieth
century. The company was dissolved in 1928 when Canada Dry acquired their New York City
plant. The bottom of the bottles is marked with the sequence “10-11,” which may represent a
date. According to New York City directory for 1910, the company’s factory was located at 319,
321, and 323 West 15th Street in Manhattan, which is the address that appears embossed on the
bottle. During the year 1910, G. B. Seeley’s Son expanded its factory to include 325-331 West 15th
Street, which is noted in their advertisement for 1911. 523
With their down tooled finish, these bottles may have used a lightning-type closure,
which was an enormously successful bottle closure of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth
centuries. The basic invention was patented in the United States in 1875. A stopper of rubber or
porcelain was attached to a wire bail that pivoted on either side of the neck under the finish.
This closure was expensive and was more frequently used for beer and ale bottles than soft
drink bottles. 524
Several alcohol bottles were located in the cabin, including a half-pint flask from Max
Luria (.117), an importer and dealer of fine wines and liquors. Max Luria had establishments at
several locations in Manhattan and was listed in New York City directories at the 1576 3rd
Avenue address embossed on the bottle between the years 1903 and 1918. This liquor bottle,
which was likely sealed with a cork, was found among the remnants of the kitchen cupboard
along with the patent medicine bottles, which suggests that the contents may have been used
for “medicinal purposes.” A small brown beer bottle (.096) was found in the pantry area and
was likely sealed with a Hutchinson spring stopper, which was patented in the United States in
1879. The device consisted of a loop of heavy wire attached to a rubber gasket, which sits inside
the bottle neck with the tip of the wire loop protruding over the edge of the mouth. This type of
closure was used until approximately 1915, when the crown cap became the dominant singleuse closure for all beverage bottles. 525
208
Two wine bottles (.096 and .101) were found in the pantry. These bottles were sealed
using corks, which were missing when the bottles were recovered at the time of the survey.
During the early twentieth century, a cork was the most common closure for bottles and smallmouthed jars. To remove the cork from bottles, it required a corkscrew, which could be found in
every early twentieth-century kitchen, including that of the Sloop Island Canal Boat. A straight
pull corkscrew (3.006) with a fixed wooden T-handle and dusting brush was found in a drawer
of the kitchen cupboard. The handle was decorated by barrel-shaped turned ends. This popular
and simple style of corkscrew has been made since the eighteenth century. 526
All of the alcohol bottles were stored in easily accessible areas of the cabin: the kitchen
cupboard or the pantry. The crew made no attempt to hide or conceal the alcohol. This open use
of alcohol suggests that it was purchased before January 16, 1920, when the nation-wide ban on
the manufacture and sale of liquor went into effect. If the canalers had been caught with
alcohol, US Customs Officers, who inspected the canal boats thoroughly every time they
crossed the US-Canadian border, would have certainly confiscated the crew’s alcohol and
issued them a hefty fine.
In the pantry was also stored the only milk bottle found aboard the shipwreck. The
bottle’s markings state that it was the property and on loan from the Rockland Dairy of
Rockland, Ontario. Rockland is located on the Ottawa River, approximately 20 miles from the
capital city of Ottawa, which was in the area where southbound lumber was loaded and coal
was unloaded from the American canal boats around the beginning of the twentieth century.
After the emptying the bottle, the canalers could have reused the bottle or returned it on their
next trip to Rockland. This bottle is an example of a common sense milk bottle, which used a
wood pulp or paper cap. The cap was easily and quickly snapped in place to prevent leakage. 527
Several fruit jars, more commonly known today as canning jars, were found in the
pantry. The “Big Three” fruit jar companies of the United States in the twentieth century were
Ball, Hazel-Atlas, and Owens-Illinois. The first two companies are represented in the collection:
A Ball mason jar, manufactured in Muncie, Indiana between 1898 and 1910 and historically is
called the “three L jar” because of the loop at the end of the embossed name Ball appears like a
third letter L; A “Mason’s Patent Nov. 30, 58” jar (.043) made by the Ball company in 1890; and
an Atlas Strong Shoulder Mason jar, which dates to circa 1915, was made in Wheeling, West
Virginia by the Hazel Atlas Glass Company. 528
The only jar found that was not made in the United States was a Canadian-made Crown
fruit jar, which was the most popular type fruit jar in Canada during its production from 1867 to
1966. There are many variations of these jars. Typically, they used a glass insert with a crowndesign and metal screw band. No evidence of either was located in association with the jar,
which appears to have been made circa 1883 to 1891 by the Northern American Glass Company
of Montreal and Quebec. 529
None of the jars have a mold seam that extends from the bottom of the jar and across its
upper rim, which is typical of machine-made jars dating after about 1915. Those fruit jars that
did not seal upon their shoulder, used a glass lid and a sealing rubber, held in place by a zinc or
metal screw band. A "Boyd's Genuine Porcelain Lined Cap" made of milk glass was found near
the fruit jars. Lewis Boyd filed a patent in 1869 for his glass inserts, which was "an improved
mode of preventing corrosion in metallic caps." This innovation kept food from coming in
contact with the zinc in the screw caps. Boyd and his predecessor, the Consolidated Fruit Jar
Company of New Brunswick, New Jersey (1871-1908), had most of the market and made the
209
inserts until circa 1908. The screw caps and inserts were interchangeable with the mason jars
made by hundreds of different manufactures during the early twentieth century. 530
One vacuum preserving jar (.294), without its metal cover, was found aboard the
shipwreck among the crew’s dishes. The function of this jar was to preserve commercially
packaged food stuffs such as meats and fruits; however, no residue or label was found to
suggest how the container was used. Jars of this type were similar in size and shape to tumblers
and were often intended to serve as drinking glasses after their contents had been eaten. The
container used a sheet metal cover and gasket to prevent air from entering the container. Since a
cover was not found, the container may have been used as a tumbler, however, the lip on the
container is very sharp. On the bottom of the jar are embossed “134” and below this number
appears “Pat. Feb. 10, 03.” This date corresponds with patent number 720,129, which was given
to Carl C. Giles and Granville H. Gray of Upland, Indiana. The patent was assigned to John S.
Giles, the owner of the Safe Glass Company (1890-1905) of Blowing Green, Ohio. In 1905, Giles
and a San Francisco maker of closures formed the Hermetic Closure Company and ended all
glass blowing operations the following year. 531
One of the other tumblers found within in the cupboard was made by the Westmoreland
Specialty Company of Grapeville, Pennsylvania, which was organized in 1888. The tumbler is of
a pattern referred to in the company catalogs as pattern #500 and by modern collectors as “Old
Quilt.” Production of this pattern began in 1909 and had been continuously been in production
until at least 1996. The design is an imitation of a complicated cut glass pattern called “diamond
and ribbon design.” 532
Several Colonial pattern tumblers were also located in the remnants of the cupboard.
The Colonial pattern was the oldest and most common pattern glass decoration at the beginning
of the twentieth century. This simple pattern consisted of numerous flutes molded into the sides
of a piece. By 1920, almost every glass company making tableware had introduced their own
Colonial pattern. As in the collection of ceramics found aboard, the diversity of tumblers also
indicates that the family had little concern about having matching drinking glasses. One
Colonial pattern glass closely resembles the 1700 Line (Colonial) made by the Westmoreland
Specialty Company of Grapeville, Pennsylvania. This straight-sided water tumbler appears in
Westmoreland’s catalogs dating from 1912 to 1926. 533
Among the glassware was found a table service, consisting of a matching creamer,
covered sugar bowl, and covered butter dish. This set resembles the designs called Colonial or
Peerless (pattern #300) and Colonial Scalloped Top produced by A. H. Heisey of Newark, Ohio
beginning about 1897 and 1909 respectively. This pattern was made in many variations and on a
great number of different vessel types until the mid twentieth century by other glass companies
attempting to imitate A. H. Heisey’s highly successful colonial lines. The glassware found
around the kitchen cupboard is lacking the base “petticoat” of the A. H. Heisey colonial designs
so this table service was likely produced during the first quarter of the twentieth century. 534 A
second creamer or cream pitcher was among the glassware. This vessel is of the Sydney Pattern
#1333 made by the Fostoria Glass Company of Moundsville, West Virginia between 1905 and
1913. 535
Tools
Several different types of tools were found inside the cabin, booby, and forecastle of the
shipwreck. A gasoline blowtorch was found on the cabin floor just forward of the cook range.
The torch, capable of providing a very hot flame, was suitable for melting pitch and tar,
210
softening or burning off paint, heating metal enough to cut or bend it, and assisting in loosening
heavily corroded metal parts; all tasks familiar to the northern canalers. The torch would have
come in handy for many of the boatman's repairs. The body of the torch was made of seamless
drawn brass. The filler is located at the top of the torch body. A pump was located on top of the
wooden handle, while a valve controlling the pressure in the torch was located at the bottom of
the handle. There are no markings on the torch or evidence that it had any support on top of the
torch head for a soldering iron, which was common on those used by plumbers. In the 1908
Sears, Roebuck and Company catalog gasoline torches were sold for under $3 each. 536
The only artifact found in the cabin that is certainly intrusive or not associated with the
vessel’s working career is a Mooselook Wobbler fishing lure (.191). This 0.25 ounce spoon lure
was developed in 1938 by John A. Greene on Lake Mooselookmeguntic in Maine and has been a
favorite in the lakes of New England for catching trout and salmon. No hooks or fishing line
was found attached to the lure, which was located on the deck inside the cabin. To the dismay
of a fisherman, the hooks of the lure probably caught on the shipwreck and the lure was
abandoned, and over time, the hooks rusted away.
Among the tools in the toolbox built into the companionway stairs was a 10 inch (25.4
cm) monkey wrench. Although a maker’s mark is not visible on the badly corroded wrench, the
design is after L. Coes’ of Worcester, Massachusetts, which were patented in 1841. This favorite
among adjustable wrenches was produced by several companies during the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, including P.S. & W. of Cleveland, Ohio; Girard Wrench
Manufacturing Company of Girard, Pennsylvania; and Sargent & Company of New Haven,
Connecticut. 537
Two pulleys were found aboard the vessel. One small single awning pulley with a 1.5
inch (3.8 cm) wheel, which could take a rope that is 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) or smaller, was found in a
kitchen cupboard drawer. A very similar pulley was available for purchase from the 1895
Montgomery Ward & Company catalog for 8 cents. 538
A Stanley Liberty Bell Plane Number 122 was found in the toolbox. This smooth plane
had adjustable irons, a 1.75 inch (4.4 cm) cutting edge, and weighed 2 pounds 2 ounces (1 kg)
when new. In the 1895 Montgomery Ward & Company catalog, the plane cost 65 cents. This
short plane would have worked well for smoothing edges and removing splitters but would not
have been very efficient at smoothing long lengths of wood. 539
211
Figure 94. Scale drawing of the Stanley Liberty Bell Plane found onboard the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (LCMM Collection, by Gordon Cawood).
Several wood brace drill bits were found in the toolbox and the bottom drawer of the
chest of drawers. One 5/8 inch (1.6 cm) diameter wood brace auger bit (.122) had double spurs
and could drill to a maximum depth of approximately 6.75 inches (17.1 cm). The chuck end of
the bit is marked “1C” or “10.” The meaning of this mark is unknown. Another 5/8 inch (1.6
cm) bit was found with a missing chuck end. The function aboard the ship for these bits is
unknown, as it does not match any of the dimensions of the vessel’s fasteners.
Ship's Equipment
Several pieces of ship's equipment were found throughout the vessel. Inside one of the
cupboard drawers was found a galvanized pulley with a 1.5-inch (3.8 cm) wheel. The single
wheel pulley likely had a number of different functions on board. It was designed to except
rope up to 5/16-inch (0.8 cm) in diameter. In 1908, Sears, Roebuck and Company sold the pulley
for 7¢. 540
Within the forecastle was found a roll of roofing felt or tar paper, which has its origins
during the American Civil War. Due to the waterproof qualities of tar paper, it would come in
handy to cover hatches temporarily to make them waterproof or to sheath and waterproof the
temporary winter shelters that were often constructed over the companionway into the cabin.
Such structures are seen in several early twentieth century photographs of northern canal boats.
In 1895 for under $2, canalers could have purchased a 100 pound (45.4 kg) roll of tar paper at a
hardware or general store and even through mail order catalogues such as Montgomery
Wards. 541
212
Figure 95. Photograph showing the roll of tar paper in the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s forecastle
(LCMM Collection, by Pierre LaRocque).
213
FLORESCENCE INVESTIGATIONS
Three dives were undertaken to assess the technologies supplied by Nightsea, which
might help reveal more detail of the fragmentary painted words and numbers on the vessel. For
the first experimental dive a Light Cannon fitted with the blue- and ultraviolet-transmitting
filters was employed. No striking fluorescence was observed on the sides or deck of the boat.
There was also no fluorescence associated with the registration numbers. At the stern there was
definite pale yellow fluorescence associated with painted surfaces. The fluorescence was more
evident with blue-light illumination than with ultraviolet. A very small area of strong red
fluorescence was observed high on the starboard side of the transom that is probably associated
with another kind of paint.
On the second experimental dive a Light Cannon fitted with both blue- and greentransmitting filters was used. At the registration numbers the observations of the first dive were
confirmed. Despite the increased contrast when viewing the surface through the yellow filter
with blue-light illumination, no more of the numbers could be read than had been noted using
conventional dive lights.
At the transom a patch of paint with a partial letter was clearly visible under white-light
illumination. With a white light the letter was dark against a light background, with a
decorative element above it. The painted area fluoresced under blue-light illumination, but
there was even less contrast than there had been with white light. The three distinct portions of
the painted area (letter, background, and decorative element) fluoresced with similar color and
intensity. This suggests that whatever component of the paint was fluorescing, most likely lead,
was common to all three paint colors, and not uniquely associated with the color of the paint.
Several extremely small spots of intense orange fluorescence were observed on an iron
feature on the starboard side of the stern. The color is suggestive of the fluorescence from
phycoerythrin, a photosynthetic accessory pigment in red algae and cyanobacteria, but no
obvious plant growth was observed on the wreck. To determine the source of the fluorescence it
would be necessary to remove the rusting material from the wreck and make a more detailed
examination with a microscope. Similar small spots have been seen at other locations (not
necessarily associated with shipwrecks) and are of unknown origin.
On the third research dive the UltraMax and the ultraviolet-sensitive video camera were
used to record ultraviolet reflectance from the site. The dive focused on recording the
registration numbers and the transom. The ultraviolet reflectance was generally low. The labels
placed by LCMM team on planks in the stern cabin could easily be seen in the video, as could
some of the remnant paint on the transom. However, no significant features were seen, yielding
no new information on the vessel’s identity.
The objectives of investigating several of the features on the wreck with new imaging
approaches were met. Unfortunately, these techniques did not provide enough information to
name the vessel. Even so, it was a worthwhile exercise to evaluate these previously untried
techniques.
214
CARGO ANALYSIS
The hold of the Sloop Island Canal Boat is filled to approximately 50 percent
capacity with coal. In January 2004 a coal sample was sent to Standard Laboratories,
Gould Energy Division for analysis. The analytical results of the analysis are presented in
Appendix 5. The opinion of the laboratory staff based on the coal’s characteristics is that it
was mined in central Pennsylvania, most likely in Cambria, Somerset, or Clearfield
counties.
215
CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Phase III archaeological investigations of the Sloop Island Canal Boat wreck were
carried out in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and under
the guidelines of Vermont State Archaeological Standards. This project was undertaken as an
off-site mitigation to the proposed cleanup of the Pine Street Canal Superfund Site, located in
Burlington, Vermont. Numerous abandoned late nineteenth/early twentieth century canal boat
wrecks were identified at this location and the work to clean-up the Canal would impact these
historic resources. In order to compensate for the loss of historic information at the Barge Canal
site, a Memorandum of Agreement was reached between the state, federal and private parties
involved with the Superfund Site cleanup. The resultant agreement was to carry out a full-scale
archaeological investigation of a comparable canal boat wreck in Lake Champlain. The Sloop
Island Canal Boat, located off the shores of Charlotte, Vermont, was chosen since it is the same
type of vessel as those impacted within the Barge Canal Superfund site.
The archaeological investigations of the Sloop Island Canal Boat wreck helped to refine
the vessel type identification, confirming that it is a well-preserved unrigged Lake Champlain
canal boat of the 1873 class, built after the second enlargement of the Champlain Canal and
before the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915. Due to the stable environment on the
bottom of Lake Champlain, the canal boat’s upright orientation, and the presence of cargo and
sediment inside the hull, the timbers and associated artifacts were well preserved despite more
than 90 years on the bottom of Lake Champlain. Approximately ninety percent of the site
remains intact, retaining its historic integrity, and supporting its nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places (See Appendix 8).
During the ten weeks of fieldwork carried out at the Sloop Island Canal Boat site in 2002
and 2003 an impressive artifact collection was recovered from the wreck. These items provide a
glimpse into the vessel’s use life and the lifeways of those who lived and worked aboard during
the early part of the twentieth century. Life onboard a boat of this type was further detailed in
this report through the historical investigations undertaken for this project, which made use of
archaeological, documentary, pictorial, and oral history records. While an absolute date
indicating when the vessel sank could not be established, nor could the true identity of the
wreck that has come to be known as the Sloop Island Canal Boat be ascertained, the
archaeological and historical information gained from this investigation has refined our
knowledge of this well preserved archaeological site and canal boat life in general.
The artifacts recovered from the wreck, as well as the documentation of the vessel type
and construction, did provide clues to the approximate time period that this vessel was built,
when it plied the waters of Lake Champlain, as well as when it sank. The spatial data and
artifacts collected from the vessel cabin were used in conjunction with contemporary oral
history, documents, and historic images to reconstruct the layout of the cabin and how the
Sloop Island Canal Boat’s household used their space. Analysis of the artifacts recovered also
served as indicators as to the possible age, gender, and role of the household members and their
relationship with the communities along the Northern Waterway. This analysis also provided
clues as to the nature of daily life for these Northern Canalers.
216
The Sinking of the Sloop Island Canal Boat
The archaeological evidence collected, as well as the vessel itself, have provided strong
clues to how this canal boat sank, though the exact date and cause of its sinking remain a
mystery. As an 1873 model canal boat, this vessel likely had a 20-30 year use life before its
demise. Observations of the vessel’s hull indicated that it had not undergone any significant
repairs over the course of its uselife, however, portions of the decking near the cleats had been
repaired. This attests to the possible age of the vessel when it sank and the strain placed on
those wooden components during the standard daily use of the deck cleats.
The construction of the vessel also helps to gauge the age length of its uselife. The Sloop
Island Canal Boat has a style of stern that LCMM researchers have designated as a type A
stern. 542 The type A stern is characterized by a large overhanging curved upper transom and a
vertical lower transom. When viewed from behind, the upper transom is tallest in the middle
and tapers downward toward the sides, while from above it is curved slightly aft, allowing the
rudderpost to come up through just forward of the transom. It is indicative of canal boats built
in the early years of the 1873-class of canal boat. Boats of this style first appear on Lake
Champlain, corresponding with the 1873 expansion of the Champlain Canal locks and the
consequent enlargement of the canal boats. Type A sterns were constructed through the 1880s,
but are eventually replaced with the easier to construct Type B and C sterns. 543
While vessel type provided a minimum date to the construction of the wreck (1873), the
artifact assemblage found aboard provided a possible maximum date of occupation of the
wreck (circa 1920). Additionally, the longevity of the vessel’s uselife can be estimated because
the insurance papers could not be located for this wreck. It is likely that the family that owned
this boat did so for at least five years prior to its sinking, since insurance was usually only
required until the vessel was paid off, a process which normally took canal boat families about
five years. It can also be surmised that the cargo on board, coal from Pennsylvania, indicates
that the vessel was traveling north on Lake Champlain for its delivery. Coal cargo was more
often allotted to boats without insurance, as opposed to more valuable types of cargo. The
loading of coal into the hold often would cause damage to the vessel hull as the coal was
dumped below deck. Given that the bottom of the hull of the wreck is encased in silt and mud
on the lake bottom, and the hold remains full of coal, it was not possible to determine what
form of damage may have caused the vessel to sink.
Since many of the crew’s belongings remained onboard the vessel, it is likely that it sank
rather quickly and unexpectedly, but not catastrophically, as in the case of collision. The
condition of the kerosene lanterns (the black soot on the side of the lantern from tipping over)
indicated that the vessel would have sunk at night, since the lanterns were lit. The boat likely
began to list to one side while attached to other canal boat on its port side during a tow. Cleats
on the port side of the wreck have the remains of rope within them, and it is likely that the
vessel was cut loose from the tow as it began to list to its starboard side while sinking. The
location of the wreck, in the middle of the lake within deep waters, also supports the theory that
the vessel sank while traveling the broad waters down Lake Champlain.
The Crew and Their Vessel
Canalers of the Northern Waterway were “water gypsies” and nomadic families, almost
constantly moving up and down the New England inland water corridor, from New York to
Quebec. This lifestyle for families and crew that lived and worked aboard these vessels was
217
certainly one of hardship and dedication: the hardships of physical labor and tight living
quarters, and the dedication to a life on the water as boatmen and women. Canal boat life did
not provide much in terms of excess income and the material culture retrieved from the Sloop
Island wreck reflects a household that was by no means lavish. Living and working in such a
confined space required cautious organization of the living areas, as well as the consideration
for the hazards of living aboard a working water-going vessel.
The archaeological evidence from the Sloop Island Canal boat wreck suggests that the
family and crew that occupied this vessel were concerned with the establishment of their vessel
as a home, and were frugal as well as lenient in their foodstuffs and kitchenware. The artifact
assemblages have provided a glimpse into the crew’s identity, preferences, daily life and
ailments. Through the artifact assemblage it is possible to establish that a man, woman, and
likely one child (a young teen or pre-teen boy) occupied the vessel. Articles of clothing and
shoes found in the cabin relate to both a woman and a man living on board. The heel of a man's
shoe was found in the chest of drawers, as well as a wool coat discovered near the center of the
cabin, that appears to be similar to captain’s coats of the period. The heel of a woman’s shoe
was also found near the bed, as well as two hair accessories.
The approximate age of this family is a bit unclear. While there is no solid evidence for a
young child living aboard the vessel, most likely a pre-teen boy was part of the nuclear family.
Additionally, if a child or pre-teen were present onboard, the minimal amount of actual toys
recovered from the cabin may simply reflect the family’s socioeconomic condition. Children’s
toys were likely not a commonly bought commodity for canal boat families and the small stash
of odd items found within the toolbox and colored marbles would indicate that the child or
adolescence that lived on board this vessel made due with the accumulation of small treasures.
The descriptions of the typical Champlain Canal boat cabin discussed in Chapter 7 are
nearly identical to that discovered on the Sloop Island Canal Boat. Analysis of the cabin layout
suggests that the small living space was divided into sections based on their function. The
cabin stairwell was located in the after end of the cabin along the port side. Beneath the stairs
was a storage area containing a toolbox. To port of the stairs, under the walkway alongside the
cabin were a couple of shelves used to store food. The artifacts recovered from this area include
crocks, bottles, canning jars, and jugs. Forward of the shelving unit was a chest of drawers,
which contained tools, shoes, and money. Forward of this and also under the deck along the
portside was a folding iron bed. In the center of the cabin was a caned armed rocking chair,
presumably near the location of the dinning table. Located in the forward starboard corner of
the cabin were a cast iron double bed and a stool. Along the starboard side of the cabin were
two shelves used to store tin ware dishes. Aft of the bed was a large cast iron cook range, which
was separated from the rest of the cabin by a panel wall and linoleum flooring. To port of the
stove was a large hutch with multiple shelves and drawers housing the family’s dishes, glasses,
utensils, and patent medicines.
218
In effect, the cabin served as the family’s kitchen, den, storage unit and sleeping
quarters. Each of their belongings had a specific place, and the careful use of all available spaces
made living and working aboard the vessel practical and organized. The family cooked, ate and
slept within this rather confined space. Of course the deck could be used for such work as
laundry and more messy food preparation, but the cabin was certainly the central unit of the
canal boat household
Few of the kitchen items recovered from the cabin matched one another and plate
settings and glasses were likely accumulated opportunistically by the family over time. A small
sample of whiteware ceramics dating between 1891 and 1897 likely represent heirloom items
passed down from the previous generation, while the twentieth century ceramics reflect the
growing preference for American made goods. Foodstuffs indicate the consumption of fresh
fruits, salted meats and picked fish. Additionally, the crew kept stock of alcohol, likely for canal
boat community gatherings, an indication that although monies may have been tight, canal boat
life always included laid back, collective atmosphere while in tow.
CONCLUSION
Much remains to be learned about the men, women, and children who lived and died on
the Northern Waterway. Current maritime histories have left out the legacy of canalers, but this
report has strived to change that. Fortunately, Lake Champlain has proven to be the ideal
location to study the archaeological remains of this way of life, and the well preserve Sloop
Island Canal Boat shipwreck has served as a time capsule of information. Though it represents
one of several dozens of canal boats that sank unexpectedly to the lake, the opportunity to
thoroughly study and ultimately make available the information yielded from this wreck was a
unique opportunity. The results of this project have helped to expand our understanding of the
lifeways of this unique group of people that traveled and worked on Lake Champlain for over a
century.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat was proposed and accepted as a Lake Champlain Historic
Underwater Preserve Site in the summer of 2005 and has been nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places. The importance of this wreck stretches beyond the information it has
yielded. It is an integral part of Lake Champlain’s cultural history, and its preservation and
accessibility for years to come make it a regional treasure.
219
220
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Henry S. "Report on Transportation Business in the United States at the
Eleventh Census: 1890; Part II-Transportation by Water," in The Miscellaneous
Documents of the House of Representatives for the First Session of the Fifty-Second
Congress, 1891-1892, Serial Set 3023, Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1894.
Addington, L. R. Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Adkins, L. and R. A. Adkins, Archaeological Illustration, Academic Manuals in Archaeology
Series New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Allen, S. J. The Illustration of Wooden Artifacts: An Introduction and Guide to the Depiction of
Wooden Objects, ed. B. Hurman and M. Steiner, vol. 11, Technical Paper, Oxford,
England: Association of Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors, 1994.
Amrhein, Joseph "Burlington, Vermont: The Economic History of a Northern New
England City" Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1958.
Anderson, Richard Kerfoot Jr., Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships, Washington, DC:
Historic American Buildings/Historic American Engineering Record, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.
Andrén, Anders, Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective,
ed. Charles Edward Orser, Jr., trans. Alan Crozier, Contributions to Global
Historical Archaeology New York: Plenum Press, 1998.
Anonymous, Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, A Merriam Webster, Springfield,
Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, 1988.
Anonymous, ed. The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue, New York: Gramercy
Books, 2000.
Archambault, Cora, Holly Noordsey, and Megan Garrison, "An Interview with Canaler
Cora Archambault," in Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum, 1997.
Archambault, Cora and Jane Vincent, "An Interview with Canaler Cora Archambault,"
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2000.
221
Arcury, Thomas A. "Household Composition and Economic Change in a Rural
Community, 1900-1980: Testing Two Models," American Ethnologist 11, no. 4 1984:
679.
Arensberg, Conrad M. and Solon T. Kimball, Culture and Community, ed. Robert K.
Merton New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965.
Arrow, Holly, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl, Small Groups as Complex
Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, 2000.
Ascher, Robert "Experimental Archaeology," American Anthropologists 63, no. 4, 1961.
Bagdade, Susan and Al Bagdade, Warman's American Pottery & Porcelain, 2nd ed. Iola,
Wisconsin: Krause Publications, 2000.
Banning, Edward Bruce The Archaeologist's Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data,
ed. Michael A. Jochim, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000.
Barber, Russell J. Doing Historical Archaeology: Exercises Using Documentary, Oral, and
Material Evidence, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994.
Barranco, A. Peter Jr., Ticonderoga's Floating Drawbridge, 1871-1920, Demonstration Report,
Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1995.
Bates, Frederick L. Sociopolitical Ecology: Human Systems and Ecological Fields, ed. Robert
L. Flood, Contemporary Systems Thinking, New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
Baum, W. K., Oral History for the Local Historical Society, 3rd ed., Nashville, Tennessee:
American Association for State and Local History, 1987.
Beach, Allen Penfield, Lake Champlain: As Centuries Pass. Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Basin
Harbor Club and Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1994.
Bellico, Russell P. Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake
George and Lake Champlain, Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press,
1992.
Chronicles of Lake Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace, Fleischmanns, New York:
Purple Mountain Press, 1999.
222
Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake George and
Lake Champlain, Revised ed., Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press,
2001.
Betts, Mary Beth "Masterplanning: Municipal Support of Maritime Transport and
Commerce, 1870-1930s," in The New York Waterfront: Evolution and Building
Culture of the Port and Harbor, ed. Kevin Bone, New York: Monacelli Press, 1997.
Bond Warner, Charles B. and C. Eleanor Hall, History of Port Henry, New York Rutland,
Vermont: Tuttle Company, 1931.
Brantley, William F. A Collector's Guide to Ball Jars, Muncie, Indiana: Rosemary Humbert
Martin, 1975.
Bredehoft, Tom Glass Tumblers, 1860s to 1920s: Identification and Value Guide Paducah,
Kentucky: Collector Books, 2004.
Bredehoft, Neil and Tom Bredehoft, Heisey Glass 1896-1957 Identification & Value Guide,
Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2001.
Brown, Marley Roberts III, "The Use of Oral and Documentary Sources in Historical
Archaeology: Ethnohistory at the Mott Farm," Ethnohistory 20, no. 4, 1973.
Buckman, David L. Old Steamboat Days on the Hudson River: Tales and Reminiscences of the
Stirring Times That Followed the Introduction of Steam Navigation, New York:
Grafton Press, 1907.
Busch, Jane "Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse," Historical Archaeology 21,
no. 1, 1987.
Butler, Benjamin Clapp Lake George and Lake Champlain, Albany, New York: Weed,
Parsons and Company, 1868.
Calabresse, Mrs. Alfred, et al., Waterford to Whitehall: A Pictorial Journey Along the
Champlain Division of the New York State Barge Canal During Its Construction,
Publication #2, Waterford, New York: Waterford Historical Museum and Cultural
Center, 1968.
Canfield, Thomas Hawley "Discovery, Navigation, and Navigators of Lake Champlain,"
in Vermont Historical Gazetteer, ed. Abby Maria Hemenway, Vermont Historical
Gazetteer, Burlington, Vermont: A. M. Hemenway, 1868.
223
Cleveland, Hugh Bottle Pricing Guide, Values Updated 2003 ed. (Paducah, Kentucky:
Collector Books, 1988.
.
Coates, John F. et al., "Experimental Boat and Ship Archaeology: Principles and
Methods," International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24, no. 4, 1995.
Cockrell, W. A. "A Trial Classificatory Model for the Analysis of Shipwrecks," in
Shipwreck Anthropology, ed. R. A. Gould, School of American Research Advanced
Seminar Series, Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press,
1983.
Cohn, Arthur B. ed., Zebra Mussels and Their Impact on Historic Shipwrecks, vol. 15,
Technical Reports, Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1996.
Cohn, Arthur B. "General Butler," in Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain:
Results of the 1983 Field Season of the Champlain Maritime Society, ed. R. M. Fischer,
Burlington, Vermont: Champlain Maritime Society, 1985.
Colbert, Neva The Collector's Guide to Harker Pottery U.S.A.: Identification and Value Guide,
Coles, John M. Experimental Archaeology, New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Cone, Gertrude E. "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain
Valley to 1876." M.A. thesis, University of Vermont, 1945.
Connolly, Vera "American Water Gypies," Delineator August 1933.
Cope, Kenneth L. American Wrench Makers 1830-1930, 2nd ed., Mendham, New Jersey:
Astragal Press, 2002.
Copeland, Fred Osmon Lake Champlain: A Guide and Story Handbook, Rutland, Vermont:
Charles E. Tuttle, 1958.
"Champlain Canal Days," Vermonter 46, no. 8, 1941.
Covill, William E. Jr., Ink Bottles and Inkwells, Taunton, Massachusetts: William S.
Sullwold, 1971.
Cozzi, J. R. “North Beach Wreck: A Modern Example of Edge-Fastened Construction,”
Proceedings of the Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 1993.
224
Crisman, Kevin J. and Arthur Bruce Cohn, "Lake Champlain Nautical Archaeology
since 1980," Journal of Vermont Archaeology 1, 1994.
Creighton, J. G. A. "French-Canadian Life and Character," in French Canadian Life and
Character with Historical and Descriptive Sketches of the Scenery and Life in Quebec,
Montreal, Ottawa, and Surrounding Country, ed. George Munro Grant Chicago,
Illinois: Alexander Belford & Company, 1899.
Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole "Experimental Ship Archaeology in Denmark," in Experiment and
Design: Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles, ed. Anthony F. Harding,
Oxford, England: Oxbow Books, 1999.
Cunningham, Jo The Collector's Encyclopedia of American Dinnerware, Updated vols.
Cunningham, Jo, Homer Laughlin China: "a Giant among Dishes" 1873-1939, A Schiffer Book
for Collectors, Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1998.
Cunningham, Jo and Darlene Nossaman, Homer Laughlin China: An Identification Guide to
Shapes & Patterns, A Schiffer Book for Collectors, Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer
Publishing, 2002.
Deagan, Kathleen A. "Neither History nor Prehistory: The Questions That Count in
Historical Archaeology," Historical Archaeology 22, no. 1, 1988.
Dean, Martin et al., eds., Archaeology Underwater: The Nas Guide to Principles and Practice,
Portsmouth and London: Nautical Archaeology Society and Archetype
Publications, 1992.
DeBolt, C. Gerald Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain,
Dillon, B. D. ed., Student's Guide to Archaeological Illustrating, vol. 1, Archaeological
Research Tools, Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California,
1992.
Dorrell, P. G. Photography in Archaeology and Conservation, ed. D. Brothwell, et al.,
Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology Series, New York: Cambridge University Press,
1989.
Edwards, Bill and Mike Carwile, Standard Encyclopedia of Pressed Glass, 1860-1930:
Identification & Values, 3rd ed., Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2003.
225
Elder, Glen H. Jr., "Family History and the Life Course," in Transitions: The Family and
the Life Course in Historical Perspective, ed. Tamara Kern Hareven, Studies in Social
Discontinuity, New York: Academic Press, 1978.
"History and the Family: The Discovery of Complexity," Journal of Marriage and
the Family 43, no. 3, 1981.
"Life Course, The," in Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda
J. V. Montgomery, New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000.
Ellis, Phil Miller's Corkscrew & Wine Antiques: A Collector's Guide, London: Octopus
Publishing Group, 2001.
Fairlie, John A. "The New York Canals," Quarterly Journal of Economics 14, no. 2, 1900.
Feinman, Jeffrey ed., Sears, Roebuck and Co. Incorporated 1909 Catalog, New York: Ventura
Books, 1979.
Fithian, Powell J. "Cruise of Julia, from Philadelphia to Ticonderoga and Return," in On
River and Canal to Lake Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between
New York City and Whitehall by Way of the Hudson River and Champlain Canal, New
York: Rudder Publishing Company, 1907.
Fike, Richard E. The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine
Bottles, Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1987.
Finch, Robert G. The Story of the New York Canals: Historical and Commercial Information,
Albany, New York: J. B. Lyon, 1925.
Fleming, E. Mc Clung "Artifact Study: A Proposed Model," Winterthur Portfolio 9, 1974.
Florence, Gene and Cathy Florence, The Hazel-Atlas Glass Identification and Value Guide,
Garneau, Hilda and Jane Beck, "Interview with Hilda Garneau, Addison, Vermont," in
Hilda Garneau Interview, TC83.0007, Vermont Folklife Center, Middlebury, Vermont:
1983.
Garrity, Richard, Canal Boatman: My Life on Upstate Waterways, Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1977.
Gaston, Mark Frank Collector's Encyclopedia of Knowles Taylor and Knowles China
226
Gazin-Schwartz, Amyand Cornelius Holtorf, ""as Long as Ever I've Know It." On
Folklore and Archaeology," in Archaeology and Folklore, ed. Amy Gazin-Schwartz
and Cornelius Holtorf, Theoretical Archaeology Group (Tag), New York: Routledge,
1999.
Gates, William C. Jr. and Dana E. Ormerod, "The East Liverpool Pottery District:
Identification of Manufacturers and Marks," Historical Archaeology 16, 1982.
Gibbon, Guy, Anthropological Archaeology, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
Giles, Carl C. and Granville H. Gray, "Vacuum Preserving-Jar," United States: Giles,
John S., 1903.
Gleason, J. D. "Barges," Scribner's Magazine 72, no. 1, 1922.
Glenn, Morris F. The Story of Three Towns: Westport, Essex, and Willsboro, New York, Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Braun-Brumfield, 1977.
Glenn's History of Lake Champlain (New York and Vermont); Volume 4: Canal Boats
(Alexandria, Virginia: Morris F. Glenn, 1980), 1.
Godfrey, Frank H. "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection, File:
Central New York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous Boats, Canal--Champlain Boats,
Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1963.
"Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Central New
York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous Boats, Canal--Champlain Boats Chittenango
Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1964.
"Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," in Dr. Robert E. Hager
Collection; File: Godfrey-1st Person Accounts--"The Godfrey Letters," Chittenango
"Letter to Richard N. Wright," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Godfrey-1st
Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager, Chittenango Landing Canal
Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1965.
"Letter to Daniel Modell," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Godfrey-1st Person
Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager, Chittenango Landing Canal Boat
Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1966.
227
"Canal Line Barns and Day Boat Barns," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File:
Godfrey-1st Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager Chittenango
"Notes on Pix," in Canal Research Files; Data for Pix--Godfrey File, Onondaga
Historical Association Research Center, Syracuse, New York: 1967.
The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals
Syracuse, New York: Canal Society of New York State, 1973.
Sailors, Waterways and Tugboats I Have Known: The New York State Barge Canal
System, Monroe, New York: Library Research Associates, 1993.
The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, Monroe, New York: Library Research
Associates, 1994.
Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, Revised ed., London: Barrie &
Jenkins, 2003.
Godden, Geoffrey A. The Illustrated Guide to Mason's Patent Ironstone China and Related
Wares - Stone China, New Stone, Granite China - and Their Manufacturers, Books That
Matter, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.
Godden's Guide to Ironstone, Stone & Granite Wares, Wappingers' Falls, New York:
Antique Collectors' Club, 1999.
Gottschalk, Louis Reichenthal "The Historian and the Historical Document," in The Use
of Personal Documents in History, Anthropology, and Sociology, ed. Louis
Reichenthal Gottschalk, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Robert Angell, Social Science
Research Council Bulletin, Number 13, New York: Social Science Research Council,
1945.
Green, Jeremy Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook, San Diego, California:
Academic Press, 1990.
Gresham Publishing Company, ed., History and Biography of Washington County and the
Town of Queensbury, New York, with Historical Notes on the Various Towns New
York: Gresham Publishing Company, 1894.
Gusfield, Joseph R. Community: A Critical Response, ed. Philip Rieff and Bryan R. Wilson,
Key Concepts in the Social Sciences, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1975.
228
Hadfield, C. World Canals: Inland Navigation Past and Present, London: David & Charles
Publishers, 1986.
Hagan, Tere Silverplated Flatware, Values Updated 2002, Revised 4th ed., Paducah,
Sterling Flatware: An Identification and Value Guide, 2002-2003 Prices ed. Gas City,
Indiana: L-W Book Sales, 2002.
Hager, Robert E. "Notes on a Field Trip to Champlain Canal and Glens Falls Feeder," in
Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection, Central New York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous
Boats, Canal--Stave Bow Boats, Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum,
Chittenango, New York: 1960.
"Erie Canal Field Notes (1960-1962), Book 2," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection
(Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1962..
Hall, Henry"Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the United States," in Report of the
Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, ed. Census Office US Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1884.
Halsall, Guy "Archaeology and Historiography," in Companion to Historiography, ed.
Michael Bentley, New York: Routledge, 1997.
Hareven, Tamara K. Family Time and Industrial Time: The Relationship between the Family
and Work in a New England Industrial Community, ed. Robert Fogel and Stephan
Thernstrom, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Modern History, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Harlow, Alvin Fay, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era, New York: D.
Appleton and Company, 1926.
When Horses Pulled Boats: A Story of Early Canals, York, Pennsylvania: American
Canal and Transportation Center, 1987.
Heisler, John P. The Canals of Canada, Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History
Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1973.
Hill, Henry Wayland An Historical Overview of Waterways and Canal Construction in New
York State, Buffalo: Buffalo Historical Society, 1908.
Hill, Ralph Nading Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty, Twentieth Anniversary ed.
Woodstock, Vermont: Countryman Press, 1995.
229
Hoadley, R. B., Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools, Newtown, CT:
Taunton Press, 1990.
Hogan, Matthew P. C.A.N.A.L.S. Underwater Archaeology Diver's Manual, Syracuse:
Canal Museum, 1981.
Howard, W. S. "A Rough House Cruise to Lake George," in On River and Canal to Lake
Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between New York City and
Whitehall by Way of the Hudson River and Champlain Canal, New York: Rudder
Publishing Company, 1907.
Howell, Martha Congleton and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction
to Historical Methods, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Howell, C. L. and W. Blanc, Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography, ed. R. Demsetz,
et al., 2nd ed., vol. 6, Archaeological Research Tools, Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, 1995.
Hullfish, William ed., The Canaller's Songbook: Words, Music, and Chords to over Thirty
Canal Songs, York, Pennsylvania: American Canal and Transportation Center,
1987.
Hurlburt, Sandy et al. "The Way We Were," Ticonderoga Sentinel, February 1987.
Hutchins, John G. B. "History and Development of the Shipbuilding Industry in the
United States," in The Shipbuilding Business in the United States of America, ed. F. G.
Fassett, Jr., New York: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1948.
Jervis, Robert, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1997.
Johnson, Clifton "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," The Outlook 60, no. 5, 1898.
Johnson, Emory R. Inland Waterways; Their Relation to Transportation, Supplement to the
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia:
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1893.
Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan, The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of
Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures, Revised ed., Studies in Archaeology,
Architecture, and History, Ottawa: National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian
Parks Service, Environment Canada, 1989.
230
Jones, Andrew, Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, ed. Richard Bradley, Topics in
Contemporary Archaeology, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Juckett Martha Robbins, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907, Whitehall, New York: Historical
Society of Whitehall, 1985.
Neddo, Roland and Greg Sharrow, "Interview with Roland Neddo, Whitehall, New
York," in Roland Neddo Interview, TC94.2008, Vermont Folklife Center,
Middlebury, Vermont: 1994.
Kerr, Ann Fostoria: An Identification and Value Guide of Pressed, Blown & Hand Molded
Shapes, Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1994.
Kintigh, Keith W. "Quantitative Methods Designed for Archaeological Problems," in
Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, ed. Mark S.
Aldenderfer, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1987.
Kovar, Lorraine Westmoreland Glass; Volume 3: 1888-1940, Marietta, Ohio: The Glass
Press, 1997.
Kovel, Ralph and Terry Kovel, Kovels' New Dictionary of Marks: Pottery & Porcelain, 1850
to the Present, New York: Crown Publishers, 1986.
Kowalsky, Arnold A. and Dorothy E. Kowalsky, Encyclopedia of Marks on American,
English, and European Earthenware, Ironstone, and Stoneware (1780-1980), A Schiffer
Book for Collectors (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1999), 89
Lamb, Wallace E. The Lake Champlain and Lake George Valleys, 2 vols., New York:
American Historical Company, 1940.
Larkin, F. Daniel New York State Canals: A Short History, Fleischmanns, New York:
Purple Mountain Press, 1999.
LeBlanc, Watson and Redman, Archaeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in
Archeology, 84.
Lehner, Lois Lehner's Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain & Clay, Paducah,
Legget, Robert F. Canals of Canada, Canals of the World, Vancouver: Douglas, David, &
Charles, 1976.
231
Leone, Mark Paul "The Relationship between Archaeological Data and the
Documentary Record: 18th Century Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland," Historical
Archaeology 22, no. 1, 1988.
Levick, M. B. "The Canal Boats' Winter Sleep Is Over: Soon the Elephantine Fleet Will
Leave Coenties Slip for Ports North," New York Times, Sunday 13 April 1924.
Leybourne, Douglas M. Jr., The Collector's Guide to Old Fruit Jars, vol. Red Book 9 North
Muskegon, Michigan: Douglas M. Leybourne, Jr., 2001.
Lipke, Paul, Peter Spectre, and Benjamin A. G. Fuller, eds., Boats: A Manual for Their
Documentation, Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for State and Local
History, 1993.
Little, Barbara J. "Text-Aided Archaeology," in Text-Aided Archaeology, ed. Barbara J.
Little, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992.
L-W Book Sales, Collectible Lanterns: A Price Guide; Including Household, Barn, and Railroad
Lanterns from Makers Such as Dietz, Adlake, Embury, Etc. Gas City, Indiana: L-W
Book Sales, 2003.
Lynn, Catherine Wallpaper in America from the Seventeenth Century to World War I, New
York: W. W. Norton, 1980.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien, "The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century
English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis," in Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory; Volume 11, ed. Michael B. Schiffer, New York:
Academic Press, 1987.
McCain, Mollie Helen The Collector's Encyclopedia of Pattern Glass: A Pattern Guide to
Early American Pressed Glass, Revised and Expanded ed., Paducah, Kentucky:
Collector Books, 1998.
Field Guide to Pattern Glass, Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2000.
McCarty, Matt "Cruise from Albany to Whitehall by Canal," in On River and Canal to
Lake Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between New York City and
Whitehall by Way of the Hudson River and Champlain Canal, New York: Rudder
Publishing Company, 1907.
McFee, Michele A. A Long Haul: The Story of the New York State Barge Canal,
Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1998.
232
McHugh, K. R. ed., A Canal Primer, Syracuse, New York: The Canal Museum, 1981.
McLaughlin, Scott A. and Anne Wood Lessmann, Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resource Survey, vol. 1: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results, Technical
Report, Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1998.
Midgley, Gerald Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice, ed. Robert L.
Flood, Contemporary Systems Thinking, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, 2000.
Miller, George L. "Approaches to Material Cultural Research for Historical
Archaeologists," in Approaches to Material Cultural Research for Historical
Archaeologists: A Reader from Historical Archaeology, ed. George L. Miller, et al.,
California, Pennsylvania: The Society for Historical Archaeology, 1991.
Montgomery Ward & Company and Boris Emmet, Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue
and Buyers' Guide; No. 57, Spring and Summer 1895, New York: Dover
Publications, 1969.
Morton, Doris B. "Canal Affairs in April, 1880," Whitehall Times, Thursday, 17 April
1980.
Morton, Doris B. "A Letter from a Little Girl of 1883," Whitehall Times, Thursday, 3
March 1983.
Morton, Doris B. "Garden City," Whitehall Independent, Wednesday, 18 April 1984.
National Park Service, 36 Cfr Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered
Archeological Collections, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991.
National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register 48, no. 190, 1983.
Neary, John and Greg Sharrow, "Interview with John Neary, Whitehall, New York," in
John Neary Interview, TC94.2007, Vermont Folklife Center, Middlebury, Vermont:
1994.
Newman, T. Stell "A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles," Historical
Archaeology 4, 1970.
O'Brien, Charles F. "The Champlain Waterway, 1783-1897," New England Quarterly 61,
no. 2, 1988.
233
"The Role of Lake Champlain in Canadian-American Relations," Vermont History
58, no. 3, 1990.
Oertling, Thomas J. "Ships' Bilge Pumps: A History of Their Development, 1500-1900,"
in Studies in Nautical Archaeology, No. 2, College Station, Texas: Texas A&M
University, 1996.
O'Hara, John Edward, "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social Effects of the
Champlain Canal Upon the Champlain Valley," Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University, 1951.
O'Malley, Charles T. Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal
Ellentown, Florida: Diamond Mohawk Publishing, 1991.
Orr, David Wallis, "Port of Burlington, Vermont: Site and Situation, a Study in
Historical Geography," M.A. thesis, University of Vermont, 1972.
Orser, Charles E. Jr. and Brian M. Fagan, Historical Archaeology, New York:
HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995.
Page, Bob, Dale Frederiksen, and Dean Six, Homer Laughlin: Decades of Dinnerware
Greensboro, North Carolina: Page/Frederiksen Publications, 2003.
Pearce, Susan M. "Thinking About Things," in Interpreting Objects and Collections, ed.
Susan M. Pearce, Leicester Readers in Museum Studies, New York: Routledge, 1996.
Pearson, Dennis A. Classic Lanterns: A Guide and Reference, A Schiffer Book for Collectors,
Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1998.
Peebles, Giovanna N. Guidelines for Archeological Studies, Montpelier, Vermont: Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation, 1989.
Pina, Leslie Fostoria: Serving the American Table 1887-1986, Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer
Publishing, 1995.
Poplin, Deninis E. Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research, New York:
Macmillan Company, 1972.
Porter, Marjorie Lansing "Our Folks - North Country Portfolio," North Countryman,
Thursday 1 May 1969 1969.
.
Powell, Jane Linoleum, Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2003.
234
Printing Trow Directory, and Bookbinding Company, Trow's General Directory of the
Boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx, City of New York, New York: Trow Directory,
Printing, and Bookbinding Company, 1901-1918.
Prown, Jules David "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and
Method," Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1, 1982.
Purser, Margaret Sermons "Oral History and Historical Archaeology," in Text-Aided
Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992.
Pyle, Howard "Through Inland Waters, Ii," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 92, no. 553
1896.
"Through Inland Waters," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 92, no. 552, 1896.
Rainwater, Dorothy T., Martin Fuller, and Colette Fuller, Encyclopedia of American Silver
Manufacturers, Revised and Expanded 5th ed., A Schiffer Book for Collectors,
Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2004.
Rideing, William H. "The Waterways of New York," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 48,
no. 283, 1873.
Riley, John J. A History of the American Soft Drink Industry: Bottled Carbonated Beverages,
1807-1957, ed. Daniel J. Boorstin, Technology and Society, New York: Arno Press,
1972.
Rockwell, Julian Dorothy Pickard, and Arthur Bruce Cohn, "Interview with Julian
Rockwell and Dorothy Pickard, Alburgh, Vermont," in Oral History Collection
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum at Basin Harbor, Ferrisburgh, Vermont:
1981.
Rogers, John Daniel "The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization," in
Mississippian Communities and Households, ed. John Daniel Rogers, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1995.
Ross, John P. "Echo-Lake Champlain Shipwreck," North Countryman, Thursday 17
November 1966.
Russell and Erwin Manufacturing Company, Illustrated Catalogue of American Hardware
of the Russell and Erwin Manufacturing Company; Ann Unabridged Reprint of the
1865 Edition, Ottawa: Association for Preservation Technology, 1980.
235
Sabick, Christopher R., Anne Wood Lessmann, and Scott Arthur McLaughlin, "Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey," Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum at Basin Harbor, 2000.
Sarpolus, Dick Collectible Blowtorches, Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2001.
Schroeder, Joseph J. Jr., ed., 1923 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: Thrift Book of a Nation
Northfield, Illinois: DBI Books, 1973.
Shackel, Paul A. "Probate Inventories in Historical Archaeology: A Review and
Alternatives," in Text-Aided Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little, Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press, 1992.
Schlereth, Thomas John "Material Culture and Cultural Research," in Material Culture: A
Research Guide, ed. Thomas John Schlereth, Lawrence, Kansas: University of
Kansas, 1985.
Schmink, Marianne Camp "Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research
Agenda," Latin American Research Review 19, no. 3, 1984.
Schroeder, Joseph J. Jr., ed., 1908 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: A Treasured Replica from the
Archives of History, Chicago, Illinois: Gun Digest Company, 1969.
Schuyler, Robert L. "The Spoken Word, the Written Word, Observed Behavior, and
Preserved Behavior: The Contexts Available to the Archaeologist," in Historical
Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, ed. Robert L.
Schuyler Farmingdale, New York: Baywood Publishing Company, 1978.
Scobey, David M. Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape,
ed. Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig, Critical Perspectives
on the Past, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002.
Sèvigny, P. Andre The Work Force of the Richelieu River Canals, 1843-1950, Studies in
Archaeology, Architecture, and History, Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1983.
Shafer, R. J. A Guide to Historical Method, 3rd ed., Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1974.
Sheriff, Carol The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, 1817-1862,
New York: Hill & Wang, 1996.
Skidmore, P. G. "Canadian Canals to 1848," Dalhousie Review 61, no. 4, 1982.
236
Smith, Henry Perry ed., History of Essex County with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches
of Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers, Syracuse, New York: D. Mason &
Company, 1885.
Springer, Ethel M. and Thomas F. Hahn, Canal Boat Children on the Chesapeake and Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York Canals, Shepherdstown, West Virginia: American
Canal & Transportation Center, 1977.
Stack, Debbie J. and Donald A. Wilson, Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,
Syracuse, New York: Erie Canal Museum, 1993.
Staski, Edward "Just What Can a Nineteenth Centry Bottle Tell Us?" Historical
Archaeology 18, no. 1, 1984.
Steffy, J. Richard Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, College Station,
Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1994.
Steadman, Sharon Rose"Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond
the Foundations," Journal of Archaeological Research 4, no. 1, 1996..
Steadman, Sharon Rose "Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond
the Foundations," Journal of Archaeological Research 4, no. 1, 1996.
Stiles, Fred T. "Tales of Old Canal Days," North Country Life 13, no. 1, 1959.
Stoneall, Linda Lee Country Life, City Life: Five Theories of Community, New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1983.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Brooke Stephen Arkush, Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An
Introduction, 2nd ed., Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1998.
Taylor, David A. Documenting Maritime Folklife: An Introductory Guide, Washington, DC:
Library of Congress, 1992.
The University of Chicago Press, The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Thompson, Harold W. Body, Boots, & Britches, New York: J. B. Lippincott Company,
1940.
Thuro, Catherine M. V. Oil Lamps 3: Victorian Kerosene Lighting 1860-1900, Paducah,
237
Tichonuk, Eric "North Beach Project," Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh,
Vermont: 1990.
Toulouse, Julian Harrison Bottle Makers and Their Marks, New York: Thomas Nelson,
1972.
Turner, Noel D. American Silver Flatware, 1837-1910, New York: A.S. Barnes and
Company, 1972.
Tutton, John Udderly Delightful: A Guide to Collecting Milkbottles and Related Items, 3rd
ed., Stephens City, Virginia: Commercial Press, 1998.
VanDerwerker, Mrs. J. B. Early Days in Eastern Saratoga County (Interlaken, New York:
Empire State Books, 1994), 67. Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to
Tugboats,63.
Van de Water, Frederic F. Lake Champlain and Lake George, New York: Bobbs, Merrill, &
Company, 1946.
Vansina, J., Oral Tradition as History (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1985.
Venable, Charles L. Silver in America, 1840-1940: A Century of Splendor, Dallas, Texas:
Dallas Museum of Art, 1994.
Walls, Robert E. "Folklife and Material Culture," in The Emergence of Folklore in Everyday
Life: A Fieldguide and Sourcebook, ed. George Henry Schoemaker Bloomingdale,
Indiana: Trickster Press, 1990.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman, Archaeological Explanation:
The Scientific Method in Archeology, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984.
Weissman, David A Social Ontology, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press,
2000.
Whitford, Noble E. History of the Barge Canal of New York State, Albany, New York: J. B.
Lyon Company, 1922.
Wilk, Richard Ralph, Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among the
Kekchi in Belize, ed. Robert McCormack Netting, Arizona Studies in Human Ecology,
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1991.
Wilkins, Fred H. "Champlain Canal Notes," Vermonter: The State Magazine 20, no. 8 1915.
238
Wilson, Chas West Westmoreland Glass (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1998.
Wilson, David Life in Whitehall During Ship Fever Times, Whitehall, New York: Inglee &
Tefft, 1900.
Wood, W. Raymond, "Ethnohistory and Historical Method," Archaeological Method and
Theory 2, 1990.
Young, James C. "Idyl of the Barge Skipper: His Craft Begins Its Passive Labors While
the Captain Busies Himself Loafing," New York Times, Sunday, 12 June 1927.
239
240
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY
Abaft. Behind, toward the stern of the vessel.
Aft. Near or at the stern of a vessel.
Amidship. The middle of a vessel.
Apron. A curved piece of timber fixed to the after surface of the stem.
Archaeological Site. Location where signs of human activity are found.
Archaeology. A subdiscipline of anthropology involving the study of the human past through
its material remains.
Artifact. Any object used or manufactured by humans.
Auger. A tool used for boring holes.
Barge. A large, unpowered, generally flat-bottomed boat towed by other craft and used as a
freight-hauler or work platform.
Beam. A dimension measured from side to side of a vessel.
Bilge. The lowest point of a vessel’s interior hull.
Bitts. Strong wooden or metal uprights used for securing heavy ropes such as anchor cables.
Boat. An open vessel, usually small and without decks, intended for use in sheltered water.
Booby. In canal boat terminology, an area located below deck to the stern of the cabin, used to
hold cargo.
Bolt. A cylindrical metal pin used to fasten a ship’s timbers together.
Bottom Planking. In an edge-fastened vessel the planking that covers the flat bottom of the
vessel, normally oriented transversely.
Bow. The forward end of a vessel.
Breadth. The measurement of a ship’s width.
Breakwater. A structure, usually made of stone or concrete, built to create a harbor or improve
an existing one.
Breasthook. A large horizontal knee fixed to the sides and stem of a vessel to reinforce and hold
them together.
Bulkhead. Vertical partition between two decks of a ship, running either lengthwise or across,
forming and separating different compartments.
Bulwark. The side of a vessel above its upper deck.
Butt joint. Joint in which the ends of two timbers are flush.
Cabin. The living quarters of a vessel.
Canal. A manmade waterway or artificially improved river used for navigation.
241
Canal boat. A box-like vessel designed to travel in a canal system. This type of vessel often has
no means of propulsion and must be towed or pushed by another vessel.
Canal lock. A section of a canal, closed off with gates, in which a vessel can be raised and
lowered by changing the water level within the section.
Caprail. A timber attached to the top of a vessel’s frame.
Capstan. A vertical winch on the deck of a vessel used for hauling, such as an anchor line.
Carling. Longitudinally oriented deck beam.
Cargo hatch. A deck opening providing access to stow cargo below.
Caulking. A substance, often oakum, driven into planking seams in order to make them
watertight.
Ceiling. The internal planking of a vessel.
Centerboard. A board or metal plate that moves vertically or pivots up and down in a slot in
the keel; limits a vessel’s lateral motion by increasing the surface area of the keel or keel
plank.
Chine. The angular junction of the bottom and side of a vessel; usually found on flat-bottomed
hulls.
Chine log. A longitudinal timber at the angular junction of the side and bottom of a flatbottomed vessel.
Chock. Wooden wedge used to prevent other structural members from moving.
Clamp. A thick ceiling strake used to provide longitudinal support.
Cleat. A T-shaped rigging fitting to which a vessel’s lines are attached.
Coaming. Raised lip with which opening in a vessel’s deck are framed to prevent water from
running down into the space below.
Companion way. A stairway or ladder leading from one deck to another.
Compass timber. Naturally curved timbers used in boat construction.
Crib. A wooden structure made of logs with slanted sides and filled with earth and stone.
Cultural resource. A nonrenewable historical resource such as archaeological sites, artifacts,
and standing structures.
Deck. A platform extending horizontally from one side of a ship to the other.
Deck beam. A timber mounted across a vessel from side to side to support the vessel’s deck
and provide lateral strength.
Deck camber. The degree to which a deck is arched from one side to side.
Deck hand. A member of a ship’s crew who works on deck.
Decking. The individual timbers that form the floor of the deck.
Depth of hold. The distance between either the bottom of the main deck or the bottom of its
beams and the limber boards, measured at the midship frame.
242
Draft. The depth of a vessel’s keel below the waterline.
Drift bolt. A cylindrical iron rod used to fasten ship timbers together; usually headed on one
end and slightly larger in diameter than the hole into which it is driven.
Edge-fastened. A shipbuilding technique used to attach the hull planks of a vessel together. The
planks are set edge to edge and a hole drilled through them. Large iron bolts are driven
then driven through the planks to hold them together.
Electrolyte. A substance that dissolves in a solution and allowing the solution to be electrically
conductive.
Electrolytic reduction (electrolysis). A process used to remove the corrosion from metal objects
by passing an electrical current through the object while in an electrolyte solution.
Eyebolt. An iron rod with a circular opening at one end.
Fastener. General term for a metal or wood apparatus used to joint two timbers.
Floor timber. A frame timber that crosses the keel and spans the bottom of a vessel.
Fore. Located toward the front of a vessel.
Fore-and-aft. From stem to stern or from front to back; oriented parallel to the keel.
Frame. A transverse timber or group of timbers that creates the skeleton of a vessel and to
which the hull planking and ceiling are fastened.
Frog. In canal boat terminology, a wooden fender on the side of the boat in the stern.
Futtock. A frame timber that continues where the floor timber leaves off and continues up the
side of a vessel.
Garboard strake. The strake of planking that is next to the keel; the lowest plank.
Gudgeon. A metal strap with an eye, bolted to the sternpost of a vessel to hold the rudder
pintle.
Gunwale. The timber above the sheer strake.
Half beam. A beam extending from the side to a hatch or other obstruction.
Hanging knee. A vertical L-shaped timber attached to the underside of a beam and the side of a
vessel; used to connect and reinforce the junction of a deck beam with the side of the
vessel.
Harbor. A safe anchorage, protected from most storms; may be natural or manmade; a place for
docking and loading.
Hatch. A deck opening in a vessel providing access to the space below.
Hawse hole. A cylindrical hole in the bow through which the anchor cable is passed.
Historic. The period after the appearance of written records for a given region. For the
Champlain Valley this date is AD 1609.
Hog. The strain on a hull that causes its ends to droop.
Hold. The lower interior part of a ship in which cargo is stored.
243
Hulk. The hull of an old, unseaworthy or wrecked ship.
Hold The lower interior part of a ship, where the cargo is stored.
Hull. The structural body of a vessel, not including the superstructure, masts, or rigging.
Hull plank. A thick board used to create the outer shell of a hull.
Inboard. Toward the center of a vessel.
Kedging The process of setting an anchor that is carried out by a dinghy; a pull on the line will
help get the boat off the bottom, or at least keep her from being driven harder aground.
Keel. The main longitudinal timber upon which the framework or skeleton of a hull is
mounted; the backbone of a hull.
Keelson. An internal longitudinal timber, fastened on top of the frames above the keel for
additional strength.
Knee. An L-shaped timber used to strengthen the junction of two surfaces on different planes.
Lock. A section of a canal, closed off with gates, in which a vessel can be raised and lowered by
changing the water level within the section.
Longitudinal timber. A long timber that runs parallel to the length of a vessel.
Mast. A large wooden pole that supports the sails of a vessel.
Miter gate. A large gate used on a canal lock that had two doors whose ends meet to form a 90degree angle.
Mooring. A permanent placement of an anchor, anchor chain, shackles, and buoy, necessary to
anchor a vessel.
Mortise. A cavity cut into a timber to receive a tenon.
Molded dimension. The height measurement of a timber as seen in a profile view of a vessel.
Mud line. The intersection of a shipwreck’s hull with the bottom’s surface.
Outboard. Outside or away from the center of a vessel’s hull.
Pintle. A metal bracket attached to a rudder with a vertical iron pin on which the rudder turns.
Plank. A thick board used as sheathing on a vessel.
Plank-on-frame. A shipbuilding technique, also commonly known as carvel built. Vessels of
this type have planking running fore and aft with the planking laid edge to edge.
Port. The left side of a vessel when facing forward.
Primary Source. An artifact, document, or individual that provides information based on
personal observations. A firsthand account.
Pump well. The cavity or compartment in the bottom of a hull, usually near amidships, where
the bilge water collected and was pumped out.
Rabbet. A groove or cut made in the side of the keel, stem and sternpost, into which the
garboard strake is seated.
244
Rider keelson. An additional keelson, or one of several additional keelsons, bolted to the top of
the main keelson of a large ship.
Rigging. Hardware and equipment that support and control the spars and sails of a vessel.
Room and space. The distance between the moulding edges of two adjoining frames.
Rub plate. A metal band placed on the forward end of the stem and bottom of the keelson to
protect the underlying wood.
Rudder. A timber, or assembly of timbers, that could be rotated about an axis to control the
direction of a vessel underway.
Rudderpost. A vertical timber to which the rudder is attached.
Saddle. A block of wood used to support the intersection of two timbers.
Sag. The accidental rocker formed in a keel and bottom due to insufficient timbering or
improper loading.
Sailing canal boat. A box-like vessel with one or two fore-and-aft rigged masts that could be
lowered when the vessel entered a canal system.
Scarf. An overlapping joint to connect two timbers or planks without increasing their
dimensions.
Schooner. A fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel with two or more masts.
Scupper. A hole or channel cut in a vessel’s side to drain off deck water.
Secondary source. An individual's description and interpretation of an historical event
recorded at a different time and place. A secondhand account.
Sheer. The curvature of the deck fore to aft, as seen from the side of the vessel.
Ship chandler. A dealer in any goods or equipment related to shipping.
Shipwright. A craftsman skilled in the construction and repair of ships.
Sided dimension. The measurement of width of a timber as seen in a plan view of a vessel.
Sister keelson. An internal longitudinal timber that runs parallel to the keelson.
Spike. A large nail.
Stanchion. An upright supporting post.
Standing knee. A knee mounted on a deck with its vertical arm pointed upward.
Starboard. The right side of a vessel when facing forward.
Steamboat. A vessel propelled by a steam engine.
Stealer. A short plank inserted between two strakes of planking so that the regular strakes did
not have to be made too wide; usually located at the bow or stern.
Steamer. A vessel propelled by a steam engine.
Stem. An upward curving timber or assembly of timbers attached to the forward end of the
keel.
245
Stern. The after end of a vessel.
Sternpost. A vertical timber or assembly of timbers attached to the after end of the keel.
Strake. A continuous line of planks, running bow to stern.
Stringer. A longitudinal timber fixed to the inside surface of the frames of a vessel to provide it
with greater strength fore-and-aft.
Spar. A general term for any wooden support used in the rigging of a ship.
Tenon. A projection on a timber which fits into a mortise.
Through bolt. A fastener consisting of a threaded rod with a head at one end, designed to be
inserted through a hole in assembled parts and secured by a mated nut that is tightened
by a wrench.
Tiller. A handle attached to the rudderpost to steer a vessel.
Timber. In a general context, all wooden hull members, especially those that form the
framework or skeleton of the hull.
Transom. The transverse part of the stern of a vessel.
Transverse. Describes a component of a ship that runs side to side, rather than fore and aft.
Turn of the bilge. The outboard part of the hull where the bottom curves toward the side.
Turnbuckle. A slotted casting with threaded holes used to join and tighten pieces of threaded
iron rod.
Underwater archaeology. The archaeological study of submerged cultural resources.
Underwater cultural resource. A nonrenewable historical resource that partially or entirely lies
below water, such as submerged prehistoric archaeological sites, artifacts, bridges, piers,
wharves, and shipwrecks.
Vessel. A watercraft, larger than a rowboat, designed to navigate on open water.
Wale. A thick strake of planking located along the side of a vessel for the purpose of stiffening
the outer hull.
Waterline. The intersection of the vessel’s hull and the water’s surface.
Wharf. A structure, parallel to the shore, for docking vessels.
Wheel. A vertical steering device, fixed to a deck and linked to the tiller by ropes, chains, or
gear.
Windlass. A horizontal drum winch mounted on the bow of a vessel and supported by bitts or
brackets; used for tasks such as hauling anchors, stepping masts, and moving cargo.
Zebra Mussel (Driessena ploymorpha). Rapidly spreading non-native aquatic nuisance species
which has spread to most of North America’s inland waters.
246
APPENDIX 2: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR MITIGATION
OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
APPENDIX 3: PERMITS AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
APPENDIX 4: COAL CARGO ANALYSIS
265
266
APPENDIX 5: NON-TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
The following article was published in the magazine Dish in the spring of 2004. It is
authored by one of the reports co-authors Scott A. McLaughlin. The publication Dish is
organized through the Homer Laughlin China Collectors Association. The article describes the
Homer Laughlin Ceramic Collection from the Sloop Island Canal Boat Wreck.
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
APPENDIX 6: ARTIFACT INVENTORY
The Sloop Island Artifact Inventory contains measurements, images, provenience
information and other descriptive details of the collection of artifacts recovered from the vessel
cabin, booby and forecastle. It is organized based on the location of the artifacts found on the
wreck. This division includes four quadrants (A, B, C, D) of the actual cabin, as well as the
booby section (E) aft of the cabin and the forecastle in the bow of the vessel. Within quadrant B
of the cabin there are areas distinguished as the Pantry, Cupboard, Chest of Drawers and
Toolbox and are divided as such in the Inventory. Although numerous artifacts were found in
the Booby (Section E), it appears that these artifacts spilled into the Booby from the cabin.
While the Booby was occasionally used for storage of domestic items, the Booby on board the
Sloop Island Canal Boat was instead used for the additional storage of the coal cargo.
Quadrants C and D of the cabin did not contain a significant amount of intact artifacts, but
rather a number of iron fragments of the single and double beds located in these areas were
recovered. Due to the nature and condition of these artifact fragments, they have been omitted
from this Artifact Inventory.
281
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.004
Coat
Description
Long man's wool coat
Maker Mark
Location
Section A
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.005
Plate
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
250
Description
(Bottom) in black ROYAL IRONSTONE CHINA /
ALFRED MEAKIN / ENGLAND [with coat of arms
containing a lion and unicorn]; impressed with the
letter T beside maker's mark; undecorated gray body
Maker Mark
Location
Alfred Meakin, Tunstall, England (1891-1897)
Section A
282
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.006
Gasoline Torch
n/a
n/a
n/a
255
n/a
140
No marks; copper fittings and brass container
n/a
Section A
SI.02.843.007, .057, .080,.090
Whiteware plate
n/a
n/a
n/a
22
n/a
236
(Bottom) in black Pope-Gosser China [with unicorn
head];; molded rim and green ivy with purple flowers
decal covering the plate; white body
Pope-Gosser, Coshocton, Ohio (Louvre Design, 1905-1913)
Section A
283
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.008, .028, .029, .185, .303
Whiteware Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
36
590
192
(Bottom) in dark green Semi Porcelain / (bow and
arrow) / HP Co; molded rim decoration on white body;
scalloped rim
Harker Pottery Company, East Liverpool, Ohio (1890-1900)
Section A (.080), Section B (.028, .029) Section E (.185, .303)
SI.02.843.009
Whiteware Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
37
770
230
(Bottom) in brown ROYAL / SEMI-PORCELAIN /
WOOD & SON / ENGLAND; molded rim
decoration; scalloped rim; white body
Wood & Son, Trent and New Wharf, England (1907-1909)
Section A
284
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.011; .012, .013, .026, .089, .202
Whiteware Saucer
n/a
n/a
n/a
24
230
154
(Bottom) in black HOMER LAUGHLIN / Seneca;
molded rim decoration on white body
Homer Laughlin, East Liverpool, Ohio (Seneca Design, 1901-1910)
Section A
SI.02.843..054, .025
Whiteware Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
89
800
156
(Bottom) Royal Warranted Best Ironstone China /
Henry Alcock & Co. / England;
Henry Alcock & Company, Cobridge, England (1891-1910)
Section A (.054), Section B (.025)
285
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.055
Enameled ware sauce pan
White body with black rim; straight handle
attached to bowl
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section A
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.056
Enameled ware pot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
287
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Light blue agate decoration on white body; with
handle; No mark on bottom or lid (.211) that was
found in the Pantry
n/a
Section A
286
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.059
Stove Leg
Decorative Cast Iron; (Back) JASP / 1; [other
stove parts include 53, 58, 71, 91, 92, 106, 107,
120, and 174]
Liberty Stove Works, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (?)
Section A
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.060; .014; .024; .110; .201
Whiteware Cup
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
260
93
Description
No marks, Part of set
Maker Mark
Location
Sect. A (.060) Sect. B (.014, .024) Sect. E (.110), Cupboard (.201)
287
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.071
Stove damper door
178
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Cast Iron, (Back) Victor / 7-16 / 31 / 70 / 16;
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Section A
SI.02.843.085
Shoe Heel
62
57
n/a
38
n/a
n/a
Worn heavily on the interior aft end of heel; eight
layers of leather and horse collar shaped piece of
leather
n/a
Section A
288
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.086
Tub Base
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Copper base of the container was originally 19.5
inches by 10.25 inches
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section A
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.091; .092
Stove Lid Cover
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
n/a
185
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Small button (.269) found concreted to the stove
lid cover .091
Section A
289
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.106; .107
Stove Skirt
Cast Iron, Decorative, (Back) 2; .107 are stove
skirt fragments
Section A
SI.02.843.120
Stove Handle
Description
Cast Iron, (Front) C; (Back) 8 18 / JASP / 24
Maker Mark
Location
Section A
290
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.010
Whiteware Plate
n/a
n/a
n/a
20
n/a
233
(Bottom) in blue 5 / [image of a bee] / CONGO /
impressed illegible letters; white body and blue
transfer print of birds in a natural setting and stylized
designs
Meigh & Forester, Longton, England (1883-1888)
Section B
SI.02.843.015
Small Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
64
260
132
Four blue bands on white body; (Bottom) England
(1891-?)
Section B
291
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.016
Enameled Tinware Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
55
n/a
181
(Bottom) KER / SWEDEN; white body with flared
blue rim
Kockums Emaljerverk Ronneby, Ronneby, Sweden (1893-1920)
Section B
SI.02.843.017
Pitcher
n/a
n/a
n/a
194
475
105
(Bottom) triangle pattern with raised pyramids;
clear glass; applied handle; hand blown
n/a
Section B
292
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.018
Cosmetic Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
67
105
42
No marks; pumpkin shaped; milk glass; screw top
with 9 threat count per inch
n/a
Section B
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.019; .023; .099; .298
Glass Tumbler
n/a
n/a
n/a
96
255
72
Description
Clear glass, 8 flutes, no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section B (.019, .023) Section E (.099, .298)
293
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.020
Enameledware Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
61
n/a
139
(Bottom) KER within a crest / SWEDEN all within
a circle; white body with blue rim; straight rim
Kockums Emaljerverk Ronneby, Ronneby, Sweden (1893-1920)
Section B
SI.02.843.022
Glass Container (Spoon Holder)
n/a
n/a
n/a
93
300
92
Clear pressed glass, eight sided interior, smooth
exterior, scalloped top edge, star and fan pattern
on bottom; part of a set [31 and 204]
n/a
Section B
294
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.027
Whiteware Saucer
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
310
160
Description
(Bottom) D.E. McN. & Co. / Liverpool
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
D. E. McNicol Pottery Company, East Liverpool, Ohio (1895-1900)
Section B
SI.02.843.031
Covered Butter Dish
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
270
185
Clear pressed glass, ten sided exterior, smooth
interior, scalloped top edge, star and fan pattern
on bottom; part of set [22 and 204]
Section B
295
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.030
Medicine bottle with cork
n/a
46
23
142
50
n/a
(Side) Sloan's N&B Liniment / Dr. E. S. Sloan /
Boston; clear pressed glass
Dr. E. S. Sloan, Boston, Massachusetts (1885-1920)
Section B
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.032
Medicine Bottle
n/a
46
29
127
95
n/a
Description
Clear Glass, No marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section B
296
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness(mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.048
Ceramic Soap Dish
159
116
54
n/a
n/a
Description
Yellow ware soap dish; no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.050
Leather Shoe Sole
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Right shoe sole; sewn upper and lower
soles; heel attached with iron nails to a wooden
arch; 74 mm wide; 132 mm from front of toes to
instep; woman's shoe?
n/a
Chest of Drawers
297
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (mm)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.843.02.051
Enameled Ware Spitoon Fragment
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
147
Blue and white marble swirl on a white
body; upper rim and shoulders surviving
n/a
Chest of Drawers
SI.843.02.052
Enameled Ware Chamber Pot
n/a
n/a
n/a
110
n/a
198
Labeled in blue "GERMANY." inside of a
circle; single handle; white body with black rim
n/a
Chest of Drawers
298
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.084
Ceramic Serving Dish
169
121
n/a
38
285
n/a
(Bottom) HOTEL CHINA inside of an oval
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.105
Tiller Bar Extension Clamp
425
188
57
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Made of 0.5 by 2 inch stock iron; 1.5 inch
square nuts with 11 thread count per inch
n/a
Chest of Drawers
299
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.108
Shipwright Adze
267
104
n/a
70
n/a
n/a
No marks; wrought iron haft and applied steel
bit; curved spike
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.119
Block Plane
194
61
64
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
All wooden base and parts, except for bit; 2.5 inch
wide, 8 inch long, 2.5 inch high; 18 mm hole in
back of plane base
n/a
Chest of Drawers
300
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.172
Pump Sock
Description
Two pieces of a leather pump sock
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.176
Saw Handle
Description
Maker Mark
Location
No marks; saw handle with brass bolt to
hold the handle onto the blade; 24 thread count
on bolt
n/a
Chest of Drawers
301
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.180
Drawer Pull with Iron Ring
n/a
n/a
n/a
33
n/a
47
Embossed,
chromed,
and
painted
decoration; iron ring draw pull; [same as artifacts
93 and 184]
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.181
Kerosene Lamp Filler Screw Top
13
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21
Description
Copper; 20 thread count
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
302
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.189
American Penny
n/a
n/a
1.3
n/a
n/a
19
(Side 1) United States of America / 1892 / [image
of Indian portrait]; (Side 2) One Cent
Maker Mark
Location
United States Mint (1892)
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.265
Canadian Penny
n/a
n/a
1.4
n/a
n/a
25.5
Description
Maker Mark
Location
(Side 1) Victoria Dei Gratia Regina Canada; (Side
2) One Cent 1882 H
Canadian Mint (1882)
Chest of Drawers
303
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.266
Brass Grommet for Canvas
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Two piece heavy brass grommet; 1.25 inch
exterior diameter; 5/8 inch interior diameter
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Chest of Drawers
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.117
Clear Glass Flask-Liquor Bottle
Description
Maker Mark
Location
see description
(Side) Full Measure / Max Luria / Importer &
Dealer of Fine Wines and Liquors / 1576 Third
Ave. New York; (Bottom) F. ½ PT 1 (1914-?)
see description
Cupboard
304
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.182
Saucer Fragment
n/a
n/a
n/a
24
n/a
140
Description
(Bottom) Made in Bavaria; (1891-?)
Maker Mark
Location
Lion above Made in Bavaria
Cupboard
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.199
Medicine Bottle
38
22
89
35
n/a
Description
(Side) C.H. Humphrey Druggist / Mooers, N.Y.;
(Bottom) W.T. & Co. / AN USA
Maker Mark
Whitall, Tatum and Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (1857-1901)
Cupboard
Location
305
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.201
Whiteware Cup
n/a
n/a
n/a
65
260
93
Description
No marks; [same as artifacts14, 24, 60, and 110]
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Cupboard
SI.02.843.202
Whiteware Saucer Fragment
n/a
n/a
n/a
24
230
154
(Bottom) Homer Laughlin / Seneca [same as 10,
11, 12, 13, 26]
Cupboard
306
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.203
Medicine Bottle with Cork
(Side) Atwood's / Jaundice Bitters / formerly
made by / Moses Atwood / Georgetown, Mass.;
(Bottom) P17; clear glass
Manhattan Medicine Company, New York, New York (?-?)
Cupboard
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.204
Small Glass Pitcher
n/a
n/a
n/a
116
310
84
Description
Part of set with artifacts 22 and 31
Maker Mark
Location
N/a
Cupboard
307
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.205
Canning Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
151
370
60
Description
screw lid; no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.206
Whiteware Saucer
n/a
n/a
n/a
35
330
164
Description
Maker Mark
Location
(Bottom) IRON STONE CHINA / EXTRA
QUALITY; SC Co. (inside crest with flanking
lions)
Standard Pottery Company, East Liverpool, Ohio (1886-1910)
Cupboard
308
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.267
Hair Piece
Description
Floral decoration; pewter
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.294
Glass Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
121
350
78
Description
(Bottom) 134 / Pat. Feb 10, 03.; (1903-?)
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard
309
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.295
Glass Bottle Fragment with Cork
Description
Embossed bottle WARRANTED
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Cupboard
SI.02.843.03
Cupboard Drawer
Lap joint between the draw face and sides;
mortise joint between sides and back; chromed,
pressed, and painted brass drawer pull with an
iron ring
Cupboard
310
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.001; .002; .009; .010; .040
Spoon
149
31
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Assyrian Pattern silver spoon; (Back of Spoon)
1847 ROGERS BROS. AI
Maker Mark
Location
Meriden Britannia Company, Meriden, Connecticut (1887-?)
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Cupboard Drawer (SI.02.843.03)
SI.02.843.004; .005; .018; .019; .029
Clay Marbles
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
Marbles were in multiple colors: .004 Purple; .005
Red; .018 and .029 unglazed; .019 Brown
n/a
Cupboard Drawer (SI.02.843.03)
311
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.003.003
Spoon
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Iron serving spoon with a wooden handle; no
marks; wooden handle 113 mm long; (handle
fragments of spoon 3.036)
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
SI.02.843.003.036
Spoon handle fragment (of 3.003)
see artifact SI.02.843.003.003
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Wood handle fragment of iron spoon 3.003
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
312
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.003.006
Cork Screw
132
90
23
n/a
n/a
n/a
Iron cork screw with wooden turned handle; one
end of the handle still has bristles from a brush;
hole evident in the opposite end of handle
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
SI.02.843.003.007
Spoon
204
44
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Serving spoon; (Back of Handle) BRAZIL
SILVER; (Front of Handle) engraved with the
letter M; tipped design
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
313
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.003.008; .031
Spoon
144
31
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
(Back of Handle) BRAZIL SILVER; patterned
handle with the letter S engraved on the end;
plain bowl design; part of set (with knife 3.017)
Royal Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Michigan (1894-1910)
Cupboard Drawer
SI.02.843.003.011
Fork
Cast iron fork handle with bone handles held in
place by two plain iron pins, 8 cm long handle
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
314
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.003.015
Knife
234
21
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
(Side of Blade) ROYAL MANUFACTURING CO. /
SOLID BRAZIL SILVER; rounded tip butter knife;
part of set (Spoons 3.08, 3.031)
Royal Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Michigan (1894-1910)
Cupboard Drawer
SI.02.843.003.017; .023; .033
Knife
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Iron knife with bone handle held together by three
brass pins; 90mm long handle; 126 mm blade
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
315
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.021
Dead Bolt Strap and Screw
Description
Cast iron strap and screw
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.023
Fork Handle
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Cast iron fork with bone handle held together by
iron brass pins; 95 mm long handle
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
316
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.003.024
Nutmeg Grater and Nutmeg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tinned Iron Nutmeg Grater; Grater too fragile to
conserve
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.026
Pulley
85
40
24
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Small, possibly for kitchen use or for clothes line,
no marks; cast iron with brass bushing pin; 1/4
inch eye
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
317
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.003.038; .039
Fork handle
Three tine cast iron fork; fork handle with circular
inlays in bone handle [same as 3.039]
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.178
Scissors
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
No marks; 2 inch bladed paper scissors
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
318
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.020
Door Throw
Description
Cast iron door throw painted black
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.003.030
Button
Description
Two-hole shell button
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Cupboard Drawer
319
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.034
Oil Lamp Font
n/a
n/a
n/a
86
455
105
Hourglass shape, ribbed sides, flower on bottom,
no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.35; .36
Crock
n/a
n/a
n/a
130
2600
190
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Stoneware crock; no marks; red and green
mottled interior and gray exterior; no glaze on
bottom
n/a
Pantry
320
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.037
Crock
n/a
n/a
n/a
288
16000
290
(Side) 4 in black; 4 gallon stoneware crock with red interior
and gray exterior; unglazed bottom; star mark inside the
crock on the bottom; [same as 46, except for star mark]
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.038
Milk Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
252
1340
100
Description
(Side) Property of Rockland Diary / Loaned
Return When Empty; clear pressed glass
Maker Mark
Location
Rockland Diary, Rockland, Ontario
Pantry
321
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.039
Wine Jug
n/a
n/a
n/a
255
2575
136
Description
(Side) The Ottawa Wine Vaults Co. / Phone 1143
Maker Mark
Location
Ottawa Wine Vaults Company, Ottawa, Ontario
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Pantry
SI.02.843.040
Small Crock
n/a
n/a
n/a
141
2090
160
yellow ware crock with pour spout and handle;
gray interior and red exterior glaze; rim painted
black; missing cover
n/a
Pantry
322
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.041
Tobacco Tin
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
all metal tin; empty; (lost during conservation)
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.042
Oil Lamp Chimney
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
119
Description
purplish colored glass; globe shape
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
323
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.043
Fruit Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
179
1025
9.2
(Side) Mason's / Patent Nov. 30, 58; (Bottom) C4
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.044
Fruit Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
170
920
9.4
Description
(Side) Ball Mason
Maker Mark
Location
Ball Brothers, Muncie, Indiana (1895-1910)
Pantry
324
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.045
Enameled Ware Container
base of an enameled ware container; chocolate
brown body and white agate decoration
Maker Mark
Location
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.046
Crock
n/a
n/a
n/a
291
16000
294
Description
Maker Mark
Location
(Side) 4 in black; 4 gallon stoneware crock with
red interior and gray exterior; unglazed bottom;
[same as 37]
n/a
Pantry
325
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.047
Enameled Ware Milk Can
n/a
n/a
n/a
190
n/a
122
White body with blue agate decoration; iron bale
handle
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.094
Fruit Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
168
920
95
Description
(Side) Crown
Maker Mark
Location
Dominion Glass Company, Montreal, Quebec (1913-?)
Pantry
326
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.095
Fruit Jar
n/a
n/a
n/a
168
975
97
Description
(Side) Atlas / Strong Shoulder Mason
Maker Mark
Location
Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, Wheeling, West Virginia (c. 1915)
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.096
Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
155
245
59
Description
(Bottom) P.R.8.; brown bottle
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
327
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.101
Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
297
110
90
(Bottom) Saratoga Victoria / 391; brown bottle
n/a
Pantry
SI.02.843.102; .209
Clear glass root beer bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
280
1100
88
(Side 1) G. B. Seely's Son / 319, 321, & 323 / West
15th St. / New York; (Side 2) Trade Mark / Fresh Root
Beer / Registered [image of a man pouring root beer in
a soda shop]; (Bottom) 11-01
G. B. Seeley's Son, New York, New York (?-1914)
Pantry
328
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.192
Oil lamp wick adjuster
(Top) C.T. Ham Mfg. USA Hot Blast / No. 5 Dash
Clipper & S.S.S.
C. T. Ham Manufacturing Company, Rochester, New York(1886-1914)
Pantry
SI.02.843.197
Oil chimney lamp
Broken into three pieces; flared upper rim; clear
glass
n/a
Pantry
329
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.198
Clear glass bottle neck
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.200
Oil lamp base
Description
Glass
Maker Mark
Location
Pantry
330
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.210
Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
247
510
71
Description
(Bottom) 1610
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.211
Enameled War Pot Lid
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Light blue agate decoration on white; hole for
missing knob handle in center top of lid; lid to pot
(56)
n/a
Pantry
331
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.296
Glass lamp chimney
n/a
n/a
n/a
216
n/a
73
Description
Decorated, no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.297
Glass lamp chimney
n/a
n/a
n/a
253
n/a
78
Description
no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
332
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.309
White glass fruit jar lid
n/a
n/a
4
n/a
n/a
65
Fruit jar lid embossed "BOYD'S GENUINE
PORCELAIN LINE CAP"
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Pantry
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.033
Toolbox Base
755
220
1.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
plank; no nail holes present
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
333
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.088
Linoleum
Description
Linoleum found under the tool box
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Under Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.118
Liberty Smooth Plane
Description
Maker Mark
Location
(Front of Wooden Base) Stanley No. 122; (Front
of iron piece) 76; (Back of iron piece) B
Stanley Rule and Level Company, New Britain, CT (1886-1917)
Toolbox
334
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.121
Drawer Pull
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Cast Iron, decoration, no marks; originally 3.5
inches long by 1.25 inches high
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.122
Drill Bit
216
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16
Description
Maker Mark
Location
5/8 inch bit with screw tip 14 count per inch
n/a
Toolbox
335
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.124
Safety Pins
No marks; 2 brass safety pins; closure on one
side only
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.125 through 134
Trunk Hardware
75
33
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
(Front) PAT / PEN [patent pending]
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
336
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.135
Door knob hardware
n/a
n/a
n/a
9
n/a
57
Description
Plain brass rose plate
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.136 through 138
Container Pull
Description
Maker Mark
Location
(Top) SHOW TOP / PAT'D / DOZIER / NAT'L
BIS' CO.; copper with iron wood screw
National Biscuit Company, USA
Toolbox
337
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.139 and 140
Iron Handle
n/a
11
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Curved cast iron handle; Two Parts
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.141
Draw Knife
Description
Straight iron blade
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
n/a
n/a
n/a
338
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.142
Tool Handle
338
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
24
Turned wooden handle with a wooden wedge to
hold tool head onto the handle, tool missing
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.143
Door Hinge
Description
Maker Mark
Location
A-shaped iron door hinge; 4 holes on each side;
6 inch hinge; 1.5 inch wide
n/a
Toolbox
339
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.144
Side plate to a block
280
59
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Iron, no marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.146
Door Knob Hardware
n/a
n/a
2
n/a
n/a
48
Description
Cast iron rose
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
340
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.148
Iron pin for a block
4.5 inch long, 3/4 inch diameter shank, pinched
ears below head, cut shank (recycled)
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.152
Oval Ring
75
n/a
66
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Iron, 3/8 inch or 9 mm thick iron ring; rigging
element
n/a
Toolbox
341
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.153
Bolts (2)
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Two 3-inch iron machine bolts, 12 thread count,
1/2-inch shank, square head, blunt point
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.159
Nails (6)
see description
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Six 1¾-inch, 5d common nails
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
342
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.164
Drill Bit Extension
415
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
11
Description
Iron
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.165
Drill Bit
295
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
15
Description
Maker Mark
Location
5/8 inch bit with cutter end; broken at chuck end
so overall length unknown
n/a
Toolbox
343
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.166
Monkey Wrench
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thread count 10 per inch; 2.5 inch top jaw length; 10
inch monkey wrench; wooden handle; shows use as a
hammer on poll end of top jaw
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.169
Iron Handle
151
22
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Iron handle to a metal container
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
344
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.171; .217
Wooden Caning Pegs
see description
Description
2 inches long
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.213
Washers
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
Maker Mark
Location
8 small iron washers; 15/16 inches in exterior
diameter, 3/8 inch interior diameter hole, 1/8 inch
thick
n/a
Toolbox
345
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.214
Screws
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Three 1-inch iron screw, #6 shank, 20 thread
count, flat head, gimlet point
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.215
Washers
n/a
n/a
see description
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Three iron washers; 1/2 interior diameter, 1 7/16
exterior diameter, 1/8 inch thick
n/a
Toolbox
346
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.219
Brass headed iron tacks
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
One 9-mm diameter headed tack; Four 8-mm
diameter headed tacks; Two 7-mm diameter
headed tacks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.218
Hook and Eye Bolt
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Iron, 5.5 inch long hook, 10 thread count eye
n/a
Toolbox
347
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.231
Cotter Pin
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
7/32 inch in diameter
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.234
Hook
79
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4
Description
large iron hook, gimlet point
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
348
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.235
Furniture Tacks
see description
n/a
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
Forty-Two 5/8-inch, 10-wire furniture tacks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.245
Small Cast Iron Ornament
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Eight circles surrounding a diamond-shaped
element
n/a
Toolbox
349
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.247
Hook
see description
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
Brass L-shaped hook with a 0.5 inch flange; 20
thread count, gimlet point, 1/8 inch diameter wire
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.248
Wire Coat Hooks
n/a
n/a
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Four wire coat hooks of heavy gauge wire; 1 wire
coat hook of light weight gauge wire
n/a
Toolbox
350
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.249
Saw Handle
Description
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.252
Charcoal Briquettes
Description
Two pillow-shaped charcoal briquettes
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
351
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.254
Checker
Description
Black, Machine maid
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.258
Rubber Shoe Sole
Description
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
352
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.259
Hinge
see description
n/a
n/a
see description
n/a
n/a
T-shaped iron hinge; original length 3 to 4 inches;
2.5 inch height
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.260
Brush
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Toolbox
353
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.262
Screw Driver
n/a
n/a
n/a
Standard screw driver with wooden handle
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.270
Straight Pin
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
Description
Modern headed brass straight pin
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Toolbox
354
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.100
Creamer
n/a
n/a
n/a
86
240
85
Description
Clear pressed glass
Maker Mark
Location
United States Glass Company (Pattee Cross Design, 1909-?)
Section E
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.113
Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
82
1170
220
Description
Colonial pattern glass bowl
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
355
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.114
Tumbler
n/a
n/a
n/a
98
250
76
Description
Lead glass
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.115
Ink Bottle
n/a
n/a
n/a
71
125
68
Description
No marks; clear glass
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
356
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.191
Fishing Lure
(Back) MOOSELOOK / 1/4 oz / WOBBLER
Maker Mark
Location
(1938-PRESENT)
Section E
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.207
Whiteware Mug
n/a
n/a
n/a
97
835
128
Description
Large mug with broken handle
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
357
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.208
Sugar Bowl
n/a
n/a
n/a
79
440
126
Description
Clear glass with two handles
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.264; .292
Salt and Pepper Shakers
Description
Pepper shaker filled with pepper seed.
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
358
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.299; .300
Small Ceramic Plates
n/a
n/a
n/a
14
30
79
Description
Molded decoration
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Section E
SI.02.843.301
Whiteware Platter
395
265
n/a
50
1850
n/a
(Bottom) W.S.G.P.C. / S-V/ China [Semi-Vitreous
China
W.S. George Pottery Company, East Palestine, Ohio (1909-1915)
Section E
359
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.268
Spigot
Description
No marks; cuperous material
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Section E
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.104
Hatchet
405
152
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Cast iron head and curved wooden
handle
n/a
Section E
360
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.109
Serving Dish
n/a
n/a
n/a
208
n/a
n/a
(Bottom) Semi Porcelain / (bow and arrow) / HP
Co; broken
Section E
SI.02.843.116
Whiteware Bowl
89
2075
231
(Bottom) ROYAL IRONSTONE CHINA / ALFRED MEAKIN. LTD. /
ENGLAND.; crest flanked by a lion and unicorn; scalloped shape
and molded floral pattern; white
Alfred Meakin, Tunstall, England (1891-1897)
361
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.302; .304
Whiteware Plate
n/a
n/a
n/a
34
800
225
(Bottom) Wilkinson Ltd. / England (text under
crown) [same as 304]
Maker Mark
Location
Arthur J. Wilkinson Ltd., Burslem, England (1896-1930)
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.193
Coffee Pot
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Section E
Enameled ware; no marks; light blue decoration
over white enameled ware
n/a
Stern Starboard Side on the Lake Bottom
362
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.281
Iron Pulley
Description
no marks on pulley
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.337
Pump Valve Flap
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Forecastle
363
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.311
Lag Screw
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Gimlet point to a lag screw; 6 thread count
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.312
Iron Spikes
Description
Two iron spikes
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
364
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.313
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.327
Cast Iron Windlass
Description
no marks
Maker Mark
Location
Forecastle
365
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.315; .316
Eye Bolt
see description
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
see description
12 thread count, 7 1/8 inch long, 7/8 inch eye opening,
5/8 inch shaft, 1 3/16-inch square nut 3/4-inch thick,
hand wrought iron
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.314
Threaded rod and nuts
see description
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Possible bent shaft from a block; 7 3/4-inch long shaft;
threaded from each end of the rod a short distance
and nuts attached at each end; 10 thread count; 3/4
inch shaft; 1 5/16-square nuts 3/4-inch thick
n/a
Forecastle
366
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.328
Iron Plate
n/a
130
14
n/a
n/a
n/a
No marks; cast iron plate with three holes 11/16
inches in diameter; broken
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.329
Hinge Strap
Description
No marks
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
367
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.330
Eye Bolt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Large eye opening probably greater than 1 inch
(poor condition); hand wrought iron
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.331
Eyebolt with Ring
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Hand wrought iron; broken eye bolt shaft; 2 7/8
inch interior diameter ring;
n/a
Forecastle
368
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
Maker Mark
Location
SI.02.843.332
Marlin Spikes
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Ten 5/8 long; tapers from 1 1/8 to 1/4 inch in
diameter; 3/16 inch diameter hole in one end for
lanyard
n/a
Forecastle
SI.02.843.333
Eye Bolt
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
10 thread count, 8 5/8 inch long, 1 1/8 inch eye
opening, 3/4-inch diameter shaft, 1.25-inch
square nut 3/4-inch thick, iron
n/a
Forecastle
369
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
Description
SI.02.843.334
Carriage Bolt
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
5/8 inch diameter shaft; 12 thread count; 1.5 inch
diameter head; 8.5 inch length shaft
Maker Mark
Location
n/a
Forecastle
Artifact Number
Object
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Height (mm)
Capacity (ml)
Diameter (mm)
SI.02.843.335
Key Bolt
see description
see description
n/a
n/a
n/a
see description
Description
Maker Mark
Location
Hand wrought iron; 3.5 inch long, 3/4-inch shaft,
3/4-inch tall by 1/8 inch slot;
n/a
Forecastle
370
APPENDIX 7: 2002/2003 DIVE LOG
Date
8/16/02
8/16/02
8/15/02
8/14/02
8/14/02
8/13/02
8/12/02
8/12/02
8/9/02
8/8/02
8/5/02
8/5/02
8/2/02
8/1/02
7/31/02
7/31/02
7/30/02
7/30/02
7/29/02
7/26/02
7/26/02
7/25/02
7/24/02
7/24/02
7/19/02
7/18/02
7/18/02
7/17/02
7/17/02
7/16/02
7/15/02
7/12/02
7/12/02
7/11/02
7/11/02
7/10/02
7/8/02
6/10/02
Diver
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Date
8/16/02
Diver
Cohn, Art
2002 Diving Summary
Time In
9:41 AM
10:36 AM
10:05 AM
9:44 AM
1:38 PM
9:40 AM
10:23 AM
3:26 PM
9:30 AM
9:30 AM
11:08 AM
3:31 PM
9:36 AM
9:04 AM
9:46 AM
2:34 PM
10:20 AM
2:39 PM
10:15 AM
2:15 PM
9:22 AM
9:42 AM
9:34 AM
1:47 PM
11:38 AM
10:01 AM
3:55 PM
10:19 AM
3:36 PM
9:55 AM
1:27 PM
10:41 AM
2:42 PM
10:43 AM
3:13 PM
10:03 AM
4:45 PM
11:29 AM
Time In
10:36 AM
371
Time Out
10:28 AM
11:22 AM
10:55 AM
10:31 AM
2:15 PM
10:26 AM
11:08 AM
3:58 PM
10:16 AM
10:15 AM
11:50 AM
4:03 PM
10:24 AM
9:53 AM
10:27 AM
3:08 PM
11:01 AM
3:12 PM
10:54 AM
2:57 PM
10:04 AM
10:21 AM
10:13 AM
2:23 PM
12:17 PM
10:43 AM
4:32 PM
10:58 AM
4:04 PM
10:37 AM
2:12 PM
11:23 AM
3:22 PM
11:17 AM
3:53 PM
10:43 AM
5:19 PM
12:05 PM
Total Time
0:47:00
0:46:00
0:50:00
0:47:00
0:37:00
0:46:00
0:45:00
0:32:00
0:46:00
0:45:00
0:42:00
0:32:00
0:48:00
0:49:00
0:41:00
0:34:00
0:41:00
0:33:00
0:39:00
0:42:00
0:42:00
0:39:00
0:39:00
0:36:00
0:39:00
0:42:00
0:37:00
0:39:00
0:28:00
0:42:00
0:45:00
0:42:00
0:40:00
0:34:00
0:40:00
0:40:00
0:34:00
0:36:00
25:36:00
Time Out
11:22 AM
Total Time
0:46:00
8/15/02
8/15/02
8/13/02
8/12/02
8/12/02
8/12/02
8/9/02
8/5/02
8/5/02
8/2/02
7/31/02
7/31/02
7/30/02
7/29/02
7/26/02
7/25/02
7/25/02
7/19/02
7/17/02
7/16/02
7/15/02
7/11/02
7/7/02
6/10/02
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
9:21 AM
1:56 PM
10:58 AM
9:56 AM
11:30 AM
4:41 PM
9:36 AM
10:22 AM
3:07 PM
11:39 AM
10:34 AM
2:34 PM
9:40 AM
11:17 AM
11:07 AM
11:14 AM
5:16 PM
10:36 AM
10:19 AM
9:55 AM
1:27 PM
10:43 AM
10:03 AM
10:32 AM
10:08 AM
2:32 PM
11:37 AM
10:04 AM
12:15 PM
5:16 PM
10:21 AM
11:01 AM
3:42 PM
12:09 PM
11:10 AM
3:08 PM
10:21 AM
11:56 AM
11:29 AM
11:53 AM
5:46 PM
11:17 AM
10:58 AM
10:37 AM
2:12 PM
11:18 AM
10:44 AM
11:03 AM
Date
Diver
8/16/02 Pierre LaRocque
Time In
9:56 AM
10:32 AM
10:48 AM
2:22 PM
9:50 AM
11:30 AM
4:41 PM
10:47 AM
9:48 AM
10:22 AM
3:07 PM
10:59 AM
3:39 PM
10:46 AM
3:01 PM
8:19 AM
11:17 AM
2:26 PM
Time Out
10:42 AM
11:18 AM
11:33 AM
2:58 PM
10:33 AM
12:15 PM
5:16 PM
11:33 AM
10:38 AM
11:01 AM
3:42 PM
11:31 AM
4:15 PM
11:16 AM
3:36 PM
8:30 AM
11:57 AM
3:08 PM
0:47:00
0:36:00
0:39:00
0:08:00
0:45:00
0:35:00
0:45:00
0:39:00
0:35:00
0:30:00
0:36:00
0:34:00
0:41:00
0:39:00
0:22:00
0:39:00
0:30:00
0:41:00
0:39:00
0:42:00
0:45:00
0:35:00
0:41:00
0:31:00
15:20:00
Total Time
0:46:00
0:46:00
0:45:00
0:36:00
0:43:00
0:45:00
0:35:00
0:46:00
0:50:00
0:39:00
0:35:00
0:32:00
0:36:00
0:30:00
0:35:00
0:11:00
0:40:00
0:42:00
1:30 PM
10:41 AM
2:11 PM
11:17 AM
0:41:00
0:36:00
372
11:00 AM
11:23 AM
4:44 PM
10:47 AM
3:01 PM
9:46 AM
2:50 PM
2:00 PM
11:29 AM
11:40 AM
11:56 AM
5:17 PM
11:33 AM
3:38 PM
10:25 AM
3:24 PM
2:21 PM
12:05 PM
0:40:00
0:33:00
0:33:00
0:46:00
0:37:00
0:39:00
0:34:00
0:21:00
0:36:00
18:08:00
Date
Diver
8/16/02 Scott McLaughlin
Time In
9:41 AM
10:05 AM
9:44 AM
1:38 PM
9:40 AM
10:23 AM
3:36 PM
9:30 AM
10:25 AM
10:05 AM
11:08 AM
3:31 PM
9:26 AM
9:04 AM
9:46 AM
3:39 PM
10:20 AM
2:39 PM
10:14 AM
2:15 PM
9:22 AM
9:42 AM
9:34 AM
1:38 PM
9:35 AM
2:20 PM
11:40 AM
10:01 AM
2:34 PM
10:19 AM
3:36 PM
9:55 AM
2:05 PM
Time Out
10:28 AM
10:55 AM
10:31 AM
2:15 PM
10:26 AM
11:08 AM
3:58 PM
10:16 AM
11:07 AM
10:45 AM
11:50 AM
4:03 PM
10:23 AM
9:53 AM
10:27 AM
4:15 PM
11:01 AM
3:12 PM
10:54 AM
2:53 PM
10:04 AM
10:21 AM
10:13 AM
2:14 PM
10:08 AM
2:52 PM
12:17 PM
10:41 AM
3:09 PM
10:58 AM
4:04 PM
10:36 AM
2:52 PM
Total Time
0:47:00
0:50:00
0:47:00
0:37:00
0:46:00
0:45:00
0:22:0
0:46:00
0:42:00
0:40:00
0:42:00
0:32:00
0:57:00
0:49:00
0:41:00
0:36:00
0:41:00
0:33:00
0:40:00
0:38:00
0:42:00
0:39:00
0:39:00
0:36:00
0:33:00
0:32:00
0:37:00
0:40:00
0:35:00
0:39:00
0:28:00
0:41:00
0:47:00
373
1:30 PM
10:41 AM
2:42 PM
10:43 AM
3:13 PM
10:03 AM
4:45 PM
2:12 PM
11:19 AM
3:20 PM
11:15 AM
3:50 PM
10:41 AM
5:19 PM
0:42:00
0:38:00
0:38:00
0:32:00
0:37:00
0:38:00
0:34:00
26:18:00
Date
8/16/02
8/15/02
8/15/02
8/13/02
8/12/02
8/9/02
8/5/02
8/5/02
7/24/02
7/23/02
7/23/02
7/22/02
7/22/02
7/19/02
7/18/02
7/18/02
7/17/02
7/17/02
7/16/02
7/16/02
7/15/02
7/12/02
7/11/02
7/8/02
6/10/02
Diver
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Erick Tichonuk
Time In
10:37 AM
9:35 AM
1:56 PM
10:40 AM
3:34 PM
10:36 AM
11:21 AM
3:55 PM
1:38 PM
9:35 AM
11:01 AM
11:11 AM
2:20 PM
11:40 AM
11:01 AM
4:01 PM
11:12 AM
4:44 PM
10:47 PM
3:00 PM
2:07 PM
9:46 AM
11:36 AM
2:55 PM
10:32 AM
Time Out
11:22 AM
10:13 AM
2:32 PM
11:28 AM
4:19 PM
11:14 AM
11:58 AM
4:27 PM
2:12 PM
10:08 AM
11:29 AM
11:29 AM
2:53 PM
12:17 PM
11:43 AM
4:37 PM
11:53 AM
5:17 PM
11:31 PM
3:38 PM
2:50 PM
10:26 AM
12:09 PM
3:23 PM
11:03 AM
Date
8/15/02
8/15/02
8/14/02
8/13/02
8/9/02
8/8/02
8/7/02
Diver
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Time In
9:35 AM
1:56 PM
10:48 AM
10:40 AM
9:36 AM
10:25 AM
10:05 AM
Time Out
10:13 AM
2:32 PM
11:33 AM
11:28 AM
10:21 AM
11:07 AM
10:45 AM
Total Time
0:45:00
0:38:00
0:36:00
0:48:00
0:45:00
0:38:00
0:37:00
0:32:00
0:34:00
0:33:00
0:28:00
0:18:00
0:33:00
0:37:00
0:42:00
0:36:00
0:41:00
0:33:00
0:44:00
0:38:00
0:43:00
0:40:00
0:33:00
0:28:00
0:31:00
15:11:00
Total Time
0:38:00
0:36:00
0:45:00
0:48:00
0:45:00
0:42:00
0:40:00
8/2/02
Chris Sabick
9:36 AM
10:25 AM
0:49:00
374
8/1/02
7/31/02
7/31/02
7/30/02
7/30/02
7/29/02
7/26/02
7/26/02
7/25/02
7/24/02
7/24/02
7/23/02
7/22/02
7/18/02
7/18/02
7/17/02
7/17/02
7/16/02
7/16/02
7/15/02
7/12/02
7/11/02
7/11/02
7/8/02
Date
8/9/02
8/8/02
8/7/02
8/5/02
8/5/02
Date
6/23/03
6/25/03
6/25/03
6/26/03
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
Chris Sabick
9:04 AM
9:46 AM
2:34 PM
9:40 AM
3:01 PM
10:15 AM
2:15 PM
9:22 AM
9:42 AM
9:34 AM
1:47 PM
2:26 PM
1:30 PM
10:01 AM
2:34 PM
11:12 AM
3:36 PM
10:47 AM
2:05 PM
2:07 PM
10:41 AM
11:36 AM
3:13 PM
2:55 PM
9:53 AM
10:27 AM
3:08 PM
10:21 AM
3:36 PM
10:54 AM
2:54 PM
10:04 AM
10:21 AM
10:13 AM
2:21 PM
3:08 PM
2:09 PM
10:42 AM
3:09 PM
11:53 AM
4:04 PM
10:50 AM
2:52 PM
2:50 PM
11:21 AM
12:08 PM
3:49 PM
3:33 PM
0:49:00
0:41:00
0:34:00
0:41:00
0:35:00
0:39:00
0:39:00
0:42:00
0:39:00
0:39:00
0:34:00
0:42:00
0:39:00
0:41:00
0:35:00
0:41:00
0:28:00
0:03:00
0:47:00
0:43:00
0:40:00
0:32:00
0:36:00
0:38:00
20:40:00
Diver
Sara Brigadier
Sara Brigadier
Sara Brigadier
Sara Brigadier
Sara Brigadier
Time In
10:36 AM
9:30 AM
9:48 AM
11:21 AM
3:58 PM
Time Out
11:14 AM
10:15 AM
10:36 AM
11:58 AM
4:27 PM
Total Time
0:38:00
0:45:00
0:48:00
0:37:00
0:29:00
3:17:00
Time Out
12:03 PM
9:20 AM
1:39 PM
1:37 PM
Total
0:33:00
0:32:00
0:44:00
0:33:00
2:22:00
Diver
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
Cohn, Art
2003 Diving Summary
Time In
11:30 AM
8:48 AM
12:55 PM
1:04 PM
375
Date
Diver
6/23/03
6/24/03
6/24/03
6/25/03
6/25/03
6/26/03
6/26/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/25/03
7/8/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/10/03
7/7/03
7/7/03
7/21/03
7/22/03
7/22/03
7/23/03
7/23/03
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
Kane, Adam
6/24/03
6/25/03
6/26/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/25/03
7/7/03
7/8/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/10/03
7/21/03
7/22/03
7/22/03
7/23/03
Diver
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
LaRocque, Pierre
Date
Time In
Time Out
11:30 AM 12:05 PM
9:10 AM 9:51 AM
12:34 PM 1:11 PM
9:30 AM 10:11 AM
1:54 PM 2:34 PM
9:44 AM 10:30 AM
1:03 PM 1:39 PM
9:34 AM 10:28 AM
9:08 AM 9:45 AM
12:55 PM 1:42 PM
10:03 AM 10:48 AM
1:27 PM 2:03 PM
10:05 AM 10:44 AM
2:09 PM 2:49 PM
9:02 AM 9:42 AM
1:50 PM 2:35 PM
10:35 AM 11:23 AM
2:37 PM 3:15 PM
9:50 AM 10:27 AM
9:00 AM 9:40 AM
1:10 PM 1:52 PM
9:15 AM 9:55 AM
1:24 PM 2:06 PM
Time In
Time Out
9:10 AM 9:51 AM
12:56 PM 1:42 PM
9:44 AM 10:30 AM
9:50 AM 10:41 AM
9:24 AM 10:04 AM
1:16 PM 2:02 PM
2:17 PM 2:52 PM
8:58 AM 9:45AM
12:56 PM 1:36 PM
9:13 AM 9:52 AM
1:05 PM 1:50 PM
10:04 AM 10:42 AM
1:50 PM 2:35 PM
8:42 AM 8:50 AM
9:53 AM 10:31 AM
2:15 PM 2:57 PM
9:23 AM 10:01 AM
376
Total
0:35:00
0:41:00
0:37:00
0:41:00
0:40:00
0:46:00
0:36:00
0:54:00
0:37:00
0: 7:00
0:45:00
0: 6:00
0:39:00
0:40:00
0:40:00
0:45:00
0:48:00
0:38:00
0:37:00
0:40:00
0:52:00
0:40:00
0:42:00
15:56:00
Total
0:41:00
0:46:00
0:44:00
0:51:00
0:40:00
0:46:00
0:35:00
0:47:00
0:40:00
0:39:00
0:45:00
0:38:00
0:45:00
0:08:00
0:38:00
0:42:00
0:38:00
7/23/03
LaRocque, Pierre
1:37 PM 2:17 PM
0:40:00
12:03:00
6/23/03
6/24/03
6/24/03
6/25/03
6/25/03
6/26/03
6/26/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/23/03
7/8/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/10/03
7/7/03
7/7/03
7/22/03
7/22/03
7/23/03
7/23/03
Diver
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
McLaughlin, Scott
Time In
Time Out
11:30 AM 12:05 PM
10:07 AM 10:39 AM
1:10 PM 1:46 PM
9:30 AM 10:11 AM
1:54 PM 2:34 PM
8:46 AM 9:26 AM
12:42 PM 1:23 PM
9:34 AM 10:28 AM
9:08 AM 9:45 AM
12:56 PM 1:40 PM
10:03 AM 10:48 AM
1:27 PM 2:30 PM
10:05 AM 10:44 AM
2:09 PM 2:49 PM
9:02 AM 9:42 AM
12:40 PM 1:21 PM
10:35 AM 11:23 AM
2:37 PM 3:15 PM
9:00 AM 9:40 AM
1:10 PM 1:52 PM
9:15 AM 9:53 AM
1:24 PM 2:06 PM
Total
0:35:00
0:32:00
0:36:00
0:41:00
0:40:00
0:40:00
0:41:00
0:54:00
0:37:00
0:44:00
0:45:00
0:36:00
0:39:00
0:40:00
0:40:00
0:41:00
0:48:00
0:38:00
0:40:00
0:42:00
0:38:00
0:42:00
14:49:00
6/23/03
6/24/03
6/24/03
6/25/03
6/25/03
6/26/03
6/26/03
7/25/03
7/25/03
7/8/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/9/03
7/7/03
7/7/03
7/21/03
7/22/03
Diver
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Time In
Time Out
12:30 PM 1:06 PM
9:10 AM 9:51 AM
12:34 PM 1:11 PM
8:48 AM 9:20 AM
1:04 PM 1:37 PM
8:46 AM 9:26 AM
12:42 PM 1:23 PM
9:24 AM 10:04 AM
1:16 PM 2:03 PM
8:58 AM 9:46 AM
12:56 PM 1:36 PM
9:13 AM 9:52 AM
1:05 PM 1:50 PM
10:09 AM 10:53 AM
1:41 PM 2:19 PM
9:50 AM 10:28 AM
9:00 AM 9:40 AM
Total
0:36:00
0:41:00
0:36:00
0:32:00
0:33:00
0:40:00
0:41:00
0:40:00
0:47:00
0:48:00
0:40:00
0:39:00
0:45:00
0:44:00
0:38:00
0:38:00
0:40:00
Date
Date
377
7/22/03
7/23/03
7/23/03
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
Sabick, Chris
1:10 PM
9:23 AM
1:37 PM
1:52 PM
10:01 AM
2:17 PM
0:42:00
0:38:00
0:40:00
13:18:00
Date
6/23/03
6/24/03
6/24/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/25/03
7/8/03
7/8/03
7/9/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/10/03
7/7/03
7/7/03
7/21/03
7/22/03
7/22/03
Diver
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Tichonuk, Erick
Time In
Time Out
10:07 AM 10:30 AM
10:07 AM 10:39 AM
1:10 PM 1:46 AM
9:44 AM 10:39 AM
9:23 AM 10:04 AM
1:13 PM 2:02 PM
8:58 AM 9:45 AM
12:56 PM 1:36 PM
9:13 AM 9:52 AM
1:05 PM 1:50 PM
10:04 AM 10:42 AM
1:50 PM 2:35 PM
1:09 AM 10:53 AM
1:41 PM 2:18 PM
9:50 AM 10:27 AM
9:53 AM 10:31 AM
2:15 PM 2:57 PM
Sum total
378
Total
0:23:00
0:32:00
0:36:00
0:55:00
0:41:00
0:49:00
0:47:00
0:40:00
0:39:00
0:45:00
0:38:00
0:45:00
0:44:00
0:37:00
0:37:00
0:38:00
0:42:00
11:28:00
194:26:00
APPENDIX 8: NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FORM
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Name of Property: Sloop Island Canal Boat
County and State: Chittenden, Vermont
Name of multiple property listing (if applicable)
Canal Boats of Lake Champlain, Vermont and New York
Section number 7
Page 1
Description of the Sloop Island Canal Boat Shipwreck
Current Condition
The Sloop Island Canal Boat wreck is an unrigged standard Lake Champlain canal boat of the
1873 class, built after the second enlargement of the Champlain Canal in 1872 and before the
opening of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915. The shipwreck (Figure 1) lies in eighty-five feet
of water just north of Sloop Island in Charlotte, Vermont. The site is about 3/8 of a mile (.6 km)
north of Sloop Island and 5/8 mile (1 km) from the eastern shore (Figure 2). The intact hull rests
on the hard clay bottom on a nearly even keel. The current condition of the canal boat is
remarkable considering its 70+ years on the lake bottom. Due to the stable environment in Lake
Champlain, the canal boat’s upright orientation, and the fact that its interior is full of sediment and
a cargo of coal, the timbers and associated artifacts are well preserved. About eighty percent of
the site remains intact, retaining its historic integrity.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat demonstrates a construction technique known as “edge-fastening.”
The majority of the hull is composed of thick planks that are joined by bolts driven vertically
through their edges, joining the planks into a single element. The bow of the vessel is built in a
more traditional plank on frame fashion. The cabin which housed the family that operated the
vessel is the only portion of the vessel that displays significant damage. The roof of the cabin has
floated off the wreck and come to rest on the lake bottom nearby. The trunk of the cabin has
collapsed into a jumble of timbers and numerous artifacts were found in the wreckage.
Historic Condition
Unfortunately, extensive historical background research and an intensive archaeological survey
have, as yet, failed to identify the name of the Sloop Island Canal Boat making it impossible to
link the shipwreck directly to historic occurrences. However, an almost complete reconstruction
of the vessel is possible using the intact structural remains as a guide. The reconstruction of the
canal boat is based upon archaeological evidence supplemented by contemporary documents
and illustrations of similar vessels.
The vessel’s hull, like that of nearly all canal boats, is box-shaped with vertical sides, a flat bottom
and blunt ends, a shape designed to carry as much cargo as possible within the confines of the
size allowed by the canal locks. The boat is 97 feet 3½ inches long (29.7 m), 17 feet 10 inches
(5.4 m) wide, and its depth amidships is 9 feet 10 inches (3 m). The vessel is very well preserved
on the lake bottom. The majority of the timbers are in their original locations and retain a
substantial amount of structural integrity.
386
Name of Property Sloop Island Canal Boat
County and State Chittenden, Vermont
Section number 7
Page 2
Hull
The hull was built using edge-fastening construction (Figure 3); a technique often used to build
canal boats since the 1840s. The primary characteristics of an edge-fastened hull are vertical
sides held together by iron drift bolts driven straight down into the edges of the planking. On the
Sloop Island Canal Boat, one inch drift bolts were hammered into pre-drilled holes through two or
more four inch thick strakes. As each strake was added a new set of drift bolts was driven
through that strake connecting it to those below. With this technique the side planks are so
thoroughly locked together that they act as a single timber, lending significant longitudinal
strength to the hull. This technique was used extensively in the latter half of the nineteenth
century for building vessels with vertical sides.
The hulls of canal boats with their high length-to-beam ratio, 5.5 to 1 in this case, were prone to
sagging. Edge-fastened construction helped counter this tendency. The strength of an edgefastened hull is largely derived from the vessel’s sides, as opposed to plank-on-frame
construction where the hull’s strength comes from the skeleton-like internal framing. In plank-onframe construction a ship’s hull is commonly described as being akin to a human torso. The
backbone of the ship is its keel, while its frames maintain the shape of the hull with the ribs as
their counterpart. Water is kept out of the hull by planking, which forms a skin over the framing.
This simplified analogy is not applicable to the edge-fastening construction technique. They are
fundamentally different; an edge-fastened hull derives its strength and rigidity from its sides, not
its internal framing.
Though the bottom of the vessel is not accessible for examination we have a good idea of its
construction based on other vessels of similar design. Like other standard edge fastened canal
boats, the vertical sides and horizontal bottom of the Sloop Island Canal Boat are connected by
the chine logs that run along both sides of the hull. The chine logs provide a secure juncture for
the side and bottom of the vessel which meet at a 90 degree angle. At its forward end the chine
log terminates where the bow framing begins. At its after end the chine log is rounded following
the transition of the horizontal bottom to the vertical stern. The bottom planking of the Sloop
Island Canal Boat runs transversely, and is likely supported by several sister keelsons on the
interior of the hull, which would provide additional longitudinal support.
Bow
The canal boat’s curved bow was built very differently from the rest of the hull. Due to its
complex shape the bow was not edge-fastened, but was built using the more traditional
shipbuilding technique of plank-on-frame construction. Overall, the bow is extremely bluff, with 2
inch (5.1 cm) thick planks rabbetted into the 10 inch by 6 inch (25.4 by 15.2 cm) stem at a near
90°
angle.
The
top
of
the
stem
is
raked
slightly
aft,
387
Section number 7
Page 3
creating a recessed area where a lantern could be hung. The exterior of the bow is reinforced
with eight 4 by 4 inch (10.1 by 10.1 cm)rubrails; the leading edge of each is covered with a half
inch thick iron band. These were used to limit wear from frequent abrasion with other canal
boats, and the canal locks and prism. The bow was constructed primarily of white oak and elm,
as opposed to much of the rest of the hull, which was white pine.
The interior of the bow is massively reinforced to protect the vessel from the stresses of towing
and the inevitable collisions that took place in the canals and locks. Above deck is a substantial
breast hook that supports the large towing bits (Figure 4). Directly below the 2 inch (5.1 cm) thick
deck planking is a massive composite breast hook consisting of eight timbers running
athwartships and extending aft from the stem 2 ½ feet (45.7 cm) (Figure 5). This large
reinforcement is further strengthened through the use of two lodging knees on each side which
connect the breast hook with the large deck beam at the forward end of the cargo hatch. Below
this are two smaller breast hooks which extend around the interior of the bow. These are located
2 (61 cm) and 4 feet (122 cm) below the large breast hook respectively, a third may be present
below the silt line. The smaller reinforcements consist of seven 1 ½ inch (3.8 cm)boards
laminated into a single structural timber. Unfortunately, the lower interior structures of the Sloop
Island Canal Boats are obstructed by the presence of a large amount of coal and silt making their
examination impossible.
Stern
The canal boat’s stern is much simpler in construction than the bow. The bottom portion of the
stern is vertical, with planks oriented transversely. Unlike the vertical planks along the hull’s side,
the stern planks are not edge-fastened but are supported by 4 inch (10.2 cm) square frames.
Planks are rabbetted into the vertical sternpost. At the very bottom of the stern the planks
abruptly curve from the vertical plane of the stern into the horizontal plane of the bottom of the
hull. This curve follows the end of the chine log which is curved at its after end. Above the
vertical portion of the stern is a slightly curved transom that over hangs the lower part of the stern
by 2 feet (.61 m). The transom once had the vessel’s name and homeport painted on it, but only
small flecks of paint remain today.
Deck Layout
There are four openings along the deck each giving access to a separate interior area of the
vessel. From forward to aft, these areas are the forecastle, hold, cabin, and booby.
Access to the forecastle, or the interior of the bow, was gained through the 18 inch (45.7 cm)by
24 inch (61 cm)forecastle hatch. The forecastle was separated from the hold and its cargo by a
tongue-and-groove plank bulkhead located 6 feet (1.8 m) aft of the interior
388
Canal Boats of Lake Champlain, Vermont and
New York
Section number 7
Page 4
face of the stem. Several feet of silt and coal has accumulated in the bow making the study of
this area difficult. Many boat-related artifacts such as a broken windlass (Figure 6), a roll of tar
paper, a paint pot with a brush, a marlin spike, an iron block, and numerous iron fasteners were
found here indicating that it served as a storage area for tools and other equipment. Many of
these items were still sitting on top of the laminated breast hooks; it is likely that many other
pieces of boat-related equipment remain buried below the sediments.
The canal boat’s dominant feature is its large cargo hatch. At 51 foot (15.5 m) long and 9 feet
(2.7 m) wide the cargo hatch spanned much of the main deck leaving a 4 foot (1.2 m) walkway on
each side of the vessel. As its name suggests, the hatch allows access to the hold so that cargo
can be loaded and unloaded. It was surrounded by a 12 inch (30.5 cm) coaming necessary for
keeping water out. The hold and deck are supported by six strong deck beams that run across
the vessel. The deck beams are composed of three timbers with a total dimension of 18 inches
(45.7 cm) molded and 8 inches (20.3 cm) sided. Two of these timbers are located at the forward
and after end of the main hatch, the other four are spaced along the length of the opening. The
junction of the deckbeams and the sides of the vessel are reinforced with naturally curved knees.
They are further supported amidships with 6 inch (15.2 cm) by 6 inch (15.2 cm) stanchions joined
to the beams with iron straps (Figure 7). The hold is filled with coal to a depth of 3 to 5 feet (.9
to1.5 m) above the boat’s bottom. The cargo made documentation of the construction of the
bottom of the hull impossible.
Just aft of the cargo hatch is the cabin. The opening for the cabin is 13 feet (4 m) long and 12½
feet (3.8 m) wide, though the cabin itself is actually 17 by 12½ feet (5.2 by 3.8 m) because it
extends under the walkways of the deck. The cabin floor is constructed of 1 inch (2.5 cm) tongue
and groove planks supported by 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick sub-flooring planks and 6½ by 4 inch (16.5
by 10 cm) cabin floor beams. The forward and after walls of the cabin were delineated by a
tongue-and-groove panel wall, whereas the port and starboard sides of the cabin were formed by
the sides of the boat.
The booby hatch is the aftermost opening on the canal boat’s deck. Located along the starboard
half of the stern deck, it is 9½ feet by 5 feet (2.9 by 1.5 m). The booby hatch allowed the canal
boat’s stern to be loaded with cargo both behind and underneath the cabin floor, which is 5 feet
(1.5 m) off the vessel’s bottom. Loading cargo in the stern helped take some strain off the
midships section of the boat (Godfrey 1965:1). This loading technique was used in the Sloop
Island Canal Boat as evidenced by the coal loaded in the booby and underneath the cabin. A
number of artifacts were located inside the booby, however, it is believed that most of these items
spilled into that section of the boat as the bulkhead separating the booby from the cabin
collapsed. Only a few artifacts were located in the booby far enough from the cabin to suggest
that
their
389
Section number 7
Page 5
original provenience is the booby, including an axe, tiller bar extension, and a variety of iron
fasteners and tools.
Deck Arrangements
The vessel contains a number of pieces of deck equipment and related gear essential for
operating the boat. The bow houses an iron windlass mounted to two 8 by 8 inch (20.3 cm)
wooden towing bitts. The windlass was used to raise and lower the anchor, whereas the bitts
were essential for tying the canal boat into the tow. One of the vessel’s anchors is still present in
the bow near the windlass. The anchor shaft is 5 feet (1.5 m) long and the distance between
fluke points is 3 ½ feet (1.1 m), the folding cross piece rests on the deck next to the anchor.
Mounted into the decking of the bow are two deck lights. The lights are thick pieces of glass
which diffused natural light into the forecastle. The canal boat also has six 2 foot 10 inch (.9 m)
long iron cleats, three on each side of the boat: one in the bow, one in the stern, and one
amidships. These were used for tying off to an adjacent vessel in a tow, or to a dock. The cleats
on the port side still have cable wrapped around them suggesting that the vessel was cut loose
rather than untied.
The stern deck contains a small iron windlass (Figure 8) used for snugging the following canal
boat in a tow up against the stern. On the small walkway between the cabin and the cargo hatch
the boat’s iron wheel and steering mechanism are present. The wheel has separated from the
mechanism and lies beside it on the deck (Figure 9). Originally cables ran from the drum of the
mechanism to blocks along the side of the vessel and then to attachment points on the next
vessel of the tow. As the tow navigated corners in the canal turning the steering wheel tightened
and slackened the cables attaching the two vessels allowing them to pivot around turns.
Cabin and Booby
The cabin trunk, cabin roof, and booby hatch cover of the Sloop Island Canal Boat were
ripped off at the time of the vessel’s sinking. Work in the cabin and booby was made easier
without these overhead obstructions. However, documentation was complicated by the large
number of jumbled timbers from the floor, ceiling, bulkhead planks, and fragments of the cabin
trunk and cabin furniture (Figure 10). The fasteners that once held the wooden elements of the
cabin and booby in place had long since rusted away, allowing the timbers to collapse into the
vessel. Through careful documentation, we hope the original location of many of the timbers can
be identified, permitting the reconstruction of the original layout of the cabin and booby. Layer by
layer the timbers and artifacts were removed and video and photographs were used to record the
process. All of the artifacts from the cabin and booby were recovered and brought to
390
Section number 7
Page 6
the Lake Champlain MaritimeMuseum’s conservation facility for stabilization and documentation
(Figure 11). Although the video footage, still images, and sketches of the cabin and booby and
the artifacts and their distribution are now being analyzed, our current impression of the cabin
layout is that the space was divided into sections based on their function (Figure 12).
The cabin stairwell was located along the after end of the cabin along the port side.
Beneath the stairs was a storage area containing a tool box (Figure 13). To port of the stairs,
under the walkway alongside the cabin were shelves used to store food. The artifacts recovered
from this area included crocks, bottles, canning jars, and a jug. One canning jar was full of small
fish bones (possibly the remains of pickled fish) and two crocks held grape seeds and pig bones
(i.e., salt pork). The bottles once contained root beer, beer, and mineral water. Also located on
the shelving were two oil lamps. Forward of the shelving unit was a chest of drawers, which
contained tools, shoes, and money. Forward of this and also under the deck along the portside
was a folding iron bed. In the center of the cabin was a caned armed rocking chair, presumably
near the location of the dining table. Located in the forward starboard corner of the cabin was a
cast iron double bed and a stool. Along the starboard side of the cabin were two shelves used to
store tin ware dishes. Aft of the bed was a large cast iron cook range (Figure 14), which was
separated from the rest of the cabin by a panel wall and linoleum flooring. To port of the stove
was a large hutch with multiple shelves and drawers housing the family’s ceramic, glassware,
utensils, and medicine.
The artifacts found within the cabin and booby suggest that the vessel’s crew consisted
of a nuclear family with a father, mother, and at least one child. Articles of clothing and shoes
were found in the cabin. A wool coat was discovered near the center of the cabin and appears
from its size, shape, to have been made for a man, possibly the captain of the vessel. The heel
of a woman’s shoe was also found. Located within one of the hutch draws were several colored
clay marbles and small buttons, which may have belonged to a young child. Also suggestive of a
child’s presence aboard the vessel is a checker recovered from the toolbox. The heel of a man's
shoe was found in the chest of drawers.
The continued analysis of the artifacts and their provenience will guide researchers in determining
the organization, layout, and functions of the cabin and booby. The artifacts also have the
potential to help us better understand the economic and physical well-being of the canal boat
household, their access and preference to goods, their needs, and the crew’s activities within the
cabin and booby.
391
Section number 7
Page 7
Rudder
The steering mechanism controlled the direction of the Sloop Island Canal Boat in the canal, but
the tiller and rudder controlled the vessel on open water. The rudder is mounted to an 8 inch
(20.3 cm) diameter rudderpost which passes through the transom. A tiller bar is mortised into the
top of the rudderpost. Two iron rings are mounted to the top of the tiller which would have
allowed an extension to be installed. The extended tiller handle would have allowed crew
members to steer the vessel from the top of the cabin where they had a clear view. The rudder
itself is very similar to those found on other canal boats. These rudders had a folding extension
called, a tailboard, that could be retracted when in the constricted waters of the canal. The
rudder of the Sloop Island Canal Boat consists of two walls of planks 6 ½ feet (2 m) high and 6
feet (1.8 m) long that are separated by a 5 inch (12.7 cm) gap. In this gap the 2 inch (5.1 cm)
thick rudder extension is mounted to a 1 inch iron pin as a pivot. The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s
rudder extension is in the stowed position.
392
Section number 8
Page 1
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANACE
Summary
The Sloop Island Canal Boat shipwreck site is eligible for National Register listing under criteria
A, C, and D. The areas of significance within these criteria are archaeology, architecture,
maritime history and transportation. The Sloop Island Canal Boat fulfills all the aspects and
qualities under each criteria and demonstrates an importance within local, state, and national
history.
Criteria A:
Canal Boats were an important element in the North American transportation
network during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, although the story of these humble
craft has long been overshadowed by the steamboat and railroad. Standard or unrigged canal
boats were able to move large, heavy, bulky cargoes from a lake port to a canal or river port
relatively quickly and cheaply without the need to transfer the cargo around portages. The
vessels were used mainly to transport material through the Champlain Valley and its connecting
canal systems. Lake Champlain played a major role in linking the Eastern Canadian and New
York City markets. Champlain Canal boats were built in New York, Vermont, and Eastern
Canada. Vessels similar to the Sloop Island Canal Boat were constructed from 1873 to 1915.
Criteria C:
The Sloop Island Canal Boat embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type
and method of construction used during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The
shipwreck near Sloop Island is a standard Champlain canal boat of the 1873 class. The vessel
was built using the edge-fastened construction technique. This construction technique was
commonly practiced by American boat builders for many different types of vessels that had
straight sides, and it was the predominant construction techniques used for building standard
canal boats in the late nineteenth century.
Criteria D:
The archaeology and historical research conducted to date on the Sloop Island
Canal Boat has yielded a tremendous amount of information about construction, function,
operation and life aboard standard canal boats. By no means has this research been exhausted.
There remains a large amount of data still to be analyzed and portions of the vessel that have not
been excavated.
Archaeology
Since the discovery of the Sloop Island Canal Boat in 1998 it has been the focus to two field
seasons of archaeological examination. Most of the vessel above the mudline has been
documented, but none of the vessel that lies under the cargo of coal has been recorded. The
Sloop Island Canal Boat has yielded a significant amount of information about the construction,
function,
operation,
and
life
aboard
a
canal
boat.
The
393
Section number 8
Page 2
information is made possible as a result of the vessel’s quick, but gentle sinking. The family
aboard would have been able to save only a small number of items before they were forced to
abandon the vessel. This allowed archaeologists to get a better understanding of the contents,
condition, and organization of a working canal boat. Many of the canal boat shipwrecks found
were likely scuttled after their working careers.
Architecture
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is one of thousands of standard canal boats that were once involved
in the commercial carrying trade on the Northern Route, New York City to the St. Lawrence River.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is a largely intact example of the Lake Champlain standard canal
boat of the 1873 class. The Sloop Island Canal Boat is an excellent example of a Champlain
standard canal boat from the end of the wooden canal boat period on Lake Champlain. This
vessel represents the culmination of the edge-fastened construction technique that was employed
on a variety of vessel types that had vertical sides.
Maritime History/Transportation
The Sloop Island Canal Boat represents one of the second to last generation of wooden
Champlain canal boats to operate on the Northern Route. The Northern Route’s canal boat era
began roughly 100 years before the Sloop Island Canal Boat sank with the 1823 opening of the
Champlain Canal. The canal’s effect on the economic prosperity of the Champlain Valley was
enormous; bulky raw materials, which were formerly too costly to ship overland, could now be
transported to marketplaces along the Hudson River and beyond. The Hudson River, Champlain
Canal, and Lake Champlain’s enhanced importance as a commercial waterway spurred an
economic boom in port towns along its shores.
394
Section number 9
Page 1
Bibliography
Albrecht, Arthur E.
1918 The Education of Children Living on Barges. School and Society 8(192):259-260.
Anonymous
1923 On Inland Waterways. The Survey 50(2):103-104.
Archambault, Cora and Jane Vincent
2000 Interview with Cora Archambault. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Vergennes,
Vermont.
Archambault, Cora, Arthur Cohn and Jane Vincent
2000 Interview with Cora Archambault. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Vergennes,
Vermont.
Archambault, Cora, Holly Noordsey and Megan Garrison
1997 Interview with Cora Archambault. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Vergennes, Vermont.
Bellico, Russel P.
2001 Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake George and
Lake Champlain. Revised ed. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New York.
Cohn, Arthur B.
Preliminary Results of an Archaeological Assessment within the Pine Street Barge Canal. Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburg, Vermont.
Gleason, J.D.
1922 Barges. Scribner's Magazine 72(1):17-25.
Godfrey, Frank H.
1973 The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals. Canal
Society of New York State, Syracuse, New York.
1965 Frank H. Godfrey to Robert E. Hager, letter, 16 September 1965. Chittenango Landing
Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York.
395
Section number 9
Page 2
Godfrey, Fred G.
1994 The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats. Library Research Associates, Monroe, New
York.
Johnson, Clifton
1898 A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson. The Outlook 60(5):304-318.
Larkin, F. Daniel
1999 New York State Canals: A Short History. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, New
York.
McHugh, K.R. (editor)
1981 A Canal Primer. The Canal Museum, Syracuse, New York.
McVarish,Douglas C., Joel I. Klein, and J. Lee Cox
2001 Pine Street Canal Superfund Site Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. John Milner
Associates, Inc.,Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
O'Malley, Charles T.
1991 Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal. Diamond Mohawk
Publishing, Ellentown, Florida.
Sabick, Christopher R., Anne W. Lessmann, Scott A. McLaughlin
2000 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997 Results and
Volume III: 1998 Results. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Vergennes, Vermont.
Springer, Ethel M. and Thomas F. Hahn
1977 Canal Boat Children on the Chesapeake and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York Canals.
American Canal & Transportation Center, Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Stack, Debbie J. and Donald A. Wilson
1993 Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal. Erie Canal Museum, Syracuse, New
York.
396
Section number 10
Page 1
Geographical Data
Verbal Boundary Description
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is sitting upright in 85 feet (26 m) of water in Lake
Champlain. The site is located in Charlotte, Chittenden County, Vermont. The vessel
came to rest approximately 3/8 of a mile (.6 km) north of Sloop Island and 5/8 mile (1 km)
from the eastern shore of the lake.
Latitude: 44.1874 N
Longitude: 73.1850 W
A circle with a 200 foot (61 m) radius around the Sloop Island Canal Boat is designated as
the outer limits of the site boundary. The shipwreck lies in the center of this circle, which
has an area of 2.88 acres (1.17 hectares).
Boundary Justification
The Sloop Island Canal Boat sunk to the bottom of the lake upright and on an even keel,
retaining its large cargo of coal. The cabin roof has come to rest about 20 feet (6.1 m) off
the starboard stern the vessel. The 200 foot (61 m) radius used as the boundary limit
around the wreck will ensure that if any scatter of artifacts associated with the wreck will
be included within the site boundaries. The 200 foot (61 m) radius is also the State of
Vermont designation as the safety zone around any diver’s down flag. The boundary is
sufficient to convey the significance of the property.
397
Additional Documentation
Page 1
Figure 96: Sloop Island Canal Boat Site Plan
(Drawing by: Adam Kane, Chris Sabick,
Erick Tichonuk, and Scott McLaughlin)
398
Page 2
Figure 97: Location of Sloop Island Canal Boat
(Map by Adam Kane)
399
Page 3
Figure 98: A schematic view of the
Edge-fastened construction technique.
(Drawing by Joseph Cozzi)
400
Page 4
Figure 99: A Plan view of the bow of the
Sloop Island Canal Boat.
(Drawing by Chris Sabick)
401
Page 5
Figure 100: A below Deck Plan View of the
Sloop Island Canal Boat’s bow.
(Drawing by Chris Sabick)
402
Page 6
Figure 101: The broken windlass found in the forecastle.
(Drawing by Gordon Caywood and Adam Loven)
403
Page 7
Figure 102: Small windlass located on the Stern Deck.
(Photography by Pierre LaRocque)
404
Page 8
Figure 103: Cross section of the Sloop Island Canal Boat
(Drawing by Sara Brigadier)
405
Page 9
Figure 104: The Steering wheel and mechanism(Photography by Pierre
LaRocque)
406
Page 10
Figure 105: The jumble of timbers in the stern cabin.
(Photography by Pierre LaRocque)
407
Page 11
Figure 106: Silverware Drawer from the cabin.
(Drawing by Adam Loven)
408
Page 12
Figure 107: Conjectural layout of the stern cabin.
(Drawing by Scott McLaughlin)
409
Page 13
Figure 108: A Stanley block plane found in the tool box.
410
Page 14
Figure 109: Portions of the cast iron cook range.
411
Figure 110: A Canal boat tow.
(Journal of August Brown, 1895,
courtesy of the New York State Museum
412
Figure 111: USGS map showing the location of
The Sloop Island Canal Boat
413
414
ENDNOTES
National Park Service, 36 Cfr Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological
Collections (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991), National Park Service, "Archeology
and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register 48, no.
190 (1983), G. N. Peebles, Guidelines for Archeological Studies (Montpelier, Vermont: Vermont Division for
Historic Preservation, 1989).
2 The University of Chicago Press, The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 2003).
3 Christopher R. Sabick, Anne Wood Lessmann, and Scott Arthur McLaughlin, "Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey," Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey
(Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum at Basin Harbor, 2000), 130-33.
4 see Cohn 1996
5 see McVarish, Klein and Cox 2001
6 Andrew Jones, Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, ed. Richard Bradley, Topics in
Contemporary Archaeology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 40.
7 W. Raymond Wood, "Ethnohistory and Historical Method," Archaeological Method and Theory 2
(1990): 84.
8 National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines.", Peebles, Guidelines for Archeological Studies.
9 Ole Crumlin-Pedersen, "Experimental Ship Archaeology in Denmark," in Experiment and Design:
Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles, ed. Anthony F. Harding (Oxford, England: Oxbow Books,
1999), 139.
10 Conrad M. Arensberg and Solon T. Kimball, Culture and Community, ed. Robert K. Merton
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965), 32.
11 Robert Jervis, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1997), 10.
12 Guy Gibbon, Anthropological Archaeology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 19.
13 Frederick L. Bates, Sociopolitical Ecology: Human Systems and Ecological Fields, ed. Robert L.
Flood, Contemporary Systems Thinking (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 74.
14 Ibid., 76.
15 Holly Arrow, Joseph E. McGrath, and Jennifer L. Berdahl, Small Groups as Complex Systems:
Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2000),
37.
16 Ibid., 34.
17 David Weissman, A Social Ontology (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2000), 47.
18 Linda Lee Stoneall, Country Life, City Life: Five Theories of Community (New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1983), 202-03.
19 Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl, Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination,
Development, and Adaptation, 157.
20 Dennis E. Poplin, Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research (New York:
Macmillan Company, 1972), 176.
21 Joseph R. Gusfield, Community: A Critical Response, ed. Philip Rieff and Bryan R. Wilson, Key
Concepts in the Social Sciences (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1975), 43.
22 John Daniel Rogers, "The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization," in Mississippian
Communities and Households, ed. John Daniel Rogers (Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press,
1995), 8.
1
415
23 Richard Ralph Wilk, Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among the Kekchi in
Belize, ed. Robert McCormack Netting, Arizona Studies in Human Ecology (Tucson, Arizona: University of
Arizona Press, 1991), 39.
24 Gibbon, Anthropological Archaeology, 24-25.
25 Patty Jo. Watson, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman, Archaeological Explanation: The
Scientific Method in Archeology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 111.
26 Gerald Midgley, Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice, ed. Robert L. Flood,
Contemporary Systems Thinking (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000), 36.
27 Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman, Archaeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archeology, 84.
28 Poplin, Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research, 180.
29 Jervis, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, 10.
30 Marianne Camp Schmink, "Household Economic Strategies: Review and Research Agenda,"
Latin American Research Review 19, no. 3 (1984): 88.
31 Sharon Rose Steadman, "Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the
Foundations," Journal of Archaeological Research 4, no. 1 (1996): 54-56.
32 Tamara K. Hareven, Family Time and Industrial Time: The Relationship between the Family and Work
in a New England Industrial Community, ed. Robert Fogel and Stephan Thernstrom, Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Modern History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 6.
33 Glen H. Elder, Jr., "Life Course, The," in Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. Edgar F. Borgatta and
Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000), 1619-20.
34 Anonymous, "The Canal Boat Lake Boy Is Sunk.," Burlington Free Press, Wednesday, 25
November 1908, Glen Holl Elder, Jr., "History and the Family: The Discovery of Complexity," Journal of
Marriage and the Family 43, no. 3 (1981): 508.
35 Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl, Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination,
Development, and Adaptation, 54.
36 Glen Holl Elder, Jr., "Family History and the Life Course," in Transitions: The Family and the Life
Course in Historical Perspective, ed. Tamara Kern Hareven, Studies in Social Discontinuity (New York:
Academic Press, 1978), 17-18.
37 Thomas A. Arcury, "Household Composition and Economic Change in a Rural Community,
1900-1980: Testing Two Models," American Ethnologist 11, no. 4 (1984): 679.
38 John M. Coles, Experimental Archaeology (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 244, Mark Paul
Leone, "The Relationship between Archaeological Data and the Documentary Record: 18th Century
Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland," Historical Archaeology 22, no. 1 (1988): 33, Mark Q. Sutton and Brooke
Stephen Arkush, Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1998), 218-19.
39 Wood, "Ethnohistory and Historical Method," 90-91.
40 Barbara J. Little, "Text-Aided Archaeology," in Text-Aided Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little (Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992), 4-5.
41 Jules David Prown, "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,"
Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1 (1982): 3-4, Thomas John Schlereth, "Material Culture and Cultural Research,"
in Material Culture: A Research Guide, ed. Thomas John Schlereth (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas,
1985), 11-12.
42 Robert L. Schuyler, "The Spoken Word, the Written Word, Observed Behavior, and Preserved
Behavior: The Contexts Available to the Archaeologist," in Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive
and Theoretical Contributions, ed. Robert L. Schuyler (Farmingdale, New York: Baywood Publishing
Company, 1978), 270.
43 Amy Gazin-Schwartz and Cornelius Holtorf, ""as Long as Ever I've Know It." On Folklore and
Archaeology," in Archaeology and Folklore, ed. Amy Gazin-Schwartz and Cornelius Holtorf, Theoretical
Archaeology Group (Tag) (New York: Routledge, 1999), 13.
416
44 Jones, Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, 11, Prown, "Mind in Matter: An Introduction
to Material Culture Theory and Method," 3-4.
45 Richard Kerfoot Anderson, Jr., Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships (Washington, DC: Historic
American Buildings/Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1988), Martin Dean et al., eds., Archaeology Underwater: The Nas Guide to Principles and Practice
(Portsmouth and London: Nautical Archaeology Society and Archetype Publications, 1992), Jeremy
Green, Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook (San Diego, California: Academic Press, 1990),
Matthew P. Hogan, C.A.N.A.L.S. Underwater Archaeology Diver's Manual (Syracuse: Canal Museum, 1981),
Paul Lipke, Peter Spectre, and Benjamin A. G. Fuller, eds., Boats: A Manual for Their Documentation
(Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for State and Local History, 1993), J. Richard Steffy, Wooden
Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press,
1994).
46 Sources for illustrations see L. R. Addington, Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for
Publication (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986), L. Adkins and R. A. Adkins, Archaeological
Illustration, Academic Manuals in Archaeology Series (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), S. J.
Allen, The Illustration of Wooden Artifacts: An Introduction and Guide to the Depiction of Wooden Objects, ed. B.
Hurman and M. Steiner, vol. 11, Technical Paper (Oxford, England: Association of Archaeological
Illustrators and Surveyors, 1994), B. D. Dillon, ed., Student's Guide to Archaeological Illustrating, vol. 1,
Archaeological Research Tools (Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1992)..
Sources for photography see P. G. Dorrell, Photography in Archaeology and Conservation, ed. D. Brothwell,
et al., Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology Series (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), C. L.
Howell and W. Blanc, Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography, ed. R. Demsetz, et al., 2nd ed., vol. 6,
Archaeological Research Tools (Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1995).
47 LCMM researchers assigned to documentation areas included: Adam Kane, sides, stern and
booby, Scott McLaughlin, cabin; Chris Sabick, bow; and Erick Tichonuk, hold.
48 Jones, Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, 42.
49 W. K. Baum, Oral History for the Local Historical Society, 3rd ed. (Nashville, Tennessee: American
Association for State and Local History, 1987), Margaret Sermons Purser, "Oral History and Historical
Archaeology," in Text-Aided Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992), Paul
A. Shackel, "Probate Inventories in Historical Archaeology: A Review and Alternatives," in Text-Aided
Archaeology, ed. Barbara J. Little (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992), R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical
Method, 3rd ed. (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1974), J. Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985).
50 Richard Garrity, Canal Boatman: My Life on Upstate Waterways (Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 1977), Frank H. Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the
Canals (Syracuse, New York: Canal Society of New York State, 1973), Fred G. Godfrey, The Champlain
Canal: Mules to Tugboats (Monroe, New York: Library Research Associates, 1994), Fred G. Godfrey, Sailors,
Waterways and Tugboats I Have Known: The New York State Barge Canal System (Monroe, New York: Library
Research Associates, 1993), Alvin Fay Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era (New
York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926).
51 O. J. Walker Collection, Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh, Vermont, Spear
Family Papers, Special Collections, Bailey/Howe Library, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
52 Allen Penfield Beach, Lake Champlain: As Centuries Pass. (Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Basin Harbor
Club and Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1994), Benjamin Clapp Butler, Lake George and Lake
Champlain (Albany, New York: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1868), Thomas Hawley Canfield,
"Discovery, Navigation, and Navigators of Lake Champlain," in Vermont Historical Gazetteer, ed. Abby
Maria Hemenway, Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Burlington, Vermont: A. M. Hemenway, 1868), Wallace E.
Lamb, The Lake Champlain and Lake George Valleys, 2 vols. (New York: American Historical Company,
1940).
53 Little, "Text-Aided Archaeology," 1.
417
54 Charles Edward Orser, Jr. and Brian M. Fagan, Historical Archaeology (New York: HarperCollins
College Publishers, 1995), 165.
55 Prown, "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method," 10.
56 Orser and Fagan, Historical Archaeology, 164.
57 Green, Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook, 248.
58 Howell and Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, 69.
60 Schlereth, "Material Culture and Cultural Research," 23.
61 John F. Coates et al., "Experimental Boat and Ship Archaeology: Principles and Methods,"
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24, no. 4 (1995): 296.
62 Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf, ""as Long as Ever I've Know It." On Folklore and Archaeology," 5.
64 Wood, "Ethnohistory and Historical Method," 84.
65 National Park Service, 36 Cfr Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological
Collections, Peebles, Guidelines for Archeological Studies.
66
(Lake Champlain Basin Program [LCBP] 1998).
67
(LCBP 1998)
68
(LCBP 1998)
69
(LCBP 1998)
70
(LCBP 1998)
71
(LCBP 1998)
72
(LCBP 1998)
73
(LCBP 1998)
74
Arthur Bruce Cohn, ed., Zebra Mussels and Their Impact on Historic Shipwrecks, vol. 15, Technical
Reports (Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1996), 29, 51.
75 C. Hadfield, World Canals: Inland Navigation Past and Present (London: David & Charles
Publishers, 1986), 272-73.
76 Morris F. Glenn, Glenn's History of Lake Champlain (New York and Vermont); Volume 4: Canal Boats
(Alexandria, Virginia: Morris F. Glenn, 1980), 1.
77 Noble Earl Whitford, History of the Barge Canal of New York State (Albany, New York: J. B. Lyon
Company, 1922), 14-15.
78 Emory Richard Johnson, Inland Waterways; Their Relation to Transportation, Supplement to the
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 1893), 110.
79 Ibid., 118-19.
80 Lamb, The Lake Champlain and Lake George Valleys, 573.
81 Charles F. O'Brien, "The Role of Lake Champlain in Canadian-American Relations," Vermont
History 58, no. 3 (1990): 154.
82 P. G. Skidmore, "Canadian Canals to 1848," Dalhousie Review 61, no. 4 (1982): 719.
83 Charles F. O'Brien, "The Champlain Waterway, 1783-1897," New England Quarterly 61, no. 2
(1988): 179-80.
84 Ibid.: 182.
85 Charles T. O'Malley, Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal (Ellentown,
Florida: Diamond Mohawk Publishing, 1991), 10.
86 O'Brien, "The Champlain Waterway, 1783-1897," 166.
87 F. Daniel Larkin, New York State Canals: A Short History (Fleischmanns, New York: Purple
Mountain Press, 1999), 82.
88 Gertrude E. Cone, "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain Valley to
1876" (M.A. thesis, University of Vermont, 1945), 80.
89 Henry Wayland Hill, An Historical Overview of Waterways and Canal Construction in New York
State (Buffalo: Buffalo Historical Society, 1908), 159.
418
Cone, "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain Valley to 1876", 80-81.
Anonymous, "On the Canal," Whitehall Times, Wednesday, 31 December 1986.
92 Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals, 28.
93 John A. Fairlie, "The New York Canals," Quarterly Journal of Economics 14, no. 2 (1900): 223.
94 A. Peter Barranco, Jr., Ticonderoga's Floating Drawbridge, 1871-1920, Demonstration Report (Grand
Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1995), 24.
95 Ibid.
96 Henry C. Adams, "Report on Transportation Business in the United States at the Eleventh
Census: 1890; Part Ii.-Transportation by Water," in The Miscellaneous Documents of the House of
Representatives for the First Session of the Fifty-Second Congress, 1891-1892, Serial Set 3023 (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1894), 381, 91.
97 Anonymous, "New Light Houses on Lake Champlain," Burlington Daily Free Press, Friday, 25
April 1873.
98 Cone, "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain Valley to 1876", 87.
99 Johnson, Inland Waterways; Their Relation to Transportation, 101.
100 O'Malley, Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal, 11. Alfred Calabresse,
Mrs. et al., Waterford to Whitehall: A Pictorial Journey Along the Champlain Division of the New York State
Barge Canal During Its Construction, Publication #2 (Waterford, New York: Waterford Historical Museum
and Cultural Center, 1968), 4. Cone, "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain
Valley to 1876", 81. Russell Paul Bellico, Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of
Lake George and Lake Champlain, Revised ed. (Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 2001), 249.
101 Fairlie, "The New York Canals," 230-31.
102 O'Malley, Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal, 12.
103 Bellico, Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake George and Lake
Champlain, 251, Larkin, New York State Canals: A Short History, 82.
104 Anonymous, Chambly Canal Hundredth Anniversary: History of Richelieu River Navigation
(Chambly, Quebec: 1943), 52-53.
Champlain, 249. Marshall Ora Leighton, Preliminary Report on the Pollution of Lake Champlain (Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office, 1905), 13.
106 Leighton, Preliminary Report on the Pollution of Lake Champlain, 13, Fred H. Wilkins, "Reveries,"
Vermonter: The State Magazine 20, no. 7 (1915): 129.
107 Larkin, New York State Canals: A Short History, 86-87.
108 Anonymous, Chambly Canal Hundredth Anniversary: History of Richelieu River Navigation, 55-57.
109 Ibid., 59, John P. Heisler, The Canals of Canada, Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History
(Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1973), 154-55.
110 Anonymous, Chambly Canal Hundredth Anniversary: History of Richelieu River Navigation, 55,
Robert F. Legget, Canals of Canada, Canals of the World (Vancouver: Douglas, David, & Charles, 1976), 40.
Heisler, The Canals of Canada, 154. Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days
on the Canals, 28.
111 Legget, Canals of Canada, 41.
112 Ethel M. Springer and Thomas F. Hahn, Canal Boat Children on the Chesapeake and Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York Canals (Shepherdstown, West Virginia: American Canal & Transportation
Center, 1977), 26.
113 David Lear Buckman, Old Steamboat Days on the Hudson River: Tales and Reminiscences of the
Stirring Times That Followed the Introduction of Steam Navigation (New York: Grafton Press, 1907), 87.
114 Mary Beth Betts, "Masterplanning: Municipal Support of Maritime Transport and Commerce,
1870-1930s," in The New York Waterfront: Evolution and Building Culture of the Port and Harbor, ed. Kevin
Bone (New York: Monacelli Press, 1997), 39-40.
90
91
419
115 Anonymous, "River Barge Dwellers Say Life on Shore Is Cramping," New York Times, Sunday,
26 July 1925.
116 Fred T. Stiles, "Tales of Old Canal Days," North Country Life 13, no. 1 (1959): 27.
117 Anonymous, "Bargemen Lend Color to the Harbor," New York Times, Sunday, 18 July 1926.
118 Buckman, Old Steamboat Days on the Hudson River: Tales and Reminiscences of the Stirring Times
That Followed the Introduction of Steam Navigation, 88. Frank H. Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal
Society of New York State," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Godfrey-1st Person Accounts--"The Godfrey
Letters" (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1965), 5-6. Howard Pyle,
"Through Inland Waters," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 92, no. 552 (1896): 831.
119 Pyle, "Through Inland Waters," 832. Buckman, Old Steamboat Days on the Hudson River: Tales
and Reminiscences of the Stirring Times That Followed the Introduction of Steam Navigation, 87.
120 John Neary and Greg Sharrow, "Interview with John Neary, Whitehall, New York," in John
Neary Interview, TC94.2007 (Vermont Folklife Center, Middlebury, Vermont: 1994), 3-4.
121 J. D. Gleason, "Barges," Scribner's Magazine 72, no. 1 (1922): 19-20, Godfrey, "Speech Given
before the Canal Society of New York State," 4-5, Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, 9-10.
122 Clifton Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," The Outlook 60, no. 5 (1898): 316.
123 Ibid.: 311.
124 Pyle, "Through Inland Waters," 831.
125 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, 9-10. Gleason, "Barges," 19-20.
126 Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," 312.
127 William H. Rideing, "The Waterways of New York," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 48, no. 283
(1873): 9.
128 Stiles, "Tales of Old Canal Days," 27.
129 Anonymous, "Bargemen Lend Color to the Harbor."
130 Ibid.
131 Martha Robbins Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907 (Whitehall, New York: Historical Society
of Whitehall, 1985), 12.
132 Anonymous, "Bargemen Lend Color to the Harbor."
134 W. S. Howard, "A Rough House Cruise to Lake George," in On River and Canal to Lake
Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between New York City and Whitehall by Way of the
Hudson River and Champlain Canal (New York: Rudder Publishing Company, 1907), 49.
135 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, 39.
136 Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907, 8
137 Powell J. Fithian, "Cruise of Julia, from Philadelphia to Ticonderoga and Return," in On River
and Canal to Lake Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between New York City and Whitehall by
Way of the Hudson River and Champlain Canal (New York: Rudder Publishing Company, 1907), 69.
138 Matt McCarty, "Cruise from Albany to Whitehall by Canal," in On River and Canal to Lake
Champlain: Being Several Narratives of Voyages Made between New York City and Whitehall by Way of the
Hudson River and Champlain Canal (New York: Rudder Publishing Company, 1907), 11-12. Carol Sheriff,
The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, 1817-1862 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1996),
140.
139 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,9-10. Fred Osmon Copeland, "Champlain
Canal Days," Vermonter 46, no. 8 (1941): 158.
140 Russell Paul Bellico, Chronicles of Lake Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace (Fleischmanns, New
York: Purple Mountain Press, 1999), 386.
141 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,59.
142 Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 17.
420
143 Frank H. Godfrey, "Canal Line Barns and Day Boat Barns," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection;
File: Godfrey-1st Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat
Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1966), 2.
146 Ibid.,18. Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals,6
Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 17.
148 Godfrey, "Canal Line Barns and Day Boat Barns," 1.
149 Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals,1
150 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,18, 23.
151 Alvin F. Harlow, When Horses Pulled Boats: A Story of Early Canals (York, Pennsylvania:
American Canal and Transportation Center, 1987), 45.
152 Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907,8
156 Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 17-18.
157 Bellico, Chronicles of Lake Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace,386.
159 Roland Neddo and Greg Sharrow, "Interview with Roland Neddo, Whitehall, New York," in
Roland Neddo Interview, TC94.2008 (Vermont Folklife Center, Middlebury, Vermont: 1994), 19.
164 Ibid.,4
165 Ibid.
167 Ibid.
168 Godfrey, The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals,12.
169 Copeland, "Champlain Canal Days," 158.
170 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,23, 59.
175 Ibid.,15.
178 Robert E. Hager, "Erie Canal Field Notes (1960-1962), Book 2," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection
(Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1962), 43.
180 Ibid.,60.
181 Ibid.,63.
182 Ibid.,24, 27.
183 Ibid.,27.
184 Ibid.,28.
185 Ibid.,29, 31.
186 Ibid.,31.
421
Ibid.,32.
McCarty, "Cruise from Albany to Whitehall by Canal,"16.
190 Ibid.,37.
191 Ibid.,94.
192 Ibid.,39.
193 Ibid.,40.
194 Ibid.,46.
195 Ibid.,51.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.,52.
198 Ibid.,45.
199 Ibid.
200 Ibid.,93.
201 Ibid., 93-94.
202 Ibid., 87, 97-98.
203 Roy G. Finch, The Story of the New York Canals: Historical and Commercial Information (Albany,
New York: J. B. Lyon, 1925), 19. M. B. Levick, "The Canal Boats' Winter Sleep Is Over: Soon the
Elephantine Fleet Will Leave Coenties Slip for Ports North," New York Times, Sunday 13 April 1924 1924,
8.
204 Springer and Hahn, Canal Boat Children on the Chesapeake and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York
Canals,31-32.
205 Ibid.,27.
206 Ibid.,28.
207 Ibid.,29.
210 Neary and Sharrow, "Interview with John Neary, Whitehall, New York," 6.
211 Copeland, "Champlain Canal Days," 158. Fred Osmon Copeland, Lake Champlain: A Guide and
Story Handbook (Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle, 1958), 12-13.
212 Howard Pyle, "Through Inland Waters, Ii," Harper's New Monthly Magazine 92, no. 553 (1896):
72.
213 Anonymous, "Breaking up a Tow," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper 71, no. 1826 (1890).
214 Copeland, "Champlain Canal Days," 158-9.
216 Ibid. Pyle, "Through Inland Waters," 836.
219 Pyle, "Through Inland Waters, Ii," 73.
221 Erick Tichonuk, "North Beach Project," (Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh,
Vermont: 1990), 2, 4-5.
222 Morris F. Glenn, The Story of Three Towns: Westport, Essex, and Willsboro, New York (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Braun-Brumfield, 1977), 9.
223 Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907,10.
224 Anonymous, "Boats Struck by Lightning Off Port Kent," Essex County Republican, Friday, 13
October 1922, Anonymous, "Lightning Sinks Canalboats," Vergennes Enterprise & Vermonter, Thursday, 19
October 1922.
Champlain,252.
187
188
422
226 Anonymous, "While the Tug Tisdale Was Rounding Shelburn Point.," Burlington Free Press,
Saturday, 18 October 1884. Bellico, Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake
George and Lake Champlain,257.
227 Anonymous, "Battling with the Waves: Tug and 30 Boats Had Hard Time on Lake
Champlain," Burlington Free Press, Tuesday, 14 November 1911.
228 Rockwell, Pickard, and Cohn, "Interview with Julian Rockwell and Dorothy Pickard, Alburgh,
Vermont," 10-11.
Champlain."
Vermont," 10-12.
231 Ibid., 12-13.
232 Ibid., 13.
233 Ibid., 13-14.
234 Ibid.
235 Ibid., 15-16.
236 Ibid., 14-15.
237 Ibid.
Champlain."
239 Anonymous, "Phillip Maxon's Body Found: It Was Floating in the Lake near the Alburgh
Shore," Burlington Free Press, Wednesday, 22 October 1890.
240 Anonymous, "Drowned in the Lake," Burlington Free Press, Tuesday, 25 November 1890.
241 Hilda Garneau and Jane Beck, "Interview with Hilda Garneau, Addison, Vermont," in Hilda
Garneau Interview, TC83.0007, Vermont Folklife Center (Middlebury, Vermont: 1983), 13-14.
243 Ibid., 4.
244 Anonymous, "Big Tow Went Ashore: Twenty Canal Boats and Pin Flats Hauled by Protector
Ran into Cloud of Smoke," Essex County Republican, Friday, 23 October 1908.
Vermont," 17.
246 John P. Ross, "Echo-Lake Champlain Shipwreck," North Countryman, Thursday 17 November
1966 1966.
247 Bellico, Chronicles of Lake Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace,395-96.
248 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,5-7.
249 J. G. A. Creighton, "French-Canadian Life and Character," in French Canadian Life and Character
with Historical and Descriptive Sketches of the Scenery and Life in Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, and Surrounding
Country, ed. George Munro Grant (Chicago, Illinois: Alexander Belford & Company, 1899), 40-41.
250 Frank H. Godfrey, "Letter to Daniel Modell," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Godfrey-1st
Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum,
Chittenango, New York: 1966), 1.
252 P.-André Sèvigny, The Work Force of the Richelieu River Canals, 1843-1950, Studies in Archaeology,
Architecture, and History (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1983), 74-75.
253 Ibid.,49.
257 Ibid., 24-25.
423
Champlain, Ralph Nading Hill, Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty, Twentieth Anniversary ed. (Woodstock,
Vermont: Countryman Press, 1995), John Edward O'Hara, "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social
Effects of the Champlain Canal Upon the Champlain Valley" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University,
1951).
260 Russell Paul Bellico, Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake
George and Lake Champlain (Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1992), 239.
261 Sandy Hurlburt et al., "The Way We Were," Ticonderoga Sentinel, February 1987.
263 W. A. Cockrell, "A Trial Classificatory Model for the Analysis of Shipwrecks," in Shipwreck
Anthropology, ed. R. A. Gould, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series (Albuquerque, New
Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, 1983), 211.
264 National Register Statement of Historical Context; Lake Champlain Commercial Navigation,
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont.
265 Cone, "Studies in the Development of Transportation in the Champlain Valley to 1876",36-37.
266 Frank H. Godfrey, "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection, File: Central
New York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous Boats, Canal--Champlain Boats (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat
Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1963), 1-2.
267 Ibid., 2.
268 Ibid.
269 Ibid., 3.
270 Ibid., 4.
271 Ibid.
272 John G. B. Hutchins, "History and Development of the Shipbuilding Industry in the United
States," in The Shipbuilding Business in the United States of America, ed. F. G. Fassett, Jr. (New York: Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1948), 24.
273 Ibid.,21.
274 Frank H. Godfrey, "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File:
Godfrey-1st Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat
Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1965).
Vermont," 23.
276 Hogan, C.A.N.A.L.S. Underwater Archaeology Diver's Manual,3
277 Ibid.
278 Hutchins, "History and Development of the Shipbuilding Industry in the United States,"18-19.
279 Hogan, C.A.N.A.L.S. Underwater Archaeology Diver's Manual,3
280 Hutchins, "History and Development of the Shipbuilding Industry in the United States,"15-16.
281 Ibid.,25.
282 Henry Hall, "Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the United States," in Report of the Tenth
Census of the United States, 1880, ed. Census Office US Department of the Interior (Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office, 1884), 225.
283 K. R. McHugh, ed., A Canal Primer (Syracuse, New York: The Canal Museum, 1981), 13.
284 Gresham Publishing Company, ed., History and Biography of Washington County and the Town of
Queensbury, New York, with Historical Notes on the Various Towns (New York: Gresham Publishing
Company, 1894), 275-76.
285 Anonymous, "Williamson's Shipyard," Whitehall Times, Wednesday, 6 April 1881.
286 Anonymous, "Obituary: Henry Cossey," Ticonderoga Sentinel, Thursday, 12 May 1892.
287 Hall, "Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the United States,"225.
288 Anonymous, Biographical Review: This Volume Contains Biographical Sketches of Leading Citizens of
Clinton and Essex Counties, New York (Boston: Biographical Review Publishing Company, 1896), 443-44.
424
Doris B. Morton, "Canal Affairs in April, 1880," Whitehall Times, Thursday, 17 April 1980.
Ibid., 52-54.
291 Ibid.,55.
292 Ibid., 42.
293 Hager, "Erie Canal Field Notes (1960-1962), Book 2," 41-42, 61.
294 David Wilson, Life in Whitehall During Ship Fever Times (Whitehall, New York: Inglee & Tefft,
1900), 79-80.
295 Ibid., 60.
296 Frank H. Godfrey, "Notes on Pix," in Canal Research Files; Data for Pix--Godfrey File (Onondaga
Historical Association Research Center, Syracuse, New York: 1967), 2.
297 Ibid.,64.
298 J. B. VanDerwerker, Mrs., Early Days in Eastern Saratoga County (Interlaken, New York: Empire
State Books, 1994), 67. Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,63.
299 Barranco, Ticonderoga's Floating Drawbridge, 1871-1920,46.
300 Henry Perry Smith, ed., History of Essex County with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of
Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers (Syracuse, New York: D. Mason & Company, 1885), 551.
301 Anonymous, "A Steam Canal Boat," Burlington Free Press, Friday, 8 August 1890.
302 Anonymous, "Lake Steamboat Days," Whitehall Times, Thursday, 8 May 1975.
303 Godfrey, "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," 4.
304 Ibid.,66.
305 Ibid.,67.
306 Kevin James Crisman and Arthur Bruce Cohn, "Lake Champlain Nautical Archaeology since
1980," Journal of Vermont Archaeology 1 (1994): 163.
307 Anonymous, "In the Field: Lake Champlain, Vermont," The INA Quarterly 25, no. 2 (1998): 27.
Champlain,242.
309 Ibid.,236.
310 Frank H. Godfrey, "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Central
New York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous Boats, Canal--Champlain Boats (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat
Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1964), 3.
311 Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," 314, Pyle, "Through Inland Waters," 829,
Debbie J. Stack and Donald A. Wilson, Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal (Syracuse, New
York: Erie Canal Museum, 1993), 7.
312 Vera Connolly, "American Water Gypies," Delineator 123, no. August (1933), Stack and Wilson,
Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,3
313 Levick, "The Canal Boats' Winter Sleep Is Over: Soon the Elephantine Fleet Will Leave
Coenties Slip for Ports North," 8.
314 Hill, Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty,235.
315 Gleason, "Barges," 18.
316 David A. Taylor, Documenting Maritime Folklife: An Introductory Guide (Washington, DC:
Library of Congress, 1992), 2.
319 Doris B. Morton, "Garden City," Whitehall Independent, Wednesday, 18 April 1984.
320 A Brief History of Commerce on Lake Champlain, Henry Sheldon Museum of Vermont
History, Middlebury, Vermont.
322 Michele A. McFee, A Long Haul: The Story of the New York State Barge Canal (Fleischmanns, New
York: Purple Mountain Press, 1998), 152.
323 Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era,334.
289
290
425
William Hullfish, ed., The Canaller's Songbook: Words, Music, and Chords to over Thirty Canal
Songs (York, Pennsylvania: American Canal and Transportation Center, 1987), Harold W. Thompson,
Body, Boots, & Britches (New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1940), 248-49.
327 Ibid.
328 Ibid., 27-28.
329 Ibid., 28.
330 Ibid., 27.
331 Ibid., 3.
332 Ibid., 9.
333 Ibid., 23-24.
334 Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era,341.
Champlain,245.
338 Stack and Wilson, Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,3
Champlain, 239, 42.
340 McFee, A Long Haul: The Story of the New York State Barge Canal, 148.
341 Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907,5-6.
342 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, 84, Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the
Hudson," 311.
344
Cora Archambault, Holly Noordsey, and Megan Garrison, "An Interview with Canaler Cora
Archambault," in Lake Champlain Maritime Museum (Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1997), 6, 8, 17, Cora
Archambault and Jane Vincent, "An Interview with Canaler Cora Archambault," (Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, 2000), 7.
345 Anonymous, "Housekeeping on the Canal: What Was Seen Aboard One of These Mastless
Ships," New York Times, Sunday, 7 May 1893.
Canals,33.
347
(p. 1, Godfrey 1965).
349 James C. Young, "Idyl of the Barge Skipper: His Craft Begins Its Passive Labors While the
Captain Busies Himself Loafing," New York Times, Sunday, 12 June 1927 1927.
Canals,36.
351 Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," 316.
352 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats, 87, Springer and Hahn, Canal Boat Children on
the Chesapeake and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York Canals, 36.
Canals,34.
Ships."
355
Archambault and Vincent, "An Interview with Canaler Cora Archambault,"7
356
Ibid.,16.
324
325
426
Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," 311.
Anonymous, "River Barge Dwellers Say Life on Shore Is Cramping."
362 Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,52, Pyle, "Through Inland Waters, Ii," 67.
364 Stack and Wilson, Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,20.
Canals,35.
366 Rideing, "The Waterways of New York," 10.
368 Johnson, "A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson," 314. Pyle, "Through Inland Waters," 833.
360
361
Juckett, My Canaling Days, 1897-1907,8
371 Ibid., 19.
372 Buckman, Old Steamboat Days on the Hudson River: Tales and Reminiscences of the Stirring Times
That Followed the Introduction of Steam Navigation,85-86, Lamb, The Lake Champlain and Lake George
Valleys,579, O'Hara, "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social Effects of the Champlain Canal Upon
the Champlain Valley",252, Sheriff, The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, 18171862,145, Charles Bond Warner and C. Eleanor Hall, History of Port Henry, New York (Rutland, Vermont:
Tuttle Company, 1931), 36.
376 Ibid., 8, Godfrey, The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,94.
377 Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 9. Godfrey, The
Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,84.
379 Neary and Sharrow, "Interview with John Neary, Whitehall, New York," 23-24.
380 McFee, A Long Haul: The Story of the New York State Barge Canal, 146-47.
381 Garneau and Beck, "Interview with Hilda Garneau, Addison, Vermont," 2-3. Stack and Wilson,
Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal, 7.
Champlain,244.
385 Anonymous, "River Barge Dwellers Say Life on Shore Is Cramping.", Bellico, Chronicles of Lake
Champlain: Journeys in War and Peace,387.
387 Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 10, Stack and Wilson,
Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,58.
388 Charles Barnard, "Broken Adrift," St. Nicholas 15, no. 11 (1888).
391 Doris B. Morton, "A Letter from a Little Girl of 1883," Whitehall Times, Thursday, 3 March 1983.
393 Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era,341, Stack and Wilson, Always Know
Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,55.
369
370
427
[Anonymous, 1881 #941@12]
Harlow, Old Towpaths: The Story of the American Canal Era,340.
400 Stack and Wilson, Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal,7 41. Harlow, Old Towpaths:
The Story of the American Canal Era,341.
401 Anonymous, "City and Vicinity," Burlington Free Press, Tuesday, 14 October 1890.
402 Godfrey, "Notes on Pix," 2.
403 Harlow, When Horses Pulled Boats: A Story of Early Canals,53.
404 Gleason, "Barges," 19.
405 Levick, "The Canal Boats' Winter Sleep Is Over: Soon the Elephantine Fleet Will Leave
Coenties Slip for Ports North," 8.
Ships."
409 Ibid.
410 Arthur Bruce Cohn, "General Butler," in Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain:
Results of the 1983 Field Season of the Champlain Maritime Society, ed. R. M. Fischer (Burlington, Vermont:
Champlain Maritime Society, 1985), 24.
411 Harlow, When Horses Pulled Boats: A Story of Early Canals,52-53.
412 Anonymous, "Canal-Boat Harbor," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper 32, no. 814 (1871): 131.
413 O'Hara, "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social Effects of the Champlain Canal Upon
the Champlain Valley",255.
414 Hager, "Erie Canal Field Notes (1960-1962), Book 2," 63.
416 Godfrey, "Speech Given before the Canal Society of New York State," 8, Godfrey, The
Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats,94.
417 Thomas J. Oertling, "Ships' Bilge Pumps: A History of Their Development, 1500-1900," in
Studies in Nautical Archaeology, No. 2 (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, 1996), 3-4.
418 Godfrey, "Letter to Dr. Robert E. Hager," 5.
419 Majorie Lansing Porter, "Our Folks - North Country Portfolio," North Countryman, Thursday 1
May 1969 1969.
421 Oertling, "Ships' Bilge Pumps: A History of Their Development, 1500-1900," 4. Godfrey, The
Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals,29.
422 Oertling, "Ships' Bilge Pumps: A History of Their Development, 1500-1900," 4. Godfrey, The
Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells About His Days on the Canals,29.
423 Hager, "Erie Canal Field Notes (1960-1962), Book 2," 50-51.
425 Ibid.,31.
426 Robert E. Hager, "Notes on a Field Trip to Champlain Canal and Glens Falls Feeder," in Dr.
Robert E. Hager Collection, Central New York State, Erie Canal-Miscellaneous Boats, Canal--Stave Bow Boats
(Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York: 1960), 1.
427 Hill, Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty,231.
429 Anonymous, "Burlington's Coal Trade: Its Extent and Some Improvements Noted at the Coal
Yard," Burlington Free Press, Monday, 19 May 1890.
397
398
428
430 Frank H. Godfrey, "Letter to Richard N. Wright," in Dr. Robert E. Hager Collection; File: Godfrey1st Person Accounts--Correspondence-Dr. Robert E. Hager (Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum,
Chittenango, New York: 1965), 1.
431 Anonymous, "The Canal Boat Lake Boy Is Sunk."
432 Anonymous, "Life Aboard a Barge in New York Harbor," Literary Digest 67, no. 1 (1920).
433 Fred H. Wilkins, "Champlain Canal Notes," Vermonter: The State Magazine 20, no. 8 (1915): 157.
434 Anonymous, "The Tile Club," Harper's Weekly 24, no. 1205 (1880): 75.
435 Anonymous, "The Tile Club at Whitehall," New York Times, Thursday, 10 July 1879.
437 Ibid.,381.
438 Joseph Amrhein, "Burlington, Vermont: The Economic History of a Northern New England
City" (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1958), 181.
439 Glenn, The Story of Three Towns: Westport, Essex, and Willsboro, New York,8-9.
440 National Register Statement of Historical Context; Lake Champlain Commercial Navigation.
Champlain,247.
442 Fairlie, "The New York Canals," 212.
443 Hill, Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty,241. O'Hara, "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social
Effects of the Champlain Canal Upon the Champlain Valley",148.
the Champlain Valley",237-38.
445 Ibid.,364.
446 Frederic Franklin Van de Water, Lake Champlain and Lake George (New York: Bobbs, Merrill, &
Company, 1946), 351.
447 David M. Scobey, Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape, ed.
Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig, Critical Perspectives on the Past (Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 2002), 136.
448 Anonymous, "The Docks of New York," Harper's Weekly 25, no. 1274 (1881): 351.
449 Fairlie, "The New York Canals," 224.
450 Johnson, Inland Waterways; Their Relation to Transportation,9-10.
451 Leighton, Preliminary Report on the Pollution of Lake Champlain,11-12.
452 David Wallis Orr, "Port of Burlington, Vermont: Site and Situation, a Study in Historical
Geography" (M.A. thesis, University of Vermont, 1972), 89.
453 Larkin, New York State Canals: A Short History,86-87.
454
(Godfrey 1994, p93)
455
(Godfrey 1994, 100).
456 Scott Arthur McLaughlin and Anne Wood Lessmann, Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resource Survey, vol. 1: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results, Technical Report (Grand Isle, Vermont:
Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1998).
457
(Cox 1992: 20-22).
458 Hager, 1960 #1048 @1
459 Henry Hall, Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the United States, 247.
460 Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, 25.
461 Hall, Report on Ship-Building, p. 246.
462 Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 22; J.
Richard Steffy, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, p. 257
463 Hall, Report on Ship-Building, 243-45.
464 Arthur Cohn, Joseph Cozzi, Kevin Crisman, and Scott McLaughlin, The Archaeological
Reconstruction of the Lake Champlain Canal Schooner General Butler (VT-CH-590) Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont, pp. 244-45.
429
Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 26.
Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 26; J.
Richard Steffy, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, p. 257.
467 R.B. Hoadley, Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools (Newtown, CT: Taunton Press, 1990),
148.
468 Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 25-26; J.
Richard Steffy, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, p. 259; and Hall, Report on
Ship-Building, 246.
469 Charles Desmond, Wooden Ship-Building, p. 14.
470 Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 20.
471 Department of the Navy, Wood: A Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material, p. 22.
465
466
F. G. Fassett, Jr. (ed.), The Shipbuilding Business in the United State of America, Volume 1. pp.
15-16.
473 J.R. Cozzi, “North Beach Wreck: A Modern Example of Edge-Fastened Construction,” Proceedings of
472
the Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 1993: 55-58.
J.R. Cozzi, “North Beach Wreck: A Modern Example of Edge-Fastened Construction,”
Proceedings of the Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 1993: 58.
475
(p. 3, Godfrey 1964).
476
(p. 5, Godfrey 2/20/1963).
477
(p. 4, Godfrey 2/20/1963).
478
(p. 4, Godfrey 2/20/1963).
479
(Godfrey).
480 For the purposes of this analysis the stern consists of the after face of the canal boat, not the
entirety of the stern portion of the vessel.
481 Type B and C sterns are characterized by their open upper transoms. The upper transoms have
two (type B) or three (type C) athwartship beams across the upper transom, which are joined by vertical
timbers.
482
Russell and Erwin Manufacturing Company, Illustrated Catalogue of American Hardware of the Russell
and Erwin Manufacturing Company; Ann Unabridged Reprint of the 1865 Edition (Ottawa: Association for
Preservation Technology, 1980), 60.
483
Jane Powell, Linoleum (Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2003), 23, 28, 44-45.
484
(p. 1, Godfrey 1965).
485 97-98 lake survey, pgs 71-72
486 Thomas Oertling, Ships’ Bilge Pumps, p. 16 and 22.
487
Catherine Lynn, Wallpaper in America from the Seventeenth Century to World War I (New York: W.
W. Norton, 1980), 477-78.
488
Anonymous, ed., The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue,657.
489
Susan Bagdade and Al Bagdade, Warman's American Pottery & Porcelain, 2nd ed. (Iola, Wisconsin:
Krause Publications, 2000), 105, Jo Cunningham, The Collector's Encyclopedia of American Dinnerware, Updated
vols. (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1998), 173, C. Gerald DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery
Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1994), 78, Bob Page, Dale Frederiksen, and
Dean Six, Homer Laughlin: Decades of Dinnerware (Greensboro, North Carolina: Page/Frederiksen Publications,
2003), 535.
490
Anonymous, ed., The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue (New York: Gramercy Books,
2000), 788, Bagdade and Bagdade, Warman's American Pottery & Porcelain,105, Jo Cunningham, Homer Laughlin
China: "a Giant among Dishes" 1873-1939, A Schiffer Book for Collectors (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer
Publishing, 1998), 96, 102, Jo Cunningham and Darlene Nossaman, Homer Laughlin China: An Identification
Guide to Shapes & Patterns, A Schiffer Book for Collectors (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2002), 198,
Jeffrey Feinman, ed., Sears, Roebuck and Co. Incorporated 1909 Catalog (New York: Ventura Books, 1979), 120,
Joanne Jasper, Turn of the Century American Dinnerware, 1880s to 1920s (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books,
1996), 82-84, Page, Frederiksen, and Six, Homer Laughlin: Decades of Dinnerware,30, 32.
474
430
491
DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain,213-14, Mary Frank
Gaston, Collector's Encyclopedia of Knowles Taylor and Knowles China (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books,
1996), 20, Jasper, Turn of the Century American Dinnerware, 1880s to 1920s,147, Page, Frederiksen, and Six,
Homer Laughlin: Decades of Dinnerware,535.
492
DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain,92-93.
493
William C. Gates, Jr. and Dana E. Ormerod, "The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of
Manufacturers and Marks," Historical Archaeology 16 (1982): 248.
494
DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain,118, Jasper, Turn of
the Century American Dinnerware, 1880s to 1920s,192-93, Lois Lehner, Lehner's Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on
Pottery, Porcelain & Clay (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1988), 353.
495
Neva Colbert, The Collector's Guide to Harker Pottery U.S.A.: Identification and Value Guide
(Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1993), 14, 15, 21, DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of American Pottery Marks:
Whiteware & Porcelain,62, Gates and Ormerod, "The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of
Manufacturers and Marks," 83, Ralph Kovel and Terry Kovel, Kovels' New Dictionary of Marks: Pottery &
Porcelain, 1850 to the Present (New York: Crown Publishers, 1986), 17, Gordon Lang, Pottery & Porcelain Marks,
Miller's Pocket Fact File (London: Octopus Publishing Group, 2003), 119, Lehner, Lehner's Encyclopedia of U.S.
Marks on Pottery, Porcelain & Clay,198.
496
Bagdade and Bagdade, Warman's American Pottery & Porcelain,70, DeBolt, Debolt's Dictionary of
American Pottery Marks: Whiteware & Porcelain,52-53.
497
Geoffrey A. Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, Revised ed. (London:
Barrie & Jenkins, 2003), 26-27, Geoffrey A. Godden, Godden's Guide to Ironstone, Stone & Granite Wares
(Wappingers' Falls, New York: Antique Collectors' Club, 1999), 179, Kovel and Kovel, Kovels' New Dictionary of
Marks: Pottery & Porcelain, 1850 to the Present,229, Arnold A. Kowalsky and Dorothy E. Kowalsky,
Encyclopedia of Marks on American, English, and European Earthenware, Ironstone, and Stoneware (1780-1980),
A Schiffer Book for Collectors (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1999), 89.
498
Godden, Godden's Guide to Ironstone, Stone & Granite Wares,282, Geoffrey A. Godden, The
Illustrated Guide to Mason's Patent Ironstone China and Related Wares - Stone China, New Stone, Granite China and Their Manufacturers, Books That Matter (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), 76, Kowalsky and Kowalsky,
Encyclopedia of Marks on American, English, and European Earthenware, Ironstone, and Stoneware (17801980),277, Lang, Pottery & Porcelain Marks,201, 62.
499
Lang, Pottery & Porcelain Marks,206.
500
Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks,673, Godden, Godden's Guide to
Ironstone, Stone & Granite Wares,355.
501
Godden, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks,256, Teresita Majewski and Michael J.
O'Brien, "The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis,"
in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory; Volume 11, ed. Michael B. Schiffer (New York: Academic
Press, 1987), 169.
502
Anonymous, Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, A Merriam Webster (Springfield, Massachusetts:
Merriam-Webster, 1988), 125, Kovel and Kovel, Kovels' New Dictionary of Marks: Pottery & Porcelain, 1850 to
the Present,229.
503
Anonymous, ed., The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue,801.
504
Ibid, Catherine M. V. Thuro, Oil Lamps 3: Victorian Kerosene Lighting 1860-1900 (Paducah,
Kentucky: Collector Books, 2001), 166, 72.
505
Thuro, Oil Lamps 3: Victorian Kerosene Lighting 1860-1900,242.
506
Dennis A. Pearson, Classic Lanterns: A Guide and Reference, A Schiffer Book for Collectors (Atglen,
Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1998), 12.
507
Ibid.,9
508
L-W Book Sales, Collectible Lanterns: A Price Guide; Including Household, Barn, and Railroad
Lanterns from Makers Such as Dietz, Adlake, Embury, Etc. (Gas City, Indiana: L-W Book Sales, 2003), 84, Pearson,
Classic Lanterns: A Guide and Reference,29.
509
Anonymous, ed., The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue,663, Pearson, Classic Lanterns: A
Guide and Reference,10.
510
Pearson, Classic Lanterns: A Guide and Reference,10.
431
511
Tere Hagan, Silverplated Flatware, Values Updated 2002, Revised 4th ed. (Paducah, Kentucky:
Collector Books, 1990), 11, Tere Hagan, Sterling Flatware: An Identification and Value Guide, 2002-2003 Prices
ed. (Gas City, Indiana: L-W Book Sales, 2002), 127, 210, 19, 339.
512
Hagan, Silverplated Flatware,334, Dorothy T. Rainwater, Martin Fuller, and Colette Fuller,
Encyclopedia of American Silver Manufacturers, Revised and Expanded 5th ed., A Schiffer Book for Collectors
(Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2004), 278.
513
Hagan, Silverplated Flatware,119, Rainwater, Fuller, and Fuller, Encyclopedia of American Silver
Manufacturers,116-17.
514
Rainwater, Fuller, and Fuller, Encyclopedia of American Silver Manufacturers,117-18.
515
Ibid.,211-12, Joseph J. Schroeder, Jr., ed., 1908 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: A Treasured Replica from
the Archives of History (Chicago, Illinois: Gun Digest Company, 1969), 333, Noel D. Turner, American Silver
Flatware, 1837-1910 (New York: A.S. Barnes and Company, 1972), 345, Charles L. Venable, Silver in America,
1840-1940: A Century of Splendor (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Museum of Art, 1994), 107.
516
Joseph J. Schroeder, Jr., ed., 1923 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: Thrift Book of a Nation (Northfield,
Illinois: DBI Books, 1973), 368.
517
Jane Busch, "Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse," Historical Archaeology 21, no. 1 (1987):
67-68.
518
Ibid.: 69, 77.
519
William E. Covill, Jr., Ink Bottles and Inkwells (Taunton, Massachusetts: William S. Sullwold, 1971),
53-54, 89, Ellen Louise Tischbein Schroy, ed., Warman's Glass: A Value & Identification Guide, 4th ed. (Iola,
Wisconsin: Krause Publications, 2002), 283.
520
Richard E. Fike, The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles (Salt
Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1987), 30.
521
Helen McKearin and Kenneth M. Wilson, American Bottles & Flasks and Their Ancestory (New York:
Crown Publishers, 1978), 90, Julian Harrison Toulouse, Bottle Makers and Their Marks (New York: Thomas
Nelson, 1972), 544, 47.
522
Olive Jones and Catherine Sullivan, The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of
Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures, Revised ed., Studies in Archaeology, Architecture, and History
(Ottawa: National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, 1989), 163.
523
John J. Riley, A History of the American Soft Drink Industry: Bottled Carbonated Beverages, 18071957, ed. Daniel J. Boorstin, Technology and Society (New York: Arno Press, 1972), 139, 290, Printing Trow
Directory, and Bookbinding Company, Trow's General Directory of the Boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx, City of
New York (New York: Trow Directory, Printing, and Bookbinding Company, 1901-1918).
524
Jones and Sullivan, The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware,
Flat Glass, and Closures,162-63.
525
Ibid.,162, T. Stell Newman, "A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles," Historical
Archaeology 4 (1970): 75.
526
Phil Ellis, Miller's Corkscrew & Wine Antiques: A Collector's Guide (London: Octopus Publishing
Group, 2001), 52-53.
527
John Tutton, Udderly Delightful: A Guide to Collecting Milkbottles and Related Items, 3rd ed. (Stephens
City, Virginia: Commercial Press, 1998), 13-14.
528
William F. Brantley, A Collector's Guide to Ball Jars (Muncie, Indiana: Rosemary Humbert Martin,
1975), 8-9, 16, Hugh Cleveland, Bottle Pricing Guide, Values Updated 2003 ed. (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector
Books, 1988), 106-07, Gene Florence and Cathy Florence, The Hazel-Atlas Glass Identification and Value Guide
(Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2005), 68, Douglas M. Leybourne, Jr., The Collector's Guide to Old Fruit
Jars, vol. Red Book 9 (North Muskegon, Michigan: Douglas M. Leybourne, Jr., 2001), 23, Toulouse, Bottle Makers
and Their Marks, 55, 66.
529
Toulouse, Bottle Makers and Their Marks, 145-46.
530
Jones and Sullivan, The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware,
Flat Glass, and Closures,160-61.
531
Tom Bredehoft, Glass Tumblers, 1860s to 1920s: Identification and Value Guide (Paducah, Kentucky:
Collector Books, 2004), 6, Carl C. Giles and Granville H. Gray, "Vacuum Preserving-Jar," (United States: Giles,
John S., 1903).
432
532
Bredehoft, Glass Tumblers, 1860s to 1920s: Identification and Value Guide,282, Chas West Wilson,
Westmoreland Glass (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1998), 276-77.
533
Lorraine Kovar, Westmoreland Glass; Volume 3: 1888-1940 (Marietta, Ohio: The Glass Press, 1997),
31-32, 124.
534
Neila Bredehoft and Tom Bredehoft, Heisey Glass 1896-1957 Identification & Value Guide (Paducah,
Kentucky: Collector Books, 2001), 58-59, 111-12, Bill Edwards and Mike Carwile, Standard Encyclopedia of
Pressed Glass, 1860-1930: Identification & Values, 3rd ed. (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2003), 129-30,
Mollie Helen McCain, The Collector's Encyclopedia of Pattern Glass: A Pattern Guide to Early American Pressed
Glass, Revised and Expanded ed. (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1998), 330-31, Mollie Helen McCain,
Field Guide to Pattern Glass (Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 2000), 322-23.
535
Ann Kerr, Fostoria: An Identification and Value Guide of Pressed, Blown & Hand Molded Shapes
(Paducah, Kentucky: Collector Books, 1994), 142, Leslie Pina, Fostoria: Serving the American Table 1887-1986
(Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1995), 189.
536
Schroeder, ed., 1908 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: A Treasured Replica from the Archives of History,612,
Alvin Sellens, Dictionary of American Hand Tools: A Pictorial Synopsis, A Schiffer Book for Collectors (Atglen,
Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2002), 493.
537
Kenneth L. Cope, American Wrench Makers 1830-1930, 2nd ed. (Mendham, New Jersey: Astragal
Press, 2002), 98, 143, 274, L. Finch, Antique Wrenches (Ottawa, Kansas: Larry L. Finch, 1983), 24.
538
Montgomery Ward & Company and Boris Emmet, Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue and Buyers'
Guide; No. 57, Spring and Summer 1895 (New York: Dover Publications, 1969), 408.
539
Montgomery Ward & Company and Emmet, Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue and Buyers' Guide;
No. 57, Spring and Summer 1895, 352.
540
Schroeder, ed., 1908 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue: A Treasured Replica from the Archives of History,479.
541
Montgomery Ward & Company and Emmet, Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue and Buyers' Guide;
No. 57, Spring and Summer 1895, 386.
542 For the purposes of this analysis the stern consists of the after face of the canal boat, not the
entirety of the stern portion of the vessel.
543 Type B and C sterns are characterized by their open upper transoms. The upper transoms have
two (type B) or three (type C) athwartship beams across the upper transom, which are joined by vertical
timbers.
433

Sloop Island Canal Boat Study - Lake Champlain Maritime Museum

Transcription

Similar documents

We`ve recently acquired a beautiful 2005 Action Craft Newport 20

For sale is barely used 2014 Porta-Bote w/ a 2014 Suzuki 6 HP four

EndoSequence Chairside Card

For Sale Classic 12 ft. Merrimack Skiff

Soho RETAIL

details - Jolt Trust

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George

Napoleon Container Terminal

Summer 2012 - Bone Yard Boats

Janmor Pegaz 737 - {ModelName} Charter Brochure