1999-2000 Results - Lake Champlain Maritime Museum

Transcription

LAKE CHAMPLAIN
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey: 1999 and 2000 Results
UNDERWATER CULTURAL
RESOURCES SURVEY
VOLUME IV: 1999 RESULTS
AND
VOLUME V: 2000 RESULTS
PREPARED BY:
Adam I. Kane
Christopher R. Sabick
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
Arthur B. Cohn
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY:
A. Peter Barranco Jr.,
Kevin Crisman,
Frederick Fayette,
Madelyn Holmes,
Patricia L. Manley,
Thomas O. Manley,
Scott Padeni,
and David Robinson
APRIL 2002
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY,
VOLUME IV: 1999 RESULTS AND VOLUME V: 2000 RESULTS
PRODUCED BY:
PREPARED BY:
Adam I. Kane
Christopher R. Sabick
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
Arthur B. Cohn
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY:
A. Peter Barranco Jr.,
Kevin Crisman, Frederick Fayette,
Madelyn Holmes, Patricia L. Manley,
and Thomas O. Manley, Scott Padeni,
and David Robinson
FINAL REPORT
APRIL 2002
Cover drawing by Kevin Crisman
PUBLICATION DATA
REPORT RECIEPIENTS
The Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey (Lake Survey Project) has received funding and
support from a number of public and private sources. In order to fulfill contractual obligations and written
agreements, this report was prepared for the following reviewing foundations and government agencies:
Argosy Foundation
Freeman Foundation
Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP)
Lake Champlain Basin Program Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Lake Champlain Steering Committee
Lintilhac Foundation
National Park Service (NPS)
Naval Historical Center
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC)
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)
New York Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee
New York State Education Department (NYED)
New York State Museum (NYSM)
New York Office of General Services
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC)
Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation (VDFPR)
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP)
Vermont Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee
DISCLAIMER
This project and report has been financed, in part, with federal funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency through a contract with the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and from the
U.S. National Park Service through a cooperative contract agreement with the Lake Champlain Basin
Program and the New York State Heritage Trust. Funds have also been made available from the Interstate
Transportation Fund administered by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The Freeman Foundation and
the Lintilhac Foundation also provided funding for the project and publication. Issuance of this report does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of any of the organizations and agencies listed above,
nor does the mention of trade names of commercial products in the report constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the organizations and agencies listed above.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Please address any questions or comments regarding this report to:
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]
iii
DEDICATION
Frederick J. Valiquette (1909-2001)
It is in honor of Fred Valiquette’s long and productive
career working on Lake Champlain that we dedicate
the 1999-2000 Lake Survey Report to him.
“Freddie” Valiquette was born in Burlington in 1909,
the year of the lake’s Tercentenary Celebration;
perhaps it was just coincidence that Fred’s career
would be tied to the lake for more than half a
century. Raised in Burlington’s King Street
neighborhood and later moving to Malletts Bay,
Fred’s career involved every aspect of maritime
construction work. Fred worked for ferry operator
Elisha Goodsell and Champlain Transportation
Company owners Horace Corbin, Lewis Evans, Dick
Wadhams and James Wolcott, and he retired under
the tenure of Ray Pecor.
For most of his long career he was the supervisor of
marine construction for Lake Champlain
Transportation Company. He built and repaired most
of LCT’s landings, constructed numerous offshore
fuel pumping stations and operated steam
machinery with a skill that was passed down to him
by his father, a steam crane operator for Burlington’s
Elias Lyman Coal Company. He was a hard-hat
diver and generally a man who could be counted on
to get the job done.
After his retirement his central interest was his large and loving family. He also made time to talk to
me. I had the pleasure of interviewing Fred at his home about his long and interesting career on the
lake. In the process of the visit, I learned much about the day-to-day details of a Lake Champlain
era that has recently disappeared. I also learned about Fred’s participation in the 1936 construction
of the Alburg-Swanton causeway, the sinking of the U.S. Army crash boat P-239, an incident in
which Fred was involved in 1949 (see Sabick et al. 2000:75-78), as well as, details about the
sinking of the ferry Roosevelt (see Sabick et al. 2000:115-116). Fred also related that the steam
tugboat located in 1996, the U.S. LaVallee was during her final working days known not so
affectionately around the waterfront as the “Useless LaValle” (see McLaughlin and Lessman
1998:147-155). Fred also operated the crane that loaded Philadelphia on a barge for her journey to
the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.
I felt privileged to have the opportunity to know and learn from Fred. I always found him a more than
willing teacher, eager to share his rich collection of memories. Fred was particularly proud that his
grandson Bob Superneau has followed in his footsteps and now holds the position of marine
construction supervisor for the Lake Champlain Transportation Company.
Art Cohn, LCMM Executive Director
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
GENERAL SUPPORT
The ongoing systematic survey of the entire body of Lake Champlain, which began in 1996,
has long been a goal of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum (LCMM). The 1999 and
2000 Lake Survey Project could not have succeeded without the support of LCMM’s staff,
membership, summer interns, and volunteers. Their dedicated efforts to preserve and
interpret Lake Champlain's cultural resources have given LCMM the ability and experience
necessary to conduct such a monumental task. This project also continues to rely on the
support and guidance of the Champlain Valley’s knowledgeable historical researchers and
other advocates for the preservation of the region’s historical heritage. Many individuals
and organizations have made significant contributions toward the preparation, fieldwork,
background research, analysis, and documentation of the 1999 and 2000 Lake Survey
Project.
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Institutional support was provided by the Lake Champlain Basin Program, the Freeman
Foundation, the New York-Vermont Citizens Advisory Committees on Lake Champlain, the
office of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the Lake Champlain Transportation Company,
Middlebury College, the New York Bureau of Historic Sites, the Vermont Division for
Historic Preservation, the University of Vermont, and the Institute of Nautical Archaeology.
Benthos Inc. and Triton Technology, Inc. have provided technical support for the survey.
Additional organizations that provided support for the Lake Survey were the Lake
Champlain Management Conference, National Park Service’s Rivers, Trail and
Conservation Assistance Program, the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and
Vermont National Bank, and the Lake Champlain Steering Committee, the Technical
Advisory Committee, and the Cultural Resources Working Group. Without the continued
support and guidance of these institutions, the prohibitive costs and effort facing a lakewide survey might have prevented the completion of the project.
FUNDING
To date, the Lake Survey could not have been completed without cooperative efforts and
funds from a number of federal and state agencies and Vermont foundations. Federal and
state funding for the 1999 and 2000 field seasons was provided by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) through a contract with the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) (LC-991923-01 Underwater Survey; 0980-013003). Technical and administrative oversight of all work performed under these contracts
was provided by Bill Howland, Barry Gruessner, Miranda Lescaze, and Tricia Foster of the
Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP), in cooperation with the Lake Champlain Basin
Program's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
v
We are especially grateful to the Freeman Foundation for their generous support of the
Lake Survey Project. Two major grants in 1996 and 1998 provided significant funding
which enabled LCMM to initiate and sustain the Lake Survey effort, provide for public
interpretation of its findings, and enable LCMM researchers to actively manage Lake
Champlain's rich body of submerged cultural resources for the greatest public benefit.
The Lake Champlain Transportation Company, the New York Bureau of Historic Sites, the
Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, Benthos, Inc., and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy
(Vermont) also contributed significant time and effort to the project. Research assistance
was generously provided by the Ticonderoga Historical Society, Ticonderoga Heritage
Museum, the Isle La Motte Historical Society, Wayne Miller of the Feinberg Library, geology
staff at the New York State Museum, and the Geology Division of the Vermont Department
of Environmental Conservation. LCMM thanks all of these organizations for their financial
and technical support.
FIELD CREW AND ANALYSIS TEAM
The following individuals worked directly on the 1999 and 2000 Lake Survey in a number of
vital capacities: Arthur B. Cohn, project director and divemaster; A. Peter Barranco Jr.,
navigator and historian; Fred Fayette, boat captain and engineer; Patricia L. Manley,
geologist and sonar operator; Thomas O. Manley, geologist and sonar operator.
The sonar survey field project was implemented by a dedicated group of technicians. In
our survey, under staff supervision, everyone filled in on all the key work stations. Their
contributions and good humor during the many long, tedious days helped make the survey
a success. Kathy Baumann, Anna Cotton, Barbara Francis, Matt Hommeyer, Chuck St.
John, Joe LaMountain, and Bob Phoenix all made significant contributions.
Over the 1999-2000 field seasons, members of the archaeological documentation team
contributed a significant amount of information. Working in Lake Champlain’s cold
challenging environment, the crew produced excellent results while maintaining our
commitment to safety. The archaeological crew included: William Atkinson, Russel Bellico,
Sara Brigadier, Alan Denney, Ben Ford, Jonathan Eddy, Christopher Fox, Adam Kane,
Tom Keefe, Pierre LaRocque, Scott Padeni, Christopher Sabick, Erick Tichonuk, and Rob
Wilczynski. The ROV team from Benthos, Inc. included Bill Charbonneau, Kevin Foster,
and Ric Gifford
REPORT PREPARATION
LCMM’s most obvious debt in the preparation of this report is evident in the bibliography of
this document, which demonstrates the dedication of the many scholars who have
specialized in the study of the Champlain Valley. Adam Kane and Christopher Sabick
wrote this report under the direction of Arthur Cohn, although other individual researchers
investigated and prepared selected sections. The analysis of Wrecks SS and XX were
strengthened by significant input from Kevin Crisman. Patricia and Thomas Manley
provided the geological data. Chapter XII is derived from David Robinson’s report on the
vi
conservation of the War of 1812 anchor. Madelyn Holmes wrote the historic background of
the towns in the survey areas. Chapter XIII is based on Scott Padeni’s report on the
colonial shipwreck CV-2. Lake historian A. Peter Barranco Jr. produced background
information on many of the wrecks examined during the 1999 and 2000 seasons. A
number of people assisted with the compilation and selection of illustrations, including
Gordon Cawood, Kevin Crisman, Adam Kane, Adam Loven, and Christopher Sabick.
Adam Kane organized and edited the report with assistance from Sara Brigadier, Eloise
Beil, Brenda Hughes, Christopher Sabick, Peter Barranco, and Arthur Cohn.
vii
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This report, produced as the fourth and fifth in a series of volumes, outlines the latest
archaeological research that has resulted from the 1999 and 2000 Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey. Since this document was written to be part of a
series, it therefore relies on the series’ first two reports (Lake Champlain Underwater
Cultural Resources Survey, Volume I: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results
[McLaughlin and Lessmann 1998] and Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey, Volume II and III: 1997 and 1998 Results [Sabick et al. 2000]) for background
information on Lake Champlain’s history, geology, and archaeology. The first volume was
developed after extensive research of a wide range of primary and secondary sources,
including archaeological reports from previous investigations. The material in that
document includes natural, prehistoric, and historic background information that sets Lake
Champlain in a regional framework and links the lake's underwater resources to regional,
cultural, and historical themes. Readers are advised to refer to Volume I for its extensive
background information, which clearly describes the diversity and significance of the
region's history. Volumes II and III detail the information gained during the 1997 and 1998
survey seasons and the results of archaeological and historical research that took place in
the intervening months.
Information about historic and prehistoric resources gained through investigations that use
federal and state funds is a part of the public record, and every effort is made to make this
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
resources 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 the
anchor damage that results from unauthorized public visitation. Federal and state agencies
involved in funding the Lake Survey have requested that the location of new cultural
resources found during the 1999 and 2000 Lake Surveys be restricted 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 archaeology performed during the survey meet the
archaeological standards and guidelines of the National Park Service (1983), the state of
Vermont (Peebles 1989), and the state of New York (New York Archaeological Council
1994). The style and format of the citations and references are based on those of the
Society for American Archaeology (1992).
viii
ABSTRACT
The introduction of zebra mussels in the early 1990s and the inevitable approaching
infestation of quagga mussels seriously threaten Lake Champlain's underwater cultural
resources. These non-native aquatic nuisance species endanger the preservation of
submerged cultural resources, obscure them, and hinder their documentation and study.
Mussel colonies also threaten to degrade underwater cultural resources physically as a
result of their weight and corrosive action. As of this writing, no effective means to protect
underwater historic resources from the impact of zebra and quagga mussels has been
found.
In studying this issue, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum determined that one positive
reaction to the situation would be to locate and document Lake Champlain’s currently
unknown underwater cultural resources. Once this task is completed, it will then be
possible to develop a comprehensive management plan for the sites. A systematic lakewide survey to locate the submerged resources standing proud of the lake bottom, which
began in 1996, was the first step in this multi-year project. This report on the 1999 and
2000 surveys is the third in a series of volumes presenting the results of the Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, also known as the Lake Survey.
The first volume in this series (McLaughlin and Lessmann 1998) supplied an extensive
general background on the history of Lake Champlain and archaeology that has taken
place in the lake, while the second and third volumes (Sabick et al. 2000) focused on the
history and archaeology pertaining only to the areas covered by the 1997 and 1998
surveys. The fourth and fifth volumes, contained in this report, present the results from the
archaeological and historical investigations in the 1999 and 2000 survey areas.
Additionally, this report includes the results of the conservation of a War of 1812 anchor
from Plattsburgh Bay, New York and the archaeological investigation of colonial vessel CV2 in Northern Lake George, New York.
This volume was developed after extensive background research, fieldwork, and the
collection of a wide range of primary and secondary sources. These investigations have
been integrated into this comprehensive document, providing information that can
eventually contribute toward the management of Lake Champlain's underwater cultural
resources.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PUBLICATION DATA
iii
DEDICATION
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
AUTHORS’ NOTE
viii
ABSTRACT
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
CHAPTER I: MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey
Methodology and Logistics
Data Analysis
Project Archive and Repository
Background Research
Results of the 1999 Lake Survey
Wreck DD: C.E. Bush (VT-CH-895)
Wreck EE: Mule Wreck
Wreck GG: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-1134)
Wreck HH: Small Boat
Wreck JJ: Standard Canal Boat
Wreck KK: Houseboat
Wreck LL: Standard Canal Boat
Wreck MM: Railroad Drawboat
Wreck NN: Canal Boat
Wreck OO: Scow (VT-AD-1135)
Wreck SS: Canal- Schooner Troy
Wreck AP-1
Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbor Survey
Results of the 2000 Lake Survey
Wreck WW: Rouses Point Barge (VT-GI-35)
Wreck XX: Lake Sloop
Wreck YY: L.J.N. Stark
Wreck ZZ: Wooden Barge (VT-GI-36)
Wreck AAA: Barge
Wreck BBB: Unverified Target
Wreck CCC: Barge (VT-CH-894)
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
x
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND TO THE LAKE SURVEY PROJECT
Lake Champlain's Cultural Resources
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey
Lake Survey Planning
Lake Survey Methodology
Performance Standards
Safety
Volunteer Involvement
Post-Survey Research
Public Interpretation
Lake Survey Report Series
Project Archive and Repository
7
7
8
9
10
15
15
17
17
17
18
19
CHAPTER III: 1999 AND 2000 LAKE SURVEY
Project Planning
Project Methods and Logistics
Project Personnel
Survey Divers and Diving Safety
Survey Vessels
Side Scan Sonar
Navigation System
Precision Depth Recording
Data Collection Systems
Analysis Tools
Remote Operated Vehicles Employed in 1999
20
20
20
22
24
24
25
27
27
27
28
28
CHAPTER IV: BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE 1999 LAKE SURVEY AREA
Vergennes, Vermont
Basin Harbor, Vermont
Port Henry, New York
West Port, New York
30
31
35
38
42
CHAPTER V: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 1999 LAKE SURVEY AREA
Stove Boat
Diamond Island Stone Boat (VT-CH-723)
Wreck CC: Water Witch (VT-AD-719)
Wreck FF: Champlain II
Wreck II: L.A. Hall (VT-AD-716)
Wreck RR: Barn Rock Wreck
Pot Ash Point Canal Boat (VT-AD-724)
Arnold’s Bay Investigations
45
45
49
51
56
60
62
64
67
xi
CHAPTER VI: SURVEY RESULTS 1999
Wreck DD: Tugboat C.E. Bush (VT-CH-895)
Wreck EE: Mule Wreck
Wreck GG: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-1134)
Wreck HH: Small Boat
Wreck JJ: Standard Canal Boat
Wreck KK: House Boat
Wreck LL: Standard Canal Boat
Wreck MM: Railroad Drawboat
Wreck NN: Standard Canal Boat
Wreck OO: Scow (VT-AD-1135)
Wreck SS: Canal-Schooner Troy
Life and Death of Troy
Archaeology of Troy
Wreck AP-1: Airplane
73
75
76
79
81
81
85
86
88
92
93
94
95
97
101
CHATPER VII: ORE BED AND SNAKE DEN HARBOR SURVEY
Historic Context
Iron Mining on Split Rock Mountain
Canals and Canalboats
Methodology
Archaeological Results
Ore Bed Harbor
Wreck QQ: Ore Bed Harbor Scow
Construction Sequence
Keelson Assembly
Floors
Bilge Stringers
Chine Logs
Bottom Planking
Rake Timbers
Stern Planking
Windows
Sides
Vernacular Craft
Cribbing
Mining Equipment
Ore Cart
Miscellaneous Mining Equipment
House Foundation
Retaining Wall
Ore Piles
Tailings
Mines
Snake Den Harbor
Wreck PP: Sailing Canal Boat
103
104
104
113
115
116
116
118
121
121
121
118
121
122
122
123
123
123
123
124
127
127
129
129
129
130
130
130
131
131
xii
Centerboard Trunk
Keelson
Bilge Stringers
Chine Log Assembly
Bottom Planking
Side Strakes
Conclusions and Recommendations
Snake Den Harbor
Ore Bed Harbor
Wreck QQ
Cribbing
Ore Cart
Vernacular Craft
Further Historic Research
Conclusion
131
133
133
133
133
133
134
134
134
135
135
135
136
136
136
CHAPTER VIII: BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE 2000 LAKE SURVEY AREA
Chazy, New York
Rouses Point, New York
Alburg, Vermont
Isle La Motte, Vermont
137
138
142
145
148
CHAPTER IX: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 2000 LAKE SURVEY AREA
151
Wreck UU: Isle La Motte Canal Sloop (VT-GI-24)
151
Wreck VV: Standard Canal Boat (VT-GI-23)
155
CHAPTER X: SURVEY RESULTS 2000
Wreck WW: Rouses Point Barge (VT-GI-35)
Wreck XX: Lake Sloop
Wreck YY: L.J.N. Stark
Wreck ZZ: Barge (VT-GI-36)
Wreck AAA: Steel Barge
Wreck BBB: Small Boat
Wreck CCC: Barge (VT-CH-894)
157
159
162
166
169
170
170
171
CHAPTER XI: GEOLOGIC RESULTS
Geological Findings
Tailings
Lineations
Furrows
Pockmarks
Bedrock Outcrops, Ridges and Faults
172
172
172
172
172
173
173
xiii
CHAPTER XII: CONSERVATION OF A WAR OF 1812 ANCHOR FROM PLATTSBURGH
BAY
174
Project Description
175
Conservation Results
183
184
The Anchor in History: the War of 1812 in the Champlain Valley
Anchor Type and Method of Manufacture
191
The Identity of the Plattsburgh Bay Anchor’s Maker
193
Determining the Anchor’s Vessel of Origin
195
CHAPTER XIII: NORTHERN LAKE GEORGE COLONIAL SHIPWRECK CV-2 STUDY
AND STABILIZATION PROJECT
198
Introduction
198
Historical Background
198
French & Indian War
198
205
American Revolution
Removal of Shipwrecks From Lake George
206
208
Preparation
Methodology
210
Observations and Interpretation
217
CV-2 Site Condition
217
Dating and Identification of the CV-2 Wreck
232
232
Dating
Identification
232
Barge Documentation Results
235
Barge B-6
235
Barge B-1
237
238
Barge B-5
Conclusions
240
REFERENCES
241
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
250
APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS
253
APPENDIX C: SLOOP ISLAND CANALBOAT MITIGATION PLAN
256
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Typical underwater archaeological tools
14
Figure 4-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1999 survey area and the towns selected
for vignettes
30
Figure 4-2. Lithograph of Vergennes from 1890
33
Figure 4-3. 1871 map of Ferrisburgh, Vermont showing Basin Harbor and the Winans
homestead
36
Figure 4-4. An 1889 Bird’s eye view of Port Henry, New York
40
Figure 4-5. 1876 Map of Westport, New York
44
Figure 5-1. Diver taking measurements on the Stove Boat
45
Figure 5-2. Perspective view of the Stove Boat site
46
Figure 5-3. Midship cross-section of the Stove Boat
47
Figure 5-4. Tiller of the Stove Boat
48
Figure 5-5. Preliminary plan view of the Diamond Island stone boat
50
Figure 5-6. Reconstruction of the Water Witch as a schooner
52
Figure 5-7. Perspective drawing of the Water Witch
53
Figure 5-8. A watercolor of the steamer Oakes Ames by James Bard
56
Figure 5-9. Champlain II “…on the mountain”
58
Figure 5-10. Perspective drawing of L.A. Hall
61
Figure 5-11. Preliminary site plan of the Barn Rock Wreck
62
Figure 5-12. Top view of the bow of the Barn Rock Wreck
63
Figure 5-13. Preliminary plan view of the Potash Point canal boat
65
Figure 5-14. The cast iron grate from the Potash Point canal boat just after recovery
66
xv
Figure 5-15. The center portion of the cast iron grate from the Potash Point canal boat
66
Figure 5-16. Map of Lake Champlain showing the location of Arnold’s Bay in Panton,
67
Vermont
Figure 5-17. Plan view of the exposed remains of Congress
69
Figure 5-18. Plan view of Arnold’s Bay showing the location of the Congress remains, and
a detail of the site
70
Figure 5-19. Postcard circa 1905, showing the stern section of the Galley Congress
71
Figure 5-20. Lines and inboard profile of the Galley Washington, sister ship of Congress
72
Figure 6-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1996 through 1999 Lake Survey areas
74
Figure 6-2. Sonar image of Wreck EE
76
Figure 6-3. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck EE, based on video footage
77
Figure 6-4. Sonar image of Wreck GG
79
Figure 6-5. Plan view of Wreck GG, based on video footage
80
Figure 6-6. Sonar image of Wreck HH
81
Figure 6-7. Perspective drawing of Wreck JJ
83
Figure 6-8. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck JJ
84
Figure 6-9. Sonar image of Wreck KK
85
Figure 6-10. Sonar image of Wreck LL
86
Figure 6-11. Preliminary site plan of Wreck LL
87
Figure 6-12. Sonar image of Wreck MM
88
Figure 6-13. Perspective drawing of Wreck MM
90
Figure 6-14. Detail of one of the ends of Wreck MM, showing the deck features
91
xvi
Figure 6-15. ROV photograph of one of Wreck OO’s ends
93
Figure 6-16. Sonar image of Wreck SS
94
Figure 6-17. Photograph of the Halstead memorial, and a transcription of its text 96
Figure 6-18. Perspective view of Troy based on video footage
98
Figure 6-19. Reconstruction of Troy, based on video footage
100
Figure 6-20. Sonar image of Wreck AP-1
101
Figure 6-21. Photograph of a Republic Seabee seaplane
102
Figure 7-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbors
103
Figure 7-2. Photograph from the 1870s showing Split Rock Mine with a sailing canalboat
in the foreground
107
Figure 7-3. Detail of Figure 7-2 showing the activities taking place in the photograph
108
Figure 7-4. Profile of the Buchanan magnetic ore separator installed at the Split Rock Mine
111
Figure 7-5. Front view of the Buchanan magnetic ore separator installed at the Split Rock
112
Mine
Figure 7-6. Photograph of Ore Bed Harbor facing north
116
Figure 7-7. Site plan of Split Rock Mine and Ore Bed Harbor, Essex County, New York
117
Figure 7-8. Perspective view of Wreck QQ, the Ore Bed Harbor Scow
119
Figure 7-9. Construction plans of Wreck QQ, the Ore Bed Harbor Scow
120
Figure 7-10. Photograph of the interior of Wreck QQ facing aft showing the rake timbers in
the stern
122
Figure 7-11. Ore Bed Harbor cribbing remains – Southern end
125
Figure 7-12. Ore Bed Harbor cribbing remains – Northern end
126
Figure 7-13. Photograph of the ore cart
128
xvii
Figure 7-14. Plan, profile, and end view of the ore cart
128
Figure 7-15. Two photographs showing the same wheels to an ore cart
129
Figure 7-16. Site map of the Snake Den Harbor Wreck
132
for vignettes
137
Figure 8-2. Bird’s eye view of West Chazy showing the Plattsburgh and Montreal Railroad
in the foreground
139
Figure 8-3. Map of Rouses Point from 1869 showing the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain
Railroad and the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad
144
Figure 8-4. Detail from an 1871 map of the town of Alburg, Vermont
147
Figure 8-5. 1871 Map of Isle La Motte
149
Figure 9-1. Plan view of the Isle La Motte Canal Sloop
151
Figure 9-2. Plan view of Wreck VV showing the bottom of the hull in the bow
156
Figure 10-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1996 though 2000 Lake Survey areas
158
Figure 10-2. A sonar image of the Rouses Point Barge
159
Figure 10-3. Preliminary site plan of Wreck WW
160
Figure 10-4. Photograph showing the three overlapping layers of deck planking on Wreck
161
WW
Figure 10-5. Sonar image of Wreck XX
162
Figure 10-6. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck XX
163
Figure 10-7. Sonar image of L.J.N. Stark
166
Figure 10-8. Preliminary plan view of L.J.N. Stark
168
Figure 10-9. Sonar image of Wreck ZZ
169
Figure 10-10. Photograph of Wreck ZZ taken in 1995
169
Figure 10-11. Sonar image of Wreck AAA
170
xviii
Figure 10-12. Sonar image of Wreck BBB
170
Figure 10-13. Sonar image showing Wreck CCC
171
Figure 12-1. The discoverers of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, Ken and Bill Van Stockum,
pose with the anchor after its initial recovery in 1996
175
Figure 12-2. Location of the anchor when discovered in 1996 relative to the positions of
the fleets of the British and United States early in the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay
176
Figure 12-3. Inscriptions in the anchor's crown
176
Figure 12-4. Hand-painted text on the surfaces of the anchor’s flukes
177
Figure 12-5. The anchor breaking the surface during the 1998 re-recovery
181
Figure 12-6. The anchor travels up the lake from Plattsburgh on its way to Basin Harbor
and the LCMM Conservation Lab
182
Figure 13-1. Map of Ft. William Henry drawn in 1756 depicting sloops
200
Figure 13-2. 1756 sloop in Lake George (left), and the sloop Loudoun (right)
201
Figure 13-3. French map of 1757 attack on Ft. William Henry
202
Figure 13-4. View of Mossy Point, north end of lake circa 1900
206
Figure 13-5. Location of the CV-2 site
208
Figure 13-6. View North of CV-2 study area
209
Figure 13-7. Project divers gear up for work on the CV-2 wreck site
209
Figure 13-8. Debris field of the CV-2 wreck site
210
Figure 13-9. Project director Scott Padeni and Jonathan Eddy ferry CV-2 timbers to shore
recording station
212
Figure 13-10. Chris Fox of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, and Adam Kane and Pierre
LaRocque of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum record CV-2 timbers 213
Figure 13-11. Diver excavates a grid using the dredge
214
Figure 13-12. One of the numerous treenails used to fasten components of the CV-2
217
vessel
xix
Figure 13-13. Timber A, either ceiling or planking
219
Figure 13-14. Timber B, keelson section
220
Figure 13-15. Timber C, probable futtock or floor fragment
220
Figure 13-16. Timber D, probable ceiling
221
Figure 13-17. Timber E, probable stem fragment
221
Figure 13-18. Timber F, probable futtock fragment
222
Figure 13-19. Timber G, probable futtock or floor fragment
222
Figure 13-20. Timber H, floor split in half
223
Figure 13-21. Timber I, probable futtock or floor fragment
224
Figure 13-22. Timber J, unidentified
224
Figure 13-23. Timber K, planking or ceiling
225
Figure 13-24. Timber L, planking
225
Figure 13-25. Timber M, unidentified
226
Figure 13-26. Timber N, probable futtock fragment
226
Figure 13-27. Timber P, futtock
227
Figure 13-28. Timber Q, probable floor or futtock fragment
227
Figure 13-29. Timber R, futtock
228
Figure 13-30. Timber S, planking or ceiling
228
Figure 13-31. Timber T, futtock
229
Figure 13-32. Timber U, unidentified
229
Figure 13-33. Timber V, planking or ceiling fragment
230
Figure 13-34. Timber W, futtock fragment
230
Figure 13-35. Sample timber recovered from MB-4 wreck site, tentatively identified as a
231
breasthook from a late nineteenth or early twentieth century small boat
xx
Figure 13-36. Plan view of Barge B-6
236
Figure 13-37. Detail showing the repair in the side of Barge B-6
237
Figure 13-38. Preliminary plan view of Barge B-5
239
xxi
CHAPTER I: MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LAKE CHAMPLAIN UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
Lake Champlain is one of the most historic bodies of water in North America.
Researchers estimate that as many as 300 shipwrecks have occurred during its maritime
history, and dozens of undiscovered wreck sites and hundreds of other underwater cultural
resources still lie undisturbed on the lake floor. In an effort to learn more about the lake’s
history, the Champlain Maritime Society (1980-1987) began a long-term, systematic
investigation of Lake Champlain's submerged cultural resources, especially shipwrecks,
which was continued by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum (LCMM, founded 1986).
This systematic survey project was at first expected to take decades to complete.
In 1993 zebra mussels were found for the first time in Lake Champlain. A non-native
aquatic nuisance species, zebra mussels adversely affect submerged cultural resources,
and their appearance in the lake dramatically increased the urgency of the survey project.
During the spring of 1996, the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP), a federally funded
program created through the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, authorized
LCMM to implement a lake-wide survey to inventory all cultural resources in Lake
Champlain. This inventory (a Phase I project) was to be completed in order to locate and
document as many of the lake’s shipwrecks before they became encrusted with zebra
mussels. Specific knowledge of Lake Champlain’s archaeological properties will then
permit the preparation of a comprehensive management plan for the lake's cultural
resources.
LCMM designed the Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, also known
as the Lake Survey, as a five- to seven-year project. We now believe this Phase I
examination of the entire lake bottom will take eight years. The project began in May 1996
with the support of federal, state, and private funds from a number of sources. Federal and
state funding for the 1999 and 2000 field seasons was provided via the Lake Champlain
Basin Program through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s contract with the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC). Technical and
administrative oversight of all work performed under these contracts was provided by Bill
Howland, Barry Gruessner, Miranda Lescaze, and Tricia Foster of the Lake Champlain
Basin Program, in cooperation with the Lake Champlain Basin Program's Technical
Advisory Committee. The Freeman Foundation provided substantial private funding for the
Lake Survey. Public interpretation of the Lake Survey was provided by NEIWPCC on
behalf of the New York and Vermont Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committees under
the New York-Vermont Citizens Advisory Committees. The Lake Champlain Transportation
Company, the New York Bureau of Historic Sites, the Vermont Division of Historic
Preservation, Benthos, Inc., and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont) also contributed
significant time and effort to the project.
This lake-wide survey has revealed new information that will greatly benefit archaeologists,
historians, students, and the public through publications, exhibits, and the opening and
1
maintenance of new underwater preserves. The broadest public benefit resulting from the
survey will be the accumulation of archaeological information about a collection of
previously unknown shipwrecks, allowing this archaeological data to be preserved in
perpetuity. From this comprehensive inventory of shipwrecks, a management plan will
eventually be developed that will make recommendations related to the preservation,
protection, and interpretation of Lake Champlain's significant underwater archaeological
sites.
METHODOLOGY AND LOGISTICS
The side scan sonar survey was carried out on board the 40ft (12.2m) research vessel
(R/V) Neptune, owned and operated by Captain Fred Fayette. Neptune was navigated with
a Northstar 941X Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), a Cetrek auto pilot
system, a video plotter, and a Raytheon R40 raster scan radar system, equipment that
controlled and recorded the position of the research vessel throughout the survey. The
team divided the survey area with a zone-and-grid system, setting survey lines 1.2 to 1.9mi
(2 to 3km) long and 558ft (170m) apart. Neptune navigated over each grid line, towing a
dual frequency Klein 595 side scan sonar towfish approximately 32.8ft (10m) off the lake
floor, collecting and storing geophysical information. A Wesmar 800HD digital scanning
sonar alerted the crew to any obstacles ahead of the side scan sonar towfish, and depth
information was gathered via a Furuno FCV667 color video sounder. A Triton ISIS data
processing system on board Neptune then digitized the data from the side scan sonar
towfish, storing it in digital format along with position, depth, and speed information. During
both the 1999 and 2000 field seasons approximately 40 square miles (103.6 square km) of
lakebed were surveyed.
Each subsequent transect overlapped the previous one, insuring complete and methodical
coverage of the bottom. The final product of each field season was an optical disc record
of the lake floor of the entire survey area, including sonar images of geological features and
shipwreck sites, noting the exact position, heading, and speed of the research vessel and
the precise location and depth of each underwater target.
DATA ANALYSIS
The Lake Survey’s side scan sonar data will prove extremely valuable for future
investigations of the lake's hydrology, morphology, bathymetry, and sedimentology. The
side scan sonar data was collected and managed by computer, allowing researchers to
post-process and analyze the information in a more comprehensive manner. At the end of
each field season, the survey team spent a portion of the following winter working with this
technological process.
Following the field survey, historical researchers Peter Barranco, Arthur Cohn, Fred
Fayette, Adam Kane, and Christopher Sabick analyzed the cultural targets, studied the
background data for the survey areas, and researched the newly discovered shipwrecks.
Their analysis efforts culminated in this research report.
2
PROJECT ARCHIVE AND REPOSITORY
All of the data and documentation generated during the 1999 and 2000 Lake Survey will be
stored and made available for research at LCMM's Nautical Archaeology Center. The
project archives consist of navigational logbooks, field notes, photographs, videotape,
computer disks, and the project log. The side scan sonar printouts, currently at Middlebury
College, will be relocated to LCMM upon completion of post-processing of the data. The
complete project archives and artifact collection will be curated according to federal and
state guidelines (National Park Service 1991).
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Researching the general historical background of Lake Champlain, specifically for those
regions surveyed in 1999 and 2000, was a major component of the 1999 and 2000 Lake
Survey. It was important to know what events occurred in these areas in order to better
understand the historical properties that might be found there. This historical framework
will also be useful for evaluating the significance of the archaeological resources that will
undoubtedly be located during subsequent years of the survey. Research into maritime
activities on Lake Champlain was conducted in local and regional archives, municipal
records, and newspapers. The research phase of the study was not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to determine how much information was available regarding the
archaeological resources and their significance.
RESULTS OF THE 1999 LAKE SURVEY
The 1999 Lake Survey focused on the area of the lake from the northern end of Split Rock
Mountain south to the Champlain Bridge. The survey located thirteen previously unknown
shipwrecks: Wrecks DD, EE, HH, GG, JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, OO, PP, QQ and SS. Nine of
the thirteen vessels were located in divable depths; archaeological divers verified all of the
shallow sites, and recorded basic measurements, photographs, and video. The deep sites,
Wrecks EE, GG, OO, and SS were located in water depths exceeding those safe for diver
verification. All four of these vessels, and also a plane located in the survey area (AP-1)
were investigated with a Benthos, Inc. ROV equipped with two video cameras (color and
black-and-white), as well as digital and still camera systems. Additionally, the Lake Survey
Project also investigated the submerged cultural resources located in Ore Bed Harbor,
Essex County, New York.
WRECK DD: C.E. BUSH (VT-CH-895)
Wreck DD, which lies in shallow water, is the late nineteenth century steam tug or launch
C.E. Bush.
WRECK EE: MULE WRECK
Wreck EE, a standard canal boat in well over 100ft (30.5m) of water, was examined with an
ROV during the 1999 field season. The vessel is very well preserved and appears to have
sunk unexpectedly. The wreck’s most distinguishing features are piles of animal bones
strewn on deck.
3
WRECK GG: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1134)
Wreck GG is a standard canal boat located in the deep water of the lake’s main channel.
ROV footage revealed the canal boat rests on an even keel in very thick silt which has
drifted over and into large portions of the wreck, filling much of the hold up to deck level.
WRECK HH: SMALL BOAT
This vessel is a small mid-twentieth century rowboat.
WRECK JJ: STANDARD CANAL BOAT
Wreck JJ is a mid to late nineteenth century standard canal boat. The vessel’s structure is
largely intact and still contains its last cargo: a load of marble. The presence of cargo
indicates that this vessel is a shipwreck, not a vessel scuttled at the end of its working life.
WRECK KK: HOUSEBOAT
Wreck KK is a modern houseboat. The registration number for this vessel is NY 8528AL.
New York State boat registration records indicate that this vessel was first registered in
1959 and last registered in 1969. The registration expired in 1972. The circumstances of
its loss are as yet unknown.
WRECK LL: STANDARD CANAL BOAT
Wreck LL is a poorly preserved mid to late nineteenth century standard canal boat.
Approximately fifty percent of the vessel’s structure remains intact. The vessel does not
appear to contain cargo, an indication that it was intentionally sunk after its working life.
WRECK MM: RAILROAD DRAWBOAT
Wreck MM is a railroad drawboat built in 1870/1871, and is believed to be the largest intact
shipwreck in Lake Champlain. A drawboat was a heavily built barge with railroad tracks
that ran down the center of its deck. The boat could be lodged into a gap between two
sections of fixed-pile trestles that emerged from each shoreline. When the drawboat was in
position, it filled the gap and completed the rail connection for a train to cross the lake.
When the train had passed, the floating drawboat was pivoted out of the way to open the
channel for lake vessels to pass.
WRECK NN: CANAL BOAT
Wreck NN is a mid-nineteenth century standard canal boat in very poor condition. The hull
of the vessel was upside down and broken in half. This deposition pattern suggests that
Wreck NN might have been scuttled by placing a small charge of dynamite in the hold.
WRECK OO: SCOW (VT-AD-1135)
The vessel, which is located in deep water, appears to be a shallow draft barge that has
scow ends and is rectangular in shape. Both bow and stern of the vessel have attachment
rings on their flat surfaces where the barge could be attached to and towed by another
vessel.
4
WRECK SS: CANAL- SCHOONER TROY
The canal schooner Troy was located in deep water during the 1999 Lake Survey. The
vessel sank en route to Westport, New York in 1825 during a November gale, taking with it
five young men and boys. The Troy is the only example of an early sailing-canal boat ever
located. It is an extremely important link in the evolution of Lake Champlain commercial
vessel design and may be the oldest vessel in the world located equipped with a
centerboard.
WRECK AP-1
In 1999 a Republic Seabee seaplane was located in deep water. The plane was registered
to Leslie P. McDougal and had been purchased by him in February of 1947. The vessel
sank in the lake after landing with its wheels down, causing it to flip over. Both Mr.
McDougal and his wife survived the crash.
ORE BED AND SNAKE DEN HARBORS SURVEY
In 1999 the LCMM conducted an archaeological survey of Ore Bed and Snake Den
Harbors in Essex County, New York. The cliff face adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor was mined
for iron ore extensively during the late nineteenth century, leaving a complex terrestrial and
underwater archaeological site. The submerged cultural resources documented include
two canal boats (Wrecks PP and QQ), an ore cart, cribbing remains, and a small vernacular
craft.
RESULTS OF THE 2000 LAKE SURVEY
During the 2000 Lake Survey the LCMM’s remote sensing survey team focused on the
northern end of the main lake. Specifically, the survey area began near the southern end
of Cumberland Head and continued north through the main lake up to the Canadian border.
The survey area also included the La Motte Passage and the southern half of the Alburg
Passage up to the Vermont Route 2 Bridge. The survey located three previously unknown
shipwrecks: Wrecks XX, AAA and BBB. Also located in the survey area were three
vessels that were previously known, but had not been investigated in any detail: Wrecks
WW, YY and ZZZ.
Of the eight vessels located within the 2000 Lake Survey area, seven were located in
divable depths. Five of the seven shallow sites were verified by archaeological divers, and
had basic measurements, photographs, and video recorded. The single deep site, Wreck
BBB, was located in water depths exceeding those safe for diver verification. Because
there was only one deep site, no ROV verification was conducted in 2000; the target will be
investigated in 2002 or 2003.
One additional shipwreck was found in a shoreline survey in Shelburne Bay. During the
1996 survey, the sonar team was not conducting shoreline sweeps as the present survey
protocol calls for, therefore, the team conducted a shoreline sweep of Shelburne Bay,
locating one previously unknown wreck (Wreck CCC).
5
WRECK WW: ROUSES POINT BARGE (VT-GI-35)
Wreck WW is a barge located near the Rouses Point trestle. The exact manner of its
deposition is unknown, but the absence of cargo indicates it was abandoned or scuttled.
The barge’s proximity to the trestle suggests that it may have been used in one of the
construction or repair episodes for that structure.
WRECK XX: LAKE SLOOP
Wreck XX is an intact example of a lake sloop; the only vessel of this type yet located. The
sloop appears to have foundered while in service, therefore it contains the personal
belongings of the crew, rigging elements, and other equipment.
WRECK YY: L.J.N. STARK
L.J.N. Stark was built at Whitehall, New York as a steam-towboat in 1868-69 for the
Northern Transportation Line. In her second season of operation the L.J.N. Stark caught
fire and burned to the waterline. The hull now lies in shallow water near Point Au Roche,
New York.
WRECK ZZ: WOODEN BARGE (VT-GI-36)
Wreck ZZ is a wooden barge lying in shallow water in the Alburg Passage just south of the
bridge that carries Vermont route 2 between North Hero and the Alburg Tongue. The
history of the barge is unknown, although its construction and size is consistent with that of
a late nineteenth or early twentieth century work barge.
WRECK AAA: BARGE
Wreck AAA is a small steel/iron barge with wooden decking. The vessel lies in shallow
water and is heavily encrusted with zebra mussels. Wreck AAA may be a home-built barge
used locally.
WRECK BBB: UNVERIFIED TARGET
Wreck BBB was located via side scan sonar during the 2000 Lake Survey. The vessel
appears to be a modern boat, although its depth prevented diver verification. The object
projects approximately 9ft (2.7m) off the bottom.
WRECK CCC: BARGE (VT-CH-894)
Wreck CCC was located via side scan sonar during the 2000 Lake Survey in Shelburne
Bay. A shoreline transect was recorded in this area in order to complete this portion of the
Lake Survey Project. The object, preliminarily identified as a barge, lies in a moderate
depth of water.
6
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND TO THE LAKE SURVEY PROJECT
LAKE CHAMPLAIN'S CULTURAL RESOURCES
Lake Champlain, located between the states of New York and Vermont, is considered to be
among the most historic bodies of water in North America. The extraordinary array of
historic and archaeological resources in and around Lake Champlain are the physical
evidence of a long and varied history spanning 11,300 years. Of singular importance are
Lake Champlain's historic shipwrecks, which comprise one of the largest and most intact
collections in North America. These wrecks, however, are not the only underwater
resources in Lake Champlain; an unknown number of submerged prehistoric sites, historic
dumpsites, naval battle sites, piers, cribs, and other maritime sites must also be
considered.
The human history of the Champlain Valley includes Native American settlement, French
and British exploration and occupation, early Euro-American settlement, and a dynamic
period of nineteenth-century commercial development. Past residents of the Champlain
Valley have left behind a rich heritage of cultural resources, including historic structures
and settlements, cultural landscapes, and archaeological resources. Many of these cultural
sites are concentrated along the Lake Champlain shoreline and the lake's tributaries.
Lake Champlain and its history are shared between the states of New York and Vermont
and the Canadian province of Quebec, and the lake has directly influenced the history of all
of its lakeside towns and counties. Settlement along Lake Champlain began in earnest
after the American Revolution along with the development of regional industries based on
natural resources such as timber and iron ore. Lumber camps and mining towns sprang up
in support of these industries, prompting the growth of additional economic activities such
as farming to supply food and shipping to transport raw materials. The region's economy
soon diversified beyond timber and iron, but it continued to depend upon the exploitation of
natural resources throughout the nineteenth century.
Lake vessels, so necessary for carrying goods in and out of the Champlain Valley during
the early industrial years, were gradually replaced over the course of the nineteenth century
as other forms of transportation and communication developed. With each new advance in
transportation and communication technology, fewer vessels were used on Lake
Champlain. The development of bridges, railroads, highways, telegraphs, telephones,
airplanes, and pipelines ultimately ended Lake Champlain's waterborne carrying trade.
Today, the vestiges of Lake Champlain’s once-active shipping industry are preserved
almost exclusively on the lake bottom as submerged cultural resources.
The types of submerged cultural resources in Lake Champlain vary greatly, ranging from
large, complex sites such as shipwrecks and harbor works to small, limited sites such as
prehistoric fish weirs or canal boat trash sites. No matter how large or how small, how
noteworthy or how mundane, these archaeological resources all provide important
information about everyday interactions between Lake Champlain, the region’s inhabitants,
7
and the area’s resources. Generally in a better state of preservation than terrestrial sites,
shipwreck sites and their associated artifacts have the additional advantage of representing
a single moment in time, preserving in its entirety a discrete event or circumstance. The
information provided by underwater archaeological research complements and often can
be used to support information provided by land archaeology and historical research.
LAKE CHAMPLAIN UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
As specified by the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 USC 2101), the states of New
York and Vermont are to develop an inventory of cultural resources in Lake Champlain in
preparation for the development of a lake-wide cultural resource management plan. This
effort progressed gradually until 1993, when zebra mussels were discovered in Lake
Champlain, presenting a significant threat to the lake’s underwater cultural resources.
These non-native nuisance mollusks colonize on submerged structures such as
shipwrecks, encrusting the surfaces, obscuring valuable details, and degrading the
resources through the corrosive action caused by the acidic microenvironment they create.
Mitigating measures are being sought, but an effective means to protect underwater
cultural resources from the impact of these mussels has not yet been found. The Lake
Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) acknowledged the threat that zebra mussels posed for
the lake's cultural resources; in 1995, the LCBP sponsored the LCMM in a study of the
impact of zebra mussels on Lake Champlain's shipwrecks (Cohn 1996).
After the ominous conclusions in the LCMM’s zebra mussel impact study, the LCBP
determined that the first step necessary to adequately protect any threatened cultural
resources was to accelerate the inventory of the lake’s shipwreck sites. On August 28,
1995 the LCMM responded to the request issued by the LCBP's Lake Champlain
Management Conference, in conjunction with its Technical Advisory Committee and the
Cultural Resources Working Group, for a proposal for an underwater cultural resources
survey of Lake Champlain. The intent of the proposed project was to initiate the largescale, lake-wide survey entitled the Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey (or Lake Survey). The LCMM was granted the project in the fall of 1995, and
planning for the 1996 field season commenced immediately.
The Lake Survey's primary function is to locate and inventory previously undocumented
underwater cultural resources in New York and Vermont waters. The actual search for new
resources, however, is only a small part of a much larger project, which was divided into
five stages: planning, background research, field survey, data analysis, and report
preparation. The initial scope of work for the Lake Survey set the standards and
background for the multi-year survey and explained the research design of the Lake
Survey. It also requested the compilation of a series of reports, which present the results of
that year’s field season and make recommendations regarding the following issues:
•
•
•
The protection and management of Lake Champlain’s underwater cultural resources.
Future inventory, research, and documentation efforts.
The potential for nominating specific new sites to the National Register of Historic
Places.
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The feasibility of including any of the new discoveries in an underwater historic preserve
program.
The potential of other types of public access.
The development of interpretative and educational programs using newly located
resources.
The potential need for site monitoring programs.
The feasibility and cost benefits of recovery, conservation, and public exhibition of
particular artifacts found during the survey.
The potential need to revise current zebra mussel mitigation measures.
The need for burial of artifacts found exposed and vulnerable to theft, vandalism, or
zebra mussel damage.
LAKE SURVEY PLANNING
Planning for the Lake Survey first began during the fall of 1995. The initial steps of the
planning process involved identifying the overall goals and methodology of the entire
survey, then particular objectives and methods for each field season. Developing the
survey in this manner ensures that the Lake Survey's objectives will be maintained
throughout the multi-year project, that data will be gathered consistently, and that long-term
care and management of the survey archives will be secured. Factors that could limit the
project's outcome include the availability of equipment, trained personnel, funding, and time
to complete the project. The amount of time researchers will have to complete the project
has been based on approximations of the speed at which zebra mussels will colonize on
the lake's resources and the length of time it will take for quagga mussels and other
threatening species to infest Lake Champlain.
The primary goal of the Lake Survey is to locate and identify all cultural properties
preserved on the floor of Lake Champlain to facilitate the development of a comprehensive
resource management plan. The project must be completed within five to eight years, so
that researchers will still be able to return to these resources and document the most
significant finds before they became badly encrusted. This goal is made somewhat more
difficult by the geography of the region; the surface of the lake covers approximately 436mi2
(1130km2), but the deep, mountain-like bottom topography of Lake Champlain has a much
greater surface area.
The most effective use of the time and funding available for the Lake Survey is to search
first for large cultural resources in Lake Champlain that extend above the lake bottom.
These resources are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of nuisance species and their
environment, as well as vandalism and theft. Once these sites are identified, then the
survey will concentrate on smaller, scattered assemblages, and finally those properties
buried in the lake's sediments.
Some parts of the bottom of Lake Champlain have been surveyed or investigated in the
past, so the areas of Lake Champlain with the least amount of archaeological data were
prioritized. The first of these areas was examined during the 1996 Lake Survey. Also,
statistical information collected on zebra mussel infestations indicates that certain areas of
9
the lake are experiencing earlier and greater zebra mussel colonization as a result of depth
and current. These areas were given second priority for the survey. For the following
seasons, these factors were reevaluated, and the areas deemed to be the least studied
and most endangered were chosen for study. The selection of survey areas for each year,
however, must remain flexible to allow for variables such as poor weather conditions and
changes in priorities.
LAKE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A consistent general methodology for the Lake Survey is a priority that ensures the
procedures used throughout the multi-year project will continue to meet the original goals.
This general methodology guarantees the effectiveness and accuracy of the survey data
collected in subsequent years. It will, however, need to remain flexible in order to reflect
the availability of research tools, personnel, and funding. The stages in conducting the
survey of an area should include background research, field survey, post-survey research,
and analysis.
In an effort to approximate locations of sites prior to the commencement of the sonar
survey, the research team conducted documentary research, informant interviews, and a
land-surface inspection of the shoreline surrounding the project areas for potential evidence
of submerged archaeological sites in adjacent waters. A literature search and sensitivity
assessment was also completed prior to the lake-based survey of the project areas. This
information assisted in the determination of appropriate field procedures for each area.
The literature search gathered information concerning the environmental and cultural
setting of each specific project area, since the relationship between the physical
environment and the cultural setting provided the basis for the sensitivity assessment of the
project area. The summary of the environmental setting of each project area included a
consideration of relevant geology, geomorphology, hydrology, flora, fauna, climate, soils,
and human and natural disturbances. The background research for the cultural setting
included a preliminary review of manuscripts, maps, atlases, historical documents,
unpublished notes of previous surveys, site inventories, and published material relevant to
the project area. A preliminary examination of both environmental and cultural background
may help locate possible sites and provide the basis for documenting the cultural setting for
the project area.
Another viable source of information about Lake Champlain’s cultural resources is the local
population, especially those individuals interested in or living near a specific project area,
who may have important information not available anywhere else. Such information can
greatly enhance data gathered from the written record alone. Informant interviews with
citizens who may be familiar with the project area and possible archaeological sites can
make a valuable contribution to these investigations. A visit to the shoreline adjacent to the
project area or an underwater survey of the area may also be undertaken with informants
who know the locations of potentially significant sites.
10
Background information gathered in the ways mentioned above will provide for the
development of general expectations regarding the nature and location of sites in the
project area. The sources from which the background information can be drawn vary
according to the project size and location and the availability of documents. All background
information will be presented and analyzed to assist in the evaluation of the environmental
and cultural resources within and surrounding the immediate project area.
The final, ultimate goal of the Lake Survey is to have total confidence that, when the survey
team leaves a certain area, that area will have been exhaustively examined for the types of
targets that the survey team hoped to locate. The survey team acknowledges, however,
that no matter how rigorous and intense the survey approach, there can be no absolute
certainty that all archaeologically significant finds or sites have been located within a survey
area. The fact that nothing was detected does not necessarily mean that nothing was
there. The accuracy of survey mapping and survey data computerization is crucial in this
regard. The survey team needs to know what areas have been covered and what areas
have not. If some gaps appear between survey areas, they can be evaluated during a later
survey. Also, the data-capturing system provides an easy, convenient way of reviewing the
survey data.
Archaeology is a field that borrows from a number of disciplines. Developments within the
fields of marine geophysics and deep-water surveillance have made a wide range of
scientific equipment available to underwater archaeology. This technology allows very
effective archaeological investigations of previously inaccessible marine environments,
such as the deeper areas of Lake Champlain. Remote sensing tools have the ability to
collect large amounts of information quickly and at some distance from the source without
risking the safety of scuba divers. Such equipment allows search patterns to be more
widely spaced and survey work to be completed at a greater speed than divers can
achieve. Remote sensing equipment can also operate in zero underwater visibility and can
detect certain classes of information that are buried under bottom sediments. Additionally,
remote-operated vehicles (ROVs) can perform many of the tasks of a diver, including visual
searches, videography, and photography.
The Lake Survey implemented a search pattern that covered 100 percent of the lake
bottom for depths greater than approximately 12ft (3.7m). Potential types of targets
included shipwrecks, breakwaters, jetties, cribs, and other marine structures. Such
structures are generally constructed of wood, stone, earth, and a small amount of metal.
Consequently, Lake Survey planners decided to utilize both electronic equipment and freeswimming divers to execute the project. The survey used side scan sonar to locate cultural
targets in water depths ranging from 15 to 400ft (5 to 125m) and free-swimming divers in
shallow water from 0 to 15ft (0 to 5m) when deemed necessary. This approach proved to
be the most efficient way to maximize the limited time available to complete the project, to
investigate the shallow areas of Lake Champlain, and to locate the relatively large
structures that were the survey’s most immediate priority. Once the side scan sonar survey
is completed, a different methodology will be implemented to locate smaller and buried
cultural resources.
11
Critical to the effective use of side scan sonar to locate potential cultural resources on the
lake bottom are such variables as the research vessel's speed, the width of the sonar band,
the amount of overlap in each pass, and the survey team's ability to recognize cultural
targets. The speed and efficiency of a survey is proportional to both the size and visibility
of the targets, and the visibility of a site is largely due to its density of material and size in
the horizontal and vertical planes above the bottom sediments.
All side scan sonar systems use returned acoustic energy (echoes) to create an image of
the lake bottom. The information is collected in strips depicting the lake bottom that are
later pieced together to provide a more coherent image of the bottom morphology of the
lake and any cultural features that might be preserved. A side scan sonar towfish transmits
a fan-shaped sound beam to either side of its torpedo-shaped body rather than directing it
only downward as conventional echo sounders do. Due to the high frequency (100 to 500
kHz) of side scan sonar waves, they can only image the surface of the lake bottom and do
not penetrate significantly into the bottom sediments. Cultural features that rise above the
lake bottom and have slopes that face the towfish will return stronger signals than those
features that face away. The sideways-oriented sound beam emitted from the towfish is
narrow in the vertical direction and wide in the direction transverse to the towfish track, so
the data presents a skewed or slanted image of the lake bottom. Computer software later
corrects the image to provide an accurate plan view.
The side-scan sonar is the Lake Survey Project’s primary tool for locating submerged
cultural resources. For locating shipwrecks, this device is the most widely used remotesensing technology; however, there are limitations to the data produced by this device.
These are: a) disarticulated shipwrecks can be difficult to distinguish using this technology,
b) in areas where the bottom topography is particularly rugged shipwrecks can be difficult
to separate from bottom features, c) shipwrecks located shallow water (<15ft [4.6m]) are
difficult to locate because the angle of the acoustic signal tends to be so oblique as to make
features difficult to distinguish, and d) shipwrecks which are entirely buried will not produce
a recognizable acoustic signature.
In the Lake Survey Project, as in any remote sensing survey, there is a margin of error; not
all shipwrecks will be located. It is difficult to estimate the actual number of shipwrecks
which were not located as there are no current technologies which could resurvey the area
with complete effectiveness, therefore, an accurate baseline measurement is not possible.
However, based on the characteristics of the equipment employed, some conclusions
about the survey’s margin of error based on water depths and bottom conditions can be
reached.
The survey techniques employed are most effective in areas of water depths greater than
15ft (4.6m) with relatively smooth bottom topography. Under these conditions virtually all of
the shipwrecks which protrude above the bottom sediments will be detected. In shallow
areas the survey is less effective because of the angle of the acoustic signal and the
tendency for shallow shipwrecks to be more broken up than deeper wrecks. In areas
where water depths are less than 15ft (4.6m) the current methodology would not detect
perhaps half of the submerged shipwrecks. In areas with particularly rugged bottomlands,
12
the survey’s effectiveness is also diminished. In these areas perhaps one-quarter of the
shipwrecks would not produce a signature significant enough to be distinguished from the
surrounding bottomlands. Diminished survey effectiveness is also anticipated in areas
where significant soil deposition has occurred in historic times. Areas such as those at the
mouth of a tributary or where humans have altered the lakeshore by infilling will not be
effectively surveyed using a side scan sonar. If the shipwrecks do not protrude above the
bottom sediments they will not be detected.
After a potential cultural resource is located, the target can be verified by scuba divers or
an ROV, depending upon the site’s depth. Next, certain evaluations must be made
regarding the site's boundaries, date, cultural origin, function, context, data potential,
integrity, and the artifacts present at the site. Whenever possible, this information is
collected during a general documentation of the site by means of still photographs, video
documentation, sketches, basic recording of dimensions, and field notes.
When a site is deemed to have significant archaeological potential it often becomes the
focus of a more detailed examination. Archaeological work underwater is a complicated
and challenging endeavor. The additional hurdles of temperature, darkness, isolation, and
pressure, make archaeological work underwater extremely time consuming and expensive.
Despite these impediments accurate recording of underwater sites is possible with the aid
of specialized equipment and training.
When an archaeological diver descends to a site he or she often takes along an assortment
of special equipment (Figure 2-1). Information is recorded on clipboards that are covered
with mylar, which allows the investigator to take notes underwater with an ordinary pencil.
Measurements are taken through the use of flexible tape measures and rulers. One of the
most difficult (and important) aspects of ship construction that must be recorded
underwater, is the curvature of the vessel’s hull. This is often carried out with a special
device known as a goniometer. This piece of equipment consists of a digital carpenter’s
level mounted in an underwater housing and affixed to a plexigalss base of a
predetermined length, usually 1ft (.3m). By “walking” this device along the curve of the
vessel’s hull, while recording the angle of each increment, an accurate record of the hull’s
shape can be recorded.
In many cases portions of sites are covered with sediment. A number of different devices
are employed to uncover the vessel’s hull and any buried artifacts. The most common of
these is the underwater dredge. This is often likened to an underwater vacuum cleaner. In
a controlled manner the dredge removes the silt and redeposits it off site, exposing the
remains of the vessel.
13
Figure 2-1. Typical underwater archaeological tools (photograph by Adam Kane).
As a site is uncovered artifacts are commonly discovered. When this occurs it is important
to record the precise location of the item before it is removed for closer examination. The
location of the artifact, commonly referred to as its provenience, and its relation to other
artifact locations can often reveal as much information to an archaeologist as the artifact
itself.
While the underwater portion of a project is of obvious importance, it is the work carried out
on land after the diving is finished that reveals the majority of information about a site. It is
through the analysis of the information recorded and artifacts recovered that the most
important discoveries are often made. This analysis can include a paper reconstruction of
the vessel studied, and research into the artifacts removed from the site. By carrying out
comparisons with other known vessels and artifact collections, a broader picture of the
vessel type and the people who operated them can be gained.
In addition to cultural information, geophysical and sedimentological data are gathered
during the side scan sonar survey. Topography of the sediment surface as well as the
physical characteristics of exposed cultural features, bedrock, sediments, and rocks affects
14
the strength of the returned sound beam. The more uneven the lake bottom, the more
energy is returned to the towfish. Therefore, a qualitative measurement of sediment grain
size can be determined by the strength of the return. This information will enable
researchers to study patterns in sedimentary beds and to develop models of bottom water
circulation within the lake.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The Lake Survey Project was carried out in accordance with the principles and standards
established by the National Park Service (1983), the Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation (Peebles 1989), and the New York Archaeological Council (1994). All
historical and archaeological research was conducted under the direct supervision of
capable individuals who met the appropriate qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (FR 36 CFR 61).
Methods and procedures used to document the archaeological and geological resources
found during the survey were standard techniques commonly employed in the fields of
archaeology and remote sensing. These underwater archaeological standards are
discussed in a number of archaeological manuals (Anderson Jr. 1988; Dean et al. 1995;
Green 1990; Lipke et al. 1993; Steffy 1994). References to specific archaeological
techniques, such as archaeological illustration and photography, also generated standards
for the project (Addington 1986; Adkins and Adkins 1994; Dillon 1992; Dorrell 1989; Howell
and Blanc 1995). Specific methods and procedures used during the project followed the
operating practices of LCMM personnel, who have compiled significant backgrounds in
archaeology and history from their training and experience.
SAFETY
It cannot be overemphasized that safety is of prime importance on any archaeological
project. No data is worth the risk of injury, which automatically defeats all educational and
research goals of the project. Throughout the Lake Survey Project safe scientific diving
and work practices were conducted at all times following research and industry standards
(Flemming and Max 1996; Miller 1991). To ensure the safety of the diving staff, the survey
team followed a general code of practice for scientific diving that adhered to federal, state,
and industry safety standards (Flemming and Max 1996). A Diving Safety Officer (DSO)
was selected for the project to coordinate diving operations and to deal with all matters
concerning dive safety. This highly experienced divemaster was responsible for evaluating
divers’ qualifications, experience, and medical fitness for the project’s activities. The
divemaster was also responsible for establishing the project’s diving and safety procedures.
Conducting archaeology in Lake Champlain requires highly skilled scuba divers with
experience in cold, dark, limited-visibility waters. The lake’s soft, muddy bottom requires
consistently well-executed diving techniques. Project divers had to be comfortable in this
setting and able to conduct documentation tasks. Due to the demanding work required in
documenting the lake's cultural resources, most of the survey divers were professional
15
underwater archaeologists and divers who had been involved in previous archaeological
projects on Lake Champlain and elsewhere.
At the conclusion of every dive beyond the depth of 30ft (9m), divers observed a safety
stop at 15ft (5m) for a minimum of 3 minutes. Each diver was required to surface with a
minimum of 300psi (21 bar) in his or her primary scuba tank. Each diver on the project
carried a back-up breathing system in the form of a pony bottle. If the dive required
auxiliary lights, then each diver was expected to carry at least two light sources, one
primary and one reserve.
Lake Champlain's cold water requires divers to wear thermal protection in the form of a
wetsuit or drysuit depending on depth and time of year. In addition to thermal insulation,
such suits also offer protection from abrasion and from the sharp shells of zebra mussels.
In most cases, research divers relied on drysuits, since wetsuits are effective over only a
narrow temperature range. Drysuits can be used over a wider temperature range by
varying the amount of insulation worn beneath the suit. Drysuits provide greater thermal
protection, which allows longer bottom times, reduces fatigue from the effects of cold water,
and leads to safer dives. A full-face mask can also help to keep a diver's face warm and
dry; however, in the event of a failed primary regulator, the diver loses both mask and air
supply. For this reason, all divers on the project who chose to wear a full-face mask carried
a spare mask while underwater.
The penetration of underwater structures, such as shipwrecks, was carried out with
extreme care in order to prevent injury to either the structure or the diver. In most cases,
safety lines were not used, since such lines often contribute to the greater danger of
entanglement. No matter what the depth, penetration dives required the use of a pony
bottle.
Shipwrecks and other structures attract fish, which in turn attract fisherman. The almost
transparent monofilament fishing line that often snags on underwater structures can easily
entangle a diver. For safety, divers wore at least one dive knife, although two were strongly
recommended. The primary knife was worn in the traditional location on the inside of the
leg, while the second knife was placed closer to the chest area.
16
VOLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT
Underwater archaeological operations generally require considerably more technical
support than land projects. Every minute spent working on an underwater archaeological
site requires two or more hours of work on the surface and shore. This non-diving work
includes tending equipment, maintaining logbooks, recopying underwater notes, pre- and
post-survey research, project planning, post-fieldwork recording and analysis, writing the
archaeological report and publications, and presenting and interpreting project results for
the public. A large array of specialized equipment is necessary for underwater
archaeology, including a boat, air compressors, scuba gear, side scan sonar, and ROVs.
These technical pieces of equipment require professional maintenance and/or operators.
However, diving and non-diving volunteers can complete a large number of related tasks,
such as maintaining the navigation and dive logbooks, assisting in gear handling, taking
project photographs, and prepping the divers. Whenever possible, the Lake Survey
attempted to utilize available volunteers.
POST-SURVEY RESEARCH
Certain LCMM staff members and volunteers have been researching the history of Lake
Champlain for nearly half a century. The LCMM is currently developing an integrated
computer database of its collection of documents and artifacts related to the history of Lake
Champlain, a goal that should be accomplished within the next few years. The LCMM is
also building a complete record of all maritime sites in the Champlain Valley. Identification
of the cultural resources located during the survey will depend greatly upon existing
archival records. Comparing the condition, age, construction, size, location, type of
resource, and other distinguishing features with archival records can identify some cultural
properties.
PUBLIC INTERPRETATION
Information about the Lake Survey project and its findings is presented to the public by the
LCMM through a range of exhibitions, public programs and publications. The exhibition
gallery in the LCMM’s Nautical Archaeology Center (NAC) features the exhibition
“Shipwrecks: A Porthole to History;” a touch-screen “Virtual Diver” that allows visitors to
visually explore two significant underwater sites; a photomosaic of the bottom of Burlington
Harbor with interpretation of geological and cultural features; and exhibition panels that
explain the Lake Survey project’s goals, methodology, equipment, and findings. A video of
the Lake Survey findings, updated annually, can be viewed by visitors in the exhibit gallery,
and is also used in the LCMM’s education programs for school groups and adult audiences.
These exhibitions, videos, and educational programs encourage visitors to consider the
issues related to preservation and protection of underwater cultural resources. The
discovery of the 1776 gunboat provided an outstanding opportunity to involve the public.
Following the 1997 Lake Survey discovery, LCMM’s interpretive exhibition, “Key to Liberty:
the Revolutionary War in the Champlain Valley” was redesigned to include information
about the discovery, trace the changes in community involvement with historic shipwrecks
17
from the eighteenth century to the present, and invite public comments on the future
interpretation and preservation of the gunboat found during the Lake survey. The public
survey was also added to the museum’s website.
Lake Survey findings are incorporated into educational programs for students. “Digging,
Diving and Documenting” takes participants step-by-step through the archaeological
investigation of a simulated shipwreck and relates this experience to the ongoing
investigations of the Lake Survey. Visiting school groups have the choice of participating in
a workshop, or using interpretive materials for self-guided learning. Internships in the
LCMM’s conservation laboratory allow high school, college and graduate students to be
directly involved in the object treatment, documentation and research related to Lake
Survey sites, and to assist in interpreting these activities to the public
LAKE SURVEY REPORT SERIES
At the conclusion of each year of the Lake Survey, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
will prepare a report that presents the results of the year's investigations. These reports will
include a discussion of the survey design and methodology, complete site survey records,
and a list of all sites located that year. Each survey report will be included as part of the
series called the Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey. Although each
report will be designed to stand alone, the first report in the series (Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Vol. I: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results)
is the only one that contains the general environmental and cultural background data of the
entire Champlain Valley. All subsequent reports, including this report for 1999 and 2000,
will address only specific survey areas investigated in those particular years and the
progress made in collecting additional data about the lake's resources. Readers are
advised to refer to the 1996 report for in-depth information about Lake Champlain’s general
environmental and cultural history.
One objective of the Lake Survey is to present project results to the public, government
agencies, and other reviewers of this report, but another responsibility of the project is to
protect all newly discovered, fragile archaeological resources from potential damage or
danger. Consequently, precise site locations are excluded from the body of the report and
are presented in a non-public appendix to the document.
The conclusion of the Lake Survey will make possible the development of a lake-wide
cultural resource management plan, which will be based largely upon the Lake Survey
report series. The extensive archival research, informant interviews, fieldwork, and data
analysis performed for the Lake Survey will provide most of the background necessary to
develop the plan. Lake Survey data will also help greatly in generating recommendations
for the responsible long-term management and development of Lake Champlain's cultural
resources.
18
PROJECT ARCHIVE AND REPOSITORY
The Lake Survey archives are maintained in the Nautical Archaeology Center at the Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum. This facility houses an archaeology/conservation laboratory,
a research library, and a climate-controlled collections storage facility. Lake Survey
materials will be processed, documented, and curated at the LCMM as outlined by the
National Park Service (1983), the state of Vermont (Peebles 1989), and the New York
Archaeological Council (1994). The survey archives will be available to public and private
organizations and individuals with sincere research interests.
19
CHAPTER III: 1999-2000 LAKE SURVEY
PROJECT PLANNING
Formal planning for both the 1999 and 2000 Lake Surveys began during the winter
proceeding each field season, when the survey team established its goals for that year. As
it had been in 1996 through 1998, the Lake Survey’s primary missions in both 1999 and
2000 were: 1) to locate all cultural resources standing above the lake bottom within the
designated survey area, and 2) to map the surface of the lake bottom and its geological
features. Project planning for both seasons had to account for many variables, including
the size of the survey area, anticipated types of cultural resources, obtainable funding,
equipment considerations, availability of personnel, weather issues, and the length of each
field season. With the very successful previous seasons as models, the survey crew
tackled these issues and came up with a workable plan.
PROJECT METHODS AND LOGISTICS
The field component of the 1999 Lake Survey was divided into three distinct operations:
sonar survey, target verification with a remote-operated vehicle (ROV), and lastly a more
detailed recording of some sites by archaeological divers. The 2000 Lake Survey
conducted a sonar survey and archaeological documentation, but no ROV survey. The
primary function of both seasons’ sonar survey was to locate all major cultural properties on
the lake floor that stand above the bottom sediments and are therefore vulnerable to zebra
and quagga mussel encrustation. A non-destructive survey using side scan sonar was the
most effective way to locate these targets in water depths greater than 20ft (6.1m).
Shallower waters were left for divers to survey at a later date. After sonar located potential
targets, free-swimming divers investigated all targets that were located in depths within safe
recreational diving limits. Targets located in deeper water required ROV verification. A
ROV survey of deep targets was conducted in 1999, and deep targets from the 2000
season are being verified during the summer of 2001. Finally, sites located in divable
depths were subjected to a more thorough documentation by archaeological divers and
added to the growing database of Lake Champlain shipwreck sites.
Logistically, the 1999 and 2000 field seasons of the Lake Survey were very straightforward,
since a well-organized system had been established in the previous seasons. The first
phase of the 1996 field season had been dedicated to assembling a survey crew,
configuring the appropriate survey equipment, and establishing procedures and standards
following EPA's quality assurance/quality control standards, so the efficient, scientific
survey of 1996 has simply continued in the subsequent years. R/V Neptune continues to
be the survey's primary work platform because of its array of electronic survey equipment.
During both the 1999 and 2000 seasons the survey team used a Klein 595 side scan sonar
unit from Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont. The 984ft (300m) armored cable that
Middlebury College had purchased for the 1996 season allowed the sonar towfish to be
flown at an appropriate height off the lake bottom at any depth encountered during the
survey. The cable’s hydraulic reel control system, which had been modified to fit R/V
20
Neptune, permitted constant modifications to the depth of the towfish to keep it in its ideal
range.
R/V Neptune's navigational control systems are integrated with the vessel’s autopilot,
navigation station, and a data-acquiring computer. This network of systems ensures that
the vessel’s course follows precise track lines that overlapped adequately and cover the
entire lake bottom in the survey area. The data acquisition and processing computer ISIS,
manufactured by Triton Industries, allowed the survey team to record all sonar data
simultaneously with position by latitude and longitude, depth, and height of the towfish off
the bottom. The ISIS system also captured information about any target for later analysis.
The side scan sonar operation required R/V Neptune to drag the torpedo-shaped towfish
between 16.4 and 32.8ft (5 and 10m) above the lake bottom. The towfish transmits an
acoustic signal across the bottom about 327ft (100m) to each side. The signal is reflected
off the lake floor, returned to the towfish, and travels up the cable to a recording unit, which
translates the data into an image of the bottom. In order to ensure complete coverage of
the survey area, the methodical survey lines followed preplanned, overlapping survey
routes. This course was entered into the navigational control system with a differential
global positioning system (DGPS), which controlled Neptune’s autopilot and ensured that
the lines were straight and true to course.
Although a continuous record of the lake bottom was captured on paper, the ISIS datacapturing computer allowed the survey team to store, print, and analyze bottom and
positional data in a more complete, digitized form. The survey team could therefore print
out specific targets, create a mosaic of the bottom, enhance images of the targets, and
manage the data more efficiently. Although the position of the research vessel was
automatically recorded on each transect, the survey team also manually plotted their
position every two minutes and recorded it in the project’s navigational logbook. Any
potentially significant cultural or geological feature or observation about survey operations
was also recorded in the project log.
Once the search portion of the project was completed, the survey team moved on to the
verification stage. This phase involved first relocating the targets of interest and marking
them with buoys. A team of divers then descended to assess the site, to attempt to identify
its origin, use, and clues to its demise, to take its dimensions, and to note safety issues for
a second team of divers. After receiving a briefing from the first team, the second team
then descended and documented the site on videotape. Verified cultural targets were also
documented with sketches, measurements, and notes. Several wrecks that were deemed
particularly significant were studied in more detail, as archaeological divers spent one or
more days recording the site and the hull’s construction features. Archaeological
documentation goals included recording vessel dimensions, examining vessel construction,
and recording data that might lead to the identification of the wreck whenever possible.
This work was conducted not only on vessels located during the sonar survey, but also on
sites that local divers had reported to the LCMM.
21
Targets located in water deeper than 120ft (36.6m) during the 1999 field season, received
ROV verification in August of that year. Benthos, Inc., of Falmouth, Massachusetts,
conducted the ROV survey in cooperation with the Lake Survey team. Benthos brought to
Lake Champlain a large open-framed ROV, which was equipped with a battery of video and
digital still-image camera systems. The ROV survey team relocated and imaged five deepwater targets. The ROV gathered detailed images through a variety of means, including
still photography, digital photography, and video. The deep water sites located during the
2000 Lake Survey were not verified by ROV in 2000; they are scheduled to be examined in
2001.
After the completion of fieldwork, historical researchers on the survey team attempted to
identify the newly discovered shipwrecks and the circumstances that had deposited each of
them on the lake bottom. Survey team geologists analyzed the side scan sonar data for
potentially significant geological features to be investigated later. The final step in both the
1999 and 2000 survey was the preparation of this report.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
The 1999-2000 survey team consisted of thirteen individuals, whose work was supported
by the large number of others mentioned in the acknowledgments of this report. The
survey team was composed of highly trained personnel, all of whom contributed a wide
range of skills and abilities to the Lake Survey Project.
Kathy Baumann served as navigator and sonar operator during the 1997 through 2000
side scan survey portions of the Lake Survey Project
Arthur B. Cohn has a B.A. in sociology from the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio,
and a J.D. from Boston College Law School. Director of the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, he is the principal investigator and safety officer for the Lake Survey Project.
Cohn is a professional diver and has coordinated and participated in Lake Champlain’s
archaeological projects for the past twenty years. As the Lake Survey’s principal
investigator, Cohn organized and supervised much of the sonar survey, organized the
1999-2000 archaeological documentation efforts, contributed to the survey’s historical
research, and oversaw the production of this report.
A. Peter Barranco Jr. served as navigation control specialist and historian for the 1999 and
2000 Lake Survey. Barranco has a B.S. in engineering from Hofstra University in
Hempstead, New York, and is a registered professional engineer (civil) in Vermont. His
interests in underwater archaeology began when he worked for the late Lorenzo F.
Hagglund in search and salvage operations on a number of wrecks of historical importance
in Lake Champlain, Lake George, and the Richelieu River. Since 1953, Barranco has
conducted a comprehensive survey and inventory of information related to Lake Champlain
vessels. He has provided research support on various underwater archaeological projects
conducted in Lake Champlain over the past twenty years (Barranco 1995).
22
Kevin J. Crisman participated as a consultant for the 1999 and 2000 Lake Survey
archaeological projects. Currently an associate professor of nautical archaeology at TAMU,
Crisman completed a B.A. in anthropology at the University of Vermont (UVM) in
Burlington, Vermont, a M.A. in anthropology (Nautical Archaeology Program) at TAMU, and
a M.A. and Ph.D. in American civilizations (Historical Archaeology Program) at the
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He has been coordinating and participating in
Lake Champlain’s archaeological studies for the last twenty years.
Frederick Fayette served as the captain of R/V Neptune and electronic technician during
the 1999 and 2000 sonar surveys. Fred’s experience as an aviation electronics technician
in the U.S. Navy was essential in the integration and maintenance of the numerous
electronic components of the survey. Since 1989, Fayette and Neptune have contributed
significantly toward most of the archaeological projects on Lake Champlain.
Matt Hommeyer served as a computer operator during the acquisition of digital side scan
sonar data in 1998. Hommeyer is currently completing a B.A. in geology at Middlebury
College.
Adam Kane participated in the Lake Survey’s 1999 and 2000 archaeological field seasons
as a crew chief and project manager. He also contributed to, organized, edited, and
finalized the project report. Kane has a B.A. in anthropology from Millersville University of
Pennsylvania, and a M.A. in anthropology from the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas
A&M University. He has worked on terrestrial and underwater projects across the country.
Pierre LaRocque participated in the Lake Survey’s 1999 and 2000 archaeological field
seasons as archaeological diver, underwater photographer, and boat captain for dive
operations. He also served as an assistant divemaster and was one of the professional
divers who verified target sites identified by side scan sonar. LaRocque is a dive instructor
and has a B.A. in history from UVM. He participated in the LCMM/TAMU/UVM field school
to excavate the War of 1812 vessels Allen and Linnet in 1995.
Patricia L. Manley and Thomas O. Manley served as the survey team’s geologists and side
scan sonar and computer operators. Patricia Manley has a Ph.D. in marine geology and
geophysics from Columbia University in New York City, New York. Thomas O. Manley has
a Ph.D. in oceanography, also from Columbia University. Since 1989, both have served as
researchers and professors in the Department of Geology at Middlebury College. They
have collaborated on a large number of geological research projects on Lake Champlain
and have assisted in the location of cultural resources on a number of previous Lake
Champlain archaeological projects (Frink et al. 1991; Manley et al. 1995). Both brought
considerable technological expertise to the project.
Scott A. Padeni contributed information on the ongoing survey of the northern end of Lake
George. He received a B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies with a concentration in American
History and Archaeology from Empire State College, State University of New York. He has
been an active participant in archaeological fieldwork throughout the Champlain Valley and
Lake George regions. He participated in the 1995 field school to excavate and record the
23
War of 1812 vessels Allen and Linnet, and has worked closely with the underwater historic
preserve system on Lake George.
Christopher R. Sabick served as archaeologist, historian, and writer for the 1999 and 2000
Lake Survey Projects. He earned a B.A. in history and anthropology from Ball State
University in Muncie, Indiana, and he is completing an M.A. in anthropology from the
Nautical Archaeology Program at TAMU. He has also worked on projects in the Caribbean
and Ontario, Canada, and he is the LCMM’s Director of Conservation.
Erick Tichonuk participated in the Lake Survey’s 1999 and 2000 archaeological field
seasons. Tichonuk is a dive instructor and has a B.A. in History from University of Vermont
in Burlington, Vermont. He has been on the staff of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
since 1985 and has participated in a number of the museum’s archaeological projects.
SURVEY DIVERS AND DIVING SAFETY
The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum takes a safety-first approach to all of its
archaeological projects, an approach that dominates all other objectives for any project.
Project personnel are directly responsible for ensuring that project activities enhance this
goal. In order to monitor dive safety, Arthur Cohn served as the diving safety officer on the
project and performed all dive planning. Assistant divemasters David Andrews, Adam
Kane, Pierre LaRocque, Erick Tichonuk, and Captain Fred Fayette assisted the diving
safety officer.
Survey divers verified and evaluated cultural targets in water depths less than 120ft
(36.6m). Only professional divers who have been involved in previous archaeological
projects on Lake Champlain participated in the verification phase of the project. These
divers included Arthur Cohn, Jonathan Eddy, Adam Kane, Pierre LaRocque, and Erick
Tichonuk. All of the divers on the project were certified in first aid, CPR, and oxygen
administration.
SURVEY VESSELS
The project's primary survey vessel was the R/V Neptune, owned and operated by Fred
Fayette of Milton, Vermont. R/V Neptune is 40ft (12m) long with a 12.5ft (3.8m) beam and
draws 3.5ft (1m) of water. This twin-screw steel-hulled vessel is driven by two 225-hp, 318in3 (5.2L) Chrysler inboard/outboard gasoline engines. Twelve-volt DC power is supplied
by batteries charged by the ship's alternators, while 110 and 220 VAC is supplied from a
Kohler 75-kW generator.
The superstructure of R/V Neptune consists of a wood cabin approximately 10ft (3m) wide,
30ft (9m) long, and 8ft (2.5m) high with a mast supporting navigation, radio, and radar
antennas. The cabin is divided into two separate levels; the upper level is the wheelhouse,
while the lower contains the operational center of the lake survey and houses the
computer, mapping, and logistics areas.
24
Navigation and positioning aboard R/V Neptune were achieved using a NorthStar 941X
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) that worked in conjunction with a Cetrek
autopilot system. A Raytheon Loran-C navigation system and an electronic fluxgate
compass supported the DGPS. For heavy fog and nighttime operations, R/V Neptune was
equipped with a Raytheon R40 Raster Scan radar system with a maximum range of 24mi
(39km.). Information from the DGPS, the Loran-C, and the electronic compass systems
could be displayed on the radar screen simultaneously with the radar information. An
interface between these systems and R/V Neptune's computer and video plotter further
enhanced visual display and storage of navigational information.
R/V Neptune also has a digital color scanning sonar, a Wesmar 800HD. This system has a
range of 2400ft (732m), and its sound beam can be directed a full 360 degrees horizontally
and 0 to 90 degrees vertically. The Wesmar system was critical in determining the bottom
topography ahead of the vessel to regulate towfish depth effectively and to avoid collisions
with the bottom. Other geophysical tools aboard R/V Neptune included two graphic depth
recorders and an underwater video system. The primary depth information was collected
using a Furuno FCV667 color video sounder that can be selected to operate at 50 or 200
kHz.
A hydraulic winch placed on top of the deckhouse served to deploy and retrieve the tow
cable for the side scan sonar. The winch could be controlled from either the operations
area or the stern deck outside. To ensure the proper bending radius of the steel tow cable,
an 8in diameter (20cm) sheave was hung from a rigid steel frame off the stern. Colored
markers on the steel cable indicated the amount of cable deployed.
SIDE SCAN SONAR
Sound has proven to be a valuable tool for studying underwater features. Depending upon
the size of the feature to be imaged, different acoustical equipment can be employed to
acquire the desired data and resolution. For the 1999-2000 Lake Survey, a Klein 595
short-range side scan sonar unit was used because of its ability to detect lake bottom
features even less than 3ft (1m) in size.
Side scan sonar records do not typically produce true plan-view maps of the lake bottom,
but rather a slightly distorted image called a slant-range view. The image is slanted
because the towfish emits sound waves at an angle to the bottom and because the vertical
position of the towfish relative to the lake bottom is not considered when the output is
printed. Post-processing the original data with relatively simple algorithms can provide
slant-range-corrected or plan-view maps. These calculations require knowledge of the
towfish's three-dimensional position within the water column and its speed over the bottom.
Computer-assisted mapping systems, such as the ISIS System used for this project, have
the capability of producing real-time plan-view maps of the bottom on a computer monitor,
while at the same time significantly enhancing the original signal. These computer
programs make it possible to interpret bottom morphology and locations of cultural features
easily as the towfish gathers data.
25
A dual frequency (100 and 500 kHz) Klein Digital Side Scan Sonar System 595, equipped
with a depressor wing, was used during the survey. The towfish was towed approximately
33ft (10m) off the lake bottom at speeds ranging from 3.5 to 5.8mph (3 to 5 knots). In order
to map even the lake’s greater depths, a 984ft (300m) steel-armored cable was purchased
by Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, along with a transport drum, a deployment
drum, and a trailer. This cable, purchased in 1996, has proven essential for mapping the
main lake, where maximum water depth is approximately 409ft (125m).
The lateral distance mapped by the sonar was set to 328ft (100m), thereby generating data
for a 656ft (200m) swath along each towfish track. To ensure complete coverage of the
lake bottom, the towfish tracks were offset by 574ft (175m), so that each consecutive swath
overlapped the previous one by 82ft (25m). Where conditions prevented the desired line
spacing, good navigational control made it possible to return to fill small gaps. The shallow
sections in the survey area where it was not feasible to use side scan sonar will require
diver surveys.
The analog data from the sonar was recorded in several ways to achieve redundancy. The
raw data stream was recorded on magnetic tape using a TEAC RT-16 FM recorder and on
a 1.2 GB optical platter using ISIS data-acquisition software. A real-time visual display of
the side scan sonar data on board R/V Neptune was also crucial for the location and
identification of cultural features and for the safety of the sonar unit. These displays
consisted of a black and white paper record produced by a Klein thermal chart recorder and
an ISIS computer monitor display, which was set up to mimic the thermal printer showing
the 100 and 500 kHz signal returns from the towfish.
Each imaging system acted as a redundant backup for the other. With regard for the
primary safety of the sonar, however, the computer display provided output several
seconds ahead of the thermal head printer. This faster output from the ISIS computer
software provided earlier detection not only of cultural features, but also of sudden
bathymetry changes that called for rapid adjustments in the depth of the towfish. After
encountering several undocumented shoals, the Wesmar System aboard R/V Neptune was
used to scan ahead of the boat for depth changes and therefore provide an early warning
system for the sonar operator.
All findings located by the side scan sonar were logged according to their time, date, and
position, and were labeled sequentially by number. Specific targets that were suspected to
be cultural features were labeled sequentially by letter; the survey team often revisited
these sites after the completion of each transect for better views from different angles and
towfish heights. The best of these views were eventually printed with all pertinent
information, including the sites’ catalog letters or target identification numbers.
26
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
A number of surveys have been conducted on Lake Champlain, and a great deal of time,
effort, and equipment has been invested in the search for shipwreck sites. Unfortunately,
many past projects were accomplished unsystematically, with little consideration to
position-fixing or the recording of field observations. In the long run, archaeological survey
work is only beneficial if subsequent researchers can relocate previous discoveries or can
continue where the original investigators left off. In order to monitor the position of R/V
Neptune during the sonar survey, the Lake Survey required an electronic navigation and
position-fixing system.
GPS is a satellite-based navigation system that relies on a constellation of satellites
distributed around the earth. By using the precise orbits of a minimum of three satellites,
the GPS receiver can accurately determine the latitude, longitude, and elevation of the
antenna it carries aboard the research vessel, based on signal transmission times sent
from the satellites.
Two major advantages in using the 941X DGPS are the ease of creating pre-programmed
ship tracks or transects and the ease of keeping the ship on course with the DGPS's
graphical display. In order to keep the ship’s tracks precisely aligned with the pre-defined
mapping lines, a Cetrek ProPilot 700 autopilot was used on R/V Neptune. The autopilot,
after being installed and interfaced to the 941X DGPS, proved to be an indispensable tool
for the daily chore of following accurate ship tracks. Although minor corrections to the
autopilot were required, the system eliminated hours of tedious work at the ship's helm.
PRECISION DEPTH RECORDING
The lake's depth was determined during the survey with the use of a Furuno FCV667 color
video sounder precision depth recorder (PDR), which can operate at 50 or 200 kHz. The
transducer was hull-mounted on R/V Neptune 16in (41cm) below the waterline. Since the
lake level varies throughout the year, it was recorded daily from the gauge at the King
Street Ferry landing in Burlington, Vermont, for post-processing of a digital bathymetry map
of the 1999-2000 survey areas. Post-processing also assumes a constant sound speed in
the water during the survey, although the speed of sound varies with depth, water
temperature, and suspended sediments. Recorded depths must be recalculated according
to the actual average sound speed of the water column. Previous work completed with R/V
Baldwin's precision depth recorder indicates that these corrections can be accomplished
with a simple linear multiplier of the recorded depth.
DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS
The 1999 and 2000 Lake Survey utilized a number of powerful computer programs to
process and enhance the raw data stream created by the side scan sonar. The Triton ISIS
data acquisition and processing system processed, digitized, stored, and displayed the side
scan sonar data in real-time mode. Additionally, the system recorded information such as
27
DGPS position, heading, speed, and water depth. The ISIS system’s data storage facility
was its internal hard drives and a 1.2 GB optical disk.
The sonar processing and imaging software had several modes of enhancing and
displaying the sonar data. However, no matter which of these display modes was
activated, the ship's position, course over ground, speed, and water depth were always
visible in a separate display window. Of the different display options, the survey team most
frequently accessed color enhancements of the slant-range output, slant-range corrected
output, image capture of a specific target, dimensional analysis of the target (length, width,
and height), and archival storage of the target for later playback, enhancement, and
printout. The ISIS system also tracked the altitude of the towfish above the lake floor, since
this information is required for both slant-range corrected output and the production of a
final merged mosaic plot of the side scan sonar data.
During the 1996 Lake Survey, it quickly became apparent that the optical drive could not
keep up with the continuously large volume of data transmitted from the sonar. As a result,
the data was stored on faster hard drives during subsequent survey seasons and later
transferred to the optical drive. The ISIS system benefited the survey crew immensely by
displaying sonar data on the computer screen several seconds before it appeared on the
Klein printer. Target size and shape could be assessed immediately after the image
appeared on the computer screen. All of the data was archived by the system so that it
could be digitally stored for complete post-processing of specific targets as well as the
creation of a mosaic of larger tracts of lake floor.
ANALYSIS TOOLS
To date, only one section of the 1996 survey area, a portion of Cumberland Bay, has
undergone post-processing with computer analysis. The data was analyzed using Vista
software from Triton Technologies as part of a senior undergraduate thesis at Middlebury
College in Middlebury, Vermont (North 1997). The analysis encountered difficulties with the
software package and data format, but a mosaic was produced of previously
undocumented areas of pockmarks in Cumberland Bay. The Vista software was found to
be a non-user friendly, inflexible program, although Vista software updates will probably
respond to the requirements of this project.
REMOTE OPERATED VEHICLES EMPLOYED IN 1999
An advantage of the sonar survey was its ability to locate targets at all water depths, even
reaching down to Lake Champlain’s maximum depth of 409ft (125m). Survey divers
verified and evaluated cultural targets in water depths that fell within safe recreational
diving limits, but deeper sites could not receive diver verification. Instead, remote-operated
vehicles (ROVs) allowed the examination of deep-water sites without endangering diver
safety. ROVs made it possible for the survey team to subject even the deepest sites to a
lengthy, thoughtful examination while safely moored over the site. Though ROVs still have
certain limitations in comparison to adaptable divers, the ROV is an effective tool that can
and should be employed in the study of underwater sites.
28
The 1999 Lake Survey employed Benthos Incoporated’s MiniRover MKII ROV. Benthos
also supplied the expert personnel needed to pilot the delicate instrument. Working with
the survey crew on board R/V Neptune, the Benthos crew members were able to capture
more than fifteen hours of underwater footage of the deepwater wrecks as well as hundred
of digital and standard still photographs. The MiniRover system allowed images to be shot
and transferred in near real time to computers on the vessel above, thus eliminating much
of the uncertainty inherent in underwater photography. With a traditional film camera, a
photographer cannot be certain if a good image has been captured until the film is
processed. The DSC 4000 digital camera allowed its operators on the surface vessel to
review each image immediately and to retake any shots that they thought necessary. The
wealth of information captured by the ROV has allowed detailed analysis and study of
wrecks that are preserved well beyond the limits of safe diving.
29
CHAPTER IV: BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE 1999
LAKE SURVEY AREA
To provide a historic context for the reader, researchers have included brief histories of
four towns within the 1999 survey area (Figure 4-1). These locations include Vergennes
and Basin Harbor, Vermont and Port Henry and West Port, New York.
Figure 4-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1999 survey area and the towns
selected for vignettes.
30
VERGENNES, VERMONT
Vergennes, Vermont’s oldest city, was incorporated on September 29, 1788. It was named
by Ethan Allen to honor Count de Vergennes, the French minister for foreign affairs.
Because of its geographical setting, the city has never been a mere agricultural town, but
rather a home for manufacturers, merchants, professional men, mechanics, and laborers.
It is located along Otter Creek, which is not a creek at all, but at 100mi (160.9km) in length
is the longest river in Vermont. Otter Creek at Vergennes is only 7mi (11.3km) from Lake
Champlain and is navigable, allowing for considerable boating traffic. The other important
geographic feature are the nearly 40ft (12.2m) high waterfalls on Otter Creek. Already in
1786, a bridge was built across the falls.
The falls attracted industry to Vergennes, and John Strong built a saw and gristmill there in
the late eighteenth century. The first important business operation was the Monkton Iron
Works, which established itself in Vergennes in 1807. The company operated nine forges,
blast and air furnaces, a rolling mill, and a wire factory and cast most of the cannon balls
used by the American fleet in the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay in 1814. In 1809, the Monkton
Iron Works launched the eighty-foot sloop Frances, which was built in Vergennes to haul
iron ore and charcoal between Vergennes and Whitehall, New York.
Vergennes was the site for other early industries such as sawmills, gristmills, asheries, and
tanneries all exploiting the waterpower of Otter Creek. The industries attracted immigrants
from Canada, and in the early nineteenth century, documents mention the existence of a
“French village.” A number of hotels were established early on to serve stagecoach
passengers.
Vergennes became a regional focus of attention for several months during the War of 1812.
Commodore Thomas Macdonough arrived on December 19, 1813, and made Vergennes
his headquarters until September 1814, when the successful battle of Plattsburgh Bay was
fought. He built a fleet of ships on the northern bank of the Otter Creek just downstream of
the falls. The shipbuilding effort was conducted at a record-breaking pace. During the
spring and summer, the brig Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, several gunboats, and
MacDonough’s flagship Saratoga were all constructed at the shipyard in Vergennes. The
730-ton Saratoga was constructed from March 2 to April 11, in only forty days, and the
Eagle, built in only nineteen days, was launched on August 11, 1814. MacDonough and his
wife lived in Vergennes during this period and reputedly were popular figures with the local
population.
On May 14, 1814 a minor engagement was fought at the mouth of Otter Creek. The
Americans, entrenched behind a hastily erected set of earthworks known as Fort Cassin,
fended off a British expeditionary force of seven or eight vessels. The two-hour skirmish
was of little consequence, although the British were successful in gathering intelligence
about the American fleet.
31
Local histories of Vergennes refer to the years from 1816 to 1823 as the “dark days,”
because there was no increase in business, wealth, or inhabitants. The population in 1810
was 835, and in 1820 it had fallen slightly to 817. Yet, for the history of Lake Champlain
an important foundation stone was laid. The Lake Champlain Steamboat Company was
chartered in 1813 and built four lake steamers at the shipyard in Vergennes.
The first was Phoenix, which was built in 1815 and was only the second commercial
steamboat to operate on Lake Champlain. It was 146ft (44.5m) long and cost $45,000 to
construct. Captain Jahaziel Sherman maintained a regular schedule between Whitehall,
New York and St. Johns, Quebec, but unfortunately, after only four years of service,
Phoenix burned and sank on the northern face of Colchester Shoal reef on September 4,
1819. Today, it is one of the dive sites in the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic
Preserve.
In 1816 the Lake Champlain Steamboat Company launched Champlain, a smaller
steamboat that was 90ft (27.4m) long and cost $18,000. However, it too sank, burning at
Whitehall, New York in September 1817. The following two steamboats, Congress (1818)
and Phoenix II (1820), each ran for two decades on Lake Champlain. Congress, which cost
$30,000 and was 108ft (32.9m) long, operated as a popular excursion steamer until 1835.
Phoenix II, 150ft (45.7m) long and costing $45,000 to build, was renowned as the fastest
steamboat in the world. Before it was retired from service in 1837, it had been downgraded
from passenger transport to freight and ended its days carrying apples and cattle. This was
the last boat that the company built in Vergennes, for the shipyard was moved to Shelburne
to avoid the icy conditions of Otter Creek.
Jahaziel Sherman, who died in 1844, was well known as the captain of these steamboats.
He lived in a substantial house across the street from the wharf, and served Vergennes as
a representative to the state legislature in 1835 and 1836.
By mid century, the railroad had arrived in Vergennes and a depot was built at the outskirts
of the city in 1855. Several hotels were added to the original inns that had been in
existence since the early years of the century. The Franklin House Hotel was erected in
1848 and the Stevens House was expanded. By the 1870s, Vergennes had five hotels
accommodating both steamboat and rail passengers. The city also housed a United States
Arsenal.
The peak of Vergennes’ role as an industrial center arrived in the second half of the
nineteenth century. A lithograph of Vergennes from 1890 illustrates a bustling industrial
town with the Otter Creek as the centerpoint (Figure 4-2). The population in 1860 had
reached 1,286 and included French Canadian and Irish immigrants who worked in the
diversified manufacturing industries. The Vergennes Water Power Company was
established in 1866, the National Horse Nail Works in 1868, and the Haviland Shade Roller
Company in 1886.
32
Figure 4-2. Lithograph of Vergennes from 1890 (Burleigh 1890).
33
In addition to the city’s growing industries, in the latter third of the nineteenth century the
waterfront achieved renewed importance in the economic life of Vergennes with the
operation of the Daniels Steamboat Line from 1877 to 1916. Captain Louis Henry Daniels,
Jr. started his business with the steamboat Water Lily, which traveled between Vergennes,
Westport and Port Henry. In the 1890s, he built three steamboats which were used to tow
canal boats up and down Otter Creek and to transport passengers, who had arrived in
Vergennes by rail, to Westport, New York “The Gateway to the Adirondacks.” Little Nellie,
built in 1890; Victor, built in 1897; and Alexander, built in 1899, were in service until 1916.
The Daniels Steamboat Line is perhaps most remembered for the female captains in the
family. In 1887, Philomena Ostiguy Daniels became a licensed master and pilot, and in
1903 her daughter-in-law also got a license to pilot steamboats. Today, in Westport, New
York, a popular excursion boat is called Philomena D. in her honor. In 1916, Victor was
sold to James Cashman in Burlington, a contractor who worked on breakwater repairs.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the city began to acquire many of the buildings that
are still in use today. In 1875, the state of Vermont moved its Reform School for Troubled
Youth to Vergennes and in 1907 the rebuilt institution changed its name to the Vermont
Industrial School. In 1893, Vergennes Electric Company started power generation at the
falls, an operation that is continued today by the Green Mountain Power Corporation. In
1897, the city established an opera house and today the original building has been
renovated and returned to use as a concert hall, theatre and community center. In 1911,
the Burlington Traction Company built a brick powerhouse on the falls, which still stands
today, and in 1912 the Bixby Memorial Library was opened to the public. In 1910 a
creamery was built near to the railroad depot, the site of today’s Kennedy Brothers Factory
Marketplace.
In 1941, Simmonds Precision acquired L.F. Benson Company, which had been a
manufacturer of spark plugs. During World War II, this business concentrated on the
manufacture of aircraft parts, and today after further acquisitions and mergers is known as
Goodrich, maker of fuel gauging systems for aircraft. More than 600 people work for this
company, making it the largest employer in Vergennes.
34
BASIN HARBOR, VERMONT
The place that is today the Basin Harbor Club was a French colony in the eighteenth
century. Evidence that the colony existed is slight, but the remains of a French officer were
discovered in an historic grave situated in the old cemetery on the grounds of the present
Basin Harbor Club. The name of the harbor originated from a 1730 French map which
labeled it “Bassin Harbor”.
Soldiers who had fought in the War of Independence often received titles to land in the
Champlain Valley. David Callender and Ira Brydia were the names of two soldiers who are
known to have secured property surrounding Basin Harbor.
Captain Platt Rogers built the first permanent residence in Basin Harbor in 1791. He bought
property on November 11,1790 from David Callender, one acre on the north shore of Basin
Harbor. On June 9, 1791, he bought another plot of land from David Brydia. He continued
to purchase property in Basin Harbor until he had accumulated 2,000 acres. He operated
an inn and also established a shipyard, where several gunboats and a sail ferry were later
constructed.
His family retained only a small percentage of his landholdings when he died in 1798, and
his slaves were freed in 1802. Primas and Parmelia Storms, whom Captain Rogers had
held as slaves, bought land from the Rogers’ estate. They planted apples, and the property
on the road from Basin Harbor to Kellogg’s Bay was still known as the “Negro orchard” in
the early twentieth century. After Rogers’ death, his daughter, Ida Rogers, and her
husband, James Winans, developed the Homestead inn into a yearlong business, offering
lodging to passengers arriving on horse-drawn sleds in the winter and by boat in the
summer.
The Winans family lived at Basin Harbor for nearly one hundred years (Figure 4-3). They,
as well as the Platt Rogers family, were of Dutch origin. The Winans brothers came to
Vermont from Poughkeepsie, New York, where they had operated a successful shipyard. In
1808, they organized a company in Burlington, Vermont, to build the steamboat Vermont,
which they launched in 1809. This steamboat was the first steamboat on Lake Champlain
and the second commercially successful steamboat in the world.
From 1804 to 1812 Basin Harbor was the site of an important shipyard. Two gunboats were
built there for Lieutenant Melancthon Taylor Woolsey in 1809. In 1810, Lieutenant Sidney
Smith, who was the commander of operations on Lake Champlain, established his
headquarters in Basin Harbor, and Commodore Thomas Macdonough stayed at the Inn at
Basin Harbor making it his headquarters from September 1812 until he moved to
Vergennes in December 1813. According to Allen Beach, “It was pretty obvious that the
shipyard at Basin Harbor was too vulnerable to attack by the British,” and he (Macdonough)
looked around for another shipyard and chose Vergennes (Beach 1959:72).
35
Figure 4-3. 1871 map of Ferrisburgh, Vermont showing Basin Harbor and the Winans
homestead (Beers 1871).
During the first half of the nineteenth century Basin Harbor was served by several ferries.
The Gaige family operated a ferry across Otter Creek, and in 1832, service was started on
the horse ferry, the Eagle, across Lake Champlain between Basin Harbor and Westport,
New York. The horseboat was owned by Charles and C.B. Hatch of Westport, and Asahel
Havens was the ferryboat’s captain. The ferry continued operating until April 1844, but the
boat was overhauled during the winter of 1842-43 and did not return to the Basin
Harbor/Westport route. When it was returned to service, it traveled between Adams’
Landing (now Arnold’s Bay) in Vermont and Barber’s Point in New York, a somewhat
36
shorter distance than the Basin Harbor route. The new lake crossing was only 2mi (3.2km),
whereas the earlier service was 3½mi (5.6km).
The Beach family has owned and operated the present-day hotel, now the Basin Harbor
Club, since 1886. Ardelia Beach in 1882 bought the land, which had been a 225-acre farm,
and remodeled it to serve as a lodge for summer guests beginning in 1886. Her nephew,
Allen Penfield Beach, acquired the property at the death of his aunt in 1909. He developed
the lodge into a resort and in the 1920s established a golf course on the former farmland. In
the 1930s, the Beach family acquired the Homestead property. From 1950 to 1953, one of
the unusual features that the Basin Harbor Club offered to its guests was a chartered
sunset dinner ride on the steamer Ticonderoga.
After Allen Beach’s death, the family has continued to operate the resort, “building on his
legacy of lake education and preservation” (Beach 1994), and in 1986 the Basin Harbor
Club became the site of the newly formed Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, co-founded
by Bob Beach and Arthur Cohn. Bob and Penny Beach decided to reprint the book Allen
Beach wrote in 1959, adding only their own foreword and an afterword by Arthur Cohn.
37
PORT HENRY, NEW YORK
The territory today known as Port Henry was part of the French Seignory of Hocquart until
the British victory in the French and Indian War in 1763. Afterwards the location became
attractive for land grants to former British soldiers because the area had previously been
partially cleared of trees for use in the construction of Fort Amherst. In 1764, two sergeants
in the British Army, Benjamin Porter and Joseph Franklin, established a settlement. The
first name of the community was Lewis’ Mills, and this was not changed until 1824 when
Major James Dalliba named the place Port Henry in honor of his wife’s uncle, Henry
Huntington.
The first permanent settler was William McKenzie, who built a house in 1784. He also
operated the first hotel, the first ferry, and held the first elections at his house. By 1810,
Lewis’ Mills had attracted 584 inhabitants.
Lumbering and the manufacture of potash were the earliest important industries in Port
Henry, as they were in all of the towns in the Champlain Valley. The vast forest reserves
led early settlers to set up sawmills and to burn trees for their ashes. Lumberyards gave
employment to hundreds of men, and in the spring the lumber was rafted north down the
lake to markets in Quebec. The potash business was so central to the economy in the early
days of the republic that bushels of ashes were used instead of money as the medium of
exchange.
Forest products were also essential to the development of another industry in Port Henry:
ironmaking. Port Henry was surrounded by extremely rich beds of iron ore. Trees were cut
to produce the charcoal that fueled the fires of the blast furnaces that smelted the ore into
pig iron. In 1824, Major James Dalliba launched the iron industry, which would become the
lifeblood of Port Henry for more than a century. Major Dalliba, a 1811 graduate of West
Point, served in the War of 1812 and afterwards worked as an ordnance officer at the New
York Arsenal in Troy. It was there that he became impressed with the high quality iron ore
that was supplied to the arsenal from the Cheever mine in the vicinity of Port Henry.
In 1824, recognizing an opportunity created by the 1823 opening of the Champlain Canal,
Dalliba resigned from the army and went into the iron business with a partner, John D.
Dickerson. They wanted to build a blast furnace near to the supply of iron ore and bought
property in Lewis Mills on the shore of Lake Champlain. The furnace Dalliba built produced
fifteen to eighteen tons of pig iron per week. They received their ore from the Cheever mine
and shipped the manufactured iron to Troy to be made into ordnance. After a few years the
furnace began the manufacture of stoves to meet a growing consumer demand to replace
old-fashioned fireplaces for home heating and cooking. Unfortunately, Major Dalliba died at
the age of 46 in 1832, but his pioneering had opened up a new direction for the economic
life of Port Henry. Sale of the Cheever mines led to the formation of the Port Henry Iron
Company in 1840, and in 1843, S.H. Witherbee was elected director of this company (Cohn
1997:8)
38
During the first half of the nineteenth century many new mines were opened and exploited.
For instance, in the nearby town of Moriah total ore production up to 1869 was estimated at
1,100,000 tons (1,000,000 metric tons) with one-third of that amount produced during the
1860s alone. (Farrell 1996:38) In 1858, the Port Henry Iron Ore Company was formed, and
in 1862 Witherbees Sherman and Company consolidated ownership of several iron mines.
Transportation of the ore from the mines to Port Henry was a difficult operation, and in
1852 a steep road was constructed out of hemlock planks to make it possible for wagons
pulled by horses to haul the iron the seven miles between the mines and the docks. Finally
in 1869 the Lake Champlain and Moriah Railroad was opened to replace the plank road
and haulage rates were immediately reduced. The railroad also expedited the delivery of
machinery and supplies from the lake to the mines. Figure 4-4, a bird’s eye view of Port
Henry shows the various transportation types common during the latter half of the
nineteenth century, including standard and sailing canalboat, steamboats, steam tugs,
railroad, and roads.
In 1871 the Port Henry Railway Bridge was constructed across Bulwagga Bay to connect
Port Henry to the furnaces in Crown Point, New York. This bridge made use of a floating
drawboat similar to the one that operated between Rouses Point and Alburg, but this one
was operated manually (see page 88). The company decided to abandon the bridge after
only one year because when they opened it up to traffic in the spring of 1872, they found
that the ice had lifted all the piles underneath the bridge’s trestles. The Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum discovered the wreck of the drawboat in 1999, offering the opportunity to
uncover the forgotten history of the Port Henry Railway Bridge.
In the 1870s construction began on the Cedar Point Furnace on the lake shore in Port
Henry. This modern blast furnace was owned by the Cedar Point Iron Company, formed in
1872, and central to the iron industry of Port Henry until 1971. From the outset of
production in 1875 it was already producing 41 tons (37.3 metric tons) of iron per day and
twenty years later it produced 200 tons (181.8 metric tons) per day. Port Henry-born
Thomas Witherbee, who was the younger brother of J.G. Witherbee, was the director of
Cedar Point. He incorporated the latest concepts in furnace design, importing hot blast
stoves from England and introducing several of his own inventions into the smelting
process. In 1879, a foundry was built adjacent to the furnace, and in the 1920s a second
blast furnace and a sintering plant were built there as well.
In 1875 Witherbees Sherman Mining Company built a new main office in a French Second
Empire style building near to the railway lines and overlooking the lakeshore docks and the
new Cedar Point furnace. This grand building serves as the Town Hall of Port Henry today,
and in front of the building is the Witherbee Park deeded to the town by the Witherbee
Sherman Corporation in 1959. The company of Witherbee, Sherman and Company was
incorporated in 1900. It was formed by combining the firm with the Lackawanna Steel
Company.
39
Figure 4-4. An 1889 Bird’s eye view of Port Henry, New York (Burleigh 1889).
40
The Witherbee family played a central role in the development of the iron industry. “Sons of
the founders followed the footsteps of their fathers” (Farrell 1996:61). Jonathan G.
Witherbee died in 1875, and his son as well as those of S.H. Witherbee continued to direct
operations in the mines and in the furnace business.
In 1938 Witherbee Sherman leased its properties to the Republic Steel Corporation, ending
one hundred years of local management of the iron industry. Republic Steel continued to
run the mines and the blast furnaces until 1971 when all operations ceased. Today the Iron
Center, a museum adjacent to the Town Hall, interprets the impressive story of ironmaking
in Port Henry.
41
WESTPORT, NEW YORK
William Gilliland, a successful colonial merchant, was granted 2300 acres (931 hectares) of
land in 1764, and named the property Bessboro after his daughter, Elizabeth. In 1771,
Philip Skene was granted 2400 acres (972 hectares) of land to the north of Bessboro, in the
area that today comprises the village of Westport. These lands were developed before the
War of Independence, with one of Gilliland’s colonists, Edward Raymond, erecting a home,
saw mill and gristmill. But all the early settlements were destroyed or abandoned during the
War of Independence. The first permanent settler was Major Hezekiah Barber, who built up
a farm to the south of the village in 1785 at what is called today Barber’s Point. The town of
Westport at first was a part of Crown Point and later of Elizabethtown, but by 1815 it was
established as a separate town.
In the early 1800s lumber and sheep were the principal businesses, and Westport
continued to be an important lumber depot until the 1850s. “In 1836, this wood piled up at
Westport was called Dock Sticks” (Glenn 1977). In 1804, Judge Charles Hatch began
dealing in iron ore, but the first forge for smelting iron was not mentioned in historical
documents until 1808. A saw mill, gristmill, lime kilns, a blacksmith shop, a store, and a
brickyard were already in operation by 1808 as well.
Ferries across Lake Champlain were a primary means of transportation in the early
nineteenth century, and the 3½mi (5.6km) crossing between Westport and Basin Harbor,
Vermont was a much-used route. At first the ferries were sail-powered, but in 1832 the
Hatch family of Westport started up the ferry Eagle, which was propelled by two horses.
The ferry, which was a horizontal-treadwheel boat of two horsepower, plied across the lake
for more than ten years, making three round trips per day during the summer time. The
captain of the Eagle was Asahel Havens, and in November 1841 he used the ferry for a
dramatic rescue of the crews of a canal boat Citizen and a steam towboat Macdonough
that had wrecked in a storm (Crisman and Cohn 1998).
By 1850 the town of Westport was home to 2,350 people, and canal boats played a central
role in the commercial life of the town. “At times the harbor was dotted with these craft”
(Glenn 1977). They were so numerous that in the 1870s after the peak era had passed,
“the Whitehall and Plattsburgh railroad enroute to Westport used old canal boats to fill in
the swamps and low places that it had to cross” (Glenn 1977). The Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum sonar survey has located the remains of Troy, an early canal schooner
shipwrecked near Westport in 1825 (see page 94).
By mid-century the lake was filled with vessels of all sizes and types. Barges, schooners,
and the side-wheel paddleboats made their appearance at the village dock called Allen’s
Wharf. Westport’s location on Northwest Bay afforded a protected, deep-water port, and
large steamboats were regular visitors. On July 16, 1875, however, the steamer Champlain
II was wrecked upon the rocks of the North Shore. Today the ship’s bell hangs in the belfry
of St. John’s Church, while the wreck serves as a site in the Lake Champlain Underwater
Historic Preserve. Of all the large steamboats to visit the Westport dock, none was more
42
closely linked to the village than Ticonderoga. From 1906 to 1924, the steamer docked for
the night at Westport harbor.
A number of large furnaces were built near Westport between 1850 to 1885, but when the
Sisco Blast Furnace was put into operation in 1847, it was the state-of-the-art in
ironmaking. Francis H. Jackson, a Boston businessman, who already owned an interest in
the Port Henry Iron Company, built the furnace. But it was not a success, and even though
it was rebuilt in 1856, Jackson sold the business in 1857. It cost $100,000 to build the 60ft
(18.3m) stone structure. The furnace produced pig iron, and in the 1850s was producing
around 4200 tons (3818 metric tons) annually. For fuel, the Sisco Furnace was the first on
Lake Champlain to switch from charcoal to anthracite coal (brought from Pennsylvania on
canal boats). It did this in 1853, and the Port Henry furnace switched in 1854. Jackson
moved with his family to Westport, built a house overlooking the lake and built a community
around the furnace called Jacksonville. It consisted of a dozen workmens’ houses, offices,
a store, a wharf, and a row of coal kilns. Eventually the entire complex was torn down, after
multiple owners had tried their hands at operating it and never succeeded in running a
profitable business there. The stone was used to build houses.
Shipbuilding in Westport was never as extensive a business as in nearby Essex, but there
is evidence that several boats were built there during the first half of the nineteenth century.
The 1850 Census lists a canal boat built by Aaron Clark and boat builder named David
Clark (Glenn 1977). Local historians also have uncovered documentation for the
construction of an ore boat and of a sailing vessel built before 1814.
When the railroad arrived in Westport in 1876, a new chapter in Westport history began.
The Delaware and Hudson Railroad built an ornate railroad depot, with a bell-cast roof and
overhanging eaves, and summer visitors from New York and Montreal began flocking to the
“Gateway to the Adirondacks.” The railroad company sold the station to the Ausable
Chasm Company, but they did not carry out their plans to move the station to a new
location, and in 1974 sold it to the town of Westport for one dollar. Today, not only do
Amtrak trains bring summer visitors to the resort, but a repertoire theatre company and art
gallery have brought a new clientele to the historic train station.
The railroad also spurred the development of hotels such as the Westport Hotel, built in
1876 as the Gates Hotel, and the Westport Inn, which opened in 1887 as the Marvin House
(Figure 4-5).
43
Figure 4-5. 1876 Map of Westport, New York (Gray 1876: 44)
44
CHAPTER V: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 1999
LAKE SURVEY AREA
Several of the shipwrecks located in the 1999 Lake Survey’s sonar phase had been
archaeologically investigated prior to 1999. During previous years of the Lake Survey, the
“stove boat” and the Barn Rock Wreck were investigated, while earlier surveys documented
the “Diamond Island stone boat”, Champlain II, Water Witch, and the submerged cultural
resources in Arnold’s Bay, Panton, Vermont.
STOVE BOAT
In 1990, sport divers discovered a shipwreck in Lake Champlain’s New York waters. They
reported their discovery to the LCMM, which visited the site to determine its archaeological
and historical importance (Figure 5-1). The vessel turned out to be a scow-class Lake
Champlain standard canal boat. The hull, which is in an excellent state of preservation, lies
on its port side at an angle of approximately 70 degrees. A number of cast iron stoves,
visible among the piles of cargo inside the hold, are responsible for the wreck’s nickname of
“Stove Boat.”
LCMM’s initial survey verified the wreck, recorded its position, determined its orientation,
took overall measurements, and produced video footage. The vessel’s dimensions and
scow construction probably make it an early Lake Champlain canal boat. Unique among
canal boats investigated to date, the Stove Boat is an important site for understanding both
the history of the Champlain Canal and the technology and development of canal boat
construction. For these reasons, LCMM selected the site for in-depth documentation during
the 1998 archaeological field season (Figure 5-2). The results of this investigation were
presented in the Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997
Results and Volume III: 1998 Results (Sabick et al. 2000), and are summarized below.
Figure 5-1. Diver taking measurements on the Stove Boat (photo by Oscar Blasingame)
45
Figure 5-2. Perspective view of the Stove Boat site (drawn by Kevin Crisman)
The hull’s overall length is 80ft (24.4m), its beam is 12ft 6in (3.8m), and its depth is 5ft 6in
(1.7m). With such dimensions, the Stove Boat was probably designed to navigate the early
canal and its lock system. The Stove Boat’s design is simple, but many of its construction
features became standard in later, larger, and more complex canal boats. A true keel is
absent from the bottom of the vessel, and a keelson with multiple sister keelsons provided
the vessel bottom’s primary longitudinal support (Figure 5-3). These interior longitudinal
timbers also served as a solid platform for ceiling planking and cargo.
The primary longitudinal timber that supports the bottom of the Stove Boat is the keelson.
The keelson’s dimensions, 4in (10.2cm) moulded and 8in (20.4cm) sided, would not have
contributed significantly to the vessel’s longitudinal stiffness without the addition of two
sister keelsons on either side. The first of these timbers is spaced 25in (63.5cm) outboard
of the keelson and 32in (81.3cm) from the chine logs. Like the keelson, the outboard set of
sister keelsons run the length of the vessel. The second set of sister keelsons, which do
not run the entire length of the vessel, are fixed between the outboard set and the keelson.
Both of the inboard sister keelsons have a 2ft (61cm) gap in their lengths amidships. On
both sides they are separated from the keelson by 10in (25.4cm). Their dimensions are 4in
(10.2 cm) moulded and 7in (17.8cm) sided.
46
Figure 5-3. Midship cross-section of the Stove Boat (drawn by Oscar Blasingame)
The visible portion of the chine log, namely the timber that connects the sides and the
bottom, is 4in (10.2cm) square. The outboard edge appears to be fastened to the inboard
face of the exterior hull planking. The lack of markings or remains of nails or spikes on the
visible surfaces of the keelson and sister keelsons indicate that the bottom planking was
attached from the exterior. The ceiling planking, which is 1in (2.54cm) thick and 6 to 8in
(15.24 to 20.3cm) wide, was laid transversely and fastened atop the chine logs, sister
keelsons, and keelson.
Except for a few notable characteristics, the Stove Boat’s bow construction is the same as
that of the bottom of the vessel. The keelson and sister keelsons are bent upwards or
scarfed to separate timbers to form the stem(s). The ends of these members are abutted to
the underside of a trapezoidal transverse timber that forms the forward edge of the bow.
Because of the cramped space in this area, the archaeological team could not record the
cross-sectional dimensions of the transverse bow timber. Its dimensions were estimated
for the completion of the site’s two-dimensional reconstruction. The timber measures 14in
(35.6cm) on the exterior face of the bow. A two-piece false stem is fastened to the upper
edge of the keelson and provides additional strength to the bow. The two timbers were flatscarfed together, with the upper end of the forwardmost member cut to fit against the
underside of the transverse bow timber. The bow’s exterior planking is fastened directly to
the keelson/stem and sister keelsons.
The stern was not as accessible as the bow, but its construction is clearly similar to that of
the bow. The keelson and sister keelsons turn up to form a multiple sternpost system for
the attachment of exterior planking.
47
Between hatches the deck is supported by deck beams measuring 6in (15.24cm) sided and
4in (10.2 cm) moulded. The beams do not exhibit any camber, resulting in a flat deck, and
they are mortised to a clamp on either side of the vessel. Deck beams supporting the
forward and aft hatch coamings are reinforced with hanging knees on both the port and
starboard sides. Between the forward and after ends of the two large hatches, the deck is
supported by three sets of half-beams that measure 7in (17.8cm) sided and moulded.
These half-beams are mortised to both the clamp and the outboard edge of the hatch
coaming. There are no half-beams between the forward and after edges of the bow
companionway.
The Stove Boat’s rudder assembly is perfectly preserved. The rectangular rudder is
mounted to a round rudderpost, which passes through the deck. The rudder and skeg
assemblies were almost entirely buried, so the documentation team excavated the top
edge of the rudder and the length of the rudderpost by hand in order to record them. The
rudder extends 5.8ft (1.8m) from the rudderpost and appears to be made of a single layer
of wood 3in (7.62cm) thick. At a point 2.6ft (0.8m) from the rudderpost, a round iron strap
passes through the rudder and returns to be secured to either side of the rudderpost. This
strap helped to support the weight of the tiller.
The intact tiller is angled over to port (Figure 5-4). Its forward end is positioned 22in (55cm)
abaft the port corner of the companionway opening of the deckhouse. The tiller is mortised
to the rudderpost at a point 10in (25.4cm) from the rudderpost’s top, and the tiller’s overall
length is 5.4ft (1.6m). Tapering from 5 to 1.2in (12.7 to 3cm) in thickness, the tiller rises in
a gradual S-curve to a height of 34in (86.4cm) above the deck. Thickly encrusted iron
supports are fastened on either side of the rudderpost. Serving to support the tiller, these
supports extend 17in (43.2cm). At its after end, the round tiller becomes square where two
iron collars are attached to it. Both collars have sockets on top to fit a tiller extension. A
steersman would have used this extension to control the tiller while standing atop the
deckhouse.
Figure 5-4. Tiller of the Stove Boat (drawn by Oscar Blasingame).
48
The deck and deckhouse are the most complex features of the vessel, although their
design was simple and efficient. The cabin’s construction could only be determined from
those features visible from the exterior; recording the structure’s interior was prevented by
debris and limited time. The design of the Stove Boat’s cabin was very similar to that seen
in late nineteenth-century photographs of Champlain canal boats. Except for its
dimensions, a description of the Stove Boat’s deckhouse could match those of canal boats
into the twentieth century. The deckhouse is 14ft (4.3m) long, 6½ft (2m) wide, and rises
2.2ft (0.7m) from the deck. The roof is flat and was constructed to support the weight of
one or more persons. Two pairs of windows on both the port and starboard sides each
have sliding window shutters, and the after end has a companionway that allowed access
to the interior of the cabin. A stovepipe hole was cut into the deckhouse roof, starboard of
the companionway.
On its final voyage, the Stove Boat was carrying a cargo of manufactured iron goods.
Among these items were iron stoves, cauldrons, and teakettles. The cargo shifted to port
as the vessel sank, and it now remains in an excellent state of preservation under a layer of
mud. The archaeological investigation of the Stove Boat included the removal of a single
artifact from the vessel’s hold. A single large cast iron cauldron, representative of the rest
of the cargo, was selected and taken to the Conservation Laboratory at the LCMM for
stabilization. However, the conservation staff quickly realized that three artifacts had
inadvertently been raised, because two other cast iron artifacts (a smaller cauldron and a
faceted kettle with a spout and handle) were carefully nested inside.
As the LCMM conservators cleaned and conserved the three artifacts, certain details
emerged. The smaller cauldron and the kettle both bear the maker’s mark “Noyes &
Hutton” and the location “Troy, N.Y.” The small cauldron also bears the numeral “9,” and
the kettle’s spout is cast in the form of a bird’s head. Archival research conducted in the
New York State Archives indicates that this company was in operation for only a few years,
from 1847-1852.
The Stove Boat represents a class of Champlain canal boat that was archaeologically
unknown until the 1998 field season. The vessel’s excellent state of preservation, its full
cargo hold, and its advanced age make it a highly significant and fragile archaeological
resource.
DIAMOND ISLAND STONE BOAT (VT-CH-723)
The Diamond Island stone boat is a canal boat located within the 1999 Lake Survey area.
In 1990 the vessel was preliminarily investigated by the LCMM. The vessel is 93ft (28.4m)
long and 14ft (4.3m) wide, indicating that it was built after the opening of the expanded
Champlain canal locks in 1862. The Diamond Island Stone Boat was one of hundreds of
wooden canal boats that transported cargo through the lake and canals. There is no
evidence of an engine, or of masts and sails, indicating that it had no independent means
of propulsion. It was instead towed from port to port by a tugboat, and by mules along the
canal.
49
On her last voyage, the boat carried a load of quarried stone that filled her hold from stem
to stern. The circumstances of her sinking are unknown, but most likely she was separated
from her tow, leaving her to drift onto the rocky shore of Diamond Island; or, the immense
weight of stone in her hold may have stressed the hull, opening seams in the planking and
forcing her owners to attempt to save the cargo and hull by running her ashore. Efforts to
save the vessel were obviously unsuccessful.
The Diamond Island Stone Boat lies in 12 to 20ft (3.7 to 6.1m) of water (Figure 5-5). The
stem extends 8ft (2.4m) above the bottom and is reinforced by several heavy timbers. The
cargo of stone blocks lies stacked upon the frames over the length the wreck; the hull's
frame timbers and keelson are visible between the blocks. In the decades since the boat
sank, her sides have been broken down by decay and winter ice, and now lie on the bottom
on both sides of the wreck, thus exposing the massive stone blocks.
The Diamond Island Stone boat is currently one of the sites in the Lake Champlain
Underwater Historic Preserve system.
Figure 5-5. Preliminary plan view of the Diamond Island stone boat (drawn by Kevin
Crisman, inked by Adam Loven).
50
WRECK CC: WATER WITCH (VT-AD-719)
The Water Witch was constructed as a steamboat by Jahaziel Sherman at the mouth of
Otter Creek, Vermont, near the 1812-era fortification called Fort Cassin. Construction was
begun in 1831 and the vessel completed in 1832. In size she was of a smaller class than
most steamers of the day, measuring 80ft in length, 17ft (5.2m) in beam and between 7ft
4in (2.2m) and 8ft (2.4m) in her depth of hold. Her tonnage was variously calculated at
between 91-52/95 tons and 107 tons; she was propelled by a 40 horse power steam engine
and she reportedly cost a total $14,000 to build. In point of numbers, Water Witch was the
eleventh steamer built on Lake Champlain since 1808. The master carpenter was Samuel
Wood, and every detail of her construction was superintended by Jahaziel Sherman.
Jehaziel Sherman officially registered his new vessel with the United States Government on
August 8, 1832. On the enrollment form he described her as a steamboat with one deck
(the main deck), no masts, and a billet head at the stem. The document also listed her
dimensions and tonnage, her owner, and the name of her first captain, Edward Lyon of
Burlington. Water Witch ‘s homeport was Vergennes.
From 1832 through 1834 Sherman ran his steamboat independent of the Champlain
Transportation Company, but steamboat competition on Lake Champlain reached a major
turning point shortly before the 1835 navigation season. The Champlain Transportation
Company had by this time risen to the top of the pack and plotted to consolidate its position
by buying out all remaining opposition. The CTC had already purchased Washington from
Ross and McNeil in 1828 and the property of the old Lake Champlain Steamboat Company
in 1833 and it now entered into negotiations to complete its total control over steamboating
on Lake Champlain. In January 1835 the assets of the Champlain Ferry Company, the St.
Albans Steamboat Company and Jahaziel Sherman were formally combined under the
charter of the Champlain Transportation Co.
Water Witch’s days as a steamer were over. She was taken to the Transportation
Company’s shipyard at Shelburne and, along with the collection of other recently-acquired
steamers, evaluated for her future worth as a steam-powered vessel. The company
decided to retain Franklin, Phoenix II and Winooski as line boats. MacDonough and
Washington were assigned to freight service and towing, and the old Congress was
demoted to carrying wood for the other steamers. Water Witch had no place in the new
order and her steam engines and boilers were ordered removed and she was converted
into a commercial schooner and sold.
Water Witch now began a new career as a vessel propelled by wind (Figure 5-6). Like
General Greene, converted into a sloop in 1833, the adaptation afforded her a new lease
on life, but it was to be a very different life. In the spring of 1866, the schooner Water Witch
underwent preparations for her thirty-fourth season of navigation. This pre-season activity
typically began in March when the first warm days signaled to land-bound lakemen that
winter’s ice would soon retreat and make way for the navigation of their vessels. When the
ice finally broke up some time in April, sailors would begin the season, an event which was
always noted in the local newspapers. This year the family of Thomas Mock, his wife, two
51
children and an infant all sailed together. It is presently unknown whether the family made
their home on the vessel only during the navigation season or whether they lived aboard
year around.
Figure 5-6. Reconstruction of the Water Witch as a schooner (Drawing by Kevin Crisman).
Newspaper accounts of the day provide only brief mention of the disaster. The Vergennes,
Vermont newspaper reported in its May 4th edition, “The sloop Water Witch sunk in the
Lake… last week and it was with great difficulty that Capt. Mock his wife and two children
and crew were saved. One child, an infant, was in the cabin and was lost. The vessel was
loaded with iron ore.”
The Daily Free Press of Burlington reported on April 27th, “FOUNDERED – The schooner
Water Witch Capt. Thomas Mock, loaded with iron ore, from Cheever Ore Bed, for
Burlington, foundered at about noon yesterday... The vessel sank so quick that the crew
could not get out a small boat, and all would have been lost but for the sloop Trader, Capt.
Edward Eaton, who was nearby. Capt. Mock kept his wife and two children above water for
nearly twenty minutes, until picked up by Capt. Eaton. An infant child of Capt. Mock’s went
down on board the Schooner.”
Canadian divers Derek Grout, Richard Weiss, and Gordon Kaylor initially discovered the
wreck of Water Witch in 1977. The three had read of the schooner’s loss and decided to
search for the wreck by towing a diver on a planing board and visually scanning the bottom.
52
The search succeeded when Grout was pulled into the hull by the board. He managed to
briefly examine his find, but the position of the wreck site was not fixed, and it could not be
relocated in 1977. With the approximate site of Water Witch determined by this encounter,
Grout returned the following year with side-scan sonar operator James Kennard, quickly relocated the wreck, and recorded its position. In 1990 a project was organized as a joint
effort between the Division for Historic Preservation and the LCMM. This project
culminated in the production of The Lake Champlain Schooner Water Witch: A Report on
the Preliminary Survey of the Wreck (Crisman and Cohn 1993), the source from which this
summary is derived.
The LCMM team found that the hull lies diagonally across an east-to-west slope, with the
bow oriented up the slope in a south-southwest direction (Figure 5-7). The bottom in this
part of the lake is composed of fine, soft sediments; the wreck has settled deeply into this
material, but currents have scoured trenches around each side of the vessel, exposing her
sides nearly to the turn of the bilge.
Water Witch appears to have been constructed in the conventional manner of her time, with
iron-fastened wooden frames and planking. The hull exhibits a sharp, finely-moulded bow,
expands to a boxy, capacious form amidships, and then tapers to an elegant transom stern.
It measured 83ft (25.3m) in length from the stem rabbet to the after edge of the taffrail, 80ft
(24.4m) in length on deck and 18ft (5.5m) in breadth at its widest point. These dimensions
closely correspond to the 80ft (24.4m) length and 17ft (5.2m) breadth listed on Water
Witch’s 1832 enrollment.
Figure 5-7. Perspective drawing of Water Witch (drawn by Kevin Crisman).
53
Water Witch’s hull can be divided into three functional areas, the bow, the midships cargo
hold, and the quarterdeck and cabin in the stern. The first of these, the bow, extended 12ft
7½in (3.9m) from the stem rabbet to the forward coaming of the first cargo hatch. Above
deck this area contained several features relating to the navigation of the ship, including the
heel of the bowsprit and the single bitt post into which it was mortised, a log windlass, and
the foremast. Water Witch’s low, wide forward bulwarks were fitted with a pair of chocks
that straddled the opening for the bowsprit, and short, upright timber heads used to secure
the anchors. Wooden cleats were bolted to the insides of the port and starboard bulwarks
for securing mooring lines. Short, narrow wooden foremast chainwales were observed on
the outsides of the port and starboard bulwarks; the starboard chainwale held three
deadeyes and two chainplates, and the port only one deadeye. A curved breast hook or
‘hawse hook’ was fastened to the inside of the stem above the heel of the bowsprit; an iron
traveler or sheet horse for the jib was bolted into the top of the hawse hook.
The log windlass consisted of an 11½in (29.2cm) diameter log, reinforced on each end by
iron bands and supported by two upright bitts. Two square mortises extending through
each end of the log were designed to hold the handspikes that turned the windlass and
reeled in the anchor cable or chain. The pawl that kept the windlass from slipping was
merely a piece of flat iron, fastened to the afterside of the bitt post, that ratcheted in a
series of sloping grooves cut around the center of the log. The starboard side of the
windlass had several slat-like wooden pieces spiked around its circumference, either to
prevent wear in the log by the anchor chain, or to cover an area already worn by many
years of use.
The midships cargo hold measured 46ft 11in (14.3m) in length from the forward edge of the
forehatch coaming to the raised quarter deck at the stern. The main deck was pierced by
two hatches, the fore hatch, and the main hatch. Immediately forward of the main hatch
were the tops of two pump tubes, an opening in the deck for the mainmast, an opening for
the chain that raised and lowered the centerboard and the 2ft (.61m) long iron traveler bar
that secured the foresail sheet. The mainmast was missing from the wreck, and the pump
mechanisms had likewise disappeared.
The centerboard was an interesting and somewhat unexpected discovery. It clearly postdated Water Witch’s steamboating career, for two reasons. Firstly, lateral resistance to the
wind was not as important a factor in lake steamship navigation as it was for sailing, and
secondly, the centerboard and its box would have intruded into space occupied by the
engine and boilers. The presence of the centerboard suggests that Water Witch’s relatively
deep hull had a shallow keel and very little deadrise in the frames, attributes that do not
contribute much to sailing ability.
At the bow the bulwarks consisted of frame tops, inner and outer planking, and a cap rail,
but from the fore hatch aft to the break in the deck the bulwarks consisted of a thick sheer
plank or ‘toe rail’ fastened edge-up with iron drift bolts. The starboard toe rail was twisted
outboard slightly when the foremast fell over. Mainmast chainwales, each with two
deadeyes, were bolted to each side of the hull slightly below the rails.
54
Water Witch’s hold was loaded with the iron ore cargo she was carrying on her final
voyage, although most of it was covered by the silt. For reasons stated earlier, the
inspection of the hull’s interior was limited during the 1990 survey, and very little can be
said at this time about the construction and appearance of the main hold.
The aftermost part of the hull, the stern cabin and quarter deck, measured 23ft 6in (7.2m)
from the break in the deck to the after edge of the taffrail; the length of deck from the break
to the after edge of the rudder post was 20ft 6in (6.2m). One prominent feature of the
quarter deck was the housing that covered the stern cabin companionway. The housing
was 6ft 6in (2.0m) in length, and 3ft 8in (1.1m) wide at its forward end; the opening at the
forward end of the housing was 3ft 6in (1.1m) in length and 2ft 6in (.8m) in width. The
sliding lid that covered the companionway is missing. Near the after end of the housing, on
the port side, the deck was pierced by a circular opening for the cabin stove’s pipe.
Water Witch’s tiller dominated the quarter deck with its arched 12ft 6in (3.8m) length. A
brace consisting of an iron collar and two iron arms held the tiller in a slot cut through the
top of the rudder post. The tiller swung over to the port rail during the sinking, and
inspection below the counter revealed that the rudder was driven up slightly and unshipped
from its gudgeons when the schooner hit the bottom. While the lower portions of the rudder
were buried, it was identified as a ‘standard”, upward-tapering type and not one of the
broad, rectangular ‘barn door’ rudders common to Champlain’s nineteenth century sailing
canal boats. The extreme length of Witch’s tiller suggests that was difficult to steer and that
the helmsman needed extra leverage to hold the rudder steady in a stiff breeze.
Like the other below-deck spaces in Water Witch, the stern cabin was partly filled with
years of accumulated silt, leaving a space of 3 to 4ft (.9 to 1.2m) between the sediment and
the underside of the deck beams. Brief visual examinations and video documentation were
carried out by peering in through the companionway at the forward end of the cabin and the
four window openings at the after end of the cabin. The cabin’s cast-iron woodstove,
encrusted with rust and overturned, protruded from the silt near the companionway, and
skewed sections of the reeded wood paneling that covered the interior were visible at the
forward end of the cabin.
As the preceding description indicates, elements of the rig are still present on the wreck.
Spars seen and recorded during the 1990 survey included the bowsprit, fore headsail club,
and foremast. The heel of the short foretopmast was noted in the video recording of the
foremast.
Water Witch is significant both for her history and for her architecture. The story of her
building and subsequent career touches on many important aspects of Lake Champlain’s
history, particularly the early years of steamboating and the lake’s heyday of merchant sail.
The vessel’s design and construction clearly have much to contribute to the study of the
evolution of inland water transportation. For these reasons the archaeological potential of
the Water Witch is extraordinary. Examination of her origins, her dual careers as a
steamboat and a merchant schooner and her demise after a working career of 34 years
provides fresh insights into an extremely dynamic time in our nation’s commercial history.
55
WRECK FF: CHAMPLAIN II
Researchers from the LCMM and Texas A&M University conducted archaeological
investigations of the Champlain II in 1988, 1993, and 1994. This steamboat had a working
life of only eight years, but it had two distinct careers on Lake Champlain. Originally named
Oakes Ames, the steamer was ordered by the Burlington Steamboat Company (BSC) in
1868 (Figure 5-8). It was built at the shipyards of Napoleon Bonaparte Proctor near
Shelburne Bay, Vermont, under the supervision of Orson Saxon Spear, builder of the
sailing canal boat O. J. Walker. The BSC was a subsidiary of the Rutland Railroad
Company (RRC), which sought to connect its rail lines in Burlington with those of the
Montreal and Plattsburgh Railroad Company (M&P) in Plattsburgh. Oakes Ames was
designed to carry twelve to fourteen railroad cars, as well as a number of passengers, on
each trip between these two railheads.
Figure 5-8. A watercolor of the steamer Oakes Ames by James Bard (from Bellico
1992:237).
The steamer first slipped into the water on June 3, 1868, though it was not ready for its first
trial run until July 25. Its first trip between Burlington and Plattsburgh demonstrated that the
vessel was quite fast; its two walking beam engines were expected to perform at an
average speed of 20 mph (32 km/hr). Since Oakes Ames was intended primarily for the
transport of railroad freight cars, the vessel’s engines and passenger cabins were located
on the outboard sides of the steamer. This arrangement left a large open tunnel down the
centerline of the vessel, where the railroad cars could be carried. Despite its principal task
carrying rail freight, the passenger accommodations were quite ornate.
Oakes Ames continued in its role as a railroad ferry until March 1, 1873, when the
Delaware and Hudson Railroad Company (D&H) bought most of the rail lines in the
Champlain Valley. The D&H then undertook the construction of a series of rail lines along
the western shore of Lake Champlain, which ultimately eliminated the need for a rail ferry.
56
When Oakes Ames was no longer profitable, the BSC sold the rail ferry to the Champlain
Transportation Company (CTC) for $85,000.
In January 1874, the CTC decided to convert Oakes Ames for use strictly as a passenger
ferry. The company overhauled the steamer’s interior and gave it a new name, Champlain.
Since the vessel was the second steamboat on the lake to be named “Champlain,” it has
since become known as “Champlain II,” even though the number was not technically part of
its original designation. The CTC proclaimed that this name change followed the company
tradition of naming passenger vessels after local geographical features, but it is also quite
likely that the company wanted to distance itself from the man for whom the vessel had
been named. Oakes Ames was a prominent businessman and U.S. Representative from
Massachusetts, who had been at the center of a national financial scandal in the late 1860s
and early 1870s (Bellico 1992:273).
The refitting of Champlain II continued through the spring of 1874, and the CTC spent
$24,000 on new decorations and furniture. By all accounts, the results were dramatic.
Oakes Ames’s large central tunnel for rail cars was transformed into Champlain II’s ornately
decorated main hall, which stretched 162ft (49.4m) along the main deck. In addition to the
main hall, the converted steamer had 46 roomy new berths, along with a post-office and
barber shop. The steamer operated as a passenger line vessel throughout the 1874
summer season.
At the beginning of the 1875 season the CTC intended to use Champlain II as an excursion
vessel rather than running it on a regular ferry schedule. The vessel filled this role until July
5, when the CTC steamship Vermont broke a piston and was rendered inoperable.
Champlain II assumed the disabled steamer’s route between Ticonderoga and Plattsburgh.
No one could have predicted it, but Champlain II was doomed to meet its end while
engaged in this task.
On July 16, 1875, Champlain II, now captained by George Rushlow, left Ticonderoga at
about 9:30 p.m. and arrived at Westport, New York, close to midnight. At Westport the
vessel unloaded some passengers, and the pilots changed shifts. Pilot Ell Rockwell turned
over the wheel to John Eldredge and returned to his cabin to sleep. Only moments after
leaving Westport, Champlain II was rocked by a huge crash. Rockwell ran to the pilot
house to find Eldredge staring into space. When Rockwell questioned him, Eldredge
responded by asking Rockwell, “Can you account for my being on the mountain?” At this
point, Rockwell looked out the pilothouse windows to find that Eldredge had run the
steamboat up on the rocky shore at the end of the Split Rock Mountain Range. Once the
full impact of the accident struck Eldredge, he was reduced to sitting on a settee, “swinging
his hands up and down and mourning in a most pitiful manner.”
Both Rockwell and Captain Rushlow surveyed the damage and determined that Champlain
II was a total loss (Figure 5-9). They then quickly turned to the safety of their passengers.
The vessel had stopped some way up on shore and was in no immediate danger of sinking,
although the after end was filling with water. Rushlow calmly informed the passengers that
they should gather their belongings and disembark, which they apparently did without
57
mishap. At approximately 2 a.m., the steamer Adirondack pulled alongside Champlain II
and took aboard its passengers and their baggage. In a similar manner, the freight of the
stricken steamer was loaded onto the schooner J. G. Witherbee just before daylight.
Figure 5-9. Champlain II “…on the mountain” (courtesy of UVM Special Collections).
As dawn broke, the crew turned its attention to salvaging as many of the ship’s fine
decorations as possible. During the commotion of getting the passengers and their
baggage ashore the night before, no one had kept track of pilot Eldredge. One of the crew
or passengers standing on shore reported that he had disappeared into the woods about
one-half hour after the steamer struck the rocks. Eldredge appeared a couple of days later
at the house of a Mr. See in New York. He was unsure of where he was and could not
remember what had happened. Eldredge returned to his home in Colchester, Vermont,
late on July 18.
Immediately after the wreck, both the CTC and local steamboat inspectors opened
investigations into the cause of the accident. These investigations first focused on the
possibility of insurance fraud, namely that Champlain II had been wrecked intentionally in
order to collect insurance money. This theory was quickly discarded when it was learned
that the CTC’s insurance covered only loss by fire, and not maritime damage. The
investigation quickly shifted to the actions of John Eldredge. The investigators soon
learned that Eldredge had been frequenting pharmacists all around the lake to purchase
58
morphine. Further inquires revealed that Eldredge had purchased morphine in person four
times, and on at least one other occasion he had convinced another member of the crew to
purchase the drug for him. Eldredge was never convicted for the steamer’s destruction in
any official court of inquiry, but he was found guilty in the court of public opinion. The final
conclusion of the investigating parties was that Eldredge was a morphine addict, and that
he had either fallen asleep at the helm or slipped into a drug-induced stupor on the night of
the accident.
The task of salvage began immediately after the shipwreck event. Furniture and
furnishings were quickly removed to be sold or reused. Some of the hull planking was sold
as loose lumber, and entire staterooms were sold or given away as favors by the CTC. The
most valuable salvaged equipment was the Champlain II’s two walking beam engines and
their associated machinery. These items were removed and initially sent to the CTC
shipyard in Shelburne, Vermont. They were then used to complete the machinery of two
new steamships. One of the engines went into the steamship Horicon, which operated on
Lake George, and the other went to City of Catskill, which traveled the waters of the
Hudson River. The remainder of Champlain II’s hull was deserted, and it became a favorite
tourist attraction on the lake during the summer of 1875. That winter, the ice on lake broke
up the remains and dragged them into deeper water just offshore, where they rest today.
Divers had been visiting the hull remains of Champlain II for some time when the site was
brought to LCMM’s attention. Two archaeological divers conducted a brief preliminary
survey of the wreck in 1988. Their investigation was followed by a detailed examination of
the hull by archaeological teams in 1993 and 1994 (Baldwin et al 1996). During these
investigations, large portions of the ship’s timbers were recorded and measured. These
measurements reveal that approximately 160ft (48.8m) of the vessel’s original 244ft
(74.4m) length are still extant. The stern post of the steamship still stands, but it is very
fragile. In 1998 the steamboat Champlain II was designated an underwater historic
preserve; the first in the New York waters of Lake Champlain.
59
WRECK II: CANALBOAT L.A. HALL (VT-AD-716)
In June 1994, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, in cooperation with Middlebury
College, carried out a side scan sonar survey in the Barbers Point, New York, and Potash
Point, Vermont area. One of the principal goals of this survey was to locate the remains of
the canal boat L.A. Hall that had reportedly sunk in this area in 1878.
L. A. Hall, a standard canal boat, had been built in Whitehall New York in 1867. The vessel
measured 85ft 6in (26.1m) in length, 14ft 8in (4.5m) in beam, and 5ft 9in (1.75) depth of
hold, giving her a tonnage of 62.85 tons. On October 30, 1878 L.A. Hall, under the
command of Captain Kane, was in tow behind the steam tug John F. Winslow. The canal
boat was carrying 100 tons (90.9 metric tons) of pig iron loaded onto her decks. Around
midnight Captain Kane and his son were jolted awake by a horrible crashing sound. They
ran out of the stern cabin to find that a portion of the pig iron had collapsed the deck of the
canal boat, and gone through the vessel’s bottom. Kane and his son escaped only
moments before the vessel sank to the bottom.
The remains of the vessel were relocated in deep water on June 22, 1994 during the
LCMM’s sonar survey. While the location, depth, and sonar image of the site suggested
that the vessel found was L. A. Hall it was not until an ROV videotaped stacked piles of pig
iron on the wreck’s deck that the tentative identification was confirmed (Figure 5-10). The
ROV also substantiated the catastrophic event that sent the canal boat to the bottom. It
appears that the iron stacked amidships collapsed through the decking carrying a large
portion of the port side of the vessel with it. The roof of the stern cabin is also missing; it
most likely floated away as the canal boat settled to the bottom. Due to the vessel’s rapid
demise it is hypothesized that it contains an extensive collection of artifacts and therefore
may be revisited in the future for further archaeological analysis.
60
Figure 5-10. Perspective drawing of L.A. Hall (drawn by Kevin Crisman).
61
WRECK RR: BARN ROCK WRECK
In 1998 the LCMM examined a canal boat located and reported by local divers (Figure 511). The results of this investigation were presented in the Lake Champlain Underwater
Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997 Results and Volume III: 1998 Results, and are
summarized here (Sabick et al. 2000).
Figure 5-11. Preliminary site plan of the Barn Rock Wreck (drawn by Chris Sabick).
The deteriorated remains of the Barn Rock Wreck lie close to the New York shoreline. The
best preserved portion of the vessel is its bow, which is the only hull section to remain in an
upright orientation (Figure 5-12). Both sides have collapsed; the port side is slumped into
the vessel’s interior, and the starboard side lies parallel to the hull. The stern was not
located during the survey, and is either obscured by a thick layer of silt, or it may have
drifted into deeper water. The overall length of the surviving remains is 81ft 8in (25m).
The sides of the canal boat are clearly edge-fastened. The vessel’s bottom was supported
by a light keelson, which has a moulded dimension of 4in (10.2cm) and a sided dimension
of 8½in (21.6cm). Two sister keelsons on either side of the keelson added further strength
to the bottom of the canal boat. These timbers were almost as large as the principal timber,
with moulded dimensions of 4in (10.2cm) and sided dimensions of 8in (20.4cm). The first
of the sister keelsons lies 14in (35.6cm) outboard of the keelson, and the second lies 14in
(35.6cm) further outboard of the first.
62
Figure 5-12. Top view of the bow of the Barn Rock Wreck (photograph by Oscar
Blasingame).
The sides of the Barn Rock Wreck were joined to the bottom by a chine log, which is
approximately 5in (12.7cm) square. A stringer that is moulded 3¼in (8.3cm) and sided 5in
(12.7cm) supports the chine log. The outer hull planking is fastened to the chine log by
large spikes that were driven through the planking, chine log, and stringer from outboard.
Although the stern is no longer present at the site, the vessel’s rudder and rudderpost have
collapsed into the interior of the canal boat. Only the starboard side of the rudder was
visible for examination. Its construction appears very similar to most of the canal boat
rudders so far found in Lake Champlain. The starboard side is composed of two layers of
horizontal planks, which have been edge-fastened in the same manner as the sides of the
vessel itself. Under the two layers of horizontal planks is a third layer of vertically oriented
planks, which could be pivoted from its after edge to extend the rudder for use on the open
lake. The rudderpost is 6in (15.2cm) in diameter and mortised at its upper end to seat the
vessel’s tiller bar, which is not present.
The Barn Rock Wreck is currently under consideration for inclusion in the Lake Champlain
Underwater Historic Preserve.
63
POT ASH POINT CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-724)
Preliminary documentation of the Potash Point canal boat was undertaken in 1990 by the
LCMM and Texas A&M University’s Nautical Archaeology Program. The information from
this field work was never published, but the site was reported to the Vermont Division for
Historic Preservation and the Potash Point canal boat was given an archaeological site
number (VT-AD-724). The site was utilized as a zebra mussel monitoring station beginning
in 1999, and was revisited in June 2001 by archaeologists from the LCMM for preliminary
documentation including measurements, photography and video.
The Potash Point canal boat is in a poor state of preservation. The vessel’s bow is intact,
but much of the remainder is disarticulated. Both sides have torn away from the hull, and
now lie flat on the bottom. The deck has also collapsed, and now rests on top of the canal
boats’ last cargo: a load of quarried stone. No evidence of rigging was noted, indicating
that this vessel was a standard canal boat.
The hull is built using the plank-on-frame method, and has a length of 80ft 2in (24.4m)
Figure 5-13). The vessel’s length indicates that it was built between 1823 and 1862, based
on the dimensions of the canal locks. During the 2001 documentation archaeologists were
unable to record an accurate beam measurement because of the way in which the vessel
has collapsed, however, in canal boats of similar age, the breadth is approximately 13ft 6in
(4.1m).
The canal boat’s bow contains a number of interesting features, although most are entirely
covered with zebra mussels. A windlass is located just abaft the stem, while cleats and
fairleads are mounted on the gunwale. A small hatch located in the bow is approximately
2ft by 2ft (.6m by .6m). The exterior of the bow area has seven sets of wood fenders used
to cushion impacts with other canal boats or the canal locks. The central portion of the
vessel is characterized by a mass of jumbled timber, making many features difficult to
discern. The waterlogged decking and deck beams have collapsed onto, and warped
around the cargo of quarried stone. The stern is more intact and contains features such as
the rudder post, a barndoor rudder and cleats. The transom is located just to the stern of
the main area of wreckage.
One feature of the site, a cast iron window grate, was raised during the summer of 2000 as
part of the ongoing zebra mussel monitoring project. The grate was found to be entirely
covered with mussels (Figure 5-14). After recovery it became readily apparent that the
grate was extremely fragile; shortly after recovery the grate broke into several large
sections. The LCMM conservation staff found that during conservation certain sections of
the grate were entirely decomposed, and no longer contained any structure (Figure 5-15).
The Potash Point canal boat is currently under consideration for inclusion in the Lake
Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve Program. The site is a shallow dive suitable for
beginning divers. However, visibility at the site is generally less than 15ft (4.6m), and the
soft silty bottom sediments could significantly reduce visibility if disturbed.
64
Figure 5-13. Preliminary plan view of the Potash Point canal boat (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
65
Figure 5-14. The cast iron grate from the Potash Point canal boat just after recovery
(photograph by Adam Kane).
Figure 5-15. The center portion of the cast iron grate from the Potash Point canal boat
(photograph by Adam Kane).
66
ARNOLD’S BAY INVESTIGATIONS
Arnold’s Bay in Panton, Vermont, where Benedict Arnold was forced to run aground and
burn five vessels of his small fleet in 1776, has been the site of numerous salvage
operations, and in the 1980s several archaeological surveys (Figure 5-16).
Figure 5-16. Map of Lake Champlain showing the location of Arnold’s Bay in Panton,
Vermont.
Faced with overwhelming British naval superiority at the Revolutionary War Battle of
Valcour Island on October 11, 1776, Brigadier General Benedict Arnold chose to attempt a
retreat southward up Lake Champlain. The escape from the confined water between
Valcour Island and the New York shore proved successful, as the 13 surviving American
vessels rowed quietly past the negligent British fleet in the early morning hours of the
following day. The flight, however, only prolonged the losing struggle.
The American crews, hoping to reach Crown Point, beat into the south wind and rowed to
elude their pursuers, but were frustrated by shot damage to their hulls and the speed of the
enemy’s chase. October 12 saw the capture of the gondola Jersey and the scuttling of the
gunboat Spitfire. Arnold’s squadron suffered its most crushing blows on the thirteenth,
when the galley Washington was beaten into striking her colors, the cutter Lee was
67
apparently abandoned, and, after a two and a half hour running fight, the galley Congress
and four gondolas were run ashore in Ferris’ Bay in Panton, Vermont. Only four of the
vessels which had been with the fleet at Valcour survived the British pursuit. These were
the schooner Revenge, sloop Enterprise, gunboat New York and galley Trumbull. They
reached temporary safety in the lake’s southern narrows, only to be lost with the galley
Gates, and schooner Liberty when the British won complete control of Lake Champlain the
following year.
The five vessels run ashore in Ferris’ Bay (now Arnold’s Bay) were set afire to prevent their
falling into British hands. Local history has it that the hulls burned with their colors flying,
and that Arnold was the last to leave Congress, which had served as his flagship since his
removal from the schooner Royal Savage prior to the Battle of Valcour Island.
The British worked to salvage useable material from the charred hulls in the bay in 1776
and 1777. Such items would probably have included cannon, shot, and possibly other iron
objects like tools and hull fittings. Salvage of a different sort, inspired by historical interest
rather than military necessity, was conducted on the hulls as early as the mid-nineteenth
century. The lower stern portion of the wooden hull of Congress was dragged out of the
bay in 1891. Three of the gunboats were also raised by 1859. The remains of the last
gunboat were raised by marine salvage engineer Lorenzo Hagglund in 1952. Lacking
modern conservation techniques all of these vessels, with the exception of fragmentary
pieces, were lost to time and the elements.
Another ambitious effort to recover artifactual material from the site was undertaken by
William Leege, Robert Leahy, and Oscar Bredenberg during the summers of 1960 and
1961. These individuals, with the guidance of a local lake captain, located what was almost
certainly the bow section of Congress (VT-AD-717). They spent approximately one week
each of the two summers dredging a portion of the hull’s interior with a water pump, and
recovered a large assemblage of artifacts.
In 1984, after consultation with Mr. Leege, archaeologists from the Champlain Maritime
Society (precursor of the LCMM) were able to relocate the remains of Congress through a
combination of remote sensing devices and visual surveys. Upon locating the remains, a
5ft (1.5m) square grid was placed over the exposed frame ends and a water dredge was
used to clear mud from the hull. After approximately one hour of dredging the
archaeologists were satisfied that they had found the bow section of Congress, and the
excavation was halted (Figure 5-17). In 1985, the CMS conducted another survey in the
bay. During this field season they conducted a visual diver survey of the bottomlands with
the hope of locating previously unknown cultural features. In the course of swimming the
equivalent of 17½mi (28.2km) the team made several discoveries. Numerous isolated oak
planks were found scattered around the bay; these were likely debris from the American
fleet. A deteriorated section of a gun carriage and additional disarticulated wreckage in
proximity to Congress were also located.
68
Figure 5-17. Plan view of the exposed remains of Congress (LCMM Collection).
As per the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum’s Department of Defense Legacy Program
responsibilities for 2001, the LCMM conducted an inspection of the remains of the Galley
Congress in October 2001. The goals of this inspection were to determine the effect of
zebra mussels and the extent of anchor damage to the hull. The team consisted of: Arthur
Cohn, who assessed and video documented the site; Pierre LaRocque who
photographically documented the remains using a 35mm Nikonos V underwater camera;
and Adam Kane, who measured and drew a preliminary site plan of the area.
The remains of Congress lie in 5 to 8ft (1.5 to 2.1m) of water, and are largely buried below
the bottom sediments (Figure 5-18). The site was located visually from the surface of the
survey vessel. The diving inspection of the area revealed many scattered timbers,
presumably most were associated with the 1776 fleet. In situ Congress timbers are visible
in six locations. Sections of planking and framing were visible toward the center of the
vessel, while five separate futtocks or parts of frames protrude from the lakebed along the
length of the hull. The intact section of the hull has a minimum length of 25ft (7.6m), and is
likely 30 to 35ft (9.1 to 10.7m) in length.
Contemporary evidence suggests that the portion of the remaining hull is the bow section
(Figure 5-19). This corresponds well to the archaeological evidence. The bottom of the hull
protruding from the western side of the site has only a modest curvature. The framing of
this bottom section of the hull appears to be nearly flat, which is consistent with the midship
section of the Galley Washington, the sister ship of Congress (Figure 5-20). In contrast, the
portions of the frames protruding from the sediment in the eastern part of the site appear to
have significant curvature, as they descend abruptly into the bottom sediments. This
positioning suggests that the stem of the vessel lies to the east, just at the toe of a
limestone shelf that runs northeast-southwest near the hull.
69
During the 2001 inspection two primary observations about the stability of the site were
made:
• Substantially more of the hull is now exposed than was in 1984; and
• Zebra mussels have colonized approximately 50 percent of the surface area of
exposed timbers.
Figure 5-18. Map of Lake Champlain with a detail showing the Congress site (by Adam
Kane).
70
Figure 5-19. Postcard circa 1905, showing the stern section of the Galley Congress
(courtesy of Erick Tichonuk).
71
Figure 5-20. Lines and inboard profile of the Galley Washington, sister ship of Congress.
Lines taken off by the Royal Navy after her capture (after Chapelle 1935:73).
72
CHAPTER VI: SURVEY RESULTS 1999
The 1999 Lake Survey focused on the area of the lake from the northern end of Split Rock
Mountain south to the Champlain Bridge (Figure 6-1). Approximately 40 square miles
(103.6 square km) of lakebed were surveyed during the 1999 field season. The survey
located thirteen previously unknown shipwrecks: Wrecks DD, EE, GG, HH, JJ, KK, LL, MM,
NN, OO, PP, QQ and SS. Nine of the thirteen vessels were located in divable depths; all of
the shallow sites were verified by archaeological divers, and most had basic
measurements, photographs, and video recorded. Seven previously investigated wrecks
also fall in the survey area: Wrecks CC, FF, RR and the Stove Boat, Diamond Island Stone
Boat, Pot Ash Point Canal Boat, and Congress.
Of the thirteen newly located wrecks in the 1999 survey area, nine were located in divable
depths. Eight of the nine shallow sites were verified by archaeological divers, and had
basic measurements, photographs, and video recorded. In particular Wreck MM, a railroad
drawboat, was investigated in some detail. During both 1999 and 2000 a team of
archaeologists spent several days recording the features of this large intact shipwreck.
Additional fieldwork was conducted on Wrecks PP and QQ as part of the Ore Bed and
Snake Den Harbor Survey (see Chapter VII).
The deep sites, Wrecks EE, GG, OO, and SS were located in water depths exceeding
those safe for diver verification. All four of these vessels, and also a plane located in the
survey area (Wreck AP-1), were investigated with a MiniRover ROV equipped with two
video cameras (color and black-and-white), as well as digital and still camera systems. The
ROV was able to verify, photograph, and document these deep sites, all located at depths
beyond 120ft (36.6m), with no risk to diver safety. Vessel type and major construction
details were noted; however, it was not possible to take precise measurements of the
extant hulls.
73
Figure 6-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1996 through 1999 Lake Survey areas.
74
WRECK DD: C.E. BUSH (VT-CH-895)
Wreck DD (VT-CH-895) was located during the 1999 sonar survey in shallow water, and
was verified in August 2001. Wreck DD is the steam tug or launch C.E. Bush. This vessel
was acquired by the Ticonderoga Pulp and Paper Company in 1883 “… for their own use to
be used for towing from remote points on the lake” (Ticonderoga Sentinel 6 July 1883) in
support of their operations on Ticonderoga Creek. On September 8, 1888, while under
Capt. A. Leat she sank about 3mi (4.8km) south of Port Douglass during a gale, all hands
getting off safely (Essex County Republican 13 September 1888). The tug was raised and
put back into service by September 20 (Essex County Republican 20 September 1888).
The boiler was reportedly rebuilt in 1891 (Ticonderoga Sentinel 25 June 1891) and the tug
remained in Ticonderoga Pulp and Paper ownership at least through 1903.
According to Capt. Merritt E. Carpenter, C.E. Bush, which had been abandoned in
Ticonderoga Creek, was acquired by a Mr. Ploof who removed the boiler and machinery
and used the hull as a house boat (1993, pers. comm.). It was eventually (date unknown)
again abandoned and sunk in McNeil Cove, Charlotte, Vermont.
The remains of Wreck DD lie in very shallow water, with at least fifty percent of the hull
structure remaining, although most of it is buried. The vessel has a length of 36ft (11m)
from the forward end of the stem to the after end of the deadwood. The hull is made of
wood, and constructed in a lapstrake fashion with brass screws used to fasten the planks.
The framing is heavier amidships, probably where the no longer extant engine was located.
A cupreous propeller shaft, approximately 1.5in (3.8cm) in diameter was noted in the hull.
The vessel’s iron rudder is still present. Artifactual remains with the hull include an
aluminum teapot with a patent date of 1916, a rubber boot, glass, nails, and a flat iron.
Wreck DD is currently under consideration for inclusion as a snorkeling site in the Lake
Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve. The vessel lies in 4 to 6ft (1.2 to 1.8m) of water,
making it an ideal shallow site. The vessel is in a mooring area, with one small boat
moored next to the site. It is recommended that this mooring be moved to prevent damage
to the site. The shallow, protected nature of Wreck DD also lends itself to being
documented in an introduction to nautical archaeology class.
75
WRECK EE: MULE WRECK
Wreck EE, located during the 1999 sonar survey (Figure 6-2) is a standard canal boat that
has come to rest in well over 100ft (30.5m) of water. Because the vessel’s remains are
located in water beyond recreational diving limits, the site was examined with an ROV
during the 1999 field season. The vessel is well preserved and appears to have sunk
unexpectedly (Figure 6-3).
Figure 6-2. Sonar image of Wreck EE.
The canal boat lies slightly down by the bow on an upright level keel. The vessel’s stern
cabin is intact, though all glass has broken from the cabin’s windows. Access to the living
quarters was through a companionway on the port side of the enclosure. Attempts to
examine the interior of the cabin with the ROV were uninformative, but it is likely that a
substantial number of artifacts are still contained in the vessel.
The stern is scow-shaped with the bottom planking curving up to the transom. Evidence of
a major repair is evident on the port side of the stern. Two small openings are cut into the
transom; one is open to the lake while the other is closed with a wooden cover. It is
unclear if these were additional windows into the stern cabin, or loading ports used to stow
pieces of cargo too long to fit through the main deck hatches. The rudderpost passes
through a small overhang on the deck to emerge 3 to 4ft (.9 to 1.2m) from the after edge of
the cabin. A long “S” shaped tiller bar is attached to the rudder head and it is fitted with two
iron rings for the attachment of an extension. The tiller is pushed hard over to port. The
rudder itself is the typical barndoor rudder seen on most canal boats. In this case the drop
extension is deployed.
76
Figure 6-3. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck EE, based on video footage (drawn by Chris Sabick, inked by Adam
Loven).
77
Access to the hold was through five large hatches that dominate the deck. While no cargo
is readily apparent in the hold, ROV examination of the forward openings revealed a
number of barrels protruding from the thick silt.
A composite wood and iron windlass was found on the bow. Two large bits and the
breasthook support it. Just aft of the windlass is a small hatch that provided access to the
forecastle. The bow is extremely bluff with the planks attaching to the stem at nearly right
angles. Both the exposed forward surface of the stem and five rub rails are reinforced with
iron strips.
While the intact nature of this site is impressive, the wreck’s most distinguishing features
are piles of items strewn on deck. At first these appeared to be random piles of silt,
however, closer examination with the ROV revealed that they were in fact large piles of
animal bones. They appear to be the remains of either horses or mules, and the site has
been unofficially christened the “Mule Wreck.” The piles of bones are found around the
stern cabin and in two piles along the sides of the vessel. There are also two large mounds
of silt between the hatches; it is unclear if these piles are also bones or contain other
artifacts. It seems likely that a large number of farm animals were the principal cargo on
the canal boat at the time of its sinking.
Historic research is continuing and it is hoped that information and possibly identification of
this vessel can be made in the future. Its pristine state of preservation and interesting
artifact assemblage make this site an archeologically important and sensitive site.
78
WRECK GG: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1134)
Wreck GG (VT-AD-1134) was located with side scan sonar in the deep water of the lake’s
main channel (Figure 6-4). The vessel is a standard canal boat that exhibits several
uncommon features. ROV footage revealed that the canal boat rests on an even keel in
very thick silt which has drifted over and into large portions of the wreck, filling much of the
hold up to deck level (Figure 6-5). The silt in the hold has made it impossible to determine
if the vessel’s cargo remains below the mud.
Figure 6-4. Sonar image of Wreck GG.
The outside hull of the canal boat is relatively intact and demonstrates a remarkable state
of preservation. In several places portions of the white paint that once covered the vessel
can still be found. There is obvious damage to the wreck in the stern quarter of the
starboard side. There is also no deck planking in this stern area. From slightly aft of
amidships to the rear of the stern cabin the starboard side of the vessel has peeled open,
carrying away the deckhouse. All that remains of the main living quarters on Wreck GG is
a jumble of disarticulated timbers that have collapsed into the hold. The exposed timbers
of the starboard side reveal that the vessel was frame built and not edged fastened.
Several deck planks along the starboard side are missing, revealing the knees that
supported the deck. The bow is devoid of decking, though two large bits and the composite
iron and wood windlass are still present. The bits are in the extreme bow and rest against
the after edge of the breasthook that joins the sides of the surprisingly finely shaped bow.
While the relatively fine entrance in the bow was surprising, the rounded shape of the stern
was quite unexpected. Canal boats with rounded sterns are rare in Lake Champlain with
only one other found to date, Wreck JJ. The planks along the side of the vessel are bent
around in a tight corner to join the sternpost. There is an overhang in the stern through
which the rudderpost passes. Six large knees give an additional measure of support to this
overhang. Though the extreme depth of the site precludes visitation by divers using
recreational diving technology, this site may be examined further with ROVs in the future.
79
Figure 6-5. Plan view of Wreck GG, based on video footage. Not to scale (drawn by Chris Sabick, inked by Adam Loven).
80
WRECK HH: SMALL BOAT
Wreck HH was located during the sonar survey of the 1999 Lake Survey. The sonar image
is indicative of a small boat (Figure 6-6). Verification was conducted in August 2001
revealing the target to be a mid-twentieth century rowboat. The boat had a length of
approximately 12ft (3.7m) and a beam of 4ft (1.2m).
Figure 6-6. Sonar image of Wreck HH.
WRECK JJ: STANDARD CANAL BOAT
Wreck JJ is a standard canal boat located during the 1999 sonar survey, and preliminarily
documented in August 1999 (Figure 6-7 and 6-8). The vessel sits upright on the muddy
lake bottom in shallow water. The vessel’s structure is largely intact, although many of the
timbers are eroded and several planks have sprung. This canal boat still contains its last
cargo: a load of marble. The presence of cargo indicates that this vessel is a shipwreck,
not a vessel scuttled at the end of its working life.
Wreck JJ has a length, measuring from the forward end of the stem to the end of the
transom, of 91ft 4in (27.8m) and a width of 14ft (4.3m). These measurements are
consistent with those of canal boats built after the opening of the enlarged locks in the
Champlain Canal in 1862; therefore, the terminus post quem for Wreck JJ is 1862.
This vessel is an excellent example of a mid to late-nineteenth century standard canal boat.
The hull retains numerous interesting structural features. The bow of the vessel, which is
sharper than most canal boats of its type, was protected from impacts with other vessels
and the sides of the canal by three thick wooden fenders. The deck in the bow contains two
windlass bits located side-by-side. These upright timbers were used to secure the now
81
absent windlass. On the port side of the vessel just abaft the windlass bitts there is a small
hatch leading to the forward part of the hold. Most of the vessel’s deck is open via the
large central hatch. The hatch is 68ft (20.7m) long and 8ft 6in (2.6m) wide. It is divided
into six sections by five deck beams spanning its width. These beams are placed at
inconsistent intervals with room and space ranging from 10ft to 12ft 5in (3.1 to 3.8m). Each
deck beam is supported by a stanchion along the centerline and two hanging knees at the
side of the hull. An inspection of the interior of the hull revealed it to be constructed using
the plank-on-frame method. Walkways, 2ft 9in (81cm) wide, parallel each side of the hatch
for its entire length. A series of four bits are located along the length of the vessel in the
walkway. These were used for tying up in a tow or for towing in the canal. The stern of
Wreck JJ still retains the cabin roof; a fragile feature which is not frequently found in an
archaeological context. The after edge of the cabin roof is punctuated by the
companionway. An inspection of the interior of the cabin did not reveal any readily
apparent artifacts, although there is a thick layer of silt in the hull. The vessel’s stern deck
is open, and notably absent from this area is a ship’s wheel. The rudder is of the “barn
door” type, laid over hard to port.
Wreck JJ is an interesting and well-preserved vessel dating from Lake Champlain’s
commercial era. The vessel is currently being considered for inclusion in the Lake
Champlain Historic Preserve Program. The wreck’s moderate depth make it accessible to
divers of a moderate experience level, although visibility at the site averages only about
10ft (3.1m) and the bottom sediments are a fine silt which can be easily disturbed, further
reducing visibility. The remains also present entrapment issues if the wreck were
penetrated. These issues could be addressed in the preserve booklet and through
underwater signage. Two to three days of study by a small team of archaeologists would
be sufficient to document to exposed remains of Wreck JJ. The shallow nature of this site
and its intact condition make it an excellent candidate for preserve status.
82
Figure 6-7. Perspective drawing of Wreck JJ (drawn by Adam Kane).
83
Figure 6-8. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck JJ (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
84
WRECK KK: HOUSEBOAT
Wreck KK was located during the sonar portion of the 1999 Lake Survey Project (Figure 69) and was verified in August 1999. Wreck KK is a modern houseboat with a length of 21ft
3in (6.5m) and a breadth of 7ft 2in (2.2m). Some of the vessel’s features include a cabin
with louvered windows, an outboard motor and a chair in the bow. The registration number
for this vessel is NY 8528AL. An inquiry to the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation revealed that the vessel was first registered in New York in 1959. The
vessel is described as a metal-hulled 20ft (6.1m) long boat with an outboard engine. The
vessel was last registered in 1969 and that registration expired in 1972.
Figure 6-9. Sonar image of Wreck KK.
85
WRECK LL: STANDARD CANALBOAT
Wreck LL is a standard canal boat located during the sonar portion of the 1999 Lake
Survey Project (Figure 6-10), and preliminarily documented in August 1999 (Figure 6-11).
The remains of the vessel sit upright on the lakebed in shallow water. Approximately fifty
percent of the vessel’s structure, composed primarily of the bottom and the sides of the
hull, remains intact. The vessel does not appear to contain cargo, an indication that it was
intentionally sunk after its working life had ended.
Wreck LL has a length of 93ft (28.4m) from the forward end of the stem to the after end of
the transom. The width is 14ft (4.3m) and the depth is unknown. These measurements
indicate that Wreck LL was built after the opening of the enlarged locks in the Champlain
Canal in 1862. The terminus post quem for Wreck LL is 1862.
Figure 6-10. Sonar image of Wreck LL.
The vessel’s remains are generally in poor condition. Much of Wreck LL is buried below
the bottom sediments, while the exposed portions are heavily encrusted with zebra
mussels. The remains no longer contain any of the decking, hatches, steering equipment,
cabin roof, or rudder. The bow contains the vessel’s most interesting features including a
windlass and a breasthook. The central portion of the hull is largely open with deck beams
spaced at intervals of 10 to 13 feet (3.1 to 4.0m). Wreck LL’s stern is also open with visible
features including the sternpost and two lodging knees.
Wreck LL is a poorly preserved, heavily mussel-encrusted example of a mid-nineteenth
century standard canal boat. The wreck has limited archaeological potential as it appears
to have been scuttled and is therefore unlikely to contain significant cultural remains
relating to its occupants.
86
Figure 6-11. Preliminary site plan of Wreck LL (drawn by Adam Kane).
87
WRECK MM: RAILROAD DRAWBOAT
Wreck MM was located during the 1999 sonar survey (Figure 6-12), and was documented
in the summers of 1999 and 2000. The vessel was also used as a zebra mussel
monitoring site. Wreck MM is a railroad drawboat believed to be the largest intact
shipwreck in Lake Champlain.
Figure 6-12. Sonar image of Wreck MM.
Railroad drawboats were an adaptation that allowed the lake’s commercial shipping and
railroad interests to co-exist. As the railroads expanded their network of tracks in the
Champlain Valley in the nineteenth century, they occasionally needed to make an eastwest lake crossing via low bridges that obstructed lake navigation. Because commercial
lake traffic was still very active, that created a problem. The solution lay in the development
of the railroad drawboat. A drawboat was a heavily built barge with railroad tracks that ran
down the center of its deck. The boat could be lodged into a gap between two sections of
fixed-pile trestles that emerged from each shoreline. When the drawboat was in position, it
filled the gap and completed the rail connection for a train to cross the lake. When the train
had passed, the floating drawboat was pivoted out of the way to open the channel for lake
vessels to pass.
The first railroad drawboat on Lake Champlain, and possibly anywhere in the world, was
built at Rouses Point, New York (Barranco 1995:2). The vessel, designed to be swung out
of the way to let vessels pass, was described as a “novel and grand invention” (Webster
1985:5). The Rouses Point drawboat was the brainchild of Henry R. Cambell, Chief
Engineer of the Vermont & Canada Railroad, and Charles L. Schlatter, Chief Engineer of
the Northern Railroad. The drawboat was a 300ft (91.4m) long barge fitted with a boiler
and steam winch which powered “a system of chains… rigged through blocks that would
allow the whole unit to be swung out at right angles in a couple of minutes” (Shaughnessy
1964:35). Four years after the Rouses Point drawboat was placed into operation, Captain
Napoleon Boneparte Proctor, a steamboat designer and railroad agent, patented the
88
concept for a railroad drawboat. In 1856, Proctor received a US Federal Patent for a
floating drawbridge (Baldwin et al. 1996: 18). The mechanism was “a new and improved
mode of constructing floating draw bridges across navigable and other streams and water.”
He intended the mechanism to be used in conjunction with railroads (Proctor 1856)
Wreck MM completed the connection in the Port Henry Bridge. The bridge, built in 1871,
was constructed for the iron mining companies in Port Henry in order to transport iron ore
mined in the hills behind Port Henry to the Crown Point furnaces. Unlike other
contemporary steam-powered drawboats such as those at Rouses Point and Ticonderoga,
the Port Henry drawboat was relatively small and manually operated. It was used for most
of 1871 and then closed for the winter. The next spring it was found that ice had lifted all
the piles under the trestle bridge. The damage forced the operators to abandon their small
railroad; the drawboat was subsequently discarded.
Wreck MM is 250ft (76.2m) long, 34ft (10.4m) wide, and has a depth of approximately 9ft
(2.7m) (Figure 6-13). The vessel is in an excellent state of preservation, with nearly all of
the wooden structure still present. The only portion of the vessel which shows signs of
damage is the deck which has two 20 to 30ft (6.1 to 9.1m) long holes. Evidence that the
drawboat was subject to some salvage prior to its abandonment is apparent in the lack of
railroad tracks running down its length and the presence of bolts which once held large iron
cleats or other deck features. Aside from the damage to the deck and the missing deck
features the drawboat is in as-built condition.
The drawboat’s most interesting features are found on the deck at either end of the vessel
(Figure 6-14). Four iron “channels” used to affix the drawboat to the trestle are located on
the edge of the deck with one on each side of the barge and two located near the center of
the deck. The channels were apparently the receptacle for a fitting on the fixed trestle,
used to join the two together. The positioning of the channels indicates that the drawboat
had two sets of tracks running its length; each set of tracks running in between an outside
and inside channel. Other features on each end of the deck include three iron bollards and
two iron fairleads. Presumably, these features were central in making the barge swing in
and out of position. Abaft of each fairlead there are two large fasteners protruding from the
deck that likely held a large iron cleat in place. The deck also has four hatches used to
access the interior of the vessel. These small openings are surrounded by a low coaming.
A visual inspection of the hull’s interior from one of these hatches revealed a wooden
ladder and fore-and-aft bulkhead.
The drawboat’s hull is a heavily-built wooden box with slightly rounded scow-shaped ends.
The vertical sides have three 8 to 10in (20.1 to 25.3cm) thick wales running the drawboat’s
entire length. At the drawboat’s ends, filler pieces are placed in between the wales,
bringing the thickness of the entire side equal to the thickness of the wales.
89
Figure 6-13. Perspective drawing of Wreck MM (drawn by Adam Kane).
90
Figure 6-14. Detail of one of the ends of Wreck MM, showing the deck features (drawn by
Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
91
The heavily-built nature of the vessel is especially evident in the interior features of the hull.
The hull contains 1 to 2ft (.3 to .61m) of silt making an examination of the construction of
the bottom impossible without excavation, therefore a preliminary examination of the
drawboat focused on documenting the structures above the mud-line. The deck (and the
railroad cars which would have been placed upon it) is supported by a series of fore-and-aft
and athwarships diagonal bracing. This bracing, constructed out of 6 by 6in (15.2 by
15.2cm) beams, spans the distance between the deck beams above and the bottom of the
hull. Each set of bracing is notched at its intersection and fastened with an iron bolt. The
junction between individual sets of diagonals are fastened together with an iron wedge at
the tops of the braces and a vertical iron tie rod which originates at deck level and
terminates at the bottom of the hull.
Wreck MM is currently being considered for inclusion in the Lake Champlain Underwater
Historic Preserve Program. The shallow nature of the site and the heavily built structure
make it well suited for recreational use. The drawboat site, however, does have several
issues that need to be addressed prior to having recreational divers access it. Divers
would need to be made aware via preserve promotional materials that the site often has
visibility of 10ft (3.1m) or less and swift currents are not uncommon. These concerns are
relatively minor, however, in comparison to the entrapment issues. If a diver were to
disregard the rules of the preserve system and attempt to penetrate the wreck, they could
easily silt-up the interior of the hull and become lost. The dimensions of the vessel are
large enough that divers could have serious difficulty finding the way out if disoriented.
Prior to opening the drawboat to divers, there should be signs posted at every possible
access point indicating the dangerous nature of penetrating this wreck.
The Port Henry drawboat represents a unique feature of the Champlain Valley’s nineteenth
century commercial history. Although this drawboat was only a footnote in local history, the
story it tells is much larger. The submerged remains of the drawboat will help
archaeologists and historians tell the story of the region’s iron mining history, of innovation
in the industrial age, and the juxtaposition between the region’s lake commerce and railway
system.
WRECK NN: CANALBOAT
Wreck NN was located during the 1999 sonar survey, and verified in August of that year.
The target was identified as a canal boat in very poor condition. The remains lie in shallow
water and are heavily encrusted with zebra mussels. The hull of the vessel was upside
down and broken in half. This deposition pattern suggests that Wreck NN might have been
scuttled by placing a small charge of dynamite in the hold.
The breadth of Wreck NN is 13ft (4.0m) which, based on the dimensions of the canals,
suggests it was built before 1862. The bottom of the hull is planked transversely, indicating
that the hull is built using the edge-fastened construction technique. The most interesting
feature of the remains is the interface between the bow and the rest of the hull. The
unusual position of the vessel could allow researchers to study the construction of the area
where the two are joined, an area which is generally not accessible to researchers.
92
WRECK OO: SCOW (VT-AD-1135)
Wreck OO (VT-AD-1135) was located during the 1999 sonar survey, and verified by ROV.
The vessel is located in more than 200ft (61m) of water, buried in silt and weeds, leaving
only about 12in (30.5cm) of hull exposed (Figure 6-15). The vessel appears to be a
shallow draft barge that has scow ends and a generally rectangular shape. While
composed of fairly substantial pieces of timber there is evidence of significant iron
reinforcement. Both the bow and stern of the vessel have attachment rings on their flat
surfaces where the barge could be attached to and towed by another vessel.
Unfortunately, the very loose silt bottom and large clumps of weeds on the wreck made
exploring the interior of the wreck impossible, and it remains unclear if the barge was
carrying cargo at the time of its sinking.
Figure 6-15. ROV photograph of one of Wreck OO’s ends.
93
WRECK SS: CANAL-SCHOONER TROY
During the sonar portion of the 1999 survey researchers anticipated locating the remains of
Troy, an early sailing canal boat lost en route to Westport, New York in November 1825.
Despite the crew’s meticulous work, no targets were located that seemed to fit the general
profile expected of this vessel. Upon completion of the survey area, the acoustic data was
reexamined, leading researchers to suspect that an acoustic target, initially believed to be
geologic in nature, could be Troy (Figure 6-16). The target was initially discounted because
it projected approximately 30ft (9.1m) off the bottom. Shipwrecks tend to be in an upright
orientation, resulting in a cresentic-shaped acoustic return projecting only a few feet off the
bottom. This acoustic image did not fit this model; however, its position was consistent with
the expected location of the vessel and the surrounding area did not reveal any other more
promising targets.
Figure 6-16. Sonar image of Wreck SS.
In August of 1999, working off of the RV Neptune, LCMM Executive Director Arthur Cohn
dived on the anomaly in order to put the uncertainty to rest. The vessel that awaited him on
the lake bottom was more interesting, peculiar and significant than the Lake Survey crew
had hoped; a 175-year-old mystery was solved. The verification revealed that Troy was
remarkably intact with its bow section stuck fast in the bottom, while the transom was
suspended approximately 30ft (9.1m) above the lakebed.
LCMM researchers had hoped to find Troy for several reasons. First, the loss of the vessel
under uncertain circumstances was an unresolved mystery of Lake Champlain’s
commercial era. Second, the story of the loss of its crew and the impact on the
94
communities of Basin Harbor, Vermont and Westport, New York was a compelling one that
deserved to be told. Third, and perhaps most importantly from the researcher’s point of
view, was the vessel itself. Troy represents the first generation of sailing canal boats; a
type of which there are no other known examples.
LIFE AND DEATH OF TROY
The opening of the Northern Canal in 1823 connecting Lake Champlain and the Hudson
River created dynamic new commercial opportunities along the waterway. New watercraft
were built to accommodate the rapidly rising volume of trade and a new vessel design, the
Lake Champlain sailing-canal boat was invented. The first generation of sailing-canal
boats were built as an experiment, designed to sail on the lake like a sailboat and, upon
reaching the canal, to raise the centerboard, lower the mast(s) and transform into a
standard canal boat to be towed on the canal. Not until the discovery of the Troy had
maritime researchers seen an example of this early design of vessel.
Troy disappeared en route to Westport, New York in 1825 during a November gale, taking
with it five young men and boys. The vessel was sailing to Westport with a load of iron ore
for the newly established Westport iron furnace. The schooner, under the command of 25year-old Captain Jacob Halstead, was carrying the Captain’s 13-year-old brother, George,
his half brother Jacob Pardee, and two crewman, Daniel Cannon and John Williams. As
the Troy sailed, a gale engulfed the ship, perhaps shifting the cargo. A newspaper account
reported that “The boat was seen by two persons on shore… a few minutes before she
went down; one of whom, as we are informed, anticipating she was in distress,
contemplated going in a gondola to assist the crew, but the other, devoid of every humane
feeling refusing to lend any assistance…” (North Star 13 December 1825). Back on shore,
the boys’ “mother and sisters [were] sitting at home…listening through the storm for the
sound of homecoming footsteps as the night wore on. Suddenly they heard the boys on
the doorsteps, stomping off the snow in the entry as they were wont to do before coming in.
The women sprang to the door and opened it, stepped to the outer door and looked down
upon the light carpet of untrodden snow which lay before it, and then crept trembling back
to the fireside, knowing that son and brothers would never sit with them again within its
light” (Royce 1904)
Over the next few days the telltale signs of tragedy began to appear on the shore. The
“captain’s hat, trunk and pocketbook . . . have been picked up but none of the bodies have
yet been found.” (North Star 13 December 1825)
Today, the incident that produced such a profound sorrow for the communities of Westport
and Basin Harbor has all but been forgotten. One of the few reminders is a memorial stone
placed in the Westport Town Cemetery (Figure 6-17); it bears this inscription:
95
Sacred to
the Memory of
Capt Jacob Halstead
AE. 25 years
and his brother
George Halstead
AE 13 years
Sons of John & Phebe
Halstead
who were lost together
with three others the
rest of the crew of the
Schooner Troy
in a gale of wind
off Westport
Nov 23, 1825
Figure 6-17. Photograph of the Halstead memorial, and a transcription of its text.
At the time when the discovery of Troy was announced in the summer of 2000, very little
was known about the two other crewmembers, Daniel Cannon and John Williams. In the
wake of the announcement, LCMM was contacted by three descendants of John Williams,
shedding new light on the tragedy. The family members, who now live in Kansas,
Minnesota, and Washington, were all well aware of the tragic sinking and the loss of their
fourth-great grandfather 175 years ago.
At the time of John’s loss he had a wife, Sylvia, and a two-year-old son, Daniel. Three
years after John’s death, Sylvia married John’s brother Alpheus, and the family migrated
west. Daniel married twice and had ten children by his first wife. It seems that Daniel was
something of a poet and he wrote a poem for his mother that began:
96
Born in the year eighteen twenty-four
The ninth of March will be fifty-four
And whilst I in my cradle lay
Father was suddenly taken away
He was loading ore upon a boat
Which sunk but he did never float
When he went away he was bright and gay
He little thought he would always stay
My mother she did watch and look
She searched the lake in every nook
She mourned and looked years rolled around
But still his body was never found…
The poem concludes “and sign myself your son and friend—Daniel Williams—1878.
ARCHAEOLOGY OF TROY
In the fall of 1999 the LCMM undertook a significant effort to videotape the site using an
ROV. This information shed tremendous light on the vessel’s loss and its construction
(Figure 6-18). Contemporary accounts speculated that the iron ore in the hold had shifted
during the gale, causing the vessel to founder. The archaeological evidence supports this
theory. The heavy winds and seas of the storm probably caused Troy to heel over much
farther than anticipated by the crew, causing the ore to tumble towards that side of the hull.
The vessel became increasingly unmanageable. As the first wave crested into the main
hatch the crew must have realized that their situation was desperate. Additional waves
continued to fill the hull. In a matter of only a few minutes, the vessel was swamped and
the fate of its crew sealed. The bow, since more of the ore was stored in the forward half of
the canal boat, was the first part of the vessel to sink below the waves. With the bow
angled downward, iron rushed into the forward end of the hull, shattering any timber or
other object that might have been it its way. Pulled by thousands of pounds of ore the rest
of vessel was quickly submerged. The descent to the lakebed was a rapid, steeply angled
ride which ended abruptly as the bow plowed into the soft bottom sediments. The shock
caused the masts to break from their tabernacles sending a cascade of rigging, spars, and
sails toward the bow and onto the lakebed. More iron ore was also forced forward, creating
a tremendous weight of material in bow. The ore acted as an anchor to hold the vessel in
its seemingly precarious position.
The crew certainly drowned during this episode, however, it is unknown if their remains are
still contained within the hull, or if they were washed overboard. It is unlikely that any of the
older crewman were below decks during the gale; all hands would have been needed on
deck to try and sail the schooner. As the canal boat sank, these persons were probably
washed free of the vessel, but were overcome within minutes by hypothermia from the near
freezing lakewater; their bodies never recovered. Perhaps the younger members of the
crew were below decks, succumbing to lack of oxygen as the vessel sank to the bottom
rather than freezing to death.
97
Figure 6-18. Perspective view of Troy based on video footage (drawn by Kevin Crisman).
Although no measurements have been taken of the hull, the videotape was studied by
Kevin Crisman of Texas A&M University’s Nautical Archaeology Program. He produced a
perspective view of the vessel, and numerous pages of detailed notes on the vessel’s
construction. The following study of Troy’s construction owes much to his analysis.
98
Troy is a relatively small vessel with a length of approximately 60ft (18.3m), a breadth of
13ft 6in (4.1m) (based on the dimensions of the canal locks), and a depth of 3 ½ to 4ft (1.1
to 1.2m) (Figure 6-19). The stern of the vessel contains a cockpit spanning the breadth of
the hull. This space was used by the steersman to steer the vessel using the tiller (no
longer extant) attached to the rudder post. A companionway leads from the cockpit down
into the stern cabin. The cabin roof is raised above the level of the rest of the deck to
increase headroom in these living quarters. The stern cabin roof is punctured by a round
hole for the stove pipe. A low railing, approximately 10in (25.4cm) tall, surrounds the
exterior portion of the hull in the stern.
The main deck is characterized by a single large cargo hatch running between the foremast
and the mainmast. The hatch is surrounded by a coaming, the forward and after ends of
which are crowned. The coaming also contains notches for beams used to support a hatch
cover. Just forward of the stern cabin on the main deck is a rectangular tube projecting
through the deck. This is part of the bilge pump.
The remains of Troy contain two features that are typical of all sailing canal boats: mast
tabernacle(s) and a centerboard. Troy has two mast tabernacles, although only one is
visible; the foremast tabernacle is buried. The tabernacle is a three-sided box located on
deck into which the heel of the mast was set. The tabernacle allowed the mast to be raised
when on the lake and lowered when being towed in the canal. Lake Champlain
shipbuilders seemed to have been able to perfect the mast tabernacle very quickly as this
early canal schooner has a tabernacle nearly identical to those seen on later sailing canal
boats. Due to the unusual position of the vessel archaeologists have also been given the
rare opportunity to study the centerboard of a sailing canal boat. The centerboard is
generally pushed back up into the centerboard trunk as the vessel sinks to the bottom, but
this was not the case with Troy due to its unusual positioning.
The vessel had two masts and was gaff rigged. The ROV footage suggests that all of the
spars and many of the rigging elements are still on the lakebed. The rigging elements
include the mainmast and foremast, gaffs and booms for each mast, numerous blocks, and
deadeyes with chainplates adjacent to each mast. Lying in the sediments off Troy’s
starboard side is an admiralty-style longshank anchor.
ROV footage of the inside of the hull reveled a jumble of cargo and personal effects. The
vessel was carrying iron ore when it went down, therefore ore is strewn about the hold.
Also present within the wreck are ceramics, bottles, and a woodstove. A more thorough
investigation of the vessel would certainly reveal many additional artifacts.
Troy is the only example of an early sailing-canal boat ever located. It is an extremely
important link in the evolution of Lake Champlain commercial vessel design, and may be
the oldest vessel in the world ever located equipped with a centerboard. A more detailed
study of the site will lead to a greater understanding of the evolution of sailing canal boats
and of early nineteenth century lake commerce. Future archaeological studies must be
mindful that the site may contain the remains of her young crew.
99
Figure 6-19. Reconstruction of Troy, based on video footage (hull drawing by Kevin Crisman, rig by Adam Kane, inked by
Adam Kane).
100
WRECK AP-1: AIRPLANE
In July of 1999 the sonar portion of the Lake Survey Project located an airplane on the
bottom of the lake (Figure 6-20). A number of planes have crashed into the waters of Lake
Champlain, several of which remain unlocated, however the one found by the survey crew
did not match the descriptions of any of these well-known plane wrecks. The discovery
initiated a community wide effort to identify the plane and bring its story to light. With the
aid of the MiniRover ROV the survey crew was able to determine that the plane was
completely intact and that it had come to rest upside down on the lake bottom. Luckily, the
crew was also able to read the registration number located on the tail fin of the aircraft.
Figure 6-20. Sonar image of Wreck AP-1.
Research revealed that this number (NC6131K) was given to a Republic Seabee seaplane
that was registered with the Federal Aviation Administration until 1955 (Figure 6-21). The
plane was registered to Leslie P. McDougal and had been purchased by him in February of
1947. Unfortunately, further record checking revealed that Mr. McDougal had passed away
and the story of the plane’s demise remained a mystery.
The Seabee, a civilian airplane, was built in the years following World War II by Republic as
an inexpensive amphibian aircraft. Its low cost was intended to appeal to returning WWII
veterans. Although the Seabee was never commercially successful, it was considered a
safe and rugged aircraft. The plane had a wingspan of 37ft 8in (11.5m) , a length of 28ft
(8.5m), and a top speed of 120mph (193kmph). Many Seabees are still flying today.
101
Figure 6-21. Photograph of a Republic Seabee seaplane.
With the official paper trail exhausted LCMM historians went to long-time area residents in
an attempt to fill out the story of the plane’s sinking. After articles about the plane’s
discovery appeared in area newspapers and stories ran on local news broadcasts LCMM
staff received a number of phone calls from local community members who remembered
the plane and how it came to be on the lake bottom.
This community effort revealed that Leslie McDougal and his wife (they were just recently
married) had taken the recently purchased Seabee for a flight on a crystal clear June day in
1947. It being such a picturesque day the couple decided to land on the lake. Being a
relatively inexperienced pilot, McDougal forgot to raise his landing gear before touching
down on the lake’s surface. With the wheels dragging through the water the plane rapidly
became nose heavy and flipped upside down. The newlyweds were able to escape from
the cabin of the plane and find refuge on the upturned floats of the plane. They were soon
rescued by fishermen who had witnessed the accident, and taken to shore.
In an effort to save the plane, Bruce Crary, former owner of Westport Marina, brought two
boats to the crash site and tied onto the plane. They began to slowly tow the aircraft back
to shore. However they soon noticed that the Seabee was rapidly taking on water and they
were just able to cut their towlines as the plane rapidly sank into deep water. While several
plans were formulated to raise the plane, none of them proved viable and the wreck was
abandoned.
The discovery, identification, and clarification of the story of this airplane demonstrate the
range of valuable resources available for historic researchers. The interface of modern
survey techniques, traditional historic research, and the community member’s memories
combined to reveal the complete history of this intriguing event.
102
CHAPTER VII: ORE BED AND SNAKE DEN HARBOR SURVEY
In September of 1868 a chemist and mineralogist, Professor Herring, described Split Rock
Mountain as containing “the largest deposit of Magnetic Ore in the State of New York, and
as yet I have seen none to equal it in the United States” [Hall et al 1869:9]. The abundance
of iron ore, coupled with the mine’s situation on Lake Champlain fronting “one of the very
best harbors [Ore Bed Harbor] upon the lake with a depth of water sufficient for the largest
class vessels” [Hall et al 1869:9], indicated the wealth contained in Split Rock Mountain
was immense and could be easily quarried by any determined entrepreneur. To this end,
mining was conducted sporadically through much of the later half of the nineteenth century.
Currently, Split Rock Mountain is a serene tract of wilderness belying its industrial past.
The material remains of this past are by no means lost; they lie hidden under mounds of
iron ore on the New York shore and beneath the cold waters of Lake Champlain. These
remains form a complex terrestrial and underwater archaeological site with the potential to
illuminate the poorly documented history of iron mining at Split Rock Mountain. In June
1999 the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum undertook an archaeological investigation of
Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbors (Figure 7-1) for the purpose of documenting this faded
chapter in the region’s industrial history.
Figure 7-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbors.
103
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Interpretation of the archaeological remains at Split Rock Mountain and Ore Bed and
Snake Den Harbors requires understanding the activities that led to their deposition. This
historical overview presents a chronological framework for evaluating the significance of
these sites, and is subdivided into the two primary and interrelated elements of nineteenth
century history pertaining to Split Rock Mountain: iron mining and the canals.
IRON MINING ON SPLIT ROCK MOUNTAIN
The tract of land known as Split Rock Mountain was surveyed by Platt Rogers in the late
eighteenth century. Following the survey, ownership of the 200 acre (81 hectares) parcel
was granted to Robert Lewis in 1789, and henceforth was known as the “Lewis Patent”
(Hall et al. 1869:3). The land remained in the Lewis family until 1869. The earliest historic
reference to iron mining on Split Rock Mountain appeared in the Civil History of Essex
County, which reported Platt Rogers mined the area in 1805 to supply the Willsborough
iron works (Glenn 1986:60). The extent or exact location of Roger’s mine is presently
unknown. Another passing reference to mining activity was included in the Transactions of
the New York State Agricultural Society, which noted the exhibition in 1853 of a half-ton
mass (.45 metric tons) of iron ore from Iron Mountain at the Essex County Fair (Glenn
1986:60). Later that year, the Elizabethtown Post reported the Lake Champlain Iron
Company was looking for miners and teamsters to assist in fulfilling a contract for 2,000
tons (1818 metric tons) of iron ore from Iron Mountain (Tomkins and Hunter 1997:7).
The most informative primary source regarding the iron industry at Split Rock Mountain
comes from the 1869 prospectus Description of the Iron Mountain of New York, on Lake
Champlain (Hall et al. 1869). Relying on testimony from mineralogists, chemists, miners,
and geologists, the prospectus promoted Iron Mountain as having many advantages over
other area mines. Unlike the nearby mines in Moriah, where the ore was raised from shafts
100 to 600 feet (30.5 to 183m) deep, the deposits at Iron Mountain could be quarried from
the cliff face. The ore needed only to be blasted from the mountainside; from this position it
would naturally tumble to the lake shore. From the shore it was easily loaded onto boats
almost without expense. The superior location of the mine at Iron Mountain, adjacent to
Lake Champlain, would save, according to the promoters, two dollars per ton in hauling
expenses as compared to other area mines. Furthermore:
the position of this property in reference to outlets to markets cannot be excelled; being on
the immediate border of the lake, and having a fine harbor with great depth of water, vessels
can be loaded at its own docks, and the products of the mines can be transported without
transfer, by the southern route to Troy, Albany, Hudson, Poughkeepsie, Peekskill, New York,
&c., and by the northern route or outlet of the lake, to Montreal, Toledo, Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, &c. [Hall et al 1869:6-7].
In the Description of Iron Mountain, H. C. Patterson, a mining foreman of Peekskill Iron
Company, investigated the property, and described the mountain as follows:
The water along shore is so deep that the boat that conveyed me to the property ran up, and
I stepped from the bow on the Ore that is detached and rolled from the veins above, and on
looking around and seeing the Ore piled in masses along the foot of the mountain, I must
104
confess, I became a little excited and deemed it more a dream than a reality, but a reality I
ascertained it to be, and a grand one too.
There are probably one hundred thousand tons of ore detached from the ends of the several
veins, piled along the mountain side and near the lake.
From the shore I clambered over masses of iron Ore up to the almost perpendicular sides of
the mountain, where I saw the ends of two veins - one measuring about fifteen feet in width;
the other about forty feet [Hall et al 1869:11].
A second important source of information about the operation of the mine is an 1870s
photograph (Figure 7-2). This extraordinary snapshot captured a window into the
development of the infrastructure at the mine. In the foreground is a sailing canal schooner
with activity taking place all around it. The image shows that the shoreline cribbing has
been built and the mines have been excavated, however, no other structures are apparent.
This is noteworthy as the 1999 archaeological study found a significant complex of
retaining walls and foundations in the area shown in the photograph.
The initial impression of the photograph is that the workers are loading the canalboat with
iron ore, however, under closer scrutiny this does not appear to be the case. Two unusual
aspects of the photograph initially puzzled LCMM researchers. First, the three wooden
walls on the side of the canalboat are features not previously seen by LCMM researchers.
Our first assumption was that they were fenders, however, fenders tended to be single logs
draped over the vessel’s side. An entire wall of timber seems unnecessary for fending off
other vessels, a dock, or the sides of the canal. Second, the mainmast does not have a
boom. The boom for the foremast is clearly present, raised out of the way of the workers.
Although it is very difficult to discern, the mainmast boom may be lying on shore just to the
right of the canalboat. This raised the question of why someone loading a canalboat would
choose to go through the trouble of removing the boom for a relatively brief period.
It is now our belief that this photograph actually shows the initial stages of retaining wall
construction at the site. Rather than loading the canalboat, the workers may be dumping
excess tailings over the outboard side of the vessel. The vessel is being used as a
platform by which the workers can dump the tailings into deep water. This conclusion was
reached based on 1) the probable use of the fender-like features and 2) the archaeological
evidence. In the background behind two of the three fenders are persons pushing
wheelbarrows (Figure 7-3). Careful inspection of the area in front of the far right fender
shows that the plank upon which the wheelbarrow is being pushed overhangs the side of
the vessel. This indicates that the tailings are being dumped into the water and not into the
canalboat. During the survey of Ore Bed Harbor evidence of this activity was noted on the
lakebed. During the recordation of the cribbing structure archaeologists noted a large
mound of tailings in one area. During the fieldwork we were unable to explain this feature,
however, it now seems that it was the result of the activity seen in the photograph.
105
Figure 7-2. Photograph from the 1870s showing Split Rock Mine with a sailing canalboat in the foreground (courtesy Special
Collections, Feinberg Library, Plattsburgh State University of New York).
107
Figure 7-3. Detail of Figure 7-2 showing the activities taking place in the photograph (courtesy Special Collections, Feinberg
Library, Plattsburgh State University of New York).
108
Aside from the tantalizing glimpse into the mine construction through the 1870s
photograph, details of the mine’s operation are not clear. An article published in the
Plattsburgh Republican in May of 1883 reported the mine’s purchase by Misters Bridgeford
and Randall of Albany. After acquiring the property in 1870, these businessmen
constructed a boarding house and docks, and opened a mine shaft at the site. Although
Mr. Bridgeford and Mr. Randall knew the ore contained too much titanium to make its
mining and use profitable, they intended to profit from their purchase by attracting investors
to the operation (Tomkins and Hunter 1997:7). The 1870s photograph likely dates to the
initial years of their ownership of the mine.
A U.S. Census report published in 1886 noted that during 1880 there was no titaniferous
ore mined in the area. However, the “region could undoubtedly supply a large amount of
this class of ore should there ever be a demand for it. Besides the immense masses of it
near the old village of Adirondack,…, there are other extensive deposits nearer to the lake,
in Westport township and elsewhere” (Pumpelly 1886:108).
The mining activities at Ore Bed Harbor between 1853 to 1888 necessitated the
development of an infrastructure capable of supporting several hundred miners and their
families, and a variety of structures and machinery required for iron mining. Located at the
lake shore were sheds, store houses, a cookhouse, and a wharf. Near the mine,
approximately 700ft (213m) above the lake, were houses for the workmen and a boarding
house. This location was connected to the mine via a series of ladder-like stairs (Glenn
1986:64). Historic evidence indicates a Buchanan magnetic-ore separator was employed
at the mine.
In 1883 C. G. Buchanan reported on the use of his invention to the Fourth Annual Meeting
of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers (Buchanan 1883:324-327).
Buchanan’s “concentration mill” was designed to process iron ore with a low percentage of
iron. His invention allowed the percentage of metallic iron within a body of ore to be raised
by crushing the ore and concentrating it based on the magnetic qualities of iron.
The concentration mill, powered by a 60hp steam engine and boiler, could process
approximately 5 tons (4.6 metric tons) of ore per hour. The machinery consisted of a steam
engine and boiler, one rock breaker, two sets of crushing rolls, a link belt elevator, three
revolving screens and the concentrators. The workings of the concentrator are a testament
to Mr. Buchanan’s engineering skills. By referring to Figures 7-4 and 7-5 the reader can
follow the operation of this device as described in the following paragraphs.
Iron ore lumps measuring about 10 by 20in (24.5 to 50.8cm) were first fed into the rock
breaker (A), which reduced the lumps to about walnut size. After going through the crusher
the ore was transported via a belt and bucket conveyor into the first set of crushing rolls (B).
Here the ore was further reduced in size to about ½in (1.3cm) pieces. From the first set of
crushing rolls the ore dropped into a spout and arrived at another set of crushing rolls (C).
This final set of rolls reduced approximately 75 percent of the ore down to the “proper size”.
Next, the ore fell down another spout and arrived at the link belt elevator (D). The elevator
transported the ore to the revolving screens (1, 2, and 3) which had different size meshes:
109
No. 1 - 10 mesh, No. 2 - 20 mesh, and No. 3 - 30 mesh. The uppermost screen (1) had the
coarsest mess, and the ore that was too large to drop through that mesh passed over the
large end of the screen and was returned back to the crushing rolls (B) to start the process
anew. The ore that passed through the uppermost screen dropped into the middle screen
(2) where the screen separated the ore into that which passed through the mesh and that
which did not. The ore that did not go through the screen was carried by way of a spout to
a storage bin (E). The smaller ore that passed through the middle screen was dropped into
the lowest screen. Here it was divided into two grades, that which passed through the
screen and that which did not. These last two size gradations of ore were directed into
storage bins. Each storage bin had a capacity of approximately 50 tons (45.5 metric tons).
With the ore separated into different size groups the magnetic separation of the ore was
begun. There were two separators: the magnetic separator (F) and the Golden Gate
concentrating tables (G). The coarser ore was directed to the magnetic separator (F), while
the finer grade ore was directed to the concentrating tables (G). Although the workings of
the magnetic separation are not made clear in Mr. Buchanan’s report, it is surmised that ore
with a higher concentration of iron was separated from that with lower concentrations by an
electric charge carried to those devices via a dynamo powered by the steam engine.
In February 1884, the Elizabethtown Post reported the Split Rock Mine was reopened by
“A New Process Iron and Steel Company.” The company sought investment capital under
the pretext of a new technology that facilitated the extraction of excess titanium from the
ore. Four years later a second article in the same publication stated the Split Rock Mine
had failed. The three story Buchanan magnetic ore-separator was moved to Moriah Center
(Glenn 1986). The failure of the Split Rock Mine in 1888 ended the industrial activity at the
site. Writing about the region’s iron industry in 1906 Frank S. Witherbee, noted that for a
time the mine was owned by “Boss” Tweed of New York, however, by the time of his writing
the mine had passed into the hands of the State for non-payment of taxes (Witherbee
1906)
110
Figure 7-4. Profile of the Buchanan magnetic ore separator installed at the Split Rock Mine
(Buchanan 1883: plate 1).
111
Figure 7-5. Front view of the Buchanan magnetic ore separator installed at the Split Rock
Mine (Buchanan 1883: plate 2).
112
CANALS AND CANAL BOATS
Transporting iron ore, a heavy, bulky cargo, was not profitable over even moderate over
land distances. A horse or mule could drag a load fifty times heavier transporting ore
through a canal than it could over land (Bellico 1992:238). This made it financially viable to
export ore to markets outside the immediate area. Ore Bed Harbor’s location on Lake
Champlain provided all water access to the Hudson and St. Lawrence Rivers via the
Champlain and Chambly Canals, greatly reducing the costs of transporting iron ore to its
final destination. The Champlain Canal facilitated the shipment of ore to New York City, as
well as other markets along the Atlantic seaboard. The Chambly Canal allowed for the
export of goods north into Canada to industrial centers located along the St. Lawrence
River.
The potential for using canals to connect Lake Champlain to commercial centers in Canada
and New York was first recognized in 1776 by Philip Schuyler. In 1792, the State of New
York created the Northern Inland Lock Navigation Company. This company spent
$100,000 attempting to connect the Hudson River to Lake Champlain via Wood Creek.
The lessons learned in this failed endeavor were applied to the more successful canal
building efforts of the early nineteenth century (Bellico 1992:237-238). In 1817, after an
extensive study by Commissioners from New York, the State legislature authorized work to
begin on the Champlain and Erie canals. The Champlain Canal opened in 1823, when the
sailing canal boat, Gleaner, traveled through the new man-made waterway. The
dimensions of the Champlain Canal were the same as the Erie Canal: 40ft (12.2m) wide at
the top, 28ft (8.5m) wide at the bottom, and 4ft (1.2m) deep, with locks measuring 90ft
(27.4m) long and 15ft (4.6m) wide. The effects of the canal were significant for the
Champlain Valley, as the opening of this trade artery shifted the prevailing direction of the
lake’s trade from Canada to New York. Lake Champlain’s enhanced importance as a
commercial waterway spurred an economic boom in port towns along its shores. The
opening of the Chambly Canal in 1843 added to this prosperity. This waterway provided
the first navigable all water route from Lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence River (Bellico
1992:238).
Prior to the construction of the Champlain Canal, Lake Champlain’s trade was carried
aboard steamboats and schooners. With the opening of the canal, freight transportation by
these vessels became less practical because they were unable to navigate the canal.
Upon reaching the start of the canal they transferred their cargo into horse-towed, nonsailing canal boats. This costly situation fostered the proliferation of sailing canal boats,
vessels designed specifically to be sailed on Lake Champlain and towed in the canals
(Bellico 1992: 239). These vessels sailed the length of the lake, and before entering the
canal stepped their mast[s], and raised their centerboard keel. The flat-bottomed, shallow
draft hull was well suited to towing on the canals.
The hull forms of canal boats were designed to conform to the dimensional constraints
imposed by the canal locks. The dimensions of canal boats were 77 to 79½ft (23.5 to
24.2m) long and 13½ft (4.1m) wide. Enlargement of the Champlain Canal in the 1860s
allowed for vessels with lengths of 88ft (26.8m) and breadths of 14½ft (4.4m).
113
Towed canal boats were also present on Lake Champlain during this period. These boats
were often formed into tows of 30 to 40 boats. The construction of these vessels was often
dictated by the cargo they carried. Bulky cargoes such as iron ore and coal were
transported in slab sided boats with much of their deck open to facilitate the loading and
unloading of cargo. In 1862 legislation was passed by New York mandating canal boats be
built with rounded bows, because square bowed vessels often sheered off the side of
another vessel in the event of a collision (Bellico 1992:239). These accidents not only
damaged the vessels involved, but the removal of cargo spilled into the canal was often
difficult and time consuming.
114
METHODOLOGY
Between June 14 and 24, 1999, the LCMM undertook a Phase I terrestrial and underwater
archaeological survey of Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbors. This survey was conducted
with the permission and approval of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Westport State Museum. The objectives of the Ore Bed Harbor
Survey were to:
1.
Locate all historic underwater features in Ore Bed and Snake Den Harbors via
systematic visual diver inspections;
2. accurately document underwater features so that plans of each could be produced;
3. create a photographic record of the underwater features;
4. generate a base map of all exposed terrestrial features adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor, and
accurately locate all submerged features on the base map; and
5. prepare a site report based on the findings of the survey and incorporate into this report:
A) recommendations for further archaeological research, B) direction for protecting
the site from accidental or intentional damage, and C) an assessment of the
potential for adding Ore Bed Harbor to Lake Champlain’s Underwater Historic
Preserve System.
The survey team consisted of Project Director Arthur Cohn, LCMM employees Adam Kane,
Pierre LaRocque, Erick Tichonuk, and Robert Wilczynski, and Project Photographer Alan
Denney. On site personnel varied daily from two to four individuals. The LCMM was
utilized as the headquarters for the 1999 survey. During the first week of the survey, Terri
Ann, a 23ft (7m) Mako powerboat, transported researchers to the site, and served as
project dive platform. During the second week of the survey, diving operations were
conducted from an inflatable powerboat.
Researchers were occupied with three main tasks during the two weeks of field operations:
locating and recording submerged features, mapping terrestrial features, and monitoring
divers and site activity. Submerged features were located by diving along designated
depth contours. Ore Bed Harbor was surveyed down to the 70ft (21.3m) contour, while
Snake Den Harbor and the shoreline connecting it to Ore Bed Harbor were surveyed to a
depth of 30ft (9.1m). Upon discovery of a feature, the object was buoyed, and its position
recorded with the aid of a total station located on shore. The total station was also utilized
for mapping terrestrial features.
115
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
ORE BED HARBOR
The terrestrial and underwater archaeological survey of Ore Bed Harbor (Figure 7-6)
revealed an interesting collection of cultural remains. Figure 7-7 is a plan view of the site
showing the submerged and terrestrial features. Features located in Ore Bed Harbor
included a scow, a small vernacular craft, an ore cart, cribbing, iron rails, and wheels to an
ore cart. The lake shore adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor contained additional remains relating
to the industrial history of the site. These features consisted of a house foundation,
retaining walls, machinery platforms, mine tailings, ore piles, and several mines.
Figure 7-6. Photograph of Ore Bed Harbor facing north (photograph by Adam Kane).
116
Figure 7-7. Site plan of Split Rock Mine and Ore Bed Harbor, Essex County, New York (drawn by Adam Kane).
117
Wreck QQ: Ore Bed Harbor Scow. The remains of a mid-nineteenth century scow were
located in the southern end of Ore Bed Harbor. A preliminary documentation of these
remains was undertaken during six dives, with two additional dives devoted to creating a
photographic record of the vessel. Scows were flat-bottomed watercraft, normally
rectangular in cross-section with outward sloping ends. They were generally used in
sheltered waters for the purpose of freighting cargo. The Ore Bed Harbor scow rested on a
slope, with the stern in 30ft (9.1m) of water and the bow 62ft (18.9m) below the surface
(Figure 7-8). The vessel’s remains, although generally consisting of only the bottom of the
hull, were well preserved. Many construction details were obscured by 4 to 8in (10.2 to
20.3cm) of silt in the bottom of the hull. This made the task of recording the vessel more
difficult; however, it prevented zebra mussels from covering much of the wreck. The stern,
which protruded well above the bottom sediments, was largely covered with mussels.
The Ore Bed Harbor scow, based on its context, was believed to relate to the iron mining
era on Split Rock Mountain. This vessel type was used for transporting iron ore or other
bulk cargo throughout the region. A steamboat towed the vessel to its destination on Lake
Champlain, or to the Champlain or Chambly Canals. Once in the canal system, it was
towed by a team of horses. The exact date of its construction remains a mystery, but it can
be confined to after 1823 and prior to 1862. The earliest date was based on the
construction of the Champlain Canal. During the nineteenth century the length and breadth
of canal boats was limited by the dimensions of the locks. In 1823 the locks were 90ft long
(27.4m), 15ft (4.6m) wide and 4ft (1.2m) deep. The Ore Bed Harbor scow, with a length of
75ft 6 inches (23m) and a breath of 14ft 4in (4.4m), fit into the earliest canals or in any later
canal of larger dimension. The scow was not constructed after 1862; in this year, scow
bowed vessels were outlawed in the Champlain Canal. When scows accidentally collided
with other vessels, the damage from their square ends was considerable. Canal boats with
rounded bows tended to glance off each other, but the angular ends of scows cut into other
vessels.
The following description of the remains of the scow is ordered according to the sequence
of construction. Clarification of the narrative may be derived from the construction plans
(Figure 7-9). The builders of the craft almost certainly used the English system of
measurement, therefore, this system was used to record the vessel. Metric equivalents
are included in parenthesis after each imperial unit. In the following section, two
shipbuilder’s terms, moulded and sided, are used to describe timber dimensions. Moulded
refers to the height of a timber, while sided refers to the dimension across the top of a
longitudinal timber or the outer faces of frames. The survey at Ore Bed Harbor was a
Phase I; consequently the following analysis lacks some of the details that would certainly
be recorded during a more in depth study. The reader will note the absence of information
regarding wood species identification and fastening patterns. The information held in those
details await another season of research.
118
Figure 7-8. Perspective view of Wreck QQ, the Ore Bed Harbor Scow. Not to scale (drawn by Adam Kane).
119
Figure 7-9. Construction plans of Wreck QQ, the Ore Bed Harbor Scow (drawn by Adam Kane).
120
Construction Sequence. Traditional sailing ships of this era were built using a frame-base
construction tradition. In this method the keel was laid, and some, if not all, frames were
erected on top of the keel prior to the installation of the planking, The planking was bent
around the frames to form the skin of the vessel. The construction of the hull of the Ore
Bed Harbor scow, which lacked any complicated curves, compelled the shipwrights to use
a simpler ship-building technique.
The bottom was the first portion of the vessel constructed. The sister keelsons were laid
upside down relative to their final position in the hull. Next, the floors were laid down by
notching both the floor and the sister keelsons, thereby interlocking the two timbers. Using
a similar technique, four bilge stringers were laid. The bilge stringers and the floors were
notched at their intersections. The next timber installed, the chine log, was mortised into
the floors. The planking was fastened to the interlocking structure created by the sister
keelsons, floors, bilge stringers, and chine logs. The vessel was transversely planked, with
iron fasteners used to attach the planks to the various members. Upon completion of the
bottom of the vessel, the entire structure was flipped so that the planking was on the
bottom. The bottom portion of the Ore Bed Harbor scow had a breadth of 14ft 4in (4.4m)
and a length of 66ft 7in (20.6m). Onto the ends of the bottom structure the curved rake
timbers were first installed, and then planked over. The side strakes were edge fastened,
and attached to the hull in one piece.
Keelson Assembly. The keelson assembly consisted of two sister keelsons, separated by a
filler. Each sister keelson was 8in (20 cm) moulded and sided. The sister keelsons were
roughly cut; one of the sister keelsons was a log, stripped of its bark, and flattened on the
underside. A notch was cut on the underside of the sister keelsons at their intersection with
each floor. A filler, moulded 8in (20cm) and sided 2in (5.1cm), was wedged between the
two sisters. The filler was only present in the space between floors; at the floors it was cut
out in a manner indicating the placement of a stanchion. The entire keelson assembly
terminated at the forward and aft most floor.
Floors. The Ore Bed Harbor scow was very lightly framed, with room and space averaging
15ft 10in (4.8m). The floors, moulded and sided 8in (20.3cm) were dead flat across the
breadth of the hull. The inboard faces of the floors were notched at each intersection with
the keelson assembly. The outboard face of the floor was notched at each intersection with
a bilge stringer. The floor was secured to the chine log by a tenon cut out of the floor. This
tenon was fit into a mortise in the chine log.
Bilge Stringers. Four bilge stringers, sided 3in (7.6cm) and moulded 7in (17.8cm), ran the
length of the hull. At each intersection of a bilge stringer and a floor, a notch was cut into
the inboard face of the bilge stringer and the outboard face of the floor. This notching
locked the two timbers together. The bilge stringers terminated at the forward and aft most
floor where they were mortised into the floor.
Chine Logs. Spanning nearly the entire length of the vessel, the chine log was the longest
longitudinal member in the hull. The chine log was moulded and sided 7in (17.8cm). At
each intersection with a floor, it was mortised to receive a tenon on the end of the floor.
121
Bottom Planking. The planking was fastened to the assembly created by the longitudinal
and transverse timbers of the bottom of the hull. The structure was transversely planked,
with planking widths ranging from 9 to 18in (22.9 to 45.7cm) and a thickness of 2in (5.1cm).
After being planked, the completed bottom structure was turned over. This repositioning
oriented the hull so that the planking was on the ground, and allowed for the construction of
the remainder of the vessel.
Rake Timbers. An inspection of the vessel indicated that both ends were constructed in an
identical fashion. This inspection revealed the up slope end was better preserved than the
down slope end. Taking into account the time available for documentation, the intact
nature of the up slope end, and the relative ease of recording a structure in 30ft (9.1m) of
water versus 60ft (18.3m), it was determined that only the up slope end would be
documented in detail.
Each rake timber was composed of three members; a lower rake timber, two chocks, and
the upper rake timbers (Figure 7-10). The lower rake timber was the only curved timber in
the vessel’s hull. This timber, moulded 8in (20.3cm) and sided 3in (7.6cm), was oriented
perpendicular to the floor, and was mortised into that timber. Interestingly, the lower rake
timber appeared to have a slit, running the length of the member, positioned 5in (12.7cm)
above its outboard face. The purpose of this saw cut was to facilitate the bending of the
timber. The timber was sawn, steamed and bent to the desired shape. Bending frames in
this fashion was previously archaeologically documented on the Burlington Bay Horse
Ferry Wreck (Crisman and Cohn 1998).
Figure 7-10. Photograph of the interior of Wreck QQ facing aft showing the rake timbers in
the stern (photograph by Pierre LaRocque).
122
A chock was placed on either side of the lower and upper rake timbers to hold those
timbers in place. Chocks were sided 2in (5.1cm) and moulded from 4 to 12in (10.2 to
30.5cm). The chocks were manufactured from a straight plank with a curve cut into the
outboard face.
The upper rake timbers were sided 3in (7.6cm) and moulded 7in (17.8cm). They were
completely straight and oriented vertically. The upper rake timbers were composed of
smaller timbers joined via diagonal scarfs. Examples of two upper rake timbers were extant
on the wreck, however the presence of a diagonal scarf on the top of the highest rake
timber indicated that at least three were present.
Stern planking. With the rake timbers installed, the ends of the vessel were planked over.
The planking on the ends, consistent with the rest of the hull, was oriented transversely.
End planking dimensions were similar to those of the bottom planking. Planking did not
cover the entire stern of the vessel; two cut outs were left for the placement of windows.
Windows. The cutouts, each with a height of 2ft 3in (.7m), and widths of 5ft 7in (1.7m)
housed two or possibly three windows each. A window was positioned between two rake
timbers. These cut-outs may have also served to load cargo that was too long to fit into the
hold via the main hatch.
Sides. The only preserved portion of a side strake was located on the port side of the
vessel. The strake was 3in (7.6cm) thick and had a width of 1ft 5in (43.2cm). The strake
was edge fastened in the pattern typical for canal boats of this region and era. The
fasteners, either drift bolts or through bolts, were spaced at 2ft (.61m) intervals along the
length of the plank. This method of fastening, with auger holes drilled through the planks
and bolts driven into the holes, strengthened the vessel immensely. In time the bolts would
rust, and become more firmly imbedded in the timber. This technique added significant
longitudinal strength to the vessel by welding the strakes together to form a rigid shell
(Cozzi 1993:58). A description by Hall in 1880 of a flat boat illustrates this technique. For
the building of flat boats for the Erie canal the sides of the vessel “are put together on a
long row of stout wooden horses or building ways... the bolts go clear through from top to
bottom, being driven with great effort by a heavy swinging hammer... ” [1970:182].
Vernacular Craft. At the end of the two-week field survey, LCMM staff member Erick
Tichonuk noted the presence of five evenly spaced lumps of zebra mussels protruding from
the silty bottom of Ore Bed Harbor. This regular positioning, rare in nature, is often
indicative of frames of a boat jutting above the silt.
One brief dive was undertaken to confirm the unusual spacing of zebra mussels did
represent a shipwreck, and to record overall dimensions of the vessel. Limited hand
fanning and probing revealed the remains of a small craft. The vessel had a preserved
length of approximately 11ft (3.4m) and a breadth of 3ft (.9m). Neither the bow nor stern
was located, and based on the limited fieldwork, it is unclear whether these exist but were
not unearthed, or if they were not preserved. The sides of the vessel were preserved to a
point just above the turn of the bilge. The vessel was planked in a caravel fashion, with
123
planks laid edge to edge. The framing pattern was obscured by ceiling in the bottom of the
hull. The diminutive frames were 1½in (3.8cm) sided and moulded, and had room and
space of 4in (10.2cm).
Cribbing. Prior to the installation of cribbing, the shoreline adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor
was a rugged mountainside. This irregular topography did not provide the necessary level
ground for processing and loading iron ore. This problem was solved by installing cribbing.
The cribbing in Ore Bed harbor consisted of a network of logs on the lake bottom arranged
in a similar manner to those of a log cabin. This log cabin-like structure spanned
approximately 300ft (91.4 m) along the lake bottom adjacent to the shore. The shoreline
was expanded by depositing iron ore rubble into the structure. The cribbing extended
several feet above the water’s surface, and, having been filled entirely with rubble, created
a flat area of shoreline.
The cribbing remains in Ore Bed Harbor were recorded during four dives, each
approximately one and one half hour in length. During this period a preliminary map of the
structural remains was produced, but due to the extent of the remains and limited period of
documentation, exact measurements were not recorded in many areas. Much of the 300ft
(91.4m) plus structure was buried under iron ore and obscured by zebra mussels, thus
further complicating documentation. The structure was recorded in three sections using a
100ft (30.5m) tape measure as a baseline. The baseline was oriented parallel to the
shoreline in approximately 5ft (1.5m) of water. Cribbing details were documented in
reference to the baseline, and depths of features were noted with a digital depth gauge.
Additionally, slope profiles were recorded at 50ft (15.2m) intervals. This was accomplished
by attaching a digital goniometer to a 5ft (1.5m) length of pipe, thereby measuring the angle
of the bank in 5ft (1.5m) increments.
Figures 7-11 and 7-12 represent the results of this documentation, and will help clarify the
textual description. The most significant physical force affecting this archaeological feature
was the repeated freezing and thawing of ice. Many shallow timbers oriented parallel to
the shoreline were ripped away from their original position. Some of these disarticulated
timbers were deposited on the slope or removed entirely from the site. The removal of
these timbers allowed much of the iron ore rubble to tumble down the slope. This rubble
effectively obscured the deeper portions of cribbing.
In shallow water two primary in situ crib sections were exposed, one at the north end and
the other at the south end. Several tiers of timbers ran parallel to shore, and were secured
together with 3/4in (1.9cm) iron rods. Holding these logs in place were tie-backs, or timbers
oriented perpendicular to shore. The tie back ends were notched to permit stacking in a log
cabin fashion. Each juncture of a tie back and a log parallel to shore was secured with an
iron rod. Both intact sections were up to three tiers high in parts and ranged from 5 to 10ft
(1.5 to 3.1m) below the water’s surface. The northern section had at least 45 round tiebacks protruding from the stone above the round crib timber construction. Many tie-backs
jutted 3 to 4ft (.9 to 1.2m) from the slope, and ranged from 5ft (1.5m) deep to the water’s
surface.
124
Figure 7-11. Ore Bed Harbor cribbing remains – Southern end (drawn by Erick Tichonuk, inked by Adam Loven).
125
Figure 7-12. Ore Bed Harbor cribbing remains – Northern end (drawn by Erick Tichonuk, inked by Adam Loven).
126
Investigations indicated both square cut timbers and logs were used to construct the
cribbing. The lower portions of the structure were composed of logs, while the sections just
below and above the water’s surface were made of square cut timbers. This was reflected
in the archaeological remains by three small sections of square cut timber, apparently in
situ, in less than 3ft (.91m) of water. This hypothesis was confirmed by a photograph of
Ore Bed Harbor circa 1870 that shows square cut cribbing extending above the water’s
surface (see Figure 7-2). A few sections of square cut timbers, detached from their original
positions, were deposited down slope.
Several interesting observations were made regarding the techniques employed for the
construction of the cribbing. Many square timbers and logs were inconsistent in size, not
only from one timber to another, but also dimensions of each timber. Some square timbers
were noted as being 10 by 7in (25.4 by 17.8cm) at one end and 9 by 8in (22.9 by 20.3cm)
at the other. Some logs were thought to be debris due to large knots protruding from them,
but closer examination revealed iron fastenings. The irregularity in construction suggested
a hastily built, functional structure. Another interesting construction feature was the
presence in at least two locations of cribbing sections coming to an end, and a new section
starting with almost no overlap. This introduced a weak spot into the structure, and would
have been avoided if possible. The presence of several sections of cribbing was indicative
of a structure built in parts, perhaps at different times.
Mining Equipment. Surprisingly few mining-related artifacts were visible on the bottom of
Ore Bed Harbor. The few artifacts included sections of rail, an ore cart, and wheels to an
ore cart. The lack of artifacts was attributable to two factors: site formation processes and
artifact collecting. The industrial activity at the site certainly led to the deposition of many
small artifacts on the lake bottom. Refuse from the canal boats and mining activities would
have accumulated on the lake bottom, especially adjacent to the cribbing. Disposing of
refuse in this area was more convenient than in waters farther from shore. However, any
artifacts in proximity to the cribbing were covered by iron ore rubble as the cribbing gave
out. Artifacts not covered were likely collected by divers over the last few decades.
Supporting this theory were reports from LCMM staff of several spades and a ceramic jug
formerly at the site.
Ore Cart. An interesting feature of the site was an ore cart lying in 45ft (13.7m) of water
(Figure 7-13). The cart, which was designed for use on rails, had a length of 4ft 6in (1.4m),
and a width of 3ft 8in (1.1m) (Figure 7-14). An as yet unexplained feature of the ore cart
was a 13in (33cm) diameter iron ring on the cart’s top. In the center of the ring was a hole,
indicating an apparatus was attached to the cart in this position.
127
Figure 7-13. Photograph of the ore cart (photograph by Pierre LaRocque).
Figure 7-14. Plan, profile, and end view of the ore cart (drawn by Pierre LaRocque, inked
by Adam Loven).
128
Miscellaneous Mining Equipment. Other mining equipment in Ore Bed Harbor included
sections of iron rail and a set of wheels to an ore cart. Neither of these features was
recorded in detail. Interestingly, a photograph of the ore cart wheels was taken in 1997 by
Russel Bellico. A comparison of this photograph to a one taken in June of 1999 vividly
demonstrates the impact that zebra mussels are having on artifacts in Lake Champlain
(Figure 7-15).
Figure 7-15. Two photographs showing the same wheels to an ore cart. The photography
on the left was taken in 1997, while the one on the right in 1999 (left photograph by Russel
Bellico, right photograph by Pierre LaRocque).
House Foundation. The remains of a brick house foundation were found in the southwest
corner of Ore Bed Harbor. Virtually nothing of this structure was preserved above ground.
Initially a scatter of bricks on the shoreline was the only clue to its presence. A more
thorough inspection of the woods adjacent to the debris revealed intact structural remains.
The leaf litter concealed the outlines of a 16 by 16 foot (4.9 by 4.9m) brick foundation. The
walls were 16 inches (40.6cm) thick, and each course was composed of two rows of bricks
laid end to end. The interior of the foundation contained a pile of bricks; probably the result
of a chimney fall. In general, however, disarticulated bricks above the ground surface were
nonexistent. This was indicative of a wooden house with a brick foundation, or an entirely
brick structure whose components were cannibalized for use in constructing other
buildings.
Retaining Wall. The dominant cultural feature of Ore Bed Harbor was a large retaining
wall that paralleled the shoreline. This structure, built of dry laid iron ore, was
approximately 202ft long (61.6m). The preservation of the wall was variable, with portions
completely collapsed and other sections intact to a height of 8ft (2.4m). The wall was
composed of iron ore blocks ranging in size from less than 1ft2 (.09 centares) to over 10ft2
(.93 centares). The area west of the wall was filled with iron ore up to the top of the wall.
The purpose of this feature was to create a flat surface for processing iron ore. Machinery
such as the magnetic ore separator was located on the terrace created by this wall.
129
An interesting feature of the retaining wall was a smaller set of walls running perpendicular
to the main wall. These two walls created a 3ft (.9m) wide corridor. The exact purpose of
the corridor was unknown, but it may be related to the Buchanan magnetic ore separator.
Ore Piles. Lying along the banks of Ore Bed Harbor were eight piles of iron ore. This ore
was separated out by size, and placed along the bank to await shipment aboard a canal
boat. The observation that the piles were differentiated by size indicates that they were
sorted by the Buchanan magnetic ore separator.
Tailings. Adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor, the face of Split Rock Mountain is scarred with the
evidence of the industrial activity that took place at the site. Large swaths of the
mountainside are covered with disarticulated iron ore rubble. A cursory survey of these
tailings revealed interesting trends in site formation.
The tailings located at the southern end of the site tended to be smaller in size and less
numerous than those to the north. Furthermore, in many places these tailings were entirely
overgrown with vegetation and organic debris, indicating that since their deposition natural
forces had had sufficient time to allow an array of fully grown foliage to recover the rocky
area. The small size of individual fragments of iron ore was the result of the ease of
collecting and shipping larger fragments. Boulders were collected and shipped out on
canal boats while smaller pieces remained where gravity left them.
The tailings in the central portion of Ore Bed Harbor were considerably larger than those to
the south. Large areas of the mountainside were covered with 2 to 3ft wide (.61 to .91m)
pieces of ore. The large size of this matrix was not conducive to many forms of vegetation,
therefore, much of it is barren. This ore appears to have been extracted from the mines
above and allowed to cascade down the slope.
The northern end of Ore Bed Harbor contained an assortment of very large iron ore tailings.
These boulders, many 4ft (1.2m) or more in width, represent the results of the final mining
activity at the site. Apparently, large sections of the cliff face were blasted in an attempt to
make the mine profitable.
Mines. The mountain face adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor contains at least three mines. Due
to accessibility factors these features were not included in the survey. One of the mine
shafts was flooded, and may contain many mine-related artifacts. Any future study of these
features must take into account the rugged terrain leading up to these shafts.
130
SNAKE DEN HARBOR
The land bordering Snake Den Harbor was not as heavily mined as that adjacent to Ore
Bed Harbor. One area of iron ore tailings was visible on the northern end of the harbor, but
no infrastructure relating to this mining was located. Diver inspections failed to uncover
submerged cultural remains relating specifically to iron mining, but one shipwreck was
discovered in the harbor.
Wreck PP: Sailing Canalboat. The underwater survey in Snake Den Harbor revealed the
poorly preserved remains of a sailing canal boat. The Snake Den Harbor wreck, located in
the northwestern portion of the harbor, was approximately 50ft (15.2m) from shore and lay
in 6 to 10ft (1.8 to 3.1m) of water. The wreck’s shallow depth was the most significant
influence on the current condition of the vessel. Through the years since its abandonment,
ice has severely impacted the hull. Repeated freezing and thawing tore most of the hull
apart, thereby spreading timbers from the vessel across a large area.
Archaeological documentation was conducted during four dives. Documentation of the
remains was complicated by the presence of numerous disjointed timbers distributed over
the site. Given the depositional pattern of the remains, the documentation of the wreckage
focused on uncovering the intact portions of the hull. Limited probing and hand fanning
suggested much of the bottom of the hull was extant. The hull was buried below 1 to 2ft (.3
to .61m) of silt, and was generally well preserved. Documentation focused on uncovering
the keelson and constructing a cross section of the bottom of the hull (Figure 7-16). Due to
the large amount of silt overlying the site, a thorough documentation of the hull remains
was not feasible at this time. The methodology employed for the documentation of this
vessel was directed toward determining vessel type and date, rather than reconstructing
the wreck.
Archaeological investigations revealed the Snake Den Wreck was a early to mid nineteenth
century sailing canal boat. The vessel had transversely planked bottom, vertical sides and
a centerboard keel. The maximum preserved length of the vessel was 63ft 4in (19.3m),
however neither the bow nor stern were intact. The breadth of the Snake Den harbor
wreck, 13ft and 6in (4.1m), indicates it was built before the 1862 Champlain Canal
expansion. In situ components of the vessel located and documented included the keel,
planking, ceiling, centerboard trunk, chine log, bilge stringers, and edge fastened side
strakes
Centerboard Trunk. Similar to most of the nineteenth century sailing canal boats on Lake
Champlain, the Snake Den Harbor wreck had a centerboard housed in a centerboard trunk.
The centerboard was no longer present, but the bottom of the trunk remained. The base of
the trunk, moulded 7in (17.8 cm) and sided 11in (28cm), was the largest timber in the
preserved portion of the hull. The timber was 25ft 10in (7.9m) long, and had a 14ft 9in
(4.5m) longitudinal opening through its center. The centerboard was raised and lowered
through this opening.
131
Figure 7-16. Site map of the Snake Den Harbor Wreck. Four hull cross-sections are presented above, while a plan view of the
remains is presented below (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Sara Brigadier).
132
Generally, the upper portions of the centerboard trunk did not survive; however, mortises
for deck stanchions were still present, as were the lower-most strakes of the centerboard
trunk. Located on both ends of the opening through the base of the centerboard trunk was
a mortise for securing a deck stanchion. The bases of the deck stanchions were bolted
transversely through the base of the trunk and the foot of the stanchions. These
stanchions formed the forward and aft ends of the centerboard trunk. The lower-most
strakes composing the sides of the centerboard trunk were also documented. These 2in
(5.1cm) thick timbers were displaced from their original positions.
Keelson. Both ends of the base of the centerboard trunk were scarfed into the keelson.
The keelson, moulded 4in (10.2cm) and sided 8in, (20.3cm) did not run the entire length of
the hull, but was interrupted in its center by the base of the centerboard trunk. The Snake
Den Harbor wreck lacked a keel, therefore the keelson ran on top of the planking.
Bilge Stringers. One bilge stringer was documented on the better preserved side of the
hull. This timber was moulded and sided 3in (7.6cm). The longitudinal extent of this timber
is unknown.
Chine Log Assembly. Most of the canal boats archaeologically documented in Lake
Champlain have a single chine log joining the side of the hull to the bottom. The Snake
Den Harbor wreck, however, had a chine log assembly made up of three timbers. The
lowermost of these timbers was moulded 5in (12.7cm) and sided 8in (20.3cm). The lowest
side strake was rabbeted into this timber. Positioned above the lowest timber in the chine
log assembly were two other longitudinally oriented timbers. These timbers, moulded 7in
(17.8cm) and sided 3in (7.6cm) and 7in (17.8cm), added additional strength to this juncture.
Bottom Planking. Planking on the bottom of the hull was oriented transversely. The
thickness of the planks was 2in (5.1cm), and the widths ranged from 8 to 13 inches (20.3 to
33cm).
Side Strakes. The sides of the Snake Den Harbor wreck were edge fastened. Only one
side strake was found in place, but the dismembered sections of the side of the hull were
scattered across the site. The lowest strake had through bolts, positioned at 2ft (.61m)
intervals, protruding from it. These bolts projected above the sediments, and were all bent
outboard. This was the result of the sides of the hull being pulled away by ice. The
benefits of this type of construction are discussed in the description of the Ore Bed Harbor
scow.
133
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1999 survey by the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum of Ore Bed and Snake Den
Harbors revealed an interesting array of remains relating to nineteenth century iron mining
and shipping on Lake Champlain. Archaeological remains underwater include a scow, a
small vernacular craft, cribbing, an ore cart, and other mining-related equipment. The
terrestrial site adjacent to Ore Bed Harbor contains a house foundation, a retaining wall,
ore piles, and mines. Snake Den Harbor holds fewer cultural resources, only the remains
of a nineteenth century sailing canal boat. The management of these resources must
account for both the enjoyment and education of the public and the preservation of these
unique archaeological features.
SNAKE DEN HARBOR
The cultural remains in Snake Den Harbor were spatially more limited and possess less
integrity than those in Ore Bed Harbor. The shallow depth of the Snake Den Harbor wreck
has led to the destruction by ice of most of the vessel’s hull. Unfortunately, the integrity of
the site has not stabilized in recent years. Snake Den Harbor is a picturesque anchorage
attracting numerous recreational boaters. Unknowingly, these boaters impact the site by
anchoring into it.
For those determined to preserve the remains of the past, the
destruction of any archaeological site is troubling, however, in this case the documentation
of a better preserved vessel of similar type partially mitigates the loss of the data from this
vessel. The North Beach wreck located just north of Burlington, Vermont, documented in
1993 under the direction of J. Cozzi, was a sailing canal boat of comparable design.
The research potential of the Snake Den Harbor wreck is minimal and its deteriorated
condition and overlying sediments preclude its potential inclusion as a historic underwater
preserve. There are two feasible management options for this site: 1) The site be left
undisturbed, and its continued degradation simply accepted as unfortunate. 2) The site be
marked with a buoy similar to those which mark the vessels in the historic preserve. The
buoy would serve as a convenient mooring for recreational boaters, with a written warning
asking that boaters not anchor within a 100ft (30.5m) radius. The shallow nature of the
site, between 5 and 10ft (1.5 to 3.1m), would be ideal for its inclusion as the first snorkeling
site in the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve System. Signage on the vessel
itself, on the mooring buoy, and/or on the adjacent shore could interpret the history of the
Lake Champlain’s sailing canal boats.
ORE BED HARBOR
Ore Bed Harbor presents a complex group of cultural features that are an appropriate
addition to the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve system. Ore Bed Harbor,
unlike other historic preserves, covers a large area encompassing an interesting
assemblage of historic artifacts. In many ways this makes Ore Bed Harbor potentially one
of the most engaging preserves, but it also complicates the management process. The
primary concern that must be addressed before this site can be regularly visited by
recreational divers is that of further archaeological documentation of several of the
features.
134
The archaeological data presented in this report represents the results of a Phase I level
survey, aimed essentially at locating and preliminarily documenting the cultural resources in
Ore Bed Harbor. With these goals in mind the survey was quite successful, but the 1999
survey should be viewed as a basis for further study and not a substitute for one. Given
that a full-scale data recovery in Ore Bed Harbor is unlikely, the following presents
recommendations regarding documentation considered essential prior to Ore Bed Harbor’s
inclusion.
Wreck QQ. The preliminary survey of the Ore Bed Harbor scow yielded considerable
information about its overall dimensions, layout and construction sequence. Prior to the
vessel’s inclusion as part of a historic preserve, another limited archaeological survey
should be conducted on the craft with several discrete goals. Further research should be
aimed at expanding our basic knowledge about the craft. Data regarding fastening patterns
and wood types could be gathered in one or perhaps two dives. With that data gathered
the only other portion of the craft that remains uninvestigated is the bow. This portion of
the vessel, which lies in approximately 60 feet of water, should be documented in a
manner similar to that of the rest of the craft. This would involve limited hand fanning of
certain key areas and the recording of the structural features uncovered. This work could
be conducted in two to three dives.
Cribbing. The cribbing is a large complex feature, most of which lies buried under tons of
iron ore. Our knowledge of the construction of this structure is minimal, but the gathering of
further information would involve the movement of significant quantities of iron ore. Given
the protection that is afforded the cribbing by its current buried state, it is recommended
that the feature be left intact, and no further documentation be conducted. The potential
impact on the cribbing by divers is minimal.
Ore Cart. The ore cart has been documented to a satisfactory state, but its position on the
slope adjacent to a small projection of land that juts into the harbor is unfortunate. On this
projection is a small strip of flat, open ground; the only level piece of land in the area. The
topography of Ore Bed Harbor makes this the most convenient boater access to the shore.
Upon tying up, stern anchors are commonly deployed to keep craft from drifting into the
rugged shore. It is only a matter of time before the ore cart is hooked into, the likely result
being significant damage to the cart.
Two options are feasible for maintaining the intact state of the feature. This threat could be
partially eliminated by posting a sign advising boaters not to deploy stern anchors in the
area. Given the necessity of a stern anchor in this situation this tactic is certainly not failsafe. Another solution is to move the ore cart. This solution has the drawback of removing
the feature from its original context, but the advantages out weight this concern. The ore
cart could be moved 20 to 30 yards (18.3 to 27.4m) to the north, thereby removing it from
the area commonly used for tying up. As a secondary benefit, the feature would be moved
to deeper water, perhaps 60 to 70ft (18.3 to 21.3m); this would greatly slow the covering of
the feature with zebra mussels.
135
Vernacular Craft. The presence of a small craft in Ore Bed Harbor was merely verified,
with no substantive documentation taking place. Prior to Ore Bed Harbor’s inclusion as a
historic preserve, this feature should be documented in detail. This work should entail the
removal of the overlying sediment with a suction dredge, and the screening of the effluent
for small artifacts. The craft should then be documented in as detailed a fashion as
possible. Upon completion of the documentation the craft should be reburied to prevent
zebra mussels from infesting the remains.
Further Historic Research. One of the keys to fully interpreting historic archaeological
sites is detailed research into historic documents relating to the properties, persons, and
events which have formed the site we see today. Further historic research in local
repositories will almost certainly yield a more detailed understanding of iron mining on Split
Rock Mountain.
CONCLUSION
The history of iron mining in the Adirondack region and shipping on Lake Champlain is an
absorbing era that has left behind many tangible remains. In Ore Bed Harbor these
remains are well preserved, and have begun to reveal their secrets. This information has
helped flesh out the story of iron ore mining at Split Rock Mountain. The more we learn of
this site, the more it becomes apparent that it contains a story that deserves to be
interpreted to the public; the best way to do this is to further document certain features of
the site, and then open it up as a site in the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve
System.
136
CHAPTER VIII: BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE 2000
LAKE SURVEY AREA
To provide a historic context for the reader, researchers have included brief histories of
four towns within the 2000 survey area (Figure 8-1). These locations include Chazy and
Rouses Point , New York and Alburg and Isle La Motte, Vermont.
for vignettes.
137
CHAZY, NEW YORK
The town was settled by veterans from the War of Independence, called Canadian
refugees from the Revolutionary Army, and in local history books Jean LaFramboise is
named as the first settler. In August 1787, this French-speaking Canadian Settlement,
comprised of 167 persons in 55 families, lived in loghouses along Lake Champlain and
carried furs to St. Johns in “rude, flat bottomed boats” (Sullivan nd:169). A few years later,
English-speaking settlers from New England started arriving, and by 1800 between 315
and 500 people could be counted as inhabitants of Chazy.
During the 1790s, a mill dam was built and a sawmill, gristmill, and bark mill were already in
operation. By 1801, the first wharf was constructed at Chazy Landing, but there was no real
commercial transport until 1815.
In the War of 1812, the town of Chazy was directly in the warpath of British armies invading
the Champlain valley from their bases in Canada. Both before and after the Battle of
Plattsburgh Bay in September 1814, British troops were quartered in Chazy. “As a result,
she was trampled and overrun by thousands of soldiers, her citizens were seriously
inconvenienced, her growth was retarded, her interests suffered, and her property was
destroyed” (Sullivan nd:97).
Chazy has never been known as an industrial area, but during the first half of the
nineteenth century, a number of factories manufactured products that took advantage of
the shipping possibilities at Chazy Landing. Potash was produced by several firms, and
there were tanneries, gristmills, and starch factories that processed agricultural products. In
addition, there were limestone quarries, lime kilns and brickyards. Later woolen mills were
built and cedar oil was distilled. At the end of the nineteenth century, ice cutting created a
new economic opportunity for Chazy citizens.
In 1850, when the railroad arrived, the harbor at Chazy Landing became less pivotal to the
economic life of the town. With the coming of the Great Northern Railroad in 1850 and the
Plattsburgh and Montreal Railroad in 1852, the population swelled to an all-time high of
4462 in 1855. Immigrants, especially Irish construction workers, came to settle in Chazy. In
1876 the town was connected by the Delaware and Hudson Railroad as well (Figure 8-2).
138
Figure 8-2. Bird’s eye view of West Chazy showing the Plattsburgh and Montreal Railroad in the foreground (Fausel 1899).
139
But Chazy was primarily known as an agricultural community, and hay was one of the early
products transported on canal boats out of Chazy Landing. In the early years of the
nineteenth century, farmers worked with their team of oxen to clear the fields and to supply
the food needs of their own families. Many grew flax and wove the linen thread into winter
clothing, sheets and tablecloths. When farming became a business, sheep rearing was the
first major agricultural activity until 1840 when dairy farming began to dominate. A factory
for making cheese opened in Chazy in 1869, and commercial butter production started up
in the late nineteenth century.
Agricultural history in Chazy, however, is primarily the story of apple production. The first
settlers realized that the loam soil along the lake was well suited for apples, and Jean
LaFramboise is credited with planting the first apple orchard. Yet, apple growing on a large
commercial scale did not begin until the early twentieth century. In 1922 the Delaware and
Hudson Railroad bought the Chazy Marble Lime Company and the adjoining nineteen
farms. The company planted 40,000 young apple trees and in 1924 was bought out by
Chazy Orchards. The new company expanded the acreage devoted to apples and focused
on one variety: McIntosh. By 1954 this orchard was considered to be the largest McIntosh
apple orchard in the world.
In addition to its status as a prime apple-growing location, Chazy is also renowned as the
home of Heart’s Delight Farm, a model scientific farm owned by William and Alice Miner.
William Miner had grown up on his uncle’s farm, and in 1903 he returned to Chazy to farm
a 144-acre (58.3 hectares) parcel that he had inherited. By 1930, when William Miner died,
the farm had grown to 13,000 acres (5263 hectares) and included man-made lakes, dams,
railroad depots, and a community of buildings. The Miners welcomed an array of celebrities
to their farm including Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Gene Stratton Porter, “who wrote
at least three books inspired by the surroundings at Heart’s Delight” (Sullivan nd:137). The
couple not only furthered agricultural development in Chazy, but their philanthropic
endeavors enhanced life in Clinton County.
Lake Champlain has played a large role in the economic life of Chazy from the beginning.
Early settlers built bateaux to transport their grain to gristmills in Canada. In 1808, Matthew
Sax established Sax’s Wharf at Chazy Landing, a wharf purposely built in deep water to be
able to accommodate lake steamers. Until 1818, when the Rouses Point wharf was
constructed, Sax’s Wharf served as the most northern harbor in the United States on Lake
Champlain. Steamers stopped landing at Chazy in 1868.
Several Chazy residents made their living as boatmen. Hiram Ferris was a pilot off and on
for the Champlain Transportation Company for nearly fifty years starting in 1805. He
discovered the rocky reef on Lake Champlain near Port Kent. George Currie, who spent his
winters at Chazy Landing from 1852, owned and operated a canal boat that had a square
sail and was called a “pin flat.” Ferries operated from Chazy beginning in 1796, when
Reuben Taylor started operating one from Alburg. In 1852 McDonough McGregor began a
ferry service between Chazy Landing and Isle La Motte, which was continued by a number
of operators until 1936. Before 1905 all the ferries were propelled by sails, and the landing
place varied with the wind.
140
With the arrival of William Sweet’s ferryboat The Twins in 1905, the era of the gas-powered
ferry began. Sweet named his boat after his twin sons, Clinton and Gerald, and plied the
waters between Chazy Landing and Isle La Motte with this twin-engine ferryboat until 1915,
when he sold it to Elisha Reynolds of Alburg. In 1916, William Sweet launched a larger gas
powered ferry called Twin Boys. This boat could carry fifteen automobiles and normally
maintained the ferry route from April 16 to December 2. William Sweet continued to operate
Twin Boys until 1936, and trained many pilots who made their living on other waterways.
He became a popular figure on Lake Champlain and was well known for supplying
passengers with historical background on the northern Champlain Valley and for keeping
the name of Chazy in the memories of tourists.
141
ROUSES POINT, NEW YORK
Rouses Point, New York lies on the 45th parallel and has historically marked the border for
New France, for both the British and Dutch Empires in North America, and in recent times
for the United States and Canada. It has witnessed the historical parades of peoples
passing by on land or sea: Native Americans, French, British, Vermonters, New Yorkers,
and Canadians. And yet, the community was established comparatively late for Champlain
Valley communities, and has never grown into the city that was predicted when the railroad
arrived in 1851. Champlain Landing was the original place name, but by 1823, when the
U.S. post office opened an office, Rouses Point was designated as the official name.
The first permanent settler was Captain Jacques Rouse for whom the town was named. He
arrived with his wife and their three children in 1793, at the same time as his wife’s parents:
Major Oliver and his wife. Rouse built a substantial frame house on a ridge overlooking the
lake, and the Olivers built a frame house along the lake shore. The Oliver homestead was
donated to Rouses Point by descendants and is now a town park.
Captain Rouse owned a number of lots, including landholdings in the Canadian and Nova
Scotia Refugee Tract as well as between the two rivers. He constructed a store, a dock,
and opened his house to passersby to use as an inn. He was originally from Nova Scotia,
but had served as a soldier with the American forces during the war of independence. He
was commissioned as a captain in the New York State militia in 1790 and based himself in
Rouses Point, training militiamen in a territory that extended as far south as Plattsburgh.
During the War of 1812, Captain Rouse was imprisoned in Montreal for one and a half
years, accused by the British of working as an American spy. When he returned to Rouses
Point, he moved his family to another house along the lake. The Rouse family certainly
earned its place in history as founders of the community, for Clara Rouse bore 26 children
before her death in 1814, four years before her husband who died in 1818.
The community grew slowly, and by 1803 there were only six houses in Champlain
Landing. By 1810, however, a full range of inhabitants had moved in. A ferry operated to
Windmill Point, Alburg and a blacksmith, brickmaker, carpenter, tailor, operator of a lime
kiln, shoemaker, and tanner were all plying their trades. Mention is made in local histories
of several ferries that operated between Rouses Point and Alburg. In 1816 James Bullis
was running a ferry, and in 1829 Nathan Webb owned a horse-powered ferry operated by
Captain F. Davenport.
It was not until 1818 that a steamboat dock was constructed in Rouses Point. Up to that
time, Sax’s Wharf at Chazy Landing served as the northern terminus within the United
States for lake steamers. General Ezra Thurber built the wharf at the end of Champlain
Street, and opened up the border community to steamboat traffic. It was also a local
Customs port under the jurisdiction of the Customs District of Champlain, headquartered in
Plattsburgh. In 1823, the U.S. post office arrived and the first newspaper was founded, The
Rouses Point Harbinger and Champlain Political and Literary Compendium.
142
The real milestone in the history of Rouses Point took place in 1850 when the Northern
Railroad connected the town to Ogdensburg, New York, the western terminus on the St.
Lawrence River (Figure 8-3). There had been years of competition between the towns in
northern New York State to attract the railroad. It had taken many years for stock to be
sold, for the land to be surveyed and for 117½ mi (189.1km) of track to be laid between
Ogdensburg and Rouses Point. Most of the construction workers were Irish immigrants,
and the maintenance shops for the Northern Railroad provided employment for an
additional 300 Rouses Pointers. The next year the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence
Railroad was extended north to St. Johns in Quebec, and steamboats that had terminated
in St. Johns transferred to Rouses Point as their northern port on Lake Champlain.
In 1851 when the Rouses Point Bridge went into service, Rouses Point made transportation
history on another front, as well. With the railway bridge, trains crossed over Lake
Champlain traveling over a mile-long wooden trestle and floating drawbridge to connect
with the Vermont and Canada (later a part of the Vermont Central) Railroad in Alburg,
Vermont. The floating drawbridge, which was in use for seventeen years, was replaced by
a center pivot drawbridge in 1868 that operated until the 1950s when the railway crossing
was abandoned.
The floating drawbridge with the track across it was the ingenious idea of Henry
R.Campbell, chief engineer of the Vermont & Canada Railroad, and of Col. Charles L.
Schlatter, chief engineer of the Northern Railroad. It consisted of a 300ft (91.4m) long
barge fitted with a boiler and steam winch that operated “a system of chains… rigged
through blocks that would allow the whole unit to be swung out at right angles in a couple of
minutes” (Barranco 1995:4). The invention was controversial from the beginning, and it
was eventually decided that the more conventional style of lift bridge in use in the
Missisquoi Bay Bridge was preferable. A floating drawbridge was cumbersome to operate
and was subject to weather conditions that affected all types of boat traffic. In fact,
newspaper reports indicate that Rouses Point officials blew up the wreck in the harbor.
The railroad was much used during the 1870s for both passengers and freight. But the
bridge could not carry traffic in two directions at the same time because each company had
its own rails and right of way at each end of the bridge. By 1883 there were five railroads at
Rouses Point, and the town had become a transportation hub for the North Country. Yet,
the town never became the city that citizens forecast in the mid-nineteenth century.
143
Figure 8-3. Map of Rouses Point from 1869 showing the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad and the Champlain and
St. Lawrence Railroad (Beers et al 1869: 15).
144
ALBURG, VERMONT
In 1733, a Frenchman was granted the land that was to become the town of Alburg, and in
1740 eight families established a settlement at what is now called Windmill Point. After the
Seven Years War, British subjects bought some of the land from French landlords, but the
territory was subject to ownership conflicts until the late eighteenth century. The
Independent Republic of Vermont granted large tracts of land to Ira Allen, but previous
British landowners had secured property rights and surveyed lots along the shoreline.
Many persons who settled in Alburg before the American Revolution were British loyalists
and sympathizers. After the war many returned and uncertainties remained about
ownership rights. In 1791, when Vermont was admitted to the Union as the fourteenth
state, titles to the land were finally resolved in Vermont courts.
In the early 1800s, the small community of Alburg developed a typical Champlain Islands
economy. Settlers lived as self-sufficient farmers, harvesting forest products for cash
needs. They produced and sold ashes and rafted timber up to Quebec City. By 1830, a
brickmaker, shoemaker, blacksmith, tailor, tanner, blacksmith, steam saw miller, and maker
of saddles and wooden pails all lived in the town. During the 1830s, a number of Alburg
citizens incorporated the Alburgh Steam Engine Company, which operated a mill at the
mouth of the Mud Creek for only a few years.
Because Alburg was situated halfway between St. John’s, Quebec and Burlington,
Vermont, the town had always been an attractive rest stop for transit passengers, and by
1801 there were already ten inns servicing the needs of travelers. Later, in the midnineteenth century with the railroad connection and the exploitation of the mineral springs,
tourists visited Alburg as well, and several resort hotels were constructed.
Boats have always played a part in the town’s history, and included canoes, rafts, scows,
canal boats, steamboats, and ferries. When bridges were built to link Alburg to the shores
of Vermont and New York as well as to nearby Champlain islands, the ferry business came
to an eventual end. For more than one hundred years, however, ferries provided passage
for people, animals, and goods to cross Lake Champlain from Alburg. Some of the ferries
were small and connected two properties located across the water from one another, and
some of the ferries were business operations with exclusive rights to cover certain harbors.
The first Ferry Right was granted in 1796 to Reuben E. Taylor to operate a ferry west from
Alburg across Lake Champlain to New York. Only in 1938, with the construction of the
Alburg-Rouses Point, New York bridge, was this ferry service terminated. Also in 1796
Enoch Hall started running a ferry from Alburg Tongue to Isle La Motte, a service that
ended in 1882 with the opening of the Isle La Motte-Alburg bridge. In 1797 ferry service
across Missisquoi Bay from Alburg to Highgate was granted and continued until 1938,
when the Missisquoi Bay Bridge connecting Alburg with West Swanton was opened. John
O’Neill operated a sail rigged ferry from South Alburg to North Hero until 1885/1886 when a
double drawbridge was constructed.
145
In 1828, the Vermont legislature awarded rights to two men to operate horse ferries. Elijah
Loomis, who was a resident of Alburg, ran a two-horse ferry between Alburg and Swanton
for several years. William Mott also ran a two-horse ferry between Alburg and Rouses
Point. The ferry Dean Goodsell ran between Alburg and Rouses Point (built 1927 in
Burlington) was a steam cable barge (Stratton 1986:149). “The cable ran 6,000 feet from
shore to shore and in the middle of the channel rested on the bottom… Securely fastened
on both sides of the lake the cable passed through the hull of the sixteen-car barge and
around a large drum. When the engine was started, the drum gripped the cable and the
barge forged ahead.”
For Alburg, the history of steamboating revolved around the Rockwell family. Merrit
Rockwell moved to town in 1834, and his four sons were all licensed pilots. Jabez Rockwell
started working on Burlington in 1837, and his brother, Ell Rockwell, was captain of thirteen
Lake Champlain steamboats, ending his career at his death in 1928. In 1880, he
superintended the construction of the steamer Reindeer in the shipyards in Alburg. Another
member of the family, Miss Harriet Sowles, retired in 1943 after working forty-six years as a
lake stewardess.
Citizens of Alburg welcomed the railroad to their town in January 1852 (Figure 8-4), and its
arrival ushered in a novel engineering invention. Henry Campbell of the Vermont & Canada
railroad and Charles L. Schlatter of the Northern & Ogdensburgh railroad devised a
“floating bridge” to be placed in the middle of the 5290ft (1612m) bridge. Their invention
was a barge with track across it that could be swung aside whenever boats needed to pass
by the bridge. “A boiler and steam winch were placed on the 301ft (91.8m) barge, and a
system of chains was rigged through blocks that would allow the whole unit to be swung
out at right angles in a couple of minutes” (Stratton 1986:183).
In 1901, with the completion of the Rutland-Canadian Railroad, which became known as
the Island Line, passengers could travel from Burlington to Alburg in two hours. The branch
line required the construction of three draw spans over the lake and a rock rubble
causeway more than 3mi (4.8km) long from Colchester to South Hero. This additional
railroad capability expanded economic life in Alburg considerably during the twentieth
century, and continued in operation until 1962.
In 1858, the Lighthouse Board built the Windmill Point lighthouse to replace a private light
with a sixth order Fresnel lens. From the 40ft (12.2m) octagonal stone tower, the fixed white
light could be seen for a distance of thirteen miles. In 1931 an acetylene light replaced the
lantern and a steel skeleton tower was erected, but the old blue limestone lighthouse and
keeper’s house still stand at the end of Windmill Point Road south of Route 2 about a mile
east of the bridge from New York to Vermont.
146
Figure 8-4. Detail from an 1871 map of the town of Alburg, Vermont (Beers 1871:40).
147
ISLE LA MOTTE, VERMONT
There is archaeological evidence to suggest that Isle La Motte was first inhabited by Native
Americans from the Glacial Kame Culture in approximately 1000 B.C. An Indian burial
ground was discovered there in the 1960s. The next sign of human settlement was the
construction of Fort St. Anne in 1666 by Pierre de St. Paul, Sieur de la Motte, captain in the
Carignan regiment sent to New France by Louis XIV. The fort existed for only five years,
after which Captain La Motte was sent to Montreal to take up the post of governor. Today,
St. Anne’s Shrine is situated at the site of the former fort.
In 1788, Lieutenant William Blanchard became Isle La Motte’s first settler after the war of
independence, and by 1791 the island was home to 47 residents. At the turn of the century
the island had begun to attract English and Scottish settlers who had migrated northward.
Caleb Hill built a stone house on the island in 1793, and his son, Ira Hill, later ran a hotel in
The Hill House. By 1800, there were 135 inhabitants. Isle La Motte has never attracted a
large number of residents, and in 1970 the population was only 262.
Because Isle La Motte is entirely surrounded by water, enterprising pioneers built the first
ferry in 1796. From that time a succession of ferries has connected the island both to
Alburg, Vermont and to Chazy Landing, New York. The first ferries were sailboats, and Ira
Hill operated one from the island’s north end to Alburg. When the bridge was opened in
1882, this route was abandoned. In 1903 John Fleury of Isle La Motte bought the ferry that
ran to Chazy Landing and in 1905 sold it to William Sweet of Chazy Landing.
Isle La Motte is noted for its important role in the production of marble. Statistics go back as
far back as 1844, documenting that limestone, known as black marble, had been quarried
on Isle La Motte. In a single year, i.e. 1844, 3,000 cubic feet were quarried. The black
marble was used extensively for construction purposes. The piers in Montreal, Brooklyn
bridges, residential houses on the island, as well as the Methodist Church and the library
are all made out of quarried marble. The most important quarries were Peter Fleury’s on
the southwest section of the island, Nelson Fisk’s and Goodsell’s on the east shore north of
Holcomb’s point, and Ira Hill’s located on the island’s east shore. Only Goodsell’s quarry
was still in operation in 1975, and it was leased by the Vermont Marble Company of
Proctor, Vermont.
In 1870 a lighthouse was built on Isle La Motte to replace a private kerosene lantern that
had hung on a pine tree at Sandy Point from 1830 (Figure 8-5). This lantern had been
moved to Ezra Pike’s house, on the third floor window, and he had put up the lantern every
evening and removed it every morning. The Lighthouse Board had indicated when it was
constructed that its location was one of the most important lights on Lake Champlain. The
lighthouse consisted of a cast iron tower that reached a height of 24ft (7.3m), with a spiral
staircase that led up to the kerosene lamp, a reflector about 5ft (1.5m) in diameter with
burners over 1ft (30.5cm) in diameter. There was a lighthouse keeper’s house, and Wilbur
F. Hill was employed as the keeper for fifty years. In 1881 a new fixed white light in a sixth
order Fresnel lens was installed, which increased the visibility to 13mi (20.1km). In 1933, in
148
order to cut maintenance costs, a steel skeletal tower was constructed. This automatic
lighthouse does not require the services of a lighthouse keeper.
Figure 8-5. 1871 Map of Isle La Motte (Beers 1871:41-42)
149
Near the end of the nineteenth century, the isolated sparsely populated island became
connected to the mainland with the construction of the bridge to Alburg, Vermont in 1882.
Ten years later, Bishop de Goesbriand bought land from Henry H. Hill to build St. Anne’s
Shrine at Sandy Point, the site where the original Fort St. Anne stood. This Catholic shrine
today attracts more than thirty thousand visitors annually.
In 1900, the population of Isle La Motte reached an all-time high of 808, and there were
around 500 horses on the island as well. Apple orchards were planted in the late 1800s,
taking advantage of the soil well suited to this crop, but by the 1930s they had been mostly
abandoned.
150
CHAPTER IX: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 2000
LAKE SURVEY AREA
Two shipwrecks located in the 2000 Lake Survey’s sonar phase had already been
archaeologically investigated: Wreck UU, a canal sloop known as the “lsle La Motte Canal
Sloop”, and Wreck VV, a standard canal boat.
WRECK UU: ISLE LAMOTTE CANAL SLOOP (VT-GI-24)
Falling within the 2000 Lake Survey area were the remains of a canal sloop documented in
1982 by the Champlain Maritime Society, precursor of the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum (Cohn 1984). The Isle La Motte Canal Sloop (VT-GI-24) is a wooden-hulled
vessel possessing an overall length of 79ft 8in (24.3m), a maximum beam of roughly 13ft
6in (4.1m), and an approximate depth of hold of 4ft (1.2m) (Figure 9-1). She lies down at
the bow, with a starboard list, in soft sediment. Significant components of the hull, her
rigging and associated artifacts are described below.
Figure 9-1. Plan view of the Isle La Motte Canal Sloop (drawn by Kevin Crisman).
The stem apparently consists of at least two pieces, a main post which contains the
planking rabbet, and a false post attached to the main member’s forward edge. Judging by
the location of a thin, paint-filled space between the two components, the main post’s
maximum thickness (moulded dimension) is 7.5in (19.1cm) with a width (sided
measurement) of 10 inches. The false post is moulded approximately 8.5in (21.6cm), its
sided dimension decreasing from 10in (25.4cm) aft to approximately 4in (10.2cm) on its
forward face. The method used for joining the two visible stem pieces was not determined,
but it is likely that iron bolts were employed. Determination of the possible existence of an
inner post and apron awaits examination of the hull’s interior. A breasthook designed to
reinforce the bow framing is joined to the inboard face of the stem just above deck level; its
maximum moulded dimension is 9.5in (24.1cm) and its arms measure roughly 2.5ft (.8m) in
length. The stem is intact from its flat top to the present surface of lake-bottom sediment, a
distance of 4ft 9.5in (1.5m).
151
Roughly 4ft (1.22m) of the length of the sternpost is visible between its junction with the
transom and where it disappears into the sediment. The post’s maximum moulded
dimension exceeds 6 inches, but its sided measurement has not yet been determined. The
planking rabbet has not yet been studied, but it is evident that it angles aft on the post as it
goes upward.
Little of the sloop’s framing could be seen during the survey, which concentrated on the
hull’s exterior and the most readily accessible internal members. Top timbers, however,
were recorded as measuring 4in (10.2cm) square in sections near deck level, and it is
obvious that other frame members terminated below deck.
Exterior planking strakes were recorded as ranging from roughly 2.5 to 12in (6.4 to 30.5cm)
in width on the vessel’s starboard quarter, although their thickness has not yet been
documented. They were presumably fastened to the frames with iron nails. Plank widths
on the transom fell within the range of variation noted above, with an average width of 7in
(17.8cm).
A single rub-wale wearing strake extends aft from each side of the stem for a distance of
between 10 and 20ft (3.1 to 6.1m). This member is located below deck level, and is ironfastened to the hull planking. It is half-round, with a width of 3in (7.6cm) and a thickness of
2in (5.1cm).
Since the inboard surface of the sloop’s framing is largely covered by the marble cargo and
accumulated sediment, little of the ceiling planking is currently accessible for study.
Examination of the hull interior above the mud line did, however, reveal that the ceiling
exists and has pulled away from most frames in the area inspected. Ceiling/frame
fastening methods have not yet been documented.
The starboard deck beam clamp, measured at a damaged location on the vessel’s
starboard side, is moulded 2.5in (6.4cm) and sided 5.5in (14cm). Its method of attachment
to frames and deck beams has not yet been documented.
Some of the deck beams supporting the deck planking are visible on the hull’s starboard
side. The two which were measured are 4in (10.2cm) square at their ends. The spacing
between adjacent beams is not currently known.
Two stanchions, those at either end of the sloop’s centerboard trunk, were the only ones
examined during the 1982 survey. The one at the after end of the case measures 4in
(10.2cm) across its after face, and both stanchions serve as nailing surfaces for the ends of
the planks, comprising the trunk. Vertical iron rods run from the deck beams down along
the sides of the trunk, presumably terminating at the base of the keelson or keel.
The vessel is decked over the entire length with longitudinal planking averaging 5.5in
(14.0cm) in width. Four hatches pierce the deck, as described below, and the decking at
the vessel’s extreme bow has collapsed, probably under the weight of a marble block which
152
shifted during the sloop’s sinking. This block, nearly 9ft (2.7m) in length, remains on deck,
wedged between the bulwarks immediately aft of the vessel’s windlass.
The sloop has four hatches. The foremost hatch is little more than a companion hatch, a
3ft (.9m) square deck opening on the centerline, far forward in the hull. The second hatch
lies immediately abaft the mast tabernacle, with a fore-and-aft length of 6ft (1.83m) and a
width of 4ft (1.2m). The third hatch, similar in dimensions to the second (being 2in [5.1cm]
longer) is located 15ft (4.6m) farther aft. These latter two openings were the cargo hatches.
The three forward hatches all have notches cut into the upper interior edges of their side
coaming. These notches were apparently used to secure hatch covers of some sort. The
fourth, and aftermost, hatch is roughly 12ft (3.7m) long and 7ft (2.1m) wide, and was
originally covered by a cabin trunk. The trunk’s vertical wooden supports were fitted down
into mortises in the hatch coaming; some of these supports survive, including the one on
the trunk’s after end which carries the pintles for a door. This door opened to a port-side
companionway to the stern cabin below.
The trunk runs roughly 12.5ft (3.8m) between the two cargo hatches, with the stanchions
mentioned above forming its forward and after structural members. Marble cargo and
sediment have prohibited examination of more than the trunk’s upper section, but it is
apparent that its sides are constructed of 3in (7.6cm) thick planks of 6 to 8in (15.2 to
20.3cm) width, and that its upper edge butts against the deck planking. Excavation of
sediment in the hold will be necessary to determine whether or not the keel and keelson
are pierced by the centerboard trunk. A length of iron chain runs through the deck into the
centerboard trunk near the trunk’s after end, and it is assumed that the centerboard’s depth
was controlled by raising and lowering this chain. The centerboard itself, which was not
located during probing of the upper portion of the case, may be of a pivoting variety, turning
on an iron pin in the forward section of the trunk, but this is still unproven.
This vessel’s single mast was stepped on deck in a wooden tabernacle placed roughly onequarter of the vessel’s length aft of the stem. It consists of a 30in (76.2cm) high, threesided box of 3in (7.6cm) planking, open aft to allow the mast to be lowered in that direction.
No remains of the mast itself survive on deck, but the iron bar on which it pivoted still runs
through the tabernacle, and the tabernacle’s internal measurements indicate a maximum
sectional dimension of roughly 1 foot for the mast’s heel section. Three vertically oriented
wooden cleats present on the tabernacle’s forward surface and a single-sheaved snatch
block on either side would have been used to belay and lead running rigging. An iron collar
which fitted over the top of the tabernacle and kept the mast upright presently lies on deck
to starboard of the tabernacle. It was evidently broken and wrenched off the tabernacle
during or subsequent to the sinking, suggesting that the sloop’s mast was stepped when
the vessel was lost.
This sloop’s helmsman steered with a 5ft 10in (1.8m) long wooden tiller set into the top of
the rudder post above deck. The post occupies a case between the deck and its point of
emergence on the counter, and has a diameter of 7.5in (19.1cm). The rudder blade is
largely covered by sediment, but is apparently of the “barn door” variety, with an exposed
breadth of nearly 5ft (1.52m). Its trailing edge is 7.5in (19.1cm) thick, and reveals
153
laminated construction. The post and blade are joined by at least one iron strap which
resembles a pintle but does not appear to function as one, so the method for linking the
rudder and stern posts is as yet undocumented.
An iron windlass is mounted with twin 12.5 by 4in (31.8 by 10.2cm) wooden bitts on deck in
the eyes of the vessel. The machine’s structure has not yet been documented, and its
range of function is unknown, but it was probably used to haul ground tackle and cargo and
to raise and lower the sloop’s mast.
An iron folding-stocked anchor which was apparently stored on deck lies in the extreme
bow of the hull amid the fragmented deck planking. It was not measured during the 1982
survey, but is easily accessible for future study.
In 2000, research conducted by Peter Barranco seems to have uncovered the
circumstances of the Isle La Motte canal boat’s loss, although the vessel’s name still
remains a mystery. The September 2, 1846 edition of the Plattsburgh Republican reported
that:
Accident. – Mr. Daniel Hall, an industrious citizen of this town, who was employed in
carrying stone on a small sloop from Gilman’s quary (sic) to the new Fort at Rouse’s
Point, was drowned on the night of the 2d. inst. When within a few miles of
Rouses’s Point a sudden squall struck his vessel, which was heavily laden, and in
endeavoring to throw the anchor over he was caught by the cable, the vessel partly
capsized, filled and sunk – taking him down with it. His son and another man who
were on board, saved themselves with much difficulty (Plattsburgh Republican 5
September 1846).
Wreck UU is currently under consideration for inclusion in the Lake Champlain Underwater
Historic Preserve Program. Although the intact nature of the vessel would appeal to
recreational divers, there are numerous preserve issues to be addressed prior to its
inclusion. The vessel lies in the navigation channel, and therefore the area is subject to
considerable boat traffic. The vessel is also archaeologically sensitive. Prior investigations
did not include the excavation of the stern cabin, an area which certainly contains many
portable artifacts.
154
WRECK VV: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-GI-23)
Wreck VV (VT-GI-23) is a standard canal boat that lies within the 2000 Lake Survey area.
The vessel was investigated in 1983 as part of a Nautical Archaeology Course for local
recreational divers. Led by dive instructor Art Cohn, the class of six students spent two
days learning the basics of nautical archaeology, and recording the remains of the “Alburg
Wreck”. The goals of the survey were to gather data about the vessel, while teaching the
students about dive safety and submerged cultural resources. These goals were entirely
met, however, no attempt was made to publishing the results.
Wreck VV has a length of 96ft 4in (29.4m) and a breadth of 17ft 4in (5.3m); based on these
measurements the vessel is of a type known as an “Enlarged Erie-Class” canal boat. The
vessel is poorly preserved with only the bottom of the hull remaining. Significant portions of
the wreck, especially toward the stern, were overlain with sediments, making a full
recording of the vessel impossible.
Wreck VV was built using the edge fastening construction technique. In this method of
boat building the side strakes are fastened together by iron spikes driven vertically through
the edges of each strake. This acts to “weld” the strakes together, lending significant
longitudinal strength to the vessel. Wreck VV’s framing runs longitudinally, and is
composed of the chinelogs, bilge stringers and keelson. These framing members, more
commonly called bilge stringers, have room and space of 12 to 14in (30.5 to 35.6cm), and
are 3 to 5in (7.6 to 12.7cm) sided and 4in (10.2cm) moulded. Each bilge stringer was
constructed of several timbers joined together via simple lap joints.
Wreck VV’s most interesting feature is its breasthook (Figure 9-2). 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 1in (2.5cm) thick boards together.
The breasthook seems to have also served the function of a chinelog; the vertically
oriented bow frames are mortised into the breasthook.
Wreck VV is a poorly preserved example of a late nineteenth or early twentieth century
canal boat. Due to the condition of the remains, the vessel contains limited research
potential. Moreover, Lake Champlain contains several vessels of similar type and date,
such as Wreck Z (VT-CH-843), with considerably more research potential.
155
Figure 9-2. Plan view of Wreck VV showing the bottom of the hull in the bow (drawn by
Arthur Cohn, inked by Adam Loven).
156
CHAPTER X: SURVEY RESULTS: 2000
During the 2000 Lake Survey the LCMM’s remote sensing survey team focused on the
northern end of the lake main lake (Figure 10-1). Specifically, the survey area began near
the southern end of Cumberland Head and continued north through the main lake up to the
Canadian border. The survey area also included the La Motte Passage and the southern
half of the Alburg passage up to the Vermont Route 2 Bridge. Approximately 40 square
miles (103.6 square km) of lakebed were surveyed during the 2000 field season.
The survey located three previously unknown shipwrecks: Wrecks XX, AAA and BBB.
Two previously investigated wrecks also fall in the survey area: Wrecks UU and VV. Also
located in the survey area were three vessels that were previously known, but had not been
investigated in any detail: Wrecks WW, YY and ZZZ.
Of the eight vessels located within the 2000 Lake Survey area, seven were located in
divable depths. Five of the seven shallow sites were verified by archaeological divers, and
had basic measurements, photographs, and video recorded. The single deep site, Wreck
BBB, was located in water depths exceeding those safe for diver verification. Because
there was only one deep site, there was no ROV verification conducted in 2000; they will be
investigated in 2002 or 2003.
One additional shipwreck was found in a shoreline survey in Shelburne Bay. During the
1996 survey the sonar team was not conducting shoreline sweeps as the present survey
protocol calls for, therefore, the team conducted a shoreline sweep of Shelburne Bay,
locating one previously unknown wreck (Wreck CCC).
157
Figure 10-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 1996 though 2000 Lake Survey areas.
158
WRECK WW: ROUSES POINT BARGE (VT-GI-35)
Wreck WW (VT-GI-35) was a previously known vessel located within the 2000 Lake Survey
area (Figure 10-2). Wreck WW was preliminarily documented in one dive in June 2000. Its
moderately well preserved remains lie in shallow water near Rouses Point, New York. The
vessel is adjacent to the Rouses Point trestle, and is denoted on NOAA Lake Champlain
Chart Riviere Richelieu to South Hero Island. The vessel has an overall length of 100ft
(30.5m), a breadth of 30ft 2in (9.2m), and a depth of 9ft 5in (2.9m). The exact manner of its
deposition on the bottom of the lake is unknown, but the absence of cargo indicates it was
abandoned or scuttled. The barge’s proximity to the trestle suggests that it may have been
used in one of the construction or repair episodes for that structure.
Figure 10-2. A sonar image of the Rouses Point Barge.
The vessel’s hull is heavily built using the plank-on-frame method (Figure 10-3). The decay
of the vessel has occurred in a manner conducive to its documentation. One entire side
has splayed off from the rest of the hull and lies adjacent to the other remains, while the
other side is partially separated from the hull. The sides are vertical, and are composed of
planking held together with futtocks. The futtocks are 7in (17.8cm) sided and 8in (20.3cm)
moulded, with room and space of 1ft 6in (45.7cm). The base of each futtock originally
mortised into a chine log.
159
Figure 10-3. Preliminary site plan of Wreck WW (drawn by Adam Kane).
160
The barge’s deck layout consists of raised decks at either end and a recessed central deck
serving as a large open cargo hold. The raised decks are 6ft (1.8m) long and span the
vessel’s width. The recessed cargo hold, which comprises the hull’s central section, is
heavily built with three overlapping layers of planking (Figure 10-4). The bottom layer of
planking is laid longitudinally, and is overlain with transverse planking and finally diagonal
planking. The cargo hold is supported from below by a series of large bilge stringers and
riders which connect the deck to the bottom of the hull. Each end of the hull has a 7in
(17.8cm) wide iron fender protecting the ends. This feature was heavily encrusted with
zebra mussels, thus obscuring all of its construction details. The foredeck and after deck
also contain several deck features such as iron bollards, cleats, fairleads, and bilge pump.
Figure 10-4. Photograph showing the three overlapping layers of deck planking on Wreck
WW (photograph by Pierre LaRocque).
Although the name and history of this vessel is currently not known, several conclusions
can be made based on the material remains. The dimensions of the barge (100ft by 30ft
2in by 9ft 5in [30.5 by 9.2 by 2,9m]) are consistent with vessels built after the completion of
the Champlain Barge Canal in 1916. The Rouses Point barge was likely built along the
Hudson waterway shortly after this last canal enlargement. The heavily built open structure
of the vessel, evidenced by the overlapping decking and open cargo hold, indicate that it
was used to transport bulk non-perishable cargo. This type of vessel would have lent itself
to the transportation of stone, iron ore, or coal.
The Rouses Point Barge is a candidate for preserve status in the Lake Champlain
Underwater Historic Preserve Program. Prior to its inclusion the remains should be
documented more extensively, as the results presented here represent only a preliminary
archaeological survey. Further documentation should focus on detailed archaeological
documentation. Although the site is quite shallow, thus removing many concerns that
accompany deep sites, the area is subject to significant currents making the dive more
challenging than some divers might realize. The site itself is large and interesting, and is
considered to have minimal archaeological sensitivity.
161
WRECK XX: LAKE SLOOP
Wreck XX was located in 2000 during the side scan sonar phase of the Lake Survey
Project (Figure 10-5). The site was verified and video documented in June 2000. Later in
the field season a team of archaeological divers returned to the site to document it in more
detail, assess the wreck’s condition, and determine the approximate age of the vessel.
Figure 10-5. Sonar image of Wreck XX.
Wreck XX is the only known example of a lake sloop. It is entirely intact, with the exception
of the mainmast and associated rigging (Figure 10-6). The physical evidence suggests that
the Wreck XX was in service at the time it foundered. The anchor and chain, windlass,
winch, and collection of artifacts in the cabin and hull are all objects that would certainly
have been removed if it was sunk intentionally.
The sloop’s hull has a length of 67ft 9in (20.7m) measuring from the sternpost to the stem.
The total length of vessel, from the transom to the forward end of the bowsprit, is 81ft 3in
(24.8m). The breadth is 16ft 9in (5.1m), while the depth of hull was not recorded in the
brief inspection. The hull appears to be chine-built, meaning that the sides of the hull
intersect the bottom at a sharp angle. Although this construction was commonly used for
canal boats, its use in a lake sloop not designed for use in the canals is surprising.
Although the boxy shape of chine-built hulls were simple to build and allowed for maximum
space in the hold, the shape places great stress on the intersection of the sides and the
bottom of the hull and the hull shape is difficult to sail. Sailing canal boats had similar hull
shapes, however, they were invariably equipped with centerboards that provided lateral
resistance, allowing them to counter leeway. Wreck XX shows no evidence of a
centerboard, leading to the conclusion that she had poor sailing characteristics.
162
Figure 10-6. Preliminary plan view and profile of Wreck XX (drawn by Adam Kane).
163
The bowsprit is intact with a total length of 14ft 3in (4.3m), projecting 8ft 9in (2.7m) forward
of the stem. The bowsprit mortises into the bitt post, which is presumably mortised into the
keelson. A small hatch is located on the starboard side of the vessel in the bow. This
hatch was used for passing the anchor chain up to the windlass.
A large wooden windlass is located in the bow, slotted in the middle to fit a pal on the after
side of the bitt post, and mortised at the ends to fit the windlass bars. Two carrick bitts,
each reinforced by a standing knee, cradled the windlass. The windlass still had several
wraps of rusting anchor chain wrapped around the drum. The chain attaches to a folding
stock anchor, still suspended off the port bow. Chain is piled up in several locations on the
deck. Resting on the deck just abaft of the windlass is a double block, ring-bolted to the
deck which probably held the sheet for the headsail.
The first hatch is 4ft 2in (1.3m) long, 4ft 7in (1.4m) wide and has a coaming around it. The
next break in the deck is the masthole, a 1ft 6in (45.7cm) square opening which the mast
passed through. The middle hatch is 9ft 6in (2.9m) long and 4ft 7in (1.4m) wide, while the
aft hatch is 4ft 3in (1.3m) long and 4ft 7in (1.4m) wide. Between the after hatch and the
stern cabin is a 1ft 5in (.4m) square hole through the deck that was likely a through-hole for
the sheet metal chimney of the stern cabin stove.
Just abaft of the aftermost hatch is an iron winch supported by two vertical posts. This
device was used for raising and lowering the sail. The crank to the winch is lying on the
deck.
In the vessel’s stern cabin roof is no longer extant, exposing the interior of the vessel. The
cabin opening is 10ft 4in (3.2m) long and the width is unknown, although it is appears to be
roughly square. Artifacts clearly visible in the cabin include a stack of dishes, one bowl, a
bottle, a sheave, a wood stove and a cast iron pot. Prominent in the stern of Wreck XX is
the rudder post which is square in cross-section. The tiller is missing, although a hole for
the tiller is clearly visible in the post. The transom is framed with six rake timbers, kept in
line with a transversely-oriented rider.
The sloop’s flush deck is enclosed by a low-rail. The rail holds belaying pins in the stern
and a pair of deadeyes to port and starboard of the masthole.
One of the central goals of the preliminary inspection in 2000 was to establish an
approximate date for the vessel. Archaeologists hoped to locate diagnostic features of the
vessel, or similarly telling artifacts. During the initial set of dives archaeologists noted the
folding stock anchor, a type which was not in use until approximately 1800, and was not
common until two to three decades later. This broad date range was not considered
acceptable. Between dives it was decided that the best potential for obtaining a date would
be the recovery of an exposed dish noted in the stern cabin. The plate could be recovered,
brought to the surface, examined, photographed, and returned to its original position.
Examination of the dish established that it was blue-edged whiteware without any
distinguishing marks. Whiteware dates from approximately 1810 through the remainder of
164
the century. Although the verification was unable to establish a tight date range for the
vessel, based on its design and condition it likely dates from between 1820 and 1850.
Subsequent research by Kevin Crisman may have identified Wreck XX. A search of early
Lake Champlain vessel registers shows one vessel which bears some similarities to Wreck
XX: the 33 33/95 ton sloop Royal George, built in Port Kent, New York in 1833 (Crisman
1990). The Royal George is referred to as a ‘scow sloop’, a description that fits the angular
chine construction of this wreck. It had precisely the same breadth as Wreck XX and had a
depth of hold of 3ft 9in (1.1m). There is a discrepancy in the length, for Royal George was
listed as 60 ft 6in (18.4m) and Wreck XX was 67ft 9in (20.7m); the difference may be due to
a transcription error in the documents.
Wreck XX is one of the most well-preserved and significant shipwrecks in Lake Champlain.
The vessel is unique in that it is the only known example of a lake sloop; a qualification that
alone makes it worthy of in depth study. Adding to the significance of the vessel is its
unexpected chine-built design and lack of a centerboard. Study of the artifacts contained in
the stern cabin could also lead to a much greater understanding of the lives of Lake
Champlain’s nineteenth century sailors. After undergoing significant additional study,
Wreck XX will be considered for inclusion in the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic
Preserve Program.
165
WRECK YY: L.J.N. STARK
The remains of the L.J.N. Stark were first examined in 1982 by a group of local divers. This
group took measurements of the vessel and noted the significant features of the wreck. In
2000 the remains were relocated via the sonar survey (Figure 10-7), and were preliminarily
documented by the LCMM in September 2000. This recording consisted of creating a
preliminary measured site plan, and video and photographic documentation. The site was
also assessed for its potential as a dive/snorkeling site in the Lake Champlain Historic
Preserve Program.
Figure 10-7. Sonar image of L.J.N. Stark.
L.J.N. Stark was built at Whitehall, New York as a steam-towboat in 1868-69 for the
Northern Transportation Line. It was constructed with a specially designed hull, with
“nothing more or less than one boat inside of another. In cases of running on a rock it
would have been impossible to have broken through more than one hull.” (Plattsburgh
Republican 14 August 1870) Unfortunately, the reinforced hull was not fireproof, and in her
second season of operation the L.J.N. Stark caught fire and burned to the waterline.
166
It occurred in the early morning hours of August 5, 1870, while the L.J.N. Stark was headed
north with six barges in tow. The fire apparently started in the “lamp room” and quickly
engulfed the ship in fire and smoke. Captain Arbuckle and crew attempted to extinguish the
blaze, but it was quickly determined that the vessel was beyond saving. The Captain then
ran to recover the ship’s papers and $4000 in cash while the Stark’s three lifeboats were
lowered. As the burning ship headed into shallow water, its barges were cut loose and
taken in tow by a “French schooner” until the tug Bascom took over. The pilot, Mr. Collins,
was “badly burned on his face and hands”, and one crewman, named Longware, “was so
terrified that he jumped overboard and was drowned” (Burlington Free Press and Times 6
August 1870). L.J.N. Stark ran aground on Point Au Roche reef and burned to the
waterline. Her boilers and engines were later removed, and the hull abandoned.
Today, the hull of L.J.N. Stark lies in shallow water just off Point Au Roche. The vessel is in
less than 10ft (3.1m) of water on a rocky bottom. The hull remains are 115ft (35.1m) long
and 31ft 6in (9.6m) in beam (Figure 10-8). The vessel’s structure is heavily encrusted with
zebra mussels, obscuring many features. The hull is largely flat-bottomed and consists of
the keel, planking, floors, futtocks, keelson, bilge stringers, and ceiling. Neither the bow nor
stern has survived, making the identification of fore-and-aft difficult at this stage in the
vessel’s documentation. The framing pattern is similar to that seen on Champlain II with
the floors spaced at tighter intervals through the center of the hull (1ft [30.5cm] on centers).
The floors are positioned 2ft (61cm) on centers at each end. The primary longitudinal
features are the keelson and six bilge stringers. Each run much of the length of the hull,
and even when they are no longer present their location can be determined by wrought iron
bolts that fastened them to the floors. The 1982 survey noted that “Stark 8-5-1870” was
carved onto the keelson at the northern end of the vessel, however, this feature may now
be obscured by zebra mussels, as it was not noted during the 2000 documentation.
The most prominent feature of the site are the numerous bent tie iron rods and tubing
pieces located in the center of the hull. These features likely related to the engine and
boiler. These metal pieces have been warped by either the initial destruction of the vessel
by fire or the later movement of ice. Numerous bricks and brick fragments are located in
the bottom of the hull in the vicinity of the tie rods; these provided a base for the boiler.
Three through-holes were also noted in this examination of the hull. The exact purpose of
each one has not been determined, but in general these would have been used to remove
bilge water or water from the condenser, or to take in water to fill the boiler. The area
surrounding the vessel may contain features related to the vessel. A cursory examination
of this area revealed an iron capstan.
L.J.N. Stark presents a shallow site ideal for inexperienced divers and even for snorkelers.
The site teems with fish-life, and the water is generally clear and warmer than deeper sites.
The vessel’s structure presents an interesting dive which, when combined with knowledge
of the vessel’s history, has significant interpretive value. Very little further archaeological
study would be needed to make L.J.N. Stark eligible for preserve status. Although the
structure has not been studied in any detail, it is unlikely that divers would significantly
impact the site; their presence will certainly be less detrimental than the zebra mussels now
encrusting it. Several dives to locate any features outside the hull would be advisable.
167
Figure 10-8. Preliminary plan view of L.J.N. Stark (drawn by Adam Kane).
168
WRECK ZZ: WOODEN BARGE (VT-GI-36)
Wreck ZZ (VT-GI-36) is a wooden barge lying in shallow water, partially exposed in the
Alburg Passage just south of the bridge that carries Vermont route 2 between North Hero
and the Alburg Tongue (Figures 10-9 and 10-10). The history of the barge is unknown
although its construction and size is consistent with that expected of a late nineteenth or
early twentieth century work barge. The vessel is rectangular in cross-section with scowshaped ends, and is built using the plank-on-frame method. In recent years Wreck ZZ has
deteriorated considerably, and in the winter of 2000/2001 ice flows tore a large section of
the deck from the vessel. It was carried north and lodged against the Route 2 bridge.
Figure 10-9. Sonar image of Wreck ZZ.
Figure 10-10. Photograph of Wreck ZZ taken in 1995 (LCMM Collection).
169
WRECK AAA: STEEL BARGE
Wreck AAA was located during the 2000 sonar survey and verified in June 2000 (Figure
10-11). Wreck AAA is a small steel/iron barge with wooden decking. The vessel lies in
shallow water and is heavily encrusted with zebra mussels. Wreck AAA may be a homebuilt barge used locally.
Figure 10-11. Sonar image of Wreck AAA.
WRECK BBB: UNVERIFIED TARGET
Wreck BBB was located via side scan sonar during the 2000 Lake Survey (Figure 10-12).
The vessel appears to be a small boat, although its depth prevented a diver from verifying
this identification. The object projects approximately 9ft (2.7m) off the bottom.
Figure 10-12. Sonar image of Wreck BBB.
170
WRECK CCC: BARGE
Wreck CCC was located via side scan sonar during the 2000 Lake Survey in Shelburne
Bay (Figure 10-13). A shoreline transect was recorded in this area in order to complete this
portion of the Lake Survey Project. The object, preliminarily identified as a barge, lies in a
moderate depth of water. Measurements from the sonar indicated that Wreck CCC is
approximately 32.8ft (10m) long and 29.5ft (9m) wide.
Figure 10-13. Sonar image showing Wreck CCC.
171
CHAPTER XI: GEOLOGIC RESULTS
GEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The Lake Survey obtained side-scan sonar images of sections of Lake Champlain's bottom,
including a vast quantity of information concerning the geology and hydrology of Lake
Champlain. The results of the geological data are preliminary at this time, since many of
the features cannot be fully interpreted without further research and the production of a
mosaic of the sonar data. This effort will involve a number of detailed studies conducted by
dozens of researchers.
As detailed in previous reports, there are six lake bottom sediment features which are
routinely observed on the lake bottom, namely tailings, lineations, furrows, pockmarks,
sediment waves, rock outcrops, and rock ridges. Each of these structures generated a
distinctive image on the side-scan sonar records. Sedimentary bedforms are created when
there is a change in the transport rate of sediment carried by the bottom current. This
change is normally caused by bottom irregularities already present in the geology or by
submerged cultural features. Varying with the speed or the type of the sediment carried by
the bottom current forms different types of sedimentary features. Each of the geological
features located during the survey is briefly discussed below.
TAILINGS
Sediment tailings exist in the mud-dominated sections of Lake Champlain. Aligned with the
direction of the water currents, they form down current behind obstacles that protrude
above the bottom. As the water flow is directed around the obstacle, a low flow region is
generated in the wake of the obstacle, allowing sediment to be deposited. Thus, sections
containing tailings are regions of deposition that can be used to indicate bottom current
directions.
LINEATIONS
Bottom currents form lineations as they remove fine-grained sediments and align the
coarse-grained sediments in strips parallel with the bottom current. These features appear
on side-scan sonar images as parallel black and white linear streaks. An analogy of what
lineations look like is if one takes a broom and sweeps across a bank of dirt or snow.
FURROWS
Sediment furrows are long, narrow, trough-shaped depressions that form parallel to the
mean current direction. These features differ from lineations in that they have sharp, welldefined trough walls. Furrows have been observed in various locations within the survey
region. Unlike other regions of the lake (e.g. near Valcour Island, Schuyler Island, and
Colchester Reef) these furrows are not in large fields but are always oriented with the
dominant bottom current direction.
172
POCKMARKS
Pockmarks are conical depressions found in the lake bottom. Though nesting fish create
many of the smallest pockmarks, large pockmarks greater than 3ft (1m) are believed to be
formed as a result of gas or fluid moving upward through the lake's bottom sediments. This
upward flow causes sediment re-suspension and effectively removes the fine-grained
sediments, leaving only medium and coarse-grained sediments behind. The entire process
effectively condenses the central region, causing the depression or pockmark. Pockmarks
appear on side-scan sonar images as a circular or oblong shape with a semicircular band
of black closest to the sonar fish, indicating that no acoustic energy is being returned. This
image is located next to a semicircular band of white farther from the towfish, noting that
acoustic energy is returned from the farthest wall of the depression.
BEDROCK OUTCROPS, RIDGES AND FAULTS
As was observed in the previous year’s surveys, high standing bedrock outcrops and ridges
not previously mapped continue to be located. These rock ridges caused local depths to
decrease by as much as 165ft (50m) in a matter of 325 to 650ft (100 to 200m) in distance.
The ridges are clearly part of the underlying bedrock of the lake, and mapping them will be
beneficial for Lake Champlain fisheries and future research operations. The geology of
these features is currently unknown.
In the 1999 survey, the region from Split Rock-Thompson Point to the Crown Point bridge
was surveyed. This region had numerous tailings, lineations, and furrows as well as regions
of large pockmarks. The sediment input coming from the South Lake has generated a very
sediment laden bottom current and is suggestive of a nepheloid layer. Deltas off major
streams and rivers were observed and these features were laden with much debris (e.g.
tree trunks). Many east-west running faults known on the main land can be imaged
continuing into the near shore environment showing offsets in the bottom bathymetry and
linear nature on the side-scan imagery.
In the 2000 survey, the region from Cumberland Head north to the Canadian border was
interesting. This region had numerous tailings and lineations as well as regions of smallersized pockmarks. Some regions had bedrock exposed at the bottom with little sediment
cover suggesting higher speed currents at those locations. Also scour around historical
artifacts was documented.
173
CHAPTER XII: CONSERVATION OF A WAR OF 1812 ANCHOR FROM
PLATTSBURGH BAY
In 1996 recreational divers discovered a large, wooden-stocked, “Old-Style Admiralty
Longshank” anchor under the waters of Lake Champlain in Plattsburgh Bay, Clinton
County, New York. After its initial raising, the anchor was placed back into the lake
temporarily a few weeks later, in order to formulate a plan for its re-recovery, conservation,
and exhibition. It was raised ceremoniously a second time on September 11, 1998, the
184th anniversary of the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay, and transported to the Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum’s Conservation Lab. After undergoing a two-year process of conservation
from September 1998 to August 2000, the anchor was installed for public exhibition in the
rotunda at the Plattsburgh City Hall. In May 2001, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
completed its technical report on the conservation of the Anchor (Robinson 2001); the
following chapter summarizes the findings of this report.
Archival research conducted in support of this project indicates that the anchor was
fabricated for the Royal Navy in 1813 by one of England’s oldest and largest iron
manufacturers, the Gateshead-based firm of Hawks & Company. It was subsequently
shipped along with other supplies to British-controlled Quebec City, before being sent on to
the Royal Navy’s shipyard at Isle aux Noix, on the Richelieu River north of Lake Champlain,
where it was eventually placed on board HMS Confiance.
Confiance was the largest warship to sail the waters of Lake Champlain and served as the
flagship of the British fleet. The American naval squadron led by Thomas Macdonough
defeated and captured Confiance and the other ships comprising the British lake fleet
during the decisive Battle of Plattsburgh Bay fought on September 11, 1814. During the
battle’s opening minutes, three of Confiance’s four anchors were apparently shot away,
making it nearly impossible for Confiance’s crew to maneuver the ship effectively during the
course of the heated contest. This handicap and the loss of the British fleet’s commander,
George Downie, early in the battle are believed to have contributed significantly to the
American victory that expedited the cessation of hostilities with Great Britain. Even more
importantly, Macdonough and his naval colleagues’ heroic exploits in their duels with the
world’s most powerful navy produced an intense feeling of patriotism among the country’s
citizenry and confirmed the fledgling republic’s status in the world as something more than
a pawn in European power games (Tindall 1984:356).
Chemical and optical analyses of the iron anchor and its wooden stock conducted during
the anchor’s conservation process at the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum indicated that
the anchor’s preservation was due in part to the absence of corrosive chlorides and slightly
basic pH conditions in the soils where the anchor was found. The anchor also appears to
have been produced from highly-refined iron assembled through a traditional forging
process, while the anchor’s stock may be derived from North American white oak and was
probably added to the anchor after its arrival from England.
174
PROJECT DESCRIPTON
Scuba divers, Ken and Bill Van Stockum, were exploring the bottom of Plattsburgh Bay
when they located a huge wooden-stocked anchor (Figures 12-1 and 12-2). Excited by
their discovery, the Van Stockums prepared the anchor for recovery with the help of fellow
diver, John Lambrinos, and recruited veteran diver and marine contractor, Frank Pabst, to
help them raise it and bring it to shore. The enormity of the anchor, which measured 13
feet (3.9 m) tall, had a 14 foot- (4.2 m) long wooden stock that was still attached, and the
date “1813” inscribed into its metal surface, quickly generated much public interest and
media attention (Figure 12-3). The age of the anchor and its obvious association with the
September 11, 1814 Battle of Plattsburgh Bay also generated in the Van Stockums a
strong concern for the anchor’s welfare and ultimate disposition.
Figure 12-1. The discoverers of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, Ken and Bill Van Stockum,
pose with the anchor after its initial recovery in 1996 (photograph by Scott McLaughlin).
175
Figure 12-2. Location of the anchor when discovered in 1996 relative to the positions of the
fleets of the British and United States early in the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay.
Figure 12-3. Inscriptions in the anchor's crown (photograph by Scott McLaughlin).
176
Consultation with LCMM led to the recommendation that the divers call the appropriate
New York State officials to inform them of their discovery. LCMM also dispatched
Conservator Scott McLaughlin to Plattsburgh to examine the anchor and make suggestions
for its temporary stabilization. This guidance was welcomed by the Van Stockums, who
contacted Phil Lord at the New York State Museum in Albany, and then wrapped the
anchor in blankets that were wetted continuously. LCMM’s preliminary examination of the
anchor revealed that, in addition to the excellent condition of the wood and iron, the word
“Quebec” and the numbers “20-3-8” painted on the surfaces of the anchor’s flukes had also
survived 182 years of immersion in the lake (Figure 12-4).
Figure 12-4. Hand-painted text on the surfaces of the anchor’s flukes (photo by Scott
McLaughlin).
177
Discussions about the anchor’s fate and the immediate necessity for initiating extensive
and costly stabilization treatment of this historically important artifact left many people
feeling as if raising it, in hindsight, probably had been a mistake. Subsequent meetings
between the divers, community representatives, and local and State officials, led to a
consensus among the group that the central concern was for the immediate and long-term
preservation of the anchor. To ensure the anchor’s preservation, it was decided that the
best course of action was to return the anchor to the lake temporarily until the group
formulated a plan for the anchor’s re-recovery, conservation, and exhibition. The threat of
encrustation from the recent addition to the lake’s biota of the rapidly reproducing, nonnative aquatic nuisance species, known as zebra mussels, added a measure of urgency to
the anchor’s preservation planning process.
Fortunately, progress preparing and implementing the plan was swift. Ken Van Stockum,
the anchor’s unofficial guardian, put the initial step of the plan into action, and the massive
anchor was returned to the generally preservative environment of the lake several weeks
after its initial recovery. Immediately thereafter, the process of obtaining the necessary
permits and generating the requisite funding for the anchor preservation project
commenced. A permit authorizing the recovery of the anchor was required by state and
federal laws, including Section 233 of the New York State Education Law (1958), which
prevents removal of artifacts from state lands without written permission, and the
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101), which essentially transfers title and
management responsibility for submerged cultural resources located within state waters to
individual states. Exempted from state control under this Act are military properties, whose
ownership and responsibility remain with the flag nation that owned the property at the time
of its loss. Clinton County Historical Association and Museum (CCHAM) was recruited to
be the local permit holder and New York State officials assured the group that they would
help facilitate the permitting process that would allow long-term exhibition of the anchor in
Plattsburgh. New York State Senator, Ronald B. Stafford, arranged for an appropriation of
State funds to help support the project. The divers, CCHAM, and New York State Officials
requested LCMM to draft a proposal for the anchor’s conservation, and the group began
searching for a location in Plattsburgh where the anchor could be exhibited publicly after
completion of its stabilization.
Officials at the New York State Museum, as promised, facilitated the community’s efforts to
preserve the anchor and exhibit it in Plattsburgh by accelerating their permit review and
approval processes. During the course of the permitting process, consultation was also
initiated with cultural resource management personnel of the United States Department of
the Navy’s Underwater Archeology Branch at the Naval Historical Center in Washington,
D.C. Such consultation was deemed appropriate and necessary, because of the anchor’s
military origin and possible association with the Confiance, the flagship of the British fleet
on Lake Champlain, which became property of the U.S. Navy upon capture during the
Battle of Plattsburgh Bay. Additional legislation contributing to the decision to contact the
U.S. Naval officials were the mandates of the property clause of the U.S. Constitution, the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470), international maritime law, and
relevant elements of Articles 95 and 96 of the Law of the Sea Convention that are intended
to preserve property of the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy Department, through the office of its
178
Underwater Archeologist, was very supportive of the project and provided its full
cooperation.
In April 1997, LCMM submitted to the group its detailed, Conservation Proposal for the War
of 1812 Anchor from Plattsburgh Bay, Lake Champlain, and a Draft of a Memorandum of
Understanding for the Conservation of the Plattsburgh Bay Anchor, prepared by LCMM
Conservator Anne Lessmann.
LCMM anticipated that the conservation process would require two years and a budget of
$53,000 to complete. Since the wood, iron, and rope components of the anchor all had
different conservation requirements, it was assumed that the anchor would have to be
disassembled so that its various materials could be treated separately, which LCMM noted
would be the most difficult aspect of the stabilization process.
LCMM noted at the end of their Conservation Proposal that, once the conservation process
was complete, the anchor would remain essentially stable only if it were kept in a controlled
environment in which a relative humidity of 40 to 65 percent was maintained. If the relative
humidity was not controlled, LCMM cautioned, then the anchor would begin to corrode and
crucial diagnostic features could be lost. LCMM strongly recommended that the anchor be
exhibited in a humidity-controlled space, and added that the anchor would require periodic
examination and maintenance to ensure its continued preservation.
In a Draft Memorandum of Understanding, LCMM agreed to perform and partially fund the
anticipated two-year long conservation of the anchor in their newly constructed
conservation laboratory. Conducting the conservation of the anchor in the unique, publiclyaccessible LCMM lab offered the duel benefit of stabilizing a historically significant artifact
while educating the 25,000 annual visitors to the museum about the importance of such a
process. Under the terms of the agreement, CCHAM would be responsible for the raising
and delivery of the anchor to LCMM, and LCMM would provide conservation expertise once
it was recovered from the water and placed onto the transport vehicle. Upon reaching the
dock at Basin Harbor, custody of and responsibility for the anchor would be officially
transferred to LCMM, who would then be responsible for the conservation of the anchor as
specified in LCMM’s Conservation Proposal. Biannual progress reports outlining the status
of the anchor and the conservation process would be filed with the CCHAM and the State
of New York. After completion of the entire conservation process, LCMM was responsible
for delivering the anchor back to the City of Plattsburgh to a location specified by CCHAM.
The anchor would be delivered to the unloading area at which point responsibility for the
anchor would be returned to CCHAM. CCHAM would be responsible for the anchor’s
movement and installation into the curatorial facility, as well as the development of any new
exhibits that they, the City of Plattsburgh, and the State of New York deemed appropriate.
In addition to the anchor, a final report describing the anchor’s conservation and its
historical context would also be delivered to CCHAM and the State of New York. It was
foreseen that the anchor would require some post-conservation monitoring and
maintenance.
179
By August of 1998, CCHAM was ready to contract with LCMM to conserve the anchor and
move forward with the project. CCHAM accepted their portion of the legal and financial
responsibility for the anchor, and Plattsburgh City officials agreed that the anchor could be
placed on exhibit in the City Hall rotunda once its conservation was completed. Interested
parties in Plattsburgh decided that the second raising of the anchor would take place on
September 11, 1998, to coincide with the City’s celebration of the 184th anniversary of the
Battle of Plattsburgh Bay.
Approximately ten days before the anchor was to be raised, the last element of the plan
that remained to be completed was the obtainment of the permit from the State of New
York to recover the anchor. To issue the permit, all that was required was for the U.S.
Navy Department to notify New York State officials in writing that they formally endorsed
the plan. Unexpectedly, a major obstacle to completing the permitting process developed.
Attorneys for the U.S. Navy, after considering whether or not the British Admiralty might still
have a legal interest in the anchor, determined that, because the anchor had been shot off
Confiance’s bow prior to its capture, it had gone to the bottom of the lake as British
property. Consequently, according to the U.S. Naval attorneys, the British Admiralty
remained the anchor’s rightful owner. Without their prior permission, the anchor was not to
be disturbed. The U.S. Navy’s position was understandable; they were trying to protect
their own interests in shipwrecks abroad by avoiding setting a bad precedent that could
possibly undermine their ability in the future to assert claim to U.S. Naval property located
in foreign waters. However, residents of the Plattsburgh community were, also
understandably, tense about the situation. The raising of the anchor, which was scheduled
to occur in just a matter of days and had been promoted as the focus of their weekend
celebration with the potential for national news coverage, now suddenly appeared as if it
might not occur. Tensions began mounting and the potential for securing the necessary
permit in time did not appear to hold much promise.
Several members of the interested parties contacted Barbara Voulgaris, of the U.S. Navy’s
Underwater Archeology Branch, for her assistance. She, in turn, enlisted the assistance of
the State Department to notify the British authorities about the situation. On Wednesday,
September 9, 1998, just two days prior to the scheduled raising, a contentious meeting of
approximately 20 community members and representatives from the interested
organizations was held on board Frank Pabst’s vessel, MV Juniper, where some suggested
that the anchor be raised on Friday with or without the necessary permits in place. Others
argued that the positive value of the project would be lost if that occurred and instead
advocated waiting and postponing the lift until another time in the future. To the credit of
the group, a positive consensus was reached and all agreed to wait, despite the risk of
sacrificing the momentum of the celebration weekend. In a remarkable conclusion to the
affair, the very next day, less than 24 hours before the scheduled raising, the U.S. Navy’s
Underwater Archeology Branch informed New York State officials that the British Defense
Forces had formally endorsed the plan. They would transfer interest in the anchor to New
York so that the anchor could be managed by the State and raised, conserved, and
exhibited in Plattsburgh.
180
Shortly after dawn, on the morning of September 11, 1998, 184 years to the day after the
murderous thunder of the ships’ guns had echoed across the waters of Plattsburgh Bay,
the van Stockums and Pabst and his crew headed out onto the lake aboard one of Pabst’s
crane-barges to rig the anchor for its final raising (Figure 12-5). The lifting crew was joined
on site shortly thereafter by a group of curious onlookers in boats, including Pabst’s tour
boat, Juniper. Among those on board Juniper were LCMM Conservators, Anne Lessman
and David Robinson, CCHAM’s Director, Shirley Koester, City of Plattsburgh
Assemblyman, Chris Ortloff, and descendents of the American fleet’s commander, Thomas
Macdonough, and British general George Prevost.
Figure 12-5. The anchor breaking the surface during the 1998 re-recovery (photograph by
Anne Lessmann).
181
After the ceremonious raising, the anchor was placed onto Pabst’s barge, with the crown
and one end of the wooden stock supporting its weight, and transported back to the
Plattsburgh waterfront. Upon reaching the waterfront, LCMM Conservators directed the
anchor to be moved into a different position so that the stock lay flat on the deck and the
anchor arm with “Quebec” on its fluke rested on its tip. Stacks of automobile tires were
used for cushioning under both ends of the anchor. The anchor was secured to the deck of
the barge with rope and nylon cargo straps to prevent its movement. Mud from the lake
bottom was left coating the iron to protect any surviving traces of the painted text on the
flukes and the stock was wetted with a fire hose every 15 minutes. At noon, the stock was
wrapped in wetted burlap and the anchor covered with polyethylene sheeting in preparation
for its long trip up the lake to LCMM (Figure 12-6). Upon arrival at Basin Harbor, Pabst lifted
the anchor from the barge with a crane and transferred the anchor to a flatbed trailer
positioned nearby on shore. The anchor was then transported the short distance up Basin
Harbor road to the LCMM Conservation Laboratory.
Figure 12-6. The anchor travels up the lake from Plattsburgh on its way to Basin Harbor
and the LCMM Conservation Lab (photograph by Anne Lessmann).
182
CONSERVATION RESULTS
Conservation of the anchor utilizing a combination of mechanical cleaning techniques and
the applications of a corrosion-inhibitive tannic acid solution and atmospheric oxygen and
moisture-resistant sealant to stabilize the anchor’s iron was successful and the result of its
treatment was excellent overall. Mechanical cleaning removed all corrosion from the
surface of the anchor and revealed several additional, previously undetected inscriptions.
Most importantly, this cleaning technique allowed for the preservation of the original handpainted text on the flukes. The addition of a surfactant to the corrosion-inhibitive tannic acid
solution enhanced the penetration of the solution into the core of the iron, and, therefore,
should better ensure the stability of the anchor. Utilization of a final sealant that will be
relatively easy to remove for future re-treatment of the anchor represents an improvement
over the traditional, less easily reversible, heated wax sealant method. Further corrosion
should be easy to prevent.
In situ preservation of the lead-oxide pigmented, painted text on the anchor’s flukes was a
priority of the LCMM’s conservation effort. The challenge of stabilizing the text through
consolidation in place was effective and the results for the “Quebec” were excellent. Less
successful, from an aesthetic standpoint, was the treatment of the anchor’s painted weight,
the appearance of which probably bears little resemblance to the original painted numbers.
The dilute polyvinyl acetate consolidant has a good track record for long-term stability and
should provide an acceptable measure of protection for the paint for years to come.
Treatment of the anchor’s hoops utilizing electrolytic reduction to remove corrosion and the
use of traditional tannic acid and heated wax sealant corrosion-inhibiting treatment
techniques were successful and the results were excellent. Cleaning revealed additional
inscriptions on the inside surfaces of the hoops that were previously undetected.
Immersion in the heated microcrystalline wax effectively dehydrated the iron and effectively
sealed the surface of the metal hoops with a thick wax layer that should hold up well over
time.
Stabilization of the anchor’s wooden stock halves was successful, and the final result can
be described as good. Despite having greatly extended the duration of the solvent
dehydration and pine-rosin bulking phases of the wood’s treatment, and carefully
controlling the evaporation of the alcohol-rosin mixture at the end of the stabilization
process, some shrinkage, splitting, and checking of the treated wood did occur. Overall,
however, treating the wood with something other than polyethylene glycol (PEG) was
preferable. The final appearance and feel of the treated wood is good and the treatment
option appears to, thus far, have been successful. Every effort should be made to curate
the stock separate from the anchor, instead of reassembling it, because of the wood’s
brittle condition. The large volume of solvent that was necessary to perform the treatment,
and therefore, the equally large volume of hazardous waste that was produced by the
process, requires exercising extreme caution by conservators that contemplate using the
treatment for the stabilization of large wooden objects.
183
Conservation of the ferric oxide-saturated rope segment that was attached to the shank of
the anchor directly below the stock through consolidation was an effective and appropriate
method of treatment. Results of the rope’s treatment were good. As with the painted text
found on the flukes, the dilute polyvinyl acetate consolidant used on the rope has an
excellent record for long-term stability and should provide an acceptable measure of
protection for the rope for years to come.
THE ANCHOR IN HISTORY: THE WAR OF 1812 IN THE CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
In the three decades after 1783, the governments of the United States, Canada, and Great
Britain vacillated between free trade and no trade at all. Regardless of the law, and its
irregular enforcement, goods from the Champlain Valley continued to be transported and
sold into the large Canadian market. Jay's Treaty of 1796 brought some clarification to the
laws by stipulating that duties on goods sold into Canada were to be the same as the duties
on the same goods sold into England (Hill 1976:165). Trade grew stronger with each year,
especially in 1798 with the lifting of the Canadian embargo on the fur trade, and remained
strong throughout the next decade. Merchandise and raw materials, including timber,
livestock, fish, potash, grain, paper, wool and cotton were traded across the border. This
lively trade came to an abrupt end with Jefferson's Embargo of 1807.
Impelled by the continued impressment of American vessels and their crews by both the
British and the French, and the implied threat to national sovereignty, President Jefferson
invoked the embargo, which prohibited all commercial intercourse with Canada. While the
majority of the public in the Champlain Valley was generally opposed and outraged at the
embargo, most continued living as they had before by simply ignoring it. Yet, by 1812 no
one could ignore the ominous international situation. As a result of a tightened blockade of
American shipping, the fledgling government of the United States felt it had no choice but to
declare war, and on June 18, 1812, a declaration of war was approved in Congress and
signed by President James Madison.
Neither side was in a state of readiness when war was declared. The United States army
was small and unprepared, and the Navy consisted of just a handful of frigates (Chapelle
1949:242). The British were fully engaged in a prolonged war with Napoleon in France,
and could spare little for the defense of its Canadian territories and border.
Lieutenant Thomas Macdonough, a 28-year-old Navy veteran, was assigned command of
the Lake Champlain squadron and charged with maintaining control of the lake. Upon
taking over his command, Macdonough's squadron consisted only of two decrepit gunboats
built in 1808. To augment this pair, Macdonough commandeered and armed three small
revenue sloops that were owned by the Army. As unimposing as this fleet was, it was more
than the British could put upon the lake, so Macdonough maintained control throughout the
1812 sailing season, which lasted from approximately April through November.
The following season, the spring of 1813, Macdonough's squadron did not fare as well as in
the previous year. In early June he ran his sloop, President, aground and was forced to
retire it for repair. While Macdonough was out of action, his second in command Lt. Smith
184
made an ill-considered foray up the British-controlled Richelieu River in pursuit of two Royal
Navy gunboats. There they were trapped by contrary winds and currents and subjected to
heavy fire from British shore batteries at Isle au Noix. Both American sloops were disabled
and captured, and their crews taken prisoner.
Macdonough was forced to commandeer more sloops, but before they could be made
ready for action the British swept into the lake with the two captured sloops, three
gunboats, forty-seven bateaux and 1,200 troops. The squadron ranged the lake, destroying
an army barracks, blockhouse, arsenal and armory near Plattsburgh. They bombarded the
city of Burlington before moving north to raid a barracks in Swanton. The British destroyed
or captured a number of merchant vessels before withdrawing back into the safety of their
fortifications at Isle au Noix.
To salvage his reputation and prevent further disaster, Macdonough was now forced into a
shipbuilding program, similar to that undertaken by the American squadrons on the Great
Lakes, in order to gain ascendancy over the British. The U.S. Navy Department had sent
New York City shipwrights Noah and Adam Brown to build warships for the Lake Erie
Squadron during the winter of 1813 (Bass 1996:172-3). Their ambitious building program
(two 20-gun brigs, a small schooner, two gunboats, various buildings and fourteen small
boats) helped the Americans, under the command of Lt. Oliver Hazard Perry, drive the
British from the lake.
Once their work on Lake Erie had been completed in the fall of 1813, the Navy Department
sent Noah and Adam Brown to Lieutenant Macdonough on Lake Champlain (Crisman:
1987:16). Macdonough chose the town of Vergennes, Vermont, safely located seven miles
up Otter Creek, as the winter quarters and construction site for his small fleet. The falls at
Vergennes powered numerous industries including eight forges, a blast furnace, an air
furnace, a rolling mill, a wire factory, grist, sawmills, as well as an iron foundry, which
greatly assisted the Browns in their efforts.
The British were also using the winter season of 1814 to build a fleet, and when
Macdonough received reports of a large British vessel under construction, he was
compelled to build one of similar size. Noah Brown began construction of a new brig, the
26-gun Saratoga, in February 1814 and completed the vessel an amazing forty days later.
At the same time he also built six large gunboats. Brown also took over the conversion of a
partially-built steamship under construction for the new Lake Champlain Steamboat
Company. Macdonough had commandeered the vessel, but finding the steamship design
and machinery ill-suited to his plans, he had Brown convert it into a schooner. The vessel
was armed with seventeen guns and was named Ticonderoga. The new American
squadron took to the lake in late May of 1814 and began a blockade of the Richelieu River.
The British fleet at this point consisted of the 16-gun brig Linnet, two sloops and a large
number of gunboats. In preparation for the renewal of hostilities on Lake Champlain, in
March 1814 the Admiralty ordered Captain George Downie from Portsmouth, England to
Canada to take over command of the Royal Navy squadron. The presence of a superior
American fleet forced the British to continue their own building campaign, and so they
185
began the construction of the largest warship ever to sail the lake. The plans for the frigate
Confiance called for an armament of twenty-seven 24-pounder long guns, and four 32pounder and six 24-pounder carronades.
The presence of such a large British frigate under construction, in turn, prompted
Macdonough to request another large brig to reinforce his squadron. After much debate
and delay, the Navy dispatched Adam Brown and 200 of his New York shipwrights to
Vergennes in July. There they built, in only nineteen days, the brig Eagle. Macdonough
armed the vessel with eight long 18-pounder cannon and twelve 32-pounder carronades.
However, crew members were harder to come by than guns, and despite appeals to the
militia and regulars under General Mahon at Plattsburgh, Macdonough could not enlist
enough sailors for the new brig. He was forced to make do with forty convicts from the fort
at Plattsburgh, a fact that delighted the British and assured them of their superiority (Wood
1968:381). Final outfitting of the Eagle was accomplished on August 25. Commodore
Macdonough's fleet, however new and inexperienced, was complete.
By August 1814 representatives of both governments were meeting in Ghent, Belgium to
negotiate a peace settlement to end the hostilities. In this settlement the British hoped to
acquire further North American territories including, but not limited to the Champlain Valley.
In order to press this position they needed to occupy the territory in dispute. Thus, plans
for the invasion and occupation of the Champlain Valley continued.
General Prevost, Commander of the British forces was under orders from Army
headquarters in Montreal to undertake the destruction of Sacketts Harbor and the
occupation of Plattsburgh at the earliest opportunity (Wood 1968:346). He began a large
build-up of troops along the border, some of which were seasoned veterans recently
released from European campaigns. Yet, Prevost felt that such an undertaking as the
invasion of New York could only be accomplished with the co-operation of the British fleet.
Prevost gathered an invasion force of 12,000 men and anxiously awaited the completion of
Confiance. The British launched the frigate on August 25, but needed more time to
completely outfit the vessel (Crisman 1987:64). In repeated letters to Captain Downie
throughout early September, Prevost urged Downie to speed his preparations. There was
nothing Downie could do but accede to Prevost's wishes and meet his enemy upon the
lake.
Macdonough was the first to put his complete fleet out onto the lake. He had kept up his
blockade of the Richelieu River while Eagle was under construction, but now was forced by
intelligence of the imminent invasion from Canada to prepare to engage the enemy directly.
Throughout the summer months Macdonough had been drilling his crews in sailing
maneuvers, gun drills and strategic planning, as well as patrolling for smugglers.
Furthermore, his squadron's attempts to curb the flow of shipbuilding materials destined for
the British vessels were largely successful (Crisman 1987:38).
Despite knowledge of the large British Army amassed to the north of Lake Champlain, in
August 1814 the U.S. Army command had ordered General Izard to divide his troops,
186
taking more than half of his men to join the campaign in the west near the Niagara River.
The remaining troops, responsible for the defense of northern New York, and ultimately the
Champlain Valley, amounted to just 3,000 regulars and militia. This force was placed
under the command of General Alexander Macomb (Everest 1981:164-7). Macomb began
to prepare to fortify Plattsburgh for the invasion, creating earthwork fortifications south of
the town and blocking roads and bridges. The removal of General Izard and the larger part
of the U.S. Army hastened Prevost's departure from Canada, albeit without the support of
the Royal Navy squadron. His advance was slow and cautious, as he would not attempt to
take Plattsburgh and continue his invasion of the Champlain Valley without Downie's fleet.
On September 5, 1814, Macdonough ordered his vessels in Plattsburgh Bay to anchor in a
line of battle about one mile (1.6km) long, oriented north-north east to south-south west, out
of range of the British shore batteries located on the north side of the city of Plattsburgh.
His fleet consisted of the brigs Saratoga and Eagle, the converted steamer Ticonderoga,
the sloop Preble, six large row-galleys: Boxer, Centipede, Nettle, Allen, Viper, and Burrows,
and four smaller row-galleys: Wilmer, Ludlow, Aylwin, and Ballard (Roosevelt 1882:338).
Eagle was anchored at the northern head of the line, followed at equal intervals by
Saratoga, Ticonderoga, and Preble. The galleys were arranged in a second line of two
divisions inshore, to the west, of the larger ships. Macdonough had chosen his position
carefully.
Macdonough knew that the British fleet, which was to support Prevost's planned attack
against Plattsburgh, would be forced to enter the bay to engage the American ships.
Macdonough could not have hoped to outgun the British on the open lake, where their
superior number of long-range guns would give them greater advantage. But a close-range
battle in the bay would favor the Americans, as they had the advantage in shorter-range
carronades. Additionally, because the American squadron was anchored, its relatively
inexperienced crews could focus entirely on manning the guns and not on sailing, as the
British would have to do.
Macdonough also hoped the prevailing northerly winds that would bring the British fleet
down the lake would also make it difficult for them to get into fighting position once inside
the bay. The fleet would have to come about into the same northerly wind that had brought
them around the point, and would then lose some of it in the lee of Cumberland Head (Hill
1976:184). Further, Macdonough had placed his ships so that there was no room for the
British to anchor on his broadside out of reach of his carronades, and the enemy would be
forced to attack him by standing in bows on (Roosevelt 1882:348).
To complete his preparations for every advantage, Macdonough had the three largest
vessels anchored with auxiliary spring lines, which were submerged intentionally to protect
them from being cut by British shot. In doing so, his vessels could be turned end to end
during the course of battle. In this way, fresh guns on the opposite side of the ships could
be brought to bear on the enemy should the original broadside be disabled (Bellico
1992:222).
187
Pressured by General Prevost, Captain Downie set sail on September 10 with Confiance
still unfinished. The incomplete frigate also had an inexperienced crew; the guns had been
exercised only two or three times and had temporary locks fitted from carronade locks
(Wood 1968:412). Downie's fleet consisted of the 1200-ton flagship Confiance, the 350-ton
brig Linnet, two sloops, the 112-ton Chubb and the 110-ton Finch, which were supported by
five large gunboats and seven smaller gunboats (Roosevelt 1882:342). After inspecting the
American position from his ship's boat, Downie called together his captains and gave his
orders.
Linnet, supported by Chubb, was to attack Eagle. To engage Eagle, the two vessels were
to sail past the brig, across its bow and drop anchor. Thus, protected from a direct
broadside, they would be able to rake Eagle from stem to stern all along the length of her
deck. The flagship Confiance was also to be maneuvered into a position above Eagle's
bow, firing its starboard guns into the American brig. But before crossing Eagle's bow, it
was to come about and rake Eagle again with its port broadside. After dealing summarily
with the brig, Confiance would tack to starboard, turning across Saratoga's bow, anchor
and fire its port broadside, raking it from stem to stern until it was forced to surrender. The
gunboats were to fire and board Ticonderoga, and Finch would support the gunboats and
then engage Preble (Bellico 1992:222-3; Crisman 1987:68).
At nine o'clock on Sunday morning, September 11, the British fleet moved slowly into the
bay. Immediately, Downie's battle plan began to falter as the three largest ships were
stymied by lack of wind. With the exception of Finch, none could obtain their planned
position. Eagle opened the action by firing short at the approaching Confiance. Linnet then
returned fire from the northern end of the line, as it passed Saratoga. That broadside fell
short, but popular legend holds that one shot hit a chicken coop on Saratoga’s deck,
releasing a gamecock that flew into the rigging and crowed loudly. The crew took this up
as a good omen and joined with a cheer before the deadly fight began in earnest.
As Confiance closed upon the American line, Macdonough is said to have sighted one of
his 24-pound carronades himself and opened fire. One round reportedly flew straight
through Confiance's hawsehole and careened along a deadly path down the length of its
deck, cutting away its small, bower anchor and destroying the vessel's helm. When
Downie finally brought Confiance around and deployed his remaining anchors, he applied
the full force of the flagship's broadside against Saratoga. Confiance let go with a
thunderous broadside from all sixteen of the port-side long 24-pounders, each firing double
shot from point blank range on a calm sea with disastrous results. Saratoga was
murderously raked, but continued to return fire.
To the Americans’ material advantage, Captain Downie was killed early in the fight, when a
gun he was sighting was hit by an American round and slammed against him. The cannon
that hit and killed Downie is presently exhibited out-of-doors in front of Macdonough Hall at
the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Although his officers continued their
barrage of the enemy, many of the relatively untrained British crew were unable to maintain
an accurate line-of-fire with the guns. In the chaos of combat, they repeatedly forgot to
reset the elevation of their guns between firing. Consequently, the repeated action of
188
running the guns in and out to clean and load them shifted the wedges, and many rounds
of British shot were fired ineffectually into Saratoga's rigging, rather than into its hull.
At the foot of the line, Ticonderoga and Preble, along with several of the American rowgalleys, were engaged with Finch and approximately ten of the smaller gunboats. The
smaller American row-galleys fell back by degrees, while Ticonderoga kept up a steady fire
of grapeshot into the advancing British gunboats. Despite fierce attempts to board it,
Ticonderoga repelled the gunboats. When Finch closed in support of the gunboats, it was
crippled from a well-timed broadside from Ticonderoga and drifted downwind, coming up on
the shoals of Crab Island to the southeast. The British gunboats did have some success
against Preble, and forced its anchors to be cut away, causing it to drift out of line toward
the western shore.
At the extreme head of the line, the fighting had quickly grown intense. Eagle and some of
the larger gunboats were engaged with both Chubb and Linnet. Eagle's fire was
concentrated on Chubb, and soon the guns of the American brig had successfully shot
away Chubb's cable, bowsprit and main boom before any of its anchors could be dropped
to maintain its proscribed position. Consequently, Chubb drifted helplessly downwind
across the front of the American line, and temporarily blocked the fire of Confiance until a
midshipman from Saratoga took the vessel under American possession.
Although Eagle was being heavily damaged by Linnet, the majority of its gunfire remained
focused upon the primary target, Confiance. After an hour and a half of battle, Eagle's
starboard anchor spring was shot away, and the wind turned the vessel on its bow anchor
cable until its guns could no longer be brought to bear upon the enemy. Eagle's crew then
cut away their bow anchor cable while retaining the port spring line, allowing the vessel to
come about. With Eagle's bow now pointing south, the remaining spring line was cut and
the brig was sailed downwind and anchored between Saratoga and Ticonderoga. Eagle's
port-side guns could be now brought to bear on Confiance, but the brig's new position
exposed Saratoga to a withering cross-fire from both Confiance and Linnet.
The indomitable Macdonough, however, maintained Saratoga's return fire back at the
enemy. Despite sustaining a stunning number of casualties, Saratoga's crew continued
firing into the heavily-damaged hull of Confiance, and severed its two remaining bower
anchors. At a point when Confiance's heavy fire eventually silenced Saratoga's starboard
guns, Macdonough brought his meticulous planning into play. Saratoga's crew was ordered
to cut the bow and stern anchor lines and wind, or pivot, the stern of the vessel around on
the starboard spring line. One by one, starting at the stern, as Saratoga was turned, its
fresh battery of port-side guns opened fire on Confiance with devastating effect.
Confiance's ill-prepared crew, meanwhile, attempted to perform a similar maneuver, but
after losing its commander, many of its guns, most of its anchors, and now receiving a
crushing fire from Saratoga and Eagle's two full broadsides, the British flagship proved
unable to execute the move. Disabled and in a sinking condition, Confiance struck its
colors, surrendering to Macdonough. The Americans, however, did not rest, but instead
continued to bring Saratoga around until its full port battery could be trained on Linnet. The
189
punishing broadsides fired repeatedly from Saratoga overwhelmed the smaller brig, and
with water rising a foot over its lower deck, Linnet also surrendered.
General Prevost watched the encounter with horror from his protected position on shore
atop the heights above Plattsburgh. Although his land forces had been largely successful in
their slow, but effective, assault on the city, he had halted the engagement, apparently
waiting to see the outcome of the naval contest unfolding below him. When Confiance and
the other British vessel were struck, and Macdonough's victory was assured, it became
apparent that control of the lake would remain in American hands. In response, Prevost
issued orders calling for a general retreat, and marched his invasion force back into
Canada.
Much has been made of Prevost's hesitant attack on Plattsburgh, and of his hasty retreat
back into Canada with his vastly superior invasion force. Indeed his actions were the
subject of subsequent heated investigations by the Royal Navy and the British Army.
Commander Yeo, who was Captain Downie's superior, steadfastly maintained that General
Prevost's failure to launch a coordinated attack simultaneously with the naval engagement
to capture the American batteries south of the Saranac River in Plattsburgh materially
damaged the lake squadron's ability to rout Macdonough (Wood 1968:376-7).
However, Yeo missed his point badly. Macdonough had purposely anchored his fleet out
of range of all shore batteries, and Prevost was well aware of this. Furthermore, damages
suffered by the British ships approximated those of the American vessels, and they were
unable to maneuver effectively across the American line. Prevost's objective was to take
Plattsburgh for use as a base for his fleet to control the lake, its commerce and the general
economy of the valley. With the British fleet destroyed, even if he had taken Plattsburgh
with his large land force, without naval support on the lake he lacked the most important
means available to him for carrying out his real objective: control of the Champlain Valley.
Upon striking their colors, the ships comprising the defeated British fleet became the
property of the victorious United States Navy. As a consequence of the heavy damages
sustained by most of the vessels, the balance of the month of September was spent
repairing the damaged hulls and rigging. Macdonough kept his crews as busy as possible
with an assortment of tasks, which included burying the dead sailors on Crab Island. A
detachment of Eagle's sailors was also put to work sweeping the bay for the anchors lost
during the battle (Crisman 1987:89).
In early October of 1814, Macdonough retired most of the two fleets into defensive winter
quarters at the southernmost end of the lake, to Whitehall, New York. Confiance,
Saratoga, Linnet, and Ticonderoga were all moored in the channel immediately north of the
city. Macdonough kept Eagle, Preble, Growler (ex-Chubb), and Eagle (ex-Finch), as well
as his ten row-galleys in service, ready to thwart any attempt by the British to re-enter the
lake. The small flotilla of British gunboats that had escaped from Macdonough unharmed
during the battle of Plattsburgh Bay did not venture out onto the lake at all.
190
As winter approached, at the end of November, Macdonough was transferred to another
command. He turned his command on Lake Champlain over to Lieutenant Charles Budd,
formerly of Preble, and retired to Whitehall until the entire squadron was safely secured for
the winter. Ironically, once in Whitehall, Macdonough chose to use the former British
flagship Confiance for his new interim headquarters.
ANCHOR TYPE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
Based on the evaluation of the dimensions, the type of construction, and many visible
markings on the anchor, LCMM’s conservators and volunteer researchers determined that
the War of 1812 anchor from Plattsburgh Bay is an example of the original Richard Pering
pattern “Old-style Admiralty Longshank” anchor, and was probably the largest of the
anchors, or “Best Bower,” carried on board Confiance, flagship of the British squadron on
Lake Champlain. The Old Admiralty Longshank anchor style, which originated in the early
1700s, was typical of the anchors used on warships and merchant vessels throughout the
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in Britain and, with some variations, elsewhere in
Europe. After receiving the approval of the Board of Admiralty, the anchor style was
adopted widely in various sizes for use with vessels of the Royal Navy and merchants alike
for more than one hundred years, up to the second decade of the nineteenth century. The
main characteristics of this type of anchor are: a long iron shank, usually measuring 14 feet
(4.24 m) or more in length from crown to ring and twice as long as an arm; a massive
wooden stock, usually about the same length as the shank; two straight iron arms, fitted
with large spade-like iron flukes measuring about half the length of the arm, fixed into a
heavy crown at the lower end of the shank; a large round lifting ring slightly less than the
fluke’s size diameter; and a weight from 2,800 lbs to more than 10,000 lbs.
The Old-style Admiralty Longshank anchor retained its general form until the 1810s, but
frequently suffered from breaking of the arms near the shank, often due to inferior quality of
the materials used, and also to defective welding practices employed in the forges.
Throughout the eighteenth century, changes in the design of the crown, arms, and flukes,
and improvements in the processes for shaping, assembling, and forging (welding) the
parts into a finished anchor were frequently applied as new production tools and techniques
were introduced by anchor manufacturers in Britain and Europe. However, not until 1813,
the same year that the Plattsburgh anchor was made, would Richard Pering and others in
Britain propose any design changes to the Old-style Admiralty Longshank anchor, and not
for almost fifty more years would the anchor designs by Porter, Trotman, Rodgers, and
others be accepted by the Admiralty and shipping organizations for their better holding
capability, ease of stowing on ships, and portability.
Each of the words in the Old Admiralty Longshank anchor’s descriptive title refer in part to
its evolutionary stages, which originate from the anchors of antiquity in the history of
seafaring. By definition, an anchor is an instrument used to immobilize any floating object.
In fact, ships’ anchors are among the most ancient of human inventions, and are, arguably,
the most important piece of safety equipment carried onboard any vessel. Lives and
fortunes depend upon the ability of an anchor to hold a ship in any desired locality and to
prevent it from drifting at the mercy of wind, tide, and current, thereby keeping the vessel a
191
safe distance from hazards. The purpose and use of anchors on board ships has led to
their almost universal recognition as an icon of seafaring, safety, stability, and hope. The
origin of the term is clearly traceable as far back as the tenth century BC, to the ancient
Greek word, angkura, meaning “hook,” a feature of most ship’s anchors, which dig into the
seabed and provide the holding power of the device.
During the passage of time from the first use of anchors onboard ships until the Plattsburgh
Bay anchor was made in 1813, the development of anchors progressed through various
designs as the needs of ships and seafarers changed. Such developments were also
influenced by the availability of new materials and evolving manufacturing techniques.
Early anchors were made of basic materials that were easily available to the seafarer, such
as rocks, or basket shapes made from tree branches that could be weighted with a large
stone. Such solutions were usually adequate for anchoring small vessels in sheltered
waters near shore. Larger vessels, however, venturing into deeper waters with bigger
loads and crews required correspondingly larger anchors. While rocks and boulders could
be used to secure a larger vessel, these were often not practical for the crew to handle, nor
were they always effective for holding the vessel in different types of seabed.
The need for new anchor designs constructed out of different material types began to
influence the evolution of anchors, especially for fitting-out larger ships, and hooks were
designed to dig themselves into the seabed. The invention of the hooked anchor has been
credited variously to the seafarers of the Mediterranean and northern Europe (Kemp
1994:21). Simple hook-style anchors made of wood weighted with stocks formed from iron,
lead, or cast bronze, were employed circa the first century AD and gave rise to hooked iron
anchors by the second century AD. These had a shank (shaft) connecting the hooks (or
flukes, as we know them today) to a ring or a loop to which the cable from the ship was
secured. Such devices met the needs of light draft ships driven by sail and oars, but were
probably difficult to engage in many types of seabed. With the introduction of the stock, a
horizontal arm of wood that was fixed at the other end of the shank from the flukes and at
right angles to them, considerable improvement in holding power was provided as the
flukes were pulled vertically into the seabed. At this point in its evolution, the anchor
attained a form and shape that has been a “standard” commonly associated with the word
itself for many centuries and which changed little up until the nineteenth century.
Generally, as ships increased in size over the course of time, the more numerous small
anchors typically employed on ancient craft were replaced by fewer and larger versions on
the progressively more modern vessels. For example, the largest warship in 1600 carried
approximately eleven anchors, whereas by 1800, a first rate ship of 100 guns sailed with
only about seven of them. In addition to the shift to fewer and larger anchors carried on
board ships, different types and size categories of anchors, each of which were designed to
perform specific holding tasks, were also introduced. The type of anchor discovered in
Plattsburgh Bay was known as a “bower” anchor, so called because of the position at which
it was stored on board ship (i.e., in the bow). Bower anchors were divided further into the
sub-categories of “sheet” or “best” bower, and “small” bower anchors. The sheet or best
bower anchor, the type discussed here, was the largest on board and was carried on the
starboard side to make the most of weather cycles in the world’s northern hemisphere.
192
When anchoring in heavy weather the small bower would be dropped first, and then
followed with the best bower if needed as seas increased. Since winds of the northern
hemisphere tend to shift from southwest to northwest, if the winds were to shift with both
anchors deployed in the manner described above, then their cables would lie out ahead of
the ship rather than across one another and foul (Curryer 1999:51).
Contrary to most peoples’ assumptions regarding the manner in which anchors were
manufactured (i.e. that anchors, like cannon, were created by casting), most anchors of the
seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, including the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, were produced
instead by “forge welding” (i.e., the joining of heated metal by pressure) pieces of wrought
iron. The pieces of more malleable wrought iron used in the fabrication of the Plattsburgh
Bay anchor derived originally from comparatively brittle cast iron “pigs” that had been
converted into wrought iron after undergoing a multi-step “fining” process. The first step in
the fining process entailed reheating the pigs in a blast furnace to remove impurities from
the crude iron, and convert them into paste-like piles of iron called “loops.” After cooling,
these loops were then reheated and hammered by hand to remove additional impurities
and to mold them into roughly rectangular shapes called “half-blooms.” These rectangular
iron half-blooms were then subjected to a series of three or four additional heating and
cooling cycles, in between which, while heated white hot, the half-blooms were passed
under a massive, water-powered, “tilt” hammer, to beat out additional impurities and to
convert the pieces into true “blooms.” Between each of these stages the iron had to be
returned to the forge for reheating. Large ironworks usually kept two forges busy, one of
which was known as the “Finery,” where the bloom was formed, and the other the
“Chafery,” where it was forged.
The iron blooms could then be hammered further to create narrow wrought iron “bars,” that
could be formed into whatever product the manufacturer desired. In some cases, these
bars were reheated yet again and passed through a combination rolling and slitting mill,
which flattened the bars into strips and then slit the strips into rods. These rods of wrought
iron, could be bound together in bundles or “faggots,” heated to a white heat, and then
beaten into a solid mass that might be shaped into the anchor’s various components (i.e.,
shank, arms, flukes, ring) that were then welded together to create the anchor.
THE IDENTITY OF THE PLATTSBURGH BAY ANCHOR’S MAKER
Unlike the majority of historic anchors, whose stocks have been consumed by wood-boring
organisms, such as the sea-worm, Toredo navalis, and whose metal has become heavily
oxidized and pitted from exposure to the more corrosive saline marine environment, the
anchor recovered from the fresh waters of Plattsburgh Bay on Lake Champlain was in
exceptional condition. A number of markings, including the hand-painted text on the
anchor’s flukes, were preserved along with three identical inscriptions on the anchor’s
shank and crown that appeared initially to read, “HANKS,” and were believed to represent
the mark of the anchor’s maker.
This hypothesis was confirmed eventually when a reference to a William Hawks was found
in Betty Nelson Curryer’s then (1999) newly published book, Anchors: An Illustrated
193
History. In Chapter 10 of the book, entitled, “Chain Cable and Chains,” William Hawks “the
Younger, iron manufacturer of Gateshead,” was noted for having obtained a patent in 1804
“for improvements in making chains for use in mines and other purposes” (Curryer
1999:97). Additionally, “William Hawks Senior & Co” was described as a loser in an 1813
lawsuit brought by chain manufacturer, Thomas Brunton, of London, over patent
infringement in the manufacture of stud-link cables (Curryer 1999:99). These clues
eventually led to an e-mail address for Eileen Carnaffin, Local Studies Librarian, of the
Gateshead Council Libraries. Carnaffin was queried for any information that she might
have on the Hawks. Carnaffin responded with data on the long, multi-generational history
of the Hawks’s iron manufacturing business, in which the Royal Navy was listed as one of
their firm’s most prominent customers at the time that the Plattsburgh Bay anchor had been
made (1813): the puzzle was solved.
The Hawks family’s enterprises, which comprised iron manufacturers and engineers, were
located in Tyneside, an industrial region along the Tyne River in northeast England that
included the cities of Newcastle and Gateshead. Hawks shares a peculiarity with the other
early metalworking operations of the Tyneside; despite enjoying a vibrant heyday of
business in the early to middle nineteenth century, the firm left remarkably little historic
trace of its lengthy existence. One of the most notable industrial dynasties in North East
England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries until the abrupt closure of the firm
in 1889, Hawks “New Greenwich” ironworks at Gateshead was the town's largest employer,
and several members of the family enjoyed positions of prominence in local politics. The
Hawks firm was established in the late 1740s by William Hawks (1708 to 1755), formerly a
foreman smith at the established ironworks of Ambrose Crowley at Swalwell, two miles to
the west of Newcastle upon Tyne. Hawks set up his workshops on waste ground along the
shore of the Tyne River at Gateshead.
The Tyneside shipping industry and coal mining operations were prodigious consumers of
ironwares, and Hawks located his works close to his source of materials. Scrap iron could
be reprocessed easily into the nails, bolts, chains, shovels and tools for which there was a
brisk demand in the local coal industry and shipping trade. This system proved lucrative,
because of the availability of inexpensive materials, fuel, labor, and technology (a hearth
and a hammer). However, the firm had progressed little by the time its founder died in
1755 at the age of 46, passing the works on to the eldest of his three sons, William, Jr.
(1730 to 1810). It is he who is credited with the initial great expansion of the Hawks
industrial empire. During the 1760s and 1770s, William Hawks, Jr. entered into several
partnerships with local ironmongers and edge tool makers. His partnership in the late
1770s with Thomas Longridge, a Sunderland merchant, proved to be the stimulus for a
sudden expansion of the Hawks enterprises. In 1779, the two acquired a plating forge at
Beamish, in County Durham, which became the first of four separate metal-working sites
operated by Hawks & Longridge along Beamish Burn. Additional smiths' shops were
rented at Ouseburn on the north bank of the Tyne in 1780. A forge at Lumley, County
Durham, was also occupied by the firm in the mid 1780s, and in the late 1780s slitting and
rolling mills at Bedlington on the river Blyth in the modern county of Northumberland were
taken on (Evans, pers. comm. 2000).
194
By the 1790s, the Hawks Gateshead operations had developed into a substantial industrial
complex, producing steel, anchors, heavy chains and steam engine components, as well as
a great diversity of smaller ironware. The magnitude of the firm’s business with the
Admiralty was reflected in the title “New Greenwich.”
Maritime and military markets were evidently profitable, for the estate of William Hawks, Jr.,
was assessed at “under £30,000” at his death in 1810, when the works in the North East
passed to his surviving sons George Hawks of Blackheath, the firm's London agent, Robert
Shafto Hawks, and John Hawks. Increasingly, the firm's activities were focussed on
Gateshead, where the Hawks works occupied 44 acres by the end of the 1830s and
supported a workforce that numbered between 800 and 900. The firm reached its apogee
in the early Victorian period, when its reputation for engineering and bridge building was
worldwide, and to which the High Level Bridge across the Tyne, completed by the firm in
1849, stands as a fitting memorial. At its height the 'New Greenwich' works could boast a
workforce of over 2,000.
DETERMINING THE ANCHOR’S VESSEL OF ORIGIN
The massive size of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, reportedly the largest ever recovered from
Lake Champlain, and the date and British “broad arrows” inscribed into its surface tying it to
the War of 1812 Battle of Plattsburgh, also pointed to Confiance, the largest of the British
ships involved in the engagement, as the anchor’s most likely vessel of origin. However,
LCMM researchers felt that to prove conclusively that this hypothesis was indeed true,
additional research was necessary to trace the history of the anchor and compare its
precise location when discovered with the known courses that the various British vessels
had followed during the course of the battle.
The most important and obvious clues available for retracing the history of the anchor after
its manufacture in the Hawks’s Gateshead Iron Works, and determining its possible
association with a particular vessel in the British fleet on Lake Champlain, were its
numerous diagnostic markings. The anchor’s weight (i.e., the “20-3-8”) painted on one of
the anchor’s flukes and inscribed in the arm and shank, and the word “Quebec” painted
onto the other of the anchor’s flukes were particularly important. The Plattsburgh Bay
anchor (without the stock) was calculated to weigh 2,332 pounds (1057.8 kg).
Knowing the size and weight of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, as well as the sizes and
armaments of the British ships that had participated in the battle, LCMM researchers
consulted tables produced by the British Royal Navy between 1763 and 1830 to compare
the dimensions of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor with the recommended dimensions of
anchors to be supplied to the various classes of warships. LCMM researchers were then
operating under the assumption that it would be relatively simple to determine the vessel to
which the anchor had belonged by simply matching an anchor of similar dimensions to an
appropriately sized ship, and then correlating that size of ship with a similarly-sized vessel
in the British Lake Champlain fleet. This apparently simple solution of utilizing these tables
of dimensions to determine the anchor’s vessel of origin, however, actually proved more
confounding than illuminating. According to the tables, and presuming that the Plattsburgh
195
Bay anchor was a bower anchor, anchors of its size and weight would have been carried
on board a 14-gun, 400-ton vessel, which most closely approximates the size of the 16gun, 350-ton, British brig Linnet, rather than the 37-gun, 1,200-ton British frigate,
Confiance. In fact, bower anchors of up to 54 hundredweight, more than two-and-one-half
times the weight of the Plattsburgh Bay anchor, were recommended for a warship of
Confiance’s armament and tonnage.
Research efforts then turned to the “Quebec” painted on one of the anchor’s flukes, which
LCMM researchers considered to be the equivalent of a sort-of shipping label for the
anchor. The port city of Quebec on the Upper Saint Lawrence River in British Canada had
served as the center of operations for the British war effort in Lower Canada and in the
Champlain Valley. It was hoped that archival research would produce records for the
shipment of an anchor the size of that recovered from Plattsburgh Bay some time between
the anchor’s 1813 date of manufacture and its September 11, 1814 date of deposition into
the archaeological record.
Soon after his arrival in Canada on May 5, 1813, Sir James Lucas Yeo, the newly
appointed Commodore of the British naval operations on the Canadian Lakes, began a
major reorganization of the naval establishments at Kingston and Isle-aux-Noix
(Malcomson 1999:119). The British Admiralty in response to many requests from Sir
George Prevost and Yeo for experienced naval personnel to supplement the limited
Provincial Marine, began to send contingents of seamen and officers from Britain during
1813-1814 (Malcomson 1999:120-123). These troops of the Royal Navy and Royal
Marines were to provide the resources needed to implement British strategies to take
control of the Lakes, and to man the transport ships that supported the British Army’s
operations along the Canadian border with the United States. Late in October of 1813, a
large convoy arrived at Quebec from Great Britain carrying a detachment of 350 officers
and sailors of the Royal Navy, and large number of war materials (Malcomson 1999:232).
By the end of the navigation season on the Lakes in 1813, Yeo’s forces had grown
considerably in ships and troop strength.
Large convoys assembled at ports around the British coasts, such as Portsmouth, Cork,
Liverpool and London, where troops and materials were loaded onto Royal Navy warships
and transport vessels destined for Quebec, and Halifax, Nova Scotia from which cargoes
were trans-shipped for passage to Montreal and Kingston, in Canada. During the winter of
1813-14 the Admiralty made preparations for another large convoy to set sail from
Portsmouth, England in April 1814, while maintaining troops and supplies for the escalating
war effort in Canada. In an official letter from the Admiralty Office in London, dated
January 20, 1814, is a list entitled, “An Account of Stores to be provided at Portsmouth for
Quebec (National Archives Canada Film B-1009:3179:1-18).” Among the many naval
stores listed in the account are 30 anchors of various sizes and weights, a few of which
could conceivably have been intended for Confiance. It is possible that some of the
anchors transported in the April 1814 convoy were intended for the two frigates, one of
which would later be built and named Confiance.
196
In the same referenced document is a note that the supplies shall be loaded in HM
Transport Abundance, which was built as a store-ship of 24 guns in the Adams yard at
Buckler’s Hard, near Southampton, in 1799. A convoy of 27 ships including the
Abundance, left Portsmouth in April 1814 under the charge of the 74-gun HMS Spencer,
and other frigates. These ships became part of a larger convoy of some 120 sail assembled
from many ports in the British Isles. On April 16, 1814, ten ships parted the convoy for
Quebec, arriving June 2, 1814 and began unloading troops and various supplies identified
as flour, timber, frames for new warships, powder and shot, and mortar shells (Quebec
Mercury 2 June 1814). Some of the ships which were of light draft were instructed to
“proceed up river with the frames of warships” to unload at Montreal (National Archives of
Canada, May 29, 1814, NAC film C2932:373, pp 160-165).
If indeed some anchors eventually fitted on the Confiance arrived with this convoy, it is
likely that they would have been transported either to Montreal then transported to Isle-auxNoix overland, or they could have been taken by bateaux from Quebec up the Richelieu
River to the shipyard. In their rush to complete warships being built at Kingston and Isleaux-Noix, admiralty records reveal that the Royal Navy’s 74-gun warships Ajax, Centaur
and Warspite at Quebec were “plundered” so as to provide essential materials, guns and
rigging. It is possible that Confiance’s anchors could have, instead, been provided from
this source too (Malcomson 1999:295). Unfortunately, the available archival records that
were examined did not include any specific information regarding the anchor and its
particular history.
After failing twice to conclusively determine the anchor’s vessel of origin, LCMM
researchers looked at the last sources of information available to them, and compared the
position where the anchor had been discovered to the known locations and courses of the
vessels comprising the British fleet. This approach resulted in several important
conclusions. First, the apparent disparity between the anchor’s real and recommended
weights was probably a consequence of the fact that the recommendations were intended
for vessels being operated on the open sea and not on the protected waters of an inland
lake, where smaller sized anchors would be sufficient. Second, the location of the anchor
relative to positions of the British vessels during the course of the battle indicated that the
anchor could only have been deposited on the bottom of the bay after being shot away
from the bow of Confiance in the opening moments of the engagement as the British
flagship was approaching the anchored American fleet.
197
CHAPTER XIII: NORTHERN LAKE GEORGE COLONIAL SHIPWRECK
CV-2 STUDY AND STABILIZATION PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
From June 3 to June 9, 2000, fieldwork was successfully conducted at the north end of
Lake George focusing on the study and stabilization of the remains of an eighteenth
century shipwreck designated CV-2. In addition to the primary objectives, further data was
gathered on wreck sites MB-4, barges B-1, B-4, B-5, and B-6, and a second colonial
vessel, CV-1. This project, conducted by personnel from the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, Bateaux Below, Inc., Fort Ticonderoga Museum, and the New York State
Archaeological Association, was carried out under permit #AR2002, issued by the New
York State Museum.
As this report illustrates, all goals of the research design were met or exceeded. A
significant amount of data was collected including detailed measurements of the CV-2
remains, a site map of CV-2, and photographs of each of the CV-2 timbers. Additionally,
CV-2’s scattered timbers were catalogued, collected, and relocated to a more secure
location in the lake. The remains of CV-2 were severely damaged from currents and ice, as
well as boat traffic and souvenir hunters. Relocation was deemed necessary to stabilize the
site.
One of the most exciting results of the project was the probable identification of the CV-2
vessel. Information gathered during the fieldwork suggests it is one of two sloops captured
by the French at the fall of Fort William Henry in 1757.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
FRENCH & INDIAN WAR
Lake George’s northern end played an important role in both the military and commercial
history of New York and the United States. As the northernmost limit to navigation on Lake
George, this site served as one end of a 2½mi (4.0km) portage from nearby Lake
Champlain. Due to this role, the site was historically known as the “Old French Landing,” or
the “Outlet”. This portage played a crucial role in the political shaping of North America
during the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. After the Revolution the
region’s emphasis shifted from military endeavors to commercial enterprises as
industrialists quickly harnessed the waterpower at the falls of Lake George’s outlet.
This concentrated activity left a significant legacy of shipwrecks and other cultural deposits
in Lake George’s northern end. A general history of these vessels has already been
detailed the Final Report of the Literature Review and Shipwreck Inventory of Lake
George’s Northern End (Padeni 1999; Sabick et al 2000), therefore, this historical overview
will focus on the CV-2 shipwreck, now believed to date to the French and Indian War
(1755-1763).
198
By the early 1700s both the English and French understood the military importance of
controlling the Lake George/Lake Champlain corridor. Together with the nearby Hudson
River, these waterways provided the only means of transporting large armies through the
seemingly endless forests of North America. In an effort to control this waterway, the
British advanced their northern frontier from Fort Edward on the Hudson River to the
southern shore of Lake George in the fall of 1755. Following their victory over a French
expeditionary force under Baron Dieskau, the British began construction of Fort William
Henry. Thirty-two miles (51.5km) away at the lake’s northern end, the French responded
by beginning construction of Fort Carillon on the strategic point of land where Lake George
empties into Lake Champlain, known by the Indians as Ticonderoga.
To protect the strategic landing at Lake George, the French also maintained several
outposts on the eastern and western shores at the lake’s Outlet (O’Callaghan 1855:425426). These entrenched camps were placed to defend the French boats at the head of the
portage leading to Lake Champlain. These fortified outposts also defended a bridge across
the Natural Stone Dam, allowing communication with the French camps on the west shore
of Lake George (O’Callaghan 1855:722). One of these camps included a stockaded fort
named after its commander, Contrecoeur (Loescher 1946:6). From these advanced posts
at the Outlet the French launched sorties against British forces at Fort Edward and Fort
William Henry, the latter of which was captured by France’s General Montcalm in 1757.
While both the French and British employed watercraft on Lake George, the naval forces
they employed demonstrated their differences in overall strategy. During the French control
of Lake George’s northern end (1755-1759), their naval force reflected a defensive
strategy, consisting predominantly of Native American canoes and small open boats known
as bateaux. Usually no longer than 37ft (11.3m), the bateaux were highly versatile and
ideal for warfare on the region’s lakes and rivers. They could be rowed or sailed which
allowed a high degree of maneuverability, and their flat bottoms and shallow drafts
facilitated access to the countless coves and bays skirting the lake. Their large carrying
capacity made them ideal for transporting troops and supplies. Bateaux were often armed
with swivel guns or wall pieces for service as combatants. Available records indicate that
these boats were not built on Lake George, but rather in Canada or on Lake Champlain
and hauled up the portage.
Despite French efforts to supply boats for Lake George, their naval force was chronically
inadequate throughout the war. Moreover, the only large naval vessels possessed by the
French on Lake George were British vessels captured during the fall of Fort William Henry
in August 1757.
The British forces fortifying their position at the south end of the lake, however, viewed the
maritime importance of Lake George with the highest priority, and consequently, began a
shipbuilding effort that would continue throughout the French and Indian War. This
contrasting military philosophy was at least partly due to the availability of shipwrights and
shipbuilding materials from the relatively close port of Albany.
199
While the focus in 1755 was on the completion of Fort William Henry (Figure 13-1), a
shipyard was eventually established at the southeast corner of the lake. This shipyard
included a ways and a sawpit for cutting planks. Several flatboats were constructed that
year, as well as numerous bateaux.
Figure 13-1. Map of Ft. William Henry drawn in 1756 depicting sloops (Cuneo 1988).
Seventeen fifty-six marked the first major British shipbuilding effort with the construction of
a fleet consisting of vessels of various sizes. Lt. Colonel Burton wrote, in a letter to the Earl
of Loudon:
They have two small Sloops of about Twenty Tons each, have four Swivels mounted on
d
each, one Sloop of 30 Tons launched the 23 Instant, another of the same size to be
launched in a few days, they propose having in each of those Vessells, four small Cannon or
Royals—[they also have] Two large Scows, and one a Building, a good many whale-boats,
and more building (Burton in Gifford 1955:32).
For the remaining part of that year these craft were used primarily to patrol the lake and
observe the movements of the French at their advanced posts at the Lake’s northern end
(Figure 13-2).
200
Figure 13-2. 1756 sloop in Lake George (left), and the sloop Loudoun (right) (Crown
Collection, New York State Archives).
With the campaign season of 1756 at an end, the British and Provincial army at Lake
George’s southern end returned home, leaving only a small garrison to winter at Fort
William Henry. Typically, garrison duty at such an isolated frontier outpost consisted of
months of inactivity with the occasional skirmish between scouting parties. The winter of
1757 proved differently. In March of that year, the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor of
Canada, sent a force of over 1500 men to surprise the fort’s garrison. Marching down the
ice of Lake George, the French force attacked the vastly outnumbered British on the
morning of March 19 with the intent of scaling the fort walls. Unable to breach the fort’s
defenses, however, the French settled for destroying the surrounding outworks,
storehouses, and stockpile of firewood. Also burned were most of the British vessels
including numerous bateaux, whaleboats, and several sloops. Major William Eyre,
commander of Fort William Henry, later reported on the destruction of their vessels by the
French.
They [French] set on Fire, two Sloops, and burnt almost all our Batteaus… [and] Tuesday
the 22d early in the morning, the Enemy seem’d Resolved to burn the Sloop up on the
Stocks; Several times they were beat off, but still perservered & by means of Combustibles
and dry Faggots, which they brought from their Encampment at last effected their
design…The Sloop upon the Stocks continued blazing all broad day on
Wednesday…(Eyre in Gifford 1955:36-39)
Evidently, the destruction of British shipping was incomplete, because Eyre also stated
that: “The Whaleboats, Scows, or Gundalas & Bayboats Escaped the Conflagration” (Eyre
in Gifford 1955:39).
Despite this setback the British were able to assemble a significant fleet on the lake by
early that summer. Which of these vessels were newly built, or survivors of the March
attack is unclear; nevertheless, by the summer of 1757 the British fleet consisted of two
large sloops, two “flatboats,” and two row galleys under construction (Bellico et al 1996).
201
In early August 1757, French forces again attacked Fort William Henry, though this time
their efforts were far more successful than their previous attempt. Led by General Marquis
de Montcalm, over 7000 troops, comprised of French regulars, Canadian volunteers, and
Indian allies from as far away as the Mississippi River, began their march from Fort Carillon
(Ticonderoga) at the north end of Lake George. Because of their chronic shortage of boats,
2,488 of Montcalm’s men were forced to march along the rugged terrain of Lake George’s
western shore (Bougainville 1964).
The remainder of the French army sailed down the lake in 250 bateaux, landing a mile
(1.6km) from Fort William Henry on August 3. The superior French force surrounded the
British positions, and immediately laid siege to the fort and the adjacent entrenched camp
(Figure 13-3). After six days of intense bombardment from the French heavy guns, the
British garrison of 2,300 men, along with numerous women and children, had no choice but
to surrender. Many of these prisoners fell prey to disgruntled French-allied Indians in the
now infamous Fort William Henry massacre. Those that survived made their way back to
Fort Edward.
Figure 13-3. French map of 1757 attack on Ft. William Henry (Bellico 1995:60).
202
Along with Fort William Henry, the French captured large amounts of military supplies,
cannon, and numerous British watercraft including two large sloops. In his journal entry for
July 27, 1757, British Engineer Colonel James Montressor listed the vessels that would
later be taken by the French as: "2 Galliots, 2 Scows, 5 whaleboats, 3 Batos, 2 Sloops”
(Montressor 1881:37). These vessels were used by the French to transport many of their
own troops, along with the war materiel taken from Fort William Henry. The French used
these captured ships for the remainder of the year. Following a scout of the French
advanced posts shortly after Fort William Henry’s surrender, Israel Putnam noted, “one of
our Sloops lies out in the Lake, at Anchor, in order to give the earliest Intelligence [to the
French]” (Bellico 1995:67).
Because the two captured sloops and flatboats were too large to be transported down the
portage leading to Lake Champlain, the French had no choice but leave them in Lake
George for the winter. To prevent their being retaken by the British, the French sank the
sloops as well other captured vessels at the Lake George Outlet. One French journal
noted the event: “Le 6 [September], travail ordinaire. On a envoie' au Portage des
Canadiens chercher des berges et bruler cesses qui sont hors de service. [The 6th
(September), fatigue duty.” [We sent to the Portage the Canadians to look for the barges
and burn those which are unserviceable] (Malartic 1890:152). In another French account,
taken from the interrogation of a French prisoner, the British general Webb wrote on
September 6, 1757: "As they [the French] were not able to get the two sloops they [took]
From us beyond the falls they have dismasted them and sunk them in the middle of the
River...[Lake George Outlet]" (Webb 1757). During a scout several months later on
December 24th, Robert Rogers confirms the sinking of the Fort William Henry vessels at
the Outlet. He recorded: "I found at the north end of Lake George where the French had
hidden the boats they had taken at Fort William Henry...but as the boats were under water
we could not destroy them"(Rogers 1988:44). A year and a half later, Captain –Lieutenant
Henry Skinner, an artillery officer accompanying Amherst’s army would also describe these
submerged vessels when on July 23, 1759, he wrote that they had “discovered in the Lake
a sloop with eight guns” (Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum 1992:20). Accounts of
these sunken sloops at the Outlet continue throughout the war. The two “flatboats” taken
by the French at Fort William Henry and later sunk along with the sloops, were raised in the
Fall of 1759. Lemuel Wood wrote in his diary of the raising of “Large flat bottomed Boats
yT was taken when fort William Henry was and Sunk at ye Landing” (Bellico 1992:100).
The French successes of 1757 marked the high-water mark of French southern advance,
for beginning in 1758 the French would turn to the defensive, facing some of the largest
armies ever assembled in North America up to that time. In July of 1758 a 16,000-man
army under the command of General James Abercrombie planned to repay the French at
Carillon for their destruction of Fort William Henry the previous year. To prepare for
transporting this massive army north, numerous vessels had to be constructed. To serve as
troop and supply transports, 900 bateaux and 135 whaleboats were prepared under
Colonel John Bradstreet, most of which were constructed in Albany (Bellico 1992:64). To
accommodate the heavy artillery, a radeau was built, as well as rafts using bateaux as
pontoons.
203
On July 5,th the large flotilla, comprised of 135 whaleboats, 900 bateaux, artillery rafts, and
three small radeau, set off from the southern end of Lake George for their assault on Fort
Carillon, 32mi (51.5) to the north. The following morning, British Rangers under Robert
Rogers were the first to arrive at the Lake’s north end; they quickly routed the French
advanced posts stationed at the Outlet. With the landing secured, the remainder of the
British army landed and began their confident march toward the vastly outnumbered
French garrison at Fort Carillon.
As the British would soon learn, however, their confidence in a certain victory was
imprudent. One of the first casualties that morning was 34-year-old Brigadier General
George Viscount Howe. The sudden loss of Howe, whose hands-on approach to
leadership had gained the affection of the troops, took the heart out of the army. To make
matters worse, General Abercrombie rashly chose a frontal attack against the heavily
fortified French lines, opting not to engage his heavy cannon. The result was a disaster for
the British force, which was repelled with heavy losses by the French. The subsequent
British withdrawal soon turned into a panicked rout, with the entire British force eventually
making its way back to the southern end of Lake George. So precipitous was the British
withdrawal, French accounts would later describe the discovery of abandoned British
wounded, numerous boats, and vast amounts of supplies left at the Landing by
Abercrombie’s men.
Following their humiliating retreat, Abercrombie’s army languished at their encampments at
Lake George’s southern end, waiting for a French counter-attack that never came. With
time on their hands and hopes for another attempt against the French that year, the British
again turned to building vessels for service on Lake George. To augment their existing
fleet, the British constructed numerous additional bateaux, the radeau Land Tortoise
(located by Bateaux Below, Inc. in 1990), two 40ft (12.2m) row galleys, and the 51ft
(15.5m) long, 100-ton sloop Halifax (Champion 1891:431; Cleaveland 1959:229; Cobb
1981:20; and Rea 1881). With the coming of winter, and lacking the protection of Fort
William Henry destroyed the previous year, the entire fleet was intentionally sunk in the lake
to prevent their capture or destruction by the French.
The following year, command of the British campaign against the French on Lake
Champlain fell to General Jeffery Amherst. In preparation for his move north, Amherst
raised their vessels from the lake (with the exception of the Land Tortoise which could not
be relocated), and ordered the construction of several new vessels including large rafts
(decking secured to three bateaux); Snow Shoe, a large scow capable of carrying 70
horses (Montressor 1881:83); and the 8-gun, two-masted radeau Invincible.
Amherst’s methodical approach to warfare in 1759 proved far more successful than the
failed strategies of previous years. Early on the morning of July 21st, Amherst’s flotilla got
under way for their assault on Fort Carillon. As in 1758, the British landed along the shores
of Lake George’s northern end and quickly overran the French advanced positions. Within
a short time, Amherst had Carillon nearly surrounded. With little hope of resisting the
British siege, the French garrison had no choice but to set a fuse to the magazines of Fort
Carillon and withdraw to Canada.
204
Amherst’s army took possession of the fort, only partially destroyed by French explosives,
and renamed it Fort Ticonderoga. The British also maintained forces at the Landing at the
northern end of Lake George until the end of the war, but because of the rapid advance of
Amherst’s army up Lake Champlain, these positions lost their strategic importance. During
this period, however, these posts served as staging areas for British armies passing north
during the final reduction of French Canada. Many British vessels in Lake George were
removed at the Landing and transported into Lake Champlain. As previously mentioned,
two such vessels were a pair of large scows that had been captured by Montcalm in 1757
and later sunk at the north end of the lake. Amherst’s army raised these “flatboats” to serve
as scows.
With the contest for North America settled, a short-lived peace descended over the region.
Veterans recognizing the Lake George Outlet's potential while serving there during the war
quickly petitioned for land grants.
One group of petitioners were brothers John, Joseph, and Nathaniel Stoughton, of
Connecticut, who were awarded 2,000 acres (809.7 hectares) of land encompassing the
area of the Outlet. Utilizing abandoned military structures and the vessel Snow Shoe left
over from the war, they established a trading post in 1765 at the site of the old Landing
(Bellico 1995:149-150) In November 1767, John drowned when Snow Shoe sank in a
storm on Lake George. Ownership of the trading post eventually passed to the Stoughtons’
business partner Samuel Deall of New York City. Deall relocated to the trading post and
expanded the business to include the construction of another vessel on Lake George in
1769; a sawmill in 1771; and a gristmill in 1772. Deall died soon after, at which time his
holdings were abandoned (Bellico 1995:150).
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
With the beginning of the American War for Independence, the north end of the lake again
became a center of military activity. At various periods throughout the Revolution, both
American and British forces occupied the Lake George Outlet. Between the fall of 1775 to
1776, the Outlet served as a critical transportation hub during the American invasion and
subsequent retreat from Canada. Following the American evacuation of Ticonderoga in
July of 1777, the British established a supply depot at the old Landing to support
Burgoyne's southerly-advancing army. To sustain and defend these supply lines, the British
transported numerous vessels from Lake Champlain to Lake George. Many of these
vessels served the previous year at the Battle of Valcour Island and consisted largely of
gunboats, many of which had been prefabricated in England.
On September 18, 1777, in an attempt to cut the supply line to Burgoyne's army then
entrenched at Saratoga, American forces under the command of Colonel John Brown
attacked and captured the Landing depot and many of the British vessels including a small
sloop (Hadden 1884:90; Bellico 1992:182). Prior to Brown's withdrawal, he ordered several
of these craft at the Lake George Outlet destroyed, as was later confirmed by the British
commander of Fort Ticonderoga, General Powell. On September 19, 1777, Powell
reported that Brown "destroyed four Gunboats at this end of Lake George, and two Gun
Boats and some bateaux which lay about the bridge on this side of the Sawmill" (Powell in
205
Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum 1945:31-34). Following the surrender of
Burgoyne at Saratoga, the strategic focus of the Revolution shifted elsewhere;
nevertheless, the Lake George outlet remained garrisoned until the end of the war.
With the end of the American Revolution, interest in Lake George’s north end switched
from military to economic. Its readily available waterpower, plentiful natural resources, and
centralized location, made the area ideal for commercial pursuits. Within only a few years,
industry in the area increased rapidly, and with it the maritime activity of Lake George and
Lake Champlain. This rise in commercial water traffic is readily evident by the large
number of commercial watercraft recently documented on the lake bottom of Lake George’s
north end. Details of these watercraft will undoubtedly be the focus of future study.
REMOVAL OF SHIPWRECKS FROM LAKE GEORGE
Documentation reveals that during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the raising of
shipwrecks from Lake George was a common practice. This was particularly the case in
the shallow waters of the lake’s northern end, which during these periods was often
referred to as the “Graveyard of Lake George”. Apparently, this section of the lake
became popular as a site for discarding unserviceable or unwanted watercraft. Many
wrecks were later removed as obstacles to the steadily increasing industrial and
recreational boat traffic of Ticonderoga. Interviews with local residents, as well as
newspaper accounts, reveal several shipwrecks being removed from the lake to make way
for private docks or other shorefront development (Buckell 1990:91) (Figure 13-4).
Figure 13-4. View of Mossy Point, north end of lake circa 1900 (Library of Congress,
accession # 805165 D4-62090).
206
Shipwrecks of known historical significance were raised from the lake as objects of curiosity
or for their commercial value. One example was a colonial-period sloop raised at the south
end of Lake George by William S. Tuttle in 1903. After raising this vessel (in all probability
one of the two sloops burned during the March 1757 French attack on Fort William Henry),
its timbers were chopped up, and the pieces sold as souvenirs (Lake George Mirror 11 July
1903:5). Apparently, Tuttle continued this activity for several years. New York State
Legislative Documents record several legislative acts passed authorizing William S. Tuttle
and others to remove historic vessels from the lake between 1894-1903 (Laws of the State
of New York 1894). It is unknown how many historic vessels were impacted by these
activities. However, wreck salvage by Tuttle and others could explain the discrepancy
between the higher number of vessels known to have sunk at the Outlet, as recorded by
the historical record (e.g. four British gunboats), and the actual lower number of colonialperiod shipwrecks found during the recent physical inventory. Extensive damage to
documented colonial-period wrecks (unrelated to their sinking) located within the study area
further supports this possibility.
207
PREPARATION
In October of 1999, a shipwreck inventory and literature review was completed focusing on
the north end of Lake George, often referred to as the Outlet, or Landing. During this
inventory, at least 16 sunken vessels were documented including the remains of two from
the colonial period. In addition to sunken watercraft, numerous other submerged
archaeological sites were identified including dock cribbing, and a marine railway.
With the inventory complete, a management plan was created, and each site was
prioritized based on historical importance and stability. High on this list was the site
designated CV-2 (Colonial Vessel-number 2) (Figure 13-5). This high priority was based on
the vessel’s obvious historical significance, and more importantly, on the fact that this
vessel had suffered severe damage in the past and remained at high risk due to the site’s
vulnerability to natural forces, heavy boat traffic, and relic hunters. Indeed, it was
determined that large pieces of the vessel had already been scattered or carried off in the
recent past. Consequently, it was feared that without immediate action what little remained
of the vessel would be lost.
Figure 13-5. Location of the CV-2 site.
A research design was conceived that focused on the collection of data and stabilization of
the site. This research design and an application for the archaeological study was
submitted to the State of New York, which was approved on June 2, 2000 for a period of
one year.
208
In preparation for the project, a field team was assembled made up of professional and
avocational archaeologists from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Bateaux Below,
Inc., Fort Ticonderoga Museum, and the New York State Archaeological Association.
Funding would come largely from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and the Lake
Champlain Basin Program, with some private donation. Housing for the team was procured
nearby the worksite.
The logistics of the survey were ideal due largely to the gracious support of the owners of
Snug Harbor Marina of Ticonderoga, who donated the use of a dock and allowed us to
stage our work on the shoreline directly adjacent to the CV-2 site (Figures 13-6 and 13-7).
This dock area was also used as our shore recording station.
CV-2
Recording
Station
Figure 13-6. View North of CV-2 study area (Photograph by Scott A. Padeni)
Figure 13-7. Project divers gear up for work on the CV-2 wreck site. (Photograph by Scott
A. Padeni)
209
Equipment, including dive gear, recording materials, cameras, and grids were transported
to the work site and assembled. With these preparations complete, work began on June 3,
2000.
METHODOLOGY
The Methodology employed on the CV-2/MB-4 project, as with most underwater
archaeology investigations, was tailored specifically to the existing site conditions and
established research goals. For the CV-2 study, there were several objectives that guided
our course of action. Firstly, the outer perimeter of the known CV-2 site was again
surveyed to ensure that no further remains existed beyond the known debris field. This
was accomplished by divers systematically surveying a grid pattern around the site. To
search for possible timbers or intact structural components buried beneath the lake bottom,
4ft (1.2m) metal rods were used to probe beneath the surface of the silt. These search
patterns were extended 100ft (30.5m) beyond the established CV-2 boundaries. No further
CV-2 remains were discovered. Figure 13-8 is a photograph of the debris field.
Figure 13-8. Debris field of the CV-2 wreck site (Photograph by Russell P. Bellico)
The second objective of the CV-2 study was to produce a site map of the debris field, an
area measuring approximately 10 by 20ft (30.1 to 6.1m). A baseline was extended across
the approximate centerline of the site, on an axis of 20 degrees (magnetic). The northern
end of the baseline was designated as the zero point of the north-south axis. The baseline
was anchored at each end using cement blocks.
210
A sign provided by the New York State Historical Survey Office was installed at the site to
alert possible visitors as to its archaeological significance, and that an archaeological
investigation was under way.
With the baseline in place, its position was plotted in relation to the surrounding shoreline.
This was accomplished through the use of GPS (Global Positioning System) and by
triangulating to three datum points established on shore, represented by a small “X”
chiseled into the bedrock. For the sake of accuracy, datum points were selected as close
to, or more than, 90 degrees apart whenever possible.
To allow sightings of the north and south limits of the baseline, surface buoys were
anchored to each end. Using a 200ft (61m) tape measure, the distance of each buoy to the
three designated datum points was measured and recorded. The distances from timbers
“M”, “N”, and “O” were also measured since their positions were too far from the main CV-2
timber cluster to make measuring from the baseline practical. From these measurements,
triangulations were plotted and the site map produced. The position of the baseline was
also recorded through the use of a Garmin hand-held GPS unit. The approximate center of
the CV-2 wreck site was recorded at a position of latitude 043° 49’ 34.83” north, longitude
073° 25’ 34.32 west with an accuracy of plus or minus 15ft (4.6m).
Next, preparations were made to allow the detailed mapping of the CV-2 site. Each timber
was assigned a letter designation, and a lettered Mylar tag was then secured to the
corresponding timber using staples. Letters assigned included A through W (it was later
determined that timber “O” was of a 19th Century context and unrelated to the CV-2 wreck
site; consequently, it was not raised). The assigned letters were recorded in a timber
inventory log.
With the baseline in place and each timber labeled, archaeologists in SCUBA gear began a
site map. Measurements were taken and recorded using hand-held tape measures, plumbobs, and Mylar sheeting secured to clipboards. Each timber was plotted on the Mylar site
map by triangulating points on the timber using the baseline as a reference. The
completed Mylar site map was later transcribed to paper. To complete the recording of the
site prior to timber removal, the site was photographed.
With the site map and pre-disturbance photography complete, preparations were made for
the removal, recording, and ultimate relocation of the CV-2 timbers. A shore recording
station was set up to allow the drawing, measuring, and photographing of each timber as it
was removed from the water. Personnel were divided into three teams:
Timber removal team. comprised of two divers, one person on the surface
to direct, handle, and inventory the timbers being raised, and a boat operator
to ferry the timbers to the shore recording station.
Timber recording team. comprised of two recorders and a photographer at
the shore recording station.
211
MB-4 wreck site team. comprised of two divers assigned to relocate the
previously documented MB-4 wreck site.
Prior to beginning the timber removal process, team members were briefed on
methodology, precautions, diver safety, and goals involved with the procedures about to be
carried out. Our intent was to establish an assembly-line-like operation to optimize our
efficiency, thereby reducing the handling of these potentially fragile timbers, as well as
limiting the amount of time they would be out of the water, thus preventing their drying out.
During the process of timber removal and recording, the third team was assigned to
relocate the MB-4 wreck in the cove just to the northeast of the CV-2 site. The identification
and general recording of this possible shipwreck was the second phase of the CV-2/ MB-4
research design. They were also assigned to assemble the dredge that would be needed
during the excavation phase of the CV-2 site study.
With preparations complete, the process of timber removal began. The first timbers to be
removed were those resting on the surface of the lake bottom. It was decided that those
timbers partially embedded in the silt would be raised last, and only after the overburden
covering them was carefully removed using a small dredge.
The recovery diver carefully removed each timber by letter, as determined by the project
director at the surface. As each timber was brought to the surface, it was checked off on a
master inventory list. Carefully supporting the waterlogged timbers, they were then loaded
into a small rowboat specially modified for the process, and ferried in groups of four or five
to the shore recording station (Figure 13-9). This operation was repeated numerous times
until all the non-embedded timbers were transported to the shore station.
Figure 13-9. Project director Scott Padeni and Jonathan Eddy ferry CV-2 timbers to shore
recording station (Photograph by Christopher Fox).
212
With the arrival of the first load of CV-2 timbers, personnel at the shore recording station
recorded individual timbers (Figure 13-10). Scale drawings were rendered, depicting
various views of each. Wood samples were also taken of each timber. A loose treenail
from timber “H” was retained for analysis. Wood type analysis showed that all timbers were
white oak. Wood samples were labeled with Mylar tags, and then stored in water-filled film
canisters. When not being recorded, the timbers were stockpiled in shallow water adjacent
to the recording station dock.
Figure 13-10. Chris Fox of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, and Adam Kane and Pierre
LaRocque of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum record CV-2 timbers (Photograph by
Scott Padeni).
The final step in the recording process was to take detailed photographs of each timber.
Images were taken to include overall views, and any notable features. Photographs were
taken using 35 mm standard color film, black-and-white, as well as digital photographs
using an Olympus 340-R digital camera. Detailed photo logs were maintained for all
photography conducted. When the recording of each timber was complete, they were
temporarily deposited back into the lake in shallow water adjacent to the recording station
dock until the entire assemblage would be relocated to its final redeposit location.
The raising of the CV-2 timbers was completed, with the exception of “K”, “T”, and “W”
which were embedded in the lake bottom. While recording on shore continued, 5ft (1.5m)
metal grids were positioned over the CV-2 site in preparation for excavation.
The three grids were positioned end-to-end with their western edges placed along the
baseline tape. These grids were used to guide the diver during the excavation process and
213
to allow for the proveniencing of any uncovered artifacts. The grid was also helpful in
providing support for the diver, thus preventing inadvertent damage resulting from the
weight of the diver resting on the excavation unit. The position of the grids were recorded
and plotted on the master site map.
The assembled dredge was now ferried to the work platform moored above the CV-2 site.
A 30ft (9.1m) discharge line, used to expel excavated material, was positioned to the south
of the site. This location was chosen to reduce the possibility of discharged silt posing a
nuisance to local inhabitants.
Excavation was conducted beginning with grid “A” located at the 10 to 15ft (3.1 to 4.6m)
points along the baseline. Using the dredge, the lake bottom material was carefully
removed in approximately 6in (15.2cm) levels. During the excavation process, the dredge
operator continuously monitored the excavation unit for any artifacts, features, or further
vessel remains. In the event that artifacts were inadvertently sucked into the dredge, a
mesh bag was secured to the end of the discharge hose. Its contents were examined at
the end of the excavator’s shift.
The excavation of Grid A was halted at a depth of 12in (30.5cm) into the lake bottom, the
majority of which was down to bedrock (Figure 13-11). Despite the original plan to
excavate three test units, it was decided after some discussion to discontinue further
excavation. This decision was made for two reasons:
Figure 13-11. Diver excavates a grid using the dredge (photograph by Russell Bellico).
214
•
The excavation of Grid “A” verified the absence of any major, intact CV-2 structure
hidden below the silt of the lake Bottom
•
During the excavation of test unit “A”, we discovered more disarticulated timbers;
removing the protective silt encapsulating these timbers would only destabilize the
site.
After halting further excavation a plan view map was drawn of test grid “A”, which included
the newly discovered timbers, and the timbers were photographed in situ. The unit was
then backfilled. No artifacts were found during the excavation. This concluded the
excavation phase of our field survey.
As the recording of the CV-2 timbers continued on shore, the dive team was relocated to
the MB-4 site to recover a small section of wood believed to be associated with that wreck
site. It was hoped that this artifact, similar to a “breast-hook”, would help identify the MB-4
vessel. The wood piece was brought to the shore recording station to be drawn and
photographed. This wooden artifact was later returned to its original location on the MB-4
site.
As the recording of the CV-2 timber assemblage neared completion, preparations were
made for their redeposition into the lake. The redeposit site was in a small basin northeast
of the CV-2 site. This site was selected because it is isolated by surrounding shoals and
islets and is well protected from heavy currents or boat traffic. Moreover, the deep,
anaerobic silt in this cove will act to preserve the fragile timbers. Employing the same
technique used to ferry the timbers to shore from the CV-2 site, each timber was
transported to the redeposit site. Divers were handed the timbers, which were placed sideby-side on the lake bottom. This process continued until all timbers were in place at the
redeposit site. As part of the project’s documentation, the redeposit site was
photographed.
Buoys were anchored to both ends of the redeposit site, and measurements taken using
200-foot tape measures to shore datum points. These measurements allowed the
triangulation of the redeposit site for later plotting on the master site map. The MB-4 wreck,
located nearby the CV-2 redeposit site, was also triangulated using the same datum points.
The final step in the redeposit process was to bury the timber assemblage in the silt, and
remove the surveying buoys. This was performed by two of the survey team divers, who
also installed signage, warning divers who may happen onto the site as to the presence of
legally protected archaeological remains. This completed the CV-2 and MB-4 survey and
site stabilization, three days ahead of schedule.
With three scheduled days remaining in the field, we decided to conduct non-disturbance
recording on several other vessels recently located during the Lake George northern end
shipwreck survey (Padeni 1999). Several team members took measurements of barges B1, B-4, B-5, and B-6 to allow plan-view and cross-sectional drawings of these types of
vessels. During the measurement recording of barge B-6, several artifacts were observed
215
and drawn including an iron handle, building slate, and large spike.
While the first team worked on the barges, a second team of divers was assigned to gather
more data on the CV-1 wreck, now believed to be a “sister ship” of the CV-2 vessel. With
the first dive on the wreck it was evident that a significant amount of silt had been removed
from the vessel since the last inspection dive the previous summer (1999). Whether this silt
removal resulted from natural currents or from scavenging divers is unclear. Either way,
this silt removal has resulted in an increase in exposed timbers, which in turn, increases the
exposure to sunlight, current, and other forces that will accelerate the deterioration of this
vessel.
One consolation from this increased exposure, however, was that it facilitated further
recording of the vessel’s structural details. Sixteen feet (4.9m) of the wreck was recorded
from the stem toward the stern, with details of the mast-step, ceiling planking, false keel,
and planking now visible.
Because of the recent disturbance to the CV-1 wreck site, added signage was placed along
with the original state sign warning collectors of the illegality of disturbing this
archaeological site. In addition, Jeff Cook, Chief of Police for the Town of Ticonderoga,
was invited to the site and briefed on the possible intrusion on the site. This concluded our
fieldwork, which ended on Friday, June 9, 2000.
216
OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATION
CV-2 SITE CONDITION
The CV-2 site is a debris field from a colonial vessel, whose main structure is no longer
present. Our survey documented 22 disarticulated and/or fragmented timbers that vary in
size from several inches to 9ft (2.7m) long. They also vary in type to include planking,
keelson sections, futtocks, floors, and others whose function is unknown. Moreover,
probing and our limited excavation revealed that a significant amount of other disarticulated
and/or fragmented timbers also lie beneath the silt of the lake bottom.
The larger timbers, such as keelson section “B” and floor timber “H” show obvious adze
marks made during the hewing process. Several of the planks appear to have linear, nonparallel saw marks, such as those made by a pitsaw or handsaw. Wood samples indicate
that all the timbers are made of white oak.
Numerous fasteners of various forms remain in many of the timbers. Most notable are the
large number of treenails (Figure 13-12). These treenails, wooden dowels used to attach
the hull planking to the frames, are multi sided. One treenail was retained as a sample.
Hand-wrought nails were also noted in several of the timbers.
Figure 13-12. One of the numerous treenails used to fasten components of the CV-2 vessel
Many of the timbers, including planks A, D, K, and L, show obvious signs of burning. It is
significant to note that these planks are charred on their inboard surface only (as
determined by their curvature). Charring of the frames was largely at the their upper ends.
Based on the location of the charring on the timbers it is apparent that the vessel burned
while still afloat and intact.
The fragmentary nature of the timbers was also noted during the documentation process.
In several instances, this fragmentation is more extensive than expected from natural
events, and could only have resulted from their being subjected to some extreme force.
Timber “P” (identified as a probable futtock) and floor timbers “H” and “F” for example, have
been split in half along their length. While it is possible that shifting lake ice may have
217
caused damage to this wreck, the extent of the damage makes it more likely that it was the
result of a man-made force.
Despite this dense concentration of ship-related timbers, there is no evidence of any intact
central structure remaining from the vessel. In the case of most shipwrecks the keel and
keelson, which make up the “back-bone” of the vessel, are the strongest and most resilient
parts of these vessels and, consequently, are typically the components most likely to
survive time and the elements. Nevertheless, no evidence of these or any other main CV-2
structures were located in the vicinity of the site during the original shipwreck inventory, or
the CV-2 project search. Also absent from the site are any ship-related artifacts. Other
than the timbers, there were no artifacts discovered during the survey or the excavation.
There are several possible scenarios that could explain the condition of the CV-2 wreck site
and the lack of intact remains. One possibility is that this “wreckage” was torn away from
the vessel, transported by some means, and re-deposited at the present CV-2 site. This
scenario would explain the absence of larger, more intact ship structures, as well as the
apparent absence of CV-2-related artifacts at the site. Moreover, measurements taken from
the CV-2 timbers reveal striking similarities to those of the CV-1 wreck, the only other
colonial wreck recorded during the shipwreck inventory of Lake George’s northern end
(Padeni 1999).
However, several factors make this explanation unlikely. Firstly, the colonial-period wreck
(CV-1) is a considerable distance to the south. If these timbers had drifted from the CV-1
site location, they would have been scattered in a wide area downstream, and not densely
concentrated in one location as they are. It is also highly unlikely that these timbers, made
of oak, would have had the necessary buoyancy to drift from their initial deposit site. Nor
does this scenario explain the severe damage to the individual timbers.
The most likely scenario to explain the condition of the CV-2 site is that this is the location
of a sunken colonial vessel, that was later partially destroyed and the bulk of its structure
removed from the lake. As previously mentioned, it was common practice up until recent
years to remove sunken vessels from Lake George as obstructions or historical curiosities.
The CV-2 site is located at the mouth of what has been labeled the “east channel” of the
Natural Stone Dam, as indicated on the 1896 D. K. Arnold map of Lake George’s northern
end. Records further point out that this channel, along with other sections of the Natural
Stone dam were blasted during the early 1800’s to allow the navigation of log rafts to the
lumber mills located just to the north in Ticonderoga (New York State Joint Legislative
Committee 1945:8. It is quite possible that the CV-2 vessel lay in the path of the designated
“east channel” through the Natural Stone Dam, and was dynamited along with the bedrock,
with the bulk of its remains drawn out of the lake and destroyed.
It is also possible that the CV-2 vessel was removed from the lake by William S. Tuttle (or
other entrepreneurs), as was the case with an 18th Century sloop raised by him from the
south end of the lake in 1903.
218
Either of these scenarios would explain the condition of the CV-2 site. In each case the
bulk of the vessel would have been removed from the lake. Most of the artifacts associated
with the vessel would have been located in the bottom of the hull; thus, they would have
been removed from the lake along with the vessel’s hulk. With both methods of removal, a
significant debris field would have been left behind, consisting of timbers severely
fragmented from the great forces (explosive or mechanical) required to draw such a large
craft from the water. Figures 13-13 through 13-35 present the scale drawings and
photographs of the CV-2 timbers.
Figure 13-13. Timber A, either ceiling or planking (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by
Chris Fox).
219
Figure 13-14. Timber B, keelson section (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-15. Timber C, probable futtock or floor fragment (drawn by Adam Kane,
photograph by Chris Fox).
220
Figure 13-16. Timber D, probable ceiling (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-17. Timber E, probable stem fragment (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by
Chris Fox).
221
Figure 13-18. Timber F, probable futtock fragment (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by
Chris Fox).
Figure 13-19. Timber G, probable futtock or floor fragment (drawn by Scott Padeni,
222
Figure 13-20. Timber H, floor split in half (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris
Fox).
223
Figure 13-21. Timber I, probable futtock or floor fragment (drawn by Adam Kane,
photograph by Chris Fox)
Figure 13-22. Timber J, unidentified (photograph by Chris Fox).
224
Figure 13-23. Timber K, planking or ceiling (drawn by Scott Padeni, photograph by Chris
Fox).
Figure 13-24. Timber L, planking (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
225
Figure 13-25. Timber M, unidentified (photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-26. Timber N, probable futtock fragment (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by
Chris Fox).
226
Figure 13-27. Timber P, futtock (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-28. Timber Q, probable floor or futtock fragment (drawn by Scott Padeni,
227
Figure 13-29. Timber R, futtock (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-30. Timber S, planking or ceiling (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris
Fox).
228
Figure 13-31. Timber T, futtock (drawn by Scott Padeni, photograph by Chris Fox).
Figure 13-32. Timber U, unidentified (photograph by Chris Fox).
229
Figure 13-33. Timber V, planking or ceiling fragment (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by
Chris Fox).
Figure 13-34. Timber W, futtock fragment (drawn by Adam Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
230
Figure 13-35. Sample timber recovered from MB-4 wreck site, tentatively identified as a
breasthook from a late nineteenth or early twentieth century small boat (drawn by Adam
Kane, photograph by Chris Fox).
231
DATING AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE CV-2 WRECK
Although relatively few timbers survive, they provide important clues in dating and
identifying the CV-2 shipwreck.
Dating. The time period of the vessel’s construction has been established as that of the
18th Century, based on several construction techniques and features observed on the
vessel’s timbers. Most notable is the use of treenails as fasteners. During the recording of
the CV-2 timbers, it was noted that treenails were used to attach futtock to floor timbers,
planking and ceiling to frames, and in the stem assembly. Numerous hand forged iron
nails, also datable to the 18th Century (Hume 1970:252-253), were observed on several
timbers. Adze marks left over from the process of hand hewing the oak logs to the required
shapes and dimensions were also observed. Finally, timber “B”, identified as a section of
keelson, has notches cut out of its bottom surface that interlocked with the floor timbers for
added strength. These notches are characteristic of 18th-Century British shipbuilding
technique (Crisman 1996:personal comm.).
Identification. Any attempt to identify the vessel from which these relatively few and
fragmentary timbers came from must first begin with a comparison to the CV-1 wreck, the
second colonial period vessel documented during the shipwreck inventory.
Measurements taken of the CV-2 timbers reveal striking similarities to the timbers of the
partially intact CV-1 shipwreck. Hull planking from both vessels measure an average of
10in (25.4cm) wide, with a thickness of 1 to 1½in (2.5 to 3.8cm). Both vessels have white
oak for the planks and timbers, hand-wrought nails, and treenails.
Similarities also exist between the frame timbers of both wrecks. The heel of the floor
timbers from the CV-1 wreck measure an average of 7in (17.7cm) moulded, with sided
measurements ranging from 6 to 8in (15.2 to 20.1). At least one timber of the CV-2
assemblage was identified as a floor, and it too had a 7in (17.7cm) moulded surface, with a
sided measurement of 6in (15.2cm) at the heel.
A comparison of the keelsons from the two wrecks reveals slight differences in
measurements, but obvious similarities in construction. The measurements of CV-1’s
keelson averages 6in (15.2cm) sided, by 7in (17.7cm) moulded; whereas the
measurements of the one sample of CV-2’s keelson section measures 5in (12.7cm) sided,
by 4½in (11.4cm) moulded. However, this difference in dimensions between the two is not
surprising and probably insignificant, since the dimensions of keelsons were not
necessarily standardized, and often were determined by the dimensions of raw materials
available at the time of construction. Moreover, in ships of this period the keelson usually
varied significantly along its length, as is the case with the 16 feet of observable keelson on
the CV-1 wreck. This was particularly true of vessels built in ad-hock shipyards, such as
those at the south end of Lake George.
What is significant when comparing the keelson of the partially intact CV-1 wreck and the
keelson fragment of CV-2 is the similarity of their design. As previously mentioned, both
232
wrecks employed a “notched” keelson. This notch, which interlocked with each floor timber
for added strength, was typical of British shipbuilding techniques.
Evidence further suggests that these vessels even met a similar demise. The hull planks
and frames of both vessels are heavily charred on their inboard surfaces. This indicates
that they were burned to the waterline prior to their sinking.
These strong similarities between the two wrecks present two possibilities. The first
possibility, as has been previously discussed, is that the CV-2 wreck site is in fact wreckage
displaced from the CV-1 wreck located to the south. However, for reasons already
outlined, this is considered unlikely.
The most plausible explanation is that these two vessels were “sister” ships constructed for
military use (based on the discovery of military ordinance on the CV-1 wreck) at the same
location, by the same shipbuilders using the same design, and within a short period of one
another. Furthermore, based on the proximity, as well as the severely charred timbers of
these two wrecks, it is also likely that these two vessels met a common end.
Assuming these vessels were military and their close relationship to be true, the next step
in narrowing the identification of these two shipwrecks is a close scrutiny of the historical
record.
By reviewing a documentary inventory of colonial ships built on Lake George for military
use (see Bellico et al. 1996), the majority can be immediately eliminated based on factors
such as size, construction details, type of vessel, and known end of service. Through this
process of elimination several possibilities remain as to the identity of these two colonial
vessels.
An estimation of size of the CV-1 vessel can be determined by using the “Builder’s Old
Measure” formula for calculating ship tonnage (Lewis 1983):
(Length of Keel X Beam) X (1/2 the Beam)
94
In the case of CV-1, the length of the keelson is used which has been measured (by
probing due to the inaccessibility of the keel) to approximately 35ft (10.7m). The beam of
CV-1 is estimated at 14ft (4.3m). Thus the estimated tonnage of CV-1 is 26.8 tons (24.4
metric tons).
The shape and design of the hulls of CV-1 and CV-2 (in the case of CV-2, as judged by the
curvature of remaining frame timbers) eliminates many other vessels from being candidates
including scows, radeau, and “flatboats”. Initially, it was suspected that CV-1 and CV-2
were two of four gunboats sunk at the north end by John Brown in September of 1777.
These gunboats, like the CV-1 wreck, were 37ft (11.3m) long with a single mast step.
However, this possibility was quickly eliminated, for after closer inspection, the timbers of
CV-1 were judged far too heavy to be the lightly constructed gunboats. Additionally, the
233
original gunboat construction drawings reveal numerous other details inconsistent with the
CV-1 wreck (Chapelle 1949:94).
With all factors taken into account, only four colonial-period vessels remain that fit all the
criteria. Those vessels are the four sloops built in 1756-57 by the British at Fort William
Henry. The first two of these sloops, named George and Earl of Loudon, were constructed
in 1756 with displacements of 20 tons. The second two sloops were 20-30 tons and
constructed during the fall and winter of 1756 and 1757.
We can further narrow the identity of the CV-1 and CV-2 vessels through a close look at the
historical record. Numerous primary accounts indicate that at least one of the 30-ton
sloops was destroyed in the March 1757 attack against Fort William Henry, and it is likely a
second, trapped in the ice, was also destroyed. The 44ft (13.4m) hulk of a large sloop,
believed to be the second of the four sloops destroyed during the March attack, was raised
in 1903 (From hereon referred to as the 1903 sloop). From its size, it appears to have
been the second “30-40 ton” vessel constructed at the south end between the fall of 1756
and the summer of 1757. With this in mind, the CV-2 and CV-1 vessels would have to be
the remaining two 20-ton vessels, known as the Loudon and George, which were built in
1756 and later captured by Montcalm in August of 1757. The historical record adds further
support to this assertion, as numerous primary accounts describe the removal of these
vessels to the north end of the lake, later sunk there by the French. Moreover, one French
primary account records the burning of the Fort William Henry vessels at the north end,
which would explain the charred planks and timbers found in both CV-2 and CV-1. It is
also of interest that the locations of both CV-1 and CV-2 are directly in front of each of the
two French advanced posts that were located on the east and west shore of the lake’s
north end.
And finally, a comparison of the photographs of the sloop raised at the south end of the
lake by William Tuttle in 1903, to the CV-1 and CV-2 wrecks, shows a remarkable
resemblance, further strengthening the probability of their relationship.. Several details
particularly stand out. For instance, all three vessels employed a “notched” keelson, as
previously mentioned, a characteristic of British shipbuilding. On both the 1903 sloop and
the CV-1 wreck, chiseling a large mortise into the upper surface of the keelson formed the
mast step. Their relative position along the keelson, as well as the size of these mast
steps appears to be the same in both the CV-1 vessel and the 1903 sloop. The “room-andspace”, or the distance between each frame appears to be close to that of the CV-1 wreck.
Hull planking and other structural components of the 1903 sloop are also similar. Parallels
such as these would be expected between vessels constructed in the same shipyard,
under the direction of the same shipbuilder.
This physical and documentary evidence strongly suggests that the CV-1 and CV-2
shipwrecks are the remains of the two sloops captured at Fort William Henry in August of
1757. Continuing research of these vessels should provide positive confirmation of their
identity, and just as importantly, the circumstances surrounding their use and final
destruction at the north end of the lake.
234
BARGE DOCUMENTATION RESULTS
Barge B-6. The remains of Barge B-6 were preliminarily documented during two dives,
one each on June 6 and 7, 2000 (Figure 13-36). The vessel lies in 5 to 6ft (1.5 to 1.8m) of
water, approximately 100ft (30.5m) from Snug Harbor Marina. The preserved portion of the
hull consists of the bottom and 1 to 4ft (.3 to 1.22m) of the sides. Although much of the
barge’s upper structures are no longer present, the remaining timbers are in sound
condition. The interior is entirely filled with sediments, thus protecting the internal
members. Limited sediment removal in selected areas proved the timbers to be structurally
sound, and to contain all of their original details.
Barge B-6 has a preserved length of 48ft 9in (14.9m) and a breadth of 10ft 9in (3.3m), and
was constructed using the edge-fastening technique. This method of attaching side planks
to each other via iron rods driven vertically through the strakes was common through much
of the nineteenth century (see Wreck QQ). The iron rods driven through the barge’s sides
are spaced at irregular intervals with a spacing of 2ft (.61m) near the ends and 4ft (1.2m)
through the center section of the hull. A layer of sacrificial planking protected the edgefastened side strakes. This 2in (5.1cm) thick layer of planking was oriented longitudinally.
The bottom of the hull was transversely planked with 2in (5.1cm) thick timbers. The
longitudinally oriented chine logs were located at the inboard intersections of the bottom
planking and the side strakes. The chine logs, sided 5in (12.7cm) and moulded 7in
(17.8cm), reinforced that juncture. Inboard of the chine logs were two sister keelsons and a
keelson. The sister keelsons varied in dimension from 3 to 6in (7.6 to 15.2cm) moulded
and from 7½ to 4in (19.1 to 10.1cm) sided. The largest timber in the hull is the keelson with
a moulded dimension of 7½in (19.1cm) and sided 11in (27.9cm). Although not preserved,
ceiling was fastened on the inboard face of the sister keelsons and keelson.
Very little of the ends of Barge B-6 were preserved, but some information regarding their
construction was learned. The keelson and the sister keelsons are each scarfed into a
longitudinal timber that (if more of the ends were preserved) would serve as a rake timber.
The ends, like the bottom, are planked transversely. The transition from the bottom to the
ends is angular, not rounded.
Overall, the construction of Barge B-6 is standard for this type of building technique. One
construction feature, however, is inconsistent with the rest of the hull. One 6ft 2in (1.9m)
long section of one side of the vessel has an apparent repair (Figure 13-37). This portion
of the side strake was cut in half longitudinally, cutting its width in half. Into this void
vertically oriented planks were inserted. This feature either represents an as yet
unidentified construction feature, or, more likely, is the result of a repair from a collision.
During the documentation process one broken roofing slate was found inside the hull. The
artifact was removed, documented, photographed, and reburied in its original location. This
shingle, measuring 11 by 22in (27.9 by 55.9cm) provides an insight into at least one cargo
of this industrial workhorse. Also noted in the bottom of the hull are numerous cut iron
fasteners, a broken section of edge-fastening rod, an iron furniture handle, and coal.
235
Figure 13-36. Plan view of Barge B-6 (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
236
Figure 13-37. Detail showing the repair in the side of Barge B-6 (drawn by Adam Kane,
inked by Adam Loven).
Barge B-1. Barge B-1 is one vessel in a cluster of three barges located adjacent to the
Mossy Point Boat Launch. An inspection of these three barges demonstrated them to be in
varying states of preservation. B-2 consisted of only the bottom of the hull, while only one
half of the bottom of B-3’s hull survived. Barge B-1, although not in an outstanding state of
preservation proved the most intact, and it exhibited several interesting construction
features. The remains of Barge B-1 were documented during four dives, two on June 7,
2000 and two the following day. The preserved length of the hull was 72ft 5in (22.1m) and
the breadth 16ft (4.9m). The vessel’s hull was filled with 6 to 8in (15.2 to 20.3cm) of silt that
effectively obscured many construction details.
The sides of the hull are constructed in an edge-fastened manner with iron rods driven
vertically through the side strakes at one to three foot intervals. These iron rods bound the
side strakes together to create a wall of timber. The side strakes are 4in (10.2cm) thick and
10 to 16in (25.4 to 40.6cm) wide.
The bottom of the hull was transversely planked with 2in (5.1cm) thick timbers. The
keelson, sister keelsons, and chine logs are placed longitudinally on top of the planking.
The chine logs, moulded and sided 5in (12.7cm), reinforced the attachment between the
bottom of the hull and the sides. A total of six sister keelsons are located in the hull. The
two located on either side of the keelson are moulded 3in (7.6cm) and sided 8in (20.3cm),
while the four others are moulded and sided 5in (12.7cm). The keelson, located along the
longitudinal centerline of the vessel, is sided 12in (30.5cm) and moulded 5in (12.7cm). Its
upper face is rabbeted to receive the deck beam above.
237
The deck beams are oriented transversely above the keelson, sister keelsons and chine
logs. This timber is mortised to receive the longitudinal timbers below it. The deck beam
was moulded and sided 5in (12.7cm). The longitudinally oriented decking was fastened to
the deck beams. The decking was 7 to 9in (17.8 to 22.9cm) in width and 2in (5.1cm) thick.
One of the most interesting features of Barge B-1 was a sternpost. The sternpost had a
preserved height of 2ft 1in (.6m) and was 9in (22.9cm) square. The sternpost was stepped
into the keelson and that juncture was secured with a chock, as evidenced by the presence
of a gudgeon used to mount a rudder onto. The gudgeon was T-shaped running vertically
up the sternpost and horizontally forward underneath the planking and aft into space. This
aft projection had a shaft upon which a rudder could be mounted.
In the forward end of the hull were the lower remains of two bits. These bits, approximately
6in (15.2cm) thick and 12in (30.5cm) wide, were used for towing the barge.
Barge B-5. Barges B-4 and B-5 lie adjacent to each other on the eastern shore of the lake.
Barge B-5 was examined in a single dive on June 8, 2000, however, this documentation
was cut short by the approach of a thunderstorm. The remains of Barge B-5 are poorly
preserved and consist of only the bottom of the hull (Figure 13-38). The site lies in about
2ft (.61m) of water; this has resulted in the poor preservation of the vessel. Barge B-5 is
constructed using the edge-fastened technique. The side strakes are four inches thick,
with only the lowest most strake preserved. The hull design is simple, consisting of only
planking, chine logs, bilge stringers, and deck beams.
238
Figure 13-38. Preliminary plan view of Barge B-5 (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Adam Loven).
239
CONCLUSIONS
The CV-2/MB-4 project was the first phase of a long-term management plan envisioned for
the submerged cultural resources documented at Lake George’s northern end. As
illustrated in this report, this project was entirely successful in fulfilling the goals outlined in
our research design.
Investigation of the MB-4 site, a secondary objective during our fieldwork, was able to
establish its identity as that of a small boat. While only a small section of wood was
examined from this craft, fasteners were datable to the 19th Century. This craft is well
protected, being deeply imbedded in the lake silt, and consequently judged stable.
Presently, no further study of the MB-4 wreck is planned.
The CV-2 wreck site, the primary focus of our study, was recorded and mapped in situ.
The mapping revealed that the exposed remains at the site consisted of 22 timbers of
various sizes and states of preservation. We also confirmed the absence of intact
structures related to the CV-2 vessel within the vicinity of the CV-2 wreck site, both above
and below the silt. Based on this information, it appears that the CV-2 site is the remaining
debris field of a large colonial-period vessel that had been burned, sunk, and then later
removed from the lake. As noted previously in this report, such removal of shipwrecks from
the lake was common practice up until recent years.
Another important goal completed during the CV-2 study was the stabilization of the CV-2
site. Without intervention, the entire site would have been inevitably lost to natural forces
or relic hunters. Due to our efforts, the CV-2 timbers are situated at a more secure location
that should ensure the assemblage’s long-term preservation.
Finally, this study provided the opportunity for our team to closely inspect and record the
CV-2 timbers in detail. Through photography, measurements, and wood samples of these
timbers, a close relationship to the CV-1 shipwreck (the second colonial vessel discovered
south of the CV-2 wreck site) was demonstrated. This inspection also revealed that the
vessel had been burned prior to its sinking. This information, together with primary
accounts from the historical record, strongly suggests that these shipwrecks are the two
sloops captured by General Montcalm in 1757 with the French defeat of Fort William Henry.
Future studies planned for the CV-1 wreck should provide further enlightenment of the
relationship and identity these vessels. Conclusive identification of these remains as that of
the Fort William Henry sloops will constitute a significant addition to our understanding of
this period in New York’s history and cultural heritage.
240
REFERENCES
Addington, L.R.
1986 Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Adkins L. and R.A. Adkins
1994 Archaeological Illustration. Academic Manuals in Archaeology Series, Cambridge
University Press, NY.
Anderson, R.K., Jr.
1988 Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships. Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Baldwin, E.R., A.B. Cohn, K.J. Crisman, and S.A. McLaughlin
1996 Underwater Historic Preserve Feasibility Study of the Lake Champlain Steamboat
Champlain II, Westport, Essex County, New York. Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, Ferrisburgh, VT.
Barranco, A.P., Jr.
1995 Ticonderoga's Floating Drawbridge; 1871-1920. Demonstration Report No. 4E. Lake
Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, VT.
Bass, George F. (ed.)
1996 Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History of Seafaring Based on Underwater
Archaeology. Thames and Hudson Inc, NY.
Beach, Allen Penfield
1994 Lake Champlain as Centuries Pass. 2nd edition. Basin Harbor Club, Basin Harbor,
VT, and Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Basin Harbor, VT.
Beach, Allen Penfield
1959 Lake Champlain as Centuries Pass. Basin Harbor Club, Basin Harbor, VT.
Beers, F. W.
1869 Atlas of Clinton Co. New York. F. W. Beers, A. D. Ellis & G.G. Soule, New York, NY.
Beers, F. W.
1871 Atlas of Franklin and Grand Isle Cos. Vermont. F. W. Beers & Co., New York, NY.
Beers, F. W.
1871 Atlas of Addison Co. Vermont. F. W. Beers & Co., New York, NY.
Bellico, Russell, Scott A. Padeni, and Joseph Zarzynski
1996 Lake George Warship Inventory. Unpublished document.
241
Bellico, Russel
1995 Chronicles of Lake George. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, NY.
Bellico, Russel
1992 Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake George
and Lake Champlain. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns, NY.
Blumenthal, S.K. and E.A. Bevitt
1993 Federal Historic Preservation Laws. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
Bougainville, Louis Antoine de
1964 Adventure in the Wilderness: The American Journals of Louis Antoine de
Bougainville 1756-1760. Edward P. Hamilton, translator. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman, OK.
Burleigh, Lucien R.
1890 Vergennes, Vermont. Burleigh Lithographic, Troy, NY.
Burleigh, Lucien R.
1889 Port Henry, New York. Burleigh Lithographic, Troy, NY.
Buchanan, C. G.
1883 Machinery and Process for Utilizing Lean Ores. Journal of the United States
Association of Charcoal Iron Workers, 4(5):324-327. New York.
Buckell, Betty Ahearn (editor)
1990 Lake George Boats. Buckle Press, Lake George, NY.
Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum
1945 Powell to Sir Guy Carleton, 23 September 1777. Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga
Museum (7): 31-34. Ticonderoga, New York.
Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum
1992 A Royal Officer With Amherst: The Journal of Captain-Lieutenant Henry Skinner,
May 1-July 28, 1759. Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum (15):20.
Burlington Free Press and Times
1870 No title. Burlington Free Press and Times, 6 August. Burlington, VT.
Champion, Henry
1891 The Journal of Colonel Henry Champion. In Champion Genealogy, Francis Bacon
Trowbridge, editor. New Haven, CT.
Chapelle, Howard
1949 The History of the American Sailing Navy. Bonanza Books, NY.
242
Cohn, Arthur B. (editor)
1984 Isle La Motte Sloop Project. In Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake
Champlain: Results of the 1982 Field Season of the Champlain Maritime Society,
pp.30-39. Champlain Maritime Society, Burlington, VT.
Cohn, Arthur B. (editor)
1996 Zebra Mussels and Their Impact on Historic Shipwrecks. Technical Report No. 15.
Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, Vermont.
Cohn, Arthur B.
1997 Report on the Preliminary Field Investigation of the Dalliba/Lee Mine, Port Henry,
New York. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh, Vermont
Cozzi, J.R.
1993 North Beach Wreck: A Modern Example of Edge-Fastened Construction.
Proceedings of the Conference on Underwater Archaeology, pp. 55-58.
Crisman, Kevin J.
1990 Nineteenth Century Lake Champlain Sailing Merchant Vessels: A Preliminary List.
Manuscript, Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.
Crisman, Kevin J.
1987 The Eagle: An American Brig on Lake Champlain During the War of 1812. New
England Press, Shelburne, VT.
Crisman, K. and A. Cohn
1998 When Horses Walked on Water: Horse-Powered Ferries in Nineteenth-Century
America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Crisman, Kevin .J. and Arthur B. Cohn
1993 The Lake Champlain Schooner Water Witch: A Report on the Preliminary Survey of
the Wreck. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh, VT.
Cuneo, John R.
1988 Robert Rogers of the Rangers. Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Ticonderoga, NY.
Curryer, Betty Nelson
1999 Anchors: An Illustrated History. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.
Dean, M., B. Ferrari, I. Oxley, M. Redknap, and K. Watson (editors)
1995 Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. Nautical
Archaeology Society, Portsmouth, UK.
Dillon, B. D. (editor)
1992 Student's Guide to Archaeological Illustrating. Archaeological Research Tools Vol. 1.
243
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Dorrell, P. G.
1989 Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology
Series. Cambridge University Press, NY.
Essex County Republican
1888 No title. Essex County Republican. 13 September. Essex County, NY.
Essex County Republican
1888 No title. Essex County Republican. 20 September. Essex County, NY.
Everest, Allan S.
1981 The War of 1812 in the Champlain Valley. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse,
NY.
Farrell, Patrick
1996 Through the Light Hole. North Country Books, Inc., Utica, New York.
Fausel, C.
1899 West Chazy, New York. Burleigh Lithographic, Troy, NY.
Flemming, N.C. and M.D. Max
1996 Scientific Diving: A General Code of Practice. 2nd editon. Best Publishing, Flagstaff
AZ.
Frink, D., C. Baker, A.B. Cohn, P.L. Manley, and F. Fayette
1991 AT&T Fiber Optic Cable, Burlington, Vermont, to Keesville, New York: Phase I
Archaeological Study. Archaeological Consulting Team, Inc., Essex Junction, VT.
Gifford, M.
1955 Fort William Henry: A History. Fort William Henry Museum, Lake George, NY.
Glenn, M. F.
1986 Glenn’s History of the Adirondacks. Vanity Press, Alexandria, VA.
Glenn, M. F.
1977 The Story of Three Towns: Westport, Essex, and Willsboro, New York. Vanity
Press, Alexandria, VA.
Gray, O. W.
1876 New Topographical Atlas of Essex County, New York.
Philadelphia, PA.
O. W. Gray & Son.,
Green, J.N.
1990 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
244
Hadden, James M.
1884 Hadden's Journal and Orderly Books: A Journal Kept in Canada and Upon
Burgoyne's Campaign in 1776 and 1777. Horatio Rogers, editor. Joel Munsell's
Sons, Albany, NY.
Hall, Henry
1970 Report on the Ship-Building Industry of the U.S. Original edition 1884. Library
Editions, Ltd., New York, NY.
Hall, J., P. Hogan, A. Herring, and H. C. Patterson
1869 Description of the Iron Mountain of New York, on Lake Champlain. Weed, Parsons
& Company, Albany, NY.
Hill, Ralph Nading
1976 Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty. Countryman Press, Woodstock, Vermont.
Howell, C.L. and W. Blanc
1995 Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography. 2nd edition. Archaeological Research
Tools Vol. 6. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Hume, Ivor Noel
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York, NY.
Kemp, Peter (ed.)
1994 The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Lake George Mirror
1903 A Relic of an Attack on Fort William Henry. Lake George Mirror. 6 July (14):5.
Laws of the State of New York
1894 An Act Authorizing William S. Tuttle to Raise and Remove Certain Sunken Vessels
or Boats From Near the Upper End of Lake George, New York. Vol. II, Chap. 677.
James B. Lyon, Albany, NY.
Lewis, Dennis
1983 Provincial Marine, Royal Navy, and Royal Artillery Vessels in Service on Lake
Champlain: 1759-1834. Unpublished document
Lipke, P., P. Spectre, and B.A.G. Fuller (editors)
1993 Boats: A Manual for Their Documentation. American Association for State and Local
History, Nashville, Tennessee.
Loescher, Burt G.
1946 The History of Rogers Rangers. Volume 1. Burt Loescher, San Francisco, CA.
245
McLaughlin, Scott and Anne Lessmann
1998 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume 1: Lake Survey
Background and 1996 Results. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh,
VT.
Malartic, Le Comte De Maures
1890 Journal des Campagnes au Canada. L. Damidot, Dijon, France.
Malcomson, Robert
1999 Lords of the Lake: The Naval War on Lake Ontario, 1812-1814. Naval Institute
Press, Annapolis, MD.
Manley, P.L., R.D. Flood, and T. Hannahs
1995 Geophysical Reconnaissance in the Mount Independence Area: Larrabee's Point to
Chipman Point, Lake Champlain. Demonstration Report No. 4D. Lake Champlain
Basin Program, Grand Isle, VT.
Miller, J. W. (editor)
1991 NOAA Diving Manual: Diving for Science and Technology. 2nd edition. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bethesda, MD.
Montressor, James
1881 Journals of Colonel James Montressor. In Collections of the New York Historical
Society, Vol. 14, NY.
National Archives Canada
1814 Convoy Details, Cargoes, Ships Named. Letter form Kempt to Freer (May 29). NAC
film C-2932:373, pp. 160-161 and 164-165.
National Archives Canada
1814 Abundance, HM Storeship Stores for Quebec. Letter from J. Barrow to Admiralty
Navy Board (January 30). NAC filmB-1009:3179, pp. 1-18.
National Park Service
1991 36 CFR Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological
Collections. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
National Park Service
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190). Washington, DC.
New York Archaeological Council
1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological
Collections in New York State. Ms on file, New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
246
North, N. S.
1997 Pockmark Field in the Cumberland Head Area, Lake Champlain. Unpublished
Bachelor's thesis, Department of Geology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT.
North Star
1825 Canal-Boat Disaster. North Star, 13 December. Danville, VT
O'Callaghan, E. B. (editor)
1855 Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York. Volume 10. Weed,
Parsons, and Co Albany, NY.
Padeni, Scott A.
1999 Final Report of the Literature Review and Shipwreck Inventory of Lake George’s
Northern End, Submitted to New York State Museum.
Peebles, G.N.
1989 Guidelines for Archeological Studies. Vermont Division for Historic Preservation,
Montpelier, VT.
Plattsburgh Republican
1870 No title. Plattsburgh Republican, 14 August. Plattsburgh, New York.
Plattsburgh Republican
1846 No title. Plattsburgh Republican, 5 September. Plattsburgh, New York.
Proctor, N.B.
1856 Floating Drawbridge. US Federal Patent, Patent Number 14928. Ms. On file,
National Archives, Washington, DC.
Pumpelly, Raphael
1886 Report on the Mining Industries of the United States, Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Quebec Mercury
1814 No title. Quebec Mercury. 6 June. Quebec, Canada.
Robinson, D. S.
2001 Conservation of a War of 1812 Anchor from Plattsburgh Bay, Clinton County, New
York. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh, Vermont.
Roosevelt, Theodore
1882 The Naval War of 1812. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.
Rogers, Robert
1988 Reminiscences of the French War. Freedom Historical Society, Freedom, NH.
247
Royce, Caroline H.
1904 Bessboro: A History of Westport, Essex Co., N.Y. Elizabethtown, NY.
Sabick, Christopher, Anne Lessmann, Scott McLaughlin
2000 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997 Results,
Volume III: 1998 Results. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburgh, VT.
Shaughnessy, James
1964 The Rutland Road. Howell-North Books, Berkely, CA.
Steffy, J.R.
1994 Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University
Press, College Station, TX.
Stratton, Allen L.
1986 History Town of Alburgh Vermont. Northlight Studio Press, Barre,VT.
Sullivan, Nell Jane Barnett and David Kendall Martin
nd.
A History of the Town of Chazy Clinton County, New York. George Little Press,
Burlington, VT.
Ticonderoga Sentinel
1883 No title. Ticonderoga Sentinel, 6 July. Ticonderoga, New York
Ticonderoga Sentinel
1891 No title. Ticonderoga Sentinel, 25 June. Ticonderoga, New York
Tomkins, J. and R. Hunter
1997 Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment of the Lewis Patent and Lot #20,
Split Rock Mountain, Town of Westport, Essex County, New York. Hunter Research,
Inc. Trenton, NJ.
Tindall, George Brown
1984 America: A Narrative History. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., NY.
Webb, Daniel
nd.
Letter by Daniel Webb to Lord Loudoun, Fort Edward, 6 September 1757. In the
Loudoun Papers (American Series). Huntington Library, CA. LO 4407.
Webster, Frank L.
1985 The Addison Road. Privately published, Blum, Texas.
Witherbee, Frank S.
1906 History of the Iron Industry of Essex County, New York. Pamphlet published by the
Essex County Republican.
248
Wood, William
1968 Select British Documents of the Canadian War of 1812, Vol. III, Part 1. Originally
published 1926. Greenwood Press, NY.
249
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
Aft Near or at the stern of a vessel.
Barge A large, unpowered, generally flat-bottomed boat towed by other craft and used as
a freight-hauler or work platform.
Bateau (plural bateaux) A lightly built, flat-bottomed, double-ended boat.
Bathymetry Data through study and examination of water depths
Beam A dimension measured from side to side of a vessel.
Bedrock A mining term for the unweathered rock below the soil
Bilge The lowest point of a vessel’s interior hull.
Boat An open vessel, usually small and without decks, intended for use in sheltered water.
Bow The forward end of a vessel.
Breakwater A structure, usually made of stone or concrete, built to create a harbor or
improve an existing one.
Cabin The living quarters of a vessel.
Canal A manmade waterway or artificially improved river used for navigation.
Canal boat A boxy vessel designed to travel in a canal system. This type of vessel has
no means of propulsion and must be towed or pushed by another vessel.
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 log A longitudinal timber at the angular junction of the side and bottom of a flatbottomed vessel.
Cultural resource A nonrenewable historical resource such as archaeological sites,
artifacts, and standing structures.
Cutter A single-masted fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessel with a running bowsprit,
mainsail, and two or more headsails.
Deadeye A round or pear-shaped block pierced by several holes, used mainly to secure
the standing rigging of a vessel.
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.
Draft The depth of a vessel’s keel below the waterline when the vessel is loaded.
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.
Escarpment the steeper slope of a geomorphological unit consisting of a gently inclined
surface parallel to the dip of the bedding planes.
Fault A fracture in rock along which there has been an observable amount of
displacement
Floor timber A frame timber that crosses the keel and spans the bottom of a vessel.
Fore Located toward the front of a vessel.
250
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.
Galley A shallow-draft vessel that is propelled by sails or oars.
Gneiss A term applied to banded rocks formed during high-grade regional metamorphism.
Gondola A large, flat-bottomed, double-ended vessel propelled by oars or sails.
Gunboat see Gondola.
Harbor A safe anchorage, protected from most storms; may be natural or manmade; a
place for docking and loading.
Historic The period after the appearance of written records for a given region. For the
Champlain Valley this date is AD 1609.
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.
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.
Leeboard One of a part of movable boards or plates attached to each side of a vessel to
prevent slippage downwind.
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.
Mast tabernacle A timber assembly or housing that supports the mast at deck level. This
feature was commonly used to support a hinged mast, like those used on sailing
canal boats.
Metamorphism the process by which changes are brought about in rocks within the
earth’s surface by the agencies of heat, pressure, and chemically additive fluids.
Mooring A permanent placement of an anchor, anchor chain, shackles, and buoy,
necessary to anchor a vessel.
Mud line The intersection of a shipwreck’s hull with the bottom’s surface.
Ophiolites Basic and ultrabasic lavas and other intrusions associated with the infilling of a
basin.
Orogeny A geological time period of mountain building.
Outboard Outside or away from the center of a vessel’s hull.
Plank A thick board used as sheathing on a vessel.
Radeau (plural radeaux) A flat-bottomed barge partially enclosed by inward sloping sides,
propelled by both sails and oars, and carrying heavy guns.
Reconnaissance survey An initial inspection of an area for cultural resources.
Rigging Hardware and equipment that support and control the spars and sails of a vessel.
Rudderpost A vertical timber to which the rudder is attached.
Sailing canal boat A boxy vessel with one or two fore-and-aft rigged masts that could be
lowered when the vessel entered a canal system.
Schooner A fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel with two or more masts.
251
Sheer The curvature of the deck from fore to aft, as seen from the side of the vessel.
Sloop A single-masted, fore-and-aft-rigged sail boat.
Sloop-rigged canal boat A boxy vessel with one fore-and-aft-rigged mast that could be
lowered when the vessel entered a canal system.
Spike A large nail.
Stanchion An upright supporting post.
Steamboat A vessel propelled by a steam engine.
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.
Stern The after end of a vessel.
Tabernacle A timber assembly or housing that supports the mast at deck level. This
feature was commonly used to support a hinged mast, like those used on sailing
canal boats.
Throw The measure of the vertical displacement between the upthrown and downthrown
sides of a fault.
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.
Towfish The torpedo-shaped unit that houses the transmitter and receiver of a side scan
sonar and is usually towed behind a vessel.
Transom The transverse part of the stern of a vessel.
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.
Waterline The intersection of the vessel’s hull and the water’s surface.
Whaleboat A double-ended, lightly-built boat that could be rigged with one or two masts
but was primarily rowed.
Wharf A structure, parallel to the shore, for docking vessels.
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.
252
APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS
AD: Anno Domini (in the year of the Lord)
A&M: Agriculture and Mechanics
A.B.: Artium Baccalaureus (Bachelor of Arts)
A.S.: Associates of Science
B.A.: Baccalaureus Artium (Bachelor of Arts)
BC: before Christ
Bros.: Brothers
B.S.: Bachelor of Science
°C: Celsius
CA: cooperative agreement
c.: circa
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAC: Citizens Advisory Committee
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
cm: centimeter
CMS: Champlain Maritime Society
c/o: care of
CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CRWG: Cultural Resources Working Group
CT: Connecticut
CTC: Champlain Transportation Company
CWA: Clean Water Act
DC: District of Columbia
DGPS: Differential Global Positioning System
ed.: edition
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
et al.: et alii (and others)
°F: Fahrenheit
ft: feet
FY: fiscal year
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
GPS: Global Positioning System
hp: horsepower
i.e.: id est (that is [to say])
in: inch
Inc.: incorporated
Inv.: inventory
kHz: kilohertz
km: kilometer
km2: square kilometers
kmph: kilometers per hour
kW: kilowatt
LCBP: Lake Champlain Basin Program
LCMC: Lake Champlain Management Conference
253
LCMM: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
LCT: Lake Champlain Transportation
LCTC: Lake Champlain Transportation Company
m: meter
MA: Massachusetts
M.A.: Magister Artium (Master of Arts)
mi: mile
mi2: square miles
mph: miles per hour
Ms.: manuscript
MYBP: million years before present
NAUI: National Association of Underwater Instructors
n.d.: no date
NEIWPCC: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NH: New Hampshire
No. or no.: number
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS: National Park Service
NY: New York
NYDEC: New York Department of Environmental Conservation
NYED: New York Department of Education
NYOPRHP: New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
NYS: New York State
NYSM: New York State Museum
p.: page
PDR: precision depth sounder
Ph.D.: Philosophiae Doctor (Doctor of Philosophy)
pp.: pages
PM: post meridiem (after noon)
PO: Post Office
Re: regarding
Res.: resources
RFP: request for proposal
ROV: remote-operated vehicle
RV: research vessel
SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office
TAC: Technical Advisory Committee
Tel: telephone number
U.S.: United States of America
USC: United States Congress
USGS: United States Geological Survey
USA: United States of America
UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
VDEC: Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
VDFPR: Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
VDHP: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
254
VHF: very high frequency
Vol. or vol.: volume
VT: Vermont
255
APPENDIX C: SLOOP ISLAND CANALBOAT MITIGATION PLAN
In the summer of 2001 LCMM researchers staged a series of dives on Wreck Z, the Sloop
Island Wreck (VT-CH-843), with the intent of conducting videographic and photographic
documentation of the vessel. Additionally, the site was evaluated so that researchers could
design an effective plan for the archaeological mitigation of the vessel.
Designing a mitigation plan for the Sloop Island Wreck was deemed appropriate due to the
likelihood that funding for the project will be forthcoming during 2002. This is the result of a
superfund clean-up project in the Pine Street Barge Canal in Burlington, Vermont. This
contaminated site contains at least five late nineteenth/early twentieth century canalboats.
The EPA has proposed efforts to stabilize the hazardous nature of the canal, a positive
outcome that will unfortunately affect the area’s archaeological resources. Due to the
hazardous nature of the canal, any archaeological research that may disturb the
contaminated soil is inadvisable. Diving conditions in the canal are marginal, since local
visibility is very poor.
Despite the site’s poor conditions, federal and state laws require the examination of all
cultural resources prior to the implementation of a project that might damage or destroy
them. The canal boats, which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
would contain information on: 1) the development and impact of the Pine Street Canal on
the city of Burlington’s commercial and economic livelihood, 2) the development of
standard canal boats on Lake Champlain, and 3) the lifestyle of canal boat families on the
lake. However, since the wrecks in the canal cannot be investigated safely before the site
is cleaned up and filled in, LCMM has proposed instead to conduct a full archaeological
excavation of the Sloop Island Wreck as an off site mitigation project.
In contrast to the Pine Street Barge Canal vessels, the Sloop Island Wreck is a pristine
watercraft, almost completely intact, which was unexpectedly lost. The wreck is located in
uncontaminated water, its depth is within safe diving limits, and it still carries its entire
complement of cargo, personal possessions, and ship’s equipment. Such a site would
provide a greater range of information on canal boats and their owners/operators than the
vessels located within the canal. A study of the Sloop Island Wreck will add to Lake
Champlain’s ever-growing body of information about the canal era, its people, and its
vessels. If the proposed project is accepted, archaeological work may begin during the
summer of 2002.
256
MITIGATION OBJECTIVES
1. Conduct a thorough archival search leading to a more complete understanding of canal
boat construction and the culture and history of canallers.
2. Document every structural detail of the Sloop Island Wreck (VT-CH-843) (a latenineteenth century canal boat), thus producing a highly accurate and complete set of plans.
3. Excavate the vessel’s cabin and stabilize the artifacts using widely accepted
archaeological conservation techniques.
4. Produce a detailed technical report and a relating the results of the study.
5. Nominate the Sloop Island Wreck for the National Register of Historic Places.
6. Disseminate the results to other archaeologists and historians via publications and
conferences, and the interested public through LCMM interpreters, outreach lectures,
educational curriculum, and exhibits.
7. Determine the feasibility of including the Sloop Island Wreck in the Lake Champlain
Underwater Historic Preserve.
SLOOP ISLAND WRECK MITIGATION
The vestiges of Lake Champlain’s once thriving fleet of canal boats lie almost exclusively
on the lakebed. Canal boats were specifically adapted to contemporary socioeconomic
conditions and the structural requirements of the canals. These highly specialized
watercraft differed considerably from other river and lake vessels. The Sloop Island Wreck
is an example late-nineteenth century “Enlarged-Erie” class standard canal boat. It is
completely intact in a moderate depth of water and sits upright projecting 10ft (3.1m) off the
bottom. Its hull is built using the plank-on-frame technique with one single large open
cargo hatch running the length of the deck. An iron windlass is located in the bow along
with an iron anchor. The single large hatch is surrounded by a coaming, and the cargo
hold is still full of coal. At the aft end of the hatch stands an iron wheel and gear assembly
for steering the vessel. The roof of the stern cabin has torn loose, and now rests off the
starboard side of the canal boat. The interior of the stern cabin contains numerous
artifacts, including cookware, a stove, silverware, and furniture. The presence of cargo and
numerous artifacts indicates the vessel was lost unintentionally, hence capturing the
physical remains of a discrete event. Thus, the site provides the opportunity to study the
use-life of the vessel diachronically, and the inhabitants of the cabin at the time of sinking
synchronically.
Over the last 400 years the strategic north-south orientation of Lake Champlain has led to
its heavy use as both a military and commercial highway. These activities resulted in the
loss of hundreds of vessels, a legacy that the lake’s cold fresh waters have preserved. At
least fifty of these submerged cultural resources have been identified as canal boats of
257
varying ages and designs. Two canal boats have been partially excavated and nine others
have been documented in some detail. These studies have defined classes and types
based on hull characteristics and vessel size. The proposed documentation and
excavation of The Sloop Island Wreck will greatly expand our understanding of canal boat
construction and nineteenth century shipbuilding technology. Furthermore, the complete
artifact assemblage from the stern cabin will facilitate and unprecedented examination of
canaller’s daily life and economic status.
The results of this project will have relevance to several fields including nautical and
industrial archaeology, naval architecture, archaeological conservation, cultural
anthropology, and economic and nineteenth century American history. This project will
potentially serve as the cornerstone for all future archaeological and historical
investigations of American canals, canal boats, and canallers.
METHODOLOGY
The investigation of The Sloop Island Wreck will be carried out under a permit granted by
the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. The methods to be used in the
archaeological excavation are standards in the field (Anderson, Jr. 1988; Green 1990;
Lipke et al. 1993; Steffy 1994), and have been refined by LCMM staff over the past 15
years. In addition to utilizing its own experienced staff, the LCMM will draw on its longstanding relationship with researchers from the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas
A&M University.
The documentation of The Sloop Island Wreck will be non-destructive. Hull curvatures will
be recorded with an electronic goniometer, while the vessel’s major architectural features
will be mapped in relation to one another. The hull itself will serve as the reference grid for
the recording process. In addition to the thousands of measurements taken on the hull,
underwater photography and video will also serve as documentation tools. The primary
excavation tool to be used in the stern cabin will be a water dredge. Once an artifact is
located it will be identified and its location recorded. Small artifacts will be recovered by a
.64cm mesh bag placed on the end of the discharge hose. Individual artifacts will be
numbered and contextual information will be recorded on an artifact record form.
The first priority of all diving activities will be safety. The safety procedures will follow those
established by the National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI), and additionally,
a site-specific emergency action plan will be developed. All individuals involved in the
project will be certified divers from an internationally recognized scuba diving training
organization, and they will have current certifications in First Aid and CPR. The strict diving
procedures to be followed during the underwater archaeological investigation will greatly
limit the likelihood of any diver being affected by decompression illness; however, further
measures will be taken to reduce this possibility. While working underwater, archaeological
divers will breathe an enriched air blend known commercially as NITROX, rather than
compressed air. By using a blend of gases with a higher percentage of oxygen (up to 36%)
and a reduced amount of nitrogen, the level of nitrogen dissolved into a diver’s tissues is
reduced. This will facilitate longer dive times with an enhanced level of safety.
258
Recovered artifacts will be taken out of the field each day and taken to the LCMM. Upon
the completion of the fieldwork, treatment of the artifacts will begin. Conservation will be
performed by the LCMM’s conservation staff, all of whom possess a broad knowledge of all
aspects of artifact stabilization and conservation. This knowledge is based on the LCMM’s
extensive experience with the identification, evaluation, and treatment of all types of
artifacts, including the particularly complex problems associated with cultural resources
from submerged environments.
Analysis of archival data and the historic record will provide a theoretical framework for
analyzing the data recovered during the archaeological excavation. Archaeological data
(i.e., field notes, measured drawings, underwater photographic and videographic images,
and artifacts) generated during the excavation will be analyzed on several different levels.
First, the descriptive data will be synthesized to create a site plan and graphic
reconstructions of The Sloop Island Wreck’s hull form and construction. Second, the
descriptive data and the artifact assemblage will be utilized to answer specific research
questions regarding the vessel’s design and construction, its operational history and loss,
the culture of canallers and how they fit into nineteenth century society, and how to
interpret the site and evaluate its historic significance.
The information gained during the Mitigation of The Sloop Island Wreck will be
disseminated in a number of ways. The LCMM will prepare a comprehensive technical
report that will present the results of the study. Particularly interesting artifacts will be
incorporated into one or more exhibits destined for appropriate public venues. Information
from the Sloop Island Wreck mitigation will be incorporated the LCMM’s educational
curriculum, especially the Winter Outreach Programs. Substantive information about the
archaeological study will be available through the LCMM’s website: www.lcmm.org.
259

1999-2000 Results - Lake Champlain Maritime Museum

Transcription

Similar documents

Fitger`s Lake View Office

We`ll help you get rid of junk mail! Please place unwanted catalogs

Captain Geech

Presented by:

Brant Lake Getaway

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

chantecler 16-a, las fuentes — $118,00 usd steffen features