lake champlain underwater cultural resources survey

Transcription

LAKE CHAMPLAIN UNDERWATER
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
VOLUME VIII: 2003 RESULTS AND VOLUME IX: 2004 RESULTS
PREPARED BY:
Adam I. Kane
A. Peter Barranco
Joanne M. DellaSalla
Sarah E. Lyman
Christopher R. Sabick
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
Arthur B. Cohn
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY:
Arthur B. Cohn
Frederick Fayette
Christopher Fox
Pierre A. LaRocque
Scott A. McLaughlin
Edwin R. Scollon
Erick L. Tichonuk
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 2007
4472 Basin Harbor Road, Vergennes, VT 05491
802.475.2022 • www.lcmm.org • [email protected]
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey: 2003 and 2004 Results
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY,
VOLUME VIII: 2003 RESULTS AND VOLUME IX: 2004 RESULTS
PRODUCED BY:
802.475.2022 • www.lcmm.org • [email protected]
PREPARED BY:
Adam I. Kane
A. Peter Barranco, Jr.
Joanne M. DellaSalla
Sarah E. Lyman
Christopher R. Sabick
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
Arthur B. Cohn
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY:
Arthur B. Cohn, Frederick Fayette, Christopher Fox,
Pierre A. LaRocque, Scott A. McLaughlin, Edwin R. Scollon
and Erick L. Tichonuk
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 2007
Cover image: Wreck H4, a canal sloop found in 2003 (by Adam Kane and Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection)
ii
PUBLICATION DATA
REPORT RECIPIENTS
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:
Freeman Foundation
Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP)
Lake Champlain Steering Committee
Lintilhac Foundation
National Park Service (NPS)
Naval Historical Center (NHC)
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)
New York Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee
New York State Museum (NYSM)
New York State Office of General Services (NYOGS)
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans)
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP)
Vermont Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee
DISCLAIMER
This project and report have been financed, in part, with federal funds from the US Environmental
Protection Agency through a contract with the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission and from the US National Park Service through a cooperative contract agreement with
the Lake Champlain Basin Program and the New York State Heritage Trust. 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
Phone: (802) 475-2022
Fax: (802) 475-2953
Website: www.lcmm.org
Email: [email protected]
iii
DEDICATION: THREE LAKE CHAMPLAIN SAILORS
In 2004, three good friends of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum passed away. There
were two significant connections between them: each was an avid Lake Champlain sailor
and each had a special relationship with the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum. All were
longstanding members of the Museum family, but beyond that, they were directly involved
in aspects of the Museum’s special projects. Upon reflection, I thought they all deserved to
be recognized together, as a special group, who have been part of the Museum’s critical
but often-invisible army of volunteers and program supporters.
DR. DAVID BARBER MCDOWELL (1926-2004)
David McDowell was born in Plattsburgh
and was a graduate of the U.S. Naval
Academy.
After
service
aboard
destroyers and submarines, he attended
medical school and returned to his
hometown of Plattsburgh and enjoyed a
career as one of the leading OB/GYN
physicians in the region. David was an
avid sailor and was a founder of the
Valcour Sailing Club and a member of
the Lake Champlain Sailing Conference.
He and his wife Mimi and their family
have been longstanding supporters of
the Museum and many other lake
related organizations including the Lake
Champlain Committee and the Valcour
Island Lighthouse.
When the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum began its multi-year study of
the Valcour Island underwater battlefield
we had significant logistical challenges,
not the least of which was where to base
our field operations. The McDowell
home, situated just opposite Valcour Island and walking distance from the Peru Boat
Launch, was the perfect location to serve as headquarters for this project. When David and
Mimi learned of our need, they offered us their home as our home base and for the past six
years have provided the crew with the comforts of their wonderful home and helped ensure
the project’s efficiency and success.
iv
WILLIAM WALLSTONE FREEMAN (1908-2004)
Bill Freeman was born in Richmond, Vermont and became a successful architect, founding
the firm of Freeman French Freeman that continues today. Bill was also a founding
member of the Mallett’s Bay Boat Club and was an active yachtsman, both on Lake
Champlain and the ocean. During World War II, Bill served in the U.S. Navy. He had a love
of Lake Champlain and its history and owned many sailboats with names that reflected this
passion. Some of Bill’s boats were Corlear, Sunshine Patriot, Peggy Shipin and two Royal
Savages.
Bill and his wife Louise were early and steady members of the Museum and they made
frequent contributions to our collections. In 2001, the Museum took on the daunting project
of acquiring and rehabilitation one of the oldest surviving wooden buildings in Burlington.
The building was connected to the earliest days of maritime Burlington. The “Captain White
Place” needed substantial work and especially needed a group of people who would
support the preservation effort. Bill and Louise responded in a most generous way. At the
building’s dedication, Bill presented the museum with a beautifully framed nineteenth
century map of Burlington harbor and also cut the ribbon officially declaring the project
completed. Bill will be missed.
BARBARA ANNE ENDERLIN FRANCIS (1940-2004)
Barbara “Bibs” Francis was involved in Lake
Champlain maritime trades for more than
three decades. She owned and operated
Chiott Marine in Burlington and the Everyman
Sailboat Co. in Colchester. She was an avid
sailor and a longstanding member of the
Lake Champlain Yacht Club in Shelburne.
In 1999, as our Lake Survey was working
hard to systematically examine the lake
bottom, Bibs signed on as volunteer crew.
Throughout that summer, Bibs participated as
an integral member of our crew, providing
great energy for this difficult work. It is fitting
and appropriate to recognize her contributions to the Lake Survey in this report.
Sincerely,
Arthur B. Cohn
LCMM Executive Director
v
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 2003 and
2004 Lake Survey Project could not have succeeded without the support of LCMM’s staff,
members, 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 2003 and 2004 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 US Senator Patrick Leahy (VT), the Lake Champlain Transportation Company,
Middlebury College, the New York Bureau of Historic Sites, the Vermont Division for
Historic Preservation, and the University of Vermont. Additional organizations that provided
support for the Lake Survey were the Lake Champlain Management Conference; National
Park Service; the New York Department of Environmental Conservation; the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; and the New York State
Museum. Without the continued support and guidance of these institutions, the costs and
effort facing a lake-wide survey might have prevented the completion of the project.
Support for South Lake dive operations in 2004 and 2005 was provided by the Ticonderoga
Ferry, Chipmans Point Marina and Waterfront Diving.
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 philanthropic foundations. Federal
and state funding for the 2003 and 2004 field seasons was provided by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through a contract with the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) (Project Code L-1999-001, Jobs Cost
Code 0980-013-003, Amendments 6, 7 and 8). Technical and administrative oversight of
all work performed under these contracts was provided by Bill Howland and Jim Brangan of
the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP), in cooperation with the Lake Champlain Basin
Program's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Cultural Heritage and Recreation
Advisory Committee.
vi
We are especially grateful to the Freeman Foundation for their generous support of the
Lake Survey Project. Major grants in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002
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. Critical funding support was also received from the Lintilhac
Foundation.
Funding support for the 2005 archaeological study of the Shoreham Sloop was provided by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Ocean
Exploration (NOA50AR4601105), Jane’s Trust, and the Leo Cox Beach Philanthropic
Foundation.
The Lake Champlain Transportation Company, the Vermont Division of Historic
Preservation, and U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) also contributed significant time and
effort to the project. LCMM thanks all of these organizations for their financial and technical
support.
FIELD CREW AND ANALYSIS TEAM
The following individuals worked directly on the 2003 and 2004 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; Kathy Baumann,
navigation specialist; Patricia L. Manley, geologist and sonar operator; Thomas O. Manley,
geologist and sonar operator. During the 2003 sonar survey Middlebury College students
Laura Kelly and Reed Gahagan provided valuable assistance.
Over the 2003 and 2004 field seasons, members of the archaeological documentation team
recorded a significant amount of information. Working in Lake Champlain’s cold and
challenging environment, the crew produced excellent results while maintaining a
commitment to safety. The archaeological crew included: Arthur Cohn, Neil Dixon, Adam
Kane, Pierre LaRocque, Sarah Lyman, Scott McLaughlin, Christopher Sabick, and Erick
Tichonuk. Volunteer divers included Alex Faris, Warren Gill, John Helander, Krissy Kenny,
Mark Leary, Ben Mosher, Ben Schiffer, John Siminger, and Eileen Siminger.
We have been very fortunate to have the support of dozens of skilled divers during the
fieldwork for the Valcour Bay Research Project. The following volunteers have selflessly
given their time to this important project: Craig Allen, Matt Bell, Todd Bissonette, Jim
Brangan, Matt Booth, Dan Daglio, Greg Durocher, Jerry Forkey, Chris Fox, Mary Gresik,
Jake Harrington, Roger Harwood, Richard Heilman, Mark Johnston, Krissy Kenny, Bill
Leege, Brian Mann, Kristin Mara, Jonathon Moore, Steve Nye, Dennis O’Neil, David
Ruppel, Edwin Scollon, Mike Stephenson, and Brian Sypek. LCMM staff members that
participated in the 2003 and 2004 VBRP field seasons include: Bill Atkinson, Art Cohn,
Adam Kane, Pierre LaRocque, Sarah Lyman, Chris Sabick, and Erick Tichonuk.
vii
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. Peter Barranco, Joanne DellaSalla,
Adam Kane, Sarah Lyman, and Christopher Sabick wrote this report under the direction of
Arthur Cohn. Other researchers including Christopher Fox, Edwin Scollon, Frederick
Fayette, Scott McLaughlin and Erick Tichonuk investigated and prepared selected sections.
A number of people assisted with the compilation and selection of illustrations, including
Gordon Cawood, Neil Dixon, Adam Kane, Adam Loven, Sarah Lyman, Christopher Sabick,
Joanne DellaSalla, and Erick Tichonuk. Adam Kane organized and edited the report with
assistance from Eloise Beil, Joanne DellaSalla, Brenda Hughes, Christopher Sabick, Peter
Barranco, Justin Clement and Arthur Cohn.
viii
AUTHOR’S NOTE
This report, produced as the eighth and ninth in a series of volumes, outlines the
archaeological research from the 2003 and 2004 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resources Survey. Since this document was written to be part of a series, it therefore
relies on the series’ first four reports (Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey, Volume I: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results, 1 Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II and III: 1997 and 1998 Results, 2 Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume IV and V: 1999 and 2000
Results, 3 and Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume VI and VII:
2001 and 2002 Results 4) 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
encouraged to refer to Volume I for this extensive background information, which clearly
describes the diversity and significance of the region's history. Volumes II through VII detail
the information gained during the 1997 through 2002 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
sites in order to protect these resources. The underwater cultural resources in Lake
Champlain are often fragile and can easily be destroyed by theft, vandalism, and 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 2003 and 2004 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 5, the state of
Vermont, 6 and New York State. 7 The style and format of the endnotes and references are
based on those of the Chicago Manual of Style.
ix
ABSTRACT
The introduction of zebra mussels in the early 1990s and the inevitable approaching
infestation of quagga mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) 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. 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 previously 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 lake-wide sonar survey to locate submerged resources, which began in
1996, was the first step in this multi-year project. This report on the 2003 and 2004 surveys
is the fifth report in a series of volumes presenting the results of the Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, also known as the Lake Survey.
The 2003 Lake Survey was undertaken in the section of Lake Champlain commonly
referred to as the South Lake. Beginning at the Champlain Bridge connecting Shoreham,
Vermont and Crown Point, New York, the survey covered the lake south to Whitehall, New
York, including South Bay and portions of the Poultney River. Approximately 8mi2
(20.72km2) of lakebed were surveyed during the field season and the remains of 46 vessels
were identified. Nineteen of these sites were located in Vermont waters, while 27 were
found in New York waters. The watercrafts represent a wide range of vessel types and
eras, although the majority are standard, unrigged canal boats (n=27). Also represented
are French Colonial Era warships (n=3), War of 1812 warships (n=3), unidentified vessels
(n=7), railroad drawboats (n=2), scows (n=1), ferries (n=1), steamboats (n=1) and one
canal sloop (n=1). Seventeen of the 46 vessels were first discovered during the 2003 Lake
Survey, while 29 were previously known sites
The 2004 field season was devoted to continuing the archaeological survey of the Valcour
Island Revolutionary War Battlefield and continuing to document sites found in 2003.
Additionally, this report includes the NRHP nomination for the Sloop Island Canal Boat and
the Multiple Property Registration Document for Lake Champlain canal boats.
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.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Publication Data ..............................................................................................................iii
Report Recipients ........................................................................................................iii
Disclaimer....................................................................................................................iii
Questions or Comments ..............................................................................................iii
Dedication: Three Lake Champlain Sailors .....................................................................iv
Dr. David Barber McDowell (1926-2004) .....................................................................iv
William Wallstone Freeman (1908-2004)..................................................................... v
Barbara Anne Enderlin Francis (1940-2004) ............................................................... v
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................vi
General Support ..........................................................................................................vi
Institutional Support .....................................................................................................vi
Funding........................................................................................................................vi
Field Crew and Analysis Team ...................................................................................vii
Report Preparation .................................................................................................... viii
Author’s Note ..................................................................................................................ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... x
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................... xvii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................xxi
Chapter 1: Management Summary ................................................................................. 1
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey............................................ 1
Methodology and Logistics .......................................................................................... 1
Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 2
Project Archive and Repository ................................................................................... 2
Background Research ................................................................................................. 2
Summary of the 2003 Lake Survey.............................................................................. 3
Wreck YYY: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-726) .......................................................... 3
Wreck ZZZ: Standard Canal Boat (NYSM 11626) ....................................................... 3
Wreck A4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-728)............................................................. 3
Wreck B4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-727)............................................................. 3
Wreck C4: 1871 Drawboat (VT-AD-1018) ................................................................... 4
Wreck D4: Unidentified (VT-AD-1021)......................................................................... 4
Wreck E4: Ferry Montcalm (VT-AD-730) ..................................................................... 4
Wreck F4: Standard Canal Boat (NYSM 11627) ......................................................... 4
Wreck G4: 1888 Drawboat (NYSM 11628).................................................................. 4
Wreck H4: Sailing Canal Boat (VT-AD-1369) .............................................................. 4
Wreck I4: Canal Boat (VT-AD-1370)............................................................................ 5
Wreck J4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11629) ......................................................................... 5
Wreck K4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11630)......................................................................... 5
Wreck L4: Unidentified (NYSM 11631) ........................................................................ 5
Wreck M4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11632) ........................................................................ 5
Wreck N4: Unidentified Vessel (NYSM 11633)............................................................ 5
xi
Wreck O4: Canal Boat (VT-RU-262)............................................................................ 5
Wreck P4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-1022)........................................................... 6
Wreck Q4: CAnal Boat (VT-AD-1023) ......................................................................... 6
Wreck R4: Canal Boat Side (VT-AD-1342).................................................................. 6
Wreck S4: Unidentified (VT-AD-1343) ......................................................................... 6
Wreck T4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11634) ......................................................................... 6
Wreck U4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-567)............................................................... 6
Wreck V4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-263) .............................................................. 6
Wreck W4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-316) .............................................................. 7
Wreck X4: U.S. Row Galley Allen (NYSM 11635) ....................................................... 7
Wreck Y4: British Brig Linnet (VT-RU-265).................................................................. 7
Wreck Z4: U.S. Brig Eagle (NYSM 11636) .................................................................. 7
Wreck A5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11637)......................................................................... 7
Wreck B5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11638)......................................................................... 7
Wreck C5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11639)......................................................................... 7
Wreck D5: Steamboat Reindeer (NYSM 11640) ......................................................... 7
Wreck E5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11641)......................................................................... 8
Wreck F5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11642) ......................................................................... 8
Wreck G5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11643) ........................................................................ 8
Wreck H5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11644)......................................................................... 8
Wreck I5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11645) .......................................................................... 8
Wreck J5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11646) ......................................................................... 8
Wreck K5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11647)......................................................................... 8
Wreck K7: Unidentified (VT-AD-1020) ......................................................................... 8
Wreck L7: British Sloop Boscawen (NYSM 11648) ..................................................... 9
Wreck M7: French Sloop (NYSM 11649)..................................................................... 9
Wreck N7: French Gunboat (NYSM 11650) ................................................................ 9
Wreck O7: Scow (VT-AD-1151)................................................................................... 9
Wreck P7: Canal Boat (NYSM 11677)......................................................................... 9
Wreck Q7: Canal Boat (NYSM 11678) ........................................................................ 9
Chapter 2: Background to the Lake Survey Project ...................................................... 10
Lake Champlain's Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 10
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey.......................................... 11
Lake Survey Planning................................................................................................ 12
Lake Survey Methodology ......................................................................................... 12
Performance Standards............................................................................................. 17
Safety ........................................................................................................................ 18
Volunteer Involvement ............................................................................................... 19
Post-Survey Research............................................................................................... 19
Public Interpretation................................................................................................... 20
Lake Survey Report Series........................................................................................ 20
Project Archive and Repository ................................................................................. 21
Chapter 3: 2003 Lake Survey........................................................................................ 22
Project Planning......................................................................................................... 22
Project Methods and Logistics ................................................................................... 22
xii
Project Personnel ...................................................................................................... 24
Survey Divers and Diving Safety ............................................................................... 26
Survey Vessels .......................................................................................................... 26
Side Scan Sonar........................................................................................................ 27
Navigation System..................................................................................................... 28
Precision Depth Recording ........................................................................................ 29
Data Collection Systems............................................................................................ 29
Chapter 4: Background History ..................................................................................... 31
Orwell, Vermont ......................................................................................................... 32
Mount Independence ............................................................................................. 34
Crown Point, New York.............................................................................................. 37
Whitehall, New York .................................................................................................. 42
Chapter 5: Previous Archaeology in the 2003 Lake Survey Area.................................. 45
British Sloop Boscawen ............................................................................................. 45
War of 1812 Wrecks .................................................................................................. 50
Ticonderoga ........................................................................................................... 51
Eagle...................................................................................................................... 52
Allen ....................................................................................................................... 55
Linnet ..................................................................................................................... 57
The History and Archaeology of Mount Independence .............................................. 59
History of Mount Independence ............................................................................. 59
Archaeology of Mount Independence..................................................................... 62
Public Outreach and Interpretation......................................................................... 63
Chapter 6: Survey Results 2003 ................................................................................... 65
Wreck YYY: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-726) ........................................................ 67
Statement of Significance ...................................................................................... 67
Wreck ZZZ: Standard Canal Boat (NYSM 11626) ..................................................... 69
Wreck D4: Unidentified (VT-AD-1021)....................................................................... 71
Wreck E4: Ferry Montcalm (VT-AD-730) ................................................................... 72
Wreck F4: Standard Canal Boat (NYSM 11627) ....................................................... 73
Wreck H4: Sailing Canal Boat (VT-AD-1369) ............................................................ 74
Diving Summary..................................................................................................... 74
Vessel Documentation ........................................................................................... 76
Archaeological Findings ......................................................................................... 76
Hull Construction ................................................................................................ 78
Centerboard........................................................................................................ 78
Stern................................................................................................................... 79
Rigging ............................................................................................................... 79
Bow .................................................................................................................... 79
Archaeological Conclusions ................................................................................... 81
Vessel Type and Date ........................................................................................ 81
xiii
Vessel Use-Life .................................................................................................. 82
Gourlie Point Wrecks ................................................................................................. 83
Wreck I4: Canal Boat (VT-AD-1370) ...................................................................... 83
Wreck J4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11629).................................................................... 84
Wreck K4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11630) ................................................................... 85
Statement of Significance for Gourlie Point Canal Boat Graveyard ....................... 86
Wreck L4: Unidentified (NYSM 11631) ...................................................................... 87
Wreck M4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11632) ...................................................................... 87
Wreck N4: Unidentified Vessel (NYSM 11633).......................................................... 88
Wreck O4: Canal Boat (VT-RU-262).......................................................................... 88
Wreck P4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-1022)......................................................... 89
Wreck Q4: CAnal Boat (VT-AD-1023......................................................................... 91
Wreck T4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11634) ....................................................................... 91
Wreck U4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-567)............................................................. 92
Wreck V4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-263) ............................................................ 92
Wreck W4: Unidentified Vessel (VT-RU-316) ............................................................ 93
Wreck X4: U.S. Row Galley Allen (NYSM 11635) ..................................................... 94
Wreck Y4: British Brig Linnet (VT-RU-265)................................................................ 94
Wreck Z4: U.S. Brig Eagle (NYSM 11636) ................................................................ 94
Wreck B5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11638)....................................................................... 94
Wreck K7: Unidentified (VT-AD-1020) ....................................................................... 94
Wreck L7: British Sloop Boscawen (NYSM 11648) ................................................... 96
Wreck M7: French Sloop (NYSM 11649)................................................................... 96
Wreck N7: French Gunboat (NYSM 11650) .............................................................. 97
Wreck O7: Scow (VT-AD-1151)................................................................................. 97
xiv
Wreck P7: Canal Boat (NYSM 11677)....................................................................... 97
Statement of significance ....................................................................................... 98
Wreck Q7: Canal Boat (NYSM 11678) ...................................................................... 98
Statement of Significance .................................................................................... 100
Larrabees Point Underwater Cultural Resources .................................................... 101
Addison County Railroad Bridges, Lake Champlain............................................. 101
Ticonderoga’s Floating Drawbridges.................................................................... 106
Wreck C4: 1871 Drawboat (VT-AD-1018) ........................................................ 108
Wreck G4: 1888 Drawboat (NYSM 11628)....................................................... 113
The Third Drawboat (1902-c.1923)................................................................... 117
The Larrabees Point-Willow Point Trestle (VT-AD-1371)..................................... 123
The Beadles Cove (Burleigh’s) Trestle (VT-AD-1344) ......................................... 124
Wreck A4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-728) ..................................................... 125
Wreck B4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-727) ..................................................... 125
Wreck R4: Canal Boat Side (VT-AD-1342) .......................................................... 128
Wreck S4: Unidentified Watercraft (VT-AD-1343) ................................................ 128
Statement of Significance .................................................................................... 128
South Bay Survey .................................................................................................... 129
South Bay Bridges ............................................................................................... 131
The First Bridge (1856-1860)............................................................................ 132
The Second Bridge (1913-1930) ...................................................................... 132
The Third Bridge (1930-1973) .......................................................................... 134
The Fourth Bridge (1973-Present).................................................................... 136
Wreck A5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11637) ................................................................. 137
Statement of Significance ................................................................................. 137
Wreck C5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11639) ................................................................. 137
Wreck D5: Steamboat Reindeer (NYSM 11640) .................................................. 139
South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard Historic District ............................................... 142
Wreck E5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11641).............................................................. 142
Wreck F5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11642).............................................................. 142
Wreck G5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11643) ............................................................. 142
Wreck H5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11644) ............................................................. 143
Wreck I5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11645) ............................................................... 143
Wreck J5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11646) .............................................................. 143
Wreck K5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11647).............................................................. 143
Chapter 7: Documentation of Other Lake Champlain Sites......................................... 145
Pine Street Barge Canal Breakwater Site................................................................ 145
Site History........................................................................................................... 145
Schooner Excelsior (VT-CH-796)......................................................................... 148
Bow Section...................................................................................................... 150
Stern Section .................................................................................................... 150
Excelsior Historic Analysis................................................................................ 152
xv
Excelsior’s Career ............................................................................................ 153
Construction Barges............................................................................................. 154
Construction Barge 1 (VT-CH-795) .................................................................. 154
Pine Street Canal Breakwater Preserve Feasibility Analysis ............................... 155
Shore Access ................................................................................................... 155
Access Stairs and Signs ................................................................................... 155
Water Access ................................................................................................... 156
Underwater Navigation and Interpretation ........................................................ 156
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 156
Ausable Point Pin Plat ............................................................................................. 157
Canal Boats in the Pine Street Canal ...................................................................... 159
VT-CH-801 ........................................................................................................... 160
VT-CH-800 ........................................................................................................... 164
VT-CH-802 ........................................................................................................... 167
VT-CH-798 ........................................................................................................... 172
VT-CH-799 ........................................................................................................... 174
Chapter 8: Valcour Bay Research Project, 2003 – 2004 Survey Summary................. 175
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 175
Research Methodology............................................................................................ 177
Survey Summary ..................................................................................................... 179
2003 Field Season ............................................................................................... 179
2004 Field Season ............................................................................................... 181
Artifact Scatter Analysis........................................................................................... 186
Cannon Explosion ................................................................................................ 186
Feature 1: Cannon Explosion Debris Field........................................................... 190
Feature 2: Deck Clearing Debris .......................................................................... 192
Feature 3: Philadelphia Site ................................................................................. 193
Philadelphia Recovery Background.................................................................. 193
Feature 4: Bomb Explosion .................................................................................. 198
References.................................................................................................................. 199
Appendix A: NRHP Documents................................................................................... 205
Sloop Island Canal Boat NRHP Nomination ............................................................ 207
Lake Champlain Canal Boat Multiple Property Documentation Form ...................... 237
Appendix B: Glossary.................................................................................................. 264
Appendix C: Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 269
Endnotes ..................................................................................................................... 272
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Typical underwater archaeological tools (photograph by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2-2. Archaeologist studying a shipwreck (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM Collection).
............................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-1. R/V Neptune at dock during rough weather in 2002 (photograph by A. Peter
Barranco). .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 4-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 2003 Survey area and the towns selected
for vignettes. .......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4-2. 1871 map showing the settlement at Chipmans Point, Orwell, Vermont (Beers,
1871)...................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4-3. A North View of Fort Frederic or Crown Point (by Proud, 1759). ............... 38
Figure 4-4. Canal boats tied up at Whitehall, NY (LCMM Collection). .......................... 44
Figure 5-1. Reconstruction of the British Sloop Boscawen (by Kevin Crisman). .......... 47
Figure 5-2. Site plan of Boscawen (by Kevin Crisman). ............................................... 49
Figure 5-3. Photograph of the schooner Ticonderoga at the Skenesboro Museum (LCMM
Collection). ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 5-4. Cross-section of Eagle’s frames (by Kevin Crisman). ................................. 53
Figure 5-5. Reconstruction of Eagle, with sail plan (by Kevin Crisman). ....................... 54
Figure 5-6. Plan view of the remains of Allen (by Eric Emery). ..................................... 55
Figure 5-7. Reconstruction of Allen (by Eric Emery)...................................................... 56
Figure 5-8. Site plan of Linnet (by Erika Washburn)...................................................... 57
Figure 5-9. Reconstructed lines of Linnet (by Erika Washburn). .................................. 58
Figure 5-10. Remains of Great Bridge Caisson 2 (by Kevin Crisman). ........................ 60
Figure 6-1. Sonar image of Wreck YYY (LCMM Collection).......................................... 68
Figure 6-2. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck YYY (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ............................................................................................................. 68
Figure 6-3. Sonar image of Wreck ZZZ (LCMM Collection). ........................................ 70
Figure 6-4. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck ZZZ (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ............................................................................................................. 70
Figure 6-5. Sonar image of Wreck F4 (LCMM Collection)............................................ 73
Figure 6-6. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck F4 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked
by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection). .............................................................. 74
Figure 6-7. Sonar image of Wreck H4 (LCMM Collection). .......................................... 75
Figure 6-8. Archaeologist preparing to dive on the Shoreham Sloop (photograph by
Christopher Sabick, LCMM Collection). ................................................................. 75
Figure 6-9. Archaeological drawing of Wreck H4 (by Adam Kane and Christopher Sabick,
LCMM Collection)................................................................................................... 77
Figure 6-10. Sonar image of Wreck I4 (LCMM Collection). .......................................... 83
Figure 6-11. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck I4 (by Adam Kane, inked by
Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).................................................................... 84
Figure 6-12. Sonar image showing Wreck J4 (LCMM Collection). ............................... 84
xvii
Figure 6-13. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck J4 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked
Figure 6-14. Sonar image showing Wreck K4 (LCMM Collection). ............................... 86
Figure 6-15. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck K4 (by Chris Sabick, inked by
Figure 6-16. Sonar image of Wreck L4 (LCMM Collection). ......................................... 87
Figure 6-17. Sonar image of Wreck M4 (LCMM Collection). ........................................ 87
Figure 6-18. Sonar image showing Wreck N4 (LCMM Collection). .............................. 88
Figure 6-19. Sonar image showing Wreck O4 (LCMM Collection). .............................. 89
Figure 6-20. Sonar image showing Wreck P4 (LCMM Collection). ............................... 89
Figure 6-21. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck P4 (by Chris Sabick, inked by
Figure 6-22. Sonar image showing Wreck Q4 (LCMM Collection). ............................... 91
Figure 6-23. Sonar image showing Wreck T4 (LCMM Collection)................................ 92
Figure 6-24. Sonar image showing Wreck V4 (LCMM Collection). .............................. 93
Figure 6-25. Sonar image showing Wreck W4 (LCMM Collection). .............................. 93
Figure 6-26. Sonar image of Wreck K7 (LCMM Collection)........................................... 95
Figure 6-27. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck K7 (by Adam Kane and Pierre
LaRocque, inked by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection). .................................. 96
Figure 6-28. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck P7 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked
Figure 6-29. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck Q7 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM
Collection). ............................................................................................................. 99
Figure 6-30. Map of Lake Champlain showing Larrabees Point.................................. 102
Figure 6-31. 1903 USGS Quadrangle showing Larrabees Point................................. 103
Figure 6-32. 1857 sketch of the Rouses Point drawboat by R.P. Mallory (Courtesy William
L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan). .............................................. 107
Figure 6-33. Sonar image showing Wreck C4 (LCMM Collection). ............................. 112
Figure 6-34. Sonar image of the part of Wreck G4 lying in the draw opening (LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 116
Figure 6-35. Sonar image of the wreckage of Wreck G4 lying near the draw opening
(LCMM Collection). .............................................................................................. 116
Figure 6-36. Sonar image showing Wrecks A4 and B4 (LCMM Collection). .............. 126
Figure 6-37. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wrecks A4 (bottom) and B4 (top) (by
Chris Sabick and Adam Kane, inked by Krissy Kenny and Joanne DellaSalla). .. 127
Figure 6-38. Map of Lake Champlain showing the location of South Bay. .................. 130
Figure 6-39. Photo of the original railroad drawbridge crossing South Bay looking northerly
(by A. Peter Barrannco). ...................................................................................... 131
Figure 6-40. Image of the 1913 bridge under construction, looking west (courtesy of the
Historic Society of Whitehall). .............................................................................. 133
Figure 6-41. Photo showing the west end of the 1913 bridge looking south (courtesy of the
Historical Society of Whitehall)............................................................................. 134
Figure 6-42. Photo taken circa 1972 of the removal of the 1932 bridge, looking northwest
toward Dresden shore (courtesy of the Historical Society of Whitehall). .............. 136
xviii
Figure 6-43. Sonar image of Wreck C5 (LCMM Collection). ....................................... 139
Figure 6-44. Steamboat Reindeer while in operation (LCMM Collection).................... 140
Figure 6-45. Steamboat Reindeer abandoned on the Burlington, Vermont waterfront, circa
1902 (LCMM Collection). ..................................................................................... 140
Figure 6-46. Remains of steamboat Reindeer’s hull in South Bay in the 1980s (LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 141
Figure 6-47. Sonar image of Wreck E5 (LCMM Collection)......................................... 143
Figure 6-48. Sonar image of Wrecks E5, H5, I5, J5 and K5 (LCMM Collection). ....... 144
Figure 6-49. Sonar image of Wrecks E5, F5, and G5 and the 1913, 1930 and 1973
highway bridges (LCMM Collection)..................................................................... 144
Figure 7-1. Plan view of the Pine Street Canal Breakwater site (by Erick Tichonuk, Sarah
Lyman, Chris Sabick, and Adam Kane, LCMM Collection). ................................. 146
Figure 7-2. NOAA Charts from 1875, 1936 and 1968 (left to right) showing the development
of the Burlington, Vermont waterfront around the Pine Street Canal.................... 147
Figure 7-3. Preliminary archaeological drawing of the forward half of the schooner
Excelsior (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection)....................................................... 149
Figure 7-4. Plan view and profile of the Excelsior’s inverted stern section (by Chris Sabick,
LCMM Collection)................................................................................................. 151
Figure 7-5. Preliminary archaeological drawing of the Ausable Point Shipwreck (drawn by
Adam Kane, inked by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection)........................................ 158
Figure 7-6. Canal boat wreckage in the Pine Street Canal in October 2002 (by Adam Kane,
LCMM Collection)................................................................................................. 159
Figure 7-7. Photograph of VT-CH-801 from October 2002 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 160
Figure 7-8. Drawing of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection)..................... 161
Figure 7-9. Photomosaic showing the port side of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane and Chris
Sabick, LCMM Collection). ................................................................................... 161
Figure 7-10. Plan view drawing showing the repair techniques documented on the sides of
VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, inked by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection)............... 162
Figure 7-11. Photograph of the starboard stern quarter of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane,
LCMM Collection)................................................................................................. 163
Figure 7-12. Photograph showing the bow of VT-CH-800 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 164
Figure 7-13. Drawing of VT-CH-800 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection). ................ 165
Figure 7-14. Photograph of VT-CH-802 taken in October 2002 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 167
Figure 7-15. Archaeological drawing of VT-CH-802 (by Scott McLaughlin, LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 168
Figure 7-16. Photograph showing the stern of VT-CH-802 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 171
Figure 7-17. Photograph of the bow of VT-CH-799 with timber cribbing from the canal in the
background (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection). ................................................. 174
Figure 8-1. Chart of Lake Champlain showing Valcour Island and the Project Area (base
map from Coast and Geodetic Survey 1988). ...................................................... 176
xix
Figure 8-2. Survey schematic showing the grid squares surveyed between 1999 and 2004.
............................................................................................................................. 180
Figure 8-3. Photograph of the 2003 VBRP survey crew which included six Navy Divers
from the Naval Reserve Mobile Diving & Salvage Unit Two, Detachment 101 (NR
MDSU 2 det 101). ................................................................................................ 181
Figure 8-4. The Townsend Document, written on October 22, 1776 at Ticonderoga
(courtesy of John Townsend, LCMM Collection).................................................. 188
Figure 8-5. Map showing the artifacts located during the 1999 through 2004 VBRP survey.
............................................................................................................................. 191
Figure 8-6. Lorenzo Hagglund raising the Gunboat Philadelphia in 1935 (LCMM
Collection). ........................................................................................................... 195
Figure 8-7. The Gunboat Philadelphia being delivered to the Smithsonian Institution
(LCMM Collection). .............................................................................................. 196
Figure 8-8. The Gunboat Philadelphia installed in the National Museum of American
History (courtesy the Smithsonian Institution). ..................................................... 197
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1. Table showing the watercraft found in the South Lake during the 2003 Lake
Survey.................................................................................................................... 66
Table 8-1. Inventory of Revolutionary War-era artifacts located between 1998 and 2004
during the VBRP. ................................................................................................. 182
Table 8-2. Inventory of non-Revolutionary War-era artifacts located in 2003 and 2004
during the VBRP. ................................................................................................. 185
Table 8-3. Artifacts comprising Feature 1................................................................... 190
Table 8-4. Artifacts comprising Feature 2.................................................................... 192
Table 8-5. Inventory of non-Revolutionary War-era artifacts comprising Feature 3. .. 193
Table 8-6. Artifacts comprising Feature 4.................................................................... 198
xxi
CHAPTER 1: 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 the wrecks of several hundred vessels lie on the lake bottom as
well as hundreds of other undisturbed cultural resources from the lake’s maritime past. In
an effort to learn more about the lake’s history, the Champlain Maritime Society (19801987) 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 initially expected to
take decades to complete.
In 1993 zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) 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 as possible
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. The sonar examination of the entire
lake bottom actually required eight years (completed in 2003); although many of the sites
require further archaeological study to fully evaluate their extent. 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 2003 and 2004 field seasons was provided via the Lake
Champlain Basin Program through the US Environmental Protection Agency’s contract with
the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC).
The 2003 survey area comprised the portion of Lake Champlain known as the South Lake.
With the completion of the 2003 field season, the systematic sonar survey of Lake
Champlain was completed. The 2004 field season was devoted to ongoing the
archaeological survey of the Valcour Island Revolutionary War battle and continuing to
document sites found in 2003.
METHODOLOGY AND LOGISTICS
The 2003 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
1
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 1.9 miles (2 to 3km) long and 558ft (170m) apart. Neptune navigated over each grid
line, while towing a dual frequency Klein 595 side scan sonar towfish that collected and
stored 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, and stored it in digital
format along with position, depth, and speed. The RV Baldwin, was used for the survey in
South Bay due to Neptune’s inability to go underneath the D&H railroad bridge which spans
the entrance to South Bay. During the 2003 field season approximately 8mi2 (20.71km2) of
lakebed was surveyed.
Each subsequent transect overlapped the previous one, insuring complete and methodical
coverage of the lake 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.
Following the field survey, historical researchers Peter Barranco, Adam Kane, Sarah
Lyman and Chris 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.
PROJECT ARCHIVE AND REPOSITORY
All of the data and documentation generated during the 2003 Lake Survey is 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 complete project archives and artifact collection will be curated
according to federal and state guidelines. 8
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Researching the general historical background of Lake Champlain, specifically for those
regions surveyed in 2003, was a major project component. It was important to know what
events occurred in these areas in order to better understand the historical properties that
2
might be found there. This historical framework will also be useful in the evaluation of 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.
SUMMARY OF THE 2003 LAKE SURVEY
During the 2003 Lake Survey, the LCMM’s remote sensing team focused on Lake
Champlain’s South Lake; the river-like portion of the lake located south of the Champlain
Bridge. The survey located the remains of 46 vessels. Nineteen of these sites were
located in Vermont waters, while 27 were found in New York waters. Seventeen of the 46
vessels were discovered during the 2003 Lake Survey; 29 were previously known sites.
WRECK YYY: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-726)
Wreck YYY is a well-preserved, largely buried mid-nineteenth century standard canal boat.
Wreck YYY is eligible for the Vermont State Register of Historic Places (VSRHP) and the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK ZZZ: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11626)
Wreck ZZZ is a mid-nineteenth century standard canal boat which sank carrying a load of
iron ore. The hull is largely buried, and in a fair state of preservation. The vessel may be
the Ella (Ellie) E. Bagley, which sank in 1870. Wreck ZZZ is eligible for the New York State
Register of Historic Places (NYSRHP) and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information
Potential.
WRECK A4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-728)
Wreck A4 is a standard canal boat lying next to canal boat Wreck B4 (VT-AD-727). Wreck
A4 is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP as part of the Larrabees Point Historic District
under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events, Criterion C: Design,
Construction, and Work of a Master, and Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK B4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-727)
Wreck B4 is a standard canal boat lying next canal boat Wreck A4 (VT-AD-728). Wreck B4
is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP as part of the Larrabees Point Historic District
under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events, Criterion C: Design,
3
WRECK C4: 1871 DRAWBOAT (VT-AD-1018)
Wreck C4 is a railroad drawboat built in 1871 for a railroad trestle which ran between
Larrabees Point, Vermont and Willow Point, New York. The vessel was replaced by a new
drawboat in 1888. Wreck C4 is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP as part of the
Larrabees Point Historic District under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events,
Criterion C: Design, Construction, and Work of a Master, and Criterion D: Information
Potential.
WRECK D4: UNIDENTIFIED (VT-AD-1021)
Wreck D4 was located in 1984, and at that time was largely buried with only 20ft (6.1m) of
the remains exposed. The nature of the vessel is not known. It is not possible with the
current data to accurately assess this site’s historic significance.
WRECK E4: FERRY MONTCALM (VT-AD-730)
Wreck E4 is reported to be that of gasoline screw (propeller) ferry Montcalm. This boat
crossed Lake Champlain between what is now the Buoy 39 Marina and the New York
shore at Montcalm Landing (Port Marshall) just south of Fort Ticonderoga in the 1920s. It
is not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s historic significance.
WRECK F4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11627)
Wreck F4 is a well-preserved standard canal boat. The vessel is 88ft (26.8m) long and a
14ft (4.3m) in beam, indicating that it was built between 1858 and 1872. Wreck F4 is
eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK G4: 1888 DRAWBOAT (NYSM 11628)
Wreck G4 is a railroad drawboat built in 1888 for a railroad trestle between Larrabees
Point, Vermont and Willow Point, New York. The vessel burned to the waterline in 1902.
Wreck G4 is eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP as part of the Larrabees Point Historic
District under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events, Criterion C: Design,
WRECK H4: SAILING CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1369)
Wreck H4 was discovered during the 2003 Lake Survey and verified by archaeological
divers in 2004. The site is an early Lake Champlain canal sloop. The site is eligible for the
VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
4
WRECK I4: CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1370)
Wreck I4 is a largely buried canal boat dating to the mid-nineteenth century. As part of the
Gourlie Point Canal Boat graveyard, it is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP under
Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK J4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11629)
Wreck J4 is a moderately well-preserved canal boat dating to the mid-nineteenth century.
As part of the Gourlie Point Canal Boat graveyard, it is eligible for the NYSRHP and the
NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK K4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11630)
Wreck K4 is a poorly preserved canal boat dating to the mid-nineteenth century. As part of
the Gourlie Point Canal Boat graveyard, it is eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under
WRECK L4: UNIDENTIFIED (NYSM 11631)
The nature of Wreck L4 based on the sonar data is unclear; however, it is likely a canal
boat. It is not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the
NYSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK M4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11632)
Sonar data indicates that Wreck M4 is an intact canal boat. Based on the apparent intact
nature of the site from the 2003 sonar records Wreck M4 is likely eligible for the NYSRHP
and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK N4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (NYSM 11633)
Wreck N4 is an unidentified vessel located during the 2003 Lake Survey. Sonar data
indicates that it is either a sailing vessel or a tugboat. It is not possible with the current data
to accurately assess this site’s historic significance.
WRECK O4: CANAL BOAT (VT-RU-262)
Wreck O4 is an intact canal boat that sank while carrying a load of coal. The vessel is
eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
5
WRECK P4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1022)
Wreck P4 is a largely buried standard canal boat. The vessel’s length of 80ft (24.4m)
suggests it was built before 1858. Based on the intact nature of Wreck P4, the site is
eligible for nomination to the Vermont Register of Historic Places and the NRHP under
WRECK Q4: CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1023)
Wreck Q4 is a poorly preserved canal boat which may have been dynamited so that it did
not obstruct navigation. Wreck Q4 is unlikely to retain sufficient site integrity to be eligible
for the VSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK R4: CANAL BOAT SIDE (VT-AD-1342)
Wreck R4 is believed to be the side of a canal boat, and may be a disarticulated portion of
another wreck in the Larrabees Point Historic District. Wreck R4 is eligible for the VSRHP
and the NRHP as part of the Larrabees Point Historic District under Criterion A: Event(s)
and Broad Patterns of Events, Criterion C: Design, Construction, and Work of a Master,
and Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK S4: UNIDENTIFIED (VT-AD-1343)
Wreck S4 is a watercraft of unknown origin lying adjacent to the Beadles Cove trestle in the
Larrabees Point Historic District. Wreck S4 is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP as part
of the Larrabees Point Historic District under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of
Events, Criterion C: Design, Construction, and Work of a Master, and Criterion D:
Information Potential.
WRECK T4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11634)
Wreck T4 appears to be a largely buried canal boat. It is not possible with the current data
to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the NYSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK U4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-567)
Wreck U4 is an unidentified charted wreck which was not visible on side scan sonar. It is
not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the VSRHP or
the NRHP.
WRECK V4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-263)
Wreck V4 is a scattered area of debris located near a charted wreck. It is not possible with
the current data to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the VSRHP or the NRHP.
6
WRECK W4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-316)
Wreck W4 is an unidentified vessel. It is not possible with the current data to accurately
assess this site’s eligibility for the VSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK X4: U.S. ROW GALLEY ALLEN (NYSM 11635)
Wreck X4 is the U.S. Row Galley Allen, part of the War of 1812 fleet in the Poultney River.
This site is in the process of being listed on the NRHP.
WRECK Y4: BRITISH BRIG LINNET (VT-RU-265)
Wreck Y4 is the British Brig Linnet, part of the War of 1812 fleet in the Poultney River. This
site is in the process of being listed on the NRHP.
WRECK Z4: U.S. BRIG EAGLE (NYSM 11636)
Wreck Z4 is the U.S. Brig Eagle, part of the War of 1812 fleet in the Poultney River. This
site is in the process of being listed on the NRHP.
WRECK A5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11637)
Wreck A5 is an 1873-class standard canal boat in Lake Champlain’s South Bay. The site
lacks sufficient site integrity to be eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK B5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11638)
Wreck B5 is canal boat wreck lying near the War of 1812 Brig Eagle. It is not possible with
the current data to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the NYSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK C5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11639)
Wreck C5 is an intact canal boat which sank carrying a load of graphite. Based on the
apparent intact nature of the site from the sonar records and the reported presence of
cargo, Wreck C5 is likely eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
WRECK D5: STEAMBOAT REINDEER (NYSM 11640)
Wreck D5 is believed to be the hull remains of the steamboat Reindeer, which operated on
Lake Champlain between 1882 and 1902. It is not possible with the current data to
accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the NYSRHP or the NRHP.
7
WRECK E5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11641)
Wreck E5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
seven canal boats and is eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
Information Potential and under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events.
WRECK F5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11642)
Wreck F5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK G5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11643)
Wreck G5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK H5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11644)
Wreck H5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK I5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11645)
Wreck I5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK J5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11646)
Wreck J5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK K5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11647)
Wreck K5 is part of the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard. This site consists of at least
WRECK K7: UNIDENTIFIED (VT-AD-1020)
Wreck K7 could not be identified due to poor diving conditions. It is not possible with the
current data to accurately assess this site’s eligibility for the VSRHP or the NRHP.
8
WRECK L7: BRITISH SLOOP BOSCAWEN (NYSM 11648)
Wreck L7 is the British Sloop Boscawen which dates to the French and Indian War. The
Boscawen is eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information
Potential and under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events.
WRECK M7: FRENCH SLOOP (NYSM 11649)
Wreck M7 is believed to be a circa 1759 French Sloop and is eligible for the NYSRHP and
the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential and under Criterion A: Event(s) and
Broad Patterns of Events.
WRECK N7: FRENCH GUNBOAT (NYSM 11650)
Wreck N7 is believed to be a circa 1759 French Gunboat and is eligible for the NYSRHP
and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential and under Criterion A: Event(s) and
Broad Patterns of Events.
WRECK O7: SCOW (VT-AD-1151)
Wreck O7 is a 52ft (15.86m) long by 23ft (7m) wide wooden scow. Based on its intact
nature Wreck O7 is likely eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
WRECK P7: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11677)
Wreck P7 is a poorly preserved 1873-class Champlain Canal boat. The remains are 107ft
(32.6m) long and 17ft (5.1m) in beam. Wreck P7 is unlikely to retain sufficient site integrity
to be eligible for the NYSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK Q7: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11678)
Wreck Q7 is the bottom of an 1873-class Champlain Canal boat. The site is 97ft 8in
(29.8m) in length and has a beam of 15ft (4.6m). Although poorly preserved, the study of
the site would likely yield important information about canal boat construction, and is likely
eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
9
CHAPTER 2: 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 is 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 like
prehistoric fish weirs or canal boat trash sites. No matter how large or how small, how
noteworthy or mundane, these archaeological resources all provide important information
10
about everyday interactions between Lake Champlain, the region’s inhabitants, 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 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. 9
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.
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The potential for nominating specific new sites to the NRHP.
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 ensured that the Lake Survey's objectives were maintained
throughout the multi-year project, that data were gathered consistently, and that long-term
care and management of the survey archives was secured.
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 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
protrude 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.
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
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.
LAKE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The consistent general methodology used during the Lake Survey ensured the multi-year
project met its original goals. The methodology guaranteed the effectiveness and accuracy
of the survey data collected over the eight year survey. The stages in conducting the
survey of an area included background research, field survey, post-survey research, and
analysis.
12
In an effort to approximate locations of sites prior to the commencement of the sonar
survey, the research team conducted documentary research and informant interviews. 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.
Background information provides 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, 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 confidence that, when the survey
team leaves a certain area, that area will have been exhaustively examined for the types of
targets that were hoped to be located. 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 archaeologists. 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,
13
remote-operated vehicles (ROVs) can perform some 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 deeper 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, different tools such as a marine magnetometer or gradiometer and/or subbottom profiler could be implemented to locate smaller or buried cultural resources.
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 vertically and wide transversely to the towfish track, so the data present 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 in shallow water (<15ft [4.6m]) are
difficult to locate because the angle of the acoustic signal tends to be so oblique as to make
14
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 can 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 that 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,
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 a
remote-operated vehicle (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
(Figure 2-2). Measurements are taken with flexible tape measures and rulers. One of the
most difficult (and important) aspects of ship construction that must be recorded underwater
15
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.
The dredge removes the silt and redeposits it off site, exposing the remains of the vessel in
a controlled manner. 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, or its provenience, and its relation to other
artifact can often reveal as much information to an archaeologist as the artifact itself.
Figure 2-1. Typical underwater archaeological tools (photograph by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
16
Figure 2-2. Archaeologist studying a shipwreck (by Pierre LaRocque, LCMM Collection).
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
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, 10 the Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation, 11 and the New York Archaeological Council. 12
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. 13
17
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. 14 References to specific archaeological
techniques, such as archaeological illustration and photography, also generated standards
for the project. 15 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. There are not any data 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. 16 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. 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
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 the water temperature. 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
18
protection, which allows longer bottom times, reduces fatigue from the effects of cold water,
and leads to safer dives.
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.
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.
19
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. These
exhibits and educational programs encourage visitors to consider the issues related to
preservation and protection of underwater cultural resources.
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.
Results from the Lake Survey Project are also posted on the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum’s website: www.lcmm.org.
Researchers expect the most tangible public interpretation results of this project will come
about through the opening of new underwater preserve sites in the Lake Champlain
Underwater Historic Preserve (LCUHP). In 2005, the Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation opened the Sloop Island Canal Boat (see page 205). As of 2004 there were
eight shipwrecks in the LCUHP, and the Lake Survey has located at least twenty additional
shipwrecks that would make appropriate preserve sites. A host of factors make sites
suitable or not for preserve status, however, the two primary criteria are that they rest in
less than 100ft (30.5m) of water and are not archaeologically sensitive. Reasonable public
access to these sites will be the ultimate form of public interpretation for the results of the
Lake Survey.
LAKE SURVEY REPORT SERIES
At the conclusion of each year of the Lake Survey, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
prepares a report that presents the results of that year's investigations. These reports
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 is part of the series called the
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey. The first four reports include:
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume I: Lake Survey
Background and 1996 Results, 17 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume II and III: 1997 and 1998 Results, 18 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
20
Resources Survey, Volume IV and V: 1999 and 2000 Results 19, and Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume VI and VII: 2001 and 2002 Results. 20
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 through
VII detail the information gained during the 1997 through 2002 survey seasons and the
results of archaeological and historical research that took place in the intervening months.
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 report.
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 in generating recommendations for the
responsible long-term management and development of Lake Champlain's cultural
resources.
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, 21 the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation,22 and the New York
Archaeological Council. 23 The survey archives will be available to public and private
organizations and individuals with sincere research interests.
21
CHAPTER 3: 2003 LAKE SURVEY
PROJECT PLANNING
Formal planning for the 2003 Lake Survey began during the winter of 2002/2003, when the
survey team established its goals for that year. As it had been in 1996 through 2002, the
Lake Survey’s primary missions in 2003 was: 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 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 the field season. With the very successful previous seasons as models,
the survey crew tackled these issues and came up with a workable plan.
With the completion of the remote sensing portion of the Lake Survey in 2003, the 2004
field season was devoted to continuing the archaeological survey of the Valcour Island
Revolutionary War battlefield and continuing to document sites found in 2003.
PROJECT METHODS AND LOGISTICS
The field component of the 2003 Lake Survey was divided into two distinct operations: 1)
sonar survey and 2) target verification by archaeological divers. The primary function of the
sonar survey was to locate all major cultural properties on the lake floor that stand proud of
the lake 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 15ft (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. Because of the large number of shipwrecks located in 2003, the target verification
was carried out in 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Logistically, the 2003 field season of the Lake Survey was straightforward, since a wellorganized 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 was the survey's primary work
platform because of its array of electronic survey equipment (Figure 3-1). In the South Bay
a 22ft (6.7m) Aqua-Sport with a Johnson 150 hp engine was used due to a low bridge
across the mouth of South Bay that RV Neptune could not pass under. During the 2003
season 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
22
hydraulic reel control system, which had been modified to fit R/V Neptune, permitted
constant modifications to the depth of the towfish to keep it in its ideal range.
Figure 3-1. R/V Neptune at dock during rough weather in 2002 (photograph by A. Peter
Barranco).
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 overlap adequately and cover the entire
lake bottom of 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
23
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 each site, to attempt to
identify its origin, use, and clues to its history and to take its dimensions. 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 in
the future. This work was conducted not only on wrecks located during the sonar survey,
but also on sites that local divers had reported to the LCMM.
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. The final step in 2003 survey was the preparation of this report.
PROJECT PERSONNEL
The 2003 survey team consisted of eleven 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.
A. Peter Barranco Jr. served as navigation control specialist and historian for the 1996
through 2003 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.
Kathy Baumann served as navigator and sonar operator during the 1997 through 2003 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 2001
24
and 2002 archaeological documentation efforts, contributed to the survey’s historical
research, and oversaw the production of this report.
Frederick Fayette has served as the captain of R/V Neptune and electronic technician
during the 1996 through 2003 Lake Survey. Fred’s experience as an aviation electronics
technician in the US 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.
Adam Kane participated in the Lake Survey’s 1999 through 2003 archaeological field
seasons as an archaeologist 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 (TAMU). He has worked on terrestrial and underwater
archaeological projects across the country.
Pierre LaRocque participated in the Lake Survey’s 1997 through 2003 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 the University of Vermont (UVM). He participated in the
LCMM/TAMU/UVM field school to excavate the War of 1812 vessels Allen and Linnet in
1995.
Sarah Lyman served as an archaeologist and historian in the 2001 through 2003 field
seasons. She also contributed to the project report. She earned a B.A. in Archaeology
from Boston University, and has worked on terrestrial archaeological projects across the
country and in Europe.
Patricia L. Manley and Thomas O. Manley served as the survey team’s geologists and side
scan sonar and computer operators from 1996 through 2003. 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. Both brought considerable
technological expertise to the project.
Scott A. McLaughlin served as archaeologist and historian for the Sloop Island Canal Boat
Project and has been involved in the Lake Survey since 1996. He earned a B.A. in
anthropology, geography, and history from UVM, a M.A. in anthropology from the Nautical
Archaeology Program at TAMU, and is nearing completion of his doctoral studies at SUNY
Binghamton. McLaughlin has been working in the field of archaeology in the Champlain
Valley since 1986.
25
Christopher R. Sabick served as archaeologist, historian, and writer for the 1997 through
2003 Lake Survey Projects. He earned a B.A. in history and anthropology from Ball State
University in Muncie, Indiana and a 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 1996 through 2003 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 Adam Kane, Pierre
LaRocque and Erick Tichonuk 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, Adam Kane, and Pierre LaRocque. 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.
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
26
(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 2003 Lake Survey, a Klein 595 shortrange side scan sonar unit was used because of its ability to detect lake bottom features
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.
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 5.8 mph (3 to 5 knots). In
order to map even the lake’s greater depths, a 984ft (300m) steel-armored cable was
27
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 were 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.
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
28
during the sonar survey, the Lake Survey required an electronic navigation and positionfixing system.
Global Positioning 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
graphic 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,
once 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. 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 2003 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
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
29
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 were 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 the lake floor.
30
CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND HISTORY
To provide an historic context for the reader, researchers have included brief histories of
three towns within the 2003 survey area. These locations include Orwell, Vermont and
Crown Point and Whitehall, New York (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1. Map of Lake Champlain showing the 2003 Survey area and the towns selected
for vignettes.
31
ORWELL, VERMONT
Orwell, Vermont is located in the extreme southwest corner of Addison County. The town
measures roughly 6mi (9.6km) by 7mi (11.2km) and is bordered by Shoreham to the north,
Whiting and Sudbury to the east, Benson to the south, and Lake Champlain to the west.
The terrain is generally rolling and the soil is considered some of the most fertile in the
Champlain Valley. Lake Champlain is quite narrow in this area with an average of 1.5mi
(2.4km) separating Orwell from Ticonderoga on the New York shore.
Benjamin Ferris and associates originally chartered the town of Orwell on August 8, 1763.
However none of the principal investors of this concern moved to the area, in fact the first
settler, John Carter, did not arrive until shortly before the American Revolution. The
fortifications at Mount Independence, which lie within the town of Orwell, played an
important role in the events that occurred in the region during the Revolutionary War.
Mount Independence is located directly across Lake Champlain from Fort Ticonderoga, and
in conjunction with that emplacement, was built to defend against British attack from the
north. In 1777, British forces carried out a combined attack, using their fleet to blockade
the lake and their troops to pressure the forts on land. The British greatly outnumbered the
American defenders and when they occupied Mount Defiance, overlooking Fort
Ticonderoga, the American position became untenable and a withdrawal was ordered.
Though the British forces that continued south after the capture of Fort Ticonderoga and
Mount Independence were soundly defeated later that year at the Battle of Saratoga, the
Champlain Valley remained a contested area that was frequently the target for large British
raids for the remainder of the conflict (for more information on Mount Independence see
page 34).
Permanent settlement of the region did not take place until after the conclusion of hostilities
when Ephrim Fisher and Eber Murray arrived in 1783. The town was officially organized in
1787 and records indicate that between twenty and forty families had moved into the area
by that time. 24 By 1800 the population had reached 1,376 settlers and peaked in 1820 at
1,730 residents. After this the population slowly declined to 1,504 in 1850, and by 1880
had dropped to 1,353 residents. 25
Agriculture was the principal occupation at the time of the town’s establishment with most
farmers growing wheat and grain. In addition to agriculture several grist and sawmills were
established along East Creek before 1840. As the century progressed cattle became the
focus of agriculture along with raising pedigreed Merino sheep. This trend began to decline
in the second half of the nineteenth-century and dairy farming became the most prominent
occupation in the town.
Orwell was also a transshipment point for merchandise that was transported on Lake
Champlain. Most of the goods traded in this area passed through the docks at Chipmans
Point. Chipmans Point juts out into Lake Champlain reaching to within 1mi (1.609km) of
the New York shore (Figure 4-2). This location made Chipmans Point the natural location
for the town to focus its maritime activity. The first settler on Chipmans Point was Joseph
32
Sholes who arrived in 1805. By 1810, a store and tavern had been built at Chipmans Point
to service the local residents and lake sailors. The settlement at Chipmans Point grew
rapidly after the opening of the Champlain Canal in 1823. As traffic on the lake increased
new facilities were constructed on the point, including a new larger store, a hotel, a school,
a church, and by 1857 a boat yard. In 1825, Pliny Wicker was chartered to establish a ferry
at Chipmans Point. The ferry service at this location operated for more than150 years and
was owned by a number of different families until it was discontinued in 1973. The
steamers Saranac and Francis Saltus made daily stops at Chipmans Point connecting
Orwell with the rest of the lake. In addition to this, canal boats and other lake merchant
vessels made frequent stops at Chipmans Point to pick up the raw materials of the region
in exchange for manufactured goods and supplies that were unattainable locally. The
quantity of trade taking place at Chipmans Point frequently required as many as 50 teams
of horses a day to carry the merchandise inland. 26
Figure 4-2. 1871 map showing the settlement at Chipmans Point, Orwell, Vermont (Beers,
1871).
The importance of Chipmans Point, and lake shipping in general, declined in the latter half
of the nineteenth-century as the railroad system in Vermont continued to expand and came
to dominate trade. In addition to the decline in merchant vessel trade, the completion of the
33
Champlain Bridge in 1929 signaled the death knell of the steamboat on Lake Champlain.
Though several of these vessels operated into the 1940s their numbers dropped off
dramatically after the bridge opened.
Mount Independence
One of Orwell’s most important historic sites is a rocky limestone promontory on Lake
Champlain known as Mount Independence. It lies directly across the lake from Fort
Ticonderoga. Mount Independence has a plateau at the northern end with cliffs that rise
200ft (61m) from Lake Champlain. It is 1.3mi (2.09km) in length, less than ¾mi (1.2km) in
width, and spans nearly 300 acres (121.4 hectares). Soils in the area consist primarily of
Locustine silt and clay, with some deposits of sandstone, dolostone, and limestone with
chert intrusions. The East Creek, running along the northeast portion of Mount
Independence, has deposited alluvium, fluvial sands, and gravels. 27
There is evidence of limited Native American occupation on and near Mount Independence,
dating to the Late Archaic period or later. Although no systematic archaeological survey for
prehistoric sites has been performed, both amateur and professional archaeologists have
undertaken intensive surveys. 28 The most notable site near Mount Independence is the
East Creek Site (VT-AD-0012), an early Woodland cemetery and probable campsite
located at the mouth of the creek, on the north side. The site was investigated by the
Museum of the American Indian in the 1930s, which recovered pottery, 15-inch (38cm)
spearpoints, arrowheads, and strings of copper beads. 29 The flint deposits within Mount
Independence were the best in the area, and much utilized by the Native American.
The European settler to the area was John Charter, a Scottish emigrant, who took a boat
down from Montreal in 1763. He established a log cabin along the shoreline south of the
hill, and claimed 100 acres for his farmstead. 30 He was of Loyalist sympathies, and was
none too pleased when the rebel Americans began construction of a fort atop the hill in
1776. He eventually left the farm until after Burgoyne’s invasion.
There is limited archaeological information to suggest any French occupation of Mount
Independence during the early eighteenth century, though they certainly considered it an
important strategic point, possibly constructing shoreline batteries for defense. 31 It was
originally called “Rattlesnake Hill”, but was renamed on July 18, 1776 when a courier
arrived announcing the Declaration of Independence.
The Mount had the defensive advantage of cliffs to its north, south, and west, and wetlands
and East Creek to its east. Troops began clearing the land of its virgin timber. They
constructed a star-shaped fort with fortifications, a stone house, shops, warehouses,
strategic overlooks, and hundreds of cabins. The barracks and parade ground were
completed in September. 32 By October, the fort was finished, and the wooden palisades
and the abatis outside it were in place. 33 Farther up Mount Independence was a semicircular battery called the Half Moon, or Horseshoe Battery. The Americans found the flint
resources on Mount Independence useful in making gunflints. In fact in the winter of 1775,
34
Colonel Henry Knox delivered two barrels of flint from East Creek to George Washington in
Boston, along with the cannons from Ticonderoga. 34
The American retreat from the Battle of Valcour brought the American Navy, as well as the
British. Colonel Jeduthan Baldwin, an American army engineer, notes in his journal of
October 13, 1776, “At Sunset the Enemy’s fleet, 13 Sail, anchored off about four miles from
Crown Point,” and then “Our fleet destroyed, Only 5 out of 16 returned.” 35 The British
arrived to meet 12,000 men at Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, and decided, with
the impending winter, to retreat to Canada. This ended their northern campaign for 1776.
Over the winter, the American troops had significantly diminished; all but two to three
thousand returned home. Those that remained were plagued with cold, smallpox,
dysentery, and injury.
These same men began construction on a bridge linking Mount Independence and Fort
Ticonderoga, designed by Engineer Jeduthan Baldwin for troop transport and as a barrier
with chains to a series of 22 caissons on the bottom of the lake. It is theorized that work
crews cut squares out of the ice, through which bases for these caissons could be dropped.
Platforms were added to the square tower-like structures, and filled with stones for stability.
As more logs were added, building up the sides of the caissons, the weight of the structure
began to force it slowly to the bottom. When completed, the caissons rested in the soft
sediment on the lake’s bottom and extended above the surface for 10ft (3.1m) at the lake’s
low water level. 36
The British, under the command of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne, returned in July of
1777 with a force of nearly 8,000 including loyalists, Indians, French Canadians, and
Germans. The Americans, numbering 3,000, under the command of General Arthur St.
Clair, were no match for them. General St. Clair ordered a retreat from Fort Ticonderoga
and Mount Independence on July 5, 1777. In order that the retreat be kept secret from the
British, the preparations did not begin until dark that night. 37 The civilians, the sick, and
much of the supplies were loaded into boats to head south to Skenesborough (Whitehall,
NY). The troops made their way across the bridge to Mount Independence and then south
to Hubbarton, Vermont. American General Hull writes his account of this retreat, describing
it as “I cannot say that the march was conducted with the greatest of regularity.” 38
St. Clair left behind only a squad of four men in one of the shoreline batteries, with orders
to fire upon the bridge to stop the British from using it. The British, however, made their
way across the bridge without a single shot fired, and found the four Americans passed out
with an open cask of Madeira next to them. 39
The British flotilla made short work of destroying a portion of the Great Bridge for passage.
They caught up with the Americans in Skenesborough, forcing them to destroy their own
vessels and flee on foot to Fort Anne.
35
Following the American retreat, the British took command of both Fort Ticonderoga and
Mount Independence. They took inventory of the ammunition stores and food supplies left
behind, and used these fortifications as a supply depot, provisioning their troops to the
south. 40 The British left a significant force behind at these forts, mostly at Mount
Independence, not wishing to succumb to the same fate as the Americans. They also built
a hospital in April of 1777.
On September 18, 1777, the Americans took advantage of a break in British
communication lines, and invaded Skenesborough, Fort Ticonderoga, and Mount
Independence, but failed to take the posts. 41 With the British position generally diminishing
in the north, and then with Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga on October 17, General Henry
Watson Powell, then in command of Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, decided
to abandon both forts. Powell did not have the press of time in his retreat, as did the
Americans, and set about collecting all stores possible. By November 8, the forts were
completely evacuated, and Powell’s men had destroyed or thrown into the lake anything
that could not be taken with them. Trunions were knocked off every piece of cannon, and
fifty barrels of gunpowder were set under Fort Ticonderoga to blow it into the air.
Following the British evacuation of the forts, the Americans began scavenging the sites for
anything of value. The Continental Congress feared that despite their condition, these sites
could eventually be used by the British, and ordered that they be further demolished. 42 The
British did still use Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence as staging areas for raids
and spying missions into New York and Vermont throughout 1778 - 1780, and even had
200 troops making major repairs to Fort Ticonderoga late in 1781.
After the Revolution, local citizens and farmers scavenged Mount Independence for
anything of value. In fact, a 1785 Vermont state law provided for the sale of abandoned
armament: “There are a number of Cannon, Mortars, Mortar Beds, Bombshells, Carriage
Wheels of Cast iron in and about Mount Independence which are public property, which are
rendered unfit for service and may be of service in making bar iron”. 43 The Crown Point
Iron Company acquired the northern half of Mount Independence, though they used it
primarily for farming.
In 1912 William Pell and his family acquired the northern third of the Mount in an effort to
preserve the site from development and looters. Later in the 1960s and 1970s the State of
Vermont acquired over 100 acres (40.4 hectares) adjacent to the Pell parcel. 44 Indeed,
William Pell was so concerned about looters, that he posted signs on the Mount, “Beware
of the rattlesnakes; nearest serum Glens Falls or Rutland”.45
Today, Mount Independence is a National Historic Landmark, and is used primarily as a
tourist attraction, complete with visitor center and some cleared trails.
36
CROWN POINT, NEW YORK
The fortifications at Crown Point, New York share a geographical trait with most colonialera military sites in North America. They are situated in proximity to a navigable body of
water. This correlation of military activity to water was no accident, for during the period of
European conquest and settlement in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the
movement of people and materials into the continent depended primarily upon watercraft.
Crown Point, a peninsula that divides the broad northern reaches of Lake Champlain from
its narrow southern waters, was ideally situated for controlling the flow of traffic on the lake.
In 1609, a French explorer, Samuel de Champlain, examined the St. Lawrence River and
established a relationship with some of the native Algonquin tribes that lived in the area.
They told Champlain of their war with the Iroquois and about “a large lake filled with
beautiful islands and a great deal of beautiful country. . .” With Champlain’s promise to
assist them in their military objectives the Algonquin warriors led the explorer into the lake
that was henceforth to carry his name. The expedition consisted of Champlain, two French
volunteers and sixty Indians traveling in 24 bark canoes. On July 29, Champlain recorded
that he “met the Iroquois . . . at the end of a cape that projects into the lake from the west
side. . .” (This “cape” may well have been Crown Point although some uncertainty remains
as to its exact location the explorer was referring to). The three Frenchmen opened fire
upon the surprised Iroquois and won the battle for their Algonquin allies.
Champlain’s fusillade has been frequently cited as the opening shot of a series of conflicts
that were to embroil the Champlain Valley in continual strife for the next 150 years. The
Champlain Valley’s location placed it on the border of both the expanding French and
English colonies. Each nation laid claim to the lake valley as each wanted access to its
vast stands of timber and other natural resources. As the two powers pushed and prodded
each other, the lake and its tributaries played an ever-expanding role as the primary
invasion route to the vulnerable frontier settlements. Temporary fortifications at Isle La
Motte appeared along Lake Champlain as early as 1666 and during this time the peninsula
of Crown Point was used as a fur trading post by the English, Dutch and French while
Indian populations used the area for hunting and fishing as well as trading. By 1690, the
Champlain Valley was the scene of increasing military activity with a party of French and
Indians attacked Schenectady and other New England towns using the Crown Point
peninsula as a staging area. In response to these aggressions the British planned an
invasion of French Canada. During the initial stage of this operation the British sent
Captain Jacobus De Warm to establish a little stone fort on a spit of land across from
Crown Point (now known as Chimney Point). This invasion was finally abandoned along
with the first British post in the Champlain Valley. The following year a British force
commanded by Peter Schuyler used Crown Point as a base for an attack against the
French town of LaPrairie outside of Montreal.
By 1730 the French were prepared to take a more aggressive stance in their control of the
Champlain Valley. They began by constructing a wooden fort on the site of the previously
37
established British fort, a place they called “Point a La Chevelure”. The following year the
government of New France made preparations to build a more substantial stone fortification
on the opposite shore. Construction began in 1734 on the “Redoute a Machicoulis” or
Citadel. In 1737 the citadel, along with a number of other buildings were enclosed behind
stone walls and in November of that year the engineer in charge, Chaussegros De Lery
declared the fort completed (Figure 4-3). This was a typical star shaped fort of European
design and was dominated by the four stories and thick walls of the cannon bristling
Citadel. It was named Fort St. Frederic, in honor of the French minister of the Department
de la Marine, Frederic Maurepas. On the point just south of St. Frederic the French
established a stone windmill that had the dual function of providing flour to the fort and also
serving as a cannon battery.
Figure 4-3. A North View of Fort Frederic or Crown Point (by Proud, 1759).
The substantial installation significantly increased French travel, settlement, supply and
communications in the Champlain Valley. A narrative of travel in the Champlain Valley in
1749 survives. Written by Swedish naturalist Peter Kalm, it provides one of the earliest
descriptions of native and European watercraft on the lake. Kalm wrote: “The boats which
are here made use of are three kinds. 1. Bark-boats made of the bark of trees and of ribs
38
of wood. 2. Canoes, consisting of a single piece of wood, hollowed out. They are made of
white fir, and of different sizes. They are not brought forward by rowing, but by paddling; by
which method not half the strength can be applied; which is used in rowing; and a single
man might, I think, row as fast as two of them could paddle. The third type of boat is a
bateau. Bateaux are always made very large here, and employed for large cargos. They
are flat bottomed, and the bottom is made of the red, but more commonly of the white oak,
which resists better, when it runs against a stone, than other wood. The sides are made of
fir, because oak would make the bateaux too heavy. They made plenty of tar and pitch
here.”
Kalm also provided a first hand account of the life around Fort St. Frederic. “The soil about
fort St. Frederic is said to be very fertile, on both sides of the river (lake); and before the last
war a great many French families, especially old soldiers, have settled there, A great
number of them returned at this time, and it was thought that about forty or fifty families
would go to settle here this autumn. Within one or two musket-shots to the east of the fort,
is wind-mill built of stone, with very thick walls, and most of the flour which is wanted to
supply the fort is ground here.”
The size of the fort and its surrounding population necessitated improvements in the supply
line that began in France and ended in St. Frederic. In order to expedite the transportation
of material and people over the lake from St. Johns to St. Frederic, a sailing vessel – the
lake’s first large sailing craft – was constructed. Kalm records in his journal that he waited
for this “yacht” to arrive to take him north on his journey. “The yacht which we went in to St.
Johns was the first that was built here, and employed on Lake Champlain, for formally they
made use of bateaux to send provisions over the lake. The captain of the yacht was a
Frenchman, born in this country; he had built it, and taken the sounding of the lake, in order
to find out the true road between fort St. John and fort St. Frederic.” The vessel that Kalm
described was called Vigilente, and is believed the have been built in 1742.
The appearance of this large vessel necessitated the establishment of a protocol for
loading and unloading of supplies. In windy weather the bay just north of the fort would
have permitted the Vigilente to anchor and have its cargo transferred by bateaux, however,
this would require significant extra handling. As an enhancement of their facilities the
French constructed a stone wharf directly in front of St. Frederic. Although the French had
firmly established themselves at Crown Point, their sovereignty over the Champlain Valley
was far from secure. Each season brought new efforts by each country to weaken the grip
of the other on the American continent. The conflict finally reached the boiling point,
touching off a conflict that was to decide the issue: the “French and Indian War”.
Beginning 1754 and officially ending in 1763, this was the final act of the drama that had
begun with Samuel de Champlain’s initial foray into the valley.
Between 1755 and 1760 each side raised armies for a seasonal struggle in the wilderness.
After a French defeat at Lake George in 1755, they began to fortify a point of land twelve
miles south of St. Frederic. Called “Carillon” by the French and Ticonderoga by the British,
this fortification would eclipse St. Frederic in strategic importance. In 1758, an army of over
39
13,000 British troops made an advance over Lake George in bateaux and whale boats to
attack a smaller French force at Ticonderoga. An ill-conceived frontal assault on the
French lines resulted in almost 2,000 British casualties and the defeated army beat a hasty
retreat. However, the tide was turning and the British would return the following year with
another substantial army, this time under the able command of General Jeffery Amherst. In
preparation for the coming campaign, the French built several sloops of war to control the
water highway, the first true naval vessels built for Lake Champlain.
In the 1759 campaign Amherst advanced down Lake George to find that the outnumbered
French had decided to withdraw before his army. Demolishing their fortification at Carillon
and St. Frederic with explosives, the French counted on their small fleet to keep the British
from advancing north into the heart of Canada. Amherst gathered his army beside the
abandoned Fort St. Frederic and put two major plans into motion. He ordered construction
of naval vessels at Ticonderoga and Crown Point to contest French control of the lake. The
artillery corps at Crown Point completed one major vessel, a flat-bottomed gun platform or
“radeau” called Ligonier. His second decision was to order the construction of a new timber
and earthwork fortification near the destroyed French works. This “Fort of Crown Point”
was to be the largest British fortress in colonial America. In October, Amherst’s newly
completed naval squadron captured most of the French sloops, thereby taking control of
the lake.
In 1760, the French were decisively defeated in a three-pronged attack on Canada and the
contest between the rival North American Empires was over. The work on the new fort at
Crown Point continued, however, until a formal peace treaty was signed in 1763. Crown
Point was one of several North American forts the British chose to maintain with a garrison
and a supply of military stores. In 1773, a chimney fire started in the soldiers’ barracks and
spread out of control touching off a magazine explosion that destroyed most of the fortress.
In May of 1775, at the outbreak of the American Revolution, a force of “Green Mountain
Boys” led by Seth Warner captured the ruins of Crown Point. Ethan Allen, the leader of the
Green Mountain Boys, reported that at the time only a sergeant and twelve men garrisoned
Crown Point. The peninsula at Crown Point was once again used as a staging ground for
invasion, this time for the invasion of British Canada by American rebels in the summer of
1775. The fort and its circumstances were described in the Spring of 1776 by Charles
Carroll, an American Commissioner on his way to review the falling situation in Canada:
“The lake is narrow opposite the fort, and makes a bend by which the vessels passing on
the lake were much exposed to the artillery at the fort; and this advantageous situation first
included the French and then the English to erect a fort here.” Carroll went on to describe
the present poor condition of the fort. “Crown Point is situated on a neck or isthmus of land
on the west sides of the lake. It is in ruin; it was once a considerable fortress, and the
English must have expended a large sum in constructing the fort and erecting the barracks,
which are also in ruins . . . By some accident the effort took fire; the flames communicated
to the powder magazine containing at the time 96 barrels. The shock was so great as to
throw down the barracks (at least the upper stories). The explosion was distinctly heard ten
miles off, and the earth shook at that distance as if there had been an earthquake. The
40
woodwork of the barracks is entirely consumed by fire, but some stonework of the first
stories of the barracks might be converted into a fine manufactory. The erecting of these
barracks and the fort must have cost the government not less, I dare say, than £ 100,00
sterling.”
In the spring of 1776, the American Army began its long retreat from Quebec back into the
Champlain Valley. From Canada the troops, many of them sick with smallpox, were landed
at Crown Point. Benedict Arnold was placed in charge of the installation until July, when he
was reassigned to assist with building the American Fleet. At this time the decision was
made to withdraw from Crown Point and make the Ticonderoga-Mt. Independence
installation the primary line of defense. Troops were ordered to pull back to Ticonderoga
and Crown Point was left with only an advanced guard to keep watch and assist in wood
gathering activities for the fleet. In August, Benedict Arnold’s fleet gathered at Crown Point
and sailed north to prevent the British from advancing. On October 11, the American fleet
met the British and was defeated at the Battle of Valcour Island. The Americans
completely abandoned Crown Point at that time and the British briefly landed a force there,
but the onset of winter weather forced the invaders to return to Canada and resume their
campaign in the spring.
The Campaign of 1777 began well for the British army. Under the command of John
Burgoyne the British advanced on Ticonderoga-Mt. Independence and forced the rebels to
abandon their positions. A force of 200 men was stationed at Crown Point as the main
army advanced into the Hudson Valley. American forces at Saratoga decisively defeated
Burgoyne and his troops, and the British in turn abandoned the fortifications at
Ticonderoga. The focus of the war thereafter shifted to the southern states, but the British
maintained naval control of Lake Champlain. During each campaign season, the British
kept ships on patrol on the lake and landed a small garrison at Crown Point. The end of
the Revolutionary War in 1783 also marks the end of Crown Point’s usefulness as a military
stronghold on Lake Champlain, and the fortification was abandoned for the last time.
During the remainder of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century, the
works at Crown Point functioned primarily as a curiosity for historically minded travelers.
The lands adjacent to the fort were settled and farmed and the ruins of the fort were
occasionally pillaged by area residents for stone. Not long after the end of the
Revolutionary War, ferry service was established between Crown and Chimney Points and
the crossing became an important part of the transportation network between Vermont and
New York. In 1858, a 55-foot-high (17 m) lighthouse was constructed on the site of
Grenadiers Redoubt and from approximately 1870-1876 on the western side of the
peninsula a commercial lime kiln was operated to the north of Gage’s Redoubt. In 1927 the
lighthouse was officially decommissioned and in 1929 the bridge to Vermont was opened
for traffic. This ended the ferry line that had operated sail, horse and steam powered
vessels for over 150 years.
The forts at St. Frederic and Crown Point were built and occupied for a fifty-year period.
During this time, Crown Point played a crucial role in world affairs and determining the
41
future of the Champlain Valley and North America. The fortifications were built to control a
strategic waterway and during the years of operations appropriate docks, wharves,
landings and other necessary maritime structures would have been constructed. In
addition, hundreds of vessels, both small and large, would have used these maritime
facilities during the 1730-1780 time period.
WHITEHALL, NEW YORK
Whitehall, New York is situated in the northernmost portion of Washington County, at the
southern end of Lake Champlain, and encompasses 31,509 acres (12751 hectares). It is
bounded to the east by Hampton, to the west by Fort Ann and Granville, and to the
north/northwest by South Bay, Lake Champlain, and the Poultney River. The soils are clay;
the underlying bedrock is primarily limestone with veins of marble and argillite. 46
Whitehall harbor was once called “Kah-shah-quah-na” or “the place where we dip fish” by
the Iroquois. 47 The Native American population was sparse in this area, though they used
it as a fishing and transportation hub.
During the seventeenth century, tensions arose between the French and the English in the
colonies. The English, fearing an attack from the French to the north, organized an
offensive strike against Canada. An army was to advance north via Lake Champlain in
conjunction with a naval expedition to Quebec. In August of 1690, the English Major
General Winthrop led his troops consisting of 750 army, and 750 Mohawks to what is now
Whitehall. 48 The troops attempted to make canoes at this site. They found only elm, rather
than the preferred birch, and it was too late in the season for the bark to peel properly. This
setback, combined with a lack of provisions and the outbreak of smallpox, convinced
Winthrop to withdraw the troops southwards again.
The first white settler to the area was Major Philip Skene in 1761. He secured a royal
patent for 25,000 acres (10,117 hectares) on March 13, 1765. 49 Here he and 30 other
families erected two sawmills, an ironworks, and a gristmill on Wood Creek, as well as a
stone mansion for himself. Skene built a trading schooner named Katherine for use on the
lake, and cut a road from Skenesborough (as Whitehall was then called) through Granville
to Bennington. 50
Philip Skene attempted to get Skenesborough designated as the county seat (the county
then being Charlotte) with himself appointed as the first judge of the court of common pleas
(in competition with the Albany, NY native Philip Schuyler). He succeeded in neither of
these pursuits. 51 Skene traveled to England, probably to settle some land claims. In his
absence, 50 men were levied in Massachusetts under the direction of General Benedict
Arnold to seize his property, his loyalties to the crown being well known. On May 13, 1775,
these troops, under the command of Captain Herrick, arrived in Skenesborough to capture
Skene’s son, his schooner (immediately renamed Liberty), and his lands, without
opposition. When Skene finally returned to the colonies, he was arrested, jailed, and all his
lands were considered forfeit. He was eventually released to Middletown, CT.
42
Meanwhile, Arnold saw the potential of Skenesborough as a gateway to the north, as well
for its resources. In the hills surrounding the settlement lay acres and acres of white oak
trees, and within the town lay the means to process them: Skene’s sawmills and ironworks.
The following year, in response to the British forces on the lake, Arnold organized the
construction of the first American navy. Within a few months, shipwrights from Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts had built a small galley, eight 54ft (16.5m)
gunboats, and four 72ft (21.9m) row galleys. These were rowed up to Fort Ticonderoga
and fitted out with rigging and armament.
The fleet’s only major action was at the Battle of Valcour Island in October of 1776.
England’s superior navy sank several of the vessels, and others were burned or
abandoned during the American retreat up the lake. The British followed the injured
American fleet southwards, and found a considerable force awaiting them at Fort
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. They, in turn, retreated north for the winter.
The following year, the British returned and took the forts without much difficulty, as many
of the American troops had not yet returned. The Americans withdrew southwards, taking
as many supplies as their rushed retreat would allow. They burned the stockade and the
remaining vessels in Skenesborough on July 6, 1777, and proceeded to Fort Anne with the
British close behind.
The British then took control of Skenesborough and stationed the bulk of Burgoyne’s army
there, approximately 5,000 British and 3,000 Germans. 52 Indeed, Burgoyne moved into
Skene’s stone manor himself. Skene returned from England and was a friend and advisor
to Burgoyne, promising aid and support from loyal families in the region. 53 The British
eventually returned to Canada at the conclusion of the war, leaving Skenesborough again
to the Americans.
Many places were renamed after the Revolution, including Charlotte County, renamed
Washington County in 1784, and Skenesborough, renamed Whitehall in 1786. Whitehall
was designated as a municipal organization in 1778. 54
Not long after the end of the American Revolution, tensions again arose with England.
Whitehall served once more as a supply station, a gateway on the lake, and a shipyard.
Government storehouses were built, and a fortification was constructed on the hill. Naval
Lieutenant Melancthon T. Woolsey was ordered to construct two gunboats at Whitehall in
1809. These were left derelict in Basin Harbor, VT for several years, but were eventually
rescued by Naval Lieutenant Sidney Smith, and brought to Plattsburgh for repair in 1812
when these tensions escalated into war. 55 Americans constructed 160 bateaux in Whitehall
in 1812. Whitehall also served as a rendezvous for an army to resist Provost’s advance on
Plattsburgh in 1814; these troops built entrenchments and a magazine on Taft’s Island. 56
After the war, the majority of Macdonough’s fleet was moved to Whitehall, where they were
sold at a public auction and left to rot and sink at the mouth of the Poultney River.57
43
Commerce came swiftly to Whitehall after the war with the opening of the Champlain Canal
in 1823. This 63mi (101.4km) canal linked Lake Champlain with the Hudson River, and
immediately created business for all communities along the canal. Sloops and schooners
carried freight to the new canal entrance in Whitehall where they transferred their cargo to
standard canal boats that were towed by horses or mules through the canal. Canal boats
were built all over the lake, including at Whitehall, and a new hybrid vessel type, the sailing
canal boat, was created to minimize the cargo transfer into the canals. Over 4,000 canal
boats plied the waters of Lake Champlain during the canal’s first 100 years. Again the falls
at Whitehall played an important role in the numerous mills constructed along the banks of
the lake and the east side of Wood Creek. Whitehall also was a shipyard for steamboats,
including Whitehall, Canada, Francis Saltus, and RW Sherman. 58
Figure 4-4. Canal boats tied up at Whitehall, NY (LCMM Collection).
The decline of the canal boat commerce came with the advent of the railroad. The
Saratoga-Whitehall railroad was laid in 1848, initially aiding with the canal boat transfer, but
eventually replacing it. The town continues to be the first stop on the Champlain Canal
heading southwards, now used primarily by recreational boat traffic.
44
CHAPTER 5: PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE 2003 LAKE SURVEY
AREA
A number of nautical archaeology studies have been undertaken in the South Lake over
the past 25 years. Several early sonar surveys and dive verification projects were
undertaken in the South Lake by the Champlain Maritime Society (CMS) in 1981-1983 and
the LCMM in 1992. The information from these surveys has been included in Chapter 6:
Survey Results 2003. The following chapter presents the results of the in-depth studies of
cultural resources, many of which were undertaken based on the results of the early CMS’s
sonar surveys. These projects include the study of the British Sloop Boscawen, the Mount
Independence Project, and the study of the War of 1812 wrecks in the Poultney River.
BRITISH SLOOP BOSCAWEN
In 1983 the CMS undertook an ambitious project on the bottom of Lake Champlain
between Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. 59 The goal if this group formed to
study and document the submerged cultural remains in Lake Champlain was to survey the
bottom of the lake and locate the remains of the “Great Bridge” that spanned the lake in
1776 connecting these two formidable American fortifications. 60
This project was very well organized from the beginning. Arthur B. Cohn, project director
and Kevin J. Crisman, project archeologist, began the project under the modern
archeological premise that “archeology begins in the library.” Prior to getting in the water,
the CMS conducted extensive research in regional institutions, scouring all available
sources to learn everything possible about the history and construction of the “Great
Bridge.” Based upon the results of the research, they formulated a strategy that would lead
the efforts of the research team in their underwater operations. The project planned to use
side-scan sonar as the principal research tool to easily and safely locate submerged
structures. Unfortunately, at the last minute this device became unavailable and the
approach to the investigation needed to be modified. The research team decided the best
way to proceed would be to use a dive team to conduct a visual survey of the bottom using
a compass-guided grid system in a tightly-defined area. The project began in mid August
on the Ticonderoga side of the lake at “the old landing” where the bridge had its western
terminus. 61
The research conducted prior to the beginning of the survey suggested that the area
around the bridge’s western terminus at Ticonderoga was also the site of an active
shipyard and harbor during the Fort’s years as an important military post. In addition,
during most of the nineteenth century, the site served as an operational steamboat landing
with an extensive dock system. To complicate matters further, the water in this part of Lake
Champlain is very murky, severely limiting visibility underwater and the bottom of the lake in
the small bay where the survey was to take place was extremely soft and choked with
dense aquatic weed growth. 62
45
Using SCUBA gear the dive team entered the water in mid-August to begin their systematic
search. Quickly they located the remains of the nineteenth century steamboat dock built of
rock-filled wooden cribs and noted that it was consistent with other similar structures
around Lake Champlain. Then, in rapid succession, one, then another, and yet another
“Great Bridge” caisson was located. These structures were built in log cabin-style with
wooden spikes or “treenails” pinning the logs together at their mortised corners. The center
of each twenty-four-foot square structure had a series of plank floors supporting the stone
ballast used to hold the caisson on the bottom. Then, to everyone’s great surprise the
lower remnants of a ship’s hull appeared. Almost immediately thereafter another hull was
found protruding from the soft, silty bottom of Lake Champlain. Thus ended the very first
day of the survey! 63
On the second day, part of the survey crew conducted test pit excavations on each ship to
locate construction details and artifact that would provide a date for the each wreck. These
brief excavations yielded numerous iron hooks and spikes and a brass spoon handle. The
artifacts were removed and sketched for documentation, then reburied on the site. While
this work took place, the remainder of the survey crew continued the general survey of the
bottom, and to everyone’s amazement, located another shipwreck! That day’s work
concluded that the shipwrecks did in fact date to the eighteenth century and they potentially
represented a collection of the earliest know naval remains in Lake Champlain. The
excitement of discovery was quickly tempered by the overwhelming feeling of responsibility
for the management of these extremely important remains. The discovery of three
important eighteenth century vessels in shallow water represented a potential preservation
nightmare. Clearly, a plan was needed to ensure the long-term preservation of these
vessels. 64
The next ten months were spent formulating a plan that would address the legal, ethical
and academic parameters that would guide the future of these fragile archeological
resources. There were many complicated issues that needed to be worked out. Perhaps
the largest was the fact that because the vessels lay in Lake Champlain, their remains were
legally the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Education (NYSDE) based on
the laws in place at that time. The support of the NYSDE was critical to the future of any
further work on the sites. Art Cohn and Kevin Crisman formulated a plan that called for a
three-year project to investigate each of the shipwrecks archaeologically and to record the
construction details of each vessel. The artifacts recovered would be conserved by a
professional maritime conservator. Ultimately they would return to Fort Ticonderoga for
exhibition where they would be easily accessible for future research. At the conclusion of
each year’s work, a detailed report would document that year’s activities. The Fort
Ticonderoga Museum, under the leadership of John H.G. Pell, a son of the museum’s
founder Stephen Pell, would provide financial and logistical support. Grants and private
donations would help offset the overall project costs. After reviewing this plan, the NYSDE
gave their support and issued the permits to allow the project to proceed. By early summer
of 1984, the project was set to begin. 65
46
The first season of the project began just after the fourth of July weekend 1984 and ran for
six weeks. The shipwrecks were each assigned a number. Hull #1 was believed to be an
unidentified French colonial vessel renamed after its capture by the British in 1759. Hull #2
was the largest of the three and believed to be the 115-ton sloop Boscawen built in 1759 at
Ticonderoga (Figure 5-1). It was substantial, measuring over 70ft (21.3m) long even in its
deteriorated condition. Hull #3 was a mystery and could not be positively identified as to
type of vessel or national origin. Because the identity of Hull #2 was known and it was the
most easily accessible from the shore, it was decided that it, the Boscawen, would be the
first vessel studied. 66
The project was a model of efficient organization and planning. Since it was believed that
numerous artifacts would be recovered from the site, a conservation laboratory and photo
documentation studio was set up in the Pavilion garage located only 300yds (274m) from
the site. A boathouse located less than 100ft (30.5m) away from the Boscawen was ideally
situated to support the equipment for the diving operations. With all the logistics taken care
of, the excavation was ready to begin. 67
Figure 5-1. Reconstruction of the British Sloop Boscawen (by Kevin Crisman).
47
The excavation of Boscawen involved the use of a suction dredge to carefully remove the
layers of silt in which the ship’s hull was entombed. Two dredges were used on each day
of the excavation, one at the bow and the other at the stern. Placed over each end of the
ship was a steel grid sectioned into 5ft (1.52m) squares. The grid enabled the excavators
to maintain a high degree of control over the limits of their work. Supported by the grid, one
diver at each end of the ship operated the suction dredge; carefully scraping the mud into
the mouth of the hose as it slowly uncovered the wreck. The mud passed through the hose
where it was sifted through a mesh bag before being deposited on the lake bottom in an
offsite isolated location. The mesh bag at the end of the dredge hose captured any small
artifacts that may have eluded the watchful eye of the diver during excavation. The mud
and silt was excavated in four-inch levels. The positions of all artifacts and loose wood
remains were carefully recorded to note their precise locations on a master grid map. Every
day, each diver made two dives lasting ninety minutes on the shallow 8ft (2.4m) deep site.
At the end of each dive, the diver collected his or her bag from the end of the dredge hose,
replaced it with a clean bag and returned to shore. At the shore the dredge bags were
immediately taken by the conservator to the lab for processing and the diver completed an
excavation form to record the information and observations gathered during the dive.
Each day, three rotations of divers logged a total of nine hours of excavation time on the
Boscawen. When the hull of the ship was reached, the excavation square was finished and
the diver was assigned to work in another square. 68
Artifacts recovered during the excavation process were placed into plastic bags or boxes
underwater for transportation to the laboratory for conservation and cataloging. At the
beginning of the project it was anticipated that only a small number of artifacts would be
recovered from the Boscawen, as it was believed that the ship would have been stripped of
anything useable before it sank. Early in the excavation process, however, the
archeologists realized that this was not going to be the case. In fact, excavations had to be
halted in order to allow time to catch up with the large number of artifact being recovered.
Before long it was clear that only half of the ship could be excavated in the first season. By
the end of this first season over 1,100 artifacts had been processed and over 600 were
selected for complete and costly conservation. 69
The artifact collection is astounding and represents one of the earliest and finest collections
of naval artifacts from a military vessel recovered in American waters. The collection is
diverse and represents nearly all aspects of life aboard a British naval vessel on Lake
Champlain during the eighteenth century. It includes rigging elements such as wooden
blocks, many still retaining their original red paint, along with iron hooks and fragments of
rope. Clothing related artifacts including dozens of metal, leather and wood buttons were
recovered as well as shoe and knee buckles. Numerous complete and partial shoes were
also recovered. Glass wine bottles and fragments of drinking vessels along with numerous
wooden gaming pieces are indicative of leisure time and entertainment. Fragments of
pewter plates, pewter and wooden spoons and animal bones and seeds document food
preparation and the soldiers’ diets. Cannon shot, grenades and numerous gun parts reflect
the armament of Boscawen. In all, the collection is a unique record of the lives of the men
48
who served aboard the ship at the close of the French and Indian War in the Champlain
Valley. 70
Figure 5-2. Site plan of Boscawen (by Kevin Crisman).
The collection of artifacts and information from Boscawen was larger than anybody
anticipated. The success of the first season’s work should have paved the road for another
season’s work at the King’s Shipyard, but in the spring of 1985 disaster struck the Fort in
the form of a collapse of the east wall of the Fort’s north demi-lune. This split second event
had the dramatic effect of shifting the museum’s priorities from archeological research to
preservation of its aging restoration. The Fort Ticonderoga Shipwreck Project came to an
abrupt end. It would be another fourteen years before another archeological project would
be undertaken at Fort Ticonderoga – ironically this time triggered by another collapsing
wall.
49
WAR OF 1812 WRECKS
When the War of 1812 ended the U.S. Navy’s squadron, and the British vessels it had
captured at the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay, were placed in ordinary at Whitehall, New York,
the southern-most limit of navigation on Lake Champlain. In early 1815 the squadron
consisted of five large warships: the former Royal Navy frigate Confiance, the ship
Saratoga, the brig Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, and the former Royal Navy brig
Linnet, five sloops, and ten gunboats. The sloops and four older gunboats were sold out of
the service that year, five gunboats were sunk for preservation in the narrow lake channel
just below Whitehall, and one gunboat, Allen, was kept in service for several years after the
war. The five large warships were stripped of most of their equipment, their decks were
housed over, and the empty hulls were anchored in a line alongside the main channel. By
the year 1820 the vessels were riddled with rot and the navy moved them into the Poultney
River, a tributary of the lake, about one mile north of Whitehall. Here they were allowed to
sink to the bottom and finally sold to salvagers in 1825. 71
The fate of most of the naval vessels laid up and then abandoned at Whitehall can be
traced through documents, maps, and archaeological remains. The 37-gun Confiance was
the first of the five big ships to sink, no doubt the result of the frigate’s unusually hasty
construction and poor materials (the commander of the Whitehall navy yard described the
frigate’s scantlings as being “of the very worst timber for building ships”). Confiance was
allowed to sink permanently in the Poultney River in 1820; four years later spring flooding
washed the hull out of the river and into the main lake channel. The Navy Department
ordered the hull moved and broken up, and dockyard records indicate that the hull was at
least partially dismantled. 72 The destruction must not have been complete, however, for a
derelict hull marked "wreck of the Confiance" appears on an 1839 map of Whitehall
prepared by the U.S. Corps of Topographical Engineers. 73 Thirty-three years later, in 1873,
a brief article in a Burlington, Vermont newspaper describes the destruction by explosives
of a hull identified as Confiance. 74 A CMS sonar survey of the Whitehall area in 1982 did
not turn up any large wrecks in the vicinity of the Poultney River's mouth, and a 1995
LCMM diver survey of the wreck site shown on the 1839 map revealed only a clean (and
apparently recently-dredged) lake bottom. 75 Thus, it is likely that Confiance, the largest
warship ever built on Lake Champlain, no longer exists.
In October 1949 residents of the Whitehall area decided to raise a warship wreck in the
Poultney River to recover and sell any artifacts that it might contain. A hull lying adjacent to
the New York bank of the Poultney River was selected, steel cables were wrapped around
the timbers, and three tractors and several horses managed to tug the hull free of the
bottom and pull it partway onto the Vermont river bank. According to an eyewitness, the
forward end of the hull broke off and drifted downriver, never to be seen again. The
salvaged portion contained an assortment of military artifacts, including three grunion-less
iron cannon, a split iron mortar, and several hundred round shot, bar shot, and hollow iron
bombs. 76 The wreck was identified at the time as a "French-built" Revolutionary War-era
50
"battleship," but it was in fact the lower structure of the British-built 16-gun brig Linnet. The
hull itself slipped back into the river after the salvage.
In 1958, nine years after the traumatic salvage of Linnet, citizens of Whitehall elected to
recover another shipwreck from the Poultney River as part of the town’s bicentennial
celebration. A hull was selected, and between September 25 and October 9 the structure
was removed from the water. This salvage operation also lacked archaeological precision
and finesse, for when bulldozers pulling on steel cables failed to budge the wreck, saws
were brought in to cut the hull into six sections. Dynamite was also used to loosen the
wreck from the mud. The vessel was later trucked to downtown Whitehall and placed on
display behind the Skenesboro Museum where it remains today. After its recovery the hull
was measured and identified as the schooner Ticonderoga. 77
The remains of the Ticonderoga and the other vessels left in the Poultney River have been
the focus of several archaeological examinations since the early 1980s.
Ticonderoga
The salvaged hull of Ticonderoga was recorded as part of a CMS-sponsored project in
January and February of 1981. The measurements, sketches and photographs of the
wreck were used to prepare a plan of the wreck. Ticonderoga was laid down in 1814 as a
steamboat for the Lake Champlain Steamboat Company, but was purchased by the U.S.
Navy before completion and finished as a 17-gun schooner. The surviving structure
showed evidence of the vessel’s steamboat origins and of modifications intended to
improve its sailing characteristics (Figure 5-3). 78 The remains of the schooner have been
covered by a roof and are fenced in to keep off vandals, and the wood has been given
coats of creosote to slow the spread of decay, but the hull continues to deteriorate.
Ticonderoga remains consist of an extensive assemblage of the vessels bottom structure.
The entire keel is extant as well as the sternposts, stern deadwood, and frames extending
out to the turn of the bilge. The surviving timbers demonstrate that the vessel would have
had long narrow hull with a fairly flat bottom, typical of early steamships. In order to adapt
the steamboat hull into a sailing warship a large amount of extra timber was added to the
keel in order to increase the vessels depth and improve its sailing characteristics.
Unfortunately, the upper portions of the vessel are entirely missing and it is therefore
unclear what other modifications were made to the vessel to make it usable as a fighting
craft. 79
51
Figure 5-3. Photograph of the schooner Ticonderoga at the Skenesboro Museum (LCMM
Collection).
Eagle
In July and August of 1981 a CMS-sponsored team of divers carried out a survey of the
lower Poultney River to locate and assess other shipwrecks from the War of 1812
squadron. Three hulls were located: the brig Linnet, a U.S. Navy row galley or gunboat,
and the U.S. Navy brig Eagle. A two-year CMS project to record Eagle took place in 1982
and 1983, supported by funds provided from the Vermont Historical Society and by a
federal archaeological survey grant provided through the Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation. 80 During the two seasons of study the timbers of Eagle were recorded by a
team of eight to ten divers working in less than one foot of visibility (Figure 5-4). The
thousands of measurements and sketches collected by the divers were subsequently used
to prepare lines and construction plans of the brig. An illustrated report on the history and
construction of Eagle was completed by Kevin Crisman as a master’s thesis in nautical
archaeology at Texas A&M, and the thesis was subsequently co-published as a book by
the New England Press and the Naval Institute Press. 81
52
Of the vessels recorded in the Poultney River, Eagle was the most complete, due to the
fact that it had fallen over onto its port side and was preserved up to the level of the
gunports. Portions of the keel, keelson, lower stem and lower sternpost were found to be
intact. The 106ft 5in (32.4m) keel is present on site as are a total of 44 frame assemblies
that are mounted to the keel with iron bolts. On the port side the frames are intact above
deck level where the top timbers frame 11 surviving gunports. The floors are sandwiched
between the keel and keelson that contains evidence of the vessels two mast steps. In
Eagle’s stern a portion of the lower sternpost is present as are four large pieces of
deadwood that supported it. Hull planking and ceiling planking were also extensively
preserved and documented. 82
Figure 5-4. Cross-section of Eagle’s frames (by Kevin Crisman).
Enough of Eagle’s remains were recorded to allow for a thorough reconstruction of the
vessel to be carried out on paper (Figure 5-5). As this 20-gun vessel was built and
launched in just nineteen days in the summer of 1814, and almost nothing was known of its
design, dimensions and appearance from historical sources the data recorded during this
project are vitally important in understanding the construction of American War vessels on
Lake Champlain. The artifact, collection discovered during the 1982-83 field seasons was
small, but representative. The items recovered included fasteners, several pieces of iron
and lead shot, bottles, tools, and personal items. Though it is clear that the majority of
items were removed from the vessel prior to its sinking, this small collection opens a
window into some facets of life aboard a War of 1812 brig on Lake Champlain.
53
The remains of the Brig Eagle were relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey, and were given
the LCMM designation Wreck Z4 and the NYSM site number 11636.
Figure 5-5. Reconstruction of Eagle, with sail plan (by Kevin Crisman).
54
Allen
The U.S. Navy row galley wreck discovered near Eagle during the 1981 survey was one of
six, 75ft (22.8m) long, gunboats built at Vergennes in the spring of 1814. In 1815 the navy
proposed to sell them, but they fetched such low bids that their sale was canceled and they
were instead sunk for preservation in the lake. Only one, Allen, was kept in service as a
patrol and survey vessel until 1825 when it was laid up in the mouth of the Poultney River
with the other 1812 vessels. The remains of Allen were first identified in 1981 by Kevin
Crisman who was in Whitehall recording the remains of Ticonderoga.
Allen underwent preliminary archaeological recording in 1982, including documentation of
the lower stem and stern structure, keelson, and the eroded and broken ends of the port
side. 83 Full-scale investigation was not undertaken until the 1995 LCMM-INA-UVM-TAMU
field school that was sponsored in part by a federal grant administered by the Naval
Historical Center. 84 During the study the entire port side and most of the starboard side
(which was preserved out to the turn of the bilge) were uncovered, a small but informative
collection of artifacts was recovered, and the assembly details of the hull were extensively
recorded (Figure 5-6). 85 Since that time the history and construction of Allen have been
extensively researched by Eric Emery, who has made the wreck the subject of his doctoral
dissertation in nautical archaeology at Texas A&M University. This dissertation includes a
detailed reconstruction of the vessel as well as a thorough recounting of Allen’s history and
a description and analysis of the artifact collection (Figure 5-7).
Allen’s remains consisted predominately of the bottom structure of the vessel. Though it
was difficult to examine, the keel is estimated to be nearly 70ft (21.3m) in length. A total of
45 floor timbers crossed the keel and were bolted to it with ¾in (1.9cm) iron bolts. The
other frame timbers present on site are 63 first futtocks and 13 second futtocks.
Figure 5-6. Plan view of the remains of Allen (by Eric Emery).
55
Portions of the stem, apron, sternpost, and stern deadwood are also extant on site. The
majority of timbers in the vessel were crafted from white oak, though other wood types are
found throughout the vessel. Several frames were found to be made from American beech,
Red oak, and even American Ash a notoriously poor shipbuilding timber. The presence of
these inferior quality timbers, as well as the hasty craftsmanship displayed in many of the
hull members, demonstrate the fact that this vessel was built rapidly and with a short life
span in mind. That being said, the gunboat was built with sufficient strength and durability
to carryout its assigned task with the minimum of construction time invested. 86
The artifact collection uncovered during the 1995 field season has revealed a considerable
amount of information about life aboard the gunboat during and after its service in the War
of 1812. A large number of fasteners were discovered, these were most likely from
portions of the hull no longer present on site. A variety of ordinance was also recovered,
most of which consists of various types and sizes of lead shot. Perhaps most revealing are
the personal artifacts. This collection includes a “turk’s head” clay pipe, buttons, a bone
domino, and a knife blade. Food preparation is evidenced by the presence of glass and
ceramic fragments. Other vessel equipment includes a glass fragment that may be a
portion of a deck light, and a large number of iron pigs that were used as ballast. 87
Possible vessel wreckage was located during the 2003 Lake Survey that may represent the
remains of the Row Galley Allen. The wreckage was given the LCMM designation Wreck
X4 and the NYSM site number 11635.
Figure 5-7. Reconstruction of Allen (by Eric Emery).
56
Linnet
The remains of Linnet (VT-RU-26) were rediscovered during a CMS-sponsored survey in
1981, and in 1982 the exposed timbers underwent preliminary recording. 88 A more
intensive study of the Linnet’s surviving 58ft (14.7m) length of hull structure was undertaken
in 1995 as part of a nautical archaeology field school jointly sponsored by the LCMM, INA,
UVM, and TAMU (Figure 5-8). During the month-long project the starboard side floor
timbers and futtocks were uncovered and extensively recorded, a select number of the
deeply-buried port-side frames were studied, and a small collection of artifacts was
recovered and conserved at the LCMM Conservation Laboratory (Figure 5-8). 89 Diver
surveys of the New York side of the river in 1995 did not reveal any further remains of
Linnet. A detailed, illustrated account of the Linnet, its history, hull structure and artifacts,
was prepared by Erika Washburn as a master’s thesis in nautical archaeology at Texas
A&M University. 90
Figure 5-8. Site plan of Linnet (by Erika Washburn).
The remains recorded during the 1995 field school represent only a portion of those that
were present before the brig was pulled from the river in 1949. Archaeologists discovered
only 58ft (17.7m) of the vessels keel. Twenty-three of the brig’s floors were documented,
as well as three futtocks. The frame assembles were capped by a 44ft (13.4m) section of
the keelson. The bottom face of this timber was notched to fit over the floors, a common
building trait noted on a number of British vessels from this period. The keelson also
supported the brigs mainmast step that consisted of a large chock of wood bolted to its
upper surface. 91
Linnet’s documentation revealed that the vessel had been carefully constructed using
quality white oak timber. This is in stark contrast to Eagle and Allen that were built very
quickly and often with timber of questionable value. Though there was not enough of the
brig left for a detailed reconstruction, the data recorded in 1995 in conjunction with historic
57
documentation has given archaeologists a much clearer picture of the British shipbuilding
tradition on the freshwater lakes during the War of 1812 (Figure 5-9). Unfortunately, the
small artifact collection found during the 1995 project failed to reveal much about life
aboard Linnet. The majority of items found on site were fasteners, though a small
assortment of shot and a few buttons were also uncovered. It is clear that during the brig’s
“recovery” in 1949 the majority of the artifacts were removed. 92
Possible vessel wreckage was located during the 2003 Lake Survey that may represent the
remains of the Brig Linnet. The wreckage was given the LCMM designation Wreck Y4.
Figure 5-9. Reconstructed lines of Linnet (by Erika Washburn).
58
THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF MOUNT INDEPENDENCE
History of Mount Independence
When hostilities between the British and their American colonists broke out in 1775, the
Constitutional Congress immediately saw the need to take possession of the forts lining
Lake Champlain, noting the location was an ideal invasion route for the British coming
south from their Canadian holdings. Located on the Ticonderoga Peninsula, Fort
Ticonderoga guards the narrow passage through which water from Lake George enters
Lake Champlain, making it one of the most important strategic holdings of Lake Champlain.
In early July 1776, the hill directly across Lake Champlain from Fort Ticonderoga, known as
“Rattlesnake Hill”, was fortified to consolidate American control over the southern entrance
(or exit) of the lake. The rebels dubbed the hill Mount Independence, and established
barracks, storehouses, magazines, and a hospital on the hilltop. The mountain was armed
with earthworks bristling with cannon, mortars, and muskets. From July 1776 through the
first half of 1777, the Americans added breastworks and new batteries to fortify their
position. 93
In October 1776 the American fleet under Benedict Arnold was defeated at the Battle of
Valcour Bay, leaving the path clear for the British to advance down the lake into the
colonies. However, winter was rapidly approaching and a strong force of 12,000
Americans awaited them at Fort Ticonderoga, so the British decided to wait until the
following spring to press their advantage and proceed down the lake. The Americans
withdrew their troops from Crown Point to Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, and
spent the winter feverishly fortifying their positions in anticipation of the coming British
attack in the spring. 94
An enormous floating bridge was built across the lake from Fort Ticonderoga to Mount
Independence by Engineer Jeduthan Baldwin to improve communications and prohibit the
passage of British ships. Twenty-two huge caissons were constructed over the winter to
anchor the bridge. Work crews cut squares out of the ice, through which bases for these
caissons could be dropped. Platforms were added to the square tower-like structures, and
filled with stones for stability (Figure 5-10).
59
Figure 5-10. Remains of Great Bridge Caisson 2 (by Kevin Crisman).
As more logs were added, building up the sides of the caissons, the weight of the structure
began to force it slowly to the bottom. When completed, the caissons rested in the soft
sediment on the lake’s bottom and extended above the surface for 10ft (3.5m) at the lake’s
low water level. When the ice broke up in March, the caissons were built on shore and
floated into position. The floating bridge was attached to the caissons with chains. 95
Alas, as strongly fortified as the two positions were physically, by the summer of 1777 they
were severely undermanned. The British Commander in Chief, Lieutenant-General John
Burgoyne, planned to send Lieutenant-General Howe north up the Hudson Valley,
Lieutenant Colonel St. Leger would advance through Lake Ontario and the Mohawk Valley,
Burgoyne himself would proceed through Lake Champlain, and all three armies would meet
at Albany, New York. Standing between Burgoyne’s army and Albany were the American
troops at Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. The American Major General Arthur
St. Clair was appointed commander of Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, and
after his requests for support went unheeded by General George Washington, he planned
for the worst. 96
60
Determining that the Americans could hold either Fort Ticonderoga or Mount
Independence, St. Clair decided that Mount Independence stood a better chance of holding
off the British invasion. Fort Ticonderoga and the two promontories south and west of the
Fort, Mount Hope and Mount Defiance, were all but abandoned as the Americans
attempted to shore up Mount Independence. Unfortunately for the Americans, Burgoyne’s
troops managed to take Mount Defiance, which the Americans believed was unscalable
with artillery. With an unimpeded line of fire from Mount Defiance, the 8,000 British troops,
complete with artillery, was an overwhelming threat to the 3,000 Americans at Mount
Independence. Despite the importance of holding Mount Independence, in the face of
British General Burgoyne’s superior army, the Americans had little choice but to abandon
Mount Independence. 97
St. Clair hoped to abandon their fortification in the dark with such stealth that the British
would not know they were gone until at least the next day. The troops would cross the
Great Bridge to Fort Ticonderoga, and from there they would head south to Saratoga. The
plan of retreat was kept secret from the men until the last possible moment so that
Burgoyne would not see them making preparations to leave. The men were issued orders
to move out at 10pm, and the retreat was going according to plan until Brigadier General
Fermoy, the commander of Mount Independence, flagrantly disobeyed orders and set fire
to his cabin at 2 A.M, lighting up a large portion of the camp. The British then saw every
move made by the Americans and proceeded to give chase to the retreating army. 98
The need for secrecy forced the Americans to leave behind a good amount of supplies,
provisions, and ordnance. One four-man detachment was left behind to fire a cannon
steadily at the British pursuers, and the fire did manage to confuse the British. The
Americans also attempted to burn the Great Bridge in their wake, due to the fact that the
Bridge floated upon water, this was not a successful method of destruction. They did
manage to damage the Bridge, though. 99
The British managed to salvage and use a large amount of the abandoned supplies and
provisions; damaged goods were ordered destroyed by being burned, buried, or dumped in
the lake. However by October 1777, the tide of war had turned to favor the Americans and
a superior American force was preparing to lay siege to Fort Ticonderoga and Mount
Independence after the defeat of Burgoyne’s army at Saratoga. By then British Brigadier
General Henry Watson Powell was commander of Mount Independence, and when given
the option by his commanding officer to determine whether his position was defendable or
should be abandoned while his retreat was secure, he decided to abandon Mount
Independence and Fort Ticonderoga. 100
Unlike the Americans, the British had time to plan a retreat, and they destroyed everything
that they could not transport. They destroyed the captured forts beyond repair, blowing up
buildings, spiking cannon and knocking off trunions, burning everything made of wood. All
the iron ammunition that could not be carried was thrown into the lake. The Americans still
managed to scavenge and use some of the equipment left behind, but not much. 101
61
Archaeology of Mount Independence
In 1983, the Champlain Maritime Society and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
began surveying the lake bottom in the area of Fort Ticonderoga. In 1992 LCMM
conducted the Fort Ticonderoga-Mount Independence Project under a contract with the
Lake Champlain Basin Program in 1992 and the Vermont Division for Historic Preserve in
1993. The survey work begun in 1983 was continued off the northern shore of Mount
Independence in May 1992 with a Phase I side scan sonar and magnetometer survey to
locate, identify, and plot the underwater cultural resources in the area. Two weeks in July
1992 were allotted to conducting a Phase II diver survey to determine the nature and extent
of all archaeological features and materials discovered off the northern end of Mount
Independence. 102
The goals for the July Phase II project were extensive and included the following. 103
• Locate, evaluate, and map the significant targets found during the Phase I survey;
• Systematically survey the lake bottom north of Mount Independence;
• Create a detailed base map of Mount Independence’s northern shore;
• Triangulate the location of underwater finds and features from the north shore of
Mount Independence;
• Draft detailed drawings of the archaeological features to scale;
• Temporarily recover artifacts for documentation and study;
• Locate and evaluate the Great Bridge caissons;
• Based on the remains of a well-preserved caisson, produce an accurate drafted
reconstruction of the Great Bridge anchored to the caissons; and
• Prepare a management plan for the archaeological resources found in the lake
around Mount Independence.
This Phase II component verified cultural targets found during the Phase I survey and
mapped finds such as shipwrecks, artifact scatters and the Great Bridge caissons. Each of
the 21 caissons between Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence was identified and
examined; Caisson 2 was found in a good state of preservation and thus chosen as the
example caisson for full documentation. The project yielded a drafted reconstruction of the
caissons that once anchored the 1700ft (518.5m) floating bridge.
The Phase III portion of the project took place in 1993, and was designed to educate
archaeologists, historians, students, and the public about the historic significance of Fort
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence’s underwater archaeological resources. The
following were the objectives of the 1993 season: 104
• Define the limits of the American Revolutionary War artifact scatters off the northern
tip of Mount Independence and locate the Great Bridge landings and docks;
• Recover previously identified Revolutionary War items and other artifacts found
during the 1992 survey;
• Conserve the recovered artifact collection and provide suggestions for its long-term
curation;
• Analyze the patterns of material disposal in the project area to determine their
62
•
•
origins;
Research the supplies and supply lines of both American and British armies
stationed at Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence during the Revolutionary
War; and
Determine the origin of the Revolutionary War artifact scatters off the shore of Mount
Independence.
The survey team identified fifteen shipwrecks, twenty-one caissons, and nine
archaeological features during the 1992-1993 field seasons. Most of the Revolutionary
War artifacts located were recovered in 1993 and taken to a temporary conservation lab at
LCMM.
The 11 Revolutionary War era archaeological features from Mount Independence were
categorized as: 1) iron cannon and shells; 2) bar shot scatter; 3) spade scatter; 4) shovel
and green alcohol bottles; 5) caisson logs; 6) scow; 7) artifact scatter; 8) caisson 1; 9) nail
scatter; 10) ordnance scatter; and 11) case shot boxes. 105 Over 1,000 artifacts were found
during the archaeological survey of Mount Independence; these objects generated a great
deal of post survey research as scholars studied them and placed them within the historical
framework. Most of the items used by the American and British armies originated in the
homelands of the troops. Therefore materials used by the American forces generally came
from America, Canada and Western Europe, whereas objects from the British forces came
from Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and Canada, although there was certainly some
overlap as both armies used whatever they had access to. 106
The main differences in the origins of these artifacts were that American troops were more
likely to have French goods, and British troops carried materials from the British Isles.
Specifically, the artifacts yielded fell into the following categories: tools such as axes, metal
files, wedges, kettles, and spades; building fasteners like nails; cooking implements,
alcohol and mineral water bottles; personal items such as footwear and tobacco pipes;
flintlock muskets and accoutrements; and artillery and ammunition. 107
Sinking military supplies and watercraft in an attempt to hide usable property from the
enemy was a common practice on Lake Champlain. This was usually done carefully to
allow the later retrieval and use of the abandoned supplies, and in the instance of Mount
Independence the haphazard nature of materials deposition indicates that the items were
dumped, not stored. It was determined from the artifact assemblage, both from the artifacts
themselves and their provenience, that many of the caches were created by retreating
American and British soldiers dumping surplus stores of ammunition and other items over
the edge of the docks and Bridge. 108
Public Outreach and Interpretation
The LCMM used several different strategies in its education and public outreach programs
relating to Mount Independence. An ongoing exhibit interpreted the project to the public,
and the public was informed about the project via regional newsletters, press releases,
media interviews, and public presentations. School outreach programs were developed by
63
the museum, and educators visited schools and worked with students in hands-on diving
simulation projects to teach them about both the history of the project site and the science
of nautical archaeology. These programs were so popular and effective for teaching school
groups that some of them, like “Digging, Diving, and Documenting”, are still used by LCMM
educators almost ten years after their conception. 109
In addition, the temporary Conservation Lab set up at LCMM was open to the public.
Museum visitors were able to observe and understand the process of conserving
waterlogged artifacts as conservators interpreted both the artifacts and archaeological
conservation to them. The bulk of these artifacts are currently on display at the Mount
Independence Historic Site Visitor’s Center.
64
CHAPTER 6: SURVEY RESULTS 2003
The 2003 Lake Survey was undertaken in the section of Lake Champlain commonly
referred to as the South Lake. Beginning at the Champlain Bridge connecting Shoreham,
Vermont and Crown Point, New York, the survey covered the lake south to Whitehall, New
York, including South Bay and portions of the Poultney River (see Figure 4-1).
Approximately 8mi2 (20.72km2) of lakebed were surveyed during the field season and the
remains of 46 vessels were identified. Nineteen of these sites were located in Vermont
waters, while 27 were found in New York waters. The watercrafts represent a wide range
of vessel types and eras, although the majority are canal boats (n=27). Also represented
are French Colonial Era warships (n=3), War of 1812 warships (n=3), unidentified vessels
(n=7), railroad drawboats (n=2), scows (n=1), ferries (n=1), steamboats (n=1) and one lake
sloop or sailing canal boat (n=1). Seventeen of the 46 vessels were first discovered during
the 2003 Lake Survey, while 29 were previously known sites (Table 6-1).
Initial verification work was undertaken in October 2003, July 2004 and July and August
2005. Because of a high number of sites, researchers were not able to verify all of the
targets in the 2003 -2005 field seasons. Analysis of the target list showed that 39 of the 46
sites in the 2003 survey area required further verification, while seven of the sites had been
examined in previous studies and thus did not require additional fieldwork. Between 2003
and 2005, 18 of the 39 sites that required further examination were studied.
Basic
measurements were taken for each verified site; however, underwater photographs and
video were not recorded due to the South Lake’s poor underwater visibility. Verification
was undertaken by Arthur Cohn, Adam Kane, Pierre LaRocque, and Chris Sabick. These
dives were staged off Terri Anne, a 23ft (7m) long fiberglass-hulled powerboat.
Readers will note that the sites described below are given two site designations: a letter
designation assigned by LCMM researchers and a site number assigned by either the
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation or the New York State Museum. The LCMM’s
first letter designation of Wreck A was assigned during the 1996 Lake Survey, with the
completion of the 2004 field season the lettering system is up to seven letters. For
organizational purposes letter designations exceeding three letters have been abbreviated
to a single letter and the corresponding number. For example Wreck AAAA is abbreviated
Wreck A4. Additionally, there is a gap of 51 alphanumeric designations between K5 and
L7. These 51 designations were assigned to Lake Champlain wrecks not found in the 2003
survey area, and are thus not presented in this report.
65
Table 6-1. Table showing the watercraft found in the South Lake during the 2003 Lake
Survey.
Lake Survey
Designation
YYY
ZZZ
A4
B4
C4
D4
E4
F4
G4
H4
I4
J4
K4
L4
M4
N4
O4
P4
Q4
R4
S4
T4
U4
V4
W4
X4
Y4
Z4
A5
B5
C5
D5
E5
F5
G5
H5
I5
J5
K5
K7
L7
M7
N7
O7
P7
Q7
Vessel Name
Vessel Type
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ferry Montcalm
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Allen
Linnet
Eagle
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Reindeer
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Boscawen
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Drawboat
Unidentified
Ferry
Canal Boat
Drawboat
Lake Sloop
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Unidentified
Canal Boat
Unidentified
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Unidentified
Canal Boat
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
War of 1812 Galley
War of 1812 Brig
War of 1812 Brig
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Steamboat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
Unidentified
British Sloop
French Sloop
French Gunboat
Scow
Canal Boat
Canal Boat
66
State Site
Number
VT-AD-726
NYSM 11626
VT-AD-728
VT-AD-727
VT-AD-1018
VT-AD-1021
VT-AD-730
NYSM 11627
NYSM 11628
VT-AD-1369
VT-AD-1370
NYSM 11629
NYSM 11630
NYSM 11631
NYSM 11632
NYSM 11633
VT-RU-262
VT-AD-1022
VT-AD-1023
VT-AD-1342
VT-AD-1343
NYSM 11634
VT-RU-567
VT-RU-263
VT-RU-316
NYSM 11635
VT-RU-265
NYSM 11636
NYSM 11637
NYSM 11638
NYSM 11639
NYSM 11640
NYSM 11641
NYSM 11642
NYSM 11643
NYSM 11644
NYSM 11645
NYSM 11646
NYSM 11647
VT-AD-1020
NYSM 11648
NYSM 11649
NYSM 11650
VT-AD-1151
NYSM 11677
NYSM 11678
When
Found
1984
1984
1984
1984
1992
1984
NOAA chart
1992
1992
2003
2003
2003
2003
1984
1984
2003
1982
1992
1984
2002
2002
1984
NOAA chart
2003
1982
1981
1981
1981
1999
1981
1982
1982
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
1992
1983
1983
1983
1993
NOAA Chart
NOAA Chart
Documentation
Status
Verified 2004
Verified 2003
Verified 2005
Verified 2005
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verified 2005
Verification needed
Verified 2004
Verified 2005
Verified 2005
Verified 2005
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verified 2005
Verified 2004
Verified 2002
Verified 2002
Verification needed
Verified 2005
Verification needed
Verification needed
Previously studied
Previously studied
Previously studied
Verified 1999
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verification needed
Verified 2005
Previously studied
Previously studied
Previously studied
Previously studied
Verified 2005
Verified 2005
WRECK YYY: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-726)
Wreck YYY is a well-preserved canal boat initially located by the Champlain Maritime
Society during a side scan sonar survey in 1984; its 1984 designation was LC84-19. The
site, which lies in Vermont waters, was relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey and verified
by archaeological divers in July 2004 (Figure 6-1).
This wreck is a largely buried, but intact mid-nineteenth century canal boat (Figure 6-2).
The stern projects 3 to 4ft (.9-1.2km) above the bottom, descending from there forward until
all remains are buried at 72ft (21.9m) forward of the rudderpost. Subsequent to the
verification dive examination of the sonar image indicated that a small portion of the bow
may also be exposed above the sediments. This observation has yet to be confirmed. The
vessel has a beam of 14ft 1in (4.3m), which, based on the known expansions of the
Champlain Canal locks, indicates that the vessel was constructed between 1858 and 1872.
A canal boat of this class should have an overall length of approximately 88ft (26.8m).
With the exception of the stern, the exposed remains consist largely of the gunwales and
hatch coamings. The wreck is preserved up to deck level. Wreck YYY’s only major absent
structural components are the cabin trunk and roof, as well as the decking in the stern.
The wreck is constructed in a plank-on-frame fashion. The stern has an overhanging guard
for supporting the rudderpost, similar in construction to that found on Wreck JJ. 110 The
rudder is turned to starboard; the tiller is missing. The interior of the stern is buttressed by
a composite sternhook constructed of three timbers. The opening for the cabin is marked
by two sets of half beams, which once supported the walkway above, and allowed
unobstructed headroom in the cabin.
The deck of the boat has two cargo hatches, both 20ft (6.1m) long and separated by an 8ft
(2.4m) span of deck. Each corner of each hatch has a stanchion that projects
approximately 1ft (30.5cm) above the hatch coaming. This is likely related to a hatch cover
system that is no longer present. Two wooden cleats were noted along the port walkway.
The after cargo hatch was hand probed for any evidence of remnant cargo; none was
encountered at an arm’s depth into the hold.
Statement of Significance
Wreck YYY is eligible for the VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information
Potential. The vessel is almost completely intact; study of this wreck would significantly
contribute to our understanding of mid-nineteenth century canal boat construction. If the
vessel sank in distress, which could not be determined during the verification dive, the
contents of its cabin would still be present. These contents would reflect the lifeways of the
family and crewmembers that lived aboard the boat.
67
Figure 6-1. Sonar image of Wreck YYY (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-2. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck YYY (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
68
WRECK ZZZ: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11626)
Wreck ZZZ is a standard canal boat originally located in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime
Society during a side scan sonar survey; its 1984 designation was LC84-15 (Figure 6-3).
An archaeological diver verified the shipwreck after its initial discovery; however, dive
conditions were poor and did not allow for document the site. The wreck was relocated
during the 2003 Lake Survey and verified in October 2003 (Figure 6-4). Subsequent to its
1984 discovery the site was assigned a Vermont Archaeological Inventory number (VT-AD725), however, precise positioning data from the 2003 Lake Survey indicates that the
vessel lies on the New York bottomlands of Lake Champlain, and thus has subsequently
been given a NYSM site number.
The extent of the remains is difficult to determine because very little of Wreck ZZZ is
exposed above the lake bottom. The canal boat’s deck, cabin trunk and cabin roof are
missing, however most of the rest of the hull is likely present below the sediments. The
extant remains are 81ft 8in (24.9m) long, measuring from the stem to a vertical member at
the stern, which may be the rudderpost or sternpost. The beam could not be determined
due to the buried nature of the remains. The boat’s length indicates that Wreck ZZZ is an
early Lake Champlain canal boat (1823-1858) built before the completion of the first
expansion of the Champlain Canal in 1858.
The wreck’s most exposed feature is the stem, which stands 6ft (1.8m) above of the
bottom. The starboard side of the bow has peeled away from the stem; however the port
side is intact up to the tops of the futtocks. The bow shape is sharper than the rounded
bow seen on later class vessels. The exterior of the bow has two rubrails, both with iron
bands on their forward faces. The plank-on-frame hull becomes further buried toward the
stern, making documentation impossible in this stage of fieldwork. The aftermost remains
consisted only of a single beam protruding from the sediments along the presumed
centerline. No remains were noted past this post. The canal boat’s last cargo, a load of
iron ore, is still preserved in the hull.
The location of Wreck ZZZ and its cargo corresponds with an August 1870 newspaper
account of a canal boat sinking. Several regional newspapers reproduced the following
story:
“CANAL BOAT SUNK – Thursday night [August 18] as the steamer Winslow
was passing Chimney Point, going south with a tow of boats, one of the
boats, the Ella R. Bailey, loaded with iron ore, filled and sank almost
immediately. The captain and his wife had barely time to save
themselves.” 111
69
Figure 6-3. Sonar image of Wreck ZZZ (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-4. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck ZZZ (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
70
The discovery of iron ore cargo during the target verification phase of the fieldwork initially
seemed to determine conclusively that the wreck was the Ella R. Bailey. Further historic
research, however, has cast doubt on that conclusion. No vessels by the names of Ella R.
Bailey are found in any edition of the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States (MVUS)
or in the New York State Canal Boat Registers (NYSCBR). However, a vessel with a
similar name is listed in the MVUS 1870. The canal boat Ella E. Bayles (O/N 36365, 40.05
tons) homeported in Frankfort, New York, appears in 1870, and again in the MVUS 18711876 as Ella E. Bagley. The MVUS 1877-1878 lists her homeport as Oswego, New York.
She is not listed in the MVUS 1879 and is not listed in the initial MVUS 1868 list. The boat
is also listed in the NYSCBR for 1870 and 1878 as Ellie E. Bagley.
If Wreck ZZZ is Ella (Ellie) E. Bagley, it is still listed after its 1870 sinking in the MVUS and
NYSCBR from 1870-1878. This is not unusual because many vessels were carried in the
lists years after they were lost or abandoned because the paper work was not submitted.
Periodically the government agencies that maintained these records purged the entries if
the boat did not report after a certain number of years. However, the homeport was
changed from Frankfort to Oswego in 1877 suggesting that the boat was still in service
after 1870. If it was the Ella (Ellie) E. Bagley that sank in 1870 in Lake Champlain it could
have been salvaged as it was apparently a fairly new boat (NYS Certificate of Registry
dated May 20, 1867) and was in shallow water. If that was the case, then Wreck ZZZ is
another boat, perhaps an older Lake Champlain boat, even though the location and cargo
suggest that it was the boat that sank in 1870.
Wreck ZZZ is eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information
Potential. The vessel’s hull lies buried and is likely intact making it a valuable source of
information regarding the earliest class of canal boats to operate on Lake Champlain.
Additionally, the contents of the boat’s cabin, which are likely significant given that the boat
sank in distress, will reflect the lifeways of the vessel’s occupants.
WRECK D4: UNIDENTIFIED (VT-AD-1021)
The Champlain Maritime Society located wreck D4 in 1984 during a side scan sonar
survey; its 1984 designation was LC84-14. The site lies close to the Vermont shoreline and
is largely buried with only 20ft (6.1m) of the remains exposed in 1984. The vessel type was
not identified, but was described as consisting of 3in by 6in (7.5 by 15.2 cm) frames spaced
12in (30.5cm) apart with planking intact. The 2003 Lake Survey was not able to relocate
this vessel, likely due to its location in shallow water.
It is not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s historic significance.
71
WRECK E4: FERRY MONTCALM (VT-AD-730)
Wreck E4 is shown on “NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake Champlain, Barber Point, NY to
Whitehall, NY, 1992.” 112 The vessel is reported to be that of gasoline screw (propeller)
ferry Montcalm. This boat crossed Lake Champlain between what is now the Buoy 39
Marina and the New York shore at Montcalm Landing (Port Marshall) just south of Fort
Ticonderoga in the 1920s. However, there is also reason to believe that the wreck could be
one of two other ferries, Ti-Orwell (I) of 1912 or the Ti-Orwell (II) of 1925, both gasoline
sidewheel vessels, used on this crossing. The shallow water site was not visible on the
2003 Lake Survey sonar records because of aquatic vegetation obscuring the site.
The Montcalm ferry, as the crossing was called, was at one time known as the Red House
ferry, and had provided a cross-lake conveyance for passengers, teams, and later,
automobiles, since at least 1828 when Lemuel H. Wicker operated the ferry. Subsequent
operators included a man by the name of Simmons, Clark P. Ives (1874-1886), and various
members of the Blood family starting with Ephraim Blood in 1886. 113 The Montcalm ferry
was in operation until 1938.
The last three ferries used on the Montcalm Landing crossing are described below,
although it is not clear when each was actually withdrawn from service:
• Ti-Orwell, Official Number 210567, wood, gasoline side wheel, 49x14.5x1.4ft (14.9 x
4.42x.42m), 15 GT 9 NT, scow head, scow stern, built at Ticonderoga in 1912, home port:
Plattsburgh, hailing port: Ticonderoga. George W. Stewart, owner and master. Enrollment
and license surrendered at Rouses Point, March 10, 1927, vessel abandoned. 114
• Montcalm, Official Number 223747, wood, gasoline screw, 64.3x16x3ft
(19.6x4.88x.915m), 26GT 17NT, scow head, scow stern, built at Whitehall by William J.
Ryan in 1922, home port: Rouses Point, hailing port: Ticonderoga, George W. Stewart,
owner and master. Enrollment and license surrendered at Rouses Point, April 4, 1929 as
unfit for service. 115
• Ti-Orwell, Official Number 226371, wood, gasoline side wheel, 51x14.7x2.3ft
(15.5x4.48x.7m), 17 GT, 11 NT, scow head, scow stern, built at Ticonderoga by Charles H.
Ferguson in 1925, home port: Rouses Point, hailing port: Ticonderoga, Ellen E. Stewart
owner, Charles H. Ferguson, master. Disposition: unknown but apparently operated until
1938. 116
Another ferry in Orwell a few miles to the south, ran between Chipmans Point (Orwell, VT)
and Wright (Putnam, NY) and served cross-lake traffic between 1787 and 1973. One of the
last ferries at Chipmans Point was Edward Poissant’s oil screw cable ferry Stanley B. which
had served on the East Alburgh to Hog Island (West Swanton) crossing from 1922 until
1938 when the Missisquoi Bay highway bridge was completed. The Stanley B. was
eventually pulled out on the marine railway at Larrabees Point and dismantled.
72
It is not possible with the current data to accurately assess the historic significance of site
VT-AD-730.
WRECK F4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11627)
Wreck F4 is a canal boat located in 1992 by the LCMM. An archaeological diver verified
the shipwreck after its 1992 discovery; however dive conditions were poor and prevented
documentation of the site. The wreck was relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey and
verified by archaeological divers in August 2005 (Figure 6-5).
Figure 6-5. Sonar image of Wreck F4 (LCMM Collection).
The 2005 fieldwork revealed the site to be a largely intact standard canal boat (Figure 6-6).
The vessel is 88ft (26.8m) long and a 14ft (4.3m) in beam, indicating that Wreck F4 was
built between 1858 and 1872 based on the known expansions of the Champlain Canal
locks. The exposed boat remains stand 4 to 5ft (1.2 to 1.5m) above the bottom sediments
and consist of the sides, bow, walkways, hatch coamings, deck beams, railing, and
rudderpost.
The wreck is constructed plank-on-frame. The canal boat has one large cargo hatch which
is 64ft (19.5m) long and 8ft (2.4m) wide. Partially preserved walkways were noted on either
side of the cargo hatch. No cargo was apparent in the hull. The boat’s sides are preserved
up to the gunwale, however, the starboard side in the stern has splayed outboard. The
stern is poorly preserved with the stern deck, cabin roof and trunk no longer present. The
foredeck in the bow is also missing.
73
Wreck F4’s most interesting feature is a railing which runs along the outboard edge of
nearly the entire vessel. The railing is approximately 16in (40.6cm) high and is fastened to
the framing. Railings are an uncommon feature on Champlain canal boats.
Figure 6-6. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck F4 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked
by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).
Based on the intact nature of Wreck F4, the site is eligible for nomination to the NYSRHP
and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK H4: SAILING CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1369)
Wreck H4, also known as the Shoreham Sloop, was discovered during the 2003 Lake
Survey and verified by archaeological divers in July 2004 (Figure 6-7). Additional
archaeological study of wreck H4 took place in 2005 (Figure 6-8). The site, which lies in
Vermont waters within the town of Shoreham, Addison County is a circa 1825 Lake
Champlain canal sloop.
Diving Summary
The additional archaeological study was conducted during the week of July 25, 2005.
Although not ideal, underwater conditions proved conducive to the vessel’s archaeological
study. The site lies in approximately 20ft (6.1m) of water. The site’s shallow depth allowed
for long bottom times, often exceeding one hour. The archaeological study required 14
dives for a total bottom time of 13.4 hours. Underwater visibility was typically between 3
and 4ft (.91 to 1.2m). Water temperatures during the fieldwork were approximately 70ºF at
the bottom. The breathing gas used for all dives was compressed air. All divers were
74
required to carry a 13ft3 pony bottle to minimize the risks associated with out of air
emergencies or equipment failure. Each archaeologist conducted two dives per day.
Figure 6-7. Sonar image of Wreck H4 (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-8. Archaeologist preparing to dive on the Shoreham Sloop (photograph by
Christopher Sabick, LCMM Collection).
75
Vessel Documentation
All of the dives on the Shoreham Sloop were devoted to recording the hull structure. The
documentation was conducted primarily with baselines, consisting of fiberglass reel tapes,
positioned in several locations on the site. Using multiple baselines, archaeologists
recorded the location of features. Small steel rulers were used to fill in details. Other
recording tools included clipboards with drafting film, staplers, and awls. The recordation of
curved portions of the hull was aided by the use of a digital goniomenter. This tool is a
digital level set in a 1ft (30.5cm) wide watertight housing. The level allows the curvature of
a structural member be recorded in a series of 1ft (30.5cm) increments as the goniometer is
“walked” along a baseline. This methodology has been used dozens of times by LCMM
archaeologists over the past 20 years on Lake Champlain, and was again proved effective
during the fieldwork on the Shoreham Sloop. The archaeological study was nondestructive and no artifacts were recovered.
The field techniques were designed to gather the data necessary to accurately reconstruct
the hull structure exposed above the sediments. Data was gathered in a logical
progression from general to more detailed. Documentation initially focused on the boat’s
overall construction plan, with later dives devoted to filling in specific construction details.
Because this project had the advantage of continuity of crew, individual team members
were given large portions of the vessel to record. 117 All field measurements were recorded
in feet and inches.
The underwater recordation of field measurements was only the first step in the
documentation process. The fieldnotes were initially recorded on gridded drafting film.
Immediately after finishing the dive, archaeologists were tasked with recopying their field
notes onto graph paper. These recopied notes were used to record observations that were
too complex to note while working underwater. Each archaeologist was responsible for
converting their field measurements into scale drawings.
Archaeological Findings
The Shoreham Sloop is in fair condition. The hull is preserved up to the tops of the top
timbers, however, the deck, deckbeams, bowsprit, mainmast, cabin roof and cabin trunk
are no longer extant. The vessel is mostly buried with approximately 2ft (.61m) of hull rising
above the bottom in most areas. Approximately ¾ of the structure is present, although only
a small portion of it is exposed above the bottom sediments.
The plank-on-frame hull is 64ft 10in (19.8m) long measuring from the after face of the
transom to the forward face of the stem. The vessel’s overall length including the bowsprit
knee is 67ft 1in (20.4m). The original length accounting for the no longer present bowsprit
was approximately 75ft (22.9m). The hull has a maximum beam of 14ft 7in (4.4m), tapering
to 12ft 6in (3.8m) at the stern. The depth of hull measuring from the top of the keelson to
the underside of the deck beams was approximately 4ft (1.2m).
76
Figure 6-9. Archaeological drawing of Wreck H4 (by Adam Kane and Christopher Sabick, LCMM Collection).
77
Hull Construction
The vessel’s framing is very light with frames typically 3in (7.6cm) sided and moulded. The
framing pattern used to construct the hull was impossible to determine during the 2005
fieldwork because access to this information was hindered by both bottom sediments and
ceiling. Room and space between futtocks is variable, but generally between 4 and 14in
(10.2 and 35.6cm). Every second futtock extends above the gunwale to form the base of a
railing. The railing originally extended approximately 2ft (70cm) above the deck. One
piece of the rail was found inside the hull.
Much of the exposed planking on the Shoreham Sloop was eroded and in poor condition.
The planking was typically 1½in (3.8cm) thick, however, the original thickness was likely 2in
(5.1cm). Planking was fastened to the frames with wrought iron nails. The interior of the
hull was sheeted with 1½in (3.8cm) thick ceiling.
Evidence of the vessel’s deck structure is minimal, and consists of lodging knees and the
partial remnants of deck beams. Knees are typically constructed of compass timber, or
naturally curving portions of a tree from which the pattern of a timber is cut. This is true for
the knees on the Shoreham Sloop, however, the distinct details of the tree’s trunk and limb
from which the knee is cut are visible.
Centerboard
Interesting clues to the working life of the Shoreham Sloop are found in the traces of its
centerboard. When the site was first located it was believed that a wooden structural
member protruding from the bottom sediments 22ft (6.7m) aft of the stem was the remains
of a broken mast. Upon further inspection in 2005 it became clear that this was a stanchion
used to support a deck beam. Stanchions are typically square or rectangular in cross
section; however, this stanchion had a rabbet on its port and starboard sides giving it a
more complex shape in cross section. The rabbet indicated that it was designed to accept
the longitudinally oriented planking of a centerboard trunk despite the absence of that
planking.
Hand probing in the sediments around the stanchion revealed it to be attached to the
keelson with iron bands on its port and starboard sides.
Immediately to the stern of the stanchion there was a longitudinally oriented plank fastened
flat on top of the keelson. This plank appeared to be a patch used to cover the centerboard
hole.
Probing forward of the stanchion yielded the discovery of a mortice in the keelson; almost
certainly a mast step. Additional hand probing along the boat’s centerline revealed there to
be an anomalous structure approximately 35ft (10.7m) aft of the stem. Investigations
determined this to be another stanchion which had fallen over. This after stanchion had a
rabbet similar to the forward stanchion for accepting the sides of the centerboard trunk.
The bottom of the stanchion had a tenon; the companion mortice for which was found on
the keelson nearby. The remnants of two iron straps for holding the stanchion and the
78
keelson were also found adjacent to the tenon. Examination of the keelson at this location
also revealed the presence of the plank on top of the keelson forward of the stanchion used
to patch the centerboard hole.
The centerboard remnants clearly indicate that the centerboard and centerboard trunk were
removed prior to the vessel’s loss. Centerboard trunks are notoriously hard to keep
watertight, and it is likely that as the vessel aged the structure became increasingly
problematic and was removed.
Stern
The exposed portion of the transom consists only of one transversely oriented transom
plank and a vertical framing member on the interior of the transom. Hand probing along the
outboard face of the transom indicated that the near vertical face of the transom extended
down at least 1½ft (45.7cm). It is believed that the entire transom is extant. No remnants
of a sternpost or rudderpost were visible.
Rigging
Evidence of the vessel’s rig was found both alongside and inside the hull. Remains of
standing rigging were preserved approximately 25ft (7.6m) aft of the stem. These remains
consisted of two chainplates with deadeyes attached on each side of the hull. The
chainplates and deadeyes were used to secure the no longer extant shrouds. The
chainplates are 2in (5.1cm) wide and ½in (1.3cm) thick iron plates bolted into the hull.
Because the chainplates are no longer secured to the shrouds they have spun downward
and are now largely buried. The chainplates are located just aft of the mast step. No other
chainplates were found on the hull leading researchers to believe that the wreck is a sloop.
Evidence of the mainmast was found inside the hull in the form of a mortice in the keelson
21ft (6.4m) aft of the stem.
Bow
Only the upper portions of the bow of the vessel are exposed above the mud line. As with
the rest of the hull, the interior of the bow is also filled with silt. The major features in the
bow consist are the stem assembly, breast hook, frames, bowsprit knee and band, hull
planking, and line chock.
The bow construction of the Shoreham Sloop is centered on the stem and two smaller inner
stems. The arrangement of these three timbers is quite unique and of a style not
previously recorded in Lake Champlain. Traditionally the stem of a vessel consists of a
sizable timber which is scarfed to the forward end of the keel that curves upward defining
the shape of the bow and providing an attachment point for the hood ends of the hull
planking. The planking is typically seated into the rabbet which is a continuation of the
groove cut into the sides of the keel in which the edge of the garboard strake is attached.
In this type of stem the majority of the timber is located outside the planking and a small,
though not insubstantial, portion of the stem is located inboard of the hull planking. In the
case of the Shoreham Sloop the stem assembly is made up of three separate pieces of
79
wood. The stem itself is a sizable timber measuring 8 ½in (21.6cm) molded and 5in
(12.7cm) sided with its after corners chamfered to act as half of the rabbet, it is located
completely outside the hull planking. The other half of the rabbet is defined by the two
inner stem timbers which are 4in (10cm) square and oriented at a slight angle in relation to
the stem creating the angle for the after half of the rabbet inside the planking. In effect this
arrangement sandwiched the hood ends of the hull planking between the timbers of the
bow assembly. This arrangement was further reinforced by the breast hook, which is
fastened by a ¾in (1.9cm) diameter drift bolt, which passes between the inner stem
timbers, directly to the stem. This type of stem construction has not been documented on
any shipwrecks located in Lake Champlain to date.
The structures of the bow are supported by a breast hook which consists of a piece of
naturally curved compass timber that is fastened to the stem and extends along the interior
of both sides of the vessel to a point between frames 1 and 2. In addition to the stem, the
timber is also fastened to the knighthead and first frame on either side with ½in (1.3cm) iron
spikes. The breast hook itself has a maximum moulded dimension of 4½in (11.4cm) where
it is attached to the stem and this tapers gradually to a rounded terminus on it outboard
end. The timber’s sided dimension averages 3in (7.6cm) though it is slightly thicker in the
center and thinner toward the ends. The arms of the breast hook are 28in (71.1cm) long.
In addition to the stem assembly the shape of the bow is defined by the frames and
knightheads. Knightheads are the forward most frames that are located directly adjacent to
the inner stem timbers and to either side of the bowsprit which they helped to support. The
frames in the bow are spaced an average of 18in (45.7cm) apart, and range in dimension
from 2 to 2¾in (5 to 7cm) molded and 3½in (8.9cm) and 4½in (11.4cm) sided. The
knightheads are slightly more substantial timbers measuring 2½in (6.4cm) molded and 7in
(17.8cm) sided. The knightheads and first frames are canted slightly toward the stem,
future excavation may reveal that these timbers are, in fact, cant frames and not square
frames.
A knee is attached to the forward face of the stem which would have supported the sloop’s
bowsprit. The knee consists of a piece of compass timber that was fastened to the stem by
three iron bolts. The knee has begun to pull away from the stem and is now hanging by
these bolts. The knee has maximum sided dimension of 3¾in (9.5cm) where it is seated
against the stem and the timber gradually tapers to a point at the outboard end. The knee’s
maximum moulded dimension is 3½in (8.9cm) tapering to a rounded end on both arms.
The arm under the bowsprit is 1ft 9in (53.3cm) long and the arm against the stem is 2ft 1in
(63.5cm) in length.
In addition to the knee described above, this vessel’s bowsprit was attached through the
means of an iron strap fastened to the sides of the stem. The strap has now been broken
but segments of it remain attached to either side of the stem. The strap was 2in (5.1cm)
wide and 1½in (3.8cm) thick. On the starboard side the iron band is broken at a level even
with the top of the stem. On the port side the strap is broken 7in (17.8cm) above the top of
the stem.
80
A maximum of four hull planks are visible in the bow of the vessel. The planking is about
1½in (3.8cm) thick and plank widths range from 3in (7.6cm) to 10in (25cm). At their
forward end the planking has pulled away from the stem and the boards are eroded to
points. Atop the upper planks and frames once sat a cap timber. Only fragments of this
piece remain, but it appears that it was 2in (5.1cm) thick and 6in (15.2cm) wide.
On the starboard side of the bow, just outboard of the stem, is one of the vessel’s line
chocks. This timber sits atop the knighthead and frame 1 ending at the forward face of
frame 2, it’s overall length is 3ft (.91m). The end closest to the stem is 7½in (19.1cm)
molded but the timber gradually tapers to a point at it terminus at frame 2. A 4in (10.2cm)
deep 13in (33cm) wide notch is cut into the upper surface of this timber. This notch would
have been used to guide lines that ran over the bow of the sloop. Both sides of the notch
exhibit extensive erosion suggesting that this vessel had seen considerable use before
sinking. A similar timber was noted protruding from the mud on the port side of the vessel
and it is assumed that this is the other line chock that has come loose from the bow
structure.
Archaeological Conclusions
Vessel Type and Date
Based on the archaeological data recorded in 2005, the Shoreham Sloop is believed to be
a sloop-rigged sailing canal boat built between 1823 and 1830. The most important data
leading to this conclusion were the vessel’s dimensions. The maximum beam is between
14ft 7in (4.4m). This beam measurement is consistent with canal boats built to fit inside the
Champlain Canal locks between 1858 and 1873. However, 1858-class canal boats all
have lengths of approximately 88ft (26.8m), which is considerably larger than Wreck H4’s
65ft 10in (20.1m), and even with a bowsprit the vessel would have been approximately 75ft
(22.9m) in length. Moreover, there is no historical or archaeological information that
indicates 1858-class sailing canal boats had bowsprits. This beam discrepancy can be
explained by the reasonable assumption that the hull has splayed roughly 1ft (30.5cm)
since it sank. This is highly likely based on the absence of deck beams tying the sides of
the hull together.
The Shoreham Sloop’s length to beam ratio is 4.45 when not accounting for its splayed
sides; when the beam measurement is reduced to 13ft 6in (4.1m), in accordance with the
early Champlain Canal locks, the length to beam ratio is 4.80. Both the corrected and
uncorrected measurements are consistent with the range of 3.38 to 5.98 of the canal
sloops listed in Barnum’s 1826 list. Whereas, the traditional lake sloops of Barnum’s list
had length to beam ratios between 2.71 and 3.05.
The overall hull shape is also an important consideration in determining that the Shoreham
Sloop is an early sailing canal boat. The canal locks limit vessel size, thus canal boats
were typically flat bottomed with parallel sides so that they filled the maximum volume of
the canal locks. Traditional sailing vessels like lake sloops, however, were shapelier. In
plan view their hulls had an oblong form with a fine entrance and a tapered stern. The
Shoreham Sloop has elements of both vessel types with its parallel sides suggesting it is a
81
canal boat, and the rounded hull setting it apart from later, more standardized flat-bottomed
sailing canal boats. The rounded hull form is similar to the hull of another early sailing
canal boat, the schooner Troy, which sank in 1825. All of the other, later archaeological
examples of sailing canal boats are flat bottomed.
The former presence of a bowsprit also suggests and early date for the Shoreham Sloop.
Bowsprits were used by some of the earliest sailing canal boats. It is not known how many
sailing canal boats had bowsprits, but it is believed to be only a handful and only in the first
ten years after the 1823 opening of the Champlain Canal. Bowsprits were not employed by
later sailing canal boats because the length of the canal locks were fixed, thus the length of
the hull was reducing by the length of the bowsprit necessarily reduced the canal boat’s
cargo capacity, and corresponding profitability.
The mast step on the keelson is an interesting feature given that the Shoreham Sloop
appears to be a sailing canal boat. All other sailing canal boats found in Lake Champlain
have had their masts stepped on the deck so that the mast could be removed for transit on
the canal and under its low bridges. The masts are held in place by a three-sided box,
known as a mast tabernacle by researchers. The sides of the tabernacle are made of thick
planks that extend down to the bottom of the hull. The sides of the tabernacle transfer the
weight of the mast to the bottom of the hull. The 1825 sailing canal boat Troy has a mast
tabernacle, suggesting that the Shoreham Sloop could pre-date that vessel.
Vessel Use-Life
There are several bits of archaeological data that provide insight into the use-life of the
Shoreham Sloop. The likelihood that the vessel had a long working life is show in the
removal of the centerboard and centerboard trunk, and the wear on the line chocks in the
bow. Centerboard trunks commonly leak, and it is plausible to propose that the vessel’s
centerboard trunk became so problematic that its owner(s) decided to remove it. It seems
likely that this type of stress on the trunk would take several years to manifest itself.
Similarly, the wear on the line chocks would have taken several years to develop.
The removal of the centerboard could also suggest that the vessel had been unrigged and
was being used as a towed canal boat. However, the presence of chainplates and
deadeyes for the shrouds demonstrates that the vessel was likely still powered by sail
when it sank.
Wreck H4 is eligible for inclusion in the VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
Information Potential. The study of this site will add significantly to our understanding of
nineteenth century boat construction on Lake Champlain. If the vessel sank in distress, the
contents of its cabin would still be present. These contents would reflect the lifeways of the
family that lived aboard the boat.
82
GOURLIE POINT WRECKS
The waters adjacent to Gourlie Point, New York contain the remains of three canal boats.
These vessels, Wreck I4 (VT-AD-1370), J4 (NYSM 11629) and K4 (NYSM 11630) are all
standard canal boats resting in shallow water. The three vessels are within 1000ft (305
meters) of each other and all appear to have been abandoned. These sites may be related
to activities at the historic port of Chipmans Point, Vermont which is located just north of the
sites.
Wreck I4: Canal Boat (VT-AD-1370)
Wreck I4 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it was dive verified in August 2005
(Figure 6-10). Wreck I4 is a poorly preserved, largely buried example of a standard canal
boat. The exposed remains consist of the sides, stem, and a bitt post (Figure 6-11). The
stern is either missing or completely buried. The extant remains are 81ft 6in (24.8m) long
and 14ft (4.2m) in beam; the wreck likely had an original length of 88ft (28.6m) which,
based on the known expansions of the Champlain Canal locks, would place its construction
between 1858 and 1872.
Figure 6-10. Sonar image of Wreck I4 (LCMM Collection).
The hull is built plank-on-frame with approximately 3ft (.9m) of the sides exposed above the
bottom sediments. The hull was hand probed in several locations for cargo, however, none
was located. The bow is typical for a canal boat with an iron band on the forward face of
the stem and rubrails reinforcing the bow. A single bitt post is located just aft of the stem.
83
Figure 6-11. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck I4 (by Adam Kane, inked by
Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).
Wreck J4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11629)
Wreck J4 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey and was dive verified in August 2005
(Figure 6-12). Wreck J4 is a moderately well-preserved example of a standard canal boat.
The exposed remains consist of the sides, deck beams, hatch coaming, rudder, and stem.
The vessel is 81ft (24.6m) long and 14ft (4.2m) in beam (Figure 6-13). The length suggests
that the vessel was built between 1823 and 1858, based on the known expansions of the
Champlain Canal locks. The beam for vessels of this class should be 13ft to 13ft 6in (4.0 to
4.1m); the slightly larger beam of Wreck J4 may be due to splaying of the sides.
Figure 6-12. Sonar image showing Wreck J4 (LCMM Collection).
The hull is built plank-on-frame with approximately 3ft (7.6m) of the wreck exposed above
the bottom sediments. Most of the structure of the wreck is still present with the exception
of the decking and the cabin trunk and roof. The bow is bluff and has typical canal boat
features such as an iron band along the forward end of the stem and rubrails. An iron
traveler bar is located on the after edge of the stem. The vessel has one large cargo hatch
84
which is 30ft (9.1m) long and 6½ft (2m) wide. The rudder and rudderpost are preserved in
the stern, held in place by the transom log.
Figure 6-13. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck J4 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked by
Wreck K4: Canal Boat (NYSM 11630)
Wreck K4 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it was diver verified in August 2005
(Figure 6-14). Wreck K4 is a poorly preserved standard canal boat (Figure 6-15). Only a
portion of the edge-fastened sides and a few timbers from the stern of the vessel are
present and visible above the mud. The bow structure is missing entirely. On the port side
58ft 2in (17.7m) of hull planking is visible while only 49ft 4in (15m) is above the mud on the
starboard side. Beam measurements between the two sides ranged from 13ft 2in (4m) to
13ft 10in (4.2m), though due to the lack of deck beams to follow these measurements
should be considered approximate. Only a few vertically oriented timbers of the stern
construction are visible above the mud line. While these timbers are closely associated
with the port side they appear to have been pulled away from the starboard side
85
approximately 6ft (1.8m). The vessel’s edge fastened sides suggest a building date post
1840, while the vessel’s beam indicates a terminus ante quem of 1858 for its construction.
Figure 6-14. Sonar image showing Wreck K4 (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-15. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck K4 (by Chris Sabick, inked by
Statement of Significance for Gourlie Point Canal Boat Graveyard
The waters near Gourlie Point, New York contain the remains of three mid-nineteenth
century canal boats. None of vessels are well-preserved, however, taken as a group they
have the potential to yield information important to history. Wreck I4, J4 and K4 when
examined as a district are eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
86
WRECK L4: UNIDENTIFIED (NYSM 11631)
Wreck L4 was located in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime Society during a side scan sonar
survey (Figure 6-16); its original designation was VT-LC84-23. The wreck is shown on
“NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake Champlain, Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY, 1992.” The
nature of the vessel cannot be definitively stated from the sonar image; however it is likely
a canal boat.
Figure 6-16. Sonar image of Wreck L4 (LCMM Collection).
WRECK M4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11632)
Wreck M4 was located in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime Society during a side scan sonar
survey (Figure 6-17); its original designation was VT-LC84-22. The wreck is plotted on
”NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake Champlain, Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY, 1992.” The
sonar image indicates that the vessel is an intact canal boat.
Figure 6-17. Sonar image of Wreck M4 (LCMM Collection).
Based on the apparent intact nature of the site from the 2003 sonar records Wreck M4 is
likely eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information
Potential.
87
WRECK N4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (NYSM 11633)
Wreck N4 is an unidentified vessel located during the 2003 Lake Survey resting in New
York waters (Figure 6-18). This vessel has yet to be dive verified. The sonar image
indicates the hull approximately 62ft (18.9m) long, 15ft (4.5m) wide and has a sharp bow
and round stern. Lorenzo F. Hagglund, the Lake Champlain researcher who raised the
Revolutionary War gunboat Philadelphia in 1935, reported locating a wreck in the general
area of Wreck N4 in 1957. A 2001 photo taken at low lake level by Michael Foster of
Dresden, New York shows a heavily framed wreck in this area, and a 1942 air photo, also
taken at low lake level, shows what appears to be a canal boat in this location. Lake
mariner Merritt Carpenter also reported that two tugs were pushed up into a cove in this
area. The sonar image suggests that Wreck N4 is either a sailing vessel or a tugboat;
however, dive verification will be necessary to determine the actual type of vessel.
Figure 6-18. Sonar image showing Wreck N4 (LCMM Collection).
WRECK O4: CANAL BOAT (VT-RU-262)
Wreck O4 was initially found in 1982 by the Champlain Maritime Society, and was relocated
during the 2003 Lake Survey (Figure 6-19). The 1982 dive verification records note that
the vessel is a canal boat, whose port side stood 5ft (1.5m) above of the bottom and the
starboard side 3 to 4ft (.9 to 1.2m). The vessel was loaded to the deck with coal indicating
that it was lost in distress. Two wooden cleats were located on the deck.
Based on the 1982 dive verification records, Wreck O4 is eligible for inclusion in the
VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential. The intact hull will contain
important information on nineteenth century canal boat construction, while the cabin may
contain the artifacts left behind by the crew.
88
Figure 6-19. Sonar image showing Wreck O4 (LCMM Collection).
WRECK P4: STANDARD CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1022)
Wreck P4 is a standard canal boat located in 1992 by the Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum during a side scan sonar survey. The site, which lies in Vermont waters, was
identified as a standard canal boat during the 1992 dive verification work. The site was
relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey, and dive verified in August 2005 (Figure 6-20).
Figure 6-20. Sonar image showing Wreck P4 (LCMM Collection).
The remains of Wreck P4 are almost completely buried into the lake bottom sediments.
Along the sides only the frame tops and the upper edge of one hull plank are visible.
Slightly more of the bow is visible which appears to be fairly intact, the stern is either
broken up or completely buried. The visible hull remains measure 80ft (24.4m) in length
89
but it is unclear if any further remains of the vessel may be buried and thus unnoted. Beam
measurements were consistently 14ft (4.3m). These measurements suggest that this
vessel was built prior to 1858.
The bow of wreck P4 is exposed to a height of 4ft (1.2m) above the mud. Like the rest of
the vessel it is built in the plank-on-frame tradition. The bow has a very bluff shape and the
stem appears to be vertical with no lean back noted. The planking of the bow was
protected by at least two rubrails which, like the stem, had an iron plate on their forward
face. Along the sides of the vessel the hull planking is approximately 2in (5.1cm) thick and
supported by 4in (10.2cm) square frames that are spaced 14in (35.1cm) to 15in (37.6cm)
apart. Three deck beams remain on the site, they measure 4in (10.2cm) sided and 8in
(20.4cm) molded. Each was supported by large knees on either side with a stanchion and
saddle arrangement amidships. Only a few vertically oriented timbers protrude through the
mud at the stern of the vessel, therefore it is impossible to determine the vessel’s stern
type.
Figure 6-21. Preliminary archaeological plan view of Wreck P4 (by Chris Sabick, inked by
Based on the intact nature of Wreck P4, the site is eligible for nomination to the Vermont
Register of Historic Places and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
90
WRECK Q4: CANAL BOAT (VT-AD-1023
Wreck Q4 is a poorly preserved canal boat first located in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime
Society during a side scan sonar survey; its 1984 designation was LC84-20. The site,
which lies in Vermont waters, was relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey and verified in
July 2004 (Figure 6-22).
The wreck is broken-up and largely buried. Some bow and stern frames protrude 2 to 3ft
(.6 to .9m) from the bottom, but otherwise very little of the vessel is visible. One section of
edge-fastened side was noted amidships. The exposed remains were 90ft (27.5m) long
and 15ft in (4.6m) beam. Neither of these measurements can be considered conclusive as
so much of the wreck was buried. Finding the true length and beam was not possible in a
single verification dive. The condition of the wreck may indicate that it was dynamited in
order to make the wreck less of a navigational hazard; a likely scenario given its location in
the middle of the navigable channel.
Figure 6-22. Sonar image showing Wreck Q4 (LCMM Collection).
Determining Wreck Q4’s eligibility for the VSRHP and the NRHP is difficult given the lack of
visible vessel remains. If Wreck Q4 was dynamited as researchers presume, it is unlikely
to retain enough site integrity to be eligible for nomination to the VSRHP or the NRHP.
WRECK T4: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11634)
Wreck T4 was located in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime Society during a side scan sonar
survey; its original designation was VT-LC84-24. The wreck is shown on “NOAA Chart No.
14784, Lake Champlain, Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY, 1992.” The sonar image
indicates that the vessel is either broken up or largely buried (Figure 6-23).
91
Figure 6-23. Sonar image showing Wreck T4 (LCMM Collection).
WRECK U4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-567)
Wreck U4 is an unidentified vessel shown on “NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake Champlain,
Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY, 1992.” The vessel was not visible on side scan sonar
during the 2003 Lake Survey. Divers searched for this site in August 2005 and were
unable to locate it. Dive conditions were extremely poor with no underwater visibility and
heavy Eurasian milfoil infestation. As a result, this area must be reexamined.
It is not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s historic significance
WRECK V4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-263)
Wreck V4 is an unidentified vessel shown on “NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake Champlain,
Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY, 1992.” The vessel remains, which lie in Vermont
waters, were located in the 2003 Lake Survey, although they have not yet been dive
verified. The sonar data shows an area of scattered debris near the charted wreck (Figure
6-24).
92
Figure 6-24. Sonar image showing Wreck V4 (LCMM Collection).
WRECK W4: UNIDENTIFIED VESSEL (VT-RU-316)
Wreck W4 is an unidentified vessel located in 1982 by the Champlain Maritime Society
during a side scan sonar survey; its original designation was VTLC84-17. The 1982
records indicate that the vessel is believed to be a 60 to 70ft (18 to 20m) sailing vessel of
unknown age. The 2003 sonar records are less clear showing a possible boat shape in the
area of the1982 wreck, although the shape may be geological in nature (Figure 6-25).
Figure 6-25. Sonar image showing Wreck W4 (LCMM Collection).
93
WRECK X4: U.S. ROW GALLEY ALLEN (NYSM 11635)
The War of 1812 U.S. Row Galley Allen is described in Chapter 5 on page 55.
The NRHP nomination for the Row Galley Allen is currently under review.
WRECK Y4: BRITISH BRIG LINNET (VT-RU-265)
The War of 1812 British Brig Linnet is described in Chapter 5 on page 57.
The NRHP nomination for the Brig Linnet is currently under review.
WRECK Z4: U.S. BRIG EAGLE (NYSM 11636)
The War of 1812 U.S. Brig Eagle is described in Chapter 5 on page 52.
The NRHP nomination for the Brig Eagle is currently under review.
WRECK B5: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11638)
Wreck B5 is canal boat wreck lying near the War of 1812 Brig Eagle. The site was located
by the Champlain Maritime Society in 1981 and identified as a canal boat, but was not
documented. The canal boat’s remains could not be distinguished from those of the Brig
Eagle in the 2003 Lake Survey sonar data.
WRECK K7: UNIDENTIFIED (VT-AD-1020)
Wreck K7 was initially located in 1992 by the LCMM and relocated during the 2003 Lake
Survey (Figure 6-26). Dive verification in 1992 indicated that this site consisted of vessel
wreckage of some type, however, poor dive conditions did not allow for a thorough
assessment. The site was reinvestigated in August 2005, revealing the wreckage to be an
early canal boat of unusual design.
94
Figure 6-26. Sonar image of Wreck K7 (LCMM Collection).
Wreck K7 is partially disarticulated and largely buried (Figure 6-27). The visible remains
consist only of the boat’s starboard side; most of the hull structure is likely present but
buried below the sediments. The visible remains are 60ft (18.3m) long, however, hand
probing indicated that the vessel’s total length was 81ft (24.7m). The length of this canal
boat indicates it was built between 1823 and 1858 when the first enlargement of the
Champlain Canal locks took place.
At the time of this report was written, Wreck K7 is the only archaeological example of a
vertically planked Champlain canal boat. The planking along the run of the hull is oriented
vertically and held in place by clamps running longitudinally along the inside of the hull.
The vessel’s bow is constructed plank-on-frame. LCMM researchers could not locate or
identify any archival or photographic evidence of this type of construction.
The two sides of the boat have separated with the port side entirely buried. The port side
bow is intact up to the gunwale indicating that the buried hull structure is likely in good
condition. Typical canal boat features, such as an iron band along the forward edge of the
stem and rubrails with iron bands on their forward faces, were noted. The starboard
(exposed) side is also in good condition, although it appears to be splayed outboard. A
cleat was noted on the upper face of the starboard side. Divers hand probed the sediments
inside the hull, but did not find evidence of cargo.
95
Figure 6-27. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck K7 (by Adam Kane and Pierre
LaRocque, inked by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).
Wreck K7 is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential. Although it is
not an intact canal boat, the unusual structure of Wreck K7 makes the construction
information contained in the hull important to history.
WRECK L7: BRITISH SLOOP BOSCAWEN (NYSM 11648)
The British Sloop Boscawen is described on page 45.
Boscawen is eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
WRECK M7: FRENCH SLOOP (NYSM 11649)
Wreck M7, believed to be a circa 1759 French Sloop, is described on page 45.
Wreck M7 is eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
96
WRECK N7: FRENCH GUNBOAT (NYSM 11650)
Wreck N7, believed to be a circa 1759 French Gunboat, is described on page 45.
Wreck N7 is eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
WRECK O7: SCOW (VT-AD-1151)
Wreck O7 was initially located in 1993 by the LCMM during the Mount Independence
Project. Preliminary documentation of the vessel found it to be approximately 52ft (15.8m)
long, 23ft (7m) wide and 3ft (.9m) deep. The vessel was found to be listing to one side,
deeply buried and largely intact. Researchers hand excavated and documented the vessel
for one week, enabling them to record enough data to draw plans of the vessel. One loose
plank from inside the scow was recovered that appeared to be a caprail. The plank had a
round hole in it that may have been created by a round shank nail or a small drill bit. This
evidence was not adequate enough to conclusively date the scow. Although the date of
the vessel could not be conclusively ascertained based on the data recorded, researchers
believe it dates to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century due to its method of
construction.
Based on the apparent intact nature of the site from the 1993 study, Wreck O7 is likely
eligible for inclusion in the VSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
WRECK P7: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11677)
Wreck P7 appears on a 1930 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ chart of Lake Champlain. 118
In 2003 the sonar survey of the area produced an area of hard returns, but no conclusive
evidence of vessel remains. In August 2005 LCMM divers searched the area and
encountered the poorly preserved remains of a canal boat.
Wreck P7 is the bottom of an 1873 class canal boat (Figure 6-28). The disarticulated
remains are 107ft (32.6m) long and 17ft (5.1m) in beam. The beam is consistent with
vessels built between 1873 and 1915. The length is longer than would be expected,
however, this is because the site’s disarticulated nature. The bottom of the hull is
transversely planked and contains three longitudinal stringers. The construction of the
bottom suggests that the sides were likely edge fastened. A detached and fallen over
portion of the boat’s stern was noted during the investigation. Several pieces of iron
strapping were found on the site, including a piece that my have been on the stem.
97
Figure 6-28. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck P7 (by Pierre LaRocque, inked
by Joanne DellaSalla, LCMM Collection).
Statement of significance
Wreck P7 lacks sufficient site integrity to be eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP or the
NRHP. The boat consists of only the bottom of the hull, and appears to be a derelict
vessel. It is unlikely to contain a significant artifact assemblage relating to the life of its
former operators.
WRECK Q7: CANAL BOAT (NYSM 11678)
Wreck Q7 appears on a 1930 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ chart of Lake Champlain. 119
In 2003 the sonar survey of the area did not produce a sonar return suggesting the
presence of a shipwreck. In August 2005 LCMM divers searched the area and
encountered the poorly preserved remains of a canal boat.
Wreck Q7 is located in very shallow water (8-10ft [2.4-3m]) close to the New York
shoreline, and in proximity to Wreck P7. Portions of the bow, stern, and bottom structure
are extant though portions of each are buried and separated from their original positions.
The sides of the vessel are either completely missing or have fallen flat onto the lake
bottom and are now buried. The remains of Q7 measure 97ft 8in (29.8m) in length and
have a beam of 15ft (4.6m) suggesting that this vessel is an 1873 class canal boat.
In the stern of wreck Q7 the once vertically oriented framing timbers have collapsed
outward but still have several horizontal hull planks attached to them. Along the centerline
of the vessel the upper surface of the keelson is visible right at the mud line. This timber is
sided 12in (30.5cm). Probing along the side of the keelson revealed framing that measured
5in molded and 4in (10.2cm) sided that extended to either side for a distance of 7ft 6in
(2.3m).
98
Figure 6-29. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wreck Q7 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
99
The bow of this wreck is relatively well preserved, though disarticulated. The 4in (10.2cm)
square bow framing is present, but it has collapsed outward in a radial fashion carrying the
attached hull planking with it. The stem is extant as is the large chock that once supported
it. The chock measures 4ft 7in (1.4m) in length and stands 2ft (61cm) high, it is fastened to
the top of the keelson with iron drift bolts. The lower corner of the chock’s forward face has
a 2in (5.1cm) square notch cut into it. This notch would have seated a corresponding 2in
(5.1cm) square flange on the after end of the stem. The stem itself stands up 8ft (2.4m)
from the lake bottom. The stem’s forward face is protected by a 1/4in (6.3mm) thick iron
plate. A large iron axle and drum were located near the bow. It is unclear whether these
are the remains of a large windlass or simply a piece of debris that was dumped onto the
wreck.
Wreck Q7 has significant research potential. The fact that the vessel is mostly
disarticulated would make a detailed examination of its lower structure relatively easy. This
would be particularly valuable in understanding the construction of the lower bow. On the
majority of other canal boat sites the lower portions of the hull are deeply buried and
therefore very difficult to access. In the case of Q7 there is at most 12in (30.5cm) of silt
covering the bottom structures. This, combined with the wreck’s shallow water location,
would make its examination straightforward.
Based on the important information to be learned about canal boat construction from Wreck
O7, it is likely eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the NRHP under Criterion D:
100
LARRABEES POINT UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES
The waters adjacent to Larrabees Point in Shoreham, Vermont and Willow Point in
Ticonderoga, New York contain a significant concentration of submerged cultural resources
(Figure 6-30). These include six shipwreck sites, the remains of the Addison County
Railroad’s crossing of Lake Champlain between Larrabees Point and Willow Point, and the
Burliegh’s (Beadles Cove) Trestle (Figure 6-31). With the completion of the 2003 Lake
Survey the waters adjacent to Larrabees Point have been examined with side scan sonar
on three occasions. The first survey was undertaken by the Champlain Maritime Society in
1984 on behalf of the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. In 1992 the LCMM
surveyed the waters in this portion of Lake Champlain again. Much of the following
research is excerpted from the technical report produced from the 1992 survey by Peter
Barranco entitled Ticonderoga’s Floating Drawbridge, 1871-1920. 120 The detailed
information from this report is updated with data from the LCMM’s 2003 Lake Survey.
Addison County Railroad Bridges, Lake Champlain
In November 1870, ground was broken for construction of the Addison County Railroad that
was to link the Rutland Railroad at Leicester Junction with Larrabees Point in Shoreham,
Vermont and then by bridge across Lake Champlain to Ticonderoga, to connect with the
Whitehall & Plattsburgh (later the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company) Railroad. 121 For
fifty years (1871-1920) it linked the economies of Ticonderoga with the towns of Shoreham,
Orwell, Whiting and Leicester across the lake. It remained in use for another forty years
(1921-1961) providing a diminishing commerce among the Vermont towns.
The Addison County Railroad was capitalized in February 1869, and it listed among its first
directors Governor John B. Page of Vermont. 122 In the fall of 1870, it was announced that
within a year construction would begin and the lake would be bridged. 123
This was the second time the lake was to be bridged, this time near its southern end, but it
evoked the same fears and opposition that the Rouses Point Bridge had twenty years
earlier at the north end of the lake. The navigation interests and the town of Whitehall were
loudest in their opposition to the bridge. 124 Whitehall felt that the crossing would divert
commerce from Whitehall and other New York markets and destroy navigation. Protest
meetings were held and a bill introduced in the New York legislature to repeal the act of
1869 “which authorized the Whitehall and Plattsburgh Railroad to…establish a Railroad
Ferry at Ticonderoga.” 125 Meanwhile, Port Henry and other Essex and Clinton County
towns strongly supported the crossing. 126
101
Figure 6-30. Map of Lake Champlain showing Larrabees Point.
102
Figure 6-31. 1903 USGS Quadrangle showing Larrabees Point.
While the legality of the project was contested, construction on the bridge was already
underway by January 1871. 127 As with the Rouses Point crossing, it was decided to use a
floating bridge or “ferry” as it was sometimes called, to allow for the passage of lake
traveling vessels. “The lake will be piled from its shores to the edges of the navigable
channel. Upon these piles a railroad track will be laid. In the gap and across the channel a
huge float, operated by steam, is to be placed, which is to be 300ft (99m) long. This float
will have a railroad track, and will swing like a gate on a hinge.” 128
While foes of the bridge worked to stop completion of the bridge by petitioning the
legislature, work continued: “The work on the railroad ferry is progressing rapidly. No
serious damage has been done by anyone from Whitehall.” 129 In early April 1871, the New
York legislature repealed its act of 1869 authorizing a bridge; however, it was observed on
April 27, that “notwithstanding the repeal of the law workmen are still engaged at the
103
bridge.” 130 On May 9, it was reported that “one of the piers on the Vermont side of the
“Proposed” bridge at Larrabees, has sunk 12ft (3.7m) below the surface of the water.” 131
Then, on June 2, it was reported “that no legal steps have yet to be taken to stop the work
on the railroad ferry across Lake Champlain at Ticonderoga. The construction is in rapid
progress and has nearly reached completion on the New York side.” 132
By August, navigation interests were somewhat mollified and it was reported that: “It is
expected that the injunction against the building of the Ticonderoga Bridge will be
dissolved, as it can be shown that the channel is less than 300ft (91.4m), half the way to
Whitehall.” 133 On September 26, the floating drawbridge, which was built at Larrabees
Point, was launched. 134 On September 30, right on schedule, the last rail was laid in the
presence of Governor Page and other dignitaries and the first train passed across the
floating drawbridge from Vermont to New York. 135 The bridging of the lake was a fait
accompli and the injunction in the New York legislature was moot.
For the next fifty years, in spite of major accidents and other interruptions in service to the
floating section, the bridge provided an important link between the Delaware & Hudson
Railroad at Addison Junction (Ticonderoga), New York, and the Rutland Railroad at
Leicester Junction, Vermont. Problems with the roadbed, due to poor construction,
plagued the crossing, particularly in the early years. 136 “When the Addison Railroad came
under a lease to the Vermont Central along with the remainder of the Rutland Railroad, its
status became completely changed. No longer could there be any hope of serving a major
route – only as a 15.6mi (25.1km) bridge connector between two other major north and
south routes.” 137
Since there was usually not enough freight carried to make it pay its way, the Addison
became dependent upon agricultural and dairy products (livestock, hay, wool, butter,
cheese and milk) and some cross lake and local passengers to sustain itself. Milk plants
were established at Houghs Crossing, Orwell and in Whiting. 138 A large ice house at
Larrabees Point supplied all the ice needed for refrigeration of dairy products. 139
In 1896, the Vermont Central, after reorganization, relinquished its lease of the Rutland
Railroad, and the Addison Railroad once again became the sole responsibility of the later.
Lack of revenues led to lack of maintenance on the roadbed and the bridge with resulting
troubles. After the New York Central Railroad obtained controlling interest in the Rutland
Railroad in 1902, there was some improvement in maintenance and business (still mostly
agricultural, dairy and passengers). However, this was short lived as problems with the
trestle and drawbridge and declining traffic led to the end of the crossing. 140
In August 1920, the Rutland Railroad sought approval from the Secretary of War to replace
the 300 foot long (91.5m) floating bridge with a movable truss bridge and a 124 foot (38m)
opening. 141 To make this proposal more attractive, the Rutland Railroad entertained the
possibility of incorporating a “driveway” over the bridge to allow for the passage of teams
and vehicles. This driveway was almost secured in 1902 when one of the drawboats was
104
replaced. However, the town of Shoreham was unwilling to assume, without assistance,
the cost of maintaining the approaches on the Vermont side. 142
At a public hearing in Burlington on September 1, 1920 representatives of the War
Department heard testimony by proponents that the driveway would open up markets and
stimulate traffic between the two states, eliminate the seasonal connection provided by the
ferry, and would be of military benefit if ever needed to move troops across the lake.
However, it was strongly opposed by the towing and transportation companies who argued
that 124ft (37.82m) would not allow for the safe passage of lake going vessels.143
On October 28, 1920, it was announced that daily train service between Ticonderoga and
Leicester Junction would be cut from two to one train each way. 144 Then on January 6,
1921, it was reported that “the Rutland Railroad company was putting in a turntable on the
Addison Branch at Larrabees Point. This is made necessary on account of the closing of
the bridge for repairs. Larrabees Point being meanwhile the end of the line for the train
crew.” 145 This was apparently the last time trains crossed the floating drawbridge.
On July 17, 1922, the Rutland Railroad Company and the Addison Railroad Company filed
a joint application with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for permission to
abandon the lake crossing. 146 On October 13, a public hearing was held before the
Vermont Public Service Commission on the Rutland Railroad’s application. (Another
hearing would have to be held before the New York Public Service commission.) The
railroad testified that the drawbridge and trestle were in such poor condition that it would
cost $130,000 to rehabilitate them. 147 Opposition to closing the crossing from the affected
towns served by the bridge was strong, and meetings were held in November and
December 1922, and January 1923, on both sides of the lake to block the closing. 148
On February 1, 1923, at the request of the Public Service Commissions of both states, the
ICC agreed to delay its decision until the state legislatures had an opportunity to consider
it. 149 On May 24, 1923, the ICC issued its ruling in favor of the Rutland allowing it to
abandon the crossing. 150 So ended a half-century of rail service across southern Lake
Champlain and the economics of the situation could no longer be ignored.
Continued efforts to provide a vehicular bridge across the South Lake continued for the
next six years. The final result was the construction of the Chimney Point-Crown Point
Bridge in 1929. However, until the Crown Point site was decided upon, a number of other
sites were studied, among them Chipmans Point, Vermont to Wright, New York, and
Larrabees Point to Ticonderoga. There were a number of proposals to utilize the existing
pile trestle of the Addison Branch at the latter site to construct a highway bridge. 151 It was
probably because of the hope of such a use for the old bridge that the pilings were
apparently not removed until 1928 or 1929, although trains had not crossed it since the end
of 1920.
In the years following the end of traffic across the lake in 1920, the remaining portion of the
road between Larrabees Point and Leicester Junction declined in large part due to
105
dwindling business brought about by increased truck transportation and mechanical
refrigeration for milk shipments. 152 By 1951 it was decided to abandon the line, and the
track was removed as far east as Whiting that year and the remaining track (except a
1,350ft [411.75m]) stub at Leicester Junction) was removed in 1961. Thus was the end of
ninety years of troubled yet valuable railroad service between Ticonderoga and the four
Vermont towns. 153
Ticonderoga’s Floating Drawbridges
The Addison Branch crossed the narrow southern part of Lake Champlain from the south
side of Beadles Cove, at Larrabees Point, Shoreham, Vermont, on an 1830ft (558m) long
(including a 300ft [91.5m] pontoon drawboat) open pile trestle to Willow Point on the
Ticonderoga, New York, side. A detailed plan of the layout of the bridge is shown on the
Rutland Railroad Company’s right of way and track maps (valuation sheets) for the Addison
Branch.
Ticonderoga’s floating drawbridge was undoubtedly modeled on the 1851 floating structure
at Rouses Point (Figure 6-32). It was the first railroad drawboat on Lake Champlain, and
possibly anywhere in the world. The vessel, designed to be swung out of the way to let
vessels pass, was described as a “novel and grand invention”. 154 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. Four years
after the Rouses Point drawboat was placed into operation, Captain Napoleon Boneparte
Proctor, a steamboat designer and railroad agent, patented the concept for a railroad
drawboat. In 1856, Proctor received a US Federal Patent for a floating drawbridge. 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. 155
The Rouses Point drawboat was described as 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”. 156 The
remains of the Rouses Point drawboat have not been located, but during the 1999 Lake
Survey a similar vessel was located near Port Henry, New York. Wreck MM is a railroad
drawboat which completed the connection of a railroad bridge which spanned Bulwagga
Bay, adjacent to Port Henry, New York. 157 The well-preserved vessel is 250ft (76.2m) long,
34ft (10.37m) wide and 9ft (2.7m) tall.
106
Figure 6-32. 1857 sketch of the Rouses Point drawboat by R.P. Mallory (Courtesy William L. Clements Library at the
University of Michigan).
107
The principal difference in the operation and layout of the Rouses Point drawboat and the
Ticonderoga drawboat appears to be that while the Rouses Point draw had a clear opening
of 250ft (76.2m) and its 300ft (91.4m) long drawboat fit into recesses in the trestle work on
each side of the opening, the Ticonderoga draw had a 300 foot wide opening that was
closed by the 300ft (91.4m) long drawboat. However, the actual clear opening at the
Ticonderoga Bridge was actually only about 270ft (82.3m) because when the drawboat was
swung open perpendicular to the trestle, 30ft (9.1m) of the opening was blocked by the
width of the boat itself. The size of the opening for vessels was, therefore, not that
different. Apart from the differences in the draw openings, the two drawboats were
probably similar. However, the Rouses Point floating draw was replaced by a center pivot
swing bridge after only seventeen years (1851-1868) of service, whereas a floating unit
was used for the entire fifty years (1871-1920) the crossing was operable at Ticonderoga.
At Ticonderoga there were actually three different drawboats used in the bridge. The first
boat (1871) succumbed to old age and was replaced by a new boat in 1888. This boat
lasted until 1902 when it burned and was in turn replaced by the third and last drawboat
which remained in service through the end of 1920. The remains of the 1871 and 1888
drawboats have been located, while the 1902 drawboat has not been found.
Construction of the pile trestle bridge was underway in January 1871. “The contract for
building the bridge has been awarded to the firm of Hawkins, Herthel & Burrell of
Springfield, Mass. The Manufacturer and Builder says it is to be a pile bridge one-third of a
mile long, with timber cribs, filled with stone, and sunk at 100 feet [sic] intervals; it is to be
provided with a swing-boat 300 feet long, in the channel, for a draw, and it is to cost
$80,000.” 158 The timber cribs, except one, were apparently not built.
Wreck C4: 1871 Drawboat (VT-AD-1018)
Construction of the drawboat VT-AD-1018 began in late spring 1871 on the shore of
Larrabees Point. The exact location is uncertain, but is possibly just north of the north point
of Beadles Cove. The drawboat is described as follows:
The boat is three hundred feet long, thirty wide and twelve high, contains two
hundred and fifty thousand feet of lumber, weighs about three hundred tons
and is expected to draw, without an injunction two feet of water. There has
been on an average fifty men at work on it since the first of June, under the
superintendence of George White, who has done everything possible to
make the launch a success. To build the trestle on each side of the lake to
the channel that the boat is to fill, required eight hundred piles eighty feet
long. The boat is to be hung on hinges, like a door, by one corner (the
southeast corner) to a pier, to be operated by a twelve horse engine inside,
with two drums, one for each chain. To open the draw all that is necessary,
is to start the engine, the [then] gear in the shore [lake] drum taking in that
chain and ungearing the pier drum, letting out that chain with slack enough to
lie on the bottom of the lake in order to let boats pass over it; to shut the
draw, vice versa. The plans and modus operandi are original and made by
108
our [Rutland’s] townsman L. E. Roys. 159 Mr. Roys, the master builder for the
Rutland Railroad, also superintended construction of the railroad drawbridge
(a swing bridge but not a floating unit) across the mouth of the barge canal at
Burlington in 1868. 160
On August 18, it is reported that “Work on the railroad ferry is progressing rapidly. – It is
estimated that the drawbridge now in progress of construction at Larrabee’s Point will
support a weight of 4,500,000 pounds. It is three hundred feet long, thirty feet wide, and
thirteen [sic] high.” 161 By the third week in September the drawboat was ready to launch.
“The immense floating bridge now being built at Larabee’s [sic] Point, will be launched
tomorrow [September 23, 1871]” 162 This was not to be, as it is reported on September 27,
1871 that “the launching of the scow, for the drawbridge [at] Larabee’s [sic] Point, on
Saturday was a failure.” 163
More details of the event soon became known. The Rutland Daily Herald reported:
It was intended, and the attempt made, to launch a steam ferry bridge
Saturday afternoon, but on account of an unforeseen accident it was not
successful. It was to be launched sideways, fourteen timbers four ways had
been laid, on an incline, into the lake, shoes were placed under the bottom of
the boat to run on them. At three o’clock orders were given to take out the
stays, and at the first strike with the battering poles the north end started, but
the united efforts of all were unable to move the south end except about four
feet, after the north end had moved twenty-five feet, thus throwing the shoes
off the ways and letting the end of the vessel down upon the ways. The
reason of the hitch in the south end not moving, afterwards appeared. Some
one, whose duty it was neglected to remove one of the ‘jack screws’ which
held the boat off of the ways, but no great damage was done and by tonight
there is no doubt but what it will be afloat. There were gathered together
from the adjoining towns on this and the other side of the lake, some six or
eight hundred persons to witness the launch who had to go home
disappointed in not witnessing the launch, of the largest boat ever floated on
Lake Champlain. 164
This mishap postponed the launch until repairs could be made. The Burlington Free Press
reported some additional human drama at the second effort to launch the boat.
On Tuesday the 26th all preparations were ready for another attempt to
launch, but the rain prevented a large crowd.
The railroad officials were there and had taken brief shelter from the rain in
the United States Hotel near by, waiting for the hour fixed; and while they
were speculating on the probability of better success this time, and possibly
‘toasting’ to that effect, the balky structure, whose bearings were probably
lubricated by the falling rain, started on its own hook without waiting for the
109
word ‘go’, breaking the fastenings designed to prevent its rapid decline, nor
waiting for the imperial judges to witness it. It plunged into the lake thus,
again willfully disappointing those who had intended to see the show. One of
the workmen was standing about midway of the bridge, on the water side,
when it started its downward career, thus placing him in great peril; he at first
tried to run around one end, but finding his time too short and his territorial
limits rapidly lessening, he plunged into the lake, and dexterously dove to the
bottom, when the bridge passed over him, and he came up on the other side
of it, a wiser yet a thoroughly frightened man. It was afterwards ascertained
that the depth of the water where the man was lying was less than four feet,
while the draught of the float is two feet when lying still, and the man’s
escape from being crushed beneath the ponderous structure was almost
miraculous. 165
The drawboat, apparently with a mind of its own, was finally afloat and would shortly be
secured in the draw opening. On Saturday, September 30, 1871 the first train crossed the
drawbridge from Vermont to New York. 166 On December 6, the road was opened to the
public when an excursion train made the crossing, and this was followed on December 11
by commencement of regular service. 167
As the navigation season was nearly over, the drawbridge would soon remain in the closed
position until navigation resumed the following spring. Commencement of the 1872
navigation season at Ticonderoga was chronicled by the Middlebury Register. “The
drawbridge of the Addison Railroad, at Larrabees Point, swung around to allow the
passage of boats for the first time this season, last Wednesday evening [April 24]. It is
unusually late for the opening of the lake.” 168
A few months later, the drawbridge recorded the first of a number of incidents, of varying
seriousness, that resulted in an interruption of service across the lake. “An accident that
came very near being a serious one occurred on Wednesday afternoon [June 26], at the
drawbridge at Ticonderoga. As the mixed train going east was passing over the apron at
the east end of the draw, the truss rod gave way, and the pilot of the engine struck the ties
and threw the engine and one car from the track and very nearly into the lake.” 169
Due to the four mile long fetch to the north, strong northerly winds occasionally caused a
problem for the bridge. The first incident occurred in 1873 when “Owing to the high winds
yesterday [October 7], the drawbridge at Ticonderoga could not be closed, and the mail
train from Port Henry was delayed about six hours, reaching Leicester Junction about 4
o’clock p.m., the mails failing to connect both north and south. As this is the first instance
of the kind, the storm must have been a severe one on the lake.” 170
The second time wind became a problem was in 1885 when “the train east over the Orwell
road could not cross the bridge at Ti. last Friday [October 23] on account of the [snow]
storm, the wind blowing so that the engine was not able to close the draw. This is the
second time this has happened in the 14 years that the bridge has been built.” 171
110
The narrowing of the navigation channel caused by the draw also resulted in a few
problems. “On Thursday night last [November 14, 1873] a tow in passing through the draw
at Ticonderoga struck the bridge with such force as to carry away some of the timbers, and
render it impossible to close the ‘draw’ for the passage of trains.” 172 The bridge was
reopened the following day.” The drawbridge at Ticonderoga was repaired and trains
crossed again as usual on Friday afternoon. The injury was caused by a very heavy tow of
four boats abreast, swinging against the west side of the opening.” 173
Another incident that did not result in damage to the bridge but was caused by the
narrowness of the channel and probably resulted in some obstruction to navigation was the
sinking of the Essex built (1863) canal schooner B. Noble (official no. 2452). In June 1882,
“On Thursday morning [June 15] of last week, as the schooner B. North [B.NOBLE] of
Vergennes, was passing a tow at the Ticonderoga drawbridge, it ran into a canal boat,
crushing in the schooner’s bow. It immediately sank in about 30 [23] feet of water. The
schooner was loaded [with slate for S. R. Hathorn of Vergennes].” 174 The schooner was
raised and returned to service. “Mr. John Daniels’ schooner B. Noble, which collided with a
tow at the drawbridge, was raised on Wednesday [July 12] and towed to Whitehall.” 175
In spite of these occasional problems, the first drawboat provided reliable service across
the lake until old age and harsh conditions finally took their toll and she was replaced by a
new boat in 1888. The wreck of a drawboat, designated Wreck C4 (VT-AD-1018), was
located with side scan sonar during the Mount Independence-Fort Ticonderoga underwater
survey in May 1992, and relocated in the 2003 Lake Survey (Figure 6-33). It is believed to
be the 1871 boat because of the relatively intact condition of the remains, her dimensions
and the location near the trestle on the Vermont side. The wreck was verified in 1992,
however, dive conditions did not allow for documentation of the site. The boat was
probably pulled over to this out-of-the-way spot and scuttled after being stripped. No
documentation has yet been found on this event or what, if any, part of the boat may have
been salvaged or possibly used in its replacement.
111
Figure 6-33. Sonar image showing Wreck C4 (LCMM Collection).
112
Wreck G4: 1888 Drawboat (NYSM 11628)
The 1888 drawboat was also built at Larrabees Point. The location of the ways is unknown
but is likely where the first boat was built – probably north of Burleigh’s dock, and probably
near or at the site where six canal boats were built by Burleigh Bros. in the winter of 18791880. 176 James R. Bullard of Larrabees Point, the owner and operator of the Larrabees
Point-Ticonderoga ferry, believes the Burleigh shipyard was located near the black marble
quarry on the little point on the north side of Beadles Cove adjacent to the dock site. 177
A new steam sawmill had been built by the Burleighs at Larrabees Point in 1882 to replace
a mill that burned the previous year, so lumber was readily available for boat
construction. 178 The drawboat could not have been built in Beadles Cove as a continuous
pile trestle (without a draw) was constructed across the mouth of the cove in 1874. 179 This
trestle connected the Addison Branch at the south point of the cove (where the drawbridge
crossed the lake to Ticonderoga) with the H. G. Burleigh & Bro. Dock and coal yard on the
north side of the cove.
The second drawboat appears to have been of the same construction as the first and it too
was built under the direction of bridgemaster L. E. Roys of the Rutland. A description of the
construction and launching of this boat was provided by the Burlington Free Press in
November 1888:
The Central Vermont railroad has just completed at Ticonderoga, on the
Addison Branch, a new drawbridge. Its construction was begun on August
10, under the direction of Bridgemaster Roys, and it was launched last
Wednesday afternoon [November 8]. Mr. Roys says it was one of the most
successful pieces of work of the kind with which he had anything to do, and
no mishaps occurred during the course of its construction. The draw, as it is
termed, is 300 feet [91.5m] long, 30 feet [9.1m] wide, with sides 12 feet
[3.6m] high, and resembles somewhat in appearance a huge canal boat. It
contains 250,000 feet [76,200m] of lumber of 12 tons of iron rods, screws
and bolts, while the total weight is 400 tons. All sizes of timber were used in
its construction, the material being principally Southern pine. The bottom of
the draw is yellow pine from Florida, well caulked, making it thoroughly
waterproof.
The draw was built on the shore at Larrabee’s Point, and 25 men have been employed in
the work. Heavy timbers were laid in a slanting position from the draw out into the lake
where the water was deep. These were well greased, and when all was ready a pistol was
fired, the fastenings were loosened and the mammoth draw slid down as neatly as could be
desired into the lake. It was very successfully done. When navigation closes the draw will
be towed to ‘Ti’, where it will replace the old draw, which has been in use for the past 20
years.
The launching of the huge frame was witnessed by General Manager J. W.
Hobart, General Superintendent J. M. Foss, Superintendent Burdett of the
113
Rutland division, Roadmaster Horner and several hundred people who live in
the vicinity. 180
The 1888 draw boat probably had a fairly uneventful career and provided reliable service
as there is practically no reference to it until 1902. We do hear in April, 1893, that “Jule
Martin has moved to Addison Junction and has charge of the Central Vermont bridge,
having taken the position resigned by Oliver Ormsbee, who has gone to Hoosick Falls.” 181
In 1897, it was reported that repairs were made. “The draw-bridge on the Addison branch
of the Rutland railroad will undergo repairs. A lot of rails have been drawn there and work
on the bridge will begin shortly.” 182
On February 7, 1902, the drawboat caught fire, “burned to the water’s edge” and sank,
ending train service across the lake until July when a new boat was installed. 183 The
following accounts of the loss of the drawboat are provided by the Rutland Herald of
February 8, and the Ticonderoga Sentinel of February 13.
From the Herald:
A pontoon drawbridge several hundred feet long, between Larrabee’s Point
and Ticonderoga, N.Y., was totally destroyed by fire yesterday [February 7]
and sunk in the lake. At the request of the railroad officials the local fire
engine was sent to the scene and did good work in saving the wooden trestle
at the end of the bridge.
The fire is supposed to have started from a stove inside of the pontoon, and
was beyond control when discovered by the bridge tender, who was badly
burned about the face and hands in attempting to extinguish it.
A call for the engine was sent to this city [Rutland] about 10 20 o’clock
yesterday morning. The engine was immediately loaded on to a flat car and
left this city about 11 o’clock in charge of Chief G.W. Dunton, who was
accompanied by Capt. C. E. McDermott, Engineer G.W. Morse and Call Men
B. H. Stickney, Rodney E. Shaw and T. L. Bennett.
The trestle work extends over a mile this side of the bridge, and the engine
had to be unloaded at the end of the trestle and drawn over the ice to the
scene of the fire. Two streams were turned on to the blaze about 1 o’clock
and were kept up all of the afternoon. The bridge sunk about 5 o’clock and
the streams were taken off as soon as the fire on the trestle work was
extinguished. Early in the afternoon Fireman B. H. Stickney slipped and fell
into the lake nearly to his shoulders. He was pulled out by Chief Dunton. The
men returned to this city about midnight. The loss will amount to several
thousand dollars. 184
114
From the Sentinel:
About 6 o’clock Friday morning [February 7] the Rutland railroad drawbridge
on the Addison branch, which crosses Lake Champlain at Addison Junction,
was discovered to be afire. The drawbridge is about 300 feet long and is
simply a long boat upon which the rails are laid, being turned as occasion
demands by an engine. To prevent freezing, the boat was kept warm by
stoves, one in each end. It is the duty of the night watchman, Alex
McCauley, to break the ice around the boat every morning, which duty he
performs about 5 o’clock. While returning from breaking the ice Friday
morning he discovered a fire around the stove in one end of the boat. He
entered the boat through a window and endeavored to quench the flames,
one arm and side of his face being quite badly burned in the attempt, and in
consequence of which he has been confined to the house for several days.
His efforts, however, were unavailing, the fire having secured too much
headway to be controlled. In response to a telegram a steam fire engine was
sent over from Rutland, reaching Addison about noon. The draw bridge was
past saving by that time, but by means of the engine the fire was prevented
from reaching the trestle leading up to the draw. By night the drawbridge
was entirely consumed. The loss is estimated at $20,000. 185
Planning for replacement of the drawbridge began at once, and two alternatives were
submitted by the Rutland’s engineer – one called for an iron bridge and the other for a
wooden one. 186 Petitions by the citizens of Ticonderoga to extend the road from Addison
Junction to Ticonderoga village and to provide a driveway for teams over the new
drawbridge were presented to W. Seward Webb, the new president of the Rutland, shortly
after the bridge burned and as late as May. 187 Although the Rutland Railroad was
agreeable to planking the new drawbridge (and trestle) to accommodate wagons passing
each other going in opposite directions, it was contingent upon Ticonderoga and Shoreham
securing the necessary rights-of-way and building approaches. 188 This, as we have
previously seen, Shoreham was unable to do on its own. In March, it was announced that
a new floating drawbridge would be built but this time it was to be constructed in
Burlington. 189
The work of removing the wreck of the burned drawboat was carried out in April as reported
by the Ticonderoga Sentinel in a Larrabees Point news item. “A gang of men are at work
pulling out the old drawbridge this week.” 190 Further details of the operation have not come
to light. The wreck of this drawboat, designated Wreck G4, was located on the east side of
the former draw opening during the Mount Independence-Fort Ticonderoga underwater
survey in May 1992 and relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey. The 1902 salvage
operations were only partially successful in removing the wreck from the draw as the larger
piece is lying along the northeast side of the trestle partially protruding into the draw
opening and the other piece lies in the opening (Figure 6-34 and Figure 6-35). Since the
fire had burned the boat to the water’s edge, the wreck apparently was not an obstruction
to navigation.
115
Figure 6-34. Sonar image of the part of Wreck G4 lying in the draw opening (LCMM
Collection).
Figure 6-35. Sonar image of the wreckage of Wreck G4 lying near the draw opening
(LCMM Collection).
116
The Third Drawboat (1902-c.1923)
The third and last drawboat was built in Burlington in the spring of 1902 to replace the one
burned that February. The exact building site is uncertain. Announcement of the
impending construction appeared in late March:
“The work of building a drawbridge to replace the one destroyed by fire on
the Addison branch of the Rutland railroad will be commenced very shortly in
this city. The work of construction will be carried [out] on the lake shore a
short distance below the J. R. Booth lumber yard and will demand the
services of a large number of workmen for some time.
L.A. Vernon of Rutland, a bridge foreman, has sent 15 carloads of lumber to
this city to be used in the work. The new bridge will be 300ft [91.5m] long,
26ft [8m] wide and 14ft [4.2m] high and in its construction 246,000 feet
[74,980m] of lumber, 43,000 pounds of iron and 6,000 pounds of oakum will
be used.” 191
The J. R. Booth Lumber Company yard was located in the northern part of Burlington along
the lake shore south of Battery Park, between Battery Street and the railroad tracks. The
actual building site could have been along the lake shore just north of the city water works.
Rail access to this location was close by and it would have been an easy matter to extend
a spur down the lake shore to service the boat construction.
By mid June, construction of the drawboat was complete and it was ready to be launched:
“The pontoon drawboat which has been under process of construction on the
lake shore near the Standard Oil Co.’s tanks for about three months past is
practically completed and will be launched either to-morrow [June 18] or
Thursday [June 19]. This boat was built by the Rutland railroad to replace
the one burned a few months ago between Ticonderoga and Larrabee’s
Point on the Addison division of the railroad.” 192
Based on the above article the boat was built near the Standard Oil Company’s tanks
which were located on the lake shore opposite the Vermont Central railroad tunnel and a
little north of the J. R. Booth lumber yards at this time. 193 Articles that appeared in the
Burlington Free Press a week later indicated that the boat was built “on the north shore.” 194
A description of the new drawboat is as follows:
The boat is 300 feet [91.5m] long 26 feet [8m] wide and 14 feet [4.2m] high.
In its construction about 300,000 feet [91,550m] of lumber, 60,000 [sic]
pounds of oakum and 52,000 pounds of iron such as bolts and washers were
used. It has been built under the supervision of L.H. [sic] Vernon of Rutland,
who is bridge and building inspector and supervisor of bridges, buildings and
117
construction and A. Richard of Ogdensburg, N.Y., who has charge of the
repair of boats of the Rutland Transit company.
The boat in question is a double deck pontoon, the highest deck being 14
feet [4.2m] wide [sic]. It has many advantages over the one it is to replace at
Ticonderoga and Supervisor Vernon is directly responsible for a number of
the improvements. The boat will be connected with the trestles on the lake,
much as the old one was but instead of having one apron on each end it will
have two. The old aprons were each 50 feet [15m] long but each of those on
the new bridge are 40 feet [12m] long and this will be found to be of great
value in securing an easy and regular passage of the trains from the trestles
to the pontoon. The first apron at each end extends from the trestle to some
piles and the second from the piles to the boat. By means of blocks these
aprons can be adjusted from time to time so that the variation in the grade is
regular and the passage of trains will consequently be smooth. This is
necessary as the height of the water varies with the seasons…
The boat has been thoroughly constructed to avoid the possibility of its
leaking but an engine was placed in it yesterday, together with the other
necessary apparatus, to pump the water from it in case it should be found
defective. 195
What is interesting about the description of the new drawboat in the newspaper articles is
that it was 4ft (1.22m) narrower (26ft [7.93 m] vs. 30ft [9.15 m]) and 2ft (.61m) “higher” (14ft
[4.27 m] vs. 12ft [3.66 m]) than its two predecessors. It is not clear whether the “height” is
the depth of the float itself or if it includes the raised track platform or deck. The reason for
this design change is unknown. It is possible the narrower and deeper hull could have
affected its stability. The new system of aprons would have been an improvement over the
single apron at each end. At the time the drawboat was completed, it was still expected
that both the boat and trestle would be planked as a driveway for teams. 196
Preparations were made for launching the drawboat and towing it to Ticonderoga.
The launching of this drawboat will be an interesting spectacle. It is blocked
up and two skidways are being placed under it one above the other. These
skidways incline gradually into the lake, which is within a few feet of the north
end of the boat. There will be wedges between these skidways which will be
thoroughly greased with tallow. After the blocking has been removed men
who will be at each end of these wedges will remove them simultaneously, at
a given signal, and the huge structure will slide into the water. … In a few
days after the launching it will be towed to Ticonderoga. 197
An attempt was made on June 23 to launch the drawboat but it was a failure. “An
unsuccessful attempt was made yesterday to launch the pontoon boat which has been built
on the north shore. The Maquam and an engine were used but the bridge was not in
118
readiness, additional work on the ways being necessary.” 198 A second attempt was
successful and the drawboat was launched on June 24 but not without a struggle. “The tug
Defender of Whitehall, together with three locomotives succeeded in launching the pontoon
drawbridge yesterday.
The Defender will soon tow the bridge to Whitehall
[Ticonderoga]” 199
Additional information on building and launching the boat was provided a few days later.
The draw boat for the Addison branch of the Rutland railroad was designed
by C. J. Parker, chief engineer of the Rutland road and was built by Alfred
Richard, an Ogdensburg, N.Y., ship builder. The boat was built to be
launched sideways but the water lowered from four to five feet and it became
necessary to launch it end ways. There was not grade enough, which made
it necessary to employ steam power. 200
The tug Defender towed the drawboat to Ticonderoga on June 25 and it was expected that
it would soon be in place. “The pontoon bridge, which was constructed on the north shore,
was towed yesterday to Ticonderoga, where it will be put into commission for use on the
Addison division of the Rutland road.” 201 Its arrival was noted at Ticonderoga. “The boat for
the new drawbridge at Addison Junction arrived last night, being towed from Burlington by
the Defender. The work of putting it in place will begin immediately and it is expected that
trains will run over the bridge in a week or ten days.” 202
Sometime after 1905 (the year she was built), the tug Protector was southbound up the
lake with a string of 16 canal boats in tow when she began signaling for the drawbridge to
open when she was off Watch Point, about two and a half miles north of the bridge. In
spite of repeated signals, the bridge did not open as the tug got ever closer. The bridge
tender was asleep. Captain Sweeney of the Protector slowed down as much as he could
without losing control of his tow and “nudged” the draw open and proceeded on his way.
The drawboat leaked after that and another (auxiliary) pump was installed. 203
About 1914, as the steamer Vermont III was headed up the lake, she stopped at the
Larrabees Point dock and then proceeded towards the drawbridge. Due to a strong south
wind, the bridge tender, William Sweet, was unable to open the draw – the chain slipping
on the sprockets of the steam winch. Captain Fisher brought the Vermont up gently
against the drawboat and using the steamer’s engine pushed open the draw, leaving a 4in
(10.6cm) indentation in the drawboat’s timbers from her stem post. 204
William Sweet, the bridge tender at the time of the Vermont’s encounter with the drawboat,
had held this position since at least 1907 as noted in an April 1908 Larrabees Point item in
the Burlington Free Press. “William Sweet is again in charge of the drawbridge.”205
In 1917, it was reported that an inspection found the drawboat to be unsafe, however,
trains continued to use the bridge. 206 In January 1918, we hear that “there was no train
service Friday [January 4] on the Addison branch owing to [unspecified] trouble with the
119
drawbridge on Lake Champlain.” 207 Two months later, the most serious accident happened
to the drawbridge since the previous drawboat burned in 1902.
The Vergennes paper carried the following article about the partial sinking of the drawboat
and of two box cars that went into the lake.
Traffic over the Addison branch of the Rutland railroad, running from
Leicester Junction to Ticonderoga, has been tied up for a week, caused by
the sinking of the drawbridge over Lake Champlain.
The drawbridge sank last week Wednesday night [March 20] as the evening
[westbound] train was going over, letting two freight cars into the lake. The
engineer, noticing the boat was tipping, uncoupled the engine and barely got
off when the boat went over. The deck of the drawbridge is now on a level
with the lake ice but the draw does not rest on the bottom of the lake.
The cause of the trouble is supposed to be a leak that let water into the float.
There were two cars, one loaded with paper and the other with wood, on the
bridge at the time and both were overturned by the tilting of the float as the
incoming water rushed from one side to the other.
The coach remains on the Vermont side and the stations along the branch
are getting their customary mail and passenger service. 208
Other reports indicate that one of the cars was loaded with marble and went all the way
through the ice, another car, a Canadian National [Canadian Government Railways, from
the photo] loaded with pulp wood went partially through and one stayed up. 209 Another
description of the accident indicated that water inside the drawboat had frozen [which
probably started a leak] and it lost buoyancy when the westbound train loaded with pulp
went over. The engine had just gone off the drawboat onto the trestle when the load
pushed the east end of the boat down, increased the grade and the cars uncoupled and fell
onto the ice. The engine was not damaged. 210 Work began immediately to raise the
drawboat and restore service.
The Rutland Railroad Co. has had a force of forty or fifty men at work during
the past week on the Fort Ticonderoga drawbridge, which sunk Wednesday
night of last week. The men have not as yet raised the float to the surface
and, therefore, it is not known whether it will have to be replaced by a new
one. It will be a month or more before the railroad can resume traffic over the
bridge. 211
During the winter of 1919-1920, the snow was apparently so deep that two large freight
engines were used to push a plow on the Addison. When the plow came to the
drawbridge, the bridge foreman made it drop one engine before proceeding across the
120
draw. Still, the engine and plow reportedly lowered the drawboat 2 ½ft (76cm) and the
plow blade peeled off wood timbers as it went up. 212
On July 28, 1920, it was reported that “an engine broke through, nearly going into the
lake.” 213 By the end of 1920, as we have seen, mounting maintenance problems with the
drawbridge led to the closing of the crossing.
The drawboat was probably removed from the opening at the end of 1920 when train
service was discontinued but was kept in reserve until a new drawbridge could be built or
the crossing formally abandoned. What happened to the drawboat during its final years
and its ultimate fate are uncertain.
Captain Merritt E. Carpenter of Burlington, Vermont, a retired ferry captain for the Lake
Champlain Transportation Company, vividly remembers when, as a young child, he was
taken for his first trip on the steamer Vermont (III) to Montcalm Landing, Ticonderoga, in
1922 or 1923. He saw the drawboat, out of service, tied up alongside the trestle on the
New York side with its track, boiler house, stack, and donkey engine house all in place. 214
It thus appears that the railroad did keep the drawboat in reserve but tied up alongside the
trestle until 1923 when the ICC allowed the railroad to abandon the crossing.
Cushman Baker, of Forestdale, Vermont, was a Navy veteran, shipyard worker, fireman on
the Rutland and Addison Branch Railroads, and part time operator on the Chipmans PointWright and Larrabees Point-Fort Ticonderoga ferries between 1967 and1984. He recalled
that the late George Trombley, originally of Shoreham but later of Ticonderoga, who as a
young man had “fired the boiler” on the drawboat, told him that he had “pulled the plug” on
the last drawboat when they sank it on the south side of Willow Point on the New York
shore after the boat was no longer needed (This was probably in 1923, but the date is
conjectural). Trombley also told Cushman Baker that the drawboat was subsequently
raised and taken somewhere else to be used. 215
Captain Martin Fisher’s long career as a master of Lake Champlain, Lake George, Hudson
River and Long Island Sound steam and motor vessels, includes being the captain of the
Lake Champlain steamer Ticonderoga in her final year (1953) of service. Captain Fisher
had heard that the drawboat was taken to Wright, New York, to be used at the Chipman
Point-Wright ferry crossing. 216 Jim Bullard had been told that a sunken and debris filled
barge lies under the roadway of the ferry landing on the New York side of the Larrabees
Point-Ticonderoga ferry crossing. 217
Someone, possibly Albert Bourdeau, also formerly of Shoreham but later Ticonderoga, a
bridge foreman on the drawbridge, told William Gove, railroad historian and author, of
Randolph, Vermont, that the drawboat had been sunk on the Vermont side near the trestle
but was raised within a few years and taken somewhere down the lake to be used as a
dock. 218 The date, location and other circumstances of the sinking and subsequent salvage
of the drawboat are unknown. However, since the 1992 and 2003 underwater surveys only
located the remains of two drawboats near the crossing, it supports the story that the 1902
121
boat was removed from the area, and the two drawboats found were the remains of the
1871 and 1888 boats.
An interesting description of the 1902 drawboat was given to Bill Gove by someone who
obviously had a detailed knowledge of it, probably George Trombley or Albert Bourdeau,
from which he made an annotated sketch. 219 The width (beam) is given as 28ft (8.5m)
whereas the newspaper accounts list it as 26ft (7.9m) as previously reported. (Scaling this
dimension from the existing photographs indicates it was in the 26 to 28ft (7.93 to 8.54m)
range but certainly less than 30ft (9.15m). In any event, it was narrower than its
predecessors, and this narrower beam may have been a factor when the boxcars went off
the draw in 1918, although with the boat full of water it may not have made much
difference.
Other details provided were the location of the steam pump, the water fill pipe for the
locomotives (located in a slightly different place than shown on the Rutland Railroad
valuation sheet) and coal bunkers holding two carloads were provided amidships to supply
the boiler for the steam donkey engine and steam pump and the two stoves. It was noted
that a hydraulic jack was provided to raise and lower the aprons. The length of the
drawbridge shown on the railroad valuation sheet is 313.8ft (95.7m) but this probably
included the space for the aprons that appear to extend beyond the ends of the boat and is
consistent with the hull length of 300ft (91.4m) given in the sketch and provided in all other
accounts. 220
Another possible difference between the 1902 boat and the earlier ones was the manner in
which the boat was swung open and closed. In the description of the 1871 boat, and
presumably in the 1888 one, the steam winch is reported as having two drums, one for
each chain – one leading to the end of the trestle on the west end of the opening and the
other to an anchorage (possibly a pile cluster or dolphin) in the lake south of the bridge.
The boat was moved by taking up on one chain and slacking off on the other. In the 1902
boat, there was a single chain – one end secured to the trestle and the other out in the lake
that ran through a winch that was fitted with a drive drum with sprockets and two idler
(guide) drums. There would be enough slack in the chain so that the part not under tension
would always lie on the lake bottom as the winch walked itself along the chain to open or
close the draw. 221 It was a simple yet effective mechanism and the only problem appeared
to be when the wind was exceptionally strong, the chain would slip on the sprockets and
the draw could not be opened or closed as reported on a few occasions.
Based on the photo the chain to the trestle appears to run through a hawse pipe in the west
end of the boat near its southwest corner. The chain would then lead to the winch,
probably going over the tops of the idler drums and under the drive drum, and then out the
south side of the boat to an anchorage in the lake. On Bill Gove’s sketch, the lake end
goes to what appears to be three piles, so a pile cluster or a dolphin might have been used.
During the day shift, two men were aboard the drawboat, at night only one. 222 The day shift
probably consisted of the bridge foreman and a fireman, and at night, a fireman or
122
watchman. Two of the bridge foremen were William Sweet and Albert Bourdeau. 223
George Trombley had served as a fireman on the boat at one time. In the winter, although
the draw was not opened, it was necessary to cut the ice daily for a width of 2ft (61cm) all
around the boat so that it would move freely. 224
The Larrabees Point-Willow Point Trestle (VT-AD-1371)
Although the drawboat had probably been sunk since about 1923, the wood pile trestle at
this crossing apparently lasted until 1928 or 1929, when the site for the vehicular bridge
was assured and the bridge was actually under construction between Crown Point and
Chimney Point. 225
Cushman Baker recalled that the pilings had been removed by cutting them off with
dynamite by lowering a steel collar filled with the explosive down over the pilings and
detonating it at the lake bottom. The pilings were then taken out and stacked behind the
old ice house on the south point of Beadles Cove near the turntable until sold to a sawmill.
Cushman Baker’s father, Julius W. Baker, a farmer from East Shoreham, had the contract
to draw the piling to the sawmill. This was done during the winter with horse drawn
sleds. 226 The sawmill may have been in Ticonderoga. 227 The trestle was entirely removed
to eliminate an obstruction to navigation.
Despite efforts to remove the pilings, there still exist several features related to the trestle
located during the 1992 and 2003 surveys. In addition to the 1871 and 1888 drawboats,
these remains include pile remnants, a wooden crib structure, two circular mounds, and a
chain scar. Sonar records from the area clearly show the path of the former trestle,
indicating that the bottoms of some of the piling are visible above the lake bottom.
The timber cribs that were originally to be located at 100ft (30.5m) intervals across the lake
were, except for probably one, apparently not constructed. One 30ft by 30ft (9.1m by 9.1m)
crib was located along the south side of the trestle on the Vermont side during the 1992
and 2003 underwater surveys. This may have been the “pier” that was reported to have
sunk 12ft (3.66m) below the water on the Vermont side during construction of the trestle in
May 1871.
The sonar surveys of the area also showed a scar on the lakebed from the chain used to
pull the drawboat into the gap between the ends of the trestle. The scar extends in an arc
from the west side of the draw to a location due south of the east end of the draw. It is
located on the bottom about where the chain from the drawboat would lay as the boat was
swung open and closed.
Two interesting features that appeared on the 1992 and 2003 sonar records were mounds
about 40ft (12.2m) in diameter on the bottom near the west end of the draw. What the
mounds consist of is unknown. It is possible that they are made up of ashes from the
firebox for the steam boiler, however, its location, i.e. directly under the bottom of the
drawboat, would seem to make this unlikely since the ashes probably would have been
dumped over the side of the boat.
123
In 1992 there were a number of magnetometer ‘hits’ in the project area, however, there
were none that would seem to indicate large iron or steel objects such as a railroad car or
locomotive. Rumors that there was a locomotive on the lake bottom in the area appear to
have been dispelled. Undoubtedly the contacts that were recorded were smaller objects
such as rails, tools or other railroad related ‘iron’.
The Beadles Cove (Burleigh’s) Trestle (VT-AD-1344)
The wood pile trestle across Beadles Cove which was built in 1874 and served the H. G.
Burleigh & Brother dock and coal yard on the north point of Beadles Cove was expected to,
and did, improve the coal business at that place. “The coal trade of H. G. Burleigh & Bro.
had opened better this season than ever before and with the prospect of holding good.
Thus far they have sold 45,000 tons, 30,000 of it going to Montreal dealers and the balance
lake trade. Their new trestle work branch rail road, across the mouth East of Creek [sic] is
nearly completed and will soon be in condition for running cars, when the work of shipping
coal to Vermont dealers will begin.” 228
In 1877, Burleigh’s business suffered a serious but temporary setback due to a large
explosion and fire that destroyed a storehouse and part of the wharf at Larrabees Point.
The store house of The Messrs. Burleigh Brothers on Larrabee’s Point, in
which was stored about 125 barrels of powder, 2,000 bushels of oats and
other kinds of grain, A large amount of pork, a locomotive, &c, was
discovered to be on fire at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon [September 27].
The flames had obtained so much headway that it could not be checked. At
about 3 o’clock the powder exploded, sweeping the buildings and its contents
in every direction. A large quantity of coal in and around the building caught
fire and is still burning. A portion of the wharf is consumed. We are unable
as we go to press to given [sic] full particulars, we will do so in our next issue.
The loss is estimated between $20,000 and $25,000. 229
Six canal boats were built by the Burleighs in the winter of 1879-1880 at Larrabees Point as
well as a new sawmill. In 1882, the coal trade was still strong as it is reported “the Burleigh
Brothers are receiving and shipping large quantities of coal at their yard at Larrabees
Point.” 230 In May 1883, a problem with the trestle is reported. “One day last week [May 1319], while the train from Leicester Junction to Larrabees Point was crossing the trestle at
Burleigh Bro’s. coal yard the tender of the engine went through.” 231 In 1904 the 800 foot
long trestle was repaired by the Rutland Railroad (new ties and rails) and it was still in
service in 1908. 232
How long the trestle was used has not come to light, however, it was probably abandoned
long before the end of 1920 when the Ticonderoga drawbridge was closed and a 60ft
(18.3m) turntable was put in at the end of the line on the south side of Beadles Cove. 233
Unlike the main lake crossing there was no drawbridge on Burleigh’s trestle – only a
continuous pile trestle, since the cove was not considered navigable for lake commerce.
124
Because of this, the trestle was not removed when it ceased to be used although the rails
were undoubtedly taken up. The piling remain to this day – their tops normally just below
the surface and awash at low lake stages.
LCMM researchers inspected the underwater remains of Burleigh’s trestle in November
2002. The trestle consisted of a linear swath of pilings, approximately 805ft (245.4m) long,
running across the mouth of Beadles Cove. It was composed of rows of regularly spaced
pilings. Most pilings were round in cross-section, however, intermittent squared piles were
noted. Each row of pilings contained between three and five piles, spanning 12 to 15ft
(3.66 to 4.5m). Each row of pilings was typically spaced between 11ft (3.3m) and 13ft
(3.95m) apart, although several exceptions to this pattern were noted. The largest distance
between sets of pilings was 34ft (10.37m), noted between 201 and 235ft (61.3 to 71.6m)
south of the northernmost set of pilings.
Wreck A4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-728)
Wreck A4 is a standard canal boat near Larrabees Point lying in Vermont waters. It was
discovered in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime Society and relocated during the 1992
Mount Independence-Fort Ticonderoga Underwater Survey by the LCMM. 234 The site was
again relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey, and was dive verified in July 2005 (Figure
6-36).
Wreck A4 is a standard canal boat which is lying next to a second canal boat, Wreck B4
(VT-AD-727). The remains consist of the sides, a longitudinal bulkhead, the rudder,
sternpost, a windlass and the stem. Although the bottom of the vessel is buried, most of
the structure is exposed above the sediments. The vessel is 84ft (25.6m) long indicating it
was built for the first expansion of the Champlain Canal locks between 1858 and 1873.
The hull is constructed plank-on-frame with a portion of the starboard side of the hull
preserved up to the gunwale. Most of the sides, however, are significantly deteriorated.
The interior of the vessel has a solid timber bulkhead composed of vertical stanchions and
horizontal planks running along much of its length. The sternpost and rudderpost are both
still preserved up to their original height. The rudder is a barn door type rudder with the
tailboard still present. The bow contains the remains of an iron windlass which has fallen
into the bottom of the hull. The stem is standing its full original height.
During the 2005 inspection a number of bricks were noted inside the hull especially toward
the bow. These may represent the remains of the boat’s cargo.
Wreck B4: Standard Canal Boat (VT-AD-727)
Wreck B4 is a standard canal boat near Larrabees Point lying in Vermont waters. It was
discovered in 1984 by the Champlain Maritime Society and relocated during the 1992
Mount Independence-Fort Ticonderoga Underwater Survey by the LCMM. 235 The site was
again relocated during the 2003 Lake Survey, and was dive verified in July 2005 (Figure
6-36).
125
Wreck B4 is an unrigged canal boat lying directly adjacent to Wreck A4. Examination of
this site proved difficult due to extremely limited visibility and accumulated driftwood in the
hull remains. The wreck is in shallow water (10-12ft [3-3.7m]) and is badly broken up,
probably due to the action of winter ice. Portions of the bow, sides, and stern are present
on the site, which measures 94ft 8in (28.8m) in length and between 15ft 6in (4.7m) and 18ft
(5.5m) in width. The vessel’s dimensions indicated that it was built after 1873.
The bow appears to have been scow shaped and was supported by at least eight rake
timbers. These timbers have all pulled loose from their original locations, making the shape
of the bow difficult to decipher. The sides of the wreck consist of edge-fastened planking
with a maximum of 2ft (.6m) of planking exposed above the mud line. Only a small portion
of each side is still oriented vertically, the remainder has splayed out to either side. It is for
this reason that there are a range of beam measurements. The sides were supported by
deck beams of which five are still present on the wreck. Three of these have pulled loose
from their original positions and now rest in the silt inside the hull remains while two remain
attached at both sides. It is from these locations that the beam measurement of 15ft 6in
(4.7m) is derived. Only a single element of the stern structure remains on the site. It
appears to have been one of the horizontally oriented timbers that is often used to top stern
construction in canal boats, referred to as a transom log.
Figure 6-36. Sonar image showing Wrecks A4 and B4 (LCMM Collection).
126
Figure 6-37. Preliminary archaeological drawing of Wrecks A4 (bottom) and B4 (top) (by Chris Sabick and Adam Kane,
inked by Krissy Kenny and Joanne DellaSalla).
127
Wreck R4: Canal Boat Side (VT-AD-1342)
In 2002 during an archaeological survey of Burleigh’s Trestle LCMM researchers located a
portion of the side of a canal boat. Most of the structure was buried, making documentation
difficult. The remains were 74ft (22.5m) long and consisted of at least three strakes. The
strakes were edge-fastened, a typical canal boat construction technique in which vertically
driven iron drift bolts are used to fasten the strakes together. The fasteners were regularly
spaced at intervals of 1ft 6in (45.7cm). Two strakes accessible for measurement were 9in
and 24in wide. This canal boat side may be the disassociated wreckage from sites Wreck
B4 (VT-AD-727) and Wreck A4 (VT-AD-728), two canal boats located several hundred feet
north. This wreckage could also relate to either of the drawboats (Wrecks C4 and G4)
located just south of Wreck R4.
Wreck S4: Unidentified Watercraft (VT-AD-1343)
During a diver survey of Burleigh’s Trestle in 2002 LCMM archaeologists located a
watercraft of unknown origin lying adjacent to the trestle. The site was located when
portions of framing were noted protruding from the lakebed. The vessel was almost entirely
buried, and therefore researchers had great difficulty in determining any specifics about its
construction. An examination of the bottom around the exposed framing revealed small
exposed portions of the boat structure; however, due to extremely poor visibility from heavy
milfoil growth researchers were not able to record any type of site plan.
Two features were noted which indicate that this is a nineteenth century vessel. An edgefastened plank was located forward of the exposed framing, and wrought iron spikes were
used to fasten the vessel. Both of these features are typical of nineteenth century boat
construction on Lake Champlain. However, because so little information could be gathered
from the site, we cannot rule out the possibility that the wreck dates to the eighteenth
century, especially given the known activity from the Colonial Wars and the Revolutionary
War in the area.
The sites contained in the waters around Larrabees Point, Vermont and Willow Point, New
York exhibit an extraordinary collection of nineteenth century submerged cultural
resources. Most of these sites are eligible for inclusion in the State Register of Historic
Places and the NRHP when evaluated individually; however, it is more appropriate to
consider them as an historical archaeological district. The Larrabees Point Historic District
is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of
Events, Criterion C: Design, Construction, and Work of a Master, and Criterion D:
Information Potential. For Criterion A the archaeological sites in the district reflect on the
development of the region’s railroads and lake commerce, and the unique interaction
between the two. Criterion B is met by the distinctive engineering adaptation represented
by the district’s railroad drawboats. Three railroad drawboats are known to exist; all three in
Lake Champlain and two of the three in the Larrabees Point Historic District. Criterion D is
met through the information potential which could be derived through the study of any and
all of the district’s components.
128
SOUTH BAY SURVEY
In May 2003, the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum completed a side scan sonar survey of
the South Bay, located to the west of Whitehall, New York. This was the first sonar survey
of South Bay since the Champlain Maritime Society (CMS) carried out a similar, yet less
extensive, survey in 1982, which located the wrecks of several canal boats and one
steamer.
South Bay is a narrow, shallow, pinched-off part of Lake Champlain, lying to the west of the
lake proper (Figure 6-38). It is abutted by the Village of Whitehall and the New York State
Barge Canal (formerly the Champlain Canal). It has a maximum depth of 20ft (6.1m) at low
lake level, a length of 4½mi (7.2km) and a maximum width of 1½mi (2.4km). It flows into
Lake Champlain at its north end through a narrow outlet spanned by a drawbridge on the
former Delaware & Hudson Railroad (now Amtrak). South Bay has a northeast to
southwest orientation and lies between Bald Mountain on the west in the Town of Dresden,
Warren County, New York, and West Mountain on the east in the Town of Whitehall,
Washington County, New York. A small part of the Bay and its headwaters at the south
end are located in the Town of Fort Ann, Washington County, New York.
During the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution, South Bay provided a
route for scouting parties traveling between Lake George and Lake Champlain. Although it
required crossing the mountains between these two lakes, it bypassed the more exposed
Lake George Route to Ticonderoga and provided another, possibly shorter, route to
Skenesborough, present day Whitehall. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
South Bay supported some commercial activity, primarily associated with the lumber and
graphite industries. The Bay now serves fishing and other recreational boating uses.
It was primarily the commercial activity that drew researchers to South Bay in 1982 an
again in 2003. Based on the historical record and the results of the 1982 CMS survey, it
was known that there were shipwrecks in the Bay, but the number found was initially a
surprise. Most of the wrecks were located north of the Route 22 highway bridge crossing
at the north end of the Bay between Whitehall and Dresden. The 1982 survey reported
three or four barge wrecks in this area, but he 2003 survey located at least seven with the
possibility of parts of four or five others. The site was a confusing collection of wrecks and
old bridge remnants that will require extensive diver verification and documentation to sort
out. It is likely that other wrecks, possibly buried under the old bridges, exist in this area.
129
Figure 6-38. Map of Lake Champlain showing the location of South Bay.
130
South Bay Bridges
Two bridges, a railroad bridge at the outlet of South Bay and a highway bridge located
about a half-mile to the south, currently cross South Bay. The former Delaware and
Hudson (Canal Company) Railroad Bridge, located at the Bay outlet consist of two
approach fills, a short half-through plate girder span and an 84ft (25.6m) iron or steel center
pivot draw bridge with two 29ft (8.8m) clear openings. The draw has been made
inoperable and may be the original circa 1875 structure. The plate girder span, based on
old photos, has replaced an iron truss bridge. Due to the low clearance of the bridge only
small boats can pass under the draw when entering or leaving South Bay (Figure 6-39).
Figure 6-39. Photo of the original railroad drawbridge crossing South Bay looking northerly
(by A. Peter Barrannco).
The current NY Route 22 highway bridge, which was constructed in 1973, is the fourth such
bridge at this crossing since 1856. Due to deep, soft, unconsolidated sediments at its
location, this 1/3mi (.54km) crossing has consistently been a challenge to bridge builders.
The following is a short history of these bridges:
131
The First Bridge (1856-1860)
The exact location of this short lived structure is unknown, but it was likely near the present
day bridge. The contract to build the South Bay Bridge is reported on in the following
article:
“Anniversary Sketched This Date in Whitehall by C. E. Holden, October 22,
1856, Contract to Build South Bay Bridge:
‘Contract made this 22nd day of October 1856, between A. G. Meiklejohn
of Putnam, W. G. Wolcott of Whitehall and David Barrett of Dresden,
commissioners, for constructing a bridge across South Bay by Act of
Legislature of New York passed April 15th, 1856, parties of the first part and
Alwyn Martin, party of the second part, from a point of the Whitehall side near
the brick house on the Bunce Farm to a point near Benjamin’s house on the
Dresden side.
The bridge to be built on three rows of piles forming a foundation 16ft
wide, the piles to be 14 inches in diameter at the butt and driven down to
hard bottom, 12ft apart from center to center. Across the piles a pine cap to
be places 21ft long and 10 inches thick, the tops of the piles to be securely
fastened to the cap. Upon the caps are to be placed six tiers of sleepers of
pine 5x10 and covered with 2 1-2 inch hemlock flooring 16ft wide, with
substantial railing 4ft high braced from cap to posts. Bridge to be provided
with a good substantial draw for passage of canal boats and other craft.
Each end of the bridge out to a depth of 2ft of water to be filled with earth and
stone to make the roadway.’
The contract provides that the bridge must be completed by June 1st, and the price is
$7000. However there were allowances for extras which brought the final cost to about
$8000. The bridge was destroyed by floating ice in the spring of 1860.” 236
This first bridge did not survive long and the ferry crossing resumed its operations. It is
reported that the South Bay ferry, which ran from Dresden to Whitehall, was operated by
Thomas D. Wilson from around 1880 to 1913. It was originally a sail ferry, but later had an
engine.
The Second Bridge (1913-1930)
After many years of trying by the citizens of Whitehall and Dresden, the New York State
Legislature approved construction of the second South Bay Bridge under Chapter 518 of
the Laws of 1912. The bridge was designed by the NY Department of Highways in 1912
and constructed by the Oswego Bridge Co., of Oswego, NY for $44,431.20 in 1913.
The bridge design drawings which were approved August 14, 1912 called for a 928ft
(282.9m) long by 16ft (4.9m) wide open pile trestle with stone fill approaches, 323ft (98.5m)
long on the east (Whitehall) side and 659ft (200.9m) long on the Dresden side. It
incorporated a 50ft (15.2m) long steel truss bridge on concrete abutment with pile
132
foundation, and a 33ft (10.1m) ling single leaf bascule bridge to accommodate vessels. A
hand-operated wheel opened and closed the bascule leaf with its counter weight (Figure
6-40). 237
Figure 6-40. Image of the 1913 bridge under construction, looking west (courtesy of the
Historic Society of Whitehall).
In spite of the work having been completed on time, it had been necessary to sink canal
boats along the bottom to support the piles. 238 On of the canal boast was the Frederick S.
Dale, O/N 37519, built at West Haven, VT in 1888. A note on her enrollment papers says:
“Out of Commission and sold to Sup’t [Nelson] Fagan to fill new bridge at South Bay near
Whitehall N.Y. now under said highway. Sold in Aug. 1913.”
Almost immediately there were problems with the bridge due to the soft sediments it rested
upon. In November of 1914 a delegation from Whitehall met with the Highway Department
to see if the bridge could be strengthened- the figure of $25,000 was talked about. 239 It is
reported that “In 1917-1918 a contract was signed with the State Superintendent of Prisons
for convict labor on a new span. Boatbuilder William Ryan agreed to sell the state old
barges at $30 each to provide a foundation for a bridge.” 240 It is not know what, if
anything, came of this plan.
The bridge continued to deteriorate and was in such poor condition by the 1920s due to
movement and settlement that a new bridge was necessary (Figure 6-41). Agnes
Peterson, Dresden Town Historian, recalls while in high school, the school bus had to let off
133
the students to walk across the bridge while the bus traveled across it empty because it
was in such poor condition. 241
Figure 6-41. Photo showing the west end of the 1913 bridge looking south (courtesy of the
Historical Society of Whitehall).
The Third Bridge (1930-1973)
The third bridge was constructed about 75ft (22.9m) south of the second (1913) bridge.
During its construction, all but a short section of the rock fill approach at the east end of the
1913 bridge appears to have been removed. It is not known, however, how much of the
1913 structure, including canal boats buried under the fill, actually remains today.
The design for the 1930 bridge called for a rock fill causeway across most of the bay with a
fixed and moveable (drawbridge) span in the center. The original estimate for the work to
be done was $353,800, including extras. The contractor, Donahue Construction Co.,
began work on June 14, 1929 and immediately ran into major problems. The following
excerpts are taken from an article entitled “South Bay History”, printed in the Whitehall
Times in June of 1971:
“Rock fill dumped into the bay during the day, was still well above the water
level when night fell; but by the following morning, the fill had all disappeared
beneath the surface”;
134
By December 28, 1929: “The east side of the…bridge has tilted toward the
east to such an extent that the end of the iron span of the bridge is about the
three feet from it. To support the iron span and to keep it from developing
into the bay, wooden props have been placed under it, but this is not
expected to hold it up”
“The stone fill in trying to reach a solid bottom, has given the most trouble
and besides dropping out of sight at times, wrecked the old (second) bridge
which is still closed to traffic…for nearly four weeks.”
“Sixty thousand cubic yards of stone were estimated for the entire width of
the bay; more than that amount has been used and it will be necessary to
make another blast [to produce more rock fill].”
“…the pier tipped over and now plan to continue the stone fill out to the
tipped pier and over it, and on top of this build a new pier.”
In February 1930, “Practically all of a 110-foot steel span…has slipped into
the waters… as a result of the sinking of the stone fill which served to support
this structure...”
“…there is danger of the old bridge being forced out of position.”
“…the fill under the end of the bridge began dropping into the bay, because
of the soft bottom…and with it went the bridge.”
The troubles continued and “Ultimately, the idea of a stone fill all the way across the bay
had to be abandoned and the present half and half creation (part piling and part stone fill)
was installed.” Prior to implementing this half and half design, additional problems had to
be addressed. An article in the August 7, 1930 edition of the Ticonderoga Sentinel
indicated that:
Three wooden bents [piles] of the new South Bay bridge, north of
Whitehall, have sunk from site in the bay. In the construction of the bridge,
not much trouble has been experienced in the last several months, because
from the west end of the iron span a wooden trestle about 300 feet has been
built. It was intended to resume the stone fill from the end of the trestle to the
west shore, and it was started with the result that when the stone fill was
dropped into the bay it forced three of the bents up into the air.
These three bents had to be sawed into tow to save the remainder of
the new wooden structure. When this is completed the fill will be continued
towards the east end [of] the iron bridge.…
The estimated cost of the structure was about $321,000 and it is said
that when the bridge is complete it will cost nearly $1,000,000. 242
135
The bridge was finally completed and opened to traffic in 1930. By the 1960s a new bridge
was needed because of continuing problems with the 1930 bridge and in 1971 two Bailey
bridges were constructed on top of one of the sections to strengthen the span until a new
bridge could be built. These proved to be a danger to traffic and construction of a new
bridge was approved in 1972. Most of the central part of the 1930 bridge was removed
during construction this fourth bridge; however the rock fill approaches and pile bents
remain (Figure 6-42).
Figure 6-42. Photo taken circa 1972 of the removal of the 1932 bridge, looking northwest
toward Dresden shore (courtesy of the Historical Society of Whitehall).
The Fourth Bridge (1973-Present)
The fourth bridge was constructed approximately 90ft (27.4m) south of the third bridge.
The contract for this bridge was awarded to Thomason and Perry, Inc. of Troy NY for
$2,083,000. Construction began in November 1972 and was completed in 1973. The new
bridge was a unique structure, the only one of its kind in the state of New York. At 580ft
(176.8m) long and 40ft (12.2m) wide, the new bridge has a steel plate deck and was design
to be very light. This is because engineers determined the depth of lake sediments at the
area of the bridges to be in excess of 600ft (182.9m) deep. The piles for the 1973 bridge
were driven 140ft (42.7m) below the lake bottom, and pressure from the silt surrounding the
piles was believed to be enough to hold them in place. The 1973 bridge also had no draw,
and the clearance is 11ft (3.4m) at mean water level. 243
136
Finally, after 117 years, a bridge that solved the extremely adverse foundation conditions of
this site was successfully constructed across South Bay. Apparently the foundation
conditions of the railroad bridge site at the outlet of South Bay were more favorable since
that structure has existed for 130 years.
Wreck A5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11637)
Wreck A5 is a standard canal boat in Lake Champlain’s South Bay. The site was reported
to the LCMM by Richard Bennett, a public lands surveyor/examiner for the New York Office
of General Service, in 1998. Mr. Bennett discovered the shallow water wreck while fishing,
and contacted LCMM Executive Director Arthur Cohn to report the find. In May 1999,
LCMM researchers undertook a preliminary investigation of the site.
Dive observations revealed the site to be an 1873 class standard canal boat. Because of
the site’s shallow depth, ice has removed the sides and deck, leaving only the bottom of the
hull. The canal boat is edge-fastened, with an overall length of 97ft 2in (29.6m) and a
beam of 20ft (6.1m). The vessel’s extant structural features included transverse bottom
planking, the keelson (6in by 6in [15cm by 15cm]), eight stringers (4in by 5in [10cm by
12.7cm]), chine logs (5½in by 4in [14cm by 10cm]), a breast hook and bow framing.
Researchers also noted several artifacts on the site including some coal in the bow area, a
leather pump, a broken dish and some fittings. The LCMM recovered a number of iron rods
from the site for use in a zebra mussel-monitoring project. The rods were lying on the
bottom, presumably from the no longer extant sides.
The location of this wreck, and possibly that of one or two others in South Bay, suggest that
it may have been abandoned for use as a dock. There is no information that links this
wreck, or the others, to a particular vessel, however, it is noted that the enrollment papers
of the canal boat Mary A. Stafford (O/N 51133) report that: “Name changed to May & Annie
[,] abandoned in 1909 and made into a dock in South Bay near Whitehall.”
The Mary A. Stafford was built at Fort Ann in 1881, with dimensions of 95.7ft by 17.6ft by
8.7ft (29.1m by 5.3m by 2.65m) and had a tonnage of 122.26 GT and 116.02 NT. In 1906
she was owned by the [New York and] Lake Champlain Transportation Co. (The “Line”),
her homeport was Plattsburgh, her hailing port, Whitehall and her master, C.F. Reed.
Wreck A5 lacks sufficient site integrity to be eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP or the
NRHP. The boat consists of only the bottom of the hull, and appears to be a derelict
vessel. It is unlikely to contain a significant artifact assemblage relating to the life of its
former operators.
Wreck C5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11639)
Wreck C5, also in South Bay, was initially located in 1982 by the Champlain Maritime
Society; its original designation was VT-LC84-13. The site was rediscovered during the
2003 Lake Survey. In the 1982 dive verification the site was identified as a canal boat
137
carrying a load of graphite. The sonar image of the canal boat indicates that it is largely
intact (Figure 6-43).
The South Bay Graphite industry flourished briefly between 1900 and 1924 but the principal
deposits and mining operations were located near Hague on the west shore of Lake
George between c. 1890 and 1921. These mines and milling operations came into the
ownership of the Joseph Dixon Crucible Company of Jersey City, NJ who used the refined
graphite to make its “Ticonderoga” brand pencils, lubricants and crucible. 244 Graphite was
first discovered in the Ticonderoga area about 1815 and by 1833, a process had been
developed to refine the material for use in pencils. By 1863, the American Graphite Co. of
Jersey City, NJ had purchased several mining operations in the area and under the
direction of mining engineer William Hooper, Ticonderoga became the center of the
graphite industry. In 1873 the Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. bought out the American
Graphite Co. and continued to manufacture its products at the Ticonderoga mill. The South
Bay mining operations also came under the control of Joseph Dixon. In 1921 and 1924,
the graphite operations at Hague and South Bay respectively were closed due to the
availability of cheaper foreign ores, however the Ticonderoga pencil operation continued as
a subsidiary of Joseph Dixon until the 1980s. 245
There were four, possibly five, graphite mines located on the west side of South Bay
between 1903 and 1924: The Adirondack Graphite Mining and Milling Co. (c.1903);
Silverleaf (never opened); Tintsman Mine and Mill (c. 1904-1916); Hooper Mine and Mill
(1916-1924); Champlain Graphite Mill (c. 1912).
Little is known of the Champlain Graphite Mill and the Silverleaf Mine. Although little is
know of the workings of the Adirondack Graphite Mining Milling, which began in 1903, it is
known that the company was foreclosed and sold at auction in 1906: “The graphite works
of the Adirondack Mining and Milling Co. at South Bay near Whitehall is to be sold at
auction on a mortgage foreclosure. It is expected that a new company will be organized
and the work resumed. The works were bonded for $60,000.” 246 It is unknown if the mine
ever did reopened.
The Hooper Mine and Mill was the largest graphite mine in the area. It had been started by
George H. and Frank C. Hooper in 1916 and ran until 1924. It was located about a mile
and a half west of South Bay, at an elevation of approximately 1000ft (305m). All of the
graphite from this mine was shipped by road. The Tintsman Mine and Mill was located
near the lakeshore within 100yd (91.4m) of South Bay. Opened in 1904, it was a very
active operation. The mine was shut down in 1916 due to contamination of the graphite
product with sand and sabotage was rumored.
Based on the known information on the graphite industry in South Bay, it is likely that wreck
C5 was loaded at the Tintsman Mine between 1904 and 1916. The Tintsman Mine shipped
graphite from its mine to Whitehall across South Bay regularly. The mine had a dock and
loading facility, whereas the other known mines in the area either did not have docks for
lake shipping or there is not a record of such facilities.
138
Based on the apparent intact nature of the site from the 2003 sonar records and the
reported presence of cargo, Wreck C5 is likely eligible for inclusion in the NYSRHP and the
NRHP under Criterion D: Information Potential.
Figure 6-43. Sonar image of Wreck C5 (LCMM Collection).
Wreck D5: Steamboat Reindeer (NYSM 11640)
Wreck D5 is believed to be the hull of the steamboat Reindeer. The vessel was originally
located in 1982 during a side scan sonar survey by the Champlain Maritime Society; its
remains were not located during the 2003 Lake Survey likely due to its shallow water
location.
The steamboat Reindeer was built by master carpenter Jermiah Faulks in 1882 at Alburgh,
Vermont for the Grand Isle Steamboat Company. This 168ft (51.2m) steam-powered
vessel ran between Burlington and Alburgh, Vermont and remained the only steamboat on
Lake Champlain that maintained independence from the Champlain Transportation
Company for its entire career (Figure 6-44). It was also the largest vessel to navigate to the
falls on Otter Creek at Vergennes, Vermont, under the direction of Master Captain Ell B.
Rockwell.
Reindeer sank at the Central Vermont wharf in Burlington in 1902 (Figure 6-45). It was
then raised and taken to Whitehall, NY for dismantling, with its 800-horsepower engine cut
up for scrap iron and the hull abandoned in South Bay (Figure 6-46). The pilothouse was
removed and used as a gazebo in Castleton, Vermont, and was eventually donated to the
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum in Vergennes, Vermont, where it is on public display.
It is not possible with the current data to accurately assess this site’s integrity and historic
significance.
139
Figure 6-44. Steamboat Reindeer while in operation (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-45. Steamboat Reindeer abandoned on the Burlington, Vermont waterfront, circa
1902 (LCMM Collection).
140
Figure 6-46. Remains of steamboat Reindeer’s hull in South Bay in the 1980s (LCMM
Collection).
141
South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard Historic District
The South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard consists of at least seven canal boats abandoned
there in the early decades of the twentieth century. Researchers have been aware of this
complex of canal boats since the early 1980s, however, no significant in-water
documentation of these sites has yet been undertaken. The vessels lie near the current
Route 22 Bridge across South Bay (see page 131). The 1973 bridge is the fourth bridge to
occupy this site. The remnants of these bridge building episodes can still be seen from the
surface and were clearly visible on the sonar records.
The bridge construction episodes, when combined with the side scan sonar data, give a
date range for the canal boats in this area. The boats lie just north of the remnants of the
1913 bridge, indicating that they were abandoned after its construction. Moreover, the
absence of vessels next to the 1930 bridge suggests that the canal boats were abandoned
prior to its completion, although this evidence is not conclusive. The abandonment of canal
boats in the 1913 to 1930 time period is consistent with the end of the canal boat era and
the subsequent abandonment of numerous canal boats in Lake Champlain. This date
range and the sonar records indicate that these vessels are all 1873-class canal boats,
which are typically 97ft (29.5m) long and 17½ft (5.3m) wide.
The seven canal boats located during the 2003 Lake Survey are likely only a portion of the
collection of canal boat hulls in this part of South Bay. The sonar records showed other
acoustic anomalies which could not be conclusively identified. Early twentieth century
photographs show numerous canal boat hulls rotting along the shoreline in this area; the
remains of some of these vessels may still be extant, however, their shallow water locations
allowed them to go undetected during the Lake Survey. Extensive dive verification of sonar
anomalies in this area will be necessary to conclusively identify all of the cultural resources
present in the South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard.
Wreck E5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11641)
Wreck E5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-47, Figure 6-48 and Figure 6-49). Wreck E5 appears to be an intact canal boat with six
deck beams clearly visible in the sonar image.
Wreck F5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11642)
Wreck F5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-49). Wreck F5 appears to be an intact canal boat. The vessel lies next to canal boat
Wreck G5.
Wreck G5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11643)
Wreck G5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-49). The condition of the vessel is not clear from the sonar image; however, it may be
partially broken-up. The vessel lies next to another canal boat, Wreck F5.
142
Wreck H5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11644)
Wreck H5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-48). Based on the sonar image the vessel may be partially broken-up. The wreck lies
next to three other canal boats, Wrecks I5, J5 and K5.
Wreck I5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11645)
Wreck I5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-48). Based on the sonar image the vessel appears to be intact. The wreck lies next to
three other canal boats, Wrecks H5, J5 and K5.
Wreck J5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11646)
Wreck J5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-48). Based on the sonar image it may be partially broken-up. The wreck lies next to
three other canal boats, Wrecks H5, I5 and K5.
Wreck K5: Canal Boat (NYSM 11647)
Wreck K5 was located during the 2003 Lake Survey; it has yet to be dive verified (Figure
6-49). Based on the sonar image the vessel appears to be intact. The wreck lies next to
three other canal boats, Wrecks H5, I5 and J5.
The South Bay Canal Boat Graveyard contains a significant collection of submerged
cultural resources with the potential to yield important information about the construction of
late nineteenth/early twentieth century Champlain canal boats. Each of the vessels would
likely be eligible for the NYSRHP and the NRHP when evaluated individually; however, it is
more appropriate to consider them as an historical archaeological district. The South Boat
Canal Boat Graveyard Historic District is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D:
Information Potential and Criterion A: Event(s) and Broad Patterns of Events.
Figure 6-47. Sonar image of Wreck E5 (LCMM Collection).
143
Figure 6-48. Sonar image of Wrecks E5, H5, I5, J5 and K5 (LCMM Collection).
Figure 6-49. Sonar image of Wrecks E5, F5, and G5 and the 1913, 1930 and 1973
highway bridges (LCMM Collection).
144
CHAPTER 7: DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER LAKE CHAMPLAIN
SITES
This chapter presents the results of the documentation of three additional Lake Champlain
sites which contained the remains of ten vessels. These include the documentation of
three twentieth century construction barges and the schooner Excelsior at the Pine Street
Canal Breakwater site in Burlington, Vermont; the study of five canal boats abandoned in
the Pine Street Canal Superfund site in Burlington, Vermont; and a the wreck of a pin plat
near Ausable Point, New York.
PINE STREET BARGE CANAL BREAKWATER SITE
The Pine Street Canal Breakwater site lies just offshore of Burlington, Vermont adjacent to
the Pine Street Barge Canal. The site is southwest of the sewage treatment plant, and due
west of the Vermont Railway Company offices (Figure 7-1).
The Pine Street Canal Breakwater documentation was undertaken in June and July 2004
over the course of approximately 29 dives and 58 hours of recording time. Part of the work
was performed by eight students in a NAUI Nautical Archaeology Class, under the
instruction of LCMM’s Nautical Archaeologist Erick Tichonuk. Part of the work was
performed by LCMM archaeologists Adam Kane, Chris Sabick, Neil Dixon, and Sarah
Lyman. Diving operations were staged from shore. The Vermont Railway Company freely
granted the survey teams access to the site and the parking facilities at their offices,
adjacent the shore entry.
Site History
The Pine Street Canal Breakwater site contains the remains of four vessels: three midtwentieth century construction barges (VT-CH-793, VT-CH-795, and VT-CH-797) and the
mid-nineteenth century lake schooner Excelsior (VT-CH-796). The sites were initially
located during a 1991 Phase I Archaeological Survey for a Proposed AT&T Fiber Optic
Cable Line from Burlington, Vermont to Keesville, New York. 247
The sites documented for this study lie just north of a breakwater built on either side of the
entrance to the Pine Street Canal. This small canal was excavated in the 1860s to facilitate
loading and unloading of canal boats along inland Pine Street and the Burlington
Waterfront. Burlington was one of the largest lumber ports in the nation at the time. The
southern leg of the Barge Canal Breakwater was built in 1868, while the northern leg was
finished two years later in 1870. The northern breakwater and another smaller breakwater
extending from Roundhouse Point to the north effectively created a small basin in the area
north of the Pine Street Canal breakwaters. A gap between the breakwater allowed lake
vessels access to this basin, however in 1893 the opening was enclosed with another
breakwater (Figure 7-2).
145
Figure 7-1. Plan view of the Pine Street Canal Breakwater site (by Erick Tichonuk, Sarah
Lyman, Chris Sabick, and Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
146
Figure 7-2. NOAA Charts from 1875, 1936 and 1968 (left to right) showing the development of the Burlington, Vermont
waterfront around the Pine Street Canal.
147
The basin remained sealed from lake traffic until 1960 or 1961, when researchers believe
that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed a portion of the breakwater to allow barges
to moor inside the basin. The mooring area was needed because of repair work associated
with the 1958 collapse of a portion of the concrete superstructure of the main Burlington
Harbor breakwater. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed repairs on the
breakwater in 1961 for which several barges contracted through Turner and Breivogel, Inc.
from Falmouth, Massachusetts were used. 248 According to Captain Merritt Carpenter,
these barges were brought to the lake from the Hudson River and were moored inside the
recently opened up basin. After completion of the repair they were abandoned in this same
location. The three barges documented as part of this study are believed to be those same
vessels.
Schooner Excelsior (VT-CH-796)
One of the vessels in the Pine Street Canal Breakwater site has been identified through the
historical record and the preliminary documentation of the extant remains as the 1850
schooner Excelsior (Figure 7-3).
The October 17, 1885 issue (4:1) of the Burlington Free Press reports that “The spars of
the old schooner Excelsior, which was sunk at the mouth of the cove [Pine Street Canal]
last fall, were removed yesterday. This was one of the largest schooners that used to ply on
the lake.”
Excelsior’s last enrollment papers provide the following information on the vessel:
Permanent Enrollment (P.E.) No. 4 issued at Burlington on May 20, 1884, which lists Mary
A. Kiernan of Burlington as owner, and Henry Dupee as master. The vessel (Official
Number 8092) was built at Willsboro in 1850. Her enrollment describes her as having one
deck and two masts and being a schooner-rigged vessel with a moulded bow, plain head,
and a transom moulded stern. Her measurements were: length 87ft (26.5m), breadth 25ft
(7.6m) and depth 7ft (2.1m). Gross tonnage was listed as 99.08 and net tonnage as 94.13.
The 1990 reconnaissance survey reported the wreck as the “lower portion of a vessel hull”.
The 2004 examination found what was earlier thought likely to be a canal boat wreck, was
instead that of a mid to late nineteenth century lake vessel. The vessel is broken into two
sections. The forward portion of the hull lies on the northern side of the northern Pine
Street Canal breakwater. The stern is located west of the 1893 breakwater. It is believed
that the stern of Excelsior was ripped from the vessel and deposited in its current location
when the basin was reopened in 1960/1961.
148
Figure 7-3. Preliminary archaeological drawing of the forward half of the schooner Excelsior (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
149
Bow Section
The forward part of the hull has a preserved length of 52ft 2in (16m) and a beam of 23ft
(7m). These remains consist only of the lower 2 to 4ft (61 to 122cm) of the hull. Toward
amidships the boat is preserved only to the turn of the bilge, while at the bow the remains
project 3ft (.91m) above the bottom with an estimated 1ft (30.5cm) or so buried. The
starboard side of the boat is partially covered with rubble from the collapsed breakwater.
The stem is still present, although it is detached from the hull, and is partly buried by
rubble. It is 9ft 2in (2.75m) tall with an iron band on its forward face.
A saddle maststep runs transversely across most of the breadth of the bow. It is located
15ft (4.5m) aft of the presumed original location of the stem. It has a rectangular hole for
accepting the base of the mast. The mast stump lies in the bottom of the hull just forward
of the saddle. The forward position of this step helps confirm the vessel’s identification as a
schooner.
The preserved length of the centerboard trunk is 20ft (6m), although its after end is no
longer extant. The trunk is set just to the starboard of the boat’s centerline. The base of
the centerboard is still in the trunk.
The boat has a keelplank rather than a true keel. The underside of the keel has a thin layer
of sacrificial planking, or false keel. The keelson is at least 12 in (30.5cm) moulded and
sided. The frames are approximately 6in (15cm) moulded and sided. The turn of the bilge
is rounded. Planking is preserved to the turn of the bilge at the stern of the wreck, with
more preserved toward the bow. The shape of the hull is flat bottomed with a relatively
bluff bow. Construction is plank on frame with iron fasteners.
Although the hull contained significant quantities of modern trash, researchers did observe
several rigging elements including a snatch block, a block and a sheave. Portions of the
starboard side of the boat are buried by rubble from the breakwater.
Stern Section
Located outside of the 1893 breakwater is a section of vessel wreckage that is believed to
be the stern of Excelsior (Figure 7-4). The remains consist of a portion of the keel,
sternpost, shoe, gudgeon, and planking. Interestingly, the stern assembly is upside down
and it is unclear how much more of the structure is buried in the lake bottom sediments.
The bottom of the keel is exposed for 25ft (7.6m) and is composed to two timbers scarfed
together with a short diagonal scarf. The bottom face of keel was originally protected by a
2in (5cm) thick false keel. A 6ft 4in (1.9m) section of the false keel remains, and is similar
to the false keel in the bow section. The aft keel timber does not have a false keel, but its
forward end is notched to seat the after end of the false keel, which originally overlapped
the scarf joint. The aft keel timber, which is 10ft 8in (3.3m) long, is tapered, measuring 10in
(25.4cm) molded and 8in (20.3cm) sided at its forward end and swelling to 14in (35.6cm)
molded at its terminus. The forward keel timber is 8in (20.3cm) sided and molded.
150
Figure 7-4. Plan view and profile of the Excelsior’s inverted stern section (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
151
A 12in (30.5cm) molded and 8in (20.3cm) sided stern post is mortised into the aft end of
the keel. The forward face of this timber has a 2in (5cm) deep rabbet to accept the hood
ends of the hull planking. Only portions of two hull planks are visible above the mud line.
These planks are 2in (5cm) thick and 8in (20.3cm) wide and are fastened with iron spikes.
An iron gudgeon is also visible on the stern assembly. The iron gudgeon is fastened
through the sternpost and lowest hull plank with iron bolts and has a 3in (7.6cm) diameter
opening to accept the pintle.
While it cannot be conclusively stated that this stern wreckage belonged to the schooner
found inside the breakwater, its dimensions, similarity in construction, and location suggest
that it did. Further excavation and documentation of both hull components will allow for a
conclusive determination.
Excelsior Historic Analysis
In determining that the wreckage of VT-CH-796 was the schooner Excelsior, researchers
examined the information known about individual schooners on Lake Champlain. There
were four or possibly five, nineteenth century lake schooners that had a beam of 23ft (7m)
or greater that were considered, but Excelsior was the best fit for dimensions and history:
•
Daniel Webster, a lake sloop built at Burlington, VT in 1837, having dimensions of
86ft by 25.75ft by 6ft (26.2m by 25.8m by 1.83m). She was reported to be schooner
rigged in 1858. Her beam of nearly 26ft (8m) seems to be a little wide and her depth
of 6ft (1.8m) a little shallow. (The 9ft 2in [3 m] stem on VT-CH-796 indicates a fairly
deep vessel). The unusual transverse mast step has not been seen before in
Burlington built vessels. What became of the Daniel Webster is not known.
•
Gen. Scott, a schooner built at Champlain, NY in 1839, had dimensions of 80ft by
26ft by 5ft (24.4m by 8m by 1.5m). This vessel’s beam is probably too wide and
depth too shallow. The Gen. Scott’s enrollment papers were surrendered at
Burlington in 1872, and the vessel was reported as being abandoned (location and
actual date not given).
•
T.D. Chapman, a schooner built at Whitehall, NY in 1848 with dimensions of 106.5ft
by 25.3ft by 6.2ft (32.5m by 7.7m by 1.8m). This vessel is probably too long, but the
beam and depth are reasonable. No record of the vessel’s service or disposition has
been found to date.
•
American, a schooner built at Willsboro, NY in 1848 with dimensions of 88ft by 24ft
by 6ft (26.8m by 7.3m by 1.8m). Although dimensions are reasonable (beam and
depth probably a little small), the schooner was reported beached for breaking-up on
the New York shore in 1879.
•
Excelsior, schooner built at Willsboro, NY in 1850 with dimensions of 87ft by 25ft by
7ft (25.5m by 7.6m by 2.1m). The beam is consistent with the probable original
beam of VT-CH-796 and the depth, the deepest of the other three or four named
152
schooners, probably is reasonable for a vessel with a stem of 9ft (2.7m).
Based on the historical record, in particular the report of its sinking and abandonment, the
location in which it was found, its dimensions, probable age, type of construction, probable
schooner rig and a comparison with other lake schooners, the vessel was identified as
Excelsior.
Excelsior’s Career
The schooner Excelsior was one of Lake Champlain’s largest nineteenth century
commercial sailing vessels. Brief glimpses into the schooner’s 35 years of service on Lake
Champlain are provided by sporadic newspaper accounts and its enrollment papers.
Excelsior was built in Willsboro, New York in 1850 (O/N 8092). Its enrollment documents
describe it as a wooden vessel with one deck, two masts, a moulded bow, pain head and
transom moulded stern. Its enrollment documents between 1870 and 1884 give her
measurements as 87ft (26.5m) long, 25ft (7.6m) in beam and 7ft (2.1m) deep, while slightly
larger measurements of 25.5ft (7.8m) in beam and 7.2ft (2.2m) deep are reported between
1868 and 1870.
Excelsior’s first known enrollment was issued in April 1865 at Plattsburgh and surrendered
there in May 1868 because of a change in ownership. 249 The vessel’s new owner was C.D.
Landon of Whitehall, New York with O. Landon as the schooner’s master. Excelsior’s 1868
enrollment was surrendered at Plattsburgh in July 1870 because of a change in
ownership. 250 The next owner was W.T. Foote, with O. Landon continuing as its master. 251
In 1872 Excelsior changed hands again with Rufus C. Landon of Whitehall as the owner
and master. 252 In 1879 another enrollment was issued because of a change in ownership
and district change, however, Rufus Landon is still listed as the boat’s owner. The port of
hail is Whitehall, while the master is Henry Dupee. 253 Excelsior’s last enrollment was
issued in 1884 and surrendered in Burlington the following year. The vessel was
“abandoned as unfit for service.” The schooner’s last owner was Mary A. Kiernan, while
Henry Dupee was still the master. 254
In addition to Excelsior’s enrollment documents, researchers have located a number of
newspaper accounts of the schooner’s career.
1860
Made first trip of the season between Burlington and Port Kent on 28 March 1860. 255
1866
Made last trip of the season between Burlington and Port Kent on 21 January 1866. 256
153
1870
The EXCELSIOR took advantage of a favorable wind, and started for Port Henry yesterday,
carrying several large boilers for the iron company at that place. 257
1881
The schooner Excelsior has gone into winter quarters at Plattsburgh. She was built at
Willsboro Bay in 1853 by Captain Landon and is 110ft (33.55m) long and 28ft (8.5m) wide –
one of the largest sailboats on the lake. 258
1882
The schooner Excelsior, loaded with stone, made her last trip to Port Henry last week. 259
1883
The old schooner EXCELSIOR, well known to many of our readers, is again engaged this
season freighting limestone from Westport to the Cedar Point furnaces. She is one of the
very oldest vessels on the lake, and is commanded by Capt. Dupry, who has been on
board of her every season for 22 years. 260
1885
The spars on the old schooner Excelsior, which was sunk at the mouth of the cove last fall,
were removed yesterday. This was one of the largest schooners that used to ply on the
lake. 261
Construction Barges
The survey area within Pine Street Canal Breakwater site is very shallow, with depths not
exceeding 10ft (3m). As such, the three wooden construction barges have been severely
affected by ice and storms. The barges now present a jumbled debris field of disarticulated
sides, ends, decks, bottoms of hulls and miscellaneous deck hardware.
Through the analysis of these pieces, researchers were able to distinguish three barge
bottoms, five sides and one deck. All three vessels are similar in construction, and were
likely built at the same boatyard. The barges are all flat-bottomed with vertical sides and
raked ends. The bottoms were constructed of transversely oriented bottom planking
overlain by longitudinal stringers and transverse riders. The raked ends of the barges were
all disarticulated from the bottoms; however they were formally attached by large triangular
chocks joining the framing elements inside the hull. The sides were built of vertically
oriented from futtocks. The bases of the futtocks were tenoned into a mortise on the
chinelog. The sides did not appear to be edge fastened. Depth of holds, inferred from the
scattered sides, varied from 6ft 5in (1.98m) to 8ft 8in (2.68m).
Construction Barge 1 (VT-CH-795)
VT-CH-795 is 87ft (26.5m) long and 32ft (9.7m) in beam. This is the length on keel rather
than the length on deck. It is oriented lengthwise approximately 20 degrees from north.
The sides are disarticulated and lie to the north and east of the bottom. Both ends are also
extant, although they have detached from the bottom of the hull.
154
Construction Barge 2 is largely incomplete, but a measurement taken from the chine log
was 73ft (22.2m). It lies alongside the southern portion of the submerged breakwater.
Some riders and longitudinal stringers are still intact, though the majority of the bottom
planking is beneath the sand. The two ends are present, collapsed and flat on the bottom.
One side may be present, lying across the northeastern portion of the wreck, and possibly
underneath VT-CH-795 to its north.
The remains of Construction Barge 3 lie parallel to the breakwater, closer to shore than VTCH-793. Only a few timbers were apparent protruding from the sand, however its
construction seemed consistent with the other barges. No measurements were recorded
on this vessel.
Pine Street Canal Breakwater Preserve Feasibility Analysis
The Burlington Barge Canal Breakwater site is an excellent candidate for inclusion in the
Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve. The shallow nature of the site and
proximity to shore would make it the system’s first snorkeling preserve. As a snorkeling
preserve a broader scope of users could access this interesting and dynamic site. Its
unique status as a snorkeling preserve and high exposure area on the Burlington
Waterfront present both challenges and opportunities.
Shore Access
Site access could be gained by either land or water. When arriving by land the site can be
easily accessed via the Burlington Bike Path. The nearest public access point to the path
is Perkins Pier. Users will need to walk equipment from the Perkins Pier parking area to
the access point adjacent to the City of Burlington’s Water Treatment Facility. Also in the
immediate vicinity is Vermont Railway property. Clear signs are needed to ensure this
private property is not trespassed upon. Burlington Parks and Recreation needs to be
consulted for input on other potential issues surrounding the use of the bike path and
Perkins Pier area.
Access Stairs and Signs
The entry and exit area from shore along the bike path necessitates going over large stone
blocks. A short flight of steps will ensure safe access to a beach area below the stones for
water access. A shoreline sign at this access point will greatly enhance appreciation of the
site and promote safe use. This sign should include an underwater site map, historical
background, and safe use protocols. Protocols would include instructions on how to keep
both the cultural resources and users of the site safe, such as staying in the designated
area and not removing any artifacts from the site. This highly visibile sign will have the
benefit of educating and exposing non-snorkelers and divers to a part of our rich
submerged cultural heritage resources.
155
Water Access
The site’s location at the extreme south end of the Burlington Waterfront high boat traffic
area allows consideration of a boat mooring to improve access by water. The inclusion of a
standard preserve mooring will help define and designate the area, thus increasing safety
for users and decrease possible damage to the site from dropped anchors. This mooring
will be tucked along the shore in a low boat use area, thus ensuring it would not interfere
with navigation.
The mooring buoy should be placed just outside the submerged
breakwater of the site with a guideline to lead snorkelers and divers to the area. The area
within the submerged breakwater should be designated a no-boats zone to ensure the
safety of users.
Underwater Navigation and Interpretation
Due to the complexity of the site, underwater navigation aids are recommended. A
guideline located near the bottom will allow users to travel from one significant feature to
the next with minimal disorientation. The number and diversity of shipwreck types and the
presence of the breakwater may require some additional underwater signs to help users
better understand and appreciate this complex site.
Conclusion
The Pine Street Canal Breakwater site offers a new dynamic to the underwater preserve
system. No other site offers multiple vessels and structures from different centuries. It also
provides shore access to a new user group: snorkelers. As a snorkeling preserve, the site
would be accessible to a greater volume of users than any current site in the Lake
Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve system. Prior to the opening of the site the issues
of safe shore access and shore side and underwater signage will need to be addressed. If
these issues are properly addressed the Burlington Barge Canal Breakwater will become
an excellent preserve site with perhaps the highest use.
156
AUSABLE POINT PIN PLAT
In 2004 LCMM researchers examined the remains of a vessel reported by divers Craig
Allen (in 2004) and Dan Carpenter (in 2000) (Figure 7-5). One dive was undertaken on the
site to identify and preliminarily document the wreck. It lies in shallow water (7 to 8ft [2.1 to
2.4m]) on a sandy bottom near Ausable Point. Conditions during the examination were
poor with 2 to 3ft (61 to 91cm) seas and underwater visibility of approximately 5ft (1.5m).
The overall remains are 64ft 5in (19.6m) in length with a maximum beam of 19ft 6in (5.9m)
which was recorded 27ft (8.2m) aft of the bow. The remains consist only of the bottom of
the hull up to the turn of the bilge. The estimated original dimensions of the boat are
approximately 23ft (7m) in beam and 80ft (24.4m) in length. The boat’s shallow water
location and the associated ice damage accounts for the relatively poor condition of the
site.
The vessel has a transversely planked scow-shaped bow. The structure of the bow
consists of longitudinally oriented stringers and transverse ceiling. The bow is 16ft 2in
(4.9m) in beam. At 12ft (3.7m) aft of the forward most extent of the wreck the building
method transitions from scow construction to a more traditional plank-on-frame technique.
The hull appears to be flat-bottomed, although nearly the entire interior was obscured by
sediments. The ceiling and planking are oriented longitudinally. The dominant feature of
the interior of the hull is a substantial keelson, approximately 1ft (30.5cm) moulded and
sided. Although flat-bottomed, the transition from the bottom to the sides appears to be
rounded; no evidence of a chine log was noted.
Moving aft the hull gradually tapers until it ends abruptly at the squared off stern of the
boat. The stern is framed by a stern knee and a series of cant frames. The transverse
stern planking is similar to transom planking, but given its location so near the bottom of the
hull it is unusual. The sternpost is located entirely outside of the hull, fastened to the stern
planking and the stern knee.
Artifacts were not observed inside the hull, with the exception of numerous fasteners.
These consisted of both wrought and cut nails. In one area of the bow several wire nails (c.
1910) were used to hold a piece of ceiling in place. This may represent a later repair giving
a relative date to the sinking/abandonment of the boat. No attempt was made during this
inspection to examine the bottom around the wreck for other boat remains. However, other
divers have noted a large debris field surrounding the wreck.
The construction of the Ausable Wreck is unlike any other known shipwreck in Lake
Champlain. LCMM researchers have preliminarily identified it as a Canadian lumber boat,
known as a pin plat. Its preliminary identification as a pin plat is based on: 1) the scow
bow; 2) the low transom; 3) the narrow tapered stern; and 4) the beam which is too large for
any Champlain canal boat, but consistent with that of a pin plat (23ft [7m]). The boat’s
length is short for a pin plat; even at an original length of approximately 80ft (24.4m) the
length is less than the 108ft (32.9m) allowed by the Chambly Canal locks.
157
Figure 7-5. Preliminary archaeological drawing of the Ausable Point Shipwreck (drawn by Adam Kane, inked by Chris Sabick,
LCMM Collection).
158
CANAL BOATS IN THE PINE STREET CANAL
In January 2003 archaeologists from the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum documented
the remains of five canal boats (VT-CH-798, 799, 800, 801 and 802) in the Pine Street
Canal in Burlington, Vermont. The boats were abandoned in the 1920s or 1930s, and are
shown on Lake Champlain navigational charts (see page 147). The presence of these
National Register eligible canal boats in the Pine Street Canal Superfund site lead to the
off-site mitigation of the Sloop Island Canal Boat (see page 207), undertaken in 2002 and
2003. No one had anticipated that these boats would ever be available for study due to
their location in the Superfund Site. During the environmental remediation in 2002 and
2003 the canal was partially drained. In the fall of 2002 LCMM staff had taken numerous
photographs of the exposed canal boats, however, they were not accessible for further
documentation (Figure 7-6). In January 2003 extremely cold weather set in, freezing the
remaining water in the canal. The canal boats were left partially exposed with 1 to 4ft (.31
to 1.2m) of their structure showing.
Figure 7-6. Canal boat wreckage in the Pine Street Canal in October 2002 (by Adam Kane,
LCMM Collection).
In January, LCMM researchers undertook three days of documentation on the sites.
Weather during the fieldwork was clear and cold, with daytime highs in the single digits
above zero Fahrenheit. Both digital photographs and 35mm slide film were taken.
Overall, the canal boats in the Pine Street Canal are not well-preserved. They are all near
the water’s surface and thus have been subjected to damage from ice, periodic exposure to
the air, and human vandalism. Despite the condition of the vessels, their documentation
still yielded considerable amounts of important technical information.
LCMM
archaeologists, who are more accustomed to documenting submerged shipwrecks, found
the study of these exposed wrecks to be especially rewarding. There were a number of
features observed that would likely have gone unrecorded had the sites been underwater.
The constraints of underwater archaeology with limited bottom times, and in Lake
Champlain’s cold, dark waters often make it impossible to record the level of detail which
was taken with relative ease from these boats.
159
VT-CH-801
The remains of VT-CH-801 are located in the southeastern corner of the basin portion of
the canal. The vessel has a length of 96ft 9in (29.5m) and a beam of 18ft (5.5m) (Figure
7-7). The hull is preserved up to approximately 1ft (30.5cm) below deck level. Damage
from ice and the salvage of firewood has completely removed the deck and deck beams,
rudder, coamings, and most hanging knees. The extant components of the remains
include the stern, sides and bow. During the 2003 documentation between 1 and 4ft (.31 to
1.2m) of remains were exposed above the ice; approximately 6ft (1.8m) were below the ice
and not accessible for documentation (Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9). The sides of the boat
are edge-fastened, while the bow and stern are built plank-on-frame.
Figure 7-7. Photograph of VT-CH-801 from October 2002 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
The remains of VT-CH-801’s bow were the best-preserved portion of the vessel. The
boat’s stem, which was preserved up to its original height, was angled slightly aft. In crosssection the stem was rectangular with rabbets cut on both sides of its forward face to
accept the bow planking. The framing was vertical or angled slightly to the stern on either
side of the stem. Typical frames were 6in (15.2cm) moulded and 2½in (6.4cm) sided with
room and space of 4 to 6in (10.2 to 15.2cm). The bow frames were taller toward the stem,
creating the sheer in the bow. The bow planking consisted of 2in (5.1cm) thick and 5in
(12.7cm) wide planks. The planks were angled upward toward the stem paralleling the
sheer of the bow. Two preserved wales were fastened onto the exterior of the bow
planking. These were 3in (7.6cm) wide and 2½in (6.4cm) thick. Their forward faces were
covered with a ½in (1.3cm) thick iron band. The bow structure was reinforced on the
interior by two laminate breast hooks, although there were certainly several more below the
ice. The lower breast hook was well preserved, consisting of six 1¼in (3.2cm) thick and 4in
(10.2cm) wide planks laminated together from the stem outboard to frame 8. From frame 8
and aft the breast hook consisted of only four planks. The breast hook was bolted to every
other frame and to the stem.
160
Figure 7-8. Drawing of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
Figure 7-9. Photomosaic showing the port side of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane and Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
161
VT-CH-801’s edge-fastened sides were not well preserved, however, in some respects the
degraded nature of this part of the boat allowed for a closer examination of construction
techniques. Upon initial inspection of the side it appeared to be constructed in a haphazard
manner. Numerous different types of scarf joints were observed and many of the strakes
were much smaller than would be expected of a boat of this type. Careful documentation
of the side revealed the reason behind this pattern: approximately 50 percent of the strakes
were not original to the boat. These extensive repairs suggest that the boat was quite old
when it was abandoned in the canal.
Prior to this study LCMM researchers had not observed repairs to any vessels with edgefastened hulls. This is almost certainly because repairs are difficult to observe, especially if
the vessel is well-preserved. The documentation of VT-CH-801 revealed three different
techniques used to replace a damaged or rotted edge-fastened strake (Figure 7-10). The
first step was to remove the original strake, while leaving the vertically oriented drift bolts in
place. Technique 1 was accomplished by placing 1in (2.5cm) thick filler planks between
each drift bolt. These fillers and the drift bolts were then sandwiched between two 1½ to
2in (3.8 to 5.1cm) thick planks from either side. The layers of wood were held together with
iron bolts with square nuts on the interior. Technique 2 is similar to Technique 1 except no
fillers are used. The exterior replacement strake had grooves cut on its interior face
corresponding with the location of drift bolts. The plank is fitted into the opening and a 1½
in (3.8cm) thick strake is inserted from inboard. The two layers are then held together with
iron bolts. Technique 3 is accomplished by taking a plank which has the same width as the
original plank and cutting grooves out of its interior side corresponding with the location of
drift bolts. The plank is then fitted into the gap, and small vertical wedges are placed over
the grooves on the inboard face. The entire plank is then re-edge-fastened from the strake
above. Technique 3 seems to have more limited uses than 1 and 2 because it can only be
undertaken on strakes which can be edge-fastened from above, meaning that the
replacement strake would not be more than 2 to 3ft (61 to 91cm) below the gunwale.
Figure 7-10. Plan view drawing showing the repair techniques documented on the sides of
VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane, inked by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
162
Along the interior of the sides there are several remnants of hanging knees used to hold
deck beams. The knees are spaced at 13 to 14ft (4.0 to 4.3m) intervals and are bolted into
the sides. The upper faces of the knees are 1ft 11in (58.4cm) long and 3½in (8.9cm) wide.
The remaining portions of the boat’s stern are well-preserved although none of the upper
transom is extant (Figure 7-11). The lower transom consists of the sternpost, framing,
planking, transom log, and a lodging knee. The vertically oriented sternpost is 13in (33cm)
wide and 11in (27.9cm) thick. It is rectangular in cross-section with rabbets cut out of the
after face to accept the stern planking. The after face of the sternpost is flush with the
planking. The stern framing is also vertical; however, across the breadth of the hull the
frame placement gives the stern a modest transverse curvature. There are eight stern
frames; two are made of two timbers sandwiched together. The upper end of each frame is
cut in the shape of a tenon to fit into a mortice on the underside of the transom log. Each
tenon is held in place by a bolt driven through the transom log. The transom log is the
uppermost preserved member of the stern assembly. It consists of two timbers that span
the breadth of the stern. The transom log is 17ft (5.2m) long, 6in (15.2cm) thick, and from
7in to 2ft (17.8cm to 61cm) wide. The after face of the transom log has a 10½in (26.7cm)
semi-circular cut-out which once held the rudder post. This enclosure for the rudderpost
may have been completed with a semi-circular iron band; however, this feature is no longer
present. The forward outboard face of the transom log is bolted to a lodging knee. This
knee connects the transom log to the side of the hull.
Figure 7-11. Photograph of the starboard stern quarter of VT-CH-801 (by Adam Kane,
LCMM Collection).
163
VT-CH-800
The remains of VT-CH-800 were located in the northeastern corner of the barge canal
basin. The stern and a large portion of the canal boats port side are buried by fill from the
eastern wall of the basin and the bow of VT-CH-800 points southwest (Figure 7-12 and
Figure 7-13). The remains of the starboard side extend for 81ft (24.9m) while those of the
port side are exposed for only 41ft 9in (12.8m). The vessel has a beam of 17ft 6in (5.4m)
and is preserved up to approximately 1ft (30.5cm) from deck level. Between 2ft (61cm) and
4ft (122cm) of structure was exposed above the ice during the 2003 examination. All
evidence of the upper works and ship’s equipment have been dismantled or destroyed by
ice or removed by scavengers.
Figure 7-12. Photograph showing the bow of VT-CH-800 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
The bow of VT-CH-800 is the most extensively preserved portion of the exposed remains.
Construction of the bow centers on the stem, which is 12in (30.5cm) molded and 7in
(17.8cm) sided. On either side of the stem the shape of the bow is defined by 16 futtocks
molded 6in (15.2cm) and sided 4in (10.2cm). These futtocks are spaced 6in (15.2cm) to 1ft
(30.5cm) apart with the closest spacing in the sharpest part of bow curve. The futtocks
located close to the stem are taller than the others giving the bow considerable sheer. One
surprising find in the bow was the presence of cement between the stem and the first
futtock on the starboard side. Historical research has revealed that cement was employed
as a quick and cheap way to repair small leaks in the bow planking. 262
164
Figure 7-13. Drawing of VT-CH-800 (by Chris Sabick, LCMM Collection).
165
The outer planking of the bow is composed of 2in (5cm) thick planks that are spiked to the
futtocks. The planking runs curve upward as they near the stem following the sheer. The
interior structure of the bow is further reinforced by the presence of two laminated breast
hooks. These timbers are composed of six 2in (5cm) thick, 4in (10cm) wide planks that are
bent inside the frames and bolted to every other one. On either side of the vessel, at
futtock 11, the laminated breast hooks are thinned down to only four planks which continue
along the side of the vessel to the juncture with the first deck beam of the cargo hold
(approximately 8ft [2.5m] aft of the stem). Two rider bits are located 6ft (1.8m) aft of the
stem, though they are heavily canted aft so their exact original location cannot be
ascertained. These 6in (15.2cm) by 8in (20.3cm) timbers most likely supported an iron
windlass during the vessels operational life.
The sides of VT-CH-800 are composed of 4in (10cm) thick edge fastened planks. Three
quarter inch (1.9cm) drift bolts, spaced every 18in (45.7cm) join the planks. The planking
displays a number of repairs suggesting that the vessel was quite old at the time of its
abandonment. Five repairs were observed in the port side planking and fourteen on the
starboard side of the vessel. These repairs fall into the three categories outlined above in
the description of VT-CH-801. Internally, the planking was reinforced by a series of vertical
and diagonal timbers. These timbers, which are 4in (10cm) thick and range in width from 6
to 9in (15.2 to 22.9cm), are spaced rather randomly throughout the length of the hull. It
appears that the diagonal reinforcements were intended as additional support for hanging
knees which reinforced the juncture of the sides and deck beams. These knees are
spaced between 12ft (3.7m) and 14ft (4.3m) apart along the sides of the vessel.
Unfortunately, the stern and bottom structure of VT-CH-800 were not accessible for
documentation. However, the exposed remains allowed for a more detailed and thoughtful
documentation than would have been possible in the contaminated waters of the barge
canal.
166
VT-CH-802
The remains of VT-CH-802 are located in the eastern half of the canal's turning basin with
the bow pointed toward the south. The vessel likely had a maximum length of 98ft (29.9m),
although the remains are only 92ft 2in (28.1m) long (Figure 7-14 and Figure 7-15). The
maximum beam of the vessel is 16ft 11in (5.2m). With the exception of the bow and stern,
the hull is preserved up to the underside of the deck beams; however, all but one of the
hanging knees that supported the deck beams are missing. The bow and stern are also
largely missing. During the 2003 survey six strakes were visible above the ice, which
accounts for approximately 5ft (1.52m) of the vessel's sides. Drift bolts projected above the
extant hull about 5in (12.7cm), suggesting that only one additional strake, the bulwark, was
missing. Probing inside the hold suggested that approximately 3ft (.91m) of the vessel lie
below the ice and mud, thus not accessible for documentation. The sides of the boat are
edge-fastened, while the bow and stern were built using the plank-on-frame construction
method.
Figure 7-14. Photograph of VT-CH-802 taken in October 2002 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
Unfortunately, the bow and stern were not well preserved and most of their structural
elements were not visible as they lie in the mud and water. Approximately ten cant frames
projected above the water during the fall of 2002 but were buried below the ice during the
documentation survey in the winter of 2003. From the data collected, it is clear that the
bow and stern were constructed after the edge fastened hold was completed. The vessel's
sides stop in a vertical line approximately 5ft (1.52m) aft of the stem. The inboard surface
of the hull planks are between 2 to 3½in (6.4 to 8.9cm) longer than the exterior surface of
the hull planks, creating an angle of between 50 and 60 degrees. It was upon this angled
surface that the bow planks joined the hull planks. To reinforce the junction between the
plank-on-frame bow and the vessel's edge fastened hull, the shipwrights relied on
numerous breast hooks and very likely carlings, the deck planking, and several layers of
interlocking floor timbers that spanned both sections of the vessel. We can only speculate
on these construction features since much of the vessel is missing or inaccessible.
167
Figure 7-15. Archaeological drawing of VT-CH-802 (by Scott McLaughlin, LCMM Collection).
168
A laminated breast hook covered portions of the fourth and fifth strake below the deck
beams in the bow. The laminated breast hook was built up on a filler piece that was equal
in sided dimension to the futtock-like composite timber at the transition point between the
vertical sides and curved bow. The filler pieces on each side extended approximately 10ft
(3.05m) aft of the point were the bow began. The laminate elements of the breast hook
consisted of three planks of equal thickness and breadth. These planks were 5in (12.7cm)
wide, 2in (5.08cm) thick, and 1.5ft (45.7cm) shorter than the filler piece. The laminated
breast hook was broken just aft of the forward ends of the filler pieces.
Another breast hook was located within the rubble of the bow. This breast hook was
originally located above the deck and held the upper ends of the rider bitts in place. The
breast hook was constructed of two 8in (20.3cm) thick timbers through bolted in a fore and
aft direction. The aftermost timber, which is almost 17ft (5.18m) long and has a maximum
width of 28in (71.1cm), has a large square hole in it, through which the 6in (15.2cm) sided
and 12in (30.5cm) molded rider bitts project. Oval iron stains 2.75in (7cm) wide and 24in
(61cm) long suggests that two iron cleats were also attached to the upper surface of this
timber at its outboard ends.
The vessel's edge-fastened sides are well preserved, including the oakum used to caulk
between the 4in (10.2cm) hull planks. The spacing between the 0.75in (1.9cm) iron drift
bolts used to hold the hull planks together is between 14 and 16in (35.6 to 40.6cm). There
are very few exceptions to the regular spacing of the drift bolts. Only one irregularly placed
drift bolt is located on the port side of the vessel and four on the starboard side. The
function of these irregularly spaced drift bolts is unknown.
The shipwrights established a standard method of assembling the hull. The number of
planks each strake was composed of alternated between two and three planks, which
effectively spaced apart the 4ft (1.2m) long flat scarf joints used to join the planks. When a
strake was made up of two planks, the scarf joint lies amidships, and, in the case of three
planks, the scarf joints are placed nearer the fore (or forward) and quarter (or after) ends of
the vessel. When the shipwrights assembled three planks to make up a strake, they
attached the middle plank first then the bow and stern planks. When the shipwrights were
making up a strake from two planks, they alternated between attaching the stern plank first
and the bow plank first. These alternating patterns were likely done because the shipwright
assumed it increased the strength of the hull.
To increase the height of the bow and stern of the canal boat, the shipwrights used two
steelers at each end of the vessel. The first steeler lies between the second and third
strake below the underside of the deck beams. The second steeler lies on top of the first
plank below the underside of the deck beams. The steelers in the bow start about 9ft
(2.7m) aft of where the hull transitions from the vertical sides to curved bow. The steelers
in the stern start about 17ft (5.2m) forward of the lower transom.
As canal boats entered and exited locks and slips, their ends received a great deal of
damage. To protect the stern of the vessel, the hull narrows slightly in its last or after
169
quarter. Some of the strakes on VT-CH-802 are protected at the stern with other methods.
Beginning with the third strake below the deck beams, each strake is protected by a frog
approximately 3ft (7.6m) long, 6in (15.2cm) wide, and 2in (5.1cm) thick. Each frog is
fastened to the hull by six cut iron nails. The upper five strakes and two of the steelers are
visible in the stern stop short of reaching the lower transom. Their after ends butt instead
into a plank that follows the rake of the lower transom, covering the vulnerable end grain of
the strakes and steelers. This construction technique, however, does not appear on the
lower hull planks.
Evidence of repairs is present throughout the hull of the canal boat. Graving pieces or
wooden patches were used to replace small rotten sections of planking, which were easily
removed with a chisel. Nine graving pieces appear on the starboard side and seven on the
port side. Graving pieces only worked when the rot covered a relatively small area and did
not penetrate through the entire thickness of the plank.
One area on the port bow has a large repair where rot must have been extensive. A 10ft
7in (3.22m) section of the third strake located below the deck beams and the steeler
located above it were replaced with two corresponding pairs of wide planks. One pair of
planks covered the forward 4ft 7in (1.4m) section and the second covered the remaining 6ft
(1.83m). This repair method allowed for the 0.75in (1.9cm) iron drift bolts to remain in
place. The exterior planks were 2.5in (6.4cm) thick and had vertical grooves cut into their
inboard face corresponding with the locations of the drift bolts. The interior planks were
1.5in (3.8cm) thick. The exterior and interior planks were then fastened together using iron
cut nails.
Within the hull, there are eleven regularly spaced futtocks that range in dimension from 6.5
to 7in (16.5 to 17.8cm) sided and 3.5 to 4.5in (8.9 to 11.4cm) molded. The room and space
between the futtocks is approximately 6ft (1.8m). The regular futtocks begin approximately
15ft (4.6m) aft of where the bow and vertical sides of the hull intersect. The regular futtocks
end approximately 14ft (4.3m) forward of the transom. There are three irregular futtocks
that do not correspond with any other timber on the opposing side: one on the port side and
two on the starboard side. The function of these irregular futtocks is unknown.
Each futtock was attached to every hull plank that they intersected with an iron through
bolt. The bolts were located between one-quarter and one-half of the way down from the
top of each hull plank. To prevent the futtock from splitting, the shipwrights varied the
locations of the bolts from one hull plank to the next. They alternated the bolt location from
the forward to the after side of the centerline of the futtock.
Only one hanging knee remains intact within the hull; however, evidence of the other
hanging knees is still evident. The surviving hanging knee is attached to the third regular
futtock aft on the port side. It is 5.5in (14cm) sided and 4.5in (11.4cm) molded on its lower
arm and 6in (15.2cm) molded on its upper arm. The lower arm is 36in (91.4cm) long and
the upper arm is 20in (50.8cm) long. Each hanging knee was attached with four bolts to
the inboard surface of each regular futtock. The outboard surface of the hanging knees
170
was notched to cover the bolt and nut holding the futtock to the hull planking. These
hanging knees supported the vessel's deck beams, to which they were attached by a single
bolt.
The shipwrights constructed futtock-like composite timbers at the fore and after ends of the
vessel's sides. These elements strengthen the joint between the vessel's vertical sides and
its round bow, as well as between its sides and the raked lower transom. They served very
much the same function as a chine, which is to reinforce the connection between two
planes (the vessel's bottom and side in the case of a chine). These composite elements
consist of a vertical (as in the bow) or raked (as in the stern) timber larger in dimension than
the regular futtocks. This timber is supported on its fore and aft inboard surface by a large
triangular shaped block. The two timbers are through bolted to create a solid structural
element.
The stern of the canal boat has a slightly raked lower transom (Figure 7-16). The framing
on this area consists of eleven raked stern frames 3in (7.6cm) sided and 7in (17.8cm)
molded with a room and space of approximately 14in (35.6cm). Located forward of the
central stern frame is a laminated inner sternpost, which is made up of five 5in (12.7cm)
wide and 1in (2.5cm) thick boards. Attached to the exterior of the frames is 2in (5.1cm) hull
planking, which had been repaired. All of the planking ends met over a stern frame except
one, where a plank was attached to a backer or nailer, which was scabbed onto the port
side of the central stern frame.
Figure 7-16. Photograph showing the stern of VT-CH-802 (by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection).
171
VT-CH-798
The remains of VT-CH-798 are located on the western side of the canal basin and the
wreck lists heavily to its starboard side and facing north. Approximately 4ft (1.2m) in height
of the plank-on-frame constructed bow and stern were visible and found to be in good
condition. The edge fastened central portion of the vessel was obscured by debris, water,
and ice during the survey completed in the winter of 2003. The vessel's dimensions appear
to be just over 99ft (30.2m) in length and approximately 17ft (5.2m) in beam. Due to the
deteriorated condition of the vessel, the vessel's original measurements could not be
determined exactly.
The stern of the boat is a flat vertical plane with a cantilevered upper transom. The
structural elements of the stern consists of a large sternpost flanked by eight 3.5in (8.9cm)
sided and 5.5in (14cm) molded frames on each side. The farthest outboard frames, which
are larger in molded dimension, 14in (35.6cm), are likely connected to the vessel's chine.
The heads of the stern frames and the sternpost are covered by a transom log, which is
made up of two 5in (12.7cm) thick timbers through bolted together fore-and-aft. The upper
ends of the sternpost and stern frames are mortised into the underside of the transom log.
The tenons of each frame are located on their forward face. The transom log is pierced by
an 8in (20.3cm) round hole outboard of the sternpost for the rudder post. The upper
transom was formed by posts attached to the outboard edge of the transom log. Nine
posts were used, four to each side of a central post located directly aft of the rudderpost
and sternpost. These posts were held in place by one long fore-and-aft drift bolt, with the
exception of the central post, which was held on by two shorter drift bolts. This latter
arrangement was necessary because of the closeness to the rudderpost directly forward of
the central post.
Each stern strake was made up of two 1.5in (3.8cm) planks that are seated in a rabbet on
the outboard edges of the sternpost. The stern planks are wider at their outboard ends and
taper as they near the sternpost. Each plank is attached to the stern frames using two iron
cut nails.
The 7in (17.8cm) rudderpost has a flat carved into its after surface for the attachment of the
rudder blade. A 2in (5.1cm) vertical plank is mortised into the flat and held to the
rudderpost by iron bolts. The rudder blade is made of 1.5in (3.8cm) planks running
perpendicular to the rudderpost. These planks are fastened to the vertical plank mortised
into the rudderpost with nails.
Much of the central part of the vessel was buried under ice. However, a short section of
the port side of the vessel's hull was exposed, revealing its 3in (7.6cm) thick drift bolted
planks. Amidships, the upper surface of only one deck beam, which was 5.5in (14cm)
sided, was projecting above the ice.
Most of the canal boat's bow was visible during the winter of 2003; approximately one-third
of the port side lay imbedded in the ice and mud. The structure of the bow consists of an
172
8in (cm) sided by 11in (cm) molded stem, flanked by several cant frames measuring 2.5 to
3in (6.3 to 7.6cm) sided by 4in (10.2cm) molded. The frame heads are covered by two cap
timbers, which span the distance from where the drift bolted hull begin to the outboard
sides of the stem. Just outboard of the stem, each cap timber has a 6in (15.2cm) long
chock, which was used to direct lines from the vessel's windlass or cleats to objects or
structures to which the boat was tied.
On the inboard face of the cant frames and stem was bolted a 12ft 2in (3.7m) long by 5in
(12.7cm) thick breast hook. At the widest point just aft of the stem, the breast hook is 13in
(33cm) wide. Attached to the breast hook are two bitts spaced 10in (25.4cm) apart. The
bits project above the deck level approximately 30in (76.2cm) and originally supported a
cast iron windlass. Attached to the after surface of each bit is an iron block, held in place
by two iron bolts. These iron blocks originally served as the seat for the axle of the vessel's
windlass, which is missing. Below deck, the bitts were supported on their after face by a
deck beam measuring 6in (15.2cm) sided and 6.5in (16.5cm) molded.
Nine strakes, ranging in width between 4in (10.2cm) and 5in (12.7cm), were visible in the
starboard bow. The 1.75in (4.4cm) thick hull planking was protected by several long 3in
(7.6cm) thick rub rails, capped by an iron plate 0.5in (1.3cm) thick and 2.5in (6.4cm) wide.
The spacing between the rub rails was approximately 12in (30.5cm). Only three rub rails
were visible above the water and ice; although, probing within the water located several
additional rub rails.
The forward face of the stem was also protected by an iron plate 0.5in (1.3cm) thick and
3.75in (9.5cm) wide. This plate continued over the top of the stem and down the after face
10.75in (27.3cm). Atop of the stem was attached an iron traveler, which was held in place
by a large single iron bolt. Attached to the traveler was a 6in (15.2cm) diameter iron ring.
Directly aft of the bitts is a companionway or hatch leading down to the forecastle of the
canal boat. The opening is 23in (58.4cm) wide and 32in long (81.3cm). The opening is
framed below the 1.75in (4.4cm) deck planks by a deck beam on its forward and aft ends,
and by a 3.5in (8.9cm) wide carling on each side. The opening is surrounded by a low 1in
(2.5cm) coaming, which slopes outward on its outboard edges to help shed water.
Originally, the hatch had a cover that locked into two semi-circular notches cut into the
combing along each side of the hatch. Approximately 12in (30.5cm) aft of the
companionway, there was a 6in (15.2cm) diameter copper lined hole that likely originally
held a deck light.
173
VT-CH-799
The hull of VT-CH-799 is located on the western side of the canal basin to the south of
canal boat VT-CH-798. The bow and midship sections of this vessel were still standing
during the fall of 2002; however, during the winter of 2003, the vessel's sides had collapsed
into the water and lie on the muddy bottom. The bow also received a great deal of damage
when the sides collapsed and was inaccessible during the documentation survey in the
winter of 2003. However, a great deal of information has been gleaned from the
photographs taken of the vessel during the fall of 2002 (Figure 7-17).
Figure 7-17. Photograph of the bow of VT-CH-799 with timber cribbing from the canal in the
background (by Adam Kane, LCMM Collection).
This canal boat was approximately 98ft (29.9m) long, 17ft (5.2m) in beam, and built with
edge fastened sides and a plank-on-frame bow. The stern, which is missing, was also
likely built using the plank-on-frame construction technique. The bow framing consists of
approximately sixteen cant frames on each side of the stem. Long hull planks ran from
amidships around to the stem, interlocking the hull with the bow. There is no evidence of
steelers used to increase the height of the bow or stern of the vessel. Iron nails fasten the
bow planks to the cant frames, while drift bolts hold the hull planking together. Each drift
bolt fastens three adjacent hull planks together.
A futtock and hanging knee secured the outboard ends of six widely spaced deck beams
that supported the vessel's deck. Under the center of each deck beam was a saddle and
stanchion. A large iron band held the three elements together. Atop each deck beam was
a thick plank that took the routine abuse of loading and unloading cargo into the hold,
protecting the large deck beams. This plank was easily replaced when worn out.
174
CHAPTER 8: VALCOUR BAY RESEARCH PROJECT, 2003 – 2004
SURVEY SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results from the 2003 and 2004 field seasons of the Valcour Bay
Research Project (VBRP), a Phase I underwater archaeological investigation of the
submerged battlefield at Valcour Bay, Lake Champlain. Valcour Bay is located in Clinton
County, New York between the town of Peru and Valcour Island (Figure 8-1). Readers are
advised to refer to the full project report, Valcour Bay Research Project: 1999-2002 Results
from the Archaeological Investigation of a Revolutionary War Battlefield in Lake Champlain,
Clinton County, New York, for more detailed information on the 1999 through 2002 survey
seasons, survey methodology and the artifacts located during the survey. 263 This chapter
does, however, include the site analysis information generated from the 1999 through 2002
field seasons updated to reflect the information uncovered in 2003 and 2004.
On 11 October 1776, General Benedict Arnold commanded an American fleet of fifteen
fighting vessels and engaged the British Navy near Valcour Island. After an intense fivehour battle with heavy casualties on both sides, darkness finally ended the conflict. With
perhaps sixty men killed and wounded on the American side and three-quarters of their
ammunition gone, Arnold and his officers executed a daring nighttime escape past a British
blockade. Two days later, on 13 October, the British fleet caught up with Arnold and a
second running battle ensued. Outgunned and surrounded, Arnold, in what is today known
as “Arnold’s Bay” in Panton, Vermont, intentionally destroyed five of his own vessels to
prevent their capture and use by the enemy, and escaped back to Fort Ticonderoga on
foot. Only four of his fifteen vessels survived the three-day affair, and at its conclusion the
British controlled the strategically important Lake Champlain invasion corridor.
Sir Guy Carleton, Governor General of Canada, content with achieving control of the lake,
broke off the attack and returned to Canada for the winter. During the spring of 1777, the
British moved their army and navy south past the hastily abandoned American Fort
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence and launched an invasion of the Hudson Valley. At
Saratoga, General John Burgoyne and his army were defeated on the field of battle by a
strong American force. Burgoyne was forced to surrender his army and the tide of the
American Revolution changed.
The naval engagement of 1776 at Valcour Bay, commonly known as the Battle of Valcour
Island, left behind significant quantities of military related artifacts and debris. During the
twentieth century many individuals searched the underwater battlefield for tangible remains
of the conflict. The most notable, Colonel Lorenzo F. Hagglund, raised the American
flagship Royal Savage and the gunboat Philadelphia in 1934 and 1935, respectively. Since
the widespread application of scuba technology many people have collected smaller
artifacts from Valcour Bay. In recent years, however, our society has gained a greater
appreciation for preserving these submerged cultural resources.
This evolving
175
preservation-oriented attitude has led to federal and New York state legislation aimed at
protecting cultural heritage. Although legislation such as the federal government’s
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 and New York State’s Education Law 233 are designed
to preserve this heritage, they have often proven difficult to implement and enforce. The
core of the VBRP is the preservation of this battlefield through a grassroots effort to include
interested divers, many of whom were formerly collectors, in a formal archaeological project
designed to map the debris field. LCMM believes that this is the most effective way to
ensure the preservation of this important archaeological site.
Figure 8-1. Chart of Lake Champlain showing Valcour Island and the Project Area (base
map from Coast and Geodetic Survey 1988).
176
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The topography of Valcour Bay was the central factor in the design of efficient survey
techniques. The area of Valcour Bay investigated from 1999 to 2004 lies beneath 40 to
60ft (12.2 to 18.3m) of cold, fresh water, with underwater visibility ranging from 5 to 25ft
(1.5 to 7.6m), depending on the complex interplay of the season, currents, and water
temperatures. The bottom sediments are uniformly composed of brownish-gray clayey silt.
The qualities of the bottom sediments are the most important characteristic of the site for
several reasons. These sediments, which are anaerobic in nature and slightly basic in their
composition, are an ideal environment for the preservation of submerged cultural
resources. Nearly all types of artifacts recovered from Valcour Bay are extremely well
preserved. This includes bone, wood, and leather along with the metallic artifacts. This
same sediment, however, also creates the single largest difficulty in the survey: underwater
visibility. The clayey silt is so loosely packed and fine-grained that with minimal disturbance
it becomes suspended in the water column. Visibility can be reduced from 25ft (7.6m) to a
few inches (<15cm) in moments. Once the particles become suspended they can take
hours to settle out of the water column. Fortunately, Valcour Bay is often subject to
significant lake currents that tend to clear out the suspended sediments rater rapidly.
With the bottom conditions in mind, a basic survey methodology that could be implemented
underwater in poor conditions was developed. This method divided the bottomlands into
50 by 50ft (232.3m2) areas. These “grids” were systematically inspected along transects
spaced at 3ft (0.91m) intervals. The crew used metal detectors to locate buried metallic
objects. When an artifact was located, its provenience was recorded and its location
plotted on the site map.
Over the six field seasons of the VBRP the methodology was refined, but its essentials
remain unchanged. The grids were established with 1½in (3.8cm) PVC grid posts marking
each corner. Initially, an east-west baseline was laid along the bottom and researchers
placed grid posts at 50ft (15.2m) intervals along it; additional grid posts were built starting
from this baseline. Measuring tapes were attached to two grid posts 50ft (15.2m) apart and
the tapes were pulled from them; one tape was stretched either north or south, while the
second tape formed the diagonal across the square to be laid out. This diagonal, the
hypotenuse of a right triangle, was pulled to a length of 71ft 8½in (21.9m). The point at
which the corresponding measurements met on the two tapes was marked with a grid post.
The area encompassed by the grid was surveyed via north-south oriented transects spaced
3ft (0.91m) apart. These transects were laid out between 3ft (0.91m) long transect posts
made out of 1in (2.5cm) diameter PVC pipe. The transect posts were sunk approximately
2ft (60.1cm) into the bottom sediments at 3ft (0.91m) intervals along the east-west axes of
the gird squares. The transect tape was strung between a set of transect posts, giving the
surveyor a visual reference by which to survey for magnetic anomalies.
177
Divers searched for anomalies with a hand-held metal detector. As the diver progressed
along the transect tape, he or she passed the detector at least 2ft (60.9cm) to each side of
the tape. This created a 1ft (30.5cm) overlap between transects and ensured thorough
coverage of the site. Divers were urged to survey slowly and methodically, with site
coverage more important than the amount of area covered per dive. Anomalies were
marked with a 1in (2.5cm) diameter PVC pipe, known as an “anomaly post”, sunk into the
bottom sediments next to the anomaly. The anomaly post had a letter written on it, which
was used for recording the position of the anomaly and referring to it in the future.
When an anomaly was detected, the recorder noted its position and the team continued
surveying on that transect. Anomalies were verified on subsequent dives as scheduling
permitted. A single diver did this with a metal detector and a clipboard. The clipboard
contained the provenience for each anomaly to be verified, and a space to write the results
of the verification. More than 50% of the anomalies were determined to be modern trash
related to recreational boating. Items such as bottle caps, pop-tops, and beer cans were
collected by the divers and disposed of on shore.
When Revolutionary War era artifacts were located a variety of protocols were instituted.
Artifacts deemed to be more commonplace, such as cannon balls, grape shot, and
unidentified metal fragments, were verified on the bottom and reburied in their original
location. Diagnostic artifacts, such as the cartridge box, sword fragment, bayonet, hand
axe, and the smaller cannon fragment were either raised to the surface, documented, and
immediately reburied in their original position on the lake bottom, or documented on the
lake bottom and reburied in their original location. Larger cannon pieces, which would have
required significant effort to recover, were recorded through videography and
measurements on the bottom.
178
SURVEY SUMMARY
Between 1999 and 2004 at total of 74 grids, each 50ft by 50ft (232.3m2), have been
surveyed for a total survey area of 185,000ft2 (17,187m2). During those years 49
individuals have participated in the project, including 42 divers who have logged 1,100
dives on the site during 189 survey days (Figure 8-2).
2003 Field Season
The 2003 field season began on April 30 and concluded on August 28; 26 participants
made 219 dives on the site during 23 days of surveying. Thirteen additional grid units
(32,500ft2 [3019m2]) were completed bringing the 1999 through 2003 survey total to 59
grids covering 147,500ft2 (13,703m2) of lakebed.
The field season centered on a two-week joint survey by LCMM archaeologists and VBRP
volunteer divers from August 18 through 22 and 25 through 29. The crew was housed in
two locations; a cottage owned by the David and Mimi McDowell and a guesthouse owned
by Chris Booth, both located in Peru, New York. The morning of the first day of field
operations was devoted to reviewing survey objectives, survey operations, dive protocols,
and safety issues. Additionally, during the morning one dive team was dispatched to move
the site mooring block closer to the grids to be surveyed. One rotation of dive operations
was undertaken later that afternoon. During the second week of the survey six Navy Divers
from the Naval Reserve Mobile Diving & Salvage Unit Two, Detachment 101 participated in
the project as a part of their required training (Figure 8-3).
During the two-week field operation the survey team used three vessels: the Great
Republic, a 30ft (9.1m) fiberglass hulled powerboat captained by Richard Heilman;
Northern Comfort, a 26ft (7.9m) pontoon boat captained by Steve Nye; and Terri Ann, a
23ft (7m) Mako powerboat captained by Pierre LaRocque. Diving conditions were good
during the survey with visibility averaging 20ft (6.1m) and water temperatures of
approximately 65°F (18.3°C).
During the 2003 survey operations 25 Revolutionary War-era artifacts were located (see
Table 8-1). Additionally, 13 non-Revolutionary War artifacts believed to be related to the
1935 raising of the gunboat Philadelphia were discovered (see Table 8-2).
179
Legend
1999 Survey
2000 Survey
2001 Survey
2002 SURVEY
2003 SURVEY
2004 SURVEY
NOT SURVEYED
Figure 8-2. Survey schematic showing the grid squares surveyed between 1999 and 2004.
180
Figure 8-3. Photograph of the 2003 VBRP survey crew which included six Navy
Divers from the Naval Reserve Mobile Diving & Salvage Unit Two, Detachment 101
(NR MDSU 2 det 101).
2004 Field Season
The 2004 field season began June 4 and concluded on November 16; 11
participants made 200 dives on the site during 33 days of surveying. Fifteen
additional grid units (37,500ft2 [3484m2]) were completed bringing the 1999 through
2004 survey total to 74 grids covering 185,000ft2 (17,187m2) of bottomlands.
The field season centered on a one-week joint survey by LCMM archaeologists and
VBRP volunteer divers from August 23 through August 27. The crew was housed in
a guest house owned by Mimi McDowell located in Peru, New York.
During the one-week field operations the survey team used two boats: the Great
Republic, a 30ft (18.3m) fiberglass hulled powerboat captained by Richard Heilman;
and Terri Ann, a 23ft (7m) Mako powerboat captained by Pierre LaRocque. Diving
conditions were good during the survey with visibility averaging 25ft (7.6m) and
water temperatures of approximately 65°F (18.3°C).
During the 2004 survey operations 57 Revolutionary War-era artifacts were located
(see Table 8-1). Additionally, 10 non-Revolutionary War artifacts were found; at
least 5 of these are believed to be related to the 1935 raising of the gunboat
Philadelphia (see Table 8-2).
181
Table 8-1. Inventory of Revolutionary War-era artifacts located between 1998 and
2004 during the VBRP.
VBRP Inventory of Revolutionary War-Era Artifacts
Artifact No. Date Located
Description
Composition
1998
98-01
1999
99-01
99-02
99-03
99-04
99-05
99-06
99-07
99-08
99-09
99-10
99-11
99-12
2000
00-01
00-02
00-03
00-04
00-05
00-06
00-07
00-08
00-09
00-10
2001
01-01
01-02
01-03
01-04
01-05
01-06
01-07
2002
02-01
02-02
02-03
02-04
02-05
02-06
3-Dec-98
8" Bomb
Iron/Wood
15-Jul-99
31-Aug-99
15-Sep-99
16-Sep-99
16-Sep-99
16-Sep-99
18-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
27-Sep-99
5-Oct-99
Cannon Muzzle
Belt Ax
6 lb. Round Shot
Iron Fragment
Cartridge Box
Iron Fragment
Grapnel Anchor
Iron Bracket
Lead Bushing
Wood Fragment
Bayonet
Grape Shot
Iron
Iron/Wood
Iron
Iron
Lead/Brass/Wood/Leather/Flint
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Wood
Iron
Iron
19-Apr-00
20-Apr-00
25-Apr-00
26-Apr-00
2-Aug-00
16-Aug-00
22-Sep-00
29-Sep-00
11-Oct-00
11-Oct-00
Carriage Fragment
9 lb. Round Shot
Iron Thimble
Cannon Cascabel
Cannon 1st Reinforce
Sword Fragment
Bar Shot
Grape Shot
Grape Shot
Grape Shot
Wood/Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
20-Aug-01
21-Aug-01
23-Aug-01
23-Aug-01
27-Aug-01
27-Aug-01
30-Aug-01
Lead Bushing
Sword
Cannon Fragment
Cannon Fragment
6 lb. Round Shot
Grape Shot
Cannon Fragment
Lead
Iron/Wood
Iron (1st & 2nd Reinforce)
Iron (1st Reinforce Vent Field)
Iron
Iron
22-May-02
28-May-02
21-Aug-02
21-Aug-02
22-Aug-02
23-Aug-02
4 lb. Round Shot
6 lb. Round Shot
Bomb
Bomb
Nail
4 lb. Round Shot
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
182
Description
Composition
02-07
02-08
02-09
02-10
02-11
02-12
02-13
02-14
02-15
02-16
02-17
02-18
02-19
02-20
02-21
02-22
02-23
2003
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
03-05
03-06
03-07
03-08
03-09
03-10
03-11
03-12
03-13
03-14
03-15
03-16
03-17
03-18
03-19
03-20
03-21
03-22
03-23
03-24
03-25
23-Aug-02
23-Aug-02
24-Aug-02
26-Aug-02
26-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
3-Sep-02
3-Sep-02
3-Sep-02
6-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
Grape Shot
Swivel Shot
Nail
Grape Shot
Grape Shot
Musket Ball
Tin Fragment
Copper Fragment
Lead Pellet
Grape Shot
Grape Shot
Grape Shot
Musket Ball
Mortar Fragment
Musket Ball
Grape Shot
Lead Pellet
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Tin
Copper
Lead
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Lead
30-Apr-03
30-Apr-03
9-May-03
14-May-03
2-Aug-03
6-Aug-03
18-Aug-03
19-Aug-03
19-Aug-03
19-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
25-Aug-03
25-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
28-Aug-03
7/8" d.Canister Shot
Canister Shot Fragment
Nail
Canister Shot Fragment
Grape Shot
6 lb. Round Shot
Square Nail Fragment
Unidentified Object
Musket Ball
Grenade Fragment
12 lb. Round Shot
1 1/2" d. Round Shot
6 lb. Round Shot
1" d. Grape Shot
Square Nail
6 lb. Round Shot
Musket Ball
Nail
Grenade Fragment
Lead
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lead
Lead
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Lead
Lead
183
Description
Composition
2004
04-01
04-02
04-03
04-04
04-05
04-06
04-07
04-08
04-09
04-10
04-11
04-12
04-13
04-14
04-15
04-16
04-17
04-18
04-19
04-20
04-21
04-22
04-23
04-24
04-25
04-26
04-27
04-28
04-29
04-30
04-31
04-32
04-33
04-34
04-35
04-36
04-37
04-38
04-39
04-40
04-41
04-42
4-Jun-04
4-Jun-04
4-Jun-04
4-Jun-04
8-Jul-04
8-Jul-04
12-Jul-04
16-Jul-04
16-Jul-04
16-Jul-04
22-Jul-04
22-Jul-04
27-Jul-04
27-Jul-04
28-Jul-04
28-Jul-04
17-Aug-04
17-Aug-04
17-Aug-04
19-Aug-04
23-Aug-04
23-Aug-04
23-Aug-04
24-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
20-Sep-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
25-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
26-Aug-04
27-Aug-04
10-Sep-04
Square Nail
Unidentified Object
Square Nail
Possible Fascine
7/8" d. Canister Shot
7/8" d. Canister Shot
Musket Ball
Forged Hook
Possible Langrage
Leather Fragment
Shot Mold
Musket Ball
Large Square Nail
1/2d. Copper disk
Canister shot
Canister shot
Square Nail
Canister shot
Grapeshot
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Square Nail
Bombshell Fragment
Flattened Canister Shot
Bombshell Fragment
Square Nail Fragment
12 lb. Round Shot
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Unidentified Object
Unidentified Object
Square Nail
Grapeshot
Square Nail
Grapeshot
Grapeshot
Bombshell Fragment
184
Iron
Iron
Iron
Wood
Iron
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Leather & Copper
Iron
Lead
Iron
copper
Lead
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Description
Composition
04-43
04-44
04-45
04-46
04-47
04-48
04-49
04-50
04-51
04-52
04-53
04-54
04-55
04-56
04-57
15-Sep-04
16-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
24-Sep-04
24-Sep-04
11-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
13-Oct-04
14-Oct-04
Grapeshot
Musket Ball
Square Nail
.50 caliber musket ball
Grapeshot
Bombshell Fragment
Wooden structural member
Lead Langrage
Swivel Shot
Sheet Copper Fragment
Sheet Copper Fragment
Canister shot
Musket Ball
Canister shot
Fragmented Flintlock lock plate
Iron
Lead
Iron
Lead
Iron
Iron
Wood - possibly cedar
Lead
Iron
copper
copper
Lead
Lead
Lead
Steel
Table 8-2. Inventory of non-Revolutionary War-era artifacts located in 2003 and
2004 during the VBRP.
VBRP Inventory of Non-Revolutionary War-Era Artifacts
Description
Composition
2003
NC-03-01
NC-03-02
NC-03-03
NC-03-04
NC-03-05
NC-03-06
NC-03-07
NC-03-08
NC-03-09
NC-03-10
NC-03-11
NC-03-12
NC-03-13
2004
NC-04-01
NC-04-02
NC-04-03
NC-04-04
NC-04-05
NC-04-06
NC-04-07
14-Aug-03
19-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
28-Aug-03
Nut/Bolt
Inkwell Top
Bolt
Bolt
Screw
Bolt
Bolt
Unidentified Metal Band
Disk with Eyebolt
Disk with Eyebolt
Square Nut
Iron Strapping
Bolt
Iron
Brass/Glass Fragment
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Unknown
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
4-Jun-04
10-Sep-04
10-Sep-04
10-Sep-04
15-Sep-04
15-Sep-04
15-Sep-04
Modern shell casing
Screw
Bolt
Screw
.45 caliber bullet
.32 caliber bullet casing
Copper
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead/copper
Copper
Copper
185
NC-04-08
NC-04-09
NC-04-10
15-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
Large Square Nut
Large Square Washer
Copper
Iron
Iron
ARTIFACT SCATTER ANALYSIS
The VBRP has opened a significant window into the depositional pattern of the
artifacts found along the eastern end of the American line-of-battle. In six years
researchers have mapped 185,000ft2 (17,187m2) of bottomlands at Valcour Bay, the
equivalent of nearly four football fields. As the survey area has expanded and a
more complete picture of the bottomlands is revealed the analysis of the battlefield
scatter has necessarily been updated to reflect new interpretations. The artifact
distribution map contains five areas of artifact concentrations denoting specific
incidents which lead to their deposition.
The reader will note that the artifacts and distribution map are not tied to any realworld locational information. Among the VBRP investigators there is a concern
about the 112 artifacts located between 2001 and 2004 which are still on the lake
bottom.
Cannon Explosion
Researchers believe that Features 1 and 2 (Figure 9-5) are the result of the
explosion of a cannon on board the American gunboat New York. This conclusion is
a synthesis of historical and archaeological information. In 1998, historian George
Quintal located a pension record for one of the American participants in the Battle of
Valcour Island, Sergeant Jonas Holden. Sergeant Holden was born in 1751 in
Groton, Massachusetts, and was a staunch patriot from the earliest days of the
American Revolution. In 1775, he was a minuteman and participated in the battles
of Concord and Bunker Hill.
In early 1776, Jonas volunteered to join the Northern Army and was sent to Lake
Champlain. Along with his brother Sartell and his fellow townsman Lieutenant
Thomas Rogers, he was assigned to the gunboat New York, one of the eight
gunboats in the American fleet and the sister ship to both Philadelphia and Spitfire.
Through his pension record, we learned that during the battle on October 11, one of
the gunboat New York’s cannon burst during firing, injuring sergeant Holden in the
right arm and side. Holden recovered from these wounds and continued to fight for
the American cause until the British surrender a Yorktown on October 19, 1781. He
died at the age of 83 in Wallingford, Vermont. He and his wife Sarah were the
parents of twelve children and have over 200 surviving descendants.
Jonas Holden’s pension record also reveals that when New York’s cannon burst
causing his own wounds, the explosion killed Lieutenant Thomas Rogers. Although
Arnold reported “the New York lost all her Officers except her Captain,” the New
York was the only gunboat to survive the battle. Sometime after his death,
186
Lieutenant Rogers’ wife, Molly, who was pregnant at the time of her husband’s
death, erected a marker in his memory the Fairview Cemetery in Westford,
Massachusetts. The monument reads:
Memento mori
This Monoment is Erected
to the memory of Lieut Thomas
Rogers by Mrs: Molly his
Sorowfull widow He was
Killed by the splitting of
a Cannon on the Lake
Champlain on the 11th: day
of Octr 1776 in the Continental
Army in the serves of his
Country and in the
caus of Liberty
Aged 26 years and
9 months
Holden’s pension record has allowed researchers to establish with reasonable
certainty that the six cannon fragments (artifact nos. 99-01, 00-04, 00-05, 01-03, 0104, and 01-07) found between 1999 and 2001 originated from the gunboat New
York.
New York was a sister ship to Philadelphia, therefore, they were similar in size,
shape, layout, and rig. Philadelphia’s main armament consisted of three cannon: a
twelve-pounder for a bow gun and two nine-pounders for waist guns. Based on
Philadelphia’s layout it can be assumed that New York also carried three cannon:
one in the bow and two waist guns.
More specific information about the armament of New York is contained in the
Townsend Document (Figure 8-4), a primary source of information about the
American fleet. The Townsend Document became known in 2000 when John
Townsend, a Connecticut book dealer, brought forward a document which had been
in his family for several generations. The document proved to be a tremendously
important, previously unknown source about the Battle of Valcour Island. The
document was entitled “A Return of the fleet belonging to the United States of
America on Lake Champlain under the Command of Brigadier General Arnold
together with the Naming of the Caps. Vessels Ticonderoga October 22, 1776.” The
“Return” was divided into columns providing the reader with “Vessel” [type], the
“Name” of each vessel, “By Whom Commanded”, the size and number of the
cannon of each vessel, the number of men on each vessel, and “The fate of the
Fleet”, recounting what happened to each vessel.
187
Figure 8-4. The Townsend Document, written on October 22, 1776 at Ticonderoga (courtesy of John Townsend, LCMM
Collection).
188
This document relates specific information on vessel armament, and is the best source for
determining the size and number of New York’s cannon. However, the Townsend
document must be carefully scrutinized because it contains a number of errors. Of
particular concern for this discussion is the misnaming of the gunboat New York as the
gunboat Success. It is known that one of the gunboats was originally named Success, but
was later renamed New York. The gunboat New York was under the command of Captain
Reed, who is listed as the captain of Success in the Townsend Document.
Additionally, there are numerous errors in the calculations of the exact numbers and caliber
of the guns aboard the fleet. Each column for a particular weight of cannon in tallied at the
bottom; in several of the columns the arithmetic is incorrect. Specifically, New York is listed
as carrying one twelve-pounder, one nine-pounder, and two six-pounders. The total
number of cannon, which based on this tally should amount to four, is listed as only three in
the “total” column. This discrepancy is easy explained through an error during the
compilation of the document. The row for Philadelphia, which is located directly above that
for Success (New York), indicates that Philadelphia carried two nine-pounders and eight
swivels guns, for an incorrect total of eleven guns. The inconsistencies in the numbers of
cannon for both of these vessels can be removed if one of the twelve-pound guns attributed
to New York is moved up one row and given to Philadelphia. This leaves New York with
one nine-pounder and two six-pounders, and Philadelphia with one-twelve pounder and two
nine-pounders.
The cannon onboard the 1776 gunboats were distributed in a manner designed to
maximize the vessel’s stability, with the largest gun in the bow and two equally sized
cannon amidships. In the case of New York, the nine-pounder was placed in the bow and
the two six-pounders in the waist. Further analysis of the Townsend document reveals that
only five of the fifteen American vessels engaged at Valcour Island carried six-pounders.
The five vessels were: New York, Royal Savage, Congress, Washington, and Trumbull.
Based on Randle’s depiction of the American line only the gunboat New York and the
galley Trumble were stationed on the eastern side of the line-of-battle.
In conclusion, both the historical and archaeological evidence support the argument that
the cannon is from the gunboat New York. The Townsend document indicates that New
York carried two six-pound cannons; the same weight as the cannon located during this
project. Six-pound cannons were carried by only five of the 15 American vessels, with only
two vessels (New York and Trumble) stationed on the eastern end of the American line.
Finally, the only know account of a cannon exploding during that battle was onboard New
York, therefore it can safely be presumed that the cannon originated from that vessel.
189
Feature 1: Cannon Explosion Debris Field
Feature 1 is comprised of cannon and cannon carriage fragments, and other personal
belongings blown overboard when the New York’s cannon exploded (Table 8-3).
Table 8-3. Artifacts comprising Feature 1.
Feature 1 Artifacts
99-01
99-04
99-05
99-06
99-07
99-08
99-09
99-10
99-11
01-03
01-04
01-05
01-07
15-Jul-99
16-Sep-99
16-Sep-99
16-Sep-99
18-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
26-Sep-99
27-Sep-99
23-Aug-01
23-Aug-01
27-Aug-01
30-Aug-01
Cannon Muzzle
Iron Fragment
Cartridge Box
Iron Fragment
Grapnel Anchor
Iron Bracket
Lead Bushing
Wood Fragment
Bayonet
Cannon Fragment
Cannon Fragment
6 lb. Round Shot
Cannon Fragment
Iron
Iron
Lead/Brass/Wood/Leather/Flint
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Wood
Iron
Iron (1st Reinforce Vent Field)
Iron
The plan view of the artifact scatter shows that there are three areas containing cannon
fragments (Figure 8-5). One to the southeast in grids SE 1/2 and SE 2/2 containing two
fragments: the cannon cascabel (00-04) and a smaller piece consisting of the first reinforce
(00-05). The second area contains only one fragment. This piece of the cannon (99-01),
containing the muzzle, chase, and right trunnion, is located near the zero point of the grid.
The third grouping is found to the northwest in grids NW 2/3 and NW 1/4. These three
fragments (01-03, 01-04, and 01-07) are between 140 and 180ft (42.6 and 54.9m) from the
cannon’s muzzle.
The muzzle fragment (99-01) almost certainly marks the epicenter of the explosion and the
position of the New York at that time. We know that the gunboat’s broadside was facing in
a southerly direction toward the British line. We do not know, however, which direction the
bow and stern were facing. During the explosion the cannon split into at least seven,
perhaps as many as eight or nine pieces; the largest fragment consisted of its muzzle and
right trunnion. Without counterweight of the first and second reinforce, the muzzle’s center
of gravity was moved forward of the vessel’s gunwale. As the cannon shattered into
several pieces the muzzle toppled directly into the water.
The explosion also caused the back half of the cannon to fracture into multiple pieces,
sending fragments hurling in the opposite direction from the expanding gases in the
cannon’s bore. The fragments located along the upper face of the gun were sent into the
air, while others on the underside were directed down into the carriage and the vessel’s
hull.
190
Feature 1
Feature 4
Feature 3
Feature 2
Figure 8-5. Map showing the artifacts located during the 1999 through 2004 VBRP survey.
191
The three fragments that were propelled into the air came to rest to the northwest of the
position of cannon when it exploded. These fragments, one of which includes the vent
field, were located on the cannon’s upper face. Other debris was also ejected toward the
northwest during the explosion, such as the right side of the carriage, two metal fragments,
a cartridge box, and a bayonet. These items, having considerably less mass than the
cannon fragments and positioned further from the center of the explosion, were not
propelled as far.
Feature 2: Deck Clearing Debris
Although we can surmise that the scene immediately after the explosion was dreadful, the
archaeological evidence speaks of a rapid attempt to bring the gunboat back into a fighting
state. Critical to this hypothesis are the cannon and carriage fragments located in grid
squares south east of the cannon muzzle (see Figure 8-5). The two cannon fragments,
which were located on the underside of the cannon, were not ejected from the vessel by
the explosion, but were sent careening into the vessel’s interior. The portion of the carriage
cheek recovered in this area also demonstrates this pattern. The through bolts in the
cheek are bent outward, indicating that the cheek was bent out and down before dislodging
from the remainder of the carriage. This pattern suggests that immediately after the
explosion several pieces of the cannon and the carriage were still inside the vessel.
At the time of the explosion the gunboat’s broadside faced in a southerly direction. The
archaeological evidence suggests that after the explosion New York moved toward the
southeast. During this movement the decks were cleared of debris, creating a dump field.
The clutter of cannon and carriage fragments was thrown into the lake, as were broken
personal armaments such as the hatchet and sword (Table 8-4).
Feature 2 Artifacts
99-02
31-Aug-99
00-01
19-Apr-00
00-03
25-Apr-00
00-04
26-Apr-00
00-05
2-Aug-00
00-06
16-Aug-00
01-01
20-Aug-01
01-02
21-Aug-01
Belt Ax
Carriage Fragment
Iron Thimble
Cannon Cascabel
Cannon 1st Reinforce
Sword Fragment
Lead Bushing
Sword
192
Iron/Wood
Wood/Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Lead
Iron/Wood
Feature 3: Philadelphia Site
During the 2003 fieldseason researchers noted a large shallow depression in the lake bed
(see Figure 8-5). The bottom of Valcour Bay tends to be quite flat, thus particular note was
taken of this unusual area. Upon its discovery, it was hypothesized that this could be the
depression left behind from the 1935 recovery of the Gunboat Philadelphia.
The systematic examination of the grid squares around the hole was undertaken between
2003 and 2004. Revolutionary War artifacts in proximity to the hole included multiple
pieces of ordnance, several fragments of unidentifiable metal debris, a flintlock lock plate
and a shot mold. Although interesting, researchers were not able to conclusively identify
the hole as Philadelphia’s resting spot based on this artifact collection. Identification of the
site came from evidence that demonstrated the presence of seventeen pieces of modern
iron hardware in proximity to the hole (Table 8-5). These included seven bolts, three nuts,
two eyebolts with washers, three screws, one washer and two iron bands. Artifacts of this
nature had not been found elsewhere in the VBRP survey area. It is believed that these
pieces of hardware were lost during the 1935 recovery of the Gunboat Philadelphia.
Table 8-5. Inventory of non-Revolutionary War-era artifacts comprising Feature 3.
Feature 3 Artifacts
NC-03-01
NC-03-03
NC-03-04
NC-03-05
NC-03-06
NC-03-07
NC-03-08
NC-03-09
NC-03-10
NC-03-11
NC-03-12
NC-03-13
NC-04-02
NC-04-03
NC-04-04
NC-04-09
NC-04-10
14-Aug-03
20-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
26-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
27-Aug-03
28-Aug-03
10-Sep-04
10-Sep-04
10-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
20-Sep-04
Nut/Bolt
Bolt
Bolt
Screw
Bolt
Bolt
Unidentified Metal Band
Disk with Eyebolt
Disk with Eyebolt
Square Nut
Iron Strapping
Bolt
Screw
Bolt
Screw
Large Square Nut
Large Square Washer
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Unknown
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Philadelphia Recovery Background
In 1917, Lorenzo F. Hagglund was sent to Plattsburgh, New York for overseas military
training. An avid history buff, Hagglund became intrigued with the Battle of Valcour Island,
especially regarding local accounts of the sunken Revolutionary War vessels Royal Savage
and Philadelphia at nearby Valcour Bay. He returned to the area in 1932 and located the
193
wreck of Royal Savage. With the aid of 22 empty tar drums, he raised the surviving portion
of the hull in 1934. The schooner’s remains were disassembled and tagged in anticipation
of future reassembly and display, but for the next 50 years they remained virtually
untouched and untreated while lying in storage in various garages in New York State.
Recently, the remaining pieces of Royal Savage were sold to the City of Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Unable to interest government agencies in the salvage of Arnold's fleet in Lake Champlain,
Hagglund returned to Valcour Island in 1935 to search for Philadelphia with his own
resources. In company with J. Rupert Schalk and Swedish-born veteran diver William Lilja,
Hagglund searched the channel between Valcour Island and the New York shore with
grapnel irons. On 2 August 1935, while investigating grapnel hangs, Lilja reported that they
had found a vessel mounting three guns with a single mast still standing. Due to the
preservative qualities of Lake Champlain’s cold, dark water, Philadelphia was sitting upright
57ft (17m) below the lake's surface and approximately 300yd (275m) off Valcour Island in a
remarkable state of preservation.
Hagglund’s project was purely a salvage operation; the science of nautical archaeology did
not yet exist. His investigation of the site began with the retrieval of visible artifacts and
cannons, and the empty tar drums that had been used to raise Royal Savage were similarly
employed to remove Philadelphia’s guns. In preparation for lifting the gunboat, Lilja cut
three holes through the mud underneath the hull with a high-pressure water jet. Next, three
rope slings were placed under the hull, one amidships and one each at bow and stern. The
free ends of the slings were brought to the surface and attached to the steel cables of a
floating derrick. To prevent the slings from crushing the boat during the lift, Lilja placed
three logs across the gunwales to act as spreaders between the rope slings. When tension
was applied to the cables and Philadelphia began to list slightly, Lilja cleared mud from the
bottom of the hull with the water jet to lessen the suction of the lake's bottom on the fragile
hull. The vessel was safely raised and secured, and the salvagers wrapped a large piece
of canvas around the hull so that water could be pumped out and the interior searched. All
of the mud from the vessel was sifted through screens. It was by this process, and
manually groping in the mud, that the salvagers recovered most of the artifacts.
At least 767 individual objects were found with Philadelphia. This number is determined by
comparing the number of artifacts described in the project salvage report and an accession
list and Polaroid photographs filed at the National Museum of American History. Many
artifacts, including the cannon and shot, were removed from the hull prior to the recovery. A
number of artifacts, particularly those associated with the vessel's rigging and awning, were
undoubtedly lost, either by floating away or dropping outside the hull after the gondola
sank. Due to poor visibility and a muddy bottom, the salvagers avoided searching this area
to any extent. Hagglund's salvage team was unable to take advantage of the tools that
underwater archaeologists rely on today like scuba, metal detectors, magnetometers, and
side-scan sonar. To their credit, however, Hagglund's salvage team diligently searched
and apparently kept everything they found on board the vessel. The recovery of coal
cinders dropped in the hull by passing steamboats was even recorded.
194
However, because the project was a salvage operation and not an archaeological one, no
accurate map of the artifacts' exact locations within the hull exists. Fortunately, Hagglund's
reports provide a general location for most artifact positions. Except for a few missing
items and several objects that may have been given away at the time of the salvage, the
artifacts are displayed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. either next to, or
onboard Philadelphia.
The largest category of artifacts recovered was armaments, the foremost being the three
iron cannons and their wooden carriages. Hagglund also reported finding a cast-iron swivel
gun and its broken yoke in the bottom of the aft cockpit. Other notable artifacts include:
iron and wooden shot gauges, wooden tompions, a rammer and worm, bar shot, round
shot, grapeshot, bayonets, musket parts, gunflints, anchors, rigging blocks, iron spikes and
nails, spades, iron tools, cast iron cooking pots, buttons, buckles, spoons, ceramic
fragments, leather shoe fragments, strap hinges, and other miscellaneous items.
After raising the vessel, the salvage crew unanimously voted to send Philadelphia to the
Smithsonian Institution (Figure 8-6). For an unspecified reason, however, the vessel was
offered to the State of Vermont. In spring 1936, Hagglund received a letter from the
University of Vermont stating that the necessary funds for a display/storage building could
not be raised and the Philadelphia remained in Hagglund’s care.
Figure 8-6.
Collection).
Lorenzo Hagglund raising the Gunboat Philadelphia in 1935 (LCMM
195
Maritime historian and naval architect Howard Chapelle examined Philadelphia in 1939 and
recommended that it be brought to the Smithsonian Institution for treatment and
preservation. This plan was rejected in a memorandum which stated that “War vessels
[were] outside the scope of the [Smithsonian’s] watercraft collection.” 264
In 1948 Hagglund offered the gondola to the U.S. Navy but was told that they were not
interested in an “Army boat.” 265 Concerned for the future of Philadelphia and its long-term
care, he contacted the Smithsonian Institution again in 1959, anxious “to see it preserved
under public auspices.” 266 He offered to donate the vessel to the Smithsonian Institution in
exchange for his expenses in recovering and preserving the boat, a figure of approximately
$30,000 to $50,000. In response to Hagglund's letter, Frank Taylor, Curator of the Museum
of History and Technology (MHT), wrote a memorandum of record recommending the
purchase of the boat and its exhibit in the MHT.
Since neither Hagglund nor the MHT wanted the transaction to appear as an outright sale,
it was thought best to obtain a deed of gift. Simultaneously, the museum would offer to
reimburse Hagglund for his expenses. In 1960, the MHT wrote a formal agreement of
transfer between the two parties. Before the document could be signed and a final
inventory made of the objects, Hagglund died. The salvager’s will stipulated, however, that
Philadelphia be given to the Smithsonian Institution provided his surviving heirs agreed.
Ultimately, Gladys Hagglund contacted the museum and deeded it under the original terms
her husband had negotiated, namely, $40,000 minus the cost of shipment to Washington,
D.C (Figure 8-7).
Figure 8-7. The Gunboat Philadelphia being delivered to the Smithsonian Institution
(LCMM Collection).
196
As reported in a local newspaper, Hagglund had made little attempt toward preserving or
restoring the vessel during his ownership. Treatment techniques for waterlogged wood
were barely known in 1935 and relatively new in 1960. Before the MHT moved
Philadelphia from New York State, Smithsonian researcher Mendel Peterson contacted the
National Park Service Preservation Laboratories for recommendations on treating the
desiccated wood. They recommended the application of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to
make the vessel more limber and relieve its desiccated appearance. 267
Further research indicated that Forest Products Laboratories at Madison, Wisconsin, was
using a 50% solution of PEG (Carbowax 1000) and water. Because the Smithsonian
Institution was using a heavier molecular weight, Carbowax “1500,” it was thought best to
use a 30% solution (based on weight) to insure adequate penetration. Considering that the
gondola had completely dried out many years earlier, the MHT decided to apply PEG by
gently brushing it onto the wood rather than using the more costly and time-consuming
immersion approach. Due to the poor ventilation in Philadelphia’s storage shed, PEG was
applied with a spray rig, rather than by brush as originally planned. Spraying the PEG did
not disturb the surface of the wood and reached many interior areas not accessible with a
brush. According to Philip Lundeberg, the vessel was definitely more limber following two
applications of PEG, “relieving the ship's somewhat dried-out appearance.” 268
In 1965 Philadelphia was placed into its third-floor berth in the new National Museum of
American History in Washington, DC (Figure 8-8). The vessel has now been on exhibit for
40 years.
Figure 8-8. The Gunboat Philadelphia installed in the National Museum of American
History (courtesy the Smithsonian Institution).
197
Feature 4: Bomb Explosion
Feature 4 (see Figure 8-5) is a small area of lake bottom which contains a high
concentration of bomb fragments. Based on this density it is believed that these fragments
are the remains of one bomb that exploded just above the surface of the water.
Feature 4 Artifacts
04-20
19-Aug-04
04-21
23-Aug-04
04-23
23-Aug-04
04-28
25-Aug-04
04-29
25-Aug-04
04-30
25-Aug-04
04-31
25-Aug-04
04-32
25-Aug-04
04-33
25-Aug-04
04-34
25-Aug-04
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
Bombshell Fragment
198
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
REFERENCES
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2106)
Addington, L.R. Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Adkins, L., and R.A. Adkins.
Archaeological Illustration. Academic Manuals in
Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Advisory Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. 36 CFR
VIII, Part 800.
Anderson, R.K., Jr. Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships. Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service. Washington,
D.C.: US Department of the Interior, 1988.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act. PL 93-291.
Barranco, A. Peter, Jr. Ticonderoga's Floating Drawbridge, 1871-1920, Demonstration
Report. Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1995.
Bascom, Robert, Historic Mount Independence. VT: Hand’s Cove Chapter of the Vermont
D.A.R., 1909.
Bellico, Russell. Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake
George and Lake Champlain. Fleischmanns, NY: Purple Mountain Press, 1992.
Bergen, Jennifer, Trudy Caswell, Christine Mazzaferro, and Anthony Scuderi. “Raising the
Philadelphia.” Lake Champlain Horizons 1: 4-6, 12, 15, 1988.
Cassavoy, Kenneth and Kevin Crisman. "The War of 1812: Battle for the Great Lakes." In
Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater
Archaeology, edited by George F. Bass. London: Thames & Hudson, 1988.
Cohn, Arthur B. "The Fort Ticonderoga Kind's Shipyard Excavation: 1984 Filed-Season
Report." The Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum XIV, no. 6 (1985): 337-53.
"A Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain." Burlington, VT: Lake
Champlain Maritime Society, 1984.
Cohn, Arthur B., ed. Zebra Mussels and Their Impact on Historic Shipwrecks. Technical
Report, no. 15. Grand Isle, VT: Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1996.
199
Cohn, Arthur B. and Adam I. Kane. Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve:
Management Study for the State of New York. Vergennes, VT: The Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum's Maritime Research Institute, 2002.
Cohn, Arthur B., Adam I. Kane, Christopher R. Sabick, and Edwin R. Scollon. Valcour Bay
Research Project: 1999-2002 Results from the Archaeological Investigation of a
Revolutionary War Battlefield in Lake Champlain, Clinton County, New York.
Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2003.
Crisman, Kevin J. "Coffins of the Brave: A Return to Lake Champlain's War of 1812 Ship
Graveyard." The I.N.A Quarterly, no. 22 (1995).
The Eagle: An American Brig on Lake Champlain during the War of 1812. Published
jointly by the New England Press, Shelburne, VT, and the Naval Institute Press,
Annapolis, MD, 1987.
"The Fort Ticonderoga King's Shipyard Excavation: The Artifacts." The Bulletin of
the Fort Ticonderoga Museum XIV, no. 6 (1985): 375-436.
The History and Construction of the United States Schooner Ticonderoga.
Alexandria, VA: Eyrie Publication, 1983.
Dean, M., B. Ferrari, I. Oxley, M. Redknap, and K. Watson, eds. Archaeology Underwater:
The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice.
Portsmouth, U.K.: Nautical
Archaeology Society, 1995.
Dillion, B.D., ed. Student’s Guide to Archaeological Illustrating. Los Angeles: University of
California, 1992.
Dorrell, P.G. Photography in Archaeology and Conservation. Cambridge Manuals in
Archaeology Series. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Emery, Eric. The Last of Mr. Brown's Mosquito Fleet: A History and Archaeology of the
American Row Galley Allen on Lake Champlain, 1814-1825. PhD. Dissertation,
Texas A&M, 2003.
"Whitehall Project 1995: A Preliminary Report on the Excavation and Study of the
USN Row Galley Allen." The I. N. A. Quarterly 22 (1995): 9-14.
Everest, Allan S. The War of 1812 in the Champlain Valley. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1981.
Everts and Ensign. History of Washington County, New York with Illustrations and
Biographical Sketches of Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Philadelphia:
J.B. Lippincott and Co., 1878.
200
Fisher, Montgomery R. ed. A Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain.
Burlington, VT: The Champlain Maritime Society, 1985.
Flemming, N.C. and M.D. Max. Scientific Diving: A General Code of Practice. 2nd ed.
Flagstaff, AZ: Best Publishing, 1996.
Frink, Douglas, Charity Baker, and Arthur Cohn. AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Burlington,
Vermont to Keesville, New York Phase I Archaeological Study. Essex Junction, VT:
Frink and Baker Archaeology Consulting Team, Inc., 1991.
Gove, William. "The Troublesome Addison Branch." Vermont Life 1973, 19-23.
Green, J.N. Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, 1990.
Hager, Robert E. “Notes on a Fieldtrip to the Champlain Canal and Glens Falls Feeder.”
From the Robert Hager Collection at the Chittenango Landing Canal Museum, 1960.
Hagglund, Lorenzo F. “Hagglund to Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American
History.” Record No. 229338.019, 1959.
Hemenway, A. M. The Vermont Historical Gazetteer: A Magazine Embracing A History of
Each Town, Published by the Editor, Burlington, Vermont 1867.
Howell, C.L. and W. Blanc. Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography. 2nd ed.
Archaeological Research Tools, vol. 6. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, 1995.
Kane, Adam I. and Christopher R. Sabick. Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey, Volume IV: 1999 Results and Volume V: 2000 Results. Vergennes, VT:
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2002.
Kane, Adam I., Christopher R. Sabick and Sara R. Brigadier. Lake Champlain Underwater
Cultural Resources Survey, Volume VI: 2001 Results and Volume VII: 2002 Results.
Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2003.
Lipke, P., P. Spectre, and B.A.G. Fuller, eds. Boats: A Manual for Their Documentation.
Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History, 1993.
Lundenberg, Philip K. The Gunboat Philadelphia and the Defense of Lake Champlain in
1776. Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1994.
201
Lydecker, Andrew and Ann Cousins. Recording the Burlington Breakwater in Lake
Champlain, City of Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont, in Connection with the
Proposed Structural Repair Activities and Section 110 Responsibilities. Memphis,
Tennessee: Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2002.
McLaughlin, Scott A. History Told from the Depths of Lake Champlain: 1992-1993 Fort
Ticonderoga-Mount Independence Submerged Cultural Resource Survey.
Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2000.
McLaughlin, Scott A. and Anne W. Lessmann. Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume 1: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results.
Ferrisburgh, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1998.
McVarish, Douglas C., Joel I. Klein, and J. Lee Cox. Pine Street Canal Superfund Site
Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: John Milner
Associates, Inc., 2001.
Miller, J.W., ed. NOAA Diving Manual: Diving for Science and Technology. 2nd ed.
Bethesda, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1991.
Murray, E. M. "Resume of the Court Martial of General Arthur St. Clair Resulting from the
Evacuation of Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, July 6, 1777." Bulletin of
the Fort Ticonderoga Museum 1947.
National Environmental Policy Act. PL 91-190, 42 USC 431.
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. PL 89-665F, 16 USC 470.
National Park Service. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office,
1983.
National Park Service. 36 CFR Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered
Archeological Collections. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office,
1991.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "NOAA Chart No. 14784, Lake
Champlain Barber Point, NY to Whitehall, NY." 1992.
New York Archaeological Council. Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the
Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State. Record of the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY, 1994.
Orwell Historical Society. A History of the Town of Orwell, Vermont: Dedicated to All the
Citizens Past and Present. Orwell, Vermont: Orwell Historical Society, 2001.
202
Peterson, Mendel L. Letter to Frank A. Taylor, “Use of Carbowax,” United States
Government Memorandum, National Museum of American History, Record No.
229338.174, 1961.
Proctor, N. B. "Floating Drawbridge, U. S. Federal Patent # 14928." Ms. on File, U. S.
National Archives, Washington D.C. United States, 1856.
Proud. “A North View of Fort Frederic or Crown Point.” Royal Magazine, London, 1759.
Sabick, Christopher, Anne Lessmann, and Scott McLaughlin. Lake Champlain Underwater
Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997 Results, Volume III: 1998 Results.
Ferrisburgh, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2000.
Shaughnessy, Jim. The Rutland Road. Berkely, CA: Howell-North Books, 1964.
Smith, H. P. History of Addison County Vermont. Syracuse, NY: D. Mason & Co., 1886.
Stafford, Horatio Gates. A Gazetteer of the State of New York. Albany: B.D. Pachard,
1824.
Starbuck, D. R. Mount Independence and the American Revolution 1776-1777, Orwell,
Vermont. Rutland, VT: Sharp Offset, 1991.
Steffy, J.R. Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station,
TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1994.
Stone, William L. Washington County, NY: It’s History to the Close of the Nineteenth
Century. New York: New York History Co., 1901.
Taylor, Frank A. “Letter to Graf.” Memorandum on file at the National Museum of American
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in
Vermont (Working Draft). Montpelier, VT: Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation, 2002.
Washburn, Erika. "The Story of the HMS Linnet, a Brig from the War of 1812." Underwater
Archaeology 1996.
Linnet: The History and Archaeology of a Brig from the War of 1812. M.A Thesis,
Texas A&M University, 1998.
Watson, Winslow C. The History of Essex County, New York. Albany: J. Munsell
Publishers, 1869.
203
Webster, Frank L. The Addison Road. Blum, TX: privately printed, 1985.
Williams, G. "Return of All The Ordinance & Ordinance Store Found in the Garrisons of
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence." Ottawa, Canada: National Archives of
Canada, 1777.
Woodford, A.M. Charting the Inland Seas: A History of the U. S. Lake Survey.
Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1991.
204
APPENDIX A: NRHP DOCUMENTS
The canal boats of Lake Champlain represent an integral period of the areas
developmental, social and commercial history. When the Champlain Canal opened in
1823, Lake Champlain became the primary watercourse in the northeast for the transport of
goods and resources from across the region. These goods traveled north and south via
hundreds of canal boats built and serviced on Lake Champlain.
Over nearly one hundred years, canal boats were built, modified, used and abandoned up
and down the Champlain Canal corridor. Numerous phases of design, construction, use
and modes of propulsion of these vessels on Lake Champlain reflect the initial
commencement, numerous changes, inevitable limitations and ultimate demise of
commercial lake transport within the Chaplain Valley. The LCMM Lake Survey Project has
identified dozens of canal boats on the bottom of Lake Champlain, each of which can
contribute to our understanding of the influences these vessels had on the Champlain
Valley, as well as what influences the Champlain Valley had on the construction and use of
canal boats over the nineteenth century. The LCMM has elected to nominate multiple
canal boats within Lake Champlain to the NRHP through a Multi-Property Nomination
Form. This is the first of the two nomination forms presented in this appendix, and it will
expand on the significance of canal boats in the history of Lake Champlain, and further
details the need to protect these resources as they are known today, as well as those that
will be identified and studied in the future.
The second National Register form in this appendix is an individual nomination for the
Sloop Island Canal boat wreck. The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum’ s (LCMM)
Maritime Research Institute has carried out a multiyear study of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat (VT-CH-843), located off of Charlotte, Vermont, near Sloop Island, in Lake Champlain.
This project was initiated by the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation (VDHP) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an off-site mitigation project for the five canal
boats located within the Pine Street Barge Canal Superfund site in Burlington, Vermont,
and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In 1983, the
Pine Street Barge Canal was put on the National Priorities List as a Superfund site by the
EPA. In 2001 an Historic Resource study of the site lead to the identification of a number
of cultural resources, specifically five canal boats that had been abandoned in the canal
basin, and deemed them eligible for nomination on the NRHP (See Milner report citation).
In order to mitigate the adverse effects in which sealing off the Superfund site would have
on these cultural resources and since they were not available for study due to the
contamination of the sediments they rested in, an off-site mitigation of the Sloop Island
Canal boat was proposed and accepted.
Originally identified in 1998 by the LCMM’s Lake Survey Project, the Sloop Island Canal
boat is an intact “Enlarged Erie Class” canal boat, and is similar to those located within the
Barge Canal. Study of this vessel has resulted in a multi year long term study of this wreck,
which began in 2002. The Sloop Island Canal boat wreck has yielded a large collection of
205
artifacts that has provided insight into the lives of canal boat operators and their families.
This collection has been conserved at the LCMM Artifact Conservation Lab, and many of
the artifacts are currently on exhibit at the museum.
The Sloop Island canal boat is a prime example of one of the multitude of canal boats that
falls under the Multiple Property Nomination for Lake Champlain Canal Boats, and
exemplifies the amount of information to be yielded from these wrecks on a historical level.
The nomination and ultimate acceptance of canal boat sites to the NRHP will allow these
cultural resources located on the bottom of Lake Champlain to be protected and
acknowledged, as well as enable the Champlain Valley community to embrace its maritime
past.
206
SLOOP ISLAND CANAL BOAT NRHP NOMINATION
NPS Form 10-900
(Rev. Aug. 2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
(Expires Jan. 2005)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NRHP
REGISTRATION FORM
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual
properties and districts.
See instructions in How to Complete the NRHP
Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking
"x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item
does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not
applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas
of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions.
Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form
10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
===============================================================================
1. Name of Property
===============================================================================
historic name ___Sloop Island Canal Boat____________________________________
other names/site number _________VT-CH-843__________________________________
===============================================================================
2. Location
===============================================================================
street & number ___Lake Champlain____________________
not for publication__X_
city or town ____Charlotte_______________________________ vicinity N/A
state __Vermont________________ code _VT_ county _Chittenden______ code _007
zip code _05401____
==============================================================================
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
==============================================================================
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended, I hereby certify that this _X__ nomination ____ request for
determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering
properties in the NRHP and meets the procedural and professional requirements set
forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X__ meets ____ does not
meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered
significant _X_ nationally
_X_ statewide _X_ locally. (___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
________________________________________________ _______________________
Signature of certifying official
Date
________________________________________________________________________
State or Federal Agency or Tribal government
207
Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey: 2003 and 2004 Result
USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
(Sloop Island Canal Boat)
(Chittenden County Vermont)
(Page 2)
In my opinion, the property ____ meets ____ does not meet the National Register
criteria.
(
___
See
continuation
sheet
for
additional
comments.)
________________________________________________________________________
Signature of commenting official/Title
Date
________________________________________________________________________
State or Federal agency and bureau
==============================================================================
4. National Park Service Certification
==============================================================================
I, hereby certify that this property is:
____ entered in the National Register
___ See continuation sheet.
____ determined eligible for the
National Register
____ determined not eligible for the
National Register
____ removed from the National Register
______________________ _________
______________________ _________
______________________ _________
______________________ _________
____ other (explain): _________________
__________________________________ ______________________ _________
Signature of Keeper
Date
of Action
===============================================================================
5. Classification
===============================================================================
Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply)
___ private
___ public-local
_X_ public-State
___ public-Federal
Category of Property (Check only one box)
___ building(s)
___ district
_X_ site
___ structure
___ object
208
(Page 3)
Number of Resources within Property
Contributing
_____
__1__
_____
_____
__1__
Noncontributing
_____ buildings
_____ sites
_____ structures
_____ objects
_____ Total
Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National
Register _N/A_
Name of related multiple property listing (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of
a multiple property listing.) Canal Boats of the Champlain Canal and Lake
Champlain
____________________N/A_________________________
===============================================================================
6. Function or Use
===============================================================================
Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions)
Cat: _______Transportation_______ Sub: _______Water-related________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions)
Cat: __Recreation and Culture____ Sub: ___Outdoor Recreation_______
__Landscape_________________
___Underwater_______________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
===============================================================================
7. Description
===============================================================================
Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions)
__Other: Standard Canal Boat, 1873 Class_
209
(Page 4)
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Materials (Enter categories from instructions)
foundation _______________________________
roof _____________________________________
walls ____________________________________
____________________________________
other ___Wood____________________________
___________________________________
Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the
property on one or more continuation sheets.)
===============================================================================
8. Statement of Significance
===============================================================================
Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the
criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing)
_X__ A Property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
____ B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past.
_X__ C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual
distinction.
_X__ D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in
prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations (Mark "X" in all the boxes that apply.)
____ A
owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes.
____ B
removed from its original location.
____ C
a birthplace or a grave.
210
(Page 5)
____ D
a cemetery.
____ E
a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
____ F
a commemorative property.
____ G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the past
50 years.
Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions)
Archaeology: Historic, non-aboriginal
Architecture__________________
Maritime History______________
Transportation________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Period of Significance __1873-1930_______________
__________________________
__________________________
Significant Dates __N/A___
________
________
Significant Person (Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
______N/A_________________________
Cultural Affiliation ____N/A_________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Architect/Builder
__Unknown__________________________
___________________________________
Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property on
one or more continuation sheets.)
211
(Page 6)
===============================================================================
9. Major Bibliographical References
===============================================================================
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one
or more continuation sheets.)
Previous documentation on file (NPS)
___ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been
requested.
___ previously listed in the National Register
___ previously determined eligible by the National Register
___ designated a National Historic Landmark
___ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
# __________
___ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________
Primary Location of Additional Data
_X_ State Historic Preservation Office
___ Other State agency
___ Federal agency
___ Local government
___ University
_X_ Other
Name of repository: _Lake Champlain Maritime Museum______________
===============================================================================
10. Geographical Data
===============================================================================
Acreage of Property ___2.88_____
UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
1
2
Zone Easting Northing
43T 354943 4894298 3 __ ______ _______
__ ______ _______ 4 __ ______ _______
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a
continuation sheet.)
Boundary Justification
(Explain
why
212
the
boundaries
were
selected
on
a
(Page 7)
===============================================================================
11. Form Prepared By
===============================================================================
name/title__Christopher R. Sabick, Nautical Archaeologist______________________
organization__Lake Champlain Maritime Museum________ date___January 9, 2004___
street & number_4472 Basin Harbor Rd.______________ telephone_(802) 475-2022__
city or town__Vergennes______________________ state_VT_ zip code __05491______
===============================================================================
Additional Documentation
===============================================================================
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage
or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
===============================================================================
Property Owner
===============================================================================
(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)
name __Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, c/o Jane Lendway_________
street & number_National Life Building, Drawer 20_ telephone_(802) 828-3051__
city or town____Montpelier____________________ state_VT__ zip code _05620-1501_
===============================================================================
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement:
This information is being collected for
applications to the NRHP to nominate properties for listing or determine
eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings.
Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
213
(Page 8)
(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated
to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to Keeper,
NRHP, 1849 “C” Street NW, Washington, DC,20240.
214
Description of the Sloop Island Canal Boat Shipwreck
Current Condition
The Sloop Island Canal Boat wreck is a standard Lake Champlain canal boat
of the 1873 class, built after the second enlargement of the Champlain
Canal and before the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal in 1915. The
shipwreck (Figure 1) lies in eighty-five feet of water just north of
Sloop Island in Charlotte, Vermont. The site is about 3/8 of a mile
north of Sloop Island and 5/8 mile from the eastern shore (Figure 2).
The intact hull rests on the hard clay bottom on a nearly even keel. The
current condition of the canal boat is remarkable considering its 70+
years on the lake bottom.
Due to the stable environment in Lake
Champlain, the canal boat’s upright orientation, and the fact that its
interior is full of sediment and a cargo of coal, the timbers and
associated artifacts are well preserved. About eighty percent of the
site remains intact, retaining its historic integrity.
The Sloop Island Canal Boat demonstrates a construction technique known
as “edge-fastening.”
The majority of the hull is composed of thick
planks that are joined by bolts driven vertically through their edges,
joining the planks into a single element. The bow of the vessel is built
in a more traditional plank on frame fashion. The cabin which housed the
family that operated the vessel is the only portion of the vessel that
displays significant damage. The roof of the cabin has floated off the
wreck and come to rest on the lake bottom near by. The trunk of the
cabin has collapsed into a jumble of timbers and numerous artifacts were
found in the wreckage.
Historic Condition
Unfortunately, extensive historical background research and an intensive
archaeological survey have, as yet, failed to identify the name of the
Sloop Island Canal Boat making it impossible to link the shipwreck
directly to historic occurrences.
However, an almost complete
reconstruction of the vessel is possible using the intact structural
remains as a guide. The reconstruction of the canal boat is based upon
archaeological evidence supplemented by contemporary documents and
illustrations of similar vessels.
The vessel’s hull, like that of nearly all canal boats, is box-shaped
with vertical sides, a flat bottom and blunt ends, a shape designed to
carry as much cargo as possible within the confines of the size allowed
by the canal locks.
The boat is 97 feet 3½ inches long, 17 feet 10
inches wide (5.43m), and its depth amidships is 9 feet 10 inches (2.99m).
The vessel is very well preserved on the lake bottom. The majority of
the timbers remain in their original locations and retain a substantial
amount of structural integrity.
Hull
The hull was built using edge-fastening construction (Figure 3); a
technique often used to build canal boats since the 1840s. The primary
characteristics of an edge-fastened hull are vertical sides held together
by iron drift bolts driven straight down into the edges of the planking.
215
On the Sloop Island Canal Boat, one inch drift bolts were hammered into
pre-drilled holes through two or more four inch thick strakes. As each
strake was added a new set of drift bolts was driven through that strake
connecting it to those below. With this technique the side planks are so
thoroughly locked together that they act as a single timber, lending
significant longitudinal strength to the hull. This technique was used
extensively in the latter half of the nineteenth century for building
vessels with vertical sides.
The hulls of canal boats with their high length-to-beam ratio, 5.5 to 1
in this case, were prone to sagging. Edge-fastened construction helped
counter this tendency. The strength of an edge-fastened hull is largely
derived from the vessel’s sides, as opposed to plank-on-frame
construction where the hull’s strength comes from the skeleton-like
internal framing.
In plank-on-frame construction a ship’s hull is
commonly described as being akin to a human torso. The backbone of the
ship is its keel, while its frames maintain the shape of the hull with
the ribs as their counterpart.
Water is kept out of the hull by
planking, which forms a skin over the framing. This simplified analogy
is not applicable to the edge-fastening construction technique. They are
fundamentally different; an edge-fastened hull derives its strength and
rigidity from its sides, not its internal framing.
Though the bottom of the vessel is not accessible for examination we have
a good idea of its construction based on other vessels of similar design.
Like other standard edge fastened canal boats, the vertical sides and
horizontal bottom of the Sloop Island Canal Boat are connected by the
chine logs that run along both sides of the hull. The chine logs provide
a secure juncture for the side and bottom of the vessel which meet at a
90 degree angle. At its forward end the chine log terminates where the
bow framing begins. At its after end the chine log is rounded following
the transition of the horizontal bottom to the vertical stern.
The
bottom planking of the Sloop Island Canal Boat runs transversely, and is
likely supported by several sister keelsons on the interior of the hull,
which would provide additional longitudinal support.
Bow
The canal boat’s curved bow was built very differently from the rest of
the hull. Due to its complex shape the bow was not edge-fastened, but
was built using the more traditional shipbuilding technique of plank-onframe construction. Overall, the bow is extremely bluff, with 2 inch
(5cm) thick planks rabbetted into the 10 inch (25cm) by 6 inch (15cm)
stem at a near 90° angle. The top of the stem is raked slightly aft,
creating a recessed area where a lantern could be hung. The exterior of
the bow is reinforced with eight 4 by 4 inch (10 by 10cm) rubrails; the
leading edge of each is covered with a half inch thick iron band. These
were used to limit wear from frequent abrasion with other canal boats,
and the canal locks and prism. The bow was constructed primarily of
white oak and elm, as opposed to much of the rest of the hull, which was
white pine.
The interior of the bow is massively reinforced to protect the vessel
from the stresses of towing and the inevitable collisions that took place
in the canals and locks. Above deck is a substantial breast hook that
supports the large towing bits (Figure 4). Directly below the 2 inch
216
(5cm) thick deck planking is a massive composite breast hook consisting
of eight timbers running athwartships and extending aft from the stem 2 ½
feet (.75m) (Figure 5). This large reinforcement is further strengthened
through the use of two lodging knees on each side which connect the
breast hook with the large deck beam at the forward end of the cargo
hatch. Below this are two smaller breast hooks which extend around the
interior of the bow. These are located 2 feet (.6m) and 4 feet (1.2m)
below the large breast hook respectively, a third may be present below
the silt line. The smaller reinforcements consist of seven 1 ½ inch
(3.8cm) boards laminated into a single structural timber. Unfortunately,
the lower interior structures of the Sloop Island Canal Boats are
obstructed by the presence of a large amount of coal and silt making
their examination impossible.
Stern
The canal boat’s stern is much simpler in construction than the bow. The
bottom portion of the stern is vertical, with planks oriented
transversely.
Unlike the vertical planks along the hull’s side, the
stern planks are not edge-fastened but are supported by 4 inch square
(25cmsqu) frames. Planks are rabbetted into the vertical sternpost. At
the very bottom of the stern the planks abruptly curve from the vertical
plane of the stern into the horizontal plane of the bottom of the hull.
This curve follows the end of the chine log which is curved at its after
end.
Above the vertical portion of the stern is a slightly curved
transom that over hangs the lower part of the stern by 2 feet (.6m). The
transom once had the vessel’s name and homeport painted on it, but only
small flecks of paint remain today.
Deck Layout
There are four openings along the deck each giving access to a separate
interior area of the vessel. From forward to aft, these areas are the
forecastle, hold, cabin, and booby.
Access to the forecastle, or the interior of the bow, was gained through
the 18 inch by 24 inch (45.7 by 60.9cm) forecastle hatch. The forecastle
was separated from the hold and its cargo by a tongue-and-groove plank
bulkhead located 6 feet aft of the interior face of the stem. Several
feet of silt and coal has accumulated in the bow making the study of this
area difficult. Many boat-related artifacts such as a broken windlass
(Figure 6), a roll of tar paper, a paint pot with a brush, a marlin
spike, an iron block, and numerous iron fasteners were found here
indicating that it served as a storage area for tools and other
equipment.
Many of these items were still sitting on top of the laminated breast
hooks; it is likely that many other pieces of boat-related equipment
remain buried below the sediments.
The canal boat’s dominant feature is its large cargo hatch. At 51 foot
long (15.5m) and 9 feet (2.7m) wide the cargo hatch spanned much of the
main deck leaving a 4 foot (1.2m) walkway on each side of the vessel. As
its name suggests, the hatch allows access to the hold so that cargo can
be loaded and unloaded. It was surrounded by a 12 inch (30.5cm) coaming
necessary for keeping water out. The hold and deck are supported by six
strong deck beams that run across the vessel.
The deck beams are
217
composed of three timbers with a total dimension of 18 inches (45.7cm)
molded and 8 inches (20.3cm) sided. Two of these timbers are located at
the forward and after end of the main hatch, the other four are spaced
along the length of the opening. The junction of the deckbeams and the
sides of the vessel are reinforced with naturally curved knees. They are
further supported amidships with 6 inch by 6 inch stanchions joined to
the beams with iron straps (Figure 7). The hold is filled with coal to a
depth of 3 to 5 feet (1 to 1.5m) above the boat’s bottom. The cargo made
documentation of the construction of the bottom of the hull impossible.
Just aft of the cargo hatch is the cabin. The opening for the cabin is
13 feet (3.9m) long and 12½ feet (3.8m) wide, though the cabin itself is
actually 17 by 12½ feet (5 by 3.8m) because it extends under the walkways
of the deck. The cabin floor is constructed of 1 inch tongue and groove
planks supported by 1 inch (2.5cm) thick sub-flooring planks and 6½ by 4
inch (16.5 by 10cm) cabin floor beams. The forward and after walls of
the cabin were delineated by a tongue-and-groove panel wall, whereas the
port and starboard sides of the cabin were formed by the sides of the
boat.
The booby hatch is the aftermost opening on the canal boat’s deck.
Located along the starboard half of the stern deck, it is 9½ feet by 5
feet (2.8 by 1.5m). The booby hatch allowed the canal boat’s stern to be
loaded with cargo both behind and underneath the cabin floor, which is 5
feet (1.5m) off the vessel’s bottom. Loading cargo in the stern helped
take some strain off the midships section of the boat (Godfrey 1965:1).
This loading technique was used in the Sloop Island Canal Boat as
evidenced by the coal loaded in the booby and underneath the cabin. A
number of artifacts were located inside the booby, however, it is
believed that most of these items spilled into that section of the boat
as the bulkhead separating the booby from the cabin collapsed. Only a
few artifacts were located in the booby far enough from the cabin to
suggest that there original provenience is the booby, including an axe,
tiller bar extension, and a variety of iron fasteners and tools.
Deck Arrangements
The vessel contains a number of pieces of deck equipment and related gear
essential for operating the boat.
The bow houses an iron windlass
mounted to two 8 by 8 inch (20 by 20cm) wooden towing bitts.
The
windlass was used to raise and lower the anchor, whereas the bitts were
essential for tying the canal boat into the tow. One of the vessels
anchors is still present in the bow near the windlass. The anchor shaft
is 5 feet (1.5m) long and the distance between fluke points is 3 feet 6
inches (1.06m), the folding cross piece rests on the deck next to the
anchor. Mounted into the decking of the bow are two deck lights. The
lights are thick pieces of glass which diffused natural light into the
forecastle. The canal boat also has six 2 foot 10 inch (.85m) long iron
cleats, three on each side of the boat one in the bow, one in the stern,
and one amidships. These were used for tying off to an adjacent vessel
in a tow, or to a dock. The cleats on the port side still have cable
wrapped around them suggesting that the vessel was cut loose rather than
untied.
The stern deck contains a small iron windlass (Figure 8) used for
snugging the following canal boat in a tow up against the stern. On the
218
small walkway between the cabin and the cargo hatch the boat’s iron wheel
and steering mechanism are present. The wheel has separated from the
mechanism and lies beside it on the deck (Figure 9). Originally cables
ran from the drum of the mechanism to blocks along the side of the vessel
and then to attachment points on the next vessel of the tow. As the tow
navigated corners in the canal turning the steering wheel tightened and
slackened the cables attaching the two vessels allowing them to pivot
around turns.
Cabin and Booby
The cabin trunk, cabin roof, and booby hatch cover of the Sloop Island
Canal Boat were ripped off at the time of the vessel’s sinking. Work in
the cabin and booby was made easier without these overhead obstructions.
However, documentation was complicated by the large number of jumbled
timbers from the floor, ceiling, bulkhead planks, and fragments of the
cabin trunk and cabin furniture (Figure 10). The fasteners that once
held the wooden elements of the cabin and booby in place had long since
rusted away, allowing the timbers to collapse into the vessel. Through
careful documentation, we hope the original location of many of the
timbers can be identified, permitting the reconstruction of the original
layout of the cabin and booby. Layer by layer the timbers and artifacts
were removed and video and photographs were used to record the process.
All of the artifacts from the cabin and booby were recovered and brought
to the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum’s conservation facility for
stabilization and documentation (Figure 11). Although the video footage,
still images, and sketches of the cabin and booby and the artifacts and
their distribution are now being analyzed, our current impression of the
cabin layout is that the space was divided into sections based on their
function (Figure 12).
The cabin stairwell was located along the after end of the cabin along
the port side. Beneath the stairs was a storage area containing a tool
box (Figure 13). To port of the stairs, under the walkway alongside the
cabin were shelves used to store food. The artifacts recovered from this
area included crocks, bottles, canning jars, and a jug. One canning jar
was full of small fish bones (possibly the remains of pickled fish) and
two crocks held grape seeds and pig bones (i.e., salt pork). The bottles
once contained root beer, beer, and mineral water. Also located on the
shelving were two oil lamps. Forward of the shelving unit was a chest of
drawers, which contained tools, shoes, and money. Forward of this and
also under the deck along the portside was a folding iron bed. In the
center of the cabin was a caned armed rocking chair, presumably near the
location of the dinning table. Located in the forward starboard corner
of the cabin was a cast iron double bed and a stool. Along the starboard
side of the cabin were two shelves used to store tin ware dishes. Aft of
the bed was a large cast iron cook range (Figure 14), which was separated
from the rest of the cabin by a panel wall and linoleum flooring. To
port of the stove was a large hutch with multiple shelves and drawers
housing the family’s ceramic, glassware, utensils, and medicines.
The artifacts found within the cabin and booby suggests that the vessel’s
crew consisted of a nuclear family with a father, mother, and at least
one child. Articles of clothing and shoes were found in the cabin. A
wool coat was discovered near the center of the cabin and appears from
its size, shape, and design to be for a pregnant woman. The heel of a
219
woman’s shoe was also found. Located within one of the hutch draws were
several colored clay marbles and small buttons, which may have belonged
to a young child.
Also suggestive of a child’s presence aboard the
vessel is a checker recovered from the tool box. The heel of a man's
shoe was found in the chest of drawers.
The continued analysis of the artifacts and their provenience will guide
researchers in determining the organization, layout, and functions of the
cabin and booby. The artifacts also have the potential to help us better
understand the economic and physical well-being of the canal boat
household, their access and preference to goods, their needs, and the
crew’s activities within the cabin and booby.
Rudder
The steering mechanism controlled the direction of the Sloop Island Canal
Boat in the canal, but the tiller and rudder controlled the vessel on
open water.
The rudder is mounted to an 8 inch (20cm) diameter
rudderpost which passes through the transom. A tiller bar is mortised
into the top of the rudderpost. Two Iron rings are mounted to the top of
the tiller which would have allowed an extension to be installed. The
extended tiller handle would have allowed crew members to steer the
vessel from the top of the cabin where they had a clear view. The rudder
itself is very similar to those found on other canal boats and it is
commonly referred to as a “barn door rudder”. A barn door rudder had a
folding extension called, a tailboard, that could be retracted when in
the constricted waters of the canal. The rudder of the Sloop Island
Canal Boat consists of two walls of planks 6 ½ feet (2m) high and 6 feet
(1.8m) long that are separated by a 5 inch (12.7cm) gap. In this gap the
2 inch (5cm) thick rudder extension is mounted to a 1 inch (2.5cm) iron
pin as a pivot. The Sloop Island Canal Boat’s rudder extension is in the
stowed position.
220
Figure 1: Sloop Island Canal Boat Site Plan(Drawing by: Adam Kane, Chris Sabick, Erick Tichonuk, and Scott
McLaughlin; LCMM Collection)
221
Figure 2: Location of Sloop Island Canal Boat (Map by Adam Kane, LCMM
Collection)
222
Figure 3:
A schematic view of
technique.(Drawing by Joseph Cozzi)
223
the
edge
fastened
construction
Figure 4:
A Plan view of the bow of the Sloop Island Canal Boat.
(Drawing by Chris Sabick)
Figure 5: A below Deck Plan View of the Sloop Island Canal Boat’s bow.
(Drawing by Chris Sabick)
224
Figure 6: The broken windlass found in the forecastle.(Drawing by Gordon
Cawood and Adam Loven)
Figure 7:
Small windlass located on the Stern Deck.(Photography by
Pierre LaRocque)
225
Figure 8: Cross section of the Sloop Island Canal Boat
(Drawing by Sara Brigadier)
Figure 9:
LaRocque)
The Steering wheel and mechanism (Photography by Pierre
226
Figure 10: The jumble of timbers in the stern cabin. (Photography by
Pierre LaRocque)
Figure 11: Silverware Drawer from the cabin.(Drawing by Adam Loven)
227
Figure 12: Conjectural layout of the stern cabin.(Drawing by Scott
McLaughlin)
Figure 13: A Stanley block plane found in the tool box.(Drawing by Gordon
Cawood and Adam Loven)
228
Figure 14: Portions of the cast iron cook range (Drawing by Gordon Cawood
and Adam Loven)
229
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Summary
The Sloop Island Canal Boat shipwreck site is eligible for National
Register listing under criteria A, C, and D. The areas of significance
within these criteria are archaeology, architecture, maritime history and
transportation. The Sloop Island Canal Boat fulfills all the aspects and
qualities under each criterion and demonstrates an importance within
local, state, and national history.
Criteria A:
Canal Boats were an important element in the North
American transportation network during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries; although the story of these humble craft has long been
overshadowed by the steamboat and railroad. Standard or unrigged canal
boats were able to move large, heavy, bulky cargoes from a lake port to a
canal or river port relatively quickly and cheaply without the need to
transfer the cargo around portages.
The vessels were used mainly to
transport material through the Champlain Valley and its connecting canal
systems.
Lake Champlain played a major role in linking the Eastern
Canadian, and New York City markets. Champlain Canal boats were built in
New York, Vermont, and Eastern Canada.
Vessels similar to the Sloop
Island Canal Boat were constructed from 1873 to 1915.
Criteria C:
The Sloop Island Canal Boat embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type and method of construction used during the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The shipwreck near Sloop
Island is a standard Champlain canal boat of the 1873 class. The vessel
was built using the edge-fastened construction technique.
This
construction technique was commonly practiced by American boat builders
for many different types of vessels that had straight sides, and it was
the predominant construction techniques used for building standard canal
boats in the late nineteenth century.
Criteria D:
The archaeology and historical research conducted to date
on the Sloop Island Canal Boat has yielded a tremendous amount of
information about construction, function, operation and life aboard
standard canal boats.
By no means has this research been exhausted.
There remains a large amount of data still to be analyzed and portions of
the vessel that have not been excavated.
Archaeology
Since the discovery of the Sloop Island Canal Boat in 1998 it has been
the focus to two field seasons of archaeological examination. Most of
the vessel above the mudline has been documented, but none of the vessel
that lies under the cargo of coal has been recorded. The Sloop Island
Canal Boat has yielded a significant amount of information about the
construction, function, operation, and life aboard a canal boat. The
information is made possible as a result of the vessel’s quick, but
gentle sinking. The family aboard would have been able to save only a
small number of items before they were forced to abandon the vessel.
This allowed archaeologists to get a better understanding of the
contents, condition, and organization of a working canal boat. Many of
the canal boat shipwrecks found were likely scuttled after their working
careers.
230
Architecture
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is one of thousands of standard canal boats
that were once involved in the commercial carrying trade on Northern
Route, New York City to the St. Lawrence River. The Sloop Island Canal
Boat is a largely intact example of the Lake Champlain standard canal
boat of the 1873 class. The Sloop Island Canal Boat is an excellent
example of a Champlain standard canal boat from the end of the wooden
canal boat period on Lake Champlain.
This vessel represents the
culmination of the edge fastened construction technique that was employed
on a variety of vessel types that had vertical sides.
Maritime History/Transportation
The Sloop Island Canal Boat represents one of the second to last
generation of wooden canal boats to operate on the Northern Route. The
Northern Route’s canal boat era began roughly 100 years before the Sloop
Island Canal Boat sank with the 1823 opening of the Champlain Canal. The
canal’s effect on the economic prosperity of the Champlain Valley was
enormous; bulky raw materials, which were formerly too costly to ship
overland, could now be transported to marketplaces along the Hudson River
and beyond.
The Hudson River, Champlain Canal, and Lake Champlain’s
enhanced importance as a commercial waterway spurred an economic boom in
port towns along its shores.
The Champlain Canal was expanded three times during the nineteenth and
early twentieth century. Each expansion gave rise to a new larger class
of canal boats. Calls for the first expansion of the Champlain Canal
began only a few years after its opening in 1823. Between 1835 and 1862,
New York State slowly replaced the locks of the Champlain Canal and
enlarged the canal prism.
As a result, the size of canal boats was
increased from 79 feet in length and 13 feet in beam to 87 feet in length
and 14 feet in beam.
Although the enlargement was considered an
improvement, it was still inadequate to transport the volume of freight
that could be carried between Montreal and New York City, a route known
as the Northern Route.
The Champlain Canal’s second enlargement began after a flurry of
suggestions by politicians, boatmen, and shippers, all urging New York
State to build the Champlain Canal to at least the dimensions of the Erie
Canal. Some even encouraged an expansion sufficient to handle sea-going
vessels. In 1864, New York resolved to enlarge the Champlain Canal to
the same dimensions as the Erie Canal. The new locks, completed in 1873,
measured at least 110 feet (33.5m) long and 18 feet (5.4m) wide. The
enlargement of the canal prism, however, was not completed until 1877
with the dimensions of at least 65 feet (20m)at the water's surface and
containing a minimum water depth of 6 feet (1.8m). These dimensions fell
short of the Erie Canal's dimensions by 5 feet (1.5m) in width and 1 foot
(.3m) in depth. Canal boats now averaged 97 feet 29.5m) long and 17½
feet(5.3m) wide; the Sloop Island Canal Boat belongs to this class of
canal boat.
Despite continuous outcries by the public about the inadequacies of the
Champlain Canal, New York State refused to authorize another expansion.
However, in the 1890s the State relented and began a deliberately slow
effort of enlarging both the Champlain and Erie Canals. The dimensions
of Lake Champlain's canal boats, however, essentially remained the same
231
from 1873 until 1915. After numerous studies and political battles with
railroad supporters, New York State finally put energy and funds into
establishing the New York State Barge Canal System in 1903.
The
Champlain Barge Canal was opened in 1915 with concrete locks
accommodating vessels 300 feet long by 43½ feet (13.2m) wide drafting
less than 12 feet (3.6m)of water.
Bridges and overhead power and
telephone lines limited the vessels to a height of less than 15½ feet
(4.7m) at normal water levels (Larkin 1999:82).
Despite the large lock size on the Champlain Barge Canal, a canal boat's
size was severely limited by the old locks on the Chambly Canal, which
bypassed a series of rapids on the Richelieu River between Lake Champlain
and the St. Lawrence River. Most traffic on the Champlain Canal was
through-traffic to and from Canada, which required the use of the Chambly
Canal. The Chambly Canal locks could accommodate a boat up to 108 feet
(33m) long, 22.5 feet (6.8m) wide, and almost any height due to the use
of only swing bridges over the canal. The Chambly Canal had a depth of
7.5 feet (2.2m) and allowed vessels to draft 6.5 feet (2m) (Godfrey
1973:28).
By 1905, the year construction began on the Champlain Barge Canal, the
Northern Waterway had become comparatively unimportant from a commercial
standpoint, especially when considering the freight carried by New York
State's railroads. Improvements in the efficiency and quantity of freight
carried by the railroads and the discovery of cheaper sources of timber,
minerals, and agricultural products in other regions of the country
reduced the economic vitality of the canal.
In 1890, the volume of
commerce on the Champlain Canal reached a peak of 1.5 million tons
(Figure 15). By 1907, however, it had dropped to less than half that
amount. Part of the change resulted from the gradual reduction of trade
through New York City. Iron ore traffic had ceased and the lumber and
coal trades had moved much of their business, like the iron mining, to
the rail systems. In spite of the railroads, some canalers continued to
work the Northern Waterway.
Canal boats carried pulpwood for the
region’s paper mills and coal to ports along Lake Champlain and to Canada
(Bellico 2001:249).
With the opening of the Champlain Barge Canal in the spring of 1915, the
old Champlain canal boats, like the Sloop Island Canal Boat, were no
longer economical. Soon, several new wooden boat designs appeared that
used the larger locks more efficiently. Some of these boats were based
on the old wooden canal boat design but most consisted of wooden unmanned
barges. However, the old Champlain canal boats remained in use along
side these new vessels until the late 1930s. By 1940, most shippers had
abandoned the old wooden craft in favor of steel barges, which had larger
capacities, a longer lifespan, and required no crew other than the tug
captain and his men (McHugh 1981:13).
232
Figure 15: A Canal boat tow.(Journal of August Brown, 1895, courtesy of
the New York State Museum)
233
Bibliography
Albrecht, Arthur E.
1918 The Education of Children Living on Barges.
8(192):259-260.
School and Society
Anonymous
1923 On Inland Waterways. The Survey 50(2):103-104.
Archambault, Cora and Jane Vincent
2000 Interview with Cora Archambault. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum,
Vergennes, Vermont.
Archambault, Cora, Arthur Cohn and Jane Vincent
Vergennes, Vermont.
Archambault, Cora, Holly Noordsey and Megan Garrison
Vergennes, Vermont.
Bellico, Russel P.
2001 Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of
Lake George and Lake Champlain. Revised ed. Purple Mountain Press,
Fleischmanns, New York.
Cohn, Arthur B.
Preliminary Results of an Archaeological Assessment within the Pine
Street Barge Canal. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Ferrisburg,
Vermont.
Gleason, J.D.
1922 Barges. Scribner's Magazine 72(1):17-25.
Godfrey, Frank H.
1973 The Godfrey Letters: Capt. Frank H. Godfrey Tells
About His Days on the Canals. Canal Society of New York State, Syracuse,
New York.
1965 Frank H. Godfrey to Robert E. Hager, letter, 16 September 1965.
Chittenango Landing Canal Boat Museum, Chittenango, New York.
Godfrey, Fred G.
1994 The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats. Library Research Associates,
Monroe, New York.
Johnson, Clifton
1898 A Canal-Boat Voyage on the Hudson. The Outlook 60(5):304-318.
Larking, F. Daniel
1999 New York State Canals: A Short History. Purple Mountain Press,
Fleischmanns, New York.
234
McHugh, K.R. (editor)
1981 A Canal Primer. The Canal Museum, Syracuse, New York.
McVarish,Douglas C., Joel I. Klein, and J. Lee Cox
2001 Pine Street Canal Superfund Site Burlington, Chittenden County,
Vermont. John Milner Associates, Inc.,Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
O'Malley, Charles T.
1991 Low Bridges and High Water on the New York State Barge Canal.
Diamond Mohawk Publishing, Ellentown, Florida.
Sabick, Christopher R., Anne W. Lessmann, Scott A. McLaughlin
2000 Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997
Results and Volume III: 1998 Results.
Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, Vergennes, Vermont.
Springer, Ethel M. and Thomas F. Hahn
1977 Canal Boat Children on the Chesapeake and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New York Canals. American Canal & Transportation Center,
Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Stack, Debbie J. and Donald A. Wilson
1993 Always Know Your Pal: Children on the Erie Canal. Erie Canal Museum,
Syracuse, New York.
235
Geographical Data
Verbal Boundary Description
The Sloop Island Canal Boat is setting upright in 85 feet of water in
Lake Champlain. The site is located in Charlotte, Chittenden County,
Vermont. The vessel came to rest approximately 3/8 of a mile north of
Sloop Island and 5/8 mile from the eastern shore of the lake.
Latitude:
Longitude:
44.1874 N
73.1850 W
A circle with a 200 foot (61 m) radius around the Sloop Island Canal Boat
is designated as the outer limits of the site boundary. The shipwreck
lies in the center of this circle, which has an area of 2.88 acres (1.17
hectares).
Boundary Justification
The Sloop Island Canal Boat sunk to the bottom of the lake upright and on
an even keel, retaining its large cargo of coal. The cabin roof has come
to rest about 20 feet off the starboard stern the vessel. The 200 foot
(61 m) radius used as the boundary limit around the wreck will ensure
that if any scatter of artifacts associated with the wreck will be
included within the site boundaries. The 200 foot (61 m) radius is also
the State of Vermont designation as the safety zone around any diver’s
down flag. The boundary is sufficient to convey the significance of the
property.
Figure 16: USGS map showing the location of the Sloop Island Canal Boat
236
LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL BOAT MULTIPLE PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION FORM
NPS Form 10-900-b
(Rev. Aug. 2002)
OMB No. 1024-0018
(Expires Jan. 2005)
NRHP
Multiple Property Documentation Form
This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to
one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the
Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B).
Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional
space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word
processor, or computer to complete all items.
__X__ New Submission ____ Amended Submission
===================================================================
A. Name of Multiple Property Listing
===================================================================
CANAL BOATS OF THE CHAMPLAIN CANAL AND LAKE CHAMPLAIN
===================================================================
B. Associated Historic Contexts
===================================================================
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1819 to c.1834: Era of Canal Boat Experimentation
c.1835 to 1857: Era of Canal Boat Standardization
1858 to 1872: First Champlain Canal Expansion
1873 to 1915: Second Champlain Canal Expansion
1916-c.1940: Champlain Barge Canal
C. Form Prepared by
===================================================================
name/title Adam Kane (Archaeological Project Manager), Chris Sabick
(Conservator), Scott McLaughlin (Archaeologist/Historian), Sarah Vukovich
(Historic Preservation Consultant)
organization Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
telephone 802 475 2022
street & number 4472 Basin Harbor Road
state VT zip code 05491
city or town
Vergennes
===================================================================
237
D. Certification
===================================================================As the
designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the
National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for
the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register
criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional
requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation.
______________________________________________
Signature and title of certifying official
____________________
Date
______________________________________________
State or Federal Agency or Tribal government
I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been
approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related
properties for listing in the National Register.
_______________________________________________
Signature of the Keeper
238
___________________
Date of Action
===================================================================
Table of Contents for Written Narrative
===================================================================
Provide the following information on continuation sheets. Cite the letter
and the title before each section of the narrative. Assign page numbers
according to the instructions for continuation sheets in How to Complete
the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin
16B). Fill in page numbers for each section in the space below.
Page Numbers
E. Statement of Historic Contexts (If more
4-16
than one historic context is documented,
present them in sequential order.)
F. Associated Property Types (Provide
description, significance, and registration
requirements.)
17-24
G.
25-26
Geographical Data
H. Summary of Identification and Evaluation
Methods (Discuss the methods used in developing
the multiple property listing.)
27-29
I. Major Bibliographical References (List major
written works and primary location of additional
documentation: State Historic Preservation Office,
other State agency, Federal agency, local government,
university, or other, specifying repository.)
===================================================================
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected
for applications to the NRHP to nominate properties for listing or
determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend
existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is
estimated to average 120 hours per response including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or
any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division,
National Park Service, P.0. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project
(1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
239
===================================================================
E Statement of Historic Contexts
Introduction
The Champlain Waterway and the vessels that plied its waters have had a
dramatic effect on the economic, social, and industrial development of
the Champlain Valley.
This waterway connected the resource rich
Champlain Valley with the major markets of New York City and the Canadian
cities along the St. Lawrence River. It allowed for an enormous increase
in trade for the region which translated into increased industrialization
and settlement. Practically the only archaeological evidence remaining
of the vessels, and the people who worked them, is found on the bottom of
Lake Champlain in the form of canal boat shipwrecks. These vessels first
appeared in the Champlain Valley in 1819 and continued to operate through
the first portion of the 20th century. During more than a century of
operation a large number of these vessels found their way to the lake
bottom through accidents, poor handling, and intentional scuttling.
The Champlain Valley, along with the Hudson and Richelieu Rivers, has
been used as a transportation corridor since the Native American period.
With the start of significant European settlement in the region during
the second half of the 18th century these waterways became important for
the movement of both merchandise and military forces. However, in its
unimproved form this was an arduous path of travel, preferable only to
the wilderness that surrounded it.
From the Hudson River, north of
Albany, a difficult portage was needed to bring material to the upper
reaches of Lake Champlain, near Whitehall. At the lake’s northern end a
second transshipment was necessary to bypass the rapids and falls between
St. Johns and Chambly, Quebec and gain access to the St. Lawrence River.
These obstacles limited trade, and increased the expense of the shipment
of the natural resources in which the Champlain Valley was so rich like:
timber, and building stone. Instead of these cargoes, early merchants
focused on agricultural goods like grain, maple sugar, cheese, cattle,
and tobacco as well as timber.
These items, and others, were most
commonly traded with the Canadian markets of the St. Lawrence River in
exchange for luxury items such as spirits, coffee, textiles, and
manufactured goods. This focus to the north was due to the fact that the
portages around the falls on the Richelieu were short in comparison to
those that connected the lake with the Hudson River.
The population of the Champlain Valley remained small until the end of
the War of 1812 at which time numerous settlers migrated to the area.
The expanding population was mirrored by a growth in trade and
shipbuilding. The majority of the merchandise was transported in small
sloops and schooners and the focus of trade remained to the north and
Canada. The period around the War of 1812 also saw the creation and
expansion of steamship service on Lake Champlain. The first steamer on
the lake, Vermont, was built in 1809, but it was not until after the War
that other steamboats like Phoenix (1815), Champlain (1815), and Congress
240
(1818) were constructed. While these new marvels were a tremendous leap
in maritime technology on the lake, they had little immediate effect on
trade as they were used principally for passenger traffic.
Though a failed effort to build a canal connecting the Hudson River and
Lake Champlain had been attempted by the Northern Inland Lock Navigation
Company in the 1790’s, it was during the War of 1812 that strong support
began to build for an all water connection between Lake Champlain and the
Hudson River.
The desire to construct a canal connecting these two
waterways arose after a ban on trade with Canada was imposed during
hostilities with the British.
As traders were forced to focus their
trade south, the difficulties in transporting their goods became
apparent. Merchandise shipped by sailing vessel on the lake had to be
transferred to wagons for the overland trip to the Hudson River where it
was once more loaded onto a vessel for transport to New York City. The
loading and unloading of vessels and wagons took a considerable amount of
time and greatly increased the expense of shipping merchandise to market.
The added expense of doing business led businessmen pressure the
government for an all-water connection with the southern markets.
It was not until the State of New York took on the task that serious
progress was made.
After extensive study, and surveying of possible
routes, ground was broken in 1817. The 64-mile (103 km) Champlain Canal
stretching from North Troy to Whitehall, New York was opened in October
1823, though portions of the canal system were in use from 1819. For the
interior regions of the Northeast, the year the Champlain Canal opened
marked the end of relative isolation from the outside world, and its
entry into the national economy of the United States.
Extractive
industries and agriculture along the Champlain Waterway experienced a
surge of activity as entrepreneurs hastened to take advantage of the new
unrestricted domestic market for their products.
In response to the
increased business opportunities in the Champlain Valley the population
of the region expanded rapidly.
The opening of the Champlain Canal was such a success that in 1835 an
expansion plan was initiated. This program increased the size of both
the canal prism and locks and would allow larger vessels to traverse the
canal system.
However, this expansion progressed slowly and was not
completed until 1862.
In 1843 the Canadian Government completed the
Chambly Canal allowing unrestricted access to the St. Lawrence River and
the Canadian markets to the north. With the completion of this portion
of the Champlain Waterway the all water route reaching from New York City
to the St. Lawrence River had been realized.
As trade and the local population continued to expand, the nature of
industry in the Champlain Valley began to change.
While extractive
industries had been the focus of trade at the time of the canal opening,
some manufactured goods were also being produced and these became more
important the mid-nineteenth century.
This trend continued into the
second half of the century as the natural resources that the area had
depended on earlier, particularly lumber, were exhausted.
Industry
241
continued to transition into manufacturing completed goods, principally
finished lumber which was now being imported in its raw form from Canada
and processed in mills throughout the Champlain Valley. However, the
survival of this commercial waterway and canal boat freight were under
increasing competition throughout the end of the nineteenth century.
First were the great improvements in efficiency and power of the
railroads and second, the discovery of cheaper sources of forestry,
mineral, and agricultural products in other regions of the country
outside the Northeast.
To contend with this competition, pressure
mounted to drop the price of shipping on the Champlain Waterway by
increasing the size and carrying capacity of the canals. This brought
about the final expansion of the Champlain Canal into the Champlain Barge
Canal in 1916, which led to the adoption of steel barges and signaled the
eventual end of the wooden canal boat era.
Vessel Development
Even before the opening of the Champlain Canal, there appeared large
numbers of long, narrow, shallow-draft boats constructed specifically for
service on it. These canal boats were built loosely following European
canal boat designs but with unique North American shipbuilding elements.
Two types of wooden canal boats were employed during the Champlain
Valley's canal era (1819-1940): unrigged canal boats and sailing canal
boats.
All canal boats prior to the 1915 were towed through the
Champlain Canal by teams of horses or mules. When they entered open
water, however, sailing canal boats had their own mode of propulsion,
while unrigged canal boats were formed into tows, or rafts, of boats and
towed by steam or tugboats to their destination.
This freedom of
movement gave the sailing canal boats an advantage for the first half of
the canal period until the number of tow vessels available on the lake
allowed standard canal boats to compete effectively. Once this occurred,
in the 1860’s, the number of sailing canal boats dropped off
dramatically, many sailing vessels were simply dismasted and employed as
standard towed boats.
The sailing canal boats that operated on the Champlain Canal were of two
styles, sloops and schooners.
Historical research has revealed that
sloop rigged sailing boats were the most popular. However, it should be
noted that Gleaner, the first vessel to pass through the Champlain Canal
in 1823 was a schooner rigged vessel and that this rig increased in
number as vessel size increased.
The early 1870s saw most remaining
sailing canal boats converted to standard canal boats. At this time the
number of tow vessels available on the lake had increased dramatically
and the inconveniences of sailing had become more of a hindrance than an
advantage. Centerboards and rigging took up valuable cargo space and it
cost money to store the vessels masts as it entered the canal.
Therefore, the majority of sailing canal boat operators opted to join the
ranks of the standard canal boats.
Unrigged canal boats were by far the most numerous type of wooden vessel
242
to operate on the Champlain Waterway in the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. Between 1819 and 1940 at least 5,000 northern canal
boats worked the Northern Waterway. These vessels played an important
role in the transportation network of the Northeast.
However, the
survival of this commercial waterway and canal boat freight were under
increasing competition throughout this period.
First were the great
improvements in efficiency and power of the railroads and second, the
discovery of cheaper sources of forestry, mineral, and agricultural
products in other regions of the country outside the Northeast.
To
contend with this competition, pressure mounted to drop the price of
shipping on the Champlain Waterway by increasing the size and carrying
capacity of the canals. This brought about the final expansion of the
Champlain Canal into the Champlain Barge Canal in 1916 which led to the
adoption of steel barges and signaled the eventual end of the wooden
canal boat era.
Canal Boat Historic Contexts
Researchers have identified five historic phases in the construction of
canal boats that operated along the Champlain Waterway. The first phase,
the Era of Experimentation, saw families or communities constructing the
early canal boats, which resulted in a wide variety of designs and
construction techniques.
Quality also varied dramatically with the
experience of the shipbuilders. The canal boat operators of the region
constructed the second wave of canal boats during the Era of
Standardization. This situation lead to a more standardized construction
technique and design for the canal boats. Professional shipwrights along
the Champlain Waterway also began experimenting with canal boat
construction techniques during this period. The third phase of canal
boat construction, the First Canal Expansion, was carried out by strictly
professional canal boat designers and builders using innovative
shipbuilding technology to create a new class of vessels that took full
advantage of the expanded canal and locks. The fourth phase, the Second
Canal Expansion, again took advantage of the expanded canal system to
increase carrying capacity but construction is often noted to be of
lesser quality and often corners were cut, safety features eliminated,
the structure of the vessels was weakened, and they were designed with a
short expected life span.
The fifth canal boat phase, The Champlain
Barge Canal, is characterized by the appearance of much larger canal
boats that pushed the limits of wooden ship construction. The appearance
of steel barges signaled the end of wooden canal boat construction.
The design and construction of canal boats evolved over time in the
shipyards along the Champlain Canal and Lake Champlain. The prolific
growth of the shipbuilding industry that occurred immediately after the
opening of the canal resulted in a variety of vessels designs and
construction techniques. A typical canal boat took from three to six
months to build depending on the skill and dedication of the shipbuilder
and the availability of supplies.
As with all vessel construction,
builders had to find a compromise design that could carry out the canal
boats principal task (cargo carriage) in a safe and efficient manner,
243
within the constraints of the canal system itself. A canal boat had to
meet two basic requirements to function effectively. First, it had to be
able to operate on the canals and on open water in all weather conditions
it was likely to meet, and secondly, it had to be able to move
efficiently and in a controlled manner. Having a clear understanding of
the design and construction of a canal boat is necessary for historians
attempting to interpret how these requirements were satisfied and how
they may have affected the canalers' behavior and lifestyle.
The principal limiting factor in the construction of canal boats was the
dimensions of the locks in use at the time. The original canal locks
limited vessel size to a maximum length of 81 feet (24.7m), a beam of
13.5 feet (1.53m), and depth of hold of 5.25feet (1.6m).
The canal
expansion completed in 1862 allowed for an increase in vessel size to
87.75 feet (26.8m) in length, 15 feet (4.6m) in beam and 7.5 feet (2.3m)
depth of hold. This increase in size dramatically increased the carrying
capacity of the vessels and quickly made the previous class of vessel
obsolete. These vessels were in turn relegated to the scrap heap when
the second canal expansion was completed in 1872. The 1872 lock system
allowed for vessels 99 feet (30m) in length, 18 feet (5.5m) in beam, with
a depth of hold of 8.5 feet (2.6m). Vessels of this last class of wooden
canal boats operated into the first half of the twentieth century despite
the fact that the completion of the Champlain Barge Canal and the
appearance of 300 foot (91.5m) long barges made them obsolete. Luckily
for archaeologists, the differing dimensions that each of the canal
expansions imposed on shipbuilders has allowed for the formation of a
rough dating system based simply on the dimensions of a shipwreck.
However, differences in the size of the canal boats are not the only
variable characteristics noted on shipwrecks and in historic photographs.
One notable construction difference documented on canal boats shipwrecks
is the method of construction.
Traditional shipbuilding relies on a
network of frames over which planking is attached; this technique is seen
on numerous canal boat shipwrecks up through the 1860’s. Later canal
boat shipwrecks often demonstrate a different technique which has come to
be called the edge-fastened tradition that was introduced in the 1840s
and became more popular through the end of the century. This method of
construction employs plank on frame construction in the bow and stern
portions of a vessel but in the box like hold thick planks are stacked on
edge and long iron bolts are driven down through them vertically. This
system of construction requires less timber and is easier to assemble
than the traditional method, it also slightly increases the carrying
capacity of the vessel by eliminating the space taken up by the internal
framing of traditional vessels. The economy of this construction method
caused it to become the predominant building style noted on canal boat
wrecks from the 1870’s on.
Other construction variations have been noted in the bow and stern
assemblies of many canal boats.
Some vessels have molded bows and
overhanging transoms through which the rudder post passes. Others are
double ended and still others have square sterns with a variety of rudder
244
supports. Champlain canal boats appear to have had unspecialized hold
designs. All recorded examples have demonstrate open holds with the only
portioning at the bow and stern to separate living areas from the cargo.
One noted difference is the size and number of hatches that gave access
to the hold. Sailing canal boats and earlier unrigged vessels appear to
have had several hatches, typically two to four. Later unrigged canal
boats simply had one large hatch that ran almost the entire length of the
vessel. This adaptation may be related to the increased carriage of bulk
cargoes in the second half of the nineteenth like iron ore, coal, and
lumber, all of which would have been hard to load and unload through
small openings.
Superficial differences in the details of canal boat construction and
outfitting have also been noted in historic photographs of the period.
These differences vary from the shape of the windows in the stern cabin
to the arrangement of the cleats in the deck. It is hoped that some of
these features may eventually be attributable to specific shipyards or at
least to regional differences.
For this to be realized continued
historic and archaeological research is necessary.
1. 1819 to c.1834: Era of Experimentation. During the years leading
up to the completion of the canal, in 1823, and the decades
immediately following, there was considerable variation in the
design and construction of vessels for use in the canal system.
This variation came about due to the fact that many of these early
craft were built by traditional shipbuilders attempting to adapt to
the new limitations of the canal or were being constructed by
carpenters
who
had
not
built
sizable
vessels
before.
Unfortunately, only two vessels of this class (one sailing and one
unrigged), have been discovered to date. Due to lack of evidence,
it is difficult to ascertain specific dates for boats constructed
prior to 1834 based on specific vessel attributes.
Associated Property Type
Due to the fact that only two vessels from this time period have been
located and neither of these has been subjected to complete
documentation, specific features that define vessels from this period can
not yet be fully codified. However, some generalizations can be made
about the size of the canal boats from this first period of vessel
construction based on historical documents. They were between 48.5 and
81 feet (14.8-24.7m) long, had a beam of 13 to 13.5 feet (4-4.1m), and a
maximum depth of hold between 3.75 and 5 feet (1.1-1.5m). Actual designs
and construction techniques are expected to vary considerably between
builders if not between individual vessels. This class of vessel may
more closely resemble the traditional sloops and schooners that operated
on the lake since the end of the War of 1812. These characteristics
would include variation in the shape of the hull, arrangement of the
rigging of sailing canal boats, placement of hatches and companionways,
and vessel equipment not seen on later classes of canal boat.
245
2. c.1835 to 1857: Era of Standardization. In the mid 1830’s, the
construction and design of canal boats began to become
standardized. This occurred for a number of reasons including the
fact that several large merchant companies came to the fore of the
canal trade and were able to construct fleets of vessels by the
same shipwrights using a standard design.
Many of the boat
builders took full advantage of the size of the locks to maximize
their carrying capacity.
Associated Property Types
The dimensions of vessels constructed during this period, however, varied
with lengths of between 73.5 and 81 feet (22.4-24.7m), beams of 12.5 to
13.5 feet (3.8-4.1m), and a depth of hold from 3.25 to 5.25 feet (11.6m).
It was during this period that the first edge-fastened canal
boats began to appear. This method of construction was first employed
during the 1840’s and would later come to dominate canal boat
construction because it was easier to assemble then traditional
techniques and allowed for slightly more cargo to be carried in the hold
of each vessel.
With this class of vessels we also note a
standardization in the shape, arrangement, and outfitting of the vessels.
Hull shapes have typically done away with any unnecessary curves in
preference of boxy shapes which maximized cargo capacity. Companionways
are located on the port side of the stern cabin, windlass are typically
found in the bow, and large iron or wooden cleats are spaced along either
side of the vessel.
3. 1858 to 1872: First Canal Expansion. By 1835, the success of the
canal system was apparent and an effort to expand the size of the
canal and its locks was initiated. This improvement happened in a
very piecemeal fashion with the expanded locks being complete in
1858 but the canal prism was not completely enlarged until 1862.
With the completion of the lock expansion, canal boat builders
began to design vessels to take advantage of the additional
carrying capacity.
Vessels built after the completion of the first canal expansion in 1858
varied in dimension measuring 83 to 87.75 feet (25.3-26.8m) in length, 13
to 15 feet (4-4.6m) in beam, and having a depth of hold of 4.5 to 7.5
feet (1.4-2.1m).
Vessels of this class quickly replaced the smaller
vessels, which were considered to be no longer commercially viable.
Likewise the larger canal boats were quickly replaced when the next or
second lock enlargement was completed in 1873.
The predominant
construction technique during the period was the edge-fastened method
though some plank on frame construction persisted, particularly in the
construction of sailing canal boats only.
Size is the principal
indicator of vessels from this period.
The features present on this
class of canal boat differ little from previous or later types it is
simply the size of the lock system at this time that defined these craft.
4. 1872 to 1914:
Second Canal Expansion.
246
Almost immediately after
the completion of the first canal expansion a second was begun in
1864. This expansion also progressed slowly and enlargement of the
locks was not completed until 1872.
Once again shipbuilders constructed vessels that closely conformed to the
enlarged lock dimensions with lengths of 91.5 to 99 feet (27.9-30.2m),
beams of 15 to 18 feet (4.6-5.5m), and depth of hold of 6 to 8.5 feet
(1.8-2.6m). These larger vessels soon dominated the waterway, sidelining
the older 1858 class canal boats. This new class of vessel continued to
operate until the end of the wooden canal boat era. Many of these boats
continued operating into the first half of the 20th century when they were
eventually replaced with steel and wood barges. These vessels often had
a single large hatch for ease of bulk cargo movement. Any wood framed
boats would be an exception rather than the rule during this period. It
was also during this time period that canal boat operators adopted the
technique of “double-heading” operating two canal boats in conjunction
with a single crew. Evidence of this technique includes the presence of
a small windlass in the stern of the vessel for controlling the lines
attaching the two vessels. It was also in this period that sailing canal
boats fell out favor with many operators. With a large number of tow
vessels now present the sailing capabilities of these vessels were no
longer an advantage and many of them were converted to standard towed
boats. Evidence of these modifications may be found on shipwrecks in the
future.
5. 1915-c.1940: The Champlain Barge Canal. The Champlain Barge Canal
was opened in 1915 with concrete locks that could accommodate
vessels of 300 feet (91.5m) in length with a beam of 43.5 feet
(13.3m) and that drafted under 12 feet (3.7m) of water. However,
the canal boats that operated on the Northern Waterway were limited
in size by the locks on the Chambly Canal, which could accommodate
a boat up to 198 feet (60.4m) long, 22.5 feet (6.9m) wide, and a
draft of 6.5 feet (2m).
Canal boats of the Chambly Canal lock dimensions were used alongside the
previous class of vessels as well as large wooden and steel barges, which
completely dominated the canal trade on the Northern Waterway by 1940.
These wooden canal boats had one large hatch which ran the length of the
vessel ending just forward of a crew cabin in the stern. Operation of
the vessel was facilitated by a small walkway that ran around the hatch
and the cabin. Photographic evidence suggests that these canal boats had
flat transoms and lacked a rudder assembly altogether. This class of
vessel has not yet been uncovered in the archaeological record.
Design, dimensions and carrying capacities changed through the different
phases of canal boat development. The schematic below shows boat data in
conjunction with lock and prism dimensions.
247
Dimensions of the Champlain Canal and Northern Canal Boats
Year
Boat
Prism
Boat
Lock
Weight/
(top
width,
(length, width (length, width,
Maximum
bottom
width
and depth)
and hold depth)
Hold Load
and depth)
1823
40 x
feet
26
x
4 90 x
feet
1862
50 x
feet
35
x
5 100 x
feet
1877
65 x
feet
44
x
6 110 x
feet
1916
75 x
feet
45
x
15
x
4 81 x 13.5
5.25 feet
x 25 tons
60 tons
15
x
5 87.75 x 15
7.25 feet
x 40 tons
100 tons
18
x
6 99 x 18 x 8.5 60 tons
feet
180 tons
12 328 x 45 x 12 300 x 40 x 10 250 tons
feet
feet
1000 tons
Short Overview of Lake Champlain Canal Development and Shipbuilding
Technology
1817
Champlain and Erie Canals authorized by New York State.
1819 First section of the Champlain Canal completed from Whitehall to
Fort Edward.
1819 First canal boats constructed; most were built with scow ends. The
first sailing canal boats were also built using some of the design
features of the traditional lake sloops and schooners found on Lake
Champlain and the St. Lawrence and Hudson Rivers.
1823 Champlain Canal completed, linking navigation from Lake Champlain
to the Hudson River.
1825
Erie Canal completed across New York State.
1835 Northern shipwrights establish standard design features for the
rigged and unrigged canal boats.
1835 First enlargement of the Champlain Canal was begun. The process
was exceedingly slow because the locks and dredging the canal prism was
done only when the existing system failed and needed extensive repairs.
1843
Construction of the Chambly Canal was completed.
1858
All of the locks on the Champlain Canal were finally enlarged.
248
1858
Construction of the 1858-class canal boats began.
1860
Enlargement of the Chambly Canal was completed.
1862 First enlargement of the canal prism on the Champlain Canal was
completed.
1864
The second enlargement of the Champlain Canal was begun.
1872 The second enlargement of the locks on the Champlain Canal was
completed.
1873
Construction of the 1873-class canal boats began.
1877 The second enlargement of the canal prism on the Champlain Canal is
completed.
1882
Canal tolls abandoned on the Champlain Canal.
1896
Canal tolls abandoned on the Chambly Canal.
1903
Construction
authorized.
1916
of
the
New
York
State
Barge
Canal
System
was
The Champlain Barge Canal was completed.
1916 Construction began of larger canal boats to fit the Chambly Canal
(108 ft in length, 22.5 ft in beam, and draft 6.5 ft).
1922
Construction began of steel barges at Poughkeepsie, New York.
1940
Wooden canal boats largely stopped operating on the Champlain
Waterway.
F. Associated Property Types
Introduction
The canal boat shipwrecks found in Lake Champlain are in varied states of
preservation. The lake's shipwrecks range from being partly to totally
submerged in water and with varied burial in lake bottom sediments. The
depths at which these vessels are found vary from 0 to 300ft (0-91.4m)
below the surface of Lake Champlain.
Vessels sank for a number of reasons including storms, structural
failure, collisions, fire, and negligence; however, many of the canal
boats that have been found appear to have been intentionally sunk or
abandoned along the lakeshore. Due to the different reasons why these
vessels ended up on the lake bottom, they are also in varied conditions
of preservation and environmental settings.
Those that sank during
249
unplanned or extreme situations sank with the majority of their goods
onboard. Scuttled or abandoned vessels were usually stripped of their
useful components, cargo, and the personal effects of the crew.
In order to be available for inclusion in this multi-property nomination,
a sufficient amount of structure must be present on each site to allow
for some conclusions to be made about its type, size, and features. The
rule that has been applied to the sites included in this nomination is
that each site must display at least half of each of its three principal
components: bow, stern, and hold. With significant portions of each of
these components it will be possible to determine the size of the craft,
and therefore an approximate age, its construction style, plank on frame
or edge fastened, and the shape and construction of the bow and stern
assemblies all of which may be clues to a vessels origin or location of
construction.
Property Type Significance
The vessels included in this thematic group nomination, “Canal Boats of
the Champlain Canal and Lake Champlain,” are the first in a series of
nominations of presently known shipwrecks within the boundary justified
below. The wooden vessels included in the group are indicative of the
types of commercial watercraft used for the movement of cargo from the
early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries. These archaeological
sites are significant because 1) they are excellent examples of specific
canal boat types, 2) they serve as sources of information on shipbuilding
technology, 3) they give insight into maritime activity during a specific
time period, 4) they give information on a maritime culture now defunct,
5) some of these are the only known examples of their type, and 6) they
will yield further historical data. Continued study of these shipwrecks
and how they fit into the history of the Champlain Waterway is likely to
yield significant information beyond naval architecture and shed light on
economic, cultural, and demographic changes in the region.
Internal Composition
The thematic group nomination includes sixteen vessels which all fall
under the description of wooden canal boat.
These shipwrecks are
indicative of the type of craft that operated on Lake Champlain and in
the Champlain Canal as commercial cargo vessels between 1825 and 1940.
Two major types of the canal boats are present in the archaeological
record; these are the unrigged and sailing canal boats.
Differing
construction methods and variations in design within these two types of
vessel will be discussed in individual submissions.
Those facts
pertinent to the general group submission are included below.
Wreck C was a sloop rigged sailing canal boat that was built prior to
1858 and appears to have been intentionally scuttled at the end of a
lengthy working life. This vessel is significant because: 1) the details
of the bow and stern sections are intact for further examination; 2) the
collapsed hold section of the vessels will allow access to the bottom
250
construction of the canal boat; 3) the vessels has a unique windlass
arrangement.
Wreck G worked on Lake Champlain after 1872. It is significant because:
1) it is a relatively intact 1872 class unrigged vessel that can be
regarded as a archetype vessel simply due to the fact that it has been so
thoroughly recorded 2) the vessel has unusual construction features such
as a booby hatch, an additional living or work space in the stern of the
canal boat. And 3) it is likely to yield additional information as some
interior elements are accessible and have been documented.
Wreck K is an extremely well preserved example of a post 1858 sloop
rigged canal boat and it is significant for a number of reasons,
including: 1) its intact nature suggests that a sizable artifact
collection is present onboard the wreck; 2) practically all the vessels
rigging elements are present allowing for a full reconstruction of the
rig; 3) Wreck K has a steering mechanism that is unlike others that have
been studied previously; 4) the fact that a vessel from this late period
is sloop rigged makes it a rarity.
Wreck N was an unrigged wooden canal boat used on Lake Champlain and in
the Champlain Canal as a commercial cargo vessel after 1872.
It is
significant because: 1) it is likely to yield a significant amount of
archaeological information due to the fact that it sank unexpectedly
carrying a full cargo and most likely an artifact assemblage and 2) it is
also likely to yield significant construction information because the
stern cabin is virtually intact which is unusual and will be a great
guide for understanding the arrangement of this portion of the vessel.
Wreck Z was an unrigged commercial vessel that worked on the lake after
1873. The vessel is significant because: 1) this wreck is one of the
most thoroughly documented 1873 class canal boats. 2) It contained a
large collection of artifacts and the vessels cargo of coal. 3) Along
with Wreck G this boat can be considered a model for the examination of
other vessels of this class. 4) It is representative of the type of
vessel that flourished on Lake Champlain after 1873. 5) The vessel has
unusual construction features including a recessed stem top and the
presence of a booby. 6) Additionally, the fact that the cabin roof has
floated off the wreck has allowed for a thorough examination of the
cabin, booby, and stern construction.
Wreck EE (The Mule Wreck) was an unrigged canal boat that began
operations on Lake Champlain and the Champlain Canal before 1873. It is
significant because 1) it is extremely well preserved and will yield
important information; 2) it appears to have sunk unexpectedly and will
yield a valuable artifact collection; 3) it shows evidence of a major
repair on the port stern quarter; 4) it features unusual construction
features in the form of strange loading ports in the transom and; 5) the
vessel shows a presence of large quantities of animal bones.
Wreck GG was a standard canal boat that began hauling cargo on Lake
251
Champlain prior to 1873. It is significant because 1) the vessel is
extremely well preserved and will likely yield important information upon
further study; 2) some of the original hull paint is present and 3) It
features unusual construction features such as a relatively fine bow, a
rounded stern, and the hull is built in the plank on frame method instead
of the more common edge fastened construction typical of this time
period.
Wreck II (LA Hall) was an unrigged wooden canal boat present in the Lake
Champlain Canal system and on the lake from about 1867 to approximately
1878. The vessel is important for inclusion due to 1) the presence of
some cargo which can yield important information and 2) it is one of a
small number of Lake Champlain canal boats with a known history.
Wreck NN was an unrigged wooden canal boat built prior to 1858. It is
significant because of the vessel’s orientation, upside down on the lake
bottom, which allows examination of the bottom structure of the canal
boat, an uncommon occurrence.
Wreck SS (Troy) is the earliest example of a sailing canal boat
discovered in Lake Champlain, the vessel sunk in 1825 just two years
after the opening of the Champlain Canal. This wreck is significant for
a number of reasons including: 1) it is the only known example of a
sailing vessel from the earliest period of canal boat construction; 2)
its relatively intact nature suggests that an extensive artifact
collection is present in the vessel, 3) even the cursory examination
carried out on the vessel to date shows many unique construction traits.
4) Troy has a known history and the remains of the crew may be found in
the stern cabin. 5) The canal boat is schooner rigged and the majority
of its rigging components are present on the wreck site.
Wreck UU (Isle La Motte Wreck) is a sloop rigged canal boat that was
built before 1858, and is the vessel described as sinking in a newspaper
report on September 2. This vessel is significant because; 1) the canal
boat sank in distress and contains an intact artifact collection; 2) the
vessel contains a full cargo of marble; 3) the hull is mostly intact and
will provide important information on the construction techniques
employed in building the vessel. 3) The vessel is built in the plank on
frame method.
Wreck VV was a wooden canal boat that was constructed after 1872. Though
the vessel is poorly preserved, the extant remains suggest that the
vessel was built with a stave bow, a type of vessel that is known from
photographic evidence but has not been uncovered in the archaeological
record.
General Butler was a schooner rigged sailing canal boat that was built by
Burlington Vermont based shipbuilder Orsan Saxon Spear in 1862.
The
vessel sank in1876 just outside of Burlington Harbor. General Butler is
significant for a number of reasons; 1) the vessel is very well
preserved. 2) The vessel has a known history; 3) and contained a
252
significant collection of artifacts. 4) This is one of the only canal
boats that can be attributed to a specific shipwright.
OJ Walker was the second known schooner rigged sailing canal boat that
was built by Orson Saxon Spear in 1862. This vessel also came to grief
just outside of Burlington Harbor and has been the focus of extensive
documentation and excavation. This vessel is significant because; 1) it
is virtually intact and very well documented; 2) it has a artifact
collection associated with it which has been recovered and conserved. 3)
The OJ Walker is one of the only known vessels from the archaeological
record that can be attributed to a specific shipwright.
Pot Ash Point Canal Boat was an unrigged canal boat that functioned along
Lake Champlain and in the canal system sometime between 1819 and 1857.
It is significant, and eligible for inclusion on the National Register,
because 1) the cargo of stone is still present; 2) it has significant
construction features which include plank on frame construction, and 3)
the disarticulated nature of the vessel allows for examination of it
construction to an extent that would be difficult on an intact canal
boat.
Vergennes (a.k.a.: the Stove Boat) Vergennes is the earliest extant
standard canal boat found, to date. It is significant because 1) it is
one of few early canal boats with a known history; 2) the vessel contains
a cargo including numerous pieces of iron kitchen equipment, which could
yield important information in the future; 3) it features many unusual
construction features such as: Scow construction in both the stern and
bow, an extremely shallow depth of hold, unique construction elements
were found in the interior of the vessels bottom, and the canal boat was
steered by a simple rudder.
4) Additionally, the intact stern cabin
contains an artifact assemblage, which is likely to yield important
information about the crew and shipboard life.
Criteria for Evaluation/Registration Requirements
The shipwrecks present within this multiple property nomination would be
evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP based on multiple criteria. Most
commonly, Criteria A, C and D would apply.
As variation in vessel
construction was most often associated with lock enlargements, which
directly correlated with the increase of trade and movement throughout
the bounded areas, these vessels can be found significant within broad
patterns of history and trade (Criterion A).
Due to the changes in
construction methods and vessel size, most canal boats would include
examples of unique fabrication techniques and design quality (Criterion
C).
Archaeological exploration of these vessels is likely to yield
critical research data of the culture, economy and demographics of Lake
Champlain and the Champlain Lock system (Criteria D).
Primary eligibility for shipwreck property type in relation to criteria
should be established in individual nominations based upon the contexts
established in this document. Absolute identity of the vessel is not
253
necessary if the shipwreck can be associated directly with an established
historic context.
Under Criterion A, shipwrecks are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
For
example, the vessel Vergennes is significant as an early example of
standard canal boat, and contributes greatly to the understanding of the
early movement of trade goods. Significance for this and all contexts
should be established in individual nominations
It is unlikely that a shipwreck would be associated with a specific
person (Criteria B) within this multiple property nomination. Should
this be the case, however, eligibility needs to be established within
individual nominations. Eligibility for a vessel under Criteria B could
potentially be established if there is an association with an individual
of importance; such as the vessel’s shipbuilder, owner, captain,
passenger or other affiliation.
Vessels can be associated with Criteria C, if they are representative
examples of specific vessel types or features, exemplify certain
shipbuilding or repair techniques, or can be associated with specific
shipbuilders. For example, the OJ Walker was constructed by Orson Saxon
Spear in 1862.
It is one of the only shipwrecks associated with a
specific shipbuilder in this region.
Significance for this and all
contexts should be established in individual nominations
A shipwreck eligible under Criterion C may also be available under
Criterion D as the vessels may exemplify certain building techniques or
features and may also contain a collection of artifacts. Criterion D can
be established for vessels that contain an assemblage of archaeological
materials which could possibly yield additional information.
Other
information that may be gained by these artifacts could include postdepositional processes, shipboard life/culture and anthropological data
etc. Significance for this and all contexts should be established in
individual nominations.
Site Integrity
A vessel does not need to be intact for integrity to be present. The
level of site integrity is contingent upon which criteria substantiate
the vessel’s individual eligibility to the National Register.
Most
shipwrecks available for inclusion under Criteria A (broad patterns) and
Criteria B should be intact enough to be provide information for the
association with the person, event or broad pattern of history. A vessel
available for inclusion under Criteria C can be in poor shape if it is
one of few examples of a specific construction/repair method or building
component.
Under Criterion D, the condition of the vessel can be relatively poor if
it still retains archaeological information or potential for further
research. Due to the nature of shipwrecks; re-deposition of materials
254
and possible lootings or salvage, a non-contiguous artifact assemblage
does not disqualify the vessel from eligibility to the National Register.
Individual nominations will address site integrity and eligibility
requirements.
Boundary Description/Justification
This thematic group nomination is designed to incorporate non-contiguous
units of various sizes in order to accommodate the vessels and their
present condition i.e., nearly intact to broken up sites; a total of 16
vessels are being nominated at this time.
The area includes
approximately 3 acres (1.2 hectares) per site for a total of 48 acres
(19.4 hectares) located entirely within the boundaries of Lake Champlain.
In most cases, the locations of the wrecks are known, however the full
extent of these vessels have not yet been fully determined by
investigation; the survey and retrieval of data is an ongoing project of
the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and affiliated entities. The majority
of these wrecks have not yet had in-depth artifact or construction
analysis.
Because of the nature of the underwater topography of Lake Champlain and
the natural events (i.e., storm driven waves, high winds, currents, ice
shelving, etc.) which accompanied the loss and deposition of these
vessels, portions may be widely removed from one another, although
usually remaining within the same general vicinity. It is not feasible,
therefore, to specify boundaries. The boundaries for each shipwreck have
been based on the best available knowledge of the presently known remains
and the distribution of the wreckage from natural causes.
G Geographical Data
Lake Champlain stretches from Whitehall, New York to the Richelieu River
in Quebec Canada. Only the American portion of the lake is included in
this nomination form. This portion of the lake forms the border between
Vermont and New York for its entire length.
The border itself was
established along the deep water channel of the lake. In Vermont the
lake has shoreline in four counties, from north to south, Franklin,
Chittenden, Addison, and Rutland Counties. On the New York shore the
lake passes through Clinton, Essex, Warren, and Washington Counties. The
northern end of the Champlain Canal is located in Whitehall and it runs
south through Washington County until it intersects with the Hudson River
near Hudson Falls and Fort Edward New York.
Physical Geography
The topography and landforms visible today throughout the Champlain
Valley are products of ancient mountain-building processes and the
erosional forces of glaciers and rivers that gouged the valley and
scoured the surfaces of the surrounding mountains. Lake Champlain is the
255
focal point of the physical or geographical region called the Champlain
Lowlands or the Champlain Valley. The complex character of the Champlain
Valley is made up of rolling hills, islands, wetlands, river systems, and
Lake Champlain.
The Champlain Valley is cradled by the Adirondack
Mountains to the west and the Green and Taconic Mountains to the east.
The surrounding geographical regions are the Green Mountains, the
Adirondack Mountains, the Taconic Mountains, and the Vermont Valley. The
Green, Taconic, and Adirondack mountain ranges represent the highest
elevations surrounding the Champlain Valley and form the headwater areas
of tributaries entering Lake Champlain. The Vermont Valley is a small
section containing the flood plain of Otter Creek, which eventually flows
into Lake Champlain.
After the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain is the sixth largest fresh water
lake in the United States. The lake flows north from Whitehall, New
York, across the U.S.-Canadian border to its outlet at the Richelieu
River in Quebec.
From the Richelieu River, the water joins the St.
Lawrence River and eventually drains into the Atlantic Ocean at the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. For much of its length, Lake Champlain defines the
state border between Vermont and New York. The lake's watershed is bound
to the east by the Connecticut River basin and to the Southwest by the
Hudson River basin, which is connected to Lake Champlain by the Champlain
Canal. The environmental setting of Lake Champlain is unique in part
because of its narrow width, its great depth, and the size of its
watershed.
The total area of the Champlain Basin is 21,326 km2 (8234 mi2), 56 percent
of which is in Vermont, 37 percent in New York, and 7 percent in Quebec
(Fischer et al. 1976:13). Lake Champlain is a greatly elongated lake
that occupies a portion of a long north-south valley that extends from
the St. Lawrence River to Long Island Sound. Lake Champlain lies in this
valley with the Hudson River to the south and the Richelieu River to the
north.
With a mean elevation of 29 m (95 ft) above sea level, Lake
Champlain has a maximum length of 171 km (106 mi), a maximum depth of
121.7 m (399 ft), and a maximum width of 20.3 km (12.6 mi). The average
width of the lake is 6.6 km (4.1 mi), and the average depth is 19.4 m
(63.6 ft). The lake's surface area is 1130 km2 (436 mi2), and it has a
volume of 2.58 x1010 m3 (9.12 x 1011 ft3.
H Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods
To facilitate this study, LCMM researchers re-examined all of the
archaeological information from these boats. The information ranges from
notes taken in the 1980s by recreational divers to recent ROV footage of
deep-water shipwrecks.
The quality of the information varies, but
collectively it allows for a much better understanding of the canal boats
of this era.
This nomination does not include sites located during
LCMM’s 2003 Lake Survey Project. This sonar survey in the southern part
of Lake Champlain located numerous canal boats (30 or more) many of which
are certainly 1873-class boats. However, these vessels have yet to be
documented, thus there is as yet no substantive construction information
256
about these vessels.
Canal Boat Documentation Methodology
The vessels that are to be included in this nomination form have been
located and examined in a number of different ways. While several of the
canal boats had been known to the diving community for a number of years
others have only recently been discovered.
The documentation of the
boats has ranged from cursory examination with Remote Operated Vehicles
to complete excavation and artifact recovery. Several of the canal boats
had been well known by the local dive community before their examination
by Lake Champlain Maritime Museum archaeologists.
This group includes Wrecks RR, VV, Vergennes, the Isle La Motte wreck,
and the Pot Ash Point Canal Boat. However, the majority of the standard
canal boats were discovered during the Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resources Survey. This survey involved the examination of the entire
bottom of the American portion of Lake Champlain with side scan sonar.
The survey took a total of eight years and revealed more than seventy
previously unknown shipwrecks a large proportion of which are canal
boats.
Once located, the examination of the canal boats has also taken a number
of forms.
Those vessels discovered within safe diving limits were
verified by divers and were subjected to cursory documentation consisting
of a few dimensional measurements, a basic written description of
relevant features, and photo or video documentation. Wrecks located by
sonar during the Lake Survey and verified by divers include Wrecks X, NN,
LL, SS (Troy). Wrecks which were discovered by sonar in water beyond safe
diving limits were examined with Remote Operated Vessels (ROVs). These
ROVs were equipped with a combination of still and video cameras which
were used to visually document the wrecks. While it was impossible to
record detailed measurements with the ROVs, the visual record often
revealed enough information to roughly categorize the vessel types.
Nominated vessels that have been documented with ROVs include Wrecks B,
D, K, N, EE, GG, SS (Troy), and II (L.A. Hall).
If considered particularly important, or if funding became available,
additional examination of particular wrecks was carried out. Wreck C,
Wreck G, Wreck Z, Wreck RR (Barn Rock Wreck), Wreck VV, Wreck QQ, the Pot
Ash Point Canal Boat, and Vergennes have been subjected to multi-day
examinations which included detailed documentation of the vessels hull
construction, thorough photographic and videographic documentation, and
in the case of Wreck Z and Vergennes some artifacts were recovered for
conservation and analysis.
Wreck G was documented by a team of archaeologists from the Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum and Texas A&M University’s Nautical Archaeology
Program (NAP) during the summer of 1998.
Thorough recording of the
vessels exterior structure was combined with video and photographic
documentation, no excavation of buried portions was carried out. The
257
exposed portions of Wreck Z were completely recorded during two field
seasons in the summers of 2001 and 2002 by archaeologists from LCMM. In
addition to documentation close to 400 artifacts were recovered from the
wreck for conservation and display.
Wreck RR (Barn Rock Wreck) and Vergennes were documented by
archaeologists from LCMM and the NAP during the summer of 1998. Exposed
portions of both vessels were recorded in detail and extensive
photography and video coverage was also obtained. Wreck VV was subjected
to a basic documentation by a group of avocational archaeologists in 1983
as part of an introductory underwater archaeology course.
Wreck QQ was discovered and recorded during the Ore Bed Harbor
Documentation Project carried out in the summer of 1998. This project
focused on recording a variety of features related to a group of 19th
century iron mines on the New York Shore of Lake Champlain. Though not
extensively documented, the bottom portion of Wreck QQ was recoded by
archaeological divers, and the remains were tied into the remainder of
the sites features.
The Pot Ash Point Canal boat was subjected to a preliminary documentation
by a group of divers from the LCMM and NAP during the summer of 1990.
The site is also being used as a Zebra Mussel monitoring station in a
joint project with the University of Vermont. In this capacity the site
has been visited in 1999 and 2001 to assess the rate of colonization of
the wreck. In addition to this a decorative cast iron grate which was
thickly encrusted with mussels was recovered from the site for analysis
and conservation.
9. Major Bibliographical References
=========================================================================
======
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form
on one or more continuation sheets.)
Previous documentation on file (NPS)
___ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been
requested.
___ previously listed in the National Register
___ previously determined eligible by the National Register
___ designated a National Historic Landmark
___ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
# __________
___ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # __________
Primary Location of Additional Data
___ State Historic Preservation Office
___ Other State agency
___ Federal agency
___ Local government
___ University
___ Other
258
Name of repository: ___________________________________
========================================================================
10. Geographical Data
=========================================================================
Acreage of Property ___________
UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
1
2
Zone
__
__
___
Easting Northing
______ _______ 3 __ ______ _______
______ _______ 4 __ ______ _______
See continuation sheet.
Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a
Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected on a
===================================================================
11. Form Prepared By
===================================================================
name/title_______________________________________________________________
_____
organization________________________________________
date_____________________
street
&
telephone_________________
number____________________________________
city or town_________________________________
_____________
state____
zip
code
===================================================================
Additional Documentation
===================================================================
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's
location.
A sketch map for historic districts and properties having large
acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
259
===================================================================
Property Owner
===================================================================
(Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)
name ____________________________________________________________
street
&
telephone_________________
number___________________________________
city or town____________________________________ state_____ zip code
__________
===================================================================
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected
for applications to the NRHP to nominate properties for listing or
determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend
existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is
estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or
any aspect of this form to Keeper, NRHP, 1849 “C” Street NW, Washington,
DC 20240.
I Major Bibliographic References
Bellico, Russell Paul. Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and
Military History of Lake George and Lake Champlain. Revised ed.
Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 2001.
Cohn, Arthur B. "The Sailing Canal Boats of Lake Champlain." American
Canals 31, no. Spring (2002).
Cohn, Arthur B., Joseph R. Cozzi, Kevin J. Crisman, and Scott A.
McLaughlin. Underwater Preserve Feasibility Study of the Lake
Champlain Canal Schooner O.J. Walker, Burlington, Chittenden
County, Vermont. Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime
Museum, 1996.
Cohn, Arthur Bruce. "Isle La Motte Sloop Project." In Report on the
Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain: Results of the 1983 Field
Season of the Champlain Maritime Society, edited by R. M. Fischer,
26-35. Burlington, Vermont: Champlain Maritime Society, 1985.
———. Lake Champlain's Sailing Canal Boats: An Illustrated Journey from
Burlington Bay to the Hudson River; Building the Schooner Lois
Mcclure. Basin Harbor, Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum,
2003.
———. "Sailing-Canal Boats of Lake Champlain." Champlain Maritime Society
260
Soundings Fall/Winter (1985): 2, 11.
Cohn, Arthur Bruce, Joseph Robert Cozzi, Kevin James Crisman, and Scott
Arthur McLaughlin. "Archaeological Reconstruction of the Lake
Champlain Canal Schooner General Butler (Vt-Ch-590), Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont." Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum at Basin Harbor, 1996.
———. "Archaeological Reconstruction of the Lake Champlain Canal Schooner
O. J. Walker (Vt-Ch-594), Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont."
Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum at Basin
Harbor, 1996.
Cozzi, J. "The North Beach Wreck- a Modern Example of Edge-Fastened
Construction." Paper presented at the Underwater Archaeology
Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference,
Kansas City, Missouri 1993.
———. "The Lake Champlain Sailing Canal Boat." Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
A&M University, 2000.
———. "North Beach Wreck: A Modern Example of Edge-Fastened Construction."
In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for
Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by Sheli O. Smith, 55-58.
Tucson, Arizona: Society for Historical Archaeology, 1993.
Crisman, K.J. "Lake Champlain Commercial Navigation. Historic Context."
Montpelier, VT: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, 1990.
———. "Nineteenth-Century Lake Champlain Sailing Merchant Vessels:
A
Preliminary List." In Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.
Montpelier, VT, 1989.
Dean, Martin, Ben Ferrari, Ian Oxley, Mark Redknap, and Kit Watson, eds.
Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice.
Portsmouth and London: Nautical Archaeology Society and Archetype
Publications, 1992.
Fairlie, John A. "Canal Enlargement in New York State." Quarterly Journal
of Economics (1904): 286-92.
———. "The New York Canals." Quarterly Journal of Economics 14, no. 2
(1900): 212-39.
Field, C.M. "Enrollment Papers for the O.J. Walker." In National
Archives. Washington, DC, 1892.
Finch, Roy G. The Story of the New York Canals: Historical and Commercial
Information. Albany, New York: J. B. Lyon, 1925.
Fischer, R. (ed). A Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain:
Results of the 1982 Field Seaon of the Champlain Maritime Society.
Barre, VT: Northlight Studio Press, 1984.
Freer, W. J. "Canal Boat People, 1840-1970." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Nottingham, 1991.
Godfrey, Fred G. The Champlain Canal: Mules to Tugboats. Monroe, New
York: Library Research Associates, 1994.
———. Sailors, Waterways and Tugboats I Have Known: The New York State
Barge Canal System. Monroe, New York: Library Research Associates,
1993.
Goodrich, Carter. Canals and American Economic Development. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1961.
Grasso, Thomas X. Champlain Canal. Syracuse: Canal Society of New York
State, 1985.
261
Hahn, T. S., and E. L. Kemp. Canal Terminology of the United States.
Morgantown, West Virginia, 1998.
Hahn, Thomas F., ed. The Best from American Canals. York, Pennsylvania:
American Canal and Transportation Center, 1980.
Hill, Ralph Nading. Lake Champlain: Key to Liberty. Twentieth Anniversary
ed. Woodstock, Vermont: Countryman Press, 1995.
Kane, Adam I., Sara R. Brigadier, and Christopher R. Sabick. "Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume VI: 2001
Results, Volume Vii: 2002 Results." Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum, 2003.
Kane, Adam I., and Christopher R. Sabick. Lake Champlain Underwater
Cultural Resources Survey. Ferrisburgh, Vermont: Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum, Maritime Research Institute, 2002.
Larkin, F. Daniel. New York State Canals: A Short History. Fleischmanns,
New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1999.
McFee, Michele A. A Long Haul: The Story of the New York State Barge
Canal. Fleischmanns, New York: Purple Mountain Press, 1998.
McLaughlin, Scott Arthur, and Anne Wood Lessmann. Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resource Survey. Vol. 1: Lake Survey Background
and 1996 Results, Technical Report. Grand Isle, Vermont: Lake
Champlain Basin Program, 1998.
O'Brien, Charles F. "The Champlain Waterway, 1783-1897." New England
Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1988): 163-82.
O'Hara, John Edward. "Erie's Junior Partner: The Economic and Social
Effects of the Champlain Canal Upon the Champlain Valley." Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1951.
Palmer, Peter S. History of Lake Champlain 1609-1814. 4th ed. Harrison,
NY: Harbor Hill Books, 1983.
Sabick, Christopher R., Anne Lessmann, and Scott A. McLaughlin. "Lake
Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997
Results, Volume Iii: 1998 Results." Ferrisburgh, VT: Lake Champlain
Maritime Museum, 2000.
Sabick, Christopher R., Anne Wood Lessmann, and Scott Arthur McLaughlin.
"Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources Survey." Ferrisburgh,
Vermont: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum at Basin Harbor, 2000.
Sèvigny, P.-André. Trade and Navigation on the Chambly Canal: A
Historical Overview, Studies in Archaeology, Architecture, and
History. Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1983.
Springer, Ethel M., and Thomas F. Hahn. Canal Boat Children on the
Chesapeake
and
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York Canals.
Shepherdstown, West Virginia: American Canal & Transportation
Center, 1977.
Stewart, D.P. "Glacial Geology of Vermont." Vermont Geological Survey
Bulletin 19 (1961).
Thompson, Zadock. History of the State of Vermont. Burlington, Vermont:
Smith & Company, 1858.
———. History of Vermont, Natural, Civil, and Statistical. Burlington,
Vermont: Zadock Thompson, 1853.
True, Marshall M. "Booms and Busts: Change in the Champlain Valley, 18501920." In Lake Champlain: Reflections on Our Past, edited by Jennie
G. Versteeg, 63-74. Burlington, Vermont: Center for Research on
262
Vermont, University of Vermont, 1989.
Watzin, Mary C., Arthur B. Cohn, and Miranda M. Lescaze. Zebra Mussels,
Shipwrecks, and the Enviornment. Burlington, VT
Weed, Smith M. Ship Canal from the Hudson River to Lake Champlain.
Albany, New York: Argus Company, 1873.
Whitford, Noble Earl. History of the Barge Canal of New York State.
Albany, New York: J. B. Lyon Company, 1922.
———. History of the Canal System of the State of New York Together with
Brief Histories of the Canals of the United States and Canada. 2
vols. Vol. 1. Albany, New York: Brandow Printing, 1906.
Wilgus, William J. "The Economic Background for Transportation Growth in
Vermont." Proceedings of the Vermont Historical Society 12 (1944):
67-90.
———. The Role of Transportation in the Development of Vermont.
Montpelier, Vermont: Vermont Historical Society, 1945.
Williamson, Chilton. "New York's Struggle for Champlain Valley Trade,
1760-1825." New York History 22, no. 4 (1941): 426-36.
———. Vermont in Quandary, 1763-1825. Montpelier, Vermont: Vermont
Historical Society, 1949.
Wotherspoon, W. W. The New York State Canals: The Canal as a Carrier of
Coal. Albany, New York: New York State, Public Works Department,
1918.
263
APPENDIX B: 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 to guide 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.
Bowsprit A spar projecting forward from the bow.
Breakwater A structure, usually made of stone or concrete, built to create a harbor or
improve an existing one.
Breast Hook A large, horizontal knee fixed to the sides and stem to reinforce and hold
them together.
Bulwark The side of a vessel above the its upper deck.
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.
Cant Frame A framing member mounted obliquely to the keel centerline in the ends of a
vessel.
Caprail A timber attached to the top of a vessels frames.
Ceiling The internal planking of a vessel.
264
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.
Chock An angular block or wedge used to fill out areas between timbers or to separate
them.
Coaming The raised lip with which openings in the deck such as hatchways are framed to
prevent water on deck from running into the hold
Cultural resource A nonrenewable historical resource such as archaeological sites,
artifacts, and standing structures.
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.
Floor timber A frame timber that crosses the keel and spans the bottom of a vessel.
Fore Located toward the front of a vessel.
Fore-and-aft From stem to stern or from front to back; oriented parallel to the keel.
Frame A transverse timber or group of timbers that creates the skeleton of a vessel and to
which the hull planking and ceiling are fastened.
Futtock A frame timber other than a floor timber, half-frame, or top timber; one of the
middle pieces of a frame.
Galley A shallow-draft vessel that is propelled by sails or oars.
265
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.
Hatch A deck opening in a vessel providing access to the space below.
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 board used to create the outer shell of a hull.
Inboard Toward the center of a vessel.
Jetty A pier of structure of stones , piles or the like projecting into a body of water to
protect a harbor or shoreline from oncoming currents.
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 A naturally curved L-shaped timber used to strengthen the junction of two surfaces
on different planes.
Leeboard A large plate or assembly of timbers , mounted on the side of a hull and
lowered when sailing off the wind to increase lateral resistance and reduce leeway.
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 heel of the mast at deck
level. This feature was commonly used to support a hinged mast, like those used
on sailing canal boats.
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.
266
Oakum Caulking material made from rope junk, old rope and rope scraps; it was
unwound, picked apart, and the fibers were rolled and soaked in pitch before being
driven into planking seams.
Outboard Outside or away from the center of a vessel’s hull.
Plank A thick board used as sheathing on a vessel.
Provenience The original location of an object, in reference to artifacts it is the exact
location in which they were found.
Reconnaissance survey An initial inspection of an area for cultural resources.
Rabbet A groove or cut made in a piece of timber in such a way that the edges of another
piece could fit into it to make a tight joint.
Rigging Hardware and equipment that support and control the spars and sails of a vessel.
Rudderpost A vertical timber in the stern of the vessel 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.
Scow A vessel with a flat bottom and a rectangular hull.
Sheave A pulley for hoisting or hauling. Reffered to as rigging blocks in sailing vessels.
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.
267
Strake A continuous line of planks running from bow to stern.
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.
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.
Tampion A wooden plug for the muzzle of a cannon. Used to prevent water and dirt from
entering the barrel
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.
268
APPENDIX C: 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
DSO: Diving Safety Officer
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
269
LCBP: Lake Champlain Basin Program
LCMC: Lake Champlain Management Conference
LCMM: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
LCT: Lake Champlain Transportation
LCTC: Lake Champlain Transportation Company
LCUHP: Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve
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
NAC: Nautical Archaeology Center
NAUI: National Association of Underwater Instructors
n.d.: no date
NEIWPCC: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NH: New Hampshire
NHC: Naval Historical Center
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
NYOGS: New York Office of General Services
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
TAMU: Texas A&M University
Tel: telephone number
270
US: 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
VHF: very high frequency
Vol. or vol.: volume
VT: Vermont
VTrans: Vermont Agency of Transportation
271
ENDNOTES
1 Scott A. McLaughlin and Anne W. Lessmann, Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey, Volume I: Lake Survey Background and 1996 Results (Ferrisburgh, VT: Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum, 1998).
2 Christopher R. Sabick, Anne W. Lessmann, and Scott A. McLaughlin, Lake Champlain
Underwater Cultural Resources Survey, Volume II: 1997 Results and Volume III: 1998
Results (Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2000).
3 Adam I. Kane and Christopher R. Sabick, Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural Resources
Survey, Volume IV: 1999 Results and Volume V: 2000 Results (Vergennes, VT: Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum, 2002).
4 Adam I. Kane, Christopher R. Sabick and Sara R. Brigadier, Lake Champlain Underwater Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume VI: 2001 Results and Volume VII: 2002 Results (Vergennes, VT:
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2003).
5 National Park Service, Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and Guidelines (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1983).
6 Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Guidelines for Conducting Archeology in Vermont
(Montpelier, VT: Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, 2002).
7 New York Archaeological Council, Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the
Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State (Albany: New York Archaeological
Council, 1994).
8 National Park Service, 36 CFR Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered
Archeological Collections (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991).
9 Arthur B. Cohn, ed. Zebra Mussels and Their Impact on Historic Shipwrecks (Grand Isle, VT:
Lake Champlain Basin Program, 1996).
10 National Park Service, Curation of Archeological Collections.
11 Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Guidelines.
12 New York Archaeological Council, Standards.
13 National Parks Service, Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
14 R.K. Anderson Jr., Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships (Washington, DC: National Park
Service, 1988); M. Dean, B. Ferrari, I. Oxley, M. Redknap, and K. Watson, eds.,
Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice (Portsmouth, UK:
Nautical Archaeology Society, 1995); J. N. Green, Maritime Archaeology: A Technical
Handbook (San Diego: Academic Press, 1990); P. Lipke, P. Spectre, and B. A. G. Fuller,
eds., Boats: A Manual for Their Documentation (Nashville: American Association for State
and Local History, 1993); and J. R. Steffy, Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of
Shipwrecks (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994).
15 L.R. Addington, Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1986); L. Adkins and R.A. Adkins, Archaeological Illustration
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994); B.D. Dillon, ed., Student's Guide to
Archaeological Illustrating (Los Angeles: University of California, 1992); P. G. Dorrell,
272
Photography in Archaeology and Conservation (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1989); C.L. Howell and W. Blanc, Practical Guide to Archaeological Photography, 2nd ed.
(Los Angeles: University of California, 1995).
16 N.C. Flemming and M.D. Max, Scientific Diving: A General Code of Practice, 2nd ed. (Flagstaff:
Best Publishing, 1996); J.W. Miller, ed., NOAA Diving Manual: Diving for Science and
Technology, 2nd ed. (Bethesda: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1991).
17 McLaughlin and Lessman, Lake Survey, Volume I.
18 Sabick, Lessman and McLaughlin, Lake Survey, Volumes II and III.
19 Kane and Sabick, Lake Survey, Volumes IV and V.
20 Kane, Sabick and Brigadier, Lake Survey, Volumes VI and Volume VII.
21 National Park Service, Curation of Archeological Collections.
22 Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Guidelines.
23 New York Archaeological Council, Standards.
24 A. M. Hemenway, The Vermont Historical Gazetteer: A Magazine Embracing A History of Each
Town (Burlington, VT: Hemenway, 1867).
25 H. P. Smith, History of Addison County Vermont (Syracuse, NY: D. Mason & Co., 1886).
26 Orwell Historical Society, A History of the Town of Orwell, Vermont: Dedicated to All Citizens
Past and Present (Orwell, Vermont: Orwell Historical Society, 2001).
27 Scott McLaughlin, History Told from the Depths of Lake Champlain: 1992-1993 Fort
Ticonderoga-Mount Independence Submerged Cultural Resource Survey (Ferrisburgh, VT:
Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2000), 16.
28 McLaughlin, History Told from the Depths, 52.
29 Russell P. Bellico, Sails and Steam in the Mountains: A Maritime and Military History of Lake
George and Lake Champlain, Revised ed. (Fleischmanns, NY: Purple Mountain Press,
2001),8.
30 E. M. Murray “Resume of the Court Martial of General Arthur St. Clair Resulting from the
Evacuation of Fort Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, July 6, 1777,” Bulletin of the Fort
Ticonderoga Museum 7 (1947): 111.
31 D.R. Starbuck, Mount Independence and the American Revolution, 1776-1777, Orwell , Vermont
(Rutland, VT: Sharp offset,1991), 1.
32 Robert Bascom, Historic Mount Independence (VT: Hand’s Cove Chapter of the Vermont
D.A.R., 1909), 14.
33 Orwell Historical Society, A History of the Town of Orwell, Vermont, 20.
34 Bellico, Sails and Steam, 200.
35 G. Williams, "Return of All the Ordinance & Ordinance Store Found in the Garrisons of
Ticonderoga and Mount Independence," (Ottawa, CA: National Archives of Canada, 1777).
36 Arthur Cohn and Adam Kane, Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve: Management
Study for the State of New York (Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 2002),
273
275.
38 Bascom, Historic Mount Independence, 23.
40 Ibid, 43.
41 Ibid, 43.
42 Ibid, 45.
43 Orwell Historical Society, A History of the Town of Orwell, Vermont, 27.
44 Ibid.
45 Murray, “Resume of the Court Martial of General Arthur St. Clair,” 117.
46 Horatio Gates Stafford, A Gazetteer of the State of New York (Albany: B.D. Pachard, 1824),
568-569.
47 Everts and Ensign, History of Washington County, New York with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of Some Important Men and Pioneers (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co.
1878), 473.
48 Bellico, Sails and Steam, 15.
49 William Stone, Washington County, NY: Its History to the Close of the Nineteenth Century (New
York: New York History Co., 1901), 475.
50 Everts and Ensign, History of Washington County, 36.
51 Ibid, 39.
52 Ibid, 48.
53 Bellico Sails and Steam, 174.
54 Everts and Ensign, History of Washington County, 63; Stone, Washington County, NY, 475.
55 Allen S. Everest, The War of 1812 in the Champlain Valley (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press, 1981) 45, 63.
56 Stone, Washington County, NY, 477.
57 Kevin Crisman, The Eagle: An American Brig on Lake Champlain during the War of 1812
(Published jointly by the New England Press: Shelburne, VT and the Naval Institute Press:
Annapolis, MD, 1987), 107-108.
58 Everts and Ensign, History of Washington County, 477.
59 The section on the British Sloop Boscawen was written by Christopher Fox, Curator at the Fort
Ticonderoga Museum for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the Fort
Ticonderoga Museum.
60 Arthur B. Cohn, “The Fort Ticonderoga King’s Shipyard Excavation: 1984 Field-Season Report,”
Bulletin of the Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XIV (6) (1985), 337.
61 Ibid, 337.
274
62 Ibid, 337.
63 Ibid, 338-339.
64 Ibid, 339-340.
65 Ibid, 340-343.
66 Ibid, 342.
67 Ibid, 343.
68 Ibid, 346-353.
69 Ibid, 353.
70 For a more detailed analysis of the Boscawen’s artifact collection see Kevin J. Crisman, “The
Fort Ticonderoga King’s Shipyard Excavation: The Artifacts,” Bulletin of the Fort
Ticonderoga Museum, Vol. XIV (6) (1985), 375-436.
71 Crisman, The Eagle, 97-110.
72 Ibid, 107-108.
73 National Archives, R.G. 77, D 112.
74 Burlington Daily Free Press and Times, 11 August 1873.
75 Arthur Cohn ed., A Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain (Burlington, VT:
Champlain Maritime Society, 1984), 73-75.
76 Erika L. Washburn, “Linnet: The History and Archaeology of a Brig from the War of 1812” (M.A.
thesis, Texas A&M University, 1998), 49-51.
77 Kevin Crisman, The History and Construction of the United States Schooner Ticonderoga
(Alexandria, VA: Eyrie Publication, 1983), 35-38.
78 Ibid.
79 Kenneth Cassavoy and Kevin Crisman, “The War of 1812: Battle for the Great Lakes,” in Ships
and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater Archaeology (London:
Thames & Hudson, 1988), 182-185.
80 Cohn, Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain, 47-71; and Montgomery R. Fischer ed., A
Report on the Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain (Burlington, VT: Champlain Maritime
Society), 13-19.
81 Crisman, The Eagle.
82 Ibid.
83 Cohn, Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain, 64-71.
84 Kevin Crisman, “Coffins of the Brave: A Return to Lake Champlain’s War of 1812 Ship
Graveyard,” I.N.A Quarterly 22 (1995).
85 Eric Emery, “Whitehall Project 1995: A Preliminary Report on the Excavation and Study of the
USN Row Galley Allen,” I.N.A. Quarterly 22 (1995), 9-14.
86 Eric Emery, “The Last of Mr. Brown’s Mosquito Fleet: A History and Archaeology of the
American Row Galley Allen on Lake Champlain, 1814-1825” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M
275
University, 2003), 235-255.
87 Ibid., 202-226.
88 Cohn, Nautical Archaeology of Lake Champlain, 60-63.
89 Erika Washburn, “The Story of HMS Linnet, a Brig from the War of 1812,” in Underwater
Archaeology (1996).
90 Washburn, “Linnet,” M.A. thesis.
91 Ibid., 60-71.
92 Ibid., 159-192.
93 Crisman, “Coffins of the Brave,” 1.
95 Crisman, “Coffins of the Brave”, 48-49.
96 McLaughlin, History Told from the Depths, 27, 31.
97 Ibid., 31-33.
98 Ibid., 33-36.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid., 44.
101 Ibid., 44-45.
102 Crisman, “Coffins of the Brave,” 3.
103 Ibid., 3-4.
105 Ibid., 84.
106 Ibid., 127-138.
107 Ibid., 200.
108 Ibid., 309.
109 Ibid., 124-125.
110 Kane and Sabick, Lake Survey, Volumes IV and V, 81-84.
111 Burlington Free Press and Times, 22 August 1870 (3:1). For other sources that produced
similar articles see Essex County Republican, 25 August 1870 (3:2); Plattsburgh
Republican, 27 August 1870 (3:1); and Washington County Chronicle, 26 August 1870 (3:5).
112 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Lake Champlain, Barber Point, NY to
Whitehall, NY, chart No. 14784 (1992).
113 Orwell Historical Society, A History of the Town of Orwell, Vermont. George W. Stewart owned
the ferry in 1922-1923 (Ticonderoga Sentinel, 26 October 1922, 1:2).
114 List of Merchant Vessels of the United States and John P. Ross Collection.
276
115 List of Merchant Vessels of the United States, John P. Ross Collection and Ticonderoga
Sentinel.
116 List of Merchant Vessels of the United States and John P. Ross Collection.
117 LCMM researchers assigned to documentation areas included: Adam Kane, sides; Chris
Sabick, bow; and Pierre LaRocque, overall hull form.
118 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Champlain Local Surveys, chart No. 174 (1930).
119 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Champlain Local Surveys, chart No. 174 (1930).
120 A. P. Barranco, Ticonderoga’s Floating Drawbridge:1871-1920 (Grande Isle, VT: Lake
Champlain Basin Program, 1995).
121 Frank L. Webster, The Addison Road (Blum, TX: privately printed, 1985), 5; Middlebury
Register, 8 November 1870; Jim Shaughnessy, The Rutland Road (Berkeley, CA: HowellNorth Books) 29, 35.
122 Webster, The Addison Road, 4.
123 Ibid., 5; Shaughnessy, The Rutland Road, 26.
124 Rutland Daily Herald, 17 January 1871.
125 Ibid., 31 January 1871.
126 Ibid., 23-24 January 1871, 26 January 1871, 28 January 1871, 31 January 1871.
127 Ibid., 16 January 1871.
128 Ibid., 22 February 1871.
129 Middlebury Register, 28 February 1871.
130 Rutland Daily Herald, 5 April 1871, 27 April 1871
131 Middlebury Register, 9 May 1871.
132 St. Albans Messenger and Transcript, 2 June 1871.
133 Middlebury Register, 8 August 1871.
134 Burlington Free Press and Times, 27 September 1871.
135 Rutland Daily Herald, 2 October 1871.
136 William Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” Vermont Life Autumn (1973): 21; and
Middlebury Register, 8 August 1871.
137 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 21.
138 Ibid., 21; Webster, The Addison Road ,18.
139 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 21-22; Webster, The Addison Road, 18.
140 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 21-22; Webster, The Addison Road , 18-19.
141 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 26 August 1920; Middlebury Register, 3 September
1920.
142 Ibid.
277
143 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 2 September 1920; Ticonderoga Sentinel, 19 August
1920, 26 August 1920, 16 August 1920.
144 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 28 October 1920; Middlebury Register, 29 October
1920.
145 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 6 July 1921.
146 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 27 July 1922, 3 August 1922.
147 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 12 October 1922, 19 October 1922
148 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 30 November 1922, 7 December 1922, 25 January
1923.
149 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 1 February 1923.
150 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 24 May 1923.
151 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 13 December 1923, 8 January 1925, March 19, 1925.
152 Webster, The Addison Road, 22-23; Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 22-23.
153 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 23.
155 N. B. Proctor, "Floating Drawbridge, U. S. Federal Patent # 14928." (Ms. on File, U. S.
National Archives, Washington D.C. United States, 1856).
156 Shaughnessy, The Rutland Road, 35.
157 see Kane and Sabick, Lake Survey, Volumes IV and V, 88-92.
158 Rutland Daily Herald, 21 February 1871.
159 Vergennes Vermonter, 29 September 1871; Rutland Daily Herald 27 September 1871;
Middlebury Register, 3 October 1871. The original description was published by the
Rutland Daily Herald and was copied with minor changes by the Vergennes and Middlebury
papers.
160 Rutland Daily Herald, 4 November 1868; Burlington Free Press, 15 December 1868.
161 Rutland Daily Herald, 19 August 1871; Burlington Free Press and Times, 22 August 1871
Morning Edition; Middlebury Register, August 22, 1871, edited version.
162 Burlington Free Press and Times, 22 September 1871 Evening Edition.
163 Burlington Free Press and Times, 27 September 1871 Morning Edition.
164 Rutland Daily Herald, 27 September 1871.
165 Burlington Free Press and Times, 3 October 1871.
166 Rutland Daily Herald, 2 October 1871; Middlebury Register, 3 October 1871.
167 Middlebury Register, 12 December 1871.
168 Middlebury Register, 30 April 1872.
169 Rutland Daily Herald, 28 June 1872; Middlebury Register, 2 July 1872. Wording slightly
different than in Rutland Daily Herald.
278
170 Rutland Daily Herald, 8 October 1873.
171 Middlebury Register, 5 November 1920 (“35 Years Ago”).
172 Rutland Daily Herald, 15 November 1873.
173 Rutland Daily Herald, 17 November 1873.
174 Essex County Republican, 22 June 1882; Vergennes Vermonter, 23 June 1882.
175 Vergennes Vermonter, 14 July 1882.
176 Plattsburgh Republican, 20 December 1879.
177 Information provided by Jim Bullard, 21 February 1993.
178 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 9 June 1882.
179 Middlebury Register, 25 August 1874; Ticonderoga Sentinel, 19 September 1874.
180 Burlington Free Press and Times, 12 November 1888.
181 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 27 April 1893.
182 Burlington Free Press and Times, 27 March 1897.
183 Vergennes Vermonter, 13 February 1902; Middlebury Register, 14 February 1902.
184 Rutland Daily Herald, 8 February 1902.
185 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 13 February 1902.
186 Ibid.
187 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 27 February 1902, 29 May 1902.
188 Ibid.
189 Burlington Free Press and Times, 25 March 1902.
190 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 10 April 1902.
191 Burlington Free Press and Times, 25 March1902; other reference, Ticonderoga Sentinel, 1
May 1902.
192 Burlington Free Press and Times, 17 June 1902.
193 Map of the City of Burlington and Village of Winooski, L.P. White & Co., 1894 (Special
Collections, Bailey Howe Library, University of Vermont).
194 Burlington Free Press and Times, 24 June 1902, 26 June 1902.
195 Burlington Free Press and Times, 17 June 1902; other reference, Vergennes Enterprise and
Vermonter, 26 June 1902.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.
198 Burlington Free Press and Times, 24 June 1902
199 Ibid., 25 June 1902
200 Ibid., 27 June 1902
279
201 Ibid., 27 June 1902; other reference, Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 26 June 1902.
202 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 26 June 1902.
203 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 22. Bill Gove kindly shared his 1972 research
notes for this article with the writer (Peter Barranco). The above incident was related to Bill
Gove by someone familiar with the drawbridge, probably George Trombley or Albert
Bourdeau, both of whom had at one time worked on the drawboat, the former as a fireman,
and the latter as a bridge foreman. Both men were living in Ticonderoga in 1972 and were
interviewed. Unfortunately, the notes do not identify who provided this or other information,
and it is not possible at this late date to recall who provided what information. However,
these notes did record recollections of people who had first hand knowledge of the
drawbridge and as such do provide an important historical record.
204 Ibid.
205 Burlington Free Press and Times, 17 April 1908.
206 Gove, “The Troublesome Addison Branch,” 22; Webster, The Addison Road,19.
207 Rutland Daily Herald, 5 January 1918.
208 Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter, 28 March 1918; other reference, Ticonderoga Sentinel,
21 March 1918.
209 Gove, 1972 notes; Webster, The Addison Road, 19. Car with marble sank but two box cars
did not.
210 Gove, 1972 notes.
211 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 28 March 1918; similar article, Vergennes Enterprise and Vermonter,
4 April 1918.
214 Information provided by Capt. Merritt Carpenter on 20 January 1993 and 6 February1993.
215 Information provided by Cushman Baker on 8 August 1992 and 26 February 1993.
216 Information provided by Capt. Martin Fisher, 16 August 1994.
217 Information provided by James Bullard, 14 February 1993.
219 Ibid.
220 Rutland Railroad, Valuation Sheet V5/1.
222 Ibid.
223 Ibid.
224 Ibid.
225 Gove, 1972 notes; Rutland Railroad, Valuation Sheet V5/2.
280
226 Information provided by Cushman Baker, 8 August 1992 and 26 February 1993.
228 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 3 October 1874.
229 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 28 September 1877; other reference, St. Albans Weekly Messenger, 5
October 1877.
230 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 25 August 1882.
231 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 25 May 1883.
232 Rutland Railroad, Addison Branch, Bridge Inspection Reports, 1904 and 1908.
233 Schedule Showing Property Changes Subsequent to Valuation Date 1917, Rutland Railroad,
Valuation Sheet V5/2.
234 See Barranco, Ticonderoga’s Floating Drawbridge, 51-52; and McLaughlin, History Told From
the Depths, 80-83.
235 Ibid.
236 Paper and year not given, Referenced newspaper clipping from the Historical Society of
Whitehall.
237 New York Department of Highways, plans dated July 12, 1912. Courtesy of the Historical
Society of Whitehall.
238 Whitehall Times 3 June 1971. Courtesy of Agnes Peterson, Dresden Town Historian.
239 Whitehall Times 12 November 1914.
240 Whitehall Times, 8 February 1971.
241 Letter written from Agnes Peterson to Peter Barranco, 24 July 2003.
242 Ticonderoga Sentinel, 7 August 1930 1:3.
243 The Whitehall Times, 8 February 1973 and 27 December 1973.
244 The Glens Falls Post Star, 30 March 1976:HSW and 2 August 1992:WCHS.
245 ibid.
246 The Plattsburgh Republican 21 July 1906: 1:6.
247 Douglas Frink, Charity Baker and Art Cohn, AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Burlington, Vermont to
Keelsville, New York Phase 1 Archaeological Study (Essex Junction, VT: Frink and Baker
Archaeology Consulting Team, Inc., 1991).
248 Andrew Lydecker and Anne Cousins, Recording the Burlington Breakwater in Lake Champlain,
City of Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont in Connection with the Proposed Structural
Repair Activities and Section 110 Responsibilities (Memphis, TN: Panamerican Consultants,
2002).
249 Excelsior, Permanent Enrollment 16.
250 Excelsior, Permanent Enrollment 16, Master Abstracts of Enrollments (Plattsburgh), 1870.
251 Master Abstracts of Enrollments (Burlington), 1872.
281
254 Excelsior, Permanent Enrollment 4, Master Abstracts of Enrollments (Burlington), 1884.
255 Winslow C. Watson, The History of Essex County, New York (Albany: J. Munsell Publishers
1869) 371.
256 Ibid., 371.
257 Burlington Free Press and Times, 18 April 1870 (3:1).
258 Plattsburgh Republican, 3 December 1881 (1:2).
259 Vergennes Vermonter, 8 December 1882.
260 Essex County Republican, 24 May 1883 (1:2).
261 see Kane, Sabick and Brigadier, Lake Survey, Volumes VI and Volume VII; Burlington Free
Press and Times, 17 October 1885 (4:1).
262 Robert E. Hagar, “Notes on a Fieldtrip to the Champlain Canal and Glens Falls Feeder,” from
the Robert Hager Collection at the Chittenango Landing Canal Museum, 1960.
263 A. Cohn, A. Kane, C. Sabick, and E. Scollon, Valcour Bay Research Project: 1999-2002
Results from the Archaeological Investigation of a Revolutionary War Battlefield in Lake
Champlain, Clinton County, New York. (Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum,
2003).
264 Frank Taylor, “Letter to Graf,” Memorandum on file at the National Museum of American
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,1939.
265 Jennifer Bergen, Trudy Caswell, Christine Mazzaferro, and Anthony Scuderi, “Raising the
Philadelphia,” Lake Champlain Horizons 1: 4-6, 12, 15,1988: 6.
266 Lorenzo F. Hagglund, “Hagglund to Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American
History,” Record No. 229338.019, 1959.1959.
267 Mendel L. Peterson, Letter to Frank A. Taylor, “Use of Carbowax,” United States Government
Memorandum, National Museum of American History, Record No. 229338.174, 1961.1961.
268 Philip K. Lundenberg, The Gunboat Philadelphia and the Defense of Lake Champlain in 1776.
(Vergennes, VT: Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, 1994).
282

lake champlain underwater cultural resources survey

Transcription

Similar documents

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

Providence at Harbour Club

WE ARE THE PLACE TO CHILL AT THE LAKE

Get Your Kicks this Fall with LWYSA!

Assessing the potential movement of invasive fishes through

Aseel , Dania , , Dania , , Dania , Jumana , Muna , Ru`a Alain Sara

Wild, Wet and Untamed - VirginiaLiving.com

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2011

FOOTBALL SEASON IS FINALLY HERE!!! ENJOY

Conesus Lake Bathymetric Survey