This preliminary report describes the discovery, setting, ensuing archaeological mapping, and historical significance of ship wreckage found at the confluence of the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound in Old Lyme, Connecticut. Sailing ships were an incredible part of the development of the lower Connecticut valley yet from contemporary Connecticut lifeways are quite removed. This report discusses the nature of maritime activity and some of its archaeological record.

Acknowledgments:

We as historians and archaeologists would know far less than we know today if it were not for the public, amateur, and avocational interest and willingness to share information. This site was initially reported to me by several individuals who understood the potential of its significance. It is also noteworthy that this site has been studied with a very limited budget. Several individuals have donated their own time, expertise, and money to permit the ongoing study of this site. The town of Old Lyme, Middle School students and staff at Regional District 18, the Anthropology Club at Brown University, the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department at Wesleyan University, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory division, the Connecticut Historical Commission, the Office of the State Archaeologist, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the Nature Conservancy, the Institute for Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M, Basin Harbor Museum, Mystic Seaport, the Connecticut River Museum, Geosight, Gates Surveying, Hoffmann and Feige, Old Lyme Inn, Dr. Lucinda McWeeney, Peter Kwasniewski, James Powers, Mathew Hobby, Lori Chace, Donald Malcarne, Arend-Jan Knuttel, Henry Golet, Marianne Pfeiffer, Fredrick Crosby, Ted Henrdickson, and others have cooperated with the author to make this study a success.

Purpose:

One of the major intents of this preliminary study is to report on the site and to assess the stability of the area where the wreckage is situated. This report's goal is to recommend appropriate methods of preservation that take into account the site's historic and archaeological significance and accommodate its long and short term needs.

Contents:

Purpose

Part I Introduction

Part II Background History: Early Period

The Florescence of Maritime Activity

The Decline of the Sailing Ship

Historic Wrecks

Implications

Part III Background Archaeology:

Part IV Background Geology:

Future Topographic Change

Part V Location and setting of Shipwreck Site:

Part VI Remote Sensing: Methods and Instrumentation

Geophysical Interpretation

Part VII Site Mapping and Dynamics

Part VIII A Description of the Wreck and its Components

Part IX Historical and Archaeological Interpretation

Part X Archaeological and Historical Significance of the

Wreckage on Griswold Point

Part XI Recommendations

Bibliography

In October of 1994 large timbers and planking were seen washing out from the beach on Griswold Point in Old Lyme, Connecticut (See map and photo next page). While it has been a common occurrence to see such wood becoming exposed by the shifting sands, what made this assemblage far more unique was that these wooden objects were fastened by treenails or wooden spikes. Such techniques of construction clearly indicated to me a non-contemporary origin and brought to mind construction methods that I had seen at the 18th and 19th century shipbuilding sites found along the Connecticut River in Essex, Connecticut during archaeological field seasons sponsored by the Graduate Liberal Studies Program at Wesleyan University. The massive nature of the timbers and the quality craftsmanship witnessed in the planking that covered both the inner and outer surfaces indicated to me that this was a section of a large ocean vessel and not a river barge or scow. The paucity of metal fastenings and drifts also suggested to me that this may be an American made vessel and one that was quite early. What I was seeing at the water's edge were the remains of some early ship that had somehow become wrecked and subsequently covered by the beach and dunes. Over the last two years, since the Northeaster of December 1993, it was becoming increasing apparent to many beachcombers and local residents that this section of Old Lyme's shoreline was seeing dramatic rates of erosion and radical changes to the topography. Not only was this erosion having an impact upon the character of the shore but apparently was now becoming an active agent in uncovering this ship wreckage.

The initial approach that I have used in assessing this shipwreck has been passive in nature and oriented toward the following elements. First, a mapping, accurate drawing, and photographic record of the wreckage that has been naturally exposed at the low water line. Second, a survey employing remote sensing techniques to determine the size and potential configuration of the wreckage that may lie beneath the sand. Three, the establishment of survey benchmarks and continual monitoring of the site to note both changes to the wreckage as well as to the immediate environment. Four, the accumulation of data to permit quantification of erosion and thus determine the potential danger of destruction that the site faces. Five, the review of documents, the enlisting of professional nautical archaeologists and historians to ultimately aid in determining the significance of the shipwreck. Six, to recommend short and long term approaches to study of this site based upon our preliminary research data.

Background History:

To fully appreciate the maritime archaeological record, the history of the mouth of the Connecticut River needs to be understood. Not only do we need to understand the historical events and cultural processes but we also need to consider how these might have been reflected in the archaeological record (that is from the perspective of what could potentially remain in the ground). The ensuing discussion varies from traditional history of the area and takes the approach from what the wreckage on the Griswold point might have been produced.

Early Historic Period:

The mouth of the Connecticut River has a complex recorded history that dates back to early 17th century Dutch exploration and trading and extends to English settlement in 1635. Thereafter, significant maritime mercantile activity continued through the mid nineteenth century. European interests in the region of the Connecticut Valley were multi-faceted.

Traditional historic accounts indicate that there was a concerted interest in getting furs for the European market. This involved establishing trading relations with the local Native American inhabitants at first and then starting up companies that entered into the interior of the American continent undertaking their own trapping and processing activities.

The trading and fur acquisition was subsequently replaced by colonial interests that concentrated upon gaining land, making settlements, and establishing a stable flow of raw materials back to the mother country. Foremost amongst these raw materials were wood and iron.

From 1635 on there is copious evidence that there was a considerable flow of wood out of the Connecticut River valley. It is not inconsequential that the first pages of the Connecticut Colonial Assembly records are attempts to regulate this activi-ty. Within five years of settlement Governor Leete issued a memorandum to Uncas, sachem of the Mohegan, to leave his Indian men alone while they were cutting wood in the forest.

There is also evidence of pre-settlement lumbering activities in Southern New England. In 1629 Roger Williams was questioned by the Narragansetts as to, " why the English had come to the New World, was it for want of wood?" (Williams, 1643) Does this question and offered answer indicate a previous experience with Europeans coming to the New World, possibly during the earliest years of the 17th century or even earlier? A case for such an interpretation can effectively be made.

Toward the end of the 1640's George Fenwick of the Saybrook Colony was granted authority to charge ships leaving the Connecticut River as they passed by the ramparts of the Saybrook Fort. His agent, Mathew Griswold maintained this arrangement and sent back to Fenwick the collected duty. This form of mercantile taxation was the only way that the lumbering activity could be managed. The evidence is clear, wood was a major concentration of the first Europeans in the lower Connecticut valley.

While there were attempts to manage the timber resources by the English authorities, up to the early 1650's Dutch shipping in the Connecticut River was basically unchecked. Undoubtedly wood resources were being depleted and by the 1680's there are discussions in Lyme's ecclesiastical society meetings that the wood was nearly gone except in the most remote upland regions.

Shipping was obviously important during this period as it was the only means to transport this material back to the homeland. Shipping was also the cause of the thirst for wood as has been the historic pattern for many cultures throughout history. Not only was there a need for planks and beams to build houses, but also to maintain and support the coastal installations as well as the merchant and naval fleets.

The implication for the history of the Connecticut valley and the mouth of the river is that commercial lumbering and associated shipping potentially predated European settlement and the fur trade. A similar situation with regards to commercial fishing and whaling ventures have been reported from Labrador and south to southern New England. The archaeological implications are that there is the potential of encountering sub-surface evidence of early coastal emplacements as wharfs, docks, and loading platforms. It is also not out of the question that ships may have become stranded or wrecked along the Connecticut River and at its mouth during this early period.

The Florescence of Maritime Activity:

During the latter half of the 17th century there is abundant documentation of ships, commerce, and trade not only to the mother country but also between the American colonies. Such activity was referred to as "coasting" and is recorded in the registration of many ships that were built in the Connecticut River valley. Records indicate export to the West Indies of wood, flour and grain, animals, and Native American slaves. Return cargoes of sugar and molasses, African slaves, can also be seen in various documents. By the early 18th century there is clearly a very brisk maritime economic system supporting the area around the mouth of the Connecticut River (Hempstead). This activity while concentrating toward the lowest part of the river, extended as far upriver as Middletown and apparently decreased north of Hartford. In Lyme shipbuilding yards were probably operational prior to 1700 on the Lieutenant River and can be shown to be arranging contracts with out of area financiers and owners as early as 1706 (LLR.2.269). From the mid 1700's on ships were being locally built and financed by consortiums of individuals. In this way investors spread out the potential liability if there were losses. Partnership also put prominent families together in various kinds of maritime business. Privateering became a major endeavor for the "fleet" operating out of the southern New England waters and the mouth of the Connecticut was a major locus of such activity. Privateer vessels went out onto the high seas, acquired cargoes without the mother country's approval or control.

During the American Revolution area shipbuilding proliferated and large American naval vessels carrying both domestic armament and personnel sailed the colonial waters. While the Revolution was the first case for an American Navy and Coast Guard it was not altogether a success. The English Navy was far more expansive and powerful. Just the same, Connecticut valley ships, captains, and crews distinguished themselves and records abound indicating our naval activity in the Revolution. Vessels as the Oliver Cromwell, Defense, and Confederacy were locally built Connecticut Colony frigates that sailed and engaged the enemy throughout the colonies. However, there were also town owned ships that defended the immediate local ports.

It is clear that privateering was also underway during the Revolution. The sharp and nimble privateer schooners were successful in running English blockades, out-sailing, and maneuvering the larger square rigged vessels. However, their activity was not necessarily part of the American act of insurrection against England. Rather, the English blockades restricted entrepreneurial activity and profiteering. Privateers sometimes went so far as to smuggle and pirate. Usually the goods that were aboard these privateer ships were sold at auction back at the home ports. Owners of these  vessels profited greatly. This served to stimulate new investment and advertising for investors in privateer ships was made in many area newspapers.

In the early days of the 1800's an advertisement placed in the New York Mercantile Express called for investors in the "Black Prince", a schooner built by Richard Hayden of Essex and initially subsidized by Nathanial and George Griswold of Lyme and New York. The ship was pierced for 18 cannon and described as having a great potential for being a fine privateer. While it is uncertain, it may be that the English read the advertisement and decided to raid the privateer fleet in Essex. The subsequent English attack of April 8, 1814 resulted in the destruction of 28 ships. Many of these were on stocks or launching ways as the river was in freshet and choked with debris. Over 3200 tons of shipping was destroyed in and around the port town of Essex. The shipping losses were recorded as totalling approximately $160,000. In current 20th century financial standards this loss would be equivalent to about $80,000,000. The raid also registered a loss of $5000 worth of sail, cordage, and rum that had been taken from stores at dock side and loaded within the hold of the Black Prince all of which was ultimately to be transported to the English ships waiting at the mouth of the river.

The Brig "Young Anaconda" as well as the "Black Prince" were taken in tow down the river. However, they ran aground, were abandoned, and at least partially burned by their captors. The exact location of where this happened is unknown, however, there is evidence that following this event the wreckage was stripped of its hardware and possibly wood (Anderson & Dock 1981).

Archaeological evidence of this attack and subsequent loss have only been minimally researched, however, burned timbers, chocks, and launching ways were found near the Connecticut River Museum boat-house prior to construction in 1988. The evidence was clear that a layer indicating an episode of fire had occurred sometime prior to 1850. This event was contemporaneous with boat building and launching.

Upriver in the Falls River Cove area lie the remains of the Osage a 350 ton ship that was being built at the Williams boat yard in 1814. This vessel was destroyed in the British raid and its wreckage was discovered in the 1930's. Wood from the wreck as scavenged and sold in local curio shops as souvenirs.

The following year, in September of 1815, a very serious hurricane caused many large ships to be lost at the mouth of the river in Saybrook (Middlesex Gazette, 9/28/1815). This storm had a tidal surge of over 20 feet that had a devastating effect upon topography of the area at the mouth of the Connecticut River. Even as far up the river as Essex two 350 ton vessels were destroyed.

The Decline of the Sailing Ship:

After these two events the local sailing shipbuilding never regained its prior level of importance. Sailing ships continued to be built, however, there were fewer going down the launching ways. For a while building and repair yards continued to produce schooners and sloops and toward the end of the 1st half of the 19th century there appears to be a higher proportion of pleasure craft being constructed. By 1850 many building and repair yards went bankrupt and closed.

There are many reasons why there was a regional downturn. Part of America's focus was certainly changing to new land in the west. Also the Connecticut valley was not the exclusive breadbasket of America that it had been. There is also evidence that wood was becoming scarce and supplies needed to be brought in. Home construction was undertaken during this period by individuals willing to purchase old houses, dismantling them, and reusing the wood. This probably had a significant effect upon the cost of shipbuilding. Finally this period also sees the transition to steam power, canal transportation followed by railroad construction.

All of these elements had a significant effect upon the competitive nature of sailing vessels and their production. For a short period after 1850 the local shipbuilding industry attempted to compete by building merchant ships that were much larger than ever before and in fact several were built that were in excess of 1000 tons.

After 1870 few ships were built in the Connecticut River valley. Use of sailing vessels continued but on a reduced level and most ships were relegated to carrying cargoes that did not require rapid transport. During the latter half of the 19th century many Connecticut River ships ended their careers as bulk haulers carrying cargoes of coal and building stone.

Coastal installations were correspondingly rebuilt to accommodate the larger sail and steam vessels as well as their bulk cargoes. Wharfs and docks needed to be more heavily engineered and as a result bulkhead rather than finger dock construction was the preferred design. Through time, navigable water frontage was upgraded to accommodate the heavier ships and cargo.

Essex and other shore towns with maritime facilities have demonstrated this transition in the archaeological record. The wharf system buried underneath the parking lot of the Connecticut River Museum demonstrated the evolution of 17th through late 19th century wharf design, however, associated wreckage of ships have not been discovered.

Historic Wrecks:

In the literature concerning the mouth of the Connecticut River there is a recurring theme of the dangers that existed for shipping. The shifting bars, and the shallow waters clearly posed a considerable hazard. There are historic documents of literally scores of ships of various sizes encountering significant losses. References to total losses are fewer in number and are imprecise. This is a short list of the wrecks that are within 6 to 7 miles (10km) of Griswold Point:
*- Our survey indicated the first recorded wreck occurred in 1749. This was a brig returning from her maiden voyage. She was 100+ tons and was cast away onto the Saybrook bar while she was at anchor. Aboard her were 4000 bushels of salt (Hempstead, 19: 518).
*- Oral tradition suggests that in 1774 a ship bound for Haiti ran aground in a storm on Griswold Point. The Griswolds saved the crew and salvaged the cargo. The captain gave to the family the ship's clock in gratitude. No documents could be found to substantiate the story or help in determining data concerning this vessel. (We researched the Griswold-Lane collection at Yale's Sterling library.)
*- In 1778 a small vessel was chased ashore near Saybrook by a British frigate. Cargo of this vessel was flour.
*- In 1801 the Schooner Avery between Middletown and Saybrook overset in a squall and lost 10 men, damage to vessel is unclear. While not at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Essex is 6 miles to the north of Griswold Point and during the 18th and 19th century functioned as the first substantial port on the river. The privateer fleet became an important target for the British during the War of 1812. The losses encountered in Essex might be represented at some level at Griswold Point.
*- In 1814 the British destroyed 28 ships. As listed in the Middlesex Gazette these are as follows:

1. Ship Osage 350 tons

2. Ship Atalanta 250 tons

3. Ship Superior 300 tons

4. Brig Cleopatra 180 tons

5. Brig Felix 230 tons

6. Cutter Brig 340 tons

7. Brig Amazon 170 tons

8. New Schooner on stocks 130 tons Hayden & Starkey

9. New Schooner on stocks 160 tons Hayden & Brothers

10.New Sharp Schooner Black Prince 313 tons

11.Schooner Emblem 150 tons

12.Sloop Thetis 75 tons

13.Sloop Emerald 60 tons

14.New Sloop on stocks 60 tons A. Jones 7 others

15.Sloop Comet 30 tons

16.Sloop William 70 tons

17.Sloop Washington 60 tons

18.Sloop Mars 60 tons

19.Sloop unnamed 60 tons from Long Island

20.Sloop Sally Anne 60 tons

21.Pleasure Boat Owned by E. Hayden

22.Pleasure Boat Owned by Noah Scovil

23.Sloop Mahala 30 tons

24.Brig

25 Schooner

26 Schooner

To this list the Connecticut Gazette (4/13/1814)adds:

27 Ship Guardian 380 tons

To this list can be added from Anderson and Dock(1981)

28 Brig Young Anaconda 300 tons

It is interesting to note that the Admiralty records that Anderson and Dock (1981) utilized were apparently clear, concise, and detailed. There are curious disparities between the tonnage reported by the British Admiralty and the American newspaper reports. Apparently American accounts are always understated in comparison to British reports.

*- During 1814 the British also destroyed two American Schooners off of Niantic between Black and Millstone Points. This area is situated 6 miles to the east of Griswold Point. The Middlesex Gazette reported that on Thursday May 12 two sloops were captured near the River's mouth and schooner Polly drifted on shore near the light house. Everything above and on deck was destroyed. Mr. Jones and 2 men on board (dead?).

*- During September 28, 1815 the Middlesex Gazatte reported that the Gale [the hurricane of 1815] had the highest storm surge in the the living memory of the inhabitants. Many vessels were sunk in Saybrook and Lyme. In Essex two ships were wholly destroyed. Tide rose in Middletown 20 feet (Ct Courant 10/4/1815).

*- On October 27, 1833 the wooden steam ship New England exploded.

*- July 4, 1874 the 170 ton schooner Ambassador was stranded on the Saybrook bar and listed as a total loss. She was carrying 170 tons of coal.

*- September 1875 Schooner Mary Ann weighing 98 tons was stranded on the Saybrook bar and listed as a total loss. She was carrying a cargo of coal. She was built in 1858 and registered in Philadelphia.

*- December 1875 a 92 ton schooner Empire was stranded on the Saybrook bar and totally destroyed. She was carrying a cargo of coal and registered in Middletown. She was built in 1846.

*- In October 1876 the 138 ton schooner E.F. Meany was stranded on the Saybrook Bar and was listed as a total loss She had been built in 1864.

*- On November 9, 1878 the 60 ton schooner Adalaide from Greenport fetched up on the Saybrook bar and was listed as a total loss. She was carrying 110 tons of coal. She had been built in 1845.

*- In April 1880 the 87 ton schooner Lindsey carrying 149 tons of coal was stranded on the Saybrook bar and listed as a total loss. She had been built in 1862 and registered in Portland Maine.

*- In 1887 Feb 8 schooner broke free in ice three lost two saved (Alanzo Tucker journal saybrook)

*- In 1905 the 187 ton ship Lizzie Raymond turned over in a squall near long Sand Shoal at the mouth of the Connecticut River. She was built in Essex by Noah Starkey in 1863. She was listed as a total loss. At the time of her destruction she was used as a oyster hauler.

Implications:

From the perspective of the archaeological record little in the way of significant wreckage can be seen. There are several reasons for a paucity of actual shipwrecks to be documented in the archaeological record. First and foremost; the nature of the river's mouth. While the area posed a genuine hazard, the bars were soft sand and silt. Ships clearly went aground, often sprung leaks, and encountered financial losses especially to cargo and to some degree the vessel. Yet the grounding did not often result in the total loss to the ship. Rather, it was pumped out of water and sand, refloated, and put back into service after it was sent to a repair yard. The Connecticut Courant (April 29, 1783) advertised the services of a salvager Joseph Hillard of Killingworth; "has had a long and large experience in getting off and saving vessels that have been drove on shore and filled with sand". This advertisement serves to explain why there are not the same number of wrecks on today's beaches and bars as were the number of reports of losses. Another reason for the lack of shipwrecks visible today is that wreckage was harvested or scavenged of ironwork and timber. This practise was clearly documented in Joshua Hempstead's early to mid 18th century Diary as well as later newspaper reports. In the Connecticut Courant August 18, 1778, "to be sold at public Vendue on Friday the 21st... the sails standing and running rigging, one cable, two Anchors, and a number of Blocks that came off a schooner of about 60 tons".

In the Connecticut River after the English Raid in April 1814 various ships were salvaged of their hardware and timber including the Black Prince and Osage (Anderson & Dock, 1981). It is clear that even if a ship was a total loss in a grounding or fire that its remains could be partly dismantled. Therefore, resulting wreckage that potentially could have been left on the beach or bar would have gone through a further process of reduction that may render the wreckage quite indistinguishable.

Finally, the site of where the wreck occurred is not necessarily the ultimate resting place of the remains. Both human and natural agents are at work. Currents, tides, prevailing wind direction as well as storms all cause wreckage to be both modified and redistributed.

The case of the Lizzie Raymond a ship of about 200 tons potentially serves as an example of potential natural redistribution. The ship was built in 1863 by Noah Starkey of Essex and turn-turtled in 1905 off of Long Sand Shoal at the mouth of the Connecticut River. The ship is listed as a total loss and the cause of human life. It may have settled directly down on the sea floor, or may have drifted in the sound before fetching up, or possibly broken up and become scattered along several different beaches. Documents are imprecise as to where the wreckage came to rest.

During the British Raid the Osage was set on fire when it was on the launching ways at the Williams Yard in Essex in 1814. It was hastily launched, saving the yard, but burned to the waterline in Falls River Cove. In the 1930's some of the wreckage was discovered and pulled from the mud to be made into wooden curios and souvenirs. The wreckage has gone through a severe process of cultural modification and its parts have a wide spatial distribution, not because of natural transformation but because of cultural activity. This same kind of modification potentially occurs from various kinds of non professional collecting and treasure hunting.

It is clear from these discussions that archaeological remains of shipwrecks are not static. Time and process are not frozen once the vessel is recorded as a wreck. the wreck continues to be altered and modified and our study needs to accommodate such change of state. The probable rule is: "where a wreck is recorded to have been lost is not necessarily where it may be found and what it looked like when it was last reported may not correspond to its present appearance".

Studying the wreckage on Griswold Point from an analytic standpoint that concentrates upon descriptive approaches, design elements, site dynamics, and archaeological associations is clearly the most appropriate and potentially productive avenue of research. Attempting to identify this ship from document sources is a far more difficult task and without the input from an archaeological inquiry may not be possible. At this point we are uncertain as to where the ship came from, how it came to rest on this spot, and what relationship it had to the people of the Connecticut Valley.

A Multi-disciplined approach to the study of this site is necessary. The study of the Griswold Point shipwreck makes a fine example of archival and archaeological research complimenting each other.

Background Archaeology:

Nautical Archaeology has not been addressed thus far in Connecticut. Sport diving has been undertaken on some submerged wrecks, however, no cohesive inventory or reports have been made. This shipwreck at the mouth of the Connecticut River appears to be the first discovered and addressed as a cultural resource. Coastal maritime installations in Essex have been studied by this author and students from Wesleyan University's Graduate Liberal Studies Program. There is apparently an entire sub-field of historic archaeology that is untapped for much of the state and the Connecticut River valley in particular.

The two areas excavated in Essex were: 1. the Connecticut River Museum parking lot that showed various forms of wharfs and docks that spanned the period from 1650 to 1870 ; and 2. the Williams site that was a Colonial to Federal Period pre-industrial family plantation (See photos next page). Both sites evidenced episodes of ship construction and repair with launching ways, heavy timber bulkheads, and deep deposits of wood chips and saw dust. The Connecticut River Museum was also the locus of Lay's wharf, a 17th century finger dock that accommodated the "Diligence" a 25 to 30 ton ship bound in 1660 for Barbados with a load of local agricultural and animal products. This same wharf was renovated in 1810 by Ebenezier Hayden and became his ship's store and wharf that was raided by the British in 1814. This was again renovated in the 1870's by the Parmalees to accommodate the very large 1000 ton vessels. The Parmalee area was not significantly used. This was immediately filled and replaced by the present Steamboat Dock building.

The site of the Williams plantation began as a grist and sawmill permitted by the ecleastical society and proprietors in 1686. 18th century Williams family sawmill activity proliferated to include a foundry that was responsible for iron work that likely produced all fastenings and hardware for the Revolutionary War frigate the "Oliver Cromwell". Associated with the sawmill and foundry operations were a ships store and building yard that initially sold pre-cut house as well as ship kits. By 1790 this yard became a major producer of sailing ships and was responsible for many dry dock repairs.

While the sawmill clearly had a major commercial value supplying many ships bound for the West Indies, it as well as the foundry supplied the building yard with shipbuilding materials. In this way the Williams plantation was a self sufficient pre- industrial complex.

The archaeological record contains a plethora of information pertaining to this plantation. The dam is clearly visible as well as sluice ways, foundations, slag piles, grist stones, bulkheads, and power house. While floods and siltation have caused a major change to the original form of the complex, surface features can be specifically identified.

The sub-surface deposits are very significant and present much data pertaining to various kinds of pre-industrial activities. Coupled to the gristmill was a small bone and ivory industry. Buttons were probably being sawn and turned when other milling activity were not being performed. On the opposite side of the dam was the sawmill and ships store. Lumber was milled, cut to order, and when orders were down house and ship kits were prepared. Thick stratified deposits of sawdust and wood chips can be identified immediately downstream from the sawmill.

In the building yard that was situated behind the bulkhead over seven feet of stratified deposits documented episodes of ship construction. Wood blocks, scraps, wedges, treenails, and iron and bronze nails were incorporated in the various layers. Sand had been laid down to smooth out the building yard surface and prepare the area for the next period of construction.

In the repair yard were heavy posts or "deadmen" that had been used to winch over ships under repair. Such vessels were cradled or chocked and planking, ceiling, or decking as well as rib sections replaced. In the repair yard cast away hand wrought nails, treenails and trimmed treenail sections, and wooden scraps were found. Bottle fragments that likely contained the worker's daily ration of the rum as well as a few pipe stem pieces and sporadic fragments of redware plate accompanied the construction litter of the repair area. All of the artifactual material was incorporated within a matrix of sand and silt, sawdust, wood shavings, and larger and more coarse wood chips.

The Connecticut River Museum grounds and the Williams plantation serve quite well as models for what can be expected along the Connecticut River and other coastal communities in the state. Archaeological resources are present that reflect a significant level maritime history.

 

Photographs of Excavations at the Connecticut River Museum
top photo: mid 17th century "Lay's Wharf"
lower photo: mid nineteenth century wharf
Williams Complex: Wharfs, Shipbuilding, and Repair Yard
 

Geological Study of Griswold Point:

The wreck that is the concentration of this study has been discovered on the southern shore of Griswold Point in Old Lyme. This sandy spit of land forms the eastern bank of the Connecticut River where it joins Long Island Sound (See Aerial Photo).

For centuries the mouth of the Connecticut River has posed a hazard to shipping interests. Sand bars obstruct the river's mouth and shift their location spasmodically. As a result navigation has been limited by water depth and the resulting configuration of the channel. This has ultimately had the effect of retarding the growth of the towns directly at the mouth of the river.

It appears that not only the submerged landforms have been changing. Griswold Point over the last 220 years has been continuously evolving. Since the Parker map made in 1771 there is a clear record for changes at the mouth of the river and the adjacent dunes. Maps made in 1815, 1838, 1844, circa 1850, and 1859 show significant silting in of channels, wasting away of points, peninsulas, and islands, and the formation of spits and mud flats (See maps following pages). More contemporary maps and charts as well as aerial photographs continue to illustrate the developments at the mouth of the river.

There are several natural forces at work that are dynamically interrelated and responsible for changes to the landscape at the mouth of the Connecticut River. Wind direction that drive waves on Long Island Sound against the shore as well as the current in the river produce varying degrees of erosional effect along the eastern shore including Griswold Point. The prevailing direction of shore front current is, however, east to west. A grain of sand may potentially be continuously transported westward or may replace a grain that was itself transported. In either case a migration of particles is occurring where some grains are taken from one area and redeposited in another. Spits and dunes are therefore seen over time to migrate to the west as well as to a lesser degree, northward.

The net effect of this process is to cause the formation of spits or peninsulas extending from the major landforms. Therefore, Great Island has at its southwestern corner a point or spit of land that has been seen over the past 220 years. This feature was known as Poverty Point and depicted on the Moses Warren map of August 1815. At the same time there was a comparable westward projection coming off of the Beach Island slightly south and east and another point immediately east of Beach Island extending from Blackhall known as Griswold Point. Each of these projections has been formed by the accumulation of sand and transported material.

While the most constant and relentless force at play was the wave action and current that flowed westward, this was at times punctuated and overshadowed by catastrophic forces emanating from storms. Here wave action drove directly against and across the spits to open breaches that once opened were maintained by the outflow from the Back and Blackhall Rivers. The breaches seen on the 1815 map between the spits were probable remnants of prior storms.

When a breach is formed the chain of transporting sand grains to the west is broken. Sand grains that under normal conditions are travelling along the beach front are deflected into the breach and behind the spit, therefore, not replacing sand grains that are being eroded away from areas west of the breach. The incidence of breaches therefore is clearly related to episodes of accelerated rates of erosion for areas west of the breach.

We can be certain that the present breach on Griswold Point was opened in December 13, 1993 by a big northeaster. This formed in an area that had been worn down during hurricane Gloria but naturally plugged. Since the amount of downcutting had not been sufficient to maintain an outflow for the Back and Blackhall Rivers. The 1993 northeaster finished the job that the hurricane had started.

The 1815 hurricane removed a major portion of Poverty Point and shortened Griswold Point. However, the breaches between Great Island, Beach Island, and Griswold Point were maintained. According to the Secretary of War report in 1838 these breaches and channels were substantially filled. Where prior to the hurricane they could accommodate a "fine sloop" after the storm there was barely 2 feet. It is not until nearly 50 years later that the breach between Beach Island and Griswold Point was filled and the entire projection became a longer and what contemporary sources understand to be Griswold Point.

This landform has apparently endured from just before 1859 to 1993. (The 1854 map clearly illustrates the breach while the 1859 map shows that it is closed off.) It is interesting that the Great New England Hurricane of 1938 did not reopen this breach. It is likely that there have been innumerable storms that have been responsible for a broad range of effects. This indicates that there are other interrelated aspects that are subject to chance which effect erosional patterns. Height of tide when the storm hits, direction and velocity of wind, configuration of vegetation on the dunes, and incidence of obstructions are some conditions that produce structural variation in topographic features.

Future Topographic Change:

The current configuration of Griswold Point can be attributed to the above noted processes. It is suggested here that the areas west of the present (1993) breach are undergoing a rapid episode of erosion. The dunes are being drastically washed away, sand from their excavation carried off to the tip of the point, and a shoreline that is ever marching northward. At the tip of Griswold Point, the outlet to the Blackhall and Back Rivers is being pinched off with the resultant distance between Griswold Point and Great Island being greatly diminished. As this occurs and the outflow is restricted, a new more significant outflow will naturally be sought. This will probably result in the 1993 breach to become ever more pronounced. The breach will inevitably expand in width and become deeper accommodating the river waters. This will recreate the Beach Island that was seen on the 1815-1854 maps.

If this process continues and more water flows through the breach, less will pass through the outflow at the tip of Beach Island. This should lead to the complete restriction of water flow between Great Island and Beach Island and permit the merging of the two land forms. As this westward migration occurs, the dunes are eroding and the beachline is migrating northward. This is a process that has been occurring for a long time.

While on the southern shore of Griswold Point the losses are dramatic there is also to some degree the addition on the northern shore. Over time this has significantly repositioned the point northward and landward. The data for this are the peat deposits that could have only formed in the lee, therefore, inner side of the point. These are now exposed on the southern margins in the open sea. The spit has progressively marched across and over the peat deposits. This phenomenon may be the result of many of the complex interrelated processes aforementioned and local sea-level rise.
 

Aerial Photo of The Griswold Point (above)
 

(above) Parker map: 1771 lines DEF denote East Channel between Great Island and East Bar

(above) Moses Warren Map 1815: note that there is a shorter Griswold Point, a Beach Island, and a Poverty Point. This map was filed several
weeks prior to the 1815 Hurricane.

(above) Secretary of War Report - Map of 1838: this depicts not only the 1838 configuration but also describes the changes brought about by the 1815 Hurricane. "Where the channel had been only 2 feet of water now exists".

(above) Map of Mouth of Connecticut River 1844: An apparent shallow breach exists at western end of Griswold Point.

(above) Mouth of Connecticut River 1854: While not on all maps of the  early 1850's there appears to be a slight breach toward the western end of Griswold Point.
 

Map of 1859: shows a continuous southern shore at Griswold Point. This depiction is maintained through December 13, 1993.
 

Location and Setting of the Shipwreck:

Over the last year (since spring 1994) wooden timbers have increasingly become exposed as sand has been eroded from the southern shore (sound side) of Griswold Point (See photo next page). The point is located on the eastern bank of the Connecticut River at the confluence of Long Island Sound. The exact position of the wreck is latitude 41 16' 43" longitude 72 19' 33". In Late September ribs, ceiling, and planking were recognized as wreckage of a large sailing ship. Initially these were seen at the low water line, however, as apparently erosion continued more and more of the wreck appeared on the sandy beach extending up slope towards the high water line and dunes.

In spring of 1994 I first observed one or two pieces of wood buried in sand, rocks, and seaweed protruding into the breaking waves. I did not recognize these as significant at the time because so little was evident and there are several other areas on the beach where wood has been occasionally exposed. Through the summer and into early fall enough sand and overburden had been naturally removed to permit one to identify these wooden pieces as consolidated wreckage. While monitoring of the site did not begin until after October 1994, that it only took 4 to 5 months for the elements to uncover a significant amount of the wreckage for it to be recognized, documents the active nature of the setting. This site's location is clearly active and quite unstable.

Photographs of wreck as discovered in Late October 1994
above: Outline of ribs protruding from sand
lower: Bow section southern end of wreck

Remote Sensing: Methods and Instrumentation

After the discovery of the wreck we embarked on a passive program to determine if there were additional parts of the ship that were buried beneath the sand and dunes. Bruce Bevan of Geosight was contacted and agreed to undertake a remote sensing survey of the beach and dunes surrounding the wreck. The office of the State Archaeologist, the Connecticut Historical Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Connecticut Nature Conservancy were consulted. The Nature Conservancy that owns the land above the high water mark granted permission for a non-destructive mapping and survey program.

Three principal geophysical instruments were brought to the site (See photos and Figure II). Ground-penetrating radar was a sir System-7, manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems. A very high resolution antenna, model 3102 (315 MHz) was tested in the field on one traverse line, but its resolution was higher than needed. Therefore, all the profiles were made with a moderately high resolution antenna, model 3105, having a peak in its spectrum at about 180 MHz.

The traverse lines of the radar profiles were marked out on an east west axis on the dunes and north of the beach where the wreck was exposed. Because of the density of woody brush and rose thorn bushes it was necessary to clear paths for all lines starting with N10 and farther to the north. These lanes were approximately 1 meter wide and permitted the antenna to be manually towed without becoming hung up in the vegetation. The total length profiled was 493m. N10 and N20 were initially profiled using the 315MHz antenna but were redone with the 180MHz in the field test stage of the study. Profiles N0, N.5, N2.5, N5, N7.5 N10, N15, N20, N30, N40 were all run and plotted.

Line N0 was done on the beach surface where moisture and salinity were a problem. Echoes form our machinery were completely blocked to our radar survey along this line. As a result we went no closer to the low water line and the wreck which still lay 15m farther to the south.

The radar survey was undertaken and completed on November 17, 1994. During our survey we were fortunate to have visit the site Dr. Patton, DeBoer, and Horne from Wesleyan's Earth and Environmental Department. They shared their expertise in geophysical survey on this particular spit of land. They helped us understand some of the underlying strata and interpret some of our radar echoes.

Three different magnetometers were applied to the magnetic survey of the site. An initial reconnaissance was made with an audio indicating fluxgate magnetometer, model GA-52B made by the Schoenstedt Instrument Company. This instrument was also used to check some of the locations where radar detected metallic objects.

A scan of the shipwreck showed that the iron nails on the wood were covered by sand concretions and that the fluxgate magnetometer was able to detect these objects several meters north of the exposed timbers. The audio-indicating magnetometer also located a magnetic mass north of the ship which appeared to have been caused by modern iron/tin cans which were buried there.

The principal magnetic survey was done with a Gem Systems GSM-19FG Overhauser magnetometer that measures the total flux density of the earth's field. The sensor was fastened to the front of a horizontal staff, counterbalanced by a backup battery. An on site and semi-portable electronic console displayed the measurements and recorded them, along with their coordinates in the internal microcomputer's RAM. A total of 2188 spatial measurements of the magnetic field were made.

The third magnetometer was a Geometrics G-856 proton magnetometer. It was used as a base station to record the temporal change in the earth's field. It's 998 measurements revealed nothing unusual and thus verified the true nature of magnetic anomalies recorded with the Overhauser magnetometer.

The magnetic survey was done on November 18, 1994 as a hurricane was approaching the Cape Hatteras area and fringe wind and rain bands encroached upon our region of the Connecticut coastline. Recorded measurement traverses were made only going toward the east to reduce the effect of the small amount of iron in the display console and also to keep the wind and rain at the back of the operator.

On the dune measurements were made at intervals of 1 m along lines that were spaced by 1m and the elevation of the sensor was about .6 m above the surface. On the beach measurements were made at intervals of .5m along lines that were .5m apart and the sensor elevation was about .4m. A non-elastic calibrated rope defined the lines of traverse and this rope was repositioned every three traverse lines. It should be noted that in the dunes where vegetation and the surface was irregular, exact positioning of the sensor was difficult and there was the potential of error.

The third remote sensing approach was employed using a Geonics EM38 conductivity instrument. This served as a cross-check to some of the measurements generated from the GPR survey. It clearly showed that the reason that the beach was unable to be studied with GPR was that the conductivity was 10 times what it was in the dune area. On the dunes a conductivity reading of 100 mS/m was found. This equated to a resistivity of 10 ohm/m. On the wet beach this exponentially increased to over 1000 mS/m, or 100 ohm/m. The rise in conductivity was the result of a major increase in salinity and the salinity of the wet sands blocked the echoes made by the GPR instrument.

Geophysical Interpretation:

The major findings of this survey are plotted in Figure 1. The location of the visible timbers of the ship are within the rectangle at the bottom of the figure. The oblique rectangle rising toward the left and up the beach is an estimate of the extent of the ship wreckage under the sand.

Close to the visible wreckage, the magnetic survey gave a very clear indication of the likely extension of the ship's material beneath the surface. The oblique map of Figure 3 shows the magnetic pattern as a ridge of values which begin in the foreground at about E20. An analysis of this magnetic pattern reveals that it could be caused by iron objects which extend to a depth of as much as .9m. The pattern is almost surely caused by iron artifacts such as the wrought iron spikes that are visible on the wreck, but it is also possible that other material as brick, igneous stone, or magnetic sand in the wreck might contribute. The analysis indicated that there could be about 1.7kg of iron per meter of length going toward a grid bearing of 33 degrees west of north.

In figure 3 the three small spikes in the foreground are probably caused by small iron artifacts buried at a shallow depth in the sand. In the background of the figure the magnetic field can be seen to rise. This is caused by the magnetic sand which accumulates as a broad thin lens toward the top of the shore in the area of the high water line. The magnetic patterns caused by these lenses made it difficult to trace the path of subsurface artifacts in this area. However, Figure 4 shows that a lower amplitude magnetic ridge continued in the northwest direction all the way to the top of the map, which was at the upper edge of the beach. This probable extension of the ship is marked in Figure 1 with a hachured pattern, rather than the boxed pattern where the magnetic map was more distinct.

On the left or west of the wreckage and illustrated in Figure 3, is a magnetic high. This could be caused by magnetic sands accumulating around a large tree trunk, however, it is not impossible that this pattern was caused by some cultural object that may have some relationship to the wreckage. This pattern was on the edge of the survey grid and only partly defined.

While the magnetic map of Figure 4 was made with the sensor quite close to their surface of the beach, it is possible to determine the magnetic map which would have resulted if thew magnetic sensor was held at an elevation of 1.8m above the sand. This would simulate the pattern that would be found at that elevation on the dry sand dune. This calculated map is given in Figure 5 and the diminished pattern shown is very similar to the pattern seen on the measured magnetic map over the sand dune plotted in Figure 6. The undulation in the magnetic contours are possibly caused by iron in the shipwreck below. However, the pattern was indistinct and it was probably affected by the magnetic sands which were exposed on the nearby beach. It is possible that these data suggest that the wreckage might extend for as much as 10m into the dunes, yet there is no information supplied from these geophysical approaches that it extends farther to the north and west.

The magnetic map of Figure 6 had a pair of linear magnetic patterns near the southwest corner of the grid. These were unfortunately too faint and truncated by the survey bounds for evaluation. However, this information at least brings forth the potential of other subsurface anomalies that might have cultural origins.

The boxed X's in Figure 1 mark the locations of other compact iron objects and numbers next to the large symbols indicate an estimate of the maximum mass and depth of the iron at these locations. The estimates are probably overstated rather than understated. This overestimate is particularly likely if an iron mass was spread out in a lensatic cross-section, rather than a more compact or spherical cross-section. While the estimates for depth are also probably somewhat greater than actual depth, there is a suggestion that some of the iron objects could be over 1m underground. This may indicate that these are not the signature of modern trash deposits. However, these iron masses were found at quite different locations from the wreckage and its estimated locations.

In Figure 1 the asterisks indicate where the ground penetrating radar survey located metal. Other objects detected by the radar are shown as filled circles. A few of these objects have been picked up by both radar and magnetic remote sensing survey instrumentation. This was clearly the case with the asterisk and boxed square immediately southeast of the pile of fencing on the dune (N15 E35).

The radar did locate a distinctive pattern between E35 and E45 and extending northerly between N1 and N10 and probably farther. It is indicated on Figure 1 as a broken line. Something in the sand caused the radar pulse to be attenuated in this area, and the pattern is somewhat like the pattern found on the moist and saline beach. However, the conductivity readings in this area indicated no change in electrical potential, unlike the beach.

It is likely that the change is caused by a discontinuity in the sand in this region. The potential here is for the readings to indicate a change possibly due to sand or silt accumulating in the lee of the shipwreck or possibly the filling in of a breach or channel that cut across Griswold Point sometime in the past. There is also a wide area change in the magnetic field at this site, Figure 7, and the two traverse lines (N5 & N25) that were extended to E100 showed a a peak at E80 and a return to normal by E100. Again this may correspond to sediment of a dissimilar nature filling a breach or channel. Both magnetic and radar survey indicated the presence of an anomaly in the eastern part of the site.

In conclusion the remote sensing survey aided us in recognizing that there were additional cultural resources that were buried beneath the sand. Some of these artifacts had the strong likelihood of being related to the wreckage being exposed on the lower extremities of the beach. The study also was able to delineate an anomaly toward the eastern part of the site that probably had a geologic significance and corresponded to the channel that was depicted on the 1815 through 1854 maps.

Figure I
 

Figure II
 
 

Remote sensing project at the wreck: November 1994

Figure III
 

Figure IV
 

Figure V
 
 

Figure VI

Figure VII
 

Site Mapping and Dynamics:

In conjunction with the remote sensing survey we sought professional help from Gates Surveying for an accurate map to be made of the existing and exposed wreckage. Over the past six months Gates Surveying has continued to donate their expertise and update this information generating new maps reflecting the changes to the wreck and the surrounding area (See maps end of section).

Gates surveying utilized their Lietz Set IV laser transit that was interfaced with a SDR-II data collector. For the initial mapping they established a random baseline to which Geosight's remote survey was also keyed. Gates then undertook a 2.2km traverse across the beach from Brighton Point where a National Geodedic Vertical Datum had been established. This permitted the site map to include precise elevation measurements as well as location. Elevations were specifically necessary to define mean low and high water mark on the beach as well as establish the exact position of the wreck. Points on the wreckage were then mapped and Peter Kwasniewski, a professional archaeological illustrator, connected the measurements to an accurate plank, ceiling, frame, and treenail plan.

Horizontal position was also determined by using a Magellan Meridian GPS unit (model 12001). This locational device coordinated data from 12 satellites to locate any point on earth. A center mark for the exposed portion of the wreck was established on December 1, 1994 and its latitude and longitude was determined. This detailed mapping has enabled this study to monitor and assess changes to the wreck, beach, and dunes.

Over the last 6 months various pieces of the wreck have been torn off by the natural forces of wind and water. In most cases and wherever possible these have been collected, studied, and preserved. Wind and wave action have taken a serious toll on the topography surrounding the wreck. Between December 1, 1994 and March 8, 1995 the high tide line of 4.1' N.G.V.D. has moved back against the dunes by nearly 20 feet (7m.) The top of the bank has retreated to the north and heart of Griswold Point by 30 feet (10m) and the highest point on the dunes in the immediate area of the wreck has been decreased by 8 inches (20cm). At the same time, apparently, no measurable growth to the northern shore has occurred.

An example of this comes from our approach to short term site stabilization. Sand bags were applied to the periphery of the wreck during December 1994, however, by March these were totally washed away. Some of these bags were found at the western tip of Griswold Point 750m to the west. These were still tied off and filled with sand. This attests to the prevailing direction of sand migration and the natural forces to which the site is being continually subjected. Sand has been seen to erode away from the area at a rate of well over 5m in the last three months. A conservative yearly rate is probably more than twice that and rates could be considerably increased if severe storms were to be encountered. Deposition of this eroded material appears to be to the west at the tip of Griswold Point where in fact the channel that permits the outflow of waters from the Back and Black Hall rivers is being restricted. The rate of accretion at this point has not been measured, however, it too is significant.

Downwasting and associated lateral exposure of the wreck has also occurred during the past six months. Internal ceiling has been exposed and seen to ascend the beach as much as 15' or 5m beyond where it had been seen in the fall of 1994. Associated frames or ribs have also been observed to ascend the incline of the beach and those that were exposed last fall have been seen to now stick out of the sand for 18 to 24 inches (45-60cm). At and near the low water line this has meant that nearly twice as much of the wreck has become visible since November 1994 when Gates made the first map. The mean low mark of -1.3' N.G.V.D. has advanced to the north by approximately 4 to 5 feet (1.5m) and effectively making the wreck project at low tide out into the water farther than it has before.

It is clear from the monitoring of the site, that it is very active and unstable. If rates of erosion that we have observed and measured between December 1, 1994 and March 8, 1995, can be assumed to be representative of the yearly pattern, then the site is endangered and will probably be completely wasted away by wave and wind action in the next 24 to 36 months.

The period since we have been monitoring the site is suspected of being abnormally mild, storm free, and void of river and sea ice. This would suggest that we are being quite conservative in our estimates and that if normal or more harsh conditions prevailed, rates of attrition would be considerably greater.

(above) Survey Map: December 1994 and March 1995
 
 

Survey Map: June 1995
 

A Description of the Wreck and its Components:

The wreckage situated on Griswold Point in the Town of Old Lyme documents a bygone era when sailing ships of various shapes and sizes were the only tie between people living in different countries and continents. For the people of this time now past, the world appeared to be so much larger than it is today. Oceans were gigantic and hazardous barriers that were crossed only if nature permitted. Sailors, explorers, merchants, and passengers ventured out never quite sure if they would be seen again. Those remaining in the homeland made the sincerest farewell.

Ships were our lifeline to our homeland but also a conduit for strange and new things. Fortunes could be made by the trade of materials from diverse places. Ships were the technology that permitted an entire new class and social structure to evolve around the world. The Connecticut valley played a critical part of this development and our culture was oriented economically, technologically, socially, and ideologically toward ships, the sea, and distant markets. The wreckage on Griswold Point has a part of this story to tell!

What we know from our monitoring and visual observations, mapping survey, remote sensing, and very limited archaeology that concentrated on the ceiling and futtocks that were toward the low water line is that this wreckage is an articulated portion of a large wooden sailing vessel that probably weighed between 300 and 500 tons. Various consulting specialists from Texas A&M's Institute for Nautical Archaeology, Mystic Museum, Brown University's Department of Anthropology, and private specialists have indicated that the wreck's original length was probably over 100 feet and in fact may have exceeded 120'.

We have been able to establish ground truth for nearly fifty feet of the wreck. The parts that are seen protruding out of the sand are ribs or frames. The section that is closest to the low water line is toward an end, either bow or stern as the frames are set very close together. (There is a suggestion that this is in fact the bow.)

The wooden components are fastened together with hand wrought iron nails that are approximately 6" (15cm) in length. Treenails (wooden pegs) are the more substantial fastenings and have been driven through augured holes that appear to extend through the thickness of the hull that varies between 10 to 15" (25-40cm) depending upon where on the vessel the measurement is made (See Photo).

Futtocks, the individual components that make up an entire frame or rib are large timbers between 8 and 10 inches square (20-25cm). There is an appearance that the futtocks on the left are smaller, however on closer inspection of these shows that they have been worn away by the wave action as well as showing axe marks from some historic scavenging (See photo).

As one follows the pattern of exposed ribs up the beach to the northwest, rib spacing increases. The futtocks on the right are predominantly hardwood except toward the end at the low water line where white pine was used. Futtocks on the left side are softwood and probably white pine as well. The exterior planking is birch and treenails are beech.

The exact nature of how the individual futtocks were attached to one another is unclear. However, by seeing futtock ends that are extending out of the sand, it does not appear that these were double sawn frames. In this type of construction individual futtocks were fastened to one another side by side, producing a frame that was twice the thickness of an individual futtock. Fastening these two members was accomplished by pinning or treenailing and such construction would ultimately show augured holes and treenails that ran parallel to the planking and ceiling. These are not apparent on this wreck.

What we see is evidence of individual futtocks being attached end to end with a scarf joint. Treenails appear to have tied these components together. However, the ends from which we are basing this judgement have been significantly worn by wind and waves. It would be interesting to see under the ceiling or planking and expose the method of construction and the transition from hardwood to softwood futtocks.

Exterior planking is rarely exposed and can only be viewed when there is a very low tide and the underside of the wreckage is free of water and sand. The thickness of external planking was 2 to 21/2" (5-6cm) The surface was very smooth and exposed treenails appear to have been cleanly planed to conform to the surface of the plank. These treenails have been split and wedged. Iron of bronze nails have not been seen on this area, however, the surface that was observed was small in comparison to the rest that remains unexposed, and it is unclear if this is representative of the manner of construction. The planking appears to demonstrate fine workmanship and quality.

The planking also shows several scarf joints where individual planks were brought together to form a tight and structurally sound bond (See photo). Caulking was not identified in this area and while it was probably above the ship's water line caulking should have been used.

Ceiling planks were more roughly applied. With the removal of the overlying 10 - 12" (25-30cm) of beach sand butt joints were observed in the area toward the low water line and running up the hull. There is also an irregular appearance to the surface indicating that slightly different thickness planks were used. While it is certainly possible that this was the case it is also possible that we were viewing components that had been altered due to the ship breaking up and/or warping in response to various hydrostatic pressures encountered on the beach (See photo).

Ceiling was nailed with wrought iron spikes and was also treenailed. Treenails also occurred on the edge of ceiling planks apparently positioned to lock in and support the individual plank. Auger holes in these instances only intersected half of one plank and half of the neighboring one.

Treenails are very plentiful and are clearly visible on almost every surface of the wreckage. Treenails were predominantly hand whittled and where ceiling or planking was torn away a pointed and facetted end was revealed. One section of the wreck toward the lower right-hand corner close to the low tide line showed a futtock end with round rather than facetted treenails. These were also positioned at several angles an in fact intersected one another. This apparent change in component may represent a later stage of construction and thus indicate a repair. However, closer examination should be undertaken before this can be asserted.

Above: Outline of ribs, looking south
Lower: Treenails at the southern end of the wreck
 

Above: Ribs showing chop marks indicating scavenging
Lower: 3"x3"x8" block nailed to rib, scupper detail
 

Historic and Archaeological Interpretations:

The survey of documentation, the interviewing of various specialists and authorities, the remote sensing and mapping project, and monitoring photographing and recording procedures have permitted us to suggest these preliminary interpretations concerning the wreckage at Griswold Point.

There are two dates that are necessary to address with regards to the shipwreck at Griswold Point. The first relates to the ship's building. The second is the date when the wreck was deposited at the location where it was found. The ship at Griswold Point probably was built in the early 19th century. This assessment, while tentative, can be made from several lines of information including wrought iron nails, scarfed rather than double sawn framing, the apparent lack of copper sheathing, the use of hand whittled treenails, and possibly the use of less traditional kinds of wood that might imply the scarcity of wood. This was a phenomenon that clearly affected building during this period.

The question as to when the ship came to rest on the beach at Griswold Point can be estimated but the question is clearly subject to reinterpretation as further data are accumulated. The Secretary of War report made in 1838 refers to the area becoming sand filled and unnavigable after the September hurricane of 1815. Review of maps would suggest that the area where the wreck is situated became completely covered and the breach closed with sand before 1859. Therefore the wreck most likely fetched up in its present position sometime between 1815 and 1859.

The greatest number of local wrecks of the approximate tonnage to that of the Griswold Point wreck occurred in 1814 and 1815. However, we cannot be certain that the wreck actually was local and not part of a wreck that floated in from elsewhere. It could have broken free of some obstruction and come in or out with a flood or storm surge. The archaeological test study indicated that the wreckage sits immediately on top of a thin layer of wood flotsam as that produced by a storm. Within this layer were a few chunks of coal as well as several wood chip fragments produced by an axe. It is probable that the wood layer was produced by a severe storm and that this layer has been buried beneath the dunes since their development in the first half of the 19th century. This layer may have been the 6 to 7' (2 m) reflective surface picked up in the radar survey.

Wood chips that are beneath the wreck suggest that there was quite likely an on site scavenging of the wreckage. Therefore it is probable that after the wreck came to rest on Griswold Point, area people came to take wood as well as possibly hardware off the wreck. No documents or oral informants, however, have been found relating to this activity.

The archaeological association of coal is interesting. Coal made its entry into the lower Connecticut Valley during the 18th century, however, the supply was limited by an English embargo to control domestic production of iron. American supplies became available after the Revolution and by certainly 1815 was an important fuel that was being carried by many bulk carriers including barges and ships. The existence of coal in the layer immediately beneath the wreck is consistent with a temporal position of the first half of the 19th century. However, the usage of coal extends up to contemporary times.

Therefore the evidence would suggest that the wreckage on the beach came to its final and present position prior to 1859 and potentially 1815 with the onslaught of the region's most severe storm. This ship could conceivably be one of the large vessels lost during the English raid in 1814. However, it may also be one that was sunk and destroyed during the 1815 hurricane. Finally, it is also possible that the wreck came to Griswold Point from a maritime disaster that occurred outside of the initial survey area.

The question as to where the ship was built is not yet securely known. We are able to suggest that the great number of treenails and the apparent paucity of iron drifts would indicate an American origin. Wood analysis does nothing to dispel this theory. Several wood samples from the wreck were identified that indicate the potential of local available species.

Within a radius of 6-7 miles (10 km) there were many ship building yards in Lyme, Saybrook, and Essex that were producing ships of comparable size and tonnage as the wreck at Griswold Point. Therefore there is the potential of a local origin. However, data are insufficient to definitively give a clear indication as to where the ship was built.

Other aspects to the site for which we have gained important insight is that Griswold Point is geologically very active. Our approach to the site initially advocated that a passive study of the wreck be undertaken. While this was a reasonable procedure to take, with the current data suggesting that the area is clearly unstable, a reassessment must be made.

The study over the last four to five months has clearly demonstrated that in the vicinity of our wreck there are rapid rates of erosion. The dunes are being ferociously eaten away by waves and wind and there is a significant threat to the wreck. A more active study of the wreck is necessary before its inevitable natural destruction. This destruction could occur within the next 2 to 3 years if present rates of erosion continue.

Archaeological and Historic Significance of the Wreckage on Griswold Point:

The remains of the ship that are presently eroding from the dune and beach sands on Griswold Point have a significant story to tell about our past. The wreckage is not unlike a set of encyclopedias in a library. A tremendous amount of information exists within the volumes, however, one needs to know how to explore within the pages.

The ship too has a tremendous amount of information within and around it that relate to a broad range of historic, social, technological, economic, environmental, and other issues. As with the references in the library, investigation needs to be appropriately directed. At the initial survey level of study these are the aspects about the wreck that we have established:
1. The wreckage is that of a wooden sailing ship.
2. The wreckage extends from the low water line up the beach and into the dunes.
3. The length of the wreckage is at least 70 feet and possibly over 100.
4. Design elements as hull thickness and size of ribs suggest a vessel of over 100 feet and 300 tons.
5. The wreckage that we have seen and mapped probably represents a side of a vessel, however, there may be more related wreckage immediately to the west of the exposed materials. 6. The wreckage dates from 19th century, probably prior to 1859. 7. Map and geologic study indicate that the ship became part of Griswold Point immediately after a major storm or flood. 8. The area where the wreck is situated is not stable. Sand is being eroded away at an alarming rate not from just the beach but also around the wreck itself. The elements that are responsible for the devastating effects on the natural environment of Griswold Point also are having a major effect upon the wreck. Wind and waves are eroding and sand blasting the individual components of the wreckage. This will ultimately lead to the artifact's total destruction.

While there have been a series of successes in determining particular information concerning the wreck, there have been other questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. It is presently unclear:
1. Where the ship came from and whether it was locally built?
2. If this vessel was related to privateering or other mercantile activities in the Connecticut River valley?
3. If the wreckage was from the war of 1812 and the remains of one of the vessels that was destroyed by the British raid in 1814?
4. If the wreck is the remains of the 1774 vessel bound for Haiti and part of the oral history of the area?
5. Or, if the wreck is the remains of a vessel that met its fate outside of our initial survey area, subsequently broke up, and floated to Griswold Point as flotsam?
6. Many of the above questions will come into better perspective by knowing how this wreck compares to other vessels that have been discovered and archaeologically researched.
7. At present we do not have a concise image of the design elements of the Griswold Point shipwreck. We do not have a clear or representative view of the design elements of the vessel nor do we have an appreciation for any of its idiosyncracies.

Significance:

The question as to whether this site is or is not significant hinges on whose criteria are applied. From the perspective of the Federal and State cultural resource managers, the shipwreck clearly meets the standards for its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

From the public's perspective the investigation of a shipwreck represents part of nearly everyone's past. Ships have been the major mover of our population into the American continents. As a nation of immigrants almost all of us have a immediate link with a ship that brought us or our relatives to this country and maintained contact with a homeland. Therefore, there is naturally a tremendous public interest and attachment to a ship that has been buried in the sand for well over a century. This in itself makes this vessel worthy of study and makes it significant.

From a more academic perspective, study and various approaches to preservation are clearly warranted. The study of the wreck has great potential for advancing our knowledge of local shipping and its integral part in as it turns out a poorly understood period in American History. Many questions have arisen that can only be answered by further scientific investigation.

For Connecticut this site is unique. It is also precedent setting in that there have been no archaeological studies in Connecticut pertaining to historic shipwrecks. The wreck on Griswold Point is the first of its kind to be professionally addressed. This study serves as an example of the various approaches that a researcher may take in an attempt to preserve a particular maritime cultural resource.

The study of the Griswold Point shipwreck has been underlain by the principle of preservation. A passive monitoring of the site has predominated. We chose to use expensive but passive remote sensing, vigilant mapping procedures, and continual photographic methods of documentation. Only when we realized the precarious position that the wreck was in did we at the final stage sweep away a small area of overlying sand and view what lay at the edge of the ship and partly underneath it. We did this comprehending the genuine necessity to understand the vertical complexity of the site.

Ultimately this surgical excavation permitted us to better understand some of the aspects of the wreck's depositional history and have a better appreciation of potential engineering considerations. From this test pit we learned that the wreckage was a side of a vessel and that it was lying on top of a very thin layer of wood flotsam. The wreck apparently does not go down below this layer and therefore does not extend much below - 1.3 N.G.V.D. (mean low water).

There is clearly a significant part of a vessel under the sand, only part of which has been visible at any one time. It is articulated and from it we can learn particular design elements. These are quite unique to this vessel and have caused various specialists to suggest that archaeological research be initiated. There are some poorly understood aspects of this wreck concerning its construction. The understanding of these elements will help define the ship's design and ultimately lead to a clearer identification with regards to period and origin. Coupled with various interdisciplinary approaches such as metallurgical, botanical, and zoological studies more concise information should be generated that relate to not only its building, but also its use, and ultimately its destruction and final deposition at Griswold Point.

Recommendations:

Our approach to the wreck has initially been passive concentrating upon monitoring, mapping, measuring, photographing, and attempting to temporarily stabilize and protect the site. Archival study has helped narrow the field in determining what ship this could be and how it came to rest at Griswold Point. However, it is now clear that more information pertaining to the ship's design and archaeological associations are necessary to enable the research to progress further.

The reason that we propose deviating from this passive approach is that the shipwreck is endangered and will be naturally destroyed in the foreseeable future. While it is questionable whether it is practical to attempt to salvage the wreckage and place it in an appropriate repository, it is clearly advisable to excavate the wreck prior to this inevitable destruction.

The goals of this redirected research are to generate data that reflect the detailed design and construction components of the wreck. This will entail a procedure to accurately map the ceiling, framing, and planking as well other elements that indicate the attachment of other key parts of the vessel. At this level of inquiry we should also be interested in various archaeologically associated artifacts. These could be items lost within the framing by the original builders, or materials that could have subsequently become wedged within the ship by sailors while she travelled the seas, or artifacts that could have potentially become incorporated in the debris as the wreck drifted to its present position. Each artifact would have a different story to tell and aid us in reconstructing the ship's history.

This excavation would require the removal and laying off to the side of the overlying sand. We would minimize the area of impact by concentrating on the exposed sections of the wreck and following these up the beach to their end somewhere between the high tide line and the dunes. A small temporary wooden and sand bag coffer dam would be placed around the exposed southern perimeter to break the force of the waves and the back-filling effect that would naturally occur. Water will be pumped out of the excavation as necessary, however, we recognize that much excavation will often be undertaken in a wet environment.

In the area toward the high tide line a retaining wall similar in design to the coffer dam could be employed to reduce sand from slumping back into the excavation. At this section of the ship and beach, depth of the excavation will be approximately 5-6'(1.5-2m). An alternative to this approach would be to open a larger area than the wreck and permit the sand to establish a natural angle of repose (32 degrees). Toward the periphery of the slope and inside the excavation a minimal sediment barrier of staked hay bails would be employed to limit water from lapping against the slope and eventually undercutting it.

Overburden will be piled on the beach to the west and east of the excavation. No sand or other material removed from the excavation will be placed in the dune area. Every attempt will be made to minimize the effect of the excavation to the environment, to expedite the field study, and return to site to its pre-excavation condition.

We would ask of the Nature Conservancy that they permit us to establish our base equipment as well as our field tent on their property in order to keep these above the tidal area. Also we would want to access the site from the north shore and cross the dunes to the excavation. Ultimately we will be parking at the State boat launch at Smith's Neck and take a boat to the north shore of the Conservancy land.

There are various choices that can be made with regards to the use of machinery or manual labor to remove sand. While excavation over and close to the wreck will be by hand, machinery would greatly aid in opening the area around the wreck. Likewise, back-filling at the close of the excavation would be greatly facilitated.

By using machinery we would significantly shorten the time that we will be on Griswold Point and also reduce cost. It is my opinion that a minimum of the ship now extends into the Conservancy's property. This is due to the amount of erosion that has taken place since the initial remote sensing survey. During early November 1994 the radar and magnetic sensors suggested that the wreck might extend from the bank to the dunes another 30' (10m). Over the course the 1994-1995 winter much of this portion of Griswold Point was lost to erosion. The wreckage now is predominantly beneath the beach and probably does not extend very far into the dune area. This ultimately implies that our excavation should not significantly disturb the dunes or their protective vegetation.

We are suggesting that a single excavation episode be undertaken during the fall of 1995. The underlying reasoning is to intensively study the wreckage, gleaning as much information as possible, and not having to return to the site for further data collection. While this is the height of the hurricane season and we are running the risk of encountering a storm, we are selecting this time to undertake study in a genuine attempt to avoid potential impact the endangered species.

From the standpoint of the archaeological study alone it would be simpler to excavate during the summer, using student help, and operating with the best weather conditions. However, this proposal has (as has our passive approach) consistently considered the various aspects and associated needs that Griswold Point presents.

We appreciate that at this site there are other resources that also require the public's care and preservation. We share the Nature Conservancy's concern of potential impact to an important natural habitat. We are keenly aware of the fragile nature of Griswold Point and the importance it has as a foraging and nesting area for returning piping plover and other species. We also recognize the potential strain that this excavation might present to the town and residents. Off-season scheduling of the study will be advantageous.

While access to the site is difficult to restrict, our access will be by boat and staged from the State boat launch on Smith's Neck. The intent here is to channel and control visits thus directing access away from private lands. We have therefore scheduled and planned our archaeological investigation to minimize direct impact to various local species, the residents and community members, as well as to Griswold Point itself. Our costs will be greater and we will be running some risks concerning weather, however, our proposal for a fall excavation has considered the complexity of the various needs and generated a reasonable compromise that should address all interests.

We also recognize the authority of The Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, The Connecticut Historical Commission, The Office of the State Archaeologist, and the Office of the Old Lyme Selectman. All excavation methods will conform to the standards laid out in the Environmental Review Primer for Connecticut's Archaeological Resources.

We request that we have an adequate time to review and study artifacts recovered from the wreck and clearly recognize that such material is the property of the public. We further accept responsibility for the reporting of results of our study and will stipulate that along with the return of all artifacts, there will also be a concise record of field notes, catalog, maps, plans, and corresponding photographs.

Bibliography

            Anderson, R.F. and Dock, A.
1981     The British Raid on Essex. Essex Historical Society, Essex, Connecticut.

            Berman, B.
1972     Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press, Boston.

            Brasser, T.J.
1978     Early Indian European Contacts. In Handbook of North American Indians,
            Edited by Bruce Trigger, vol.15, pp. 78- 88, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C..

            Crisman, K.J.
1994     An Archaeological Approach: Recording Boats from their Remains and Learning
            from their Parts. In Boats: A Manual for their Documentation. edited by Lipke, Spectre,
            and Fuller, American Association of State and Local History.

            Ely, S.H. and Plimpton, E.
1991     The Lieutenant River. Lyme's Historical Societies, Florence Griswold Museum, Old Lyme, Connecticut.

            Griswold, R.
1906     First Sailing Vessels and Merchant Mariners on the Connecticut River. Connecticut Magazine, 3:463-473.

            Hempstead, J.
1711-
1757     The Diary of Joshua Hempstead. New London Historical Society, New London Connecticut.

            Love, W.D.
1903     The Navigation of the Connecticut River. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society. New Series 5:385-441.

            Ludlum, R.
1963     Early American Hurricanes. American Meteorological Society, Boston.

            Patton, P.C. and Kent, J.M.
1992     A Moveable Shore: TheFate of the Connecticut Coast. Duke University Press.

            Secretary of War
1838     A Survey of the Harbor and Mouth of Connecticut River. 25th Congress 2nd session, Doc # 252, Washington D.C..

            Stevens, T.A.
1979     Connecticut River Mariners: A Brief Record of some of the Blue Water
            Shipmasters of the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River Foundation, Essex Connecticut.

            Williams, R.
1643     A Key Into the the Language of America. Gregory Dexter, London.

Research and Reference Material:

            Griswold-Lane Memorial Collection. Sterling Library, Yale University.

            Insurance reports: Wreck reports. Book 1, Connecticut River Museum

            Micro-film Collections Olin Library, Wesleyan University.
                Connecticut Courant
                Middlesex Gazette
                Connecticut Spectator

            Williams Papers: Marine Insurance, 1796-1847 Manuscripts in collection of Connecticut Historical Society.
 
 

Section XII Epilogue:
This study represents an approach to initially assessing and subsequently monitoring an unstable cultural resource - The Griswold Point Shipwreck. When first discovered the wreck site was completely unknown. There was not a comprehensive knowledge of the environment in which the wreck was situated nor was there an understanding of how the wreckage came to be at the site. Finally there was no comparitive or background information regarding shipwrecks in the Connecticut River or the immediate surroundings. We therefore had to start from scratch.