Appendix_H_-_Archaeological_Remote_Sensing_Survey.pdf

Contract No. DACW54-99-D-0007 Delivery Order No. 3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMOTE SENSING SURVEY

EAST OF THE CRANEY ISLAND, ELIZABETH RIVER,

VIRGINIA

FINAL REPORT

December 2000

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

15 South Id lewi Id Street Memphis, Tennessee 38104

PREPARED FOR:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Environmental Analysis Section 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

FINAL REPORT

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMOTE SENSING SURVEY

EAST OF THE CRANEY ISLAND, ELIZABETH RIVER, VIRGINIA

Authored by:

Andrew Lydecker and Michael C. Tuttle

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District

Environmental Analysis Section 69 Darlington Avenue

Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Contract No. DACW54-99-D-0007 Delivery Order No. 3

Prepared by:

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

15 South Idlewild Street

Memphis, Tennessee 38104

Michael C. Tuttle Principal Investigator

December 2000

ABSTRACT

During the fall of 2000, archaeologists with Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI) conducted remote-sensing investigations immediately to the east of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area as part of the Corps' project entitled "Eastern

Expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area." Project plans call for the expansion of the area used by the Corps for disposal of dredged material to cover the area between the current disposal area and the navigation channel. Implemented by the Corps in partial fulfillment of their obligation under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the current remote-sensing survey was designed to determine the location, if present, of any targets that might represent potentially significant cultural resources or sites in the form of historic shipwrecks that might be adversely affected by the project. The investigation included an intensive remote-sensing survey using a magnetometer and sidescan sonar. The total project area is a rectangle with dimensions of approximately 8,825 feet by 3,725 feet. The investigation was conducted for the Corps in response to their Scope of Work Phase I Archaeological Remote

Sensing Survey East of the Craney Island, Elizabeth River, Virginia, under Contract No.

DACW54-99-D-0007, Delivery Order No. 3.

The remote-sensing survey located over 400 anomalies within the entire project area. Of these 400 anomalies most were single point source, which are generally not considered to represent potentially historic sites. However, there were a total of 32 clusters made up of a number of these single point source anomalies which exhibited features characteristic of potentially significant historic resources. Of these 32 clusters, seventeen have associated sidescan signatures representative of dredge pipe, and given the history of the area and the tendency of dredging contractors to store and sometimes to lose dredge pipe in the area, these clusters were considered to represent dredge pipe. Two of the clusters coincided with exact known locations of installed dredge pipeline. Of the remaining 15 clusters, eight exhibited sidescan targets indicating modem trash and debris. The remaining seven clusters did not exhibit any above-sediment structure.

However, given the history of the area and the amount of modem trash and debris found, these seven clusters are also considered to represent the same modem trash and debris. In all, given the associated sidescan targets and the work history of the area, all targets were considered to be non-significant in nature and no further work is recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As with all projects of this magnitude, the successful completion is the result of the input and hard work of numerous individuals. The authors would first like to extend their sincerest appreciation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington and Norfolk Districts, and especially Wilmington District Archaeologist Richard Kinunel, for allowing us the opportunity to conduct this investigation.

The archaeological survey crew was composed of three individuals consisting of Michael Tuttle, Principal Investigator, and Andrew Lydecker and James Duff, who acted as Marine

Archaeological Technicians. They are thanked for their hard work and endurance.

The folks at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Museum deserve thanks for providing us with invaluable information pertaining to the history of Craney Island, as does Joel Seussel of the Norfolk District. Also, Mitoh of the dredge Arlington, operated by the Marinex Corporation, and the folks at Norfolk Dredging deserve many thanks for providing us with invaluable information regarding the work history of the area.

In-house Panamedcan personnel who must be identified and thanked for their help with report production include Kelly Blount, report editor, Kate Gilow, office manager, and Andy Lydecker, computer graphic specialist.

Lastly, the good people of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia, and the surrounding area are thanked for the southern hospitality shown to the field crew during our stay. We hope to return in the near future to sample that hospitality again.

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AB^T^CT..............................................................................................................................^

ACj^OW££2)GM£^T5...........................................................................................................»

JLZSrOFFJGl/^^S'......................................................................................................,.^^^^

L/STOFTA^LES..........................................................................................................^^

7A^rao/)^cr/oM............................................................................................................^

^ACJTG^OtWDAES^AJiCH...................................................................................................^

Archival Research........................,...............................................................................................................^

Prehistoric Resources..................................................................................................................................^

Navigational History

Shipwreck Inventory

Previous Studies wy^rjGArzyEMBr^6»z>5

Project Personnel

Survey Vessel

Differential Global Positioning System

Magnetometer.................................................................................................................................................^

SidescanSonar........................................................................................................................................................^

Fathometer

Survey Procedures

7^V£5r/GAyzy£'FJM)J^G5................................................................................................2(?

Magnetic Anomaly Clusters

Cluster 1............................................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 2...............................................................................,.......................................................................^

Clusters

Cluster4....................................................................................................,..............,,....................................«

Cluster 5...................................................................................................,...................................................^

Cluster 6............................................................................,.........................................................................^ auster7..................................................,.,..,................................................................,.................................»

Cluster 8..........................................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 9...............................................................,.........................,.............................,.............................^

Cluster 10......................................,..................................................,.......................................,.......................»

Cluster 11............................................;....................................................,............................................^

Cluster 12...............................................................................................................................................»

Cluster 13..................................................................................,....................................................................^^^

Cluster 14...............................,...................................................................................................................^

Chister 15

Cluster 16..................................................................................,...................................................................^

Cluster 17.......................................................................................................................,.............................«

Cluster 18

Cluster 19..........................................................;...........................................................................................^

Ill

Chister20....................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 21

Cluster 22

Cluster 23...........................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 24.........................................................................................................................................^^^^

Cluster 25...................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 26................................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 27........................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 28............................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 29..................................................................................................................................................^

Cluster 30

Cluster 31

Cluster 32..........................................................................................................................................^

CO^CL(/5/0^5'AlVDJR£'COMM£MMrjrO^V5'.....................................................................3tf i^F£'ft£lVC£SC'/r£D.............................................................................................,.............4J

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project area map showing survey area

Figure 2. The 20-footWellcraft survey vessel.....................................'..........................................................................^

Figure 3. Motorola LGT-1000 global-based navigation system

Figure 4. Geometries 866 magnetometer

Figure 5. Marine Sonic Technology's Sea Scan PC sidescan sonar system................................................................^..21

Figure 6. The Eagle acoustic fathometer alongside the pilot's video trackline display

Figure 7. Marine archaeologist entering data points into the navigation system to create survey tracklines

Figure 8. Magnetic contour map of the survey transects

Figure 9. Magnetic contour map of the project area

Figure 10. Magnetic contour map showing clusters of potentially submerged cultural resources

Figure 11. Sidescan image of Cluster 2, with modern debris and pipe section noted

Figure 12. Photograph ofjetty near Cluster 2

Figure 13. Photograph of pipeline sign associated with Cluster 16

Figure 14. Photograph of dredge pipe on shore, lying along rock/brush interface

Figure 15. Photograph of crab pot buoys and dredge pipe

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Coordinates for the Project Area

Table 2. Reported Ship Losses in Chesapeake Bay

Table 3. Anomaly Clusters in the Craney Island Project Area

Table 4. Magnetic Data from Shipwrecks and Nonsignificant Sources

INTRODUCTION

Between September 7 and September 15, 2000, archaeologists from Panamerican Consultants, Incorporated (PCI) conducted a sidescan sonar and magnetometer survey off Craney Island, Virginia. This remote-sensing survey was conducted by PCI for the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Wilmington and Norfolk Districts. The project was performed specifically under Contract No. DACW54-99-D-0007, entitled Phase I Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey East of the Craney Island, Elizabeth River, Virginia, for the Wilmington District (Corps). The Wilmington District is responsible for identifying and determining if any properties within their proposed project areas are eligible for listing on the NRHP. This work is in partial fulfillment of the District's obligations under the provisions Qf Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 1992 (36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties), and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines, National Park Service, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 3, December 4, 1990, pages 50116-50145).

The area examined during the study is located immediately east of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers' Dredged Material Management Area, and is a rectangular area measuring roughly 8,825 by 3,725 feet (Figure 1). The coordinates of the corners are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Coordinates for the Project Area.

12113873 12109397 12.114771 12111272

3503050 3503050 3494879 3494504

Northeast comer

Northwest corner Southeast corner

Southwest corner

The remote-sensing survey included the employment of those tools useful in determining the absence/presence of submerged cultural remains (i.e., shipwrecks) within the project area. As detailed in the Technical Proposal, which was developed and accepted for the project prior to the implementation of fieldwork (Appendix A), remote-sensing equipment employed during the survey included a magnetometer, sidescan sonar, fathometer, and a Differential Global

Positioning System (DGPS). Recorded magnetic anomalies were prioritized as to their probability of representing historic shipwreck remains based on characteristics such as anomaly strength, duration, and relative association with other remote-sensing data. Sidescan sonar records were reviewed for features such as linearity, structure, height off harbor bottom, and association with other remote-sensing data.

The remote-sensing survey located more than 400 anomalies within the entire project area. This number includes numerous single point sources that are unlikely to represent submerged cultural resources. Due to its history as a work area, as well as its proximity to the Dredged Material

Management Area, these single point source anomalies were considered to represent modern trash and debris and therefore are not considered significant. There were several areas where clusters of smaller anomalies occurred which could represent submerged cultural resources.

y ^^i"/';

•:13 " 8

/"""-'.y""|",.|UU|,.<f

9 -X. fWS-Tlf 11

°z-//i 2 < 3'"^, ' 2 L A

4'A/ ^

3 / R G4«imfl»_-5; ^ /^v I t9pf yi3/// a"/ •3"»/' /

% ^/^^WW PA7d» FfWFIfHsl}

Virginia ^

Craney I

3) iili-i m (/43 ', !5 '?sl -1'° w \ I ii" ^ , ^

Figure 1. Project area map showing survey area (base map: 1998 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Hampton Roads).

From these 400-plus anomalies, a total of 32 clusters have signal characteristics potentially representative of submerged cultural resources (i.e., historic shipwrecks). Seventeen of the potentially significant clusters have associated sidescan signatures representative of dredge pipe, and given the history of the area and the tendency of dredging contractors to store and sometimes to lose dredge pipe in the area (Marinex Corp., personal communication 2000), these clusters were considered to represent dredge pipe. Two of the clusters coincide with exact known locations of installed dredge pipeline. Of the remaining 15 clusters, eight exhibited sidescan targets indicating modem trash and debris. The remaining seven clusters do not exhibit any above-sediment structure. Given the history of the area and the amount of modem trash and debris found, these seven clusters are also considered to represent the same modem trash and debris.

The future use of the surveyed area includes expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area to the east. This means that the surveyed area will eventually be covered with dredge spoil from other locations. In the unlikely event that one of the clusters does indeed represent a significant cultural resource, the proposed project activities will not impact it beyond covering it with additional sediment. As such, no further work is recommended for any of the identified targets.

The following report, which describes in detail the methods and results of the investigation, is divided into chapters on Background Research, Investigative Methods, Investigative Findings, and Conclusions and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

At the commencement of the project, various state and federal agencies and repositories were contacted to assess their archival holdings. These included the State Historic Preservation

Offices (SHPO) of Virginia; archaeologists with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington and Norfolk Districts; United States Coast Guard (USCG); and the Government Document sections of both the University of Memphis and the Memphis Public Library as well as PCI's extensive library of historic and archaeological manuscripts.

Additional archival investigations compiled and utilized both primary and secondary archival sources or literature. Besides well-known published maritime histories of the area, references included numerous cultural resources remote-sensing survey reports for the general project area, and survey reports from areas with similar environments. Published shipwreck compilations, in the form of references and reports, which identified wreck locations in, adjacent to, or near the

Craney Island area were reviewed. Additionally, remote-sensing survey reports from other parts of the country were accessed. These dealt with specific problems or aspects inherent to identifying resources from remote-sensing data and are thus applicable to this study.

The information gleaned from these sources has been synthesized into a prehistoric and historical overview which, when employed during the assessment of actual remote-sensing data, enables the researcher to determine the types of resources that may be encountered within the project area, and thus allows an accurate interpretation of the data. Presented below, the archival information has been divided into discussions of prehistoric resources, navigational history, shipwreck inventory, and previous studies.

PREHISTORIC RESOURCES

Consideration of the potential for cultural resources within the project area focuses on two distinct types: prehistoric sites and historic shipwrecks. Although the location of shipwreck sites can be realized through the employment of an array of remote-sensing equipment like that currently utilized within the project area, the location of submerged prehistoric sites with current technology is highly unlikely. Rather, the emphasis during a study of this nature is more hypothesis than reality, with the investigation basing potential submerged site locations on known terrestrial site location parameters (i.e., landforms such as river terraces), as well as data on Pleistocene environments and resources for the area (i.e., estuaries, food types). However, it is possible to identify relic submerged landforms to some extent with the sidescan sonar, and then apply known parameters from above-sea-level sites to these landforms.

With this in mind, the potential for prehistoric resources within our project area is directly related to the geologic morphology of the area as a result of post-Pleistocene sea level changes. The last of the Pleistocene glacial stages was the Wisconsin glaciation; the project area lies well south of the maximum southerly limit of this glaciation (Ferguson 1986). Between 18,000 and 14,000 years before present (B.P.), the sea level was more than 100 meters (325 feet) lower than at present. Depending on the source quoted, by 12,000 B.P. sea level had risen to between 60 m and

30 m below its current level. Hunter et al. (1985:3-28) illustrate that all of the project area was above sea level during the Holocene period, or termination of the Pleistocene. With human occupation believed to have begun in this area circa 12,000 B.P. (albeit a conservative estimate), current speculation suggests that the entire project area would have been available for prehistoric occupation (Ferguson 1986:6).

NAVIGATIONAL HISTORY

The first European to have the potential of discovering the opening to Chesapeake Bay was Verrazzano. An Italian from Florence sailing for Francois I, the King of France, he left European waters on a voyage to find a route to China in January 1524. His vessel, La Dauphine, named after the French heir to the throne, weighed 100 tons and was manned by a crew of 50. After a tempest-tossed crossing he fetched up close to Cape Fear, North Carolina in early March. After a brief reconnaissance south, he turned north to avoid the Spanish. Passing the monotonous outer banks of the Carolinas, Verrazzano sailed on until he observed more varied topography in the approximate region of New Jersey. Unfortunately, he passed the entrance to the Chesapeake en route. He continued on his voyage and returned to France in July. Being a competent seaman and navigator, Verrazzano was able to conclude that he did not find a way to China, but a completely new land (Morison 1971:314). It would be decades before the French would place a settlement in this part of the New World.

The Spanish held jealous claim to their North American possessions, but focused on exploiting the easy wealth of Mexico and South America. The Spanish reported some exploratory voyages into Chesapeake Bay as early as 1525, which they named Bahia de Santa Maria (Koski-Karell 1979:18). The North American coast did not appear to offer easy profits like the rest of the burgeoning empire, and the Spanish did not actively exploit the area. Other voyages in the north may have influenced the Spanish crown not to invest in a passage to the Far East. However, there were others who hoped to profit from the region. During 1562, the French sent two vessels to explore along the Carolina coast. Jean Ribaut took possession of the area in the name of the King of France, Charles DC. His original settlement of Port Royal did not survive long, as there was internal dissention, and the post was soon abandoned. The French were not discouraged, and two years later a second attempt, under Rene de Laudonniere, established a settlement at Fort

Caroline on the St. Johns River in Florida (Coker 1987:3). The new settlement would prove to be too close to Spanish lands.

The French settlement in Florida was a danger to the homeward fleets carrying New World wealth to Spain. King Philip II of Spain dispatched Menendez de Aviles to eradicate the problem in 1565. Fort Caroline was taken by a land assault, and though promised fair treatment, the defenders were all put to death. The French avenged the treachery three years later when the fort was retaken and all Spanish prisoners were murdered (Morison 1971:470). The Spanish, in an attempt to maintain sovereignty over the region, resettled at Port Royal in 1566. When Francis

Drake captured and burned St. Augustine in 1586, the post was abandoned.

Chesapeake Bay's first settlement by Europeans was during a voyage of the Spaniard Pedro

Menendez de Aviles. In 1570, in an attempt to establish a Spanish base far north of St.

Augustine, he sent eight Jesuits to the bay to convert the natives. Left with God and short supplies, the priests failed to establish any permanent settlement and were murdered a year later.

Again, Menendez moved north, returning later on a punitive expedition and executing eight of the suspected culprits (Morison 1972:683). The Spanish, although they held claim to the New World, did not attempt to establish any colonies north of the Carolinas.

During the late sixteenth century the English began to set colonies in the Americas. One of their motivations was to find a northwest passage to the Far East and circumvent the Spanish colonies.

Sir Humphrey Gilbert obtained a patent to pursue those goals but was lost on a voyage; the patent passed to his half-brother Sir Walter Raleigh (Bauer 1988:21). Raleigh was the inspiration to colonize the New World for the English. The first English colony was set on the outer banks of North Carolina in 1585 at Roanoke Island and lasted a year. The colonists abandoned their New World habitation at the site of the first relief mission, and by the end of June were being transported back to England by Sir Francis Drake. The second relief mission, arriving only weeks later, found Roanoke completely deserted and a small detachment of men was left to hold the fort. This small garrison was overcome by a band of natives, leaving no one to meet the next set of colonists. A second colonization effort, supported by Raleigh, was to settle in the Chesapeake Bay in 1587, but landed instead at Roanoke. Due to fears of Spanish invasion of

England, there was not a relief expedition until 1590. By then the colony was again deserted

(Lacey 1973:126, 154).

Another decade and a half would pass before the English would plant the beginnings of a permanent settlement on the North American continent. A change in European political conditions, with the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the rise of King James I, contributed to a more expansive maritime policy. In order to promote maritime activity, an act was passed in

1604 "... to encourage the Seamen of England to take Fish, Whereby they may increase to furnish the Navy of England" (Hunter 1935:84). Other acts under King James I set the foundation for an expanded marine policy to increase English shipping to the detriment of prior monopolistic practices. Although Queen Elizabeth sponsored colonization efforts to the New

World it was not until the reign of James I that a more systematic and sustained effort at trade between America and England emerged.

In 1606, James granted the first Virginia Company Charter that set in motion England's control of colonial trade. A fleet of three English vessels under the command of Christopher Newport, in the employ of the Virginia Company, passed Cape Henry and entered the Chesapeake Bay in 1607. Settling fifty miles inland at Jamestown on the James River, the initial colonists met the fate of other early English settlements: disease and death. The next year more colonists arrived with more supplies; yet again disease and death took their toll. During the spring of 1610 the colonists were ready to abandon their New World home, but more relief was sent from England and the settlers stayed. The Virginia colony would remain dependent on English supplies from across the sea for years (Labaree et al. 1999:42). Thus was the inauspicious beginning to

England's permanent settlement in the Chesapeake Bay region, which grew into an important trade colony for agricultural goods.

From the initial settlement at Jamestown the English colonists spread throughout the bay area.

The next settlements were focused in the south, close to the mouth of the bay or along the rivers and tributaries. Northern settlement took another two and a half decades with the settlement at Saint Mary's City in Maryland. Travel between these settlements was mainly conducted by water, as there were no roads by which to make easy passage. As the colony grew and settlements dispersed, European-style vessel construction was initiated by 1611 for local use

(Koski-KareU1979:19).

Early boat and shipbuilding by the various Europeans in their new American colonies were originally affected by the types known in their homelands. Baker states that "the Colonists in each of these regions would naturally have employed vessels sailed or carried over from their home countries or would have constructed types with which they were familiar" (1962:9). Over time, as the colonists became familiar with theu- new surroundings, vessels were adapted to their local conditions.

Tobacco was introduced into the colony around 1612 and became a profitable agricultural mainstay of the region. This crop was a mixed blessing for the region: since it was profitable, planters focused their resources on expanding its production to the exclusion of other produce and industries. Virginians became dependent on outside shippers and merchants rather than following paths that would have led to self-sufficiency. British shipping to and from the Chesapeake Bay became the major lifeline between the colony and her patron. In 1621, the Virginian colonists acquired the right to be the sole producers of English tobacco by a proclamation of King James, which prohibited both domestic production as well as importation from foreign sources. During 1622, the Privy Council reiterated to the Virginians that trade of all tobacco and other goods from the colony had to be shipped via England and not directly to foreign ports. A year later, a domestic Virginian law was passed, in order to facilitate customs collection, which stated that cargoes must first be landed in "James City" (Jamestown) prior to sale (Hunter 1935:96).

In order to encourage an indigenous Virginian shipbuilding industry, or at least start a shipbuilding tradition, numerous men were sent to the colony in 1622. Twenty-five carpenters were sent with orders to build the vessels needed for trade and transport in the colony. They began by making small vessels for river and bay trade. It was also noted that the region had a good supply of timber for boat building. But other, more profitable trades, such as tobacco, diverted attention from ship construction (Hall 1884:128).

James I, successor to Charles I, did litrie to improve shipping with respect to the colonies. By

1633, the Privy Council had to take action due to the increasing trade between the Dutch and the colonists of Virginia. The increasing volume of trade between England and Virginia was concomitant with an increase in legislation regulating trade. At this time England's northern colonies were beginning to become more self-sufficient and industrious, producing numerous types of vessels (Hunter 1935:109). Some of the vessels from the northern colonies began to find their way to the Virginia Colony, and the new American-made vessels began to be used in the waters of Chesapeake Bay.

The English Civil War saw the severed head of Charles I and inaugurated the Cromwellian era.

Colonial trade and policy managed to muddle through these internally unstable times. The Dutch were once again acting as agents in transporting English colonial goods. In order to discourage the Dutch and encourage English shipping and shipbuilding, Parliament passed more legislation to encourage trade. In 1650 a law was passed forbidding foreign nations to trade with the colonies. The Navigation Act of 1651 aided in precipitating a war with the Dutch as it excluded foreign shipping from English and colonial commerce. When a squadron of English ships reached Virginia in 1652, Dutch ships were found engaged in active trade with the colonials in defiance of the Acts (Hunter 1935:124,132). Trade with the Dutch.continued regardless, and thus Dutch-built vessels are known to have been engaged in active trade in the Chesapeake Bay. To the north, the Dutch in New Amsterdam appeared to be the rising star of American colonial ports. However, with the restoration of Charles II in England and a more aggressive colonial policy, the English took the Dutch colony in 1664 and removed them as a North American competitor (Labaree et al. 1999:46).

Having forcefully removed one colonial competitor, the English tried again to encourage growth in her maritime colonial power. Numerous other incentives were passed in the seventeenth century in order to encourage colonial shipbuilding. Trade encouraged shipping and shipping encouraged trade. By the dawn of the eighteenth century, England, and later as Great Britain, had eliminated the Dutch colonial threat from North America and began to focus on the threat posed by the French to the north and the Spanish to the south. Chesapeake Bay was insulated from the most belligerent activity during these years by the distance from the border areas, thus the region grew and prospered. The Treaty of Paris (1763) all but removed the other two powers from North America east of the Appalachians.

After the European-dominated contest for American colonial supremacy was finally settled, local economic conditions were such that shipping in locally built vessels increased to meet demand.

British rule extended from Florida to Newfoundland, and trade in the Chesapeake flourished.

With a long occupation and knowledge of local conditions, the vessels used in the bay began to be built for the environment in which they worked: "The naval architecture of the vessels being built in the bay area during the eighteenth century underwent a process of evolution and innovation" (Koski-Karell 1979:20).

One of the earliest types of craft used in the region was the sloop due to its characteristics and versatility in the waters of the bay. As trade expanded beyond the bounds of the bay so too did the development of craft to carry on that trade. One of the finest examples of Chesapeake Bay marine construction is known as the Baltimore Clipper. These craft were long, light, had low freeboard, and were fast. Initially called Virginia Built for their characteristics, they became a favorite of American privateers. Developed around the time of the American Revolution, the vessels were not meant for bulk commerce, rather as fast seagoing vessels (Chapelle 1988:16).

After the Revolution, the Baltimore Clipper found use in the Caribbean against the French and Spanish, as they and England were in a seemingly constant state of hostility. Also, American relations with France were strained, which led to the Quasi-War. During this time, belligerence between the new United States and her ex-colonial overlord Great Britain saw the type employed as privateers: "During the war, the port of Baltimore served as the base for over a hundred

American privateer vessels..." (Koski-Karell 1979:22). Many models were taken to great extreme for the speed needed to escape larger Royal Naval vessels and to close on slower merchantmen (Chapelle 1988:37).

Following the War of 1812 the type had developed into such a form that there were few commercially viable products the vessel could transport profitably. One of the few commodities that was profitable was slaves. Speed was of the essence for slavers as the British and later the

United States began anti-slave cmises to put an end to the trade. Larger ships could not be used for the trade after active enforcement of anti-slave patrols. The final days of the Baltimore

Clipper produced a fast rakish vessel with very little use except for slave transport, a trade that was to be abolished by rare international cooperation in the nineteenth century. With the suppression of the slave trade, the Baltimore Clipper could not be an attractive economic investment and their type began to disappear from the waters of the world (Chapelle 1988:11 1).

Just prior to the Revolution, Virginia and Maryland supplied Great Britain with the largest proportion of North American colonial products, especially tobacco. A large portion of the

American population lived in this region, and most within a short distance of the Chesapeake or one of its numerous tributaries. Due to the population's proximity to the water source, centralized settlements were not needed and there were only a few port towns. Without a concentration of capital, British merchants and shippers in general controlled the trade with the Chesapeake and areas south. Tlie commerce of Chesapeake Bay was funneled through Cape Henry, and carried in British-controlled vessels. Numerous colonial and British legislative acts began to restrict trade and commerce between Britain and the United States. Finally, Parliament ordered the seizure of all American vessels, and the Continental Congress authorized all

American ports open to ships of any nation (Labaree et al. 1999:133).

When the Revolutionary War started, the British had the strongest navy the world had ever seen.

These resources were used to choke American commerce and trade, putting great pressure on colonial maritime activity. The Chesapeake Bay region, with its dependence on British shipping and merchants, was the choke point between Cape Charles and Cape Henry, and would be adversely affected by any hostilities. In 1776 the British burned Virginia's premier port at Norfolk (Engle and Lott 1975:51). With ingenuity and determination, the Continental Congress and various colonial governments established naval forces and privateers to harry British shipping: "Virginia and Maryland, concerned primarily with defending the shores of Chesapeake Bay, launched a variety of small sailing and row vessels" (Labaree et al. 1999:141).

The fledgling United States had a minuscule navy compared to the British. In order to help even the odds a bit, numerous privateers were engaged in the conflict. From the ports of the

Chesapeake flooded forth a wave of vessels intent not on destroying the British navy but its commerce. Approximately 2,000 vessels were granted letters of mark and reprisal during the Revolution. These vessels would take a toll on British shipping and even capture supplies intended for the British Army. It is estimated that approximately 3,100 British merchantmen were taken, causing a loss to the trade of Britain (Labaree et al. 1999:140).

The might of the Royal Navy could not be stopped by the colonials alone. A British force sailed into the Chesapeake and attacked along the northern portions of the bay, including Philadelphia.

Until the entrance of the French and Spanish into the war, the British had a virtual monopoly on projection of maritime power. However, with European aid, the war came to a dramatic conclusion. During 1781, the British Army was forced to Yorktown by Continental and French forces, hoping to be aided by supplies arriving from New York. The French, under Comte de

Grasse, had their fleet off the Virginia Capes; when the British Navy arrived they fought an inconclusive battle and the British withdrew. The French moved into the Chesapeake, took up position and bottled in the British ground forces at Yorktown. By 1782 the British sued for peace and the Treaty of Paris was ratified by Congress in 1783.

The post-Revolutionary era saw an expansion of American trade. The world was open to the adventurous American mariner. The European nations engaged in war with or against the United

States reverted to the old philosophies of mercantilism and cut off or restricted trade. Partially prohibited from European trade, the new nation looked to the Orient for opportunity. Although this trade was valuable, it never accounted for a large percentage. Chesapeake Bay tobacco was still a commodity welcomed in Northern Europe. By 1790 American trade had grown larger than it was before or during the war. Soon, foodstuffs overtook the traditional Chesapeake Bay crop of tobacco as the chief export. Approximately one-third of all trade was carried out with Great Britain.

As the young United States was forced into another war with Great Britain, the country again had to utilize the services of privateers in the conflict. The ports and rivers of the Chesapeake were to be closed by the superior British fleet. Numerous British vessels entered the Bay and caused a vast amount of destruction. All commercial traffic on the Chesapeake ceased; the small

American flotillas of gunboats could do nothing (Knox 1936:109).

During the War of 1812, American maritime activity was under great pressure from the British.

Ports were blockaded and trade suffered. The mouth of the Chesapeake was a choke point and the British saw the value of establishing a barricade in the form of the 74-gun HMS Plantaganet off Cape Henry. Robert Fulton, known as the father of the steamboat, was also very active in various forms of naval warfare, one being "torpedoes", now known as mines. Elijah Mix, a

Chesapeake Bay mariner, obtained some of Fulton's torpedoes and conducted one of the first military underwater attacks in American history. Mix's method of attack was to tow the mine and attempt to attach it to its target. During the first attempt they were sighted; the second attempt saw the mine cast away to drift toward the Plantaganet where it exploded prematurely.

Although unsuccessful, the attack did cause some consternation among the blockading captains

(Hutcheon 1981:121).

The port of Norfolk, the Navy yard at Gosport, the town of Portsmouth, and the frigate U.S.S.

Constellation, along with a number of gunboats and numerous merchant vessels, were trapped in

Norfolk by the British blockade of the Elizabeth River. British Admiral Warren, acting under orders from the British Admiralty to expand the blockade of the Chesapeake and destroy the trapped American naval force, decided he must destroy the Portsmouth/Norfolk complex, consisting of Fort Nelson on the Portsmouth side, and Fort Norfolk on Lambert's Point in

Norfolk, the Gosport Navy yard, and the U.S.S. Constellation. This necessitated the destruction of the American line of defense at Craney Island, which consisted of an unfinished fort armed with three heavy guns and manned by between 350 and 500 U.S. Army regulars (Hallahan 1986:

43). Defenses also included four ships sunk as an obstruction in the channel between Craney

Island and Lambert's Point. Anticipating the British attack on Craney Island, the Americans reinforced the island's defenses with guns, ammunition, stores, sailors and marines from the

Constellation. The final garrison totaled 767 men, with the three heavy guns from the unfinished fort, as well as an additional four six-pounder cannons (Hallahan 1986:63). The British, who had grossly overestimated the Craney Island force as being close to 5,000 men (Hallahan 1986:55), attacked via land and sea with a force of anywhere from 1400 to 4000 men, eight rowed gun barges, and several ships-of-the-line. Utilizing the improvised gun battery to great effect by firing round, grape, and canister shot, the American force repelled the numerically superior British force. The British ships-of-the-line were ineffective given that the shallow water around

Craney Island prevented them from getting within range of their cannon. The British quickly broke off the attack and retreated, but not before the American gunners sank between two and five of the British gunboats (exact accounts of the battle vary considerably; Hallahan 1986:76).

The growth of the Chesapeake Bay region accelerated after the War of 1812. Shipping from all the bay ports increased and the growth of Baltimore at the north end of the bay increased traffic.

As early as 1813 a steamboat, the Chesapeake, was working the northern part of the bay on a route between Baltimore and Elkton, Maryland. Steamboats first entered the Chesapeake from the sea via Cape Henry in 1815. Late in May, Robert Fulton's Washington became the first steamboat to enter the bay, arriving at Norfolk. Less than a month later, in mid-June, another steamboat, the Eagle, entered the waters of the Chesapeake, again stopping at Norfolk (Braynard 1963:20). Being an area where steam could be effectively employed, numerous vessels were constructed and entered service on the bay.

Steamboat service rapidly expanded in the Chesapeake after the 1820s: "Steamboats were ideally suited for exploiting the Chesapeake and they rapidly replaced sailing vessels on the passenger and fast freight routes" (Greenhill ed. 1993:53). The entire bay region was brought into contact by a day's travel or less. Also, the agricultural produce of the region could be quickly and efficiently exported to other urban centers. The tidewater region also prospered by having quick and convenient access to the industrial products of the urban centers (Morison et al. 1991:13).

Steamboats in the Chesapeake took on some local characteristics with the technology available for the day. Boats on the bay were side-wheeled steamers powered by low pressure boilers. The earliest method of transferring steam power to the paddle wheel was via the crosshead engine.

Although simple in theory and construction, this method was prone to breakage. The vertical beam or "walking beam" engine supplanted the earlier model. This engine differed from the earlier model in the method of transferring the power to the paddle wheel. A distinctive mode of propulsion,. the piston transferred its power via a diamond shaped beam set in an A-frame

(Morison et al. 1991:20). This type of engine was used well into the twentieth century by vessels on the bay.

Although Virginia had large stands of timber and a large expanse of land fronting various water sources that were used for transportation, shipbuilding was never a large industry. Most vessels built in Virginia were small. By the nud-nineteenth century, Norfolk grew as Virginia's premier shipbuilding center, however small. Between 1853 and 1854, only ten vessels were constructed in the region. A yellow fever outbreak and the deaths that followed in its wake cut the growth of the port (Hall 1884:129).

A slow change was taking place in shipbuilding in the United States: the shift from wood to iron and later steel hull construction. Technical advances were taking place in Delaware River steamboating in the 1840s in the form of iron hull constmction. The shippers on the Chesapeake were aware of these developments, and by 1847 the iron-hulled Mount Vemon was employed in the bay (Greenhill ed. 1993:54). As wood was still comparatively cheap and American iron was going into railroads, it would be a long time before metal steamboats became the standard on the bay. The Civil War would put a temporary halt to commercial experimentation.

During the middle of the nineteenth century, the Chesapeake region was rent by the conflict of the Civil War. The American Civil War again constdcted shipping through the Virginia Capes, with both sail and steam suffering the effects of the national conflagration. The naval yard at

Norfolk was quickly appropriated by the Confederacy in 1861. The Union abandoned and attempted to burn the facility, but a large number of supplies, cannon and powder were transferred to the South. The Confederacy had to burn and abandon the yard a year later, facing

Union pressure (Howarth 1991:182).

Chesapeake Bay was to undergo change after the Civil War: the shipbuilding center of Baltimore took a general decline. "The war of 1861, with the changes which took place in that period in favor of steam vessels and strikes and high wages, put a virtual end to ship-building in

Baltimore, few merchant vessels, other than side-wheel steamboats and propeller tugs, having been built since that time" (Hall 1884:127). Further south in the bay the region's agricultural prosperity grew. Norfolk acted as the regional commercial center. Agricultural products from the region would flood into the port to be shipped by steamer to New York or Baltimore. The local craft were bug-eyes and canoes built and owned by the small farmers of the region. These craft had sloop and schooner rigs, with schooner being preferable. A small vessel was considered to be approximately 26 feet, while a large vessel approached 45 feet, with 35 feet being average (Hall 1884:130). These vessels carried the local trade, while larger vessels distributed the merchandise to urban centers on the east coast.

One major change in shipping in the .Chesapeake was the introduction of a new method of propulsion, the propeller. Steamboat design was to be affected by this new form of locomotion.

The New Jersey was the first commercial vessel to use a propeller in the bay in 1867. Paddle wheel vessels began their ultimate decline from then, but continued in use through the twentieth century (Morison et al. 1991:22).

During a survey of American shipbuilding taken in 1882-1883, Hall (1884) noted numerous aspects of the industry. For the census year the number of vessels constructed in Virginia was a rather low 26 with a tonnage of 514, also small. Hall's Chapter 7 is concerned with the operation of naval yards of the United States. What he states about Norfolk is: "This is one of the most conveniently situated on the coast for the building and repairing of vessels, and is much employed by the department for that purpose" (Hall 1884:240). The location of the yard and the harbor access is praised but the yard is criticized for not having the plant for iron-shipbuilding.

By the end of the nineteenth century other technological developments began to affect steamboat design. Steam boilers and engines became more efficient with the application of some principles of thermodynamics. Better and more reliable construction methods for boilers allowed them to attain higher pressures. Steam engines could be designed to take advantage of these higher pressures.