An Archaeological Survey of the Structure Known As the Peter Dougherty Pier

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE STRUCTURE KNOWN AS THE PETER DOUGHERTY PIER

Submitted by: Kristina Jaroh, Nancy Jaroh and Dr. Mark Holley March, 2015 Northwestern Michigan Archaeology Society

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Nos.

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….….. 1

Figure List……………………………………………………………………………...2-3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………... 4

Location………………………………………………………………………………...4-6

A Brief History Regarding the Establishment of Old Mission Peninsula and the

Historical Research Evidence of the Peter Dougherty Pier……………………..7-15

Crib Pier Construction Method……………………………………………………....16-18

Survey Methodology…………………………………………………………………19-30

Conclusions & Recommendations……………………………………………………31-34

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………..35-36

Index to Appendix……………………………………………………………………….37

Appendices A-G………………………………………………………………………38-54 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the following people for their assistance and expertise, making this publication possible:

 William Cole – President, Peter Dougherty Society  Jon Moses - Boat Operator and Safety Officer  Ann Swaney – Research Librarian  Dan Harrison – Research Librarian

A very special thank you to Dan Harrison for his contribution of exceptional field notes, theories and guidance.

FIGURE LIST Page Nos.

Cover Photos: Photo #1 Shallow Timber Remains of Pier Cribs (Nancy Jaroh)

Photo #2 Sector Scan Image Drop #2 Crib Stones-60 Feet (Nautilus

Marine Group Intl.)

Fig. 1: North America Great Lakes Region………………………………………………...4

Fig. 2: Lake Michigan……………………………………………………………………....5

Fig. 3: Grand Traverse Bay………………………………………………………………...5

Fig. 4: Old Mission Harbor ………………………………………………………………..5

Fig. 5: Satellite Image of Timber and Stone Remnants……………………………………6

Fig. 6: Photo of Reverend Peter Dougherty……………………………………………….7

Fig. 7: Artist’s rendering of Reverend Peter Dougherty Arriving at Old Mission………..8

Fig. 8: Peter Dougherty Pier in Relation to Elk Rapids, MI………………………………9

Fig. 9: Lewis Miller………………………………………………………………………10

Fig. 10: Approximate Location of Peter Dougherty Pier………………………………...11

Fig. 11: Shallow Timber Remains of Pier Cribs…………………………………………12

Fig. 12: Example of a Mackinaw Boat …………………………………………………..13

Fig. 13: Example of Ottawas/Chippawas Canoe…………………………………………13

Fig. 14: Dougherty Historic Home Site…………………………………………………..14

Fig. 15: Hemlock Ceiling Board #1 from Dougherty Historic Home Site………………15

Fig. 16: Hemlock Ceiling Board #2 from Dougherty Historic Home Site………………15

Fig. 17: Example #1 – Log Crib Construction……………………………………………17

Fig. 18: Example #2 – Plank Crib Pier Construction with Pilings………………………..17

Fig. 19: Log Crib Pier Construction with Pilings…………………...... 18

Fig. 20: Surveying of Rock Piles Forming Cribs with Sector Scan Sonar………………..20

Fig. 21: Dr. Mark Holley Surveying the Cribs with Sector Scan Sonar…………………..20

FIGURE LIST (cont.) Page Nos.

Fig. 22: Sector Scan Image Drop #2 Crib Stones – 60 Feet………………………………21

Fig. 23: Sector Scan Image Drop #2 Crib Stones – 90 Feet………………………………21

Fig. 24: Sector Scan Image Drop #3 Crib Stones – 60 Feet……………………………….22

Fig. 25: Sector Scan Image Drop #3 Crib Stones – 90 Feet……………………………….22

Fig. 26: Sector Scan Image Drop #4 Crib Stones – 90 Feet……………………………….23

Fig. 27: Dan Harrison with Prism and Assessment Survey Sketch………………………..24

Fig. 28: Divers Kristina and Nancy Jaroh Preparing for Reconnaissance Survey………..25

Fig. 29: Increase in Lake Michigan Water Levels between 2007 and 2014 Survey………26

Fig. 30: Reconnaissance Survey using Towed Diver Search Method…………………….26

Fig. 31: Wood Piling Embedded in Lakebed……………………………………………...27

Fig. 32: Lincoln Log Style Notch on Debris Timber………………………………………28

Fig. 33: Timber in Debris Field Notched on the End……………………………………...29

Fig. 34: Timber in Debris Field with Round Hole………………………………………....30 Fig. 35: Timber in Debris Field with Square Hole near End of Timber……………………30

Fig. 36: Lithograph in Francis de Castelnau, Vues et souveniers de l’Amerique,

du Nord 1842 Fort Mackinac……………………………………………………...31

Introduction:

The aim of this project is to further expand upon findings of the 2007 and 2011 archaeological surveys of the Peter Dougherty Pier and to report the results of the 2007, 2011 and 2014 surveys, documenting the remains of the Peter Dougherty Pier in East Grand Traverse Bay. These submerged timbers and crib stones are archaeological features, located within the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve and are an important part of the settlement history of Old Mission Peninsula. Although the pier is historically important, its existence could be in jeopardy of being destroyed, due to ignorance of its importance as a part of Old Mission’s maritime cultural heritage. The public have not been made aware of the fact that the remnants are part of the historic pier and yet education and awareness is the key to its preservation. Historical research was conducted to gather information about Reverend Peter Dougherty and other early settlers regarding their involvement in settling Old Mission. The findings of this research will be disseminated through this paper, as well as current photo documentation of the site, to be given to the Peter Dougherty Society. Through this research we hope to gain an understanding of the historical background and provide an insight into the original purpose of the Peter Dougherty Pier, the construction methods used and those responsible for its construction.

Location:

The submerged pier is located ½ mile south of Haserot Beach, at Old Mission Harbor, which is located on the east side of Old Mission Peninsula on Happy Hour Lane where it meets East Bay, approximately 15 miles North of Traverse City, MI, USA, on M37. GPS coordinates N44 57.259 W85 28.965 (See Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

Fig. 1: North America Great Lakes Region (Google 2014)

Fig. 2: Lake Michigan (Google 2014) Fig. 3: Grand Traverse Bay (Google 2014)

Fig. 4: Old Mission Harbor (Google 2014)

Fig. 5: Satellite Image of Timber and Stone Remnants (Google 2014)

A Brief History Regarding the Establishment of Old Mission Peninsula and the Historical Research Evidence of the Structure Known as the Peter Dougherty Pier

Fig. 6: Photo of Reverend Peter Dougherty (Google 2014)

Peter Dougherty (See Fig. 6) was born November 15, 1805 in Plattekill, New York and spent 33 years serving among the Chippewa Indians as a missionary under the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions (Anderson pg. 95). His travels led him to Niagara Falls, Cleveland, Detroit, and Mackinac, and he eventually settled on Grand Traverse as the location for his mission on a recommendation from Mr. Johnston, a government interpreter, and Henry R. Schoolcraft, an Indian agent (Anderson pgs. 97-112). This was an ideal location because there were two to three Ottawa and Chippewa villages on the north side of the bay, and traders and Catholics had yet to gain a foothold on the area, implying that the mission could be a long-term establishment (Anderson pg. 108). Reverend Dougherty’s goal was to imitate a Catholic mission involving the Indians at L Arbour Croche, which made great strides in ‘civilization’ with Indians (Anderson pg. 108).

After spending the winter of 1839 in Mackinac, Reverend Dougherty, accompanied by Reverend John Fleming, arrived at Mission Point in May of 1839 (“An Overview of Early History”). Rounding the point of the peninsula in their Mackinaw boat, (See Fig. 7) they came ashore at the spot where the wharf would eventually be built (Leach pg. 23). A wharf is a raised level structure on the shore of a harbor where ships may dock to load and unload cargo or passengers; a landing place or pier (Merriam-Webster.com).

Fig. 7: Artist’s rendering of Reverend Dougherty Arriving at Old Mission (Barnes pg. 21)

Reverends Dougherty and Fleming met with the Indian Chief Aish-qua-gwon-a-ba, and held a council to determine if they could build a school in order to teach Indian children about the Christian savior (“An Overview of Early History”). They accompanied the Indians across to the east side of the bay (Elk Rapids) on the 20th of May to decide upon a good location for the school and a dwelling for the reverends (“An Overview of Early History”). Reverends Dougherty and Fleming cut the logs for the construction of a dwelling and schoolhouse (Leach pg. 24).

After beginning to build their establishments, Fleming’s wife died, and he and his men left the mission, leaving Dougherty alone with a few surveyors (“An Overview of Early History”). Henry Schoolcraft came from Mackinac to visit Reverend Dougherty on June 20th, and decided that Bower’s Harbor would be the ideal location to locate the blacksmith, carpenter, and farmer, and the mission (“An Overview of Early History”). However, due to the wishes of the Indians, Mission Harbor, under Chief Ah-go-sa, was chosen instead, and with the help of the Indians and their canoes, Reverend Dougherty moved his belongings from Elk Rapids to Mission Harbor (See Fig. 8).

Fig. 8: Peter Dougherty Pier in Relation to Elk Rapids, MI (Barnes pg. 43)

Accompanying Henry Schoolcraft was Isaac George, the appointed Indian blacksmith (Leach pg. 24). The log house that had been built in Elk Rapids was dismantled and taken across East Bay where it was used to build a school house and wood shed (“An Overview of Early History”). This school house served as the church until Mission Church was built one to two years later (“An Overview of Early History”). The Mission Church was built with cedar timbers (Leach pg. 24). Isaac George and Reverend Dougherty began construction of a house for themselves, cutting logs close to the edge of Old Mission Harbor. The timbers were floated

9 close to the construction site and dragged ashore with the assistance of the Indians. In the fall of 1841, George Johnson joins the settlement, appointed the Indian carpenter. As an employee of the U.S. Government, his duty was to instruct the Indians “in simpler and more necessary arts of civilization” (Leach pg. 24). In 1852, Reverend Dougherty eventually moved to Omena on the Leelanau Peninsula, joining the Ottawas and Chippewas from the Old Mission settlement, where they purchased their own land (Meyer pg. 6).

In the fall of 1841, the new Indian farmer sent by the Indian Agency was Deacon Joseph Dame. The Dame family arrived in Old Mission on the schooner Supply. Lewis Miller, a 17 year old orphan, accompanied the Dame family and was the first white settler to arrive independent of a government agency or church organization (See Fig. 9). Within a year he became an important pioneer merchant, negotiating trade deals with Mr. Merrick, a merchant at Mackinac, which was the center for fur trade in the region (The American Fur Company established John Jacob Astor). Lewis Miller opened trade with the Indians at Old Mission in exchange for furs. Miller rented an Indian wigwam for his first store in Old Mission. In 1850, the Indian Department sent William Stone, who took over the trading in the area when Lewis Miller left Old Mission and followed Reverend Peter Dougherty to the new mission in Omena (Potter pg. 72). “Either he or his successor built a large dock here for easier unloading of supplies (See Fig. 10). The water logged piles can still be seen dark and mysterious, on the bottom of the bay.” (Potter pgs. 35-36) (See Fig. 11).

Fig. 9: Lewis Miller (Meyer pg. 5)

OLD MISSION PENINSULA

Approx. Location PDP*

Fig. 10: Approximate Location of Peter Dougherty Pier*

(1881 Atlas, Grand Traverse County)

Fig. 11: Shallow Timber Remains of Pier Cribs (N. Jaroh 2012)

During the time period Peter Dougherty resided at the Old Mission settlement (1839- 1850), water transportation was provided by paddle or sail. Mackinaw boats (See Fig. 12), schooners, sloops and canoes (See Fig. 13) were used to transport passengers and freight. The Mackinaw boat, a small sailing craft, was the ideal work boat of its time that could be easily beached if necessary. The boat played a significant role in the development of the region (Wakefield pgs. 1-7).

Fig. 12: Example of a Mackinaw Boat (Wakefield pg. 3)

Fig. 13: Example of Ottawas/Chippawas Canoe (bigorrin.org)

By the mid 1800’s, steam powered ships began to replace the sailing vessels. The Old Mission Dock Company was formed in 1869 to build a commercial dock. Old Mission had become a popular summer resort destination and a major shipping point for locally grown cherries, potatoes and apples (Jaroh pgs. 7-8).

Dougherty Historic Home Site

In 1842, a more permanent residence for Reverend Dougherty was built (See Fig. 14), now known as the Dougherty Historic Home Site (“History”); this structure was built with Hemlock timbers (Cole). The Peter Dougherty Society is currently preserving and restoring the Dougherty Historic Home Site and in the process are exposing for viewing some of the original craftsmanship and carpentry techniques used in its construction (See Figs. 15 and 16).

Fig. 14: Dougherty Historic Home Site (Old Mission Peninsula Historical Society)

Fig. 15: Hemlock Ceiling Board #1 from Dougherty Historic Home Site (Jaroh, N. 2014)

Fig. 16: Hemlock Ceiling Board #2 from Dougherty Historic Home Site (Jaroh, N. 2014)

Crib Pier Construction Method

In this section of the report, information will be presented that describes the construction of method of the Peter Dougherty Pier and the reasons why this method was used.

The timber of choice for construction would be determined by choosing a durable wood with regional availability (Hoxie pg. 54). The timbers in cribs (See Fig. 17) are assembled in opposing pairs, with one being laid on top of the other, creating a slatted box, and the cribs may have been angled to minimize effects of weather such as wind and ice (Hoxie pg. 41). The maximum depth of the cribs should be eight feet deep, with the cribs being square, with length and width being equal to or greater than the height of the crib for stability (Hoxie pg. 41). Using the crib method, the timbers may be notched at the corner joints to provide rigidity (Hoxie pg. 54). The cribs may also be built so that the sides are solid, without spaces between the timbers, which are achieved by making the deep log-cabin like corner notches (Hoxie pg. 82). Using the Crib Method, a floor is also required, and the crib is then filled with rocks after the assembled crib frame is floated into place (Hoxie pg. 82).

“Historical photographs show this style of dock use throughout the area since the late 1800s. This structural design has key advantages: 1) they are strong enough to withstand most lateral ice loading, and 2) they are flexible enough to accommodate the episodic vertical ice loads caused by seiche. Seiche is a short-term fluctuation in Great Lakes coastal water levels caused by strong winds and barometric pressure differential. These effects will push the water to one side of the lake and then subsequently relax and allow the water level to drop, much like water sloshing in a bowl. The fluctuations can vary from a few inches to several feet and last from a few minutes to a day. In the wintertime, the seiche causes ice jacking. Ice jacking results from surface ice gripping pilings or piers as it freezes, then rising with the seiche, and subsequently relaxing. In the course of a fall-winter season, this seiche ice jacking cycle can occur multiple times and physically pull typical dock pilings out of the ground, whereas crib docks’ flexibility and unitary structure will, to a great extent, accommodate ice jacking. They can be lifted and resettled without structural damage” (Hoxie pg. 4).

Shallow water near the shoreline made it difficult to load and unload cargo. The construction of a crib pier could be built quickly using local timber and rocks, providing weight and stability to the structure. Pilings would aid in the stability of the structure and the deck as well as provide a place for the mooring of vessels. Examples of similar modern day piers follow below (See Figs. 17, 18 and 19).

Lincoln Log Type Notching

Fig. 17: Example #1 – Log Crib Construction (underwaterfishphotos.blogspot.com)

Piling

Deck Boards

Plank Crib

Rock Filling

Fig. 18: Example #2 – Plank Crib Pier Construction with Pilings (Holley, M.) 2008

Piling

Deck Boards

Rock Filling Lincoln Log Type Notching

Fig. 19: Log Crib Pier Construction with Pilings (Hoxie, pg. 114)

Survey Methodology

In 2007, a preliminary survey of the pier was conducted by members of the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve. The survey team consisted of:

Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark Holley

Dive Team: Dan Harrison, Ken Vrana

Dive Safety Officer: Jed Jaworski

Assistant Project Team: Greg MacMaster, Chris Doyal, Graham Kelly

Photographer: Dan Harrison

Sector Scan Sonar Operator – Brian Abbott/Nautilus Marine Group Intl.

Peter Dougherty Pier Survey 2007 – Condensed Field Notes of Dan Harrison

May 12, 2007

Survey team members assemble at Haserot Beach. Guided by local resident John Andrus, a series of piles of stone, running in a line from near the foot of Mission School Road towards the drop-off, are located. These piles have been known locally for years as “the cribs,” as they were composed of stones and timbers. Five stone piles are readily visible and within wading depth from shore; the outermost near the edge of the drop-off. They are approximately the same size (about 3m in diameter) and are spaced approximately equidistant from each other. The innermost pile is some distance from shore. An assessment sketch (See Fig. 27) (See Appendix A) is created and the stone piles are labeled A through E, from outermost to innermost, respectively. The structures are viewed through a bathyscope and some preliminary photographs are taken.

July 2007

Dr. Mark Holley and Brian Abbott from Nautilus Marine Group Intl. survey the cribs using sector scan sonar (See Figs. 20 and 21). Sector Scan images are taken of the archaeological remains of the cribs at 60 and 90 feet (See Figs. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26).

Fig. 20: Surveying of Rock Piles Forming Cribs with Sector Scan Sonar (Holley, M.) July 2007

Fig. 21: Dr. Mark Holley Surveying the Cribs with Sector Scan Sonar (Abbott, B.) July 2007

Fig. 22: Sector Scan Image Drop #2 Crib Stones – 60 Feet Radius (Nautilus Marine Group Intl.) July 2007

Fig. 23: Sector Scan Image Drop #2 Crib Stones – 90 Feet Radius (Nautilus Marine Group Intl.) July 2007

Fig. 24: Sector Scan Image Drop #3 Crib Stones – 60 Feet Radius (Nautilus Marine Group Intl.) July 2007

Fig. 25: Sector Scan Image Drop #3 Crib Stones – 90 Feet Radius (Nautilus Marine Group Intl.) July 2007

Fig. 26: Sector Scan Image Drop #4 Crib Stones – 90 Feet Radius (Nautilus Marine Group Intl.) July 2007

August 3, 2007

The team members assemble at the home of Dr. and Mrs. Graham Kelly on Happy Hour Lane who provided shoreline access to the site. Dan Harrison and Dr. Mark Holley locate the five crib sites. The Total Station is set up on the shore on a reference point roughly on the axis formed by the line of the cribs. Dan Harrison positions a diver’s flag on the outermost crib and took handheld GPS positions on the five cribs, numbered A through E, from the outer to inner.

GPS Positions of cribs:

Crib A: N44 57.259 W85 28.965 Crib B: N44 57.259 W85 28.970 Crib C: N44 57.259 W85 28.975 Crib D: N44 57.258 W85 28.983 Crib E: N44 57.257 W85 28.989

A total of approximately 102 points were taken using the total station and the prism, consisting of the end points of all visible timbers in the vicinity and polygonal outlines of the rock piles forming the cribs. In addition, points along the present land-water interface were surveyed for reference (See Appendix B and C).

Fig. 27: Dan Harrison with Prism and Assessment Survey Sketch (Holley, M.) 2007

The 2011 Nautical Archaeology Society survey team members consisted of:

Dr. Mark Holley and Alisa Kroupa

September 20, 2011

The pier was resurveyed in 2011 by Alisa Kroupa and Dr. Mark Holley as part of a research program for the Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve. Without referencing the 2007 survey, Alisa selected the survey points on individual timbers and the crib remains that were visible at that time. A total of approximately 150 points were taken using the total station (TS11- Leica) and the prism, consisting of end points of visible timbers in the vicinity and polygonal outlines of the rock piles forming the cribs.

The 2014 Nautical Archaeology Society survey team members consisted of the following members:

Project Leader: Nancy Jaroh Dive Team: Kristina Jaroh, Nancy Jaroh Photographers: Jon Moses, Nancy Jaroh Boat Operator/Safety Officer: Jon Moses

August 17, 2014

The 2014 survey team members assemble at Haserot Beach to begin a reconnaissance survey to locate the five crib remains and the timber debris field of the Peter Dougherty Pier documented by the 2007 survey team (See Fig. 28).

Fig. 28: Divers Kristina and Nancy Jaroh Preparing for Reconnaissance Survey (Moses, J.) 2014

The objectives of this survey were to complement the findings of the 2007 survey:

1. To locate and photograph any pilings embedded in the lakebed closer to the shore, furthest from the stone crib remains 2. To locate, take diagnostic measurements and photograph any details on the timbers to determine the construction method of the cribs.

Visually locating the stone remains of the cribs from the boat was impaired as the water levels had increased significantly since the 2007 survey (See Fig. 29). After two years of historically low water levels, the water levels in Lake Michigan had recovered to heights not seen in 15 years (Krietz, A. “Lakes Michigan and Huron….”).

Fig. 29: Increase in Lake Michigan Water Levels between 2007 and 2014 Survey (glerl.noaa.gov) 2014

Fig. 30: Reconnaissance Survey using Towed Diver Search Method (Moses, J.) 2014

After a slow speed towed diver search along the west drop-off of Old Mission Harbor, the divers were able to locate the stone remains of the cribs that were surveyed in 2007 (See Fig. 30). The large stones vary in size from approximately four inches to twelve inches, smooth with a

26 rounded or angular shape and appear to be laying directly on the lakebed, devoid of a wooden planked or timber log floor.

Extending the search now inward to the west of the drop-off, the divers found and photographed five details on the timber remains. The water depths for these submerged artifacts were all between eight and ten feet of water. The remains of two pilings embedded in the lakebed that were not found in the 2007 survey revealed themselves. They were located approximately four feet to the west, towards the shoreline, in proximity to the large timber debris field. Although coated in zebra mussel shells, the divers were able to ascertain that they surrounded a wood piling. These piling remains appeared to be sculpted into a cone shape, seemingly created by ice. The coating of zebra mussels made a visual inspection impossible to view any tree rings or wood grain. The pilings would have been set into the lakebed to provide structural support, as they would resist applied vertical and/or horizontal loads (Collinsdictionary.com). No stones or rocks resembling those in the five crib remains were observed in the immediate area of these pilings. The piling measures approximately five inches in height from the lakebed (See Fig. 31).

Fig. 31: Wood Piling Embedded in Lakebed (Jaroh, N.) 2014

Another detail feature recorded on a timber from the debris field can best be described as a Lincoln log style notch. The length of this horizontal notch on this timber measures approximately 2 feet and 2 inches (See Fig. 32). The depth of the notch could not be accurately measured due to the deposits of silt, algae and debris. This would be an example of a notched corner joint on a timber that would provide rigidity to the crib structure. Lying on the sandy lakebed, no stones or rocks resembling those in the crib remains were in the vicinity.

Fig. 32: Lincoln Log Style Notch on Debris Timber (Jaroh, N.) 2014

Another timber in the debris field shows a different type of notching on the end of the timber, instead of along the horizontal side of the timber (See Fig. 33). This timber was heavily coated in algae. The depth of the notch could not be accurately measured as it was filled with algae, silt and debris.

Fig. 33: Timber in Debris Field Notched on the End (Jaroh, N.) 2014

Several timbers had the detail feature of a round hole(See Fig. 34). These cavities were filled with zebra mussel shells and algae, making it impossible to measure the depth of the hole; the diameter of the circle hole is approximately 4-1/2 inches.

Fig. 34: Timber in Debris Field with Round Hole (Jaroh, N.) 2014

The last detail photographed on a timber is that of a square hole (See Fig. 35). Whether or not the hole went completely through the timber could not be determined as the cavity was filled to some extent with algae and silt. This square hole measures approximately 5 inches x 5 inches and appears to be hand tooled and not a natural feature.

Fig. 35: Timber in Debris Field with Square Hole near End of Timber (Jaroh, N.) 2014

Conclusions and Recommendations

The archaeological site known as the Peter Dougherty Pier has survived for over 160 years. It is possible that either Lewis Miller, the young entrepreneur, or his predecessor, William Stone, were the merchants/traders responsible for its construction. George Johnson, appointed Indian carpenter, and Isaac George, the Indian blacksmith, may have used their carpentry skills in erecting the pier. Lewis Miller and William Stone may have been influenced by the pier/dock that they saw at Mackinac and modeled the Peter Dougherty Pier after it (See Fig. 36).

Pier/Dock /Wh

Fig. 36: Lithograph in Francis de Castelnau, Vues et souveniers de l’Amerique du Nord, 1842 Fort Mackinac (The Library of Congress)

The surviving archaeological remains of the Peter Dougherty Pier reveal the pier to be constructed using the crib method. Indigenous timbers available during this time period on the peninsula were maple sugar, beech, basswood, elm, hemlock, pine and cedar (Leach pg. 38). It

31 is possible that hemlock timbers used to construct the Dougherty Historic Home Site were also used to construct the pier, as the pier was probably constructed during the same time period. Hemlock is a very durable wood and regionally available. What became known as the Mission Point Light Station and Reservation was covered by a “virgin forest, mostly hardwood and a portion of hemlock” (Johnson pg. 44). Cribs built of hemlock continually submerged in water can last 50 years or longer (Hoxie pg. 51). These timbers have obviously survived considerably beyond this prediction.

Without a doubt, the Peter Dougherty Pier has succumbed to the wrecking process (Muckelroy p. 158). Natural and human forces have contributed to the breakdown of the Peter Dougherty Pier. In addition to the pier’s destruction by ice, timbers and rocks from the cribs may have been removed by local residents and recycled for construction use. Rocks from the cribs may have been used for foundations of nearby houses and barns. The timber debris could also have proven to be a nuisance to pleasure boat traffic and beach property owners who now have their own private beach areas and boat docks. The arrangement of the timbers from 2007 to 2011 appears to look completely different. In 2007, the spread of timbers looks to be predominantly in a north/south direction, but in 2011 it appears to be more of an east/west spread. Perhaps seiche ice jacking on the harbor is responsible for the rearrangement of the timbers. Considering that the remains of only two pilings were found closer to shore, others may have been removed or sheared off by ice action and are now buried by sediment.

With the influx of more settlers making Old Mission Peninsula their home and an increase of forestry and agricultural products leaving the peninsula by boat, the Peter Dougherty Pier structure became inadequate. It is uncertain if the pier was dismantled when a commercial dock was constructed in Old Mission Harbor.

The majority of the unsquared timbers in the surveyed debris field measure approximately 22 feet long. The wood grain on the timbers could not be observed because of the heavy coating of algae. One of the timbers (See Fig. 32) shows the presence of a Lincoln log type notched end, which would provide rigidity at the corner joints. This suggests that the crib sides were solid. The five piles of stones that once filled the crib structures and supplied the stability of the frame structure are spaced approximately 25 feet apart. The floors of the cribs were not visible and are most likely buried in the sand and silt that has collected between the large rocks. The “crib style” requires the structure to have a floor; the cribs were either floated out to their position or pushed out on to the ice in the winter where they would become submerged on to the lakebed after the spring thaw. Survey measurements document the structure to be well over 150 feet long (See Appendix D); because it was such an extensive structure, both construction methods may have been utilized.

Random small short planks were observed scattered within the site, but whether or not they are part of this pier’s debris field cannot be ascertained. It is possible that these small planks may be part of the decking of the pier as they are located relatively close to shore. The

32 harsh winter storms of 2014 and the freezing of Lake Michigan seem to have exposed more of the pier’s remains since the survey of 2007. Currently, the shoreline property is undeveloped and devoid of any residential structures.

Three types of joinery techniques are documented:

A. Lincoln log style notch towards the horizontal end of a timber (See Fig. 32) B. A gash type notch into the very end of a timber (See Fig. 33) C. A square hole near the end of a timber (See Fig. 35)

Joinery techniques A and B were probably produced by an ax or adze and C was probably produced by a chisel and hammer. The timber with the square hole (See Fig. 35) may be part of the pier’s superstructure to support the decking. Due to this distinct feature, it is possible that this longitudinal beam might have been a “stringer”, used to support the decking where it began and extended from the shoreline (Dictionary.com). The remains of the two pilings provide some structural evidence for the purpose of mooring vessels and to assist in stabilization of a deck (See Figure 31). The round hole (See Fig. 34) found in one of the timbers (and several other timbers found but not photographed) appears not to have been man-made and to have been produced by the natural rotting of the base of a limb which had been lopped off (Harrison).

The Peter Dougherty Pier archaeological site warrants further exploration and structural analysis. Although excavation is not permitted in Lake Michigan, perhaps gentle hand fanning of the sand on the lakebed will further expose the remains of inshore cribs and pilings. According to the results of the 2007 survey data, based on the spacing of the remaining stone piles at the drop-off, a search at 25 feet intervals towards the shoreline may reveal additional crib remains. Any artifacts would continue to remain in situ and if any additional cribs or pilings were exposed, an additional survey should be conducted to position-fix the remains.

The stone piles should also be examined for the remains of pilings (buried stubs) that may have been sheared off by ice. Special attention should be paid to cone shaped formations of zebra mussels as an indication of a possible piling.

A reconnaissance survey at the drop-off, within proximity of the termination of the outer crib remains, should be conducted to search for additional timbers and structural remains that may have tumbled down the slope, as well as artifacts that may have been dropped from vessels that used the pier. The depth of the water at the drop-off area is between 50-60 feet (US Hydrological Chart).

A comparison of tool marks and joinery techniques of the pier remains can be compared to tool markings and joinery techniques found at the Dougherty Historic Home Site. Perhaps wood grains could be compared to determine what type of hardwood was used to construct the pier.

This project was produced according to the guidelines set forth by the Nautical Archaeology Society.

Works Cited

Anderson, Charles A. “Diaries of Peter Dougherty, Volume 1: Introduction.” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society (1943-1961) 30.2 (1952): 95-114. JSTOR. Web. 16 Aug. 2014.

“An Overview of Early History- Village of Elk Rapids & Elk Rapids Township.” Elkrapids.com. Elk Rapids Township, n.d. Web. 16 Aug. 2014.

Barnes, A. 100 Years from the Old Mission in Grand Traverse County MI 1839-1939. 1939.

Bigorrin.org. Native Languages of the Americas 2014.

Cole, William. Personal interview. 30 June 2014.

Collinsdictionary.com

Dictionary.com

Glerl.noaa.gov

Harrison, Daniel. [email protected] “Re: W: Dougherty Pier Pictures.” 17 Sep. 2014. Personal email.

“History.” Oldmissionhouse.com. The Dougherty Historic Home Site, n.d. Web. 16 Aug. 2014.

Hoxie, Brian J., “Crib Dock Permit and Construction Standards in the Upper Great Lakes” (2009). Master’s Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 508.

Jaroh, Nancy, The Small Craft in Old Mission Harbor. 2010.

Johnson, Laura and Staley, Stephanie, Mission Point Lighthouse, Traverse City. 2011.

Krietz, Andrew. "Lakes Michigan and Huron Surge to Highest Water Levels in 15 Years." MLive Media Group. n.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Leach, M.L. A History Grand Traverse Region, 1883. [Written for the Grand Traverse Herald, Traverse City, MI]

The Library of Congress

Merriam-Webster.com

Meyer, Julianne E., Reflections of Yesterday. 1988. Print.

Muckelroy, Keith., Maritime Archaeology. New York. Cambridge University Press. 1978.

Potter, Elizabeth, The Story of Old Mission, Edwards Brothers, Inc. 1956. Print.

Works Cited Cont.

Wakefield, L., Sail and Rail. Michigan, Village Press, 1980.

Underwaterfishphotos.blogspot.com

US Hydrological Charts

INDEX TO APPENDIX Page Nos.

Appendix A: Assessment Survey Drawing - 2007………………………………………..38

Appendix B: Survey Points - 2007…………………… ………………………………39-40

Appendix C: Data – 2007………..…………………………………………………….41-44

Appendix D: Data – 2011.………...…………………………...... 45-50

Appendix E: Peter Dougherty Pier Site Drawing - 2007………………………………….51

Appendix F: Peter Dougherty Pier Site Drawing - 2011…………………………………..52

Appendix G: NAS Dive Plan and NAS Marshall Sheet………………………………..53-54

Appendix A: Assessment Survey Drawing - 2007

Appendix B: Survey Points - 2007

Appendix B: Survey Points - 2007 – Continued- Page 2

Appendix B: Survey Points - 2007 – Continued- Page 3

Appendix C: Data – 2007

Point 18.148,55.988 Point 15.252,61.261 Point 15.252,61.261 Point 16.271,61.143 Point 19.358,55.818 Point 19.358,55.818 Point 10.75,62.717 Point 6.869,66.762 Point 6.869,66.762 Point 9.207,79.62 Point 14.374,82.152 Point 14.374,82.152 Point 13.214,82.231 Point 10.033,80.615 Point 10.033,80.615 Point 4.282,79.062 Point 3.475,76.875 Point 3.475,76.875 Point 20.138,55.856 Point 19.118,61.447 Point 19.118,61.447 Point 20.555,62.778 Point 20.206,56.96 Point 20.206,56.96 Point 27.257,59.520 Point 26.057,53.687 Point 26.057,53.687 Point 27.731,56.574 Point 27.9,60.203 Point 27.9,60.203 Point 30.86,60.973 Point 28.765,66.385 Point 28.765,66.385 Point 30.065,67.698 Point 31.584,61.929 Point 31.584,61.929 Point 32.107,66.519 Point 29.923,69.303 Point 29.923,69.303 Point 28.682,70.103 Point 31.023,67.248 Point 31.023,67.248 Point 32.538,65.148 Point 32.026,70.562

Appendix C: Data – 2007 – Continued Pg. 2

Point 32.026,70.562 Point 34.475,71.109 Point 36.496,68.028 Point 36.496,68.028 Point 37.926,67.866 Point 39.697,62.127 Point 39.697,62.127 Point 39.418,61.145 Point 39.535,55.097 Point 39.535,55.097 Point 39.218,55.251 Point 37.767,60.558 Point 37.767,60.558 Point 37.683,60.150 Point 33.739,59.587 Point 33.739,59.587 Point 68.109,47.452 Point 69.845,52.869 Point 69.845,52.869 Point 71.635,70.38 Point 69.403,73.313 Point 69.403,73.313 Point 70.541,71.435 Point 66.771,71.301 Point 66.771,71.301 Point 33.979,93.687 Point 29.925,97.493 Point 29.925,97.493 Point 27.61,103.52 Point 32.907,103.244 Point 32.907,103.244 Point 33.068,105.562 Point 27.434,104.790 Point 27.814,105.637 Point 32.056,106.001 Point 32.056,106.001 Rem Crib1 Point 37.748,133.243 Point 31.693,132.628 Point 33.368,133.958 Point 29.697,134.539 Point 36.208,138.053 Point 34.234,143.337

Appendix C: Data – 2007 – Continued Pg. 3

Point 33.141,147.532 Point 38.247,146.976 Point 37.748,133.243 Rem Crib2 Point 41.091,168.301 Point 37.941,169.032 Point 40.612,167.038 Point 40.495,165.526 Point 41.48,162.661 Point 38.333,160.671 Point 35.645,161.572 Point 34.571,163.757 Point 36.362,164.491 Point 41.091,168.301 Point 38.954,158.277 Point 40.774,157.285 Point 39.796,155.055 Point 36.375,154.695 Point 35.4,156.304 Point 38.954,158.277 Point 38.429,148.281 Point 39.662,146.238 Point 39.954,144.25 Point 37.559,142.265 Point 33.848,143.255 Point 32.634,145.092 Point 33.388,146.704 Point 38.429,148.281 Point 35.192,139.139 Point 36.884,138.621 Point 38.064,137.480 Point 38.715,136.189 Point 37.117,134.893 Point 34.539,134.467 Point 32.017,135.018 Point 30.952,135.717 Point 32.449,138.004 Point 33.484,139.087 Point 35.192,139.139 Point -12.008,71.022 Point -11.963,68.001 Point -11.963,68.001 Point -9.299,71.984 Point -8.759,64.950

Appendix C: Data – 2007 – Continued Pg. 4

Point -8.759,64.950 Point -10.258,65.374 Point -6.020,61.533 Point -6.020,61.533 Point -8.195,62.546 Point -4.948,58.098 Point -4.948,58.098 Rem Shore Point 78.025,-3.421 Point 77.231,1.213 Point 64.526,4.796 Point 53.264,9.395 Point 45.477,12.185 Point 32.637,12.458 Point 17.511,13.221 Point 2.171,13.630 Point -9.285,17.609 Point -25.475,20.451 Point -43.019,22.625 Point -43.019,22.625

Appendix D: Data – 2011

Point 18.148, 55.988 Point 15.252, 61.261 Point 15.252,61.261 Point 16.271,61.143 Point 19.358,55.818 Point 19.358,55.818 Point 10.75,62.717 Point 6.869,66.762 Point 6.869,66.762 Point 9.207,79.62 Point 14.374,82.152 Point 14.374,82.152 Point 13.214,82.231 Point 10.033,80.615 Point 10.033,80.615 Point 4.282,79.062 Point 3.475,76.875 Point 3.475,76.875 Point 20.138,55.856 Point 19.118,61.447 Point 19.118,61.447 Point 20.555,62.778 Point 20.206,56.96 Point 20.206,56.96 Point 27.257,59.520 Point 26.057,53.687 Point 26.057,53.687 Point 27.731,56.574 Point 27.9,60.203 Point 27.9,60.203 Point 30.86,60.973 Point 28.765,66.385 Point 28.765,66.385 Point 30.065,67.698 Point 31.584,61.929 Point 31.584,61.929 Point 32.107,66.519 Point 29.923,69.303 Point 29.923,69.303 Point 28.682,70.103 Point 31.023,67.248 Point 31.023,67.248 Point 32.538,65.148 Point 32.026,70.562

Appendix D: Data – 2011– Continued – Page 2

Appendix D: Data – 2011 – Continued – Page 3

Point 38.247,146.976 Point 37.748,133.243 Rem Crib2 Point 41.091,168.301 Point 37.941,169.032 Point 40.612,167.038 Point 40.495,165.526 Point 41.48,162.661 Point 38.333,160.671 Point 35.645,161.572 Point 34.571,163.757 Point 36.362,164.491 Point 41.091,168.301 Point 38.954,158.277 Point 40.774,157.285 Point 39.796,155.055 Point 36.375,154.695 Point 35.4,156.304 Point 38.954,158.277 Point 38.429,148.281 Point 39.662,146.238 Point 39.954,144.25 Point 37.559,142.265 Point 33.848,143.255 Point 32.634,145.092 Point 33.388,146.704 Point 38.429,148.281 Point 35.192,139.139 Point 36.884,138.621 Point 38.064,137.480 Point 38.715,136.189 Point 37.117,134.893 Point 34.539,134,467 Point 32.017,135.018 Point 30.952,135.717 Point 32.449,138.004 Point 33.484,139.087 Point 35.192,139.139 Point -12.008,71.022 Point -11.963,68.001 Point -11.963,68.001 Point -9.299,71.984 Point -8.759,64.950

Appendix D: Data –2011 - Continued – Page 4

Appendix E: Peter Dougherty Pier Site Drawing – 2007

Appendix F: Peter Dougherty Pier Site Drawing –

Appendix G: NAS Dive Plan and NAS Marshall Sheet