Prepared by:
Charles Moore,
M.A.
Maritime Heritage
Consulting
315-1349 E. 2 Ave.
Vancouver, B.C.
V5N 1C4
Ph: 604-251-9700
Fax: 604-254-6115
2004
This project aimed to locate a ship
lost on Sir John Franklin’s final expedition of 1845, continuing field research
commenced in 1992 and further pursued during the field seasons of 1993, 1997,
2000, 2001 and 2002. The rationale
behind searching the areas off the Adelaide Peninsula (Utjulik) is based
primarily on traditional Inuit knowledge.
Field research methodology consisted of dropping a multi-imaging sonar
unit beneath the ice in target areas identified through analysis of data
collected by magnetometer on previous surveys. No ship remains or other cultural material were evident from
the sonar searches. A fragment of
small boat on land was an incidental discovery. This boat had been abandoned within the last 40 years. Activities were digitally recorded by a
documentary film crew.
Duration of Field Work: May 11 to May 21, 2004.
Field operations consisted of checking magnetometer targets in two areas to the west of the Adelaide Peninsula (Figs. 1 and 2).
Northern Survey Area: About 6km north of Grant Point within a box defined by
N 68.466 W 98.677 and N 68.463 W 98.655.
Southern Survey Area: Between 3 and 13 kilometers north and east of O’Reilly Island within a box defined by N 68.214 W 99.004 and N 68.118 W 98.748.
All locational information in this report is listed in latitude and longitude, degrees and decimal degrees, NAD 83.
Field Personnel:
Kevin Cronin (Principal Sponsor)
David Woodman (Sponsor, Historian, Search Coordinator, Diver)
John Murray (Sponsor, Cameraman, Diver)
Peter Bate (Film Director)
Jon Woods (Sound Technician, Camera Assistant)
Saul Aksalook (Principal Guide)
Darryl Kovtek (Guide)
David Siksik (Guide)
Colin Putugaq (Guide)
Tom Gross (Camp Logistical Coordinator)
David Holland (Dive Master, Sonar Technician)
Rob Field (Assistant Archaeologist, Diver)
Charles Moore (Archaeologist, Permit holder, Diver)
The 2004 expedition was primarily sponsored by private funds. The principal contributor was Kevin Cronin, but funds were also supplied by David Woodman and John Murray. Further financial and administrative support was provided by the Vancouver Maritime Museum and the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. In-kind contributions were graciously extended by Roger Sabourin of AquaLung Canada; Brad Herman, owner of Colt Creek Diving; Dave Stewart, owner of DASCO Equipment Inc; Dan Orr of Divers Alert Network; Ken McMillan of McQuest Marine Geophysical Services; and Frank White of Whites Manufacturing. Many thanks are also due to Constable Mike Toohey of Gjoa Haven RCMP detachment. The expedition would not have been possible without the stalwart volunteer contributions of Tom Gross and David Holland. This was the seventh expedition for Tom Gross in Captain Woodman’s company, and the third for Saul Aksoolak. Dave Holland, John Murray, and Kevin Cronin were each involved in one previous expedition, while Peter Bate, Jon Woods, Rob Field and Charles Moore were working in the Arctic for the first time.
,
Table of Contents
Searching for any sign of HM Ships Erebus and Terror has been at the forefront of many expeditions over the last 150 years. Yet, while lying at the heart of the Franklin Expedition’s failure to navigate the elusive North-West Passage, the ultimate circumstances surrounding the ships’ loss remains a mystery.
Public interest in what is known of the Franklin disaster is reflected in the designation of Sir John Franklin as a Person of National Historic Significance, along with two related National Historic Sites (NHS) in Nunavut (the Beechey Island NHS, and the Erebus and Terror NHS, Erebus Bay). While historical research is unlikely to offer much new information, archaeological research has a demonstrated potential to yield exciting data with a clear benefit to public education. For example, the Franklin graves at Beechey Island NHS have been subject to detailed archaeological investigations by Owen Beattie and his colleagues with interesting and well-publicized results (Beattie and Geiger 1987). Just as terrestrial cultural resources in the Arctic may be remarkably well preserved and rich in scientific data, so submerged cultural resources in the isolated underwater environment of the Arctic may be exceptionally rich in material for scientific research and public education.
Both Erebus and Terror were converted Royal Navy bomb vessels. They represent a type of ship type that made a critical contribution to polar exploration over the span of a century, between 1741 and 1845. The “bombs” were robustly built in order to mount heavy mortars used to bombard coastal installations and port cities. Vulnerable to attack by other ships, they tended to use the cover of night to move within range of the their targets. The Royal Navy bombs were typically named after volcanoes (eg: Hecla, Aetna, Vesuvius), or denizens of a fiery underworld (Beelzebub, Fury, Erebus[1]) alluding to their appearance at night as they blasted their mortar bombs, and incendiary “carcasses” into a high trajectory. The choice of name also underlined their usefulness as weapons of psychological terror. While the bombs’ indifferent sailing qualities and minimal accommodation space made them poor cruisers in the years between wars, with their mortars and magazines removed, their hefty scantlings made them the best of the larger ships used for polar exploration. They became the vessel type preferred by Middleton, Parry, Back, and Ross for exploring north and south polar seas, just as converted Whitby colliers of similar size were preferred by Cook and Vancouver for contemporary explorations in the Pacific. No bomb vessel has survived. Three of the eight Royal Navy bombs used in polar exploration were wrecked in that capacity, all in the Canadian Arctic.[2] HMS Fury was ground to a pulp by the ice over the rocks of the Somerset Island beach that bears its name. And one ship, either HMS Terror or Erebus, was probably crushed in the ice off Cape Frances Crozier, its remains scattered beneath a permanently advancing cover of ice. If the other of Franklin’s two vessels survived long enough to sink in relatively benign circumstances off Utjulik, it would provide a unique archaeological opportunity to study a type of vessel that had contributed so much to polar exploration in the age of sail. Both Terror and Erebus are of additional interest because they employed some cutting edge technology for the period, including built-in water tanks, diagonal iron bracing (Erebus), central heating systems,[3] ice-reinforced bows,[4] and auxiliary screw propulsion (Fig. 3).[5]
The search areas for this project were defined by Woodman and are based on intelligence gleaned from the Inuit first by Leopold McClintock in 1859, later by Charles Frances Hall, and with greatest detail by the Schwatka expedition in 1879 (Woodman 1991: 248-269; 2003). The interpretation Woodman presents is that one of the two vessels in the Franklin expedition survived a minimum of three winters in the pack ice of Victoria Strait, before being finally released into the Queen Maud Gulf. Probably under the direction of a skeleton crew by this time, it was maneuvered to, and perhaps anchored at, the location where it was ultimately observed by the Neitchille Inuit in smooth year-ice near an island off the north-west shore of the Adelaide Peninsula (Utjulik). It sank there with a minimum of violence, possibly the result of a botched salvage attempt, in water sufficiently shallow that the tops of the masts were visible (suggesting a depth of less than 130 ft./40m).[6] There is some ambiguity in the accounts suggesting either that this location was off Grant Point (northern search area) or the island currently identified as O’Reilly Island (southern search area). The total search area represents some 300km2.
Captain Woodman began his investigations in these areas in 1992 with an airborne magnetometer search that identified 61 magnetic anomalies (Woodman 1992). The most promising of these three targets were investigated in 1993 with through-ice sidescan sonar, but without result. Sea-borne surveys in 1997 and 2000 employed side-scan and forward-looking sonar as well as magnetometer, but due to wind and seas over the short summer seasons only about 80km2 were covered (Woodman 1997; Bertulli 1998; Grenier and Harris 2004; Delgado 2000).[7] In contrast, 11 days of sled-borne magnetometer work in 2001 covered all of the Grant Point survey area, approximately 166km2, with a line spacing of 200m (Woodman 2001). In 2002, a second sled-borne magnetometer survey produced a higher resolution (50m) pattern in the vicinity of targets identified in the previous year and surveyed at a 200m-spacing the O’Reilly Island search area (Woodman 2002).[8]
The surveys by boat and through the ice confirmed that the underwater environment was generally a featureless plain averaging 72 ft. (22m) in depth in the northern search area and 89 ft. (27m) in the southern area.[9] Notably absent were any signs of ice scour on the seabed. This welcome news meant that a wreck site located here might avoid impact by heavy ice, raising the possibility that the local environment could potentially preserve a wreck in a condition similar to the Breadalbane (1853) that was found largely intact and upright with two masts still standing in about 300 ft. (100m) of water off Beechey Island (MacInnes 1985).
Over a decade of searching off Utjulik all of the high priority magnetometer targets identified in 1992 were found to be geological in origin. Others have been identified and analysis of the accumulated magnetometer data prior to the 2004 season identified three high priority targets remaining in the Grant Point search area and four off. O’Reilly Island. The 2004 expedition would focus on these targets.
The approach to investigating the magnetometer targets was to begin with relocating each target by GPS.[10] At each location, a 16cm hole was to be drilled allowing for an echo sounder and a sonar unit[11] to be lowered through. These preliminary sensors would provide an idea of the depth, general bottom topography and indications of a potential wreck site. If the preliminary results were positive the intention was to cut a slightly larger hole to allow for the lowering of an ROV[12] mounting a camera and a sonar unit (Fig. 4). It was suggested in the permit application the ROV might be the primary tool for the project. If the ROV in turn produced positive sonar and visual results then the next level of investigation would be by divers on SCUBA through a substantially enlarged hole through the ice.
The potential of diving on an archaeological site complicated the permitting process. Although there was never any intention to collect artifacts or samples from the site, according to Nunavut Site Regulations, a Class 2 permit is required for diving operations approaching within 30m of a site.[13] It would be necessary to approach within this distance to visually confirm sonar results and undertake any site identification or assessment. Because of the proposed diving operations and the recognized significance of the site (Henderson 1994; and see Appendix A), 17 project-specific conditions had to be met as a requirement of permit issuance, including staying 3 metres away from any submerged cultural feature or site (see Appendix B). Research objectives were effectively limited to search and site identification, and restrained production of documentary footage.
The only other shipwreck incident reported in the area is a barge that sank in 1926 to the west of O’Reilly Island (Woodman 2003: 8).[14] Although probably an old sailing vessel, identifying the remains of this barge in contrast to a bomb vessel should be straightforward with visual access. It is generally thought that because Terror and Erebus were ships of the same type they were, therefore, practically identical, especially after their refits for polar service. This would make identification between these two vessels difficult. Terror was laid down to the Vesuvius Class specifications in 1812, while Erebus was launched in 1826 to the Hecla Class specifications of 1813. One difference between classes was the smaller as-built dimensions of the Vesuvius group, leaving Terror with about 1.83 ft. (0.56m) less breadth and 2.67 ft. (0.81m) less length than Erebus (Ware 1994:67-68). Easier to determine from a survey required to stay 3 metres away from the wreck were a number of diagnostic characteristics that may be discerned from two sets of as-fitted plans. One set is labeled “Terror and Erebus” (which adds to the perception that the ships are indistinguishable), however, these 1839 plans are actually of Erebus, as several notes and sketched features indicate different arrangements on Terror. On the other hand, the set of 1837 (as fitted for 1836 with 1845 modifications for power drawn over) plans attributed to Terror are certainly of that vessel, and reveal a number of readily distinguished features from the 1839 plan set.[15]
Diagnostic features based on comparison of the two as-fitted plan sets that might be useful in identifying the two vessels in a survey relying on distant visual data include 22 characteristics visible on deck. For example, quarterdeck housings, pump type, number and location, fore hatch locations, types of waist bulwark, davit and knight placements are quite distinctive. There are also seven topside characteristics visible, most conspicuously the continuous channel blister found on Erebus. If the wreck were opened up, another seven diagnostic characteristics are apparent from the lower, orlop, and hold levels, including location and types of furnace and water tank arrangements. Even if only the major timbers remain, five diagnostic characteristics related to scantlings including the angle of the sternpost to keel, and the 2 pair of futtock riders installed only on the Terror, may be identifiable (see Appendix C).
In the course of fieldwork, no vessel or debris was found and no identification was necessary. In fact, no diving operations were undertaken, whether with ROV or divers, to provide any visual data. Given the minimal bathymetric relief, multiple hole coverage around each target, and quality of accoustic data from each hole, it was determined that results from the through-ice sonar survey were adequate to establish with reasonable certainty that no wreckage was present on the seabed in the vicinity of the magnetometer target locations investigated. Geological sources for the magnetic anomalies may be assumed, and at some target locations minor geological features were visible at or very near the datum. The through-ice sector sonar results were also judged sufficient so that no additional detailed magnetometer work was performed on this expedition.
Field work took place between May 11 and May 21. The entire survey area was covered in ice measuring approximately 2 meters thick. Target areas were accessed by snowmobiles towing sleds. No survey days were lost due to weather. Daytime temperatures ranged from –20C to 4C with winds generally moderate. Auger holes drilled through the ice were 16cm in diameter, which were large enough to take the sounding lead as well as the sonar housing mounted on the end of a PVC pipe extension (Fig. 5).
Seven magnetometer targets were classified as “priority one” based on the magnetic characteristics exhibited (see Appendices D and E). These, along with an additional eight targets of lower priority but all within the specified search areas, were investigated. Four of the total number of targets proved to be located in shallow water, less than 30 ft. (9.1m), so investigations at these locations were limited to taking soundings. All 15 of the magnetometer targets were located and holes cut through the ice to take soundings between May 11 and 13. No sonar data was collected prior to the arrival of the archaeologists (May 15).
The typical procedure for investigation around a magnetometer target in a suitable depth was to auger a hole at the centre of the anomaly. This location would become the datum for each search pattern, with four additional holes typically being set out from the datum at a distance of 100m along the four principal cardinal points, due north, east, south, and west, respectively. For some areas of less interest fewer holes were used.
Sonar data was collected at various range settings between 30 and 200 metres from each location into which the sonar transducer was lowered.[16] If anything of potential interest showed in close proximity to the sensor location, an additional survey hole, typically 50m distant, might be drilled.
Data collection in the search areas consisted solely of through-ice sonar readings and hand soundings taken from each hole with a line measuring 80 ft. (24.5m) in length. Depths in excess of this were estimated from sonar readings.[17] Magnetometer targets in the northern area were searched first. The through-ice sonar data were entirely negative with respect to indications of cultural material and were considered of sufficient quality in terms of technology, methodology, and bottom conditions so that no efforts were taken in deploying other search tools.
Three magnetometer targets were investigated off Grant Point (see Figures 2 and 6). Around these targets a total of 14 holes were drilled through the ice with soundings ranging from 70 to about 90 feet (23 – 29m) in depth (see Table 1 for summary). The digital multi-imaging sonar indicated a relatively flat bottom marked by a series of low relief ridges running in a roughly NW/SE orientation, and nothing suggestive of ship remains.
Dates Surveyed: May 16 and 17.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (P4), N 68.46574 W 98.65726, 74 ft. (22.6m); 100m north of datum (P4-1), 73 ft. (22.3m); 100m south of datum (P4-2), 73 ft. (22.3m); 50m south of datum (P4-3), 73 ft. (22.3m); 200m south of datum (P4-4), 75 ft. (22.9m); 100m east of datum (P4-5), 70 ft. (21.3m); 100m west of datum (P4-6), 73 ft. (22.3m).
The bottom at this location exhibited ridges consistent in character and direction with the geological trends on nearby land, although with a relief over seven holes up to 300m apart of only 5 ft. (1.5m).
Extra holes were drilled to the south of the datum at 50 and 200m distances because there were apparently “hard” targets showing up in the water column beneath the sonar head. These were not visible in overlapping scans from other holes at various distances and were taken to represent distortion or reflection from ice surface.
A “diablo”[18] unit was dropped through datum hole in the hopes that it would serve as a control point or datum for mosaicking the various sonar images around a target. It was not found to reflect sonar effectively and was not used for this purpose after the Pattern 4 target area was investigated.
An experiment was tried at this target by lowering the sonar head to greater depth suspended on its cable. Without the PVC pipe to hold the unit steady it was too unstable to deliver useful images. The camera was also lowered as far as its cable allowed. The bottom of the ice was found to be smooth with good visibility at the ice-water interface, but no distinct images were discerned from a maximum depth of about 45 ft. (13.75m).
N-2[19]
Date Surveyed: May 17.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (N2), N 68.46326 W 98.6557, 78 ft. (23.8m); 100m north-east of datum (N2-1), 76 ft. (23.2m); 100m south of datum (N2-2), 75 ft. (22.9m); approximately 100m north-west of N-2 datum and precisely 200m south of Pattern 4 datum (P4-4), 75 ft. (22.9m).
N-3
Dates Surveyed: May 17 and 18.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (N3), N 68.46378 W 98.67628; 100m north of datum (N2-1); 100m south-east of datum (N2-2); 100m south-west of datum (N2-3). Sonar indicated depths of about 27m.
Sonar images showed some particularly strong and straight ridge lines through N-2 and N-3, but relief was still minimal and nothing of cultural interest was evident.
Table1: Magnetometer targets investigated in the northern (Grant Point) search area. Priority assessment was based on magnetic characteristics.
|
Target Name |
Priority |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Number of test holes |
Ave. Water Depth
(Ft.) |
|
Pattern 4 |
1 |
68.46574 |
-98.65726 |
6 |
|
|
N-2 |
1 |
68.46326 |
-98.65565 |
4 |
76.8 |
|
N-3 |
1 |
68.46378 |
-98.67628 |
4 |
+/- 90 |
Twelve magnetometer targets were investigated in the southern area (see Figures 2 and 7), where an additional 45 holes were drilled with soundings ranging from 6 to about 170 feet (2 – 55m) in depth (see Table 2 for summary). Where the depths were greater than 30 ft. (9m), the approximate depth of the Erebus from keel bottom to gunwale top, the sonar unit was deployed. Images taken from 39 holes in eight target areas showed stones and small boulders on a relatively flat bottom marked by ridges similar to those noted farther north, but nothing suggestive of ship remains.
Date Surveyed: May 19.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L28) N 68.21355, W 98.92705; 100m north of datum (L28-1); 100m east of datum (L28-3); 100m south of datum (L28-2); 100m west of datum (L28-4). Sonar indicated depths of about 52m.
Date Surveyed: May 19.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L9) N 68.19893 N 98.85873, 78 ft. (23.8m); 100m north of datum (L9-1), 70 ft. (21.3m); 100m east of datum (L9-3), 71 ft. (21.6m); 100m south of datum (L9-2), 84 ft. (25.6m); 100m west of datum (L9-4), 83 ft. (25.3m).
Sonar images still show strong ridge lines. Strong returns from the occasional boulder were also evident.
Date Surveyed: May 19.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L57) N 68.14829 W 98.90721, 63 ft. (19.2m); 100m north of datum (L57-1), 66 ft.(20.1m); 100m east of datum (L57-3), 70 ft. (21.3m); 100m south of datum (L57-2), 61 ft. (18.6m); 100m west of datum (L57-4), 63 ft. (19.2m).
While sonar images in the southern area continued generally to show the ridge lines trending to the north-west, there are two exceptions in this target area where the alignment differs over a distance of 30 and 60 meters respectively. Apart from this alignment, these anomalies were consistent with the usual gravel ridges in respect to type and pattern of return, and lack of shadow.
Date Surveyed: May 20.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L44) N 68.16982 W 98.99754; 100m north of datum (L44-1); 100m east of datum (L44-3); 100m south of datum (L44-2); 100m west of datum (L44-4). Sonar indicated depths between 23 and 26 metres.
One strong isolated return in this area might be a 45-gallon drum (Fig. 8).
Date Surveyed: May 20.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L49) N 68.16168 W 99.00360; 100m north of datum (L49-1); 100m east of datum (L49-3). Sonar indicated depths between 34 and 44m. Due to depth, only three holes were drilled.
This target was outside the search area as defined by Inuit testimony and was added to the survey as a “supplementary” target due solely to its magnetometer priority.
Date Surveyed: May 20.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L54) N 68.15341 W 98.95873, 70 ft. (21.3m); 100m north of datum (L54-1), 80 ft. (24.4m); 100m east of datum (L54-3), 76 ft. (23.2m); 100m south of datum (L54-2), 76 ft.(23.2m); 100m west of datum (L54-4), 79 ft. (24.1m).
The datum was located directly over a ridge. Despite this, total relief was still only 10 ft. (3.05m). Distance between ridges is 60 to 90 metres. More boulders were evident than at other areas, otherwise similar.
Date Surveyed: May 21.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L76) N 68.12093 W 98.93530, 58 ft. (17.7m); 100m north of datum (L76N), 60 ft. (18.3m); 100m east of datum (L76E), 65 ft. (19.8m); 100m south of datum (L76S), 60 ft. (18.3m); 100m west of datum (L76W), 54 ft. (16.5m); 50m north of datum (L76NA), 57 ft. (17.4m).
This target was included despite a magnetometer reading much more significant than might be expected for a shipwreck. An extra hole was added because an unusual feature aligned at right angles to the geological trend of ridges showed up directly under (within the cone) of the sonar at datum. It apparently measured approximately 3 by 7.5 metres, but was not sufficiently substantial to appear on any other scans.
Date Surveyed: May 21.
Test hole locations and water depths: Datum (L67) N 68.13490 W 98.88889, 58 ft; 100m north of datum (L67N), 50 ft. (15.2m); 100m east of datum (L67E), 59 ft. (18.0m); 100m south of datum (L67S), 58 ft. (17.7m); 100m west of datum (L67W), 53 ft. (16.2m).
Relief averaged for each target in the southern area averaged between 9 and 15 feet (2.7 – 4.6m); about twice that evident in the northern area, but still low.
Table 2: Magnetometer targets investigated in the southern (Wilmot and Crampton Bay) search area. Priority assessment was based on magnetic characteristics. No sonar data was gathered from test holes with less than 30 ft. (9m) in depth. Water depth is the average sounding for all the test holes sunk in a particular target area (where the depth was greater than the 80 ft. of hand sounding line the depth is estima