The Oak Island Compendium
  • Home
  • Blockhouse Blog
    • Past Blockhouse Blog Articles
  • Oak Island
    • About Oak Island >
      • 10X (Shaft # 29)
      • Artifacts
      • Businesses on the Island >
        • Cabins to Rent
        • Sawmill
      • Fort on Oak Island
    • Books >
      • Our Maritimes
    • Legends >
      • The Legend of Oak Island
    • Theories
    • Ghosts and spirits
    • People
  • Research Archives
    • Les MacPhie Archives
    • Wonnacott - Smiths Cove
  • Investigations
    • Investigative Research
  • Files
    • Documents >
      • Carbon Datings - Oak Island
      • Woods Hole Report - Draft 1996
      • Captain W Thompson Letter - 1863
    • Articles >
      • Magazine Articles
      • Newspaper Articles >
        • 1857 Aug 9 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1857 Aug 20 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1861 Aug 29 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1862 Oct - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1863 Feb 19 - Yarmouth Herald
        • 1866 Sep 4 - Boston Post
        • 1897 Jan 17 - The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Sun
        • 1897 Apr 16 - Digby Weekly Courier
        • 1897 May - Truro Daily News
        • 1971 Dec 1 - The Dartmouth Free Press
    • Photos >
      • Oak Island Gallery: a mystery in pictures
    • Maps >
      • Map - Des Barres 1776
    • Members only
  • Chronology
  • About
  • Contact

U-Shaped Structure - Dendrochronology Update

6/23/2016

20 Comments

 
Picture
Photo courtesy of Mistik Askiwin Dendrochronology Laboratory (MAD Lab), University of Saskatchewan
by John Wonnacott, P. Eng - Contributing Writer
  Last February we published “The U-shaped Structure at Smith’s Cove, Oak Island”, and in the article I said that we (meaning me, Les MacPhie and Danny Hennigar) had sent a sample to a Dendrochronology research lab to attempt to learn the date when the tree was cut, from which our sample was taken. That date would almost certainly have been close to the date when the U-shaped structure was built. However we ran into two problems.  Our sample had only 34 tree growth rings, while a proper dendrochronological investigation needs at least 50 rings to have the best chance of finding a unique age match.
  So for this reason, the lab took a lot of extra time trying to find clues in the data which would help determine the age of the sample.  Secondly, the Dendrochronology lab we used is located at the University of Saskatchewan, and the pace of lab work was determined by other events going on within the university. So it has taken a long time for the lab to reach a conclusion, and even now we only have a draft report of the findings. I have been waiting until now to write this follow-up article, preferring to have a final report that I can share with you. But the professor who directed our work has said it is fine with him for us to publicize the results presented in the rough draft.    

   Our sample was determined to be Red Spruce (Picea rubens), and that species identification helped us in a curious way. Red Spruce trees are prone to infestations of spruce budworms, which cause characteristic damage to the tree, and such damage is observable in the growth rings for the years of infestation. For hundreds of years, budworm infestations occurred about every 40 years in Nova Scotia, and if our sample had included growth rings from infestation years, these would have acted as markers that would have helped the lab obtain a match. However we were not so lucky and the 34 years of growth exhibited by our sample was between budworm infestations. However this turned out to be quite a help just the same. The lab did find 3 possible matches for our sample, when they compared our growth ring sequence to their master chronology. Our growth ring sequence could be for one of the following three periods: 1659 to 1695 (meaning the tree sprouted in 1659 and was cut down in 1695), or 1711 to 1747, or 1822 to 1858. The interesting and valuable thing is this: for each of these three possible periods, there were no spruce budworm infestations! So the lab is quite sure that one of these three periods is correct and that means our sample probably dates to either 1695, 1747 or 1858.
  Here is a photograph of our dendrochronological sample, after it was prepared by the lab. The pencil lines on the sample indicate where measurements were taken by the analysts:


Picture
Larger photo of the sample submitted for testing. Photo courtesy of Mistik Askiwin Dendrochronology Laboratory (MAD Lab), University of Saskatchewan
1695... 1747... 1858?
  The data base that the lab uses for their work is called a master chronology and it consists of individual tree growth ring sequences from many samples with over-lapping years of growth. The database has less than 5 Nova Scotia samples for the 1659 to 1695 and 1711 to 1747 growth periods, while they have quite a lot more data for the 1822 to 1858 period. Because of this variance in data density for the earlier possibilities, the lab has concluded that the date our sample tree was cut was more likely 1858. That’s not good news for those of us who are hoping the U-shaped structure could have been built before 1795, however, like so many findings at Oak Island, the answer is not definitive. Maybe our sample is older.

  We have shared a copy of the dendrochronological testing report with Rick and Marty Lagina, and I have asked them if they could possibly get a permit to re-excavate at Smith’s Cove, in the area of the U-shaped structure. In my correspondence with the Lagina brothers I explained how we triangulated from old photographs to find the U-shaped structure about 15 years ago, and I suggested if they get a chance to dig in the area, to focus on the south arm of the structure, so that a new sample of the structure could be obtained (that would be from a different log than the one our recent sample was taken from, and hopefully they would find a log with more than 50 growth rings).
The lab at the University of Saskatchewan has told me that they would be very willing to investigate a new sample if we can obtain one. So I am crossing my fingers that Rick and Marty Lagina can come up with a new specimen, and that we will be allowed to take a thin slice of wood from it, so we can continue the Dendrochronology work. I think it would be great if we can learn the date for sure, when the U-shaped Structure was built!

   As a footnote to this update, Danny Hennigar and I had an interesting adventure this week. Danny is responsible for the “Explore Oak Island Display” (located in the old historic train station in the village of Chester, Lunenburg County. The display is actually an museum of oak Island artifacts located at 20 Smith Road, open 7 days a week with free admission), and he had a visitor to the museum who observed the U-shaped structure sample shown in the photograph in this article. The visitor told Danny that he had found another piece of the same structure about 15 years ago, when he was beachcombing on a nearby island (This turned out to be a tiny island just north of Oak Island, between Oak Island and the mainland). This seemed plausible, because back in 1970 when Dan Blankenship had built the temporary cofferdam at Smith’s Cove, and the U-shaped structure was partially exposed, a very high tide flooded the workings and washed out the cofferdam. So a piece of the structure could have floated away from the excavation, and it could easily have washed up on a nearby island. So Danny called me and we made arrangements to go see this log.

  When we arrived at the visitor’s place, we saw an impressively large piece of log, about 6 feet long and 12 inches in diameter. There were notches cut near one end (and the far end had rotten away), and 2 inch diameter oak pegs had been driven through the holes, just like the U-shaped structure. But the notches had sloping sides and they were not identical to the U-shaped structure notches, and there were no other notches at 4 foot spacings as we would have expected. On the other hand one notch was cut in a shape like those used to make corners in a log cabin – so we thought it was possible that this log could have been the south end piece of the base of the U-shaped structure which lies parallel to the shore, and the “log cabin” notch might have been where the south arm of the structure was joined to the base. However after carefully examining the log and thinking about it for a while, we concluded that this interesting new log was probably part of a very old wharf that was built somewhere in Mahone Bay. The most disappointing thing concerning this log was that it is too rotten for a dendrochronological sample to be cut from it. So we were left with a tantalizing experience.

Here are two photographs of the log.
Picture
Mahone Bay Mystery Log. Photo courtesy of Danny Hennigar
Picture
Mahone Bay Mystery Log. Photo courtesy of Danny Hennigar

  What do you the Readers think?   Could this mystery log have been part of the U-shaped structure?


20 Comments
Dave Wood link
6/23/2016 04:10:04 pm

Very interesting John,you guys are doing some brilliant work.Is there a + or - on those dates such as 1695 being possibly 1688-1689

Reply
John Wonnacott
6/24/2016 07:29:30 pm

Hi Dave
There is no plus or minus with a dendrochronological match - if a sample matches a sequence in the master chronology, the newest growth ring grew in precisely the year indicated. In fact with a perfect specimen, the data will allow investigators to determine the time of year that the tree stopped growing, within a few months.
But few samples are perfect, and our U-shaped structure sample had the bark peeled from the log, and we might have lost one or two outer tree growth rings during the peeling process or later as the U-shaped structure sat in the mud for many years, I'm not sure. So although the date indicated in a match might be precise, the actual date the tree was cut might be a year or two later - depending on how many tree growth rings are missing.
Our sample had been stored in a dry place for 15 years after it was excavated from Smith's Cove, before the testing was done. During the time in storage the outer part of the log shrunk and cracked. So I can't tell for sure whether the outer ring was the growth ring directly under the bark.

Reply
Dave Wood link
6/24/2016 11:53:11 pm

Thanks John,shows you what I know of the subject.

Dave Van Vugt
6/23/2016 04:37:04 pm

A prominent Oak Island author once told me that David Tobias had a number of logs from Smith's Cove in his garage in Montreal, for what it's worth :)

Reply
Danny Hennigar
6/25/2016 06:04:45 am

Dave Van Vugt, how nice to see your name here and to know you are still "into" this mystery. Same as Dave wood, if it is the same Dave wood that is..

If anything remains of Tobias's collection,once known as "the warehouse," it has escaped my reach. I know a lot was thrown out and a still more remains in the possession of others who I think are good stewards.

Reply
Dave Wood link
6/25/2016 03:43:20 pm

Hi Danny
Yes,the same DW from NZ,still as interested as ever in anything OI,good to see you are still around

Jim
6/23/2016 05:57:43 pm

Could it not be carbon dated to verify which era it came from ?

Reply
Jim
6/24/2016 07:12:43 am

oops,,, never mind, just went back and read the article from Feb.

Reply
Annie Cloutier
6/24/2016 08:42:08 pm

Dendrochronology is a great start, combined with carbon 14 dating, and the library of tree rings going back 11,000 years may help find the answers you seek. See segment of article:Dendrochronology and Carbon Dating

The science of dendrochronology is based on the phenomenon that trees usually grow by the addition of rings, hence the name tree-ring dating. Dendrochronologists date events and variations in environments in the past by analyzing and comparing growth ring patterns of trees and aged wood. They can determine the exact calendar year each tree ring was formed.

Dendrochronological findings played an important role in the early days of radiocarbon dating. Tree rings provided truly known-age material needed to check the accuracy of the carbon 14 dating method. During the late 1950s, several scientists (notably the Dutchman Hessel de Vries) were able to confirm the discrepancy between radiocarbon ages and calendar ages through results gathered from carbon dating rings of trees. The tree rings were dated through dendrochronology.

At present, tree rings are still used to calibrate radiocarbon determinations. Libraries of tree rings of different calendar ages are now available to provide records extending back over the last 11,000 years. The trees often used as references are the bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) found in the USA and waterlogged Oak (Quercus sp.) in Ireland and Germany. Radiocarbon dating laboratories have been known to use data from other species of trees

Reply
Terry J. Deveau link
6/25/2016 06:01:39 am

As a cross check, at least, and possibly even an improved dating, perhaps it would be possible check your sample with another more local researcher?

Colin P. Laroque

Mount Allison Dendrochronology Laboratory, Department of Geography, Mount Allison University,144 Main Street, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1A7, Canada

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 506 364 2390; fax: +1 506 364 2625.

claroque@mta.ca

Here is an article with an example of their work:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786510000469

Reply
John Wonnacott
6/25/2016 01:57:08 pm

Hi Terry
Thanks for your reference to Colin Laroque. Actually Colin is the person who directed our work. As you pointed out, Colin was at Mount Allison University for a number of years, and while he was there he built up a number of master chronologies for Maritime tree species. However Colin has moved to the University of Saskatchewan but he still has all of the Maritime tree ring data to refer to. Colin is excellent, but I did not mention his name in this article as he has not completed his final report. But maybe that was a mistake on my part. I do recommend Colin to anyone, as being "top notch".
By the way, it is critical for dendrochronology to be able to find a "match", to have data in the master chronology from the local area where the sample has been collected. This is because tree ring growth depends on climate and local weather conditions which vary from region to region of course. It is also critical to have species-specific data because different tree species respond differently to changes in local weather - and thus different tree species will have different patterns of tree growth rings, even if samples are taken from trees that grew in the same area for exactly the same years.
Colin Laroque has built up extensive dendrochronological master chronologies for most maritime tree species, and he certainly does have data that is much older than 1659. I believe his oldest data goes back to the 1400's, but perhaps it is even older - I'm not sure. However the tree growth ring pattern from our sample did not match any part of the master chronology that is older than 1659

Reply
Rob Flemming
6/25/2016 08:45:46 am

A disappointing result , but now i have studied the science of dendrochronology testing a little more , it is to be expected , the test's are carried out on a comparison of known samples . The test report would indicate the testing lab has no samples pre 1659 . I believe John , that tests and inspection on some of the structure some 14 or 15 years ago , carried out by yourself , and Les McPhie , revealed that the huge log's had been cut by using a pit saw . As there were a considerable amount of saw mills in the area from the mid to late 1700's , I think it unlikely the structure would have been constructed 1858 . If , as I believe , the structure is the remains of a cod fishing stage , it could have first been built in the 1500,s , and repaired seasonally , perhaps even until 1750 or so , when the French were ousted from Nova Scotia . Different carpenters marks on the structure , would indicate different time frames of construction , and/or repair . It is quite logical then , that different samples of the structure would give test results as coming from different time periods . The other point to consider , is , if the structure was indeed a cod fishing stage , the timbers would be impregnated with fish oil , which would preserve the timber , and give a potentially false indication of age .It is my belief , that the toxic gas that killed the Restall's and their workers , was Hydrogen Sulfide , a gas produced as a result of rotting and putrefying fish , building up under the beach for decades .While I do believe , Smith's Cove held many of the clues in solving the mystery , much of it has been destroyed . I would recommend using extreme caution excavating any part of the beach there , there could still be pockets of deadly gas , that will kill very quickly .

Reply
John Wonnacott
6/25/2016 02:24:20 pm

Hi Rob
Thanks for your very interesting comments. Please note my other comments posted today, in which I explain that 1659 was not the oldest data available in the dendrochronological data base - it was just the earliest possible match. The data earlier than 1659 did not match our sample.
I was quite surprised to see your comments regarding hydrogen sulphide gas in connection with Robert Restall's death. This is a subject that I am actively researching at this moment!! I am not ready to write anything formally about it, but since you raised the topic I'll explain what I am looking into.
Lee Lamb (Bob Restall's daughter) wrote a very good book about Robert Restall's work on Oak Island, which included an account of his tragic death (and that of his son Robert and two other men who were working for Robert senior - Karl Graeser and Cyril Hiltz). Lee's book is entitled "Oak Island Obsession". It's a good read and there are some original drawings by Robert Restall that are worth the price of the book, by themselves.
In Lee's account of the fatal tragedy that claimed her father and brother and two others, she mentioned that the smell of rotten eggs was on the clothing of the man who recovered the bodies, and after a year of washing, the smell could not be washed out. Rotten egg gas smell is almost always hydrogen sulphide.
At the time of his death, Restall had been digging a shaft that was 27 feet deep, and water was seeping into the pit from the surrounding soil, so he was pumping it and I always thought carbon monoxide gas from his pump was what caused Restall to lose consciousness and fall into the pit where he drowned in the water at the bottom. But maybe it was hydrogen sulphide gas, which is also potentially fatal.
There are no known sources of hydrogen sulphide on Oak Island (it's quite common in oil and gas deposits which are usually much deeper). However there is a significant Sulphur content in seaweed - and I don't think there is much Sulphur in rotting fish - sorry Terry. Restall was digging his shaft to try to find the vertical connection between the finger drains on the beach at Smith's Cove, and the flood tunnel. There are many accounts of how eel grass was used in the construction of the artificial beach, as a filter, along with coconut fiber, to keep sand from clogging up the drains. I think the Depositors may have used eel grass in quantities to keep sand from clogging up the vertical shaft that connected the finger drains to the flood tunnel. Restall was not on top of the original shaft with his digging, but he was close. When he started pimping water, I think a slug of rotted eel grass, which had decayed entirely, just leaving a residue of hydrogen sulphide, migrated through the soil into the pit, where Restall tragically and suddenly discovered it on that fateful day of August 17, 1965. So I think the hydrogen sulphide demonstrates that Restall was close to finding that vertical shaft built by the Depositors!
I am researching the Sulphur content of eel grass, and I have enquiries out to obtain a copy of the coroner's inquest into the four deaths - and I will confirm the chemistry and physics of the above situation before I write anything formally about it. But I was very interested to see that you suspect hydrogen sulphide was connected to Restall's death too!!

Reply
Rob Flemming
6/25/2016 09:01:10 am

I should add , I am not in any way , being critical , you guy's are doing a fantastic job , researching , and sharing it here . I do believe Smith's Cove is a site of great archeological importance , and that is where the the focus should be .

Reply
John Wonnacott
6/25/2016 03:48:45 pm

Hi Rob
After I posted my reply to you, I started looking up Sulphur content in various foods, and it turns out that fish are usually a good source of Sulphur. So I withdraw my comment that there is not much Sulphur in fish - as a possible source of hydrogen sulphide gas near the shore at Smith's Cove. So far I can't find out what the actual percentage of Sulphur is in, say codfish. There may be enough for dietary purposes but still a very small percentage. When I get it figured out, I may write an article for the Blog about it - if there is enough interest.

Reply
Rob Flemming
6/25/2016 09:24:31 pm

Hi John
Yes, I have read Lee Lamb's book . A great source of accurate and unbiased information . From my experience , the smell of Sulfur is entirely different from rotten eggs . I have found from experience with deep water bores , the smell of sulfur is somewhat different from that of rotten eggs , and the smell of sulfur does disappear from the water , after exposure to air . There has been several incidents of fishermen being overcome by Hydrogen Sulfide , and even perishing , from rotting fish , in the holds of fishing trawlers . I believe the rotten egg smell , described in Lee's book , is a important clue as to what activity was carried out on Oak Island , for perhaps many , many years

Reply
Rob Flemming
6/25/2016 10:01:36 pm

Hi John
Yes, I have read Lee Lamb's book . A great source of accurate and unbiased information . From my experience , the smell of Sulfur is entirely different from rotten eggs . I have found from experience with deep water bores , the smell of sulfur is somewhat different from that of rotten eggs , and the smell of sulfur does disappear from the water , after exposure to air . There has been several incidents of fishermen being overcome by Hydrogen Sulfide , and even perishing , from rotting fish , in the holds of fishing trawlers . I believe the rotten egg smell , described in Lee's book , is a important clue as to what activity was carried out on Oak Island , for perhaps many , many years

Reply
Rob Flemming
6/26/2016 09:01:18 am

Hi John
I thought it was proven beyond all doubt , by Robert Dunfield , there were no flood tunnel;s , and no connection between Smith's Cove and the " Money pit " Early account's of the " Box drains '' describe them as being constructed out of stone . Photograph's I have seen , they are clearly made out of timber . I have my own theories as to there purpose , once again connected to the cod fishing industry . The abundance of Eel grass in Smith's Cove , I believe , was due to the nutrient rich environment caused by the decaying fish matter , fish head's and offal ,deposited over time , by the cod fishermen . From nearly all accounts describing the artificial beach , the timber structure , the log ramp , and the so called " Box drains " it was all under about 3 feet of sand . I think it highly likely it was quite a large cod fishing station , all destroyed , and buried , during one of the stormy seasons.

Reply
Glen
6/26/2016 08:04:02 pm

After the short time I have been following this story and the evidence presented...I have to agree with Rob on the items found at Smith's Cove. Taken all together they point to a fish station being the most logical of uses for the cove.

Reply
Jerry Ellis
11/28/2016 05:16:35 pm

Isnt hydrogen sulfide gas found in the presence of pyrite deposits. The island is said to be abundant with that. Perhaps that is the source of the hydrogen sulfide gas that killed Restall.
Also MINING isnt there some legend about mining down deep in Oak Island. There is a tale about a guy who brough back a boat load or two of pyrite to England and then discovered it was fools gold. Perhaps that would be the alleged mining on Oak Island.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    From The Blockhouse
    is published by Blockhouse Investigations and oakislandcompendium.ca
    in Nova Scotia, Canada

    Editors and Chief Correspondents
    Kelly W. Hancock, CD

    Doug Crowell

    Writers
    Jonathan Guy

    Contributing Writers
    John Wonnacott, P. Eng.
    ​Les MacPhie,P.Eng.

    Researchers
    Linda Rafuse
    Tammy Sloan
    Trevor McFetridge
    ​

    Consultants 
    Alessandra Nadudvari
    Shawna Goodall

    Webmaster
    Jonathan Guy

    All material and images published herein, unless otherwise credited, are copyright of Blockhouse Investigations and oakislandcompendium.ca and may be reproduced by permission only.

    Views expressed in these blog posts are our own. The views of those that comment are their own.

    Archives

    November 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Recommended sites:
Chester Bound
Oak Island Treasure
Critical Enquiry
The Oak Island Scrapbook
The Night Time Podcast
Paranormal Investigations Nova Scotia
  • Home
  • Blockhouse Blog
    • Past Blockhouse Blog Articles
  • Oak Island
    • About Oak Island >
      • 10X (Shaft # 29)
      • Artifacts
      • Businesses on the Island >
        • Cabins to Rent
        • Sawmill
      • Fort on Oak Island
    • Books >
      • Our Maritimes
    • Legends >
      • The Legend of Oak Island
    • Theories
    • Ghosts and spirits
    • People
  • Research Archives
    • Les MacPhie Archives
    • Wonnacott - Smiths Cove
  • Investigations
    • Investigative Research
  • Files
    • Documents >
      • Carbon Datings - Oak Island
      • Woods Hole Report - Draft 1996
      • Captain W Thompson Letter - 1863
    • Articles >
      • Magazine Articles
      • Newspaper Articles >
        • 1857 Aug 9 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1857 Aug 20 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1861 Aug 29 - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1862 Oct - Liverpool Transcript
        • 1863 Feb 19 - Yarmouth Herald
        • 1866 Sep 4 - Boston Post
        • 1897 Jan 17 - The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Sun
        • 1897 Apr 16 - Digby Weekly Courier
        • 1897 May - Truro Daily News
        • 1971 Dec 1 - The Dartmouth Free Press
    • Photos >
      • Oak Island Gallery: a mystery in pictures
    • Maps >
      • Map - Des Barres 1776
    • Members only
  • Chronology
  • About
  • Contact
✕