White Fence #110 PDF

October 2024

Editorial

Dear Friends,

You are in for a treat! Colin MacKinnon presents us with a most innovative reconstruction of a vessel, the remains of which Colin found many years ago trapped in the muddy waters of Cumberland Basin in the Bay of Fundy. Colin’s research is a very interesting process in itself but you may be quite surprised to discover how a relatively small boat could have been of important use in the grindstone industry in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The fact that that the special rock to make grindstones could be found under tidal waters may not be a complete surprise, but the means by which large slabs of rock weighing over a ton could be extracted from tidal waters and brought to shore at high tide is a remarkable feat. A very special vesseI and the ingenuity of its builders and users were required. I will not get into further details as Colin’s work fully describes how it all came about and how tides, imagination, and human effort made it possible. It is a fascinating read.

Enjoy!
—Peter Hicklin

An assortment of Cumberland Basin, upper Bay of Fundy, grindstones on the Pearl Street Wharf, Boston. The sign over the door reads “A. SEAMAN & Co., GRINDSTONES.”

The Upper Bay of Fundy Grindstone Industry
What is a Joggins boat?

by Colin MacKinnon

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the grindstone and building stone industry in the Upper Bay of Fundy. Works by Gesner (1840), Snowdon (1972), Latta (1985), Read (1999), Heap (2009), Ward (2009) and the recent compendium by Bogaard (2022) published by the Tantramar Heritage Trust, quickly come to mind, if one is interested in this aspect of Tantramar’s history. For a broader understanding of stone quarrying in New Brunswick, the work For Love of Stone by Gwen Martin (1990) is the definitive source. Traces of this past activity can still be seen at places such as Lower Cove and Ragged Reef in Cumberland County, Nova Scotia, as well as Wood Point, Rockport, Grindstone Island, and Mary’s Point (Grindstone Point), New Brunswick. There is, however, one facet of the story that has so far eluded researchers: the “Joggins Boat”. The following article will explore what we know about these specialized craft and hopefully expand our knowledge a bit on who built them, how they were constructed, and even what one may have looked like. Some of this speculation will be based on an interesting old photograph of a boat at Lower Cove as well as observations on the fragmentary remains of a mystery vessel I found in 2017 on the shore of Cumberland Basin.

Figure 1. Stone cutters at Slack’s Cove, Lower Rockport, New Brunswick, c 1895. The two men on the far left are (L to R) Mariner Ward (1859-1924) and Henry Ward (1839-1913), while the engineer (partly hidden in the shed) is Henry’s son-in-law Arthur E. Thurston (1871-1952). Note the size of the grindstones in the foreground. Photograph courtesy Sharon Bainbridge and Edna MacDonald.

Figure 2. Minnie Martina “Tina” (Cole) Bowser (1901-1993) sitting on Bedford Milledge Cole’s shad board at Harvey Creek, Upper Rockport, New Brunswick, c1920.

A critical initial step in the making of large grindstones from upper Bay of Fundy sandstone was the extraction of a suitably-sized rock (often weighing a ton or more) from off-shore reefs and ledges at low tide and then transporting these stones to a suitable work station along the shore (Figure 1). Abraham Gesner (1840) provided us with an early description of this process: “The reefs are broken at low water, and masses of rock are secured to large boats; at high water they are brought to shore, where they are cut by the workmen with great facility, into grindstones from four to eight feet in diameter, and from six inches to a foot thickness.” The sturdy crafts that moved these stones were called “Joggins Boats” (also known as “Grindstone Boats”) and it is an important distinction that, at this stage of the operation, the rough stone was not loaded into the boat but suspended underneath the hull by a system of cables and chains. Fortunately, we have another account on the use of grindstone boats by Harry Ellis Ward (1893-1978) who lived for many years at Wilbur’s Cove, New Brunswick. In an interview conducted by historian Jim Snowdon (1947-2008), he asked: “How did they get the grindstone in?” Harry replied: “Years and years ago they used to get them out of the water when they used the grindstone boats. The grindstone boats, they was a boat bigger than the shad fishing boats used to be, or as big (Figure 2). And they went out and found under the tide, when the tide was low, you see. They went out and found the rock there, the size big enough, and then they’d pry it up and put a chain around it and a buoy to it and when the tide came, they’d float the boat to the buoy, pick up the chain and put it around this boat as tight as they could, and wait there till the tide raised up and raised up the stone. And then they had a certain bed at a different place—they knew just where they wanted it, and they’d float it, take the boat to this, and trip their chain and down would go the stone [and up would go the boat, that must have been exciting]. Of course, they wasn’t very much water under it, understand. Soon’s they got this stone lifted. Why, they’d take poles or oars and try and get the boat to its place. Well later on they used to carry their chain way up ‘n down the shore, it was a great big chain, big as an anchor – it had to be a strong chain. And when the tide went down they’d start their stone,… look at it, we’ll that’s alright, that’s big enough, it looks alright. So they would start and scabble it off, what we call level it off. They had pick, ‘tisn’t a sharp pick, – that’s the scrabblin’ ax, we call it.” (Tantramar Heritage Trust archives)

We also have a further description, provided by Peter Latta, that focuses a bit more on the boat’s characteristics. He says: “The Joggins Boat, named for the locale, was a little larger and more solidly built than a fishing dory. It measured roughly twenty feet and drew about five feet of water. It also had a relatively flat bottom and was propelled by a single oar at the stern or by a line to a winch on shore. Once a stone block was taken from the reef, a marker was set beside it. At high tide a Joggins Boat would be taken to the designated spot an anchored. Later, at low tide, the boat would be set directly over the block. A wooden rail would be placed across the width of the boat in the middle, and chains were attached to each end. Meanwhile, hooks would be set into the sides of the block and the chains fastened to these. On the next tide, this arrangement would be brought in very close to the factory on the water’s edge.” (Latta, 1985, p. 68). These descriptions set the stage for further questions, and speculation, about Joggins boats.

THE BUILDERS

Not only do we have a good idea on how these Joggins boats were used and why a special design was required, we also know a bit about who built them. On the 25th March 1865, a partnership in the “Grindstone and General Merchandize business” was established between Joseph Bedford Read Jr. (1830-1907), James Stevenson (Boston,) and John W. Lowe (New Bandon, New Brunswick) (New Brunswick archives, MC224, Rockport Ledger). This Joseph Bedford Read Jr. was listed as a Merchant at Wilbur’s Cove in the 1871 census. According to the agreement, the trio were to do business for seven years under the name “Read, Stevenson & Co.” A store was initially opened in Joggins, Nova Scotia, (written as “South Joggins” in the ledger) but on 10 October 1866 the business records show that they had moved across the bay to “North Joggins” (Rockport), New Brunswick. This new store, according to tradition, was located at Wilbur’s Cove. In December of 1866, the company conducted an inventory of their “Joggins Boats” with the details recorded in the Rockport store ledger (Figure 3). We see that two of the boats were made in 1865, the year previous to the inventory, and were appraised at $72 and $74; these were presumably commissioned by the newly-formed company. Another boat, built by Isaac Boles, was 10 or 12 years old (with no chain) and was now worth only $32. Furthermore, it is rather disconcerting that one craft, presumably still in use by 70-year-old John McGovern, was described as an “old boat” and was not considered to be worth anything; it must have been in deplorable condition. An addendum to the list mentions three new boat cables ($25), one for Allen Hoar’s boat and two for Joseph Gough’s “boats”. I wonder if the above-mentioned boat cables and chains were part of the kit required to float the stones from deep water to fabrication sites closer to shore. From the wording, I get the impression that Hoar and Gough may have owned their own boats.

Figure 3. Inventory of “Joggins boats” by Read, Stevenson & Co, Rockport store ledger, December 1866, page 412. Read Stone Co. Ltd MC224, New Brunswick Archives.

Using mostly census and cemetery records, I have also attempted to trace some details on the background of these boat builders. Of interest, the accessor of the “Joggins Boats” was Amos Mills (1819-1898), a stone cutter who lived between Joggins and Ragged Reef, Nova Scotia, while his younger brothers, Calvin Mills (1827-1870) and Hiram Mills (1824-1875), were both stone cutters and shipwrights (listed as C & H Mills in the ledger entry, Figure 3). They were the sons of Robert Mills and his wife Lydia Eleanor Read (1797-1846). Lydia was the daughter of Joseph Read (1775-1832) and Hannah Salisbury (1775-1868) of Minudie. Of significance, Lydia’s younger brother Joseph Bedford Read Sr. (1803-1866), of “Glenburn” house, Barronsfield, was one of the grindstone entrepreneurs of that place and an uncle to the three Mills brothers thus making Amos, Hiram and Calvin Mills cousins to Joseph Bedford Read Jr., the partner in “Read, Stevenson and Co.” In 1871, Amos Mills (age 52), as well as his sons George (22) and Rufus (19), were employed as “stone cutters”, likely at Ragged Reef. Calvin Mills died in 1870 and I can’t find Hiram Mills in the 1871 census. However, at some point, Hiram moved to nearby Shulie where he was working as a “millman” for the lumber industry where he died on 8 August, 1875, of pneumonia.

Another builder of grindstone boats was Isaac Boles (sometimes spelled Bowles) who was born about 1814. In the 1851 census, he is listed as a stone cutter (age 37) and, based on the names of his neighbours, it looks like he was living in the Wilbur’s Cove area of Lower Rockport. The household included his wife Mary and six children along with visitor Gideon Halfkenny (age 21). I cannot locate Isaac in any later census and some genealogies have him deceased prior to 1861. However, Abraham Bowles, one of Isaac’s sons, died 6 December 1908 and was buried in the old Read family cemetery in Barronsfield suggesting some long-standing ties to the grindstone family.

GOUGH FAMILY OF STONE CUTTERS

The above-mentioned Joseph Gough (1820-1903), often written as Goff in the census, appears to have been an independent contractor for the stone industry whereas he owned his own “Joggins Boats”. He may have built Grindstone boats as well. In May 1867, the ledger suggests that he received a $128.00 credit for “two New Boats”; this being the same value (per boat) as a vessel made by C. & H. MILLS in 1865 (Figure 3). The family had boat-building experience as David Goff Sr. (1796-1881), Joseph’s father, was also a “stone cutter” and half-owner of the schooner William that he built in 1841 (Registry No. J853129, Saint John, New Brunswick). In a collaborative working arrangement, Joseph Gough with his brothers James (1824-1911), Nelson (1826-1910), David (1830-c1920), Oliver (1831-1903), William (1842-1928) and brother-in-law Hector MacKinnon (1831-1910), were heavily involved in the grindstone trade around Cumberland Basin and Shepody Bay. For example, in the 1861 census for the Harvey area, Albert County, James, David and Joseph Gough were responsible for 79% of the grindstones produced while only two others, John Tipping and Obediah Wilbur, were responsible for the remaining 21% (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Master Miners from the Harvey area, Albert county, New Brunswick, 1861 census. *This would be the quarrying operation on Mary’s Point.

On 12 November 1868, the store records show that the Gough brothers, along with Hector MacKinnon, were paying rent for the island (presumably Grindstone Island). The amounts varied, possibly reflecting piece work for the quantity of stone extracted; Oliver Gough paid $6.50, followed by Joseph ($6.00), James ($5.00), Nelson ($4.00), and William ($3.00). Hector also paid $4.00 for his portion of the lease. It is unclear if the rent was being paid directly to Read, Stevenson & Co., or was just being collected by the business on behalf of St. Paul’s and St. Ann’s Church, in Sackville and Westcock, respectively, which owned the island since 4 April 1823. Three years later, the 1871 Lovell’s Directory lists David Goff Sr. and sons Joseph, Nelson, Oliver and William still working on Grindstone Island. By the mid 1880s, only David Gough’s son-in-law, Hector MacKinnon, was still working in the stone trade. Hector was said to have been a “master miner” and “time-keeper” at the Mary’s Point quarry where he lived in 1881. He moved, with his family, to work at the Wood Point quarries around 1887 where his wife Rosannah would run a boarding house for the employees.

WHAT DID A GRINDSTONE BOAT LOOK LIKE?

Now that we have some details on how grindstone boats were used and who built them, we are still left with the question, what did one look like? From here on, we are delving into a bit of speculation. A small, problematic sketch of a presumed Joggins Boat appeared in the Canadian Illustrated News in 1872 (Figure 5). However, appearing nearly inconsequential to the scene, there is a larger vessel, resting on the beach, that better fits the description of a grindstone boat (Figure 6). At this point, it is worth noting that a grindstone six inches thick and 6 feet in diameter was considered to weigh about one ton (2,000 pounds/ 907 kg). Thus, the even larger, industrial-sized stones, would weigh considerably more. Therefore, the small row-boat, as shown in the 1872 sketch, would be hardly capable of floating a stone of any significant size while the larger craft pictured resting on the shore appears much more suitable for the task (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5. An artist’s rendition of a “Joggins Boat.” The caption reads: “Floating & cutting away at high water.” Canadian Illustrated News, 1872, from a sketch by F.K. Blatch.

Figure 6. Under the caption “What They Are Doing At Cape Maringouin While The Tide Is Out,” note the large boat pictured resting on the beach near some grindstone cutters. Canadian Illustrated News, 1872, from a sketch by F.K. Blatch. Courtesy Jeff Ward collection.

To estimate how large a vessel might actually need to be, I used a standard formula for determining the safe carrying capacity for modern small craft (number of people = vessel length (ft.) x vessel width (ft.) ÷ 15; where one person equals 150 pounds). As an example: to safely float 2,000 pounds of stone, a boat would need to be roughly 28 feet long and 7 feet wide (8.5 x 2.1 m). I say “safely” as considerably more weight could be raised if one was willing to take risks and the vessel was designed with modifications such as higher sides.

I think the best example of an actual “Joggins boat” is in a photograph recently shown to me by historian Dara Legere (Figure 7). Believed to have been taken around 1870, the image shows the quarry wharf at Lower Cove, near Joggins. What caught my attention was a long, open-topped boat on the beach surrounded by stone cutters who were plying their trade. Using these people as a scale, I estimated it to be about 26 feet (8 m) long. It is far larger than a typical row-boat and appears more comparable, at least in size, to a shad boat from that era (note the similarity in size to the craft on the Rockport shore in Figure 6).

Figure 7. Lower Cove grindstone wharf c1870. The boat in the left foreground, possibly a “Joggins Boat,” was estimated to be 26 feet (8 m) long. Photograph courtesy of Dara Legere.

Figure 8. Sketch of a possible “Joggins Boat” as traced from the Lower Cove photograph (see Figure 7). See text for discussion of salient features corresponding to the above letters.

Although the resolution in the photograph is not the best, I have traced the outline and some distinguishing features of the boat and can suggest the following details (see Figure 8 for corresponding letters below). The boat looks to have a large stem post in the abruptly rounded bow that extends above the horizontal line of the gunwales (A). There is a small deck in the bow with a reinforced hole, presumably for placement of a small mast (B). A small compartment (cuddy) likely lies under the deck (C); otherwise, the boat is open to the weather. The craft has a series of small vertical frames (ribs) (D) that are attached on the interior to a wide riser (E). It is fitted with two, and possibly three, seats (as a portion of the bow section is partially hidden from view) (F). On the inner starboard side that is visible, the aft seat is supported by two hanging knees while the forward seat has only one (G). The gunwales are also quite noticeable in the photograph suggesting they were purposefully made larger and more robust (H). Finally, the long poles lying in the boat could be oars and/or possibly a mast and boom. Putting all of these details together, I think this photograph provides the best evidence yet of what an actual grindstone boat probably looked like.

A POSSIBLE JOGGINS BOAT

In 2017, I found hull fragments of a wooden boat below Fort Beausejour/Fort Cumberland on the shore of nearby Cumberland Creek. Named the “Cumberland Creek boat” after the location, it was situated on the tidal side of a dyke that bordered the western shore of the creek and was buried about 52 inches (132 cm) below the level of the marsh (Figure 9). The strata above the boat was divided into two levels: an upper 36 inches (91 cm) of mostly red clay followed by a lower 16 inches (41 cm) consisting of a thick turf/clay mix. The region below the vessel was so-called “anoxic,” “blue clay.” A linear deposit of small pieces of woody debris, some showing evidence of axe work, was found just below the level of the boat at the interface between the red and blue clay. There is some speculation that this debris line may represent deposits following the Saxby gale of 1869 although I am not aware of any studies that may offer confirmation. As the boat was found on the edge of a tidal creek, depth alone is not a good indication of deposition age.

Figure 9. Location of the “Cumberland Creek boat,” buried approximately 52 inches (132 cm) below the level of the marsh (dyke top in the background). The four parallel lines indicate where the boat was situated.

Figure 10. Composite photograph (interior view) of the Cumberland Creek boat: four planks, 58 treenail holes, and up to 10 pairs of frames (ribs). The lowest plank may have been attached to a keel (as indicated by rust-stained bolt/rivet holes). Inset at right: bolt/rivet hold with one dollar coin for scale.

The scant remains consisted of four substantial, two inch (5 cm) thick, wooden planks laying parallel to each other (Figure 10). They were connected by a series of comparatively small frames (ribs). The longest plank was 14 ft. 7.5 in. (4.5 m). Starting from what was later believed to be the bottom of the boat (suggested by three or more, rust stained, bolt/rivet holes), the width of the planks measured 10.5 (26.7 cm), 7 (17.9 cm), 9.5 (24.1 cm), and 9.5 (24.1 cm) inches, respectively. The width of each plank was not uniform suggesting some shaping was required to make the joints tight and waterproof. No sealant, such as oakum, was found between the planks; however, a small fragment of what appeared to be pitch (tar) was found covering the exterior of one of the bolt holes. The buried end of the planking was later determined to be the bow section as evident by the shape of the bottom plank (Figure 11); other planks were lost to tidal action. A series of 58 holes indicated the location of fasteners (treenails) that would have supported at least 10 parallel pairs of frames. Six frames were found (in three parallel sets of two each); all the others were missing. As mentioned, these ribs were quite small, considering the size of the planking. The most intact example, except those shaped into knees, being roughly 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) wide and 2 inches (5 cm) high. For the frames, the builder used the natural grain of the tree to maximize strength (Figure 12). The treenails were roughly 15/16 in. to 1 in. (2.38-2.54 cm) in diameter. Of interest, they were secured in place by the application of tiny, elongated, and pyramid shaped, wedges that had been driven into both ends of each fastener (Figure 13).

Figure 11. Bow profile (exterior view) on the lowest hull plank; dimensions 2 x 10.5 inches (5 x 27 cm).

Figure 12. Frames (ribs) from the Cumberland Creek Boat. Inset: fragment of rib maximizing the natural curve and grain of the wood. Note: The upper portion of the left frame was shaped into a knee.

Figure 13. Wooden fasteners, known as treenails, 1 in. (2.5 cm) in diameter, as well as tiny, pyramid shaped wedges from the Cumberland Creek boat.

Paul Bogaard was able to facilitate the analysis of wood samples through the expertise of dendrochronologist Ben Phillips at Mount Allison University. Samples from a plank, rib and treenail were provided for inspection. Ben provided the following analysis for the plank and rib: “after reviewing the higher resolution micrographs created on the SEM [Scanning Electron Microscope], the scalariform perforation plates and minute intervescular pitting identified in the pores turns out to be a dead-ringer for birch. I can’t be sure which species of birch, but my hunch leans heavily toward yellow birch.” For the treenail, he added: “Although the tree nail had been severely compressed and the few flakes we pulled off looked like an old worn out sponge microscopically, there was enough cellar composure to identify simple perforation plates and slightly larger intervescular pitting, as well as slightly wider rays typical of sugar maple.” (Ben Phillips, pers. comm.) Regrettably, it was not possible to get an age of the plank. However, Ben was able to add an important observation: “I don’t believe either cut contained the exterior surface of the tree, so even if measuring was possible on all rings, an accurate kill-date would still not be produced. Given the missing rings on the outer and inner edges of the plank, the yellow birch tree was easily over 100 years old when cut, possibly closer to 150” (Ben Phillips, pers. comm.). One final hint at deposition date is suggested by a few small pieces of pottery found in the mud adjacent to the hull planking. A fragment of stoneware was decorated with a pattern called “Adams Rose,” with a manufacture date from about 1820 to 1860. This detail, combined with other evidence, suggests the boat fragment came to rest on the shore of Cumberland Creek sometime in the mid 19th century.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no Joggins boats are known to have survived, the Lower Cove photograph might be a match. The boat in the image is in the right location (resting next to a quarry wharf) and of the appropriate size to float heavy stones. Best of all, it appears to be in the company of stone cutters. The story on the Cumberland Creek boat is less clear. As the longest plank was over 14 feet (4.3 m), it is reasonable to think that the craft could have been maybe double that length. However, I think the small frames argue against a large vessel. Considering that grindstone boats were designed to work near reefs and ledges, a place that other ships purposely avoid, the combination of thick hull blanking and small ribs would likely result in a rugged, yet comparatively light, craft. I have talked to a number of people about the Cumberland Creek boat and it has been easier to say what it is not, as any obvious comparisons to other small craft of known designs are lacking, and similar-sized shad boats were not built the same way. I suppose the boat fragment could have floated in from any place although the build materials of Yellow Birch and Sugar Maple suggests a Bay of Fundy/Maritime Canada construction. Sadly, as so little of the boat was found, it is hard to provide any definitive answers. However, I think there is a good possibility that what we have found represents an upper Bay of Fundy “Joggins Boat”. I would be interested in thoughts and observations from our readers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following people for their assistance: Nancy MacKinnon and Don Colpitts accompanied me on numerous trips to photograph and measure the Cumberland Creek boat. Paul Bogaard and Ben Philips provided important details on the boat’s construction materials. Dara Legere, Sharon Bainbridge and Edna MacDonald provided photographs while Ken Tower helped with genealogy questions and Jim MacDonald provided information about the old quarry sites. A special thanks to Andrew MacKinnon, Nancy MacKinnon, Ken Tower and Jeff Ward for reviewing this article.

LITERATURE CITED
Bogaard, Paul (ed.). 2022. The Cumberland Basin Grindstone Industry, A Compendium of Sources & Illustrations. Tantramar Heritage Trust, Sackville, New Brunswick, 248 pages.

Canadian Illustrated News. 1872. Rockport NB and the Grindstone Trade. Vol 5, Feb. 10, P. 84.

Gesner, Abraham. 1840. Second Report on the Geological History of the Province of New Brunswick. Henry Chubb, Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick.

Heap, Jamie. 2009. Lord of the Land: The Reign of Amos “King” Seaman. Tantramar Heritage Trust, Sackville, New Brunswick.

Latta, Peter. 1985. The Lower Cove Grindstone Quarries. The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 67-72.

Martin, Gwen L. 1990. For Love of Stone. The Story of New Brunswick’s Building Stone Industry. Volumes I & 2, New Brunswick, Department of Natural Resources and Energy. Mineral Resources Division, Miscellaneous Report No. 8, 176 p.

New Brunswick Archives, Read Stone Co. Ltd. MC224,

Read, Herbert C. 1999. Grindstone History. Tantramar Heritage Trust, The White Fence, Issue No. 8.

Snowdon, James Dean. 1972. The Cumberland Basin Grindstone Industry. Thesis (B.A.) Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick.

Ward, Jeffrey P. 2009. Head of the Bay, A History of the Maringouin Peninsula. Tantramar Heritage Trust, Sackville, New Brunswick, 240 pages.