2014The Western River Steamboat Heroine, 1832-1838, Oklahoma, USA: construction. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 128-150

The Western River Steamboat Heroine, 1832–1838, Oklahoma,USA: construction

Kevin J. CrismanInstitute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University, P.O. Drawer HG, College Station, Texas 77841USA

This paper describes the design and construction of the side-wheel steamer Heroine, a representative of the ‘western riversteamboat’ type and the earliest example of its kind to undergo archaeological study. Heroine was built at New Albany, Indiana,in 1832 and sunk on the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas in 1838. The extensive remains of the lower hull showassembly practices in use during the developmental era of Mississippi River steamboats. The wreck also reveals a heretofore-unknown technique for longitudinally strengthening these long, narrow, and very lightly built hulls.

© 2013 The Author

Key words: Mississippi River, inland navigation, steamboat construction, North American river boats.

Steam propulsion was introduced to NorthAmerica’s Mississippi River and its many tribu-taries in 1811 with the building of the side-wheel

boat New Orleans at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Theshallow, fast-flowing, hazard-filled channels of theserivers presented special challenges for navigation, butthe quarter-century that followed New Orleans’ firstpassage saw the creation of a distinctive vessel typeknown as the western river steamboat. It was charac-terized by a lightly built, shallow-draft hull outfittedwith compact and powerful high-pressure steamengines. Steam propulsion proved vital to the eco-nomic and territorial expansion of the United States inthe 19th century, but the specifics of vessel design andconstruction during the first quarter-century of steampower in the Mississippi River watershed are largelyunknown. The earliest-known hull plans for a westernriver steamer, the 393-ton Buckeye State of 1850, showa vessel built long after the developmental period wasover (Kane, 2004: 85). The problem was summarizedby steamboat historian Louis Hunter:

Unlike the sailing and steam marine, western steamboatsgave rise to almost no technical literature. They leftbehind no collections of hull models, very few prints, andeven fewer scale drawings, while their structural evolutionwas virtually completed when the photographic recordbegan. (1969: 66)

A recent archaeological discovery is expanding ourunderstanding of the formative years. The 160-tonHeroine, sunk in the Red River near Fort Towson insouth-eastern Oklahoma, dates to the 1830s and is theearliest wreck of a western river steamboat to be

systematically excavated and recorded. Between 2001and 2008 the Oklahoma Historical Society, theInstitute of Nautical Archaeology, and Texas A&MUniversity jointly investigated the site. The excava-tions, major finds, and history are summarized in IJNA42.2 (Crisman et al., 2013).

History and archaeological studyA medium-sized, general-purpose carrier of people andcargo, the side-wheel Heroine began service in Novem-ber 1832 and over the next five-and-a-half years annu-ally navigated thousands of miles on the Mississippi,and lower Ohio and Missouri Rivers. Heroine wasascending the Red River near Fort Towson, Oklahomaon 6 May 1838 when the hull was snagged by a sub-merged log (Crisman et al., 2013: 366, fig. 1). Limitedsalvage of the cargo and machinery occurred after thesinking, but the hull soon filled with sediment, endingrecovery operations. Portions of the upperworksremained visible for five years, until a flood shifted theriver channel to the south and capped the wreck with7.62 m (25 ft) of sand. Between 1843 and 1990 Heroinewas preserved in an ideal environment which was con-sistently wet and protected from air, light, and humanactivity. Another flood in 1990 shifted the river north-ward, exposing the wreck for the first time in 147 years.

When study of the wreck began in 2001, about15.2 m (50 ft) of the stern was partially exposed abovethe river bottom, from the sternpost forward to the sidewheels and the engine-and-machinery supporting cyl-inder timbers. Test excavations in 2002 showed that thewreck was c.42.7 m (140 ft) in length overall, and

bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2014) 43.1: 128–150doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12044

© 2013 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2013 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

hogged at some point after the sinking, with the bowand stern sloping down from midships. The ends of thehull twisted to port: the angle varied, from 6° at thebow, near 0° amidships, and 25° at the stern.

The condition of the hull also varied from stem tostern (Fig. 1). With the exception of the cylinder andbearing timbers and portions of the port-side railing,nothing survived above the level of the main deck. Thewreck lies at a slight angle across the river, with thestarboard surfaces bearing the brunt of the current andthe floating logs it carries. Most of the overhangingdeck structure—the guard—was stripped from thatside. The orientation and list of the wreck protected theport side from the worst effects of erosion, impacts,and collapse. Heavier construction and deeper burialbeneath the river bottom combined to preserve the first9.14 m (30 ft) of the bow and last 6.1 m (20 ft) of thestern in relatively good shape; both had intact structureup to and including the main deck beams and planking.About 12.19 m (40 ft), of the midships structure washeld together by the heavy cylinder-timber assembly atthe level of the main deck, although collapse of thesides was evident and some starboard frames andplanking were missing. Between the bow and cylindertimbers the hull was in poor shape, with the starboardside and main deck gone above the turn of the bilge,and the port side collapsed outward. The section ofhull between the cylinder timbers and stern assemblywas missing most of the deck. Hull timbers protectedfrom river-current erosion and periodic exposure weregenerally in excellent condition, often with originaltool marks and coats of paint and tar. The twisting andhogging of the hull left many timbers, particularly onthe starboard side, cracked, broken, or partially sepa-rated from adjacent structure.

Diving conditions in the Red River—very low vis-ibility, strong currents, and numerous obstructions onand around the wreck-site—encouraged simplicity inthe tools and techniques used to document the hull’sconstruction. Most of the recording was carried out bydivers equipped with folding plastic rulers and open-reel measuring tapes. Because we were reasonablycertain that the builders of Heroine worked in imperialmeasures, we used these units for recording (to thenearest quarter-inch). Frame sections, as well asdegrees of listing, hogging, and sagging, were measuredwith electronic levels (goniometers) installed in water-tight housings (Cozzi, 1998).

The high costs of conservation and display pre-cluded recovery of the hull, and so every effort wasmade to record the dimensions of its constituenttimbers, techniques of assembly, three-dimensionalform, and evidence of its career. The goals of the hulldocumentation were to create a record of the vessel asfound, to generate descriptions and analyses of itsdesign and assembly, and to graphically reconstructHeroine in the form of lines drawings, constructionplans, and scale models. Of particular interest to ourstudy was how Heroine’s builders addressed the

Fig

ure

1.P

lan

view

ofw

reck

.(D

raw

ing

K.C

rism

an)

K. J. CRISMAN: WESTERN RIVER STEAMBOAT HEROINE, 1832–1838

129© 2013 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2013 The Nautical Archaeology Society

problem of longitudinal strength. Governmentenrolment records indicate that, early in their develop-ment, western steamboats greatly increased theirlength-to-breadth proportions and, at the same time,decreased their depth of hold (Works ProgressAdministration, 1942). The resulting hull form, whilewell-suited to shallow river navigation, was prone todrooping at its ends (hogging) and sagging in themiddle. By the early 1840s fore-and-aft trusses consist-ing of support posts and wrought-iron rods tightenedwith turnbuckles were introduced. Known as hogchains (even though there were no actual chains), thetrusses became a signature feature of western steam-boats built after that time (Hunter, 1969: 94–100;Custer, 1991). Historical records provide few cluesabout the longitudinal reinforcement of river steamersin the pre-hog-chain era, and Heroine offered an excel-lent opportunity to examine earlier approaches to thehogging problem.

Construction and materialsWe know that Heroine was built at New Albany,Indiana, in 1832 (Hall, 1836: 252, 256), but the name ofthe builder is not yet known. Several individualsconstructed steamboats in the Louisville-New Albanyarea at the time, including Peter Tellon, WilliamCrane, and Messrs Parkinson, French, Cunningham,and Ferguson, and it is likely that one of themassembled the hull (US Treasury Department, 1838:318–9; Jackson, 1985: 159–60). The hull may have beena speculative venture by the yard, but more likely wasbuilt after the original owner, Jeremiah Diller, and theshipwright signed a contract specifying the dimensions,tonnage, materials, special features, timetable forcompletion, price, and payment schedule (Jackson,1985: 159–66). The dearth of plans or half models forriver steamers of this era leaves the design methodsopen to question. Half models were widely used incontemporary American coastal yards, and this mayhave been the preferred means for designing westernsteamboat hulls as well (Chapelle, 1960: 6–12; Hunter,1969: 88–9).

There was a clear favourite in the selection of timberfor Heroine’s assembly: American white oak (Quercusalba). With a few exceptions—pine (genus Pinus) forthe deck planking and the tongue-and-groove sheath-ing on the wheelhouses, and black locust (Robiniapseudoacacia) for the timberheads at the bow andstern—all of the timbers sampled were of white oak.1

This dense, durable hardwood was commonly used byNorth American shipbuilders, and was widely avail-able in the Ohio River Valley.

The quality of the timbers we examined appearedexceptional, with few knots, blemishes, or rounded logsurfaces (waney edges) evident. Frame timbers and deckbeams were typically 178 mm (7 in) moulded and127 mm (5 in) sided, suggesting that they were cut tothese dimensions by mills that supplied the yard. Very

little naturally curved compass timber was used, andnearly all such pieces were incorporated in the stem andstern assemblies, or in frames at the very ends of the hull.Elsewhere, futtocks at the turn of the bilge were cut tothe curve from straight timbers. Lodging, hanging, ordagger knees were not used in the deck assembly.

Heroine was exclusively iron fastened: through-boltsat the stem and stern assemblies, and fastening thekeelson to the floors and keel; bolts headed over clenchrings at the sister- and bilge-keelsons, clamps, andplank butts; large chisel-pointed square spikes in theframe assemblies; smaller chisel-pointed square spikesfor the exterior and deck planking; and square nails forthe ceiling, the tongue-and-groove sheathing of theupperworks, and for other interior finishing work. Thebuilders were sparing in their use of fasteners at certainlocations: the square-frame floors and futtocks werefastened to adjacent timbers with only two spikes.

The following description of Heroine’s constructionloosely follows the assembly sequence used by the ship-wrights who built the steamboat.

KeelHeroine’s upright orientation and largely intact lowerhull limited access to the keel, particularly at the bowwhere the location of the forward end of the keel couldonly be estimated. However, the top surface (sideddimension) of the keel was measured between all of theframes, and its aftermost end was also uncovered andmeasured. A split in the after-hull along the starboardside of the keel permitted examination of the top,bottom, and side of the keel.

The keel measured 305 mm (12 in) sided and102 mm (4 in) moulded, and resembled a thick plank;there were no rabbets or chamfers carved into its sidesfor the garboards. Its overall length was estimated tobe 38.25 m (125 ft, 6 in), and it undoubtedly consists ofat least two, and likely as many as three or four timbersscarfed end-to-end. No scarf seams were observedbetween the frame floors, and so scarf dimensions andtypes are still unknown.

Heroine’s keel provides us with a clear-cut instanceof river navigation requirements outweighing otherfunctional considerations. On an oceangoing woodenship, particularly a sailing ship, a deep keel providedlongitudinal strength and reduced a vessel’s tendencyto slide to leeward under the pressure of wind on itssails. However, shallow draft was everything for a riversteamer, and on this hull the keel protruded no morethan 38 mm (11⁄2 in) below the bottom planking. Itscontribution to the longitudinal strength of the hullwas minimal, and compensation for this deficiency wasprovided elsewhere in the structure.

Stem assemblyThe bow was in better condition than the rest of thehull due to its heavy construction and deep burial

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 43.1

130 © 2013 The Author. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2013 The Nautical Archaeology Society

beneath the river bottom (Fig. 2). The interior of thebow and the uppermost 1.83 m (6 ft) of the stem and itscutwater were accessible to recorders, but the lowerend of the stem and forward end of the keel were not,and so the dimensions and assembly of the latter ele-ments are conjectural.

The curve of the apron and the upper stem togetherindicated that the stem raked forward with a long, easycurve (Table 1). No evidence of a scarf was seen at theupper end of the stem, and it was not clear if thismember was fashioned from one timber or two. Theheel of the stem was likely notched to lap over theforward end of the keel to protect it when the vesselgrounded—a frequent occurrence on river steamers.The after corners of the stem were deeply chamfered tofit the ends of the planking. A two-piece cutwaterassembly was bolted to the forward face of the stemhead and braced with a pair of horizontal knees—oneon each side of the stem; the top of the stem andcutwater supported a short projection of the forwarddeck that was part of the guard structure. A ‘V’ carvedinto the starboard side of the stem at the base of thecutwater served as a 1.52 m (5 ft) draft mark, whichlikely indicated the hull’s depth when fully laden; theport side of the stem did not have any draft marks.

The stem was backed by an apron which extendedfrom the forward end of the keel to the underside of themain deck. The sides and top of the apron wereobscured in many places by adjacent timbers, but noevidence of a scarf was seen or felt, suggesting that theapron was shaped from a single timber. The forwardcorners of the apron were chamfered to create plankingrabbets with the after corners of the stem.

During a later stage in construction the apron servedas the attachment point for many other bow timbers.The doubled floors of the five forward-most squareframes fit into notches in the lower (after) end of theapron, the heels of the port and starboard cant framesbutted the sides of its upper (forward) end, and thekeelson lapped the lower half of the apron and wasbolted to the keel and stem. After the cant frames werefitted, two breasthooks of substantial dimensions werebolted to the after face of the apron’s upper end and tothe adjacent cant frames. Finally, the forward ends ofthe stringers, bilge-keelsons, and lower clamps termi-nated at the sides or after face of the apron.

Stern assemblyThe well-preserved stern was more elaborate in designand more solidly built than might be expected in ashallow-draft river vessel (Figs 3 and 4). Stern elementsfastened atop the keel included a substantial deadwoodtimber and stern knee, inner and main posts, and threetransom timbers (Table 2). The deadwood was a rela-tively complex piece, with a sloping top surface on itsforward half, a flat top on the middle where it fit thestern knee, and a deeply cut-down after end where itseated the two sternposts. The sternposts were straightlengths of white oak that tapered from bottom to topand angled aft with a rake of 85°.

Three transom timbers were fitted inside the stern:the lowest was fastened atop the stern knee, the middleto the forward face of the inner post, and the upper-most transom was seated atop the inner post. Alltapered toward their outboard ends and all had

Figure 2. Interior profile of bow. (Drawing K. Crisman)



moulded after faces to better seat the exterior planks asthey drew inward and upward to meet the sternpostand underside of the counter. The lowest of the threetransoms resembled a triangular wedge with its aftercorner notched to fit around the inner sternpost. Thefashion piece, a two-piece, V-shaped frame that definedthe shape of the stern, was spiked to the forward face ofthis transom. The middle transom timber was notchedon its after face to fit around the inner sternpost andfastened to the post by a single bolt.

The upper transom had a shallow notch on its afterface to fit the forward face of the main sternpost, andwas secured in place by two bolts. The lower corner ofits after face was deeply bevelled to seat the ends of theexterior planking. This piece had a number of interest-ing features. The outboard ends of the transom eachsupported a standing knee that served as an attach-ment point for the uppermost side strakes. The top ofthe transom also had a 25 mm (1 in) deep, fan-shapednotch which was flush with the top of the sternpost;this allowed the tiller to swing freely from side to sidewithout scraping the transom. Finally, the transom’safter face had three shallow notches on either side ofthe sternpost to fit the bases of six aft-angling countertimbers. The finely crafted stern, an attractive featureof the hull, would have been largely invisible under theoverhang of the main deck.

FramesHeroine was built with a total of 74 square frames (the12 forward-most with double floor timbers, and therest with a single floor), 12 cant frames on either side ofthe bow, and four pairs of half-frames in the stern(Table 3). The midship frame was not identified, norhas the frame-designation system used by the ship-wrights when building the hull been determined. Forthe purposes of frame description, a division was madeat the juncture of the double-floored and single-flooredframes near the bow. Thus, the aftermost double-floored frame was assigned the letter A and theforward-most cant frame in the bow was X. Theforward-most single-floored frame was numbered 1and the aftermost half-frame in the stern 66.

The square frames were on 508 mm (20 in) centresatop the keel—this spacing varied between someframes, but only slightly. Over most of the length of thehull the square frames were consistent in their dimen-sions and both lightweight and uncomplicated in theirassembly (Figs 5 and 6). Frames 1 through to 62 eachconsisted of five pieces: a single floor timber, two firstfuttocks at the turn of the bilge, and two second fut-tocks on the sides. The frames were held together witha minimal number of fastenings: on each side of thehull, four spikes were driven across the longitudinalaxis of each frame, two from the forward face of theframe (one through the head of the floor, and the otherthrough the heel of the second futtock) and two fromaft (one at the heel, and the other at the head of the firstT

able

1.S

tem

tim

ber

dim

ensi

ons

Len

gth

Mou

lded

Side

d

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

eM

etri

cIm

peri

alN

ote

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

e

Stem

5.26

m17

ft3

ines

tim

ated

229

mm

9in

atup

per

end

241

mm

91⁄2

inm

ax.;

athe

ad—

——

——

—17

8m

m7

inon

forw

ard

face

——

——

——

127

mm

5in

onaf

ter

face

Apr

on5.

18m

17ft

—10

2m

m4

inat

heel

——

——

——

229

mm

9in

atfo

rwar

dmos

tflo

or30

5m

m12

inat

forw

ardm

ost

floor

——

—12

7m

m5

inat

head

299

mm

113⁄4

inat

head

Low

erbr

east

hook

2.23

m7

ft4

inbe

twee

nar

ms

355

mm

1ft

2in

atth

eap

ron

203

mm

8in

—U

pper

brea

stho

ok2.

51m

8ft

3in

betw

een

arm

s43

2m

m1

ft5

inat

the

apro

n20

3m

m8

in—



futtock). Thus, only eight spikes were required for theassembly of each frame.

All of the floors between the apron at the bow andthe deadwood at the stern were straight lengths oftimber with a single limber hole centred over the keel.A single 19 mm (3⁄4 in) round, iron through-bolt fas-tened each floor to the keel, with the bolts offset in astaggered pattern on succeeding frames to avoid thelimber holes. The first futtocks were short lengths ofsharply curved timber. The wood grain (and splitting)

pattern seen on these futtocks suggests that most werecut to the curve from straight-grained timbers ratherthan fashioned from naturally curved compass timber.This was clearly one instance where the builders took ashort cut to avoid the extra expense and effort offinding compass timber to match the curve of theframes. It did constitute a weak point: the sides of thehull between the bow and the cylinder timbers, it willbe recalled, were broken off along this hard curve. Thisframing style with its sharply curved transition from

Figure 3. Interior profile of stern. (Drawing K. Crisman)

Figure 4. Model of Heroine’s stern. (Model G. Grieco, photo W. Smith)



bottom to side is known as ‘rounded knuckle’ con-struction (Kane, 2004: 103–4).

Not all of the square frames in the hull were builtalike. As noted above, the 12 forward-most frames(A-L) each included a second floor timber thatextended up to the heels of the first futtocks, an addi-tion clearly intended to reinforce the bow and enable itto withstand repeated groundings and collisions. Thefirst 43 single-floored square frames (1–43) wereassembled with their first futtocks forward of the floortimber. The aftermost 19 square frames (44–62) all hadtheir first futtocks attached abaft the floors.

At either end of the hull the frames changed in formand assembly from those in the middle of the vessel;both the deadrise and moulded dimensions of floorsincreased, while the length of their arms decreased, andthe first futtocks expanded in length. These framesappeared to contain more compass timber with grainthat matched the curves of the hull. At the bow thefloors of frames H-L were notched down over the topof the apron. Forward of frame L, a dozen cant frameswere fitted in a radial pattern on each side of the apron,with additional filler pieces between their heads. Thecant frames and hawse pieces at the head of the apronwere so closely laid as to form a near-solid wall oftimber for 1.22 m (4 ft) on either side of the stem. Atthe stern the single floors of the four aftermost squareframes (59–62) were notched down over the deadwood,and had pronounced curves that formed the hollow ofthe run. The four aftermost frames were composed ofthree half-frames (63–65) with their first futtocksnotched into the side of the deadwood and stern knee,and the aft-canting final frame (66) with futtock heelsthat butted one another over the centreline of the sternknee. As noted earlier, the fashion piece that formedthe corner of the sides and stern was bolted to theforward face of the lowest transom timber.

KeelsonThe keelson was composed of three long white oakpieces that paralleled the keel, starting forward at apoint midway up the apron and extending aft to frame65 and the upper arm of the stern knee (Table 4). Thethree keelson timbers were secured to one another bylong flat scarfs, the first located at the forward end of thecylinder timbers and the second at their after end. Thedirection of the scarfs indicated that the keelson pieceswere laid down from the bow aft. The need for a shallowdraft limited the depth of the keel, but the same restric-tion did not apply to the keelson; it was two-and-a-halftimes greater in its moulded dimension than the keel,although it was also one-quarter narrower.

The keelson was notched down over the floors, andfastened to the frames and keel by 19 mm (3⁄4 in)diameter iron bolts—one through each floor—offsetfrom its centreline to avoid limber holes and the boltsthat fastened the floors in place. The keelson had aseries of shallow, sloping notches cut into its topT

able

2.S

tern

tim

ber

dim

ensi

ons

Len

gth

Mou

lded

Side

d

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

eM

etri

cIm

peri

alN

ote

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

e

Dea

dwoo

dti

mbe

r4.

55m

14ft

11in

—38

1m

m1

ft3

in—

254

mm

10in

—St

ern

knee

1.78

m5

ft10

inlo

wer

arm

432

mm

1ft

5in

inth

roat

254

mm

10in

atto

p0.

88m

2ft

101⁄2

inup

per

arm

——

——

——

Inne

rst

ernp

ost

1.96

m6

ft5

in—

241

mm

91⁄2

inat

heel

254

mm

10in

onfo

rwar

dfa

ce—

——

152

mm

6in

athe

ad—

——

Mai

nst

ernp

ost

2.16

m7

ft1

in—

343

mm

1ft

11⁄2

inat

heel

254

mm

10in

——

——

178

mm

7in

athe

ad—

——

Low

ertr

anso

m0.

79m

2ft

7in

acro

ssfo

rwar

dfa

ce21

6m

m81

⁄2in

—26

7m

m10

1⁄2

inat

inne

rst

ernp

ost

Mid

dle

tran

som

2.28

m7

ft6

in—

216

mm

81⁄2

in—

216

mm

81⁄2

inat

inne

rst

ernp

ost

Upp

ertr

anso

m4.

78m

15ft

8in

—22

9m

m9

in—

229

mm

9in

atst

ernp

ost

Stan

ding

knee

s0.

64m

2ft

1in

low

erar

m34

9m

m13

3⁄4

inhe

ight

onst

andi

ngar

m11

1m

m43

⁄8in

—



Table 3. Frame dimensions

Moulded average Sided average Other

Metric Imperial Note Metric Imperial Metric Imperial

Floor timbers 203 mm 8 in at keel 102 mm 4 in — —152 mm 6 in at head — — — —

Limber holes — — — — — 51 x 25 mm 2 x 1 inFirst futtocks 152 mm 6 in at heel — — — —

102–127 mm 4–5 in at head 102 mm 4 in — —Second futtocks 152 mm 6 in at heel 102 mm 4 in — —

102 mm 4 in at head — — — —

Figure 5. Section at frame 23. (Drawing K. Crisman)

Figure 6. Model of Heroine’s hull showing framing and deck assembly. (Model G. Grieco, photograph W. Smith)



surface to fit deck-beam-supporting stanchions. Themajority of these notches (11) were cut into theforward-most keelson timber between the forwardhatch and the cylinder timbers; their spacing matchesthe deck-beam notches on the surviving port-sideclamp, indicating that every beam here was reinforcedby a stanchion. The reason for the extra posts wasobvious: this portion of the main deck supported theweight of the boiler assembly with its many cast- andwrought-iron elements, the brick-lined firebox, andthe water within the boilers; a total of c.13.9 metrictonnes, mounted on the relatively flimsy deck struc-ture.2 Abaft the cylinder timbers, the aftermostkeelson timber had three notches carved into its topfor deck-beam stanchions.

The keelson was greater than the keel in its mouldeddimension, but when the overall length of the hull isconsidered it is still not very large. A long and rela-tively narrow wooden hull is inherently prone tohogging, and a larger keelson, or multiple keelsons,would surely have strengthened the boat’s spine. Thismodestly sized keelson may be another example of thebuilder keeping timbers as light as possible to minimizevessel draft. Notching the underside of the keelson tolock it over the floors was a labour-intensive practice,but its contribution to the hull’s longitudinal stiffnesswas evidently considered worth the added effort.

Stringers, bilge-keelsons, and clampsThe keel and keelson stiffened the hull along its cen-treline, but additional longitudinal strengthening along

the bottom and sides was provided by stringers (alsocalled ‘streaks’), bilge-keelsons, and clamps (Table 5;Kane 2004: 97, 106–7). Three longitudinal memberswere fitted inside the turn of the bilge on each side ofthe hull where the bottom curved up to form the sides.The sharp turn of the bilge created a focal point forstresses in the hull; this is also the place where the floor,first futtocks, and second futtocks of each frame met.Each of the longitudinal timbers was placed to rein-force a specific part of every frame. The innermost ofthe three, the hold stringer, was a thick plank laid overthe heels of the first futtocks and secured with twospikes per frame, one each in the floor and first futtock.The forward ends of the port and starboard holdstringers butted over the apron, and each extendedback in a long arc to a terminus on frame 61, thepenultimate square frame in the hull. Each stringer wasmade up of several timbers flat-scarfed end-to-end.(Similar flat scarfs were noted on the bilge-keelsons,side stringers, and clamps.)

Bilge-keelsons were fitted over the turn of the bilgeon each side, centring on the butts where the floortimber heads met second futtock heels. The impor-tance of the bilge-keelsons was evident in their sub-stantial size and fitting: each was notched down32 mm (11⁄4 in) over the doubled frame timbers, andfastened by one to two spikes and one 19 mm (3⁄4 in)bolt per frame. The bolts were inserted into holesdrilled through the centre of each first futtock andtheir heads were clenched over rings, while the spikeswere driven into floor heads or second futtock heels.The bilge-keelsons extended aft from the apron, the

Table 4. Keelson dimensions

Length Moulded/width Sided/depth

Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Metric Imperial

Keelson (overall) 39.01 m 128 ft 267–279 mm 101⁄2–11 in 229 mm 9 inTimber 1 (forward) 16.59 m 54 ft 5 in — — — —Timber 2 (amidships) 15.67 m 51 ft 5 in — — — —Timber 3 (aft) 10.82 m 35 ft 6 in — — — ——notches over floor — — — — 25 mm 1 inFlat scarfs (2) 2.03 m 6 ft 8 in — — — —Notches for stanchions (average) 203–305 mm 8–12 in 76 mm 3 in 25 mm 1 in (at after end)

Table 5. Stringer, bilge-keelson, and clamp dimensions

Moulded/width Sided/depth Notched over frames


Hold stringers 254 mm 10 in 51 mm 2 in — —Side stringers 254 mm 10 in 51 mm 2 in — —Bilge-keelsons 127 mm 5 in 203 mm 8 in 38 mm 11⁄2 inLower clamps 330 mm 1 ft 1 in 70–76 mm 23⁄4–3 in 19 mm 3⁄4 inUpper clamps 330 mm 1 ft 1 in 70–76 mm 23⁄4–3 in 19 mm 3⁄4 in



notching of their undersides commenced immediatelyabaft frame L and ended at the forward edge of frame61, and the after ends of the bilge-keelsons terminatedover frame 65.

The side stringers, also known as ‘futtock headstrakes’, were similar in many respects to the holdstringers (Bates, 1968: 30). They consisted of thickplanks laid down over futtock ends—in this case theheads of the first futtocks—and secured to each frameby a pair of spikes, one each through the first andsecond futtocks. The forward ends of the side stringerswere located on either side of the apron, and eachterminated abaft frame 58.

Above the waterline, each side of the hull waslongitudinally reinforced by a pair of clamps attachedone above the other to the insides of the second fut-tocks. Both clamps were of the same dimensions,resembling broad, thick planks, and both were notcheddown over and fastened to the second futtock of everyframe by one 19 mm (3⁄4 in) bolt clenched over a32 mm (11⁄4 in) diameter ring, and by spikes, onethrough the lower clamp and one, or more commonlytwo, through the upper clamp. The tapered forwardends of the port and starboard lower clamps buttedover the apron between the upper and lower breast-hooks, and their after ends terminated at frame 64. Theforward ends of the upper clamps butted the outboardends of the upper breasthook and their after ends ter-minated at the fashion piece. The upper clamps werenotched along their top edges to fit the beams of themain deck. The frame tops were uneven in height, buton average extended 127–140 mm (5–51⁄2 in) above thetop of the upper clamp.

Two features of the clamps emphasized their vitalrole in strengthening the sides of the steamboat abovethe waterline. The first was the notching of the clampsto lock the frame tops tightly in place. This requiredmuch time and labour on the part of the builders tomeasure then chisel out the 102 mm (4 in) wide by19 mm (3⁄4 in) deep notches to fit each futtock. Thesecond noteworthy feature was the use of clenchedbolts to fasten each clamp to each frame. Spikes alonewere not deemed sufficient for this purpose, and thesecurity that the bolts provided was clearly consideredworth the extra costs in iron and labour.

PlankingSamples of wood taken from around the hull suggestthat all planks were of white oak. Planking on thestarboard side of Heroine’s hull was generally erodedand split, if not missing altogether; planking on theburied port side was typically in very good condition,but the still-tight seams were often hard to locate andobscured by overlying stringers and clamps. Plankingthicknesses were obtained in places where hull frac-tures opened up the seams (Table 6).

The innermost strakes, the garboards, were rela-tively wide and slightly thicker than the 51 mm (2 in)that was standard on all of the other bottom and sideplanking. Their fit against the side of the keel did notinclude a rabbet, specially chamfered edges, or othermodifications. However, at the bow and stern rabbetswere cut into the stem-apron and deadwood-sternpostassemblies to fit the ends of the garboards and otherplanking strakes. From the garboards to the turn of thebilge the strakes were relatively wide; there were five toseven strakes of this description on each side of thehull. From a point just inboard of the bilge keelson thestrakes narrowed, although their thickness remainedthe same; nine or ten strakes covered each side of thehull. There were no wales (extra-thick planks) near thetop of the hull to strengthen the sides above the water-line. The uppermost row of planks around each side,the sheer-strake, was flush with the top of the secondfuttocks, and, like the upper clamp, was notched to fitthe deck beams.

A pair of large iron spikes fastened each plank toeach frame. The narrow width of the frame timbersforced the shipwrights to drive the spikes side by side,rather than in a staggered pattern. The narrow framewidths and flexibility of the steamer’s hull made ordi-nary butt joints between the planks a risky, leakyproposition, and the builders instead lapped them withshort, vertical, straight scarfs. One such plank join wasnoted on the first plank below the sheer-strake on thestarboard side of frame 52. Elsewhere on the hull,excavators noticed bolts clenched over rings on theinside surfaces of two frames with a single bolt-lessframe between them; the bolts appeared to be reinforc-ing a plank butt located on the intermediate frame.

Table 6. Planking dimensions

Width Thickness

Metric Imperial Metric Imperial

Garboards 279 mm 11 in 64 mm 21⁄2 inBottom strakes 254–330 mm 10–13 in 51 mm 2 inBilge and side strakes 140–279 mm 51⁄2–11 in 51 mm 2 in(average)_ 152–203 mm 6–8 in — —



During the excavation of the rudder, a portion ofthe previously buried port transom was uncovered,revealing traces of a black surface-coating on the sideand counter planks. This was identified as lead-basedpaint with a covering of pitch. A similar dark-colouredsurface-coating was observed on the port side amid-ships when several of the uppermost planking strakeswere uncovered at frame 23.

Hold, bow and stern compartmentsThe interior of the hull mostly served as hold space forcargoes, since passenger and crew accommodationswere on the main or upper decks, and the boilers,engine, and paddle-wheel machinery were all mountedon the main deck. The hold was a long (33.35 m (109 ft,5 in)), narrow (c.5.63 m (18 ft, 6 in)) open space withonly 1.6 m (5 ft, 3 in) of clearance between the tops ofthe floors and the undersides of the deck beams. Thecentral portion of the hold was longitudinally divided

by the 13.51-m-long (44 ft, 4 in) support structure forthe engine and fly wheels. Bulkheads at either end ofthe hold created small bow and stern compartments.

Heroine had a snag chamber bulkhead, a watertighttransverse partition, installed 4.57 m (15 ft) abaft thehead of the stem (Table 7, Figs 2 and 7). Its purpose, asthe name suggests, was to prevent flooding of the entirehull if the bow was punctured by a snag or crushed ina collision with another boat. Snags were the leadingcause of accidental losses on the western rivers. Snagbulkheads were introduced as early as 1819 and by thelate 1820s were fitted on most western steamboats(Marestier, 1957: 57, 60; Hunter, 1969: 80; Hall, 1974:363–4). A watertight bow compartment seems a sen-sible precaution, but must not have been very effective,for they fell out of use by the 1840s (Kane, 2004: 90).Heroine’s snag bulkhead is, thus far, the only examplefound or recorded on a western river steamboat wreck.

The bulkhead was installed directly over frame G,the double-floored frame against which the heel of the

Table 7. Snag chamber bulkhead dimensions

Moulded/width Sided/depth Height

Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Note Metric Imperial

Overall — — — — from top of frameG to undersideof deck

1.91 m 6 ft 3 in

Support posts (11) 89–114 mm 31⁄2–41⁄2 in 89–114 mm 31⁄2–41⁄2 in — — —Forward horizontal planks (2) 102 mm 4 in 25 mm 1 in — — —Bulkhead planking (7 strakes) 203–355 mm 8–14 in 51 mm 2 in — — —

Figure 7. Section at frame F. (Drawing K. Crisman)



apron butted. Its framework consisted of a line ofvertical posts, with one atop the keelson, three on thestarboard side, and five on the port side—the two addi-tional port-side posts, located near the centreline, mayhave been part of a repair made during the boat’scareer. It was not clear if the heels of the posts weretenonned into the top of frame G, but their heads wereclearly notched to fit the after corner of deck beam 6.One additional slanting post was fitted on each side ofthe bulkhead. The posts were reinforced with two thinhorizontal planks on their forward faces, while theafter sides were completely covered from the top offrame G to the after face of deck beam 6 with a wall ofthick, wide, horizontally laid planks—this was thewatertight wall designed to hold back a flood. A rect-angular section of planks let in to the port side of thebulkhead appeared to be a repair.

Heroine’s watertight bulkhead was useless on 6 May,1838 when the steamboat ran on a snag that punchedthrough the hull 12.19 m (40 ft) abaft the partition. Itmay have been of help on another occasion, however.During the excavation of the bow compartment evi-dence of an earlier collision was found on the starboardside between frames J and K, directly beneath the bilgekeelson. A plank strake at this location had impactdamage which the crew sealed by fitting a curvedwooden plug, covering it with tar, and then driving twowooden wedges between the plug and the underside ofthe bilge keelson to fix the repair in place.

The small separate compartment in the bow wasused by the crew for storing broken or heat-damagediron castings (destined for recycling), and a few toolsand rigging elements. The bilge debris that typicallycollects in spaces between frames was noticeablyabsent in the bow, suggesting that someone swept thecompartment not long before the sinking.

The after compartment in the hold was created bythe addition of a crude, non-watertight bulkhead ofnarrow, vertical slats nailed to the after side of frame60 and the forward face of deck beam 44; the bulkheadplanks were braced by a horizontal plank thatextended across frames 60 and 61, 305 mm (12 in)above the keelson (Table 8, Fig. 3). The enclosedspace, also known as the ‘run’, contained the tiller,wheel ropes, and the pair of large, iron-bound singleblocks (bolted to the clamp abaft beam 45) that led thewheel ropes forward to the pilot house. When fitted tothe rudder head, the tiller extended nearly the fulllength of the compartment and pivoted from side toside in a wide arc.

Artefacts located in the run suggested that the crewused it for storage of tools, ship’s stores, discardedequipment, and personal belongings (Crisman et al.,2013: 375). The spaces between frames 61 to 63 andthe sides of the deadwood contained viscous, oilyhydrocarbon, identified as pine tar (Bates, 2003); otherdebris in the run included wood shavings thatresembled waste from a plane or draw knife, and corncobs. While a contemporary account of the 342-ton T

able

8.D

imen

sion

sof

ster

nco

mpa

rtm

ent

and

bulk

head

Len

gth

Wid

thH

eigh

t/de

pth

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

eM

etri

cIm

peri

alN

ote

Met

ric

Impe

rial

Not

e

Inte

rior

dim

ensi

ons

3.05

m10

ftfr

omtr

anso

mti

mbe

rsto

bulk

head

5.08

m16

ft8

inbr

eadt

hbe

twee

nup

per

clam

psat

fram

e62

1.98

m6

ft6

inhe

ight

from

top

offr

ame

60to

uppe

rsi

deof

deck

Bul

khea

dpl

anki

ng—

——

127

mm

5in

—51

mm

2in

—



western river steamer General Pratte noted that the 19firemen aboard slept in the run (McDermott, 1968:173), there was no evidence to suggest that the run ofthe much smaller Heroine was used as living quartersby crew members.

Main deck structureHeroine’s main deck suffered extensive damage andloss since the boat sank in 1838. As noted, the exten-sion of the main deck beyond the hull, the guard, wasentirely missing on the starboard side, and many of thedeck beams over the forward and after holds weremissing, or only survived at the port-side guard. Sec-tions of deck with intact beams and planking weredocumented at the bow, midships, and stern; the intactbeams and beam notches in the port-side upper clampshowed that Heroine had 48 transverse beams in itsmain deck (consecutively numbered, starting withbeam 1 at the bow) (Table 9). Due to the considerablewidth of the main deck (up to 10.97 m (36 ft)) it wasnot always possible for the builders to find a singletimber of the necessary length; in these cases theylapped two timbers side-by-side and spiked themtogether to form a single beam. In other places, notablyat the bow and beneath the boiler assembly, it appearsthat beams 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, and 19 were doubled allthe way across the hull to strengthen the deck or hatchopenings.

Beams were laid down an average of 0.91 m (3 ft)centre-to-centre over the length of the hull, but thisvaried considerably, from as little as 0.66 m (2 ft 2 in)between beams 47 and 48 in the stern, to as much as1.32 m (4 ft 4 in) between beams 19 and 20 at theforward end of the cylinder timbers. Clearly, the build-ers were not obsessed with precise placement of beams,but shifted them to accommodate features such ashatches and cylinder timbers. Each beam was fittedinto a shallow notch in the upper clamp and sheer-strake and secured in place by two large spikes, one inthe clamp and the other in the sheer-strake (Fig. 6).

The junctures of the beams and clamps were notreinforced by any type of knees.

Moulded and sided dimensions of the beams variedwithin a 51 mm (2 in) range. The two beams immedi-ately forward (26 and 27), and the two immediately aft(33 and 34) of the side-wheel openings in the guard,known as ‘paddle beams’, were slightly larger thanaverage in section. Beams 27 and 33 had separatepieces at either end that lapped inboard of the hull,apparently to increase the length of the paddle-wheelopenings by a few inches. Beam 30, directly beneath themain shafts of the paddle wheels, was also slightlylarger in dimensions than most other deck beams.

Two pairs of short, diagonally slanting beams werefitted at the bow, with one pair on either side of thestem. The after ends of these beams butted the forwardface of beam 1, and the innermost of each pair alsolodged against the sides of bitt posts at the bow. Thesecanted beams supported the curving guard structurethat overhung the stem. Amidships, the central por-tions of beams 28–32 were cut away for the flywheels.(These were mounted atop the cylinder timbers andextended down into the hold.) At the after end of thedeck, six short, fore-and-aft-oriented beams butted theafter face of beam 48 and supported the extension ofthe deck over the counter and rudder head.

From stem to stern, the outboard ends of the beamswere protected by a continuous run of vertical oakplanks known as the nosing. These planks were spikedto the ends of the beams, and half-round moulding wasspiked down the centre of the strake’s outer face.Another run of heavy oaken strakes, the guard-cap,was spiked atop the beam ends and nosing, and alsoserved to define the outboard edges of the main deck.The cap had square mortises cut through it at regularintervals to fit the main-deck rail stanchions.

Each side of the main deck had another run of oakplanks, the sheer-cap, which covered the frame heads,clamps, and sheer-strakes along the top of the hull.This was fastened by one or two spikes driven into eachdeck beam. The strake closely resembled the guard-cap

Table 9. Deck-beam, guard-strake, waterways, and deck planking dimensions

Moulded/width Sided/depth

Metric Imperial Note Metric Imperial

Deck-beams 127–178 mm 5–7 in — 102–152 mm 4–6 inPaddle- and shaft-beams

(25, 26, 29, 32, 33)172–178 mm 63⁄4–7 in — 172–178 mm 63⁄4–7 in

Nosing strakes 203 mm 8 in — 51 mm 2 inHalf-round moulding 102 mm 4 in — — —Guard-cap 254 mm 10 in — 44 mm 13⁄4 inSheer-cap 254 mm 10 in — 51 mm 2 inMain-deck planking 89–254 mm 31⁄2–10 in — 51 mm 2 inGuard-deck planking 165–216 mm 61⁄2–81⁄2 in at stern 25 mm 1 in

254–457 mm 10–18 in at bow 25 mm 1 in



in its dimensions and appearance, and also had a seriesof square mortises cut through it, in this case to fit theposts, called stationaries, that supported the steam-boat’s superstructure (Bates, 1968: 23, 30). The indi-vidual planks composing the guard- and sheer-capswere flat-scarfed end-to-end, and at the narrowing ofthe bow both had two short lengths of plank thatallowed the strakes to follow the curve. At the after endof the hull, the guard-cap curved around the after edgeof the deck, while the sheer-cap terminated at the insideedge of the guard-cap.

Deck planks survived at the bow, the stern, andbetween the port-side cylinder timber and sheer-cap.All the planks between the sheer-caps ran parallel withthe centreline of the hull and their ends were notnibbed into the caps. Individual planks within strakeswere butt joined and fastened with two spikes perbeam—squared at the butts and in a staggered patternelsewhere. At the bow a total of 30 strakes were stillattached to the beams inside the sheer-caps, with anestimated four to five missing on the port side. Plankwidths varied considerably, from 102 to 254 mm (4 to10 in). Planks at the bow were sawn from pine, with theexception of four wide centreline strakes forward of thehatch, which were of oak. The capstan (missing fromthe wreck) was located here, and the oak strakes pro-vided a stronger surface for mounting this device. Alsonoted at the bow were three small plank repairs on theport side of the fore hatch. Amidships, a total of 13deck strakes were preserved on the port side of thecylinder timbers between deck beams 27 to 33, and atthe stern, 15 deck strakes were attached to the port sideof beams 45–48.

Intact guard-planks were found at two port-sidelocations: between the stem and beam 6 in the bow andfrom the after end of the paddle-wheel opening to thestern (beams 34 to 48). Guard-planks were thinner and

slightly wider than deck planks inboard of thesheer-cap; the guard-planks at the bow were exception-ally wide (up to 457 mm (18 in)). Wider planks tend toyield leakier seams, but this was not a problem on theguard-planks since they were outboard of the hull.

Hatches and companionwaysFive deck openings were recorded during the study ofthe hull: a pair of companionways, a small scuttle, andthe forward hatch at the bow, and a single companion-way located on the port side of the stern (Table 10).Another opening in the deck, through the port-sideguard at the stern, will be discussed below under theheading ‘Deck features’.

The companionways in the bow, located betweenbeams 3 and 4, provided access to the forward com-partment (Fig. 2). Each was nearly square and framedby a coaming that consisted of four pieces, half-lappedat the corners, and nailed down to the deck planking.The port companionway was missing one of its sidepieces. Two squared notches were cut into inside edgesof each side piece to fit a cover or grating. A woodencleat nailed between frames K and L, between the bilgekeelson and the side stringer, provided a step for crewmembers entering and exiting the compartment via theport companionway. It is not clear why Heroine hadtwo openings here instead of one, but the feature didprovide more light and ventilation into the compart-ment. This space was used as crew living quarters onsome western steamboats, but there was no evidence tosuggest this was true on Heroine (Ingraham, 1839: 196;Jackson, 1985: 161).

The small square scuttle on the starboard side of thebow was located between deck beams 6 and 7, imme-diately abaft the watertight bulkhead. The opening wastoo small for people or cargo, and was most likely used

Table 10. Companionway and hatch dimensions

Note

Length Width Height

Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Note Metric Imperial

Bow companionways OD 813 mm 2 ft 8 in 724 mm 2 ft 41⁄2 in — — —ID 686 mm 2 ft 3 in 597 mm 1 ft 111⁄2 in — — —coamings — — 64 mm 21⁄2 in — 51 mm 2 in

Bow scuttle — 457 mm 1 ft 6 in 381 mm 1 ft 3 in — — —Bow hatch OD 1.93 m 6 ft 4 in 1.89 m 6 ft 21⁄2 in — — —

ID 1.78 m 5 ft 10 in 1.74 m 5 ft 81⁄2 in — — —side coamings — — 76 mm 3 in lower piece 159 mm 61⁄4 in— — — — — upper piece 127 mm 5 inforward and after

coamings (estimated)— — 76 mm 3 in — 76 mm 3 in

Sterncompanionway

OD (est.) 670 mm 2 ft 31⁄2 in 711 mm 2 ft 4 in — — —ID 559 mm 1 ft 10 in 610 mm 2 ft — — —side coamings — — 51 mm 2 in — 25 mm 1 inafter coaming piece — — 76 mm 3 in 25 mm 1 in



for stowing anchor cables or mooring lines in the hold.No evidence of coamings was noted around theopening, but it was probably covered when not in use.

The forward cargo hatch was located between deckbeams 7 and 9, and was almost (but not quite) square.The sides consisted of fore-and-aft headers betweenbeams 7 and 9, each of which was notched in the centreto support the inboard ends of beam 8; the side coam-ings were fastened directly atop the headers. Theforward and after edges of the hatch were made up ofsingle-piece coamings (missing when the bow wasuncovered in 2005); these were half-lapped over theside coamings and spiked to the deck planks and beams7 and 9. The hatch’s side pieces were notched inside tofit a cover or grating, but curiously, the notches on thetwo sides of the opening did not correspond in size orlocation: the starboard coaming had five small notchesspaced over its length, while the port-side timber hadone long notch near the middle and two shorternotches further aft.

The fifth recorded opening in the main deck, a com-panionway that allowed entry into the stern compart-ment, was located between beams 46 and 47. Theopening was offset to the port side of the deck, since thetiller would have blocked a centreline opening whenthe rudder was in its neutral position. The sharplycurving half-frames below the companionway madefor poor footing, a problem that someone addressed bynailing a crude plank step across frames 64 and 65. Thecoaming around the stern companionway was rudi-mentary, consisting of thin wooden slats nailed downover the planking. A large wrought-iron hasp fastenedto the starboard side of the opening with a staple indi-cated that it once had a cover. This provision forlocking the cover suggests that theft of the contents ofthe compartment, perhaps by the deck passengers whotypically occupied the after half of the main deck, wasconsidered a potential problem (Ingraham, 1839: 196;Hunter, 1969: 422–30). Plans of the 1850 side-wheelsteamer Buckeye State show a similar companionwayon the after deck (Tredgold, 1851: Pl. 1).

There was likely at least one more hatch through themain deck for loading cargoes into the after hold. Ifthe pattern of doubling the intermediate beam seen onthe forward hatch (beam 8) was repeated aft, then it ispossible that the after hatch was located somewherebetween beams 36 and 42, since beams 37, 39, and 41were doubled. According to a local resident whoexplored the wreck soon after it was first uncovered in1990, another companionway existed directly abaft thecylinder timbers (Ricky Martin, 2006: pers. com.).There may have been additional openings in the deck,but their size and location are currently unknown.

Cylinder and bearing timbersThe builders of Heroine’s hull and the mechanics whoinstalled its propulsion system had to combine a lightlybuilt, flexible wooden hull with a heavy and relatively

complex arrangement of reciprocating and rotatingcast-iron machinery. Their principal concerns were tokeep everything properly aligned and supported. Twoapproaches were taken to achieve this aim. First, themachinery was designed with loose tolerances betweenmoving parts and with bearings that could be adjustedto re-align shafts and couplings. Second, every effortwas made to limit flexibility in the machinery’s woodensupport structure. The central part of the hull wherethe engine, crank, flywheels, and side wheels weremounted was made as rigid as possible by the installa-tion of heavy timbers that were cross-braced and heldin compression by wrought-iron reinforcing rods.

The principal support structure was an assembly ofparallel oak timbers located on the centreline of thehull amidships (Table 11 and Fig. 8). Known as thecylinder timbers, these cradled the single-piston engineat their forward end, served as the alleyway for thecrank arm (called the pitman) in the centre, and at theirafter extremity supported the shafts for the side wheels,each of which had, attached to its inboard end, a one-ton flywheel composed of a cast-iron flange and a rimsupported by timber arms (Hodge, 1840: pl. XXXI).This was a lot to ask of any wooden structure, and theshipwrights went to considerable effort to ensure thatwhat they built was up to the job. They began by layingdown a pair of sister-keelsons over frames 18 to 43,each located 229 mm (9 in) outboard of the centralkeelson. The two timbers were the same sided dimen-sions as the main keelson, though of lesser mouldeddimensions; like the keelson, they were notched downover the floors about 38 mm (11⁄2 in) and through-bolted in place, with one bolt per frame, laid down in astaggered pattern with the bolts clenched over rings.

The sister-keelsons provided the foundation for thestack of cylinder timbers located at deck level directlyabove them (Fig. 5). Three types of supports or bracesextended between the hull bottom and main deck. Thefirst of these was a row of seven stanchions evenlyspaced atop each sister-keelson. The stanchion headsfit into mortises cut into the bottom-most cylindertimbers and their tenonned heels fit into slopinggrooves in the sister-keelsons. The posts were of twosizes: stanchions 1, 3, 5, and 7 (from forward) weremore substantial in section than the three intermediatestanchions (2, 4, and 6). The larger stanchions hadangled notches in their fore and after surfaces to fit theends of the three pairs of diagonal braces between eachsister-keelson and its overlying cylinder timbers. Thebraces crossed on either side of the intermediate stan-chions and were through-bolted to one another.

During a slightly later stage of construction whenmore cylinder timbers were fitted at deck level, sevenwrought-iron rods (six of them hinged in the centre bya pair of linking eyes) were inserted into vertical holesin each sister-keelson and the stack of cylinder timbersabove. Iron plates fit around the lower ends of the rodswhere they extended beneath the sister-keelsons. Whensquare nuts on the ends of the rods were tightened, they



compressed the stanchions and diagonal braces,ensuring that the engine and flywheel mountingsstayed as rigid as possible.

The cylinder timbers consisted of two parallelassemblies, each composed of three large oak timbers.The lower timber was fitted under the deck and its topsurface was notched to lock around the lower halves ofdeck beams 20 to 34. The middle timber was atop thedeck and notched on its underside to fit around the tophalves of the same beams. Thus, the lower and middletimbers effectively clamped around the beams, holdingthis part of the deck structure very tightly in place. Theuppermost cylinder timber had the same moulded andsided dimensions as the middle timber, although it was

slightly lower at its forward end; three 102 mm (4 in)square blocks of wood were set into notches cut alongthe seams between the upper and middle timbers toprevent them from loosening under the forces gener-ated by the moving piston, crank, and flywheels. Thethree cylinder timbers had exceptionally close-fittingseams and they were heavily bolted to one another.The top of the upper timber yielded evidence of itsfunction: the forward end was notched to fit thecylinder head, and further aft a pair of cast-ironbearings, also known as pillow blocks, supported themain shafts that extended outboard of the flywheels.

Heroine’s builders attached three additional woodenstructures to each side of the main deck to support the

Table 11. Dimensions of cylinder and bearing timbers

Note

Length Moulded/width Sided/depth


Sister-keelsons — 12.9 m 42 ft 4 in 152 mm 6 in 229 mm 9 inStanchions (7 per

sister-keelson)large (1, 3, 5, 7) 1.37 m 4 ft 6 in 127 mm 5 in 203 mm 8 insmall (2, 4, 6) — — 89 mm 31⁄2 in 89 mm 31⁄2 in

Diagonal braces (paired,6 per sister-keelson)

— 3.66 m 12 ft 152 mm 6 in 64 mm 21⁄2 in

Lower cylinder timbers — 13.46 m 44 ft 2 in 241 mm 91⁄2 in 229 mm 9 inMiddle cylinder timbers — 13.15 m 43 ft 2 in (est.) 305 mm 12 in 229 mm 9 inUpper cylinder timbers — 12.57 m 41 ft 3 in (est.) 305 mm 12 in 229 mm 9 inMain shaft outboard

bearing timberslower 5.44 m 17 ft 10 in 267 mm 101⁄2 in 216 mm 81⁄2 inmiddle 3.68 m 12 ft 1 in 184 mm 71⁄4 in 216 mm 81⁄2 inupper 3.4 m 11 ft 2 in 343 mm 1 ft 11⁄2 in 216 mm 81⁄2 in

Paddle shaft inboardbearing timbers

lower 1.8 m 5 ft 11 in 419 mm 1 ft 41⁄2 in 216 mm 81⁄2 inmiddle 1.8 m 5 ft 11 in 343 mm 1 ft 11⁄2 in 178 mm 7 inupper 1.8 m 5 ft 11 in 44 mm 13⁄4 in 178 mm 7 in

Paddle shaft outboardbearing timbers

lower 6.76 m 22 ft 2 in 432 mm 1 ft 5 in 178 mm 7 instack of 4-bottom 1.36 m 4 ft 51⁄2 in 127 mm 5 in 152 6 instack of 4-top three 1.36 m 4 ft 51⁄2 in 102 mm 4 in 152 mm 6 in

Figure 8. Interior profile of cylinder timbers and supports. (Drawing K. Crisman)



paddle-wheel elements (now missing on the starboardside). The first of these, the main shaft outboardbearing timbers, was located inboard of the sheer-capand held the pillow block for the outboard end of themain shaft (Fig. 9). This bearing assembly containedthree timbers. The lowest was notched down over deckbeams 27–33 and bolted to the paddle beams at itsends. The middle and upper pieces were considerablyshorter in length and tapered toward the top. Theupper timber was notched on its top surface to fit thepillow block. Two wrought-iron rods, each threaded ateither end for nuts, spanned the deck between the cyl-inder and bearing timbers to limit flexing between thetwo shaft bearings. Three wooden battens nailed to theinside face of the port bearing timbers secured treadsand risers for a set of stairs that allowed passage overthe main shaft (the shaft’s centreline was 0.61 m (2 ft)above the main deck) (Hunter, 1969: 145).

Two other bearing-timber assemblies on the guardssupported the inboard and outboard ends of the paddle-wheel shaft. The inboard bearing timbers consisted of astack of three timbers located 254 mm (10 in) outboardof the sheer-cap and bolted atop the truncated ends ofdeck beams 29 to 31. The lower timber (notched downover the three beam ends) and the middle timber wereheavy balks, while the upper was a plank that raised thepillow block to the correct height. In addition to beingbolted to the beam ends, this bearing support was alsoattached laterally to the main shaft outboard bearing

timbers by four long bolts with threaded ends as well astwo blocks of wood that served as spacers and also asaxis points for the lever that disengaged the cast-ironcoupling connecting the main and paddle shafts.

The outboard paddle shaft bearing timbers wereattached to the top of the guard-cap at the outer edgeof the guard. The lowest timber in the assemblystraddled the paddle-wheel opening between the twopaddle beams forward (26–27) and the two aft (33–34);it was both long and of considerable moulded dimen-sion, since it had to support the great weight of thepaddle wheel and not sag over the lifetime of the steam-boat. A squared stack of four short bearing timberswas bolted atop the centre of the lowest piece; togetherthese elevated the outboard pillow block to the correctheight for the paddle shaft.

Deck and superstructure featuresThree-quarters of the main deck was missing orseverely damaged, but excavators were able to identifyseveral deck features or traces of now-missing elements(Table 12). Evidence of the railing that extendedaround the outside of the main deck survived in threelocations on the port-side guard-cap: at the bow,forward of the sidehouse (the enclosed space on theguard immediately forward of the paddle-wheelhouse),and from the after side of the wheelhouse to the cornerof the guard at the stern. The stanchions that sup-ported the rail fit through mortises cut in the guard-capand were spiked to the sides of deck beams. A cap railwas fastened atop each stanchion by a pair of spikes;there were no side rails. The stanchion at deck beam 37supported two sections of rail connected by an ironhinge; the forward section was folded back, indicatingthere was an entryway for cargo and passengersdirectly abaft the wheelhouse. Further forward, at deckbeam 22, excavators found evidence of a rail stanchionhalf the thickness of the others, suggesting that it wasfastened to the forward corner of the sidehouse.

With its top surface only 0.43 m (17 in) above themain deck, the rail was very low, about knee-height foran average-sized adult. While better than no rail at all, itoffered limited protection against falling overboard.However, the low-profile rail was practical for everyday

Figure 9. Model of Heroine wreck showing bearing supporttimbers. (Model G. Grieco, photograph W. Smith)

Table 12. Dimensions of deck features

Length Moulded/width Sided/depthHeight above

sheer-capDistance

between posts

Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Metric Imperial Metric Imperial

Rail stanchions — 489 mm 1 ft 71⁄4 in 102 mm 4 in 102 mm 4 in — — — —Rail — 489 mm 1 ft 71⁄4 in 152 mm 6 in 51 mm 2 in — — — —Timber

headsat bow — — 127 mm 5 in 152 mm 6 in 330 mm 1 ft 1 in 483 mm 1 ft 7 inat stern — — 114 mm 41⁄2 in 140 mm 51⁄2 in 305 mm 12 in 355 mm 1 ft 2 in

Bitts — — — 152 mm 6 in 152 mm 6 in — — 254 mm 10 in



operations, for lines could easily be led over the side,and small boats were accessible from any location alongthe guard, not just at rail openings. Paintings and printsof contemporary steamboats compiled for comparisonwith Heroine mostly show conventional waist-high rail-ings, but a few, notably a watercolour of the 160-tonsteamboat Ouishita (1833), show a knee-high rail(Levinge, 1836; Crisman et al. 2013: 376, fig. 13).

The main deck was fitted with four pairs of short,upright black locust posts called timberheads, used totie off lines and hawsers to the shore, to anchors, or toother vessels (Lehman, 1972: 446) (Figs 2 and 3). Thetimberheads fit in mortises cut through the sheer-capand their lower ends were fastened to frame tops andclamps. Two pairs were located on either side of thebow between deck beams 1 and 3. Their upper cornerswere chamfered, giving them a slightly roundedappearance on top. The other two pairs of timberheadswere located at the stern, straddling beam 47 at theport and starboard sheer-caps. Their tops were squaredrather than rounded. The corners of the timberheadswere rounded by rope wear.

A pair of small, upright posts, the bitts, was locatedon the foredeck at deck beam 1. Their heels were fas-tened to the top of the lower breasthook, and theyextended up through mortises cut in the deck planks.The original height of the bitts is unknown, since asmall fire on the foredeck burned both posts down tothe planking (this probably happened between 1838and 1843). Bitts are traditionally used for securinganchor cables, but the principal purpose of these twoposts was clearly to hold the heel of a short bowsprit(bowsprits were fitted on many western steamers untilthe mid 1830s), or the heel of a vertical sighting poleused by the pilot to take bearings on the shoreline.

Contemporary steamboat prints and paintings oftenshow a capstan on the bow (Hunt and Gallagher, 1984:116). No capstan was found on Heroine, but evidenceof a mount was discovered (Fig. 2). A small, squareopening—presumably for the heavy retaining bolt—was cut through the centre of the foredeck, beneathwhich two heavy carlings extended between beams 4and 5. A square oak block with a square hole throughthe centre, sized to fit between the carlings, was discov-ered loose in the bow compartment. Finally, the cen-treline of the deck between the forward hatch and stemwas covered by four oak planks, the only oak deckingfound inboard of the sheer-cap. A small square ofwood nailed over the deck opening indicated that thecapstan was removed prior to Heroine’s loss (salvorshad no reason to cover the hole).

Evidence of three structures extending above themain deck was found on the after portion of the portguard and stern deck. The first was indicated by a pairof square impressions in the guard planking and anailed-down batten slightly outboard of the sheer-capat deck beams 36 and 37; together these showed that arectangular assembly extended out from the super-structure. An 1833 watercolour of the steamboat

Delphine shows a similar feature at this place on thestarboard side of the deck, possibly an enclosed stair-case that provided access to cabins on the upper deck(Hunt and Gallagher, 1984: 116).

The second feature, a square opening in the guardplanking between beams 45 and 46 near the stern, hada corner-notched plank resembling a door sill nailed tothe deck on its after side. The deck planks around theopening had deteriorated, and a repair plank wasnailed over the worst of the erosion. This feature wasidentified as the opening for a head (toilet). The maindeck plan of the steamboat Buckeye State (1850) has asquare structure in the same location labeled ‘crewhead’ (Tredgold, 1851: Pl. 3).

The third feature consisted of three wooden battensnailed to the after deck inboard of the crew head andforward of the run’s companionway. Contemporaryillustrations show that the after end of the superstruc-ture was in this vicinity, and it thus seems likely that thebattens were used to anchor the lower edge of thedeck-level sheathing planks.

Very little of Heroine survived above the main deck,but clues to the location and assembly of the super-structure remained. The stubs of 102 mm (4 in) squaresupport posts protruded from mortises cut in the port-side sheer-cap between the fore hatch and after timber-heads; the heels of the posts were spiked between frameheads. Spaced an average of 2.43 m (8 ft) apart, thesestationaries provided the framework for the super-structure. Square mortises were also found atop theport-side guard structure, evidence of framing posts forthe wheelhouse and sidehouse. Remains of 25 mm(1 in) thick tongue-and-groove pine boards were stillattached to the outside of the outboard paddle shaftbearing timber; it is likely that similar sheathing oncecovered most of the superstructure (Jackson, 1985:161–162). Together, the remnants of the posts andtheir mortises provided a ‘footprint’ of Heroine’slightly built upperworks.

The rudderThe rudder was recovered in 2003 and transported toTexas A&M University’s Conservation ResearchLaboratory for recording, disassembly, and conserva-tion (Fig. 10). It was a broad, substantial assemblywith a core composed of seven vertical timbers: therudder post, five central pieces (four quite thick and thefifth resembling a plank), and a narrow back piece thatprojected diagonally upward to the same height as thepost (Table 13). The timber adjacent to the post had aknee-like head that reinforced the attachment of theblade to the post. The post was parallel-sided in profile,but the remaining pieces increased in width toward thebase. The entire rudder tapered in thickness from topto bottom.

The rudder’s seven core pieces were held together bytwo fore-and-aft through-bolts, by a shoe nailed to thebottom of the blade, and by three oak planks fastened



to each side of the blade with many small iron nails.The ends of the side planks were bevelled, as were theupper edges of the topmost planks; the lower edges ofthe bottom-most planks fit flush with the top of therudder shoe. Near the top of the blade the core ruddertimbers were further secured to one another by a pairof wrought-iron straps, each with eight spike holes.

The force required to pivot the rudder against theflow of water must have been considerable, for thehead of the rudder was squared around the tillermortise and heavily reinforced to prevent splitting.Two wrought-iron collars circled the post, one aboveand one below the mortise. The D-shaped upper collarwas fitted with its flat side forward and secured bymany small shims or wedges. The squaring of the postat the tiller mortise made it impossible to slide thelower collar into place, so it was made of two semi-circular pieces held together forward and aft by door-hinge-like arrangements with three knuckles and a pin.This collar was also wedged in position by shims. Thesides of the tiller mortise were reinforced by two pairsof vertical iron straps through-bolted to one anotherabove and below the mortise.

The rudder retained evidence of maintenance,damage and repairs. The top of its port side hadpatches of grayish-white paint, a coating that was pre-sumably applied to the entire rudder. Small nailsaround the head of the post likely held a waterproof

cover or boot that kept water from splashing into thehull through the tiller opening. Five longitudinal splitswere noted on the starboard side of the post, above theupper pintle; these were filled by nails and small spikesto keep the cracks from spreading. The starboard sur-faces of the rudder blade were also damaged beneaththe upper pintle. When the rudder was disassembledfor conservation its fore-and-aft bolts were found to bebroken in the centre of the blade, and damage wasnoted at the bottom of the central core pieces. Thissuggests the rudder experienced a violent impact,perhaps when the vessel ran aground or collided with asnag. The plank-like piece in the centre of the coretimbers, the shoe at the bottom, the side planks, andthe two iron reinforcing straps appear to have beenadded to repair the blade.

The purpose of the high back piece on the rudder issomething of a mystery. Its eroded head retained evi-dence of a notch or mortise, suggesting it was attachedto something at one time. In his Sketch of the CivilEngineering of North America, David Stevenson illus-trated a similar rudder projection, noting that onAmerican steamboats it was used as an attachmentpoint for wheel ropes, permitting boats to dispensewith a tiller (1838: 132). The back piece on Heroine’srudder seems too weak for this purpose.

The tiller (found in the run) was squared at itsafter end to fit into the rudder-post mortise, but was

Figure 10. The rudder of Heroine. (Drawing K. Crisman, Grace Tsai)



otherwise rounded and tapered toward its forward end.Curiously, the tiller was assembled from two piecesthat fit together in a long tongue-and-groove jointsecured by wooden pegs. This feature seems unneces-sarily complicated, since it would have been easier,faster, and probably stronger to fashion the tiller fromone piece, but this may be an intentional weak point inthe steering system, designed to give way and preventdamage to the rudder head and the tiller ropes andblocks if the rudder received a hard blow or wasunshipped from the gudgeons.

Western river steamboat developmentThe creation of the western river steamboat was anempirical, trial-and-error process, and the shipwrightswho assembled them seemingly had little time or incli-nation to prepare detailed plans and written specifica-tions of their work. If such technical material wasgenerated, little of it has survived. The historical recordtells us that the deep-draft hulls and underpoweredengines of the first steamers proved unsuited for con-ditions on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, and werereplaced by lightly built, shallow hulls propelled bypowerful—though dangerous—high-pressure engines.This much was known, but a clearer picture of therapidly evolving designs, assemblies, and operations ofearly boats has been lacking. The wreck of Heroineprovides a new benchmark for understanding the firstquarter-century of western river steamboats.

What has Heroine told us? It is clear that whenHeroine was built in 1832 many salient features of‘classic’, later 19th-century western river steamboatswere in the process of development and adoption. Theheavy construction said to be typical of early riversteamboat hulls had metamorphosed into a structurecomposed of fewer, lighter timbers. Heroine’s keel waslittle more than a thick plank that projected slightlybeyond adjacent bottom planking. The frames wereassembled from a minimal number of timbers, thefloors and futtocks were of modest moulded and sideddimensions and lightly fastened with a few spikes, andthe frames were widely spaced along the keel.

The deck assembly was likewise lightweight, andconsisted of small beams attached to the upper clampand sheer plank with only two spikes. The omission ofhanging, lodging, or dagger knees from the deck struc-ture was a notable departure from wooden shipbuild-ing practices on oceans and lakes (Robinson, 1999:169–73). Knees or other forms of bracing at thejuncture of the beams and clamps were consideredessential reinforcement for vessels subjected to high,ship-twisting waves on open waters. Such waves arenot found on the western rivers, but steamboats didfrequently run aground, which presumably had muchthe same effect on their hulls. While knees improve thestrength and durability of a vessel, they add extraweight, and this apparently ruled out their use inHeroine; the practice of omitting knees is also evidentT

able

13.

Rud

der

dim

ensi

ons N

ote

Hei

ght/

leng

thW

idth

/dia

met

er

Not

e

Thi

ckne

ss

Not

eSp

ike

hole

sM

etri

cIm

peri

alM

etri

cIm

peri

alM

etri

cIm

peri

al

Shoe

toru

dder

-hea

d—

2.59

m8

ft61

⁄2in

——

——

——

—B

lade

——

——

1.21

m4

ftat

top

292

mm

111⁄2

inat

rudd

er-h

ead

colla

r—

——

——

1.44

m4

ft9

inat

base

121

mm

43⁄4

inat

shoe

—Sh

oe—

89m

m31

⁄2in

——

——

——

—Si

depl

anks

(por

t)—

——

—22

9m

m;

448

mm

;44

5m

m

9in

1ft

55⁄8

in1

ft51

⁄2in

top

tobo

ttom

32m

m11

⁄4in

——

Side

rein

forc

ing

stra

pspo

rt1.

14m

3ft

9in

——

—16

mm

5⁄8

in—

—st

arbo

ard

0.85

m2

ft91

⁄2in

——

—16

mm

5⁄8

in—

—T

iller

mor

tise

—17

8m

m7

in12

7m

m5

in—

——

——

Upp

erpi

ntle

stra

ps0.

91m

3ft

48–7

6m

m17

⁄8–3

inta

per

from

pint

le16

mm

5⁄8

in—

5(p

ort)

6(s

tarb

oard

)pi

ntle

133

mm

51⁄4

in44

mm

13⁄4

in—

——

——

Low

erpi

ntle

stra

ps1.

07m

3ft

61⁄2

in44

–64

mm

13⁄4

–21⁄2

inta

pere

d16

mm

5⁄8

in—

7pe

rsi

depi

ntle

133

mm

51⁄4

in44

mm

13⁄4

in—

——

——

Upp

ergu

dgeo

nst

raps

—35

5m

m1

ft2

in51

mm

2in

—25

mm

1in

—2

per

side

Low

ergu

dgeo

nst

raps

—63

5m

m2

ft1

in51

mm

2in

—25

mm

1in

—3

per

side



in the hulls of later steamboats (Kane, 2004: 107).Heroine’s main deck assembly was not very rugged,and would have fared poorly in a collision withanother boat, a wharf, or a river bank.

The ends of the hull differed: the dimensions of theprincipal members were larger, the timbers wereclosely spaced, and both the form of the hull and itsassembly were more complex. In addition to its sub-stantial stem and apron, the bow had doubled floortimbers in the first 12 square frames, closely spacedcant frames, and two large breasthooks to reinforcethe stem and cant frames. The builders obviouslywanted this part of the hull to withstand repeatedgroundings and collisions. The bow also had a featurecommon to western river steamboats of the 1820s and1830s, a snag chamber bulkhead intended to containflooding if the bow was damaged. The stern wasequally notable for its carefully shaped and closelyfitted deadwood timber, stern knee, inner and outerposts, and three transom timbers.

One goal of the Heroine investigation was to discoverthe means by which the boat’s long, narrow wooden hullwas longitudinally reinforced, since it pre-dated theintroduction of hog chain trusses in the late 1830s andearly 1840s. Heroine revealed a heretofore-unknownpractice in river steamboat construction: major longi-tudinal timbers—the keelson, sister-keelsons, bilge-keelsons, and upper and lower clamps—were notcheddown over every frame. Fitting the keelson over floorswas a common shipbuilding practice for heavily builtopen-water vessels, but has not been previously seen onother archaeologically studied western river steamboatwrecks, all of which post-date Heroine by 20 or moreyears (Kane, 2004: 34–43, 93–107). The joggling of theprincipal longitudinal timbers was a labour-intensive,and costly, task, requiring the measuring and cutting of550–600 notches. It is not surprising that builders aban-doned this practice and embraced hog chains when thenew trussing system was introduced a few years later.While Heroine did not have hog chains, it did have atleast one cross chain, a transverse wrought-iron trusslocated forward of the wheelhouses which supportedthe weight of the guards and side wheels.

Steamboat builders of the mid and later 19thcentury found a second way to strengthen hulls longi-tudinally, by constructing a non-watertight bulkheadbetween the keelson and deck that extended thefull length of a vessel. Large steamers often had twoadditional bulkheads fitted, with one on either side ofthe keelson. Bulkheads were typically composed ofstanchions and planks, sometimes with diagonally laidbraces. The archaeological record confirms their ubiq-uity, for wrecks of later-era river steamers consistentlyshow evidence of these longitudinal stiffeners, but theywere absent from Heroine (Kane, 2004: 108–10).

Heroine’s cylinder and bearing support timbersindicated the challenges of installing a powerfulreciprocating-engine propulsion system on a lightlybuilt, flexible hull. The wooden longitudinal elements

composing this structure were all heavily notched,bolted, and braced, and all were held in compressionby iron reinforcing rods with threaded ends. The resultwas, in effect, a torsion-resistant structure resembling abox girder built within and atop the hull. This wascomplemented by two features in the machinery: loosetolerances in the connections between moving parts,and by provisions for easily adjusting the bearings tore-align main and paddle shafts.

Samples taken from timbers throughout the hullshowed that white oak was the preferred species fornearly all elements (the exceptions were pine deckplanking and tongue-and-groove sheathing, and blacklocust for timberheads at the bow and stern). Thequality of wood available to builders was good, butcertain pieces were shaped in a manner that weakenedthe overall structure. The practice of cutting frametimbers across the grain to achieve a hard bilge curve atthe first futtocks was a particularly noteworthyexample of a hull-weakening construction shortcut.This practice saved material and labour expenses, butdoubtless resulted in boats sometimes not survivingrelatively minor groundings or collisions. Frames atthe bow and stern, on the other hand, appear to haveincorporated more compass timber in their construc-tion. Iron fasteners were used exclusively in Heroine’sassembly, sparingly in the case of the spiked frames,and more lavishly at the clench-bolted sister-keelsons,bilge-keelsons, clamps, and plank butts.

Archaeological documentation of Heroine yielded amyriad of other early steamboat construction andlayout details, including the existence of separate com-partments at the bow and stern, the size and placementof the forward hatches and bow and stern companion-ways, the locations of stairs and the crew head, and thesurprisingly low height of the railing around the maindeck. The stumps of the superstructure-supporting sta-tionaries showed the wide spacing and modest size ofthese elements, and hint at lightweight, flimsy con-struction in the upper deck and cabins.

Frame sections recorded over the length of thewreck and documentation of the bow and stern assem-blies enabled reconstruction of Heroine’s lines(Fig. 11). These show a vessel with an overall length of41.65 m (136 ft, 8 in) between perpendiculars, amoulded breadth of 6.2 m (20 ft, 4 in), a maximumbreadth across the main deck of 10.97 m (36 ft), and adepth of hold of 1.98 m (6 ft, 6 in) from the top of thekeel to the main deck (the contemporary standard formeasuring depth of hold on river steamboats) (USTreasury Department, 1838: 312–15). Over most of itslength the floors were nearly flat, the bilges had a hardcurve, and the sides were near-vertical, giving the hull aboxy section amidships. Heroine was hardly a tub,however. The length-to-beam ratio was quite high at6.72:1, and this, combined with the long, rakingentrance and short but finely moulded run, made anefficient form that likely passed cleanly and swiftlythrough the water. The 1.52 m (5 ft) draft mark on the



stem tells us about how much water the boat wasexpected to draw when laden (the freeboard at thesetimes would have been about 0.61 m (2 ft)). Accordingto contemporary sources the tonnage of this hullranged between 146 and 160 tons (Collins, 1836: 62;Hall, 1836: 252, 256; Lyford, 1837: 464); the discrep-ancy in the listings may reflect the fact that steamboatsover 150 tons were required to pay their agents a fee foreach voyage that was twice as much as that for boatsunder 150 tons (Keemle, 1836: 34).

Was Heroine typical of its day? Limited historicalevidence suggests that in terms of tonnage and dimen-sions, it fell in the average-sized range. An 1832 inven-tory of 183 river steamboats and their tonnages (of the220 reportedly operating this year) shows the majorityhad around the same tonnage (Otis, 1832: 127–30;Chevalier, 1961: 209). An 1838 US Treasury Depart-ment report provides dimensions for 113 of the esti-mated 400 steamboats operating on the western riversat this time. Their average length was between 42.7 and45.7 m (140 and 150 ft), just slightly larger thanHeroine (US Treasury Department, 1838; Morrison,1958: 219). As noted earlier, other types of comparisonare difficult: there are no other archaeologicallystudied examples of contemporary river steamboats,nor have any lines, construction plans, or detailedspecifications been found.

Successful navigation of the Mississippi Riversystem by shallow-draft, high-pressure steamers con-ferred great benefits on the inhabitants of the midcontinent region, but it came at a price. The lightweightconstruction seen on Heroine was vital to its opera-tional flexibility and ultimately to the boat’s profitabil-ity, but it was not durable. The grind of dailyoperations quickly wore out both hulls and machinery;the working life of a western river steamboat rarelyexceeded five years. Many failed to last even that long,for fires, ice packs, collisions with other vessels,groundings, explosions, and especially snaggings tooka steady annual toll of both old and new boats workingon the rivers (Hunter, 1969: 100–3, 112, 271–304;Brockmann, 2002). Viewed in those terms, the fact thatHeroine lasted five-and-a-half years of hard servicebefore being fatally snagged might be viewed as a tes-tament to both its relative quality of construction andits luck in escaping the other perils of the rivers.

ConclusionsNorth America’s cultural and environmental land-scapes experienced profound changes over the courseof the 19th century, processes greatly hastened bythe introduction of steam propulsion technology.Nowhere was this more evident than on the great riversof the interior, the Mississippi and its tributaries. Herea distinctive style of vessel, the western river steam-boat, facilitated immigration, growth of agricultureand industry, and expansion of trade. While theseboats have come to symbolize a region and an era, the

Fig

ure

11.

The

reco

nstr

ucte

dlin

esof

Her

oine

.(D

raw

ing

K.C

rism

an)



dynamic early years of their evolution was poorlydocumented; we know what these boats accomplished,but relatively little about their design, construction,and appearance. The wreck of Heroine (1832–1838),

the oldest archaeologically investigated example of itstype, has yielded the first detailed, keel-to-main-decklook at a western river steamboat from the develop-mental era.

Notes1. All samples of wood from Heroine’s hull were identified by Dr Roy Whitmore, Professor Emeritus, Forestry Department,

University of Vermont.2. The weight estimate calculations were prepared by Glenn Grieco from his CAD reconstruction of Heroine’s boiler

system, based on the remains of the steamboat’s boiler system and on the arrangement seen in P. Hodge’s The SteamEngine, Plate XXXIII. Materials included the cast- and wrought-iron in the boilers and their mountings (35.7 cubic ft @491 pounds per cubic ft = 17,528.7 lbs); brick for the lining of the fireboxes (18.65 cubic ft @ 120 pounds per cubic ft =2234.4 lbs [the standard weight for red brick, Heroine’s fire brick may be heavier but the difference is probablynegligible]); and the weight of the water which filled the boilers about half way when the boilers were used (174.44 cubicft @ 62.4 pounds per cubic ft = 10885.056 lbs). This totals 30,648 lbs (15.32 tons, or 13,898 kg, or 13.9 metric tonnes).

AcknowledgementsThe study of Heroine was, and continues to be, supported by the Oklahoma Historical Society, Texas A&M University(TAMU), the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, and the Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation at TAMU.Analysis and reconstruction of the hull would not have been possible without the painstaking recording work carried out byproject crewmembers over seven field seasons. The author also extends many thanks the University of Maine’s Darling MarineCenter for providing an ideal location for completing the preparation of this article.

ReferencesBates, A., 1968, The Western Rivers Steamboat Cyclopoedium. Leonia, NJ.Bates, T., 2003, Analysis of Tar-like Material from the Red River Wreck, December 16, 2003. Manuscript report, Exxon-Mobil

Petroleum Engineering Laboratory, Houston, TX.Brockmann, J., 2002, Exploding Steamboats, Senate Debates, and Technical Reports: The Convergence of Technology, Politics,

and Rhetoric in the Steamboat Bill of 1838. Amityville, NY.Chapelle, H., 1960, The National Watercraft Collection. Washington, D.C.Chevalier, M., 1961, Society, Manners, and Politics in the United States. Ithaca, NY.Collins, G., 1836, The Louisville Directory for the Year 1836. Louisville, KY.Cozzi, J., 1998, The Goniometer: an improved device for recording submerged shipwreck timbers. IJNA, 27.1, 64–80.Crisman, K, Lees, W., and Davis, J., 2013, The Western River Steamboat Heroine, 1832–1838, Oklahoma, USA: excavations,

summary of finds, and history. IJNA, 42.2, 365–81.Custer, J., 1991, ‘Hogchains: Their Whys and Wherefores,’. The Egregious Steamboat Journal, 15 (July–August), 10–5.Hall, B., 1974, Travels in North America in the Years 1827 and 1828. New York.Hall, J., 1836, Statistics of the West, at the Close of the Year 1836. Cincinnati.Hodge, P., 1840, The Steam Engine, Its Origin and Gradual Improvement. New York.Hunt, D and Gallagher, M. (eds), 1984, Karl Bodmer’s America. Lincoln, NE.Hunter, L., 1969, Steamboats on the Western Rivers: An Economic and Techno logical History. New York.Ingraham, J. H., 1839, Dots and Lines No. IV; or Sketches of Scenes and Incidents in the West. The Ladies’ Companion,

A Monthly Magazine, Embracing Every Department of Literature, XI, New York.Jackson, D., 1985, Voyages of the Steamboat Yellowstone. New York.Kane, A., 2004, The Western River Steamboat. College Station, TX.Keemle, C., 1836, The St. Louis Directory for the Years 1836–7. Saint Louis, MO.Lehman, C. F., 1972, A Riverman’s Lexicon. Florissant, MO.Levinge, R. G. A., 1836, The Paddle Steamer Ouishita on the Red River, Louisiana Territory. Watercolor painting 1968.271,

Amon Carter Museum, Fort Worth, TX.Lyford, W. G., 1837, The Western Address Directory. Baltimore.Marestier, J. B., 1957, (translation of 1824 edition). Memoir on Steamboats of the United States of America. Mystic, CT.McDermott, J. F., 1968, Before Mark Twain: A Sampler of Old, Old Times on the Mississippi. Carbondale, IL.Morrison, J. H., 1958, History of American Steam Navigation. New York.Otis, R. W., 1832, The Louisville Directory for the Year 1832. Louisville, KY.Robinson, D., 1999, Indiana: The History and Archaeology of an Early Great Lake Propeller. M.A. Thesis in Anthropology,

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Stevenson, D., 1838, Sketch of the Civil Engineering of North America. London.Tredgold, T., 1851, Machinery Used in Steam Navigation, Vol. II, Part I. London.US Treasury Department, 1838, Steam Engines: Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, Document 21, December 13, 1838.

Washington, D.C.Works Progress Administration, 1942, Ship Registers and Enrollments of New Orleans, Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA.



Documents

2014The Western River Steamboat Heroine, 1832-1838, Oklahoma, USA: construction. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 128-150