“Le Griffon” Discovered… Again
Here we go again – another shipwreck “discovery” is picked up uncritically by the national media.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2014/12/26/20911751/
You can read about the Le Griffon on Wikipedia, but here’s a quick summary. She was built in the late 1600’s by Cavelier during his attempt to find the Northwest Passage. The ship disappeared en route and has been sought-after ever since.
All the typical red flags you can think of are there. The divers were looking for lost Confederate gold (a HUGE red flag, credibility-wise), just so happened to stumble on one of the most important historical shipwrecks in the area… a shipwreck that has apparently been “found” multiple times. Oh, and there are plenty of lawsuits to go around as well.
The evidence they’ve presented is laughable. They’ve found a hand-forged nail “dating to 1679.” Really? May I ask what process was used to date the nail so specifically, or did they simply assign the same year that the Le Griffon was lost to this highly ordinary artifact? Nails are not known for being particularly useful in the process of dating shipwrecks.
The “photo overlay” is equally suspect. They’ve taken what may or may not be a bowstem and placed a photo of a carved griffon on top of it. From a logical standpoint, it’s the exact opposite from a proper approach. If they had a period representation (painting, drawing, woodcut, etc) and then analyzed the wreckage in relation, maybe they’d have something… maybe. The vintage is a little old to glean much from that type of process. But instead, they took a photo of part of the wreckage (which may or may not be the bowstem) and looked at pictures of carved griffons until they found one that more-or-less matched.
There are some basic procedures that must occur before such high-profile platforms are given for these discoveries. Has a trained archaeologist examined the claim? Has a site-wide survey or photo-mosaic been performed? Are the artifacts or wreckage unique, or common to an era/area?
Ultimately, I’m not saying they didn’t find it. What I am saying is that the level of evidence has no relation to the amount of media attention this “find” has received. I don’t see any real shipwreck experts interviewed for any of the many news stories.
Let’s put this another way. Would the media provide a platform for an amateur detective to announce that they’ve found Jimmy Hoffa just because they stumbled across a skeleton in the woods? Or would they demand that an expert be consulted, DNA collected, forensics examined?
Actually, don’t answer that question… I’m still not sure if I want to hear the answer.
About The Author
taylor@expeditionwriter.com
Author, historian & shipwreck expert
Do you mean to contend that we should distrust the truthiness of the Interwebs? My god man, that will require neocortical functionality, and not enough neurologists and neurosurgeons exist in this country to deal with the exploding brains.
Maybe it’s only because it regards an industry I’m familiar with, but the unquestioning acceptance of such ludicrous claims drives me nuts. It’s a long-term project, but I’m hoping to get an ongoing look into the Amelia Earhart conspiracy theorists on this blog at some point. It’s probably the best example of this phenomenon. Too much of the nonsense goes unaswered, I strongly her incredible legacy is tarnished by all the opportunists and fraudsters. Thanks much for your thoughts!
Could not have said it better Taylor!
Great Lakes Exploration Group (GLX) is in the process of filing State and Federal Permits for a 2015 expedition to extract ship timbers discovered near the 2013 recovered bow sprit of what is believed to be “Le Griffon?” We believe these timbers are components of the “super structure,” meaning most everything above the vessel’s free-board. We have yet to locate the hull section where most of the cultural materials may still be in containment? GLX is in complete opposition to the State’s claim that the recovered timber in 2013 is a “pound net stake” and that no ship wreckage was located.
Hello Steven,
Thanks for your reply – I’ve love to give you a chance to tell us about your project. Do you have any non-circumstantial evidence beyond the “bow sprit”?
I understand the recovered timber has been subject to some debate, with the state archaeologist concluding that it was a pound net stake; while a French team noted some resemblances to Le Griffon contemporaries.
To be perfectly frank, isn’t it premature to put your expedition under the mantle of the Le Griffon at this stage? Even if you were to prove that the timber was indeed a bow sprit (itself debatable and debated), it’s too common of a design feature to derive such a specific identification. Why wouldn’t you wait until you found more compelling evidence before issuing press releases?