A Mine By Any Other Name…
It all started with this - this Bat Cage sitting atop a mine shaft out at the Gratiot Location. When I first noticed this steel contraption along the side of the highway so many years ago I had assumed that this shaft was a Gratiot shaft. That would seem to make sense, since it was located next door to the Gratiot Location. But that is, in fact, not the case. The Bat Cage is clearly marked as Seneca No. 3. This confused me greatly.
This is a top map showing the area in question. As you can see, Seneca Location is on the left, and what is clearly marked at “Gratiot Mine” is off to the right. The white spot along the highway (where the number 1105 is on the map) would be the shaft in question. Due to its location I would think it would be a Gratiot Shaft, and not a Seneca Shaft. But here we are, with a modern bat cage marking the shaft clearly as the Seneca No. 3. Assuming the marking on the Bat Cage is accurate (which in all likelihood it is), then where is Seneca No. 1 and No. 2? And was the mine I explored years ago (which you can see HERE) not the Gratiot like I had thought, and is in fact Seneca No. 1 or No. 2? As confusing as all that was, I then get another map that mixes the whole thing up even more.
This is a view of a 1920 era Topo Map of the same area I featured earlier. This map shows the Gratiot Mine just like in the modern Topo, but then it offers up a twist: The Seneca Mine. Even more confusing is the fact that it shows the Gratiot Mine having two shafts (the half-shaded squares on the map): one at the spot where I explored what I thought was the Gratiot Mine, and one at the point where the Bat Cage is now. By this map, the bat cage would be Gratiot No 1 (or No. 2), but not Seneca No. 3. (at best it could be Seneca No. 2, but thats a stretch).
This is confusing enough, but just wait. It gets better.
Here’s a modern view of the area, thanks to Terrerserver. If you look at it you can clearly make out several poor rock piles scattered about the forest here. To the bottom of the map - along the village of Mohawk - you can see the piles from the Mohawk Mine. Follow up along the highway from there and you’ll be able to see the large pile at what I believe is the Gratiot Mine. Now go across the road at Seneca Location and you find another pile. This would be the Seneca Mine. Also marked on the map is the general area where the Seneca Mine is as marked by the 1930 Topo Map. If you look closely you can make out what appears to be another much smaller poor rock pile at that spot.
By counting rock piles and the bat cage, we have a total of four shafts. Now forgetting for the moment that the Seneca Mine is in three different places at once, the numbers seem to add up. (Three shafts for Seneca and one for Gratiot). But its never that simple. Checking out the Sanborn Insurance Maps of the Seneca Mine (from 1928), they show only two shafts. Not three. Here’s shaft No. 1:
Though I’ve never been to the ruins of the No. 1, the marked road and reservoir definitely place this shaft at what is presently known as Seneca Location. Ok, one down one to go. What does the No. 2 look like?
This looks awfully familiar. With a few changes it could easily be what I found at the Gratiot Mine (check out that ruins map HERE) Considering the engine house I found was modern (which would of replaced the building shown in the Sanborn Map) and that I did find some old ruins near the rock house in the woods (perhaps the old engine house?), this could be one and the same.
It turns out that my hunch was correct, based on several other sources. First at Mindat.org, Seneca No. 2 is labeled as “Seneca No. 2 (Gratiot Mine)”. Second, notes on the Sanborn maps place the No. 2 a mile north-east from No.1 and a mile and a half south of the Ojibway Mine - both of which place the No. 2 at the spot of the Gratiot. And last, we have this:
From the Archives, this photo is marked as “Seneca No. 2″ yet I can clearly see that this is the Gratiot Mine (the buildings all match up with my ruin map). So there we have it. Seneca No. 3 must of been sunk after the Sanborn Maps were made, just to the north of No. 2. The Bat Cage is marked correctly.
But that doesn’t answer another pressing question: what’s up with the shaft and rock pile to the north of the Seneca No. 3, the one marked on the old Topo Map? As for that, we turn to the good old Copper Handbooks. Here’s part of the entry for the Seneca Mine:
“No. 1 shaft, started July 1908 is located about 3,000′ north of the No. 1 shaft of the Gratiot Mine…”
This would be useful if we knew where the Gratiot Mine was, so once again from the Copper Handbook:
“[The Gratiot] Property lies south and east of the Seneca, and north and east of the Mohawk…..No. 2 shaft [lies] 1475′ southwest of No. 1 and circa 2000′ north of the Mohawk boundary…”
The first line places the Gratiot Mine at exactly the spot the mine is marked on the old Topo map, as well as the spot were Gratiot Location is today. The placement of the No. 2 shaft, according to handbook, places it roughly where the Gratiot Mine is today. The book also suggested that the No. 1 shaft is about where the bat cage is today. All this leads me to a possible timeline to explain everything:
As shown in the old Topo map, the Seneca and Gratiot Mines were originally two separate mines. The Seneca opened one shaft, but quickly halted operations. The Gratiot opened two shafts, but it too closed after a few years. Then, at some point, a new Seneca shaft was opened at Seneca Location, which would become Seneca No. 1. Shortly after, the old Gratiot Mine was re-opened as part of the new Seneca, which resulted in the Gratiot No. 2 becoming known as Seneca No. 2, and Gratiot No. 1 becoming Seneca No. 3. Finally the new Seneca closed doors as well, followed some time later by C&H’s attempt to re-open the Gratiot Mine. At that time C&H worked only out of Seneca No. 2, which they re-christened the Gratiot Mine. Mystery solved….for now.
Holy moly, that’s confusing! Good job with the detective work, Mike — I think it all makes sense. I had always wondered why the two “Senecas” were so far apart.
However, you keep referring to Seneca as Senter… even on the maps! Must have Senter on the brain… I wonder why?
dcclark | August 5, 2008
Thats odd, I remember putting Senter on the maps, but I also remember changing them before I posted. Also The Senter references are no longer in the text, even though I just read your comment. Your messing with my head big time here.
Did you read the post off a feed reader before coming here to comment?
explorer | August 5, 2008
Nope — there’s still at least one “Senter” reference in the text, in the paragraph just below the modern aerial map. Also, once is in the top Sanborn map.
Also, as for that northern Seneca location (beyond the #3 with the bat cage), I’ve never noticed anything along there — no ruins, no cap, nothing. Have you searched around for that shaft?
dcclark | August 5, 2008
Oops. I’ll fix the text but the map will have to stay for awhile until I can re-do it. (darn it!) Thanks for pointing them out.
As for the northing Seneca Location, I haven’t been there. But I think I’ll drop by there in the next few weeks to take a look. This is the first time I even knew it existed really.
explorer | August 5, 2008
As long as I’m commenting…
“A mine by any other name would smell as sweet…”
Mines do have a special odor. I wonder if you could train dogs to search out old mine shafts?
dcclark | August 6, 2008
A good interesting investigation! Without the Copper Handbook and other “early” sources some of this historical detective work would be very tough to figure out if not impossible. Nice work!
Herb from Wisconsin | August 6, 2008
That musty smell is one I know well. I also know all too well that “old mine building” smell, which is generally just an old oil and rotting wood smell. I also know all too well something I’ll call ruin dust, especially during my work over at the Champion No. 4. Everything in that building is covered by a thick layer of dust, which makes everything look like its thousands of feet under the water (images of the Titanic wreck come to mind. I would come home every day after a few hours in that building and be covered in the stuff. Worst yet the stuff brought with it that old mine smell, and I smelled very similar for a while.
But I’ve actually come to like the smell, if you can imagine. It smells like home.
Herb…
Thanks! I’m glad you could follow, after I was done I looked back and though the whole thing seemed convoluted. But its been on my mind, so I thought I’d share. Of course, its all conjecture really, and who knows the accuracy of those early sources. (considering my investigation of the Albion Rock earlier…)
explorer | August 6, 2008
Great job sorting through the ownership lineage Mike.
Ross Helmick | August 7, 2008
This might explain this area a bit. Went looking for the new resource mentioned in the forum, Engineering and Mining Journal, found a bunch of old ones in the Internet Archive. So I downloaded them all. Most are before the newer title and are called Mining and Scientific Press. But the first one I looked and searched, using the Seneca, I found this little blurb dated Sept 15, 1906:
Occasional reports are circulated to the effect that the
Seneca property, adjoining the Mohawk and Ahmeek, is
to start operations, but it is not likely that any activity
will result at that mine this year. The Ahmeek and
Mohawk are doing well, and in a measure they are proving
up the Seneca’s prospects. The Calumet & Hecla
Mining Co. has started a couple of shafts on its property
lying immediately northeast of the Mohawk, with favorable
results. The Seneca bears the same relation to the
Calumet & Hecla’s property, known as the Gratiot, that
the Allouez does to the Ahmeek, the former in each
instance being the ‘ deep level ‘ of the latter. The Seneca
is one of the most promising undeveloped properties in
the Lake Superior copper district and undoubtedly will
make a good-sized mine in time, but it appears to be the
present policy of the company to permit the adjoining
properties to develop their lands and thus prove the
Seneca portion of the Kearsarge amygdaloid bed.
In addition to the two shafts the Calumet & Hecla Co.
is sinking on its Gratiot projferty, it has four other shafts
under way in Keweenaw county.
Gordy Schmitt | August 7, 2008
Gordy..
Thanks! That explains the Gratiot shafts, and at least gives the impression that the bat caged mine was Gratiot No. 1 at one time as I surmised. But, I wonder when the gratiot shafts became known as Seneca No. 2 and Seneca No. 3? I wonder if it was after C&H acquired the property, and then opened a third shaft out at Seneca Location? More mysteries…
explorer | August 8, 2008
Gordy & Explorer:
Does the “Engineering and Mining Journal” (or other mining periodicals) at that online archives resource go back to the 1840s-1860s? One early title was “Mining and Railroad Gazette” (or something like that), and there might be other early titles covering the Lake Superior copper mines from that period. If so, is there a link? That’s the time frame that I’m working on. Thanks!
Herb from Wisconsin | August 8, 2008
I should be able to look and see what I have in these PDF files this weekend. I don’t know for sure what dates these are but I am guessing 1900 to 1920 or so.
Herb, I’ll post what issues these are and try a search with that title you gave. duh, should finish reading. Heres the link. These are much nicer scans than Googles. http://www.archive.org
I did notice the issue I have did mention the Keweenaw Central Railroad, so its not all about mining, almost like a gossip paper.
Gordy Schmitt | August 8, 2008
Gordy what sight did you use to get the back issues of the Engineering and Mining Journal?
davef908 | August 9, 2008
The Archive.org web site, these are actually before Engineering and Mining came to be. From what I see, this is one of the predecessors.
The issues of Mining and Scientific Press that I was able to get are from July 1906 through March 1922, each issue covers 6 months. A few issues that won’t download for some reason. Also has 4 issues of the same thing for June 1916, it was issued weekly.
So much info, spend a lot of time reading through. I might have to just get the info and cut and paste it into a Calumet file in date order.
Gordy Schmitt | August 9, 2008
Oops, the 4 issues dated for June 1916 are of the Engineering and Mining Gazette
Gordy Schmitt | August 9, 2008
Also found a nice copy of Boom Copper available at Archive.Org
Gordy Schmitt | August 9, 2008