New Discoveries on Lot 32 and Lot 5 Strengthen the Case for Sustained 17th-Century Activity on Oak Island
The latest phase of investigation on Oak Island has delivered one of the most cohesive clusters of evidence seen in recent seasons, as discoveries on Lot 32 and Lot 5 begin to align into a clearer historical narrative. Rather than isolated artefacts, the team is now uncovering patterns—of movement, material use, and repeated human presence—that point toward organized activity along the island’s shoreline and inland routes.
On Lot 32, metal detection expert Gary Drayton and researcher Michael John returned to an area already flagged for its proximity to the water. Their focus was deliberate. Previous finds on the lot included large iron spikes believed to have been used to secure ships offshore, along with a lead cargo seal—items consistent with maritime logistics rather than casual settlement.
That decision quickly paid off. At depth, Drayton recovered a thin copper coin whose profile immediately suggested age. Without cleaning it on site, the team recognized several familiar features: the narrow thickness, worn edges, and lettering consistent with British coppers of the 17th century. Drayton compared it directly to two Charles II coins previously found near the swamp and the Money Pit area, reinforcing the idea that these were not random losses, but part of a wider operational footprint.
The implications are significant. A British coin dating to the late 1600s, recovered near evidence of ship anchoring and cargo handling, suggests controlled unloading activity along this shoreline. That, in turn, raises a long-standing question: where was that cargo being moved next?
Attention soon shifted toward the southeastern edge of the swamp, where excavation around the so-called stone road continues to yield compelling results. The road’s construction style—previously assessed by antiquities experts as European in origin and consistent with 16th-century techniques—appears to extend toward what could have functioned as a dock or wharf.
Archaeologist Miriam Amirault confirmed that newly recovered pottery fragments and black glass shards were unusually concentrated in one area. The glass, heavily bubbled due to early manufacturing methods, was later identified as part of an English wine bottle. When the neck and finish were uncovered, the dating narrowed to the 1770s or 1780s—decades before the traditionally cited discovery of the Money Pit in 1795.
That detail matters. The presence of intact bottle fragments in quantity suggests deliberate use of the site, not transient occupation. Whether tied to earlier searchers or to those making a deposit, the artefacts reinforce the idea that Oak Island saw repeated, purposeful visits across generations.
Meanwhile, on Lot 5, the investigation has taken on increasing importance as a parallel source of evidence. A rounded stone foundation, now deemed a protected archaeological feature, continues to produce items that bridge surface archaeology and deeper Money Pit discoveries. Among the most recent finds was an ornate copper alloy button recovered from a test pit where non-ferrous signals had previously been detected.
Initial impressions suggested little more than a decorative fastener. However, laboratory analysis by Emma Culligan revealed a far more complex object. Using X-ray fluorescence mapping, Culligan identified a detailed floral motif beneath corrosion, indicating skilled manufacture rather than mass production. Based on size, composition, and design, the button was tentatively dated to the late 1600s, with the possibility of being slightly earlier.
The dating places the object squarely within the timeframe associated with Sir William Phips, the 17th-century English colonial figure long linked to Oak Island theories. Earlier in the investigation, iron tools recovered from the same Lot 5 feature were scientifically matched to known Phips-era metallurgy. The button now adds a personal element—suggesting clothing worn by someone of status, rather than a labourer or sailor.
What strengthens the significance of the Lot 5 discoveries is their material overlap with samples recovered from deep underground. Mortar-like substances found within the stone foundation have previously matched material from more than 100 feet down in the Money Pit area, implying a connection between surface construction and subsurface activity.
Taken together, the finds from Lot 32 and Lot 5 suggest something increasingly difficult to dismiss as coincidence. The island shows evidence of maritime access, overland transport routes, storage or staging areas, and personal artefacts linked to a specific historical window. The repeated appearance of British materials—coins, glass, buttons—supports the theory that Oak Island was actively used during the late 17th century, potentially in connection with salvage or concealment operations.
Importantly, none of these discoveries stand alone. Each gain weight because it fits into an expanding framework of data points rather than an isolated narrative moment. This is where the current phase of the search feels notably different from earlier seasons. The investigation is no longer chasing a single legendary explanation, but assembling a layered historical picture.
As work continues under strict archaeological protocols, the team remains cautious. A coin does not explain intent. A button does not confirm ownership. Yet, when combined with infrastructure, metallurgy, and material dating, these artefacts narrow the field of plausible explanations.
Oak Island may still guard its deepest secrets, but the ground is beginning to speak more clearly. And for the first time in years, the evidence emerging from multiple areas of the island appears to be telling the same story.