I would have to look. I don't remember what all he said about the time frame. I recall what you said about 71, 72...
Thats my reading too - So in effect he's saying in a 71-72 sand layer on top of a pre-existing clay layer, and that clay layer was misidentified by Palmer as being the dredging layer which Tom is saying was washed away by 1980. Tom is saying the money was exposed after years of erosion between 71-80 and was in a recent upper-active layer merged with an old 71-71 layer being exposed due to erosion.
That leaves no room for a fragment field caused by dredging. The only room it leaves for a fragment field is due to lateral movement with the current, going north from some previous position 60 or so yards south (to be consistent with Dorwin's info on a fragment field).
This leaves no room for fragments found deeper than in the surface layers. Once again, no reading totally fits all the presumed data!
And whoever solves this gets the big bucks $