A Systematic Method for the Identification of Historic Era Shipwrecks

A Systematic Method for the Identification of Historic Era Shipwrecks
A Systematic Method for the Identification of Historic Era
Shipwrecks
The Bark Cortland
(Photo: Center for Archival Collections, Bowling Green State University)
David M. VanZandt
Graduate Diploma Maritime Archaeology
Graduate Certificate Maritime Archaeology
Bachelor of Science Nuclear Engineering
Department of Archaeology
Flinders University
Thesis Advisor: Associate Professor Mark Staniforth
November 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables.................................................................................................................. vii
Declaration of Candidate ............................................................................................. viii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 Shipwreck Identification and Currently Employed Methods................... 6
Why Shipwreck Identification is Important .................................................................. 6
Shipwreck Misidentification ......................................................................................... 7
Two Methods used in Archaeology to Identify Shipwrecks ......................................... 8
O’Shea’s Method....................................................................................................... 8
Bayesian Probability.............................................................................................. 9
Ahlström’s Method.................................................................................................. 12
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 3 Historic Shipwreck Identification Method (HSIM) ................................. 15
Method Development Based on a Forensic Science Approach................................... 15
Evidence Types ........................................................................................................... 18
Direct Evidence ....................................................................................................... 18
Indirect Evidence..................................................................................................... 19
AM Ship Checklist Development................................................................................ 20
AM to PM Shipwreck Data Comparison Categories .................................................. 21
Dating ...................................................................................................................... 21
Vessel Construction and Rigging ............................................................................ 22
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment ................................................................... 22
Crew Personal Effects ............................................................................................. 23
ii
Location................................................................................................................... 23
Condition of Shipwreck and Site............................................................................. 23
AM to PM Shipwreck Data Comparison Scoring ................................................... 24
Shipwreck Identification Matrix ................................................................................. 24
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring................................................................... 25
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 4 Case Studies ................................................................................................. 27
Case Study 1: The Griffon Cove Wreck ..................................................................... 27
Case Study Introduction .......................................................................................... 27
Shipwreck Site......................................................................................................... 27
PM Archaeological Data ......................................................................................... 29
AM Historical Research Data.................................................................................. 31
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring................................................................. 36
Dating .................................................................................................................. 36
Vessel Construction and Rigging ........................................................................ 37
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................... 37
Crew Personal Effects ......................................................................................... 37
Location............................................................................................................... 38
Condition of Shipwreck and Site......................................................................... 38
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring................................................................... 39
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 39
Case Study 2: The Beaufort Inlet shipwreck............................................................... 40
Case Study Introduction .......................................................................................... 40
Shipwreck Site......................................................................................................... 40
PM Archaeological Data ......................................................................................... 42
Vessel Construction and Rigging PM Data......................................................... 43
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment PM Data ................................................ 45
Crew Personal Effects PM Data .......................................................................... 49
AM Historical Research Data.................................................................................. 50
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring................................................................. 52
Dating .................................................................................................................. 52
iii
Vessel Construction and Rigging ........................................................................ 52
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................... 53
Crew Personal Effects ......................................................................................... 54
Location............................................................................................................... 54
Condition of Shipwreck and Site......................................................................... 55
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring................................................................... 55
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 56
Case Study 3: The Bark Cortland ............................................................................... 57
Case Study Introduction .......................................................................................... 57
Shipwreck Site......................................................................................................... 58
PM Archaeological Data ......................................................................................... 60
AM Historical Research Data on Cortland ............................................................. 61
AM to PM Data Evaluation..................................................................................... 66
Dating .................................................................................................................. 66
Vessel Construction and Rigging ........................................................................ 67
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................... 67
Crew Personal Effects ......................................................................................... 68
Location............................................................................................................... 68
Condition of Shipwreck and Site......................................................................... 68
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring................................................................... 69
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 70
Case Study 4: The Sidewheel Steamer Anthony Wayne.............................................. 71
Case Study Introduction .......................................................................................... 71
Shipwreck Site......................................................................................................... 72
PM Archaeological Data ......................................................................................... 78
AM Historical Research Data.................................................................................. 78
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring................................................................. 82
Dating .................................................................................................................. 82
Vessel Construction and Rigging ........................................................................ 82
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment ............................................................... 83
Crew Personal Effects ......................................................................................... 83
iv
Location............................................................................................................... 83
Condition of Shipwreck and Site......................................................................... 83
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring................................................................... 84
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 85
Chapter 5 Discussion of Results ................................................................................... 86
Case Study 1................................................................................................................ 86
Case Study 2................................................................................................................ 88
Case Study 3................................................................................................................ 91
Case Study 4................................................................................................................ 92
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 94
Chapter 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 95
Appendix 1: AM Historical Data Worksheet for Wooden Ships .............................. 97
Appendix 2: Shipwreck Identification Matrix with Rating Key............................. 111
References .................................................................................................................... 113
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Griffon Cove Wreck..................................................................... 28
Figure 2: Map of the Niagara Area Drawn in 1688 ........................................................ 33
Figure 3: Proposed Rig of Griffon by Joy ....................................................................... 34
Figure 4: Location of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck........................................................ 41
Figure 5: Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Site Plan circa 1998 ................................................ 42
Figure 6: Location of the Bark Cortland......................................................................... 57
Figure 7: Sidescan Image of Cortland Wreck Site.......................................................... 58
Figure 8: Scroll Head of the Bark Cortland .................................................................... 59
Figure 9: Cortland Official Enrollment Document ......................................................... 64
Figure 10: Only Known Picture of the Bark Cortland .................................................... 66
Figure 11: Location of Anthony Wayne........................................................................... 71
Figure 12: Sidescan of Anthony Wayne Wreck Site........................................................ 72
Figure 13: Pittman Arm Linkage of Anthony Wayne ...................................................... 74
Figure 14: Bow of Anthony Wayne ................................................................................. 75
Figure 15: Anthony Wayne Site Plan............................................................................... 75
Figure 16: Anthony Wayne Crosshead Linkage .............................................................. 76
Figure 17: Anthony Wayne Poppet Steam Valve and Linkage........................................ 77
Figure 18: Anthony Wayne High Pressure Steam Engine Cylinder Head ....................... 77
Figure 19: Wood Cut of Anthony Wayne ........................................................................ 79
Figure 20: Scaled Drawing of Anthony Wayne ............................................................... 80
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Shipwreck Identification Matrix ....................................................................... 25
Table 2: Griffon Shipwreck Identification Matrix .......................................................... 39
Table 3: Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Cannon Data ............................................................ 46
Table 4: La Concorde Shipwreck Identification Matrix ................................................. 55
Table 5: Cortland PM Archaeological Data.................................................................... 60
Table 6: Cortland AM/PM Data Comparison................................................................. 67
Table 7: Cortland Shipwreck Identification Matrix........................................................ 69
Table 8: Anthony Wayne PM Archaeological Data......................................................... 78
Table 9: Anthony Wayne AM/PM Data Comparison ...................................................... 82
Table 10: Anthony Wayne Shipwreck Identification Matrix ........................................... 84
vii
Declaration of Candidate
I certify that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material
previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of
my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.
_________________________________
David M. VanZandt
November 2009
Flinders University
Adelaide, South Australia
viii
Abstract
This thesis will develop a systematic method for the identification of historic era
shipwrecks based on traditional forensic science techniques. These traditional techniques
are used in the identification of human remains when the application of advanced
forensic techniques, such as DNA analysis, is not possible or practical.
The thesis will also demonstrate that developed method adheres to the principles
of the scientific method and can be easily applied to the shipwreck identification
process. The application of the method is illustrated in four case studies of shipwreck
identification.
The identification of a shipwreck allows it to be placed in the overall marine
landscape, or mariscape, and to synergistically make a contribution to the historical
perspective instead of being just an isolated island of archaeological and historical data
unto itself.
ix
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following individuals for their support, encouragement,
and/or advice. Without their help this thesis would never have been completed.
My thanks go out to Associate Professor Mark Staniforth and Ms Jennifer
McKinnon for providing an ‘old country boy engineer’ with the education and skills
necessary to become a successful maritime archaeologist. I would also like to thank
them for their ideas, guidance, and support in regard to this thesis.
Many people went out of their way and gave their time unselfishly to help me
develop this thesis and accomplish this goal. Claire Dappert, PhD candidate, Flinders
University, Carrie Sowden, Nautical Archaeologist, Great Lakes Historical Society,
Christopher Horrell, Marine Archaeologist, Mineral Management Services, Larry
Murphy, Chief, Submerged Resources Center, National Park Service, Nathan Richards,
East Carolina University, Brad Rogers, East Carolina University, Pat Labadie, Historian,
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and Chuck Meide, Director, Lighthouse
Archaeological Maritime Program (LAMP) all provided invaluable support in the
development of the premise and, in addition, provided examples and references to
misidentified shipwrecks and their personal views on this topic.
Special thanks go out to John O’Shea, Professor Anthropology, University of
Michigan for making his time available to discuss his statistical identification method
for multiple shipwrecks, the importance of shipwreck identification, and the shipwreck
identification process. I would also like to thank Hristina S. Lekova, Forensic Scientist,
Parentage and Identity Supervisor for the Cuyahoga County Coroner’s Office, for her
time and recommendation regarding the development of the Historic Shipwreck
Identification Method (HSIM) based upon traditional forensic identification methods.
x
To Jason Raupp and Ian Moffat, many thanks for proof reading, editing, and
providing encouragement and ideas to help make my thoughts appear coherent on paper.
Thank you very much for your time, energy, expertise, and friendship.
To Jim Paskert, Chief Researcher, Cleveland Underwater Explorers (CLUE),
many thanks for putting up with my faulty use of the English language. Your patience,
editing, and advice in the construction of this thesis are sincerely appreciated. It would
not have come out as well as it did without your help.
My heartfelt thanks go out to my team, the Cleveland Underwater Explorers,
who make discovering, documenting, and diving shipwrecks a dream come true.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, Stephanie, Shelby, and Toni, for their
unselfish support of this endeavor. Without their support this thesis would never have
happened. Thank you again for putting up with me for all of these years.
xi
Chapter 1 Introduction
What is the importance of identifying and placing a name on a shipwreck? The
unidentified and nameless shipwreck is a singular entity, a self-contained site, a time
capsule, if you will, of what happened at the time of wrecking. Identification allows the
collected data to be evaluated, not only as it relates to the shipwreck as a singular entity,
but also as it relates to the broader context of the surrounding maritime landscape or
mariscape. The name of a ship provides access to its associated historical documentation
and establishes the historical era in which the ship operated.
At times, the process of shipwreck identification lacks a methodological
framework for data collection, data analysis, and presentation of results. The process
may or may not be transparent in its application when reported in the literature. Thus a
methodological process is needed in order to achieve this transparency, to reach a
sustainable conclusion as to a shipwreck’s identity, and to remove as much of the
subjectivity involved in data interpretation and analysis as possible. Such a
methodological approach can also assist in preventing the incorrect identification of a
shipwreck.
The archeological identification of shipwrecks is often conducted without
appropriate use of the scientific method and therefore lacks rigor. Some shipwrecks have
been identified by utilizing only one piece of archaeological evidence, as in the case of
the Napoleonic brick Mercure (Beltrame & Gaddi 2002, p. 70). The identification was
based solely on the discovery of a single carronade marked with a French foundry stamp
and the date of1806. While the identification of the shipwreck on this occasion was
correct its finders made no use of supporting historical and archaeological evidence.
That supporting evidence being the wreck’s location, an analysis of the artifacts
recovered relative to a Napoleonic brick, and a comparison of the ship’s remains with
known construction techniques of the period. A methodological analysis of the available
archaeological data in comparison with the available historical data would have
1
presented a much stronger case rather than just relying on a single artifact to determine
the wreck’s identity.
In other situations, where an appropriate process is used to identify a shipwreck,
the process often lacks transparency in its application. The identification of William
Salthouse, as reported by Staniforth and Vickery (Staniforth & Vickery 1984, p. 31),
concluded that ‘The archaeological investigation categorically established the identity of
the wreck site as the William Salthouse’. While this conclusion is undoubtedly correct
based on the wealth of supporting evidence collected and analyzed against the historical
record, the report fails to show how this process was applied to support the conclusions.
There are other examples where the identification process used to identify a
shipwreck was rigorous and scientific. The identification of the Danish Frigate Mynden
(Auer 2004, p. 265) demonstrates a methodological, scientific approach to the
identification using archaeological evidence in conjunction with the historical record.
Based on dendro-chronological dating of the ship’s wooden remains, Auer conducted
extensive time frame focused, archival research in the Danish National Archives and
determined a possible candidate for the wreck. Careful comparison of the archaeological
and historical data led to the conclusion that the wreck was that of Mynden.
A second example is that of HMS Ready. As reported by Milstead Post (Milstead
Post 2007, p. 89), though this shipwreck had been misidentified as Dorthea careful
archival research along with interviews of local residents, when compared to the
archaeological data led to the correct identification.
There are many reasons for the misidentification of a shipwreck site including:
rushing to judgment during the identification process, failing to collect or consider all
available evidence, focusing on a research and/or field search predisposition relative to
the identification, or manipulating the accumulated data, whether consciously or
subconsciously, to fit a preconceived identity despite the lack of sufficient
archaeological and/or historical evidence. Additionally there nay not be enough
2
archaeological and/or historical evidence available to make identification possible.
While the identification of a shipwreck is important to place the wreck in the
surrounding mariscape, misidentification of a shipwreck misplaces the wreck in the
surrounding mariscape and damages the historical record by interpreting the
accumulated data using a false assumption.
This was the case in the misidentification of the British merchant ship Western
Empire. The shipwreck was discovered during a pipeline survey in the Gulf of Mexico
in the early 1980’s and reported to the Mineral Management Service (MMS) (Levin
2006, p. 1). The wreck site was surveyed in 1999 in a cooperative project between
MMS, Deep Marine Technologies, and Texas A&M University. The results obtained
from this survey were compared against MMS’s, GIS-based shipwreck database and the
wreck was determined, with a high degree of confidence on the basis of its location, to
be that of the British merchant ship Western Empire (Horrell 2009).
The shipwreck identified as Western Empire then became the thesis topic for
Joshua Aaron Levin of Texas A&M University (Levin 2006, p. i). Levin’s thesis,
entitled ‘Western Empire: The Deep Water Wreck of a Mid-Nineteenth Century Wooden
Sailing Ship’, focused on the history of the ship and the deep water survey of the vessel
(Levin 2006, p. 1).
Further research into the historical record determined that the shipwreck was not
Western Empire (Horrell 2009). This research revealed that Western Empire sank and
was salvaged off the Eastern Coast of Florida (Horrell 2009). The identity of the
shipwreck misidentified as the Western Empire remains unknown. This demonstrates
why a methodological approach and critical analysis of both the available archaeological
data and the historical record is necessary in the shipwreck identification process.
This thesis will develop a methodological framework and a systematic method
for the identification of historic era shipwrecks. The framework is based on evaluating
the available archeological and historic data using the principles developed by forensic
3
science for the identification of deceased individuals (Baraybar 2008, p. 533). The
forensic science identification process has been used to identify individual and multiple
victims from mass graves discovered in Kosovo, Peru and other countries (Baraybar
2008, p. 533). It is normally employed during the investigations of human rights
violations where enough time has elapsed to allow heavy or complete decomposition of
the cadaver or cadavers (Baraybar 2008, p. 533). The decomposition process usually
renders the cadaver unrecognizable and requires the use of forensic anthropology or
archaeology techniques to acquire Postmortem (PM) data (Baraybar 2008, p. 533). This
decomposition process is analogous to shipwreck sites. The forensic identification
process involves hypothesizing an identity or identities for the individual cadaver,
collecting Antemortem (AM) data for the proposed individual, then categorically
comparing the AM data to the PM data (Baraybar 2008, p. 534). The data comparison is
assessed relative to its consistency or inconsistency to each hypothesized identity
rendering a positive or negative identification (Baraybar 2008, p. 537).
Borrowing from this method of identification, an initial hypothesis or hypotheses
about the identity of a shipwreck is used to develop the AM data from the historical
record. The AM data is then compared with the PM data recovered from archaeological
investigation. The data is then categorically evaluated for its consistency or
inconsistency to each hypothesized ship posited for identification and a positive or
negative identification is determined.
It is apparent that shipwreck misidentification happens and that it muddies the
historical record with suppositions that masquerade as facts. That is why there is a clear
need to take a methodological and scientific approach to the identification process and to
postpone suggesting a probability relative to the speculated or hypothesized identity
until the process has been completed. The proposed identification method is based on
the scientific method of data evaluation and is easily applied to identifying individual
shipwrecks. This is not to say that the proposed method is immune to subjectivity or
erroneous data which can still creep into the process intentionally or unintentionally, but
it makes these errors more visible when they have been systematically evaluated in a
4
process that is transparent and provides a framework in which the data can be easily
reanalyzed by others.
Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the identification topic. Chapter 2
discusses the importance of shipwreck identification and several additional examples of
shipwreck identification and misidentification along with two methods that have been
used in archaeology. Chapter 3 develops the proposed method based on the forensic
science method and discusses evidence types together with the development of
checklists for both historical and archeological data with evaluation categories and data
evaluation techniques. Chapter 4 contains four case studies to which the developed
method for identification is applied. The first case study is that of LaSalle’s’ ship Griffon
and its numerous reported discoveries, including an evaluation of the discovery of a
wreck found in Griffon’s Cove. The second case study explores the identity of the
Beaufort Inlet shipwreck purported to be Queen Anne’s Revenge. The third case study
evaluates the identity of the recently discovered bark Cortland. And the final case study
examines the identity of the recently discovered wreck of the sidewheel steamer Anthony
Wayne. Chapter 5 contains a discussion of the methods application and the results from
the case studies and Chapter 6 assesses the strengths and weakness of the method and
whether or not it has been successfully adapted from the forensic science approach.
5
Chapter 2 Shipwreck Identification and Currently Employed Methods
Why Shipwreck Identification is Important
Why place a name on a shipwreck? What makes the identification important and
why care about it? The moment a ship sinks it effectively becomes a time capsule of the
material culture associated with that time period. A wealth of archaeological information
including ship construction data, cargo type, sailing conditions for the crew, and, if a
warship, types and kinds of armament, can be found within the boundaries of a
shipwreck site. All of this important data is interpreted in a very limited cultural and
historical context. Placing a name on a shipwreck opens up entirely new avenues for
data interpretation. Identification places the shipwreck in the broader context of the
mariscape thus permitting and encouraging data interpretation beyond the limits of the
shipwreck as a singular entity. This allows the shipwreck to be examined not just locally
but globally with respect to maritime culture and history.
The importance of this global aspect of data interpretation suggests that a
shipwreck should be examined, in so far as possible, within the context of the entire
mariscape. Archaeology seeks to understand past human activity based on the
investigation of material remains. Placing the ship within the maritime community
provides a much better understanding of how the ship operated, the people who operated
it, and the ship’s role within the community. Additionally, placement within the
community permits the study of the crew, their families and related socio-economics and
social behaviors. This new venue for data interpretation stimulates numerous additional
questions such as: how did the loss of this ship impact the community?; what cargo was
the ship carrying and why?; was the ship smuggling or engaged in some other
clandestine behavior?; what was the cultural make up of the crew and officers? These
few examples demonstrate the importance of accurate shipwreck identification in the
interpretation of the archaeological record.
6
Shipwreck Misidentification
Shipwreck misidentification takes on many shapes and forms spanning the
gambit from naivety to personal greed. Robert Marx, a treasure hunter and author,
reportedly found the wreck of USS Monitor while snorkeling off Cape Hatteras in the
1950’s and purportedly stuck a soda bottle into one of its guns (JP Delgado, 2009, pers.
comm., 16 January). Monitor was later discovered in deeper water in 1979. The wreck
Marx found was probably that of another Civil War era wreck, USS Oriental (JP
Delgado, 2009, pers. Comm., 16 January). Marx, knowing that the wreck of Monitor
was in that area and eager to promote his treasure hunting activities, probably did not
hesitate to name his discovery Monitor.
The Beaufort Inlet shipwreck, purported to be the remains of Queen Anne’s
Revenge, flagship of the infamous pirate Blackbeard, is an example of shipwreck
identification (intentional misidentification) for the purpose of stimulating interest and
securing grant funding for a project that otherwise would have received little attention
and likely little funding. David D. Moore (Moore 2005, p. 338), Curator of Nautical
Archaeology at the North Carolina Maritime Museum states:
They additionally claim that our research efforts towards identifying the wreck
as Queen Anne’s Revenge are perhaps ‘politically-motivated’ (p.26). We assume
that they are accusing the project of using the possibility that the site is
associated with Blackbeard to somehow trick the general public into
maintaining a high level of interest, and various funding sources into providing
monies to continue the project. To this we will readily plead guilty and counter
with the question: why not?
The identification (misidentification) of this wreck is discussed further in Chapter 4.
These are just a few examples of wreck misidentification. No matter what the
motive or cause, misidentification leads to erroneous data becoming part of the historical
7
record. Subsequent investigations and research based on this data then leads to a further
corruption of the historical record.
Two Methods used in Archaeology to Identify Shipwrecks
Two documented methods of shipwreck identification have been used in the past.
The first method was developed by John O’Shea and is based on the identification of
individual ships in an assemblage of shipwrecks (O'Shea 2004). The second method was
developed by Christian Ahlström and is based on the comparison of historical to
archaeological data to identify individual shipwrecks (Ahlström 1997).
O’Shea’s Method
O’Shea’s method is described in ‘The identification of shipwreck sites: a
Bayesian Approach’ (O'Shea 2004, p. 1533) and calculates a probability of identification
or degree of belief employing Bayesian theory in an attempt to quantify the identities of
an assemblage of shipwrecks using historic and archaeological data. The method uses a
narrow range of input data (O'Shea 2004, p. 1536) consisting of:
•
Maximum observed length
•
Estimated gross tonnage – calculated from various scantling tables
•
Propulsion system – sail or steam
•
Cargo
•
Location of the specific wreck site
This data, along with subjectively determined prior probabilities, is used to
calculate a posterior probability of identification for each individual vessel.
8
Bayesian Probability
Bayesian probability is based upon Bayes Theorem developed by the Reverend
Thomas Bayes in the mid-1700s. The theorem was published three years after Bayes’
death in an work entitled ‘An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of
chances’ in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1763
(Withers 2002, pp. 553-4).
Bayes’ theorem mathematically stated is:
P(H|E) = P(E|H) * P(H) / P(E)
Where:
H
represents a specific hypothesis
P(H)
prior probability of H being true
P(E|H)
conditional probability of seeing evidence E if H is true
P(E)
marginal probability of E of seeing new evidence for all hypotheses
P(H|E)
posterior probability of the hypothesis H based on the evidence E
P
probability ranging from 0 being false to 1 being true
This equation states that for a given hypothesis H and specific evidence E a
posterior probability P(H|E) can be calculated based on the conditional probability of
seeing evidence P(E|H) if the hypothesis is true times the prior probability of the
hypothesis being true P(H) divided by the marginal probability of seeing evidence based
on all the hypotheses.
The posterior probability P(H|E) represents a degree of belief or confidence in
the hypothesis based on the evidence available. As further evidence is acquired the
posterior probability P(H|E) becomes the new prior probability P(H) and a new posterior
probability P(H|E) is calculated. If enough evidence is available, this iterative process
develops a value for P(H|E) independent of the original P(H). Conversely, when only a
9
very limited amount of evidence is available the process remains very subjective as the
calculated posterior probability P(H|E) is heavily biased by the initial choice of the prior
probability P(H).
To calculate the probability of a shipwreck being identified based on observed
archaeological data compared with historical data obtained for a possible candidate ship
the equation can be rewritten as follows:
P(H|E) = P(E|H) * P(H) / P(E|H) * P(H) + P(E|not H) * P(not H)
Where:
H
hypothesized ship identity
E
evidence from physical or calculated data
P(H)
prior probability of the identity being the hypothesized identity H
inferred before E became available
P(not H)
prior probability of the identity not being the hypothesized identity H
inferred before E became available
P(E|H)
conditional probability of seeing evidence E if the hypothesized identity
H is true
P(E|not H)
conditional probability of seeing evidence E if the hypothesized identity
ship H is not true
P(H|E)
posterior probability of the hypothesized ship identity H being true based
on the evidence E
P
probability ranging from 0 being false to 1 being true
This is the equation that O’Shea used to calculate the probability of identification
for individual shipwrecks in an assemblage of shipwrecks. The problem with using this
approach is that it is only a once through method based on the data available. Since all of
the archaeological data is first gathered and then subsequently passed once through this
equation, the resulting posterior probability P(H|E) is heavily influenced by the prior
probability P(H) which was subjectively determined beforehand.
10
Examining the equation we can see that, when P(H)=0: P(H|E)=0 and, when
P(H)=1: P(H|E)=1. Thus, if we absolutely believe the ship has been positively identified,
the equation strongly supports this belief. Likewise if we are absolutely sure it is not the
ship and assign a value of 0 based on that belief, the equation provides the answer we
expect – the wreck does not represent the remains of the historic ship posited. To avoid
this problem we must assign an initial prior probability value greater than 0 and less than
1. To further demonstrate the impact of this subjective process on the posterior
probability we will assign the following values to a shipwreck assuming, for the sake of
the example, that we have a strong positive belief in the prior identification probability
and that the gathered evidence found supports this:
P(H)
= 0.75, a strong belief that this is the ship
P(not H)
= 1-0.75 = 0.25
P(E|H)
= 1, 100% chance of seeing evidence E if this is the ship
P(E|not H)
= 0.5, a 50% chance of seeing evidence E if this is not the ship
Thus:
P(H|E) = 1 * 0.75/[(1 * 0.75) + (0.5 * 0.25)] = 0.86
The posterior probability P(H|E) of this being our hypothetical ship is 86 percent
based on our initial prior belief of 75 percent.
Using the same data we can take a more skeptical approach by assigning the
following probabilities:
P(H)
= 0.25, a skeptical belief that this is the ship
P(not H)
= 1-0.25 = 0.75
P(E|H)
= 1, 100% chance of seeing evidence E if this is the ship
P(E|not H)
= 0.5, a 50% chance of seeing evidence E if this is not the ship
Thus:
P(H|E) = 1 * 0.25/[(1 * 0.25) + (0.5 * 0.75)] = 0.40
11
The posterior probability P(H|E) of this being our hypothetical ship is 40 percent
based on our initial prior belief of 25 percent.
Despite using the same evidence to calculate our posterior probabilities, two
widely varying answers (86 percent and 40 percent) result demonstrating the inherent
problem with using this type of analysis on a ‘once through basis’. The outcome is
greatly influenced by the assigned prior probability P(H) which could be manipulated,
consciously or unconsciously, to skew the results one way or the other.
This method does not lend itself readily to the identification of an individual
shipwreck because the data set for each individual wreck is variable and requires the
generation of a new set of equations. Also, the method fails to manage the subjective
influence embedded in the prior probability selection and evidence evaluation processes.
The method works well when evaluating an assemblage of shipwrecks to determine an
individual identification out of the group but performs poorly when trying to identify an
individual shipwreck.
Ahlström’s Method
The method described by Ahlström’s in the book, ‘Looking for Leads:
Shipwrecks of the past revealed by contemporary documents and the archaeological
record’ (Ahlström 1997), is based on the comparison of archaeological and historical
data to determine the identity of a shipwreck. This process consists of five stages:
1. An analysis of the material and artifactual finds from the wreck in question.
2. An assessment of the historical situation at the central, provincial and local levels during
the time period to which the wreck can be assigned with reference to dateable finds and
analyses.
3. The establishment of the range of published and hand-written sources.
12
4. The construction of hypotheses concerning the identity of the wreck on the basis of what
can be logically deduced from the material and written evidence.
5. A test of the hypotheses. (Ahlström 1997, p. 33)
In the first stage, material and artifactual finds are divided into four groups and
then analyzed. The groups include: objects from the vessel itself, objects originating
from the cargo, vessel equipment that perform a function (navigation, defense, etc.), and
personal effects and property (Ahlström 1997, pp. 38-9). Using the analysis from stage
one, the second stage establishes time period boundaries for the historical documentation
search. The third stage identifies all the available historical resources for the time period
and where they can be found. The fourth stage uses these historical resources to
determine all of the possible candidate shipwrecks and then evaluates them against the
archaeological data to narrow the field of hypothetical candidates. The final stage
rigorously tests these candidates’ historical background against the archaeological data
to attempt to determine the identity of the wreck.
Ahlström’s method is a systematic way of comparing archaeological data to
historical data to determine the identity of a shipwreck. It relies very heavily on dating
the artifactual finds to establish a time period in which to do archival research. Ahlström
states, ‘The first and most important keys to establishing the identity of a vessel are finds
indicating its age. Without a date, it is obvious that no reliable identification is possible’
(Ahlström 1997, p. 37).
Sometimes it is not possible to reliably date finds, or the work performed on the
site is insufficient to establish a Terminus ante quem, or to even narrow the time period
enough to even begin archival research. This does not, however, prevent a reliable
shipwreck identification from being made. In lieu of artifactual dating, a wreck’s
location, dimensions, construction, and cargo can all be used to determine the initial
identification candidates and establish the time period parameters for historical research.
The data obtained can be compared to historical wreck lists, wreck data bases, and other
13
archival sources. Local and oral histories can also be used as a starting point for
selecting candidates.
Conclusions
This chapter has described the two currently employed shipwreck identification
methods used in archaeology. It has also evaluated the applicability of these methods to
the process of identification of a single shipwreck based on the availability of
archaeological and/or historical data. The O’Shea method is not directly applicable to
the identification process of a single wreck because the method is probability based and
requires the use of prior probabilities. The prior probabilities in this method are
subjectively determined and greatly influence the identification outcome when they are
applied in a single wreck identification case as opposed to determining a single wrecks
identity in a collection of wrecks. The Ahlström method is useful in the identification of
single shipwrecks. It does, however, rely too heavily on establishing narrow time period
parameters in which archival research must attempt to collect the necessary historical
data. The restrictions and limitations of the two described methods demonstrate the need
for a systematic method not dramatically affected by such problems that can be used to
evaluate the available archeological and historical data to determine the identity of
historic era shipwrecks.
14
Chapter 3 Historic Shipwreck Identification Method (HSIM)
Method Development Based on a Forensic Science Approach
The proposed method for shipwreck identification, the Historic Shipwreck
Identification Method (HSIM), is based upon the framework used in forensic science for
body identification using ‘traditional’ forensic science methodology. This method is
normally applied when mass graves are encountered (i.e. during the investigation of
human rights violations) and the cadavers are heavily decomposed and rendered
unrecognizable thus requiring the participation of forensic anthropologists and
archaeologists (Baraybar 2008, p. 533). The method is generally used when local,
forensic laboratories, capable of performing advanced procedures such as DNA analysis,
are unavailable or the cost of such procedures is deemed prohibitive (Baraybar 2008, p.
533). ‘Traditional techniques generally consist of combining witness testimony, personal
effects and clothing, anthropological and dental data to corroborate or to exclude the
identity of the individual’ (Baraybar 2008, p. 533). This traditional forensic science
technique will be adapted to the identification of shipwrecks.
The forensic science method for body identification consists of five distinct
phases (Baraybar 2008, pp. 533-37).
1.
Antemortem (AM) data collection
2.
Postmortem (PM) data collection
3.
Selection of possible identities
4.
Antemortem/postmortem data comparison and evaluation
5.
Identification, positive or negative
The collection of antemortem (AM) data, normally conducted during the
investigative phase of an incident, involves the gathering of data from a variety of
sources including official documents, personal documents and interviews with relatives
and friends. The data is collected systematically using checklists developed by various
15
organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. In order to obtain as
much AM data as possible these checklists are tailored to the region in which the
investigations are taking place and are emic to the population being interviewed. The
checklists (forms) utilized for AM data collection are tested and refined over time to
assure that the data collected is the information needed by the scientists for proper
evaluation of the PM data (Baraybar 2008, p. 535).
The PM data collection phase consists of documenting the grave site through
forensic examination of the human remains, clothing, and any artifacts directly
associated with the body. Any artifact that was not directly associated with the body is
noted but is not artificially associated to it (Baraybar 2008, p. 536).
A clothing exhibit is used to select possible identifications. The victim’s clothing
and directly associated artifacts are displayed. This can be done in a public or private
setting. Relatives and friends are allowed to view the display(s) in the hope that they will
recognize the belongings. If a family or families recognize the belongings an attempt at
identification can be made (Baraybar 2008, p. 535).
Once the possible identification of a person has been proposed the
antemortem/postmortem data comparison is conducted. Both the PM and AM data files
are selected and the family is interviewed. During the interview process a number of
specialists are present. These normally include ‘one police officer specialized in
identifications, one anthropologist, one dentist, and one pathologist’ (Baraybar 2008, p.
537). They are present to ask specific questions of the family in relation to their field to
help with their assessment of the AM to PM data comparison.
After the interviews are completed each specialist scores the case on a scale from
1 to 3 as a good, medium or bad match to the AM to PM data. ‘Identification is carried
out by consensus and the pathologist is the only person who may accept or reject an
identification’ (Baraybar 2008, p. 537). Even though the scoring system is based on 1 to
3 there can be only ‘good’ or ‘bad’ data matches (Baraybar 2008, p. 537).
16
This systematic process will be modified and adapted to develop the HSIM. The
first modification will be the order in which the phases of the process occur. Since the
first data available from the site of an unidentified shipwreck is the PM data, the
collection of PM data is logically the first phase. Once the PM data has been collected
and analyzed the second phase, selection of possible identities, can begin. One or more
working hypotheses relative to the vessel’s identity are developed. The selection of
hypothetical identities leads to the third phase, AM data collection. The proposed
identities provide starting points for the historical record search and are used to develop
checklists for data collection. Once the AM data is collected it can then be compared and
analyzed against the PM data and a determination of identification of each hypothesis
made. A matrix with data consistency criteria is developed to aid in the data evaluation
and identification process.
The second modification to the forensic science approach changes the evaluation
criteria of the scoring range. The current scoring range of 1 to 3 (good, medium or bad
match of AM to PM data) is changed to a range of 0 to 3 (no data available, consistent
data, insufficient data, and clearly inconsistent data).
The third modification to the forensic science method of identification is the
development of a final identification matrix. This matrix is used to record the scoring of
the different data comparison categories and to determine a final identification rating
score for each hypothesized identification candidate.
The final modification to the forensic science approach allows the person(s)
making the identification attempt to be the final judge in the matter.
Thus for the purposes of the HSIM the hierarchy of the shipwreck identification
process has been changed to:
1.
Postmortem (PM) data collection
2.
Selection of possible identities
17
3.
Antemortem (AM) data collection
4.
AM/PM data comparison and evaluation
5.
Identification, positive or negative
This process is consistent with the ‘scientific method’ and follows the basic
premise of:
•
Posing the question of a shipwrecks identity
•
Conducting the background research
•
Constructing a hypothesis
•
Testing the hypothesis
•
Analyzing the data and drawing a conclusion
•
Communicating the results
Evidence Types
There are two evidence types to consider when collecting PM and AM data:
direct and indirect evidence. These evidence types influence the comparison and
evaluation process phase of the identification process. It is important to note that the
skill, expertise, and thoroughness of the AM and PM data collection processes
ultimately control the value of any accepted or rejected identification.
Direct Evidence
Direct evidence is evidence based on fact or the observation of a fact. Relative to
ships or shipwrecks, an example of direct evidence would be the statement on the
enrollment papers of a particular vessel indicating the vessel had a scroll head or the
observation of a scroll head on a particular vessel by a person in port and reported in the
press or other historical document. This type of evidence can be used in the
18
identification process for a direct comparison of fact (AM data) with the observed data
found at a shipwreck site (PM data). In this particular case it is evidence that would be
hard to refute in the identification process. If the AM factual data matches the PM data
obtained from the wreck site, it is a good indicator of a factual match for that particular
piece of data. This is not to say that this piece of data is indeed true. In fact, the vessel
might have been involved in a previous accident or rebuilt after some time in service and
the scroll head subsequently removed or changed. Although it appears that the data
obtained is indeed true, there is the possibility that further research may be needed to
assess the ‘goodness’ and accuracy of AM data obtained in the initial data collection
activity.
This assessment of data and data collection methodology is readily apparent in
Case Study 4. Anthony Wayne was originally built with a vertical, high pressure, steam
engine (US Treasury Department 1838, p. 339). The archaeological data collected from
the site indicates that the wreck has a horizontally mounted steam engine. This is in
direct conflict with the initial AM data. Subsequent research determined that Anthony
Wayne was extensively rebuilt and the original, ‘vertical’, high pressure, steam engine
was replaced with a ‘horizontal’, high pressure, steam engine from the steamer
Columbus (Heyl 1956, p. 93; Sandusky Clarion 1849, p. 2; Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary 2009b).
Indirect Evidence
Indirect evidence (or circumstantial evidence) is evidence that may reasonably
imply the existence or non-existence of a fact from another fact. An example of this type
of evidence is seen in Case Study 3. One of the pieces of evidence used to determine the
identification of the shipwreck Cortland was location. A theoretical location was
inferred from the direct evidence obtained from the AM data collection process
(Cleveland Leader 1868b, p. 3). The AM data showed that the steamer Morning Star,
which was involved in the accident that sank the bark Cortland, left the dock at a certain
19
time maintaining a certain speed and course (Cleveland Leader 1868b, p. 3). The time
the accident took place was also known along with the distance and direction Cortland
was from Morning Star when Cortland sank (McDonald 1958, pp. 311-3). This data was
used to calculate a dead reckoning position and establish an approximate location for the
final resting place of Cortland.
AM Ship Checklist Development
The development of a checklist for AM ship data can be general or very specific.
The checklist developed here is specific in nature. It takes into account the possible AM
data that would be available in official records from the Great Lakes region based on
vessel enrollments and surveys. Though this checklist is specific it can be easily adapted
to different ship types, time periods, and geographical regions as needed since the
majority of the information recorded is applicable to any ship.
These main categories were used to develop the AM checklist in Appendix 1
which is used to collect AM data for a specific ship:
•
Vessel Name
•
Original Construction Data
•
Cargo
•
Incidents
•
Final sinking data
•
Crew
•
Construction drawings
•
Imagery
•
Inventory list
•
Manifest
•
Provisions
•
Personal Belongings
•
Models
•
Survivor and eyewitness accounts
20
AM to PM Shipwreck Data Comparison Categories
The following are the main categories used to compare the AM to PM data for
identification:
•
Dating
•
Vessel Construction and Rigging
•
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
•
Crew Personal Effects
•
Location
•
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
These six categories are evaluated as follows:
Dating
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency in dating and scored
accordingly. This category is used if sufficient dating data is available from the
shipwreck site to establish a Terminus ante quem or to sufficiently date the remains to
establish a likely time period in which the ship operated and was lost. The AM data
gathered from historical research establishes the time period and date of loss for the ship
proposed for identification. This data is compared to the gathered archaeological data.
Dating the archaeological finds can be accomplished by a variety of means such as
stratigraphy, dedrochronology, coinage, artifact seriation, archeomagnetic (from the
galley hearth or in case of the accident being caused by a fire), date or date stamps on
artifacts or casting dates, etc. The accuracy of the data comparison is then scored
accordingly.
21
Vessel Construction and Rigging
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency relative to the vessel’s
construction and rigging and scored accordingly. This category is used if sufficient data
is available from both historical sources and shipwreck remains. If sufficient AM data is
available it is then compared and evaluated against the collected archeological data. The
process may include comparing the deck hardware found, number of masts, scantling
data, or fastening techniques to assure they are consistent with the acquired AM data.
The accuracy of the data comparison is then scored accordingly.
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency relative to cargo and cargo
handling equipment and scored accordingly. This category is used if sufficient cargo and
cargo handling equipment data has been acquired for the ship proposed for
identification. The archaeological data collected from the wreck site is compared and
evaluated against the AM data for consistency and the accuracy of the data comparison
is then scored accordingly.
In certain circumstances this category may be eliminated from the identification
matrix. There is at least one documented instance, and probably many more, where the
cargo reported in the AM documentation did not match the cargo discovered at the
shipwreck site. The Canadian steamship Homer Warren, which sank in Lake Ontario in
1919, was reported to be carrying a cargo of coal (Kennard 2009, p. 132). After its
discovery and positive identification in 2003 its cargo was determined to be grain
(Kennard 2009, p. 134). This is a case where a ship, having plied the same route
carrying the same cargo for many years, happened to be in port and its standard cargo
was unavailable. To avoid the losses associated with laying idle or running light, the
ship was loaded with a different cargo.
22
Crew Personal Effects
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency concerning crew personal
effects and scored accordingly. This category is used if sufficient AM data about the
crew is discovered and crew personal effects are found at the wreck site. If demographic
information about the crew is established through AM research, the personal effects
found at the wreck site (if any) can be compared for consistency as to the crew
nationality and cultural backgrounds. The accuracy of the data comparison is then scored
accordingly.
Location
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency based on the location of the
shipwreck and scored accordingly. This category is used if sufficient location
information is discovered during the AM data collection process. The accuracy of the
data comparison is then scored accordingly.
In certain circumstances this category may be eliminated from the identification
matrix. Some anecdotal reports suggest the purposeful falsification of reported locations
or areas of operation in certain cases. These cases normally involved insurance claims
for the vessel and its cargo. Ships nearing the end of their useful operating lifetime were
often scuttled to collect the insurance money. In other cases the ships were operated
outside of the bounds of their insurance coverage. If they were reported lost, the owners
would claim they were operating on a certain route when truthfully they were not.
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
The AM and PM data are compared for consistency relative to the conditions of
the shipwreck and the shipwreck site and scored accordingly. This category is used if
sufficient AM data has been collected that reflect any damage that was sustained from
23
an accident, collision, salvage operation on the site, or any observations about the
condition of the wreck or the surrounding bottom recorded by salvage operatives. This
AM data is compared with the current condition of the wreck and wreck site. The
accuracy of the data comparison is then scored accordingly.
AM to PM Shipwreck Data Comparison Scoring
As discussed above, the data comparison scoring from the original forensic
science identification approach has been modified to encompass the data that would be
available for shipwreck identification needs. The detailed data comparisons are scored as
follows:
0 = Historical and/or archaeological data is not available or is insufficient to perform a
meaningful comparison.
1 = The historical and archaeological data are consistent in sufficient detail to establish
that they belong to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies.
2 = The historical and archaeological data are not consistent in sufficient detail to
establish that they belong to the proposed ship.
3 = The historical and archaeological data are clearly inconsistent.
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
The Shipwreck Identification Matrix (Table 1) is the culmination of the
identification process. The AM/PM shipwreck data comparison scores are recorded and
a final score is determined for the accuracy of identification of the hypothesized ship
24
candidate. A complete copy of the Shipwreck Identification with rating key can be found
in Appendix 2.
Table 1: Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
Ships Name Here
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Data
Consistency
Scoring
Dating
Vessel Construction and Rigging
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
Crew Personal Effects
Location
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring
Final scoring is based on the AM/PM data evaluation scores for each category. It
reflects the highest score obtained in any of the evaluation categories. This score then
determines if a positive identification has been achieved.
The final identification rating scores are defined as follows.
1 - Identification: The historical and archaeological data in all categories where
comparisons are possible are consistent in sufficient detail to establish that they belong
to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies. The shipwreck is the
ship proposed.
25
2 - No conclusion: The historical and archaeological data in all or part of the categories
where comparisons are possible are not consistent in sufficient detail to establish that
they belong to the proposed ship.
3 - Exclusion: The historical and archaeological data in all or part of the categories
where comparisons are possible are clearly inconsistent. The shipwreck is not the ship
proposed.
Conclusions
This chapter discussed the development and the usage of the HSIM. The method
was developed from a ‘traditional’ forensic science method used in determining the
identification of human remains when advanced forensic scientific techniques are not
available. The forensic method was adapted for the use in the identification of
shipwrecks when sufficient AM and PM data are available. Scoring systems for data
comparison and final shipwreck identification were developed and guidelines for data
evaluation established.
26
Chapter 4 Case Studies
Case Study 1: The Griffon Cove Wreck
Case Study Introduction
Case Study 1 involves a shipwreck that was discovered in about 1835 by the
grandfather of Orrie Vail (Hundley 1984, p. 9) in what is today, Griffon Cove, Russel
Island, Ontario, Canada. The wreckage was examined in 1955 by Rowley Murphy, John
MacLean, and C. H. J. Snider and determined to be that of Griffon, the first ship to have
sailed the Upper Great Lakes (Murphy 1955, p. 236). Murphy (Murphy 1955, p. 232)
stated, ‘… we now do think that the wreckage recovered by Mr. Vail in August of this
year is from that ship.’ The wreckage was later examined in 1978 by Paul Hundley
(Hundley 1984, p. 15), a graduate student at Texas A & M University, to determine if
the remains were indeed that of Griffon. Hundley’s research determined that the
wreckage was ‘not’ that of Griffon (Hundley 1984, p. 40) but probably ‘a variation of a
Mackinaw boat, consistent with the type of vessels used on the Great Lakes during the
mid-1800’s’ (Hundley 1984, p. 48). Even though the wreckage has been proven not to
be that of Griffon, this case study will posit the candidate identification to be that of
Griffon and the HSIM, for the purpose of demonstration and exercise, will be applied
based on the PM archeological data available from the previous Griffon Cove wreckage
studies.
Shipwreck Site
The Griffon Cove shipwreck was first discovered by the grandfather of Orrie
Vail (Hundley 1984, p. 9) in MacGregor Cove (Hundley 1984, pp. 1-9), Find Out Island
(Murphy 1955, p. 236), Ontario, Canada about 1835 (Hundley 1984, p. 9). After the
examination of the remains by Murphy and at his suggestion, MacGregor Cove was
renamed Griffon Cove in 1956. Find Out Island has also since been renamed Russel
Island (no reference to date of name change). Russel Island is located about one mile
27
(1.6 km) northwest of Tobermory, Ontario, Canada, the northern-most town on the
Bruce Peninsula (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Location of Griffon Cove Wreck
(Hundley 1984, p. 9)
The greater part of the wreckage found at Griffon Cove was brought to the
surface by Vail in 1955, numbered, and taken by motor boat to Vail’s big boathouse on
Vail’s Point for storage (Murphy 1955, p. 237). After Vail’s death in 1977, the material
was passed to the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR), Canada and ultimately to Five
Fathom Provincial Park (FFPP) (Hundley 1984, p. 14). A subsequent investigation in
1978 by Hundley and the FFPP found more wreckage and artifacts (Hundley 1984, pp.
15-6). These were transferred to the FFPP facilities at Tobermory for cataloging,
conservation, and storage. A short follow-up investigation in 1979 recovered a number
of artifacts from the outer part of the cove (Hundley 1984, p. 16).
28
PM Archaeological Data
The wreckage recovered by Vail and described by Murphy (Murphy 1955, pp.
237-8) consisted of:
… the keel; part of the stem, including scarph; part of the stern-post; and about
2/3rds of the apron tying it into the keel. There were parts of at least 13 frames,
of several planks, including about eight feet of the garboard strake right aft at
the sternpost on the port side. This, when the sternpost and apron were fitted
easily into the keel, slipped into place perfectly. There was also a knee which
could possibly have tied together a side and lower timber of the transom; also a
piece about 16 feet in length and about six inches wide which certainly appeared
to have been part of a bilge stringer. All of the timbers or pieces of plank were
of sound white oak, considerably worn down by attrition, grinding on the rocks,
etc. If there was any piece used in her bulwarks and ceiling, it had quite
disappeared.
Vail also recovered several additional artifacts including an iron padlock and a small
wooden keg (Hundley 1984, p. 16).
The wreckage and artifacts recovered in 1978 by Hundley and the FFPP staff
during the excavation phase of the project included 131 artifacts found at the cove
entrance. Ninety three of the one hundred thirty one artifacts were European ceramic
sherds (Hundley 1984, p. 16). Deeper water outside of the cove yielded five timber
frames, two pieces of planking, and the gripe (Hundley 1984, p. 16). The dredged area at
the wreck site produced 244 artifacts of which 234 were iron nails and nail fragments
(Hundley 1984, p. 16). The 1979 investigation of the outer portion of the cove produced
a number of clay pipe stems, ceramic sherds (one with a maker’s mark of ‘Baker and
Son’), and a padlock similar to the one Vail had found earlier (Hundley 1984, p. 16).
29
Analysis of the hull construction conducted by Hundley (Hundley 1984, p. 52)
concluded that: ‘The Griffon Cove vessel had an extreme length overall of 44 ft 9 in
(13.6 m), a beam of 14 ft 7 in (4.4 m) and a reconstructed depth at the sheer of 3 ft. (0.9
m.) at the midships, 3 ft. 5 in. (0.91 m.) in the bow, and 4 ft. 9 in. (1.4 m.) in the stern’.
The calculated tonnage, using old carpenter’s measure, is 19 tons (17.2 tonnes).
The keel is constructed from a single log of white oak. There is no mast step
present, but it is notched for floor timbers (Hundley 1984, pp. 32-3). A mortice cut is
found 13 feet (3.96 m) ahead of the stem knee which is placed too far aft for a mast and
most likely used for a stanchion or boom crutch (Hundley 1984, p. 33). Also noticed, the
garboard is not rabbeted into the keel (Hundley 1984, p. 36). On the stempost there is
another mortise which suggests the placement of a foremast (Hundley 1984, p. 36).
‘There were no remains recovered from the Griffon Cove vessel indicating there was a
deck on this ship’ (Hundley 1984, p. 40). No ballast stones were recovered from the site.
The discovered artifacts described in the Hundley report (Hundley 1984):
…indicate a date, based on the ceramic types, of 1840-1860. One piece bore a
maker's mark, Barker & Son, a British kiln producing only from 1850 to 1860.
The only other datable artifact was a lock identical in shape and dimensions to a
lock found on the site by Vail. The Vail lock bore a mark of a crowned "GR"
and the word "Patent" on the keyhole cover. The escutcheon refers to George III
or George IV in whose reign the patent was granted. This gives a date range of
1790-1830 for the date of first manufacture. The lock found by FFPP was
identical to this except it was missing the keyhole cover.
30
AM Historical Research Data
Le Griffon or Griffon was the first vessel to sail the upper Great Lakes. Its keel
was laid 22 January 1679 (Hennepin 1903, p. 90) on the orders of René Robert Cavalier,
Sieur de la Salle who intended to use the vessel to explore the upper Great Lakes for
trade and to search for a western route to China (Mansfield 1899, p. 79). The
construction site chosen for Griffon was located about two leagues above Niagara Falls
just off the Niagara River on Iroquois Indian land (Anderson 1901, p. 21). Upon its
launch ‘the Iroquois Indian were amazed, being unable to comprehend how the
Frenchmen could so easily build so large a canoe of wood, although the craft was of
only about forty-five tons [forty-one tonnes]’ (Anderson 1901, p. 27). There is a
reference in Hennepin (Hennepin 1903, p. 94) to Griffon being ‘60 tuns’ along with a
foot note that states ‘In his Louisiane (ed. 1683, p. 46), Hennepin says that it was fortyfive tons [forty-one tonnes], - Ed.’ (Hennepin 1903, p. 94).
There are questions as to the ‘originality’ of Hennepin’s writings as much of the
content appears to be a literal word for word restatement of la Salle’s official report to
the Minister of Marine. The assertion of plagiarism on the part of Hennepin is brought
up by Pierre Margry (Anderson 1901, p. 5) who officially published la Salle’s writings
during the period 1876-1886, and included these allegations in his first footnote:
It was, moreover, a matter of real interest to ascertain the plagiarisms of the man
who was afterwards to endeavor to deprive the discoverer of the honor due to
his labors; and if it was on this account curious to note the similarities between
Father Hennepin's book and our document, it was not less curious to remark the
differences between this same document and the text of La Salle's letters, from
which it must have been drawn, but without depriving them of their intimate and
confidential character.
Very little is known of the actual construction of Griffon. As stated above, it was
a sailing vessel of 45 tons (41 tonnes). Hennepin (Hennepin 1903, p. 93) described the
31
vessel as decked: ‘…our Men, who immediately quitted their Cabins of Rinds of Trees,
and hang’d [sic] their Hammocks under the Deck of the Ship.’ The ship was armed
(Anderson 1901, p. 29) and la Salle stated that it had ‘seven small pieces of small
cannon.’ A more detailed description by Hennepin (Hennepin 1903, p. 102) stated:
We were very kindly receiv'd [sic], and likewife [sic] very glad to find our Ship
well rigg'd [sic], and ready fitted out with all the Neceffaries [sic] for failing
[sic]. She carry'd [sic] five fmall [sic] Guns, two whereof were Brafs, and three
Harquebuze a-crock1. The Beak-head was adorn'd [sic] with a flying Griffin,
and an Eagle above it; and the reft [sic] of the Ship had the fame [sic]
Ornaments as Men of War ufe [sic] to have.
The rigging of Griffon is unknown. There are several hints to the rigging in both
la Salle’s and Hennepin’s descriptions of a storm they encountered while sailing up Lake
Huron. La Salle (Anderson 1901, p. 37) stated:
…he was caught in a furious westerly gale, which obliged him to tack under
foresail and trysail, and finally to bring her to until daylight.
On the 26th the violence of the wind compelled him to lower his topmasts,
to make fast the yards to the deck, and to heave to…
During that same storm Hennepin (Hennepin 1903, pp. 113-4) said, ‘we brought down
our Main Yards and Top-Maft [sic] and let the Ship drive at the Mercy of the Wind…’
These statements suggest a square-rigged vessel with stepped masts. The
iconography of a map drawn in 1688 by the order of the Governor of New France
(Figure 2) shows Griffon entering Lake Erie (Remington 1891, p. 43). It is depicted as a
two-masted vessel, square-rigged on the foremast and lateen rigged on the main mast.
One of the legends on the map describes the cabin la Salle stayed in during the
construction of Griffon. The legend reads, ‘Cabane on le Sr de la Salle a fait faire une
1
A harquebuze is a type of matchlock rifle and a-crock is French for a prop or support
32
barque. (Cabin where the Sieur de La Salle caused a bark to be built.)’ (Remington
1891, p. 43).
Figure 2: Map of the Niagara Area Drawn in 1688
(Remington 1891, p. 43)
An article in the Marine Review and Marine Record, 1903, by Richard P. Joy
(Joy 1903, p. 24) described the possible rigging of Griffon based upon a 1697 woodcut
depicting its construction as well as the description of Hennepin. Joy (Joy 1903, p. 24)
based his rigging design (Figure 3) on the following:
33
I have seen many pictures purporting to be the Griffin, all fanciful pictures,
some showing the vessel rigged as a schooner, but as the schooner rig was first
introduced in New England in 1714, some years after the Griffin was launched,
such pictures could not have been accurate.
It is probable that La Salle obtained the design of the vessel when in
France, and that her rig was the prevailing rig of vessels of that period, as shown
by the drawing. On the mainmast the triangular lateen sail, used then
universally, and on the foremast the two square sails, also common on vessels of
the time. As the triangular jig, or staysail, did not come into use until the early
part of the eighteenth century, it is probable that the Griffin carried a spritsail on
her high bowsprit. Even as late as the year 1750 the spritsail was common to all
sea-going vessels, as many old prints will show.
Figure 3: Proposed Rig of Griffon by Joy
(Joy 1903, p. 24)
34
Griffon, with la Salle in command, departed on its maiden voyage 7 August 1679
carrying 34 men (Hennepin 1903, p. 107), arms, supplies, and goods (Anderson 1901, p.
29). It sailed the length of Lake Erie, up the Saint Claire River, and into the lower
portion of Lake Huron. La Salle continued his voyage up Lake Huron, through the
Mackinaw Straits, and arrived 27 August 1679 at Missilimakinak, what is now present
day Pointe la Barbe and the town of Saint Ignace, Michigan (Anderson 1901, p. 37).
‘On the 12th of September he left Missilimakinak; entering Lake Illinois (present
day Lake Michigan), he arrived at an island situated at the opening of Green Bay (or
lake)’ (Anderson 1901, p. 43). The island la Salle landed on is present day Washington
Island (Hennepin 1903, p. 119). Here la Salle rendezvoused with some of his men that
he had previously sent to trade with the Illinois Indians (Anderson 1901, p. 43). They
had accumulate a ‘great quantity of Furrs [sic] and Skins’ (Hennepin 1903, p. 119) and
these were loaded on Griffon.
‘La Salle had planned originally to sail to the end of Lake Michigan, build a
sister ship to the Griffon, and continue down the Mississippi …’ (Hundley 1984, p. 5)
and for this reason Griffon was ‘… carrying in its hold the tackle, rigging and anchors of
the unbuilt sister-ship …’ (Hundley 1984, p. 5). Anticipating the approach of winter la
Salle decided to send Griffon and a small crew back with the furs to be unloaded at his
storehouse at the eastern end of Lake Erie while he continued his journey down Lake
Illinois in four canoes (Anderson 1901, p. 43). Griffon was to make an intermediate stop
at Missilimakinak to unload the provisions for the second ship which la Salle would
construct and use for his return (Anderson 1901, p. 44).
Griffon sailed on 18 September 1679 (Anderson 1901, p. 45) for Missilimakinak
and was never seen again. Scant information is available as to Griffon’s fate. The
following year la Salle (Anderson 1901, pp. 45-7) learned that:
The vessel having cast anchor in the northern part of Lake Illinois, the pilot,
against the advice of some Savages who warned him there was a great storm
35
outside, persisted in setting sail, without considering that the sheltered position
of the ship prevented him from perceiving the violence of the wind. Scarcely
was the ship a quarter league from land, when the Savages saw it tossing
frightfully, unable to make head against the storm, although all the sails had
been struck; a short time after, they lost it from sight, and think it to have been
driven upon shallows near the Huron Islands, where it has been buried in the
sand.
Referencing the collection of la Salle’s writing compiled by Margry and
translating same from the original French, Marshall (Marshall 1879, p. 287) provides
one account of wreckage being reported in this location:
A hatchway, a cabin door, the truck of a flag-staff, a piece of rope, a pack of
spoiled beaver skins, two pair of linen breeches torn and spoiled with tar, were
subsequently found and recognized as relics of the ill-fated ship.
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring
Dating
Based on ceramic type the European ceramic sherds recovered from the Griffon
Cove shipwreck were dated to the 1840 to 1860 time period (Hundley 1984, p. 16). One
sherd bore a diagnostic maker’s mark and was dated to the 1850-1860 time period
(Hundley 1984). Another dateable artifact was the lock found by Vail. Diagnostic
markers on the lock gave a date range of 1790-1830. These date ranges are
chronologically much later than the loss of Griffon in 1679. The AM to PM data
comparison is clearly inconsistent and exclusionary. This category is scored a 3.
36
Vessel Construction and Rigging
The AM/PM data comparison relative to vessel construction and rigging is very
inconsistent and exclusionary. This conclusion is based on several key points. First, the
notching of the keel for floor timbers was a technique not used by French shipwrights
until after the second half of the 18th century (Myers 1956, p. 144). Second, Griffon was
a decked vessel and no decking or indication of decking was found during the
archeological investigation. Third, no evidence of ballast stones was found at the wreck
site and, even at 45 tons (41 tonnes), Griffon would have required ballasting to sail
efficiently. Fourth and finally, no evidence of mast steps was found in the wreckage.
Griffon would have required substantial mast steps even with its light tonnage. Based on
these clear inconsistencies the category is scored a 3.
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
Although several artifacts have been recovered (see dating category) there is not
enough data to classify them as either cargo or crew effects. This category is scored a 0
due to lack of data.
Crew Personal Effects
Although several artifacts have been recovered (see dating category) there is not
enough data to classify them as either cargo or crew effects. This category is scored a 0
due to lack of data.
37
Location
The location of the Griffon Cove wreck site is inconsistent with the AM data
which indicates that the probable wreck site of Griffon is located in northern Lake
Michigan. Thus the category is scored a 3.
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
There in no AM data for the condition of the shipwreck. Thus the category is
scored a 0.
38
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring
Completing the Shipwreck Identification Matrix (Table 2) for the wreckage
found yields a final score of 3 for the candidate ship for identification, Griffon. This
rating is exclusion: The historical and archaeological data in all or part of the categories
where comparisons are possible are clearly inconsistent. The shipwreck is not the ship
proposed.
Table 2: Griffon Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
Griffon
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Dating
Data
Consistency
Scoring
3
Vessel Construction and Rigging
3
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
0
Crew Personal Effects
0
Location
3
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
0
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
3
Conclusions
Case Study 1 used the HSIM to determine if the Griffon Cove shipwreck was
that of Griffon, the first ship to have sailed the Upper Great Lakes. The AM and PM data
were gathered and compared for consistency. The dating, vessel construction and
rigging, and location data comparison categories all indicated inconsistencies between
the AM and PM data. Based on these inconsistencies the conclusion is that the Griffon
Cove shipwreck is not Griffon.
39
Case Study 2: The Beaufort Inlet shipwreck
Case Study Introduction
This case study involves applying the HSIM to a shipwreck that was discovered
in November of 1996 at Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, USA (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p.
160). It was discovered while searching an area that had a high probability of containing
ten eighteenth-century shipwrecks (Lawrence 2008, p. 15) of which four were armed.
These include an unknown brig, the Spanish snow El Salvador, and two ships belonging
to the pirate, Blackbeard, the sloop Adventure and his flagship Queen Anne’s Revenge
(QAR) (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 164). The initial findings at the wreck site included a
ballast pile, two large anchors, and nine cannon (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 164). Several
artifacts were recovered one of which was a ships bell dated 1705 (Wilde-Ramsing
2006, p. 164).
Since the site dated to the same period as the two armed ships Blackbeard lost, it
was assumed that the wreckage had to be Adventure or QAR (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p.
164). Subsequent investigations of the wreck site in 1997 indicated that the wreckage
was that of QAR (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 172). QAR was formerly the 200-300 ton
(180-270 tonnes) French slaver La Concorde which was captured by Blackbeard in
1717 (Lusardi 2006, pp. 196-7). Since the wreck was discovered in an area where QAR
(aka La Concorde) supposedly sank, La Concorde is the candidate ship posited for the
identity of the shipwreck found.
Shipwreck Site
The Beaufort Inlet shipwreck is located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) south
of Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina, USA (Figure 4) and is identified as state
archaeological site 31CR314 (Rogers, Richards & Lusardi 2005, p. 24). It was
discovered in the fall of 1996 by Intersal, Inc. in a search area developed from historical
data compiled by Mike Daniels (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 164). The wreck site
40
encompasses an area of about 110 feet by 75 feet and rests in 23 feet of water (WildeRamsing 2006, p. 177).
Figure 4: Location of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck
(Rogers, Richards & Lusardi 2005, p. 24)
Prior to excavation the initial site consisted of exposed wreckage above the sea
bed that measured
25 feet by 15 feet, and consisted of eleven cannon, two anchors, a grappling
hook, numerous iron cask hoops, several rigging elements, a cluster of cannon
balls, and a large amount of ballast stone and concretions (Wilde-Ramsing 2006,
p. 168).
Fieldwork at the site began in 1997 and continues to this date. At the completion of
the 1998 field season it was determine that the bow was pointing north toward the inlet
of the harbor and a site plan (Figure 5) was developed (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 173).
41
Figure 5: Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Site Plan circa 1998
(Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 174)
PM Archaeological Data
Since the inception of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Project ‘tens of thousands of
artifacts have been recovered and many of those have received at least a preliminary
level of analysis’ (The QAR Project 2009b). The analysis of the artifact assemblage will
be discussed with regard to the identification categories: Vessel Construction and
Rigging, Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment, and Crew Personal Effects. The arms
42
and armament, ships tools and instruments, and food preparation and storage equipment
will be covered under the Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment category.
Vessel Construction and Rigging PM Data
Only a small amount of the hull structure remains due to the wreck’s location in
an active shallow saltwater marine environment. It consists of an articulated structure
approximately 31 feet (9.4 m) by 9 feet (2.7 m) which was raised in the early part of
2000.
This comparatively small section of ship's structure was made up of numerous
fragments of frame components and bottom planking with associated sacrificial
planking or sheathing. Unfortunately no sign of either the keel or keelson has
been revealed to date. Additionally, it is difficult to determine exactly where on
the original ship the surviving hull structure fit. The only diagnostic feature in
this regard is the presence of sacrificial sheathing that at least indicates a
position below the waterline (The QAR Project 2009m).
Other wooden remains include the lower portion of the stern post, twenty four
partial hull frames, several pieces of hull planking, sacrificial planking, and treenails.
‘Construction techniques including treenail and nail fastenings and composite frames are
consistent with 18th-century construction techniques as is the red pine sheathing
covering the outer hull planking’ (Rogers, Richards & Lusardi 2005, p. 28).
A wood species analysis was performed on the wooden remains and two species
were identified: oak (Quercus sp.), white-oak type, and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris sp.)
(Newsom & Miller 2009, pp. 4-5). The geographic origin of the white oak is
indeterminate. ‘The anatomical structure is consistent with North American “live oaks,”
e.g. live oak (Q. virginana), and that of other species from similar habitats, including
certain southern European and Mediterranean species, e.g. Q. cerris’ (Newsom & Miller
2009, p. 5). The Scots pine geographic distribution includes ‘Spain, France, Scotland,
43
Northern Europe and Scandinavia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Turkey, and Russia’ (Newsom
& Miller 2009, p. 6).
Both a large and small bell have been recovered from the wreck site. The large
bell was recovered during the initial dive on the wreck site. Its exact position was not
recorded and it is speculated that it came from the central portion of the wreck site
(Wilde-Ramsing 2007, p. 6). The bell weights 21 lbs (9.5 kg) and is 8.66 inches (21.99
cm) high with a base diameter of 8.27 inches (27.01 cm) (Wilde-Ramsing 2007, p. 2).
The bell is made of a bronze alloy with a composition of 81% copper and 19% tin alloy
(Wilde-Ramsing 2007, p. 2). This type of bronze alloy has the same characteristics as
‘bell metal’ commonly used in Spain during the eighteenth century (Wilde-Ramsing
2007, p. 5). The bell has an upper inscription that reads ‘HIS Maria’ and a lower
inscription which reads ‘ANO DE 1705’ (Wilde-Ramsing 2007, p. 2), which is
indicative of Spanish origin. The small bell weighs 14.64 lbs (6.64 kg) and was raised
from the stern of the wreck and has no diagnostic markings (The QAR Project 2009d).
There are four stock-type anchors and one grapnel-type anchor associated with
the wreck site:
Perhaps the most easily identifiable features on the shipwreck are the two large
anchors that lie on the main portion of the site. A third anchor lies
approximately 50 feet [15 m] north of the primary concentration of material
while a fourth that appears to be associated with the wreck site is located about
400 feet south of this area. A smaller grapnel-type anchor is discernible lying
atop the main pile. Although accurate recording must wait for recovery and
eventual cleaning and conservation, all of the anchors have been measured to
facilitate appropriate site plan placement and initial interpretation efforts. Both
Anchors 3 and 4 have fairly well preserved wooden stocks remaining in situ
(The QAR Project 2009a, p. 172).
From the available physical data it was determined that the three large anchors at
the site were rated ‘for a vessel of 250 to 350 tons (225 to 320 tonnes) and would have
44
been too large for use on the much smaller Adventure, El Salvador, or other vessels
reportedly sunk in the inlet’ (Wilde-Ramsing 2006). The smaller fourth anchor is 8 feet
(2.4 m) in length and weighs about 600 lbs (272 kg). The grapnel-type anchor is 4 feet
10 ½ inches (1.49 m) in length and weighs about 125 lbs (57 kg) (The QAR Project
2009a).
‘A perforated semicircular lead pump sieve with three flanges was found in
1996, and a second sieve fragment was recovered in 1999. Both fragments resemble
sieves found on El Nuevo Constante, wrecked off Louisiana 1766’ (Lusardi 2006, p.
202). This is an indication that the wreck was of Spanish origin.
Other construction and rigging material recovered from the wreck site includes
lead patches and tar caulking with imbedded bovine or cow hair, iron hardware
including a rigging hook, sail cloth, cordage, and lead numerals used for draft or
compartment marking. The analyses of these artifacts have not been formally reported
but in general they are consistent with materials commonly used in eighteenth century
ship construction.
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment PM Data
Armament:
‘As of 2008 twenty-four cast iron artillery pieces have been located. Ten are
recovered and five of these have been cleaned and analyzed’ (The QAR Project 2009c).
The diagnostic data from the five cannon that have been analyzed is presented in Table
3. Three of the five cannon are of English manufacture, one of Swedish manufacture and
one of Swedish or French manufacture. With the exception of the diagnostic markings
on cannon 3, the manufacturing dates are consistent with a wrecking date of 1718.
Cannon 3
45
exhibits crudely chiseled numbers “17 3 0” running lengthwise along the first
reinforcement. According to Angus Konstam, C-3 may have originated in
France; if so, “1730” may represent the year of manufacture. Eighteenth century
French cannon were often chiseled with a date near the breech (Lusardi 2006, p.
202).
There is debate on whether the last numeral is a zero or an ‘aftermarket’ weight. The 173
may also represent the weight of the cannon in old English measure. If indeed the
numbers are a date, the wreck could not be La Concorde.
Table 3: Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Cannon Data
Cannon
Number
2
3
4
19
21
Material
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Size (lbs)
Size (kg)
Length (ft)
Length (m)
Manufacturer
6
2.7
7.5
2.3
English
4
1.8
5.5
1.7
English
1
0.5
4.0
1.2
Swedish
½
0.2
3.5
1.1
English
Date of
Manufacture
Before 1716
6
2.7
7.0
2.1
Swedish or
French
1675-1700
Possibly
1730
Yes
1690-1715
1713
Not
reported
Yes
Yes
Yes
Diagnostic
Markings
No
Several pieces of small arms have been recovered along with one gun barrel. The
barrel is similar to an English musketoon with diagnostic markings indicating English
manufacture (The QAR Project 2009g). These types of shipboard weapons were used
from the mid-17th century through the 18th century (The QAR Project 2009g).
46
Ships Tools and Instruments:
These artifacts correspond to activities that took place on any armed, wooden
sailing vessel. The categories for these artifacts are: carpentry, gunnery, medical,
navigation, restraining devices, sail making/rigging, sharpening, survey, and those of an
unknown function such as tube and wire (The QAR Project 2009n).
Three artifacts of this assemblage have yielded diagnostic information: a pair of
dividers, a syringe, and an ointment container. The dividers are similar (The QAR
Project 2009f) to a pair found on the pirate ship Whydah which sank 26 April 1717
(Lusardi 2006, p. 132). The syringe and ointment container are French in origin (The
QAR Project 2009h).
Food Preparation and Storage Equipment:
This assemblage of artifacts consists of cask hoops, staves and heads, sherds
from ceramic jars, pewter flatware, pewter utensils, glass bottles, and stemware. Several
of these artifacts provide diagnostic information.
The pewter flatware is of English origin as reported on the QAR website (The
QAR Project 2009i):
So far a total of fifteen pewter flatware artifacts, whole or fragmentary, have
been analyzed. They represent six plates, three dishes, and three chargers. From
their legible makers marks at least four of the flatware vessels were made in
England by London pewterers George Hammond, John Stiles and Henry
Sewdley during the late 17th and early 18th century. Pewter flatware could have
been carried on a ship for a number of reasons: as cargo, as trade goods (for
example on slavers), as scrap metal or as tableware. The locations of most of the
flatware (recovered and still in situ) on this wreck are in or towards the stern of
the ship. The Captain and higher-ranking crew normally ate in the stern area of
ships and might be expected to use pewter tableware.
47
Several glass bottle and bottle fragments have been analyzed; these date to the
17th or 18th century and were manufactured in England and France (Carnes-McNaughton
& Wilde-Ramsing 2008, pp. 8-9). Ceramic sherds recovered from the site have been
analyzed and found to be consistent with French and Italian ceramics from the 17th
through 19th centuries (Carnes-McNaughton 2008, p. 19). The last piece of diagnostic
data comes from a wine glass stem. ‘The style of this molded stemware wine glass has a
baluster stem and a straight-sided funnel bowl. It exhibits embossed crowns and
diamonds and is associated with the coronation of George I’ (The QAR Project 2009l).
Slavery Equipment and Trade Goods:
It is unsure whether any artifacts associated with the slave trade have been
recovered although several leg irons have been recovered and are hypothesized to have
been from the slave trade.
Restraining devices in the form of leg irons are common on ships of the eighteenth
century as a means to deal with unruly sailors. Two examples of leg irons, also called
shackles or bilboes, have been recovered from the QAR site so far. One shackle was
identified via X-radiography and still remains in concretion. The second has been
cleaned and exhibits cord wrapping in a manner as those recovered from the wrecked
slave ship Henrietta Marie. The wrapping may have helped protect the legs of the ship's
enslaved human cargo (The QAR Project 2009k).
Considering that ‘almost ninety separate sets’ (Moore & Malcom 2008, p. 28) were
recovered from the slaver Henrietta Marie and twenty four sets from the former slaver
Whydah (Hamilton 2007, p. 144), it is likely that the two sets recovered from QAR were
just used for crew discipline.
Five glass beads, three complete and two damaged, have been recovered and
conserved from the wreck site to date (Carnes-McNaughton & Myers 2007, p. 2). The
analysis of these beads by the QAR team concluded that: ‘Clearly the archaeological
presence of both tobacco accoutrement and now the presence of glass beads, including
48
one of African manufacture, at least suggest that the vessel was once associated with the
transportation of slaves during its lifetime’ (Carnes-McNaughton & Myers 2007, p. 8).
Beads of this type were common in the slave trade as trade goods and adornments. The
slaver Henrietta Marie had been carrying 2,074 lbs of beads, much of which were sold
on its last voyage before it wrecked and over 11,000 beads have been recovered from the
wreck site (Moore & Malcom 2008, p. 29). The recovery of just five beads from the
Beaufort Inlet site leads to the inference that these beads were probably part of the
crew’s personal property in the form of adornments.
Crew Personal Effects PM Data
This assemblage of artifacts consists of crew apparel, recreational items, tobacco,
currency, and jewelry adornment. Several of these artifacts provide diagnostic
information. A pair of cuff links were found in concretion and date to the 18th century
time period (The QAR Project 2009e). Pipe fragments recovered from the wreck site
appear to be of English origin based on observable manufacturing traits. No
fragments exhibit a maker's mark of any type. Therefore dating of these pipes
fragments was based on two observations (bowl shape and bore diameter) and
calculated in three ways to assess a chronological dimension to the assemblage.
Based on bowl shape using Oswald's observations (as seen in Noel Hume's 1969
text), three pipes date to the general period of 1690 to 1750 in manufacture,
while one appears to date earlier to the 1680 to 1710 period. Using Harrington's
observation of bore diameter changes from 17th to 18th century (generally bore
diameters became proportionately smaller - narrower - as the stem grew longer)
which are subdivided into five distinct categories of diameter (ranging from
9/64th of an inch to 4/64 of and inch as the latest), the nine measurable stem
fragments fall into the 1680 to the 1710 period of manufacture (The QAR
Project 2009j).
49
AM Historical Research Data
La Concorde first appears in the historical record in 1710 when it was acquired
by René Montaudouin (Lawrence 2009a), considered to be ‘one of the most successful
slave traders in Nantes (Lusardi 2006, p. 196)’, France. The ship was described as being
a ‘300-ton frigate armed with 26 cannon’ (Lawrence 2009a). Montaudouin acquired La
Concorde during the War of Spanish Succession (Queen Anne’s War) and operated it
initially as a privateer (Lawrence 2009a).
French historical records recount three slaving voyages: 1713, 1715, and the final
voyage as a slaver in 1717 (Lusardi 2006, p. 196). It was during this final voyage in
1717 that La Concorde was captured by Edward Thatch or Teach, also known as
Blackbeard the pirate (Lusardi 2006, p. 196).
The final voyage began on 24 March 1717 in Nantes (Lusardi 2006, p. 196). The
vessel was described at the time by two of its officers as a 200 ton (181 tonnes) vessel
armed with sixteen cannon (Lawrence 2009b). La Concorde sailed to Judah, Africa and
loaded slaves on 8 July 1717 (Lusardi 2006, p. 196). It then embarked on the final leg of
the outbound voyage destined for the island of Martinique (Lusardi 2006, p. 196).
Nearing the completion of its transatlantic journey La Concorde was captured by
Blackbeard just off the Island of St. Vincent on 28 November 1717 (Lusardi 2006, p.
196). The pirates released most of the French crew on the island of Bequia (Lusardi
2006, p. 196). ‘The cabin boy and three of his fellow French crewmen voluntarily joined
the pirates, and ten others were taken by force including the pilot, three surgeons, two
carpenters, two sailors, and a cook’ (Lawrence & Wilde-Ramsing 2001, p. 2).
Blackbeard then renamed the ship Queen Anne’s Revenge (Lawrence & Wilde-Ramsing
2001, p. 2).
Late in November of 1717 the pirates captured and burned Great Allen near St.
Lucia or St. Vincent Island (Lawrence & Wilde-Ramsing 2001, p. 3). Their plunder
50
from the Great Allen consisted of ‘a great deal of plate and a very fine cup’ (Lawrence
2009b). QAR was then descried as a ‘French ship of 32 guns’ (Lawrence 2009b).
On 5 December 1717, off Crab Island (Present day Isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico),
the sloop Margaret of St. Christophers was seized (Lawrence 2009b). Henry Bostock,
master of Margaret of St. Christophers, described seeing the plunder from the Great
Allen and described QAR as a Dutch-built French guineaman with 36 guns (Lawrence
2009b).
‘From there, a former captive reported that the pirates were headed to Samana
Bay in Hispaniola (Dominican Republic). No historic records have been located to
chronicle Blackbeard’s movements during the first three months of 1718…’ (Lawrence
2009b).
During this period, Blackbeard may have switched his French flagship La
Concorde for a forty-gun English ship, based on a deposition reporting a third
hand account (Morange 1718). While there is no further documentation to
corroborate this vague mention, the possibility cannot be dismissed, thus adding
to the uncertainty surrounding the origins of the vessel known as Queen Anne’s
Revenge (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 192).
Using his flagship QAR and three smaller sloops, Blackbeard blockaded the Port
of Charleston, South Carolina, in May of 1718 (Lusardi 2006, p. 197). Having plundered
numerous ships and after demanding and receiving a ransom of medical supplies, he
headed northward to North Carolina (Lusardi 2006, p. 197). During the Charleston
blockade Blackbeard’s ship was described as ‘a large French ship mounted with 40
guns’ (Lawrence 2009b).
Attempting to enter Topsail Inlet (present day Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina) on
10 June 1718, ‘the Queen Anne’s Revenge struck on the bar and became a total wreck.
Of three sloops in company, one was also wrecked on the bar’ (Laughton 1898, p. 1).
51
This was the sloop Adventure which was lost when Blackbeard ordered it back to assist
QAR in getting off the bar (Lusardi 2006, p. 197).
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring
Dating
The artifact assemblage collected to date, with one exception, is consistent with a
wrecking date of 1718 or before. Cannon 3, with a possible date of 1730, is the singular
exception. There is debate over whether the chiseled numbers on the cannon represent, a
weight or date, and until this is resolved this category is scored a 2.
Vessel Construction and Rigging
The analysis of the vessel’s remains and rigging hardware indicate that it was
probably constructed in the late 1600’s or early 1700’s, an estimate consistent with a
wrecking date of 1718. The AM data collected for La Concorde places the vessels size
between 200 and 300 tons (181 and 272 tonnes). The analyses of the anchor and
scantling data are consistent with a vessel of between 200 and 300 tons (181 and 272
tonnes) as well. Wood analysis conducted indicates that the ship was constructed of
European timber suggesting a European build. Unfortunately the analysis of the
construction techniques does not help narrow down the origin or nationality of the
wreck since ship building techniques from this era are not documented sufficiently to
make such determinations possible (Rogers, Richards & Lusardi 2005, p. 34).
It is assumed from the AM data that La Concorde was a French-built ship yet the
bell and pump sieve analyzed are of Spanish origin. If the wreck proves to be Spanishbuilt then the Beaufort Inlet wreck is not La Concorde. Since La Concorde’s history
before 1710 is currently unavailable and the data comparison is based on the available
52
AM data, this category is scored a 2 - the historical and archaeological data are not
consistent in sufficient detail to establish that they belong to the proposed ship.
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
The comparison of the AM to PM data for this category has yielded several
inconsistencies, the first being the cannon. Of the twenty four pieces that have been
located to date, ten have been recovered and five of these have been analyzed. Of the
five, three are English, one is Swedish, and one is either Swedish or French. This is
inconsistent with La Concorde being a French vessel. Why would a French naval vessel,
a frigate, be armed with English cannon? Montaudouin acquired La Concorde in 1710
during the War of Spanish Succession (Queen Anne’s War) (Lawrence 2009a). One
would assume that the French navy would have procured French manufactured
armament for their warships not English, since the French were at war with the English.
This inconsistency may be explained by Blackbeard transferring additional armament
from his other ships or they may have been captured and added to the vessel during the
course of the war. Be that as it may, until this is resolved the inconsistency in armament
nationality remains.
The pewter flatware analyzed so far is of English origin and no personal
markings or inscriptions that would indicate that these pieces belonged to the French
ship La Concorde have been reported (The QAR Project 2009i). Pewter flatware from
this time period was occasionally stamped or inscribed with the initials of the ship it was
associated with (Lusardi 2006, p. 217). A plate recovered from the pirate vessel Whydah
(1717) bore the initials, ‘WG’, and a plate from the British slaver Henrietta Maria was
stamped with an ‘HM’ (Lusardi 2006, p. 217). ‘None of the Beufort Inlet pewterware
has the initials “LC” (for La Concorde) or “QAR” (Queen Anne’s Revenge)’ (Lusardi
2006, p. 217).
53
There is also an absence of slave trade goods. La Concorde was captured
delivering slaves to Martinique and purportedly wrecked seven months later. There
should be some evidence of slave trade activity in the artifact assemblage. To date only
two sets of leg irons have been recovered from the site. When compared to the twenty
four sets that have been recovered from Whydah, a former slaver that was captured and
turned into a pirate vessel, it is unlikely that the two sets of leg irons found were
remnants of an earlier function as a slaver. Beads were also common in the slave trade as
trade goods but only five individual beads have been recovered from the wreck site so
far (Carnes-McNaughton & Myers 2007, p. 2).
There are inconsistencies in the armament, pewterware, and slave trade goods
AM to PM data comparisons. Since the historical and archaeological data are not
consistent in sufficient detail to establish that these items necessarily belong to the
proposed ship, the category is scored a 2. Again this is based on La Concorde’s history
before 1710 being currently unavailable and the data evaluation being based on the
available AM data.
Crew Personal Effects
Crew personal effects date to the time period of the wreck and are consistent
with that of an English crew. This category is scored a 1.
Location
The location of the wreck site is consistent with the AM data. This category is
scored a 1.
54
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
No AM data is available relative to the condition of the shipwreck and site, so
this category scored a 0.
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring
Completing the Shipwreck Identification Matrix (Table 4) for the wreckage
found at Beaufort Inlet yields a final score for the candidate ship for identification, La
Concorde, of 2. This rating is no conclusion: The historical and archaeological data in
all or part of the categories where comparisons are possible are not consistent in
sufficient detail to establish that they belong to the proposed ship.
Table 4: La Concorde Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
La Concorde
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Dating
Data
Consistency
Scoring
2
Vessel Construction and Rigging
2
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
2
Crew Personal Effects
1
Location
1
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
0
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
2
55
Conclusions
Case Study 2 used the HSIM to determine if the wreckage discovered at Beaufort
Inlet was that of La Concorde. The AM and PM data were gathered and compared for
consistency. The dating, vessel construction and rigging, and cargo and cargo handling
equipment categories all indicated that the consistency between the AM and PM data
was not sufficient enough in detail to identify the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck as La
Concorde.
56
Case Study 3: The Bark Cortland
Case Study Introduction
This case study involves applying the HSIM to a shipwreck that was discovered
in Lake Erie, north of Avon Point Ohio, USA on 30 July 2005 by the Cleveland
Underwater Explorers (CLUE) (Figure 6). The wreck was discovered while searching an
area determined through historical research to have a high probability of containing the
wreck of the bark Cortland. Since the wreck was discovered in the area where Cortland
supposedly sank, Cortland is the candidate ship posited for identification of the
shipwreck found.
Figure 6: Location of the Bark Cortland
(Map: David M. VanZandt)
57
Shipwreck Site
The wreck is located approximately 20 miles (32 km) northwest of Cleveland,
Ohio and approximately 10 miles (16 km) north of Avon Point, Ohio (Figure 6). A highresolution sidescan sonar survey conducted at the wreck site revealed that the shipwreck
is comprised of three distinct sections (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Sidescan Image of Cortland Wreck Site
(Sidescan Image: David M. VanZandt)
The three sections were identified during preliminary dives as the bow, a piece of
decking, and the stern. The midship section of the wreck was not seen and is thought to
have collapsed due to the weight of the cargo it was carrying. The stern section is lying
on its starboard side almost completely buried leaving only a small portion of the port
side exposed. It is square constructed and several frames are visible.
The hull at the bow is intact from the stem to just aft of the forecastle deck and
windlass. A bowsprit is present. The bow rests on its starboard side at an angle of
approximately forty-five degrees and is below the lake bottom. It is kept exposed by the
scouring action of the current that flows over the wreck site. Though the starboard
gunwale is almost completely buried the port gunwale rises approximately 8 feet (2.5 m)
above the soft mud bottom. The bowsprit is partially pulled out of the bow and extends
approximately 20 feet (6 m) forward with the end being broken off. Under the bowsprit
is a distinct scroll head (Figure 8).
58
Figure 8: Scroll Head of the Bark Cortland
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
There is a three-foot (one m) high, slatted, forecastle deck on the bow section. A
capstan, two catheads and a pawl bit with rocker assembly are found on this deck. Below
the rocker are two holes in the deck where drive rods for actuating a bilge pump would
have been placed. Along the gunwales on either side are line chocks for anchor cables or
dock lines. A windlass, still wrapped with anchor chain, is located just aft and below the
forecastle deck. The ship’s bell (size 4), which had detached and fallen from the bell
holder on the pawl bit during or subsequent to the sinking, was found sitting on top of
the windlass spool. The bell was subsequently raised and conserved at the Great Lakes
Historical Society by marine archaeologist Carrie Sowden. Further aft of the windlass
the bow section abruptly ends in a chaos of broken timbers. In this mass of broken
timbers at the rear of the bow section is what appears to be a tapered yard, broken on one
end.
59
The stern, like the bow, is almost completely buried in soft, oozy mud. It lies on
its starboard side at an approximate forty-five degree angle with only a small portion of
the transom and gunwales exposed. The stern is square and has a carved lip visible along
the top of the transom. A wooden cleat and line chock are mounted in the corner of the
transom. A portion of the cabin coaming is intact along the port side and some decking
is still present. Moving forward from the transom and past the portion of cabin combing
the stern breaks up into massive frames and then disappears into the soft, mud bottom.
Planking on the port side of the stern is of carvel construction, square joined, and
fastened with two bolts and two spikes per frame
PM Archaeological Data
There is limited archaeological information from this wreck site due to its recent
discovery and only a few preliminary dives performed during the initial reconnaissance
survey. The archaeological data collected to date is tabularized in Table 5:
Table 5: Cortland PM Archaeological Data
Cortland PM Archaeological Data
Wooden construction
Sail powered
Carvel built
Square plank joining
Planking fastened with two spikes and two Capstan on forecastle deck
bolts per frame
Heavily kneed construction
Square transom
Scroll head
Bell with foundry marking showing bell
was manufactured by Rumsey &
Company, Seneca Falls, New York and
was size 4
Rocker activated forward pump
Bow and stern sections resting at
approximately 45 degrees to starboard in
soft mud.
Midships section assumed collapsed and
Location about 20 miles (32 km) NW of
silted over
Cleveland, Ohio and about 10 miles (16
km) N of Avon Point, Ohio
60
AM Historical Research Data on Cortland
Master builder, Albert G. Huntley, of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, constructed the
clipper-style bark Cortland in 1867 (Sholes 1867, p. 1). Cortland was built at the request
of Asahel P. Lyman Esquire, a respected Sheboygan businessman in the mercantile field
(Sholes 1867, p. 1). At that time it was the largest schooner ever built in Sheboygan and
became the pride of Lyman’s fleet (The Sheboygan Press 1930, p. 3). Mr. Lyman spared
little expense in its construction which cost approximately $50,000.00, a considerable
sum in 1867 (Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, p. 3). Captain and master of the vessel, James
W. Louden, supervised the construction from the initial laying of the keel to the final
rigging of the sails (Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, p. 3). Captain Louden, a thorough and
experienced seaman, had been in Mr. Lyman’s employ for over seven years (Milwaukee
Sentinel 1867, p. 3).
On the morning of 21 June 1868, Cortland, under the command of Captain
Louden, was downbound the Lakes from Sheboygan, Wisconsin (Cleveland Leader
1868a, p. 3). It carried a crew of 11, one passenger, and a cargo of 891 gross tons (982
tonnes) of iron ore (Cleveland Leader 1868a, p. 3; McDonald 1958, pp. 311-3). The ore
had been loaded at Escanaba, Michigan and was destined for the steel mills of
Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland Leader 1868a, p. 3).
The evening of the same day the steamer Morning Star, under the command of
Captain E. R. Viger, departed Cleveland Harbor at half past ten o’clock on its usual
Cleveland to Detroit passenger and freight run (Cleveland Leader 1868b, p. 3). Its
departure time was unusually late due to a last minute load of freight. Morning Star
carried a crew of thirty-eight, cabin passengers and emigrants along with a cargo of 80
tons (72 tonnes) of iron and a small quantity of miscellaneous freight (Cleveland Daily
Herald 1868b, p. 3; Cleveland Leader 1868c, p. 3). The Cleveland Leader described the
weather conditions that evening as dark and rainy with ‘a peculiar mist penetrating the
air’ (Cleveland Leader 1868b, p. 3).
61
Around midnight on 21 June 1868 Andrew Brown, a seaman on watch standing
on the ‘Gallant fore Castle’ of Cortland, saw the lights of an approaching steamer
(McDonald 1958, pp. 311-3). He reported the sighting to the first mate, who, after going
aft and returning with some glasses (binoculars), confirmed that a large steamboat was
approaching (McDonald 1958, pp. 311-3). Cortland’s position was approximately 26
nautical miles (42 km) above Cleveland, running on a port tack and ‘bearing east by
north half north with the wind north by east, a fresh breeze’ (Cleveland Leader 1868a, p.
3). Morning Star was on its normal run from Cleveland to Detroit via Pelee Passage
traveling on a northwest bearing at a speed between ten and twelve miles per hour (16 19 kph) (Cleveland Leader 1868b, p. 3). At nearly 15 minutes of one o’clock in the
morning Captain Viger of Morning Star was on watch along with the second mate, a
lookout, and the helmsman when they heard Cortland’s bell (Cleveland Daily Herald
1868a, p. 3). Before Captain Viger had time to issue stopping orders, Morning Star
collided with Cortland ‘near the mizzen rigging on her starboard side’ (McDonald
1958, pp. 311-3).
The force of the crash was enormous and was described by a reporter from The
Plain Dealer (The Plain Dealer 1868, p. 3):
… while Captain Viger was still on deck, two bells from a sail vessel were
heard and before the engines of the Morning Star could be stopped she
struck the bark Cortland with her full force. The bark was laden with iron
ore, yet such was the force of the Star that she passed nearly through her. As
the two vessels collided such was the force of collision that the two anchors
of the Star were thrown from their position on the lower deck across the
bark one of them passing completely over the vessel, holding her closely
confined, brought her stern directly against the wheel house of the steamer.
The force of the waves soon beat the wheel house and the wheel to pieces,
rendering it completely useless.
62
The bow of Morning Star was ripped completely open and it sank in
approximately fifteen minutes. Cortland, once free of Morning Star’s anchors, drifted
away and sank about an hour and a half later (Cleveland Daily Herald 1868b, p. 3).
The final death toll was never determined but it has been estimated that at least
30 people lost their lives2. Following the common practice of the time, only paying
adult passengers, not children or emigrants, were recorded on the passenger manifest of
Morning Star. This practice, coupled with the fact that many of the bodies were never
recovered, leaves the final toll in human lives unknown.
The cause of the accident between Morning Star and Cortland was determined
later to be faulty navigational lighting on Cortland. About twenty minutes prior to the
collision the mate of Cortland removed the green lantern, which was burning dimly,
from the mizzen rigging and took it inside to trim the wick (McDonald 1958, p. 311-3).
Just as he returned the lamp to the rigging, Morning Star struck Cortland at that precise
point killing the mate on impact (McDonald 1958, p. 311-3).
Cortland’s official enrollment shows the vessel measured 173.6 feet (52.9 m) in
length, 34.4 feet (10.5 m) in breath and 13.8 feet (4.2 m) in depth (Figure 9) (Sholes
1867, p. 1). Its cargo capacity was 636.99 tons (702.15 tonnes) under deck and 39.14
tons (43.14 tonnes) on deck, endowing it with a total cargo carrying capacity of 676.13
tons (745.30 tonnes) (Sholes 1867, p. 1). This made it one of the largest vessels ever
built on the Great Lakes during this time period (The Sheboygan Press 1930, p. 3). It
was constructed with a square stern and well adorned with a scroll head (Sholes 1867, p.
1). It had one deck, three masts, and its official enrollment number was 15 (Sholes 1867,
p. 1). Cortland’s enrollment was duly signed by A. L. Sholes, Collector of Customs, on
21 August 1867 (Sholes 1867, p. 1).
2
Author’s calculation from various newspaper accounts
63
Figure 9: Cortland Official Enrollment Document
(Image: Jim Paskert Collection)
64
When the newly-launched Cortland arrived in the Port of Milwaukee its large
size and graceful lines caused quite a stir along the dock. The Milwaukee Sentinel
reported, ‘A large number of our citizens visited the Cortland yesterday and all united in
pronouncing her one of the most complete vessels ever built on the lakes’ (Milwaukee
Sentinel 1867, p. 3).
The Milwaukee Sentinel (Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, p. 3) further described the
details of Cortland’s construction:
Her hull is of the greatest possible strength, the frames being 12x15 at the
bottom, 12x8 at the top, and 22 inches from center to center; stanchions 8 inches
square; outside plank 4 inches thick; garboard streaks respectively 8, 7 and 6
inches thick, scarfed and keyed; the planking is square fastened, with two bolts
and two spikes in each frame, and the ceiling, besides, is edge bolted
throughout. Her main keelson is 18x40, sister keelsons 10x22, pocket pieces
18x36. There are two center boards, one 24 and the other 22 feet, made of 12, 10
and 8 inch plank. She has five breast-hooks forward, secured with beams, which
in turn are kneed off thoroughly; three similar hooks aft add greatly to the
strength of the stern. Her deck frames are kneed off and nailed in a manner
similar to those of the Homer, while two lines of beam supporters extend the
entire length of the vessel, just outside the combings of the hatches. The
windlass pits, tow posts and snubbing posts are extra heavy and kneed off, and
the shifting boards in the hold are let in between stanchions. Her spars are
towering and massive, yet well proportioned and graceful in appearance.
Asahel P. Lyman, Esquire must have been very proud of Cortland because he
commissioned a photograph of the vessel, a very unusual event at this time since
photography was in its infancy and very expensive (Figure 10). This photographic
evidence confirms the description of the vessel recorded on the enrollment paper and
printed in the Milwaukee Sentinel in addition to showing that Cortland was
‘barquentine’ rigged with the foremast being square rigged and the main and
mizzenmasts fore-and-aft rigged.
65
Figure 10: Only Known Picture of the Bark Cortland
(Photo: Center for Archival Collections, Bowling Green State University)
AM to PM Data Evaluation
Dating
So far the only artifact examined that has a dating potential is the ship’s bell. The
manufacturer’s information cast on the bell shows that it was manufactured between
1863 and 1890. This is the time period that the manufacturer, Rumsey & Co, had a
facility in Seneca Falls, New York, USA. Although this data puts the bell in the same
time period as Cortland, this category is scored a 0 because the time period is too broad
and provides insufficient evidence on which to base a positive identification.
66
Vessel Construction and Rigging
The AM/PM data comparison (Table 6) is shown as follows:
Table 6: Cortland AM/PM Data Comparison
AM Ship Data
PM Archeological Data
Two capstans, one mounted forward and
one mounted amidships, and square stern
Scroll head
Bell mounted at forecastle deck
Planking square fastened with two bolts
and two spikes per frame
Two pumps, one amidships, one forward
Capstan mounted forward on forecastle
deck and square stern
Scroll head
Bell mounted at forecastle deck
Planking square fastened with two bolts
and two spikes per frame
Forward pump on and below forecastle
deck
Location: approx 20 miles (32 km) NW of
Cleveland, Ohio and approx 10 miles (16
km) N of Avon Point, Ohio (Locational
data has been left approx as the
coordinates of the wreck have not been
publically released)
Location: approx 20 miles (32 km) NW of
Cleveland, Ohio and approx 10 miles (16
km) N of Avon Point, Ohio
Although at this time the archaeological data is sparse, the available data
comparison is very consistent and the category is scored a 1.
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
No cargo or cargo handling equipment has been found to date. There is
circumstantial evidence, assuming that the midship section of the wreck is collapsed,
that the cargo was very heavy and possibly iron ore (conjecture). The AM data indicates
that Cortland had cargo shifting boards in the holds between stanchions (Milwaukee
Sentinel 1867, p. 3). The shifting boards would have held the cargo in place putting a
tremendous strain on the timbers with Cortland resting at an angle on the bottom
(Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, p. 3). This was probably the direct cause of the collapsed
67
midship section of the wreck. However since this has yet to be proven as fact the
category is scored a 0.
Crew Personal Effects
No crew personal effects have been found to date. This category is scored a 0.
Location
The location of the wreck is consistent with the calculated and reported position
ascertained from the AM data. A search of shipwreck databases shows no other ships of
this type known to be lost in this area. This category is scored a 1.
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
The condition of the shipwreck and site is consistent with the AM data. Cortland
was reportedly struck on its starboard side and had its centerboards down (McDonald
1958, p. 313). The damage incurred on the starboard side with the centerboards down
would cause the ship to sink and come to rest on its starboard side on the bottom. The
wreck currently is lying on its starboard side in a soft mud bottom. The divers that
salvaged the rigging from Cortland reported, ‘…the bottom of the lake covered with
several feet of soft mud, in which the vessel is imbedded, and it is thought to be almost
an impossibility to ever raise her to the surface. She now lies nearly on her side with the
mud nearly or quite over her bulwarks’ (Cleveland Daily Herald 1868c, p. 3).
Since the AM/PM data comparison is consistent, this category is scored a 1.
68
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring
Completing the Shipwreck Identification Matrix (Table 7) for the wreckage
found yields a final score for the candidate ship for identification, Cortland, of 1. This
rating is identification: The historical and archaeological data in all categories where
comparisons are possible are consistent in sufficient detail to establish that they belong
to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies. The shipwreck is the
ship proposed.
Table 7: Cortland Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
Cortland
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Dating
Data
Consistency
Scoring
0
Vessel Construction and Rigging
1
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
0
Crew Personal Effects
0
Location
1
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
1
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
1
69
Conclusions
Case Study 3 applied the HSIM to determine if the wreckage discovered
approximately 20 miles (32 km) NW of Cleveland, Ohio and approximately 10 miles
(16 km) N of Avon Point, Ohio was that of Cortland. The AM and PM data were
gathered and compared for consistency. The vessel construction and rigging, location,
and condition of the shipwreck categories all indicated a consistent match between the
AM and PM data. The consistency of the data match was sufficient enough in detail to
establish the identification of the wreckage as Cortland.
70
Case Study 4: The Sidewheel Steamer Anthony Wayne
Case Study Introduction
This case study involves applying the HSIM to a shipwreck discovered in Lake
Erie, north of Vermilion, Ohio, USA on 16 September 2006 by CLUE member Tom
Kowalczk (Figure 11). The wreck was discovered while searching an area determined
through historical research to have a high probability of containing the wreck of the
sidewheel steamboat Anthony Wayne. Since the wreck was discovered in an area where
Anthony Wayne supposedly sank it is the candidate ship posited for identification of the
shipwreck found.
Figure 11: Location of Anthony Wayne
(Map: David M. VanZandt)
71
Shipwreck Site
The wreck is located 16.7 miles (26.9 km) from the mouth of Sandusky Bay and
7.3 miles (11.7 km) north of Vermilion, Ohio (Figure 11). It has been designated site
33ER556 by the State of Ohio. A high-resolution sidescan sonar survey was conducted
of the wreck site and revealed that the shipwreck was in two distinct sections and
possibly silted over (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Sidescan of Anthony Wayne Wreck Site
(Sidescan Image: Tom Kowalczk)
Preliminary dives determined that the shipwreck site consists of two exposed
sections, the midship section and the bow section. The wreck lies with the bow facing
approximately south and the aft section facing approximately north. The midship section
consists of the paddlewheels, mechanical drive system, and some remains of the hull.
72
The starboard sidewheel was found stripped of its outer arms with just an
exposed hub outboard. The port sidewheel is more intact with a nearly full set of
undamaged buckets on the lower portion of the wheel. Each bucket is divided into three
sections with two center radial supports. The total width of each bucket is 8 feet (2.4 m)
with the center section about 5 feet (1.5 m) long. The inner and outer sections of the
bucket to the housing edges measured 3 feet (1 m) each. The outside radius of the port
sidewheel measures 12 feet (3.7 m) from the center hub to the outer bucket, and 20 arms
are counted around the outside of the hub. The port sidewheel is 24 feet in diameter (7.3
m). Each sidewheel has an independent shaft with a crank that connects at the center of
the ship to a horizontal Pittman arm. There is approximately 2 feet (0.6 m) of hull
remaining above the sidewheel shafts. At this point from the interior of the port side of
the hull to the interior of the starboard side of the hull measures 25 feet (7.6 m). From
the interior of the starboard side of the hull to the centerline between the two shafts
measures 13 feet (4.0 m). The sidewheel shafts measure 1 foot (0.3 m) in diameter and
the cranks measure approximately 3 feet (1 m) in length to the pin joint. The pin joint is
complicated and appears to have an extra linkage connecting the crank to the Pittman
arm on the port side (Figure 13). The Pittman arm itself measures 20 feet (6.1 m) long
before disappearing into the silt. The cross section of the Pittman arm near the pin joint
is 6 inches (15 cm) wide by 12 inches (30 cm) high. There is a cylinder, possibly a steam
expander, standing near the end of the Pittman arm; that measures 28 inches (71 cm) in
diameter and stands 38 inches (97 cm) high. The hole in the top of the cylinder measures
9 inches (23 cm) in diameter. No linkages are associated with this vertical cylinder and
there is a small open space underneath it. To the east side of the pin joint of the Pittman
arm is another standing cylinder with a cross head linkage at the top and with piping
coming off its side. It is thought that this is an air pump. The cylinder measures 18
inches (46 cm) in diameter.
73
Figure 13: Pittman Arm Linkage of Anthony Wayne
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
There are two connecting links that commence at the sidewheel shaft on the
starboard side and extend forward before turning 90 degrees downwards and
disappearing into the silt. These are control linkages that run from the cams on the shaft
to the valves on the steam engine. All of the equipment observed is consistent with a
horizontal steam engine and the engine and boilers are likely present but buried low in
the hull underneath the silt forward of the Pittman arm.
The bow consists of the stem and some railing located approximately 75 feet (23
m) forward from the midship section (Figure 14). There are two wood-stock anchors still
attached to either side of the bow almost completely buried in the silt. Emerging from
the silt approximately 10 feet (3 m) behind the stem are two small knightheads.
74
Figure 14: Bow of Anthony Wayne
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
A preliminary site plan of Anthony Wayne, produced by Brad Kruger of Texas A
& M University, is presented in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Anthony Wayne Site Plan
(Image: Bradley A. Krueger)
75
Excavation of the wreck site began in the spring of 2009 headed by Bradley A.
Krueger of Texas A & M University with support provided by the Great Lakes
Historical Society (GLHS) and the Cleveland Underwater Explorers (CLUE). The
purpose of the excavation was to determine and assess the remains of the wreck that
were buried beneath the silt. The initial excavation began on the port side of the wreck
forward of the paddlewheel’s axis to follow the hull side to the turn of the bilge to
determine the depth and condition of the bottom of the hull. This effort continued down
approximately 10 feet (3 m) until the excavation effort was refocused and moved to the
center of the wreck forward of the paddlewheel’s axis to determine if the engine and
other mechanical equipment were still present. The excavation of this area uncovered the
Pittman arm to crosshead linkage (Figure 16), four poppet steam valves for engine
operation (Figure 17), and a high pressure, horizontal, crosshead steam engine (Figure
18).
Figure 16: Anthony Wayne Crosshead Linkage
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
76
Figure 17: Anthony Wayne Poppet Steam Valve and Linkage
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
Figure 18: Anthony Wayne High Pressure Steam Engine Cylinder Head
(Photo: David M. VanZandt)
77
PM Archaeological Data
Archaeological information from this wreck site is limited due to the wreck’s
recent discovery with only a few preliminary dives performed during the initial
reconnaissance survey and excavation just beginning. The archaeological data collected
to date is listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Anthony Wayne PM Archaeological Data
Anthony Wayne PM Archaeological Data
Wooden construction
Two wood-stock anchor
Carvel built
Steam power, high pressure, horizontal
engine
Square plank joining
Steam expander (speculation)
Two side paddlewheels
Crosshead air pump (speculation)
Paddlewheel diameter: 24 feet (7.3 m) Approx beam: 25 feet (7.6 m), interior
(measured 12 feet (3.7 m) from hub to measurement at the paddlewheel axles
end of arm)
Paddlewheel axles, cranks, and pin
joint connection to Pittman arm
AM Historical Research Data
The sidewheel steamer Anthony Wayne (also know as ‘Mad Anthony’ and
‘General Wayne’) was built in 1837 at Perrysburgh, Ohio by master carpenter, Samuel
L. Hubble, for the Perrysburgh & Miami Steamboat Company (Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary 2009a). Heyl states that it was ‘first known as the GENERAL WAYNE,
she was enrolled at Buffalo in early 1839 as ANTHONY WAYNE; in newspaper notices
she is usually listed just as WAYNE’ (Heyl 1964, p. 99). There is some uncertainty as to
the original name of the vessel since all the official vessel enrollments from the Port of
Miami, Ohio have been lost, but the enrollments from 28 September 1839 on list its
name as Anthony Wayne (Stubbins 1839, p. 1).
78
Anthony Wayne’s official enrollment from 28 September 1839 lists the vessel as
measuring 156 feet (47.5 m) in length, 25 feet 9 inches (7.8 m) in breath and 10 feet 3
inches (3.1 m) in depth and measures 390 and 46/95 ‘tuns’ (354.3 tonnes) (Stubbins
1839, p. 1). It was constructed as a steam boat with three decks, one mast, no galleries,
and a scroll head (Stubbins 1839). It was powered by a 120 horsepower, vertical
crosshead steam engine manufactured by Hathaway & Company in 1836 (US Treasury
Department 1838, p. 339). The vertical crosshead engine frame is clearly visible in the
wood cut of Anthony Wayne made shortly after its launch (Figure 19) and in a scaled
hand drawing made by Heyl (Heyl 1964, p. 99) (Figure 20).
Figure 19: Wood Cut of Anthony Wayne
(Wood Cut: J. W. Orr, Mariners Museum, Newport News, VA)
79
Figure 20: Scaled Drawing of Anthony Wayne
(Heyl 1964, p. 99)
Anthony Wayne began its career carrying passengers and freight between
Perrysburgh and Toledo, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York (Cleveland Daily Herald &
Gazette 1838, p. 2). It continued this service until 1847 when it ‘was seriously damaged
in an accident on Lake Erie’ (Heyl 1964, p. 99). It was towed to Monroe, Michigan,
stripped of its engine and associated mechanical equipment and sold to Charles Howard
Esquire who had it towed to Detroit to be converted into a sailing ship (Cleveland
Weekly Herald 1847, p. 3). The engine from Anthony Wayne was put into the steamer
Baltimore, newly constructed at Monroe, Michigan in 1847 (Cleveland Weekly Herald
1847, p. 3).
The hull was subsequently towed to Trenton, Michigan where it was extensively
rebuilt ‘from the keel up in 1848 and 9’ (The Daily Sanduskian 1850c, p. 2). It was
rebuilt by D. W. Donahue as a steamer not as a sailing vessel as originally planned (The
Daily Sanduskian 1850c, p. 2). New boilers manufactured by Wolcott & Co. at Detroit,
Michigan were installed in the spring of 1849 (The Daily Sanduskian 1850c, p. 2). The
engine installed in the rebuilt Anthony Wayne was a high pressure, 150 horsepower,
horizontal, crosshead, steam engine salvaged from the steamer Columbus (Heyl 1956, p.
93; Sandusky Clarion 1849, p. 2; Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2009b).
80
Anthony Wayne was re-enrolled at the Port of Detroit on 21 April 1949
(Nawmond 1849, p. 1). The new enrollment lists the rebuilt vessel as measuring 155 feet
(47.2 m) in length, 27 feet 4 inches (8.3 m) in breath, 10 feet (3.0 m) in depth and
measuring 400 and 80/95 tons (363 tonnes) (Nawmond 1849, p. 1). The enrollment
further indicates that the rebuilt vessel had one deck, one mast, no galleries, and a plain
head (Nawmond 1849, p. 1). The new, rebuilt Anthony Wayne was significantly different
from the original Anthony Wayne. Some of the major changes included a steam engine
change from a vertical style engine to a horizontal style engine and a reduction in the
number of decks from the original three deck design to a design that featured only one
deck.
Anthony Wayne re-entered passenger and freight service in 1849 running on the
Toledo line (Toledo to Sandusky to Cleveland, Ohio, to Buffalo, New York and return)
(Buffalo Morning Express 1849, p. 2). It continued in that service until 28 April 1850,
when some seven miles (11 km) north of Vermilion, Ohio when its boilers exploded
(The Daily Sanduskian 1850a, p. 2).
Anthony Wayne had arrived in Sandusky, Ohio the previous morning from
Toledo, Ohio on its normal Toledo to Buffalo run (Mansfield 1899, p. 660). It left
Sandusky at 10:00 pm bound for Cleveland when, about two and a half hours later, north
of Vermilion, the starboard boilers exploded (Mansfield 1899, p. 660). The explosion
was so violent that it blew the two under-deck starboard boilers up through the main
deck where they landed perpendicular to the hull (Mansfield 1899, p. 660). The cabins
above the boilers were torn away and the hull badly damaged (Mansfield 1899, p. 660).
The ship sank within ten minutes of the explosion (The Daily Sanduskian 1850b,
p. 2). ‘When the Wayne went down, she was on fire, and the flames were just bursting
out…’ (The Janesville (Wis.) Gazette 1850, p. 4) and ‘…the hurricane deck separated
from it and remained afloat, held to the boat by the rudder chains, the mast and the
shrouds’ (The Daily Sanduskian 1850b, p. 2).
81
AM to PM Data Evaluation and Scoring
Dating
No artifacts have been recovered or dated. This category is scored a 0.
Vessel Construction and Rigging
The AM/PM data comparison (Table 9) is shown as follows:
Table 9: Anthony Wayne AM/PM Data Comparison
AM Ship Data
PM Archeological Data
Sidewheel steamer style construction
Horizontal steam engine
Distance from bow stem to paddlewheel
axis calculated from iconography: 80.75
feet (Mariners Museum image), 92.5 feet
(Heyl scaled image)
Wooden construction
Carvel Built
Location of accident: about 18 miles (29
km) from the mouth of Sandusky Bay and
about 8 miles (13 km) north of Vermilion,
Ohio
Severe damage due to boiler explosion and
fire: upper works, cabins, and hurricane
deck blown off during explosion and
sinking
Sidewheel steamer style construction
Horizontal steam engine
Distance from bow stem to paddlewheel
axis measured: 92 feet
Wooden construction
Carvel Built
Location of accident: 16.7 miles (26.9 km)
from the mouth of Sandusky Bay and 7.3
miles (11.7 km) north of Vermilion, Ohio
No remains of the upper works present.
Only remains, excluding paddlewheels,
from paddlewheel axles and below at
midship section of wreck and stem and
below, minus decking, at bow section
Although at this time the archaeological data is sparse, the available data
comparison is consistent and the category is scored a 1.
82
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
No cargo or cargo handling equipment has been found to date. This category is
scored a 0.
Crew Personal Effects
No crew personal effects have been found to date. This category is scored a 0.
Location
The location the wreck site is consistent with the calculated and reported position
ascertained from the AM data. A search of shipwreck databases show no other ships of
this type are known to be lost in this area. This category is scored a 1.
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
The sidewheel steamer Anthony Wayne suffered a massive boiler explosion
which threw the two starboard boilers ‘into a perpendicular position, tearing away the
steerage cabin above, and shattering the hull badly’ (Mansfield 1899, p. 680). ‘When
the boat sank the hurricane deck separated from it and remained afloat’ (The Daily
Sanduskian 1850b, p. 2). The condition of the wreck, missing all of the upper works,
cabins and decking, is consistent with a massive explosion.
The condition of the shipwreck and site is consistent with the AM data. This
category is scored a 1.
83
Final Shipwreck Identification Scoring
Completing the Shipwreck Identification Matrix (Table 10) for the wreckage
found yields a final score for the candidate ship for identification, Anthony Wayne, of 1.
This rating is identification: The historical and archaeological data in all categories
where comparisons are possible are consistent in sufficient detail to establish that they
belong to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies. The shipwreck
is the ship proposed.
Table 10: Anthony Wayne Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
Anthony Wayne
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Dating
Data
Consistency
Scoring
0
Vessel Construction and Rigging
1
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
0
Crew Personal Effects
0
Location
1
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
1
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
1
84
Conclusions
Case Study 4 used the HSIM to determine if the wreckage discovered 16.7 miles
(26.9 km) from the mouth of Sandusky Bay and 7.3 miles (11.7 km) north of Vermilion,
Ohio was that of Anthony Wayne. The AM and PM data were gathered and compared for
consistency. The vessel construction and rigging, location, and condition of the
shipwreck categories all indicated a consistent match between the AM and PM data. The
consistency of the data match was sufficient enough in detail to establish the
identification of the wreckage as Anthony Wayne.
85
Chapter 5 Discussion of Results
Case Study 1
This case study applied the HSIM to a shipwreck that was known not to be the
one posited for identification. The shipwreck was previously identified as ‘a variation of
a Mackinaw boat’ by Hundley (Hundley 1984, p. 40). Hundley’s PM data was used in
the application of the HSIM in this case study. Comparing the application and results of
the HSIM to the application and results of Hundley’s prior identification effort will serve
to demonstrate the validity of the method and, at the same time, underscore the
importance of good AM data collection techniques and research to the identification
process.
There was ample PM data available to Hundley for comparison to the AM data,
but the AM data, specifically locational information and vessel construction, was not as
thoroughly researched as it could have been. Hundley based much of his AM data on the
articles written by Murphy and relied on Murphy’s and others’ work with primary
source documents available for Griffon instead of researching the primary source
documents directly (Hundley 1984, p. var.). This is not necessarily a bad research
practice if the primary source documents are not readily available. It does, however,
introduce the possibility for overlooked, omitted, misinterpreted, and/or misstated
information leaving the value of the author’s work ultimately reliant on the best and,
quite possibly, the worst of another’s intentions and efforts.
The location of a wreck plays a key role in the identification process if adequate
and believable AM, locational data is available. At the extremes, this data can either
eliminate a posited candidate or add to the confidence level of a vessel posited for
identification. Believable data is data that does not have an ulterior motive associated
with it. This is often very hard to determine but comes into play in cases where the
86
people reporting the loss are not truthful for self-serving reasons such as scuttlings for
insurance purposes, smuggling, or simple avoidance of potential blame or liability.
Location contributed significantly to the conclusion in Case Study 1 that the
Griffon Cove wreck was not Griffon. While Hundley came to the same conclusion, his
case study did not use location as a parameter for determining the identification of the
wreck. While this did not significantly alter his conclusion, using locational information
certainly would have strengthened his position. Even though location played no role in
his analysis, Hundley presented several possible locations in his Historical Background
section stating that Griffon had been boarded by Indians and burned five or six leagues
from its anchorage and that the crew mutinied and sailed it to the west (Hundley 1984, p.
6). With just this AM information one could have concluded that Griffon probably sank
in Lake Michigan not in Griffon Cove, Lake Huron. If Hundley had researched the AM
data more thoroughly for location information he would have discovered several key
pieces of locational evidence including eyewitness accounts that saw Griffon struggle in
a storm and wreck near the Huron Islands, Lake Michigan (Anderson 1901, pp. 45-7)
and the subsequent discovery of some wreckage associated with the ship (Marshall
1879, p. 287). This data, when compared to the PM location of the wreck site, would
have bolstered his conclusion, as it did this author’s, that the Griffon Cove Wreck, found
in Lake Huron, was not Griffon.
A vessel’s construction also plays an important role when acquiring AM data for
the HSIM. Hundley’s AM construction data for Griffon was based on the primary source
data research of others. While this AM data was sufficient enough for Hundley to make
a comparison to the PM data, he overlooked several available AM data points used by
this author in Case Study 1 that would have further enhanced his analysis. These data
points are the iconograph of Griffon depicted in an early map of the Niagara area from
1688 (Figure 2) (Remington 1891, p. 43) and the possible rigging of the vessel from an
article in the Marine Review and Marine Record (Figure 3) (Joy 1903, p. 24). This data,
missed by Hundley, strengthened the conclusion that the Griffon Cove wreck is not
Griffon.
87
This case study highlights the importance of the Location and Vessel
Construction/Rigging categories to the identification process and emphasizes the
associated need for good AM data collection techniques and research. While the
comparisons of Hundley’s work to this author’s may imply that Hundley’s AM data
research and collection efforts were less than thorough, it must be recognized that the
existence and availability of historical information is no doubt much easier to ascertain
in 2009 than it was in 1984 when Hundley performed his analysis. Although all of the
AM data used by this author in this case study existed in 1984, Hundley certainly was at
a comparative disadvantage relative to locating it. When consulting, considering, and/or
using the work of ‘those that came before’ it is important to remember that such work
utilized nothing more than ‘the best information available at the time’.
Case Study 2
This case study applied the HSIM to the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck that has been
tentatively identified as La Concorde, which was renamed Queen Anne’s Revenge by
Blackbeard the pirate. Although there are thousands of artifacts and remains that
‘suggest’ that the wreckage is La Concorde, Case Study 2 highlights the importance of
data evaluation transparency that the HSIM fosters. This allows for an ‘objective’, rather
than ‘subjective’, evaluation of the AM to PM data. It also reinforces the importance of
having adequate AM data for the evaluation process.
The HSIM identified three categories that raise doubts as to the wreck’s identity.
These are: Dating, Vessel Construction and Rigging, and Cargo and Cargo
Handling Equipment. Evaluation of the first category, Dating, showed that a question
remained regarding the date of cannon number three which possibly dates to 1730
(Lusardi 2006, p. 202), well past the 1718 wrecking date of La Concorde. If this date is
resolved and is determined to be prior to 1718, the category could be reevaluated and
scored differently. This shows that the HSIM follows the ‘scientific method’ permitting
88
new or subsequent data to be added to the original hypothesis thus providing a possible
different outcome based on a different data set upon reevaluation.
The second category, Vessel Construction and Rigging, was evaluated and no
conclusion could be made due to inconsistencies in the AM/PM data comparison. This
can possibly be attributed to the lack of AM data available for La Concorde prior to
1710. The earliest historical records indicate that the frigate La Concorde was acquired
in 1710 by Montaudouin during the War of Spanish Succession (Lawrence 2009a).
Whether it was of Spanish, French or English construction is not known. This makes the
comparison of AM to PM data based solely on the available AM data as of 1710. If it
was of Spanish construction, the Spanish bell and pump sieve would tend to support this.
If, on the other hand, La Concorde was of English or French construction, the Spanish
bell and pump sieve would tend to contradict this and possibly rule out La Concorde as
the identity of the subject wreck.
The evaluation of the third category, Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment,
also yielded several inconsistencies. The first of these is the origin of the various
cannon. If this was a French frigate why was it armed with English-manufactured
cannon when the French and English were at war with each other? Was this an English
or Spanish frigate that was captured during the war? The lack of AM data relative to the
early history of the ship makes the answers to such questions purely speculative.
Without adequate AM data it is impossible to make a valid comparison to the PM data
and derive any logical, related conclusions.
The second anomaly in this data is the flatware artifacts that have so far been
recovered and analyzed (The QAR Project 2009i). The analysis of these artifacts points
to the ship being of English origin (The QAR Project 2009i). Again, not enough AM
data is available regarding the ship’s early history to permit a more detailed comparison.
Interestingly and as previously reported in Chapter 4, the flatware does not bear any
markings to associate it with La Concorde or any other vessel. The artifacts recovered
from Whydah and Henrietta Maria, both dating from the same period of time as La
89
Concorde, bear the initials of the ships name leading one to expect La Concorde’s
flatware to be similarly inscribed (Lusardi 2006, p. 217).
The final inconsistency is the lack of slave trade goods. La Concorde had been
involved in the slave trade for a number of years and was transporting slaves when
captured by Blackbeard. La Concorde wrecked less than a year later yet no significant
evidence of the slave trade has been found at the site. The absence of slave trade goods
compared to the volume of such artifacts found on both Whydah (Hamilton 2007, p.
144), a former slaver captured by pirates, and Henrietta Maria (Moore & Malcom 2008)
leads one to believe the wreck found had not been involved in the slave trade. This
category was scored as no conclusion because of these inconsistencies in the AM/PM
data comparison.
In addition to the above there is one, third-hand and therefore dubious, report that
Blackbeard may have switched his flag from the French La Concorde to an English ship
prior to heading for the east coast of North America (Wilde-Ramsing 2006, p. 192). If
that was the case then La Concorde is certainly not the wreck found at Beaufort Inlet
suggesting the need for additional and detailed AM data research to systematically
determine the wreck’s identity.
Several other possibilities warrant consideration. The wreck that was found may
be the Spanish snow El Salvador. It was of Spanish construction and would have had a
Spanish bell and Spanish pump sieve. El Salvador was also reported to have sunk in the
same area and its wreckage may also be present on the site comingled with wreckage
from another vessel. This could be pure coincidence or the result of numerous hurricanes
that have struck the wreck site over the years. These hurricanes could have transported,
‘collected’, and consolidated artifacts, wreckage, and almost anything else in their paths
into various underwater ‘junkyards’.
While the outcome of Case Study 2 regarding the identification of the subject
shipwreck as La Concorde was inconclusive, the case study served to demonstrate the
90
importance and value of both AM and PM data. It becomes readily apparent that the
accumulation and analysis of quality data is necessary to arrive at a confident
conclusion. At the same time, however, this quality data may actually have the opposite
effect by creating more questions than providing good answers.
Case Study 3
This case study applied the HSIM to a shipwreck that was discovered based on
locational information. The posited identity of the wreck was postulated to be the bark
Cortland, a ship that was involved in a collision with the sidewheel steamer Morning
Star on Lake Erie. This study shows the importance of the Location and Condition of
Shipwreck and Site categories in the identification process when adequate AM data is
available. It also proves that identification is possible without detailed PM data.
This wreck was found using the AM locational data obtained through historical
research. This research yielded information that allowed the approximate position of the
wreck to be calculated and a search area determined. A subsequent search followed and
a wreck was discovered at that approximate location. Further research of the historical
record and wreck databases determined that this was the only ship of its type known to
be lost in that general area. This illustrates that location can be a very strong indicator of
a vessel’s identity if adequate AM data for the vessel is available.
The condition of the shipwreck and the wreck site conditions are also key pieces
of evidences if adequate AM data is available. In this case, salvage divers working on
the wreck after its loss described the wreck’s condition and position on the bottom in
addition to the bottom conditions at the wreck site (Cleveland Daily Herald 1868c, p. 3).
This provided enough AM data to allow a meaningful comparison to be made to the PM
data that was gathered from the wreck site. The comparison of the AM to PM data was
vary favorable and led to rating the category as being consistent with all available data.
91
The historical research conducted while gathering AM data uncovered a very
detailed description of the vessel’s construction (Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, p. 3). This is
normally not the case for vessels early in the historical record. The description allowed
the vessels identity to be determined early in the survey process by identifying certain
key features with just a basic reconnaissance underwater survey. As a result, future
detailed survey work can be focused on the vessel and its contents as no further survey
work is necessary relative to its identity and origins.
Case Study 4
This case study applied the HSIM to a shipwreck that was also discovered based
on locational information. The posited identity of the wreck was postulated to be the
sidewheel steamboat Anthony Wayne which caught fire and sank in Lake Erie after its
boilers exploded. The case study shows the importance of the Location, Vessel
Construction and Rigging, and Conditions of the Shipwreck and Site categories in
the identification process when adequate AM data is available. It also demonstrates that
identification is possible without detailed PM data.
As in Case Study 3 this wreck was found using the AM locational data obtained
through historical research. The research allowed the approximate position of the wreck
to be calculated and a search area determined. A wreck was discovered in the search
area near the approximate location during a subsequent search. Further research of the
historical record and wreck data bases determined that this was the only ship of its type
known to have been lost in that general area. Again, as in Case Study 3, this illustrates
that location can be a very strong indicator of a vessel’s identity if adequate AM data for
the vessel is available.
The evaluation of the vessel’s construction and rigging played a key part in the
identification as well. Extensive AM research efforts focused on the vessel’s
construction details and yielded enough specific information regarding the configuration
92
of the vessel at the time of loss to make this possible. Anthony Wayne was originally
constructed in 1837 with a vertical, crosshead, high pressure, steam engine (US Treasury
Department 1838, p. 339). Interestingly, had the original and oft-cited construction data
been used in this case to evaluate this category, the comparison would have excluded the
wreck from being Anthony Wayne. The originally observed paddlewheel drive
mechanisms along with the horizontal position of the Pittman arm indicated a vessel
powered by a horizontal steam engine. Subsequent excavation of the wreck and the
discovery of a high pressure, horizontal, crosshead, steam, engine proved this to be the
case. Further research into Anthony Wayne’s history uncovered an accident in 1847
(Heyl 1956, p. 99) that left Anthony Wayne valuable only for its parts. The original
engine, boilers, and other machinery were removed (Cleveland Weekly Herald 1847, p.
3) and installed in other vessels. The hull was eventually sold and completely rebuilt
(The Daily Sanduskian 1850c) with a high pressure, horizontal, crosshead, steam, engine
salvaged from yet another vessel (Heyl 1956, p. 93; Sandusky Clarion 1849, p. 2;
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2009b). Had this extensive AM research not
been conducted the outcome of the identification would have been entirely different.
The condition of the shipwreck was also a key piece of evidence in determining
the wreck’s identification. Although there were no reports available from the historic
record on the condition of the wreck, there was enough indirectly related information in
the accounts of the accident to allow intelligent speculation regarding the condition of
the shipwreck. This speculative AM data, when compared to the PM data, shows that the
vessel’s speculated condition is consistent with the actual condition of the wreck on the
bottom.
As stated previously, the sidewheel steamer Anthony Wayne suffered a massive
boiler explosion which threw the two, starboard boilers ‘into a perpendicular position,
tearing away the steerage cabin above, and shattering the hull badly’ (Mansfield 1899, p.
680). ‘When the boat sank the hurricane deck separated from it and remained afloat’
(The Daily Sanduskian 1850b, p. 2). The condition of the wreck, missing all of the upper
works, cabins and decking, is consistent with a massive explosion. This circumstantial
93
evidence based on the AM data was compelling enough to rate this category consistent
with the PM data observed and recorded.
In this case study the identification posited was determined to be a positive
identification. The AM data associated with the location, vessel construction, and
condition categories was more than sufficient in quantity and quality, when compared to
the minimal amount of PM data, to allow such a determination to be made with a high
degree of confidence.
Conclusions
Chapter 5 contains detailed discussions on the application and thought processes
that went into applying the HSIM to the four different case studies. Case Study 1 points
out the importance of thorough AM data research along with the significance of
locational data when trying to determine the identification of a shipwreck. Case Study 2
emphasizes the point that a detailed history of the vessel is almost paramount in the
identification process as without it the comparison between AM and PM data becomes
less meaningful and there is a high probability that the results will be inconclusive. Case
Studies 3 and 4 further reinforce the concept of good locational data being a key to
identification when little PM data is available.
94
Chapter 6 Conclusions
The development and application of the HSIM demonstrates that the ‘traditional’
forensic science approach to identifying deceased individuals can be adapted
successfully to the identification of shipwrecks. Utilizing the principles of the scientific
method, this method provides a systematic approach to achieve the goal of identification
provided sufficient historical and archaeological data are available for analysis. The
method relies on a structured comparison and analysis of the acquired PM
archaeological data to the AM historical data and attempts to remove as much
subjectivity from the identification process as possible.
The HSIM is by no means an infallible method for determining a shipwreck’s
identification and it certainly has its limitations. As with any method, the outcome is
influenced by the quality and critical evaluation of the data used during its application. If
limited or bad data is evaluated, the conclusion drawn will be without substance or value
and will be either incorrect or erroneously correct, although this will not be apparent.
Sufficient and good data are requisites for the method. No method, no matter how
simple or complex, can compensate for insufficient, erroneous, or misinterpreted data.
One of the strong points of the systematic approach to data analysis used in the proposed
method is that errors caused by the insufficient or incorrect evaluation of data are more
apparent.
The HSIM was developed using five major categories for evaluation of the
AM/PM data: Dating, Vessel Construction and Rigging, Cargo and Cargo Handling
Equipment, Crew Personal Effects, Location, and Condition of Shipwreck and Site.
These categories were chosen in an attempt to globally capture all the possible data that
could be expected from the AM and PM research efforts. These categories are not
necessarily set in stone and can be modified to suit any particular shipwreck where the
adjustment or addition of other major categories (i.e. armament, cooking, passengers,
etc) appears appropriate. When necessary, the major categories can be broken down into
sub-categories without affecting the outcome of the data analysis. This may be needed
95
when there is an abundance of data, as in the case of La Concorde, to allow a more
detailed evaluation of certain subsets. It is important to note that recognizing the value
and sufficiency of both AM and PM data is certainly not as simple as it sounds and the
parameters for such change from case to case.
The HSIM is not limited to a certain type of shipwreck; steamers, schooners, or
dugout canoes can be tested. It is applicable to any wreck where sufficient historical
information is available for direct comparison to the archaeological data obtained. The
four case studies presented herein show that the method can be successfully applied to
shipwrecks of various types, from different time periods, and in varying states of
preservation to produce an identification or exclusion from identification for a vessel
that has been posited for identification.
The HSIM provides an application framework that will enable the archaeologist
to systematically attempt to identify a shipwreck in a straight forward, methodological
fashion. It removes as much subjectivity from the identification process as possible and
provides a clearer understanding of how the identification result was derived.
96
Appendix 1: AM Historical Data Worksheet for Wooden Ships
97
AM Historical Data Worksheet for Wooden Ships
Vessel Name:
Name of ship: __________________________________________
Previous Names (List chronologically starting from original build):
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Source(s):
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Original Construction Data:
Enrollment Number: __________________________________________
Type of Vessel:
___ Scow
___ Schooner
___ Bark
___ Brig
___ Barge
___ Scow-schooner
___ Schooner-barge
___ Tug
___ Propeller
___ Tanker
___ Steam
___ Dredge
___ Whaleback
___ Ferry
___ Paddlewheel Steam Boat
___ Other: __________________________________________________
Date Built: _________________________________________________
Where Built: ________________________________________________
Enrollment Date: ____________________________________________
Enrollment Port: _____________________________________________
Home Port: _________________________________________________
98
Official Number: _____________________________________________
Builder: ____________________________________________________
Owner: ____________________________________________________
Captain: ___________________________________________________
Length: ____________________________________________________
Beam: _____________________________________________________
Number of Decks: ___________________________________________
Number of Masts: ____________________________________________
Net Tonnage: _______________________________________________
Gross Tonnage:______________________________________________
Number of Galleries: _________________________________________
Type of Head:
___ Plain ___ Figure
___ Scroll
___ Billet
___ None
Other: _____________________________________________________
Hull Construction:
Wood:
___ Carvel
___ Clinker
___ Arched
___ Composite: ______________________________________
___ Fastening Method: ________________________________
___ Other: __________________________________________
Metal:
___ Iron (Riveted)
___ Steel (Welded)
___ Steel (Riveted)
___ Aluminum
___ Other: __________________________________________
Hull Sheathing:
___ Copper
___ Wood
___ Tin
___ Lead
___ Steel
___ Other: __________________________________________
Hull Style:
___ Scow
___ Double ender
___ Plumb Stem
___ Clipper Stem
___ Counter Stem
___ Transom Stern
___ Round Stern
___ Square Stern
___ Center Board
___ Fixed Keel
___ Flat Bottom
___ Round Bottom
___ V Bottom
___ Other: _______________________________________________
99
Number of Hatches and dimensions:______________________________
Number of Center Boards and dimensions:_________________________
Propulsion:
___ Sail
___ Steam
___ Gas
___ Diesel
___ Other: _______________________________________________
Sail:
Number of Masts: _________________________________________
Standing Rigging: _________________________________________
Shrouds:
___ Rope
___ Wire
Shroud Attachment:
___ Deadeye
___ Turnbuckle
Steam:
Number of Engines: _________
Type of Engine:
___ High Pressure
___ Low Pressure
___ Vertical
___ Horizontal
___ Steeple
___ Inverted
___ Cross Head
___ Single Cylinder
___ Compound
___ Triple expansion
___ Walking beam
___ Side-lever
___ Grasshopper
___ Oscillating
___ Inclined
___ Trunk
___ Condensing
___ Non-Condensing
___ Other: __________________________________________
Number of Boilers: ___________________________________________
Boiler Material: ______________________________________________
Other Boiler Information: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
100
Gas/Diesel/Other:
___ Description:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Paddlewheels:
Dimensions: ________________________________________________
___ Sidewheel
___ Sternwheel
___ Fixed Pitch
___ Variable Pitch
___ Other: _________________________________________________
Propellers:
Number: ___________________________________________________
Dimension: _________________________________________________
Number of Blades: ___________________________________________
Type: ______________________________________________________
Material: ___________________________________________________
Other: _____________________________________________________
Deck Equipment:
___ Capstan(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: __________________________________________
___ Windlass(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: __________________________________________
___ Anchors
Number: ____
Weight: _____________
Anchor Chain Data: __________________________________________
___ Sheet Winches(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: __________________________________________
___ Bell(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: __________________________________________
___ Pump(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: __________________________________________
101
Other Information: ___________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
102
Rebuild Data:
Re-enrollment Number: _______________________________________
Type of Vessel:
___ Scow
___ Schooner
___ Bark
___ Brig
___ Barge
___ Scow-schooner
___ Schooner-barge
___ Tug
___ Propeller
___ Tanker
___ Steam
___ Dredge
___ Whaleback
___ Ferry
___ Paddlewheel Steam Boat
___ Other: __________________________________________________
Date Built: _________________________________________________
Where Built: ________________________________________________
Enrollment Date: ____________________________________________
Enrollment Port: _____________________________________________
Home Port: _________________________________________________
Official Number: _____________________________________________
Builder: ____________________________________________________
Owner: ____________________________________________________
Captain: ___________________________________________________
Length: ____________________________________________________
Beam: _____________________________________________________
Number of Decks: ___________________________________________
Number of Masts: ____________________________________________
Net Tonnage: _______________________________________________
Gross Tonnage:______________________________________________
Number of Galleries: _________________________________________
Type of Head:
___ Plain ___ Figure
___ Scroll
___ Billet
___ None
Other: _____________________________________________________
103
Hull Construction:
Wood:
___ Carvel
___ Clinker
___ Arched
___ Composite: ______________________________________
___ Fastening Method: ________________________________
___ Other: __________________________________________
Metal:
___ Iron (Riveted)
___ Steel (Riveted)
___ Steel (Welded)
___ Aluminum
___ Other: __________________________________________
Hull Sheathing:
___ Copper
___ Wood
___ Tin
___ Lead
___ Steel
___ Other: __________________________________________
Hull Style:
___ Scow
___ Double ender
___ Plumb Stem
___ Clipper Stem
___ Counter Stem
___ Transom Stern
___ Round Stern
___ Square Stern
___ Center Board
___ Fixed Keel
___ Flat Bottom
___ Round Bottom
___ V Bottom
___ Other: _______________________________________________
Number of Hatches and dimensions:______________________________
Number of Center Boards and dimensions:_________________________
Propulsion:
___ Sail
___ Steam
___ Gas
___ Diesel
___ Other: _______________________________________________
Sail:
Number of Masts: _________________________________________
Standing Rigging: _________________________________________
Shrouds:
___ Rope
___ Wire
Shroud Attachment:
___ Deadeye ___ Turnbuckle
104
Steam:
Number of Engines: _________
Type of Engine:
___ High Pressure
___ Low Pressure
___ Vertical
___ Horizontal
___ Steeple
___ Inverted
___ Cross Head
___ Single Cylinder
___ Compound
___ Triple expansion
___ Walking beam
___ Side-lever
___ Grasshopper
___ Oscillating
___ Inclined
___ Trunk
___ Condensing
___ Non-Condensing
___ Other: __________________________________________
Number of Boilers: ___________________________________________
Boiler Material: ______________________________________________
Other Boiler Information: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Gas/Diesel/Other:
___ Description: _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Paddlewheels:
Dimensions: __________________________________________
___ Sidewheel
___ Sternwheel
___ Fixed Pitch
___ Variable Pitch
___ Other: _______________________________________________
105
Propellers:
Number: ________________________________________________
Dimension: ______________________________________________
Number of Blades: ________________________________________
Type: ___________________________________________________
Material: ________________________________________________
Other: __________________________________________________
Deck Equipment:
___ Capstan(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: _______________________________________
___ Windlass(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: _______________________________________
___ Anchors
Number: ____
Weight: _____________
Anchor Chain Data: _______________________________________
___ Sheet Winches(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: _______________________________________
___ Bell(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: _______________________________________
___ Pump(s)
Number: ____
Manufacturer’s Data: _______________________________________
Other Information: ________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Cargo Data:
Type, Owner, Consignee: ____________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
106
Incidents: accidents, groundings, sinkings, fires, etc. (give dates and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Final Sinking:
Where:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
When:
________________________________________________________________
Why:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Sources:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Crew: Names of crew and their positions
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
107
Official Report Data: Government, insurance, coroners, judicial, etc. (Give dates and
sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Construction Drawing Data:
Construction drawings found ___ Yes
___ No
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Imagery:
___ Photos
___ Drawings
Sources:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Inventory List: (Give dates and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
108
Manifest: (Give dates and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Provisions: (Give dates and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Personal belongings: (Give dates and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
109
Models: (Give location, dates, and sources)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Survivor and eyewitness accounts: (Give dates and sources)
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
**Note: List all information sources, enrollments, newspaper articles, books, official reports and
correspondence, official documents or other sources that the information was obtained.
110
Appendix 2: Shipwreck Identification Matrix with Rating Key
111
Shipwreck Identification Matrix
Candidate Ship for Identification
Ships Name Here
AM to PM Shipwreck Identification Categories
Data
Consistency
Scoring
Dating
Vessel Construction and Rigging
Cargo and Cargo Handling Equipment
Crew Personal Effects
Location
Condition of Shipwreck and Site
Final Scoring (Highest number in right hand column)
Rating Key:
Data Consistency Scoring:
0 - Historical and/or archaeological data is not available or is insufficient to perform a
meaningful comparison
1 - The historical and archaeological data are consistent in sufficient detail to establish
that they belong to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies
2 - The historical and archaeological data are not consistent in sufficient detail to
establish that they belong to the proposed ship
3 - The historical and archaeological data are clearly inconsistent
Final Scoring:
1 - Identification: The historical and archaeological data in all categories where
comparisons are possible are consistent in sufficient detail to establish that they belong
to the proposed ship and there are no irreconcilable discrepancies. The shipwreck is the
ship proposed
2 - No conclusion: The historical and archaeological data in all or part of the categories
where comparisons are possible are not consistent in sufficient detail to establish that
they belong to the proposed ship.
3 - Exclusion: The historical and archaeological data in all or part of the categories
where comparisons are possible are clearly inconsistent. The shipwreck is not the ship
proposed.
112
References
Ahlström, C 1997, Looking for Leads: Shipwrecks of the past revealed by contemporary
documents and the arachaeological record, First edn, Humaniora, The Finnish Academy
of Science and Letters, Helsinki.
Anderson, MBT 1901, Relation of the Discoveries and Voyages of Cavelier de La Salle
from 1679 to 1681: The Official Narrative, Chicago: The Caxton Club, 1901, viewed
November 6 2007, <http://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-122/index.asp>.
Auer, J 2004, 'Fregatten Mynden: a 17th-century Danish Frigate Found in Northern
Germany', International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 264-80.
Baraybar, JP 2008, 'When DNA is Not Available, Can We Still Identify People?
Recommendations for Best Practice', Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.
533-40.
Beltrame, C & Gaddi, D 2002, 'Report on the first research campaign on the Napoleonic
brick, Mercure, wrecked off Lignano, Udine, Italy in 1812', The International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology, vol. 33.1, pp. 60-73.
Buffalo Morning Express 1849, 'The Wayne', Buffalo Morning Express, 27 April, 1849,
p. 4.
Carnes-McNaughton, L 2008, Ceramic Assemblage Analysis from Shipwreck 31CR314
Queen Anne's Revenge Site, QAR-R-08-03, Underwater Archaeology Branch, Office of
State Archaeology, Department of Cultural Resources, State of North Carolina.
Carnes-McNaughton, L & Myers, SG 2007, Beads Recovered from Shipwreck 31CR314
Queen Anne's Revenge Site, QAR-B-07-02, Underwater Archaeology Branch, Office of
State Archaeology, Department of Cultural Resources, State of North Carolina.
Carnes-McNaughton, L & Wilde-Ramsing, MU 2008, Preliminary Glassware and
Bottle Analysis from Shipwreck 31CR314 Queen Anne's Revenge Site, QAR-R-08-02,
Underwater Archaeology Branch, Office of State Archaeology, Department of Cultural
Resources, State of North Carolina.
Cleveland Daily Herald 1868a, 'The Morning Star Disaster', Cleveland Daily Herald,
June 24, 1868, p. 3.
Cleveland Daily Herald 1868b, 'Terrible Disaster', Cleveland Daily Herald, June 22,
1868, p. 4.
113
Cleveland Daily Herald 1868c, 'The Wreck of the Cortland', Cleveland Daily Herald,
July 11, 1868, p. 3.
Cleveland Daily Herald & Gazette 1838, 'Perrysburg and Buffalo Daily Line of Steam
Boats', Cleveland Daily Herald & Gazette, 7 March 1838, p. 4.
Cleveland Leader 1868a, 'The Collision', Cleveland Leader, June 23, 1868, p. 4.
Cleveland Leader 1868b, 'The Morning Star Disaster', Cleveland Leader, June 26, 1868,
p. 4.
Cleveland Leader 1868c, 'Terrible Lake Disaster', Cleveland Leader, June 22, 1868, p.
3.
Cleveland Weekly Herald 1847, 'Arrival', Cleveland Weekly Herald, 17 November 1847,
p. 4.
The Daily Sanduskian 1850a, 'Coroner's Inquest', The Daily Sanduskian, April 30, 1850,
p. 2.
The Daily Sanduskian 1850b, 'Frightful Diaster!' The Daily Sanduskian, April 29, 1850,
p. 2.
The Daily Sanduskian 1850c, 'Steam-Boat Gen, Wayne', The Daily Sanduskian, May 2,
1850, p. 4.
Hamilton, CE 2007, 'The Pirate Ship Whydah', in RK Skowronek & CR Ewen (eds), X
Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy, University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, pp. 131-59.
Hennepin, L 1903, A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, Chicago: A.C.
McClurg & Co., viewed November 6 2007, <http://www.americanjourneys.org/aj124/index.asp>.
Heyl, E 1956, Early American Steamers, vol. II, VI vols., Erik Heyl, Buffalo.
Heyl, E 1964, Early American Steamers, vol. III, VI vols., Erik Heyl, Buffalo.
Horrell, CE 2009, 'The British Merchant Ship Western Empire: A Lesson from the
Archives', Mineral Management Service (MMS).
114
Hundley, PF 1984, 'The Griffon Cove Wreck: a case study in archaeological
reconstruction of hull timber remains', Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology,
no. Special Publication No. 2.
The Janesville (Wis.) Gazette 1850, 'Steamboat Explosion', The Janesville (Wis.)
Gazette, May 9, 1850, p. 4.
Joy, RP 1903, 'The Griffin', Marine Review and Marine Record, vol. 28, no. 8, February
12, p. 24.
Kennard, J 2009, 'Discovery of the Steamer Homer Warren', Inland Seas, Quarterly
Journal of the Great Lakes Historical Society, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 126 - 35.
Laughton, JK 1898, Teach, vol. LVI, Dictionary of National Biography, Smith, Elder, &
Co., London.
Lawrence, RW 2008, An Overview of North Carolina Shipwrecks with an Emphasis on
Eighteenth-Century Vessel Losses at Beufort Inlet, QAR-R-08-01, Underwater
Archaeology Branch, Office of State Archaeology, Department of Cultural Resources,
State of North Carolina.
Lawrence, RW 2009a, French Archival Research, viewed 4 April 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/history/french.htm>.
Lawrence, RW 2009b, Preliminary Observations on British and American Documents
Concerning the Activities of the Pirate Blackbeard, March 1717 to June 1718, The QAR
Project, viewed 4 April 2009, <http://www.qaronline.org/history/timechart.htm>.
Lawrence, RW & Wilde-Ramsing, MU 2001, 'In Search of Blackbeard: Historical and
Archaeological Research at Shipwreck Site 0003BUI', Southeastern Geology, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp. 1-9.
Levin, JA 2006, 'Western Empire: The Deep Water Wreck of a Mid-Nineteenth Century
Wooden Sailing Ship', Masters thesis, Texas A&M.
Lusardi, WR 2006, 'The Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Artifact Assemblage', in RK
Skowronek & CR Ewen (eds), X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy, University
Press of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, pp. 196-218.
Mansfield, JB 1899, History of the Great Lakes, 1st, reprint Freshwater Press,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1972 edn, vol. 1, 2 vols., J. H. Beers & Co., Chicago.
115
Marshall, OH 1879, The Building and Voyage of the Griffon in 1679, vol. 1, Bigelow
Brothers, Buffalo.
McDonald, WA 1958, 'The Morning Star and the Courtland', Inland Seas, Quarterly
Journal of the Great Lakes Historical Society, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 311-3.
Milstead Post, SA 2007, 'Definig Her Kind: An Historical and Archaeological
Investigation of the Composite Built Gunvessel HMS Ready', East Carolina University.
Milwaukee Sentinel 1867, 'Barque Cortland', Milwaukee Sentinel, August 20, 1867, p. 3.
Moore, DD 2005, 'Technical Comments Relating to 'Ruling Theory' and the
Identification of Beaufort Inlet Wreck', International Journal of Nautical Archaeology,
vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 335-9.
Moore, DD & Malcom, C 2008, 'Seventeenth-Century Vehicle of the Middle Passage:
Archaeological and Historical Investigations on the Henrietta Marie Shipwreck Site',
International Journal of Historic Archaeology, vol. 12, pp. 20-38.
Morange, J 1718, Deposition upon Returning to Martinique, Serie Colonies C8A 24 fol.
125, Archieves Nationales, Paris.
Murphy, R 1955, 'Discovery of the Wreckage of the Griffon (Part I)', Inland Seas, vol.
11, no. 4, pp. 232-42.
Myers, FA 1956, 'The Manitoulin Griffon vs. the Tobermory Griffon', Inland Seas,
Quarterly Journal of the Great Lakes Historical Society, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 300.
Co Customs 1849, Enrollment Anthony Wayne, by Nawmond, SJ, Port of Detroit.
Newsom, LA & Miller, RB 2009, Wood Species Analysis of Ships Timbers and Wooden
Items Recovered from Shipwreck 31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge Site, QAR-R-09-01,
Underwater Archaeology Branch, Office of State Archaeology, Department of Cultural
Resources, State of North Carolina.
O'Shea, JM 2004, 'The Identification of shipwreck sites: a Bayesian approach', Journal
of Archaeological Science, vol. 31, pp. 1533-52.
The Plain Dealer 1868, 'Horrible Steamboat Accident', The Plain Dealer, June 22, 1868,
p. 3.
The QAR Project 2009a, Anchors, viewed 28 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/anchors.htm>.
116
The QAR Project 2009b, Artifacts, viewed 18 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/artifacts.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009c, Artillery, viewed 28 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/artillery.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009d, Bells, viewed 19 September 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/bell.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009e, Cufflinks, viewed 28 October 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/cufflinks.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009f, Divider, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/divider.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009g, Gun Barrel, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/gunBarrel.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009h, Medicinal, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/medicinal.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009i, Pewter Flatware, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/pewterFlatware.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009j, Pipes, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/pipe.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009k, Shackle, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/restrainingDevice.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009l, Stemware, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/stemware.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009m, Structural Components, viewed 28 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/structuralComponents.htm>.
The QAR Project 2009n, Tools, viewed 29 March 2009,
<http://www.qaronline.org/artifacts/tools.htm>.
Remington, CK 1891, The Ship-Yard of the Griffon, J. W. Clement, Buffalo.
117
Rogers, BA, Richards, N & Lusardi, WR 2005, ''Ruling Theories Linger': Questioning
the Identity of the Beauford Inlet Shipwreck', The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 24-37.
Sandusky Clarion 1849, 'The Steamer Anthony Wayne', Sandusky Clarion, May 7, 1849,
p. 4.
The Sheboygan Press 1930, 'Model of Ill-Fated Lake Ship Has Been Built By
Sheboygan Craftsman', The Sheboygan Press, January 21, 1930, p. 3.
Co Customs 1867, Permanent Enrollment, Cortland, by Sholes, AL, US Government.
Staniforth, M & Vickery, L 1984, The Test Excavation of the William Salthouse Wreck
Site, An interim report, Special Publication No. 3, Australian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology.
1839, Enrollment, Anthony Wayne, by Stubbins, AQ, Port of Buffalo Creek.
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2009a, Anthony Wayne, viewed 19 April 2009,
<http://www.greatlakesships.org/vesselview.aspx?id=153573>.
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2009b, 'Columbus'.
US Treasury Department 1838, Steam Engines, by US Treasury Department, US
Government Printing Office.
Wilde-Ramsing, MU 2006, 'The Pirate Ship Queen Anne's Revenge', in RK Skowronek
& CR Ewen (eds), X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy, University Press of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 160-95.
Wilde-Ramsing, MU 2007, Bronze Bell Recovered Upon Discovery from Shipwreck
31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge Site, QAR-B-07-01, Underwater Archaeology Branch,
Office of State Archaeology, Department of Cultural Resources, State of North Carolina.
Withers, SD 2002, 'Quantitative methods: Bayesian inference, Baysian thinking',
Progress in Human Geography, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 553-66.
118
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Related manuals

Download PDF

advertisement