|
A STRATIFIED SITE SAMPLING RESEARCH PLAN FOR THE
2005-2006
INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOVERY AT NORTH CAROLINA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SHIPWRECK SITE 31CR314
Mark Wilde-Ramsing
May 2006
Introduction
North Carolina shipwreck site 31CR314 has been under
investigation since its discovery in 1996 and continues to reveal
a rich assemblage of early 18th century maritime cultural materials.
The analysis of datable artifacts that have been collected from
the site provides a mean date of manufacture of 1706 with predominately
French and English affiliation (Wilde-Ramsing 2006). Ship's features
reveal a vessel of 200 to 300 tons (Moore 2001; 2006). Armament
represented on the site is equivalent to that of a Royal Navy
Sixth Rate warship, while the presence of langrel shot in one
of the small caliber guns suggests a predator or heavily armed
merchantman rather than a Royal Navy warship (Henry 2006).
Historical research of maritime activities occurring along the coast
of colonial Carolina and specifically in the waters near the fledgling
town of Beaufort reveals that the presence and loss of a vessel of this
size and nature would be quite unusual throughout the 18th century (Butler
2006).  According
to two reliable contemporary historical accounts, however, such an event
occurred in 1718 when a vessel named Queen Anne's Revenge (QAR)
grounded on the outer bar of the inlet (Brand 1718; Bonnet 1719:45).
When the present location of shipwreck 31CR314 (Figure 1) is projected
onto the historic the Wimble Chart, 1738, it appears on the outer margin
of the outer shoal where the grounding of QAR is likely to have
taken place. Although no definitive piece of evidence has been retrieved
during the initial examination of the shipwreck, these multiple lines
of inquiry provide evidence linking the shipwreck lying on the outer
margin of Beaufort Inlet with Queen Anne's Revenge and the internationally
recognized personage Blackbeard, who captained the ill-fated vessel.
With less than 15% of the site physically examined and much less fully
excavated, recovered, and analyzed, there is still much to learn through
archaeological investigations.
Concurrently, geophysical examination of site 31CR314
indicates that it lies in an unstable environmental situation that
threatens its long-term preservation (Wells and McNinch 2001, McNinch
et al 2001, Trembanis and McNinch 2003; Gibbons 2004; McNinch et
al 2006). Steady sand depletion, exceeding one foot (0.30 m) every
decade since the 1930's, is linked to channel stabilization that
began at that time (Suggs 2004). Today, because the site lies on
scour-resistant firm sand, it is either exposed or buried under
a thin layer of protective sand. This increases the threat of disturbance
from catastrophic scour and erosion caused by tropical storm events,
a frequent occurrence since observations began in 1996. Subsequently,
state archaeologists developed a management plan (Wilde-Ramsing
and Lusardi 1999), which was endorsed in 2005 by a professional
review panel, to mitigate potential loss at the site by conducting
full recovery as soon as adequate funding could be procured (Wilde-Ramsing
2006). The findings and analysis obtained during the exploratory
and emergency recovery phases of archaeological investigations (1996-2004),
including artifact analysis and conservation, have provided the
basis to develop a research strategy for site mitigation, from field
recovery through exhibit and final storage. An important factor
that was emphasized in the 1999 management plan and now permits
site investigations to move forward is the development of a permanent,
professionally staffed, state archaeological conservation facility
in partnership with East Carolina University and a commitment from
the North Carolina Maritime Museum to provide long-term artifact
curation and collection oversight.
The scope of the plan presented here derives from
these findings and recommendations and presents a stratified site-sampling
program as a preliminary step toward full recovery. This work is
designed within the constraints of available funding and provides
important supplemental information to facilitate planning and implementation
of a larger recovery project at site 31CR314. Funding is being provided
by a grant from the Golden LEAF Foundation and two one-time annual
state appropriations to support a six-week field session and a follow
period for artifact cataloguing, preliminary analysis, and storage.
As a precursor to the full recovery phase, a stratified sampling
regimen has been developed based on current understanding of the
site layout. Stratification consists of seven lateral zones from
south to north representing the projected orientation of the ship
from stern to bow. Sampling will involve the excavation of up to
20 excavation units - three within each of the five interior zones
with additional units placed at the longitudinal extremities.
This sampling design will meet managerial objectives
of retrieving a representative sample across the shipwreck as a
control collection prior to any further degradation of the site
from storm scour and exposure. By examining and recovering remains
from all parts of the archaeological site, managers will refine
their understanding of the extent, nature, and magnitude of site
remains in preparation for planning full-scale recovery. Directed
sampling and analysis will also address general research questions
regarding site layout, identify shipboard activity areas, continue
refining the nature, origin and identity of the lost ship, and gather
data regarding natural and cultural factors that have influenced
the formation of the archaeological record. The collection of representative
sample remains from this shipwreck and the arrangement of artifacts
within basic functional groups will provide a body of evidence for
comparison with archaeological assemblages recovered from contemporary
shipwrecks along the Atlantic seaboard, the Caribbean and Europe
and terrestrial sites within the Carolina's and Virginia. This preliminary
analysis and identification of artifacts, especially those encased
in concretions, will be facilitated by the use of X-radiography.
This work will be conducted at the North Carolina Museum of Art
and funded through a National Geographic Expeditions Council grant.
What are not within the scope of this sample recovery
plan are the subsequent cleaning, analysis, conservation and long-term
storage and display of recovered artifacts. Based on previous work
on QAR artifacts, at the current funding levels for conservation
($100,000 annually), conservation will take at least 5 years to process,
analyze, and transfer to museum care the artifacts and data anticipated
from the 2005-2006 stratified sampling project (Watkins-Kenney and
Nordgren 2005). Additional funding for conservation would significantly
reduce the length of processing time, although larger artifacts, specifically
cannon, would require additional time to complete conservation. As
work commences both in the field and the conservation laboratory,
estimates for full recovery can be better refined and adjusted.
The sampling plan presented here is an updated version
of an earlier plan (Wilde-Ramsing 2005) developed prior to May 2005
when the stratified sampling program began. During that fieldwork
only half of the sample units were excavated and a follow-up expedition
in the fall was canceled due to hurricane activities and travel
restriction (Wilde-Ramsing and Southerly 2005). Completion of site
sampling is now scheduled for May 2006 and in anticipation, this
recovery plan is a revised and further developed version based on
last year's experience and additional literary research. The author
has developed this plan, in consultation with project members, and
as a requirement for a directed studies under Dr. Charles R. Ewen,
as partial fulfillment for the doctoral requirements of the Coastal
Resource Management Program, East Carolina University. Supplementing
the recovery plan are operations plans written by field supervisor
Chris Southerly (2005) and project conservator Sarah Watkins-Kenney
(2005).
Goals, objectives and theoretical basis
Management and Mitigation
From the beginning, basic cultural resource management
(CRM) survey and standard information gathering procedures and
techniques have been employed at this shipwreck site (Wilde-Ramsing
and Lawrence 1984; Neuman and Sanford 2001). Initial data collection
resulted in the designation of the shipwreck site by North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources' Secretary Betty Ray McCain to
be a state protected area "of primary scientific, archeological,
or historical value." On the national level, the site 31CR314
was determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places by the State Historic Preservation Officer
and officially listed in March 2004. A management plan (Wilde-Ramsing
and Lusardi 1999) was produced to guide resource development and
preservation with recommendations to strive toward full recovery
based on the shipwreck's significance and threats to its preservation
from natural impacts. During a review of project findings held
on the campus of East Carolina University in April 2005, a panel
of professional marine archaeologists reiterated this managerial
position with a greater sense of urgency noting effects from past
hurricanes and the potential for more damage from impending storms,
in the foreseeable future (Wilde-Ramsing 2006).
Undertaking full recovery has not been possible until
recently, however, because of the lack of adequate project facilities
and data management systems. As these were being developed (1999-2004)
the time has been spent gathering additional archaeological, historical,
and geological information, developing and testing educational outreach
initiatives, and strengthening partnerships necessary for the long-term
management and study of this extremely important submerged cultural
resource. With the lack of a permanent conservation facility and
adequate staff throughout the exploratory phase, excavation and
artifact retrieval was minimized and researchers opted for strategies
that included site exposure, mapping and reburial of remains in
the same manner as terrestrial archaeologists strip off the plow
zone. The use of remote sensing, particularly the gradiometer, provided
an understanding of the site's layout. While considerable information
was derived from these low-impact methods, it has fallen short in
some ways, primarily by not providing sufficient physical evidence
both in terms of quantity and spatial variation to determine artifact
type and frequency as they relate to site layout and activity areas.
A stratified sampling regime in which up to 10 % of the shipwreck
site is considered the most appropriate way to address basic limitations
in the present data set while working within the confines of available
funding. In addition to fieldwork, additional time and funding has
been allocated to permit cataloguing and preliminary examination
of recovered artifacts prior to placing them in a wet, stable laboratory
environment for long-term storage.
Proposed sampling will meet two management objectives.
The first goal is to recover a representative cross-section of the
shipwreck site for future analysis and study. This collection will
be particularly important should a catastrophic storm event impact
the site and should such an event occur would provide baseline data
to observe changes that occur to the archaeological record due to
current-driven artifact movement and resorting. The collection will
also allow management a more reliable base of information upon which
to plan full mitigation. Having a representative sample of up to
10% of the shipwreck site will help refine current estimates based
on limited excavation and exploration and provide a more accurate
means to estimate future time, costs, personnel and facilities needed
to complete more extensive mitigative procedures. Information learned
here will further identify and prioritize research questions and
determine methods of recovery that will collect relevant data and
expedite the process in a cost-effective manner.
Research and Analysis
Beyond managerial utility, gathering of a stratified
sample provides data that can address basic research questions. The
fact is little comparative archaeological data is available related
to 31CR314, an armed merchantman plying the Atlantic seaboard of colonial
America. The most extensively reported is the Whydah lost in
1717 (Hamilton et al 1992), which may indeed prove invaluable
to the study of QAR remains, and the equally well-reported Betsy,
a British transport scuttled in the York River in 1783 (Broadwater
et al 1996). At the same time, sites from the proprietary period
of colonial Carolina (1663-1729) have seen little archaeological activity.
The primary comparative collections are from two sites, Eden House
and the Joseph Scott House located in the upper Albemarle region of
the state (Lautsenheizer et al 1998; Bandy 2000). The point
being that collecting reliable archaeological data of a site-specific
nature to help interpret and describe activities involving this shipwreck
would, in itself, be the basis for investigations at this site. Intra
site analysis will continue to test hypotheses regarding the site's
identity and mission, crew behavior, circumstances of loss, and subsequent
natural site formation processes. Marine geologists have interpreted
a sequence of natural environmental impacts that have contributed
to the site's location and condition today. Additional archaeological
testing can be directed in such a way to further test their interpretations.
Site Identity and Comparative Collection
When archaeological sites are poorly understood or have
been inadequately sampled, the recovery of additional data, representative
of activities across the site, will advance basic knowledge of human
activities at that location. One of historic archaeology's strengths
lies in the ability of its practitioners to play archaeological evidence
off of evidence found in documentary sources. This is further enhanced
when it is possible to tie a shipwreck to "a ship's history,
which results in great value by linking people and events to archaeological
materials" (O'Shea 2004:1533). Additional recovery from 31CR314
will continue to test the working hypothesis that these remains represent
the Queen Anne's Revenge by searching for a trend in evidence
that would refute this claim. This would most readily come from artifacts
clearly post-dating the sinking date of 1718.
As more and more evidence is recovered and analyzed, this
body of descriptive evidence will provide a solid basis upon which
to compare activities represented at this site to others allowing
researchers to investigate broader "…questions of man at
sea, societies extending themselves, human beings under stress, and
the ship system of interrelated artifacts comprising a microcosm of
human interaction" (Lenihan 1983: 63). When this data is organized
in a consistent way, archaeologists can move beyond intra-ship studies
that "represent a paradigm of description and historical integration"
and begin to take on inter-site studies where broader trends can be
seen (Cockrell 1983: 213). Some sites relative to 31CR314 can include
those contributing to Cockrell's inter-site studies for vessels originating
from the same parent country, operating during the same time period,
or engaged in similar activities. Comparisons with Whydah (Hamilton
et al 1992) are the most obvious here. The discovery and study
of Adventure, a second vessel in Blackbeard's fleet lost during
the same event as QAR, would provide invaluable comparative
data at the inter-fleet level to fine-tune behavioral studies. Additional
comparative data can derive from terrestrial sites linked in time
and geography to 31CR314. This intra-ship/related terrestrial culture
may be viewed in the remains at sites such as Eden House (Lautsenheizer
1998) and Joseph Scott plantation (Bandy 2000) located in the Albemarle
region of the Carolina colony during the proprietary period. As Cockrell
explains,
"It is hoped that making these conceptual devices
explicit will assist in clarifying complex sets of data, in order
that they may be more creatively manipulated. Additionally, given
the ship as a temporarily closed community, both spatially and
temporally, the ship (or fleet) possesses vast potential as a
control for examining the terrestrial parent culture. In isolation
one may address various cultural systems and study their adherence
to, or variance with, the open terrestrial cultures with which
the ship community interacts prior to and after its closed status."
(Cockrell 1983: 217)
Intrasite Analysis - Site Layout
Based on observations to date, cultural remains at 31CR314
retain spatial integrity upon which to delineate and observe historic
shipboard activities. Intra-site studies of individual shipwrecks
are common in underwater archaeology and have demonstrated that
a close analysis of seabed distributions can detect distinct ship
features and activity areas and consequently provide a means to
examine cultural expressions tied to the floating vessel (Muckleroy
1978; Adams 2001; and many others in between and since). In order
to explore the research potential of shipwreck artifact patterning,
certain assumptions must be made according to Larry Murphy:
1. "Regularities of shipboard life occur and will
be reflected in the archaeological record.
2. Specialized activities will produce artifact patterns relative
to those activities.
3. Shipboard activity may overlap in certain areas.
4. The data will be skewed relative to discard patterns. Discard
patterns may be widely varied - trash dumped overboard, cleaning
and reballasting, etc.
5. The record may not be complete because whole portions of
activity loci (ie. vessel structure) may be completely absent
from the record. The nature of loss makes a big difference what
might be present on the site. A combination of historical and
environment analysis needed to more accurately interpret archaeological
record.
6. Data from comparative sites have been collected." (Murphy
1983:79-80)
The last assumption continues to be a problem for
underwater archaeologists, since very few comprehensive collections
from shipwrecks are available for comparative purposes and many those
are often compromised due to inadequate collection and/or conservation
methods. HMS Dartmouth (1690) as discussed in Maritime Archaeology
(Muckelroy 1978:188) is particularly relevant for interpretation
of the QAR site. In the case of the Dartmouth, indicator
artifacts such as instruments, tableware and pistols were tied to
stern activities while items related to the boson were in the bow.
Similarly at 31CR314, instruments and tableware are concentrated at
the southern end and thus suspected to be the stern. Archaeological
evidence also suggested that the Dartmouth lay over on its
starboard side and in the process its cannons fell from the deck and
were distributed along the northern edge of the site. Analysis of
artifact classes from the Dartmouth supported horizontal distribution
of lower to upper hull layout resulting from it's laying over on its
side. Bricks, tiles, and faunal remains related to the galley area
(upper deck level) were separated by a sterile band from lead shot
(armory) and rope and rigging elements (boson's locker) originally
located in the lower part of the hull. At 31CR314, cannon are distributed
along its western margin suggesting that, in this case, the ship heeled
to port and spilled objects from its deck. The distribution of additional
lower to upper hull related artifacts has yet to be examined and specific
activity areas, such as the galley area, have not been identified.
Site Formation Analysis
The absence and distribution of artifacts at 31CR314
will provide evidence of natural site formation processes. Analysis
of the site (Southerly 2006) has placed this shipwreck into Class
2/Class 3 using Keith Muckelroy's (1978) classification system
for wreck sites. Characteristics include the survival of fragmented
elements of structural members, some organic remains, and the
presence of many other artifacts. Spatial distribution of the
artifact assemblage is scattered but ordered. Southerly continues
his assessment of the 31CR314 by placing it within the Buoyant
Hull Fracture Category developed by James Delgado (1997: 57-59).
While the system is typically used for beach wrecks, it also fits
well with shipwrecks resting in an inlet's ebb-tidal delta. The
events creating this category of archaeological shipwreck site
are described in the following fashion. An intact or nearly intact
vessel runs aground and then breaks up, during which structural
components and artifacts scatter to varying degrees before sanding
up and becoming buried. Subsequently, portions of the site may
become re-exposed during periods of sediment erosion and during
exposure items may further deteriorate and be broken up into smaller
components. Artifacts will be re-distributed during exposure and
eventually the site may be entirely lost (Delgado 1997: 57-59).
The above scenario may very well describe events at 31CR314 based
on multi-disciplinary observations (McNinch et al 2001 and
2006; Trembanis et al 2003; Wells and McNinch 2001; Suggs
2004; Lindquist 1998). Given it's historic location, the doomed
vessel was immediately subjected to both offshore and inlet currents,
and therefore its lower portions likely buried quickly while the
upper works weakened and broke off, depositing the heavier, more
resilient artifacts onto the seabed, which too buried. Dispersion
of the upper works would have been dependent on the force of surface
winds and subsequent seabed currents, inlet flow, and the nature
and weight of cultural materials. Historic charts indicate several
episodes when the inlet migrated across the shipwreck site during
the 19th century and early 20th century (Wells and McNinch 2001).
During times when inlet currents flowed directly over the site,
the wreckage became re-exposed and the site likely suffered further
deterioration. The last inlet migration event took place in 1927
when channel depths were 20 feet at the site. Judging from this
episode, historic exposure to inlet currents may have been relatively
short in duration, measured in terms of months rather than years.
In 1928, water depths were 15' and by 1930, the site was completely
shoaled with only 6' of water over the site (Suggs 2004).
Since the 1930s, charts show a shift from the occasional impacts
of natural migration to the long-term effects of inlet stabilization
and progressive deepening and widening of the shipping channel by
the US Army Corps of Engineers beginning in 1936. Nautical charts
over the past 70 years show the slow and steady loss of sediment
at 31CR314 (Suggs 2004) (Figure 2). This is symptomatic of an the
overall erosion of the ebb-tidal delta due to channel dredging,
which has taken large amounts of sand out of the littoral system
(Cleary 1999). Nautical charts and age dating of the most mature
coral growing on the exposed wreckage at the QAR site (Lindquist
1998) indicate that around 1980 water depths reached 20 feet and
the site became exposed. Over the past 25 years, wave-generated,
bottom currents, predominantly hurricanes, have continuously affected
the archaeological remains. The primary reason for this exposure
is a scour resistant sand layer, which lies beneath the wreck site
and restricts the burial process (McNinch et al 2001). Recent studies
by project archaeologists show a five-inch net sediment loss relative
to exposed portions of the site over the past four years, thus demonstrating
an increasingly exposed condition (Southerly 2006) (Figure 3).
Methods
Stratified Sampling Strategy
Based on past investigations of 31CR314 a directed sampling strategy
is proposed as the most cost effective and timely way to gather
comprehensive data. Although it is not entirely random, the sampling
regime allows more or less total site coverage and will provide
a body of evidence for comparison of areas within the site and with
other archaeological sites and historical documentation, as well.
For this purpose, up to twenty 5 x 5 foot (1.524 x 1.524 meters)
excavation units will be placed across the site to bring the area
fully excavated to approximately 10% (Figure 4). The 1997 excavation
unit around cannon C2 and the five units associated with the emergency
recovery of the hull structure in 2000 are integrated into this
sampling plan. The logic behind unit placement is based on current
understanding of site extent and ship orientation. Seven lateral
zones (nearshore, bow, forward, midship, aft, stern, and offshore)
have been used to dissect the site based on researchers' knowledge
of site layout and extent. The interior zones are each 25 feet (7.62
meters) wide while the end zones are left open to include artifact
scatter either north (nearshore) or south (offshore) of the main
concentration.
Site layout is based on the projected length of an early
18th century vessel of 90 - 100 feet (27.43 - 30.48 meters) overall
length as reflected in the archaeological record (Figure 5). The
orientation of vessel remains is based on the observed distribution
of functional classes of artifacts across the site as they relate
to a traditional ship's layout. Projections for the location of
the stern at the south end of the site are indicated by a greater
predominance of pewter plates, scientific and medical instruments,
gold dust found in that area, a greater and richer assemblage.
Conversely, a large anchor on the north end is thought to be one
the ship's bower anchors.
Unit location within each zone has been selected to
address research inquiries beyond simply stern to bow site stratification.
Above providing an adequate sampling within each zone, unit placement
is oriented east to west to potentially reveal the circumstances of
the wrecking event and site deposition. Specifically this would reveal
whether the vessel settled and deteriorated on even keel or instead
heeled over on its beam-ends distributing its remains in a discernable
pattern. Evidence that this ship may have fallen over on its port
side during the wrecking process is suggested by the scatter of cannon
along its the west side. (Figure 6). A similar occurrence has been
reported for the HMS Dartmouth where it also appears that the
horizontal stratification between the lower bilge and deck level was
observable (Muckelroy 1978:188). This artifact distribution should
be discernable from a vessel that deteriorated on level keel, where
artifacts lying east to west would represent starboard to port and
exhibit few discernable differences.
The placement of systematic units across the site also allows
archaeologists to examine potential impacts from natural elements.
Based on previous observations, dominant current flow during periods
of exposure is in a northerly or shoreward direction (McNinch et
al 2001). Marine geologists using sub-bottom sonar have revealed
the presence of scour marks from other submerged shipwrecks, which
act as obstructions to alter current flow and enhance scour and deposition
(Caston 1979; Quin et al 1997). This phenomena is also reported
at 31CR314. "The concretions of the artifacts create a strong
backscatter signal [sub-bottom sonar], inverted and expressed as white,
and can be seen elevated above the surrounding seafloor with a linear
depression visible in the background immediately behind the mound"
(McNinch et al (2006:17). Based on predominant current flow,
artifacts with less specific gravity are more likely to be propelled
to the northern portion of the site and overall artifact distribution
should extend further from the main wreckage. Preliminary observations,
examining ballast recovered from 31CR314 has shown a proportionally
greater number of smaller, lighter stones forward of the midship area
as opposed to the aft section (Craig 2005 pers. com.). Artifact distribution
observed during exploratory excavations hints that at the southern
margins of the site, definition is much greater than the northern
end where artifacts appear to thin out, presumably due to scour.
To gain a better understanding concerning localized
movement of small artifacts horizontally across the site, excavation
units may be expanded on either side of at least one large object,
such as a cannon prior to its recovery. The purpose is to determine
if there is a detectable snowdrift effect whereby heavier artifacts
concentrate or pile up on the side from which the predominant
current flows (south) compared with the lee side (north) where
small artifacts may be less abundant due to obstruction from the
larger object and subsequent scour and dispersal.
Within the sampling scheme, several units will also
be placed predicated their potential to reveal specific details
about the site or recover known concentrations of related artifacts.
Some excavation units are designed to investigate gradiometer
targets that are likely to represent undocumented cannon. Ship's
cannon have proved among the most chronologically diagnostic type
of artifact, providing dates of manufacture based on style and
in one case an absolute casting date. They also provide a better
understanding of overall ship size and armament, as well as gunnery
practices distinguishing military from non-military practices.
Perhaps most importantly, individual cannon often bring with them
a wealth of attached, well-preserved artifacts as part of the
overall concretion. Cannon C4 with over 700 intact, hand-wrought
nails and the large, ballast covered concretion, which contained
cannons C19 and C21 and many other items such as tobacco pipes
and animal bone, both amply illustrate the reason for seeking
out cannons as items to recover. Other artifacts, particularly
pewterware and scientific instruments, may contain marks related
to manufacture or ownership and will be recovered as the occasion
arises.
The recording of elevations in the past has revealed
that the site is highly deflated beyond the concentration of remains
at the center of the site, which represents the main ballast pile
complete with numerous cannon and several anchors. Using string
and line levels, a temporary datum will be established on each
of the baseline stakes, which will in turn provide a means to
establish vertical reference points at each of the excavation
units (southwest corner post). When distances of less then 30
feet (9.14 meter) are maintained when pulling vertical references
coupled with multiple measurements, 3-inch (0.07 meter) accuracy
will be maintained throughout the site. Because of deflation,
recording stratigraphic measurements in most units will provide
minimally significant data and therefore, will not be a priority
unless field observations reveal otherwise. One exception will
be the unit placed adjacent to the exposed mound where culturally
deposited remains may hold vertical importance.
Some attention will be paid to the fine sand zone upon
which all cultural materials at the site are know to rest in an
attempt to better understand the extent and depth of this scour
resistant and culturally sterile sediment layer. Several excavation
units will be selected for deeper excavation to penetrate this underlying
layer of sand to determine it's thickness and to take sediment samples.
This information will provide geologists with further data upon
which to base predictive modeling for storm impact studies.
Individual Excavations Unit
The placement of excavation units are done so to adequately
sample the site as discussed above. They are listed by zone from south
to north and within those zones from west to east. The southwest corner
designates all units. The order of excavation, which is discussed
below, will not take place in this order (see Figure 4).
Offshore Zone
E70/N20 and E85/N15 - Examine extent and occurrence
of artifacts south
(seaward of the projected stern)
Stern Zone
E65/N35 - Examine extent of artifacts west/projected
upper deck level.
E85/N35 - Check negative anomaly area and investigate rudder and
stern post/bilge section.
E100/N35 - Examine extent of artifacts east/projected lower hull
area.
Aft Zone
E65/N60 - Examine extent of artifacts east/projected
upper deck section and check small anomaly target. E110/N50 -
Check small anomaly target and lower deck level.
Midship Zone
E65/N75 - Examine extent of artifacts west/ projected
upper deck level; recover cannon C15 if possible. E95/N70 - Investigate
mound stratigraphy, potential sealed deposits for sampling (ie.
pollen); recover cannon C5 if possible.
E110/N75 - Examine lower deck section.
Forward Zone
E55/N90 - Examine extent of artifacts west/ projected
upper deck level.
E109/N95 - Check small anomaly target and lower deck section.
Bow Zone
E75/N110 - Collect artifacts at projected upper deck
level and check large anomaly target as potential cannon.
E90/N115 - Investigate portion of previously excavated area (1998
120'trench) to observe movement of artifacts from previous site
drawing or noticeable differences between excavated and unexcavated
area in terms of artifact quantity or preservation.
E110/N110 - Examine extent of artifacts east/ projected bilge
area.
Nearshore
E90/N130, E85/N145, E105/N155 - Examine extent and occurrence
of artifacts north shoreward of the projected bow.
Recovery Methods
After establishing unit location, installing a corner
stake, orienting a mapping frame over the unit, excavation will
proceed. Dredge operators will be experienced archaeologists and
archaeological technicians, coordinated by the supervising archaeologists.
Recovery will proceed as follows:
·Removal of overburden down
to the tops of the artifacts, which may be negligible to nearly
4 feet (1.22 meters), will be accomplished with a 6" induction
dredge and the unscreened outfall will be directed toward the margins
of the site and noted on the site plan. The dredge operator will
be directed to stop operations and report the situation in the event
that cultural materials are detected.
·Once the artifact
layer is encountered, the 6" dredge will continue until the
tops of artifacts are defined. During this stage, excavation will
be extended on each side to attain side slopes that minimize slumping
of sand during the completion of the excavation.
·The artifact-bearing
layer is known to be less than 0.75 to 1.12 feet (0.23 to 0.38 meter)
based on past observations. Once the tops of artifacts are defined,
physical mapping, recording the elevations of major artifacts and
sediment levels, and if possible, photo-documentation will be undertaken.
·Excavation will then commence
with a 3" dredge system to clean around and highlight artifacts
for mapping. Once artifacts within a unit are sufficiently exposed,
each unit will be drawn and when possible photographed noting
artifacts larger than 0.5 feet (.15 meter) and/or those with diagnostic
attributes, as well as notable clusters of small artifacts or
other features.
· Archaeologists will record basic elevations
from positions taken from the datum post using a string and line
level. Heights will be recorded for the seabed height, elevations
of prominent artifacts, and bottom of the cultural layer (top
or scour resistant layer).
· Mapped artifacts or groups of artifacts
will be tagged and/or bagged, and recovered as a single feature.
Tagging will be done in a manner that will provide an object's
original orientation to allow post recovery photographs to digitally
integrate the artifacts onto the unit plan using an Autocad mapping
program. Smaller artifacts that did not warrant mapping will be
recovered as a feature, given a single provenience, and brought
to the surface for inspection, cataloguing, and processing.
· After removing all discernable artifacts
and prior to reaching the lowest level of the cultural layer,
a 'scoop' sample will be taken from the lower level of the cultural
layer and processed using the gold panning method to recover the
smallest of items, such as small flakes of gold or minute lead
shot. Since artifact resorting has been observed throughout the
site based on the presence of intrusive modern materials, tiny
lead shot and flakes of gold are likely to be the only significant
cultural materials surviving in context due to their relative
weight and migration to the lowest portion of the cultural layer
during site formation.This 'scoop' sample, which consists of a
volume of approximately 2 gallons (7.57 liters), will provide
approximately an eighth to a tenth of the basal portion of each
unit's cultural layer. This amount captures an adequate sample
within each excavation unit for intra-site comparison without
requiring the time and equipment needed to recover all materials
from the unit. While this has been accomplished in the past using
a gold sluice system located on the recovery vessel, its use requires
time, equipment, and labor that was better used completing all
units in the allotted time. When full-scale recovery commences
and if the plan is to recover and process all sediments, it will
be more efficient to revisit and complete the recovery of that
time.
· At several units,
as time and conditions allow and at the discretion of the archaeological
supervisor, excavations will continue below the cultural layer
to sample and document the nature and depth of the scour resistant
layer and underlying strata. Excavators will employ sediment sampling
and stratigraphic profiling to explore the extent of this layer.
· Detailed operations
plans have been developed to provide procedure and protocol during
all phases of data and artifact recovery planned for the 2005-2006
expeditions. See the attached Field Operations Plan (Southerly
2005) and Conservation Recovery Plan (Watkins-Kenney 2005).
Artifact Processing and Analysis
Project archaeologists will use a modified artifact cataloguing
system originally developed by Stanley South for pattern analysis
as a means to discern culturally significant trends on British Colonial
settlements in the Carolinas (1977). Identifiable artifacts from
31CR314 will be classified using basic categories of ship architecture,
armament, sustenance, personal effects, tools, cargo, and intrusive
(post early 18th century). Careful inspection with the trained eye
is the first step in this process. Cataloguing artifacts from a
marine environment, however, can be a challenge because often concretion
obscures an artifacts identity. With the exception of ballast stones
and the few artifacts that are free of concretion and observable,
such as those made of lead, most artifacts will not be readily available
for analysis due to heavy fouling from corrosion and marine growth.
With the recovery of three to four hundred concretions, each containing
multiple and varied artifacts, providing a meaningful cataloguing
of artifacts for preliminary analysis will be no small task.
To aid this process all recovered concretions are
to be taken to the North Carolina Museum of Art where they will
be X-rayed with funding from a National Geographic Expeditions Council
grant. X-radiography on previously recovered concretions has enabled
researchers to identify lead shot, glass beads, nails and other
iron fittings, items of pewter and copper alloy, gold flakes, and
in one instance, a wooden ruler was detected within a bar shot concretion
(Welsh 2005). While X-rays cannot reveal everything contained in
a concretion, especially organic materials, nor provide a means
to accurately measure individual items, they greatly advance our
understanding of the artifact assemblage given the investment in
time and cost compared with manual cleaning and conservation. Beyond
their potential in terms of analysis, X-radiography helps determine
priorities for further investigation of artifacts and during that
process will provide the conservator with valuable clues on how
best to clean and break apart concretions mechanically.
Regardless of what they represent, detailed, standardized
information for each artifact will be recorded in the conservation
database including location on site, material type, weight, and
size. When possible these artifacts will be placed within function
groups and all information then entered into the project's specimen
database along with provenience and material type. Classifying artifacts
within each excavation unit sets the stage for an examination of
their frequency and relationship between units and across the site.
Determining chi square distributions and testing significance using
the t-test can establish the relationship of artifact types and
their frequency between units and areas of the site. Meaningful
distributions can address questions concerning the ship's layout,
circumstances of loss, and site formation processes as the initial
steps in inferring discrete behavior.
The simplest spatial observation will focus on the quantity
and distribution of redundant artifacts like ballast that provide
the location of the lower bilge area extending out in either direction
from the mainmast. Based on current knowledge of the site's orientation
and layout, artifacts related to officer duties will be found on the
south or stern end of the debris field, as ship's were traditionally
laid out. The degree to which these are segregated from similar artifacts
in the bow can reflect the degree to which the crew maintained a strict
hierarchical system of management. Based on descriptions of 18th century
slave ships, which apparently was QAR's former service, nearly
all crew activity, both officer and sailor, would have been restricted
to the stern to minimize contact with the human cargo and the possibility
of slaves gaining control of the vessel (Gaston-Martin 1993: 28-33;
Boudriot 1984: 18-19). On the other hand, the perceived egalitarian
nature of pirate society might have homogenized artifact distribution
spreading artifacts, such as navigational instruments and finer wares,
forward into the cargo area of a slaver or the enlisted quarters of
traditional merchantmen and military ships (Rediker 1987: 254-287).
An understanding of the affect currents have played
in forming what is seen today can also be examined and tested through
intra-site distributions. Acknowledging environment is important
to avoid attributing increased frequencies of items to cultural
behavior. For instance, with the predominant current flow from south
to north, it may very well be that artifacts with lighter density
once located in the stern area have been propelled toward to the
bow. To determine how influential natural impacts have been in the
past, a study of the size and distribution of ballast stone size
will provide insight. It is reasonable to assume that smaller, lighter
rocks would have migrated with seabed currents during times of exposure
at a greater rate than heavier ones and that these will be reflected
in greater densities within various units. If ballast sizes were
relatively uniform within the bilge while afloat, then any meaningful
distribution with regard to size and weight will allow researchers
to quantify impacts to the entire archaeological record caused by
the environment. Ballast distributions can be compared to concretion
distribution in a like manner to see if the same phenomena are present.
These are a few basic examples of how a stratified sampling regime
and distribution analysis can further understanding of the cultural
and environmental processes represented at 31CR314.
Expected Outcome and Evaluation
The completion of fieldwork is expected at the end of
May 2006. At the time of excavation and field analysis, units
selected to examine anomaly targets and potential activity areas
will generally be answered. For instance, the recovery of what
has been preliminarily identified as the ship's toilet (pissoir)
in May 2005 represents the extreme end of the vessel, since it
is a heavy lead object that is likely not to have moved far from
its original position. Conversely, if this heavy item is not in
its original position then environmental forces played a greater
role in forming the archaeological site that currently thought
to be the case. Other areas, such as evidence of bricks and tiles
from the galley stove, may come to light in the field.
Artifact x-raying and cataloguing has taken place during
the winter and spring of 2005-2006 and will continue through the summer
2006. Cataloguing and spatial analysis will follow. The use of chi-square
calculations in combination with computer software utility programs,
AutoCAD and ESRI ArcGIS 9.0, will allow archaeologists to better understand
the relative position and association of artifacts across the shipwreck.
Comparative analysis of certain types or classes of artifacts and
their quantities within respective unit zones and sections will test
general expectations concerning vessel orientation, layout, affiliation,
period, and lead to a more refined understanding of its meaning and
archaeological potential. A comprehensive artifact assemblage will
also provide the means to compare this site with other ships, specifically
Whydah and Betsy, and collections from mid-Atlantic
terrestrial sites as a means of gainer a broader understanding of
its place in the economic, social and political events of the time.
As more comparative data comes to light, the more it will be possible
to identify similarities and differences as a means of eliciting underlying
factors that guide human behavior.
The preliminary results of the 2005-2006 stratified
sampling study will be presented during a symposium at the Society
of Historic Archaeology conference held in January 2007 in Williamsburg,
Virginia. The findings will be used to develop a full recovery
research plan for 31CR314 and the basis to project equipment,
personnel, and funding needs to undertake this level of archaeological
investigation. The final outcome of recovery work undertaken during
this phase of investigation will be dependent on the completion
of concretion cleaning and analysis, which will take several years
given the best scenario. At that time, a progress report will
be produced as an addendum to the interim project report scheduled
for completion later this year.
While not covered within the recovery plan, a primary goal
of the 2005/06 investigation satisfies goals of the Golden LEAF Foundation
by heightening public awareness during renewed recovery operations.
This, in turn, will lead to an increase in traveler visitation and
spending in coastal North Carolina. This economic boost may clearly
demonstrate the public's interest in the project and willingness to
support the cleaning and conservation of artifacts recovered during
2005. If funding is successfully obtained for artifact processing,
research and interpretive data will be greatly expanded since many
more artifacts will be available for display at the NC Maritime Museum
and other venues around the state and country, and the conservation
laboratory will reduce its backlog in preparation for additional recovery.
Evidence of public support can be measured through attendance at museums,
exhibits, and programs featuring the QAR site, website hits,
media coverage, and public inquiries. Ultimately, the final measure
of success will come when the financial means are secured to adequately
manage and protect the shipwreck for years to come. Given current
understanding of the site situation and predictions of heightened
storm activities in the immediate future, the full-scale rescue of
all items lying on the seabed to safety of conservation and curatorial
facilities of the state of North Carolina is likely an important and
necessary final goal for shipwreck site 31CR314.
7.5 Reference Cited
Adams, Jonathan
2001 Ships and Boats as Archaeological Source Material, World
Archaeology Vol. 32(3): 292-310
Bandy, Stephanie L.
2000 "…Wth all the Houseing thereon…" A Reassessment of the Seventeenth
and Early Eighteenth Century Occupation f the Newbold-White House
Site Perquimans County, North Carolina. A thesis presented to
the Anthropology Department, East Carolina University, Greenville,
NC.
Bonnet, Stede
1719 The Tryals of Major Stede Bonnet, and Other Pirates.
London: Benjamin Cowse.
Brand, Ellis
1718 Letter of Captain Ellis Brand to the Board of Admiralty
[July 12, 1718]. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, ADM 1/1741.
Butler, Lindley S.
2006 Proprietary North Carolina: Politics, Shipping, and Pirates,
Interim Report: Assessment and Emergency Recovery of North Carolina
Archaeological Shipwreck Site 31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge,
Edited by Mark Wilde-Ramsing, David D. Moore, and Christopher R. Southerly,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources publication series (in
press), Raleigh, NC.
Caston, G.F.
1979 Wreck Marks: Indicators of Net Sand Transport, Marine
Geology, Vol. 33, p. 193 - 204. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam.
Cleary, William J, and T.P. Marden
1999 Shifting Shorelines: A Pictorial Atlas of North Carolina's
Inlets. NC Sea Grant Special Publication #UNC-SG-99-04. North
Carolina Sea Grant, NC State University, Raleigh, NC.
Cockrell, Wilburn
1983 A Trial Model for the Analysis of Shipwrecks, Shipwreck
Anthropology, Richard Gould, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Craig, James R.
2005 Personal communication regarding analysis of ballast sampling
exercise conducted in 2000. Institute of Marine Science, Morehead
City, NC.
Delgado, James P.
1997 Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology.
British Museum Press. London, p 57 - 59.
Gaston-Martin
1993 Ere des negriers 1714-1774, Karthala
Gibson, Kelly
2004 Examination of Sub-bottom Survey Data and Sediment Cores
at the Queen Anne's Revenge Wreck Site. Senior Thesis, Department
of Physical Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, College
of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.
Henry, Nathan
2006 Arms and Armament, Interim Report: Assessment and Emergency
Recovery of North Carolina Archaeological Shipwreck Site 31CR314, Queen
Anne's Revenge, Edited by Mark Wilde-Ramsing, David D. Moore, and
Christopher R. Southerly, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
publication series (in press), Raleigh, NC.
Lautzenheiser, Loretta E., Patricia Samford, Jaquelin Drane Nash,
Mary Ann Holm, and Thomas Hargrove
1998 "I was Moved of the Lord to go to Carolina…"
Data Recovery at Eden House Site 31BR52, Bertie County, North
Carolina, Prepared for The North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Raleigh, NC.
Lenihan, Daniel
1983 Rethinking Shipwreck Archaeology, Shipwreck Anthropology,
Richard Gould, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
McNinch, Jesse E., John T. Wells and Thomas G. Drake
2001 The Fate of Artifacts in an Energetic, Shallow-Water
Environment: Scour and Burial at the Wreck Site of Queen Anne's Revenge.
Southeastern Geology, Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 19-27. Duke University,
Durham, NC.
McNinch, Jesse E., Arthur C. Trembanis, and John T. Wells
2006 Environmental Conditions, Interim Report: Assessment
and Emergency Recovery of North Carolina Archaeological Shipwreck Site
31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge, Edited by Mark Wilde-Ramsing,
David D. Moore, and Christopher R. Southerly, North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources publication series (in press), Raleigh, NC.
Moore, David D.
2001 Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge: Archaeological
Interpretation and Research Focused on the Hull Remains and Ship-related
Accoutrements Associated with Site 31-CR-314, Tributaries, no.
11 (October): 49 - 64.
2006 Ship's Architecture, Interim Report: Assessment and Emergency
Recovery of North Carolina Archaeological Shipwreck Site 31CR314, Queen
Anne's Revenge, Edited by Mark Wilde-Ramsing, David D. Moore, and
Christopher R. Southerly, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
publication series (in press), Raleigh, NC.
Muckelroy, Keith
1978 Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Neumann, Thomas W., and Robert M. Sanford
2001 Practicing Archaeology: A Training Manual for Cultural Resources
Archaeology. Altimira Press. New York.
O'Shea, John M.
2004 The Identification of shipwreck sites: a Bayesian approach.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 1533-1552.
Quinn, R., Bull, J.M., Dix, J.K. and Adams, J.R.,
1997 The Mary Rose site-geophysical evidence for paleo-scour
marks: International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, v. 26,
p. 3 -16.
Redicker, Marcus
1987 Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, Merchant
Seamen, Pirates, and the Anglo-American Maritime World, 1700-1750,
Cambridge University Press, NY.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic
Press, New York.
Southerly, Chris
2005 Queen Anne's Revenge Field Operations - May 2005,
Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Project. North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources. On line. http://www.qaronline.org/QAR_Fieldwork_May2005.pdf
2006 Archaeological Investigations and Site Analysis, Interim
Report: Assessment and Emergency Recovery of North Carolina Archaeological
Shipwreck Site 31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge, Edited by Mark
Wilde-Ramsing, David D. Moore, and Christopher R. Southerly, North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources publication series (in press), Raleigh,
NC.
Suggs, Allison
2004 Channel Movements over Wreckage Site 31CR314, Final Project
for Youth Advocacy and Involvement Internship, Ms on file QAR
Shipwreck Project, Morehead City, NC.
Trembanis, Arthur C. and Jesse E. McNinch
2003 Predicting Scour and Maximum Settling Depths of Shipwrecks:
A Numeric Simulation of the Fate of Queen Anne's Revenge. Proceedings
of Coastal Sediments '03. ASCE Press, Clearwater Beach, FL.
Turner, Alexander
2000 Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Project: GIS Needs
Assessment and Requirements, Document prepared for NC Underwater Archaeology
Branch/QAR Shipwreck Project, On file Morehead City, NC.
Watkins-Kenney, Sarah
2005 Queen Anne's Revenge Field Operations - May 2005:
Artifact Conservation & Documentation, Queen Anne's Revenge
Shipwreck Project. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
On line. http://www.qaronline.org/QAR_Conservation_May2005.pdf
Watkins-Kenney, Sarah and Eric Nordgren
2005 Conservation Estimate for Artifacts recovered from QAR
Field Season: May 2005, QAR Shipwreck Project In-house report,
On file Greenville, NC.
Wells, John T., and Jesse E. McNinch
2001 Reconstructing Shoal and Channel Configuration in Beaufort
Inlet: 300 years of Change at the Site of Queen Anne's Revenge.
Southeastern Geology. Vol. 40, NO. 1, p. 11-18. Duke University,
Durham, NC.
Welsh, Wendy
2005 Laboratory Excavation Report March-April 2005, Queen
Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Project, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resouces, Raleigh, NC. On line. http://www.qaronline.org/conservation/marchApril05.htm
Wilde-Ramsing, Mark U.
2005a The Queen Anne's Revenge shipwreck site: a case
study for evaluating and managing historic shipwrecks, Maritime Heritage
and Modern Ports, Editors R. Marcet I Barbe, C.A. Brebbia, and J.
Olivella. WittPress, Southampton, Boston.
2005b May 2005 Archaeological Recovery Plan, Queen Anne's
Revenge Shipwreck Project, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, On-line. http://www.qaronline.org/QARMayrecoveryplanfinal.pdf
2006 Summary of Findings, Site Interpretations and Recommendations,
Interim Report: Assessment and Emergency Recovery of North Carolina
Archaeological Shipwreck Site 31CR314, Queen Anne's Revenge,
Edited by Mark Wilde-Ramsing, David D. Moore, and Christopher R. Southerly,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources publication series (in
press), Raleigh, NC.
Wilde-Ramsing, Mark U. and Richard W. Lawrence
1984 North Carolina Underwater Archeology Branch Environmental
Review Procedures (Revised 2004). On file Fort Fisher, NC.
Wilde-Ramsing, Mark U. and W. L. Lusardi
1999 Management Plan for North Carolina Shipwreck 003BUI: Queen
Anne's Revenge, NC Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh,
NC.
|
