QAR Management Plan

On November 21, 1996, the private company Intersal Inc. located a shipwreck near Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. The site dates to the early eighteenth century, making it the oldest recorded shipwreck in North Carolina. Since its discovery, researchers have attempted to determine whether it is the remains of a vessel lost in the inlet in 1718 by the pirate captain Edward Thatch, better known as Blackbeard. Mounting physical evidence and the absence of another shipwreck candidate provide strong support that this shipwreck is Blackbeard's flagship Queen Anne's Revenge. While a definitive artifact has not been located directly tying the shipwreck remains to the historic vessel or its piratical crew refer to the site as Queen Anne's Revenge throughout the following pages.
This management summary is an excerpt from the Management Plan for North Carolina Shipwreck 31CR314 [Formerly 0003BUI], Queen Anne's Revenge, written under the supervision of project director Mark Wilde-Ramsing of the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Unit.

Researchers have completed two years of intense study of North Carolina shipwreck 31CR314 [Formerly 0003BUI], during which they made great strides toward understanding its nature, origin, and significance. Based on their findings, there can be little doubt that this shipwreck is the pirate Blackbeard's flagship Queen Anne's Revenge, lost at Beaufort Inlet in 1718. The location of the shipwreck, its tantalizing array of early-eighteenth-century artifacts, and the lack of any other possible candidates from historical records strongly support that conclusion.

Using historical chart overlays, the position of the shipwreck corresponds with the offshore bar near the entrance to the early-eighteenth-century channel. David Harriot, who sailed with Blackbeard, testified that "the said Thatch's ship Queen Anne's Revenge run a-ground off of the Bar of Topsail Inlet." Royal Navy captain Ellis Brand of HMS Lyme corroborated this location with his own report, stating that the ship "Stuck upon the bar att the entrance of the harbour and is lost." The search for ship candidates in this area has been extensive and has produced a list of ten vessels other than Queen Anne's Revenge sunk during the eighteenth century. All of these ships were merchant vessels, and none were large enough or mounted the armament suggested by historical and archaeological evidence.

Artifacts recovered from the shipwreck provide a reasonably narrow time period from the late seventeenth to the early eighteenth century. The most diagnostic of those materials include:

The artifact assemblage not only points to the correct time period but also compares favorably with artifacts reported from Whydah Galley, a pirate vessel lost a year before the loss of Queen Anne's Revenge. The cannons and munitions, gun parts, sector, and pewterware recovered from the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck are similar to those from the Whydah. Other artifacts such as the lead cannon aprons, decorative lead tacks, dividers, and serpentine side plate are virtually identical.

Given its possible association with Blackbeard, an internationally known historical figure who is interwoven into the fabric of North Carolina lore, this shipwreck and its importance to the state cannot be overemphasized. As an archaeological time capsule representing early-eighteenth-century maritime activities in the New World, the shipwreck can shed light on the period's naval armaments and warfare, ship construction and repair, colonial provisioning, the slave trade, and shipboard life. The site is an artificial reef created nearly three centuries ago that provides a valuable opportunity to study biological growth, sand movement, and mineralogy. General questions can be addressed concerning piracy and pirate lifestyles, as well as more intriguing ones dealing with Blackbeard's activities and actions. The shipwreck's significance is greatly magnified because of its connection with Blackbeard, the most notorious representative of the Golden Age of Piracy.

The Queen Anne's Revenge project provides a unique opportunity to promote public education and tourism. Since the public recognizes the pirate and romantic interest in the subject of piracy is keen, particularly among students, the shipwreck will create interest in classroom subjects relating to history, biology, geology, cartography, underwater archaeology, and artifact conservation. Excavation of the shipwreck and exhibits displaying its remains will bring tourists to eastern North Carolina and can produce substantial economic benefits for the region and the state.

Recognizing the significance of Queen Anne's Revenge, North Carolina's secretary of the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) Betty Ray McCain has declared the shipwreck site a protected area. This designation calls for the development of a management plan to guide all access, recovery, and conservation of Site 31CR314. The plan also specifies that all artifacts shall be kept as an intact collection in an appropriate repository. The declaration was a result, in part, of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) among DCR, Intersal Inc., and Maritime Research Institute (MRI), a nonprofit corporation formed to work on the project. The MOA created a unique partnership for the purpose of preserving and protecting the site (Appendix C).

This complex shipwreck site contains a large quantity of varied artifacts that require a concerted effort to record, recover, analyze, conserve, and exhibit. Scientists have also determined that the shipwreck has been repeatedly exposed and buried as a result of inlet dynamics. For most of the time since 1718, the shipwreck remains have been covered by sand. Queen Anne's Revenge is currently exposed, however, which provides a rare opportunity to explore and retrieve its remains at a minimal cost. The exposed site is vulnerable to catastrophic storms, such as hurricanes, and the impacts from such storms could significantly alter the shipwreck and cause severe loss of materials and information.

The management plan provides four options for the protection, preservation, and study of Queen Anne's Revenge.

By selecting the Nonintervention option, a decline in the archaeological integrity of Queen Anne's Revenge will occur and could result in irretrievable damage to the site. In addition, there will be little public benefit, and the responsibility for research and recovery of artifacts, if it ever occurs, will be relegated to future generations. In Situ Preservation (burial) may provide some protection for exposed remains but is deemed a temporary measure. While preparing and covering the shipwreck involve predictable costs, monitoring the site and redeposition may end up being just as costly as recovery options. Delaying recovery may also escalate costs and diminish public interest.

The sooner sensitive materials on the site can be properly recorded and recovered using the highest scientific standards, the more likely it is that the maximum information will be available for study, interpretation, and display. Therefore, the Excavation (large-scale recovery) option is recommended. A substantial amount of funding will be required to fully excavate, conserve, and exhibit the shipwreck's remains, whether that is accomplished in a few years or decades. If these funds are not immediately available through government appropriations, it is recommended that the Maintenance and Exploration (limited recovery) option be implemented. This will obligate a small, full-time staff with supporting resources to monitor the condition of Queen Anne's Revenge, deal with emergency situations, and continue the laboratory treatment and analysis of recovered artifacts. As a consequence, public interest will remain high, which should generate public and private funding to support the future excavation of one of North Carolina's most remarkable cultural resources.

On November 21, 1996, divers from the private research firm Intersal Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida, working under two DCR search permits (#96BUI584 and #96BUI585), reported finding several cannons and anchors on a magnetometer target on the western shoals of Beaufort Inlet. The permits authorized Intersal to search for the Spanish ship El Salvador (1750) and two of Blackbeard's vessels lost at Beaufort Inlet in June 1718. Artifacts collected at the site included lead sheets (identified as cannon touchhole aprons), a bronze bell (inscribed IHS MARIA, ANO DE 1709), a brass blunderbuss barrel, a large sounding weight (21 pounds), several iron cask hoops, and two cannonballs. Upon inspection of the site and recovered materials, state underwater archaeologists agreed that there was a good chance that they represented a ship once associated with the notorious pirate Blackbeard. At the very least, the fact that the shipwreck contained well-preserved early eighteenth-century materials made it a very important archaeological site to the DCR. Therefore, staff from the department's Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU), in cooperation with Intersal and MRI, initiated an intense two-year period of field investigations and historical research to obtain a more clear understanding of the shipwreck.

The Queen Anne's Revenge site lies in 20 to 25 feet of water 1.2 nautical miles off Fort Macon and 1,500 yards west of the present Beaufort Inlet shipping channel (Figure 1). That channel passes between the barrier islands of Shackleford and Bogue Banks into the port towns of Morehead City and Beaufort. To better understand the shipwreck site, researchers initiated a variety of environmental studies. The results of those studies will identify working conditions at the site to help plan archaeological investigations. That information will also have historical

importance because it will reveal the natural processes that affected the ship during the wrecking episode and for the nearly three hundred years since the vessel was lost.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) have been digitizing historic charts to track past movements of the inlet's channel and associated shoals in the vicinity of Queen Anne's Revenge. Cartographic studies of the inlet through historic times show that the inlet's channel naturally migrated back and forth and appears to have passed over the shipwreck several times. Consequently, the shipwreck was periodically subjected to intense channel currents, while at other times it may have been covered by as much as 20 feet of sand.

The collection of environmental data included daily weather and water conditions that affected work, such as wind strength and direction, wave height, and water temperature and clarity. To further understand environmental conditions, the IMS positioned an electromagnetic current and wave sensor near the site to record current velocity and direction, and wave height and frequency. That instrument, installed in April 1998, remained in place for one year, including the period during which Hurricane Bonnie passed through the area with sustained winds of 75 miles per hour.

The remains of Queen Anne's Revenge are located in a shallow and dynamic coastal environment. Other than the tidal currents, the site is subjected to nearly constant wind-generated wave action that can be catastrophic during hurricanes. During both field seasons, hurricanes situated hundreds of miles offshore produced large, slow waves that rolled over the site and created a surge on the bottom that made it impossible for divers to work. Readings from the current meter were even more dramatic during Hurricane Bonnie; currents registered 2 knots over an extended period. At the height of the storm, an extremely dynamic current surge reached 8 knots and caused considerable movement of bottom sediments. Scouring from those currents was evident, when in 1998 portions of the wooden hull structure were found exposed.

Geologists at IMS have analyzed sediments recovered from beneath both the hull section and several ballast rocks to determine if they contain the radioisotopes Cesium 137 and Plutonium 239 and 240, which have dramatically increased since atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s. The lack of significant amounts of bomb-produced radioisotopes indicates that large artifacts have not shifted about the sea floor in the last fifty years, thus giving scientists an understanding of the degree to which the site's archaeological context has been disturbed.

Seawater temperatures, which fluctuate from winter lows in the mid-40s to the low 80s (degrees Fahrenheit) during the summer, are not a deterrent for divers wearing proper equipment. On the other hand, water clarity can greatly affect working conditions. Though visibility can exceed 20 feet at the site, it averages less than 3 feet. Water clarity generally increases during calm weather and when the tide is rising. Water-quality studies conducted by Cape Fear Community College Marine Technology Program (CFCC) technicians recorded salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH. This information helps the conservators in their efforts to predict the corrosive potential of the environment on metal artifacts.

The exposed wreckage of Queen Anne's Revenge, made up principally of anchors, cannons, and ballast, is a well-developed near-shore artificial reef community lying in mid-Atlantic waters. Biologists from IMS have determined that the wreck has been exposed for the past fifteen years, based on the rate of coral growth. Peter Gillman-Bryan of Truelove Fabrications conducted a biological survey in which he recorded a typical array of animal and plant life at Queen Anne's Revenge. Attached to the reef were varieties of coralline algae, encrusting bryozoans, sponges, corals, barnacles, and oysters. Small brown anemones, sea pork, sea squirts, sea whips, and purple urchins were also noted. Numerous species of fish inhabit the waters surrounding the shipwreck, among them conger eels, toadfish, blennys, filefish, triggerfish, spadefish, angelfish, spottail pin fish, black sea bass, sheepshead, summer flounder, octopus, and rays. Several kinds of crabs feed among the organisms, as did a few types of gastropods such as tulip whelk and apple murex. Divers have also observed a sea turtle on the ballast pile. The dearth of a substantial amount of fishing tackle near Queen Anne's Revenge indicates that the site has been only occasionally visited by recreational fishermen and has been effectively avoided by commercial trawlers, thus minimizing damage to exposed cultural remains.

The UAU maintains research files on more than five thousand shipwrecks reported lost in North Carolina waters. Of the 112 vessels that sank in the vicinity of Beaufort Inlet, eleven are known to have been lost during the eighteenth century (Table 1). Those shipwrecks include Queen Anne's Revenge (1718), the sloop Adventure (1718), and the Spanish snow El Salvador (1750). Those vessels carried forty, ten, and eight cannons respectively. Current research indicates that the other eighteenth-century vessels were lightly armed or unarmed coastal merchantmen that sank in the latter part of the century.

While North Carolina abounds with Blackbeard lore, the fact that he lost Queen Anne's Revenge and Adventure off its coast is not well known. Extensively researched shipwreck charts such as National Geographic's 1970 edition of The Ghost Fleet of the Outer Banks and Duke University Marine Laboratory's An Oceanographic Atlas of the Carolina Continental Margin (1971) fail to acknowledge their presence. No serious thought was given to locating the pirate vessels until a field school hosted by the UAU and East Carolina University's Maritime History Program (ECU)

was scheduled for the summer of 1982. Although background archival investigation of Cape Lookout indicated that the two pirate vessels had been lost at Old Topsail Inlet (present Beaufort Inlet), Queen Anne's Revenge was not found for fourteen years after the field school project. Key to its discovery was the Wimble chart (1738), which shows the approximate location of the channel when Blackbeard attempted to enter the inlet in 1718 (Figure 2). The shipwreck was found along the present day 20-foot contour, which represents the remnant of the early-eighteenth-century ocean bar.

Following the discovery of the wreck site, the search intensified for historical documents relating to the capture of Concorde and Blackbeard's activities after taking command and renaming the ship Queen Anne's Revenge. Little is known of the French slaver Concorde's early career apart from its three voyages to the West African coast and final capture by pirates in the Caribbean in November 1717. Concorde operated out of Nantes, France, and was owned by Réne Montaudoin, a member of one of the most prolific slave-trading families in French history. The ship's first recorded voyage appears to have begun with its embarkation from Nantes on April 13, 1713, under Capt. Isaac Thomas, commanding a crew of sixty-two men. The vessel obtained a cargo of slaves near Juda (present-day Ouidah) on the West African coast. It arrived back in Nantes on July 31, 1714, after delivering 363 enslaved Africans to the Caribbean Island of Martinique.

Concorde's second slaving voyage began on February 27, 1715, under the command of Capt. Mathieu Denis, with a crew of around sixty men. Africans were purchased at Gabingue near present-day Loango, and the ship arrived in February 1716 at Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti), where it delivered around three hundred slaves. After a brief stop at Bermuda, Concorde returned to Nantes on September 23, 1716.

The third and final voyage of Concorde as a French slaver began on March 24, 1717, under the command of Pierre Dosset, with a crew of seventy-five men. The ship obtained more than five hundred Africans at Juda between July and October and sailed toward Martinique. Concorde was captured by pirates, presumably led by Blackbeard, near the island of St. Vincent on November 28, 1717, and taken to the small island of Bicoya (present-day Bequia). The pirates left the French crew a much smaller sloop called Mauvaise Rencontre and continued their marauding activities in the eastern Caribbean before moving west to present-day Belize and Honduras.

Blackbeard renamed Concorde the Queen Anne's Revenge and increased the ship's original armament of fourteen to sixteen cannons to as many as forty (Figure 3). After capturing a number of prizes in the western Caribbean including a small turtle boat off the Caymans and an unidentified sloop off the northern coast of Cuba, Blackbeard continued northward into the Bahamas and eventually toward Charleston, South Carolina. The blockade of the colonial port of Charleston in May 1718 was unquestionably the height of Blackbeard's piratical career. With his flagship Queen Anne's Revenge, three smaller sloops, and as many as three to four hundred men under his command, the pirate captain was at his greatest strength. After taking around a dozen ships entering or leaving the harbor and receiving a ransom of medical supplies from the city of Charleston, the pirate company continued sailing northward.

Blackbeard's fleet arrived off the coast of North Carolina in early June, and the three smaller sloops made it safely into Beaufort Inlet. The pirate's flagship, however, ran aground and foundered on the outer bar (Figure 4). Blackbeard ordered one of the smaller sloops, Adventure, to assist Queen Anne's Revenge, and it too was lost. Captured pirates later claimed that

Blackbeard's fleet arrived off the coast of North Carolina in early June, and the three smaller sloops made it safely into Beaufort Inlet. The pirate's flagship, however, ran aground and foundered on the outer bar (Figure 4). Blackbeard ordered one of the smaller sloops, Adventure, to assist Queen Anne's Revenge, and it too was lost. Captured pirates later claimed that Blackbeard grounded Queen Anne's Revenge intentionally to break up the large company of brigands.

Following the loss of his two ships and the breakup and marooning of part of his crew, Blackbeard sailed a smaller sloop north to Ocracoke, where he set up his base of operations for the next few months. Although Blackbeard received a king's pardon in Bath, he quickly ignored this reprieve and captured a number prizes. He was eventually confronted and killed in November 1718 by a naval expedition from the colony of Virginia.

Since the discovery of Queen Anne's Revenge, field studies have included numerous daylong visits to the wreck site and two month-long expeditions in the fall of 1997 and 1998. The purpose of those investigations was to collect basic information for an assessment study, which began by confirming the existence of the site and establishing its location. A reference system was utilized to map exposed portions of the wreckage, which consisted of a mound of cannons, anchors, and other cultural debris (Figure 5). The area surrounding the site was investigated with remote-sensing surveys, as well as divers in order to identity associated materials. Limited test excavations, and a cursory probe survey were also conducted in 1997. In 1998, exploratory excavations attempted to determine the extent and nature of buried remains, which helped define the limits of artifact dispersal and provided valuable insight into the layout of the shipwreck site.

Recovery of a controlled sample of artifacts of varying types and sizes permitted conservators to better determine methods and equipment needed to stabilize and analyze those items. Attention has also focused on experimenting with ways to protect and monitor sensitive areas, such as the wooden hull structure and anchor stocks, to ensure that they are not damaged

by future storms or marine boring organisms. Installation and field testing of surveillance equipment designed to deter unauthorized diving or fishing on the site has also been an important part of recent activities.

The crew and visiting scientists during the assessment project consisted of divers from the UAU, Intersal, MRI, the North Carolina Maritime Museum (NCMM), the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW), IMS, the University of North Carolina Center for Public Television (UNCTV), and ECU. CFCC provided valuable topside assistance by recording water quality and lifting three of the ship's cannons. Researchers have invested a tremendous amount of field time in assessing the shipwreck. Countless hours have been spent on all phases of the project including planning, historical research, media relationships, and public education. The magnitude of the overall commitment is well reflected in the dive logs from the 1997 and 1998 fall expeditions. During that period of thirty-eight field days, investigators made 832 dives and spent more than 797 hours on the sea floor studying the shipwreck and its surroundings.

A remote sensing magnetometer survey initially located Queen Anne's Revenge. The magnetometer detects variations, or anomalies, in the earth's magnetic field produced by ferrous objects. Additional surveys conducted in the general vicinity of Queen Anne's Revenge located a large anchor 420 feet south of the main site. The anchor may be associated with the shipwreck since it appears to date from the same time period. Side-scan sonar was used on several occasions; however, the low relief and small size of exposed portions of the site presented a negligible image. Sub-bottom penetrating sonar was not attempted because of the shallow deposition of the cultural materials and the underlying densely packed sand bottom.

The main concentration of visible remains found at the site measures 25 feet by 15 feet and includes eleven cannons, two large anchors, a grappling hook, numerous iron cask hoops, several iron deadeye strops used to secure the ship's rigging, a cluster of cannonballs, and a large number of ballast stones and concretions (Figure 6). Divers located a third anchor 50 feet north of the main concentration. The maximum relief above the surrounding seabed is approximately 4 feet, with most of the exposed remains being less than 2 feet.

Test excavations have revealed that buried materials extend to the north anchor. Buried materials observed during explorations on the north side of the exposed wreckage include iron concretions such as cask hoops and unidentifiable objects. A section of wooden hull oriented in a northerly direction from under the mound of exposed wreckage was uncovered and recorded in 1998.

Test excavations also revealed large ballast stones adjacent to the exposed remains on the east side of the site. A probing survey on the west side indicated that cultural remains are confined to within 15 feet of the mound. Excavations to the south exposed additional cannons, bringing the total to eighteen. In that area divers also found a rich collection of small artifacts including numerous lead shot, pewter plates and chargers, intact glass wine bottles, pottery fragments, medical and scientific instruments, and even a few flakes of gold. The extent of the buried cultural deposits has not been determined to the south or west of these test units; however, it is not expected to extend much further, based on the lack of positive contacts during the probing survey.

General site dimensions encompass an area approximately 150 feet by 50 feet. This concentrated artifact distribution suggests that the vessel sank and deteriorated during a time when there were no significant storms. The cultural materials and the direction of the planks and frames contained in the hull section are oriented on a north-south axis. There are various interpretations of the site layout and what that layout reflects in terms of vessel orientation and

site deposition. The bow of the shipwreck appears to be at the north end of the site, based on the location of the north anchor, which probably represents one of the ship's bower anchors. The collection of valuable artifacts found in the southern portion of the site likely came from the officer's quarters in the stern. Large ballast stones on the east side probably came from deep inside the vessel's hull, and it appears that the ship heeled over on its port side after sinking. That finding is also borne out by the large number of cannons and ship's rigging found along the site's western margin. As the vessel listed to port, those items at or above deck level would have been tossed and deposited in a westerly direction. A clearer understanding of the site layout will be achieved as excavations continue.

Stratigraphically, the site is relatively shallow. With the exception of the fluke on the highest anchor (A1), the exposed portion of the site rises only 2 feet above the surrounding bottom. This can be deceptive to the diver because often there is a lower scoured area immediately surrounding the exposed wreckage. Moving out from this area, cultural materials are covered by as much as 4 feet of sand overburden. The cultural deposits are intermixed with coarse sand and shell in a layer ranging from 9 to 15 inches thick. The vertical dispersion of artifacts depends to some degree on their relative density and the period during which they were deposited. Lighter materials, especially intrusive modern debris such as plastic drink bottles, are nearer the surface, while the heavier objects associated with the shipwreck, such as lead shot, are found at the lowest level. Underlying the cultural layer is a hard-packed stratum of fine, clayey sands. Artifacts do not appear to have penetrated this layer. While the disturbance of shipwreck materials from ocean currents is obvious, it also appears that the lower portions of the cultural layer may be less affected, as evidenced by the preserved hull structure and the recovery of two intact glass wine bottles.

Numerous features associated with Queen Anne's Revenge have been observed and recorded. Eighteen cannons have been located, the majority of which appear to be 6-pounders. Three have been recovered and cleaned; two are 6-pounders and one a 3-pounder. Their off-centered and tapered trunnions indicate a manufacture date in the mid to late seventeenth century. Associated munitions include 3- to 6-pound round shot, iron bar shot, and lead shot with cloth impressions in the surrounding concretion that may represent bag shot or grapeshot.

The north anchor, measuring 13 feet in length, has an intact wooden stock and probably represents a bower anchor that was deployed or dropped from its lashings after the vessel ran aground (Figure 7). The fact that the anchor ring is tucked under the shank and that the anchor lies perpendicular to the orientation of the vessel suggests that it was not set. The two anchors on the exposed mound appear to have been stored in the hold of the ship, along with a group of six cannons underneath. Those two anchors are approximately the same size as the north anchor. The anchor located 420 feet south of the exposed wreckage features a well-preserved wooden stock similar in style to the north anchor. Since the south anchor is two-thirds the size of the other anchors, it was at first thought by some to be from the sloop Adventure, lost "within a gunshot" of Queen Anne's Revenge. No other materials were detected around the anchor, however. The south anchor may represent a kedge anchor set in an attempt to free the vessel from the sandbar since it appears to have been deployed, with its cable ring stretched out and pointing toward the main site.

A section of hull structure approximately 27 feet in length and 8 feet wide was observed, excavated, and recorded on the north side of the exposed wreckage in 1998 (Figure 8). The remains of eleven paired frames, many deteriorated on their upper surfaces, were fastened to a series of extremely well-preserved hull planks. Both frames and planks were identified as

Quercus sp., or white oak. Sacrificial sheathing, mostly sprung or otherwise dislocated from the hull section, was also observed and recorded. Botanical analysis of the sheathing revealed it to be a Sylvestris group pine, most likely red pine from northern Europe. The absence of the keel, keelson, or other readily identifiable hull feature precludes determination of the original position of this section of the ship.

Concreted iron hoops that would fit large casks are abundantly distributed throughout the site. Many appear to be stacked inside one another and may have been collapsed for storage. Archaeologists have located a number of concreted iron rings representing ship's fittings such as chain plates and deadeye strops. The calculated size of the deadeyes that fit within the iron strops varies from 8½ to 11½ inches in diameter and matches well with ships of several hundred tons.

Since the start of the Queen Anne's Revenge project in 1996, more than two thousand artifacts have been recovered and conserved, while several thousand more await treatment in temporary storage tanks. Those objects vary greatly in size and material type, from tiny flakes of gold that required no treatment, to 8-foot-long iron cannons weighing nearly a ton that will require several years to preserve. The varying material types such as metal, glass, ceramic, and organics each had to be conserved using specifically designed procedures and equipment.

All artifacts recovered from saltwater environments, however large or small, require desalinization to extract corrosive chlorides in order to stabilize the material and prevent further deterioration. Metal artifacts, in particular, underwent desalinization, which on occasion was as simple as repeated rinses in fresh water, while at other times was more complicated and necessitated setting up an electrolytic reduction process. Generally, the smaller the artifact and the more noble the metal type, the quicker the conservation process. The pewter plates, for example, required several weeks to preserve, while the 2,000-pound cast iron cannons will take three to four years to complete. Following desalinization, the surfaces of metal artifacts typically were coated with a protective moisture barrier to prevent further corrosion.

Artifacts covered in concretion are inherently more difficult to conserve. Concretion is a combination of calcium carbonate, sand, and corrosion product that encapsulates artifacts during emersion in seawater. Throughout the conservation process, objects must be kept in large storage containers in order to keep them wet. If artifacts dry prematurely, they would literally disintegrate in a short period of time. The use of x-rays was invaluable to determine what types of artifacts occurred within the encrustations. Pneumatic tools, hammers, chisels, and acids were utilized to break apart the concretion and separate the various material types. New objects revealed during the dismantling of the concretion were documented both with photographs and scaled drawings.

Many concretions recovered from Queen Anne's Revenge contained hollow molds of completely deteriorated ferrous artifacts. Those molds were cast with epoxy resins to preserve the original shape of the artifact. The process was slow, expensive, and required a trained conservator, but was absolutely essential in preserving the archaeological integrity of the concreted objects.

Organic artifacts such as wood, cordage, fabric, and bone were subject to shrinkage and warping and required strengthening and stabilizing to prevent distortion while retaining the original appearance of the object. Bulking or impregnating organic artifacts with wax or sugars was the standard means of treating these sorts of objects. Lithic artifacts such as ballast, a millstone, and a whetstone were cleaned with dilute acid and then desalinated with freshwater baths lasting one to two months. Ceramics underwent a similar process but required a more dilute acid solution to break down the concretion. Glass from the wreck was sometimes durable enough to be rinsed and air-dried, but at other times required submersion in a chemical consolidant for stabilization.

The Queen Anne's Revenge artifact assemblage represents many aspects of early eighteenth-century maritime culture. Ship parts and equipment, arms, navigational tools, personal effects, food preparation and storage containers, medical instruments, and cargo items have been recovered from the shipwreck. Historians continue to search the archives for relevant documents that may put Queen Anne's Revenge within a historical context and help interpret its material culture. Archaeologists are also reviewing the literature to find comparative artifacts from similar sites to better date and understand the shipwreck's artifact assemblage.

Two cast iron cannons were retrieved from the site in 1997. Only one features any markings; crudely chiseled numbers 17 3 and possibly a 0 running lengthwise along the first reinforce. The numbers appear to represent the weight of the gun in Old English hundredweights [17(112) + 3(28) = 1988 pounds]. A third cast iron cannon was brought to the surface in 1998 and is considerably smaller than the others, measuring only 6 feet in length. That gun features the numbers 6-3-7 stamped laterally on the breech (Figure 9). Measured in hundredweights [6(112) + 3(28) + 7], the cannon weighs 763 pounds. The letter P appears on the tube just behind the trunnions and indicates that the cannon had been officially "proofed." The muzzle is comparatively clean of encrustation and may have been protected by a tompion, and the touchhole is stopped with a wooden peg, perhaps indicating that the gun is loaded.

Artifacts associated with the cannons include iron round and bar shot, lead aprons or touchhole covers, bag shot with shrapnel, and possible carriage hardware. Small arms from the

site include a brass blunderbuss barrel, a brass side plate in the form of a sea serpent (Figure 10), a brass butt plate, and three chert gunflints. A wide variety of lead round shot ranging in diameter from .073 to .96 inches has also been recovered, as were two gunpowder-filled hand grenades. No edged weapons have yet been found.

Several scientific instruments were recovered from the site including a universal staff mount, probably used to affix a plane table, transit, circumferentor, or other similar surveying device to a tripod (Figure 11). The staff mount consists of a pierced plate and socket connected by a universal ball joint. A brass sight from a surveying device was found 3 feet from the pivotal mount, and the two pieces likely came from the same instrument. The sight is slotted twice for rough and pinpoint aiming, and the larger slot is bracketed by two holes that would have held a cross hair. A setscrew attaches the sight to an index, and, when intact, the index would have held a second sight with opposing slots.

A flat, brass keylike object pierced at one end may be an identification tag for a survey chain. Survey chains typically consisted of steel links one-foot in length, each fifth, sixth, or tenth increment marked with a pin or tag held in place by a small steel link.

Navigational instruments from Queen Anne's Revenge include a set of dividers, which are typical of examples found on shipwrecks from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A lead sounding weight (21 pounds) engraved XXI was one of the first artifacts recovered from the site in 1996. Two smaller lead weights (14 and 19 ounces), both carved with a bladed tool, were found in 1998. Though similar to fishing weights, both of these artifacts feature hollowed-out bottoms typical of most sounding weights, and may well have been used to determine depth and

bottom characteristics in shallow water. It is also possible that these weights were used as counterbalances for scale, or plumb bobs for surveying instruments.

Other scientific instruments include a brass sector (Figure 12) that features two logarithmethically scaled arms and a line of English and French inches, a brass bar marked with three different logarithmic scales, and a rolled brass tube that has so far not been identified.

A urethral syringe with its curved funnel tip was designed to administer mercury for the treatment of venereal diseases. Analysis of residue recovered from the interior of the syringe shows a high concentration of mercury. The ring on the plunger of the syringe features a mark consisting of the letter P below interlocked rings and a crown. A second mark is indecipherable but resembles the letter P beneath two sets of columns and a crown.

Three large pewter chargers (20 inches in diameter), a medium-size charger (17 inches in diameter), and two smaller pewter plates (9.5 inches in diameter) have so far been recovered. Two additional plates remain attached to one of the cannons on the wreck site. All of the chargers and plates feature "hallmarks" or maker's marks on their upper rims or bases. Those marks have identified the makers as George Hammond and John Stiles, London pewtersmiths during the early part of the eighteenth century. The monogram B.A.S. occurs on the upper rim of one of the chargers and may well identify the owner(s) of the plate or the vessel to which it was assigned. The pewter artifacts from the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck may represent trade items destined for the African slave market prior to Concorde's capture by Blackbeard. Two of the chargers, for example, contain impressions of fabric on their surfaces, suggesting that they were in storage when the ship sank.

Two intact green glass onion bottles were found adjacent to one another between two cannons. When compared to contemporary collections, the wine bottles most nearly match those dated to the early eighteenth century. Several additional necks and bases from similar wine bottles have also been recovered, along with fragments of square green glass case gin bottles and the neck of an apothecary bottle still retaining its cork. Intrusive nineteenth- and twentieth-century bottlenecks have also been found on the site.

The ceramic assemblage from the Beaufort Inlet site includes a single rim shard of tin-glazed, red-bodied faience, six pieces of salt-glazed stoneware, including a Rhenish jug, and several parts of two or more very large red earthenware oil jars, including a rim shard, base piece, and a half-oval handle fragment. A nineteenth-century ginger beer bottle was also found on the site.

Approximately seventy flakes of gold in its natural form were found in a concentrated area intermixed in a field of lead shot and sand. Combined, the gold weighs just under two grams. Although valuables were not expected to be found on the wreck because of the circumstances of its loss, several historical accounts place gold dust aboard the vessel both before and after its capture by Blackbeard. Miscellaneous Finds

Sixteen decorative lead tacks were recovered. Their shanks are square in section and taper to a point, while the heads are decorated with a rosette or flower with a central boss. The tacks, too soft to be hammered, were likely used to decorate upholstery, furniture, leather-lined boxes, or chests. Other miscellaneous artifacts include two kaolin pipestems, a whetstone, a quarter millstone, a brass sail needle, three brass straight pins, a gold-plated silver button, several lead strips (some with hair and pitch still attached), and a variety of animal bones.

A wide array of specimens was collected during the 1997 and 1998 field seasons. Many were subjected to a battery of scientific tests and analyses. Archaeometry, or the science involved in the testing of archaeological materials, often plays an important role in identifying and dating shipwreck sites, and has provided considerable supporting evidence that identifies the Beaufort Inlet site as Queen Anne's Revenge.

Radiocarbon samples from hull planks, frames, sacrificial planking, and anchor stocks, along with hair recovered from caulking and pitch, were sent to the accelerator mass spectrometer facility at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Dr. Lee Newsom conducted species identification of wood samples at Southern Illinois University. Her findings were consistent with woods (mostly white oak) typical of European vessels built during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A red cedar frame may indicate a New World repair, and the north anchor stock was made of bloodwood, which grows throughout tropical America.

Forensic experts at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation are currently analyzing hair samples, rope fibers, and fabric recovered from the wreck. Duplicate hair samples have been sent for identification to Linda Scott Cummings of Paleoresearch Laboratories in Golden, Colorado. The hair, identified as cow and dog hair, was removed from lead stripping, sacrificial planking, and the universal staff mount. Animal bones were identified by Illinois State Museum archaeologists as pig, cow, rat, and possibly marine animal.

Geologists from the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA) and Appalachian State University (ASU) sectioned a number of ballast stones to determine rock types and possible source locations. Basalt and gabbro comprised the majority of the assemblage, while andesite, granite, schist, quartz, conglomerates, and limestone have also been recovered. Age-dating the basalt and gabbro will help to specify the source area.

Eight flakes of gold recovered from the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck have been analyzed by geologists from LaQue Corrosion Services (LQCS), Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI), Blacksburg, Virginia. The interiors are between 65 and 91 percent gold, while the exteriors feature a high-purity gold rim, nearly 100 percent gold. This differential layering of gold is typical of grains found in stream placer deposits. Gold particles of this size and shape do not occur naturally off the coast of North Carolina, and trace elements such as iridium may help to identify its original source.

Geologists from UNCA and ASU analyzed various sediments recovered from the interiors of artifacts such as the syringe, brass tube, wine bottles, and grenades to determine whether traces of the original contents could be detected. Additional archaeometric studies will include isotopic analysis on lead artifacts to see if it is possible to locate the source area for those materials, and age-dating of glass bottle fragments.

Although the identity of Beaufort Inlet shipwreck 31CR314 cannot yet be positively established, archaeologists are fairly confident that the site represents the remains of Blackbeard's flagship Queen Anne's Revenge. Mounting circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the site is in the correct location, and the vessel is the appropriate size and was carrying the right arms and equipment. The artifact assemblage dates the wreck to the proper time period, artifacts compare well with a contemporary pirate vessel, and historical records lack any other candidate vessel lost in the area that has not already been disqualified.

By comparing historical and modern charts, researchers have determined that the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck is located in the vicinity of the offshore bar near the entrance to the early-eighteenth-century channel. The site location corresponds favorably to historical accounts of the loss of Queen Anne's Revenge. During questioning in Charleston, David Harriot, who sailed with Blackbeard, deposed that "the said Thatch's ship Queen Anne's Revenge run a-ground off of the Bar of Topsail Inlet." Harriot's account is corroborated by Royal Navy captain Ellis Brand of HMS Lyme, who wrote:

The small portion of the shipwreck's hull structure examined in 1998 provides additional evidence. Frame size and spacing in relation to plank size indicates that the original vessel was not heavily built, as would be expected of naval construction during that period. This conflicts with the vessel's heavily armed profile evidenced by the presence of at least eighteen carriage-mounted cannons and accompanying ordnance. A tempting conclusion is that the shipwreck represents a merchantman that was overarmed, as was the case with Concorde, reportedly overequipped with guns by Blackbeard after its capture. Unfortunately, historical records have not yet provided a clear understanding of the size, classification, or country of origin for Concorde. It is, however, relatively certain that the ship captured by Blackbeard was a 200- to 300-ton vessel. The three anchors closely associated with the shipwreck are the size rated for a ship ranging from 250 to 350 tons. The size of the deadeyes, calculated from the iron strops found on the site, also fit a vessel of that size.

Based on the date that appears on the bell (Figure 13), researchers have narrowed their search for shipwrecks in the Cape Lookout area to a one-hundred-year period beginning in 1709. The majority of artifacts recovered from the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck date the site to the first quarter of the eighteenth century. A bronze bell dated 1709, ceramics and glassware that fit within dated typologies, pewterware produced by craftsmen known to have worked in London from the 1690s to the 1730s, a blunderbuss barrel that was proofed between 1672 and 1702, and surveying instruments that are illustrated in a contemporary treatise published in 1723, all effectively date the site to the appropriate period.

The absence of carronades, a type of naval cannon in wide use by the first quarter of the nineteenth century, supported by the lack of creamwares, a predominant pottery type by the Revolutionary War, strongly suggests that the shipwreck dates to before the nineteenth century. The search for ship candidates that match the Beaufort Inlet wreck has been thorough, and eleven vessels sunk during the eighteenth century were located in the literature. Since none were military vessels and the majority were small, lightly armed or unarmed merchant ships, only Blackbeard's flagship Queen Anne's Revenge was large enough or contained the armament suggested by the historical and archaeological evidence.

Figure 13. A bronze bell dated 1709 was the first artifact to indicate the date of the wreck.

The Whydah Galley, under the command of the pirate Sam Bellamy, was lost off Cape Cod in 1717. In 1982 the ship was located, excavated, and reported in three volumes. Whydah Galley and Concorde/Queen Anne's Revenge were remarkably alike in a number of ways. Both vessels were similar in size, both were engaged in the African slave trade, and both ended their careers as pirate ships. The artifacts recovered from the Beaufort Inlet wreck, particularly the cannons and munitions, gun parts, wine bottles, ceramics, and pewterware, compare favorably with those found on the Whydah. Some, such as the decorative lead tacks, dividers, serpentine side plate, and grenades, are nearly identical.

Perhaps the strongest circumstantial evidence supporting the identity of the Beaufort Inlet shipwreck comes from the smallest of the artifacts so far recovered. Approximately seventy flakes of gold (2 grams) in its natural form were found on the wreck, and several historical accounts place gold dust on board the Concorde. According to Lt. Ernaut, for example, "fourteen ounces of gold in powder" was loaded on board the slaver at Judas on July 8, 1717. Pierre Dosset, captain of the Concorde, claimed that the pirates stole twenty pounds one-ounce of West African gold dust from the officers and crew of the Concorde. Henry Bostock, master of the sloop Margaret, also refers to gold dust on board the pirate vessel: "this deponent further saith that among other riches he believed they had much gold dust on board."

The North Carolina state historic preservation officer has determined that site 31CR314, which represents the remains of Queen Anne's Revenge, is historically significant on a local, state, and national level and is therefore eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. On March 3, 1997, DCR Secretary Betty Ray McCain designated the Queen Anne's Revenge site a protected area (Appendix D). That designation applies to the shipwreck and the surrounding sea floor within 300 yards of the site. North Carolina General Statute 121-23 grants the department title to and management authority for lost and abandoned vessels in state waters. Furthermore, DCR has the authority to designate as protected areas certain abandoned shipwrecks and underwater artifacts of primary scientific, archaeological, or historical value as set forth in North Carolina Administrative Code T07 04R.1009. The designation also calls for the development of a management plan to guide all access, recovery, and conservation of Queen Anne's Revenge and dictates that all artifacts shall be kept as an intact collection in an appropriate repository.

The protected area, marked by a white buoy, lies 1.2 nautical miles off Fort Macon and is to be avoided by all vessels. Surveillance equipment consisting of land-based radar, infrared video cameras, and human observers constantly monitors the site. Unauthorized diving or anchoring in that area is strictly prohibited by law, and violators are subject to arrest by the Carteret County Sheriff's Department. Vessels or dive gear may be confiscated upon arrest, and criminal and civil penalties may be assessed in accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (NCGS 70-15,16,17).

This management plan provides options for the protection, preservation, and development of the Queen Anne's Revenge site. The development of those options was based on the DCR's current understanding of the site after two years of study, as well as a review of archaeological investigations and protective measures for other shipwreck sites throughout the world. Two projects that were particularly useful were the recent investigations of the Emanuel Point shipwreck, sunk in 1559 inside Pensacola Bay, Florida, and La Belle, lost in 1686 off the coast of Texas. The recently developed management plan compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the USS Monitor, another significant shipwreck lying off the North Carolina coast, was also extremely useful.

The advantages, disadvantages, necessary activities, and cost estimates accompany a discussion of each preservation option for Queen Anne's Revenge. Included in the appendixes are detailed proposals concerning archaeological recovery, the conservation facility, and the staff needed to support a full-scale recovery of site 31CR314.

This option is provided should funding and resources be unavailable to enable research on and protection of Queen Anne's Revenge to be conducted through the current surveillance and monitoring arrangement. The DCR would continue to oversee the shipwreck site as it does all submerged archaeological sites in state waters, primarily responding on a reactionary and/or public-request basis. This option could allow private or university research teams an opportunity to conduct limited studies on the shipwreck as part of the underwater permitting system.

1. The exposed portions of Queen Anne's Revenge will continue to be susceptible to natural deterioration, including catastrophic affects from storms and continued biological and chemical degradation.

2. Without proper surveillance and periodic site monitoring, an accelerated loss of cultural material and archaeological information is expected through illegal human activities (i.e., anchoring, fishing, looting).

3. Fund-raising efforts, educational opportunities, and benefits from tourism would be dramatically reduced; public perception would be that the state does not consider Queen Anne's Revenge an important cultural resource.

Action Required: None. The department would include management of the shipwreck under its current underwater permitting system.

This option involves covering the exposed portions of Queen Anne's Revenge to diminish its deterioration and the likelihood of damage from storms and human interference. Although a variety of covering agents such as plastic mats or rocks can be used, the simplest method would be to deposit sand on the shipwreck from the surrounding area. A system of reference stakes placed across the site would provide a means of determining how much sand remains over the site at any given time.

1. Exposed and slightly buried remains of Queen Anne's Revenge would be protected from an oxygenated marine environment, strong currents, anchors, divers, and commercial fishermen.

2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts annual maintenance dredging of Beaufort Inlet, and sand from that operation may be available to cover the site.

3. This option would minimize damage and loss at the site through a vigorous program of surveillance, monitoring, and stabilization or recovery.

4. Project staff would be available to continue conservation and analysis of the backlog of artifacts that have been previously recovered from the site.

5. This option may be very cost effective since the staff will be able to identify and solicit funding for future research, a conservation facility, and public exhibition space.

1. Queen Anne's Revenge would remain exposed and therefore susceptible to impacts from natural and human agents.

2. The long-term maintenance of a sophisticated radar, video surveillance system, and site-marker buoy would require constant upkeep, as well as contracts for repairs and law enforcement.

3. If excavations extend over a long period of time and there are personnel changes, the collection of consistent archaeological data may be negatively affected, thus posing major secondary problems for site conservation, protection, and public interpretation.

4. Without a major conservation laboratory dedicated to this project, preservation, analysis, and storage of the Queen Anne's Revenge artifacts would be limited in quantity and size according to the capabilities of the UAU conservation laboratory at Fort Fisher and the temporary laboratory of the NCMM at Gallants Channel in Beaufort.

Action Required - Three staff members dedicated to the Queen Anne's Revenge project would be required for this option. Office facilities and the temporary conservation laboratory at Gallants Channel would have to be upgraded and supplied. Existing dive equipment and boats will have to be maintained to allow staff to monitor the shipwreck. Contracts for the upkeep and enforcement of the surveillance system will continue. Strategies for long-term study and recovery at Queen Anne's Revenge will need to be developed. A plan for coordinating fund raising efforts within the department and with MRI, participating universities, and other entities will need to be developed.

This option involves the recovery of all or a large portion of Queen Anne's Revenge's cannons, anchors, hull structure, and associated materials. The majority of those items would be analyzed, conserved, and made available for public display and interpretation. Fieldwork could proceed at varying rates but would depend in large part on the ability to conserve and store recovered materials. Thorough excavation of Queen Anne's Revenge would require the equivalent of several years of continuous field investigations, including artifact and data recovery. Many more years will be needed to conserve and analyze artifacts and report the findings. A staff of permanent archaeologists, conservators, and technicians would be needed, along with vessels, excavation and recovery equipment, office space, and a major conservation laboratory. Volunteer and student labor and supporting equipment will be necessary to complement the main staff.

1. The proper recovery of Queen Anne's Revenge artifacts and archaeological information will avoid further losses from natural or human impacts.

2. Archaeological recovery can proceed in a methodical manner and with an established professional crew that will maximize data recovery.

3. The artifacts and information from Queen Anne's Revenge will be preserved for public study and display.

4. Large-scale excavations would keep public interest at a very high level, provide educational opportunities for a wide audience, and enhance tourism.

5. With the completion of the field portion of this option, surveillance and monitoring would no longer be necessary.

1. This option will require significant funding to construct and staff the conservation lab and to support full-scale archaeological excavations.

2. Archaeological excavations will dismantle and, in effect, destroy the site. If the highest archaeological standards are not adhered to, irreplaceable information concerning Queen Anne's Revenge will be lost.

Action Required - Nine staff members dedicated to the Queen Anne's Revenge project would be required for this option. Funds would have to be obtained for the planning, excavation, and conservation phases. Detailed plans addressing the equipment, recovery, conservation, curation, and display of materials for Queen Anne's Revenge will need to be developed. Federal and state permits will have to be obtained. Contracts for upkeep and enforcement related to the surveillance system will be necessary until the project is completed.

Estimated Cost - Current estimates for the implementation of this option call for $900,000 for the first year and $643,000 for several years thereafter. Cost estimates for a new conservation laboratory to be built at Gallants Channel range from $1 to $2.5 million, depending on final size and design.

Many factors affect decisions concerning Queen Anne's Revenge and how it should be protected, preserved, and developed. Underwater archaeological investigations often require perseverance, flexibility, and ingenuity to arrive at a satisfactory end product. Working in the unpredictable and unstable ocean environment near Beaufort Inlet will test investigators' abilities to record and collect accurate scientific data. This concern for detail does not end when leaving the site but, to the contrary, just begins for the large body of artifacts from Queen Anne's Revenge. Those materials are generally delicate, variable in condition, and are almost always contained in cementlike concretions. It will be a challenge to properly separate, stabilize, preserve, and document the artifacts, and prepare them for exhibit or store them for future study. When making decisions about Queen Anne's Revenge, site managers will be obliged to take into account the following considerations:

A long-term excavation plan must be developed to focus research and maximize results. Whether excavations are carried out over a few years or decades, an archaeological recovery plan must first be established. While that plan will provide a guideline for research, it should remain flexible to accommodate changing site conditions, new technologies, and availability of funding and resources. Investigations at Queen Anne's Revenge should incorporate a wide variety of interdisciplinary studies to heighten analysis and findings. Furthermore, prior to entering the field, archaeologists need to consider what questions can be asked about the vessel, its loss and subsequent deterioration, shipboard life and how information can be gathered to best answer those questions. While the specifics of an archaeological recovery plan remain to be developed, a framework for this plan can be found in Appendix A.

Excavation and recovery of materials from Queen Anne's Revenge do not pose insurmountable difficulties, although working in the Atlantic Ocean will always present certain problems. Days lost to unworkable conditions and disruption from major storms are to be expected. It will be a challenge to maintain archaeological controls while excavating artifacts from a fluid sand bottom 20 feet below the water's surface. The retrieval of artifacts will not be easy since they vary both in type and material, as well as in size ranging from gold specks to iron objects weighing a ton or more. The technology currently exists, however, to record and recover the cultural remains from Queen Anne's Revenge according to vigorous archaeological standards. Options that involve burial or backfilling are also quite feasible. While the technology exists to complete the full recovery of Queen Anne's Revenge, success depends on a well-thought-out plan, proper equipment, an experienced crew, scheduling flexibility, and the patience to take advantage of good weather.

While several thousand artifacts have already been recovered from Queen Anne's Revenge, the number thus far has been limited by the need for a proper conservation facility. The existing UAU laboratory at Fort Fisher, along with the NCMM's maritime archaeology conservation laboratory at Gallants Channel, is unable to handle large quantities of artifacts requiring treatment. The conservation of objects contained in the exposed mound alone will be a formidable task. Buried remains will number in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Some of those items may be as large as actual portions of the ship's structure. The visible section of the hull, for example, measures approximately 27 by 8 feet and will require heavy lifting equipment to bring to the surface, an adequately sized storage and conservation vat, and suitable quantities of bulking or impregnating agents to preserve the delicate wood.

At least fifteen cannons remain on the site. Each of these weapons will require its own storage and treatment tank, sacrificial anodes, and electrical power supply. Tanks measuring 10 by 3 by 3 feet require considerable space, and because the electrolytic reduction procedure emits hydrogen gas, the tanks must be well ventilated with fume hoods, or placed outdoors. Other large artifacts on site include four large and very heavy iron anchors, two of which still have wooden stocks attached. These composite artifacts will have to be disassembled before treatment can begin, and tanks must be made for each of the components.

One hundred tons of ballast stone is not an unrealistic estimate of the quantity of rocks on the shipwreck. Although relatively easy to store and clean, many will undoubtedly be concreted to other artifacts of differing material types. The vast majority of objects remaining on the site are encrusted groups of artifacts. Each concretion will need to be x-rayed, photographed, and disassembled, using the utmost care. The larger, more complex concretions will take a single conservator months to process. If complicated problems arise, specialists may have to be consulted, and artifacts such as clothing, fabric, or large quantities of cordage may have to be preserved elsewhere.

Conservation of artifacts recovered from a saltwater environment is a never-ending process. Long-term curation of a shipwreck artifact assemblage involves special considerations. Storage and exhibit areas must be climate controlled and secured, yet accessible for future study and analysis. Each artifact must be cataloged, measured, photographed, and all pertinent information entered into a computer database. Artifacts in storage must be continually inspected for corrosion and immediately re-treated if necessary.

Ideally, a new conservation facility should be constructed to store and process the entire variety of artifacts recovered from Queen Anne's Revenge while the assemblage is kept intact and available for display and study (see Appendix B). A laboratory located adjacent to permanent exhibit areas is also recommended to facilitate re-treatment of artifacts when necessary. Current trends utilize conservation facilities and personnel as living exhibits viewable by the general public, and a new facility will permit students and volunteers to become directly involved in artifact conservation.

The public was immediately attracted to the discovery of Blackbeard's flagship, and the exhibition of its artifacts will draw large crowds. This is evidenced by the small Queen Anne's Revenge traveling exhibit that has been shown around the state and viewed by tens of thousands of people. The presence of NCMM's maritime archaeology conservation facility with viewing gallery planned for Gallants Channel will be a significant tourist attraction.

Exhibition of materials from Queen Anne's Revenge will draw people's attention, but the artifacts must be interpreted in context. This means presenting the process of archaeology and its interrelationship with associated social sciences (history and anthropology) and physical sciences (geology and biology) as a holistic educational package. The exhibit A Slave Ship Speaks, The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie, is a good example of how the interpretation of archaeological remains not only contributes to an understanding not only of life aboard a ship itself but also reflects worldwide socioeconomic practices at the time of its sinking. Information from Queen Anne's Revenge can contribute to a better public understanding of topics such as seafaring in the early eighteenth century, life as a pirate, the relationship between enslaved Africans and pirates, and the long-term effects of the coastal environment on man-made objects.

Professional educators have been quick to recognize the potential that Queen Anne's Revenge has to "hook" people, particularly school-aged children. Through a variety of programs and exercises related to the shipwreck, educators are able to promote hands-on learning and integrate history, language arts, mathematics, and science. Students are encouraged to use teamwork, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills to investigate and interpret the shipwreck remains. Thus far, major educational initiatives for Queen Anne's Revenge have included: a.) the development of outreach programs and teacher workshops by the NCMM and the Cape Fear Museum; b.) a public documentary by UNC-TV; c.) a Division of Archives and History (DAH) Web site dedicated to the Queen Anne's Revenge project (www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/qar/default.htm); d.) an educational Queen Anne's Revenge Web site by the ECU Center for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education (blackbeard.eastnet.ecu.edu/bbeard/main.html); e.) an interactive Internet program called "Teacher's Connect/ A Town Meeting" sponsored by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; and f.) a national scholastic publication (Superscience, February 1999), which focused on Queen Anne's Revenge and the conservation of materials from the site. One futuristic plan being explored is to link archaeologists working on the site 20 feet below the ocean with students in classrooms throughout the state and beyond to provide a live, interactive dialogue. Educational coordinators see an unlimited potential for presenting Queen Anne's Revenge's findings to all ages and educational levels.

The DCR has designated the UAU, an agency that has been studying and protecting the state's submerged cultural resources for the past thirty-five years, as the lead agency for the management of Queen Anne's Revenge. Within the Office of State Archaeology and under the direction of the DAH, the UAU realized the importance of shipwreck 31CR314 and therefore committed to a two-year assessment in order to determine the significance of the site.

The unit works in close cooperation with the NCMM, which was founded as a private museum in the 1970s and recently brought into the DCR. The secretary has designated the museum as the main repository for the Queen Anne's Revenge artifact collection. The museum, which exhibits and interprets North Carolina's maritime past, recently acquired property on Gallants Channel and there established a temporary office space and conservation laboratory for the Queen Anne's Revenge project. A permanent shipwreck exhibit hall and conservation laboratory featuring Queen Anne's Revenge will be the cornerstone of the museum's expansion at Gallants Channel.

A unique and exciting partnership has been established between the DCR, Intersal, and MRI to "research, survey, search, recover, preserve, protect, conserve, curate, and promote Queen Anne's Revenge." Intersal has relinquished rights to the artifacts recovered from the site while retaining profits from sales of replica artifacts and commercial documentaries. The cooperative effort among public, private, and academic entities is reinforced by the formation of an Advisory Committee on Archaeological Operations, which is responsible for planning and for oversight at the Queen Anne's Revenge site, as well as the recovery and preservation of artifacts found there. Members of the committee consist of the state archaeologist, the supervisor of the UAU, a representative of MRI, a representative of Intersal, and a representative selected by the secretary of DCR from outside DAH. An at-large seat is currently filled by a faculty member from ECU.

ECU's Program in Maritime Studies, which was developed in 1980, offers the Queen Anne's Revenge project an invaluable source of assistance through faculty and graduate student participation. Classroom instruction, field schools, and graduate research projects, conducted in conjunction with the department's excavation and preservation of Queen Anne's Revenge, will enhance collection and analysis of archaeological data. Other state universities, colleges, associated institutes, and private groups provide a rich and diverse field of scientists, scholars, and technicians that can greatly enhance understanding of the shipwreck through interdisciplinary research. Over the last two years, participants from UNCW, IMS, UNCA, ASU, VPI, LQCS, and CFCC provided assistance with excavation, recovery of large artifacts, detailed field and laboratory analysis, and many other aspects associated with the assessment project. These and additional relationships should be cultivated by the department.

The use of volunteers in underwater archaeological research and conservation is generally limited because of the difficult and hazardous nature of the work and the need for close professional supervision. Ideally, trained and experienced avocationalists can perform tasks without draining staff to the point of diminishing returns. Groups such as Surface Interval Diving Company, a Beaufort-based volunteer dive group, can provide highly motivated and archaeologically trained participants. Retirees and student interns can also fill valuable niches in the volunteer work force, particularly in the conservation laboratory and with exhibit development and interpretation.

The protection, preservation, and development of Queen Anne's Revenge will be costly. Major excavation cannot proceed without the construction of a conservation laboratory, and a large funding appropriation is therefore needed. The state of North Carolina and local governments in the Cape Lookout region should be expected to take the lead in raising funds, since economic returns through public awareness and tourism will benefit them the most. A tremendous amount of money may also be available from other funding sources, because of the high visibility of the Queen Anne's Revenge project. A good example of the potential for raising money can be seen with the accomplishments of the USS North Carolina Battleship Foundation, which has raised millions through public and corporate sponsorship to restore and maintain the historic ship. The Friends of the Museum, North Carolina Maritime Museum, Inc. has already shown its effectiveness by raising funds needed to purchase the property at Gallants Channel. Since much of the initial costs for Queen Anne's Revenge will involve scientific research, federal- and university-sponsored grants may partly fund work in the field and laboratory. A comprehensive fund-raising program needs to be implemented within the framework of the Queen Anne's Revenge project to help sustain it and ensure the highest degree of success.

Queen Anne's Revenge is a significant archaeological site and a very valuable cultural resource for the state of North Carolina. It is the oldest shipwreck discovered in the state, holds a wealth of information concerning early eighteenth-century seafaring, and is capable of providing a window into a unique period of piracy in the New World. The ship's association with Blackbeard draws worldwide attention. The shipwreck's benefits are, and will continue to be, demonstrated through a rise in public awareness, educational opportunities, and tourist-generated revenues. It is the responsibility of the people of North Carolina to utilize this valuable resource to its fullest capacity. This management plan is the first step of the project that will make citizens of the state proud to learn from and share their maritime heritage.

Figure 14. Blackbeard.

APPENDIX A

Archaeological Recovery Plan

A variety of underwater archaeological equipment and techniques are acceptable for use on Queen Anne's Revenge; their selection will be mainly dictated by available resources and funding. Archaeological recovery plans are directly tied to the availability of a conservation facility where recovered artifacts will be stabilized, analyzed, conserved, and stored. Without a major conservation laboratory, archaeological activities can be only exploratory in nature, as outlined in the Maintenance and Exploration option. If site managers are faced with the loss of portions of the site through natural or man-caused threats, difficult decisions will have to be made to determine what course of action is in the best interest of the threatened remains. Not having an adequate conservation facility available will complicate this matter. During exploratory testing and emergency recovery, smaller vessels may be able to handle the majority of the work, leaving the heavy lifting to larger vessels as needed. A core staff of three archaeologists/conservators should be retained indefinitely to monitor the site, react to emergencies, and continue conservation and analysis of recovered materials.

The most desired approach to maximize information recovered from the site is the Excavation option, which calls for the full and systematic recovery of Queen Anne's Revenge while adhering to professional archaeological standards. A large vessel is needed to act as a stable dive- and equipment-platform for excavation and recovery, preferably one that offers crew accommodations and a galley, thereby allowing work to continue nonstop during periods of calm weather. Compressors, pumps, artifact sluices, and hoisting capabilities are needed. Several small vessels should be available to support these operations.
Regardless of the speed in which investigations are conducted on Queen Anne's Revenge, the following progression is likely:

1. Determination of artifact dispersion. This process would consist of detailed remote sensing surveys and shallow test excavations with limited artifact recovery to allow investigators to explore the extent and type of buried cultural remains associated with Queen Anne's Revenge. It would represent a continuation of the 1998 investigations, during which the limits of the site were determined for the north and east sides of the exposed wreckage. Exploratory testing is still needed to the south and west. A remote sensing survey using a differential magnetometer shows the most promise for revealing large buried objects such as cannons or other buried remains without using intrusive methods such as probing or excavation.

2. Development and installation of a unit control system. Successful archaeological investigations on Queen Anne's Revenge will depend on a sturdy, well-established reference and grid system that is both easy to set up and maintain, and capable of withstanding the effects of storms. While working on the sandy bottom, an ability to control unit walls during excavation and in periods of foul weather will be essential to ensure accurate data retrieval.

3. Excavation and recovery of buried remains. Based on results of the 1997 and 1998 field investigations, equipment and methods will be devised to recover the maximum amount of information from excavation units. The progression of unit excavation will be based on the archaeological research plan, which may call for a sampling strategy over the entire site or unit-by-unit excavations from one end of the site to the other.

The recovery of smaller artifacts and eco-facts (natural objects associated with the archaeological record), is problematic. It is impossible to recovery every bit of information contained on Queen Anne's Revenge. Archaeologists can minimize the loss of information through various means, however. Most importantly, a plan must be developed to identify research questions that can be asked of the site and then collection strategies that will provide evidence to test and answer those questions must be formulated. The highest-quality and most appropriate tools should be employed to maximize data recovery. Such recovery can be greatly facilitated by involving researchers in associated fields such as marine geology and biology. An interdisciplinary approach can strengthen the collection and interpretation of the whole realm of archaeological materials. Sampling strategies can greatly expedite the recovery of viable information by reducing the amount of materials that require processing. Lastly, the collection and storage of representative materials such as sediment samples and unpreserved artifacts can ensure that future researchers will have original evidence to study. That evidence will be increasingly important in the future as technologically advanced tools become available for laboratory analyses.

4. Disassembly and recovery of the exposed wreckage. Presumably this will be the final activity conducted at the site. Specialized tools and heavy lifting equipment will be needed to properly disassemble and recover the large mass of concreted wreckage, including two anchors, a grappling hook, numerous cannons, and a variety of other cultural debris. Such operations will require considerable planning to ensure that each object is freed from surrounding artifacts without damage, lifted off the bottom, brought safely aboard the recovery vessel, and then transported to the conservation laboratory. Some large artifacts, such as the anchors with wooden stocks and sections of wooden hull, may require disassembly on the bottom or a support system designed to avoid damage during recovery.

Prior to field investigations, a detailed archaeological research plan must be developed and approved by the Advisory Committee on Archaeological Operations. A committee-approved archaeologist should be selected as project director and placed in charge of all field activities, while an approved project conservator should oversee associated laboratory operations. During archaeological investigations, the project archaeologist, in consultation with the lead conservator, dive safety officer, vessel operators and/or equipment managers will have the authority to halt operations if, in his/her opinion, continuation of the project will compromise archaeological integrity of Queen Anne's Revenge or the safety of personnel and equipment. Additional staff should include a team of three archaeologists, three technicians, and an office administrator for logistics and conservation laboratory management.

The DCR currently operates two facilities dedicated to the conservation of artifacts retrieved from underwater environments. The primary facility is located on the property of Fort Fisher State Historic Site in Kure Beach, North Carolina. It currently consists of a 1,200-square-foot laboratory and a 1,500-square-foot open-air pavilion used to store and conserve large artifacts. Offices and support are provided in adjacent buildings occupied by the UAU. Most conservation procedures, artifact analyses, and storage of finished artifacts take place in the laboratory. Space has always been a limiting factor, however, and the Fort Fisher laboratory has proven to be inadequate for processing large collections such as would be recovered from Queen Anne's Revenge.
A second facility is operated by the NCMM in Beaufort, North Carolina. This 1,500-square-foot building has provided much-needed space for the wet storage, analysis, and illustration of artifacts. The Friends of the Museum, North Carolina Maritime Museum, Inc. are currently expanding this facility by constructing a 2,700-square-foot conservation outdoor pavilion. Artifact conservation, however, has been limited because of the lack of staff. With additional equipment and staffing, this building could become a viable conservation facility. The Office of State Archaeology's Lane Street Center in Raleigh and East Carolina University's lab in Greenville may also be used to treat and store artifacts.

Conserving material recovered from a marine environment begins as a messy process that eventually yields an artifact requiring a fairly pristine environment for final analysis and storage. It is necessary to compartmentalize the laboratory to avoid contamination of clean areas. At least six components are required: a wet-storage and large-artifact electrolysis facility, a workshop, a cleaning room, a finishing room, an analysis room, and a finished artifact storage area. All areas must include security and fire detection systems.

Male and female lavatory facilities will be necessary, and handicap access in accordance with ADA regulations should be addressed. Most importantly, safety equipment must be provided in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the American Association of Museums regulations. Since artifact conservation involves the use of strong acids, alkalies, and flammable solvents, facilities must be readily available to handle accidents involving those materials. Offices, public viewing areas, and rest room facilities will require an additional 1,200 square feet of space.

A permanent, full-time conservator will be required to supervise the laboratory. This person's duties will include the preservation, curation, and analysis of artifacts, scheduling, reporting, public relations, and employee and volunteer supervision. This person will preferably have a Master's degree in history, conservation, or archaeology, and at least ten years of experience in archaeology, artifact conservation, and curation.
A permanent, full-time office manager will be needed. This person's responsibilities should include answering phones, handling purchase requests and billing, and involvement in employee affairs. Applicants should have a thorough knowledge of computerized office systems.
At least three permanent archaeological technicians with artifact conservation experience, in addition to volunteers and visiting researchers, will be needed to carry out conservation activities.