The HMS Fowey And Marine Archaeology

13,881 views
16,475 views

Published on

This powerpoint covers Case Study I and II in Section IV of our Marine Science curriculum.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
13,881
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10,476
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The HMS Fowey And Marine Archaeology

  1. 1. The HMS Fowey and Marine Archaeology By: Logan Lindsey Mr. Johnson 2009
  2. 2. Thesis Statement <ul><li>The investigation of the HMS Fowey is a good example of how underwater archaeology and document research can be used to positively identify an unidentified shipwreck site. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Purpose <ul><li>I will examine artifacts recovered from the site and related documents including maps to show how the National Park Service (NPS) proved that the shipwreck was British, not Spanish and eventually identified the wreck site as that of the HMS Fowey sunk in 1748. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Introduction <ul><li>Sport diver finds site Oct. 1979 </li></ul><ul><li>Legare Anchorage, Biscayne National Park. </li></ul><ul><li>Diver petitioned court for rights to salvage site. </li></ul><ul><li>Dispute between U.S. govt. and private salvor himself. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Introduction (continued…) <ul><li>NPS represented U.S. government in counter lawsuit </li></ul><ul><li>Filed suit as defendant seeking title </li></ul><ul><li>Claimed shipwreck not in danger & did not need salvaging because it is an archaeological site and part of the nation’s patrimony </li></ul><ul><li>Court required NPS supply data supporting the archaeological significance of shipwreck </li></ul><ul><li>Archaeological significance is determined by date, nationality, size, function and name </li></ul>
  6. 6. Introduction (continued…) <ul><li>Historical controversy developed was whether or not this ship was Spanish or British. </li></ul><ul><li>Nuestra Senora del Populo, HMS Wolf, and HMS Fowey three possible names. </li></ul><ul><li>Created three possible dates- 1733 C E, 1741 C E, 1748 C E </li></ul><ul><li>Even though shipwreck was located in Legare Anchorage, two locations important, Ajax Reef and Fowey Rocks </li></ul>
  7. 7. Intro (continued…) <ul><li>Legal controversy centered around ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Treasure hunters believed site should belong to them </li></ul><ul><li>Expected court give it to them </li></ul><ul><li>NPS believed it was theirs because was in their property </li></ul><ul><li>As case went through court there were additional claims of ownership British govt. for those warships and Spanish government for Spanish treasure ships. </li></ul>
  8. 8. The Archaeology <ul><li>Magnetometer survey 7 sq. mile shipwreck was found </li></ul><ul><li>Recovery of diagnostic artifacts (matching artifacts recovered from salvage) </li></ul><ul><li>1 st phase of the archaeological investigation largely non-destructive </li></ul><ul><li>Required eight distinctive steps </li></ul>
  9. 9. Archaeology Eight Steps <ul><li>Temporary rope grid cover 810 sq.m. ocean floor was established yielding 90 individual, 3x3m units </li></ul><ul><li>3x3m unit photographed & surface collection of diagnosis artifacts </li></ul><ul><li>Other objects were noted and left in situ </li></ul><ul><li>Every unit systematically probed depth 1 m with ¼ in. iron T-probe to locate remains </li></ul><ul><li>Unit lightly hand fanned to expose architectural remains </li></ul>
  10. 10. Eight Steps (continued) <ul><li>Mapped using 1 ½ m.sq. grid divided into 10 sq. cm units </li></ul><ul><li>Hand-held metal detector passed over unit to identify metallic potential within concreted objects or to locate buried iron concentrations </li></ul><ul><li>Magnetometer survey done of the entire grid area </li></ul>
  11. 11. Archaeology (continued…) <ul><li>Now this was done researchers were ready for the real archaeology to start </li></ul><ul><li>Real archaeology is destructive nature of excavation. </li></ul><ul><li>In order for you to study archeology you take artifacts from the site </li></ul><ul><li>Destroys site because will never be same as original </li></ul><ul><li>Excavation: hand-fanning and sediment removed using four inch airlift </li></ul>
  12. 12. Archaeology 4 destructive steps <ul><li>1x1m caisson was placed around each area to be excavated. </li></ul><ul><li>Sediment was hand-fanned into the airlift with care being taken to collect all artifacts. </li></ul><ul><li>In the event any artifacts were inadvertently removed, the effluvent from the airlift emptied into a floating caisson with a quarter-inch screen bottom. </li></ul><ul><li>If there were any artifacts in the screen they were collected and the waste was carefully piped back to the sea floor. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Material Culture Analysis (MCA) <ul><li>Material culture assemblage means collection of all artifacts located on site </li></ul><ul><li>Study of artifacts on a specific shipwreck is material culture analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Shipwreck site’s age placed in second quarter 18 th cent. (1725-1750) by scientists due to material cult. analysis </li></ul>
  14. 14. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Analysis utilized presence vs. absence model </li></ul><ul><li>Ceramics considered by archaeologist the most important class of artifacts to determine date of an archaeological site </li></ul><ul><li>If shipwreck considered British, absence white salt-glaze stoneware and cream ware argue for pre-1750 date. </li></ul>
  15. 15. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Ceramic assemblage confusing </li></ul><ul><li>No Spanish ceramics found </li></ul><ul><li>Ceramic assemblage-Agate, Mimosa pattern Delft, Rhenish Stoneware, and Faience wares </li></ul><ul><li>Ceramic mix-British, Dutch, French </li></ul><ul><li>Rhenish carried British king crest </li></ul>
  16. 16. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Glassware found on wreck site </li></ul><ul><li>Scientists studied changing shape of wine bottles in 17 th , 18 th ,and 19 th centuries. </li></ul><ul><li>External shape and kick-ups morphed over time </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of wine bottles yielded date in the 1740s </li></ul>
  17. 17. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Ballast was significant clue in identification </li></ul><ul><li>Egg-rock inexpensive and tossed overboard when not needed. Usually used cargo ship </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent pig-iron always used British warships 1725 </li></ul><ul><li>Ballast at shipwreck site served largely in that capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Carried small amount loose stone and many pigs of iron. </li></ul>
  18. 18. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Ballast pile cover 6 sq.m. above remains </li></ul><ul><li>Pigs 3 ft long 6”sq cross section 320lbs ea </li></ul><ul><li>1703 British merchant, warship ballasted stone and scrap iron </li></ul><ul><li>2 nd quarter 18 th , British warships carried block form permanent ballast </li></ul><ul><li>Spanish ships 16 th through 18 th ballasted with large river cobbles </li></ul>
  19. 19. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Pig iron ballast block required specialized placement </li></ul><ul><li>Science of storage was developed so extreme weight bars did not affect fabric, structure of ship </li></ul><ul><li>Each pig marked the property of British crown by 5” long Broad Arrow </li></ul><ul><li>Bars had holes angled through either end for rope to be strung as lifting aid </li></ul><ul><li>Pile found weighed est. 13.5 </li></ul><ul><li>tons </li></ul>
  20. 20. MCA (continued…) <ul><li>Most artifacts uncovered related to ship: rigging-chainplates, pulleys, block sheaves, and lead scuppers </li></ul><ul><li>Several square panes of green window glass were recovered </li></ul>
  21. 21. Cannons <ul><li>44 guns on 5 th rate warship </li></ul><ul><li>Twenty-gun lower deck battery 18-pounder cannons, twenty-two gun upper deck battery 9-pounder cannons, two 6-pounder bow-chaser mounted on the forecastle </li></ul><ul><li>4 guns observed on site, we know captain ordered cannons disabled and thrown overboard </li></ul>
  22. 22. Cannons (continued…) <ul><li>18-, 9-, 6-pounders refer to size of cannonballs </li></ul><ul><li>An 18-pounder and three 9-pounders found at site by FSU and Park Service archaeologists </li></ul><ul><li>Three sizes of shot were recorded on site----6-, 9-, 18- pounds </li></ul><ul><li>Cannon recovered had many diff. markings on the surface </li></ul>
  23. 23. Cannons (continued…) <ul><li>Right and left trunnions marked with letters “G” and “H” respectively </li></ul><ul><li>May be the makers marks </li></ul><ul><li>Trunnions-short cylinders at right angles where gun was mounted to carriage </li></ul><ul><li>British Broad Arrow inscribed in top </li></ul><ul><li>Next to Broad Arrow # “26-0-23”---signified weight of cannon in hundred weights and fractions of hundred weights(112) </li></ul>
  24. 24. Cannons (continued…) <ul><li>26 x 112 = 2912 + 23 = 2935, 2935lbs weight of 9- pound cannon. </li></ul><ul><li>This exact weight was confirmed in the laboratory. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Experts Disagree <ul><li>Treasure hunters claimed ship Spanish </li></ul><ul><li>Mendel Peterson was shipwreck expert with Smithsonian Institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Peterson’s analysis verified British origins </li></ul><ul><li>His experience in the water off Biscayne was all about 1733 Spanish Fleet </li></ul><ul><li>Believed shipwreck was last remaining shipwreck of Spanish fleet </li></ul><ul><li>He claimed Spanish bought British ships with British materials on board </li></ul>
  26. 26. Experts Disagree (continued…) <ul><li>George Fischer was with the NPS </li></ul><ul><li>He worked with Mendel Peterson on 1733 fleet </li></ul><ul><li>Both had emotional connection to 1733 fleet, they found every ship but Populo </li></ul><ul><li>Basil Greenhill was British Nautical Archeologist & historian from British Maritime Museum </li></ul>
  27. 27. 1733 Treasure Fleet Map
  28. 28. Experts Disagree (continued…) <ul><li>Greenhill believed Fowey sunk at Fowey Rocks, felt shipwreck couldn’t be Fowey </li></ul><ul><li>Royal Navy said ship did not sink there, it sunk at Ajax Reef </li></ul><ul><li>Bernard Romans’s maps gave two diff. locations for the Fowey </li></ul><ul><li>He was a geographer of the late 18 th cent. </li></ul><ul><li>Treasure hunters claimed ship Spanish </li></ul>
  29. 29. Documentary Research <ul><li>Documentary research was critical part of record & investigation of site </li></ul><ul><li>Journals, maps, and court martial papers set stage for archeaology </li></ul><ul><li>No artifacts identified Spanish or Spanish-colonial in origin </li></ul><ul><li>Both olive jar and majolica types were missing which had been found on all Spanish treasure ships of 1733 fleet </li></ul>
  30. 30. Documentary Research (continued…) <ul><li>Objective evidence did not fit those who concluded a Spanish treasure ship </li></ul><ul><li>Every shipwreck had huge #s olive jar sherds and some 1733 Spanish majolica, this shipwreck had neither </li></ul><ul><li>Researchers arrived Britain found logs, muster books, court-martial proceeding for HMS Fowey </li></ul><ul><li>Bernard Romans’ chronicles </li></ul><ul><li>FSU Library </li></ul>
  31. 31. Documentary Research (continued…) <ul><li>Eyewitness report is Fowey originally grounded five miles south Legare Anchorage, near Ajax Reef, this created some confusion </li></ul><ul><li>Researcher made a fortunate discovery with help of librarian in map department at FSU; Photostat of a draft map of Bernard Romans’ 1775 map of Florida </li></ul>
  32. 32. Romans’ Maps: a Comparison
  33. 33. Documentary Research (continued…) <ul><li>Original draft found at University of Michigan; marked “Fowey Rocks”, about five miles North of the shipwreck </li></ul><ul><li>Draft had location close to shipwreck location labeled “Fowey Lost”, things were getting interesting </li></ul><ul><li>Appeared Fowey was possible </li></ul><ul><li>candidate for the identity of the </li></ul><ul><li>Legare Anchorage site </li></ul>
  34. 34. Significance <ul><li>To summarize, five components: date, nationality, size, function, and name </li></ul><ul><li>Documentary research helped prove site possibly HMS Fowey, MCA was bigger part of final proof </li></ul>
  35. 35. Significance (continued…) Date Region <ul><li>Date region confirmed by presence and absence of ceramics that were found at the site </li></ul><ul><li>Absence of copper bottoming and presence of lead patching support the same period </li></ul><ul><li>Cannons with trunnions set below the mid-line also indicate pre-1750 </li></ul>
  36. 36. Significance (continued…) Function <ul><li>Function made clear by permanent pig iron ballast & 3 types of shot found </li></ul><ul><li>Soldier’s dirks and marine bayonets also were indicators of a warship </li></ul>
  37. 37. Significance (continued…) Nationality <ul><li>Nationality of the Fowey confirmed by marks on cannons, pig iron ballast Royal British markers, British glass-window and wine bottles, and some pots </li></ul><ul><li>Copper hoops with King’s arrow and pewter ware British makers marks point to British origin </li></ul><ul><li>Even officers’ stoneware drinking mugs with King George II’s mark point to British ownership </li></ul>
  38. 38. Significance (continued…) Size <ul><li>Size was determined by investigation </li></ul><ul><li>There were originally discrepencies between plans of the Fowey indicating length 127’ and a beam width of 36’ and the site </li></ul>
  39. 39. Significance (continued…) Name <ul><li>Final “kicker” was ceramics that were found at shipwreck site </li></ul><ul><li>Normally you never find French ceramics on British warship, but Fowey visited Louisbourg, a French Fort </li></ul><ul><li>New captain raided French officer’s barracks and stole ceramics for his own </li></ul><ul><li>This sealed the </li></ul><ul><li>identification of the </li></ul><ul><li>HMS Fowey </li></ul>
  40. 40. Conclusion <ul><li>Summing up the investigation of the unidentified shipwreck site at Legare Anchorage, its clear historical documents alone wouldn’t have been enough to identify the wreck </li></ul><ul><li>Material Culture Analysis was not enough to define wreck as HMS Fowey </li></ul><ul><li>Both together, including investigation of maps </li></ul><ul><li>made identification a virtual certainty </li></ul>
  41. 41. Conclusion (continued…) <ul><li>Made clear by investigation was looking at both the presence and absence of artifacts to lock final identification </li></ul><ul><li>This investigation provides a good example of proper research techniques for solving an archaeological problem </li></ul>
  42. 42. Reference <ul><li>Skowronek, Russell K., et al. (1987) The Legare Anchorage Shipwreck site-Grave of HMS Fowey, Biscayne National Park, Florida. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (Vol. 16.4; pp. 313-324) </li></ul><ul><li>Johnson, Richard E., (1984) The Historical Geography (?) HMS Fowey, Paper Presented at Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the conference on the Underwater Archaeology Williamsburg, Virginia January 4-7, 1984. MS on File (pp. 1-8) </li></ul>
  43. 43. Reference (continued…) <ul><li>Skowronek, Russell K. and George Fischer, (January 26, 2009) HMS Fowey Lost and Found: Being the Discovery, Excavation, and Identification of a British Man-of-War Lost off the Cape of Florida in 1748 </li></ul><ul><li>The Excavation of HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/resea rch/ships/fowey/fowey.html </li></ul>
  44. 44. Reference (continued…) <ul><li>Artifacts recovered from HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/ research/ships/fowey/artifacts_fowey.html </li></ul><ul><li>Cannon from HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/resea rch/ships/fowey/cannon_fowey.html </li></ul>

×