Locating the Lost Warship Mary Tender

WASHINGTON COLLEGE
The Hunt for the Mary Tender:
A Historical Study and Marine Archaeological Survey
A Senior Thesis Submitted to the Department of Anthropology
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Bachelor of Arts Degree at Washington
College Spring 2013
BY: HUGH P. MCKEEVER
APRIL 2013
Advisor – Prof. John L. Seidel
I pledge my word of honor that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while
completing this assignment.
__________________________________

2
Abstract
This cultural resources study utilized historical background research of contemporary
accounts and literature to search for the 1814 wreck of the Mary tender, a British vessel lost in a
squall during the war of 1812. The vessel known to be carrying a heavy load of munitions was
wrecked in extremely deep water off Swan Point in the Chesapeake Bay. Further studies
regarding the geological characteristics and natural history were also conducted.
This background information was used to formulate a marine survey area off Swan Point
with magnetic and acoustically sensitive surveying equipment made available by Washington
College’s Center for Environment & Society. The equipment was deployed in an effort to map
the survey area during April 15 and 16, 2013 with aspirations of locating the Mary tender’s
remains. This cultural resources survey resulted in the discovery of potentially significant
anomalies. Furthermore, two separate debris fields mapped during the survey are hypothesized to
potentially be Mary tender wreck.
Related terms: Marine Archaeology, War of 1812, cultural heritage survey

3
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to:
Dr. John Seidel
Dr. Douglas Levin
Center for Environment & Society

4
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 5
Historical Background............................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Tracking the Menelaus and Mary tender............................................................................. 13
Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Geological Study Off Swan Point ......................................................................................... 23
Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Map Building.......................................................................................................................... 28
Surveying Equipment and Methods..................................................................................... 28
Problems Experienced........................................................................................................... 32
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................ 33
An Additional Project Regarding the Mary tender ............................................................ 37
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 37
Bibliography................................................................................................................................ 39

5
Chapter 1
Introduction
Countless vessels have been lost in the Chesapeake Bay as a result of war, unpredictable
weather, lurking shoals, and misfortune alike. Among these victims are the remains of various
historical and culturally significant vessels, which have been submerged and kept out of reach of
human contact. Subsequently they are forgotten by the civilizations that produced them. These
abandoned wrecks hidden by dark waters, and occasionally buried by shifting sediment, left as
time capsules to be rediscovered by future generations. By utilizing historical documents, charts,
and archives in combination with modern geological studies and survey equipment, these lost
relics can be relocated and given new life. Once preserved for posterity, they will serve to further
the knowledge of Maryland’s maritime history, and tell stories that have been forgotten.
Scholars, as well as the general public of Maryland, would be remiss to ignore such an
archaeologically enriched heritage.
One such undiscovered site off the Chesapeake Bay’s Eastern Shore is the wreck of the
Mary tender, a British schooner and gunboat that was lost in a sudden squall during the War of
1812. It is a conflict that is most often remembered through myth, rather than historical facts, and
a war almost entirely forgotten by the majority of Americans today. The myths are stories of
heroism and glory, found in the stirring imagery, much of which originates from the Star-
Spangled Banner’s tale of bombs bursting in air over a defiant American flag in Baltimore’s
Harbor. However, in reality the War of 1812 was actually defined by defeat and hardship
amongst the civilian population. The Mary tender, as a member of a small squadron under the
British Royal Navy, served to distribute terror and destruction amongst Maryland and Virginian

6
communities. This aggressive raider was one of five vessels intended as a prelude to a massive
naval and military campaign that would eventually target major cities of the Chesapeake.
The loss of the Mary Tender was a pivotal part of the War of 1812, which resulted in the
Royal Navy losing a key leader and one of its youngest rising officers. The remains of this vessel
should be relocated and preserved for future generations. By utilizing primary, secondary, and
tertiary sources regarding the HMS Menelaus and the frigate’s operations in the Chesapeake
Bay, a survey area for the historically significant wreck can be deduced. Contemporary accounts
from onboard HMS Menelaus provide a rough course and location of the frigate and supporting
vessels, including the Mary during late August of 1814, which can be referenced with a hybrid
chart. The hybrid is formed by overlaying two highly detailed 1861 Survey of the Coast of the
Untied States Charts (No. 31 and 32) of the Chesapeake Bay and a modern interactive NOAA
chart on Google Earth Pro, to accurately display and narrow the possible locations of the Mary
wreck.
Historical Background
From the onset of war with Great Britain in June of 1812, hostile naval vessels began to
infest the Chesapeake Bay. The British Admiralty had sent the warships to harass the maritime
commerce and coastal economies of the Bay. The early attacks were “on a small scale and
calculated rather to alarm and irritate than to produce any considerable effect,” but these raiders
became even more aggressive. In 1813, the British burned Havre-de-Grace and Frenchtown at
the head of Chesapeake Bay, before they targeted and burned both Georgetown and
Fredericktown in the North along the Sassafras River (Skirven 1914:1).
By August of 1814, the United State’s situation was growing desperate. The British
Navy, emboldened by success, began an amphibious assault against the larger cities of the

7
western shore, which culminated in the Chesapeake Campaign. In mid-August of 1814, British
Maj. Gen. Sir Robert Ross and four thousand troops landed in the Patuxent River with malaise
intentions of laying waste to the city of Washington. By August 24th, the American capital’s
defenses had been negated, the city captured, and the President’s house burned along with much
of the city’s infrastructure. By August 25th, the conquering invaders had begun their withdrawal
back to the sea and the fleet under Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, with aspirations to
move north to capture Baltimore City. While Washington burned, a small detachment of Royal
vessels on patrol in the Bay were ordered to move north in advance of the main fleet towards the
cities of Annapolis and Baltimore, and the lightly defended Eastern Shore Bay communities
(Muller 1963; Pitcher 1998).
This small advanced fleet was under the command of Sir Peter Parker, 2nd Baronet, a
well-connected and seasoned captain of twenty-eight years, and the first son of Admiral
Christopher Parker. As a child, Parker was educated at the Winchester School, and entered into
the Royal Navy in 1776 under his grandfather, Sir Admiral Peter Parker Bart I. His naval career
took off quickly while he served under the command of Admiral Horatio Nelson, which allowed
Parker to take a new combat post as a Captain of his own warship in the Mediterranean Sea with
great success. In the summer of 1814, Parker arrived at a new assignment in the Chesapeake
Bay.
There he was “ordered to capture when possible the small bodies of American soldiers, to
burn the farm houses along the Bay shore, and to harass the people in every possible way.” This
was intended to cause a diversion to the Eastern Shore militia, and blockade the Port of
Baltimore in anticipation for a full British siege. Captain Parker was so proficient that the
Americans quickly became exhausted from constant raids along the shore. The youthful Captain

8
boasted that “not a single American vessel crossed the Bay…” in support of defending or
supplying the western shore cities (Lossing 1869:948). To accomplish this task, the skilled raider
utilized numerous vessels.
The flag ship, HMS Menelaus, was a fifth rate, thirty-eight gun, Lively class frigate
placed under the command of Parker at her launch four years prior to arriving in the brackish
waters of the Chesapeake (Skirven 1914; Gardiner 2006). Logs of the Menelaus also mention
accompanying barges and tenders, of which little is known. However, it can be seen from
Parker’s logs (as expected) that the tenders functioned as supporting vessels, shuttling supplies
and men for raiding parties onshore. Furthermore, they acted as speedy reconnaissance ships,
fanning out in multiple directions to locate hostile targets or gather information vital to
navigation. The known names of the attached tenders mentioned in the frigate’s logs are the
“Adml,” “Java,” “Jane,” and “Mary” Tender, which suddenly capsized in a squall, never to be
recovered.
There are few records and only obscure references to the Mary’s size, class, or origin.
The earliest reference to a vessel named the “Mary tender” is found in a 1854 July edition of
“The Gentlemen’s Magazine and Historical Review,” which listed the obituary of the retired 88
year old British Rear-Admiral John Gourly. Among his impressive naval career history included
a brief command of the Mary tender in 1805. This vessel is also described by name in the “Ships
of the Royal Navy: the Complete Record of all Fighting ships of the Royal Navy from the 15th
century to the Present” as being purchased in 1797, listed in 1805, and being armed with six
guns of an undetermined caliber.
In “The Darkest Day: The Washington-Baltimore Campaign During the War of 1812”
are the accounts of midshipmen Frederick Chamier and Lovell of the Menelaus. Both men testify

9
to the brutality and destruction engaged in by Menelaus against the civilians of the Chesapeake.
However, Lovell also describes an intense squall blowing from the northwest on Chesapeake,
which caused his frigate to heel over until the deck guns nearly touched the water’s surface.
Furthermore Lovell describes the capsizing of a nearby anchored tender with sails furled.
Describing the vessel as a fine schooner of 70 tons. Unfortunately there is doubt cast on the
validity of this account, as the date of the squall, type of cannon, and number of dead differ
slightly from the Menelaus’ log and diaries of other crewmen aboard the frigate. These primary
sources provide the most insight into the nature of the Mary tender.
The tender was used for various reconnaissance operations and shuttling of supplies, as
were the other tenders mentioned previously. However, according to the Menelaus’ logs, the
Mary was also used as a raider carrying a heavy cargo consisting mainly of munitions, which
included 270 lbs of gun powder, a 32-pdr Carronade, 16 (32-pdr) canisters of grape shot, 150
(32-pdr) pieces of solid iron shot, 16 tin case shot, 40 muskets, 40 pistols, gun locks, sabers, pole
axes, pikes, flints, signals, and many other bulk items allocated for the campaign in Maryland.
This vessel was extremely critical to the amphibious operation of the British; but regardless of
one’s level of preparedness, the Chesapeake can prove to be a very unpredictable body of water
for the most experienced crew and vessels.
On the afternoon of August 25, 1814, British troops occupying Washington were halted
in their activities of pillaging and destruction to observe ominous skies. As if through divine
intervention, the darkened skies above the burning city let forth a torrential downpour of rain that
reportedly drowned the raging fires of Washington. Furthermore, the winds were so intense that
a tornado formed in the center of Washington. Cavalrymen were separated from their horses,
cannons from their carriages, and masts from ships. Trees were uprooted, and already damaged

10
buildings were toppled. The scattered, demoralized British troops soon withdrew from the city to
the main, storm battered fleet in the Patuxent, which was found partially incapacitated by the
violent winds (George 2000). Meanwhile, Sir Peter Parker’s contingent fared little better in the
open Chesapeake Bay.
Captain Parker’s log and later letters to Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane coincide
with the diary of Lieutenant Benjamin George Beynon, a British Royal Marine stationed on the
Menelaus. These report that the frigate Menelaus while anchored off Swan Point on August 25,
1814 bore witness to an impressive squall moving from the northwest at around 2PM. These
accounts go further to discuss the chaos aboard the frigate as the Mary Tender came into sight.
The tender, unable to withstand the abnormal hurricane force winds, suddenly capsized and sank
on the bottom. Smaller boats were eventually dispatched as the storm subsided, rescuing all of
the Tender’s crew but “Alex King” and ”William Shears” from the water. Parker’s log on the
following day records a detailed list of the vital stores and munitions lost aboard the Tender on
August 26th, after an attempted salvage operation to retrieve the submerged stores of the Mary
failed. Parker’s log explains that this unsuccessful attempt was due to excessive depths of 9 ½
fathoms in which the Mary had settled. Subsequently, the wreck was abandoned on the bottom of
the Bay, and the battle group moved north to continue their mission late on August 26th.
According to Percy Granger Skirven’s “The Battle of Caulks Field,” on August 27, 1814,
Sir Parker arrived just north of Fairlee Creek on the Eastern Shore. There the harassment
continued with the burning and pillaging the 422 acres of property know as “Great Oak Manor”
on August 28th. The local slaves of the property deliberately provided false information
concerning the proximity of American militia and strength. This false intelligence consequently
lead the British to attempt a midnight landing just north of Tolchester Beach with aspirations of

11
surprising and capturing the American Militia forces inland on the night of August 30th. Yet,
unbeknownst to Sir Parker, Col. Philip A. Reed, a Revolutionary War veteran, future U.S
Senator, and the commander of five companies, consisting of infantry, cavalry, and artillery of
the 21st
Maryland Militia were all too aware of the foreign presence. The HMS Menelaus had
been under constant surveillance by pickets since its appearance off Swan Point (Skirven 1914).
The surprise British raid on August 30th turned into an American ambush in an hour-long
engagement, later to be known as the Battle of Caulks Field. Subsequently, the confrontation
produced the death of thirteen British raiders, including Sir Peter Parker. The Captain had been
leading from the front until mortally wounded by militia buckshot. At 28 years of age, the young
Captain bled out from a severed main artery in his thigh. The lifeless corpse was carried back to
the Menelaus in a full retreat, where the body was placed and preserved in a keg of strong spirits
for the long trip home to his family (Lossing 1869). But did Parker take such a seemingly
unnecessary risk of moving so far inland away from the support and protection of his heavy
Frigate because of military obligations, a youthful sense of invincibility, or necessity?
Benson J. Lossing and Percy Granger Skirven both use contemporary accounts to
describe the British marauders coming ashore on August 30, 1814. The authors agree that while
the British were armed with muskets, there were relatively frequent cases of British sailors and
marines carrying only pikes or swords to defend themselves. It appears that the raiders set out to
not only capture the American militia and deprive the Marylanders of arms, but also to bolster
their own dwindling supply of munitions, and replace those lost on the Mary Tender on August
25th. It is in the realm of possibility that the loss of munitions aboard the Mary resulted in an
insufficient number of muskets and cartridges to effectively complete future raiding missions.
This shortage caused a strong motivation for Parker to order such a risky maneuver in the

12
extremely hostile and unknown territory of Kent County, Maryland on the night of August 30th
(Lossing 1869; Skirven 1914).

13
Chapter 2
Tracking the Menelaus and Mary tender
In early August of 1814, the Menelaus had already entered into the Chesapeake,
according to Hugh Howard’s book, Mr. and Mrs. Madison's War: Americas First Couple and the
Second War of Independence. Howard states, “The frigates HMS Seahorse and HMS Menelaus,
along with two schooners, were the first to sail on a northwesterly heading up the Potomac
River” on an expeditionary mission. On August 20,1814, the frigate Menelaus was off Tolly
Point near Annapolis when it launched two expeditionary boats while patrolling the waters
around the city. Parker’s frigate then withdrew to the north off Bodkin Point as a direct result of
enemy gunboat activity; however, this was not before a brief engagement with at least one of the
forts around Annapolis. On August 22nd, Parker returned covertly at night to continue
explorations around Annapolis off Severn Point, where he and a small detachment of marines
landed and walked freely around, gathering intelligence regarding the city’s defenses
(McWlliams 2011). The fortifications around Annapolis were criticized in a report to Admiral
Cochran from Captain Parker, stating “Annapolis would face an easy conquest,” which was
confirmed by the diary of Marine Lieutenant Benjamin on August 23rd. Additionally, the
Lieutenant also recorded in his diary on the 23rd at 12 AM that Menelaus weighed anchor and
was underway to the north in the direction of Baltimore City.
The following day the Master logs of HMS Menelaus states:
August 24, 1814 Off Severn Point:
[PM] Do Weather at 100, observed a schooner at an anchor under
the land, sent 2 barges with the Jane Tender after her. At 2
shortened sail and came to an anchor best bower. At 200 observed
the schooner in flames - At 4 the tender and Boats returned – sent
sounding round the ship in every direction. Bodkin Pt. NW. Sent
the Mary Tender with 2 boats to look out.

14
By drawing a line Northwest from Bodkin point, it is seen that Menelaus must be
positioned somewhere along a line that is seven nautical miles in length, extending from Bodkin
Point to just north of Love Point on Kent Island. The frigate was most likely following the
current channel, the naturally deep route for shipping at the time, as could be seen on the 1861
portion of the hybrid chart. Entries made the following day reveal informative clues to the resting
place of the Mary Tender and document the disaster of the vessel. The master log of Menelaus
states:
August 25, 1814 Off Swan Point:
[AM] Moderate and fine, Sent the Jane Tender and 1 Barge to
look- out off Swan Point. At 4 Dark cloudy weather with rain,
thunder and lightening. At 8 light air and fine, at 1030 observed the
Enemy. Gunboats under weigh. at 11 weighed and made sail up the
Chesapeake. Noon ditto weather. Tenders returned.
This also correlates with the account of Lieutenant Benjamin’s diary, which states:
Thursday August 25th [18]14 Off Baltimore:
This has been a very warm day, at Ten our Tender was seen very
far to windward, close to Poole Island, which is nearly at the Head
of the river, we made her recall, she closed us but slowly as the
wind was very scanty, six large Gun boats came out from
Baltimore, and a schooner the former pulled very swift in the
direction for our Tender, thinking they might cut her off;” we got
underway, the moment they perceived us making sail, they put
back and we anchored…
Parker and Lieutenant Benjamin’s accounts claim to have witnessed hostile American
gunboats moving out from Baltimore’s Patapsco River in the direction of their tender, which the
pair observed simultaneously under threat by approaching city gunships windward towards
Pooles Island. Therefore, the British frigate standing off Swan Point was in a position affording a
clear view of the hostile gunships at the mouth of the Patapsco River, while still maintaining the
ability to observe their own tender to the north near Pooles Island. For perspective, the position
between Bodkin and North Point at the confluences of the Patapsco River in the naturally deep

15
and modernly maintained dredged channel is 7.74 nautical miles on a 287° heading from Swan
Point. Pooles Island’s most southerly end is 8.07 nautical miles on a 350° heading from Swan
Point on the hybrid chart; refer to figure 1. Furthermore, by understanding the capabilities of the
Menelaus one can understand the position of the frigate in relation to the mentioned locations
Courtesy of Captain Parker and Lieutenant Benjamin’s accounts. To better understand the
frigate’s position, one must understand the limitations of the vessel.
Figure 1. Points of reference for the Menelaus on an 1861 Survey of the
Coast of the Untied States Chart of the Chesapeake Bay (No. 31 and 32)
overlaid on Google Earth.
A British Lively class frigate’s highest point is a 92-foot mainmast, which gives the
vessel a maximum view of 11.7 miles to the horizon in ideal conditions. This is known using the
equation D =1.22 X H (or distance to horizon = 1.22 X √height in feet) to produce a view of
11.7 miles to the horizon. Furthermore the frigate would have had a draft of 13.6 feet (Gardiner

16
2006). This means Menelaus must be within 11.7 miles to be within sight of Pooles Island and
due to draft restrictions must also have maintained a distance of at least 1 to 2.5 nautical miles
from Swan Point in any direction because of shallow conditions closer to shore. This
environment can be clearly observed on the 1861 Survey of the Coast of the Untied States Chart
(No. 31) of the Chesapeake Bay. This places the Menelaus between Swan Point in the east, the
enemy boats towards the west, and Pooles Island in the north, affording the frigate the most
advantageous position to most effectively blockade and monitor shipping of Baltimore, while
remaining in safe depths of water around Swan Point. The Menelaus master log states further:
August 25 1814 Off Swan Point:
[PM] light and fine. At 1 (?) anchored in with best bower sent boat
and tenders to sound. at 215 a heavy squall from the NW with
thunder and lightning. Furled sails - Observed the Mary Tender
upset in the same squall. Sent all the boats to her assistance. Let go
the small bower anchor, downed tops’ l yards etc. at 330 the boats
returned having saved all seamen but Alex King (s) and Wm
Shears (boy). at 4 moderate. 630 placed the Kedge to swing the
ship for weighing. 635 weighed and made sail into deeper water.
At 7 came to with best bower in 7 fathoms, furled sails at 8 fresh
breezes and five, sounded round the ship. Swan Pt. NNE, North Pt.
NW by W. Do weather at midnight.
The Menelaus is anchored off Swan Point in the same position described previously in
the morning, only to later observe a change in weather at 2:15 in the afternoon. As the
northwesterly winds intensified, the British frigate cut the bow anchor and was forcibly pushed
on a southeasterly course in the direction of the Eastern shore, despite action from British crew.
The Mary tender is then simultaneously witnessed by the Menelaus being “upset in the same
squall,” referring to the vessel suddenly succumbing to the elements and capsizing. The
Menelaus eventually comes to rest in shallow waters, departing for deeper water at 6:35PM. The
British warship then eventually arrives at 7PM in 7 fathoms of water, positioned with “Swan Pt
NNE” and “North Pt. NW by W” an exact location created by two intersecting lines. This

17
position is accurate in depth according to the 1861 (No. 31) Chart of the Chesapeake Bay; refer
to figure 2. Furthermore the master log entry also records that it took the Menelaus 25 minutes to
travel from the shallows to an exact position in the south around Swan Point. The top speed of a
lively frigate in ideal conditions is 13 knots and therefore Menelaus would have drifted within
5.4 nautical miles of that exact position (Gardiner 2006). This log entry also indicates that the
Mary tender sank within sight of the Menelaus at the start of the forced drift. Due to the
extremely limited visibility of the storm it can be theorized the Mary wreck would be positioned
within a nautical mile of the Menelaus’ southeasterly drift path. In order to recreate the drift of
the Menelaus, a more refined area of the position held by the frigate before the storm must be
deduced using the facts that are known.

18
Figure 2. Menelaus position of “Swan Pt NNE” and “North Pt. NW by W”
on an 1861 Survey of the Coast of the Untied States Chart of the
Chesapeake Bay (No. 31 and 32) overlaid on Google Earth Pro.
The frigate Menelaus initially off was Swan Point in a location no shallower than 13.6
feet, with a clear view of Pooles Island and hostile gunships from the Patapsco. The vessel was
also able to drift towards the southeast to shallow waters without significant problems related to
depth. By referencing the hybrid chart, a refined area and path of the Menelaus’ southeasterly
course becomes evident. This is because a Lively class frigate would have been required to hold
a position no further north than 39°10'18. 82"N and 76°21'58. 22"W off Swan Point before the
storm in order to have drifted on a southeastern course and arrived in shallow waters without
instantly running aground. Furthermore, the vessel would have needed to hold a position no
further south than 10.1 nautical miles in order to observe Pooles Island clearly in the North, and
still be within a reasonable distance off Swan Point within appropriate depths to operate.
I surmise that the frigate Menelaus was in a triangular area, which the vessel drifted from
the triangular area on a 315° angle due to the Northwestern winds in a 2.10 nautical mile wide
path that stretched between 8.38 and 8.59 nautical miles towards the littoral zone, a place unfit
for a Lively class frigate on the Eastern Shore to function. Refer to Figure 3.

19
Figure 3. Potential area and drift path of Menelaus in red and black on an
1861 Survey of the Coast of the Untied States Chart of the Chesapeake Bay
(No. 31 and 32) overlaid on Google Earth Pro.
Furthermore this drift path is also within 5.4 nautical miles of the location “Swan Pt. NNE, North
Pt. NW by W” recorded in the Menelaus’ master logs. By increasing the borders of the triangle
and drift path of the Menelaus by 2 nautical miles to overestimate the potential line of sight in
the squall, and thereby forming a fairly large search area in which to find the Mary wreck. Refer
to Figure 4.
Figure 4. Extended two nautical mile view of Menelaus on August 25, 1814
and potential wreck site of Mary between blue lines on an 1861 Survey of
the Coast of the Untied States Chart of the Chesapeake Bay (No. 31 and 32)
overlaid on Google Earth Pro.
Even so, this area can be further reduced. The next day the master log states:
“August 26th 1814 HMS Menelaus, Off Swan Point:
PM sent boats to where the Tender had sunk to endeavor to get the
stores out of her. Found she had sunk in 9 ½ Fathoms of water and

20
6 ¾ fathoms over her. Boats returned without being able to get
any. At 4 Calm and fine...”
By knowing that the British attempted a salvage operation of the Mary in 9 ½ fathoms
(57 feet) of water, the search area can be refined. Few potential sites are characterized by more
than 9 fathoms on the historic 1861 chart. Moreover, by extending the search area by more than
2 nautical miles, there are still limited sites to search, such as those found between Swan and
Tolchester beach. Refer to Figure 5A and 5B for all potential sites circled in green.
Figure 5A. Potential wreck sites of the Mary tender in more than 9 fathoms
of water on an 1861 Survey of the Coast of the Untied States Chart of the
Chesapeake Bay (No. 31 and 32) overlaid on Google Earth.

21
Figure 5B. Potential wreck sites of the Mary tender in more then 9 fathoms
in comparison to a NOAA Chart # 12278 overlaid on Google Earth.
The most plausible place to locate the Mary tender wreck is within a search area that is
2.3 nautical miles southwest of Swan Point. According to the Menelaus’ logs, this area is 1.1
nautical miles away from where the Menelaus sat anchored in 7 fathoms of water from August
25th
to 26th
during attempted salvage operations of the wrecked Mary by surviving British
tenders; refer to figure 6.

22
Figure 6. Likely wreck site of the Mary tender in relationship to the known
Position of Menelaus during August 25 – 26, 1814 on 1861 Survey of the
Coast of the Untied States Chart of the Chesapeake Bay (No. 31 and 32)
overlaid on Google Earth.
Using this information, a search area can be formulated around the corresponding depths,
which allows for the deployment of a variety of acoustic and magnetically sensitive surveying
equipment to be deployed to locate precisely the tender’s remains.
However, when the historic 1861 Survey of the Coast of the Untied States Chart (No. 31)
is overlaid with a modern interactive NOAA chart of the potential wreck site, discrepancies
emerge in relation to depth. The areas where the Mary tender likely sank have seen a noticeable
change in water depth from 30 to 66.3 feet in 1861 to a depth that is currently 3 to 15 feet
shallower. To understand this change and the environment where the wreck is located, an
understanding of the natural history, formation, and processes of the Bay must be obtained.

23
Chapter 3
Geological Study Off Swan Point
The search for the Mary tender is centered on a naturally deep section of the Bay within
an ancient drowned river valley. Stratigraphic and radiocarbon studies show that before the
formation of the Chesapeake 18,000 years ago, ocean levels in the mid-Atlantic region were
approximately 400 ft lower, which permitted the Susquehanna River to extend further south and
form a deeply cut river valley. As the last Pleistocene glaciers retreated, sea levels began to rise.
By the early Holocene period approximately 8,000 years ago, sea levels had risen sufficiently to
begin the inundation of these valleys that were produced by the Susquehanna and its tributaries.
As the sea levels rose to their present height in the Bay, the sloping lands and unconsolidated
sediment along the coastal plain began to slowly erode, and thereby further the growth of the
estuary.
The Chesapeake Bay has become the site of sediment accumulation since its formation;
however, this naturally occurring process was exacerbated by the arrival of European settlers. In
the Nineteenth Century, forested areas surrounding the Chesapeake Bay region were converted
rapidly for agricultural use. This exposed numerous farm fields to wind and rain erosion, which
allowed loose sediment to infiltrate local streams and rivers. The suspended particles eventually
reached the Bay through alluvial transport, and subsequently created a flux in sedimentation.
According to core samples of sediment, the locations along the Chesapeake that were
subjected to mass land clearance between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century simultaneously
experienced the multiplication of sedimentation by three to ten times the normal, pre-colonial
rates. By the height of deforestation in Maryland during the late Nineteenth Century, sediment
yields increased from 100 tons per square mile to 600 tons per square mile (Langland and Cronin

24
2003). Refer to figure 7. An increase of suspended sediment that also occurred during this period
also began to cause a diminished turbidity of the water column, which limited the Bay’s
submerged aquatic vegetation.
Figure 7. A Comparison of historical 1880 to present and long-term
sediment flux at core sites in Chesapeake Bay.
(Taken from 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological
Survey report: A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake
Bay and Watershed)
The streams and shallows areas of the Chesapeake became choked with fine sediment
that blocked ambient light and starved photosynthetic aquatic grasses. The loss of these grasses
did not directly increase sedimentation, but acted to slow the velocity and trap suspended
sediment particles from being moved further by alluvial transportation (Chesapeake Bay
Program Nutrient Subcommittee Sediment Workgroup's Tidal Sediment Task Force). Without

25
the marine vegetation, sediment is free to be carried to the Bay, where it clogs channels and
accumulates on its bottom. (Refer to figure 8).
Figure 8. Sources of Silt/Clay Sediment Loads
(Taken from 2005 Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee
Sediment Workgroup’s Tidal Sediment Task Force Report: Sediment in the
Chesapeake Bay and Management Issues: Tidal Erosion Processes)
Finally, the shores of the Chesapeake have been subjected to coastal erosion accelerated
by rising sea level, which has increased approximately 1.0 to 1.4 ft each century. This rise has
resulted in the drowning of wetlands and the curtailing of extensive rooted networks of
vegetation, such as sea grass, which consolidates loss sediment and prevent erosion along the
coastline. Higher sea levels also magnify the damage of wind-generated waves and the relatively
recent induction of wakes from pleasure and commercial craft, which are able to reach further
inland during high tides, thereby amplifying coastal erosion and sediment deposition in the Bay
(Langland and Cronin 2003).
The sedimentation that has resulted from a multitude of causes over the last two hundred
years lends an explanation to the discrepancies of depth between the historic and modern charts.

26
This phenomenon incited by deforestation and habitat destruction increased coastal erosion,
which was brought on by a rise in sea levels and newly introduced, machine-powered vessels. If
the wreck is within the search area, a thick layer of sediment will certainly cover it.
By reviewing a geological survey map produced by Maryland’s Geological, Coastal, and
Estuarine Geology Program under the Department of Natural Resources, we can observe that the
bottom composition around Swan Point and the potential wreck site consists predominantly of
erosion material. This sediment is a silty-clay mix, with some smaller areas made of sandy-clay
or sand; refer to figure 9.
Figure 9. Geological map displaying bottom sediment off Swann Point.
Based on the proportions of sand-, silt- and clay-sized particles, bottom
sediments were classified according to Sheppard’s diagram.
(Material taken from a 2005 geological survey map produced by
Maryland’s Geological, Coastal, and Estuarine Geology Program under the
Department of Natural Resources)
These conditions and the environment surrounding the wreck of the Mary provide great potential
for a relatively intact and undisturbed site.
Due to the fact that the Mary capsized and sank so suddenly, and came to rest in such a
deep section of the Chesapeake Bay, the vessel remained inaccessible to salvagers, and provided

27
with little opportunity to slip into deeper spaces with shifting sediment on the Bay floor.
Moreover, if layers of silty-clay have been accumulating over the wreck, it will have further
served to secure the site against past and present human activities or naturally occurring events,
such as storms and currents. Furthermore a thick layering of silt and clay will help to create
anaerobic environment between the marine environment and the wood structure of the
submerged vessel. This barrier guards against bacteria, fungi, and colonizing organisms, which
could potentially damage the wood. Some types of bacteria and Fungi consume the cellulous of
the wood, causing the wood to become brittle, subsequently dissolving (Bowens, 2008).
Therefore, it can be hypothesized that the wreck is still relatively consolidated;
nonetheless, an acoustic and magnetometer survey was conducted to verify the place and
condition of the potential wreck site.

28
Chapter 4
Map Building
By using historical charts displaying depths of 9 fathoms and deeper Off Sawn Point and
overlaid with modern NOAA Charts on Google Earth Pro, a survey grid was established for the
deployment of remote sensing equipment. The product was a rectangular step shaped survey area
measuring 10,448 meters in length, with an area covering 1.69² nautical miles; refer to figure 10.
Figure 10. The 1.69² nautical miles step pattern survey area overlaid over
NOAA Chart # 12278 on the Google Earth Pro.
Surveying Equipment and Methods
To conduct the survey the research vessel “Look Down” was utilized. Purchased by
Washington College this year from NOAA, the 27 ft, fiberglass, with aluminum cabin, Boston
Whaler was outfitted with two torpedo shaped types of remote sensing equipment. The first
instrument, the Edge Tech 4123 side-scan sonar acoustically mapped large swaths of the
Chesapeake Bay floor. The side scan or ‘Fish’ attached to the port side of the vessel emitted
simultaneous Frequencies of 400 and 900 kHz in a fan shape towards the bottom. The return

29
signal or echo bouncing off the sea floor back to the source (the fish) was continuously recorded,
and analyzed creating an acoustic image of the Bay bottom in real-time. Unfortunately side-scan
is limited to mapping the bottom surface and can not penetrate past the first layer into the sub-
bottom sediment layers.
Figure 11. The research vessel “Look Down,” a 27 ft, fiberglass, Boston
Whaler.
Figure 12. The Edge Tech 4123 side-scan sonar
To create an acoustic image of the underlying sediment, a sub-bottom profiler is needed.
This equipment emits a very condensed, lower frequency pulse of energy to produce a profile
view of the sediment or buried anomalies in a very confined area. Unfortunately this piece of
equipment was not available during this survey. But as mentioned previously, suspicion that the
vessel could possibly be buried under a clay-silt mixture and knowing that the Mary tender had

30
in fact capsized with copious amounts of ferrous metals in the form of iron shot, a second piece
of equipment was introduced to the expedition.
The G-881, a cesium vapor magnetometer by Geometrics was also deployed to locate
ferrous metals either on the surface or buried by sediment. G-881 detected disruptions in the
Earth’s magnetic field caused by ferrous metal anomalies. When the instrument comes into the
presence of an object’s magnetic field, charged cesium partials within the magnetometer are
pushed out of their preferred alignment. As the cesium atoms return to their original position
they released a photon. An optical sensor within the instrument then measured the amount of
light released from this realignment of magnetic atoms, determining the strength of an anomaly
in gammas (δ).
Figure 13. The G-881, a cesium vapor magnetometer by Geometrics
The higher the number of gammas, the larger and closer the anomaly was to the
magnetometer. This realignment was observed in a line graph, which was watched in real-time
onboard the vessel. When a magnetic anomaly was very large and in near proximity to the
magnetometer a large dipole spike was observed, which means the line first suddenly dipped and
then steeply rose before equalizing (Geometrics Inc. , 2001). This would signify that a large

31
ferrous object was potentially closer. Furthermore this instrument was towed 31 meters behind
the research vessel, as not to be influenced by the engines or electronics magnetic signature.
To track these anomalies and allow the research vessel to navigate the survey area with
accuracy, Differential GPS was used to give accurate positing. This DGPS measured all
anomalies from the Datum Point WGS84, with a dilution of position or DOP raging from 0.3 –
0.4. The DGPS location, coupled with the data collected from equipment during the survey was
feed directly into an onboard laptop running the surveying software “Chesapeake Technology
Sonar 98”.
Figure 15. Actively running “Chesapeake Technology Sonar 98” surveying
software aboard the research vessel’s laptop.
Specifically designed for surveying in the Chesapeake Bay, the software organized line
spacing, navigation, and also stored the collected data and DGPS position for future review. The
survey area designed on Google Earth Pro was recreated onboard the research vessel’s laptop
running “Sonar 98” over a downloaded NOAA Chart # 12278. Additionally the software
introduced survey lines spaced every 30 meters within the area.
The software also performed tasks of compensating for the 31-meter layback of the
magnetometer and the DGPS unit. This allowed for the position of the anomalies to be charted

32
accurately. The software finally provided for the navigation of the research vessel while
surveying the lines in the field. Giving a visual of the boats position on the survey line, as it is an
imperative to create steady straight lines, while traveling at between 3 - 5 Knots.
Problems Experienced
Bad weather on April 15 and 16, 2013 did not afford the opportunity to map the full
survey area. Rather the high priority areas were mapped first. Then moving south, mapping
continued on April 16 until increasingly larger waves no longer guaranteed the safety the crew or
quality of the survey data. Line spacing was increased for lower priority areas to 60 meter spaced
lines, which still allowed for overlapping of acoustic data. While the full area was not completely
surveyed, around 60% had been and yielded significant acoustic and magnetic anomalies; refer
to figure 16.
Figure 16. The total mapped area of the original step Shaped survey area

33
Survey Results
During the course of surveying, many magnetic and side-scan anomalies of various sizes
were located within the survey area.
The site of CR0005 and CR0006 mapped on line 2 on April 15, 2013 displayed acoustic
and magnetic anomalies. An acoustic image depicts a debris field of small objects, some of
which protrude from the bottom sediment, as an acoustic shadow is visible. A massive dipole hit
anomaly is also present at the site, which was immediately followed by a series of smaller
monopole anomalies recorded using the magnetometer. Suggesting the possible large clusters of
debris in the acoustic image are dense clusters and individual small ferrous mental objects.
Unfortunately CR0005 and CR0006 debris fields are ideal finds, but are situated in
depths, which are 20 ft in depth. This does not coincide with depths of 57 ft as recorded in the
Menelaus in 1814. But the sites are situated above the drowned river valley where depths reach
depth exceeding 50 ft.

34
Figure 17. Magnetic and Side scan anomaly debris of site CR0005 and
CR0006
At Site CR0018 mapped on line 2 on April 16, 2013 displayed a side-scan image of a debris field
and predominately visible 7-meter long narrow shaped pole or line topped with a half circle. This
could suggest the possibility of an anchor or oyster dredge caught on wreckage. This site also
displayed a magnetometer hit, creating a large monopole signature in depths, where depths
historically reached depths exceeding 50 ft, based on the 1861 charts.

35
Figure 18. Magnetic and side-scan anomaly at Site CR0018 displaying
debris field and predominately unidentified 7-meter long rode topped with
a half circle.
Site CR0026 mapped along line 6 during April 16, 2013 displayed a notable glancing
magnetic hit, which stretched for hundreds of meters near a large cigar shaped mound. The
acoustic anomaly measured 65 meters in length and appeared different from the surrounding flat
sediment in a location historically having ideal depths of the 57 ft. Currently the location is
between 45 and 51 feet in the drowned river valley. This mound displaying a magnetic hit
potently could be the buried remains of a vessel.

36
Figure 19. Magnetic anomaly at Site CR0026 displaying a glancing hit over
a large cigar shaped mound.

37
An Additional Project Regarding the Mary tender
The Maryland Maritime Archaeology Program’s project to locate the Mary tender
received a NOAA grant in May of 2004 and produced a final report in February of 2006. Stephen
R. Bilicki leading the project accomplished collecting very interesting data, but unfortunately the
project had lead to inconclusive findings to the locate the Mary.
The Mary tender was identified as a captured American schooner and locally built
Chesapeake craft according to the 2004 project’s historical background. Furthermore Bilicki
utilized a magnetometer, side scan sonar, and sub bottom profiler located strong magnetic and
sub-bottom profile anomalies, but nothing appeared to be visible on the bottom surface of the
Bay. Divers barrowed from Aberdeen Proving Ground were sent to investigate the anomalies
using hydro probes, but determined that the wreck was buried in15 feet of sediment as was
expected. No samples of wood or ferrous metal could be retrieved from the site.
Found within massive survey area around Swan Point in 2005 by Billicki, this set of
buried anomalies is also within the boundaries of the smaller step pattern survey area produced
for this 2013 project.
Conclusion
While there is little doubt that the wreck of the Mary tender is situated within the original
step shaped search area, the site could possibly be situated in an area that was not mapped as a
result of poor weather conditions.
The 2004 project by the Maryland Maritime Archaeology Program to locate the Mary
tender had revealed significant anomalies using sub bottom profilers and magnetometers, which

38
was also mapped by this 2013 project as site CR0005 and CR0006. Additionally the sites also
revealed side scan anomalies, which appear to be a debris field on the surface, which was not
present during the 2004 project’s mapping. Again as previously mentioned the anomalies are
interesting, but are in an area, which has never been defined by 57 ft. Moreover, it is unlikely the
Mary tender remains would be positioned there.
Regardless, a sub-bottom profiler should be deployed to further investigate the anomalies
at CR0018 and CR0026. Furthermore divers should physically investigate all of these significant
anomalies physically. Recommendation for future groundtruthing of the new sites of CR0018
and CR0026 should be accomplish with seasoned divers. Basic circle searches of the site should
be conducted with a handheld-magnetometer and anomalies being marked. If anomalies of the
test sites appear to indicate a buried wreck site, further investigation should be conducted with
more intrusive techniques of hydro probing if deemed a necessary.

39
Bibliography
Benjamin George Beynon, Lieutenant Diary of British Royal Marines aboard HMS Menelaus
Bilicki, S. R. (2006). HMS Mary Tender Project. Crownsville: Maryland Historic Trust, Office
of Archeology.
Bowens, A (ed.) 2008 Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. 2nd
Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, London
Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee Sediment Workgroup's Tidal Sediment Task
Force. (2005). Sediment in the Chesapeake Bay and Managment Issues: Tidal Erosion
Processes . Chesapeake Bay Program, Nutrient Subcommittee , Tidal Task Force of the
Sediment Workgroup. Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee Sediment
Worgroup's Tidal Sediment Task Force.
Clarke, J. S., & McArthur, J. (2010). The Naval Chronicle: Volume 33. New York , New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Colledge, J., & Warlow, B. (2006). Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all fighting
shipsof the Royal Navy from the 15th Centuary to the Present . London: Chatham
Publishing.
Gardiner, R. (2006). Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars. London, Britian: Chatham Publishing.
George, C. T. (2000). Terror on the Chesapeake The War of 1812 on the Bay. Shippensburg, PA:
Whaite Mane Books Publishing.
Howard, H. (2012). Mr. and MRS. Madison's War America's First Couple and the Second War
of Independence . New York, New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Knepper, D., Anthony, S., Berkey, T., & Smailes, J. (2010). Bodkin Creek: A Maritime
Archaeological and Historical Study. Maryland Historical Trust . Washington D.C:
MAHS Research Papers.
Langland, M., & Cronin, T. (2003). A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake
Bay and Watershed. U.S Department of the Interior , U.S Geological Survey. New
Cumberland: USGS.
Lavery, B., & O'Brian, P. (1989). Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men, and Organisation, 1793 –
1815. Annapolis , Maryland: Conway Maritime Press .
Lossing, B. J. (1869). The Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812. Franklin Square, New York:
Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Main Street Economics. (2012). Potential Supply of Switchgrass on the Delmarva Peninsula.
Chester River Association. Trappe: Main Stree Economics .

40
Mcwilliams, J. W. (2011). Annapolis City on the Severn a History. Baltimore , Maryland: The
John Hopkins University Press.
Morrison, J., Ballengee, B. B., & Reuter, D. (2004). Friends of Hancock's Resolution Newsletter.
Pasadena.
Muller, C. G. (1963). The Darkest Day: The Washington-Baltimore Campaign During the War
of 1812. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania.
Pitcher, A. S. (1998). The Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814. Annapolis, MD:
Naval Institute Press.
Skirven, P. G. (1914). Kent's Part in the War 1812 - 1814 the Battle of Caulk's Field August 31st
1814 . Sykesville, Maryland: Springfield State Hospital Press.
Sir Peter Parker Letter: RN to Vice Admiral Sir Alexander F. J. Cochrane RN Crawford
(2003:232-233)
Ship’s Master’s Log, HMS Menelaus, 24-26 August, ADM 52 and ADM 54
Sir Peter Parker RN to Vice Admiral Sir Alexander F. J. Cochrane RN Crawford
(2003:232-233)
Urban, S. (1854). Obituary Rear Adm Gourly - Capt. Dickinson . The Gentlman's Magazine and
Historical Review , XLII, 515.
Weammert, D. T. (2009). Developing Best Management Practice Definitions and Effectivness
estimates for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment in the Chesapeake Bay. University of
Maryland . College Park: University of Maryland Water Program.

Locating the Lost Warship Mary Tender

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Locating the Lost Warship Mary Tender

Similar to Locating the Lost Warship Mary Tender (14)

Locating the Lost Warship Mary Tender