Memoirs of the Queensland Museum (ISSN 1440-4788)/media/Documents/QM/About+Us/...A Guide to Authors...

© Queensland Museum

PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia Phone 06 7 3840 7555 Fax 06 7 3846 1226

Email [email protected] Website www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au

National Library of Australia card number ISSN 1440-4788

NOTEPapers published in this volume and in all previous volumes of the Memoirs of the Queensland Museum may

be reproduced for scientific research, individual study or other educational purposes. Properly acknowledged quotations may be made but queries regarding the republication of any papers should be addressed to the Director. Copies of the journal can be purchased from the Queensland Museum Shop.

A Guide to Authors is displayed at the Queensland Museum web site www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/resources/resourcewelcome.html

A Queensland Government ProjectTypeset at the Queensland Museum

VOLUME 3PART 1

MeMoirs OF ThE

Queensland MuseuMCultural Heritage series

BrisBane

21 June 2004

AN ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED SHIPWRECKS IN TORRES STRAIT AND FARNORTH GREAT BARRIER REEF

PETER ILLIDGE, COLEMAN DOYLE AND PETER GESNER

Illidge, P., Doyle, C. & Gesner, P. 2004 06 21: An assessment of selected shipwrecks inTorres Strait and far north Great Barrier Reef. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, CulturalHeritage Series 3(1): 347-361. Brisbane. ISSN 1440-4788.

In the context of Queensland’s rich and diverse maritime history one of the most strategicand historically significant areas is the Torres Strait. Its importance was of course paramountnot only to Torres Strait Islanders, but to transient seafarers and to those who ventured intothese waters to exploit their rich marine resources. Such application has left its traces,particularly during the last 200 years of European occupation of Australia. This paperpresents the outcome of 2 maritime archaeological survey expeditions to Torres Strait andthe far northern Great Barrier Reef. Wreck reports were initially compiled from writtenrecords and from verbal accounts by local residents. Based on this information, as well as onfamiliarity with local operational conditions and constraints, 23 wreck sites were selectedfor investigation and assessment. Where wreckage was located, its position was accuratelydetermined using the differential global positioning system (DGPS). The site was theninspected and recorded to determine the nature and identity of the wreck, to record surfaceartefacts and to make a video baseline record for future monitoring. This study demonstratesthe constructive relationship that can exist between a local community and an organisationsuch as the Queensland Museum which is tasked with responsibilities under the HistoricShipwrecks Act 1976. However, this work also emphasises the inaccuracies inherent in someanecdotal written and oral reports and the importance of thorough archaeological fieldassessment. � Shipwrecks, Torres Strait, pearl luggers, Queensland, maritime archaeology.

Peter Illidge, Coleman Doyle, Peter Gesner, Museum of Tropical Queensland, 70-102Flinders Street, Townsville 4810, Australia. Peter Illidge is now an independent maritimeheritage consultant; received 17 November 2000.

The maritime history of Torres Strait lies at theheart of northern Australia’s cultural evolution.The indigenous inhabitants’ association with theTorres Strait is thought to span at least 2500years; however, there is no conclusive evidenceabout an earlier age of human occupation of thisregion (Barham, 2000). Whether in its presentform as an archipelago or as the land bridgebetween Australia and New Guinea 10,000 yearsago, human survival in this region called for anintimate relationship with the marine environ-ment. Documented imagery of traditionalseafaring craft is available from the late 18th and19th Centuries (e.g., Moore, 1984; Mullins,1995). However, location of a wrecked canoe forarchaeological study is extremely unlikely due totheir biodegradable nature and the absence ofdocumentary evidence. Nevertheless these craftare known to have developed over a long periodto handle the characteristic wind and tidalpatterns that prevail in Torres Strait and similarcraft are still in use along coastal Papua NewGuinea (PNG) today. Although some tools andaccessories used to build them have been

replaced by modern alternatives, the basicconstruction process remains unchanged.

European explorers and seafarers knew thatTorres Strait was a passage between Australiaand New Guinea as early as 1606, when LuisVaez de Torres in the San Pedrico became thefirst known European to navigate this labyrinthwithout incident (Badger, 1996: 34-35;McNiven, 2001; Mullins, 1995; Nicholson,1996). However, the fact that in 1819 most of thevessels sailing for China and India from Sydneyand Van Diemen’s Land were still using the routearound eastern New Guinea, attests that its safenavigation was more or less unknown andprobably largely perceived as dangerous anddifficult (Hordern, 1997: 156-157, 159). In thatyear, Philip Parker King produced a completechart of the Great Barrier Reef, including themost difficult 360 miles of the northern section;thereby filling in details that both James Cookand Matthew Flinders had omitted. King was acommitted advocate for the so-called ‘innerroute’ to China and India via the Torres Strait,which in his opinion would cut 1500 miles and

several weeks off the voyage from Sydney(Hordern, 1997: 156-159). The extensivehydrographical survey by King eventually led tothe opening of this passage as a regular route forshipping. From ca. 1830 onwards Torres Straitbecame an important gateway between the Indianand the Pacific Ocean for international traders anda lifeline between early colonial settlements innorthern Australia and the established colonies inthe south.

Unlike the Islanders’ canoes that evolved withexperience of the shallow waters, strong currentsand trade winds, European ships often provedunsuited to the local hazards. Under sail withdeep draft and crews inexperienced in TorresStrait conditions, they were prone to shipwreck.Indeed, the Museum of Tropical Queensland’s(MTQ) shipwreck data base (SDB) has entriesfor over 120 wrecking events up until 1920 inTorres Strait. This list of wrecks reads like aninventory of seafaring nations of the period. Mostof these records contain general wreck details andapproximate positions. The physical wrecks areyet to be located and investigated before a morecomprehensive appreciation can be made abouttheir potential to contribute new knowledge ofthe maritime history of Torres Strait.

By the mid 19th Century, large stocks of avariety of lucrative marine resources werediscovered in Torres Strait and the area began tobe regarded by ‘outsiders’ as more than just animportant sea passage. Of particular note is thepearling industry, which soon became Australia’smost valued marine product (Ganter, 1994: 2;Hulsbergen, 1976: 10). This industry saw theemergence of many settlements to service itsneeds; these were occupied by nationals of diverseorigins and included Japanese, South Sea Islanders,Malays and Europeans as well as Torres StraitIslanders and Aboriginal people (Ganter, 1994:14, 28-31). For the first time, non-indigenousinhabitants were forced to live and work with thenatural marine elements of the area and a uniqueand customised vessel evolved to facilitatemarine operations — the Torres Strait pearlinglugger (Wells, 1962: 7-9).

Despite the fact that these activities werecarried out in the comparatively recent past,records and plans documenting them are limited.However, many representative sites are thoughtto exist in relatively intact condition. Archae-ological investigation of these complexes istherefore essential if the material context of this

important part of Australia’s maritime history isto be fully understood.

Torres Strait residents continue to live from thesea, through both subsistence fishing and a vibrantcommercial fishing industry. Divers in the cray-fishing industry frequently spend up to 8 hoursper day on the Torres Strait seabed (Shepherd,pers. comm., 2000) and trawler men routinelymap the sea floor with their electronic aids,meticulously recording hook-ups (occasionallyshipwreck remains) to avoid expensive netdamage. Locals also hold a wealth of oral history,either from their own experience or passed downfrom older generations. In light of the paucity ofthe historical record of maritime activities, theintangible heritage held by the local communitiesis therefore an invaluable resource.

The surveys aimed to combine availablewritten records with local knowledge to selectand examine a short list of important shipwrecksites in the Torres Strait. These sites have nowbeen accurately positioned and documented; thisis considered a prerequisite for future site

348 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM

Location Site Details

Far NorthernGreat BarrierReef

North Ledge Reef 1 unidentified wreck

Bird Island 2 magnetic anomolies

Cockburn reef 1 wreck (HMAS Warrnambool)Anomoly #7 (Druid or LadySale?)11 magnetic anomolies

MabuiagIsland area,Torres Strait

Panai 1 lugger wreck

Jervis Reef 1 wreck (Pauline et Victoire?)

ThursdayIsland area,Torres Strait

North West Reef,Prince of WalesChannel

1 wreck (Volga)

Ipili Reef, Princeof Wales Channel

2 wrecks (Mecca and Pheonix)

Goods Island 1. wreck (C.H. Watjin)2. unidentified timber wreck3. unidentified iron wreck4. wreck (William Fairburn)

Wai Weer Island 1 lugger wreck

Thursday Island 1. army barge wrecks2. Pap’s beach lugger wreck3. Ibis slip lugger wreck4. Saraban lugger wreck5. Seagull lugger wreck6. barge wrecks

Collis Beach,Prince of WalesIsland

1 unidentified compositewreck

Country Women’sBeach, Prince ofWales Island

1 lugger wreck

Wednesday Island 1 unidentified iron wreck

Scott Rock,Flinders Passage

1 wreck (Two Sisters)

TABLE 1. Details of locations and sites examined.

management. The surveys haveprovided the foundation for afuture program of more extensiveinvestigation into the maritimehistory of this strategicallyimportant region.

LOCATIONS AND METHODS

The shipwrecks chosen for thissurvey were grouped according tolocation (Table 1). The survey had2 fieldwork components. The firstwas to the far northern GreatBarrier Reef aboard (PI) the MVKangaroo Explorer 11-16 March2000 with a magnetometerdeployed as the primary searchtool. The second component (PI,CD), 19 April - 15 May 2000 toMabuiag Island (5 days) andThursday Island (18 days) (Fig.1), was timed to take advantage ofexpected favourable weatherbefore the SE trade winds begin inlate May and of a period of neaptides so as to avoid strong currents.

During the second trip the teamoperated out of a 19-foot openboat equipped with surfacesupplied breathing apparatus fordiving activities. Accommodationwas shore based either at theMabuiag Island school flat, or acamp on Wai Weer Island.Permission to undertake this workwas obtained where appropriatefrom the Torres Strait RegionalAuthority, the Mabuiag IslandCouncil and the Kaurareg Tribal Council.

SITE SELECTION. Sites were selected forinclusion in this survey because of: theavailability of archival and published sources;local Torres Strait residents knowledge; and,local logistical conditions. The major source ofunpublished archival information was theshipwreck database held by the MaritimeArchaeology Section (MAS) at MTQ. Inaddition, Peter Illidge had acquired substantiallocal knowledge and contacts while residing inTorres Strait from 1987 to 1994.

Efforts were also made to communicate morewidely with the Torres Strait community. A briefinformation folder about the purpose of thesurvey was compiled and distributed; members

of the survey team took part in live to air and localnewspaper interviews with the Torres StraitIslander Media Association and Torres News.These media platforms were used to promote tolocal communities the cultural significance ofwrecks and especially of the pearling industry asa critical and defining aspect of contemporaryTorres Strait culture and heritage.

SITE SURVEY. All investigated wreck positionswere recorded using the Differential GlobalPositioning System (DGPS) and World GeodeticSystem 1984 (WGS 84) chart datum. Whereconditions allowed sites were recorded using adigital video camera. Cardinal features weremapped accurately with respect to a marked datumto provide a baseline for comparison with future

ASSESSMENT OF TORRES STRAIT SHIPWRECKS 349

FIG. 1. Torres Strait.

assessments. Detailed qualitative descriptionswere also made of major features.

TIMBER ANALYSIS. Selected timber sampleswere collected in situ and sent to Gary Hopewellat the Queensland Department of PrimaryIndustries, Salisbury Research Centre, Brisbane.Timber species were determined throughmicroscopic examination and comparison withthe timber identification database held by theSalisbury Research Centre.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following sections summarise the resultsof both the site inspections and the magnetometersurveys. These are set out by region, then in theorder of completion. For each site visited, there isa description of prior evidence of wrecking,location of position, background archivalresearch, a description and discussion of extantremains and management recommendations.

FAR NORTHERN GREAT BARRIER REEF.

North Ledge Reef. Local fisherman Leon Gamblereported a wreck to the MTQ in 1999. Gambleprovided an accurate sketch map of the site thatenabled rapid relocation of wreckage at10�41.779’S, 142�45.446’E (Fig. 2). Historicalresearch has failed to find records of any vesselwrecking on North Ledge Reef, although thiscould have been originally reported under thebroad heading of ‘Wrecked in Torres Strait’.During the early development of colonialAustralia this term referred to the very broad area,extending from Cockburn Reef in the south toPapua New Guinea (PNG) in the north; about2000 square nautical miles.

The wreck site is situated on top of the SE endof the reef, partly exposed at lowest astronomicaltides. The SE trade winds and seas from the northpersistently pound this area. There is a solitary,large, prominent groove in the reef platform thatruns in for 60m from the N edge of the SE tip ofthe reef. This is the marker for the position of thiswreck, which is situated on the reef top at theinner end of this groove system.

Given its location just north of South LedgeReef, North Ledge Reef’s position would havepresented a trap to mariners. The main S edge ofNorth Ledge Reef was partially sheltered to theSE by South Ledge Reef, therefore the usualtell-tale line of breakers would not have been aspronounced. Approaching from the south,mariners could have cleared South Ledge Reefand, not observing breakers to their north, may

have presumed they were free from danger andable to head towards Mount Adolphus Island andon through Prince of Wales Channel. Once in thispredicament, strong SE trade winds would haverestricted a sailing vessel’s sea room and perhapspushed it onto North Ledge Reef.

While the debris field is scattered over a largearea, the majority is concentrated in approx-imately 70�20m. A central pile of ballast stonesoverlays iron ballast pigs that are concretedtogether. The smooth stone ballast suggests thatthe vessel was not loaded down with cargo, butrather was travelling in ballast. It was commonpractice for trading ships to take on readilyavailable local ballast (often smooth stones) afterunloading a cargo and being unable to securebackload cargo. A 4 pound cannon is deeplyimbedded in the reef substrate to the west of themain ballast pile. It is partially covered with ironpieces and is difficult to distinguish from the restof the concretions.

According to Leon Gamble (pers. comm.,2000), there is also a ship’s water tank or similarobject, which protrudes at low water approx-imately 50m W of the main ballast pile; this itemwas not located by the team. There were noanchors visible on this visit but they mayprotrude from the reef top at a lower tide, as mayother wreckage. No timbers or any other form ofhull structure are visible though timber and otherorganic remains may exist under the ballast pile.

The aspect of this wreck, on the most exposedface of the reef, suggests that any unsecuredartefacts would have been destroyed or scattered


FIG. 2. North Ledge Reef.

across the reef top and reworked out to sea. Theheavy stone and iron ballast pile, the cannon andthe clusters of heavier objects are probably allthat remain.

The significance of this wreck lies in itspotential to provide closure to one of the manyknown unfinished journeys through thesewaterways. It also holds potential informationregarding the earlier days of sail when cannonwere an integral part of the inventory of anyvessel transiting the hostile waters of the world.The remaining heavy artefacts are vulnerable topilfering, but as recreational divers rarely visitNorth Ledge Reef, further managementmeasures are not deemed a priority at this time.However, further work on site assessment andarchival research to identify the age and origin ofthis wreck is recommended. It is likely thatfurther work will reveal an age of over 75 years inwhich case it should be marked on the relevantcharts as an historic wreck.

Bird Island. This site was visited in response toanecdotal reports from a variety of sources,mainly commercial trawler fishermen, that largeearthenware urns (>50cm high) had been trawledfrom a wreck at or near Bird Island (Fig. 3). Withless than 4 hours available to the search team itwas decided to search the most definable andlikely area for a vessel to wreck; the fringing reefof Bird Island. Amagnetometer search of the reefedge revealed 2 anomalies at the followingpositions:

Strike 1: 11º46.232’S, 143º05.866’E

Strike 2: 11º45.922’S, 143º04.775’E

Strike 1, at 23m, on the southern side of theisland, was inspected but no evidence of wreckagewas found. This may be due to the prolific coralgrowth in this area covering any artefacts.Weather conditions and time limitationsprohibited any investigation of Strike 2.

Cockburn Reef: HMAS Warrnambool. TheWarrnambool was an Australian naval corvettebuilt in Sydney in 1941 with a displacement of950 tons, carrying a complement of 78 officersand men. On 13th September 1947 during minesweeping operations, after surviving WW2unscathed, the vessel ran onto a mine it hadpreviously laid. Killing 2 of her crew, the mine isreported to have struck on the starboard side nearthe mess area and the vessel sank soon after beingtaken in tow (Loney, 1987: 18-19; Nicholson,1996: 340). Salvage operations were carried outin 1948 to recover some items of a confidentialnature (Commonwealth of Australia, Tender

documents, 1972), possibly a cryptographicmachine.

This site was targeted by the survey teambecause the position of HMAS Warrnambool wasonly known approximately, and it had beenproposed by Kevin Smith of the KangarooExplorer for inclusion on a recreational wreckdiving trail. It was therefore necessary toaccurately fix the position and assess suitabilityand management implications of regular divervisitation.

After a magnetometer search of the approx-imate position, a strike was investigated midwaybetween Thrush Reef and Cockburn Reef andwreckage was located at 28m at 11º45.455’S,143º14.389’E (Fig. 3). Alistair Cole, a RANveteran who served on corvettes, later viewed thevideo footage and positively identified the ship asa corvette (pers. comm., 2000).

The Warrnambool lies on her starboard side,amidst prolific fauna and flora. The port sideanchor is still in its hawse pipe, but the propellershave been removed. The iron hull of the vessel isin good condition, although there is a hole in theport side deck amidships, about 3m across. Thisdoes not correspond with Loney’s account thatthe mine hit the starboard side (Loney, 1987:18-19). As the wreck lies on its starboard side,


FIG. 3. Cockburn Reef, Bird Island and Wreck Reef.

this claim could not be verified. To create the holeobserved in the port side, explosives may havebeen used in the 1948 salvage operations or whenthe propellers were removed by unknown salvors.

The intact nature of the wreck and its WW2service record, coupled with prolific marine lifemakes the site a highly desirable dive location forinclusion on the proposed wreck trail. Whilethere is no evidence of anchor damage, there isevidence of fishing line across the wreck.Increased use of the wreck for fishing and divingcould potentially lead to anchor and other ‘user’damage. The site’s significance as a vessel with aWW2 service record and its good condition, inaddition to the proposed recreational use,justifies official protection under Section 7 of theHistoric Shipwrecks Act 1976. The isolatedposition of this wreck will make enforcement andsurveillance difficult. However, initiation of apermit system and consultation with users,promises to promote a spirit of ownership andcustodianship amongst users. Given the proposedincreased use of this site, the Warrnambool is a highpriority candidate for future monitoring to assessthe impact of this use.

Other Cockburn Reef Sites. Archival researchresults compiled from the MAS’s wreck databaserevealed that Cockburn Reef claimed numerousvessels during the 19th Century (Table 2). Over 2days, a magnetometer survey was conductedalong the W and S edges of Cockburn Reefrevealing 12 anomalies (Fig. 3).

Strike 1: 11º45.010’S, 143º16.120’E *Strike 2: 11º48.376’S, 143º16.615’EStrike 3: 11º48.770’S, 143º16.670’EStrike 4: 11º54.180’S, 143º20.620’EStrike 5: 11º51.140’S, 143º17.350’EStrike 6: 11º52.616’S, 143º13.083’EStrike 7: 11º54.261’S, 143º20.605’EStrike 8: 11º54.690’S, 143º20.506’EStrike 9: 11º56.171’S, 143º21.680’EStrike 10: 11º54.110’S, 143º22.290’E *Strike 11: 11º51.379’S, 143º26.852’EStrike 12: 11º50.056’S, 143º28.618’E *

The team investigated the Strikes with asterisks(*) without locating any wreckage. However, all3 sites hosted prolific coral growth that may havemasked any remains, so this survey did not excludethe presence of wreckage. It is interesting to notethat a wreck reported to the MAS in 2002corresponds with the position of Strike 1 at thenorthern end of Cockburn Reef. Strike 7corresponds to the position of a wreck inspection(Cockburn Reef Unidentified No. 1) carried outby the MAS in April 1989. This wreck site is

believed to be either the barque Druid or the shipLady Sale, both built during the 1840’s in Europe(Gesner, 1990). The site report for this wreck ispresented in Fig. 11 as an example of the type ofinformation usually recorded for wreck sites. It islikely that strikes close together (within 200m)will be part of the same wreck.

TORRES STRAIT MABUIAG ISLANDAREA. Mabuiag Island lies in Western TorresStrait and supports a population of approximately200 people. An important source of income forthis community comes from commercial fishing,par t icular ly cray-f ishing. Three localcommercial cray-fishermen (Jimmy Luffman,‘Wonai’ & Amos Joe) who were known to theproject team agreed to act as guides.

Panai Lugger Wreck. Panai is the local name for anorthern bay on Mabuiag Island, approximately800m from the main village and adjacent to themain anchorage for the island. It is the site of anold pearl shelling station and, for the last decade,has been a barge and small boat landing facilitycomplete with small jetty and dredged channel.

This wreck had been inspected in 1988 by PeterIllidge and at that time, its timber ribs wereexposed and only the lower bilge section of thehull remained, containing smooth ovoid stoneballast. There was no evidence of a motor or anyengine mounts suggesting a vessel in use earlierin the 20th Century, if not earlier. An iron 3legged cooking pot with a capacity of about 20l,protruded from the substrate. This surfaceevidence was consistent with an assumption thatthe wreck was a lugger lost in the late 19th or


Vessel Wrecked Rig Tonnage Heading

Agnes 1832 Brig 272 North

Richard Bell 1833 Brig – North

William 1838 – – North

Sir ArchibaldCampbell 1844 – – North

Pioneer 1851 Brig 148 North

Lady Sale 1852 – – North

Annie 1853 – – North

Victoria 1853 – – North

Druid 1853 – – North

Amelia Breillat 1861 Brig 162 North

Undaunted 1863 – – North

Ganges 1800s – – –

Florinda 1887 Sch. 105 South

TABLE 2. Historically recorded 19th Centuryshipwrecks on Cockburn Reef.

early 20th Century. It was estimated to lieapproximately 10m off the seaward end of therock groyne at Panai (Fig. 4) in about 6m ofwater.

An extensive visual search of the area, assistedby Amos Joe, failed to relocate the wreck. Twoballast stones and a William Hamilton (bombbottle) patent bottle (Arnold, 1997: 47) werefound in the general area. These may have comefrom the wreck, but they may also have beenjettisoned from an unrelated vessel. By the timethis project arrived to relocate the wreck; the areahad been dredged for the barge facility. It ispossible that this process either covered thewreck with sand and silt or actually dredgedthrough and destroyed it. The possible loss of thislugger from the archaeological record is animportant reminder of the importance of culturalheritage surveys prior to destructive work such asdredging (McNiven, Fitzpatrick & Cordell, thisvolume).

Jervis Reef Wreck. Badu Island resident LeviBaira reported a wreck on Jervis Reef to the MTQin 1999. He estimated its position as 10�0.162’S,142�12.435’E, on the S side of Jervis Reef (Fig.4). Baira’s report stated that a pile of stone and ananchor chain were visible on the surface.

Archival research suggests that this wreckage isnot that of the Pauline et Victoire, as this Frenchvessel was wrecked in September 1858, mostlikely on the north side of Jervis Reef (MAS/SDB)(Fig. 5).

An extensive visual search failed to locate theremains. The search was conducted over an areaof approximately 2 hectares, with the help ofJimmy Luffman and Wonai, who were alsofamiliar with the site. Although dive conditionswere ideal, thick Sargassum spp. covered theentire area, probably obscuring the site.Sargassum is seasonal brown algae, which all butdisappears during winter (Cribb & Cribb,ca.1985: 44-45). Future opportunities to inspectthe site during colder months may be morefruitful when visibility is better. Magnetometersearches of the area around the reported positionwere conducted, but were ineffective due toequipment malfunction.

THURSDAY ISLAND AREA. Since its officialsettlement by European Australians in 1878,Thursday Island has been a major administrativeand economic centre for maritime activities inTorres Strait (Hulsbergen, 1976: 5). It is thus notsurprising that the area also contains the greatestconcentration of historic maritime sites in theregion. Twenty-two wrecks were assessed duringthis project. Locals were approached with goodresults, with another 7 wreck locations beingreported in the general area. Unfortunately, theonset of strong spring tidal currents made divingconditions unsuitable. Consequently, 5 of thenew reports could not be investigated.

North West Reef Site. This site is the remains ofthe iron ship Volga, which sank here in 1890 afterclipping Beresford Shoals off Double Island tothe east (Loney, 1993: 92). The site is well knownlocally and was approximately marked on chart


FIG. 4. Mabuiag and Jervis Reef.

FIG. 5. Sketch of Pauline et Victoire on Jervis Reef(Private collection Xaviere Desparment Fitzgerald).

AUS 293. The project team located the site andaccurately fixed its position at 10º30.920’S,142º08.964’E. The wreck lies at a depth of 9m onthe S edge of North West Reef, known locally as‘No 1 Reef’ (Fig. 6). The ship originally had 3masts (Fig. 7). The hull lies E-W and roughlyparallel to the reef edge. It is still intact, completewith portholes and other fittings, with coal andother artefacts visible in its holds. The stub of aniron mast protrudes at low tide. This wreck ispotentially significant for examination as part ofthe wider colonial economy and trade patterns.The wreck was also salvaged soon after theincident, which could lead to an examination ofsalvage techniques and behaviours. At this pre-liminary stage of the project, the vessel is not ahigh priority for further investigative work. Anywork that could be accomplished using thisvessel would require a larger catchment of sitesfor comparison and statistical analysis. It mayhowever be considered as a location for rec-reational diving.

Mecca Reef wrecks. Mecca Reef (a.k.a MeccaRock) lies in Prince of Wales Channel and is theknown location of the wrecks of the paddle

steamer Phoenix (1855) and the SS Mecca (1878)— 10º32.515’S, 142º10.244’E (Fig. 6). ThePhoenix, a timber paddle wheel steamer, struckMecca Reef in July 1855, becoming a totalwreck. Passengers were taken off the wreck andtransported to Batavia by the Mail (Loney, 1993:56-57). The SS Mecca’s captain claims to have hitthe boilers of the Phoenix (Loney, 1993: 77). Thismay be true, but either way he was off-course.

Among the prominent features of the reef arethe paddle wheels and boilers from the Phoenix,as well as iron plating from the Mecca. There isconsiderable scrambling of wreckage from bothwrecks making it a difficult task to decipher theremains. Both wrecks are in shallow water,subject to strong currents and heavy wave action.

Both wrecks are significant in terms ofmaritime history and the historical themes thatare the focus of the MTQ’s maritime heritageprogram. The Phoenix represents trade linksbetween colonial outposts. The steamer hasspecial links with Townsville, as it is believed tohave belonged to Robert Towns, one of thefounders of the city. The Mecca has the potentialto address the MTQ’s priority sub-themes oflabour trade and immigration. In particular, it issignificant for archaeological investigation ofChinese immigration in the late 19th Century as itwas carrying 379 Chinese labourers recruitedfrom Southern China by the Australian SteamNavigation Company to break a strike on thewharves at Newcastle. While site conditionswould not normally be considered conducive topreservation of artefacts, the Museum has in itspossession a number of interesting and fragileitems recovered from the Mecca. These includeover a thousand Chinese coins, various brassobjects and intact ceramics (McPhee, 1997: 34).Further archaeological investigation is justifiedas it would provide material evidence to elucidate


FIG. 6. Northwest Reef, Mecca Reef, Goods Island andWai Weer Island.

FIG. 7. Volga.

one of the priority themes identified by theMTQ’s maritime heritage program.

‘C.H. Watjin’Wreck, Goods Island. This wreck isan obvious feature of the E coast of Goods Island,being the most northerly of 2 prominent ironhulks protruding from the sea surface. It wasaccurately fixed at 10º33.744’S, 142º10.121’E(Fig. 6). The identity of this vessel is well known.It was a coal hulk of 1823 tons, deliberatelyscuttled in 1914 (Hocking, pers comm., 2000.MAS SDB). The iron hull remains, but all timberdecking and superstructure has deterioratedsignificantly. No surface artefacts were evident.Although the age of this wreck qualifies it forprotection under the Historic Shipwrecks Act, itsvalue to the archaeological record is limited andno further survey work is recommended.

Un-identified Timber Wreck, Goods Island.While assessing the remains of the local pearlingstation, the project team came across the remainsof a wreck in the intertidal zone, lying parallel tothe beach and 5m N of the rock groyne on GoodsIsland. This wreckage was fixed at 10º33.950’S,142º09.756’E (Fig. 6). This vessel is believed tobe a lifeboat purchased from a naval vessel(Jones, pers. comm., 2000). While it has a SEaspect, it is well protected from the trade windsby the jetty. The team recorded the stem and sternposts, some ribbing and hull planking plus whatlooks to be a diesel engine. The hull planking wasanalysed by the Queensland Forestry ResearchInstitute and found to be hoop pine (Araucariacunninghamii) (Table 3). As the historic orarchaeological value of this wreck is limited, itdoes not warrant further investigation.

Un-identified Iron Vessel, Goods Island. Thiswreck was spotted by the project team andaccurately fixed at 10º34.079’S, 142º09.671’E(Fig. 6). It appears to be a very recent wreck;probably a commercial fishing vessel as itsfreezer is still in place. It is beached just below thehigh water mark. The steel hull remains intactand the superstructure is broken up. This wreck isof negligible archaeological significance.

‘William Fairburn’ Wreck, Goods Island. Likethe C.H. Watjin, this wreck is well known locallyand a prominent feature of the E coast of GoodsIsland. It protrudes from the sea surface and wasaccurately fixed at 10º34.191’S, 142º09.662’E(Fig. 6). Originally a ship of 1294 tons, built in1856 and named the P.F. Webster, the WilliamFairburn spent her last days in Torres Strait as acoal hulk, finally being scuttled in 1903 (May,1988: 26). The iron hull is mostly broken up, with

only the bow section immediately recognisable.Asection of bow above the water line, including arelatively intact bowsprit, has sheared off andnow lies to one side of the main bow section. Therest of the hull has splayed open and liesrelatively flat over an area of about 1000m2.Although the age of this wreck qualifies it forprotection under the Historic Shipwrecks Act, itsarchaeological value is limited and no furthersurvey work is recommended.

Wai Weer Lugger Site. A wreck was discoveredby the project team just above the low water markat 10º34.183’S, 142º10.696’E (Fig. 6). The wreckwas a wooden lugger and was probably associatedwith the pearl shelling station when it operated onWai Weer. Remaining surface wreckage includesribs and keel, anchor winch, plus a ballast stone.There are also pieces of concrete adjacent to thewreckage, which are in the form of the spacesbetween the ribs. The anchor winch is of the sametype found on Thursday Island luggers (Peddel,pers. comm., 2000), the concrete is consistentwith the common practice of pouring concreteballast in luggers over the keel in the spacesbetween the ribs (Drummond & Peddel, pers.comm., 2000). The following timber sampleswere identified by Gary Hopewell of the Queens-land Forestry Research Institute SalisburyResearch Centre: ribs – sawn (grown) Melaleuca(Tea Tree); keel – Syncarpia glomulifera(Turpentine); planking – Pseudotsuga menziesii(Douglas fir, Oregon) (Table 3). These timbersare consistent with the wreck being a lugger(Peddel & Watkins, pers. comm., 2000; Wells,


RegisterNo.

IllidgeNo.

BotanicalName

StandardTrade Name

Notes

11 1Melaleucaspp. tea-tree lugger rib,

Wai Weer Is.

12 2Pseudotsugasp. douglas fir

plank fromlugger, WaiWeer Is.

13 3Syncarpiaglomulifera turpentine keel piece,

same lugger

14 4Corymbiatesselaris carbeen sleeper under

slip rail c1870

15 5Corymbiaintermedia

redbloodwood

building pole,1920s shed

16 6Araucariacunninghamii hoop pine

planking,wreck onFriday Is.

17 7 Larix spp. larchrudder pintle,wreck TorresStrait, 1850

TABLE 3. Timber identifications for shipwrecksamples (Data from Timber Identification CertificateNo. 021 – Queensland Government, Department ofPrimary Industries, Forest Products Program).

1962: 9-13). While further investigation of thissite could be carried out together with futurearchaeological surveys of the land-based pearlshelling site, other lugger wrecks in the area(described below) present better prospects forarchaeological investigation.

Army Barge, Thursday Island. This wreck wasrelocated with the help of local Thursday IslanderGeoff Hirn, and fixed at 10º35.316’S,142º12.950’E (Fig. 8). It lies directly off thefootball field in six metres of water. It is an intact,steel landing barge, with a Blitz truck on deck. Itwas probably sunk during World War II, possiblydeliberately. It is currently a popular fishing andrecreational diving site. No further investigativework is warranted.

Paps Beach Lugger Wreck, Thursday Island. Itwas located and fixed at 10º35.101’S,142º13.397’E (Fig. 8), out from the old slipwayson Thursday Island, which was a favourite placefor careening, cleaning and repairing luggers.The flat, soft bottom here remains ideal for thispurpose (Fig. 9). The wreck site is about 100mfrom the Engineers Wharf (towards the CaltexWharf) just in from the drop off into the mainharbour. The site extends over an area of 18�6mand protrudes from a soft mud substrate by nearly1m. There is a large diesel engine still standing

upright in the middle of the wreck, possibly aGardner, which is straddled by 2 air storagereceivers or ‘pigs’ common to pearl luggers(Wells, 1962: 25-28). The vessel lies bow into thebeach with most of its woodwork gone except forthe lower frames and floors. Twelve-millimetrediameter bronze keel bolts extend from theremaining woodwork. Round stone ballast canstill be seen but no concrete was visible belowthis level (although the keel is well buried in silt).A short length of divers hose is lying coiledtowards the stern of the vessel. This piece was notdisturbed unduly but was cleaned sufficiently toreveal the words ‘Divers Hose’. A pearl shell,Pinctada maxima, (identified using Shirai, 1994:9) was sitting amongst the wreckage but it is notcontiguous with the wreck. Given the associationwith the old slipways and the nature of thesediment appearing favourable for artefactpreservation, this wreck holds great promise as avaluable archaeological record of an authenticTorres Strait pearling lugger of the latter part ofthe industry. Further archaeological investigationis highly recommended.

IBIS Slip Lugger Wreck, Thursday Island. Thiswreck was observed while examining the oldslipways on Thursday Island at low tide. The sitewas fixed at 10º35.025’S, 142º13.462’E (Fig. 8).The wreck appears to be a lugger, with typicalfeatures such as grown frames and stone ballast.Other visible features include a motor, anchorwinch and copper fastenings. The site extends forabout 20m. While further material probablyexists in context in the soft sediment underneaththe visible wreckage, we suggest that more in-formation can be obtained through furtherarchaeological investigation of the lugger wrecksat Pap’s Beach and Country Women’s Beach. Asecond brief visit to this site in 2001 revealed thatthe make up of this vessel is considerably heavierthan first thought. This indicates a vessel ofgreater length and tonnage. Further time needs tobe committed to this site to determine the wreck’sorigins.

‘Saraban’ Lugger Wreck, Thursday Island. Thiswreck was spotted from the surface while ob-taining fuel from the Caltex (or ‘Rebel Marine’)wharf. It was fixed at 10º35.011’S 142º13.650’E(Fig. 8). Jimmy Peddel later identified this wreckas the Saraban, a lugger owned by Grayson andLinley, pearlers operating in the area betweenc.1900 and 1970. The keel (with keel bolts),frames and ballast stone were observed, but noconcrete between the frames and floors. Whilemore of this hull probably exists in the soft


FIG. 8. Thursday Island and Prince of Wales Island.

sediment underneath the visible wreckage, it issuggested that archaeological investigation ofthe wrecks at Pap’s Beach and Country Women’sBeach would be easier and more likely to revealuseful information about Torres Strait luggers.

Barge Wrecks, Thursday Island. This multi-wreck site was known to one of the team (PI)prior to this survey. The location was fixed in theintertidal zone of Aplin Pass at 10º32.515’S,142º10.244’E (Fig. 8). Aplin Pass is a waterwaybetween Hammond and Thursday Islands; it isnarrow and subject to a fierce tidal current. Thewreckage is from 3 small flat-bottomed steellanding crafts. They are badly broken up withwreckage scattered over an area of about 200m2.These wrecks are associated with army activitiesduring World War II, when Thursday Island wasa major military base (Ball, 1996: xii). Thesewrecks are of little significance and do notwarrant further investigation.

Collis Beach Site, Prince of Wales Island. Theteam also had prior knowledge of this site. Itsapproximate location was shown on chart AUS299; it was fixed at 10º35.722’S, 142º11.583’E(Fig. 8). The wreck is partly exposed at low waterwith portions of the wreck scattered down thereef slope to about 6m. Based on anecdotalevidence, it is thought to be a coal hulk abandonedin the early 20th Century. It is of compositeconstruction with extensive ironwork and littleremaining timber. Stone ballast is evidentthroughout the hull area, with an iron mastprotruding from the wreck towards Collis Beach.Despite anecdotal evidence for the site being ahulk, the extant mast is unusual and may indicatea working vessel with greater potential heritagesignificance. As such, the site warrants furtherarchival investigation.

Country Women’s Beach luggersite, Prince of Wales Island. Thiswreck was first inspected in 1991by Peter Illidge and local craydiver (the late) Geoff Pauling ofPrince of Wales Island. The wreckwas re-located at 10º36.556’S,142º12.631’E at 7m depth offCountry Women’s Beach, Princeof Wales Island (Fig. 8). Thevessel is lying bow up towards thereef edge at about 25º tohorizontal, with a substantialamount of hull structure still insitu. Several indicative luggerartefacts are present including a

hand driven anchor winch, air receivers, divershose, rudder and ovoid ballast stones. There ispossibly a wheel from a diver’s air pump but dueto adverse conditions and equipment problems,only a brief survey was conducted. The positionof this wreck, on a very silty bottom open tostrong currents and strong SE trade winds, makesdiving difficult. The significance of this wreck asan archaeological record of a working pearlingvessel cannot be overstated. Its comparativelygood condition and high silt environment lendsitself to further survey work and even excavationand recovery of artefacts. It was the mostpromising lugger wreck examined during thisproject. No video recording was made of thewreck.

Unidentified Iron Wreck, Wednesday Island.Brad Jones (pers. comm., 2000) of ThursdayIsland reported this wreck to the project team. Heled the team to the site on the N side of the islandand the wreckage was located in 7m of water andfixed at 10º30.751’S, 142º19.015’E (Fig. 10).The 12-ton iron ketch Gertrude became a totalwreck on Wednesday Island in 1911, but the siteinvestigated did not fit the features of this ironwreck. The bow of the wreck protrudes from thewater at extreme low tides. Surface featuresinclude an anchor still attached to an intact bow,plus a conglomeration of iron sheeting and otherstructural pieces strewn over the area, variouslyconcreted into the reef slope. The age, identityand potential significance of this wreck could notbe estimated based on this survey. Furtheropportunities to investigate the site should bepursued.

‘Two Sisters’ Wreck Site, Horn Island. HubertHofer reported this wreck to the MAS in 1986. Itis situated at 10º33.464’S, 142º18.452’E at 8mdepth off Scott Rock (Fig. 10). The semi-


FIG. 9. Luggers on Paps Beach, Thursday Island.

submerged Scott Rock is 0.78 nautical miles N ofKing Point on Horn Island (midway betweenHorn and Wednesday Islands) in FlindersPassage and is a perfect trap for unsuspectingships’ captains. The barque Two Sisters was avessel of 75’ (22.7m) length, built in 1837 byAlexander McKenzie on River John, NovaScotia, Canada. It was a 401 ton, wooden vesselof carvel construction; copper sheathed and ironfastened. Timbers used in the construction werebeech, black spruce, pine and hackmatack (MASDatabase).

The captain of the Spanish brig Nueva Bilbainowas reported in the Sydney Morning Herald ashaving sighted a barque in Torres Strait at10º33’S, 142º18’E with Wednesday Islandbearing NNW, distance 4 miles. The barque hadapparently struck a sharp rock that wasobservable astern of her. The wreck was sittingupright, giving the impression of a vessel atanchor. The Two Sisters had sunk up to her loweryards, with the majority of her rigging protrudingfrom the sea (Sydney Morning Herald, 1842). Nolives were lost in this wrecking with all handsbeing taken off by other vessels (Loney, 1993:40). It is likely that the wreck investigated by theteam is the remains of the Two Sisters.

The project team had a difficult dive withstrong currents but fair visibility. Due to theextreme currents, no video footage was taken.The site was easily located using the instructionsgiven by the original finder. The majority ofremains are scattered to the W of the base of ScottRock. They consist of what appears to be heavilyconcreted pieces of iron, possibly ballast pigs,and an anchor chain. The chain runs from themain wreck site towards the S. The chain extendsfor about 60m from the wreck but no anchor waslocated. It was reported to the team that craydivers regularly see a large anchor to the S of therock; this could be the Two Sisters anchor. Notimbers were seen and no hull outline wasdiscernable.

This wreck is significant through its associationwith early settlement and whaling and sodeserves further investigation and management.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This work in Torres Strait has involved thelocation and baseline survey of over 20 wrecksand produced 7 new reports on wrecks thatrequire further investigation. In particular, thereexists an opportunity to conduct significantarchaeological investigations of pearling inTorres Strait, both underwater and on land.

Pearling was a major extractive industry that wasthe cornerstone of the Torres Strait Islands andnorth Queensland’s economy between ca. 1870and 1940. The lugger wrecks off Prince of Wales,Thursday and Wai Weer Islands, in conjunctionwith the examination of the remains of shellingstations such as those on Wai Weer Island(McPhee, this volume), hold great potential forfurnishing new and important information andmaterial culture relating to the colonial andcross-cultural history of north Queensland.

The Torres Strait is a diverse and exciting areawith a rich maritime history that is poorlyunderstood (cf. McNiven, 2001; McPhee, thisvolume; Mullins, 1995; Nicholson, 1996).During the course of this survey, the project teamdeveloped close relationships with local groups,residents and government departments. Thesuccess of the program hinged in no small part oncommunity involvement and it became clear thatthe survey team has only scratched the surface ofthe rich oral history and ‘folklore’ held by thiscommunity. Future work needs to build on theserelationships, with a special effort placed onrecording oral histories from the fast dis-appearing older generation.


FIG. 10. Wednesday Island and Scott Rock.


FIG. 11. Cockburn Reef Unidentified site #1 report (Gesner, 1990).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Queensland Museum project wassupported by Environment Australia (Canberra)through the Historic Shipwrecks Program(facilitated by Julia Searle), James CookUniversity and the Museum of Tropical Queens-land. Torres Strait Islander Media Associationand the Torres News are acknowledged for theircoverage of the project and the opportunity toadvertise the importance of shipwrecks andassociated industries as Torres Strait maritimeheritage. For assistance in pre-trip planning andfield support and especially a sense of humourregardless of weather and conditions, thecontributions of Ewen McPhee, Matt Tufty, AnnaMorgan and Libby and Olivia Illidge are

gratefully acknowledged. Also we thank SteveBeck for setting up the electronics on the work-boat. Garrick Hitchcock, Torres Strait RegionalAuthority, provided invaluable assistance. Forwork areas within the Kaurareg territory, permissionwas granted by Chairman Ronny Wasaga. OnMabuiag Island, Terrence Whap (Chairman)granted necessary permissions and providedsundry help to the team, and school principal JimBallantine made his vehicle available to cart gearand provided storage and security for equipmentand fuel. On Thursday Island the project isgrateful to Marie Gonzo and Lynette Griffith fortheir spontaneous hospitality. Leanne Miller andChristine Peddel of the Torres Strait Museumprovided access to archives and museum material.Brad Jones, Geoff ‘Jaffa’ Hirn, Jimmy Luffmanand ‘Wonai’contributed local knowledge to guidethe team to sites of interest. Ali Drummond,Amos Joe, Hubert Hofer, Jimmy Peddel, LeonGamble, Levi Baira, Theo Petro, KennyShepherd, the Hughes family all gave generouslyof their local knowledge. Gary Hopewell, ofQFRI, analysed timber samples. Thanks to KevinSmith, owner of the Kangaroo Explorer, for thefree berth on his vessel and to his crew for theirhospital i ty. Marion Gaemers is kindlyacknowledged for helping with maps and figures.

LITERATURE CITED

ARNOLD, K. 1997. Bottle collectors guide. Ident-ification and valuation guide. (Crown Castleton:Golden Square Australia).

BADGER, G. 1996. The explorers of the Pacific.(Kangaroo Press: Kenthurst).

BALL, R.A. 1996. Torres Strait force, Cape York-Thursday Island-Merauke, 1942-1945. (AustralianMilitary History Publications: Loftus).

BARHAM, A.J. 2000. Late Holocene maritimesocieties in the Torres Strait Islands, northernAustralia – cultural arrival or cultural emergence?Pp. 223-314. In O’Connor, S. & Veth, P. (eds) Eastof Wallace’s Line: studies of past and presentmaritime cultures of the Indo-Pacific region.Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia16. (A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam).

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, Tenderdocuments, 1972, T.V. 575/1/35.

CRIBB, A.B. & CRIBB, J.W. ca 1985. Plant life of theGreat Barrier Reef and adjacent shores.(University of Queensland: St Lucia).

GANTER, R. 1994. The pearl-shellers of Torres Strait,resource use, development and decline1860s-1960s. (Melbourne University Press:Carlton).

GESNER, P. 1990. Shipwreck site inspection reportCockburn Reef Unidentified #1 (QM/MAS,Brisbane, December 1990)


FIG. 11 (cont.). Cockburn Reef Unidentified site #1report (Gesner, 1990).

HOPEWELL, G. 2000. Report on the identification oftimber species of wrecks in Torres Strait.(Queensland Forestry Research Institute,Salisbury Research Centre: Brisbane). (Unpubl.).

HORDERN, M. 1997. King of the Australian Coast, thework of Philip Parker in the Mermaid andBathhurst 1817-1822. (Melbourne UniversityPress: Carlton South).

HULSBERGEN, R. 1976. The last paradise. (Eyes andHands: Cammeray).

HYDROGRAPHIC SCIENCES AUSTRALIA, 2000.Endeavour professional. (Hydrographic SciencesAustralia: North Sydney).

HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE, 1984. Torres StraitAUS 376. (Royal Australian Navy: Sydney).

1985. Cape Sidmouth to Cape York AUS 375.(Royal Australian Navy: Sydney).

1988. AUS 293. (Royal Australian Navy: Sydney).1988. AUS 299. (Royal Australian Navy: Sydney).

LONEY, J. 1987. Wrecks on the Queensland coast.(Lonestone Press: Maryborough).

1993. Wrecks on the Queensland coast. (LonestonePress: Yarram).

MAY, S. 1988. The iron and steam shipwreck resourcesof Queensland. (Queensland Museum: Brisbane).

McNIVEN, I.J. 2001. Torres Strait Islanders and themaritime frontier in early colonial Australia. Pp.

175-197. In Russell, L. (ed.) Colonial frontiers:indigenous-European encounters in settlersocieties. (Manchester University Press:Manchester).

McPHEE, E.C. 1997. An analysis of Chinese ‘cash’coins from the Chinese immigrant ship Mecca.(Unpubl. Hons thesis, James Cook University,Townsville).

MOORE, R. 1984, The Torres Strait collections of A.C.Haddon. (British Museum: London).

MULLINS, S. 1995. Torres Strait, a history of colonialoccupation and culture contact 1864-1897.(Central Queensland University Press:Rockhampton).

NICHOLSON, I. 1996. Via Torres Strait. RoebuckSociety Publication 48.

QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,2000. The official tide tables and boating safetyguide, 2000. (Queensland Department ofTransport, Maritime Division: Brisbane).

SHIPPING REPORT, 1842. Sydney Morning Herald, 4October 1842.

SHIRAI, S. 1994. Pearls and pearl oysters of the world.(Marine Planning Company: Okinawa).

WELLS, V. 1962. Australian pearling 1962. (Unpubl.).


Memoirs of the Queensland Museum (ISSN 1440-4788)/media/Documents/QM/About+Us/...A Guide to Authors...

Documents

Transcript of Memoirs of the Queensland Museum (ISSN 1440-4788)/media/Documents/QM/About+Us/...A Guide to Authors...