The HMS Fowey and Marine Archaeology

By: Logan LindseyMr. Johnson

2009

Thesis Statement

• The investigation of the HMS Fowey is a good example of how underwater archaeology and document research can be used to positively identify an unidentified shipwreck site.

Purpose• I will examine artifacts recovered from the site and

related documents including maps to show how the National Park Service (NPS) proved that the shipwreck was British, not Spanish and eventually identified the wreck site as that of the HMS Fowey sunk in 1748.

Introduction

• Sport diver finds site Oct. 1979• Legare Anchorage, Biscayne National Park.• Diver petitioned court for rights to salvage site.• Dispute between U.S. govt. and private salvor

himself.

Introduction (continued…)• NPS represented U.S. government in counter lawsuit• Filed suit as defendant seeking title• Claimed shipwreck not in danger & did not need

salvaging because it is an archaeological site and part of the nation’s patrimony

• Court required NPS supply data supporting the archaeological significance of shipwreck

• Archaeological significance is determined by date, nationality, size, function and name

Introduction (continued…)• Historical controversy developed was whether or not this ship was

Spanish or British.• Nuestra Senora del Populo, HMS Wolf, and HMS Fowey three

possible names.• Created three possible dates- 1733 C E, 1741 C E, 1748 C E• Even though shipwreck was located in Legare Anchorage, two

locations important, Ajax Reef and Fowey Rocks

Intro (continued…)

• Legal controversy centered around ownership• Treasure hunters believed site should belong to them • Expected court give it to them• NPS believed it was theirs because was in their

property• As case went through court there were additional

claims of ownership British govt. for those warships and Spanish government for Spanish treasure ships.

The Archaeology• Magnetometer survey 7 sq. mile shipwreck was found• Recovery of diagnostic artifacts (matching artifacts

recovered from salvage)• 1st phase of the archaeological investigation largely non-

destructive• Required eight distinctive steps

ArchaeologyEight Steps

• Temporary rope grid cover 810 sq.m. ocean floor was established yielding 90 individual, 3x3m units

• 3x3m unit photographed & surface collection of diagnosis artifacts

• Other objects were noted and left in situ• Every unit systematically probed depth 1 m with ¼ in. iron T-

probe to locate remains• Unit lightly hand fanned to expose architectural remains

Eight Steps (continued)• Mapped using 1 ½ m.sq. grid divided into 10 sq. cm units• Hand-held metal detector passed over unit to identify metallic

potential within concreted objects or to locate buried iron concentrations

• Magnetometer survey done of the entire grid area

Archaeology (continued…)• Now this was done researchers were ready for the real

archaeology to start• Real archaeology is destructive nature of excavation.• In order for you to study archeology you take artifacts

from the site• Destroys site because will never be same as original• Excavation: hand-fanning and sediment removed using

four inch airlift

Archaeology4 destructive steps

• 1x1m caisson was placed around each area to be excavated.

• Sediment was hand-fanned into the airlift with care being taken to collect all artifacts.

• In the event any artifacts were inadvertently removed, the effluvent from the airlift emptied into a floating caisson with a quarter-inch screen bottom.

• If there were any artifacts in the screen they were collected and the waste was carefully piped back to the sea floor.

Material Culture Analysis (MCA)• Material culture assemblage means collection of all

artifacts located on site• Study of artifacts on a specific shipwreck is material

culture analysis• Shipwreck site’s age placed in second quarter 18th cent.

(1725-1750) by scientists due to material cult. analysis

MCA (continued…)• Analysis utilized presence vs. absence model• Ceramics considered by archaeologist the most

important class of artifacts to determine date of an archaeological site

• If shipwreck considered British, absence white salt-glaze stoneware and cream ware argue for pre-1750 date.

MCA (continued…)

• Ceramic assemblage confusing• No Spanish ceramics found• Ceramic assemblage-Agate, Mimosa pattern

Delft, Rhenish Stoneware, and Faience wares• Ceramic mix-British, Dutch, French• Rhenish carried British king crest

MCA (continued…)• Glassware found on wreck site• Scientists studied changing shape of wine bottles in 17th,

18th,and 19th centuries.• External shape and kick-ups morphed over time• Analysis of wine bottles yielded date in the 1740s

MCA (continued…)• Ballast was significant clue in identification• Egg-rock inexpensive and tossed overboard when not needed.

Usually used cargo ship• Permanent pig-iron always used British warships 1725• Ballast at shipwreck site served largely in that capacity• Carried small amount loose stone and many pigs of iron.

MCA (continued…)• Ballast pile cover 6 sq.m. above remains• Pigs 3 ft long 6”sq cross section 320lbs ea• 1703 British merchant, warship ballasted stone and

scrap iron• 2nd quarter 18th, British warships carried block form

permanent ballast• Spanish ships 16th through 18th ballasted with large river

cobbles

MCA (continued…)• Pig iron ballast block required specialized placement• Science of storage was developed so extreme

weight bars did not affect fabric, structure of ship• Each pig marked the property of British crown by 5”

long Broad Arrow• Bars had holes angled through either end for rope to

be strung as lifting aid

• Pile found weighed est. 13.5 tons

MCA (continued…)

• Most artifacts uncovered related to ship: rigging-chainplates, pulleys, block sheaves, and lead scuppers

• Several square panes of green window glass were recovered

Cannons• 44 guns on 5th rate warship• Twenty-gun lower deck battery 18-pounder cannons,

twenty-two gun upper deck battery 9-pounder cannons, two 6-pounder bow-chaser mounted on the forecastle

• 4 guns observed on site, we know captain ordered cannons disabled and thrown overboard

Cannons (continued…)• 18-, 9-, 6-pounders refer to size of cannonballs• An 18-pounder and three 9-pounders found at

site by FSU and Park Service archaeologists• Three sizes of shot were recorded on site----6-,

9-, 18- pounds• Cannon recovered had many diff. markings on

the surface

Cannons (continued…)• Right and left trunnions marked with letters “G” and “H”

respectively• May be the makers marks• Trunnions-short cylinders at right angles where gun was

mounted to carriage• British Broad Arrow inscribed in top• Next to Broad Arrow # “26-0-23”---signified weight of cannon

in hundred weights and fractions of hundred weights(112)

Cannons (continued…)

• 26 x 112 = 2912 + 23 = 2935, 2935lbs weight of 9- pound cannon.

• This exact weight was confirmed in the laboratory.

Experts Disagree• Treasure hunters claimed ship Spanish• Mendel Peterson was shipwreck expert with Smithsonian Institution.• Peterson’s analysis verified British origins• His experience in the water off Biscayne was all about 1733

Spanish Fleet• Believed shipwreck was last remaining shipwreck of Spanish fleet• He claimed Spanish bought British ships with British materials on

board

Experts Disagree (continued…)• George Fischer was with the NPS• He worked with Mendel Peterson on 1733 fleet• Both had emotional connection to 1733 fleet, they

found every ship but Populo• Basil Greenhill was British Nautical Archeologist &

historian from British Maritime Museum

1733 Treasure Fleet Map

Experts Disagree (continued…)• Greenhill believed Fowey sunk at Fowey Rocks, felt shipwreck

couldn’t be Fowey• Royal Navy said ship did not sink there, it sunk at Ajax Reef• Bernard Romans’s maps gave two diff. locations for the Fowey• He was a geographer of the late 18th cent.• Treasure hunters claimed ship Spanish

Documentary Research• Documentary research was critical part of record &

investigation of site• Journals, maps, and court martial papers set stage for

archeaology• No artifacts identified Spanish or Spanish-colonial in

origin• Both olive jar and majolica types were missing which had

been found on all Spanish treasure ships of 1733 fleet

Documentary Research (continued…)

• Objective evidence did not fit those who concluded a Spanish treasure ship

• Every shipwreck had huge #s olive jar sherds and some 1733 Spanish majolica, this shipwreck had neither

• Researchers arrived Britain found logs, muster books, court-martial proceeding for HMS Fowey

• Bernard Romans’ chronicles FSU Library

Documentary Research (continued…)

• Eyewitness report is Fowey originally grounded five miles south Legare Anchorage, near Ajax Reef, this created some confusion

• Researcher made a fortunate discovery with help of librarian in map department at FSU; Photostat of a draft map of Bernard Romans’ 1775 map of Florida

Romans’ Maps: a Comparison

Documentary Research (continued…)

• Original draft found at University of Michigan; marked “Fowey Rocks”, about five miles North of the shipwreck

• Draft had location close to shipwreck location labeled “Fowey Lost”, things were getting interesting

• Appeared Fowey was possible candidate for the identity of the Legare Anchorage site

Significance

• To summarize, five components: date, nationality, size, function, and name

• Documentary research helped prove site possibly HMS Fowey, MCA was bigger part of final proof

Significance (continued…)Date Region

• Date region confirmed by presence and absence of ceramics that were found at the site

• Absence of copper bottoming and presence of lead patching support the same period

• Cannons with trunnions set below the mid-line also indicate pre-1750

Significance (continued…)Function

• Function made clear by permanent pig iron ballast & 3 types of shot found

• Soldier’s dirks and marine bayonets also were indicators of a warship

Significance (continued…)Nationality

• Nationality of the Fowey confirmed by marks on cannons, pig iron ballast Royal British markers, British glass-window and wine bottles, and some pots

• Copper hoops with King’s arrow and pewter ware British makers marks point to British origin

• Even officers’ stoneware drinking mugs with King George II’s mark point to British ownership

Significance (continued…)Size

• Size was determined by investigation• There were originally discrepencies between

plans of the Fowey indicating length 127’ and a beam width of 36’ and the site

Significance (continued…)Name

• Final “kicker” was ceramics that were found at shipwreck site

• Normally you never find French ceramics on British warship, but Fowey visited Louisbourg, a French Fort

• New captain raided French officer’s barracks and stole ceramics for his own

• This sealed the identification of the HMS Fowey

Conclusion

• Summing up the investigation of the unidentified shipwreck site at Legare Anchorage, its clear historical documents alone wouldn’t have been enough to identify the wreck

• Material Culture Analysis was not enough to define wreck as HMS Fowey

• Both together, including investigation of maps made identification a virtual certainty

Conclusion (continued…)

• Made clear by investigation was looking at both the presence and absence of artifacts to lock final identification

• This investigation provides a good example of proper research techniques for solving an archaeological problem

Reference• Skowronek, Russell K., et al. (1987) The Legare

Anchorage Shipwreck site-Grave of HMS Fowey, Biscayne National Park, Florida.

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (Vol. 16.4; pp. 313-324)

• Johnson, Richard E., (1984) The Historical Geography (?) HMS Fowey, Paper Presented at Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the conference on the Underwater Archaeology Williamsburg, Virginia January 4-7, 1984. MS on File (pp. 1-8)

Reference (continued…)

• Skowronek, Russell K. and George Fischer, (January 26, 2009) HMS Fowey Lost and Found: Being the Discovery, Excavation, and Identification of a British Man-of-War Lost off the Cape of Florida in 1748

• The Excavation of HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/research/ships/fowey/fowey.html

Reference (continued…)

• Artifacts recovered from HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/

research/ships/fowey/artifacts_fowey.html • Cannon from HMS Fowey, n.d., Florida State

University Underwater Archaeology, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/uw/research/ships/fowey/cannon_fowey.html