Wessex Archaeology

Princes Channel Wreck, Thames Estuary

Phase III Summary Report

Ref: 57330.01 January 2005

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

SUMMARY REPORT

Prepared by: Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury WILTSHIRE SP4 6EB

Prepared for: Port of London Authority Bakers Hall 7 Harp Lane London EC3R 6LB

December 2004

Ref: 57330.01
The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited 2004 The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No.28778

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

SUMMARY REPORT
Ref: 57330.01 Executive Summary Wessex Archaeology (WA) has been commissioned by the Port of London Authority (PLA) to mitigate the impacts of dredging operations on a late 16th century shipwreck located within the Princes Channel, Thames Estuary. The mitigation of impacts for the Princes Channel Wreck site is being approached in a series of phases. Phase I relates to remedial recording of timbers, sections of recovered hull (pieces 1 and 2) structure and artefacts recovered in 2003. Phase II relates to a programme of scientific dating, geophysical survey and diving inspection undertaken in 2004. Phase III began with the development of a Project Design which was submitted to the English Heritage Maritime Team by the PLA in July 2004. EH approval for the Project Design was received in early August 2004. This document is a summary report of the fieldwork to excavate and recover the wreck in August-October 2004 to fulfil Phase III of the overall mitigation strategy. Over a period of 9 weeks, 27 dives were undertaken on the wreck site to locate timber structure, excavate the overlying deposits and recover both artefacts and timber. 110 artefacts were recovered ranging from cast iron cannons, lead and tin ingots to more personal items such as a pewter candlestick, leather shoes and the sleeve of a jerkin. One of the cannon has the makers mark of Sir Thomas Gresham and is believed to have been cast at the Mayfield furnace, East Sussex, between 1567 and 1582. Sir Thomas Gresham was a prominent Tudor merchant and financial advisor to Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I, and is famous for the founding of a money exchange (Royal Exchange) in London in 1565. Three large sections of hull structure were recovered. Pieces 3a and 3b forming part of the ships side, with Piece 4 being the ships bow section including articulated keel to stempost. The nature of the recovered timber structures confirms the findings of WAs earlier reports. The vessel had a keel length of 20m to 30m and a possible overall length of up to 35m. A number of English merchantmen, depicted in a manuscript, believed to have been authored by the shipwright Matthew Baker in the 1570s (Baker, ca. 1570 1630), are the closest available representation of what the Princes Channel ship may have originally looked like.

The vessel was probably three-masted, although no elements of rigging have been found. The lowest deck in the ship, the orlop, served as a gundeck. Two gunports are visible in the recovered hull structure above the main wale. A total number of six to eight gunports per side can be assumed. Although still unidentified, it is thought that the ship was possibly outbound from London or another harbour on the Thames or Medway with a cargo of iron bars, lead ingots and tin ingots. The locations of the cannon on the seabed are suggestive of armament rather than cargo, as they appear to correspond with the level of the gunports on the ships side. The excavation of the Princes Channel wreck concentrated on the core of the wreck site and the main aim was to lift the timber structures and artefacts in this area. Although circular seabed searches were conducted to a distance of 30m around the wreck in situ, not all of this area was airlifted and fully excavated. The wider surroundings of the wreck site (side scan targets were marked in a distance of up to 70m from the wreck) could not be examined in the course of the Phase III project. The presence of further archaeological material within the seabed cannot be excluded. The quality and quantity of timbers and artefacts recovered warrants post-excavation analysis and publication, in accordance with the further phases set out in the Project Design: Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment Phase V: Analysis Phase VI: Treatment of timbers/ artefacts Phase VII: Publication The research framework outlined in the Mitigation Strategy Project Design should be revisited and revised to establish parameters for further analysis of the timbers and all recovered material.

ii

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

SUMMARY REPORT
Ref: 57330.01

Acknowledgements

This project was commissioned by the Port of London Authority. Wessex Archaeology would like to thank the PLA Marine Services, especially Captain Peter Steen, Marine Services Manager, Kevin Leadbetter, Marine Services Diving Supervisor and his dive team, Steven Rushbrook, Marine Services Assistant and the crew of the PLA Salvage Vessel Hookness for their support throughout the project. Further thanks go Nicola Clay, Environmental Scientist; Mike Costaras, River Engineer; and Captain John Pinder, the Port Hydrographer. The diving fieldwork was carried out by Jens Auer, Rex Bangerter, Frank Mallon and Nigel Nayling of Wessex Archaeology. Diving support and the dive vessel crew were provided by the PLA Marine Services dive team. Kevin Leadbetter acted as Diving Supervisor. The landbased recording of the lifted wreck parts was undertaken by Kitty Brandon, Bob Davis, Gareth Owen and Matt Rous. This report was compiled by Jens Auer. The illustrations were produced by Kitty Brandon and Gareth Owen. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Deanna Groom and Steve Webster. Quality assurance was provided by Dr. Antony Firth, Head of Coastal and Marine Projects.

iii

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

SUMMARY REPORT
Ref: 57330.01

Contents 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Phase III ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Previous fieldwork..................................................................................... 1 2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 3 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 4 3.1 Diving.......................................................................................................... 4 Environment ................................................................................................ 4 Diving Vessels ............................................................................................. 4 Mooring System ........................................................................................... 4 Diving Operations ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Underwater recording............................................................................... 6 3.3 Underwater excavation ............................................................................. 7 3.4 Recovery of artefacts ................................................................................. 7 3.5 Recovery of timber structures .................................................................. 7 3.6 Shore-side recording of finds and dis-articulate timbers ...................... 9 3.7 Shore-side recording of timber structures .............................................. 9 3.8 Environmental samples........................................................................... 10 4 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Diving........................................................................................................ 11 4.2 Artefacts and dis-articulated timbers .................................................... 11 4.3 Timber Structures ................................................................................... 13 5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 14 6 FURTHER WORK........................................................................................... 15 6.1 Site............................................................................................................. 15 6.2 Recovered Assemblage ............................................................................ 15 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX I: MITIGATION STRATEGY PROJECT DESIGN........................ 19 APPENDIX II: DIVING UNDERTAKEN............................................................... 43 APPENDIX III: LIST OF GENERAL CONTEXTS.............................................. 48 APPENDIX IV: LIST OF FINDS ............................................................................. 49 APPENDIX V: LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES .................................. 53 APPENDIX VI: LIST OF TIMBERS BY STRUCTURE SUB DIVISION.......... 54

iv

Figures
Figure 1: Map of wreck position with integrated side scan data Figure 2: Plate 1: Tug Impulse, used as diving platform Plate 2: Diving equipment on Impulse Figure 3: Site plan of wreck site, including underwater drawing of Piece 3 in situ, estimated position of pieces 1, 2 and 4 and all measured small finds Figure 4: Plate 1: Lifting of iron bars Plate 2: Lifting of piece 4 with the PLA salvage craft Hookness Figure 5: CAD drawing of piece 4, internal and external Figure 6: CAD drawing of Piece 3a, internal Figure 7: CAD drawing of Piece 3a, external Figure 8: CAD drawing of Piece 3b, internal Figure 9: CAD drawing of Piece 3b, external Figure 10: Reconstruction of ships side with pieces 1 4 Figure 11: Plate 1: Iron bars Plate 2: Lead ingot Plate 3:Tin ingot Figure 12: Cast-iron cannon (28) Figure 13: Plate 1: Leather shoe sole Plate 2: Pewter Candlestick Figure 14: Drawing of an English galleon ca. 1572-1600 by Matthew Baker, from Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry, Pepys Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge. Inset: Reconstruction of ship's side with pieces 1-4

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

SUMMARY REPORT
Ref: 57330.01 1. 1.1 1.1.1 INTRODUCTION Phase III Wessex Archaeology (WA) has been commissioned by the Port of London Authority (PLA) to produce and implement a project design to fulfil the PLAs responsibility to mitigate the impacts of dredging operations on an late 16th century shipwreck located within the Princes Channel. The dredging operations will remove approximately 2m of sediment in the Channel and from the nearby Shivering Sands to enable large shipping traffic to utilise the Thames Estuarys southern approaches to the Port of London. The mitigation of impacts for the Princes Channel Wreck site is being approached in a series of phases. Phase I related to remedial recording of timbers, sections of recovered hull structure and artefacts recovered in 2003 (Wessex Archaeology 2003 and Wessex Archaeology 2004b). Phase II related to a programme of scientific dating, geophysical survey and diving inspection undertaken in 2004 (Wessex Archaeology 2004a). Phase III began with the development of a Project Design submitted to the English Heritage Maritime Team by the PLA in July 2004 (Appendix I). EH approval was received in early August 2004. This document is the summary report of the excavation and recovery of the wreck in August-October 2004. All recovered material was notified by the PLA to the Receiver of Wreck, in accordance with section 236 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, on the basis of information provided by WA. Recovered material is held by the PLA to the order of the Receiver. Previous fieldwork The Princes Channel wreck was discovered during a pre-dredging magnetometer survey in April 2003. An inspection carried out by the Port of London Authority (PLA) Marine Services dive team on 28 May 2003 identified a wooden shipwreck and metal objects. On 18 June 2003 some iron bars were recovered and an attempt was made to disperse the site, but this proved unsuccessful. Subsequently, the grab

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4 1.1.5

1.2 1.2.1

barge Cherry Sand carried out wreck removal operations on 12 July 2003. The recovered material included a large amount of timbers, iron bars, an anchor and a cannon. A diving inspection by the PLA at the end of removal operations suggested that the seabed was clear of obstructions. Navigational dredging operations that were underway in Princes Channel at the time had been excluded from the area of the wreck to avoid damage to dredging equipment. As the seabed appeared to be clear, the exclusion zone was removed and trailer suction dredging occurred in the vicinity. 1.2.2 Wessex Archaeology was contacted by PLA on 14 July 2003. A brief inspection was carried out of the recovered material, which noted a possible second cannon among the iron debris. As a result, WA was commissioned to carry out remedial recording of the timbers and iron artefacts, which took place on 14-15 August 2003 (Wessex Archaeology 2003). The timbers were interpreted as being from a vessel of up to 200t burden, with a construction date between 1600 and 1850. The two cannons were dated to the early 16th century and to the 18th century. At this point the PLA believed that the wreck had been completely recovered or dispersed. However, when the PLA survey vessel Verifier carried out a monitoring survey of the dredged channel on 28 October 2003, topographic high spots were noted about 30m from the original obstruction. A diver inspection confirmed the existence of another piece of wooden wreckage. As a result of this discovery, Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to carry out a diver inspection of the wreckage on 6 November 2003. The WA divers observed a piece of hull structure, measuring approximately 6.5m by 3m. A side scan sonar survey undertaken on the same day showed the piece of hull structure, but also further wreckage to the west that probably represented the original site. As the newly discovered section of hull structure was believed to be a hazard to navigation, the decision was made to recover it. The lifting operation was carried out on 20 November 2003 by PLA staff with Wessex Archaeology in attendance. The hull structure, which came apart in the course of the lifting operation (Piece 1 and Piece 2), was stored at Denton Wharf, Gravesend. On 3 December 2003 a Wessex Archaeology dive team conducted a diving inspection of the original wreck site. Two separate sections of ship structure were observed on the seabed. One of the sections was covered in iron artefacts (bars). A fragment of a Spanish olive jar was recovered during the dives. The two recovered pieces of hull structure, Piece 1 and Piece 2, were recorded by Wessex Archaeology between 19 and 23 January 2004. Elements of the construction observed during the recording process suggested a date of building in the 16th century and a possible Iberian influence upon the construction (Wessex Archaeology 2004b). At this point the recovered assemblage consisted of 136 timbers, irons bars, an anchor with wooden stock, a fragment of Spanish Olive jar, a 16th century wroughtiron cannon and what was believed to be an 18th century cast-iron cannon (pers. com. Royal Armouries).

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.5

1.2.6

1.2.7

1.2.8

1.2.9

To provide a firm basis for the development of the mitigation strategy, the scientific or absolute dating of the timbers and the further characterisation of the material remaining on the seabed were necessary to complete the evaluation phase. Dendrochronological dating of 12 samples taken from frame components on the previously lifted Pieces One and Two took place on 6 May 2004. The results indicate a date of building for the ship in or shortly after AD 1574. The most likely origin of the oak timbers is eastern England, particularly East Anglia and Essex (Nayling, 2004). A high-resolution side scan survey of the site was undertaken on the 25 May 2004. The survey resulted in a georeferenced mosaic of the site, which was used to identify targets around the main wreck site and to plan phase III of the mitigation process (Figure 1). A further diving inspection of the site, undertaken on the 14 16 June 2004 served to assess the overall disposition of major structural elements and their depth of burial and to assess the presence and distribution of artefacts on the site. The results of the previously mentioned phase II surveys were presented in an Evaluation report (Wessex Archaeology, 2004a)

1.2.10 1.2.11

1.2.12

1.2.13

1.2.14

2 2.1.1 2.1.2

AIM AND OBJECTIVES The aim of the project was to mitigate the impacts of the Princes Channel dredging activity on the wreck site. The project objectives for the fieldwork in phase III were: to complete a baseline survey of the archaeological material remaining on the seabed; to excavate and recover disarticulated / dispersed timbers and artefacts; to excavate and recover wreck deposits, environmental samples and large structural fragments (Piece 3 and 4) to record individual timbers and timber structures at a shoreside facility, using conventional methods and 3D digital survey methods to collate, check and cross-reference the digital and hard copy archive.

3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2

METHODOLOGY Diving Environment The site is located in Princes Channel c. 17km from Whitstable. The site is exposed and subject to tidal currents of up to 3 knots. Phase III operations commenced on 16 August 2004 and were originally planned to take 20 days in two blocks of 10 days with an intervening break coinciding with the August bank holiday. Adverse weather severely disrupted this programme with the result that operations took place intermittently over a nine week period with the final diving taking place on 16 October 2004. Shore-side recording, originally planned to take place once diving was completed, actually took place from 14 September to 22 October 2004, in order to make use of diving downtime. Diving Vessels In the course of the project, two different diving support vessels were employed. Impulse, a river tug, was used from the start of the project until 11 October 2004. The tug was equipped with a 1 ton crane and provided enough deck space to run a compressor for the airlift work and an LP compressor for the diving air supply (Figure 2, Plate 1). The diving control panels, the underwater video panel and the diver communication units, as well as the navigation laptop were set up in the wheelhouse. All equipment was stored either on deck, in the engine room or in the aft stores. At the start of the project, Impulse was equipped with a DGPS for navigation and an echosounder. To minimise the travelling time to site, Whitstable harbour was chosen as a base for the diving operations. Impulse was transferred back to Gravesend on the 11th October after a prolonged period of bad weather. All further diving operations were carried out from Gravesend, using the PLA Marine Services dive boat PLA Diver. This vessel was not equipped with a crane and did not have the capacity to carry an airlift compressor, so that the diving work was limited to seabed surface searches. Diving operations could however be run from the wheelhouse with a similar set-up to that on Impulse. Mooring System In order to maintain the position of the diving vessel over the site in the course of the diving operations, a mooring system was required. As any obstruction left on the seabed or on the surface in the Princes Channel was seen as a hazard to navigation, a mooring system that avoided surface markers had to be devised. The mooring solution consisted of two sinkers of two and three tons respectively, positioned upstream and downstream of the wreck. Both sinkers were positioned

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.1.5

3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8

3.1.9

3.1.10

close to the wreck (6m to 10m) to allow the tug to stay directly above the site when moored. 3.1.11 The sinkers were not marked on the surface. Instead, the steel cables connected to the sinkers lead to a guide cable, long enough to reach the edge of the Princes Channel. This cable had to be dragged out of the navigational channel at the end of each diving day, where it was deposited with a 56pd weight next to a yellow marker buoy. At the beginning of each diving day, the end of the steel cable was picked up, the guide cable hauled inboards and the two mooring wires split and made fast at bow and stern respectively. To allow accurate positioning of the tug over the site, the boat position was displayed over a high-resolution side scan image of the wreck in the navigation package ESRI Arcpad. This software allowed distance and bearing to the site to be measured. Thus corrections to the boat position during the mooring could be made, and shots could be dropped directly on the wreck site. During the first two weeks of the project, when diving operations were conducted in wind conditions up to force 4, a number of problems were encountered with the mooring arrangement. The mooring wires tended to get entangled around the wreck on the seabed, damaging parts of the timber structure. In addition the mooring wires broke in heavy swells. These problems were solved by a change in diving policy. Dives were only conducted in winds up to force 3. The original mooring cables were substituted by heavier grade wires. At the beginning of each dive day, the two mooring wires were picked up, but left slack. A diver then went down along the wires to check whether they were clear. The diver stayed in the water and ensured that the wires stayed clear of the timber structures while the tug moored. Nevertheless, the mooring and guide wires caused damage to the wreck site on two occasions, when passing ships picked up the mooring arrangement and pulled the cables through the wreck site. On one of these occasions, Piece 3 was broken into two pieces. The second time, Piece 3b, which remained in situ on the seabed, was pulled from its original location and flipped upside down. Diving Operations All diving operations were conducted using surface supplied equipment. An LP compressor provided the air supply with a number of HP cylinders as backup. Umbilicals were stored on the working deck. The dive team consisted of seven members as follows: one skipper and diving supervisor, one archaeological supervisor, one standby diver, two tenders and two divers. Under normal conditions the two divers were in the water at the same time, with one standby diver and two tenders on deck. One of the divers used a KMB 27B diving helmet with surface controlled light and head-mounted digital video camera (Figure 2). The second diver was equipped with a KMB 18 bandmask with a battery-powered light attached. The divers descended to site on a temporary shot or along the mooring cables. A diving ladder provided a safe

3.1.12

3.1.13

3.1.14

3.1.15

3.1.16

3.1.17

3.1.18

3.1.19

entry- and exit point on the tug. The divers carried compasses for underwater orientation. 3.1.20 The PLA diving supervisor was in charge of pre-dive checks, descent and ascent. During the dive the archaeological diving supervisor controlled the two diver communication units and the DV camera. Dives could only be conducted during High Water and Low Water slacks. The water depth on site varied between 7m and 10m, depending on the tide. Maximum bottom times during High Water spring tides could be as little as 30min to 45min, but in Low Water slacks during neap tides, dives of up to 200min length were possible. Details of diving operations undertaken are set out in Appendix II. All diving was conducted according to the PLA code of practice for diving operations, which accords with the Diving at Work Regulations 1997. Underwater recording The visibility on site varied between absolute zero and 20 to 30cm. This made underwater photography impossible and underwater drawing very difficult. Even video mosaics, taken with the high-resolution digital video camera, proved an insufficient means of visual recording. In addition, any tape measures laid out as a part of grid systems on the timber structures were swept away by the tide or ripped apart by the current between two slack tides. Thus the decision was made to use the timber structure itself as a datum system and establish only a few points on the seabed around the wreck to link disarticulate artefacts to the timber structure once it was lifted. All timber that could be seen or felt were tagged with unique numbers engraved on yellow plastic survey discs. Subsequently measurements of sided frame dimensions were taken along the eastern and western side of the Pieces 3 and 4. Finally, measurements across the wreck along each frame linked both sides and allowed a complete wreck plan to be plotted (Figure 3). All measurements were relayed to the surface via the diver communication, noted, and later plotted in 1:20. The resulting wreck plan allowed further contexts to be defined for the mapping of small finds on the timber structure. Context numbers were assigned to visible gaps between frames and to areas on the inside of the wreck. The surroundings of the main wreck site were divided into a northern, an eastern, a southern and a western context. Positions of small finds on the timber structure were taken by context and timber number: e.g. potsherd in context 125, on ceiling plank 1190 on top of frame 1163. The positions of small finds and dis-articulated timbers in the surroundings of the wreck site were fixed with at least two measurements from the object to known datum points around the wreck, or frame heads on the timber structure. If this was not possible distance and bearing measurements were used (Figure 3). Originally it was intended to use an acoustic USBL diver tracking system in conjunction with a recording database for the positioning of objects in the surroundings of the wreck site. This system was set up in the first week of the 6

3.1.21

3.1.22 3.2 3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

project, but could not be used due to software and hardware failures that were not resolved by the manufacturer. Due to the time constraints of the underwater work, it was decided to demobilise the USBL system and to use the traditional recording methods described above. 3.2.7 3.3 3.3.1 A full listing of contexts is presented in Appendix III. Underwater excavation The whole inside of the wreck in situ was systematically excavated by context before lifting. Two airlifts were used to remove sediment. On some days the visibility did not allow to the diver to see the muzzle of the airlift. To prevent loosing small finds, mesh bags were fastened to the end of each airlift, and exchanged when a new context was excavated. The collected material was sieved on the surface. For the removal of material around the timber structures airlifts without mesh bags were used. On the eastern side of the wreck, iron bars were concreted to the ceiling planks. To be able to lift the bars without causing damage to the ceiling planks, a pneumatic chisel had to be used to loosen the concretion. Whenever larger parts of concretion could be separated from the main body, they were lifted individually using the ships crane. Recovery of artefacts All artefacts and loose timbers on the inside of Piece 3 on the seabed were recovered before the piece was lifted. Disarticulated material from the surroundings of the wreck was also lifted. On the tug Impulse, the 1 ton crane could be used to lift heavier finds, such as iron bars or cannons. To enhance the workflow underwater, a cage was used for the recovery of small finds (Figure 4, Plate 1). At the beginning of each dive the cage was lowered to a position close to the divers on the seabed. All tools could then be kept in the cage and finds could be lifted in the cage at the end of the dive. The crane wire also acted as a messenger line to site. Delicate items, such as the leather shoe and part of a leather jerkin, were recovered within a sample of their surrounding contexts and placed in sealed containers/plastic bags underwater before being transferred to the cage for their final lifting to the surface. A full listing of recovered artefacts can be found in Appendix IV. This listing includes artefacts recovered from the site during earlier phases of work. Recovery of timber structures Originally it was planned to lift each of the individual wreck pieces separately after a measured in situ survey and the removal of all overlying sediment. However, on starting Phase III operations, Piece 4 was found to have moved from its original location and could not be located during the first two dives on site. Extensive circular

3.3.2 3.3.3

3.4 3.4.1

3.4.2

3.4.3

3.4.4 3.5 3.5.1

searches of the surroundings of Piece 3 were necessary to locate Piece 4 about 25m NE of its previous location. 3.5.2 Any attempts to establish guide lines between the two pieces failed, as Piece 4 kept moving on the seabed and constantly had to be relocated. Consequently the decision was made to lift Piece 4. A multibeam survey conducted by Verifier, the survey vessel of the PLA established the new position of the piece. It was then stropped and secured to one of the mooring sinkers. The next day a diver checked the position of the strops and attached a lifting wire. Piece 4 was carefully lifted to the surface by the PLA salvage vessel Hookness (Figure 4, Plate 2) on 2 September 2004. On the surface, the position of the strops was checked again, before the timber structure was lifted onto the deck of the salvage barge, where it was supported with wooden chocks and kept wet with a fire hose. Back at Denton Wharf, Gravesend, Piece 4 was unloaded into a flooded barge and covered to prevent it from drying out. Piece 3 formed an approximately 8m long and 5.5m wide coherent timber structure on the seabed, which was partly buried in clay. Its western side extended 1m above the seabed level, while the eastern edge was only upstanding by 0.3m. As the structure appeared to be fairly solid and stable, plans were made for lifting the whole piece using a lifting frame in conjunction with heavy-duty ratchet straps underneath the timber structure. This method of lifting required Piece 3 to be clear of sediment and concretion. In addition all sediment around the piece had to be removed. The lifting straps could either be put in position by tunnelling underneath the wreck or by carefully lifting up one side of the structure and sliding the straps into position. The design of the lifting frame was discussed in a meeting with the PLA Marine Services Engineering Department on the 15 September 2004, before an external lifting/engineering contractor was commissioned to construct and test it. However, when the site was dived on the 29 September 2004 after a spell of bad weather, the diver found Piece 3 broken in half. The eastern side of Piece 3 (Piece 3a) was flipped upside down and situated about 3m west of the remaining timber structure in situ (Piece 3b). As the tug Impulses mooring wires were entangled around Piece 3a, the decision was made to lift the piece, to enable Impulse to moor over the wreck site and continue the diving operations. On the 30 September 2004, Piece 3a was stropped and then lifted by the PLA salvage vessel Hookness. It was transported to Gravesend and deposited on the quayside, where it was covered with plastic sheeting and kept wet with a leaky hose system. As the lifting frame had become obsolete, Piece 3b was prepared for a conventional lift with strops and a spreader bar. On the morning of the 7 October 2004, the whole mooring system had disappeared and the guide cable was found severed, probably by the propeller of a passing vessel. The ship had probably pulled the mooring wires along for a while, dragging Piece 3b out of its original position and flipping it upside down. As the piece was moving on the seabed, it was stropped the same day and brought up by Hookness during the late

3.5.3 3.5.4

3.5.5

3.5.6

3.5.7

3.5.8 3.5.9

HW slack. It was then transported to Gravesend, where it was unloaded into a barge filled with water to prevent it from drying out, until it could be lifted onto the quay for recording. 3.5.10 3.6 3.6.1 A full listing of recovered timbers can be found in Appendix VI. This listing includes timbers recovered during earlier phases of work. Shore-side recording of finds and dis-articulate timbers After recovery, all finds and loose timbers were labelled, photographed and described, either on board the tug or in the shore-side facility in Whitstable. Each artefact and timber was assigned a unique number and was labelled with a yellow marker disc. Then a number of digital photographs were taken. Descriptions were entered in timber- and artefact recording sheets, as well as into an MS Access based timber and finds database. Very well preserved loose timbers or examples of functionally important timbers were also drawn in 1:10 on permatrace. After recording, finds and timbers were stored in freshwater basins in a storage facility in Whitstable harbour. The freshwater was regularly exchanged to prevent growth of microorganisms, such as algae and fungi, and to help desalination. Due to the amount of iron bars recovered, only the best-preserved examples were kept wet. The majority was stored on palettes and left to dry out. On the 14 October 2004, the majority of finds were transferred to another storage facility at Wessex Archaeologys main offices in Salisbury. The palettes with iron bars and the loose timbers remain in a freshwater basin and a barge at Denton Wharf in Gravesend. Of the two cast-iron cannons, that were lifted in the course of Phase III, one was carefully freed of concretion on the advice of the Royal Armouries before it was recorded. The removed concretion was retained. The other cannon was left concreted. Both cannons were later transported to the Royal Armouries at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth for conservation. Shore-side recording of timber structures After initial storage in water filled barges, the three coherent pieces of wreck were lifted onto the quayside at Denton Wharf, where they were covered by plastic sheeting and kept wet with a leaky hose system. The plastic cover was only removed for recording. Before the start of the digital recording, each piece was carefully cleaned with freshwater and soft brushes to reveal detail on the wood. Then each individual timber was assigned a unique number and tagged with a yellow survey marker. In this process, only full thickness repairs, such as graving pieces were considered as individual timbers. Knot patches were noted, but not numbered. Following this, all visible trenails, iron nails and notable features such as carpentry marks, tool marks, etc. were marked with drawing pins. Pin colours were assigned

3.6.2 3.6.3

3.6.4 3.6.5

3.6.6

3.7 3.7.1

3.7.2

3.7.3

according to the functional difference of the trenails (e.g. red: trenails fastening outer planks to frames, green: trenails fastening frame components to each other, etc.). This system helped interpretation and served as a basis for the layering system in the CAD software later on. 3.7.4 3.7.5 Recording was carried out manually, by completing timber record sheets for each timber and taking digital photographs, and digitally using a total station. The timber record sheets contain information on timber type, basic dimensions, and features, such as repairs, marks and toolmarks. Sketches could be made on the back of the sheets. All the information contained in the paper records was later entered into an MS Access database. A full photographic survey of the wreck was carried out, using a digital camera. Altogether more than 500 pictures of the wreck pieces were taken. These give an overview of the timber structure in general, and show details, which could be rectified and displayed over the 3D model of the wreck in AutoCad. A Leica TCRA 1105 reflectorless total station was used for the digital 3D survey of the timber structures. It could be used reflectorless with a red laser, or with a mini prism for surveying detail in gaps between timbers. The survey data was fed directly into a laptop running AutoCad with the TheoLt extension. This allowed the data to be drawn and visualised in real time. Any survey errors could be detected on the screen and instantly corrected. As the surveys of the insides and outsides of the timber structures had to be conducted separately, reference points were put in to allow both sides to be joined at a later stage (Figures 5 - 9). In Auto Cad, each individual timber was assigned a separate layer to avoid confusion and allow integration with the timber database at a later stage. Iron fastenings were also recorded on separate layers, as were treenails, according to their function. In addition to the manual 3D survey, a new recording method, based on photogrammetry was tested on the bow section (Piece 4). The results of this survey are still pending. Environmental samples Altogether 20 environmental samples were taken from the wreck site. Samples include sediment from the wreck site, caulking material, textile material and brushwood. A surface covering found on the outside and inside of planks was also sampled. The sampling concentrated on aspects related to the construction of the vessel, such as waterproofing materials and surface covering. However, sediment samples were also acquired from undisturbed contexts underneath the cargo in the hull and between frames underneath ceiling planks for possible pollen analysis. All environmental samples are currently stored at the Wessex Archaeologys main offices in Salisbury.

3.7.6

3.7.7

3.7.8

3.7.9

3.7.10

3.8 3.8.1

3.8.2

3.8.3

10

3.8.4 4 4.1 4.1.1

A full listing of Environmental Samples is presented in Appendix V. RESULTS Diving In the period from 16 August 2004 to 20 October 2004, 27 dives were conducted on the site over 18 days of diving operations. Depending on the tidal situation, each dive was from 40 minutes to 180 minutes long (Appendix II). Artefacts and dis-articulated timbers Of the 110 artefacts recovered from the wreck during Phases I, II and III, 101 were lifted in the course of the Phase III excavation. The majority of these finds are currently stored in freshwater tanks awaiting further processing. The ships cargo most probably consisted of iron bars, lead ingots and tin ingots. There could have been other cargo, but no archaeological evidence of this has been found as yet. Two types of iron bars were found on the wreck site. The first type are narrow bars with a square section measuring 30mm x 30mm are folded four times to an overall length of 1.9m to 2m. The second type are wide bars have a rectangular section of 30mm x 80mm, and are only folded once to the same length as the narrow bars, giving an unfolded length of ca. 4m. A few, well preserved bars still show clear hammering marks (Figure 11, plate 1). The lead ingots are boat shaped and measure 60cm x 22cm x 12cm. They have an average weight of 100kg. Stamps are visible on the upper surface of each ingot (Figure 11, plate 2). The marks appear to have been hammered into the surface of the ingot whilst it was cooling, hence they are likely to be the smelters mark rather than a merchants mark. Merchants marks are more likely to have been chiselled into the ingot after trading. The origin of the stamps has yet to be identified, but many overseas lead resources were owned by the church and tend to have marks which signify ecclesiastical origins. A hypothesis might be developed that these are more likely to be from mercantile sources, and perhaps English in origin. The supply of lead in this period was surfeit in England, and much was exported to France and Spain. Lead was used extensively in the recovery of silver in the new world by the Spaniards (Dr Lyn Willies, Peak District Mines Historical Society, pers com.). The lead ingot shown in Figure 11, plate 2 appears to have a cut or arrow mark in one end which would have facilitate a rope cradle to be fastened around the ingot for ease of transport. The cradle would have enabled the ingot to be carried in a vertical axis for ease of dropping down cargo hatches on board ship (Dr Lyn Willies, Peak District Mines Historical Society, pers com.). The tin ingots are fairly small and were probably originally stored in barrels. They measure 520mm x 18/16mm in average and have a trapezoidal cross section (Figure 11, plate 3).

4.2 4.2.1

4.2.2

4.2.3

4.2.4

4.2.5

4.2.6

4.2.7

11

4.2.8

Apart from an anchor (212), which was recovered by a grab in 2003, very little of the ships fittings or equipment survives. A number of rope fragments in concretions are possibly part of the rigging. If contemporary with the wreck, a lead pipe (89) could have been part of the vessel drainage system. A number of brick fragments (13, 87) were recovered from the wreck surroundings. These are probably fragments of the galley construction. The locations of the two Phase III cannon on the seabed are more suggestive of armament rather than cargo, as they appear to correspond with the level of the gunports on the ships side. To date, the ships armament is represented by three cast iron cannons (28, 201, 219), one wrought iron cannon (220), part of an elm gun carriage (98) and the find of a pike shaft fragment with concreted iron pike head (204). On one of the cannons, the concretion was carefully removed to allow detailed recording. The cannon measures 2200mm (1980mm + 220mm) and has a bore of 76mm. The initials T G, the numbers 8-0-0 and a moulded grasshopper are visible on the first reinforce (Figure 12). The grasshopper motif and the initial have enabled the identification of the gunfounder, Sir Thomas Gresham, whose coat of arms contained a golden grasshopper. Gresham owned a foundry in the Weald at Mayfield, Sussex from 1567 to his death in 1579. He was involved in arms export and is known to have founded guns for among others the King of Denmark (Teesdale, 1991, p.128ff.). After Sir Thomas death, the foundry was taken over by his wife, who continued to produce guns until 1582. The number 8-0-0 on the reinforce specifies the weight of the cannon as 8cwt (406.418kg). The bore of 76mm to 80mm would be typical for a minion (Roth, 1995). Life on board is exemplified by artefacts such as leather shoes (35, 55, 88, 205, 206), a fragment of a leather jerkin (80), a pewter candlestick (14) and part of a bronze vessel (208) (Figure 13, plates 1 and 2). In addition, a fragment of a Spanish olive jar was found in phase II (215). Concretions form the second largest group of artefacts recovered during the fieldwork of Phase III. The concretion is made up of sand, shell particles and sea plants. This material begins to build up on objects in saltwater environments as part of the corrosion process. With time, concretion covers the object, preserving it in a hard protective shell. In many of the 22 concretions recovered during Phase III, objects like pewter spoons and pewter tableware are visible. Due to the potentially delicate nature of the artefacts contained within them, the recovered concretions were left unopened awaiting x-ray and the intervention of a professional conservator. In the course of the excavation 12 loose timbers were recovered from the site (12051221). In most cases, the original location could be confirmed from the in situ wreck plan, and reconstruction would be possible.

4.2.9

4.2.10

4.2.11

4.2.12

4.2.13

4.2.14

4.2.15

4.2.16

12

4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2

Timber Structures Three coherent timber structures were recovered and recorded in the course of Phase III. Piece 4 is part of the bow construction of the vessel. It consists of a fragment of the keel, which is joined to the stempost. On the inside, the stemson as well as the apron are partly preserved. Two v-shaped frames are fastened to the apron on the inside. In addition one side timber survives on the portside. Broken trenails and trenail holes indicate the positions of further frames/ breasthooks (Figure 5). On the starboard side, seven strakes of outer planking, including the garboard strake, survive. As this side was covered by sediment on the seabed, the planks are well preserved and still show signs of a protective surface covering. On the portside, six heavily eroded strakes from the garboard upward survive. The total dimensions of Piece 4 are 6m x 2.4m. With the original hull curvature preserved, the bow section forms the ideal basis for a reconstruction of the vessel. It is very seldom that this part of a ship is found and can be studied archaeologically. Comparable bow sections or parts of bow sections dating to the 16th century have only been found on the wreck of a Basque whaler in Canada (Grenier, 1996), and in 2004 probably on the wreck site of the Mary Rose (The Mary Rose Trust, 2004). When still on the seabed, the original Piece 3 broke into two pieces, termed Piece 3a and Piece 3b. Piece 3a formed the eastern side of Piece 3. It consists of five complete strakes and one very eroded strake of lower hull outer planking. On the inside, only the upper ends of the floor timbers survive. Floor timbers are joined to first futtocks by an interlocking mortise and tenon joint. The 11 preserved futtocks are broken around the centre, where Piece 3a joins to Piece 3b. Filling frames are inserted between floor timbers and futtocks, presumably to strengthen the turn of the bilge. Two ceiling planks survive on the inside of Piece 3a. The remainder of the ceiling planking was lost, when Piece 3 broke apart. Piece 3a is 8.2m long x 2.23m wide (Figure 6-7). Piece 3b was joined to Piece 3a and represents the remainder of the ships side from just above the turn of the bilge to the level of the gunports on the orlop deck. It measures 6.3m x 3m.The piece consists of 4 strakes of outer planking leading up to the main wale arrangement, which is composed of five strakes. One whole gunport and the edge of a second gunport are visible above the wale (Figure 8-9). On the inside, the eroded remains of the orlop deck construction can be seen below the gunport. Deck beams and planks are missing, but a half beam clamp, as well as part of the waterway and the deck clamp survive. A stringer provides longitudinal strength on the height of the orlop deck. Comparable 16th century deck arrangements have previously only be studied in the Mary Rose built in 1510 (The Mary Rose Trust, 2004), the Lomellina wrecked in 1516 (Guerout, 2002) and the San Juan wrecked 1565 (Grenier, 1996). Piece 3a and 3b could be joined together, to form one whole run of the vessels side from above the keel to the orlop deck. In the CAD software, it was possible to join Piece 1 and Piece 2, which were recovered in 2003, to Piece 3a and Piece 3b.

4.3.3

4.3.4

4.3.5

4.3.6

4.3.7

4.3.8

13

Altogether, the original ships side is preserved from an area just aft of the bow to amidships or slightly aft of amidships. Without further research, structural connection between Piece 4 and the rest of the ship remains unclear (Figure 10). 5 5.1.1 CONCLUSIONS The recovered timber structures, as well as the artefactual evidence support the previous interpretation of the site. The Princes Channel wreck is the remains of a 16th century armed merchantman, built from English oak in, or just after 1574 (Wessex Archaeology, 2004a). The origin of the timbers used in construction is most likely to be Essex or East Anglia. The vessel was carvel built in the frame first method. Certain elements in its construction, such as interlocked floor timbers and first futtocks and iron nail fastenings in plank butt ends suggest a Mediterranean or Iberian influence. However, a detailed hull study will be necessary to investigate these aspects more closely. The nature of the recovered timber structures suggests a keel length of 20m to 30m for the vessel and a possible overall length of around 35m. More specific statements about tonnage and dimensions of the ship will only be possible after a detailed study of the hull remains. A number of English merchantmen, depicted in a manuscript, believed to have been authored by the shipwright Matthew Baker in the 1570s (Baker, ca. 1570 1630, Barker, 1986), are the closet representation of the Princes Channel ships original appearance (Figure 14). The vessel was probably three-masted, although no elements of rigging have been found. The lowest deck in the ship, the orlop, served as a gundeck. Two gunports are visible in the recovered hull structure above the main wale. A total number of six to eight gunports per side can be assumed. The ship was possibly outbound from London or another harbour on the Thames or Medway with a cargo of iron bars, lead ingots and tin ingots. The lead ingots are possibly from Derbyshire (pers. Comm. Paul Craddock, British Museum). Scientific metalurgic analysis may be able to confirm an English origin from the trace elements. The origin of the tin ingots is unclear as yet. The cause of shipwreck is unknown. The Thames with its many sandbanks has always been difficult to navigate, and even though the use of pilots was common in the 16th century, many ships ran aground with loss of all lives (Harris, 1969, p.119ff.). Apart from a small graving piece repair on one of the earlier recovered sections, there are no indications of major un-seaworthiness or damage to the outer hull in the recovered wreck sections. According to a report from 1846, a diver from Whitstable salvaged an ancient vessel on the Girdler Sands in spring of that year. Among the items lifted from the wreck were: some iron guns, of very ancient date, also some of those curious ingots and some iron, lead in pigs, red lead in cast-iron casks (Anonymous, 1846). The location of the described wreck, as well as the nature of the recovered material suggests that this wreck might have been the Princes Channel vessel.

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.1.6

5.1.7

14

6 6.1 6.1.1

FURTHER WORK Site The excavation of the Princes Channel wreck concentrated on the core of the wreck site and the main aim was to lift the timber structures and artefacts in this area. Although circular seabed searches were conducted to a distance of 30m around the wreck in situ, not all of this area was airlifted and fully excavated. The wider surroundings of the wreck site (side scan targets were marked in a distance of up to 70m from the wreck) could not be examined in the course of Phase III. The presence of further archaeological material beneath the seafloor cannot be excluded. It would be advisable to conduct a magnetometer and /or parametric sonar/ sub bottom profiler survey before the dredging work starts and have any remaining anomalies examined by archaeological divers. Provision should be made for archaeological review of the surveys. In addition, the dredged material should be checked for small finds. Recovered Assemblage The material investigated in Phases I III is of sufficient importance to progress to Phases IV-VII as outlined in the Project Design: Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment Phase V: Analysis Phase VI: Treatment of timbers/ artefacts Phase VII: Publication

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.2 6.2.1

6.2.2

The recovered timber structures and the artefact assemblage offer a unique opportunity to study Elizabethan shipbuilding techniques and ship design. It is believed that no other English shipwreck dating to the last quarter of the 16th century, offers the same amount of surviving coherent timber structure or a range of cargo materials which can provide important insights into Elizabethan foreign trade (Alderney Maritime Centre, 2004 and Adams, 1985). As a consequence, the research framework outlined in the Project Design should be revisited and revised to establish parameters for further analysis of the timbers and recovered material.

15

REFERENCES Adams, J. (1985). Sea Venture: A second interim report- part I. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 14(4), 275-299. Alderney Maritime Centre (2004). Elizabethan Shipwreck Project. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.wreckshed.com/pages/1/index.htm Alves, F. J. S. (2001). Proceedings: International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition : hull remains, manuscripts and ethnographic sources. Lisboa: Metropolitano de Lisboa. Alves, F. & Rodrigues, P. e. a. (2001). Ria de Aveiro A: a shipwreck from Portugal dating to the mid-15th century; a preliminary report. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30(1), 12-36. Andrews, K. R. (1964). Elizabethan privateering: English privateering during the Spanish War. Cambridge: Univ. Press. Anonymous (1846). Proceedings of the Association, December 9th. Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 2, 361-362. Baker, M. (ca. 1570 - 1630). Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry, Manuscript. Cambridge: Magdalene College Library, Pepys 2820. Barker, R. (1986). Fragments from the Pepysian Library. Revista da Universidade de Coimbra, XXXII, 161-178. Castro, F. (2003). The Pepper Wreck, an early 17th century Portugese Indiaman at the mouth of the Tagus River, Portugal. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 32.1(1), 6-23. Cleere, H. & Crosley, D. (1985). The iron industry of the Weald. Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press. Davis, R. (1985). English overseas trade, 1500-1700. Houndmills: Macmillan. Dietz, B. (1972). The Port and trade of early Elizabethan London: documents. Leicester: London Record Society. Fernandez, M. (1616). Livro de Tracas de Carpintaria. Lisbon. Friel, I. (1995). The good ship: ships, shipbuilding and technology in England 1200-1520. London: British Museum Press. Gardiner, R. & Unger, R. W. (1994). Cogs, caravels and galleons: the sailing ship 1000 1650. London: Conway Maritime Press. Glasgow, T. J. & Salisbury W., (1966). Elizabethan Ships pictured on the Smerwick Map, 1580. Mariners Mirror, 52, 157-165.

16

Grenier, R. (1996). Basque Whalers in the New World: The Red Bay Wrecks. In G. F. Bass (Ed.), Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas (69-84). London: Thames & Hudson. Guerout, M. (2002). La Lomellina. Retrieved November 09, 2004, from http://www.archeonavale.org/lomellina/ Harris, G. G. (1969). The Trinity House of Deptford 1514-1660. London: Athlone Press, University of London. Howard, F. (1979). Sailing ships of war, 1400 - 1860. Greenwich: Conway Maritime Press. Keith, D. H. (1996). Shipwrecks of the Explorers. In G. F. Bass (Ed.), Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas (45-68). London: Thames & Hudson. Kennard, A. N. (1986). Gunfounding and gunfounders: a directory of cannon founders from earliest times to 1850. London, New York: Arms and Armour Press. Lavanha, J. B. (1610). Livro Primeiro de Architectura Naval. Lisbon. Lovegrove, H. (1964). Remains of two old vessels found at Rye, Sussex. Mariners Mirror, 50(2), 115-122. Luz Alfonso, S., D'intino, R. & Soromenho, M. (1998). Nossa Senhora dos Martires.The Last Voyage. Lisbon. Nayling, N. (2004). Tree-ring analysis of framing timbers from the Princes Channel Wreck, Thames Estuary (Dendrochronology Report 2004/02). Lampeter: University of Wales, HARP. Nelson, A. (2001). The Tudor navy: the ships, men and organisation 1485 - 1603. London: Conway Maritime Press. Oliveira, F. (1580). O Liuro da Fabrica de Naos. Lisbon. Redknap, M. (1984). The Cattewater wreck: the investigation of an armed vessel of the early sixteenth century (131). Oxford, England: Oxbow Books. Redknap, M. (Ed.) (1997). Artefacts from wrecks dated assemblages from the Late Middle Ages to the industrial revolution. Oxford Oxbow. Rodger, N. A. M. (1998-). The safeguard of the sea: a naval history of Britain, 660-1649. New York: W.W. Norton. Roth, R. (1995). The reporting of ordnance: the guns from the Mauritius, a casebook study. In M. Bound (Ed.), The Archaeology of Ships of War (120-130). Oswestry: Anthony Nelson. Steffy, R. (1994). Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Teesdale, E. B. (1991). Gunfounding in the Weald in the sixteenth century (2). London: Royal Armouries.

17

The Mary Rose Trust (2004). The Mary Rose: 2004 Diving Season. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.maryrose.org/ Thomsen, M. H. (2000). The Studland Bay wreck, Dorset, UK: hull analysis. The international journal of nautical archaeology, 29(1), 69-85. Watson, K. & Gale, A. (1990). Site evaluation for marine sites and monuments records: the Yarmouth Roads Wreck investigations. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 19.3(3), 183-192. Watts, G. P. (1993). The Western Ledge Reef wreck: a preliminary report on investigation of the remains of a 16th century shipwreck in Bermuda. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 22.2(2), 103-124. Wessex Archaeology (2003). Princes Channel Wreck, Thames Estuary: Remedial Archaeological Recording (Ref: 54135.01). Salisbury: The Trust for Wessex Archaeology. Wessex Archaeology (2004a). Princes Channel Wreck, Thames Estuary: Evaluation Work: Dendrochronological Dating, Geophysical Survey and Diving Inspection (56472.02). Salisbury: The Trust for Wessex Archaeology. Wessex Archaeology (2004b). Princes Channel Wreck, Thames Estuary: Report of Archaeological Work (Ref: 55011.02). Salisbury: The Trust for Wessex Archaeology. Willan, T. S. (1938). The English Coasting trade 1600-1750. Manchester: Univ. Pr. Willan, T. S. (1968). Studies in Elizabethan foreign trade. New York: Kelley.

18

APPENDIX I: MITIGATION STRATEGY PROJECT DESIGN

19

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY

MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN

Prepared on behalf of: Port of London Authority Bakers Hall 7 Harp Lane London EC3R 6LB

By: Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EB

August 2004

Ref: 57330

copyright The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited 2004, all rights reserved The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited Registered Charity No. 287786

20

PRINCES CHANNEL WRECK, THAMES ESTUARY MITIGATION STRATEGY: PHASE III RECORDING AND RECOVERY

DRAFT PROJECT DESIGN

REF:

57330

1. 1.1. 1.1.1.

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Wessex Archaeology (WA) has been commissioned by the Port of London Authority to mitigate the impacts of dredging operations on an Elizabethan shipwreck located within the Princes Channel. The dredging operations will remove approximately 2m of sediment in the Channel and from the nearby Shivering Sands to enable large shipping traffic to utilise the Thames Estuarys southern approaches to the Port of London. This document comprises a Project Design for the excavation, recording and recovery of the wreck. This Project Design has been informed by the following documents: Charter on the protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage, ratified at the 11th ICOMOS General Assembly, held in Sofia, Bulgaria, 5-9 October 1996; Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation, Institute of Field Archaeologists 1999; Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2) (English Heritage 1991), notably Appendix II; An Archaeological Research Framework for the Greater Thames Estuary (Williams and Brown 1999); Standards and practices in archaeological fieldwork in London, in Greater London Advisory Service Archaeological Guidance Papers; Guidelines for the preparation of excavation archives for long term storage, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC) 1990;

1.1.2. 1.1.3.

21

Waterlogged Wood: Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood, English Heritage; Archaeometallurgy, Centre for Archaeology Guidelines, English Heritage; Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation, Centre for Archaeology Guidelines, English Heritage.

2. 2.1.

OUTLINE OF PREVIOUS FIELDWORK The Princes Channel wreck was discovered during a pre-dredging magnetometer survey in April 2003. An inspection carried out by the Port of London Authority (PLA) Marine Services dive team on 28 May 2003 identified a wooden shipwreck and steel objects. On 18 June 2003 some iron bars were recovered and an attempt was made to disperse the site, but proved unsuccessful. Subsequently, the grab barge Cherry Sand carried out wreck removal operations on 12 July 2003. The recovered material included a large amount of timbers, iron bars, an anchor and a cannon. A diving inspection by the PLA at the end of removal operations suggested that the seabed was clear of obstructions. Navigational dredging operations that were underway in Princes Channel at the time had been excluded from the area of the wreck to avoid damage to dredging equipment. As the seabed appeared to be clear, the exclusion zone was removed and trailer suction dredging occurred in the vicinity. Wessex Archaeology was contacted by PLA on 14 July 2003. A brief inspection was carried out of the recovered material, which noted a possible second cannon among the iron debris. As a result, WA was commissioned to carry out remedial recording of the timbers and iron artefacts, which took place on 14-15 August 2003 (Wessex Archaeology 2003). The timbers were interpreted as being from a vessel of up to 200t burden, with a construction date between 1600 and 1850. The two cannons were dated to the early 16th century and to the 18th century. At this point the PLA believed that the wreck had been completely recovered or dispersed. However, when the PLA survey vessel Verifier carried out a monitoring survey of the dredged channel on 28 October 2003, topographic high spots were noted about 30m from the original obstruction. A diver inspection confirmed the existence of another piece of wooden wreckage. As a result of this discovery, Wessex Archaeology was commissioned to carry out a diver inspection of the wreckage on 6 November 2003. The WA divers observed a piece of hull structure, measuring approximately 6.5m by 3m. A side scan sonar survey undertaken on the same day showed the piece of hull structure, but also further wreckage to the west that probably represented the original site. As the newly discovered section of hull structure was believed to pose a hazard to navigation, the decision was made to recover it. The lifting operation was carried out on 20 November 2003 by PLA staff with Wessex Archaeology in attendance. The hull structure, which came apart in the course of being recovered (Piece One and Piece Two), was stored at Denton Wharf, Gravesend.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

22

2.5.

On 3 December 2003 a Wessex Archaeology dive team conducted a diving inspection of the original wreck site. Two separate sections of ship structure were observed on the seabed. One of the sections was covered in iron artefacts (bars). A fragment of a Spanish olive jar was recovered during the dives. The two recovered pieces of hull structure, Piece One and Piece Two, were recorded by Wessex Archaeology between 19 and 23 January 2004. Elements of the construction observed during the recording process suggested a date of building in the 16th century and a possible Iberian influence upon the construction (Wessex Archaeology 2004). The recovered assemblage consists of some 136 timbers, irons bars, an anchor with wooden stock, a fragment of Spanish Olive jar, a 16th century wrought-iron cannon and a 18th century cast-iron cannon. The assemblage still allowed several interpretations of the wreck. For example, the span in date range of the cannon could be explained by: a late 18th century or early 19th century craft carrying the 16th century cannon as scrap iron; a 16th century wreck, with the 18th century gun being a item possibly lost overboard from a later craft, or a relic of later salvage operations; a 16th century wreck with an 18thearly 19th century wreck in very close proximity.

2.6.

2.7.

2.8.

To add to the possible interpretations, the documentary references to shipping losses in the vicinity include three vessels carrying cargoes of iron dating from the 16th to early 19th centuries. At visit to the PRO, Kew, was undertaken to assess the availability of late 16th century contemporary historical sources to shed light on the identity of the vessel detailed in NMR Ref TR18SE 12. At present time, the wreck remains unidentified. As a consequence of the enigmas still surrounding the wreck and to provide a firm basis for the development of the mitigation strategy, the scientific or absolute dating of the timbers and the further characterisation of the material remaining on the seabed were necessary to complete the evaluation phase. WA proposed a project with three elements to address these matters: dendrochronological dating, undertaken on 6 May 2004; geophysical survey, undertaken on 25 May 2004; diving inspection, undertaken 14 16 June 2004.

2.9.

2.10 2.11

Dendrochronology indicates the date of construction to be shortly after 1574 AD, and the source of the timber to by Eastern England Essex/East Anglia. From the geophysics survey and diving inspection, the overall character of the material remaining on the seabed can be summarised as follows;

23

Area and distribution of surviving Two principal elements Piece Three (6.5m ship structure x 5.6m) and Four (5.6 x 3m) - plus debris trail and outlying material associated with Piece One/Two up to C. 35m east, possibly outlying material 15-12, to south west, and another anomalies up to 50m distant. Depth and character of stratigraphy: Principal structural elements embedded in basal hard grey clay to 20-30cm, with thin layer of fine sands over, No evidence of deep stratified deposits.

Volume and quality of artefactural Ferrous concretion, folded iron bars, ballast evidence: stones, lead strip and possible lead pipe all observed. A fragment of pottery has been recovered. Bricks have been noted by PLA divers. More modern debris has also been reported. Overall volume not thought to be great, but as contemporary, relatively closed assemblage it may be important.

3. 3.1.

OVERVIEW OF INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH The mitigation of impacts for the Princes Channel Wreck site is being approached in a series of phases. Phase I relates to remedial recording of loose timbers, sections of recovered hull structure and artefacts recovered in 2003. Phase II relates to a programme of scientific dating, geophysical survey and diving inspection undertaken in 2004. Project Phase: Phase I: Remedial Recording Phase II: Evaluation Phase III: Excavation and Recovery Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment Phase V: Analysis Phase VI: Treatment of timbers/artefacts Phase VII: Publication Phase VIII: Archiving WA Project Number/Report Reference: 54135, 55011 56472 (report includes projects 56470 and 56471) 57330

24

3.2.

This project design relates to Phase III for which WA has been commissioned by the PLA. AIM AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this project is to mitigate the impacts of dredging activity on the wreck site. The objectives of the Phase III are to; Draft and implement a project design and undertake liaison with curators. Prepare and implement a diver tracking and recording system; Prepare first-aid conservation provision for finds; Complete a baseline survey of the material remaining on the seabed; Excavate and recover dis-articulated/dispersed timbers/artefacts; Excavate and recover wreck deposits, environmental samples, and large structural fragments (Piece Three and Four); At a secure shore side facility, record individual timbers and timber structures using conventional methods (hand tape, camera and recording sheets) and 3D digital survey methods; Collate, process, check and cross-reference the digital and hard copy archive (including diver observations, position fixing, survey measurements, still images, video images, drawings, plans, etc.); Produce an illustrated report of the investigation, including background, aims and objectives, methods, factual results of diving and onshore fieldwork, interim conclusion and recommendations. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK It is important to recognise that whilst primarily designed to mitigate impacts, developer-led archaeology is also regarded as research activity with an academic basis, the aim of which is to add to the sum of human knowledge (English Heritage 1996). Curators (i.e. English Heritage) recognise the desirability of incorporating agreed research priorities as a means of enhancing the credibility of the development control process, ensuring cost-effectiveness and legitimately maximising intellectual return. With specific reference to the Princes Channel Wreck, the assemblage has the potential to add our understanding of many aspects of 16th century maritime life. Clearly it is unrealistic to attempt to tackle all the possible research themes within such a broad subject area. As a consequence of the above, WA has developed a
25

4. 4.1. 4.2.

5. 5.1.

5.2.

matrix of priorities drawing on the three elements of the Research Framework suggested by Olivier (English Heritage 1996). 5.3. Resource Assessment a statement of the current state of knowledge and a description of the archaeological resource. Research Agenda a list of the gaps in that knowledge, of work that could be done, and the potential for the resource to answer questions. Research Strategy a statement setting out priorities and method.

The assistance of the academic liaison group (see Section 12) has been enlisted to focus information gathering to address only key questions and define the rationale for this partial process. In forming the matrix below, WA has endeavoured to encourage and assist researchers to take forward their own research agendas.

5.4.

Research Category Build:

Research Assessment The vessel remains consists of part of the side from amidships forward. There appears to be an Iberian influence on the carvel construction, but built the craft is built of oak from eastern England. Dimensions indicative of a large vessel (30-40m).

Research Agenda Exploring shipbuilding traditions from a period in history where little documentary evidence survives. With special reference to construction methods, sequence of construction, the source of raw materials and their conversion into elements of the whole. To gain insights into the organisation of ship maintenance and repair from the perspectives of what was possible day-to-day on board ship and what may be evidence of repairs conducted at multiple shipyards.

Research Strategy Priority: To gain insights into sources of construction materials, methods of timber conversion, hull construction and repair techniques. Method: Conventional and 3D recording of individual timbers and hull structure.

Use:

The iron bars are thought to be part of cargo, hence the wreck is considered to be of an (armed) merchant vessel. Documentary sources suggest the recovery of lead and tin, with some of the ingots featuring the Royal mark. Known sources of imported iron from the Tudor period include Spain and Sweden (reference supply to armouries at Greenwich). Alternatively, blast furnace smelting was introduced to Britain around 1500AD. Hence if the iron bars were British in origin, they would be early examples of this technique. The only evidence of shipboard

To gain a greater understanding of role of the Thames Estuary as a conduit for ideas and material culture, through the links between maritime communities suggested the assemblage. To gain a greater understanding of trade routes between the Thames to the wider world during a period particularly noted for voyages of exploration to the New World. To gain a greater understanding of early cast-iron working through artefact studies associated of ships cargo. Developing our understanding of 16th century shipboard life

Priority: To gather data relating to the character and nature of the ships cargo and artefacts relating to shipboard life.

Method: Artefact retrieval and analysis.

26

life comes from a fragment of Spanish olive jar. Loss: Although the vessel features various repairs and may have been of some considerable age, the most likely cause of loss would appear foundering after a grounding incident.

from the merchant perspective, rather than that of ships of war. Gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the repair techniques used by 16th century shipbuilders Explore the aids to 16th century navigation and the role of pilots in the Thames Estuary. Priority: To gain a better understanding of the circumstances of loss of this particular vessel. Method: Analysis of evidence of repairs to the hull. Documentary research to identify the wrecking incident and most common causes of loss of other vessels in the same vicinity.

Condition:

The initial video footage of the wreck (PLA) and degradation of the timber ends noted during remedial recording suggests that the site has lain exposed on the seabed and has since been impacted by attempts at dispersal. If vessel is indeed the craft listed by the NMR (TR18SE12) frequent salvage and recovery operations are noted as having been carried on over many years. The main source of information referenced by the NMR appeared in 1835, and it is noted the Deane bothers and Auguste Siebe began patenting their designs for diving helmets in the 1820-30s.

Gain insights into early maritime salvage operations and historical diving technology.

Priority: Explore the impact of the earlier and most recent salvage attempts to unravel the processes of the sites formation. Assess the impact of other processes such as trawling. Method: Recording spatial relationships of dislocated sections of hull and damage to timbers.

Survival:

The nature of the underlying clay and covering sandy deposits appears to have contributed to a very high degree of preservation.

Gain a better understanding of environmental factors that have contributed to sites preservation, and explore where these factors may also be present elsewhere in the estuary.

Priority: Gain a better understanding of environmental factors that have contributed to sites preservation. Method: Environmental sampling.

Investigation:

Whilst the science for long-term conservation of large timber structures remains fraught difficulty, detailed recording remains the only secure way to capture the information that the Princes Channel Wreck assemblage contains. The Phase I Remedial Recording projects have utilised conventional and digital recording methods.

Improving underwater and dryland recording methodologies for development-led archaeology to define the most time and cost effective.

Priority: Assess the use of conventional and 3D digital recording methods in terms of their ability to produce the most complete or comprehensive record. Method: Conventional recording and use of Total Station.

27

6. 6.1. 6.1.1. 6.2. 6.2.1.

PHASE III METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION Phase III will be undertaken in four stages; Diving fieldwork; Onshore recording; Post Processing and Archive Collation; Reporting LEVELS OF RECORDING In its work in various intertidal and marine contexts, Wessex Archaeology has developed a scheme of Recording Levels comparable with Recording Historic Buildings: a descriptive specification (RCHME 1996). Wessex Archaeologys scheme provides for five levels of recording, each with different objectives. It is proposed to adopt level 4 as follows:

Level

Type

Objective

Sublevel

Character

Scope

Recovery

A record sufficient to enable analytical reconstruction and/or reinterpretation of the site, its components and its matrix.

A complete record of all elements of the site in the course of dismantling and/or excavation.

6.3. 6.3.1.

RECORDING SYSTEM WAs Recording System is context based. A running matrix of assigned contexts will be maintained throughout fieldwork. WA will utilise its standard paper system and its context, finds and environmental sampling databases to control allocation of unique IDs for each context, find and sample. WAs recording system has been supplemented by a digital timber recording form based on published conventions (Museum of London 1990; Steffy 1994; English Heritage 1994) and incorporating controlled terminology from MIDAS/Inscription thesauri. An acoustic diver tracking system Sonardyne Scout will be used to provide diver positioning. Scout is an ultra short baseline system developed specifically for shallow water applications. The diver position can be displayed over geo-referenced geophysical data, such as side scan images, so the divers can be directed to previously identified target positions, The integration of a recording database allows real-time recording of diver observations.

6.3.2.

28

6.3.3.

The Diver Tracking System will be prepared with downloads of the results of previous geophysical surveys. The dataset will include the targets highlighted for investigation in Phase II (Wessex Archaeology 2004, report ref. 56472). The survey data will also be used to define sensitive areas/exclusion zones for the mooring of the dive vessel to be passed to the PLA. Underwater Survey and Recording

6.3.4. 6.3.5.

An outline site plan will be established and maintained throughout fieldwork. The outline plan will be related to the matrix of contexts. A network of site datums will be established covering the extents of Piece Three and Four and the debris field to the east of the wreck. A series of supplementary grids may be established over concentrations of scattered material. It is proposed to tag and number all the timbers and visible artefacts prior to commencement of underwater recording. Diver observations will used to define contexts, the underwater associations of contexts to contexts and contexts to objects, and to give an initial assessment of their character and condition. The datums will be used for the rapid recording of the sections of hull structure insitu and excavation of sediments. In this way, should any timbers come loose or be damaged during lifting, their position on the seabed will be known. The Scout system will be utilised to provide the wider world spatial link to the main site datums and any outlying archaeological material. EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY Use of the Airlift

6.3.6. 6.3.7.

6.3.8.

6.3.9. 6.4.

6.4.1.

A thin veneer of sand overlies the contexts of the main timber structures. It is anticipated that hand fanning and an airlift will be used to clear this overburden. Artefact Recovery and Environmental Sampling

6.4.2.

The sampling strategies that will be employed reflect the question of what life was like onboard for 16th century seafarers and provide clues to site formation processes. Four types of sample are anticipated as follows; Samples containing small artefacts and any associated sediments/contexts that may be recovered at the same time because of their close proximity; Samples of contexts likely to ecofacts, such as fish bones, insects, plant remains, etc.; Samples of contexts or sequences of contexts which may allow the burial or sedimentation process of the wreck to be understood;

29

Samples capable of revealing the complex microbiological underwater environment responsible for the degradation of organic and in organic materials to provide a baseline for future monitoring of the timbers. At present time, because of the short diving opportunity that is available, it is proposed to recover only items which are likely to be contemporary with the wreck and implement of policy of 100% retention. The presence of objects from different periods will, however, be noted on context records. This policy will be kept under review as the excavation proceeds, particularly with regard to bulk finds (e.g. ballast stones) where a sampling strategy may be implemented. No apparently contemporary finds will be discarded without the prior approval of the EH Maritime Team, Receiver of Wreck and the PLA. PLA and WA divers have reported pottery scatters, bricks, iron bars, concreted iron objects, strips of lead, and a lead pipe. As a consequence of these observations, advice has been sort from The Conservation Centre, Salisbury, on the appropriate first aid treatments for these predicted finds types and materials. In the event of the discovery of human remains, disturbance will cease immediately and all subsequent activities in the area will be carried out with due care and attention to decency. A licence will be sought from the Home Office to remove the remains under the terms of the Burials Act 1857. Finds will be exposed, lifted, primarily conserved, bagged and boxed in accordance with guidelines set out in the United Kingdom Institute for Conservations Conservation Guidelines No2; the Museum of Londons Standard for the Preparation of Finds to be permanently retained by the Museum of London and First Aid for Underwater Finds (Robinson 1998). It is noted that materials can be divided into classes in terms of their relative stability, for example;

6.4.3.

6.4.4. 6.4.5.

6.4.6.

6.4.7.

6.4.8.

Classification

Material finds

Immediate or Short-term storage solution

Class 1: highly unstable Class 2: fairly unstable

Dye material, paper, leather, textiles Concretions, iron

Requiring immediate active conservation by a professional conservator. Material must be kept wet at all times in fresh water with PH adjusted to 10-12 with sodium hydroxide. Material must be kept wet at all times, and cold storage is required.

Class 3: moderately stable

Wood, copper, bronze, lead, pewter

30

Class 4: long term stable

Bone, glass, silver, gold, ceramics

Material to be kept wet and advice to be sort on desalination

6.4.9.

WA will implement passive conservation pending more detailed conservation strategies being developed for individual items. Highly unstable items will be transferred immediately after retrieval to The Conservation Centre, Salisbury. Provision has been made for a professional conservator to visit and review the temporary holding facilities developed on board the diving vessel, at the temporary project base at Whitstable Harbour and at WAs Head Office, Salisbury.

6.4.10. At present time, it is difficult to specify the likely percentage of the overall contents of the hull structure that will be sampled. A high priority will be given to sampling anaerobic deposits where organic materials may be preserved. Sample size will take into account the frequency at which the material occurs. The sampling strategy will be kept under close review by WAs Environmental Archaeologist. Recovery of the Large Structural Sections of Hull Timbers 6.4.11. The recovery of the Piece Three and Piece Four will be undertaken by the Port of London Authority with WA staff in attendance. Special consideration will be given to providing additional support to the structures, and to the use of spreaders in the stropping to avoid crushing the structure. It is anticipated the two sections of hull will be covered to reduce light levels and placed in a partially flooded barge acting as a passive holding tank until recovery to the quayside at Denton for the Onshore Fieldwork. 7. ONSHORE FIELDWORK Conventional Recording 7.1. Sketch and scale drawings (at suitable scales, but primarily 1:10) will be used to record details of the main structures and any loose timbers. An interpretative framing plan will also be produced. Detailed descriptions of each timber will be completed to include its associations to other timbers and method of joinery, toolmarks, etc. These will be added to the initial observations made underwater and collated via the electronic timber recording form that is part of the WAs diver recording system. Total Station Recording 7.3. The baseline survey of the hull sections will be undertaken using a Leica, TCR 705 reflectorless Electronic Distance Measurer (EDM). The survey data will be reviewed and assembled on site using a laptop computer running AutoCAD 14.1 and TheoLt 2.1 software allowing real time drawing and visualisation. The fastenings and component timbers of Piece Three and Piece Four will be recorded on an individual basis and assigned to different layers within AutoCAD. Loose timbers will also be recorded on an individual basis. Reference points will be
31

7.2.

7.4.

located on the edges of each section of hull to enable the drawings of the inside and outside of the hull sections to be linked together within AutoCAD to produce a 3D model. By adopting this methodology, loose timbers can be potentially re-united with the hull sections in their original positions within the CAD drawing. 8. POST- FIELDWORK PROCESSING Collation of Archive 8.1. All paper recording forms, plans, sketches, video footage, digital still, databases, etc. will be collated according to professional standards for finds analysis, environmental sampling and archive preparation, and in accordance with the Institute of Field Archaeologists' Standard and Guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials. It is envisaged that WA context, finds and environmental sampling databases will contain all the information from the paper records and serve as a quick, searchable interface with the data. CAD Modelling 8.3. The post processing of the total station data will include the development of a CAD model to help assess the construction sequence of the vessel. Photomosaics may be utilised to render the wire-frame surfaces of key diagnostic timbers to enable the colour, texture, and details such as tool and scrive marks to be viewed in 3D. Finds Processing 8.4. It is envisaged that much of the initial finds processing with be undertaken in the time between dives onboard the PLAs diving vessel. Digital video footage and/or digital stills will be taken of each item as soon after recovery as possible Onboard and during post-fieldwork processing, the paper records will be consolidated with entries in WAs Finds and Environmental Sampling database cross linked to the digital stills and grabs from the video footage. Following advice from the Conservation Centre, Salisbury, more robust materials such as pottery, stone shot and ballast, will be allowed to dry naturally. An assessment will be undertaken of the items to be taken forward to the Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment and for priority conservation treatment. Environmental Sample Processing 8.6. A pre-processing assessment will undertaken to relate the environmental samples to the research questions and priorities, and to help define which samples will taken forward into Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment. Liaison will be undertaken between WAs Finds Section and Environmental Section to assess the best way to approach samples that also contain small finds.

8.2.

8.5.

8.7.

32

9. 4.5.1 9.1.

REPORTING The results of the Phase III will be compiled as draft illustrated report and include; a non-technical summary; introduction; methodology; statement of results; conclusion and discussion of any new interpretation of the wreck material, including confidence rating; recommendations for Phase IV; supporting illustrations; appendices of supporting data; index and location of archive; references. Four copies of the report will be sent to the Environmental Advisor, Port of London Authority. COLLABORATION Academic Group

10.

10.1.

WA is developing a small academic working group to assist with the development of research priorities for the wreck assemblage. The following members are proposed to draw on their experiences of working on wreck sites of similar date and origin, or with a particular geographical interest in the Thames Estuary and Port of London.

Name Dr Gustav Milne Dr Jonathan Adams Dr Peter Marsden Dr Mark Redknap

Institution University of London University of Southampton Hastings Shipwreck Museum National Museum of Wales

33

Maintaining an overview of the total archaeological resource 10.2. WA will liase with the Nautical Archaeology Society, who are currently curating the previously recovered sections of ship structure, and with the Royal Armouries, Portsmouth, who accessioned the recovered cannons to their collections on 14th June 2004. Dissemination during Phase III 10.3. Wessex Archaeology will inform the Port of London of any request by the national and technical press or the broadcasting media for any information or interviews on any matter concerned with the project, and will not provide such information or interviews without prior written consent from Port of London. Consideration will be given to developing a short Open House event to allow PLA staff, and other interested groups and individuals to view the shore side recording work. A short note for the newsletter of the Nautical Archaeology Society will also be prepared. OWNERSHIP OF THE WRECK AND ASSOCIATED ARTEFACTS WA will supply the Port of London Authority with a listing of all recovered artefacts and timbers to be passed onto the Receiver of Wreck in fulfilment of the conditions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1994. The Port of London Authority will retain all salvage rights. SUBSEQUENT PHASES PHASE IV: POST EXCAVATION ASSESSMENT

10.4.

11. 11.1.

12. 12.1.

12.1.1. Following fieldwork, a review of the academic and archaeological objectives will be undertaken with the assistance of the academic group and external consultants. This review will be used to inform the draft Post Excavation Strategy to ensure that an appropriate selection of material is retained for analysis and conservation treatment. The review will establish feed a strategy for future publication and the deposition of the archive. 12.1.2. The report of the Review will be compiled in the following way; Introduction Scope of assemblage Original research aims Interim statement on the results of fieldwork Summary of site archive and work carried out for assessment

34

 12.2.

Potential of data Summary of potential in terms of national, regional and international importance Data Structure lists of data, plans, photographs, small finds, etc Outline Post-Excavation Project Design and Costing

PHASE V: POST EXCAVATION ANALYSIS

12.2.1. Although it is difficult to pre-define the final recovered assemblage, it is possible that the following Phase V may include the following elements; 12.3. Analytical timer recording and further processing and analysis of data relating to the ships structure; Inter-site comparison Metallurgical analysis of iron bar cargo and specialist reporting; Environmental sample processing and specialist reporting; Specialist finds analysis and reporting; Documentary research to try to identify the wreck; Report drawing together the results of more detailed analysis

PHASE VI: CONSERVATION TREATMENT OF ARTEFACTS AND TIMBERS

12.3.1. Dependent on whether material conservation of the timbers and artefacts is to be carried out, WA will undertake to work with curatorial staff and other interested parties to review options for long term conservation of the archaeological recourse. These options include the following; 1) Museum accession and conservation; 2) Accession to the teaching collections of an educational establishment; 3) Assemblage reburial in a salt water environment; Horsea Lake as a further development of the underwater training site for the Nautical Archaeology Society; North Edinburgh Channel within the dredging disposal location and the wreck material to be recovered with dredged spoil from the Princes Channel. A programme of monitoring by geophysical survey and periodic small scale excavation and sampling to check condition and stability might be undertaken; Within the designated area of the South Edinburgh Channel Wreck this option would give the site a degree of protection and ensure periodic
35

monitoring by the diving archaeologists. A trial of reburial techniques could be combined with a programme of periodic small-scale excavation and sampling to check condition and stability 4) Appropriate permanent disposal. 12.4. PHASE VII: PUBLICATION

12.4.1. The publication phase includes the preparation of text and illustrations suitable for publication. For the maritime archaeological community, the key journal is likely to be International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. More general archaeological alternatives include Current Archaeology or the newsletter of the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) and a note in the London Archaeologist excavation round-up. A WWW site to be hosted by WA and/or PLA can provide a quick way of releasing results into the public domain. WA will review these and other options in Phase IV: Post Excavation Assessment. 12.5. PHASE VIII: DEPOSITION OF ARCHIVE

12.5.1. Permission will be sort from the Port of London Authority to deposit the paper and digital project archive with a suitable repository (usually a registered museum). Summary data from the site archive will be submitted to the O.A.S.I.S. II (Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS). Confidential Client data will not be submitted to the O.A.S.I.S. project. 13. 13.1. STAFFING PROJECT TEAM

13.1.1. The Project Team will comprise the following staff: Core Team Head of Coastal and Marine Projects Project Manager Project Manager (Diving Operations) Project Staff Dr. Antony Firth Deanna Groom Steve Webster Jens Auer Nigel Nayling Frank Mallon Hanna Steyne Rex Bratenger Illustrator Kitty Brandon
36

Specialists Environmental archaeology Finds Dr. Mike Allen Rachel Seager Smith

13.1.2. Additionally, Wessex Archaeology routinely engages the services of a range of specialists whose services would be available to this project, as follows:

Archaeobotany Insects Wood working techniques Timber Recording and Identification Pollen Diatoms Forams and ostracods Molluscs Conservator

Dr. Alan Clapham or Dr. Michael Field Dr. Mark Robinson or Dr. David Smith Damian Goodburn Nigel Nayling Dr. Rob Scaife Dr. Nigel Cameron or Dr. Richard Battarbee Dr. Robin Edwards or Dr. Simon Haslitt Dr. Michael Allen or Dr. Martin Bates Louise Burden (The Conservation Centre, Salisbury)

13.1.3. All nominated staff will be appropriately qualified and experienced for their project role. Wessex Archaeology reserves the right to vary project staff according to the operational demands of its overall programme. Career profiles of project staff can be provided on request. 13.1.4. Briefings have been undertaken with WAs Finds Manager and Environmental Archaeologist Manager to set in place the methodologies for environmental sampling, finds recording and first aid conservation measures. External consultancy has been obtained from Nigel Nayling to refine recording priorities and methodologies. 13.2. TEAM STRUCTURE, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

13.2.1. The Project Manager will retain overall responsibility for the project. All communication between Wessex Archaeology and PLA will be directed through the Project Manager in the first instance. The Project Manager will also serve as the

37

main point of contact between the project and broader issues arising from its management. 13.3. MONITORING

13.3.1. Within Wessex Archaeology, the Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the project runs to schedule, reporting formally by way of monthly Project Review Notes to the Assistant Director (Operations). The Project Manager will track key resources (notably staff time) on the basis of weekly Work Records. 13.3.2. The Project Manager will monitor fieldwork and results by daily telephone calls from the Project Officer and by reports compiled from the recording system. 13.3.3. Fieldwork will be subject to regular site visits by the Project Manager, Project Manager (Diving Operations) and Head of Coastal and Marine projects. 13.4. STANDARDS

13.4.1. Wessex Archaeology has a formal system for assuring the quality of archaeological data and interpretations, headed by the Chief Executive. 13.4.2. The standard of fieldwork and post-fieldwork activities is set out in Wessex Archaeologys series of guidelines, including the Fieldwork Recording Manual, Data Level Guidelines, and the Environmental Departments Processing Manuals. 13.4.3. Wessex Archaeology is registered as an archaeological organisation with the Institute of Field Archaeologists. Wessex Archaeology fully endorses The Code of Conduct and The Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology of The Institute of Field Archaeologists. 14. 14.1. 14.2. HEALTH AND SAFETY The project is subject to Wessex Archaeologys Company Policy on Health and Safety (dated 6 June 2002). Copies are available on request. Wessex Archaeologys general approach to health and safety is set out in its Health and Safety Policy. The structure of responsibility, which refers to the roles of the Health and Safety Co-ordinator and the Health and Safety Consultants, is set out in Section 1. Risk assessment and measures to minimise those risks are developed to reflect the elements of each individual project. In this instance, the PLA is the Diving Contractor. Wessex Archaeology will abide by the diving project plan and risk assessments devised by the PLA, supplemented by WAs own risk assessments. A separate risk assessment will be generated for the onshore recording. Wessex Archaeology has both liability and professional indemnity insurance. Full details of Wessex Archaeology's insurance cover will be supplied on request.

14.3.

14.4.

38

15. 15.1.

TIMESCALE Phase IIIs diving fieldwork is expected to comprise two 10-day sessions starting on the 16th August and 31 August 2004 respectively. The onshore fieldwork is expected to take 15 days from the 20th September 2004. A task list and gantt chart is attached in Appendix I. COPYRIGHT Wessex Archaeology retains full copyright of documents, drawings and photographs prepared in the course of the project, except where copyright of original material is vested in the institution from which the material was obtained. A licence will be agreed between the Port of London Authority for use of material arising from the project. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

16. 16.1.

16.2.

This Project Design has been prepared by Deanna Groom with assistance from Steve Webster, Jens Auer, Mat Rous, Gareth Owen and Nigel Nayling. Quality assurance was supplied by Antony Firth, Head of Coastal and Marine Projects.

BIBLIOGRAPHY English Heritage, Waterlogged Wood: Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood. Olivier, A, 1996, Frameworks for Our Past: A review of research frameworks, strategies and perceptions, English Heritage Spence C., (ed) 1990, Archaeological Site Manual, Dept. of Urban Archaeology Museum of London. Steffy, Richard J, 1994, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks, Texas A & M University Press. Williams, J. and Brown, N., (ed) 1999, An Archaeological Research Framework for the Greater Thames Estuary.

39

APPENDIX I: TASK LIST AND GANT CHART

40

ID 1 4 days 1 day 1 day 2 days 1 day 1 day 5 days 1 day 2 days 1 day 1 day 24 days 1 day 4 days 2 days 7 days 3 days 2 days 2 days 1 day 15 days 15 days 15 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 13 days 10 days 1 day 2 days

Task Name Preparation

26 Jul '04 02 Aug '04 09 Aug '04 16 Aug '04 23 Aug '04 30 Aug '04 Duration M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T 10 days

Project design

Liaison

Risk Assessment

Work Programme

Equipment

Team Training and Consultancy

Preparation

Training

10

Recording System

11

Prep Finds Reception

12

Prep Diving Equipment

13

Diving Fieldwork

14

Mobilisation

15

Diver-based outline survey of remains in situ

16

Recovery of disarticulated/dispersed timbers/artefacts

17

Excavation, recording and recovery of wreck deposits

18

Recording of exposed wreck structure

19

Recovery of large structural fragments

20

Disassembly and recovery of remaining structures

21

Demobilisation

22

Onshore Fieldwork

23

Total Station

24

Manual Recording

25

Data Processing

26

Collation of Archive

27

CAD Modelling

28

Finds Processing

29

Reporting

30

Draft Report and Resource Assessment

31

Dissemination

32

Quality Assurance

06 Sep '04 13 Sep '04 20 Sep '04 27 Sep '04 04 Oct '04 11 Oct '04 18 Oct '04 25 Oct '04 01 Nov '04 08 Nov '04 F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T

APPENDIX II: DIVING UNDERTAKEN

Date 17.08.04 17.08.04 22.08.04 22.08.04 23.08.04 28.08.04 28.08.04 29.08.04 31.08.04 01.09.04 01.09.04 02.09.04 02.09.04 03.09.04 04.09.04 04.09.04 05.09.04 05.09.04 29.09.04 29.09.04 30.09.04 30.09.04 01.10.04 01.10.04 07.10.04 08.10.04 15.10.04 15.10.04 16.10.04 19.10.04 Max Bottom Time/ min 60 44 95 57 127 106 105 81 97 88 81 59 73 82 98 81 107 74 94 105 86 83 125 91 180 170 120 120 110 120 Divers FM RB JA/ NN JA/ NN RB/ FM JA/ NN JA/ NN RB/ FM JA/ NN RB/ FM RB JA/ NN JA/ RB RB/ FM JA/ NN JA/ NN RB/ FM RB/ FM JA/ NN RB/ NN RB/ FM RB/ FM JA/ NN JA/ NN KL RB/ FM JA/ RB JA/ RB RB/ FM PS Main tasks undertaken Orientation piece 3, establish datum system Search for piece 4 Search for piece 4, tagging and recording piece 3 Establish datum system on and around piece 3 Search for piece 4 and tagging piece 4, tagging and recording piece 3 Tagging and recording of piece 3 and 4 Tagging and recording of piece 3 and 4 Tagging and recording of piece 3, search for piece 4 Search for piece 4 Removal of concretion from piece 3 Preparing piece 4 for lifting Lifting piece 4 Removal of concretion from piece 3 Recovery of cannon 28 and other disarticulated finds Removal of concretion from piece 3 Removal of concretion from piece 3 Removal of concretion from piece 3 Removal of concretion from piece 3 Survey of piece 3a, after it was moved on the seabed Preparing piece 3a for lifting, establish of new datum system on site Preparing piece 3a for lifting, airlifting on piece 3b, then lift of piece 3a Airlifting on piece 3b, recovery of disarticulated finds Airlifting on piece 3b Airlifting on piece 3b, recovery of disarticulated finds Preparing piece 3b for lifting Search for disarticulated finds, re-establish datum system Search for disarticulated finds Search for disarticulated finds Search for disarticulated finds Lifting cannon 201 and surrounding concretion, circular searches

Names: FM= Frank Mallon; JA= Jens Auer; KL= Kevin Leadbetter; NN= Nigel Nayling; PS= Peter Semple; RB= Rex Bangerter

43

APPENDIX III: LIST OF GENERAL CONTEXTS

ContextID 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 150 127 SiteSub Surr. Piece 3 Surr. Piece 3 Surr. Piece 3 Surr. Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Disarticulated Under Piece 3 Description RecBy Area of seabed north of part 3 JA Area of seabed east of part 3 JA Area of seabed south of Piece 3 JA Area of seabed west of Piece 3 JA Concretion on Piece 3 JA Sediment in gap between 1501 and 1163 JA Sediment in gap between frames 1163 ad 1502 JA Sediment in gap between 1502 and 1503 JA Sediment in gap between 1503 and 1504 JA Sediment in gap between 1504 and 1505 JA Sediment in gap between 1505 to 1506/ 1507 JA Sediment in gap between 1506/ 1507 to 1508 JA Sediment in gap between 1508 and 1141 JA Sediment in gap between 1141 to 1184 JA Sediment between 1164 and 1165 JA Sediment in gap between 1165 and 1166/ 1167 JA Sediment in gap between 1166/ 1167 and 1168/ 1169 JA Sediment in gap between 1168/ 1169 and 1170/ 1171 JA Sediment in gap between 1170/ 1171 and 1172/ 1173 JA Sediment in gap between 1172/ 1173 and 1174 JA Sediment in gap between 1174 and 1175 JA Sediment in gap between 1175 and 1176/ 1177 JA Sediment in gap between 1176/ 1177 and 1178/ 1179 JA Sediment in gap between 1178/1179 and 1204 JA Sediment on ceiling planks piece 3, east of concretion JA Sediment on ceiling planks Piece 3, west of concretion JA Sediment under concretion 104 JA Disarticulated finds from previous diving/ grabbing JA operations (2003) Deposit underneath Piece 3, excavated after lifting JA RecDate 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 17-Sep-04 10-Nov-04 10-Nov-04

48

APPENDIX IV: LIST OF FINDS

Object Layer number 10 105 11 12 13 100 100 100 Material type IRON WOOD CONCRETION CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL LEAD ALLOY LEAD Type of object BAR BARREL STAVE CONCRETION BRICK Count 1 1 1 1 Description Bar from north west of Piece 3. Western end located in gasp between frames 1501 and 1163 Underneath outer plank 1201. Length 325mm x maximum width 95mm x depth 20mm Length 200mm x width 100mm x thickness 50mm Piece of brick

14 15

100 101

CANDLESTICK SHEET

1 1

16

124

LEAD

INGOT

17 18 19 20

104 104 101 100

IRON IRON IRON CONCRETION

BAR BAR BAR CONCRETION

1 1 1 1

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

100 104 104 104 100 100 100 101

STONE IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON

BALLAST STONE 1 BAR 1 BAR BAR CONCRETION PIN CONCRETION CANNON 1 1 1 1 1 1

29 30 31

100 104 126

IRON IRON POTTERY

CONCRETION BAR FRAGMENT

1 1 1

20m NNE of Piece 3; Length 75mm x Diameter of base 65mm x width of stem 40mm Located just E of 1177; Lead sheathing with nail holes and nail head impressions around edge; Length120mm x width 100mm: 10 nail holes, square with diameter 1-2 mm Located on plank 1182/1181; Oval lead ingot with three identical stamp marks, initials EB; Length 610mm x width 220mm x thickness 120mm Concreted iron bar; Length 1690mm x width 350mm x thickness 350mm Complete folded concreted iron bar Length 1970mm x width 80mm x thickness 30mm 15m SE of NE corner of Piece 3; concreted iron bars 5500mm and 6100mm due N of Piece 3; large concretion containing possible flintlock, pewter spoon and other material? 17m N of Piece 3 Located loose on northern end of context 104. Concreted iron bar; Length 1970mm. Located loose on northern end of context 104; Length 1830mm. Attached to CP 1208; Length 1870mm Located 3m NE of NE corner of Piece 3; concreted iron with metal strop Located 5.1m from NE corner of Piece 3; Length 320mm x width 30mm Located 5.1m N of NE corner of Piece 3, close to find 29; concreted iron Located next to eastern sinker; Cast iron cannon, complete, inscribed with initials T G, calibre mark/weight 8-0-0, with grasshopper coat of arms, made by Thomas Gresham between 1567 and 1579 in Mayfield, Sussex, poss. Minion. Length 1980mm, Cascabel length 220mm, depth base ring 300mm, depth muzzle face 160mm, bore 760mm. Large piece of concretion Small iron bar, bent in middle Length 1000mm Red earthenware tile fragment Length 80mm x Width 50mm

49

32

126

WOOD

FRAGMENT

33

101

OTHER METAL INGOT

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

119 126 126 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 101 101 101 101 126 104 104 106 104 124 104 104 104 104 104 104 124 101 125 124 100 100

POTTERY LEATHER COPPER ALLOY IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON LEATHER IRON IRON GLASS IRON LEAD IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION IRON CONCRETION STONE STONE

FRAGMENT SHOE FRAGMENT BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR SHOE BAR BAR FRAGMENT BAR FRAGMENT BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION BAR CONCRETION

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1

Small worked, chamfered woods fragment (handle?); Length 90mm x Width 260mm x thickness 18mm Located 0.5m due east of frame 1179; tin ingot; Length 520mm x width 180mm x thickness 16mm Brown salt-glazed stoneware fragment from jug or bottle Remains of sole from leather shoe Small fragment of copper, recovered from sieving of airlifted sediment

Iron bar with clear hammer marks

Located east of frame 1179 Located beside 50, first piece of two, second piece 53 Second piece of 52/53 Double iron bar, located off frame 1204, parallel to OP in area Piece of leather shoesole, stuck to bottom of

Base fragment from straight sided glass bottle, deep dimple; diameter of base 850mm Lead fragment from ceiling plank 124, adjacent to 126, recovered during airlifting Very good state of preservation

Small concretion on wood with iron bolt Pieces of concretion from 124 Located east of 1172; oval shaped concreted iron and stone Identical to iron bar 10, 10 broke during recovery Located 1.4m from frame 1179; loose concretion from ceiling plank on east side Located 20cm N of ceiling plank 1189; ballast stone Located 30cm N of ceiling plank 1189, ballast

BALLAST STONE 1 BALLAST STONE 1

50

stone 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 101 101 111 100 103 IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON IRON LEATHER BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR BAR FRAGMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Folded iron bar with rectangular profile (type 2)

OTHER METAL INGOT WOOD CONCRETION LEAD FRAGMENT CONCRETION INGOT

85

103

LEAD

INGOT

86 87

103 103

CONCRETION CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL LEATHER LEAD CONCRETION

CONCRETION BRICK

1 1

Part of leather garment (jerkin, sleeve?), one main piece and three smaller fragments Small tin ingot, bent in two places, chamfered along sides, 590mm long Small sawn oak wedge Impression of ornamented metal object (strap?) in concretion Lead ingot, stamped, from area west of Piece 3. Length 590mm, width 190mm, thickness 950mm. Lead ingot, stamped from area west of Piece 3, but heavily concreted. Length 510mm, width 200mm, thickness 110mm Concretion, which contains pewter object, possible candlestick holder Length 220mm, width 100mm, thickness 53mm

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

127 101 101 101 127 127 101 127 103 103 102

SHOE PIPE CONCRETION

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Leather shoe in concretion Lead pipe, external diameter 42mm L-shaped iron concretion Fragment of tin ingot. Length 35mm, width 1216mm, thickness 10mm Fragment of concreted iron bar. Length 1120mm, width 80mm, thickness 40mm. Large concretion Length 590mm, maximum width 300mm Concretion. length 180mm, width 140mm Concretion. Length 220mm, width180mm Concretion. Length 140mm, width 120mm Concretion. Length 240mm, width 120mm Possible part of gun carriage made from elm, with iron fastenings and concreted round object on top, found close to 201 Concretion from area around 201 Concretion from area around 201 Concreted cast iron cannon. Length 2.15m Concretion. Length 400mm, width160mm Concretion. Length 550cm, width 390mm Pikeshaft, octagonal and concreted pike head from iron

OTHER METAL INGOT IRON CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION WOOD BAR CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION

GUN CARRIAGE 1

99 200 201 202 203 204

102 102 102 102 102 125

CONCRETION CONCRETION IRON CONCRETION CONCRETION WOOD

CONCRETION CONCRETION CANNON CONCRETION CONCRETION PIKE

1 1 1 1 1 1

51

205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220

125 125 125 101 102 102 102 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

LEATHER LEATHER WOOD

SHOE SHOE FRAGMENT

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OTHER METAL JUG CONCRETION IRON FIBRE?TEXTIL E IRON OTHER METAL CONCRETION BOLT ROPE ANCHOR INGOT

Sole of leather shoe, concreted to 204 Part of leather shoe insole, found underneath 205 Small wood fragment found in tar substance on gunport sill 3008 Fragment of bronze vessel, found as stray find on 26 October 2004 Concretion from area around 201 Concreted iron bolt from concretion around 201 piece of thin rope from concretion around 201 Anchor recovered by grab, now in Horsea lake Tin ingot, recovered by grab, held at WA Tin ingot, recovered by grab, held at WA, currently with British Museum Fragment of Spanish olive jar, recovered by WA divers on 3 December 2004. Concretion with rope, recovered by grab, held at WA Concretion with rope, recovered by grab, held at WA Concretion with rope, recovered by grab, held at WA Cast iron cannon, recovered by grab, held at the Royal Armouries Wrought iron cannon, recovered by grab, held at the Royal Armouries

OTHER METAL INGOT POTTERY CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION IRON IRON FRAGMENT CONCRETION CONCRETION CONCRETION CANNON CANNON

52

APPENDIX V: LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES

Number Layer 1 126 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 126 104 104 101 1602 1619 0 1616 1616 1616 110 127 125 125 125 102 102 102 Processed? Material No Brushwood, poss. dunnage No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Sediment, sand Pebbles from concretion Sand, poss. Organic content Slag from concretion Caulking/ luting in 1602 rabbet Caulking strand Question to be answered Type, composition, pollen, origin? Composition, pollen? Material, origin?, possible shingle ballast Composition, pollen? Composition, material? Association

around find 35 50cm east 0f 1179 betw. 1618, 1619

Composition, pollen? Composition, pollen, different from luting? Surface covering piece 4, STB Composition? side, appl. w. brush Caulking/ Luting Garboard strake Composition, difference 1st strand other strands? See 009, 2nd strand See 009 See 009, 3rd strand See 009 Slag Type, material Slag Providence of Iron? Substance on 3008 Composition? Paint/ varnish Composition? Organic substance woodchips Piece of rope Textile material Textile material with Composition? pollen? Composition? Composition? Composition

on 3008 inside of Piece 3b between 1508 and 3044 in concretion 201 in concretion 201 in concretion 201

53

APPENDIX VI: LIST OF TIMBERS BY STRUCTURE SUB DIVISION Piece 1

ContextID 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 SiteSub Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Piece 1 Type Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Sub Type Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Wood Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Condition

Large crack in plank Gap between 1008 and 1007, because 1007 has been pulled away during lifting Dried out, fresh breaks after turning piece Very dried out, a number of cracks

Very loosely attached to Piece 1

Covered in marine growth

Marine growth on top along whole length

Piece 2
ContextID SiteSub 1029 Piece 2 1030 Piece 2 1031 Piece 2 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Type Wale Plank Filling Piece Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame Frame Frame Sub Type Wood Oak Oak Pine Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Condition Slight damage during turning Split in plank

Part of the other end is broken off

Fell off main piece during turn Large crack and break in the middle. Broke during turning above 1060

54

1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1064 1065 1066 1067

Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2 Piece 2

Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Beam Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Stringer

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Eroded

Heavily eroded on top side Broken at both ends.

Piece 3
ContextID 1063 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 SiteSub Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Type Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Sub Type Wood Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Condition Heavily eroded on top A lot of marine boring damage to heel

Double Frame

Double Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame Double Frame Filling Frame

Extensive marine boring damage at frame heel, eroded at head Recent damage at both ends Good, hood end intact, heel is eroded

Poor, eroded heel and large break from knot Head end good, heel very gribbled Eroded Eroded at heel end Poor where visible Very eroded heel end A lot of marine boring damage at heel Marine boring damage at heel

55

1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1200 1201 1203 1204 1213 1214 1216 1217 1219 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1158 1159 1162 1182 1199 1509 1512 1513 1516 2000 2001

Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3 Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a

Frame Frame Frame Plank Plank Plank Frame Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Clamp Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame

Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Outer Carvel Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Half Beam Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Ceiling Filling Frame Ceiling Ceiling

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

A lot of marine boring damage to heel end, head has fresh? Break Good overall, head broken, heel eroded Very eroded

Eastern edge broken

Recent damage otherwise good Broken several components

Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Ceiling Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Filling Frame Filling Frame

Good Eroded one end and some marine growth

56

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1202 3001 3002 3003 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035

Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3a Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b

Plank Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Repair Filling Piece Plank Plank Repair Repair Wale Plank Wale Plank Plank Plank Wale Ledge Ledge Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Repair Repair Frame Frame Frame Stringer Frame Plank Plank Clamp Waterway Waterway Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame

Outer Carvel

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Broken in centre down to large number of knots Fresh break at heel end, eroded at head Good, broken at both ends Good, head intact, heel broken Fresh break at head, marine boring damage at heel Old, eroded break at head Good, heel intact, head broken Good overall, heel intact, head broken Good Good, heel eroded, head broken Good, complete Very good condition, complete, a little recent damage near the frame head Eroded, marine growth Fragmentary Good, both ends intact

Filling Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame Double Frame

Outer Carvel

Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel

One end very eroded

Good

Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel

Ceiling Plank Ceiling Plank Half Beam

57

3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3047 3048 3049

Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b Piece 3b

Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Piece 4
contented sites 1601 Piece 4 1602 1603 1604 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1609 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Piece 4 Type Frame Stem Frame Frame Plank Plank Keel Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Filling Piece Stemson Filling Piece Filling Piece Filling Piece Plank Filling Piece Apron Sub Type Wood Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Condition Good, but piddock damage and slight erosion

Outer Carvel Outer Carvel

Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel Outer Carvel

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Heavy boring damage and marine growth Surface eroded and gribbled Surface eroded and gribbled Very gribbled and eroded, in parts only half preserved Surface gribbled Surface gribbled and eroded Surface and end gribbled and eroded Surface gribbled, eroded Good Good Good Good Good Good Heavily damaged by grab? Surface gribbled, end broken Good Good Good Eroded Good Heavily damaged Damaged Heel end boring damage and erosion

Outer Carvel

Oak Oak Oak

58

Loose Timbers
ContextID SiteSub 1012 Loose timbers, of piece1 1068 Loose timbers 1069 Loose timbers 1070 Loose timbers 1071 Loose timbers 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1215 1218 1220 1221 Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers, of Piece 3 Loose timbers, of Piece 3 Loose timbers, of Piece 3 Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Loose timbers Type Plank Frame Frame Frame Plank Plank Plank Frame Plank Frame Stringer Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame Stringer Plank Plank Plank Plank Plank Frame Frame Frame Plank Ceiling Ceiling Sub Type Wood Ceiling Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Poor Heavily damaged Heavily damaged Heavy piddock damage Fragmentary Heavily fragmented Condition Very dried out, came off inside Piece 1 when turning

Outer Carvel

Very eroded on the outside Large crack down the middle otherwise in good condition. Plank fragment broken on 3 sides Broken on one side and end Heavily gribbled at upper end

59

Tug Impulse, used as diving platform

Diving equipment on Impulse Wessex Archaeology

Date: Path: 15/11/04 Illustrator: KJB

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing Office\Report Figures\04_11_12\Figure 2.cdr

Figure 2

Piece 4

21

14

Piece 3b

Piece 3a

208

20 86 84 85 87 13 26 29 27

Piece 4

D03

D01

25

90

83 207 10 69 58 71

12

11 93

72 22

Piece 3b
96 97

23 24

89

35 82 206 204 205 31 80 81 32 55 91 94 36 16 15 50 52 53 33 60 67 34

Piece 3a
68

D05
95

D06 88

70

Datum point Cannon Area of iron bars Iron finds Concretions Other metal finds Stone finds Ceramic finds Glass finds Leather finds Rope Wooden finds
203 98 92 54

Piece 2
Downriver sinker 28

Piece 1
99 201 211 210 200 202 209 19

This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

5m

Date: Scale: (approx) Path:

23/11/04 1:100 (inset 1:200)

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB

Wessex Archaeology

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\...\04_11_12\Figure 3.dwg

Site plan of wreck site, including underwater drawing of piece 3 in situ, estimated position of pieces 1, 2 and 4 and all measured smallfinds Inset: Sidescan image of Site captured 25th May 2004

Figure 3

Lifting of iron bars

Lifting of piece 4 with the PLA salvage craft Hookness

Wessex Archaeology

Date: Path:

15/11/04

Illustrator:

KJB

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing Office\Report Figures\04_11_12\Figure 4.cdr

Figure 4

Wessex Archaeology

Frames Repair Tool marks Iron nail Treenail / treenail hole Iron concretion

1m

This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Revision Number: Illustrator: Date: Scale: Path:

0 KJB 19/10/04 1:25 W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\Figure 5.dwg

Piece 4, internal and external

Figure 5

Frames

Repair

Tool marks

Iron nail

Treenail / treenail hole

Iron concretion

1m

Date: Scale:
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

15/10/04 1:25 Path:

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\Figure 6.dwg

Wessex Archaeology

Piece 3a, internal

Figure 6

Frames

Tool marks

Iron nail

Treenail / treenail hole

1m

Date: Scale:
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

16/10/04 1:25 Path:

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\Figure 7.dwg

Wessex Archaeology

Piece 3a, external

Figure 7

Frames

Iron nail

Treenail / treenail hole

1m

Date: Scale:
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

16/10/04 1:25 Path:

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\Figure 8.dwg

Wessex Archaeology

Piece 3b,internal

Figure 8

Frames

Repair

Iron nail

Treenail / treenail hole

Iron concretion

1m

Date: Scale:
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

16/10/04 1:25 Path:

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\Figure 9.dwg

Wessex Archaeology

Piece 3b,external

Figure 9

(approx)

Piece 3b

Piece 2

Piece 4

Piece 1

Piece 3a

Date: 1 2m
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

17/11/04 Scale: Path: 1:60

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\...\05_01_04\Figure 10.dwg

Wessex Archaeology

Frames

Reconstruction of ship's side with pieces 1-4

Figure 10

Iron bars

Iron bars

Lead ingot

Tin ingot Wessex Archaeology

Date: Path: 15/11/04 Illustrator: KJB

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing Office\Report Figures\04_11_12\Figure 11.cdr

Figure 11

0 1m

Scale for line drawing, 1:10 at A3

Date:
This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

15/11/04 Scale: Path: Drawing 1:10

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB W:\Projects\57330\Drawing Office\Report figures\...\04_11_12\Fig12.cdr

Wessex Archaeology

Cast iron cannon (28)

Figure 12

Leather shoe sole

Pewter candlestick

Wessex Archaeology

Date: Path:

15/11/04

Illustrator:

KJB

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing Office\Report Figures\04_11_12\Figure 13.cdr

Figure 13

Date:
Copyright Pepys Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge

05/01/05 Scale: Not to scale

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KJB

Wessex Archaeology

This material is for client report only Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Path:

W:\Projects\57330\Drawing office\Report figures\...\05-01-04\Figure14.dwg

Drawing of an English 'galleon' ca.1572-1600 by Matthew Baker, from Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry, Pepys Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge. Inset: Reconstruction of ship's side with pieces 1-4

Figure 14

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED. Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB. Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk London Office: Unit 701, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY. Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.