Early Ships And Boats

7/29/2019 Early Ships And Boats

1/99

Wessex Archaeology

January 2013Ref: 84130.01

Early Ships and Boats (Prehistory to 1840)

EH 6440Strategic Desk-based Assessment


2/99

EARLY SHIPS AND BOATS (PREHISTORY TO 1840)

EH 6440

STRATEGIC DESK-BASEDASSESSMENT

Prepared by:

Wessex ArchaeologyPortway HouseOld Sarum Park

SalisburyWILTSHIRE

SP4 6EB

Prepared for:

English Heritage

Ref: 84130.01

January 2013

Wessex Archaeology Limited 2013Wessex Archaeology Ltd is a company limited by guarantee registered in England, company number

1712772. It is also a Charity registered in England and Wales, number 287786; and in Scotland,Scottish Charity number SC042630. Our registered office is at Portway House, Old Sarum Park,

Salisbury, Wilts SP4 6EB.


3/99

Early Ships and Boats (Prehistory to 1840) EH 6440Strategic Desk-based Assessment ref. 84130.01

i


EH 6440


Ref: 84130.01

Title:Early Ships and Boats (Prehistory to 1840)Strategic Desk-based Assessment

Principal Author(s): Victoria CooperManaged by: Nikki Cook

Origination date: J anuary 2013Date of last revision: November 2012Version: .01Wessex Archaeology QA: Nikki CookStatus: Final

Summary of changes:Updated draft to incorporate comments fromEnglish Heritage

Associated reports:Client Approval:


4/99


ii


EH 6440


Ref: 84130.01

Summary

The Early Ships and Boats project comprises a strategic desk-based assessment of knownand dated vessels from the Prehistoric period up to 1840. At present, very few boats andships are offered statutory protection in England in comparison to the large numbers ofknown and dated wrecks and even greater numbers of recorded losses of boats and ships inEnglish waters. This project is part of a national programme of planned designation toensure that current or future threats are addressed through the full weight of statutoryprotection in relation to the National Heritage Protection Plan.

Data was acquired from primary and secondary sources, audited and entered into aMicrosoft Access database linked to ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 mapping software. The data wasassessed and characterised within the project database and selected records wereenhanced. The dataset was considered alongside the non-statutory criteria for designation

and the English Heritage wreck selection guide to identify sites for selective investigation.

The final Early Boats and Ship database comprises 384 records of pre-1840 vesselsincluding 47 designated wrecks, 133 records of undesignated wrecks, six boat burials, 28historic vessels, 132 logboats and 38 findspots of craft or timbers. Following assessment, 88of these were identified as candidates for selective investigation.


5/99


iii


EH 6440


Ref: 84130.01

Acknowledgements

This assessment was commissioned by English Heritage. The assistance provided by HelenKeeley, English Heritage Project Assurance Officer, is gratefully acknowledged. Further

thanks go to the Heritage Data Collection Team of the National Monuments Record, Swindonand to the Historic Environment Officers and other regional staff that participated in thisproject.

Wessex Archaeology would also like to thank the following people and organisations:

George Hogg, Collections Development (National Maritime Museum, Cornwall) andNational Small Boats Register

Peter Rowe, Tees Archaeology Ben Whittaker, Curator Merseyside Maritime Museum Martin Woodward, Isle of Wight Shipwreck Museum

Data acquisition and audit was carried out by Diana Donohue with assistance from StuartChurchley. Victoria Cooper carried out record enhancement and data assessment andcompiled this report. Thomas Dommett designed and built the project database with edits tothe database and project GIS maintained by Richard Milwain. Kitty Brandon prepared theillustrations and the project manager was Nikki Cook.

Data Licences

Copyright restrictions may apply to data obtained from the National Record for the HistoricEnvironment, the Historic Environment Records and the internet and bibliographic sources

on which the archaeological site data is based.

Wreck and obstruction data were supplied by SeaZone Solutions Limited under the Pan-Government Agreement. British Crown SeaZone Solutions Limited. All rights reserved.

Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2012.


6/99


iv


EH 6440


Ref: 84130.01

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 2.

METHODOLOGY SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 2

3. STAGE 1: DATA ACQUISITION, AUDITING AND MAPPING......................................33.1. DATABASE .......................................................................................................................3 3.2. DATAACQUISITION ANDAUDITING ....................................................................................7

National Record for the Historic Environment.................................................................7Local Authority Historic Environment Records................................................................7United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (SeaZone)............................................................8National Historic Ships and National Small Boats Registers ..........................................9Wessex Archaeology, Goodwin Sands and Downs Archaeological Investigations ........9Museum of London Archaeology Hulk Assemblage Project.........................................10Museum Collections......................................................................................................11

3.3. MAPPING ........................................................................................................................12 4. STAGE 2: DATA ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERISATION..................................134.1. DATAASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................13

Deleting Records...........................................................................................................13NRHE dataset...............................................................................................................13Date of Build..................................................................................................................14Additional Records from Alternative Sources................................................................16Record Enhancement ...................................................................................................16

4.2. RECORD CHARACTERISATION .........................................................................................18 Build..............................................................................................................................18Use................................................................................................................................19 Loss...............................................................................................................................20 Survival .........................................................................................................................21Investigation..................................................................................................................21

5. STAGE 3: IDENTIFICATION OF SITES FOR SELECTIVE INVESTIGATION............22 5.1. NON-STATUTORY CRITERIA AND WRECK SELECTION GUIDES ..........................................22 5.2. ASSESSMENT BY TYPE....................................................................................................25

Designated Wrecks.......................................................................................................25Undesignated Wrecks...................................................................................................25Boat Burials...................................................................................................................30Historic Vessels.............................................................................................................30Logboats .......................................................................................................................31Findspots.......................................................................................................................32

5.3. ASSESSMENT BY PERIOD ................................................................................................33 Early Prehistoric (500,000 4000 BC)..........................................................................33


7/99


v

Late Prehistoric (4000 54 BC)....................................................................................33Roman (54 BC AD 410) .............................................................................................34Post-Roman to Norman Conquest (410 AD 1066).....................................................34Medieval and Early Tudor (1066 1540)......................................................................34Mid to Late Tudor (1540 1603)...................................................................................35Stuart (1603 1714) .....................................................................................................36Hanoverian (1714-1837) ...............................................................................................38Unknown.......................................................................................................................41

5.4. SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................41 6. STAGE 4: RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................44

Skiff...............................................................................................................................44Guardship......................................................................................................................45Ice Boat.........................................................................................................................45

7. STAGE 5: PREPARATION OF PROJECT PRODUCTS AND ARCHIVING ...............468. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................47

Bibliographic References ..............................................................................................47Key Websites ................................................................................................................48

APPENDIX I: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD DATA SUMMARY ............................. 49APPENDIX II: EARLY SHIPS AND BOATS PREHISTORY TO 1840 ..................................54

Figures

Figure 1: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Categories (Northern England)Figure 2: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Categories (South-east England)Figure 3: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Categories (South-west England)Figure 4: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Early Prehistoric (500,000 to 4000

BC)

Figure 5: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Late Prehistoric (4000 to 54 BC)Figure 6: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Roman (54 BC to AD 410)Figure 7: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Post-Roman to Norman Conquest

(410 AD to 1066)Figure 8: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Medieval and Early Tudor (1066 to

1540)Figure 9: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Mid to Late Tudor (1540 to 1603)Figure 10: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Stuart (1603 to 1714)Figure 11: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Hanoverian (1714 to 1837)Figure 12: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Unknown (pre-1840)Figure 13: Early Ships and Boats Database Records: Records Identified for Selective

Investigation

Tables

Table 1: ESB database fields and BULSI relationshipsTable 2: Record categoriesTable 3: Ships and Boats Identified for Selective Investigation


8/99


1


EH 6440


Ref: 84130.01

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1. Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by English Heritage and funded throughthe National Heritage Protection Commissions Programme (NHPCP) to undertake a

desk-based assessment of Early Ships and Boats encompassing vessels datedfrom the Prehistoric period up to 1840.

1.1.2. At present, very few boats and ships are offered statutory protection in England incomparison to the large numbers of known and dated wrecks and even greaternumbers of recorded losses of boats and ships in English waters. The NationalRecord of the Historic Environment (NRHE) database contains over 46,000 maritimerecords, of which just 7% comprise known and located wrecks (English Heritage,2011). Currently, there are just 47 wrecks in England designated under theProtection of Wrecks Act 1973.

1.1.3. Early Ships and Boats (Prehistory to 1840) Strategic Desk-based Assessment

(ESB) is part of a national programme of planned designation to ensure that currentor future threats are addressed through the full weight of statutory protection inrelation to the National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP).

1.1.4. Previously Wessex Archaeology has undertaken a project entitledAssessing Boatsand Ships for English Heritage and funded through the Aggregate LevySustainability Fund (ALSF no.5693) (Wessex Archaeology 2011 a-d). The studycomprised a national stock-take of known and located wrecks in the waters offEngland dating from 1860 to 1950. The project reviewed the resource with the aimof providing supplementary guidance on the key themes and interests representedby these most commonly encountered wrecks, in order to inform decisions regardingimportance and mitigation.

1.1.5. The aim of ESB is to undertake a desk-based assessment of the records of knownand dated remains of early ships and boats (i.e. those dating from the earliest timesto about 1840) to inform a policy on future designation priorities. The desk-basedstudy is focussed on the resource within England, including English inshore watersup to the 12nm limit, notwithstanding other contextual locations where relevant. Theassessment does not cover the resource beyond the 12nm limit, nor makes anassessment of areas where potential sites might be located.

1.1.6. The objectives are to:

audit, assess, characterise and map relevant data, following the periods set outin the relevant Introduction to Heritage Assets (English Heritage 2012a), held byNational and Local Historic Environment Records (HERs);


9/99


2

identify sites for selective investigation; and provide recommendations for expansion of the Maritime Craft Thesaurus and

NRHE.

2. METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

2.1.1. ESB comprises a desk-based assessment of known and located maritime sites (pre-1840) across England which may be assessed with a strategic Designationprogramme. These known and located maritime sites comprise all early ships andboats within England, across all environmental boundaries, including botharchaeological examples and extant historic vessels but excluding those beyond the12nm limit of English territorial waters.

2.1.2. The project comprises five stages:

Stage 1: Data acquisition, auditing and mapping; Stage 2: Data assessment and characterisation;

Stage 3: Identification of sites for selective investigation; Stage 4: Recommendations for expansion of the Maritime Craft Thesaurus and

NRHE; and Stage 5: Preparation of Project Products and archiving.

2.1.3. Acquired data was audited and entered into a Microsoft Access database, modifiedfrom the database developed for the previous Wessex Archaeology projectAssessing Boats and Ships (Wessex Archaeology, 2011e). This database waslinked to ESRI ArcGIS to map the sites across England. The data was assessedand characterised within the project database and selected records were enhancedto facilitate Stages 3 and 4, the identification of sites for selective investigation andrecommendations for the NRHE.

2.1.4. In practice, the execution of Stages 1 and 2 overlapped to a large extent. This wasprimarily due to delays with receiving data and due to a number of errors andomissions that became clear during the enhancement of the dataset. These issues,and the methodology employed to resolve significant problems with data acquisition,are discussed further in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.

2.1.5. The periods followed correspond to those set out in the Introduction to HeritageAssets Ships and Boats: Prehistory to 1840 (English Heritage 2012a):

Early Prehistoric (500,000 4000 BC); Late Prehistoric (4000 54 BC); Roman (54 BC AD 410); Post-Roman to Norman Conquest (410 AD 1066); Medieval and Early Tudor (1066 1540); Mid to Late Tudor (1540 1603); Stuart (1603 1714); and Hanoverian (1714 1837).

2.1.6. In addition, inherent uncertainties associated with dating early ships and boats hasled to the inclusion of several sites for which precise dating is unknown, but forwhich a pre-1840 date is attributable beyond reasonable doubt. Such categories ofsite include logboats that have not been scientifically or stratigraphically dated, but

for which a Prehistoric or Medieval date is considered most likely and unidentifiedshipwrecks attributed broad typographic date ranges.


10/99


3

2.1.7. The following sources were accessed during the course of the project:

NRHE; Local Authority Historic Environment Records (HERs) or Sites and Monuments

Records (SMRs); United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) through SeaZone; National Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV); National Small Boat Register (NSBR); and Additional published and unpublished primary and secondary data.

2.1.8. Key additional sources included:

Wessex Archaeology The Goodwin Sands and the Downs ArchaeologicalInvestigations (2010 to 2011) (and associated geophysical survey data);

Museum of London Archaeology Hulks Assemblage Project (2011); Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU) undesignated site assessments; Wessex Archaeology undesignated site assessments; and Underwater World Publications Diver Guides.

2.1.9. All these additional sources are fully referenced within the ESB database.

2.1.10. Internet resources formed a central role throughout the project, particularly duringStage 2. Commonly accessed sites included:

PastScape (http://www.pastscape.org.uk/); Heritage Gateway (http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/); Archaeology Data Service (http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/); Scillydivers (http://scillydivers.blogspot.co.uk/);

UK Grid Reference Finder (http://gridreferencefinder.com/); English Heritage (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk); and The Wreck Site (http://www.wrecksite.eu/).

2.1.11. Data from these, and further sources, are referenced in the database and in thisreport where relevant.

2.1.12. Following the acquisition and audit (Stage 1), and the assessment andcharacterisation (Stage 2) of data, the ESB dataset was considered alongside thenon-statutory criteria for designation and the wreck selection guide published byEnglish Heritage (2010, 2012b) and with regard to the selection guide for boats andships in archaeological contexts developed by Wessex Archaeology (2008b). These

criteria are discussed in Section 5.1 below. Through this process 88 sites wereidentified as qualifying for further investigation.

2.1.13. Detailed methodologies are presented below alongside the results for each stage.

3. STAGE 1: DATA ACQUISITION, AUDITING AND MAPPING

3.1. DATABASE

3.1.1. The ESB database was informed by both the Project Design and the database usedby Wessex Archaeology forAssessing Boats and Ships 1860 to 1950.

3.1.2. The design of the Microsoft Access database is based on Wessex ArchaeologysBULSI system to assess the career or life cycle of a wrecked vessel, from its


11/99


4

building through its use and loss and then through its subsequent history as awreck. The system has been proved on a wide variety of projects, including regionalenvironmental characterisations and the assessment of individual wrecks.

3.1.3. The system breaks the description of any wreck down into the following consistentcategories:

B Build: This category provides information concerning the building of the vessel,including the date of construction, the place of construction and the companies andindividuals involved. It also includes information concerning the design of thevessel, including the dimensions and tonnage, the materials used, and propulsionand other engineering details.

U Use: This category provides information on what the vessel was used for,including changes of use during its career. Registration and nationality informationis recorded here, together with details of companies and individuals associated withthe vessel, such as owners, managers and the crew. For merchant ships, details ofthe type of cargo can be recorded, together with information about ports of call andtherefore routes.

L Loss: This category records information about how the vessel came to be lost,including date and circumstances of loss, location and associated vessels andpeople. Fatalities can be recorded as well as commemorative monumentssubsequently erected.

S Survival: This category describes the evidence for the history and survival ofthe vessel as a wreck and can include information from a wide variety of sourceincluding diver descriptions and geophysical and hydrographical surveys.

I Investigation: This category describes the history of investigation of the wreckand can include interventions by archaeologists, salvors and others.

3.1.4. The purpose of the database is to allow the user to query the dataset in both simpleand complex ways. The main function of this is to inform Stage 3 of the ESBproject, to identify sites for selective investigation in line with the criteria fordesignation. These criteria are discussed as part of Stage 3 below.

3.1.5. Table 1 outlines the basic elements of the ESB database and shows how thedatabase fields interrelate with the BULSI terms.

ESB function Database Field Notes

WAID Unique identifier (auto number)

NameName of vessel, site or descriptivelabel

Record Type Maritime, Findspot, MonumentPrimary SourcePrimary Source UID

Original source of data (pre-enhancement)

Monument TypeFrom Monument Thesaurus(Monument Types). Can include asmany types as relevant.

Identification

LocationComprehensive location informationrelevant to identification and projectmapping


12/99


5


Associated sourcesExternal database reference numbersReferenced sources (enhancedrecords)

Associated FindsSite components from primary datasources

AssociatedMonuments

Identification of current and historicalassociations

Evidence SummaryVessel Remains, Finds, DocumentaryEvidence or Geophysical survey, forexample.

Documentation

Associated Events Identification of current associationsBuild Date Date of build in dd/mm/yyyy format

Craft TypeFrom Monument Thesaurus (MaritimeCraft Types)

Propulsion Oar, Paddle, Sail, Steam, TowedConstructionMaterials

From Monument Thesaurus (BuildingMaterials)

Port of RegistrationFrom Monument Thesaurus (MaritimePlace Names)

Nationality Pre-selected list

Build

Associated People BuilderDate From/To (specific or general dates)ArchaeologicalPeriod (ESB)

Period as defined in Introduction toHeritage Assets

Crew Numeric valuePassengers Numeric valueCraft type Key indicator of vessel useDepartureDestinationCargo

Details of final voyage at time of lossas key indicator of vessel use

Associated People During use life of vessel

Use

AssociatedMonuments

Identification of historic associations

Lives LostNumeric value or descriptive (e.g. All,Some, Many)

Loss Date Date of loss in dd/mm/yyyy formatManner of Loss Pre-selected listDepartureDestinationCargo

Loss

Associated People

At time of loss (final voyage)

Assessment of

Survival

Pre-selected list

SurvivalAssociatedMonuments

Identification of current associations

DesignationAny formal designations (pre-selectedlist)

Associated SourcesInvestigation reports and additionaldata

Associated FindsSite components from primary datasources

AssociatedMonuments

Identification of current associations

Evidence SummaryVessel Remains, Finds, DocumentaryEvidence or Geophysical survey, for

example.

Narrative

Investigation

Associated Events Identification of current associations


13/99


6


Al l DescriptionFree text relevant to identification,documentation and narrative

Table 1: ESB database fields and BULSI relationships

3.1.6. The database is presented as a form with separate tabs for documentation,narrative and for queries. The basic structure comprises interconnected tables andlook up tables with the WAID acting as the UID. Using the form the user can go to aspecific record by using a keyword filter that searches the name field or by goingdirectly to the WAID if known.

3.1.7. A separate Query tab is included in the form allowing the user to filter the recordsby specific attributes:

Name (keyword); Period (from/to and ESB period); Departure, Destination and Cargo (at time of loss);

Date of Loss (from/to); Cause of Loss; Passengers (yes/no); Lives lost (yes/no) Monument type; Craft Type; Construction Material; Propulsion; Date built (from/to); Nationality; Survival;

Evidence; and Designation.

3.1.8. Using the query form the user can filter the dataset using any of the above, or anycombination of the above to identify individual records, and groups of records, whichmay assist with the interrogation of the database. For example, a query to look forboats and ships from the Stuart period which are partially intact returns 14 records.By returning to the query form and adding the filter for cause of loss we can see thatfour of these 14 were lost through stranding.

3.1.9. It is important to remember, however, that it is only possible to query data that isrecorded and that has been input into the database. For early ships and boats such

as these, specific details of the BULSI narrative are often missing, particularly forPrehistoric and Roman vessels for which no contemporary documents exist andonly material evidence is known. A filter by loss of life for example returns 63records. However, in real terms far more of the 384 records are likely to beassociated with the loss of life although this is not recorded.

3.1.10. Through a consideration of the data, however, the use of these filters facilitated theidentification of records that may be considered to qualify for selective investigationas discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3.


14/99


7

3.2. DATAACQUISITION ANDAUDITING

National Record for the Historic Environment

3.2.1. The NRHE manages the national historic environment database of England,including its territorial waters. Maritime records in the NRHE database include both

known and located submerged sites and finds as well as records of casualties forwhich a historic record of the loss exists although physical remains have not beenlocated. The systematic compilation of records was begun in 1992 by the NationalMonuments Record (NRHE) and continues today through English Heritages NRHE.

3.2.2. Data was provided to Wessex Archaeology from the NRHE as the primary datasetfrom English Heritage. The dataset comprised 193 records and included records oflogboats as well as known and dated maritime sites.

3.2.3. The data was entered into the ESB database automatically from supplied tablesalthough errors associated with the input of data for associated people, lives lostand events had to be corrected manually.

3.2.4. As further data was added to the database, and as Stage 2 data assessmentcommenced, it subsequently became clear that a number of sites and finds weremissing from the original NRHE dataset which could nonetheless be located withinthe online version of the NRHE using PastScape.

3.2.5. A new search was requested from the NRHE and a new set of data was received.However, this new dataset included reported losses as well as known records ofearly ships and boats, comprising 15,396 records in total. This amount of dataprecluded the provision of long monument reports and thus the inclusion of datasuch as the long descriptive text and additional sources.

3.2.6. As the number of missing records was comparatively small the decision was madeto enter data for these records manually using English Heritages online databasePastScape as part of the record enhancement process.

3.2.7. This aspect of the data assessment is discussed further in Section 4.

Local Authority Historic Environment Records

3.2.8. All HERs, 82 in total, were approached for data and responses were received from73 of those contacted. The data was provided to Wessex Archaeology in variousformats and it was necessary to filter each dataset before it could be entered intothe ESB database.

3.2.9. The first step was to delete all records from the datasets with an associated NRHEreference. There was significant crossover between the NRHE and the individualHERs and this proved an efficient means of eliminating duplicates before they wereentered into the database. The remaining records in each dataset was thenchecked for relevance and uploaded to the database.

3.2.10. A summary of this data and the filtering process is presented inAppendix I.

3.2.11. Further attempts were made to contact those that did not respond but ultimatelycontact was not achieved with nine of the HERs.

3.2.12. The Dartmoor National Park Authority HER shares its database with Devon County

Council HER, from which data was received, and the Merseyside HER is closed.For the remaining seven, a basic internet search using Heritage Gateway was


15/99


8

carried out. A simple search for the terms boat, ship and craft were carried outfor each individual HER.

3.2.13. Buckingham HER returned one record corresponding to an existing entry in the ESBdatabase input from the NRHE (WA35).

3.2.14. Cambridgeshire HER returned six records, four corresponding to existing entries inthe ESB database input from the NRHE (WA46, WA47, WA48, WA409) and 2records that had not been input from other sources (WA429, WA430).

3.2.15. The City of York HER returned no records.

3.2.16. The North Somerset HER does not form part of the Heritage Gateway and theonline database is solely map based and does include the facility to search byrecord or monument type. However, the Somerset HER, which covers both northand south Somerset, has returned data.

3.2.17. The Portsmouth City HER does not form part of the Heritage Gateway and is notsearchable online through its own websites. However, the Hampshire Archaeologyand Historic Buildings Record, which includes the city of Portsmouth, has returneddata.

3.2.18. The Sandwell SMR does not form part of the Heritage Gateway and has no currentonline information pages. However, responses were received from HERs in thesurrounding area (e.g. Birmingham City HER, Black Country SMR, Dudley HER)and none of these had data relevant to the ESB project.

3.2.19. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority HER does not form part of the HeritageGateway although a searchable database is provided through the Archaeology Data

Service. A search using the same terms craft, boat and ship returned one recordcorresponding to an existing entry in the ESB database input from the NRHE(WA14).

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (SeaZone)

3.2.20. Data on charted wrecks from the UKHO was provided to Wessex Archaeology as aSeaZone Hydrospatial dataset. This dataset included records of 20,379 chartedwrecks and obstructions of which 107 were recorded as lost pre-1840. An additional6 undated records were also included as they were known to project staff as pre-dating 1840.

3.2.21. Of the 113 records, 75 had already been entered into the ESB database from the

NRHE data. The remaining 38 records comprised:

Not relevant to ESB: 5 considered to fall under Welsh rather than English territorial waters; 1 considered to fall under Isle of Man rather than English territorial waters; 16 DEAD records of losses rather than physical remains on the seabed; 2 LIVE records of losses rather than physical remains on the seabed; Relevant to ESB: 3 DEAD records at locations at which physical remains have previously been

identified; 8 LIVE wrecks located after 1992/1993 and post-dating the accession of UKHO

data into the NRHE; 1 LIVE record of a loss reported as salvaged at time; and 2 further LIVE wrecks.


16/99


9

3.2.22. The fourteen records that were considered relevant to the ESB project (i.e. thoseconsidered to represent physical remains on the seabed within the study area) werechecked against the HER data already in the database and two further duplicateswere found. This left 12 records that were entered into the database (WA323 toWA331 and WA333 to WA335).

National Histor ic Ships and National Small Boats Registers

3.2.23. National Historic Ships UK is a government funded, yet independent, advisoryorganisation, successor to the advisory committee on National Historic Ships (2006),itself successor to the National Historic Ships Committee (1991). They maintain theNational Register of Historic Vessels (NRHV), incorporating the National HistoricFleet (NHF) (which may also include vessels on the small boats register), and theNational Archive of Historic Vessels (NAHV). These registers include extant historicvessels over 33ft in length with demonstrable and significant associations with theUK, many of which are in private ownership. There are 13 vessels recorded ashaving a pre-1840 build date. Two of these are currently located outside England

(HMS Unicorn in Dundee and Peggy in the Isle of Man) leaving eleven that wereadded to the ESB database (WA355, WA356, WA358 to WA360 and WA365 toWA370).

3.2.24. The National Small Boats Register (NSBR) is maintained by the National MaritimeMuseum Cornwall. The NSBR is a register of historic boats under 33ft in lengthregarded as worthy of preservation and details of 25 vessels were supplied by theNational Maritime Museum. Four of these were already in the database from theNRHV (Zetland, WA360; Boadicea, WA365; RoyalOak, WA366; and Oxford Boat,WA367). With further examination, two vessels were found to have been built post-1840 (Lord St.Levans New Barge and RCHME 279) and three were found to belocated outside England at the present time:

a West Greenland Inuit sealskin kayak in McManus Galleries and Museum inDundee;

the birch bark Enys Canoe in the Canadian Canoe Museum; and the clinker-built working boat Peggy in Isle of Man Nautical Museum at

Castletown.

3.2.25. This left 16 historic vessels that were added to the ESB database. The currentlocation of one of the vessels, Katie (WA364), could not be determined from theavailable sources although the record was kept in the ESB database for reference.

3.2.26. A further record, The Green Boat (WA435), details of which were supplied by theMerseyside Maritime Museum, discussed below, was also found to be included inthe NSBR database.

Wessex Archaeology, Goodwin Sands and Downs ArchaeologicalInvestigations

3.2.27. Wessex Archaeology has carried out a review of historical geophysical datasetsheld by English Heritage over designated wreck sites off the south east coast ofEngland (Wessex Archaeology, 2009). This data was supplemented by theacquisition and assessment of new geophysical data over designated wreck sites inthe Goodwin Sands and Eastbourne areas. During survey sessions the opportunitywas taken to acquire data over additional sites and five further sites were examined,

four of which were confirmed as 20th

century and a new, wooden wreck of possibleearlier date in the Kellett Gut (GAD 11).


17/99


10

3.2.28. Subsequent to the South East of England Designated Wrecks project WessexArchaeology undertook the East of England Designated Wrecks project (WessexArchaeology, 2010a) to acquire and assess geophysical data in the GoodwinSands, Thames Estuary and off the coast of Suffolk. In addition to the designatedwrecks in all three areas, the five additional sites on the Goodwin Sands wereresurveyed as well as three further prospection areas. A large number of newanomalies and additional sites were identified within the Goodwin Sands andWessex Archaeology was commissioned by English Heritage to undertake initialdiving investigations on a prioritised selection of these sites (Wessex Archaeology,2010b).

3.2.29. In 2011, further diving investigations were carried out to assess sites within theGoodwin Sands and the Downs identified from the Wessex Archaeology surveys(2009, 2010a), a professional survey by Advanced Underwater Survey Ltd, anamateur survey by Robert Peacock (licensee of the Stirling Castle, Northumberland,Restoration and Mary) and, most recently, a survey of the near inshore element ofthe Downs by the Channel Coast Observatory (CCO) (Wessex Archaeology, 2012).

3.2.30. Of 118 identified sites, 32 were further assessed by Wessex Archaeology (2012).Nine of these (GAD 1, GAD 2, GAD 3, GAD 4, GAD 5, GAD 6, GAD 7 and GAD 8)are already designated, or lay within the boundary of a designated area (GAD 60),and were not examined further during ESB. Five of the sites (GAD 105, GAD 100,GAD 116, GAD 117 and GAD 118) were identified as wrecks of unknown date andwere not included within the ESB database. Ten were considered to be of probablepost-1840 date (GAD 11, GAD 15, GAD 17, GAD 23, GAD 57, GAD 104, GAD 106,GAD 107, GAD 112, GAD 113). This included the Kellet Gut wreck (GAD 11) whichwas assessed to be of later date than originally thought. The remaining eightwrecks were considered to be of possible pre-1840 date and were entered into theESB database (GAD 9/WA420, GAD 10/WA421, GAD 12/WA422, GAD 13/WA423,

GAD 14/WA424, GAD 16/WA425, GAD 58/WA344, GAD 108/WA345).

Museum of London Archaeology Hulk Assemblage Project

3.2.31. The Hulk Assemblages Project (2011) was undertaken by Museum of LondonArchaeology (MOLA), with input from the Thames Discovery Programme and theNautical Archaeology Society (NAS). The aim of the project was to create a methodfor quantifying known hulk assemblages in England, and to create a nationwidedatabase of hulk assemblages that could be used to identify thematic, geographicand temporal gaps in the known data. The project design for ESB indicatedpotential for this study to build on this work by MOLA and to incorporate anassessment of early hulked vessels as a specific category within the desk-basedassessment.

3.2.32. The data providers contacted by MOLA (2011) mirrored that accessed during ESBwith the addition of available data from regional Rapid Coastal Zone Assessmentscarried out in England and data from stakeholders. MOLA report that, in general,the RCZAs did not add a great deal of information to the hulk assemblage project.None of the stakeholders responded with data although maritime and nauticalarchaeology organisations and museums provided useful information about regionalhulk surveys and reports, all in the south of England.

3.2.33. An assessment of the results of the MOLA project (Museum of London Archaeology,2011) revealed that only three assemblages were found to contain hulks thatpredated the 19th century:


18/99


11

a late 18th century hulk located at The Saltings, Bexley, Greater London; a Mersey Flat, Daresbury, built in 1772, now located at Sutton Locks in

Cheshire; and the GraceDieu, a Protected Wreck Site, Henry Vs flag ship launched in 1418

now located in the River Hamble, Hampshire.

3.2.34. The Grace Dieu was already in the ESB database as a designated vessel (WA134).The Mersey Flat Daresbury and the hulk at The Saltings had not been included inthe data provided for the ESB assessment from the NRHE or HERs. For bothassemblages the NRHE records the monument types as 20th century. These twohulks were added to the ESB database (WA427 and WA428).

3.2.35. The lack of dated pre-1840 records of hulks means that further assessment of hulksas a specific resource does not form part of the ESB study.

Museum Collections

3.2.36. During the course of acquisition and auditing data from the NRHE and HERs it was

apparent that many of the recorded vessels that were not preserved in situ werepreserved in museums or other collections.

3.2.37. To indicate if any additional pre-1840 vessels may present in collections andexhibits, that had not already been included in the ESB database, basic onlinesearches were carried out relating to the following:

Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre: artefacts from over 150 shipwrecks; 57 shipwrecks listed on website, 19 pre-1840 shipwrecks in English territorial waters, all in ESB database.

World of Boats (The EISCA) Collection (Eyemouth): c. 400 boats in collection; 187 vessels listed online, none pre-1840.

The RNLI Historic Lifeboat Collection, Chatham: 17 lifeboats in collection.

Hastings Shipwreck Museum: artefacts from the Anne (1690) at Pett Level and Amsterdam (1749) at

Bulverhythe, both in ESB database. Merseyside Maritime Museum (Liverpool):

over 70 boats in collection; 10 on website, none pre-1840.

3.2.38. The collections of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich are published onlinealthough the search facilities were not suitable for searching by date which meantthe utility of the web based searches were insufficient for the means of this project.The museum was contacted by email to ask for details of any boats in thecollections that may not have been included in the database. However, noresponse had been received at time of writing.

3.2.39. The Isle of Wight Shipwreck Centre and Maritime Museum displays a hugecollection of artefacts recovered from wrecks by professional diver MartinWoodward. There is no comprehensive list of the wrecks represented within themuseum and no database online. When contacted Mr Woodward responded thatmost of the wrecks post-date 1840 (pers. comm. 16/10/2012).


19/99


12

3.2.40. The collection at the Merseyside Maritime Museum primarily dates to the late 19thcentury although Ben Whittaker, curator of the ship and boat collection at themuseum, provided details of a single pre-1840 date in the collection, The GreenBoat (WA435) (pers. comm. 29/10/2012).

3.2.41. The World of Boats (The EISCA) Collection, Hull Maritime Museum and the NationalWaterways Museum in Ellesmere Port were also contacted to enquire about theexistence of any further boats within their collections that had not been identifiedfrom other sources. No response had been received at time of writing.

3.2.42. The Historic Lifeboat Collection of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is housedat Chatham Dockyard and includes 17 lifeboats, the largest collection in the UK. TheRNLI Heritage Trust were contacted on 11th December 2012 and they were able toconfirm that none of the boats in the collection pre-dated 1840, the earliest dating to1897. Three pre-1840 lifeboats, the Grace Darling (WA375), Zetland (WA360) andTyne (WA361), were included in the ESB database from the NRHS and NSBR.These are located in the Grace Darling Museum in Bamburgh, Northumberland, the

Zetland Museum in Redcar, and at South Shields, respectively.

3.3. MAPPING

3.3.1. Each record within the ESB database includes positional data identifying thelocation of each site or findspot and allowing each record to be mapped within theproject GIS. Each record includes the British National Grid reference and Eastingsand Northings (OSGB 36) as well as the latitude and longitude (WGS 84, decimaldegrees). It was considered important to include both within the ESB database toretain relevance to other NRHE and HER GIS datasets, based upon the OSGB 36datum, and relevance to other offshore datasets, using WGS 84.

3.3.2. British National Grid co-ordinates have been taken directly from the NRHE or HER,or other sources as relevant. If a corresponding WGS 84 co-ordinate was availablefrom the UKHO, or other source, this was input into the latitude and longitude fields,even if the position was different to that given in the primary source. As only BritishNational Grid Eastings and Northings would be used for the project GIS, thesedifferences were retained where they occurred for reference. If corresponding WGS84 co-ordinates were not available, latitude and longitude values were convertedfrom the British National Grid reference. If only WGS84 co-ordinates were available(i.e. when a wreck was recorded only by the UKHO) the British National Gridreference was converted from the WGS 84 latitude and longitude. The origin ofeach co-ordinate is clearly recorded.

3.3.3. For historic vessels an approximate location has been input corresponding to thecurrent location of that vessel using the website gridreferencefinder.com. This allowsthe user to zoom in to an aerial view of a location chosen on a map and thenpinpoint a position on the ground for which both OSGB 36 and WGS 84 positionsare generated. This approach, unsuitable for locating wrecks or findspots requiringspecific locations, was deemed to be sufficiently accurate for locations described aswithin Portsmouth Historic Dockyard or kept in West Mersea, for example.

3.3.4. Only one record was lacking positional data, the historic vessel Katie (WA364) forwhich the current location is unknown.

3.3.5. The ESB database was linked to a GIS workspace to provide a means for analysing

and presenting the data spatially. The link allows both the full dataset and for theresults of queries to be presented spatially.


20/99


13

4. STAGE 2: DATA ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERISATION

4.1. DATAASSESSMENT

4.1.1. Once all primary data had been acquisitioned, audited and entered into the ESBdatabase the process of data assessment commenced. In practice the two

processes overlapped to a large extent as new lines of enquiry emerged and newdata sources were located.

4.1.2. The primary purpose of the data assessment was to ensure, as far as possible, theinclusion of every known pre-1840 boat or ship known in England and Englishterritorial waters. These records could then be enhanced by the collation andaddition of further data from various sources. Once the assessment andenhancement was complete each record could then be characterised, using theBULSI system, to facilitate the identification of sites for selective investigation (Stage3).

4.1.3. The processes followed during the course of this assessment and enhancement areoutlined below.

Deleting Records

4.1.4. During the Stage 2 data assessment several records that had been entered into thedatabase during Stage 1 were deleted.

4.1.5. With closer examination of the individual records 79 of the HER records wereidentified as duplicates of records entered from the NRHE, 2 as post-1840 in date,25 as recorded losses and 2 records found to refer to non-wreck (one cannonballand the location of a light vessel). Further records were deleted on an individualbasis during the course of the enhancement process as further data demonstrated

that wrecks were recorded losses or that vessels were outside scope of the projectin terms of location or age.

4.1.6. Following the first set of deletions the WAIDs in the database were reissued toachieve a consecutive numbering system. As records were deleted one by one andmore connections were made between monuments that had been cross referenced,this renumbering ceased. Thus, in some cases the WAIDs issued in Stage 1 werere-used for new records created during Stage 2. This primarily affected individualrecords in the original NRHE dataset although all WAID numbers in this reportcorrelate to those in the final database.

NRHE dataset

4.1.7. As discussed in Section 3.2, during data assessment it became apparent that anumber of sites and finds could be identified within the NRHE using PastScape butwere missing from the original NRHE dataset provided to Wessex Archaeology forESB. Following the receipt of a further dataset from the NRHE, it was decided touse PastScape to enter data manually to enhance existing records or to create newrecords where appropriate.

4.1.8. Some of the missing records were omitted from the first dataset but were included inthe second, more extensive dataset received from the NRHE, such as the EastIndiaman Hindostan (NRHE 1249342). The wreck had been included in the ESBdatabase (WA225) from the Kent HER (MWX17707). However, as the longmonument reports were not included in the second dataset, due to the large numberof records, a fuller and more detailed record for Hindostan could be found on


21/99


14

PastScape. Consequently, data was added to the ESB database directly from theinternet page.

4.1.9. Other missing records not included in either of the two NRHE datasets could also befound on PastScape, such as the medieval Axe Boat (NRHE 1392650) which hadbeen included in data from Devon HER (69888) and thus included in the ESBdatabase (WA256).

4.1.10. During the Stage 2 data assessment, 20 new records were created from NRHErecords located on PastScape (WA332, WA336, WA337, WA348 to WA350 andWA405 to WA418). Data from PastScape records was also used to enhance furtherrecords that had been entered into the database from sources other than the NRHE.

Date of Bui ld

4.1.11. Following the entry of data during Stage 1 it became clear that there was a disparitybetween wrecks included within the ESB database as lost prior to 1840 and historicvessels included as built before 1840. Consequently a further search of the

SeaZone data was carried out to include any additional wrecks that could beidentified as having been built prior to 1840.

4.1.12. Although there is no data field for date of build in the SeaZone dataset, wrecksoften include additional information within the circumstances of loss or surveyingdetails field. A number of basic find searches were carried out within the data setfor text indicating a pre-1840 date of build.

4.1.13. Twenty one records were identified. Three were recorded losses without evidencefor physical remains on the seabed, three were found to lie outside English territorialwaters and one was included erroneously due to an error in the record and wasactually built after 1840. The remaining 14 were entered into the ESB database

(WA388 to WA391, WA393, WA394, WA396, WA398 to WA404).

4.1.14. One wreck was identified from the Dorset HER, that ofHeroine (WA376), which wasalso in the NRHE, and was found to have been lost in 1862 but built in 1838.

4.1.15. The SeaZone data was then further assessed to see if it was possible to identifypre-1840 vessels from other data fields such as vessel type. A series of manualfilters were applied to the whole SeaZone dataset looking for boats and ships lostpost-1840 which may have been built pre-1840. This process involved:

removal of records outside English territorial waters; removal of all records not charted as Live by the UKHO; removal of all unidentified (unnamed) wrecks; removal of records previously identified as lost/built pre-1840; removal of records with built in post-1840 (or variations) in circumstances of

loss/surveying details; removal of records with text indicating construction post-1840 in the field types

of obstruction. For example: aircraft, helicopters; bombs, mines, torpedoes; modern vessel types (cruiser, submarine, battleship, cabin, car, hovercraft); wartime defence structures (Mulberry Unit, Phoenix Units, bombardons) motor vessels (although motors could be added to older vessels this

appeared unlikely for pre-1840 boats and ships); and made of modern (post-1840) materials (concrete, fibreglass, plastic, steel);


22/99


15

removal of records with text indicating non-wreck in the field types ofobstruction. For example: natural features (boulder, rock, seabed features, non-sub contacts); modern debris (containers, beacons, piles, pipes, cables, well heads); fishing gear and nets; and

pontoons and jetties. removal of vessels built by shipbuilders established after 1840:

Earles Shipbuilding Hull (1845); Cook, Welton and Gemmell Hull (1883); Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company J arrow (1852); Craig, Taylor and Co Stockton-on-Tees (1884); Workman Clark and Co, Belfast (1880); Richardson, Duck and Co Stockton-on-Tees (1854); and London and Glasgow Shipbuilding Co (1864).

removal of records relating to cargos lost post-1840; and removal of vessels recorded as launched post-1840.

4.1.16. Records of vessels fitted with a compound engine were not removed as the timelapse between 1840 and their introduction in 1854 was insufficient to preclude therefitting or pre-1840 vessels with the later compound engines. Requisitioned vesselsand vessels with steel fittings were also left in for this reason.

4.1.17. Once these filters had been applied, 657 records remained. These ranged in datefrom the steamship Gilmore sunk in 1856 to the yacht Blu Argent lost in 2010.

4.1.18. PastScape and the website The Wreck Site (www.wrecksite.eu) were used toidentify five of the wrecks with the earliest loss dates to see if there was anyadditional information regarding the date of build:

Gilmore (UKHO 21885, barque) lost 1856, date of build not recorded (NRHE858260/1392864 records the date of loss as 1866);

Dunaskin (UKHO 16238, steamship), lost 1857, date of build 1854 (NRHE922096);

Rising Sun (UKHO 5632, 5798, snow/barque), lost 1860, date of build notrecorded (NRHE 908867). The record NRHE 996825 records an English snowlost in 1861 in County Durham and built in 1859, possibly the same vessel;

John W Elliot (UKHO 7624, steamship) lost 1863, date of build not recorded(NRHE 906817, W Elliot possibly the name of the master); and

Sportsman (UKHO 7839, sailing vessel) lost 1863, date of build not recorded(NRHE 906942).

4.1.19. Although it is possible that any of the 657 records may have been built before 1840,albeit some more likely than others, it was subsequently decided not to pursue thisany further. The remaining dataset remained too large to examine each record fordate of build individually and as the sample had only revealed a single record with adate of build, post-1840, it was not considered cost effective in consideration of thepotential outcome. While it is unlikely that the Blu Argent yacht, lost in 2010, wasbuilt before 1840, boats described as yachts were used by Charles II in Englandand earlier by the Dutch navy, and there is nothing in the record to confirm that theBlu Argent was modern.

4.1.20. The experimental filtering process applied, as described above, is limited by theexperience and skills of the researcher rather than an objective exercise, with regardto the types of record to delete, for example. Also, the use of the UKHO status of


23/99


16

the charted vessel as a filter is flawed in that not only Live vessels may relate toarchaeological remains. For example, wrecks recorded as Dead by the UKHO arethose which no longer present a chartable hazard to navigation but there is stillpotential for archaeological material to be present. Likewise, salvaged vesselsrecorded as Lift by the UKHO may not have been wholly salvaged and materialmay still be present at the loss location.

4.1.21. The process was more successful in demonstrating the limitations of available wreckdata, which is often insufficient to gain a full understanding of the biography of aboat or ship, and failed to reveal any further records for inclusion into the ESBdatabase.

Addi tional Records from Alternative Sources

4.1.22. As the data assessment progressed further vessels that had not been included inthe database during Stage 1 were identified from alternative sources.

4.1.23. Information available on the website of Todd Stevens Islands Maritime

Archaeological Group (IMAG) in the Isles of Scilly accounted for four of theseadditional records:

WA109 Unknown Wreck at Crim Rocks (UKHO 21834, NRHE 881000 ); WA145TheNancyPacket (NRHE 880215); WA150Ocean (NRHE 878639); and WA434RoyalOak (NRHE 880089).

4.1.24. A significant amount of additional information was available on the IMAG web pageswhich formed the main part of these database entries although the UKHO or NRHEreference was used as the primary source reference.

4.1.25. A further group of records added during Stage 2 were the Blackfriars ships. WhileBlackfriars Ship I had been included in the original NRHE data set no other vesselsexcavated as part of this group had been incorporated and records were thereforecreated for Blackfriars II (WA188), III (WA110) and IV (WA114) using data found onPastScape and from the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record throughHeritage Gateway.

4.1.26. Additional records located from other sources include HMS Nautilus (WA338) andthe Spittals Wreck (WA339) entered from Wessex Archaeology project reports andthe Meols Viking Ship (WA346), Must Farm Logboats (WA347), the unknownwreck at North Gare (WA353) and HMS Namur from project staff personalknowledge of recently discovered sites.

Record Enhancement

4.1.27. During the data assessment it became clear that there were distinct categories ofboats and ships within the database and it was considered useful to define thesecategories both within the database and to aid characterisation.

4.1.28. Each record was attributed one of three record types: maritime, monument orfindspot. This was a clear way of distinguishing between wrecks (maritime), boatsand ships associated with terrestrial environments (monuments) and finds ofvessels, or parts of vessels that had been recovered from specific locations(findspots). Each record type was then subdivided into categories as outlined in

Table 2 and illustrated in Figures 1 to 3.


24/99


17

RecordType

ESBCategory

SummaryNo ofRecords

DesignatedWreck

Wrecks designated under the Protection ofWrecks Act 1973 or as Scheduled AncientMonuments

47Maritime

Undesignated

WrecksNamed and unidentified wrecks 133

Boat BurialTerrestrial discoveries of boats within humanburials

6

HistoricVessel

Extant vessels listed on the NRHV or NSBR 28Monument

4Logboat

Discoveries of logboats, or parts of logboats,that have been recovered from, or excavatedat, a specific location 128

132

FindspotFindspot

Discoveries of vessels (other than logboats)or parts of vessels that have been recoveredfrom, or excavated at, a specific location

38

Table 2: Record categories

4.1.29. All records were checked for missing references, dates, monument types andlocation information, etc., to ensure that all basic information was present. Theexception was the designated wrecks category. As they are already protected bylaw, and as a comparatively large amount of data is available for each of the sites,records for these sites were not enhanced. These wrecks would not be consideredfurther during Stage 3 to identify sites for selective investigation.

4.1.30. Each record was named according to the ESB category (i.e. Designated Wreck:Mary Rose, Boat Burial: Sutton Hoo). Records that were unnamed in the primarydata sources were given a name based on its location or on a commonly (publically)

used label (i.e. Logboat: River Nene, Findspot: Blackfriars Ship IV). Undesignatedwrecks were recorded by the vessel name or commonly used label without a prefixor with the prefix Unknown Wreck (i.e. Hindostan, Princes Channel Wreck, UnknownWreck: GAD 58).

4.1.31. During the enhancement process, project staff used the internet and books kept inthe Wessex Archaeology library to carry out high level searches for new data to addto each individual record. A basic search of the internet was carried out for each siteand in many cases a large number of websites were found. A key bibliographicsource used for enhancement was the regional Diver Guides published byUnderwater World Publications, although further dive books and maritime bookswere also useful. Relevant data was added to the ESB database as additional

descriptive text if it was regarded as useful by project staff. All data was referencedwithin the ESB record.

4.1.32. Using this high level approach there was an obvious disparity between known andheavily dived wrecks for which a significant amount of data was available and otherwrecks for which very little further data was available. This disparity, however, wasseen as a benefit to the ESB process as a key indicator of which sites may be inmost need of selective investigation.

4.1.33. Individual records were often revisited on a number of occasions as searches forother sites revealed new information. In many ways the process was remarkablycyclical and the database evolved as a whole as individual records fed back into

each other. This also was apparent through the characterisation of sites.


25/99


18

4.2. RECORD CHARACTERISATION

4.2.1. In practice, the characterisation of each site occurred alongside the enhancementprocess as each record was assessed.

4.2.2. For some categories the BULSI narrative was limited for all records, such as

logboats for which no data on the build, use or loss of the boat was available, withthe exception of craft type and propulsion by paddle.

4.2.3. For other categories the BULSI narrative varied widely from site to site. Within theundesignated wrecks, for example, a large amount of narrative data was availablefor some wrecks, such as East Indiamen and military ships, but was incrediblylimited for others, such as unnamed wrecks or boats operating in local or regionalfishing or transport networks.

4.2.4. A summary of how the BULSI system applied in practice to the characterisationprocess is included below.

Build

4.2.5. In addition to the free text description, fields for characterising the build of the vesselcomprised:

Build Date; Craft Type; Propulsion; Construction Materials; Port of Registration; Nationality; and Associated People, builder.

4.2.6. A date of build was entered for 104 of the records including both specific year andgeneral year indicating century of build. The date format of the field meant that aday/month/year (dd/mm/yyyy) needed to be input. In all cases only the year of buildwas known and in each record the date was recorded as 01/01/year. The recordeddate of build ranged from 1400 (WA126) to 1840 (WA355 and WA403).

4.2.7. The craft type field was based upon the NRHE monument thesaurus for craft types.Additional types could be added if required and these were input using lower caseletters to distinguish from the thesaurus terms in capital letters.

4.2.8. Following the characterisation of a number of records the decision was made tostandardise the use of thesaurus terms for craft type as far as possible withincategories. For example, where craft types, within the logboat category, wererecorded as craft or canoe these were all changed to logboat. This does notchange the meaning of the record but simplifies the identification of all logboatswithin the database. All fields with the craft type wreck were deleted as not allwrecks were attributed this craft type and it would not prove a useful searchableterm within the dataset.

4.2.9. The propulsion field could be either paddle (138 records), oar (22 records), sail (155records), steam (5 records) or tow (one record). No other propulsion type (i.e.engine) would have been applicable prior to 1840. This list is by no means definitive.

A logboat, for example, recorded as propelled by paddles, may also have been fittedwith a sail, although no evidence of this now remains. The low number of steampropelled vessels, however, is likely to be fairly representative: this period saw the


26/99


19

early development of steam power, and thus few vessels were powered by steamprior to 1840. During the characterisation pole was also added for a single record.

4.2.10. For construction materials, 95% of records were associated with types of wood andonly 5% with metals. Over half of the recorded metals are copper or copper alloy.This division in materials is as expected for pre-1840 vessels.

4.2.11. Associated with the use of the vessel, the nationality (133) and port of registration(21) of vessels was recorded for relatively few of the records. Of the 133 for whichthe nationality was recorded 75 were British, 27 as English, 11 as Dutch, five asSpanish, four as Italian, three as Danish, two as Irish, two as Swedish, one asCanadian, one as Portuguese, one as Scandinavian and one as French.

4.2.12. Likewise, the builder of the vessel was recorded for only 59 of the records.

Use

4.2.13. The primary means for recording key details of the use of the vessel was within the

free text description field. Fields for characterising the build of the vessel comprisedthe date and period of use, as defined for the ESB project, and the following:

Crew; Passengers; Departure; Destination; Cargo; and Associated People.

4.2.14. The period of use, from build to loss, of a vessel is recorded in the ESB database interms of a from and to date for the whole record and the opportunity to record

multiple monument types or periods/date ranges within the each record. The fromdate of each record will be either the year of build, if known, or the earliest expectedyear if only an approximate period is given in the data. For example, a vesseldescribed as Prehistoric will have a from date of -500,000. The to date will beeither the year of loss, if known, or the latest expected year if only an approximateperiod is known. For example, a vessel decided as Roman will have a to date ofc.410AD depending on the source. For all records within the historic vessel categorya to date of 2012 was entered to indicate that these are still extant at the time ofthe ESB project.

4.2.15. The from and to date of each record is input as stated in (or estimated from) theprimary source. This date is then translated to input the ESB specific archaeologicalperiod(s) corresponding to those set out in the Introduction to Heritage Assets Shipsand Boats: Prehistory to 1840 (English Heritage 2012a):

Early Prehistoric (500,000 4000 BC); Late Prehistoric (4000 54 BC); Roman (54 BC AD 410); Post-Roman to Norman Conquest (410 AD 1066); Medieval and Early Tudor (1066 1540); Mid to Late Tudor (1540 1603); Stuart (1603 1714); and Hanoverian (1714-1837).

4.2.16. The ESB periods are discussed further as part of Stage 3 (Section 5).


27/99


20

4.2.17. As stated above, the port of registration and nationality of the vessel as built will alsobe indicative of the use of the vessel. In the same way, the number of crew andpassengers and the departure, destination and cargo carried by the vessel during itsfinal journey are demonstrative of both the loss and use narrative for the vessel.Likewise, in most cases the captain, master, owner or passenger of a vessel asrecorded in the Associated People file are those on board at time of loss.Nevertheless, the recorded of details of the final voyage of a vessel will also act as akey indicator of aspects of its use.

4.2.18. Unfortunately, these details are recorded for only a few of the records. For example,for cargo there are 233 database entries associated with only 93 of the records, thenumber of crew is recorded for only 64 records while only 23 records have thenumber of passengers recorded.

4.2.19. With regard to associated people, the ESB database includes provision to recordcaptain, crew, first mate, master (former and current), owner (former and current)and passenger(s).

4.2.20. During characterisation the former and current options were dropped as thedistinction was unclear and had not been recorded systematically. In most cases thecurrent owner had been assumed to be the owner at time of loss but this currentowner may equally relate to ownership of the wreck today. It was decided that anydistinction between owners or masters during the life of the vessel could beelucidated from the free text description as required.

4.2.21. The captain of the vessel was recorded for 34 of the records, including titles such asCommander in Chief or Commanding Officer, and the master for 53. Of 58 recordedowners, 10 are the English East India Company and seven the Dutch East IndiaCompany. Fifteen of the wrecks are recorded as owned by the Royal Navy at time of

loss and one to the Dutch navy. The remaining record owners such as Kings,merchants or institutions such as Trinity House. There were no entries for crew orfirst mate. Key association with people carried as passengers, or for other reason,were recorded for just sixteen of the vessels. However, other associations areexpected to exist that were not included in the primary datasets, or that were notpicked up during the high level enhancement.

4.2.22. Where vessels were associated with others during their use, for example as part ofa convoy or battle, there is provision within the database to record this associationas an associated monument if it also occurs within the ESB database. There are136 connections between records within the database.

Loss4.2.23. In addition to details of the final voyage, associated with the use of the vessel as

described above, the loss narrative also includes provision to record the date ofloss, the manner of loss and whether or not lives were lost and how many. Lives areknown to have been lost for 62 of the records, although the number is expected tobe much higher in reality. For seven of these the number of crew lost is recorded asall with the number recorded for 53, ranging from 1 to 717.

4.2.24. A date of loss was entered for 116 of the records including both specific year andgeneral year indicating century of build. The date format of the field meant that aday/month/year needed to be input. Where the day or month was unknown 01 wasentered. The recorded date of loss ranged from 01/01/200 (WA173) to 27/12/1940

(WA391).


28/99


21

4.2.25. Manner of loss was identified for 136 records. The most recorded manner of loss isfoundered (55 records) with stranded (50 records) and grounded (28 records) thenext most common. This indicates that accidental or weather related causes werethe primary means of loss of documented vessels within the ESB database.

Survival

4.2.26. The assessment of survival can be recorded using one of the following options:

Destroyed (7 records); Broken-up (39 records); Buried (13 records); Dispersed (4 records); Flattened (1 records); Mainly intact (2 records); Partially buried (10 records); Partially intact (36 records); Poor (12 records); Unknown (113 records); Removed (in curation) (71 records); Removed (unknown) (48 records); and Extant (28 records).

4.2.27. The appropriate descriptive term was attributed by project staff based uponinformation in the primary source, if available, or from the most recent report of thesurvival on the seabed. If there was judged to be insufficient, current informationconcerning the nature of survival the record was classed as unknown.

4.2.28. The use of the term dispersed was included to refer to the remains of vessels

which have been intentionally dispersed by use of explosives or by salvageoperations. The use of the term broken-up was included to refer to wreckagespread across an area by natural processes. The distinction between natural andintentional dispersal was often not clear in the sources and many wrecks have beensubject to processes associated with both natural and human agency. The decisionon which term to attribute to a record was made by project staff based upon theavailable data.

4.2.29. Boats and fragments of boats recovered from archaeological contexts are recordedas removed. If the current location of excavated boat remains (i.e. in a museum)was recorded in the sources the survival was assessed as removed (in curation). Ifthe current location was not recorded the survival was assessed as removed

(unknown).

4.2.30. The use of the term extant refers to historic examples of vessels that survive inmuseums or in private collections, many of which are still in regular use.

4.2.31. The survival of the vessel is a primary consideration in the identification of sites forselective investigations in Stage 3.

Investigation

4.2.32. The investigation of the vessel was characterised using the following information:

Designation; Associated Sources; Associated Finds;


29/99


22

Associated Monuments; Evidence Summary; and Associated Events.

4.2.33. J ust 59 of the records are recorded in the ESB database with a designation and 48

of these are within designated areas established under the Protection of Wrecks Act1973. Six records, HMS Pomone (Alum Bay Wreck) (WA66), Portland Stone SailingBarge (WA76), Halsewell (WA91), Earl of Abergavenny (WA92), the wreck at CrimRocks (WA109) and the Antler Wreck (WA380), have been adopted under theNautical Archaeology Societys Adopt a Wreck scheme. The locations of three ofthe records, Curdridge Creek (WA34), New Guys House (WA173) and Sutton Hoo(WA318), have been designated as Scheduled Monuments while the logboat WA25comes from Ironbridge, declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1986. Twoof the logboats (WA64 and WA88) come from areas designated as Heritage Coastsand one (WA212) is from an area recorded as a Historic Environment CharacterArea, although this affords no statutory protection.

4.2.34. There are a large number of associated sources (3296 in total) but associated finds(209 entries), and events (137 entries) were only included when entered from theprimary data source and may be limited in their contribution at this high level stage.

5. STAGE 3: IDENTIFICATION OF SITES FOR SELECTIVE INVESTIGATION

5.1. NON-STATUTORY CRITERIA AND WRECK SELECTION GUIDES

5.1.1. Wrecks or wreck sites may be considered to merit designation if they contribute, orappear likely to contribute, significantly to the understanding of the past on accountof their historical, archaeological, or artistic importance in a national context (EnglishHeritage, 2010). This significance is assessed on the basis of the following criteria:

Period: In identifying sites to be protected, regard will be had to the currency of anyparticular wreck/vessel type and its representativeness.

Rarity: There are some wreck categories which, in certain periods are so scarcethat all surviving examples which still retain some archaeological potential should bepreserved.

Documentation: The significance of a wreck may be enhanced by close historicassociation with documented important historical events or people, or by thesupporting evidence of contemporary records or representations.

Group value: The value of a single wreck may be greatly enhanced by its co-location with other similar vessels (for example at the site of a battle) or by itsassociation with other contemporary features such as port facilities or defensivesites.

Survival/Condition: Assessments of survival should consider the degree ofintactness of a wreck, the likelihood of the preservation of constructional andtechnological detail and the current condition of the remains.

Fragility/Vulnerability: Some vessel types are likely to be more fragile than othersand the presence of commercially valuable objects within a wreck may make itparticularly vulnerable. Vulnerable sites of this type would particularly benefit from

protective designation.


30/99


23

Diversity: Consideration should be given both to the diversity of forms in which aparticular vessel type may survive and to the diversity of surviving features.

Potential: On occasion, the nature of archaeological remains cannot be specifiedprecisely but it still may be possible to document reasons anticipating their existenceand importance and so to demonstrate their suitability for consideration fordesignation.

5.1.2. English Heritage has recently published the designation selection guide Ships andBoats: Prehistory to Present (English Heritage, 2012b) which sets out in more detailthe approach to designating wrecks in England. This includes reference to specificcriteria, as listed above, and to the process of statutory assessment of heritageassets for designation.

5.1.3. The selection guide applies to all vessels irrespective of the original environmentthey navigated or their current location, either buried underground or no longerafloat and permanently settled, on land, in an inter-tidal location or within Englishterritorial waters. It does not include vessels which are still mobile.

5.1.4. In addition to the above, Wessex Archaeology (2008a, 2008b) has developedguidance for the selection of boats and ships with special interest through theproject Marine Class Descriptions and Principles of Selection. For a boat or ship tobe of special interest in respect of its build, use and/or loss, it must be capable ofmaking a distinctive contribution in terms of the following:

Narrative. A boat or ship will be of special interest where it makes a distinctcontribution to understanding overall historical processes relating to England or tothe globe or where the boat or ship is related to another country to processesidentified as historically significant by people in that country. The special interest of

a boat or ship may arise from its relation to a turning point in history, or to an overallsituation or trend that is important. The narrative within which a boat or vessel is ofspecial interest may be social, economic, political, cultural or technological; thevessels special interest in relation to theses narratives may arise from its build, useor loss.

Associations. A boat or ship will be of special interest where it presents a distinct,tangible link to a person or event. Such special interest will be all the greater wherethe boat or ship had a distinct role in shaping the person or event, rather thanserving merely as a platform. Although associations may seem strongest in respectof known, named historical people and events, special interest may arise where theremains of the boat or ship impart a tangible association with anonymous individuals

or an unrecorded event.

Respect. A boat or ship will be of special interest where it was the site of major orotherwise tragic loss of life. Many shipwrecks involved some loss of life, andalthough a degree of awareness and respect should attend all decisions taken abouttheir investigation or management, loss of life in itself will not normally generatespecial interest. Special interest may arise where large numbers of people werekilled, or where the circumstances are otherwise distinct. Significant loss of life in ashipwreck may give rise to special interest even if no human remains are present;special interest may, however, also arise directly from the presence of smallamounts of human remains (either by virtue of the respect they are due, or theirpossible contribution to understanding the past). The presence of the personal

effects of people who lost their lives may also give rise to special interest.


31/99


24

Aesthetic. A boat or ship will be of special interest where it made a distinct culturalcontribution either directly through its build, or indirectly through being representedin other artistic media, such as painting, sculpture, design, storytelling or song.Boats and ships have often been highly decorated or have otherwise involveddesign or artistic craft in their structure. Equally, boats and ships have often inspiredcreativity through their build, use or loss. In order for aesthetics to give rise tospecial interest, the surviving remains should be expected to provide a tangible,evidential link between the boat or ship and the artistry.

Current Relevance. A boat or ship will be of special interest on account of itscurrent relevance if it embodies distinctive attributes that are also practiced orapplied today. Current relevance is likely to give rise to special interest in relation totechnological innovations in the past that are being developed or re-examined forcurrent use, though there may be other distinct parallels between past and presentthat warrant consideration.

5.1.5. Age is also considered as an additional source of special interest, particular in terms

of narrative of earlier periods for which material remains are the only evidence andfor which material remains are rare (Wessex Archaeology, 2008b). The followinggeneralisations are provided in conjunction with the broad chronology ofshipbuilding and use:

Pre-1500 AD So little is known and remains are so rare from this period that allexamples are likely to be of special interest.

1500-1815 Remains of boats and ships dating to this period are also rare; themajority of boats and ships dating from this period can be expected to be of specialinterest.

1815-1914 There are more examples of boats and ships from this period so greaterdiscrimination is warranted in determining which ones are of special interest.However, this period is also a time of massive change in how vessels were built andused; boats and ships that make a distinct contribution to understanding andappreciating this century should readily be regarded as having special interest.

1914-1945 The highest volumes of known boats and ships lost in UK waters werecasualties of WWI and WWII, with lesser numbers lost in the inter-war years.Greater discrimination will be required. Nonetheless, technological changes, themagnitude of events and the consequences locally and globally of activities in theseyears will clearly give rise to some boats and ships having special interest.

Post-1945 The volume of boats and ships lost to archaeological contexts fallsdramatically. A strong case will need to be made for boats and ships lost after 1945to have special interest.

5.1.6. From these generalisations it is clear that the majority of boats and ships fromprehistory to 1840 are likely to be considered of special interest solely due to therarity of discoveries from these early periods.

5.1.7. However, the age of each vessel cannot be considered sufficient on its own toidentify sites for the purposes of designation. The dataset, therefore, wasinterrogated using the available query filters and searches of the input data toidentify individual sites and groups of sites that may be considered for selective

investigation.


32/99


25

5.1.8. The dataset is discussed below, first in terms of monument category and thenaccording to the chronological periods as set out in English Heritages introductionto pre-1840 ships and boats (2012a) and as adopted for the ESB project. Thefactors which have guided the process of identifying sites for sele

Early Ships And Boats

Documents