Group Title: INA quarterly
Title: The INA quarterly
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: The INA quarterly
Alternate Title: Institute of Nautical Archaeology quarterly
Abbreviated Title: INA q.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Institute of Nautical Archaeology (U.S.)
Institute of Nautical Archaeology (U.S.)
Publisher: Institute of Nautical Archaeology
Place of Publication: College Station TX
College Station TX
Publication Date: Spring/Summer 1994
Frequency: quarterly
Subject: Underwater archaeology -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Archéologie sous-marine -- Périodiques   ( rvm )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Dates or Sequential Designation: Vol. 19, no. 1 (spring 1992)-
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: Vol. 23, no. 2 (summer 1996).
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098800
Volume ID: VID00009
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 26536606
lccn - sf 94090290
issn - 1090-2635
 Related Items
Preceded by: INA newsletter (Institute of Nautical Archaeology (U.S.))


This item has the following downloads:

V21_No1-2 ( PDF )

Full Text
. 11 I 'I .
I -
I I I .
I .
I . 1. -
I I I I 1- I 1. I I 1. . I I I I . . I ..
I I .
. I .
I I .
I I I I .
. I I I .
I I .
I I . .
. I I I I I I
I .
I .
I .
I ,
. I .1 I I I I
I i .1
I . I I.
I . I I .

,- I .. I I . . . I -. . " , ,
I I I . .. . I I . -1 I -, I .- .. I . I I I I I .1 I I .. I I I
I . I I
I I -
I '
I I I . : . I . I 1, - .. I I I
I , I .. 11 I . 1. . I . 1, I I 1. I I .-
. . ". I .. - '- I I I : -

I I I I . I I I I I I I I '. I I - -. . I I I --. I '
I I . I . I .
I 2 -
.. I I I I I I I- ..' . '' -
.I 1. .. I .1,
I . I . I . . .. --
I I I . ..
I I ,
I I ,. I I ,. .
-' 1, I .t I I I -1 .
I I I . 1.
I I . I .1 I- I .. I 1, ., . . I : I . . :. I
I I -. I I- I I I I I I - - I I : I I I ' ,.
l 11 I . I - I : I .. '
.. .. .. : I I . I . . 11 I I . I I ' I 11
I 1. - . I --l I I I . I I I I I I .. :- I '. 11 . 11 I .. I '. I I ' I '-- ;-
-1 I .1 . I I -; I 11 I I -1
I I ; I I . ' '
.. I . I , '. 5 : I .m l - I I I -, -. - .' : I
I . I '-`; , -- I - I . I I I -- ,_ '.' ,- "'
.. . I q I I I 1 . 1. .. 1, .
I . I .. . I . I .1 I . I I I -- "..'L
".- -- _ - ... I . i, 11 I I I . 1. I'll I . I - r. I --';-. '" 1, I I . I - " -- ' ,-. z-, .',.- -:!' ':- t. - t.-- t.'r,".- .. --'- I .; ,
.1 I I ,- -1 .. . I I ' . - 1. I 4 i 1, '. "." . I -.' ':---'- -, 1-
:- . I I 1. .1 - -_, ,:, .. :,- I . I : j'
I. I I -1:..' :.: I -. .. I I - -I 1. ," t; .' ---..",-%:'
: .".- ,-; ' - ''.. - . '. -1 ' .; .- I" .' - - -- - :'. : --,,, ; 1. .. '- n 'j;. " ' -- .' . .- " '
:' '.. .1 -:- ." , j- -'. -.:
I I I I -
I. : - -- -; :. - I I . I . I I I ".- '- p- *. ,. I I
I I -, - - :'- ,;: 7'. -
'- -. I I I - I - Il- .,:, :' ' , '- .'. . -;. ;T -
: - : '. - . i 1. , : .
,- - - - ," -. 'I! .' -, -. ,' f, ..
- 1- I . 1.11 I : ,. -''! ' . ., ,"
-'-]- : :,_ - ' I 'I, .- IN A i,-'- - "'.'. ", .'! :.
: -- !'- : '--- - - - % ." - ,."- ;' .1
.!. ,. ; , I '; I '" -? ;? ."' q .1 -. : .'' : t -':---. -__ :;'-i'!7" -1., "I
0- " '-.- - 2- -.'.... ,( 1 '' I' "!
".' -- -' ,' -." '' . -l"'-' -,
- :'::;.:'---'4-1':" -' 1. I -- :-l-l -"" . "_'. .", - .- .11 I .. '--*' .. .I--
-, "'.... ' I .
T? :- ', 1. "- 1. T-. ` `- "! 110 .. ll' ".. .' ,-:
' I 1 1 : .- I' 1, . ,'.';- r-;-"'--'-" -l- . 1,
- ... "" -'--
1 . ' I .. L
II'' -'''''' -' ..
.---"-'-' -"'.-'o ,.
- ;' ; .. --, : '.. -'. I .7 i -_-.-',"
;. -'- I ' - ''. - "', ---,- '011 -' I -..
. -, --- .. .. '- - I ., ; .
-ad . x ..; 1: '' . V -- _
I ;:,-:- ll'- z : -:-'' . . Vl%" ,
-! ' '. -i 1. .: .. - .. :. -----c-, 11 .-';-"l-'f*i'll "
' I . m I-,,,,-- -1j, ".'
-' *' I 4- `- .I- - I -. ` .. ,; % :. . -'. -,L-"- T- ,--'-, F '- ":' ':.
I 1. .. I I -'..'--'.-. ," ,A l,", - ..-.% 4" '. .. p ,-,-
' - -, c -:'- ,"-."'- -, ,:. '. ,T -."
1 ;6-. ,
-:Z - -, '-* , . I -,: ''- --'. 1, -- -, '; -, - --': i-" -.-'-''.f -, 7;' -zm .!'- -: ,
... L- 1, ' ; I -" ,. .' ':- .-- -' 'o ,--' -;-.-,;"- -4 1 - ; ."r, ..
-. . '.. ; .- :.".1 1 : 11 ", .1 -_.' :' -1 I '
. I I : I .:I- - I '-. I ... '-, -.1 --.'-'.'- - -- " -.,:. r '- -',., '.. '-'.'-..-Xl; -"'F"::'-#'e-" -' -'.," ---'4,-'. ,,,, .:- - ,
I -: .. .1 11, I-
.- I -- .. I ; ", 7, :,., - '. -
-- -- I 11 -'
'- :. -- '--" '- . kt:. -';;-.'- -: 'Z 1. '.ldl ' --'.." 'r ;-
.- - -. - ,-. .: .1, .. ,-: m ,- -.
.' , ' ". ' r" '. .'*
; . 1 , "' -- ', --,-' '-, -7- .- 1- 7-- ,, - 17;--"'""-- SZft -"'. .
. .'. .. , '. v, ':-' I b" -, !: 7-"7 l ' I "I -' .- ,-_ ,, r ..
:' .. I -'.""' I. --.7,-.- ' . .1 ' r i' -. .' ". ;- ,' -- *' -:
-- , -." ' -- .
I ., '' 4 - ---'. -I--' -1 I I- -, -- -, ' ";- ' , il :" ,,-- ,' j % ,
r I - - :' - .] '. - -'.-. , - ! .- -" ,' '.." L:"' - ' - - - ..-' 1 7, ':'i41:'.-l :"- .. I
I . z 11 I ll , r r ; ; ". -, 1, ..- 1, -, "', .' '-'- '. .'. " ,'-- 1. '- -!; -- ", ' v.' .'., I -- ., ' ; .' .,. :- ". .1. ,I I ' .
I , -" : 'f ' - '.."' -1 ' -, : v-, , 1. -e-;V 5" ' 5 -'--"-,-. ,f, ,r., _ ,
- --, ' -'.", , -4 ----'' O "% !-. '-'"z'-j'f--' ",'r 'fli- jf I
;. i I . . I - -'-_-- ` .'- -'"' --%%F -Z' ";--"-'-' '-_'- .. ' -- ,- ' : -L ." , ' ,--, -. :'. _. .. ',' -.' -. -r 1 I I ,
r .' : , - ';" .- I .' ;' '- .
I - , --- ,,, '" : .- '17. I :'- - ,-.-, "; !-'z4.' Z' ,--
I .-,, . '' ... : _r ." , j,' r z --' -'- -.;.', ,y I .' .:.: : :
- 7 : - ", ,. : I r ' -it .
I r ,N :- '--:-! v. n . -- 1 i- '-" .: .n'
I -, -. .. .-.- .. -, ,-. ,- '. , . .. - -- ; ,- "-- -L. -- 1 o.'-'-.';'. . , ., , e -, _5n' .- -" -"n:- - m ' ; m-'.'-.' ,': "' -, -r z' ' :;4 .'!-- -iF- ' : ' ,
, .. . ."' - 7L. ' 4 '! '
I I 4 .. ' - .,7 ... ... :' , .. -' -'.- ,-,;!-,;, - - ,--'-' '- , . -- - ,r r , :" I
l . I I ; --' , : - - "z .' 'i--';i '. ,:4, I
; r 4 : '. "' -'-:'- , t'; , '--?L'4'_- --; .-" T;-
I - 1 --' ": "":' "-- -- .- 1.1, - -. -- - -, :."-4-,m5'jal.----- ." -'--"j-'- "-.. 'lg-.. --'r,-, ;7V .; 7' ' ' 1 '%. ', -' -, q.- -, ,
-- "' -- -' '. -. .' -z : -4:' ,-., "77, -, ' ---' -' I
-.: . - - - , ,.r. ,;' -,
I ,. .%. I - '.' J ". ' 7iZe'!';....' ; " ;'
- I - - - -.,, -, - ' . l .. " ", -, ' '- f- -, -., . __ __. ' I "
' ' 4:';'-!' -, i ; ..'
'7 -,' -n' ,I- ':;
': I ` -- _
I I , r -, '7' I 1;"; '-' .,--'- 1 - '7 '" --0 -?t' -----.!n ' 1 ' r ... .;
.", 't i '-" ' -e!' -, .4, -- ',L' I ' - W ', - ' - , ':
'' ,% ; j7--'-4 ,I,---
, ' , i--4::a--?Ei.
-w: ''-"- ,- '. ," ' "'i. ,. ' '-"'' ' r - -, ,
' ,' "I .-"-%.-'-.' ;M," -' ; --Q V. '4-'-"',"4', -.-: --'4 Flv"- _'- -, .1 :. _: m' L I ' 7 , " !" ': :;;; '----. ,- .
I '. , :' : -11. ' I ;, -- I- - -- .
'." - ;" .' r ' - - -:+ - 11 .;g L. --' ,' ', r
-? I ' .. ' -, '. i ': ; ,- -- `-, --- - "'' - ' ; M ""'.- 4, ,,'- -."- - " 1 4- . -, -, -
' "w ,,'- '-- "'lil ," - -.:-.-..,. I i--,;'
-. _ '- '!- I : r ' ;" F 'V-- ,
I 'I ; ' Z I 1 I -J, -, Zrt .'-- ;--. -' P->."' -- -' I -:' '-' 1 "', - q- -- -- ,.. .r ;.._ .4, . - .
-. "' ' 'r I :.I ' '!"'.'-'-'t?'*;Z ':' & 7 -- -Z-l I-"' 1. " ll' 11 -, '.' ,-. :" ; - ' --j' '''--' -:-", -;.- ''- -- ,:-- % -.11- - -,.,- -- - -- -' Z' 1, 1 -, - ';'--' ' e -
' I _' ' - -_"' t_rl' '..-. "'.--, "-'-' ---'- ' -'-- e'----L-.-
` 1 --- - "
... r '. I .E -!::'- -. i 'rkt"' ,;",4-:
.;, .; ': '. . -- - -, .' ;" -- --- '' '.-.- - -' '7 ... : ;: , p .-l' .;-,% `:_3 -'--*" 'it 7 "-'- A ' '4-p -- ','- -, '. : ,. . .
I ' ' , I I -, 1. -'% ," .-"-,r ' _.;.'. -;Z iiL Irr .- ; ,
7 1. ... '- I- 44
I- .' I .-: Z, 7 .
- r. 4 .. ,,, " , -: : 5 ;.-'_ ,'.ne7 -__ r. ,. r A i -- .
' .' -'-' 0 '- ,
', r .,, -, ," -. : ' '." '-- - : ; -' .-,.T '.' ;- .. I ` .... .. 7'a _.
r -
:' 7, ' . ' -'-- ,', ' -.. : -','; -. l -'-.- - - .-!_m !';t 0-.! -- ' : ' : F"" ;' ' !- .W- m 11
I., L -- " '':! 'I"".1 6'"--- '-' , 1, ,,, '-- '-'. -'.- ll - .. ,.
I ' ,P- --., "z' ' - I ,,
- , ' : '--,i .--7 '-'' ';-!F-t' .11, -- I .... "': ll -: .. .... I 1-- . , - -"e"' `" .' fz ", -- Q .4z:- , '- r '.
-, .. , -, - --' '-ll ,;.; ;"' ,' r J. 1,
I -, . .. -1 I irn ." '- '_"" " 41 i 'k - ' ---l " 4; ,. - -,
C-'" ---l t'-" 4--' '.-.'.- '-7 '*- F':51'; -,'' il Lv- ` ,,,
.", ; ' ' "', j I : .1 ' I ; . . ".z -, ' -_' 1! -"" '.'- *'- '. ; , --
-'- 1, ." ,,, "-
1. - ." .; -1 -` -; - . -7 :- -' I - -' -- 4- ' ,
: N;!'ljj I '-, ' '41:r- ':
.: . ': 14-4'----:j; -'- I ',,f-' - '- - 'g" g"-
'.. px N _" ;X ; 1,
': - I -1 'i- '-'k" "; --'-.-. v -, -,
. '. .. ; '_' :_ - li", S27 ,,, -09 7. tF
7 1 i ' "4 ;;'= -':' ;'z ' - -.
I - -ti 't' ," I Z. -." - -,I,, -,-' I -- "- --r- ',e , : - ' ', ,
.. I - :' ' L;.-r ,4' ' r "'-r-' - ", 1:1.- 2 -"'' '.
-, I.: ' ,-' ..", 1, - .. .. .; 1- '-'%-. , " i''H - .--,; ,.- ,,- :' - ,. I :. - - - . ,
I-. - '. .t -_ .' "" -:'q ; m; -I-- "_ ,_ --.-, ', i Z -
I I .i - --- : ,, --- -;'
_- "' A ' "';
I I I --' 4 . '--' ,-
' -."-- -- a"-:-7c-'-a""t "' " I " :. ,- I
.. r ' .-
i:, I ' - "'K ''. ' ." ' . ,
t' I . ! . - __ _' .'. .
_-' : ,,,*,-,:,-,,,,r - "; '. ' - ";fg; 5:j;'! < - _. ... - -'- '- g i- .- ---- ' t ";l ; ". ': ' ;' ' ,' : -" ; - ": F?
I - --- "; -- - :R -. -!-n5
". i - -',--.'Zl"---:l"-.- -- Z ?:'7"'.', !- , .--,.,,-,'-t...:----..,'t ;, -'-;-e "--' -- '= li -" I I ; '.;_
!#A 7 -,.,-_Z:,'-.'_,_7"4,--, t.:,-r-%-;-,y:..%.l.""- 1-1 -1, *'
- -- - - I I Y ,' ': " iF- -" ig
il t '-', Z t.u" '-' I I I `,J.'-': 'r '--!;-""";'' ` '- -, .& : : ,
Y"' Z7 ' ; 1 -" .'- -'n7 -'". -z"-'-!%'F;;-. '
-- I :- 11 -41 :- "-'f , -V" ", ';"--- , , - ;' "'-";'"_' ':- I f" '-, --:, , '-TZ' -- ''4-.- ..' -
, - 7 , : - *: : --c '- '.-'-. --.- .. 1, - - --x- '. z ", -L '' ' . -7 ' " - z--. - -- -.'-, -1 .- -" I - . .r" -' .
- .. ,
= I '- : -" :''' ; - ' Z. .. , -1 .'-' '.'-- !"--. '; ".." .:I' 1 ` " I I .. I
i , 1: -:- ,."- - : " . i I. . - ,,, .. :' .! '- .-' 'T -- ,
I r .- -- 7 -- ,, :. - V, i -g' '!= "-r - I'll r -
:,-- , '''; "*-, ''Q45: :-4 .. I I, 14 --,r-,* .. I .r-,,, '"- -'---' r. '.-.
' 14' ; I r, . --. ! : r I -'j j! -
.' ' , - " ! ': ,I '- - ------- . ". - , "t".. -;:;- ,'- '. '' .1, '! ':;''5' - '"-' '. Z ?Z'7'i
- : i ';' -,. .-,ff." 7--` '4' '.- - i ;'-F'7 -'
' f, I '' '1" - '' .- --Z-.-''- z. -. -i Z'% -; '- E'- -- --- 'I-
- A ...... -, -- "', : ..,
-- .' - , - - I ." ] ,;". "', ." . '?' -- c , 1 ,;e ";' f' 1: - : ' - -, - .1 , 'j."- , - ' 4 -'r ,-
.. - - -" I ... -t - -; I ;;;
- I ' - -', ' -, " ,. p -- , .' '. . I , ' 9 .. - -- - .- . 'Z- '' ;'F .-, '. ,
., '--. :: -, - I
.1 I ' t .i ---. l-.- T.---: -, ' - ", ... % -1 ;-r'. I I ". I I 1 ' -, -. - "'. %- - - ! ;:; ,
, z -.` -':'T'4r- `
... I w I'v .-- .. =- ", I " -11,---t I,,
-- 7 I -," 1'..',', 1, ..-"' -'' ' -_,- --.;' -1 -, I ,
'.. * .' -"-:' i-.',,,-- ; --; ,- ,'- :' -7, - -'- ,7z -,-.;-.----'.---- ' 1. :-
I 7 Z '-, :- - . -;-, --'- 'T. I , .. : - .' ";- - "
. I 1. I I- - '. t-, ' -'-. --l--"---'-: ;" .. , ,- - ' "-q --".'.'; ! ".;' ,
.. , , -7 - - . -
I I : : I ., I , I -, '--7 7 ,- - '. -'.; ,- -.- -'- -- - -,; ',,- :'---! -'-t- Q ,,,, I .
I' I - t' .Z' -- :-:.-I-, ' 'i .1 .--- ,- -
.. .. I - , ." -". ,k -i'--- t --:-r7 .
..... :., ' ,.
.1 :' c 2
-. ; :' 'I. .".. -' I . I I I .. f ;.' -, - .T- - ", .1
. i ; I F , 2 ,.
- ': ' lv, 1-1" : -: -. '.-". A:mlr . -'i" ' ii
. : ,- ' '' 1, ' l.", ,- : -, '
'- I-- -i'' -: '- Z -', -': . '- - --------:--.--' I ; - - I -
-. , %, - . ; - --- ---- !.. -1 -:: , 1 --- - 11;-, r, , '. . ; . , -, ", .: . '- '. I.,- -- 1- ,a -' "' --_, ," '...?i , ;
I , ", j r -- - - ----: '. .. " .1 I 1. " '- - ..''. -- ,7 4
.. --- ,_a I ' : I I - I
-- ' .1 - ', 1 , -7 -- .. -"' . I r " .: ' ; ... 11 ": - "? oll
-- : 4 ,- " f- ; - .1 ..- ;' .. r ,- -,- ---':- .'.':'.-'e 1.13' ; . -'
-, I i, -,-,- i I 1 - -- - -..- I !ol- ". ' - 4 - _. -
-- -- -- i ... .1, 7 '': -t' ,,7.r .. t;''-;li" .'
.;. - : 7 : - - ; ! -:' -, "'... j 'I .' ..,., I, '. ll - - - Z' -2 _' r
I - j! ""'' 'i ", :'- :' - ; : t ' ', --' - -, , -'. -
") i-;- -`-' ';7 ' - - .- , -, "- r- -'. -, ' - .1 k.. ". -. I -- ':
:' I I .' I , .."- '
- .7 ` I 3 ' - --- S' - i' : - -T''- a --A ( - --' ': ", ,'.."' ,
"' -.f I ' ":- 't" I -r 7 .- - - .
.. - _. - F -, F- ,"i' '.
.;' ' :;? ,; -, -`4 in', ,- F - =- 7-------- --:- 7 -T-7l,i-',-..,,:;,.-e
t'r ) I Y ," ", -_" , -. 1'
,r " --,.. &' - - iJ',. -'! -. -, -.",7 ' '. _7 '7-7- -T a r/4' I .1
- ,-,;. -' '- --4- -- .- - .-',' "."' ' I
';'i ,: ." z 4-, , 3 F 'F - 'r '- -,_ ". -, - - i `R'. I ,tz -t- ,, : ' ' -, : , : -%
- ,--:'-- ----I 14, ' I -"''"!- -"-a 14p: ., I 11
. "' .-, I !:- ;
--, -. -? Z- . I I
-- --- ' "' p ---t-- - ,777
'' -,,-. - - I . I ;' I I
,,, -, --, -i ' ---- 'zf-7.".'.-' -I ur'!7- -f -, z -'Z::.z'Y.;% - -- . .; '
"'!, , -=- -' '4, ' I
_' - r .' .. i- - -mi;F' 4-7- , '-! '- '
11 !;Z ..", a 'r---' -' - --. -'l'--.-'---'7-"?'."." '
I I :. 7-- -' .'- r Z _-' -_ 1
I : ll / ." %'', ?.' '' ', -* ` ' 1 - ' ' ' -) ,
1 . I : ' I 7 ---- '.;-";;.-' --" -":: ';- - 77, ,:.-- -z- --- '--L.Z-ZF4 i ; *- ; " : "
., "I .' - ,---.:--.z7 _ -n -. .;!, Q .
-' I I 11 I J, -
'.Z.- L.' --.'-, -- -' -A -;
- ': I .. .. -- - 1- 1 -I--- -- I I : "j . '.t'- 7, -- --l,%- .5'.
--- Zill L',Z Y--* Z' "' r' i '" -' I -- -- - "i .' ', ,. r -
- . , :- -! --- -:,',,- -,, .-- f r - .-; "'r'.. 1 '. : '._ - "
.1 I -- -
--" ` '" ", --' ' P- .`- . i .
I - I i I Z;;;!.:. ' - --4f- --, :. .': - F
I I I ------- --X, '%-71, -,,7'-.-- --:- "---- : _; , ,
' b I - -:;- '. -'. ] - ', - --
. --.:.. &' 1 I -
: - 11 4:-' I -' ':7 "', 3-'-, ' --- p " -
.- '. -" - -, -.-' ; .-, ' . - ' '- :, a- ,. '-,,,- I i -- -' - t.- .: .
I. .' ' : !: -, 11 - . -- 41 - "1% " :1 - ;-: ?x I I . "' .-
I I I I I . f , r '' --r- .. I I - -- - ;- .' W,
' I i -. -' "- - 11 : J I --
,. I I I ___ : - , i f .'r, 1. 11
I . .j I I , I - - .
. I I I : - I I I '- - ,-. I 1 !' . .
, ,' : - ". .1
I r I .
-l. I I I I '-,: ::'--,." : -'','-".'T!---l'%i-"-'; I ' '-, ;!""'- -,;' '- :: --- 7 -, I I
. - w ..
i I Ir-
: :" -,
.. .. -r] -0, .. ...
- I '"- .I. ".'. ;.' ll ,-
i. I I -11 - ' m .'. ,11, '--, I 'I, '-: .r -' -- 2", -. ::- i. I
. I I I ' I '. ' ' cl - '
I .. I _, -- " " I ---l-- ;e:;:- --l;' *'-'.':.'i-; L---"-4 ','
11 -. - -. -, ::- - I I : 7 r , I I '
'. : --r F -,'- - ,- : ; -11 .1 - - '-' 5 , '. 14" ll '; I '."' --
I ... - I . r I - I m I I : '. I I - ,.'- - ; *. ' I . .. ' '.] ' __, ". " ,,,* ',-' ': f;,-" :''. "*'"- ':.:', r ' '- ,. ""' I I ; I I I - I " I ": -. ' -, , '-- ;'z" _-" :'' ,! !' - '-' 4. -. -
I . : I -1 : - I I ' _' r., x ... .. .'
.1 I , I I ,,' ' '; . I -1 IV, Y '
.. ' ;' I : -' ",' '. -, - *1 -:" '
. I I I- 1 .. I I I % I I I ." 1. xe ,.- - .- -, %, I F, ' ' .. i, , I ' ' 1" 'A , -: ' .
11 . _.. I I I I I .... I I - . - . -:.- " . .
_, I I I I I : -, ;-- , - -' .-, - .' ;.. % '-,-
; ., ., ._ ,: :: lf .' ; , . .1 ;' '.'..'-- t _,_ r , '
_. 1 : 1. :,-""" - : ,-- -, , L. , ,- - r ' - : .' > '- -*. Tw .. '." _' _
I ; r , .: I i ,- - ': , . ' ,:; :-: '
'. ; ,-- - I I i- ,- . : ' " ' -- - vl' - -. , ; ...
... . _- ,. 4 .*,, " "I' , I '- ;,'
-, ;. ,. ':'t I '-" , 't
jr., .. ',' ';.-,, -" !-- - ' -, ". j-1.
.:, I I I I ..' I . .
'- I I " !':,- -'-'v : :' -'r ,' ' I I,- -""' ;".* '4.
0. ,r '- I .. '. ;' ..; _.- ,, ' ,. _.. .' - I.., - : , '. :' . '- ' - ". ' '. I I I 't' --l" . .': - s -- Ili
, - '- .' ,'- . .'k,7.'.t : .. '- I ;':" .-*'
_ _ "' . t' ;.. ' :.. li''.:'- ' '. I-,- t' --- ;N' '..' -, -' N, 'i"' ;x ,
- ;' I L ,:i '' '.",", .- .' .1 ' I 1. ;III:, :- % -',, ' , _-' I ". ;- -," - I -
- ' : -, '. --'-; ; '- .',,-A , "! :-' -' "'.: .'- '.'l :1, ". --;':-, '; ). " . ';: '; z.-" - -i ' . : I ."', r ,+.' .". I
I -1 -' -,q',4j'4'. ' .-" :- - --
:' "'l. w":: !;''. . ,: . -"; -, -11,-" -'. -1 , ,.. ." " I .1
. I ." I ' , .. Cl ," ,"r; 'i:: , 4 -'4"% A" -a.-;
1. 11 1, I I -1 -- - I I . I ; I '; ' .' - .'-, '' ' .'< ,- "'"''-? " I - ;c .", 1" j V '-
;. t' I ,:. '.' r ".' !- 1, 11 ;l I I . '4 ' . ' : V "..
e4 '' - ", ' .... ;-, - .- "',% ' -
. ;- I I ._," . I ,m I . ' . .
, r ' , .. ". ,.:, ':' '. -' - - -- : ' .4 .4, I .. -. ,
' . . I -, 1 ." : ; :, : :"'-' -, , ;g"' ";', ,.j-; ' -, : -' .; rl'' ; '- ,I -jr ', '. '-'*-- - ,- -
'. -i'- .: t ! , 'l- ll I I r- _L , T - z '' "-?%""-'ll '
-! : I.: I -- i I ' - , . ,- ,-,,,- - -Y -4 -k " %e: ';*
: ' ,"-: ' I ; " '.'4' ' ' 7- "-,." j .- r .11 :, "j4-
. .
'. I : ' ' I '- "' r : t -'
': :'! .- I - I . 51 tNlm I . '
-, . ; .. '* -. - .. I ;' . -f -- I ". I -' -46 "'-'. --,- r "
` 1 .1 '. ,,, T - ' ' -
-- -* : '- ," r -I- :. -". -': 1-1 ,- 1 I - , r. .. I I -1 I ". I
I ':.'. -, ." : ; -
: r t' % ", , I . I ._r .. ,' , .1 I .1 .
: . . - : , - ". ': : ". " . "* 7 '. '. 1 '. ; ' I I I ,- -- !`_ l.: -,
:. -: .: - 44 :-' .' --'., .,;," ,.- ';" I - "', I ';' -, e-, '
--l : . ..
iT , , t : -% ,
.l.': -' "- 1: , . '7 ' 'i,.' : ',_ _-' ; - %.,-"rl-.- -.,-- I ",: .
, I I ':'.4
-- r -r- ', ' I" I r o , ., i , ., r. I .". -":"'t' I -,- r , .11 'v " -,t :.- I - I I .' -. ". :' ) , ; j i .' I , .
' ;l' I 1, '. 11 - ,. I I -1 ", -
' -i I Z- : '" '- ".'."o I;, .v,;-, . f .
- '.
-,. ' -. .' ' : - ". -, '
_t ," -.. .4:., 1 -, -: . '4 , - Y-'
1 I .- . - -- :'' .
I : , ,. . I :I. : :-. - ; -' ` ,, .1 ' . '. r., 'e. .' -. ' - ::f* ;1, ri" - ", ,' , - ,- I I I -.'* .
'. I 1, ..' - -, - .- :--". :-- -"-::',: -, ;' ' -, J :-:' %.. :.- .. - 4 .... '. -1 I -". " , , 'i i -- -"' --' - . 1,
, - -':" ,:,. ;t '' --.-
-! ' -, "'. , t -r-._- - ' - .' -'-'. . r .. ,L'f. tj' ' -- .''
.'' ; ' .-;, I k 7. .
fr, ' . ] . ' "! , -'q: -' -, 1 -4
," ,- ,- .- .1 ; . I- .
'' :;. 11 x I
"V- - . 'W' e. -'.
:'. r .. , I , - -': --, .' - I
... ' " '. 'iiz e

' ' -", - 1'1' 1, - I I -, -- , 1. I

The INA Quarterly

Volume 21, Nos. 1-2 Spring & Summer 1994 MEMBERSHIP
Institute of Nautical Archaeology
PO Drawer HG
Contents 3 "My God, How Can it Be?" College Station, TX 77841-5137
The Wreck of the Steamship Hear firsthand of our latest discov-
Champlain II cries in nautical archaeology. Mem-
Elizabeth Robinson Baldwin bers receive the INA Quarterly,
scientific reports, and book dis-
12 The Confederate Privateer Pioneer counts.
and the Development of American Regular....... 25
Submersible Watercraft
Richard K. Wills Contributor .... $50

20 A Personal Look at Some Traditional Supporter .... $100
Vessels of Bali and Madura, Benefactor .... $1000
Richard D. Herron Student/Retired .. $15
Checks in U.S. currency should be
29 A Quest for Simplicity. Musings on made payable to INA.
the Seventeenth-Century "Pipe
Wreck" in Monte Cristi Bay,
Dominican Republic
Jerome Lynn Hall

38 In the Field

39 News & Notes

The articles in this issue of the Quarterly exemplify the close relationship the Institute enjoys with the
students of the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University.

On the cover: An 1875 photograph of the Champlain II wrecked on the rocky western shore of Lake Champlain,
looking north (Courtesy University of Vermont Archives).

o June 1994 by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology. All Rights Reserved.
INA welcomes requests to reprint INA Quarterly articles and illustrations. Please contact the editor for permission.

The INA Quarterly was formerly the INA Newsletter (vols. 1-18). Editor: Michael A. Fitzgerald

Courtesy Univerity of Vermont Archives
Inspection of the Champlain II after it had been driven up onto the rocky shore of Steam Mill Point,
Lake Champlain, at the southern tip of Split Rock Mountain.

"My God, How Can It Be?"

The Wreck of the Steamship Champlain II

by Elizabeth Robinson Baldwin

On the night of July 16, 1875, the Lake Champlain
paddlewheel steamer Champlain H was heading north on
the lake from Ticonderoga, New York, under the command
of Captain George Rushlow. The steamer had stopped to
discharge all but 53 paying passengers and several uncount-
ed ones at Westport, New York. No additional passengers
embarked. While at the dock the first pilot, El Rockwell,
becketed (strapped down) the wheel at the request of the
relief pilot, John Eldredge. Although Rockwell thought
Eldredge looked "gruff," he turned the wheel over to him
and retired for the evening. Within minutes after Eldredge
had taken the wheel, the steamer was rocked by a huge
Although some crew feared they had run over another
vessel on the lake, the Champlain II had actually been
driven into the rocky shoreline of Steam Mill Point, at the
southern tip of Split Rock Mountain. Pilot Rockwell
rushed back to the pilot house to find Eldredge standing at

the wheel, simply staring into space. When Rockwell
questioned him Eldredge replied, "Can you account for my
being on the mountain?" When the full import of the
situation struck him, Eldredge was deeply shaken. "My
God, how can it be, I was steering as I always steer, clear
of the mountains." Captain Rushlow quickly ordered the
engines stopped and the fires under the boilers put out, and
the passengers were put ashore by means of a gang plank
laid out from the port rail. Miraculously, no lives were
lost, no one was seriously injured, all the baggage was
saved, and only a small part of the cargo was ruined.
During the commotion and landing of the passengers and
salvaging of the cargo no one noticed Pilot Eldredge leave
the ship and disappear into the woods. He was found days
later near the wreck site, claiming not to remember what
had happened.
The wreck was well publicized and caused a sensation.
Sightseers flocked to the site, and the steamer's owners ran

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Map: E. Baldwin

Wreck location of the Champlain II.

excursions to the scene of the disaster. The remains of the
Champlain 1 now lie in 15-35 ft (4.57-10.67 m) of water
at the southern tip of Split Rock Mountain, on the New
York side of Lake Champlain. The site is well known and
popular with recreational divers. In the winter of 1993 the
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation contacted Art
Cohn of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, and his
research partner, Dr. Kevin Crisman of the Texas A&M
University Nautical Archaeology Program. The Division
was interested in evaluating the Champlain 1I for possible
inclusion in its Historic Underwater Preserve System in
Lake Champlain. Dr. Crisman asked me if I would be
interested in directing the archaeological recording of the
hull during the 1993 Lake Champlain Summer Field
School. Having studied other nineteenth-century steam-
ships, I gladly accepted the offer.
The Champlain II holds an important place in the
development of steamships on Lake Champlain. Although
it was on the lake only from 1868 to 1875, the vessel had
two distinct service careers. The steamer's changing
service illustrates well the intense competition between
railroad companies and their insatiable quests for routes to
new markets, as well as the struggles of steamship compa-

nies to maintain a market share and adapt to changes in
transportation technology.
The Champlain II began its working life as a railroad
car ferry named Oakes Ames. The vessel was commis-
sioned by the Burlington Steamboat Company, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Rutland Railroad Company, for the
specific purpose of transferring railroad cars between the
Rutland Railroad terminus at Burlington and the Montreal
and Plattsburgh Railroad terminus at Plattsburgh, New
York. The Montreal and Plattsburgh Railroad was also
owned by the Rutland Railroad Company. In addition to
serving the railroads, the Oakes Ames was to ferry passen-
gers between Plattsburgh and Burlington, stopping at Port
Kent, New York, along the way.
Champlain II was built in 1868 at Marks Bay in South
Burlington, Vermont. Two men were responsible for her
construction: Captain Napoleon B. Proctor, an experienced
lake captain, and Master Carpenter Orson S. Spear, a well
known Lake Champlain shipbuilder and house carpenter.
Reports in the Burlington Free Press from January through
June 1868 indicate that Captain Proctor superintended the
construction and maintained a tight veil of secrecy around
the vessel, her owners and her intended purpose. The

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Lake Champlain steamboat ports in the year 1875. All
commercial passenger lines made scheduled stops at these

mystery ended on June 3, 1868, when the vessel was
launched amidst great fanfare, with Vermont Governor
John Page, Director of the Rutland Railroad, and a host of
dignitaries attending. Among them was her new namesake,
Oakes Ames, a Congressman from Massachusetts and a
newly appointed Director of the Rutland Railroad.
The Oakes Ames became celebrated in her day for both
her strength and her speed. She could carry 12 to 14 fully
laden railroad cars at a time on two lengths of tracks that
ran the length of the main deck. After initial trials, her

engineers estimated her speed would average "between
twenty-two and twenty-three miles per hour." The vessel
was outfitted with boilers from T.S. Sutherland and
Company of Whitehall, New York, located at the southern
end of Lake Champlain, and was powered by two indepen-
dent walking beam engines built by the Fletcher Harrison
Company of Hoboken, New Jersey. The boilers were
placed well out on the guards (the overhanging portion of
the deck along the sides of the vessel), with the two beam
engines positioned at the inboard edges of the paddlehous-
ing. One observer, the publisher R.S. Styles, described
her "novel and peculiar construction" at length, con-
cluding that she was "a vast floating railroad bridge."
This "vast floating railroad bridge" required a special
docking arrangement. Captain Proctor had patented a
design for a "Floating Draw Bridge" in 1856, twelve years
before the Oakes Ames was built. The patent describes a
floating dock with a berth for a large steam vessel at one
end and a draw bridge equipped with railroad tracks at the
other. The draw bridge could be lowered to connect with
railway tracks on shore. A steamboat could enter the berth
bow first, after which the forward bulwarks would be
removed. Freight cars would be pushed across the bridge
and dock, over the bow of the vessel and onto the main
deck of the steamer. Although the patented bridge had not
yet been built, the design and construction of this draw
bridge was uppermost in Proctor's mind when he designed
the Oakes Ames. Proctor's floating dock, with its connect-
ing hinged bridge, was a familiar sight at the end of Maple
Street in Burlington for many years after the Oakes Ames
was launched.
The Oakes Ames was successful as a railroad car ferry,
operating from August 31, 1868, through March of 1873.
During this period the Champlain Transportation Company
(CTC), the major passenger steamship operator on the lake,
engaged in a contractual agreement with the Rutland
Railroad. The CTC made Plattsburgh the terminus for its
passenger line service, and coordinated the steamer sched-
ules with the railroad schedule. The agreement provided
the Rutland with increased traffic for its rail service, and
no appreciable decrease in traffic for the Oakes Ames.
This profitable period ended on March 1, 1873, however,
when a consolidation of railroad property in the Champlain
region by the Delaware and Hudson Company eliminated
the need for her services.
The railroad companies of the late nineteenth century
were constantly searching for opportunities to expand. In
order to extend the rail lines to reach new markets they
leased large portions of track from other lines that linked
tracks they built or owned outright. The Delaware and
Hudson, wanting to move its Pennsylvania coal north to

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Canadian markets, took control of all leases and property
of the Rutland Railroad, which of course included the
Oakes Ames. As the railroad company wanted no competi-
tion for the railroad from steamers, the vessel was in turn
"sold" in the same year to the CTC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Delaware and Hudson, for conversion
into a passenger steamship.
The CTC paid $85,000 for her, and spent another
$24,000 to convert her to a passenger vessel by stripping
off the rail tracks and adding cabins and passenger furnish-
ings. Because of her original purpose much of the main
deck was free of machinery and there was plenty of room
for opulence. The vessel was fitted with a main stateroom
hall 162 ft (49.39 m) long. The new layout also boasted
41 staterooms, two suites, a dining room capable of seating
115 people, 46 smaller berths, a post office and-a barber
shop. The name of the vessel was also changed before she
was entered into service for the CTC. Senator Oakes
Ames had unfortunately become involved in the notorious
Credit Mobilier/Union Pacific Railroad Company cash-
skimming scandal. His name was most likely an embar-
rassment to the new owners, but in any case the vessel was
renamed Champlain I, after an earlier lake steamer.
She was operated by the CTC as a passenger steamer for

only one and a half seasons before disaster befell her.
Immediately after her refit was completed in May of 1875,
the vessel was placed on special charter excursion service
and on back-up duty for the line boats. On July 5th of that
summer the line boat Vermont II broke a piston and was
taken out of service. The Champlain II replaced her on the
night run from Ticonderoga to Plattsburgh. She had been
on duty a little over a week when Eldredge drove her onto
the rocks.
The loss of the new vessel rocked the financially
troubled company, which along with local steamship
inspectors launched a thorough investigation into the
incident. The entire crew was asked to submit written
testimony, and the inspectors interviewed several of the key
crew members, including the captain and pilots Rockwell
and Eldredge. The investigation revealed that Eldredge
had been buying larger than normal quantities of morphine,
at that time sold over the counter, from different druggists
up and down the lake, and had even had friends, including
the Champlain II's baggage master, purchase some for him.
Co-workers, acquaintances, and even Eldredge's house
painter testified that they had seen him in trance-like states.
Eldredge himself claimed that the drugs had been for the
general use of his family, and that he had never taken any.


INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Preliminary site plan of the hull remains, the sternpost is at left. Ceiling planking has been omittedfor clarity.


cute--ct =-~i

However, the steamship inspectors concluded that Eldredge
was addicted to morphine and had most likely lapsed into
a drug-induced stupor while at the wheel. His license to
pilot any vessel was summarily revoked by the authorities,
to which his reply was said to be, "Gentlemen, wait until
I ask you for one."
The Champlain II had driven about a third of the length
of her keel out of the water and had listed to starboard,
away from shore. The "back" of the vessel, that is her
longitudinal stiffening timbers, had broken in the crash,
and the steamer was declared a total loss. The Champlain
II was subsequently stripped of her two engines (which
went into two other Company vessels), boilers, upper
works and all salvageable furnishings. The remaining hull
was finally towed out into deeper water and allowed to
While the story of the wreck of the Champlain II is
widely known, we know much less about her original
construction as a railroad car ferry and about the structural
changes made to the hull during her conversion to a
passenger steamer. Construction plans showing her
original design have not been found. Nor does there exist
any record of the structural changes made by shipwrights
at the CTC yard in Shelburne, Vermont (besides enthusias-

tic descriptions of her luxurious appointments).
A brief preliminary survey of the site was made by
avocational divers Dennis Breitigan and William Guppy in
1988, who created a simple plan of the wreck. Our initial
reconnaissance dive on the hull in 1993 revealed that
important information regarding the extent of the hull
remains and its unique construction features awaited us.
Our field season on this large, well preserved hull lasted
from June 6 through July 9, 1993.
The wreck lies in the sheltered cove called Rock
Harbor, which is directly across the lake from Basin
Harbor, Vermont, where we were based at the Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum. Staff and crew loaded their
gear into an inflatable Zodiac and were ferried in shifts to
the site, at the southern end of Split Rock Mountain. Our
crew consisted of graduate students from Texas A&M and
the University of Vermont (UVM), undergraduates from
UVM, and local volunteer divemasters. Although our
mission was only to conduct a general survey of the wreck
and assess its condition, we recorded as much of the hull
structure as possible within a four week period. We made
two dives each per day; each dive lasted between 20 and 45
minutes while the water remained about 40' F; dive times
were extended once the water warmed to a balmy 50'F.

Drawing: E. Baldwin

INA Quarterly 21.1-2


Drawing: E. Baldwin
Hull section at Frame 1, looking aft. The starboard portion ofthe floor timber has broken off The oak cap timbers are missing
from the two inner stringers at this frame section; they commence at Fll and F13, to port and starboard, respectively.

The hull remains lie on a direct north-south axis, with
the stern (to the north) lying nearest shore at a depth of
about 15 ft (4.67 m). The forward extremity rests in about
35 ft (10.67 m) of water. The entire preserved structure
measures 163 ft, 11 in (ca. 50 m) in length. When the
Oakes Ames was officially enrolled (registered) at the Port
of Burlington she measured 244 ft (74.39 m) long, 34 ft
7.7/10ths in (ca. 10.52 m) in breadth, and 9 ft 8.75/10ths
in (ca. 2.93 m) in depth. A comparison of the recorded
remains with enrollment measurements indicates that a
significant portion of the forward end of the vessel is
missing: approximately 80 ft (24.39 m), or a little over a
third of the total length.
The wreck rests upright on its oak keel, and is firmly
settled in the mud. A considerable portion of the starboard
side is standing and intact up to the level of the main deck
beams. Approximately half of the port side has collapsed
away from the hull abaft amidships, a result of the break-
ing of frames F66 through F101 at the floor timber/futtock
join. This section remains a more or less cohesive assem-
bly. The forward-most extremity of the remains marks the
point at which the keel and other longitudinal members
broke as a result of the crash. Saw marks indicate that the
original salvors purposely made a clean saw cut across the
hull, leaving the bow section on land to be hauled away
and reused. This gave us a convenient opportunity to study
the keel and record a section of the hull. The keel is quite

shallow, only 7 in (17.78 cm) moulded (high), though it is
not clear if this is the original dimension or if portions
broke off during the wrecking. There are no rabbets in the
keel, as the garboards were butted directly against its
moulded faces (sides).
The entire sternpost is standing. It is also of oak and
composed of two pieces, the inner, or sternpost proper, and
the outer, or false, post. The mortise-and-tenon joint
uniting the keel and the sternpost is strengthened by six oak
deadwood timbers. The deadwood is stacked at a 45'
angle and forms a triangle between the horizontal keelson
and the vertical sternpost. Large gaps in the false post
were made by salvage divers who at some point cut off the
entire rudder, complete with its pintles and gudgeons, and
removed it from the site.
A total of 108 pine frames are in place; they were
numbered starting with Fl, at the forward extent of the re-
mains, through F107 just forward of the sternpost. They
are unusual in three ways: first, they are single frames, 16
in (40.64 cm) moulded by 4 in (10.16 cm) sided (wide).
Typically, the frames of contemporary lake steamers are
not as extremely rectangular as those of the Champlain II,
but more square in section. The use of single frames along
the entire length of the vessel is also uncommon; other lake
steamers of the period were built with double frames,
especially amidships and/or under the engines. The third
irregularity is the spacing of the frames. Amidships the

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

SCALI:2+ FALL 1993
u RwR dtLASirw

i ..-

:I~X'.i~ :
.:~:.:::.:.:-.i ;~:~:.l-i: ~ ::~:::II:ll :I~~- I?
:.~. :. ::':.:: :;;
~" ;'';- r

frames are on 12-in (30.5 cm) centers, but
toward the stern, and possibly toward the
bow, they are on 24- to 26-in (60.96-66.04
cm) centers. Contemporaneous lake steamers
usually display consistent frame spacing.
The wreck is dominated visually by five
massive longitudinal timbers that run the entire
length of the remains. A large central keelson
of oak, 14 in (35.56 cm) moulded by 11 in
(27.94 cm) sided, is flanked by four large pine
stringers, each 13 in (33.02 cm) moulded by
9.5 in (24.13) sided, two on either side. They
are all joined to the keelson and provide the
hul with integrated longitudinal reinforce-
ment. The inner stringers run parallel to the
keelson as far as Frame 80 (F80), where they
meet the outer two as the latter arc toward the
keelson. The inner stringers are fayed into
feather ends at the sides of the outer pair,
from F80 through F90, and are fastened to
them by 1-inch-diameter iron bolts. The two
outer stringers continue their gentle arc and
are finally fayed into feather ends at the sides
of the keelson from F103 to F107, the last Vie
intact frame station. At the turn of the bilge bolts
are two more pine stringers, 12 to 14 in (30.5 timber
to 35.56 cm) moulded and 6.5 to 7 in (16.51 stern
to 17.78 cm) sided, one on each side of the p
vessel. These timbers are smaller than the
central longitudinal timbers, but they also run
the entire length of the remains, and are fayed into fe4
ends at the sides of the keelson just forward of the
The keelson and stringers are each capped by
planks of oak that are nailed in place. The heads of r
fasteners are visible on the top surfaces of the cap tim1
but we recorded surprisingly few mortises or other
dence of stanchions. We had expected that because(
main deck had originally borne a considerable amou
weight in the form of up to 14 railroad cars, these lon
dinal timbers had provided a base for deck stanchions.
we have evidence of only one small stanchion. Bec
less weight had to be supported after the 1873 refit
space was probably made available for storage.
therefore suggest that the cap timbers were either reply
or added during the 1873 refit.
Most of the exterior hull planking is still in place,
a considerable amount of ceiling planking. The ext
planking strakes of pine average 1 in (2.54 cm) in t
ness. There is no ceiling planking atop the floor tim
but planks of two thicknesses line the sides of the hull

Dawing: E. Baldwin
of the port side of the keelson, sternpost and deadwood. Six
wood timbers remain, although it appears from the protruding drift
that there were at least seven originally. The smaller gaps between
rs are due to erosion and deterioration. The large gaps in the outer
post were made by the salvage divers who removed the rudder,
es and gudgeon.

father the bilge stringers to the clamp. The lower four strakes of
stern ceiling measure 9 in (22.86 cm) wide by 5.5 in (13.97 cm)
thick, while the upper four strakes measure 9 in wide by 2
thick in (5.08 cm) thick.
nany Standing approximately amidships are the large support
bers, structures for the tall walking beam engines. These engine
evi- bedlogs or bedtimbers are longitudinal timbers that begin
Sthe at F14 and continue, parallel to the keelson, until F82.
nt of They are fayed into feather ends at the side of the bilge
gitu- stringer and fastened with iron bolts. The starboard engine
But bedlog timbers were recorded in some detail. This wall of
ause timbers extends approximately 6 ft (1.83 m) above the top
,the of the floor timbers and consists of four layers of timbers
We fastened together with large drift bolts. Thick pieces of
laced pine alternate with two thinner layers of oak. On top of
the bed timbers are six of the original eight massive knees
as is that supported the inboard A-frame of the walking beam
terior engine. Portions of three of the four remaining legs of the
hick- wooden A-frame are preserved between the knees. In'
bers, order to stabilize this high A-frame platform, the bed-
from timbers were bound to the side of the hull by massive

INA Quarterly 21.1-2


'arnJrurra 199
LnMsAm InM
aELWMX&Wiu w1 TXi7

- - ---
- -. -
.t p.3 S 7


/i I 1' --~;- --z-- -

Drmwing: E. Thonuk
Starboard engine bedtimber assembly, looking outboard; the bow is to the left. A portion of theforward-most leg of the A-frame
and its knees (at left) are fastened to a small auxiliary stringer located just inboard of, and nested to, the lowest bedtimbers. The
platform upon which the two after legs and knees of the A-frame rest is bound to the side of the hull by the support structures.

support structures, two of which remain. The forward-
most structure is best described as a large arch piece. It is
consists of a thick horizontal beam that connected one leg
of the A-frame to the side of the hull. To the underside of
the horizontal beam are attached the two dagger knees, one
at each end and facing each other, that form the arch. The
after support structure comprises two cross timbers, in the
shape of an X, instead of knees. In addition to strengthen-
ing and stabilizing the engine A-frames, these support
structures helped to distribute the weight of the lozenge-
shaped walking beam on top of the A-frame.
A few other construction features were noted and their
basic dimensions recorded. Portions of several deck beams
remain in both the collapsed section of the port side and the
standing starboard side of the hull. The beam remnants are
4 in (10.16 cm) moulded by 4 in sided, and appear to have
been uniformly spaced along the side. Their extremities
rest on the clamp and extend inboard approximately 14 in
(35.56 cm). The inboard portions obviously were salvaged
when the wreck was stripped in 1875. They originally
extended outboard to form part of the overhanging portion
of the deck known as the guards. Hanging knees on the
exterior of the hull supported the deck beams under the
guards; only one complete and two partial hanging knees
now remain. At several places in the hull, remnants of the
hogging truss were found. To prevent the ends of the
vessel from hogging, or drooping with respect to the
midship area, the Champlain II was equipped with a series
of tension cables that ran the length of the vessel over iron
stanchions positioned on the upper decks. We also noted

an iron strap with a loop at one end fastened to the port
hull planking. The iron bolts affixing it to the hull pass
through the hull planking and the clamp, but not through
any framing timbers. As this bolt is located near the
engine bedtimbers, it may have been associated with a
tension cable that helped stabilize the engine A-frame.
To date, research on steam vessels has typically concen-
trated on the early development of steam power and
technology, and the transition from wooden to metal hulls.
Now, the study of the remains of the Champlain HI is
supplementing our meager knowledge of wooden steamboat
construction in the late nineteenth century. The construc-
tion of the Champlain II was unusual in many ways, most
notably in the size and placement of the single floor
timbers. Such construction irregularities may represent a
local building style, or they may reflect construction
techniques specific to railroad car ferries.
For these reasons, and because numerous other unusual
construction features were only partly documented in 1993,
we will return to the Champlain II for another week of
work in the summer of 1994. The site plan will be
completed and a series of hull sections will be recorded to
aid in reconstruction. Furthermore, we will gather com-
parative data on hull construction from the Adirondack, a
CTC steamer built in 1867 and now lying on the bottom of
Shelburne Harbor.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

-Or-a-* I

Acknowledgments. The 1993 Field
Season was funded by The Lake Cham-
plain Maritime Museum, Texas A&M
University, the University of Vermont
and the Vermont Division for Historic
Preservation. Logistical support was
provided by the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology. My special thanks are
extended to Art Cohn and the staff of
the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum
who generously shared their time and
expertise throughout the project. I
would also like to thank my fellow stu-
dents and the volunteers who put in
many cold hours of hard work: John
Bratten, Coz Cozzi, Alan Flanigan,
Peter Hitchcock, Scott McLaughlin,
Stephen Paris and David Robinson of the
Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas
A&M University; field school students
Eric Emery, Elizabeth Keenan, Science
Kilner, Scott Mulholland and Nate
Wells; and divemasters Pat Beck and
Eric Tichonuk. I would especially like
to thank Dr. Kevin Crisman and Dr.
Fred Hocker for their encouragement
and guidance in my thesis research.

Drawin: E. Tichouk
Bedtimber support structures, looking forward. The forward-most support (the arch)
is at left, the after-most (the cross timbers) is at right. In each drawing, the A-frame
leg is the vertical timber on the left (inboard), with the side of the hull opposite. The
precise manner in which the support structures were anchored to the side of the hull
has not yet been determined.

Suggested Reading
Bottum, L.
1983 Oakes Ames/Champlain: The Biography of a Lake
Champlain Steamboat. Vermont History 51.3:
Hill, R. N.
1976 Lake Champlain, Key to Liberty. Countryman
Press, Woodstock, VT.
Ross, J. 0.
1930 The Steamboats of Lake Champlain 1809 to 1930.
Delaware and Hudson Railroad, Albany, NY.
Shaughnessy, J.
1967 The Delaware & Hudson. Howell-North, Berkeley,

Styles, R.
1871 A Descriptive and Historical Guide to the Valley of
Lake Champlain and the Adirondacks R.S. Styles'
Steam Printing House, Burlington, VT.
Whittier, B.
1987 Paddle Wheel Steamers and their Giant Engines.
Seamaster, Duxbury, MA.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

The Confederate Privateer Pioneer

and the Development of

American Submersible Watercraft

by Richard K. Wills

In Jules Verne's fictional 1869 narrative Twenty Thousand
Leagues under the Sea, Captain Nemo describes his
submarine boat Nautilus as "an elongated cylinder with
conical ends. It is very much like a cigar in shape.... To

Photo: A. Flanigan
David Robinson measures the hull of the Confederate
submarine privateer Pioneer, now at the Louisiana
State Museum in New Orleans.

steer this boat to starboard or port...I use an ordinary
rudder fixed on the back of the sternpost.... I can also
make the Nautilus rise and sink, and sink and rise, by a
vertical movement by means of two inclined planes fas-
tened to its sides...the Nautilus, according to this inclina-
tion, and under the influence of the screw, either sinks
diagonally or rises diagonally as it suits me." At first
glance, Verne's Nautilus may seem a fantastic product of
his fertile imagination. In fact, this fictional ship incorpo-
rates some of the basic mechanical principles found in a
series of submarine vessels built within the Confederate
States of America during the American Civil War. While
researching his visionary novel, Verne carefully studied the
most recent advances in marine engineering and submers-
ible construction, including the work undertaken by scien-
tists and engineers of the short-lived Confederacy.
The submarines of the Civil War were small, dangerous
metal vessels that bear little resemblance to the large and
complex vehicles we know today. The Confederate subma-
rines mounted or towed an explosive package called a
mine, which was in effect a primitive torpedo (and in this
period, the term "torpedo" meant "mine"). In order to
detonate the explosive package against the hull of an enemy
vessel, a submarine had to tow it into the target's path such
that the two would collide, or ram the target with a strong
bow spar, upon which the explosive was mounted. Of the
three submarine torpedo boats built by the Confederate
States, the Pioneer alone survives, and today it can be
found on exhibit at the Louisiana State Museum in New
Orleans' famous French Quarter.
As the first of the three Southern submarines, the Pio-
neer is thought to be the oldest surviving example of an
important and distinct tradition of watercraft construction.
It may be regarded as a prototype for the CSS H.L.
Hunley, the submersible destined to cross the elusive and
costly threshold of tactical success, as well as a transitional

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

stage between antebellum American
submersible vessel designs and the
Hunley. The legacy of the Confederate
submarine boatbuilding program, which
culminated in the Hunley, was the
arrival of the submarine as a grudging-
ly accepted yet greatly feared weapon
of naval warfare. The program there-
fore contributed significantly to the
creation of a new order of seapower
and military strategy. Furthermore, the
Pioneer is historically unique as the
product of a private, profit-motivated
initiative: it was commissioned by the
Confederate government as a submarine

At the Louisiana State Museum the
'Pioneer sits dry on a concrete stand, its
eroded bottom filled with cement and Detail of the exter
its exterior plates worn and discolored, ler blades have be
Its rudders are both broken off at the
outer shaft bearings, as is the port
diving plane.- All four propeller blades are broken off at
the hub of the shaft, which is bent just aft of where it pro-
jects from the bearing. The hatch and conning tower
assembly is also gone, along with some of the boat's less
durable inner workings. Despite the abuses and neglect it
has suffered, however, the Pioneer remains in relatively
good condition, sheltered now by the Presbytere wing of
the museum.
I first became interested in the Confederate submersible
initiative in 1991, while researching steam-driven semi-
submersible Confederate torpedo boats, or "David boats,"
for a class in the history of shipbuilding at Texas A&M
University. Initially encouraged by Professors Fred
Hocker and Kevin Crisman, and Louisiana native and
fellow Nautical Archaeology Program student Tina Erwin,
I sought and received permission from the Louisiana State
Museum to examine the exterior construction details of the
Pioneer. In February of 1992, a research team consisting
of Texas A&M University Nautical Archaeology Program
students Alan Flanigan, David Robinson, Juan Vera, and
I journeyed to New Orleans to record the hull dimensions
of the vessel and take off its lines. During a 1993 record-
ing trip to the Crescent City, Nautical Archaeology
Program students Greg Cook, Colin O'Bannon, and I
received permission to enter the Pioneer and study its
interior mechanisms.
Our research team had three goals in mind. First, we
wanted to develop an accurate, comprehensive, written and

Photo: G. Cook
ior shaft bearing and propeller hub assembly. Allfour propel-
en broken off

visual record of the boat that would expand the slim body
of knowledge of nineteenth-century underwater warfare.
Second, we wanted to resolve the recent controversy
surrounding the identification of the vessel as the Pioneer,
as well as the discrepancies that exist between dimensions
found in historical documents and modern measurements.
Third, we wanted to see the vessel properly recognized for
its important contribution to the development of watercraft
As I clambered through the cramped dark interior of this
still sturdy boat I could not help but compare the luxurious
spaciousness of the fictional Captain Nemo's submarine
with the claustrophobic and strictly functional nature of this
one. Measuring a mere 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m) in length, 3 ft
2.5 in (98 cm) in beam, and 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) in depth,
the Pioneer was constructed in a shape closely resembling
that of a fish. Its V-shaped lower hull comprises an iron
keel and two rows of riveted boilerplate per side. The
overhead deck takes the shape of an inverted U and is also
composed of riveted plates. The boat's sharp bottom and
rounded deck appear to have been constructed separately
and then joined by rivets at the second row of lower plates.
The bow and stern castings were then riveted to the hull.
All of the Pioneer's plates were lapped toward the stern,
testifying to the designers' appreciation of hydrodynamics.
The now-missing hatch may have been designed to double"
as a short conning tower, sealed by means of a rubber-
gasket, and probably included round panes of glass through

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Interior view of the vessel, looking aft. Note the rivet pattern a
the bottom. The bracket in the foreground was probably one of
supported a longitudinal wooden plank. The two men who turn
missing crankshaft probably sat on the plank.

which the pilot could see and thus navigate.
The submarine was propelled by means of human
muscle power applied to the propeller shaft by cranking,
either by hand or by foot. The exact means of propulsion
is unknown, as the interior is full of cement to just beneath
the top of the first row of plates. The Pioneer was steered
by means of coordinated bow and stern rudders. Depth
was controlled by a pair of forward-mounted diving planes,
with the possible assistance of a trimmable ballast tank.
Such a ballast tank would now be covered by cement as
well. While submerged, the crew's limited air supply was
augmented by the use of a rubber tube and float assembly.
The lower end of the tube fed into an iron stack and collar
located on the deck forward of the hatch. Louisiana State
Museum Curator of Science and Technology Tom Czekan-
ski theorizes that the air may have been drawn down the
tube by a pump driven by the propeller crankshaft sprock-
et. A pair of metal lifting and towing straps are still bolted
to the deck, and a large socket in the bow indicates that
some sort of forward-projecting spar could have been
carried. Overall, the Pioneer's construction appears to be
simple and well thought out. Although it may seem
primitive when compared to modern submarines, in its time
it was an advanced, precision-manufactured example of
innovative technology.

By the time the Pioneer's keel was
laid down in the autumn of 1861, there
was an established American tradition
of innovative but economical experi-
mentation in underwater warfare. The
development of a successful submarine
torpedo boat required the maturation of
two technologies: 1) underwater explo-
sive-type weapons, and 2) vessels or
platforms that could carry and deliver
such weapons. David Bushnell's Turtle
(1775) was the first submarine to en-
gage an enemy warship in combat,
albeit unsuccessfully. Of more signifi-
cance is that it was probably the first
watercraft to employ screw-propulsion.
This vessel's construction laid the
foundation for American submersible
oto: Cook design, as well as the future of all
n the concrete in propeller-driven watercraft. Robert
ra number that Fulton, who was first and foremost a
ed the now scientist of underwater warfare tech-
niques, built and extensively tested the
Nautilus (1800), which became the
standard upon which all future sub-
mersible craft design would be based. The subsequent ex-
periments and advancements made by others such as
Samuel Colt, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Ross Winans, and
Brutus de Villeroi also constituted the American body of
knowledge from which the Confederate efforts would
As the "first modern technological war," the American
Civil War saw the initial widespread use of ironclad war-
ships, underwater mines (torpedoes), and semi-submersible
and submersible towed torpedoes and spar-torpedo rams.
Although both sides in the conflict pursued roughly parallel
paths in submarine development, the Confederate program
was basically a private one, whereas the Northern program
received more government support. While the North's
efforts were proceeding slowly and proving only marginally
successful, there suddenly sprang forth in the newly created
Confederate States an intense, profit-driven, private interest
in submersible construction. This interest resulted from the
combination of a strangling maritime blockade, corporate-
sponsored bounties on the Union warships enforcing that
blockade, and a flickering but still-remembered American
privateering tradition. As a result, Confederate progress in
a short time overtook the more Federally sponsored
The Confederate submersible boatbuilding program was
initially conceived by a group of New Orleans machinists

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

and businessmen inspired by the possibility of collecting
prize money for the destruction of enemy vessels of war.
The core group consisted of machinists Baxter Watson and
James McClintock, lawyer Horace Hunley, and business-
men John Scott, Robbin Barron, and H.J. Leovy. These
six men supervised the first vessel's construction at the
Leeds Foundry and in the Government Yard in New Or-
leans, during the winter of 1861-1862. Upon completion
they had it towed down the New Basin Canal to Lake Pon-
chartrain, where they put it through its trials. The boat
successfully sank a schooner and two target barges by
means of a towed torpedo, and on March 31 the vessel was
commissioned as a privateer, with a Letter of Marque
issued under the authorization of C. S. Secretary of State
Judah P. Benjamin. The Letter of Marque records the
vessel's name as the Pioneer, the vessel type as a "subma-
rine propeller" armed with a "magazine of powder." The
required number of crew is listed as three, with John K.
Scott commanding. The Pioneer is described in the Letter
of Marque as measuring 34 ft (10.36 m) long overall, 4 ft
(1.22 m) in beam, drawing 4 ft of water, and weighing 4
tons. It was painted black and had "round conical ends."
To obtain the Letter of Marque a surety of $5,000 was
posted by Hunley and Leovy. The submarine never saw
action, however. Less than a month after the Pioneer
received its Letter of Marque, New Orleans fell to the U.
S. Naval forces under Captain David Farragut. During the
city's invasion, Watson scuttled the Pioneer in the New
Basin Canal near the Lake Ponchartrain entrance. He, Mc-
Clintock, and Hunley then fled to Mobile, Alabama.
This group, refusing to let the Pioneer's loss destroy
their dream of building a successful submarine torpedo
privateer, was then joined in its efforts by engineers
Thomas Parks and Thomas Lyons, who provided their
machine shops for the construction of a new boat. They
also received support from the military in the form of
engineers George Dixon and William Alexander, both
lieutenants in the Twenty-first Alabama Artillery Regiment.
Upon completion this second submarine boat, the name of
which is now lost, measured 25 ft (7.62 m) in length, 5 ft
(1.52 m) in beam, and 6 ft (1.83) in depth. It was floated
(launched) in Mobile Bay and towed off Fort Morgan, with
the intention of attacking the Federal fleet, but as the
weather turned bad and the sea grew rough, the boat
became difficult to manage and sank. No lives were lost
in this mishap, but the Confederate submariners had lost
another vessel in which they had invested a great deal of
time, money, and hope.
Still they would not be discouraged. Financially
strapped, they could not afford to machine (plate by plate)
another submarine, so Hunley obtained a long cylindrical

Detail of the aft end. Surviving propulsion components
include the sprocket, sprocket shaft, and its horizontal
support. The crankshaft and drive chain are now missing.
The two arms of the stern rudder tiller are visible beneath
the sprocket shaft. The brackets fastened to the top deck
probably supported elements of an air pumping system.
An attachment on the forward face of the sprocket suggests
that such a pump was somehow driven by the main crank-

boiler that the engineers lengthened, deepened, and fitted
out for a crew of nine. Although this vessel was designed
more economically than its two predecessors, it appears to
have incorporated a number of more advanced features,
including double ballast tanks with riveted bulkheads, two
hatches, remotely jettisonable ballast castings, and a flat
overhead deck. The 35-ft-long (10.67 m) boat was pow-
ered by a long, hand-cranked shaft requiring the labor of
eight sailors; its armament consisted of an explosive-
torpedo mounted on a 22-ft (6.71 m) spar of yellow pine.
Trials produced pleasing results, and the military decided

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

that the boat should be shipped by
flatcar to Charleston, South Carolina,
for anti-blockade duty under the com-
mand of General P.G.T. Beauregard.
In a series of bad luck incidents, the
boat was swamped twice and ultimately
lost in Charleston Harbor. The first
accident killed eight of the nine newly-
recruited navy crew members, all save
the captain. After the vessel was sal-
vaged, a second incident killed six
members of the crew. At this point the
military asked that Mobile send. people
more familiar with the boat to Charles-
ton to take over the vessel's operation.
Hunley, Parks, and seven other volun-
teers answered the call and spent some
time putting the boat through "diving
and raising" tests. Just when it was
finally demonstrated that the vessel D
Detail of the starb
merely required experienced hands, the ha of the blade
boat suffered yet another terrible disas- base (three are vis
ter. While on a submerged cruise, the bearing rested on
usually competent Captain Hunley
made a simple error. Seeking to dive
by taking on seawater ballast instead of using the diving
planes, he opened the forward ballast tank seacocks. While
involved with other dive procedures, however, he forgot
that the bow was taking on ballast. The stern tanks were
taking on no ballast, which of course served to angle the
vessel downward. The boat buried its bow in the harbor
mud and partially flooded, killing the entire crew. Dixon
and Alexander hastened to Charleston, where they buried
Hunley, Parks, and the other seven. They then salvaged
the boat, which was renamed the CSS H.L Hunley as a
Saddened but undaunted, Dixon and Alexander moved
their operations to Battery Marshall, on Sullivan's Island
off Charleston. Between November of 1863 and February
of the following year, a new volunteer crew often fought
foul weather to conduct numerous night cruises in the seas
off shore. On February 5, Alexander received transfer
orders, and he reluctantly bid Dixon and the crew farewell.
It would be the last time William Alexander saw his
friends. On the evening of February 17, 1864, about 2.5
miles (ca. 4 km) off Charleston Bar, the Hunley observed
and made for the steam sloop-of-war USS Housatonic,
which lay at anchor on blockade duty. The Federal
warship's lookout spotted the Hunley and voiced warning,
causing the Housatonic's chain to be slipped and the engine
to be ordered all back full. The defensive action was not

Photo: G. Cook
oard diving plane and plane shaft, looking aft. The forward
as been broken off The four through-bolts around the shaft
ible here) hold the interior shaft bearing against the hull. The
a bead of India rubber that served as a gasket.

timely enough to prevent collision, however. The Hunley
rammed the Union warship on the starboard stern quarter
just abaft the mizzenmast, blowing off most of the stern in
a great explosion. The Housatonic sank in three minutes.
Although the cost was high and the underlying motives
complex, the dream so sought-after by the Confederate
submariners had been realized, and on that day the subma-
rine earned its place in the future of naval warfare. But a
final toll was exacted, it seems. What happened to Hunley
following this action is a mystery. Neither it nor its crew
returned to Sullivan's Island, even though it had requested
a light to which it could steer to port. It has been theo-
rized that the boat swamped or capsized in the heavy night
seas, or that it succumbed to structural damage sustained in
the collision or explosion. Its fate remains a puzzle.

Perhaps overshadowed by the achievement of the
Hunley, the Pioneer received little attention in the years
after its loss. Mention of a submarine boat that could be
the Pioneer does not appear in the historical record until
1868. In that year, the New Orleans Picayune reported
that an iron "torpedo boat" of about 2 tons lying on the
bank of the New Canal was sold at public auction, "only
valuable now for the iron and machinery which is in and
about it." No further references to such a vessel are
encountered until 1878, when the naval sand dredge USS

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Valentine discovered a metal submarine boat on the bottom
of New Canal, "near New Basin between New Orleans and
Lake Ponchartrain." The crew of the Valentine grappled
the vessel to the surface and then deposited it on the shore
of Lake Ponchartrain. In the fall of 1895, we know the
submarine was moved from the shore of Lake Ponchartrain
to a nearby Spanish Fort and amusement park area on
Bayou St. John, where it was propped up on blocks as an
exhibit. Then, in 1909, the boat was acquired by the
Louisiana State Home for Confederate Soldiers on Bayou
St. John, and set into a large cement base as a monument.
At this time it was also probably filled with the cement it
still holds today. By 1942 the boat had been moved yet
again, this time to Jackson Square in the French Quarter,
where it was once more set
upon concrete supports. In
1957, the boat made the last Lake Ponchartrain
move in its nomadic jour-
ney, across Jackson Square
to the Louisiana State Muse-
um's Presbytere.
Lately there has emerged
some disagreement as to
whether this-boat is actually
the Pioneer or, as one re-
cent theory argues, that
there were two derelict .\
submersibles in New Or- *Co
leans following the Civil P r
War. The embers of con-
troversy have been fanned
by three problems in the
extant literary evidence.
First, the extensive nature of
the boat's travels has natu- New Orleans
rally generated a great deal
of confusion. Second, the
surviving accounts do not Mt s
provide us with consistent.
boat dimensions. Lengths,
for example, vary by 4 ft Rough map of New Orleans
(1.22 m), depths by 2 ft (61 which the Pioneer has resided
cm). Third, vague and Foundry, the New Basin Can
simply inaccurate newspaper St. John, and Jackson Square
articles have been interpret- scale).
ed to suggest that one sub-
marine boat was broken up for scrap and auctioned. Al-
though space limitations do not allow us to retrace the
vessel's convoluted course in the years after it was scuttled,
problems regarding the accuracy of the auction account and
of the boat's dimensions can be somewhat clarified.



The theory that two different submarines are represented
in the historical record is based upon the contention that,
after the Pioneer was recovered from the New Canal in
1868, it was auctioned as scrap metal and broken up (thus
the second boat now resides in the Louisiana State Muse-
um). These assertions are supported only tenuously by
three brief newspaper articles, all of which deal with only
a single boat. The first is an auction notice that appeared
in the New Orleans Picayune's morning edition for Febru-
ary 15, 1868. The notice stated that a torpedo boat built of
iron and weighing 2 tons, which sank in the New Canal
during the occupation of the city in 1862, was to be
auctioned. The second article appeared in the afternoon
edition of the same paper. It relates simply that an iron
torpedo boat of 2 tons was
sold for $43.00. It does not
say that the boat was broken
up for scrap, or even that it
was moved from the banks
of the New Canal.
Thirty-four years later,
the third article appeared.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
printed an error-filled and
sensationalistic account of
how a Confederate submers-
Jacksbn Square ible was "sold as scrap" and
Loulliana State Museum "carted off from the old
ch Quarter Spanish Fort a few miles
back from New Orleans."
This 1902 article contains at
least 12 historical errors in
Leeas Founi ry only a few short columns.
In fact, it merely conflates
the possible breaking up of
the boat in 1868 with its
location in the Spanish Fort
amusement area at the time
the article was written. The
Fact that it appeared in a
idicating the general areas in paper so far removed from
at various times: Leeds New Orleans, and 34 years
I, Lake Poncharrrain, Bayou after the 1868 auction,
in the French Quarter (not to would seem to have afford-
ed much opportunity for
The question of the Pioneer's dimensions is somewhat
more straightforward. The recorded measurements of the
submarine in the Louisiana State Museum are 19 ft 5 iii
(5.91 m) long, 3 ft 2.5 in (98 cm) in beam, and 6 ft 2 in
(1.88 m) deep. However, three historical accounts relate

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

different dimensions. For the original Letter of Marque,
James Scott described the Pioneer as 34 ft (10.36 m) long,
4 ft (1.22 m) in beam, 4 ft in depth, and weighing 4 tons.
Fifteen years after the war, James McClintock character-
ized the Pioneer as having been "cigar-shaped, 30 ft long,

View of the interior (obscured by tourist litter), looking forward
tiller arms (bottom), the diving plane controls (center), and the
projecting inward from the bow extremity.

and 4 ft in diameter," and as having weighed "4 tons."
Measurements taken by U.S. Navy engineers in 1878 after
the submarine was grappled out of the canal also provide
it with a length of 30 ft (9.15 m).
Why the inconsistencies? First, it appears that the
dimensions in the historical literature are rounded off
figures, as none includes inches. Second, the beam
measurements differ by less than a foot, but clearly they
did not include the diving planes. This further suggests that
the measurements in general are rough estimates.
But there may be better explanations. The difference of
2 ft (61 cm) in depth between Scott's figure and today's
measurement may simply mean that the submarine had an
overall depth of about 6 ft (1.83 m), but drew only about
4 ft (1.22 m) of water when lightly ballasted. As for the
10-14 ft (3.05-4.27 m) discrepancies in length, there is
also a plausible explanation. Although in tests the Pioneer
was used only as a towed-torpedo platform, it was probably
also capable of being equipped with a bow-mounted spar
torpedo. The Louisiana State Museum vessel's deep bow
socket definitely could have carried such a spar. Historical
documents demonstrate that the concept of the spar torpedo

was well known in 1861. In fact it dates to at least as
early as Robett Fulton, who in 1810 designed an elaborate
spar torpedo assembly for use in naval combat. The spar
used on the 35-ft-long (10.67 m) Hunley had a length of 22
ft (6.71 m), ca. 63% of the vessel length. Therefore it
would not be unreasonable to imagine
that the Pioneer, with a hull length of
about 20 ft (6.1 m), would have been
equipped with a spar 10-15 ft
(3.05-4.57 m) long. This would have
resulted in an overall length of some
30-35 ft (9.15-10.67 m). Moreover,
we know that the second submarine
built by the New Orleans group was 25
ft (7.62 m) long, 5 ft (1.52 m) in
beam, and 6 ft (1.83 m) deep. The
length dimension, falling between those
of the Pioneer and the Hunley, does
hint at an intermediate design stage. It
seems improbable that the second hull
in the series was shorter than its prede-
cessor, especially with an increased
beam dimension. The boatbuilders
were probably more confident with
hoo: G. cook their design, and a larger boat therefore
I: the bow rudder could have been feasible and desirable.
bow spar socket Finally, the principle of Ockham's
Razor, which states that "entities are
not to be multiplied beyond necessity,"
is applicable. There is no direct historical evidence that
two similar submarines were present in New Orleans early
in the 1860s. In fact, it is far more likely that there were
no more than two submarines in all of America at such an
early stage of their development. But even if this is
discounted, it seems quite unlikely that their dimensions
nearly matched, and that both would have been scuttled or
lost in almost the same location.
Our attempts to establish the identity of this unique
vessel have helped illuminate the infancy of submarine
vessel design and construction. The Pioneer represents a
remarkable time in maritime history, when mariners were
first trying to find a way to voyage beneath the waves. Yet
perhaps more fascinating is the story of a private initiative,
conceived partly for personal profit and partly to preserve
a way of life, that helped propel seapower doctrine and
naval technology into new and uncharted waters. Today,
as we continue to explore the past and the future of
submarine vessels, the prophetic words of Captain Nemo
are still appropriate: " will carry you yet into the midst
of the marvels of the ocean. Our voyage is only begun."

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

rnoio: 1. LOOK
Interior view of the air stack collar, located on the upper deck just forward of the
hatch. The air pumping machinery was probably connected to this collar. The
steel mesh and spackling cover holes associated with other mechanisms.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the following
individuals and organizations for their contributions of time
and resources to the CSS Pioneer Recording Project. It is due
to their support that the results have been possible: Alan
Flanigan, David Robinson, and Juan Vera, who volunteered
their time, skills, and experience to the project as part of the
1992 field recording team; Greg Cook, Colin O'Bannon, and
Liz Baldwin, who subsequently provided more of the same as
part of the 1993 team. This project was truly a group effort,
and thanks to the persistence and open mindedness of these
dedicated students of the Texas A&M University Nautical
Archaeology Program, it was a successful one. Some of the
equipment for the project was kindly loaned by Texas A&M
University's Ship Reconstruction and Conservation Research
Further thanks go to Deena Bedigian, Tom Czekanski, Jim
Sefcik, and the late Larry Tanner, all of the Louisiana State
Museum, for granting us permission to undertake this research
and for their hospitality; to Vicki Sopher and Sarah S. Shaffer
of the Stephen Decatur House Museum, for providing the
opportunity to acquire some excellent background history; to
Tina Erwin for providing logistical information; to John
Bratten for lending his computer expertise; to Karen Galambos
for opening her home to the 1993 project team.
Finally I would like to thank Dr. Fred Hocker, Dr. Kevin
Crisman, Dr. Shelley Wachsmann, and Dr. William Piston for
their encouragement and guidance during the course of this

Suggested Reading
Hutcheon, Jr., W.
1981 Robert Fulton: Pioneer of Undersea Warfare. Naval
Institute Press, Annapolis, MD.
Perry, M.
1965 Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Subma-
rine and Mine Warfare. Louisiana State University
Press, Baton Rouge.
Robinson, Jr., W.
1928 The Confederate Privateers. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Roland, A.
1978 Underwater Warfare in the Age of Sail. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2




By Richard D. Herron

From the concerned, yet
politely bemused expression
on the young fisherman's
face, I could tell he was
convinced that I must surely
have been taken by some
kind of tropical madness,
probably common to West-
"Come and sit in the
shade, sir, or you will find
an illness."
I smiled, waved, and
indicated that I wanted to
take just a couple more
photographs. But as the
tropical mid-day sun contin-
ued to beat down, causing
ribbons of heat to rise like
smoke from the black volca-
nic beach sand near the
Balinese village of Kusam-
ba, I was soon grateful for
the young man's offer of
escape to the shade of his
palm-thatched awning.
After I neatly deposited
my perspiration-soaked
rucksack, assorted camera
gear, and myself beneath the
awning, my congenial host
and I exchanged introduc-
tions and the necessary
pleasantries. With the
required etiquette soon out
of the way, the young fish-
erman commented on the
fact that I was photograph-
ing only boats, and that he

Photo: R.D. Henorn
With her sail set, a Balinese jukung pelasan is nearly ready to
get under way. The port-side rudder will remain raised until
the canoe is clear of the shallows. The outrigger floats are
connected to the hull with graceful upward-curving booms and
down-turned cedik. Note the extremely short mast, and the
sail's upper spar positioned inside the bow.

was curious about why I
was so fascinated with these
jukung. I explained that I
was a doctoral student in the
Nautical Archaeology Pro-
gram at Texas A&M Uni-
versity, and that I had come
to Indonesia to do field
research regarding tradition-
al sailing craft. But unfor-
tunately, because I could
stay only three weeks, I had
to limit considerably the
geographical range of my
fieldwork. The reason I
chose to study the craft of
Bali and Madura, I contin-
ued, was because I felt that
the traditional vessels of
these islands were some of
the most likely to disappear
soon. I also knew that the
recent, heavy impact of
tourism on Bali, for exam-
ple, has caused many fisher-
men to abandon their tradi-
tional vocation in favor of
more lucrative jobs catering
to tourists. Also, with the
almost frantic, government-
supported push for modern-
ization, many traditional
vessels are either no longer
built or have undergone
such drastic design changes,
to accommodate motors and
other modern introductions,
that they bear little resem-
blance to their traditional

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

counterparts. This seems to be particularly true for
The young fisherman agreed that many changes
had occurred just within the past few years, and he
appreciated the importance of understanding his
country's maritime legacy. He had no idea, how-
ever, that many construction features of vessels
built on Bali and Madura have an ancestry of
nearly 4,000 years; he was plainly very impressed
by this fact.
For over an hour we sat discussing the nomen-
clature and various features of different Balinese
vessel types. We talked about the fact that Bali-
nese canoes are identified by certain common
characteristics. Differences, however, include
several, sometimes subtle, variations in design
relative to where the vessel was built and how it The is
was intended to be used. For example, the double Java a
outrigger canoes found at Sanur, and elsewhere
along the southern coast, are usually built with a rounded
or oval-shaped splashboard on the bows, whereas those
built in the areas roughly northward of Serangang Island,
as well as several examples at Kusamba, are usually
equipped with a splashboard shaped like a square box.
Depending on how they are used, canoes such as the
jukung pemencaran, used for fishing with a throw net, may
have only a single outrigger, or they may have no outrigger
at all, enabling vessels such as the sampan jaring to
negotiate narrow, shallow waterways. Furthermore, canoes
can vary in the artistic design of their bow and stern
decorations. All of these variations aside, however, the
shape of the outrigger is one of the main characteristics
commonly used to distinguish Balinese outrigger canoes
from those built elsewhere in Asia and the Pacific.
As our conversation continued, I remembered that in
1920 James Hornell, whose monumental work on Oceanic
canoes remains the standard reference source on the
subject, observed that Balinese canoes are distinguished by
the gracefully upward-curving cedik of the outrigger, a
piece that joins the boom (bayungan) and the float (katir).
Regarding the antiquity of this feature, G. Adrian
Horridge, a contemporary authority on Indonesian vessels,
argues that the use of the curvilinear cedik may have come
to Bali via Madura, and was then further developed in
southern Bali during this century. Although several
Balinese boatbuilders assured me personally that the curved
cedik is indeed an ancient form unique to their island, I
believe that Horridge is correct, because photographic
evidence from the early part of this century indicates that
the majority of Balinese canoe outriggers were fitted with
almost rectilinear cedik.

Photo: R.D. Herrn
lands of Bali and Madura, located just off the eastern coast of
nd approximately 8* south of the equator.

Another distinction of Balinese canoes, and one associat-
ed with less controversy, is where the rudder is positioned.
On Bali the rudder is always on the port side of the stern,
whereas on most other islands it may appear on either side,
Also, with Hinduism as their dominant religion, the
Balinese commonly decorate the bows of their jukung with
the head of the god Gajah, whose stylized countenance
provides safety and fortune for the sailor and his vessel.
Most Balinese outrigger canoes are built using the
traditional five-part method of hull construction. Geo-
graphically, these five-part canoe types range from the
Comores Islands near Madagascar, to Indonesia and as far
eastward as Hawaii. The construction of these types of
vessels begins with the selection of a tree suitable for a
dugout. On Bali, as well as Madura and elsewhere,
specialists will still occasionally be on hand during the
felling of the tree in order to hew out the log slightly and
roughly shape it before it reaches the boat yard. This is
done largely to help prevent the wood from splitting as it
dries. The preferred boat building material comes from the
belalu tree (Albizzia falcata) and the kayu suren (Cedrella
sureni). But trees of suitable size are becoming increasing-
ly scarce and, as a result, increasingly expensive. To
reduce construction costs, boatbuilders try to purchase solid
logs and shape them themselves. Today, however, bar-
gaining for solid logs is difficult because the owner of the
tree usually cuts and shapes the log himself, so that he can
sell the left-over wood.
Once obtained, and depending on the available funds of
the expected buyer, these roughly shaped logs are allowed *
to season for approximately one month under the protective
cover of palm-thatched awnings before any further con-

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

struction is carried out. Considering that, from a
Western viewpoint, the daily religious observances
followed by the Balinese encompass almost every
aspect of their lives, it is interesting that this stage
of hull construction apparently has no associated
ceremony or ritual. When asked about this, both
boatbuilders and fishermen alluded to the idea that
a roughly shaped log does not yet exist in the
rohani, or spiritual realm. Horridge explains that
once a tree is cut down, it has no spirit or life-
force until made into a canoe. As I continued to
press my young fisherman host for more informa-
tion about boat construction, I also asked him about
this spiritual side of canoe building and the associ-
ated ceremonies. After thinking for a moment, he
suddenly stood, as if an idea had just occurred to
him, and said that I needed to talk with Pak Murje.
After winding along several narrow, dusty paths Pak M
of the village, we eventually arrived at the boat works
yard of Pak Agung Akan Murje, allegedly one of
the oldest living boatbuilders in Kusamba. After being
introduced to Pak Murje, I, in true Western form, enthusi-
astically proceeded to bombard him with questions about
construction techniques and ceremonies. Accustomed to
the open, congenial nature typical of most Balinese, I was
surprised when the best answers I could elicit from this
unexpectedly taciturn gentleman were only occasional
grunts which he absolutely forbade me to tape record.
Realizing that I was probably being considered a rude
foreign buffoon, I quickly changed my approach. After
saying good-bye to the young fisherman, and expressing
my gratitude for his hospitality, I spent the remainder of
the day quietly sitting and merely watching the skilled

Photo: R.D. Henro
Vurje, one of the oldest living traditional boatbuilders on Bali,
on a fork-shaped kanti for an older jukung.

craftsmanship demonstrated by Pak Murje as he made
repairs to an olderjukung.
Just after daybreak the following day I returned to the
boat yard and patiently waited for Pak Murje to appear.
When he did so, he was plainly surprised to see me. I
greeted him, and he grunted. By mid-morning, however,
he had undoubtedly realized the extent of my tenacity and
disappeared into his house, where I feared he might stay
until I left. To my relief, he soon returned with two cups
of tea, sat down beside me, and began trying to answer my
earlier questions.
With him speaking mostly Balinese, and I Bahasa
Indonesia, much of the information conveyed was through
sign language and drawings. When I tried to ask
what, if any, ceremonies took place at the outset of
canoe construction, Pak Murje gently took me by
the arm and led me to a rudimental-shaped log that
had not yet been fully adzed out. With brackish-
looking water from a small ceramic bowl sitting on
the ground nearby, he silently sprinkled both my
hands, handed me an adze, and allowed me to hew
out some of the wood. I am uncertain whether this
was actually a legitimate preconstruction ritual,
routinely followed by all boatbuilders, or if it was
merely something Pak Murje invented on the spot
to placate me. In either case, I must have been
performing the task rather abysmally because, after
only a few strokes, he good-naturedly took the adze
from my hands, obviously to prevent me from
doing any further harm.

Photo: R.D. Hermon
Pak Murje fits a fork-shaped kanti to the stern of an older jukung.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

The partially painted bow decoration of this Balinese jukung pelasan represents the head of
the god Gajah, who protects the fisherman and his vessel. Stylistic variations offigureheads
can indicate the age of a vessel and where it was built. A protruding eye is visible under the
curved splashboard. The jukung is held level by a log in the sand under the cedik's pointed
end. The forward ends of the two floats can be seen to the right.

Regardless of the possible religious observances, the
actual construction of Indonesian jukung adheres closely to
a rigorous system of proportions, and is not merely a
haphazard method of building by eye. Handed down from
generation to generation, use of this system of proportions
involves dimensions taken from the builder's own body.
Pak Murje indicated on the log he allowed me briefly to
adze that the interior longitudinal dimension would be three
times the length of his outstretched arms, plus three times
the width of his open hand at both ends of the hull.
Interestingly, the older jukung he was repairing had an
interior length of nearly 6.36 m (21 ft 2 in), approximately
8 cm (3 1/8 in) longer than Murje's intended jukung,
suggesting an original builder who was slightly larger in
stature. Thus, no two vessels are identical.
Horridge calculates that the ideal thickness of a canoe's
sides is 3.5 cm (1 3/4 in), and 8 cm (3 1/8 in) at the
bottom. I noted a variation of nearly half a centimeter in
the top thickness of several jukung. Variations in bottom
thickness remain undetermined because I had no means to
measure accurately this dimension. These measurements,
however, were taken from older craft and, therefore, may
indicate wear and subsequent repairs. Nevertheless,
variations obviously occur. What is most important is the

manner by which the builder uses the system of propor-
The hull is internally divided into six equal sections,
where transverse bars called sendang are usually placed.
The mast is positioned such that the distance from the
interior surface of the bow to the forward surface of the
mast is one-sixth of the internal length of the hull. From
this fractional distance the boatbuilder determines the
length and placement of the fore and aft outrigger booms,
as well as the length of the mast itself.
With this rather intricately developed system of propor-
tions in mind, the boatbuilder begins by hollowing out the
seasoned log, with the naturally occurring narrower end
designated as the bow. Once this procedure is completed,
or nearly so, two hardwood planks, which will serve as
sheer strakes, are then fitted to the top of the dugout one
for each side of the hull. The thickness of these sawn
planks is approximately one-quarter less than that of the
uppermost edges of the dugout. This leaves a shelf-like
surface inboard, upon which flat, transverse pieces (dolos)
are fitted to provide internal support for the two strakes.
A brace and bit is used to bore holes of approximately 1
cm (3/8 in) diameter into the top edge of the hull, about 1
hand-width apart. Their positions are then marked along

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

the bottom edge of the sheer strake, into which correspond-
ing holes are likewise bored. Hardwood dowels are
temporarily placed in these holes, and the sheer strake is
placed on top of them. An ingeniously conceived, sharp-
pointed tool (today usually made of metal and in a variety
of shapes) is then run along the upper edge of the dugout
such that the tool's sharp point scores a line along the
strake, near its bottom edge, that follows the contour of the
dugout's upper edge. An experienced craftsman can
achieve a similar but slightly less accurate result by holding
a straightedge between his middle finger and index finger,
and the stub of a pencil between his index finger and
thumb. While the straightedge is run along the top edge of
the dugout, the pencil marks the strake. By then removing
the strake and carving along the mark, whether made by a
sharp tool or a pencil, the boatbuilder can fit the strake to
the dugout log almost perfectly. After both strakes have
been properly shaped, and thin, paper-like strips of materi-
al made from tree bark have been positioned so that they
will be sandwiched between the dugout and the strakes, the
latter are firmly driven home with a large wooden mallet.
The dowels are then secured with hardwood pins driven
from inside the hull.
After the strakes are secured, the wishbone-shaped stem
and stern elements are added. These solid pieces of timber
are usually made from the naturally occurring forks of the
belalu tree the same type of wood as used for the hull.
The name for these pieces varies throughout Indonesia. At
Sanur they are called kanti, but I have also heard them
called ketua kuat (strong head) and sayap kuat (strong
wing). The kanti are carved and positioned so that the two
arms of the fork lie flush with the sheer stakes, and the
third arm extends outward, forming the end of the hull.
Once in place, these kanti provide valuable strength for the
vessel. Occasionally, canoes are built without a proper
kanti in the stern and, therefore, cannot accurately be
called jukung., Pak Murje informed me, however, that all
Balinese canoes invariably have a kanti in the bows.
Considering this construction method, that of attaching
two side strakes and two end pieces to a dugout, one can
understand why these vessels are classified as five-part
canoes. The only major difference from those built nearly
4,000 years ago is that dowels, instead of lashings, are
used to fasten the strakes and end pieces to the dugout.
Today the only lashing or, more accurately in this case,
lacing on Balinese jukung is found at the forward ends of
the bamboo floats, where flat wooden plates are laced on
to prevent water from flowing through the hollow, tube-like
Variations in the internal supports, however, are myriad
and most are fairly modern. Like the ancient five-part

Photo: R.D. Heron
In southern Bali the splashboards in the bow are rounded. A
flat, athwartship dolos supports the sheer strakes. The
layang-layang, hidden in this view behind the dolos, supports
the outrigger boom. The lowest transverse member visible
here is the sendang, to which the outrigger boom is lashed.
The rectangular mast step in the bottom of the hull is just
visible (bottom center).

canoes, Balinesejukung still depend largely on compression
to hold the vessel together. As previously mentioned,
round wooden bars (sendang) are placed athwartships
relative to the six internal divisions of the hull. Not all
vessels, however, are fully fitted out with six sendang,
and, at least in Kusamba, some sendang are rectangular
rather than round. Nevertheless, at least one sendang will
be placed in the bow and another in the stern. These are
usually positioned with their extremities beneath carved
lugs that help hold them in place. The fore and aft
outrigger booms (bayungan) are then lashed to the sen-

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

raoto: ILU. Merro
Near the Balinese village ofKusamba, as well as the coastal
area roughly northwest of the island of Serangan, vessels often
have rectangular splashboards. Holes, frequently intricate in
design, are sometimes cut in the dolos. Lashing is run through
them to secure the dolos to the sendang below.

dang. Along the inside of the hull, the flat dolos (trans-
verse pieces) that support the sheer strakes are occasionally
lashed to sendang positioned below them. Drilled in each
side of the hull are holes in which the ends of these
sendang are placed. The ends of the protruding sendang
are cut off flush with the outside surface of the hull, but
they are still visible. This is a modern and structurally
weak method of construction. Depending on the size of the
canoe and the amount of stress the outrigger booms are
expected to exert on the sendang, those at the bow and
stern also may be inserted through holes in the bull rather
than held in place by lugs.
The mast is seated in a rectangular step carved out of

the solid bottom of the dugout. The dimensions of the
mast are determined by the system of proportions previous-
ly discussed, and usually the mast is stepped immediately
aft the forward outrigger boom, which provides longitudi-
nal support.
Associated with the mast is an important structural
member called a layang-layang. This flat board is attached
to the hull and has a square or rectangular center-hole that
receives the mast, thus serving as a kind of mast partner.
In addition, two smaller square holes are cut near the
forward edge of the layang-layang. Lashing passes
through these holes, around the sending, and over the
forward outrigger boom that sits atop the layang-layang.
As wind fills the sail, and the leeward outrigger float is
pushed downward into the water, nearly equal but opposite
forces from the mast and the outrigger boom are exerted on
the layang-layang. In this way much of the load is
transferred from the mast to the outrigger boom rather than
along the length of the hull.
The penyankilang in the stern is similar to the
layang-layang and is lashed to the aft outrigger boom in the
same manner as the layang-layang is lashed to the forward
boom. A square hole near the center of this thick, flat
board receives the rudder-support post.
Balinese canoes are frequently fitted out with tungkoh
or, as some fishermen pronounce it, tengah korsi (literally
"center seat"). The ends of these rectangular pieces of
wood are secured to the edges of the hull with dovetail
joints. Not only do they help strengthen the hull, but they
also serve as seats for the fisherman, or as platforms for a
kind of split-bamboo decking that can be later rolled up and
Both the fore and aft outrigger booms, as previously
described, are attached to the hull with only simple, but
strong, lashings. Originally these lashings were made from
rattan, but today only cheap nylon rope is used. When the
boat is not in service, the booms can be removed to
prevent them from rotting in the humid environment. The
cedik is attached to the boom by means of a lashing wound
over a scarf joint secured by a wooden peg or tenon. The
opposite end of the cedik is carved down to a point that fits
into a hole drilled through the upper surface of the float
(katir). Thus positioned, the bamboo float is then lashed
to the cedik.
An important engineering feature of these composite
outriggers, in contrast to outriggers made from a single
piece of wood, is that they tend to act in a manner similar
to that of a woven wicker chair. The stress loads taken in
a heavy sea are more evenly distributed along the entire
length of the outrigger and not concentrated in a single
area. Furthermore, with their high-curving arch, the cedik

INA Quarterly 21.1-2


of the pancer is made from a single piece of wood. The
remainder of the blade is fashioned from a second piece of
wood, and is attached with dowels. A slightly rounded or
rectangular hole cut in the rudder's loom serves to hold the
tiller loosely in place. The aft end of the tiller is cross-
pinned to prevent it from sliding forward. Just below the
tiller, the rudder stock is lashed to the port side of the
rudder-support post (tunguan). By pulling the tiller
forward, and pivoting the rudder stock on its lashings, the
blade can be brought out of the water to prevent it from
scraping along a shallow sea bottom. Because of its shape,
one may initially think that this type of rudder was directly
influenced by the Portuguese. In reality, the Balinese
pancer has a Southeast-Asian ancestry dating to about the
sixth century B.C.
As time and money became increasingly limited I
realized that, although I was able to achieve many of my
research goals concerning Balinese vessels, much would
have to be left undone if I were to travel to Madura and
study the vessels there, as originally planned. Studying the
watercraft of Madura is important because many of the
vessels from this island exhibit design features and con-
struction techniques that are not only related to but, I
believe, predate those used by the Balinese. One example
is the upward-curving booms and cedik, which Hornell
suggested as being Balinese in origin. Photographic
evidence, as previously discussed, suggests otherwise, as
did several Madurese boatbuilders who, with unabashed
pride, informed me that this feature did not originate on

Ball. Several builders even laughed outright at the sugges-
tion. They did, however, agree that the Balinese have
developed it into a distinctive form.
Although individual construction rituals and ceremonies
may vary slightly between the Hindu Balinese and the
Muslim boatbuilders of Madura, the construction of both
Balinese and Madurese vessels are generally based on the
traditional five-part hull canoe design. Moreover, as with
the jukung of Bali, the design of traditional Madurese
canoes varies from village to village. Although difficult to
get to, the villages along the isolated northern coast of
Madura are excellent locations to observe traditional
watercraft. At Slompeng and at a few other villages, the
double-outrigger, five-part canoe called a jukung polangan
is still built.
Like the Balinese jukung pelasan, the jukung polangan
also is used in trolling for fish. The Madurese vessel,
however, displays several interesting variations with respect
to her outriggers. The forward outrigger consists of two
booms, each attached directly to a float. The inboard ends
of the booms pass through a bamboo- or wooden-log tube
(kolong) that is positioned laterally across the hull and
fastened to the sides of the canoe. The kolong, like the
layang-layang of thejukung pelasan, helps hold the booms
in place yet allows for some flexibility, thus reducing the
chance of breakage from stress in a heavy sea. The aft
outrigger booms are also positioned inside a kolong, but
their upward-curving outboard ends are not attached to the
floats. Instead, a cedik, or tencil, is pegged and lashed to

loto: K.U. Herron
Ajukung polangan near Slompeng, Madura. Note the fore and aft outrigger booms
positioned in the kolong. Only the aft outrigger has a cedik; the upward curve of
the aft outrigger boom helps keep trolling lines separate.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

sight, as are the outriggerless, plank-
-hulled prahu jaring. Whatever the
economic or environmental reasons for
this change in native boat building,
change is definitely occurring.
My research in Indonesia reminded
me that nothing remains static. Cer-
tainly nothing cultural has ever been
exempt from the forces of change or
modernization. Like anything else,
Indonesian watercraft have been chang-
ing and will continue to do so. In fact
in one respect, the term traditional is
only limited in its usefulness. The
vessels built today, of course, are not
replicas of those constructed thousands
of years ago. But fortunately, they
Photo: R_. Herrn have retained enough of their structural
The bow of a Madurese prahu polangan. Note the two-part boom, normally ancestry to allow us to study firsthand

positioned within a kolong, and the additional side strakes.

the underside of each boom, and the boom ends extend
outward beyond the cedik. The extension of the boom is
used to keep the-fishing lines separated when trolling.
The prahu polangan, also found at Slompeng, is an
interesting variation on thejukung polangan. Although the
prahu polangan exhibits many of the same construction
techniques as the jukung, the reason she is considered a
prahu rather than a jukung is because her sail is raised on
a halyard, traditionally uncommon for ajukung, but most
importantly because of the two or three side strakes used to
increase the height of her sheer. One obvious reason a
builder might use additional side strakes is simply to create
a larger vessel, and the term prahu is often used to refer to
watercraft larger than a relatively simplejukung, or canoe.
Many prahu polangan, however, are not appreciably larger
than jukung. This suggests, especially for those vessels
built today, that the additional side strakes are not used
simply to create a larger vessel, but a large-enough vessel.
Timber suitable for a dugout is becoming increasingly
scarce. Boatbuilders often must rely on younger, smaller
trees for their dugouts, and then build up the sides of the
smaller dugout with additional strakes to produce a vessel
of sufficient size. Thus the term prahu is not simply a
reference to large vessels, but is a qualifier word, used in
conjunction with another, denoting the use or construction
of a vessel type.
Strikingly, more vessels of the prahu type than jukung
are being built in Madura, particularly along the island's
northern coast. The rather generic, motorized prahu besar
(or "big boat") are becoming an increasingly common

at least some of the ancient methods of
Austronesian construction. How many
more years thejukung of Bali and Madura will be built and
sailed is difficult to predict, but by the end of this decade
most, if not all, will probably cease to exist. It is therefore
imperative that we understand as much as we can today
about these and other traditional types of Indonesian
vessels. If we fail, vast amounts of information concerning
this aspect of the world's wooden boats will likely be
forever lost to the miasma of history.

Suggested Reading
Doran, Edwin, Jr.
1973 Nao, Junk, and Vaka: Boats and Culture History.
Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Haddon, A.C., and James Homell
1935 Canoes of Oceania. Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu, HI.

Herron, Richard D.
1993 Balinese Jukung: Vestiges of an Ancient Past.
Nautical Research Journal 38.3: 152-162.

Hornell, James
1920 The Outrigger Canoes of Indonesia. Report No. 2.
Madras Fisheries Bulletin, Vol. XII. Government
Press, Madras.

Horridge, Adrian
1987 Outrigger Canoes of Bali and Madura, Indonesia.
Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, HI.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

A Quest for Simplicity

Musings on the Seventeenth-Century

"Pipe Wreck"

Monte Cristi Bay, Dominican Republic

by Jerome Lynn Hall

William of Ockham was a fourteenth-century English
philosopher who posited the idea that assumptions must
never be multiplied beyond necessity. So popular is this
aphorism that it has come to be known as Ockham's Razor.
There are a number of expressions that restate this maxim:
"keep it simple;" "common things occur commonly;"
"don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." No matter
which saying best conveys the message, the underlying
premise is an intelligible challenge to give consideration to
that which is obvious.
Talk to any nautical archaeologist and he or she will tell
you that there is very little about a shipwreck that is, at
first, obvious. In fact, the opposite is usually true. Wreck
sites, by their very nature, are most often jumbled masses
of wood, metal, and scattered cargo. Between the stages

of excavation and museum display lie a number of chal-
lenges: artifacts must be measured, drawn, photographed,
and conserved, and at some point the archaeologist must
stand back and ask, "What does all of this mean?" Herein
lies the most challenging part of any research project -
For three years now, a small contingent of Texas A&M
University Nautical Archaeology Program students, along
with volunteers from Earthwatch*, a non-profit organiza-
tion based in Watertown, Massachusetts, have pooled their
physical, emotional, and intellectual resources to excavate
the extant hull and cargo of a shipwreck site that is known
simply as the "Pipe Wreck" (see INA Quarterly 19.2: 3-7).
Each summer these dedicated individuals map, excavate,
record, and conserve the thousands of artifacts that have,
amazingly, survived repeated onslaughts of inclem-
ent weather, souvenir seekers, and treasure hunters.
Located on the north coast of Hispaniola (fig. 1),
the site represents the remains of a northern Euro-
pean merchant vessel. Where it came from is
uncertain; where it was headed and for whom the
cargo was intended is unknown; when and how it
j- sank remain mysteries.
The interpretive stage of a project tests one's
ability to synthesize information. It is the point at
.: which the researcher translates raw data into
a hypothesis, a concept those familiar with the scien-
tific method know as an "educated guess." "Can
"' this hypothesis withstand careful scrutiny and
o testing? Would anyone replicating the work or
reviewing the data arrive at the same hypothesis?"
It is at this juncture too that one of science's dark
specters o'ershadows the researcher: through
either ignorance or vanity or both, one is tempted
at some juncture to depart from Ockham's Razor.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Map: .L. Hall
Fig. 1. Location of the Monte Cristi wreck on the north coast,
Dominican Republic.


I '-. .' .
Is- .


Courtesy PIMA Archives.
Fig, 2. The copper-alloy object, with sequentially
numbered gear-like "teeth. "

I know. I did. In fact, I have many times. A perfect
example was my hypothesis regarding an unidentified
artifact excavated during the 1992 season of the Monte
Cristi Shipwreck Project (fig. 2). Shaped like an over-
sized chess pawn, the copper-alloy object stands 30.8 cm
tall. Two "collars," one at the top and the other at the
bottom of the column-like body, are both notched such that
a series of "teeth" eight on the top and sixteen on the
bottom are created. The teeth are stamped sequentially
with from zero to eight dots on the top collar, and in the
same sequence repeated twice on the bottom collar. After
months of consulting museum collections, libraries, and
various specialists, I happened across a single illustration
that inspired a working hypothesis (fig. 3). Could our arti-
fact possibly be a component of a cosmolabe, a little-
known astronomical and mathematical device invented in
the sixteenth century? How this instrument was used is ill
understood, but two points are clear. First, a contempo-
rary drawing indicates that it was mounted in a gimbaled
chair on the sterncastle of a ship, presumably allowing the
navigator to determine latitude (fig. 4). I had my doubts
that such was the nature of our artifact, but there was no
disputing a keen resemblance between it and the object in
the lithograph. Besides, nothing else had turned up and I
was intrigued by what I perceived to be a type of computa-
tional device. Still, something bothered me, which brings
us to point number two: the cosmolabe was a contrivance
that, according to the scant literary evidence, proved un-

Fig. 3 (left). A portion of a cosmolabe, a sixteenth-century navigational device invented by Jacques Besson (after Randier 1980:
79). Fig. 4 (right). A navigator seated in a gimbaled chair and using a cosmolabe (after Randier 1980: 79).

INA Quarterly 21.1-2



' s~

Fig. 5 (right). The artifact is, more than likely, a portion of
a chandelier column. The notches between the numbered teeth
received similarly numbered candle arms.

successful as a navigational instrument. If this was indeed
true, then what was such a device from the sixteenth centu-
ry doing on a ship that positively sailed in the seventeenth

0 1 2 3
Drawing: A. Roberts
Fig. 6. Pan-lamp brackets, shaped like fish
hooks or harpoons.

About the time I was beginning to believe in
my initial hypothesis, Francis Tejeda, director
of the Fortaleza Ozama Conservation Laborato-
ry in Santo Domingo, discovered a curved,
copper-alloy artifact that had been recovered
from our site approximately 12 years previous.
The object had three small dots stamped into
one of its ends and fit perfectly into one of the
sequentially-numbered notches of our column.
This suggested that the artifact is, more than
likely, a portion of a chandelier column (fig.
5). I recalled that a professor at the Oceano-
graphic Institute from which I received my
master's degree had a plaque over his desk that
read: "Oh, the tragedy of science; to destroy
a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact!"

Photo: LR. Martin

Drmwing: J.L HIU
Fig. 7. Pan-lamp bracket suspending an oil lamp (after Woodhead et al.
1984: 30, fig. 29).

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Keeping Ockham's
Razor in mind, what
then were we to make of
the two artifacts depicted
in figure 6? Fishhooks?
Harpoons? Those were
the possibilities that first
came to my mind and
others versed in the
material culture of the
seventeenth century. As
I was trying to determine
the type of knot a sailor
would have used on
these hooks or harpoons
while angling for large
pelagic fish, what I can
only describe as "blind
luck" led me to the
drawing in figure 7.
The objects are, in fact,
"pan-lamp brackets,"
simple devices for hang-
ing oil lamps from chair
backs or wooden beams.

No aspect of this
study is easily explained.
While there are several
hypotheses that address
the issue of the ship's
origin, the purpose of its
voyage, and the circum-
stances surrounding its
loss, no single explana-
tion stands above the
rest. The cosmopolitan
nature of the cargo and
the temporal range for
the ship's destruction
conjure up a plethora of
scenarios for every
aspect of the vessel's
history. Was it of Dutch
or English origin? Was
its destination a Dutch or
an English settlement?
Did it rip its hull open
on the coral reef that
rises to within a few
meters of the surface

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

near the site, or was it sunk by
the Spanish for trespassing in
territorial waters? Even the
extant hull is somewhat puz-
zling; and were the five large
concretions that delimit the site
a cargo of iron, simply ballast,
or both?
Fortunately, certain items of
the ship's cargo present fewer
problems. These include Dutch
pipes, three-legged kettles, and
some details of the ship's con-
struction, including the origin of
the wood used.. I have spent the
past eight years studying the
more than 25,000 pipe frag-
ments that have been raised from
the wreck, the majority of which
have been recovered in the past
three years. It is, clearly, the
largest collection of clay tobacco
smoking pipes ever to be recov-
ered from a submerged site; by
project completion tentatively
scheduled for 1997 it is cer-
tain to surpass the more than
50,000 fragments excavated
from the Anglo-American settle-
ment at Jamestown, Virginia.
Approximately 2,000 of the
Monte Cristi fragments represent
pipe bowls and stems, many of
which bear distinguishable
maker's marks. To date, we
have observed seven such
Four of these stamps bear the
pipemaker's initials, and three .
Fig. 8. Top to bottom:
exhibit marks of a "botanical" wad Bird); "WH'pro
Edward Bird), "WH proi
nature. During the seventeenth D*C" (unknown); and
century, European pipemakers
commonly stamped their initials
into the heels of their pipes as a symbol of quality that also
served as a form of advertising. One of the most prolific
of the seventeenth-century Amsterdam manufacturers was
an expatriated Englishman named Edward Bird, who
arrived in Amsterdam sometime between 1624 and 1628.
Why he chose to settle in Holland is unknown, but history
documents well that during this time a number of English,
fleeing persecution in their native country, emigrated to


If the archaeologist fails to
illuminate the lives or, at the
very least, the lifeways of a
people, then he or she has, in
my opinion, failed. Upon con-
clusion of the excavation phase
of a project, the principal inves-
tigator and his staff and crew
have done nothing more than
produce a pile of artifacts.
Ceramics, organic materials, and
even precious metals are merely
trinkets destined to collect dust
in a museum display case unless
care is taken to conserve, study,
and publish them and their
historical significance. Edward
Bird and other pipemakers of his
Drawings: A. Robcrt
D : A. r time have helped us avoid such
the heelstamps "EB" (of
bly of William Hedri s ignominy. The numerous histor-
bly of William Hendricks;
" (also unknown). ical documents that have allowed
*C" (also unknown).
us brief glimpses into his life
paint a picture of an industrious
young soldier who built an empire that stretched from Am-
sterdam to New Netherland (modern-day New York). His
life, although successful, was also tempered with tragedy:
church rolls show that he buried 10 of his first 11 children
in their infancy, a sober reminder of just how difficult life
in seventeenth-century Europe could be, even among the
middle and upper classes.
We also know that Bird had a friend by the name of

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

Amsterdam. Many quickly
succeeded as potters and pipe-
makers, among other trade occu-
pations. While Bird most likely
started as a laborer in someone
else's shop, by 1638 he and his
wife were on their way to suc-
cess, a fact well attested in the
archaeological record of Europe
and North America. Bird's
pipes are often the most fre-
quently found pipes on seven-
teenth-century archaeological
sites across Holland and on
Dutch-American sites in the
northeastern United States,
particularly in New York (fig.
8). His wares were also trade
items favored by Native Ameri-

William Hendricks, another expatriated
Englishman. Hendricks was born in
Nottingham in 1599, and is considered
by at least one scholar of seventeenth-
century pipemaking to be the "third
most important name in the Amsterdam
pipe industry" (Duco 1981: 401).
Records from the city of Amsterdam
indicate that during his lifetime Hen-
dricks was a sheet metal worker, a
potter, and a pipemaker. His associa-
tion with Bird is well documented in a
seventeenth-century court case, and
some have speculated that Bird fired
his pipes in Hendricks' kiln (De Roe-
ver 1987: 56; John McCashion, per-
sonal communication 1991). Hen-
dricks died in Amsterdam in 1669 or
1670 (Duco 1981: 309). What makes
all of this so relevant to our work is
the fact that we consistently excavate
pipes from the wreck that bear heel-
stamps with the initials "WH" (fig. 8).
Pipes that exhibit rouletting around
the stems are the most intricately deco-
rated examples from the shipwreck.
They bear "D*C" and "P*C" heel- Fig. 9. Top to bo\
stamps that have yet to be identified, the form of the Tu
but several clues have emerged that de-lis; an imitation
may help narrow the possibilities (fig. pipe forms, known
8). Paul Huey, Senior Scientist of angled pipe.
Archaeology at the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, has
stated that an elevated star positioned between initials on a
heelstamp may stand for the phrase "the son of." While
there has been no identification to date of a Dutch pipe-
maker with the initials "D*C," researchers are currently
investigating the possibility that "P*C" represents Pieter
Claess or Paulus Claesszoon, both of whom were Amster-
dam pipemakers. Claess, the son of pipemaker Claus
Pieterzoon, was 22 years old in 1651 and apparently man-
ufactured his wares at least until 1654. Records indicate
that Claesszoon was 52 years of age in 1651, which means
both men were contemporaries of Bird and Hendricks. We
do not know if Claess or Claesszoon had any sons. If they
did, there is no indication that they worked with their
fathers or carried on their family businesses.
A heelstamp bearing the very popular Tudor Rose is
also present in the Monte Cristi collection (fig. 9). This
five-petalled flower originated in England where, during
the reign of Elizabeth (1588-1603), the European pipe-



INA Quarterly 21.1-2

making industry was born. Among the
emigrants who fled England to Holland
in search of economic and religious
freedom were a number of Protestant
pipemakers who were advocates of the
House of Tudor. Some adopted the
symbol as their trademark, a statement
of identity in a foreign land. Omwake
(1969: 131) suggests that it is the
oldest of all Dutch pipe marks, first
adopted in 1617 by one Willem Bar-
entsz, founder of the pipemaking in-
dustry in Holland. Solecki (1950: 32)
states that the mark was "in vogue
during the latter half of the seventeenth
century," and according to de Mello
(1983: 270), it was rivalled only by the
seemingly ubiquitous "EB."
A less frequently encountered heel-
stamp from the Pipe Wreck is that of a
fleur-de-lis, or "lily flower," centered
in a diamond (fig. 9). Thefleur-de-lis,
a heraldic symbol popularized by
French kings, predates the practice of
pipe manufacturing in both Holland
Dnrwing: A. Robcrta and England (Omwake 1969:
om: heelsramps in 133-134). This heelstamp stamp is
or Rose; the fleur- common on Dutch pipes of the seven-
of Native American teenth century, and it also enjoyed
as a fnnel elbow- great popularity as a stem design on
garishly decorated Dutch pipes, espe-
cially those from Gouda. It has been
known to occur as a heelstamp on pipes recovered from
English sites in North America, but Omwake (1969: 134)
is quick to add that in each instance, the "English origin
has been obscured by questionable circumstances."
Perhaps the most interesting group of pipes and one
that I think will tell us more about the voyage of this ship
than perhaps any other collection of artifacts represents
a lesser known type descriptively referred to as a "funnel
elbow-angled" design (fig. 9). They are occasionally
called "trade pipes," "export pipes," or "Dutch bowls,"
and are most commonly recovered from Native American
sites in the northeastern United States. Among researchers,
this type has earned the nickname "trade pipe" for the
simple reason that, although manufactured in Amsterdam,
they were intended for export to the Americas. In fact they
seldom, if ever, occur in Europe. Because many of the
earliest excavated forms that are known to have been
produced in Europe, and specifically Amsterdam, bear
heelstamps with the initials "EB," Edward Bird has rightly

been implicated as the innovative capitalist behind
the manufacture and marketing of this type of pipe.
Funnel elbow-angled pipes are clear imitations of
Native American pipes and occur commonly on
Onondaga, Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Wampanoag,
and Susquehannock sites (Huey 1988: 786).
There is no record of this type from French-
American, Scandinavian, British, or Dutch sites.
This pipe form may well be the kasioten described
in a letter written by Jeremias van Rensselaer at
Fort Orange (Albany, New York) to pipemaker
Robert Vastrick of Amsterdam. In the letter,
written in 1658, van Rensselaer describes four
cases of pipes, three of which he had sold for nine
beavers apiece. He comments that the fourth case
could have been sold had there been shipped in it
"some of those curved, English pipes...for they are
not looking for large kasioten alone" (Huey 1988:
456). "They" most probably refers to Native Americans,
and Huey suggests that the "curved, English pipes" may be
bulbous-bowled forms manufactured by Edward Bird.
Numerous other artifacts that appear commonly on
Native American contact sites have been recovered from
the Monte Cristi shipwreck, including glass beads, bone or
ivory comb fragments, brass thimbles, a hawk's bell (fig.
10), and three-legged iron kettles. While not exclusively
trade goods, as these items were in great demand within
the European-American frontier colonies, their presence on
the site does raise the possibility of a cargo shipment
designated for barter with Native Americans.
The most interesting of these objects are the three-
legged kettles (fig. 11). We have excavated two such
artifacts, but a site map drawn and provided by the late
Mr. Duke Long an American who, along with a group
of Dominicans, visited the site in 1980 indicates that
four were recovered prior to our work on the wreck. The

Courtly PIMA Archives
Fig. 10. A hawk's bell. Such European-made bells were fa-
vored trade items, as indicated by their common occurrence on
Native American sites. They appear as early as Columbus'
first voyage to the New World.

r-W. r. WolurU
Fig. 11. Archaeologists recovering a three-legged kettle.

cultural importance of these vessels is evident in their
frequent occurrence in seventeenth-century Native Ameri-
can burials, which seems to emphasize their utility both in
life and the afterworld. Tin, iron, copper, and brass kettles
are commonly found on sites from this period, and it is
known that, as trade items, each had a specific value. Tin
kettles were the most highly prized, and those made of iron
were preferred over brass. In certain instances, however,
Native Americans regarded iron kettles as too heavy to
carry around, and opted for the lighter brass kettles that
also served as a source of metal from which ornaments
could be made. European settlers also valued these all-
purpose utensils for baking, roasting, and boiling, the
predominant methods of cooking in the seventeenth-century
European-American household. Boiling required little fuel
and less attention.
In addition to the chandelier column and the pan-lamp
brackets described earlier, several other objects associated
with lighting have been recovered from the site. A brass
candlestick holder that is, according to the representatives
of the Underwater Archaeology Commission in Santo
Domingo, the most beautiful one ever to be discovered in
the Dominican Republic, was found accreted to a cast iron
cannon excavated during the 1992 season. Two of the
three pairs of wick tweezers instruments used for pulling
up a lamp wick were found in the vicinity, leading us to
suspect that all of these objects were originally packed
together. A forked blade of undetermined function was
attached to one pair of tweezers by means of a thick brass
wire (fig. 12).
Although the assemblage of artifacts from the site allows
a unique study of colonial trade items, the primary impor-
tance of the shipwreck lies in the fact that it represents one

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

of just a handful of seventeenth-century vessels wrecked in
the New World for which we have detailed hull informa-
tion. Even though the Caribbean basin, like the Mediterra-
nean, is a vast repository of shipwrecks, it is most unfortu-
nate that much of the work has been and is still conducted
by salvage groups who care little for the historic value of
artifacts and less for the integrity of ship structures. A
detailed study of the Monte Cristi hull is in progress, and
preliminary work suggests it is of English design. More-
over, analyses conducted by the Dutch Dendrochronology
Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, indicate that the
ship was constructed with oak from England. Therefore,
at this point we are reasonably confident that the ship itself
was English.
The dendrochronolgy data also indicate that the wood
used to build the ship was felled sometime between October
1642 and March 1643. One of about a dozen Spanish ocho
reales, or "pieces of eight," from the wreck (fig. 13) estab-
lishes a termnninus post quem (the date after which the vessel
must have been lost) of 1652. The large collection of clay
tobacco smoking pipes are of Amsterdam manufacture, and
six of the seven identifiable heel stamps fit well into a
temporal range of 1645-1665. The pipes are characteristic
of, and in some cases identical to, those from Dutch-
American contact sites of the northeastern United States,
specifically those in New York state. If the unidentified
copper-alloy object is, in fact, a component of a chandelier,
as I now believe it is, then for whom was it intended?
Surely someone of considerable wealth. Fine, tin-glazed
delftware ceramics and imported Venetian glass vessels
were also high quality cargoes for which wealthy colonists
would have paid handsomely. Still, much of the cargo, Pba o: L snde
and specifically the clay pipes, would have found their way Fig. 13. Examples of the "pieces of eight"found on the site.
to Native American settlements via a European-American One allows the wreck to be dated no earlier than 1652.
So what would William of Ockham think of all this?
What is the prudent hypothesis? What is the simplest, most
obvious theory? It would appear that the ship, traveling
from northern Europe and possibly Amsterdam, was
passing through the Caribbean en route to a destination in
North America. Of this1 I am fairly certain. But here, the
equation becomes complicated with numerous variables. In
the latter half of the seventeenth century, the Caribbean
basin and the Atlantic seaboard of North America was the
stage upon which European sea powers acted out many of
the disputes in which they were embroiled. The English
Navigation Acts were designed to strike out at and limit
Dutch seaboi-ne commerce, and although their effectiveness
is argued by historians, all would concur that the Dutch-
Courtesy PaI Archi Anglo Wars of the second half of the seventeenth century
Fig. 12. Copper-alloy wick tweezers with aforked blade wired were one result. Was our ship a captured English vessel in
to them.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

the service of the Dutch West India Company, traveling
from Fort Amsterdam on the island of Curagao to the
settlement of Fort Orange on the Hudson River? The
possibility of an English-built ship carrying a preponder-
ance of Dutch-manufactured goods is best explained by
such a hypothesis. Of course, we cannot discount the
influence of piracy in the Caribbean during the seventeenth
century. An idea that occurred to us early in excavation of
the site, that the vessel may have been engaged in illicit
trade with the inhabitants of the north coast of Hispaniola
- specifically the boucaniers, or "buccaneers" is still

Acknowledgements. Without the corporate sponsorship of
Continental Airlines, Igloo Coolers, Coleman Outdoor
Products, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA), the
Pan-American Institute of Maritime Archaeology (PIMA),
Earthwatch*, and all the Earthcorp volunteers, this work could
not have been carried out. My deepest gratitude is expressed
to Don Pedro Borrell, Secretary of the Comisi6n de Rescate
Arqueol6gico Submarino, and Francis Tejeda, Director of the
Fortaleza Ozama Conservation Laboratory for their assistance.
I am especially indebted to Texas A&M University Nautical
Archaeology Program graduates Lillian Ray Martin and Sam
Turner, and Program students Rich Wills, Rahilla Abbas,
Barbara van Meir, Colin O'Bannon, and Ralph Pedersen, with
whom it was my great pleasure to work. The late Duke Long,
cartographer for the N.S. Concepci6n project, and Henry
Taylor, numismatist and conservator for the N.S. Concepci6n
project, have both been indispensable sources of information;
their hard work and advice are greatly appreciated. Dr.
Ronald Halbert, President of PIMA and one of the two
attending physicians on the project, has kept us both well and
sane. Paul Huey, Senior Scientist at the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, and the
late John McCashion, have not only provided a veritable
library of information, but have also offered tremendous
encouragement and guidance. For these contributions, and
these people, I am truly grateful.

References and Suggested Reading
de Mello, U.P.
1983 Clay Pipes from North-East Brazil. In The Archae-
ology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, edited by P.
Davey, pp. 259-286. Translated by E. Weeks.
British Archaeological Reports International Series
De Roever, M.
1987 The Fort Orange "EB" Pipe Bowls: An Investigation
of the Origin of American Objects in Dutch Seven-
teenth-Century Documents. In New World Dutch
Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America:
1609-1776, edited by R. H. Blackburn, pp. 51-61.
Albany Institute of History and Art, Albany, NY.
Duco, D.H.
1981 De Kleipijp In De Zeventiende Eeuwse Nederlanden
Een Historiasch-Archaeologische Studie Van De Uit
Witbakkende Klei Vervaardigde Rookpijp. In The
Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe. V. Europe
2, part ii, edited by P. Davey. British Archaeologi-
cal Reports International Series 106.
Huey, P.R.
1988 Aspects of Continuity and Change in Colonial Dutch
material Culture at Fort Orange, 1624-1644. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Penn-
sylvania, Philadelphia.
Omwake, H.G.
1969 White Kaolin Pipes from the Oscar Leibhart Site.
Susquehannock Miscellany, edited by J. Witthoft and
W. F. Kinsey. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, Philadelphia.
Randier, J.
1980 Marine Navigation Instruments. Translated from the
French by John E. Powell. John Murray, London.
Solecki, R.
1950 The Archaeological Position of Historic Fort Cor-
chaug, L.I., and its Relation to Contemporary Forts.
Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut
24: 5-40.
Woodhead, E.I., C. Sullivan, and G. Guest
1984 Lighting Devices in the National Reference Collec-
tion, Parks Canada. National Parks and Sites
Branch, Parks, Canada.

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

INA would like to express its deep
appreciation to all of the supporters of
the projects listed below. Such work
would not be possible without you.
Uluburun & Cape Gelidonya, Turkey
INA archaeologists plan to complete
the excavation of the Bronze Age
Shipwreck at Uluburun during the
1994 campaign (June 15-August 15).
Three primary tasks await the team.
One is the excavation around the
upslope edge of the large boulder near
the center of the site. This area is
densely packed with artifacts.
Another major task will be the
recording and raising of the hull wood
discovered last year. Cemal Pulak,
co-director with. George Bass, also
hopes to map the site's topography.
INA staff members Don Frey,
Robin Piercy, Tufan Turanh, Sheila
Matthews, and Murat Tilev will rejoin
the expedition. Archaeologists Faith
Hentschel, Nicolle Hirshfeld, Lillian
Ray Martin and Patricia Sibella, and
hyperbaric specialists David Perlman,
physician, and Tom Sutton, P.A., will
return to Uluburun for the final
season, as will Texas A&M Universi-
ty Nautical Archaeology Program stu-
dents Michael Fitzgerald, Brendan
McDermott, Stephen Paris, Edward
Rogers, and Mark Smith.
Prior to the season at Uluburun,
another short survey will be conducted
at Cape Gelidonya by Cemal Pulak
and INA staff members Don Frey,
Tufan Turanh, Murat Tilev, and Tom
Bodrum, Turkey
In the Bodrum Museum of Underwa-
ter Archaeology, Frederick van Door-
ninck's research on the capacities of
the eleventh-century Glass Wreck
amphoras continues, as does work on


the glass from that same wreck.
Frederick Hocker, assisted by
Nautical Archaeology Program stu-
dents Stefan Claesson, Tommi
Mikeli, and Taras Pevny, will build
a partial replica of the seventh-century
Yassiada vessel in the former Bronze
Age Hall. Other Nautical Archae-
ology Program students working in
Bodrum are Peter van Alfen, who will
begin a study of amphoras from the
Yassiada -wreck; Barbara van Meir,
who will study artifacts raised during
past INA surveys along the Turkish
coast; and Claire Peachey, who will
co-instruct a conservation intership
(see News & Notes).
Lake Champlain, Vermont
Kevin Crisman, recipient of a grant
from the Texas A&M University
College of Liberal Arts Program to
Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activ-
ities, will conduct a sonar and ROV
(remove operated vehicle) search for
the Troy. If found, this earliest
known sailing canal schooner, which
sank in 1824, will fill many gaps in
our knowledge of the early com-
mercial history of Lake Champlain.
Elsewhere on the lake, Nautical
Archaeology Program student
Elizabeth Baldwin, assisted by fellow
Program student Scott McLaughlin,
will direct the second season of the
Champlain II Project in August (see
pp. 3-11 above).
The Dominican Republic
Nautical Archaeology Program Ph.D.
candidate Jerome Lynn Hall will be
directing the fourth season of excava-
tions on the seventeenth-century "Pipe
Wreck" (see pp. 29-37 above). He
will be assisted by fellow Program
students Elizabeth Baldwin (through
July), Kyra Bowling, James Cog-

geshall, Tina Erwin, David Johnson,
Anne Lessmann, and Richard Wills,
who will co-direct the project.
Red Sea Survey, Egypt
INA Research Associates Cheryl and
Douglas Haldane will conduct an
underwater survey of the Egyptian
Red Sea coast. Nautical Archaeology
Program students Peter van Alfen,
Elizabeth Green, and Colin O'Bannon
will assist.
St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica
Nautical Archaeology Program student
Greg Cook, a Junior Fulbright
Scholar, continues to excavate and
research an eighteenth-century ship-
wreck in St. Ann's Bay. He is being
aided by fellow Program student Clive
Pensacola Bay, Florida
Nautical Archaeology Program Ph.D.
candidate John Bratten, and fellow
Program student Michael Scafuri, will
conserve artifacts from the wreck in
Pensacola Bay of an early Spanish
galleon that is now being excavated by
Roger C. Smith, Florida state under-
water archaeologist and Nautical
Archaeology Program graduate.
The Canary Islands, Texas, Greece,
and Holland
Nautical Archaeology Program
students Brett Phaneuf, Peter Hitch-
cock, and Program graduate Sam
Turner will be studying possible Ro-
man and post-medieval seafaring in
the Canary Islands area. Program
students Layne Hendrick and Brian
Jordan will survey a steamboat wreck-
site in Texas; David Stewart will work
at Pylos, Greece, and on Crete;
Mason McDaniel will continue his
work with the Dutch government in

INA Quarterly 21.1-2

News & Notes

New President at INA
After 5 1/2 years at INA, President
Robert "Chip" Vincent has accepted a
position with the American Research
Center in Egypt. Based in Cairo, he
will direct, in conjunction with the
Egyptian government, a major project
designed to restore selected monu-
ments, survey and document unknown
monuments, and assist in the preserva-
tion of the national archives. We
wish him and his family well in their
new venture.
Frederick M. Hocker, Sara W. and
George 0. Yamini Faculty Fellow,
has been appointed interim president
by the Institute's Executive Commit-
tee. Associated with INA since 1984
and a Ph.D. graduate of the Nautical
Archaeology Program, Dr. Hocker
has extensive experience with the
Institute's activities around the world.
He has worked in Port Royal, Jamai-
ca; he spent three summers in Bod-
rum, Turkey, working on the recon-
struction of the eleventh-century Serge
Limam ship and studying the tools
aboard it; shipwreck excavation and
recording projects have been conduct-
ed under his directorship in South
Carolina and Holland.

INA Receives NEH Conservation
INA is pleased to announce it has
received a grant from the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
to conduct an internship program in
the conservation of archaeological
artifacts from submerged sites, to take
place in July and August in Bodrum,
Turkey. Five students from conserva-
tion programs in the U.S. and Eng-

land will be instructed by
freelance conservator
Claire Dean of Dean &
Associates, and conserva- 4..
tor and Nautical Archae-
ology Program student -
Claire Peachey, with assis-
tance from INA conser-
vator Jane Pannell-Yildi-
nm. The program will
cover all aspects of this
specialized field of conser-
vation, from pre-exca-
vation planning to dry
storage and display.
The laboratory will be
busy this summer, with
two visiting conservators
from Egypt and two stu-
dents from England work-
ing under the direction of
Cemal Pul
Stefy Book Published publicatioJ
On May 10, 1994, J. and the In
Richard Steffy, Sara W.
and George O. Yamini Professor of
Nautical Archaeology, Emeritus,
signed copies of his new book at a
book signing hosted by the Nautical
Archaeology Program and INA.
Entitled Wooden Ship Building and the
Interpretation of Shipwrecks and pub-
lished by Texas A&M University
Press, the book will be a standard
reference for nautical archaeologists,
ship reconstruction specialists, and
students of shipbuilding technology.
It is available to members of the
Institute at a substantial discount (see
enclosed flyer or contact the Institute).
Professor Steffy continues to prepare
for publication the final reports on the

rlLu.I I lUUlwml
ak congratulates J.Richard Steffy on the
i of his new book, Wooden Ship Building
terpretation of Shipwrecks.

hulls of the Kyrenia and Serge Limam

INA-Egypt Newsletter Available
The Institute's new regional center in
Egypt, INA-Egypt, has published the
first issue of its English-Arabic news-
letter, El Bahri ("of the sea"). A
reconnaissance of the Sharm el Sheikh
area and news of INA-Egypt's
activities are included. Persons
interested in receiving a copy may
write to Cheryl Haldane, El Bahri, cdo
INA at P.O. Drawer HG, College
Station, TX, 77841.

INA Quarterly 20.1



George F. Bass, Archaeological Director
Gregory M. Cook, Treasurer

John H. Baird
George F. Bass
Edward O. Boshell, Jr.
Gregory M. Cook
Harlan Crow
Claude Duthuit
Daniel Fallon
Danielle J. Feeney
Donald G. Geddes HI
William Graves
Bengt O. Jansson

Frederick M. Hocker, President
Rebecca H. Holloway, Secretary


Harry C. Kahn II
Michael L. Katzev
Jack W. Kelley, Chairman
Sally R. Lancaster
Norma S. Langworthy
Samuel J. LeFrak
Robert E. Lorton
Frederick R. Mayer
William A. McKenzie
William H. Mobley

Donald A. Frey, Vice President
Cemal M. Pulak, Vice President

Alex G. Nason
Ray H. Siegfried, II
Ayhan Sicirmolu
William T. Sturgis
Robert L. Walker
Lew O. Ward, Vice Chairman
Peter M. Way
Garry A. Weber
Martin A. Wilcox
Richard A. Williford
George O. Yamini


George F. Bass
George T. & Gladys H. Abell Professor of Nautical Archaeology/Yamini Family Professor of Liberal Arts
Kevin J. Crisman, Assistant Professor
Donny L. Hamilton, Associate Professor
Frederick M. Hocker, Sara W. & George O. Yamini Faculty Fellow
J. Richard Steffy, Sara W. & George O. Yamini Professor of Nautical Archaeology, Emeritus
Frederick H. van Doorninck, Jr., Frederick R. Mayer Professor in Nautical Archaeology
Shelley Wachsmann, Meadows Assistant Professor of Biblical Archaeology


Mr. & Mrs. Ray H. Siegfried II
Graduate Fellow:
Cemal M. Putak

Mr. & Mrs. J. Brown Cook
Graduate Fellows:
Gregory D. Cook
Joseph R. Cozzi
Jerome Lynn Hall
Taras P. Pevny
Elizabeth Robinson Baldwin


Marion Degkrmenci
Sheila D. Matthews, M.A.
Selma K. Oguz
Robin C.M. Piercy
Cemal M. Pulak, M.S., M.A.
Sema Pulak, M.A.
Mural A. Tilev
Tufan U. Turanhl
Patricia A. Turner
Jane Pannell-Yildinm


Jeremy Green
Cheryl W. Haldane, Ph.D.
Douglas Haldane, M.A.
Margaret E. Leshikar, Ph.D.
Kathleen McLaughlin-Neyland, M.A.
John C. Neville
Robert S. Neyland, M.A.
James M. Parrent, Ph. D.
Ralph K. Pedersen, M.A.
Donald Rosencrantz


Cynthia J. Eiseman, Ph.D.
John A. Gifford, Ph.D.
Faith D. Hentschel, Ph.D.
Carolyn G. Koehler, Ph.D.
David I. Owen, Ph.D.
David C. Switzer, Ph.D.
Gordon P. Watts, Jr., M.A.


Michael A. Fitzgerald


Australian Institute of Maritime Archaeology
Boston University
Brown University
Bryn Mawr College
University of California, Berkeley
University of Cincinnati
Cornell University
Corning Museum of Glass
Department de Arqueol6gia Subacuatica de
la I.N.A.H., Mexico
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
New York University, Institute of Fine Arts
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Partners for Livable Places
University Museum, University of
Shell of Turkey, Ltd.
Texas A&M Research Foundation
Texas A&M University
University of Texas, Austin

COUNSEL James A. Goold

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs