The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration (1977) 6.4: 364-366

Letter to the Editor

I welcome the opportunity of replying to Jeremy Green’s letter (Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 6 , 1977:86) on the morality of stripping iron guns, as this is a subject to which I have given considerable thought over the last three years.

Whilst agreeing with his opening statement and the established concepts on restraint from raising individual marine artefacts unless con- servation facilities exist locally, I feel strongly that there is in a limited number of special cases, full justification for stripping carefully chosen isolated specimens in their original locations underwater.

Green bases his objections almost exclusively on the need for survival of individual artefacts for display in museums of the future. As archaeologists I believe we have much wider responsibilities; of equal importance is the necessity to record our finds accurately, analyse in detail and publish widely our discoveries for the benefit of future generations. If the latter can be done effectively with the minimum of damage to both site and artefacts so much the better.

In his letter he asserts there is little doubt that studies of guns from shipwrecks can pro- vide important information about the arma- ment of a ship. By interpretation I believe that he undervalues such a study, since the accurate recording and identification of the size, range, location, number and orientation of the guns relate not just to the armament in isolation, but are in many instances a vital key to the dating, identification, construction, orientation and dispersal of the shipwreck and the distribution of her marine and domestic artefacts. These details are imperative in relation to a warship or major unidentified virgin shipwreck and particu- larly important t o the majority of shipwrecks in British waters where the timberwork of the hull seldom survives except in special circum- stances. The guns remain our most important guide to the disposition of ship and artefacts.

Once recorded, analysis of $is information is a valuable store for comparison with contem- porary documents and material from ship- wrecks to be discovered by future generations of archaeologists, whilst at the same time pro- viding unique knowledge on the development of gunfounding and naval armament.

No one would dispute that maritime archae-

ology is in its infancy and that mistakes made now may have effects in the future, but we are also in an age of experimentation where new techniques and expertise are being progressively developed. As a consequence I would suggest it is no less moral far an expert to adopt new methods of obtaining information from cannon underwater without risk of exposing them to oxidization than it is to raise them to carry out new and unproved conservation methods. To date very few of the latter, including the costly processes of hydrogen reduction and electrolysis have succeeded in permanently stabilizing more than a proportion of specimens attempted, and frequently damage has occurred during the process. Where authorities have rashly raised guns without adequate facilities these have ulti- mately deteriorated.

In contrast, but equally fallible, the adoption of a negative attitude towards a wreck site may have just as far reaching consequences in the future as a well motivated, but erroneously calculated action. Important information avail- able from cannon, ignored during the early stages of discovery, may be irretrievably lost by later cannibalization, mislocation and damage. The short history of marine archaeology is littered with site reports of missing or aban- doned cannon (see Jeremy Green’s recent report on the East Indiaman Trial (BAR Suppl. Ser. 27, 1977:50, 51) and the Scilly Isles Tearing Ledge report (Rex Cowan, 1976, privately printed)

Green states there are only a limited number of wreck sites with cast iron guns. Whilst this statement is true, it is a generality which requires some quantification to place it in it’s right perspective. It is only in the last few years that the growth in free diving exploration has made us increasingly aware of how many wreck locations marked by cannon possibly exist. Each year our knowledge expands as more sites are discovered by accident or deliberate search.

Based on the evidence to date I would suggest that whilst there may be a limited number in the Southern Hemisphere, the frequency with which they occur in the Northern Hemisphere and the more hazardous coastal areas of Europe and the United Kingdom, is nowhere near as restricted as suspected 10 or 15 years ago. I can indicate personally one stretch of the Cornish

3 64

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

coastline where nine such sites exist in less than seven miles yielding upwards of 80 varied cannon. In the Scilly Isles there are a growing number of scattered sites bearing somewhere between 225 to 300 guns.

Whilst I am in no way justifying the stripping of iron cannon on the grounds of numerical abundance, the frequent duplication of similar guns on the same site reduces their qualification as unique artefacts, whilst their sheer mass, weight and number allied to the prohibitive cost of effective conservation will always pre- clude recovery of more than one or two isolated specimens.

In an ideal situation the State would fund the raising of the total wreck, all her cannon and artefacts, involving years of work by a team of experts financed by vast sums of money, but in practical terms how very few of these many sites would qualify for such massive funding in preference to those neglected sites of much greater antiquity and importance which lie unexcavated on land.

The costs of marine excavation are multiplied by the varying difficulties of conservation, the particular underwater environment and propor- tionately increased in relation to the depth and remoteness of the particular site.

These special circumstances, often not offici- ally acknowledged, are nevertheless recognized by both professional and amateur archaeologists and divers who have in evidence one thing in common, their eagerness to raise any bronze weapon found almost immediately, because the exercise will pay for itself, whilst often ignoring the major archaeological potential of cast iron guns on the same site.

It may be argued that the latter is restraint necessitated by a lack of available conser- vation facilities, but in some cases this may provide a very convenient excuse for evading responsibility for carrying out a tedious and financially unrewarding survey of the arma- ment in the anxiety to recover the more obviously interesting and valuable artefacts. A fact which is frequently borne out by extensive damage to the same cannon during later exca- vation. Anyone who has visited the site of the Association (1707) in the Scilly Isles may testify to the latter. The damaged and broken remnants of a large proportion of her original complement of 9C guns lie strewn away from their original locations. Even on sites where considerable care is exercised, accidental damage may occur to fragile guns in an advanced state of graphitization and certainly dislocation is bound to occur if ‘complete

~~ ~~

excavation is carried out. Once moved infor- mation obtainable in the first instance may be lost or misleadingly distorted.

Had a proper survey of the Association guns been carried out in the initial stages, a mass of valuable information on a major British warship and her place in the evolution of ships and naval armament would have been recorded for posterity. The calculated cost would have been the temporary exposure to renewed marine environmental reactions, without disorientation of three or four duplicated specimens.

A survey without this representative detail is pointless since all the detail from amorphous concreted cast iron cannon are unidentifiably distorted, especially the bore. As a result I suspect that a number of archaeological reports which touch on ordnance to date, contain conclusions which are highly speculative being based on documentary research or general naval establishments rather than fact, or, in contrast, contain the results of a mass of measurements obtained at great effort under genuine archae- ological motivation, which nevertheless, have little meaning because we are prevented by a combination of economic circumstances and the adoption of irrationally founded ethics from providing a key to their significance. The continuing Penlee site survey (Bax & Farrell, (Znt. J. Naut. Archaeol. 4, 1975: 134-8) with 44 unidentified cannon after 10 years work is a typical example of the latter.

Since the historical importance and working difficulties encountered on each shipwreck site differ considerably, and involve costs far beyond those of land excavation, morality must to a certain extent be rationally and responsibly tempered to the peculiar circumstances. Each individual site merits careful deliberation before we proceed on any course of action at each stage of survey, excavation and recovery. It is unreasonable to expect the same standards and techniques applied to a site in protected waters at 25 ft (7.6 m) with unlimited diving time to be equally applied to a remote site in very poor visibility off shore in 135 ft (35 m) of water where the bottom time of a working diver/ archaeologist is limited to 14 minutes per day. With this in mind I hope to illustrate in a later issue of this Journal just how much may be economically achieved on a remote deepwater site (Tearing Ledge - Scilly Isles) using these new survey techniques.

Finally 1 would like to know how Jeremy concludes that the calculated action of an expert stripping one or two carefully chosen individual cannon on the seabed for near

365

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 6.4

precise detail in the search for vital knowledge iron cannon are neglected in isolation infor- prevents information being obtained about the shoot of guns and how the cartridge was con- structed etc., since this is the very sort of information which may well be deduced from the identified guns, and their relationship to artefacts in the vicinity. In addition, the option of raising a specimen still exists. Certainly if

mation never will be forthcoming.

Peter McBride, 4, Sutherland Road, Mutley, Plymouth

366