Admiral Gardner , Goodwin Sands, Kent

Wessex Archaeology

The Admiral Gardner , Goodwin Sands, Kent

Designated Site Assessment

Full Report

Ref: 83800.18 March 2013

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

Prepared by:

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

Prepared for: English Heritage Fort Cumberland Fort Cumberland Road Eastney Portsmouth PO4 9LD

March 2013

Ref: 83800.18

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2013 Wessex Archaeology Ltd is a company limited by guarantee registered in England, company number 1712772. It is also a Charity registered in England and Wales, number 287786; and in Scotland, Scottish Charity number SC042630. Our registered office is at Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wilts SP4 6EB. Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Title: Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent: Designated Site Assessment Principal Author(s): Hanna Steyne Managed by: Toby Gane Origination date: 11/2012 Date of current version: 04/04/2013 Version number: v.3 Wessex Archaeology QA: Graham Scott Status: Final Includes results of secondary objective desk- based research, undertaken at client request since Summary of changes: submission of v.1 dated November 2012. Client comments addressed. Associated reports: 83801.01 Client Approval: EH

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

REF: 83800.18

Summary

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by English Heritage to undertake a Designated Site Assessment of the Admiral Gardner: a designated wreck site located in the Goodwin Sands, Kent. The work was undertaken as part of the contract for Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973).

No diving operations and only limited geophysical survey were possible on the site due to burial and limited water depth. The site appears to have been deeply buried in May 2012 by one of the mobile sandbanks which are typical of sediment migration regimes in the Goodwin Sands area.

The cycle of sediment burial and exposure of wrecks in the Goodwin Sands is not well understood. Little is known about the sand movement in and around the Admiral Gardner site and it is not therefore possible to predict when the wreck is likely to become re-exposed. Risk is assessed as low whilst the site is buried, medium if not.

A re-examination of the evidence that led to the identification of the site as being the wreck of the Admiral Gardner will require a comprehensive examination of the finds and documentary archives that have resulted from the investigation and salvage of this site, together with a thorough examination relating to all of the surviving contemporary evidence concerning the ship’s cargo and those of the EEIC ship Britannia. This difficult exercise lies well beyond the scope of the assessment. However, very limited assessment of readily available documentary evidence has not indicated that any significant reason to doubt the identification that has already been made exists.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

REF: 83800.18

Acknowledgements

This investigation was commissioned by English Heritage as part of the contract for Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). The assistance provided by Mark Dunkley and Alison James of the English Heritage Maritime Team is gratefully acknowledged.

The fieldwork was carried out by Graham Scott, Daniel Pascoe, Hanna Steyne and Kevin Stratford. The report was compiled by Hanna Steyne, with contributions by Kevin Stratford. The report was edited by Toby Gane and Graham Scott. Karen Nichols prepared the illustrations. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Toby Gane.

Data Licences

The chart used in Figure 1 was obtained from the UKH Hydrographic Office. The following notice applies:

This product has been derived, in part, from Crown Copyright Material with the permission of the UK Hydrographic Office and the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (www.ukho.gov.uk). All rights reserved.

NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION.

WARNING: The UK Hydrographic Office has not verified the information within this report and does not accept liability for the accuracy of reproduction or any modifications made thereafter.

The material derived from the UKHO is subject to licence 820/020220/11 and the conditions on End- Users and Third Parties contained therein.

iii

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

REF: 83800.18

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. OBJECTIVES ...... 1 3. EXISTING SITE DATA ...... 3 4. RESULTS ...... 3 4.1. DIVING FIELDWORK ...... 3 4.2. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ...... 4 4.3. DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH ...... 4 5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 13 6. RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 14 7. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 14 8. ARCHIVE ...... 15 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 15 9.1. PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SOURCES ...... 15 9.2. WEB SOURCES ...... 15 APPENDIX I: STATEMENT OF IMPORTANCE ...... 17 APPENDIX II: SITE RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 19

Figures

Figure 1: Site location

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKS ACT (1973)

ADMIRAL GARDNER, GOODWIN SANDS, KENT

DESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1. This document presents the results of the Designated Site Assessment undertaken by Wessex Archaeology (WA) on behalf of English Heritage (EH) as part of the contract for Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). The document comprises a designated assessment of the Admiral Gardner, a designated wreck located on the Goodwin Sands, Kent (Figure 1).

1.1.2. The work was conducted in accordance with a brief provided by EH. The site was inspected in May 2012. The field team comprised WA archaeologists Graham Scott, Hanna Steyne, Daniel Pascoe, and Kevin Stratford on board the vessel Shogun.

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1.1. The primary objectives for the site were defined in the brief (EH 2012) as:

• Contact Admiral Gardner Licensee Ted Westhead and others in the contact list in Section 4 and offer participation in the designated site assessment.

• EH maritime archaeologists will assist with the designated site assessment. Liaison with Mark Dunkley (EH) is therefore required.

• Using Sidescan and Magnetometer geophysical survey establish if the site is buried and if any areas appear to have been disturbed. The survey should include at least a 50m buffer zone around the designated area.

• Based upon the results of the geophysical survey locate and accurately position (plotted by tracked diver survey) any visual archaeological material confirming if any areas of the site appear to have been disturbed.

• Undertake an updated Risk Assessment with reference to English Heritage’s Risk Management Handbook (November 2008) and extant site monitoring points.

• Produce an integrated structured record of desk- and field observations; preferably including a photographic record of the site and a basic site plan. Key artefacts are to be subject to examination and recording (position by tracked diver survey, taped measurements, photographs and video and written database entries). 2.1.2. Recording was required to Level 2a

Level Character Scope 2a Non- A limited record based on investigations that might include

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: intrusive light cleaning, probing and spot sampling, but without bulk removal of plant growth, soil, debris etc.

2.1.3. Secondary objectives were defined as:

• Undertake documentary research on the Admiral Gardner, including a review of the reasons the site was conclusively identified, as appropriate to inform assessment.

• As determined by the condition of the Admiral Gardner if it becomes apparent that not all the time allocated to this session is required then in discussion with Alison James (EH) the time should be reallocated to diver survey of the Northumberland and Restoration designated wreck sites. 2.1.4. The site is understood to be subject to a cycle of exposure and burial by mobile sediments that are not currently understood. During fieldwork it became apparent that the site was in a burial phase of this cycle. On the basis that it appeared that the site was likely to be entirely buried and that the safe navigation of the diving support vessel (DSV) over the site would be compromised by a combination of the resultant limited water depth and the prolonged poor sea conditions experienced at the time, diving operations were not carried out.

2.1.5. The following table summarises progress made against each of the defined primary and secondary objectives.

Primary Objectives Progress Contact Admiral Gardner Licensee Ted Achieved. Westhead and others in the contact list in Section 4 and offer participation in the designated site assessment. EH maritime archaeologists will assist with Achieved. the designated site assessment. Liaison with Mark Dunkley (EH) is therefore required. Using Sidescan and Magnetometer Partially achieved. Approximately half of geophysical survey establish if the site is the survey area was covered, but access to buried and if any areas appear to have been the northern part was prevented by disturbed. The survey should include at significant sand coverage over the site least a 50m buffer zone around the resulting in limited water depth. designated area. Based upon the results of the geophysical Not achieved. Access to site was prevented survey locate and accurately position by significant sand coverage over the site, (plotted by tracked diver survey) any visual limited water depth and by adverse sea archaeological material confirming if any conditions. areas of the site appear to have been disturbed. Undertake an updated Risk Assessment Achieved, with caveats. with reference to English Heritage’s Risk Management Handbook (November 2008) and extant site monitoring points. Produce an integrated structured record of Not achieved due to lack of diver access. desk- and field observations; preferably including a photographic record of the site and a basic site plan. Key artefacts are to be subject to examination and recording

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: (position by tracked diver survey, taped measurements, photographs and video and written database entries). Secondary Objectives Progress Undertake documentary research on the Partially achieved. A review of data held by Admiral Gardner, including a review of the WA and additional sources available online reasons the site was conclusively identified, has been conducted. as appropriate to inform assessment. As determined by the condition of the Achieved. Admiral Gardner if it becomes apparent that not all the time allocated to this session is required then in discussion with Alison James (EH) the time should be reallocated to diver survey of the Northumberland and Restoration designated wreck sites.

3. EXISTING SITE DATA

3.1.1. The position of the site as given in the brief was as follows:

Lat. 51º 12' 00" N Long. 01º 30' 33.6" E OSGB 36

3.1.2. Documents available prior to site visit comprised:

• EH brief (2012)

• 2003 WA Designated Site Assessment archive and report (WA 2003);

• Article and plan in Fenwick and Gale (1998);

• UK Hydrographic Office records for the site;

• National Monuments Record entry for the site.

4. RESULTS

4.1. DIVING FIELDWORK

4.1.1. Fieldwork was undertaken in May 2012. The diving support and survey vessel Shogun and WA dive team were based out of Ramsgate, the closest suitable harbour.

4.1.2. No diving investigation of the site was achieved due to site burial and adverse diving conditions. Very shallow water depth combined with adverse sea state conditions rendered the site unsafe to approach and therefore dive.

4.1.3. During a previous Designated Site Assessment in 2003 the site was in a depth of 9m of water and it was concluded on the basis of a diver inspection that the site was completely covered by sand (WA 2003). Soundings taken by the DSV Shogun at high water in 2012 measured between 5m and 2m across the Protected Area.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.2. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

4.2.1. The survey took place on 9th May 2012 using Shogun. Sidescan sonar and magnetometer data were acquired.

4.2.2. Geophysical survey results have been reported separately (WA 2012). Very limited water depth made it impossible to survey directly over the site. Five lines of data were therefore acquired as close to the location of the wreck as it was safe to approach.

4.2.3. No sign of the wreck or any other features of archaeological potential were observed in the sidescan sonar data. This and comparison with sounding taken in 2003 resulted in the conclusion being reached that the wreck was fully covered by a significant depth of sand.

4.2.4. In the magnetometer data three anomalies were observed with the largest occurring on the closest survey line to the wreck location. This anomaly has amplitude of 215.5nT and was observed 23m southwest of the designated wreck position. It is therefore likely that this anomaly is caused by the buried wreck.

4.2.5. No depressions or other evidence of disturbance were seen in the survey data. However, as only approximately half of the survey area was successfully surveyed and the sediment had moved significantly in the days preceding the survey it is not possible to state that no unauthorised interference has taken place.

4.3. DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH

4.3.1. Documentary research was carried out using readily available data. Potential additional sources of information have been identified and listed below.

Build 4.3.2. The 813-ton Admiral Gardner was built at Limehouse, London in 1797 for the English East India Company (EEIC), by Melhuish, who was subcontracted from Perry at Blackwall (http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=815).

4.3.3. The Admiral Gardner was named after Alan Gardner, the first Baron Gardner (1742-1809) who had a distinguished naval career before becoming a Member of Parliament in 1796 (http://www.swmag.org/index.php/projects/admiral-gardner).

4.3.4. The ship had three decks and measured 145ft 8in length x 36ft 2½in breadth and was registered at 816 tons (http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=815). Other measurements are recorded as:

Keel length 118ft 3½in Hold 14ft 10in Wing transom 24ft Port cell 26ft 10in Waist 3ft 8in Height between decks 6ft 3in & 6ft 6in deck range 82ft 6in http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=815

4.3.5. The Admiral Gardner was armed with 12 guns on the middle deck and 11 on the upper deck (http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=815), although other sources indicate it was carrying a total of 32 guns (Fenwick & Gale 1998).

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.3.6. The Ship’s Husband was John Woolmore, who had risen from the ranks of seaman to captain in the service of the EEIC, before becoming a stockholder. Between 1803 and 1808 Woolmore was one of the Principles behind the company which constructed the East India Dock in London, holding positions of deputy Chairman and Chairman (http://sohomint.info/gardner.html).

Use 4.3.7. Admiral Gardner was launched on 12th April 1797 at Limehouse. It undertook five voyages for the EEIC with its crew of 168, before its sinking in 1809(Fenwick & Gale 1998).

Voyage Started Ended Destinations Captain's Name 1 1797 1799 Bengal & Benkulen Edward Chapman Bradford 2 1801 1802 Madras & China Edward Chapman Bradford 3 1803 1804 Madras & Bengal Edward Chapman Bradford 4 1805 1806 St Helena & Madras George Saltwell 5 1807 1808 Madras & Bengal William John Eastfield 6 1809 1809 Madras William John Eastfield

4.3.8. The Admiral Gardner was one of two ships which were honoured by ceremonially entering the new East India Dock in London in 1806. Admiral Gardner was being honoured for its action against the 44-gun Bellona (Fenwick & Gale 1998).

Loss 4.3.9. Admiral Gardner was on her sixth voyage bound for Madras and Bengal in January 1809 when it was caught in a violent gale in the Downs and wrecked on the Goodwin Sands on the 24th January, along with the EEIC Britannia and brig Apollo. Three crew from Admiral Gardner and seven from the Britannia were reported as drowned (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.10. The wrecking of Admiral Gardner, Britannia and Apollo are recorded in two Lloyds List entries:

The Admiral Gardner, Eastfield, bound to Madeira, Madras and Bengal; and the Britannia, Birch, bound to Madras and China, were lost on the Goodwin Sands on Wednesday morning. Three of the Crew of the former, and seven of the latter, drowned (Lloyds List 27th January 1809, No.4322).

The Britannia and Admiral Gardner Indiamen, and the Apollo, bound to Curacoa, which were on shore on the Goodwin, have gone to pieces (Lloyds List 3rd February 1809, No. 4324).

4.3.11. The Admiral Gardner was carrying a mixed cargo of anchors, chain, guns, shot, iron bar stock and 48 tons (also reported as 46 tons http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?4791#120573) of copper coins (http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?4791#120573).

4.3.12. An account of the vessel's final moments was given by Captain Eastfield in his letter to William Ramsey Esq at India House in London (British Library Oriental & India Collection, reproduced http://www.eicships.info/ships/s815/captain.htm).

Sir,

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: It is with extreme regret that I have to confirm the intelligence of the Honourable Company’s Agent here, as to the loss of the Admiral Gardner on the Goodwin Sands, yesterday morning; the painful circumstances attending which I here beg leave to state.

We sailed out of the Downs on the 24th, with the Carnatic and the Britannia, the wind from the eastward. On getting a little to the westward of the South Foreland, the wind drew to the south-east, and about dusk fell calm: it being flood tide, let go the anchor in fourteen fathom water. At 7pm, while giving the ship cable, the wind sprung up from the west-north-west. The people were sent up to hand sails immediately, but the wind increasing violently, they could not effect it. The people continued on the yard until 10pm: the pilot then feeling the lead, called out the anchor was coming home; the people were consequently called off the yards to give the ship cable, and when I was below seeing a little more service clapped on, a little before eleven I heard the pilot exclaim "cut away the sheet, the ship's on shore."

On coming upon deck, I inquired of the pilot what water we had, and he said five fathoms: I observed it was odd that he had not struck before, but repeated his orders to cut the sheet away, under the idea that the depth of water was true; and thinking it impossible to save the ship any other way, as I was aware, if it was so, that we were near the edge of the Goodwin.

The weather had come on so thick, with rain, that we had not seen the lights of the South Foreland since the wind came from the westward. The pilot went forward to see the sheet cut away, and in assisting to do it unfortunately had two of his fingers cut off, after which he was obliged to be laid on his bed, and was immediately delirious. I immediately took a cast of the lead myself, and found to my astonishment fourteen fathoms water. The ship brought ups, and we endeavoured again to hand the sails, which was partly accomplished. I intended, as the tide made to windward, to cut and put her head to the northward, but was induced to hold on as long as I could, to get in the remaining sail and clear away the spare anchor (having lost the best bower in the Gulls the preceding night) and we were employed bending the cable and clearing the anchor, when we first brought up; but from the people being called off, and all employed on other duties, we had not completed it.

The people were by this time absolutely worn down with fatigue. The ship still held on, and I was in hopes would continue so. At half past two, on the weather side slackening the sails then not all in, I thought it advisable to give the ship more cable, which we were effecting, when the small bower parted, broke all the stoppers on the sheet, and it run out to the clench. On the tide making, she brought the wind on the starboard bow, and I was afraid to cut, as I could not get her to cast any other way than to the southward, and judging we were near the Goodwin, was afraid, before I could get her wore round, that she would be on it. Under these circumstances, all I could hope for was that she would hold fast, which she did until half past six, when having left the deck to see how the cable was in the hawse, the chief mate sent down to say the anchor was coming home, and that we had only ten fathoms water. The people were previously stationed at the fore stay sail and topmast stay sail halyards, and the carpenters ready to cut away the mizen mast, the shrouds also braced for casting, and I gave immediate orders to cut the cable, when, on putting my head up the ladder, the quartermaster called out seven fathoms, and in one minute afterwards we had but five, and I saw the breakers under our lee.

Seeing it impossible to save the ship, I ordered the main and mizen masts to be cut away. In the act of doing it the ship struck, and the sea made a fair breach over us. At daylight I had the misfortune of witnessing her on the south sand heads. Myself, officers and crew, remained by the vessel until thirty-five minutes past three PM, when to the gallant exertions of the Deal men, at the risk of their lives, we were brought off, with the loss of only on man: the ship then full of water to the upper deck.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: As I am not very well, I trust the Honourable Court will excuse any incorrectness in this statement, and remain,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant

W Eastfield

4.3.13. Descriptions of the wrecking were reported in local newspapers, with the following describing the scene the morning after the gale (www.pastscape.org.uk):

'The effects of the gales this Tuesday were severely felt on the coasts of Britain. Great apprehensions were entertained for the fate of the East Indiamen proceeding through the Downs; yet nothing was known of their situation till the following morning, when a most distressing scene presented itself to the spectators from Deal. Three large ships were seen on the Goodwin Sands with only their fore masts standing, hoisting signals of distress, and the sea dashing over them mountains high. The crews were all collected on the poops waiting for that relief which the Deal boatmen seemed anxious to afford them. These men by their indefatigable exertions, and at the imminent hazard of their own lives, reached the wrecks of the Indiamen and took out of the ADMIRAL GARDNER the whole of her crew . . .

'Of the crew of the ADMIRAL GARDNER four [sic] were lost; for in the night one of the seamen having been washed overboard, the third mate and three seamen volunteered their services to endeavour to pick him up in the ship's boat, which was never after heard of . . .

'The ADMIRAL GARDNER was the first vessel driven upon the Sands . . . It was expected that if the weather moderated, a part of the cargoes might be saved. The loss was estimated at £200,000.'

4.3.14. A week after the wrecking, the cargo of coinage was reported to be beyond salvage. An auction was held to sell off all that remained of the vessel; some rope, lead and iron, sailcloth and some food (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral- gardner/).

4.3.15. The coinage carried on the Admiral Gardner was ten and twenty Cash copper pieces, packed in wax within small barrels. The 20 and 10 Cash coins recovered from the Admiral Gardner site carried the EEIC coat of arms and the inscription “AUSPICIO REGIS ET SENATUS ANGLIAE” meaning ‘Under the Patronage of the King and Parliament of England’ on the obverse and a Persian inscription on the reverse stating ‘10 Cash is equal to 2 Fulus’ and ‘20 Cash is equal to 4 Fulus’ (http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/1808-Admiral-Gardner- Shipwreck-Coins~P000025.cfm) or ‘10 Cash are equal to one Fanam’ (http://www.swmag.org/index.php/projects/admiral-gardner).

4.3.16. The coins were struck by Matthew Boulton at the Soho Mint in Birmingham. Copper currency was used in the EEICs trade and circulation in Madras, specifically to pay local Indian workers, who could use them to buy goods in the Company’s stores (http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wrecks_qanda/159518/q_a_wrecks_august_2005.html).

4.3.17. Cash pieces are first recorded as circulating in Madras in 1660/61, and the term ‘cash’ is thought to be an adaptation of the Tamil work Kasu meaning ‘a coin’. The currency was formalised in the 1690s and consisted of four denominations 20, 10, 5 and 1. The full range of coinage was first struck in 1803 with a repeat in 1808 of the 20 and 10 Cash coins (http://www.eicships.info/ships/s815/coinhist.htm), although the weights of the pieces were reduced.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.3.18. Making of the coinage began at the Soho Mint around the end of 1807 and by the middle of January 1808 forty tons of 20 Cash pieces had been struck, approximately 4,300,000 coins. By early February some 3,000,000 10 Cash pieces had been struck. Work continued in June and July, with a further 11,000,000 20 Cash and 2,000,000 10 Cash being struck. The last coins were made between the end of 1808 and June 1809, by which time a total of 33,590,406 20 Cash pieces and 52,924,938 Cash pieces had been made. The coins carried by the Admiral Gardner was a part shipment of this minting, likely to have been the third round of coins, and comprised mostly 10 Cash pieces and an unknown quantity of 20 Cash coins (http://sohomint.info/gardner.html).

Discovery & Salvage 4.3.19. In 1976, EEIC tokens were found in sand dredged from the Goodwin’s for use in construction work in Dover Harbour. The site was surveyed by the Hydrographic Office in 1980 when the wreck site was found to occupy less than 12m square. The survey found no significant upstanding material and nothing higher than 1m above the seabed. A small piece of wreckage measuring 10m x 10m lay in an area of fine mobile sand (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.20. The wreck was subject to salvage work between 1980 and 1985, during which time a site plan was drawn and submitted to the Department of Transport (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.21. The site of the Admiral Gardner was located and identified in 1983 by Stan Buckland, David Ellingworth and Richard Larn, who were investigating a fisherman’s snag close to where the sand dredger had recovered the Cash coins (Camidge 2006). The divers found the wreck lying on a gently sloping sandy seabed in depths between 13m – 18m, with exposed hull structure including frames, decking and ribs. Barrels of coins were visible, along with cannon balls and an anchor (http://www.eicships.info/ships/s815/salvage.htm). The wreck site was initially thought to be the Britannia, lost at the same time as the Admiral Gardner, but Britannia was carrying silver EEIC coins (http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral-gardner/). The identification of the wreck as Admiral Gardner was made on the basis of the EEIC copper coins (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.22. Richard Larn set up an expedition in 1983 with John Rose to work on the site. They surveyed the wreck, raised copper ingots, thousands of coins, a barrel of nails and other artefacts, which were declared to the Receiver of Wreck at Ramsgate (Camidge 2006).

4.3.23. Larn set up a second expedition in 1984 with local divers and a Hull based salvage company (SAR Diving Ltd), under the direction of himself and Ian Spooner as the resident archaeologist. Ian’s presence on the expedition was as a result of the emergency designation on Admiral Gardner, and the excavation licence condition requiring an archaeologist on board for the duration of the project (Camidge 2006).

4.3.24. Work with the local Ramsgate divers and salvage company SAR Diving Ltd began in 1985. Mike Pitts took a series of photographs during the 1985 expedition, copies of which are held in the site archive at WA. During the 1985 season, some of the divers began to use explosives to recover objects from the cargo mound which stood 8-9m above the seabed at this time. Larn reports that they refused to restrict their activities, and frictions increased when Larn and Spooner discovered the divers were throwing artefacts back into the sea including wooden deadeyes, leather shoes and other items they described as ‘trash’ (Camidge 2006). In discussion with the Runciman Committee, Larn and Spooner closed down operations and the police were involved in enforcement against the divers. It was during this period that it was discovered that the site lay outside UK territorial waters and designation was withdrawn (Camidge 2006).

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.3.25. All the finds recovered during salvage operations were reported to the Receiver of Wreck, and on release were shared out on a percentage basis, 30% to Richard Larn, 30% to Tom Henderson (of SAR Divers Ltd) and 40% to the Ramsgate divers between them. Richard Larn’s share (apart from the bulk of the coins) went into the Charlestown Museum on display. Tom Henderson’s share went to the Porthleven Museum, and when he sold out to John Kneale, some of Henderson’s material went to Charlestown Museum, including the intact coin barrel (Camidge 2006).

4.3.26. The salvage operations recovered over one million tokens, including the intact barrel containing an estimated 28,000 coins, which underwent conservation treatment in Portsmouth (http://www.eicships.info/ships/s815/salvage.htm). Despite the huge number of coins recovered, it is estimated that this represents just half of the number on board when the Admiral Gardner sank (http://www.swmag.org/index.php/projects/admiral-gardner).

4.3.27. In 1997 there were reports in Belgian newspapers of unauthorized diving and salvage by a Belgian registered vessel, with wine bottles and porcelain cups and figurines recovered (www.pastscape.org.uk & ADU archive).

4.3.28. In 1988 the ADU were alerted to reports of suction dredging taking place in and around the designated area (ADU archive).

4.3.29. An application for full excavation of the Admiral Gardner was made by Hydrasalve UK Ltd in 2001 (www.pastscape.org.uk) which can be assumed to have been refused.

4.3.30. It appears that so many coins were recovered from the site during salvage operations that they effectively became worthless. Many were given away through schemes with BP petrol stations and Masters Matches. In 1998 coins from Admiral Gardner were up for sale on Ebay.

Finds 4.3.31. Redknap (1990) describes the Rose Copper Company ‘plates’ recovered from the Admiral Gardner and Britannia as being of similar composition to the copper bar ingots recovered from the Hindostan, which are 98.5% copper with a high bismuth content, indicative of a Cornish source. Whilst it is not clear what the ‘plates’ referred to are, a number of copper ingots were recovered from Admiral Gardner, bearing the stamp of the Rose Copper Company of Redruth (Fenwick & Gale 1998).

4.3.32. It is thought that the copper used by the Soho Mint for the production the EEIC copper Cash coins was supplied by the Rose Copper Company (http://www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/News/Old-tokens-and-medallions-with-local- connections-23012013.htm) due to the high quantity of silver in the Cornish deposits (http://www.jakesmp.net/CD_Ancients/Ancient_Coins_012_C.html).

4.3.33. Two unidentified stone objects were recovered from Admiral Gardner and Hindostan during the early salvage work of the 1980s, described by Larn (1985) as ‘very hard black, unidentified stone, weighing about 8lb (3.6kg) flat on one face only. Both have a semi- circular cross section measuring 6in (15.2cm) and stand between 6.5 and 7.5 ins (16.5 and 18cm) tall. Their round appearance is similar but not identical.’ The item from Admiral Gardner was recovered in 1984. Possible interpretation is that the stones are ‘paint-stones’ as these are the only stones mentioned in EIC inventories, other than grinding stones (Larn 1985).

4.3.34. Finds reported to the RoW (www.pastscape.org.uk) during the Wreck Amnesty include:

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: • Approximately 100 cash copper coins, 10 white gun flints, and 20 gun flints in concretion recovered from this wreck. (Droit A/1736).

• A coin collection from this wreck, now in a glass frame, purchased in Portsmouth for £12. (Droit A/3367).

• A cannon ball in concretion with 10-cash copper coins dated 1806 and a lump of 10-cash copper coins in concretion, the number of coins not known, recovered from this wreck during excavation of the seabed. (Droit A/3828).

• 42 coins recovered from this wreck. (Droit A/3962).

• 21 cannonballs, a wood stave treasure barrel, a copper ingot, 4 pieces of iron shot, and 2 clusters of copper coins recovered from this wreck, Goodwin Sands. (Droit A/4409).

• Shot, copper ingots, barrels, a hull rib, coins, fittings, a leather book cover, bowls, nails, pots and musket flints among the items recovered from this wreck, Goodwin Sands. (Droit A/4473). 4.3.35. A survey of shipwreck material held at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre identified a total of 7222 objects and 145 records relating to the Admiral Gardner (Camidge 2006).

4.3.36. At the time of writing this report, a number of coins from the site are currently for sale on Ebay valued between £0.01 (Auction) and £106.32 (Buy it Now). Most appear to have been cleaned/conserved and are mounted with certificates of authenticity, however one looks more recently recovered, is not mounted with no certificate of authenticity (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/East-India-Company-XX-Cash-1808-from-the-shipwreck-of- Admiral-Gardner-/251241163251?pt=UK_Coins_World_RL&hash=item3a7f23e9f3).

4.3.37. A number of gun flints from the Admiral Gardner are also listed for sale on Ebay through sellers in the US, ranging in price from £15.94 to £26.57.

Archaeological Investigation 4.3.38. A site plan dated to July 1985 shows a substantially coherent shipwreck site, dominated by the presence of large features including seven large anchors, concreted iron bar and sections of framing and planking visible around the edges of the wreck mound. A second, undated, site plan shows a larger area of wreckage, with guns in the central part of the wreck mound, and barrels and guns to the north-east and east of the main wreck mound. The two site plans are unreferenced and of uncertain source, but form part of the Admiral Gardner archive passed to Wessex Archaeology.

4.3.39. The Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU) visited the site on 26 & 27 May 1988, however the position they were provided with was incorrect and they were unable to locate the site. (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.40. On 12th July 1989 the ADU located the Admiral Gardner 1 miles SSE of the position provided in 1988. The site corresponded with a significant magnetic anomaly and a seabed irregularity indicated on the echo sounder. The ADU identify the site likely to be the wreck of the Admiral Gardner as ‘it is where local knowledge says it is’ and artefacts noted on the seabed by ADU divers match the assemblage reported by recent salvage work. A group of EEIC coins also helped identify the site. The divers noted a run of six frames and bundles of iron bars and concreted iron shot within an area less than 12 square metres. An iron anchor fluke and six copper alloy English East India Company coins were also seen

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: (www.pastscape.org.uk & ADU 1989). None of the features observed were upstanding more than 1m above the seabed, and the trench dug by the salvors was full of local mobile sand. The small area of exposed site was able to be identified on the 1985 site plan. Damage to one of the exposed frames was noted, and although it had been reported that local divers visit the site, and remove artefacts, no conclusive evidence of such illegal activity could be identified (ADU 1989).

4.3.41. The site was surveyed by the Hydrographic Office in 1990 when a least depth of 12.7m and a general depth of 15m were recorded by echo sounder. The Hydrographic Office suggested that the site may have sustained damage when the area was worked over by suction dredger as part of salvage operations (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.42. The site was visited by the ADU on 20 – 25th August 1993 and noted that considerable areas of the site were covered by trawl netting. Despite this coverage, large items such as cannon, iron bars and shot were noted (www.pastscape.org.uk), and were reported as being unchanged since the previous visit in 1989. A section of timber complete with attached planking was visible, but in poor condition and likely to have been exposed for some considerable time. The ADU noted evidence of illegal diving in the form of a mooring rope and buoy attached to one of the large anchors on the wreck, which had caused some damage, and a second small marker buoy within the designated area. It was not possible to determine whether there had been any other interference with the site (ADU 1993 & Allen 1994).

4.3.43. A site visit by the ADU on the 7th May 1995 noted several metres of the wreck mound were exposed. Coherent ship's structure was visible, fastened with copper alloy bolts along with loose timbers, iron guns, anchors and an iron knee. Some of the features were able to be identified on the site plan produced by Richard Larn in 1987. Sand waves up to a metre high were seen around the site and observed to be mobile during the tidal stream, indicating that the level of burial of the site could change constantly (www.pastscape.org.uk). Sections of loose fishing net were caught on the upstanding sections of wreckage, which is relatively common on sites around the Goodwins but the identification of part of a trawl beam was thought to represent more recent damage to the site (ADU 1995).

4.3.44. The Hydrographic Office visited the site in 1997 and reported that the site was swept clear at 11.9m and foul at 12.4m. The least echo sounder depth over the site was 12.3m in a general depth of 15m. The wreck mound measured 30m long by 10m wide with an upstanding height of 2m, with no indication of scattered debris. No scour was detected. The site registered a small magnetic anomaly but was thought to be almost entirely buried (UKHO 1999)

4.3.45. During a site visit on the 26th June 1999 a magnetometer survey was undertaken in addition to a diver site survey. Apart from the obvious disturbance caused by salvage operations in the 1980s, the site appeared relatively stable and undisturbed. The site is covered by more sand than the 1995 visit, with just the upper 1m of one cargo mound was visible, containing mainly iron bar stock and anchors. Ship's timbers were visible in one area of the mound which also contained a scatter of loose copper coins. The exposed area of wreckage was 1m proud of the seabed on mobile sandy bottom (www.pastscape.org.uk) which appeared to change on a daily basis. The wreck site covered an area approximately 15m x 20m. A search located another area of wreckage SSW of the main mound, where two guns and an anchor were exposed (ADU 1999).

4.3.46. In 1999, it was reported that a diver guide had written that 2 million tokens still remained on the wreck; however, the discovery of loose copper coins on the site suggested that despite evidence for unauthorised anchoring illegal diving, or at least illegal recovery of artefacts, may not have taken place (http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral-gardner/ and ADU 1999).

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.3.47. Site plans drawn in the early-1980’s, prior to salvage operations have not been able to be reconciled with remains visible on the site in the 1990’s (http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral-gardner/) due to the considerable damage done to the wreck mound during salvage operations.

4.3.48. The final visit to the Admiral Gardner by the ADU took place in 2002. They noted the site depth ranged between 12m-18m, with 6 frames visible over an area approximately 10m². No upstanding material over 1m was observed, but cargo remains including iron bars, concreted shot, iron anchors and copper tokens were seen (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.49. The next archaeological monitoring visit to the site was carried out by Wessex Archaeology in 2003, when the site was found to be completely buried (Wessex Archaeology 2003).

4.3.50. A survey licence was issued to Ted Westhead in 2003; however he was unable to visit the site during the summer of 2003 due to sand cover. A survey licence was re-issued to him for the period 1 December 2003 – 31 October 2004 (ACHWS Meeting November 2003).

4.3.51. The ADUS visited the site in 2005 to carry out a multibeam survey. Their results show that the site was completely covered by sand waves. Some small bathymetric anomalies can be seen in that data but these are thought to be artefacts in the data rather than material on the seafloor.

4.3.52. Sidescan sonar data acquired by WA in 2008 shows the site to be completely covered by sand with no archaeological material identifiable on the seafloor. There appears to have been no changes to the site based on a comparison of the multibeam data acquired in 2005 and the sidescan sonar data acquired in 2008. The sand waves over the site are orientated northwest – southeast. Magnetometer data also acquired in 2008 identified a single large magnetic anomaly on three separate survey lines.

Designation History 4.3.53. As a result of a paper presented by Richard Larn on the salvage work being undertaken on Admiral Gardner at the National Symposium of Nautical Archaeology in March 1985, concerns were raised about the lack of archaeological standards being applied during salvage operations. Dr Peter Marsden, then of the Nautical Museums Trust, applied for the site to be designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) (ADU 1989). Designation was approved in June 1985 (Designation Order (No.1) No. 699, 1985), with a 150m Protected Area around the site (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.54. The reasons for designation were outlined as:

• Exceptional state of preservation of the hull and cargo

• The wreck was the only known well preserved English East Indiaman known at the time

• High value of surviving material invites divers to visit the site

• The cargo has an extremely high modern value of copper, although this is interesting to salvors it is of also archaeological interest due to the nature of the packing (in wax)

• The site illustrates the EIC trade

• The threat of salvage is high, and a major reason for designation.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 4.3.55. An excavation licence was issued to a team lead by Richard Larn, comprising local divers and a Hull based salvage company (SAR Diving Ltd) with Ian Spooner as archaeological director.

4.3.56. Following police investigations into the use of explosives on the site and disposal of organic remains by divers, in 1986 the designation was revoked (Revoked Designation Order No 1020, 1986) when it became clear that the site lay beyond the three nautical miles of UK territorial waters, and beyond the limits of the PWA (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.57. In 1987 the seaward application of the PWA was extended from 3 miles to 12 miles, after which Dr Marsden requested the re-designation of the site.

4.3.58. When the site was correctly relocated, re-designation was approved in 1989 (Designation Order (No 3): No 2295, 1989) (http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral-gardner/).

4.3.59. In 1996 a survey licence was issued to Dover Sub-Aqua Club, which was active on the site (www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.60. The protected area around Admiral Gardner was extended to 300m in 2004 under Designation Order No 2393, 2004 (http://www.pastscape.org.uk).

4.3.61. An application for full excavation of the Admiral Gardner was made by Hydrasalve UK Ltd in 2001 (www.pastscape.org.uk) which can be assumed to have been refused.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1.1. Documentary research has provided a reasonable understanding of the service history and loss of the Admiral Gardner.

5.1.2. The documentary research carried out for this report has established that the identification of the wreck as the Admiral Gardner was based primarily on the substantial cargo of EEIC copper coins. Another EEIC vessel, the Britannia, is known to have been lost in the general vicinity. The coins certainly suggest the ship was an EEIC vessel and previous researchers have concluded that they are a match for the cargo carried by the Admiral Gardner rather than the Britannia. However, without considerable further research, to include a full post- excavation assessment of the finds recovered from the site and a detailed comparison between the original cargo manifest and these finds, this conclusion cannot be confirmed with certainty.

5.1.3. Some information relating to the salvage of the vessel in the 1980s has been identified; however inspection reports from the ADU during the 1990s indicate that once the site had been designated the impact of any illegal diving was probably limited.

5.1.4. The site was covered by a significant depth of mobile sand in 2003 when WA previously visited the site, and the shallow water depth observed in 2012 suggests that the wreck was buried at the time of inspection by an even greater depth of sand at the time of fieldwork. It appears that the South Sand Head (the southern sandbank of the Goodwin Sands) has shifted to the West over the last decade, covering the wrecks on the western edge of the sandbank including that of the Admiral Gardner.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: 6. RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1.1. Using available information, the site has been risk-assessed using the EH Risk Management Handbook (EH 2008). The results are set out in Appendix II. Risk is assessed as low whilst buried and medium when exposed.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1.1. The site is unlikely to be at risk from physical damage from human activities whilst it is deeply buried. However, the sandbanks in the area are known to be mobile on both long and short cycles and it is recommended that the site should therefore be monitored periodically. As short-term changes cannot be discounted, it will probably be necessary to collate hydrographic data from a range of sources, including if possible regular avocational users of the Goodwin Sands area.

7.1.2. Additional documentary sources and archives were identified as containing information relating to the Admiral Gardner. Sources which were not able to be located or consulted within the timeframe of this report include:

Title Source Date Location Discoveries BBC 1988 British Film Institute Underwater Documentary http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/415512 Diver video ADU 1995 and 1998 EH/NRHE? Magnetometer ADU 1999 Unknown data Sidescan data ADU 2000 Unknown Multibeam data ADU Unknown Unknown Still ADU Unknown EH/NRHE? photographs Site plan Unknown Unknown EH/NRHE? submitted to DoT Report 028 ADU Unknown Unknown Receiver of 1980s Various Receiver of Wreck. Wreck Droits salvage team

7.1.3. The British Library holds documents from the EEIC. A search of the online catalogue suggests at least 47 archive documents which relate to the Admiral Gardner. Information contained in the Archives includes details of voyages, cargoes, documents carried, passengers, ship’s ledger and journals and pay books. A search of the archives may be of value in clarifying details of the ship’s construction and cargo which will be of use in confirming the identification of the shipwreck site.

7.1.4. Limited information has been located about the voyages made by the Admiral Gardner prior to sinking, but information from pre-1809 Lloyds Lists and within the British Library will help to illuminate this.

7.1.5. A number of individuals involved in the original discovery and early work on Admiral Gardner may also be able to provide additional information, including Richard Larn, Peter Marsden and Mark Redknap. Richard Larn provided a summary of events regarding the discovery and early salvage work on Admiral Gardner as part of the Charlestown Museum artefact survey (Camidge 2006), although he recalls the dates being in the 1990s not the 1980s.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

8. ARCHIVE

8.1.1. The project archive consisting of digital and hardcopy records and documents is currently stored at WA under project code 53111.

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

9.1. PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Advisory Committee for Historic Wreck Sites, 2003, Agenda Item 15: Survey Application & Contractor’s Report. ACHWS 2003/78 Allen, A., 1994, Maritime archaeology in Britain and Ireland in 1993. Interntational Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 23.2:147-153 Archaeological Diving Unit, 1989, Assessment of the weck of the Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent, England. Report No. 040 Archaeological Diving Unit, 1993, Assessment of the designated wreck site of the Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent, England. Report No. 93/21 Archaeological Diving Unit, 1995, Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent, England. Report No. 95/07 Archaeological Diving Unit, 1999, Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent, England. Report No. 99/18 Camidge, k., 2006, Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre: Recording of Protected Wreck Material. Project Report. EH Ref: 4823 http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-698-1/dissemination/pdf/Report.pdf [Accessed 21/03/2013] English Heritage, 2008, Protected Wreck Sites at Risk: A Risk Management Handbook, web published document. English Heritage, 2012, Brief for Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). Designated Site Assessment. Site: Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent, confidential contractor briefing document. Fenwick, V., and Gale, A., 1998, Historic Shipwrecks: Discovered, Protected and Investigated, Tempus Publishing Larn, R., 1985, Unidentified artefacts 6. Interntational Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 14.3:261-262 Redknap, M., 1990, The Albion and Hindostan: the fate of two outward-bound East Indiamen. Interntational Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 19.1: 23-30 United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, 1999, Admiral Gardner UKHO Wreck Database Entry. Wreck number 14868 Wessex Archaeology, 2003, Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Admiral Gardner, Designated Site Assessment. Report ref: 53111.03a Wessex Archaeology, 2012, Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Admiral Gardner, Marine Geophysical Survey. Report ref: 83801.01

9.2. WEB SOURCES

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/maritime/map/admiral-gardner/ [Accessed 13/03/2013]

http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?4791#120573 [Accessed 13/03/2013]

http://www.eicships.info/index.html [Accessed 13/03/2013]

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: http://www.eicships.info/ships/s815/s815_index.html [Accessed 13/03/2013]

http://www.swmag.org/index.php/projects/admiral-gardner [Accessed 20/03/2013]

http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wrecks_qanda/159518/q_a_wrecks_august_2005.html [Accessed 20/03/2013]

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1082122&sort=4&search=all&criteria=admir al gardner&rational=q&recordsperpage=10 [Accessed 20/03/2013]

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005721876#page/n24/mode/1up (Lloyds List 1809) [Accessed 21/03/2013]

http://www.jakesmp.net/CD_Ancients/Ancient_Coins_012_C.html [Accessed 21/03/2013]

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

APPENDIX I: STATEMENT OF IMPORTANCE

The following is the statement of importance created for the Admiral Gardner as part of the ALSF Importance of Shipwrecks project according to the BULSI themes developed by Wessex Archaeology.

Summary History The Admiral Gardner was an English East Indiaman, built in 1797 by Melhuish at Hill and Co., Thames and launched at Limehouse, London. It had 3 decks and measured approximately 145ft x 36ft x 15ft with a tonnage of 816 and a crew of 168. It was owned by John Woolmore of London at the time of loss, and under the captaincy of William John Eastfield. By the time it was wrecked the Admiral Gardner had made a total of 6 voyages to the East Indies, 2 previously under captain Eastfield.

Admiral Gardner was lost whilst anchored in the Downs waiting for a fair wind, having travelled from the East India Docks at Blackwall, picked up a pilot and passengers at Gravesend for a voyage to Madeira, Madras and Bengal.

Admiral Gardner was carrying a cargo of iron goods, 48 tons of copper coins. The ship was caught in a gale and sunk on 24th January 1809. Just 3 (or 5) of the crew drowned in the wrecking, due to the 'gallant exertions' of the local Deal boatmen, who risked their lives in the mountainous seas to rescue men from the Admiral Gardner, Britannia and Apollo.

The cargo was reported beyond salvage a week after the wrecking but an auction sold off what could be salvaged of the vessel including rope, lead and iron, sailcloth and some food. The site was initially discovered in late 1970's when East India Company coins were discovered in sand being dredged from the Goodwins for use in the construction of the Dover Hoverport. Richard Larn and a salvage company from Hull began salvage on the site in 1984. An application was made for designation in 1985 by Peter Marsden of the Nautical Museums Trust based on the lack of archaeological standards used during the salvage work. The site was designated in 1985 and salvage work continued under the archaeological direction of Ian Spooner. After disagreements regarding the competence and integrity between the salvors and local divers the site was de-designated when the salvors highlighted that the site lay outside of the 3 mile limit of territorial waters to which the PWA is limited. When territorial waters were extended from 3 to 12 miles in 1987, Marsden reapplied for the site to be designated. The ADU visited the site in 1988 but were unable to locate the wreck, however the site was relocated by a local boatman and the site was designated in 1989.

In 1984 when salvage of the site began, a substantial part of one side of the hull remained intact, with many anchors and guns. Approximately 1 million copper coins had been recovered, some of which were still packed inside wooden stave barrels. The has preserved both organic and inorganic artefacts extremely well, and numerous artefacts have been recovered, including concreted shot, gun flints, cannon balls, wooden stave treasure barrels, bowls, pots, a leather book cover. The site is currently entirely covered by up to 5 meters of sand.

Importance Admiral Gardner is of high importance as a rare example of a late18th century East Indiaman, constructed for use along the trade routes of the economically influential English East India Company. The implications of the loss of Admiral Gardener are likely to be of moderate importance although her loss of the vessels in association with another East Indiaman, Britannia, is of high importance. Although the site is currently buried under several meters of sand a substantial range of material is believed to survive on the seabed

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .: and as so little archaeological work has taken place at the site the remains are of high importance. The quality and range of material on the seabed indicates moderate potential with regard to build and high potential with regard to use and for studies of site formation processes. Admiral Gardner is of interest within a local, national and international dimension of interest.

Build Admiral Gardner is of high importance as a rare example of a late18th century East Indiaman, constructed for use along the trade routes of the East India Company. The quality and range of surviving structural material on the seabed indicates moderate potential for the interpretation of features of the vessel’s build. As a national vessel type Admiral Gardner is important within a national dimension of interest.

Use Admiral Gardner is of high importance as a rare example of a ship of the economically influential English East India Company. Her current location in context with her usual environment of use, en route to Madras, is also of high importance. The quality and range of material on the seabed is significant and indicates high potential with regards to the operations of the East India Company. She is of national interest, as a ship of a nationally significant company, and of international interest with regard to her context of use.

Loss Records documenting the wrecking and brave rescue of the most of the crew by local boatmen suggest that events surrounding the loss of Admiral Gardener are of moderate importance. The cargo on board at the time of loss, including currency and goods for trade in the East, and the implications of the loss of this cargo to the East India Company, are also of moderate importance. The loss of the vessels in association with another East Indiaman, Britannia, is of high importance. The wrecking event is likely to be of interest within a local dimension, particularly with regard to the bravery of local men, and a national dimension, with regard to the implications of her loss to the East India Company.

Survival Although the site is currently buried under several meters of sand a substantial range of material is believed to survive on the seabed, the site is coherent and preservation is good. The wreck is reportedly to be moderately complete. The survival of both organic and non- organic remains, particularly the discovery of goods in their original packing material, is of high importance. The processes affecting survival at the site are comparable to other wrecks on the Goodwin Sands and are of moderate importance although features of environmental processes within Goodwin Sands as a whole are of high importance. The quality of survival and the nature of the evidence suggest high potential for studies of the processes of survival and indicate interest within national and international dimensions. The site is also of interest as a local landmark.

Investigation Little archaeological work has been carried out at the site and the remains are thus of high importance. Although no licences to dive are currently issued, local divers have been heavily involved in the site since its discovery indicating a local dimension of interest.

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

APPENDIX II: SITE RISK ASSESSMENT

Name SI Number Admiral Gardner, Goodwin Sands, Kent 2393/ 2004

Monument/NMR No. EH Region Restricted Area Principal Land Use 1082122/ TR 45 SE 9 South East 300m Coastland 1

Latitude (WGS 84) 51º 12' 2.1" N Longitude (WGS 84) 01º 30' 27.3" E

Class Listing Period Status Sailing vessel, Cargo vessel, Post-medieval A East Indiaman

Licensee Nominated Archaeologist Principal Ownership Category Ted Westhead N/A C Seabed Owner Navigational Administrative Responsibility Crown Estate Nil Environmental Designations None Seabed Sediment Energy Sand Medium

Survival Unknown (see notes)

Overall Condition Condition Trend Principal Vulnerability E (see notes) D Although there may be some natural decline, no significant vulnerability exists whilst deeply buried, unless a significant illegal salvage operation is mounted. If exposed, vulnerability is as follows: • TRAWL • BIO • MECH • S_ERO • NAT • DIVE • OTH

Amenity Value: Visibility C Amenity Value: Physical Amenity Value: Intellectual Accessibility C C

Field Risk Assessment Low-medium (see notes)

Management Action D Management Prescription A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973) Site: Admiral Gardner .:

(see notes) X X

Notes Survival Prior to salvage operations in the 1980s the wreck was partially intact. Those salvage operations substantially degraded the condition of the site. Monitoring visits by the ADU during the 1990s located the large holes excavated in the seabed during salvage. They also observed that sand cover had increased and noted maximum heights of exposed wreckage to be just 1m or less. It is difficult to judge the potential extent of surviving remains within the sandbank due to the large volume of sand now covering the wreck and the lack of recent data. However, it is reasonable to assume that substantial remains survive.

Principal Vulnerability At the time of inspection the site appears to have been completely buried by a significant depth of sand. When in this state it is unlikely to be under threat. However, the sand banks are known to move on short and long term cycles and any wreck material which become exposed during these cycles will be vulnerable to a variety of impacts, including to biological decay, corrosion and mechanical degradation due to lack of support and water movement. Notwithstanding the designation, trawling and illegal diving may also be a significant threat in those circumstances.

Management Prescription It is the advice of WA that the site should be subject to regular monitoring, taking into account the risk of both short and long-term movement of the current sand overburden. Should the wreck begin to become exposed again, further and perhaps rapid intervention may be required. Liaison with existing or potential stakeholders would therefore be prudent.

On the basis of the site condition as observed by WA in 2012 the risk is LOW. However, if the site is at risk of being uncovered in the short or medium terms, then risk is MEDIUM.

Admiral Gardner

Drawing projection: OSGB This product has been derived in part from material obtained from the UK Hydrographic Office with the permission of the UK Hydrographic Office Admiralty chart: 1828 and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. ©Crown Copyright, [the year of first publication]. (Wessex Archaeology Ref: HA294/007/316-01). The following notice applies: NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Contains Ordnance Survey data WARNING: The UK Hydrographic Office has not verified the information within this product and does not accept liability for the accuracy of reproduction © Crown Copyright and database right 2012 or any modifications made thereafter. This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Vessel position 51 12.035 N 01 30.455 E Date: 31/07/2012 Revision Number: 0 Wessex Scale: 1:100,000 Illustrator: KMN Archaeology Path: U:\Projects\53111\7 Drawing Office\Report Figures\2012\Admiral Gardner

Site Location Figure 1 WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED. Registered Head Office : Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB. Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 [email protected] Regional offices in Edinburgh, Rochester and Sheffield For more information visit www.wessexarch.co.uk

Wessex Archaeology Ltd is a company with limited liability registered in England, No. 1712772 and VAT No. 631943833. It is also a Registered Charity in England and Wales, No. 287786; and in Scotland, Scottish Charity No. SC042630.