Download Pdf of Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE MICA SHIPWRECK: DEEPWATER NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE GULF OF MEXICO A Thesis by TOBY NEPHI JONES Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2004 Major Subject: Anthropology THE MICA SHIPWRECK: DEEPWATER NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE GULF OF MEXICO A Thesis by TOBY NEPHI JONES Submitted to Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved as to style and content by: ____________________________ ___________________________ Kevin J. Crisman Donny L. Hamilton (Chair of Committee) (Member) ____________________________ ____________________________ William R. Bryant David L. Carlson (Member) (Head of Department) May 2004 Major Subject: Anthropology iii ABSTRACT The Mica Shipwreck: Deepwater Nautical Archaeology in the Gulf of Mexico. (May 2004) Toby Nephi Jones, B.A., Oregon State University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Kevin J. Crisman The purpose of this study was to describe the investigation of the Mica shipwreck. The objectives of the investigation, as identified by nautical archaeologists from the United States Minerals Management Service and the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University, include determining the extent and limits of the wreck site, acquisition of diagnostic artifacts to identify the temporal period of the shipwreck and its mission at the time of loss, to identify the type of ship and its country of origin, and quantify the relationship between the vessel’s construction and function. The manuscript contains a thorough analysis of the equipment and approach used by archaeologists during the excavation. The manuscript also briefly explores the use of metallic ship sheathing during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, focusing specifically on the pure copper sheathing found on the Mica wreck. Sheathing from numerous contemporary vessels will be analyzed and compared to the Mica shipwreck sheathing. iv To my parents, Howard and Kathy v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people and institutions were instrumental in the planning and execution of the Mica shipwreck archaeological investigation. Dr. Kevin J. Crisman, a professor in the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University, led the contingent of nautical archaeologists. His expertise, encouragement, and enthusiasm were instrumental in the successful completion of the project. Dr. William R. Bryant, of the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University, provided expertise relating to geological site formation processes affecting the Mica shipwreck, as well as heading the group of scientists from the Department of Oceanography. Dr. Jack Irion, Dr. Richard Anuskiewicz, and David Ball represented the Social Sciences Unit of the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency whose responsibilities include managing offshore cultural heritage, including shipwrecks. Dr. Donny L. Hamilton, head of the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University, provided logistical support during the planning process. Brett Phaneuf, a research associate with the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University, was the project manager and performed the bulk of the logistical planning. Peter Hitchcock served as the chief conservator. Chris Felderhoff and Steve Christian, of the Offshore Technology Research Center, generously provided tools, space and expertise in the design and construction of the artifact retrieval system. Sandra K. Drews, of the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University, was extremely helpful throughout the entire operation. Dr. Renald vi Guillemette, director of the Electron Microprobe Laboratory at Texas A&M University, expertly performed the composition analysis on numerous metallic sheathing samples. The Mica shipwreck investigation represented a unique partnership between members of industry, academia, and the government/military. ExxonMobil Corporation provided a generous amount of funding, which served as the seed money from which to launch the investigation. Texas A&M University, represented by the Department of Oceanography Deep-Tow Research Group and the Department of Anthropology Nautical Archaeology Program provided logistical support and archaeological expertise. The Minerals Management Service served in a cultural resource management capacity. The United States Navy generously donated the use of NR-1, a nuclear powered research submarine, and its associated surface support vessel, SSV Carolyn Chouest. Captain Dennis McKelvey, commander of NR-1, and his crew, deserve special recognition for their outstanding performance during the Mica shipwreck investigation. Captain Steve Laster, of SSV Carolyn Chouest (Edison Chouest Offshore Corporation), and his crew, also deserve credit for their support during the project. The Naval Oceanographic Office provided the project with a MaxRover remotely operated vehicle, and the following three pilots: Jon P. Shepetis, Blaine Korreckt and Guy Lizana. Discovery Channel and Promare also provided financial support for the mission. Subsequent return visits to the Mica shipwreck site were made possible by other scientific organizations and the offshore service industry. The Sustainable Seas vii Expedition, under the direction of Dr. Sylvia Earle, invited the author to accompany them on a biological research cruise. The expedition generously offered to spend several days exploring the Mica shipwreck and retrieving artifacts, using a DeepRover manned submersible. Thanks to Doug Weaver, Emma Hickerson and G.P. Schmal, of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, for their coordination efforts and technical expertise. Sasha LeBaron generously provided his time and knowledge in planning the artifact retrieval system, and attaching it to the manned submersible. Captain Sean T. Stokes, of MSV Ocean Project, was an accommodating host during the second expedition. The author would like to extend his appreciation to Tim Bulman, Dave Medeiros, and Paul McKim, of Deep Marine Technologies Incorporated. They donated four days of ship time aboard the Rylan T, as well as the use of a MaxRover remotely operated vehicle and a DeepWorker manned submersible during the third and final visit to the wreck site. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………… iii DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………… iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………….……….……… v TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………….…………... viii LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………….………… x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION, DISCOVERY AND RESEARCH PLAN.… 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………..……. 1 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT…………………….…... 11 INVESTIGATION PRIORITIES………………………… 20 II THE SITE INVESTIGATION…..…………………………..…… 27 III DESCRIPTION OF THE MICA WRECK AND ANALYSIS OF ITS ARTIFACTS……………………………………….…….. 49 WOOD SAMPLE ANALYSIS…………………………… 56 METALLIC SHEATHING AND FASTENER ANALYSIS……………………………………….….…… 62 LEAD HAWSE PIPE ANALYSIS………………….….… 69 WHAT CAN THE ARTIFACTS TELL US ABOUT THE WRECK?.................................................................. 74 IV A BRIEF HISTORY OF METALLIC SHEATHING………..….. 76 LEAD SHEATHING………………………………….…. 81 COPPER SHEATHING……………………………….…. 91 MIXED-METAL SHEATHING………………….……… 98 APPLICATION OF METALLIC SHEATHING…….….. 108 THE FUTURE OF METALLIC SHEATHING RESEARCH……………………………………………… 115 ix CHAPTER Page V THE MICA VESSEL: A HYPOTHETICAL SAILING RIG…… 117 MASTS………………………………………….……….. 126 SPARS…………………………………………….……… 128 STANDING RIGGING………………………….……….. 130 RUNNING RIGGING…………………………….……… 136 SAILS…………………………………………………….. 139 CONCLUSION…………………………………………… 140 VI CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………..….... 141 THE FUTURE OF DEEPWATER NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH…………………….. 143 WORKS CITED…………………………………………………….………….… 145 APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………….. 156 APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………………... 181 APPENDIX C……………………………………………………………………... 188 VITA………………………………………………………………………………. 191 x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Location of the Mica shipwreck in the Northern Gulf of Mexico…..…… 6 2 Side scan sonar image of Mica wreck bisected by oil pipeline…………... 7 3 Survey route of the Hugin Autonomous Underwater Vehicle……………. 9 4 Side scan sonar image of the Mica shipwreck…………………………….. 10 5 The United States Navy Submarine NR-1 surfaces during the investigation………………………………………………………….…... 12 6 Control center and internal arrangement on the submarine NR-1….…….. 13 7 SSV Carolyn Chouest, the surface support vessel for NR-1……….….…. 16 8 The Naval Oceanographic Office’s MaxRover remotely operated vehicle……………………………………………………….…... 17 9 The Mica shipwreck investigation artifact lift…………………….….…... 19 10 Mica shipwreck site grid…………………………………………….…… 23 11 Detailed 600 kHz side scan sonar view of the Mica shipwreck……..…… 29 12 Side scan sonar image of Mica shipwreck…………………………..…… 31 13 Possible chainplate and deadeye strap on the Mica shipwreck……...…… 33 14 The keelson bolts on the Mica shipwreck…………………………..…… 36 15 Bow area of the Mica shipwreck……………………………………..….. 38 16 Starboard bow quarter of the Mica shipwreck……………………..……. 41 17 Perspective view of the starboard stern quarter of the Mica shipwreck….. 43 18 The crew of the SSV Carolyn Chouest…………………………..……… 45 19 Deep Marine Technology’s MaxRover being deployed over the Mica site………………………………………………………….. 47 xi Figure Page 20 Possible remains of a chainplate or deadeye strap seen aft of amidships on the port side…………………………………………………….……… 52 21 Site plan drawing of Mica shipwreck………….………………..………… 53 22 Profile drawing of the Mica shipwreck………………………….…………