THE SEARCH FOR THE LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR --
SOME COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR RESEARCH
D. K. Abbass, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator and Project Director for the
Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project
The Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project (RIMAP) is engaged in a multi-year process to locate and identify the 13 British transports sunk in Newport Harbour on August 5-9, 1778. The British, who controlled Narragansett Bay at the time, scuttled these ships to create a blockade to protect the city from the threatening French fleet. The study of the transports is worthy in its own right, but the LORD SANDWICH transport, which was among the 13 sunken ships, had been the ENDEAVOUR Bark that carried Captain James Cook on his first circumnavigation of the world. The chance that RIMAP may find the ENDEAVOUR has generated a great deal of international interest in our work.
The following is a brief description of how RIMAP is approaching the study of the transport fleet, how we hope to find them all and then determine which transport is which, and how we hope to identify the ENDEAVOUR.
THE GENERAL RESEARCH DESIGN
The first task is to find all of the transports that still exist. Historic maps and narrative descriptions give a good idea of where in Newport Harbour the transports were most likely sunk. However, in the 225+ years since then, the area has been dredged and anchorages and mooring fields created. Therefore, it is not probable that all of the transports have survived.
Finding the transports that do exist is labor intense and expensive. All that remains today of a Revolutionary War period ship in Rhode Island waters is a pile of ballast stone that stands slightly proud of the bottom, and that protects the wooden structure beneath. Sometimes bits of wood and inorganic artifacts that have survived the centuries lie on the surface of the pile. It is also likely that the dredging and anchoring have disturbed and scattered some piles to such an extent that they are now hard to recognize, and some may have been completely destroyed. Remote sensing gear can generate information about anomalies on the bottom of the harbour, but the harbour is littered with geology and modern debris that resemble the ballast piles and debris fields. That means that the anomalies must be investigated by SCUBA divers trained to recognize the difference.
Over the past fifteen years RIMAP has done a number of remote sensing surveys of Newport Harbour, including the use of side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and magnetometer. This work generated a number of remote sensing potential targets for investigation. When funds allowed, RIMAP divers returned to ground-truth these targets and before 2005 we had found only two 18th-century sites and lots of modern debris and natural rock formations. Unfortunately, the navigation controls for this early remote sensing work were LORAN and early GPS systems, which made it difficult to return later to selected targets. However, in the summer of 2005 a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) allowed us to repeat the remote sensing with improved navigation equipment and with the better resolution of more sensitive side scan sonar equipment (provided by Rhode Island Sea Grant and Professor I. R. Mather). This allowed us to continue the effort to sort out the clutter in a portion of Newport Harbour.
The NOAA-sponsored effort generated eight targets in a limited area of Newport Harbour that RIMAP divers ground-truthed. One target was a huge anchor that is apparently from the late 19th or early 20th century, three targets appeared to be 18th century ship sites, and the rest were debris or geology. And just to remind us that modern technology isn't infallible, one of the divers got off his line and swam over another site that the sonar had not picked up. That suggests there may be more sites to be found in the area we surveyed in 2005 and there is still the rest of the harbour to investigate.
With another NOAA grant in 2007 RIMAP continued this remote sensing and preliminary survey work. This time the improved navigation equipment and increasingly sensitive side scan sonar equipment was provided by Klein's Garry Kozak, with the research vessel provided by Sprague Theobald of Hole in the Wall Productions. Present for this work were not only a number of RIMAP staff and volunteers, but also two staff members of the Australian National Maritime Museum in Sydney. Dr. Nigel Erskine and Lee Graham spent two weeks with RIMAP as we investigated targets that the 2007 remote sensing effort had indicated. Throughout July and August RIMAP continued the preliminary mapping of Newport Harbour, with special interest in what appears to be 18th-century shipwreck sites, probably part of the sought-for transport fleet.
The four sites found in 2005, the two sites found earlier, and the potential sites found in 2007 mean that we may have now found more than half of the transport fleet. This increases the chances that the ENDEAVOUR may still be in Newport. Despite this exciting news, there are some caveats about our work, as discussed below.
The second task of RIMAP's transport study is to determine which transport
site is which, and in 1999 we created a preliminary research design to guide
that part of the work. What those who only want us to find the ENDEAVOUR consistently
overlook is that the key to finding her will be the very subtle, expensive,
labor intensive, (and important in its own right) study of all the transports.
Unfortunately, this type of work includes the disturbance of sites and the removal
of artifacts, and whether or not the ENDEAVOUR is found, the responsibility
and expense of managing the rest of the transport fleet will remain. Those interested
only in finding the ENDEAVOUR should recognize that the study of the transports
is the means by which to find this ship. We know from historic materials that
the ENDEAVOUR came to Newport as the LORD SANDWICH transport (which was sunk
as part of the fleet under study), and our approach is to identify the LORD
SANDWICH, because the LORD SANDWICH was the ENDEAVOUR.
To support continuing fieldwork, RIMAP has developed its research design, including
background histories of the ships, interpretation of previous fieldwork, and
suggestions from a number of prominent underwater archaeologists with expertise
in 18th-century vessels. The research design has been updated and improved as
new information has come to light, and it can be organized into a matrix of
questions to ask each site that we find. We also have assembled information
specific to the ENDEAVOUR that may help to identify that particular vessel.
The research design addresses questions of the general size of each vessel, where she was built, what troops she carried, whether or not she was burned when scuttled in Newport, and where she had travelled before coming to Rhode Island, including whether or not she may have been to the South Pacific. No single feature or condition will be diagnostic for the identification of any one transport because many of the ships were similar in their construction and use. Therefore, we expect that it will be certain combinations of features and conditions that may allow us to identify the ship sites, or at least to eliminate them from the possibility of being a particular ship such as the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR.
For instance, of the thirteen transports lost in 1778, there were four in the 300+ ton range (like the ENDEAVOUR), at least three of them were built at Whitby in Yorkshire, England or within a hundred miles of there (where the ENDEAVOUR was built), and we don’t yet know the origin of four others. The GRAND DUKE OF RUSSIA, the largest of all the transports. had been an East Indiaman. She had probably been to the Indian Ocean, and possibly as far as the South Pacific, like the ENDEAVOUR. At least ten of the transports lost in Rhode Island were owned/brokered by John Wilkinson, the largest transport manager in the Revolution and a major player in the collier trade from the Yorkshire area. That means that there is a very good chance that many of Wilkinson’s ships may have had early histories similar to that of the ENDEAVOUR.
In addition, we don’t know how the ENDEAVOUR was changed when she carried goods to the Falklands after Cook left her but before she left the Royal Navy’s service, and we don’t know how she was changed to carry troops as a privately owned transport after she was sold out of the Navy. Although we have good information about the adaptations that had been installed to accommodate Cook and the men who went with him, we can’t predict how many of those adaptations remained when she came to Rhode Island. That is why we need to look at ALL of the transports that still exist in Newport Harbour before we select those for detailed study. Only then can we determine realistically which any one of them might be, and especially before we can say for sure that only one can be the ENDEAVOUR.
For instance, if a site is too small (such as RI 2125, the first site we studied), it may be fairly easy to determine that it is not the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR, and that it is probably one of the smaller transports. The second site we looked at (RI 2119) appears to be in the right size range, but we have not yet had the funds to complete the intense work that would reveal other matches to indicate that she might be the ENDEAVOUR. This is particularly important, because unless we find a diagnostic artifact, a single bit of data (such as general size) will not be enough proof to say we have a particular ship. If we find, however, that there is a constellation of features and conditions consistent with a specific ship like the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR (and especially that none of the other ships in the fleet exhibit that same constellation), then we can be more confident in the identification.
The potential that we will find a diagnostic artifact associated with the ENDEAVOUR has further problems. We have made a secondary assumption that, given her later uses, it is not likely much will be left of the ENDEAVOUR (except possibly her basic structure) to associate any site with Cook and his circumnavigation. However, we know something of how the LORD SANDWICH was used as a transport and prison ship in Newport and hope to find features, artifacts, and conditions that will allow us to identify this specific ship. If we can prove that we have identified the LORD SANDWICH, then we will also have proved that we have the ENDEAVOUR because we know that they were the same vessel.
The best of all possible worlds will be to find details consistent with what is known of ENDEAVOUR's construction and Cook's circumnavigation and also consistent with what is known of the LORD SANDWICH and her time in North America, and that none of the other transport sites share those details. The transport fleet deserves careful study because of its own significance, but the historic importance of the ENDEAVOUR adds to the need for caution as we proceed. Therefore the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project will continue to be conservative in its approach to fieldwork and interpretation of data.
QUESTIONS COMMONLY ASKED ABOUT RIMAP'S STUDY OF THE TRANSPORT FLEET AND THE SEARCH FOR THE ENDEAVOUR
The research design asks a number of questions that can be answered by historical documents and field studies of the shipwrecks in Newport. It is important to understand that this process may take a number of years to complete, and in the end we may not be able to answer all questions with confidence.
The following is a sample of the kinds of questions RIMAP addresses.
A Questions About The Transport Fleet
This section describes how RIMAP is going about sorting out the different transports that still exist in Newport Harbor, without reference to which one might be the ENDEAVOUR. The first task is to find them all.
QUESTION 1: How many transports were there?
ANSWER: We know the names of 13 transports that were sunk during the Siege of
Newport in 1778 and that there were other British transports in Newport at the
time that were not sunk.
CAUTION: We have a list of 10 ships from one broker who later asked the British
government to reimburse him for their loss, and other data added 3 names of
ships lost at the same time, to total 13. One historic chart shows generally
where 13 transports were sunk. We are working on the assumption that 13 is the
correct number, although there may have been more ships sunk that we don't yet
know about.
QUESTION 2: Will RIMAP be able to find all 13 (or more) transports?
ANSWER: Given the history of Newport Harbour, it is not likely that all of the
transports have survived the past 225+ years.
CAUTION: We know that parts of Newport Harbour have been dredged, apparently
in the area where some of the transports are thought to have been. Also, Newport
Harbour has always been an active anchorage for ships (including parts that
are now mooring fields), which could have disturbed or destroyed sites. RIMAP
has found more than half of the 13 ships, and we plan to continue the search
to determine if more may exist.
QUESTION 3: How many transports has RIMAP studied?
ANSWER: We have completed a preliminary study of the first site (RI2125 - we
call it the Navy Hospital or Cannon Site) and found it to be too short to be
the ENDEAVOUR. We have also completed study of the second site (RI2119 - we
call it the Barge Site or GAMMA from our side scan database), and it appears
to be in the right size range to be the ENDEAVOUR. RIMAP has done only preliminary
site mapping for the four sites found in 2005 and 2007, but those results will
be shared with the public in due course..
CAUTION: We have a number of years of work yet to do before we can with certainty
say we have located all of the transports that still exist.
QUESTION 4: Are there other vessels lost in Newport that could confuse
the study of the transports?
ANSWER: There were certainly other vessels sunk in Newport in the 18th century,
some of which played a part in the American Revolution.
CAUTION: We must not confuse sites that might be other vessels from the same
period with sites that might be the transports.
QUESTION 5: How can we determine if a particular vessel is from the
proper period?
ANSWER: The date of a shipwreck site can be determined by its condition, its
associated artifacts, and the ship's construction details. After 200 years,
the exposed portions of a wooden ship and its organic artifacts have deteriorated
and disappeared in Rhode Island's salt water environment. What is left behind
is a pile of ballast stone that sometimes stands proud from the bottom, and
that may cover wooden structure and organic artifacts protected by the anaerobic
silt. Ships that have been lost for only 100 years have not deteriorated to
the same extent.
CAUTION: Some ship construction methods have been very conservative, and are
even found in today's shipyards. The dates of artifacts found on a site will
indicate the latest date at which the ship might have been lost, but the portable
artifacts on the surface of many sites have long since been scavenged by diving
collectors. The loss of these artifacts may mean we won't have particularly
important data for our study.
QUESTION 6: Is there historical information about each ship that will
be helpful to sort out the transport sites?
ANSWER: Yes, For instance, we know which troops were carried on board many of
the transports (British, American, and Hessians). If we find artifacts related
to a specific regiment on a shipwreck site, then we can suggest that ship's
identity. RIMAP's Director (D. K. Abbass) has just completed a study of the
preliminary histories of the ships for the National Park Service.
CAUTION: One artifact relating to a regiment can only suggest which ship is
which, since that artifact could be from a visitor, stolen, or strayed. A more
confirming situation would come from a collection of artifacts that all point
to the same troops on board. We will continue our research to try to complete
each ship's historical profile, but as long as we are missing troop data for
some of the transports, we will be careful not overlook the possibility that
multiple transports may share features that we think might be diagnostic.
QUESTION 7: What do we see when we look at a transport site?
ANSWER: The remains of Rhode Island Revolutionary War shipwrecks are typically
limited to the following materials:
Above the ballast stones we find inorganic artifacts and structure that fall
onto the ballast as the wooden ship disintegrates.
Below the ballast we find our greatest potential to study the ship. As the vessel
deteriorates, the portion beneath the ballast is protected by those stones.
As the site becomes covered with silt, the silt not only helps to prevent erosion
of the site, but it also reduces the presence of oxygen. Without oxygen, the
site will eventually reach equilibrium and the organic artifacts and structures
embedded in the silt and ballast will not deteriorate further. After more than
200 years Rhode Island's Revolutionary War shipwrecks have reached equilibrium,
and the silt and ballast are protecting the historic remains beneath. As long
as the silt is not disturbed and the equilibrium is maintained, the site should
remain intact indefinitely.
CAUTION: We hope to find structural features or artifacts that will prove the
identity of a particular ship. It is a matter of chance that these have survived
the natural degradation process as the shipwreck reaches equilibrium.
NOTE: Digging through an underwater site disturbs the site's equilibrium by
re-introducing oxygen and re-starting the degradation process; this process
will continue until the site reaches a new equilibrium. Underwater archaeologists
recognize that excavating a site, even under the most controlled of scientific
conditions, will also disturb that site's equilibrium. Therefore we do not excavate
unless there is a good reason to do so. That is also why other divers who dig
to collect artifacts are doing more damage to the site than just removing potentially
diagnostic materials.
QUESTION 8: Is there information about ship construction that would
be helpful to sort out the transport sites?
ANSWER: We know where many of the vessels were built (in England and in North
America), but not all of them.
CAUTION: Construction techniques apparently were not be very different between
America and Britain during colonial times because the American colonies were
essentially British, but there may be some differences in the materials used.
A study of all the transports in Rhode Island might provide a database to investigate
these differences.
QUESTION 9: Were all the transports the same size?
ANSWER: We know the tonnage of most of the 13 transports. Tonnage is a measurement
of the ship's interior volume for carrying cargo, and it was determined in the
18th century by a complex equation using a set of the ship's measurements.
CAUTION: Of the transports that we know about, four were in the 300 ton range,
one was much larger and all the rest were smaller. We have detailed measurements
only for the ENDEAVOUR (as they were taken before Cook went around the world),
but further archival study may generate more details about the rest of the transports.
QUESTION 10: Is the ballast left behind on a shipwreck site diagnostic
of American and British vessels?
ANSWER: RIMAP has been sampling the ballast on the transport sites, including
bits of coal. So far, the analysis is inconclusive.
CAUTION: Ships frequently dumped and took on ballast, from wherever they needed
to do so. It is possible that an American vessel could have picked up British
ballast from where it had been previously dumped by another ship. We also know
that British ships frequently picked up coal and ballast in North America.
B Specific Questions Relating to the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR
This section describes how RIMAP hopes to identify the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR from among all the transports that still exist in Newport harbour. The first task is to assemble information about the ENDEAVOUR, how she was built, repaired, and used on her journey around the world with Capt. James Cook. Then we need to look at information about how the LORD SANDWICH transport was repaired and used on her station in North America.
QUESTION 1: What is known about how the ENDEAVOUR was built?
ANSWER: As the ENDEAVOUR was taken out of the collier service into the Royal
Navy, she was surveyed and her lines were taken, including her keel length.
There was enough information in the historic documents for a replica of the
ENDEAVOUR to be built in the 1990s.
CAUTION: Some marine architects disagree about some construction details.
QUESTION 2: Is there a simple measurement that is a good place to start?
ANSWER: The length of a ship's keel is generally related to her overall size,
and we know ENDEAVOUR's keel length. If a Newport transport's keel is shorter
or longer than that measurement, then we can eliminate her from consideration
as the ENDEAVOUR. We also know that there were at least three other vessels
in the 300-ton range, similar to the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR. If we find
a vessel of the right size, then it has a one-in-four chance to be this specific
ship.
CAUTION: The overall length of the keel may be difficult to determine without
a full excavation of a site because we presume that there has been some erosion
at the ends, and this erosion may give an inaccurate interpretation of the vessel's
length without complete excavation of the site.
QUESTION 3: How do the transports under study measure up?
ANSWER: The first transport that RIMAP studied (RI 2125) was apparently too
short to match the expected keel length of the ENDEAVOUR. The second site (RI
2119) appears to have a keel length appears to in the right size range.
CAUTION: Although RI 2119 appears to be promising, we do not yet understand
all of what we see in her keel construction, and we have conducted only a minimal
disturbance survey to find the ends of her structure.
QUESTION 4: What about the wood used to build the transports?
ANSWER: RIMAP has taken wood samples of some of the timbers for identification
on both RI 2119 and RI 2125. Most of the timbers have been oak.
CAUTION: It is difficult to distinguish between oak grown in North America from
that in Britain. The presence of other woods in the major timbers (such as an
elm keel) may be suggestive that we have the ENDEAVOUR, but is diagnostic only
if there had been only one ship in the fleet with an elm keel. An investigation
of all the Newport transports should determine what woods were used in each.
NOTE: The assumption that a keel could not be replaced in the 18th century is
not accurate.
QUESTION 5: Are there other construction details that will allow us
to identify the ENDEAVOUR Bark?
ANSWER: Again, the original survey gives a great deal of information about how
that particular ship was built when she was taken into the Royal Navy. Therefore,
we will look for detailed timber measurements that might be consistent with
those of the original survey and lines.
CAUTION: Even if we find a transport in Newport harbour with features and construction
details consistent with what we know about the ENDEAVOUR, we don't know how
typical the construction of the ENDEAVOUR was for her time and use. She was
built as a collier in Whitby (Yorkshire) by a very active shipyard and she was
managed by John Wilkinson, a broker who was responsible for a great number of
ships, including other colliers that he chartered to British government for
use as transports. It is possible that at least one more of the ships lost in
Newport about which we have little information could also be a Wilkinson collier
built at Whitby, and we don't know how different the construction technique
might be at a nearby village like Scarborough. It will be very important to
determine if more than one ship in the Newport fleet shows the same features
and to know how unusual the ENDEAVOUR's construction was before we can use that
as the main argument for having found the vessel.
QUESTION 6: The ENDEAVOUR was adapted in preparation for her trip around
the world with Capt. Cook. Could evidence of those adaptations be diagnostic
to suggest that we have found the ENDEAVOUR?
ANSWER: These later adaptations may be more useful as a diagnostic tool than
her original construction features as a collier. The ENDEAVOUR had some interesting
changes made to accommodate the crew on such a long journey, some of which were
requested by the aristocratic supercargo.
CAUTION: These changes may have been obliterated in the later uses of the vessel,
but we will be vigilant to find subtle evidence of them.
QUESTION 7: Could the repairs made after the ENDEAVOUR was damaged
on the Great Barrier Reef off Australia be used to identify a specific Newport
shipwreck?
ANSWER: We know that the crew went ashore during the repair at the Great Barrier
Reef to collect local wood for fuel, but the ship's carpenter apparently used
wood carried on board to make a temporary repair of the hull. A more substantial
repair was made at the Dutch East India Company at Batavia, but we don't yet
know the origin of the materials they used.
CAUTION: We need to know more about the materials that would have been used
in the Dutch East India Company's shipyard. It is also possible that those exotic
repairs were obliterated when the ship was repaired at London before she was
taken into the transport service.
QUESTION 8: What other evidence might exist from the circumnavigation
with Capt. Cook?
ANSWER: The ENDEAVOUR's crew collected local foods and wood for fuel, and the
scientists collected biological samples. It is possible that scraps of exotic
wood or other material indigenous to Australia and the South Pacific (such as
pollen or microfauna) could have found their way into crevices of the vessel.
RIMAP has been sampling undisturbed areas of the silt for such analyses.
CAUTION: It is also possible that this material was removed when the ENDEAVOUR
was repaired and became the transport LORD SANDWICH. Also, there were at least
two other vessels on the Newport station that had been East Indiamen, the transport
GRAND DUKE OF RUSSIA (lost along with the LORD SANDWICH in Newport) and the
ALARM Galley (lost a few days earlier in the Sakonnet River). There is the possibility
such exotic materials could be found in them, as well.
QUESTION 9: How was the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR adapted for the
transport service?
ANSWER: We do know that many of the transports were prepared to carry equipment,
horses, artillery, and large numbers of troops. We have no specific information
about how the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR was changed, but we do know that she
was in such poor condition when first offered to the transport service that
she failed survey and had to be repaired before she could be accepted.
CAUTION: Although we don't yet know exactly what those repairs had been, it
is certain that they would have corrected some of the damage and disintegration
arising from her long service in the Royal Navy, and especially because of her
voyages in the southern hemisphere. We do not know if any of her original adaptations
for Cook's voyage were retained after that refit.
QUESTION 10: What do we know about the LORD SANDWICH and her service
as a transport?
ANSWER: We know which troops were on board during the Atlantic crossing, and
which troops were carried from New York to Rhode Island. It is possible that
we will find artifactual evidence of these troops on the Newport shipwreck sites.
Our assumption is that the LORD SANDWICH would have been in particularly poor
condition because of her history, although there is evidence that she made short
sails in Narragansett Bay. We don't yet know if she had been included in the
fleets that went to Long Island to collect wood for fuel.
CAUTION: As noted in the general discussion above, a cluster of artifacts from
a particular regiment will be stronger evidence than a single artifact in making
the connection between the troops aboard a single vessel and that vessel's identity.
QUESTION 11: Is there something unusual about how the LORD SANDWICH
transport was used in Newport?
ANSWER: We know that the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR was used intermittently
as a prison ship while it was in Newport, and we have the names of some of the
American prisoners who were kept on board. Some of these prisoners were quite
prominent in Newport at the time, and it is possible that there may be artifactual
evidence of their presence left behind on the site.
CAUTION: We know that the RACHEL AND MARY was also used as a prison ship in
Newport, and it is possible that at times some of the same prisoners were kept
on her as well.
SUMMARY
Our research process is to find all of the transports that still exist, to study each site in turn, and to determine how closely each fits the descriptions of the known transports. As of this writing (2006), there is an almost even chance that the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR is among the transport sites already found. Even if the ENDEAVOUR is not found, Rhode Island has discovered one of the largest Revolutionary War fleets of transports, and that is significant because little is known about this important (but usually overlooked) ship category of the American Revolution.
In the identification of the LORD SANDWICH ex ENDEAVOUR, there is a greater likelihood that materials associated with the ship's later use in Rhode Island will have survived in the archaeological record than materials associated with James Cook and his voyage. A single feature is unlikely to be adequate for a positive identification, but if the artifact assemblage of a specific site is consistent with the ship having been the LORD SANDWICH transport, if the ship's construction details are consistent with it having been the ENDEAVOUR BARK, and if no other site in the Newport transport fleet can make that claim, then we can confidently announce that we have found the historic ship.
We expect that this work will take us a number of years more to complete.