Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel
Filing
138
RESPONSE to motion re 131 MOTION to dismiss Amended Complaint or for summary judgment filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits to Odyssey's Response to Spain's Motion, # 2 Exhibit A-1 Kingsley Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A-2 Kingsley Part 2, Annex 1, # 4 Exhibit A-2 Kingsley Part 2, Annex 2, # 5 Exhibit A-2 Kingsley Part 2, Annex 3, # 6 Exhibit A-3 Kingsley Part 3, Annex 4, # 7 Exhibit A-3 Kingsley Part 3, Annex 5, # 8 Exhibit A-3 Kingsley Part 3, Annex 6, # 9 Exhibit A-4 Kingsley Part 4, Annex 7, # 10 Exhibit A-5 Kingsley Part 5, Annex 8, # 11 Exhibit A-4 Kingsley Part 4, Annex 9, # 12 Exhibit A-5 Kingsley Part 5, Annex 10.1-10.2, # 13 Exhibit A-5 Kingsley Part 5, Annex 10.3-10.6, # 14 Exhibit A-5 Kingsley Part 5, Annex 11, # 15 Exhibit A-6 Kingsley Part 6, Annex 12 to 13.1, # 16 Exhibit A-7 Kingsley Part 7, Annex 13.2 to 13.3, # 17 Exhibit A-8 Kingsley Part 8, Annex 13.4 to 13.7, # 18 Exhibit A-9 Kingsley Part 9, Annex 14, # 19 Exhibit A-10 Kingsley Part 10, Annex 15, # 20 Exhibit A-11 Kingsley Part 11, Annex 16, # 21 Exhibit A-11 Kingsley Part 11, Annex 17, # 22 Exhibit A-11 Kingsley Part 11, Annex 18, # 23 Exhibit A-12 Kingsley Part 12, Annex 19, # 24 Exhibit A-12 Kingsley Part 12, Annex 20, # 25 Exhibit a-13 Kingsley Part 13, Anex 21, # 26 Exhibit A-13 Kingsley Part 13, Annex 22, # 27 Exhibit B Sinclair, # 28 Exhibit C Etchevers, # 29 Exhibit D Stemm, # 30 Exhibit E-1 Carlisle Part 1, # 31 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 1, # 32 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 2, # 33 Exhibit E2- Carlisle Part 2, Annex 3, # 34 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 4, # 35 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 5, # 36 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 6, # 37 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 7, # 38 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 8, # 39 Exhibit E-2 Carlisle Part 2, Annex 9, # 40 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 10, # 41 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 11, # 42 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 12, # 43 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 13, # 44 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 14, # 45 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 15, # 46 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 16, # 47 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 17, # 48 Exhibit Ej-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 18, # 49 Exhibit e-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 19, # 50 Exhibit E-3 Carlisle Part 3, Annex 20, # 51 Exhibit E-4 Carlisle Part 4, Annex 21, # 52 Exhibit E-4 Carlisle Part 4, Annex 22, # 53 Exhibit E-5 Carlisle Part 5, Annex 23, # 54 Exhibit E-5 Carlisle Part 5, Annex 24, # 55 Exhibit E-5 Carlisle Part 5, Annex 25, # 56 Exhibit E-6 Carlisle Part 6, Annex 26, # 57 Exhibit E-6 Carlisle Part 6, Annex 27, # 58 Exhibit E-7 Carlisle Part 7, Annex 28, # 59 Exhibit E-8 Carlisle Part 8, Annex 29, # 60 Exhibit E-9 Carlisle Part 9, Annex 30, # 61 Exhibit E-9 Carlisle Part 9, Annex 31, # 62 Exhibit E-10 Carlisle Part 10, Annex 32, # 63 Exhibit F-1 Flayhart, Part 1, # 64 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 1, # 65 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 2, # 66 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 3, # 67 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 4, # 68 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 5, # 69 Exhibit F-2 Flayhart Part 2, Annex 6, # 70 Exhibit F-3 Flayhart Part 3, Annex 7, # 71 Exhibit F-3 Flayhart Part 3, Annex 8, # 72 Exhibit F-3 Flayhart Part 3, Annex 9, # 73 Exhibit F-3 Flayhart Part 3, Annex 10, # 74 Exhibit F-3 Flayhart Part 3, Annex 11, # 75 Exhibit F-4 Flayhart Part 4, Annex 12, # 76 Exhibit F-4 Flayhart Part 4, Annex 13, # 77 Exhibit F-4 Flayhart Part 4, Annex 14, # 78 Exhibit F-4 Flayhart Part 4, Annex 15, # 79 Exhibit F-4 Flayhart Part 4, Annex 16, # 80 Exhibit F-4 flayhart Part 4, Annex 17, # 81 Exhibit F-5 flayhart Part 5, Annex 18, # 82 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 19, # 83 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 20, # 84 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 21, # 85 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 22, # 86 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 23, # 87 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 24, # 88 Exhibit F-5 Flayhart Part 5, Annex 25, # 89 Exhibit G Goni Etchevers and Fuentes Camacho, # 90 Exhibit H Tedesco, # 91 Exhibit I Tsokos, # 92 Exhibit J Amrhein)(Von Spiegelfeld, Allen)
<![CDATA[
EXHIBIT A-4
DR. SEAN A. KINGSLEY PART 4 ANNEXES 7 TO 9
ANNEX 7 TO EXHIBIT A
7.1. 7.2. Typically heavily concreted cannon from HMS Colossus, England, 1798: Camidge, K., HMS Colossus. CISMAS Debris Field Survey 2004, 15-16. Typically heavily concreted iron cannon from HMS Sapphire, Australia, 1695: Muckelroy, K., Maritime Archaeology (Cambridge University Press, 1978), fig. 3.27.
DR. SEAN A. KINGSLEY
HMS COLOSSUS
CISMAS DEBRIS FIELD SURVEY 2004
KEVIN CAMIDGE
Annex 7.1
Copyright 2007 Odyssey Marine Exploration May not be reprinted without written permission of Odyssey Marine Exploration
COLOSSUS DEBRIS FIELD SURVEY 2004
Introduction .............................................................................................. 2 Outline history of the ship ........................................................................... 2 Project outline ........................................................................................... 2 The ADU magnetometer survey....................................................................3 Wessex Archaeology survey.........................................................................3 Plan of the magnetic survey tracks ............................................................... 4 Project methodology...................................................................................5 Plan of the CISMAS search areas .................................................................. 6 Plan of the Wessex Archaeology search areas.................................................7 The targets ............................................................................................... 8 Targets investigated ................................................................................... 8 Targets identified ....................................................................................... 8 Plan of the targets identified ...................................................................... 13 Summary of anomalies investigated [Table 1] .............................................. 14 Anomalies yet to be investigated [Table 2] .................................................. 14 The Photographs ...................................................................................... 15 Conclusions............................................................................................. 17 Acknowledgements .................................................................................. 18 Appendix I Magnetic anomaly graphs ....................................................... 19 Appendix II Colossus debris field survey Diver record sheet ......................... 33
This project has been facilitated by a grant from LHI which is a partnership between the Heritage Lottery Fund, Nationwide Building Society and the Countryside Agency.
Interim Report
Introduction
The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Maritime Archaeological Society was formed in March 2004, and currently has over 30 members. The society's first project is to survey the debris field of the Colossus wreck site in the Isles of Scilly.
Outline history of the ship
HMS Colossus, a 74-gun 3rd rate ship-of-the-line, was built in 1787 and wrecked off Samson in the Isles of Scilly only eleven years later on 10th December 1798. Colossus was involved in a number of famous naval actions including Groix and Cape St Vincent. She was returning to England with wounded from Nelson's Battle of the Nile when wrecked. On board at the time was part of Sir William Hamilton's second collection of Greek funerary pottery; Sir William Hamilton was the husband of Emma Hamilton, Nelson's mistress. Vital Statistics Length (main gun deck) Breadth Tonnage Main armament 172.3 ft (52.5m) 47.9 ft (14.6m) 1703 tons 28 x 32lb main gun deck 28 x 18lb upper gun deck 14 x 9lb quarter & forecastle
Project outline
The aim of the project is to identify and survey surviving elements of the Colossus wreck site, and in particular to establish the extent and precise nature of the debris field of the wreck. The field work of the project is in three parts. Firstly, there was a physical survey of the anomalies identified by the magnetometer survey conducted in 2002 by the Archaeological Diving Unit. This phase of the project was carried out by CISMAS in the first two weeks of September 2004 and is the subject of this report. Secondly, we plan to undertake further geophysical survey in the early part of 2005. This will entail a magnetic survey of the areas not covered by the ADU survey, possibly with the addition of a sidescan sonar survey if funds allow. A caesium vapour magnetometer will be deployed for the magnetic survey. It is proposed that the parts of the designated area not covered by the ADU magnetic survey will be surveyed as well as additional areas to the south, east and south west of the designated area. Lastly, the anomalies detected by the additional geophysical survey will be investigated and recorded. This work will take place in the second half of 2005. A report of the debris field survey will be prepared and deposited with English Heritage, the National Monuments Record and the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Historic Environment Record. In addition, a website is in preparation by CISMAS detailing the work on the debris field survey. CISMAS will also produce a small `popular' booklet on the project, a temporary display which will probably be housed in the St Mary's Museum on the Isles of Scilly and a short video of the project.
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 2
The ADU magnetometer survey
In 2002 the ADU conducted a magnetometer survey over part of the designated area. The survey was conducted using a Geometrics caesium vapour magnetometer. The data was collected on two separate days; on the 9th June the stern area was surveyed and on 14th of June part of the bow area was covered. The data set as presented was a single tab delimited text file. The data set includes corrected positions for tow fish layback, tow fish depth, time/date and field strength in nT. There is no record of water depth in the data set. The data was first split by the two separate dates collected, then split into separate files for the individual tracks. These were then imported into Excel and graphs of magnetic field strength were plotted against latitude (the track lines were approximately north-south). The resultant graphs are reproduced below, as is the plan of the individual track lines. Determining the likely size of the iron objects causing the anomalies was problematical. As there was no associated bathymetric data recorded and the recorded tow fish height varied between 1.6m 8.8m, it was necessary to estimate the depth of water using the chart depths and the tide height at the time of the magnetometer reading. Using the recorded tow fish depth it was then possible to estimate the tow fish to seabed distance. The approximate predicted weight of iron was then derived using the algorithms outlined in Hacon, 19801. The estimated weights are reproduced in tables 1 and 2 below. It is clear from the predicted weights that where the original weight of the object is known, the predicted weights are considerably lower. An example of this are guns 8, 9 and 10, all 32lb Blomefield guns which would have weighed 55cwt2 (2794kg) when manufactured. Reference to the table shows that predicted weights for these guns vary between 100-500kg. There are a number of technical reasons why these estimates of weight derived from the magnitude of the magnetic anomaly can only be approximations, especially when the tow fish to target distance is itself an approximation, as is the case here. Nevertheless the estimates give some indication of the relative sizes of the objects which caused the magnetic anomalies detected.
Wessex Archaeology survey
Wessex Archaeology, the current archaeological diving contractor, spent three weeks this year diving on Colossus and the associated debris field. A plan of their search areas, constructed from information given to me by them, is reproduced below. It is clear from this plan that a considerable area of the debris field was investigated by them this year. When their report of this work is available it should be possible to integrate their findings with those presented here. As far as I am aware their findings consisted mainly of a copper alloy fastening pin (WA 260167.3E 5535629.2N) and an iron gun (WA 260211.9E 5535542.5N), possibly our Gun 10 see discussion of CISMAS target 16/2035 below.
M.P. Postle Hacon. The Proton Procession Magnetometer and its role in Marine Magnetic Searches. The Hydrographic Journal No 17, 1980. 2 Adrian B. Caruana. The History of English Sea Ordnance 1523-1875. England 1997
1
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 3
Project methodology
The principal aim of this year's survey was to investigate each of the magnetic anomalies identified in the ADU magnetic data. To achieve this the position of each anomaly was entered by USB link directly from computer to a hand held Garmin 76C GPS unit3, which avoided any possible keying errors in entering the positions manually. In practice the GPS unit proved to be extraordinarily accurate, the mean distance from shot to located iron object being only 5.5m over all dives where iron objects were detected. A validation dive was also made by dropping the shot onto one of the positions reported by Wessex Archaeology for their acoustic beacon array, deployed by them during their work on site in June-July this year. The acoustic beacons were anchored in position with sand bags, which remained on the seabed after the beacons were recovered, so the position was still apparent from the sandbags. The shot line was deployed at the position of one of these beacons4 - it was found to be only 0.75m from the sandbags on the seabed. A 25kg shot line was dropped into the water when the GPS unit indicated it was 2m or less from the target position. A pair of divers descended the shot line and conducted a circular search of the seabed using a distance line marked in meters attached to the shot line. The position of any artefacts located was recorded by the measurement indicated on the distance line and a compass bearing taken with a hand-held compass back along the distance line to the shot. Any artefacts were also sketched, measured and described. All recording was done on pre-printed underwater sheets to assist volunteers in the recording process (see record sheet example appendix II). The resulting records were entered daily into the computerised record using 3H Site Recorder and AutoCAD for the master site plan. The mechanics of the search technique were perfected in two practice searches undertaken in Mounts Bay prior to the start of the project. Great emphasis was placed on the need to search each area thoroughly. Seabed searches can be very difficult to undertake effectively. This is especially important when using volunteer recreational divers; each diver was repeatedly briefed on the need to search thoroughly and systematically. An illustration of the difficulties of searching is given by a dive by professional archaeological divers (Wessex Archaeology dive 205) in the Colossus debris field this year, where gun 7 and a 4m long iron spar were both missed. This is all too easy to do as objects are often obscured by weed and kelp.
3
The unit is EGNOS enabled (the European version of WAAS); when the EGNOS satalite is functioning
4
the unit is said to be capable of accuracy of 2-3m. Wessex Archaeology Dive 192, beacon B position 260038.83E 5535519.86N UTM zone 30, WGS84 datum. CISMAS dive DFS17.
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 5
The targets
In total, 42 magnetic anomalies were identified from the survey data. These varied in magnitude from 4nT to 30nT. All anomalies smaller than 4nT were disregarded.
Targets investigated
Although the main aim of the survey was to ground-truth the anomalies identified in the magnetometer survey conducted by the ADU in 2002, a number of other dives were also undertaken. These included two dives on the main stern section of wreckage. The first of these was to make an underwater video record of the wreck. Unfortunately, however, most of the site was obscured by loose kelp during this dive. The second visit was to obtain samples of the copper alloy sheathing and fastening bolts for analysis (agreed with EH beforehand). Accordingly, samples were obtained of sheathing, a copper fastening bolt and a bolt-washer. Tim Allsop reported an area of surviving timber to the south of the stern site (position 260085E 5535373N5), but a search of this area revealed no visible timber. Of the 42 anomalies identified, 26 were investigated during the 2004 debris field survey. The area searched varied according to the type of seabed encountered. It was usually possible to search a circle of radius 25m on flat sand (an area of just under 2000 m2) whereas in thick kelp it was rarely possible to search more than a 10m radius circle (just over 300 m2). Of the 26 anomalies investigated, 16 resulted in the identification of significant iron objects, which were recorded and surveyed. The remaining 10 searches did not locate anything likely to have caused the magnetic anomaly. In these cases, either the object was buried beneath the seabed or the anomaly was not caused by a seabed artefact. It was not possible to investigate all the identified anomalies, mainly due to five days which were lost because of bad weather. We intend to investigate the remaining 16 anomalies during the 2005 debris field survey.
Targets identified
The following are the magnetic anomalies where artefactual material was identified. The target numbers consist of the track number separated from the data point number by a slash. 5/884 Position: 260145.7E 5535814.4N Seabed: Flat sand Dive No: DFS12 Anchor and chain : A small iron anchor with folding iron stock, approximately 3m of iron chain still attached to the anchor. Anchor shank 2.76m long, 1.16m from fluke to fluke. The anchor is of the round-crown type and thus is later in date than Colossus. The anchor was located c.3m south of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Iron object : A concreted iron metal bar, square in section and approximately 2 x 0.01 x 0.01m. Located c.12m NNE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. It seems unlikely that this item derives from Colossus.
5
NB All positions in this report are given in UTM zone 30 using the WGS84 datum
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 8
8/1419 Position: 260118.3E 5535599.9N Seabed: Sand Dive No: DFS20 Iron object : Complex in shape and heavily concreted. C.20 SE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. This object is fairly close to the stern section of Colossus and is therefore probably derived from Colossus. 9/5048 Position: 259827.8E 5535456.7N Seabed: Rock and kelp Dive No: DFS10 Iron object : Heavily concreted iron `bar', 1.3m long and c. 0.06 x 0.03m in section, tapering to a point at one end. Found 7m SE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Shot : A group of approximately 35 concreted iron shot situated approximately 8m west of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. The concreted shot was approximately 0.016m in diameter. Depending on the thickness of the concretion, this could be any weight of shot between 18lb and 32lb. The location of these items fairly close to the area where Roland Morris located Colossus material increases the likelihood that this shot was from Colossus. 10/942 Position 259940.4E 5535405.2N Seabed: Flat sand with small rock outcrops, some kelp & weed Dive No: DFS22 Iron gun[Gun 9]: Concreted iron gun lying upside-down on the seabed. Remains of the iron fastenings of the gun carriage are evident beneath the gun. In addition the trunnion straps and parts of the strap bolts also survive. The gun's muzzle lies 3.9m NE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. The cascabel button of the gun has the loop characteristic of the Blomefield pattern gun. The dimensions (see below) are consistent with a Blomefield 32lb gun. Length (base ring to muzzle face) 2.89m Diameter of base ring 0.60m Diameter of trunnions 0.18m Base ring to trunnion (centre) 1.22m Diameter of bore 0.17m 11/3447 Position: 260173.8E 5535535.6N Seabed: Sand with occasional kelp Iron gun [Gun 8]: This is a 32lb Blomefield gun, previously recorded during the survey work undertaken in 2003 (See Colossus Progress Report 2003). Length (base ring to muzzle face) 2.90m Diameter of base ring 0.63m Diameter of trunnions 0.17m Base ring to trunnion (centre) 1.25m Diameter of bore 0.15m
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 9
11/5880 Position: 260000.5E 5535275.9N Seabed: Flat sand Dive No: DFS1, DFS4 & DFS26 Anchor: Iron anchor with one fluke buried in the seabed, the other standing upright. The shank of the anchor lies flat on the seabed. The anchor ring is still in place but the stock (originally wood) is now missing. This anchor is of the round-crown type (introduced in the early 19th C) and as such is later in date than Colossus. The anchor ring was located some 0.50m from the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Shank length 3.20m Arm length (crown to fluke tip) 1.20m Ring diameter 0.30m 12/1788 Position: 260094.4E 5535529.7N Seabed: Coarse sand with pebbles and broken shell Dive No: DFS11 & DFS27 Anchor : Iron anchor with one arm missing; the shank and surviving arm are lying flat on the seabed. The anchor ring lies 0.20m SSW from the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. The anchor is of the angle-crown type and as such is earlier than c.1815. If this were an anchor from Colossus it would have to be the kedge anchor, which was the smallest of the five anchors a 74 would normally have carried. The dimensions of this anchor accord very well with the published dimensions of the kedge anchor of a 746. Shank length 2.90m Arm length (crown to fluke tip) 1.15m Ring diameter 0.45m It should, however be born in mind that St Mary's Roads has been an anchorage for many centuries and anchors are to be expected in the area. The record of the loss of Colossus7 tells us that the three bower anchors were deployed but no mention is made of the stream or kedge anchors being used. It is hard therefore to account for the missing arm of this anchor if it was from Colossus. 12/2061 Position: 260128.6E 5535581.6N Seabed: Sand with small rocks and some weed Dive No: DFS18 Iron object: Heavily concreted iron object 1.8m long x 0.60m x 0.10m. Found 7m ENE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. This is very close to the edge of the known stern wreckage and is therefore probably material derived from Colossus.
Lavery The Arming and fitting of English ships of War 1600-1815. The kedge anchor of a 74 Shank 9' 6" (2.89m) Arm 3' 2" (0.96m) Ring 1' 3" (0.38m) Weight 8cwt (406kg) 7 Captain Murray's account of the loss of Colossus ADM 1/5348 and Letter from Murray to Napean ADM 1/2136
6
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 10
13/4708 Position: 259877.0E 5535455.5N Seabed: Rock, boulders and thick kelp Dive No: DFS2 Iron shot : An area approximately 2m x 3m of concreted cannon balls at least 14 were counted. They were situated 3m south of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. It was not possible to get a meaningful measurement of the shot due to the irregular nature of the concretion but the divers felt these were probably 32lb shot.8 15/4448 Position 259941.5E 5535407.3N Seabed: Flat sand with small rock outcrops, some kelp & weed Dive No: DFS22 Iron gun [Gun 9]: The muzzle of gun 9 lies 2m WNW of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. See 10/942 above. 16/2035 Position: 260209.3E 5535554.3N Seabed: Flat sand Dive No: DFS9 & DFS19 Iron gun [Gun 10]: Concreted iron gun lying upside-down on the seabed. This is probably the same gun located by the archaeological diving contractors in their work earlier this year9.The muzzle of the gun was 1m south of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. The gun has a small pile of lightweight, heavily concreted chain lying on the seabed on its south side. This chain is also evident lying over the top of the gun in the region of the trunnions (three strands). The chain is not continuous but appears to be wrapped around the trunnions rather than around the gun barrel. The cascabel button of the gun has the loop characteristic of the Blomefield pattern gun. The dimensions (see below) are consistent with a Blomefield 32lb gun. Length (base ring to muzzle face) 2.88m Diameter of base ring 0.68m Diameter of trunnions 0.18m Base ring to trunnion (centre) 1.25m B3/2790 Position: 259893.4E 5535436.6N Seabed: Rock, large boulders and kelp Dive No: DFS5 Shot : Heavily concreted cannonballs lying 6m SSW of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Five complete and several broken shot were observed. There was evidence that shot had been removed from the seabed. Copper sheet : A rectangular piece of copper alloy sheeting 0.48m x 0.22m with two nail holes possibly copper sheathing. This area is very close to the supposed `galley' area and the SW end of the `Morris gulley', so these objects are likely to be from Colossus.
8
This estimate should be treated with caution as the difference in diameter between 18lb and 32lb shot is only just over 1", it is very difficult to estimate the size of heavily concreted shot. 9 The position given to me by the diving contractor is some 10m south of where the gun actually lies a search of the surrounding area failed to locate any other gun. The contractor told me that their position was only approximate (personal correspondence with Graham Scott).
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 11
B6/2097 Position 259941.4E 5535405.3N Seabed: Flat sand with small rock outcrops, some kelp & weed Dive No: DFS22 Iron gun [Gun 9]: The muzzle of gun 9 lies 3.2m NE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. See 10/942 and 15/4448 above. B7/216 Position 260207.7E 5535547.5N Seabed: Flat sand Dive No: DFS9 & DFS19 Iron gun [Gun 10]: The muzzle of gun 10 lies 5.8m SSW of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. See 16/2035 above. B7/414 Position 260184.5E 5535531.3N Iron gun [Gun 8] : The muzzle of gun 8 lies 12.55m WNW of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. See 11/3447 above. B9/3296 Position: 259736.9E 5535364.3N Seabed: Large boulders and thick kelp Dive No: DFS23 Iron object : Concreted iron object, roughly cylindrical in shape 1m long by 0.05m diameter. This object was 3m SSE of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Copper alloy strip : small piece of copper alloy 0.20m x 0.04m x 0.005m found 2m north of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Copper sheathing : A small piece of copper sheathing (with nail holes) 0.01m x 0.05m x 0.001m situated 4m east of the position indicated by the magnetic anomaly. Gun 7 Position: 260191.26E 5535576.91N Seabed: Sand and small stones, some kelp Dive No: DFS29 Gun 7 cascabel formed the centre of the search area. Copper alloy object: Square in shape 0.058m x 0.058m x 0.007m with 0.02m hole in the centre (see photo). Found 12m ENE of gun 7 cascabel. Iron objects: Two heavily concreted iron objects a) 0.55m x 0.20m b) 0.35m x 0.20m. Found 3.5m NW of gun 7 cascabel.
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 12
Summary of anomalies investigated [Table 1]
Anomaly Magnitude (nT) Fish Depth (m) 7.8 6.8 6.9 5.2 5.4 9.3 9.4 5.4 7.6 7.2 7.6 5 5.1 7 8.2 4.7 6.6 4.4 4.5 4.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.7 Distance Fish to Anomaly (m) 3 5 5 10 10 6 6 11 7 8 9 10 10 3 6 6 10 12 11 11 9 11 12 12 10 10 Approx. Predicted Weight of Iron (Kg) 10 50 10 100 100 30 100 500 100 100 200 200 500 1 50 10 350 150 100 200 150 500 300 500 50 200 Search Diameter (m) 32 30 38 30 40 30 24 Dive No Observed
2/1135 5/884 5/1831 8/1219 8/1419 9/4874 9/5048 10/942 11/2782 11/3447 11/5880 12/1788 12/2061 13/4125 13/4708 14/2342 15/4448 16/2035 16/2301 16/2175 B3/2790 B6/2097 B7/216 B7/414 B9/1660 B9/3296 G7
+12 +25 +6 ±3 (6) -5 +10 -35 ±9 (18) ±9 (18) +15 +16 -11 -30 +4 +12/-6 (18) ±1.5 (3) ±11 (22) -6 +4 +4/-6 (10) +15 +13/-10 (23) -13 -13/+5 (18) +4 +15
3 12 25 16 20 21 10 22 15 4 & 28 11 & 27 18 24 2 6 22 9 & 19 13 14 5 22 9 & 19
20 20 50 20 30 6 12 40 40 44 16 5 40
Nothing visible on the seabed Anchor, chain and Fe concretion Nothing visible on the seabed Nothing visible on the seabed Fe object Nothing visible on the seabed Shot and Fe object Gun 9 (32lb Blomefield & carriage parts Nothing visible on the seabed Gun 8 Anchor (radial arm) ? early 19th C Anchor (straight arm with one arm missing) ? 18th C Fe concretion Nothing visible on the seabed Shot Nothing visible on the seabed Gun 9 Gun 10 & part of an anchor Nothing visible on the seabed Nothing visible on the seabed Shot & Cu objects Gun 9 Gun 10 Gun 8 Nothing visible on the seabed Fe bar Gun 7, Iron object & Copper object.
30 20
24 23 29
Anomalies yet to be investigated [Table 2]
Anomaly Size (nT) Fish Depth (m) Distance Fish to Anomaly (m) 2 5 5 3 2 4 7 6 4 3 6 6 13 11 12 10 Predicted Weight of Iron (Kg) 1 10 1 5 1 50 50 30 5 1 10 10 150 100 100 250
2/255 5/3513 7/3871 9/1971 9/3957 11/680 11/2611 11/3027 13/2378 13/3705 14/2786 14/3008 16/610 B3/3186 B7/1220 B9/2935
+4 +6 +4 +10 +5 +5 +9 -9 +6 +4 +5 +5 +5 +4 +5 +18
8.3 7.5 7.6 7.8 8.8 7.2 6.9 8.2 7.6 7.9 4.7 4.9 4.9 2.3 2.6 2.6
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 14
The Photographs
Top left : Angle-crown anchor [12/1788] Top right : Detail of the angle-crown anchor [12/1788] showing the arm and fluke. Left : Gun 9 [10/942] Scale 0.50m
Bottom right : Round-crown anchor with one arm buried in the seabed [11/5880] Bottom left : Trunnion of gun 9 showing the trunnion strap [15/4448]
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 15
Top left : Gun 10 [16/2035] Top right : Gun 7 cascabel Left : Detail of gun 10 showing the concreted chain around the trunnions (arrowed) Bottom right : Gun 7 muzzle Bottom left : Blomefield 32lb gun on the Garrison, St Mary's Scale 0.50m
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 16
Conclusions
It is difficult to make any conclusive statements about the Colossus debris field at this stage of the project. There are still magnetic anomalies identified by the ADU survey to be investigated. Furthermore the ADU survey does not cover the whole of the designated area; clearly we must wait until the debris field project has been finished before proper conclusions can be reached. That said, it is already apparent from the work so far that much material from Colossus lies outside the current designated area and as such is not `protected'. There is also evidently a cluster of material, including three guns (Guns 7,8 & 10) lying to the south east of the stern of Colossus which indicate that the debris field is more complex than the hitherto perceived debris trail between Roland Morris' old site and the stern site. See the plan of the targets identified. The Colossus anchors are another potentially interesting part of the story. We know from Murray's account that Colossus deployed all three of her bower anchors prior to her loss. One, at the original anchorage in St Mary's Roads, was lost when the cable parted. We are also told that Colossus was riding to the other two on `half a cable'10 when she foundered. Locating any of these anchors would give invaluable information concerning the position of the vessel. None of the Colossus bower anchors has yet been located. The three anchors noted by Morris as leading him to the site are all far too small to have been bowers from Colossus11. The largest of the Morris anchors had a recorded shank length of only 3m. The bower of a 74 had a shank length of 18'6" (5.63m)12. Unfortunately we know that at least one of the Colossus bowers was recovered in contemporary salvage of the wreck13 and the possibility that the other two were also salvaged must be considered. That said, should any of the bowers from Colossus remain on the seabed their location would offer invaluable information. By conducting a systematic survey of the whole area around Colossus some estimate of how much material remains and just how much has been salvaged will be gained. This will be particularly true for the larger iron objects, guns and anchors where it should be possible to detect all such objects by finishing the magnetic survey started by the ADU (phase II of the CISMAS project).
A cable is defined as 120 fathoms, however Bellona, a sister ship of Colossus, had seven cables on board, all of 100 fathoms (Lavery The 74-Gun Ship Bellona 2003) 11 Wessex Archaeology Colossus DBA 2003 and original notes by Slim Macdonald
12
10
Lavery The Arming and Fitting of English ships of War 1600-1815. Wessex Archaeology Colossus DBA 2003 3.2.20 p13.
13
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 17
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone involved with this project for the time and effort so freely given which has made the project possible. Many of the individuals concerned have given up significant amounts of their annual leave and spare time to take part. The whole project has been carried out by volunteers; no one has received any payment for their contribution. The following all deserve special mention LHI for providing a grant towards the project. All the members of CISMAS, but especially the following: Robin and Janet Witheridge, who took part in the survey and provided the RIB which was used for the survey. Brendon Rowe, the treasurer of CISMAS who has given invaluable help with the logistics of the project as well as taking part in the survey. Geoff Fuller, the chairman of CISMAS who has given much support. Peter Holt, who provided a copy of Site Recorder as well as a week of his time to help with the survey. CISMAS members Sharon Austin, Helen Butcher, John Macken, Luke Randall, Honor Thorley and Andrew Weber who all spent at least a week working on the survey. Conducting circular searches of often barren seabed in poor weather conditions is not high on most divers list of must do activities. That some of the CISMAS divers did this cheerfully for one or two weeks is a testament to their dedication. Thanks are due to the following for assistance and hospitality: Dave McBride, Richard & Bridget Larn, Phil Rees, John Ives, Truan Hicks, Tim Allsop, Alec Colyer, Geoff Penhaligan and Jim Heslin.
Kevin Camidge
October 2004
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 18
Appendix I Magnetic anomaly graphs
Track 1
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9239
49.924
49.9241
49.9242
49.9243
49.9244 Latitude
49.9245
49.9246
49.9247
49.9248
49.9249
Track 2
47805
1135 (3)
47795
47785 nT 47775
255
47765
47755
47745 49.9235
49.924
49.9245
49.925
49.9255
49.926
49.9265
49.927
49.9275
49.928
Latitude
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 19
Track 3
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9225
49.923
49.9235
49.924
49.9245
49.925
49.9255
49.926
49.9265
49.927
49.9275
49.928
Latitude
Track 4
47805
47795
47785
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9252
49.9254
49.9256
49.9258
49.926 Latitude
49.9262
49.9264
49.9266
49.9268
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 20
47815
Track 5
884 47805
(12) Anchor & fe conc.
47795
3513
1831
(25)
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.923
49.9235
49.924
49.9245
49.925
49.9255 Latitude
49.926
49.9265
49.927
49.9275
49.928
Track 6
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 21
Track 7
47805
47795 3871 47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924
49.925 LAtitude
49.926
49.927
49.928
49.929
Track 8
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
1219
(16)
47765
1419
(20) Fe conc
47755
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 22
Track 9
47805
47795
(21)
4874 3957
1971
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
5048
(10) Shot & Fe conc
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924
49.925 Latitude
49.926
49.927
49.928
49.929
Track 10
47805
47795
942
(22) Gun 9
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.92
49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 23
Track 11
47805
5880 (1) (4) (26) Anchor
3447
Gun 8
2611
47795
680
47785
nT
(15)
2782
47775
3027
47765
47755
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
Track 12
47805
47795
47785 nT
(11) (27) Anchor
1788
47775
(18) Fe conc.
2061
47765
47755
47745 49.92
49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 24
Track 13
47805
4708
(2) Shot
4125 (24) 3705
2378
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924
49.925 Latitude
49.926
49.927
49.928
49.929
Track 14
47805
2786
3008
47795
47785 nT 47775
2342
(6)
47765
47755
47745 49.92
49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924 Latitude
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 25
Track 15
47805
444
(22) Gun 9
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.92
49.921
49.922
49.923
49.924
49.925
49.926
49.927
49.928
49.929
Latitude
Track 16
(13)
47805
610
2301
47795
47785
(9) (19) Gun 10
2175 2035
(14)
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.92
49.921
49.922
49.923 Latitude
49.924
49.925
49.926
49.927
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 26
Bow Track 1
47805
47795
47785
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9219
49.922
49.9221
49.9222 Latitude
49.9223
49.9224
49.9225
49.9226
Bow Track 2
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9208
49.921
49.9212
49.9214 Latitude
49.9216
49.9218
49.922
49.9222
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 27
Bow Track 3
47805
(5) Shot
47795
2790
3186
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.919
49.92
49.921
49.922 Latitude
49.923
49.924
49.925
Bow Track 4
47805
47795
47785
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.922
49.9225
49.923
49.9235 Latitude
49.924
49.9245
49.925
49.9255
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 28
Bow Track 5
47805
47795
47785
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9202
49.9204
49.9206
49.9208
49.921
49.9212 Latitude
49.9214
49.9216
49.9218
49.922
49.9222
Bow Track 6
47805
47795
2097 (22) Gun 9
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9195
49.92
49.9205
49.921
49.9215 Latitude
49.922
49.9225
49.923
49.9235
49.924
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 29
Bow Track 7
47805
1220 47795 414 47785
nT
Gun 8
47775
47765 216
Gun 10 ?
47755
47745 49.92
49.9205
49.921
49.9215
49.922
49.9225 Latitude
49.923
49.9235
49.924
49.9245
49.925
Bow Track 8
47805
47795
47785
nT
47775
47765
47755
47745 49.919
49.9195
49.92
49.9205
49.921
49.9215 Latitude
49.922
49.9225
49.923
49.9235
49.924
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 30
Bow Track 9
47805
(23) fe obj
2 935 1 660
(24)
329 6
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.9215
49.922
49.9225
49.923
49.9235 Latitude
49.924
49.9245
49.925
49.9255
Bow Track 10
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.919
49.9195
49.92
49.9205 Latitude
49.921
49.9215
49.922
49.9225
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 31
Bow Track 11
47805
47795
47785 nT 47775
47765
47755
47745 49.919
49.9195
49.92
49.9205 Latitude
49.921
49.9215
49.922
Key to magnetic anomaly graphs
2035
Anomaly which has been investigated where a significant iron object was located Anomaly which has been investigated where no significant iron object was located
2301
610
Anomaly which has not yet been investigated.
(13)
CISMAS dive number - see table 1
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 32
Appendix II Colossus debris field survey Diver record sheet
Dive No Date Diver 1 Diver 2 Time in Time out Recorded by Mag hit number Target position Measured position Search radius Seabed type Kelp / weed Viz
Observed anomalies
No Distance (shot to obj) Bearing (Obj to shot) Dimensions (L x W x D) Description
Location
N
0° 270° 90°
180°
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 33
Gun measurements
Take position fix on cascabel button
Alignment
Cascabel to muzzle
Carriage parts
Attitude
Right side up?
Other features & Comments
Cascabel type
Button or ring?
Sketch / Comments
CISMAS
Colossus debris field survey 2004
Page 34
Annex 7.2
Copyright 2007 Odyssey Marine Exploration May not be reprinted without written permission of Odyssey Marine Exploration
]]>
