ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2019 edited by David Ball & Christoper Horrell An Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology Publication ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2019 edited by David Ball and Christopher Horrell An Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology Publication 2019 © Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology ISBN: 978-939531-34-6 Made possible in part through the support of the Society for Historical Archaeology Cover Image: Far West, 1996 Riverboats Series; Avery Dennison, Photogravure i2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeologyi Forward............................................................................................................................................iii ContribuƟng Authors Geophyiscal Investigations to Locate the Wreck of an iconic Upper Missouri River Mountain Packet Steamboat .................................................................................................................. 1 Douglas D. Scott, Bert Ho, Sadie Dasovich, Steve Dasovich, and David L. Conlin Coming in with a Tide, Going out with a Forklift: The Spring Break Shipwreck Project .........................7 Allyson Ropp Hull Remains of the Spring Break Wreck, a Nineteenth-Century Shipwreck Washed Ashore at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida....................................................................................................13 Chuck Meide A Square Peg in a Round Hole: Wood Analysis from the Spring Break Wreck ......................................23 Brendan Burke & Lee Newsom Happy Anniversary! We Didn't Get You A Card but We Found a Lot of Ship: Revisiting the Anniversary Wreck...........................................................................................................................33 Silvana Kreines, Chuck Meide, Megan Bebee Heritage Monitoring Underwater: Launching the Submerged Heritage Monitoring Scouts Florida Program ........................................................................................................................42 Rachael Kangas, Jeffrey Moates, Brenda Altmeier, Sara Ayers-Rigsby 30 Years Later: Revisiting the 1733 San Pedro and San Felipe Shipwrecks in the Florida Keys ...............49 Samuel I. Haskell, Tori L. Galloway, Matthew Lawrence, Charles D. Beeker, Kirsten M. Hawley In Situ Digital Documentation of the 1559 Emanuel Point Shipwrecks ................................................56 Micah B. Minnocci & Hunter W. Whitehead Rebuilding the Past: Digitizing Ship Lines into 3D Models ..................................................................62 Arik J. K. Bord Identifying Aircraft Artifacts Ex Situ: The Life History of an F4U Corsair ............................................69 Hunter W. Whitehead An Account of Stone Anchors: A Study of Northern Shoreline of the Persian Gulf ...............................77 Sorna Khakzad & Ali Moosaie Survey Says…: Using Archaeological Lenses and Conservation Assessment Tools to Influence Curation .......................87 Hannah Fleming & Lesley Haines 2020 SHA Calendar Art Award Winners ............................................................................................. 95 Foreword Making the Most of OpportuniƟes This year’s conference coincided with the 50th meeting of the annual Conference on Underwater Archaeology. First held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1963, this conference highlights the work and efforts of underwater archaeologists from around the world. From its beginnings, the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology (and its’ predecessor, the Council on Underwater Archaeology) have endeavored to publish a collection of underwater-related papers presented at, what is now referred to as, the annual SHA Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology. Having missed only a few publications in its early years when the meetings were biennial, and a brief hiatus from 2000 through 2006, this issue marks the 13th consecutive publication of the outstanding work conducted by our colleagues since 2007. While the 2019 Proceedings may not include as many contributions as previous Proceedings, it nonetheless continues the tradition of highlighting the quality and scholarship of the current field of maritime archaeology. The theme of this year’s conference, Making the Most of Opportunities: Education, Training, and Experiential Learning, turned out to be apropos. Bookended between the 2018 conference in New Orleans and the 2020 conference in Boston, expectations were tempered regarding the total number of conference attendees and presentations for the 2019 conference in St. Charles, Missouri. And the furlough of federal government employees helped keep those expectations in check. Nonetheless, those that made it to the 2019 conference experienced the small town charm and history of St. Charles and enjoyed a conference that was intimate, warm, and reminiscent of the early conferences. The smaller numbers also increased opportunities for networking, as well as catching up with old friends and making new ones. Of the 342 total submissions for the 2019 Conference, about 25% focused on maritime archaeology. Five of the 22 organized symposia highlighted maritime research, including a session by the Lighthouse Maritime Archaeology Program (LAMP) on the Spring Break Wreck; a two-part session on research at the Richard Steffy Ship Reconstruction Laboratory; a public outreach session on Getting People Engaged with their Maritime History; a symposium on maritime heritage of the Great Lakes; and a session on aviation archaeology; 28 additional maritime papers were incorporated into other themed or general sessions. Three of the 17 panel discussions, six of 30 posters, and two of five roundtable lunches featured maritime themes and rounded out the program. Just over half of the papers included in this year’s Proceedings focus on shipwrecks from Florida, yet the collection as a whole highlights the general conference theme of opportunities for education, training, and experiential learning, and provides a good assortment of the various offerings presented at the 2019 Conference. The papers also provide a range of contributions from established professionals, students, and up and coming professionals. The first paper, by Scott et al., provides a synopsis of survey efforts along the lower Missouri River to identify the remains of the legendary mountain packet Far West, a Missouri River steamboat that played a role in the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn. Keeping with the Conference theme of making the most of opportunities, Far West is also featured on the cover of this year’s Proceedings. The next four papers from LAMP demonstrate the important contributions that organization regularly makes to the SHA Conference and the Proceedings. Three contributions from the researchers at LAMP (Ropp, Meide, and Burke and Newsom), focus on what has come to be known as the “Spring Break Wreck.” These papers conveniently tie in with the 2019 Conference theme of making the most of opportunities and provide an excellent example of how a large section of hull remains from a 19th-century shipwreck that washed up overnight onto Ponte Verde Beach can be used as a tool to educate the public on the importance of maritime archaeology while making a lasting contribution to the maritime history of St. Augustine, Florida. The fourth LAMP entry, by Krienes et al., highlights the ongoing documentation of another “shipwreck of opportunity,” the Anniversary Wreck, which was discovered during the 450th anniversary celebration of the city of St. Augustine. 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings iii The following two papers by Kangas, et al., and Haskell et al., underscore opportunities for education and public involvement with maritime heritage. Kangas, et al., share information on the Florida Public Archaeology Network’s (FPAN) Submerged Heritage Monitoring Scout (SHMS) public outreach program. This program teaches interested divers how to help monitor underwater cultural heritage throughout Florida. While Haskell et al., summarize Indiana University’s thirty-year efforts of documenting and monitoring two shipwrecks in the Florida Keys. The next two papers consider the application of technology and computer software as a tool to help document and analyze shipwreck sites. Minnocci’s and Whitehead’s paper on the use of photogrammetry on two of the Emanuel Point shipwrecks from Pensacola Bay, Florida, provide just a sample of the number of papers presented at this year’s Conference on the integration of photogrammetry as a tool to enhance documentation of both underwater and terrestrial sites. Bord’s paper, which was part of the double session of the Richard Steffy Lab at Texas A&M University, evaluates the efficacy of 3D modeling software as a way of developing ship lines plans. Whitehead’s paper reviews the disposition of WWII aircraft remains donated from Japan to the Naval History and Heritage Command. Khakzad presents research on stone anchors found along the northern shoreline of the Persian Gulf. Finally, Fleming and Haines review their efforts to better address storage, conservation, and collections needs at the Mariner’s Museum and Park. As has been the case with this recent run of the Proceedings, which began in 2007, this publication would not be possible without the gracious assistance and oversight of the PAST Foundation, and in particular Dr. Sheli Smith. DAVID BALL CHRISTOPHER HORRELL iv Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings v Happy Anniversary! We Didn't Get You A Card but We Found a Lot of Ship: RevisiƟng the Anniversary Wreck. Silvana Kreines, Chuck Meide, Megan Bebee In July 2015, during the city’s 450th anniversary celebration, a buried shipwreck was discovered off St. Augustine, Florida by the St. Augustine Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program, or LAMP. Test excavations in 20152016 revealed a remarkable amount of material culture, including barrels, cauldrons, pewter plates, shoe buckles, cut stone, and a variety of glass and ceramics. These artifacts tentatively dated the vessel to 1750-1800 and suggested its nationality was likely British, but possibly Spanish or American. The abundance, spatial distribution, and stylistic uniformity of the artifacts suggest they were cargo items, leading to the working hypothesis that this was a merchant ship run aground while trying to enter St. Augustine’s notorious inlet. In the summer of 2018, with a team of field school students and volunteer divers, LAMP returned to the site to conduct further excavation. This paper summarizes the results of the 2018 season on this shipwreck. St. Augustine’s Inlet, Shipwrecks, and the Discovery of the Anniversary Wreck “It has become so common at St. Augustine to see ships aground on this bar…disasters of the sort have almost ceased to arouse sympathy or wonder” (Schoepf 1788:227). This quote is from the German botanist and physician Dr. Johann Schoepf, who traveled to America in 1777 to work as Chief Surgeon for the British Army. After the Revolutionary War ended, he traveled America, including a visit to St. Augustine where he witnessed numerous shipwrecks in the port’s notorious inlet. These ship losses were so striking that he discussed them extensively in his book Travels in the Confederation upon returning to Europe in 1784. He continued, The sand bar before St. Augustine is unquestionably the most dangerous because [it is] the shallowest and at the same time exposed to the total force of the ocean playing upon it… It is indeed a fearful thing to hear the wild tumult of these breaking seas and to behold them on all sides foaming and tossing… (Schoepf 1788:227). It is believed that the inlet has shifted drastically over the years. Conch Island, a peninsula jutting from Anastasia Island off the coast of St. Augustine, did not exist at the time. It formed from the existing shoals (North Breakers) in the 1940s as a result of dredging operations in the modern inlet. The shoals or sand bars off this coast are what made the city home to one of the most dangerous inlets in the continental United States. They would shift away or build up on a continual basis, causing shipwrecks as often as twice a month (Schoepf 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 1788:249). With such frequency, local residents were used to shipwrecks and kept a regular look out, sounding an alarm when an approaching ship was sighted to warn that a rescue might be necessary. Keeping watch for shipwrecks and launching rescue attempts would become among the official duties of the St. Augustine Lighthouse Keeper. The Anniversary Wreck was discovered in 2015 by LAMP archaeologists during a remote sensing survey. LAMP serves as the research arm of the St. Augustine Lighthouse & Maritime Museum. The magnetic target delineated in the survey was designated “Silver Surfer.” It was subsequently tested by divers using a hydraulic probe, resulting in a series of hard returns suggesting a large concentration of possible wreckage within a five by seven-meter area. Two adjacent 1 x 1 meter test units were excavated, revealing a wide array of artifacts. Upon confirmation that this was, indeed, an historic shipwreck, the site was named “Anniversary Wreck” in honor of the 450th anniversary of St. Augustine’s founding which was celebrated that year. Anniversary Wreck is situated well to the north of St. Augustine’s former channel, around which all other St. Augustine shipwrecks dating to the 18th and 19th centuries have been found, to date. The anomalous location of this shipwreck places it well inside of St. Augustine’s notorious North Breakers, suggesting the captain of this vessel was considerably off course, perhaps with no control over his vessel at the time of wrecking. It is also possible that the captain was ignorant of the local environment and made an unfortunate attempt to sail through one of the lesser inlets sometimes used by fishing boats but inadequate for larger ships. 33 Initial test excavations revealed a remarkable amount of material culture, including cauldrons, barrels, pewter plates, unidentified concreted objects, and a variety of glass and ceramics (Meide 2017:12-14). The density of artifacts encountered on the Anniversary Wreck during this test excavation surpassed that of the Storm Wreck, excavated between 2010 and 2015 (Veilleux and Meide 2016). Cauldrons and casks are among the largest and most frequently unearthed artifacts on the wreck, to date. Around 30 cauldrons have been found on site, often nested together for more efficient stowage. Their numbers and positions suggest they were a cargo item intended for the markets of St. Augustine, rather than personal possessions. The cauldrons can be roughly dated to between 1740 and 1780 (Meide 2017:15-16). The wooden components of the casks are mostly or fully deteriorated, leaving cask-shaped concretions, suggesting contents of perhaps iron hardware. Date ranges from the cauldrons, pewterware, and ceramics initially suggested a date range of 1750-1800. Summary of 2016 Fieldwork Field work on the Anniversary Wreck during the 2016 season (Meide 2017) focused first on further delineation of the site with remote sensing and then continued excavation around the original 2015 test units. Carried out over 22 days of diving between July and September, excavators logged a total of 342 dives for a cumulative bottom time of 276 hours, 40 minutes. Before sediment disturbance commenced, a refinement survey of the site using magnetometer and side scan sonar was conducted with lane spacing of 5 m (16.24 ft.). A total of ten new excavation units were placed. Once Units 1 and 2 were re-exposed, grids for Units 3-8 were established and sediment removal by suction dredge continued until a 2 m x 4 m area was exposed for recording. The methodology used for investigations at this site is summarized in Meide 2017 (12-14). Nine days of excavation were completed in 2016 before enough sand had been removed to achieve an angle of repose in the sidewalls to prevent continual infill. Once Units 1-8 were stable, the area was recorded by hand drawing and digital video. With the initial excavation area recorded, four more test units (9-12) were established along the western border. Only two days of excavation were completed before a protracted period of bad weather suspended field activities on site. During that limited time, divers were able to expose, record, and recover the artifacts in Unit 10, but were unable to complete Units 9, 11, and 34 12. The 3 x 4 m area tested in 2016 exposed 8 concreted barrels, 21 ceramics (primarily brown stoneware), 7 pewter plates, 12 brass shoe buckle frames, 3 blocks of dressed stone, and 28 cast-iron cauldrons. Preliminary analyses of the 2016 field season are consistent with the hypothesis that this ship may have been a merchant vessel laden with cargo which wrecked while attempting to enter the port of St. Augustine sometime between 1750 and 1800 (Meide 2017). Other 2016 activities in the vicinity of the Anniversary Wreck included the testing of a magnetic anomaly that was located only 90 m away, which was believed to possibly represent another component of the shipwreck. No buried remains were detected, however, despite 124 hydraulic probe tests. Summary of 2017 Fieldwork Fieldwork on the Anniversary Wreck during the 2017 season was dedicated to exploring the areas to the west of the original units and those excavated in 2016. Diving was carried out over 21 days in June, July, and August. A total of 365 dives were logged, totaling just one minute shy of 281 hours underwater. Once Units 1 through 12 were re-exposed, grids for Units 13-18 were established and excavation continued in these new units. Ten days of excavation were completed to expose the buried remains. However, due to extremely poor visibility and inclement weather, minimal documentation and artifact recovery took place, as sediment accretion reburied excavated areas when divers could not be present on the site. Five test units (13-17) were established along the western boarder of the previous units, as well as one test unit (18) to the north of Unit 12. Although ten days of excavation were completed, minimal documentation was accomplished for the reasons given above. Only Unit 15 was fully mapped and added to the site plan. No scaled drawings were completed for Units 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18. Sketches, not to exact scale, for Units 11 and 12 were made from observing the units and immediately illustrating them on the boat. These sketches were added to the site plan as a placeholder until scaled recordings can be completed. The remaining units appear blank on the site plan. Work continued in these units during the 2018 field season. The new units covering a 1 x 5 m area exposed 1 cauldron, 1 concreted barrel, 1 full pewter plate and the rim of a second pewter plate, 1 brass shoe buckle, three pieces of ceramics (two pieces of brick and/or tile, and one brown stoneware), an additional block of dressed Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology stone, as well as lead shot and glass fragments (Meide 2017:24-26). A total of forty-three sediment samples were also taken at the start and end of every dive for all of the units (Meide 2017:26-27). These sediments samples came from Units 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. A series of core samples were collected to better understand site stratigraphy. These consisted of simple clear, plastic tubes of about one meter in length and 2.5 cm in diameter, hammered by the divers into the sea bottom, and then capped as they were withdrawn. Micro-layers of stratigraphy were discernable and recorded upon initial inspection. The samples have been provided to Dr. Lee Newsom of Flagler College for a more thorough microscopic analysis. Core samples were taken from the SW corner of Unit 16, and one from the SW corner of Unit 14. Nothing recovered in this season challenged the working hypothesis concerning the vessel’s function, while the presence of creamware narrowed down the suspected date range slightly, to 1762-1800 (Meide 2017:29). Summary of 2018 Fieldwork Zero visibility and repeated stretches of foul weather disallowed significant excavation progress during the 2018 field season. Only 17 days of diving could be completed on the site, totaling 238 dives for 163 hours, 58 minutes of bottom time. Fieldwork on the Anniversary Wreck during the 2018 season was dedicated to exploring the areas originally exposed during previous field seasons. Eight grid units were placed and ten days of excavation in Units 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Although two new units, Units 19 and 20, were established to the west of Units 15 and 16, inclement weather prohibited exposure of any cultural remains in those new units. Wreckage was exposed in Units 11, 12, 15, and 16. Scaled drawings were completed for Units 11, 12, and 16. Unit 15 was recorded in 2017 and artifacts previously documented were recovered in 2018. At the time of this writing, the newly recorded units are being added to the overall site plan. The recorded units encompassed a 2 x 2 m area and included one cauldron, one concreted barrel, and a handful of large and unidentified concretions that were not collected. Recovered artifacts include fifteen concretions, one intact pewter plate, one block of dressed stone, two ceramic sherds (including a datable feather edge creamware plate rim), two door knobs, several clothing irons, one gun flint, one key, one key escutcheon, lead shot, brass tacks, seeds, nuts, and 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings wood fragments. Thirty-four sediment samples were also collected, one at the start and end of every dredge team per unit. These samples came from Units 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Preliminary analysis of these artifacts has narrowed down the date range only slightly, to sometime between 1765 and 1800 (Meide 2018). This is based on the origin of featheredged creamware as 1765 as reported by Noël Hume (2001:125). In addition to the concretions recovered in 2018, concretions collected in previous seasons were x-rayed in 2018. These x-rays revealed more artifacts including lead shot, tacks, shoe buckles, pewter plates, key escutcheons, seeds and fruit pits, clothing irons and padlocks. These artifacts from 2018, some of which have been analyzed in concretion by radiography, are summarized in the remainder of this paper. Padlocks In total, five padlocks were recovered from Anniversary Wreck during the 2016-2018 field seasons. All but one of these padlocks appear to be stylistically similar, resembling a purse or bag style. This style came into existence in the late seventeenth century but is commonly associated with eighteenth century North American English contexts (Karklins 2000:79-80). Three of the four similar padlocks were recovered from the northeastern corner of Unit 8 at a depth of 130 cm below datum; the fourth was recovered about a meter north in Unit 2 at a depth of 150 cm below datum. The fifth, and only stylistically distinct padlock, was recovered from Unit 7, which boarders Unit 8 to the east, from a depth between 50-140 centimeters below datum. This outlier appears to be a small ball padlock. Figure 1a shows Field Specimen 16SS-045.01, a concretion with a single padlock of the purse/bag style, which has much of its inner mechanisms intact. This padlock is taller than it is wide and has a rounded shape with low shoulders. While early examples of this style would have been small and broader than they were tall, their shape began to evolve at the turn of the century, becoming taller, more pointed, and larger (Noël Hume 1969:250-251).The overall shape and size of this artifact suggests an eighteenth-century date. Clothing Irons Four concretions containing clothing irons were recovered during the 2016-2018 field seasons. Three of these Field Specimens (16SS-069.01, 18SS-388.01, 35 FIGURE 1: Concretions and their X-ray images taken by Starr Cox of (a) an iron padlock and (b) a clothing iron. 18SS-392.1) appear to contain one iron each (Figure 1b). The fourth concretion (18SS-389.01) is larger and heavy, and appears to the naked eye to be a conglomerate made up of multiple irons. X-ray imaging was somewhat nebulous, as the x-rays could not fully penetrate the mass, and revealed only one definite iron, along with lead shot and brass tacks. All of the clothing irons that can be identified in the x-ray images appear to be of similar design and dimensions. The imagery suggests that these are flat or sad irons. The term “sad” here is actually defined as heavy or solid (Smith 1996). Flat irons have been used since the medieval period in Europe, consisting of a solid, triangular metal base with a metal or detachable wooden handle (ibid). This simple design, along with the box iron, which was hollow with a rear door for inserting hot iron inserts or coals, was popular in Colonial America. Flat or sad irons could weigh from five to nine pounds with some examples weighing more (Smith 1996). The heavy weight of these objects supports the supposition that these are flat rather than box irons. These simple irons were placed in the hearth and warmed to the proper temperature. If too hot, they would scorch the 36 clothing. Women in the household usually used at least two of these types of irons in tandem in order to have one heating while the other was in use. These irons are similar in form to those found on the 1782 Storm Wreck (McCarron 2016:172). Field Specimens 18SS-0388.1 and 18SS-389.1 were both recovered from Unit 11. Field Specimen 18SS392.1 was from a diagonally adjacent unit, 16, as was 16SS-69.1, in Unit 3. Though it would be typical for pairs of irons to be in contextual association with each other, the provenience and numbers of these irons suggests that they were being transported as cargo rather than personal items. Peach Pits A total of 76 different seeds or similar organic remains were found on site, ranging from unidentified seeds to a mangrove propagule (pod), nut shells, olive pits and peach pits. In many cases it can be difficult to determine if such organic remains are invasive materials to the shipwreck or were part of the vessel’s cargo. One exception is peach pits. Significant quantities of peach pits have Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology vessel (as opposed to oranges, which would have been exported from Florida to Georgia and the Carolinas). Pewter Plates FIGURE 2: Two of the eleven peach pits found in Unit 15. been found on the site (Figure 2). To date, eleven peach pits have been recovered, all from the dredge spoil. All but one was found in Unit 15. Due to the quantity and spatial distribution of the peach pits, it is believed that they were part of the vessel’s cargo and not intrusive to the site. Peaches were introduced into Colonial North America by the Spanish monks who traveled to and lived in St. Augustine, Florida with Pedro Menendez de Aviles in the 1560s. The peach became a common crop among the colonists in St. Augustine, as well as the surrounding native communities (Ruhl 2018). By the late 1500s, peaches had been introduced to St. Simons Island and Cumberland Island, Georgia by Franciscan monks (Hale Groves 2012). As missionaries traveled north and native trade occurred, the peach plant migrated north. By 1607, peaches were widespread in the mid-Atlantic region (Okie 2017). The Cherokee Indians were documented to have been planting peaches in Georgia and the Carolinas in the 1700s (Hale Groves 2012). Peach pits have been discovered on other shipwreck sites as well, including the Soldier Key Wreck (early 1700s), the Tortugas Wreck (late 1600s), and the Emanuel Point Wrecks (1559). Peaches were in season in Florida from mid-April to early May and in Georgia and South Carolina from midMay to late August. This could suggest a seasonal range indicating when the ship may have wrecked, though it is always possible that the peaches could have been preserved and were being shipped in the off-season. It should also be noted that St. Augustine’s most important trading partners during this period were the ports of Savannah and Charleston, both from a region where the commercial production of peaches thrived. This is the kind of cargo expected on an incoming merchant 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings Seven pewter plates were encountered in 2016, four of which were recovered (16SS-19.1, 16SS-84.1, 16SS87.1, 16SS-90.1). An additional plate and a separate rim section were recovered the following year (17SS-234.1, 17SS235.1) (Meide 2017:25). In 2018, concretion 18SS-387.1 was recovered, which included a partially exposed plate (Figure 3a). The legal standard for eighteenth century fine pewter consisted of 94 percent tin with a 6% mixture of other metals such as lead, copper, and antimony (Carlson 1977:65). The plate recovered in 2018 remains in relatively good condition and, like most of the others, appears to be a shallow-welled, single rim pewter plate. Based on the size and shape, this appears to be a trencher, intended for use by a single individual rather than as a serving platter. Pewter was a popular choice for tableware from the medieval period through the colonial period because it was relatively inexpensive (Gardener 1894: 629); however, it fell in and out of favor in the early 19th century. The single-reeded and smooth-edged rim styles present on the Anniversary Wreck plates provide a date range of ca. 1720-1800 (Neumann 1984:276-277). Tacks A great quantity of tacks have been x-ray imaged in 23 separate concretions recovered from the shipwreck. These concretions were collected from various units and depths which suggests that if they were a cargo item, they have been widely scattered by site formation processes. All of the tacks appear to be square-shanked with circular, concavo-convex heads around a half-inch in diameter. This style of tack originates in the seventeenth century; the earliest examples were typically up to one inch in diameter (Noël Hume 1969:227-228). These tacks were used for upholstery, either to decorate or anchor the leather on furniture, and likewise would have been used on leather-bound trunks or luggage. Their head size suggests a later date since brass tacks decreased in size during the eighteenth-century (Noël Hume 1969:228). Shoe Buckles One of the recently x-rayed concretions featured one shoe buckle and one fastener hollow (Figure 3b). A total 37 FIGURE 3: Concretions and their X-ray images taken by Starr Cox of (a) one protruding pewter plate alongside brass tacks and Rupert lead shot, (b) one brass shoe buckle and one fastener hollow, and (c) a keyhole alongside Rupert lead shot. of thirteen whole and partial buckle frames have been recovered from the Anniversary Wreck to date. All but one of the stylistically similar frames were located in a relatively confined area, suggesting they were cargo rather than personal items. This is in contrast to those found on the Storm Wreck, a refugee vessel with many passengers, where shoe buckles varied in material, style, and provenience (Brendel 2016:191). 38 This type of brass shoe buckle was common from the first half of the 16th century, though they have not usually been found on American sites until the early 1700s. Their use was revived just before the 1690s and remained fashionable until after the French Revolution in 1789 when they became unpopular. They are very rarely found after 1815 on American sites (Noël Hume 1969:86). All buckles found on the Anniversary Wreck site lack any decoration. The frames are a simple shape Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology that more closely resembles an oval than a rectangle due to its rounded edges. The frames have been curved to fit the top of the foot, are flat in cross-section, and feature a Type 1 pin terminal (White 2005:34). Keyhole Escutcheons, Key, and Tap Figure 3c shows a small concretion, Field Specimen 17SS-276.1, which features an exposed keyhole escutcheon. This key plate is simple and is devoid of any decoration, suggesting that it dates to during or after the 1760s, when larger, decorative keyhole escutcheons began to go out of style (Noël Hume 1969:231). A similar keyhole escutcheon can be seen in x-ray imagery of another concretion (18SS-375.1), along with a key. The key may not have been intended for the associated keyhole plate, however, as it appears to be a keg tap key. A brass keg tap was recovered in 2018, embedded in concretion 18SS394.1, and is partially visible in x-ray imagery. Door Knobs Two door knobs were found during the 2018 excavations. One is embedded in concretion 18SS-377.1 from Unit 1 and has not been measured, though x-ray imagery suggests it is similar in form and size to the second specimen (18SS-383.1), which was discovered loose in Unit 15. The exposed knob is brass, oval in shape, and may have part of its spindle in the back of its neck (Figure 4). Door knobs in the eighteenth century ranged in shape and make. The early eighteenth century, when door knobs first gained popularity, saw a spherical brass knob. Door knobs were more ovular in the mid-eighteenth FIGURE 4: One of the two door knobs found in Anniversary Wreck’s assemblage. 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings century. By the end of the century, door knobs had become flat and circular, a form which continued well into the nineteenth century (Noël Hume 1969:246). This suggests the Anniversary Wreck door knobs date to the middle of the 18th century. It has not yet been determined if these knobs were part of the ship’s cabin hardware or if they were a cargo item. If more are found, it is more likely that they were intended for the St. Augustine market. Conclusion Data gleaned from this shipwreck continues to grow after three seasons of formal excavation, leading to an evolving and better understanding of this shipwreck. The Anniversary Wreck features a dense deposit of material culture buried more than a meter below the sand, and further excavation promises more material. The great quantity of cauldrons, barrels, plates, and buckles, and their stylistic homogeneity, indicate that this ship was a merchant vessel loaded with cargo, attempting to enter St. Augustine when it ran aground and broke up on the bar. All of these objects could be seaborne imports that would have been valued in St. Augustine’s markets. Other hardware items discovered in the 2018 season, including tacks, door knobs, locking mechanisms, and the tap, could also be cargo items. It appears that most of the diagnostic artifacts are of British origin. This does not necessarily mean that the ship was British, as an early American vessel might be plying similar wares, or a Spanish vessel might have been trading illegally with British colonies (Harman 1969; Deagan 2007). But a strong possibility remains that this ship was English. Many of the artifacts are datable, and suggest with a good degree of certainty a date range of 1765-1800. Much of this analysis is in a preliminary stage, and the date range can be further narrowed with continued excavation and analysis. This three and a half decade span was a period of cultural transformations in St. Augustine, as it shifted from Spanish to British and then back to Spanish control. It is evident that this shipwreck site has significant archaeological potential. This is the only colonial-era merchant vessel that has been discovered in the waters off America’s oldest port, and it features a wealth of material culture. Further excavation will lead to a greater understanding of the nature and extent of the wreckage and its cultural and temporal origins. Once the ship’s date and nationality are refined, then archaeologists can bring into focus the cargo items and better understand 39 this ship’s role in the emerging global capitalist system. The continued archaeology of the Anniversary Wreck will allow for more meaningful questions and an informed exploration of 18th-century consumerism and its reflection of the desires and needs of St. Augustine’s colonial population during a time of sociocultural change. Acknowledgments The 2015-2018 excavations were funded by field school fees and with grants from the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State through the Florida Historical Commission. Dave Howe, Mike Potter and Kevin Carrigan have provided research vessels, and the Hutcherson family dock space, to support our research. The project’s success ultimately lies with the team of LAMP and St. Augustine Lighthouse & Maritime Museum staff, students, and volunteers who have given time, talent, and passion to this shipwreck. There are too many to name here, but thanks to everyone. References Brendel, Hunter 2016 Personal Items from the Storm Wreck. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2016, edited by Paul F. Johnston, pp. 187-193, Washington, D.C. Carlson, Janice H 1977 Analysis of British and American Pewter by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Winterthur portfolio. Vol. 12. pp. 65-85. The University of Chicago Press. Karklins, Karlis (Editor) 2000 “Historic Door Hardware” Studies in Material Culture Research, Society for Historical Archaeology pp. 79-80 McCarron, Christopher 2016 Household Artifacts from the Storm Wreck. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2016, edited by Paul F. Johnston, pp. 169-176, Washington, D.C. Meide, Chuck 2017 The Investigation of the Anniversary Wreck, a Colonial Period Shipwreck off St. Augustine, Florida: Results of the First Excavation Season. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2017, edited by John Albertson and Frederick H. Hanselmann. Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, Forth Worth, TX. Meide, Chuck 2018 The Investigation of the Anniversary Wreck, a Colonial Period Shipwreck Lost off St. Augustine, Florida: Results of the 2017 Excavation Season. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2018, edited by Matthew E. Keith and Amanda M. Evans, pp. 21-29. Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, New Orleans, LA. Neumann, George C. 1984 Early American Antique Country Furnishings: Northeastern America, 1650-1800. McGraw-Hill, New York. Noël Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America pp. 250251 Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI. 2001 If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Pottery. Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI. Deagan, Kathleen 2007 Eliciting Contraband through Archaeology: Illicit Trade in Eighteenth-Century St. Augustine. Historical Archaeology 41(4):98-116. Okie, William Thomas 2017 The Fuzzy History of the Georgia Peach <https:// www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fuzzy-historygeorgia-peach-180964490/>. Gardener, J. Starkie 1894 Journal of the Society of the Arts Vol. 42. No. 2167 June 1, 1894 Royal society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. London. pp 627-648 Ruhl, Donna 2018 Object 85: Peach pits (Florida Museum of Natural History.) <https://www.floridamuseum.ufl. edu/100years/peach-pits/>. Hale Groves 2012 Georgia Peaches Have a Rich History https://www. halegroves.com/blog/georgia-peaches-have-a-richhistory/ Harman, Joyce Elizabeth 1969 Trade and Privateering in Spanish Florida 17321763. St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida. 40 Smith, Leslie 1996 The Sad Iron(y) of These Collectibles. Chicago Tribune <https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ ct-xpm-1996-08-11-9608110129-story.html>. Schoepf, Johann David 1911 [1788] Travels in the Confederation (1783-1784). William J. Campbell, Philadelphia. Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology Veilleux, Carolane and Chuck Meide 2016 The Archaeological Investigation of the Storm Wreck, a Wartime Refugee Vessel Lost at St. Augustine, Florida, at the End of the Revolutionary War: Overview of the 2010-2015 Excavation Seasons. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2016, edited by Paul F. Johnston, pp. 122-132, Washington, D.C. White, Carolyn L. 2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 16801820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD Silvana Kreines LG2 Environmental SoluƟons 10475 Fortune Parkway Jacksonville, FL 32256 Cell: (917) 757-2984 silvana.kreines@gmail.com Chuck Meide Lighthouse Archaeological MariƟme Program (LAMP) 81 Lighthouse Avenue St AugusƟne, FL 32080 Cell: (904) 838-9059 cmeide@staugusƟnelighthouse.org Megan Bebee LG2 Environmental SoluƟons 10475 Fortune Parkway Jacksonville, FL 32256 Cell: (631) 258-4905 mbebee@lg2es.com 2019 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 41 Category A: Color Archaeological Site Image Nicole Grinnon, Site Assessments of the steamship Madison in Troy Spring Florida Public Archaeology Network | First Place Crystal Ptacek, Site overview in the woods at Monticello Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, Second Place Category B: Color Archaeological Field Work Mark Kostro, Screens, Robert Carter House, Williamsburg, VA Colonial Williamsburg | First Place Stephen James, I love my job, it is my chosen profession PanAmerican Consultants | Second Place Eric Larson, Excavations of Alexander Spostwood’s 1720s Enchanted Castle Germania Foundation | People’s Choice Category C: Archaeological Lab Work Sierra Medellin, Elevations Underground Archaeology beneath Mount Vernon Mount Vernon | First Place, People’s Choice Category D: Color Artifact Katherine Boyle, Fine Finish University of Maryland | First Place, People’s Choice Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology Category D: Color Artifact Sierra Medellin, Waiting for Discovery: A wine bottle in South Grove Mount Vernon | Second Place Category E: Black & White Image Mark Kostro, Bee Stopper Colonial Williamsburg Foundation | First Place, People’s Choice Category F: Color Archaeological Portraits Sierra Medellin, Backfill by the Potomac: Alice Keith at work in South Grove Mount Vernon | First Place Brandon Herrmann, UWF – No Limits, Pensacola, Florida University of West Florida | People’s Choice Category G: Diversity No Entry Category H: Artist’s Perspective Lily Carhart, Remains of 1880s Furnace in the cellar of George Washington’s Mt. Vernon Mt. Vernon | First Place Samantha Ellens, Worked Bottle Base Unaffiliated | Second Place