Deep Sea Detectives: Queen Annes Revenge

I watched that, it was a decent piece on the history behind Blackbeard.  Also, last week one of the cable channels they played a movie/bio on "Blackbeard" .  I wonder why the interest all of a sudden?  Whats', it's his birthday or something?

Jake

Jake

I am not sure what all of the interest is all of a sudden. It has been nice though to see these programs. Has even got me to thinking about building a pirate ship model.

I watched the program last night. Although turn-of-the-18th-century warships aren't really my thing, I've always been fascinated with underwater archeology and wreck diving.

It would seem logical that it's the Queen Anne's Revenge. The location, the history, and the fact that although large ships went missing all the time, it's rare for a 360-ton warship to disappear without some sort of record, at least at this point in history and with a ship within sight of shore.

Jeff

All that makes sense.  As I understand it (I repeat:  I haven't been directly involved in this project), the archaeologists and other researchers are using the phrase "likely the Queen Anne's Revenge" to describe the wreck.

Those people are nervous because so many shipwrecks have been incorrectly identified over the years.  Prominent examples include the alleged Niagara of the War of 1812, in Erie, Pennsylvania (which has been established to be, in reality, a merchant vessel from later in the nineteenth century) and the alleged H.M.S. Charon in the York River (which turned out to be a transport brig named Betsy).  When public attention gets focused on a project like this, scholarly objectivity and common sense all-too-frequently get thrown out the window.  When the two ECU archaeologists published their article asserting that the wreck off Beaufort might not be Blackbeard's ship, there was a firestorm of criticism among local merchants, businessmen, and investors.  If the thing turns out to be something else, organizations like the National Geographic and the History Channel will cease to be interested - and those local folks probably will lose a considerable amount of money.

As I understand it, the state of North Carolina is currently using the word "likely" in its press releases.  To my knowledge, nobody has suggested any other specific identity for the wreck.  It looks like it may well be the Queen Anne's Revenge.  But until and unless some artifact turns up that positively identifies it, I don't blame the archaeologists for telling us to watch our step.

Absolutely. What I find odd (in my limited knowledge of this event) is that there's no record of what happened to the QAR after she was run up on the shoal. There's no definitive account that says she sank, was salvaged, or was commandeered by another crew, pirate or otherwise.

It would seem likely that if she was taken back by the British and re-named, that those records or knowledge of the event (the re-naming) would have survived. British naval records (ship's logs, etc.) are pretty accurate and preserved, and the Admiralty and IWM have done a great job in preserving those documents.

What amazes me is that salvage and conservation of the site has been ongoing since 1997, and yet nothing definitively identifies the ship. I guess pirates didn't concern themselves with ship's silverware or embossed china. :-)

Jeff

(I really should learn to type)

I am glad to see the State of NC going about this with caution.  I too have seen a lot of spectacle and money made off of discoveries that were not even close to being the real thing.

I grew up on the Missouri River near where, according to the journals of Lewis and Clark, they cached a large iron framed boat.  This was also where Clark stumbled upon what he described a large white bear.

Back in the 1970's, some wealthy landowner up river built a large house on one of the islands that was fabled to be the island where Clark saw the bear.  He also spent large sums of money, mostly paid for by State and Federal grants, to find the iron boat.

Of course, based on his "Discovery of artifacts from the famed expedition" he built a  tourist attraction on his "White Bear Island".  All of these artifacts, pipes, bottles, utensils, were later dated at post mid 1800's.  He still made money off his claims to finding artifacts from Lewis and Clark.

However, a few of us were skeptical, and upon reviewing the maps from the journals and comparing the journals to a series of survey maps done from 1822 through 1977, we found that the river had altered coarse by 1/2 a mile, and the army at the turn of the century built the present island from dredging a channel for the silt to be used in the building of a road.

When we presented these obvious facts, we were totally ignored by the press, and State, and even the Feds told us to shut up about it.  It wasn't until years later that the University of Montana and the Lewis and Clark Interpretation Association finally came out and debunked the original claim of "White Bear Island" and that the original location may be under a housing development.

Now anyone, who wants to build a $250,000 home in the heart of Montana, can live on “White Bear Island” estates.  A half mile or more from the Missouri River.

 

Scott