BERMUDA JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY & MARITIME HISTORY 21 (2018), 41–84 The Ship Graveyard at Meyer’s Wharf: A History and Inventory Nathan T. Richards University of North Carolina Coastal Studies Institute & Program in Maritime Studies, East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina, 27858 richardsn@ecu.edu ABSTRACT: The remains of deliberately abandoned and salvaged watercraft in and around St. George’s Island are a cross-section of economic and technological change in Bermuda and may allow researchers to see the deliberate decision-making processes designed by local people to gain recompense from old or unwanted vessels. These ship graveyards also illustrate how geographic isolation and economic circumstance culminated in large accumulations of scrap metal and timber in Bermuda, and along with it, monetary gain. Hence, the vessels still found in the area also represent an opportunity to examine the social and economic meaning of Bermuda to visiting ships. In 2008, staff and students from East Carolina University documented an assemblage of ships lying at Meyer’s Wharf in Convict Bay. This paper attempts to compile a more complete inventory of the fleet of significant ships in a portion of St. George’s in order to move towards a better understanding of the extent of ship-breaking activities in Bermuda. INTRODUCTION The island of Bermuda is famous for its shipwrecks. The remains of vessels such as the 16th century Western Ledge Reef Wreck, Sea Venture (1609), a 19th century slave hulk, North Carolina (1880), HMS Vixen (1896), and the Bermuda Floating Dock (1906) have become famous shipwreck studies.1 A number of less-advertised studies of equally significant watercraft represent a cross-section of Bermudian history involving famous ships or catastrophic wrecking events, including the 16th century “New Old Spaniard Wreck,” the 17th century “Stonewall Wreck,” Hunter Galley (1752), an unidentified 18th century merchant vessel, the 18th century “Iron Knee Wreck,” L’Herminie (1838), Mary Celestia (1864), Nola (1864), HMS Ready (1940s), and HMS Pollokshields (1915).2 42 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Not as well-researched is wreckage adjacent to the shorelines of Bermuda belonging to ships brought into port and deliberately abandoned. These watercraft entered the island under a range of circumstances, and many ended up concentrated in the eastern portion of Bermuda, in and around the waterways of St. George’s Parish. Since at least the late 19th century, “paid-off ” or decommissioned Royal Navy vessels were taken to St. George’s to be modified for commercial roles. St. George’s also served as the major ship-breaking area in Bermuda.3 Three scenarios caused this fleet of hulks to accumulate in St. George’s over the last century. First, some ships operating in Bermuda were deemed useless or obsolete and were taken to St. George’s to be condemned, abandoned, and scrapped. Second, some vessels damaged en route to Bermuda were taken to St. George’s for repairs that were found to be cost-prohibitive. Last, watercraft wrecked adjacent to the island were refloated and brought to St. George’s for repairs. Frederick Kaiser explained: For as long as ships have sailed the western Atlantic, Bermuda has been both a lurking hazard and a port of refuge. Vessels in distress or those stranded on the outlying reefs and successfully hauled off, have been brought into St. George’s. In many cases, refit was economically unfeasible, and the vessels were sold and hulked where they lay.4 In lieu of becoming a hulk, or perhaps after a stint as a hulk or lighter, these ships were often discarded in St. George’s. However, their discard does not necessarily lessen their significance or research potential. Indeed, the husks of these old, unwanted vessels are layered with sometimes contested meanings—as summarised by Kaiser in relation to one of the vessels that will be described, the Taifun: In recent years, someone had painted “PRIDE” in bold white letters on her port bow, possibly as a protest to her continuing presence in a touristoriented economy. Take the old hull away, however, and only the sunken residue on the reefs remains to remind mariners to be vigilant, even in port.5 Indeed, international research suggests that unlike their shipwrecked counterparts, collections of deliberately abandoned vessels can be seen as a cross-section of economic and technological change in the adjacent community, and they may also allow us to determine and interpret the deliberate decision-making processes designed to gain recompense from old or unwanted vessels.6 Similarly, it may be surmised that the vessels still found in and around St. George’s represent a similar opportunity to examine the social and economic transformation of Bermuda through assemblages of discarded watercraft. In September and October of 2008, East Carolina University field MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 43 school researchers examined the remains of Bermuda’s near-shore abandoned ships and shipwrecks. This work began in December 2007 with an investigation of an unidentified steam lighter adjacent to the Royal Navy Dockyard for the Government of Bermuda. A March 2008 investigation identified and surveyed the remains of an internationally significant Medina-class gunboat.7 In summer 2008, Bradley Rodgers and Nathan Richards also led a group of researchers from East Carolina University to investigate the remains of two ironhulled sailing craft located in Black Bay known as Norrköping and Emily A. Davies.8 In fall 2008, Richards and David Stewart carried out a search and survey programme to find and record the remains of other abandoned vessels around St. George’s Island as part of a field school attended by graduate students from East Carolina University.9 The first goal of the study was to create a current list of maritime archaeological sites adjacent to St. George’s. Historical research focused on the lives of prominent ship-breakers such as ex-St. George’s Mayor William Meyer, who amassed a large collection of vessels adjacent to his St. George’s property.10 A second goal was to attempt to contextualise and interpret the ship graveyard. Around the globe very few sites have been studied, which represent the interaction of geographic isolation and economic conditions (the most prominent one being Port Stanley, Falkland Islands). While some abandoned ship assemblages located at remote island locales have been described in the past, no studies have focused on inferring behaviour from these archaeological sites, and comparing them to similar collections around the world.11 To undertake this study, a search for historical records (such as historical newspapers and marine insurance registers) occurred at East Carolina University, the Bermuda Library, the Bermuda Maritime Museum (now the National Museum of Bermuda), the Bermuda Archives, the Mariner’s Museum (Norfolk, Virginia) and the private collections of Bermuda residents ( Jill Amos Raine, Irving Hayward, and Anthony Pettit). Of particular importance was a large collection of legal cases from the Supreme Court of Bermuda in Admiralty located at the Bermuda Archives that included numerous actions for condemnation, wages, disbursements, salvage, damages by collision, necessaries, and possession. The project also entailed the survey of sites within St. George’s Harbour. Non-disturbance recording techniques were used, including diarised observations, photography, videography, and scaled mapping. Diver tow searches were employed to facilitate the discovery of new ship abandonment sites and salvage locations. This article will undertake a critical first step—presenting convincing arguments to connect the existence or lack of existence of debris (archaeological material) with named watercraft. It is hoped the next step will be a more in-depth analysis of the activities surrounding salvage and shipbreaking at St. George’s. 44 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 1: “Bermuda Islands,” showing sunken and abandoned watercraft i Fig. 2: “Bermuda Hamilton, 1883,” showing various locations of sunken and abandoned vessels around Bermuda ii MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 45 BACKGROUND TO SHIPBREAKING IN BERMUDA The true number of ships stripped, demolished or abandoned in Bermuda is currently unknown, but various researchers allude to it. In 1989, Frederick Kaiser, looking back on decades of visits to Bermuda, writes the following regarding the vessel Sally Wren: The still-lovely hull joined a group of similarly unfortunate vessels that were being plucked in those lovely but hazardous ‘Summer Isles.’ 12 While Kaiser was referring to a specific vessel (believed to be lying at Mullet Bay) he touches on the prevalence of the practice of abandonment in Bermuda. He also communicates the extensive nature of hulking and abandonment activities occurring across St. George’s Parish, stating “the small fleet of such craft seen here in the mid-Thirties is gone.”13 However, the phenomenon he describes stretches back much further in time. Carveth Wells, for example, noted the prevalence of abandoned vessels at points in the landscape in the 1930s. He writes: “Shut your eyes as you pass those hideous oil tanks and then watch for some interesting old wrecks as the train stops at Mullet Bay Halt.”14 Ronald J. Williams, writing over a decade later, makes a similar remark: “On still days it is possible to look down through the translucent waters and see the bones of many a rotting vessel.”15 Kaiser, Wells, and Williams were actually quite late in their commentaries on the various different clusters of dumping areas (individual ship graveyards) littered around the coastlines of Bermuda. Images of these disposal areas predate all their reminiscences by some time, as evidenced by R. T. Pritchett’s 1883 illustrations in Lady Anna Brassey’s famous travelogue, In the Trades, the Tropics, and the Roaring Forties (Figs. 1 and 2).16 These vessels were not simply abandoned and left to deteriorate. We know that humans continued to interact with them after their abandonment. A further complication is that these discarded vessels were likely salvaged over time, and at certain times were extracted completely from where they lay beached or scuttled. This is also mentioned by Kaiser: As late as 1935, one had no trouble finding graphic reminders of nautical misadventures in the ragtag collection of hulks, both sail and steam, that ended their days at the lovely islands. In 1981, however, I visited Bermuda after 45 years and found that things had changed—“cleaned up,” I suppose. And, of course, the vulnerable sailing craft navigated by old-fashioned ways are no longer around to maintain the supply.17 Indeed, on November 23, 1935, the government of Bermuda enacted the Wreck Removal Act.18 This gave the Minister of Marine and Air Services authority over “all wrecks, hulks and derelicts in the territorial 46 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS waters of Bermuda, or partly in the territorial waters of Bermuda,” powers to inquire whether a ship was likely to become a “wreck, hulk, or derelict,” as well as the ability to determine legal responsibility and ownership of ships and summon witnesses regarding such craft. Critically, it also gave the Minister the right to order “the sinking, destruction or disposal” (noted specifically in terms of removal, sinking or burning) of vessels “in such place and in such manner as the Minister may direct” and “carry out any act or thing necessary for the sinking, destruction or disposing of any such craft.” This minister also had the power to “demand, sue and recover” from the liable party “any sum or sums of money expended in the sinking, destruction or disposal” of a ship. This would occur via a notice in the Bermuda Gazette (or other “daily or weekly paper”) from the minister to the owner of a ship that if the vessel was not up to standard within a certain time; it would become the property of the government, and subsequently be destroyed. The cost of the destruction would be billed to the original owner of the vessel and collected via action in Supreme Court. The act defined the required standard of condition as “capable of being taken to sea.” Barring watercraft undergoing temporary repairs (over a short time period), a vessel not kept in such order, became known as a “hulk.” Punishment for not engaging in appropriate upkeep was three months in prison, a fine of $720, or both. Hence, the vessels currently found in a state of abandonment in and around the islands of Bermuda do not represent the full fleet of ships which could once be found littered around its shorelines. In many ways, they can be seen as watercraft that “slipped through the cracks” of the 1935 Wreck Removal Act. This is also interesting because evidence of scrapping (evident in the archaeological remains to be discussed) may have occurred with greater frequency after 1935. One article written by “J. C.” in 1943 regarding discarded watercraft at St. George’s, for example, notes that “this link with the past, however, is to be broken, for those responsible for the amenities and health of Bermuda have decided that wrecks are to be removed.”19 Correspondence held by the Bermuda Archives in association with this legislation reinforces that wreck removals occurred and shows that even as late as 1962 there was ongoing interest in the potential economic benefits of salvaging the abandoned and wrecked vessels littering Bermuda’s shores. In one instance a “Canadian engineer” is listed as being “interested in cutting up these Wrecks for scrap” under the provision of this act.20 With such spatial and temporal complexity, the true number of vessels abandoned, partially salvaged, or completely demolished in Bermuda can only be determined through detailed archival research and through systematic searches for their archaeological remains. Current knowledge indicates that there is a large number of abandoned MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 47 Fig. 3: Known ship graveyard clusters around Bermuda (Nathan Richards) iii watercraft clusters (individual ship graveyards containing more than one vessel in close proximity to another) located around Bermuda. Clusters exist at Black Bay (two vessels), Grotto Bay (three vessels), Meyer’s Slip/St. George’s Boatyard (three vessels), and Mullet Bay (at least three vessels) (Fig. 3). Bermuda’s best known ship graveyard is located in Convict Bay (also known as “Meyer’s Wharf ”). The few highly articulated ships lying at this location are signposts for what is likely the largest collection of deliberately abandoned vessels in Bermuda. MEYER’S WHARF SITE INVENTORY At least nine vessels lie adjacent to Meyer’s Wharf, within Convict Bay. While the dumped watercraft there are today’s ubiquitous signs of past shipbreaking and salvage in the area, in truth it is a vestige of a much larger and longer lived tradition of the dumping and demolition of damaged or unwanted watercraft within St. George’s Harbour. As one author notes: Long ago St. George’s Harbour was a graveyard for old ships. And soon after the World War (1914–18) when the order was given for the old hulks to be removed many were towed out to sea, blown up and sunk, and those that could not be towed out were sunk in the harbour. In the early ’80s there were so many distressed ships refitting in the harbour—50 or 60 even—that you could walk across them from St. 48 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS George’s to St. David’s lighthouse that guards the entrance. And there were two crack Philadelphia-built fast tow-boats kept specially to go to the assistance of ships in distress.21 However, the area has been used much longer as a ship breaking and dumping area, as evidenced by comments by Anna Brassey in 1885: In former times the visitor from other parts of the Bermudas to St. George had to reach that island by means of a ferry; but of late years a causeway, nearly two miles in length had been constructed over a series of reefs in St. George’s Harbour, and across Long Burd [sic] Island, ending in a swingbridge, which enables boats to pass through the channel. This causeway was commenced in 1867, and was finished in 1871, at a cost to the colony of £32,000. As we drove along this most interesting piece of engineering work, a strange sight met our eyes. I have already referred to the number of wrecks that are to be seen in the Bermudian harbours, but here there were wrecks on every side, including old hulks which had been brought up here to end their days, and to be broken up, and the remains of vessels which had been driven on to the rocks, and which were being gradually knocked to pieces by the fury of the sea and wind. It was a spectacle which would have caused consternation in the mind of a Lloyd’s agent.22 Brassey’s travelogue also includes an illustration of St. George’s titled “St. George’s and Wrecks” with a variety of dots purporting to denote a series of unidentified hulks or abandoned watercraft and wrecks within the bay (Fig. 4). There are many modern day views of the cluster of abandoned vessels at Meyer’s Wharf. Colour aerial photos published by Scott Stallard clearly show what we believe to be Taifun (1894–1920), Ready (1872–c. 1940s), Fraternité Fig. 4: “St. Georges and wrecks” iv (1918–19) and N. E. Turner (1917–19).23 The proximity of these highly visible old craft to the cruise ship berths at St. George’s make them some of the most visible “shipwrecks” in Bermuda, though the dumping of these four vessels significantly post-date the observations and images from Brassey’s visit. During the 2008 field season, the vessels in the vicinity of Convict Bay received the most attention from archaeologists owing to the location being the largest and densest collection of abandoned watercraft in MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 49 Fig. 5: Vessels studied in 2008 (Nathan Richards) v Bermuda. Over four weeks, at least nine vessels were confirmed as having been abandoned in the area adjacent to Meyer’s Wharf in Convict Bay (Fig. 5).24 However, due to rich archival sources pertaining to the shipbreaking that has occurred in the area over time, this is a base minimum estimation of the ships that once resided there—the true number being upwards of twelve or more abandoned watercraft. Just as the historical research, focused on marrying historical vessels to archaeological remains, varied from site to site, the methodologies for recording these abandoned watercraft varied according to time constraints. Below is a listing of the archaeological and historical research on the clustered abandoned vessels in St. George’s Harbour, a short discussion of other findings of historical research, and a synopsis of other activities during the field school. Site One: Fraternité (1918–19) A large debris field of timber and iron ship parts, including large portions of at least one intact vessel, received the most attention during the 2008 field season. This site was recorded via scaled drawing, photography, and underwater video. The site is a collection of numerous vessel parts but is dominated by the remains of largely contiguous early-20th century wooden vessel. Historical research and photographic evidence highly suggest that the remains are primarily those of the American-built (Tacoma, Washington state, 1918), French-owned Fraternité, which was wrecked on Bermuda’s Western Reef in 1919. 50 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 6: Orthographic drawing of archaeological debris at Site One, believed to correspond with Fraternité (Nathan Richards) vi MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 51 Major portions of the vessel were subsequently refloated and towed into St. George’s for salvage.25 The circumstances of its short life are outlined in Jean Haviland’s article “The Twilight of Auxiliary Steam”: Her keel was laid at Tacoma on 25 May 1918 and the vessel launched on 31 August and delivered on 7 October. She left Seattle on 19 November for Punta Arenas, where she is reported as arriving on 24 December. In January she was reported at Balboa with engine and boiler trouble, but eventually she got away and arrived at Savannah on 4 February 1919. On 7 March she sailed for Nantes, but put back on the ninth day with machinery damage and did not get away again until the twenty-ninth. Finally, on 3 April 1919, Fraternité stranded on the Western Reefs of Bermuda. Salvage operations were unsuccessful as far as the vessel were concerned. Her spars fell out during a gale on 22 April, the hull split fore and aft, and part of the port side broke off and drifted away. The water-tube boilers were washed to pieces, the port engine lay over against the starboard engine, and the donkey boiler rolled off and lay on the bottom nearby, the ship being thus a complete wreck. Her cargo included copper, which was all salved, and flour, of which a considerable part was salved in damaged condition. The remaining portions of the vessel and cargo (except the copper) were sold at auction and purchased by W. E. Meyer & Co.26 During the First World War, Allied nations endeavoured to mass produce wooden ships to offset the successful predations of German submarines. In the US, this shipbuilding activity was guided by the Emergency Fleet Corporation, the history of which is well documented.27 Less well advertised was a portion of this programme dedicated to building auxiliary schooners for the French government. Haviland’s article provides an overview of this initiative, which she considers to have constituted the “sudden” reintroduction of the “steam schooner” into maritime trade, precipitated specifically by the losses the French suffered due to German aggression, and their need to ensure that vessels with low operating costs were available for wartime trade.28 Fraternité was a part of a programme focused on building forty “polemast auxiliary schooners” at the Foundation Company (with shipyards based in Tacoma, Washington and Portland, Oregon). The vessels were built to a standard design by the New York-based naval architecture firm of Cox and Stevens.29 This design is described below: Their dimensions are: length over all, 280 feet; length between perpendiculars, 250 feet; extreme beam, 45 feet, 6 inches; deadweight capacity, 3,000 tons on a draft of 23 feet. They will be driven by two 350 horse-power, twin, steam engines at a speed of nine knots; and under sail and steam their speed will be several knots more, according to the weather conditions.30 52 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Full technical specifications of the vessel design is outlined in an article in the May 1919 edition of The Rudder, which confirms the dimensions outlined above, and adds the ships were built of Oregon fir (masts and spars were of Oregon pine). Critical in the correlation of the archaeological remains at Site One with the historical Fraternité, is a note that the “hulls are fully steel strapped,”31 a feature that is abundant on the site. Other features mentioned regarding these vessels which correlate with the archaeological remains are their frame dimensions (12-inch sided, 28-inch moulded) and frame spacing (36-inches between centres).32 Fraternité was the only vessel in its class to never reach France. The subsequent history of its sister-ships tells us that engine troubles contributed to these craft being quite unsuccessful. At least two dozen of these schooners were dismantled by the French government; others were wrecked. Haviland tells us that “thirty-three were gone by the end of 1924 and six more by the end of 1927.” The last vessel in service, Gerberviller, would be gone by 1931.33 Site Two: Suspected remains of Dorothea (1870–1913) or Duncrag (1881–1921) The remains of a vessel partially buried under concrete with a stern section protruding into the bay was recorded in 2008 (Fig. 7). According to a photograph and caption in Marion Robb’s 1975 article “Wrecks and Derelicts,” published in The Bermudian magazine, this is a vessel named Bisson (Fig. 8).34 However, British and American insurance registers contain no notation of a merchant vessel named Bisson or Bison (a potential name variation) which ended up in Bermuda or which is unaccounted for.35 The only currently identified Bisson was a French torpedo-boat destroyer (of the Bisson-class) of dimensions 255.34 feet length, 25.84 feet breadth, and 16.73 feet depth, built at Arsenal de Toulon and launched on September 12, 1912, in service during the First World War, and stricken from the record in June of 1933 with a notation, “went to the breakers in 1939” at an unknown location.36 The majority of wreckage at Site Two is almost certainly a fragment of stern, but as it shows no evidence of propeller shafts or shaft struts it is more likely a large fragment of a sailing vessel. Robb’s photograph also shows features not clear on today’s wreckage—Site Two clearly once had a pronounced rounded stern that tapers further towards the remains of Drudge than it does today (suggesting that its abandonment predates the disposal of Drudge). The 79-foot-long vessel fragment is now a patchwork of plates, with repairs littering the wreckage. Numerous bolts have been placed through the outer hull, many with hexagonal heads. L-frames along the port side once held a wooden fender. At the end furthest away from what was once the stern, a set of bitts or bollards (the terminology would depend on whether they were installed pre- or post-abandonment) MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 53 Fig. 7: Profile drawing of Vessel 2, suspected of being the remains of Duncrag or Dorothea (Nathan Richards) vii 54 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 8: Taifun, Ready, and Bisson (The Bermudian) viii sit for use in some post-placement function (as a wharf or breakwater). Interestingly, Robb’s 1975 article also includes another view of what she labels Bisson and almost certainly corresponds with Site Two. This time, however, Robb captions the photograph as a generic “unidentified wreck at St. George’s” (Fig. 9). This lends some credence to the idea that the identification of the third vessel as Bisson is mistaken. Rather, historical research has come up with two more promising historical candidates for Site Two. The first alternative candidate is Dorothea, mentioned by Milstead-Post as once lying off Meyer’s Wharf.37 Dorothea Fig. 9: “Unidentified Wreck, was a 190.1-foot-long, 33.5-foot-wide St. Georges” (The Bermudian) ix iron-hulled ship-rigged vessel of 1,033 registered tons and a 21.1 foot draft built by Reiherstieg Schiffswerft and Maschinenfabrik, Hamburg, Germany in 1870 (Fig. 10). The vessel traded out of Hamburg until the end of its life when it operated out of Loviisa, Finland under a Russian flag.38 In 1913, the Lumber Trade Journal notes that on December 14 Dorothea had left the US for Rio de Janeiro with 706,492 feet of pitch pine lumber.39 The Pittsburgh newspaper Gazette Times on January 18 paints the picture of its journey almost a month later: Russian Bark Dorothea Found; No News of Crew. Washington, Jan. 17: The abandoned Russian bark Dorothea was found by the revenue cutter MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 55 Fig. 10: Dorothea in full sail (Maritime Museum of Loviisa, Finland) x Seneca today drifting 450 miles east of Cape Henry, VA. This vessel, bound from Mobile to Rio Janeiro, is supposed to have been wrecked during one of the recent violent storms. Nothing is known as to the fate of her crew.40 The 1913 Annual Report of the United States Life-Saving Service further elaborates on how Dorothea arrived in Bermuda. According to an entry regarding the March 11 award of a silver medal to Carl J. F. Fredericksen (gunner, US Revenue Cutter Service) for bravery, the report notes that Fredericksen had saved the life of Seaman Kolbert who “was swept overboard from the derelict bark Dorothea, 300 miles north-west of Bermuda” on January 18, 1913.41 Years later the vessel would be featured in an article in Popular Mechanics, titled “Sea Rovers Battle Derelicts.”42 The article, focused on vessels found afloat at sea that refused to sink, would fill in how the derelict was found, and the time between its discovery and arrival in Bermuda (Fig. 11): Another metal ship which refused to sink for two weeks after being wrecked was the Russian bark “Dorothea.” This waterlogged derelict, with headbooms, masts, deckhouses, hatches and bulwarks washed away, continued to ride tempestuous waves. The doomed hulk floated with one side of the deck awash and the other side three feet above the sea. The wreck was reported as occurring about halfway between New York and Bermuda. A coast guard cutter spent ten days before it succeeded in locating the derelict one moonlight [sic] night when the visibility was one and one- 56 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 11: Dorothea in the wake of the hurricane, as seen from the Coast Guard cutter Seneca (Maritime Museum of Loviisa, Finland) xi half miles. The “Dorothea,” challenging the law of gravity, had been buoyed up by her cargo of yellow-pine lumber. Uncle Sam salvaged the wreck and the cargo. The Supreme Court of Bermuda in Admiralty entertained an action for condemnation in February of 1913. A series of memos explain that throughout the action, the name of the ship was only suspected as being Dorothea, but outlined on February 3 that the vessel was lying “on the Western side of the Narrows Channel at St. George’s” with the intention of having divers examine both sides of its hull in order to ascertain “the extent of any injury or damage.” By February 15 another memo noted that the vessel “now lying on the Western side of the Narrows channel at St .George’s, may be pumped out and towed into St. George’s or Hamilton Harbour” for the purposes of temporary repair. On March 11, 1913, the action file concludes with the Solicitor for the Crown consenting that the “vessel be released from arrest in this action, and the possession of the said ship or vessel be delivered to Messrs Darrell & James and W. E. Meyer and Co., the present owners thereof.”43 On March 11, 1913, The Royal Gazette includes the article “Repairing of Dorothea,” which explains: “On Saturday last, although the weather was so delightful to those on shore yet at sea it was so swelly that the work on stopping the leaks etc., to the hull of the Dorothea had to be intermitted as it was found impossible for the work to be continued in the swell.”44 By April 3 the newspaper had reported that “the derelict Dorothea has gone in to shallow water and at low tide presents considerable free board.”45 Seven days later, a more complete description of activities on the wreck was reported: MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 57 The attempt to raise the Dorothea on Sunday proved a failure, but it showed the workers what they will have to do. Operations will be resumed as soon as the weather permits. The Lusher brothers have rescued a silver watch, several trinkets and some Russian money all of which they are prepared to return to relatives of the crew who would care to have them. Some time ago it was reported that the crew of the Dorothea had been rescued and taken to England. It now appears that there was no truth whatever in the report and Mr. R. Spurling has received a letter from Russian parties in answer to one that he wrote to the affect that the crew have never been heard of and that the theory saw that the Dorothea capsized in the blow, drowned all of her crew, afterwards broke off her spars and then “uprighted.” The ship is 44 years old and at one time was a Cunard Clipper.46 No work appears to have occurred after this date until the tug Gladisfen arrived on April 28, with wrecking pumps.47 High seas and poor weather, however, prevented much from occurring on the wreck until May 17, when the ship was fully pumped out, and floated to Hamilton where most of its remaining cargo was unloaded with the intent that it travel to St. George’s afterwards.48 The refloating was outlined in some detail in a Gazette article, “Floated Derelict: Dorothea in Grannaway [sic] Deep.” It reads: The derelict Dorothea was raised at 10.30 o’clock on Friday night; the vessel at the time of raising suddenly listed and then righted herself. Mr Ashton Packwood stevedore who was on the Drothea [sic] deck at the time, was thrown backwards and falling received a severe blow on the back of his head; he rapidly recovered; by morning was able to continue working. The entire work of raising the Dorothea was done under the superintendence of Mr. William E. Meyer, who was most ably assisted by Mr. Perinchief, Engineer S. T. Gladisfen; Mr. Jas Pearson Engineer S. T. Powerful; Mr. Richard Pircher, master shipwreck; Mr. A. Packwood, stevedore; Mr. Robert Boddington, diver, and Messrs. Lusher bros. divers. Mr. Sylvanus Lusher has taken a great interest in raising the Dorothea but unfortunately for him, he was on board the Gleaner at the time of the floating of the derelict and had not the pleasure of being present at the critical moment. On Saturday forenoon the Dorothea was taken in tow by the S. T. Powerful and towed to Grannaway [sic] Deep the S. T. Gladisfen attending to the steering of the ship. All are agreed that it was the “Murcia’s” nine inch pump that did the trick. Many difficulties had to be overcome and much hard work had to be done during the course of raising the derelict. We understand that the hull of the Dorothea is uninjured and that it does not leak in any place. It was found difficult to feed the nine inch pump and many holes more than were anticipated had to be made in the bulk heads in order to get the water in sufficient quantities to keep the pump going.49 58 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 12: Duncrag c. 1870 (Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA) xii Two other incidents involving Dorothea were reported in the Gazette, which indicates the vessel remained in Hamilton for some time. On May 31, Gladisfen was called out to pump water out of the hull following the development of a leak.50 On July 12, 1913, another article notes, “The Gladisfen has raised the Dorothea’s and her own anchors which had been left in Five Fathom Hole some months ago,” indicating that it had been moved from Hamilton sometime in June.51 After this note, no other references to the ship have been found until the Gazette tells of a westerly storm that hit Bermuda on Monday February 10, 1919.52 The reference makes the following potential reference to Dorothea: “At Meyer’s wharf the aged iron Dorothy made an excellent breakwater and under her lee many craft sought shelter; there was the Hooper Bros. scow with its 8 or 9 tons of anchors and chains.” For this reason it is much more likely that Site Two is that of the historical Dorothea, although due to its degree of burial another similarly sized ferrous-hulled vessel, Duncrag, also serves as a candidate, though it is less certain. Duncrag (Fig. 12) is first mentioned in the Greenock Advertiser on November 3, 1881: This forenoon, shortly after ten o’clock, there was launched from the shipbuilding yard of Messrs Russell & Co. a finely equipped barque of the following dimensions: 200 ft. long, 32 ft. 6in. in breadth. She is 900 tons register tonnage but capable of carrying 1,500 tons. She has been built to the order of Mr. James Dunn, Glasgow, and after being fully fitted out will MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 59 proceed to Glasgow to load for Sydney. As she left the ways she was named the Duncrag.53 An article in The Marine Engineer periodical provides further details: Duncrag: On November 3, Messrs. Russell & Co. launched from their Port Glasgow yard a barque of the following dimensions—Length, 200 ft.; breadth of beam, 32 ft. 6 in.; depth of hold, 19 ft. 7in.; and of 900 tons. The new barque has been built for Messrs. Dunn & Co., of Glasgow, and is the seventh vessel built by Messrs. Russell & Co. on identical lines.54 Current research does little to inform us about the history of the vessel, but we know that in April of 1921, the owners, master, and crew of the steamer Cardiff Hall brought an action for salvage against the cargo and freight of Duncrag within the Bermuda Admiralty Court.55 In court documents, Joseph Darrell (a resident of Hamilton and representative of Hansen Brothers, Ltd. of Cardiff, Wales) tells how Cardiff Hall towed the dismasted Duncrag from 9:30 a.m. on March 29, to 6 a.m. on April 7, 1921 (a distance of around 1,388 miles) to a location within five miles of St. David’s Lighthouse. Captain F. Pettersen, master of Duncrag, was interviewed on September 13 that year in Bermuda, followed by the interview of the late master ( James V. Reed) and Chief Engineer (Augustus A. Davies) of Cardiff Hall on February 12, 1924 at Cardiff, Wales. The testimony of Reed is the most enlightening as it tells how Duncrag, enroute to its ultimate destination of Buenos Aires (from Galveston, Texas) with a cargo of sulphur, was dismasted. The captain of Cardiff Hall contends that Duncrag had departed Galveston on February 7, and was dismasted on March 27. At the time of rescue there was two feet of water in the hold. According to J. V. Reed: “I could see myself that the decks were opened up and they were patched over with canvas,” adding, “the main and mizzen masts had gone” (broken at the decks) and only the foremast was standing. At the time of Cardiff Hall ’s rescue, Duncrag was exhibiting the international signal “M” and “Y” meaning “I am disabled.” In July 1921, Messrs. William E. Meyer and Company would also bring to the court an Action for Necessaries for the sum of £924.15.8. The court documents note that on October 5, “Marshal in Admiralty paid into Court £2,056.1.0 being the proceeds of the sale of the defendant ship “Duncrag” and her cargo (Hull etc. £1,400. Cargo of sulphur £275. Sundry articles aboard £381.1.0).”56 The reason Site Two may equate to Duncrag comes from a short paragraph from Frederick Kaiser, who mentions that maritime historian and author Robert Burgess recalled arriving at St. George’s in 1936 in a four-masted schooner where the cargo of Norfolk coal was “discharged into an old iron hulk, the onetime square-rigger Duncraig 60 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 13: Orthographic drawing of archaeological debris at Site Three, an unidentified wooden vessel (Nathan Richards) xiii MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 61 [Duncrag], condemned there after sea damage.”57 The slightly larger, sleeker Duncrag, described as a “hulk” (a vessel that could potentially be moved) is a less likely candidate than the broader and more “permanently” located “breakwater” Dorothea. Nevertheless, both remain historical candidates for the structure at Site Two, and only an additional indepth examination of the construction details of Site Two (and perhaps an archaeological excavation of the debris) will clear up any questions regarding identity. Site Three: Unidentified wooden wreckage Discovered during survey, and recorded to scale, Site Three represents a lightly-built wooden vessel (Fig. 13). The site contains approximately 71 ft. of keelson with some associated highly deteriorated wooden and iron debris (perhaps not related to the wreckage). Small remnant frames (approximately 6 inches between centres) are irregularly spaced along the keelson structure, and highly degraded outer hull planking remains adjacent to the western portion of one keelson section. Iron bolts also run along one side of the keelson. While the remains are currently unidentified, one of two vessels mentioned in a 1943 magazine article about the vessels lying at St. George’s (Gautina and Una, Fig. 14) may correspond with the remains. However, a search of marine insurance registers over the period does not provide any evidence of a sailing, steam, or sail vessel matching this size, hull material or names (including name variations) Fig. 14: The wrecks Una and of these watercraft.58 Gautina in 1943 xiv Site Four: Unidentified wooden wreckage Discovered during survey, and recorded to scale (Fig. 15), Site Four, which lies adjacent to Site Three, represents the remains of a currently unidentified small wooden vessel. The significantly salvaged and deteriorated vessel consists mostly of a 36 foot section of keelson, and other debris (including a small section of intact framing and outer hull planking). A small section of what appears to be port or starboard frames and outer planking lies on the eastern side of the largest timber (perhaps a keelson), with frame spacing being around 18 inches (between centres). The spacing between these frames seems to suggest that the vessel is not a portion of wreckage related to Site Three or Site Five, though it may indicate that the size of the original vessel was closer to Site Five. Also like Site Three, the only leads on a possible identity remain references to vessels such as the aforementioned Gautina and Una. 62 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 15: Orthographic drawing of archaeological debris at Site Four, an unidentified wooden vessel (Nathan Richards) xv MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 63 Fig. 16: Orthographic drawing of archaeological debris at Site Five, an unidentified wooden vessel (Nathan Richards) xvi 64 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Site Five: Unidentified wooden wreckage Discovered during survey, and recorded to scale (Fig. 16), Site Five is nestled between Drudge (Site Eight) and Site Two. At the centre of the remains are a 70-foot section of keelson and an extensive area of framing and external planking. Owing to the shape of the debris field, the width of the keelson, and the dimensions of the scantlings and fasteners within it, it is likely that the remains are only a small portion of a much larger wooden vessel. Frame spacing (centres) is around 20 inches. Currently no historical research strongly suggests a historical candidate for the site. There is also the possibility that the site represents a portion hull from one of the other ships broken up in Convict Bay. Historical research continues in search of possible clues to the identity of the remains, and future survey of Site Six may illustrate correlation between watercraft remains. Like Sites Three or Four, Una and Gautina are candidates, but no photographs showing any vessel lying in this area have been found. Site Six: Possible remains of N. E. Turner (1917–19) Lying on the far eastern side of the ship graveyard are the remains of at least one wooden ship which was identified as Site Six during the 2008 fieldwork. While this site was not surveyed in detail during the survey (inspection was limited to the collection of photographic stills and video footage), historical research tends to support its identification as N. E. Turner.59 According to the Record of American and Foreign Shipping of 1918, the single-decked auxiliary schooner N. E. Turner hailed from Lake Charles, Louisiana and was built in Westlake, LA by the Clooney Construction and Towing Company in February, 1917 for the vessel’s namesake, N. E. Turner. The vessel had dimensions of 187.1 feet length, 38.3 feet breadth, and 13.1 feet depth, and a gross tonnage of 724 tons (620 net tons). The ship was built of oak and yellow pine and was fastened with galvanised iron. It had two oil-powered engines with a combined power of 400 indicated horsepower.60 The 1918 register also notes that the vessel was salted. According to Charles Desmond, salting consists of: …filling all open spaces between frame timbers, from keel salt stops, with coarse rock salt. Salt is an excellent wood preservative, especially in damp places and where air cannot freely circulate, and it has been found that if all open spaces between the frame timbers of a vessel be filled with salt, the timbers will resist decay longer than unsalted timbers will. For this reason all insurance classification societies will add a named period (usually one or two years) to a vessel’s classification if vessel is salted while on the stocks or building ways.61 MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 65 The Lumber Trade Journal carried a short article on the launching of N. E. Turner that denotes a different owner, noting that the vessel was “built for the Vinegar Bend Lumber Company, but was later sold by that company to a Central American Concern.”62 As it turns out, Captain N. E. Turner was the owner of the Vinegar Bend Lumber Company, located in Vinegar Bend, Alabama.63 About a month later a portion of an article in the Marine Review differs slightly by suggesting a “South American company” purchased the vessel, and adds that it was worth $125,000 upon launch.64 Little is currently known about the life of N. E. Turner over the first year and a half of its existence. What is known, however, is that on June 24, 1919, The Royal Gazette included an article titled “The Derelict Schooner: Theories of Her Abandonment Will be Settled now that Locals have Discovered her Identity.”65 The article outlines how the rescued vessel was lying off Ireland Island, and although the ship’s name was clearly indicated on the ships’ name board, there was initially confusion because the name could not be found in Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. Theories emerged that the crew had been captured by a German U-boat and that the derelict had been unsuccessfully scuttled. The article outlines that the vessel had departed New Orleans, Louisiana on May 11, 1919 carrying tobacco and had made it to Norfolk, Virginia around May 23, 1919 before departing Norfolk with a load of lumber destined for somewhere across the Atlantic. The state of the vessel upon its discovery is also described: Great pieces of timber had been hurled about her decks by the seas that came aboard and lay about in confusion. Her masts had been chafed and worn by contact with loose balks and massive beams. The tempest must have been of a most violent character.66 As of June 1919 the whereabouts of the captain and crew were unknown. The periodical The Eastern Underwriter confirms the details above, but communicates that the vessel had been bound for Bordeaux, France when it was stricken, and that it was “towed into Bermuda by a Government Vessel.”67 Following its original mooring off Ireland Island, N. E. Turner was moved from a mooring off the Naval Hospital (Great Sound) to a mooring “at or near Bart’s Island” around October 4, 1919.68 On October 27, 1919, William G. Holmes, the ship keeper of N. E. Turner, accepted an offer from Mr. H. L. Johnson (and one other man) to pump out the hull of the vessel for the sum of £6/week. This hand pumping, scheduled to commence on November 3, was to keep the amount of water in the hull to a maximum of two feet.69 A report of survey written by official marine surveyors N. W. Hutchings and J. W. Lambert on January 1, 1920 describes the condition 66 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS of the vessel, which was at the time located at Granaway Deep: Cutwater torn from fastenings and twisted over to Port, Bobstays parted and partly gone, Forward house wrecked and the interior fittings gone, Fore boom and gaff broken, Pinrail on port side split in three places, Starboard main rail split in three in places, Wedges around foremast partly gone, Mainmast badly chafed, Main rigging on stbd site torn from chainplates and chain-plates bent and twisted and one gone, Mizzen boom broken and stbd rigging parted from chain-plates and turnbuckles broken, Cabin doors and slide torn away and gone, interior of cabin badly wrecked. Practically all the running gear, blocks etc. are gone, Hatches all gone, Main deck in the centre is started up from ½” to 1½” from after end of after hatch, Decks leak in places. Wood ends after are slack and oakum spewed out, Rudder casing under counter started up and seam around same open. The strake of outside planking just above the present waterline shows signs of being slightly wormed. Bottom of vessel very badly coated with marine growth. We consider the hull and appurtenances of the vessel are depreciating in condition and value more and more every month that she remains in the present state and position. The vessel has been lying in these waters since early in June 1919, we threfore [sic] consider the underwater body is now more or less wormed, and the damage to the bottom planking caused by worms will naturally increase as long as she remains in the water without being dry docked, bottom cleansed and coated with metallic paint, or sheathed in metal.70 On January 12, 1920, an Action for Salvage was brought against “The Ship ‘N. E. Turner’ and her cargo” by the Bermuda Transportation Company, Ltd. The writ reads: “The Plaintiffs, as the Owners of the Steamship ‘Ajax’ claim the sum of one thousand pounds for salvage services rendered to them to the said Ship ‘N. E. Turner’ and her cargo on the fifth, sixth and seventh days of January 1920 in the waters of the Great Sound, north of Darrell’s Island, Bermuda; and for costs.” The file of the action also notes: “This Writ was served by the undersigned Ernest Hugh Watlington by attaching it for a short time to the mainmast of the Ship ‘N. E. Turner’ and by leaving a copy of the writ attached thereto on the thirteenth day of January 1920.”71 No records of the results of this action have been located. Around January 19, 1920, the ship was noted as lying “at anchor “between Darrells and Hawkins Islands in the Great Sound.” At this time the vessel was said to be “in very bad condition and…leaking badly.”72 By April 24, the Acting Marshall of the Supreme Court in MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 67 Bermuda noted that the costs of keeping the vessel afloat were accruing beyond the worth of the ship. His memo includes the note that “the ship is a wooden ship, not coppered, and is liable to deterioration from attacks of teredo worms, which infest these waters. From the attacks of these worms no uncoppered wooden ship is long immune.” He also mentions that the rate of leaking had increased.73 By April 24, 1920, the cost of pumping the hold had increased to £13/week and the accrued costs of pumping had reached £220, in addition to another £250 for the employment of a watchman.74 On July 19, 1920, an action for salvage and towage was filed in the Supreme Court in Admiralty by the owners, master and crew of the steamtug Powerful. The writ associated with the case was for £500 for: …salvage services rendered by them [Powerful] to the said Ship “N. E. Turner” and her cargo by towing the said Ship from about eight miles East North East of St. David’s Lighthouse to Grassy Bay and anchoring there, and by pumping the said ship in Grassy Bay on the 10th, 13th, 27th and 30th June 1919, the said prior service having been rendered on the 7th June 1919; and the Plaintiffs claim the further sum of thirty pounds for towing the said Ship and her cargo from Grassy Bay to Hamilton Harbour on the 30th June 1919; and for costs.75 The Nautical Gazette, August 14, 1920 also included a short synopsis under the title “Novel Admiralty Award,” which reads: The Admiralty Court at Bermuda last week awarded the United States Navy $5,000 for the salvage of schooner N. E. Turner of Philadelphia by the United States steamer Rockdale. The claim was said to be the first of its kind to be adjudicated. The N.E. Turner, which is listed at 629 tons, sailed from New Orleans for Bordeaux with a cargo of tobacco and lumber early in May, 1919. She was abandoned about 600 miles east of Cape Henry and later picked up by the steamer Rockdale and towed to Bermuda.76 On November 18, 1920, another Action for Salvage was brought against the same defendants by the “Owners, Commander and Crew of the United States Government Ship ‘Rogday,’ ” for £1,158/1/6. The file noted that on October 4, 1920, the hull and fittings of N. E. Turner were sold for £1,750, and its cargo of pitch pine lumber and oak stave were sold for £100 and £220 respectively (a 5 percent commission was paid to the auctioneer, F. B. Spurling).77 The site correlates with a vessel identified by Robert Burgess as N. E. Turner (see Fig. 17). Until a full survey of the site is undertaken, however, it cannot be definitively proven. 68 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 17: Taifun (in background) and the N. E. Turner in 1936. It is possible Reviver (ex Isla De Luzon) is hidden on the port side of N. E. Turner (The Bermudian)xvii Site Seven: Taifun (1894–1921) ex-Ancon, ex-Nordstjerne Perhaps the most noticeable shipwreck in all of Bermuda are the remains of the three-masted steel-hulled barque Taifun (sometimes misspelled Taifon or Taifeen). Taifun (Official Number 102392) was built at Greenock on the River Clyde in October 1894 as Ancon by the famous shipbuilding firm of Russell and Company, for James McDonald and J. L. Adams and Company (operating as the Ancon Ship Company, Ltd.). The dimensions of the vessel were 236.4 feet length by 36 feet breadth and 21.7 feet depth and its tonnage was 1,454 gross tons (1,334 net tons). Ancon was single decked (but with two tiers of beams), had a 32-foot-long poop deck, 31-foot-long forecastle, a cemented bulkhead, and a 9-inch bar keel (Fig. 18). The barque also sported water ballast tanks. Between its construction in 1894 and 1903, the vessel had two different masters (T. E. Blagdon, and J. Watson) was registered at Greenock and Glasgow, and underwent periodic surveys at Greenock, Glasgow, and Barry.78 Around 1910 the barque was purchased by Norwegian interests out of Tvedestrand (R. Salvensen and Company) and was eventually purchased by another Norwegian interest (A/S Stjerman, part of H. Jacobsen and Company, Sarpsborg) and became Nordstjerne.79 Francis Clark cites that as Nordstjerne the vessel operated as a tramp sailor from 1918–19, making voyages between Melbourne and Boston, New York and Buenos Aires, and Buenos Aires to the Straits of Dover before the vessel returned to Antwerp.80 In February 1920, while in MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 69 Fig. 18: The three-masted barque Ancon, c. 1894 (Brodie Collection, La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria)xviii port, the vessel was sold to new owners out of Stockholm, Sweden (Rederi AB Taifun) and renamed Taifun under Captain Hjalmar Olsson. Taifun completed a voyage to and from the US before embarking on one last journey from Ålborg, Denmark (departing October 7, 1920) to Boston with china clay (some sources say Dover chalk), as well as apparel, furniture and other provisions. A hurricane and multiple subsequent gales damaged various parts of the vessel on October 24, 27 and 29 and again on November 29 and 30. Eventually, Taifun was partially dismasted and was forced to seek assistance in Bermuda on December 7, 1920, where the vessel was eventually repaired.81 On February 1, 1921, Taifun had been granted a certificate of seaworthiness by N. W. Huthings (Official Surveyor) in Bermuda. This certificate allowed the vessel to be towed to any port in the US to have its damaged sails and rigging repaired. However, at 10:30 a.m. on February 6, 1921, the barque was struck at Murray’s Anchorage by the US-flagged steamer Coahoma County, which had dragged its anchor while in St. David’s Bay. Taifun had been waiting for the tug Vindal (inbound from Havana, Cuba), which was to tow the vessel to Boston. The damage to stem and forecastle was estimated at £20,000 plus £2,800 for unloading and docking. Additionally, the damage meant that the owners of Taifun were sued by the owners of Vindal (Vindal Company Inc.) for breach of contract (for the amount of $7,500). This spelled the end for the ship—its owners decided not to repair, and instead (with the begrudging permission of the underwriters) Taifun was condemned as a constructive total loss. At this stage the owners 70 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS lost interest in the unlucky ship and it was purchased by William E. Meyer. He partially dismantled Taifun and towed it to the position it occupies today off Meyer’s Slip, where it was scuttled as a breakwater sometime in June 1921, the china clay reputedly still in the hull.82 A lawsuit brought against Coahoma County found that its master, Williams H. Huggitt, was to blame for the accident by failing to keep proper lookouts, exonerating Taifun’s master L. Anderson of any blame.83 Frederick Kaiser in a caption to one of his photographs of Taifun taken in 1989 notes: “Beached at St. George’s, off Meyer’s Wharf, she was located at a site where old hulks, distressed and sold for scrap, were systematically stripped. The small fleet of such craft seen here in the mid-Thirties is gone. Only the Scottish-built steel hull remains.”84 While Kaiser is wrong in his assertion that Taifun is “all that remains,” the identity of Site Seven is not in doubt. Site Eight: Drudge (1872–c. 1940s) ex-HMS Ready The composite-hulled Royal Navy gunvessel HMS Ready was a Kestrel-class vessel (155 feet long, 25 feet wide, 11 feet draft) built in 1872 at Chatham Dockyard. After a long and varied carrier, Ready was decommissioned in Bermuda in 1891, and in 1894 became the tank vessel Drudge. It ceased to be used in this function in the 1920s and was sold to William Meyer in 1920. From 1931–34 the vessel was used by William Beebe for his oceanographic expeditions. It is believed that Ready was left in its current position adjacent to Meyer’s Wharf sometime in the mid-1940s where it was used as a breakwater. Previously studied by Sarah Milstead-Post, and extensively documented in secondary sources, Drudge was not studied during the 2008 field season, and its identity is not questioned.85 Site Nine: Debris field An extensive debris field containing large amounts of ballast, anchors and chain plates off the working dock was discovered close to the end of the 2008 field season. The general extent of the debris field was roughly delineated for possible future examination, but could hold the remains of two or three vessels. POTENTIAL PARTIAL AND TOTAL SHIP DEMOLITIONS Historical and archaeological evidence confirms that Meyer’s Wharf was an active shipbreaking yard. While the vessels that still remain in the yard are testament to the ship abandonment activities which were a by-product of ship salvage and breaking, they are not indicative of the entirety of the shipbreaking business. To get a more complete picture, we have to account for vessels documented as being partially scrapped, or totally demolished there. In some cases, debris fields may MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 71 represent intermingled remnants of numerous watercraft. Although demolition processes do not appear to be well documented in the historical record, some photographic records may help us fill in some ship breaking activities. Take for example an image of the graveyard held by the Mariner’s Museum (Fig. 19) dating to the 1930s. Working from left to right we can see the side of Taifun, an unidentified craft, an unidentified iron vessel (corresponding with Site Two), Drudge (Site Eight), wreckage corresponding with the debris of Fraternité (Site One), an unidentified ferrous-hulled craft, and N. E. Turner (Site Six). Whereas two of the three unidentified sites listed above do not correspond with archaeological sites, identifications can be proposed from details in the historical record—and in some cases, these vessels may suggest that some debris strewn across the bay may represent the results of ship-breaking activities that saw vessels partially dismantled. In addition to the mysteries relating to the identities of ships discovered during the 2008 expedition, there are also a number of vessels of unknown fate that have emerged from archaeological and historic research. Indeed, a 1974 article by John L. Lochhead, lists 42 vessels “wrecked and condemned” at Bermuda between 1890 and 1931. Excluding vessels listed as wrecked at a particular locality, known to lie elsewhere, or listed in this article, there are over 20 watercraft noted variously as “condemned,” often a synonym for “broken up.”86 The four following watercraft have been selected, based upon research as having once potentially resided at, or were perhaps partially dismantled or totally demolished at, Convict Bay. Charybdis (1893–c. 1922) Philippe Rouja first communicated to the author that a vessel named Cerebitus, an old gunboat and later freighter, was in Bermuda from around 1919–21 and was eventually beached next to Taifun before its refloating and transportation to New York for scrapping.87 It is possible some of the remains of such vessel may still reside at Meyer’s Wharf. No vessel named Ceribitus has been located in the historical record associated with Bermuda—but it is possible this is actually a reference to a vessel with a name of close phonetic association, Charybdis. Piers Plowman and Stephen J. Card include two images of a passenger steamer owned by Furness Withy named Charybdis in their book Queen of Bermuda.88 However, the ship in question is more likely the HMS Charybdis noted by Roger Willcock as serving Bermuda around the time of the First World War.89 This vessel was a 4,360 ton, 320foot-long, 49-foot-wide Royal Navy Astraea-class cruiser built at Sheerness in 1893. The vessel was laid up at Bermuda in the aftermath of a collision in January of 1915 and pressed into harbour duties. Willcock also notes: 72 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Fig. 19: Meyer’s Wharf, 1930s (from left): 1. Taifun, 2. unknown, 3. Drudge, 4, submerged remains of Fraternité, 5. suspected hull of Reviver, moored, and 6, N. E. Turner (Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA)xix MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 73 Perhaps the greatest loss was the interruption of regularly scheduled steamship service with the United States, brought about by the withdrawal of merchant shipping for trans-Atlantic trooping and for the carriage of supplies to the theater of operations. This was partially solved by pressing into service on the New York run an antiquated cruiser, HMS Charybdis, which, following conversion for this duty, operated back and forth across the Gulf Stream to North Atlantic ports during the closing months of the war.90 After this short stint as a cargo vessel, Charybdis was sold out of service in 1922 and soon sold to be broken up, travelling to the Netherlands to be scrapped. Some remains may still lie off Convict Bay. Gladisfen (1885–c. 1940) Oral historical accounts have suggested that Site Six (suggested above to be N. E.Turner) is the remains of the Meyer Corporation tugboat Gladisfen. Although Gladisfen was likely scrapped in the 1940s, it does not appear that its remains now reside at Meyer’s Wharf. This is because Gladisfen (Official Number 57885) was a much smaller, ironhulled vessel screw tug (built in 1885 at Camden, New Jersey) of 118 gross tons and dimensions of 93 feet length by 20 feet breadth and 10.7 foot depth of hold, while Site Six represents a wooden shipwreck of much larger dimensions.91 It is possible, however, the unidentified craft lying alongside Taifun in (Fig. 19, label 2) could be Gladisfen, and it is very likely that at some time the vessel was moored at Meyer’s Wharf. An additional photograph of Taifun taken by John Noble and reproduced by Frederick Kaiser also shows a small vessel lying alongside Taifun in 1935.92 Reviver, ex-HMS Isla de Luzon (1886–c. 1930s) Sarah Milstead-Post notes that the old warship Isla de Luzon was once located off Meyer’s Wharf.93 Isla De Luzon was built in 1887 at Newcastle upon Tyne, England, by W. G. Armstrong-Whitworth and Co. Ltd. for use as a protected cruiser by the Spanish Navy. It served in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, where it was scuttled in 1898 to evade capture by US forces. Two years later the US Navy refloated and repaired the vessel, and it became USS Isla De Luzon. Around 1919 it was struck from the Navy List and soon after acquired by a New York firm trading out of Nassau, Bahamas called the Bahama and West Indies Trading Company (at which time it acquired the name Reviver and the Official Number of 151864). Around 1923, it was sold to Bahama Salvors, Ltd. (of Nassau).94 Carveth Wells, in Bermuda in Three Colours, notes that the vessel’s last owner was William Meyer and that he had taken possession of a vessel “once the pride of the Spanish Navy.” 95 Indeed, in the first part of 1923, at least six lawsuits were levelled against Reviver at the Supreme 74 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS Court of Admiralty in Bermuda (various actions for salvage, wages, disfurnishment, and necessaries against Bahama Salvors, Ltd.)— grievances which likely precipitated its purchase by William Meyer.96 Various sources note a scrapping date for the vessel either in the 1930s or 1940s, though the location of its demolition is not known. Other than Taifun, there is only one other set of ferrous-hulled vessel remains lying at Meyer’s Wharf—represented by the structure at Site Two. The archaeological site does not conform to the historical dimensions of Reviver, which as previously mentioned appear to correspond with a sailing vessel. However, there is some photographic evidence that Reviver, like other vessels, did for a time either reside at Meyer’s Wharf while in use or while awaiting scrapping. Figs. 17 and 19 show different perspectives of St. George’s Harbour and include images of a ferrous-hulled vessel lying alongside a wooden sailing craft of comparable size. This appears to equate to the abandoned N. E. Turner (Site Six) and Reviver, which may have been afloat. Given that Reviver was 195 feet in length and N. E. Turner was 187 feet in length, it provides some circumstantial evidence supporting both identifications. Shah (1873–c. 1934) Sarah Milstead-Post notes that the old warship Shah was once located off Meyer’s Wharf.97 Ships of the Royal Navy contends that Shah became a coal hulk known as C.470 in 1904 and “wrecked” at Bermuda in 1926.98 Indeed, information from the Bermuda Archives contains correspondence confirming that Shah was in Bermuda and had become a coal hulk.99 On December 11, 1919, the general manager of the Bermuda Bunkering Company wrote to the Colonial Secretary for permission to propose to the Governor a mooring position for the coal hulk Shah. The intention of the request was to find a sheltered location with a good mooring and convenient approach off the Dockyard. The mooring anchors would be three four-ton anchors, each with 330 feet of cable. On December 13, 1919, the Governor corresponded with Vice Admiral Sir Morgan Singer to pass on a letter from the Bermuda Bunkering Company which had requested to moor the coal hulk Shah on the “North Shore of these Islands.” The letter is seeking the opinion of naval authorities on the matter, and has a handwritten note that he “Personally…object[s] to this but should like your opinion.” On December 21, 1919, the Vice Admiral Commander-in-Chief wrote to the Governor that he had no objection to the mooring of Shah in the proposed position, adding: “The position is as safe a place as can possibly be found at Murray’s anchorage, and does not in any way affect the passage of ships up and down the channels. On December 22, 1919, the Colonial Secretary wrote to the general manager of the Bermuda Bunkering Company in St. George’s that the Colonial Government did not object to the mooring of the coal hulk Shah. MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 75 Shah, however, has a history much more colourful than that of a coal hulk, and its final days were not as a shipwreck in 1926. Launched in 1873, Shah was a 335-foot-long, 52-foot-wide, 6,250-ton iron-hulled, teak-sheathed frigate, and according to Admiral George A. Ballard, a Zulu War (1879) veteran, the “largest square-rigged ship without armour protection ever launched from British shores,” and also the last iron-hulled ship officially classed as a frigate.100 An article from 1934 gives us a more in-depth synopsis of the history of Shah, and also provides a photograph of its last days: The Shah was once one of Her Majesty’s men-o’-war, a proud 26-gun frigate, ship-rigged, with two funnels and a single screw. She was manned by 602 officers and men, and flew the pennant of Rear-Admiral Frederick Rous de Horsey in battles fought off the South American coast in the seventies. One of her duties was to protect the lives and properties of British nationals in the South Pacific; another to guard British mail packets which were often preyed upon by rebels and “liberators” of the South American republics. Mr. William E. Meyer of St. George’s acquired the dismantled hulk of the Shah in 1892 when she was sold as junk by admiralty marshals. He paid about £7,000 for her, and since then she has been used as a coal hulk, moored off the North Shore near the swing bridge at St. George’s. In July of this year came the German tugboat Max Berendt to tow the Shah to Copenhagen. Messrs. Petersen and Albeck, shipbreakers of the Danish city, bought the hulk from Mr. Meyer for £3,000. That seemed a lot to us, but when she was built the Shah probably cost around £600,000. She was constructed of fine teakwood, heavily armoured, with brass bolts. The timber can be used for furniture and her brass is worth a good deal. There is a better market in Europe for old hulks than in America, and Mr. Meyer told us that he turned down an offer of £7,000 for the Shah just a short while ago. That was the price he paid for her thirty-six years back, but at that time perhaps he was unable to overcome a sentimental attachment to the old ship. You see, Mr. Meyer collects old ships, an odd but lordly hobby, anyone must admit.101 This is also mentioned in two quotes by Carveth Wells: If you have been to Bermuda before, look out to sea on your left and you will miss one of Bermuda’s oldest sea monuments, the old hulk that used to be anchored off the shore and that was a source of mystery to many. All that is now left of her is her name Shah in Persian characters, which you will find in St. George’s Historical Society. Built in 1873 in England, the Shah was a frigate with a complement of 602 officers and men. It was never 76 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS intended to call her the Shah but the time of her launching coinciding with the visit of the old Shah of Persia to England, His Unimpeachable and Glorious Majesty was invited to christen her, so he decided to name her after himself. After twenty years’ service in the navy, the Shah was towed to Bermuda to become a coal hulk in the service of Mr. W. Meyer of St. George’s and for another forty-two years she remained at anchor and became the subject of all kinds of exciting yarns, but in November, 1934, Mr. Meyer sold her and she was towed to Europe to be broken up.102 While historical research has determined that HMS Shah was actually broken up in Europe, it cannot be ruled out that major portions of the vessel were removed in Bermuda and may still lie on the bottom at St. George’s.103 CONCLUSION The 2008 expedition was successful in consolidating information relating to a large number of unstudied watercraft and beginning the task of deciphering the historical and archaeological jigsaw puzzle that has been left to us thanks to late-19th and early-20th century watercraft abandonment and shipbreaking activities around St. George’s. In some cases, sites were recorded in detail and now deserve further study, and in other cases new sites were discovered (or re-discovered) for future detailed recording. Historical research has also come up with a number of new names to research that may correlate with the unidentified remains noted in this report. By no means, however, is every mystery solved. Nevertheless, the historical record has thus far not shed light on other vessels mentioned as broken up in the aforementioned areas. Vessels such as Gautina and Una, shown in photographs, are currently nowhere to be found in the archaeological record. The whereabouts of the remains of other confirmed derelicts, such as Charybdis, Duncrag, and Reviver, are currently either unknown or cannot be married to structures or debris at Meyer’s Wharf with any level of certainly. Additionally ships not discussed in this article, such as Emma Knowlton, John S. Emery, Irrigus, Truxillo, Viper, and Britannia are noted in the literature as having become derelict, foundered, wrecked, or broken up in the vicinity of the study area, but cannot currently be connected specifically with Meyer’s Wharf.104 The archaeological research has already given clues to the scope of salvage activities in the area, and historical research has demonstrated that a diverse array of vessels were bought and sold for the purposes of salvage and shipbreaking in Bermuda over an extended period of time. Together, the historical and archaeological research shows promise in MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 77 allowing us to reconstruct the economic and technological processes that drove ship purchasing and salvage behaviours in the 19th and 20th centuries, which may give insight into the role of shipbreaking and salvage in the Bermudian economy. As of the time of writing, we now have an updated archaeological site inventory of deliberately abandoned vessels and associated debris in St. George’s, and can provide management recommendations on over a dozen sites. The current state of historical and archaeological research, however, allows us only to hypothesise about the role of geographical and economic factors in archaeological site formation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks must go to my colleagues in the Program in Maritime Studies (Department of History, East Carolina University) for their unwavering assistance during our field school, Dr. David Stewart and Calvin Mires. A number of members of the public were also very helpful, including Amos Raine, Irving Hayward, and Anthony Pettit. Peter Campbell and Lindsay Smith made a special trip to the Bermuda Archives to carry out a gargantuan photocopying task. The students, who were at the core of data collection, are owed special credit. These were Peter Campbell, Jeannette Hayman, Morgan MacKenzie, Jacqueline Marcotte, Tyler Morra, Eric Ray, Lindsay Smith, John Wagner, and Elizabeth Wyllie. This project could not have occurred without the assistance of the National Geographic Society and the Waitt Foundation for Discovery (in particular Mark Christmas, Chris Sloan, and Dr. Fabio Amador). Additionally, Dr. Edward Harris, Elena Strong, Andrew Harris and other staff of the National Museum, as well as Dr. Philippe Rouja and Mandy Shailer of the Department of Conservation Services, Government of Bermuda, were pivotal in providing support and logistics for fieldwork. I would also like to thank Calvin and Dwayne Trott of the Bermuda Sea Cadets (T.S. Admiral Somers) for their hospitality with lodgings. Important logistical support and advice came from other employees at East Carolina University, including Melody Bentz (Grants and Contracts, Research and Graduate Studies), Steve Sellers (then Director, Diving and Water Safety, Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, and our field school Diving Safety Officer), and Dr. John Chinn (Director, University Office of Research Compliance and Administration, Research and Graduate Studies). Kurt Knoerl and Michelle Damian have my appreciation for the concepts, design, and construction of the digital exhibit with the Museum of Underwater Archaeology that accompanied this project. Finally, Priscilla Delano has my gratitude for proof-reading. 78 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS ENDNOTES 1 See Allan J. Wingood, “Sea Venture: An interim report on an early 17th century shipwreck lost in 1609,” in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA), Vol. 11, No. 4 (1982), pp. 333–47; Allan J. Wingood, “Sea Venture: A second interim report, part 2: The Artefacts,” in IJNA, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1986), pp. 149–59; Jonathan Adams, “Sea Venture: A second interim report, part 1,” in IJNA, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1985), pp. 275–99; G. B. Elliott, “The Sea Venture Wreck (1609), Bartmannskrugg and its connection with North Germany,” in IJNA, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1986), pp. 69–71; F. G. Aldsworth, “Excavations at the Former Royal Naval Dockyard, Bermuda: A Nineteenth Century Slave Hulk,” in Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History (BJAMH), Vol. 1 (1989), pp. 109–30; Richard A. Gould, “HMS Vixen: An Early Ironclad Ram in Bermuda,” in BJAMH, Vol. 1 (1989), pp. 43–81; Richard A. Gould, “The Wreck of the Barque North Carolina, New Year’s Day, 1880,” in BJAMH, Vol. 13 (2002), pp. 2855; John W. Morris, “The Preliminary Analysis of the 16th Century Vessel Remains Recovered from the Western Ledge Reef, Bermuda,” in BJAMH, Vol. 5 (1993), pp. 58–69; Richard A. Gould & Donna Souza, “History and Archaeology of HM Floating Dock Bermuda,” in BJAMH, Vol. 7 (1995), pp. 157–86; Daniel Berg & Denise Berg, Bermuda Shipwrecks: A Vacationing Diver’s Guide to Bermuda’s Shipwrecks (Baldwin, New York: Aqua Explorers Inc., 2006). 2 Gordon P. Watts, “A Decade of Shipwreck Research in Bermuda,” in BJAMH, Vol. 5 (1993), pp. 12–57; Gordon P. Watts, “A Second Decade of Shipwreck Research in Bermuda,” in BJAMH, Vol. 14 (2003), pp. 61–147; Michael Cameron Krivor, Archaeological Investigation of an EighteenthCentury British Merchant Vessel, Chub Heads Cut, Bermuda (1998), unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Program in Maritime Studies, East Carolina University (ECU), Greenville, North Carolina; Gordon P. Watts & Michael Cameron Krivor, “Investigation of an 18th-century English Shipwreck,” in BJAMH, Vol. 11 (1998), pp. 69–89; Sarah Waters, The Historical and Archaeological Investigation of L’Herminie (1999), unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Program in Maritime Studies, ECU; James Christopher Southerly, Cedar on the Reef: Archaeological and Historical Assessments of the Eighteenth-Century Bermuda Sloop, Exemplified by the Wreck of the Hunter Galley (2003), unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Program in Maritime Studies, ECU; Sami K. Seeb & Clifford Smith, “A Preliminary Report on the History and Archaeological Research Completed on the Wreck of HMS Pollokshields,” in BJAMH, Vol. 15 (2004), pps. 129–40; Sarah Milstead-Post, Defining Her Kind: An Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the Composite Built Gunvessel HMS Ready (2007), unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Program in Maritime Studies, ECU. 3 Anna Brassey, In the Trades, the Tropics, and the Roaring Forties (New York: H. Holt and Company, 1885), pp. 391–97, 426-427; J. C. [pseudonym], “Shipwrecks of Bermuda,” in The Bermudian, July 1943, pp. 12–13, 20, 25; Ronald John Williams, Bermudiana (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 79 1946), pp. 55; Frederick F. Kaiser, Built on Honor, Sailed With Skill: The American Coasting Schooner (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Sarah Jennings Press, 1989), pp. 237–39. 4 Kaiser, p. 237. 5 Ibid., p. 239. 6 See for example Nathan T. Richards & Mark Staniforth, “The Abandoned Ships Project,” in Historical Archaeology, Vol. 40, No. 4 (2006), pp. 84–102; Nathan T. Richards, Ships’ Graveyards: Abandoned Watercraft and the Archaeological Formation Process (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2008); Nathan T. Richards & Sami K. Seeb, eds., The Archaeology of Watercraft Abandonment (New York: Springer Press, 2013). 7 See Nathan T. Richards & Joseph C. Hoyt, Unidentified Harbour Wreck: Report of Fieldwork, December 2007 (2008), report to the Government of Bermuda and the Bermuda Maritime Museum, Program in Maritime Studies, ECU; Nathan T. Richards & Joseph C. Hoyt, “Dockyard workhorse: Unidentified wreck is likely a forgotten steam lighter,” in MARITimes, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2008), pp. 18–19; Nathan T. Richards & Joseph C. Hoyt, “A Bermudian Workhorse: The Dockyard Lighter Wreck, Royal Naval Dockyard,” in BJAMH, Vol. 20 (2013), pp. 7–28; Nathan T. Richards, Calvin Mires, Joseph C. Hoyt & Peter Campbell, The St. George’s Boatyard Wreck, Report of Fieldwork, March 2008 (2008), report to W.E.C. Limited, Program in Maritime Studies, ECU; Nathan T. Richards, Calvin Mires, Joseph C. Hoyt & Peter Campbell, “A gunboat rediscovered,” in MARITimes, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2008), pp. 11–12; Nathan T. Richards & Peter Campbell, “The Meyer’s Boatyard Vessel, Part 1: The Historical Significance of M-Class Gunboats,” in BJAMH, Vol. 20 (2013), pp. 182–204. Nathan T. Richards, Peter Campbell, Calvin Mires & Joseph C. Hoyt, “The Meyer’s Boatyard Vessel, Part 2: The Archaeological Investigation of an M-Class Gunboat,” forthcoming. 8 See Bradley A. Rodgers, Nathan T. Richards, & Theresa Hicks, “Skeletons in Black Bay: Wrecks bridge the gap between iron- and steel-hulled sailing ships,” in MARITimes, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2008), pp. 14–16. 9 Overviews of the field school can also be read about in Lindsay Smith, “2008 Fall Field School: Stationed on the Eastern End of the Island,” in Stem to Stern, Vol. 24 (2009), pp. 13–14. Additionally, in September of 2009 the Museum of Underwater Archaeology Online posted an online exhibit of the expedition entitled East Carolina University’s 2008 Bermuda Field School: www.themua.org/exhibit_ecu/ 10 Sarah Milstead-Post, in her study of HMS Ready, noted that Meyer was supposed to have the “only privately owned warship flotilla in the world,” p. 48. 11 See for example, Peter Throckmorton, “The American Heritage in the Falklands,” in Sea History, Vol. 4 (1976), p. 35; J. Smith, Condemned at Stanley: Notes and Sketches on the Hulks and Wrecks at Port Stanley, Falkland Islands (Chippenham, Picton Print, 1985); E. Southby-Tailyour, Falkland Island Shores (London: Conway Maritime, 1985); Nicholas Dean, “Falklands Wrecks and Hulks,” in Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology 80 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS (London: British Museum Press, James P. Delgado, ed., 1997) pp. 148–50. 12 Kaiser, p. 242. 13 Ibid., p. 245. 14 Carveth Wells, Bermuda in Three Colors (New York: Robert McBride and Company, 1935), p. 177. 15 Ronald John Williams, Bermudiana (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1946), pp. 55. 16 Brassey 1885 indicates that drawings in the book were originally drawn in 1883 by R. T. Pritchett and later engraved on wood by G. Pearson and J. Cooper. 17 Kaiser, p. 237. 18 Government of Bermuda, Wreck Removal Act, 1935 (no. 45) (enacted November 23, 1935). 19 JC, p. 12. 20 Clues to the extent and nature of salvage activities after enacting of the Wreck Removal Act can be found in Supreme Court in Admiralty in Bermuda, “CS64 File No. 2221 Shipping: Wrecks, Sale of,” 1919, Bermuda Archives, Government of Bermuda, Hamilton. 21 J.C., p. 13. 22 Brassey, pp. 426–27. 23 Scott Stallard, Bermuda Aerial Views (Toronto: Boulton, Howard and King, 1992), p. 98. 24 Field school participants in 2008 also inspected, photographed, and in some cases surveyed other abandoned vessels at Grotto Bay, Mullet Bay, and St. George’s Boatyard, which are not be mentioned in this article. 25 The Royal Gazette, April 5, 1919, p. 1f, April 8, 1919, p. 1f, April 10, 1919, p. 3a, April 24, 1919, p. 1d, May 6, 1919, p. 1e, May 13, 1919, p. 5e, 5f, May 27, 1919, p. 3a; Terry Tucker, Beware the Hurricane! The story of the Cyclonic Tropical Storms That Have Struck Bermuda, 1609–1995, 4th edition (Bermuda: The Island Press Ltd., 1996), p. 159. 26 Jean Haviland, “In the Twilight of Auxiliary Steam,” in The American Neptune, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1972), p. 16. 27 See for example, W. C. Mattox, Building the Emergency Fleet (New York: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1970; W. J. Webb, “The United States wooden steamship program during World War I,” in The American Neptune, Vol. 35, October, 1975, pp. 276–88. 28 Haviland, pp. 5–33. 29 Arthur F. Aldridge, “Designs: 3,500-Ton D.W. Auxiliary Schooners built for France,” The Rudder, May, 1919, pp. 244–46; Anonymous, “Wooden Ships Versus the Submarine,” in Scientific American, June 29, 1918, pp. 588–89. 30 Ibid. 31 Aldridge, pp. 244–46. 32 Haviland, pp. 8–9. 33 Ibid., pp. 16, 29. 34 Marion Robb, “Wrecks and derelicts,” in The Bermudian, July, 1975, p. 26. MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 81 35 This includes searches of the Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1857–1920, Mercantile Navy List, and Lloyd’s Register of Shipping. 36 Robert Gardiner, All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1906-1921, US Naval Institute Press, p. 203; The New York Times, August 16, 1915; Ernest N. Janson, “Torpedo-boat destroyers Bisson and Renaudin,” in Journal of the American Society for Naval Engineers, Vol. 26, No. 2, May 1914, pp. 575–83. 37 Milstead-Post, p. 48. 38 Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1881, 1882, 1884, 1903. 39 Lumber Trade Journal, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1, 1913, p. 41. 40 The Gazette Times, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, January 18, 1913. 41 United States Lifesaving Service, Annual Report, 1913, p. 14. 42 G. H. Dacy, “Sea Rovers Battle Derelicts,” in Popular Mechanics, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1930), pp. 258–61. 43 See Supreme Court of Bermuda in Admiralty, “Our Sovereign Lord the King and His Office of Admiralty against the ship or vessel name unknown supposed to be called “The Dorothea:” Action for Condemnation,” VA 101/1913(43). Bermuda Archives, Government of Bermuda, Hamilton [SCBA]. 44 The Royal Gazette, March 11, 1913, p. 2e. 45 Ibid., April 3, 1913, p. 4a. 46 Ibid., April 10, 1913, p. 4c. 47 Ibid., April 15, 1913, p. 1d, May 1, 1913, p. 1e. 48 Ibid., May 8, 1913, p. 2c, May 20, 1913, p1c. 49 Ibid., May 20, 1913, p. 2c. 50 Ibid., June 3, 1913, p. 1c. 51 Ibid., July 12, 1913, p. 4a. 52 Ibid., February 13, 1919, p. 3a. 53 Greenock Advertiser, November 3, 1881, p. 2. 54 William George Neal, ed., “Launches and Trial Trips: Launches–Scotch (December 1, 1881),” in The Marine Engineer: A Monthly Journal of Marine Engineering, Shipbuilding and Steam Navigation, Vol. 3, April 1881–March 1882 (London: Office of Advertisements and Publication), p. 208. 55 SCBA, “The Owners, Master and Crew of the Steamship ‘Cardiff Hall’ against the Ship ‘Duncrag’ her cargo and freight: Action for Salvage,” VA 101/1921(87). 56 SCBA, “Messrs. William E. Meyer and Company against the Norwegian Barque ‘Duncrag’ and her Captain: Action for Necessaries,” VA 101/1921 (88). 57 Kaiser, p. 237. 58 J.C., p. 12. 59 The Royal Gazette, June 24, 1919, p. 4c; Robert H. Burgess, “To Bermuda By Air,” in The Bermudian, June 1956, p. 37; “Once a Graveyard of Ships,” in The Bermudian, September 1970, p. 26; Tucker, p. 161. 60 Record of American and Foreign Shipping, 1918: p. 507. 61 Charles Desmond, Wooden Ship-building (Lanham, Maryland, Vestal Press, 1998), p. 103. 82 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS 62 The Lumber Trade Journal, April 1, 1917, p. 18 63 This connection is noted in “Motorship notes,” Motorship, Vol. 2, No. 11, November, 1917, p. 8. 64 H. H. Dunn, “New Orleans Wants Canal,” in The Marine Review, June 1917, p. 224. 65 The Royal Gazette, June 24, 1919, p. 4c. 66 Ibid. 67 Eastern Underwriter, “June 1919, Losses,” July 4, 1919, p. 18. 68 SCBA, “The Owners, Commander and Crew of the United States Government’s Ship ‘“Rogday’ Plaintiffs, against the ship ‘N. E. Turner’ her cargo and freight, Defendants: Action for Salvage,” VA 101/1920(65). 69 Ibid. 70 SCBA, “The Bermuda Transportation Company, Limited, against The Ship ‘N. E. Turner,’ and her cargo: Action for Salvage,” VA 101/1920(73). 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 SCBA, “The Owners, Master and Crew of the Steamtug ‘Powerful’ against The Ship ‘N. E. Turner’ and her cargo: Action for Salvage, and Towage,” VA 101/1920 (77). 76 The Nautical Gazette, Vol. 99, August 14, 1920, p. 214. Similar details are also outlined in Nauticus: A Journal of Shipping, Insurance, Investments and Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 117, August 14, 1920, p. 36. 77 SCBA, “The Owners, Commander and Crew of the United States Governments Ship ‘Rogday’ Plaintiffs, against The Ship ‘N. E. Turner’ her cargo and freight Defendants: Action for Salvage,” VA 101/1920(65). 78 Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, 1896–97:AMY-ANC, 1897–98:AMS-AND, 1898–99:ANA-AND, 1899–1900:ANA-AND, 1901–02:AMY-AND, 1903–04:AMO-AND; Edinburgh Gazette, December 29, 1908, p. 1,427. 79 Sten Lille & Lars Grönstrand, Finlands Djupvattenseglare [The Finnish Deep-Water Sailers] (Etela-Suomen Kustannus oy Lieto, 1979). 80 Francis Clark, “Taifun and other hulks,” in Sea Breezes, Vol. 32 (New Series), No. 192, p. 258. 81 Sources such as Tucker (p. 162) and Robb (p. 40) contend that the disabling of Taifun off Bermuda occurred in 1918. This is not borne out by primary sources concerning the vessel’s final voyage or the well-documented incident with Coahoma County in 1921. 82 The Royal Gazette, August 31, 1921, p. 3a, September 21, 1921, p. 2b; Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, Statistical Summary of Vessels of 100 Tons and Upward (1922), p. 8; Clark, pp. 458–59; Robb, p. 40; Kaiser, pp. 237–39; Milstead-Post, p. 48; Burgess, 1970, p. 26; Tucker, p. 162; SCBA, “Bunkering Company against ‘Taifun’: Action for Necessaries,” VA 101/1924(91). 83 SCBA, “The Owners of the Barque ‘Taifun,’ plaintiffs against The Owners and other persons interested in the Steamship ‘Coahoma County,’ MEYER’S WHARF SHIP GRAVEYARD • 83 defendants: Action for Damages by Collision,” VA 101/1921(86). 84 Kaiser, p. 245. 85 See Milstead-Post; Tucker, 161. 86 John L. Lochhead, ‘Sailing Ships Wrecked and Condemned at Bermuda, 1890–1931: Extracted from Lloyd’s Wreck Returns,” in Bermuda Historical Quarterly (BHQ), Vol. 31. No. 2. (Summer), pp. 47–50. 87 Philippe Rouja, personal communication, February 22, 2008. 88 Piers Plowman & Stephen J. Card, Queen of Bermuda and the Furness Bermuda Line (Bermuda: Bermuda Maritime Museum Press, 2002), pp. 41–42. 89 Roger Willcock, Bulwark of Empire: Bermuda’s Fortified Naval Base, 1860–1920 (Bermuda, Bermuda Maritime Museum Press, 2nd. edition, 1988), p. 148. 90 Ibid. 91 Mercantile Navy List, 1910, p. 202; 1915, p. 232; 1920, p. 229; 1930, p. 216; 1940, p. 152. 92 Kaiser, p. 243. 93 Milstead-Post, p. 48. 94 Lawrence Sondaus, Naval Warfare, 1815–1914 (London: Routledge, 2001) pp. 174–75; Paul H. Silverstone, The New Navy, 1883–1922 (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 72; John D. Alden, The American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the US Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet, 1907–1909 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1972), pp. 128–29, 382; Roger Chesneau & Eugene M. Kolesnik, eds., Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1860–1905 (New York: Mayflower Books, Inc, 1979), p. 384.; Albert A. Nofi, The Spanish-American War, 1898 (Conshohocken, PA, Combined Books Inc, 1997), pp. 17–23; Donald H. Dyal, Historical Dictionary of the Spanish American War (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1996), pp. 171–72; Karl Jack Bauer & Stephen S. Roberts, Register of Ships of the US Navy, 1775–1900: Major Combatants (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1991), p. 159; SCBA, “Luc Pleisner and Harry King against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for Wages,” VA 101/1923(101). 95 Wells, p. 216. 96 SCBA, “The Owners, Master and Crew of the Steamer ‘Aldecoa’ against the Steamship ‘Reviver’ her cargo and freight: Action for Salvage,” VA 101/1923(93); “John S. Darrell and Company against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for Necessaries,” VA 101/1923(97); “Alfred George Eric Hawkes and John Mitchell against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for wages and disfurnishments,” VA 101/1923(100); “Luc Pleisner and Harry King against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for Wages,” VA 101/1923(101); “Our Sovereign Lord the King against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for Wages; Contents of Supreme Court of Admiralty in Bermuda,” VA 101/1923(103); “William M. Le Gall against the Steamship ‘Reviver’: Action for Wages,” VA 101/1923(104). 97 Milstead-Post, p. 48. 84 • NATHAN T. RICHARDS 98 J. J. Colledge & Ben Warlow, Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (London: Chatham Publishing, 2006). 99 See SCBA, “CS64 File No. 2221 Shipping: Wrecks, Sale of ” (1919). 100 G. A. Ballard, “British Frigates of 1875: The Shah,” in The Mariner’s Mirror, Vol. 22, No. 3 (1936), p. 305. 101 Ronald J. Williams, “From the Crow’s Nest,” in The Bermudian, September 1934, pp. 18–19. 102 Wells, p. 173. 103 Williams, 1934, pp. 18–19; Wells, p. 173; Milstead-Post, p. 48. 104 The Royal Gazette, September 3, 1921, p. 2e; September 7, 1921, p. 2e; September 10, 1921, p. 2e; September 13, 1921, p. 2c; Wells 1935, p. 216; Kaiser 1989, p. 237; Tucker 1996, p. 159; Willcock 1998, p. 148; Plowman & Card 2002, pp. 41–42; Milstead-Post 2007, p. 28; John L. Lochhead, “Sailing Ships Wrecked and Condemned at Bermuda, 1890–1931: Extracted from Lloyd’s Wreck Returns,” in BHQ, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Summer), pp. 47–50; J.C., p. 20; “Steamer Truxillo Sold,” Shipping Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, January 10, 1921, p. 86. SCBA, “Action for Necessaries against the ship Truxilio (Truxillo),” VA 101/1925(125). IMAGE ENDNOTES i Original drawing by R.T. Pritchett, in Brassey, p. 391. ii Ibid., p. 397. iii Map by Nathan Richards. iv Drawing by R.T. Pritchett, in Brassey, p. 426. v Image by Nathan Richards, background image thanks to Department of Conservation Services, Government of Bermuda. vi Image by Nathan Richards, Program in Maritime Studies, East Carolina University (hereafter ECU). vii Image by Nathan Richards, ECU. viii Robb, p. 26, photo by Tony Cordeiro. ix Ibid., p. 27, photo by Tony Cordeiro. x Image from Maritime Museum of Loviisa, Finland: www.kolumbus.fi/ jamikko/Purjelaivat_Dorothea.htm, and attributed to Kari Warjus. x1 Ibid., attributed to Eirik Hornborg, Segelsjöfartens history. xii Courtesy Mariner’s Museum, Newport News Virginia, APK-S1275C. xiii Image by Nathan Richards, ECU. xiv JC, p. 12. xv Image by Nathan Richards, ECU. xvi Image by Nathan Richards, ECU. xvii Robert. H. Burgess, “Once a Graveyard of Ships,” in The Bermudian, September (1970), p. 26, from Robert Burgess’ collection. xviii Courtesy Brodie Collection, La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria. See also Burgess, 1970, p. 26. xix Photograph courtesy Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, Virginia, PH-1370.