Treacherous Tides at Danger Point: The Story of the Coolangatta Wreck and the Maritime Archaeological Fieldwork Practicum July 2014

The Coolangatta Wreck: is it CoolangattaHeroine, or something completely different. This was the project aim that students and practitioners faced at the Maritime Archaeology Practicum in July, on the golden beaches of the Gold Coast, Queensland. A small group of students, as well as industry partners and volunteers, led an investigation into the identification of the ship from partial remains which are in poor preservation, and scattered around the Gold Coast, From Coolangatta to Bundall.


Coolangatta wrecked on August 19, 1846, after a severe cyclone approached the area. Having been at anchor for 5 weeks, the anchors torn from the ship and was driven ashore. Having been loading the cedar wood from Greenmount Beach, via the Tweed River, Captain Steele and his crew were ashore rafting timber. The two prisoners onboard (George Craig and William George Lewis) were freed as the cyclone intensified and torn the ship and any other persons left on board risked the swim ashore.

The wreck remains have survived through unusual impacts, environmental and human. If they are the same remains from Coolangatta, they have survived three cyclones and remained intact with each deposition of the remains, having been recorded as moving north along the coastline from Point Danger to its last location, Coolangatta Creek (2 kilometres north from Queen Elizabeth Park). The area was named after the shipwreck in the field notes of 1883 government surveyor, Henry Schneider. At the time of its wrecking, another 5 fully laden ships were also bar-bound in the harbour, which adds to the mystery, is it Coolangatta?

The cyclone periods which led to the discovery/rediscovery of the wreck are:

1863 – 1864       First Discovery

1870 – 1880s     Rediscovery

1930                  Second Rediscovery (Coolgatta Creek)

During the 1970s, the remains were being used as a local dive site, being in shallow water, and a surfer rendezvous point. One diver that remembers using the site, John Strano, came to visit the group when conducting the magnetometer and metal detector survey, and indicated that it was further ashore than where we were already surveying. Strano later gave a statement to the reporter from the Gold Coast Bulletin, and is given a mention about later use of the wreck.

It was also during this era that the council at the time thought it would be the best idea to demolish the site, in an explosive manner. This was what the survey above had been designed over, a survey of the blow-up site. Remains of the shipwreck, having had the local surroundings named after Coolangatta, and what still is thought to be today, as a memorial event, pieces of the wreck was taken and handed out as souvenir, and the rest of the remains scattered. Memorials have been erected from remains, Such as Queen Elizabeth Park, Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Museum (Bundall), from the timber and frames of the wreck (mostly hull planking with Muntz(‘s) Metal sheeting still attached). Anchor memorials (such as the obelisk at Coolangatta Creek) were also constructed); one having been at the airport, however been expected to have been dismantled and the anchor relocated to the Gold Coast City Council (Tugun Works Depot).

Of the approximate 100 vessels wrecked in the vicinity of the Tweed River, 54 of these were timber constructed. Since there was no name attached to the remains, other than someone who wrote ‘Coolangatta’ in the sand while taking a photograph of the remains in 1930 (figure 1), there is no conclusive information about the identity of the remains. Two of the most likely candidates for the remains are Coolangatta and Heroine.

coolangatta 1930

Figure 1: Shipwreck remains on beach, ‘Coolangatta’ written in sand (1930)



From searching the dump point of shipwreck remains of the Gold Coast City Council (Works Depot), to a day in Queen Elizabeth Park, to cataloguing artefacts from Scottish Prince and recording yet more timbers and copper sheathing from what is thought to be remains of Coolangatta, the week had only just started. Although not everything was able to be accomplished, much of the work we had set out to achieve was completed.

Archival research, as with any other project, familiarised ourselves on the Coolangatta wreck, and the question as to why we are there in the first place. The information compiled into a report, based entirely as a review of many sources relating to Coolangatta and Heroine, David Nutley’s Report summarised what notable differences are between the two 19th Century vessels.

Coolangatta (1843 – 1846).

  • After 1846 wrecking event, repairs made to damage on port side bilge.
  • Refitted around 1846, would have included repair/replacement of Muntz Metal sheathing, replacement of rigging lines, sails, etc.
  • Square stern.
  • Strongly Built.
  • Timber likely to be from Shoalhaven Area (built).
  • Anchor types will pre date 1846 (i.e. Porter’s anchor).

Heroine (1894 – 1897).

  • Re-metalled in 1895.
  • Built with ‘northern timbers’ presumably from the north coast of New South Wales (built Nambucca River).
  • Anchor types will post date 1843: (i.e. Horniball or Trotman’s anchor).

Muntz Metal (post 1846 (second patent) – Muntz’s) on both vessels.

Muntz(‘s) Metal could date wreckage.

Sheathing could contain a year stamp.

 

After Comber 2014


The Gold Coast City Council (Tugun Works Depot), a place which we would later have to come back later in the and finish off, was our first site. As you can see in figure 1, the remains here were just carelessly dumped and forgotten about over time, even though their had been talk since the 1970s that care and proper management should given to these remains.

2014_07_14_GCCC_003

Figure 2: Timber in GCCC yards, overall site (photo courtesy of Lauren Davison)

 


The Queen Elizabeth Park memorial (figure 3) was a the site where work continued, even on the morning of my flight back, the day after the practicum finished. The drawings from the site were filled with detail, due to being the most intact piece located in the surrounds. Even in its poor state of preservation. different scale plans (including tracings), and rubbings were taken from the site.

2014_07_15_QEP_001

Figure 3: Queen Elizabeth Park Coolangatta Memorial, Coolangatta (photo courtesy of Lauren Davison 2014)



The Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Heritage Museum was the last place of known wreck material, at least in public collections which were accessible to us. The monument that was constructed was befitting of the ship (figure 4). especially with only being constructed from mainly frame segments. To finish to off, a square of Muntz’s Metal was flying as a makeshift flag, complete with a stamp. When we were on site, the group also helped in a trial of the new shipwreck database, to be published online which helps in the collection of shipwreck remains locals might have in their homes.

2014_07_16_K022

Figure 4: Coolangatta Memorial, Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Heritage Museum (photo courtesy of Kate Greenwood 2014)



Coolangatta Creek and the anchor memorial (figure 5), the site of the magnetometer and metal detector survey was the final place the group visited. Our land search site and the scene of so many human impacts on the wreck. Having been hit my excavators and blown to pieces, it was the ideal place to start a search for any materials which might have been buried in the sands.

DCIM100GOPRO

Figure 5: Anchor Memorial, Coolangatta Creek (photo courtesy of Paddy Waterson 2014)



Timber samples were collected from all pieces of the wreckage remains, as well as Muntz(‘s) Metal sheeting pieces, to be sent away for analysis and visual analysis respectively (figure 6). It will be interesting to find out the results of the analysis, which will hopefully be able to identify the ship once and for all. So I’ll end again with, is it CoolangattaHeroine, or something completely different.

2014_07_17_066

Figure 6: Lauren Davison (background) and Brad Guadagnin (foreground) taking timer samples, Queen Elizabeth Park, Coolangatta (Photo Courtesy of Toni Massey 2014)



 

References

Comber, Jillian

2014 Coolangatta Shipwrecks: Archival investigation of the Coolangatta and Heroine. Prepared by David Nutley. Report to Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage Protection

Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum Day Five

Gold Coast Wreck Conservation Project – Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum.

The last day of fieldwork and as usual full of excitement. We woke up to find ourselves on the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin (Figure 1 and 2).

DSC05994

Figure 1: Front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin (Photo Lauren Davison).

DSC05995

Figure 2: Gold Coast Bulletin (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

The team then split into two again with a small group heading to the council depot at Tugun and the rest staying at the Tallebudgera Creek Caravan Park to process data, undertake research (Figure 3), and draw out the anchors that had been recorded (Figure 4).

DSC05990

Figure 3: Wendy and Isabelle researching the Heroine (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

 DSC05991

Figure 4: Mark and Dana drawing anchors (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

At the council yard the work involved scale drawings of frames (Figure 5) and an articulated section including ceiling planking, stringer, frames and fasteners (Figure 6) as well as taking timber samples (Figure 7).

DSC05887

 Figure 5: Lauren doing a scale drawing of a frame (Photo Amelia MacArthur Lacey 2014).

DSC05851

Figure 6: Brad and Trevor recording the articulated section (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

DSC05850

Figure 7: Lauren taking timber samples (Photo Amelia MacArthur Lacey 2014).

The group that had stayed behind at the caravan park came for a visit to the council yards in the afternoon. With the extra hands we were able to turn to articulated section over and have a look on the exterior side. Planking, wale and a small section on sheathing were found on the exterior (Figure 8).

 DSC05949

Figure 8: Paddy and Lauren cleaning the exterior surface of the articulated section (Photo Wendy van Duivenvoorde 2014).

To end I would like to thank a wonderful group of people that helped with this project. The Gold Coast City Council, Kevin Rains and Jane Austen; the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Paddy Waterson, Amelia MacArthur Lacey, and Toni Massey; the Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Society, John Burns and Bob Nancarrow, local residents, John Strano, Fred Lang Junior, and John Hogg; Cosmos Archaeology, Cos Coroneos, Dani Wilkinson, and Gina Scheer, Trevor Winton, Mark Polzer, Wendy van Duivenvoorde, baby Isabelle, Brad Guadagnin, Peta Fray, Dana Gilmore and Kate Greenwood.

And finally a last thank you to all the local residents of the Gold Coast who were very helpful and friendly.

Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum 2014 Day Four

Gold Coast Wreck Conservation Project – Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum.

Today we visited the beach at Coolangatta Creek where the shipwreck was recovered in 1974 to undertake a magnetometer survey (Figure 1) and metal detector survey (Figure 2) of this area. Guests from Cosmos Archaeology, Cos Coroneos, Danielle Wilkinson, and Gina Scheer, came along for the day to help investigate the site.

2014_07_17_G021

Figure 1: Danielle, Cos, Dana and Kate undertaking the magnetometer survey (Photo Gina Scheer 2014).

2014_07_17_G061

Figure 2: Trevor, Amelia and Kate completing the metal detector survey in Coolangatta Creek (Photo Gina Scheer 2014).

 After setting up the grid from the magnetometer survey (Figure 3 and 4) the team split with a group returning to Queen Elizabeth Park, Coolangatta to continue recording the shipwreck remains. Detailed drawings (Figure 5), timber recording forms (Figure 5) and timber samples (Figure 6) were taken.

2014_07_17_009

Figure 3: Toni and Amelia setting up the grid at Coolangatta Creek (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_17_013

Figure 4: Dana, Trevor and Danielle setting up grid at Coolangatta Creek (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_17_022

Figure 5: Mark, Toni and Jane doing a detailed drawing and Brad completing a timber recording form (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_17_052

Figure 6: Brad, Mark, Lauren and Jane taking timber samples (Photo Toni Massey 2014).

Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum 2014 Day Three

Gold Coast Wreck Conservation Project – Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum.

Today was the third day of work, or the middle of our field practicum and we recorded another section of shipwreck, this time at the Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Society, Bundall. The shipwreck remains are part of a sculpture (Figure 1 & 2) constructed from what was thought to be Coolangatta. The work today would not have been possible without access to the remains provided by the Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Society and help from president John Burns and volunteer Bob Nancarrow.

2014_07_16_288

Figure 1: The team in front of sculpture at the Gold Coast and Hinterland Historical Society (Photo Kate Greenwood 2014).

2014_07_16_075

Figure 2: Sculpture of shipwreck material (Photo Wendy van Duivenvoorde 2014).

Timber recording forms and photographs of the ten individual elements (both planking and frames) were used to record the remains (Figure 3) before samples were taken (Figure 4) and tracings and scale drawings (Figure 5) completed.

2014_07_16_214

Figure 3: Lauren Davison recording a frame fragment (Photo Toni Massey 2014).

2014_07_16_212

Figure 4: Wendy van Duienvoorde and Paddy Waterson taking timber samples (Photo Toni Massey 2014).

2014_07_16_226

Figure 5: Brad Guadagnin and Trevor Winton undertaking a scale drawing of Frame 2 (Photo Wendy 2014).

Completed at the same time as the shipwreck recording, with the help of Ashley Parker, was the entering of the shipwrecks artefacts at the historical society into a database, the Queensland Historic Shipwreck Relics Project, designed by Ashley himself to complete a register of the shipwreck artefacts at Bundall.

Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum 2014 Day Two

Gold Coast Wreck Conservation Project – Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum

Day two and we headed to Queen Elizabeth Park, Coolangatta to record an intact section of the shipwreck recovered in 1974 containing a wale, three hull planks, frames, fasteners and sheathing (Figure 1).

2014_07_15_QEP_003

Figure 1: Kevin Rains, Jane Austen, Wendy van Duivenvoorde, Peta Fray, Amelia MacArthur Lacey, Dana Gilmore with the intact section in Queen Elizabeth Park, Coolangatta (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

Overall pictures and detailed photos of individual features were completed (Figure 2) and a scale drawing of the shipwreck section was completed using baseline offset survey (Figure 3). Patent marks were found on the sheathing with these features being recorded through rubbings (Figure 4) and photographs. Tracings were also taken of the sheathing and upper planks to find patterns in the holes (Figure 5).

2014_07_15_QEP_066

Figure 2: Kate Greenwood photographing the back of the section (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_15_QEP_181

Figure 3: Peta Fray and Lauren Davison baseline offset survey (Photo Toni Massey 2014).

2014_07_15_QEP_065

Figure 4: Dana Gilmore taking rubbings of the patent marks (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_15_QEP_170

Figure 5: Dana Gilmore and Kate Greenwood tracing copper sheathing and Brad Guadagnin, Peta Fray and Lauren Davison baseline offset survey (Photo Toni Massey 2014).

A slight change in staff for the afternoon. Paddy, Kate and Dana went to the Tweed Heads Historical Museum for historical research while Mark joined the group in Queen Elizabeth Park. Activities were similar to the morning with the scale drawing, tracing of timbers with the addition of recording the frames and fasteners undertaken by Mark and Brad (Figure 6).

2014_07_15_QEP_186

Figure 6: Brad Guadagnin and Mark Polzer recording frames (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

The day ended with Trevor Winton from Jacobs Consulting and MAAWA joining us to help for the rest of the week.

Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum 2014

Gold Coast Wreck Conservation Project – Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum.

The Maritime Archaeology Field Practicum for 2014 is taking place on the Gold Coast, Queensland, where five students – Brad Guadagnin, Kate Greenwood, Peta Fray, Dana Gilmore and Lauren Davison – and two Flinders staff members, Wendy van Duivenvoorde and Mark Polzer (along with assistance from baby Isabelle), are recording and investigating a section of a shipwreck recovered in 1974. While popularly believed to be Coolangatta that wrecked in 1846, it has also been suggested that the remains are Heroine which wrecked in 1897.

Day one consisted of the usual introductory meeting and site induction where we met our partners from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Paddy Waterson, Amelia MacArthur Lacey and Toni Massey, and the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), Kevin Rains and Jane Austen without whom this field practicum would not be possible.

A trip to the GCCC Depot was the order of the afternoon where we were given access to shipwreck remains which included frames, planking, anchors, and fasteners (Figure 1). Once familiar with the remains we soon got to work undertaking baseline offset survey (Figure 2), photography, and anchor recording (Figure 3).

2014_07_14_GCCC_011

Figure 1: Shipwreck remains at the Gold Coast City Council Depot (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_14_GCCC_059

Figure 2: Brad Guadagnin and Toni Massey undertaking Baseline offset survey (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

2014_07_14_GCCC_067

Figure 3: Recording anchors at GCCC Depot, Wendy van Duivenvoorde and Dana Gilmore (Photo Lauren Davison 2014).

Site Delineation with an Underwater Metal Detector

by Hunter Brendel, Master of Maritime Archaeology student

It is a certain fact that all field archaeologists are aware of – equipment does not always behave the way you want it to. Yet when it doesn’t, the opportunity for “McGuiverism” is there. During the Flinders 2013 field school at Port MacDonnell, we had certain technical issues with the magnetometer we were using. Luckily for us, the staff came prepared with underwater metal detectors. By using metal detectors, we were able to conduct transect surveys to delineate a possible shipwreck site on shore (Figure 1). Students used the metal detectors to detect pings that were then marked on a survey plan.

Figure 1. Myself (left) and fellow student Chelsea Colwell-Pasch (right) conducting a metal detector survey on shore during the 2013 Flinders University Maritime Archaeology field school.

Figure 1. Myself (left) and fellow student Chelsea Colwell-Pasch (right) conducting a metal detector survey on shore during the 2013 Flinders University Maritime Archaeology field school.

Later on, we used the same transect method to delineate our shipwreck, Hawthorn, which was located approximately 10 meters off shore. Since the wreck was in the surf, we students were able to replicate the transect survey techniques used on land by snorkeling and marking pings on a Mylar survey plan slate. All we needed to do was give a thumbs up every time we heard a ping, and our dive buddy was there to mark where the ping came from. Two other students held down the transect line and moved it every time we cleared a lap. Simple enough, yet effective in practice.

The Lighthouse Archeological Maritime Program (LAMP) devised a similar strategy for their 2014 Storm Wreck field season after experiencing magnetometer issues themselves. Brian McNamara, a fellow 2013 Flinders field school student and LAMP archaeologist, devised a plan to use a metal detector to delineate the Storm Wreck site. Only this time was different. Site conditions such as an eight meter depth of the site, poor visibility (really poor visibility), and chance for swells were unlike those we experienced in South Australia. Not to mention it had to be done on SCUBA.

So we hit the drawing board and came up with a plan to delineate the Storm Wreck site by using an underwater metal detector. I was to carry out the trial run by delineating a 10×10 meter area south of the Storm Wreck site (Figure 2). Listed are the materials we needed to SCUBA with to effectively carry out the underwater detector survey:

  1. A ten meter polypropylene transect line with every meter marked with a zip tie. At the five meter mark was a looped zip tie.
  2. Two fiberglass rods.
  3. Measuring tape.
  4. Down line with a diver flag attached to a buoy.
  5. A mushroom anchor to hold the down line and western end of the transect line.
  6. A weight belt and weights to hold the the eastern end of the transect line.
  7. Underwater metal detector.
  8. Mylar slate and pencils (lots of pencils) for a survey plan.
  9. SCUBA gear, cylinder, compass, etc.

First, my student dive buddy and I brought with us a mushroom anchor and down line with a diver flag attached to a buoy. Then we swam to a screw anchor that held southern end of the baseline in place. At the screw anchor, my student dive buddy held the middle loop of the polypropylene transect line in place. I swam east, end of the transect line in-hand, to stretch out the transect line, which I tied to the weight belt so that it was secure. I inserted one of the fiberglass rods through the weight belt as a reference marker. Using my compass, I ensured that the line was on an east-west, or 180 degree, bearing. I swam back to my dive buddy, stretched out the other half of the transect line, secured it to the mushroom anchor, and used my compass to make sure the east-west bearing was still accurate. I then planted the other fiberglass rod through the mushroom anchor.

Now the survey could start.

My dive buddy and I swam east-west along the ten meter transect line with the underwater metal detector in hand. Covering two meters to north and south of the transect line with the metal detector, we would pick up pings and then mark their location on the Mylar survey plan slate. As the designated metal detector holder (aka “Wielder of Truth”), I would tap my dive buddy’s mask every time I heard a ping and my dive buddy would mark its location on the slate. After we cleared the ten meter transect line, we would measure and move the line two meters south and repeat the survey. When five survey tracts were completed, we would have covered a 10×10 meter area south of the site.

Believe it or not, the metal detector survey to delineate the Storm Wreck was a resounding success. All students and supervisors had an opportunity to conduct the survey around the northern, eastern, western, and southern periphery of the Storm Wreck site. LAMP staff hope to superimpose the results of the survey on an up-to-date site plan of the wreck. Piece of cake.

Figure 2. “Trust me, I’m an archaeologist.”

Figure 2. “Trust me, I’m an archaeologist.”