Tag Archives: Victoria

Romance, scandal and maritime archaeology in Victoria

During my directed study, I’ve been researching 18 shipwrecks lying in Victorian state waters. I’ve researched the history of shipwreck significance, worked out how shipwreck significance is assessed and begun the process of assessing significance for some of those wrecks.

Some shipwrecks have turned out to be significant because of the events surrounding their working lives, some because of the results of the studies of archaeologists examining their wrecks. Either way the waters of Port Phillip and the surrounding Victorian coastline shelter some very interesting shipwrecks.

Here’s just a taste:

Loch Ard is one of the most famous shipwrecks in Victoria. A three-masted square-rigged iron sailing ship, Loch Ard left England on 2 March 1878 with a general cargo of luxury items and industrial loads of railway iron and cement. On 1 June, the ship was only a day or two out from Melbourne near Cape Otway when heavy fog descended.

Loch Ard. Image courtesy Heritage Victoria

Loch Ard. Image courtesy Heritage Victoria

When the fog lifted, the Captain, instead of clear ocean and a distant shoreline, was faced with sheer cliffs and breaking waves. I can’t even begin to imagine what that felt like. The ship hit the reef just off Mutton Bird Island and large waves caused the masts and rigging to crash down so the lifeboats couldn’t be launched successfully. Tom Pearce, one of the crew, and passenger Eva Carmichael were the only two on board who survived (Lomdahl 1992).

Just five bodies (out of 47) were ever recovered. Eva lost all her immediate family and would have died herself if Tom Pearce hadn’t come to her rescue. If life were a Hollywood movie, Eva and Tom, both eighteen, would have sailed happily off into the sunset. Society of the day certainly thought they should at least get married since they had spent time alone, drinking brandy before Tom went to find help (ignoring the fact it was dark, cold and Tom needed to catch his breath before attempting to climb the cliffs). But it wasn’t Hollywood and instead Eva went back to Ireland and married a Captain Townsend while Tom went back to the sea. Ironically, Eva and her husband moved to the Irish coast where she was called on to help shipwreck survivors … one of whom (apparently) turned out to be Tom Pearce (The Argus 16 June 1934). This is a Hollywood script just crying out to be written.

The Loch Ard Peacock. Image courtesy Victorian Collections.

Image courtesy Victorian Collections.

A few days after the wreck, a crate containing a large ceramic peacock was washed ashore in Loch Ard Gorge. The Minton Loch Ard Peacock is one of the more famous pieces of cargo saved from the wreck. The porcelain statue, valued at over $4 million, is one of only nine still existing worldwide and was arriving in Australia to be displayed at the 1880 Melbourne International Exhibition. It finally got its chance to shine at the 1988 Brisbane World Expo. The peacock is currently on display at the Flagstaff Hill Maritime Museum in Warnambool, Victoria.

Then there’s Clarence, a small coastal wooden sailing ship, indistinguishable from many vessels plying their trade around the southern coast of Australia during the 1840s and 1850s. Clarence sailing past would have been a bit like watching a semi-trailer driving down the highway. You might idly wonder what it was carrying before it disappeared from view; then again you might not. However, Clarence’s brief and unglamorous career as a small trading schooner belies its subsequent importance to archaeological and historical studies of undocumented Australian shipbuilding (Harvey 1989).

Clarence line drawing. Image courtesy Heritage Victoria

Clarence line drawing. Image courtesy Heritage Victoria

I’m sure Clarence’s builders from the Williams River in NSW never imagined their work would be so scrutinised. Remember people, whatever you build today may be examined in 200 years by an archaeologist trying to piece together your work … make sure it’s good (or if you want to have some fun, make it cryptic)!

Clarence is currently the subject of an Australian Research Council grant studying the excavation, reburial and in-situ preservation of shipwrecks and their artefacts. I was fortunate enough to be a volunteer when, in 2012, Clarence was excavated, wrapped in geo-textile, covered in shade cloth and tarpaulin and weighed down by 3,500 sandbags. As a result, Clarence may still be there for archaeologists to study in 1000 years time and I can now add ‘professional sandbag filler’ to my resumé.

A small section of Clarence reburial .... Image Jon Carpenter

A small section of Clarence reburial …. Image Jon Carpenter

One vessel not often in the public eye is the clipper ship, Schomberg. Schomberg had no statement of significance in the Victorian database and when I started researching I had no idea what I’d discover. What I did find was a tale of pride, scandal and narrowly avoided tragedy. Schomberg’s story was almost the nineteenth century’s version of Titanic: built at great expense, labeled the most perfect clipper ship ever built, designed to be the most comfortable, luxurious and fastest vessel to sail to Melbourne—and it sank on its maiden voyage in 1855. Fortunately, the steamer SS Queen was close enough to come to the rescue of the 430 passengers and crew.

Captain 'Bully' Forbes. Image courtesty Project Marco Polo

Captain ‘Bully’ Forbes. Image courtesty Project Marco Polo

The Captain, ‘Bully’ Forbes, was charged in the Supreme Court with negligence because of the suspicion that he was playing cards with two female passengers below decks while his ship ran aground. None of the passengers spoke terribly highly of him, complaining that he strutted the deck with a loaded revolver and that half-naked women were emerging from his cabin at all hours of the night. Despite a protest meeting, two inquiries and the court proceedings, he was found not guilty and cleared of all charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence (Uhl 1985:24).

As an aside, Schomberg was built using the ‘diagonal principle’: its frame was British oak with layers of Scottish larch fitted diagonally to the frames, apparently the same design as Queen Victoria’s newly acquired yacht. Interestingly, pieces of hull with this distinctive design feature were washed up on the New Zealand coast and were thought to be a part of Schomberg‘s hull (Lomdahl 1992).

The clipper ship, Schomberg. Photo Heritage Victoria

The clipper ship, Schomberg. Image courtesy Heritage Victoria.

This is just a brief journey through three Victorian shipwreck histories that grabbed my attention, there is more to tell for each but space is brief. While it takes more than just romance, scandal and maritime archaeology to make a vessel significant, each adds to the fabric of the story that makes up the life and wreck of a ship.

References

Harvey, P. 1989 Excavation of the Shipwreck Clarence: Port Phillip Bay October 1987. Victoria: Victoria Archaeology Survey, Maritime Heritage Unit.

Lomdahl, A., 1992 Underwater Shipwreck Discovery Trail. Victoria: Victoria Archaeological Survey, Maritime Archaeological Unit.

Mosely, M. 1934 ‘Eva Carmichael and Tom Pearce. Why they did not marry.’ The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.:1848-1957), 16 June, p. 4, retrieved 13 October 2013, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/10947161

Uhl, J. 1985 Sailing Ships, Shipwrecks and Crime in the 19th Century: A Handbook for Historians, Genealogists, Shiplovers and Criminologists based on Supreme Court Records, Criminal Sessions 1840s-1860s. Oakleigh, Victoria: Australian Institute of Genealogical Studies.

Significance of the torpedo boat: HMVS Lonsdale

Jane Mitchell

My directed study project set out to analyse 18 excavated shipwrecks and assess their significance statements. So far I’ve completed some research into the history of shipwreck significance and the significance statements within the overall Victorian Heritage database (which you can read about here), but since then my research has kept me locked inside the Victorian Heritage Register, sifting through all the information attached to each of the 18 ships’ records.

My research is now complete and my next task is to update (or write) statements of significance for some of these wrecks. Not all of the wrecks I’ve been looking at have management plans in place and the statements and their evidence-based evaluation criteria are designed as a jumping-off point for ongoing management of these wrecks.

First cab off the rank is the HMVS Lonsdale.  The current statement of significance in the Victorian database reads: “The HMVS Lonsdale is historically significant as a relic of Victoria’s colonial navy” (Victorian Heritage Register 2005:S425).

It’s important to bear in mind there isn’t any way to ascertain when this statement was written, but when you research  the history of the vessel, there’s more to HMVS Lonsdale than just historical significance.

HMVS Lonsdale. Photo courtesy Heritage Victoria

HMVS Lonsdale. Photo courtesy Heritage Victoria

Brief History:
Ten torpedo boats served across Australia from the early 1880s onwards. They were purchased by the individual colonies in response to a perceived threat of a Russian (and briefly French) invasion (Hunter 2011:1). The British-based Thornycroft, the builder of HMVS Lonsdale, went on to build the fast PT attack boats used with great success in World War II. HMVS Lonsdale and HMVS Nepean, another Thornycroft second-class Victorian torpedo boat, were commissioned in 1883 and arrived in Australia in 1884.

HMVS Lonsdale never saw battle action but did take part in the annual and rather festive Easter exercises, even hitting HMVS Cerberus in 1885 with one of its spar torpedoes – the only time Cerberus came under fire in its career (Hewitt and Tucker 2009:13). Based on British advice the second-class torpedo boats underwent some Australian modification to their torpedo gear, which subsequently improved their speed and performance (Argus 23 February 1888). By 1892, Victoria had three-second class torpedo boats, two first-class boats and 32 torpedoes (Cahill 2009:134).

The torpedo boats were handed over to the Commonwealth after Federation in 1901 and put up for sale in 1902, but, with no buyers, Nepean and Lonsdale continued to take part in manoeuvres (Cahill 2009: 132). When the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) was officially formed, Lonsdale and Nepean, considered ‘outmoded’, were again unsuccessfully put up for sale in 1914 (Hewitt and Tucker 2009:13). What happened to HMVS Lonsdale over the next six years is unclear, but, sometime before 1920, the vessel ended up on the beach at Queenscliff, briefly becoming a meeting point for local beach goers before the sand slowly swallowed it and it faded from memory.

The remains of HMVS Lonsdale were first located in 1983 by members of the Maritime Archaeology Association of Victoria (MAAV) by following the long-buried 1920s shoreline (Cahill 1999). A short survey followed to confirm the identity of the vessel. The conning tower was re-excavated in 1997 for an attempted geophysical survey, but it was largely unsuccessful due to the large amounts of extraneous ferrous material scattered around the site (Shwartz 1997:2). Due to the recent redevelopment of Queenscliff Harbour, HMVS Lonsdale was re-excavated in 2005/2006 in an effort to determine the full extent of the wreck (Hewitt and Tucker 2009).

Significance Criteria
As discussed in my blog post here, the criteria I used to assess the significance of HMVS Lonsdale is based on AIMA’s Guidelines for the Management of Australia’s Shipwrecks, incorporating the values listed in the Burra Charter.

Criterion 1. Historic
HMVS Lonsdale has historical significance as a key element of the Victorian Colonial Navy. International wars, threats of invasion and local rebellions encouraged uncertainty, fed partly by popular press, in Britain’s ability to protect its colonies. As an early member of Victoria’s Colonial Navy, HMVS Lonsdale was a significant part of Victoria’s defence. Along with the other first- and second-class torpedo boats—Nepean, Childers, Countess of Hopetoun and GordonLonsdale formed part of the frontline defence for the last twenty years of the Victorian Colony.

Criterion 2. Technical
HMVS Lonsdale was built at the shipyard of John Thornycroft, who went on to produce the fast attack Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats used with great effect in the Pacific during WWII. Lonsdale represents a rare, early example highlighting the development of these fast, hit-and-run type vessels.

Criterion 3. Social
HMVS Lonsdale has minor social significance. The vessel had some social significance as a member of the colonial naval defence force of the late 19th century.

Criterion 4. Archaeological
The 2006 excavation results appeared to indicate that the section forward of the machinery space is no longer coherent, although a 1.7 metre section of the bow exists lying on the port side, disarticulated from the main structure. Information gathered to date suggests that the ship, aft of the conning tower, still exists, although its condition is unknown (Hewitt and Tucker 2009:32).

HMVS Lonsdale Conning tower. Photo courtesy Heritage Victoria

HMVS Lonsdale Conning tower. Photo courtesy Heritage Victoria

Abandoned watercraft and subsequent site formation processes are a current and ongoing research topic in Australia (see Richards 2008, Hunter 2011). HMVS Lonsdale has contributed to this topic and further study and conservation of the vessel has the ability to continue to add to this subject literature.

Criterion 5. Scientific
Anodes were placed on the wreck during the archaeological survey in 1997, but there has been no subsequent electrode potential survey. Due to high ground water and tidal fluctuations, the wreck is frequently exposed to water and is at risk of collapse (Hewitt and Tucker 2009:32). Although HMVS Lonsdale has been scrapped and hulked, it still has possible scientific significance through contributions to ongoing work on corrosion studies.

Criterion 6. Interpretive
HMVS Lonsdale is currently the subject of a small interpretive display at the Queenscliff Maritime Centre. The vessel has future interpretive significance not only in regards to the development of the Navy in Australia, but also the types of vessels that contributed to the defence of the colonies.

Criterion 7. Rarity
HMVS Lonsdale is a rare surviving example of a second-class torpedo boat and the only surviving example of a second-class torpedo boat from the Victorian Colonial Navy.

Criterion 8. Representativeness
HMVS Lonsdale is significant as one of only three surviving second-class torpedo boats that were used in the defence of the Australian and New Zealand colonies.

Using the criteria above, I’ve re-written HMVS Lonsdale’s significance statement:

HMVS Lonsdale Significance Statement:
Ten torpedo boats made up part of the frontline defences of several of the Australian colonies in the late 19th century, when there was a real and perceived threat of invasion by the Russians and French. HMVS Lonsdale is historically significant as a rare and representative example of a Victorian second-class torpedo boat. Lonsdale demonstrates technical significance as an early example of the development of the fast attack torpedo craft, culminating in the ‘PT’ boats used so effectively in WWII. The vessel has archaeological significance, contributing to the study of abandoned watercraft and subsequent site formation processes and scientific significance through future corrosion studies.

HMVS Lonsdale on Williamstown slipway pre 1915. Image courtesy Australian War Memorial.

HMVS Lonsdale on Williamstown slipway pre 1914. Image courtesy Australian War Memorial.

References:

Anon. 1888 ‘Improvements in the Naval Defence.’ The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.: 1848 – 1957), 23 February, p. 13, retrieved 13 August 2013, <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article6104784&gt;.

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.

Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology. Special Projects Advisory Committee & Australian Cultural Development Office & Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 1994 Guidelines for the Management of Australia’s Shipwrecks. Canberra: Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology and the Australian Cultural Development Office.

Cahill, D. c.1999 HMVS Lonsdale 1882—1914. Retrieved 12 August 2013 from <thttp://home.vicnet.net.au/~maav/hmvslonsdale.htm>

Cahill, D. 2009 The Lonsdale: A Victorian torpedo boat. In M, McCarthy (ed), Iron, Steel & Steamship Archaeology: Proceedings of 2nd Australian Seminar, held in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney 2006, pp 133–135. Fremantle: Australian National Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archaeology.

Hewitt, G. and C. Tucker 2009 Queenscliff Harbour. Consolidated Excavation Report. Unpublished report prepared for Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd.

Hunter, J.W. III 2011 Abandonment issues: An assessment of military vessel discard trends derived from Australasia’s torpedo boat defences, 1884-1924, The MUA Collection. Retrieved August 12 2013 from <http://www.themua.org/collections/items/show/1194&gt;

Richards, N. 2008 Ships’ Graveyards: Abandoned Watercraft and the Archaeological Site Formation Process. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Shwartz, T. 1997 TM-4 and TM-4E survey for positioning of Lonsdale, unpublished report to Heritage Victoria, Geophysical Technology Limited, Armidale.

Victorian Heritage Register, 2005 VHR Number S425.  Retrieved 13 August 2013 from http://www.heritage.vic.gov.au.

Getting Shipshape: Assessing Shipwreck Significance

Jane Mitchell

Significance adj. the quality of being significant or having a meaning
(The Macquarie Dictionary 3rd edition)

The project I’m working on aims to evaluate current statements of significance for those Victorian shipwrecks that have associated artefacts collected by Heritage Victoria.

The Heritage department is about to embark on an assessment of the significance of its shipwreck artefact collection. In light of that, it is especially important the shipwrecks the artefacts came from have sound statements of significance to provide a framework for the assessment of the collection.

The significance of particular items of cultural heritage will mean different things to different people … and over time what is considered important can also change. A thorough significance assessment is critical in properly understanding the meaning and value behind an item and is the foundation on which all management plans should be built.

Maarleveld et al. sum up the problem nicely: like beauty, significance cannot be defined in legal terms (2013: 83). However, any subjective opinion must be removed as much as possible. Therefore, methods for assessing significance have been developed for use by managers responsible for items of cultural heritage.

Assessing Significance

There are various methodologies for assessing significance but all have the same central process:

  1. Research the history of the wreck including its history since sinking.
  2. Compare and assess against a defined set of criteria.
  3. Write a statement that distills the essence of a wreck’s significance into a sound bite that encapsulates as much as possible.

burra charterThe cornerstone of Australian heritage practice is the Burra Charter (the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) first adopted in 1979. Government legislators and funding bodies give preference to work that follows the processes and approach of the Burra Charter (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 2004:6).

The charter uses five values to define cultural significance: aesthetic, historic, scientific, social and spiritual. These criteria are always listed alphabetically and one is not considered more significant than another.

The Australian Institute of Maritime Archaeology’s (AIMA) Guidelines for the AIMA GuidelinesManagement of Australia’s Shipwrecks (1994) is the only Australian publication that deals specifically with assessing significance for shipwrecks and uses eight criteria to do so:

  1. Historic
  2. Technical
  3. Social
  4. Archaeological
  5. Scientific
  6. Interpretative
  7. Rare
  8. Representative

The last two criteria are considered comparative and allow the significance of a wreck to be placed into a broader context, thereby fixing its place into the wider cultural landscape.

Reference must also be made to the Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites, published by the Heritage Council of Victoria in December 2012. The Council has updated its eight criteria, which are different to, but encompass the same ideas as, the AIMA criteria.

It should be noted that, whatever criteria are used, not all of them must be met for a wreck to be deemed significant. It should also be remembered that significance could change over time and as such needs to be revisited and revised regularly.

The Victorian scene

All information relating to shipwrecks in Victoria are registered in the Victorian Wreck register. The register contains fields for the physical attributes and locations of a wreck and allows uploading of any images, surveys and management plans. There is also a field for Statement of Significance. A quick database search of all shipwrecks reveals that, out of 705 registered shipwrecks, 252 have been located and of those, just under half have significance statements attached to them.

All wrecks on the Victorian Heritage Register with or without a Statement of Significance

All wrecks on the Victorian Heritage Register with or without a Statement of Significance

In Victoria, either the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act (1976) or the state Heritage Act (1995) provides protection to shipwrecks. These pieces of legislation give blanket protection to all shipwrecks and relics that are 75 years and older – whether their location or existence is known or not. This implies an inherent level of significance to a wreck or relic without the requirement to demonstrate it.

Wrecks 75 years or older with or without Significance Statements

Wrecks 75 years or older with or without Significance Statements


Project scope

My Directed Study project is starting with an assessment of 18 shipwrecks that Heritage Victoria has been involved in excavating and/or has collected artefacts from. These include well-known wrecks such as Loch Ard and SS City of Launceston and other lesser known ones such as Foig-a-Ballagh. There is even one existing under reclaimed land: HMVS Lonsdale.

Victorian Shipwreck list

The 18 wrecks of this assessment project. Note: EMu is the collections database and numbers indicate the number of artefacts held in the collection for each wreck.

A quick review of the information in the database for these 18 wrecks has revealed that 15 have Statements of Significance.  So now we know the quantity, what about the quality?

The statements of significance range from a short paragraph to one sentence. Compare Loch Ard:

The Loch Ard is historically significant as one of Victoria and Australia’s worst shipwreck tragedies. It is archaeologically significant for its remains of a large international passenger and cargo ship. It is highly educationally and recreationally significant as one of Victoria’s most spectacular diving sites, and popular tourist sites in Port Campbell National Park.

To HMVS Lonsdale:

HMVS Lonsdale is historically significant as a relic of Victoria’s colonial navy.

There is no breakdown of the assessment criteria for any of these wrecks in the database. While this information may be in conservation or management plans, these are not necessarily uploaded into the database. There is also no date so it is impossible to ascertain when the statement was written.

As I’ve searched through the database and researched the nature of significance I am struck by the thought that this lack of detailed information has been created in part by the very pieces of legislation designed to protect the wrecks themselves.

Blanket protection, which assumes a level of significance of all protected wrecks, does not require significance assessments for a wreck to be entered in the register. Currently, wrecks are being protected based solely on age, as others that may have more significance are decaying. However, as resources are limited in the current economic climate, priorities need to be in put in place. Significance assessments are an important part of that process.

In most cases, shipwrecks are intangibly tangible relics from the past. They exist out of sight under the water and are visited by relatively few. Underwater cultural heritage managers need to provide solid significance assessments, that are readily available and easily accessible. Only then will we be able to put forward a credible case for sufficient funding to preserve our shipwreck heritage. Hopefully this project will be a start to that process.

You can read about how I used the criteria to write a statement of significance for HMVS Lonsdale here.

What are your thoughts on assessing significance of shipwrecks? How do they differ from terrestrial sites? I’d be really interested in your opinion.

References

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.

Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology. Special Projects Advisory Committee & Australian Cultural Development Office & Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 1994 Guidelines for the Management of Australia’s Shipwrecks, Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology and the Australian Cultural Development Office, Canberra.

Marquis-Kyle, P. & M. Walker 2004 The Illustrated Burra Charter. Good Practice for Heritage Places. Australia ICOMOS.

Maarleveld, T.J, U. Guerin and B. Egger (eds) 2013 Manual for Activities Directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage. Guidelines to the Annex of the UNESCO 2001 Convention. UNESCO Paris.

Grampians- Gariwerd Directed Study

Well after a slow start, the aim has been identified and the questions laid out. In my eternal quest for rock art related projects I have somehow managed to find a project where the aim is to focus on everything but rock art and rather on other archaeological sites. The project that I am undertaking is in conjunction with Parks Victoria and the team out of the Gariwerd (Grampians) National Park. This project will focus on the creation of a ‘catalogue of knowledge’. Currently, Parks Victoria manages the land of the Gariwerd (Grampians) Cultural Heritage area and is very conscious of the land management activities that if carried out inappropriately have the potential to alter, disrupt and potentially destroy cultural sites. This project aims to provide an overview of site types, location, significance, and condition. It will help define culturally significant areas of the landscape that are sensitive to various land management activities.

A couple of weeks ago I was able to visit Gariwerd (Grampians) National Park and meet with the team there. I was treated to an excellent tour of their Brambuk Cultural Center and a tour of some of the rock art sites. It was a wonderful day and I learned so much being out on Country. The Parks Victoria staffs are so amazing and welcoming. I would suggest that if you are ever passing through on your way to Melbourne to venture towards Gariwerd (Grampians). During my visit I was told that many of the tourists say they didn’t plan to stop but they felt a pull towards it. I can understand why!

This project has taught me so much. Even without doing much research. Firstly, to remember that archaeology is made up of so many aspects. If we just focus on one thing, we miss the bigger picture. That although we as archaeologists focus on the past, it is what we are providing for the people of today that makes it all worthwhile. I also realized how much we all take for granted the amount of work that our Tutors and Techs. put into taking us into the field and on field trips (risk assessments are a true test of patience). And that friends named Matt are few and far between, they will never make you go camping alone, and will provide you with endless hours of entertainment over the campfire.

A special thanks goes out to the Indigenous Communities of the Gariwerd (Grampians). To Suzy Skurrie, Mike Stevens and David Newton (the Parks Victoria team). As wells as Emily Jateff and Dr. Heather Burke, Dr. Michael Westaway and Dr. Alice Gorman.